HomeMy WebLinkAboutSACRAMENTO AVENUE ASSESSMENT DIST. BOARD OF SUPV.a '
Exhibit B 0
Page 15 0
during com�alet ;l d%_fifer-ent seasons of the ytaar. To illustrate,
the 50-year penk. --discharge ,event of 20 cfs for the +Estates'
would probably' occur during the summer or early fall, when Bich
C".Aco Cree;c 3.s at low' stage. Conversely, the 50-year peak-
discharge event of 1,770 cfs on Big Chico Creek would occur
during the winter, when the 'Estates' would be at rx much more
frequent event that would be of relative insignificance in
comparison.
To illustrate some of the intensity--duration differences between
these two seasonal precipitation regimes, the following precip--
itation intensity-frequency-duration data (which was developed
for a comparable valley location -- @ the propose, PG&E Butte
powerplant site) is presented:'
Standard' Project Storm
Point Precipitation Intensities
(in inches per hour)
Duratio:� Thunderstorm Frontal
hour 2.57 _ 0.76
3 hours 1.05 0.5,3
These data serve to jhdicate even for infrt,quent events at
durations the gr,
relatively-loi.g �a
at differences in precipr
nation intensities. Addi.tionallY, -In the realm of this 'worst:
case analysis' , comparative data Eor the differe;lt precipxtat
iota regimes succinctly establ 1 shes that precipi.tat3 on intet si.ty-
frequency-duration relationships developed for drainage-design
purposes (such as utilitcd for this rna� ysi s) are not r. el evari.t
to the study of concurrent peak-flow events in thio area. In
actuality, separate intensity-frequency-dtzratiozx relationships
nee& to be developed for each particular rorgime.
dJ�lI�Yitiro
a .. fieri
�I
s .o
J
1-7
Ii V 41
Ile
o f 14
k".CT'
Y
I ID
e
J
CITY C—
vs. A -R CL
paaJEcT SITE ��
R -,I �
}
tf
i
,�t14it'QtifnQRiAt ROVafJW tiQp$.
Inter -Departmental' Memorandum
To: Earl Nelson 1, fj 1980
Buffo Couniy
FRoMt Jane Dolan
SUBJE Tt Atta.choe memo/report on the Sacramento Avenue Drainage Ass
Envessment District
:i.ronmental Review
DATE:
October 100 1980
I Would 9-reatly appreciate your comments on the issues raised by Bob Baio
regarding the lack of clue process In the Negative Declarati6h. determinaty
Assessment Distra.ct;. ion forthe
1
FISH AND WILDLIFE 0 EC' ,JALY51'
w YIATER RESOURCES 'r ASLATIVE ANALYST
V1A.TEA QUALITY 12aiocck
C Q N S U L T A N T
1859 SALIDA V,,4.Y
PARADISE, CALIFORNIA 95969
Telephone F ((n O 877-1565
Steve Frans September 9, 19$0
horthstate �11'tiIderness Committee
708 Cherry Street
Chico, CA 9592
Re: Big Chico Creek
Dear Steve;
rclosed. for your review as a brief nnalysis of the Sacramento Avenue
AssElssv.ent District and. Alternative, Plan t8torri drain discharge) anti a
legal nevi ew of the California Environr:Lental (�wality Act pursuant to your
request prom other conservation 'groups.
?lease be aware in the event. of legal proceedings on the subject
matters 'i can be made available for detail i.n 'ornation, which are in my
files, ^I have included both conclusions and recor•irlp ldations in rryaralvsis,
however these estimates should be legally reviewed prior to any proposed.
legal proceedings. For your information I have spent approximately 40 to
50 hw"rs in visiting various agencios in Sacranento, co,-municatiiirg with
these agencies by telephone, and in research. I do 'hope this in
will help better address my 'involvenent `Sian the riatter. Thank you for your
time and, interest in the matter,
Sinceroly
J , k A Mil 0 ra 0 L.^ 19 e)
cc
k
�.��I�o�! ���iq�Pk�✓.f+Te�FC1Y..ieF A y. ' ,� �A �r�
i4 R'
SACRAIMITO AVENUE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 110. 1 -A) TERi1ATTI, Tjr..im mr) 1
General ChronoL of gents
On February 24,-1977 a public hearing was held in Chico by the Department
of the Army (Corp) Concerning Butte County's proposal to install storm
drain outfalls into Big Chico Creek. The County's permit With the Corp
is still Pending and may have expired.
On X'aY 15, 1979 Butte County filed a negative declaration, and, a notice
of deterr-ination for the proposed project (Sacramento Avenue Assessment
District, and the Alternative Flan.
on Februai-j 1h) 1990 the local representative (Will Bishop) of the Department
Of Fish and Game (brrM issued a 1605 agreement, with recommendations, to
1,Acvain Associates regarding the point of djscharge from the proposed. project.
The agreement required storm ara'n discharge into tihdo Channel, rather then
13ig Chico Creek,
On Pebruary 19, 1990 the AFG recommended to the Corp that the c,ountyls
(McCain Associates) permit for the proposed project be denied.
0n February 25, 1980 the Ujs. pish and 1.1i7al,ife
Servi
ce (%~ish Axid 1Ji BLfe)
a:Lso made the same r6ditnondation to the Corp.
McCain p
' ry , 1,. s nting the county refused
to com 1 to the �;a
N i`e�rua �� 1990 ,icCaxn Associates re re,,e
p y nd' UMS as required by the
btt as set forth in the'.
1603 agreement of Vebruary 111) 1990.
,
,
On Ap;c'l 111, 1980 the DFG and 1•fcCai, Associates agreed to ti riew stiouj
in a revised 1603 agreement which required oil and sediment traps a �.aris
constructed at the poiiitof dsetiarg e into Big r Chico P e
- Creek, however the
DFG stipulated; in the6p
1 3 agreement that, itthis consu ted. ag
aT'eehjtiiit
does not constitute the Dlu endorsement of the proposed operation (?project)%
The -Nish and Wildlife Service still was Opposed to the project P1'oj oct,
From February 1h, 1950 to September 10 '1950 9 a significant amount o#`
documented, controversy has taken PlAce between the DFu Fish and Wildlife
Service, and McCain Asscoiates regarding the eof
the stamen outfall into $i Chico Cron g e °f
Placement g
1
acement and discharge
Greek. As of SpptPmber 10, 980, both '
agencies are formall. opposed to this
proposed project on the basi
point of discharge should be into :L'im's the
o Ghann�l
recOmmending to the Corp that the count, 1
and both agencies are
F'�xsUa*+t to the public hearing of September�Jy Pormi.t from the Corp be denied.
10 1980 In Chico.
on July 29,$ 1980 the Butte County Board ofSupervi,so
(racrWmento Avenue AssessmerJt District & rs approved the project
'" �.nd the .Alternative Plan) which a. resolution making
a d
etermi,natioh of public convenience and
necessity for the pt ofr�ct, .,
y It was establi8hed by public cgr`cnents
r.:ee�at the
ing that the proposed project 'Was controversialas to the effects to
the enva, `onnent. The DF0 made form"1 comments At the meotl
discharge into Big Chico Creek: g opposing the
F.fthificatiens of the Californi a L4ivironmet�,aj " ! 13.tr_ Act
Section 1'5083 g. �.
'5 3 (f) of the u3delines
.cr implementation a.f CFA s't`ates:
1'iotiCe r5f -n-e- te--M--.'rtatirn r11
`.� Aft -ell making a de,on to cax rw
approve a project Err whi a Negative Declaration has been prepared.
r but or
the ,cad
Agency shad filo a Notice of Ott-�ihation with a Dopy of
the Negative beclaratiop
attached 6 ,11oja,
tJf netermination with the Secreta yy faa ft(5) Thesroxi go Of uthe Notice
sta'rt`s a 30 day statito of 11mitations on coufit challenges es County
Clerk
approval uha+er CC the
Aj C ry.. N 1 bfi n
4
N y
dote: Butte County filed a notice of determination on tky 15, 1979
aid the project was approved by the County on July j9, 1980 there.f'ore
pursuant to the mandatory requircments of Section 114083 (f) 9 the
County was not in compliance with the guidelines of CEryj.
Section 21168.5 of CEQA states:
Abuse of-Di:screation s In any action 'or Proceeding, other than an
action or proceeding finder Section 21168 (CEQA), tp 4ttaC1C, reviews
Set asides 'voidor annul a determination, finding, or decision of a
public agency on the grounds of noncompliance taith this division,
the ingUir7 shall extend only to whether tbgre was a prejudical abuse
of discreation. pause 'of di,screation is established if the agency has
not 'aroceeded in a manner to uired
� by law or if the determination or ,
deoison is not supported by substantial euidence, .
Section 21168 of CL stater
�� , in part-. In any such action, the court
_ shall. not exercise its independent judgement on the evidence but shall
only dctexr,►ane whtoher the act or decision as supported pp by stanstahtial.
evidence in the :light of the V-hole record,
Section 21167.2 of CEQA 8t-atbst if no action or ;proceeding alleging
that ari envarotlrte ttal impact report daes not comply 1.1, the provisions
OP this division is cotmnen"d duringthe `
period proscribed in
subdivisIon tc) of Section 21167, the envi.rgnmental. impact .report
shall be Conclusively presumed to ca. ,ply with the prO'Tisions of this
di, risicn for pdrposes Of its use by responsible a;ahci.esa finless
the prorqsions of Section 21166 are applicn>le
Section 21167 1 (c) of` UM states: '130 dab' statute of, l.imd.tation 1'
Seo Section 1508 for d6m"11 nts
Section 211166 of CEQA states,-.",'
Subsequent impact report; conditions; Mien an environmental impact
report has been prepared .for a ,project pursuant to this division,
no subsequent or supplemental environmental impact report shall
be required ired by the lead, agency or by any responsible agency, unless
one or more of the following events occurs.
(a) Si bstanial changes are proposed in the project which will require
major revisions ;of the environmental impact report.
(b) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under
which the project is being undertaken which will require maj(r revisions
in the environ;nents.l impact report.,
(c) Neu information) which was not known and could not have been
known atf the ti:Je environmental iripact report was certified; as
Complete, bec:zmes available.
Dotei methe,.., the Notice of i,esative ;ecl„aration is applicable to the
requirements of 'Section 21166 of i.s ian'.rnoan.
Sta-Itus of the Nera-lye Declaration nt-er)t-iretl by ptjtte County
0n July 30 1980 at a meeting with the Resolum s Agency ;.n Sacramento
it uas determinaed that the liegative lleclaration: prepared by Butte
County 14as detective) and that the county should' have been requiredto
Prepare an 81avironmental Impact �epo.t. Two defectliVes are noted; (1
the project is Controversial and (2) the negative dee,aration fails to
address the cumulative impacts .from proposedtstorm drain discharges.
a Hmlever since a 11egative 17eclaration was .filed by the county on Z4ay
5, 1979, and respective or the statue, of liMitAtions (30 days)) public
notification tot e county my requrang the preparati.tn of" an Env�ronm"ental
Impact w
Report COUld not be ,,
.p ent by those concerne(I with the project.
....... ..,..:..... „.., a •t'n-NLk. -s •._,:s.,y .,p ..
•
CONCLUSIONS:
(1) The Nega-tive Declaration prepared by the County was defective oil
basis the project was controversial as to the effects the
to �.he environment,
and also in failing to adequately address the cumulltive impacts to the
environment; from proposed (and prior) storm drain projects„
(2) The Notice o:f Determination filed by the County with the Resources
Agency was not in compliance with the mandatoryzequirr--ments Of Section
1508,E of the guidelines for CEQA, whereby the County
filed. a Notice of
Det4rn nation aPproximatel 1_Ih0 days prior to the ccunproject. ty approving the
(5) Tile County in failing to comply to the mandatory re uiro
1 �oa3 did ross q mems oi.` Section
g Y �Y interfere with the due process. bi' later, and: abused, their
discreatxon in approving both the Sacramento Avenue Assessment District
h e 2 q , erefore making their actions, by motion at
and
the
.Alternative plan th
IY 9, 1,080 meeting, legally questionable and, open to possible
civil actions by the public,.
RECOi•C��"�n� A�_'j�IOiJ
rile civil actions a dins
g t the dounty And require that the countt's actions
in dpprovi.ng the establishment of the Sacramento Avenue Asseasmeht Dist
aril the A].tornative Plan be rescinded, with the reEnvironmental. qui:.rement of riot
of a Impact Report prior 'to final approval of b the preparation
Ond the Alternative plo,, oth the District
4
•
N4G1Na4 SMnt1.4 ✓uf a: VM'.Wy)ak4 '+4Aia•kW s Y. i^u.;,W: #Iia ea 'y ,W.atfr
.....a +.: ,... .. ., •00:00 i �YY�wi..i+1 N«araJY.r '.
rib
Asa Ifflew
LAND OF NATUkAi.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVILW'DE-PARTMENT
EARL [r„NF.LSON,Direexor
August 22, 1080
Mr. Bob Ba occhi
COAsultant
1.859 Salida {Vay
Paradise; California 95969'
RE: Big Chico Creek
Dear Bob;
This is in reply to your letter of August 13, 1980, detailing
Your concerns regarding the potential effects of the Sacramento
Avenue storm drainage system on Rig Chico Creel-,,
Let me b6g:n by saying that this office shares your concern
for the preservation of tvi ldlife habitat and fisheries to the
extent pos;-4,ble in urban areas .
Our initial study chetklist
described the potential water quality problems inherent in
this project, although there may b6 some disagreement as to
the degree of pollution anticipated and the relativesignificance
Of i4's effects. (Co�,nczdentally, T just attended a lecture
given by Dr. Stephen P. Hayes, Ph,D., of the State Vater Resources
Control Board, Dr, Hayes described the "assimilative capacity"
Of a stream as "its ability to absorb pollutants and puri fy
L` i rocF,�se g
itself through time and distance throw It a cpm
chemical and biologic'al ple:x of, ph;� sical
ca acit p S . lie stated the as.a milatI've �
p' y permits stream Waters to receive androcess
and still, support a 'variety of other uses.) � Pollutants,
DishOur initial contacts 14ith Richard p'lYnt of the Department Of
Fish Wid Game and Tony Lar►dis 'of the State Itegibnal Water
y r p j
would lie relatively minor bocause o this ro ect.
t Cont of Board indicated that the efi ects of
runoff, .and. because the n'unlbexs of fish sttp�soxtcdeiri this of toxin
stream are not that high, ma.Ic g' 't of littiitOd importance in
terms or fishery �valuo. This is a subject'�,e judge llIellt 1�h*
You probably would aispl.rtL. T}Ye Fact t}rat 1 tie st •taln dt5es
support fish populations WAS stated at the public hearitigs and
.:'... 'f!! • P �'�»rnt•,1 (''� tlttr �),rrucli � rata rJ�a��� '1'WI���xr�rtrti !n�'t�J >3�-�� � r
• ' °l rJpl �itOtt!► ri
Bob Baiocrchi
Page 2
August: 22
was therefore clearly brought to the attention of the decision-
makers. Supervisors (particularly Jane Dolan) relied on the
oil and sediment traps as a mitigation to
ad
sought verbal assurances from Clay Castleberryect tltsttatheselltraps
would in fact receive regular maintenancej
his
maintenance will take (i.e. who 'fill do it howtoftan�twhat
methods are availat,le for verifying that it has ill fact been
done) are questions best directed to the Public (Yorks Department.
Y might add that this department is aware of the cumulative
concerns related to additional; drainage out fabs into Big
Chico Creek, and Will address the cumulative effects as new
projects come up for review.
Your last question asked under what authority Mfr. Risco was
operating when he questioned DFC and USFIVS comments. s suspect
he did this on his own initiative because he felt the project
cies tieing unjustly harassed and. hindered. Probably he thought
his statements would accelerate project: approval by overcoming
Past objections and perhaps blocking future ones.
In such an
actxo.n, of course, there is always the clanger of stifling
legitimate expressions of concern and public debate. MY office
was not consulted in that particular action, so we were not
given opportunity to comment before the fact. The first
knowledge z had of ,fir. Risso's letters were the copies you
sent me .
The Sacramento Avenue Assesswent District formation is noti►t an
accomplished fact whic, I guess we most adjust to. is appreciate
Your interest and concern in this muter, and look forward to
working with you in the future.
Sincerely,
hurl D. Olson
Pnv3'roilmOnt4l Review Director
bM:lmc
cc; Clay Castleberty 1
I
i
FISH AND WILDLIFE ECO- ANALYST'
WATER RESOURCES LEGISLA11VI, ANALYST
WATER QUALITY 12ol gaiocck
L,t«tal.
C o N s U L T A N T
q
1859 SALIDA WAY +a+ P"r,= 1 : � r�0
PARADISE, CALIFORNIA 95969
Telephone (916) 877=1565
earl D. Nelson August 13, 1980
Director
'Environmental Review Department
Butte County
#18-F County Center Drive
Croville, CA 95965
Re: Big Chico Creek
This is in regards to my concerns for the recently approved Sacramento
Avenue Assessment District No. 1 and. Alternate 1 (proposed project), which
approved the implementation of two (2) controversial storm drains for outfall
into Big Chico Creek, and also for future storm drain outfalls. My specific
concern is the protection of the fish and wildlife resources of trig Chico
Creek as an interested resident rind -taxpayer of Butte County. l spoke to you
recently regarding this matter.
Please understand that my concerns for Big Chico Creek, are consistent
with the past concerns of Butte County,whereby the county it 1`969 did
recommend:to the Resources. Agency that Big Chico Creek be protected under the
umbrella of the California Protected "Waterway's Plan (initial element). The
Re,nurces Agency in accordmice with the concerns of the county classified Big
Chico Creek as a Extraordinary Fishery Tr+taterway; Class I PreMuim Waterway
for :sa:'.n)on and Fos* Stgnl, ead. As 2 indicated to you, thi s `Was plot addressed
in the environmental evaluation report for the proposed project.
I recently became aware; concerned and involved in the propojvd pr:+Ject,
and on 'Tuesday, August 51 19EJ Z meet with the local Wildlife Protection Patro.L
representative of the Department of Mob and (lame (Pt-G) regarding my concerns
for specific information and data, for Seetion 1600 et seq of the California
Fish and Game Codes the environmental document reviewed by your departments
and future applications for storm drain outfall agreements (1603) for discharge
into Big Chico Creek. Also on 'Wednesdays August 6 a_meet with various staff
persons of the Resources Agency, Reclamation 'Board, and the DFG in Sacramento,
regarding these concern'41
r
.x Page No; Earl D. .son, Environmental Review Dir
*r, Butte County
As you may be aware., the DFG is the Truste Agency of the state's fish
and, 'wildlife resources, and, has the jurisdiction by law, over the natural v
resources affected, by a project. These resources are held, in trust by the
DFG for ,all. the people of the State of Call fornia.
On Thursday, August 71 1 also contacted, the offices of the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and discussed their concerns for the proposed
Project. Also as yoia may be aware, under the provisions of the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act the USFWS is re aired to comment on the proposed.
Project. These provisions also re wire that losses and,damage to the fish
and. wild ife resources be prevented: I am also aware of the June 2, 1980
letter from the USN8 to the Corps of Engineers which Is ecial7 su orted
the recommendations of the local representative of tho DFG regarding the
1603 agreement issued, on Pebruary
1 4, 1980,
Also on Thursday, August 7, I spoke to you regarding certain defects.
in the environmental evaluation report, and, also regarding the existing
g
(5) applications for storm drain outfalls into Dig Chico Creek. r
pointed. out to you that the environmental evaluation xeport also failed to
address the cumulative effects to Stater quality, floodings And, the fish and:
wildlife habitat and, resources from proposed, storm drain outfalls. you
indicated. that under', pervious environmental;report the Sig Chido Creek
basin could.'handle these discharges with regards to flooding however this
report was not cited in the environmental evalution report,, Also in "reviewing
the June 2, 1980 letter lay the USFWS,. T seriously question if this is true"
however in the event of .future damage to private property, and, to the fish
and vildlife resources below the points by dischar e
g 0 l presume the county
�►c.11 be responsible • for darn,ges ' p
by XdCain Associ ursuan`it to tI ie engineering ana4sis prepared,
Associates.
Hbyever of major concern to me ,at this time are the serious side effeets
of two (2) letters directed to the state and federal agencies responsible end;
,. Navin
< g jurisdiction over the state's fish and wildlife resourcos. Mark Risso
(Pisso) of McCain Associates, a claimed, agent of the county, intervened., and.
i
Page Chree • Earl Uftmelson., Environmental 11—ft. ew Di9ftwtot, Butte County
challenged the authority and creditability of not one, but two agencies
responsible for the state ' s .fish and, wildlife resources. It is quite obvious
he attempted to totally change certain environmental decisions made by these
.agencies duringthe in
iportant environmental review periodp and he also refused
to comply to the stipulations as recommended in the 1603 agreement of February
14, 1980, which requirod,discharges into Undo Channel.. He then claimed that
the delays were costing the county money, when in #'act he Created the delays.
County its agents to implemer„ the
Is this tY�e matter in which Butte Co y puts a
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)? Thr d.
ecis;ion to intervene and
pursue certain changes an the original 1603 agreement should have been made.
by the Bosard. of Supervisors, and. not
by Risso. In this manner the Board. could
and. Risso. � PP concerns of the EaFG, USFWS,
have serious evaluated. the facts supporting the
Also relative to our recent discussion regarding the sediment and, oil
traps being Proposed for the proposed. project. r recommend and. urge ;you to
red.ti e as nitlgation, that the county d.evel.op a comprehensive mandato.
mon*tor;ing and. maintenance prograrr which will 0C'mply to the mandatary conditions
pursuant to the stipulations in the revised. 1603 agreement beween the county,
(Ritso) and the DF6, which will as� sine the counter of the protection of Big
Chico Creek as was reaommend.ed,to the R6souroes
'Agency 3.n 1969.
Therefore I would appreciate a copy of the county guidelines and/or orders
which delegates s the authority to county agents, and, in which delegated,Risso
to advised the Resources Agency to reprimand, the Wildlife Protection Branch
representatit*e of the Dom, and, also to refuse, complignee of the February '� , 19801603 agreement,
A written reponse would be appreciated:.
�aincere�,y
r
cc: clam Burns, JiA
iobert Lemke, BC
Jane Dolan, EC
Genu Mercer, BdMi G
Robert Zassen, Regional Matnager, Region lxt DSt}
Will 84*shop, Warden, DSC}
James 961tevitt, tISrWS
attachment
r,
ov
P Via. li cCA11M ASSOCiA'T es
' "rS
4136 RIO L,IM30 AVE. CHIC0rCA;95926 95Y -'18H5
COIVSUL.TI,NG ENGINEERS SURVEYORS
August 8, 1980
Environmental Review Department'
County of Butte
7 County Center Drive
Orovil.le, CA 95965
Attention: Mr. Earl Nelson, Director
Rei Sacramento Avenue Assessment District No.
Gentlemen:
Referencs is made to your letter dated August 7 198
pertaining to payment for environmental review. .As
you know, the subject district was formed on July 29,
1980 by the. Board of Supervisors. This district was
formed under the provision of the Municipal Improvement
Act of 1913. Upon sale of the bonds for the district,
funds become available for payinq incidental: expenses
such as our billing.
It is not anticipated that funds will be available
before September, 1980:
If you have any gLICE41tions
please feel free to call me,
Very truly yours,
McC.AIN AS-5-0-CYATES
Mark. E. Risco
MFR db
cci Brunsell
castlqberry
FISH AND WILDLIFE
WATER RESOURCES ECO - ANALYOT
WATER QUALITY �//
t�a�occh LEGISLATIVf1 ANALYST ob
C O N S U L T A N T tn7lronmolife 1 ko;aw Capt.
1859 SALIDA WAY iy�
PARADISE, CALIFORNIA 95969 ' i'A0
TeIdPhone (916) 877.1565
Earle D. Nelson
Director July 50, 1980
Department of InvironmentbLl Review
Butte County
#18-F County Center D,-Jve
OrOVille, CA 95965
Re: Sacramento Avenue Assessment District
Proposed; Roadwork/Drainage Project
Dear Mr. Nelson;
This is in re ard.s to
g my concerns for the Sacramento Avenue Assessment
District and. the proposed roadwork/drainage project recent?;v approved by
the county Board. of Supervisors.
S would, appreciate a copy of the negative declaration and the accompanying
data which demonstrates „hat the California Environmental Quality Act (CDQA)
Was
complied.to by the county regard.ng this action. In the event
the project
was exempt from 09QA, T would appreciated.a copy Of the categorical exemptioil.
Thank you fox your time interest, and. concern in the m%tter,
53ncore7,y
MCCAIN ASS& -..RATES
'qS;2 RIO LINOO AVII.
M920
A01 CONSUL-I*1rjc3 aNGINCeRS
SURVEYORS
July 7, 1980
The Resources Agency of Califo"nia
Resources Building - 1416 Ninth Street
Sacramento, Cr 95814
Attention: Mr- James W. gurns, Assistant sec. ['or Resources
RC: Sacramento Avenue Assessment Di.,stri.ct No,
Gentlemen:
Enclosed is a . copy I Of yoUr may 21j1980 lett(_ to S.
Army Corps of Engineers which cOnditiOnallY.WiLhdraws Lha
Resources Aqen ' 3
note the last cy's oblectiOn, to tho s
sentence of theQbject pj�OjLaCL, pleas,
second Paragta!' Ij of sai6 l Ott
0 7uly 1, 1980f a
n L public hearinq %Ms held -
Board of Supervisors Chamber8,for the pu in the Butte County
protests to the assOs8nleht district. 0 rpose of hearjng
was Mr� Will Bisljo ne Of the prcte,t(),_s
Pi a 1OC41 Department of Fish & Game 1tarden.
14t. Bishop stated that he represented th-d offic'
the DePartItient i.0 vi, of
Of Fis.h and Game and vigorously ptote�r_,O'_ the
Proposal to discharge storm drainage water to 8ig Chico crock,
Re spokes at length and several times ref0tred to his
as being representative of the Department of Fish andp
Official stance on this ptoject, a am eAosition
Prior to this time, Mr. Bishop has attempted- to hinder every
effort to Proceed With this pioject, Por iriqt4ftceai
for 4 Stream alteration permit for Big Chit�o Ctedko waspplicatmade byon.
'
this bjf"cO on December 211 jg1g,
until April 14, 19 The permit W&.q, not
SO, A permit for stream issued
sued by Bis)lop alteration for Undo
Chanijul was is,
appll,caLion,
This type. Of subbert- espouse to but Oriqinal-
and dela cost the taxpayers several hundredars lion ha,,
t:
how%ver, his
at the I appearance and official rhatorid
"rO-MOAtiobed Public hear
of the d'strict nq has placed the formation
strict in serious Jeopardy. Sljould the
district fail,
the of Butte Courity will lose so-Var4l hundred thot1sand
dollars, and we fool that Mt, Bishop thould be tper8ohall,y
'r
The Resources agency of California
Page 2
July 7, 1930
responsible for a portion of that lass,
If Mtw Bishop 'indeed dales reflect tile Department of pi.sh And
Game's position with regard to this project, the, we 1t,:vt
certainly been led astray by his superiors: Thi,% f;irta workod
closely with De=partment of Fish and tame enginoer 'vttde :3ande
and designed a system that was accepte,2 by Mr, Vande Sande z83an
by Mr. Menseh, Environmental Services Supervisor of RSande(Jion n
Department of Fish and Game: All conditions by the
Department of Fish and Game have been or, cvi1a U(J met in accord-
ance with the permit, if Mr. }3isho 's
p positign is that of. the
Department of Fish and Game, we stand in wonderment at the
duplicity of such an organization. 1 for 01101
do not feel
this is the
fromlRegionxiDepartmentereception a►rsi cooperation
considering the
and the Department of Fish anGame ngiheerin staff, officials
If Mr. Bishop has overstepped his official position, we would
request that he be given, at, the very Least, an official
reprimand. We also request, no, t� oliland that either Mr. Di shop
or a responsible 1:epresentative of L" Department of dish and
ted to a
Game be direcppear before the Butte couhty i�oard of
Supervisors at their July 25, 1580 col tit7t e Coance of the public
hearing and retract his
the Department of Fish andesamelstOfficia1mOnl as i,t related to
pro0ect:
Position on this
This letter is trot being written because our firth might J.oso � '
W.
-V3money if the district is not farmed. Gttr cana�t cluara.ritees �",'t�t r`
payment t�ltether or rrat tyre district is formed:. This Ie"ttex: .is P&
written to Object to possible high-handed tactics used by potty
bureaucrats to possibly further their personal internsts or
implant their personal desires upon the commutlity at larq�;
under the guiso of tft.0
idilaidom,
1 would appreciate a response from your Office at
your earliost
r convenience, zf you desl,e-e further inforMation require
or.
,... official minutes Of Mr. githep i s testimony,
(916) 891-1855;p),case� call mei at
very
tru ►
y �} yours,
McCAIN A880C1ATE8
ti8R; d
ettc: 1 Mark 1. tt11y0
cc ClayCastleberry,
Jerryb1thsch
i
McCAIN ASSOCIATES
n9t2'FtlO LINGO AVE, CNIC0,CA,05926 13911-iGE6
1 l7 �aa i
% 1% S''•' CONSULTING ENGINEERS SURVQYORS
June 3, 1900
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
650 Capitol Mall
Sacramento, CA 95814
Attention:: Colonel Paul r, Kavanaugh,
District Engineer
Re: COE Permit 7072
Gentlemen
We Write this ;letter in response to the objections to our
proposed drainage system voiced by the U.S. fish and Wild-
life Service in, their letter of rebruary 250 1980. That
letter requests that we discharge tho storm drainage into
Lindo Channel. We have investigated this alternative, and
have determined that it is not feasible for the following
reasons:
1. The installation of the storm drain pipe down Hwy 32
_ to�Linda Channel would necessitate the. removal.-o£.
approximately 40--50 mature treos.
2 The City of Chico and Bute County do not desire a
storm drainage system eXtend ng through prime
agricultural Land. Such systnm woulC be growth
inducing and Would encotirago further development of
agricultural lands.
3. The project would become u=nvmicAlly 'unfeasible.
The costs Would skyrocket from approximately $3000:00
per acre for discharge to Big Chico Creek to $1.4000.00
per acre for d?,schargc to Lindo Channel,.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife has 'also expressed concerns about
eater quality and flooding downstream in Big Chaco Creek,
Lnol.osed please find a letter from tha California Regional
Water Quality Control, Board that stjtes"Water quallty
certification Will: not be regaia.;edll
birec'ting discharge to Lindo Channel. will: hot mitigate
flood ,ng problems; At present, 1.1"Mit.ed ".00dittg occurs
dOWnstream Rom, the ',junction of Sig Chico Creek end Lindh
t
{
.r� U.S. Army Colesof Engineers
650 Capitol Mall
Sacramento, CA 95814
June 3, 1:980
Re COE permit 7072
Page 2
Chanriel. The flooding occurs because the creek is choked
with trees and brush in .its downstream xcache he Big
Chico Creek watershed covers approximately 72.4 square
miles and the main channel length is 31.6 miles according
to data provided by the U.S. Geological. Survey in their,
"Water -Resources Investigation 77-21.11. Time of concentration
for peak discharge of the watershed is somewhere between 6 to
8 hours after, initial, rainfall begits. Tomo of concentration
for our proposed system is approximately 40minutes. Thus,
the peak from our proposed system will have passed the
critical channel area well in advance of the watershed peak.
A portion of Big Chico Creek is diverted during high flows
into Lindo Channel and the Sycamore Creek drainage basin
east of the City of Chico. The water entering Big Chico
Creek at the diversion point is restricted to 1.500 cf.s. by
a gate system. The creek between our proposed discharge
point and its intersection with Undo Channel. has a capacity
of approximately 3100 c.f:s. High ,banks combined with a
relatively smooth stream bed allow passage of this quantity
off' water.' Our anticipated peak discharge of 140 cif..s. does
M )se a problem with regard to flooding.
Aftex we applied for the Corps permit, we met with officials
an, engineers with the State of California 0opartment of Fish
and Gamo (nFG). The DFG had objections similar to those of
the Fish and Wildlife Service. Working together,, we designed
sediment traps and volatile Liquid traps. These designs
have ;been approved by brG and they have since withdrawft their
ob;ectians
It would i`appear to us th.dt the 'Fish and. Wildlife Service has
taken a tip 8sitig
u n inconsistent with the facts; good
.
en,ineerih dement andcommo'n sense. Our efforts to
appease this _agency have been consistently ,rebuffed, and no V/
rotponsibl.e suggestions or alternatives have been receivers.
. We feel, that: the ball is now in Fish and Wildlife Services'
park. It is incumbent that the-ri8h and Wildlife Service
substant atd them position with something other than ub (ect--
ions originally raised by another Agency (I)VG) and since
withdrawn,
We wovil.d appreciate whatever action that is nccossary to
Process Our permit application to :i'ssuance.
� k
" U.S. Arm- C9 of Engineers
" . 650 Capi of h ill
Sacramento, CA 9583.1
June 3, 1980
Ree COE Permit 7072
Page 3
Ifou have any Y questions or require any additional
information, Please feel free to cal.], me at (916:) 891.0-1865.
Very truly yours,
McCAIN 115;, TATES
?Mark E. R1.SWo�
RrOJect VngjIleer
MER: or
Enc.
cc: Fish and Wildlife Service
4„
, •
NOTICE'' -+
F DDTERr4INATION I LI
TO: 7 Secretary for Resources'KAY 15 1980
1416 Ninth Street, Room 1311
Sacramento, CA. 55814 CLARK A. NELSON, Couttly 010rk
G,, WOODSO � but
i7 COuAty Clerk
County of Butte %'ROM:
'►�95 B4 r3 u ,x oe (Lead Agency)
En�vironanni,al tev.�.ew
rove e, a 1 orrlia »b
7 C
o,4Center D
0rovillQ Californ �,
SUBJECT: Tilling of Not ,
a.ice. of Determination in Compl,ja,nce with
Section 21108 or 21152 of the Public ResoltrCes Code
ERD Log %i�as / � p F
P eat Ta.t e ,_
....5 ac ra me n t n Qi,Ar „n Q a c .. `---7
State Clearinshn„ca u,,,;,i :�n'istritt No 1 /o McCain ���,,
716
$3b 1 - o ate C" Baring House
ontact Person
Earl B. Nelson, Director Te epi one Ntun ex
9�i -^5 -- ?7'7
Project Location - tiYesfern Chico area, along H ghj�a and jYest
Sacramento Avenue; north and tves,t of Bi Chi co Creek.
Proj ect Description s
Modification of Assessment District boundaries, and installation of
drainage facilities
This is to advise that the -Butte Coulity -- Board of Supervisors
has made the ',f6llowing determinations regardi igdthe above-described
prof eat s
1,
2,
The project --_�% mtll
have a signifigaht a;�'fect on the
will not
environment:
L% An Environmental impact Report Was prepared for .this n
pursuant to the provisions pf OEM , � rcjec
and Was certified as
required by Section 155(8), 14 California Admihistative
Code.-
�oNtttative Declaration teas prepared for this bro'eet urs
g
p OvisionS of CrQA, A copy of ttlo Neght , De laraant
tion stay be e�tatil ned at the CnVironmental � Review e Declarat
7 County Gencor Drive, OrOv' l.l.e, Chlifotriia D5c)rsq
.r
y
APPENDIX C
NEGATIVE DECLARATION REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
1.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the project described below has
been reviewed pursuant to the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (Public Resources Code
21100, et seq.) and a determination has been mach that it will
not have asignif. cant effect upon the environmeixb.
2.
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECTS Log
Sacramento Avenue Assessment District No. l - Alternate 1.
Modification of Assessment 'District boundaries and installation
of drainage facilities.
_3.
LOCATION OF PROJECT:
Western Chico area, along highway 32.,anl West Sacramento Avenue,;
w
north and west of Big Chico Creak.
44.
M ADDRESS OF PROJECT APPLICANT.-
PPLICANT.-Butte
ButteCozin z,,t
c/o McCain Assad la'i�"
492 Rio Lindo Averuo
Chico, California 9502
5.
MITIGATION hEASURES
6.
A co ofthe Environmental Review birec�to ' •' t�+as stud
stud's
regarding the environmental effect of this prosect is
This study was
>CAdopted as .presented.
Aaoptodwith, changes. Specific modifications and
supporting reasons are attached
7�
A p�.slic heamakringbon this Negative Declaration was held by the
Dearing body ._ _ Butte. County - .Board .of Supervisors
mate of betermihation ,. S"/Cf 3l
betermination.:
On the basis of the Environmental bitoctorl s initial study,
the information presented at hearings, comments received on the
proposal and our own imowiedge and independent research:
P
,App end.. page 'i of
h
?�_We find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant
effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE JECLAR TION is
hereby adopted:
ti
We find that the project could have a significant effect
on the environment but will not s.n this case because of
attached mitigation measures described in item 5 above,
which a .'e by this reference made conditions of project
approval A. conditional NEGATIVE DECLARATION is hereby
adopted.
DATE: 1 19$0
signature
Robert E. Lemke
Name
Chairman, Board of Supervisors
Title
'y"
lendix G -» page P off` 2
MCCAIN ASSORIATES
45; F410 LiNoltl AVK_'.
CMICO,C,ta,9°592Q
CC111Ja ULT1Nr-, t-=Nc3i erzRS SUAVMYORS
February 21, 1980
Mr. William Bishop
Game Warde
State of California
Department of Fish and Game
1579 Hooker oak Avenue
` Ch cop CA 95926
Re: Sacramento, Avenue Storm Drainage llistrif;
Dear Mr. Bishop
On December 23, 1979, our firm, acting as agents for
8Utte County, applied for a permit to discharge storm
drain waters into Big Chico Creek. on February 14,
1980 we received Agreements No. 11-9-80 and 11-10-80
which recommended that storm drain discharges shall
be to Undo ChaAhel.:
We find this determination to be unaccdptabl.e. Tr
he
fore, we urge that your office review your recomtnenda--
i p
tiaras and issue a permit that ertains to discharge
into Big Chico Creek. It Will be appreciatni it your
review and issuance could be expedited.
If you have any cluestionsr please call me;
Very truly yours,
McCAIN ASSOCIATES'
MSncd star B. Rysso
cr„ Clay Castleberry
DeptGame
4
'tea •- _. .. ,. .R._- ,...... � :L , . +c
Stutu of Cal(lomia 7h0 Rosourcon Agonvy of California
Dato a June 6, 1979
To Suite County Planning
Commission r 2) Mr. L Frank 'Goodson
7 County Center ,Dr,Ve Project Coordinator
Oroville, Ca 95965 Resour -s Agency
Prom _ (lepartmant of Parks and Recreation
:5ubiac r
Net; Dec-SCHo
#'7,0 3011;-Aacrampnto Avenue,, AsseiSsment�Aistrict No. 1, Alternate
�McCa n. Associates
The Office Of Historic Preservation cannot ,complete its, review of the
env rahmental domraent referenced above.
Documentation Justifying the determination in the Initial Study of no effect
to archaeolcmioal) historical, ethnic, or other cultural resources should be
subinitted to this officedemonstrating compliance with Section 1$080(5) of the
CEQA Guidelines.
The requested i,nforination should be submitted as early as
incorporation into our review process. Po;,,ible for
if you have any questions, please contact Nicholas Del Cioppo, Office of
Historic Preservation, by calling (916) 322-870*:
jrli incl Signe6 by
D�•: Iino�' lyTelhon
Dre Xnox Mellon
State Historic Preservation Officer
0, ice of Historic Prdoevation
t�4�e9 P. Tryner, Chf. . e AA+W I»nviranmor,+al R IOW Dope.
Resource Presorvatio and
Interpretation bi.vsioi1979
W 13ufft► �auiriY
01
°• Plann►ng ;,
Y
cY�llo
k" OFFICE OF THE GOVT K,ik,-Cv
OFFICE OF PLANNING k >7 RESEARCH
STATE. CLEARINGHOUS:4
1400 — 10TH STREET
SACRAMENTO t CA 9581-,,,,
Xnvironmontal Rbvinvr pdp#•
f,' AY 3 Q 1979
Ruttd Couniy
BUTTE COUNTY
# 1'8—F COUNTY t. T cR T)R
OROVILLE CA 9',=965
ATTENTION: EARL NELSON DIRE --CT R
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT �15/c6/79
"'QR IM045A
PROJECT NOTIFICATION AND REVIEW SYSTEM
OFFICE OF THE GUVE,RNOR
( 916) 445-0611.3
PROJECT: SACRAMENTO AVENUE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 1 — ALTLRNATE 1
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NUMBER (SCH) 79053011
PLEASE USL !K -i: STAIE CLEARINGHOUSE NUMBER ON FUTURE CORkEtSPGNCJLNCE
WITH THIS 01:�ICtz AND WITH AGENCIES APPROVING OR iIcVli:WING YOUR PROJt:CT
DATE REC8iVEU: 79/05/22
DATE REVIE<i f ERIO0 ENDS: 19/06/Z2
THI'S CARD DOES NOT VERIFY COMPLIANCE WITH PREAPPLICATI,ON ANLL/GR,
ENVIRONMENTAL. UDCUMENT REVIEW REO.UIREMENTS. A LETTER CGNTA1N Nu'THE-
STATL'S tUMM-mNTS OR A LETTER CONFIRMING NO STATt COMMi:NTS WILL LiE
FORWARDED TO YOU AFTEPI. THE REVIEW IS COMPLETE
PLEASE CONTACT THE CLEARINGHOUSE IMMLOIATELY IF YOU DU NOT RE;Ct=IV4
THE LETTER EY THE ENCS OF THE REVIEW PERIOD,
I
(( II f
. I
xr
A'PEMIX i{'
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLI`,T FORM
(To be completed by Le,d Agency)
BACKGROUND
., Name of Proponent Butte County
2. Address and Phone Nu -m or o Proponent
3. mate of Checklist SUbmi
Requiring Checklist
4 Agency
f a tic b e Sacramento Ayenuq _Sswnt
5. Name of Ptoposa�., pp
tir.. dl r�rnate 1
II, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT51t esu, end "maybe" attsraers
all Y
are requx'rod
(Explanations of
attached sheets.)
on
y'ES
MAYBE NO
] r EaLvt1j, 'Wall the proposal..result in significant
ax Unstable , earth conditions or in
substructures?
changes in geologic
b, Disruptions, displacements, com-
the soil?
Pa ction or uvet;coVetying Ot
c, Change in tctpog aphy or Sround
retuoval of
gace relief ;features or
topsoil?
_--
i�cica
d. cogeriri or mocloi
eologl.c
�ionroctio�,
an unique � Y
phy s id a l fea turd s ?
e, I11cxea5e ixi wind or ranter: etOsio
the :site?
U
86ils,o either on or off
f, Changes in; deposition or oti."tts3.on
of bench s ands, or changes % si'lta
t'ion, d0position or erosion Which
modify thy, channel of a rivet" or
may
stroam or the bed of the ocean or
4�1`
any bay, inlet of lak6
---�
g j hoes of prime �ageicttltt rall:.y pro"
de83.gn&tea
dt1Gtivo- soils outside
urba��. art~as7
-
�, endi F
,pale 1 of 9
YES M Y8 -L' MC
Property h. Exposure of people or �
y to
geologic hazards such as
i�ndsl earthquakes;
des, mudslides, ground failure,
x similar hazards?
• Air: Will the proposal result in:
a, Substantial deterioration of
ambient. or local air quality?
b. The creation of objectionable
odors, smoke or funies?
c, Significant alteration of air
movement, moisture or tempature,
or any change in climate, either
locally or regionally?
3, CJater, Will the proposal„ result in substant%al.
a Changes it' currents or the course
or direction of wat��
..r mouements? .
b. Changes in absorption rates
drainage
Patterns, or 'the rate and amount of
surface water runoff?
e
c. Need for,ff-site surface drainage
improverr��-Jn,ts; including vegetation
rethoval, ehanneliWation or culvert
Installation?
.i.Alterations to the course or flow
Of flood wat;,rs?
e. Change in the amount of surface
water in any Water body?
f. Discharge into surfs.oe. Waters, or
in any alteratiok of surface
water quality, i.'aclud..ng but not
limited to temt)c.ratLite j dissolved
o.-xygen ar turbidity?
g. Alteration of to direction or
rate of flow of ground tgator87
%, C.hange j.:n the quantity or quality
Of ground waters, dither through
direct additions or Withdrawals
or through interception oi: an
aquifer by cuts or excavations
Apperid.x
page 2 of 5
r,
"YES MAYBE
00
i .
Reduction in the amcaunt of water
otherwise available for public
water supplies?
Exposure of people or property
to water related Hazards such as
flooding?
_. _, •
4 'lana:
Life, Will the proposal result
in
subs'rantial
a.
Loss of vegetation or change in the
diversity of species or number
of any species of plarts (including
trees, shrubs, grass, crops,
microflora and aquatic plants)?•
b.
Reduction of the numbers of any
unique, rare Or endangered species
of plants?
.,: c,
Introduction of new species of
plants into an area, or in.a barrier
to the normal replenishment of
existin6 species?
d.
_ Reduction in acreage of any agri",
cultural crop?
5, Animal Life. Will the proposal tesult
in
substantial,
a.
Change In the diversity of species,
or numbers of any species of
animals (birds, land animals
including reptiles, fish and shell-
fish, betthic organisms, insects or
microf'auna)
7b peduction of the numberq of any
unique, rate or end4ngered species
of animals?
W.y
: c,
Introduction of new species of
wiimals into an crag, or result in
a ',)arriez to the migration or ,
movement of animals?
d,
Reduction of, enctoachirent upon, or
deterip'ta,tion to existing f alp. or
wildlife habitat?
'
Appendi:k V
- page of 9
,' 1. ,;1.:.
.. .: ... ...:.....,. ... ...... ........ ._,..... .. ,..: ...._
.. '...',i
w
p
pend T�` Phge 4 of
YE8 MAYBE rap
f . Noise. Will the proposal result in;
substantial
a, Increases in noise levels?
b. Exposure of people to severe noise
levels?
AMk
7. Li ht andlar�,
'' Will the proposal.
Produce s .gri ,cant light or glare?
8. Lancs Use. Will the proposed result
in a—signifi.cant
a, Alteration. of the planned land use
of
an ares., or establish a trend
which will demonstrably lead to
such
alteration?
b Conflict with uses on adjoining
Properties'or conflict with
establiwhed recreational, educa-
tional, religions
or scientific
uses of an area?
9, Natural i'tesoutces , Will. ,the proposal;
re;su t �n substarit sal:
a Demand for, or increase in the rate
Of use of any natural resourees?
b, Depletion of any nonret'.ewabl.e
natural; resource?
`
1.0, Risk of U' set � Odes t;he proposal
GV6 vO a ask of an explosi.ort or
the •release o hatardotis subst:anees
(includ;ing, but not limited to, oi.l:,
pesticides, chemicals or Vadiation)
3-n t1le conditions?t of an accident or upset
1, ul..1 ion . Will. the proj)os al
signit cantly alter the location,
distri.uution, density, or
growth
rate of the hufflan population of an
at.Lead, or physically divide an
established community
Housin Will tilt-proposal
8if rti, :scantly af�oct ekisting housing,
or ctdatd,a demand for additional
incus i.ng7
,
w
p
pend T�` Phge 4 of
i
YEIIIq
13, Tx s 6rtation/Circulation... Tai]. the
MAYBE
prop�,sa resu t in;
a. Generation of substantial additional,
vehZcular
movement?
b, Significant: effects on exr sting
Parking Iiities,
or demand for
new parkin?
Substantial impact upon existing
transportation
systems?
dh----,:
d= Significant alterations to present
patterns of circulation
MM
of movement
of, people and/or goods?
e. Alterations to vatorbotte rail or
air: traffic? r
f4 Increase in traffjc hazards to motor
Vehicles, bicyclists
AIL
or pedestrians?
14, Public SerVices thil the propos'-' an have
e ect 'Upon, oY
r eSul a 8vbs
need for new of alter6d over tantial
Serv` e nment:al
lct�s in any of the fall otaing areas
a. Fixe Protection?
b. Police protection?
ds parrs or other recreational .—Y–
facilities?
eMaintenance of pub
:Lnclic facilities!
-l.udin8 roads?
Other governmental services'i'
z
15, Cn Chit the proposal, re t l t 3
a. Use of substantial at-nountg oii ,foci
j�yA
le a �,
energy?,
VyV
�
4 4/ u4J s tJ
Substantial
`anttial: incroase it! demand upon
exl.sbittg sources
Y
of enorgy or
roqui re the development of
source,* of now
l l� .li ties:, 'Will. the proposa.]. result
r.ee d"'or
new systFms, or stt,u
tantial dl.tyera.tion-b to the l:ol:iowian
_ d
. Apoohi x,
V 1'1hhri 9 W4-' h
YDS MAYBE
a. power o r natural gas?
b. Communications systems?.
c. Water?
d, Sewer (wall trunk line be extended,
Providing capacity to serve new
development)
e, Sturm water drainage?
n
17.
Human Health, Will the proposal
result .n;
a. Creation.of any health hazard or
potential health hazard (excluding
mental health)?
b, Lxposure of POOPIO to
health hazard57'otential
1.8,
Solid Waste, Will the proposal result
in any s gnificant impacts associated
with solid waste disposal or litter
control?
l� ,
...:Aesthetics .,-�:...,
14i.11 the proposal, result
it t o Zo s trUc tion 'public
..
of any
designated or recognized scenic vista
open to the public, or will the
proposal result in the creation of an
aesthetically offensive site
open to
Public view?
AftA
20,
Recreation, Will the proposal result
in sari impact upon the nuality or
quantity of eXist ng Public recreate
tion facilities
2l ,
Archeolo ..tis taarical , Rill the
proposa'. resu t in an a teration Of
a significant archeological
or
historical site, structure, oblett
or building?
22,
mandator Find•` ngs . o C Si.eni ficance+
,
4t6 ;
a, Does the ptoject have the potential
to degrade thequality of the
environment, substantially reduce
the habi.ta't of a fish or wildlife
species y cause a fish or wildlife
popul,ati6n to trop belott self
,
.4
x
YES MAYBE
N0
sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plantor animal com-
munity, reduce the number or restrict
the
range of a tare or endangered
plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
h. Does the project have the potential
to achieve short term bonefits to
the detriment of publicly adopted
long-term environmental goals?'
c, Does the project have impacts which
are individually limited, but
cumulativellif,y considerable'? (a project
Ay impact on two or more separate
resc,urces where the impact on each
resource is relatively small, but
where the effect of the total, o
those impacts on the environment is
81&nifi cant
d, Does the project have environmental
ML
effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
Appendix V
page 7 of 9
Applicant: Butte County/McCain Associates Asessors parcel n»
D SCUSSxOTJ l;"j) Loi AP Is
A.1 project Descri-o ion
1. hype of .Project: Modification of Assessment District boundarica and
2. Brief 11escriPtion installation of draina a facilities.
3. Location: Western. Chico area alone :Highway 32 and West Sacramento
,Avenue: north and west of Big Chico Creek.
4. Proposed Deinsity of Dovelopment:_ N!A
5. Amount of Impervious Surfacing:_ Urban density development exists
6. Access and Nearest Public Roads) : lighway 32 and. Nest $acra.mento Ave.
~ r
'%. Method of SeW& e Disposal : N� /A » individual septic systems and sewer.
8. Source of Water Supply: N/A - California {Vater Service Co. lines exist.
. proximity of power Lines: -N/A
10- Potential for further land divisions and development:
...Numerous pro-
-potties have capability for further division and, urban, development.
B. Enviroiunent:al Setting
Physical Environment
1. Terrain
a General TopOrpaphic-Character: Gentle, relatively flat valley
floor terrain.
b. Slopes.,- ;ext slope to�vard west
Ca Elevation,
d Limiting factors : None
Soils
a. TYPOS and ChAracteristics;.Vina Loam and Vina fine sandy loam
alluvial 80141S.
b Limiting Pactor ., Nolle
Natural. Hazards of the Land
a Ea thrCUak.e Zone : �torie . in area
b Erosion Potential: holy
_ da 1:`ire hazard:. Low
ci Landslide Po°tettial._ Note 0.
x°panzive S+ei1 Potential:,
-ILoW
4. I�Ydrolbgy
Big Chico Creek lies cont igut�us on tie est nd
a. Sutr AGO Water' south, into .which draina e Will be disc large .
Appendix 11'
.,.4 pig .o±.:..
ljlscussion vominueG.
y
b.Ground W -,tor: Moderately shallow aquifer at 50* feet.
C. Drainage Onara� teristics:�poor natural surface rlraina�e-� ,»o ,,.ting
situatiofti-tithout any drainage system causes uoncling a tr�z� storms
d. Annual. Rainfall (normal) 22 -24 -inches
e. Limiting Factors. 'Very logy relief
Poor natural surface drainage.
50 Visual/Seeni;o Quality: Urban area
6. Acoustic Quality! Uzbuaha
7. Air Quality.,_ Urban area - . tical valley Conditions
Riologi.cal Environment
S. :.-m
s laely urbanized portions_of orchard lands:_exist,
narticularl. Ain the western arca. N +
umer�ous l prrO Narcels contain
9. Wildlife 11-abita't Area mostly non -natural, orchard remnants.
urbanized, Riparian/fisher' habitat occurs along big Chico Creek.
Cultural Envl.roriment
1U. Archaool.oj,icaj and Historical Rasourceo in the aroa,:. Big; Chico Creek
pContaining archaeological sites.
,ButIte 00I.inty GensralPlAn designation: Predontina
" g ntly ,Medium-Cory
:t,�._as i.dentia] aetai 1. _Gommc "
E'xistine; 7onipg C`2► n»lyand '-SR.
.
'i Exi stingy; Land Use on-sito: tirban: single- and multi • family sis
.dentihl, commercial and 1i ht industrial Use as Well as some
'14. Surrounding Area; agricultural uses.
a. and Uses
Similar _ urban to the north oast , and 11 south; _
»At? ; i�tura7 to t1,q the.qt and soutalwest.
Some ,urban scattered
b. Zoning: ,Various lylang iWy 32 fart�erwest
1.eurban predominanta
c. Gen. Plan desi:gna'tionw: Urban designations. Agricultural lands
,deli 'ng_at c� General plan lie lVest within mile.
d Parcel Si�es: Varib`us
06 Population,,, Urba:l - 1o►y to titedium detisit
�- Y..reSidential �� cciiTnmercial
15. Challacter of Site and Area:;. Urban W agricultural rues Off-site further
16. Dearest Urban Asea:LL 11ithin Chico Urban Area west,
Relevant Spheres op l;ni'lu.ence: Majority of area lies with ii Ciy:�
Y
o Chico sl,he s ; entire area lies, within CaliiorAiia titrater_. SerV3 de�Co ►
l mprovemer tz Standards trban Arca!, Yep bi s tri ct
�9 4 Fire Protection Service;
a: Neareot Count y� . �y .
« ✓ -.Y Vn.q..l 17 t.�r t. 44i,1.:..7.01 ,N' 111i1A.
"b; 4�ate�t" A1rai.la'b �i,'L�t�'Le C F�:�e Sta,�t�.
G� Sehoo s inAreat Chico Unified School bistrict
Appondix, P page 7b oP
xlr, DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
Project Desi iipti+xn This Project involves modification of the
boundaries of and enlargenent of the Sacrrtw
mento Avenue Assessment District, and the development of a trunk
storrn drainage system within the district, The drainage system
will accommodate storm water drainage for approximately 160 acres o
land predominantly developed currentlyto resp f
uses both within the City of Chico anwithin-thetunincor.�oratedcommercial
are
g .. g. . area
of butte County, xncludin accommodation of drainage ,from 'tile Proposed
3 -lane State Route I -i ghway 32 road xmprovement.prolGct Hasicalop
two drainage trunk lines totalling about two miles plus two outfall
structures will be constructed. The major outfall
g
about 600 feet west of Oa�klawn Avenue and'willdischarge Will drainage
flows into Big Chico Creek about 600 feet West Of the Rose Avenue
P , P placed bridge.. Sacked concrete r�. ra will be lacers around the pipes at
the discharge `
g point to stabilize the streambank Outfall "structure.
l bdisplacement.
linear feet ofxdrainagepxp, �a�' enOccsr duringconstructi,o),i of 10,800
«
be
and the materia]. placed on the band:,. AfwexlPla�emen'*aofdthY backhoe
trenches will be backfilled and c�itn acted« Pine,► the
Will et ariprap,w* 10,000 orbic yards of,sandy silty Sackedii
concrete ri ra ivxll be placed aro!;nd the pipes at the
charge in Big Chico Creek after backfill as completed, priint o soil
f dis-
disruption over the long-term twill result from pro,
et;t implementation,
1(ea idrainage> Yy g ..,.. , ' .
The s stem Will dxschar e runoff into the Sig
annel, potentxall causing erosion and l
channel at the two outfall locations; T�1 . 'edtmetitatxon of the
3.co Ch" e
tune design should reduce or prevent impactsrofebank erasion onruc-
Chico Creek, Sediment orxg3naBig
t1119 from project lands could be dis-
charged :into the creekbed
and duringculnrly during heavy stc)rm activity
because of the' eros` , devolOp►nent on �,.
per, cit land.. de vex project ro ert45«
D'sti-itt andson potential of the sub'
yec6 160 acres 11b, the
!not expected toabelsignificantof the ��ina lciath soil, sediment discharges are
1(g), 4(d); Agricultural uses and activities Wi.tl not be
effected since, the PrOjOct service area is fundamentally
pre�iomanan4y in urban uses w
mostly comr,terci 1 and, residential (low and medium densit
yr The e'n�
designated b the butte Count les »ithin the Chico Urban Aron as
axle Proposed assessment district l
urh.i y +General Plan and Primarily within the
an area as designated by the City of Chico Ceeral Plan, aural uses do exist contiguous to the projectfs We bouixdrY,ctl
cult ural tiases ma growth , :, + . F 3 these a ri-
within the urbanya'r�+;ffee�edmdroyxn1nduced xh the area �.
use ineompatibii .tees « tiensavely, iesulting in some land
Appendix V -» 'page 8 6f 0
t
2(a): Temporary adverse effect$ on local air quality may occur from
construction activities, 'which will generate dust and exhaust, flow-
ever; no long term effects are expected.. Growth inducement could
indirectly generate- additional cumulative impacts from increased
vehicular use in the area.
3(b)c The Project will result in concentrated urban drainage dis-
charges into Big Chico Creek, increasing the total volume of stream-
flow, Currently; the Lindo Channel./Mud Creek/Big Chico Creek ;Flood
Control and nivexsa�on project limits the total streamflow of Big .Chico
Creek to a maximum 1600 cubic feet per second. The maximum discharge
ca.nacity of the project drainage system will be approximately 1.60 cfs,
increasing dow.nstroam flows by ten percent. Typical drainage ass
charge from project; facilities during a normal 1-year storm would be
expected to be 60 * cfs (20 minute 'gime of concentration). Average
daily flow rates in,Big Chico Creek during the rainy season winter
months has ranged from 110 cfs to 2C 5 cfs (mean 210 efs) over the
past several years (;gaging station located jMst cast of hose Avenue
bridge)
Currently, runoff drainage from properties lying within the Assessment
District i.s not removed from the land, but either infiltrates into
the soil jr ponds on the s'ur4-:ce (which is typical in the area as a
consequence of impervious surfacing)
Upstream of the project site is the City of Chico and Bidwell City
Park. Urban drainage is presently discharged into the stream from
existing developments. However, no summer drainage discharges are
allowed in the creek within Bidwell Park due to downstream recreation-
al water use`s. Theseuses are Upstream from this project.
3(c)`: The two outfall structures to be located 'in the Big Chico Creek
channel:.will require somelimited stream bank alteration and minimal
vegetation removal during construction; as well as placement of con
p p ivithin the stream channel below the :Wean high
water creta xa. ra material
level,, a
The bufall structure should be oriented in order to
avoid the
y f removing ainy mature trees
3(e), (j); The Cincentration of drainage discharge from the 160 acres
will add approximately 1006 additional runoff to Big Chaco Creelt stream-
floe at maximum discharge. Downstream from the points of dischargej.
the lands adjacent to Big Chico Creek are deVCiaped to a variety of
uses. Immediately below the eastoxnumost discharge point urban
development exists.
Downstream from the primary outfall Jocation
(proposed to be 600 feet southwest of the Rose Avenue bridge), the
lands are largely in tion-urban uses; except along Bidwell Avenue Which
contains :,tattered resldentx al use since the Assessmr;nt bi strict lies
in the southwestern port-ton of the urban area. The stream channel is
relatively deep in comparision with the surrounding lands; flooding is
not a problem along Big ChiO Creek since the flood control and storm
water diversion prnj act Was developed upstreat►�.
Appendix V page 8a of 9
1
3(f) c The water quality Of Big ;Chico Creek is cons
The Bidwell City Park area, which occupies, a considered exce]�ent
area within the Chico Urban Area, has po heavy ma]oraty a; :."�e Upstream
or drainage runoff' to ;its surface water, andummerhdaschax£esustances
allowed. Though storm drainage is currently directed into the are not
in the park, there has heart no indication o£ water r eek
.associated with this d;l'ainage . , q+t'alit � problems
Urban pollutants
may be flushed by the project facilities into I3g
Chico Creek along with storm water discharges, •Colj,pctcd
waters entering the drainage system after flot,ring a1ot s y uno.ff.
the +iistrict, A variet;� a£ Pollutants :into the crcek,i.ncludii . oils could eventuall be discharged
n
lzers from home garden use, sediment, rubberresidueatidpasUo�oss and fart
nitratbs, pnosp}iates, and tlther urban chemicals � particles,
derivatives) • (Primarily petroleum
of nifzcant allution effects facts on Big Chico Greek, or other Similar
surface water bodies, from general urban: drainage
rface
pr marxly as a result of wide dispersal ofpanscpmp�7rxentsc�nbeen xd'
Y g barge into tilt water flow.
the land and, the dilution effect upon disc
An runoff discharges from the land
flow,, diluting the limited quantity produces ll.concentrated dx'air,age
age enters Bi Chico Lreek �' po7lutc�nts.drain-
cc
further dilution aurs,011ce this
Therefore ..in
a typical period of discharge, Pollutant concentrate ons
are low, Point source discharges and the resultant polla�;atacoyicer
trations are of greater concern than is
California Regional Water, Quality
general urban runr�ff, The
Targe -scale or �. Y Control Board believes that no.
gross pollution impacts are likely to result from urban
cammerealurbandevelopments on assummng tYPical res.dential and
tensive industrial uses or other u5escapabl ofngenerat3n tc+ncen� _
trated cor taminants , rat' than in -
g
Y g g
a concern is during the first storms nants are
Tie Primary time during r Which general urban 6ralna a contaltii'
dry summer period and during any summer storms, alltua estosnQafter the
p buildup of
Oil and other surface deposits and residues cpll.ectittg oh streets and
lands ao the drainage basin system and because of low volumes of Hata-
ral runafi', patio
riux rig these first4ds of runoff goneration the ani -
tial conCoutrations of cnntamihants are higher than usual, burin
anea;dV`ersoo mpa�ct OJcontaminant
vaternanaticoncefitrations aro hi ghor than usual
and sekument may, kill fish ant ot}ia�s�ipotential,
loxr ertti al bi schargc of solids
q tic Organisms by clogging
bottomakiiii iratory passages as wall. as blanketing tae stream
t
catitain highnlle•vels*ofob,0,Uand. h%clxfood or anisms.
g Storm drainage may
content in stream water. The spill< could £ depress dissolved oxygen
Y• use water lla t products from
vehicles tvi�.l also ca
q Y degradation, Oily substances
wellaascinterferang�wi:hot7ae1n� and interfere Wath respiration as
di=ect toxic Action on natural, process of a{'xation, and ;possible
a
k Ap;iendix p ag�l 8b of 9
a,
y
• r p !; g
King Salmon utilize Big Chico Crcek for migration and spawning guar
Poses, depending on the amount of streamflow, rich populations
originate from the Sacramento River, migrating into the tributaries
When conditions are correct. Salm
sensitiveto changeson and'steelhead Will be the Mott
could Potentially be degraded (due water Quality, Water quality
urban drainage into the creek from, to this development and cumulative
development utilizing Big Chico
Creek for d
or the odrainage discharge) to the extent that migration might: cease
b salmon might not`survve
This impact would likely only effect the autinat mi gra
• p g. g , tion per-
zod since durin the s r�.n ma. ration streamflow usus�lly is abundant,
dilutingcontaminants' and since concentrations of contaminants haave
not accumulated, due to the winter-'long runoff flows.
The exact impact of urban drainage discharges inter tl�tw Greek
known since quantitative stYidies have not been confit he c k is un-
Regional Water Quality Control hoaxd may periodically sample p Big Chico
Creek water; but they do net conduct routine monitorings (The
Calif-drn a Depattment of TYater Ttesources does
samp'lxng of 13�g Chaco Creek water upstream from: ChicojuctThem Assess-
ment District could be required to provide regular; periodic water
quality nonit�ring of the stream downstream from discha,x;ge and to
times of the ear quality (perhaps prevent severe degradation of water erha s during s'Yrtaan
year) The l s,truct r of direct discharge of drainage
to groundwater in dry well: structures constitutes a
water quality and is not considered a desireable methodaofxdi.sros nt
of runoff Concentrations since accumulation of polIUtVntS well
posing
Waterht
ofua'factor sbj contaminating area sFiallow we11s, D'
�' sincju-
e the quantity of water involved is less
than the
surface water flows, Ulate Also, marry contaminants are nota flushed
too surf eoertvat'e1ru.allowsmcontnmrx�nar time; in the dry wells; bi$char e
�a be g
nts to be diluted and carried away
further diluted downstream, a~urt�ter �
training pollutants ran enter a waterWgy via 'Underground strew scon-
he Soataorti although ��lt ra,".�oi1 occurs as ehe ti++ater Passes through
the sail, �lnlike dry w,? ll dtainage disc:haxges, r tOr P surface
charge can be manitared to des-
sequeAt remedial action, canebe1takenetnf cerrxec damaranuala ty and
g g effects .
su
SM., D;"Volopmoxrt of the proposed dra.irra.ge system Will reduce the
local ponding of eater that presently oceuvs ort area streets e
'operties nd
a),cane attention of the,8tiiodmban, to locate the butEall
r.
m.j V result in vegetation removal The extent of th sim �actis
cr
outf, tl ; i.p"rap11 vr.o rcptes placement of two outfallpipes aYzd appurtenant
tear► x �.: on the straafis' dO ripar an vegetation, naTheadu� C �'gnifi - -
trrx ► ,6J � be beater so us to avoid the necessity far removal atruc
aaY x•; trees; thicla provide an ae'�' f
the tic charrvcter for the axes
en, o ma zy residoi,.- s arid. help hiai,ntain the stream cliti nel,
Appendix pa o go of 9
p,. R.
r
5(a) (d) Dusturbance of the stream area during construction will
cause temporary impacts to riparian Wildlife from noise, dust and
increased human activity in the area. No long-term adverse effects
on the riparian habitat or on wildlife population are expected.
Bg Chico Creep is habitat for King. Salmon during the autumn and
Big
spring spawning periods (spring migration runs are parts from Chico
ortant The u t-r reaches of Bi Chaco Creek upstret.m from ico
p ) pP
are particularly note;.,orthy King Salmon spawning groLInds . This creek
is not considered a sigril icant or critical habitat for salmon,
according to Richard Flint of file California Department of rich and
Game; however, since salmon habitat is diminishing evory^,'ere, the
relative importance of any, salmon habitat is increased Discharge of
contaminants g into �thc, creek from project drainage water will add in-
c,romenta.l amounts of pollutant, a££,^ctzng the water duality of the
creek. However, no specific adverse impact on salmon is known Or can
-be projected as a result of thisro`ect. contaminants
i abundant streamflow and runoff volumes particularlyndur ngsprzngn
m1grat'.0n runs, should reduce any potential impacts (refer to .section
i
3f) During the aut... -t salmon run,. during which streamfl.ow tyrlcally
is relatively low, drainage impacts may be more severe than normal
because of higher concentrations of contaminant having accumulated
and because of less dil:uti�.n effect. The project Would not directly ,.
prevent fish from reaching their spawning grounds.
6(a)4. Noise Will be increased in the area temporarily during,const ruc ,* I
tion periods; The district is currently an urbanized land aea wi th
awide ie's that generate continual noise
includivariety of uses and activitng numerous commercial uses, multi-£amity and single -family
residential developments, and a major transportation thoroughfare.
Growth inducement could indirectly generate long-term noise effect:;
6(a); 11; 12: The stem drainage s 3's" basically being developed. to
System
accommodate exist),ng urban uses. Tht, Highway 32, Sacramento Avenue
and Oaklawn AvO=u areas are intensively developed to commercial uses
single -family and multi-family residential uses, as w1 e�.as to some
light industrial uses. The district
by the Butte lies entitely with;tn 4he Chico
Urban Area and is primarily desigCounty General
Plan for Medium-X"ow Density Residential uses and for Commercial uses.
T14e Chiro City General ,plan. also desi.gnatib's the Mdoxity of the dis-
trict la,zds for urban uses, though portions of the area�lan.ds west
Of Oaklawn Avenue) are designated for agricultural uses bit that: plar.
I;xisti.ng zoning of the area is predominantly 0,,4 (Light Cammexc:i.al.),
R-! and A-811 (residential-basically low tjobsity cfri.ent"ti.on), Large
areas of the subjectarea lie within the Citpy of chi
along Highway 32. cu, particularly
Numerous properties �vit:Lin t�,o proposed �y gossmont district boundary
are several acres in area (l to 4 acmes t
u g_ :, (anti portions,
ghs
) , �or�tain open '�aca
of land, and are available for further urban'development �ve�i though
urban uses exist on most parcels, the entire .area �,s no so developed,
t
Ioartl ularly the properties along Ilighwav 32) i Also, some parcels
are i:l agricultural use, Particularly those properties in the western
portion of the area, containing portions or remnants of orchards.
However, almost all lands within the district that are either undevel-
oped or not developed to urban uses are relatively small., somewhat
isolated from other similar non-developed non -urban lands and are
contiguous to and, generally surrourlded ► y urbanized lands (or :lands
approved for urban devol.opment, such as Highland Park. Subdivision
in the southwestern portion of the district).
The proposed drainage improvements will permit greater intensity of
development and potentially could induce growth in the area, in the
less developed portions of the district, particularly on properties
along Highway 32 which are only partially developed (i.e. not devel-
oped to capacity or to the density recommended by the General Plan).
Any additional urbanization of project lands would generate additional
runoff from greater impervious surfacing. lloweve'r, the project prima-
rily will a,,commodate drainage needs of existing development.
13(a), (c): Traffic may be disrupted in the project orda during con-
struction of the drainage system,,but traffic flow 1�.ould return to
normal, after project completion (improved upon completion of the con-
current state highway projects improvemt nt of Highway 32) The re-
moval of Bonded storm water would improve traffic movement in the
area.. Ukban improvements may indirectly cause traffic impacts from
growth inducement (additional urban development in the area).
14(e): The drainage system will be a public facility and therefore
Will require continual periodic maintenance (primarily cleaning of
debris, as needed)
16(e): The project involves the development of a trunk line system
fora 1e0 -acre area involving constructic;n of approximately two
miles of 6011 and SO storm drainage pipe;,
17s The drainage system world Improve the safety factor within the
district, involving removal of podded, standing Water which would
reduce mosquito breeding areas and would reduce traffic impedi.menis
and hazards.
19: Some disturbance of a gig Chico Creels Channel. would result fro
p'lacomaiAt of two outfall structu'r'es. The pipes and concrete ri:prap
Will have some adverse effect on the natural aesthetic character of
the creels, Howevery this impact is expected to be limited in extent;
with little disturbance occurring.
22 (a) : Please 'refer to item 5a, d.
Appendix V page 86 of 0
WA
REFERENCES:
1 Prelimina°*y Environmental Appraisal, 1977 Corp oie Xnga.neers
initial study of the project.
2. McCain Associates, project engineering firm
S. Richard Flint, California Department of Fish and Calne
4. 'Tony tandisi Regional Water Quality Control Boar
S. Rancho de Thunder EIR, Supplemental Water Qua-.i`cy information
6. Chico General Plan E1R
7. City of Chico Public Works Department, Al Savit
8. Dr .iartment of Water Resources, Hydrologic Data Annual Reports
9. Cal-Trans environmental document (NegatiVe Declaration) for
the State Route 32 Improvement Project (Sacramento Avenue
Big Chico Creek section)
10`. Butte County General Plan
11, Butte County Public {Yorks Bepa ,Hent
Appoldi x R Page 8f of 9
1i; Ii
J
IV- DETERMINATION
(To be completed ;by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this inifi ial ovaltiation
1 find the pxoposed, project COULD NOT have a significant
effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION
I s r6O6mmehded.
0 1 find that although the
significant 'affect on thepenvironmeento thereuwillno a
be a significant effect in this case because the not
mitigation measures described on an attached sheet
have been added to the project; A NLGATIVE DECLARATION
IS RECCM1`-MkMtD.
0 1 find the proposed project MAY have significant
effect on the environment, and an ENVTaIiONMEIVTAt. IMPACT
is required,
Date
(5xgnature)
F'or' ENVIRONME9TAL`REV.iE'W DEPARTMENT
ReVriAved by: L
rI D, Nelsoh
tkIV rorunentAI Review Director
VOCI TED 11TIGATT04 M- ASU"R1;
All ta4ture tre6s Within the ti ah�.oa Creed, i
belt should be , reserved. � riparian vegetation
should be conductedpreserved
in nucha man�erthatavoids recteiveainage sstem
disturbance of tho s't:00AM Cha=e1: and Stream bed.
Apex .
page g of =9
u
CITY a
c�
r d
PROJECT SITE I F4 CH
t
It _
i
e
h
Y'
Df California
GOVL: -NOR'S OPPIGC
wsfs °u" OFFIC'L UR PLANNING AND RESEARCH
Y 1400 'TENTH STREET
SACRAMENTO 95814
EDMUND G, BROWN Jn.
oomINOR
.�nvirolilir�ntaF Fdgvi�w fa'rzpf
June 22, 1979
J11:10 2 a 1979
BUN County
Earl b. Nelson
Hutte County
#18"-P County Center Dr,
Droville; CA .95965
subject: Sacramento Avenue Assessment District tit). 1, Alternate 1
79053011
Dear Nr. Nelsoni
stat ageneses have cotmrented on your draft end*irohmental document x.
`
(see attached) if you would like to discuss the e ncerns ar..d
recommendations in their comments, contact the staff from the
agencies whose names and addresses appear or, the cornenes.
You may formally respond to the agencies' dolaments by Writing to
them (including i,'ie State Clearinghouse ntntber on all such
correspondence)i when fisting the_Final ti-Re you mist include a-1
ct-Ments and responses (st.4te EIA Gnidel,ines, Section 16146)..
state .review of your draft, e'tviro, mohtal document. will then be
comple e.
io aid in preparing env.rot=ental assessment:, on jVtuee projects, jou
should send to state agencies and the Office of pl.anr,,:ng and Research
your: Notice of Preparation as pl:escribod by AB 884 and Section 15066
Of the tlR Ouidelines
If �Po t, ottld. care fi^r assistance or it the need arl.se's, the Dffice of
planning and Rosearch is available ti- help identify respohs bl.e
agencies, cdis�*ribUte Notices of preparation, orjayit4e caordinati .a
iieotsings, rabddlat.e di9pute8, and hold consolidated hearings,
please contacts barn Aro.nhalt, at (516) 445-0514 iy you have ahy questions.
5�,ncerely,
Stephe Vii..iaatttson
s>a;ie l eaxinchous
Attachment
NIP,
State of California
'
The Resources Agency of C,aliforNa
• Me.,morand
0
Date t June 6, 1979
To Butte County Pla ni .ng Commission (2) Mr. L. z ank Goodson
7 County Center Drive Projec t,jordinator �Aylronmentnl CtQVWW bort,
Oroville, Ca 95965 Resources Agency
,111.112 r,19%9
From s Department of Parks and Recreation Buda Counly
eet:
i Nea Dec 'J905301
Su61; ,Sacramento Avenue Assessment DiGtrict 110..1 Alternate
1 McCain Asso� ci� ates
The Office of Historic Preservation cannot complete its review of the
environmental document referenced above.
Documentation jUstifying the determination in the Initial Study of no effect
to archaeologic al, histor - oal j ethnici or other cultura=l, resources shsYuld be
submitted to this office demonstrating compliance with Section 15o8O(5) of the
CEQA- Guidelines.
The regOsted information should be submitted as early as possible for
incorporation into our review process.
If you have any questions, please contact Nicholas Del Cioppo, Office of
HistoAc Preservation, by calling (916) 322-,$708,.
Dr. Xtiox Mellon
State Histaric Preservation Officer
Office of Historic Preservation
s
tames P. T P' yner', CLdf `
Pe6ource preservation and
Interpretation Division
�nvlronmonfal Rovlow doN?
0 1979
qutf i County
S®CIE'"Y FOR CALIFORNIA ARCHAEOLOGY
mat ct� 2 Clearinghouse
July $ o i97%
Mr. Earl Nei. on, Director
Environmental Review Department
18-F County Center Drive
Orovlle, CA 95965,
Dear Mr. Nelson,
On Friday, July 6 1979 Z conducted an archaeological
reoonnaissance of the proposed :storm drain pipe route
within the Sacramento ivenue Assessment Districu The
area involved lies to the southwest of the Southern Pacif is
Railroad, north of Big Chico Creek; and slightlyto -the
west of Oaklawn Avenue in western Chico.
The projeot area has been heavily developed with most of
the -proposed route being covered by ,ex sting roadways.
The l0.�ast disturbed arca lies along the western edge of
eu:, orchard, which lies to the west of oakla m AVenue
,Prior to my xeconnai.ssanoe IT consulted the archaeological
site record files maintained at California 'Mate University,
bhico to detaftine if any known archaeological sites were
located within the project area. No siter3 had been
previously recorded within this area] although one
s,rchae�oloj�ical site hies slightly to 'the east of the
pro ject a��ea
My reconnaissance involved walki,ng,over.the proposed storm
drain pipe route with a careful; inspection of the aree.
Along the viestern boundary of ti!�e orchard; west of OaklAWn
Avehxe. No indications of archiiceologicsl or'`histarivai
oposer storm drain pipe route and it is reoommthe
pr
- .. .. ct�.on of ended that
materials were observed during tll� inspect
archaeological, clearance be givl3n to the proposed pi o jott:
Where is a good, tos�Ability that during' sujisu&a' de eXcav'ations
for the proposed{'project archaeological or"Itistorioal
matota'.al6 may be 'ancodntered; « Workers on this project
should be V> tLde aw4,�"o of 'this Vdbtiibility and iri the event
that such, materials o,±e located the pin jedt should be
halt
od until a quallSind archaeologist `is contacted to
examine these materWN,,,, and can ''det ermine thdi't sighifidance
'Size . erel7`7
y ours
Inis p Mann ing
istriet Atehab6logist
TA. jo l hsps•&iiaZI
;.
r
J* GOVERNOR'S OFF'^E
u; OFFICE OF PLANNINGA.�? RESEARCH
,r .nvlranmontni (Cv rwv E' ! P.
•.,.oaHf, 1 300 TENTH STREET
SACRAMENTO 95814
EDMUND s, GROWN Jn, (916) 445-0613
GbVeRNOR
�Clllt} C�{1l1�i•�/
June 27, 1979
Carl C. Nelson
Butte County
#18-F County Center Dr'.
Oroville, CA 95965
SUBJECT: SCM,' 79053011 - SACRAMENTO AVENUE ASSESSMENT
DISTRICT NO. I ALTERNATE 1
Dear Mr. Nelsons
The enclosed comments were prepared by the Dept, of Transpor-
tai.lon regarding your project. 'These comments Were not included
in the package you received dated Jung. 22 certifying State preview
of your draft environmental document,
To ensure i^ompliance With the intent of 'the California Environ-
mental Quality Act you should attempt to incorporate these addi-
tional comments into the preparation Of your final envlCOntnentai
document.
Sincerely;
ktophe-h V. Wijiiamson
,State C�earinghousw
SVW/lla
Attachment
Cc: Iden Pejjcws> D1Vi
`p. Skidmore, District 03
Staia of California
OUsIness and Transportation Agency
Me'morand u
To tJlr . Kent Sr<,,i.th
bapu��y Division Chief/DTP' Date: June 7 1979
Department A-95 Coordinator File :03 -But -22
Sacramento Avenue
a8:4essment District
(Drainage)
Sch 1905911
From t DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION — Telephonenvirenmortta) ���;�µ t)n�}
District 03 v ,ATSS X57-4277
.. O. Box 97,1 Mar sville CA 95901 +r �
S2 1979
UI7�ecti
kuii'a Caun}y ,
District 03 has reviewed that
boEnvironmenta Checklist for e
fication of the undariemidi-
s and enlargement thof the Sacramento avenue
Buttesmountyystrhe projectcincl�d�s develoin the pment
arca of
drainage system within the distrix;11�1opment Of 6 trunk storm
accommodate drainage from the Route -32 �imphe rovement osed system will
.....project.
Aft encroachment,
Kermit must bp, obtained from the Dapartt,.tirit of
Transportation for any work to be parformed on State highway right
of way. Upon receipt of the appy, cat�:on fcfx she encroachment per -
fromthe Department of Transportation will. r
from the standpo�.nt of safEty l,'t enn 'Will n .view the proposal
g.
"Cha enviranMental clearance document for the project should cove_ r
specifically work to be done �f� ;,'�:� z State high -way right of way.
This speed up the encroachment,
Pp Caltrans
recquires an environmental clearance scumentrarenotscnce exemtion
for wor)C to be rfOtmOd taithin the State right of way,
Please contact ,tiIr. Achard Alekandei�, 'District Permit:z Dngineere
for additional information regarding work to be performed within;
State P1igllitaY sight of way,
EO 'J - 'CAONnATd12D
Dist,kirt Director of Transportation
n ,
R; b. Skidmore
Chief r tnvaronmental. Btandh
' �1
To; Board of Supervisors
FROM: Earl D. Nelson, Environmental Review Director
SUejECT. Supplemental: Info,. Iticn for .Sacramento Avenue Asse,ssMont District
DAM Maar 81 150
Although the attacheddrolo is stud p
�' g � ,Y Prepared for Big Chico
Greek Estates was not available when the initial, Wbudy checklist
Was prepared for Sacramento Avenue Assessment Diptrict, the
attached description of the hydrology of the area should help
alleviate concerns relative to potential flooding near the mouth
of Big Ohico Creek, spec fically the area from the confluence
with Lindo Channel west to the Sacramento River. Although the
rept was prepared for the subdivision, it is applicable be -
Car, , ; Fixe Sacramento Avenue Assessment District bears the same
positional relationship to the drainage basin as a whole as does
the Big Chico Creek Estates Subdivision,. In other words both.
are located in the western portion of the basin, and the peak
drainage for each would occur long before the tijra of maximum
or peak runoff for the entire drainage basin. Translated this,
means peak runoff from the project site would occur before the
channels conveying runoff' from Upstream areas have reached
maximum flow rates, indicating capacity would he available to
absorb the anticipated runoff increases resulting f*7so~m the
assessment district drainage project. _
I "hope this information is helpful to you,
Sinoerel�,.
Earl De Nel.eon
Environmental ROVIew D1,recto `
Attachment
Exhi. it. 11
0 JON K ANDE:;SON
CONSULT1N0 CNIL EN.INCER
0
95 E1 MYNTLC AVENUt TCLCPHONC (4151 343,1300,
CHICO. CALIFCJRNIA 959-5
26 December 1979
Mr. William Dinsmore
Rolls $ P nderson & Rolls
Civil Engineers
965 Fir Street
Chico, California 95926 Filo No. 146
Re: STORK DRAINAGE & FLOOD RECOi3NAI.;SA.NCE;
Big Chico Creek Estates Subdivision
Dear Mr. Dinsmore.
Pursuant to' your request, on behalf of Mr. Delmas Durkin,
th.e following hydrologic reconnaissance of storm --,drainage
and flood characteristics has been prepared for the purposes
of an environmental assessment of the probosed development of
the Big Chico Creek Estates subdivision.
Thisra osed
P p project is located adjacent to Big Chico Greek
geomorjphi c featul: a knotan as the Chlcy Pan, westerly of
r y
the City of ChicoIt consists of approXimately 70 acres
proposed ior�l
dev opment to 172 5ingla"_faviil.y residential lots
Of about 1/3Wacre each, as delineated by a tentative sUbd `vas-.�
ion map dated August 1978. Storm -drainage outfaIls for the
pro jpl • are pl Anned on Big Chico Creek:
The proposed r?evelopment of these stOtm-drainage outfhlls .
insofar as t:hcy May have peak"flo%j events sine lltaneously wiich
Big Chico Creek, subsegUehtly enhancing flood collditions on
the Creek -- is an item d:: major envw�onmen� a�, c�it�cern �ocorci
ingl,y, the features of this hydrologic reconkiaissance have
been limited to this subject.
Eig Chico Creek, immediately downstream of this proposed sulo-
div sion gas a drainage area )f t1bout 79 s�u�rc: titin es The
Y
,.,CH. 4 t+:r N,+'a I ._iv4.: .• fr.. . yt ...
IM
Exhibit i3
Page 2
flood regime is prim;,rily rainfall l
response during tho Ivintcr
food season.
Upstream flood -control facilities, constructed
in the Hooker Oak area during the early 1560's by the Corps
Of engineers, provide flood protection alongBig 3 Chico Creek
for the City of Chico and lands
. to the west. These f'acil,a.ti.e�,
serve to limit the Upper Big Ch3.�ca; outflow of floodwaters from
..
. ''
Creek to J.'500 cfs via an outlet-cc�i�.trol. structure.. The remain_
i rig f 00dwaterc are dives tod northerly to Sandy Gulch artd 1�Xtad
.
Creed: via oycamore CreekAc�:orrlin Accordingly, y, the flood regitft n of
BigCisco Creek has axtificially modified, and can he
considered oeh
yhr.id composed, of two separate elements in
the area of the proposed 4,Estate8l subdivision. These elements
consist of a 10500 cfs flow Cor surcharge) from the outlet of
the diversion, and flows from the incremental -tributary area
located between the diversion and the 'Estates i subdivision..
This increnlontal-tributary area (at a location immedatel
dOwnstream ,of tho proposed subdivision) amounts to a y
3.
ly 20830 acres. PP--
anGtlytical and comparative
puirposes, the 50 -year recurrence
interval event was selected as bean a +
being Ppropx'ate '.for' tris
pre�.iminary eVaXuati.on. This Dias due to several factors:
The estma�'�ed mak concur:rent. storm --drainage and
event was i niti,lly expected to be limited to this f�°euencad,'
level; and 2 Y
' •) �'c:ait=lag data fx'om hydrologic-�sitriulatiGt�
studies for- the somewhat comparable Rock Cres}t area t,. the
North, Caere available Cs,ee later discuss; on)
pifty-year recurrence interval
peas; dischar es
�' and rr•inYsff
vol Mes stere talc:ulabOd .dor the
ati-
proposed BsL.at0st subdivi.sioz
a for the ncret�,ental -tributary area of im:�.g 'Chico Creek
down »
stream of the diversiox, ;�`acilities. Theso� z c
pG-+a`� c�a.ucharges and
ruhokf volumes were cal.ctllated util'iting the SC Cali�eornir
modifa.ed �`R-55 prn.�euu�•e ( see e � ,
pp_nded calcul,�tiok r��titlaricsl
ul atiohs for the 'stai.es
The talc 4. .
Exhibit F3
pace 3
currently planned) . Calculations for the Big Chico Creek
incremental-tributary area were prepared assuming minimal
basin conditions for comparative purposes ( ie; the actual
peak discharge and runoff volume are expected to be greater
than the values Listed). These assumptions greatly simplified
the calculation procedure, and allow for vrorst-case comparisons
between the two.
The peal:-discharge and xunoff-volume values :produced for the
incremental tributary area of Big Chico Creek must be combined
with the equivalent values for. the 1,500 cfs surcharge to
obtain correct total values for Big Chico Creek. The employ
meat of this 1; 590 cfs Surcharge., in tota-lity, is appropriate,,
as this discharge would be expected to receive wily minor
channel attenuation due to the constant and sustained duration
(erg; 'up to 30 days) of the d1801atge during the flood season.
Tile resulting 50`=-year recurrence interval peak-di sdhatge and.
runoff-volume evohts are calculated to be
�--- Big Chico Creek Bidwell. Avenue
Peak; Discharge = 1,110 cfs
Runoff Volume 3,400 acre feet*
-»- Proposed 'Es'tates' Subdivision
Peak Di cb-,,rge = 20 cf t
Runoff Volume - 13+ acre feet
*deternl:ned for a 24-hour period
Determination of the relative temporal positions of these
peak--discharge events generally requires extensive hydrographic
studies, which are beyond the scope of this etudy, HoWever,
hydrographic-si.mtilatian studies have developed data for the
comparable. Rock Creel. Basin Sped Corps of Ent-Tincets) t al1.0*rising
a comparison of the variation of peak-discharge hydrograph
I )ur WI.Lh respect to the basin drai,, aqt area to be devel.o; ed
Interpol ation and ektrapol.atioh o.i term-logarithmic regressions
of these data ('for, the incremental--tri b�itarr arta ofa g Chico
Cu eek and for the area of the proposed Estates' subdivision)
indicate that there would be approximately a 1.1-hour lack,
Exhibit B 0
" page
between the peaks from the respective basins. Furthermore,
the peak from the 'Estates' would precede the peak.. of 'Big Chico
Creek. Accordingly; the peak discharge of 20 c•f-s 'would occur
approximately 1.7 hours before the peak discharge of 1,1770 cfs
on Big Chico Creek. This result genera lly' concurs with that
expected from theoretical considerations for a singular
precipitation/"iood regimen, and provides a reasonable ( albeit
approximate) value of concurrent peak lag for the purposes of
this assessment.
Observations of particular significance to the proposed Big
Chico Creek Estates project and the is.sue of stotrd-drainage/
flood concurrence with Big Chico Creek are that::
1. The SO -yea `- real*xrence interval storing-drzinage- peak-
discharge
eakdischarge Xrom the 'Eststrs' subdivisiolij as proposed,
would not be coincident with the flood peak or
equivaloht frequency on Big Chico creel, -
2.
reek2 This non coincidence of peak discharges it prmar'a iy
attributable to the relative sizes of the contributing
basins (70 acres Vs 2,630 acres) and the. proximity of
the project to Big Chico Creek. In contrast, the peaks
would coincide if the project Uere located more
distant from the Creek, with a 1.7"hour outfall -conduit
travel time;
3. Similarly, an artificially -i ducecl co.inci,dence of
peaks would occur 'if the project were proVided with
an basin that had 24- hours of s�o age
capacity;
4 Peak lag will be additionally i.nLraased beyond 1.7
hours by the ,planned itpIdmeritatJbh of 2 outfalls,
each 3rainihq about 35 acres;
5 �cttx it 50 -year recurrence in twat,
peak�di ,caarge and
runoff-rt�aume bVQht'8 on. Big Chico Creek womId be
ehpertee to be higher than those 1fi8ted (as tttnit7al
basin Parametcrs we.ee usC a for .hydrologic c7lcrtl yta.t�ns)
page 5
and the relative contrast between tha peals and
volumes of the *Estates' and Big Chico Cree'k would
be of even greater magnitude;
6. Residential developments of this type are seldom
provided with storm -drainage facilities capabl,•, of
conveying peak discharges of this magnitvde (ita;
the 50 -year recurrence interval), but are more
commonly designed for the 10 -year event, or less.
This typical design feature, if employed, will
imp I licitly maximize the gutter and conduit st6rage
c4pabilities of the proposed Aevelopment, CommebsUr-
ate,ly limiting the peak-dischatge claracteristics of
the project to an equivalebt event ftequthcyli
, %_ the above
OA -A .gid,, to zlic. qual �,Eic at Ions rendered. 'by p
the in-'ormatioh and conclusions advanced by this
reconnaissance must be tonsid.e-ed to be under truly worst._
case conditlrnsO When the ramifications of the seasonal
precipitation regimen are duly considered. in, this regard, two
predominant ,and sepa,,ate precipitattion regimes provail in the,
Chico area, the thunderstorm and the frontal. The thunderstorm,
(Or convective) precipitation regime is prevalent during the
summer and early f011. it typically has very -=high Point
coupled, with short durations, and due to a limited
ac -al eXten-b, 16W VoltMes,, The frontal (or cyclonic) regime is
prevalent during the winter and is bypiiled by lower lntensitiO8
than that of the thunderstorm regime, but with much longer
durati,bns, but to the large areal extent of frontalstorms, iiet'
preclpit,atitjft volumes are tbtp4tit."Wely latgei.
These reg'met mid their attendant flood response(s) are rj:*L otal
to a rttohtillation of this axialysa'.8, in that the 'Estates'
peal-, events aro In response to both riac1imes,,
wibh the f,hUftdeJ:8i:OrM tegimo being subt-,tanti ally the most, -
sig iifi cant. in tontrast, flooding on Big Chico Croek it;
re8poh.-O to only the troh-I.-til precipitation n.,jimci This
4
Aaditati_,8 that major pbalt-flotq eVentsat these krltot otdut