HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-080••. ~~ .SUp~+
• •.N....•.,~•~ j •~.
i '~;•' ••~~'~
~ ~i i O ~
~O• ~~.•
=~°~ =~~ BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
~ * ; ' * •
:~~ ~; ~;~ ~ ,;'~y~•' COUNTY OF BUTTE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
+ ~i~. •. ~. Qr•~
'+.~ji'•••....,,•..~•,•~•,'~ ~;•• Resolution No.
RESOLUTION CERTIFYING AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE
SKYWAY WIDENING PROJECT, COUNTY PROJECT NUMBER 51261-3-00-1,
PREPARED IN COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA; APPROVING ALTERNATIVE A2B2
WITH THE MAJOR FIX DESIGN OPTION AS THE PROPOSED PROJECT; AND
ADOPTING FINDINGS OF FACT, STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS, AND MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM CONCERNING
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS UNDER CEQA
05-080
WHEREAS, on December 15, 1998, the County Board of Supervisors, acting on the
recommendations of the July 1996 Skyway Improvement Program Feasibility Study prepared by
the Butte County Association of Governments (BCAG), directed the County Department of
Public Works to proceed with a project study of possible design alternatives to widen the
Skyway from two to four lanes between Pentz Road and South Park Drive; and
WHEREAS, the Skyway Widening Project, County Project Number 51261-3-00-1,
located in northeastern Butte County, is proposing to widen Skyway from two lanes to four lanes
from approximately 750 feet south of Pentz Road, in the Town of Paradise, to approximately 750
feet north of South Park Drive, in the community of Magalia; and
WHEREAS, the County Department of Public Works concluded that, because the
proposed project had the potential to cause significant adverse effects on the environment, an
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) would be required pursuant to the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code section 21000 and the CEQA Guidelines (14
California Code of Regulations, Section 15000 et seq.) and, due to anticipation that federal grant
funding would be required for the County to construct a project of this magnitude, the
environmental document would be scoped as a joint Environmental Assessment
(EA)/Environmental Impact Report (EIR) with the Envirorunental Assessment (EA) required
pursuant to National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations (23 Code of Regulation
771); and
WHEREAS, The County of Butte (County) and the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) are the designated Lead Agencies for the development of a joint Environmental
Assessment (EA)/Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to address the environmental impacts of
the Skyway Widening Project, County Project Number 51261-3-00-1, as proposed; and
WHEREAS, on September 27, 2001, a public information/scoping meeting was
conducted at the Pines Elementary School in Magalia from 6:30 pm to 8:30 pm and comments
on the proposed project and scope of the EIR were received from the public; and
WHEREAS, after obtaining comments received in response to the public scoping
meeting, a Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report for the Skyway Widening
Project (NOP) was prepared, advertised to the public, and distributed on June 11, 2003 to the
State Clearing house, responsible and affected agencies, contiguous property owners, and
interested parties with a 30-day solicitation for comments pursuant to Public Resources Code
Section 21080.4 and was available for public viewing at the Butte County Department of Public
Works and associated website, Butte County Main and Branch Libraries, and the Town of
Paradise; and
WHEREAS, a Notice of Availability of the Environmental Assessment/Draft
Environmental Impact Report for the Skyway Widening Project (Draft EIR) was filed with the
State Clearinghouse, mailed to owners and occupants of contiguous properties and all interested
parties, published in the Chico Enterprise Record and Paradise Post newspapers, circulated for
public review and comment from April 26, 2004 to June 9, 2004, and was available for review at
several locations, including the Butte County Department of Public Works and associated
website, Butte County Main and Branch Libraries, and the Town of Paradise; and
WHEREAS, during the public review period, the Butte County Department of Public
Works held a public hearing on May 27, 2004 from 7:00 pm to 9:00 pm in the Community Hall
of the Paradise Pines Property Owners' Association Club House in Magalia to receive oral
comments and consider public testimony, and
WHEREAS, responses to oral testimony, written comments, e-mail messages, and phone
messages were responded to in Chapter 2, "Comments and Responses to Comments," in the
Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR), dated May 2005; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors duly considered the Final Environmental Report
On June 14, 2005; and
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
OF THE COUNTY OF BUTTE, AS FOLLOWS:
1. It is hereby certified that the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Skyway
Widening Project: (i) was prepared in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (14 California Code of
Regulations, Section 15000 et seq.); (ii) was presented to the Board of
Supervisors, as the decision making body for the Project, on June 14, 2005, which
has reviewed and considered the information contained therein; and (iii) reflects
the independent judgment of the County of Butte; and
2. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15132, the Final EIR for the Project is
comprised of the Draft EIR and appendices, the comments received on the Draft
EIR, the responses to Comments, the Errata, the Mitigation Monitoring Program,
References and Appendices; and
3. The Final EIR has identified all significant environmental effects of the Project
and there are no known potential environmental impacts not addressed in the
Final EIR; and
4. The Final EIR has described reasonable, potentially feasible alternatives to the
Project that could meet most of the basic objectives of the Project; and
5. No "significant new information" (as the term is defined pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines Section 15088.5) has been added to the EIR since publication of the
Draft EIR. No significant new information concerning the Project became known
through the public hearings held on the Project, or through the comments on the
Draft EIR and Responses to Comments; and
6. Each fact in support of the findings contained in Exhibit "A" attached hereto,
"Skyway Widening Project, Alternative A2/B2 with the Major Fix Design Option
Findings of Fact -Statement of Overriding Considerations," is based upon
substantial evidence in the record, including the Final EIR. Exhibit "A" attached
hereto was prepared in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Sections 155091 and
15093 and is hereby adopted and incorporated herein by this reference; and
7. Although the Final EIR identifies that there are significant and unavoidable
impacts on the environment, all significant effects which can feasibly be mitigated
or avoided have been mitigated or avoided by the incorporation of the project
design features, standard conditions and requirements, and by imposition of
mitigation measures on the approved project. All mitigation measures are
included in the table entitled "Mitigation Monitoring Program for Alternative
A2/B2", which was prepared in accordance with Public Resources Code, Section
21081.6, Subdivision (a)(1), CEQA Guidelines Section 15097 and is attached
hereto as Attachment "A" incorporated into Exhibit "A" to this resolution and
hereby adopted and incorporated herein by this reference. The "Mitigation
Monitoring Program" establishes a mechanism and procedures for implementing
and verifying the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and in Exhibit
"A" attached hereto. These measures shall be incorporated into the project prior
to, concurrent with, and after the project implementation, as required.
8. The unavoidable and potentially unavoidable significant impacts identified in
Exhibit "A" have been lessened in their severity by the application of standard
conditions, the inclusion of project design features, and the imposition of the
mitigation measures. In the Board's judgment, the unavoidable significant
impacts are outweighed by the technical (traffic operations and safety) and other
benefits of the Project, as set forth in the "Statement of Overriding
Considerations" included within Exhibit "A" hereto. The Board of Supervisors
adopts the recitation of overriding considerations that justify approval of the
Project notwithstanding certain unavoidable and potentially unavoidable
significant impacts that cannot feasibly be mitigated as set forth in the "Statement
of Overriding Considerations."; and
9. The Alternative A2/B2 with Major Fix Design Option is hereby approved as the
Proposed Project under CEQA, including the Findings of Fact, the Statement of
Overriding Considerations, and the Mitigation Monitoring Program. The Board
hereby instructs County staff to commence the process of obtaining the necessary
regulatory approvals, permits, and financial resources needed to purchase
property required for the Project and to construct the Project; and
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Butte, State of
California, this 14th day of ,Tune by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors CONNELLY, DOLAN, HOUX, JOSIASSEN, AND CHAIR JOSIASSEN
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
n
NOT VOTING: NONE ~ '~
~,.
KIM K. YAMAGUCHI, Chair
Board of Supervisors
ATTEST: Paul McIntosh, Chief Administrative
Officer and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
ClerklDeputy
Exhibit "A"
Skyway Widening Project, Alternative A2/B2
with the Major Fix Design Option
Findings of Fact
Statement of Overriding Considerations
Pursuant to Section 21081 of the Public Resources Code and
Sections 15091 and 15093 of the California Environmental Quality Act
Guidelines
Related Environmental Document:
Skyway Widening Project
Environmental Assessment/Draft Environmental Impact Report
SCH No. 2003062066
Prepared for:
Butte County Board of Supervisors
7 County Center Drive
Oroville, CA 95965
May 2005
Table of Contents
Page
Section 1 Introduction and Purpose ................................................................................ .............................1
Introduction ................................................................................................................................. .............................1
Project Location ........................................................................................................................... ............................. l
Project Objectives ........................................................................................................................ ............................. l
Project Background ..................................................................................................................... .............................Z
Project Description (Alternative A2/B2 with Major Fix Design Option) .................................... .............................3
Record of Proceedings ................................................................................................................. .............................5
Section 2 Findings on Significant Impacts of the Proposed Project
(Alternative A2B2 with Major Fix Design Option) ...................................... ...........................15
Findings Required under CEQA .................................................................................................. ...........................15
Legal Effects of Findings ............................................................................................................. ...........................17
Mitigation Monitoring Program .................................................................................................. ...........................17
Significant Effects and Mitigation Measures ............................................................................... ...........................17
Land Use, Planning. and Growth ................................................................................................. ...........................18
Community Impacts .................................................................................................................... ...........................~~
Relocation .................................................................................................................................... ........................... 26
Utilities/Emergency Services ....................................................................................................... ...........................27
Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities ...................................................... ...........................30
Visual/Aesthetics ......................................................................................................................... ........................... 33
Cultural Resources ....................................................................................................................... ...........................41
Hydrology, Water Quality, and Floodplains ................................................................................ ...........................43
Earth Resources and Hazardous Materials .................................................................................. ...........................49
Air Quality ................................................................................................................................... ...........................54
Noise ............................................................................................................................................ ........................... 59
Wildlife, Vegetation, Endangered Species, Wetlands, and Other Waters of the U.S .................. ...........................62
Section 3 Project Alternatives ......................................................................................... ...........................85
No-Project Alternative ................................................................................................................. ...........................86
Alternative A3B3: 45-Mile Per Hour Design Speed .................................................................. ...........................88
Section 4 Statement of Overriding Considerations ......................................................... ........................... 89
Attachment A Mitigation Monitoring Program
....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the May 2005
Skyway Widening Project, Alternative A2/82 i
Section 1 Introduction and Purpose
Introduction
The Butte County Department of Public Works is proposing to widen Skyway from two lanes to
four lanes from approximately 750 feet south of Pentz Road to approximately 750 feet north of
South Park Drive in Butte County. A revised environmental assessment/final environmental
impact report (EIR) (referred to as final joint document in this report) was prepared for this
project that addresses the potential environmental effects associated with this project. This report
presents findings that must be made by the Butte County Board of Supervisors, as the decision-
making body of the state lead agency, prior to approval of Alternative A2/B2 with the Major Fix
design option to comply with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) (Pub. Resource Code, Section 2100 et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code
Regs., tit. 14 § 15000 et seq.).
Project Location
The proposed project is located near the community of Magalia in northeastern Butte County
(County). Skyway is one of two principal arterial roadways that currently serve the Town of
Paradise (Town). Skyway begins near State Route (SR) 99 in the City of Chico and travels
northeasterly through Paradise to the Upper Ridge Communities of Magalia, Paradise Pines,
Nimshew, Coutolenc, De Sabla, Toadtown, Lovelock, Stirling City, and Inskip. The latitude of
Skyway is approximately N39°49' and the longitude is approximately W 121°35' (Township 23
North Range 3 East & Range 4 East M.D.B. & M).
Project Objectives
The project objectives include the following:
Increase Capacity on Skyway to Achieve Acceptable Level of Service: The LOS on
Skyway would be improved by widening the roadway from two 12-foot-wide lanes with 0- to
4-foot-wide shoulders to four 12-foot-wide lanes with 8-foot-wide shoulders. Improvements
at three primary intersections (Skyway/Pentz Road, Old SkywayiNew Skyway/Coutolenc
Road, and Skyway/Lakeridge Circle/South Park Drive) would include adding left- and right-
turn pockets.
Improve Emergency Access and Safety along Skyway: Widening Skyway from two lanes
to four lanes, providing 8-foot-wide shoulders, and improving three primary intersections
would improve emergency access and safety along the roadway. In a major seismic event,
settlement of Magalia Dam would likely require road closure until the roadway could be
reconstructed. Increasing the stability of the dam will minimize the amount of settlement in
the road during a seismic event, and keep the road serviceable for emergency access or
evacuations.
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the May 2005
Skyway Widening Project, Alternative A2/82 1
Section 1. Introduction and Purf
Project Background
"Skyway" refers to the original arterial street that passes through Paradise. In 1975, Skyway was
expanded from Coutolenc Road to South Park Drive, across Magalia Dam, to improve
circulation to the Upper Ridge. In 1983, a bypass route located on the former Stirling City
Railroad route east of Magalia, was constructed from Pentz Road to Coutolenc Road to improve
circulation and reduce traffic in the historic areas of Magalia. Prior to 1975, Skyway crossed
below the downstream face of the Magalia Dam and connected with Dogtown Road. This road
currently provides access to Paradise Irrigation District's (PID's) facilities located on the south
side of the existing road. Skyway currently crosses along the crest of the dam. The remainder of
the old road was covered with an outer shell placed on the downstream face of the dam for the
purposes of widening the width of the crest to accommodate the new road.
The segment of Skyway that crosses the dam is frequently congested during commute hours.
The current traffic flow on this section of Skyway is conservatively approaching a level of
service (LOS) E which is characterized as unstable Clow with frequent backups and delays during
peak times. Future traffic congestion during peak flows is estimated to reach a LOS F, which is
the most severe traffic condition rating and is characterized by reoccurring breakdowns in traffic
flow, extended delays at the intersections, and reductions in capacity extending a significant
distance upstream of the actual bottleneck.
The accident rate for this segment of Skyway currently exceeds the baseline rate calculated by
Caltrans for two-lane roadways of this type in Butte County. The accidents in turn create
lengthy backups and hinder the ability of public services to access the accident and clear the
vehicles. Improved access is becoming increasingly important as the Upper Ridge communities
grow and the number of cars, trucks, buses, and commercial vehicles increases.
Access by emergency vehicles in the event of a natural disaster is perhaps the most critical
reason for the proposed project. The narrow two-lane roadway across the dam creates a potential
bottleneck for evacuation during fire. The Upper Ridge communities are especially vulnerable to
wildfires because they are isolated on top of a relatively narrow wooded ridgeline. An
earthquake could also present problems for emergency access. This segment of Skyway crosses
Magalia Dam, an earthen dam that could subside during an earthquake resulting in partial or total
loss of the roadway.
In 1996, the Butte County Association of Governments (BCAG) commissioned the Skyway
Improvement Program Feasibility Study (Heritage Partners and Northstar Engineering 1996),
which provided evaluation of the alignment alternatives for Skyway and providing improved
access to the Upper Ridge. The feasibility study acknowledged the need to widen Skyway to four
lanes from South Park Drive into Paradise to provide additional capacity, and identified the
widening of Skyway as the only viable alternative. The findings were consistent with County's
General Plan and the Town's General Plan that both recognize the need to widen Skyway. The
recommended alternative in the BCAG study is to widen Skyway from Wagstaff Road to South
Park Drive along the existing alignment. In 1998, Butte County adopted the findings of the
feasibility study.
....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the May 2005
Skyway Widening Project, Alternative A2/82 2
Section 1. Introduction and Puri
The Skyway project is included in the Butte County Regional Transportation Plan, 2001-2025
(RTP) adopted in September 27, 2001, by BCAG (2001). The project is also included in
Amendment 1 of the BCAG 2000 Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP).
Project Description (Alternative A2/B2 with Major Fix Design Option)
Alternative AZ/B2 would widen the existing two-lane road to four 12-foot-wide lanes with 8-
foot-wide shoulders. The project limits would extend from approximately 750 feet south of Pentz
Road to approximately 750 feet north of South Park Drive. The four-lane section would be
constructed between the Pentz Road and South Park Drive intersections, with pavement width
reduction tapering back to the existing two-lane section over 750 feet beyond these intersections
to the project limits. In addition, three primary intersections, Skyway/Pentz Road, Old
Skyway/New Skyway/Coutolenc Road, and Skyway/South Park Drive/Lakeridge Circle, would
be improved. Alternative A2/B2 for widening Skyway would have a 35-mph design speed and
have approximately 8,070 linear feet of total wall length, including approximately 2,050 linear
feet of soldier pile-type retaining wall.
The project is described in two main segments: Segment A and Segment B. Segment A, the
southern segment, extends from Pentz Road to Coutolenc Road (New Skyway). Segment B, the
northern segment, extends from Coutolenc Road to South Park Drive (Skyway).
Segment A: Skyway from Pentz Road to Coutolenc Road
This segment runs along a very steep side of the Feather River Canyon, with cut slopes to the left
up to the community of Magalia and high fill slopes down towards the West Branch of the
Feather River. Engineered retaining walls would be used throughout this segment to obtain the
desired roadway width. The cut side would use soil nail walls and soldier pile/tieback walls with
timber lagging. These walls both use atop-down construction method that reduces excavation
impacts over those required for a concrete retaining wall. Soil nail walls will be utilized to a
maximum wall height of 14 feet; soldier pile walls will be used for walls over 14 feet in height.
A soldier pile/tieback wall is a retaining wall system consisting of steel piles and timber lagging
between the piles. Soil nail walls use a concrete or shotcrete (concrete mixture shot out of a hose
onto the surface) face. Both wall types use tension reinforcing rods drilled into the existing
retained slope for lateral wall strength. Concrete retaining walls would be used where
appropriate. The fill side would be retained with concrete retaining walls or with mechanically
stabilized earth retaining walls (a retaining system which uses a grid type reinforcement material
in layers to retain a fill slope at a steeper inclination). A system of drop inlets and pipe culverts
would be used for roadside drainage. Drainage would outlet to natural channels that drain to the
Feather River. Impacts from widening Skyway at the Memorial Trail would be minimal,
consisting only of repaving approximately 100 feet of the trail where it connects with Pentz
Road. Small retaining walls may be constructed south of the intersection with Pentz Road to
minimize right-of-way impacts.
....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the May 2005
Skyway Widening Project, Alternative A2/82 3
Section 1. Introduction and Pur,
Segment B: Skyway from Coutolenc Road to South Park Drive
Segment B improvements would include the following components:
• replacement of the spillway bridge,
• minor additional widening at the entrance to the intake tower to accommodate PID
maintenance access needs,
• reconstruction of the pedestrian access bridge to the intake tower to meet the new roadway
cross section, and
• alignment of the road, between the dam and South Park Drive, to approximate the existing
alignment, with cuts and fills to accommodate the widening and possible construction of a
short fill wall on the left (west) side, just north of the dam.
This segment includes the Magalia Dam crossing and the spillway bridge. Geotechnical
considerations and dam stability are the key issues with respect to widening Skyway across the
dam. In the mid-1990s, a seismic analysis of the dam determined that the upstream face of the
dam was vulnerable to damage during a seismic event. The temporary solution was to lower the
level of the Magalia Reservoir by 25 feet, significantly reducing the storage in the reservoir.
Past the dam, Segment B has several locations where walls may be necessary to avoid sliver fills
or substantial right-of-way impacts. Through this segment, larger cuts were designed instead of
walls because the right-of-way impacts are mostly in undeveloped areas.
Major Fix Design Option for Widening Skyway over Magalia Dam
The "Major Fix" design option for widening Skyway over Magalia Dam would likely provide
adequate stability for the upstream face of the dam during the Maximum Credible Earthquake
(MCE) for a reservoir pool at an elevation of up to 2,225.8 feet. The stability of the Major Fix
option would be confirmed with geotechnical exploration that would be completed during final
design of this option, if it is adopted.
Stability under the Major Fix would be achieved by excavating the material in the upstream
portion of the dam (the upstream shell) back to a 1.5:1 (horizontal to vertical) slope. The
excavated material would be dried out and used to construct a new upstream shell. Additional
select fill may need to be imported to provide a sufficient amount of shell material. The new
shell material would be compacted to an adequate density so that it would not be subject to
liquefaction; even if the existing upstream material that was left in place liquefied, the new
compacted shell material would have sufficient post-earthquake strength to stabilize the dam
embankment and mitigate against significant deformations. (Genterra Consultants 2002.) This
design option would have no effect on the flows in Little Butte Creek downstream of Magalia
Reservoir. The combination of normal leakage and releases from the reservoir are expected to be
maintained at the current minimum rate of 225 gallons per minute, as required by the California
Department of Fish and Game (DFG).
....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the May 2005
Skyway Widening Project, Alternative A2/82 4
Section 7. introduction and Purpose
.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Record of Proceedings
For the purposes of CEQA and these findings, the Record of Proceeding for the project consists
of the following documents, at a minimum. The custodian of the record of proceedings is the
Butte County Director of Public Works who is located at 7 County Center Drive, Oroville,
California:
Butte County Association of Governments. 2001. 2001 Butte County Regional Transportatiai
Plan, 2001-2025. Chico, CA.
Butte County Department of Development Services. 1984. Butte County General Plan
Circulation Element. Adopted 1984. Oroville, CA.
Butte County. 1977. Butte County Noise Elernent. Oroville, CA.
Butte County. 2000. Butte County General Plan Land Use Element. Adopted by the Butte
County Board of Supervisors in 1979 and revised in 2000. Oroville, CA.
Espana Geotechnical Consulting. 2003. Initial Site Assessment for Hazardous Materials Impact,
Skyway Widening Project: Pentz Road to South Park Drive, Butte County, California.
March. Prepared for Jones & Stokes, Sacramento, CA. Roseville, CA.
Fehr & Peers. 2002. Final Report Skyway Widening Project Traffic Study. August. Prepared
for Butte County, Oroville, CA. Roseville, CA.
Genterra Consultants. 2002. Preliminary Findings of Geotechnical Review, Widening of Skyway
Road over Magalia Dam, Skyway Road Widening Project. September. Prepared for
Quincy Engineers, Sacramento, CA. Sacramento, CA.
Heritage Partners and Northstar Engineering. 1996. Skyway Improvement Program Feasibility
Study, Paradise, California. July. Prepared for Butte County Association of
Governments, Oroville, CA. Chico, CA.
Jones & Stokes. 2004a. Final Air Quality Resources Technical Report for the Skyway Widening
Project. April. (J&S 01-273.). Prepared for Quincy Engineering, Inc., Sacramento, CA;
Butte County, Oroville, CA; and California Department of Transportation, Marysville,
CA. Sacramento, CA.
Jones & Stokes. 2004b. Final Community Impact Assessment and Relocation Impact Statement
for the Skyway Widening Project. April. (J&S 01-273.) Prepared for Quincy
Engineering, Inc., Sacramento, CA; Butte County, Oroville, CA; and California
Department of Transportation, Marysville, CA. Sacramento, CA.
Jones & Stokes. 2004c. Final Earth Resources Technical Report for the Skyway Widening
Project. April. (J&S O1-273.). Prepared for Quincy Engineering, Inc., Sacramento, CA;
Butte County, Oroville, CA; and California Department of Transportation, Marysville,
CA. Sacramento, CA.
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the May 2005
Skyway Widening Project, Alternative A2162 5
Section 1. Introduction and Puri. ,
..............................................................................................................................................................................
Jones & Stokes. 2004d. Final Hydrology and Water Quality Technical Report for the Skyway
Widening Project. April. (J&S 01-273. Prepared for Quincy Engineering, Inc.,
Sacramento, CA; Butte County, Oroville, CA; and California Department of
Transportation, Marysville, CA. Sacramento, CA.
Jones & Stokes. 2004e. Final Natural Environment Studv for the Skyway Widening Project.
April. (J&S 01-273.) Prepared for Quincy Engineering, Inc., Sacramento, CA; Butte
County, Oroville, CA; and California Department of Transportation, Marysville, CA.
Sacramento, CA.
Jones & Stokes. 2004f. Final Noise Study Tecluzical Report for the Skyway Widening Project.
April (J&S 01-273.) Prepared for Quincy Engineering, Inc., Sacramento, CA; Butte
County, Oroville, CA; and California Department of Transportation, Marysville, CA.
Sacramento, CA.
Jones & Stokes. 2004g. Final Visual Resources Technical Report for the Skyway Widerti~ig
Project. April (J&S 01-273.) Prepared for Quincy Engineering, Inc., Sacramento, CA;
Butte County, Oroville, CA; and California Department of Transportation, Marysville,
CA. Sacramento, CA.
Jones & Stokes. 2003h. Historic Property Survey Report for the Skyway Widening Project.
July. Prepared for Quincy Engineering, Sacramento, CA. Sacramento, CA.
Jones & Stokes. 20031. Results of a Site Assessment for California Red-Legged Frog at the
Skyway Road Widening Project Site, Butte County. May. Prepared for Quincy
Engineering, Sacramento, CA. Sacramento, CA.
Merrill & Befu Associates. 2003. Plantings and wall aesthetics. March 20, 2003.
Paradise Irrigation District. 2001. Urba~i Water Managernerat Pla~i 2000, adopted January 10,
2001. Revised August 20, 2001. Paradise, CA.
Parikh Consultants, Inc. 2003. Preliminary Geotechnical Report -Skyway Widening Betweefz
Pentz Road and South Park Drive. Butte County, California. May. Prepared for Quincy
Engineering, Inc., Sacramento, CA. Milpitas, CA.
Quincy Engineering. 2002. Draft Utility Relocation Report. Sacramento, CA.
Quincy Engineering. 2003a. Project Report Skyway Widening 750 feet South of Pentz Road to
750 feet Nortla of South Park Drive. September. Prepared for Butte County Department
of Public Works, Oroville, CA. Sacramento, CA.
Quincy Engineering. 2003b. Preliminary Stormwater Drainage Report. April. Prepared for
Butte County Department of Public Works, Oroville, CA. Sacramento, CA.
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the May 2005
Skyway Widening Project, A/ternafive A2/82 6
Section i, introduction and Pur
Quincy Engineering. 2003c. Final Rig{it of Way Analysis Skyway Widening Project, March 26,
2003. Prepared for the Butte County Department of Public Works, Oroville, CA.
Sacramento, CA.
The Notice of Preparation and all other public notices issued by the County in conjunction with
the project
All comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the 45-day public
comment period on the draft joint document
All comments and correspondence submitted to the County with respect to the project, in
addition to timely comments on the draft joint document
The mitigation monitoring and reporting program for the project
All findings and resolutions adopted by the County decision-makers in connection with the
project, and all documents cited or referenced to therein
All reports, studies, memoranda, maps, staff reports, or other planning documents related to the
p-•oject prepared by the County, consultants to the County, or responsible or trustee agencies with
respect to the County's compliance with the requirements of CEQA and with respect to the
County's actions on the Project
All documents submitted to the County by other public agencies or members of the public in
connection with the project, up through the close of the public hearing by the Board of
Supervisors on December 14, 2004.
Any minutes and/or- verbatim transcripts of all information sessions, public meetings, and public
hearings held by the County in connection with the project
Any documentary or other evidence submitted to the County at such information sessions, public
meetings and public hearings
Depending on the nature of the issues raised in any litigation challenging the proposed project,
the formal Record of Proceedings may also include, at the County's discretion, any of all of the
documents set forth below. Based on the nature of the issues raised in litigation, and the costs
involved in copying some or all of the following materials, the County will determine whether
all, or only some, of the documents will actually be integrated into the full Record as submitted
to a reviewing Court:
Adams, F. 1929. Reports of the Division of Engineering and Irrigation, Bulletin No. 21
Irrigation Districts in California. California State Printing Office, Sacramento.
Best, C., J. T. Howell, W. & I. Knight, and M. Wells. 1996. A flora of So~iorrza County.
Sacramento, CA: California Native Plant Society.
....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the May 2005
Skyway Widening Project, Alternative A2/82 7
Section 1. Introduction and Purl
Bildstein, K. L., and K. Meyer. 2000. Sharp-shinned hawk (Accipiter striates). In The Birds of
North America, No. 482 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds of North America, Inc.,
Philadelphia, PA.
Butte County Association of Governments. 2002. Popelation projections by jurisdiction 2000-
2025. Chico, CA.
Butte County. 2002. Butte County 2002/03 final budget. Oroville, CA.
Butte County. 2003. Department of Public Works -County of Butte: Stormwater. Last posted
or revised: 2003. Available:
<http://www.buttecounty.net/publicworks/stormwater.html>. Accessed: February _5,
2003.
CalFlora: Information on California plants for education, research and conservation. [web
application]. 2000. Berkeley, California: The CalFlora Database [a non-profit
organization]. Available: http://www.calflora.or~/.
California Department of Food and Agriculture. 2001. Encyclopedia: notes on identification,
biology, and management of plants defined as noxious weeds by California law [web
application]. Available: http://~i.cdfa.ca.~ov/weedinfo/Index.html.
California Department of Health Office of Noise Control. 1977. Model Community Noise
Control Ordinance. Berkeley, CA.
California Department of Transportation. 1997. Commenity impact assessment. (Caltrans
Environmental Handbook Volume 4.) Sacramento, CA.
California Department of Transportation. 1998x. Traffic noise aaaalysis protocol for new
highway constructioaa mad higlawcry reconstruction projects. Environmental Program:
Noise, Air Quality, and Hazardous Waste Management Office. Sacramento, CA.
California Department of Transportation. 1998b. Technical noise supplement. Environmental
Program: Noise, Air Quality, and Hazardous Waste Management Office. Sacramento,
CA.
California Department of Transportation. 2001 a. I-80 Davis opera-graded asphalt concrete
pavement noise study. Sacramento, CA.
California Department of Transportation. 2003x. Additional calibration of traffic noise
prediction models (TAN-03-1 ). Sacramento, CA.
California Department of Transportation. 2001b. Statewide Storanwater Management Plan.
Sacramento, CA.
California Department of Transportation. 2002x. Statewide Storm Water Management Plan.
CTSW-RT-02-008. Apri12002. Sacramento, CA.
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the May 2005
Skyway Widening Project, Alternative A2/82 8
Section 1. Introduction and Puri
....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
California Department of Transportation. 2002b. Storm Water Quality Handbooks: Project
Planning and Design Guide. Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and
Water Pollution Control Program (WPCP) Preparation Guide. Construction Site Best
Management Practices (BMPs) Guide. September 2002. Sacramento, CA.
California Department of Transportation. 2002c. Storm Water Quality Practice Guidelines.
CTSW-RT-02-009. April 2002. Sacramento, CA.
California Department of Transportation. 2002d. ?001-2002 Anftual Data Summary Report.
Storm Water Monitoring and Data Management. CTSW-RT-02-048. August 2002.
Sacramento, CA.
California Department of Transportation. 2003b. Preliminary Report of Discharge
Characterization Studies. CTSW-RT-03-023. March 2003. Sacramento, CA.
California Division of Mines and Geology. 1997. Guidelines for evaluating and mitigating
seismic hazards in California. California Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 117. Sacramento, CA.
California Employment Development Department. 2002a. Labor force duta for subcounty
areas, 2001 benchmark. Available:
http://www.calmis.~ov/FILE/LFHIST/OIAASUB.TXT. Accessed: August 21, 2002.
California Employment Development Department. 2002b. hidustry employment & labor force -
annual average, Btitte County, March 2001 benchmark. Available:
http://www.calmis.cahwnet.gov/file/indhist/bettehaw.xls. Accessed: August 21, 2002.
California Employment Development Department. 2002c. Major employers in Butte Count}.
Available: http://www.calmis.cahwnet.gov/file/MajorER/butteER.htm. Accessed:
August 21, 2002.
California Exotic Plant Pest Council (CalEPPC). 1999. Exotic pest plants of greatest ecological
conceni in California. October, 1999. Berkeley, CA. Available:
httpa/ar,rou~s.ucanr.ore/ceppc/Pest Plant_List/.
California Native Plant Society. 2001. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of Califoniia
(sixth edition). Rare Plant Scientific Advisory Committee, David P. Tibor, Convening
Editor. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA.
California Natural Diversity Database. 1999. List of California terrestrial natural communities
recognized by the Natural Diversity Data Base. January, 1999. Natural Heritage
Division, Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA.
California Natural Diversity Database. 2002. Records search of the Paradise East, Paradise West,
Cohasset, Stirling City, Kimshew Point, Pulga, Berry Creek, Cherokee, and Hamlin
Canyon 7.5-minute quadrangles. California Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento,
CA.
....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the May 2005
Skyway Widening Project, Alternative A2/B2 9
Section 1. Introduction and Pure. _.;
.............................................................................................................................................................................................
California State Office of Historic Preservation. 1996. California Historical Landmarks.
California Department of Parks and Recreation. Sacramento.
California State University, Chico. 2002. Biological Sciences Herbarium (CHSC), specimen
database. [web application]. Chico, CA. Available
http://www.csuchico.edu/biol/Herb/database.html.
Cicero, C. 2000. Oak titmouse (Baeolophus inornattis) and Juniper titmouse (Baeolophass
ridgwayi). In The Birds of North America, No. 485 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The
Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA.
City of Chico and Federal Aviation Administration. 2002. Chico Municipal Airport Master
Plan eftvironr~~ierttal assessment/draft envirottme~ttal impact report. May. (01-556)
Chico, CA.
Clark, W. B. 1970. Gold Districts in California. California Division of Mines and Geology,
Bulletin 193. Sacramento, CA.
Coy, O. C. 1923. California County Boundaries. California Historical Survey Commission.
Berkeley.
Denison, S. S., and D. W. McNeal. 1989. Are-evalatation of the Allium sanbornii (Alliaceae)
complex. Madrono 36(2): 122-130.
Detling, L. E. 1936. The genus Dentaria in the Pacific States. American Journal of Botany 23:
570-576.
Federal Highway Administration. 1983. Visacal impact assessment for highway projects.
(Contract DOT-FH-11-9694). Washington, DC.
Federal Highway Administration. 1995. Highway traffic noise analysis and abaterrter~it policy
and guidance. Washington D. C.
Federal Transit Administration. 1995. Transit noise and vibration impact assessment. (DOT-T-
95-16.) Office of Planning. Washington, DC. Prepared by Harris Miller Miller &
Hanson, Inc., Burlington, MA.
Garrett, K., and J. Dunn. 1981. Birds of southern California: status and distribution. Los
Angeles Audubon Society. Los Angeles, CA.
Gudde, E. G. 1969. California Place Names: The Origin and Etymology of Current
Geographical Names. University of California Press, Berkeley, California.
Gudde, E. G. 1975. California Gold Camps. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the May 2005
Skyway Widening Project, Alternative A2/82 j0
Section 1. Introduction and Purt
..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Hart, E.W. and W.A. Bryant. 1997. Fault-Rupture Hazard Zo~ies in California: Alquist-Priolo
Earth~fuake Fault Zoning Act with index to Earthquake Fault Zone Maps. Special
Publication 42. California Division of Mines and Geology. Sacramento, CA.
Hoover, R.M., R.H. Keith. 1996. Noise control for buildings, rlianufacturi~zg plants, eyuiprnefit
and products. Hoover & Keith, Inc. Houston, TX.
International Conference of Building Officials. 1995. Uniforna Building Code. Whittier, CA.
Jennings, C.W. 1994. Fault activity map of California and adjacent areas. California Geologic
Data Map Series. California Division of Mines and Geology. Sacramento, CA.
Jennings, M. R., and M. P. Hayes. 1994. Afnphibian and Reptile Species of Special Concern in
Californiu. Final report. California Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries
Division. Rancho Cordova, CA.
Jennings, M. R., M. P. Hayes, and D.C. Holland. 1992. A petition to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service to place the California red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii) and the western
pond turtle (Clemmys nurrmorata) on the list of endangered and threatened wildlife and
plants.
Kruckeberg, A. R. 1984. California serpenti~~es: flora, vegetation, geology, soils, and
nzaftageme~at probleiras. Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London: University of California
Press.
Mansfield, G. 1918. History of Butte County. Historic Record Company. Los Angeles,
California.
Mayer, K. E., and W. F. Laudenslayer, Jr. 1988. A guide to wildlife habitats of California.
October. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. Sacramento, CA.
McGie, J. F. 1982. History of Butte County. Butte County Board of Education. Oroville,
California.
Miles, S. R., and C. B. Goudey. 1997. Ecological subregions of California: section and
subsection descriptions. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region Publication RS-
EM-TP-005. San Francisco, CA.
Moyle, P. B. 2002. htland fisl2es of'California. 2"~ edition. Davis, CA: University of California
Press.
Moyle, P. B., R. M. Yoshiyama, J. E. Williams, and E. D. Wikramanayoke. 1995. Fish species
of special concersa of Caltfornia. California Department of Fish and Game. Rancho
Cordova, CA.
Mualchin, L. 1996. California Seismic Hazard -Revision 1. California Department of
Transportation. Sacramento, CA.
....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the May 2005
Skyway Widening Project, Alternative A2/B2 11
Section 1. Introduction and Puri
National Park Service. 1988. National Register Bulletin 1.5, "Guidelines for Applying the
National Register Criteria for Evaluation."
Oswald, V. H. 1994. Mmaual of the vascular plants of Butte County, Califonii~a. Sacramento,
CA: California Native Plant Society.
Palmer, R. S. (Ed.). 1988. Handboolt of Nortlr American birds. Volume 4. Yale University
Press, New Haven, CT.
Paradise Irrigation District. 2003. Paradise Irrigation District ?001 Water Quality Report.
URL:/jwww.paradiseirri~ation.com/quality/currentccr.htm.
Paradise Post. 2003. Classifieds listif2gs, Ma_y 31, ?003: houses for rent. Available:
www.Qaradisepost.com. Accessed: June 2, 2003.
Peterson, M. D., W.A. Bryant, C. H. Cramer, T. Cao, and M. Reichle. 1996. Probabilistic
seismic hazard assessment for the state of California. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File
Report 96-706. Washington, DC.
Phillips, E., and J. H. Miller. 1915. Sacramento Valley and Foothill Counties of California: an
illustrated description of all the counties embraced in this richly productive geographical
subdivision of the Golden State. Published under the direction of Sacramento Valley
Exposition Commission.
Preston, R. E. 1985. Cruciferae of Butte County, California. Studies from the Herbarium,
California State University, Chico 2: 1-46.
Quad Consultants. 1992. Town of Paradise 1994 General Plmz. Volume 11. Environmental
haipact Report. SCH No. 91043055. May. Prepared for the Town of Paradise
Community Development Department. Paradise, CA. Sacramento, CA.
Realtor.com. 2003. Database of homes for sale in the 95969 zip code area. Available:
http://www.realtor.com. Accessed: June 2, 2003.
Robertson. 1998. Encyclopedia of Western Railroad History, Volume IV: California. Caxton
Publishing, Caldwell, Indiana.
Sadigh, K, C. Y. Chang, J. A. Egan, F. Makdisi, and R. R. Youngs. 1997. Attenuation
relationship for shallow crustal earthquakes based on California strong motion data. In:
Seismological Research Letters, Volume 58, Nol, pp 180-189, January/February 1997.
Saucedo, G.J. 1992. Map showing recency of faulting, Chico quadrangle, California, 1:250,000.
Sacramento, CA.
Schlising, R. A. 1984. Magalia in Butte County. Fremontia 11(5): 25-26.
....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the May 2005
Skyway Widening Project, Alternative A2/B2 12
Section 1. Introduction and Purp
Smardon, R. C., J. F. Palmer, and J. P. Felleman. 1986. Foundatious,forvisaal project analysis.
John Wiley & Sons, Inc. New York, NY.
Smith, G. L., and C. R. Wheeler. 1992. A flora of the vascular plants of Mendocino County,
California. San Francisco, CA: The University of San Francisco.
Stebbins, R. C. 1985. A Field Guide to Western Reptiles urtd Amphibiafts. Houghton Mifflin
Company. Boston, MA.
Town of Paradise. 1998. Chapter 8.12. Felling, removal, destruction, damaging and
replacement of trees. Tow~t of Paradise Tree Presen~ation Ordinance. Paradise, CA.
Town of Paradise Community Development Department and Quad Consultants. 1998. Town of
Paradise 199 general plan: i~olume III ettvironmental setting document, as amended
through September, 1998. Adopted by the Paradise Town Council in 1994. Paradise,
CA.
Town of Paradise Community Development Department and Quad Consultants. 2001. Towiz of~
Paradise 1994 general plmz: volume I policy docrsmettt, as amended through December,
2001. Adopted by the Paradise Town Council in 1994. Paradise, CA.
Town of Paradise Community Development Department and Quad Consultants. 2002. Town of
Paradise an~auul budget 2002-03. Paradise, CA.
Transportation Research Board. 2000. Highway Cupacit_y Manual. Washington D.C.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2002. 2000 U.S. Census data for Butte County, Paradise, and Magalia
Census Desiglaated Place: Table DP-1, profile of general demographic characteristics;
DP-3, profile of selected economic characteristics; and DP-4, prof le of selected housing
characteristics. Washington, DC.
U.S. Forest Service. 1974. National forest landscape management Volume 2. Chapter 1: the
visual rumtagement system (Agriculture Handbook Number 462). Washington, DC.
U.S. Soil Conservation Service. 1978. Procedure to establish priorities in landscape
architecture (Technical Release No. 65). Washington, DC.
Varnes, D.J., 1978. Slope movement types and processes. In: Schuster, R.L. and Krizek, R.J.
(eds.), Landslides Analysis and Control. Transportation Research Board, National
Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC, pp. 20-47.
Vogl, R. J., W. P. Armstrong, K. L. White, and K. L. Cole. 1988. The closed-cone pines and
cypress. Pages 295-358 in M. G. Barbour and J. Majopr (eds.), Terrestrial vegetation of
California. Sacramento, CA: California Native Plant Society.
Wagner, D.L. and G.J. Saucedo. 1992. Geologic map of the Chico quadrangle. California
Division of Mines and Geology. Sacramento, CA.
.......... ...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the May 2005
Skyway Widening Project, Alternative A2/B2 13
Section 1. Introduction and Puri.
........................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Waters, T.F. 199. Sediment in streams -sources, biological effects and control. American
Fisheries Society Monograph 7. Bethesda, MD. 251 pp.
Wells and Chambers. 1973. History of Butte County, 1882, Reproduction. Howell-North
Books, Berkeley, CA.
Zeiner, D. C., F. Laudenslayer, K. E. Mayer, and M. White. 1990a. California wildlife; volume
11: birds. California Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento, CA.
Zeiner, D. C., F. Laudenslayer, K. E. Mayer, and M. White. 1990b. California wildlife; volume
IIL• ~~iu~2imals. California Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento, CA.
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the May 2005
Skyway Widening Project, Alternative A2/82 14
Section 2 Findings on Significant Impacts of
the Proposed Project (Alternative
A2/B2 with the Major Fix Design
Option)
Findings Required under CEQA
Public Resources Code section 21002 provides that "public agencies should not approve projects
as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which
would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects[.]" The same
statute states that the procedures required by CEQA "are intended to assist public agencies in
systematically identifying both the significant effects of proposed projects and the feasible
alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen such
significant effects." Section 21002 goes on to state that "in the event [that] specific economic,
social, or other conditions make infeasible such project alternatives or such mitigation measures,
individual projects may be approved in spite of one or more significant effects."
The mandate and principles announced in Public Resources Code section 21002 are
implemented, in part, through the requirement that agencies must adopt findings before
approving projects for which EIRs are required. (See Pub. Resources Code, § 21081, subd. (a);
CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subd. (a).) For each significant environmental effect identified in an
EIR for a proposed project, the approving agency must issue a written finding reaching one or
more of three permissible conclusions. The first such finding is that "[c]hanges or alterations
have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the
significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR." (CEQA Guidelines, § 15091,
subd. (a)(1).) The second permissible finding is that "[such changes or alterations are within the
responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and to the agency making the finding.
Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such
other agency." (CEQA Guidelines, 15091, subd.(a)(2).) The third potential conclusion is that
"[s]pecific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of
employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or
project alternatives identified in the final EIR." (CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subd. (a)(3).)
Public Resources Code section 21061.1 defines "feasible" to mean" capable of being
accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account
economic, environmental, social and technological factors." CEQA Guidelines section 15364
adds another factor: "legal" considerations. (See also Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of
Supervisors ("Goleta 11") (I 990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 565 [276 Cal. Rptr. 410].)
The concept of "feasibility" also encompasses the question of whether a particular alternative or
mitigation measure promotes the underlying goals and objectives of a project. City of Del Mar v.
City of San Diego (1982) 133 Ca1.App.3d 410, 417 [183 Ca1.Rptr. 898].) "'[F]easibility under
CEQA encompasses 'desirability' to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable
....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the May 2005
Skyway Widening Project, Aiternative A2/B2 15
Section 2. Findings on Si~nifica ipacts of the Proposed Projecf
balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, and technological factors." (Ibid.;_see
also Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (I 993) 23 Cal.App.4th 704, 715 (29
Ca1.Rptr.2d 182].)
The CEQA Guidelines do not define the difference between "avoiding" a significant
environmental effect and merely "substantially lessening" such an effect. The County must
therefore glean the meaning of these terms from the other contexts in which the terms are used.
Public Resources Code section 21081, on which CEQA Guidelines section 15091 is based, uses
the term "mitigate" rather than "substantially lessen." The CEQA Guidelines therefore equate
"mitigating" with "substantially lessening." Such an understanding of the statutory term is
consistent with the policies underlying CEQA, which include the policy that "public agencies
should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation
measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of
such projects." (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002.)
For purposes of these findings, the term "avoid" refers to the effectiveness of one or more
mitigation measures to reduce an otherwise significant effect to a less than significant level. In
contrast, the term "substantially lessen" refers to the effectiveness of such measure or measures
to substantially reduce the severity of a significant effect, but not to reduce that effect to a less
than significant level. These interpretations appear to be mandated by the holding in Laurel Hills
Homeowners Association v. City Council (1978) 83 Ca1.App.3d 515, 519-527 [147 Ca1.Rptr.
842], in which the Court of Appeal held that an agency had satisfied its obligation to
substantially lessen or avoid significant effects by adopting numerous mitigation measures, not
all of which rendered the significant impacts in question (e.g., the "regional traffic problem")
less than significant.
CEQA Guidelines section 15091 requires only that approving agencies specify that a particular
significant effect is "avoid[ed] or substantially lessened]," these findings, for purposes of clarity,
in each case will specify whether the effect in question has been avoided (i.e. reduced to a less
than significant level), or has simply been substantially lessened but remains significant.
Moreover, although section 15091, read literally, does not require findings to address
environmental effects that an EIR identifies as merely "potentially significant," these findings
will nevertheless fully account for all such effects identified in the Final EIR.
In short, CEQA requires that the lead agency adopt mitigation measures or alternatives, where
feasible, to substantially lessen or avoid significant environmental impacts that would otherwise
occur. Project modification or alternatives are not required, however, where such changes are
infeasible or where the responsibility for modifying the project lies with some other agency.
(CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subd. (a), (b).)
With respect to a project for which significant impacts are not avoided or substantially lessened
either through the adoption of feasible mitigation measures or a feasible environmentally
superior alternative, a public agency, after adopting proper findings, may nevertheless approve
the project if the agency first adopts a statement of overriding considerations setting forth the
specific reasons why the agency found that the project's "benefits" rendered "acceptable" its
"unavoidable adverse environmental effects." (CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15093, 15043, subd. (b);
....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the May 2005
Skyway Widening Project, Alternative A2/B2 16
Section 2 Findings on Si~nifica .pacts of the Proposed Project
see also Pub. Resources Code, § 21081, subd. (b).) The California Supreme Court has stated that,
"[t]he wisdom of approving .., any development project, a delicate task which requires a
balancing of interests, is necessarily left to the sound discretion of the local officials and their
constituents who are responsible for such decisions. The law as we interpret and apply it simply
requires that those decisions be informed, and therefore balanced." (Goleta il, 52 Ca1.3d at p.
576.1
Legal Effects of Findings
To the extent that these findings conclude that various proposed mitigation measures outlined in
the final joint document are feasible and have not been modified, superseded, or withdrawn, the
County hereby binds itself to implement these measures. These findings, in other words, are not
merely informational, but rather constitute a binding set of obligations that will come into effect
when County decision-makers formally approve the project.
The full text of the mitigation measures are contained below and will be effectuated through the
process of constructing and implementing the project
Mitigation Monitoring Program
A Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) has been prepared for Alternative A2/B2 with the
Major Fix design option (see Attachment A) and has been adopted concurrently with these
Findings. (See Pub. Resources Code, § 21081.6, subd. (a)(1).) The County will use the MMP to
track compliance with project mitigation measures. The MMP will remain available for public
review during the compliance period.
Significant Effects and Mitigation Measures
The final joint document identified a number of significant environmental effects (or "impacts")
that the proposed project (Alternative A2/B2 with the Major Fix design option} will cause. Some
of these significant effects can be fully avoided through the adoption of feasible mitigation
measures. Others can be substantially lessened, but not avoided, by feasible mitigation
measures, and thus will remain significant. In the Board's judgment, however, the negative
consequences of all of these significant unavoidable impacts are outweighed by overriding
considerations set forth in Section 4 of this report. This section presents in greater detail the
Board's findings with respect to the environmental effects of the project. For the sake of full
disclosure, this section will also identify those impacts that, even in the absence of mitigation,
will be less than significant.
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the May 2005
Skyway Widening Project, Alternative A2/B2 17
Section 2. Findings on Si~nificG pacts of the Proposed Project
Land Use, Planning, and Growth
Thresholds of Significance
Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines provides guidance for the evaluation of project land
use impacts. Based on these guidelines, the project is considered to have a significant impact if
it would:
induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (such as by proposing new
homes and businesses) or indirectly (such as through extension of roads or other
infrastructure); or
conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction
over the project (including, but not limited to, the general plan, specific plan, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.
(draft joint document, page 5.1-1)
Impact LU1: Construction-Related Impacts
Finding
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project that
avoid the potentially significant environmental effect identified in the final joint document.
Explanation
Project construction would result in temporary land use impacts. The impacts would potentially
include the presence of construction activities and equipment visible from the neighborhoods
adjacent to the project area, temporary air quality impacts (such as diesel fumes and dust), and
noise from heavy equipment operations during construction of the project could also temporarily
disrupt traffic circulation patterns on Skyway and at its intersections with Pentz Road, Coutolenc
Road, and South Park Drive. Temporary effects could also include increased congestion on
Skyway and on roads intersecting with Skyway during construction, and disrupted access to
businesses along Skyway immediately south of Pentz Road and near the intersection of Skyway
and Lakeridge Circle. Access could also be disrupted to homes on Skyway immediately south of
Pentz Road and immediately north of South Park Drive. This impact is considered significant.
(draft joint document, page 5.1-1)
Mitigation Measures
The draft joint document identifies the following mitigation measure to reduce this impact to a
less-than-significant level: (draft joint document, pages 5.1-1 and 5.1-2)
• LUla: Implement a traffic management plan. The County will implement a traffic
management plan (TMP) that will identify the locations of temporary detours and signage to
facilitate local traffic patterns and through-traffic requirements. The TMP will specify time
frames for roadway and lane closures. Few opportunities exist to use existing roads as
detours so that Skyway can be closed to public traffic during construction. Old Skyway may
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the May 2005
Skyway Widening Project, Alternative A2/B2 18
Section 2. Findings on Si9nifica ipacts of the Proposed Project
be used to bypass construction between Pentz Road and Coutolenc Road, but this would be
on a limited basis (closures would be on the order of hours, not days). Skyway north of
Coutolenc Road would remain open during construction. One-lane traffic control for both
directions would be used during construction operations. Caltrans Standard Plans would be
used by Butte County for traffic-control lane closures. During construction of some walls
and across Magalia Dam, it may be necessary to use one lane for both directions overnight;
this could be facilitated by use of a portable traffic signal Throughout construction,
emergency vehicle access would be maintained for public safety. Replacement of the
existing bridge across the Magalia Dam spillway bridge would be staged to keep the bridge
open throughout construction. Butte County will notify affected businesses and residences at
least 1 week in advance of any lane or roadway closures or impacts related to access.
Personnel of emergency response services such as fire and police protection will also be
notified 1-2 weeks in advance of any lane or roadway closures so that alternative routes
could be taken.
Significance after Mitigation
Less than significant (draft joint document, page 5.1-1)
Impact LU2: Partial Permanent Acquisitions of 48 Parcels
Finding
Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less than significant (Pub.
Resources Code, 21002; CEQA Guidelines, ~ 15091).
Explanation
Under Alternative A2B2, partial acquisitions would be required from 50 properties, including 22
residential parcels, five commercial parcels, 19 with no developed uses (including Memorial
Trail bike path, national forest land, Magalia Dam, and a parking lot), one mobile home, two
with home development approvals pending, and one church. Most of these acquisitions would
consist of sliver or corner takes from parcels adjacent to the existing Skyway right-of-way and
would not result in substantial effects on existing land uses, but several of the acquisitions would
displace uses within the existing or proposed new right-of-way and would reduce existing
structural setbacks from the Skyway. Fencing and landscaping impacts would also occur on
several parcels, and one parcel could lose up to six parking spaces as a result of right-of-way
acquisition along the front of the property. The size of the acquisitions for affected parcels would
range from 2 square feet to 122,803 square feet.
The proposed project includes the following design features that reduce these impacts and
replace affected features:
• Implement administrative actions needed to provide variances to setback requirements for all
properties that would be in noncompliance with Town and County minimum setback
requirements as a result of Skyway widening and intersection improvements.
• For APN 066-440-020, a 6-foot high wall could be constructed to avoid property
acquisition and the need for a setback exception.
....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations far the May 2005
Skyway Widening Project, Alternative A2/B2 ~9
Section 2. Findings on Si~nifica ipacts of the Proposed Project
.................... .... .
For APN 066-460-019, a 4- to 5-foot wall could be constructed to minimize, but not
eliminate the right-of-way acquisition. An exception to the setback would still be
required even with a wall.
• Reconstruct driveways, as needed, and replace fencing, landscaping, and signage displaced
and disturbed by project construction activities.
Move the mobile home and septic system on APN 066-080-044 to an alternative location on
the parcel; alternatively, construct a 5 to 7-foot-high fill wall to minimize right-of-way
acquisition from this parcel, which may avoid the need to relocate the mobile home and
septic system.
This impact is considered to be less than significant since affected land use features would be
replaced.
(draft joint document and final joint document errata, pages 5.1-2 through 5.1-4)
Mitigation
No mitigation is proposed. (draft joint document, page 5.1-4)
Significance
Less than significant. (draft joint document, page 5.1-4)
Impact LU3: Full Permanent Acquisitions of Two Parcels
Finding
Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less than significant (Pub.
Resources Code, 21002; CEQA Guidelines, § 15091).
Explanation
The right-of-way proposed for Skyway widening would result in the full acquisition of two
parcels, including APN 066-460-003 that is occupied with asingle-family home and APN 066-
460-022, an undeveloped parcel. This impact is considered to be less than significant since
substantial numbers of existing housing would not be affected. The County would compensate
displaced land uses in Conformance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property
Acquisition Policies Act. (draft joint document and final joint document errata, page 5.1-6)
Mitigation
No mitigation is proposed. (draft joint document, page 5.1-6)
Significance
Less than significant. (draft joint document, page 5.1-6)
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the May 2005
Skyway Widening Project, Alternative A2/82 20
Section 2. Findin son Si nifica ipacts of the Proposed Project
....................................:~ ..............9.............. ..................................................... .....................................................................
Impact LU4: Consistent with Local and Regional Plans and Policies
Finding
Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less than significant (Pub.
Resources Code, 21002; CEQA Guidelines, § 15091).
Explanation
The proposed project is consistent with the policies contained in the Town of Paradise General
Plan, the Butte County General Plan, and the Butte County Association of Governments
Regional Transportation Plan. Therefore, the impact is less than significant. (draft joint
document, pages 5.1-12 through 5.1-15)
Mitigation
No mitigation is proposed. (draft joint document, page 5.1-15)
Significance
Less than significant. (draft joint document, page 5.1-15)
Cumulative Land Use, Planning, and Growth Impacts
Finding
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project that
avoid the project's cumulatively considerable contribution to significant land use impacts.
Explanation
The Town of Paradise General Plan describes future planned development within the plan's
sphere of influence. Implementation of the plan would result in the conversion of open space to
urban and suburban uses such as residential and commercial development and new or wider
roadway corridors. In addition to land use conversion, implementation of the General Plan could
result in the acquisition of land from developed parcels. There could also be temporary impacts
on existing land uses during construction activities that generate noise and dust and cause
temporary property access limitations. The proposed project would be one of many development
projects planned to fulfill the goals of the General Plan and contribute to a cumulatively
considerable land use impact. (draft joint document, page 4-3)
Mitigation
The draft joint document identifies the following mitigation measure to reduce the project's
contribution to less than cumulatively considerable: (draft joint document, pages 4-3, 5.1-1, 5.1-
2, 5.10-2, 5.10-3, 5.11-7, and 5.11-8)
LUla: Implement a traffic management plan. See the description of this measure under
Impact LU I .
Rla: Compensate displaced land uses in conformance with the Uniform Relocation
Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act. See the description of this
measure under Impact R1.
....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the May 2005
Skyway Widening Project, Alternative A2/B2 21
Section 2. Findings on Si~nifica pacts of the Proposed Project
• AQla: Implement construction mitigation measures to reduce construction emissions,
as required by the Butte County Air Quality Management District (BCAQMD). See the
description of this measure under Impact AQI.
N4a: Employ noise-reducing construction practices. See the description of this measure
under Impact N4.
• Nob: Disseminate essential information to residences and implement a
complaintlresponse tracking program. See the description of this measure under Impact
N4.
Significance after Mitigation
Less than significant. (draft joint document, pages 4-3)
Community Impacts
Thresholds of Significance
Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines provides guidance for the evaluation of project
population, housing, and social impacts. Based on these guidelines, the project is considered to
have a significant impact if it would physically divide an established community. (draft joint
document, page 5.2-1)
Impact C1: No Impact on Community Cohesion
Finding
Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less than significant (Pub.
Resources Code, 21002; CEQA Guidelines, § 15091).
Explanation
Within the study area, Skyway already serves to separate the rural neighborhoods east and west
of the roadway. Most of the homes and neighborhoods along Skyway in the project area are
located west of Skyway, especially south of the South Park Drive intersection, and residents of
these neighborhoods already use vehicles to reach commercial centers or homes on the east side
of Skyway. Although Skyway would be widened as part of project improvements, the increased
width would not materially affect the existing physical barrier that already separates land uses
east and west of Skyway. Since the project would have no effect on community cohesion and
would not physically divide an established community, this impact is considered to be less than
significant. (draft joint document, pages 5.2-1 and 5.2-2)
Mitigation
No mitigation is proposed. (draft joint document, page 5.2-2)
Significance
Less than significant. (draft joint document, page 5.2-2)
....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the May 2005
Skyway Widening Project, Alternative A2/B2 22
Section 2 Findings on Si~nificz :pacts of the Proposed Project
Impact C2: Access and Circulation Impacts
Finding
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project that
avoid the potentially significant environmental effect identified in the final joint document.
Explanation
On a local and regional level, the project would improve access and circulation in the study area
by relieving congestion on Skyway and improving safety of the roadway and major intersections
in the project area. In addition to the beneficial access and circulation impacts generated by the
project, minor adverse impacts on developed residential and commercial access could result from
widening Skyway. Finally, several vacant, but potentially developable parcels along the east side
of Skyway between Pentz and Coutolenc Roads, that require a retaining wall along their entire or
partial frontage with Skyway, could experience adverse impacts related to access. This latter
impact is considered to be significant. (final joint document errata to pages 5.2-2 and 5.2-3)
Mitigation
The final joint document identifies the following mitigation measure to reduce this impact to a
less-than-significant level: (final joint document errata to page 5.2-3):
• C2a: Incorporate features into final design, as needed and based on available funding,
so as to enable access to developable parcels along Skyway between Pentz and
Coutolenc Roads. During final design when the County's and railroad rights-of-way are
precisely determined, the County will work with the owners of developable parcels, whose
future access would be eliminated by the proposed retaining wall, to incorporate design
features in the proposed project that will enable access to these parcels. Such features could
include adjusting the retaining wall setbacks and modifications to the type or length of the
retaining wall and/or approach rail. These features will be designed based on available
funding and to provide safe driving conditions along Skyway based on County standards.
Such features could require the acquisition of additional right-of-way.
Significance
Less than significant. (final joint document errata to page 5.2-3)
Impact C3: Parking Impacts
Finding
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project that
avoid the potentially significant environmental effect identified in the final joint document.
Explanation
Under Alternative A2B2, parking impacts would be limited to one home and three businesses.
A home located on Skyway would lose the area at the front of the property currently used for
parking. Although the loss of this parking area would be an inconvenience, this parking area is
within Skyway's existing right-of-way, and an area available for parking appears to be available
at the back of the property. Three businesses located near the intersection of Skyway and
....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the May 2005
Skyway Widening Project, Alternative A2/82 23
Section 2. Findings on Si~nifict :pacts of the Proposed Project
..............................
Lakeridge Circle would also be affected, including loss of parking and displacement of a
commercial sign. This impact is considered to be significant. (draft joint document, pages 5.2-3
and 5.2-4)
Mitigation Measures
The joint document identifies the following mitigation measure to reduce this impact to a ]ess-
than-significant level: (draft joint document and final joint document errata, page 52-4)
• C3a: Replace lost parking. The County will replace displaced parking on APN 066-330-
015, 066-330-029, and 066-330-030 with in-kind parking at a ratio of 1:1. On APN 066-330-
015, replacement parking could be provided on the southeast side of the parcel. On APN
066-330-029 and 066-330-030, replacement parking could be provided by reconfiguring the
existing parking area or by developing a portion of the undeveloped portion of this parcel
into parking.
Significance after Mitigation
Less than significant (draft joint document, page 5.2-4)
Impact C4: Minor Population Impacts
Finding
Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less than significant (Pub.
Resources Code, 21002; CEQA Guidelines, § 15091}.
Explanation
Right-of-way required for the proposed project would displace the residents of one existing
single-family home located in Magalia. Based on a household size of 2.38, which is the average
for the Magalia CDP, the potential change in population would range from two to three persons.
This population change would be considered minor in the context of the current population of the
Magalia CDP, which was 10,570 in 2000. This impact is considered to be less than significant.
(draft joint document, page 5.2-4)
Mitigation
No mitigation is proposed. (draft joint document, page 5.2-4)
Significance
Less than significant. (draft joint document, page 5.2-4)
Cumulative Community Impacts and Environmental Justice Impacts
Finding
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project that
avoid the project's cumulatively considerable contribution to significant community impacts.
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the May 2005
Skyway Widening Project, Alternative A2/B2 24
Section 2_ Findings on Siynific~ pacts of the Proposed Project
Explanation
As the Town of Paradise General Plan is implemented, changes to the community, such as
changes in community cohesion, parking and access, and disproportionate impacts on minority
and low-income populations could occur. As noted under Impact C1, the project would have no
effect on community cohesion. As noted under Impact C2, the project's impact on access and
circulation would be less than cumulatively considerable. The project's parking impacts are
considered cumulatively considerable.
The proposed project would not contribute to acumulatively-considerable effect on minority and
]ow-income populations since the project area is comprised of a proportionally smaller minority
population than that within the Town of Paradise or Butte County and the median household
income is slightly higher than the Town of Paradise or countywide. Further, the effects of the
project would be spread across the length of the project corridor. (draft joint document, page 4-3)
Mitigation
The joint document identifies the following mitigation measure to reduce the project's
contribution to parking impacts to less than cumulatively considerable: (draft joint document,
pages 4-3 and 5.2-4; final joint document errata to pages 5.2-3 and 5.2-4)
C2a: Incorporate features into final design, as needed and based on available funding,
so as to enable access to developable parcels along Skyway between Pentz and
Coutolene Roads. During final design when the County's and railroad rights-of-way are
precisely determined, the County will work with the owners of developable parcels, whose
future access would be eliminated by the proposed retaining wall, to incorporate design
features in the proposed project that will enable access to these parcels. Such features could
include adjusting the retaining wall setbacks and modifications to the type or length of the
retaining wall and/or approach rail. These features will be designed based on available
funding and to provide safe driving conditions along Skyway based on County standards.
Such features could require the acquisition of additional right-of-way.
C3a: Replace lost parking. The County will replace displaced parking on APN 066-330-
015, 066-330-029, and 066-330-030 with in-kind parking at a ratio of 1:1. On APN 066-330-
015, replacement parking could be provided on the southeast side of the parcel. On APN
066-330-029 and 066-330-030, replacement parking could be provided by reconfiguring the
existing parking area or by developing a portion of the undeveloped portion of this parcel
into parking.
Significance after Mitigation
Less than significant. (draft joint document, page 4-3)
....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the May 2005
Skyway Widening Project, Alternative A2/B2 25
Section 2. Findin son Si nific~ ipacts of the Proposed Project
Relocation
Thresholds of Significance
Based on Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, the project is considered to have a
significant impact if it would:
• displace a substantial number of existing housing units, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere; or
displace a substantial number of people, necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere;
(draft joint document, page 5.3-1)
Impact R1: Full Permanent Acquisition of One Occupied Residence and
Displacement of Two Persons
Finding
Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less than significant (Pub.
Resources Code, 21002; CEQA Guidelines, 5 15091).
Explanation
Widening of Skyway would unavoidably displace the single-family home located at 13614
Skyway (located between Skyway and Old Skyway north of the Skyway/Pentz Road
intersection) since the home is located within the footprint of the roadway widening, requiring
full acquisition of the parcel. Based on a household size of 2.38, which is the average for the
Magalia CDP, the potential change in population would range from two to three persons. This
population change would be considered minor in the context of the current population of the
Magalia CDP, which was 10,570 in 2000.
Typically, it is reasonable to assume that displaced persons would seek replacement housing that
is similar in location, cost, and character to the homes they would be leaving behind. This would
indicate that residents of the displaced home would seek an affordable single-family home within
the part of Paradise/Magalia area containing the displacement area. The market value of the
displaced home, including the lot, has been estimated at approximately $200,000 (Quincy
Engineering 2003). A recent review of homes-for-sale data for the 95969 zip code area, which
encompasses the displacement area, indicates that ample housing at a variety of prices is
available to relocate the residents of this one owner-occupied home potentially displaced by the
project.
This impact is considered less than significant since substantial numbers of existing housing or
residents would not be displaced, and replacement housing would not need to be constructed
elsewhere. The County will compensate this displaced residence in conformance with the
Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act.
(draft joint document, pages 5.3-1 and 5.3-2)
....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the May 2005
Skyway Widening Project, Alternative A2/B2 26
Section 2. Findings on Si~nifics pacts of the Proposed Project
Mitigation
No mitigation is proposed. (draft joint document, page 5.3-2)
Significance
Less than significant. (draft joint document, page 5.3-2)
Cumulative Relocation Impacts
Finding
Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for projects with incremental impacts that are
less than cumulatively considerable (CEQA Guidelines, § 15064(1), 15130(a)).
Explanation
Implementation of certain elements of the Town of Paradise General Plan, including the
proposed project, may require the relocation of existing businesses or residences. The proposed
project would require the full permanent acquisition of one occupied residence and the
displacement of two persons within that residence. This incremental contribution is considered
less than cumulatively considerable. The County will compensate this displaced residence in
conformance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies
Act. (draft joint document, pages 4-3 and 4-4)
Mitigation
No mitigation is proposed. (draft joint document, page 4-4)
Significance
Less than significant (draft joint document, page 4-4)
Utilities/Emergency Services
Thresholds of Significance
Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines provides guidance for the evaluation of project public
services impacts. Based on these guidelines, the project is considered to have a significant
impact if it would result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of
new or physically altered governmental facilities or the need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts,
in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives
for fire protection, police protection, schools, or other public facilities. (draft joint document,
page 5.4- I )
....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the May 2005
Skyway Widening Project, Alternative A2/B2 27
Section 2. Findin son Si nific~ pacts of the Proposed Project
Impact U1: No Long-Term Disruption of Services
Finding
Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less than significant (Pub.
Resources Code, 21002; CEQA Guidelines, § 15091).
Explanation
Construction of the project would require relocation of an estimated 13 utility poles carrying
overhead SBC (Pacific Bell) telephone lines and PG&E electric lines. Preliminary identification
of the location of underground utilities indicates that underground PG&E gas and electric lines
and AT&T Broad Band cable television lines may need to be moved. Additionally, septic
systems and storm drains, and PID and Del Oro Water Company water lines located in the
project area, will need to be relocated. The specific locations of utilities requiring relocation are
identified in the Draft Utility Relocation Report (Quincy Engineering 2002) prepared for the
proposed project. Relocation costs would be funded and would occur prior to project
construction to accommodate construction activities and preserve continuity of service. If service
were stopped at any time, the service providers would provide advance notice to users.
The existing Magalia Depot Inn septic leach field on the east side of Skyway would be impacted
by the proposed road improvements. Adequate area exists within the right-of-way that would be
abandoned as part of the proposed project (i.e. within the project limits of ground disturbance), to
relocate the septic leach field. The details for compensating the property owner for impacts to
the septic system would be settled as part of the right-of-way purchase agreement between the
County and property owner. (Glen pers. comm..) This impact is considered to be less than
significant because no long-term disruptions of services are expected with project construction.
(draft joint document, page 5.4-1)
Mitigation
No mitigation is proposed. (draft joint document, page 5.4-1)
Significance
Less than significant. (draft joint document, page 5.4-1)
Impact U2: Potential for Temporary Interference to Law Enforcement, Fire
Protection, and Emergency Medical Services
Finding
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project that
avoid the potentially significant environmental effect identified in the final joint document.
Explanation
Travel on Skyway could be temporarily disrupted during project construction, including short-
term closures of Skyway between Pentz Road and Coutolenc Road, and one-lane traffic controls
north of Coutolenc Road. Roadway closures and traffic controls could periodically affect
response times for law enforcement and emergency services providers during construction
....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the May 2005
Skyway Widening Project, Alternative A2/B2 28
Section 2 Findings on Si~nific~ npacts of the Proposed Project
..........................................
periods, although emergency vehicle access would be maintained for public safety. This impact
is considered significant.
Once Skyway improvements have been completed, response times within the study area should
be better than existing times because of reduced congestion and improved operations of Skyway.
(draft joint document, pages 5.4-I and 5.4-2)
Mitigation Measures
The draft joint document identifies the following mitigation measure to reduce this impact to a
less-than-significant level: (draft joint document, page 5.4-2)
• LUla: Implement a traffic management plan. See the description of this measure under
Impact LU1.
Significance after Mitigation
Less than significant (draft joint document, page 5.4-2)
Cumulative Utilities/Emergency Services Impacts
Finding
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project that
avoid the project's cumulatively considerable contribution to significant utility impacts.
Explanation
During construction of the proposed project and planned development within the General Plan
sphere of influence, there is the potential for temporary interference with the emergency response
activities of law enforcement, fire department, and emergency medical services. Projects that
would require modification or relocation of utilities such as water, electricity, and sewer
facilities, may cause disruption in service of these utilities. Concurrent construction of other
planned and potential projects within the Skyway road widening project area may contribute to a
temporary cumulatively considerable effect on utility and emergency services. (draft joint
document, page 4-4)
Mitigation
The draft joint document identifies the following mitigation measure to reduce the project's
contribution to utility impacts to less than cumulatively considerable: (draft joint document,
page 4-4)
• LUla: Implement a traffic management plan. See the description of this measure under
Impact LU 1.
Significance after Mitigation
Less than significant. (draft joint document, page 4-4)
....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the May 2005
Skyway Widening Project, Alternative A2/B2 29
Section 2. Findin son Si nifica npacts of the Proposed Project
Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities
Thresholds of Significance
Based on the policies of the Butte County and Town of Paradise General Plans, an impact is
considered to be significant if any of the following would occur:
• Project implementation changes the LOS at the Skyway /Clark Road or Skyway/Pentz Road
intersection from an acceptable level (LOS A, B, C, or D) to an unacceptable level (LOS E or
F)
• Project implementation changes the LOS at the Skyway /Coutolenc Road or Skyway/South
Park Drive intersection from an acceptable level (LOS A, B, or C) to an unacceptable level
(LOS D, E, or F)
• Project implementation disrupts existing or planned transit operations and facilities of Butte
County Transit
• Project implementation disrupts existing or planned bicycle or pedestrian facilities contained
in the Butte County or Town of Paradise General Plans
• Project construction results in unacceptable traffic safety concerns
• Project implementation substantially increases hazards due to a design feature (such as sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (such as farm equipment)
• Project implementation results in inadequate emergency access
• The project is in conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative
transportation (such as bus turnouts and bicycle racks)
(draft joint document, page 5.5-1)
Impact T1: Construction-Related Safety Concerns
Finding
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project that
avoid the potentially significant environmental effect identified in the final joint document.
Explanation
During construction of the proposed project, travelers on Skyway may experience delays and be
required to take alternative routes (such as Old Skyway) to their destinations, resulting in
temporary construction-related safety concerns. This impact is considered significant since the
proposed project has the potential to result in temporary construction-related safety concerns.
(draft joint document, page 5.5-1)
Mitigation Measures
The draft joint document identifies the following mitigation measure to reduce this impact to a
less-than-significant level: (draft joint document, page 5.5-2)
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the May 2005
Skyway Widening Project, Alternative A2/82 30
Section 2. Findings on Si~nifia npacts of the Proposed Project
• LUIa: Implement a traffic management plan. See the description of this measure under
Impact LU 1.
Significance after Mitigation
Less than significant. (draft joint document, page 5.5-1)
Impact T2: Acceptable LOS Assuming Existing Volumes
Finding
Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less than significant (Pub.
Resources Code, 21002; CEQA Guidelines, § 15091).
Explanation
The study intersections and Skyway at Magalia Dam would have LOS A under existing with
project conditions. This impact is less than significant since the project would not degrade
existing LOS from an acceptable to unacceptable level. (draft joint document, page 5.5-2).
Mitigation
No mitigation is proposed. (draft joint document, page 5.5-2)
Significance
Less than significant. (draft joint document, page 5.5-2)
Impact T3: Acceptable LOS Assuming 2035 Volumes (Cumulative Impacts)
Finding
Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less than significant (Pub.
Resources Code, 21002; CEQA Guidelines, § 15091).
Explanation
The future with-project conditions analysis shows that with implementation of the proposed
project, the study intersections will operate at acceptable levels of service. The future with-
project daily traffic of 23,700 vehicles on Skyway at the Magalia Dam bridge is projected to
operate at LOS C. The project would not degrade existing or future no-project LOS from an
acceptable to an unacceptable level. This impact is considered to be less than significant because
the project would not degrade existing or future no-project LOS from an acceptable to an
unacceptable level. (draft joint document, page 5.5-2)
Mitigation
No mitigation is proposed. (draft joint document, page 5.5-2)
Significance
Less than significant. (draft joint document, page 5.5-Z)
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the May 2005
Skyway Widening Project, Alternative A2/B2 31
Section 2. Findings on Siynifict pacts of the Proposed Project
Impact T4: Potential Temporary Disruption of Transit Service
Finding
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project that
avoid the potentially significant environmental effect identified in the final joint document.
Explanation
Existing transit operations could be temporarily disrupted during project construction with long
delays, resulting in temporary construction-related safety concerns. This impact is considered
significant since the proposed project has the potential to result in temporary construction-related
safety concerns. (draft joint document, page 5.5-2).
Mitigation Measures
The draft joint document identifies the following mitigation measure to reduce this impact to a
less-than-significant level: (draft joint document, page 5.5-2)
LUla: Implement a traffic management plan. See the description of this measure under
Impact LU I .
Significance after Mitigation
Less than significant. (draft joint document, page 5.5-?)
Impact T5: Safer Bicycle Route on Skyway
Finding
Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less than significant (Pub.
Resources Code, 21002; CEQA Guidelines, § 15091).
Explanation
The proposed project would include repaving approximately 100 feet of the Memorial Trail
where it connects with Pentz Road to conform the trail to the proposed edge of right-of-way at
the intersection of the trail and Pentz Road. No permanent adverse impacts on trail users are
expected. Construction-related impacts will be temporary. The project will add shoulders to
Skyway allowing for a safer bicycle route than exists today. This impact is considered to be less
than significant.(draft joint document, page 5.5-2)
Mitigation
No mitigation is proposed. (draft joint document, page 5.5-3)
Significance
Less than significant. (draft joint document, page 5.5-2}
....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Findings of Fact and Sta[ement of Overriding Considerations for the May 2005
Skyway Widening Project, Alternative A2/62 32
Section 2 Findings on Si9nificz npacts of the Proposed Project
Visual/Aesthetics
Thresholds of Significance
Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines provides guidance for evaluation of project effects on
visual resources. Based on these guidelines, the project is considered to have a significant
impact on visual resources if it would:
• Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings;
or
• Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect daytime or
nighttime views in the area.
(draft joint document, page 5.6-1)
Impact V1: Temporary Visual Changes Due to Construction
Finding
Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less than significant (Pub.
Resources Code, ?1002; CEQA Guidelines, § 15091).
Explanation
Construction of the proposed improvements would create temporary changes in views of and
from the project area. Construction activities would introduce considerable heavy equipment
and associated vehicles, including dozers, graders, scrapers, and trucks, into the viewshed of
Skyway, public roadways, and residential and business properties. Safety and directional
signage would also be a visible element. Construction along the dam would result in traffic
being routed through only one-lane for both directions. Construction for initial phases is
expected to require approximately 18 months; the timing of subsequent phases depends on
funding.
Proposed improvements, dam modifications, and roadway construction proposed under the
Major Fix design option would require temporary dewatering of the reservoir during
construction. The exposed basin of the reservoir would be a stark contrast to it being filled with
water.
Some residences would be subject to construction easements to accommodate construction
access. The sensitivity of these residences to such impacts would be high. Residents would
experience ashort-term change in the visual character of the area near their residences.
Because of the temporary nature of visual changes due to construction, this impact is considered
less than significant.
(draft joint document, pages 5.6-1 and 5.6-2)
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the May 2005
Skyway Widening Project, Alternative A2/B2 33
Section 2 Findings on Si~nifica ipacts of the Proposed Project
Mitigation
No mitigation is proposed. (draft joint document, page 5.6-2)
Significance
Less than significant. (draft joint document, page 5.6-2)
Impact V2: Permanent Changes in Light and Glare
Finding
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project that
avoid the potentially significant environmental effect identified in the final joint document.
Explanation
New nighttime lights are proposed to replace existing lights at intersections at Coutolenc Road
and South Park Drive. The number of lights throughout the corridor would not increase. The
change in intensity and location of light is not anticipated to result in a substantial change in light
and glare.
Retaining walls would be constructed as part of the earthwork for this alternative. Retaining
walls have large surfaces that may result in increased reflective glare from sunlight during the
day and from artificial light sources at night. Timber lagging used with soldier piles would not
create as much glare as a concrete retaining wall.
Guardrails and concrete barriers would be used along the top of fill walls, downhill side of the
roadway. Glare from these barriers would be minimal.
Project implementation would require that existing vegetation be removed along much the right-
of-way within the project area, increasing the impact of glare. Existing vegetation shades the
roadway in certain sections, and removal of this vegetation would increase the amount of
reflective glare from the roadway surface. As part of the proposed project, the County plans to
relandscape those areas, such as on the cut side slopes and above the cut slope retaining walls,
where vegetation removal would occur.
This impact is considered to be significant since the project could visually degrade the project
site and vicinity.
(draft joint document, page 5.6-2)
Mitigation Measures
The draft joint document identifies the following mitigation measures to reduce this impact to a
less-than-significant level: (draft joint document, page 5.6-3)
• V2a: Construct retaining walls and noise barriers to blend into the surrounding
environment to the extent feasible. Butte County will construct the required retaining
walls so to reduce the appearance of the wall surface by blending with the surroundings, to
the extent feasible, based on available funding and input received during the environmental
....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the May 2005
Skyway Widening Project, Alternative A2/B2 34
Section 2. Findin son Si nific~ ,pacts of the Proposed Project
document public review process and from the project Citizens' Advisory Committee. Colors
and aesthetics should be appropriate for the location where they are built (i.e., a more formal
wall treatment should be applied near a residence or business, while a more natural-looking
wall treatment should be applied in areas where there are no residences or businesses). These
walls and barriers should have low-sheen and non-reflective surface materials to reduce
potential for glare. Wall finishes should be matte and roughened. The use of smooth
troweled surfaces and glossy paint should be avoided.
The noise evaluation conducted for this project identifies noise-reducing design features that
could be used to attenuate traffic noise impacts, including a noise barrier that would be
constructed at the edge of pavement adjacent to southbound Skyway and at the private
property lines adjacent to South Park Drive. If the County decides to build a noise ban-ier,
landscaping would be planted on the Skyway side of the bamer, as feasible, based on
available space. The guidelines specified in Mitigation Measure V2b below would be
followed, as applicable.
• V2b: Implement project landscaping plan to replace trees that are removed, using the
specified guidelines. Butte County will follow the following practices in implementing the
project landscaping plan:
• The species composition will reflect species that are native and indigenous to the project
area. Special attention to plant selection will be given for the serpentine outcrop. The
species list will include trees, shrubs, and an herbaceous understory of varying heights,
primarily coniferous types. The planting design will be randomized to mimic natural
patterns.
• Vegetation will be planted within the first year following project completion.
• An irrigation and maintenance program will be implemented as needed during the plant
establishment period.
• Apply native perennial hydroseed mix at all locations with exposed soil and steep slopes,
to prevent soil erosion, reduce water pollution, and help preserve the existing landscape
character. Utilize other erosion control and water pollution prevention practices as
deemed necessary.
• Design for gradual grade transitions (slope roundingl at hinge points of earthwork slopes,
where applicable, so as to preserve the existing grade around the base of trees that are to
remain, so their roots don't get impacted by cut or fill earthwork.
Significance after Mitigation
Less than significant. (draft joint document, page 5.6-2)
Impact V3: Permanent Visual Changes Resulting from Vegetation Removal
Finding
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project that
avoid the potentially significant environmental effect identified in the final joint document.
....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the May 2005
Skyway Widening Project, Alternative A2/82 35
Section 2. Findings on Signified: :npacts of the Proposed Project
...........................................
Explanation
Along Skyway, the existing roadside topography and grades would be functionally and visually
affected to accommodate the roadway widening. Existing right-of-way vegetation would be
removed throughout the project area to accommodate the widening. Removing existing
vegetation along Skyway and modification of its side slopes would change the current visual
character of this portion of Skyway.
Vegetation in the right-of-way creates an attractive visual barrier between residences and
businesses and Skyway, and provides a vegetated view for Skyway drivers. It also shades the
roadway. An estimated 625 trees, 6 inches or greater in diameter at breast height (dbh), would
be removed along the Skyway shoulders and side slopes under this alternative. McNab cypress
woodland comprises a portion of the forested area that would be removed with project
construction; approximately 4.5 acres would be removed. Under post-project conditions, drivers
would view exposed cut slopes or retaining walls rather than the existing vegetation. Although
drivers now view cut slopes, the amount of cut slope that is exposed would greatly increase.
With implementation of the Major Fix design option, vegetation removal would likely be
required for construction access along Dogtown Road and along the existing road/trail at the
northeast end of the saddle dam. Vegetation to be removed would be primarily herbaceous and
would affect the visual character of this area.
The proposed project includes relandscaping areas that become exposed due to project
construction. The County would also need to obtain a permit from the Town for any tree
removal within Town limits under Chapter 8.12 of the Town's ordinance. This ordinance
requires that a permit be obtained for the felling of trees that measure 10 inches or greater in dbh
and defined as four feet, six inches above its natural grade as measured on the uphill side of the
tree.
This impact is considered significant because the proposed project would change the visual
character of the affected areas.
(draft joint document, pages 5.6-4 and 5.6-5)
Mitigation Measures
The draft joint document identifies the following mitigation measures to reduce this impact to a
less-than-significant level: (draft joint document, page 5.6-5)
V2a: Construct retaining walls and noise barriers to blend into the surrounding
environment to the extent feasible. See the description of this measure under Impact V2.
• V2b: Implement project landscaping plan to replace trees that are removed, using the
specified guidelines. See the description of this measure under Impact V2.
• Via: Seed exposed slopes adjacent to the reservoir. Apply California native grasses
(Erosion Control Type D) at al( locations adjacent to the reservoir with exposed soil and
steep slopes, to prevent soil erosion, reduce water pollution, and help preserve the existing
landscape character.
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the May 2005
Skyway Widening Project, Alternative A2/82 36
Section 2. Findings on Si9nificG pacts of the Proposed Project
V3b: Comply with the Town of Paradise Tree Preservation Ordinance. The County
will obtain a permit from the Town for all trees 10 inches or greater dbh that would be
removed within Town limits and meet all conditions of this permit.
• BRld: Develop and implement a compensation strategy for the permanent and
temporary losses of McNab cypress woodland. See the description of this measure under
Impact BR 1.
Significance after Mitigation
Less than significant. (draft joint document, page 5.6-5)
Impact V4: Permanent Changes to Views in Landscape Unit 1 (Pentz Road to
Coutolenc Road)
Finding
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project that
avoid the potentially significant environmental effect identified in the final joint document.
Explanation
Users of Skyway would experience visual changes resulting from the proposed project. Removal
of vegetation and changes in topography along the shoulders of the right-of-way for the roadway
widening and the addition of retaining walls would increase the amount of hardscape features
viewed by drivers. Drivers would not see the retaining walls where there is fill, on the east side
of the roadway, but guardrails or concrete barriers would be installed.
Residential properties in Magalia located between New Skyway and Old Skyway would
experience reduced setbacks along the backs of properties situated along New Skyway. Visual
changes from these residences are not expected to be substantial since vegetation removal would
occur along the toes of steep-sided cuts and would be far below these homes that are well back
from and above New Skyway.
The Old Skyway/New Skyway/Coutolenc Road intersection would be relocated, as part of the
project, to avoid impacts to the Depot Inn. The old pavement remaining from the intersection
would be removed, the land graded, and landscape plantings installed. These treatments would
increase the aesthetics of views from the vantage of the Depot Inn.
The vividness, intactness, and unity of this unit would be affected by the proposed project, and
the visual quality rating (VQ = 3.7) would change to a lower rating (VQ = 3); therefore this
impact is considered to be significant.
(draft joint document, page 5.6-6)
Mitigation Measures
The draft joint document identifies the following mitigation measures to reduce this impact to a
less-than-significant level: (draft joint document, page 5.6-6)
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the May 2005
Skyway Widening Project, Alternative A2/82 37
Section 2 Findings on Si~nific~ tpacts of the Proposed Project
• V2b: Implement project landscaping plan to replace trees that are removed, using the
specified guidelines. See the description of this measure under Impact V2.
• Via: Seed exposed slopes adjacent to the reservoir. See the description of this measure
under Impact V3.
• V3b: Comply with the Town of Paradise Tree Preservation Ordinance. See the
description of this measure under Impact V3.
• BRld: Develop and implement a compensation strategy for the permanent and
temporary losses of McNab cypress woodland. See the description of this measure under
Impact BR1.
Significance after Mifi_gation
Less than significant (draft joint document, page 5.6-6)
Impact V5: Permanent Changes to Views in Landscape Unit 2 (Coutolenc Road to
Dogtown Road-Magalia Dam)
Finding
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project that
avoid the potentially significant environmental effect identified in the final joint document.
Explanation
The Old Skyway/New Skyway/Coutolenc Road intersection would be moved to the east of its
present location to avoid impacts to the Depot Inn and to accommodate the horizontal alignment
minimum standard. The existing vegetation and landform east of the roadway would be cleared
and graded (including new cut slopes) to build the roadway.
Existing views of the reservoir, for drivers heading north from the intersection, may be enhanced
because the roadway would be built at a slightly higher elevation than the existing roadway.
Present views are somewhat blocked by vegetation on the southwest slope adjacent to the
roadway, and this elevation would allow for the driver to see over more tree canopies. Views for
drivers heading south would be altered in that views to the Depot Inn would be reduced, but
views of the of intersection would be characteristically the same.
Widening the roadway across the dam would create only minor changes to the existing visual
character. Drivers would view more paved roadway and less slope area, on either side of the
roadway, which is vegetated with herbaceous plant species.
The vividness, intactness, and unity of this unit would be affected by the proposed project, and
the visual quality rating (VQ = 3.3) would change to a lower rating (VQ = 3); therefore, this
impact is considered to be significant.
(draft joint document, page 5.6-7)
....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the May 2005
Skyway Widening Project, Alternative A2/82 38
Section 2 Findings on Si~nifica, pacts of the Proposed Project
Mitigation Measures
The draft joint document identifies the following mitigation measures to reduce this impact to a
less-than-significant level: (draft joint document, pages 5.6-7 and 5.6-8)
• V2b: Implement project landscaping plan to replace trees that are removed, using the
specified guidelines. See the description of this measure under Impact V2.
Via: Seed exposed slopes adjacent to the reservoir. See the description of this measure
under Impact V3.
• BR1d: Develop and implement a compensation strategy for the permanent and
temporary losses of McNab cypress woodland. See the description of this measure under
Impact BR1.
Significance after Mitigation
Less than significant (draft joint document, page 5.6-7)
Impact V6: Permanent Changes to Views in Landscape Unit 3 (Dogtown Road to
South Park Drive)
Finding
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project that
avoid the potentially significant environmental effect identified in the final joint document.
Explanation
The project would require large portions of the existing slope north of the roadway to be cut,
primarily south of the Skyway/South Park Drive intersection, affecting drivers' views. Slope
cuts would also be made on the south side of the roadway. These cuts would require the
removal of dense coniferous vegetation that is growing on either side of the existing roadway.
More pavement, large cut slopes, and removal of existing vegetation would change the existing
views and character of this unit.
Some residents on Lamar Court and Andover Drive would lose some backyard landscaping, as
would residents on Skyway, north of South Park Drive, who would lose frontyard landscaping.
Some businesses south of Skyway, just north of the South Park Drive/Lakeridge Circle
intersection would also lose landscape plantings through sliver acquisitions needed for
construction of the proposed project. Loss of vegetation and landscaping would increase views of
the roadway for this viewer group. It would also reduce the shade provided for the roadway.
The vividness, intactness, and unity of this unit would be affected by the proposed project, and
the visual quality rating (VQ = 3.7) would change to a lower rating (VQ = 3.3); therefore, this
impact is considered to be significant.
(draft joint document, page 5.6-8)
....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the May 2005
Skyway Widening Project, Alternative A2/B2 39
Section 2 Findings on Significa pacts of the Proposed Project
Mitigation Measures
The draft joint document identifies the following mitigation measures to reduce this impact to a
less-than-significant level: (draft joint document, pages 5.6-8 and 5.6-9)
V2b: Implement project landscaping plan to replace trees that are removed, using the
specified guidelines. See the description of this measure under Impact V2.
Via: Seed exposed slopes adjacent to the reservoir. See the description of this measure
under Impact V3.
Significance after Miti aq tion
Less than significant (draft joint document, page 5.6-8)
Impact V7: Consistency with Local Visual Policies
Finding
Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less than significant (Pub.
Resources Code, ? 100?; CEQA Guidelines, § 15091).
Explanation
The project is consistent with pertinent visual policies contained in the Butte County and Town
of Paradise's General Plans. The project will also comply with the Town's tree preservation
ordinance. This impact is considered less than significant. (draft joint document, pages 5.6-9
through 5.6-ll, and final joint document errata to page 5.6-11)
Mitigation
No mitigation is proposed. The project will comply with the Town's tree preservation ordinance
(included as Mitigation Measure V3b). (final joint document errata to page 5.6-11)
Significance
Less than significant. (final joint document errata to page 5.6-11)
Cumulative Visual/Aesthetics Impacts
Finding
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project that
avoid the project's cumulatively considerable contribution to significant visual impacts.
Explanation
The grading and excavation required to widen Skyway from two to four lanes will result in
adverse short-term changes in views within the project corridor. Permanent changes would
result from the completion of the proposed project and other planned development within the
Town of Paradise sphere of influence. The proposed project and other planned development have
the potential to contribute to cumulatively considerable effect on visual resources. (draft joint
document, page 4-4)
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the May 2005
Skyway Widening Project, Alternative A2/B2 40
Section 2. Findin son Si nifica,._ .,npacts of the Proposed Project . ...............................
.....................................:~ ..............9..........................................................
Mitigation
The draft joint document identifies the following mitigation measures to reduce the project's
contribution to visual resource impacts to less than cumulatively considerable: (draft joint
document, pages 4-4, 5.6-3, and 5.6-5)
• V2a: Construct retaining walls and noise barriers to blend into the surrounding
environment to the extent feasible. See the description of this measure under Impact V2.
• V2b: Implement project landscaping plan to replace trees that are removed, using the
specified guidelines. See the description of this measure under Impact V2.
• Via: Seed exposed slopes adjacent to the reservoir. See the description of this measure
under Impact V3.
• V3b: Comply with the Town of Paradise Tree Preservation Ordinance. See the
description of this measure under Impact V3.
• BRld: Develop and implement a compensation strategy for the permanent and
temporary losses of McNab cypress woodland. See the description of this measure under
Impact BR1.
Significance after Mitigation
Less than significant. (draft joint document, page 4-4)
Cultural Resources
Thresholds of Significance
An impact is considered significant under CEQA if the project would:
cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource (CEQA
Guidelines rev. 1998, Section 15064.5[b]). The State CEQA Guidelines further state that a
substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource means the physical
demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate
surroundings such that the significance of an historical resource would be materially
impaired. Actions that would materially impair the significance of an historic resource are
those that would demolish or adversely alter those physical characteristics that convey its
historical significance and qualify it for inclusion in the CRHR or in a local register or survey
that meet the requirements of sections 5020.1(k) and 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources
Code;
directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature;
• disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries; or
• eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory.
(draft joint document, page 5.7-1)
....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the May 2005
Skyway Widening Project, Alternative A2/B2 4 ~
Section 2 Findings on Significa :npacts of the Proposed Project
Impact CR1: Potential Damage to Currently Unknown Cultural Resources
Finding
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project that
avoid the potentially significant environmental effect identified in the final joint document.
Explanation
Field surveys can locate only those cultural resources with an above ground component.
Cultural resources may be buried under alluvial sediments and may not be locatable by surface
inspection alone. Additionally, surface visibility limitations may prevent the discovery of some
cultural resources. It is possible that construction or operation activities will uncover previously
unknown cultural resources.
The proposed project would result in a significant impact if it causes a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a historical resource or a unique archaeological resource through
the physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate
surroundings such that the significance of a historical resource or unique archaeological resource
would be materially impaired. (CEQA rev. 1998, Section 15064.5 [4] and [5]. The data
potential for an archaeological resource would be irrecoverably lost if construction activity
disturbed or destroyed an archaeological deposit.
(draft joint document, page 5.7-1)
Mitigation Measures
The draft joint document identifies the following mitigation measure to reduce this impact to a
less-than-significant level: (draft joint document, page 5.7-2)
CRla: Implement procedures for the unanticipated discovery of cultural resources. If
historical or unique archaeological resources are accidentally discovered during construction,
the County shall take steps to provide for an immediate evaluation of the find by a qualified
archaeologist. If the find is determined to be an historical or unique archaeological resource,
the County shall make available contingency funding and a time allotment sufficient to allow
for implementation of avoidance measures or appropriate mitigation. Work may continue on
other parts of the building site while historical or unique archaeological resources mitigation
takes place (CEQA Guidelines rev. 1998, Section 15064.5[f~).
If human bone is found as a result of any construction or operational activity, the County's
contractor will be required to stop all disturbance activities and notify the Butte County
Coroner within 48 hours in compliance with California Public Resource Code 5079.94 and
5097.98. If the coroner determines that the remains are Native American, the California
Native American Heritage Commission will be notified by the County.
The lead agency shall work with the appropriate Native Americans as identified by the
Native American Heritage Commission as provided in Public Resources Code 5097.98. The
applicant may develop an agreement for treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity,
the human remains and any items associated with Native American burials with the
appropriate Native Americans as identified by the Native American Heritage Commission
(CEQA Guidelines rev. 1998, Section 15064.5[d]).
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the May 2005
Skyway Widening Project, Alternative A2/B2 42
Section.2...Findin~s on Si~niiica:..._...:~pacts of the Proposed Project ...................................................................................
Significance affer Mitigation
Less than significant. (draft joint document, page 5.7-1)
Cumulative Cultural Resources Impacts
Finding
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project that
avoid the project's cumulatively considerable contribution to significant cultural resource
impacts.
Explanation
The construction of sites planned for development within the Town of Paradise sphere of
influence has the potential to disturb or destroy cultural resources if these resources are not
properly avoided, recorded or removed. This impact would be a cumulatively considerable
impact if cumulative development causes a substantial adverse change in the, significance of a
historical resource or a unique archaeological resource. (draft joint document, pages 4-4 and _5.7-
~)
Mitigation
The draft joint document identifies the following mitigation measure to reduce the project's
contribution to cultural resource impacts to less than cumulatively considerable: (draft joint
document, page 4-4)
• CRla: Implement procedures for the unanticipated discovery of cultural resources.
See description of this measure under Impact CRI.
Significance after Mitigation
Less than significant. (draft joint document, page 4-4)
Hydrology, Water Quality, and Floodplains
Thresholds of Significance
Based on Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines and professional practice, alterations to the
hydraulic characteristics of watercourses are considered significant if any of the following would
occur:
• Substantial alteration of the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including the
alteration of a stream or river, in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation
on- or off-site;
• Substantial alteration of the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site;
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the May 2005
Skyway Widening Project, Alternative A2/B2 43
Section 2. Findin son Si nifica pacts of the Proposed Project
Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems;
• Substantial reduction of floodflow conveyance capacities; or
• Increased extent or severity of flooding.
Impacts on water quality are considered signii~icant if the project would result in any of the
following:
• Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements;
• Create or contribute runoff water which would provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff;
• Any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved
oxygen, or turbidity, that substantially diminishes the value of habitat for fish and wildlife; or
• Otherwise substantially degrade water quality.
(draft joint document, page 5.8-1)
Impact W1: Permanent Changes in Local stormwater Drainage
Finding
Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less than significant (Pub.
Resources Code, ?100?; CEQA Guidelines, § 15091).
Explanation
The proposed widening of Skyway and other roadway improvements would increase the amount
of impervious surface in the project area. The introduction of new impervious surfaces would
result in an incremental reduction in the amount of natural soil suri~aces available for infiltration
of rainfall and runoff, potentially generating additional runoff during storm events. Additional
runoff can contribute to the flood potential of natural stream channels; accelerate soil erosion and
stream channel scour; and increase the transport of pollutants to waterways.
The proposed project would not result in an appreciable change in the direction or routing of
stormwater drainage compared to existing conditions. Due to the steep topography and rural
land use characteristics, there are no potential problems for routing of the runoff or exceeding
drainage capacity of offsite facilities. Drainage facilities will be designed to comply with Butte
County design standards. For these reasons, the impact is less than significant.
(draft joint document, pages 5.8-1 and 5.8-2)
Mitigation
No mitigation is proposed. (draft joint document, page 5.8-2)
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the May 2005
Skyway Widening Project, Alternative A2/BZ 44
Section 2_ Findings on Si~nifica: ,pacts of the Proposed Project
......................................................
Significance
Less than significant. (draft joint document, page 5.8-2)
Impact W2: Temporary Construction-Related Water Quality Impacts
Finding
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project that
avoid the potentia]ly significant environmental effect identified in the final joint document.
Explanation
Construction activities can impair water quality temporarily because disturbed and eroded soil,
petroleum products, and miscellaneous wastes may be discharged into receiving waters. Soil and
associated contaminants that enter stream channels can increase turbidity, stimulate algae
growth, increase sedimentation of aquatic habitat, and introduce compounds that are toxic to
aquatic organisms. Construction materials such as fuels, oils, paints, and concrete are potentially
harmful to fish and other aquatic life if released into the environment.
This project would involve extensive construction grading, earthmoving, and facility
construction activities that would occur over several months. The construction activities would
directly disturb soils and surface drainage courses adjacent to the existing roadway that drain to
the West Branch Feather River and Little Butte Creek. Construction would occur on the crest of
Magalia Dam and potential stormwater discharges of construction-related contaminants could
occur in Magalia Reservoir or Little Butte Creek. This impact is considered significant since
temporary and intermittent discharges of contaminated stormwater could occur during
construction.
(draft joint document, pages 5.8-2 and 5.8-3)
Mitigation Measures
The draft joint document identifies the following mitigation measure to reduce this impact to a
less-than-significant level: (draft joint document, page 5.8-3)
W2a: Implement construction-related best management practices. The County will
avoid or minimize potential construction-related water quality impacts through compliance
with the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) stormwater permit for general construction activities. The
County's contractor shall file a Notice of Intent (NOI) to the RWQCB, prepare a Stormwater
Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP), and implement an appropriate suite of temporary
construction best management practices (BMPs). Given the site-specific conditions of the
project area, the SWPPP for this project would generally include limiting soil disturbances
during the winter rainfall season of October 15 through April 15 and fully stabilizing
disturbed areas prior to December 1. Standard sediment erosion control measures, such as
silt fencing, straw bale barriers, sediment traps, or other measures could also directly reduce
the offsite transport of sediment from disturbed slopes. Existing vegetation that can be
preserved would be identified and flagged or fenced to avoid disturbance. Erosion in
disturbed areas would be controlled through the use of grading operations that eliminate
....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the May 2005
Skyway Widening Project, Alternative A2/82 45
Section 2. Findin son Si nifica: :pacts of the Proposed Project
.....................................~..............9........... .
direct routes for conveying runoff to drainage channels and use of soil stabilization BMPs
such as mulching, erosion control fabrics, and/or reseeding with grass or other plants where
necessary. Standard staging area practices for sediment tracking reduction would also be
identified where necessary including vehicle washing and street sweeping. Temporary
concentrated flow conveyance systems would also be considered such as berms, ditches, and
outlet flow velocity dissipation devices to reduce erosion from newly disturbed slopes.
The general contractor will identify, construct, regularly inspect, and maintain the BMPs in
good working order. The construction contractor will also implement appropriate hazardous
materials management practices to reduce the possibility of chemical spills or releases of
contaminants, including any nonstormwater discharge to drainage channels. Standard
hazardous materials management and spill control and response measures would minimize
the potential for surface and groundwater contamination.
Significance after Mitigation
Less than significant. (draft joint document, page 5.8-3)
Impact W3: Water Quality Impacts from Changes in Stormwater Drainage
Finding
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project that
avoid the potentially significant environmental effect identified in the final joint document.
Explanation
The proposed project would increase the amount of impervious paved roadway surfaces and
thereby result in an approximate doubling of Stormwater runoff generated from impervious road
surface within the contributing drainage area. The increased runoff associated with road surface
would be a small fraction of the total stormwater runoff within the drainage area. However,
potential receiving waters (i.e., Little Butte Creek and Magalia Reservoir) are also in close
proximity to this source of additional runoff. In addition to increased runoff, as development in
the surrounding urban areas and use of the roadway improvements increase, greater quantities of
contaminants such as petroleum products and other substances (e.g., trace metals, hazardous
materials, litter) could be deposited on the road surfaces. Minor modifications to existing
facilities would be required, primarily involving contouring during grading activities to control
the direction and rate of drainage to project facilities. Culverts would need to be extended where
roadways would be widened, and replaced where culverts are undersized. There would be no
appreciable change in the routing of storm drainage to offsite properties or receiving waters
compared to existing conditions.
Recent Caltrans water quality monitoring data confirm that Stormwater runoff from highways
can contain elevated levels of total suspended solids (TSS), total organic carbon, coliform
bacteria, trace metals, and some organic compounds (California Department of Transportation
2002d, 2003). Caltrans data for highways with less than 30,000 AADT traffic volume indicate in
particular that total organic carbon, total dissolved solids, and dissolved copper content in
undiluted highway runoff can be elevated compared to typical water quality criteria. The
existing traffic volume in the project area is about 17,000 AADT; future projected traffic volume
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the May 2005
Skyway Widening Project, Alternative A2/82 46
Section 2. Findings on Signified: npacts of the Proposed Project
........................................................ .
is about 24,000 by the year 203>. Consequently, it can be assumed that highway runoff may
have similar water quality conditions as indicated by the Caltrans data for highways with less
than 30,000 AADT.
This impact is considered to be significant since temporary and intermittent stormwater
discharges from project-related drainage facilities could have reduced water quality.
(draft joint document, pages 5.8-3 and 5.8-4)
Mitigation Measures
The draft joint document identifies the following mitigation measure to reduce this impact to a
less-than-significant level: (draft joint document, pages 5.8-4 and 5.8-5)
W3a: Implement permanent best management practices. The County will incorporate
permanent post-construction best management practices in the project design to avoid or
minimize long-term water quality impacts, pursuant to the NPDES stormwater permit.
Appropriate BMPs for the project site could include slope protection and stabilization
measures such as preservation of existing vegetation, concentrated flow conveyance systems
(ditches, berms, drains, flared culvert end sections, outlet protection and flow velocity
dissipation), and slope roughening or terracing for new cut-and-fill slopes as deemed
necessary by the project engineer. Slope protection measures would be implemented to
control erosion such as reducing the length of disturbed slopes, reducing the gradient of
slopes, and preventing concentrated flow over slope soils. By controlling erosion, directing
runoff through vegetation, or otherwise reducing the offsite discharge of particulate matter
and sediment, the permanent erosion control measures would control offsite discharges of
roadway pollutants that are associated with particulate matter. The County would be
responsible for long-term inspection and maintenance of the permanent BMPs to ensure that
they are maintained in good working order.
Significance after Mitigation
Less than significant. (draft joint document, page 5.8-4)
Impact W4: Temporary Construction-Related Water Quality Impacts Associated
with the Major Fix Design Option
Finding
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project that
avoid the potentially significant environmental effect identified in the final joint document.
Explanation
With implementation of the Major Fix, installation and removal of the cofferdam within the
reservoir could directly introduce fine suspended sediment into the reservoir water or disturb
sediment deposits on the bottom of the reservoir. Temporary haul roads and staging areas would
also be constructed that could generate stormwater runoff into receiving waters. Lowering of
water levels in the reservoir and construction of the cofferdam is expected to last about 8 months.
The potential in-water disturbances would occur over a longer time period during the
....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the May 2005
Skyway Widening Project, Alternative A2/B2 47
Section 2. Findin son Si nifica: npacts of the Proposed Project
....................................:~ ..............9............ ......
construction season. Potential increases in suspended sediment and turbidity would primarily
impact resident fisheries in Magalia Reservoir or downstream in Little Butte Creek if discharged
from the temporary pumping system. This impact is considered significant. (draft joint
document, page 5.8-5)
Mitigation Measures
The draft joint document identifies the following mitigation measure to reduce this impact to a
less-than-significant level: (draft joint document, page 5.8-~)
W4a: Implement construction-related best management practices during construction
of the Major Fix cofferdam. The County's contractor will construct the cofferdam and
include BMPs in the SWPPP to avoid and minimize the potential increases in suspended
sediment and turbidity during construction and removal of the cofferdam. Measures should
be taken to minimize in-water disturbances and input of suspended sediment and turbidity
such as constructing the cofferdam with clean fill material to the extent possible. The
pumping system installed to supply water to PID treatment facilities should be placed
sufficiently upstream in the reservoir to avoid the area of disturbances and suspended
sediment to avoid discharge of turbid water to Little Butte Creek.
Significance after Mitigation
Less than significant. (draft joint document, page 5.8-5)
Cumulative Hydrology, Water Quality, and Flooding Impacts
Finding
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project that
avoid the project's cumulatively considerable contribution to significant hydrology, water
quality, and flooding impacts.
Explanation
The proposed project and other planned development within the Town of Paradise sphere of
influence would incrementally increase the amount of impervious surfaces and, therefore,
increase the total runoff into drainage systems within the area, including Little Butte Creek,
Magalia Reservoir, and the West Branch Feather River. As part of the proposed project, the
routing of stormwater runoff from Skyway would essentially be kept the same; culvert sizes
would be increased to accommodate the increased runoff. Roadway widening projects also
contribute additional automobile-related contaminants that, if untreated, can harm aquatic
organisms. The proposed project and other planned roadway projects within the Town of
Paradise sphere of influence would contribute to the total amount of roadway contaminants that
are contained in stormwater runoff.
Widening Skyway and construction of the Major Fix Design Option at the Magalia Dam have
the potential to temporarily contribute fine sediments into Magalia Reservoir and temporarily
increase erosion potential along the project corridor. If other planned development projects are
scheduled to occur at the same time, this temporary effect could contribute to a larger adverse
cumulative sediment control impact.
....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the May 2005
Skyway Widening Project, Alternative A2/B2 48
Section 2. Findings on Si9nificG pacts of the Proposed Project
(draft joint document, page 4-5)
Mitigation
The draft joint document identifies the following mitigation measure to reduce the project's
contribution to hydrology, water quality, and flooding impacts to less than cumulatively
considerable: (draft joint document, pages 4-5, 5.8-3, 5.8-4, and 5.8-5)
W2a: Implement construction-related best management practices. See the description
of this measure under Impact W2.
• W3a: Implement permanent best management practices. See the description of this
measure under Impact W3.
• W4a: Implement construction-related best management practices during construction
of the major fix cofferdam. See the description of this measure under Impact W4.
Significance after Miti acLtion
Less than significant. (draft joint document, page 4-5)
Earth Resources and Hazardous Materials
Thresholds of Significance
Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines provides guidance for evaluation of project effects on
geologic and hazardous materials. Based on these guidelines, the project is considered to have a
significant impact on the geology, soils, or hazardous materials if it would:
• expose people or structures to rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most
recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area
or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault;
• expose people or structures to strong seismic ground shaking;
• expose people or structures to seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction;
• expose people or structures to landslides;
• result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil;
• be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable or that would become unstable as a result
of the project and potentially result in an onsite or- offsite landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse;
• be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial risks to life or property;
• create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use,
or disposal of hazardous materials;
. ........ .. ... .. . .. . .. .............. ......... .. . .. .. ... .. . .. .. .. ... .. ........ ...... ... .. .. .. . .. .. .. . . ........ .. . .... ..... ...... .. . .. ... ....... . .. ...... .. . .... . .. ... ..... ... ..... .... .. . .... . ... .. .. .. ..... . ..... ... ... .. ... . .. .. . ... .. ... ... .. . .. .. .
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the May 2005
Skyway Widening Project, Alternative A2/82 49
Section 2 Findings on Si~nifica: ipacts of the Proposed Project
................................................
• create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment;
emit hazardous emissions or involve handling hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school; or
be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, it would create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment.
(draft joint document, page 5.9-1)
Impact E1: Potential Structural Damage and Injury from Fault Rupture
Finding
Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less than significant (Pub.
Resources Code, 21002; CEQA Guidelines, § 15091).
Explanation
The project area is not located in an Alquist-Priolo Special SCudies Zone, but implementing the
project would result in development in UBC Seismic Hazard Zone 3, where earthquake severity
and probable structural damage from nearby earthquakes would be moderate. Additionally,
displacement of the Magalia, Paradise, and Cohasset Ridge Faults (all considered "conditionally
active" by DSOD) could result in surface rupture or faulting within the project area. Structures
not built according to seismic safety standards are more susceptible to damage (and,
subsequently, to increased risk of injury to persons) than structures built in accordance with the
Uniform Building Code (UBC). This impact, however, is considered to be less than significant
because all structures would conform to the latest Caltrans and UBC standards, that establish
requirements for seismic safety of all structures, and because the widening activities present no
change in existing conditions with respect to the present surface rupture or faulting hazards.
(draft joint document, page 5.9-2)
Mitigation
No mitigation is proposed. (draft joint document, page 5.9-2)
Significance
Less than significant. (draft joint document, page 5.9-2)
Impact E2: Potential Structural Damage and Injury from Ground Shaking
Finding
Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less than significant (Pub.
Resources Code, 21002; CEQA Guidelines, § 15091).
....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the May 2005
Skyway Widening Project, Alternative A2/B2 50
Section 2. Findings on Significa~ ipacts of fhe Proposed Project
Explanation
A large earthquake could cause moderate to strong ground shaking in the project area on nearby
faults; however, this impact is considered to be less than significant because the anticipated
ground acceleration at the site (less than 0.2 g) is not anticipated to be great enough to cause
structural damage and/or injury. In addition, it is assumed that all structures would conform to
the latest Caltrans and UBC standards, which establish requirements for seismic safety of all
sU-uctures. (draft joint document, page 5.9-2)
Mitigation
No mitigation is proposed. (draft joint document, page 5.9-2)
Significance
Less than significant. (draft joint document, page 5.9-2)
Impact E3: Potential Structural Damage and Injury from Development on
Materials along Roadway Subject to Liquefaction
Finding
Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less than significant (Pub.
Resources Code, 21002; CEQA Guidelines, § 15091).
Explanation
A large earthquake could cause moderate to strong ground shaking in the project area on nearby
faults, potentially resulting in liquefaction in saturated cohesionless sands in the vicinity of the
dam. This impact is considered to be less than significant because the anticipated ground
acceleration at the site (less than 0.2 g) is not anticipated to be great enough to cause liquefaction
of the dense granular materials beneath the project area (California Division of Mines and
Geology 1997j. In addition, it is assumed that all structures will conform to the latest Caltrans
and Uniform Building Code standards, which establish requirements for seismic safety of all
structures. (draft joint document, page 5.9-2)
Mitigation
No mitigation is proposed. (draft joint document, page 5.9-2)
Significance
Less than significant. (draft joint document, page 5.9-2)
Impact E5: Potential Accelerated Erosion from Grading Activities
Finding
Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less than significant (Pub.
Resources Code, 21002; CEQA Guidelines, § 15091).
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the May 2005
Skyway Widening Project, Alternative A2/B2 51
Section,2...Findin~s on Si~nifica,.:._..:,~pacts of the Proposed Project ..........................................................................................................
Explanation
Implementation of the project in both segments A and B would result in construction activities
involving grading and removal of vegetative cover, which could cause increased wind and water
erosion rates. Additionally, construction activities may compact the soil, increasing runoff and
decreasing the revegetation potential.
Prior to and during construction activities, grading and erosion and sediment control standards,
as required by County and Town ordinances, will be met. Prior to grading, grading plans will
incorporate the findings of detailed geologic and geotechnical investigations. An erosion and
sediment control plan will also be included in the project construction documents and will
require that all soil directly or indirectly disturbed during construction be stabilized with erosion
control measures. Grading that would occur during project construction would primarily disturb
areas that already have been graded for prior road construction. Since erosion control measures
will be implemented in accordance with the County and Town grading ordinances and a SWPPP
as described above, this impact is considered to be less than significant.
(draft joint document, page 5.9-4)
Mitigation
No mitigation is proposed. (draft joint document, page 5.9-4)
Significance
Less than significant. (draft joint document, page 5.9-4)
Impact E6: Potential Exposure of Previously Unknown Hazardous Wastes to
Construction Workers and/or Nearby Land Uses
Finding
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project that
avoid the potentially significant environmental effect identified in the final joint document.
Explanation
The project initial site assessment indicates that with the exception of naturally-occurring
asbestos (NOA), the project area and surrounding properties generally have a low risk of
presenting substantial impacts from hazardous materials or wastes and/or petroleum
hydrocarbons. The site reconnaissance conducted for this project indicated the presence of
ultramafic rock associated with NOA. It is also possible that existing yellow pavement striping
along Skyway may contain lead. Pad and pole-mounted electrical transformers are also present
in the project area that are potential sources of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Finally,
aerially-deposited lead may be encountered in the surface and near-surface soils due to vehicle
emissions. These impacts are considered to be significant since the project could create a hazard
to the public or the environment involving the accidental release of hazardous materials if
sampling and testing indicate the presence of hazardous materials above regulatory levels and
measures are not taken. (draft joint document, page 5.9-4)
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the May 2005
Skyway Widening Project, Alternative A2/82 52
Section 2. Findin son Si nifics ipacts of the Proposed Project
....................................:~...............9............. ................................................................................. ...................
Mitigation Measures
The draft joint document identifies the following mitigation measures to reduce this impact to a
less-than-significant level: (draft joint document, pages 5.9-4 and 5.9-5)
AQ2a: Conduct sampling and testing of potential NOA and implement asbestos
airborne toxic control measures as required by the Butte County Air Quality
Management District. See description oi~ this measure under Impact AQ2.
E6a: Sampling and testing of yellow striping along existing roadway. Depending upon
the road widening option used, yellow striping along Skyway may require removal. If burial
of pre-existing pavement by new paving is conducted, however, impacts would be considered
beneficial: the burial process would nearly eliminate leaching of the lead incurred from
precipitation. However, if striping paint is to be removed or impacted in any manner,
sampling and testing of the yellow striping scheduled for removal should be performed to
determine the presence of lead and the need for mitigation prior to or during construction if
the lead content is above the regulatory thresholds. A Health and Safety Plan should be
prepared to address worker safety when working with potentially lead-bearing paint.
Ebb: Sampling and analysis of transformer fluid from electrical transformers. If leaks
i~rom electrical transformers that will either remain within the project construction zone or
will require removal and/or relocation are encountered before or during construction, the
transformer fluid should be sampled and analyzed by qualified personnel for detectable levels
of PCBs. If PCBs are detected, the transformer should be removed and disposed of in
accordance with regulatory agency requirements. Any stained soil encountered below
electrical transformers with detectable PCB levels should also be handled and disposed of in
accordance with regulatory agency requirements. It is anticipated that, with the current
standard of care, removal of any transformers for the project should not pose a significant
hazardous materials risk.
• E6c: Testing for ADL in surface/near-surface soils. A preliminary investigation and
screening for ADL is recommended along the proposed project area to determine the levels
of lead in the surface and near-surface soils. Should ADL be encountered above the
regulatory thresholds, these soils should be handled and/or disposed of in accordance with
regulatory agency requirements. A Health and Safety Plan should be prepared to address
worker safety when working with potentially lead-bearing soils.
Significance after Mitigation
Less than significant. (draft joint document, page 5.9-4)
Cumulative Earth Resources and Hazardous Materials Impacts
Finding
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project that
avoid the project's cumulatively considerable contribution to significant earth resources and
hazardous materials impacts.
....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the May 2005
Skyway Widening Project, Alternative A2/82 53
Section.2....Findin~s on Si~nifica.......:npacts of the Proposed Project ..........................................................................................................
Explanation
Development within the Town of Paradise sphere of influence has the potential to expose people
and property to the effects of earthquakes, landslides, and dam inundation hazards, and expose
structures, roads and utilities to the effects of subsidence (Quad Consultants 199?). Construction
activities have the potential to expose construction workers and adjacent properties to hazardous
materials. Each development project within the sphere of~ influence contributes to this cumulative
effect. (draft joint document, page 4-5)
Mitigation
The draft joint document identifies the following mitigation measure to reduce the project's
contribution to earth resources and hazardous materials to less than cumulatively considerable:
(draft joint document, pages 4-5, 5.9-4, 5.9-5, 5.10-3, and 5.10-4)
• AQ2a: Conduct sampling and testing of potential NOA and implement asbestos
airborne toxic control measures as required by the Butte County Air Quality
Management District. See the description of this measure under Impact AQ2.
• E6a: Sampling and testing of yellow striping along existing roadway. See the description
of this measure under Impact E6.
• Ebb: Sampling and analysis of transformer fluid from electrical transformers. See the
description of this measure under Impact E6.
• E6c: Testing for ADL in surface/near-surface soils. See the description of this measure
under Impact E6.
Significance
Less than significant. (draft joint document, page 4-5)
Air Quality
Thresholds of Significance
Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines provides guidance for evaluation of project effects on
air quality. Based on these guidelines and professional standards, the proposed project would
result in a significant impact on air quality if it would:
• Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality management plan;
• Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air
quality violation;
Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors);
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the May 2005
Skyway Widening Project, Alternative A2/B2 54
Section 2. Findin son Si nifica pacts of the Proposed Project
....................................9................9.............. ....................................................................................................................................
• Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; or
• Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people.
In addition to the above significant criteria, emission thresholds are contained in the Indirect
Source Review Guidelines produced by the BCAQMD (1.997).
(draft joint document, page 5.10-1)
Impact AQ1: Temporary Increase in ROG, NOX, and PM10Gonstruction-Related
Emissions during Grading and Construction Activities
Finding
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project that
avoid the potentially significant environmental effect identified in the final joint document.
Explanation
Implementation of the project would result in the construction of widened roads and
embankments, as well as intersection improvements. The construction of dam stability
improvements at Magalia Dam would also occur with implementation of the Major Fix design
option. Typically, there are four activities associated with road construction: 1) grubbing/land
clearing, 2) grading/excavation, 3) drainage/utilities/sub-grade, and 4) paving. The proposed
project would likely be constructed in two phases, Segment B, then Segment A.
The estimated construction-related ROG, NOX, and PM10 emission estimates exceed the
BCAQMD Level A and Level B thresholds for criteria pollutants. NOX emissions also exceed
the Level C threshold. This impact is considered to be significant.
(draft joint document, pages 5.10-1 and 5.10-2)
Mitigation Measures
The joint document identifies the following mitigation measure to reduce this impact to a less-
than-significant level: (draft joint document, pages 5.10-2 and 5.10-3, and final joint document
errata to page 5.10-2)
AQla: Implement construction mitigation measures to reduce construction emissions,
as required by the BCAQMD. Butte County shall ensure that the following measures are
implemented during construction of the proposed project:
• PM10 Controls:
- Use alternatives to open burning of vegetative material on the project site unless
otherwise deemed infeasible by the AQMD. Among suitable alternatives are
chipping, mulching, or conversion to biomass fuel.
- Use adequate dust control measures that are implemented in a timely and effective
manner during all phases of project development and construction.
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations far the May 2005
Skyway Widening Project, Alternative A2/82 55
Section 2. Findin son Si nifica, npacts of the Proposed Project
- Water all active construction sites at least twice daily or more as necessary. The
frequency of watering should be based on the type of operation, soil, and wind
exposure. A water truck shall be on-site at all times. (final joint document en•ata to
page 5.10-2)
- Use chemical soil stabilizers or water visibly dry construction areas (final joint
document errata to page x.10-2).
- Limit the speed of on-site vehicles to 15 mph on unpaved roads.
- Suspend land clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation activities when winds
exceed 20 mph.
- Apply non-toxic binders (e.g., latex acrylic copolymer) to exposed areas after cut-
and-fill operations, and hydroseed the area.
- Plant vegetative ground cover in disturbed areas as soon as possible.
- Cover inactive storage piles.
- During initial grading, earth moving, or site preparation, construct a construction
entrance similar to the Caltrans' Temporary Erosion Control Detail (part of the
Caltrans Erosion Control Best Management Practices) where construction equipment
leaves paved areas. This detail utilizes a layer of crushed rock at entrances to
minimize dust and the tracking of dirt in areas adjacent to the work area.
- Sweep or wash paved streets adjacent to the project site at least once per day as
necessary to remove excessive accumulations of silt and/or mud that may have
accumulated as a result of activities on the project site. (final joint document errata to
page 5.10-2)
- Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact
regarding dust complaints. This person will respond and take corrective action within
24 hours. The telephone number of the BCAQMD will also be visible to ensure
compliance with the BCAQMD Rules 201 and 207 (Nuisance and Fugitive Dust
Emissions).
- Before project completion, demonstrate that all ground surfaces are covered or treated
sufficiently to minimize fugitive dust emissions.
- Cover all haul vehicles transporting soil to or from the project site (final joint
document ecTata to page 5.10-2)
• Streets:
- Institute temporary traffic control as appropriate during all phases of construction to
improve traffic flow as deemed appropriate by the Butte County Department of
Public Works.
- Schedule construction activities that affect traffic flow to off-peak hours as much as
practicable.
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the May 2005
Skyway Widening Project, Alternative A2/l32 56
Section.2....Findin~s on Siynificp:.......npacts of the Proposed Project .........................................................................................................
............................
Significance after Mitigation
Less than significant. (draft joint document, page 5.10-2)
Impact AQ2: Potential for Exposure to Asbestos during Construction
Finding
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project that
avoid the potentially significant environmental effect identified in the final joint document.
Explanation
Asbestos-containing ultramafic rocks are found on Skyway north of Coutolenc Road and east of
the Magalia Reservoir. Ultramafic rocks occurring locally consist of serpentine, which can, but
do not always, contain naturally occurring asbestos. Exposure to asbestos can result in health
ailments such as lung cancer, mesothelioma (cancer of the linings of the lungs and abdomen),
and asbestosis (scarring of lung tissues that results in constricted breathing). (draft joint
document, page 5.10-3)
Mitigation Measures
The joint document identifies the following mitigation measure to reduce this impact to a less-
than-significant level: (draft joint document, pages 5.10-3 and 5.10-4, and final joint document
errata to page 5.10-3)
AQ2a: Conduct sampling and testing of potential NOA and implement asbestos
airborne toxic control measures as required by the BCAQMD. Sampling and testing of
potential NOA-bearing soils and rock should be performed prior to construction to determine
if asbestos levels are present above regulatory levels. If NOA is present, an asbestos dust
mitigation plan will be prepared to address worker safety when working with NOA that
ensures compliance with Section 93105 of the California Code of Regulations, Asbestos
Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Construction, Gradi~tg, Quarrying, ajad Surface Mining
Operations, as described below (final joint document errata to page 5.10-3):
• The BCAQMD is notified in writing at least fourteen (14) days before the beginning of
the activity or in accordance with a procedure approved by the district.
• All the following dust control measures are implemented during any road construction or
maintenance activity:
- Unpaved areas subject to vehicle traffic must be stabilized by being kept adequately
wetted, treated with a chemical dust suppressant, or covered with material that
contains less than 0.25 % asbestos;
- The speed of any vehicles and equipment traveling across unpaved areas must be no
more than 15 mph unless the road surface and surrounding area is sufficiently
stabilized to prevent vehicles and equipment traveling more than 15 mph from
emitting dust that visibly crosses the project boundaries (project limits of ground
disturbance);
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the May 2005
Skyway Widening Project, Alternative A2/B2 57
Section 2. Findings on Significa npacts of the Proposed Project
- Storage piles and disturbed areas not subject to vehicular traffic must he stabilized by
being kept adequately wetted, treated with a chemical dust suppressant, or covered
with material that contains less than 0.25 % asbestos; and
- In areas where serpentine rock may be disturbed, activities must be conducted so that
no track-out from the area is visible on any paved roadway open to the public.
• Equipment and operations must not cause the emission of any dust that visibly crosses the
project boundaries (project limits of ground disturbance).
Significance after Mitigation
Less than significant. (draft joint document, page 5.10-3)
Impact AQ3: No Violations of CO NAAQS
Finding
Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less than significant (Pub.
Resources Code, 21002; CEQA Guidelines, § 15091).
Explanation
As noted above, CO concentrations were not estimated because all the affected intersections
within the project vicinity operate at LOS C or better under both 2010 and 2035 future
conditions. Caltrans' Transportation Project-Level Carbon Monoxide Protocol indicates that
intersections operating at LOS C or better would not experience exceedances of either the 1-hour
or the 8-hour federal or state CO standards (Garza et al. 1997). This impact is considered to be
less than significant no violations of the CO standards are expected. (draft joint document, page
5.10-4)
Mitigation
No mitigation is proposed. (draft joint document, page 5.10-4)
Significance
Less than significant. (draft joint document, page 5.10-4)
Impact AQ4: Transportation Conformity Achieved
Finding
Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less than significant (Pub.
Resources Code, 21002; CEQA Guidelines, § 15091).
Explanation
The proposed project is included in the Butte County 2001-2025 RTP adopted in September 27,
2001, by Butte County Association of Governments (BCAG 2001). In Table 5-3 of the RTP, the
Skyway project segment is listed as "Pentz Rd to S. Park Dr: Widen to four lanes." The project
is also included in Amendment 1 of the BCAG 2000 Federal TIP, described as "Skyway
Widening (Near Paradise - On the Skyway from Pentz Road to South Park Drive -widen
....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for [he May 2005
Skyway Widening Project, A/ternafive A2/62 58
Section 2. Findin son Si nific~ ipacts of the Proposed Project
.....................................9................9............ .....................................................................
roadway, construct intersections)." Caltrans and FHWA approved the amendment on May 21,
2001, and July 6, 2001, respectively. Therefore, the design concept and scope of the project have
not changed from what was analyzed for air quality conformity, and the project is a conforming
transportation project. This impact is considered to be less than significant. (draft joint
document, page 5.10-4)
Mitigation
No mitigation is proposed. (draft joint document, page 5.10-4)
Significance
Less than significant. (draft joint document, page 5.10-4)
Noise
Thresholds of Significance
Thresholds of significance for noise impacts have been established for this assessment based on
the CEQA Environmental Checklist found in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines and on
professional judgment.
Butte County is the CEQA lead agency for the project. However, for the purposes of the CEQA
assessment, traffic noise impacts are assessed using the Town of Paradise's significance
thresholds, rather than Butte County's since they are the more stringent of the two. Construction
noise impacts are assessed using the State Office of Noise Control's (ONC's) construction noise
limits from their model noise ordinance, as the County and Town do not have explicit
significance criteria pertaining to construction activities.
A noise impact is considered significant if:
• Construction noise would exceed 60 dBA at noise sensitive uses during the hours between
7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., daily, except Sundays and legal holidays;
• Construction noise would exceed 50 dBA at noise sensitive uses during the hours between
7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., daily, and during all times on Sundays and legal holidays;
• Construction noise would exceed the ambient noise level by more than 5 dB; or
• The incremental increase in traffic noise directly attributed to the project is equal to or
greater than 3 dB where the design year noise level exceeds 60 dB-L~n. The incremental
increase in traffic noise directly attributable to the project is the difference between design
year conditions with the project and the design year conditions without the project.
(draft joint document, page 5.11-4)
....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the May 2005
Skyway Widening Project, Alternative A2/82 59
Section 2. Findin son Si nifica~._ ,mpacts of the Proposed Project „ .............................
.....................................9................9................................................................
Impact N3: Exposure of Noise Sensitive Land Uses to a Significant Increase in
Traffic Noise
Finding
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project that
avoid the potentially significant environmental effect identified in the final joint document.
Explanation
The project is expected to result in significant traffic noise impacts at receivers located along the
southwest side of Skyway, south of South Park Drive. Consequently, this impact is considered
significant. (draft joint document, page 5.11-4)
Mitigation Measures
The draft joint document identifies the following mitigation measure to reduce this impact to a
less-than-significant level: (draft joint document, page 5.11-5)
• N3a: Employ traffic noise-reduction design features in the design of the proposed
project. Design of the proposed project shall incorporate traffic noise-reduction design
features. Either of the following noise-reduction design features would reduce this impact to
aless-than-significant level:
• Noise Barriers. A noise barrier of 6-12 feet would provide sufficient noise reduction
needed to reduce this impact to ales-than-significant level.
Noise-Reducing Pavement. Use of noise-reducing pavement such as rubberized asphalt
would provide approximately 3 dB of noise reduction. Sacramento County has found that
gap-graded rubberized asphalt provides 4 dB of noise reduction. This type of rubberized
asphalt has been used successfully in snow climates.
Significance after Mitigation
Less than significant. (draft joint document, page 5.11-4)
Impact N4: Exposure of Noise Sensitive Land Uses to Construction Noise
Finding
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project that
avoid the potentially significant environmental effect identified in the final joint document.
Explanation
During construction of the project, noise from construction activities (primarily operation of
heavy equipment) may intermittently dominate the noise environment in the immediate area of
construction. Construction equipment is expected to generate noise levels ranging from 70 to 90
dB at a distance of 50 feet, and noise produced by construction equipment would be reduced
over distance at a rate of about 6 dB per doubling of distance.
In general significant noise impacts from construction are not anticipated because construction
would be short-term, intermittent, and dominated by local traffic noise. However, there may be
....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the May 2005
Skyway Widening Project, Alternative A2/B2 60
Section 2. Findin son Si nlfice. .mpacts of the Proposed Project
.....................................9................9.....................................
instances where construction activity in close proximity to noise sensitive land uses could result
in significant noise impacts (i.e. noise levels that are in excess of the thresholds defined above).
A reasonable worst-case assumption is that the three loudest pieces of equipment anticipated for
use on the project (impact pile driver, scraper, and a truck] would operate simultaneously and
continuously for at least a 1-hour period. Pile driving is anticipated where the cofferdam would
be installed. At 50 feet from the source, the combined sound level would be 101 dBA. Noise-
sensitive land uses located within about 3,000 feet of an active construction site may be exposed
to construction noise in excess of the daytime construction threshold of 60 dBA. Noise-sensitive
land uses located within about 6,000 feet of an active construction site may be exposed to
construction noise in excess of the nighttime construction threshold of 50 dBA or a 5 dB increase
in noise. A significant impact could occur where noise-sensitive land uses are located within the
distances indicated above from construction activities. These noise-sensitive land uses include
residences located along the project alignment, as well as asingle-family residence located
approximately 4,500 feet to the northwest of the proposed cofferdam under the Major Fix design
option.
(draft joint document, pages 5.11-5 through 5.11-7)
Mitigation Measures
The draft joint document identifies the following mitigation measures to reduce this impact to a
less-than-significant level: (draft joint document, pages 5.11-7 and 5.11-8)
N4a: Employ noise-reducing construction practices. The construction contractor shall
employ noise-reducing construction practices such that noise from construction does not
exceed:
• 60 dBA at noise sensitive uses during the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., daily,
except Sundays and legal holidays;
• 50 dBA at noise sensitive uses during the hours between 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., daily,
and during any time on Sundays and legal holidays; and
• the ambient noise level at noise sensitive uses by 5 dB or more at anytime.
Also, the contractor will prohibit construction activities in the Town of Paradise between the
hours of 7:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. on weekdays and Saturdays, or at any time on Sundays and
holidays.
Measures that can be used to limit noise may include but are not limited to the following
• Locating equipment as far a practical from noise sensitive uses,
• Using sound control devices such as mufflers on equipment,
• Turning off idling equipment,
• Using equipment that is quieter than standard equipment,
• Using noise-reducing enclosures around noise-generating equipment,
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the May 2005
Skyway Widening Project, Alternative A2/82 61
Section 2 Findings on Siynifia mpacts of the Proposed Project ...
• Constructing barriers between noise sources and noise sensitive land uses or taking
advantage of existing barrier features (terrain, structures) to block sound transmission,
• Temporarily relocating residents during periods of high construction noise that cannot be
effectively reduced by other means.
The construction contractor shall prepare a detailed noise control plan based on the
construction methods proposed. This plan will identify specific measures determined to be
feasible by the County that will be taken to ensure compliance with the noise limits specified
above. The noise control plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Butte County
Department of Public Works before any noise-generating construction activity begins.
• Nob: Disseminate essential information to residences and implement a
complaintlresponse tracking program. The construction contractor shall notify residences
within 500 feet of the construction areas of the construction schedule in writing, prior to
construction. The construction contractor will designate a noise disturbance coordinator who
will be responsible for responding to complaints regarding construction noise. The
coordinator will determine the cause of the complaint and will ensure that reasonable
measures are implemented to correct the problem. A contact telephone number for the noise
disturbance coordinator will be conspicuously posted on construction site fences and will be
included in the written notification of the construction schedule sent to nearby residents.
Significance after Mitigation
Less than significant (draft joint document, page 5.11-7)
Wildlife, Vegetation, Endangered Species, Wetlands, and Other Waters
of the U.S.
Thresholds of Significance
Based on section 15065 of the State CEQA Guidelines, as well as Appendix G to those
Guidelines, the County concludes that a project would have a significant impact on biological
resources if it would:
• have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modification, on any
species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations or by DFG or USFWS;
• have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands, as defined by Section 404
of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, and coastal
wetlands) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means;
• interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use
of native wildlife nursery sites;
• conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance;
....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the May 2005
Skyway Widening Project, Alternative A2/82 62
Section 2. Findin son Si nific~ npacts of the Proposed Project
conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan (HCP), natural
communities conservation plan (NCCP), or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan; or
have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat
of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, or reduce the number or restrict the
range of a rare or endangered plant or animal.
Standard professional practice was also used to determine whether an impact on biological
resources would be significant. The proposed project likely would cause a significant impact if it
would result in:
• long-term degradation of a sensitive plant community because of substantial alteration of
land form or site conditions (e.g., alteration of wetland hydrology);
• substantial loss of a plant community and associated wildlife habitat;
• fragmentation or isolation of wildlife habitats, especially riparian and wetland communities;
• substantial disturbance of wildlife resulting from human activities;
• avoidance by fish of biologically important habitat for substantial periods, which may
increase mortality or reduce reproductive success;
• disruption of natural wildlife movement corridors;
• reduction in local population size attributable to direct mortality or habitat loss, lowered
reproductive success, or habitat fragmentation of:
- species qualifying as rare and endangered under CEQA,
- species that are state-listed or federally listed as threatened or endangered, or
- portions of local populations that are candidates for state or federal listing and federal and
state species of concern; or
• substantial reduction or elimination of species diversity.
(draft joint document, pages 5.12-1 and 5.12-2)
Impact BR1: Removal of Approximately 4.5 Acres of McNab Cypress Woodland
Finding
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project that
substantially lessen, but do not avoid, the significant short-term environmental effect identified
in the final joint document. This short-term effect remains significant and unavoidable.
The joint document recommends changes or alterations, namely Mitigation Measures BRIa-
BRId, W2a, W3a, and V2a, that if successfully implemented, would avoid the potentially
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the May 2005
Skyway Widening Project, Alternative A2/B2 63
Section.2.,..Findin~s on Si~nifica.......:npacts of the Proposed Project ........................................................................................
significant long-term environmental effect identified in the final joint document. If Mitigation
Measure BRId cannot be implemented, then this effect remains significant and unavoidable.
Explanation
The project would adversely affect approximately 4.5 acres of McNab cypress woodland
including a permanent loss of approximately 2.8 acres and temporary loss within the limits of
ground disturbance of approximately 1.7 acres. The effects would include removal of
established ma. ~rP trees and the shrub and herbaceous understory (including sensitive plant
species, as discussed below). In addition, damage to trees adjacent to the area of ground
disturbance (trimming, grading within the drip line, mortality, etc.) would be expected. The
permanent and temporary loss of McNab cypress woodland would be considered a significant
impact because it is a substantial reduction in the size of a sensitive natural community. (draft
joint document, page 5.12-2)
Mitigation Measures
The joint document identifies the following mitigation measures to reduce this impact to a less-
than-significant level: (draft joint document, pages 5.12-2 through 5.12-5, and final joint
document errata to page 5.12-4 and 5.12-5)
BRla: Conduct a biological resources education program for construction crews and
enforce construction restrictions. The County will conduct environmental awareness
training for construction crews before project implementation. The education program will
include a brief review of the special-status species (e.g., northwestern pond turtle, special-
status birds, and bats) that could potentially occur in the project area. The review will
include the life history, habitat requirements, and photographs of the species. The training
will identify the portions of the project area in which these species may occur, as well as their
legal status. The program will also cover the restrictions and guidelines that must be followed
by all construction personnel to reduce or avoid effects on these species during project
implementation. The crew foreman will be responsible for ensuring that crew members
adhere to the guidelines and restrictions. Education programs will be conducted for
appropriate new personnel as they are brought on the job during the construction period.
Restrictions and guidelines that must be followed by construction personnel are listed below.
• Project-related vehicles will observe the posted speed limit on hard-surfaced roads and a
15-mile-per-hour speed limit on unpaved roads during travel in the project area.
• Project-related vehicles and construction equipment will restrict off-road travel to the
designated construction area.
• All food-related trash will be disposed of in closed containers and removed from the
project area at least once a week during the construction period. Construction personnel
will not feed or otherwise attract wildlife to the project area.
• No pets or firearms will be allowed in the project area.
• To prevent possible resource damage from hazardous materials such as motor oil or
gasoline, construction personnel will not service vehicles or construction equipment
outside designated staging areas.
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the May 2005
Skyway Widening Project, Alternative A2/82 64
Section 2. Findings on Si~nifica: Impacts of the Proposed Project
Any worker who inadvertently injures or kills aspecial-status species or finds one dead,
injured, or entrapped will immediately report the incident to the biological monitor. The
monitor will immediately notify the County, which will provide verbal notification to the
USFWS Endangered Species Office in Sacramento, California, and to the local DFG
warden or biologist within 3 working days. The County will follow up with written
notification to USFWS and DFG within 5 working days.
BRlb: Install a construction barrier fencing around the construction area to protect
sensitive biological resources that will be avoided. The County or its contractor will install
orange construction barrier fencing to identify environmentally sensitive areas. A qualified
biologist will identify sensitive biological habitat onsite prior to the final design plans being
prepared so that the areas to be fenced are included in the plans. The area that would
generally be required for construction, including staging and access, is shown as the "limits
of ground disturbance" in Figures 2.4-1, 2.4-2. 2.4-5, and 2.4-6 of the draft joint document;
pockets within this area that are to be avoided during construction should be fenced off to
avoid disturbance in these areas. Sensitive biological habitat that occurs in and adjacent to
the construction area (project area) includes Little Butte Creek, the intermittent stream,
McNab cypress woodland, special-status plant populations, native trees, and any trees that
support nests of special-status bird species. Before construction, the construction contractor
will work with the project engineer and a resource specialist to identify the locations for the
barrier fencing and will place stakes around the sensitive resource sites to indicate these
locations. The protected area will be designated as an environmentally sensitive area and
clearly identified on the construction plans. The fencing will be installed before construction
activities are initiated and will be maintained throughout the construction period. The
following paragraph will be included in the construction specifications:
The Contractor's attention is directed to the areas designated as
"environmentally sensitive areas. " Tlzese areas are protected, and fto entry by the
Co~ztractor for any purpose will be allowed unless specifically authorized if2
writiizg by the Couizty. The Contractor will take measures to ensure that
Contractor's forces do riot eliter or disturb these areas, including giving written
~aotice to errtployees mzd subcontractors.
Temporary fences around the environmentally sensitive areas shall be installed as one of the
first orders of work. Temporary fences shall be furnished, constructed, maintained, and
removed as shown on the plans, as specified in the special provisions, and as directed by the
project engineer. The fencing shall be commercial-quality woven polypropylene, orange in
color, and at least 4 feet high (Tensor Polygrid or equivalent). The fencing will be tightly
strung on posts with a maximum 10-foot spacing.
BRlc: Retain a biologist to monitor construction activities. The County will retain a
biologist to make weekly monitoring visits to al] construction areas occurring in and adjacent
to sensitive habitat areas including Little Butte Creek, the intermittent stream, McNab
cypress woodland, special-status plant populations, native trees, and any trees that support
nests of special-status bird species. The biological monitor will assist the construction crew,
as needed to comply with all project implementation restrictions and guidelines.
Furthermore, the biological monitor will be responsible for ensuring that the contractor
....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the May 2005
Skyway Widening Project, Alternative A2/82 65
Section 2. Findings on Si~nific~. npacts of the Proposed Protect
maintains the staked and flagged perimeters of the construction area and staging areas
adjacent to sensitive biological resources.
BRld: Develop and implement a compensation strategy for the loss of McNab cypress
woodland. The County will develop and implement a compensation strategy that describes
how the loss of McNab cypress woodland will be compensated for as part of this project.
The loss of McNab cypress woodland will be compensated for at a minimum 1:1 ratio (1 acre
purchased for each 1 acre of woodland removed during construction). The County will either
purchase existing stands of McNab cypress woodlands on private property that are unaffected
by the project and turn management of such lands over to a conservation organization or
mitigation bank or contribute funds to an existing mitigation bank that purchases existing
stands of McNab cypress woodlands. The compensation strategy will be developed through
extensive and well-documented coordination with the County, DFG, conservation groups
(e.g., CNPS), and serpentine community experts (e.g., professors from California State
University at Chico, University of California at Davis, or University of California at
Berkeley).
If the County purchases land, the McNab cypress woodland area would ideally be located
adjacent to or in the vicinity of the Skyway road right-of-way. The County would provide
detailed information to the agencies on the location of the preservation area, quality of the
preservation area, feasibility of protecting and managing the area in-perpetuity, responsible
parties, and other pertinent information (to be determined through future coordination with
the resource agencies). (final joint document errata to pages 5.12-4 and 5.12-5)
• W2a: Implement construction-related best management practices. See the description of this
measure under Impact W2.
• W3a: Implement permanent best management practices. See the description of this measure
under Impact W3
• V2b: Implement project landscaping plan to replace trees that are removed, using specified
guidelines. See the description of this measure under Impact V2.
Significance after Mitigation
Significant and unavoidable in the short term since even though Mitigation Measure V2b calls
for implementation of a project landscaping plan and Mitigation Measure BRId compensates for
the loss of McNab cypress woodland on a 1:1 acreage basis, these measures do not mitigate for
the loss of fully-grown trees which take many years to mature.
If Mitigation Measures BRIa-BRld, W2a, W3a, and V2b are implemented, the long-term impact
will be mitigated to a less than significant level. (final joint document errata to page 5.12-2)
Because the Board of Supervisors, at the time of adoption of these findings, has no way of
knowing with certainty whether Mitigation Measure BRId can be implemented, the Board must
assume that the long-term impact is also significant and unavoidable.
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the May 2D05
Skyway Widening Project, Alternative A2/B2 66
Section 2. Findin son Si nifica,.. ,mpacts of fhe Proposed Project ...........................
Impact BR2: Fill of Less Than 0.01 Acre of Other Waters of the United States
Finding
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project that
avoid the potentially significant environmental effect identified in the final joint document.
Explanation
No wetlands were located in the study area. Areas that would qualify as other waters of the
United States include Magalia Reservoir, an unnamed intermittent stream, and Little Butte Creek
(Table 3.12-4).
Permanent fill would be placed in the unnamed intermittent stream (<0.01 acre) as part of the
road widening project. The County would obtain a Section 404 nationwide permit from the
Corps for this till. This feature does not provide important, irreplaceable habitat functions and
values. However, impacts on this stream are considered to be significant since the project could
affect federally-protected waters through sedimentation. (draft joint document, page 5.12-5)
Mitigation Measures
The draft joint document identifies the following mitigation measures to reduce this impact to a
less-than-significant level: (draft joint document, pages 5.12-5 and 5.12-6)
• BR2a: Comply with conditions of the Section 404 Permit. The County will obtain a
Section 404 permit from the Corps for this project and will comply with the conditions of this
permit. Fill of the intermittent stream would be permitted with nationwide permit 14 for
linear crossings.
• BRla: Conduct a biological resources education program for construction crews and
enforce construction restrictions. See the description of this measure under Impact BR1.
• BRlb: Install a construction barrier fencing around the construction area to protect
sensitive biological resources that will be avoided. See the description of this measure
under Impact BR 1.
• BRlc: Retain a biologist to monitor construction activities. See the description of this
measure under Impact BR1.
• W2a: Implement construction-related best management practices. See the description
of this measure under Impact W2.
• W3a: Implement permanent best management practices. See the description of this
measure under Impact W3.
Significance affer Mitigafion
Less than significant (draft joint document, page 5.12-5)
....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Findings of Facf and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the May 2005
Skyway Widening Project, Alternative A2/B2 67
Section 2. Findin son Si nitica:.....,npacts of the Proposed Project ..........................................................................................................
Impact BR3: Fill of up to 2 Acres of Other Waters of the U.S. (Major Fix Design
Option)
Finding
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project that
avoid the potentially significant environmental effect identified in the final joint document.
Explanation
With implementation of the Major Fix design option, the project would permanently fill
approximately 1 acre in Magalia Reservoir on the upstream face of Magalia Dam and temporary
fill approximately I acre with construction of the cofferdam. Impacts on Magalia Reservoir are
considered to be significant since it provides habitat for local and resident wildlife and fish
species. (draft joint document, page 5.12-6)
Mitigation Measures
The draft joint document identifies the following mitigation measures to reduce this impact to a
less-than-significant level: (draft joint document, page 5.12-6)
• BR2a: Comply with conditions of the Section 404 Permit. See the description of this
measure under Impact BR2.
• BRla: Conduct a biological resources education program for construction crews and
enforce construction restrictions. See the description of this measure under Impact BR1.
• BRlb: Install a construction barrier fencing around the construction area to protect
sensitive biological resources that will be avoided. See the description of this measure
under Impact BR1.
• BRle: Retain a biologist to monitor construction activities. See the description of this
measure under Impact BR1.
• W2a: Implement construction-related best management practices. See the description
of this measure under Impact W2.
• W3a: Implement permanent best management practices. See the description of this
measure under Impact W3.
• W4a: Implement construction-related best management practices during construction
of the major fix cofferdam. See the description of this measure under Impact W4.
Significance after Mitigation
Less than significant. (draft joint document, page 5.12-6)
Impact BR4: Removal of Approximately 0.7 Acre of Butte County Calycadenia
Finding
The joint document recommends changes or alterations, namely Mitigation Measures BR4a,
BR4b, BRIa, BRIb, BRIG, W2a, and W3a that, if successfully implemented, would avoid the
....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the May 2005
Skyway Widening Project, Alternative A2/82 68
Section 2. Findin son Si nific~ . npacts of the Proposed Project ,
.....................................:~..............9........................ .
significant environmental effect identified in the final joint document. If Mitigation Measure
BR4b cannot be implemented, then this effect remains significant and unavoidable.
Explanation
The project would remove approximately 0.7 acre of occupied habitat for Butte County
calycadenia during project construction, encompassing approximately several hundred individual
plants. All or most of the Butte County calycadenia plants observed in the study area on the east
side of the Skyway are within the area proposed for road widening under this alternative. Loss
of these plants would cause a reduction in the size of this population, although it would not cause
the extirpation of the population. Plants on the west side of the Skyway are outside of the area
proposed for disturbance. The Magalia serpentine outcrop provides a large area of potential
habitat for Butte County calycadenia, and the species has been collected at another location in
the Magalia serpentine north and east of the study area. However, this impact would be
considered significant because of this population's unusual occurrence on serpentinite and
because of the substantial reduction in the size of this population. (draft joint document, pages
5.12-6 and 5.12-7)
Mitigation Measures
The draft joint document identifies the following mitigation measures to reduce this impact to a
less-than-significant level: (draft joint document, pages 5.12-7 through 5.12-9)
• BR4a: Minimize potential effects on special-status plant species. The County will
implement the following measures, to the extent possible:
• In areas that contain high densities of special-status plant species, conduct construction
activities during the time period when special-status plants are not flowering or fruiting
(generally between August and January).
Excavate the topsoil from the area containing the impacted special-status plant
populations within the project's temporary construction easement. The topsoil would be
excavated with the roots, rhizomes, and seed bank in place (depth of excavation would be
determined after further research on the species and site conditions). This excavation
would occur after the plants have flowered and set seed (generally in
November/December when the soils are elastic and easy to move). The excavation
would be done by either hand orwith atruck-mounted tree spade. The type of equipment
would depend on the depth and diameter of excavation. The topsoil would be placed on a
transplant site immediately after excavation. This activity would be done or monitored
by a botanist to ensure that the appropriate amount of topsoil is removed and placed in
the appropriate location. Special project specifications will need to be developed for
removing and placing of soils containing special-status plant species.
BR4b: Develop a compensation strategy and implement options for the permanent and
temporary loss of special-status plant species. In conjunction with DFG, conservation
groups, and serpentine community experts, the County will develop a compensation strategy
that describes how the loss of special-status plant species will be compensated for as part of
this project. Permanent and temporary losses of special-status plant populations will be
compensated for at a minimum 1:1 ratio (1 acre of occupied habitat purchased or restored for
each 1 acre of occupied habitat removed during construction) and will be done in conjunction
....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the May 2005
Skyway Widening Project, Alternative A2/B2 69
Section 2 Findings on Si~nifica,:: ,mpacts of the Proposed Project
with Mitigation Measure BRId (if transplantation is determined to be a feasible option by the
County and resource agencies).
The compensation plan will describe the feasibility of implementing one or a combination of
two compensation alternatives: 1) preservation of existing special-status plant species on
private property through a mitigation bank or conservation organization and/or 2)
transplantation of special-status plant species onto suitable habitat sites on either public lands
(U.S. Forest Service or Bureau of Land Management) or private property. It will also
describe the feasibility of these two options and funding mechanisms for the options. Each
of these two options is described below.
Preservation Option
As part of this option, the County and a team of resource specialists will determine if there
are special-status plant species that occur on private property that could be purchased and
managed by a mitigation bank or conservation organization. Ideally, the special-status plant
occurrences that would be purchased and preserved as part of the project would occur
adjacent or in the vicinity of the Skyway road right-of-way. The County would provide
detailed information to the agencies on the location of the preservation area, quality of the
preservation area, feasibility of protecting and managing the area in-perpetuity, responsibility
parties, and other pertinent information (to be determined through future coordination with
the resource agencies). The special-status plant compensation strategy could be part of the
McNab cypress forest strategy because all of the special-status plant species that occur in the
project area are associated with the McNab cypress woodland.
Transplantation Plan Option
If the County and resource agencies determine that transplantation of the three special-status
plant species is a feasible option, the County will retain a qualified restoration ecologist to
work closely with resource agency specialists and knowledgeable individuals to identify a
transplantation area and ensure that the area can be managed and protected. Transplantation
of the special-status plant populations would involve 1) identifying a suitable transplant site;
2) moving the plant material and seed bank to the transplant site; 3) collecting seed material
and propagating the material in a nursery; and 4) monitoring the transplant sites to document
recruitment and survival rates. As part of this plan, the following general steps would be
involved in the transplantation and monitoring efforts, as appropriate:
• Conduct a site analysis to document the biotic and physical requirements of the special-
status plants that will be affected by the proposed action. This task would include an
evaluation of the special-status plant populations. The following information would be
gathered during this evaluation: soil type, plant species associations, aspect, tree cover
(presence or absence), and level of disturbance.
• Identify and evaluate sites that may be suitable for transplanting the special-status plant
populations. The same information identified above would be gathered for the transplant
site(s).
Collect seed material for propagation and seed storage purposes. Seed collection, storage,
and propagation will be done by a qualified certified native seed growing company. The
seed material would be sown on the transplant site(s) during the following year(s) to
ensure greater survival rates.
....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Findings of Fact and Sta[ement of Overriding Considerations for the May 2005
Skyway Widening Project, Alternative A2/82 70
Section 2. Findin son Si nifica. mpacts of the Proposed Pro ect
.....................................~:..............;~..........................................................................1................................................................................................
• Prepare the transplant sites by excavating the topsoil, roughening the subsoil, pre-soaking
the subsoil, and removing weeds from the surrounding area.
• Excavate the topsoil from the area containing the impacted special-status plant
populations. The topsoil would be excavated with the roots, rhizomes, and seed bank in
place (depth of excavation would be determined after further research on the species and
site conditions). This excavation would occur after the plants have flowered and set seed
(generally in NovemberfDecember when the soils are elastic and easy to move). The
excavation would be done by either hand or with atruck-mounted tree spade. The type
of equipment would depend on the depth and diameter of excavation. The topsoil would
be placed on the transplant site immediately after excavation. This activity would be
done or monitored by a botanist to ensure that the appropriate amount of topsoil is
removed and placed in the appropriate location. Special project specifications will need
to be developed for removing and placing of soils containing special-status plant species.
A post-transplantation report would be prepared that documents the measures used to
relocate the populations and where they were relocated.
Protect the transplanted special-status plant populations by installing metal fencing with
signs around the transplant sites. The purpose of this permanent fencing is to prevent
animals and humans from entering and disturbing the transplant sites. The fencing may
remain in-place during the monitoring period or for a longer period, if it appears that the
populations could be significantly disturbed by future nearby activities.
Conduct periodic maintenance visits to ensure that the transplant sites are undisturbed
and the fencing is in-place. Maintenance activities may consist of manual weeding,
supplemental watering, and mending fences.
Monitor the transplanted populations to document survival and recruitment rates over a
period of time established in consultation with the resource agencies and serpentine
community experts. The populations would be monitored annually during the flowering
period to document success rates and identify remedial actions. The detailed transplant and
monitoring plan would provide specific monitoring protocol and documentation procedures.
A copy of the annual monitoring reports and the final monitoring report would be provided to
DFG and public agencies with transplant sites, for their review.
• BRla: Conduct a biological resources education program for construction crews and
enforce construction restrictions. See the description of this measure under Impact BRI.
• BRlb: Install a construction barrier fencing around the construction area to protect
sensitive biological resources that will be avoided. See the description of this measure
under Impact BR1.
• BRlc: Retain a biologist to monitor construction activities. See the description of this
measure under Impact BR1.
• W2a: Implement construction-related best management practices. See the description
of this measure under Impact W2.
• W3a: Implement permanent best management practices. See the description of this
measure under Impact W3.
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the May 2005
Skyway Widening Project, Alternative A2/B2 71
Section 2. Findin son Si nificG ,npacts of the Proposed Project
.....................................:~..............9....................................................
Significance after Mitigation
If Mitigation Measures BR4a, BR4b, BRIa, BRIb, BRIG, W2a, and W3a are implemented, this
impact will be mitigated to a less than significant level (draft joint document, page 5.12-7).
Because the Board of Supervisors, at the time of adoption of these findings, has no way of
knowing with certainty whether Mitigation Measure BR~b can be implemented, the Board must
assume that this impact is significant and unavoidable.
Impact BR6: Removal of Approximately 0.01 Acre of Butte County Fritillary
Finding
The joint document recommends changes or alterations, namely Mitigation Measures BR4a,
BR4b, BRla, BRIb, BRIG, W2a, and W3a that, if successfully implemented, would avoid the
significant environmental effect identified in the final joint document. If Mitigation Measure
BR4b cannot be implemented, then this effect remains significant and unavoidable.
Explanation
Under this alternative the entire stand would be removed. The loss of these plants would cause a
reduction in the size of this population, although it would not cause the extirpation of the
population. The population extends downslope to the West Branch of the North Fork of the
Feather River, and additional potential habitat extends south along the canyon for about two
miles. This impact is considered to be significant because of this population's unusual occurrence
on serpentinite and because of the substantial reduction in the size of this population. (draft joint
document, pages 5.12-10 and 5.12-11)
Mitigation Measures
The draft joint document identifies the following mitigation measure to reduce this impact to a
less-than-significant level: (draft joint document, page 5.12-11)
• BR4a: Minimize potential effects on special-status plant species. See the description of
this measure under Impact BR4.
• BRla: Conduct a biological resources education program for construction crews and
enforce construction restrictions. See the description of this measure under Impact BR1.
• I3Rlb: Install a construction barrier fencing around the construction area to protect
sensitive biological resources that will be avoided. See the description of this measure
under Impact BR 1.
• BRlc: Retain a biologist to monitor construction activities. See the description of this
measure under Impact BR1.
• W2a: Implement construction-related best management practices. See the description
of this measure under Impact W2.
• W3a: Implement permanent best management practices. See the description of this
measure under Impact W3.
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the May 2005
Skyway Widening Project, Alternative A2/B2 72
Section 2. Findin son Si nifica,...mpacfs of the Pro osed Project
....................................:i<..............9............................. .. ...........P..........................................................
Significance after Mitigation
If Mitigation Measures BR4a, BR4b, BRIa, BRlb, BRlc, W2a, and W3a are implemented, this
impact will be mitigated to a less than significant level (draft joint document, page 5.12-11).
Because the Board of Supervisors, at the time of adoption of these findings, has no way of
knowing with certainty whether Mitigation Measure BR4b can be implemented, the Board must
assume that this impact is significant and unavoidable.
Impact BR7: Removal of Approximately 2.8 Acres of Cut-leaf Ragwort
Finding
The joint document recommends changes or alterations, namely Mitigation Measures BR4a,
BR4b, BRIa, BRIb, BRIG, W2a, and W3a that, if successfully implemented, would avoid the
significant environmental effect identified in the final joint document. If Mitigation Measure
BR4b cannot be implemented, then this effect remains significant and unavoidable.
Explanation
Project construction would remove approximately 2.8 acres of occupied habitat for cut-leaved
ragwort, consisting of approximately 50-100 individual plants. This impact would consist of a
permanent loss of habitat within the proposed right-of-way. Loss of these plants would cause a
reduction in the size of this population, although it would not cause the extirpation of the
population. The Magalia serpentine outcrop provides a large area potential habitat for cut-leaved
ragwort, and the population is known to extend downslope from Coutolenc Road (California
Natural Diversity Database 2003). This impact would be considered significant because of the
small number of existing occurrences of cut-leaf ragwort, because this is a peripheral population,
and because it would result in a substantial reduction in the size of this population. (draft joint
document, page 5.12-11)
Mitigation Measures
The draft joint document identifies the following mitigation measure to reduce this impact to a
less-than-significant level: (draft joint document, page 5.12-11)
• BR4a: Minimize potential effects on special-status plant species. See the description of
this measure under Impact BR4.
• BRla: Conduct a biological resources education program for construction crews and
enforce construction restrictions. See the description of this measure under Impact BRI.
• BRlb: Install a construction barrier fencing around the construction area to protect
sensitive biological resources that will be avoided. See the description of this measure
under Impact BR 1.
• BRlc: Retain a biologist to monitor construction activities. See the description of this
measure under Impact BR 1.
• W2a: Implement construction-related best management practices. See the description
of this measure under Impact W2.
....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the May 2005
Skyway Widening Project, Alternative A2/82 73
Section 2...Findin~s on Si~nifica~.::..:,rlpacts of the Proposed Project .........................................................................................................
• W3a: Implement permanent best management practices. See the description of this
measure under- Impact W3.
Significance after Miti aq tion
If Mitigation Measures BR4a, BR4b, BRIa, BRIb, BRIG, W2a, and W3a are implemented, this
impact will be mitigated to a less than significant level (draft joint document, page 5.12-11).
Because the Board of Supervisors, at the time of adoption of these findings, has no way of
knowing with certainty whether Mitigation Measure BR4b can be implemented, the Board must
assume that this impact is significant and unavoidable.
Impact BR8: Removal of Approximately 9 Acres of Northwestern Pond Turtle
Aquatic Habitat (Major Fix Design Option)
Finding
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project that
avoid the potentially significant environmental effect identified in the final joint document.
Explanation
With project implementation, there would be no temporary or permanent impacts on aquatic
habitat or nesting/upland habitat for western pond turtles.
With implementation of the Major Fix design option, approximately 9 acres of aquatic habitat for
western pond turtles would be temporarily affected when the Magalia Reservoir dam is widened
and stability is improved. This would occur when Magalia Reservoir is lowered and the
cofferdam is built on the southern portion of the reservoir. The cofferdam would be constructed
approximately 450 feet from the road edge and parallel to the road. If pumps are used to remove
water from this area, northwestern pond turtles could be injured or killed if they are sucked into
the pumps. If the local population is small, this would be a significant impact
Although suitable nesting/upland habitat is not present within the project area on the southern
shore of Magalia Reservoir, suitable habitat is present along portions of the remainder of the
reservoir and could be indirectly impacted. Suitable nesting and upland habitat may become
inundated when the reservoir is filled to its new capacity. If the reservoir is filled rapidly during
the nesting season (April-October), mortality of northwestern pond turtle eggs could occur if
turtles nest adjacent to the reservoir.
(draft joint document, page 5.12-12)
Mitigation Measures
The draft joint document identifies the following mitigation measures to reduce this impact to a
less-than-significant level: (draft joint document, pages 5.12-12 and 5.12-13)
• BR$a: Conduct preconstruction surveys for northwestern pond turtles. In April or
May, prior to construction, a qualified biologist will conduct a survey for northwestern pond
turtles in Magalia Reservoir. The survey should encompass the reservoir edge and 0.25 mile
upstream in creeks that empty into the reservoir (Little Butte Creek leading out of the
....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the May 2005
Skyway Widening Project, Alternative A2/82 74
Section 2. Findings on Si~nificG npacts of the Proposed Project
reservoir does not contain suitable habitat). The purpose of the survey is to determine if
turtles are using the reservoir during a period when they are most likely to be observed. A
survey for northwestern pond turtles should also be conducted in the project area 24 hours
before the start of construction. If turtles are observed during either survey, Mitigation
Measures BR8b and BR8c will be implemented. If turtles are not observed, no further
mitigation is required.
If Mitigation Measures BR8b and BR8c are implemented as part of the Major Fix option,
then a preconstruction survey would not be required.
BRSb: Use minimum 1 square inch screen on pumps to avoid mortality of
northwestern pond turtles. If pumps are used to lower Magalia Reservoir, maintain flows
in Little Butte Creek, or move water to the PID facility during construction, PID will use a
minimum 1 square inch screen to prevent hatchling and juvenile northwestern pond turtles
from being sucked through the pumps.
BRSc: Retain a biological monitor to check pumps for northwestern pond turtles. The
County should retain a biological monitor who will check pumps in the dewatered area
regularly to assure that no northwestern pond turtles become trapped on the screen of pump
intake hoses. Any turtles that become trapped will be moved to the northern end of Magalia
Reservoir, away from any pumps.
Significance after Mitigation
Less than significant. (draft joint document, page 5.12-12)
Impact BR9: Avoidance of Nesting Bald Eagles and Osprey
Finding
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project that
avoid the potentially significant environmental effect identified in the final joint document.
Explanation
It is unlikely that bald eagles or ospreys nest in the project area because of its proximity to the
road and the amount of ambient disturbance in the area. In addition, because there is an existing
level of disturbance in the project area and vicinity from the roadway, water treatment plant, and
residences, it is unlikely that disturbance from construction would be sufficient to cause nest
abandonment. However, because the project entails tree removal and the potential for impacts to
the nests of these birds, this impact is considered significant.
(draft joint document, page 5.12-13)
Mitigation Measures
The draft joint document identifies the following mitigation measure to reduce this impact to a
less-than-significant level: (draft joint document, page 5.12-14)
• BR9a: Conduct a preconstruction survey for bald eagle and osprey nests and avoid
construction during the nesting period. A preconstruction survey for bald eagles, ospreys,
....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the May 2005
Skyway Widening Project, Alternative A2/B2 75
Section 2. Findings on Si9nific~ npacts of the Proposed Project
...................................................
and their nests will be conducted in the project area and around Magalia Reservoir by a
qualified biologist during February or March of the year of construction. The biologist
should look for pair bonding or nest building behaviors that indicate the eagles and ospreys
are preparing to nest near the project area. If such behaviors are observed for eagles or an
existing eagle nest is found, USFWS and DFG should be consulted for measures to avoid
take under the federal Endangered Species Act (since the bald eagle is a listed species).
Every effort should be made to begin construction before the start of the breeding season
(February 1 to September 15). This will establish a level of activity and noise disturbance
that will dissuade bald eagles and ospreys from attempting to nest within or near the project
area. If construction activities cease and begin again during a 12-month period, they should
be reinitiated before the next breeding season begins.
Tree removal required for this project will be conducted only during the nonbreeding season
for bald eagles and ospreys (September 15 to January 31). Removing trees during the
nonbreeding season will ensure that active nests will not be destroyed by removal of trees
supporting or adjacent to active nests.
Significance after Mitigation
Less than significant. (draft joint document, page 5.12-13)
Impact BR10: Loss of Potential Nesting Habitat for Cooper's Hawk and Sharp-
Shinned Hawk
Finding
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project that
avoid the potentially significant environmental effect identified in the final joint document.
Explanation
The project would result in the loss of potential suitable nesting habitat for Cooper's hawk and
sharp-skinned hawk with the removal of trees measuring 12 inches or greater dbh in the forested
portions of the project area. Trees within the limits of ground disturbance would be removed to
construct the wider roadway and to allow access for construction equipment and vehicles. In
addition, construction activities could result in the disturbance of nesting Cooper's hawks or
sharp-shinned hawks if construction occurs during the breeding season (generally between
March 1 and September 1) and nests are present. This disturbance could cause nest
abandonment and death of young or loss of reproductive potential at active nests located near the
project area. This would be considered a significant impact. Disturbance such as this would also
violate California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503 (active bird nests) and 3503.5 (active
raptor nests) and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). (draft joint document, page 5.12-14)
Mitigation Measures
The draft joint document identifies the following mitigation measure to reduce this impact to a
less-than-significant level: (draft joint document, page 5.12-15)
BR10a: Begin construction activities and remove trees and shrubs during the non-
breeding season for most birds (generally, September 1 to March 1). The County will
....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the May 2005
Skyway Widening Project, Alternative A2/B2 76
Section 2 Findings on Si~nifica: ,mpacts of the Proposed Project
begin construction before the breeding season to establish a level of noise disturbance that
will dissuade noise-sensitive raptors and other birds from attempting to nest within or near
the project area. If construction activities cease and begin again during a 12-month period,
they should be reinitiated before the next breeding season begins. Tree and shrub removal
required for this project will be conducted only during the nonbreeding season for migratory
birds and raptors (September I to March 1). Removing woody vegetation during the
nonbreeding season will ensure that active nests will not be destroyed by removal of trees
supporting or adjacent to active nests.
Significance after Mitigation
Less than significant. (draft joint document, page 5.12-14)
Impact BR11: Loss of Potential Nesting Habitat for Oak Titmouse
Finding
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project that
avoid the potentially significant environmental effect identified in the final joint document.
Explanation
Implementation of the project would result in the loss of suitable nesting habitat for oak titmice
with the loss of trees 6 inches or greater dbh within the project area that would be removed with
project implementation. In addition, construction during the nesting period for oak titmice could
result in nest abandonment and death of young or loss of reproductive potential at active nests
located near the project area. Impacts on oak titmouse would be considered significant if the
subsequent population declines were large and affected the viability of the local populations.
Disturbance that results in nest abandonment and death of young or loss of reproductive potential
at active nests would also violate California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503 (active bird
nests) and the MBTA. (draft joint document, page 5.12-15)
Mitigation Measures
The draft joint document identifies the following mitigation measure to reduce this impact to a
less-than-significant level: (draft joint document, page 5.12-15)
• BR10a: Begin construction activities and remove trees and shrubs during the non-
breeding season for most birds (generally, September 1 to March 1). See the description
of this measure under Impact BR10.
Significance after Mitigation
Less than significant. (draft joint document, page 5.12-15)
Impact BR12: Loss of Potential Nesting Habitat for Lawrence's Goldfinch
Finding
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project that
avoid the potentially significant environmental effect identified in the final joint document.
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the May 2005
Skyway Widening Project, Alternative A2/B2 ~~
Section 2. Findin son Si nific, npacts of the Proposed Project
Explanation
Implementation of the project would result in the loss of potential nesting habitat for Lawrence's
goldfinch when trees and shrubs are removed between Coutolenc Road and Magalia Reservoir.
The majority of potential nesting habitat would be removed along the north and east sides of
approximately 2,000 feet of roadway. In addition, construction during the nesting period for
Lawrence's goldfinch could result in nest abandonment and death of young or loss of
reproductive potential at active nests located near the project area. Impacts on Lawrence's
goldfinch would be considered significant if the subsequent population declines were large and
affected the viability of the local populations. Disturbance that results in nest abandonment and
death of young or loss of reproductive potential at active nests would also violate California Fish
and Game Code Sections 3503 (active bird nests) and the MBTA. (draft joint document, pages
5.12-15 and 5.12-16)
Mitigation Measures
The draft joint document identifies the following mitigation measure to reduce this impact to a
less-than-significant level: (draft joint document, page 5.12-16)
• BR10a: Begin construction activities and remove trees and shrubs during the non-
breeding season for most birds (generally, September 1 to March 1). See the description
of this measure under Impact BR10.
Significance after Mitigation
Less than significant. (draft joint document, page 5.12-16)
Impact BR13: Potential for Temporary Loss of Night Roosting Habitat During
Construction
Finding
Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less than significant (Pub.
Resources Code, 21002; CEQA Guidelines, § 15091).
Explanation
Implementation of the project could result in the disturbance of special-status bats. Activity and
noise associated with road widening adjacent to the bridge and intake structure could disturb
roosting bats if construction occurs at night. In addition, the existing bridge structure would be
removed and replaced with a new bridge. These disturbances may temporarily discourage bats
from using the intake structure or bridge as a night roost. However, because the existing bridge
would be replaced, there will be no permanent loss of roosting habitat. Construction at night
could also disturb the drinking and foraging activities of special-status bats. Alternative sites for
night roosting, foraging, and drinking are present near the project area. Bats would probably use
these alternate sites if the disturbances at the bridge, intake structure, and reservoir discourage
them from using these areas for roosting, foraging, or drinking. Because these disturbances are
temporary and because there would be no permanent loss of roosting habitat, this impact is
considered less than significant. (draft joint document, pages 5.12-16)
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the May 2005
Skyway Widening Project, Alternative A2/B2 78
Section 2. Findin son Si nifica:...:.mpacts of the Proposed Project .........................................................................................................
....................................~..............9........... .
Mitigation
No mitigation is proposed. (draft joint document, page 5.12-16)
Significance
Less than significant. (draft joint document, page 5.12-16)
Impact BR14: Potential Disturbance to Nesting Swallows
Finding
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project that
avoid the potentially significant environmental effect identified in the final joint document.
Explanation
Implementation of the project could result in the disturbance of nesting cliff swallows or barn
swallows. Swallows could be affected by the proposed project if active nests are located on the
underside of the bridge or on the intake structure and construction activities occur between
March 1 and September 1 (the nesting season). Noise and activities associated with road
widening could disturb nesting swallows on the intake structure. Construction of the new bridge
structure and removal of the existing structure could result in the disturbance or loss of swallow
nests on the existing bridge. These disturbances could result in nest abandonment and death of
young or loss of reproductive potential at active nests. This would be considered a significant
impact. Disturbance that results in nest abandonment and death of young or loss of reproductive
potential at active nests would also violate California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503 (active
bird nests) and the MBTA.
(draft joint document, pages 5.12-16 and 5.12-17)
Mitigation Measures
The draft joint document identifies the following mitigation measure to reduce this impact to a
less-than-significant level: (draft joint document, pages 5.12-17 and 5.12-18)
BR14a: Avoid construction activities that could disturb nesting swallows. To the extent
possible, construction activities that could potentially disturb nesting swallows will be
conducted outside the breeding season for these species (the nonbreeding season is August 1
to March 1).
If construction activities are to occur during the swallows' breeding season, the following
measures will be implemented:
Hire a qualified biologist to inspect the bridge over Little Butte Creek and the intake
structure during the swallows' nonbreeding season. If nests are found and are abandoned,
they may be removed. To avoid damaging active nests, nests must be removed before the
breeding season occurs (March 1). A permit from DFG and USFWS is required if active
nests are to be removed.
• After nests are removed, cover the undersides of the bridge and intake structure with 0.5-
to 0.75-inch mesh net, poultry wire, or other DFG-approved swallow exclusion device.
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the May 2005
Skyway Widening Project, Alternative A2/82 79
Section 2 Findings on Siynifica npacts of the Proposed Project .
All devices shall be installed before March 1. The devices must be anchored so swallows
cannot attach their nests to the bridge or intake structure through gaps in the device. An
alternative to netting is to continually hose down inactive nests until construction occurs.
If netting of the bridge and intake structure does not occur by March I and swallows
colonize the bridge, work near the bridge and intake structure and bridge removal shall
not occur before August I or until the young have fledged and all nest use has been
completed.
If steps are taken to prevent swallows from constructing new nests, work can proceed at any
time of the year, notwithstanding other restrictions specified in the mitigation measures
identified above and in County ordinances.
Significance after Mitigation
Less than significant. (draft joint document, page 5.12-17)
Impact BR15: Potential Impacts on Nesting Migratory Birds
Finding
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project that
avoid the potentially significant environmental effect identified in the final joint document.
Explanation
Implementation of the project would result in the possible loss of nesting birds, including raptors,
if occupied nests in trees and shrubs are removed during the breeding season (generally between
March I and August 15). This disturbance could cause death of young or loss of reproductive
potential at active nests. Birds could potentially nest throughout the project area.
Impacts on nesting migratory birds, including raptors, would be considered significant if the
subsequent population declines were large and affected the viability of the local populations. The
proposed project would impact mature ponderosa pine, black oak, interior/canyon live oak,
Douglas fir, and incense cedar in the project area. These trees could provide nesting habitat for
several non-special-status migratory bird and raptor species, including American goldfinch
(Carduelis tristi~s), red-breasted nuthatch (Sitta canadensis), black phoebe (Sayornis nigricans),
yellow-rumped warbler (Dendroica coronata), red-tailed hawk, and great-horned owl (Bubo
virginiastus). These generally common species are locally and regionally abundant. However,
construction activities occurring in the project area during the breeding season that result in death
of young or loss of reproductive potential would violate California Fish and Game Code Sections
3503 (active bird nests) and 3503.5 (active raptor nests) and the MBTA.
(draft joint document, page 5.12-18)
Mitigation Measures
The draft joint document identifies the following mitigation measure to reduce this impact to a
less-than-significant level: (draft joint document, page 5.12-18)
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the May 2005
Skyway Widening Project, Alternative A2/B2 80
Section 2. ..Findings on Si~nificz npacts of the Proposed Project .........................................................................................................
• BR10a: Begin construction activities and remove trees and shrubs during the non-
breeding season for most birds (generally, September 1 to March 1). See the description
of this measure under Impact BR10.
Significance after Mitigation
Less than significant. (draft joint document, page 5.12-18)
Impact BR16: Removal of Approximately 625 Ponderosa Pine, Oak, Douglas Fir,
and Incense Cedar Trees 6 Inches or Greater in Diameter at Breast Height
Finding
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project that
substantially lessen, but do not avoid, the significant short-term environmental effect identified
in the final joint document. This short-term effect remains significant and unavoidable.
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project that
avoid the potentially significant long-term environmental effect identified in the final joint
document.
Explanation
With project implementation, approximately 625 ponderosa pine, black oak, live oak, Douglas-
fir, and incense cedar trees 6 inches or greater dbh (of which approximately 300 are 12 inches or
greater dbh) would be removed. For impacts on McNab cypress trees, see Impact BRI.
Although, these trees are not protected by a specific regulation or ordinance (other than those
trees proposed for removal within the Town of Paradise), this impact is considered to be
significant due to the magnitude of the removal and since these trees provide habitat for wildlife.
(draft joint document, page 5.12-19)
Mitigation Measures
The draft joint document identifies the following mitigation measures to reduce this long-term
impact (i.e. long-term loss of trees) to ales-than-significant level: (draft joint document, page
5.12-19)
• V2b: Implement project landscaping plan to replace trees that are removed, using
specified guidelines. See the description of this measure under Impact V2.
• V3b: Comply with Town of Paradise Tree Preservation Ordinance. See the description
of this measure under Impact V3.
Significance after Mitigation
Significant and unavoidable in the short term since Mitigation Measures V2b and V3b do not
mitigate for the loss of fully-grown trees which take many years to mature. Less than significant
in the long term. (draft joint document, page 5.12-19)
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the May 2005
Skyway Widening Project, Alternative A2/B2 81
Section 2 Findings on Si~nifica.:: ,mpacts of the Proposed Project
.............................................................
Impact BR17: Minor Potential for Introduction of New Noxious Weeds or Spread
of Existing Noxious Weeds
Finding
Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less than significant (Pub.
Resources Code, ~ 1002; CEQA Guidelines, § 15091).
Explanation
Noxious weed species in the project area are present along roadsides, which are routinely
disturbed for shoulder maintenance and vegetation management. The proposed project would
create additional disturbed area for a temporary period until it is replanted, but it would not
substantially increase the area subject to repeated disturbance because the new road shoulders
would replace existing road shoulders. Therefore, the project is not anticipated either to increase
or decrease the amount of area currently occupied by noxious weeds or the potential for spread
of other noxious weed species. This impact is considered less than significant. (draft joint
document, page 5.12-19)
Mitigation
No mitigation is proposed. (draft joint document, page 5.12-19)
Significance
Less than significant. (draft joint document, page 5.12-19)
Cumulative Wildlife, Vegetation, Endangered Species, Wetlands, and Other
Waters of the U.S. Impacts
Finding
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project that
avoid the project's cumulatively considerable contribution to significant biological resource
impacts.
Explanation
Development described in the General Plan would have a cumulative effect on sensitive
biological communities and special-status species and their habitat within the sphere of
influence. Conversion of natural lands to urban uses removes habitat, increases pollutant levels
in stormwater runoff, and increases other potential human-caused disturbances. Without proper
adherence to the policies and mitigation measures in the Town of Paradise General Plan EIR,
each development project within the sphere of influence would significantly contribute to this
cumulatively-considerable effect. (draft joint document, page 4-6)
Mitigation
The draft joint document identifies the following mitigation measure to reduce the project's
contribution to biological resource impacts to less than cumulatively considerable:
• BRla: Conduct a biological resources education program for construction crews and
enforce construction restrictions. See the description of this measure under Impact BRI.
...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the May 2005
Skyway Widening Project, Alternative A2/82 82
Section 2. Findin son Si nific~ ..npacts of the Proposed Project .........................................................................................................
• BRlb: Install a construction barrier fencing around the construction area to protect
sensitive biological resources that will be avoided. See the description of this measure
under Impact BR1.
• BRle: Retain a biologist to monitor construction activities. See the description of this
measure under Impact BR1.
• BRld: Develop and implement a compensation strategy for the permanent and
temporary losses of McNab cypress woodland. See the description of this measure under
Impact BR1.
• BR2a: Comply with conditions of the Section 404 Permit. See the description of this
measure under Impact BRZ.
• BR4a: Minimize potential effects on special-status plant species. See the description of
this measure under Impact BR4.
• BR4b: Develop a compensation strategy and implement options for the permanent and
temporary loss of special-status plant species. See the description of this measure under
Impact BR4.
• BR8a: Conduct preconstruction surveys for northwestern pond turtles.
• BR8b: Use minimum 1 square inch screen on pumps to avoid mortality of
northwestern pond turtles. See the description of this measure under Impact BR8.
• BR8c: Retain a biological monitor to check pumps for northwestern pond turtles. See
the description of this measure under Impact BR8.
• BR10a: Begin construction activities and remove trees and shrubs during the non-
breeding season for most birds (generally, September 1 to March 1). See the description
of this measure under Impact BR10.
• BR14a: Avoid construction activities that could disturb nesting swallows. See the
description of this measure under Impact BR14.
• V2a: Construct retaining walls and noise barriers to blend into the surrounding
environment to the extent feasible. See the description of this measure under Impact V2.
• V2b: Implement project landscaping plan to replace trees that are removed, using the
specified guidelines. See the description of this measure under Impact V2.
• Via: Seed exposed slopes adjacent to the reservoir. See the description of this measure
under Impact V3.
• V3b: Comply with the Town of Paradise Tree Preservation Ordinance. See the
description of this measure under Impact V3.
• W2a: Implement construction-related best management practices. See the description
of this measure under Impact W2.
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the May 2005
Skyway Widening Project, Alternative A2/B2 83
Section 2. Findin son Si nificz npacts of the Proposed Project
.....................................~..............9............. ..............................................
• W3a: Implement permanent best management practices. See the description of this
measure under Impact W3.
(draft joint document, page 4-6)
Significance
Less than significant. (draft joint document, page 4-6)
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the May 2005
Skyway Widening Project, AI[ernative A2/82 84
Section 3 Project Alternatives
Where a lead agency has determined, that even after adoption of all feasible mitigation measures,
a project as proposed will still cause significant environmental effects that cannot be
substantially lessened or avoided, the agency, prior to approving the project as mitigated, must
first determine whether, with respect to such impacts, there remain any project alternatives that
are both environmentally superior and feasible within the meaning of CEQA. As noted earlier in
the "Findings under CEQA" section of Section 2, an alternative may be infeasible if it fails to
fully promote the lead agency's underlying goals and objectives with respect to the project.
Thus, feasibility under CEQA encompasses "desirability" to the extent that desirability is based
on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, and technological
factors of a project (City of Del Mar, supra, 133 CaLApp 3d at p.417; see also Sequo~ah Hills,
su ra, 23 Ca1.App.4`h at p. 715.)
The detailed discussion in Section 2 demonstrates that all but five of the significant
environmental effects of Alternative A2/B2 can be avoided (rendered less than significant)
The short-term effects related to Impact BR1 ("Removal of Approximately 4.5 Acres of
McNab Cypress Woodland") will be substantially lessened through the imposition of
mitigation measures recommended in the EIR, but not to a less than significant level. The
long-term effect related to Impact BR1 would remain significant and unavoidable if
Mitigation Measure BRld, in particular, cannot be implemented.
• Impacts BR4 ("Removal of Approximately 0.7 Acre of Butte County Calycadenia") would
remain significant and unavoidable if Mitigation Measure BR4b, in particular, cannot be
implemented.
• Impact BR6 ("Removal of Approximately 0.01 Acre of Butte County Fritillary") would
remain significant and unavoidable if Mitigation Measure BR4b, in particular, cannot be
implemented.
• Impact BR7 (" Removal of Approximately 2.8 Acres of Cut-leaf Ragwort") would remain
significant and unavoidable if Mitigation Measure BR4b, in particular, cannot be
implemented; and
• The short-term effects related to Impact BR16 ("Removal of Approximately 625 Ponderosa
Pine, Oak, Douglas Fir, and Incense Cedar Trees 6 Inches or Greater in Diameter at Breast
Height") will be substantially lessened through the impositions of mitigation measures
recommended in the EIR, but not to aless-than-significant level.
As a legal matter, the County need only examine alternatives to the proposed project to see
whether any are both feasible within the meaning of CEQA case law and environmentally
superior to the proposed project with respect to Impacts BR1, BR4, BR6, BR7, and BR16. As the
discussion below shows, no identified alternative qualifies as being both feasible and
environmentally superior with respect to these impacts. The discussion below will also address
....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the May 2005
Skyway Widening Project, Alternative A2/B2 85
Section 3. Project Alternatives
the environmental merits of the alternatives with respect to all identified impacts, as well as
whether each alternative is feasible in light of the County's objectives for the project (see Section
1 for a description of the project objectives).
No-Project Alternative
Section 15126, subdivision (d)(~l), of the CEQA Guidelines requires the evaluation of the No-
Project Alternative. For the proposed project, the No-Project Alternative is based on maintaining
the existing Skyway and not building the proposed improvements to Skyway.
Because no project-related construction would occur under the No-Project Alternative, the
following significant environmental impacts related to construction of the proposed project
would not occur under this alternative:
• No construction-related impacts
• No parking impacts
• No potential for temporary interference to law enforcement, fire protection, or emergency
medical services
• No construction-related safety concerns
• No potential for temporary disruption of transit service
• No permanent changes in light and glare
• No permanent visual changes from vegetation removal
• No permanent changes to views between Pentz and Coutolenc Roads
• No permanent changes to views between Coutolenc Road and Dogtown Road
• No potential damage to unknown cultural resources
• No water quality impacts from changes in stormwater drainage
• No temporary construction-related water quality impacts
• No potential for exposure of construction workers and/or nearby land uses to previously
unknown hazardous wastes
• No temporary increase in construction-related reactive organic gases, nitric oxides, and
PM10 emissions
• No potential for exposure to asbestos during construction-related activities
• No exposure of noise sensitive land uses to a significant increase in traffic noise
• No exposure of noise sensitive land uses to project-related construction noise
• No removal of McNab cypress woodland
• No fill of other waters of the U.S.
....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the May 2005
Skyway Widening Project, Alternative A2/B2 86
Section 3. Project Alternatives
• No removal of special-status plant species
• No removal of northwestern pond turtle aquatic habitat
• No loss of potential nesting habitat for special-status birds
• No potential for disturbance to nesting swallows
• No potential impacts on nesting migratory birds
• No removal of trees in the project area
The disadvantages of the No-Project Alternative are as follows:
The traffic capacity of Skyway would not increase and acceptable levels of service would not
be achieved on Skyway. As traffic volumes on Skyway increase and exceed roadway
capacity, the following would occur on Skyway:
- larger platoons of traffic in both directions making it more difficult to turn onto Skyway
from side streets,
- longer delays that would result in longer trip times and increase user frustration,
- increased frequency of roadway backups due to shutdowns caused by accidents,
- decreased manueverability, and
- a decrease in the free-flow speed of traffic.
• The project area would be more vulnerable in terms of emergency evacuation in the case of a
major emergency, such as a fire or earthquake, since the current roadway cannot handle the
demand for emergency evacuation in an acceptable time frame.
• The frequency of traffic accidents could increase as traffic volumes exceed roadway
capacity.
• The likelihood that the portion of Skyway over Magalia Dam would settle during a seismic
event would be greater since the seismic stability of the dam would not be improved without
implementation of the Major Fix design option. If the road settles during a seismic event,
Skyway could be impassable for an extended period of time.
• The No-Project Alternative is inconsistent with the Butte County Regional Transportation
Plan, 2001-2005 and would not implement the recommendations of the Butte County
Association of Government's Skyway Improvement Program Feasibility Study.
While the No-Project Alternative would result in these traffic impacts and plan inconsistencies
and would not improve the seismic stability of the dam, it is considered to be environmentally
superior to the proposed project because it avoids the impacts identified above, including the
significant and unavoidable impacts described under Impacts BR1 and BR16.
The No-Project Alternative would not meet any of the project objectives. For this reason, the
Board of Supervisor rejects the No-Project Alternative as infeasible.
....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the May 2005
Skyway Widening Project, Alternative A2/82 87
Section 3. Pro1ecf Alternatives
Alternative A3/B3: 45-Mile Per Hour Design Speed
Alternative A3/B3 would have a 45-mph design speed, also with four 12-foot-wide lanes with 8-
foot-wide outside shoulders. This alignment would be straighter and have fewer curves than
Alternative A2/B2 (35-mph alternative). This alternative would have approximately 6,080 linear
feet of total wall length, including 1,200 linear feet of soldier pile-type wall. The Coutolenc
Road intersection would be shifted slightly east of the 35-mph alternative. Past the dam,
Segment B is similar to that of the 35-mph alternative.
Because Alternative A3/B3 follows a similar alignment to Alternative A2/B2, its environmental
impacts are similar to those for Alternative A2/B2. The following summarizes the differences
between the two alternatives (impacts associated with Alternative A2/B2 are shown in
parentheses):
• Partial permanent acquisition of 48 parcels (versus 50 parcels for Alternative A2/B2) ranging
from 3 to 129,171 square feet (versus 2 to 122,803 square feet)
• Access would need to be modified to a minor degree for one residential parcel and two
commercial parcels (versus two residential parcels and three commercial parcels)
• Parking would be need to be replaced or relocated on the affected parcel for one residential
parcel and three commercial parcels (versus one residential parcel and four commercial
parcels)
• Skyway drivers would view less new retaining walls than under Alternative A2/B2
• Removal of approximately 5.5 acres of McNab cypress woodland (versus 4.5 acres)
• Removal of approximately 6.2 acres of special-status species plants (versus 3.5 acres)
• Removal of approximately 550 non-special-status trees (versus 625 trees)
The County Board of Supervisors finds Alternative A3/B3 to be infeasible for the following
reasons:
• It would not provide as smooth a transition to the segments at the northern and southern
terminus of the proposed project since these segments currently have 35 mph speed limits
• It would cost $4 million more as compared to Alternative A2/B2
It has similar environmental impacts to Alternative A2/B2. The differences between the two
alternatives, as described above, are minor for most issues. However, Alternative A3/B3 has
substantially more impact on McNab cypress woodland and special-status species plants,
sensitive plant communities that are valued by the community.
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the May 2005
Skyway Widening Project, Alternative A2/B2 88
Section 4 Statement of Overriding
Considerations
As set forth in Section 2 above, the County's approval of Alternative A2/B2 and the Major Fix
design option will result in five significant and unavoidable impacts, namely:
(1) short-term loss of fully grown McNab cypress trees discussed on pages 63 and 64, above
pertaining to Impact BR1, which can be substantially lessened, but will remain significant
and unavoidable, and the long-term loss of McNab cypress trees discussed on pages 63 and
64 above, due to the uncertainty ofbeing able to implement Mitigation Measure BRld, as
discussed on page 66 above;
(2) loss of Butte County calycadenia discussed on pages 68 and 69 above pertaining to Impact
BR4, due to the uncertainty of being able to implement Mitigation Measure BR4b, as
discussed on page 72 above;
(3) loss of Butte County fritillary discussed on page 72 above pertaining to Impact BR6, due to
the uncertainty ofbeing able to implement Mitigation Measure BR4b, as discussed on page
73 above;
(4) loss of cut-leaf ragwort discussed on page 73 above pertaining to Impact BR7, due to the
uncertainty of being able to implement Mitigation Measure BR4b, as discussed on page 74
above;
(5) short-term loss of Ponderosa pine, oak, Douglas fir, and incense cedar trees discussed on
page 81 above pertaining to Impact BR16, which can be substantially lessened, but will
remain significant and unavoidable.
Despite these five impacts, however, the Board of Supervisors has chosen to approve the project,
as modified and mitigated. To do so, the Board must first adopt this Statement of Overriding
Considerations.
The Board of Supervisors, having weighed these potentially significant and unavoidable impacts
against the benefits of the proposed project, finds that the benefits identified below render these
impacts acceptable. The substantial evidence supporting the various benefits identified below can
be found in the statement of the Project Objectives set forth in Section 1 above, and in the
preceding findings set forth in Section 2, including but not limited to those specifically identified
below, all of which are incorporated by reference into this section, and in the documents found in
the Record of Proceedings, as defined in Section 1 above, including, but not limited to, those
documents specifically identified below.
Achieve Acceptable Levels of Service on Skyway: The proposed project will increase the
capacity on Skyway to serve existing traffic and planned growth. Skyway currently operates at
level of service (LOS) E at Magalia Dam and is projected to operate at LOS F without the
....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the May 2005
Skyway Widening Project, Alternative A2/82 89
Section 4. Statement of Overriding Considerations
....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
project. With the project, Skyway will operate at LOS C at the dam. (Fehr & Peers. 2002. Final
Report, Skyway Widening Project Traffic Study, pages ii, iii, 17, and 18)
Improve Traffic Safety along Skyway: Widening Skyway from two lanes to four lanes,
providing 8-foot-wide shoulders, and improving three primary intersections would improve
safety along the roadway. The accident rate along Skyway is currently higher than the State
average for similar facilities. By increasing roadway capacity, the project would give drivers
more response time and options for bypassing vehicles that are stopped in the travel lane and
would provide more maneuverability when there are poor road conditions due to weather. (Fehr
& Peers. 2002. Final Report, Skyway Widening Project Traffic Study, pages i, ii, and 18; and
Quincy Engineering. 2003. Draft Project Report Skyway Widening 750 Feet South of Pentz
Road to 750 North of South Park Drive, pages 4 and 5)
Improve emergency access along Skyway: Improving Skyway would make emergency
evacuation in an acceptable time frame more likely. Implementation of the Major Fix would also
ensure that Skyway would not settle to the point where the road would need to be closed during a
seismic event and could be used for emergency access or evacuations. Without the Major Fix,
settlement of Magalia Dam would likely require road closure. (Fehr & Peers. 2002. Final Report,
Skyway Widening Project Traffic Study, page 18; Quincy Engineering. 2003. Draft Project
Report Skyway Widening 750 Feet South of Pentz Road to 750 North of South Park Drive, pages
3, 4, and 10; and Genterra Consultants. 2002. Preliminary Findings of Geotechnical Review,
Widening of Skyway Road over Magalia Dam, Skyway Road Widening Project, pages 11 and
12.)
Achieves consistency with approved plans: The project implements the recommendations of
the Butte County Association of Governments' Regional Transportation Plan, 2001-2005 (Butte
County Association of Governments. 2001, Table 5-3) and the Butte County Association of
Government's Skyway hnprovement Program Feasibility Study (Heritage Partners and Northstar
Engineering. 1996, pages 5-7 through 5-9).
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the May 2005
Skyway Widening Project, Alternative A2/82 9(1
Attachment A Mitigation Monitoring Program
The following table contains the adopted mitigation monitoring program for the project. For
each measure, the table identifies the timing for implementing the measure, how the measure will
be monitored, and the standards that can be used to determine the success of the measure.
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the May 2005
Skyway Widening Project, Alternative A2/B2 A-1
O
N
o>
ro
N
m
N
d
:r
cC
C
d
a
_O
L
0
a
.O
C~
G
co
rn
G
N
N
v
'D
m o a
o
a .-
c .-
is
m
p c
o_ ~
~
N
o~ ~ ~_
v
~
3 ~~ ~
~
Y ro
c
aai c
~ _~ C U
y .a m
~ a
N ~ -p ~ >, ~
N (n C
ro U
O c
_ O o
L
~ ~ ~
O a C L
° ro
~ U
ca
o
"' p
~•EcU-
c° °° c pm
ro °~ 3
3
° ov~
oac~ -
`°-
c ~3.a~.
c
a~
~ ~
. c U m c p
O ro m-
ro
p~ o
ro--
i~ ca c~ a c .~ c
N ro --
,.
~~c~~~p O ro
ca D_
Ep O
crop Y C C
c. pOOro(a U a C
ca~pro
' ~ °' a ~~
~
m E
c
:° a ~
~Y j
°' °-' o °-"
'o api ~ c p
a-~'~n N ~
oa~~n E
E ~
°-E`o v v cco c a~ m
ao~
E n.c ~~
(n a ro ma N ro
Q U ... aU ~
~ ro N ro ro
~ a~ U C (n
ro ro E O O C O
- U o_ ro .~ U O C1. ~ 7 C
U ro a U ._
3 ~ ~~ cv~
~~ c
~ O w C
" >,
°- i
c `0 ~
~
~ °
~' ~•O d C
~a~ aro
~ ~
U U ~
c
~ roa c
a ocE
o ~ rop~na
-~a~
~
01 ~~
i
roa a
C C
C a~
_
fn ~
~ ~ ~ ~
c
-p
O ~
U
C
O
0
C _
C
C C Q
~ N O
O t!7 O~ C ~
_N O a
`
L C O_
ro ~ ro~ ro c0
~
~ ~ C O~ •N ~ '06 ro ~ 0
O N O U~
a
O c o ~ ~ U-~O ,c ~ o ~ro ~'° ~a
•'= O' C N cUD U ~ c a 0 ~ C a 0 N
o p ro~°~c mro pp ro~:c U~ roa~~
~ a ~ c ~ = ro o~ _
a i aro ~
~ `o ~ >'~ ova
~
0 oa• ~c
a `°
~ ° °
r ~~
d
o oin
~ o Ea
>
o m~° o~
~ o c m
> C 'C
m
o ro
o a
i
~.EU~nroE Q
¢a dU Ufl.o ~U c
Uaa~
_ ~ ai
O
~'
O
C ro p
O ~~ c
O
O
{p - m r -
= C
~• U
? U
~ ~~
roar U U
roo U ~
m
G) i- c
O ro m a
ro N c m
Q.
E p
~' w
°'
p~ Q O
U
°' U
°' O-
ro
~ o
._ ~ Y a
~~ ~~ -~ E
O c
~ ro
Ea p
U=o ~ ~~'
m c
O ~a .~a .~a ~a .~a
~ ~ O .fl N ~ O .a O .p N
N t
C
C ~,
C 7 c0
~" ~ c6
~ ~ fC
~ O
O ~ co
~ 7 iC
~
O
Q. d m
>, O .U m
>, O .U 01
>, O .U
>,~ al
A O '~ ~
?, O '~
O
~~ C C -O C C 'OO C C -OO C ro C C U C C -
p
~ Q 7 N
O E O~ O O
O E O~ O Q1
O E O~ O C
O O O N
o E 0~ O N
O E O~
~.~ UaUro Uru~m Uav,~ Uro U~N~ Urm~
~-
~o ~- d m Y
O-O c N
v
'
' ro ro ,c
o_o c N ro Y
... a o c 47 U
`" o ro ro ,c
'" °-o c
~ N ro i
'" no c
~
a °
mod ° +
- ~m
od ° ~m
mod ° ~-
m ~ m
m^~ ~ m
mod
; m
~_
16
~ a
O C
N
N
C
O
O
N
O Q7
U C
a
i ai 3 a ° cca ~ ~ ro
ro
C cps
y~~ co
YO' •N •O ~ a
O~
L C p ro ro >. C M u~ ~~ O~
o ro
a ~
c C f36
o~oS - C7
~ Q
cc~
.
~o
c~
C7
C
O
W _
,
U Y _
O
o N oQ ~
C ro
n. U
i
7 'p
~
E ~
c a~~
c a
oc h U O
Gov C O
E ~ N
c°'
~ ~° ~ w ~ N° ~ ro a m•o c o am
a o~ ro w .~ ro ai c~~
ro ro ro
C ro V o~ w ro 0 E C a ~ C O~
~ ~ E a c~ ~~ roo
1 ~ o•° ~ i9 a~ ~ c
o ,~ ~ E ~ ,~ ro ro °
m ~ •~ :~ a~ ~ m ~ ~
to
CI a m
«. >. ~ m a p~
~~ p Y cD
ro CO
C
o o_ ~ ~
U O U
~ ~
H c ~
C C
• ~ ~
'
O N
~ ro j ~ ro m ~ n o ~¢ Q ~ o
°' o 0
n
~ c ~ ~' > o 0 0 ~ v S y r
' m j E
~ ro
E ~ ~ ro ~ ~ -o o ~
3 Q ~
N ~ h ~ ~
l0
J
d O
U O C> O
fl-O'DU V O
ro~ N
~ N O O
a U~
~ 7 0
N~ 41
N ro
E OU N 0~ d (O O ro-
O O
C
Q ~
- N C~ O ro ~ O M ro
U E N ~ V •C N E
~
``a
_ro
N
a ~ U ~
roa v c
roZ
'~
M O ~
ro ca
~
~O a ~
ro c ~
ro
~ a~
~
M ~
J
!7 N O U N
U ro ro d Ch d
C.) Q
t0 O C
~ U ro
C7 ~y ~
7~ .~ N d
~ .r
a
C
O
U
N
m
L
a
0
R
rn
a`
a~
.~
O
C
~1
a)
o~
ro
E ~ cn cn cn
U O c W W W L
7 ~ N Y o m ~~ Y~ w W ~ N O
(A a ~= o Z Z Z L t
L p L a)
"
~y L d C,7
" L a) L O
~ L O
'
~ L~" a)
~Y
G
w ~ 3
E ~ c
a
c 3 3 3 3~
~
-
.o
a oc
C O a~o~
C u1 ooro
C u) ago
~ v) ago
C to ago
C v) roa~NOa
~ '
v) T
.
N O '~ a
ro C ro ~' "O ro C ro C ro C p C
ro C O C N
a w
~ m
y ~~o E~~ Ea~ ESE
` ESE E~~a
~
~ °'o °o~ O°ro °om m
°o °oa~ °ro~o
c
d~ UU Uc~cq UUn UUO_ UUa Uio Uro
-o
c a
c ~, c
o _
~ c
ro ro~ ro.
~ ~ ~'~ c ° `0 m
a ~ o.Qa
~
C1 ~ ~ .U ~~? ~
.~ ...
.~ .r
•~ ~~ 7. c N c
a o o
a _
Q
~c~ a a a °a"~~
~ v
l
'~~ .
.~-E- cn cn cn ~'o-~
°
at
c m
Nam a~ ro
~° -oro m o
c~'~o w
^ w
^ w
^ ~, a~
-~
ro>To
~i C ~ C ~ ro U O' a) ~
Z d
Z ~
Z ~ ~ ,~ . _ C
~ N :-. a) «- C N~ U C C .p ~~ •O
~ a
~ c
a c
o -
~ v~ °O-a
i o~m~ ~ ' ~ =o~ro
°cuai
o~ ~
ova moo.°~ 0 0 o acyroc
E
a
L
a~~ ~~ °
L ~ a° ~ o a a a c
a'
~
~'
~ ro ~ ro
-. ^ O E a' U Q Q Q a1 in L~ N
c
-p ° °
~' 3
o
c
~ ro ro
C o m
~'
_ O
O > U O
N C
~ ~ C
~ C
~ °
!C
++ ~
C C
p ?~
ro
L
U
U
U
U a)
~_
~~ J. ~ °
E
c ~
c ro
c ° ~
E~
°ca> o ~
C ro O C O m ~ ~ O~ U O~
° E a
~ > a ~ °~ D n`. ~ DL% ~ in
~ c
O ~ a .~ ~ .~ -° .~ -o ~ ~ .~ ~ .~ a
fA {~0 L O ~ a) ~ a) ~ O ~ a) ~ a) ~ O
Oc a~ ~a~ ~v ~v ~o ~a ~o
Q. ~
T ° ~N
T ° •N ~
T ° ~~ >
T ° "~ ~
T o "~ ~
a ° "~ ~
T ° •~
~~ c c -% c c~ c ~~ I c a c c~ c c~ c~~
~
a °ro o
o E o ~o o
° E o`-- ~° o
° E o-- ~o a
° E `o -- °a~ a
° E `o -- ~a~ o
° E o`-- ~m o
° E o`--
TE ~~~, a ~~~,~ ~~~~ ~~~~ ~r~~ ~~~ u ~~~ a
t'-
to z- N roY
fl- c N roY
a c
°
~ ~ roY
a c
3
° N roY
°- c
7
° ~ roY
o- c
° ~ roY ~,
a c
° ~ roY
°- c
°
d~ m~~° o
a~
m^~ °
0
m^~ °
0
m^~ ~°
o
m^~ ~m
o
m^~ 7°
0
m^~
° ° ° ~ U U U
H U
r
'
~ {C
`
d 7
~ ~ ~
y Q 0! C L. ~ O
~ a) ~U R O ~ H ro
L% ~ c a ~' m ~ ° ~ "a
~ O y 7 ~ m C m U ~ i
i
3
C -p
(0 O
L
N ~
d ro
~ 'p ~
a) ~
= N
rn
~ a~
~ ~
d
O c
R m
N
~ roc
d V o
ro .
~ N
y
V1 0
~
C
m
~~ C
l9 a)
~,
C N c .' ~°.
~ ~
O ~ c ~ ~ aJ °
v
p n. 0 0 o i ~
ro ~°
,` 'O ` ~
c
01 ~' °~ ~ ~~' '' c~' E
~ ~° H
~
~ y ro
L C
R a~ o o~
U U
d o•° E
U U ar
~
a
~ 3 .. ~ c
a c ro
d
c t ro~
a O E~ a
i a
i i
a
°- U a = °~ °~ °~
~ W ro
~ o o
~
~ m
a a ro
a a
o
c! U Z a
i E a, E a, E ro ~ `° o,
u0i f~
N >
ro~ 0p
~ ~
roc v
ro U CA
O
iG ~ ~
N (n C
'
ro
M L
C'') d
~
~ W
00
N ro
co Ip ,
~ ro m
~ ~
~
~ •X
> >a ri U~ ri ~~ 3a ~~~ ri w a~
O
a~
a~
ro
++
C
O
U_
N
~+
C;
a
_O
L
O
a
Q1
r..
O
CO
G
O
y
y
d
- ~
_ ~
`ocn
o ~ .~ c
O
c ~~- `oE
N L~~ ~
-o r~~ ~
-o
c c L ro .~
-o E L ro
-° L~ o c a~i -0 3 a
E m .o ~ m ~
~
O
'~ 3ac~~
O~ ro p n .
3ac..ro
p ro p n. 3rom
c y c 3mo
O~ x 3'x.~~cjj~
N ro 0~ ~ O •~
c
a
L ~ ~ Y
c~
o ~ ~ cn ~,
~-°
o ~ a ~ o
^ ~
~ U o
ro^ o o~
U E
~ m °' N•N o ~ ~ v
c
o c
a~
' c
~
~ _ m
c i
~
v a~ _~ N
J
E
' a~_~~ N
E,.. aC~ ~
EQ a0
`o
EQ~ nro 3 ~ E~ ~ m a~
E O ~ c ~'~
+
N ,
a
c
U (A ~ OU ro c~
U u7 ~ OU ro c
U m U U m ro U~ ro~ N ..~.- U C~
f6 OaL
~ ~ C ~
~ O E L ^
3
o
~ ~
~
~ ro'~ 3~
~
•~
~ c'~~ c
a~ a• m a~
c ~
v
i
~ m c~ OY
°g
~ ~
c
i °' o.a
i ~
' 3 E m m o ~ m U•
~ c~ ~
O
~ o~ '_ U
> C O
~
m o _
4) C n
3v, c
O c a m _
O O) ~ p L_ O
d
E c
O
d acro
caaco >ro
`°°'°-~'~~
o _
o
mc°~ ~cro~
aci
C
' m-c°~ c6 ~
„_ N c~ TN.~
tJ)
N
w ~ ~~~ ~E_~
C ro
U n
i
0 (0 ~
>
~
~ C
»-
- ro
N C C
ro~
Q C
+
+ ~ d
N
~ ~~
N ro _O C
~ O C N D1
C ~ O C
o
O
O ~
a,c ~ c
E ~ O
C ~
~ o E~,c u0i
fC ~
ro `~~~
U U ~'"~ ~~3~ Ein
U U
O
C N N.
U
~ ro
ro ° ~ C OI
L'A ...
c
~ ro.~
" i
~ ` ` C
T
~ O c aL ~
~ ` :p
O ~
L e a
E c ~a .
~.~roL ro
a
i c
~
a ~ c c > >-p ro
~
- N o
a c
a~
ca c~ a~ m ~
(n ... L O 'O C a~ ~ m a~
F-' n L O~ ~ O
W U c c
~ O
d U ~7 .L-. U W ro> O
~ U
O C C
C C i '~ 0 0
O
:+ C O) N
O O O C E C
O C
O ~ U U
n~ ~ O C
O
r aI
C C U D7 ro~ 0
I C
( U
~ U U in in
T C C !A
`
~~ A
O N
~ ~~ ~
~
C ` ro O O
'a U U~
d ~ ~
...
U C
~ O~ C C
O
_
a O~ O
o ~ `~~
~ U
o U
~
~~~ a U
~ .
ro ~
~
o
o
~
m ~
-
° ~
m~
m
aro~°~~ .
~ ~
^ -o
~
i
Q~ro~ ~
O
O C
~ O
U -O
U -O
U -O
,U ~
,~? ~
r ~ O ~ O ~ O ~ O ~
y w
O 7 (6 7 (d
~ C f0
~ 7 RS
~ 7 R1
~
O
O. O ~ a>
O w
~ _o>
>, O y ~
T O U
O m
>, O y °_'
>, O O
N
d O .
.
C C 'p
7 p
o C C 'OO
C N C C '
p
7 d
° C C 'a
~ d
O 7 N 'O
o
~ Q.
~ UEo ~Eoo ~Eo
~ ~EQ
~
Y ~ oEo
U ~ ~ ~
~
~"'
... N ro`~
a O C ~ ro Y ~
n 0 C d ro`
^-~ n 0 C N ro
"~ fl- `O C d ro Y
O- O C
d
w m^~ U m^~ U m^~ U m^~~ m^~ U
O C
E
~
O ~
~ N C ^
O ~ N
~
N p .L..
~ A A~ Q
~ IC Q 7
N
...
N~ U ~
w U
E-o m
m0 C
N
E ~ C~ N
^ C N N
_ o ~ ~
to
` O ~
y O
- Q C O N >' a
= ~ ~ ~~ O
V
1 N ~A E
~ ~
'
c -~
~ ro c Erom y
o
O U
O
r2 O ~ CO C (C6 ~
,_
.O d 0" .
~ Q
C
O N
.N
~ - O ro
~ •~ ~
? w C Q. ~
cC
E cn
o~
'o
~ ,,
ro w
C
a
N E •'= .
ro
C~ N
c m <n
O O
~ c~
ro o
~
= c m m
O o a
a~
ro c n
o 0
ro
Q1 N
C ~ Q O` Q U N O y +L.
ro
.ate
y ~ Q ~ C C
~^
a C fC O`
O Z 0 0
ac
ro ~ O o
E ~ o~ U ~o T W.~
~`~ ~ c `~~~~ NFU r ~a
r-
7 'a "
~ ~fDm x
Q OS
M r~ m
Z~
W ~ W C Q
O
N
(II
d
O
U_
N
m
i
d
r.+
Q
L
O
O
a
C1
i
C
O
O
:r
:.
G
(~
Gl N_
O O O
m _~ CO C
U ._ O cti ~
~ N O ~ ~ O
~ C '
L.1
N
N
~
C
~ O
~
Y
N ~ '
C
~ E Z .~ ~ C Y -C N U
•~ ~ ` al O ~ a~ N
C in ~ C > N
•~ ~O O ~ ~ 0 ~ ~
~
N l
ca ~
v~ ~ ~
p
v- ~ 4) U Vl ~ U p 0 c~ cC C ~~ O C ~ O~ O N O ~,
~ ~O ~ E U -O U
L C~~ V .~
° C C
~ O
d •O ~ C°~ N
O O~~ C~ C
O~~
l
0
-p
m E~ o '
U
~
~~~~ `° ~ c E E
E ~
m ~ ~
m~ ° m~.~ m
N
d.~•
aci ~ o
~
o ~
~ O o, ~ in ~p p ~
°
~ a c0 p ~ N ~ o ~
~ o a> c U
•
;~
N i o•~
o m a
UUSU- o ° o am a o
i ~ ~
a
~=o~.~ aE U ~ E U a ~ o•°
¢ U ~ m o o ~ ~ o
~ ~ ~ »~ ~s~ m
~ o?=
Q~ E E mY
N 0
C
~
~ y N ~ ~ C
C C~ O >,
~
`p p1 °
C~
!
O C ~
~ C 7
L ~
a U
N ~
.
i ~
O ~
'O
° ~•~
~ ~~~o~o o~ o?
a - ~ ~
_ ~~ U
c a ~ ~ °' o- °•o aaaci o ~ ao °-
m
a~
U '- l0
O O
0
c ~ C
•w °- O
3°~ v p C
n E E'w•°- c ~~ ~ ~
'w~ c C
°' o 0
.
a c ca o ~ o ~
~ oin oa~c c`°~o~m~ ocm ~v,E
~ i v ~
°
~ m
°
U ~U~ ~ °t
° ~
fl.~ E
.
a
a U
C
O
~..
~ C
O C
O C
O
m
C ~ E
= ? E O
G1 '~ N
c ~
d
c
c a
c
~
~
G1 F- o
U ~ °o ai ~ ° ° ro ~
U
ca
C~ p~~ O O O
.r O i
C
-
O t t
y
O
O y
O C
O N
a3~'
~
a
a
a°
C
O
~
U~ O
U L
d
t
U~
U
~
N ~
= ~ O
a c ~
~ c
~
O ~ ~
0. c
d
a ~ >, ~ •N ~, ~ ° m ° ~ o >, o •N >,
~ C C~ C C .O C O .~ O H 0
O 'O "p O
O 0
~ '
~ ~ ~ U
Y ~ Ury
io L N RS Y
ao c a ~
Y ~
N
a`o~' o c
a
c0 ~ fC
ao c ~ cC3 .~
°•o
n.,~ m0~ v o300~~ ~ v ~ Q m~~ ~ m~~
° E ayi °'
a~ c~
aUi
~
~ o
:~ a
a
N
c
o ~
~
c
U
~
N ~
y
-
V o~
~ U o
•U
d
c
°~ L
a Q1
~E p~ ~
°
c `
O
C (b
O
. -
C
N O
rn C -
•U _O
~~ w
C
O
O
L U
` ..
N t6
'a N N .~ U
~ c Eo W oc a~:. o
G7 0 o a C <°n ~ ~ ~ O
~ "
m ~ ~ ~ E 3 .° uoi~ E
C c m~ ~u ~~ o~~ o
O
ld ~ ~ .~ ~ .~ c ~
0 o ~ o O
i <o ~
~ ~' mE ~ o'~o ~,nm o
d O 47 ~ .7L U C O Q p
~ •o
c itf co =
~ m ~ ~
o v ca
~`
3
O c~
E O _
~ m
m
R U `
m
p C~ c
•f6
a ~E C
o~.~ N.~y ~
° T U E O c° ~
W ~
'
~ ~
~ ~
E N cb p' m ~ ~ O= U .>
c0 ~ 'O ~ O C
o C v)
Z Z tG M fS] a c
i m U~ m~
0
m
o~
ro
a
a
d
++
C
O
U_
N
m
d
C
L
Q
O
L
a`
~1
.~
O
O
C
O
~
d ~t
v, -- o ~ u,
~ c ~ m ~ o~
~
°~
o
E
m~
.nn
a~~
n
.n nn
~
~
O ~~° a `~ ~~ ~ m ~ ~ ro
~ c
°
N
u, ,~'
L
a
v~ ~'
n
~ n i
a
~ a ..- >,
o a~
~.
o `c
•3 c
0 ~ •E~ YL ~L ° ° n
O
""
c~ `~
-~
c-° m
~ °'
o °' o
0 c o
E ~,
C~ o
E m
O~ U U U
~
' ~
p~
ro O O ~
O
ro
C
C O ro
3
d > ca ~ > ro ° ro a ro ~ ~ ~ in y
l0
N L O C
V=~ E C
O O U
3 L~ C
U .C ~ 7~
... ~ O U
> O O U "O -
>> c~ Q)
O ro
Qv`n UU cn Qoa '~-m Q~n Qwro~ Zap
0
~ w
roo
m .~
o>o
wo
~
~ ~ c ro ~
- ~_
- ~ c ro
O U
• U
• U
C1
p cn ° n
c E m °
c a ro
c.~ n
~
c E o o
0 m
0 ~
0 ~
0
L o~ c~ 0 0 0 0~ c Y ~ 0 0 0
C1 ° o> a a~ m a~ ~ a~ a~ a ~ .n >, ~. ~,
c
~ n o o-
d C n a~
>' n o n
~ U C ~ ~ ~
L
Q C .~
L L .~ C C
L C
L~ .~
ro C
O C
O C
O C
O
C m~ ro ~
C~
• a~ c
~ a~ c
•~ ~~
~
C~°
U
O
O Vl
C
° ro~ ro N•
° ~ fn
° ~ C
O
U ro m° N
a O
a_ n n
~ ~~ Q,E =p E ~ E a >'~E ~ o ~ o c o c o
occur
O '~ n oy
C o~,
C occa~
O 'C n
~ p
~ O
~ O
~ O
~U~.~ ~ v ~ v ~U-~o.E cn E ~ E u~ E in E
c
o
~
° • c
c o
~ o ~~ c
o
~~
•C O
.o ro m
C
~ _
~
A E U O
o E in "'
a
~'
O
~ C
~ C~
~ ~ .`.
C ~ .`.
C O
~ ~ C O
N
~
~ c a f
~
aE
i L ~
3 0 n~
aE
v ~
c
v p
° U _O O
ro
ro
ja
ro
_
~ •~ o
~
U~ 3
O o
C U ro
~ i~
_
ro -
~ c c~ a
i
i
~ c
O~ C U Ol
C y > ro
0 T
ro o E o ro g~ c ~ a
C~
C O~ O O
~ ~ ~ C al
C
N O? C O
u p L
~ ~ m
C n ~ N
n ro~ j, ~ 47 j~
i p 0
~
- ~~
> C C C C .
.
~ C . O y
> C C C _
7
~ E C
•~ E ~
0 .~
L U~ c~ E C
O°aE ~ L
a_a.~ D°vn.E Q
Qs ^n ^a ti°v°i°o~°c
C
~ ~
'~
.U N ~=~
~ Q' 7
.U ~
~ ~
.V
~ ~
.V Vj •'
~ n j
U 'O
9 .O.
N :a
O > >
~ EE > ro
me O •-
m= > >
m OE in
' ~ ro
mC N y
c
~
~
O ~ ~ _
O~ a7 m
O. >' O ~ O >, O
C C 'O >, O~
C C U
>,
C
U
0 O T
C C U O O
Gl d
~ Q C C LL .~ U
~
O ~ ^ ro O
p ~ ~ O •~
p ~ ~ .
. C
.
N
O ~ ^ ro
~ ~
~
p ~ O O ~
~
"O
aE ,
c~
U~ vi
~ U~ N ro ..
U~ ~~o .
U~ ~ m cr '
:a U~ ~ ` •~ m
~- i
a
m ro~ ~ Qm
a
n ~ ate..- ,
~ aY o ~ a~ N ron.°
a -
m ~ a~ ~ •m
a p i ° o m
~ a
^~ d a~ o o
^~ s m o g
m^~ ~ ro o o ur x
m^~ ~
Q ~~ o o
m^~ >
O >
d
m
U v, a~ m
v ~ U m a~ U
~, a o m
C
-O
c V
° ~
m ~ ~ Q
E 'D .D
ro
c ~
ga
.
~
w a
~E n
c~
a
~o
~ O O ro C U O O~ ~ O •U
N~ O d T~
~
7 ~
~ ~.-"
- L
N V i
fn
V) (n n fl ' p
° ~o
~ E~ °' c me
N V ~
~ u
io
L n o N U
~
U Q
ro
O
~
h C N
ro y v
C
C
O
,.. c ~
O
C L
m C O O~ a ~ ~ N O U ro
`
c Z
E ° m ~ a~ i ~ °' E ~
O
+~ i U
a
~
O ~
C ~
- c roc
N L ~ rn
C O ~s
~~ m ~
U O
' c ~
O
cC
Cs .
.~o
o
U
c
m
Q- ~' a
Eow
o~
U~
r o
c
~ ~
oY
U
w
m"'
~
~ ~
3
~
~ pia
a~ E
~ °,
~~c m
c
ro >.o
~ • n
oL
` a
E E~
C .U oO-~ro
~ N -roc
C E~
0 cc
~ N -~pv
ia
D O ~
> p O > O
~ d
a
m is ' is `' a ~ o iC L ~ ° ~ L id aroi c
_
~ ~
N d' C
c0 ~ a N
~ y ~ ~
~ >
~ ro
CC ~ •C
~ ~ p~ N
~
~
min ~ N
ma ~
ma
m.E~ p
me
m° O
me ro
mm~
.-.
d
C
'+.•
C
O
U_
N
m
c~
Q
W
C
_d
Q
L
R
i
0
a
a~
i
O
C
O
++
01
0
N
ro
~
N ~
= ~
c
V
~ ~
V c c
(p O o
w m
U a~
U
~ C
(C C
fd
~
' ~
' 3
a
~ _~ ~ o
~ ~ ~ ~ R
~ Z :n Z vi
i U U
C1
O _
~
O _
~
O
4. o 0
c ~ ~
0 0 0
= a~i aUi
O a
c O a
c O
.
. .
.
~
~ ~
~
u~E inE
a~
`o ~
c ~
o ~ ~ c
:~
fl c o 0
0 ~ a o~ ~ 0~
c
:
D1 C
C C O
U C O .
~
o
~.~ °'3-°°' .nc
C>F- o~ o c~
O c.~
(9
E N
U cti N
fE U
O
C O y
~ ....
0
rE~
~ (D ~ C u,
.O C
m !D ~ > C ~ U
~ O ,U -O .U -O
N l+.9 ~ N ~ N
~~,
o~ ~~
~m ~~
~o
Q.~
>,o ~ ,
>,o ~
~ ~ c c~ c c~
moo. o~o~ oEoo
r ~ ~
c° ~
~
ro
~ aY
a~ c
a o ~ c
aY
a
° c
d
~ CO~~ O >>
C0~
O
U j
> c
.Q
O ~
O
O N
v
i r ~
N N v U
-p ~ c6
d
~ ~ ~
~ N ~
~ ~ N
O
N
~ .-~ ~
~> C ~ _
~>
f0 C ~ ~
C C N ~ C
Q
' O ~ ~ O
~
~
~
i ~~
i+
C ~
y ~ -
C 'O fi
N
C
G U ~ c ~ 3
c ~ o ~ o
.~~~ o~
U N ~
m ~ ~
Q
C .~
ici co ~ N
ro a'
o ~ v .E
°' o
m ~'
m
~ E c