Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM AND T CHICO RANCH ARCHRESOURCE DESIGN TECHNOLO G Y,. I N C. Land Minerals Environment Enclosed for your review and use, please find 3 (three) copies of the Archaeological Inventory Survey for the M&T Chico Ranch Site. As always, please call us if you have any questi6ns. Thank you. iD EC EC WE AUG 1 2002 BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING DIVISION P:/041 -c 302-A S. Lexington Drive Telephone: 916.983.9193 073102Breedon.Trans Folsom, California 95630 I . Facsimile: 916.983.9194 - TRANSMITTAL Date: July 31, 2002 To: Dan Breedon From: Jennifer Dzakowic Re: M&T Chico Ranch - ARCH Status: ❑ Preliminary ® Final ❑ Approved ❑ Revised ❑ Draft Sent for Your: ❑ Information ® Use/File ❑ Signature ❑ Review ❑ Approval We are sending the following items via: ® U.S. Mail ❑ Federal ❑ Courier ❑ Other Express Quantity Description Media Type 3 Archaeological Inventory Survey Bound Document Enclosed for your review and use, please find 3 (three) copies of the Archaeological Inventory Survey for the M&T Chico Ranch Site. As always, please call us if you have any questi6ns. Thank you. iD EC EC WE AUG 1 2002 BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING DIVISION P:/041 -c 302-A S. Lexington Drive Telephone: 916.983.9193 073102Breedon.Trans Folsom, California 95630 I . Facsimile: 916.983.9194 - M&T Ranch Quarry Project, Cultural Resources ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVENTORY SURVEY KRC Aggregate, Inc'Pro Proposed Aggregate Mine and Processing, .s Pg• 300 of 627 Leased.Acres on the M&T Ranch Property, rSouthwest of Chico, Butte County, California. Prepared for Resources Design Technology, Inc. M302-A S. Lexington Drive Folsom, California 95630 Authors Peter ,M. Jensen Sean M. Jensen Keywords for Information Center Use: - Archaeological Survey, c. 300 acres on the M&T Ranch Along Little Chico Creek, CEQA, USGS Ord Ferry, Ca. 7.5' Quad, No Cultural Resources Identified within Project Area Boundaries. July 26, 2002 ' JENSEN & ASSOCIATES - CHICO, CALIFORNIA . ' ARCHAEOLOGICAL - HISTORICAL - CULTURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT SERVICES 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 7 M&T Ranch Quarry Project; Cultural Resources CONTENTS Page -i 1. INTRODUCTION......................................:............................................1 Project Background and Scope of Work...........................................................................1 Location..................................................................................................................................2 RecordsSearch........................................................................................................................2 Northeast Information Center Records......................................................................3 OtherSources Consulted................................................................................................3 2. PROJECT CONTEXT..............................................................:............4 Environment..........................................................................................................................4 Prehistory...................................................................:....................................................... Ethnography............................................................................................................................5 HistoricContext................................................................................:.....................................7 3. SURVEY STRATEGY, FIELD WORK & EVALUATIVE CRITERIA ......8 4. PROJECT FINDINGS...........................................................................9 GeneralObservations............................................................................................................9 PrehistoricResources............................................................................................................9 HistoricResources...............................................................................................................10 5. SUMMARY & FINAL PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS .................:.10 6. REFERENCES CITED and/or UTILIZED..........................................12 ATTACHMENTS • Project Location and Archaeological Survey Area Map, USGS Ord Ferry Quad • Copy of Walk -In Records Search at Northeast Information Center, CSU -Chico Jensen & Associates n M&T Ranch Quarry Project, Cultural Resources Component _ . Page 1 1. INTRODUCTION Project Background and Scope of Work This report details the results of an archaeological inventory survey of approximately 300 acres of land located west of Chico along Little Chico Creek and Fell Road, north of Ord Ferry Road, and a short distance southwest of the Chico wastewater processing facility. The project consists of a proposed aggregate mine and processing operation to be developed on approximately 300 of 627 acres of the M&T Ranch leased by KRC Aggregate, Inc. (KRC) from M&T. Specific components of the project include construction of batch/processing plants, off - channel mining, and eventually, implementation of a reclamation plan. According to agency definitions and ' guidelines contained in the County General Plan, the KRC operation constitutes an "undertaking" which could affect various types of resources, including cultural resources, located within the 300 acre project area. Evaluation of effects to such resources must be undertaken in conformity with Butte County rules and regulations, in compliance with the County's General Plan as well as the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, Public Resources Code, Section 21000, et seq. (CEQA), and The California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, California Administrative Code, Section 15000 et seq. (Guidelines, as amended October 1998). Based on County General Plan and CEQA requirements, the following tasks were considered an adequate and appropriate Scope of Work for this project: I• Conduct a records search at the Northeast Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System at CSU -Chico. The ' objectives of the records search are to determine (a) the extent and distribution of previous archaeological surveys, (b) the locations .of known archaeological sites and any previously recorded archaeological districts, and (c) the relationships between known sites and environmental variables. This step is designed to ensure that, during subsequent field survey work, all historic properties considered significant per CEQA are discovered, correctly identified, and properly evaluated. • Conduct a pedestrian field survey of the project area. Based on map review, a complete coverage, but variable -intensity survey was considered appropriate, given the presence of variable sensitivity zones within the project area and in consideration of the fact that portions of the project area have already been substantially affected by past quarry operations, and past/ongoing farming/ranching activities. The purpose of the pedestrian survey is to ensure that any previously recorded sites which may have been identified during the records search are re -located and evaluations updated. For previously undocumented sites discovered which might qualify as "historic Jensen & Associates 1 M&T Ranch Quarry Project, Cultural Resources Component Page 2 tproperties" per CEQA, the field survey would include formally recording these on State of California DP -523 Forms. Upon completion of the records search and pedestrian field survey, prepare an archaeological survey report which (a) identifies and discusses the nature of archaeological and historic sites identified within the project area, (b) recommends appropriate mitigation measures for historic properties found significant, or potentially significant per CEQA and which might be located within an area that could be affected .by proposed or future quarry operations or other activities, and (c) recommends mitigation measures or treatment options sufficient to reduce to less -than -significant levels any project impacts to important or significant sites identified within the project area. The remainder of this document constitutes the Final Report for this project, which details the results of the records search and pedestrian survey and provides site treatment recommendations for significant properties. All field survey work followed guidelines of the State Historic Preservation Office ' (Sacramento) and conforms to accepted professional standards. Location The KRC project area incorporates approximately 300 acres of land within the M&T Ranch, extending along a section of Little Chico Creek and Fell Road, north of Ord Ferry Road and southwest of Chico and the City of Chico's wastewater treatment facility on River Road. Lands affected are located within un -projected Sections (part of the Rancho de Farwell Land Grant) of Township 21 North, Range 1 West, as shown on the USGS Ord Ferry, California, 7.5' Series Quad (see attached Project Location and Archaeological Survey Area Map). Much of the land in this area along Little Chico Creek has been affected by a variety of land use activities, including historic farming and ranching dating ' back to the middle of the 19' Century, intensive contemporary agriculture and farming, and limited dredging for and initial processing of sand and gravel. 1 Notwithstanding the effects of these historic and contemporary land use activities on lands within and adjacent to the Creek; archaeological sensitivity, throughout this area was considered to range from low to moderate/high for both prehistoric and historic -period sites and features. Records Search Prior to conducting the pedestrian field survey, the official Butte County archaeological records maintained by the Northeast Information Center at CSU - Chico were examined for any existing recorded prehistoric or historic sites (I. C. File # W02-51 dated July 8, 2002), with the following results for the project area: Jensen & Associates MFT Ranch Quarry Project, Cultural Resources Component Page 3 Northeast, Information Center Records: Portions of the project area have been subjected to archaeological survey. This work involved archaeological survey for a proposed green belt along both sides of the Little Chico Creek drainage system, from Chico to the Sacramento River (CSU -Chico 1974). The survey report itself (Information Center Document #B,-144) has been lost and is no longer available, however, the mapped location of the survey route and general information concerning the nature and intensity of the survey is still available on the relevant USGS topographic quads. No sites were identified within the KRC project area by Chico State during this previous survey, which incidentally involved the archaeologically most sensitive lands within the present project area. No prehistoric or historic -period sites or features have been identified or recorded within or adjacent to the KRC project area. Adjacent Fell Road and Ord Ferry Road represent historic alignments, but the extant features (roadways) today retain none of the original historic attributes which, if present, might render them significant or potentially significant per CEQA. • Given the fact that only, a portion of the overall project area has been surveyed, and in consideration of the fact that the project area incorporates natural terraces associated with an important stream course (Little Chico Creek), the Information Center recommended an appropriate level of additional pedestrian survey prior to approval of further ground disturbing impacts. Other Sources Consulted: In addition to examining the official records of Butte County as maintained by the Information Center at CSU -Chico, the following additional sources were also evaluated: • The National Register of Historic Places (1986, Supplements to 12/01); • The California Inventory of Historic Resources (State of California 1976); • The California Historical Landmarks (State of California 1990); • Existing published and unpublished documents relevant to environment, prehistory, ethnography, and early historic developments in the vicinity. These sources provided a general environmental and cultural context by means of which to assess likely site types and archaeological site distribution patterns for the project area, and are summarized below under Project Context. Jensen & Associates M&T Ranch Quarry Project, Cultural Resources Component Page 4 2. PROJECT CONTEXT Several types of information were considered relevant to evaluating the types of archaeological sites and site distribution that might .be present within or near the KRC project area. The information evaluated prior to conducting field survey_ includes data on environment, prehistory, ethnography, and early historic developments in the immediate and general vicinity. Environment Since prehistoric times, Little Chico Creek has been an important surface water source which made possible relatively intensive occupation of lands within the Chico area. A number of ecotones and microenvironments are represented within and near the project area (Klaseen and Ellison `1974), along the length of Little Chico Creek. The eastern end of the creek (particularly around Chico) is located at the interface of the Sacramento Valley with the lower reaches of the Cascade Range and Sierra Nevada foothills. Here, low ridges and hills are present which contain interbedded sands and volcanic conglomerates of the Tuscan Formation (MacDonald 1966:71). To the west of Chico and in the vicinity of the present project area, by way of contrast, the Creek traverses flat valley lands dominated by r deep, sandy alluvial deposits. t The earliest residents in the Great Central Valley are represented by the Fluted Point and Western Pluvial Lakes Traditions, which date from about 11,500 to 7,500 years ago (Moratto 1984). Within portions of the Central Valley, fluted Jensen & Associates Vegetation along the creek reflects this transition from foothills to valley bottom, and prior to AD 1850 was quite complex (Kuchler 1977). A broad riparian association flanked by an Oak/Park Woodland was likely present throughout the entire project property, although today the breadth of both the riparian and Oak/Park Woodland communities have been narrowed by farming/ ranching and other historic and contemporary activities. Even today, however, the primary components of these communities are present within much of the project area, including large valley oaks (Quercus lobata), redbud (Cercis occidentalis), poison oak (Toxicodendron diversiloba), toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia), yerba santa (Eriodictyon sp.), sycamore (Platanus racemosa), a variety of annual grasses and forbes, and dense willow along the margins of the Creek. The rich and complex vegetation and associated land fauna, coupled with avian and aquatic species, provided substantial dietary and other economic resources important to the Native American economy of this region. Prehistory t The earliest residents in the Great Central Valley are represented by the Fluted Point and Western Pluvial Lakes Traditions, which date from about 11,500 to 7,500 years ago (Moratto 1984). Within portions of the Central Valley, fluted Jensen & Associates M&T Ranch Quarry Project, Cultural Resources Component Page 5 This model of prehistoric cultural development within the northern Sacramento Valley is generally well document, and derives from research by Chartkoff, Miller and Johnson (n.d.), Ritter (1970), Markley (1975), Kowta (1978), Jensen (1987); Jensen & Jensen (2000), and others. Ethnography rAs noted above, the Konkow, or Northwest Maidu, were resident in the Chico area at the time of Euro -American contact (circa. AD 1840's). These people, whose language has been identified as a branch of the Penutian family, occupied a portion of the Sacramento Valley floor along both sides of the Sacramento River near the present project area, as well as the foothills east of Chico and Oroville near the confluence of the south, middle, north, and west branches of Jensen & Associates 5 projectile points have been found at Tracy Lake (Heizer 1938) and around the margins of Buena Vista Lake in Kern County. Similar materials have been found to the north, at Samwell Cave near Shasta Lake and near McCloud and Big Springs in Siskiyou County. These early peoples are thought to have subsisted using a combination of generalized hunting and lacustrine exploitation (Moratto 1984). The population of this early culture underwent a substantial increase in density after about 7,500-6,500 years ago. One of the most securely dated of these post - 6,500 year old assemblages is from the Squaw Creek Site located north of Redding. Here, a charcoal -based C-14 date suggests extensive Native American presence by 6,500 years ago, or 4,500 B.C. Most of the artifactual material dating to this time period has counterparts further south, around Borax (Clear) Lake and the Farmington Area east of Stockton. Important artifact types from this time period include large wide -stemmed projectile points and manos and metates. In the Northern Sacramento Valley, aboriginal populations continued to expand between 6,500 and 4,500 years ago (Ragir 1972). By about 2000 years ago, Macro- Penutian-speaking peoples (including the Maidu) are believed to have arrived in the area, bringing with them an economy which relied on extensive use of bulbs and other plant foods, animal and fishing products more intensively processed with mortars and pestles, and perhaps the bow and arrow and associated small ' stemmed- and corner -notched projectile points. Arriving ultimately from southern Oregon and the Columbia and Modoc Plateau region and proceeding down the major drainage systems (including the Feather, Yuba and American Rivers), the Penutian-speaking Maidu eventually displaced Hokan populations 1 as far west as the Sacramento Valley floor and the margins of the Sacramento River and, at the time of contact with Euroamerican populations (circa. AD 1850), ' were still expanding into areas previously occupied by the earlier Hokan- speaking peoples (including the Yana who by this date had migrated to the north of Chico). Around Chico, the so-called Shasta (archaeological) Complex represents the material culture record of the local Penutian speakers. This model of prehistoric cultural development within the northern Sacramento Valley is generally well document, and derives from research by Chartkoff, Miller and Johnson (n.d.), Ritter (1970), Markley (1975), Kowta (1978), Jensen (1987); Jensen & Jensen (2000), and others. Ethnography rAs noted above, the Konkow, or Northwest Maidu, were resident in the Chico area at the time of Euro -American contact (circa. AD 1840's). These people, whose language has been identified as a branch of the Penutian family, occupied a portion of the Sacramento Valley floor along both sides of the Sacramento River near the present project area, as well as the foothills east of Chico and Oroville near the confluence of the south, middle, north, and west branches of Jensen & Associates 5 M&T Ranch Quarry Project, Cultural Resources Component Page 6 which defended, controlled and exploited a known territory. the Feather River, and the lower drainages of Big and Little Chico Creeks and Butte Creek. On the basis of linguistic differences and geographical distribution, the Maidu have been divided into three primary groups: the Southern Maidu, or Nisenan; the Northeastern Maidu, or Mountain Maidu; and the Northwestern Maidu, or Konkow (Shipley 1978:83). It is this latter group which laid claim to the Chico area at the time of Bidwell's arrival. The basic social unit for the Maidu was the nuclear family, although the village may also be considered a social, as well as a political and economic, unit. Villages were usually located on flats adjoining streams, and on ridges high above rivers and creeks, and were most intensively occupied during the winter months (Dixon 1905:175). Villages typically consisted of a scattering of conical bark dwellings, numbering from four or five to several dozen in larger villages, each house containing a single family of from three to seven people (Riddell 1978:373). Larger villages, with from twelve to fifteen or more houses; might also contain a kumi, a semi -subterranean earth -covered lodge. The village containing the largest of these structures acted as the ceremonial assembly center "village (ibid.:373). Between three and five villages comprised a community" which defended, controlled and exploited a known territory. The transition between summer and autumn brought with it an abundance of food resources. Late summer fish runs were actively exploited, with salmon providing a large portion of the spoils. In addition to salmon, suckers, eels, and a variety of small, slow fish were actively exploited, especially during the Late Prehistoric periods (Broughton 1988). Fresh water mussels were also collected by the Maidu year-round, but were intensively exploited during periods of low rwater volume (late summer/early autumn) (Eugster 1990:114). Several types of nut seeds were collected during the early autumn months as well, with acorns provided by various oak species representing the greatest volume of nut meat harvested. While several varieties of acorn producing oaks exist, the Maidu preferred the black oak, golden oak, and the interior live oak. Other acorn producing varieties include the valley oak, blue oak, and the tan oak. The acorns Jensen & Associates 6 r Resources exploited by the Maidu in the Chico area were both diverse and prolific. A variety of plant and animal species was readily available for collection, processing and consumption, with several different food types complimenting one another during various seasons. During the spring, a variety of herbs, tubers, roots, and grass seeds were collected from environments within close proximity to the winter village. During the summer months, individuals and groups would venture into the higher elevations in order to procure various plants and animals. Small, medium, and large mammals were actively hunted within the mountainous regions east of Chico, with only the coyote, dog, wolf, and bear avoided. Several types of insects were also collected during the summer, including yellow jacket larvae, grasshoppers, locusts, and crickets; all of which could be eaten dry, or roasted, the bulk of which were often stored for the winter months. The transition between summer and autumn brought with it an abundance of food resources. Late summer fish runs were actively exploited, with salmon providing a large portion of the spoils. In addition to salmon, suckers, eels, and a variety of small, slow fish were actively exploited, especially during the Late Prehistoric periods (Broughton 1988). Fresh water mussels were also collected by the Maidu year-round, but were intensively exploited during periods of low rwater volume (late summer/early autumn) (Eugster 1990:114). Several types of nut seeds were collected during the early autumn months as well, with acorns provided by various oak species representing the greatest volume of nut meat harvested. While several varieties of acorn producing oaks exist, the Maidu preferred the black oak, golden oak, and the interior live oak. Other acorn producing varieties include the valley oak, blue oak, and the tan oak. The acorns Jensen & Associates 6 r M&T Ranch Quarry Project, Cultural Resources Component Page 7 were collected and then crushed in mortars to form acorn flour. Tannic acid had to be leached from the flour with warm water before consumption. A bland bread was baked from the flour, providing a carbohydrate staple. Technological adaptations by the Maidu allowed for a quasi -sedentary lifestyle, especially within the Chico area where food resources were relatively abundant. Storage was crucial to sedentism, with storage devices, structures, and methods being numerous. During the course of seasonal rounds and in conjunction with specialized resource exploitation, the Maidu created a wide range of archaeological site "types" in the Chico area, with fewer site types' present within the flood zone of the Sacramento River. While only fragmentary evidence of the associated material culture remains at many of these sites (due in large part to perishability but also to the impacts to archaeological sites resulting from later [historic] land uses), the potential range of such site types for the present project area was expected to include: • Surface scatters of lithic artifacts and debitage, often but not always associated with dark brown to black "midden" deposits, resulting from village encampments. Typically such sites are located adjacent to water sources; • Surface scatters of lithic artifacts and debitage without associated middens, resulting from short-term occupation and/or specialized economic activities; _ • Trails; • Mortuary sites; and, j• Isolated finds of aboriginal. artifacts and flakes. • One final note with regard to all of these site types. The project area is located within lands subjected to regular and substantial flooding during prehistoric and historic time periods. The result is that some sites in this area have been buried under sediments, leaving no surface indicators of their presence. They ' could be encountered or exposed during excavation, a possibility considered in the mitigative recommendations at the conclusion of this report. Historic Context Early Spanish expeditions arrived in the Great Central Valley of California, although not necessarily in northern California, from Bay Area missions as early as 1804. By the mid -1820's, literally hundreds of fur trappers were annually traversing the Valley on behalf of the Hudson's Bay Company (Maloney 1945), with devastating consequences for the local Maidu and other valley populations (Cook 1955). By the late 1830's and early 1840's, several small permanent European American settlements had emerged in the Valley and adjacent foothill lands, including ranchos in what are now Shasta, Tehama and Butte Counties. One of these grants was the Rancho de Farwell. Jensen & Associates 7 IM&T Ranch Quarry Project, Cultural Resources Component . Page 8 1 The Rancho de Farwell Grant of July 1844 had been made by Micheltorena on behalf of the Mexican government to Edward Farwell and Thomas Fallon. Bidwell himself had arrived in California in 1841 as a member of the first band of • Americans to cross the Sierra Nevada for the purpose of settlement (McGie 1983:33). In the spring of 1843 a party of settlers headed north for Oregon from . Sutter's Fort, which included John Bidwell, Peter Lassen and James Bruheim (ibid.:34). On this trip, Bidwell was clearly impressed by the beauty of the region around Chico, and on his return from Oregon, Bidwell mapped the rivers and streams and the lay of the land at and around Chico (ibid.:34). This map later formed the basis of several of the grants made by Micheltorena, one of which was the Farwell Grant described above. ' The site of Chico Landing, also known as Bidwell's Landing, is located on the Sacramento River a little over a mile northwest of the project area. This site was used as a ferry crossing and loading dock for the importation and exportation of tgoods used in the Chico area. Within the subject property, ranching/ farming have been undertaken since the historic land grant period. Ranching/farming-related impacts to some of the land within the property include modifications associated with access road grading, leveling, scraping, stream course channelizing, and placement of irrigation features. 3. SURVEY STRATEGY, FIELD WORK and SITE EVALUATIVE CRITERIA In view of variable sensitivity zones within the project area, a mixed survey strategy was employed. Intensive -level survey (transects set at c. 10-15 meter intervals) was undertaken along the flanks of Little Chico Creek (where not prohibited by impenetrable berry vines and other vegetation), and on terraces associated with the original creek's alignment. General -level survey was undertaken within areas subjected to past disturbances and located away from the water course and associated natural rises and levees. In searchingfor cultural resources, the surveyors took into account the results of Y background research and previous survey results, and were alert for any unusual contours, soil changes, distinctive vegetation patterns, exotic materials, artifacts, feature or feature remnants and other possible markers of cultural sites. Field work was undertaken between July 8-11 and 19, 2002. All project objectives are considered to have been satisfactorily achieved. Jensen & Associates 8 MFT Ranch Quarry Project, Cultural Resources Component Page 9 Any sites and features identified during either the Records Search or field survey were to be evaluated in relation to CEQA significance criteria for "historic properties." Important cultural resources, per CEQA, are assessed in relation to criteria specified in Section 15064.5 of the amended CEQA Guidelines. These criteria suggest that an "important archaeological resource" (an "historic property") is one which: a) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage. b) Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past. c) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period; region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or d) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. 4. PROJECT FINDINGS General Observations The pedestrian field survey identified the following general conditions within the project area. As noted in previous discussions, disturbance to the ground surface and subsurface components along both sides of Little Chico Creek ranges from minimal and moderate. Clearly, lands near the Creek have been subjected to intensive farming/ranching activities for over 100 years. Portions of the property have been repeatedly planted in various row crops and the land area subject to leveling, deep plowing and discing. Additional impacts have accompanied crop and orchard harvesting and placement of irrigation features. As well, access roads, agricultural wells and pumps, buried utilities, and limited excavation work associated with past dredging/quarry have resulted in modifications to the surface and subsurface soil components within portions of the project area. Despite these previous impacts, the soil surface and subsurface components remain intact, particularly in the southern portion of the property.. Prehistoric Resources No prehistoric sites or artifacts were identified during the pedestrian survey. The absence of prehistoric sites may be attributable at least in part to the frequency of flooding and siltation in this area along Little Chico Creek near its confluence with the Sacramento River. As well, intensive farming/ ranching activities and limited past quarry work may have destroyed or further concealed evidence of prehistoric presence and activities (i.e., esp. isolated artifacts). r Jensen & Associates 9 M&T Ranch Quarry Project, Cultural Resources Component Page 10 Historic Resources No evidence of demonstrably historic -period occupation, homesteading or other similar use was observed during the pedestrian survey. Ranching is known to have occurred throughout the project vicinity since the middle of the 19`h Century, but the present survey failed to identify any specific features (fences, structures, rock alignments/walls, foundations, privy pits, house remains, etc.) that date unequivocally to the historic period. Existing ranch and other features are contemporary, and include chain-link fences at access road points, and fences and ranch -related features elsewhere. The alignments for adjacent roadways, including Fell Road and Ord Ferry Road, are largely historic, but extant features retain none of the original historic attributes. The bridge on Ord Ferry Road crossing Little Chico Creek was constructed in 1949, but has been determined not significant in the Caltrans Bridge Inventory (Mikesell 1986). 5. SUMMARY of FINDINGS and FINAL PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS This report details the results of an archaeological inventory survey of approximately 300 acres of land located within the M&T Ranch property southwest of Chico. KRC Aggregate, Inc. proposes to mine and process aggregate on approximately 300 of 627 acres leased by KRC from M&T. A search of existing records at the Northeast Information Center documents that a portion of the project area — the archaeologically most sensitive lands adjacent to Little Chico Creek — have already been surveyed by field classes from Chico State in the mid -1970's. Chico identified no sites during this previous survey work. As well, no new sites (prehistoric or historic) were identified during the present pedestrian survey, which involved all of the 300 -acre project area. .Based on the negative results achieved during the search of records and the pedestrian survey, archaeological clearance is recommended for the proposed undertaking, although the following provisions (mitigative actions) are relevant given the proximity of proposed future aggregate extraction work to a natural water course and elevated land forms adjacent to it: The present evaluation and recommendations are based on the findings of an inventory -level surface survey only. There is always the possibility that potentially significant unidentified cultural materials could inadvertently be encountered on or below the surface during the course of future development or construction activities. In such a situation, archaeological consultation should be sought immediately. Jensen & Associates 10 M&T Ranch Quarry Project, Cultural Resources Component Page 11 2. In order to ensure proper identification of any cultural materials that might inadvertently be encountered during future development, construction; or gravel extraction work, the County's use permit should include a provision for training of field personnel in identification procedures, prior to implementing the quarry operation. The training would take the form of a 1/2 day's ' eminar in which a professional archaeologist would review with operations personnel the natural and cultural history of the project area, archaeological sensitivity, the most likely locations of buried cultural materials, and what kinds of cultural materials would be seen if prehistoric cultural materials are in fact unearthed. The seminar would conclude with specific instructions on how to address such discoveries and what immediate actions to take. M&T Ranch Quarry Project, Cultural Resources Component Page 12 6. REFERENCES CITED or UTILIZED Broughton, J.M. , 1988 Archaeological Patterns of Prehistoric Fish Exploitation in the Sacramento Valley. Unpublished Masters Thesis, Department of Anthropology, California State University, Chico. Butte, County of 1998 Draft Environmental Impact Report for the M&T Chico Ranch Mine Project. On File with the County of Butte. California, State of 1970 Public Resources Code, Section 21000, et seq. (CEQA), and The California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, California Administrative Code, Section 15000 et seq. (Guidelines, as Amended). Prepared by the Office of Planning and Research. 1976 The California Inventory of Historic Resources. State of California. 1990 The California Historical Landmarks. State of California. Chartkoff, J., D. Miller, and K. Johnson n.d. Some Groundstone Industries of the Central Sacramento Valley and Possible Explanations for the Variability Among Them. Unpublished manuscript and paper presented at the 1970 annual - meeting of the Society for California Archaeology. Asilomar, California. Chico, CSU 1974 Archaeological Survey of a Little Chico Creek Greenbelt between Chico and the Sacramento River (I.C. Report # B-144). Report originally, filed with Northeast Information Center, CSU -Chico. Clark, William B. 1970 Gold Districts of California. California Division of Mines, Bulletin 193. San Francisco, California: Cook, S. F. - 1955 The Aboriginal Population of the San Joaquin Valley, California. University of California Publications, Anthropological Records, Vol. 16:31-80. Berkeley and Los Angeles. Dixon, R. B. 1905 The Northern Maidu. American Museum of Natural History Bulletin 17:119-346. New York. Jensen & Associates 12 MFT Ranch Quarry Pro.ject, Cultural Resources Component Page 13 Eugster, S.E. 1990 Freshwater Mussel Utilization at a Late Prehistoric Period Archaeological site (CA -BUT -12) in the Northern Sacramento Valley, California. Unpublished Masters Thesis, Department of Anthropology, California State University, Chico. Heizer, Robert F. 1938 "A Folsom -Type Point from the Sacramento Valley." The Masterkey 12(5):180-182. Los Angeles. Hoover, Mildred, and others 1966 Historic Spots in California, Third Revised Edition. Stanford University Press. Stanford, California. Jensen, Peter M. 1987 Archaeological Excavations at the "West Rockshelter" in Dead Horse Slough, California Park Subdivision, Chico, Butte County, California. Report on File, City of Chico, and Northeast Information Center, CSU -Chico. Jensen, Peter M., and Sean M. Jensen 1996 Cultural Resources Management Plan, Park Acquisition and Overall Bidwell Park, The City of Chico, Butte County, California. Report on File, City of Chico, and Northeast Information Center, CSU -Chico. 2000 Archaeological Test Excavations at the Neal Road Rock Shelter Site, Neal Road Landfill, Butte County, California, Phase I Report. Report on File, County of Butte, Department of Public Works, and Northeast Information Center, CSU -Chico. Jensen, Peter M. and Paul R. Reed 1980 An Archaeological and Cultural Anthropological Overview of the Northern Sacramento Valley and Southern Cascades. Special Publication of the Bureau of Land Management, Redding District Office. Klaseen, T.A. and D.K. Ellison 1974 Soil Survey of the Butte County Area, California. United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. , Jensen & Associates t 13 tM&T Ranch Quarry Project. Cultural Resources Component Page 14 Kowta, Makoto 1978 Research Design: Northeast California. Unpublished Manuscript on file at the Department of Anthropology, California State University, Chico. Kroeber, A. L. 1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. Smithsonian Institution, Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 78. Washington, D.C. Jensen & Associates 1 14 Kuchler, A. W. 1977 "Map of the natural vegetation of California," In M.G. Barbour and J. Major, Eds., Terrestrial Vegetation of California. New York: Wiley. MacDonald G.A. 1966 Geology of Northern California, Bulletin 190:65-95. California Division of Mines and Geology, San Francisco. Maloney, Alice B. (Editor) 1945 The Journal of John Work, Alice B. Maloney, Editor. Published by The Historical Society, San Francisco, California. Markley, Richard 1975 Archaeological Excavations in the Oroville Locality, Butte County, California, 1975. Unpublished Master's Thesis, Department of Anthropology, California State University, Chico. McGie, J. 1983 History of Butte County: Volume 1,1840-1919. Butte County Board of Education. Mikesell, S. 1986 California Department of Transportation's (Caltrans) Historic Bridge Inventory. On file at CALTRANS, Environmental Division, Sacramento. . Moratto Michael 1984 California Archaeology. Academic Press, New York. Ragir, Sonia 1972 The Early Horizon In Central California. University of California, Archaeological Research Facility, Contribution 15. Berkeley. Jensen & Associates 1 14 M&T Ranch Quarry Project, Cultural Resources Component Page 15 Riddell, Francis A. 1978 Maidu and Konkow, IN, Handbook of North American Indians,' Volume 8: California, Robert F. Heizer, Editor, pp. 370-379. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Ritter, Eric W. 1970 Archaeology of "Tie Wah" near Oroville, Butte County, California: Culture History vs. Culture Process. Center for Archaeological Research at Davis, Publication No. 2. Shipley, W.F. 1978 Native- Languages of California; IN, Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 8: California, Robert F. Heizer, Editor, pp. 80-90. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Talbitzer, Bill 1987 Butte County: An Illustrated History. Windsor Publications, Inc., Northridge, California. United States Department of the Interior 1983 Archaeology and Historic Preservation: Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines, Federal Register 48:190 (29 Sept. 1983), pp. 44716-44742. 1986 National Register of Historic Places. Federal Register 1986, Supplements through December 2000. Washington, D.C. - w Work, John 1945 "Fur Brigade to the Bonaventura: John Work's California Expedition, 1832-1833, for the Hudson's Bay Company", IN, The - Journal of John Work, Alice B. Maloney, Editor. California Historical Society, San Francisco. Jensen & Associates 15 PROJECT LOCATION'and ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEYAREA MAP: 300 -acre M&T RANCH QUARRY, BUTTE COUNTY. Portion sof Un rolected Sections, Township 21 North, Range 1 West. USGS Ord Ferry, California, 7.5' Quad. LIN ' ; iYil'1•'}- t � � d. °r'^ ,� t {«. f ' i f'� !i. x i� e. Lia` a . . '..Y3> t .""..' t' t2.�1 �� i tt..�.>` 4 P .✓� t:��ti3 i � a ^.}•-•�-ai.' �Ls. � ' 4t � •`i`� r �'i x'���j � i', :g -:7 @, �. , , .,'s Y�'�"i `��� . 3 �� '� �y-����� `'�; s . �?[� .`.�fi''fri�.$".W'ei`s"S:A.t., ..=j. `„{t"�i.-• .0-.1. �3, .: `.ads _ r� .. �..:! .�'�'-a z:L*..,�.'`..0 i, PETER M. JENSEN - 'CHICO CALIFORNIA ARCHAEOLOGICAL HISTORICAL CULTURAL RESOURCE,' MANAGEMENT SERVICES The Northeast Center of the California BUTTE Department of Anthropology I Historical Resources Information System GLENN � SERRA SISKIYOU California State University, CIlICO LASSEN SUTTER Chico, .CA 95929-0400 M000C TEHAMA PLUMAS TRINITY (530) 898-6256 SHASTAFA . T REEMENT OF CONFIDENTIALITY ::may I, the undersigned, have been granted:access to archaeological data on file at the Northeast Center of the California Historical Resources Information System. I understand the confidential nature of this information and agree to respect that confidentiality by not disclosing specific site locations to unauthorized individuals or in publicly distributed documents without written consent of the State Historic Preservation Office. I agree to submit completed site records and preliminary reports pertinent to this project to this Information Center no later than 30 days after completion of field investigation. Subsequent reports will also be forwarded. I understand that failure to comply with the above agreement isgr ounds for denial of access to the archaeological data at the Northeast Information Center. / O Z Name Signature Date (2 C 4,2 I S TeP1-1c-y2 A 4A-,-1 Lei -t Ci r i co, CA OS --/2 0 S —17?9 Affiliation Telephone JE�&1SC�-J AP -c c�oc ►u+c s� �; c� S i,.r c . Address Purpose of Research: Planning (pt) Scientific/Academic O Other ( ) 1 t a s ,A^4- 7 AAr< 0 QkJW- Y / I)2 V Q Project . l3v-rcr']SeCs. Z.2�i 32AC33 Location 02 In F ZlaA4 7- S . C tf �.co l.S f OLr,�yA -7.% is rroCS Maps NtA- )&R .-111, - 1'Lcw_.• Izct l )3— 2 tY n_-7 A tSS1 i,I G-1 Sites/Studies STAFF USE ONLY Time: Fees: _Lhour(s) @ $80.00/hr Rio. IN: ` , OUT: ,.0c) Information Center Staff staff hours @ $30.00/hr $ _ 50 Photocopy Charges: 30copies @ $.15/page $ 4..,_ Other: ' TOTAL: 6CA cJao,�A �� S -::�/�f o� MFT Ranch Quarry Project, Cultural Resources ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVENTORY SURVEY KRC Aggregate, Inc.'s Proposed Aggregate Mine and Processing, 300 of 627 Leased Acres on the M&T Ranch Property, Southwest of Chico, Butte County, California. Prepared for Resources Design Technology, Inc. ' 302-A S. Lexington Drive Folsom, California 95630 Authors Peter M. Jensen Sean M. Jensen r . Keywords for Information Center Use: Archaeological Survey, c.* 300 acres on the M&T Ranch Along Little Chico Creek, ' CEQA, USGS Ord Ferry, Ca. 7.5' Quad, No Cultural Resources Identified within . Project Area Boundaries. July 26, 2002 JENSEN & ASSOCIATES - CHICO, CALIFORNIA ARCHAEOLOGICAL - HISTORICAL - CULTURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT SERVICES M&T Ranch Quarry Project, Cultural Resources Page i CONTENTS • 1. INTRODUCTION...................................................................................1 Project Background and Scope of Work:..........................................................................1 Location..................................................................................................................................2 RecordsSearch.........................................................................................................................2 Northeast Information Center Records......................................................................3 Other Sources Consulted................................................................................................3 2. PROJECT CONTEXT...........................................................................4 Environment.............................................................:............................................................4 Prehistory...........................................................:.....................................................................4 Ethnography.......................................................:...........................................:........................5 HistoricContext......................................................................................................................7 3. SURVEY STRATEGY, FIELD WORK & EVALUATIVE CRITERIA ......8 4. PROJECT FINDINGS...........................................................................9 GeneralObservations............................................................................................................9 PrehistoricResources............................................................................................................9 HistoricResources................................................................................................................10 5. SUMMARY & FINAL PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS ...................10 6. REFERENCES CITED and/or UTILIZED..........................................12 ATTACHMENTS • Project Location and Archaeological Survey Area Map, USGS Ord Ferry Quad • Copy of Walk -In Records Search at Northeast Information Center, CSU -Chico - Jensen & Associates i 9 M&T Ranch Quarry Project, Cultural Resources Component Page 1 1. INTRODUCTION Project Background and Scope of Work This report details the results of an archaeological inventory survey of approximately 300 acres of land located west of Chico along Little Chico Creek and Fell Road, north of Ord Ferry Road, and a short distance southwest of the Chico wastewater processing facility. The project consists of a proposed aggregate mine and processing operation to be developed on approximately 300 of 627 acres of the M&T Ranch leased by KRC Aggregate, Inc. (KRC) from M&T. Specific components of the project include construction of batch/ processing plants, off - channel mining, and eventually implementation of a reclamation plan. According to agency definitions and guidelines contained in the County General Plan, the KRC operation constitutes an "undertaking" which could affect various types of resources, including cultural resources, located within the 300 acre project area. Evaluation of effects to such resources must be undertaken in conformity with Butte County rules and regulations, in compliance with the County's General Plan as well as the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, Public Resources Code, Section 21000, et seq. (CEQA), and The California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, California Administrative Code, Section 15000 et seq. (Guidelines, as amended October 1998). Based on County General Plan and CEQA requirements, the following tasks were considered an adequate and appropriate Scope of Work for this project: • Conduct a pedestrian field survey of the project area. Based on map review, a complete coverage, but variable -intensity survey was considered appropriate, given the presence of variable sensitivity zones within the project area and in consideration of the fact that portions of the project area have already been substantially affected by past quarry operations, and past/ongoing farming/ranching activities. The purpose of the pedestrian survey is to ensure that any previously recorded sites which may have been identified during the records search are re -located and evaluations updated. For previously undocumented sites discovered which might qualify as "historic Jensen & Associates I 1 • Conduct a records search at the Northeast Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System at CSU -Chico. The. objectives of the records search are to determine (a) the extent and distribution of previous archaeological surveys, (b) the locations of known archaeological sites and any previously recorded archaeological districts, and rstep (c) the relationships between known sites and environmental variables. This is designed to ensure that, during subsequent field survey work, all historic properties considered significant per CEQA are discovered, correctly r identified, and properly evaluated. • Conduct a pedestrian field survey of the project area. Based on map review, a complete coverage, but variable -intensity survey was considered appropriate, given the presence of variable sensitivity zones within the project area and in consideration of the fact that portions of the project area have already been substantially affected by past quarry operations, and past/ongoing farming/ranching activities. The purpose of the pedestrian survey is to ensure that any previously recorded sites which may have been identified during the records search are re -located and evaluations updated. For previously undocumented sites discovered which might qualify as "historic Jensen & Associates I 1 M&T Ranch Quarry Project, Cultural Resources Component Page 2 properties" per CEQA, the field survey would include formally recording these on State of California DP -523 Forms. Upon completion of the records search and pedestrian field survey, prepare an archaeological survey report which (a) identifies and discusses the nature of archaeological and historic sites identified within the project area, (b) recommends appropriate mitigation measures for historic properties found significant, or potentially significant per CEQA and which might be located. within an area that could be affected by proposed or future quarry operations or other activities, and (c) recommends mitigation measures or treatment options sufficient to reduce to less -than -significant levels any project impacts to important or significant sites, identified within the project area. The remainder of this document constitutes the Final Report for this project, which details the results of the records search and pedestrian survey and provides site treatment recommendations for significant properties. All field survey work followed guidelines of the State Historic Preservation Office (Sacramento) and conforms to accepted professional standards. Location The KRC project area incorporates approximately 300 acres of land within the M&T Ranch, extending along a section of Little Chico Creek and Fell Road, north of Ord Ferry Road and southwest of Chico and the City of Chico's wastewater treatment facility on River Road. Lands affected are located within un -projected Sections (part of the Rancho de Farwell Land Grant) of Township 21 North, Range 1 West, as shown on the USGS Ord Ferry, California, 7.5' Series Quad (see attached Project Location and Archaeological Survey Area Map). Much of the land in this area along Little Chico Creek has been affected by a variety of land use activities, including historic farming and ranching dating back to the middle of the 19' Century, intensive contemporary agriculture and farming, and limited dredging for and initial processing of sand and gravel. Notwithstanding the effects of these historic. and contemporary land use activities on lands within and adjacent to the Creek, archaeological sensitivity throughout this area was considered to range from low to moderate/high for both prehistoric and historic -period sites and features. Records Search Prior to conducting the pedestrian field survey, the official Butte County archaeological records maintained by the Northeast Information Center at CSU - Chico were examined for any existing recorded prehistoric or historic sites (1.'C. File # W02-51 dated July 8, 2002), with the following results for the project area: Jensen & Associates 2 ' MFT Ranch Quarry Project, Cultural Resources Component Page 3 ' • The National Register of Historic Places (1986, Supplements to 12/01); • The California Inventory of Historic Resources (State of California 1976); • The California Historical Landmarks (State of California 1990); • Existing published and unpublished documents relevant to environment, prehistory, ethnography, and early historic developments in the vicinity. These sources provided a general environmental and cultural context by means of which to assess likely site types,and archaeological site distribution patterns for the project area, and are summarized below under Project Context. Jensen & Associates 3 Northeast Information Center Records: have been • Portions of the project area subjected to archaeological survey. This work involved archaeological survey for a proposed green belt along i both sides of the Little Chico Creek drainage system, from Chico to the Sacramento River (CSU -Chico 1974). The survey report itself (Information Center Document #B-144) has been lost and is no longer available, however, ' the mapped location of the survey route and general information concerning the nature and intensity of the survey is still available on the relevant USGS topographic quads. No sites were identified within the KRC project area by Chico State during this previous survey, which incidentally involved the archaeologically most sensitive lands within the present project area. ' No prehistoric or historic -period sites or features have been identified, or, recorded within or adjacent to the KRC project area. Adjacent Fell Road and Ord Ferry Road represent historic alignments, but the extant features (roadways) today retain none of the original historic attributes which, if present, might render them significant or potentially significant per CEQA. Given the fact that only a portion of the overall protect area has been surveyed, and in consideration of the fact that the project area incorporates natural terraces associated with an important stream course (Little Chico Creek), the Information Center recommended an appropriate level of iimpacts. additional pedestrian survey prior to approval of further ground disturbing Other Sources, Consulted: In addition to examining the official records of Butte County as maintained by the Information Center at CSU -Chico, the following additional sources were also evaluated: ' • The National Register of Historic Places (1986, Supplements to 12/01); • The California Inventory of Historic Resources (State of California 1976); • The California Historical Landmarks (State of California 1990); • Existing published and unpublished documents relevant to environment, prehistory, ethnography, and early historic developments in the vicinity. These sources provided a general environmental and cultural context by means of which to assess likely site types,and archaeological site distribution patterns for the project area, and are summarized below under Project Context. Jensen & Associates 3 MFT Ranch'Quarry Pro'ect Cultural Resources Com onent - Pae 4 -2. PROJECT CONTEXT Several types of information were considered relevant to evaluating the types of archaeological sites and site distribution that might be present within or near the KRC project area. The information evaluated prior to conducting field survey includes data on environment, prehistory, ethnography, and early historic developments in the immediate and general vicinity. Environment Since prehistoric times, Little Chico Creek has been an important surface water source which made possible relatively intensive occupation of lands within the Chico area. A number of ecotones and microenvironments are represented within and near the project area (Klaseen and Ellison 1974), along the length of Little Chico Creek. R 1 1 1 The rich and complex vegetation and associated land fauna, coupled with avian and aquatic species, provided substantial dietary and other economic resources important to the Native American economy of this region. Prehistory , The earliest residents in the Great Central Valley are represented by the Fluted Point and Western Pluvial Lakes Traditions, which date from about 11,500 to 7,500 years ago (Moratto 1984). Within portions of the Central Valley, fluted Jensen & Associates 4 The eastern end of the creek (particularly around Chico) is located at the interface of the Sacramento Valley with the lower reaches of the Cascade Range and Sierra Nevada foothills. Here, low ridges and hills are present which contain interbedded sands and volcanic conglomerates of the Tuscan Formation (MacDonald 1966:71). To the west of Chico and in the vicinity of the present project area, by way of contrast, the Creek traverses flat valley lands dominated by ' deep, sandy alluvial deposits. Vegetation along the creek reflects this transition from foothills to valley bottom, and prior to AD 1850 was quite complex (Kuchler 1977). A broad riparian association flanked by an Oak/Park Woodland was likely present throughout the entire project property, although today the breadth of both the riparian and Oak/Park Woodland communities have been narrowed by farming/ ranching and other historic and contemporary activities. Even today, however, the Mproject primary components of these communities are present within much of the area, including large valley oaks (Quercus lobata), redbud (Cercis occidentalis), poison oak (Toxicodendron diversiloba), toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia), yerba santa (Eriodictyon sp.), sycamore (Platanus racemosa), a variety of annual grasses and forbes, and dense willow along the margins of the Creek. R 1 1 1 The rich and complex vegetation and associated land fauna, coupled with avian and aquatic species, provided substantial dietary and other economic resources important to the Native American economy of this region. Prehistory , The earliest residents in the Great Central Valley are represented by the Fluted Point and Western Pluvial Lakes Traditions, which date from about 11,500 to 7,500 years ago (Moratto 1984). Within portions of the Central Valley, fluted Jensen & Associates 4 1 t i 1 1 t 1 1 r M&T Ranch OuarU Project, Cultural Resources Component Page 5 projectile points have been found at Tracy Lake (Heizer 1938) and around the margins of Buena Vista Lake in Kern County. Similar materials have been found to the north, at Samwell Cave near Shasta Lake and near McCloud and Big Springs in Siskiyou County. These early peoples are thought to have subsisted using a combination of generalized hunting and lacustrine exploitation (Moratto 1984). The population of this early culture underwent a substantial increase in density after about 7,500-6,500 years ago. One of the most securely dated of these post - 6,500 year old assemblages is from the Squaw Creek Site located north of Redding. Here, a charcoal -based C-14 date suggests extensive Native American presence by 6,500 years ago, or 4,500 B.C. Most of the artifactual material dating to this time period has counterparts further south, around Borax (Clear) Lake and the Farmington Area east of Stockton. Important artifact types from this time period include large wide -stemmed projectile points and manos and metates. In the Northern Sacramento Valley, aboriginal populations continued to expand between 6,500 and 4,500 years ago (Ragir 1972). By about 2000 years ago, Macro- Penutian-speaking peoples (including the Maidu) are believed to have arrived in the area, bringing with them an economy which relied on extensive use of bulbs and other plant foods, animal and fishing products more intensively processed with mortars and pestles, and perhaps the bow and arrow and associated small stemmed- and corner -notched projectile points. Arriving ultimately from southern Oregon and the Columbia and Modoc Plateau region and proceeding down the major drainage systems (including the Feather, Yuba and American Rivers), the Penutian-speaking Maidu eventually displaced Hokan populations as far west as the Sacramento Valley floor and the margins of the Sacramento River and, at the time of contact with Euroamerican populations (circa. AD 1850), were still expanding into areas previously occupied by the earlier Hokan- speaking peoples (including the Yana who by this date had migrated to the north of Chico). Around Chico, the so-called Shasta (archaeological) Complex represents the material culture record of the local Penutian speakers. This model of prehistoric cultural development within the northern Sacramento Valley is generally well document, and derives from research by Chartkoff, Miller and Johnson (n.d.), Ritter (1970), Markley (1975), Kowta (1978), Jensen (1987); Jensen & Jensen (2000), and others. Ethnography As noted above, the Konkow, or Northwest Maidu, were resident in the Chico area at the time of Euro -American contact (circa. AD 1840's). These people, whose language has been identified as a branch of the Penutian family, occupied a portion of the Sacramento Valley floor along both sides of the Sacramento River near the present project area, as well as the foothills east of Chico and Oroville near the confluence of the south, middle, north, and west branches of Jensen & Associates S MFT Ranch Quarry Project, Cultural Resources Component Page 6 which defended, controlled and exploited a known territory. Resources exploited by the Maidu in the Chico area were both diverse and prolific. A variety of plant and animal species was readily available for collection, processing and consumption, with several different food types complimenting one another during various seasons. During the spring, a variety of herbs, tubers, roots, and grass seeds were collected from environments within close proximity to the winter village. During the summer months, individuals and groups would venture into the higher elevations in order to procure various plants and animals. Small, medium, and large mammals were actively hunted within the mountainous regions east of Chico, with only the coyote, dog, wolf, and bear avoided. Several types of insects were also collected during the summer, including yellow jacket larvae, grasshoppers, locusts, and crickets; all of which could be eaten dry, or roasted, the bulk of which were often stored for the winter months. The transition between summer and autumn brought with it an abundance of food resources. Late summer fish runs were actively exploited, with salmon providing a large portion of the spoils. In addition to salmon, suckers, eels, and a variety of small, slow fish were actively exploited, especially during the Late Prehistoric periods (Broughton 1988). Fresh water mussels were also collected by the Maidu year-round, but were intensively exploited during periods of low water volume (late summer/early autumn) (Eugster 1990:114). Several types of nut seeds were collected during the early autumn months as well, with acorns provided by various oak species representing the greatest volume of nut meat harvested. While several varieties of acorn producing oaks exist, the Maidu preferred the black oak, golden oak, and the interior live oak. Other acorn producing varieties include the valley oak, blue oak, and the tan oak. The acorns Jensen & Associates 6 the Feather River, and the lower drainages of Big and Little Chico Creeks and Butte Creek. On the basis of linguistic differences and geographical distribution, the Maidu have been divided into three primary groups: the Southern Maidu, or Nisenan; the Northeastern Maidu, or Mountain Maidu; and the Northwestern Maidu, or Konkow (Shipley 1978:83). It is this latter group which laid claim to the Chico area at the time of Bidwell's arrival. The basic social unit for the Maidu was the nuclear family, although the village may also be considered a social, as well as a political and economic, unit. Villages were usually located on flats adjoining streams, and on ridges high above rivers and creeks, and were most intensively occupied during the winter months (Dixon 1905:175). Villages typically consisted of a scattering of conical bark dwellings, numbering from four or five to several dozen in larger villages, each house containing a single family of from three to seven people (Riddell 1978:373). Larger villages, with from twelve to fifteen or more houses, might also contain a kumi, a semi -subterranean earth -covered lodge. The village containing the largest of these structures acted as the ceremonial assembly center "village (ibid.:373). Between three and five villages comprised a community" which defended, controlled and exploited a known territory. Resources exploited by the Maidu in the Chico area were both diverse and prolific. A variety of plant and animal species was readily available for collection, processing and consumption, with several different food types complimenting one another during various seasons. During the spring, a variety of herbs, tubers, roots, and grass seeds were collected from environments within close proximity to the winter village. During the summer months, individuals and groups would venture into the higher elevations in order to procure various plants and animals. Small, medium, and large mammals were actively hunted within the mountainous regions east of Chico, with only the coyote, dog, wolf, and bear avoided. Several types of insects were also collected during the summer, including yellow jacket larvae, grasshoppers, locusts, and crickets; all of which could be eaten dry, or roasted, the bulk of which were often stored for the winter months. The transition between summer and autumn brought with it an abundance of food resources. Late summer fish runs were actively exploited, with salmon providing a large portion of the spoils. In addition to salmon, suckers, eels, and a variety of small, slow fish were actively exploited, especially during the Late Prehistoric periods (Broughton 1988). Fresh water mussels were also collected by the Maidu year-round, but were intensively exploited during periods of low water volume (late summer/early autumn) (Eugster 1990:114). Several types of nut seeds were collected during the early autumn months as well, with acorns provided by various oak species representing the greatest volume of nut meat harvested. While several varieties of acorn producing oaks exist, the Maidu preferred the black oak, golden oak, and the interior live oak. Other acorn producing varieties include the valley oak, blue oak, and the tan oak. The acorns Jensen & Associates 6 M&T Ranch Quarry Pro'ect Cultural Resources Component Pae 7 • One final note with regard to all of these site types. The project area is located within lands subjected to regular and substantial flooding during prehistoric and historic time periods. The result is that some sites in this area have been buried under sediments, leaving no surface indicators of their presence. They could be encountered or exposed during excavation, a possibility considered in the mitigative recommendations at the conclusion of this report. Historic Context Early Spanish expeditions arrived in the Great Central Valley of California, although not necessarily in northern California, from Bay Area missions as early as 1804. By the mid -1820's, literally hundreds of fur trappers were annually traversing the Valley on behalf of the Hudson's Bay Company (Maloney 1945), with devastating consequences for the local Maidu and other valley populations (Cook 1955). By the late 1830's and early 1840's, several small permanent European American settlements had emerged in the Valley and adjacent foothill lands, including ranchos in what are now Shasta, Tehama and Butte Counties. One of these grants was the Rancho de Farwell. Jensen & Associates 7 were collected and then crushed in mortars to form acorn flour. Tannic acid had to be leached from the flour with warm water before consumption. A bland bread was baked from the flour, providing a carbohydrate staple. Technological adaptations by the Maidu allowed for a quasi -sedentary lifestyle, j especially within the Chico area where food resources were relatively abundant. Storage was crucial to sedentism, with storage devices, structures, and methods .being numerous. During the course of seasonal rounds and in conjunction with specialized resource exploitation, the Maidu created a wide range of archaeological site "types" in the Chico area, with fewer site types present within the flood zone of the Sacramento River. While only fragmentary evidence of the associated material culture remains at many of these sites (due in large part to perishability but also to the impacts to archaeological sites resulting from later [historic] land uses), the potential range of such site types for the present project area was expected to include: • Surface scatters of lithic artifacts and debitage, often but not always associated with dark brown to black "midden" deposits, resulting from village encampments. Typically such sites are located adjacent to water sources; • Surface scatters of lithic artifacts and debitage without associated middens, resulting from short-term occupation and/or specialized economic activities; • Trails; • Mortuary sites; and, • Isolated finds of aboriginal artifacts and flakes. • One final note with regard to all of these site types. The project area is located within lands subjected to regular and substantial flooding during prehistoric and historic time periods. The result is that some sites in this area have been buried under sediments, leaving no surface indicators of their presence. They could be encountered or exposed during excavation, a possibility considered in the mitigative recommendations at the conclusion of this report. Historic Context Early Spanish expeditions arrived in the Great Central Valley of California, although not necessarily in northern California, from Bay Area missions as early as 1804. By the mid -1820's, literally hundreds of fur trappers were annually traversing the Valley on behalf of the Hudson's Bay Company (Maloney 1945), with devastating consequences for the local Maidu and other valley populations (Cook 1955). By the late 1830's and early 1840's, several small permanent European American settlements had emerged in the Valley and adjacent foothill lands, including ranchos in what are now Shasta, Tehama and Butte Counties. One of these grants was the Rancho de Farwell. Jensen & Associates 7 j'MFT Ranch OuarrU Project, Cultural Resources Component Page 8 1 The site of Chico Landing, also known as Bidwell's Landing, is located on the Sacramento River a little over a mile northwest of the project area. This site was used as a ferry crossing and loading dock for the importation and exportation of goods used in the Chico area. Within the subject property, ranching/ farming have been undertaken since the historic land grant period. Ranching/farming-related impacts to some of the land within the property -include modifications associated with access road grading, leveling, scraping, stream course channelizing, and placement of irrigation features. 3. SURVEY STRATEGY, FIELD WORK and SITE EVALUATIVE CRITERIA In view of variable sensitivity zones within the project area, a mixed survey strategy was employed. Intensive -level survey (transects set at c. 10-15 meter intervals) was undertaken along the flanks of Little Chico Creek (where not prohibited by impenetrable berry vines and other vegetation), and on terraces associated with the original creek's alignment. General -level survey was undertaken within areas subjected to past disturbances and located away from the water course and associated natural rises and levees. In searching for cultural resources, the surveyors took into account the results of background research and previous survey results, and were alert for any unusual contours, soil changes, distinctive vegetation patterns, exotic materials, artifacts, feature or feature remnants and other possible markers of cultural sites. Field work was undertaken between July 8-11 and 19, 2002. All project objectives are considered to have been satisfactorily achieved. Jensen & Associates 8 The Rancho de Farwell Grant of July 1844 had been made by Micheltorena on ,behalf of the Mexican government to Edward Farwell and ,Thomas Fallon. Bidwell himself had arrived in California in 1841 as a member of the first band of Americans to cross the Sierra Nevada for the purpose of settlement (McGie 1983:33). In the spring of 1843 a party of settlers headed north for Oregon from Sutter's Fort, which included John Bidwell, Peter Lassen and James Bruheim (ibid.:34). On this trip, Bidwell was clearly impressed by the beauty of the region around Chico, and on his return from Oregon, Bidwell mapped the rivers and streams and the lay of the land at and around Chico (ibid.:34). This map later formed the basis of several of the grants made by Micheltorena, one of which was the Farwell Grant described above. 1 The site of Chico Landing, also known as Bidwell's Landing, is located on the Sacramento River a little over a mile northwest of the project area. This site was used as a ferry crossing and loading dock for the importation and exportation of goods used in the Chico area. Within the subject property, ranching/ farming have been undertaken since the historic land grant period. Ranching/farming-related impacts to some of the land within the property -include modifications associated with access road grading, leveling, scraping, stream course channelizing, and placement of irrigation features. 3. SURVEY STRATEGY, FIELD WORK and SITE EVALUATIVE CRITERIA In view of variable sensitivity zones within the project area, a mixed survey strategy was employed. Intensive -level survey (transects set at c. 10-15 meter intervals) was undertaken along the flanks of Little Chico Creek (where not prohibited by impenetrable berry vines and other vegetation), and on terraces associated with the original creek's alignment. General -level survey was undertaken within areas subjected to past disturbances and located away from the water course and associated natural rises and levees. In searching for cultural resources, the surveyors took into account the results of background research and previous survey results, and were alert for any unusual contours, soil changes, distinctive vegetation patterns, exotic materials, artifacts, feature or feature remnants and other possible markers of cultural sites. Field work was undertaken between July 8-11 and 19, 2002. All project objectives are considered to have been satisfactorily achieved. Jensen & Associates 8 1 i 1 i M&T Ranch Quarry Project, Cultural Resources Component Page g Any sites and features identified during either the Records Search or field survey were to be evaluated in relation to CEQA significance criteria for "historic properties." Important cultural resources, per CEQA, are assessed in relation to criteria specified in Section 15064.5 of the amended CEQA Guidelines. These criteria suggest that an "important archaeological resource" (an "historic property") is one which: r a) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage. b) Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past. c) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or d) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory.or history. 4. PROJECT FINDINGS, General Observations The pedestrian field survey identified the following general conditions within the project area. As noted in previous discussions, disturbance to the ground surface and subsurface components along both sides of Little Chico Creek ranges from minimal and moderate. Clearly, lands near the Creek have been subjected to intensive farming/ ranching activities for over 100 years. Portions of the property have been repeatedly planted in various row crops and the land area subject to leveling, deep plowing and discing. Additional impacts have accompanied crop and orchard harvesting and placement of irrigation features. As well, access roads, agricultural wells and pumps, buried utilities, and limited excavation work associated with past dredging/quarry have resulted in modifications to the surface and subsurface soil components within portions of the project area. Despite these previous impacts, the soil surface and subsurface components remain intact, particularly in the southern portion of the property. Prehistoric Resources No prehistoric sites or artifacts were identified during the pedestrian survey. The absence of prehistoric sites may be attributable at least in part to the frequency of flooding and siltation in this area along Little Chico Creek near its confluence with the Sacramento River. As well, intensive farming/ ranching activities and limited past quarry work may have destroyed or further concealed evidence of prehistoric presence and activities (i.e., esp. isolated artifacts). Jensen & Associates 9 M&T Ranch Quarry Project, Cultural Resources Component Page 10 Historic Resources No evidence of demonstrably historic -period occupation, homesteading or other similar use was observed during the pedestrian survey. Ranching is known to have occurred throughout the project vicinity since the middle of the 19th Century, but the present survey failed to identify any specific features (fences, structures, rock alignments/walls, foundations, privy pits, house remains, etc.) that date unequivocally to the historic period. Existing ranch and other features are contemporary, and include chain-link fences at access road points, and fences and ranch -related features elsewhere. The alignments for adjacent roadways, including Fell Road and Ord Ferry Road, are largely historic, but extant features retain none of the original historic attributes. The bridge on Ord Ferry Road crossing Little Chico Creek was constructed in 1949, but has been determined not significant in the Caltrans Bridge Inventory (Mikesell 1986). 5. SUMMARY of FINDINGS and FINAL PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS This report details the results of an archaeological inventory survey of approximately 300 acres of land located within the M&T Ranch property southwest of Chico. KRC Aggregate, Inc. proposes to mine and process aggregate on approximately 300 of 627 acres leased by KRC from M&T. A search of existing records at the Northeast Information Center documents that a portion of the project area — the archaeologically most sensitive lands adjacent to Little Chico Creek — have already been surveyed by field classes from Chico State in the mid -1970's. Chico identified no sites during this previous survey work. As well, no new sites (prehistoric or historic) were identified during the present pedestrian survey, which involved all of the 300 -acre project area. Based on the negative results achieved during the search of records and the pedestrian survey, archaeological clearance is recommended for the proposed undertaking, although the following provisions (mitigative actions) are relevant giveri the proximity of proposed future aggregate extraction work to a natural water course and elevated land forms adjacent to it: 1. The present evaluation and recommendations are based on the findings of an inventory -level surface survey only. There is always the possibility that potentially significant unidentified cultural materials could inadvertently be encountered on or below the surface during the course of future development or construction activities. In such a situation, archaeological consultation should be sought immediately.. I Jensen & Associates 10 M&T Ranch Quarry Project, Cultural Resources Component Page 11 2. In order to ensure proper identification of any cultural materials that might inadvertently be encountered during future development, construction, or gravel extraction work, the County's use permit. should include a provision for training of field personnel in identification procedures, prior to implementing the quarry operation. The training would take the form of a 1/2 day seminar in which a professional archaeologist would review with operations personnel the natural and cultural history of the project area, archaeological sensitivity, the most likely locations of buried cultural materials, and what kinds of cultural materials would be seen if prehistoric cultural materials are in fact unearthed. The seminar would conclude with specific instructions on how to address such discoveries and what immediate actions, to take. Jensen & Associates 11 MFT Ranch Ouarru Project, Cultural Resources Component ' Page 12 6. REFERENCES CITED or UTILIZED Broughton, J.M. 1988 Archaeological Patterns of Prehistoric Fish Exploitation in the Sacramento Valley. Unpublished Masters Thesis, Department of Anthropology, California State University, Chico. Butte, County of 1998 Draft Environmental Impact Report for the M&T Chico Ranch Mine Project. On File with the County of Butte. California, State of 1970 Public Resources Code, Section 21000, et seq. (CEQA), and The California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, California Administrative Code, Section 15000 et seq. (Guidelines, as Amended). Prepared by the Office of Planning and Research. 1976 The California Inventory of Historic Resources. State of California. 1990 The California Historical Landmarks. State of California. Chartkoff, J., D. Miller, and K. Johnson 1 n.d.. Some Groundstone Industries of the Central Sacramento Valley and Possible Explanations for the Variability Among Them. Unpublished manuscript and paper presented at the 1970 annual meeting of the Society for California Archaeology. Asilomar, California. Chico, CSU 1974 Archaeological Survey of a Little Chico Creek Greenbelt between Chico and the Sacramento River (I.C. Report # B-144). Report originally filed with Northeast Information Center, CSU -Chico. Clark, William B. 1970 Gold Districts of California. California Division of Mines, Bulletin 193. San Francisco, California. Cook, S. F. 1955 The Aboriginal Population of the San Joaquin Valley, California. University of California Publications, Anthropological Records, Vol. 16:31-80. Berkeley and Los Angeles. Dixon, R. B. 1905 The Northern Maidu. American Museum of Natural History Bulletin 17:119-346. New York. Jensen & Associates 12 1 t 1 MFT Ranch Quarry Project, Cultural Resources Component Page 13 Eugster, S.E. 1990 Freshwater Mussel Utilization at' a Late Prehistoric Period Archaeological site (CA -BUT -12) in the Northern Sacramento Valley, California. Unpublished Masters Thesis, Department of Anthropology, California State University, Chico. Heizer, Robert F. 1938 "A Folsom -Type Point from the Sacramento Valley." The, Masterkey 12(5):180-182. Los Angeles. Hoover, Mildred, and others 1966 Historic Spots in California, Third Revised Edition. Stanford University Press. Stanford, California. Jensen, Peter M. 1987 Archaeological Excavations at the "West Rockshelter" in Dead Horse Slough, California Park Subdivision, Chico, Butte County, California. Report on File, City of Chico, and Northeast Information Center, CSU -Chico. Jensen; Peter M., and Sean M. Jensen 1996 Cultural Resources Management Plan, Park Acquisition and Overall Bidwell Park, The City of Chico, Butte County, California. Report on File, City of Chico, and Northeast Information Center, CSU -Chico. 2000 Archaeological Test Excavations at the Neal Road Rock Shelter Site, Neal Road Landfill, Butte County, California, Phase I Report. Report on File, County of Butte, Department of Public Works, and Northeast Information Center, CSU -Chico. Jensen, Peter M. and Paul R. Reed 1980 An Archaeological and Cultural Anthropological Overview of the Northern Sacramento Valley and Southern Cascades. Special Publication of the Bureau of Land Management, Redding District Office. Klaseen, T.A. and D.K. Ellison 1974 Soil Survey of the Butte County Area, California. United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Jensen & Associates 13 1 M&T Ranch Quarry Project, Cultural Resources Component Page 14 11) Kowta, Makoto 1978 Research Design: Northeast California. Unpublished Manuscript on file at the Department of Anthropology, California State �( University, Chico. Kroeber, A. L. 1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. Smithsonian Institution, Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 78. Washington, D.C. Kuchler, A. W. 1977 "Map of the natural vegetation of California," In M.G. Barbour � and J. Major, Eds., Terrestrial Vegetation of California. New York: Wiley. . MacDonald G.A. 1966 Geology of Northern California, Bulletin 190:65-95. California Division of Mines and Geology, San Francisco. Maloney, Alice B. (Editor) 1945 The Journal of John Work, Alice B. Maloney, Editor. Published by The Historical Society, San Francisco, California. Markley, Richard 1975 Archaeological Excavations in the Oroville Locality, Butte County, California, 1975. Unpublished Master's Thesis, Department of Anthropology, California State University, Chico. _ McGie, J. . 1983 History of Butte County: Volume 1,1840-1919. Butte County Board of Education. Mikesell, S. 1986 California Department of Transportation's (Caltrans) Historic Bridge Inventory. On file at CALTRANS, Environmental Division, Sacramento. ` Moratto Michael 1984 California Archaeology. Academic Press, New York. Ragir, Sonia 1972 The Early Horizon In Central California. University of California, Archaeological Research Facility, Contribution 15. Berkeley. Jensen & Associates 14 It i 1 M&T Ranch Quarry Project, Cultural Resources Component Page 15 Riddell, Francis .A. 1978 Maidu and Konkow, IN, Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 8: California, Robert F. Heizer, Editor, pp. 370-379. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Ritter, Eric W. 1970 Archaeology of "Tie Wah" near Oroville, Butte County, California:. Culture History vs. Culture Process. Center for. Archaeological Research at Davis, Publication No: 2. Shipley, W.F. 1978 Native Languages of California, IN, Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 8: California, Robert F. Heizer, Editor, pp. 80-90. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Talbitzer, Bill 1987" Butte County: An Illustrated History. Windsor Publications, Inc., Northridge, California. United States Department of the Interior 1983 Archaeology and Historic Preservation: Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines, Federal Register 48:190 (29 Sept. 1983), pp. 44716-44742. 1986 National Register of Historic Places. Federal Register 1986, Supplements through December 2000. Washington, D.C. Work, John 1945 "Fur Brigade to the Bonaventura: John Work's California Expedition, 1832-1833, for the Hudson's Bay Company", IN, The Journal of John Work, Alice B. Maloney, Editor. California Historical Society, San Francisco. Jensen & Associates 15 PROJECT LOCATION and ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY AREAMAP. 300 -acre M&T RANCH QUARRY, BUTTE COUNTY Portion ,of Un r.olected Sections 'Townshi 21 North,: Range 1 West. USGS Ord Ferry, Califorriia,,7.5' Quad. . - _' "�5z r' -c' ••°i',;,�'tx `h'�sa�-.'.'y'l` �,?Y-x M'` 'moi �"'i'` ��:. .a � "-''�:''�'��,m�'.anxa"4. - . t"me'�`.m r ms�,�'''d'*�'s�" �ti,�'d � � `F'" �- �` .. +�-�Z � "YF� Et „p - y • ��� '�*�.�°� �T.-� j,"�.. � .��, PETER M. JENSEN CHICO, ;CALIFORNIA ARCHAEOLOGICAL HISTORICAL -'CULTURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT SERVICES. Il The Northeast Center of the California Historical Resources Information System V -1Z@ �_l * BUTTE GLENN S!ERRA SiSKIYOU Department of Anthropology California State University, Chico LASSEN SUTTER Chico, .CA 95929-0400 M000C TEHAMA PLUMAS SHASTA TRINITY (530) 898-6256 REEMENT OF CONFIDENTIALITY r I, the undersigned, have been granted:access to archaeological data on file at the Northeast Center of the California Historical Resources Information System. I understand the confidential nature of this information and agree to respect that confidentiality by not disclosing specific site locations to unauthorized individuals or in publicly distributed documents without written consent of the State Historic Preservation Office. t y 1 I agree to submit completed site.records and preliminary reports pertinent to this project to this Information Center no later than 30 days after completion of field investigation. Subsequent reports will also be forwarded. . I understand that failure to comply with the above agreement is grounds for denial of access t th p y gr gr o e archaeological data at the Northeast Information Center. J L A J W S Fnl Name Signature Date (Z C t 2►SALL r t_Ai�JC Ci4c co, CA 9S�7r2 �9S -�SfiB Affiliation Telephone lel/1SE�,-j AAc4,-e0LOGICAL Sc vtCtS /i.(c. Address Purpose of Research: Planning(CC) Scientific'/Academic ( ) Other ( ) ^ 17 AAr<0 Q,vM✓'Y Z DA y ci-ee-e AC Qv y Project . TT— z tlj, R w S 4� A s-tA T3o.^i �R S W , S1 C S. 'Z 29 32 3� Location 02 n F cry -7.S . C ff I co l S . OL-tHDA • -7. S . A -MO, -n 5.,j / S Maps SIdA-1148,-114110- /5 -(LL (/2c1�27 )I ISS(r\!G- Sites/Studies �1 ---_-------------------------------- =-------- =--- --------------- =-------------------------------------------------------------- STAFF USE ONLY Time: Fees: _Lhour(s) @ $80.00/hr $ IN:04 staff hours @ $30.00/hr $ • �50 OUT: Photocopy Charges: 30copies @ $.15/page $ Other: $ 50 TOTAL: Information Center Staff rM&T Ranch Quarry Project, Cultural Resources 1 ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVENTORY SURVEY ' KRC Aggregate, Inc.'s Proposed Aggregate Mine and Processing, P, g 300 of 627 Leased Acres on the M&T Ranch Property, Southwest of Chico, Butte County, California. 1 - ' Prepared for Resources Design Technology, Inc. 302-A S. Lexington Drive Folsom, California 95630 r . rAuthors Peter M. Jensen Sean M. Jensen 1 r rKeywords for Information Center Use: Archaeological Survey, c. 300 acres on the M&T Ranch Along Little Chico Creek,' ' CEQA, USGS Ord Ferry, Ca. 7.5' Quad, No Cultural Resources Identified within Project Area Boundaries. 1 July 26, 2002 JENSEN & ASSOCIATES - CHICO, CALIFORNIA rARCHAEOLOGICAL - HISTORICAL - CULTURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT SERVICES M&T Ranch Quarry Project, Cultural Resources Page i CONTENTS 5. SUMMARY & FINAL PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS ...................10 6. REFERENCES CITED and/or UTILIZED..........................................12 ATTACHMENTS • Project Location and Archaeological Survey Area Map, USGS Ord Ferry Quad .• Copy of Walk -In Records Search at Northeast Information Center, CSU -Chico Jensen & Associates i 1. INTRODUCTION....................................................................................1 Project Background and Scope of Work...........................................:...............................1 . .................. Location............................................................................................................ ....2 RecordsSearch........................................................................................................................2 Northeast Information Center Records.......................................................................3. Other Sources Consulted..........................:........................:............................................3 2. PROJECT CONTEXT...........................................................................4 Environment..........................................................................................................................4 Prehistory................................:.......................................................... ....... . .......................4, Ethnography...................................................................:...................5 HistoricContext......................:..............................................:................................................7 3. SURVEY STRATEGY, FIELD WORK & EVALUATIVE CRITERIA ......8 . 4. PROJECT FINDINGS...........................................................................9 GeneralObservations............................................................................................................9 Prehistoric Resources............................................................................................................9 HistoricResources...............................................................................�................................10 5. SUMMARY & FINAL PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS ...................10 6. REFERENCES CITED and/or UTILIZED..........................................12 ATTACHMENTS • Project Location and Archaeological Survey Area Map, USGS Ord Ferry Quad .• Copy of Walk -In Records Search at Northeast Information Center, CSU -Chico Jensen & Associates i M&T Ranch Ouarru Project. Cultural Resources Component Page 1 1. INTRODUCTION ■ Project Background and Scope of Work ■ This report details the results of an archaeological inventory survey of approximately 300 acres of land located west of Chico along Little Chico Creek and Fell Road, north of Ord Ferry Road, and a short distance southwest of the Chico wastewater processing facility. The project consists of a proposed aggregate mine and processing operation to be developed on approximately 300 of 627 acres of the M&T Ranch leased by KRC Aggregate, Inc. (KRC) from M&T. Specific components of the project include construction of batch/processing plants, off - channel mining, and eventually implementation of a reclamation plan. According to agency definitions and guidelines contained in the County General Plan, the KRC'operation constitutes an "undertaking" which could affect various types of resources, including cultural resources, located within the 300 acre project area. Evaluation of effects to such resources must be undertaken in conformity with Butte County rules and regulations, in compliance with the County's General Plan as well as the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, Public Resources Code, Section 21000, et seq. (CEQA), and The California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, California Administrative Code, Section 15000 et seq. (Guidelines, as amended October 1998). Based on County General Plan and CEQA requirements, the following tasks were considered an adequate and appropriate Scope of Work for this project: • Conduct a records search at the Northeast Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System at CSU -Chico. The objectives of .the records search are to determine (a) the extent and distribution of previous archaeological surveys, (b) the locations of known archaeological sites and any previously recorded archaeological districts, and (c) the relationships between known sites and environmental variables. This step is designed to ensure that, during subsequent field survey work; all historic properties considered significant per CEQA are -discovered, correctly identified, and properly evaluated. • Conduct a pedestrian field survey of the project area. Based on map review, a complete coverage, but variable -intensity survey was considered appropriate, given the presence of variable sensitivity zones within the project area and in consideration of the fact that portions of the project area have already been substantially affected by past quarry operations, and past/ongoing farming/ranching activities. The purpose of the pedestrian survey is to ensure that any previously recorded sites which may have been identified during the records search are re -located and evaluations updated. For previously undocumented sites discovered which might qualify as "historic Jensen & Associates 71 t 1 M&T Ranch Quarry Project, Cultural Resources Component Page 2 properties" per CEQA, the field survey would include formally recording these on State of California DP -523 Forms. Upon completion of the records search and pedestrian field survey, prepare an archaeological survey report which (a) identifies and discusses the nature of archaeological and historic sites identified within the project area, (b) recommends appropriate mitigation measures for historic properties found significant, or potentially significant per CEQA and which might be located within an area that could be affected by proposed or future quarry operations or other activities, and (c) recommends mitigation measures or treatment optionssufficient to reduce to less -than -significant levels any project impacts to important or significant sites identified within the project area. The remainder of this document constitutes the Final Report for this project, rwhich details the results of the records search and pedestrian survey and provides site treatment recommendations for significant properties. All field survey work followed guidelines of the State Historic Preservation Office (Sacramento) and conforms to accepted professional standards. 1 Location The KRC project area incorporates approximately 300 acres of land within the M&T Ranch, extending along a section of Little Chico Creek and Fell Road, north of Ord Ferry Road and southwest of Chico and the City of Chico's wastewater treatment facility on River Road. Lands affected are located within un -projected Sections (part of the Rancho de Farwell Land Grant) of Township 21 North, Range 1 West, as shown on the USGS Ord Ferry, California, 7.5' Series Quad (see attached Project Location and Archaeological Survey Area Map). Much of the land in this area along Little Chico Creek has been affected by a variety of land use activities, including historic farming and ranching dating back to the middle of the 19' Century, intensive contemporary agriculture and farming, and limited dredging for and initial processing of sand and gravel. Notwithstanding the effects of these historic and contemporary land use activities on lands within and adjacent to the Creek, archaeological sensitivity throughout this area was considered to range from low to moderate/high for both prehistoric and historic -period sites and features. Records Search Prior to conducting the pedestrian field survey, the official Butte County archaeological records maintained by the Northeast Information Center at CSU - Chico were examined for any existing recorded prehistoric or historic sites (I. C. File # W02-51 dated July 8, 2002), with the following results for the project area: Jensen & Associates 2 M&T Ranch Quarry Project. Cultural Resources Component Page 3 Northeast Information Center Records: • Portions of the project area have been subjected to archaeological survey. This work involved archaeological survey for a proposed green belt along both sides of the Little Chico Creek drainage system, from Chico to the Sacramento River (CSU -Chico 1974). The survey report itself (Information Center Document #B-144) has been lost and is no longer available, however, the mapped location of the survey route and general information concerning the nature and intensity of the survey is still available on the relevant USGS topographic quads. No sites were identified within the KRC project area by Chico State during this previous survey, which incidentally involved the archaeologically most sensitive lands within the present project area. • No prehistoric or historic -period sites or features have been identified or recorded within or adjacent to the KRC project area. Adjacent Fell Road and Ord Ferry Road represent historic alignments, but the extant features (roadways) today retain none of the original historic attributes which, if, present, might render them significant or potentially significant per CEQA. • Given the fact that only a portion of the overall project area has been surveyed, and in consideration of the fact that the project area incorporates natural terraces associated with an important stream course (Little Chico Creek), the Information Center recommended an appropriate level of additional pedestrian survey prior to approval of further ground disturbing impacts. Other Sources Consulted: In addition to examining the official records of Butte County as maintained by the Information Center at CSU -Chico, the following additional sources were also evaluated: • The National Register of Historic Places (1986, Supplements to 12/01); • The California Inventory of Historic Resources (State of California 1976); • The California Historical Landmarks (State of California 1990); • Existing published and unpublished documents relevant to environment, prehistory, ethnography, and early historic developments in the vicinity. These. sources provided a general environmental and cultural context by means of which to assess likely site types and archaeological site distribution patterns for the'project area, and are summarized below under Project Context. Jensen & Associates 3 M&T Ranch Quarry Project, Cultural Resources Component Page 4 2. PROJECT CONTEXT ' The eastern end of the creek (particularly around Chico) is located at the interface of the Sacramento Valley with the lower reaches of the Cascade Range and Sierra Nevada foothills. Here, low ridges and hills are present which contain interbedded sands and volcanic conglomerates of the Tuscan Formation (MacDonald 1966:71). To the west of Chico and in the vicinity of the present project area, by way of contrast, the Creek traverses flat valley lands dominated by deep, sandy alluvial deposits. Several types of information were considered relevant to evaluating the types of 1 archaeological sites and site distribution that might be present within or near the KRC project area. The information evaluated prior to conducting field survey 1 includes data on environment, prehistory, ethnography, and early historic 1 developments in the immediate and general vicinity. Environment Since prehistoric times, Little Chico Creek has :been an important surface water ' source which made possible relatively intensive occupation of lands within the Chico area. A number of ecotones and microenvironments are represented within and near the project area (Klaseen and Ellison 1974), along the length of Little Chico Creek. ' The eastern end of the creek (particularly around Chico) is located at the interface of the Sacramento Valley with the lower reaches of the Cascade Range and Sierra Nevada foothills. Here, low ridges and hills are present which contain interbedded sands and volcanic conglomerates of the Tuscan Formation (MacDonald 1966:71). To the west of Chico and in the vicinity of the present project area, by way of contrast, the Creek traverses flat valley lands dominated by deep, sandy alluvial deposits. The earliest residents in the Great Central Valley are represented by the Fluted Point and Western Pluvial Lakes Traditions, which date from about 11,500 to 7,500 years ago (Moratto 1984). Within portions of the Central Valley, fluted Jensen & Associates 4 Vegetation along the creek reflects this transition from foothills to valley bottom, 1 and prior to AD 1850 was quite complex (Kuchler 1977). A broad riparian association flanked by an Oak/Park Woodland was likely present throughout the entire project property, although today the breadth of both the riparian and 1 Oak/Park Woodland communities have been narrowed by farming/ ranching and other historic and contemporary activities. - Even today, however, the primary components of these communities are present within much of the project area, including large valley oaks (Quercus lobata), redbud (Cercis occidentalis), poison oak (Toxicodendron diversiloba), toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia), yerba santa (Eriodictyon sp.), sycamore (Platanus racemosa), a variety of annual grasses and Forbes, and dense willow along the margins of the Creek. The rich and complex vegetation and associated land fauna, coupled with avian' and aquatic species, provided substantial dietary and other economic resources important to the Native American economy of this region. ' Prehistory The earliest residents in the Great Central Valley are represented by the Fluted Point and Western Pluvial Lakes Traditions, which date from about 11,500 to 7,500 years ago (Moratto 1984). Within portions of the Central Valley, fluted Jensen & Associates 4 M&T Ranch Quarry Project, Cultural Resources Component Page 5 In the Northern Sacramento Valley, aboriginal populations continued to expand ' between 6,500 and 4,500 years ago (Ragir 1972). By about 2000 years ago, Macro- Penutian-speaking peoples (including the Maidu) are believed to have arrived in the area,. bringing with them an economy which relied on extensive use of bulbs and other plant foods, animal and fishing products more intensively processed with mortars and pestles, and'perhaps the bow and arrow and associated small ' stemmed- and corner -notched projectile points. Arriving ultimately from southern Oregon and the Columbia and Modoc Plateau region and proceeding down the major drainage systems (including the Feather, Yuba and American Rivers), the Penutian-speaking Maidu eventually displaced Hokan populations as far west as the Sacramento Valley floor and the margins of the Sacramento River and, at the time of contact with Euroamerican populations (circa. AD 1850), ' were still expanding into areas previously occupied by the earlier Hokan- speaking peoples (including the Yana who by this date had migrated to the north of Chico). Around Chico, the so-called Shasta (archaeological) Complex represents the material culture record of the local Penutian speakers. This model'of prehistoric cultural development within the northern Sacramento Valley is generally well document, and derives from research by Chartkoff, Miller and Johnson (n.d.), Ritter (1970), Markley (1975), Kowta (1978), Jensen (1987); Jensen & Jensen (2000), and others. Ethnography As noted above, the Konkow, or Northwest Maidu, were resident in the Chico area at the time of Euro -American contact (circa. AD 1840's). These people, whose language has been identified as a branch of the Penutian family, occupied a portion of the Sacramento Valley floor along both sides of the Sacramento River near the present project area, as well as the foothills east of Chico and Oroville near the confluence of the south, middle, north, and west branches of Jensen & Associates 5 1 projectile points have been found at Tracy Lake (Heizer 1938) and around the margins of Buena Vista Lake in Kern County. Similar materials have been found to the north, at Samwell Cave near Shasta Lake and near McCloud and Big I Springs in Siskiyou County. These early peoples are thought to have subsisted using a combination of generalized hunting and lacustrine exploitation (Moratto ' 1984). The population of this early culture underwent a substantial increase in density after about 7,500-6,500 years ago. One of the most securely dated of these post - 6,500 year old assemblages is from the Squaw Creek Site located north of Redding. Here, a charcoal -based C-14 date suggests extensive Native American presence by 6,500 years ago, or 4,500 B.C. Most of the artifactual material dating to this time period has counterparts further south, around Borax (Clear) Lake and the Farmington Area east of Stockton. Important artifact types from this time Iperiod include large wide -stemmed projectile points and manos and metates. In the Northern Sacramento Valley, aboriginal populations continued to expand ' between 6,500 and 4,500 years ago (Ragir 1972). By about 2000 years ago, Macro- Penutian-speaking peoples (including the Maidu) are believed to have arrived in the area,. bringing with them an economy which relied on extensive use of bulbs and other plant foods, animal and fishing products more intensively processed with mortars and pestles, and'perhaps the bow and arrow and associated small ' stemmed- and corner -notched projectile points. Arriving ultimately from southern Oregon and the Columbia and Modoc Plateau region and proceeding down the major drainage systems (including the Feather, Yuba and American Rivers), the Penutian-speaking Maidu eventually displaced Hokan populations as far west as the Sacramento Valley floor and the margins of the Sacramento River and, at the time of contact with Euroamerican populations (circa. AD 1850), ' were still expanding into areas previously occupied by the earlier Hokan- speaking peoples (including the Yana who by this date had migrated to the north of Chico). Around Chico, the so-called Shasta (archaeological) Complex represents the material culture record of the local Penutian speakers. This model'of prehistoric cultural development within the northern Sacramento Valley is generally well document, and derives from research by Chartkoff, Miller and Johnson (n.d.), Ritter (1970), Markley (1975), Kowta (1978), Jensen (1987); Jensen & Jensen (2000), and others. Ethnography As noted above, the Konkow, or Northwest Maidu, were resident in the Chico area at the time of Euro -American contact (circa. AD 1840's). These people, whose language has been identified as a branch of the Penutian family, occupied a portion of the Sacramento Valley floor along both sides of the Sacramento River near the present project area, as well as the foothills east of Chico and Oroville near the confluence of the south, middle, north, and west branches of Jensen & Associates 5 1 MPT Ranch Quarry Project, `Cultural Resources Component Page 6 tthe Feather River, and the lower drainages of Big and Little Chico Creeks and Butte Creek. On the basis of linguistic differences and geographical distribution, the Maidu have been divided into three primary groups: the Southern Maidu, i . or Nisenan; the Northeastern Maidu, or Mountain Maidu; and the Northwestern Maidu, or Konkow (Shipley 1978:83). It is this latter group which laid claim to the Chico area at the time of Bidwell's arrival. The basic social unit for the Maidu was the nuclear family, although the village may also be considered a social, as well as a political and economic, unit. Villages were usually located on flats adjoining streams, and on ridges high above rivers and creeks, and were most intensively occupied during the winter months (Dixon 1905:175). Villages typically consisted of a scattering of conical bark dwellings, numbering from four or five to several dozen in larger villages, each house containing a single family of from three to seven people (Riddell 1978:373). Larger villages, with from twelve to fifteen or more houses, might also contain a kumi, a semi -subterranean earth -covered lodge. The village containing the largest of these structures acted as the ceremonial assembly center "village (ibid.:373). Between three and five villages comprised a community" which defended, controlled and exploited a known territory. The transition between summer and autumn brought with it an abundance of food resources. Late summer fish runs were actively exploited, with salmon providing a large portion of the spoils. In addition to salmon, suckers, eels, and a variety of small, slow fish were actively exploited, especially during the Late Prehistoric periods (Broughton 1988). Fresh water mussels were also collected by the Maidu year-round, but were intensively exploited during periods of low water volume (late summer/early autumn) (Eugster 1990:114). Several types of nut seeds were collected during the early autumn months as well, with acorns provided by various oak species representing the greatest volume of nut meat harvested. While several varieties of acorn producing oaks exist, the Maidu preferred the black oak, golden oak, and the interior live oak. Other acorn producing varieties include the valley oak, blue oak, and the tan oak. The acorns Jensen & Associates 6 Resources exploited by the Maidu in the Chico area were both diverse and prolific. A variety of plant and animal species was readily available for collection, processing and consumption, with several different food types ' complimenting one another during various seasons. During the spring, a variety of herbs, tubers, roots, and grass seeds were collected from environments within close proximity to the winter village. During the summer months, individuals and groups would venture into the higher elevations in order to procure various plants and animals. Small, medium, and large mammals were actively hunted within the mountainous regions east of Chico, with only the coyote, dog, wolf, and bear avoided. Several types of insects were also collected during the summer, including yellow jacket larvae, grasshoppers, locusts, and crickets; all of which could be eaten dry, or roasted, the bulk of which were often stored for the winter months. The transition between summer and autumn brought with it an abundance of food resources. Late summer fish runs were actively exploited, with salmon providing a large portion of the spoils. In addition to salmon, suckers, eels, and a variety of small, slow fish were actively exploited, especially during the Late Prehistoric periods (Broughton 1988). Fresh water mussels were also collected by the Maidu year-round, but were intensively exploited during periods of low water volume (late summer/early autumn) (Eugster 1990:114). Several types of nut seeds were collected during the early autumn months as well, with acorns provided by various oak species representing the greatest volume of nut meat harvested. While several varieties of acorn producing oaks exist, the Maidu preferred the black oak, golden oak, and the interior live oak. Other acorn producing varieties include the valley oak, blue oak, and the tan oak. The acorns Jensen & Associates 6 M&T Ranch Quarry Project, Cultural Resources Component Paje 7 Historic Context Early Spanish expeditions arrived in the Great Central Valley of California, although not necessarily in northern California, from Bay Area missions as early as 1804. By the mid -1820's, literally hundreds of fur trappers were annually traversing the Valley on behalf of the Hudson's Bay Company (Maloney 1945), with devastating consequences for the local Maidu and other valley populations (Cook 1955). By the late 1830's and early 1840's, several small permanent European American settlements had emerged in the Valley and adjacent foothill ' lands, including ranchos in what are now Shasta, Tehama and Butte Counties. One of these grants was the Rancho de Farwell. Jensen & Associates 7 were collected and then crushed in mortars to form acorn flour. Tannic acid had to be leached from the flour with warm water before consumption. A bland bread was baked from the flour, providing a carbohydrate staple. Technological adaptations by the Maidu allowed for a quasi -sedentary lifestyle, especially within the Chico area where food resources were,relatively abundant. Storage was crucial to sedentism, with storage devices, structures, and methods being numerous. During the course of seasonal rounds and in conjunction with specialized resource exploitation, the Maidu created a wide range of archaeological site "types" in the Chico area, with fewer site types present within the flood zone of the Sacramento River. While only fragmentary evidence of the associated material culture remains at many of these sites (due in large part to perishability but also to the impacts to archaeological sites resulting from later [historic] land uses), the potential range of such site types for the present project area was expected to include: • Surface scatters of lithic artifacts and debitage, often but not always associated with dark brown to black "midden" deposits, resulting from village encampments. Typically such sites are located adjacent to water sources; • Surface scatters of lithic artifacts and debitage without associated. middens, resulting from short-term occupation and/or specialized economic activities; • Trails; , • Mortuary sites; and, • Isolated finds of aboriginal artifacts and flakes. • One final note with regard to all of these site types. The project area is located within lands subjected to regular and substantial flooding during prehistoric and historic time periods. The result is that some sites in this area have been buried under sediments, leaving no surface indicators of their presence. They could be encountered or exposed during excavation, a possibility considered in the mitigative recommendations at the conclusion of this report. Historic Context Early Spanish expeditions arrived in the Great Central Valley of California, although not necessarily in northern California, from Bay Area missions as early as 1804. By the mid -1820's, literally hundreds of fur trappers were annually traversing the Valley on behalf of the Hudson's Bay Company (Maloney 1945), with devastating consequences for the local Maidu and other valley populations (Cook 1955). By the late 1830's and early 1840's, several small permanent European American settlements had emerged in the Valley and adjacent foothill ' lands, including ranchos in what are now Shasta, Tehama and Butte Counties. One of these grants was the Rancho de Farwell. Jensen & Associates 7 M&T, Ranch Quarry Project, Cultural Resources Component Page 8 The site of Chico Landing, also known as Bidwell's Landing, is located on the , Sacramento River a little over a mile northwest of the project area. This site was used as a ferry crossing and loading dock for the importation and exportation of goods used in the Chico area. Within the subject property, ranching/ farming have been undertaken since the thistoric land grant period. Ranching/farming-related impacts to some of the land within the property include modifications associated with access road grading, leveling, scraping, stream course channelizing, and placement of j irrigation features. 3. SURVEY STRATEGY, FIELD WORK and SITE EVALUATIVE CRITERIA In view of variable sensitivity zones within the project area, a mixed survey strategy was employed. Intensive -level survey (transects set at c. 10-15 meter intervals) was undertaken along the flanks of Little Chico Creek (where not prohibited by impenetrable berry vines and other vegetation), and on terraces associated with the original creek's alignment. General -level survey was undertaken within areas subjected to past disturbances and located away from the water course and associated natural rises and levees. In searching for cultural resources, the surveyors took into account the results of - g Y background research and previous survey results, and were alert for any unusual contours, soil changes, distinctive vegetation patterns, exotic materials, artifacts, feature or feature remnants and other possible markers of cultural sites. Field work was undertaken between July 8-11 and 19, 2002. All project objectives are considered to have been satisfactorily achieved. Jensen & Associates Y The Rancho de Farwell Grant of July 1844 had been made by Micheltorena on behalf of the Mexican government to Edward Farwell and Thomas Fallon. Bidwell himself had arrived in California in 1841 as a member of the first band of Americans to cross the Sierra Nevada for the purpose of settlement (McGie 1983:33). In the spring of 1843 a party of settlers headed north for Oregon from Sutter's Fort, which included John Bidwell, Peter Lassen and James Bruheim (ibid.:34). On this trip, Bidwell was clearly impressed by the beauty of the region around Chico, and on his return from Oregon, Bidwell mapped the rivers and streams and the lay of the land at and around Chico (ibid.:34): This map later formed .the basis of several of the grants made by Micheltorena, one of which was the Farwell Grant described above. The site of Chico Landing, also known as Bidwell's Landing, is located on the , Sacramento River a little over a mile northwest of the project area. This site was used as a ferry crossing and loading dock for the importation and exportation of goods used in the Chico area. Within the subject property, ranching/ farming have been undertaken since the thistoric land grant period. Ranching/farming-related impacts to some of the land within the property include modifications associated with access road grading, leveling, scraping, stream course channelizing, and placement of j irrigation features. 3. SURVEY STRATEGY, FIELD WORK and SITE EVALUATIVE CRITERIA In view of variable sensitivity zones within the project area, a mixed survey strategy was employed. Intensive -level survey (transects set at c. 10-15 meter intervals) was undertaken along the flanks of Little Chico Creek (where not prohibited by impenetrable berry vines and other vegetation), and on terraces associated with the original creek's alignment. General -level survey was undertaken within areas subjected to past disturbances and located away from the water course and associated natural rises and levees. In searching for cultural resources, the surveyors took into account the results of - g Y background research and previous survey results, and were alert for any unusual contours, soil changes, distinctive vegetation patterns, exotic materials, artifacts, feature or feature remnants and other possible markers of cultural sites. Field work was undertaken between July 8-11 and 19, 2002. All project objectives are considered to have been satisfactorily achieved. Jensen & Associates MFT Ranch Quarry Pro.ject, Cultural Resources Component Page 9 Any sites and features identified during either the Records Search or field survey were to be evaluated in relation to CEQA significance criteria for "historic properties." Important cultural resources, per CEQA, are assessed in relation to criteria specified in Section 15064.5 of the amended CEQA Guidelines. These criteria suggest that an "important archaeological resource" (an "historic property") is one which: a) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage. _ b) Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past. c Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of yp , p g , construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or d) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. 4. PROJECT FINDINGS General Observations The pedestrian field survey identified the following general conditions within the project area. As noted in previous discussions, disturbance to the ground surface and subsurface components along both sides of Little Chico Creek ranges from minimal and moderate. Clearly, lands near the Creek have been subjected to intensive farming/ ranching activities for over 100 years. Portions of the property have been repeatedly planted in various row crops and the land area subject to leveling, deep plowing and discing. Additional impacts have accompanied crop and orchard harvesting and placement of irrigation features. As well, access roads, agricultural wells and pumps, buried utilities, and limited excavation work associated with past dredging/quarry have resulted in modifications to the surface and subsurface soil components within portions of the project area. Despite these previous impacts, the soil surface and subsurface components remain intact, particularly in the southern portion of the property. Prehistoric Resources No prehistoric sites or artifacts were identified during the pedestrian survey. The absence of prehistoric sites may be attributable at least in part to the frequency of flooding and siltation in this area along Little Chico Creek near its confluence with the Sacramento River. As well, intensive farming/ ranching activities and limited past quarry work may have destroyed or further concealed evidence of prehistoric presence and activities (i.e., esp. isolated artifacts). Jensen & Associates A i 7 1 t r MFT Ranch Quarry Project, Cultural Resources Component Page 10 Historic Resources No evidence of demonstrably historic -period occupation, homesteading or other similar use was observed during the pedestrian survey. Ranching is known to have occurred throughout the project vicinity since the middle of the 19' Century, but the present survey failed to identify any specific features (fences, structures, rock alignments/walls, foundations, privy pits, house remains, etc.) that date unequivocally to the historic period. Existing ranch and other features are contemporary, and include chain-link fences at access road points, and fences and ranch -related features elsewhere. The alignments for adjacent roadways, including Fell Road and Ord Ferry Road, are largely historic, but extant features retain none of the original historic attributes. The bridge on Ord Ferry Road crossing Little Chico Creek was constructed in 1949, but has been determined not significant in the Caltrans Bridge Inventory (Mikesell 1986). 5. SUMMARY of FINDINGS and FINAL PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS This report details the results of an archaeological inventory survey of approximately 300 acres of land located within' the M&T Ranch property southwest of. Chico. KRC Aggregate, Inc. proposes to mine and process aggregate on approximately 300 of 627 acres' leased by KRC from M&T. A search of existing records at the Northeast Information Center documents that a portion of the project area — the archaeologically most sensitive lands adjacent to Little Chico Creek — have already been surveyed by field classes from Chico State in the mid -1970's. Chico identified no sites during this previous survey work. As well, no new sites (prehistoric or historic) were identified during the present pedestrian survey, which involved all of the 300 -acre project area. Based on the negative results achieved during the search of records and the . pedestrian survey, archaeological clearance is recommended for the proposed undertaking, although the following provisions (mitigative actions) are relevant given the proximity 6f proposed future aggregate extraction work to a natural water course and elevated land forms adjacent to it: The present evaluation and recommendations are based on the findings of an inventory -level surface survey only. There is always the possibility that potentially significant unidentified cultural materials could inadvertently be encountered on or below the surface during the course of future development or construction activities. In such a situation, archaeological consultation should be sought immediately. I Jensen & Associates 10 1 r 1 i 1 1 1 i MFT Ranch Quarry Project, Cultural Resources Component Page 11 2. In order to ensure proper identification of any cultural materials that might inadvertently be encountered during future development, construction, or gravel extraction work, the County's use permit should .include a provision for training of field personnel in identification procedures, prior to implementing the quarry operation. The training would take the form of a 1/2 day seminar in which a professional archaeologist would review with operations personnel the natural and cultural history of the project area, archaeological sensitivity, the most likely locations of buried cultural materials, and what -kinds of cultural materials would be seen if prehistoric cultural materials are in fact unearthed. The seminar would conclude with specific instructions on 'how to address such discoveries and what immediate actions to take. Jensen & Associates 11 1 M&T Ranch Quarry Project, Cultural Resources Component Page 12 � 6. REFERENCES CITED or. UTILIZED f Broughton, J.M. 1988 Archaeological Patterns of Prehistoric Fish Exploitation in the Sacramento Valley. Unpublished Masters Thesis, Department of Anthropology, California State University, Chico. Butte, County.of 1998 Draft Environmental Impact Report for the M&T Chico Ranch Mine Project. On File with the County of Butte. i California, State of 1970 Public Resources Code, Section 21000, et seq. (CEQA), and The California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, California Administrative Code, Section 15000 et seq. (Guidelines, as Amended). Prepared by the Office of Planning and Research. Cook, S. F. 1955. The Aboriginal Population of the San Joaquin Valley, California. .University of California Publications, Anthropological Records, Vol. 16:31-80. Berkeley and Los Angeles. Dixon, R. B. ' 1905 The Northern Maidu. American Museum of Natural History Bulletin 17:119-346. New York. Jensen & Associates 12 1976 The California Inventory of Historic Resources. State of California. 1990 The California Historical Landmarks. State of California. Chartkoff, J., D. Miller, and K. Johnson n.d. Some Groundstone Industries of the Central Sacramento Valley ' and Possible Explanations for the Variability Among Them. Unpublished manuscript and paper presented at the 1970 annual. meeting of the Society for California Archaeology. Asilomar, California. Chico, CSU 1974 Archaeological Survey of a Little Chico Creek Greenbelt between Chico and the Sacramento River (I.C. Report # B-144). Report originally filed with Northeast Information Center, CSU -Chico. Clark, William B. 1970 Gold Districts of California. California Division of Mines, Bulletin 193. San Francisco, California. Cook, S. F. 1955. The Aboriginal Population of the San Joaquin Valley, California. .University of California Publications, Anthropological Records, Vol. 16:31-80. Berkeley and Los Angeles. Dixon, R. B. ' 1905 The Northern Maidu. American Museum of Natural History Bulletin 17:119-346. New York. Jensen & Associates 12 M&T Ranch Quarry -Project, Cultural Resources Component Page 13 1 Eugster, S.E. 1990, Freshwater Mussel Utilization'at a Late Prehistoric Period Archaeological site (CA -BUT -12) in the Northern Sacramento Valley, California. Unpublished Masters Thesis, Department of Anthropology, California State University, Chico. Heizer, Robert F. 1938 "A Folsom -Type Point from the Sacramento Valley." The Masterkey 12(5):180-182. Los Angeles. Klaseen, T.A. and D.K. Ellison 1974 Soil Survey of the Butte County Area, California. United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Jensen & Associates 13 Hoover, Mildred, and others 1966 Historic Spots in California, Third Revised Edition. Stanford University Press. Stanford, California. Jensen, Peter M. 1987 Archaeological Excavations at the "West Rockshelter" in Dead Horse Slough, California Park Subdivision, Chico, Butte County, California. Report on File, City of Chico, and Northeast Information Center, CSU -Chico. Jensen Peter M. and Sean M. Jensen 1996 Cultural Resources Management Plan, Park Acquisition and Overall Bidwell Park, The City of Chico, Butte County, California. Report on File, City of Chico, and Northeast Information Center, - CSU -Chico. 2000 Archaeological Test Excavations at the Neal Road Rock Shelter Site, Neal Road Landfill, Butte County, California, Phase I Report. Report on File; County of Butte, Department of Public Works, and Northeast Information Center, CSU -Chico: r_ Jensen, Peter M. and Paul R. Reed 1980 An Archaeological and Cultural Anthropological Overview of the Northern Sacramento Valley and Southern Cascades. Special Publication of the Bureau of Land Management, Redding District g g _ Office. Klaseen, T.A. and D.K. Ellison 1974 Soil Survey of the Butte County Area, California. United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Jensen & Associates 13 M&T Ranch QuarU Pro'ect Cultural Resources Com.12onent Pae 14 Kowta, Makoto. 1978 Research Design: Northeast California. Unpublished Manuscript on file at the Department of Anthropology, California State University, Chico. Kroeber, A. L. 1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. Smithsonian Institution, Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 78. Washington, D.C. Kuchler, A. W. 1977 "Map of the natural vegetation of California," In M.G. Barbour and J. Major, Eds., Terrestrial Vegetation of California. New York: Wiley. MacDonald, G.A. 1966 Geology of Northern California, Bulletin 190:65-95. California Division of Mines and Geology, San Francisco. Maloney, Alice B. (Editor) 1945 The Journal of John Work, Alice B. Maloney, Editor. Published by The Flo Historical Society, San Francisco, California. r 1 1 Markley, Richard 1975 Archaeological Excavations in the Oroville Locality, Butte County, California, 1975. Unpublished Master's Thesis, Department of Anthropology, California State University, Chico. McGie, J. 1983 History of Butte County: Volume 1,1840-1919. Butte County Board of Education. Mikesell, S. 1986 California Department of Transportation's (Caltrans) Historic Bridge Inventory. On file at CALTRANS, Environmental Division, Sacramento. Moratto, Michael 1984 California Archaeology. Academic Press, New York. Ragir, Sonia 1972 The Early Horizon In Central California. University of California, Archaeological Research Facility, Contribution 15. Berkeley. Jensen & Associates 14 1 1 LJ 1 1 1 M&T Ranch Ouarri Project, Cultural Resources Component Page 15 Riddell, Francis A. 1978 Maidu and Konkow, IN, Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 8: California, Robert F. Heizer, Editor, pp. 370-379. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Ritter, Eric W. 1970 Archaeology of "Tie Wah" near Oroville, Butte County, California: Culture History vs. Culture Process. Center for Archaeological. Research at Davis, Publication No. 2. Shipley, W.F. 1978 Native Languages of California, IN, Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 8: California, Robert F. Heizer, Editor, pp. 80-90. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Talbitzer, Bill 1987 Butte County: An Illustrated History. Windsor Publications, Inc., Northridge, California. United States Department of the Interior 1983 Archaeology and Historic Preservation: Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines, Federal Register 48:190 (29 Sept. 1983), pp. 44716-44742. 1986 National Register of Historic Places. Federal Register 1986, Supplements through December 2000. Washington, D.C. Work, John 1945 "Fur Brigade to the Bonaventura: John Work's California Expedition, 1832-1833, for the Hudson's Bay Company", IN, The Journal of John Work, Alice B. Maloney, Editor. California Historical Society, San Francisco. Jensen & Associates 15 PETER M. ;IENSEN . - CHICO, .CALIFORNIA :., AR,CHAEOLOGICAL, HISTORICAL -_CULTURAL.,RESOURCE ;MANAGEMENT.SERVICES : , PROJECT LOCATIONand ARCHAEOLOGICAL -SURVEY AREA MAP. 300=4cre M&T RANCH QUARRY, BUTTE COUNTY'; Portion of Unprojected Sections, Township ,21 North, Range 1 West. ' ' USGS Ord Ferry, California,,7.5' Quad: ., 4 tyy�, l � ��,y�:� : +.'''`Y ��'�:X ?'� •3 ,��t - 3 "�`� l R''�Yw ..�. Ti�F� .t, t .. - e,�,Z.l�,. � •r � .. cs t � - � . �cuuPz *� G z ^ [ i � 5 �i �' l c-` - �y� Y �' "+1 �"��sl�d"� _. r =�� S � d �E'f xt1�.,i7 -`�'`' u'• � biz. r�'7 `�5� ���.,.. �• �c j��tz� 4' �s er E n3 t '�}. � � � ^s �.�- .w,i fi.a'�4 rs "�"2. r'si • U4� ski S 'i'r..fu '�.'tt'k 7' �3-' `.� ...s.. � �,.r - - _ - � �^}q�, S r� R •��� i,,,, ���,if+` :a•=� Lh? _`�, �rNJ�*' 43.rs5 �,.9�W 1•n'�.`'�Tn_ �� .�a'��i�`� a•�. ,,��ia' ..�� "'� + g, IN"^. r�3 y�D s t�� a ir�.• ^J/ - t L��.{,de vq .:'zap t - �y,rb, � i° �� C - ,.,.. y, �r yp�` j;. � Yt l� 1T � �•� t � -M=7 �, '�•l,•P' i� u �IL::Y:k ���.�Y� Y� �✓ j %1, ,Y:r�y �'�4' y .% 1,.Y�'{� - .�/ W�i:l [TSR��T�t�� . `Cfkl IT�` � !] 3 "r�J ig3 ¢ 'i'�27°�i1 q S /F� �� df' ^d'. =��4�ff�� k'fl�t .J, , •�. � � � iJ � 'ttjf,.� 1 F+�•.'' 'FL". � • �.x •'t .i1P as 1111 d §;3; M t� ��\ � � � . F �I} � �( � li.Tl.".,1 S. • :.fir ��� � � .� � �/fp�y>'x� A i'4j 5"-�f�€!+: _��I ���_���'} -� ��� � � fid" .'ri�� �{I ��..{ice t{ c ll .xx ux � ; .,� �sr� ��-, y •1! '� _ - - - A �� P �e �,: t! . 37Y. y'a>i:s µ� � .,� _ v�' S ,. , f g. • . �, . m 1 � . F _'[-�= '��� � - i"-..-..,+�i� - •a £+'TM �g 2.ix„r..r-'2••.r”;- RfY atAL;;B:f.•}�.l.,iR Y 4 �i e.� -�.�i.x ^�a:u-�' ii'°� 'sx`.•r=tS��.�•"n;. s s.fx, -0�yt,�`. �.list�r •... � 3. a t ,R � _ ; ��3,� tt i � i' � � X :. yq�Yh.Ls' T .4.X' A �I ` 6 31j. 0 4; �� - , ,. ' � ' !�` ,mac'`` '§ �r ;���n ��•�.dv � �, '>i is\t ,r��?'s �D � E �i - � '� ds'rr .#`'` : -. i� � •i;` i .;w, i N: �� ��' �. p �, -, * 7�� �'Z a y+ �r H / w' '.�4"� `"t.^�'� ��u. �.��! ,rsA ��`}�'�, �� .y i W ' '� i L �. I>" }a y�� bT �� � --�� -�" _ • ,�'•u a^� ?,''R'rs>x`� � i;9�l,��'a t �a�ibz - :• "xY '�ti R+S" qk�, ��. - n y�yb6� c''d 1�'' "ma y„�t`� 'i� J ss• '` � S r�� �- Sl,'� „dl ty� °m�,"��' ?�''�r "}?d.{�"�+/ ; ��j�k� -,�4 �. pct w� _ , � ry, ri, �� w � �'� .f.�..ris °�_ ,Fa:„.r �' b� '� � - g��+` �i• ma— 3 I •�.'^ � r'"�fi� tt �� r Y ,'v fti i .. � �':# � € �t� �... ;gay � .� � -- -�� � '�� �"' -� '�� �� :� ..� r �,� - . _.p f lc f � �f "�'i � � t ' t; € �, [�1x t CIO4'. ,S�}.t• r'� � l;'^J�rt •'' '� �:" . - . �` ,�'ii'a s �. e� � � �t h - ��� � ^ ' .J-. t 3 ' It i -§t � � r I Q •im' a17, fe's � _�� m itT: �1x, .. nn.F�.�,f "-5 g•�� � - �' Y !'r^� ;k. •+ y �� ._s 1•�3,a§,NON # ., s asp # s�i S +4fk1 �'' � a` ai \ ld F.t , 3 .. - i D{ Y -yq t�. d � � •v ... ti.�l� _ T T _ 41 � `' "' E ,k '•�` d ^&�^.r` � ''tr` _ t .h d � M � �"i.'}'�''� {�� _ '� � [�i3 t,4. �n . n i� � �,ivx' - �v g� _+'�• `�� � `nx }� ., �'�' ��5 � .. �. °nAtr.- Ij i ��i '. ���f, } .� � -� ,��»5. �i .:� t � _R � x _� � iS' - r xx.`f- �� ",�&�.,•0�s- �.•.>� _. - �', a�..�t-�Ja 5°.�"x,`F � v.a�E�?r+�+V 1. ,, .. - _ •Cy 3 ��§' ���. � f{k� � t '� r i& ��i`�.i !i ji� � t •�:n i q 4. s � � 1 yT. i _. _ �� - _ ir1. � � ' ea m `�. .��I k�l�� "a � ,; �i: a °�ft•, n 2 ti. ! �". tri t. i ;! ��, � p�.• �� �6 J - �,-••fi ` � i A �L� xr 'hs. � rt � 'g '� `':. � .. � � � ��, ..� � 3,E,- �^�u u .A"�5 �.' a: . ' ''Oi Iw9 �' ;t• �'T S �`1k ExT } r i'q �4 >r �.•� 4, �t ~,h i Tor J. PETER M. ;IENSEN . - CHICO, .CALIFORNIA :., AR,CHAEOLOGICAL, HISTORICAL -_CULTURAL.,RESOURCE ;MANAGEMENT.SERVICES : Department of Anthropology California State University, Chico Chico, .CA 95929-0400 (530) 898-6256 Y _:_?`:=AGREEMENT OF CONFIDENTIALITY I, the undersigned, have been granted:access to archaeological data on file at the Northeast Center of the California Historical Resources Information System. I understand the confidential nature of this information and agree to respect that confidentiality by not disclosing specific site locations to unauthorized individuals or in publicly distributed documents without written consent of the State Historic Preservation Office. I agree to submit completed site records and preliminary reports pertinent to this project to this Information Center no later than 30 days after completion of field investigation. Subsequent reports will also be forwarded. I understand that failure to comply with the above agreement is grounds for denial of access to the archaeological data at the Northeast Information Center. / — p 7_ Name Signature Date (Z C4-12(SToPHc7)2 AL_a,, LA,-jL Ci¢icc) , CA 1)5If2a S—i5'1?8 Affiliation Telephone J C/�I S cam/ AP -C N.A•t C LO G 1 Cit L Sc�rLv I Cc S, /nt C . Address Purpose of Research: Planning (pC) Scientific/Academic ( ) Other X4-7 AA,404 Qut"-1 / !)/�"I C:'�'cZlc QVfv�y Project . RU77-E-. '7"2./nf, /� lw /S S -TP -T3o..1, R_S LAJ, Secs. 'Z. Vi Z 1�33. Location , J 02n Fc-:ar,1 -7.S. C*I.co lS ZOl-t/JDA -7.S. A-rw.eLSo,i S Maps 5_�119}�,-►2-12ct-iyti�2rl�n� Sites/Studies Time: IN: 04 OUT: hOC) Information Center Staff C -----------------------•--------- STAFF USE ONLY Fees: ---------------------I------------------------------ @ $80.00/lu $q0 -Q- The Northeast Center of the California _Lhour(s) Historical Resources Information System BUTTE GLENN SIERRA SISKIYOU Photocopy Charges: LASSEN SUTTER Other: MODOC TENAMA TOTAL: PLUMAS TRINITY I " V-1za �_ SHASTA sHasTa Department of Anthropology California State University, Chico Chico, .CA 95929-0400 (530) 898-6256 Y _:_?`:=AGREEMENT OF CONFIDENTIALITY I, the undersigned, have been granted:access to archaeological data on file at the Northeast Center of the California Historical Resources Information System. I understand the confidential nature of this information and agree to respect that confidentiality by not disclosing specific site locations to unauthorized individuals or in publicly distributed documents without written consent of the State Historic Preservation Office. I agree to submit completed site records and preliminary reports pertinent to this project to this Information Center no later than 30 days after completion of field investigation. Subsequent reports will also be forwarded. I understand that failure to comply with the above agreement is grounds for denial of access to the archaeological data at the Northeast Information Center. / — p 7_ Name Signature Date (Z C4-12(SToPHc7)2 AL_a,, LA,-jL Ci¢icc) , CA 1)5If2a S—i5'1?8 Affiliation Telephone J C/�I S cam/ AP -C N.A•t C LO G 1 Cit L Sc�rLv I Cc S, /nt C . Address Purpose of Research: Planning (pC) Scientific/Academic ( ) Other X4-7 AA,404 Qut"-1 / !)/�"I C:'�'cZlc QVfv�y Project . RU77-E-. '7"2./nf, /� lw /S S -TP -T3o..1, R_S LAJ, Secs. 'Z. Vi Z 1�33. Location , J 02n Fc-:ar,1 -7.S. C*I.co lS ZOl-t/JDA -7.S. A-rw.eLSo,i S Maps 5_�119}�,-►2-12ct-iyti�2rl�n� Sites/Studies Time: IN: 04 OUT: hOC) Information Center Staff C -----------------------•--------- STAFF USE ONLY Fees: ---------------------I------------------------------ @ $80.00/lu $q0 -Q- _Lhour(s) staff hours @ $30.00/hr $� Photocopy Charges: 30copies @ $.15/page 50 Other: $ TOTAL: 5 C9 RESOURCE DESIGN T E C H N O L O G Y I N C. Land Minerals Environment TRANSMITTAL D �c�EodE Date: November 13, 2001 NOV 19 2001 To: Dan Breedon rE Paul Bollard Toby Hanes BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING DIVISION Re: M&T Chico Ranch Site Conceptual Map Status: ❑ Preliminary ® Final ❑ Approved ❑ Revised ❑ Draft Sent for Your: ❑ Information ® Use/File ❑ Signature ❑ Review ❑ Approval We are sending the following items via: ® U.S. Mail ❑ Federal Express Quantity Description 1 Set of Conceptual Mine Plan Remarks: Enclosed, please find a copy of the Conceptual Plan Maps. Thank you. Signed: ❑ Courier ❑ Other Media Type Document I " . 302-A S. Lexington DriveI Telephone: 916.983.9193 Folsom, California 95630 Facsimile: 916.983.9194 MEMORANDUM DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PLANNING DIVISION To: Bob Greenlaw, Public Works From: Dan Breedon, Planning'Division Subject: M&T Chico Ranch Draft EIR -Revised Traffic Section Date: October 11, 2000 Attachec, please find the revised Traffic Section for the M&T Chico Ranch Draft EIR. T his is being submitted for "in-house" review for commnents. Please Provide .your comments prior to November 1, 2000. Also attached is Public Works original comments, and the Scope of Work for this project. This revision is being submitted to comply with Public Work's original comments, and to address issues brought up by public comment. I have additional copies if you need them. Thank you for attention to this matter. p m G cc X�T cc p III sKW'lAY !" a 99 (} 0 SITE ACCESS PROJECT SITE 11 ' 1DURHAM DAYTON HWY. I ¢ l ORO E ( J Q ¢ I t N — NOT TO SCALE FEHR & PEERS ASSOCIATES, INC. Transportation Consultants PROJECT STUDY AREA WWJF�mBANDP�S.coax Oct 06, 2000 MJF FIGURE 4.6-1 N:\Projects\992-1165\graphics\FICS4-6-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8.dwg I 8 \ • 25% 8 20% 30% y ,� 15% 5% m a 5%cc s w 9 cc — —� N%5%0 60% = t, SKYWAY 55% 10% B o 3a 20% 45% c o SITE ACCESS 15% PROJECT 30% SITE X, 1DU HAM DAYTON HWY. `C PO 7 Cil5% 7 cc OPOfEpPy 10% 10% 5% 40% T — LEGEND N 10% Distribution With Full Operations NOT TO SCALE �5% Distribution With Mining Only FEHR & PEERS ASSOCIATES, INC. Transportation Consultants N'W WJFBHBANnPEMS.GOM DISTRIBUTION OF PROJECT TRIPS Oct 06. 2000 MJF FIGURE 4.6-3 N:\Projects\992-1165\grophics\FIGS4-6-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8.dwg ' f FEHR & PEERS ASSOCIATES, INC. 1•ronsportotion Consultants R' '•SAN PPEER.S.COM Oct O6, 2000 JAG N:\Projects\992-1 165\grophics\FIGS4_6_ 1—2-3-4-5-6-7-8,dWg PGN\ D. e f R 160 SITE ACCESS 1r PROJECT SITE 1 190 r1 120 E 0 �- AYRO• 263 > 1f Oap FEP I 35C o= v 1 r •• 407(573) 513(4 )y} 513 (489)) p—` 9 (13) 4. tON(J JJ N ) � A 30 56) 5 (3 3 (3� �— 77 199) 82(121) 13 (4 ` 41 J- 78 -�� 0 56 0 L 20 390 j�� /'rte ,.1 t -i i'(0) (&)0)540 18 300 620 asz (1,3 24) 1980 SK`(WAY 19(6)- -i- �o 2 840 Q 480 99 O �). . ` +49 NOT TO SCALE 3 690 I I------------ 500 i 1520 , 220 <^ DURHAM DAYTON HWY. J o __ f ; 1 1 2 220Cn I a 260 1 1 I LEGEND ------------ -4 ( Permitted Turning Movement lily SOC (YY) - AM (PM) Peak Hour Volume 'I - Stop Sign Q - Traffic Signal I I j 1i )000( - Total ADT Volumes - Daily Trucks PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES AND DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES a — EXISTING CONDITIONS w FIGURE 4.6-2 45 r 0 w f- c 410 150 280 %r PROJECT SITE r 1 00 { 200 1 . 1 ��PO• 2691 Lu ,1 ; OPO FEP j ---L410 390 '• L � l 5 640 550 2 861 500 0 Ir 1,550 ( —� 250 AM DAYTON HWY. F SK` W!� I tip9`10l 41(0 (32) . ��� h` f ,1 5209 (13� J! 3. Ord Ferry Rd./Dayton Rd. 4. Ord Ferry Rd./Fliver Rd.4 mNa) I )) 3a 58) m 7 191 7 13 3 (3 T �� t 84 (125 ((25 ? 83 (14 �( 1� r 84161` jl/J}A 78 l�'1 �) �— 1,308 (602) 1 (0) 454(1,328) (6) T V O i • a as (29) + 60 ((723 36 60 51 1 � 8 5 t 27 59 NI�N O J ,x f NOT TO SCALE LEGEND .� Permitted Turning Movement XX (YY) AM (PM) Peak Hour Volume Stop Sign Q Traffic Signal )QI;)Q( Total ADT Volumes ( Daily Trucks FEHR &PEMASSOCUTES,INC. y" PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES AND DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES . 1roww.FEffRA Consultants EXISTING WITH "FULL OPERATIONS" CONDITIONS www.FEffRANvPEERs.com W.FFY<HHANDPF.EES.COM Oct 06, 2000 JAG 'i FIGURE 4.6-4 N:\Projects\992-1165\graphics\FIGS4-6-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8.dwg - 4. f FEHR & PEERS ASSOCIATES, INC. Tronsportotion Consultonts W W W.FEM ANDPEM.COM Oct 06, 2000 JAG N: \Projects\992-1 165\graphics\FIGS4-6_ 1 — 2-3-4-5-6-7-8,dwg r PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES AND DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES - EXISTING WITH "MINING ONLY" CONDITIONS t FIGURE 4.6-5 y� FEHR & PEERS ASSOCIATES, INC. ' r Transportation Consultants WWW.FEEMANDPEM COM F' PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES AND DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES - CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS Oct o6, 2000 JAC FIGURE 4.6-6 N:\Projects\992-1 165\graphics\FIGS4_6-1-2-3-4-5— 6-7—S.dwg FEHR & PEERS ASSOCUTES, INC. PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES AND DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES TroftANDPEERS.COM t Consultants WWYEHBA- CUMULATIVE WITH "FULL OPERATIONS" CONDITIONS R'R'W.FE Oct 06. 2000 JAG 'k FIGURE 4.6-7 N:\Projects\992-1 165\graphics\FIGS4-6-1—2-3-4-5-6-7-8.dwg t n FEHR & PEERS ASSOCIATES, INC. PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES AND DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES Tr ation W%%.RHBANPEW.COM CUMULATIVE WITH "MINING ONLY" CONDITIONS Oct 06, 2000 JAC FIGURE 4.6-8 N:\Projects\992-1165\graphics\FIGS4-6_1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8.dwg� 4.6 TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION 4.6.1 INTRODUCTION This section contains the setting, impacts, and mitigation measures associated with the proposed Chico Ranch Mine in Butte County, near Chico, CA. The setting describes the existing conditions of the transportation system surrounding the project. Impacts and mitigation measures are identified for project -specific impacts under existing conditions and future conditions. Mitigation measures are identified to reduce impacts to a less -than -significant level, where feasible. 4.6.2 SETTING Description of the Regional Environment The study area surrounding the project site is located southwest of the City of Chico in a rural environment characterized by agricultural uses including orchards, field crops, and open land (see Figure 4.6-1). Residential development is limited in the area, with agricultural residences scattered throughout. The transportation system within the study area is almost entirely dependent upon on the roadway system for the movement of goods and people. The automobile is the primary travel mode for most trips. The majority of regional travel occurs on State Route (SR) 32 and SR tir 99. Description of the Local Environment Transportation within the local environment includes travel on the roadway system, the transit system, the bicycle/pedestrian system, and school bus operations. The following summarizes the current status of the facilities for each travel mode within the study area. Existing Roadway System 4 _ The discussion of the roadway system includes a summary of the current roadway conditions and operations, intersection operations, accident history and truck traffic. It concludes with a summary of existing operational deficiencies in the road system. Existing Roadway Conditions " With the exception of Skyway east of SR 99, E. Park Avenue from SR 99 to Midway, and ;. Park Avenue north of E. Park Avenue, all study roadways in the area are two-lane primary County roads served by local collector roadways. Each of the study. roadways that could potentially be affected by the project is described below. Figure 4.6-1 Study Area r River Road is a two-lane, north -south rural roadway and collector extending from Ord Ferry Road south of the project to SR 32 north of the project site. Pavement conditions are poor from SR 32 to Chico River Road and fair to poor between Chico River Road and Ord Ferry Road with 11 -foot. lanes and little or no shoulders. The segment of River Road between Chico River Road and Ord Ferry Road would serve as the primary access for project traffic. Portions of this roadway segment are subject to inundation. Chico River Road is a two-lane, east -west rural collector extending from River Road north of the project to the Chico city limits where it becomes West 5th Street. Pavement conditions are good with 12 -foot lanes and 1- to 2 -foot shoulders.' Ord Ferry Road is a two-lane, east -west rural collector extending from Ordbend to Dayton Road south of the project site. Pavement conditions are fair to good with 12 -foot lanes and 2 - to 4- foot shoulders. Hegan Lane is a two-lane, east -west rural collector extending from Dayton Road to Midway. Pavement conditions are good with 12 -foot lanes and 2 -foot shoulders. Dayton Road is a two-lane, north -south rural collector extending from Ord Ferry Road to 9th Street in Chico east of the project site. Pavement conditions are fair to good with 12 -foot lanes and 2- to 4- foot shoulders. West 5th Street is a two-lane local residential collector within the City of Chico. The study roadway segment extends from the western Chico city limits to Walnut Street (SR 32). Pavement conditions are fair with 12 -foot travel lanes, parking lanes, and sidewalks at various locations. Durham -Da, on HighwaX is a two-lane, east -west rural collector extending from SR 99 to its intersection with Dayton Road where it becomes Ord Ferry Road. Pavement conditions are good with 12 -foot travel lanes and 2- to 4- foot shoulders. Skyway is a four -lane, east -west rural arterial connecting downtown Chico and SR 99 to the east. Pavement conditions are good with 12 -foot travel lanes and 6- to 8- foot shoulders. Park Avenue is a four -lane, north -south major arterial within the City of Chico. This facility has two lanes in each direction and a center left -turn lane. Park Avenue extends from W. 8th Street to East Park Avenue. South of East Park Avenue the roadway becomes Midway. Travel lanes on this roadway segment vary from 12 to 18 feet in width. This roadway was reconstructed in 1998. East Park Avenue is a four -lane, east -west major arterial within the City of Chico that connects Park Avenue to SR 99 where it becomes Skyway. This facility has two lanes in each direction with a center left -turn lane. Travel lanes vary from 1.1 to 16 feet and a Class II bicycle lane is provided in both directions. This roadway was reconstructed in 1999. Bruce Road is a two-lane, north -south arterial within the City of Chico that connects SR 32 to south of Skyway. Travel lanes vary on this roadway segment from 11 to 16 feet and shoulders vary from 1 to 10 feet in width. Pavement conditions are fair/good. The following describes the intersections studied for this report.. SR 32/River Road This intersection is north of the project and is stop -sign .controlled for River Road traffic only. There are no exclusive turn lanes on any of the approaches. SR 32 (Walnut Street)/West 5`h Street This intersection is northeast of the project and is signal controlled. There are two through lanes and exclusive left -turn lanes on the SR 32 approaches, and a single shared left/through/ right -turn lane on the West 5`h Street approach. Ord Ferry Road/Davton Road This intersection is east of the project and is two-way stop controlled with stop control on Dayton Road. There is a single shared left/through/right-turn lane on all approaches. Ord Ferry Road/River Road This intersection is south of the project with stop -sign control for River Road traffic only. There are no exclusive turn lanes on any of the approaches. Skyway/Baldwin Plant DrivewU This driveway is located on Skyway approximately 3 miles east of SR 99. The driveway is stop -sign controlled. Skyway is a four -lane facility with median at this driveway. The Baldwin Plant driveway consists of three access options: a delivery truck gate, regular employee entrance, and a parking lot for customers. Durham -Dayton Highway/Midway This intersection is east of the project and is all -way -stop -sign controlled. There is a single shared left/through/right-turn lane on all approaches. Data Collection Daily and peak hour traffic counts were conducted at selected locations throughout the study area during the week of September 9, 1999, to capture traffic conditions while the California State University, Chico (CSUC) -was in session and during the agricultural harvest. Traffic counts were collected at the following locations: Intersections • State Route 32 / River Road; • Walnut Street (SR 32) / West 5`h Street; • Ord Ferry Road / Dayton Road; • Ord Ferry Road / River Road; • Skyway / Baldwin Plant Driveway; and • Durham Dayton Highway / Midway. Roadways • Chico River Road from River Road to Lone Pine; • Chico River Road from Lone Pine to W. 5`h Street; • Dayton Road from Durham -Dayton to Elk Avenue; • Dayton Road from Elk Avenue to Archer Avenue; • Durham -Dayton Highway from Dayton Road to Midway; • Durham -Dayton Highway from Midway to Oroville-Chico Highway; • Hegan Lane from Dayton Road to Midway; • Ord Ferry Road from Glenn County Line to River Road; • Ord Ferry Road from River Road to Dayton Road; • River Road from SR 32 to W. Sacramento Street; • River Road from W. Sacramento Street to Chico River Road; • River Road from Chico River Road to the proposed project access; • River Road from the proposed project access to Ord Ferry Road; • Skyway from SR 99 to the Butte Creek Bridge; • Park Avenue from 20`h Street to East Park Avenue; • East Park Avenue from Fair Street to SR 99; and • Bruce Road from SR 32 to Skyway. Daily traffic counts included a breakdown of vehicle types commonly referred to as "vehicle mix." Vehicle mix includes the percent of different types of vehicles from two -axle passenger cars to multi -axle tractor -trailers, which include aggregate trucks. Traffic from the aggregate industryvaries seasonally, with the highest levels occurring between May and November. Figure 4.6-2 shows existing daily traffic volumes on roadway segments and the peak hour traffic volumes at the study intersections. Truck Traffic According to the Butte County Public Works Department staff, the County does not currently have designated truck routes. Truck travel is allowed on all County roads and State highways unless identified at a specific location. For the aggregate industry, primary haul routes are, identified in conjunction with a project's entitlement. Within the study area, trucks associated with the aggregate industry primarily travel on SR 99, SR 32, and SR 44. Table 4.6-1 shows the percentage of passenger cars and trucks with 3 or more axles on the study roadways for average weekday conditions. Heavy trucks include aggregate trucks, agricultural equipment, semi -tractor trailers, and other heavy vehicles. The relative proportion of aggregate trucks to all trucks appears to depend on the proximity of the roadway to existing aggregate operations and truck routes. Table 4.6-1 also identifies existing roadway cross-section measurements for all of the County roadways studied. Number of lanes, pavement and shoulder widths, and pavement conditions are indicated. f u Figure 4.6-2: Existing Daily and Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Table 4.6-1 SUMMARY OF TRUCK PERCENTAGES AND PAVEMENT CONDITIONS ON COUNTY ROADS Roadway Segment From To 1999 Vehicle Mix (%), Number Of Lanes Lane Widths/ Shoulder Widths (feet) Pavement Conditions2 Chico River Road River Road Lone Pine Road 84/15/1 2 12' / 2'- 4' Good/Fair Chico River Road Lone Pine Road West 5h Street 90/9/1 2 12' / 2'- 4' Good/Fair Dayton Road Durham Dayton Hwy. Elk Avenue 86/14/0 2 12' / 2'- 4' Good Dayton Road McIntosh Avenue Archer Avenue 90/9/1 2 12' / 2'- 4' Good Durham Dayton Hwy Dayton Road Midway 82/15/3 2 12' / 2'- 4' Good Durham Dayton Hwy Midway Oroville-Chico Hwy. 87/12/1 2 12' / 2'- 4' Good He an Lane Dayton Road Midway 83/17/0 2 12' / 2' Good Ord -Ferry Road Glenn County Line River Road 76/20/4 2 12'/ 2' Good Ord -Ferry Road River Road Dayton Road 86/13/1 2 12' / 2' Good River Road SR 32 W. Sacramento Road 45/31/24 2 101/0, Poor River Road W. Sacramento Road Chico River Road 82/15/3 2 101/0, Poor River Road Chico River Road Project Site 81/16/3 2 111/0, Fair/Poor River Road Project Site Ord Ferry Road 89/10/1 2 111/0, Fair/Poor Skyway SR 99 Butte Creek Bride 97/3/0 4 12'/ 6 - 8' Good Park Avenue 20`h Street E. Park Avenue 92/7/1 4 12-18%0' Good E. Park Avenue Fair Street SR 99 88/11/1 4 11-16'/5' Good Bruce Road SR 32 Skyway 83/14/3 2 ]-11-1671-10' Good/Fair Notes: ' Vehicle mix taken September, 1999 (Passenger Cars / Heavy Vehicles / Bicycles) 2 Based on field observations conducted in September of 1999 and data from City/County staff. Source: Fehr & Peers Associates, 2000 Accident History Accident data from January, 1997 to December, 1999 were obtained for the study intersections from the Butte County Department of Public Works, City of Chico Public Works Department, and Caltrans District 3. Table 4.6-2 provides a summary of the accident data for the study intersections, including accidents involving trucks. Table 4.6-2 SUMMARY OF VEHICLE ACCIDENTS AT STUDY INTERSECTIONS Study Intersection 1997 Accidents Car'/Heavy Veh. 1998 Accidents Car'/Heavy Veh. 1999 Accidents Car'/Heavy Veh. SR 32 & River Road 2/0 1/0 3/0 W. 5h Street & Walnut (SR 32) 6/2 0/0 7/0 Ord Ferry Road & Dayton Road 2/0 2/2 2/0 Ord Ferry Road & River Road 0/0 0/0 0/0 Skyway & Baldwin Plant Driveway N/A N/A N/A Durham -Dayton Hwy. & Midway 0/0 2/0 0/0 Notes: 1 Passenger cars include pick-up trucks and motorcycles. Source: Fehr & Peers Associates, 2000 Traffic Operations Analysis Methodology Roadway segments were analyzed by comparing average daily traffic volumes to the applicable capacity thresholds. The level of service thresholds for all study roadway segments are displayed in Table 4.6-3 as established by the Butte County General Plan. The quality of operations, based on these thresholds, is described in terms of level of service, which vary qualitatively from `A' (best) to `F' (worst). Signalized intersections were analyzed using the methodology described in the Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209, Transportation Research Board, 1994. This methodology calculates average stopped delay (in seconds/vehicle) for vehicles at an intersection during the peak hour. Delay experienced at intersections can be attributed to signal timing, intersection geometry, and coordination of adjacent signals. Table 4.6-4_ summarizes the level of service thresholds based on average stopped delay. Unsignalized intersections were also analyzed using the appropriate methodology described in the Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209, Transportation Research Board, 1994. This methodology calculates the average total delay for all vehicles entering an intersection during the peak hour. Consequently, if there is a high number of vehicles that experience no delay (i.e., an uncontrolled through movement on a major approach), average total delay at the intersection may be small even if considerable delay occurs on the controlled minor approach. Table 4.6-5 shows level of service descriptions for intersections with two-way and all -way stop sign control. Table 4.6-3 DAILY ROADWAY SEGMENT CAPACITIES FOR COUNTY ROADS BY FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION AND LOS Functional Road ay Segment Ca acit Classification Lanes LOS A LOS B LOS C LOS D LOS E 2 N/A' N/A 14,000 16,200 18,000 Rural 4 N/A N/A _ 25,600 29,160 32,400 Arterial 6 N/A N/A 38,400 43,200 48,000 Rural 2 N/A 7,000 14,000 16,200 18,000 4 N/A 15,200 1 19,200 1 - 21,600 24,000 Collector Notes: ' - LOS not achievable. Source: Highway Capacity Manual, (Transportation Research Board, 1994). Is Table 4.6-4 SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE CHARACTERISTICS Level of Description Average Stopped Delay Service 0.0-5.0 (seconds) A Uncongested operations; all queues clear in a single cycle. 0-5 B Very light congestion; an occasional phase is fully utilized. 5.1 - 15.0 C Light congestion; occasional queues on approaches. 15.1-25.0 D Significant congestion on critical approaches, but intersection is F Stop -and -go conditions. functional. Cars required to wait through more than one cycle 25.1-40.0 during short peaks. No longstanding ueues formed. E Severe congestion with some longstanding queues on critical approaches. Traffic queue may block nearby intersection(s) 40.1-60.0 upstream of critical approach(es). F Total breakdown, stop -and -go operation. > 60.0 Source: Highway Capacity Manual ( Transportation Research Board, 1994). Table 4.6-5 LEVEL OF SERVICE CHARACTERISTICS FOR UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS WITH TWO-WAY AND ALL -WAY STOP CONTROL Level of Service Description Average Total Delay(seconds) A Little or no delay. 0.0-5.0 B Short traffic delays. 5.1 - 10.0 C Average traffic delays. 10.1-20.0 D Long traffic delays. 20.1-30.0 E Very long traffic delays. 30.1-45.0 F Stop -and -go conditions. > 45.0 Source: Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board, 1994). Existing Traffic Operations The study roadway segments and intersections were analyzed to determine existing daily and peak hour operations. The results are summarized in Tables 4.6-6 and 4.6-7. The tables indicate that all study locations currently operate at LOS C or better. Table 4.6-6 EXISTING DAILY TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ON COUNTY ROADS Intersection Roadway Segment From To Existing Conditions - No Project ADT' LOS' Chico River Road River Road Lone Pine Road 1,490 B Chico River Road Lone Pine Road West 5h Street. 2,890 B Dayton Road Durham Dayton Hwy. Elk Avenue 3,690 B . Dayton Road Elk Avenue Archer Avenue 5,630 B Durham Dayton Hwy Dayton Road Midway 1,520 B Durham Dayton Hwy Midway Oroville-Chico Hwy. 2,220 B He an Lane Dayton Road Midway 2,840 B Ord-Feffy Road Glenn County Line River Road 2,170 B Ord -Ferry Road River Road Dayton Road 2,630 B River Road SR 32 W. Sacramento Road 150 B River Road W. Sacramento Road Chico River Road 410 B River Road Chico River Road Project Site 1,030 B River Road Project Site Ord Ferry Road 1,190 B Skyway SR 99 Butte Creek Bride 20,390 C Park Avenue 20`x' Street E. Park Avenue 11,870 C E. Park Avenue Fair StreetSR 99 18,300 C Bruce Road I SR 32 ISkyway 4,340 B Notes: ' =Average Daily Traffic ' = Level of Service Source: Fehr & Peers Associates, 2000 Table 4.6-7 SUMMARY OF EXISTING INTERSECTION TRAFFIC OPERATIONS Intersection Existing Conditions AM (Average Dela /LOS) PM (Average Dela /LOS) SR 32 & River Road 0.2 / A 0.4 /A W. 5t' Street & Walnut (SR 32) 14.8 / B 19.6 / C Ord Ferry Road & Dayton Road 2.4 / A 3.4 / A Ord Ferry Road & River Road 1.2 / A 1.2 / A Skyway & Baldwin Plant Driveway 0.2 / A 0.3 / A Durham -Dayton Hwy. & Midway 3.0 / A 5.1 / B Source: Fehr & Peers Associates, 2000 Existing Operational Issues The area roadway system does not currently experience substantial traffic congestion, but as described below, it does include some facilities with existing design features that do not meet current County standards or that represent potential safety concerns. These facilities generally include non-standard road designs, narrow or substandard bridges, frequent accident locations, segments with deteriorated pavement, and intersections with limited curve radii (i.e., sharp intersection curves that cause vehicles to turn into oncoming lanes of travel). A brief description of each such facility is provided below. Non -Standard Road Design. These are roadways with design .features that do not meet current County standards. Butte County has adopted minimum county standards for roadways in rural areas. The minimum cross section for a roadway within the' study area includes a minimum of 28 feet of pavement, with 5 -foot shoulders. Field observations identified one location with a non-standard road design. • River Road between SR 32 and Chico River Road. The existing conditions of this roadway include narrow pavement width with no shoulders, and the lack of an exclusive left -turn lane for eastbound traffic on Chico River Road to River Road. In addition, portions of this segment of River Road are subject to inundation. This roadway segment has been identified by Butte County Public Works Staff as substandard and restricted to a 14,000 lb. weight limit. Narrow or Substandard Bridges. These are bridges that are less than 20 feet in width or those that have been identified by Caltrans or Butte County as being in need of structural repair. Bridge condition information was provided by Butte County and Caltrans: • A bridge north of Chico River Road on River Road has been identified by Butte County as in need of structural repair. This bridge is currently under construction. Frequent Accident Locations. Butte County has specified that frequent accident locations are intersections at which four or more accidents have occurred in any twelve-month period during the past three years that are correctable by physical improvements. Data collected from the Butte County Department of Public Works, City of Chico Public Works Department, and Caltrans District 3 identifies two study. intersections that have experienced four or more accidents and more than one truck -related accident in a 12 month period. • Dayton Road intersection with Durham -Dayton Highway. During 1998 a total of four accidents occurred with two of .the four accidents involving heavy vehicles. • West 5`h Street intersection with SR 32. During 1997 a total of six accidents occurred with two of the six involving heavy vehicles. During 1999 a total of seven accidents occurred with no heavy vehicle involvement. Deteriorated Pavement. These include pavement sections that have deteriorated to the point that they may affect public health and safety under existing traffic conditions. Field observations indicated that some segments along River Road were identified as having fair/poor pavement conditions as shown in Table 4.6-1. As this roadway is a proposed haul route for loaded trucks, this represents a potential structural problem for these roadway segments. An analysis of potential roadway deterioration due to an increase in heavy vehicle traffic was performed to determine any project related increases in roadway traffic indexes. Traffic Index (TI) is a measurement used in roadway design to determine the structural capability of a roadway. A TI is based upon the number of axles loads on a roadway facility during a given time period, usually daily. An increase in TI, based upon an increase in traffic volumes, especially heavy vehicles with 3 or more axles, would require a structural roadway design that would accommodate the increase in loads. A substantial increase in the number of axle loads is required to change a TI. The increase in trips generated by the proposed project does not increase the number of axle loads to the point of increasing study area roadway TI's, with exception to the segment of River Road north of the proposed project site to Chico River Road. The TI on this roadway segment increases from 9.5 to 10.0. Intersections with Limited Curve Radii. These are cases where the limited curve radius at an intersection may cause a truck to encroach upon an oncoming lane while making a turning movement. Based on field observations, none of the study intersections have insufficient turn radii for aggregate related trucks or asphalt/cement trucks. Transit System Two fixed -route transit providers exist within the study area including Butte County Transit and the Chico Area Transit System (CATS). Butte County Transit provides fixed -route transit service between cities in Butte County including Chico, Paradise, Oroville, Palermo, Gridley and Biggs. CATS provides fixed -route transit service in the Chico urban area only. Fixed -route transit service is provided within the study area at the following locations: • Skyway east of SR 99; • East Park Avenue from Park Avenue to Highway 99; and • Park Avenue from East 20'h Street to East Park Avenue. The Butte County Transit Route 1 provides 12 daily round trips serving Paradise, operating between 5:40 a.m. and 7:30 p.m. on weekdays. CATS provides service between 6:15 a.m. and 8:15 p.m. on weekdays to Forest Avenue and areas directly north of the Skyway and east of Highway 99. Bicycle and Pedestrian System Bicycle and pedestrian travel within the study area is limited primarily because of the rural, low-density character of the area. The lack of bicycle and pedestrian facilities also contributes to the limited amount of bicycle/pedestrian travel on county roads. The Butte County Association of Governments (BCAG) bike map for the Chico area identifies the following bicycle facilities within the study area: • Midway, from south of K.V. Lane to Hegan Lane, has a "Class I" off-street bicycle path; • Park Avenue, from East 20`h Street to East Park Avenue, has a "Class I" off-street bicycle path; • East Park Avenue, from Park Avenue to Highway 99, has a "Class H" on -street bicycle lane; and • SR 32, from 8`h Avenue to Big Chico Creek, has a "Class H" on -street bicycle lane. School Bus Operations Residents living in the unincorporated areas of Butte County rely on school buses to transport children to school. Two school districts, Chico Unified School District and Durham Unified School District, are located within the study area. The jurisdiction of the Chico Unified School District extends north from an east -west boundary that generally bisects the project site, while the Durham Unified School District is south of this boundary. School district staff were contacted to identify existing school bus routes and schedules. Within the study area, the Chico Unified School District operates several buses along River Road, Chico River Road, Dayton Road, and Hegan Lane. The Dayton Unified School District operates buses Ord Ferry Road and Durham Dayton Road. Buses typically operate from 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. Regulatory Setting The regulatory setting section identifies relevant policies, plans and regulations of other related planning documents that may be applicable to this analysis. These policies were used to formulate the basis of the standards of significance against which project impacts were evaluated. The following lists the policies and programs relevant to the traffic and circulation analysis for this study from the Butte County General Plan and the Butte County Metropolitan Transportation Plan. Butte County General Plan Policy 1.2.1 Road system planning will emphasize preservation of the existing roadway network while working to increase the efficiency and capacity of the existing network. Policy 2.1.1 All available public and private sources shall be used for the funding of road and highway development, improvement, and maintenance. Policy 2.1.3 It is suggested that the utilization of County road funds should focus on competing projects with a higher priority before completing a lower priority project. Proposed bridge and road projects will be classified in relation to the following priorities: a. Priority One: Urgent Projects: Projects of an urgent nature that are clearly needed to protect the health and safety of the traveling public such as imminent bridge or road bed failure. Sample project: reconstruction of a storm damaged road bed where such damage has severely restricted traffic and access. b. Priority Two: Safety Projects: Projects which are intended to reduce the number and severity of accidents along a particular road. segment. Sample project: a change in road alignment where an alternative is needed to reduce high accident rates. Also includes traffic signals, stop signs, cross -walks, and other traffic engineering decisions. c. Priority Three: Reconstruction/Maintenance Projects: Project which involves ongoing maintenance, rehabilitation, and reconstruction requirements needed to preserve the existing bridge and road network. Sample project: routine maintenance to prevent structural damage (as opposed to improvements in surface rideability). d. Priority Four: Capacity Improvements: Projects that involve operational improvements to the existing road network that increase service efficiency and capacity. Sample project: widening of an arterial road to increase capacity. Also includes Transportation System Management projects. e. Priority Five: New Construction Projects: Projects which involve construction of a new bridge or road. New County construction projects shall receive higher priority when they accommodate development in locations within reasonable proximity to centers of employment and shopping facilities and which encourage the conservation of energy in the transportation sector. Sample project: construction of an urban area collector street. Policy 2.1.4 The County will support State legislative efforts which increase road maintenance funds and benefit the County, as a whole. Policy 4.1.1 For general and circulation planning purposes, the County will follow the system of classification of streets, roads, and highways as described in Section 5.0 and illustrated by Figure CIR-12. Policy 4.1.2 Rural arterial road and highway traffic capacity levels should be planned to provide a level of service `B", and be considered to be providing acceptable service at level of service "C" when fiscal, environmental, or site constraints are prohibitive. Policy 4.1.3 The County will insure that arterial routes continue to serve as major traffic carriers and remain free of unnecessary future intersections, driveways, on -street parking, and traffic overloads. Policy 4.1.7 The County will assume maintenance responsibility only for roads which meet full county standards. Policy 4.1.15 For the purpose of Section 66484 of the Subdivision Map Act, both urban and rural arterials and collectors shall be considered major thoroughfares. Butte County Metropolitan Transportation Plan Policy: 1.2. Assist jurisdictions in the implementation of pavement management systems that identify and prioritize road maintenance projects. Objective 1: Promote a balance of roads, rail, airports, and pipelines for the improvement of goods transport. Objective 2: Mitigate conditions that transporters of goods deem dangerous or unacceptable. Policy: 2.2. Assist jurisdictions with pavement management systems that identify and prioritize road maintenance projects. Policy: 2.3 Encourage jurisdictions to provide proper road geometry on roadways intended to accommodate truck traffic. The above information is provided only for items relevant to the proposed project. The reader is referred to the circulation element of the Butte County General Plan and the Butte County Metropolitan Transportation Plan for a full description of all transportation related goals, objectives, and policies. 4.6.3 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES The impact analysis identifies the impacts of the proposed project on the roadway system, the transit system, pedestrian and bikeway systems and school bus operations. The first part, entitled Standards of Significance, identifies the standards for determining when an impact is considered significant. The second part documents the impact analysis results and identifies specific project impacts and mitigation measures. Standards of Significance The project would have a significant effect on traffic and circulation if it would result in any of the following: • Change the level of service of an existing County roadway segment or intersection from acceptable levels (i.e., LOS A, B, or C) to unacceptable levels (i.e., LOS D, E or r F) as specified by the Butte County General Plan. • Exacerbate conditions on a roadway or an intersection that currently operates at an unacceptable level of service (i.e., LOS D or worse). • Add substantial (i.e., 10 or more per day) vehicle trips to a roadway facility that. consists of: - A non-standard road design according to County standards; - Bridges less than 20 feet in width or those identified as being in need of structural repair; - Intersection locations in which four or more reported accidents have occurred in a 12 -month period during the past three years which are correctable by physical improvements; I . - Pavement that has deteriorated to the degree that it may affect public health and safety; and - Intersection at which limited curve radii cause a truck to encroach upon an on- coming lane while making a turning movement. • Add 25 or more truck trips which cause an increase in the Traffic Index (TI) of 0.5 or greater on a County maintained roadway. • Disrupt or interfere with existing or planned transit operations and facilities. . • Create hazards for pedestrians or bicyclists. • Disrupt or interfere with existing or planned bicycle facilities as identified in the Butte County Bikeway Master Plan, prepared 1994. Project -Specific Analysis The project -specific analysis was conducted for both existing (i.e., 2000) and cumulative conditions (i.e., 2018). The assumptions and results of each analysis scenario are described below. Analysis of Existing Conditions This section summarizes background land use and roadway assumptions for existing conditions, expected project trip generation and the proposed haul routes. The existing conditions analysis is conducted for Year 2000. Background Circulation Assumptions According to the Butte County General Plan, 1981, and the Metropolitan Transportation Plan, Butte . County, 1996, no major road improvements are planned on county roadways in the study area. According to discussions with Butte County Transit Authority staff, no significant increase in service is planned in the study area. According to the Draft Butte County Bikeway Master Plan, several "medium priority" Class H bicycle paths, and one "high priority" Class U bike path are planned in the study area. The "high priority" project is proposed along Durham Dayton Road from Durham Park to SR 191/Clark Road. The "medium priority" projects are proposed along River Road from SR 32 to Ord Ferry Road, Chico River,Road from River Road to the Chico city limits, and Ord Ferry Road from River Road to the Glenn County Line. These projects do not have funds guaranteed and the document has not been adopted. Because the document is changing annually, these bicycle path projects are not assumed to be approved, and were therefore not assumed facilities that could be built in the near future. However, they are assumed under future conditions, as implementation is likely during the 20 -year life of the proposed project's permit. According to school district officials, school bus operations are not expected to change Y substantially in the near future. It is difficult to identify needed operational improvements since school bus routes are continually changing in response to the location of students. For this reason, improvements such as bus shelters or turnouts have not been proposed by the school district. Trip Generation The following lists the key assumptions associated with the trip generation estimate for the proposed project under existing conditions. It should be noted that these assumptions are conservative to ensure that the potential impacts are not underestimated. . 1. The Chico Ranch Mine plant will operate at maximum production levels, thereby generating the maximum number of truck trips for an average day. Total permitted production would reach 250,000 cubic yards per year. 2. Two potential operational scenarios were analyzed for this study. The first involves "Full Operations" which includes 100,000 cubic yards of rock -crushing applications, 100,000 cubic yards of asphalt preparation and delivery, and 50,000 cubic yards of ready -mix concrete prepared and delivered each year. The second scenario involves "Mining Only" operations, which would not have the asphalt preparation or ready -mix plants in operation. Instead, this scenario would result in a maximum of 250,000 cubic yards of mining aggregate operations per year. 3. Aggregate trucks are assumed to carry 15 cubic yards per load. Ready -mix trucks are assumed to carry 7 cubic yards per load. An average work year is assumed to include 261 work days. Table 4.6-8 displays the estimated daily trip generation for the Chico Ranch Mine plant. Trip generation is computed by calculating the total operations per day (based on maximum quantities) multiplied by two to account for inbound and outbound travel. Table 4.6-8 shows that the plant would generate a maximum of 195 trips per day under full operations (40 a.m. peak hour trips and 40 p.m. peak hour trips), and 166 trips per day under operations without the asphalt and concrete plants (35 a.m. peak hour trips and 35 p.m. peak hour trips). For this study, the a.m. peak hour is between 7:00 - 8:00 a.m. and the p.m. peak hour is between 4:00 - 5:00 p.m. Trip Distribution The proposed haul routes for the Chico Ranch Mine plant were obtained from information provided by the applicant. As Butte County currently does not specify designated truck routes on County roads, project traffic would use the most logical routes to access local project sites, and the state highway system for regional sites. It is difficult.to specify the exact routes project traffic will use because deliveries will be based on varying sites and fluctuating market conditions. However, since most of the project traffic would be destined to/from locations outside the immediate study area, project traffic is expected to use Chico River Road, Ord Ferry Road, and Dayton Road as primary haul routes. Figure 4.6-3 shows the expected haul routes. As shown in Figure 4.6-3, there are two distribution scenarios, depending on the type of activity at the proposed project site. The Full Operations scenario would include full mining and rock crushing operations, as well as an asphalt concrete "hot -batch" and a ready -mix concrete plant. Under this scenario, project traffic would deliver raw aggregate as well as asphalt concrete locally and regionally depending upon site locations and market demand. Table 4.6-8 . TRIP GENERATION FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT Annual Truck Annual Average AM PM Type of Use Quantity' Vehicle Capacity Truck Average Daily Daily Trip Peak Peak (Cu.Yard) Type 2 (Cu.Yard) Loads Operations 3 Ends Hour Hour Full Operations Rock -Crushing Plant 100,000 1 15 6,667 26 51 8 8 Asphalt Plant 100,000 1 15 6,667 26 51 8 8 Ready Mix 50,000 2 7 7,143 27 55 9 9 Em to ees4 n/a' 3 n/a n/a 15 38 15 15 Total 250,000 n/a n/a 20,477 95 195 40 40 Mining Only Rock -Crushing Plant 250,000 1 15 16,667 64 128 20 20 Asphalt Plant 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ready Mix 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Employees n/a 3 n/a n/a 15 38 15 15 Total 250,000 n/a n/a 16,667 79 166 1 35 35 Notes: 1 Annual operations based on permit information supplied by applicant. 2 Vehicles types include: 1 = Standard aggregate truck (i.e., twin trailer, top -load, bottom -drop): 2 = Standard cement delivery truck. 3 = Passenger. vehicle (i.e., car or pickup truck). 3 One vehicle operation is one trip out and one trip in, or two total trip ends based on 261 annual operating days per year. For display purposes, these quantities have been rounded to the nearest 1. 4 Employee vehicle occupancy assumed to be 1.0, and trip ends assumed to be 2.5 trips per day to account for'lunch time travel. 5 not applicable. Source: Fehr & Peers Associates, 2000 The Mining Only scenario includes mining and rock crushing operations only. Therefore, trucks originating from the project site would only distribute raw aggregate to construction sites as well as existing asphalt and concrete production facilities, which are located throughout the Chico area, with a primary production facility being located east of Chico on Skyway near Butte Creek. Analysis Results Figures 4.6-4 and 4.6-5 show daily traffic projections for the study roadways under existing conditions (2000) with Full Operations and Mining Only, respectively. As shown in the figures, daily traffic volumes, which include both cars and trucks, would increase by approximately 120 vehicles per day on Chico River Road east of River Road, 80 vehicles per day on River Road south of Chico River Road and north of the proposed project access, 60 vehicles per day on River Road south of the proposed project access, and up to 40 vehicles per day on all other study roadway segments such as Ord Ferry Road, Dayton Road, Hegan Lane, Park Avenue, East Park Avenue, Bruce Road, Durham -Dayton Highway and the Skyway . Tables 4.6-9 and 4.6-10 show operations on all county roadways and intersections would continue at LOS C or better under existing with project conditions. The addition of the project would not disrupt or interfere with any existing bicycle, pedestrian, transit facilities, or school bus operations. Figure 4.6-3: Trip Distribution Figure 4.6-4 Existing With Full Operations Daily and Peak Hour Volumes Figure 4.6-5: Existing Without Concrete Plant Operations Table 4.6-9 EXISTING DAILY TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ON COUNTY ROADS WITH PROJECT Roadway Segment From To No Project ADT' LOS' Existing Conditions With Full O erations ADT LOS With Mining Only ADT LOS Chico River Road River Road Lone Pine Road 1,490 B 1,610 B 1,580 B Chico River Road Lone Pine Road West 5''' Street 2,890 B 3,010 B 2,980 B Dayton Road Durham Dayton Hwy. Elk Avenue 3,690 B 3,720 B 3,740 B Dayton Road Elk Avenue Archer Avenue 5,630 B 5,640 B 5,650 B Durham Dayton Hwy. Dayton Road Midway 1,520 B 1,550 B 1,540 B Durham Dayton Hwy. Midway Oroville-Chico Hwy. 2,220 B 2,250 B 2,240 B He an Lane Dayton Road Midway 2,840 B 2,860 B 2,870 B Ord Ferry Road Glenn County Line River Road 2,170 B 2,190 B 2,180 B Ord Ferry Road River Road Dayton Road 2,630 B 2,690 B 2,700 B River Road SR 32 W. Sacramento St. 150 B 150 B 150 B River Road W. Sacramento St. Chico River Road 410 B 410 B 410 B River Road Chico River Road Project Access 1,030 B 1,150 B 1,120 B River Road Project Access Ord Ferry Road 1,190 B 1,270 B 1,270 B Skyway SR 99 Butte Creek Bridge 20,390 C 20,420 C 20,470 C Park Avenue 20'b Street E. Park Avenue 11,870 C 11,890 C 11,920 C E. Park Avenue Fair Street SR 99 18,300 C 18,340 C 18,380 C Bruce Road SR 32 Skyway 4,340 B 4,350 B 4,350 B Notes: ' Average Daily Traffic ' Level of Service Source: Fehr & Peers Associates, 2000 Table 4.6-10 SUMMARY OF EXISTING WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION TRAFFIC OPERATIONS Intersection Existing Conditions No Pro'ect Full O erations With Mining Only AM PM AM PM AM PM SR 32&River Road 0.2'/A 0.4/A 0.2/A 0.4/A 0.2/A 0.4/A W.5th Street & Walnut (SR 32) 14.8/B 19.6/C 15.2/B 19.9/C 15.0/B 19.6/C Ord Ferry Road &Dayton Road 2.4/A 3.4/A 2.4/A 3.4/A 2.5/A 3.5/A Ord Ferry Road &River Road 1.2/A 1.2/A 1.2/A 1.3/A 1.2/A 1.3/A Skyway & Baldwin Plant Driveway 0.2 / A 0.3 / A 0.2 / A 0.3 / A 0.2 / A 0.3 / A Durham -Dayton H 3.0/A 5.1/B 3.0/A 5.2/B 3.0/A 5.2/B Notes: Average delay for all vehicles at intersection, followed by Level of Service Source: Fehr & Peers Associates, 2000 Analysis of Cumulative Conditions This section summarizes background land use and roadway network assumptions for cumulative conditions, the expected project trip generation, and assumed haul routes under cumulative conditions. The cumulative conditions analysis is conducted for Year 2018, as specified by Butte County staff, which provides an 18 -year planning horizon. Future traffic volume forecasts were developed using the Butte County Association of Governments (BCAG) Regional Traffic Model. This traffic model was developed and is maintained by BCAG. The model is periodically updated with land use information provided by local jurisdictions and used to update future traffic forecasts for regional and local facilities. Background Circulation Assumptions According to the Butte County General Plan and the Butte County Metropolitan Transportation Plan, the County population will continue to grow at approximately 2 percent per year, slightly higher than the state population growth average of 1.5 percent per year. This translates into approximately 50 percent population growth through the year 2018. Traffic volumes on roadways will generally reflect this growth on both regional and local facilities. According to Butte County staff, no major road improvements are planned in the study area. However, regular maintenance of County roads includes periodic overlays, shoulder widening and obstacle clearing, and improved alignments for roadways with substandard turning radii. According to discussions with Butte County Transit Authority, no increases in transit service within the study area are expected. Planned bicycle facilities in the study area have been identified in a Draft Butte County Bikeway Master Plan. However, as described earlier, this document has not been adopted by Butte County and conversations with Butte County staff indicate that projects are being added or removed during the preparation of this report. Therefore, no improvements to the bicycle system have been assumed for this study. According to the Chico Unified School District and the Durham Unified School District, school bus operations are not expected to change substantially in the future. It is difficult to identify needed operational improvements since school bus routes are continually changing in response to the location of students. For this reason, improvements such as bus shelters or turnouts have not been proposed by the school districts. Cumulative Project Trip Generation The project trip generation under cumulative conditions is identical to the trip generation used for the existing conditions, which is summarized in Table 4.6-8. Trip Distribution ,. Because no significant changes to the circulation network are planned, the cumulative conditions distribution of project trips was assumed to be the same as the distribution under existing conditions. However, as under the existing conditions, the distribution of future project trips will differ between the Full Operations scenario and the Mining Only scenario. Analysis of Cumulative Conditions With and Without the Project Figures 4.6-6, 4.6-7, and 4.6-8 show daily and peak hour traffic projections for the study roadways under cumulative conditions (2018) without the proposed project, with the Full Operations scenario, and with the Mining Only scenario, respectively. Background (i.e., no project) traffic on local facilities is expected to increase between 30 and 60 percent depending on the location. As shown in the figures, daily traffic volumes, which include both cars and trucks, would increase by approximately 120 vehicles per day on Chico River Road east of River Road, 80 vehicles per day on River Road south of Chico River Road and north of the proposed project access, 60 vehicles per day on River Road south of the proposed project access, and up to 40 vehicles per day on all other study roadway segments such as Ord Ferry Road, Dayton Road, Hegan Lane, Park Avenue, East Park Avenue, Bruce Road, Durham -Dayton Highway and the Skyway. Daily levels of service with and without the project are shown in Table 4.6-11. The table shows that all locations will operate at LOS C or better without the project, except for the following locations: • Park Avenue between East 20`h Street and East Park Avenue will operate at LOS F; • East Park Avenue between Fair Street and SR 99 will operate at LOS F; • Bruce Road between SR 32 and Skyway will operate at LOS E; and i C , • Skyway - between SR 99 and the Butte Creek Bridge is expected to operate at ,. LOS E. Peak hour intersection operations were also analyzed under cumulative conditions with and without the project. The results are shown in Table 4.6-12. Figure 4.6-6: Future Traffic Volumes, No Project Figure 4.6-7: Future Traffic Volumes, Full Operations a Figure 4.6-8: Future Traffic Volumes, No Concrete Plant Table 4.6-11 FUTURE DAILY TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ON COUNTY ROADS WITH PROJECT Roadway Segment From To E isting Conditions With Full With Mining No Project Operations Only ADT' LOS' ADT LOS ADT LOS No Project ADT LOS Future Conditions With Full With Mining Operations Only ADT 'LOS ADT LOS Chico River Road River Road Lone Pine Road 1,490 B' 1,610 B 1,580 B 7,600 C 7,720 C 7,690 C Chico River Road Lone Pine Road West 5h Street 2,890 B 3,010 B 2,980 B 9,400 C 9,520 C 9,490 C Dayton Road Durham Dayton Hwy. Elk Avenue 3,690 B 3,720 B 3,740 B 7,400 C 7,430 C 7,450 C Dayton Road Elk Avenue Archer Avenue 5,630 B 5,640 B 5,650 B 9,900 C 9,910 C 9,920 C Durham Dayton Hwy. Dayton Road Midway 1,520 B 1,550 B 1,540 B 7,200 C 7,230 C 7,220 C Durham Dayton Hwy. Midway Oroville-Chico Hwy. 2,220 B 2,250 B 2,240 B 9,400 C 9,430 C 9,420 C He an Lane Dayton Road Midway 2,840 B 2,860 B 2,870 B 7,200 C 7,220 C 7,230 C Ord Ferry Road Glenn County Line River Road 2,170 B 2,190 B 2,180 B 3,800 B 3,820 B 3,810 B Ord Ferry Road River Road Dayton Road 2,630 B 2,690 B 2,700 B 4,400 B 4,460 B 4,470 B River Road SR 32 W. Sacramento St. 150 B 150 B 150 B 200 B 200 B 200 B River Road W. Sacramento St. Chico River Road 410 B 410 B 410 B 600 B 600 B 600 B River Road Chico River Road Project Access 1,030 B 1,150 B 1,120 B 1,500 B 1,620 B 1,590 B River Road Project Access Ord Ferry Road 1,190 B 1,270 B 1,270 B 1,500 B 1,560 B 1,580 B Skyway SR 99 Butte Creek Bride 20,390 C 20,420 C 20,470 C 31,500 Ei' 5.3,0' 'E 31 580 E , Park Avenue 20'h Street E. Park Avenue 11,870 C 11,890 C 11,920 C 36,000 F A36 020' F 36050 F. E. Park Avenue Fair Street . SR 99 18,300 C 18,340 C 18,380 C 40,000 F 40 040F` - Bruce Road SR 32 Skyway 4,340 B 4,350 B 4,350 B 30,200 E '30;210" E 30;240.. Notes: ' Average Daily Traffic ' Level of Service B0 -identifies project impact Source: Fehr & Peers Associates, 2000 Table 4.6-12 SUMMARY OF EXISTING AND FUTURE INTERSECTION TRAFFIC OPERATIONS Intersection Existing Conditions Future Conditions No Project Full Operations (Avg. dela /LOS) (Avg. dela /LOS) With Mining Only (Avg. dela /LOS) No Project Full Operations (Aviz. dela /LOS) (Avg. dela /LOS) With Mining Only (Av . dela /LOS) AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM SR 32&River Road 0.2'/A 0.3/A 0.2/A 0.3/A 0.2/A 0.4/A 0.5/A 0.9/A 0.5/A 0.9/A 0.5/A 1.1/A W. 5h Street & Walnut (SR 32) 14.6/B 18.9/C 14.9/B 19.2/C 14.8/B 18.9/C 17.9./C 21.3/C 18.2/C 21.8/C 18.0/C 21.4/C Ord Ferry Road &Dayton Road 2.4/A 3.4/A 2.4/A 3.4/A 2.4/A 3.4/A 3.1/A 3.6/A 3.1/A 3.7/A 3.1/A 3.7/A Ord Ferry Road &River Road 1.1/A 1.1/A 1.2/A 1.2/A 1.2/A 1.3/A 1.5/A 1.5/A 1.5/A 1.6/A 1.5/A 1.7/A Skyway &Baldwin Plant Drvwy 0.2 / A 03/A 0.2 / A 0.3 / A 0.2 / A 0.3 / A --' 26.8/D -2741/-, Durham-Dayton Hwy & Midway 3.0 / A 5.1 / B 3.0 / A 5.2 / B 3.0 / A 5.2 / B 84.8 / F Notes: ' - Intersection volumes exceed the range in which delay can be reliably estimated - LOS F Bold - identifies project impact Source: Fehr & Peers Associates, 2000 As shown in Table 4.6-12, all intersections will operate at LOS C or better except for the Skyway/Baldwin Plant Driveway and Durham -Dayton Highway at Midway. Both locations operate unacceptably without the project and those unacceptable operations are exacerbated by the project. The Skyway/Baldwin Plant Driveway intersection will operate at LOS F in the a.m. peak hour and LOS D in the p.m. peak hour. The Durham -Dayton Highway/Midway intersection will operate at LOS F in both the a.m. and p.m. peak hour. Project -Specific Impacts and Mitigation Measures The results of the existing and cumulative conditions impact analyses were evaluated to identify significant impacts for the proposed project under both analysis scenarios. These impacts are based on the standards of significance listed in the Impacts and Mitigation Measures section of the report. Each ' impact is described and followed by a proposed mitigation measure. An assessment of the significance of the impact with the mitigation in place is also provided. Project Specific Impacts for the "Full Operations" Scenario Impact 4.6-1: The proposed project will add 25 or more truck trips which cause an increase in the Traffic Index (TI) of 0.5 or greater on a County maintained roadway. This is considered a significant impact. The proposed project will add 120 truck trips on River Road between Chico River Road and the proposed project access (approximately 3 miles south of Chico River Road) under existing and future conditions. This increase in truck trips on this segment of roadway causes the Traffic Index (TI) to increase from 9.5 to 10.0. The increase in TI is due to the addition of 996,240 Equivalent Single Axle Loads (ESALs) to an existing 1,951,300 ESALs for a total of 2,947,540 ESALs. The project produces a 51% increase in ESALs at this location. This roadway segment has been identified by Butte County Staff in the CIP for improvement to occur by 2007. The mitigation specified by Butte County staff for a 0.5 increase in TI is a two-inch asphalt/concrete (a/c) overlay of the existing roadway structure. Mitigation Measure 4.6-1: The following mitigation measure will reduce the impact to a less than significant level. The project applicant shall contribute its fair share of the cost to improve the pavement on River Road between Chico River Road and the proposed project access with a two- inch a/c overlay. The fair share amount shall be based on the net increase in ESALs, which is 51 %, subject to final approval by the Butte County Public Works Department. The fee collection for this mitigation measure shall coincide with the planned improvement schedule for this roadway segment, as identified by the Butte County CIP. At the time CIP funding becomes available, the project applicant shall contribute its fair share of 51 % of the cost to implement the improvement. Impact 4.6-2: The proposed project will add 10 or more trips per day to the intersection of Dayton Road/Durham-Dayton Hwy. This intersection has been identified as a location having 4 or more accidents in a 12 -month period over the last three years. This location also had more than one accident over a 12 -month period which involved heavy vehicles. This is considered a significant impact. The intersection of Dayton Road/Durham-Dayton Highway has had a total of 8 accidents over the last three years with at least 4 occurring during a 12 -month period. All of the accidents occurred in clear, dry conditions during the daytime. Three out of four accidents were attributed to vehicles being unfamiliar with the intersection, proceeding into traffic assuming the intersection to be four -way -stop -controlled. Two of the accidents involved a heavy vehicle. Field observations revealed there are no significant obstacles blocking sight distance (adjacent to agricultural fields), no significant grades (level terrain), and adequate signing and striping. Mitigation Measure 4.6-2: The following mitigation measure may reduce the impact at this location. However, no mitigation measure is able to eliminate the occurrence of accidents at this location. This is considered a significant unavoidable impact. The project applicant shall install four -way -stop -control at the intersection. of Dayton Road/Durham-Dayton Highway. The implementation of this mitigation measure shall occur before building permits are granted. Impact 4.6-3: The proposed project will add 10 or more trips per day to the intersection of SR 32/West 5h Street. This intersection has been identified as a location having 4 or more accidents in a 12 -month period over the last three years. This location also had more than one accident over a 12 -month period which involved heavy vehicles. This is considered a significant impact. The intersection of SR 32/West 5th Street has had a total of 13 accidents over the last three years with 6 occurring in 1997. Two of the accidents in 1997 involved heavy vehicles. In 1999, seven accidents occurred with no heavy vehicle involvement. Accident data provided by Caltrans for this location revealed that all accidents were due to driver behavior. Field observations revealed there are no significant obstacles blocking sight distance, no significant grades (level terrain), and adequate signing and striping. However, signal phasing could be improved to increase safety. Currently there are protected left -turns for the SR 32 approaches and permitted left -turns for the West 5`h Street approaches. With permitted phasing, vehicles turning left must yield to opposing through and right -turn movements. Field observations also revealed the absence of all -red time at this intersection; consequently, vehicles are not able to clear the intersection between signal phases. Mitigation Measure 4.6-3: The following mitigation measure may reduce the impact at this location. However, no mitigation measure is able to eliminate the occurrence of accidents at this location. This is considered a significant unavoidable impact. The project applicant shall improve the intersection of SR 32/West 5th Street by modifying the existing traffic signal to provide split phase timing, including three seconds of yellow time and one second of all -red time per phase. The implementation of this mitigation measure shall occur before building permits are granted. Impact 4.6-4: The proposed project will exacerbate LOS F operating conditions on Park Avenue from East 20th Street to East Park Avenue under cumulative conditions. The segment of Park Avenue between East 201h Street and East Park Avenue is expected to operate at LOS F under cumulative no project conditions. The addition of project trips will exacerbate unacceptable operating conditions. Possible mitigation measures would include physically expanding the facility or rerouting project traffic. The physical constraints of this roadway segment (i.e., city street with pedestrian and bicycle facilities, minimal set backs to existing buildings) prohibit expansion from four to six lanes. Project trips may be rerouted to avoid this roadway segment, however, this is difficult to enforce. The cumulative no project daily traffic volume on this roadway segment is 36,000. The project will add an additional 20 trips to this segment. This represents a less than 1% increase in traffic. Therefore, the impact of project trips being added to this roadway segment will be minimal yet significant based upon the criteria listed in Impacts and Mitigation Measures section of this report. Mitigation Measure 4.6-4: No feasible mitigation measure will reduce the level of impact to this roadway segment. This is considered a significant unavoidable impact. Impact 4.6-5: The proposed project will exacerbate LOS F operating conditions on East Park Avenue from Park Avenue to Highway 99 under cumulative conditions. The segment of East Park Avenue between Park Avenue and Highway 99 is expected to operate at LOS F under cumulative no project conditions. The addition of project trips will exacerbate unacceptable operating conditions. Possible mitigation measures would include physically expanding the facility or rerouting project traffic. The physical constraints of this roadway segment '(i.e., city street with pedestrian and bicycle facilities, minimal set backs to existing buildings) prohibit expansion from four to six lanes. Project trips may be rerouted to avoid this roadway segment, however, this is difficult to enforce. The cumulative no project daily traffic volume on this roadway segment is 40,000. The project will add an additional 40 trips to this segment. This represents a less than 1% increase in traffic. Therefore, the impact of project trips being added to this roadway segment will be minimal yet significant based upon the criteria listed in Impacts and Mitigation Measures section of this report. Mitigation Measure 4.6-5: No feasible mitigation measure will reduce the level of impact to this roadway segment. This is considered a significant unavoidable impact. Impact 4.6-6: The proposed project will exacerbate LOS E operating conditions on Bruce Road from SR 32 to Skyway under cumulative conditions. The segment of Bruce Road between SR 32 and Skyway is expected to operate at LOS E under cumulative no project, conditions. The addition of project trips will exacerbate unacceptable operating conditions. Possible mitigation measures would include physically expanding the facility or rerouting project traffic. The physical constraints of this roadway segment (i.e., city street with pedestrian and bicycle facilities, minimal set backs to existing buildings) prohibit expansion from four to six lanes. Project trips may be rerouted to avoid this roadway segment, however, this is difficult to enforce. The cumulative no project daily traffic volume on this roadway segment is 31,500. The project will add an additional 30 trips to this segment. This represents a less than 1% increase in traffic. Therefore, the impact of project trips being added to this roadway segment will be minimal yet significant based upon the criteria listed in Impacts and Mitigation Measures section of this report. Mitigation Measure 4.6-6: No feasible mitigation measure will reduce the level of impact to this roadway segment. This is considered a significant unavoidable impact. Impact 4.6-7: The proposed project will exacerbate LOS F operating conditions in the a.m. peak hour and LOS D in the p.m. peak hour at the intersection of the Baldwin Plant Driveway and Skyway under cumulative conditions. The intersection of the Baldwin Plant Driveway and Skyway is expected to operate at LOS F in the a.m. peak hour and LOS D in the p.m. peak hour under cumulative no project conditions. The addition of project trips will exacerbate unacceptable operating conditions. The peak hour volume signal warrant contained in the Traffic Manual, Caltrans, July 1995, is not met at this location due to the low volumes at the driveway to the Baldwin Plant. Mitigation Measure 4.6-7: No feasible mitigation measure will reduce the level of impact to this roadway segment. This is considered a significant unavoidable impact. Impact 4.6-8: The proposed project will exacerbate LOS F operating conditions in the a.m. peak hour and p.m. peak hour at the intersection of the Durham -Dayton Highway and Midway under cumulative conditions. The intersection of Durham -Dayton Highway and Midway is expected to operate at LOS F in the a.m. peak hour and p.m. peak hour under cumulative no project conditions. The addition of project trips will exacerbate unacceptable operating conditions. The a.m. and p.m. peak hour volumes at this location are high enough to justify installation of a traffic signal under cumulative conditions based on the peak hour volume warrant contained in the Traffic Manual, Caltrans, July 1995. The intersection improvement should also include the addition of a left -turn lane at each approach. The resulting lane configuration should be a left -turn lane and a shared through/right-turn lane on each approach. With this improvement this intersection would operate at LOS C under cumulative with project conditions. Mitigation Measure 4.6-8: The following mitigation measure will reduce the impact to a 'less than significant level. The project applicant shall install a traffic signal and improve lane configurations with a left-turn lane and shared through/right-turn lane on each approach of the Durham- Dayton Highway and Midway intersection. The implementation of this mitigation measure shall occur before building permits are granted. Project Specific Impacts For the "Mining Only" Scenario The "Mining Only" scenario will generate slightly fewer trips per day and during the peak hour than the "Full Operations" scenario.' The results of the analysis show that the impacts for this scenario are identical to the "Full Operations" scenario. Therefore, no additional impacts are associated with this scenario, and all of the impacts and mitigation measures described for the "Full Operations" scenario apply to the "Mining Only" scenario. f APPENDIX A f' Intersection Operations Analysis Worksheets i - ca Y V S S . REFERENCES: 1. Butte County General Plan, Butte County Planning Department, 1984 2. Butte County Metropolitan Transportation Plan, Butte County Association of Governments, 1996 3. Butte County Overall Work Program, Butte County Association of Governments, 1996 4. A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO) , 1994 (Update) 5. , Caltrans Traffic Manual, r> Caltrans, 1995 (Update) 6. Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 1994 (Update) 4.8 NOISE 4.8.1 . INTRODUCTION This section describes the noise environment at and near the M&T Chico Ranch (Project) site and analyzes potential noise impacts generated by the proposed project. Figure 4.8-1 shows the general orientation of the project site and proposed on-site uses. 4.8.2 NOISE FUNDAMENTALS AND TERMINOLOGY Background on Noise Noise is often described as unwanted sound. Sound is defined as any pressure variation in air that the.human ear can detect. If the pressure variations occur frequently enough (at least 20 times per second), they can be heard and hence are called sound. The number of pressure variations per second is called the frequency of sound, and is expressed as cycles per second, called Hertz (Hz). Measuring sound directly in terms of pressure would require a. very large and awkward range of numbers. To avoid this, the decibel scale was devised. The decibel scale uses the hearing threshold (20 micropascals of pressure), as a point of reference, defined as 0 dB. Other sound pressures are then compared to the reference pressure, and the logarithm is taken to keep the numbers is a practical range. The decibel scale allows a million -fold increase in pressure to be expressed as 120 dB. Another useful aspect of the decibel scale is that changes in levels (dB) correspond closely to human perception of relative loudness. Figure 4.8-2 illustrates common noise levels associated with various sources. Effects of Noise on People The perceived loudness of sounds is dependent upon many factors, including sound pressure level and frequency content. However, within the usual range of environmental noise levels, perception of loudness is relatively predictable, and can be approximated by weighing the frequency response of a sound level meter by means of the standardized A -weighing network. There is a strong correlation between A -weighted sound levels (expressed as dBA) and community response to noise. For this reason, the A -weighted sound level has become the standard tool of environmental noise assessment. All noise levels reported in this section are in terms of A -weighted levels in decibels. Community noise is commonly described in terms of the "ambient" noise level, which is defined as the all-encompassing noise level associated with a given noise environment. A common statistical tool to measure the ambient noise level is the average, or equivalent, sound level (Leq) over a given time period (usually one hour). The Leq is the foundation of the Day -Night Average Level noise descriptor, Ldn, and shows very good correlation with community response to noise. `k�1:� n V ME FEB 2 8 2001 BUTTE COWTY PLANNING DIVISION - OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA M&T Chico Ranch Project Draft EIR 4.8-1 Pagel _ Figure 4.8-1 ,. M&T Chico Ranch Project Site, Noise Measurement Locations, and Nearest Residences f. 0 A: Noise Measureme 4 : Nearest Residence (Approximate Loca MWO 4.8-2 S ale House & Office Asphalt Plant Concrete Plant Aggregate Stockpiles Aggregate Crushing & Screening Equipment S$ttling Ponds Topsoil Stockpile Area M ning Areas (Shaded) M&T Chico Ranch Project Draft EIR. Page 2 0 Figure 4.8-2 Typical A -Weighted Sound Levels of Common Noise Sources Loudness Ratio Level A -Weighted Sound Level (dBA) 128 130 Threshold of pain 64 120Jet aircraft take -off at 100 feet 32 110 1 Riveting machine at operators position 16 8 4 2 1 1/2 1/4 1/8 1/16 100Shot-gun at 200 feet 90IM. Bulldozer at 50 feet 80 Diesel locomotive at 300 feet 70Commercial jet aircraft interior during flight 60r¢yn�} Normal conversation speech at 5-10 feet 50 Open office background level 40 Background level within a residence 30 soft whisper at 2 feet 20 Interior of recording studio M&T Chico Ranch Project Draft EIR 4.8-3 Page 3 { The Day -night Average Level (Ldn) is based upon the average noise level over a 24-hour day, with a+10 decibel weighing applied to noise occurring during nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) hours. r The nighttime penalty is based upon the assumption that people ieact to nighttime noise exposures as though they were twice as loud as daytime exposures. Because Ldn represents a 24-hour average, it tends to disguise short-term variations in the noise environment. Ldn-based noise standards are . commonly used to assess noise impacts associated with traffic, railroad and aircraft noise sources. The Butte County noise standards, which are discussed in detail later in this section, are expressed in terms'of the Ldn descriptor. The 24-hour average level described by Ldn does not generally provide good correlation with public reaction to noise sources which are of a short-term nature, including certain noise sources at the proposed project site. For example, if mining activities occur for a 9 -hour shift between the hours of 7 am and 5 pm between November and April as proposed, and the sound is averaged over a 24-hour period, the averaged noise level would be considerably lower than the actual noise levels heard by local residents. Although there are shortcomings associated with applying the County's Ldn-based noise standards to this project, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) also requires that noise impacts be assessed relative to ambient noise levels which are present without the project. As a result, ambient noise surveys were conducted as part of this analysis, and comparisons of project to no - project noise levels were used to assess noise impacts (in addition to comparison to Butte County Ldn-Based noise standards). Specifically, individual maximum (Lmax) noise levels and hourly average (Leq) noise levels, both with and without the project, were compared so that the assessment of noise impacts was not based solely on an assessment of project -generated noise in terms of 24- hour averages (Ldn), but also on short-term fluctuations in the ambient noise environment. It should be noted that audibility is not a test of significance according to CEQA. If this were the case, any project which added any audible amount of noise to the environment would be considered _ unacceptable according to CEQA. Because every physical process creates noise, whether it's the addition of a single vehicle on a roadway, or a tractor in an agricultural field, the use of audibility as a significance criteria would be unworkable. CEQA requires a significant increase in noise levels before noise impacts must be identified, not simply an audible change. The discussion of what constitutes a significant change is discussed in the Regulatory Setting section of this report. M&T Chico Ranch Project Draft EIR 4.8-4 Page 4 4.8.3 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Description of Project Area The proposed 235 -acre project site is a portion of the M&T Chico Ranch, approximately 1.5 miles east of the Sacramento River in the northern portion of the Sacramento River Valley, in western Butte County. The site is south of Chico River Road, east of River Road, and north of Ord Ferry } Road, as shown on Figure 4.8-2. Access to the site is via an access road across the M&T Chico Ranch from River Road. The site topography is rolling, unleveled agricultural land dissected by stream channels and swales. -Little Chico Creek, an intermittent stream originating in the foothills to the east of the City of Chico, is the primary drainage feature on the site, and flows along the northern edge of the proposed mine site, and along the western edge of the proposed plant site. The site elevation ranges from 120 feet above mean sea level (msl) on the northern end of the property, to 115 feet .above msl on the southern end. Land uses in the immediate vicinity of the project site consist of primarily of row -crop and orchard. - related agricultural uses. Agricultural uses are not considered to' be noise -sensitive. The nearest noise -sensitive uses to the project site consist of three residential clusters (single or multiple houses), constructed on agricultural land to the west of the project site. The approximate locations of those noise -sensitive areas are identified on Figure 4.8-1. Photographs of those three residences are shown in Figure 4.8-3. Description of Existing Ambient Noise Environment The existing ambient noise environment in the immediate project vicinity is defined primarily by intermittent traffic on Ord Ferry Road, River Road, and local agricultural activities. To quantify the existing ambient noise environment in the project vicinity, continuous noise level measurements were conducted at three locations along the project site boundaries from September 2-5, 2000. This measurement period represents one complete weekend period and complete two complete weekday periods. The noise measurement sites are identified Figure 4.8-1. Weather conditions present during the monitoring program were typical for the season, consisting of mild temperatures, partly cloudy skies, variable relative humidity and winds. - Larson Davis Laboratories (LDL) Model 820 precision integrating sound level meters were used for the noise level measurement survey. The meters were calibrated before and after use with an LDL Model CAL200 acoustical calibrator to ensure the accuracy of the measurements. The equipment used meets all pertinent specifications of the American National Standards Institute. M&T Chico Ranch Project Draft EIR 4.8-5 Page 5 Figure 4.8-3 Photographs of Nearest Existing Residences to the M&T Chico Ranch Project Site Residence B: This residence is part of a couple residences at this location which are the next closest to the project site. They are located between the project site and River Road, at the approximate location shown on Figure 4.8-1. These residences are located approximately 1,500 feet from the nearest proposed mining site, and approximately 8,000 feet south of the proposed processing area. There are intervening orchards between these residences and the project site. Residence A: This is the closest residence to the project site. According to a comment received by this resident on the previous. DEIR, this is one of two residences at this location, with the second residence nearby but further south. This residence is located immediately adjacent to the M&T project site, as indicated on Figure 4.8-1. There are no intervening orchards between this receiver and the project site. Residence C: This residence is part of a complex of farm -related buildings at this location which are the farthest of the three nearest residences to the project site. It is located on the west side of River Road, at the approximate location shown on Figure 4.8-1. This residence is located approximately 3,000 feet from the nearest proposed mining site, and approximately 8,000 feet south of the proposed processing area. There are intervening orchards between this residence and the project site. M&T Chico Ranch Project Draft EIR 4.8-6 Page 6 Local residents expressed concerns that the ambient noise survey would overstate existing (pre - project) levels since it was conducted during harvesting season, and since they believe the area is very quiet during non -harvesting times of the year. This is a valid concern, and care was taken to attempt to quantify general ambient conditions both with and without harvesting activities. This was accomplished.by conducted the measurements over weekend and weekday periods, by locating one of the meters (site 1) away from orchards, and by conducting visual observations of activities during portions of the ambient survey. Bollard & Brennan, Inc.. staff conducted observations of local activity during both set-up and removal of the meters, as well as during one period a few weeks prior to the ambient survey and one period a few weeks after the survey. During some of those observations, harvesting activities were audible (but faint) in the area, while during others, no harvesting noise was audible. In general, harvesting operations were observed to consist of a relatively small group of people moving from tree to tree with assorted types of harvesting equipment. The noise generation was therefore very localized near the tree being harvested. Although harvesting activities were observed to be occurring at locations along Ord Ferry Road and River Road, those activities were not audible near proposed process equipment area during one of the site observations. The numerical summaries of the ambient noise level measurements are provided in Table 4.8-1. The Table 4.8-1 data include daytime and nighttime, average and maximum noise levels, as well as the Ldn values computed from the hourly average noise levels. Graphical depictions of the ambient noise environments at the measurement sites for the Sunday and Monday periods monitored are shown in Figures 4.8-4 through 4.8-6. M&T Chico Ranch Project Draft EIR 4.8-7 Page 7 The Table 4.8-1 data indicate that the existing ambient noise environment at the perimeter of the project site during the survey period consisted of fairly low noise levels. The measured levels are fairly consistent with what would be expected of rural, agricultural areas which are removed from major roadways, and which are not significantly affected by local agricultural activities. Due to the proximity of the three nearest residences to River Road, ambient noise levels at those locations would be expected to be somewhat higher than those reported in Table 4.8-1. Despite the harvesting activities present at various locations during the survey, the measured average daytime noise levels generally ranged from 38 to 50 dB Leq. An exception to this finding was on Tuesday, September '5, at Site 1. During the 8 and 9 a.m. hours of that day, average noise levels of 83 and 75 dB were measures at that location, with maximum levels of 105 to 109 dB. These data are anomalous, and would require a very loud noise source near the microphone. A possible explanation for the elevated levels, since there was no harvesting near Site 1, would be the discharge of a firearm in the immediate vicinity of the noise -meter. Aside from those two hours, average daytime noise levels at that location were consistent with the data reported for the other days. ' The Table 4.8-1 data also indicate that there was no appreciable difference between ambient noise conditions between the weekend and weekday periods. , 4.8-8 M&T Chico Ranch Project Draft EIR Page 8 Table 4.8-1 Ambient Noise Measurement Survey Summaries M&T Chico Ranch Project Site Vicinity - September, 2000 _ Daytime ( 7 a.m. to 10 p.m.) Nighttime (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) Site Date Average (Leg) Maximum (Lmax) Average (Leg) Maximum (Lmax) Computed Ldn 1 Saturday 9-2-00 50 53-82 46 51-68 54 Sunday 9-3-00 45 54-72 44 54-66 51 Monday 9-4-00, 46 57-74 46 49-61 52 Tuesday 9-5-00 72 54-109 47 54-72 70 Mean: 472 - 46 2 Saturday 9-2-00 42 47-70 39 44-64 46 Sunday 9-3-00 50 48-80 38 48-62 50 Monday 9-4-00 •46 55-80 40 41-60 48 Tuesday 9-5-00 44 53-73 44 55-63 51 Mean: 46 40 • 3 Saturday 9-2-00 40 46-67 37 42-54 44 Sunday 9-3-00 38 42-62 34 39-58 41 Monday 9-4-00 44 45-81 38 43-71 46 Tuesday 9-5-00 40 48-64 .36 39-60 43 Mean: 41 36 Source: Bollard & Brennan, Inc. Noise measurement locations are identified on Figure 4.8-1. Averages shown are the logarithmic mean for the period. Maximum levels shown are the range of maximum levels measured during each hour of the day or nighttime period. a - The average level of 72 dB was excluded from the mean computation since this number is anomalous. The Table 4.8-1 data indicate that the existing ambient noise environment at the perimeter of the project site during the survey period consisted of fairly low noise levels. The measured levels are fairly consistent with what would be expected of rural, agricultural areas which are removed from major roadways, and which are not significantly affected by local agricultural activities. Due to the proximity of the three nearest residences to River Road, ambient noise levels at those locations would be expected to be somewhat higher than those reported in Table 4.8-1. Despite the harvesting activities present at various locations during the survey, the measured average daytime noise levels generally ranged from 38 to 50 dB Leq. An exception to this finding was on Tuesday, September '5, at Site 1. During the 8 and 9 a.m. hours of that day, average noise levels of 83 and 75 dB were measures at that location, with maximum levels of 105 to 109 dB. These data are anomalous, and would require a very loud noise source near the microphone. A possible explanation for the elevated levels, since there was no harvesting near Site 1, would be the discharge of a firearm in the immediate vicinity of the noise -meter. Aside from those two hours, average daytime noise levels at that location were consistent with the data reported for the other days. ' The Table 4.8-1 data also indicate that there was no appreciable difference between ambient noise conditions between the weekend and weekday periods. , 4.8-8 M&T Chico Ranch Project Draft EIR Page 8 Figure 4.8-3 Measured Ambient Noise Levels 'M&T Chico Ranch - Site 1 Sunday, September 3, 2000 90 Sound Level, dBA 80 ------------------------------------------ 70 ------------------------------------------ 60 ------ ------- - -- - ---- - --- 50 - -------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- ----- 40 --- ------- ---------- -- ---------- 30 ---------- -------------------------------------- 20 -------- * ---------------------------------------- 10 ----------------------------------------------- 0 Midnight 4 a 8 a 12 noon 4 pm Hour of Day 1 -*-Average (Le q) -A,-Maximum =Lmax Measured Ambient Noise Levels M&T Chico Ranch - Site 1 Monday, September 4, 2000 9.0 Sound Level, dBA 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 n 8 Pm 11 Pm Midnight 4 am 8 a 12 noon 4 pm .8 pm 11 Pm Hour of Day 1 -0 -Average (Leg) -A-Maximum =Lmax M&T Chico Ranch Project 4.8-9 Draft EIR Page 9 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Figure 4.8-4 Measured Ambient Noise Levels M&T Chico Ranch - Site 2 Sunday, September 3, 2000 bouno Levei, abA ----------------------- -------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - Midnight 4 am 8 am 12 noon 4 pm Hour of Day I• -Average Le }Maximum Lmax .Measured Ambient Noise Levels M&T Chico Ranch - Site 2 Monday, September 4, 2000 90 Sound Level, dBA 80 ---------------------------------------- ------ 70 -------------------- ---- ------ --- ----- 60 --------------- -- ---- ------- ---------- 50 ----- ---------------------------- - ----- 40 ----------- ----- ---- ---------------- 30 --------------------------------------- ------- 20 ------------------------------------------------ 10 ----------------------------------------------- 8 pm 11 pm 0 Midnight" 4 am 8 am 12 noon 4 pm 8 pm 11 pm Hour of Day -*-Average Le }Maximum Lmax M&T Chico Ranch Project Draft EIR 4.8-10 Page 10 90 Sound Level, dBA 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Midnight 4 am Figure 4.8-5 Measured Ambient Noise Levels M&T Chico Ranch - Site 3 Sunday, September 3, 2000 Sound Level, dBA 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Midnight 4 am 8 am 12 noon 4 pm 8 pm 11 pm Hour of Day -*-Average Le } maxim umLmax Measured Ambient Noise Levels M&T Chico Ranch - Site 3 Monday, September 4, 2000 8 am 12 noon 4 pm 8 pm 11 pm Hour of Day -*-Average Le -*'Maximum Lmax M&T Chico Ranch Project Draft EIR 4.8-11 Page 11 4.8-4 REGULATORY SETTING Local Jurisdictional Guidelines: In California, cities and counties are required to adopt a noise element as part of their general plan. Cities and counties can also adopt noise control requirements within" their zoning, ordinances or as a separate noise ordinance. The project is located in Butte County, which has no noise ordinance. The Butte County General Plan Noise Element is the only source for noise policy in the unincorporated areas of the County. ' Butte County General Plan Noise Element . The Butte County. General Plan Noise Element was adopted in January 1977. The primary objective of the noise element is to prescribe policies that lead to the preservation and enhancement of the quality of life for the residents of Butte County by securing and maintaining an environment free from hazardous and annoying noise.. Secondary objectives of the noise element are to: ► Provide information concerning the community noise environment to make noise a -consideration in the ongoing planning process and the development of ordinances relating thereto; ► Abate and control excessive noise; ► Avoid a mix of incompatible noise -generating and noise -sensitive activities; ► Protect areas of the community that have "acceptable" or "sensitive" noise environments; and ► Provide indoor noise environments that allow undisturbed conversation, sleep, study, work, relaxation, and privacy. For residential uses, the noise element identifies a maximum acceptable outdoor community noise level, of 60 dB(A) Ldn to provide a suitable noise environment inside buildings. This is consistent. with State of California standards recommended for transportation noise sources. , Non -Transportation Noise Criteria . The noise standards contained in the Butte County General Plan do not differentiate between transportation and non -transportation noise sources. Therefore, there are no standards specifically developed for aggregate. mining and processing operations..The only noise standard cited in the County Noise Element which is applicable to residential uses is a 60 dB(A) Ldn standard described above. Because it is not specif ed, it is inferred that this standard applies to -residential uses affected by all types of noise sources.,In addition, the County Noise Element does not provide. direction for assessing noise impacts at residences constructed on agriculturally -designated land uses affected by industrial noise sources. M&T Chico Ranch Project Draft EIR 4.8-12 . Page 12 As stated previously, the Ldn standard is defined as the energy average of all noise received at a given location over a 24-hour period, with noise occurring during the nighttime hours (10 a.m. to 7 p.m.) increased by 10 dB prior to averaging. For example, the Ldn of a noise source generating 60 dB continuously during daytime hours and 50 dB continuously during nighttime hours would compute to 60 dB due to the 10 dB penalty for nighttime hours. In another and more specific example, if the mining project in question generates an average noise level of 60 dB at the nearest residence during mining activities, and if those mining activities occur only between the hours of 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. (daytime hours), the predicted Ldn at the nearest residence would be 58 dB. Ina literal interpretation of the Butte County Noise Element, this example would be in compliance with the 60 dB(A) Ldn standard at the nearest residence. This example illustrates that noise levels defined by Ldn are based on a 24-hour average even if the noise source in question does not operate continuously over the 24-hour period. For this reason, many jurisdictions prefer hourly noise level standards for industrial noise sources, as they prohibit industries which generates high noise levels for short periods of time from being in compliance by averaging those noise levels over a 24-hour period. Although the County has no such hourly standards, short-term noise level increases are covered in the following section which pertains to CEQA compliance. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Standards Criteria for determining the significance of noise impacts were developed based on information contained in the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines (State CEQA Guidelines). According to those guidelines, a project may.have a significant effect on the environment if it will satisfy the following conditions: s - a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. b. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. C. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. It is generally recognized that an increase of at least 3 dB is usually required before most people will perceive a change in noise levels, and an increase of 5 dB is required before the change will be clearly noticeable. A common practice is to assume that a clearly noticeable increase of 5 dB is required for a finding of significance. In the Environmental Setting portion of this Section, the ambient noise environment was quantified as being relatively quiet, despite the fact that the measurements were conducted during harvesting season. Specifically, average daytime noise levels at the nearest residence to the project site (res. #A on Figure 4.8-3), were found to be approximately 45 dB Leq, with nighttime averages approximately 6 dB lower, or 40 dB Leq. M&T Chico Ranch Project Draft EIR 4.8-13 Page 13 Based on the measured ambient noise levels at the nearest potentially affected residence, and the assumption that a 5 dB increase would represent a clearly noticeable (and therefore significant) increase, average daytime and nighttime noise level standards of 50 dB Leq and 45 dB Leq, respectively, appear to be appropriate for the assessment of noise impacts for this project at the nearby residences. These standards are considerably more restrictive the County's 65 dB Ldn standard. Therefore, compliance with these standards would ensure compliance with the County's noise standards. With respect to maximum noise levels, Figure 4.8-4 shows that daytime maximum noise levels at the nearest residence to the project site were generally in the vicinity of 60-70 dB, so it appears that a 70 dB maximum noise level standard would be appropriate for the assessment of noise impacts for this project. The use of 50 dB Leq'as an average hourly daytime noise level standard represents a 10 dB reduction relative to the daytime standard which was used in the previous version of the DEIR. In addition, the 45 dB Leq nighttime noise level standard recommended in this analysis represents a 5 dB reduction over that which was used in the previous version of the DEIR. M&T Chico Ranch Project Draft EIR 4.8-14 Page 14 4.8.4 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Standards of Significance for the Proposed Project For this project, noise impacts are considered significant if project -generated noise exceeds the 60 dB Ldn Butte County Noise Element standard for off-site truck traffic, or if on-site noise sources generated average and maximum noise levels exceeding 50 dB Leq and 70 dB Lmax, respectively, during daytime hours. During nighttime hours, the hourly average and maximum noise level standards of significance cited above are reduced by 5 dB. Methodology for Assessing Noise Generated by the On -Site Equipment Project Description: The project applicant proposes to operate a rock quarry. Also proposed is the construction and operation of a crushing and screening operation. A concrete batch plant and an asphalt batch plant are considered optional components of this project. The locations of all proposed activities are shown on Figure 4.8-1. Mining may affect up to :193 acres of the site, depending on geologic factors encountered during. excavation, and the processing area will encompass approximately 40 acres. An additional 2 acres will be used to temporarily stockpile topsoil for use in reclamation. Areas that are not mined or used for the processing facilities, will continue to be used for farming, enhanced wildlife habitat, or as mitigation for wildlife habitat disturbances (as may be required by regulatory agencies). Construction ofthe aggregate processing facility and the conveyors would take place during the first year of operation. Mining activities would begin in the north end of the project site and proceed south for both scenarios (with or without batch plants on-site). If necessary, a second area in another location of the mining area may be opened to mining to allow blending of materials to achieve required aggregate specifications. Approximately 6 acres per year would be added to the area of active mining. The maximum area of active mining at any one time would be approximately 20 acres. If the proposed project includes asphaltic concrete and/or ready-mix'concrete plants, they will be constructed, and begin operation, approximately 3 years after mining activities begin. The plants would remain at the processing area as shown on Figure 4.8-1. throughout the approximate 20 to 30 -year life of the project. Reclamation would take place on an annual basis following the initial construction period. Project -Related Noise Sources: The major noise sources identified for this project are the aggregate mining activities, aggregate crushing and screening activities (including truck load -out), the optional asphalt and concrete plants, and off-site traffic. The noise emissions of these various noise sources were obtained from Bollard & Brennan file data for similar sources and from published acoustical literature. M&T Chico Ranch Project Draft EIR 4.8-15 Page 15 Table 4.8-2 shows the types of equipment proposed for use at the M&T Chico Ranch site and the reference maximum noise levels corresponding to the operation of that equipment. These noise levels were obtained from Bollard & Brennan noise level measurements conducted at the Baldwin Construction Stoney Creek and Hallwood facilities; from file data for similar noise sources and from the Dry Creek Surface Mine Project EIR (SC#94112033,12/95), theKaweah River Rock Company's Surface Mining Permit Project EIR (SC#89032709 4/98), and from the Kaweah River Basin Investigation Feasibility Study DEIR (6/96). Table 4.8-2 Major Noise -Producing Equipment and Associated Noise Levels M&T Chico Ranch Project - Butte County Approximate Noise Level, Dba @ 100 ft. Reference Dist. Equipment Type Maximum (Lmax) Average (Leg) Excavating Equipment: - Manitowoc 4600 Drag Line 85 75 - Cat. 988 Front Loader 75 65 - Cat. 345 Excavator 80 70 - Cat. 375 Excavator 85 75 Crushing/Screening Plant 85 80 Asphalt Plant 85 80 Concrete Plant 85 80 Notes: Average noise levels represent any one-hour period and assume continuous operation of the excavation and plant operations. Distances from the noise producing equipment shown in Table 4.8-2 to the nearest existing residence vary for each major component of the project. Table 4.8-3 shows the distances from the proposed noise -producing activities to the nearest residence and the noise levels predicted at the nearest residence resulting from those activities. Table 4.8-3 is based on a sound decay rate of 6 dB per doubling of distance from the noise source, and an additional attenuation of 1.5 dB per 1000 feet for molecular absorption of sound and anomalous excess attenuation. M&T Chico Ranch Project Draft EIR 4.8-16 Page 16 Table 4.8-3 Distances from Project -Related Activities to Nearest Residence and Predicted Noise Levels M&T Chico Ranch Project: Butte County Predicted Attenuation, dB' Resulting Noise Levels Source(s)' Distance (ft)' Distance Atmospheric Lmax Leg Ldn' Excavation Equipment: - Manitowoc Drag Line 300 -10 0 75 65 61 -Cat. 988 Loader 300 -10 0 65 55 51 - Cat 375 Excavator 300 -10 0 75 65 61 - Cat 345 Excavator 300 -10 0 70 60 56 Crushing/Screening Plant 1,800 -25 -2 58 53 49 Asphalt Plant 2,200 -27 -2 56 51 47 Concrete Plant 2,300 -27 -2 55 50 46 .. YW+7: "'P"' YZ X60 .. .' '. CornbmedProcessing, Asphalt &.Concrete Plants6 > . 56 Notes: 1. Figure 4.8-1 shows locations of the major noise sources associated with this project. 2. These distances shown are approximated in feet from the nearest residence to the general locations of the major noise sources. 3. Noise level predictions are based on the reference hourly noise levels shown in Table 4.8-2 for the reference distances shown. 4. A 6 d13 attenuation rate per each doubling of distance from the reference distance was used to project sound levels from source to receiver. In addition, an attenuation rate of 1.5 dI3 per 1000 feet for atmospheric and excess anomalous attenuation was used to project sound levels from source to receiver. 5. These levels represent the maximum and average hourly noise levels predicted at the nearest residential location during normal activities proposed at the project site. 6. The combined levels represent the energy summation of noise from the processing, asphalt and concrete plants operating concurrently. 7. Ldn values were computed based on the assumption that the project equipment could be in continuous operation between the hours of 7 a.m. and 5 p.m. as proposed. Methodology for Assessing Off -Site Truck Traffic Noise Levels To assess project -related traffic noise impacts, traffic noise levels are predicted at a representative distance of 10 feet from the centerlines of the local roadway network which would be utilized for this prof ect. Noise impacts are identified at existing noise -sensitive areas if the noise level increases which result from the project exceed the significance thresholds described previously in this section. Traffic Noise Prediction Model To describe existing and projected noise levels due to traffic, the Federal Highway Administration Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA RD -77-108) was used. The model is based upon the Calveno reference noise factors for automobiles, medium trucks and heavy trucks, with consideration given to vehicle volume, speed, roadway configuration, distance to the receiver, and the acoustical characteristics of the site. The FHWA model was developed to predict hourly Leq values for free-flowing traffic conditions. To predict traffic noise levels in terms of Ldn, it is necessary to adjust the input volume to account for the day/night distribution of traffic. M&T Chico Ranch Project Draft EIR 4.8-17 Page 17 FHWA Traffic Noise Prediction Model Inputs Traffic volumes for future conditions and scenarios are contained in the Transportation Section of this EIR. A listing of the FHWA Model input data for future conditions is provided in Appendix B. FHWA Traffic Noise Prediction Model Results Table 4.8-4 shows the predicted traffic noise levels for the project. This Table is provided in terms of Ldn at a distance of 200 feet from the centerline of Highway 89, which is the approximate distance from the roadway centerline to the nearest existing residences. Methodology for Assessing Construction Noise Impacts During the construction phases of the project, noise from construction activities would add to the noise environment in the immediate project vicinity. Activities involved in construction would generate maximum noise levels ranging from 85 to 90 dB at a distance of 100 feet. Construction } activities would be temporary in nature and are anticipated to occur during normal daytime working hours. L i Noise would also be generated during the construction phase by increased truck traffic on area roadways. A significant project -generated noise source would be truck traffic associated -with ; transport of heavy materials and equipment, to and from the construction site. This noise increase '., would be of short duration, and would•likely occur primarily during daytime hours. ' - M 1 _ M&T Chico Ranch Project Draft EIR . 4.8-18 Page 18 t Source: FHWA RD -77-108 with inputs from the traffic section, Bollard & Brennan and Caltrans. 4.8-19 y Table 4.&4 Predicted Traffic Noise Levels Along Area Roadway Network M&T Chico Ranch Project: Butte County • Predicted Ldn at 100 feet from Centerline Existing Conditions Future (Cumulative) Conditions Roadway Segment No Project Project Increase Vs. Project+ Increase Vs. No Project Project Increase Vs. Project+ Increase Vs. No Project Batch Plants No Project No Project Batch Plants No Project Ord Ferry Road Hwy. 45 to River Road 62 62 0 62 0 61 62 0 62 0 Ord Ferry Road River Rd. to Dayton Rd. 62 62 1 62 1 62 - 63 1. 63 0 Durham Dayton Dayton Rd. to Midway 59 60 0 60 0 64 64 0 64 0 Durham Dayton Midway to Hwy. 99 60 61 0 61 0 65 65 0 65 0 " River Road Ord Ferry Rd. to Site Access 57 59 2 59 2 58 59 2 59 1 River Road Site Access to Chico River Rd. 58 59 2 60 2 58 59 2 60 2 ' River Road Chico River Rd. to Site Access 54 54 0 54 0 51 51 0 51 0 j River Road Site Access to Hwy. 32 52 52 0 52 0 47 47 0 47 0 - Chico River Road River Rd. to Site Access 59 61 1 61 1 64 65 0 65 .1 Chico River Road Site Access to Hwy. 32 61 62 1 62 1 64 64 0 '64 1 Dayton Road Old Ferry Rd. to Hegan Ln. 63 63 0 63 0 63 64 1 63 0 Damon Road Hegan Ln. to RR tracks 64 64 0 64 0 64 64 0 64 0 Henan Lane Dayton Rd. to Midway 63 63 0 63 0 63 63 0 63 0 Midway. Skyway to Hwy. 32 66 67 0 67 0 70 70 0 70 0 Skyway East of Bruce Rd. 67 67 0- 67 0 69 69 0 69 0 " S", way Hwy. 99 to Midway 69 70 0 69 0 71 . 71 0 71 0 11-- P—A 14 i? to Ckvwnv 64 6,d n - 64 n 1;9 ho n Ao n Source: FHWA RD -77-108 with inputs from the traffic section, Bollard & Brennan and Caltrans. 4.8-19 y SPECIFIC PROJECT IMPACTS AND NOISE MITIGATION MEASURES Impact 4.8-1: Excavation Noise Table 4.8-5 indicates that maximum noise levels generated by excavation equipment at the M&T Chico Ranch project site will vary from 55 to 65 dB Leq at the nearest residence to the mining site (Residence A on Figure 4.8-1), depending on the type of excavation equipment which is used at the mine site. These levels exceed the 50 dB Leq standard of significance which is recommend for the project. In addition, the predicted maximum levels of 75 dB for the Manitowoc dragline and Cat 375 excavator would also exceed the 76 dB maximum standard of significance at the nearest residence. Finally, the front -loader which will be used to load the conveyor system is also predicted to generate average noise levels in excess of 50 dB Leq when operating at a distance of approximately 300 feet from the nearest residence. The other nearest residences to the project site (Residences B and C on Figure 4.8-1), are located considerably farther away from the proposed mining and processing areas than is residence A. In addition to the additional distance, intervening orchards will result in additional noise attenuation at those residences. As a result, excavation -related noise levels are not predicted to exceed the recommended project standards of significance at those locations, or at residences located even further away from the project site. This analysis concludes that project -related excavation noise will not result in exceedance of the noise standards contained in the Butte County General Plan at any existing noise -sensitive uses in the project vicinity. In addition, with the exception of the single residence identified as "Residence A" on Figure 4.8-1, excavation -related noise is not predicted to substantially exceed existing ambient noise levels at existing residences located in the project vicinity. Nonetheless, because excavation - related activities are predicted to result in an increase in ambient noise levels of over 5 dB, which is considered a substantial increase, a significant noise impact is identified at Residence "A", which is identified on Figure 4.8-1. Mitigation For Impact 4.8-1: The following noise mitigation measures should be considered individually, or collectively, to .reduce excavation -related noise levels to a state of compliance with the project standards of significance; specifically 50 dB Leq and 70 dB Lmax at the nearest residence. The applicant should demonstrate through noise level measurements that 'these measures have been successfully implemented prior to commencement of mining activities within 1,000 feet of the nearest residence. MM 4.8-1(a) Earthen Berm Construction: The applicant could construct an earthen berm between the excavation equipment and the nearest residence. Once such a berm intercepts line of sight from the noise source to the receiver, it can be expected to reduce the noise from the shielded equipment by 5 dB. An additional noise reduction of about 1 dB for each additional foot of berm height can be expected. Due to the elevated height of the noise sources (engines) on the excavation equipment, the noise attenuation which could likely be achieved from this measure is predicted to be 5-10 dB. Depending on the equipment used in the excavation, and the distance from that M&T Chico Ranch Project Draft ElR A-20 Page 20 equipment to the nearest residence, this degree of attenuation may not be sufficient to reduce excavation noise to a level of compliance with the recommended project standards of significance. Therefore, it is likely this measure would"be required in conjunction with other measures which follow. MM 4.8-1(b) Selection of Quietest Excavation Equipment: Table 4.8-2 shows that the Caterpillar Model 345 excavator is quieter than the Caterpillar Model 375 excavator and the Manitowoc Model 4600 drag line. Operating constraints and production demands may not make the choice as simple as selecting the Cat 345 over the other models, but the quietest. equipment available which would meet the required operating parameters should be considered. for use at the M&T site. MM 4.8-1(c) Retrofitting of Excavation Equipment with Quieter Mufflers and Cooling Air Louvers: The most significant noise sources associated with excavation equipment is the .engine cooling system and exhaust. A substantial reduction in the noise emissions shown in Table 4.8 could, theoretically, be achieved through. retrofitting of engine exhaust systems with quieter mufflers, and by replacement of the metal air inlet and outlet vents with acoustic louvers. The precise degree of attenuation which can be achieved from these measures is not known at this time, as additional research and development would be required to ensure that such measures do not adversely affect the longevity, performance, or safety of the equipment. MM 4.8-1(d) Creation of Additional Setbacks from Mining Areas: As a general rule, sound decreases at a rate of about 6 dB per doubling of distance from the noise source for a noise source which generally operates from a fixed location, such as an excavator or drag line. For example, if the mining setback from the nearest residence were increased from 300 feet to 600 feet, excavation -related noise levels would be approximately 6 db lower. thanthose shown in Table 4.8-3. When used in conjunction with the aforementioned mitigation measures, the amount of additional setbacks required to satisfy the recommended project standards of significance could be minimized. The specific setback distances which would be required for this project will depend on the effectiveness of the aforementioned measures in reducing the excavation -related noise levels at the nearest residence. MM 4.8-1(e) Procurement of Noise Easement from the Nearest Resident: As an alternative to an engineering -related noise mitigation measure, the applicant may with to negotiate a noise easement with the nearest neighbor which would allow the creation of noise levels in excess of the project standards of significance at that location. This approach has been utilized by airports which compensate impacted residences through improvements in the sound isolation of the residential structure. M&T. Chico Ranch Project Draft EIR A-21 Page 21 Impact 4.8-2: Screening / Crushing Noise � Table 4.8-3 indicates that maximum and aveiiage noise levels generated by the crushing and screening plant equipment at the M&T Chico Ranch project site will be approximately 58 dB Lmax and 53 dB Leq at the nearest residence to that equipment, located approximately 1,800 feet away. While the maximum noise level would satisfy the 70 dB Lmax standard, the average noise level would be approximately 3 dB over the recommended 50 dB Leq threshold. Therefore, this impact is considered significant. 4 Mitigation For Impact 4.8-2: The following noise mitigation measures should be. considered individually, or collectively, to reduce, processing -related noise levels to a state of compliance with the project standards of significance; specifically 50 dB Leq and 70 dB Lmax at the nearest residence. The applicant should demonstrate through noise level measurements that these measures have been successfully implemented following the establishment of normal aggregate crushing and screening operations at the project site. MM 4.8-2(a) Shielding by Aggregate Stockpiles: Figure 4.8-1 shows that the proposed aggregate stockpile location is north of the proposed processing equipment. As a result, those stockpiles would provide shielding of the optional asphalt and concrete plants, but not of the processing equipment; in the direction of the nearest residence to the south. Consideration should be given to locating one or more stockpiles between the noisiest processing equipment (crushers and screens) and that residence to the south. If stockpiles can be erected to intercept line of sight between that equipment and residence, a 5 dB attenuation can be expected. This degree of attenuation would reduce processing equipment noise to a state of compliance with the recommended_ standards of significance. MM 4.8-2(b) Additional Processing Equipment Noise Control Measures: If stockpiles cannot be utilized to achieve compliance with the standards of significance, or if processing equipment noise levels still exceed those standards following construction of stockpiles, additional noise control measures would be required. Specific noise control measures which could be implemented include, but are not limited to, lining hoppers and chutes with heavy urethane sheets, utilizing urethane screen decks (rather than steel), and suspending acoustic curtains around specific equipment which is found to be the source of the noise level. exceedances. Impact 4.8-3: Asphalt and Concrete Plant Noise Table 4.8-3 indicates that maximum and average noise levels generated by the asphalt and concrete plant equipment at the M&T Chico Ranch project site will be approximately 56 dB Lmax and 51 dB Leq at the nearest residence to that equipment, located approximately 2,200 feet away. While the maximum noise level would satisfy the 70 dB Lmax standard, the average noise level could exceed the recommended 50 dB Leq threshold. Therefore, this impact is considered significant. M&T Chico Ranch Project Draft EIR A-22 Page 22 Mitigation For Impact 4.8-3: . The following noise mitigation measures should be considered individually, or collectively, to reduce noise from asphalt and concrete plant operations to a state of compliance with the project standards of significance; specifically 50 dB- Leq and 70 dB Lmax at the nearest residence. The applicant should demonstrate through noise level measurements that these measures have been successfully implemented following the establishment of normal asphalt and concrete production activities at the project site. MM 4.8-3(a) Shielding by Aggregate Stockpiles: Figure 4.8-1 shows that the proposed aggregate stockpile location is between the proposed asphalt and concrete plant equipment and nearest residence. As a result, those stockpiles would provide shielding of these plants in the direction of that nearest residence to the south (Residence "A"). Provided that those stockpiles can be erected to intercept line of sight between those plants and nearest residence, a 5 dB attenuation can be expected. This degree of attenuation would reduce processing equipment noise to a state of compliance with the recommended standards of significance. MM 4.8-3(b) Additional Processing Equipment Noise Control Measures: If stockpiles cannot be utilized to achieve compliance with the standards'of significance, or if asphalt or concrete plant equipment noise levels still exceed those standards following construction of stockpiles, additional noise control measures would be required. A specific noise control measure which could be implemented includes, but is not limited to, suspending. acoustic curtains around specific equipment which is found to be the source of the noise level exceedances. Impact 4.8-4: Off -Site Traffic Noise Table 4.8-4 indicates.that the project -related traffic noise level increase over no -project levels will range from 0 to 2 dB. Because a 3-5 dB increase in traffic noise levels in commonly required to identify noise impacts, this impact is considered less than significant. M&T Chico Ranch Project Draft EIR A-23 Page 23 V:n 2 4.8 NOISE 4.8.1 INTRODUCTION This section describes the noise environment at and near the M&T Chico Ranch (Project) site and analyzes potential noise impacts generated by the proposed project. Figure 4.8-1 shows the general orientation of the project site and proposed on-site uses. 4.8.2 NOISE FUNDAMENTALS AND TERMINOLOGY Background on Noise Noise is often described as unwanted sound. Sound is defined as any pressure variation in air that the human ear can detect. If the pressure variations occur frequently enough (at least 20 times per second), they can be heard and hence are called sound. The number of pressure variations per second is called the frequency of sound, and is expressed as cycles per second, called Hertz (Hz). Measuring sound directly in terms of pressure would require a very large and awkward range of numbers. To avoid this, the decibel scale was devised. The decibel scale uses the hearing threshold (20 micropascals of pressure), as a point of reference, defined as 0 dB. Other sound pressures are then compared to the reference pressure, and the logarithm is taken to keep the numbers is a practical range. The decibel scale allows a million -fold increase in pressure to be expressed as 120 dB. Another useful aspect of the decibel scale is that changes in levels (dB) correspond closely to human perception of relative loudness. Figure 4.8-2 illustrates common noise levels associated with various sources. Effects of Noise on People The perceived loudness of sounds is dependent upon many factors, including sound pressure level and frequency content. However, within the usual range of environmental noise levels, perception. of loudness is relatively predictable, and can be approximated by weighing the frequency response of a sound level meter by means of the standardized A -weighing network. There is a strong correlation between A -weighted sound levels (expressed as dBA) and community response to noise. For this reason, the A -weighted sound level has become the standard tool of environmental noise assessment. All noise levels reported in this section are in terms of A -weighted levels in decibels. Community noise is commonly described in terms of the "ambient" noise level, which is defined as the all-encompassing noise level associated with a given noise environment. A common statistical tool to measure the ambient noise level is the average, or equivalent, sound level (Leq) over a given time period (usually one hour). The Leq is the foundation of the Day -Night Average Level noise descriptor, Ldn, and shows very good correlation with community response to noise. M&T Chico Ranch Project Draft EIR 4.8-1 Page 1 Y. Figure 4.8-1 M&T Chico Ranch Project Site, Noise Me ment Locations, and Nearest Residences — -----------Scale House & Office -------- Asphalt Plant ------ Concrete Plant f , *' -- ---Aggregate Stockpiles C f ------ --- Aggregate Crushing & Screening Equipment 0 2,000 l -------`- -- Settling Ponds #Q : Noise Measurement Sites 2 Q: Nearest Residences i A� ----- --Topsoil Stockpile Area (Approximate Locations) Mining Areas (Shaded) w 4 0 . I MkV - - 4 3 \ l � �ecN Road o<a M&T Chico Ranch Project Draft EIR 4.8-2 Page 2 Figure 4.8-2 Typical A -Weighted Sound Levels of Common Noise Sources Loudness Ratio Level A -Weighted Sound Level (dBA) 128 130 Threshold of pain 64 120 Jet aircraft take -off at 100 feet 32 110 Riveting machine at operators position 16 100 Shot -gun at 200 feet 8 90 Bulldozer at 50 feet 4 80 Diesel locomotive at 300 feet 2 70 Commercial jet aircraft interior during flight 1 60 Normal conversation speech at 5-10 feet 1/2 50 Open office background level 1/4 , 40 Background level within a residence 30 soft whisper at 2 feet 1/16 20 Interior of recording studio M&T Chico Ranch Project Draft EIR 4.8-3 Page 3 ,. The Day -night Average Level (Ldn) is based upon the average noise level over a 24-hour day, with a +10 decibel weighing applied to noise occurring during nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) hours. The nighttime penalty is based upon the assumption that people react to nighttime noise exposures as though they were twice as loud as daytime exposures. Because Ldn represents a 24-hour average, J it tends to disguise short-term variations in the noise environment. Ldn-based noise standards are commonly used to assess noise impacts associated with traffic, railroad and aircraft noise sources. The Butte County noise standards, which are discussed in detail later in this section, are expressed in terms of the Ldn descriptor. The 24-hour average level described by Ldn does not generally provide good correlation with public reaction to noise sources which are of a short-term nature, including certain noise sources at the proposed project site. For example, if mining activities occur for a 9 -hour shift between the hours of 7 am and 5 pm between November and April as proposed, and the sound is averaged over a 24-hour period, the averaged noise level would be considerably lower than the actual noise levels heard by local residents. Although there are shortcomings associated with applying the County's Ldn-based noise standards to this project, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) also requires that noise impacts be assessed relative to ambient noise levels which are present without the project: As a result, ambient noise surveys were conducted as part of this analysis, and comparisons of project to no - project noise levels were used to assess noise impacts (in addition to comparison to Butte County Ldn-Based noise standards). Specifically, individual maximum (Lmax) noise levels and hourly average (Leq) noise levels, both with and without the project, were compared so that the assessment of noise impacts was not based solely on an assessment of project -generated noise in terms of 24- hour averages (Ldn), but also on short-term fluctuations in the ambient noise environment. It should be noted that audibility is not a test of significance according to CEQA. If this were the case, any project which added any audible amount of noise to the environment would be considered unacceptable according to CEQA. Because every physical process creates noise, whether it's the addition of a single vehicle on a roadway, or a tractor in an agricultural field, the use of audibility as a significance criteria would be unworkable. CEQA requires a significant increase in noise levels before noise impacts must be identified, not simply an audible change. The discussion of what constitutes a significant change is discussed in the Regulatory Setting section of this report. M&T Chico Ranch Project Draft EIR 4.8-4 Page 4 4.8.3 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Description of Project Area The proposed 235 -acre project site is a portion of the M&T Chico Ranch, approximately 1.5 miles east of the Sacramento River in the northern portion of the Sacramento River Valley, in western Butte County. The site is south of Chico River Road, east of River Road, and north of Ord Ferry Road, as shown on Figure 4.8-2. Access to the site is via an access road across the M&T Chico Ranch from River Road. The site topography is rolling, unleveled agricultural land dissected by stream channels and swales. Little Chico Creek, an intermittent stream originating in the foothills to the east of the City of Chico, is the primary drainage feature on the site, and flows along the northern edge of the proposed mine site, and along the western edge of the proposed plant site. The site elevation ranges from 120 feet above mean sea level (msl) on the northern end of the property, to 115 feet above msl on the southern end. Land uses in the immediate vicinity of the project site consist of primarily of row -crop and orchard - related agricultural uses. Agricultural uses are not considered to be noise -sensitive. The nearest noise -sensitive uses to the project site consist of three residential clusters (single or multiple houses), constructed on agricultural land to the west of the project site. The approximate locations of those noise -sensitive areas are identified on Figure 4.8-1. Photographs of those three residences are shown in Figure 4.8-3. Description of Existing Ambient Noise Environment The existing ambient noise environment in the immediate project vicinity is defined primarily by intermittent traffic on Ord Ferry Road, River Road, and local agricultural activities., To quantify the existing ambient noise environment in the project vicinity, continuous noise level measurements were conducted at three locations alon the projec si �bou dades from Sentember 2L5,2000. This measurement period represents one complete weekend period and complete two complete weekday periods. The noise measurement sites are identified Figure 4.8-1. Weather conditions present during the monitoring program were typical for the season, consisting of mild temperatures, partly cloudy skies, variable relative humidity and winds. Larson Davis Laboratories (LDL) Model 820 precision integrating sound level meters were used for the noise level measurement survey. The meters were calibrated before and after use with an LDL Model CAL200 acoustical calibrator to ensure the accuracy of the measurements. The equipment used meets all pertinent specifications of the American National Standards Institute. M&T Chico Ranch Project Draft EIR 4.8-5 Page 5 0 M&T Chico Ranch Project Draft EIR 4.8-6 Page 6 Figure 4.8-3 Photographs of Nearest Existing Residences to the M&T Chico Ranch Project Site Residence B: This residence is part of a couple residences at this location which are the next closest to the project site. They are located between the project site and River Road, at the approximate location shown on Figure 4.8-1. These residences are located approximately 1,500 feet from the nearest proposed mining site, and approximately 8,000 feet south of the proposed processing area. There are intervening orchards between these residences and the project site. Residence A: This is the closest residence to the project site. According to a comment received by this resident on the previous DEIR, this is one of two residences at this location, with the second residence nearby but further south. This residence is located immediately adjacent to the M&T project site, as indicated on Figure 4.8-1. There are no intervening orchards between this receiver and the project site. Residence C: This residence is part of a complex of farm -related buildings at this location which are the farthest of the three nearest residences to the project site. It is located on the west side of River Road, at the approximate location shown on Figure 4.8-1. This residence is located approximately 3,000 feet from the nearest proposed mining site, and approximately 8,000 feet south of the proposed processing area. There are intervening orchards between this residence and the project site. M&T Chico Ranch Project Draft EIR 4.8-7 Page 7 i n 0 A I M&T Chico Ranch Project Draft EIR 4.8-8 Page 8 Local residents expressed concerns that the ambient no Survey Waidd e - project) levels since it was conductedduring_ harve ea 's veryquieturingnon-harvesting times of the near. This is a valid concern, and care was taken to attempt to quantify general ambient conditions both with and without harvesting activities. s was accomplished by conducted the measurements over weekend and weekda satin one of the meters(site 1) away from orchards, and by conducting vi Gnat nhservatinm of activities during portions of the ambien survey. Bollard & Brennan, Inc. staff conducted observations of local activity during both set-up and removal of the meters, as well as during one period a few weeks prior to the ambient survey and one period a few weeks after the survey. During some of those observations, harvesting activities were audible (but faint) in the area, while during others, no harvesting noise was audible. In general, harvesting operations were observed to consist of a relatively small group of people moving from tree to tree with assorted types of harvesting equipment. The noise generation was therefore very localized near the tree being harvested. Although harvesting activities were observed to be occurring at locations along Ord Ferry Road and River Road, those activities were not audible near proposed process equipment area during one of the site observations. The numerical summaries of the ambient noise level measurements are provided in Table 4.8-1. The Table 4.8-1 data include daytime and nighttime, average and maximum noise levels, as well as the Ldn values computed from the hourly average noise levels. Graphical depictions of the ambient noise environments at the measurement sites for the Sunday and Monday periods monitored are shown in Figures 4.8-4 through 4.8-6. M&T Chico Ranch Project Draft E[R 4.8-9 Page 9 The Table 4.8-1 data indicate that the existing ambient noise environment at the perimeter of the project site during the survey period consisted of fairly low noise levels. The measured levels are fairly consistent with what would be expected of rural, agricultural areas which are removed from major roadways, and which are not significantly affected by local agricultural activities. Due to the 4)roximity of the three nearest residences to River Road, ambient noise levels at those locations would be expected to be somewhat higher than those reported in Table 4.8-1. Despite the harvesting activities present at various locations during the survey, the measured average ' daytime noise levels generally ranged from 38 to 50 dB Leq. An exception to this finding was on Tuesday, September 5, at Site 1. During the 8 and 9 a.m. hours of that day, average noise levels of 83 and 75 dB were measures at that location, with maximum levels of 105 to 109 dB. These data are anomalous, and would require a very loud noise source near the microphone. A possible � i ex lanation for the elevated levels, since there was e o£a firearm in the immediate vicinity of the noise meter. Aside from those two hours, average daytime noise levels at that location were consistent with the data reported for the other days. W The Table 4.8-1 data also indicate that there was no appreciable difference between ambient noise M&T Chico Ranch Project Draft EIR 4.8-10 Page 10 rte` Table 4.8-1 Ambient Noise Measurement Survey Summaries �*f " A� M&T Chico Ranch Project Site Vicinity - September, 2000 , Daytime ( 7 a.m. to 10 p.m.) Nighttime (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) Site Date Average (Leg) Maximum (Lmax) Average (Leg) Maximum (Lmax) Computed Ldn 1 Saturday 9-2-00 50 2 53-82 46 , 34 . )7 51-68 5 013$ 54 �I6t Y� Sunday 9-3-00 45 54-72 44,3g,3y 54-66 51 ��� • . Monday 9-4-00 46',4614 4 57-74- 46,40,39 49-61 Tuesday 9-5-00 721 qLl i'� 54-109 47 y 9 3 54-72 52,49. it 70� 51 9 3 �(e Mean: X478. 46 2 Saturday 9-2-00 42 47-70 39 44-64 Sunday 9-3-00 50', 48-80 38 48-62 46 50 t 4p l t Monday 9-4-00 46, 55-80 40 41-60 48) Tuesday 9-5-00 X44 . 53-73 44 55-63 51 Mean: j46 , 40 3 Saturday 9-2-00 40 '.' 46-67 37 42-54 44 Sunday 9-3-0038 -' 42-62 34 39-58 41 (' Monday 9-4-00 \4445-81, 38 43-71 46 Tuesday 9-5-00 40 % . 48-64• 36 39-60 43 Mean: 41 36 • Source: Bollard & Brennan, Inc. Noise measurement locations are identified on Figure 4.8-1: Averages shown are the logarithmic mean for the period. ,. Maximum levels shown are the range of maximum levels measured during each hour of the day or nighttime period. a - The average level of 72 dB was excluded from the mean computation since this number is anomalous. The Table 4.8-1 data indicate that the existing ambient noise environment at the perimeter of the project site during the survey period consisted of fairly low noise levels. The measured levels are fairly consistent with what would be expected of rural, agricultural areas which are removed from major roadways, and which are not significantly affected by local agricultural activities. Due to the 4)roximity of the three nearest residences to River Road, ambient noise levels at those locations would be expected to be somewhat higher than those reported in Table 4.8-1. Despite the harvesting activities present at various locations during the survey, the measured average ' daytime noise levels generally ranged from 38 to 50 dB Leq. An exception to this finding was on Tuesday, September 5, at Site 1. During the 8 and 9 a.m. hours of that day, average noise levels of 83 and 75 dB were measures at that location, with maximum levels of 105 to 109 dB. These data are anomalous, and would require a very loud noise source near the microphone. A possible � i ex lanation for the elevated levels, since there was e o£a firearm in the immediate vicinity of the noise meter. Aside from those two hours, average daytime noise levels at that location were consistent with the data reported for the other days. W The Table 4.8-1 data also indicate that there was no appreciable difference between ambient noise M&T Chico Ranch Project Draft EIR 4.8-10 Page 10 conditions between the weekend and weekday periods. Measured Ambient Noise Levels M&TIQhi F4A* - Site 1 Sunday, September 3, 2000 90 Sound Level, dBA 80 ........................... 70 ----------- ---------- -------- 60 50- ------------------------------- 40 - --- -- ---------------- 30 --------- 20 --------- ---------- 10 ------------------------------- 0 Midnight 4 am Sound Level, dBA 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Midnight 4 am 8 am 12 noon 4 pm Hour of Day Average (Leq) *Maximum (Lmax) Measured Ambient Noise Levels M&T Chico Ranch - Site 1 Monday, September 4, 2000 8 pm 11 pm 8 am 12 noon 4 pm Hour of Day Average (Leq) -Maximum (Lmax) 8 pm 11 pm M&T Chico Ranch Project Draft EIR 4.8-11 Page I I { M&T Chico Ranch Project Draft EIR 4.8-12 Page 12 .............................. -- .............................................................. ............ .... ..... ------ ...... ......... 80 ............ --------------------------------- * ---------- ... . ............... ......... .... * --------- ------- -------------------------- 70 .......... 60 =...........................-------- .. .. . ....... .. . .... ............... ... ................ ....... .................. ....--........----- 50 ..............50 ... ... .......... ............. ........ ......................... ----------- ................................................. . ... 40 - --------- ---------------- - ---- -- .. .. .. ............... I ................ .... .................. ........... .... 30 . ........ ........................................................................................ .................... ........................... 20 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10 .............. ..................................................... - ---------------------------- ................................ 0 Midnight 4 am 8 a 12 noon 4 pm 8 pm 11 Pm Hour of Day -(JAverage (Leq) Maxirnum�(Lmax) M&T Chico Ranch Project Draft EIR 4.8-13 Page 13 Figure 4.8-4 Measured Ambient Noise Levels M&T Chico Ranch - Site 2 Sunday, September 3, 2000 Sound Level, dBA 90 80 ........ — ...................... ................ .......................................................................................... 70 ........................................ . ... ..... - --------- - -------------- ------ -- ............... .......... - ----- .......................... 60 -------- - ------------------------- ----------- ----- -------- ------- ------------ ----------- ----- ... . ........................ 50 =... ...... ......... ................ ........... .................................. .. ...... .. . 40 .......... ....................... ... ..... ... ----------- 30 ----------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 20 = --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10 . ................................ ............................... ................................................................................ 0 Midnight 4 am 8 am 12 noon .4 pm 8 pm 11 Pm Hour of Day -(IAverage (Leq) *Maximum (Lmax) Measured Ambient Noise Levels M&T Chico Ranch -'Site 2 'k Monday, September 4, 2000 Sound Level, dBA .............................. -- .............................................................. ............ .... ..... ------ ...... ......... 80 ............ --------------------------------- * ---------- ... . ............... ......... .... * --------- ------- -------------------------- 70 .......... 60 =...........................-------- .. .. . ....... .. . .... ............... ... ................ ....... .................. ....--........----- 50 ..............50 ... ... .......... ............. ........ ......................... ----------- ................................................. . ... 40 - --------- ---------------- - ---- -- .. .. .. ............... I ................ .... .................. ........... .... 30 . ........ ........................................................................................ .................... ........................... 20 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10 .............. ..................................................... - ---------------------------- ................................ 0 Midnight 4 am 8 a 12 noon 4 pm 8 pm 11 Pm Hour of Day -(JAverage (Leq) Maxirnum�(Lmax) M&T Chico Ranch Project Draft EIR 4.8-13 Page 13 M&T Chico Ranch Project Draft EIR 4.8-14 Page 14 Figure 4.8-5 Measured Ambient Noise Levels M&T Chico Ranch - Site 3 Sunday, September 3, 2000 Sound Level, dBA go 80 --------=----------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 70 .......................................................................................................................................................... 60 --------------------- ------------ ------ - ------------------------------------------- - --- ----------------------------------------------------- 50 ------ i� ------------------------- ---------------- .................... ............ — -------------------- ------- .......... ----------- 40 =-------------------. ------------------------------...... .. . ... .... ... ..... ......... . ..... 30 - ---------- --- -- - -- - -------------- ... .. ........................................ — .......... ......... .............. .......... 20 ........................................................................................................................................................ 10 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0 Midnight 4 am 8a 12 noon 4, pm 8p 11 Pm Hour of Day -®overage (Leq) *Maximum (L 7m7 7ax)] Measured Ambient Noise Levels M&T Chico Ranch - Site 3 Monday, September 4, 2000 Sound Level, dBA i. 90 80 .......................................... ...... ............................. .. .................... ------------------------------ ...... 70 ..................................... ......... ...... . -- --------- ... .... ........................ ................................. 60 ........................... .... ..... —1 ... ......... . ................... - ...... .... .... ....... .............. .. .......... --------- .. 50 --------------------- ----- ----------- -------------------------------------------- ----------------------------- ----- ................. 40 ----------------------------------- ---- ----------------------- ...... ....... .. ......... ........... 30 ----------- ----------- .................. .................................................................................................... 20 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------- 10 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0 Midnight 4 am 8a 12 noon 4 pm 8 pm 11 Prn Hour of Day ®Average (Leq) *Maximum (Lmax) ti M&T Chico Ranch Project Draft EIR' 4.8-15 Page 15 4.8-16 N 0 a M&T Chico Ranch Project Draft EIR Page 16 4.8-4 REGULATORY SETTING Local Jurisdictional Guidelines: In California, cities and counties are required to adopt a noise element as part of their general plan. Cities and counties can also adopt noise control requirements within their zoning ordinances or as a separate noise ordinance. The project is located in Butte County, which has no noise ordinance. The Butte County General Plan Noise Element is the only source for noise policy in the unincorporated areas of the County. Butte County General Plan Noise Element The Butte County General Plan Noise Element was adopted in January 1977. The primary objective of the noise element is to prescribe policies that lead to the preservation and enhancement of the quality of life for the residents of Butte County by securing and maintaining an environment free from hazardous and annoying noise. Secondary. objectives of the noise element are to: ► Provide information concerning the community noise environment to make noise a consideration in the ongoing planning process and the development of ordinances relating thereto; ► Abate and control excessive noise; ► Avoid a mix of incompatible noise -generating and noise -sensitive activities; ► Protect areas of the community that have "acceptable" or "sensitive" noise environments; and ► Provide indoor noise environments that allow undisturbed conversation, sleep, study, work, relaxation, and privacy. For residential uses, the noise element identifies a maximum acceptable outdoor community noise level of 60 dB(A) Ldn to provide a suitable noise environment inside buildings. This is consistent with State of California standards recommended for transportation noise sources. Non -Transportation Noise Criteria The noise standards contained in the Butte County General Plan do not differentiate between transportation and non -transportation noise sources. Therefore, there are no standards specifically developed for aggregate mining and processing operations. The only noise standard cited in the County Noise Element which is applicable to residential uses is a 60 dB(A) Ldn standard described above. Because it isnot specified, it is inferred that this standard applies to residential uses affected by all types of noise sources. In addition, the County Noise Element does not provide direction for M&T Chico Ranch Project Draft EIR 4.8-17 Page 17 assessing noise impacts at residences constructed on agriculturally=designated land uses affected by industrial noise sources. As stated previously, the Ldn standard is defined as the energy average of all noise received at a given location over a 24-hour period, with. noise occurring during the nighttime hours (10 a.m. to 7 p.m.) increased by 10 dB prior to averaging. For example, the Ldn of a noise source generating 60 dB continuously during daytime hours and 50 dB continuously during nighttime hours would compute to 60 dB due to the 10 dB penalty for nighttime hours. In another and more specific example, if the mining project in question generates an average noise level of 60 dB at the nearest residence during mining activities, and if those mining activities occur only between the hours of 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. (daytime hours), the predicted Ldn at the nearest residence would be 58 dB. In a literal interpretation of the Butte County Noise Element, this example would be in compliance with the 60 dB(A) Ldn standard at the nearest residence. This example illustrates that noise levels defined by Ldn are based on a 24-hour average even if the noise source in question does not operate continuously over the 24-hour period. For this reason, many jurisdictions prefer hourly noise level standards for industrial noise sources, as they prohibit industries which generates high noise levels for short periods of time from being in compliance by averaging those noise levels over a 24-hour period. Although the County has no such hourly standards, short-term noise level increases are covered in the following section which pertains to CEQA compliance. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Standards Criteria for determining the. significance of noise impacts were developed based on information contained in the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines (State CEQA Guidelines). According to those guidelines, a project may have a significant effect on the environment if it will satisfy the following conditions: f. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. g. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. h. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. It is generally recognized that an increase of at least 3 dB is usualLysequfred.befoxe�ost pgople—will, perceive a change in noise levels ad_an�ncxease of 5 dB is required before the chance will be clearly noticeable. A common practice is to assume that a clearinoticeable increase of 5__dB is required for a finding of significance. M&T Chico Ranch Project Draft EIR 4.8=18 Page 18 k In the Environmental Setting portion,of this Section, the ambient noise environment was quantified as being relatively quiet, despite the fact that the measurements were conducted during harvesting' season. Specifically, average daytime noise levels at the nearest residence to the project site (res. #A on Figure 4.8-3), were found to be approximately 45 dB Leq, with nighttime averages approximately 6 dB lower, or 40 dB Leq. Based on the measured ambient noise levels at the nearest potentially affected residence, and the assumption that a 5 dB increase would represent a clearly noticeable (and therefore significant) increase, average daytime and nighttime noise level standards of 50 dB Leq and 45 dB Leq, respectively, appear to be appropriate for the assessment of noise impacts for this project at the nearby residences. These standards are considerably mnre r s ri . iv . thel"nnn y's 65 dR T.dn� standard. Therefore, comtance with these�tar�dards_would ensure compliance with the Countv's noise standards. With respect to maximum noise levels, Figure 4.8-4 shows that daytime maximum noise levels at the nearest residence to the project site were generally in the vicinity of 60-70 dB, so it appears that a 70 dB maximum noise level standard would be appropriate for the assessment of noise impacts for t is p The use of 50 dB Lea as an average hourly daytime no' cin rela ' o the daytime standardluch��-p> II1, In addition, the 45 dB Leq nighttime noise level standard recommended in this analysis represents a 5 dB reduction over that which was used in the previous version of the DEIR. M&T Chico Ranch Project Draft EIR 4.8-19 Page 19 4.8.4 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Standards of Significance for the Proposed Project For this project, noise impacts are considered significant if project -generated noise exceeds the 60 dB Ldn Butte County Noise Element standard for off-site truck traffic, or if on-site noise sources ,generated average and maximum noise levels exceeding 50 dB Leq and 70 dB Lmax, respectively, during daytime hours. During nighttime hours, the hourly average and maximum noise level standards of significance cited above are reduced by 5 dB. Methodology for Assessing Noise Generated by the On -Site Equipment Project Description: The project applicant proposes to operate a rock quarry. Also proposed is the construction and operation of a crushing and screening operation. A concrete batch plant and an asphalt batch plant are considered optional components of this project. The locations of all proposed activities are shown on Figure 4.8-1. Mining may affect up to 193 acres of the site, depending on geologic factors encountered during excavation, and the processing area will encompass approximately 40 acres. Ari additional 2 acres will be used to temporarily stockpile topsoil for use in reclamation. Areas that are not mined or used for the processing facilities, will continue to be used for farming, enhanced wildlife habitat, or as mitigation for wildlife habitat disturbances (as may required by regulatory agencies). Construction of the aggregate processing facilityand the conveyors would take place during the first year of operation. Mining activities would begin in the north end of the project site and proceed south for both scenarios (with or without batch plants on-site). If necessary, a second area in another location of the mining area may be opened to mining to allow blending of materials to achieve required aggregate specifications. Approximately 6 acres per year would be added to the area of ' active mining. The maximum area of active mining at any onetime would be approximately 20 acres. If the proposed project includes asphaltic concrete and/or ready -mix concrete plants, they will be constructed, and begin operation, approximately 3 years after mining activities begin. The plants would remain. at the processing area as shown on Figure 4..8-1 throughout the approximate 20 to 30 -year life of the project. Reclamation would take place on an annual basis following the initial construction period. Project -Related Noise Sources: The major noise sources identified for this project are the aggregate mining activities, aggregate crushing and screening activities (including truck load -out), the optional asphalt and concrete plants, and off-site traffic. The noise emissions of these various noise sources were obtained from Bollard M&T Chico Ranch Project Draft EIR 4.8-20 Page 20 4�. & Brennan file data for similar sources and from published acoustical literature. Table 4.8-2 shows the types of equipment proposed for use at the M&T Chico Ranch site and the F reference maximum noise levels corresponding to the operation of that equipment. These noise levels were obtained from Bollard & Brennan noise level measurements conducted at the Baldwin ` Construction Stoney Creek and Hallwood facilities, from file data for similar noise sources and from the Dry Creek Surface Mine Project EIR (SC#94112033,12/95), the Kaweah River Rock Company's Surface Mining Permit Project EIR (SC#89032709 4/98), and from the Kaweah River Basin Investigation Feasibility Study DEIR (6/96). . Table 4.8-2 Major Noise -Producing Equipment and Associated Noise Levels M&T Chico Ranch Project - Butte County Approximate Noise Level, Dba @ 100 ft. Reference Dist. Equipment Type Maximum (Lmax) Average (Leg) Excavating Equipment: - Manitowoc 4600 Drag Line 85 75 - Cat. 988 Front Loader 75 65 - Cat. 345 Excavator 80 70 - Cat. 375 Excavator 85 75 Crushing/Screening Plant 85 80 Asphalt Plant 85 80 Concrete Plant 85 80 Notes: Average noise levels represent any one-hour period and assume continuous operation of the excavation and plant operations. Distances from the noise producing equipment shown in Table 4.8-2 to the nearest existing residence vary for each major component of the project. Table 4.8-3 shows the distances from the proposed noise -producing activities to the nearest residence and the noise levels predicted at the nearest residence resulting from those activities. Table 4.8-3 is based on a sound decay rate of 6 dB ne> doubling of distance from the noise source, and an additional attenuation of 1.5 d per 1 OA_Ueel_fpr molecular absorp ion of sound and anomalous excess attenuation. M&T Chico Ranch Project Draft EIR 4.8-21 Page 21 Crushing/Screening Plant Asphalt Plant Concrete Plant 1,800 -25 2,200 -27 2.300" -27 -2 58. -2 - 56 -2 55 53 49 51 47 50 46 Notes: 9. Figure 4.8-1 shows locations of the major noise sources associated with this project. 10. These distances shown are approximated in feet from the nearest residence to the general locations of the major noise sources. It. Noise level predictions are based on the reference hourly noise levels shown in Table 4.8-2 for the reference distances shown. 12. A 6 dB attenuation rate per each doubling of distance from the reference distance was used to project sound levels from source to receiver. In addition, an attenuation rate of 1.5, dB per 1000 feet for atmospheric and excess anomalous attenuation was used to project sound levels from source to receiver. 13. These levels represent the maximum and average hourly noise levels predicted at the nearest residential location during normal - activities proposed at the project site. 14. The combined levels represent the energy summation of noise from the processing, asphalt and concrete plants operating concurrently. 15. Ldn values were computed based on the assumption that the project equipment could be in continuous operation between the hours of, 7 a.m. and 5 p.m. as proposed. Methodology for Assessing Off -Site Truck Traffic Noise Levels To assess project -related traffic noise impacts, traffic noise levels are predicted at a representative distance of 10 feet from the'centerlines of the local roadway network which would be utilized for. this project. Noise impacts are identified at existing noise -sensitive areas if the noise level increases which result from the project exceed the significance thresholds described previously in this section. Traffic Noise Prediction Model To describe existing and projected noise levels due to traffic, the Federal Highway Administration Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA RD -77-108) was used. The model is,based upon the Calveno reference noise factors for automobiles, medium trucks .and .heavy trucks, with consideration given to vehicle volume, speed, roadway configuration, distance to the receiver, and the acoustical characteristics of the site. The FHWA model was developed to predict hourly Leq values for free-flowing traffic conditions. To predict traffic noise levels in terms of Ldn, it is necessary to adjust the input volume to account for the day/night distribution of traffic. ' M&T Chico Ranch Project Draft EIR 4.8-22 Page 22 Predicted Attenuation, dl3' Resulting Noise Levels Source(s)' Distance (ft)' Distance Atmospheric Lmax Leg Ldn' Excavation Equipment: - Manitowoc Drag Line 300 -10, 0 75' 65 61 -Cat. 988 Loader 300 -10 0 65 55 - 51 - Cat 375 Excavator 300 -10 0 75• 65 61 - Cat 345 Excavator 300 -10 0 70, 60 56 Crushing/Screening Plant Asphalt Plant Concrete Plant 1,800 -25 2,200 -27 2.300" -27 -2 58. -2 - 56 -2 55 53 49 51 47 50 46 Notes: 9. Figure 4.8-1 shows locations of the major noise sources associated with this project. 10. These distances shown are approximated in feet from the nearest residence to the general locations of the major noise sources. It. Noise level predictions are based on the reference hourly noise levels shown in Table 4.8-2 for the reference distances shown. 12. A 6 dB attenuation rate per each doubling of distance from the reference distance was used to project sound levels from source to receiver. In addition, an attenuation rate of 1.5, dB per 1000 feet for atmospheric and excess anomalous attenuation was used to project sound levels from source to receiver. 13. These levels represent the maximum and average hourly noise levels predicted at the nearest residential location during normal - activities proposed at the project site. 14. The combined levels represent the energy summation of noise from the processing, asphalt and concrete plants operating concurrently. 15. Ldn values were computed based on the assumption that the project equipment could be in continuous operation between the hours of, 7 a.m. and 5 p.m. as proposed. Methodology for Assessing Off -Site Truck Traffic Noise Levels To assess project -related traffic noise impacts, traffic noise levels are predicted at a representative distance of 10 feet from the'centerlines of the local roadway network which would be utilized for. this project. Noise impacts are identified at existing noise -sensitive areas if the noise level increases which result from the project exceed the significance thresholds described previously in this section. Traffic Noise Prediction Model To describe existing and projected noise levels due to traffic, the Federal Highway Administration Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA RD -77-108) was used. The model is,based upon the Calveno reference noise factors for automobiles, medium trucks .and .heavy trucks, with consideration given to vehicle volume, speed, roadway configuration, distance to the receiver, and the acoustical characteristics of the site. The FHWA model was developed to predict hourly Leq values for free-flowing traffic conditions. To predict traffic noise levels in terms of Ldn, it is necessary to adjust the input volume to account for the day/night distribution of traffic. ' M&T Chico Ranch Project Draft EIR 4.8-22 Page 22 iA FHWA Traffic Noise Prediction Model Inputs Traffic volumes for future conditions and scenarios are contained in the Transportation Section of this EIR. A listing of the FHWA Model input data for future conditions is provided in Appendix B. FHWA Traffic Noise Prediction Model Results Table 4.8-4 shows the predicted traffic noise levels for the project. This Table is provided in terms of Ldn at a distance of 200 feet from the centerline of Highway 89, which is the approximate distance from the roadway centerline to the nearest existing residences. Methodology for Assessing Construction Noise Impacts During the construction phases of the project, noise from construction activities would add to the noise environment in the immediate project vicinity. Activities involved in construction would generate maximum noise levels ranging from 85 to 90 dB at a distance of 100 feet. Construction activities would be temporary in nature and are anticipated to occur during normal daytime working hours.. Noise would also be generated during the construction phase by increased truck traffic on area roadways. A significant project -generated noise source would be truck traffic associated with transport of heavy materials and equipment to and from the construction site. This noise increase would be of short duration, and would likely occur primarily during daytime hours. 0 M&T Chico Ranch Project Draft EIR 4.8-23 Page 23 '. - Table 4.8-4 Predicted Traffic Noise Levels Along Area Roadway Network M&T Chico Ranch Project: Butte County Predicted Ldn at 100 feet from Centerline Existing Conditions Future (Cumulative) Conditions Roadway Segment No Project Project Increase Vs. Project+ Increase Vs. No Project Project Increase Vs. Project+ Increase Vs. No Project Batch Plants No Project No Project Batch Plants No Project Ord Ferry Road Hwy. 45 to River Road 62 62 0 62 0 61 62 0 62 0 Ord Ferry Road River Rd. to Dayton Rd. 62 62 1 62 1 62 63 1 63 0 Durham Dayton Dayton Rd. to Midway 59 60 0 60 0 64 64 0 64 0 Durham Dayton Midway to Hwy. 99 60 61 0 61 0 65 _ 65 0 65 0 River Road Ord Feng Rd. to Site Access 57 59 2 59. 2 58 59 2 59 1 River Road Site Access to Chico River Rd. 58 59 2 60 2 58 59 2 60 2 River Road Chico River Rd. to Site Access 54 54 0 54 0 51 51 0 51 0 River Road Site Access to Hwy. 32 52 52 0 52 0 47 47 0 47 0 Chico River Road River Rd. to Site Access 59 61 1 61 1 64 65 0 65 1 Chico River Road Site Access to Hwy. 32 61 62 1 62 1 64 64 0 64 1 Dayton Road Old Ferry Rd. to Hegan Ln. 63 63 0 63 0 63 64 1 63 0 Dayton Road Hegan Ln. to RR tracks 64 64 0 64 0 64 64 0 64 0 Hegan Lane Dayton Rd. to Midway 63 63 0 63 0 63 63 0 63 0 Midway Skyway to Hwy. 32 66 67 0 67 0 70 70 0 70 0 Skyway East of Bruce Rd. 67 67 0 67 0 69 69 0 69 0 Skyway Hwy. 99 to Midway 69 70 0 69 0 71 71 0 71 0 Bruce Road Hwy. 32 to Skyway 64 64 0 64 0 69 69 0 69 0 Source: FHWA RD -77-108 with inputs from the traffic section, Bollard & Brennan and Caltrans. 4.8-24 SPECIFIC PROJECT IMPACTS AND NOISE MITIGATION MEASURES Impact 4.8-1: Excavation Noise Table 4.8-5 indicates that maximum noise levels generated by excavation equipment at the M&T Chico Ranch project site will vary from 55 to 65 dB Leq at the nearest residence to the mining site (Residence A on Figure 4.8-1), depending on the type of excavation equipment which is used at the mine site. These levels exceed the 50 dB Leq standard of significance which is recommend for the project. In addition, the predicted maximum levels of 75 dB for the Manitowoc dragline and Cat 375 .excavator would also exceed the 70 dB maximum standard of significance at the nearest residence. Finally, the front -loader which will be used to load the conveyor system is also predicted to generate average noise levels in excess of 50 dB Leq when operating at a distance of approximately 300 feet from the nearest residence. The other nearest residences to the project site (Residences B and C on Figure 4.8-1), are located considerably farther away from the proposed mining and processing areas than is residence A. In addition to the additional distance, intervening orchards will result in additional noise attenuation at those residences. As a result, excavation -related noise levels are not predicted to exceed the recommended project standards of significance at those locations, or at residences located even further away from the project site. This analysis concludes that project -related excavation noise will not result in exceedance of the noise standards contained in the Butte County General Plan at any existing noise -sensitive uses in the project vicinity. In addition, with the exception of the single residence identified as "Residence A" on Figure 4.8-1, excavation -related noise is not predicted to substantially exceed existing ambient noise levels at existing residences located in the project vicinity. Nonetheless, because excavation - related activities are predicted to result in an increase in ambient noise levels of over 5 dB, which is considered a substantial increase, a significant noise impact is identified at Residence "A", which is identified on Figure 4.8-1. Mitigation For Impact 4.8-1: The following noise mitigation measures should be considered individually, or collectively, to reduce excavation -related noise levels to a state of compliance with the project standards of significance; specifically 50 dB Leq and 70 dB Lmax at the nearest residence. The,applicant should demonstrate through noise level measurements that these measures have been successfully implemented prior to commencement of mining activities within 1,000 feet of the nearest residence. MM 4.8-1(a) Earthen Berm Construction: The applicant could construct an earthen berm between the excavation equipment and the nearest residence. Once such a berm intercepts line of sight from the noise source to the receiver, it can be expected'to M&T Chico Ranch Project Draft EIR A-25 Page 25 reduce the noise from the shielded equipment by 5 dB. An additional noise reduction of about 1 dB for each additional foot of berm height can be expected. Due to the elevated height of the noise sources (engines) on the excavation equipment, the noise attenuation which could likely be achieved from this measure is predicted to be 5-10 dB. Depending on the equipment used in the excavation, and the distance from that equipment to the nearest residence, this degree of attenuation may not be sufficient to reduce excavation noise to a level of compliance with the recommended project standards of significance. Therefore, it is likely this measure would be required in conjunction with other measures which follow. MM 4.8-1(b) Selection of Quietest Excavation Equipment: Table 4.8-2 shows that the Caterpillar Model 345 excavator is quieter than the Caterpillar Model 375 excavator and the Manitowoc Model 4600 drag line. Operating constraints and production demands may not make the choice as simple as selecting the Cat 345 over the other models, but the quietest equipment available which would meet the required operating parameters should be considered for use at the M&T site. MM 4.8-1(c) Retrofitting of Excavation Equipment with Quieter Mufflers and Cooling Air Louvers: The most significant noise sources associated with excavation equipment is the engine cooling system and exhaust. A substantial reduction in the noise emissions shown in Table 4.8 could, theoretically, be achieved through retrofitting of engine exhaust systems with quieter mufflers, and by replacement of the metal air X inlet and outlet vents with acoustic louvers. The precise degree of attenuation,which can be achieved from these measures is not known at this time, as additional research and development would be required to ensure that such measures do not adversely affect the longevity, performance, or safety of the equipment. MM 4.8-1(d) Creation of Additional Setbacks from Mining Areas: As a general rule, sound decreases at a rate of about 6 dB per doubling of distance from the noise source for a noise source which generally operates from a fixed location, such as an excavator or drag line. F a e mining setback from the nearest residence were increased from 00 feet to 600 feet, excavation -related noise levels would be approximately 6 ower an those shown in Table 4.8-3. When used in conjunction with the aforementioned mitigation measures, the amount of additional setbacks required to satisfy the recommended project standards of significance could be minimized. The specific setback distances which would be required for this project will depend on the effectiveness of the aforementioned measures in reducing the excavation -related noise levels at the nearest residence. MM 4.8-1(e) Procurement of Noise Easement from the Nearest Resident: As an alternative to an engineering -related noise mitigation measure, the applicant may with to negotiate a noise easement with the nearest neighbor which would allow the creation of noise levels in excess of the project standards of significance at that location. This approach has been utilized by airports which compensate impacted residences M&T Chico Ranch Project Draft EIR A-26 Page 26 through improvements in the sound isolation of the residential structure. Impact 4.8-2: Screening / Crushing Noise Table 4.8-3 indicates that maximum and average noise levels generated by the crushing and screening plant equipment at the M&T Chico Ranch project site will be approximately 58 dB Lmax and 53 dB Leq at the nearest residence to that equipment, located approximately 1,800 feet away. While the maximum noise level would satisfy the 70 dB Lmax standard, the average noise level would be approximately 3 dB over the recommended 50 dB Leq threshold. Therefore, this impact is considered significant. Mitigation For Impact 4.8-2: The following noise mitigation measures should be considered individually, or collectively, to reduce processing -related noise levels to a state of compliance with the project standards of significance; specifically 50 dB L.eq and 70 dB Lmax at the nearest residence. The applicant should demonstrate through noise level measurements that these measures have, been successfully implemented following the establishment of normal aggregate crushing and screening operations at the project site. MM 4.8-2(a) Shielding by Aggregate Stockpiles: Figure 4.8-1 shows that the proposed aggregate stockpile location is north of the proposed processing equipment. As a result, those stockpiles would provide shielding of the optional asphalt and concrete plants, but not of the processing equipment, in the direction of the nearest residence to the south. Consideration should be given to locating one or more stockpiles between the noisiest processing equipment (crushers and screens) and that residence to the south. If stockpiles can be erected to intercept line of sight between that equipment and residence, a 5 dB attenuation can be expected. This degree of attenuation would reduce processing equipment noise to a state of compliance with the recommended standards of significance. MM 4.8-2(b) Additional Processing Equipment Noise Control Measures: If stockpiles cannot be utilized to achieve compliance with the standards of significance, or if processing equipment noise levels still exceed those standards following construction of stockpiles, additional noise control measures would be required. Specific noise control measures which could be implemented include, but are not limited to, lining . hoppers and chutes with heavy urethane sheets, utilizing urethane screen decks (rather than steel), and suspending acoustic curtains around specific equipment which is found to be the source of the noise level exceedances. M&T Chico Ranch Project Draft EIR A-27 Page 27 Impact 4.8-3: Asphalt and Concrete Plant Noise Table 4.8-3 indicates that maximum and average noise levels generated by the asphalt and concrete plant equipment at the M&T Chico Ranch project site will be approximately 56 dB Lmax and 51 dB Leq at the nearest residence to that equipment, located approximately 2,200 feet away. While the maximum noise level would satisfy the 70 dB Lmax standard, the average noise level could exceed the recommended 50 dB Leq threshold. Therefore, this impact is considered significant. Mitigation For Impact 4.8-3: The following noise mitigation measures should be considered individually, or collectively, to reduce noise from asphalt and concrete plant operations to a state of compliance with the project standards of significance; specifically 50 dB Leq and 70 dB Lmax at the nearest residence. The applicant should demonstrate through noise level measurements that these measures have been successfully implemented following the establishment of normal asphalt and concrete production activities at the project site. MM 4.8-3(a) Shielding by Aggregate Stockpiles: Figure 4.8-1 shows that the proposed aggregate stockpile location is between the'proposed asphalt and concrete plant equipment and nearest residence. As a result, those stockpiles would provide shielding of these plants in the direction of that nearest residence to the south (Residence "A"). Provided that those stockpiles can be erected to intercept line of sight between those plants and nearest residence, a 5 dB attenuation can be expected. This degree of attenuation would reduce processing equipment noise to a state of compliance with the recommended standards of significance. MM 4.8-3(b) Additional Processing Equipment Noise Control Measures: If stockpiles cannot. be utilized to achieve compliance with the standards of significance, or if asphalt or concrete plant equipment noise levels still exceed those standards following construction of stockpiles, additional noise control measures would be required. A specific noise control measure which could be implemented includes, but is not limited to, suspending acoustic curtains around specific equipment which is found to be the source of the noise level exceedances. Impact 4.8-4: Off -Site Traffic Noise Table 4.8-4 indicates that the project -related traffic noise level increase over no -project levels will range from 0 to 2 dB. Because a 3-5 dB increase in traffic noise levels in commonly required to identify. noise impacts, this impact is considered less than significant. " M&T Chico Ranch Project Draft EIR A-28 Page 28 x_ MEMORANDUM DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES. Director's Office . TO: Planning Commission FROM: Department of Development Services SUBJECT: COMMENTS ON THE M & T MINING PROJECT DEIR DATE: June 30, 1998 _. Page 3-5 3.4.1 Project Area Clarify that the 82 acre area to be used as mitigation is not part of the 235 acre site subject to mining. It would be helpful to identify the total amount of land being leased, as well. Page 4.2-3 Williamson Act This section states that 4.2-1 identifies lands within Williamson Act contracts. The map legend does not clearly reference such lands. This exhibit and all other exhibits-, should also -show the home within 300 feet of the westerly proposed property line. The EIR refers to this home, but it is not reflected on the map exhibits. Page 4.2-6 Proposed Project with Batch Plants Scenario The General Plan is silent on the question of compatibility of a batch plant. Staff has not formally taken a position on consistency and will do so at the time of the Use Permit hearing. In general, the asphalt and concrete plants constitute manufacturing operation which is typically allowed only in industrial zones. Such uses may be in conflict with both the land use designation and the Agricultural Element. Page 4.6-14&15 Standards of Significance P What is the source for use of a 10 vehicle per day and 25 loaded truck trips increase as a threshold for determining a significant effect? Page 4.6-24,29&30 Impact 4.6-1: SR/River Road Intersection ' This impact is deemed to be insignificant .yet there is a recommended mitigation measure. 1 Planning Commission Julie 30, 1998 Page 2 Page 4.6-31 &31 Impact 4.6-3: Intersection of Skyway/Honey Run Road How does the suggestion that the Department of Public Works consider reducing the speed limit constitute a mitigation measure? Speed limits may only be changed through a public hearing and an ordinance adopted by the Board of Supervisors. Noise Section - General Comments The Draft EIR uses 60 dB(A) Ldn as a threshold for significance while recognizing that ambient noise levels are estimated to be 40 dB(A). The source for the 60 dB(A) Ldn standard appears to be derived from the Butte County General Plan Noise Element and secondarily justified by standards used in Placer and Yolo Counties, Page 4.8-2 of the Draft EIR also observes that the Noise Element does!not provide direction for assessing noise impacts at residences constructed on agriculturally- " - desi ated lands that are affected by industrial noise sources. The Draft EIR also identifies human perc tion of noise impacts and concludes that a 5 dB change is clearly perceptible and a 10 dB incrt tse is perceived as being twice as load. TheDlaft EIR uses 60 dB(A) Ldn daytime and 50 dB(A) at nighttime as a standard. This standard will all an up to four times increase in noise levels without being considered significant. Staff questions how this level of `-`acceptable" noise is consideredless. than significant in this settvpg: Thi noise sigtuficant threshold should be developed based on the existing environmental -setting.. -,i The aft EIR is also deficient because it does consider the cumulative noise impacts of the entire opera n. Considering noise from individual pieces of equipment isolated from other equipment in ope tion does not'satisfy full disclosure requirements for an EIR. In additiQ impacts are addressed at the residence (receptor). What is the noise impact at property lines? Mounding land owners have an expectation of a reasonable noise level on their property, as well. Page 4.8-4 Mitigation Measures 4.8-1c: This mitigation measure expands the hours of operation from' those defined in the project. description. The project description limits operations from 7:OO a.m. to 5:00 p.m. during the months of November to April and 6:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. during the months of May to October. Expanding the hours of the operation to 10:00 p.m.,should not be considered a mitigation measure. k:\dds\misc\comments.wpd t WTM o��TTFo� Department -"of Pu'Jbli,c Wdrks o, o "rC ,o, 'u nr't.y o f yB w t t r ° ° J. Michael Crump, r LAND DEVELOPMENT' DIVISION'" ' ° ° Director , 7 County'Center Drive # Oro4ille; CA :95965 0 A�c�c Wpp`�g - Warner, C. fPhllllps, Assistant Director (530)•538-7266 , ; .. y (FAX) 538-7683 - tt' tAugust 20,s 2001 R� z n ;; _4 ! ` Y NorthStar Engineering AUG 2 1 2001 �` `.20 Declaration Drive Chico CA 95973 ; '` . = `t ; BUTTE COUNTY Y J ; PLANNING DIVISION Re: M&T Ranch,Aggregate Mine, Flooding Study s,Dear Mike: .'We have re`vie'wed your draft Flooding Study and commented on the, attached copy. • Your report indicated that you were awaiting some information' from Butte County, ,,enclosed for your reference are copies of the appropriate sections of.the FEMA FIS dated July 10, 1998 and road closure information for River Road. Please contact this office if you, need any additional information. 1 As a reminder,- Butte County will not accept any development within a:flobd plain that increases' flood levels, on: adjoining properties, which are not •under the -'developer's ' control. 'Please provide'a design and analysis for your proposed development, which ; '= will not increase flood levels on adjoining properties. -1f you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact this office at (530) 538-7266, Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. z Sincerely, Stuart`Edell;'P.-E. '. Manager, Land Development Division ^ ; cc: Mike Crump, Director of Public Works (File 180) w/attachments i " r -VDan Breedon, Senior Planner, Development Services w/attachments to Please.. OUTING H(EQUEST� �Zle To: 2 ❑ Approve And... ❑ Fo and Return / ❑Keep or Recycle5�s '64, ❑ Review with Me From: Post•it@ 7664 ©3M 1995 J Date: J �h�tar ENGINEERING Civil Engineers Planners • Surveyors April 25, 2001 Mr. David Brown Resource Design Technology 302-A S. Lexington Drive Folsom, CA. 95630 Subject: M & T Ranch, River Road Aggregate Mine Dear Dave, Please find enclosed herewith our draft'flooding study for the above noted project. I would appreciate review and comments by you and Toby Haynes. I am still waiting on information from Butte County DPW regarding historical flooding, road closures and will analyze and include 'them when available. My general conclusions at this time are that construction of the stockpiles/ plant will increase the stage in Little Chico Creek in the vicinity of the fill, but that it may well be possible to mitigate with a bypass channel. The increase in stage will most likely only impact the M & T Ranch with minimal impacts to River Road. Please feel free to call me with comments or questions, as we are anxious to keep this project on schedule. I would be happy to meet with you and Toby (and County Staff. should you choose) to review our work. _ Very Truly Yours, Michael McEnespy, P.E. NorthStar Engineering. nnnr ,o q �D 20 DECLARATION DRIVE "� l O CHICO, CALIFORNIA 95973 530-893-1600 FAX -893-2113 JUN 82001 11 BUTTE COUNTY ANNING DIVISION M & T RANCH MINE SITE FLOODING STUDY s M & T RANCH MINE Flooding Impact Study Backt?r_ o_d _ A potential impact associated with the construction of theprocessing Plant(s) and stockpiles is the increased stage in Little Chico Creeks result of placing fill (plant, stockpiles) in the floodplain. The Federal a Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has identified a subst along Little Chico Creek as lying within the 100- ear antral area area is within the "A" Zone, meaning that no depths or elevationn. s This. been established. FEMA mapping is not clear as to the so ave flooding, i.e. Little Chico Creek or the Sacramento Rive he �of the 'Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) identifies reaches along Little Chico lood and has established 100 -year flood elevations. This de Creek short of the proposed mine site. tailed study stops The general area has a long history of flood events Of not only high flows in Little Chico Creek but from flows in has e a result Sacramento River. River road has been closed numerous times i past due to over bank flooding from the Sacramento. A reach of leve e known as the M & T overflow allows floodwaters from the Sacr e follow old natural swales across the Three B's ranch. amento to The chief concern expressed .by County Staff during EIR were regarding the impacts of the proposed project relate`�t t e the Potential increased stage on adjacent properties and River Road. t It is generally acknowledged that during a major event,, such as the so-called 100 -yea- flood, that the entire area will be inundated. What is of mor concern are the more frequent events that have the potential to c usee damage to adjacent properties and result in more freauent River Road. Methodoloav In order to establish floodplain elevations, field Gros at select locations. These locations and cross sections were taken Exhibit "A". The site where the proposed plant and stoc re incincluded on is in area where extensive land levelinglocated the past. A levee has been constructed along the eat sivation das occurred in e of Li Creek. This levee is not sufficient to contain large flood flows tottln Chico the creek and other channel. The creek is heavily vegetated with grasses, cattails a woody growth that increases the friction factor, contributing to the NorthStar Engineering Pae 1 Page 04/25/2001 decreased capacity of the creek. The land leveling and levee activities have resulted in the creation of a low area bordered on the west by the aforementioned levee adjacent' to the creek and on the east and south by levee roads. This area is drained through a 30" concrete pipe, back into Little Chico Creek. This area is currently cultivated but is the site of the proposed stockpile and processing plants. Hydroloy Flooding of the area proposed for the processing facility could occur from two sources. Little Chico Creek flows through the property and will cause flooding during events that exceed the capacity of the existing, natural channel and levees. This is the source that has been used for modeling. In addition, over bank flows from the Sacramento River can enter the site through swales that cross River Road and enter the site at two locations. During periods when this over bank flow is occurring, a backwater effect could cause an increase in stage in Little Chico Creek, should ? j �r��.� Period of record data was obtained from the Department of Water Resources for Little Chico Creek at Taffee Avenue and from the Sacramento River. This data was analyzed to determine the occurrence of simultaneous peaking. The period of record on Little Chico Creek is only 10 years but contains two significant events. The January 1997 event produced a peak flow of 2400 c.f.s. The February 1998 evresulted in a peak flow of 2670 c.f.s. Each -of these events exceeded ar ye recurrence interval storm. What is significant is the recurrence of flows between 1250 and 1650 c.f.s. Peak flows in this range occurred in five of the last 10 years... C tv°#y. hIzor 76406 ag"Y /Zi U C I J e -,,cc C // C'/T��O7 f - The data from the Department of Water Resources for the period of record on the Sacramento River indicates that peak flows in the river occur approximately 24 hours after the peak in Little Chico Creek. This lag is to be expected given the distance upstream of contributing tributaries and the controlled releases from the Shasta Dam, Keswick complex. Review of aerial photos taken on January 6, 1997 indicate that overflows from the Sacramento River at the M & T overflow continue from the earlier event but that Little Chico Creek has receded significantly. NorthStar Engineering Page 2 04/25/2001 Hydraulics In order to assess the impacts of placing fill (plant and stockpiles) within the floodplain, HEC RAS, a hydraulic model developed by the U.S !-army Corps of Engineers, Hydrologic Engineering Center at Davis was used. Stream channel and over bank roughness coefficients were developed and cross section data was entered. The site was field reviewed, since the area does not represent a typical stream channel due to the extensive land leveling and levee/road construction that has occurred. It was determined that the area proposed for the plant and stockpiles is contained within levees/roads that impair the free flow of over bank floodwaters. HEC RAS has an option for entering "ineffective flow areas". .This data was entered for the area where existing levees do not allow free flow of floodwaters back into Little Chico Creek. In effect, the area proposed for the plant is acting as a storage basin by not allowing free flow into the creek. While the volume of water stored may not be significant, the levees do impede free flow. Since this is an existing condition, the initial geometry input to the model reflected this. The net effect is to cause less increase in stage due to the plant than would occur if the area was available for free, flow conditions. Model runs were done for the existing conditions. The flows selected were based on the historic data from the Taffee Bridge gauge .so that this could be cross-referenced to information on road closures/ overflow depths from County records. Since the principal reason for doing this modeling was to assess impacts to River Road, using historic flows.._ ....... Waiting for data from Butte County DPW. � !*T 4 /ff4,rx/ umr ii /4,mvzAr&4? ? The plant site and associated stockpiles were'superimposed on the cross sections using a technique in HEC RAS knowniv blocking. The flows were then again run using this geometry to assess the increased water surface profiles and to determine the increase in stage. The results are contained in the appendix and summarized in Table 1. Conclusions Increase in stage (water surface elevations) for the three events modeled due to the fill created by the project at cross section 5, located at the low point on River Road where 0.6, 0.5, and 0.4 feet respectively. r e ,6 �c Sru.if'�1 ��,®''� Ca✓,vft� Gl/Cc.c N� NorthStar Engineering Page 3 04/25/2001 (,✓is� chit �a v �Oct� %�P,� e �� t 7 �t/�i..o! i s Qtf�� /c �i� %�icv,.f CEA' /9NAc yCls /Nm/G�T�^1 Q v " Z34V Qlo� = 1, 7ov See a VcWf/-,,, �i�-- Soo = ?/700 TABLE 1 Cross Sectio Station Flow, C.F.S. Pre elevation Post Elevation Increase Elevation at EP, River Road 1 1222 115.52 115.52 0 N/A 2000 116.76 116.76 0 2200 117.04 117.05 0 2 1222 117.82 117.82 0 123.0 2000 119.22 119.22 0 2200 119.58 119.58 3 1222 118.19 118.19 0 122.9 2000 119.37 119.37 0 2200 119.70 119.70 0 4 1222 118.70 118.77 .07 123.4 2000 119.54 119.68 .14 2200 119.84 119.95 .11 5 1222 119.05 119.63 .58 119.0 2000 119.67 120.14 .47 2200 119.94 120.36 .42 6 1222 119.1.9 119.92 .73 122.6 2000 119.74 120.47 1.28 2200 120.00 120.65 .65 7 1222 119.71 121.29 1.58 122.5 2000 120.12 122.18 2.06 2200 120.25 122.39 2.14 8 1222 120.43 121.45 1.02 122.6 2000 120.77 122.34 1.57 A -d 2200 120.76 122.55 1.79 As Table 1 illustrates, River Road will be impacted at Cross Section 5� g where the existing road is nearly inundated by 1222 c.f.s. Under existing NorthStar Engineering Page 4 04/25/2001 conditions and will be inundated by approximately.0.6 feet during the equivalent event after the project. At all other locations, the existing and post construction flood elevation is below the road. Cavr-x x- e Impacts_ of increased stage will be limited to the area between River Road on the west, and the existing levee/roads on the M & T Ranch on the east. Some impact to the property west of river Road in the vicinity of Cross Section 5 could occur due to the increased stage at this location. This site is at a low point in River Road that frequently overtops due to flows from Angel Slough. There are three culverts approximately 18" in diameter under the road and X County warning sigrfis-present. Red -F/4A,!5 .4ines -on the pavement indicate that vehicles should not cross when water isfid. _ a� VCe rem� uw Mitigation Measure . The increased stage can be at least partially mitigated by construction of a bypass channel between the proposed stockpile/planll and the /7 existing levee on Little Chico Creek. Construction of C} oot wi e A'— channel and the installation of larger culverts at the existing location could rovide relief durin the times when ters overtop the levee. - We ill model .this mitigation after review of this draft. 111C c vo e /9YV14-L Y,5'1 s' o.= Voz✓✓srTt 04"1 1.tl /47/1-r_ t� ✓ ��6?, ,NorthStar Engineering Page 5 04/25/2001 u PRE PROJECT FLOWS Plan: Plan 02 River: RIVER -1 Reach:Reach-1 Riv Sta: 1 Profile: 10 yr. pVV1$mElev: ft 115.52 Elemewn`t•?,=' r V eat! fifty 1.51 ?Wtr aL n I , 0.100' i EI ft 117.03 ReachMb 115.52 a 124.05 E 0.108138 124.05 1222.00 1222.00 ' To I 41.17 0 41.17 , Ve 9.85 rA e s 9.85 a i 3.73 ° W. de 3.01 3716. 3716.0 e^--EVVePe 43.34 111.79 Sh awl s j 19.32 _ 1.00 ' trea e 7 190.371. ---- `' F� tn'Lo a C IN Plan: Plan 02 River: RIVER -1 Reach:Reach-1 Riv Sta: 1 Profile: PF#2 - •o .fd ft 45.02 cTo" - t -- s 11.28 A t Ma 4.97Hydrj- { ft : 3.94 ---' Cov'Gota{� cfs 6245.5 Convrcfs 6245.5 -� raL*englh Wtd ft min --?Wette�'Peft -- 1 -� - -----t - 48.611 - Mi Chft _ 111 79 Shear Ib/s ft ^� 1 23.36 SAI tia _ f St�eam=Po Ib . s 263.41 >Frctn Loss`(ft --1.00 __ 'Cum`>Vol'u`msacre Cum;SA MOM(acies i - G`&�ELoss' ft)' _ f - 11.57 "Avg - _---- • ' Plan: Plan 02 River: RIVER -1 Reach:Reach-1 Riv Sta: 1 Profile: PF#3 �., ' , 'I W S'-Elev(ft P ,� 117.04 Element :i"�,�'� - a .. - eft•OB' . t WE, fle d (ftJr 2.08 a ' `EIMEIeV-'(ft '�...S 119 12 React%Len ' itTIN' ft +, 117.04=FIoW:•AreW s A *`St'0 a 0.101619 `Area: s .ft 2200.00 k df9 f: t''ft 45.89 opt d{ 1- ,T„'Gii►i >• Toa�al'�ftA .ah.,. - 11.57 "Avg - 9.25 :Hyif,•t4Qe - ft ° n1%ToFc►t7 cfs -- 6901.4 s • .. L' nuc fh�Wfd ( - .. _ _ Wetted Pe • ft ` '-, Alpha u? - 1.00 rStream Powei.. Ib% -- -- • \ . a \ . Plan: Plan 02 River: RIVER -1 Reach:Reach-1 Riv Sta: 3 Profile: PF#2 W SEIe (ff 'g1 ai '' 119.37 'Eleme� n,,f i. ' "Left OB 0.0561 Gfia aRigh 0.100' . ' 0.056 Vit'readW ft . 0.01 E:G _(e • ft ` 119.38 �Reacti L -en 1400.51 1367.44 920.91 C ' ,=5. ft �Fliiw.�A�ea��sgaft `�' 524.69 � 450.91 � 1392.61 t 0.000363'/area (sq�ff V `t" 524.69; 450.91 j 1392.61 cfs - 2000.00 YFfow (cfs�; ' . �.. ' 562.74! 338.88 i 1098.381 988.43 Top Wtff� (ft] 'z=• 169.51 j 103.801 7155 13 et ota 0.84lSgVel ( s}�4 1.07 0.75 -----�� 0.79 Alla f D t ft 5.11 H d xDepth(ft „ a 3.10- 4.34 1.951 y4Co1 Tota[ 104907.0 �Conv�,�fs1 29517.7 17775.4 57613.9 r Le 1185.98 169.6 104.35;- --715.31 MIn Gni Eft 114.26 Shear`(Ib/sq ft�= 0.07i 0.10; 0. 4 ,gfp a Plan: Plan 02 River: RIVER -1 Reach:Reach-1 Riv Sta: 3 Profile: PF#2 W SEIe (ff 'g1 ai '' 119.37 'Eleme� n,,f i. ' "Left OB 0.0561 Gfia aRigh 0.100' . ' 0.056 Vit'readW ft . 0.01 E:G _(e • ft ` 119.38 �Reacti L -en 1400.51 1367.44 920.91 C ' ,=5. ft �Fliiw.�A�ea��sgaft `�' 524.69 � 450.91 � 1392.61 EG to fl. 0.000363'/area (sq�ff V `t" 524.69; 450.91 j 1392.61 cfs - 2000.00 YFfow (cfs�; ' . �.. ' 562.74! 338.88 i 1098.381 988.43 Top Wtff� (ft] 'z=• 169.51 j 103.801 7155 13 et ota 0.84lSgVel ( s}�4 1.07 0.75 -----�� 0.79 Alla f D t ft 5.11 H d xDepth(ft „ a 3.10- 4.34 1.951 y4Co1 Tota[ 104907.0 �Conv�,�fs1 29517.7 17775.4 57613.9 r Le 1185.98 169.6 104.35;- --715.31 MIn Gni Eft 114.26 Shear`(Ib/sq ft�= 0.07i 0.10; 0. 4 ,gfp a 1.07 Str�eamou�ers(Ib/ft*s 0.08! 0.07; 0.03 hF ctn`Loss #t'' 0.15 Cum Volume: acre; F Cum'SA`(ac[es ter- 96.221 - ---29.571 . 13.411 • - - 3.16: 46.44 17.76 SC"8`E Loss (ft):a 0.00 Plan: Plan 02 River: RIVER -1 .Reach:Reach-1 Riv Sta: 3 Profile: PF#3 .r - t.IN-S-�jElev�(it s1• 119.70 Element F �;,�?w:�n'`�'L•°eft OB ��Channel w�Rigti � • - K VeH4.eadt ft 0.01 :Wt n=Vat. -r.k ` 0.056 0.100! 0.056; -Elegy ft - 119.71 i�F�each Len �ft) - 1400.51 i - -1367.44 920.91 aC iL1NS ft - - FlowAre�a(sq 581.491 485.34' 1630.92 E�t3..S.lo 0.000290 Area"s Oft) . 581�� 485.34 - 1630.92 , QTota((�SY 2200.00 588.76; 342.301 1268.94 QpWdth(ft)� 998.74 Trop W1 dthr(ft) -- 172.971 103.80 721.97 } Ve otal (FIs 0.82 Avg jVels'(ft/s) 1.01 - -- 0.71 -- - 0.78 ,Ma C?14;dpt ft 5.44 Hydr 3.36; 4.68; 2.26 k`Conv jo a1Acf 129148.5 Cbnvi cfs `� 34562.7'; 20094.3' 74491.5 , Len Wtdk(fi) 1179.37 Wetted PeFsft�� . 173.44' 104.35; 722.16I, { �, ' MI `Ch EC'(ft 114.261 Shear. Ib/s ft:r •: 0.06; .0.08: 0.041 ( Wq ) 1 Alpha - 1.05Str� earn Fer Slb/�ft' - 0.06; 0.0610.031 F Ffctn,�L`ossti(f) 0.13 I; Cum Volumey06.71 14.46'- 5-2.621 R'G-W, E Loss (fty 0.00;Cum SA�(acres t 29.72; 3.17: 17 ss r �. - - -- - t� r{ -, +,� 1. _ A f' +�• ' 1 3J� �,° + Plan: Plan 02 River: RIVER -1 Reach:Reach-1 Riv Sta: 2 Profile: 10 yr. :11xSaEN '(ft 117.82 Elemegt�- - Ve" ea • ft 0.00 € =Val . 0.0561 0.100_0.056 • E Ele ft 117.83 each` ,e ft141:2.86! 1067.581 987.561- 116.10 1563.19' 99.931 812.961 0.000149 s 1563.191 99.931 812.96 1222.00 - 791-.48! 35.50 395.021 1; " 0 1292.65 0 815.29' 35.041 442.32' 1 0.49�t gel s 0.51, 0.361-_- - 0.49 + 4.371 fpept ($)- 1.921 2.85- 1.84 , Y s: eo 0 100053.2 : G cfs 64803.6 2906.8 ( 32342.8 rl 1166.47 a 816.501- 36.491 442.81 Mi E 114.25 0.02 0.03-- 0.02 1.01 rea P e 1618_`s . 0.01 0.01 0.01 r i' Frc _ o 0.65 CUmr o tihj a 25.35 3 2.74 ' 0 F 0.15 Cti' 4SAY ai s 13.22 0.93 5.01 ry ' Plan: Plan 02 River: RIVER -1 Reach:Reach-1 Riv Sta: 2 Profile: PF#2 S; W S E ft Ori 119.22 Elements �,;`,,rLeft:OBkrcnannel a ig :O t' ' V_ehklead; ft ' 0.00 FV11t :n'Vaf; - 0.056!h +a 0.100i 0.056 119.22 eac a fl - -- 1412.86 i 1067.58; 987.56 i 116.32 flow.: reaps ) 2718.24 148.94: 1447.90 E:G o 0.000066 ea, s :ft 2718.241 148.941T •1447.90 + 'QkTo a c S. 2000.00 F ow ( 1289.56 1 45.93! 664.51 n _,. - • � o idt ft 1332.10 Top Wdt � �� --- 83_1.42 i-' 35.0 35.04; 465-64- e 6564el, . -- 0.46'rvg: elf s --- 0.47i -- 0.31; 0.46 4 &F{cf Mai 5.77 Hydcbe t . --- 3.27; 4.25 3.11 »f I,Conv notal cf 246153 6158715.5; 5652-6 81785.5 Lengt Wtd - ft 1165.60 1Nefted,Per�ftj - - 832.72 - --36 49 - 466.17 F - Plan p! t'M�nCti�Elz(ft 114.25 Sfiear(Ib1 ft 3o -r 0.01: 0 02 0.01 /, W t 1.01 + tream Power tf --- 0.01 - -' 0.01 -- 0.01 + -VA a :+ FrctnLoss<(ft - -0.29 Cum';Volume acre- --44.08' - --4.00. 16.41 - i� Y!l n►•• .- -.__ •C• G.aMN 1 Y - d 0.20 'Cum: SA (acres) 13.48 0.98: 5.28 F'Crit' r Plan: Plan 02 River: RIVER -1 Reach:Reach-1 Riv Sta: 2 Profile: PF#3 119.58'sEtenj--enter L'e ' • s Ct_ia e"I:'' - t+,Vel Head (ft 0.00 V11t n'Vaf y ` 0.056'- 0.100' 0.056 of �. r.e : ea c a ft's -1412.86; 1067.58_ 987.56 Crit ft) 116.37 Fl3014.941 161.42' 1614.85 oh E G e 0.000057 tea: f 3014.94; 161.42 1614.85 ` ��en'h� 4 cls (TTo ay4"�cf§) 2200.00 Flow,t cfs Y a r 1418.26! 48.71' 733.02 -. Top idt�f(ft 1340.82 Top:Wldth (ft)' 834.20--- 35.04 -- - 471.58 , . „ a Ve4 otat�(ft/ 0.46 'Avg Vel ( s zt: u - --- --0.47: 0.30. + 0.45 �c/ Coss Ma _ .Y . 6 13 ' H dry. Depot °' ft f - -- -- 3.61! -- - 4.61. 3.42 .. - !+C � �t�oss fR) • 'o _ o a 291943.2 Coo(cfs'I --188205.71 6464.1 1165.55 d e`i ) 835.53 36.49- --472.12 Wette. 11A 0.01 --- 0.01; 0.02; 0.01 1 , 1.01 Stream P'ovtier lb --- 0.01!. 0.00 • 0.01 ^ 0.2 Curri Volumeacre= - - -- 48.89 ----4.31 18.31 :.� _ rCs& E - L•oss•(it) 0.21 r Cum°SA (acres) � ;� 13.53 0 99 5.35 Plan: Plan 02 River: RIVER -1 Reach:Reach-1 Riv Sta: 3 Profile: PF#2 • I 565.07 - . _ 328.70 565.07 328.40 439.87 ' • " 103.80 ; _ • 679.76 1.001, 0.78 , 3.17 - -0.83 10495.2; -- 14057.8 104.35! 679.91 r. 0.191 0.05 " 0.19 0.04 ' _ 9.47 23.78 " 3.111 -- 16.88 W SoElev {ft 119.37 erit Velead44ft� 0.01 Wt�n Vale: = 0.0561 0.100]' 0.056 G le. •. tt, 119.38 - Reacf%':L`e ft) 1400.51 1367.441 920.91 C VIfiS. ft KHAM ft)' tr.> c �F�low AFeasgft ' 524.69 450.91 1392.61 _ 0.056 0.000363 2000.00562.74-1098.38 t 524.69' 450.911 - ,1392.61 1400.51; 1367.44 - - 920.91 F `EaQ CrItiW S ft To id 988.43 Top Wdtr(ft) "; - 169.51 j -- 103.801 - - 715.131 el ota Plan: Plan 02 River: RIVER -1 Reach:Reach-1 Riv Sta: 3 Profile: 10 yr. --; 0.79 r�Vla {: "f f ft INS"Efe ft) 118.19 Ele "erit�� 4.34 I ---- 1 95 r_Co�sv otaf ', Lengtfr„W,t��ij'ft : __ 1O-4407.0 1185.98 Ve mea 0.02n,.V 17775_4: 0.056 0.100 0.056 �ft Ila .. ft118.21 104.35; a en ft 1400.51 1367.44' 920.91 0.0710.101 -- 0.71 j 0.04 'E o r . 3a ft 339'As I 328 70' 0.08 a. Plan: Plan 02 River: RIVER -1 Reach:Reach-1 Riv Sta: 3 Profile: PF#2 • I 565.07 - . _ 328.70 565.07 328.40 439.87 ' • " 103.80 ; _ • 679.76 1.001, 0.78 , 3.17 - -0.83 10495.2; -- 14057.8 104.35! 679.91 r. 0.191 0.05 " 0.19 0.04 ' _ 9.47 23.78 " 3.111 -- 16.88 W SoElev {ft 119.37 erit Velead44ft� 0.01 Wt�n Vale: = 0.0561 0.100]' 0.056 G le. •. tt, 119.38 - Reacf%':L`e ft) 1400.51 1367.441 920.91 C VIfiS. ft KHAM ft)' tr.> c �F�low AFeasgft ' 524.69 450.91 1392.61 _ 0.056 0.000363 2000.00562.74-1098.38 t 524.69' 450.911 - ,1392.61 1400.51; 1367.44 - - 920.91 F `EaQ CrItiW S ft To id 988.43 Top Wdtr(ft) "; - 169.51 j -- 103.801 - - 715.131 el ota --0.84 9Avga�usel( s^ --1.071 0. 5 --; 0.79 r�Vla {: "f f ft 5.11 H dpepth(ft 3.101 4.34 I ---- 1 95 r_Co�sv otaf ', Lengtfr„W,t��ij'ft : __ 1O-4407.0 1185.98 �ConvYfs '6116& 29517.7 17775_4: -57613.9 Top Wi thr(ft)zr`' ` r - 172.97 �ft 169.96 ] 104.35; 715.31, 'Mm"C>E(ft 114.26 Shear,(Ib/sgft r 0.0710.101 -- 0.71 j 0.04 A1 a 1.07 S ream o ert(Ib� �5 0.08 0.07; , 00.0033) Frcfn`Los�s:(ft 0.15 Cum Volume (acre; Cum SA (acres; 96.22:, 29.571 _ 13.41 i 3.16! 46.44 17.76 C 8kLoss,(ft} , 0.00 34562.7 ! 20094.3 --- 74491.5 ^ ! F I�Lengf Wtd (fE) Plan Plan 02 River: RIVER �. -1 Reach Reach 1 Riv Sta: 3 Profile PF#3 ' iy,INSyEley (ftj�' `Ve 119.70 Element "s `g, OB Gtiarinel a Right' - KHAM ft)' tr.> c 0.01 GVt n Val J _� s 0.056 0.1001 _ 0.056 t ,E 'Ete ft 119.71E� 1400.51; 1367.44 - - 920.91 F `EaQ CrItiW S ft Flow Ma sq 581.49: 1 485.34 1630.92 510 0.000290 Areas ft ( ) . -r--' 581.49 485.34 1630.92 ti 'Q otaf` 2200.00) F6u4 c s - 588.76; I 342.30 1268.94 .' , .,. Qp;WidC�ft ?- 998.74 Top Wi thr(ft)zr`' ` r - 172.97 103.80' e 721.97 4 t•. '�` -Ve .ota MA Ips ` _ _ 0.82 :~Avg Vel�'(ft/s) . -- 1.01 - -- 0.71 j -- --- 5.44 (.Hydr'Depth (ft) ----- 6' - 3.36; --._- _... 4.68; _ _2. 6 r �, • sConii oat cf 129148.5 .'on ds A 34562.7 ! 20094.3 --- 74491.5 ^ ! F I�Lengf Wtd (fE) 1179.37 -- ;Wetted Pe` F ft .: _ 173.44:: --104.35 : 7 .::Shear,' Nh Ch^E(ft)_' 114 26 r.Shear (Ib/S ft -- -- 0.06 --- 0:08: 1 ... Alp a Fjct LoSs�( 1.05 0.13 Strearrt Po�iJeIb/ff { K., Cum.Volume ....... 0.06; . 0O6 _ -I 0 0 3 -52-621.1 (acre{ 106.71! 14.46 C & Loss ft 0.00': Cum SA` acre's29.72:- F (,� )� � -- - 3.17: - - --- 17.96 : {` •+ � .4' b r � tin .: r 4 - ' & � _ _arc'. 1, v;} - - ` - wy - .. � - - •. Plan: Plan 02 River: RIVER-1 , Reach:Reach-1 Riv Sta: 4 Profile: 10 yr. W STEIe (ft€`' 118.70 Element rVel e0.01 rWt n'Val. 0.048; 4' _ ° r s i _ 1G Ere .ft 118.71 e1179.95: 1037.24! 467.54' (# 117.22 re 1619.44: ' G 0 0.000291 a s 1621.35 •ki�1rtr .a'- *- � `•F�`�gy�,:„AGJ;FVCVEQAE�F�' l eoedoB,�GpayG r�TwnS� `>`hSo g rGnr. C�GFa (oh,Ei jfiL#,`oL' iaoIoeoJ;-ooso ssDrl_ k sa(( tsft[ t(' ft . fft()}fsft,tfi(�tIC}`tft c"')ft ftr f." s -.t``+2� ;, i"t -r- .r. __- ------1--_1-_ 1114O%___1.0O59_ O.4..0�0t'GSCiG�xFtt3CSCenrx�hluogoa►UerneSa>.v.st.oSr:.l�:SA cIoPb - fsaX :(ss --_481. 332-.9..9280264 ----1------41---52_. .--....0661-832805--29--- -3-- 8.-.09909 1222.00 1222.00 1459.35 954.90 43.42 -461.04 0.75 0.751 4.16 1.711 71615.10 1615.1 i 1032.56 948.50 0.031 1.00 0.02130^039 731 .17 1 - ' • V . rr j " . t �v0.50 CGft)4.87; Plan: Plan 02 River: RIVER-1 Reach:Reach-1 Riv Sta: 4 Profile: PF#2 0.01V0.048j 0.100! 0.056 19.55 1179.951' 1037.24 467.54 17.42 2427.02! 0.00013A 27.02 ! -180.63i 993.17 o2000.00 67.76 455.73 -148833 963.62 47.09 477.61 0.56 V9 0.611: 0.38' 0.46 5.00 2.521. 3.84: 2 188344.64291 Leng5 47.89 114.54 s0.02 0.03:0.01 1.06 tr0.01 0.01.01 017 19i 20.93! 59.24 44.921 496' 24.16e Plan: Plan 02 River: RIVER-1 Reach:Reach-1 Riv Sta: 4 Profile: PF#3 i• ` . i' , t' if rf•� �'. ., ' • . y-"`�TVMCCMFCQLWVEir8~oI�e,nap�G&Gnl .S,; g �fisv WEsoEEe8 =tL,tlSdloaeoedituh,i3;_�(t:a(y(f'ft� trtf/(.)E�ts)" f)c. F�ft-1 y f ;,`--_- 20_2.0101059093 id��sWAWFEhoIrloeetep �wtrta.tneWi .84 0.00 07195.0....495168531-;1! .------------------Gr1-'-- 0- 03-_a7.1.. 02o40f^.; : _----_-..---.- -- R- -- -94_ 067.0..56 54119.84 Reac194.901136.117.46 2715.56194.90; 1136.83 ;! 200.00 low-TM 1616.30; 68.65! 515.05 966.738.40: 483.521498.64 0.54 0.60 0.350.45 .30 2.81 i .4.031.235 27730.7 167309.8 7106.4; 53314.5 877.78 967.151 50.70483.8 Ib ft)n114.54 SheaR 0.021 0.02 0.01 1.06 jjStreaPZ 0.01 0.01 0:01 I s0.13 �Currl Vl 47 o ss(ft)0.001 Cum SA4.98 24.4354 `WEmenC+ �• ' -s R n ' u_ i "•1'1+ " - ' ' a• Plan: Plan 02 River: RIVER -1 Reach:Reach-1 'Riv Sta: 5 Profile: PF#2 WS Eleeir4tft) '.' 119.67 Wtn Vat 0.040; 0.070' 0.056 Vel tFead (ft 0.01 E GEt%v(f} 119.68 Read' 566.45 1091.95 1095.741 119.951Reacti;Lrens 118.77 . Eo�wc" �q 1448.89' 363.88' ' 743.03 ' e 0.000289 Ar - s =, 1448.89 363.88 743.03 sQX al'< c s 2000.00 'F o 1114.11. 285.781 600.11 0.000216 rArea(sq�ft 1742.28' 394.82' 827.46 Q To`. a cfsjty 2200.00 1499.10 , opz . i ` t eft 1078.57 ] 111.8 " 308. 67 Vet ofafi`( sj 0.78 �;, + _ V" " (_ 's 0.77; 6 0.791 0.81 0.74 5.11d_D.`ep tt 1.34: 3.251 2.41 CF rTtal(is $ 117621.3 Co (cIs� 65521.8 16806.8; -- -_ 35292.61 Wee Eei Per ft) 1078.73 113.37 310.241 Leng>h td (f.. 752.61 �M 114.56;5t�ear�(Ib�q ft).��---- Polder' Iblft{s a Volume" -------- - 0-- .02 - ------ -- - - -- ---- OA61 - -.(j 074 0.02: 0.05: ' 0 0. -_.- -� r +- 1.00Stiearr► Lamps_ d " IF ) tiss ritj' 0.13 Cum a ) 161.39; 27.76: 81.08 0.04 00 58.20; ---6.95'.-,-- 34. 5 Plan: Plan 02 River: RIVER -1 Reach:Reach-1 Riv Sta: 5 Profile: PF#3 = 4V�SriElev'(ft) ^'a `= 119.94<<Efen e•nt� ,, , e ` B C a e 1+ Vel1je"d.((t.-P ir 0.01 �Wt n=ValN7)� 1, . E•C.V :fir, 0.040 0.070 0.056 ,EGECe : ft• ' ' . 119.951Reacti;Lrens (tt 566.45 1091.95 1095.74 118.80 ;;FIowAre-=Zs' 1742.281 394.82 L-- 827.46 _ f`tG. 7r;itl: ' 0.000216 rArea(sq�ft 1742.28' 394.82' 827.46 Q To`. a cfsjty 2200.00 ;flow: ( If 1308.24; 276.65 615.11 E;kTop td�th} „ 1507.75 'Top Width,(ft):. . 1079.59; 115.73: 312.43 r�Vel Total �ft10' i 0.74 ACIg =Ve f (fUs� �i -MO.. _ 0.75.-- --0.70' - -- 7 MaxaCF,ifl) thr _- 5.38 _ _ _ 1.61, 3.41; 2.65 HydrDe tli;,ft)Q �,TotaFs'►?� 149730.1 Conv 14cfs�j , 89037.8; --18828.6 -41863.6 743.64 WetfedPe' ` =? 1079.79: 117.251 --314.29 iMm,CFkEI (ftj 114.56,SHear (Ib/sq jW 0.02'1 0.051 0.04 00 Strearn�Po , eI / " --- 2 0.03 - 0.03 F n LosMsr(fij; 0.10 Cum V lu e=. 180.35: 29.95' _- 92.17 G8 E l oss (ft)! 0.00[Cum SA (acres)",.' ' 58.467 7.04 34.44 A Plan: Plan 02 River. RIVER -11 Reach:Reach-1 Riv Sta: 6 Profile: 10 yr. Plan: Plan 02 River: RIVER -11 Reach:Reach-1 .Riv Sta: 6 'Profile: PF#2 Plan: Plan 02 River. RIVER -1 Reach:Reach-1 Riv Sta: 6 Profile: PF#3 EldifigP a f es. 0.0401 0.0 AM 119.75 eac 190.631 696.04'1 852.52 118.20 rlfira, gft =W Aeat s 2473.42; 2473.50 163.92; 74.64 ft 0.000203 2000.00 2000.001 1575.43.�3 ..-T id 1311.59 159.25 .810.811 118 23 4.56 2803.26 i 1.89i �Co 7o;a'ofs 140322.37 . . . . . . . . . 140322.3i s 2804.031 190.951 4 eFfI 1310.571 yNh 115.18 Wd-6- , -. � rgIb791g- 0.02; ............... . . . . . . . . . a, _ Stream e 0.02: 'O�s 0 .08 1314.55 169.981: 31.97 W, 0.00 m.43:: 8.68: 38.63! Plan: Plan 02 River. RIVER -1 Reach:Reach-1 Riv Sta: 6 Profile: PF#3 120.00 Seim 7. -.-0.01 0.0401 190.631 696.04;,852.52 118 23 SFr -low 2803.26 i . . . . . . . . . 0.0601162 s 2804.031 190.951 -119.06 00 F16NW.,-cf 2200.00! 1618.41 0 1314.55 110.1511 193.70 9 0.78 'A' - Mg 0.78: Mhf; 2.14' 1AN 875.7 - - 4% 172875.7: 314.94 QV 1310.57: Mi 115.18 ,* bIs e�., a ,Zq 0.02; 1 ---0.02: "ObhVISM-11 Fl-ctri?6s -s,gft 0.06 -.Cum Volume .,(iergft 190.30! 34.63- 101. 441 8.84, 39.401 Plan: Plan 02 River: RIVER -1 Reach:Reach-1 Riv Sta: 7 Profile: PF#2 �- W 120.12 Element =e C� _ I Ve k ea N j F 0.01 ,UVt n Vat" 0.040 E=G• a it• 120.14 . e " e . ft): 1155.931 864.52 718.84' _i R 119.392045.63 �A § 12 B • ve ead; ft i 0.000634 Are . s" ;;ft'' 2045.631 251.84 342.19 Q o.af s.. 2000.00 Flow: cf§j ark Top" . is s f) :: 2000.00 ---1938.801 118.57 ` 158.33 --. To id ft * 2215.70 r Ve i'a fts 0.98g''rF(ftis j _ 0.98 1 4 CTDt-, 4.63 ydr"Dapt}ft} 1.061. Con of t•al c[s - - 79400.8 `Cod nvcfs k r 2283.42 L 115_5.93Viletted.Pe•, rr�ft. _ 1939.20. � AAirt;C ► Et"(ff� ' 115.49 �Stea�(Ib/sq ft)j� 0.04 Atpia" ~~viii T _ 1.00 Skream;P - . ry(Ib,/fLs: 0.04 ;Frctn'i=oss�(t C 0.38 �m�Volii `; a`cfe`ft) Cu - 229.94! 36.101 .92.52 8t'E Los;�ft; 0.00 r CumSA (acres t_ 106.56 10.89 41.251 Plan: Plan 02 Rive: RIVER -1 Reach:Reach-1 Riv Sta: 7 Profile: PF#3 ' VNSEtev(ftj 120.25G:Ele_irien?,'' Left'OB, Gtia riel 12 B • ve ead; ft i 0.01 VIE n-V� t 0.040' 0.070 i 0.056 E G' E%eft 120.26 Reach Left) 1155.93; 864.52; 718'841 " 2Crtid. iS 119.41 � 2283.421 266.66 I 61 .8331 - .. 0.000331 r 2283.42 L 266.661 _3 361 . oC 2200.00FJow �(cfs , y 1730.571 171.44 297. ' 2226.80 Top Wid�tF ftp 1941.451 -- 123.23T 162.12 0.76 0.64 0.82 ... r i 4.76 Hyd(`'oe" ft 1.181 2.161 2.23 %G4 is 120933.5 'C'oti, efs 95129.21 9423.8; 16380.5 r T !e . d' 1114.97 3Neffed>Fe ft 1941.901 124.131 162.36 ' Mi :GhY f ft) 115.49 Shea i(1 s y)RO0.02 0.04; 0.05 to. 1.01 "Strea, moo, er Ibfft 0.02 0.03 .- - 0.04 y.. 0. 25, m e 257.80; .40FroFtL , 8' . .fi 42.3O.00t 3; , _ --39.17 -- - Plan: Plan 02 River: RIVER -1 Reach:Reach-1 Riv Sta: 8 Profile: PF#2 _ WS`xEl(ft)T1 120.77 °Elei�ient° :.: _ #V4 =' a ' ' eftzOB. 0.040'' 0.0701 0.056 _ 0.01 E G le ft 120.78 Rea 'L 1324.151 1163.99 1257.65 ft's •Ctia'nef . 119.44 , .1. ' 1772.651 204.38 276.24 �iNt yn Val 0.040 0.070 0.056 1772.651- 204.38 276.24 2000.00 Flo ", 1749.021 100.22 150.75 ft ' 1601.55To :1Nidl? 1129.601 159.991. " lr r - 0.89 Y,g Vef s�s, 0.99 0.49 0.55 x :� 4.02 v 1.57 1.28 i 0.89 Con Tota 101670.5 t Conv'� cfs� 88912.1 5094.9 7663.4 `Le' gtf:_ d�- ft _ 1317.63. e(ted'Pe r a "if ` _ 1129.84 - - - 160.59' _-'-0.031 312.14 Ay Ge. s 116.75 hear�Ili 0.04 tia- 1.121'Sf�gam Ppb e (Ib 's)` 0.041 0.02 0.01 0.64 =Cum VoIdiffiiX, [e=ft) �' 287.97 i 42.20 Plan: Plan 02 River: RIVER -1 Reach:Reach-1 Riv Sta: 8 Profile: PF#2 _ WS`xEl(ft)T1 120.77 °Elei�ient° :.: _ #V4 =' a ' ' eftzOB. 0.040'' 0.0701 0.056 _ 0.01 E G le ft 120.78 Rea 'L 1324.151 1163.99 1257.65 ft's •Ctia'nef . 119.44 , .1. ' 1772.651 204.38 276.24 �iNt yn Val 0.040 0.070 0.056 1772.651- 204.38 276.24 2000.00 Flo ", 1749.021 100.22 150.75 ft ' 1601.55To :1Nidl? 1129.601 159.991. 311.96 0.89 Y,g Vef s�s, 0.99 0.49 0.55 x :� 4.02 v 1.57 1.28 i 0.89 Con Tota 101670.5 t Conv'� cfs� 88912.1 5094.9 7663.4 `Le' gtf:_ d�- ft _ 1317.63. e(ted'Pe r a "if ` _ 1129.84 - - - 160.59' _-'-0.031 312.14 Ay Ge. s 116.75 hear�Ili 0.04 tia- 1.121'Sf�gam Ppb e (Ib 's)` 0.041 0.02 0.01 0.64 =Cum VoIdiffiiX, [e=ft) �' 287.97 i 42.20 101.45 m',ogs-g.1 K"ss'(ft) 0.00 =Ciim SA(ac�es)' ' 153.19 14.611 48.04 r' Plan' Plan 02 River: RIVER -1 Reach:Reach-1 Riv Sta: 8 Profile: PF#3 ' ?, 3W�'SExe(ft 120.76 Element;£ ft's •Ctia'nef . `Rig r , Y, d`� ): 0.02 �iNt yn Val 0.040 0.070 0.056 y �.. ° + ...... ft120.78 ,�ieach to , ft) 1324.1 1163.99 1257.65 :Crff - (ft 119.48 Flow" e j 1763.06 203.02 273.60 t . 0.000477 .`Afe3"j' ` 1763.06 203.021 273.60 x :� 2200.00 F o s cfs 1924.55-I 165.35 • p. To "VYtf(ff . 1599.25Topdth (ft. 1129.50T 159.881- ------T.-0-9F--0.54 -309.87. 'Ve �aP(ft 0.98 Ay Ge. s _ _ 0.60 _. `• (ufa 6 2 4.01 !Ff d�:pe ft 1.561 1.27! 0.88 100729.5 z-6h0e,cfsJ - 88T-17.9-'--5-0-41.01 7570.6 1306.91'iNettetl Fe , ff 1129.7 160.481 _ ' 'Mr C i EL ft)• 116.75 Shea(I ' sq: 0.051 0.04 ` -^310.05 0.03 Ip(iar" 1.12 , Strea 0.05 -- 0 --0.02 , 0.52 Ctim Voltlme,('acre=ft 319.30 45.451 114.58 , t Cum SA (acres) ) f_, �_ - 153.58, 14.94_ _ r EU . , (it} ` lk� c v -- 2.07 0.100 E G 1Elevs ft S,. _ 119.12 ;Reach Len (ft) �.-- [ 117.05 ,Flow:.(Sq':'190.471 igrea . o L r 1�90.47 f 2200.00 Flow = r" ----! 2200.00 ---' Plan: Plan 02 River: RIVER -1 Reach:Reach-1 Riv Sta: 1 Profile: 10 yr. F, S Elev;(ft)` 115.52 i ElementR�r�<, ` + e E a e f ` VeGiead.. ft 1.50 �.rt�Val y✓ ` _ < 0.100; " EAG . lev; ft 117.03- ..= le ttk!� ( sti . ` M t"tCFi El ft� ' vy 115.52' 'reap s; . _� - - ----124.14 ' 0 0.107893 S s + i - 124.14 -- < . i o 1222.00 J 1222.001 - _ 41.18 41.18 9.84 s 9.84 i A 3.73 r tti ft 3.01 t c 3720.3 Co :. i 3720.3 J _. 43.351<. t {C Ehr 111.79 -ea i _ 19291_ i' oya' ctn Loss ft 1_ 00�Strea,�r%Pow ---��C-ume= 189.90 a G'rB�F �L•oss it ; ___. _ `CutnTSA�(acPes' ) � i � :,. . , , ' 6 Plan: Plan 02 River: RIVER -1 Reach:Reach-1 Riv Sta: 1 Profile: PF#2 116.76 .Eluent„�.��'� 1.97 af 0.100 i 118.73 ea"ciLen"(ft - 116.76 %w:ATea;�s'q 177.35 E . r sE C� Slop' 0.102547 177.351 T . , Tota(i_c 2000.00 -- 2000.00± + ` Top Vdt fr , 45.02 ,Fjrow;(cfs),z, odth ft) F - -45.02 .y la 0 ( 11.28 ---- t'(tt/s)`.� : ----- ..._.-11.28 --- - - - -- Ilaxzt Lht D` i 4.97 Hyrpepthy(ft) _ 3.94 r " GorSTotat` cfs ' 6245.5(cfs :4-- ).s 6245.5 J , Le gth 1Ntd 111.79 Wetted Per (ft) --- - -- _48.61--- 23.36; a 'Ch'EI ft• Shea- Ib/sq'ft � Y .}. ` ` r'' _ 1.0 0Strearifi:Pov7igrti(I�7 5 ---,-- -------� ; 263.41 Fir n Loss tt z. .._k. Crim Volume'{{//a'c[e, �------1 •.. • 'C`&'EsC�ss(fi�' ;+' �;Curn:'S;4"(aces"�' .,- � ' wiPlan: Plan 02 . River: RIVERA Reach:Reach-1 Riv Sta: 1 Profile: PF#3 !' EU . , (it} 117.05'Eiemeri `Veli ead -- 2.07 0.100 E G 1Elevs ft S,. _ 119.12 ;Reach Len (ft) �.-- [ 117.05 ,Flow:.(Sq':'190.471 igrea . L r 1�90.47 -Q o alk( "s 2200.00 Flow = r" ----! 2200.00 ---' i ,sj tfi (ff 45.91 RVe[ 0 1( s) MID tku -45.91 11.5511.55 5.26 Hydr.`Detlf':' it i I 6918.2 ConvlYds);; :.- 4.15 - 6918.2 - ..= le ttk!� ( sti . ` M t"tCFi El ft� ' - 111.79 _ 1 00.5 Witte er Shea�:(Ib/sg ft); 0 ea m?owe(Iblftr ---...- -- _- _-- 49.84 -`• _ 24.13 278.68 '~�[cfrt L"oss.:(ft "' C m Volume (a o- 'C1"& ELoss (ft) Ti, SA__ - L Plan: Plan 02 River: RIVER -1. Reach:Reach-1 R.iv Sta: 2 Profile: PF#2 El 117.82 rEleiient'w" 0.0561 0.100: 0.056 14. 267. ,B .056, 0.100 0.0561 0.00 117.82 1412.861 117.60 a.. 1560.18; 99.801 811.331 S o 0.000150 Areas ' 1560.18: 99.80] 811.33; 1222.00 . . . . . . 791.49 35.54394.97- MUM 1292.24 �40.31 8 .26' 9 0.511 0.361 0.49! 832.721 36.49: ;Marr; trip 4.37 114.25 1.911 2.85' 1.83 0.01 99746.2 1.01e-stm-wiT6We-r 0. 2 64602.11 2900.5; 32237.61 t 1166.46 816.151 36.491 44235! 0.98 114.25 0.02 i 0.03 0.021 a.. e 0.011 0.01 0.01 25.30 2.7 920 0.15`: CJDIMS��A346 13.221 0 0.93 5.01 Plan: Plan 02 River: RIVER -1. Reach:Reach-1 R.iv Sta: 2 Profile: PF#2 El 0.00 0.0561 0.100: 0.056 14. 267. lb 58 987.56 117.60 2712717.80'14-47.6-5 6 •2717.80 148.92-: 1447.65 0 1, 6 45.93! 664.51 _21030302.00,`f ..08 ,T 831.421 0.46 �40.31 0.4-6 5.77 246087.411-' 3.27' 158672.8 : 4.251 5651.4' 3.11 81763.2 832.721 36.49: .466.16 WiLK;`C; fM 114.25 fi6. a I ! . .. 1 - - 0.02 0.01 a-; M 1.01e-stm-wiT6We-r 0. 2 1 FEW 0.012 0.01. 4.00; 0,01 16.41 -1, .0.20'.. nfi:;:SK(acres 13.48: 0.98 5.28: Plin: PlaA 02 'River: RIVER -1 Reach:Reach-I Riv Sta: 2 Profile: PF#3 e -fi 6. 56 0.00 -4 ali'a 0.0561 0.100, 0.056 A -0m ft . . - ' &� - -I- 1 1 4 i 19,� ��h AM= 1412.86-1067.581 1. 9-87.56 E YVI 117.60 3014.151 161.391 1614.40 0.000057 4-1�L 161.39 1614.40 tTotalr 2200.00 FI W"cfs 1418.271 48.72! 733.02 1340.79 4-46]"' 0.47: 0.30, 045 3.6 1 6.13 IT 4.61 i -44 3 �2 OR 2 91816.3 --6461.9'. 97230.4, 1165.55 Recti ftj W.0 835.52 36.49' 472.10 5 Sh-...- o 0.011 0.02: .0 0.011 0.00:; 0.01 ► Ur W& Coast( 18.30 Fr I40.25 ':- j WE 13.53 0.99 5.35 W SYEfevr ftp ` 118.19 Elemen --N8 _ r Vel rd ft'" 0.02 - �n:. al w " `` 0.0561, 0.1001 0.0561 1 (' 118.21 "Rga-c `fC. `n' ft) 1400.51 :1367.44 920.91 116.32 'E > ' e s zft 332.08 j 328.52 563.92 0 0.000982 s ff . 332.08 328.52 563.92 ot" 1222.00 ,E' 453.841, 328.60 439.56 yo 940.09 ci - ft' 157.20 103.80 679.09 1.37' 1.00 0.78 M` O,_ 39rs,�e fi(ft 2.111 3.16 0.83 Go a ( 38995.4 _ r�, cfS� +. 14482.7 --,-- 10485.91 _ 14026 Le. 1231.67 e e � Pe?� ft 157.60 ; 104.35i 679.24 � 114.26 ea.(Ib syift 0.131 0.19' 0 05 a. 1.19 St amP,owe� I 0.18 0.19 0.04 0.38 �Cg V fumeYacce 55.721 9.47 23.73 o s ft). _ 0.00 Cum�S" acre 28- - 3.11 -_ 16.87 Plan: Plan 02 - River: RIVER -1 Reach:Reach-1 Riv Sta: 3 'Profile: PF#2 �i J 119.37 Elem-' ent Fes, ` b 'O - Rigg' `O U Headityy� '� - 0.01Vatr� r�Gt fe"v t ---119.38 achaen (ft)'4*a 1400.511 1367.44 920.91 116.80 F,Jow;A�ea s ft 524.62; --450.87; 1392.29 E G S( 0.000364 Area (scft)� 524.62 450.87; 1392.29. _ nn .. . cts 2000.00 Flow (cfsfYr"c� 562.78; 338.92; 1098.29; ` r To i t ft 988.42Tdp� Wdtfi (ft)° 169.50 103.80 7,15.12 ;Vel o" s 0.84 A�g�Vet (ftCs�'... 1.071 0.75E - 0.79' 3.101 ---4.34' 1.95 t ;Cpn* a"(1 cts 104875.6 Conv(cf 29511.11 17772.31 57592.2 Q t. kLength?.. dpi 1185.99 Wetted Per�(ft "q 169.96. 104.35 -715.30 114.26 [Shear Ib/s ff- --- 0.07 0.10 0.04 1.07'SVYeam*Powet (1 0.08; 0.071 -- 0.03 , Frctn Losst�ft7 - 0.15 'Cum�Volume'�acr�e� 96.20 - 13.41 46 43 , 0.00 Cum SA (acres)#; 29.57; 3.161 17.76 vy r ...1�Z Frnv �✓.2.r:,�. :.. a:�:._..::..:_.:_�:.lv.i_.-._-._-.l_...-___..�__._. --_� L �' :` ; : • Plan: Plan 02 River: RIVER -1 Reach:Reach-1 Riv Sta: 3 Profile: PF#3 " I ` I W SaElek(ft}; ---119.70 Ef' ementM Ce OB: L: Channel4Right t ,. r-2 k, 0.01 1Nf n V6 0.056 0.100 ; 0.056 ;p., 'E'G� Elei :( .) 119.71 Reach`Cen�(ft) 1 1400.51 1367.44; -meg,'. ' - _ _ r Crtt Cl17:5' _ --116.89 F ow Area sq`: 581.34 485.25: 1630.32 G.STo 0.000290 AYasg it 581 3 _ 485.25-- 1630.321 i t 'Q T tea{ i(cis,J, 2200.00 nF�low cfsj ' 588.83 342.37 1268.80 (� 172 (.Topp idt ;ft a 998.71 op Wtdfh ft : .96. 103.80; 721.95 M. _--- 0.82 1. 1 0.71 _ 0.78 x�Cfil�tb fi 5.44 fy�dr Depth (ft);, r 3.36 2.26 a _ ���T.6 a ` c - 129084.4 Coh- cfs� 34549 5 20088.3 i 74446.6 _ _ , 1179.38 {Wetted Peri ftp --- 173.431 - 104.35: 722.14 „: r 114.26 Shear�(Ib/sq ft)` 0.06; '-0-08y 0.04! 'sA Alph 1.05 �Sream Povrert(Ibffts : 0.06: 0.06 0.03 t Frcfn'Lo(ft) 0.13 Ct]m Volume (acne= a 106.68' 14.461 52� " 0.00 EfCum SA (acres}" 29.72 _ _ 3.17i .17.96! { Plan: Plan 02 River: RIVER -1 Reach:Reach-1 Riv Sta: 4 Profile: 10 yr. a' n 118.77 `Eleni` e INS Elev4�� r. F . tian e / ead ft 0.12 Wt al 0.0481 118.89 Rea'c Lens ft) 1179.95 1037.24! 467.54 _. a �� i , 118A8 F o ` `ea;(s.. ,ft 443.98' t .' -E. (tip;ft 0.004169 _ 446.351 145.53: 629.89 1222.00 ,F 0 cfs 1222.001 I . 811.66 ! ft 305.59! 43.71 462.36 " _ x � I :Ve To at :tiXs 2.75Ve , , - _ _ 2J5� � -. i i a Ctib_ ft 4.23 q dry .e�-.�' 1.491 18925.7 on . cfs , % 18925.7 i { 1032.63 tl1/e T r ft ; 302.21! IVE ° 114.54 ►a,P. a' 1.00 St earc� tiowe'b •s 1.05;. I - F ', �Frdfn- 'o ft 1.73 'C m Vof�me (acieF 66.26; 15.11 I 30.14 l C'81E Loss' fE' _ 0.03 Cu' iS(acres'5 -35.11 - - -4.871 - 22.99 - Plan: Plan 02 River: RIVER -1 Reach:Reach-1 Riv Sta: 4 Profile: PF#2 '1WS4Eelel vft_ 119.68 Elegy ' arih ea x(ft '), s 0.02 V1lt� n"Val 'S 0.048 • - 0.100 0.056 r E Gt Elegy ft 119.70 'Reach E'en: (ftr "`- 1179.95 1037.24 ; 467.54 Cnt IN S _ff) " 118.40%W Area*(sq'ft 730.23i 187.35 _1061.07 EGnSfo a ft7 0.000449 Area (sq ft}s�+ 730.231 187.35; 1061.07 Q o)atr i 2000.00 Flow(cfs)� 846.631 142.35 1011.03 '' ToV1rd h� ft F 843.22Top W th (ft);w _- 315.09 ' 47.71 480.411 . ' 4VekTotal. Am . 1:011 g; --- 076 i -- 095 1 . . i 5.14 94-20Hd4Dept(ft)_2_.3._2;;-- 3.93 ii . -_--2.21 I ConyJoa-on 6720.2 477 .6 30.9 _ w Le gfh Wtd ft , - - 787.15 Wetted Pet ft - - . O 321.03 ? 49.951 480.70, Mm Ch E; (ftZ x 114.54 Shear (Ib/sq ft)�sY� 0.06; 0.11 0.06! --"'-T.-65-- 6 - -.... r�Alpha �' 1.05 'Stream Power (Ib/ s 0.071 0.081 0.06 ` 0 32 L 113.19!rnLos`f21..011 _59..6 J 000 24_18' Plan: Plan 02 River: RIVER -1 Reach:Reach-1 Riv Sta: 4 Profile: PF#3 V1(SEIeJ�(ft) ' 9494119.95 Element rf <=;� a QB MIN ?:Rig Y �„ rVei Head ) 0.02 !-,Wt-.'j alsty 0.0481 0.1001 0.056 119.97 Reach Len (ft) `1179-9 5 ; 1037.24! , 467.54 ' • Cn }1N�S � s' . -__ - 9494-- -�---• .. ' . . , (i 118.47 Flowrea (sq ft) 815.57' 200.37 1191.33 sEtG"$lo�e 0.000383 A ak{sg ft� 815.57 200.37 1191.33 ,kQxTo al (cfs 2200.00 Elbw (cf -1 930.01 144.70 1125.29 Top dtt (ft : - 852.52 'fop Width,(ft) 317.90 - `48.89 485.74 VelTotatr(ft/s . 1.00 'Avg: Velfi/s) 1.14; 0.72; 0.94 'rt zMaGfit D t{i 9494 5.41 Hydr bepth�(ft - - 2.5714.1019494-- 2.45 �yCorl Fofa 112348.4 Gonv ds} 47493.2E 7389.5 57465.8 - _ .� <ren E' d• 776.49WetteP51.25 486.05 = 11454 Shear,Ilbrso,ftf" 0.06' 0.09 0.06,41 L- ----- Alpfia� ' 9494 1.05 Stream Power Sm 9494 - 0.07; 0.07 - 9494 9494 0.06 ` F ciF'Loss' ft 0.26 Cum VolJme.; acre- 125.60 - 22.62 -67.74 -_ ... -..._{ _ i i C & E Loss (ft} 0.00 Cum SA (acres) 36.37; 4.99 24.44! s.r_..- _..;. ' Plan: Plan 02 River: RIVER -1 Reach:Reach-1 Riv Sta: 6 Profile: 10 yr. ;. W S Efev (ft)T 1 t 9.92 Element i dVeMtisad: 0.16 ` Wt -Vat 0.0401 E•�E ft 120.08 tie cli'te �( 190.631 696.04 852.52 Grtt;.. 5 ft 119.11 VALAT. a 379.61 r , E. 0 0.003296 a; sq 380.101 182.781 104.97 ti o' 1222.00 1222.001 1 505.64 o ft : 213.67 108.501 183.47 3.22 - c 1 A 4.74 d. a 1.81 , MiR':ChYE 115.18 K$ ears b/sgft?` . 0.36; I -� _ Al a 1.00 "Stfefi RoweF Ib 1.17' I F{ Cnt o'ss 0.40 cC rt;l�olU ' e. acre (t� 72.11 25.77 55.43 C 8$?G�Lossr(ft 0.04 CtnSA (a`cres"}: 39.55 8.57 37.49 t Plan: Plan 02 River: RIVER -1 Reach:Reach-1 Riv Sta: 6 Profile: PF#2 r iWS�EIWd�' 120.47 `Elea0.25 Profile: PF#3 1Nt`:nl/a) 0.040 120.65 11,Element A a-�,- 120.73 Rei cti en (ft) 190.63119.52 Vel ead•(ft)i 'E`lowAreaq'ft). 495.43 0.0401 EGSope., 0.003760 Area'(sq ft) s % 499.56 i 245.89: 227.13 Q� otaT' cf 2000.00 Fliiw2000.00 ft) i 'TdprlNiii tt 608.55 op'Width`(ft `^' 220.16; 120.68 ---267.721 Vel Toa ftls 4.04 A gVel(ft/s�' '," - 51 --- 4.04F. 533.12 M C ,Dp. ----5.29 kfydrDe'�ttir(ft)?- --2.36 i - ---i - - - ;Cbnk. :0a 3 32614.7 �Conv (cfs 32614.7 - 539.21 Le4ngthVld":E 432.75lyetted Pejft)F 215.78-- -'- gMm'G 115.18 0.54;, 2200.00 Alplia� , s 1:00 ;StreamPower: (Ib/ * , 2.181- f 1 tTFtctn �Lo's"s;- ft` 0.50 }Gum=Voiume (acre;ft 122.17{I-33.91 ! 95.07 'a.. -c: x+.+.-cr• . 124.64 I - 1 - _ 6A7 `"Cum'SA•;(acres):` 40.67 8.96' .39. 9 Plan: Plan 02 River: RIVER -1 Reach:Reach-1 Riv Sta: 6 Profile: PF#3 „ i W S Elev (ft)•r 120.65 11,Element A a-�,- `Le O Ctiannef :�� ;Rig. Vel ead•(ft)i 0.26 Wt ;tn. Val 0.0401 EG=EIv``fi -120.92Reactj?Leri? ft) --190.63: 696.04 - 852.521. Crit:V1%x "ft 119.62 F ow�Area_(q. ); 533.12 - -_- 0.003590 rea'09" - 539.21 267.87' 1 278.92 2200.00 .Flow'(cts 2200.00 I E Tqp� t�tfr 657.06 ,op'.WidttZ: ft) ' "' 222.27 124.64 310.16 Ve12o(ar(/s 4.13 AirgiLel(tUs� r - 4.13 j I MaGhk - 5.47 ,�:`a, aHydr Depth (ft) -- 2.54 I - f� t'Co Jia o1._ 36716.2 -Cory"'_.f`~ cs) 36716.2 - -^_ Length Wtd ft 427 041 Wetted Per K M W-, E[ ft 115.18Sfiea7 (Ib/sg0.55; 1 Alpha`, _ 1.00 kStr am Power (Ibltts -• r - - 2.28; L ' , r 1 ! rctn Los"s°(ft) 0.46 Cum Volume:(acre ft 135.65; 36.40, 106.91. ► r v --• - )_-9.09 C 8 E Loss ft ,- 0.07 j Cum'SA (acres) -- 40.93 40.851 ---=- - - - h WSEKe 120.14 E e E. e Id/7 e ifwN W �, .......... . .. 20.16 a e a c e 566.451 109' Gnt ic 119.51 F 0 0 360.361 e �ft 360.361 2b6O.00 F 0 F 424.03 e:- 0-8 T , T 6 lat _A "4 230.33 1.181 Plan: Plan 02 River: RIVER -1 Reach:Reach-I Riv Sta: 5 Profile: 10 yr. . 7 0.00- EW; �El Eld '(ft g I ."Y I - � ­�b 119.63 'Q I ON B 18122.6 ;dh o 1222.ft �W Mttid:N. e 0.01 63. ... 0.0401 0.0701 0.056 - - - - - - - - ...... 119.64 566.451 .1 5=1 0 95.74 . . V -Uff Volume acre= 119.51 243.061 359.361 730 53 3.2, rd 0.000407 e s 243.06 359.36 730.5 1�4 263 1. 1222.00 195.22 333.37 693.4 47 L Id 647.81 228.42 - 111.29 308,; 3s L Id - fvg 0.92 0.801 0.93 r 5.07 .j KID 11&ft 1.061 3.23! f PAR 9672.0 16516.31 i 34 ' plaWpl, U4 to T d 788.20 poft���� 231.03, 112.801 ft 114.56KBXe.(,Ib q 0.03 0.08 R 1.01 0.02 0.08W u e LR 0.74 70.75 21.44Jt• 0 %MV 01 38.58 6.81 1ryt, GSoAe 220 - Plan: Plan 02 River: RIVER -1 Reach:Reach-1 Riv Sta: 5 •E. -Profile: PF#2 0 __'003 V L/ WSEKe 120.14 E e E. e 2 W .040 OX .......... . .. 20.16 a e a c e 566.451 109' Gnt ic 119.51 F 0 0 360.361 e �ft 360.361 2b6O.00 F 0 F 424.03 e:- 0-8 T , T 6 lat _A "4 230.33 1.181 d8d 1.56 o a s 85477 F; UffV.1 n C S 18122.6 ;dh 927.05 �W Mttid:N. e 234.03 114.56 . She5' ltV19ft)% 0.0 1.00 `Stream0.'' 0.46 -Uff Volume acre= IZU 0.00 3 . . W 260- h 0 0c) f-_ ' re' P/ a/7, 02 U7 120 ea c U. 0 owl Plan: Plan 02 River: RIVER -1 Reach:Reach-1 Riv Sta: 5 Prof 16 120.36 Ekrnkf;�"'; C 6 00 00 ,570 idi 4 el H ft d 0.02 n7V j -,! , 120.38 - V.- h' 19.51 gMcHYO; pep (11/s tG to " 0.000517 SA 2200.00Flowe SN Iff MA Top u JAI 677.8 ftff. -36, 4 .2 5.80 uD Ic 0 al cfs 96739.6 Length d 135.6 Wetted 922.1 114.56 Shear (Ib/sq fit) 46.93' Frgri- _C 0.41 UiWV61 dKe F "0 . ,r t r+Plan: Plan 02 River: RIVER -1 { > g Yf, , i;n: VWeSwLireEafedv ft(ft)f ---1;~REe-leac Re,ach-1: -:.R.�iv . .S`t°a- .6 � Profile: ilOe: B1:0 r. ment `19.92 0.16 1 - 0.0 g It 40 r f F •Gu -E ft 120.08 CrR'VV-S ft ate ctrl 190.63 696.041 ' 119.11 0 ea 852.52' 379.61 0 0.003296 T 1222.00 380.1.0 182.78 104,97 i 0 1222.00 y<, 505.64 o t . h _ V 3.22 e 213.67 108.501 183.47 C Ma ;D 3.22 a.74 .�,qd ahs. . - ConTo a Ce 21283.9- 1.81 L _Conn . cfs , 21283.9 ,rgth t�l1�d 447.36u.lNetfedfPer�jft)` y 214.68' Mb:RaCEI: ft - 115.18 earl ti%s .ftp �F----- .,- alp"Fia 1.00 Strea :Powe6lti= § 0.36 F: cEn ossa . 0.40 _ V eacre, 72.11 25.77Z. L6ss3(ft --- 0.04 C S _ 55.43 ,. ' A.(�cres'i� 39.55 - .. 1 8.57 • 37.49 _ ry ` Plan: Plan 02 River: RIVERA ' A , ,' � Reach Reach -1 Riv Sta: 6 Profile' W P • ' =S Ele1 ftJ 120.47 F#2 ,; ., a t--•*�-•r � ESV -e 0.25 lllk n:1/alh p R E E=Gley ft - 120.73 a 0.040 , Re ch :fie (ft) h i Crit W ft 190.63 696.04, 852.52 119 52low'Areasft) 495.43 ErGS open _ .:� 0-003- 9-P56' .003 Q+ ota7' cf499.56 245.89: 227.13 La 2000 00 .Flow jcfs)_ f - - -•-- ToWid ' .ft •2000.00 -_ * > y 4i 1 . w - 608.55 °P;Wdth; _ 1 ,VeliTotaj s . * )t 220.16; 120.68 - 267.721 ----4 04 A 9Vel(Ns� * - - 4.04 ----- - - --- ' 5.29 kty Dth e-�(ft) Cbnv>To a 3 r 32614 nv rL d 432 7 deo �icfs)rs` 32614.7-- ----1 r . 75 lNetted Pet jft). -- _- t� - 215.78 �- .,Sliedrl�lb/s ft) , --- 3r 00 'Stream 0.54 Row`et'(16/ffts j - •E FnoY ft .H�b 2.181 I C 0 50 Cum Volume rft - t 122.17 33.91 1 ��r(ft• -_ -0 07 Cum SAt(acres)_.- 95.07 _ 40.67 8 96' 39.89 t-�'------ - - rc Plan Plan 02 River: RIVER -1 Reach:Reach-1 Riv Sta: 6 Profile: PF#3 fes. t , F ! i Elev (ft)e --120.65 Ele' merit - L ;=E 0.26 Channel -` RIg ::pB E G 0.040 120.92 Reach Lend ft) j - V -190.63: 696.04 : - _ 119.62 F owYAre' _�_ 852.52 ( 533.12 Hak• E't Slo': 0.003590 . «f. 539.21 26787- 2200.00.onV. of Flow {cfs 2200.00 278.92 lit I , • o 657.06 �To W ft Vel .. p....IdT_ . 222.27 ,1 XI Ch of s 124.64 310.16 XICh 4.13el - MaxGtiJ,D Arg:(�s 4.131 - �h 5.47 >-Hydr: ` Dep 2.5-41 ---- tFo {Coo _:36716.2 -�_(s td36716.2 427.04 (, Wetted PeiFmi i - -- 1 n� 115_18 : Shk ea(Ib/sq ft) 0.551-- Alpha s - ---_ ,rte 1 21 _ Frctn o - .. 00 Stream Power.(Ib/ft 2.28' .... _ _.... j Loss„(ft) ' 0.46 Cum Volume (acre ft L ` E Loss -- _ i..-. --- - C & ft): 0 07 j Cum'40.93 36.00......._140.91 t r - .. _ .851 t 41 Plan: Plan 02 River. RIVER -1 Reach:Reach-1 Riv Sta: 7 Profile: 10 yr. "` w FW:SElev;;(ft);. 121.29 1" a c06' a ig �•Vehf�e'ad'ft ._ 0.03 WLn Val I 0.070 0.056 E GNEII 121.32 Reac�en�;n. _. 1155.931 864.52, 718.841 C 120.76 FI'ow rea s ! 41- 1.19 545'.79 ' ' v Plan: Plan 02 River: RIVERA Reach:Reach-1 Riv Sta: 7 Profile: PF#2 F`WS:#Ele 122.18 '':Element Ce :' B'. "G ig p6 V a ead" fkf 0.04 W( nVaF�F"� :f. 0.070 0.056 •;E.G:rEfev (ftj ` 122.22 F;V acfi,Len ffj. SF.IowYAiea`� (ff ._ .. 1155.93 864.52' 543.05 718.84 716.21 `Girt 120.75 EGySf0 0.000822 rAiga sg'ft). 543.05 716.21 0.000858 (Area (sq 575.72 761.40 Q Tota s. Q�>Toaf c s 2000.00 <FfowZcfsj 757.07 1242.93 ATO c .-1 366.54TOp Wldfh ft " n 155�56'� 210.98 Ve Toa :. s 1.59 Av9Vef ft/s ` � I 1.39' 1.74 6.90, _ w --3.40 `Con' 4 Toka.C:{ GMa Cb • > i - 6.69 �HydiQepth?(f( `� I 3.49:' _ 3.39 965.19 V)fetted<Per fid 160,201 224.62 eMin;Gh�EI' r.,. f 4• Cony ota 69756.9 ! 0.19! 26405.4! 43351.5 i LengthVVt ft 964.96 (fth,_� 0.32 _Ftctr L'o; ' ft Wetted Per 156.64 211.341 Min EIS ft s:._ 115.49 Shear' lW ft Q:n )x_'.. 0.18! - 0.17 :; 1.03 s , _c( r 0.25 - - - 0.30 Frd 106- .e' 1.47 Cum Vo16ffi- acr' - , .._...�,_��, 128.801 41.73 102.85 8'E"Loss>(ft _ - 0 02 ?_Cuin_SA?;(ac�esj, 4 --'--4-3 43.5911 11.70? _ - 43.84 J , Plan: Plan 02 River: RIVER -1 Reach:Reach-1 Riv Sta: 7 Profile: PF#3 W:S E�ev,<2ft)r 122.39 „Elemerif s=V Ce :' B'. "G 19� "Vel Headft- 0.04 Wt n Val, 0.070 0.056 •;E.G:rEfev (ftj ` 122.43 Rikti: 1155.93 .864.521 718.84 Critwffif 120.75 : Flow,'Atea (sq f)25 ,__.... 575.721 - 761.40 I GId" 0.000858 (Area (sq 575.72 761.40 Q Tota s. 2200.00 Flow (cfs) ` ` i 839.77 1360.23 - 383.35 ,Top VVlcJth,(ft)s.. 159.11 224.24 �Ve.To+------- _ 1.46 1.79 I: sC,KJ WI 6.90, Mid Depth, f jr ! �Conv L 3:62 --` --3.40 `Con' 4 Toka.C:{ 75116.3 (ds)*� " I 28673.1 46443.2 Lerig `Wfd ( 965.19 V)fetted<Per fid 160,201 224.62 eMin;Gh�EI' r.,. f 4• 115.49SHH-rIti s ^. �(_.x:•... ! 0.19! 0.18 _ 1.03 tSttbaffiTd 'e�-IbH= ---1 0.28T 0.32 _Ftctr L'o; ' ft 1.49 Cum Vol6*ffi& cre-ft' 142.81 f--44.'771 15.50 C 0,02 , Cum SA (acrgjj "'�.' 43.88; --- 11.91!; - _- - 45.261 S Plan: Plan 02 River: RIVERA Reach:Reach-1 Riv Sta: 8 Profile: 10 yr. Plan: Plan 02 River: RIVER -1 Reach:Reach-1 Riv Sta: 8 Profile: PF#2 xifV SL�EIe{ftr ice' 122.34 Element' ��r-=,�LeB ;;;Ghar1 el' `R►gh ^VeLNead,�ft '' 0.00 MO Val ``` AI` 0.040 i 0.070 0.056 E122.55 - iTL j�i'i,� •Lt'-' -OB C+ ;bi e ` `Ri,. , ',, . 122.34 Reach` `eht(ft)t� � - 1324.15] 1163.99; 1257.65 ►MC 119.44 ��Flov�}1�rea {s rft) � 3563.78' 468.01 , 816.30! 1324.15! 0.000035 3563.78' 468�.01 816.30 s "ft 9 2000.00 f low::(cfs)'5` 1661.49 113.48 i225.03 TO )ilth,pft� 1675.80 tTopiWd fit(ft),. 1151.99:1--T73.62 -350.18 VeaRN(� s 0.41 °Avg�Vel� ft/�sj 0.471 0.241 0.28 . r G. 1684.08 n Tor�W h kw' --_1156.88!--175.07 --352. Ma;G�GhQp t ;(ft:, 5.59dr Deptyy(ftT, . 3.09 2.70, 2.33 0.25. 0.291 .i ' I Ma Ghl Dpth�(ft' rf 5.80 Hydr Depth (ft) !Conv o�Eal`(cfs�a r`� 338243.41 Conv.? (cfsjr 280994.7 19191.3; 38057.4 Conv; (cfsjrr? 1264.89 Pei �(ft).� r Shear (Ib/sgyft)fT 1152.48+ 1152.48, 0.01 ! 174.311---•.•_ 0.01! 350.49 0.01 Mm Ch`EI (ft) 116.75 2 -Alp a 1.13 Strearrr Polder Ift s); 0.00 i 0.00 0.00 rFrcln Loss,(ft 0.5.Cum 0.00 Volume (acre ft) 4t fit Cum SA (acres) t �• 182.96, 61.10 55.24: 16.10: 124.97 51.94! C 8, E�Loss¢(ft) ate. a„ - 0.00: : - 000.1 - 59.20:_ 139.3 i� ..Cum V610me (acre -ft} 200.63. B EJLoss (ft) ' Plan: Plan 02 River: RIVER -1 Reach:Reach-1 Riv Sta: 8 `Profile: PF#3 ` E122.55 Element ,.r�.4prF j�i'i,� •Lt'-' -OB C+ ;bi e ` `Ri,. , ',, . tiV IAIZT� 0.00 � Wtn-Vaf K 0 040; 0.070 0.056 , 122.55 Reacfia�en ft); 1324.15! 1163.99 1257.65 s "ft 9 3804.26 4 50 .33 889.45 0.000034 ,Afea(sq ftj 3804.261 504.889.45 aggry rrj 2200.00�FIoWcfs I 1819.36T 125.88_ 254.76 . r G. 1684.08 n Tor�W h kw' --_1156.88!--175.07 --352. -^ r Avg Vel (Ws} . , 0.48: 0.25. 0.291 .i ' I Ma Ghl Dpth�(ft' rf 5.80 Hydr Depth (ft) z: -- 3.291 2.88 2.53; . C �vrTofa (c s 377779.5 Conv; (cfsjrr? 312416.4; 21616.1 • 43747.0 i- ` ' Plan: Plan 02 River: RIVER -1 Reach:Reach-1 Riv Sta: 8 `Profile: PF#3 E122.55 Element ,.r�.4prF j�i'i,� •Lt'-' -OB C+ ;bi e ` `Ri,. , ',, . tiV IAIZT� 0.00 � Wtn-Vaf K 0 040; 0.070 0.056 , 122.55 Reacfia�en ft); 1324.15! 1163.99 1257.65 s "ft 9 3804.26 4 50 .33 889.45 0.000034 ,Afea(sq ftj 3804.261 504.889.45 aggry rrj 2200.00�FIoWcfs I 1819.36T 125.88_ 254.76 . r G. 1684.08 n Tor�W h kw' --_1156.88!--175.07 --352. -^ 0.42 Avg Vel (Ws} . , 0.48: 0.25. 0.291 ' I Ma Ghl Dpth�(ft' rf 5.80 Hydr Depth (ft) z: -- 3.291 2.88 2.53; . C �vrTofa (c s 377779.5 Conv; (cfsjrr? 312416.4; 21616.1 • 43747.0 i- ` r,Lengf 'Wtd ft 1264.59 1Nettetl Perl (ft7 1157.39: - 175.77' 352.44 Mln GhdEl'.(ftj t 116.75 $hear(Iblsq ft)� +' "' 0.01' _0.01' _ 0.01 • Alpha='rte r'4° - 3 0.12 rStream Power• (Ib/ ,s r --- -- 0.00'! - 0.00: : - 000.1 - 59.20:_ 139.3 i� ..Cum V610me (acre -ft} 200.63. B EJLoss (ft) 0.00 CQm SA (acres),>� 61.46! 16.38-; 53.58 - -i - , `- j ... J.` � + • .. t�f1 ten... � � ., -, I I I J. Clements 9/12/00 Preliminary: subject to revision LITTLE CHICO CREEK AT TAFFEE ROAD NEAR CHICO A04270 PERIOD OF RECORD ANNUAL PEAK DISCHARGE I I Gae Water! Time Discharge Hei ht Elevation 1! Year i Date r st) (tfs) I ft ft, Local Rank! Source I Remarks II I BEGIN RECORD 11190 PER DWR STATION FILE 1991 1 3/3/91 1 1045 968; 16.40; � •16.40• 9 II 1 1 Peak GH same as for discharge. 19922/14/92 2045 1.2301., 17.90; 17.90` 8 1 Peak GH same as for discharge. 1993 1/20/93 1745 1,690 20.10; 20.10 4 1 Peak GH same as for discharge. 1994 2/7/94 1115 I 5871 14.20; 14.20 10 1 Peak GH same as for dischar e. 1995 319195 1100 2,330; 19.54' 19.54; 3 I 1 Peak GH same as for discharge. 1996 12/12/951 0930 1,2600 15.74: 15.74 7 1 Peak GH same as for dscharge. 1997 1/1/97 1 0545 2,400 '- 19.60; 19.60° 2 1 Peak GH same as for discharge. 1998 2/2/98 1 2330 2,670;: - 20.37i 20.37 1 1 1 Peak GH same as for discha e. . 1999 2/9199.1 0815 1,350• 16.25, 16.25, 6 1 1 Peak GH same as for discharge. 2000 1 2/13100 1 2315 1,650; 1 1.29; 17.291 5 1 1 Peak GH same as for dscha e. Notes:llSource 1 = DWR Northern District Surface Water Gaging Station computer files. Data computed Northem District personnel. I 15 minute recording interval). I Ii ,cements 1 d.'GO i I Wage 1 of 3 SACRAMENTO RIVER AT HAMILTON CITY A02630 I 1 I I 1 PERIOD OF RECORD ANNUAL PEAK INSTANTANEOUS AND MAXIMUM AVERAGE DAILY DISCHARGE AND STAGE ! 1 I � i I I I ! I I I PEAK INSTANTANEOUS MAXIMUM AVERAGE DAILY Gage 1 21 I I 1/ Ga e L Water I Time Discharge Height; Stage O Sta e ; Prima Dischar a Hei ht' Sta e O Stage Prima ry Date I st ! Irfeet i USED Rank Rank I Source Date cfs feet I USED Rank Rank Source Year 1915 2/3115 0700 NR 11.2; 149.71 NR 70 DWR Bul. 16.131125 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR - ! 1916 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR DWR Bul. 16.13!/25 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 1917 2/26117 1700 NR 9.3 147.8! NR 19 DWR Elul. 16 131125 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 1918 3!20178 0700 NR 1.2; 139.7 . NR 56 DWR Sul. 16 131!25 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 1919 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR ! DWR Bud. 16.13//25 NR I NR I NR I NR NR I NR I NR 1920 NR I NR NR NR NR NR NR I DWR Sul. 16-131125 NR NR NR NR. NR NR NR 1421 1130/21 7200' NR 22.6'. 149.7 NR 70 DwR But. 76 13/25 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR ! 1922 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 1 DWR Sul. 1r 131/25 NR NR NR NR I NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR I NR NR OWR Bul. 16 13185 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR ! 1923 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR DWR MI. 16.131125 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 1924 1-1925 NR I NR I NR I NR I NR I DWR Bul. 16.131/25 NR I NR INR I NR NR NR I NR i 1426 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR DW But. 16-2526 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR I 1927 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR DWR But. 16-26127 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR !! 1928 3127/28 2200 NR 22.0! 149.1 NR /5 DWR Sul. 16-27128 NR NR f NR I NR NR NR I 1929 2/4129 0700! NR I 13.4. 140.5! NR 51 I DWR Bul. 16.28!31 NR NR NR NR NR NR - NR 1930 12/16/29 07001143.6! NR I 36 I DWR But. 16-28131 NR NR I NR NR NR NR NR ' 1931 1/24/31 0700 NR 10.5: 137.6 NR I 631 DWR But. 16.5131 NR I NR NR NR NR NR NR ! 1932 12/27/31 2400 NR 17.9; 145.0 NR I 28 DWR Sul. 16-31/32 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 1 1933 3/29/33 0700 NR 12.2• 139.3' NR 57 DNIR Bul. 16.32133 NR NR i NR NR NR NR NR 1 1934 NR NRI NR I NR I NR I NR I NR I DWR Sul. 16.34142 NR NR NR I NR NR NR NR 1935 NR NR1 NR NR NR NR NR DWR But. 16-34/x2 NR NR - NR NR NR NR I NR 1936 2/22/36 2200 NR 20.4 148.3 NR 18 DWR Bul. 16.34/42 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR j 1937 1300 NR 16.7 144.61 NR 31 DWR But. 16-34/42 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 1 1938 1 B114139 1700 NR I 22.8 150.71 NR 4 DWR` 911,1631/42 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR •1 1939 09001 NR 10.8:. 138.71 'NR 60 DWR But. 16-34142 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR Note Discharge for Water Years 1940 t• htough the resent is for the main river channel onl and does not include east bank overflow. - I 1940 2/28/40 1600, 350.000 22.6; 150.5' 1 6 DV'JR Sul. 16.44146 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 1 7941 1100 NR 20.651 148.55' NR 77 DWR Sul, 16-34/42 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR -i 19426/42 J111/41 1800 NR .21.81 149.71 NR 1 9 1 DWR Bul. 16.34142 NR NR NR NR NR NR ( NR 793323/43 2200 147,000; 19.7 147.01 12 23 DWR Bul. 16-02/43 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR Note: Dischar a re ulated b Shasta Dam and Reservoir be innin In December 1943. 1944 0700 NR 8.21 136.1 NR 64 DWR But. 16-42/44 NR NR NR I NR I NR NR NR ! 1945 .2/4134 2/1/45 1 23301 58.0001 139.9; 139.91 43 1 5 1 DWR Bul. 16.44/46 NR I NR I NR I NR 1 NR NR NR 1946 12/28145 1400 95.000 743.61 143.6 23 36 r DWR Sul. 16-44146 12/28/45 79.450; 143.21 143.2; 25 19 DWR Bul. 23.46 t! 1937 2/12/37 2100 47,900' 138.381 138.38' 47 62 DWR But. 16-46/48 2113147 36.880 136.8' 136.81 44 39 DWR Bul. 23.47 19:8 3/24/48 0900 - 70.1001 147.58' 141.58' 33 46 ! DWR Sul. 16 46148 3/23/48 58.680' 139.7 139.7 36 32 DWR Bull. 23-48 _! 11939 3112/49 0330 90.0001 742.911 142.97 29 1 40 DWR BUt. 16 48/50 3111/d9 73.690: 141.81 141.8; 29 23 DWR 811.23-09 1950 2/5/50 0230 65,000 140.13! 140.14 39 52 DWR Bul. 16.48/50 WE 2/5150 54.700] 139.41 139.4; 38 35 DWR Sul. 23.50 t 1551 i2it5/Su- 0500 6°.000; :<t �2( :47.62! ?6 ! a5 Bul. 16 50/52 12/15/50 61,400 140.51 140.5' 35 29 DWR B1. 23-51 1932 72/28151 1430 133.000 146.39; 746.33' 11 26 DWR But. 16-50152 1212851 96.500 145.4' 135.4, 16 14 OV.RBui.23.52 ) I 1953 1/1&'53 7130 92.600 143.73! 743.731 27 35 DNIR Elul. 16.52/5: 1/18153 1 85.0001 143.31 143.31 21 1 18D'P/RBu1, T3.53 i 1953 2118/5 0900 77.200, 142.28; 742.28: 32 43 DWR But. 23.53 2/18153 1 74,500! 141.9: 131.91 28 22 DWR Bul. 23 54 . 1955 11115/54 1900; 38,0001 135.96• 135.%! 48 66 I DWR Sul. 16-5/56 11/16/5 1 29.900: 134.4: 134.4' 47 1 43 1 DWR Bul.23.55 - Note: Station destroyed by high water on 1115156. Station reinstalled at some location 40 feet downstream of bridge on left bank on 6116156. 1956 NR I NR I NR I NR I NR I NR NR j NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 1957 2/25/57 1525 68.2001 41.0: 141.0i 35 48 1 DWR Sul. 23-57 2/25157 62.300 .40.2, 140.2: 34 37 DWR Bid. 2357 1958 2125/580800 150.000! 49.18; 149.18 10 1 14 1 DWR But. 23-58 1 2/25!581 140.000' 48.2; 148.2; 8 1 8 DWR Bul. 23-58 Note: Station destroyed by high water on 119159. Station relocated from 40 feet downstream of bridge on left Dank to 39 feet u stream of brid a on Left bank on 1027/59. 1959 NR NR NR NR NR NR I 118 I NR 2117/59 77.4001 41.8; 141.8; 27 23 04'JR Sul. 23-59 i 7 1960 2/9!60 1 0130 91,900; 43.33; 143.33] 28 I 38 1 DWR But. 23.60 2/8160 79.400: 41.8 _ 147.8 26 23 DWR Bul. 23-150 i 1961 1212!60 0700 92,9001 43.30; 143.30: 26 I 39 DWR Bul. 23-61 1272/60 I 66.3001 39.7 139.7 32 32 DV/R 811.2161 i : 7962 2/75/62 13201 86.500 42.63! 142.6.1'; 31 1 41 1 DWR Bul. 23-62 2/15/62 79.500 41.74, 141.74 24 26 DWR But. 23.62 1963 2/1!63 1500 94.500 43.86, 143.86: 24 1 33 i DWR Bul. 69-63 4/75163 87,000; 43.00 143.00' 19 21 DWR Bul. 13063 1964 1/21/63 1300 61,600; 39.28; 139.28; 47 58 DWR Bul. 13451 1/21/6.1 50.300' 29.30: 129.30! 41 48 I DWR Sul. 130.64 .1965 - .. > i 1968 12/23163 - - 1!5166 1220 --- 2030 _ _751.000 49.64' 149.64; -...--....... --- 87,070! 42.61 142.61 ,_.-._ _. 102,000' 43.61 144.61 8 30 21 1 13 - 42 30 DWR But. 130-65 -._ ._. DV/R But. 69.66 DWit Bui 13(Y67 12/23164 - - 1!566 ____ 1131!67, 143,0001 - - -- 70.600 92,000; 48.96 •----.r---- 40.541 43.58; 748.98( 140.5 143.58' 7 --- 30 18 6 -- 28 DWR Bul. 13065 DWR Bul. 13066 17 DWR Bul. 130-67 1967 --- - 2/1!67 0230 I.-4 - 4 40.561 140561.- - - 38 50 DWft 611. 13468 2125168 63.6001 40_2d1- 140.24 33 30 DWR BW. 13068 -- ! 1968 - i ! 1969 5j 1970 2/25168 - - 1/73/69 1600 --- 2130 07301 - 67,000' - --I - 126.0001 47.60: 147.601 156.000 50_.77' 150.77L - 14 20 5-1- 2 DWR Bul. 13469 _ DWR Bul. 13470__ -DNiR 1113169 1/23!70 _ - 110.000: __139.0007 45.94; 50.11 } 145.94! 150.17 13 6 12 3 DWR Bul. 130.69 - DWR But. 13470 1971 _1/24!/0 1300 -'- 103.!3001 45.05• 7±5.05' 19 27 Bul. i367i 7/17!'71 _ 9.900' 44.16' 144.76' 17 16 DWR But. 13471 ji-1972 _1/17/71 _2/29172 155 32.700 33.%' 134.961 44.47 144.47( 50 22 _ I 6B 33 DWft_Bul.t70.72 OWFt Bul. 130-77 - -.- 3!4172 1/19/73 - _26.900 15.1001 - - NR N NR NR 49 20 - NR - NR 13472 _DWRBul. DWR Bul. 73473 )_1972 -- 3 ; 1974 ! ! 1975 1976 1/78173 --.... 1117174 2/13175 3%1!76 2315 -- 1415 2345 0930 -- _ 97,500 --I- ._k.. -- --- 158.000! 49.65; 149.651 103,01X)' 43.99' 144.99! 1.._ 29.400 34.51 133.561___52 4 t9 -._l 12 1 29 -..._..I_..... 70 NR NR 45 DWR Bul. 13474 DWR Bul. 13475 --__ 3/ ---- - DWR Bul. 1347. DWR Bul. 13475 .._...._..- 3: 1/17174 151.000! NR NR 4 j 2/13175 87.500; NR _I NR 22 -- -- -25.3,00 - 3!1!18 1 33.59-733.59 50 3I 1977 1/3177 -'--- 0730 14,400 30.82 130.82E 5 71 31 1/3177 12.000 40.11; 130.11 52 47 _ -31 _.. _..- : ; 1978 _-.. - ... - 7/77178 --- 0430 -- 10200 ------ --- - ..t ... _.- ' '-- 123.000 47.18' 147.18 --- 1...._..._ . 1 - 75 - - - 22 --....__ - ( 3/, ... _ 3/ --- 1/15!78 2173179 113.000• - -- '--- 57.4001 46.081 39.48: 146.08 139.48 12 - 37 11 --- - 34 31 -- 31 i ! -7979 2%14179 68.000 41.25! 741.25, 1 47 I 46.97! 146.97 11 10 31 ii 1980 0545 120,000 47.33 147.33 •16 1 21 l_ 3/ ._..-_._ 820/80 113.0001 1 - i W8i ..._._ _2/20180 i%28!81 __. .. --___-.-- 73.400 42.05' 132.05' - t .._.. 112.000 48.75 140.75 33 - 78 ---: J 2- . 3/ 4/ 1/28181- - 69.E00 12/20/81 95'00 41:441 45.43 747.a9� 145.1• 37 15 27 i3 _ 31 4/ 08x5 ._._... 3: 1982 o i 1983- 12/-[0181 3/1%83 1645 1845 176.000 50.77 150.771 (----.1_, 2 _ 2 -_._ I 47 - .._ .. - - - 187/83 - -- 152.000 49.101 149.101 2 _ 5 4/ 4J J : 1983 12126!83 140.000; 48.85; 748.85 73 16 1 6i 12/25183 125.000: 47.73! 147.73 10 9 0015 2000 t : 1985 --- 17!2±/&1 - _ 50.000 38.39 138.39 ----6-1-. 46 _ 3-I 1 67 6 OWR But. 13485 -- I 4/ 11/28/83 - 2/18186 35.300 `- 159.000' 35.75: - 50.06; 135.75 I 150.06; 45 -- 1 41 DWR But. 130-85 ?! 1986 2178!88 2 /-[-.�-3-- 1400 168.0001 50.55 _150.55! ---1 15 1 ---. .. ..._ ... 75 feet upstream of bridge on right bank on 10123186. --- Note: Station relocated from 39 feet upstream of bridge on left bank to -- - } • 1987 7948 3!13187 7/3/88 _ -..__ .. - 59.500 40.1 -,*--.10•^- 42 63.500 40.58' 140.58' 40 I , 49 f . �% al 3113187 1!4!88 -- 52.500: 53 400 38.971 --.93 138.97 40 L 138.931 39 36 37 , _4! -- -- - dl 1200 1945 5. 1989 3171189 1515( _ 5,900! 39.71; 139.71; 45 I 55 1 4l - 3111/89 47.870' 3846 738.481 42 38 41 - is 1990 _..._._ 1991 1/8100 _ 3/5191 5 1545 ...- 0145 - 32.200' 35.15: 735.15' 37,000 36.00 138.00 S1 67 - J.-.... 49 I 65 tl 4! 1113%90 3/5191 I _ ( _27:500; 30.200: 34.16; _ - 34.611 134.18 134. 1, 48 _ _. 44 --!q 1._. .__.. 41 aT _ I _.. _...._.. i 1992 _ _ .. - .--------.._ .. ....................._---- 55.000 39.78' 139.16` 4, -.-__._-,_..... 2112/92 ----- _ a0?00. _..._ _ 38.71. _ ._. 136.71' t....__... a3 40 _ al _... __ __ _ -.---...2/1.21.92_-- 3' 1993 _2215 17200 ------`.----_.!.. ..___-•--- 119.0001 46.59, 146.59. 17 ;_ 25 I =•' 7121!93 _-_ -_........___.... 108.000: 45.24 14524' :-1--....__ 1< 15 al _ 3. 1994 2!719; �16t6,-- -28,3001 33.88; 174.88.` 53 I 65 i 31 21719.7 19.700. 32.91: 132.911 51 46 1 41 :. 7995 1396 1110/95 2/21148 1 0930 2045 155.0001 50.68' 150.681 6 94,1001, a4 S3( 144.57,, 25 I 5 !-32 a _ <% 7110195 2121/96 -_ 152A001 50:371 82.200, 43.11 .150.37 143.11 2 - 23 2 20 _ a! _ --ai 1997 i!2%97 0415 '--'155.1]00 50.901 150.901 - 6 I 1 ai 1/2!97 ___ 150.0001 50.a1� - -. -.• 150.41 ____-- 5-1 -•--.} 1 4l -4i -- i99d 2%3/99 2]00 157,000! 50.53; 150.5 8 1 7 1 ai. 214/98 I.....:. 133.000 48.75' 148.75. 9 1 7..... TABLE 35 'Y LITTLE CHICO CREEK HYDROLOGIC MODEL' - ADJUSTED PRECIPITATION AND PEAK DISCHARGE - 10 -YEAR RECURRENCE INTERVAL 11 Areal adjustment -factor for precipitation is 0.958. 24 -Hour PeakTime of -Creek Subwatershed Node Preci itationJ Discharge Peak Little Chico Creek 1 7.86 144 17.25 A 144 17.25 2 7.38 2.54 10.00 g 373 17.25 3 6.23 274. 9.75 C 609 10.50 4 5.75 556 9.00 D 1,009 10.25 5 5.56 858 8.75 E 1,539 9.75 6 4.79 532 9.00 F 1,976 9.75 7 4.12 358 9.50 G 2,276 10.50 8 3.83 562 8.25 I 562 8.25 9 3.64 332 8.75 10 3.54 121 ' J 1,984 10.25 11 3.45 94 -9.50 K 2,065 10.50 12 3.40 291 9.25 L 2,227 11.25 13 3.35 20 9.75 2,'235 .12.00 14 3.31 41 10.50 N 2,263 12.75 15 3.29 89 9.75 0 2,307 1 13.50 11 Areal adjustment -factor for precipitation is 0.958. �� Areal adjustment factor for precipitation is 0.958. TABLE 36 LITTLE CHICO CREEK HYDROLOGIC MODEL ADJUSTED PRECIPITATION AND PEAK DISCHARGE 50 -YEAR RECURRENCE INTERVAL 24 -Hour Peak Time of° Creek Subwatershed Node Preci itationy Dischar e. Peak .�: • , Little Chico Creek I 10.63 368 9.50 368 9.50 A 2 8.81 461 9.50 B 810 10.00 3 8.33 624 . 9.25 C 1,375 10.00 t I 4 7.76 1,065 9.00 D 2,154 10.00 5 7.47 1,505 8.50 E 3,049 9.75 6 6.51 989. 9.00 F 3,795 9.75 7 5.94 794' 9.25 G 4,407 10..50 •8 5.75 1,145 8.25 1 1,145 8.25 9 5.46 698 8.50 • J 10 5.08 245 8.25 J 3,191 9.25 11 4.89 199 9.50 K 3,385 9.50 12- 4.60 498 9.00 3,67010.50 13 4.31 47 9.25 M 3,667 11.00 14 4.26 90 9.75 N 3,713 11.75 15 4.22 153 9.50 0 3,763 12.50 �� Areal adjustment factor for precipitation is 0.958. TABLE 37 LITTLE CHICO CREEK HYDROLOGIC MODEL ADJUSTER PRECIPITATION AND PEAK DISCHARGE ' 100 -YEAR RECURRENCE INTERVAL 24 -Hour Peak Time of Creek Subwatershed Node Precipitation!/ ar Discha Peak Little Chico Creek. 1 A 11.50 473 473 9.50 9.50 2 11.02 873 9.25 B 1,298 9.75 3 9.58 876 9.25 C 2,107 9.75:.. 4 8.62 1,302 9.00 D 3,087 9.75 5 8.14 1,748 8.50 E •4,117 9.75 6 7.19 1,186 8.75 F 4,940 10.00 _ 7 6.23 872 9.25 G 5,563 10.50 8 6.13 1,266 8:25 1 1,266 8.25 9 5.65 739 8.50 10 5.56 286 8.25 3,477 9.00 11 5.36 236 9.50 K 3,706 .9.25 12 4.98 566 9.00 4;043 10.25 13 4.7.4 63 4,040 9.25 11.00 h1 14 4.69 118 4,093 9.75 11.75 N 15 4.65 186 4,155 9.50 `12.50 0 factor for precipitation is 0.958. '-� Areal adjustment TABLE 38 LITTLE CHICO CREEK HYDROLOGIC MODEL ADJUSTED PRECIPITATION AND PEAK DISCHARGE 500 -YEAR RECURRENCE.INTERYAL >' �� Areal Adjustment factor for precipitation.is 0.958. 24 -Hour Peak. Time of Creek Subwatershed Node Preci itationJ Discharge Peak Little Chico Creek 1 13.70 785 9.25 A 785 9.25 2 1,3..22 1,365 9.25 B 2,077 .9.50 3 11.21 1,233 9.25 C 3,213 9.50 4 10.35 1,800 9.00 D 4;592 9.75 5 9.77 2,358 8.50 E 5,956 9.75 6 8,43 1,565 8.75 F 7,005 10.00 7 7.38 1,192. 9.25 G 7,815 10.75 8 7.19 1,610 8.25 I 1,610 8.25 9 6.71 973 8.50 J 10 6.61 379 8.25 J 4,330 9.00 11 6.71 352 9.25 K 4,665 .9.25 12 6.13 780 9.00 L 5,099 . 10.25 13 5.56 95 9.00 M 5,492 10.75_ 14 5.56 179 9.50 N 5,177 11.50 15 5.36 243 .9.50 0 5,247 12.25 �� Areal Adjustment factor for precipitation.is 0.958. '::' -:i�{: �-i.�>�,f.a: - `.s x:.f_ - wr, r...-,.� g+.L+•c--.T-�-. r...�....t-i.'::�� - "=X,SL^•:ra.. ,T •t ;•'�.^�l'j:, -'t� ''t.ai:. -.fft ��:f=_w< •a y::1.;s=�`� -a.. �T�1"r' J- ._-ir V•%ya," - ::r -'-,i -"v-:rs:`T.J_r•.�` r _ «yi.:;: ). - n,..� �•_ :-I,Yca ..'?'}j..... !�.�%_fir _ Jice• J( k .'v's :- :t .-yam. ,L�._a -.• y-- _"-�� - - .�... -•r' �t,f. t '-}v a'S'.• �, j�:rr ° ^ham^.. <a. �..�•�' ,'�.�'�,;c- 1 +' •�?', _ ,f��..L• _ x.51 ' t ..,sy .,�yi` :. ,�: '�..l>....: �t. r•g�""YP` : T• `_... :•_\.. t.�.. y'• ��f:-:• _ .� v ..�.4viD'y-'i�' �•.�`.' :f'.: � i� :k���,,'.,"�t%,"��`a'S< �',�v..,,��f�:v.' t Y .-�;::- { .11. t'• ¢' - ..-�` -... R1 sY is„� 7'•F•sr- vt }� � � r � ,, t ' • L f F Y • 'ZT• a:.=' t r � > t '?>1,.��y.lt..rt '' [ �_ ♦ '•^r� �r, -"r yr ,•;:T•:'�:�t;. £ rc .I•e .�.�4^�'Y1,r s t - _ " _ .Ci f Y>•. Yi. yai :��f„ �.i t. :':;~i^_�} t. �� J[�•Ch }���Y �`V� �!2 'li • -�- .3 . •. - • t ��,��:,''x � t C• ''`t ��.�% '"t' `r.r•-:l� tl'-zr t �: '.' � •T :a_�•.af�>� L rj.���� � 1,{ < �ta 'C - ,,^. .� �.. _�y..•�; ':t;• _i_.:t-y'.^4 .:+,�v. Y�-(,�;"•;rycc'>,�ix ��-�r r.;l^{.�l'''i.�. ;.; �s,. •: �.. `:S�a� - T :r; t SF F `, r ,.c !. :,ti, r s -•`,y 7i'�``n c-��-v�4- �•.� F:��{ ' ^ c1= 1 `?";"y 4:2. ?. y x '-t°,i '�� e'p;,::: {,_ ' __�..; _ - `�-y. � 311✓.�n`c.�`'i yZ�:'' �iF�:;,.a.:L�r1 '7.?t��f '{q :�iY• �`�_;� Vit'.: v- i �i y,� ���• . _ s^e�': .- •. _�.j: x• s '� y, r-•.;�.i'�>.. C'7rw.�;'.'r',-'--:;- �: cl�µ�+`•�:A�_,�: -_ - r y:.. ••' _5..• ,,?v_r i_• •?_ r„J ..:,{•..: i >. :; k_ _fid 2A _ ',�^.,,• :t!:. ::Y1' _ _ � '•t-.lt 1 �yniJ.. �`1;:) '4 . 3 iM � i 'F. 'y r . �y{is t'r^sY I�i.� `,'a 'a..� i •F'�'?: i. . rF. y� . S .3 ) -S lad. r. •:�'.•'�s'-:” •-f� ,e- � - f �. .a•�•L':��4. `.n :..I - �' "-� �t �i� Lam" >' ' � .�_, i��. lam, � rf � \.•C r• -' ` '\ a ..+:�.�.r y r .+N�, R. � 1115 t ti 7a 'a :� t ♦qC� t� C, `'�..� '� �,� A r.<.. c��:jGi1 �..� .. `f- .t� i i �:+/ ,bbry� i�r{` �i .S=..�'+: `�`�...�^{4'r'`7`�, r,�Fi;'�.... i?i{r-.r • � .r t ;r.,�i � nF. .n ` 7 � "� r : •_. 'r c �: 'r l A K `S t -�4 ^ '1i'i; •<r 'iri �'x.:M , �fw:4�'1,4 �s fZ . '; erg <': ai. fZ; c1r r � . � ��T �" ;'r'!• 4,�,�1•,} 1i r fir�„'4`� '� +,�,�q`'4 � r ��:.:: '�%# s �L ,.., '� � - '-fir. y`,��y��a>: � 3..��a' S{„U�"b� a�.� yti; ^t� 1'T�` i ^. . ♦ �i ,�• y ..'n . nr �'% .i....,_,.t' a -•w4 �*•� a^�'� �icr r.,S :�t 'rr '•�':t+;,L S +r Sj6:r,.y... le ke-ftank-I'�+., �,�{. -'.�� •' '`- t�S'���� �.Mns�r�♦ ..r;. _ ������ �>T,r:,. �'''3Tr:?J,' 'r ; � � �ro'_� r i►' a�� ♦s�v � � 4. ,. .-%y���: �Lay='i:�• l� '1 �C• '•'f�il� •fir �^-jt�`aA. y'3 Y � �> �) .•� ;:-,tfa 'R, �'��t..>.�. .•)• � - ..ys �t.� � 1 � r � i '{ Sr ll 4`: � , _ t.c� I Y ,�:f . �:i..SD• .'+'�"i-..'..``� . -r �'' ` x ter` �`,.: � � ♦ _ � y_ C' •n, i-�pq._: �• +i '9. - ,«, lk�' _ ;5 • .. :jj,. � :' _i' ,�: - ate., ,': :'• .,r •:L:' "' rJ�r�s,r �4 l j� s � , :+:.�'�L •' ��'� '+� �i fir. "*.. '. • j� .Ir � :.� ���'•r: 7 �t : � Y •l r a•. t u , • wry � '� �..• R•.,-.� .�. ' a "°� = .r , r 4�'• �� " ' ,. _ � �� .fir k ,Ji:.` =r. r• �21 LJLI - J- -77-7. 7 17 - RIM ,:c`• h}M - MEMORANDUM DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PLANNING DIVISION To: Stuart Edell, Land Development Division From: Dan Breedon, Planning Divisio Subject: M&T Chico Ranch EIR -Hydrology Section, Floodplain Analysis Date: June 8, 2001 Attached please find the Little Chico Creek floodplain analysis that has been provided by NorthStar Engineering. This analysis is a component of the Hydrology Section that you recently commented upon. Please review this analysis and provide any written comments prior to July 2, 2001. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Y c �"th&6r ENGINEERING Civil Engineers • Planners • Surveyors April 25, 2001 Mr. David Brown Resource Design Technology 302-A S. Lexington Drive Folsom, CA. 95.630 ' Subject: M & T Ranch, River Road Aggregate Mine Dear Dave, Please find enclosed herewith our draft flooding study for the above noted project. I would appreciate review and comments by you and Toby Haynes. I am still waiting on information from Butte County DPW regarding historical flooding, road closures and will analyze and include them when available. My general conclusions at this time are that construction of the stockpiles/ plant will increase the stage in Little Chico Creek in the vicinity of the fill, but that it may well be possible to mitigate with a bypass channel. The increase in stage will most likely only impact the M 8v T Ranch with minimal impacts to River Road. Please feel free to call me with comments or questions, as we are anxious to keep this project on schedule. I would be happy to meet with you and Toby (and County Staff should you choose) to review our work. Very Truly Yours, Michael McEnespy, P.E. NorthStar Engineering. F -11111-1177M 20 DECLARATION DRIVE CHICO, CALIFORNIA 95973 530-893-1600 FAX -893••2113 p EC E 0 W E JUN 8 2001 BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING DIVISION �IVI r fie+ M S � Tom- "r r Wpm" Vonr. wMA Moot 021 k, lot' i �q i"Gy`,FMm - IS{ SAl Ali ?��t,. M & T RANCH MINE Flooding Impact Study Background A potential impact associated with the construction of the processing plant(s) and stockpiles is the increased stage in Little Chico Creek as a result of placing fill (plant, stockpiles) in the floodplain. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has identified a substantial area along Little Chico Creek as lying within the 100 -year floodplain. This area is within the "A" Zone, meaning that no depths or elevations have been established. FEMA mapping is not clear as to. the source of the flooding, i.e. Little Chico Creek or the Sacramento River. The Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) identifies reaches along Little Chico Creek and has established 100 -year flood elevations. This detailed study stops short of the proposed mine site. The general area has a long history of flood events, occurring as. a result of not only high flows in Little Chico Creek but from flows in the Sacramento River. River road has been closed numerous times in the past due to over bank flooding from the Sacramento. A reach of levee known as the M & T overflow allows floodwaters from the Sacramento to follow old natural swales across the Three B's ranch The chief concern expressed by County Staff during initial review of the EIR were regarding the impacts of the proposed project relate to the potential increased stage on adjacent properties and River Road. It is generally acknowledged that during a major event, such as the so-called 100 -year flood, that the entire area will be inundated. What is of more concern are the more frequent events that have the potential to cause damage to adjacent properties and result in more frequent closure of River Road. Methodology In order to establish floodplain elevations, field cross sections were taken at select locations. These locations and cross sections are included on Exhibit "A". The site where the proposed plant and stockpiles are located is in area where extensive land leveling and cultivation has occurred in the past. A levee has been constructed along the east side of Little Chico Creek. This levee is not sufficient to contain large flood flows to the creek channel. The creek is heavily vegetated with grasses, cattails and other woody growth that increases the friction factor, contributing to the NorthStar Engineering Page 1 04/25/2001 decreased capacity of the creek. The land leveling and levee activities have resulted in the creation of a low area bordered on the west by the aforementioned levee adjacent to the creek and on the east and south by levee roads. This area is drained through a 30" concrete pipe, back into Little Chico Creek. This area is currently cultivated but is the site of the proposed stockpile and processing plants. Hydrology Flooding of the area proposed for the processing facility could occur from two sources. Little Chico Creek flows through the property and will cause flooding during events that exceed the capacity of the existing, natural channel and levees. This is the source that has been used for modeling. In addition, over bank flows from the Sacramento River can enter the site through swales that cross River Road and enter the site at two locations. During periods when this over bank flow is occurring, a backwater effect could cause an increase in stage in Little Chico Creek, should _ 7 Period of record data was obtained from the Department of Water Resources for Little Chico Creek at Taffee Avenue and from the Sacramento River. This data was analyzed to determine the occurrence of simultaneous peaking. The period of record on Little Chico Creek is only 10 years but contains two significant events. The January 1997 event produced a peak flow of 2400 c.f.s. The February 1998 eve resulted in a peak flow of 2670 c.f.s. Each of these events exceeded -year recurrence interval storm. What is significant is the recurrence of flows between 1250 and 1650 c.f.s. Peak flows in this range occurred in five of the last 10 years. The data from the Department of Water Resources for the period of record on the Sacramento River indicates that peak flows in the river occur approximately 24 hours after the peak in Little Chico Creek. This lag is to be expected given the distance upstream of contributing tributaries and the controlled releases from the Shasta Dam, Keswick complex. Review of aerial photos taken on January 6, 1997 indicate that overflows from the Sacramento River at the M 8s T overflow continue from the earlier event but that Little Chico Creek has receded significantly. NorthStar Engineering Page 2 04/25/2001 K. } Hydraulics In order to assess the impacts of placing fill (plant and stockpiles) within the floodplain, HEC RAS, a hydraulic model developed by the U.S Army Corps of Engineers, Hydrologic Engineering Center at Davis was used. Stream channel and over bank roughness coefficients were developed and cross section data was entered. The site was field reviewed, since the area does not represent a typical stream channel due to the extensive land leveling and levee/road construction that has occurred. It was determined that the area proposed for the plant and stockpiles is . contained within levees/roads that impair the free flow of over bank floodwaters. HEC RAS has an option for entering "ineffective flow areas". This data was entered for the area where existing levees do not allow free flow of floodwaters back into Little Chico Creek. In effect, the area proposed for the plant is acting as a storage basin by not allowing free flow into the creek. While the volume of water stored may not be significant, the levees do impede free flow. Since this is an existing condition, the initial geometry input to the model reflected this. The net effect is to cause less increase in stage due to the plant than would occur if the area was available for free flow conditions. NorthStar Engineering Page 3 04/25/2001 Model runs were done for the existing conditions. The flows selected were based on the historic data from the Taffee Bridge gauge so that this could be cross-referenced to information on road closures overflow depths from County records. Since the principal reason for doing this u ; modeling was to assess impacts to River Road, using historic flows........... Waiting for data from Butte County DPW. �+ M The plant site and associated stockpiles were superimposed on the cross sections using a technique in HEC RAS known as blocking. The flows were then again run using this geometry to assess the increased water t surface profiles and to determine the increase in stage. The results are contained in the appendix and summarized in Table 1. Conclusions Increase in stage (water surface elevations) for the three events modeled due to the fill created by the project at cross section 5, located at the low point on River Road where 0.6, 0.5, and 0.4 feet respectively. NorthStar Engineering Page 3 04/25/2001 M t � sr I R 4 gt3i I h TABLE 1 Cross Section Station Flow, C.F.S. Pre elevation Post Elevation Increase Elevation at EP, River Road 1 1222 115.52 115.52 0 N/A 2000 116.76 116.76 0 2200 117.04 117.05 0 2 1222 117.82 117.82 0 123.0 2000 119.22 119.22 0 2200 119.58 119.58 3 1222 118.19 118.19 0 122.9 2000 119.37 119.37 0 2200 119.70 119.70 0 4 1222 118.70 118.77 .07 123.4 2000 119.54 119.68 .14 2200 119.84 119.95 .11 5 1222 119.05 119.63 .58 119.0 2000 119.67 120.14 .47 2200 119.94 120.36 .42 6 1222 119.19 119.92 .73 122.6 2000 119.74 120.47 1.28 2200 120:00 120.65 .65 7 1222 119.71 121.29 1.58 122.5 2000 120.12 122.18 2.06 2200 120.25 122.39 2.14 8 1222 120.43 121.45 1.02 122.6 2000 120.77 122.34 1.57 2200 120.76 122.55 1.79 As Table 1 illustrates, River Road will be impacted at Cross Section 5, where the existing road is nearly inundated by 1222 c.f.s. Under existing NorthStar Engineering Page 4 04/25/2001 4 conditions and will be inundated by approximately 0.6 feet during the equivalent event after the project. At all other locations, the existing and post construction flood elevation is below the road. Impacts of increased stage will be limited to the area between River Road on the west, and the existing levee/roads on the M & T Ranch on the ' east. Some impact to the property west of river Road in the vicinity of Cross Section 5 could occur due to the increased stage at this location. This site is at a low. point in River Road -that frequently overtops due to flows from Angel Slough. There are three culverts approximately 18" in diameter under the road and a County warning sign is 'present. Red lines on the pavement indicate that vehicles should not cross when water is across the road. Mitigation Measure The increased stage can be at least partially mitigated by construction of a bypass channel between the proposed stockpile/ plan-Lfill and the existing levee on Little Chico Creek. Construction of foot wide channel and the installation of larger culverts at the existing location could provide relief during the times when floodwaters overtop the levee. We will model this mitigation after review of this draft. NorthStar Engineering Page 5 04/25/2001 PRE PROJECT FLOWS hill m -W fS Mi E I 6V 115. 5 2 .................. .... ...... n 1.51 tiM,.% g �&g, �F 0.1001. Qj -117.03 1.97ON Mt�fo- �V, �Ruw ON �,'r -t 115.52 .124.05 E G�Slope(filft 0.108138 118.73 124.05 ji 6 '1222.00 116.7E i 1222.00 _3i�tfiT )y ', ' 41:17:NT %T�6:p _VV L ,�fflt p ia NYE magamm, 7 41.17 9.85 0. 10 2 54 7 9.85 NIaxGhlD tuft 3.73 �Hydr: Depth(ft) 3.01 3716.01 t h EQ 3716.01 j -,-,i, _L 2000.00 43.341 7;. 111.79:- 4MU .1.000 snrgr 19.321 --190.37 -, Frctn Loss(ft) ur�= is j t (fia' P (51-r :g§ - . . . . . . . . . . . J, Plan: Plan 02 River: RIVER -1 Reach'Reach-I Riv Sta: 1 Profile: PF#2 "Plan: Plan 02 River: RIVER -1 Reach:Reach-1 Riv Sta: 1 Profile: PF#3 ry 116.76 p Mr,22 2.08a 1 1.97ON Mt�fo- �V, �Ruw ON 0.1001 118.73 j -'s 116.7E i �,-AFlr-WJA ;(M ft 177.351 190.15 ffi _(kj)) &.M. 0. 10 2 54 7 I M 2200.001 1 7 I2�35 igg 2000.00 WMHMH� j -,-,i, _L 2000.00 11.57 g -475--dY�Q 4.14- 6901.4 Length WOMMM,49.811 lMinChE�I (ft}111.79 ffi-§ '1.00 j t (fia' P 24221 280.21 . . . . . . . . . . . J, C,- n JEM 11.28 11.28 WFA �MaGhlDpth (ft) 4.97..,. M 3. �94 7� 0- 6245.5 RGO 6245.51 Minch EI eft) tA I ORION' 111. 7 9 1.00 -,I-P le 23.36 263.41 Frctn Loss (ft) t0"I'MIM R -as AN -11 MIN "Plan: Plan 02 River: RIVER -1 Reach:Reach-1 Riv Sta: 1 Profile: PF#3 ry I , LYNN, 2.08a 1 1 0.10W 119.12 ,�E 0. 10 1619 190.15 ;qjf#t c RM 2200.00 2200.001 "t 4 5.. 9 4589 I , LYNN, 2.08a 1 1 0.10W 119.12 ,�E 0. 10 1619 190.15 ;qjf#t c RM 2200.00 2200.001 "t 4 5.. 9 4589 11.57Vel j -,-,i, 11.57 -01 PIKIEN 5.25 696-1-.4 OMMICOORTIAMI V.06nw' 4.14- 6901.4 Length WOMMM,49.811 lMinChE�I (ft}111.79 ffi-§ '1.00 j t (fia' P 24221 280.21 . . . . . . . . . . . J, C,- n JEM 117.82 kEl--r%-- Qffi 0.0561 0.1001 0.056 1412.861 1067.58 987.56 3014.941 161.421 1614.85 V2 .. . . . . . . . . Agri ; M Om W.- 0.056 0.100 0.056 117,83 9 V 1412.86 1067581 987.56 n 116 : 2 1563.19'[ 3.611 4.611 3.42 '`-_812.96 0.000149 Fpff s 1563.191 99 .931 812.96 1222 00 4',ld dfflgi� 791.481, �W WRY, 35.501 -395.02 12192.65 815.29 831A21 442.321 0.46 53T, tv" .0.471, 0.311 0:46El el�T, 0 -049 INVOYSIN �,-5.04a 0.361 0.49 s,;V,t,l 4. 3 7 HTdS. - 1.92 832.1721 1.14 g,C cts 100053.232342. n ffl 64803.6 2906.8 ,8 11615.47 Wetted . TML 1�, 816.50 RROU M 36.49 442.81 114.25 1 0.02 -'0:03 0.02 1.01 0.65, jum.,N0. 'WROM 0.01 :_ V _-M ;516ggf �,q , e&ft 25.35 1 0.01 "2.74 0.01 9.22 . . . . . . . . . .... 0. 13.221 0.931 5.01 -Plan: -Plan 02: River: RIVER -1 Reach:Reach-1 Riv Sta: 2 Profile: PF#2 VW'(001 w--vffmVTOm.- F., R 6§ b W! "A - 74' q ft) Qffi 0.0561 0.1001 0.056 1412.861 1067.58 987.56 3014.941 161.421 1614.85 V2 .. . . . . . . . . Agri ; M 0.00 3014.941 161.421 1614.85 0.056 0.1001 0.056 1418.261, 48.711 733.02 1340.82 MINE -0.46 00,E IMUNT Y! _y N e Ovs)-, 834.20' 35.04 471.58. 0.471 0.30; 0.45 n 116 : 2 IKr&A .C, 3.611 4.611 3.42 148.94l 1447.90 0 0.000066 188205.71 6464.11 97273.3 2718-241 148.94 1447.90 w 20001.00 IUFJow&fs)j 1289-56 1 45.1931 664.51 1332. 10 MT);jgMW 831A21 35.041 - 465.64 0.46 53T, .0.471, 0.311 0:46El ........... ............... . . . . . . . . . . . . . .................... .246153.6 �H 121,mdf� jl� NV 3.271 158715.51 4.25 i 3.11 ------ 5652 61 1785.5] ........... Le (W,.W 1165 60 dft P. 11 . - . , ` , ­,, 832.1721 36.149 466.17 Mc, h3g, 1. 2 5 �Z �(l 61 -q 0 oil 0.02 0.01 Alpha .01 'MMI, mL: -k f (car 'S 0.011 0.01 i 10.01 s Izu!" 0.29 0.20 a Ur �()g TM' .44.081 13.481 4.00 1,.. 16.41 0.981: 5.28 Plan: Plan 02 River: RIVER -1 Reach:Reach-1 Riv Sta: 2 Profile: PF#3 119.5 8 0.00 1'1 9 58 ZO 116.37 w--vffmVTOm.- F., R 6§ b W! "A - 74' q ft) Qffi 0.0561 0.1001 0.056 1412.861 1067.58 987.56 3014.941 161.421 1614.85 0.000C )57 fA(F6T(9_0t, �. W -,T u 3014.941 161.421 1614.85 2200.00 LF 1418.261, 48.711 733.02 1340.82 MINE -0.46 00,E IMUNT Y! _y N e Ovs)-, 834.20' 35.04 471.58. 0.471 0.30; 0.45 3.611 4.611 3.42 291943.2 1C.I.-M &0"', 188205.71 6464.11 97273.3 1165.55 I�ChhEl(ft). 114 25 1 . 01 I d 835.531 36.491 472.12 0.011 0.021 0.01 0.011 06001 0.01 C', 0. 2_5 1Fk­48.891 NMM AC'U'rh2P 61 4.31: 18.31 ,C Loss (ft} 0.21, L,-%Uff-SA T 13.531 .0.99l 5'.35 t9W 5rif E 16rif91 (f tYJ gwg 118. 19 ft g-,�l OFT- 91' NA. si SMS - 0'02 NW OffiWil 0.056 0.100 0.056 4V. '1367.441 920.91 .751 581.49 _ 581.49 118.21c '. WN 1400.511 1367.44 '92091 OQ. 3 G�Slop(fUa ft)' .00036 3Pea (sq HM I 524.691 450.911 1392.61 tc 332.35 328.70 565.07 9.000979 "1 . . . . . . 332.35 328.70 565.07 1222.00 91110 M '4533 3 328.40, 439.87 87 q76 �Op -,&T, 940.78 t e e'a --'R 6 We Q) AN 15722 1 � 679:76 C�onvlota(cfs).104907.0 '1185.98 06M- _v F ,W 29517.71 17775.41 104.35 57613.9 715.31 IN W T,8 i" 1.00, Z'S ff-'e0- (I 6�Ccfj Q',I 1.37 1.001 0.781, OAR F(ed N, Rowe` 0.081 0.071 A.03 3.93 8,'GJmW.V ft '9ffi 2.11 3.1 7 0.831 396754.0 14500.9 10495.2 i 14057.8 12 31.6 0 �ILW& Rd' &�M T 157.621 104.351 679.91 114,.26R Alpha nT-; 9.,, lffi FR6�-VQQMI'X QW- -,0.13 0.18 0.191 0.19 0:05 0.041 0.38 55.82 9.471�.78� 0.00 AGUM�SM(acrbs). 28.86 3.111, Plan: Plan 02 River: RIVER -1 Reach:Reach-1 Riv Sta: 3 Profile: PF#2, 119.37- VMS OFT- 91' NA. si SMS 0,011 119:38 W t 119 w V ME, L 0.056 0.100 367.44 0.056 920.91 1400.511 '1367.441 920.91 .751 581.49 _ 581.49 F-74-85-34 ----l--630..92 485.34 1630.92 rg fflj 524.69 450.91 T 1 1392.61 OQ. 3 G�Slop(fUa ft)' .00036 3Pea (sq HM I 524.691 450.911 1392.61 �Li�f 2000.00 562.741 338.88, 1098.381 34562.71 20094.31 74491:5 1179.37- 173.44 0.84 1.07 0.75, 0.79 5.1 t e e'a --'R 6 We Q) AN 3.101 4.341 -1.95 C�onvlota(cfs).104907.0 '1185.98 06M- _v F ,W 29517.71 17775.41 104.35 57613.9 715.31 114.26 Z'S ff-'e0- (I 6�Ccfj Q',I 0.07' O.iO 0.04 1.07 F(ed N, Rowe` 0.081 0.071 A.03 015 8,'GJmW.V ft '9ffi 96.221 13.411 46.44 ft)*� 0, 00 .29.57 3.161: 17.761 -LI Plan: Plan 02 River: RIVER -1 'Reach:Reach-1 Riv Sta: 3 Profile: PF#3 VMS OFT- 91' NA. si 0.01 AW, OffiVs 1' 0.0561 0.100 0.05 119.71 (Reach Len1 1400.511 '1367.441 920.91 CEGSloper(fU�fij" ,' 0.000290Area(sgft)� 581.49 _ 581.49 F-74-85-34 ----l--630..92 485.34 1630.92 Q 2200.00 588.761 342.301 1268.94 TopWidth(ft)� 172.97 103.801 721.97 5:443.361, M 4.681 2.26 129148.51C 34562.71 20094.31 74491:5 1179.37- 173.44 104.351 722.16 114.26 -n 0.061 0.081 0.041 1.05,F t e e'a --'R 6 We Q) AN .0.06 0.(61 0. i )0 0.131 CLIffi�V�OlUffi-dyq-&glgw- 106.711 14.461 52.62 1 0.00 I 29.721, 3.17i 17.961 Plan: Plan 02 River: RIVER -1., Reach:Reach-1 Riv Sta: 4 Profile: PF#2 118. 7 0�e' fg . . . . . . . . . . Vel1 ffl, 0.01 0.0481 0.0.481 0.1001 0.056 Vgw-, 118.71 flZff 4; I 7-.22 A. 1179.951 1619.4411 1037.24 467.541 ,,p -I 0.000291 W-g-fs 1621.35. 142.62 59899 MAN 1222.00 C,.IQ-w( 1222.00 2427.021 180.631 1 993.17 gT 1459.35 kT 954.90 43.421 461.04 kT,,qp 0.75�s 0.75 963.62! 47.091 477.61 a 4.16 1,Iffi, �Q IL 1.711 0.611 0.381 0.46 gq �Tjotglo 71615. 1 vCnCrag(bg), 1032.56 71615.11 948.501 2.521 3.841 2.08 v, Plan: Plan 02 River:RIVER-1 Reach: Reach -1 Riv Sta: 4 Profile: 10 yr: 139046.41 6381.41 42916.8 Plan: Plan 02 River: RIVER -1., Reach:Reach-1 Riv Sta: 4 Profile: PF#2 118. 7 0�e' fg . . . . . . . . . . Vel1 ffl, 0.01 0.0481 0.0.481 0.1001 0.056 Vgw-, 118.71 flZff 4; I 7-.22 A. 1179.951 1619.4411 1037.24 467.541 ,,p -I 0.000291 W-g-fs 1621.35. 142.62 59899 MAN 1222.00 C,.IQ-w( 1222.00 2427.021 180.631 1 993.17 gT 1459.35 kT 954.90 43.421 461.04 kT,,qp 0.75�s 0.75 963.62! 47.091 477.61 a 4.16 1,Iffi, �Q IL 1.711 0.611 0.381 0.46 gq �Tjotglo 71615. 1 vCnCrag(bg), 1032.56 71615.11 948.501 2.521 3.841 2.08 v, 114.54 0.031 139046.41 6381.41 42916.8 KV2 MIN,% 963.99' 49.271 477.89 0.021, 0.031 0.01, 0.351- 0.45 S w It 0.02 0.01 0.0111" -13Mpt 1j!if1MftflA7.- Q.50 7�Q'UFnAVe rug.6IQ' Al 82.28 15.08! 30.031 C& LoSSr(ft) 0.00 43.921 4.87: 23.001 Plan: Plan 02 River: RIVER -1., Reach:Reach-1 Riv Sta: 4 Profile: PF#2 Plan: Plan 02 River: RIVER -1 Reach:Reach-1 Riv St a: 4 Profile: PF#3 .119.54 fg . . . . . . . . . . 0 NO 0.01 0.0.481 0.1001 0.056 119.55 �4R 1179.951 • 1037.241, 467.54 gig g p�fiiff§�ffll 117.42 -2427.021 18800.66-13F 993.17 0.000113 -A M 2427.021 180.631 1 993.17 2000.00 IF 67 1476.511 67.761 455.73 kT,,qp 1488.33 IT� 963.62! 47.091 477.61 Q 0.56 ATO 0.611 0.381 0.46 0 48.40 483.52 2.521 3.841 2.08 v, 188344.6 139046.41 6381.41 42916.8 i88865 114-.54 MIN,% 963.99' 49.271 477.89 0.021, 0.031 0.01, 0.351- 0.45 1.06'0.01 (Ibzftis) 0.01 0.0111" 2.811 0.17 3.. -136.191 ,20.931 59.24 C& LoSSr(ft) Om A 44;921r 4.96 L 24.1 Plan: Plan 02 River: RIVER -1 Reach:Reach-1 Riv St a: 4 Profile: PF#3 IT6.84 gpr 'a- 0 NO -- 0 0 0.0481 0.100'' 0.056 -- --- -119.84' 1179.951 1037.24, 467754i 117.46 -A M 27 15.561 194M! 1136.831 0.000093 - -.V, . -- 2�T._ ft 2715.561 194.90 1136.831 2200.00 1616.301 68.651 515.051 ATO 1498.64' 48.40 483.52 0.54 Wdl; 613(ft/ftw V44 4. 1,--M 0.60! 0.351- 0.45 Ma� gop go- 5.3 0 2.811 4.031 2.35 " C 2277�3 .7 W-5 Now- R 167309.81 7106.41 53314.5 877.78 967.15E50.701. 483.82 114.54 0.01 0.01 i 0.01 - 15,1.361 22.561 67.47Eff: 0.00 40-V MOUANM 45.161,,- 4.98; 24.43 o8WEIM.r 119.05 ww IE W - n "0. 0. O�4 MOW IE ).040 1,. Ev%A 119.09 0.040 566.451 1091.951 • 1095.74 118.63: FI i�llal _'_ 789. 789.281L ,,ftq S #1 0.002542 .0 040 789.281 297.661 554.96 lxitblil(efg) ;N T 1222.00 M , �Elm raft Am�� ore 1222.001 I 1452.34 %T�O�`YV 1049.93 1C�2.2t 300.11 Oe i55 F 417�16.0AM-FL( M)"S" -M Id 1.55 4Cir a.49 Pla6: Plan 02 RIVER -.I Reach -1. Riv Sta: 5 Profile: 10 24239.4.,. S NI POWER-- -24239.4 .'River: ..Reach: yr. i o8WEIM.r 119.05 ww IE W - n "0. 0. O�4 MOW IE ).040 1,. Ev%A 119.09 0.040 566.451 1091.951 • 1095.74 118.63: FI i�llal _'_ 789. 789.281L ,,ftq S #1 0.002542 .0 040 789.281 297.661 554.96 lxitblil(efg) ;N T 1222.00 M , �Elm raft Am�� ore 1222.001 I 1452.34 %T�O�`YV 1049.93 1C�2.2t 300.11 Oe i55 F 417�16.0AM-FL( M)"S" -M Id 1.55 4Cir a.49 T 2000.00 24239.4.,. S NI POWER-- -24239.4 566.45 i '1050.01 114.56, .16 A b.121 2*66H V '! gjV 77 )P E;j1.00 hS .0.18 0.37 �tq W44 -01"I 20.60 '44.54 1C&ELoss(ft) 0.01 SCIIII '7! 1 -7 ' 56.951 6.69 3Z57 Plan: Plan 02 RivWRIVER-I Reach':R4ac.h-1 Riv Sta: 5 Profile: PF#2 '4 7, ti Plan: Plan 02 River: RIVER -1 Reach:Reach-I MY Sta: 5 Profile: PF#3 119.94,,*k-.Iem--'-'-�'v�"Mr"4 "0. 0.0i jt.r 0.040 0.0,01 0.056 119.95 0.01 RK .0 040 64670 00561 rggp, 118.8 119.68, R 'I eat, 566.451 _ ___i_O§i_.§75 1095.741 A g iEr NSI` g 118.77 0.00028S F 417�16.0AM-FL( M)"S" -M Id 1448.89 1448.89 3. 881 .743.031 363.88 43.031 .Q_ gqf/p, 2000.00 AF 4.11L285.78 600.11 " -�106tilf;(fug) 0.74 5. 3 8 1499. 1 C);..�p vi, ,f!)atg(ft! - �, 3 1078.571 . '111.861 30867 149730.1 2*66H V '! gjV 77 '10.79 0,810.78 O- hS 5.11 y 1 1.341 251 2.41 may: 117621.3 ,kC- V1 9')VP 5521.8 16806.81, 35292.6 WN Wv: S TI 752.61 114.56­ e e.� .I 1078.731 �0.021,- 113.371 310.24 ----- --- 0.061.---- ----- 0.04 Alp'n HOSSION 1.00 0.02 0.051 - i 0.03 IFX, O.i3 58.461 7.041 27.761 81.08 V 0.09Cum S a 58.201 6.951 4'7 '4 7, ti Plan: Plan 02 River: RIVER -1 Reach:Reach-I MY Sta: 5 Profile: PF#3 119.94,,*k-.Iem--'-'-�'v�"Mr"4 "0. 0.0i jt.r 0.040 0.0,01 0.056 119.95 0.01 RK .0 040 64670 00561 rggp, 118.8 119.68, R 'I eat, 566.451 _ ___i_O§i_.§75 1095.741 A g iEr NSI` g 118.77 0.00028S F 417�16.0AM-FL( M)"S" -M Id 1448.89 1448.89 3. 881 .743.031 363.88 43.031 .Q_ gqf/p, 2000.00 AF 4.11L285.78 600.11 " -�106tilf;(fug) 0.74 5. 3 8 1499. 1 C);..�p vi, ,f!)atg(ft! - �, 3 1078.571 . '111.861 30867 149730.1 2*66H V '! gjV 77 '10.79 0,810.78 O- hS 5.11 y 1 1.341 251 2.41 may: 117621.3 ,kC- V1 9')VP 5521.8 16806.81, 35292.6 WN Wv: S TI 752.61 114.56­ e e.� .I 1078.731 �0.021,- 113.371 310.24 ----- --- 0.061.---- ----- 0.04 Alp'n HOSSION 1.00 0.02 0.051 - i 0.03 IFX, O.i3 58.461 7.041 27.761 81.08 V 0.09Cum S a 58.201 6.951 '4 7, ti Plan: Plan 02 River: RIVER -1 Reach:Reach-I MY Sta: 5 Profile: PF#3 119.94,,*k-.Iem--'-'-�'v�"Mr"4 "0. 0.0i jt.r 0.040 0.0,01 0.056 119.95 566:45 1091.95 - 1095.74 rggp, 118.8 aim 742.28 .8 394.821- -827.46 4E-fG,`3SI- lauft 0.000216 VAffWf.(Mft 1742.28 394.821 827.46 -9 TM6 2200M AR 15 0 7. 7 5 _IT l 3 1824 1079.591 276.65 115.731 615.11 312.431 " -�106tilf;(fug) 0.74 5. 3 8 P.751 1.61 _69C67.8- 0:701 3.41 D.741 2.651 149730.1 2*66H V '! 18828.61 41863.61 743.64 114.56 1079.79 0.021- ........... 117.25 - 0.051 1 314.29MinGhEI(ft) may: - 0.04 4AIphFa 1.00 ff�P 0.021' 180.351 0.03 29.95 0.03 92.17 g � L 58.461 7.041 34.44 E M 119.19 W MUUVA �516 NW`013"L, %Oha-- Y. nn..61] Channel 0.01 '"If 119.75 0.0- -190.631 696.041 852.52 11820 0.01, 2473.42 0.340 -0260--M 2473.50 i 163.92 j, 74.641 119.20 4!' R, 190.63 696.04 1852.52 MCIDA 118.05 JI. 1747.62 0.811, MaxChl(Dpth (ft)fl 4.56 -140322.3 0.000240 -M 1747.62 109.82 6.46 1222.00 -F'f 1222.00 §r�;h 0.08 169.981 31.971 89.08, O-OOLVC 314.94 63.43i, 8.681 .63.1 1457.26.1,TopUUd h(ft)+a N 1305.061 86.19! 66.011 0.70i 0.70.1 1.00 0.02! 1-�"A M, J 4.01 - IH;' 1.34; 0,001 01 8.841 - 39.401 Conn Total`(cfs) 78864.5 io, '6v.t#j(,p-.fgg a 78864.5 A 190.63. M az 1305.25 115.18 V -e". 0.0Z r. AlpEhan 1.00 9-m-M.&W 0.01 0.11I`ri�ft, ,. Volume"M 103 .51 23,861 50.04, 0.00 ffiqffl§A r,,q, 6-,!.11[:,7 -8.201- 36. T5 Plan: Plan 02 River: RIVER -1 Reach:Reach-1 Riv Sta: 6 Profile: PF#2 Plan: Plan 02 River: RIVER -1 Reach:Reach-1 Riv Sta: 6 Profile: PF#3 ---fffoo NW`013"L, %Oha-- Y. nn..61] 0.01 0.01 0.040 IL 119.75 0.0- -190.631 696.041 852.52 11820 118.2y" 2473.42 0.0002073F -0260--M 2473.50 i 163.92 j, 74.641 !-g .J !000.00 ,g" m 11, V MOMg 3, j'1575.4AT60 tft)� 1311.59 1 104.591 159.25 FN'dffiffia 1:1 (.0115.01V 0. 81 1�,@ 0.811, MaxChl(Dpth (ft)fl 4.56 -140322.3 0.78 1.891 �.dnffit!5-4W 326.04 ft 115.18 'ZW.' "Yd' -8156-aff( 140322.3 13T6-57 F- 0.021 MA '* a p 172875.7 '.0.021 §r�;h 0.08 169.981 31.971 89.08, O-OOLVC 314.94 63.43i, 8.681 .63.1 Plan: Plan 02 River: RIVER -1 Reach:Reach-1 Riv Sta: 6 Profile: PF#3 ---fffoo VA4," W��, Oki: M 0.01 iv,Jfflt-, 0.0401 0.0- 190.631 696.04 852.52 118.2y" 03.261 0.000162 sq 2 804031 190 11906 gl� NOW gg _7 .951 2200.00 '. Wijs gm 22�0000,-- IN, Top Widths ft} ..... . . . . . . 1618.4'1 Ma0affilgISM 1314.551 110.151 193.70 0.78 0.78 1 4.82'rW MAD 2.141 i 172875.7 72875.7 314.94 50 1310.57 1.00 0.02! - SIM 0.06 90.301 .34.63 i 1�01.441 0,001 01 8.841 - 39.401 Plan: Plan 02 River: RIVER -1 Reach:Reach-1 Riv Sta: 7 Profile: 10 yr. 'Pla n Plan 02*- Riv er:.RIVER-1 Reach:Reach-1 Riv iv Sta: 7 Profile: PF#2 El 11971 0.01 0.01 '120I6-N"6;i6fi-.b6H' 0.0401 1155.931 0 070j 0.0561 718..84 A _119.41 0.000331 EAG iiEIeJ M 119.73 Ox 1155.93 864.521 •718.84 W 119.30 -Ir MI %-A ' 1244.80 -2226.801T, 0.001199/A.- -W .."j. MR 1244.80 206.01 '279.29 s 1222.00 jI F- 1ffi 1222.00 0.64 0.821 2178.21 0.000634 2000.009 1929.85 '102.83 -.145.53 251..814, 0.98 n' 0 .98 Toi' i. 1938.80 1.18571 158.33 Let (-ft 1114.97 Marr G.M tff-#) n 4.22 124.13 0.65 0.98 35294.0 0.98 35294.0 O .05 � j,A '&-p 1155.93 OfflPMR i -I- 1930.11 ----0 0-3 115.49 Mfi§% _q 0.051- 79400.8 9.1171 1.00 xLeligfhhWfd ft}' 0.05 v,r7155; 0.53 J 143.21 26.99,14 52.39 MOM ... _&M?6,-�L R USIM 0.06, Wm?,S.A 1W 105.03 LO 'Pla n Plan 02*- Riv er:.RIVER-1 Reach:Reach-1 Riv iv Sta: 7 Profile: PF#2 El 120.25 E GElev (ft) 0.01 '120I6-N"6;i6fi-.b6H' Wtn=Vali00410 1155.931 0 070j 0.0561 718..84 A _119.41 0.000331 0.040 266.661 .266.66 361.831i 361 831 1 ROM WIN 1 0. 14 ]r i 1155.931 864. 52 718.84 -2226.801T, �,ffia� 1941.45 121231 162.12 119.39 1§1 rLdaj(9',qfft), JEW, 2045.631 0.64 0.821 z 0.000634 2000.009 (ft 2045.63 2000.00 251..814, .342.19 n' 2215.70 Toi' i. 1938.80 1.18571 158.33 Let (-ft 1114.97 11'. 1-1 4 , 1941:90 124.13 162.361 0.98 lffi@ 0.98 0.04 O .05 � j,A '&-p 4.63 OfflPMR i -I- 1.06 ----0 0-3 79400.8 79400.8 9.1171 10540, xLeligfhhWfd ft}' 1155.93 1939.20 1 1.T6 42.331 ,i;n ffiC, hZ, %(1 1.15.49 -1 .0.04 - Alpha :nI T 0-0YN; 0.38 -S), Pr W, 0.041 229.94 �--36.1 0 .9?7?2 52 fj f Om, acres) y 106.56 10 8�9 41:251 M, Plan: Plan 02 River: RIVER -1 Reach:Reach-1 Riv Sta: 7 Profile: PF#3 120.25 E GElev (ft) 0.01 '120I6-N"6;i6fi-.b6H' Wtn=Vali00410 1155.931 0 070j 0.0561 718..84 EAG Slo�pez(ff7ft) _119.41 0.000331 2283.421 2283.42 266.661 .266.66 361.831i 361 831 1 2200 00 j-1('516 1730 297.99' fj -2226.801T, 1941.45 121231 162.12 0.760.76 I -A - 0.64 0.821 z 4.76 (ft 1.18 2.161 2.231 n' Let (-ft 1114.97 AW6tt'&dIFF %,�j)" T'37 Lfl , 1941:90 124.13 162.361 0.02 0.04 O .05 � j,A '&-p '1.01 OfflPMR i -I- -0.02 ----0 0-3 9.1171 10540, 120.25 E GElev (ft) 0.01 '120I6-N"6;i6fi-.b6H' Wtn=Vali00410 1155.931 0 070j 0.0561 718..84 EAG Slo�pez(ff7ft) _119.41 0.000331 2283.421 2283.42 266.661 .266.66 361.831i 361 831 1 2200 00 j-1('516 1730 297.99' fj -2226.801T, 1941.45 121231 162.12 0.760.76 I -A - 0.64 0.821 4.76 (ft 1.18 2.161 2.231 n' Let (-ft 1114.97 AW6tt'&dIFF %,�j)" T'37 Lfl , 1941:90 124.13 162.361 0.02 0.04 O .05 � j,A '&-p '1.01 OfflPMR i -I- -0.02 ----0 0-3 9.1171 10540, 0.001- 106.901 1 1.T6 42.331 -E120.43 X(ftffl- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0[y aw ez�x�Vivra.01 --i-2OT7 , 1, �'k wghL 0.040 vt! - §g gaggg, 0.070 0.056 120.44 '&' 1324.15 R'65-cfi'TL�q ft.)' rg, 1163.99 1257.65 119.22 1388.16 163.11 '186.05 0.000308 1388.16 163.11 I 186.05 1222.00�Ke 1040.541 95.72 85.74 1413.87 1125.48 1 81.91 .206.47, 0.70, gg 0.751 0.5 0.46 3.68 TIM 1.23 1.99 0.90 69642.2 59300.8 5454.91 4886.5 c- Lang 1315.56 up, riv-(ft} V44, 1125.67 82.491 206.63 116. 7 5 ' A a - 1.05 LIFT -c 7-1 ?18 99,7' OM 0.021 tbti 183.231 151.47 0.04 0.02 P.021. 0.01 31.921 56.11 1 12.541 42.98 Plan: Plan 02 River: RIVER -1 Reach:Reach-1, Riv Sta: 8 Profile: PF#2. I fI I - I - 1 " - M --i-2OT7 , 1, B�Jrj MIM 0.02Wtan a 0.01 0.056 0.0401, - 0.0701 0.056 1K eV �l �Q 120.78 N.1 179.48 71--.--- 1324.151 1163.991 1257.65 273.60 119.44 F,.l5'W!A,'F -gr m M 1772.651 2(Y4.381 276.24 2200.00 0.0003F78 PONO"", MR.A. A, 1772.65 165.35 -276.24 2000.00 3 N M M4I 1749.021 100.22 150.751 1.09 1601.55, 0.60 1129.601 159.99 311.96 1.271---T.8-8 0.890.49 ffiVILT s 100729. 6 9-9 .9 5041.0 Max Chf,Dpfh(ft)W 4.02 1.571 1.281 0.89 ..... ..... 1105 101670.5 "1317.63 1 1Upy, (af ) C. N ?, 88912.1 1129.841 5094.9 160.59 7663.4 02 0.02 0.52 ., r. 319.301 116.75 ffi6y"' 0.00 0.03 0.02 rFretn Loss (ft) 1.12 • 0.64�CZtj Stream Power(Ib/ftcs)r k'j. 6lTrWW(, 0:041 287.97 0.02 42.201. 0.01 101.45 0.00 - -13RE iT 40,4�01 -plq I 21-ng4z 153.191 -- 2--j- 14.61] - ; 48.04 ... Plan: Plan 02 River: RIVER -1 Reach:Reach-1 Riv Sta: 8 Profile: PF#3 Efts 120.76 Vale' �fi- 0.02Wtan 0.040 0.0701 0.056 120.78 1324.15 1163.99 125765 N.1 179.48 71--.--- .1763.06 203.02 273.60 fE�G-IF - 5r 0.000477 - -3 MOW .1763.06 - 203.021 273.60 2200.00 ZEI Bfg 1924.55 110.10, 165.35 1599.25 1129.50 159.881 309.87 Vet Total(ft/s) -0 98 A �161- K-, 1.09 F 0. 54 0.60 4.01l 1.56 1.271---T.8-8 ffiVILT s 100729. .9 5041.0 7570.6 1306.91 41 160.48 310.05 ..... ..... 1105 51 0.041 0.03 1'Al' 1.12 02 0.02 0.52 ., r. 319.301 45.45.1 114.58 - 0.00 go-giap -6g 153.581 14.941 �9i 4 2 4 im POST'PROJECT FLOWS w , 115.5 2 .9lEl6jffi&-hV 21 111 6W S61b @h '81 -tTO . . . . . . r, ,IRi§h 013] �Vel,Fiead (ft} 1.50 1,17.031-13 llvwh� MONTE 115 Oki, 124.14 119.12 jR, 0.107893 R. W4 11636 'I 177.35 0.101126Area NIMBI 1222.00 41.18Top 9.84 Width NOR IS W,(. -a 1222.00 .41.18 9.84 220-0,601 2000.00 3.1 W. -7 45.02 45.91 45.021 37 0.3 11.28 8 3720.3 1 -11.28 43.35 5.26 6245.5 48.61 a 0 19.29 6918.2 - - - M Ip 1.00 g�tmft!kwuaq- 189.90 jgt�ri6 s c CuFbITV616 -(ir N, 'g A� FildiY 111.7.9 , 1.00 Plan: Plan 02 - 'River: RIVER -1 Reach:Reach-1 Riv Sta: I . Profile: PF#2 , R E Ityg ,() i16 76 117.05 IS CEARA @h '81 -tTO 1.97 IN . 0.1001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... M -N. Rn911 m A M 0.1001 118.73 119.12 jR, 11636 'I 177.35 0.101126Area ........ . . . . . . l`EGS�lop ft/ft} 0.102547-..� W,(. -a 177.35 220-0,601 2000.00 16 2200.001 -7 45.02 45.91 45.021 11.28 8 1 -11.28 h 5.26 6245.5 48.61 111.79 0 .23.36 6918.2 - - - M Ip 6918.2 1:00 :0 jgt�ri6 s 263.4 49.84 111.7.9 24'13 1.00 Plan: Plan 02 River:,RIVER-1 Reach:Reach-1 Riv Ster 1 Profile: PF#3 117.05 IS CEARA 2.07 M -N. Rn911 m A M 0.1001 119.12 jR, 'I 190.47 0.101126Area ........ . . . . . . 220-0,601 RF.ldW(LIM 1 1, 11, 2200.001 k 45.91 45.911 11.55 11.551 h 5.26 . 4.15 .-0 n R MIN, 6918.2 - - - M Ip 6918.2 49.84 111.7.9 24'13 1.00 8.68 M-NICIMPA, N Plan: Plan 02 V River: RIVER -1 Reach: Reach- I Riv Sta: 2 Profile: 10 yr: Plan: Plan 02 River: RIVER -11 Reach:Reach-,l Riv Sta: 2:. Profile: PF#2 *W SSE el v(ft)�+ 1,17.82 rElerrient" fy')`F��E;LeftrOBr .................... ;FT7 na n Mu� .8", 0!.00 MIMgftFN Or 0.056 0.100 0.056 5,1 n ( 117.82 11117.60 Wa 1560.18 99.80 987.561 811133 'RF 2717.80! 148. 21 1447.65 0 148.921 1447.65 ffifG 0.000150 &,Q 1560.181 99.801 81" I I n. . 1222 F', 791.49• 35.54! 394.971 D 1292.24 m r�g46 VV IAM '00 814.94 35.04 _442.261 gV 'Ap " gq, 0.49 M Mil INassn 0.511 .-.,0.361 0.491 Ell 4.37 ffl .911 2.851 1.83 tr6a!g� P, w 99740.2 a6avo' 64602.11 2900.51 32237 6 Lerig U 1166.46 816.151 36.491 442 ,,,F.f,6 ,ib s� -',(f 114.2 5 %S H9 0 .01 25. To 0.03 ---0.01 2.74 0.021 0.01 9.20 0.15 13.22 0.931 5.011 Plan: Plan 02 River: RIVER -11 Reach:Reach-,l Riv Sta: 2:. Profile: PF#2 *W SSE el v(ft)�+ 119:22 rElerrient" fy')`F��E;LeftrOBr .................... ;FT7 na n Mu� .8", 0.05 61 0.0 56 0.1 yi V T 1 �'l M"NAM" 10.0561 1 0.10 0.056 0 .......... 110.22 Wa 1412.861 1067.58 987.56' ...... ....... 30 'RF 2717.80! 148. 21 1447.65 0 148.921 1447.65 ffifG 0.000057 &,Q 3014.15 161.391 1614.40 OEM j1p ge 1�,� 'g 2000.00Njr . 1289.561 - 45.93! 664.51 F', 1332.08 �,' 7�� 831.421, 35.04 465.63 D 0. m r�g46 VV IAM '00 047+1 .0 .31 0.46 (Mac Chl Dpth (ft} 5:77 iw�Flyw 3. 4.251 3,111 M 246087.4 t'. 158672.81 5651.47 81763.2 Ell 65.60 ?w '832.721 36.49! 466.16 01 tr6a!g� P, w '------- Frctn`Loss (ft) � 25 111A.:sg �.�,Sh`65'ftl '(1Mq'4 i 0..1021 0_011 1.01 0:011 .0 .01 0.01 i 0.29 44081 4.W r k16.4' 1 0.20!pQ tI_­WjitS_ t W ..�g., M(J'Er �)t. 'T 13.481z 0.98;:" 5.281 Plan: Plan 02 River: RIVER -1 Reach:Reach-1 Riv Sta: 2 Profile: PF#3, 119.58 74E5 a V T 1 �'l M"NAM" 10.0561 1 0.10 0.056 0 .......... Wa ...... ....... 119 58 M6606ffl 7, 1412.861, 1067.58 987.56 0 1 161.391,, 1614.40 ffifG 0.000057 &,Q 3014.15 161.391 1614.40 '!A 220_0.00°___ A IbK INIM )?" imm _V 733.02 1418.271 48:721 601W. Vi d t h(ft) 1340.79 V LT;T V 834.19 i. 35.041 471.56 D 0.46 6:13EM 51 R"Y"I'l 3.611 4.611 3.42 291,813.3 188124.1 6461.9 97230. 41 1165.55 t'. 835.521 .3674M.- 472 101 Ell 4.25 ?w 0.01 0.02 0 .01, 01 tr6a!g� P, w 0.011 0. 00! 0.01 Frctn`Loss (ft) � 0:25 Cum Uolume�(acre ft) 4188!, 4.31 1 _118.30 0.21 13.531 0.991 5.35 'i r3j, I Plan: Plan 02 River: RIVER -1 Reach:Reach-I Riv Sta: 3 Profile: 10 yr. Plan: Plan 02 River: RIVER -1 Reach'Reach-1 Riv Sta: 3 Profile: PF#2 LAW SElev(ft 118.1 .9 k' IV gij-eR Elementi1 M, 'C 1,Q g- I e -!,V _jp Ri§h`t,rOB!j UetHead(tt0.0 ? L�q 0.0561 0.1001 0.0561 1t (ftj5.� 99- Z-118.21 - , AS 411111 A 1, 1400.511 1367.44 920.91 - awim.. 116.3H Ir 332.081 328.52 563.92 UG Slfi0.000290 . . . . IMX� 581.34 485251 163032 0.000982 A ,, r 332.08 328.52 56192 . l. s "Ig I 0.84 ,ffq7 . 172.96 0.75 0.791 --mug"('efg 1222.00 I Fs - 453.84 328.60 439.56 Trop VVNdth (ft) 940.09 ATomid rt V�(ft A !WM 157.20 103.80 1 ' 679.09 a s- 57592.2 - 715.30 Val . . . . . 114.26 0.07' 3.93 iiq- epthr & 17 3.43 0.061 ` )6681 1.831 OP §669Fn 38995.4 Kemopgogig- M -TW '.1.4482.71 10485.9 _6 1402�! 0.15 0.00 1231.67 �96.20 29.571 157.601 104.35 679.241 114.2 6 gr%q �X g -0.131L O'l 9 0.05 rAlpha 1.19 'r,' loftAffiffl, 0.19 0.04 S_ 0.38 5.72 r 9.47.1 '23 731 u.uu _u 18M,(igagg 28.841 -11 87 Plan: Plan 02 River: RIVER -1 Reach'Reach-1 Riv Sta: 3 Profile: PF#2 LAW SElev(ft 119.37WLeftzOBtChanneRightOBs 0.01 SEI meant;)�Nm Or 0.0561 0.1001 0.056 119;38, ffl 1400.5 1 1367.44 920.91 WM� 116.80 rF,-IWJ-AL6- _(ffA 524.621 450.871 1392.29 " 2000. 00 . VMQ?" A.62 562.7814 450.871 1392.29. 338.921 1098.291 UG Slfi0.000290 . . . . IMX� 581.34 485251 163032 988.42 ATop 1lVidth�(ft)y`pd° ---169.50 103 80' 715.121 . l. s "Ig I 0.84 172.96 0.75 0.791 5.11 I Fs - 3.10 4.34 1.951 LQ !Cnagf 104875.6 T1 8 M'W 4&tted� A "M 29511.11 169.96 17772.3 104.35 57592.2 - 715.30 114.26 0.07' 0.10, - 0.04 17 3.43 0.061 ` )6681 1 17 C OP §669Fn 0.081 0.071 003 or 3.171 1T961 0.15 0.00 Cum Volumer I'Cum �SA �96.20 29.571 13.41 3.161 46 .43 17.76 Plan: Plan 02 River: RIVER -1 Reach:Reach-1 Riv Sta: 3 'Profile: PF#3 119.70TIEW Ai6nn Right 0 B. P.056! 0.1001 0.0561 U -119.71 1, 16. 8 9 9 1400.51 581.34, 1367.441 --920.91 485.25,! 1630.32 W PN UG Slfi0.000290 581.34 485251 163032 588.83 34_23t7_�_ Toa Y 998.71 172.96 103.80, 721.951 0.82 I Fs - 1.011 -71 - 0.71 0.78 �ffl.( 5-44 1 ��90 .4 H 3.36 34549.5 4.67 2.26 20088.3 74446.6 Length Alpha � ME SAM 1179.38 114.26 1.05 0.13 fCtm. Volume (acre ft) 17 3.43 0.061 ` )6681 104.351 722.141 0.081, 0.041 0.06 i 0.03 14 46' 5260 0.00,Cuff'SA.(4cfes)S , Y 29.721 or 3.171 1T961 Plan: Plan 02 River: RIVER -1 Reach:Reach-1 Riv Sta: 4 Profile: 10 yr. Plan: Plan 02 River: RIVER -1 Reach:Reach-1 Riv Sta: 4 Profile: PF#2 1 8,TTM16 ;ffi�@Ti SIMIA W., .1 E fii-0161flA 0.0481. R UeGHead(M)SO 0.12 119.97) -1 118.89 Reach Lemon (ft) � 1179.951 i037.241:� 467..54' 1 N 18.08 0.004169 Flow Area (sgft) ZA 443.98' 446.351 145.53! 629.89 #t -i-2 Y 0-0 Wor 1222.001 .2000.001 FICO, X1, 8.11.66 142.35 .1011.03 305.591 43.71T 462.36 S'� 2.75 Avg Uet (ft/sf -mg-o'k 2.75 1.01ffivOmm ' 4.23 Hy 491 gmam 5.41 I �QMax --5.14,1- N g 51411(ag)f` 189253 1032.63 RCbbMM 18925.71 302.211 94420.6 "1... 114-54 'S R SW69T,�_(Ililg' q7, 0.38 1 /S Oc I A 1.00 1..05 1.051- 0.08 0.061 Frctn=Loss (ft) 1.73 .7 1 ('gbW'4a 66.26T - 30.14 h1sg-'!ag V:t 0.03 '4.991 35.11 4.6-7 -`7 22.99 Plan: Plan 02 River: RIVER -1 Reach:Reach-1 Riv Sta: 4 Profile: PF#2 Plan: Plan 02 River: RIVER -1 Rea Sta: 4 Profile: PF#3 c6:Reach�l Riv' ;ME 14 119.68 0. 0 2 aEferrientr 0.0481 I V 0.1001 0.056 w MMAH;IM8MS, 0.056 1 19:-70-11 119.97) -1 "99 5 103-7.24; 1167.54 1037:24 200.37 A 18.40 �FI6w L 730.231 187.351 1061.07 815. �71 0.000449, 1191133. 730.231 i, 187.35 1061.07 T q Igg ar go' .2000.001 FICO, X1, 846.631 142.35 .1011.03 t 317.90 315.091 47.711 480.41, 1.01ffivOmm ' 1.161 0.76! 0.951 0.94 gmam 5.41 I �QMax --5.14,1- r�PkptfiQ( 2.321 -1931 21-11 5C�, VOMM.6-fffflf R"W�WAK'G nk 94420.6 57465.8 -6720 2' 47730.9, LengthWt-- hj 787.185 114. 5 4 1 /S 321.()31 49.95 .�480.70 0.06 -" 0.061 486.05. 1..05 1.05 626 0.08 0.061 0.07 125.60' 32 0.00 Gum 113.19121.011 59.601 36.14! 4.96, --24.181 Plan: Plan 02 River: RIVER -1 Rea Sta: 4 Profile: PF#3 c6:Reach�l Riv' ;ME 14 119:95 0.02 N 0.0481 i m 0.1001 w MMAH;IM8MS, 0.056 SEG -w?'Upiw w irk1'. ft)* � 4W g TEA W h f`� 119.97) -1 )ON 11 79.951 -815,57' 1037:24 200.37 467.54 1191:33 Q 0.000383 815. �71 200.37 1191133. .00 930.01 144.70 1125.29 TOP 852.52 317.90 48.891 485.74 too •1.14 0.721 0.94 gmam 5.41 2.57 -4.101 2.45 11238_4 57465.8 1# W%v 776.49 114.54 Shear {Ib/sq'ft)i.r 324.421 -0.061. 51.25 ----6.-09 486.05. ff 1.05 626 0.07 125.60' 0.07, 22-62 .0-..06 0.06 67.74 0. 0 0 h1sg-'!ag V:t 3E�371 '4.991 247441 W S4�EIev(ft)� 119.63 Element �Left,08 Channel 0.040 0.070 7 wRight"OB'; 0.056 Uelliead (ft} 0.01 �Wttin Val *� _nSa EfG lb (ftj� 119.64 Reach Len (ft) 566.45.'1091.95 1095.74 CntiV1l;S(ft} 119.51 gMFIowAea(sq ft)e� 243.06 359:36 730.53 0.0701 0.056 E G Ele�`(ft) 120.16 Reach Len (ft) } 'ET Slope ft/ftj 0.000407 Area (sgrft) 5 243.06. 359.361 730.53 Q Tot�al(cfs} 1222.00 %4l6 (efs} 195.22 , 333.37: 693.40 TopWitlth'(ft) ` 647.81 'TopWidth (ft)ME `� 228'.42 111.29 308.11 --- UeLTofal(ft/s)R 0.92 ��MaxrChlDpfh(ft)5.07HydrDept AvgUel(ft/s) h(ft-Ogg, Conv" 0.80 0.93 1;06. ' 3.231 0.95 --2.37 � Conv o�tal��(ek m 60541.5 (efs) ��z 9672.0 16516:3 34353:2 fLengt�h Wfd(ft) a 788.20 :WePer(ft)H ` 231.03 112.80 309.64 _� 4MinChfEl� f#K{y;5 114.56 1.01x, 1.01 Shear(Ib/sgft)x Km 0.03 0.08 .08. 02 0.06 0.06 �Alph� WIM tip, 1.56 - _ 3.53 (FcfnLoss(ft)'(�1 0.74Cu�mUolume�(acre ft)f 70.75 21.44 --6:6-1---32.68 47.25 C & E Loss (ft) wg; 0.01 46965.4 38.58 _ SfreamaPowerS�(Ib/ft s),' '__ fr.J +: .ra s y -t •L ti:rFts L4 Plan: Plan 02' River: RIVER -1 Reach:Reach-1 Riv Sta: 5 Profile: PF#2 Wev(ft) 120.14 Element q,#' E,eftz0�B Ch neRighOB EGEIev(ft) -k 120.38 �¢ReaetiL�en;(ft)f� 566.45 - 1091.951. 1095.74 UelxHead�(ft)� '0.02 fWtn Vale 0.040 - 0.0701 0.056 E G Ele�`(ft) 120.16 Reach Len (ft) } 566.451091.951 _ 1095.74 Cnt`W S (ft' � 119.51 Are#a s ftp` 360.36 41.8.13 889.90 E G Slop (fUft)g 14QTota(cfs) 0.000547 2000.00 Area M. ft) '� � _ 360.36 Flow (fs)z' 424.03 418.13. =- 477.081 889.90 1098.89 ToW 664.08Top�Wdth`(ft)� X230.33 118.56[_ MaXChlDpta(� : dti(,ft)x f Hydr Depth�(ft)%� - 1 78 3.651 - 2.95 -315.19 Vel rTo a (ft/ � 1.20AvgD i -I( s) 1.18 1.14 1.23 M`axChlDpthr(ff) 5.58HydrDepth(ft) tip, 1.56 - _ 3.53 -- 2.82 �Conv Notal (cfs) = 85477.9 � 18 �C122.6; onv (cfs) �x ` - 20389.9 46965.4 - 1.00 _ SfreamaPowerS�(Ib/ft s),' '__ fr.J +: .ra s y -t •L ti:rFts 'i +% ! kJk9Gni C -_ Length �Wtd,(ft) 927.05 'WettedKPer(ft)�P� 234.031. 120.09 317.25 0.10 MinChEI(ft)( 114.56Sh�ear�(Ib/sq 0.05 - "StreairnPoWer=(Iblft = 0.06' 0.1 2 - 1 0.14- '0.12 ,Cum 'M ".P,�.h...!iCS 3_ : -0±t?._.J__ s}" � 4 - I 1 i�Frctn'Loss (ft)��� %"cidfrc# . - 0.46 kCurn Volume (acre ftj 120.29 C 'K3Z.k'- wi° YV hSf 28.60 { 84.13 tF .:• (C;8€ELoss(tj? 0.000umSA,(a�creus)r _._ �r 39.681. _ 7.051 I- -_-. _34.18 Plan: Plan 02 River: RIVER -1 I Reach:Reach-1 Riv Sta: 5 Profile:'PF#3 m_ EkW S"Elev(it)�120.36Element��';e UetyHe'ad'(ft y 0.02Wt+n=Val�'�rs__0.040 r, O Channel fRigh OBS 0.070 0.056 EGEIev(ft) -k 120.38 �¢ReaetiL�en;(ft)f� 566.45 - 1091.951. 1095.74 (¢CntVViS�+�(ft)�N fflpg 119.51 410.92 444.45 959:59 E�GSIo e f#/ft} 0.000517 Are#a s ftp` 410.92 - 444.45 959.59 TopaWitlth (ft) 2200:00 677.80 mIZO v (cfs). EEO _ 509.12 231.15 �. 504.64 _1186.24 121.68 1 324.98 tI . Vei?Total (ft/s)= w rasur,eh2 1.21 Avg Vel r,� ra-N q. -- -1.24 -• , . 1.141 1.24 MaXChlDpta(� : ___ 5.80 Hydr Depth�(ft)%� - 1 78 3.651 - 2.95 'ConvTotal(cfs}:: ' 96739.6 �Conv (cfs)- 22387.4) 221903,52161.8 LengttiaWtd(1 922.13�WettedPer(ft) 'Y'"V.?•»�. S, �' 235.31 1'23.21 327:2 .� SdT 1Y �- 2aiYd+i d MiC�hE�,(ft) 114.56 4 � :es+i 8 f A�5 Shea (Iblsq�ft) __ __ 0.06 0 121 0 09 IAlp�h�y ..... . - 1.00 _ SfreamaPowerS�(Ib/ft s),' '__ fr.J +: .ra s y -t •L ti:rFts 0.07 0.13 0.12 �L_-._.___._ _- iF�rctnfL'oss (ft) h� 9JA say t U 0.41Ci�m Volume (acre`ft) _ 133.58 30.71 ! 94.79 EC&�ELoss(ft)' 0.00 SA (acres) aa� 39.94 7.13; 34.64 p ,i "e . Cd yY:,✓_h...!'S': : ,Cum 'M ".P,�.h...!iCS 3_ : -0±t?._.J__ Ir -W j w 'Plan: Plan 02, River: RIVERl Reach:Reach-1 Riv Sta: 6 Profile: 10 yr. F. �WSEIev. . . . . . . . . ..... . . . . . . 1,19.92 4EI RIM h, -0- - 0 - - 0.16 Al nV91111 0.0401 0.040 120.08 TgR�, )j- 190.63 -696.041 852.52 119. Vf 119.62 379.61 533.121 0.003296 0.003590 380.10 182.781 104.97 ZafQ 4101 1222.00 Flow (cfs} an x vet 1222.00 245.89 227.13 505.64 slop . . . . 213.67 108.501 183.47 3.22 XtW�-§V f ;e FSO 4.041 vMnm , , w -•Z541 ' MaxChlDpfkt(ft�` 4.74, 5.29 32614.7 1.81 L Nezi 21283.921283.9 432.75 215t781 1 11 5.18,k 214.68 0.361 0.54 1.00 11 WIN , WO pp� 0.40X w 72.11 25.771 55.43 0.0 1.100 39.55 8.57 37.49 1311 -Plan: Plan 02 River: RIVER -1 Reach:Reach-1 Riv Sta: 6 Profile: PF#2 , 120.47 11"" MI . "M A " -0- - 0 - - VAR - '--'! W.0 gghr 1 ffl 0.25,,l .120.73 0.040 120.92, 119.52 31? 495.43 119.62 F. 533.121 0.003590 539.2-1T-- 2.67.87 279-.-92 2000.00.1 FIX 499.56 2000.00' 245.89 227.13 p qqft,-)N �gv .222.27 608-.-55 220.161 120.68: 267 7 21 61 U� -4.13 FSO 4.041 vMnm I 5.47 w -•Z541 X1, 5.29 32614.7 -O-ppt�% -I w Con (cfs) &N�K. 2.36 32614.71 VANN 432.75 215t781 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 115.18 Ity/ !%,�tri� 0.54 RI. C- q '0.46 0 .07 135!65 36.40 106.911 9.09: 40.851 SAI ha r 1.100 0. teeaffiMbw 2.1 0.50"I . . . . . . .... 122.17 33.911 95.071 1 0.071 4T671-. .96 jI -39-89 ex Plan: Plan 02 River:,RIVER-1 Reach:Reach-1 Riv Sta: 6 Profile: PF#3 -W 120.65Elffii;9(-., 7 Y fl, :# 120.92, 7 190.63 696.04 .852.52 r 4I j 119.62 533.121 0.003590 539.2-1T-- 2.67.87 279-.-92 F j 2200.00 2200.001 p qqft,-)N �gv .222.27 657.06 222.? 124.641 310:161 -4.13 w 4.13 Oa_ �Ij I 5.47 M - ft)s . i , ?j� . ... I "'M .; ".1ow-I NM .� -•Z541 r 60 Y4 n tRIMM 'M - -- 36716.2t. -C. 45(69) w-, gvwu -367 16.21 VANN .427.04 216in) t.141 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 115.18 1.00 Ity/ !%,�tri� 0.55 2.281, RI. C- q '0.46 0 .07 135!65 36.40 106.911 9.09: 40.851 :# _4 z w A" NO s 510"ft) i 121.29IEJ6m­i­,TN 5141 Y..fYd'HL' 5, MRM,_tCK96-n4l Right 06 �.0.03 RNM"MPHP. IEW1 0.04 '0.0701 0.056 ElqN 121.32 -R Wth,Ueh'U(ft) M -M 1155.931 864.52 718.84 120.76 MF ��O BAR= I 411.191 545.79 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.000669 Mregs(s­� _qft)ffi4,g- trW'O � . RO ME 411.191,- 545.79 1222.00 1 -, "NO.. 4 Plan: Plan 62 RiveRIVER-1. Reach:Reach-1 Riv' Sta: 7 Profile: 10 yr. %,TO NO s 510"ft) i 121.29IEJ6m­i­,TN 5141 Y..fYd'HL' 5, MRM,_tCK96-n4l Right 06 �.0.03 RNM"MPHP. IEW1 0.04 '0.0701 0.056 ElqN 121.32 -R Wth,Ueh'U(ft) M -M 1155.931 864.52 718.84 120.76 MF ��O BAR= I 411.191 545.79 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.000669 Mregs(s­� _qft)ffi4,g- trW'O � . RO ME 411.191,- 545.79 1222.00 1 -, "NO.. 4 F 771.11 329.28 %,TO 144:72 184.57 UeTota[(Ws)1.28 1� I p _(ft 'IT M 2000.0 0 1.101 ,1.41 5.80LY!i;FpVp(fir,(# 1242.93 50 -2.84 2.96 155.56 210.98 :;'V T. 0 1.59'. Me 47232.2 1 4� 1.39 17427.7 29804.5 964.26 44 145.74 184.87 115.49 69756.. IN _0 Y, MEN% .0.12 ":0.12 16-N.R. 1.04 LS_ t 0.113 0.17 1.22 ZC!,U 6V ft 77.151 31.67 60.80 .0 01 iF 3 41.731 42:391 11.08' 0.02 Plan: Plan 02 River: RIVER -1 Reach:Reach-1 Riv Sta: 7 Profile: PF#2 e 122.18 A Eemenc, _0 n6l, IN ighOB NIN RNM"MPHP. IEW1 0.04 IIJIVal INl _ 0.070 uikm 0.056 E�GEIeu (ft) 122.22 %%ach Leri(ft)£ 1155.93 864.52 718.84 120.75 120.75 ��ir IowArea(sq 543.05 716.21, NO 0 000822 .771 716.21 1� I p _(ft 'IT M 2000.0 0 T W R T5543.05 --7-07 1242.93 50 _366,54 Vel 155.56 210.98 :;'V T. 0 1.59'. IWININ, 1.39 1.74 NOW 6.69 44 3.491 3.39 'Len§ LjW_ Q 69756.. IN _0 Y, MEN% 26405.41 43351.5 �Alphatf%'1.03 964.96 115.49 '!If t 156.641 O.251 211-.34 0.17 0.30 LI Ih 1.47 WSW.0 Ft RMM 128.80 41.731 2.6 0.02 VC@WS'p,, 6Vffi� 43.59 111.701 438 Nr -Plan: Plan 02 River: RIVER' -1 ' Reach:Reach.-I Riv Sta: 7 Profile: PFi3 raWl's"M TRAftIPMEN, 510.t NE anw, MES 122.39 g IN ighOB NIN M_ff 0.04 _ 0.0701 0.056 122.43R V im 115 5.9 864.52 '718.84 120.75 0.000858 k 575.721 761.40 2200.00 .771 1360.23 1� I p _(ft 'IT M 383.35,t,� ___1.65' T W R -224.24 50 Vel 1.461 1.79 _n, 6.90 IWININ, 3.621 5.46 NOW 16.3 28673.1 46443.2 'Len§ LjW_ Q 965.19 IN _0 Y, MEN% 160.2pl '-224.62 115.49- 1, 0.191 -8 0.18 LI Ih 1.03 h" ti 0.2T 1.49,, 142.81, -44.771,115 50 "C" 0.02 ....... ... 3 LU8 11.91 �45.26 tlV S Efe� (ft}� 121.45 lementy�`(LettfOBl 4 0.040 = ChannelF'=Ri U701 ht OB° his d• 9u,: _ 0.056 U,eiHead(ft) 0.00WYsnVa��� EGEIev (ftj zr kEd.BY-."l�'� F •!' '�6r3�' 121.45 1324.15 $L�sHYn.i?b L Y231 i 1 163.99'1 1257.65, (Cnt*XINxS (ft)� .�- 119.22 R__F�Yyow"Are qsa ft2548 'iW l - ` fi' : .30. 316.55 508.42 EGSiope(ft/ft) - 0.000041 fAkea3(sgft) �a 2548.30 _ 316.55 508.42 Q Total (cfs) 1222.00 g,§[6- fs) � 1043.361 65.93 112.71 Top'11Vidth(ft}� Vet 11 1649.421Top 0.36 Wdth(ft}x 1137.851 Avg i{ft!s) � �: 0.41 167.71 - - 343.86 ota (1 ¢y MaxKChDpth{ft 1ConvT alt(cfs) ,Kerb' irvw-..r�sys 4.70HYd, 189747:0pConv`cfs)'��f"g tVel � - Depth(ftJn 2.24' � 162009.0 azca§vsx.N§ c .er' 27?"re. '`;1 0.21 1.891 10237.4 I 0.22 .---.148 . 17500.6 `Length?Wttl'(ftj� �A+" 2 t.71'�bFY�s 5?� 3._ 1266.23 _ 1138.21 DRi MS.2(cJ3 •�u'fv1 t .� 168.33 344.10 ftMWn�GwEI)si� ,116.75tiea°r( b/sq ) E 0.01 0.001 0.00 7rYf k.iJ£f.� f FrctnLoss ff) } 1.14 0.13 Stream Powe {Ib/ft"s) -- 0.00 f aFt�b El ks bx4 4 L,�eVL{ ;+E.� - Cum Volumea(a�cre ft)� 115.89 - 0.00 41.39 --_t 0.00 76.02 C &EL+oss ft 0.00 CumSA�`acres i �( ) - 59.68 __ - _ 15:26 48:16 Plan: Plan 02 River: RIVER -1 �Reach:Reach-1 Riv Sta: 8 Profile: PF#2 IN SElevv Velftead�(ft) 122.34 �Elementt�? #Lfta06 aKJ "Channels Right`OB° A e 0.00 _ 122.34ReachLYen(ft)� IN SElevv Velftead�(ft) 122.34 �Elementt�? #Lfta06 aKJ "Channels Right`OB° ' Fltdt Yrhs.La »�.r C7� EGEIe(ftj� 0.00 _ 122.34ReachLYen(ft)� 1/Vtn Val *�'n•c gp� s` k`§iss" iG11u Yi.� 3✓5- 0.04 1324,151 0.070 1163.991 0.056 1257.651 �Cnt1N#S(f4) 119.48 ^FIowArea(sq ft r� _ -3804.261 504.33 --- 889.45 E GSlope(fUft)� 0.000034 MCnt�1NS�ff) 119.44Iow�Area£(sgft)r- Q Totai (cfs ;r ,vicar ffi -3563.781_-468.01 SFIoCv (cfs) 816.30 EAG S�lopeti(fUft� 0.000035Area�(sgft)`u `TopWidfh (ftjN f(X 3563.781 468.011 816.30 �QT otal�(Cfs)4 Top1Wi 2000.00nF�low�(- -cfs)� "Top}Width 1661.49 113.48 225.03 td h%(ft) VeITotaik ft/s �x3: 1675.80 0; 41 (ft) 7Avg:Velf(ft/s) ` '$ 1151.991 0.47 173.62 0.241. 350.18 0.28 MaxChi Dpth(ft) ` 5.59HyDepth(ft) MmGh�Ell(ft) _ 3.09. I 2.70 IT ___ 2.33 �Conv Total (cfs} � ya4Y^i%k d' ]Jt -'YS§k ? Length Wtd(ft)#° 338243.4 Conv f(cfs) � s yt� , T�u"�f id1 i Y Ri A �•' fYVC*SHx;= WettedgPer(ft)�' 280994.7 _ 19191.31 38057.4 �;«.' '� 5 Si K °w 31' 1264.89 t �k m3 f.:x•' �u iEr ..§%F,Y�r 1152.48 174.31 350.49 Min ChE=I(ft�) fi `Alp;�y 116.75 IL 0.01 1 0 01 1 13 �StreamkPower( ft s 0.00 0.00; 0.00 _ - 9.12 Cum Volum (care ft)1 182.96 55.24 _ _ 124.97 Chi �E Lois (ft)3 _ 0.00 CumS '(acres] _- 61.101 16_10" 51 94 _ Plan: Plan 02 River: RIVER -1 Reach:Reach-l. Riv Sta: 8 Profile: PF#3 ` V�eltiead (ft)$ �, 0.00,'1Ntn UaI s, R ,, ; 0.0401 00701 0.056 13E�G tE1e9s(ft) 122.55 1324.151 1163.991 1257.65 �Cnt1N#S(f4) 119.48 ^FIowArea(sq ft r� _ -3804.261 504.33 --- 889.45 E GSlope(fUft)� 0.000034 ;Aea(sglit} t 3804.26 504.33 - 889.45 Q Totai (cfs ;r ,vicar ffi 2200.00 SFIoCv (cfs) 1819.361 125.88 254.76 €Top WdCh(ft) y 1684:08 `TopWidfh (ftjN f(X ___ _ 1156.881 175.071.' 352.13 TotalYf(ft/sj%t 0.42 Avg x(ft/s)a� 4 "..kr�".�ha -- - - - 0.481- 0.29 ii Max CKNE)pth�(ft) 5.80 Fiydr�JDbepthy(ft) ` 3.29 - 2.88 - 2:531 }Cone- v Total cfs P P _ � � (,x,„40 __ 377779 5 1Conu cfs § a,. ,r( )a-,- � -- i - 4 - -_312416:4• 21616.1 43747.0' LengthaWtd{ftj� 1264.59 Wetted Per(ft)` ' 1157.39' 175.77) 352 4� - MmGh�Ell(ft) 116.75Shear¢(It5/sq ft)�y� _ - 0.011 0.01--- 0.011 Alph� 1.13 Stream Po�wer(Ib/ft`s) - 0.001 0.00; 0.00 t Frctn Loss (ft), ^t iF�sav n,,�.•n �� 0.12 Cum Volumer(acre ft} 200.631 59.20, 139.33 _ Cg&EL`osS�1(ft) 0.00 1Cui SA (acres)L`�� „yfi _ 61.461 -16.381 53.58) ` r; ✓ • I I I I I I 1 II J. Clements I I I 9/12/00 Preliminary: subject to revision LITTLE CHICO CREEK AT TAFFEE ROAD NEAR CHICO A04270 PERIOD OF RECORD ANNUAL PEAK DISCHARGE I I I I I I I I I Gage I I I I I I I I Water; Time I Discharge I Height I Elevation I I 1/ I Year I Date I st I cls I ft ft, Local Rank' Source I Remarks I ( I (BEGIN RECORD 11/90 PER DWR STATION FILE 1 1991 1 3/3/91 1045 I 968; 16.40;16.40 i 9 1 1 1 Peak GH same as for discharge. 1992 2/14/92 2045 1,230',., 17.90; 17.90; 8 1 1 1 Peak GH same as for discharge. 1993 1!20/93 1 1745 i 1,690; 20.10; 20.10; 4 ' 1 1 Peak GH same as for discharge. 1994 1 2!7/94 1115 1 5871 14.20; 14.201 10 1 1 1 Peak GH same as for discharge. 1 I 1995 1 3/9/95 F1100 I 2,330; 19.54; 19.54; 3 1 1 1 Peak GH same as for discharge. 1 __ 1996 1 12/12/951 0930 1 1,260; 15.74; 15.74; 7 1 1 Peak GH same as for discharge. 1 1997 1 1/1/97 1 0545 1 2,4001 19.60; 19.60; 2_1 1 1Peak GH same as for discharge. 1998 2/2/98 1 2330 1 2,6701; - 20.371 20.37 • 1 I— 1 1 Peak GH same as for discharge... I 1999 1 2/9/99 1 0815_1. 1,350' 16.25; 16.25; 6 1 Peak GH same as for discharge. I I 2000 1 2/13/00 1 2_315 -- --1----' 1,650. -- 17.29; 17.29; 5 —T --[Peak GH same as for discharge. (— __---- I Notes:i l/ Source:! 1 = DWR_Northern District Surface Water Gaging Station computer files. Data computed by Northern District personnel. I I 15 minute recording interval). iY� note: aee a e � m o wr ,00u,o�es. tee= v� _ •+.,� � ..... �... ••...' '--�---._ -••.. ...,.••...-...__„ ..,,.,, ._. Clements I Sub'ect to Revision ! j • � I • - 4!8!99 -Preliminary, J I ! I 1 I I I i I it-age 7 of 3 I Coil. SACRAMENTO RIVER AT HAMILTON CITY A02630 ' PERIOD OF RECORD ANNUAL PEAK INSTANTANEOUS AND MAXIMUM AVERAGE DAILY DISCHARGE AND STAGE 7 I I I /PEAK INSTANTANEOUS I I I MAXIMUM AVERAGE DAILY s1 I 1/ ! Gage 2/ 1 1 1 11 Gage :21 1 Water I Time Discharge Height! Stage Q Stage ! Prima( .Discharge Height ! Stage I O Stage Primary Year Date 1 st I cfs feet I USED Rank Rank I Source Date cfs I feet I USED Rank Rank Source ,-.1 _ _1 ! 1915 2/3/15 0700 NR 11.2 149.71 NR 10 DWR But. 16.131125 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR I D4VR Bul. 16 13/125 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 3I 1917 2126!17 1700 NR 9:31 147.81 NR 19 DWR Sul. 16.13//25 NR NR I NR NR NR NR NR ! 4 11918 3/20118 0700 NR 1.2, 139.7 NR 56 DWR Bu1.15-13/125 NR NR NR NR I NR NR NR I 1919 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR ! DWR Sl. 16-13//25 NR NR NR NR NR NR 'NR 'NR ,riS 1920 NR I NR NR NR I NR I NRI NR I DN/R But. 16.131/25 NR NR NR I NR I NR NR 1921 1/30/21 11200 NR 22.6 149.7 NR 10 1 DWR But. 16-13/125 NR' I NR NR NR NR NR NR „ 1 1922 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 1 DWR But. 16-13//25 NR I NR NR NR I NR NR NR 9 1923 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR DWR Bul. 16.13//25 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 10 1 1924 NR I NR NR NR NR. NR NR DN/R Bul. 16-13//25 NR I NR NR NR NR I NR NR 3 ! 1925 NR NR NR I NR NR NR NR DWR But. 16-131125 NR I NR I NR I NR NR NR NR 1926 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR DWR But. 16 25/26 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR f, ,. 1 1927 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR DWR But. 16-26/27 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 74 I 1928 3127/28 2200 NR .22.0 149.1 NR 15 DWR But. 16-27/28 NR NR NR NR I NR NR NR 15 I 1929 2/4!29 07001 NR 13.41 140.5 NR 51 1 DWR But: 16.28137 NR I NR NR NR NR NR NR 1930 12/16/29 07001 NR 1 16.51 143.61 NR 1 36 1 DWR Bul. 15-28131 NR I NR I NR I NR I NR NR NR 1.•;'/k L 1931 1/24/31 0700 NR 10.5; 137.6 NR 1 63 1 DWR But. 16-28131 NR I NR ( NR NR NR NR NR I 1932 12/27131 2400 NR 1 11.91 145_O'NR I 28 I DWR Bul. Iii-31/32 NR NR. I NR NR NR NR NR {, 11933 3/29133 0700 NR 12.21 139.31 MR 57 I DWR Dul. 15-32/33 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR '.20 1 1934 NR NRI NR I •NR I NR I NR I NR I DWR But. 16-34/42 NR I NR NR NR I NR NR I NR 21 1 1935 ,vT 1 1936 _ NR 2/22/36 _NRI 2200'NR_ NR NR I NR�_NR 20.4 148.3 HIR NR 18 1 DPJR Bul. 16-34!42 DWR But. 16.34142 NR NR NR NR - NR NR NR NR NR NR NR I NR NR NR 1937 2/5!37 - 1300 NR 76.7 14x.61 NR 31 DWR But. 16-34/42 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 1938 12/11/37 1700 NR _�-22.8 150.71 NR 4 DWR But. 16-34/42 NR NR NR NR - NR I NR NR 1 1939 3114139 09001 NR 1 10.8 138.71 NR 60 1 DWR Sul. 16-34142 NR F NR ( NR NR NR NR NR Note: Dischar a for Water Years 1940 through the present is for the main river channel onlyan nd does not include east bank overflow. 26 11940 _ -2/28140 16001 350.000 22.6:50.5 1 B D4VR Bul. 16-44146 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR y'^;� 1941 2/11/x1 1100 NR 20.65 148.55 NR 17 DWR But. 16.34/42 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR. :) 79x2 216142 1800 NR 21.81 149.77 NR 9 DWR Dul. 16 31!x2 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR ') 7973 1/23/43 2200 41.000 19.1 147.0' 1"."01 12 23 DWR But. 16-42/44 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR - Note: Discharcle regulated by Shasta Dam and Reservoir beginning in December 1943. 30 . 1944 2/4/44 0700 NR 8.21 136.1 NR 64 DWR But. 16-42/44 NR I NR NR I NR I NR I NR I NR #41 1 1945 2/1/45 1 23301 58.000 139.91 139.9( 43 1 54 ! 04VR But. 16-44146 NR I NR NR I NR I NR NR NR 1 19x6 12/28!45 1 1400 95.000 143.6{ 143.61 23 36 DWR Bul. 16-44145 72!28/451 79.450; 143.21 143.2] 25 19 DWR But. 23-46 F11 ?r '(-; I 1947 2!12/47 2100 47.900 138.38 138.38 47 62 1 DWR But. 16-46!x8 2/13147 36.880; 136.81 736.81 44 39 " DWR But. 23 47 7948 3/24!48 09001 70.1001 141.58 141.58 3x 46 I DWR But. 16.46!48 3124/48 58.680' 139.7 139.7 36 32 DWR But. 23 48 35 119x9 3112!49 0330 90.0001 142.971 142.97 29 1 40 DWR But. 16-48150 3/11/49 1 13.690: 141.81 141.8; 29 23 DWR Sul. 23-49 36 I 1950 2/5150 102301 65.0001 140.141 140.14 39 52 DWR But. 16-48/50 215/50 54,7001 139.41 139.4; 38 1 35 DMJR But. 23-50 1951 -- i2i15/5J' 0500 15P­000;141.E21 141.62! 36 45 OWR But. 16-50/52 r-DWR But. 16-50/52 12175/50 61,400 140.51 140.5' 35 29 DWR But. 23-51 12128!51 96.500 145.4 147.x1 16 14 DWR Bui.25-52 '•: 3 I 1952 31 1953 12/22/51 1/18/53 111301 1430 143,000 140.39; 146.351 92.600i 14J.1,si 143.731 17 27 4 26 35 DWRBul.16-52/S1 1/18/53 85.0001 143.31 143.31 21 18 DWR But. 23-53 40 1954 2/18154 0900 77.200 742.281 142.28: 32 43 DWR Oul. 23-54 2/18/Sx 74,500, 141.91 1x1.9; 28 22 DWR Bul. 23 54 41 i 1955 17/15lSx 1900! 38.000; 135.961 135.961 48 1 66 1 DWR But. 16-54/50 1 11/16/541 29.900: 134.41 134.4' 47 1 43 1 DWR But. 23-55 Note: Station destro ed by high water on 1/15156. Station reinstalled at same location 40 feet downstream of bridge on left bank on 6116/56. 21 1956 NR NR I NR tNR I NR NR NR I NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR .;3 i 1957 3/25/57 1525 68.2001 41.01 141.0' 35 48 I DWR eul. 23-57 2/25157 62.300 40.21 140.2 3x 31 DWR But. 23 57 IS 1958 2/25/58 0800 149.18' 149.18 10 74 DWR But. 23-58 2125!58 140.000 48.21 748.2' 8 1 8 D4`/R But. 23-58 Note: Station destroyed b�Qh water on 119159. Station relocated from 40 feet downstream of bridge on left bank to 39 feet upstream of bridge on left bank on 10/27159. 45 i 1959 NR NR NR NR NR NR I NR I NR 2/17159 77.4001 41.81 1x1.8; 27 23 D'PJR But. 23-59 :}j:6 ; 1960 219%60 1 0130 91,900; 43.33; 1x3.331 28 I 38 I U/11H But. 23-60 218/60 1 79.400; 47.8: 141.8 26 23 DWR But. 23-60 77 I 1961 1212160 1 0700 92.900 43.301 143.30; 26 I 39 1DWR But. 23-61 1212!60 1 60.300! 39.71 139.71 32 1 32 DWR But. 23-61 .8 I 1902 2115/62 11320 86.5001 42.6x! 142.6=1; 31 I 41 1 DWR But. 23-62 2115/62 79.500 41.7x' 141.74 24 26 2`PIR But. 23-52 Y9 1 1963 2/1/63 1500 94.500 43.86! 143.86; 24 I 31 I 34VR Bul: 69-63 4115163 87,000! 43.001 143.001 19 I 27 I DWR But. 13_063 50 1 1964 1/21164 1 1300 .61,6001 39.28; 1� 39.281 41 58 DWR Bul. 130-64 1/21/6 50,3001 29.301 129.30! 41 48 DWR Bul. 130.64 51 I 7965 12/23/64 1220 151_000( 4964 149641--8 _I 73_ DWRBuI 130:65 12/23/14 144_0001 48.961 148.961-7 - 6 DWRBul.13065 f Y ( 1960 115/60 2030 - -_ 87,0701 42 61 142 61- 30 42 DN/R BuI 69-66 DWR Bul 130 67_ 1/5166 1/31/67 70 600> 92 O- i 40 54 43 58 1x0.54 I 143.58 30 ---- 28 17 DWR But. 130-66 DWR But. 130.67 /r` 3 1 1968 _ 2/1/67 _ 2!25103 0230 1600 102.000 67,000 44 61 40.56 144 67 140.56 _21 38 30 1 50 DWR Bul. 130.68 _ 2/25168 ____ 64.600 40.24 _18 _ 140.24 33 30 D4VR Bul. 130-68 _19_67 ! 551 1969 1/13!69 2130 _ 126.000 47.601 147.601. 14 1 20 DNlRBul.130-69 7113169 110.000; 45.941 1x5.94 13� 72 0`NRBut. 13069 56 1 1970 1124!70 0730 _ 156.000` 50.771 _750.77L 5 1 2 D`PJR But. 130-70 7124(70 - 149.000] 50.11 1 150.111 6 3 - DWR Bul. 130.70 --_DWR _ 1/17!71- 31492_ -- 9..9!x0 26.900 ___44.161_ 144.16 17 NR NR_ 49_ _ 16 NR But. 130-71 _ DWR Bul. 130-72 .�7 I 1971 ---- 58 1 1972 _1%17!71 _ 1300 1545 _ 103.0001 _ 32,700 45.054 3x.96 145.05' _ 19 734.96(_ 50 27 - 68_ __ DWR Bul. 130.71 _ OWRBut. 130-72 ;9 11973 _2/29/72 1/18!/3 2315 97,500 44.47 144.47 22 33 DWR But. 130.73_ 1119!/3 _ ___ 85.100! NR NR _20 NR DN/R But. 130-73 X01 1974 1/1774 1415 158.000! 49.651 149.651 4 12 _ 1 DWRBul.130.7: 1117(74 151,0001 NR NR 4 NR DWR But. 13074 61 I. 7975 621 1976 2!73775 3/1176 2345 0930 103.000 29,400 44.99' .5 34.56 144.99 134.56. 19 52 1_29 I 70 D4VR Bul. 130-75 3/ 2113!75 3!1!76 83.5001 25.300] - ---I NR ( 33.591 NR 133.59 22 50 NR 45 DWR Bul, 130-75 _ 3/ air - 3I 1977 1/3r/7 - 0730 - - - 14.400_30.821 - I---' 73082 Sx 71 - 3/ -- 113!77 12.000-30.11. -- 130.11 52. 47 - _--31 ! 1978 1/17!78 0430 47.18 747.18 --- 15 -- 22 - - -- 3/ - 1/15178 773.000 46.08 146.08 12 11 3l .x J�r 5 1 7979 2/14(79 0200 __123,000 68.000 4T_ 141.251 36 1 47 -� -3/ 2/74!79 57.4001 !9.48, 139.48 37 31 31 6o 11980 167 1 7981 -2/20180 1/28'81 0545 0845 --- 120.000 73.400 47.33 42 OS 147 331 1x2 OS 16 .1 33 _ 21 44 3l - f 3/ 2120/80 1128!81 --- 12/20/81 -- 114..0.001 69.800; 9a 6001 46.971 46.971 41.491 45 4 146.97( 141.491 -- ' 745.4: 11 31 -- 15 10 27 13 31 3! 4/ ASF8 1 1982_ 1 19 12/2018/ 1645 112.000 x6.75 140 751 18 -- 1=24 - I .... _ 4/ I -----' - - -- -.� --- ' -- - 9 ! 1983 3/1%83 1845 - 178.000 --..._ 50.77 150.771--2 2 4/ 1127183 152.000 49.10 149.10 2 5 4/ _- 125.000' 47.73; 1x7.73 10- -9- - - 4l �7 O! 1984 12/26/83 0015 140.000 48.85 148.85; 13 I 16 I 41 12/25!83 1 ; 1985 7112x184. 2000 50.000 38.39 138.39( 46 150_55] 3-I I 67 - DWR Bul. 130-85 6 4/ 11/28/84 2118/86159.000! 35.-00 35.751 135.75 50.06'`50.00 45 1 41 4 DWR But. 130-85 4/ 7z I_ 1986 14001 168.000 50.55( _2/18/80 Note: Station relocated from 39 feet upstream of_bri_dge on left bank to 75 feet upstream of bridge on right bank on 10123/86. r--- -3. 1987 ia j 1988 ,..'-I- -'- "' ' 3/13187 irai88 `--- 140.10, -- 1 140.58_( - 42 ---- 40 - d/ -- 53 T �9 4/ ` - ..(._- _---4!_•---_-- 3113/87 - -_ - - --- 11x/88 -- - -52.500: --'---- 53.400; 38.97 138.97 40 36 I - - -- 38.931 138.931 39 37 --- - - --- -- 4/ -'----- 4! - - -- 1200 1945 59.500 63.5001 - 40.10 Ir-4 - 40.58 -0. -f p i 989 3171/89 15151 5.7.900! 39.711 139.71]45 I 55 3111189 47,61)0; 38.461 138.401- 42 38 ,. 4/ o ; 1990 _____-_ 77 I 7991 118/90 __...__....-._ 315/91 1545 0145 32.200 37:000,_ .-_35.151 36_00 _-135_151 ----1---- 13"0.00; 51 67 49 I 65 •-4/-_._•. _ 4! . 1/74!90_1 3/5191 _-- ( 27_500:- 30.200: 34.161_ 34.61; 134_161_ 134.611 48 48 _ 4•.__-- 42 4/ i3 i 1992 - 2/72/92 2215 SS.000L 39 761 739.161 F--'---.-__ 44 I 59 „-,.-_..__..__...._-.-._.._..______._.._.._____._ 4! ...... __._.... _ .... 2/72/92 .-----I _------'-------_.•.-_L_-- 40.=00; 36.711 ..-___:_-. 136.71' 43 40 --- 4/ -....--.--.._ . - 9; 1993 - 1/21/93 11200 11615; - -_119_000( 28.3001 46.591 31.881 1x6.59. 134.88! 17 53 7 25 -I-:._ I 69 .,_ ..G/...-_....__...1/21193 1 4/ 2!7194 1 1 10o_C�0 79700: _45.241 32.91"'132.911 51 46 4l 30 i 1994 131 1 9995 2!7%94 1110/95 109301- 155,0001:__59-68 150.681 6 1 5 4/ 1!10195 7�2 C001 50 371 150.371 -2 2 4/ 82 1 1996 2/21190 2045 ( 9s 1001 44.53 74x 53; 25 I 32 4/ 2/21/90 82 200 43 t 1 143.71 i 23 20 4! 83 , 1997 712!97 0415 155 000 _ 50.90 150.901 6 1 1 4/ - --' 112/97 150 0001_ 50 1.41 50 5 1 -._._.. 4! �34i 1998 • • -- - 2/3198-2300{--'-151,0001 I-- - ..:..I -I_.... ---...I__..._I 50.54[ 150.51( ._....I---' 8-_-1 77 -...I._ I- 4! . __1-. 21419d -._......_L.,' I 133.000 - __...,_. .41 4875: _] 148.751-� . - -L _._...L- 7'_ --- a7- .. -......_..__. iY� note: aee a e � m o wr ,00u,o�es. tee= v� _ •+.,� � ..... �... ••...' '--�---._ -••.. ...,.••...-...__„ ..,,.,, ._. TABLE 35 LITTLE CHICO CREEK HYDROLOGIC MODEL ADJUSTED PRECIPITATION AND PEAK DISCHARGE 10 -YEAR RECURRENCE INTERVAL �� Areal adjustment factor for precipitation is 0.958. 24 -Hour Peak. Time of -Creek Subwatershed Node Preci itationJ -Dischar e Peak Little Chico Creek 1 7.86 144 17.25 A 144 17.25 2 7.38 254 10.00 B 373 17.25 3 6.23 274. 9.75 C 609 10.50 4 5.75 556 9.00 D 1,009 10.25 5 5.56 858 8.75 E .1,539 9.75 6 4.79 532 9.00 F 1,976 9.75 7 4.12 358 9.50 G 2,276 10.50 8 3.83 562 8.25 1 1 562 8.25 9 3.64 332 8.75 J 10 3.54 121 8.25 1,984 10.25 11 3.45 94 9.50 K 2,065 10.50 12 3.40 291 9.25 L 2,227 11.25 13 3.35 20 9.75 -� 2,'235 12.00 14 3.31 41 10.50 N 2,263 12.75 . 15 3.2.9 89 9.75 0 2,307 13.50 �� Areal adjustment factor for precipitation is 0.958. TABLE 36 ' LITTLE CHICO CREEK HYDROLOGIC MODEL; ADJUSTED PRECIPITATION AND PEAK DISCHARGE 50 -YEAR RECURRENCE INTERVAL Creek Little Chico Creek Subwatershed 1 Node A 24-Hour�. Preci itation-l 10..63 Peak Discharge 368 368 Time of Peak 9.50 9.50 2 B 8.81 461 810 9.50 10.00 . 3 C 8.33 624 1,375 9.25 10.00 4 5 D 7.76 1,065 2,154 9.00 10.00 E 7.47 1,505 3,049 8.50 9.75 6 F 6.51. 989. 3,795 9.00 9.75 7 G 5.94 794 4,407 9.25 10..50 8 1 5.75 1,145 1,145 .8.25 8.25 9 10 5.46 5.081. 698 245 .3,191 8.50 8.25 9.25 11 K 4:89 199 3,385 9.50 9.50 12 L 4.60 498 3,670 9.00 10.50 13 14 M 4.31 47 3,667 9.25 11.00 N 4.26 90 3,713 9.75 11.75 15 0 4.22 153 3,763 9.50 12.50 _�� Areal adjustment factor for precipitation is 0.958. 37LITTLE CHICO CREEK HYDROLOGIC MODEL ImTABLE PRECIPITATION AND PEAK DISCHARGE ,A''yADJUSTED � 100 -YEAR RECURRENCE INTERVAL 24 -Hour Peak Time of Creek Subwatershed Node Pr eci itationJ Discharge. Peak 11.50 473 473 9.50 9.50 F' Little Chico Creek 1 .. A 2 11.02 873 9.25 Al - 8 1,298 9.75 3 9.58 876 9.25 C 2,107 9.75:.. 4 8.62 1,302 9.00 3,087 9.75 5 8.14 1,748 8.50 _. E 4,117 9.75 6 7.19 1,186 8.75 F 4,940 10.00 7 6:23 872 9.25 G 5,563 10.50 . 8 6.13 1,266 8.25 1 1,266 8.25 5.65 739 8.50 9 + J 5.56 286 8.25 10 J 3,477 9.00 5.36 236 9.50 11 K 3,706 9.25 r 12 4.98 566 9.00 L 41043 10.25 13 4.74 .63 9.25 M 4,040. 11.00 4.69 118 9.75 14 4,093 11.75 4.65 186 9.50 15 ' 0 4,155 12.50 �� Areal adjustment factor for precipitation is 0.958. TABLE 38 ' LITTLE CHICO CREEK HYDROLOGIC MODEL ADJUSTED PRECIPITATION AND PEAK DISCHARGE 500 -YEAR RECURRENCE INTERVAL is Areal Adjustment factor for precipitation is 0.958. •a 24 -Hour Peak Time of Creek Subwatershed Node Preci itationJ Discharge Peak Little Chico Creek 1 13.70 785 9.25 A 785 9.25 2 1.3.22 1,365 9.25 B 2,077 9.50 3 11.21 1,233 9.25 C 3,213 9.50 4 10.35 1,800 9.00 D 4;592 9.75 5 9.77 2,358 8.50 E 5,956 9.75 6 8,43 1,565 8.75 F 7,005 10.00 7 7.38 1,192 9.25 G 7,815 10.75 8 7.19 1,610 8.25 1 1,610 8.25 9 6.71 973 8.50 J 10 6...61 3.79 8..25 J 4,330" 9.00 11 6.71 352 9.25 K 4,665 .9.25 12 6.13 780 9.00 L 5,099 . 10.25 13 5.56 95 9.00 5, 0,92 10.75 14 5.56 179 9.50 N 5,177 11.50 15 5:36 243 9.50 0 5,247 12.25 is Areal Adjustment factor for precipitation is 0.958. •a - V ;" J • ••• �� • � • � � . , - •l � .ate• ' .. •i 1k` �`.y`• f.. .� '•r \ G• �'1 ",i'4�.c.- My « Y, '. •- ya _ _ t� - n i' ,•.' '`r ,` '11 r .i w kir , �tti q Lkv IEL lot ` � ... ,� � - .-_ *� tiff �'��'.. � � . -• � `iEl+� Oil ,•• � 4�..../•,i. -F`'`"�,, « ~ ri �. j � t', (. �jt^ �' 3" ti'`\'' ♦ [ 0; '+fit / �t-j \ ' a , ?L�' �s r�•.i i , � _ !- ,y�}'F �-, V+w.. '�'t� -{'s `�s„� �•" $ -r4 ,..".�-,r�, "i � is "*.,�;•�. °� �'`. t r � / }..( ti� � ':. q` r ''-yv.',t i. .%'� ��•ti � ��� *�'.`�y„ r���.'t•?) t �,. k `., k h� .•v, i • • 's •�� ; '/ � t<, •t. c ',� ss, , ti• 7 s r >'�+'.. , i � , .�. ,� u1 ' ! � ' yk .2,', `n r ., -•, , �`s` t' "� �!;� <�-kc���} --�'':'ti.Lts'- :A:. •, n � � .�t`!ti= 1•, •�tL, ) " 1 � ".,:er fieri •••��.,,, ,e• , - s fir' k\� t � ,�� t .. '\ N19- Ll '4 �,. �,-y�,can,+i 11-W 4tr'tYy: 'Y••.. �j �;t •I'^ �`!(,n',�'`"_` �t i+;�+lz T�+• •,.l4lixl 1'`'t •""It` 1 �, \ �e h, ►^tA.4- r>'.: �, ..• bra r, «'�� �,� Y \y. a „n t� "':a•� e �� "'tcyF,�'�� ;� �'«�, ` 3'ct*,, .,� 3�«i�� � `� �� z f r�: � s. }�.�'•Y+ �}� • `"" , r� . t.�t 4 `AYE ee"'� r` , S w,a;, .t'cx ; ;'7 ,p4 ; • -''E;},if'S•! tii- t e j,n'rTrty r:j '*j„�Ar+•�Ir ,. '� `4" t4_ -4°e ; trt.!''� ` a+'!`f�`�.�^ f ♦ ,•? t .s , � • t `� ifti ram ..+...�-�` '7 � v ,�. 1�",,1� . '� t ��. tt•' y , µ ; ^S 'U• h�. • .� �. . �w a Yt'Tdr k .t n ., i +`: y may. t1`' • , I. 1, - t :� t.S .\•F l 1 y lifl db -s =,w � k ' ' ,.. '` r' ,,�,..i4_' y � � ? f �.' -'• • *+. `�;, > ; 'v,;r 4t i« •� \ '� �,y,� a. � ` �' .,, �' �#7�����'�.�'� ,MI, t, +, . �� � ' r ti, < • .t � F�'rt� � Y `�;' ' �c wz . � x r ..l`�'7«.��� t1+'� `'��..' � � � :lw3� �"�'i' � r ;� f :,a' _ „r �� r� .i.a� �" ''�. �' � ;�. •`�'-.•...: rM.�•�-b '�-'?�.'K+,.•r � v �, `. ' f !'"r'"�"S� � «C.I�}'r'\ �' ..,y,r y •.� rr••, rum••..+.s.:.... _ ._..•L�� .iy' •, -.> { t,1�"� t , , +a't.,. '� .+ -�. .: - - � +•+ +:si-'« +vim �.. ��'' '�''�v ,t1 ^ b.- hr`. , _ 5`' •i. . �,. T' �`'r .X-�-. +Y$R♦ t-r_..w.'r�' .�.'e t. t,.-+ ��.re►_4.s-�.•e. �-z�SRF-_..=.a'*t"�71 _. .-.�.4._.W.I�r. -