Agenda packet — Paradise City Council, November 7, 2022 (part 2 of 9)

The ARB adopted a comprehensive Diesel Risk Reduction Plan in September 2000 to reduce emissions from both new and existing diesel-fueled engines and vehicles. The ARB has also adopted regulations, known as airborne toxic control measures, to reduce emissions from both on- and off-road heavy-duty diesel vehicles (e.g., construction equipment).

The Proposed Project will be held to the principles set forth by the Tanner Act, Hot Spots Act, Diesel Risk Reduction Plan, and airborne toxic control measures. 272
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 94

3.3.2.3 Regional and Local
Butte County Air Quality Management District
BCAQMD is the air quality regulating authority in Butte County, which is responsible for ensuring that NAAQS and CAAQS are not violated within Butte County. Responsibilities of BCAQMD include monitoring air quality, preparing clean air plans, and responding to citizen complaints concerning air quality.

Air Quality Attainment Plan. The Northern Sacramento Valley Planning Area 2018 Triennial Air Quality Attainment Plan (2018 Air Quality Attainment Plan) (Sacramento Valley Air Quality Engineering and Enforcement Professionals 2018) is the latest air quality attainment plan applicable to Butte County. The BCAQMD, along with other air districts in northern Sacramento Valley, prepared the 2018 Air Quality Attainment Plan to build on the previous 2015 triennial air quality attainment plan. The 2018 Air Quality Attainment Plan intended to comply with the requirements of the California Clean Air Act related to bringing the Sacramento Valley Air Basin into compliance with CAAQS for O3.The 2018 Air Quality Attainment Plan includes an assessment of progress towards achieving the control measure commitments in the previous triennial plan; a summary of the last 3 years of O3 data; a comparison of the expected versus actual emission reductions for each measure committed to in the previous triennial plan; updated control measure commitments; and updated growth rates of population, industry, and vehicle related emissions.

Regulations and Rules. The BCAQMD develops regulations to improve air quality and protect the health and welfare of Butte County residents and their environment. The following BCAQMD rules and regulations (BCAQMD 2014) are applicable to the Proposed Project:
 Regulation II, Rule 200, Nuisance: No person will discharge from any non-vehicular source such quantities of air contaminants or other material that cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or the public; endanger the comfort, repose, health, or safety of any such persons or the public; or cause or have a natural tendency to cause injury or damage to business or property.
 Regulation II, Rule 201, Visible Emissions: A person will not discharge into the atmosphere from any single source of emission whatsoever, any air contaminant for a period or periods aggregating more than 3 minutes in any 1 hour, which is:
o As dark or darker in shade as that designated as No. 2 on the Ringelmann Chart, as published by the US Bureau of Mines; or
o Of such opacity as to obscure an observer’s view to a degree equal to or greater than does smoke described above.
 Regulation II, Rule 202, Particulate Matter Concentration: A person will not discharge into the atmosphere from any source particulate matter in excess of 0.3 grains per cubic foot of gas at standard conditions.
 Regulation II, Rule 205, Fugitive Dust Emissions: No person will cause or allow the emissions of fugitive dust from any active operation, open storage pile, or disturbed surface area such that: the dust remains visible in the atmosphere beyond the property line of the emission source; or the dust emission exceeds 20% opacity for a period or periods aggregating 273
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 95
more than three (3) minutes in any one (1) hour if the dust emission is the result of movement of a motorized vehicle.
 Regulation IV, Rule 400, Permit Requirements: Requires any person constructing, altering, or operating a source that emits or may emit air contaminants to obtain an Authority to Construct or Permit to Operate from the Air Pollution Control Officer, and to provide an orderly procedure for application, review, and authorization of new sources and of the modification and operation of existing sources of air pollution.
 Regulation IV, Rule 430, State New Source Rule: Establishes pre-construction review requirements for new and modified stationary sources of air pollution for use of Best Available Control Technology (BACT), offsets, and analysis of air quality impacts, and to ensure that the operation of such sources does not interfere with the attainment or maintenance of ambient air quality standards and complies with all other applicable BCAQMD Rules and Regulations.

CEQA Guidelines. The CEQA Air Quality Handbook (BCAQMD 2014) includes analysis requirements for construction and operational emissions. Table 3.3-1 summarizes BCAQMD’s thresholds for criteria air pollutants and recommended thresholds for TACs. BCAQMD has established thresholds of significance for criteria air pollutants, while it provides guidance with regards to TACs.

Table 3.3-1. BCAQMD Thresholds of Significance
Pollutant Construction-related Operational-Related
ROG 137 lb/day, not to exceed 4.5 tons/year 25 lb/day
NOX 137 lb/day, not to exceed 4.5 tons/year 25 lb/day
PM10 80 lb/day 80 lb/day
New Source TAC
Risk and Hazards –
Individual Project
Same as Recommended Operational
Thresholds
No Adopted Threshold. Recommended Thresholds:
 Increased Cancer Risk > 10 in one million
 Increased Non-Cancer Risk of > 1.0 Hazard
Index (Chronic or Acute)
 Ambient Diesel PM2.5 > 0.3 µg/m3 annual
average
 Zone of Influence: 1,000-foot radius from
parcel(s) of source or receptor
New Source TAC
Risk and Hazards –
Cumulative Impacts
Same as Recommended Operational
Thresholds
No Adopted Threshold. Recommended Thresholds:
 Cancer Risk > 10 in a million from all local
sources
 Non-Cancer Risk > 1.0 Hazard Index (from all
local sources – chronic)
 Diesel PM2.5 > 0.8 µg/m3 annual average
 Zone of Influence: 1,000-foot radius from
parcel(s) of sources or receptors
Source: BCAQMD 2014
Notes: ROG = reactive organic gases, NOX = nitrogen oxides, PM10 = particles of 10 micrometers and smaller, PM2.5 = particles of 2.5 micrometers and smaller, TAC = toxic air contaminant, lb = pounds, µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter Odors. Offensive or strong odors may come from a wide variety of temporary and permanent sources, including, but not limited to, wastewater treatment facilities, exhaust from heavy equipment, various industrial processes, landfills, and painting/coating operations. 274
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 96
Pollutants associated with odors such as sulfur compounds and methane can be a nuisance to healthy people and can trigger asthmatic conditions in people with sensitive airways. Given the somewhat subjective nature of human response to odors, BCAQMD does not provide quantitative or formulaic methods to evaluate the presence of an impact. While most odors are highly dispersive, the significance of an odor impact is generally related to its intensity with distance from the source.

Table 3.3-2 presents BCAQMD’s screening distances for various odors sources.

Table 3.3-2. BCAQMD Screening Levels for Potential Odor Sources Type of Facility Screening Distance (miles)
Wastewater Treatment Plant 2
Wastewater Pumping Facilities 1
Sanitary Landfill 1
Transfer Station 1
Composting Facility 2
Petroleum Refinery 2
Asphalt Batch Plant 2
Chemical Manufacturing 1
Fiberglass Manufacturing 1
Painting/Coating Operations 1
Rendering Plant 4
Coffee Roaster 1
Food Processing Facility 1
Feed Lot/Dairy 1
Green Waste and Recycling Operations 2
Metal Smelting Plants 1
Source: BCAQMD 2014
The Proposed Project will be held to the plans, rules, regulations, and thresholds adopted by BCAQMD.

Town of Paradise General Plan
The Town of Paradise General Plan (Town of Paradise and Quad Consultants 2008) includes the following goals and objectives related to air quality that are relevant to the Proposed Project:
 Goal CG-5: Maintain and improve local and regional air quality.  Objective OCEO-8: Comply with the standards, provisions, and objectives of the Butte County Air Quality Attainment Plan.

The Proposed Project will be held to the goals and objectives in the Town of Paradise General Plan.

Butte County General Plan 2030
The Butte County General Plan 2030 (Butte County 2012) includes the following policies related to air quality that are relevant to the Proposed Project:
 Policy COS-P5.2: Developers will implement best available mitigation measures to reduce air pollutant emissions associated with the construction and operation of development projects. 275
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 97
 Policy COS-P5.6: New sources of toxic air pollutants will comply with the permitting requirements of the BCAQMD and Section 44300 et seq. of the California Health and Safety Code.

The Proposed Project will be held to the policies in the Butte County General Plan 2030.

Chico 2030 General Plan
The Chico 2030 General Plan (City of Chico 2017) includes the following policy related to air quality that is relevant to the Proposed Project:
 Policy OS-4.1, Air Quality Standards: Work to comply with state and federal ambient air quality standards and to meet mandated annual air quality reduction targets.

The Proposed Project will be held to the policies in the Chico 2030 General Plan.

3.3.3 Method of Analysis
This section describes the methods used to analyze impacts on air quality within the study area.

3.3.3.1 CEQA Significance Criteria
For the purposes of this PEIR, the Proposed Project would result in a significant impact on air quality if it would:
 Impact AIR-1: Conflict with or obstruct implementation of an applicable air quality plan.  Impact AIR-2: Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Proposed Project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard.
 Impact AIR-3: Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.  Impact AIR-4: Result in other emissions, such as those leading to odors, adversely affecting a substantial number of people.

3.3.3.2 Approach to Analysis
Impacts on air quality were identified qualitatively and quantitively based on the Proposed Project’s potential to generate substantial emissions of criteria air pollutants, TACs, and odors.

The analysis of environmental effects focuses on foreseeable changes to air quality in the context of effects listed in Section 3.3.3.1 CEQA Significance Criteria.

Construction
Impacts on air quality during construction of the Proposed Project were analyzed quantitatively.

Construction of the Core Collection System, Export Pipeline System, and Extended Collection System would generate criteria air pollutant emissions from the use of construction equipment, haul trucks, and construction labor commute vehicles. Criteria air pollutant emissions associated with construction of the Core Collection System and Export Pipeline System were estimated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) version 2020.4.0. CalEEMod is a statewide land use emissions computer model designed to quantify potential criteria air pollutant emissions associated with both construction 276
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 98
and operation from a variety of land use projects. Construction emissions were estimated in CalEEMod using a combination of information presented in Chapter 2 and model defaults. The area of disturbance for the Core Collection System presented in Section 2.5.1.1 and Export Pipeline System presented in Section 2.5.2.1 were used as inputs in CalEEMod. The construction schedules for the Core Collection System and Export Pipeline System presented in Section 2.6 were used in CalEEMod. Types and quantities of equipment, construction crew size, excavation and fill quantities, and number of truck trips presented in Sections 2.5.1.3 and 2.5.2.3 were used as inputs to CaIEEMod. Criteria air pollutant emissions associated with construction of the Extended Collection System were estimated using comparable measures and assumptions for the Core Collection System. Air quality impacts were determined by comparing the criteria air pollutant emissions generated during construction of the Core Collection System, Export Pipeline System, and Extended Collection System against the BCAQMD thresholds.

Operation and Maintenance
Impacts on air quality during operation and maintenance were assessed qualitatively based on the information in Section 2.8.

3.3.4 Impact Analysis
This section describes the potential environmental impacts on air quality as a result of implementation of the Proposed Project. It includes an analysis of the Proposed Project’s potential to conflict with the applicable air quality plan, generate criteria air pollutant emissions, expose sensitive receptors to TAC emissions, and result in odor emissions. The air quality impact analysis focuses on impacts from construction, operation, and maintenance of the Core Collection System, the Export Pipeline System, and the Extended Collection System.

3.3.4.1 Impact AIR-1: Conflict with or obstruct implementation of an applicable air quality plan (Less than Significant Impact)
According to the CEQA Air Quality Handbook (BCAQMD 2014), a project conflicts with or obstructs implementation of the applicable air quality attainment plan if it would result in or induce growth in population, employment, land use, or regional vehicle miles traveled (VMT) that is inconsistent with the growth (and therefore the emissions projections) assumptions in the applicable air quality attainment plan. As previously discussed in Section 3.3.2 Regulatory Framework, the 2018 Air Quality Attainment Plan is the latest air quality attainment plan applicable to Butte County.

Construction
As discussed in Section 0 Population and Housing, all construction jobs associated with the Proposed Project would be temporary and would be expected to be filled by the current workforce within the County (Section 4.4 Growth Inducing Impacts). During construction, the Proposed Project would not result in employment growth within the County beyond growth projections presented in the 2018 Air Quality Attainment Plan. Therefore, construction of the Proposed Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the 2018 Air Quality Attainment Plan, resulting a less-than-significant impact.

Mitigation. No mitigation required.
277
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 99
Operation and Maintenance
The Proposed Project is a part of the Town’s recovery efforts from the 2018 Camp Fire and would address the need for a municipal wastewater management solution. As a result, operation and maintenance of the Proposed Project could foster population regrowth and economic expansion. As discussed in Section 0 Population and Housing, the Town’s population decreased by approximately 83 percent as a result of the 2018 Camp Fire. Any inducement of population growth that might occur as a result of the Proposed Project would therefore be a regrowth and repopulation toward pre-fire levels.

Any population growth would be contained in the Town because the proposed sewer system would not extend to other cities or counties, nor benefit populations outside of the Town.

As discussed in Section 0 Population and Housing, approximately 5 to 10 permanent employees would be required to serve the Proposed Project during operations and maintenance, which may be reassigned from existing staff within the Town or may be additional new staff. The minimal increase in employment during operations and maintenance of the Proposed Project would be consistent with the growth projections in the 2018 Air Quality Attainment Plan. Therefore, operation and maintenance of the Proposed Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the 2018 Air Quality Attainment Plan, resulting in a less-than-significant impact.

Mitigation. No mitigation required.

3.3.4.2 Impact AIR-2: Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (Less than Significant Impact) Construction
Construction activities associated with the Core Collection System, the Export Pipeline System, and the Extended Collection System would generate criteria air pollutant emissions from the use of construction equipment, haul trucks, and construction labor commute vehicles that would temporarily affect air quality.

Criteria air pollutant emissions generated during construction of the Core Collection System and Export Pipeline System were estimated using CalEEMod. The unmitigated construction criteria air pollutant emissions are summarized in Table 3.3-3. The detailed CalEEMod assumptions and output is included in Appendix D Emissions Modeling. Summaries of equipment, crews, and materials used in the modeling are included in Sections 2.5.1.3 and 2.5.2.4, for the Core Collection System and Export Pipeline System, respectively. The maximum daily emissions generated during construction of the Core Collection System and Export Pipeline System were compared with BCAQMD thresholds to determine significance.

Table 3.3-3. Unmitigated Construction Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Year ROG NOX PM10 CO SO2 PM2.5
lb/day
Core Collection System
2023 11.81 89.41 5.94 114.10 0.24 4.05
2024 14.24 100.75 6.95 140.78 0.32 4.61
2025 13.15 87.06 6.33 137.95 0.32 4.04
278
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 100
Year ROG NOX PM10 CO SO2 PM2.5
lb/day
Export Pipeline System
2023 9.78 75.26 5.19 105.27 0.25 3.51
2024 5.83 41.65 2.87 57.51 0.12 1.92
Maximum Emissions 14.24 100.75 6.95 140.78 0.32 4.61
BCAQMD Thresholds of Significance 137 137 80 N/A N/A 80 Exceeds BCAQMD Thresholds? No No No N/A N/A No
Source: CalEEMod Results (Appendix D Emissions Modeling) Notes: ROG = reactive organic gases, NOX = nitrogen oxides, PM10 = particulate matter 10 micrometers and smaller, CO = carbon monoxide, SOX = sulfur oxides, PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 micrometers and smaller, lb = pound, BCAQMD = Butte County Air Quality Management District, N/A = not applicable
As shown in Table 3.3-3, unmitigated maximum daily criteria air pollutant emissions during construction of the Core Collection System and Export Pipeline System would not exceed BCAQMD thresholds for the County for ROG, NOX, PM10, or PM2.5.

The construction methodology for the Extended Collection System would be similar to the Core Collection System. Crews and equipment used for the Extended Collection System would be similar to the Core Collection System, except that the duration would be shorter. The criteria air pollutant emissions generated during construction of the Extended Collection System would be similar to those generated during construction of the Core Collection System. From Table 3.3-3, unmitigated maximum daily criteria air pollutant emissions associated with construction of the Core Collection System would not exceed BCAQMD thresholds. Similar to the Core Collection System, unmitigated maximum daily criteria air pollutant emissions associated with construction of the Extended Collection System would not exceed BCAQMD thresholds.

Although unmitigated PM10 and PM2.5 emissions are below BCAQMD thresholds, it is mandatory for all construction projects within Butte County to comply with BCAQMD’s Rule 200, Nuisance, and Rule 205, Fugitive Dust Emissions. The CEQA Air Quality Handbook (BCAQMD 2014) provides best practice measures to minimize fugitive dust during construction. The Proposed Project will implement the following best practice measures required by BCAQMD Rules 200 and 205 to control fugitive dust emissions:
 The amount of the disturbed area will be reduced where possible.  Water trucks or sprinkler systems will be used in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site. An adequate water supply source must be identified. Increased watering frequency will be required whenever wind speeds exceed 15 mph. Reclaimed (non-potable) water will be used whenever possible.
 All dirt stockpile areas will be sprayed daily as needed, covered, or a BCAQMD-approved alternative method will be used.
 Permanent dust control measures identified in the approved project revegetation and landscape plans will be implemented as soon as possible following completion of any soil disturbing activities.
279
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 101
 Exposed ground areas that will be reworked at dates greater than 1 month after initial grading will be sown with a fast-germinating, non-invasive, grass seed and watered until vegetation is established.
 All disturbed soil areas not subject to re-vegetation will be stabilized using approved chemical soil binders, jute netting, or other methods approved in advance by BCAQMD.  All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, and other facilities to be paved will be completed as soon as possible. In addition, building pads will be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.
 Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles will not exceed 15 mph on any unpaved surface at the construction site.
 All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials will be covered or will maintain at least 2 feet of freeboard (minimum vertical distance between top of load and top of trailer) in accordance with local regulations.
 Wheel washers will be installed where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto streets, or trucks and equipment leaving the site will be washed.
 Streets will be swept at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved roads. Water sweepers with reclaimed water will be used where feasible.  A sign will be posted in a prominent location visible to the public with the telephone numbers of the contractor and BCAQMD for any questions or concerns about dust from the Proposed Project.

Compliance with the provisions and best practice measures promulgated by Rules 200 and 205 would further reduce fugitive dust emissions of PM10 and PM2.5.

Based on the discussion above, the Proposed Project would not exceed the BCAQMD thresholds for any criteria air pollutant during construction. Therefore, construction of the Proposed Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which Butte County is in nonattainment under the applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard, resulting in a lessthan-significant impact.

Mitigation. No mitigation required.

Operation and Maintenance
As discussed in Section 2.8 Proposed Operations and Maintenance, while the Core Collection System, Export Pipeline System, and Extended Collection System pipelines are designed to maintain their integrity during operations, it is always possible that a segment of pipeline could break, for example during excavations near a pipeline by others. Procedures to address a pipeline break are discussed in Section 2.8. During any excavations or other work on the pipeline by Town Public Works, the same procedures and standards would apply. Operation and maintenance activities will be performed periodically according to the schedule discussed in Section 2.8.

Operation and maintenance activities, as described in Section 2.8, would generate criteria air pollutant emissions from the use of vehicles. However, criteria air pollutant emissions from operations and maintenance activities would be minimal and immeasurable due to the infrequency of these activities.

Therefore, operation and maintenance of the Proposed Project would not result in a cumulatively 280
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 102
considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard, resulting in a less-than-significant impact.

Mitigation. No mitigation required.

3.3.4.3 Impact AIR-3: Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations (Less than Significant Impact)
Figure 3.3-1 shows the location of sensitive receptors within a 1,000-foot radius buffer surrounding the Proposed Project. Several sensitive receptors, including residential dwelling units, schools, nursing homes, hospitals, and daycare centers are found within the 1,000-foot radius surrounding the Proposed Project. The closest sensitive receptors to the Proposed Project are the residential dwelling units along Entler Avenue in the City, which are located within 50 feet of the proposed pipeline alignment (Google Earth 2022).

Construction
Project construction activities have the potential to generate TAC emissions, specifically diesel particulate matter, from the use of diesel equipment that could affect existing sensitive receptors.

However, construction activities would be temporary and short-term. Only portions of the Proposed Project area would be disturbed at a given time throughout the construction period, with operation of construction equipment occurring intermittently throughout the course of a day rather than continuously at any one location within the Proposed Project area. Periodic operation of construction equipment would allow for the dispersal of TAC emissions by avoiding continuous construction activity in the portions of the Proposed Project area closest to existing sensitive receptors. All construction equipment and operation thereof will be subject to BCAQMD rules and regulations, including those related to diesel construction equipment. The CEQA Air Quality Handbook (BCAQMD 2014) provides best practice measures to minimize diesel particulate matter from construction equipment. The Proposed Project will implement the following BCAQMD best practice measures to reduce diesel particulate matter from construction equipment:
 All on- and off-road diesel equipment will not idle for more than five minutes. Signs will be posted in the designated queuing areas and/or job sites to remind drivers and operators of the 5-minute idling limit.
 Idling, staging, and queuing of diesel equipment within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors will be prohibited.
 All construction equipment will be maintained in proper tune according to the manufacturer’s specifications. Equipment must be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition before the start of work.
 Diesel particulate filters will be installed or other CARB-verified diesel emission control strategies will be implemented.
 To the extent feasible, truck trips will be scheduled during non-peak hours to reduce peak hour emissions.

Therefore, construction of the Proposed Project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, resulting in a less-than-significant impact. 281
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 103
Mitigation. No mitigation required.

Operation and maintenance activities, as described in Section 2.8, would generate TAC emissions from vehicle use. However, TAC emissions from operations and maintenance activities would be minimal due to the infrequency of these activities. Therefore, operation and maintenance of the Proposed Project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, resulting in a lessthan-significant impact.

Mitigation. No mitigation required.

3.3.4.4 Impact AIR-4: Result in other emissions, such as those leading to odors, adversely affecting a substantial number of people (Less than Significant Impact) Construction
Construction of the Proposed Project could result in emissions of odors in the form of diesel exhaust from construction equipment and vehicles. It is anticipated that these odors would be short-term, limited in extent at any given time, and distributed throughout the Proposed Project area during the duration of construction; therefore, they would not affect a substantial number of individuals. Therefore, construction of the Proposed Project would not result in odor emissions adversely affecting a substantial number of people, resulting in a less-than-significant impact.

Mitigation. No mitigation required.

Operation and maintenance activities, as described in Section 2.8, would generate odors from the use of vehicles. However, odors from operations and maintenance activities would be minimal and immeasurable due to the infrequency of these activities (Section 2.8 Proposed Operation and Maintenance), and maintenance vehicles would use roads already being used by other vehicles. Once complete, the Proposed Project would provide an overall odor benefit, because it will replace existing septic tanks within the sewer service area that emit unpleasant odors. Routine operations and 282
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 104
maintenance activities will include periodic inspection of the odor control cannisters, which will be provided at the Export Pipeline System’s flow control and metering structure. There would be no change to how the Chico WPCP is managed and operated or how treated water is discharged that might generate new odors. Therefore, operation and maintenance of the Proposed Project would not result in odor emissions adversely affecting a substantial number of people, resulting in no impact.

Mitigation. No mitigation required.

3.3.5 Impacts Summary
Table 3.3-4 summarizes the air quality impacts of the Proposed Project.

Table 3.3-4. Air Quality Impacts Summary
Level of Level of
Impact Significance Mitigation Significance
Before Mitigation with Mitigation
Incorporated
Impact AIR-1: Conflict with or obstruct implementation of an applicable air quality plan LTS N/A LTS
Impact AIR-2: Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard

LTS N/A LTS
Impact AIR-3: Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations LTS N/A LTS
Impact AIR-4: Result in other emissions, such as those leading to odors, adversely affecting a substantial number of people LTS N/A LTS Notes: LTS = Less than Significant Impact, NI = No Impact, N/A = Not Applicable, SI = Significant Impact, S/M = Significant Impact but Mitigable to a Less than Significant Level

3.3.6 References
California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2021a. “CARB Identified Toxic Air Contaminants.” Accessed December 7, 2021. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/carb-identified-toxic-aircontaminants.

ARB. 2021b. “Summary: Diesel Particulate Matter Health Impacts.” Accessed April 1, 2021. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/summary-diesel-particulate-matter-healthimpacts#:~:text=Diesel%20engine%20emissions%20are%20believed%20to%20be%20respons ible,matter%20%28PM2.5%29%2C%20which%20is%20a%20known%20health%20hazard.

ARB. 2021c. “Maps of State and Federal Area Designations.” Accessed December 7, 2021. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/maps-state-and-federal-area-designations.

Butte County. 2012. Butte County General Plan 2030. Adopted October 26, 2010. Updated November 6, 2012. http://www.buttecounty.net/Portals/10/Planning/ButteCountyGeneralPlan2030_ May2018red.pdf?ver=2019-12-18-141822-357.
283
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 105
Butte County Air Quality Management District (BCAQMD). 2014. CEQA Air Quality Handbook.

Guidelines for Assessing Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impacts for Project Subject to CEQA Review. Adopted October 23, 2014. https://bcaqmd.org/wp-content/uploads/CEQA-HandbookAppendices-2014.pdf.

BCAQMD. 2018. “Air Quality Standards & Air Pollutants.” Accessed December 7, 2021. https://bcaqmd.org/planning/air-quality-standards-air-pollutants/.

City of Chico. 2017. Chico 2030 General Plan. Adopted April 2011. Amended March 2017. https://chico.ca.us/post/chico-2030-general-plan.

Google Earth. 2022. Aerial imagery and street view of the study area. Accessed March 20, 2022. https://earth.google.com/web/.

Sacramento Valley Air Quality Engineering and Enforcement Professionals. 2018. Northern Sacramento Valley Planning Area 2018 Triennial Air Quality Attainment Plan. December 7, 2018. http://www.airquality.org/SVBAPCC/Documents/2018%20Triennial%20Report.pdf.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2021a. “Criteria Air Pollutants.” Updated August 16, 2021. https://www.epa.gov/criteria-air-pollutants.
284
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 106

3.4 Biological Resources
This section describes the environmental setting and regulatory framework with regards to biological resources. For the purposes of the biological resources analysis, the study area refers to the areas within the Town and areas of unincorporated Butte County and Chico within the Proposed Project study area, plus a 500-foot buffer. The 500-foot radius buffer was chosen as a reasonable distance from Proposed Project activities to account for dust and other indirect effects that construction could have on adjacent habitats that may occur. Field studies were limited to public roadways. The few locations of the study area that were on private property and could not be accessed were examined, to the greatest extent feasible, using high-powered optical equipment (binoculars and spotting scopes) from public roadways. For the biological resources’ habitat assessment, habitat in and within a 0.5-mile buffer of the Proposed Project footprint was also assessed for Swainson’s hawk suitability to determine in which portions of the study area protocol surveys for that species should be conducted. The 0.5-mile buffer was based on the Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee’s Recommended Timing and Methodology for Swainson’s Hawk Nesting Surveys in California’s Central Valley (CDFW 2000).

3.4.1 Environmental Setting
Field studies performed in the study area to date and the total area evaluated for each are listed below.

A detailed description of information used to determine how, and to what extent, the Proposed Project may affect special-status species and sensitive natural communities is provided below. Appendix E Vegetation Community Descriptions and Special-Status Species Accounts includes a full description of findings from the field effort, some of which is referenced further in this section.

3.4.1.1 Studies Performed to Date
Literature Review
The following datasets, online maps, and other online resources were reviewed to identify specialstatus species and their habitats, as well as aquatic resources, with the potential to occur in the study area:
 CDFW California Natural Diversity Database QuickView Tool in BIOS 5 (CDFW 2021a)  California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (CNPS 2021)
 Esri World Imagery map (Esri 2021)
 Google Earth Pro mapping service aerial imagery from 2002 through 2022 and street view images (Google Earth 2022)
 National Hydrography Dataset (USGS 2012)
 National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), California Species List Tool, Google Earth Application (NMFS 2021)
 Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Official Soil Series Descriptions of Butte County (NRCS 2021a)
 NRCS Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) Database for Butte County, California (NRCS 2021b)
 National Wetlands Inventory map (US Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS] 2021a)  USFWS Information for Planning and Consultation (IpaC) system (USFWS 2021b) 285
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 107
 USFWS Critical Habitat Mapper (USFWS 2021c)
 USGS topographical map
A query of the California Natural Diversity Database provided a list of processed and unprocessed occurrences for special-status species in the following California USGS 7.5-minute quadrangles (quads): Paradise East, Paradise West, Cherokee, Hamlin Canyon, Chico, Ord Ferry, Hamilton City, Glenn, Llano Seco, Nelson, Shippee, Oroville, Oroville Dam, Berry Creek, Pulga, Richardson Springs, Nord, Foster Island, Campbell Mound, Cohasset, Stirling City, and Kimshew Point. The Proposed Project intersects the Paradise East, Paradise West, Cherokee, Hamlin Canyon, Chico, and Ord Ferry quads. The remaining quads listed above surround these six quads.

The CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California database was queried to identify special-status plant species that have the potential to occur in all the same quads listed above. The NMFS California Species List Tool on Google Earth was queried to identify special-status fish species, fish critical habitat, and essential fish habitat known to be present in the six quads intersected by the Proposed Project. The USFWS IpaC system was queried to identify federally protected species that have the potential to occur in the study area as well as designated critical habitat. The USFWS Critical Habitat Mapper was queried to determine the location and extent of designated critical habitat in or adjacent to the study area.

Database search results are provided in Appendix E, Attachment 2. A table summarizing the database search results and conclusions regarding the potential for each species to be impacted by Proposed Project-related activities is provided in Appendix E, Attachment 3.

Biological Resources and Habitat Assessment
A biological resources and habitat assessment of the study area was conducted by HDR biologists Kelly Bartron and Dan Williams on February 23-25, 2021. During these assessments, vegetation communities in and within 500 feet of the Proposed Project footprint were characterized and mapped by hand. Habitats were assessed for suitability to special-status species which had been identified through the database queries as having the potential to occur in the study area, and all plant and wildlife species were identified and recorded. As discussed, habitat in and within a 0.5-mile buffer of the Proposed Project footprint was assessed for Swainson’s hawk suitability to determine where in the study area protocol surveys for that species should be conducted.

Aquatic Resources Preliminary Assessment
HDR wetland scientists Leslie Parker and Kristin Smith conducted preliminary site visits to assess aquatic resources in the study area on April 2 and 16, 2021. Aquatic resources were assessed in accordance with the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987); the Regional Supplement of the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region, Version 2.0 (Environmental Laboratory 2008); A Field Guide to the Identification of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in the Arid West Region of the Western United States (Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory 2008); the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region, Version 2.0 (Environmental Laboratory 2010); and A Guide to Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) Delineation for 286
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 108
Non-Perennial Streams in the Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region of the United States (Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory 2014).

The portions of the study area that were on private land (approximately 5,700 feet or 1.1 miles) away from the public roadway in the City (Section 2.5.2.1 Location and Description) were not accessible at the time of the site visit. Where access to aquatic resources was limited (that is, they could be viewed from a public access road or other public space but could not be walked), data was collected to the greatest level of detail possible. However, much of the aerial extent and other quantitative data as that is included in a standard US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) wetland delineation could not be mapped or collected on-site. The data gathered in areas with limited access was used to facilitate desktop mapping of aquatic resources in conjunction with recent and historical aerial imagery and other data, as listed above. Where there was no access (i.e., aquatic resources could not be viewed from any vantage point on-site), recent and historical aerial imagery, topographic contours, soils, National Wetlands Inventory data, and National Hydrography Dataset data were reviewed. This information was then used to interpret what are likely the most typical site conditions and aquatic resources were mapped from a desktop. Where accessible, each aquatic resource was mapped on-site using GPS equipment with sub-meter accuracy and all data was collected as required by the USACE wetland delineation manuals described above. All findings for the aquatic resources assessment are preliminary, subject to change, and have not been verified by USACE.

Swainson’s Hawk Protocol Surveys and Elderberry Shrub Mapping Between March 25, 2021, and April 14, 2021, HDR biologist Dan Williams conducted protocol Swainson’s hawk surveys in the study area. These surveys were conducted at locations in the study area which were identified during the biological resources and habitat assessment as being suitable for Swainson’s hawk. During this effort, the HDR biologist also identified and mapped all elderberry shrubs encountered in the study area. Shrubs that were growing close enough to the public roadway to allow thorough examination, were checked for exit holes, a sign of occupancy by valley elderberry longhorn beetle (Desmocerus californicus dimorphus). Full methodology and results of the Swainson’s hawk surveys and elderberry shrub mapping are presented in Appendix F, Swainson’s Hawk Survey and Elderberry Shrub Mapping Report.

3.4.1.2 Regional Setting
The easternmost portion of the study area is within the Southern Cascades Foothills section of the Cascades Ecoregion, and on the western edge of the Northern Sierra Lower Montane Forest section of the Sierra Nevada Ecoregion. Following Skyway to the west, the study area crosses the Tuscan Flows section of the Central California Foothills and Coastal Mountains Ecoregion, and the North Valley Alluvium and Butte Sink/Sutter and Colusa Basins sections of the Central California Valley Ecoregion (Griffith et al. 2016).

The Sierra Nevada Foothills are composed of sedimentary, granitic, volcanic, and ultramafic substrates.

Land cover types in this section consist of oak woodland, annual and perennial grasslands, and chaparral and pine forest. Surface water is characterized by streams flowing west into the Sacramento Valley. In addition, reservoirs for municipal water supply, irrigation, and flood control are common.

Summers are hot and dry, while winters are mild (McNab et al. 2007). 287
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 109
The Sierra Nevada Foothills section is further subdivided into five subsections, including the Lower Foothills Metamorphic Belt ecological subsection, which includes the study area. This subsection spans the lower elevation western edge of the Sierra Nevada and has a hot and subhumid climate. This subsection is on moderately steep hills and mountains at the western foot of the Sierra Nevada. The predominant vegetative community in this subsection is blue oak woodland, with scattered grassland, chaparral, and valley oak woodland. Several large rivers cross this subsection. All but the largest tributary streams are dry during summer (McNab et al. 2007).

3.4.1.3 Local Setting
The study area is in central Butte County from Paradise in the western Sierra Nevada foothills, west to the Chico WPCP in the northern Sacramento Valley. Topography across the study area transitions gradually from flat in the west to gently rolling with steep canyons adjacent in the east. Elevation in the study area ranges from approximately 135 feet above mean sea level at the Chico WPCP, to approximately 2,320 feet above mean sea level at the highest point of the sewer service area in Paradise.

According to the HUC data provided by NRCS (2018), the study area crosses the following nine hydrologic units:
 Dry Creek (HUC12 180201580401)
 Little Dry Creek (HUC12 180201580403)
 Little Butte Creek (HUC12 180201580201)
 Lake DeSalba-Butte Creek (HUC12 180201580202)
 Hamlin Slough (HUC12 180201580203)
 Dubock Slough-Little Butte Creek (HUC12 180201580204)  Durham Slough-Butte Creek (HUC12 180201580205)
 Comanche Creek (HUC12 180201580301)
 Little Chico Creek (HUC12 180201580302)
The NRCS Web Soil Survey identifies 17 soil types in the study area, in addition to water (NRCS 2021a). The soil types are well drained, composed predominantly of loam, and include a mix of metamorphic parent materials.

The following sections summarize the onsite vegetation communities, sensitive habitats, movement corridors, and special-status species with the potential to occur in the study area.

3.4.1.4 Non-Sensitive Vegetation Communities
Vegetation communities in the study area were characterized by reviewing CDFW’s California Wildlife Habitat Relationships System (CDFW 2021b) vegetation community maps and ground-truthing during surveys to refine vegetation mapping. Non-sensitive vegetation communities are those that are not of special concern to resource agencies, or afforded protections under CEQA, Fish and Game Code (FGC) Sections 1600–1603, and/or Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 401 and Section 404. Nonsensitive vegetation communities in the survey area include annual grassland, blue oak woodland, blue oak-foothill pine woodland, cropland, deciduous orchard-vineyard, developed, disturbed/ruderal, 288
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 110
irrigated row and field crops, mixed chaparral, montane hardwood-conifer, non-native woodland, pasture, ponderosa pine, and valley oak woodland. A map set of vegetation communities in the study area can be found in Appendix E, Attachment 1. Descriptions of each vegetation community and common plant and wildlife species associated with them can be found in Appendix E. This section focuses on those communities referenced in the impact analysis.

3.4.1.5 Sensitive Communities
Sensitive communities included are those that are of special concern to resource agencies or those that are protected under CEQA, FGC Sections 1600–1603, and/or CWA Section 401 and Section 404. Of the vegetation communities identified in the study area, only one is considered a sensitive habitat type:
valley-foothill riparian. Valley-foothill riparian habitat was identified in the study area along Butte Creek parallel to and west of Skyway, as well as along Comanche Creek and Little Chico Creek. The map set of vegetation communities in Appendix E, Attachment 1 shows the location of valley-foothill riparian habitat in the study area. A description of the valley-foothill riparian sensitive community and common plant and wildlife species associated with it can be found in Appendix E.

Aquatic Resources
Aquatic resources are considered a sensitive habitat type or land cover type because they provide important ecosystem functions to flora, fauna, and their habitat. Some functions include movement corridors, migratory and/or dispersal corridors, foraging habitat, and cover. Further, aquatic resources are capable of protecting surrounding land cover types from large precipitation events that may cause flooding and resulting adverse effects on biological resources. Five types of aquatic resources were identified in the study area: perennial channel, intermittent channel, ephemeral channel, wetland, and ditch. The five types of aquatic resources identified in the study area are listed below along with brief descriptions of them and where in the study area they were identified:
 Perennial Channel: Typically flows continuously throughout an average rainfall year, often with the streambed located below the water table for most of the year. Five perennial channels were identified in the Proposed Project area/footprint: Honey Run and unnamed channel in the sewer service area, Butte Creek and Butte Creek Diversion Channel between Paradise and Chico, and Comanche Creek toward the western end of the Proposed Project area/footprint.  Intermittent Channel: Typically, only flows for a portion of the year, often during the wet season. The wet season is typically in the winter and spring during periods of sustained precipitation when the streambed may be below the water table or when snowmelt provides sustained water flow. Other intermittent sources of water may be artificial in which flow regimes are controlled by irrigation systems or other artificial conveyance. Four intermittent channels were identified in the Proposed Project area/footprint: three unnamed intermittent channels are located in the sewer service area, while Little Chico Creek, a dry, sinuous creek with a low to medium gradient stream profile and medium silt to small cobbles in the low-flow portion of its channel, crosses east to west across the west end of the proposed Export Pipeline System route and along the southern boundary of the Chico WPCP.  Ephemeral Channel: Typically, only flows in direct response to, or immediately after, a precipitation event. One ephemeral channel was identified in the sewer service area near Pearson Road and Black Olive Drive.
289
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 111
 Wetland: Based on observations of hydric soils, wetland vegetation, and wetland hydrology, several potential wetlands were identified in the Proposed Project area/footprint along Skyway and in the sewer service area. The three types of potential wetlands observed in the Proposed Project area/footprint are vernal pool (especially prevalent along Skyway between Paradise and Chico, scrub-shrub wetland (an isolated depressional area adjacent to Honey Run), and freshwater emergent wetland (two small features in the Extended Collection Area).  Ditch: Conveys stormwater from roads to subsurface storm drains or surface streams. Five roadside ditches were identified in the Proposed Project area/footprint: two along and adjacent to Skyway in the sewer service area, one along Southgate Avenue just west of SR 99, and one along Crouch Avenue near Comanche Creek.

These aquatic resource types are described in greater detail in Appendix E, and the locations in the study area where they were identified are shown in Appendix E, Attachment 1.

Essential Fish Habitat
The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act requires federal agencies to consult with NMFS on all actions that may adversely affect essential fish habitat. Essential fish habitat has been designated for Chinook salmon in Butte Creek and Little Chico Creek. The designation does not identify specific salmon species or races (for example, spring-run or fall-run); however, Central Valley spring-run Chinook salmon were confirmed present by HDR biologist Dan Williams in the study area in Butte Creek while conducting Swainson’s hawk protocol surveys in Spring 2021.

Wildlife Movement Corridors
Wildlife movement corridors refer to established migration routes commonly used by resident and migratory species for passage from one geographic location to another. Corridors are present in a variety of habitats and link otherwise fragmented acres of undisturbed area. Maintaining the continuity of established wildlife corridors is important to (1) sustain species with specific foraging requirements, (2) preserve a species’ distribution potential, and (3) retain diversity among many wildlife populations.

Therefore, resource agencies consider wildlife corridors to be a sensitive resource.

Available data on movement corridors and linkages was accessed via the CDFW California Natural Diversity Database QuickView Tool in BIOS 5 (CDFW 2021a). Data reviewed included the Essential Connectivity Areas (ds623) layer, the Natural Landscape Blocks [ds621] layer, and the Missing Linkages in California (ds420) layer. A large swath of northern and central Butte County, including much of the study area between Paradise and Chico, is considered Essential Connectivity Area as a great deal of the landscape remains contiguous grassland, oak and pine woodland, and creek riparian corridors. A Natural Landscape Block is present just to the south of Skyway between Paradise and Chico. Additionally, crossing the study area at Skyway between Chico and Tuscan Ridge, is a linkage for small grassland mammals that was identified in the missing linkages layer. Lastly, Butte Creek, Comanche Creek, and Little Chico Creek and their associated riparian corridors are important facilitators of aquatic and terrestrial wildlife movement.

3.4.1.6 Special-Status Species
Candidate, sensitive, or special-status species are commonly characterized as species that are at potential risk or actual risk to their persistence in a given area, or across their native habitat. These 290
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 112
species have been identified and assigned a status ranking by governmental agencies such as CDFW and USFWS, and private organizations such as the CNPS. The degree to which a species is at risk of extinction is the determining factor in the assignment of a status ranking. Some common threats to a species’ or population’s persistence include habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation, as well as human conflict and intrusion. For the purposes of this biological review, special-status species are defined by the following codes:
 Listed, proposed, or candidates for listing under the federal Endangered Species Act (50 Code of Federal Regulations Section 17.11 – listed; 61 Federal Register 7591 – candidates)  Listed or proposed for listing under the California Endangered Species Act (FGC 1992 Section 2050 et seq.; 14 California Code of Regulations Section 670.1 et seq.)  Designated as Species of Special Concern by CDFW
 Designated as Fully Protected by CDFW (FGC Sections 3511, 4700, 5050, and 5515)  Species that meet the definition of rare or endangered under CEQA (14 California Code of Regulations Section 15380) including CNPS List Rank 1B and 2.

The results of USFWS, NMFS, CDFW, and CNPS database queries identified 39 special-status plant species and 38 special-status wildlife species with the potential to be impacted by the Proposed Project. A table listing all special-status species identified in the database results is provided in Appendix E, Attachment 3. This table also provides a description of the habitat requirements for each species and conclusions regarding the potential for each species to be impacted by Proposed Project components. In cases where a determination was made that no suitable habitat for a given species is present in the study area, that species is not analyzed further in this document. Descriptions of the habitat requirements and range for each special-status species identified as having the potential to be affected by Project-related activities is provided in Appendix E. Table 3.4-1 summarizes those species and the California Wildlife Habitat Relationship vegetative communities or other habitat or land cover types within the study area that provide suitable habitat for them. California Wildlife Habitat Relationship vegetation communities, other habitats, and land cover types in the study area include the following:
habitats or land cover types that are not California Wildlife Habitat Relationship vegetation communities are indicated with an asterisk (*):
 Annual Grassland (AGS)
 Blue Oak-Foothill Pine (BOP)
 Blue Oak Woodland (BOW)
 Cropland (CRP)
 Deciduous Orchard-Vineyard (DOR)
 Developed (DEV)*
 Disturbed/Ruderal (DRD)*
 Irrigated Row and Field Crops (IRF)
 Mixed Chaparral (MCH)
 Montane Hardwood-Conifer (MHC)
 Non-native Woodland (NNW)*
 Pasture (PAS)
 Ponderosa Pine (PPN)
291
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 113
 Valley Oak Woodland (VOW)
 Valley Foothill Riparian (VRI)
 Wetlands and other Aquatic Habitats (WET)*
Table 3.4-1. Special-status Species with the Potential to Occur in the Study Area and their Associated Habitats
Scientific Name Common Name USFWS/
NMFS CDFW CRPR Habitat Associationsa
Plants
Allium jepsonii Jepson’s onion None None 1B.2 BOP, MCH, MHC Astragalus tener var. ferrisiae Ferris’ milk-vetch None None 1B.2 AGS, PAS Balsamorhiza macrolepis big-scale balsamroot None None 1B.2 AGS, BOP, BOW, MCH,

MHC, PAS, PPN, VOW
Brasenia schreberi watershield None None 2B.3 WET
Campylopodiella stenocarpa flagella-like
atractylocarpus
None None 2B.2 BOP, BOW, DRD, MHC, PPN,
VOW
Cardamine pachystigma var.
dissectifolia
dissected-leaved
toothwort
None None 1B.2 BOP, BOW, MCH, MHC, PPN
Carex xerophila chaparral sedge None None 1B.2 BOP, BOW, MCH, MHC, PPN Castilleja rubicundula var.
rubicundula
pink creamsacs None None 1B.2 AGS, BOP, BOW, MCH,

MHC, PAS, PPN, VOW
Clarkia gracilis ssp. Albicaulis white-stemmed clarkia None None 1B.2 BOP, BOW, MCH, MHC, PPN Clarkia mildrediae ssp. Mildrediae Mildred’s clarkia None None 1B.3 BOP, BOW, MHC, PPN Clarkia mosquinii Mosquin’s clarkia None None 1B.1 BAR, BOP, BOW, MHC,

MHW, PPN
Cryptantha crinita silky cryptantha None None 1B.2 BOP, BOW, VOW, VRI Delphinium recurvatum recurved larkspur None None 1B.2 AGS, BOP, BOW, MCH,

MHC, PAS, PPN, VRI, VOW
Eremogone cliftonii Clifton’s eremogone None None 1B.3 BOP, MCH, MHC, PPN Eriogonum umbellatum var. ahartii Ahart’s buckwheat None None 1B.2 BOP, BOW, MCH, MHC, PPN Erythranthe filicifolia fern-leaved monkeyflower None None 1B.2 BOP, MCH, MHC, PPN Euphorbia hooveri Hoover’s spurge FT None 1B.2 AGS, PAS, WET Fritillaria pluriflora adobe-lily None None 1B.2 AGS, BOP, BOW, MCH,

MHC, PAS, PPN, VRI, VOW
Hibiscus lasiocarpos var.
occidentalis
woolly rose-mallow None None 1B.2 PAS, WET
Imperata brevifolia California satintail None None 2B.1 MCH, MHC, VRI, WET Juncus leiospermus var.
leiospermus
Red Bluff dwarf rush None None 1B.1 AGS, BOP, BOW, MCH,

MHC, PAS, PPN, VRI, VOW,
WET
Layia septentrionalis Colusa layia None None 1B.2 AGS, BOP, BOW, MCH,

MHC, PAS, PPN, VOW
Lewisia cantelovii Cantelow’s lewisia None None 1B.2 BOP, BOW, MCH, MHC, PPN Limnanthes 115mission ssp.

Californica
Butte County
meadowfoam
FE SE 1B.1 AGS, PAS, WET
292
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 114
Scientific Name Common Name USFWS/
NMFS CDFW CRPR Habitat Associationsa
Monardella venosa veiny monardella None None 1B.1 AGS, BOP, BOW, MHC, PAS,

PPN, VOW
Orcuttia pilosa hairy Orcutt grass FE SE 1B.1 AGS, PAS, WET Packera eurycephala var.
lewisrosei
Lewis Rose’s ragwort None None 1B.2 BOP, BOW, MCH, MHC,

PPN, VOW
Paronychia ahartii Ahart’s paronychia None None 1B.1 AGS, BOP, BOW, MHC, PAS,

PPN, VRI, VOW, WET
Poa sierrae Sierra blue grass None None 1B.3 BOP, MHC, PPN Rhynchospora californica California beaked-rush None None 1B.1 BOP, MHC, MRI, PPN, VRI, WET
Rhynchospora capitellata brownish beaked-rush None None 2B.2 BOP, MHC, MRI, PPN, VRI, WET
Rupertia hallii Hall’s rupertia None None 1B.2 BOP, BOW, DRD, MHC, PPN Sagittaria sanfordii Sanford’s arrowhead None None 1B.2 WET Sedum albomarginatum Feather River stonecrop None None 1B.2 BOP, MCH, MHC, PPN Sidalcea robusta Butte County
checkerbloom
None None 1B.2 BOP, BOW, MCH, MHC, PPN
Stuckenia filiformis ssp. Alpina slender-leaved
pondweed
None None 2B.2 WET
Trifolium jokerstii Butte County golden
clover
None None 1B.2 AGS, PAS, WET
Tuctoria greenei Greene’s tuctoria FE SR 1B.1 AGS, PAS, WET Wolffia brasiliensis Brazilian watermeal None None 2B.3 WET Invertebrates
Bombus crotchii Crotch bumble bee None SCE --- AGS, MCH Bombus occidentalis western bumble bee None SCE --- AGS, DEV, DRD, MCH Branchinecta conservatio Conservancy fairy shrimp FE None --- AGS, PAS, WET Branchinecta lynchi vernal pool fairy shrimp FT None --- AGS, PAS, WET Desmocerus californicus dimorphus valley elderberry longhorn beetle
FT None --- AGS, VRI
Lepidurus packardi vernal pool tadpole
shrimp
FE None --- AGS, PAS, WET
Fish
Cottus gulosus riffle sculpin None None --- WET
Mylopharodon conocephalus hardhead None SSC --- WET
Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus (pop.
11)
steelhead (Central Valley
Distinct Population
Segment)
FT None --- WET
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
(pop. 6)
chinook salmon (Central
Valley spring-run
Evolutionary Significant
Unit)

FT ST --- WET
Amphibians
Rana boylii foothill yellow-legged frog None None — VRI, WET 293
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 115
Scientific Name Common Name USFWS/
NMFS CDFW CRPR Habitat Associationsa
Rana draytonii California red-legged frog FT SSC — AGS, MCH, MHC, PPN, WET Spea hammondii western spadefoot None SSC --- AGS, BOP, BOW, PAS, WET Reptiles
Actinemys marmorata western pond turtle None SSC --- VRI, WET Phrynosoma blainvillii Blainville’s horned lizard None SSC --- AGS, BOP, BOW, MCH, MHC,

PPN, VRI, VOW
Thamnophis gigas giant garter snake FT ST --- IRF, VRI
Birds
Accipiter gentilis northern goshawk None SSC — BOP, PPN Agelaius tricolor tricolored blackbird None ST,
SSC
--- AGS, CRP, PAS, VRI
Aquila chrysaetos golden eagle None SFP — AGS, BOP, MHC, PAS Antigone canadensis tabida greater sandhill crane None ST, SFP
— AGS, CRP, IRF, PAS
Asio otus long-eared owl None SSC — BOP, MHC, PPN, VRI
Athene cunicularia burrowing owl None SSC --- AGS, CRP, DRD, IRF, PAS Buteo swainsoni Swainson’s hawk None ST --- AGS, BOW, CRP, DRD, PAS,

VRI, VOW
Circus hudsonius northern harrier None SSC --- AGS, CRP, IRF, PAS, WET Elanus leucurus white-tailed kite None SFP — AGS, BOP, BOW, CRP, PAS,

VRI, VOW
Falco peregrinus anatum American peregrine
falcon
None SFP --- BOP, DEV, MHC, PPN
Haliaeetus leucocephalus bald eagle None SE — MHC, PPN, VRI, WET Icteria virens yellow-breasted chat None SSC --- VRI
Lanius ludovicianus loggerhead shrike None SSC --- AGS, BOW, CRP, PAS, VOW Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus California black rail None ST, SFP
--- PAS, WET
Progne subis purple martin None SSC --- MHC, VRI
Setophaga petechia yellow warbler None SSC — MHC, VRI
Strix occidentalis California spotted owl None SSC — MHC, PPN Mammals
Antrozous pallidus pallid bat None SSC — AGS, BOP, BOW, DEV, MCH,

MHC, PPN, VRI, VOW
Corynorhinus townsendii Townsend’s big-eared bat None SSC — AGS, BOP, BOW, DEV, MCH,

MHC, PPN, VRI, VOW
Eumops perotis western mastiff bat None SSC — AGS, BOP, BOW, DEV, MCH,

MHC, PPN, VOW
Lasiurus blossevillii western red bat None SSC --- AGS, BOP, BOW, DEV, MCH,

MHC, PPN, VRI, VOW
Taxidea taxus American badger None SSC — AGS, BOP, MCH
a Associations are derived from detailed habitat description in species table (Appendix E, Attachment 3).

Habitat acronyms are defined in text above. *Habitat is not a California Wildlife Habitat Relationship vegetation community. 294
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 116
Notes: FE = federal endangered; FT = federal threatened; FC = federal candidate; SE = state endangered; ST = state threatened; FP = fully protected; SSC = species of special concern; SR = state rare; CRPR = California Rare Plant Rank; 1B = plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere; 2B = plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more common elsewhere

3.4.2 Regulatory Framework
This section summarizes the federal, state, regional, and local laws, regulations, policies, and plans relevant to evaluation of the Proposed Project’s impacts on biological resources. Additional information on the relevant regulations, laws, and plans is provided in Appendix C, Regulatory Framework.

3.4.2.1 Federal
Endangered Species Act
The Endangered Species Act provides protective measures for federally listed threatened and endangered species, including their habitats, from unlawful take (16 United States Code [USC] Sections 1531–1544).

Endangered Species Act Section 7(a)(1) requires federal agencies to use their authority to further the conservation of listed species. Endangered Species Act Section 7(a)(2) requires consultation with the USFWS or the NMFS if a federal agency undertakes, funds, permits, or authorizes any action that may impact endangered or threatened species or designated critical habitat. For projects that may result in the incidental take of threatened or endangered species, or critical habitat, and that lack a federal nexus, a Section 10(a)(1)(b) incidental take permit may be obtained from USFWS and/or NMFS.

The Proposed Project will be held to the requirement under the Endangered Species Act.

Clean Water Act
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1948 was the first major United States law to address water pollution. Upon sweeping amendments made in 1972, the law became commonly known as the CWA (33 USC Section 1251). The CWA established the structure for regulating discharge of pollutants into waters of the United States and regulating quality standards for surface waters.

CWA Section 404 (33 USC Section 1344) enables regulation of the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, including wetlands. To comply with CWA Section 404, a permittee must document the measures taken to avoid and minimize impacts on waters of the United States and provide compensatory mitigation for any unavoidable impacts.

Under CWA Section 401 (33 USC Section 1341), federal agencies are not authorized to issue a permit or license for any activity that may result in discharges to waters of the United States, unless a state or tribe where the discharge originates either grants, waives or denies CWA Section 401 certification.

Decisions made by states or tribes are based on the proposed project’s compliance with USEPA water quality standards as well as applicable effluent limitations guidelines, new source performance standards, toxic pollutant restrictions, and any other appropriate requirements of state or tribal law. In California, the SWRCB is the primary regulatory authority for CWA Section 401 requirements.

The Proposed Project will be held to the permitting requirements under this act. 295
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 117
Section 14 of the Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899, Section 408 Under Section 408 (33 USC Section 408), any use or alteration of a Civil Works project is subject to the approval of USACE. This requirement was established in Section 14 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. Section 408 provides that USACE may grant permission for another party to alter a Civil Works project upon a determination that the alteration proposed will not be injurious to the public interest and will not impair the usefulness of the Civil Works project.

The Proposed Project will be held to the requirements under Section 408.

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Magnuson-Stevens Act of 1976 (revised in 1996 and reauthorized 2007) is the primary law governing marine fisheries management in federal waters. Under the act, federal agencies that fund, permit, or carry out activities that may adversely impact Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) or Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPCs) are required to consult with NMFS regarding the potential adverse effects of Project activities, as well as respond in writing to NMFS Project-specific recommendations.

The Proposed Project will be held to the principles set forth by this act.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918
Migratory birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (MBTA; 16 USC Sections 703–711). The MBTA makes it unlawful to take, possess, buy, sell, purchase, or barter any migratory bird listed in 50 CFR Section 10, including feathers or other parts, nests, eggs, or products, except as allowed by implementing regulations (50 CFR Section 21).

The Proposed Project will be held to the requirements under this act.

Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940 (16 USC Sections 668–668c) prohibits anyone, without a permit issued by the Secretary of the Interior, from “taking” bald or golden eagles, including their parts (feathers, nests, or eggs). This act defines “take” as “pursue, shoot, shoot at, poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, molest, or disturb.” Regulations for permitting take of bald eagles or golden eagles (50 CFR 22) provide permits for "the taking, possession, and transportation within the United States of bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) and golden eagles (Aquila chrysaetos) and their parts, nests, and eggs for scientific, educational, and depredation control purposes; for the religious purposes of American Indian tribes; and to protect other interests in a particular locality. This part also governs the transportation into or out of the United States of bald and golden eagle parts for scientific, educational, and Indian religious purposes." The USFWS issues and maintains permits for eagle take.

The Proposed Project will be held to the requirements under this act.

Executive Order 13112
Executive Order (EO) 13112 directs all federal agencies to refrain from authorizing, funding, or carrying out actions or projects that may spread invasive species. As part of the proposed action, USFWS and USACE will issue permits and, therefore, will be responsible for ensuring that the proposed action complies with EO 13112 and does not contribute to the spread of invasive species.

The Proposed Project will be held to the principles of EO 13112. 296
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 118
Executive Order 11990
EO 11990 (42 Federal Register [FR] 26961) requires federal agencies to provide leadership and take action to minimize destruction, loss, or degradation of wetlands and to preserve and enhance the natural qualities of these lands.

The Proposed Project will be held to the principles of EO 11990.

3.4.2.2 State
California Endangered Species Act
Under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), the CDFW is responsible for maintaining a list of endangered and threatened species (FGC Section 2070). Pursuant to the requirements of the CESA, an agency reviewing a proposed project within its jurisdiction must determine whether any state-listed endangered or threatened species may be present and determine whether the proposed project would have a potentially significant impact on such species.

Proposed project-related impacts on species on the CESA endangered or threatened list would be considered significant. State-listed species are fully protected under the mandates of the CESA. Take of protected species incidental to otherwise lawful management activities may be authorized under FGC Section 206.591. Authorization from CDFW will be in the form of an incidental take permit.

The Proposed Project will be held to requirements under this Act.

California Fish and Game Code – Native Plant Protection Act The Native Plant Protection Act (FGC Sections 1900–1913) prohibits the taking, possession, or sale within the state of any plants with a state designation of rare, threatened, or endangered as defined by CDFW. Project impacts on these species are not considered significant unless the species are known to have a high potential to occur within the area of disturbance associated with construction of the proposed project.

The Proposed Project will be held to the requirements of the Native Plant Protection Act.

California Fish and Game Code – Natural Community Conservation Planning Act The Natural Community Conservation Planning Act (FGC Sections 2800–2835) is also intended to protect special status species and their habitat by establishing natural community conservation plans to conserve and manage natural biological diversity within the plan area while allowing compatible and appropriate economic development, growth, and other human uses.

The Proposed Project will be held to the requirements of the Natural Community Conservation Planning Act.

California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503 and 3503.5
FGC Sections 3503 and 3503.5 provide regulatory protection to resident and migratory birds and all birds of prey within the state of California, including the prohibition of the taking of nests and eggs, unless otherwise provided for by the FGC.

The Proposed Project will be held to the requirements of Sections 3503 and 3503.5. 297
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 119
California Fish and Game Code – Fully Protected Species California statutes afford fully protected status to several specifically identified birds, mammals, reptiles, and amphibians. These species cannot be taken, even with an incidental take permit. FGC Section 3505 makes it unlawful to take “any aigrette or egret, osprey, bird of paradise, goura, numidi, or any part of such a bird”. FGC Section 3511 protects from take the following fully protected birds: (1) American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum); (2) brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis); (3) California black rail (Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus); (4) California clapper rail (Rallus longirostris obsoletus); (5) California condor (Gymnogyps californianus); (6) California least tern (Sterna albifrons browni); (7) golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos); (8) greater sandhill crane (Grus canadensis tabida); (9) light-footed clapper rail (Rallus longirostris levipes); (10) southern bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus leucocephalus); (11) trumpeter swan (Cygnus buccinator); (12) white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus); and (13) Yuma clapper rail (Rallus longirostris yumanensis).

FGC Section 4700 identifies the following fully protected mammals that cannot be taken: (1) Morro Bay kangaroo rat (Dipodomys heermanni morroensis); (2) bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis), except Nelson bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis ssp.); (3) Guadalupe fur seal (Arctocephalus townsendi); 4) ring-tailed cat (Bassariscus sp.); (4) Pacific right whale (Eubalaena); (5) salt-marsh harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys raviventris); (6) southern sea otter (Enhydra lutris nereis); and (7) wolverine (Gulo gulo).

FGC Section 5050 protects from take the following fully protected reptiles and amphibians: (1) bluntnosed leopard lizard (Crotaphytus wislizenii silus); (2) San Francisco garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia); (3) Santa Cruz long-toed salamander (Ambystoma macrodactylum croceum); (4) limestone salamander (Hydromantes brunus); and (5) black toad (Bufo boreas exsul).

FGC Section 5515 identifies certain fully protected fish that cannot lawfully be taken, even with an incidental take permit. The following species are protected in this fashion: (1) Colorado River squawfish (Ptychocheilus); (2) thicktail chub (Gila crassicauda); (3) Mohave chub (Gila mohavensis); (4) Lost River sucker (Catostomus luxatus); (5) Modoc sucker (Catostomus microps); (6) shortnose sucker (Chasmistes brevirostris); (7) humpback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus); (8) Owens River pupfish (Cyprinoden radiosus); (9) unarmored threespine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus williamsoni); and (10) rough sculpin (Cottus asperrimus).

The Proposed Project will be held to FGC’s requirements related to fully protected species.

California Wetlands and Other Policies
The California Natural Resources Agency and its various departments, which includes CDFW and the California Department of Water Resources (DWR), do not authorize or approve projects that fill or otherwise harm or destroy coastal, estuarine, or inland wetlands. Exceptions may be granted if all the following conditions are met:
 The project is water dependent.
 No other feasible alternative is available.
 The public trust is not adversely affected.
 Adequate compensation is proposed as part of the project. 298
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 120
The Proposed Project will be held to the policies of the California Natural Resources Agency and its various departments.

Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act of 1966 (California Water Code Section 13000 et seq.; CCR Title 23, Chapter 3, Subchapter 15) is the primary state regulation that addresses water quality.

The requirements of the act are implemented by the SWRCB at the state level and the regional water boards within the nine regions designated. The regional water boards carry out planning, permitting, and enforcement activities related to water quality in California. The regional water boards are responsible for controlling discharges to surface waters of the state by issuing waste discharge requirements or conditional waivers to waste discharge requirements. Waste discharge requirements are required by the regional water boards for activities that may affect water quality.

The Proposed Project will be held to the requirements of this act.

Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification A CWA Section 401 water quality certification is required for activities that require CWA Section 404 permits issued by USACE. As mentioned above, the SWRCB has primary regulatory authority for CWA Section 401 requirements for protecting water resources. Enforcement of these requirements is also handled by the nine regional water boards depending upon location of the potential impacts. The RWQCB will be responsible for CWA Section 401 for this project.

The Proposed Project will be held to the permit requirements under CWA Section 404.

California Native Plant Society
The CNPS is a nongovernmental agency that classifies native plant species according to current population distribution and threat level concerning extinction. These data are used by the CNPS to create and maintain a list of native California plants that have low numbers, limited distribution, or are otherwise threatened with extinction. This information is published in the Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California (CNPS 2021). Potential impacts on populations of CNPSlisted plants receive consideration under CEQA review.

The Proposed Project will be held to the standards set forth by CNPS.

3.4.2.3 Regional and Local
Town of Paradise Code of Ordinances
Chapter 8.12, Felling, Removal, Destruction, Damaging and Replacement of Trees, of the Town of Paradise Code of Ordinances intends to limit the indiscriminate destruction of healthy trees, preserve natural beauty, maintain healthy forests, and promote proper tree management through education. This section of the code prohibits felling of any qualifying trees without a permit. Certain activities are exempt from the tree felling permit program including the reparation, maintenance, or installation of service lines (Code of Ordinances 8.12.090) and the establishment of a Town-funded capital improvement project (Code of Ordinances 8.12.090). Tree felling permits may be issued to accommodate certain activities including the repair or installation of a Town-authorized wastewater treatment and disposal system (Code of Ordinances 8.12.090).
299
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 121
The Proposed Project will be held to the requirements of the Town of Paradise Code of Ordinances.

Town of Paradise General Plan
The Town of Paradise General Plan (Town of Paradise and Quad Consultants 2008) includes the following policies related to biological resources that are relevant to the Proposed Project:
 Policy OCEP-15: Existing, significantly important natural habitat areas having high value for birds and other wildlife should be preserved for future generations through careful land use planning and public participation.
 Policy OCEP-16: Area fisheries shall be protected, and the cooperation of responsible agencies shall be sought to assure minimum stream flow and restore fisheries.

The Proposed Project will be held to the policies in the Town of Paradise General Plan.

Town of Paradise Tree Preservation Ordinance
The Town of Paradise Tree Preservation Ordinance (Chapter 8.12 of the Town’s municipal code) intends to limit the indiscriminate destruction of healthy trees, preserve natural beauty, maintain healthy forests, and promote proper tree management through education. This section of code prohibits felling of any qualifying trees without a permit. Certain activities are exempt from the tree felling permit program including the reparation, maintenance, or installation of service lines and the establishment of a town-funded capital improvement project. Tree felling permits may be issued to accommodate certain activities including the repair or installation of a town-authorized wastewater treatment and disposal system.

The Proposed Project will be held to the requirements of the Town of Paradise Tree Preservation Ordinance.

Butte County General Plan 2030
The Butte County General Plan 2030 (Butte County 2012) includes the following policies related to biological resources that are relevant to the Proposed Project:
 Policy COS-P7.3: Creeks shall be maintained in their natural state whenever possible, and creeks and floodways shall be allowed to function as natural flood protection features during storms.
 Policy COS-P7.4: New development projects shall mitigate their impacts in habitat areas for protected species through on- or off-site habitat restoration, clustering of development, and/or project design and through the provisions of the Butte Regional Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) and Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) within the HCP/NCCP Planning Area, upon the future adoption of the HCP/NCCP.
 Policy COS-P7.5: No new development projects shall occur in wetlands or within significant riparian habitats, except within the Butte Regional Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) and Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) Planning Area where such development is consistent with the conditions of the HCP/NCCP, upon the future adoption of the HCP/NCCP.  Policy COS-P7.6: New development projects shall include setbacks and buffers along riparian corridors and adjacent to habitat for protected species, except where permitted in the Butte Regional Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) and Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) 300
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 122
Planning Area and where such development is consistent with the conditions of the HCP/NCCP, upon the future adoption of the HCP/NCCP.
 Policy COS-P7.7: Construction barrier fencing shall be installed around sensitive resources on or adjacent to construction sites. Fencing shall be installed prior to construction activities and maintained throughout the construction period.
 Policy COS-P7.8: Where sensitive on-site biological resources have been identified, construction employees operating equipment or engaged in any development-associated activities involving vegetation removal or ground disturbing activities in sensitive resource areas shall be trained by a qualified biologist and/or botanist who will provide information on the onsite biological resources (sensitive natural communities, special-status plant and wildlife habitats, nests of special-status birds, etc.), avoidance of invasive plant introduction and spread, and the penalties for not complying with biological mitigation requirements and other State and federal regulations.
 Policy COS-P7.9: A biologist shall be retained to conduct construction monitoring in and adjacent to all habitats for protected species when construction is taking place near such habitat areas.
 Policy COS-P8.1: Native plant species shall be protected and planting and regeneration of native plant species shall be encouraged, wherever possible, in undisturbed portions of development sites.
 Policy COS-P8.4: Introduction or spread of invasive plant species during construction of development projects shall be avoided by minimizing surface disturbance; seeding and mulching disturbed areas with certified weed-free native mixes; and using native, noninvasive species in erosion control plantings.
 Policy COS-P9.1: A biological resources assessment shall be required for any proposed development project where special-status species or critical habitat may be present.

Assessments shall be carried out under the direction of Butte County. Additional focused surveys shall be conducted during the appropriate season if necessary. Upon adoption of the Butte Regional Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) and Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP), assessment requirements of the HCP/NCCP shall be implemented for development projects within the HCP/NCCP area.
 Policy COS-P9.2: If special-status plant or animal species are found to be located within a development site, proponents of the project shall engage in consultation with the appropriate federal, State and regional agencies and mitigate project impacts in accordance with State and federal law. Upon adoption of the Butte Regional Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) and Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP), mitigation requirements of the HCP/NCCP shall be implemented for development projects within the HCP/NCCP area. Examples of mitigation may include:
o Design the proposed project to avoid and minimize impacts. o Restrict construction to specific seasons based on project-specific special-status species issues (e.g., minimizing impacts to special-status nesting birds by constructing outside of the nesting season).
o Confine construction disturbance to the minimum area necessary to complete the work. 301
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 123
o Mitigate for the loss of special-status species by purchasing credits at an approved conservation bank (if a bank exists for the species in question), funding restoration or habitat improvement projects at existing preserves in Butte County, or purchasing or donating mitigation lands of substantially similar habitat. o Maintain a minimum 100-foot buffer on each side of all riparian corridors, creeks and streams for special-status and common wildlife.
o Establish setbacks from the outer edge of special-status species habitat areas. o Construct barriers to prevent compaction damage by foot or vehicular traffic.

The Proposed Project will be held to the policies in the Butte County General Plan 2030.

Chico 2030 General Plan
The Chico 2030 General Plan (City of Chico 2017) includes the following policies related to biological resources that are relevant to the Proposed Project:
 Policy OS-1.1, Native Habitats and Species: Preserve native species and habitat through land use planning, cooperation, and collaboration.
 Policy OS-1.2, Regulatory Compliance: Protect special-status plant and animal species, including their habitats, in compliance with all applicable state, federal and other laws and regulations.
 Policy OS-2.5, Creeks and Riparian Corridors: Preserve and enhance Chico’s creeks and riparian corridors as open space for their aesthetic, drainage, habitat, flood control, and water quality values.
 Policy OS-2.6, Oak Woodlands: Protect oak woodlands as open space for sensitive species and habitat.

The Proposed Project will be held to the policies in the Chico 2030 General Plan.

City of Chico Tree Preservation Regulations
Chapter 16.66 Tree Preservation Regulations of Chico’s municipal code requires that a tree removal permit be obtained from the director of the public works department before removing any trees within the city. This chapter of the code requires preparation of a tree protection plan that complies with the city’s “Best Practices Technical Manual: Tree Preservation Measures” prior to the issuance of demolition permits, grading permits, building permits, use permits, planned development permits, or parcel or tentative subdivision maps.

The Proposed Project will be held to the requirements of Chico’s Tree Preservation Regulations.

3.4.3 Method of Analysis
This section describes the methods used to analyze biological resources impacts within the study area.

3.4.3.1 CEQA Significance Criteria
For the purposes of this PEIR, the Proposed Project would result in a significant impact on biological resources if it would:
302
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 124
 Impact BIO-1: Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS  Impact BIO-2: Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS
 Impact BIO-3: Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.), through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means
 Impact BIO-4: Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites
 Impact BIO-5: Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance
 Impact BIO-6: Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan

3.4.3.2 Approach to Analysis
Construction, Operation, and Maintenance
Biological impacts were evaluated qualitatively using data collected from the literature review, biological resources assessment, habitat mapping (including mapping of elderberry shrubs), aquatic resources preliminary assessment, and protocol Swainson’s hawk surveys. When information about the presence of a particular special-status species is unknown, but suitable habitat is present, then the impact analysis took a conservative approach by inferring presence of special-status species within the Project area. Impacts on specific biological resources are assessed considering the potential for the Proposed Project to impact special status or otherwise protected species, habitat, or migration corridors. These impacts may be direct or indirect, short-term or longer term. Mitigation measures are defined for those impacts found to be significant along with justification as to whether that measure would be expected to effectively offset the corresponding impact.

The analysis of environmental effects focuses on foreseeable changes to biological resources in the context of effects listed in Section 3.4.3.1, CEQA Significance Criteria. The analysis considers the Core Collection System, Export Pipeline System, and Extended Collection System, as appropriate, in the context of construction, operation, and maintenance.

3.4.4 Impact Analysis
This section describes the potential effects on biological resources which could occur as a result of implementation of the Proposed Project. It includes an analysis of the Proposed Project’s potential to impact sensitive communities and special-status plant and wildlife species in the study area. Excavation and ground disturbing activities as a result of these construction activities have the potential to impact biological resources in the study area. Open cutting in the roadway within 250 feet of vernal pools (as mandated by USFWS) could fracture the restrictive layer, resulting in effects on the subsurface 303
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 125
hydrology of vernal pools. Inadvertent fuel or chemical spills associated with the operation of construction vehicles and equipment could also impact aquatic resources in the study area.

3.4.4.1 Impact BIO-1: Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS (Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated) Construction
The species or species groups identified in the following subsections were determined to have the potential to be adversely affected by Proposed Project-related activities, either directly through habitat modifications or indirectly.

Special-Status Plant Species. As presented in Section 3.4.1.6, Special-Status Species, suitable habitat for up to 39 species of rare plants occurs within the study area. Although none of these species were observed during field studies to date, the potential exists for them to occur in the study area due to the presence of suitable habitat and nearby occurrence records. Because these 39 species of rare plants occupy a wide variety of habitats, some even occurring in disturbed/ruderal areas, impacts on special-status plant species were considered for all components of the Proposed Project.

If any special-status plants are present within the Proposed Project footprint, including construction access routes or temporary work areas, individuals may be impacted by compaction, trampling, removal, or degradation of habitat. Although suitable habitat for special-status plants would be limited within the disturbed paved Town and Butte County ROWs where most of the construction would occur, there are limited areas where the pipeline in the Export Pipeline System would have to cross over or be constructed adjacent to natural habitats (Appendix E). There is also the potential for special-status plants to occur in areas adjacent to the Proposed Project footprint, including construction access routes or temporary work areas, during construction of the Core Collection System and Extended Collection System, although these components would be less likely to impact these habitats because they would be within Town limits, where more disturbance has already occurred. The potential for impacts would be avoided as much as possible; however, ground disturbance associated with construction of the Core Collection System, Export Pipeline System, and Extended Collection System may result in adverse impacts on these species should they be present in areas proposed for disturbance. This would be considered a significant impact on special-status plants.

Mitigation. To minimize potentially significant impacts on special-status plant species during construction of the Proposed Project to a less than significant level, mitigation measures MM-BIO-1 through MM-BIO-5 will be implemented.

MM-BIO-1: Minimize Disturbance Footprint. During site preparation for any segment of the Core Collection System, Export Pipeline System, or Extended Collection System, ground disturbance and vegetation clearing footprints, including along construction access routes or at temporary work areas, will be reduced to the smallest area feasible. Prior to any ground disturbance, a qualified biologist hired by the Town will identify areas to be avoided during construction activities; these areas will be fenced and/or flagged as close to construction limits as feasible. This mitigation measure is coordinated with MM-BIO-2 but applies to all biological resources.
304
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 126
MM-BIO-2: Special-status Plant Surveys. Prior to initiating proposed ground disturbance or vegetation clearing, including along construction access routes or at temporary work areas, a qualified botanist will perform focused surveys to determine the presence or absence of special-status plant species with potential to occur in and adjacent to (within a radius of 100 feet, as prescribed by CDFW) proposed disturbance areas. These surveys will be conducted in accordance with CDFW Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities (CDFW 2018a), which requires rare plant surveys be conducted at the proper time of year when rare or endangered species are both evident and identifiable. Surveys will be scheduled to coincide with known flowering periods, and/or during appropriate developmental periods that are necessary to identify the plant species of concern. If special-status plants are identified during surveys, then MM-BIO-3 will be implemented.

MM-BIO-3: Special-status Plant Avoidance. If any special-status plant species are found within 100 feet of ground disturbance or vegetation clearing areas, including construction access routes or temporary work areas, during MM-BIO-2, the following will be implemented:
 Any special-status plant species that are identified within 100 feet of proposed ground disturbance or vegetation clearing areas, including construction access routes or temporary work areas, but are not proposed to be disturbed (that is, the area doesn’t need to be cleared for construction), will be protected by flagging, signage, orange plastic fence, and/or silt fence, as appropriate based on site conditions, to limit the effects of activities and material stockpiles on special-status plant species.
 If activities could result in the loss of greater than 10 percent of a population identified during surveys or occupied habitat for a special-status plant species, a mitigation plan will be developed and implemented by a qualified biologist for the Town that will include a program to transplant, salvage, cultivate, and reestablish the species at suitable sites (if feasible); means and methods to propagate affected special-status plants through vegetative or reproductive means (for example, harvesting of seed or seed bank through topsoil collection, salvaging and transplanting or collecting of cuttings), as appropriate for the species, and transplant at suitable receiving sites as close to the existing population as possible. The plan will be approved by CDFW and any other agencies with jurisdiction over the species found to be present prior to implementation of the plan and before initiation of any construction related activities.

Propagation and transplantation will occur prior to initiation of the activity. The receiving location will be evaluated and chosen based on similarity to conditions at the transplant source location.

Site conditions to consider when choosing a receiving site will include aspect, substrate, hydrology, associated species, and canopy cover. The transplanted plants will be monitored by a qualified biologist for the Town for at least 1 year following transplantation. As part of the mitigation plan, a monitoring plan will be developed and approved by CDFW with propagation goals tailored to the species that are being transplanted. If propagation goals are not met after 1 year following transplantation, then adaptive management strategies will be developed in coordination with CDFW to achieve those goals.
 The actual level of mitigation may vary depending on the sensitivity of the species, its prevalence in the area, the location of the occurrence, and the current state of knowledge about overall population trends and threats to its survival; however, at a minimum, the species and 305
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 127
habitat will be replaced at a 1:1 ratio (individuals or acreage of occupied habitat). Ratios will be developed in coordination with and approved by CDFW.

MM-BIO-4: Biological Monitoring and Worker Environmental Awareness Training. A qualified biologist will monitor construction activities that could potentially cause significant impacts on sensitive biological resources. The amount and duration of monitoring will depend on the activity and will be determined by a qualified biologist for the Town. Monitoring will be required at any location where special status species have been identified within 100 feet of vegetation clearing area. In addition, a qualified biologist will be retained by the Town to conduct mandatory contractor/worker awareness training for construction personnel to brief them on the identified location of sensitive biological resources, including how to identify species (visual and auditory) most likely to be present, the need to avoid impacts on biological resources (e.g., plants, wildlife, and jurisdictional waters), and on the penalties for not complying with biological mitigation requirements. If new construction personnel are added to the Project, the contractor will ensure that they receive the mandatory training before starting work. This mandatory training will be included in all contractor construction documentation as special conditions and will be enforceable as contract provisions. This measure will apply to any biological resources for which complete avoidance cannot be attained through MM-BIO-1 or resource-specific measures.

MM-BIO-5: Restoration of Temporarily Disturbed Areas and Invasive Weed Control. Following construction of the Core Collection System, Export Pipeline System, or Extended Collection System, all exposed and/or disturbed areas resulting from ground disturbing activities, including construction access routes or temporary work areas, will be returned to their original contour and grade, and restored using locally native grass and forb seeds, plugs, or a mix of the two. Areas will be seeded with species appropriate to their topographical and hydrological character and covered with broadcast straw and/or jute netted, as appropriate for specific habitat type. For example, temporarily disturbed wetlands will be seeded with native hydrophytic species typical to the region, whereas upland areas will be seeded with an upland grass and forb mix. Several invasive and noxious weed species are known to occur in the study area, and 27 plant species classified by the California Invasive Plant Council as invasive were identified in the study area during field studies (Appendix E). In order to avoid the spread of invasive plant species in the study area, native species will be used for reseeding, and the Proposed Project will not allow any use of species listed as noxious weeds. Further, precautions will be taken to avoid the spread of invasive plant species. These include the inspection and cleaning of construction equipment and implementation of CDFW-approved eradication strategies should an invasion occur.

This measure is focused on habitat, but applies to all biological resources (e.g., special status species dependent on specific habitat).

Significance after Mitigation. Implementation of MM-BIO-1 will minimize impacts on special-status plant species through restriction of ground disturbance and vegetation clearing footprint. MM-BIO-2 will determine whether special-status plants are present within 100 feet of proposed ground disturbance and vegetation clearing, including construction access routes and temporary work areas. If specialstatus plants are determined to be absent, no further mitigation is required; however, if special-status plants are determined to be present, implementation of MM-BIO-3 will be required to confirm the location and extent of special-status plant populations and provide for biological oversight, such as fencing and flagging, of construction activities to minimize incidental impacts that could occur during 306
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 128
construction. As shown, if the Proposed Project is approved, implementation of the aforementioned mitigation measures will reduce impacts on special-status plants to a less than significant level.

Vernal Pool Crustaceans. Vernal pools were mapped in the study area during the aquatic resources preliminary assessment. Vernal pools in the study area could provide suitable habitat for previously analyzed special-status plants and three vernal pool crustaceans: vernal pool tadpole shrimp, vernal pool fairy shrimp, and Conservancy fairy shrimp. Protocol-level surveys for vernal pool crustaceans have not been performed to date in the study area; therefore, their presence is assumed due to the existence of suitable habitat and proximity of documented occurrences of vernal pool tadpole shrimp (1.5 miles), vernal pool fairy shrimp (4 miles), and Conservancy fairy shrimp (8 miles; CDFW 2021a).

Construction associated with the Proposed Project could result in impacts on vernal pool crustaceans, because multiple vernal pools are mapped within 250 feet of Skyway (the distance from ground disturbance that is mandated by USFWS for avoidance), and construction of the transition chamber, which involves open excavation, is proposed to take place between Skyway and Butte Creek in an area where vernal pools are known to be present. The extent and location of vernal pools is estimated conservatively due to a limitation of access during the aquatic resources preliminary assessment to the area between Skyway and Butte Creek and to other areas within 250 feet of Skyway where vernal pools are potentially present. However, due to their assumed presence for the reasons described above, impacts on vernal pool crustaceans could be significant.

Mitigation. To minimize potentially significant impacts on vernal pool crustaceans during construction of the Proposed Project to a less than significant level, mitigation measures MM-BIO-1 and MM-BIO-6 through MM-BIO-8 will be implemented.

MM-BIO-6: No Net Loss of Aquatic Resources. No net loss of aquatic resources would be achieved through impact avoidance, minimization, which are both covered under MM-BIO-1 through MM-BIO-4, and/or compensatory mitigation. Mitigation for permanent impacts on aquatic resources will be provided at a minimum 1:1 ratio. Mitigation will be achieved through onsite restoration, in-lieu fee payment, or purchase of mitigation credits at a USACE-, USFWS-, and/or CDFW-approved mitigation bank at the expense of the Town. Mitigation, as required in regulatory permits issued through CDFW, USACE, USFWS, and/or the RWQCB will be applied to satisfy this measure.

MM-BIO-7: Sensitive Community Fencing. If sensitive communities occur within 100 feet (250 feet for vernal pools as mandated by USFWS) of proposed ground disturbing activities, including construction access routes and temporary work areas, with no pre-existing barrier between them and the proposed ground disturbance, protective fencing, such as silt fencing, will be installed between habitats that are to be avoided and the construction limits to prevent accidental disturbance and to protect water quality during construction.

MM-BIO-8: Dry Work Areas. Ground disturbing activities within 100 feet (250 feet for vernal pools) of aquatic resources will coincide with the driest time of year and will avoid occurring within 72 hours (before or after) a rain event, if feasible.

Significance after Mitigation. Implementation of MM-BIO-1 will minimize impacts on special-status species through restriction of ground disturbance and the vegetation clearing footprint. If mapping 307
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 129
efforts completed after final design and with full site access find that vernal pools are absent, no further mitigation is required; however, if vernal pools are present, implementation of MM-BIO-6 through MM-BIO-8 will provide for biological oversight of construction activities, require mitigation for the permanent loss of vernal pool habitats at a minimum of 1:1 ratio, minimize adverse impacts resulting from sedimentation and erosion during construction, and demarcate vernal pools that need to be avoided by construction activities to minimize incidental impacts that could occur during construction.

As shown, if the Proposed Project is approved, implementation of the aforementioned mitigation measures would reduce impacts on vernal pool habitat and vernal pool crustaceans to a less than significant level.

Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle. Elderberry mapping in the study area took place as part of the field studies in Spring 2021. Elderberry shrubs were noted in two locations in the study area: where the pipeline crosses Little Chico Creek at Taffee Avenue, and on the west bank of Butte Creek (which the Butte Creek HDD crossing would pass under). Construction associated with the Proposed Project may result in direct (elderberry shrub loss) or indirect (soil compaction, fugitive dust, etc.) impacts on elderberry shrubs, and potentially valley elderberry longhorn beetle, should elderberry shrubs be present within 165 feet of ground disturbance and/or vegetation clearing areas (in accordance with Framework for Assessing Impacts to the Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle [USFWS 2017]). For the purposes of this analysis, this impact is considered significant.

Mitigation. To minimize potentially significant impacts on the valley elderberry longhorn beetle during construction of the Proposed Project to a less than significant level, mitigation measures MM-BIO-1 and MM-BIO-9 through MM-BIO-14 will be implemented.

MM-BIO-9: Mapping of Elderberry Shrubs and USFWS Section 7 Consultation. If Proposed Project impacts, including along construction access routes and temporary work areas, are to take place within 165 feet of a riparian corridor where elderberry shrubs are known to be present, then a full inventory of elderberry shrubs within 165 feet of the proposed disturbance, including an assessment of whether valley elderberry longhorn beetle exit holes are present, will be conducted pursuant to the Framework for Assessing Impacts to the Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle (USFWS 2017). Based on the inventory findings, the Town and USFWS will coordinate to determine whether formal consultation is required for the Project. If formal consultation is deemed required, results of the inventory will be submitted by the Town in a Biological Assessment to USFWS. USFWS will review proposed findings and mitigation, and respond in a Biological Opinion, which will finalize elderberry mitigation that will be required of the Town for the Proposed Project.

MM-BIO-10: No Net Loss of Elderberry Shrubs. Elderberry shrubs that would be directly impacted by the Proposed Project will be transplanted to a new suitable location. In addition, two credits would be purchased at a USFWS-approved bank for each shrub ( 2:1 ratio). Mitigation as required in regulatory permits issued through USFWS may be applied to satisfy this measure.

MM-BIO-11: Elderberry Transplanting. Elderberry shrubs would be transplanted outside the flight season of the valley elderberry longhorn beetle (March to July) and follow the most current version of the American National Standards Institute A300 (Part 6) guidelines for transplanting (http://www.tcia.org/). Exit-hole surveys would be completed immediately before transplanting. The 308
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 130
number of exit holes found, GPS location of the plant to be relocated, and the GPS location of where the plant is transplanted would be reported to USFWS. A qualified biologist hired by the Town will be on site for the duration of transplanting activities to ensure compliance with avoidance and minimization measures and other conservation measures. The transplanted shrubs will be monitored by a qualified biologist during one growth season following transplant to confirm shrub survival. If the shrub(s) are deemed alive, no further monitoring or action would be necessary. If the shrub(s) are deemed dead, an additional one credit per shrub would be purchased by the Town from a USFWS-approved bank for valley elderberry longhorn beetle.

MM-BIO-12: Avoidance Areas. Activities that may indirectly damage or kill an elderberry shrub (trenching, paving, etc.) will require an avoidance area of at least 20 feet from a shrub’s drip line, as appropriate, depending on the type of activity. All activities that could occur within 165 feet of an elderberry shrub will also be conducted outside of the flight season of the valley elderberry longhorn beetle (March to July).

MM-BIO-13: Chemical Use. Herbicides will not be used within the drip line of the shrub. Insecticides will not be used within 98 feet (30 meters, as required by USFWS) of an elderberry shrub. If deemed necessary, all chemicals will be applied using a backpack sprayer or similar direct application method.

MM-BIO-14: Mowing. Mechanical weed removal within the drip line of the shrub would be limited to the season when adult- valley elderberry longhorn beetles are not active (August to February) and will be completed so as to not damage an elderberry shrub.

Significance after Mitigation. Implementation of MM-BIO-1 would minimize impacts on special-status species through restriction of ground disturbance and vegetation clearing footprint. MM-BIO-9 would evaluate the potential for elderberry to be present within 165 feet of areas proposed for ground disturbance and vegetation clearing. If MM-BIO-9 determines elderberry shrubs would be directly or indirectly affected by Project activities, then MM-BIO-10 through MM-BIO-14 would be implemented through compensatory mitigation, transplanting of shrubs, and avoidance. If the proposed Project is approved, implementation of the aforementioned mitigation measures would reduce impacts on valley elderberry longhorn beetle to a less than significant level.

Special-Status Fishes. The following special-status fish species occur or have potential to occur in the study area and were identified in the various special-status species queries: steelhead (Central Valley Distinct Population Segment), Chinook salmon (Central Valley spring-run Evolutionary Significant Unit), and hardhead (Mylaphorodon conocephalus). Steelhead and chinook salmon are known to be present in the study area in Butte Creek, while hardhead may be present in Butte Creek or Little Chico Creek.

Fish species in the study area are not likely to be affected by the Proposed Project since crossings of streams are to be carried out by HDD borings at least 20 feet below the creek bed and will not damage riparian habitat along edges of creek. However, there is potential for special-status fish species and other aquatic wildlife to be affected in the event of a frac-out, which is the unintentional or inadvertent loss of drilling fluids that could rise to the ground surface during an HDD installation. For the purposes of this analysis, this impact is considered significant. 309
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 131
Mitigation. To minimize potentially significant impacts on special-status fish species during construction of the Proposed Project to a less than significant level, mitigation measure MM-BIO-15 will be implemented prior to initiation of ground disturbing and vegetation clearing activities.

MM-BIO-15: Frac-Out-Plan. Prior to construction, and included within the contractor construction documentation as special conditions, which will be enforceable as contract provisions, the Town will require that its contractor prepare an Inadvertent Release Plan to address inadvertent loss of inert drilling fluids in the event of a frac-out during HDD for each waterbody crossing. This plan will include Best Management Practices, monitoring, and contingency procedures, and will be developed, approved by a qualified biologist hired by the Town, and implemented by the contractor during construction to avoid or counteract potential impacts on water quality, fish, or other aquatic wildlife resulting from turbidity changes from the fluids.

Significance after Mitigation. Implementation of MM-BIO-15 will minimize impacts on special-status fish species in the event of a frac-out and result in a less-than-significant finding.

Special-Status Amphibians and Reptiles. Special-status amphibians and reptiles that have the potential to occur in the study area include foothill yellow-legged frog, California red-legged frog, western pond turtle, and giant garter snake.

Implementation of the Proposed Project may result in potentially significant impacts on special-status amphibians and reptiles should suitable habitat and individuals be present in or adjacent to areas of proposed ground disturbing or vegetation clearing activities in association with construction of the Core Collection System, Export Pipeline System, and Extended Collection System. This would be considered a significant impact on special-status amphibians and reptiles.

Mitigation. To minimize potentially significant impacts on special-status amphibians and reptiles during construction of the Proposed Project to a less than significant level, mitigation measures MM-BIO-1, MM-BIO-6 through MM-BIO-8, and MM-BIO-16 through MM-BIO-20 will be implemented.

MM-BIO-16: Western Pond Turtle Visual Encounter Surveys. A preconstruction survey for western pond turtle would be conducted by a qualified biologist within 24 hours prior to the onset of any ground disturbing activities that would occur within 350 feet of the OHWM of a creek or stream. If juvenile or adult turtles are found within the survey area, they would be moved by a qualified and CDFW-permitted biologist hired by the Town at least 500 feet away from the proposed disturbance area to a location with similar habitat. If a turtle nest is found within the survey area, construction activities would not take place within 100 feet of the nest until the turtles have hatched or the eggs have been moved to an appropriate location. Any egg relocation would be conducted by a qualified and CDFW-permitted biologist in coordination with CDFW.

MM-BIO-17: Foothill Yellow-legged Frog Surveys. Within 3-5 days prior to working within 300 feet radius of the OHWM of a creek or stream within the foothill yellow-legged frog range, per CDFW guidelines, a qualified and CDFW-permitted biologist will survey the Proposed Project site for foothill yellow-legged frogs (adults, subadults, tadpoles or egg masses), including construction access routes and at least 500 feet upstream and downstream (CDFW 2018b). Although unlikely, if the Project activities are expected to result in effects extending beyond 500 feet downstream (e.g., heavy 310
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 132
sedimentation that could bury egg masses or tadpole rearing sites), the survey area will be expanded to encompass the expected affected area. If surface water is present during the work period, a qualified biologist hired by the Town will inspect the work area daily for foothill yellow-legged frogs before work begins and during construction.

MM-BIO-18: California Red-legged Frog Surveys. Within 3-5 days prior to working within 300 feet of the OHWM of a creek or within 300 feet of fresh emergent wetland habitat, a qualified and CDFWpermitted biologist will conduct a visual encounter survey of the Proposed Project site for California redlegged frogs (adults, subadults, tadpoles or egg masses).

MM-BIO-19: Conduct Construction Activities during the Active Period for Giant Garter Snakes.

During biological monitoring (MM-BIO-4), the biologist will identify any suitable aquatic or upland habitat that may be used by giant garter snake within or adjacent to areas where ground disturbing and vegetation clearing activities would occur. All construction activity within 200 feet of suitable giant garter snake aquatic (generally defined as sloughs, irrigation ditches, creeks or slow-moving streams) or upland habitat (defined as grasslands or disturbed areas within 200 feet of an aquatic feature suitable for a giant garter snake) will be conducted during the snake’s active period (May 1 through October 1) in order to minimize the risk that the snakes will be underground and more susceptible to injury or death from ground disturbing activities.

MM-BIO-20: Minimize Potential Effects on Giant Garter Snake Habitat. Staging areas will be located more than 200 feet from any suitable giant garter snake aquatic or upland habitat as identified during monitoring by the biologist, or the area will be fenced with exclusion fencing prior to the start of construction. Vegetation clearing within 200 feet of the banks of suitable giant garter snake aquatic habitat will be limited to the minimum area necessary. The movement of heavy equipment within 200 feet of the banks of suitable giant garter snake aquatic habitat will be confined to designated haul routes to minimize habitat disturbance.

Significance after Mitigation. Implementation of MM-BIO-1 would minimize impacts on special-status species through restriction of ground disturbance. If areas within the species buffers discussed above of suitable habitat for these species will be avoided, then no further mitigation is required; however, if ground disturbing and vegetation clearing activities will occur within species buffer areas of suitable habitat, implementation of MM-BIO-6 through MM-BIO-8, and MM-BIO-16 though MM-BIO-20 will provide for biological oversight of construction activities, implement construction BMPs to minimize adverse impacts resulting from sedimentation and erosion during construction, and protect western pond turtle nests, if found. As shown, if the Proposed Project is approved, implementation of the aforementioned mitigation measures will reduce impacts on special-status amphibians and reptiles to a less than significant level.

MBTA- and FGC- Protected Birds and Raptors. As a result of the queries and desktop review, the study area may provide nesting, wintering, and/or foraging habitat for several special-status bird and raptor species including golden eagle, Swainson’s hawk, northern harrier, white-tailed kite, bald eagle, and loggerhead shrike. Swainson’s hawk, northern harrier, and bald eagle were confirmed present in the study area during field studies in spring 2021. Swainson’s hawk surveys conducted during those field studies revealed the presence of one nesting pair of Swainson’s hawks within 0.5 mile of the 311
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 133
pipeline route (full results of the Swainson’s hawk surveys are presented in Appendix F). The study area also may provide nesting, wintering, and/or foraging habitat for other migratory birds and raptors besides the special-status species identified in the database results provided in Appendix E, Attachment 3. All native breeding birds (except game birds during the hunting season), regardless of their listing status, are protected under FGC Section 3503.

Implementation of the Proposed Project may result in potentially significant impacts on MBTA- and FGC-protected migratory birds and raptors, either directly from incidental nest destruction, or indirectly through excessive noise, should suitable habitat and individuals be present in or adjacent to areas of proposed ground disturbing or vegetation clearing activities associated with construction of the Core Collection System, Export Pipeline System, and Extended Collection System. This would be considered a significant impact on MBTA- and FGC-protected migratory birds and raptors.

Mitigation. To minimize potentially significant impacts on migratory birds and raptors during construction of the Proposed Project to a less than significant level, mitigation measures MM-BIO-1, MM-BIO-21, MM-BIO-22, and MM-BIO-23 will be implemented.

MM-BIO-21: MBTA- and FGC-Protected Bird and Raptor Surveys. To the extent feasible, tree and vegetation clearing will be conducted outside the migratory bird nesting season (March 1 through August 31) in areas where the Town’s biologist identifies potential nesting trees. However, if clearing and/or construction activities need to occur during the migratory bird nesting season in these locations, then preconstruction surveys to identify active migratory bird and/or raptor nests would be conducted by a qualified biologist within 14 calendar days prior to construction initiation. Focused surveys must be performed by a qualified biologist for the purposes of determining presence or absence of active nest sites within the proposed impact area, including construction access routes with a 500-foot buffer, where feasible.

MM-BIO-22: Protocol Swainson’s Hawk Surveys. In the year that construction of the Proposed Project is planned to be initiated, a qualified biologist will conduct protocol surveys for Swainson’s hawk in and within 0.5-mile of all suitable habitat for the species in the Proposed Project footprint. These surveys will follow the protocol outlined in the Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee’s Recommended Timing and Methodology for Swainson’s Hawk Nesting Surveys in California’s Central Valley (CDFW 2000). If any active Swainson’s hawk nests are found, the biologist will determine an appropriately sized buffer around the nest in which construction activities will not be allowed to commence until which time the nest has been determined by the biologist to have reached the end of its cycle (fledged or failed). The size of the buffer will initially be 0.25-mile per CDFW standard requirements but may be reduced in certain circumstances based on the opinion of the biologist regarding observed sensitivity of the hawks to disturbance, visual screens between the nest and disturbance, and other factors.

MM-BIO-23: Nest Avoidance. If active nests of any MBTA- and FGC-protected bird species are identified within the survey areas, a no-disturbance buffer would be established for all active nest sites prior to commencement of any Proposed Project construction activities to avoid construction or accessrelated disturbances to migratory bird nesting activities. A no disturbance buffer is a zone in which Proposed Project-related activities (that is, vegetation removal, earth moving, noise generation, and 312
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 134
construction) cannot occur. The size of the no disturbance buffers would be determined by a qualified biologist based on the species, activities proposed near the nest, and topographic and other visual barriers.

Significance after Mitigation. Implementation of MM-BIO-1 would minimize impacts on migratory birds and special-status raptors by reducing the area of disturbance to the smallest footprint feasible to avoid unnecessary encroachment into areas that may support migratory birds and special-status raptors. Additionally, implementation of MM-BIO-21 and MM-BIO-22 would minimize impacts on nesting birds by requiring preconstruction nesting surveys. Finally, implementation of MM-BIO-23 would further minimize impacts on nesting birds by requiring nest avoidance. Implementation of the aforementioned mitigation measures would reduce impacts on these species to a less than significant level.

Special-Status Bats. Bats roost in a wide variety of habitats, including buildings, mines, under bridges, rock crevices, caves, under tree bark, and in snags. The Townsend’s big-eared bat, pallid bat, western mastiff bat, and western red bat are all considered California species of special concern with potential to occur in the study area. These species may use a variety of habitats, such as riparian areas with hollow trees or trees with exfoliating bark and human-made structures throughout the study area, as well as in adjoining offsite areas, for roosting and foraging. The disturbance of active maternity roosts would affect the reproductive success of the species because young do not fly from the maternity roost until they reach several months in age (CDFW 2021b). Increased noise levels associated with the Proposed Project construction activity, especially in the areas of the Export Pipeline System near riparian areas, have the potential to disturb bat roosts, which would be considered a potentially significant impact.

Mitigation. To minimize potentially significant impacts on special-status bats during construction of the Proposed Project to a less than significant level, mitigation measures MM-BIO-1 and MM-BIO-24 will be implemented.

MM-BIO-24: Bat Surveys. Prior to implementation of Proposed Project-related activities in undisturbed portions of the Proposed Project site and in and around buildings or other human-made structures with recesses where bats could potentially roost, a qualified biologist will conduct a daytime site reconnaissance of the area. The biologist, focusing on buildings and other human-made structures or trees with cavities or exfoliating bark, would look for bats and bat signs including existing roost sites, bat guano deposits, and will listen for roosting bats. If the daytime survey does not identify the presence of potential bat roosts, no further mitigation is required. If potential roost sites are identified, an exit nighttime survey will be conducted to determine species of roosting bats, relative bat activity, and to estimate the number of individual bats. This nighttime survey may be an active or passive acoustic monitoring survey. If occupied bat roost sites are identified, appropriate spatial and temporal buffers, as defined by the Town’s biologist based on experience with bat species, would be implemented to minimize impact on roosting bats during construction of the Project.

Significance after Mitigation. Implementation of MM-BIO-1 would reduce the area of disturbance to the smallest footprint feasible to avoid unnecessary encroachment into areas that may be used as roosting sites by special-status bats. Additionally, implementation of MM-BIO-24 would minimize 313
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 135
impacts on special-status bats by requiring preconstruction surveys for roosts and full avoidance is detected. As shown, if the Proposed Project is approved, implementation of the aforementioned mitigation measures would reduce impacts on special-status bats from a significant level to a less than significant level.

American Badger. Grassland and shrub communities in the study area may provide suitable foraging, movement, and denning habitat for the American badger. Although there are no recorded occurrences near the Proposed Project, American badgers are known to occur across most of the State and annual grasslands in the study area provide suitable habitat for this species. Due to the presence of suitable habitat for American badger, implementation of Proposed Project-related activities, especially ground disturbance associated with the Export Pipeline System in annual grassland habitat between Skyway and Butte Creek, may result in adverse impacts on this species should it be present, which would be considered a significant impact.

Mitigation. To minimize potentially significant impacts on American Badger during construction of the Proposed Project to a less than significant level, mitigation measures MM-BIO-1 and MM-BIO-25 will be implemented.

MM-BIO-25: American Badger Detection Surveys. Within 14 days prior to implementation of Proposed Project-related activities in or adjacent to American badger habitat (annual grassland, mixed chaparral, and blue oak-foothill pine), a qualified biologist will determine if American badger dens are present within 500 feet of the proposed impact area, including construction access routes. If badger den(s) are observed, the following buffer distances, according to what type of den(s) the biologist determines it (them) to be, will be established prior to construction activities:
 potential den = 30 feet
 active (adults present) den = 250 feet
 natal (young present) den = 500 feet
Activities permitted within and the size of the no disturbance buffers may be adjusted based on an evaluation by the qualified biologist. The buffer would be imposed until a qualified biologist determines the den is inactive.

Significance after Mitigation. Implementation of MM-BIO-1 would reduce the area of disturbance to the smallest footprint feasible to avoid unnecessary encroachment into areas that may be used by American badger. Additionally, implementation of MM-BIO-25 would minimize impacts on American badger by requiring preconstruction den surveys and den avoidance. As shown, implementation of the aforementioned mitigation measures would reduce impacts on American badger to a less than significant level.

Operation and Maintenance
As discussed in Section 2.8, Proposed Operations and Maintenance, while the Core Collection System, Export Pipeline System, and Extended Collection System pipelines are designed to maintain their integrity during operations, it is always possible that a segment of pipeline could break, for example during excavations near a pipeline by others. Procedures to address a pipeline break are discussed in Section 2.8. During any excavations or other work on the pipeline by Town Public Works, the same 314
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 136
procedures and standards would apply. Operation and maintenance activities would be performed periodically according to the schedule discussed in Section 2.8.

Operation and maintenance activities, as described in Section 2.8, would not include ground disturbing activities except if there were a pipe break and a section of pipeline needed to be replaced as noted above. Operation and maintenance activities would mostly occur in previously disturbed areas (within paved roads), making the potential to impact habitat suitable for special-status plant or wildlife species limited. In the case of a pipe break, the section would be repaired and returned to previous conditions as expeditiously as possible so as to limit impacts to the public and sewer service. Therefore, operation and maintenance of the Proposed Project would result in less than significant impacts on special-status species.

Mitigation. No mitigation required.

3.4.4.2 Impact BIO-2: Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the CDFW or USFWS (Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)
Construction
As mentioned in Section 3.4.1.5, Sensitive Communities, the Proposed Project study area includes valley foothill riparian habitat, aquatic resources including perennial channels, and essential fish habitat, which are all considered sensitive natural communities by the resource agencies.

The Proposed Project has been designed to minimize impacts on sensitive natural communities as construction activities would mostly occur in previously disturbed areas (within paved roads), and perennial channels are to be avoided by the use of HDD boring. However, inadvertent fuel or chemical spills associated with the operation of construction vehicles and equipment could result in a significant impact on aquatic resources in the study area.

Mitigation. To minimize potentially significant impacts on sensitive natural communities during construction of the Proposed Project to a less than significant level, mitigation measures MM-BIO-1 and MM-BIO-5 through MM-BIO-8 will be implemented.

Additionally, implementation of MM-BIO-6 would provide that there is no net loss of aquatic resources, implementation of MM-BIO-7 and MM-BIO-8 would provide that sensitive communities would not be 315
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 137
degraded by erosion, sedimentation, or other harmful materials. This would be accomplished by restricting work in wetted areas, buffering and fencing off sensitive areas, and implementing standard BMPs. Following construction, implementation of MM-BIO-5 would minimize adverse effects on sensitive communities because of Proposed Project-induced erosion and encroachment of invasive plants by requiring temporarily disturbed areas to be revegetated with native species. As shown, implementation of the aforementioned mitigation measures would reduce impacts on sensitive natural communities to a less than significant level.

Operation and Maintenance
As discussed in Section 2.8, Proposed Operations and Maintenance, while the Core Collection System, Export Pipeline System, and Extended Collection System pipelines are designed to maintain their integrity during operations, it is always possible that a segment of pipeline could break, for example during excavations near a pipeline by others. Procedures to address a pipeline break are discussed in Section 2.8. During any excavations or other work on the pipeline by Town Public Works, the same procedures and standards would apply. Operation and maintenance activities would be performed periodically according to the schedule discussed in Section 2.8.

Operation and maintenance activities, as described in Section 2.8, would not include ground disturbing activities except if there were a pipe break and a section of pipeline needed to be replaced as noted above. Operation and maintenance activities would mostly occur in previously disturbed areas (within paved roads), making the potential to impact sensitive natural communities limited. In the case of a pipe break, the section would be repaired and returned to previous conditions as expeditiously as possible so as to limit impacts to the public and sewer service. Therefore, operation and maintenance of the Proposed Project would result in less than significant on sensitive natural communities.

Mitigation. No mitigation required.

3.4.4.3 Impact BIO-3: Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated) Construction
The preliminary assessment of aquatic resources identified vernal pools and other aquatic features which may be State and/or federally protected wetlands in the study area. The Proposed Project has been designed to minimize impacts on sensitive aquatic resources as construction activities would mostly occur in previously disturbed areas (within paved roads), and perennial channels are to be circumvented by the use of HDD boring. However, multiple vernal pools are mapped within 250 feet of Skyway, and construction of the transition chamber involves opening an excavation area between Skyway and Butte Creek in an area where vernal pools are known to be present. Even if direct impacts on vernal pools are avoided, open cutting within 250 feet of vernal pools could fracture the restrictive layer resulting in indirect effects on the subsurface hydrology of vernal pools. Further, inadvertent fuel or chemical spills associated with the operation of construction vehicles and equipment could also impact aquatic resources in the study area. Any impacts on aquatic resources would be considered a significant impact.
316
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 138
Mitigation. To minimize potentially significant impacts on state or federally protected wetlands during construction of the Proposed Project to a less than significant level, mitigation measures MM-BIO-1, MM-BIO-5 through MM-BIO-8, and MM-BIO-26 will be implemented.

MM-BIO-1: Minimize Disturbance Footprint (see Impact BIO-1 for description) MM-BIO-5: Restoration of Temporarily Disturbed Areas (see Impact BIO-1 for description) MM-BIO-6: No Net Loss of Aquatic Resources (see Impact BIO-1 for description) MM-BIO-7: Sensitive Community Fencing (see Impact BIO-1 for description) MM-BIO-8: Dry Work Areas (see Impact BIO-1 for description) MM-BIO-26: State or Federally Protected Wetlands Mitigation. Compensatory mitigation for temporary and permanent impacts on state and/or federally protected wetlands that cannot be avoided through other mitigation measures will be purchased by the Town at a minimum 1:1 ratio, as defined by USACE through the Section 404 permit. Mitigation might include onsite restoration approved by the USACE, in-lieu fee payment, or purchase of mitigation credits at a USACE approved mitigation bank.

Mitigation as required in regulatory permits issued through the USACE and/or CDFW may be applied to satisfy this measure.

Significance after Mitigation. MM-BIO-6 sets a minimum standard for no-net-loss of aquatic resources for future activities. In addition, impacts on aquatic resources which may be State and/or federally protected wetlands will be minimized to a less than significant level through the implementation of mitigation measures MM-BIO-1 and MM-BIO-5 through MM-BIO-8. To minimize the level of impact to a less than significant level, mitigation measure MM-BIO-1 will be implemented prior to initiation of ground disturbing and vegetation clearing activities. To date, only a preliminary assessment of aquatic resources has been conducted for the Proposed Project due to the lack of access to areas away from the public roadway. Prior to initiation of ground disturbing activities, a more complete mapping of aquatic resources in these areas will be completed to support a formal jurisdictional delineation during the permitting phase of the Proposed Project. Should this more complete mapping effort find that there are vernal pools or other aquatic features which are State and/or federally protected wetlands present in or within 250 feet of proposed ground disturbance and/or vegetation clearing footprint(s), then MM-BIO-6 through MM-BIO-8 will be implemented. Following construction, implementation of MM-BIO-5 will minimize adverse effects on sensitive communities because of Proposed Project-induced erosion and encroachment of invasive plants by requiring temporarily disturbed areas to be revegetated with native species. In addition, MM-BIO-26 will be implemented to minimize impacts on State and/or federally protected wetlands to a less than significant level. As shown, implementation of the aforementioned mitigation measures would reduce impacts on state or federally protected wetlands to a less than significant level.

Operation and Maintenance
As discussed in Section 2.8 Proposed Operations and Maintenance, while the Core Collection System, Export Pipeline System, and Extended Collection System pipelines are designed to maintain their integrity during operations, it is always possible that a segment of pipeline could break, for example 317
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 139
during excavations near a pipeline by others. Procedures to address a pipeline break are discussed in Section 2.8. During any excavations or other work on the pipeline by Town Public Works, the same procedures and standards would apply. Operation and maintenance activities would be performed periodically according to the schedule discussed in Section 2.8.

Operation and maintenance activities, as described in Section 2.8, would not include ground disturbing activities except if there were a pipe break and a section of pipeline needed to be replaced as noted above. Operation and maintenance activities would mostly occur in previously disturbed areas (within paved roads), making the potential to impact State and federally protected wetlands limited. In the case of a pipe break, the section would be repaired and returned to previous conditions as expeditiously as possible so as to limit impacts to the public and sewer service. Therefore, operation and maintenance of the Proposed Project would result in less than significant on state and federally protected wetlands.

Mitigation. No mitigation required.

3.4.4.4 Impact BIO-4: Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites (No Impact) Construction, Operation, and Maintenance
A review of wildlife corridor data available in CDFW’s California Natural Diversity Database QuickView Tool in BIOS 5 (CDFW 2021a) was performed for the Proposed Project to determine whether the study area is located in an Essential Connectivity Area. The review of these data indicated that a large swath of northern and central Butte County, including much of the study area between Paradise and Chico, is considered Essential Connectivity Area as a great deal of the landscape remains contiguous grassland, oak and pine woodland, and creek riparian corridors. Additionally, Butte Creek, Comanche Creek, and Little Chico Creek and their associated riparian corridors are important facilitators of aquatic and terrestrial wildlife movement.

The Proposed Project would not interfere with movement of any fish or wildlife species, because none of the Proposed Project components involve the introduction of any new permanent impermeable surface barriers to the landscape or waters. Most new infrastructure associated with the Proposed Project would be placed underground, and all perennial channels and their associated riparian zones are to be avoided via HDD installation of pipeline infrastructure. Any above-ground facilities would have a very limited footprint that would not interfere with wildlife movement. Further, none of the Project components would impede the use of wildlife nursery sites. Therefore, no impact would occur.

Mitigation. No mitigation required.

3.4.4.5 Impact BIO-5: Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance (No Impact) Construction, Operation, and Maintenance
The Butte County General Plan 2030 (Butte County 2012), Town of Paradise General Plan (Town of Paradise and Quad Consultants 2008), and Chico 2030 General Plan (City of Chico 2017) include policies to protect water resources, wetland and riparian areas, fish and wildlife habitat, wildlife movement corridors, vegetation communities, open space for the preservation of natural resources, 318
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 140
threatened and endangered species, and aquatic habitats. Additionally, the general plans include specific measures to preserve and protect oak trees and oak woodlands. A review of the policies included in the Butte County General Plan 2030, Town of Paradise General Plan, and Chico 2030 General Plan resulted in the determination that the Proposed Project activities are consistent with these policies. Therefore, construction, operation, and maintenance of the Proposed Project will not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, resulting in no impact.

Mitigation. No mitigation required.

3.4.4.6 Impact BIO-6: Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan (No Impact)
Construction, Operation, and Maintenance
The Proposed Project will not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. A portion of the study area overlaps with the Butte Regional Conservation Plan (BRCP), which as of summer 2021 had not been formally adopted, though it was in the final phase of development.

Species analyzed and discussed in this document that are covered species under the BRCP include Hoover’s spurge, Butte County meadowfoam, hairy Orcutt grass, Butte County checkerbloom, Greene’s tuctoria, Conservancy fairy shrimp, vernal pool fairy shrimp, vernal pool tadpole shrimp, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, Central Valley steelhead, Central Valley spring-run Chinook salmon, giant garter snake, western pond turtle, foothill yellow-legged frog, western spadefoot, tricolored blackbird, burrowing owl, California black rail, Swainson’s hawk, and white-tailed kite. Proposed Project activities may be covered under the Waste and Wastewater Management Facility Permanent Development Projects component of the BRCP. However, these activities do not conflict with the BRCP, and no impact is anticipated.

Mitigation. No mitigation required.

3.4.5 Impacts Summary
Table 3.4-2 summarizes the biological resources impacts of the Proposed Project.

Table 3.4-2. Biological Resources Impacts Summary
Impact
Level of
Significance
Before Mitigation
Mitigation
Level of
Significance with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Impact BIO-1: Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS: Special-Status Plant Species
SI MM-BIO-1,
MM-BIO-2,
MM-BIO-3,
MM-BIO-4,
MM-BIO-5
S/M
319
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 141
Level of Level of
Impact Significance Mitigation Significance with
Before Mitigation Mitigation
Incorporated
Impact BIO-1: Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS: Vernal Pool Crustaceans
SI MM-BIO-1,
MM-BIO-6,
MM-BIO-7,
MM-BIO-8
S/M
Impact BIO-1: Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS: Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle
SI MM-BIO-1,
MM-BIO-9,
MM BIO-10,
MM-BIO-11,
MM BIO-12,
MM-BIO-13,
MM-BIO-14
S/M
Impact BIO-1: Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS: Special-Status Fishes
SI MM-BIO-15 S/M
Impact BIO-1: Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS: Special-status Amphibians and Reptiles
SI MM-BIO-1,
MM-BIO-6,
MM-BIO-7,
MM-BIO-8,
MM-BIO-16,
MM-BIO-17,
MM-BIO-18,
MM-BIO-19,
MM-BIO-20
S/M
Impact BIO-1: Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS: MBTA and FGC-Protected Birds and
Raptors
SI MM-BIO-1,
MM-BIO-21,
MM-BIO-22,
MM-BIO-23
S/M
Impact BIO-1: Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS: Special-Status Bats
SI MM-BIO-1,
MM-BIO-24
S/M
Impact BIO-1: Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS: American Badger
SI MM-BIO-1,
MM-BIO-25
S/M
320
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 142
Level of Level of
Impact Significance Mitigation Significance with
Before Mitigation Mitigation
Incorporated
Impact BIO-2: Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the CDFW or USFWS
SI MM-BIO-1,
MM-BIO-5,
MM-BIO-6,
MM-BIO-7,
MM-BIO-8
S/M
Impact BIO-3: Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands
SI MM-BIO-1,
MM-BIO-5,
MM-BIO-6,
MM-BIO-7,
MM-BIO-8,
MM-BIO-26
S/M
Impact BIO-4: Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites

NI N/A NI
Impact BIO-5: Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance

NI N/A NI
Impact BIO-6: Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan

NI N/A NI
Notes: LTS = Less than Significant Impact, NI = No Impact, N/A = Not Applicable, SI = Significant Impact, S/M = Significant Impact but Mitigable to a Less than Significant Level

3.4.6 References
Butte County. 2012. Butte County General Plan 2030. Adopted October 26, 2010. Updated November 6, 2012. http://www.buttecounty.net/Portals/10/Planning/ButteCountyGeneralPlan2030_ May2018red.pdf?ver=2019-12-18-141822-357.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2000. Recommended Timing and Methodology for Swainson’s Hawk Nesting Surveys in California’s Central Valley. Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee. May 31.

CDFW. 2018a. Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities. March 20. https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/ FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=18959&inline.

CDFW. 2018b. Considerations for Conserving the Foothill Yellow-Legged Frog. May 14. https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=157562&inline.

CDFW. 2021a. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) QuickView Tool. Online database.

Search for special-status species in the following USGS 7.5-minute quadrangles: Paradise East, Paradise West, Cherokee, Hamlin Canyon, Chico, Ord Ferry, Hamilton City, Glenn, Llano 321
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 143
Seco, Nelson, Shippee, Oroville, Oroville Dam, Berry Creek, Pulga, Richardson Springs, Nord, Foster Island, Campbell Mound, Cohasset, Stirling City, and Kimshew Point. Accessed May 2021. https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDBMaps-and-Data.

CDFW. 2021b. California Wildlife Habitat Relationships System. Life History Accounts and Range Maps. https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CWHR/Life-History-and-Range.

California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2021. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (online edition, v9-01 0.0). Accessed May 2021. https://www.rareplants.cnps.org.

City of Chico. 2017. Chico 2030 General Plan. Adopted April 2011. Amended March 2017. https://chico.ca.us/post/chico-2030-general-plan.

Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory. 2008. A Field Guide to the Identification of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in the Arid West Region of the Western United States.

August. https://www.spk.usace.army.mil/Portals/12/documents/regulatory/pdf/ Ordinary_High_Watermark_Manual_Aug_2008.pdf.

Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory. 2014. A Guide to Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) Delineation for Non-Perennial Streams in the Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region of the United States. August. https://usace.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/ p266001coll1/id/3691/.

Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. January. https://usace.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/p266001coll1/id/4530.

Environmental Laboratory. 2008. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Delineation Manual:

Arid West Region, Version 2.0. September. https://usace.contentdm.oclc.org/utils/getfile/ collection/p266001coll1/id/7627a.

Environmental Laboratory. 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region, Version 2.0. May. https://usace.contentdm.oclc.org/utils/getfile/collection/p266001coll1/id/7646.

Esri. 2021. World Imagery Map. https://services.arcgisonline.com/ArcGIS/rest/services/ World_Imagery/MapServer.

Google Earth. 2022. Aerial imagery and street view of the study area. Accessed March 20, 2022. https://earth.google.com/web/.

Griffith, G.E., J.M. Omernik, D.W. Smith, T.D. Cook, E. Tallyn, K. Moseley, and C.B. Johnson. 2016.

Ecoregions of California (poster): US Geological Survey Open-File Report 2016–1021, with map, scale 1:1,100,000, http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ofr20161021.

McNab, W.H., D.T. Cleland, J.A. Freeouf, J.E. Keys, Jr., G.J. Nowacki, and C.A. Carpenter, comps. 2007. Description of ecological subregions: sections of the conterminous United States (CD322 Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 144
ROM). Gen. Tech. Report WO-76B. Washington, DC: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 80 p.

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2021. California Species List Tool, Google Earth Application.

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2018. “California Hydrologic Units.” US Department of Agriculture. September 5. https://koordinates.com/layer/96058-california-hydrologic-units/.

NRCS. 2021a. “Official Soil Series Descriptions.” Accessed March 2021. https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/ wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/survey/geo/?cid=nrcs142p2_053587.

NRCS. 2021b. Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) Database for Butte County, California (Online). US Department of Agriculture. Accessed March 2021. https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/ WebSoilSurvey.aspx.

US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2017. Framework for Assessing Impacts to the Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle. May 2017. https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ survey-guidelines-for-valley-elderberry-longhorn-beetle.pdf.

USFWS. 2021a. National Wetland Inventory, Wetlands Online Mapper. Division of Habitat and Resource Conservation. Accessed March 2021. https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/ Mapper.html.

USFWS. 2021b. Information for Planning and Consultation (IpaC). Accessed May 2021. https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/.

USFWS. 2021c. Critical Habitat Mapper. Accessed May 2021. https://fws.maps.arcgis.com/home/ webmap/viewer.html.

USGS. 2012. National Hydrography Dataset. Downloadable data collection harvest source. Accessed March 2021. https://www.usgs.gov/core-science-systems/ngp/national-hydrography/nationalhydrography-dataset?qt-science_support_page_related_con=0#qt-science_support_page_ related_con.
323
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 145

3.5 Cultural Resources
This section describes the environmental setting and regulatory framework for cultural resources in the study area, and it identifies potential direct and indirect impacts and effects of the Proposed Project during construction, operation, and maintenance. The study area for the cultural resources records search encompasses the Proposed Project and the entirety of the Town’s area that could be included in the Extended Collection System buffered by a 0.25-mile search radius. This buffer was chosen in order to allow for potential design changes as well as to receive a full characterization of the type and breadth of previously recorded resources in the general vicinity of the Proposed Project. The study area for the pedestrian survey included the Chico WPCP, the length of the Export Pipeline System, and the Core Collection System. The Extended Collection System area was not surveyed at this time.

3.5.1 Environmental Setting

3.5.1.1 Archaeological Context
Researchers have divided the prehistory of central California into a series of cultural periods, reflecting an increasing degree of cultural complexity through time. The Paleoindian Period includes the PreClovis (Unknown to 13,500 Cal B.P.1) era during which a hypothesized coastal colonization route allowed people to enter California. In the subsequent Clovis (13,500-10,500 Cal B.P.) era human populations spread within California. The Archaic Period includes the Lower Archaic (10,500-7,500 Cal B.P.). At this time, post-Pleistocene climatic changes cause lakes/wetlands to dry up. Milling technology became common and widespread, indicating a plant food emphasis. The basic social unit remained the extended family. During the Middle Archaic (7,500-2,500 Cal B.P.), climate, habitats, and resources were unstable. The economy became more diversified. The inception of more sedentary living along with population growth and expansion occurred. Technological and environmental factors were dominant themes. In the Upper Archaic (2,500-1,500 Cal B.P.) there was growth of sociopolitical complexity characterized by development of status distinctions based upon wealth.

During the Emergent Period, the Lower Emergent (1500-500 Cal B.P.) witnessed replacement of the dart and atlatl by the bow and arrow. Coastal maritime adaptations flourished. Territorial boundaries were well established. Distinctions in social status linked to wealth became more and more common.

Regularized inter-group exchange included abundant, often diverse, materials. The Upper Emergent (500-150 Cal B.P.) is characterized by appearance of a “monetized” clam shell disk bead economy. 1 Before present (B.P.) is a time scale used in archaeology, geology, and other scientific disciplines to specify when events in the past occurred. Because the "present" time changes, standard practice is to use the year 1950 as the arbitrary origin of the age scale. “Cal” refers to calibrated. Uncorrected, or ‘conventional’ radiocarbon ages are calculated using an assumption that the concentration of naturally occurring radiocarbon in the atmosphere is constant. Calibration of these conventional ages to calendar years corrects for known minor variations over time in the concentration of atmospheric radiocarbon. This calibration also corrects for an error in the estimate of ‘half‐life,’ or the rate at which radiocarbon decays. While the half‐life of radiocarbon is now known to be slightly longer than was estimated when the technique was invented, laboratories continue to report radiocarbon dates using the older, less accurate value, hence the term ‘conventional.’ Because of this, uncalibrated dates earlier than about 2000 years before present (B.P.) tend to be substantially ‘younger’ than calibrated dates. 324
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 146
More goods were moving farther in space. The growth of local specializations in production and exchange took place. There was an interpenetration of central and southern exchange systems.

Specific manifestations of local/regional prehistory are defined in the temporal sequence first developed in the Oroville Reservoir area, and subsequently applied to adjacent portions of Butte and Plumas Counties. The earliest archaeological complex, the Masilla Complex (ca. 3,000-2,000 B.P.), emphasized the use of handstones and milling slabs for seed grinding. During the subsequent Bidwell Complex (ca. 2,000-1,200 B.P.), use of large slate and basalt dart points continued. At this time, people probably lived in relatively permanent villages.

The Sweetwater Complex (ca. 1,200-500 B.P.) witnessed the advent of the bow and arrow. Arrows were tipped with Rosegate and Gunther Series projectile points. The steatite industry was elaborated, with cups, platters, bowls, and tubular smoking pipes being produced. A large variety of bone artifacts, and an expanded inventory of shell artifact types occurred as well. Burial patterning shifted from flexed to extended or semi-extended interments.

The Oroville Complex (ca. 1500-500 B.P.) represents the protohistoric Maidu/Konkow. At this time, bedrock mortars became central to acorn processing. Hallmark artifacts included incised bird bone tubes, bone gorge hooks, gaming bones, and clamshell disk beads. Desert Series projectile points predominated. Steatite vessels were absent. Several kinds of structures, including large circular dance houses, were constructed. Burials were tightly flexed on their sides, and occasionally placed under stone cairns.

3.5.1.2 Ethnographic Context
By the time of the first Euro-American arrivals in the Project area in the 19th century, a mosaic of “tribelets” occupied Butte County. The foothill Konkow2 inhabited the foothills region of the northern Sierra. Their historical homeland centers on the river drainages of the North Fork of the Feather River, and roughly encompasses the present political boundaries of Butte County. A related group, the Mechoopda, had densely settled the valley floor near present-day Chico (Kowta 1988, C’ammuden 2020). Additionally, Penutian-speaking Maidu occupied the higher Sierra country in Plumas County.

The foothill Konkow continue to live in their ancestral homeland, the Mooretown Rancheria in as well as at the Round Valley Reservation in Mendocino County, where many were forcibly placed by semiregular military forces and irregular militias after the Gold Rush commenced (C’ammuden 2020). The Mechoopda Indian Tribe of Chico Rancheria (“valley Konkow”) maintain a federally recognized tribal government in Chico.
2 The differentiation between these three groups is recognized based on geographical differences that had spurred cultural differences, with the Mechoopda and others being previously referred to by early Euro‐American scholars as “Valley Maidu”, the Konkow being “Foothill Maidu” and the Maidu in Plumas County called “Mountain Maidu”. These ersatz appellations obscure what was a much more complex social landscape, as the “Konkow” proper were the name of one of the more prominent groups in a mosaic of Maiduan speakers in the foothills (Wells and Chambers 1882). “Konkow” is now often used to name both foothill and valley populations, but not of the Mountain Maidu. 325
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 147

3.5.1.3 Historic Context
By the late 1700s, Spain sought to expand its claims on lands north of Mexico and established a mission in the San Francisco Bay area in 1776. In 1808, the Gabriel Moraga became one of the first Europeans (by ancestry) to traverse the Sacramento Valley, naming many of the rivers he located.

Moraga reportedly met a delegation of 52 Maidu at Sutter Buttes. In 1811, Padre Arbella reportedly met Konkow people while travelling up the Sacramento River. In 1821, Captain Louis Arguello located and named the Feather River (“El Rio de las Plumas”). Arguello traded and fought with Indigenous people along his route (C’ammuden 2020, Selverston 2006). Russian explorers may have also reached the mouth of the Feather River. Spanish expeditions mostly explored the Sacramento and San Joaquin River valleys and did not much penetrate the foothills Sierra (Dixon 1905). These early expeditions probably first introduced European-borne diseases, as explorers in the 1830s discovered several abandoned villages with unburied dead (Selverston 2006, Dixon 1905).

American fur trappers soon arrived in the Sierra foothills. Jedediah Smith spent 6 months with the Konkow near the Oroville locality in 1827 (C’ammuden 2020, Selverston 2006). Following Smith’s reports, The Hudson Bay Fur Trading Company sent expeditions into the area between 1828 and 1836 (C’ammuden 2020). In 1833, John Work led a 100-person trapping party into the Oroville locality that Selverston (2006) characterizes as a “nomadic pluralistic village with men, women, and children of diverse backgrounds and task-specific specialization.” Work noted in his diaries that the Indigenous populations were numerous and densely settled, and other contemporaneous explorers echoed this observation (Selverston 2006, Dixon 1905). Work’s party was the source of a widespread epidemic of either smallpox or malaria in 1833 (Cook 1955, 1976).

Further incursions into the territory increased in the 1840s with Mexican agricultural land grants. After John Sutter established his eponymous fort near Sacramento in 1839, non-Hispanics made multiple claims in Butte County by 1844. General John Bidwell was the first to establish a trading post along Chico Creek, and more Anglo settlers followed. Bidwell also employed Mechoopda people at his ranch on the Arroyo Chico grant, within their valley homeland, as well as later at the rich mining site of Bidwell Bar on the Feather River. The Bidwells would come to have a relatively close but paternalistic relationship with the Mechoopda (Mechoopda Indian Tribe of Chico Rancheria 2021). Californios (California-born Spanish) Maximo and Dionisio Zenon Fernandez of Monterey were granted the Fernandez Rancho in the area in 1846. Other agricultural grants in the area include the Boga-Larkin, Farwell, Esquon, Bosquejo, Aguas Firas, and Llano Seco (Mansfield 1918). The United States formally annexed Alta California in 1848.

The Gold Rush officially started with Marshall’s discovery of gold at Coloma in 1848. A contemporaneous jackpot strike by John Bidwell on the Feather River brought a flood of immigrants to Butte County. Multiple camps carrying hundreds of miners from all over the world were established along the major rivers and minor tributaries in Butte County every 5 to 10 miles (Selverston 2006). This influx of new settlers brought the Konkow more disease (including cholera, flu, and tuberculosis), alcohol, and displacement from their homes. Large placer mining disrupted aboriginal hunting and fishing patterns and may have wiped out Konkow ancestral sites within a matter of years (Dixon 1905, Selverston 2006, Mechoopda Indian Tribe of Chico Rancheria 2021). The immigrant miners often were disdainful towards the Indigenous inhabitants, yet there was some mutual interest between Indigenous 326
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 148
Konkow and the miners to maintain peace (C’ammuden 2020). The Konkow’s general posture towards the intruders was to remain peaceful (C’ammuden 2020, Mansfield 1918).

In 1851, government-to-government treaties were signed which promised to allocate reservation territory and sovereign nations status to the Maidu-speaking tribes, in exchange for ceding land (C’ammuden 2020, Mechoopda Indian Tribe of Chico Rancheria 2021). However, California, having quickly achieved statehood, refused to ratify the treaty due to objections from business leaders and its legislature. What happened instead was a piecemeal and semi-official removal of Natives from their homelands. In 1852, the federal government provided $250,000 to California to establish five reservations of no more than 25,000 acres each. Volunteers in Butte County were mustered over the course of the next decade to force Indians of different tribes together onto these reservations. In 1853, these removals were known as “the Maidu Trail of Tears.” Many were taken to Nome Lackee, near Corning, starting in 1854. But by 1859, the reservation was shuttered after allegations of fraud and abuse against its Indian Agent, Vincent E. Geiger (C’ammuden 2020). The 1860s saw depredations towards Natives and subsequent retaliations by them against the settlers. In 1863, a meeting held at Pence’s Ranch concluded to remove Indians from Butte County (Mansfield 1918). Many of the foothill Konkow were marched to Round Valley Reservation in Mendocino County along with several other tribes during this decade. The journey was harsh, many died along the way, and still more were killed by the volunteers. Conditions at Round Valley remained desperate for decades after. Their populations depleted and their land base taken, most of the foothill Konkow who remained in the ancestral territory aimed to live quietly and assimilate into the new American society (C’ammuden 2020). However, many of the Mechoopda were not forced into removal due to their relationship with John Bidwell, remaining relatively safe at his holdings. Foothill Konkow folk also made their way to Arroyo Chico to live amongst their valley neighbors (Mechoopda Indian Tribe of Chico Rancheria 2021).

C’ammuden (2020) reports that throughout the end of the 19th century, the foothills Konkow did their best to assimilate into the new American empire while also maintaining familial ties and traditions.

Some subsequently followed their kin to Round Valley, but others stayed in Butte County. Some foothill Konkow women married Anglo miners. Two prominent Anglo/Konkow families started during this time include the Gramps and Clark families. These two families secured mineral and land rights on the West Branch and North Fork of the Feather River and were successful miners. Konkow people advised the railroads as to the best locations for travel in their ancestral lands. Konkow served honorably during the Spanish-American War both World Wars, and beyond. Konkow people worked in rail, lumber, and manufacturing, and pursued careers as plumbers, electricians, cannery workers, truck drivers, and more. Many Konkow also moved to urban areas to find opportunity. C’ammuden (2020) writes: “always aware of their Indian heritage as a focal point of connection, these families kept memories alive by celebrating together in ceremonial gatherings as time and money permitted thru (sic) World War I, II, and beyond.”
The Concow-Maidu of Mooretown Rancheria is a federally recognized Konkow Tribe. Following the Rancheria Act of 1884, in 1894, James T. Grubbs relinquished 80 acres for the use of Indian families.

In 1915, the BIA purchased another 80-acre parcel nearby for 53 members of the Frank Taylor band of Indians, who were on a census list. The Tribe was terminated in 1953, but after subsequent legal battles the tribe was reinstated in 1983. Mooretown Rancheria eventually bought 35 acres just south of Oroville as a land base for their members. The Concow-Maidu own and operate the Feather Falls 327
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 149
Casino, constructed in 1996. Cultural and language preservation is a top priority for the Tribe (Cultural Programs Office of Mooretown Rancheria 2021).

The Mechoopda had a complex relationship with John and Annie Bidwell that was framed in paternalism. Bidwell hired mercenary protection for the Mechoopda during the pogroms of the 1860s, as they provided labor for his enterprises. In 1868, Bidwell married Annie Kennedy, who instituted Christian religious teachings at Arroyo Chico, instituting a church in 1895. John Bidwell died in 1900, and Annie continued to oversee the village, which had fifty people in 1910. Annie Bidwell died in 1918, deeding the land to the Presbyterian Church as trustee for the Native residents. The land was conveyed into federal trust in 1939. The Mechoopda became a federally recognized tribe in 1992. Since 1998, the Mechoopda Tribe has been most interested in securing and developing housing, and rebuilding and restoring their political, economic, and social lives (Mechoopda Indian Tribe of Chico Rancheria 2021).

By 1844, John Bidwell established a trading post at the Arroyo Chico land grant. In 1848, he struck gold at the Feather River, and with his riches, he bought 28,000 acres in both sides of Chico Creek. He founded Chico in 1860 (incorporated 1872). Bidwell was elected to the US Congress in 1864 as a Republican. In Washington D.C., he met and married Annie Bidwell, and in 1868, settled in Chico.

There they built the Bidwell Mansion, which would become the center of social and political life in the region. Bidwell helped direct the town’s agricultural focus, especially for processing rice, almonds, and fruit. In 1887, Bidwell donated land to found a new state teacher’s college, which eventually evolved into California State University, Chico. John and Annie Bidwell’s mansion was restored and still stands at the Bidwell Mansion State Historic Park. The Bidwell Mansion represents a fine example of early Victorian-era architecture. It is California Historical Landmark #329 and is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. After John’s death in 1900, Annie Bidwell donated 1,900 acres for a public park, which is now the 3,640-acre Bidwell Park, which is one of the country’s largest municipal parks.

Chico city proper contains a population of 121,219 people as of the 2020 census (Britannica 2021, Chico Chamber of Commerce 2018, California State Parks 2021).

Paradise was named around the 1860s as families began to settle the area following the construction of lumber mills. Legend has it that the area was named when William Leonard and his mill crew came to rest in the shade of ponderosa pines, and, feeling relaxed, he exulted: “boys, this is paradise!” Settlement in the area increased after railroad service was established in 1904. Shortly after the Paradise Irrigation District was established, it was able to supply a regular water supply in all but the most severe droughts. The Paradise Farm Center was founded to develop and use the most modern farming practices. Orchards used the railroad to quickly speed their products to market. After World War II, the population of Paradise swelled from 5,000 to 20,000 by 1966. However, Paradise was not formally incorporated until 1979 (McDonald n.d.). In November 2018, the swift and devastating Camp Fire destroyed much of Paradise, killing 85 people and burning more than 150,000 acres, including 14,000 residences within the Town.

3.5.1.4 Literature Search and Data Limitations
The records search from the Northeast Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System at California State University, Chico encompasses the entirety of the Proposed Project, all Project alternatives, and a 0.25-mile buffer around the furthest extent of the Proposed 328
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 150
Project and Project alternatives. Outside of the exceptions described further below, the pedestrian survey covered the preferred alternative and consisted of parallel and meandering transects spaced no more than 10 to 15 meters apart, covering 100 percent of the public ROW between the Chico WPCP at the west end and the intersection of Skyway and Neal Road at the east end. Within Paradise, the pedestrian survey was limited to the public ROW alignments of the Core Collection System. Individual parcels were not surveyed.

Due to the lack of private landowner consent to access, approximately 1.1 miles of the proposed pipeline alignment, between Skyway and SR 99 (including the Butte Creek crossing) were not surveyed. Additionally, none of the Project alternatives were subject to pedestrian survey although they were, as noted above, included in the records search. The Extended Collection System area was not surveyed at this time, as noted above, but it was included in the records search.

With several exceptions that are discussed further below, all newly discovered and previously recorded cultural resources were documented or updated on standard State of California Department of Parks and Recreation Series 523 forms. These forms, distributed by the California Office of Historic Preservation, are used for recording and evaluating resources and for nominating properties as California Historical Landmarks, California Points of Historical Interest, and to the California Register of Historical Resources.

There are resources over the age of 45 years of age located in, or traversed by, the study area that would not be significantly impacted during Project construction or implementation. These include SR 99 and the UPRR (both traversed via microtunneling), as well as numerous county and municipal roads, and linear water conveyances. Importantly, the Proposed Project does not include any actions related to the realignment or replacement of roads. Roadwork proposed within the Project area as part of the Project implementation would not result in a change of use for the road or any other transecting resource, nor would the work impact the alignment of the structures. Resurfacing of roadways to the extent required for the implementation of the Proposed Project does not extend beyond that which has already taken place as part of the installation of utilities along these throughfares at multiple stages in the past. During such resurfacing, there have been no impacts to the resources listed above. The process of resurfacing has not change. Therefore, there is little to no potential for these resources to be impacted by the Proposed Project. Because there is no possibility that resources would be impacted by the Proposed Project, these resources are not included as part of the impact analysis and were, therefore, not recorded or evaluated for historic significance under the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) or National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) as a part of the cultural resources study.

3.5.1.5 Identification of Historical Resources
The records searches, archival research, and pedestrian survey resulted in the identification of 23 archaeological and built environment resources within the study area, of which 20 were previously determined or newly evaluated as ineligible for inclusion in the NRHP and CRHR during the study, 3 remain unevaluated, and none have been evaluated as eligible, as shown in Table 3.5-1. 329
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 151
Table 3.5-1. Cultural Resources within the Project Area Count
Site Number
(Primary/Trinomial/
Temporary Number)
Agea Type
Previously
Recorded
(Yes/No)
Individual

NRHP/CRHR
Eligibility
1 HDR-Paradise-Site-01 H Historic refuse scatter N Not Eligible 2 HDR-Paradise-Site-02 H Culvert, ditch, and turnouts N Not Eligible 3 P-04-001091 P BRM – not relocated, presumed destroyed Y Not Eligibleb 4 P-04-001779 H Paradise train depot and associated railroad features
Y Unevaluated
5 P-04-001780 H Two historic residences – destroyed in Camp Fire
Y Not Eligibleb
6 P-04-003018 H Historic structure Y Unevaluated
7 P-04-003021 H Historic structure – destroyed in Camp Fire Y Not Eligibleb 8 P-04-003022 H Historic structure Y Unevaluated
9 P-04-004252 H Complex of nine historic structures – destroyed in Camp Fire
Y Not Eligibleb
10 P-04-004253 H Historic residence – destroyed in Camp Fire Y Not Eligibleb 11 P-04-004254 H Historic residence – destroyed in Camp Fire Y Not Eligibleb 12 P-04-004255 H Historic residence – destroyed in Camp Fire Y Not Eligibleb 13 P-04-004367 P Lithic and groundstone scatter – not relocated Y Not Eligibleb 14 P-04-004368 P Lithic and groundstone scatter – not relocated Y Not Eligibleb 15 P-04-004369 P Lithic and groundstone scatter Y Not Eligible 16 P-04-004370 P BRM, groundstone scatter – not relocated Y Not Eligibleb 17 P-04-004371 P Flaked stone and groundstone scatter – not relocated
Y Not Eligibleb
18 P-04-004372 P Groundstone scatter – not relocated Y Not Eligibleb 19 P-04-004373 P Groundstone scatter – not relocated Y Not Eligibleb 20 P-04-004374 P BRM – not relocated Y Not Eligibleb
21 Bridge 12C-0108 H Little Chico Creek/Taffee Avenue Bridge, ca. 1931
N Not Eligible
22 Bridge 12C-0109 H Little Chico Creek/Crouch Avenue Bridge, ca. 1960
N Not Eligible
23 Bridge 12C-0179 H Comanche Creek/Crouch Avenue Bridge, ca. 1940
N Not Eligible
a H = Historical; P = Prehistoric; M = Multi-component. b Resources destroyed in the Camp Fire or not relocated during the survey are considered not eligible for NRHP and CRHR listing.

3.5.2 Regulatory Framework
This section summarizes the federal, state, regional, and local laws, regulations, policies, and plans relevant to evaluation of the Proposed Project’s impacts on cultural resources. Additional information on the relevant regulations, laws, and plans is provided in Appendix C, Regulatory Framework. 330
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 152

3.5.2.1 Federal
National Historic Preservation Act
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act requires federal undertakings to consider the effects of the action on historic properties. Historic properties are defined by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation regulations (36 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Part 800) and consist of any prehistoric or historical archaeological site, building, structure, historic district, or object included in, or eligible for inclusion in, the NRHP maintained by the Secretary of the Interior. This term includes artifacts, records, and remains that are related to and located within such properties. The term includes properties of traditional religious and cultural importance to an Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization that meet the National Register criteria (36 CFR Part 800.16[l]).

To determine whether an undertaking could affect NRHP-eligible properties, cultural resources (including archaeological, historical, and architectural properties) must be inventoried and evaluated for listing in the NRHP.

For projects involving a lead federal agency, cultural resource significance is evaluated in terms of eligibility for listing in the NRHP. For a property to be considered for inclusion in the NRHP, it must be at least 50 years old and meet the criteria for evaluation set forth in 36 CFR Part 60.4.

The Proposed Project will be held to the standards set forth by the National Historic Preservation Act.

Antiquities Act
The Antiquities Act of 1906 (54 USC 320301–320303) provides for fines or imprisonment of any person convicted of appropriating, excavating, injuring, or destroying any historic or prehistoric ruin or monument or other object of antiquity that falls under the jurisdiction of the federal government.

The Proposed Project will be held to the standards set forth by this act.

Archaeological Resources Protection Act
The Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (16 USC 470aa et seq.) amended the Antiquities Act, set a broad policy stating that archaeological resources are important to the nation and should be protected, and required special permits before the excavation or removal of archaeological resources from public or Indian lands.

The Proposed Project will be held to the standards set forth by this act.

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act
The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 (25 USC 3001 et seq.) was intended to ensure the protection and rightful disposition of Native American cultural items and burials located on federal or tribal trust lands, and in the possession or control of the federal government. The act requires that an inventory of Native American human remains and funerary objects must be compiled by federal funded agencies and all museums and educational institutions receiving federal funds.

Also, all Indian tribes and representatives identified by the NAHC must be consulted whenever archaeological investigations encounter, or are expected to encounter, Native American cultural items or when such items are unexpectedly discovered on federal or tribal lands. Excavation or removal of 331
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 153
any such items also must be done under procedures required by the Archaeological Resources Protection Act.

The Proposed Project will be held to the standards set forth by this act.

The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archaeology and Historic Preservation These standards, effective as of 1983, provide technical advice for archaeological and historic preservation practices. Their purposes are (1) to organize the information gathered about preservation activities; (2) to describe results to be achieved by federal agencies, states, and others when planning for the identification, evaluation, registration, and treatment of historic properties; and (3) to integrate the diverse efforts of many entities performing historic preservation into a systemic effort to preserve the nation’s culture heritage (48 CFR 44716).

The Proposed Project will be held to these standards.

The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation These standards were established by the Secretary of the Interior in 1986 as a way to homogenize rehabilitation efforts of nationally significant historic properties and buildings. These standards pertain to actions involved in returning a property to a state of utility through repair or alteration. This allows for the preservation of historic and cultural values of the property, while giving it an efficient contemporary use (36 CFR 67).

The Proposed Project will be held to these standards.

The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings The Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties are a compilation of 34 guidelines to promote the responsible preservation of U.S. historic cultural resources. The standards specifically address preservation, rehabilitation, restoration, and reconstruction of historic materials. The standards are not intended to be the sole basis for decision-making in regard to whether a historic property should be saved, but rather are intended to provide consistency in conservation and restoration practice (36 CFR 68).

The Proposed Project will be held to the standards.

3.5.2.2 State
CEQA Statute and Guidelines
CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines include procedures for identifying, analyzing, and disclosing potential adverse impacts to cultural resources.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a) define a “historical resource” as including the following:
 A resource listed in, or eligible for listing in, the CRHR;  A resource listed in a local register of historical resources as defined at PRC Section 5020.1(k);  A resource identified as significant in a historical resources survey meeting the requirements of PRC Section 5024.1(g); or
332
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 154
 Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript that a lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California (Generally, a resource is considered by the lead agency to be “historically significant” if the resource meets the criteria for listing in the CRHR).

A project that causes a “substantial adverse change” in the significance of a historical resource may have a significant effect on the environment (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5[b]). CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b)(1) defines “substantial adverse change” as “physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of a historical resource would be materially impaired.”
For archaeological sites, the CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5I(1) requires that the lead agency first determine whether the site is a “historical resource” as defined in Section 15064.5(a) (defined above). If the site qualifies as a historical resource, potential adverse impacts must be considered in the same manner as a historical resource, as described below (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5[c[[2]). If the archaeological site does not qualify as a historical resource but does qualify as a “unique archaeological resource,” then the archaeological site is treated in accordance with CEQA PRC Section 21083.2, which places certain limits on permissible mitigation measures (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5[c][3]). In practice, most archaeological sites that meet the definition of a unique archaeological resource would also meet the definition of a historical resource.

Mitigation measures are discussed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4. Generally, by following the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties or the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, impacts can be considered as mitigated to a less-than-significant level per CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b). For archaeological resources, CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3) provides that a public agency should, whenever feasible, seek to avoid damaging effects on any historical resource of an archaeological nature.

The Proposed Project will be held to the regulatory requirements imposed by CEQA Statutes and further explained in CEQA Guidelines.

California Register of Historical Resources: Public Resources Code Section 5024.1 The CRHR includes resources that are listed in or formally determined eligible for listing in the NRHP, as well as some designated California State Landmarks and Points of Historical Interest. Properties of local significance that have been designated under a local preservation ordinance (local landmarks or landmark districts) or that have been identified in a local historical resources inventory may be eligible for listing in the CRHR.

The Proposed Project will be held to the requirements of PRC Section 5024.1.

California Native American Heritage Commission: Public Resources Code Sections 5097.91 through 5097.98
The California NAHC identifies and catalogs places of special religious or social significance to Native Americans and known graves and cemeteries of Native Americans on private lands. PRC Section 5097, as amended, requires consultation with the California NAHC whenever Native American graves are 333
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 155
found. When the California NAHC is notified of human remains, it will immediately notify those persons it believes to be the most likely descendants.

The Proposed Project will be held to the requirements of PRC Sections 5097.91 through 5097.98.

Unique Archaeological Resource
PRC Section 21083.2 defines a unique archaeological resource as follows.

An archaeological artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it meets any of the following criteria:
 Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and that there is a demonstrable public interest in that information;
 Has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type; or
 Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person (PRC Section 21083.2).

In most situations, resources that meet the definition of a unique archaeological resource also meet the definition of a historical resource. As a result, it is current professional practice to evaluate cultural resources for significance based on their eligibility for listing in the CRHR.

The Proposed Project will be held to the requirements of PRC Section 21083.2.

Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5: Removal of Human Remains Sections 7050.5(b) and 7050.5(c) of the Health and Safety Code pertain to the discovery of human remains in a location outside a dedicated cemetery. The statute requires that, in the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, there will be no further excavation or disturbance of the site, or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlay adjacent remains, until the County Coroner has examined the remains. If the coroner determines, or has reason to believe, the remains to be those of a Native American, the coroner will contact the NAHC by telephone within 24 hours. After notification, NAHC will follow the procedures outlined in PRC Section 5097.98, which includes notification of most likely descendants, if possible, and recommendations for treatment of the remains. The most likely descendants will have 24 hours after notification by the NAHC to make their recommendation.

The Proposed Project will be held to the requirements of Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5.

California Graves Protection and Repatriation Act
Sections 8010 to 8011 of the Health and Safety Code establish a state repatriation policy that is consistent with and facilitates implementation of the federal Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act.

The Proposed Project will be held to the requirements of this act. 334
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 156

3.5.2.3 Regional and Local
Town of Paradise General Plan
The Town of Paradise General Plan (Town of Paradise and Quad Consultants 2008) includes the following policies and implementation measures related to cultural resources that are relevant to the Proposed Project:
 Policy OCEP-36: The Land Use Constraints Diagram identifies areas of potential archaeological sensitivity. Proposed development or public works projects within this area will be required to undertake an archaeological survey prior to project approval. Proposed projects outside this area, in locations that have not been significantly disturbed, will be referred to the California Archaeological Inventory, Northeast Information Center, California State University, Chico to undertake an archaeological survey prior to project approval upon recommendation by the Center.
 Implementation Measure OCEI-18: Require compliance of all development projects with Appendix K (archeological impacts) of the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act.
 Implementation Measure OCEI-19: When an archaeological survey is required by the Town or recommended by the California Archaeological Inventory, Northeast Information Center, the survey will be undertaken by a qualified professional archaeologist who is certified by the Society of Professional Archaeologists or has equivalent qualifications.  Implementation Measure OCEI-20: Should any historic or pre-historic artifacts be discovered during construction, all work will cease until a qualified professional archaeologist views the site, provides recommendations and gives clearance to continue.

The Proposed Project will be held to the goals and objectives in the Town of Paradise General Plan.

Butte County General Plan 2030
The Butte County General Plan 2030 (Butte County 2012) includes the following policies related to cultural resources that are relevant to the Proposed Project:
 Policy COS-P14.1: Historic and cultural resources management will be coordinated with nearby jurisdictions, including the five incorporated municipalities, the Lassen and Plumas National Forests, other planning and regulatory agencies, and local tribes.  Policy COS-P14.2: As part of CEQA and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) projects, evaluations of surface and subsurface cultural resources in the county will be conducted. Such evaluations should involve consultation with the Northeast Information Center.  Policy COS-P14.3: The Northeast Information Center and appropriate historic and preservation professionals will be consulted when considering reuse of historic sites.  Policy COS-P15.1: Areas found during construction to contain significant historic or prehistoric archaeological artifacts will be examined by a qualified consulting archaeologist or historian for appropriate protection and preservation. Historic or prehistoric artifacts found during construction shall be examined by a qualified consulting archaeologist or historian to determine their significance and develop appropriate protection and preservation measures. 335
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 157
 Policy COS-P15.2: Any archaeological or paleontological resources on a development project site will be either preserved in their sites or adequately documented as a condition of removal.

When a development project has sufficient flexibility, avoidance and preservation of the resource will be the primary mitigation measure.
 Policy COS-P15.3: Demolition permit application on potentially important historic sites will be subject to discretionary review.
 Policy COS-P16.2: Impacts to the traditional Native American landscape will be considered during California Environmental Quality Act or National Environmental Protection Act review of development proposals.
 Policy COS-P16.3: Human remains discovered during implementation of public and private development projects will be treated with dignity and respect. Such treatment will fully comply with the federal Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act and other appropriate laws.
 Policy COS-P16.4: If human remains are located during any ground disturbing activity, work will stop until the County Coroner has been contacted, and, if the human remains are determined to be of Native American origin, the NAHC and most likely descendant have been consulted.
 Policy COS-P16.5: Consistent with State local and tribal intergovernmental consultation requirements such as Senate Bill (SB) 18, the County will consult with Native American tribes that may be interested in proposed new development projects and land use policy changes.

The Proposed Project will be held to the policies in the Butte County General Plan 2030.

Chico 2030 General Plan
The Chico 2030 General Plan (City of Chico 2017) includes the following policies related to cultural resources that are relevant to the Proposed Project:
 Policy CRHP-1.1, Historic Preservation Program: Maintain a comprehensive Historic Preservation Program that includes policies and regulations which protect and preserve the archeological, historical, and cultural resources of Chico.  Policy CRHP-2.3, Demolition as Last Resort: Limit the demolition of historic resources to an act of last resort, to be permitted only if: 1) rehabilitation of the resource is not feasible; 2) demolition is necessary to protect the health, safety, and welfare of its residents; or 3) the public benefits outweigh the loss of the historic resource.
 Policy CRHP-3.1, Partnerships to Preserve Heritage Resources: Foster partnerships with interested parties to preserve heritage resources.

The Proposed Project will be held to the policies in the Chico 2030 General Plan.

City of Chico Historic Preservation Ordinance
The Historic Preservation Ordinance of the City of Chico’s Municipal Code (Chapter 19.37) specifically affords protection for properties listed on the City of Chico’s Historic Resources Inventory and provides a mechanism to add historic properties to the Inventory through Landmark Overlay zoning districts. The ordinance also provides development incentives to owners of designated historic property and establishes a number of exempt activities such as ordinary maintenance and repair. 336
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 158
The Proposed Project will be held to the requirements of this ordinance.

3.5.3 Method of Analysis
This section describes the methods used to determine impacts of the Proposed Project on cultural resources.

3.5.3.1 CEQA Significance Criteria
For the purposes of this PEIR, the Proposed Project would result in a significant impact on cultural resources if it would:
 Impact CUL-1: Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to section 15064.5.
 Impact CUL-2: Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to section 15064.5.
 Impact CUL-3: Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries.

3.5.3.2 Approach to Analysis
Construction, Operation, and Maintenance
Impacts on cultural resources were identified qualitatively based on the Proposed Project’s potential to affect previously recorded and newly discovered historical resources, archaeological resources, and human remains.

Under CEQA, a project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment. Substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource is defined as physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of a historical resource would be materially impaired. The significance of a historical resource would be significantly impaired when a project demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of a historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its inclusion in, or eligibility for inclusion in, the NRHP, the CRHR, or a local register of historic resources pursuant to PRC Section 5020.1(k).

As discussed in Section 3.5.1.4, Literature Search and Data Limitations, and Section 3.5.1.5, Identification of Historical Resources, cultural resources in the study area were identified through records searches from the Northeast Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System at California State University, Chico; archival research; and the pedestrian survey.

The analysis of environmental effects focuses on foreseeable changes to cultural resources in the context of effects listed in Section 3.5.3.1, CEQA Significance Criteria. The analysis considers the Core Collection System, Export Pipeline System, and Extended Collection System, as appropriate, in the context of construction, operation, and maintenance.
337
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 159

3.5.4 Impact Analysis
This section describes the potential environmental effects on cultural resources as a result of implementation of the Proposed Project. It includes an analysis of the Proposed Project’s potential to significantly impact previously recorded and newly discovered prehistoric and historic-era archaeological sites and built-environment resources previously recorded and identified during the field evaluation. Such built-environment resources include prehistoric lithic scatters, bedrock milling features, historic refuse deposits and historic-era structures. Project development could significantly impact resources through ground-disturbing activities, such as open trenching, HDD and micro tunnelling technologies, excavation, and grading, which all have the potential to damage or destroy known and unknown cultural resources that may be present on or below the ground surface, particularly in undeveloped areas.

3.5.4.1 Impact CUL-1: Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to section 15064.5 (Less than Significant Impact) Construction
Impacts on a historical resource could be associated with construction of the Proposed Project.

Excavation and ground disturbing activities as a result of these construction activities have the potential to impact previously recorded, newly identified, and heretofore unknown cultural resources in the study area which, upon further assessment, may constitute a historical resource pursuant to section 15064.5.

Bridges 12C-0108 (1931), 12C-0109 (1960), and 12C-0179 (1940) would all be traversed by the Export Pipeline System at the western end of the Proposed Project near the Chico WPCP. They were each previously evaluated by Caltrans for significance according to CEQA and NRHP criteria. All three bridges are listed in the Caltrans Bridge Inventory of local agency bridges as “5. Bridge not eligible for NRHP;” thus, the bridges are not “historical resources” per CEQA Guidelines and will not be impacted by the proposed HDD trenchless techniques for pipeline installation.

Buildings P-04-001780, P-04-003021, P-04-004252, P-04-004253, P-04-004254, and P-04-004255 were all previously recorded within the Core Collection System and Extended Collection System areas but destroyed in the 2018 Camp Fire and are no longer extant. Buildings P-04-001779, P-04-003018, and P-04-003022 were all previously recorded as well and are within the Core Collection System area.

None of the eight buildings, extant and non-extant, have been previously evaluated for CRHR and/or NRHP significance. As noted above, an exhaustive built environment inventory and evaluation of the Paradise sewer service area was not conducted. Impacts associated with the Core Collection System and Extended Collection System would be confined to the street side of the public ROW; therefore, the Proposed Project has no potential to impact any built environment resources.

Eight prehistoric archaeological sites, P-04-001091 P-04-004367, P-04-004368, P-04-004370, P-04- 004371, P-04-004372, P-04-004373, and P-04-004374 were all previously recorded but not relocated during pedestrian survey for the Proposed Project. This is likely due to a variety of factors. First, the general vicinity of Paradise has been substantially altered since the 2018 Camp Fire. The aftermath of the fire, including both the suppression effort as well as the post-fire cleanup, resulted in drastic changes to ground visibility and local topography. It is likely that these efforts either destroyed or 338
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 160
completely obscured any surface manifestation of the site (P-04-001091) within the Core Collection System area.

Additionally, seven of the previously recorded prehistoric sites (P-04-004367, -004368, -004370, - 004371, -004372, -004373, and -004374) were all recorded during construction monitoring along Skyway for a utility trenching project. Field notes associated with this work noted that the observed artifacts were generally collected from spoil piles during monitoring and, following documentation, were placed “out of the ROW” thus removing them from the study area. Careful examination of each of the eight site locations did not reveal any surficial artifacts and the sites are assumed to no longer be extant and would not be impacted by the Proposed Project.

The remaining three sites consist of a prehistoric lithic scatter (P-04-004369) within the Core Collection System, a historic-era refuse scatter (HDR-Paradise-Site-01) along Skyway, and a small historic-era feature complex consisting of a culvert, short ditch, and two irrigation turnouts (HDR-Paradise-Site-02) adjacent to Midway Road. None of the three sites exhibit substantial archaeological deposits, extensive artifact variability, significant architectural features, or association with important persons or events. The lack of artifact densities and variability demonstrates the low potential to yield information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation. Considered individually, none of the evaluated prehistoric sites produced assemblages that could contribute to unique patterns of human occupation or refine existing cultural chronologies. Considered collectively at the landscape level, the extant prehistoric site in the study area contains redundant information better represented at recorded sites outside of the study area. The historic site likewise contained relatively sparse and disturbed archaeological deposits, consisting of fragments of bottles, metal containers, and other household consumables and hardware.

Based on the absence/presence of the previously recorded resources and the significance evaluations, impacts on historical resources from Project construction are considered less than significant.

Mitigation. No mitigation required.

Operation and maintenance activities, as described in Section 2.8, would not include ground disturbing activities except if there were a pipe break and a section of pipeline needed to be replaced. Operation and maintenance activities would occur in previously disturbed areas (primarily within paved roads), resulting in no potential to impact previously undisturbed and unknown cultural resources. In the case of a pipe break, the section would be repaired and returned to previous conditions as expeditiously as possible so as to limit impacts to the public and sewer service. Therefore, operation and maintenance of the Proposed Project would result in a less than significant impact on historical resources. 339
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 161
Mitigation. No mitigation required.

3.5.4.2 Impact CUL-2: Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to section 15064.5 (Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)
Construction
Although no “unique” or “historic” cultural resources (as per CEQA definitions) have been documented on the Project site, there is a potential that unrecorded cultural resources could be unearthed or otherwise discovered during ground-disturbing and construction activities associated with the Export Pipeline System (microtunneling, or the HDD entry/exit pits), Core Collection System and Extended Collection System. The Project is located in a region where significant prehistoric and historic-era cultural resources have been documented. Subsurface disturbances during construction of the Core or Extended Collection Systems or Export Pipeline Systems could potentially destroy or damage undiscovered prehistoric or historic cultural resources. If these resources were to represent “historical resources” as defined by CEQA, a significant impact would occur. If such resource were determined to be unique or historic, a significant impact would occur.

Mitigation. To minimize potentially significant impacts related to unrecorded cultural resources (including archeological resources) during construction of the Proposed Project to a less than significant level, mitigation measures MM-CUL-1 and MM-CUL-2 will be implemented.

MM-CUL-1: Targeted Archaeological Monitoring. As described above, the archaeological survey did not include the proposed Export Pipeline System between Midway Road and Skyway due to lack of landowner consent to access. Additionally, although not fully relocated, previous monitoring work along Skyway recorded a series of sparse lithic scatters demonstrating an elevation sensitivity for nearsurface archaeological sites. Therefore, based on the lack of previous survey coverage and the number of previously documented archaeological sites in the vicinity, the Project alignment between Midway Road (on the west) and the intersection of Skyway and Neal Road (on the east) will be subject to monitoring during initial ground disturbance by a qualified professional archaeologist. The archaeologist will monitor initial trenching of previously undisturbed deposits, but the monitoring may vary based on the rate of excavation, the materials excavated, and the absence/presence of artifacts and/or cultural features. In the event of an inadvertent discovery during monitoring, the procedures noted in MM-CUL2 will be implemented.

MM-CUL-2: Follow Inadvertent Discovery Procedures. If unrecorded cultural resources are encountered during Project-related ground-disturbing activities, even in the absence of an onsite archaeological monitor, a qualified cultural resources specialist will be contacted to assess the potential significance of the find. If an inadvertent discovery of cultural materials (e.g., unusual amounts of shell, animal bone, bottle glass, ceramics, structure/building remains) is made during Project-related construction activities, ground disturbances in the area of the find will be halted, and a qualified professional archaeologist will be notified regarding the discovery. The archaeologist will determine whether the resource is potentially significant per the CRHR and develop appropriate mitigation, such as avoidance or data recovery.
340
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 162
Significance after Mitigation. Implementation of MM-CUL-1 and MM-CUL-2 would reduce potentially significant impacts resulting from inadvertent damage or destruction of unknown cultural resources during construction to a less than significant level because appropriate procedures would be followed to ensure that any unanticipated cultural resources discovered during Project-related ground-disturbing activities are appropriately handled and documented and that all appropriate parties are contacted and coordinated with in a timely manner, in order to either avoid or minimize impacts on the cultural resources.

Operation and Maintenance
As discussed in Section 2.8 Proposed Operations and Maintenance, while the Core Collection System, Export Pipeline System, and Extended Collection System pipelines are designed to maintain their integrity during operations, it is always possible that a segment of pipeline could break, for example during excavations near a pipeline by others. Procedures to address a pipeline break are discussed in Section 2.8. During any excavations or other work on the pipeline by Town Public Works, the same procedures and standards would apply. Operation and maintenance activities would be performed periodically according to the schedule discussed in Section 2.8.

Therefore, operation and maintenance of the Proposed Project would result in a less than significant impact on archeological resources.

Mitigation. No mitigation required.

3.5.4.3 Impact CUL-3: Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries (Less than Significant Impact)
Construction
No evidence for prehistoric or early historic interments was found in the Proposed Project study area in surface contexts and none of the archaeological sites as described were associated with human remains. However, this does not preclude the existence of buried human remains. Furthermore, human remains are known to occur in the region surrounding the Proposed Project site. California law recognizes the need to protect historic-era and Native American human burials, skeletal remains, and items associated with Native American interments from vandalism and inadvertent destruction.

Although much of the study area has been previously disturbed by previous development, it is possible that previously unknown buried human remains could be unearthed and damaged or destroyed during excavation activities associated with construction of the Export Pipeline System, Core Collection System, and Extended Collection System such as grading and excavation related to the trenching, or microtunneling and HDD related to the trenchless crossings. Damage to or destruction of human remains during Project construction or other Proposed Project-related activities would be considered a significant impact. However, in accordance with the California Health and Safety Code Sections 7050.5 341
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 163
and 7052, PRC Section 5097.98, and CEQA Section 15064.5; if human remains are uncovered during ground-disturbing activities, all such activities near the find will be halted immediately, and the Town’s designated representative will be notified. The Town’s representative will immediately notify the Butte County Coroner and a qualified professional archaeologist. The coroner is required to examine all discoveries of human remains within 48 hours of receiving notice of a discovery on private or State lands (Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5[b]). If the coroner determines that the remains are those of a Native American, he or she must contact the NAHC by phone within 24 hours of making that determination (Health and Safety Code Section 7050[c]). The Town’s responsibilities for acting upon notification of a discovery of Native American human remains are identified in detail in PRC Section 5097.9. The Town or its appointed representative and the professional archaeologist will contact the Most Likely Descendent, as determined by the NAHC, regarding the remains. The Most Likely Descendent, in cooperation with the Town and the landowner, will determine the ultimate disposition of the remains. Since the Proposed Project will comply with the California Health and Safety Code, the PRC, and CEQA, impacts on human remains would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Mitigation. No mitigation required.

Operation and maintenance activities, as described in Section 2.8, would not include ground disturbing activities except if there were a pipe break and a section of pipeline needed to be replaced as noted above. Operation and maintenance activities would occur in previously disturbed areas (mostly within paved roads), resulting in no potential to impact previously undisturbed and unknown cultural resources, including human remains. In the case of a pipe break, the section would be repaired and returned to previous conditions as expeditiously as possible so as to limit impacts to the public and sewer service. Therefore, operation and maintenance of the Proposed Project would result in a less than significant on human remains.

Mitigation. No mitigation required.
342
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 164

3.5.5 Impacts Summary
Table 3.5-2 summarizes the cultural resources impacts of the Proposed Project.

Table 3.5-2. Cultural Resources Impacts Summary
Impact
Level of
Significance
Before Mitigation
Mitigation
Level of
Significance
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Impact CUL-1: Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to section 15064.5

LTS N/A LTS
Impact CUL-2: Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to section 15064.5
SI MM-CUL-1,
MM-CUL-2
S/M
Impact CUL-3: Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries

LTS N/A LTS
Notes: LTS = Less than Significant Impact, NI = No Impact, N/A = Not Applicable, SI = Significant Impact, S/M = Significant Impact but Mitigable to a Less than Significant Level

3.5.6 References
Britannica, The Editors of Encyclopaedia. 2021. “Chico.” Encyclopedia Britannica. October 5. Accessed July 11, 2021. https://www.britannica.com/place/Chico-California.

C’ammuden, Noponi. 2020. Konkow Valley Band of Maidu: The Konkau People of the North Fork and West Branch of the Feather River. DBA Konkau Association Corporation. Kindle edition.

California State Parks. 2021. “Bidwell Mansion State Historic Park.” Accessed July 11, 2021. https://bidwellmansionpark.com/.

Chico Chamber of Commerce. 2018. “About Chico: History of Chico, California.” Accessed July 7, 2021. https://www.chicochamber.com/about-chico.html.

City of Chico. 2017. Chico 2030 General Plan. Adopted April 2011. Amended March 2017. https://chico.ca.us/post/chico-2030-general-plan.

Cook, Sherburne F. 1955. “The Epidemic of 1830-1833 in California and Oregon.” University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 43(3):303-326.

Cook, Sherburne F. 1976. The Conflict Between the California Indian and White Civilization. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Cultural Programs Office of Mooretown Rancheria. 2021. “Tribal History.” Accessed July 11, 2021. www.featherfallscasino.com/tribe.
343
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 165
Dixon, Roland B. 1905. The Huntington California Expedition: The Northern Maidu. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History. Vol. 17, Part 3, pp. 119-346.

Kowta, Makoto. 1988. The Archaeology and Prehistory of Plumas and Butte Counties, California: An Introduction and Interpretive Model. California Archaeological Site Inventory, Northeast Information Center, California State University, Chico, California.

Mansfield, George C. 1918. History of Butte County, California. Los Angeles: Historic Record Company.

McDonald, Lois H. n.d. Excerpt from This Paradise We Call Home. Accessed July 11, 2021. https://www.townofparadise.com/community.

Mechoopda Indian Tribe Chico Rancheria. 2021. “Past, Present, Future.” Accessed July 7, 2021. https://mechoopda-nsn.gov/home/.

Selverston, Mark D. 2006. “Historical Maidu of the Feather River.” In Proceedings of the Society for California Archaeology, edited by Sharon A. Waechter, Don Laylander, and Gregory G. White, Vol. 19, 77–82.

Wells, Harry L., and W.L. Chambers. 1882. History of Butte County, From its Earliest Settlement to Present Time. Vol. 2 of History of Butte County, California. San Francisco: Harry L. Wells. 344
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 166

3.6 Energy
This section describes the environmental setting and regulatory framework for energy resources, and it identifies direct and indirect impacts of the Proposed Project during construction, operation, and maintenance. In particular, the energy analysis focuses on the increased demand for electricity and transportation fuel as a result of the Proposed Project’s construction, operation, and maintenance.

None of the Project components are anticipated to consume natural gas, and therefore, a discussion of natural gas is not included in this section. The study area for energy impacts is Butte County.

3.6.1 Environmental Setting
Given the nature of the proposed project, the following discussion focuses on the two sources of energy that are most relevant to the project – electricity for the proposed Project operations and transportation fuel for vehicle trips associated with the Project construction.

3.6.1.1 Statewide Energy Use
In 2019, total energy usage in California was approximately 7,814 trillion British Thermal Units (BTUs) (US Energy Information Administration 2021a). Transportation accounted for 39.3 percent of California’s total energy usage, industrial for 23.2 percent, commercial for 18.9 percent, and residential for 18.7 percent (US Energy Information Administration 2021b).

Total electricity generated in California is the sum of all utility scale, in-state generation, and net electricity imports. In 2020, total electricity generation for California was 272,576 gigawatt hours (GWh), down 2 percent, or 5,356 GWh, from 2019 (California Energy Commission [CEC] 2021a). California’s non-carbon dioxide emitting electric generation categories (nuclear, large hydroelectric, and renewables) accounted for 51 percent of its in-state generation, compared to 57 percent in 2019 (CEC 2021a). The change is directly attributable to the significantly reduced hydroelectric generation, some 44 percent lower than 2019 generation levels, as drought conditions returned to the state. In 2020, net imports of electricity increased by about 6 percent (4,435 GWh) to 81,663 GWh, partially offsetting the decreased output from California’s hydroelectric power plants (CEC 2021a).

The transportation sector is responsible for the largest percentage of the energy consumed in the state.

In 2020, Californians consumed approximately 12.5 billion gallons of gasoline and 2.9 billion gallons of diesel fuel (California Department of Tax and Fee Administration 2021a, 2021b). In 2020, gasoline consumption was down 18.8 percent (2.9 billion gallons) from 2019 due to the COVID-19 pandemic (California Department of Tax and Fee Administration 2021a). Diesel fuel consumption in 2020 was down 3 percent (0.1 billion gallons) from 2019 (California Department of Tax and Fee Administration 2021b).

3.6.1.2 Regional Energy Use
Electricity consumption in Butte County in 2020 totaled approximately 1,385 million kilowatt hours (kWh) (CEC 2021b). Of the total electricity consumed in Butte County, approximately 736 million kWh were consumed by residential uses, while 649 million kWh were consumed by non-residential uses. 345
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 167
According to the BCAG 2020 RTP Travel Demand Model: Model Development Report (BCAG 2020a), the VMT in Butte County in 2020 was 4,343,919. The Emissions Factor Model (EMFAC 2021 Version:
v1.0.1) was used to estimate the transportation fuel consumed in Butte County based on the VMT. In 2020, approximately 0.35 million gallons of gasoline and 0.15 million gallons of diesel were consumed in Butte County (EMFAC 2021).

3.6.2 Regulatory Framework
This section summarizes the federal, state, regional, and local laws, regulations, policies, and plans relevant to evaluation of the Proposed Project’s impacts on energy. Additional information on the relevant regulations, laws, and plans is provided in Appendix C, Regulatory Framework.

3.6.2.1 Federal
Corporate Average Fuel Economy
The Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards were first introduced by Congress in 1975 to help reduce the country’s dependence on foreign oil. The National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration (NHTSA) sets and enforces the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards. NHTSA sets the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards for passenger cars and for light trucks (collectively, light-duty vehicles), and separately sets fuel consumption standards for medium- and heavy-duty trucks and engines. In August 2021, NHTSA released its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking offering new standards for the 2024-2026 model years. The new standards would increase fuel efficiency 8 percent annually for model years 2024-2026 and increase the estimated fleetwide average by 12 miles per gallon for model year 2026, relative to model year 2021. President Biden issued EO 14037 on August 5, 2021, which requires NHTSA to develop fuel economy standards for passenger cars and light duty trucks for model years 2027-2030. In addition, NHTSA will develop medium and heavy-duty fuel efficiency standards beginning as early as model year 2027. At the time of this PEIR preparation, new standards have not been adopted.

The Proposed Project will be held to the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards.

National Energy Policy Act of 2005
The National Energy Policy Act of 2005 set equipment energy efficiency standards. The law seeks to reduce reliance on non-renewable energy resources and provide incentives to reduce current demand on these resources. The Renewable Fuel Standard program was created under the National Energy Policy Act of 2005 and established the first renewable fuel volume mandate in the United States. This Renewable Fuel Standard program under this act, commonly referred to as “RFS1”, required 7.5 billion gallons of renewable fuel to be blended into gasoline by 2012.

The standards set forth by this act are obsolete and would not apply to the Proposed Project.

Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007
The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 is designed to achieve energy security in the United States by increasing renewable fuel production, improving energy efficiency and performance, protecting consumers, improving vehicle fuel economy, and promoting research on GHG capture and storage. The Renewable Fuel Standard program under this act, commonly referred to as “RFS2”, 346
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 168
expanded the original Renewable Fuel Standard program and increased the volume of renewable fuel required to be blended into transportation fuel to 36 billion gallons by 2022.

The Proposed Project will be held to the standards set forth by this act.

3.6.2.2 State
California Energy Commission
The Warren-Alquist Act of 1974 established the CEC, which is California’s primary energy policy and energy planning agency. CEC’s core responsibilities include advancing the state’s energy policy, achieving energy efficiency, investing in energy innovation, developing renewable energy, transforming transportation, overseeing energy infrastructure, and preparing for energy emergencies.

The Proposed Project will be held to the programs administered by the CEC.

Energy Action Plan
The California Public Utilities Commission approved the State’s first Energy Action Plan in 2003 followed by the Energy Action Plan II in 2005. The current plan, Energy Action Plan II, is California’s principal energy planning and policy document. The plan examines the state’s ongoing actions in the context of global climate change, describes a coordinated implementation plan for state energy policies, and identifies specific actions to ensure that California’s energy resources are adequate, reliable, and reasonably-priced.

The Proposed Project will be held to the principles set forth in Energy Action Plan II.

Greenhouse Gas Regulations
In 2006, the Legislature enacted AB 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, which required California to reduce its GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. In 2016, the Legislature enacted SB 32, requiring California to reduce its GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. In November 2017, ARB adopted California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan (2017 Scoping Plan) (ARB 2017) to reflect the 2030 target as codified by SB 32. The 2017 Scoping Plan was prepared to guide the development of statewide policies and regulations for the reduction of GHG emissions.

Many of the policy and regulatory concepts identified in the 2017 Scoping Plan focus on increasing energy efficiencies and the use of renewable resources and reducing the consumption of petroleumbased fuels (such as gasoline and diesel). As such, the state’s GHG emissions reduction planning framework creates co-benefits for energy-related resources.

The Proposed Project will be held to the standards set forth in SB 32 and policies contained in the 2017 Scoping Plan.

Renewable Energy Regulations
SB 1078, signed into law in 2002, established the Renewable Portfolio Standard Program and required retail sellers of electricity, including investor-owned utilities and community choice aggregators, to provide at least 20 percent of their supply from renewable sources by December 31, 2017. In 2006, SB 107 changed the target date to 2010.

In March 2011, the California Legislature enacted SB X1-2, which required utilities to generate 33 percent of their electricity from eligible renewable energy resources by 2020. Specifically, SB X1-2 set a 347
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 169
three-stage compliance period: 20 percent by December 31, 2013, 25 percent by December 31, 2016, and 33 percent by December 31, 2020. In 2015, SB 350 increased the Renewable Portfolio Standard to 50 percent by the year 2030. In 2018, SB 100 was signed into law, which again increased the Renewable Portfolio Standard to 60 percent by 2030. EO B-55-18 issued in 2018 established a new statewide goal to achieve carbon neutrality as soon as possible, and no later than 2045, and achieve and maintain net negative emissions thereafter.

The Proposed Project will be held to the standards in SB 100 and goals in EO B-55-18.

Assembly Bill 1007
AB 1007, which was signed into law in September 2005, required CEC to prepare a statewide plan to increase the use of alternative fuels in California. In accordance with AB 1007, CEC prepared the State Alternative Fuels Plan. The plan presents strategies and actions California must take to increase the use of nonpetroleum fuels in a manner that minimizes the costs to California and maximizes the economic benefits of in-state production.

The Proposed Project will be held to the strategies in AB 1007.

Assembly Bill 1493
AB 1493, enacted in 2002, required ARB to set GHG emission standards for passenger vehicles, lightduty trucks, and other vehicles whose primary use is non-commercial personal transportation in the state. AB 1493 required that ARB set GHG emission standards for motor vehicles manufactured in 2009 and all subsequent model years.

The Proposed Project will be held to the standards in AB 1493.

Advanced Clean Cars
In 2012, ARB approved a new emissions-control program for model years 2017 through 2025. The program combines the control of smog, soot, and global warming gases and requirements for greater numbers of zero-emission vehicles into a single package of standards called Advanced Clean Cars.

The Proposed Project will be held to the principles of this program.

In-Use Off-Road Diesel-Fueled Fleets Regulation
All self-propelled off-road diesel vehicles 25 horsepower or greater used in California (such as bulldozers, loaders, backhoes, forklifts, etc.) and most two-engine vehicles (except on-road two-engine sweepers) are subject to the Regulation for In-Use Off-Road Diesel-Fueled Fleets (Off-Road Diesel Regulation). Adopted by the ARB on July 26, 2007, this regulation aims to reduce NOX and particulate matter from off-road diesel vehicles operating within California by retiring, replacing, or repowering older engines, or installing diesel exhaust retrofits. Vehicles or engines subject to this regulation must limit their idling to five minutes. While the goal of this regulation is primarily to reduce emissions from diesel vehicles, compliance with the regulation also results in energy savings in the form of reduced fuel consumption from unnecessary idling.

The Proposed Project will be held to the standards set forth by this regulation. 348
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 170
Sustainable Communities Strategy
The Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008, or SB 375, requires metropolitan planning organizations to include a Sustainable Communities Strategy in its regional transportation plan. The main focus of the Sustainable Communities Strategy is to plan for growth in a fashion that will ultimately reduce GHG emissions, but the strategy is also a part of a bigger effort to address other development issues within the general vicinity, including transit and VMT, which influence the consumption of petroleum-based fuels.

The Proposed Project will be held to the Sustainable Communities Strategy.

3.6.2.3 Regional and Local
Town of Paradise General Plan
The Town of Paradise General Plan (Town of Paradise and Quad Consultants 2008) includes the following goals and objectives related to energy that are relevant to the Proposed Project:
 Goal OCEG-10: Maximize Paradise’s energy efficiency.
 Goal OCEG-11: Become a regional leader in the approach to energy conservation.  Objective OCEO-14: Significantly reduce town-wide energy consumption.

The Proposed Project will be held to the goals and objectives in the Town of Paradise General Plan.

Butte County General Plan 2030
The Butte County General Plan 2030 (Butte County 2012) includes the following policies related to energy that are relevant to the Proposed Project:
 Policy H-P6.1: Continue to implement state energy efficiency standards.  Policy COS-P3.4: Solar-oriented and renewable design and grid-neutral development will be encouraged.

The Proposed Project will be held to the policies in the Butte County General Plan 2030.

Chico 2030 General Plan
The Chico 2030 General Plan (City of Chico 2017) includes the following policies related to energy that are relevant to the Proposed Project:
 Policy SUS-3.2, Municipal Energy Use: Reduce energy and water use in municipal operations.
 Policy SUS-3.4, Sustainable Fleet: Support sustainable City vehicles and equipment.  Policy SUS-4.1, Green Public Facilities: Incorporate green building techniques in the site design, construction, and renovation of public projects.  Policy SUS-5.2, Energy Efficient Design: Support the inclusion of energy efficient design and renewable energy technologies in public and private projects.

The Proposed Project will be held to the policies in the Chico 2030 General Plan. 349
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 171
Butte County 2021 Climate Action Plan
The Butte County 2021 Climate Action Plan (Placeworks 2021) was adopted on December 14, 2021.

Strategies in the climate action plan not only result in a reduction of GHG emissions countywide, but they increase overall sustainability and quality of life in the county by facilitating increased access to transportation and services, upgrades to infrastructure that build resiliency for the entire community, energy independence and affordability, and supporting broader economic development initiatives.

The Proposed Project will be held to the strategies in this climate action plan.

City of Chico Climate Action Plan Update
The City of Chico Climate Action Plan Update (Rincon Consultants 2021) was adopted on October 19, 2021. Measures in the climate action plan that would result in a reduction of GHG emissions are related to energy efficiency, renewable energy, sustainable transportation, development patterns, solid waste, water, urban trees and greenspace, and community engagement.

The Proposed Project will be held to the strategies in this climate action plan.

3.6.3 Method of Analysis
This section describes the methods used to analyze energy impacts within the study area.

3.6.3.1 CEQA Significance Criteria
For the purposes of this PEIR, the Proposed Project would result in a significant impact on energy if it would:
 Impact ENG-1: Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction, operation, or maintenance
 Impact ENG-2: Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency

3.6.3.2 Approach to Analysis
Impacts on energy were identified qualitatively and quantitatively based on the Proposed Project’s potential to result in an increased demand for energy resources.

The analysis of environmental effects focuses on foreseeable changes to energy resources in the context of effects listed in Section 3.6.3.1, CEQA Significance Criteria. The analysis considers the Core Collection System, Export Pipeline System, and Extended Collection System, as appropriate, in the context of construction, operation, and maintenance.

Construction, Operation, and Maintenance
The following methods were used to evaluate the potential impacts of the Proposed Project on energy resources:
 Analysis of diesel and electricity consumption during construction of the Proposed Project.  Analysis of the operational electricity requirements of the Proposed Project. 350
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 172
 Analysis of the Proposed Project’s consistency with all plans, policies, and regulations listed in Section 3.6.2, Regulatory Framework.

For the purposes of this analysis, information was collected on energy resources using the following sources:
 California Energy Consumption Estimates by Source and by End-Use (US Energy Information Administration 2021a, 2021b)
 CEC’s Statewide Electricity Generation (CEC 2021a)
 CEC’s Electricity Consumption by County (CEC 2021b)
 California’s Gasoline Consumption and Diesel Fuel Consumption (California Department of Tax and Fee Administration 2021a, 2021b)
 Butte County VMT Estimates (BCAG 2020a)
 Butte County Gasoline and Diesel Consumption Estimates (EMFAC 2021)

3.6.4 Impact Analysis
This section includes an analysis of the Proposed Project’s potential to result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources.

3.6.4.1 Impact ENG-1: Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction, operation, or maintenance (Less than Significant Impact) The Proposed Project will result in an increased demand for energy during its construction, operation, and maintenance. Primary sources of energy use will be electricity and transportation fuels.

Construction
During construction, energy consumption in the form of transportation fuel (gasoline and diesel) would result from operation of construction equipment, hauling trucks, and worker commute vehicles. On-road vehicles, including concrete haul trucks, soil truck haul trips, and other truck materials delivery trips are expected to be the primary source of fuel use, followed by fuel demand of construction equipment and then worker vehicles. Additional energy in the form of electricity would be used for lighting and on-site tools and equipment including, but not limited to, saw cutting machines and generators.

Statewide regulations, such as AB 1493 and Advanced Clean Cars Program, are aimed at improving on-road vehicle fuel efficiency, resulting in reduced fuel consumption. Although the In-Use Off-Road Diesel-Fueled Fleets Regulation is aimed at reducing emissions from off-road diesel vehicles, compliance with the regulation also results in energy savings in the form of reduced fuel consumption from unnecessary idling. Refer to Section 3.6.2 for a discussion of statewide legislation aimed at reducing transportation fuel demand. Conformance of vehicles and equipment to these statewide regulations is required and would avoid wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of transportation fuel during construction.

Temporary power for lighting and electrical equipment would be readily available on-site because the Proposed Project area is already served by the Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E). Many construction activities associated with the Proposed Project would occur concurrently, resulting in an 351
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 173
increase in electricity demand in the study area. This increase in electricity consumption would be temporary as it would be limited to the construction duration and small in comparison to the total energy demand in Butte County, which was 1,385 million kWh in 2020 (CEC 2021b). Therefore, construction of the Proposed Project would not result in the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy and impacts would be less than significant.

Operation and Maintenance
The SSA includes approximately 1,500 parcels (out of the total 11,500 total parcels within the Town limits). Each septic tank is pumped out every 3 to 5 years. It is assumed that septic tanks are pumped out on an average of 4 years, or 375 days per year. As discussed in Section 2.4, Existing Wastewater Treatment Facilities, septage from the Town is currently hauled to a septage treatment facility in Lincoln, which is located up to 75 miles (or 150 miles round trip) from the Proposed Project. As a result, septage hauling trucks currently drive a total of 56,250 miles per year (150 miles/day x 375 days/year).

Based on a fuel consumption of 2.53 miles per gallon of gasoline for septage hauling trucks (US Department of Energy 2020), emptying the existing septic systems for 1,500 parcels would consume 22,233 gallons of gasoline per year. Once the Proposed Project is operational, the 1,500 parcels would no longer require septage hauling, which could result in a beneficial reduction of impacts on gasoline fuel consumption in the study area.

Once constructed and in operation, the Proposed Project would use energy for the collection and treatment of wastewater. Refer to Section 2.9, Energy Consumption during Operations, for a detailed discussion of energy demand during operation of the Proposed Project. As discussed in Section 2.9, the pump stations associated with the Core Collection System would consume electricity to move wastewater to higher elevations. Based on an average flow of 0.464 mgd and standard pump efficiency, pump stations to be installed in the Core Collection System would consume approximately 601,000 kWh/year of electrical energy. Refer to Appendix I Pump Station Energy Consumption Calculation for the detailed energy demand calculations. This increase in electricity consumption represents only 0.04 percent (601,000 kWh / 1,385 million kWh) of the total energy demand in Butte County.

As presented in Section 2.9, the Chico WPCP is currently operating at 6.3 mgd (Chico WPCP monitoring data, RWQCB 2021). The Proposed Project would add an additional 0.109 mgd of wastewater to the Chico WPCP influent at the time of initial connection (estimated for 2026) and 0.464 mgd at build-out if the Extended Collection System component were implemented (estimated for 2057).

Chico WPCP operates a 1.1-megawatt, solar photovoltaic facility providing electric power to the WPCP, which reduces the plant’s use of utility power by approximately 35 percent. Further, an on-site 335- kilowatt co-generator uses methane produced by the plant processes as a fuel source to produce electricity, which is in turn used at the WPCP (City of Chico 2021a). Therefore, energy efficiency and sustainability measures have already been built into the design of the Chico WPCP. While the Proposed Project would increase the amount of energy needed to treat wastewater at the existing Chico WPCP, it would be well within current capacity at the time of connection and would not result in an inefficient use of energy.

Therefore, operation and maintenance of the Proposed Project would not result in the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy and impacts would be less than significant. 352
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 174

3.6.4.2 Impact ENG-2: Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency (No Impact)
Construction, Operation, and Maintenance
As discussed under Impact ENG-1, the Proposed Project would result in an increase in energy demand during its construction, operation, and maintenance. A multitude of state regulations and legislative acts are aimed at improving vehicle fuel efficiency, improving energy efficiency, and enhancing energy conservation. These include, but are not limited to, AB 1493, Advanced Clean Cars Program, In-Use Off-Road Diesel-Fueled Fleets Regulation, SB 100, and 2017 Scoping Plan. Refer to Section 3.6.2 for a discussion of statewide legislation aimed at reducing energy demand and/or improving energy efficiency. The Proposed Project will be subject to compliance with these adopted regulations.

Therefore, the Proposed Project would not conflict with a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency, resulting in no impact.

3.6.5 Impacts Summary
Table 3.6-1 summarizes the energy impacts of the Proposed Project.

Table 3.6-1. Energy Impacts Summary
Impact
Level of
Significance
Before Mitigation
Mitigation
Level of
Significance
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Impact ENG-1: Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction, operation, or maintenance

LTS N/A LTS
Impact ENG-2: Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency

NI N/A NI
Notes: LTS = Less than Significant Impact, NI = No Impact, N/A = Not Applicable, SI = Significant Impact, S/M = Significant Impact but Mitigable to a Less than Significant Level

3.6.6 References
ARB. 2017. California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan. The Strategy for Achieving California’s 2030 Greenhouse Gas Target. November 2017. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/ classic//cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf.

BCAG. 2020a. BCAG 2020 RTP Travel Demand Model: Model Development Report. Final. Prepared for Butte County Association of Governments. Prepared by Fehr and Peers. September 2020. http://www.bcag.org/documents/planning/traffic%20model/BCAG_ModelDevelopmentReport_2 020.pdf.

California Department of Tax and Fee Administration. 2021a. “Net Taxable Gasoline Gallons.” Accessed December 9, 2021. https://www.cdtfa.ca.gov/taxes-and-fees/spftrpts.htm. 353
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 175
California Department of Tax and Fee Administration. 2021b. “Taxable Diesel Gallons 10-year Report.” Accessed December 9, 2021. https://www.cdtfa.ca.gov/taxes-and-fees/spftrpts.htm.

California Energy Commission (CEC). 2021a. “2020 Total System Electric Generation.” Accessed December 8, 2021. https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/californiaelectricity-data/2020-total-system-electric-generation.

CEC. 2021b. “Electricity Consumption by County.” Accessed December 8, 2021. https://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbycounty.aspx.

City of Chico. 2017. Chico 2030 General Plan. Adopted April 2011. Amended March 2017. https://chico.ca.us/post/chico-2030-general-plan.

City of Chico. 2021a. “Water Pollution Control Plant.” Accessed November 29, 2021. https://chico.ca.us/post/water-pollution-control-plant.

Emissions Factor Model (EMFAC). 2021. Planning Inventory Report. December 13, 2021.

Placeworks. 2021. Butte County 2021 Climate Action Plan. December 14, 2021. https://www.buttecounty.net/Portals/10/Planning/CAP/Butte-County-Final-CAP.pdf?ver=2021- 12-20-135801-597.

Rincon Consultants. 2021. City of Chico Climate Action Plan Update. October 19, 2021. http://chicocap.rinconconsultants.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/19-08390_Chico-CAPUpdate_Final-Draft-Complete.pdf.

US Department of Energy. 2020. “Average Fuel Economy by Major Vehicle Category.” Update February 2020. Accessed June 2022. https://afdc.energy.gov/data/10310.

US Energy Information Administration. 2021a. “California Energy Consumption Estimates by Source 2019”. Accessed December 9, 2021. https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=CA#tabs-1.

US Energy Information Administration. 2021b. “California Energy Consumption by End-Use Sector 2019.” Accessed December 9, 2021. https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=CA#tabs-2. 354
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 176

3.7 Geology, Soils, and Paleontological Resources
This section describes the environmental setting and regulatory framework for geology, soils, and paleontological resources. This section also identifies direct and indirect impacts of the Proposed Project during construction, operation, and maintenance. In particular, the analysis focuses on geologic hazards, soil erosion, and destruction of paleontological resources in the study area as a result of the Proposed Project’s construction, operation, and maintenance. The study area for geology, soils, and paleontological resources refers to the areas within and directly adjacent to the Town of Paradise and areas of unincorporated Butte County and Chico where the proposed pipeline alignment runs.

3.7.1 Environmental Setting

3.7.1.1 Regional Geology
The Paradise area is located somewhat intermediately between the Cascade Geomorphic Province to the north and the Sierra Nevada Geomorphic Province to the south. The geologic characteristics of both systems are manifested in the terrestrial character of the Paradise region. The Cascade system is primarily composed of Cenozoic (or geologically newer) volcanic rocks, including Pliocene intrusions.

The geologically older Sierra Nevada system is characterized by massive intrusions of Mesozoic granite into various layers of overlying rocks of varied origin. The majority of the Paradise area is underlain by Pliocene volcanic rocks with those of the Tuscan Formation dominating the northern, southern, and southeastern areas (Town of Paradise and Quad Consultants 2008).

The Chico area is located within the Great Valley Geomorphic Province, which extends 400 miles north to south and 60 miles east to west and is encompassed by the Coast Ranges (metamorphic), the Klamath Ranges (metamorphic), the Cascade Range (volcanic), and the Sierra Nevada Range (granitic and metamorphic). Geophysical evidence suggests that the Great Valley is underlain at depth with granitic rocks of the Sierra Nevada Province. The majority of rocks and deposits found within the Great Valley Geomorphic Province are sedimentary (City of Chico 2010) and includes those of the Modesto Formation, which is located generally along the eastern margin of the Great Valley and dates to the late Pleistocene, that is,126,000–11,700 years ago (Saucedo and Wagner 1992).

3.7.1.2 Regional Topography
The Paradise area is located on the western flanks of the Cascade-Sierra Nevada mountain system.

The general elevation of the Paradise area ranges between 1,200 feet above sea level in the southern portion to 2,200 feet above sea level in the northeast. The Paradise area is gently sloping towards the southwest with average slopes of approximately 4 percent. Steeper slopes occur to the west, adjacent to Butte Creek Canyon; to the east, along the margin of the canyon of the West Branch of the Feather River; and in localized stream incisements such as Berry Canyon and Clear Creek to the south. Nearly 88 percent of Paradise sits on slopes of less than 30 percent (Town of Paradise and Quad Consultants 2008).

The topography of the Chico area varies from relatively gentle sloped terrain in the western portion to increasingly hilly terrain at the eastern edge of Chico and into the surrounding unincorporated portions of the Chico area. Average elevation throughout Chico is approximately 230 feet above mean sea level (City of Chico 2010).
355
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 177

3.7.1.3 Seismicity
California is a seismically active region; seismic activity is concentrated in tectonically active regions, such as the Pacific Coast, the Sierra Nevada Range, and the Cascade Range. The active tectonism in these regions is due to movements of the earth’s tectonic plates. The strength of an earthquake is generally expressed in two ways: magnitude and intensity. Magnitude is commonly measured on the Richter scale, while intensity is measured on the Modified Mercalli Intensity scale. The Richter scale magnitude is a measure of the energy released at the focus of the earthquake. The Modified Mercalli scale measures the intensity on a scale of I to XII of ground shaking as determined from observations of an earthquake’s effect on people, structures, and the earth’s surface.

Butte County is considered to be within an area that is predicted to have a 10 percent probability that a seismic event would produce horizontal ground shaking of 10 to 20 percent within a 50-year period (Butte County 2010). This level of ground shaking correlates to a Modified Mercalli intensity of V to VII, that is, light to strong. As a result, the California Geological Survey has defined the entire Butte County as a seismic hazard zone (Butte County 2010).

3.7.1.4 Site Geology
Based on a review of DOC’s Geologic Map of California, the study area is underlain by the following geologic units: Tertiary pyroclastic and volcanic mudflow deposits, and Quaternary alluvium and marine deposits (DOC 2015b). The Quaternary alluvium and marine deposits are described as alluvium, lake, playa, and terrace deposits that are unconsolidated and semi-consolidated (DOC 2015b). The volcanic rocks are of Tertiary age, while the marine and non-marine (continental) sedimentary rocks are of Pleistocene-Holocene age (DOC 2015b).

3.7.1.5 Geologic Hazards
Faults and Fault Rupture
The California Geological Survey has established the following fault classifications based on the age of last displacement:
 Faults that have shown movement within the last 200 years are historic faults.  Faults that have shown movement in the past 11,000 years are Holocene faults.  Faults that have shown movement within the last 700,000 years are Late Quaternary faults.  Faults that have shown movement within the last 1.6 million years are Quaternary faults.  Faults that lack recognized evidence of Quaternary displacement or show evidence of no displacement during the Quaternary time are Pre-Quaternary faults.

The classification of “active” is applied to historic and Holocene age faults; “potentially active” is applied to Quaternary and Late Quaternary age faults; and “inactive” is applied to Pre-Quaternary age faults.

These classifications were developed by the California Geological Survey and were adopted by the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act of 1972 to help delineate Special Studies Zones where detailed geologic investigations are required prior to development to reduce the threat to public health and safety and to minimize the loss of life and property posed by earthquake induced ground failure. 356
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 178
The only fault in Butte County considered active and subject to the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act is the Cleveland Hills fault, which runs in a nearly north-south orientation directly south of Lake Oroville (Butte County 2010). This fault last ruptured in 1975 causing an earthquake that measured 5.7 on the Richter scale and had an estimated Mercalli Scale rating of up to VII, which indicates that it was felt by all and damage was minor to moderate (Butte County 2010).

The study area is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (DOC 2019a). No known active faults traverse the study area.

Ground Shaking
Ground shaking is a general term referring to the motion of the earth’s surface resulting from an earthquake. Ground shaking is normally the major cause of damage in seismic events. The extent of ground shaking is controlled by the magnitude and intensity of an earthquake, distance from the epicenter, and local geologic conditions.

The closest mapped active fault is the Cleveland Hills fault, which is located approximately 22 miles to the east of the study area. A review of the Earthquake Shaking Potential for California map (Branum et al. 2016) indicates that the potential for ground shaking during earthquakes within the study area is low.

Liquefaction
Liquefaction is a process in which uniform, clean, loose, fine sandy, and silty sediments below the water table temporarily lose strength during an earthquake and behave as a viscous liquid rather than a solid. Liquefaction can cause the soil beneath a structure to lose strength, which may result in the loss of foundation-bearing capacity. This loss of strength commonly causes the structure to settle or tip.

Loss of bearing strength can also cause light buildings with basements, buried tanks, and foundation piles to rise buoyantly through the liquefied soil.

According to Figure 4-106 in the Butte County Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update (Butte County 2019b), liquefaction potential in the study area is as follows: generally low with Paradise, generally low and generally moderate within unincorporated Butte County, and generally moderate within Chico.

Landslides
Landslides refer to a wide variety of processes that result in the perceptible downward and outward movement of soil, rock, and vegetation under gravitational influence. Landslides may be triggered by both natural and human-induced changes in the environment that result in slope instability. The susceptibility of an area to landslides depends on many variables including steepness of slope, type of slope material, structure and physical properties of materials, water content, amount of vegetation, and proximity to areas undergoing rapid erosion or changes caused by human activities such as mining, construction, and changes to surface drainage areas.

According to Figure 4.6-2 in the Butte County General Plan 2030 EIR (Butte County 2010), landslide potential in the study area is as follows: low to moderate and moderate within Paradise, moderate and low to none within unincorporated Butte County, and low to none within Chico. 357
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 179
Expansive Soils
Expansive soils shrink and swell with changes in moisture content as the clay minerals in these soils expand and contract. Expansive soils contain clay minerals that greatly increase in volume when they absorb water and shrink when they dry. When structures are located on expansive soils, foundations have the tendency to rise during the wet season and shrink during the dry season. This movement can create new stresses on various sections of the foundation and connected utilities and can lead to structural failure and damage to infrastructure. Cracked foundations, floors, and basement walls are typical types of damage done by swelling soils. Damage to the upper floors of the building can occur when motion in the structure is significant.

According to Figure 4.6-3 in the Butte County General Plan 2030 EIR (Butte County 2010), expansive potential in the study area is as follows: low within Paradise, low and moderate within unincorporated Butte County, and moderate within Chico.

Subsidence
Land subsidence is a gradual settling or sudden sinking of the Earth's surface owing to subsurface movement of earth materials often caused by groundwater or oil extraction. The potential effects of land subsidence include differential changes in elevation and gradients of stream channels, drain and water transport structures, failure of water well casings due to compressive stresses generated by compaction of aquifer system, and compressional strain in engineering structures and houses (Peterson 2021).

To date, no land subsidence has been recorded in Butte County (Peterson 2021). Land subsidence monitoring occurs on a continuous basis within Butte County, as required by Chapter 33A, Basin Management Objectives, of the Butte County Code of Ordinances (Peterson 2021).

3.7.1.6 Paleontological Resources
Paleontological resources are considered to be significant if they are scientifically judged to provide important data concerning key research interests in the study of taxonomy, evolution, biostratigraphy, paleoecology, or taphonomy. Although a paleontological records search with the University of California, Museum of Paleontology was not conducted for the Proposed Project, sufficient data are available to assess the potential for paleontological resources.

Best current professional practices to characterize paleontological sensitivity are guided by the Bureau of Land Management’s Potential Fossil Yield Classification System, which has a multi-level scale based on demonstrated yield of fossils (Bureau of Land Management 2016). Vertebrate fossils are known to occur intermittently but with low predictability in the Modesto Formation, resulting in a Potential Fossil Yield Classification ranking of Class 3 or moderate. The mitigated negative declaration/environmental assessment prepared by Caltrans for the State Route 70 Corridor Improvements Project noted 137 previously recorded Modesto Formation fossils, including 22 vertebrate fossils, in Butte County (Caltrans 2018).

The reduced sensitivity within the Quaternary alluvial deposits on the floor of the Great Valley (Class 2 – low) and the Pliocene volcanic rocks along Skyway and underlying Paradise (Class 1 – very low) generally do not precipitate additional management measures. Late quaternary sediments are typically too young for fossilization and volcanic flows generally incinerate organic matter, precluding 358
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 180
preservation of paleontological resources. However, it is important to note that the descriptions for the class assignments serve as guidelines rather than as strict definitions and, further, the system applies to the entirety of the geologic formation. The classification is not intended to be applied to specific paleontological localities or small areas within units.

3.7.2 Regulatory Framework
This section summarizes the federal, state, regional, and local laws, regulations, policies, and plans relevant to evaluation of the Proposed Project’s impacts on geology, soils, and paleontological resources. Additional information on the relevant regulations, laws, and plans is provided in Appendix C, Regulatory Framework.

3.7.2.1 Federal
Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act
In October 1977, the United States Congress passed the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act to reduce the risks to life and property from future earthquakes in the United States. The Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act established the National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program. The purpose of this program is to reduce the risks to life and property in the United States from earthquakes through the establishment and maintenance of an effective national earthquake risk reduction program. Member agencies in the National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program are the USGS, the National Science Foundation, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and the National Institute of Standards and Technology.

The Proposed Project will be held to the standards and programs set forth by this act.

Paleontological Resources Preservation Act
The Paleontological Resources Preservation Act was passed on March 30, 2009. The Paleontological Resources Preservation Act is intended to preserve, manage, and protect paleontological resources on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management, the Bureau of Reclamation, the National Parks Service, and the USFWS.

The Proposed Project will be held to the standards set forth by the Paleontological Resources Preservation Act.

3.7.2.2 State
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act
The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (PRC Sections 2621 to 2630) was enacted in 1972 to reduce the hazard of surface faulting to structures designed for human occupancy. The act requires the State Geologist to establish regulatory zones known as Earthquake Fault Zones around the surface traces of active faults and issue appropriate maps, which are distributed to all affected cities, counties, and state agencies for their use in planning efforts. Before a project can be permitted in a designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, the permitting agency must require a geologic investigation to demonstrate that buildings intended for human habitation would not be constructed on active faults.

The Proposed Project will be held to the standards set forth by this act. 359
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 181
Seismic Hazards Mapping Act
The Seismic Hazards Mapping Act of 1990 (PRC Sections 2690 to 2699.6) directs the DOC to identify and map areas prone to earthquake liquefaction hazards, earthquake-induced landslides, and amplified ground shaking. The act requires the State Geologist to establish regulatory zones (Zones of Required Investigation) and to issue appropriate maps (Seismic Hazard Zone maps). These maps are distributed to all affected cities, counties, and state agencies for their use in planning and controlling construction and development.

The Proposed Project will be held to the standards set forth by this act.

General Permit for Construction Activities
The State of California adopted the Construction General Permit (CGP), Order No. 2012 0006 DWQ, amending Order No. 2009 0009 DWQ, effective July 17, 2012. The CGP regulates construction site stormwater management. Dischargers whose projects disturb 1 or more acres of soil, or whose projects disturb less than 1 acre but are part of a larger common plan of development that in total disturbs 1 or more acres, are required to obtain coverage under the general permit for discharges of stormwater associated with construction activity.

Permit applicants are required to submit a Notice of Intent to the SWRCB and to prepare a SWPPP.

The SWPPP identifies best management practices (BMPs) that must be implemented to reduce construction effects on receiving water quality based on pollutants. The BMPs identified are directed at implementing both sediment and erosion control measures and other measures to control chemical contaminants.

The Proposed Project will be held to the requirements of the CGP.

Paleontological Resources
CEQA includes in its definition of historical resources “…any object [or] site …that has yielded or may be likely to yield information important in prehistory…” (14 California Code of Regulations [CCR] Section 15064.5[a][3]), which is typically interpreted as including fossils and other paleontological resources. More specifically, destruction of a “…unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature…” constitutes a significant impact under CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Appendix G. Treatment of paleontological resources under CEQA is generally similar to treatment of cultural resources, requiring evaluation of resources in the project; assessment of potential impacts on significant or unique resources; and development of mitigation measures for potentially significant impacts, which may include monitoring, data recovery excavation, and/or avoidance.

The Proposed Project will be held to the definitions in the CEQA Guidelines.

Public Resources Code Section 5097.5
PRC Section 5097.5 states that no person will knowingly and willfully excavate upon, or remove, destroy, injure, or deface any historic or prehistoric ruins, burial grounds, archaeological or vertebrate paleontological site, including fossilized footprints, inscriptions made by human agency, or any other archaeological, paleontological, or historical feature, situated on public lands, except with the express permission of the public agency having jurisdiction over such lands.

The Proposed Project will be held to the regulations in PRC Section 5097.5. 360
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 182
Society of Vertebrate Paleontology
The Society of Vertebrate Paleontology has guidance for assessing and mitigating paleontological resources that could potentially be impacted from land development. This guidance is included in the Standard Procedures for the Assessment and Mitigation of Adverse Impacts to Paleontological Resources (Society of Vertebrate Paleontology 2010). As part of the assessment process for paleontological resources, the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology’s guidance groups rock units into a high, undetermined, low, or no potential category for containing significant paleontological resources.

These categories then determine the level of mitigation required, or further assessment prior to construction, for adequate protection or salvage of paleontological resources within a project area.

The Proposed Project will be held to the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology’s guidance.

3.7.2.3 Regional and Local
Town of Paradise General Plan
The Town of Paradise General Plan (Town of Paradise and Quad Consultants 2008) includes the following policies related to geology, soils, and paleontological resources that are relevant to the Proposed Project:
 Policy SP-15: Development projects should be designed to minimize soil erosion and will be required to comply with all Town of Paradise-adopted soil erosion standards maintained by the Paradise Community Development Department.
 Policy SP-16: The Town should require all development proposals on sites that contain slopes exceeding 20 percent, and/or which border or include significant and sensitive stream courses or natural drainageways, to include programs for replanting and slope stabilization, erosion control plans, and to incorporate designs which minimize grading and cut-and-fill.  Policy SP-17: Building on slopes in excess of 30 percent should not be permitted.

The Proposed Project will be held to the policies in the Town of Paradise General Plan.

Butte County General Plan 2030
The Butte County General Plan 2030 (Butte County 2012) includes the following policies related to geology, soils, and paleontological resources that are relevant to the Proposed Project:
 Policy HS-P6.1: Appropriate detailed seismic investigations will be completed for all public and private development projects in accordance with the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act.  Policy HS-P7.1: Site-specific geotechnical investigations will be required to assess landslide potential for private development and public facilities projects in areas rated “Moderate to High” and “High” in Figure HS-4 or the most current available mapping  Policy HS-P8.1: Site-specific geotechnical investigations will be required to assess erosion potential for private development projects and public facilities in areas rated “Very High” in Figure HS-7 or the most current available mapping.
 Policy HS-P9.1: Site-specific geotechnical investigations will be required to assess risks from expansive soils for private development projects and public facilities in areas rated “High” in Figure HS-8 or the most current available mapping.
361
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 183
 Policy COS-P14.2: As part of CEQA and NEPA projects, evaluations of surface and subsurface cultural resources in the County will be conducted. Such evaluations should involve consultation with the Northeast Information Center.
 Policy COS-P15.2: Any archaeological or paleontological resources on a development project site will be either preserved in their sites or adequately documented as a condition of removal.

When a development project has sufficient flexibility, avoidance and preservation of the resource will be the primary mitigation measure.

The Proposed Project will be held to the policies in the Butte County General Plan 2030.

Chico 2030 General Plan
The Chico 2030 General Plan (City of Chico 2017) includes the following policy related to geology, soils, and paleontological resources that is relevant to the Proposed Project:
 Policy S-3.1, Potential Structural Damage: Prevent damage to new structures caused by seismic, geologic, or soil conditions.

The Proposed Project will be held to the policies in the Chico 2030 General Plan.

Grading Ordinances
Chapter 15.02 – 2019 California Building Standards Code of the Town’s municipal code requires that a grading permit be obtained from the Town Engineer before any grading, clearing, or grubbing activities (Town of Paradise 2022c). Application for a grading permit requires submittal of a grading plan. The grading plan, and accompanying site map, will show the following: existing and proposed contours, proposed limits of cuts and fills and other earthwork, existing off-site structures and other off-site improvements, public and private easements of record, typical sections of areas to be graded, all proposed uses for the site, and any other special features.

Chapter 13 – Grading and Mining of Butte County’s municipal code states that the application for a grading permit will include the following: location map, plot plan, description of the work to be done and materials to be used, location of all drainage to and from the site, location of culverts and natural watercourses, details of proposed drainage structures, description of the methods to be used for erosion and sediment control, and locations of anticipated stockpile areas (Butte County 2021c).

Chapter 16.28 Grading Regulations – Permits of Chico’s municipal code states that application for a grading permit requires submittal of a grading plan (City of Chico 2021b). The grading plan will include detailed plans, dimensions, and grading specifications. If required by the building official, a soils engineering report and/or engineering geology report must be prepared, and any recommendations included in these reports will be a part of the grading plan submittal.

The Proposed Project will be held to these grading permit requirements.

3.7.3 Method of Analysis
This section describes the methods used to analyze geology, soils, and paleontological resources impacts within the study area.
362
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 184

3.7.3.1 CEQA Significance Criteria
For the purposes of this PEIR, the Proposed Project would result in a significant impact on geology, soils, and paleontological resources if it would:
 Impact GEO-1: Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:

1. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault;

2. Strong seismic ground shaking;

3. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction; and/or

4. Landslides.
 Impact GEO-2: Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil  Impact GEO-3: Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the Project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse
 Impact GEO-4: Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risk to life or property  Impact GEO-5: Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater
 Impact GEO-6: Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature

3.7.3.2 Approach to Analysis
Impacts were identified qualitatively based on the Proposed Project’s potential to result in geologic, seismic, and soil-related hazards.

The adverse effects on geology, soils, and paleontological resources are evaluated in the context of criteria listed in Section 3.7.3.1, CEQA Significance Criteria. The analysis considers the Core Collection System, Export Pipeline System, and Extended Collection System, as appropriate, in the context of construction, operation, and maintenance.

Construction, Operation, and Maintenance
Geology and Soils
The methods used for analyzing impacts on geology and soils included review of information from published maps, and Town, City and County publications and reports pertaining to geology and soils in the study area. The primary data sources for impact analysis include the following:
 Town of Paradise General Plan (Town of Paradise and Quad Consultants 2008)  Chico 2030 General Plan Update EIR (City of Chico 2010)  Butte County General Plan 2030 EIR (Butte County 2010) 363
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 185
 DOC’s geologic maps, seismic hazard zone maps, ground shaking potential map, and other publications (DOC 2015b, 2019; Branum et al. 2016)
 Butte County Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update (Butte County 2019b) Paleontological Resources
The methods used for analyzing impacts on paleontological resources included a review of information from published geologic maps, scientific literature, and reports pertaining to paleontological resources in the study area. The primary data sources for impact analysis include the following:
 Geologic Map of the Chico Quadrangle (Saucedo and Wagner 1992)  Potential Fossil Yield Classification (PFYC) System for Paleontological Resources on Public Lands (Bureau of Land Management 2016)
 Standard Procedures for the Assessment and Mitigation of Adverse Impacts to Paleontological Resources (Society of Vertebrate Paleontology 2010)
Paleontological resources are considered to be significant and/or unique if one or more of the following criteria apply:
 The fossil is a type of specimen or member of a rare species.  The fossil is complete, or it includes an element different from, or more complete than, those already known for its species.
 The fossils provide information on the evolutionary relationships and developmental trends among organisms, living or extinct.
 The fossils provide data useful in determining the age(s) of the rock unit or sedimentary stratum, including data important in determining the depositional history of the region and the timing of geologic events therein.
 The fossils provide data regarding the development of biological communities or interaction between paleo-botanical and paleo-zoological biotas.
 The fossils demonstrate unusual or spectacular circumstances in the history of life.  The fossils are unusually, uniquely, or exceptionally well preserved.  The fossils are in short supply and/or in danger of being depleted or destroyed by the elements, vandalism, or commercial exploitation, and are not found in other geographic locations.

Significant fossils can include remains of large to very small aquatic and terrestrial vertebrates or remains of plants and animals previously not represented in certain portions of the stratigraphy.

Assemblages of fossils that might aid stratigraphic correlation, particularly those offering data for the interpretation of tectonic events, geomorphologic evolution, and paleoclimatology are also critically important.

3.7.4 Impact Analysis
This section describes the potential environmental impacts resulting from implementation of the Proposed Project. It includes an analysis of the Proposed Project’s potential to result in public safety and health risks from seismic and geologic hazards; result in substantial soil erosion; impacts related to soils incapable of supporting septic tanks; and destroy a unique paleontological resource. The geology, soils, and paleontological resources impact analysis focuses on impacts from construction, operation, 364
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 186
and maintenance of the Core Collection System, the Export Pipeline System, and the Extended Collection System.

3.7.4.1 Impact GEO-1: Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
(a) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault (No Impact) Construction, Operation, and Maintenance
The Cleveland Hills fault, which is located approximately 22 miles to the east of the study area, is the only fault in Butte County considered active and subject to the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act. The study area is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (DOC 2019a). No known active faults traverse the study area. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in substantial adverse effects involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, resulting in no impact.

Mitigation. No mitigation required.
(b) Strong seismic ground shaking (Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)
Ground shaking is a general term referring to the motion of the earth’s surface resulting from an earthquake. The closest mapped active fault is the Cleveland Hills fault, which is located approximately 22 miles to the east of the study area. A review of the Earthquake Shaking Potential for California map (Branum et al. 2016) indicates that the potential for ground shaking during earthquakes within the study area is low.

Construction
Ground disturbing activities during construction of the Core Collection System, Extended Collection System, and Export Pipeline System would include the use of vibration-generating equipment such as vibratory plate compactors, which may exacerbate ground shaking in the study area. Summaries of equipment, crews, and materials used in the modeling are included in Sections 2.5.1.3 and 2.5.2.4, for the Core Collection System and Export Pipeline System, respectively; it is assumed that equipment, crews, and materials for the Expanded Collection System would be similar in nature to the Core Collection System.

Therefore, construction of the Proposed Project may exacerbate ground shaking in the study area. This is considered a potentially significant impact.

Mitigation. To minimize potentially significant impacts involving ground shaking during construction of the Proposed Project to a less than significant level, mitigation measure MM-GEO-1 will be implemented.

MM-GEO-1: Minimize Geologic Hazards. Prior to construction, the Town will obtain the services of a qualified, licensed geotechnical engineer to prepare a design-level geotechnical report with specific recommendations to address geologic hazards, seismic safety, and soil conditions during construction. 365
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 187
The Town will review the geotechnical report with the geotechnical engineer to develop viable measures that will avoid or minimize risks associated with ground shaking, liquefaction, landslides, unstable soils, and expansive soils during construction. The Town will incorporate these measures into all contractor construction documentation as special conditions, which will be enforceable as contract provisions.

Significance after Mitigation. With the implementation of MM-GEO-1, impacts involving ground shaking during construction of the Proposed Project would be less than significant.

Operation and maintenance activities would mostly occur in previously disturbed areas (within paved roads), resulting in no potential to exacerbate ground shaking. In the case of a pipe break, the section would be repaired and returned to previous conditions as expeditiously as possible so as to limit impacts to the public and sewer service. Therefore, operation and maintenance of the Proposed Project would not result in substantial adverse effects involving ground shaking, resulting in a less than significant impact.

Mitigation. No mitigation required.
(c) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction (Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)
Liquefaction is a process in which uniform, clean, loose, fine sandy, and silty sediments below the water table temporarily lose strength during an earthquake and behave as a viscous liquid rather than a solid. According to Figure 4-106 in the Butte County Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update (Butte County 2019b), liquefaction potential in the study area is as follows: generally low with Paradise, generally low and generally moderate within unincorporated Butte County, and generally moderate within Chico.

Construction
Ground disturbing activities during construction of the Core Collection System and Export Pipeline System would include the use of vibration-generating equipment such as vibratory plate compactors, which may exacerbate liquefaction in the study area. Similar to the Core Collection System, the use of vibration-generating equipment for ground disturbing activities during construction of the Extended Collection System may exacerbate liquefaction in the study area.

Therefore, construction of the Proposed Project may exacerbate liquefaction in the study area. This is considered a potentially significant impact.
366
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 188
Mitigation. To minimize potentially significant impacts involving liquefaction during construction of the Proposed Project to a less than significant level, mitigation measure MM-GEO-1 will be implemented.

MM-GEO-1: Minimize Geologic Hazards (see Impact GEO-1(b) for description) Significance after Mitigation. With the implementation of MM-GEO-1, impacts involving liquefaction during construction of the Proposed Project would be less than significant.

Operation and maintenance activities would occur in previously disturbed areas (mostly within paved roads), resulting in no potential to exacerbate liquefaction. In the case of a pipe break, the section would be repaired and returned to previous conditions as expeditiously as possible so as to limit impacts to the public and sewer service. Therefore, operation and maintenance of the Proposed Project would not result in substantial adverse effects involving liquefaction, resulting in a less than significant impact.

Mitigation. No mitigation required.
(d) Landslides (Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated) Landslides refer to a wide variety of processes that result in the perceptible downward and outward movement of soil, rock, and vegetation under gravitational influence. According to Figure 4.6-2 in the Butte County General Plan 2030 EIR (Butte County 2010), landslide potential in the study area is as follows: low to moderate and moderate within Paradise, moderate and low to none within unincorporated Butte County, and low to none within Chico.

Construction
Ground disturbing activities during construction of the Core Collection System and Export Pipeline System would include the use of vibration-generating equipment such as vibratory plate compactors, which may exacerbate landslides in the study area. Similar to the Core Collection System, the use of vibration-generating equipment for ground disturbing activities during construction of the Extended Collection System may exacerbate landslides in the study area.

Therefore, construction of the Proposed Project may exacerbate landslides in the study area. This is considered a potentially significant impact.

Mitigation. To minimize potentially significant impacts involving landslides during construction of the Proposed Project to a less than significant level, mitigation measure MM-GEO-1 will be implemented. 367
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 189
MM-GEO-1: Minimize Geologic Hazards (see Impact GEO-1(b) for description) Significance after Mitigation. With the implementation of MM-GEO-1, impacts involving landslides during construction of the Proposed Project would be less than significant.

Operation and maintenance activities would mostly occur in previously disturbed areas (within paved roads), resulting in no potential to exacerbate landslides. In the case of a pipe break, the section would be repaired and returned to previous conditions as expeditiously as possible so as to limit impacts to the public and sewer service. Therefore, operation and maintenance of the Proposed Project would not result in substantial adverse effects involving landslides, resulting in a less than significant impact.

Mitigation. No mitigation required.

3.7.4.2 Impact GEO-2: Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil (Less than Significant Impact)
Construction
Construction activities often increase the runoff potential of disturbed areas. Construction activities, including ground disturbance, excavation, and paving, associated with the construction of the Core Collection System, the Export Pipeline System, and the Extended Collection System would remove ground cover and expose and disturb soil. Exposed and disturbed soils are vulnerable to wind and water erosion.

Construction activities will conform to the federal, state, and local regulations related to soils described in Section 3.7.2. As part of the Proposed Project, the Town will obtain coverage under the CGP from the SWRCB. The Town will be required to prepare a SWPPP to comply with the SWRCB’s CGP. The SWPPP will identify BMPs to be implemented on-site to minimize soil erosion during construction, including sediment and erosion control measures and other measures to control chemical contaminants. The SWPPP will also contain a visual monitoring program for “nonvisible” pollutants to be implemented if there is a failure of BMPs, and a sediment monitoring plan if the site discharges directly to a waterbody listed on the CWA 303(d) list for sediment.

In addition, the Proposed Project will be required to comply with the grading permit requirements of Paradise, Butte County, and Chico. The grading permit process would ensure that erosion control measures are incorporated into the Project plans and implemented during construction.

Based on these factors, impacts from soil erosion or the loss of topsoil during construction of the Proposed Project would be less than significant.
368
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 190
Mitigation. No mitigation required.

Operation and maintenance activities, as described in Section 2.8, would not include ground disturbing activities that could expose or disturb soil. Therefore, operation and maintenance of the Proposed Project would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil, resulting in no impact.

Mitigation. No mitigation required.

3.7.4.3 Impact GEO-3: Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the Project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse (Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)
Land subsidence results in a slow-to-rapid downward movement of the ground surface as a result of the vertical displacement of the ground surface, usually resulting from groundwater withdrawal. To date, no land subsidence has been recorded in Butte County (Peterson 2021). As previously noted, landslide potential in the study area is as follows: low to moderate and moderate within Paradise, moderate and low to none within unincorporated Butte County, and low to none within Chico (Butte County 2010).

Also previously discussed, liquefaction potential in the study area is as follows: generally low with Paradise, generally low and generally moderate within unincorporated Butte County, and generally moderate within Chico (Butte County 2019b).

Construction
Ground-disturbing activities during construction of the Core Collection System and Export Pipeline System would include the use of vibration-generating equipment such as vibratory plate compactors, which may exacerbate on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse in the study area. Similar to the Core Collection System, the use of vibration-generating equipment for ground disturbing activities during construction of the Extended Collection System may exacerbate onor off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse in the study area.

Therefore, construction of the Proposed Project may exacerbate on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse in the study area. This is considered a potentially significant impact.

Mitigation. To minimize potentially significant impacts associated with on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse during construction of the Proposed Project to a less than significant level, mitigation measure MM-GEO-1 will be implemented. 369
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 191
MM-GEO-1: Minimize Geologic Hazards (see Impact GEO-1(b) for description) Significance after Mitigation. With the implementation of MM-GEO-1, impacts associated with on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse during construction of the Proposed Project would be less than significant.

Operation and Maintenance
Operation and maintenance activities, as described in Section 2.8, would not include ground disturbing activities except if there were a pipe break and a section of pipeline needed to be replaced. Operation and maintenance activities would mostly occur in previously disturbed areas (within paved roads), resulting in no potential to exacerbate on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse. In the case of a pipe break, the section would be repaired and returned to previous conditions as expeditiously as possible so as to limit impacts to the public and sewer service.

Therefore, impacts related to on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse during operation and maintenance of the Proposed Project would be less than significant.

Mitigation. No mitigation required.

3.7.4.4 Impact GEO-4: Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risk to life or property (Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated) Expansive soils shrink and swell with changes in moisture content as the clay minerals in these soils expand and contract. According to Figure 4.6-3 in the Butte County General Plan 2030 EIR (Butte County 2010), expansive potential in the study area is as follows: low within Paradise, low and moderate within unincorporated Butte County, and moderate within Chico.

Construction
Ground disturbing activities during construction of the Core Collection System and Export Pipeline System would include the use of vibration-generating equipment such as vibratory plate compactors, which may exacerbate risks associated with expansive soils in the study area. Similar to the Core Collection System, the use of vibration-generating equipment for ground disturbing activities during construction of the Extended Collection System may exacerbate risks associated with expansive soils in the study area.

Therefore, construction of the Proposed Project may exacerbate risks associated with expansive soils in the study area. This is considered a potentially significant impact.

Mitigation. To minimize potentially significant impacts associated with expansive soils during construction of the Proposed Project to a less than significant level, mitigation measure MM-GEO-1 will be implemented.

MM-GEO-1: Minimize Geologic Hazards (see Impact GEO-1(b) for description) Significance after Mitigation. With the implementation of MM-GEO-1, impacts associated with expansive soils during construction of the Proposed Project would be less than significant. 370
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 192
Operation and Maintenance
Operation and maintenance activities, as described in Section 2.8, would not include ground disturbing activities except if there were a pipe break and a section of pipeline needed to be replaced. Operation and maintenance activities would mostly occur in previously disturbed areas (within paved roads), resulting in no potential to exacerbate risks associated with expansive soils. In the case of a pipe break, the section would be repaired and returned to previous conditions as expeditiously as possible so as to limit impacts to the public and sewer service. Therefore, impacts related to expansive soils during operation and maintenance of the Proposed Project would be less than significant.

Mitigation. No mitigation required.

3.7.4.5 Impact GEO-5: Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater (No Impact)
Construction, Operation, and Maintenance
The Proposed Project includes a Core Collection System that would replace individualized septic systems within the Paradise sewer service area and provide a connection to the Chico WPCP via an Export Pipeline System. The Proposed Project also includes an Extended Collection System, which would allow for additional parcels within the Town limits to apply to connect to the sewer service area on a first-come, first-served basis up to the limits of the sewer system capacity. No portion of the Proposed Project incorporates septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems.

If the Project is approved and implemented, up to 1,500 parcels within the sewer service area would be converted to the sewer system and would no longer use septic tanks. The Proposed Project would serve as a new wastewater management solution to address the economic and environmental concerns of the current failed or failing septic systems. Under existing conditions, the privately owned septic tanks and leach fields with subsurface disposal systems have resulted in the continual exceedance of soil capacities to absorb and treat wastewater. Overall, there would be beneficial impacts on soils by replacing septic systems with a wastewater treatment solution. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not locate septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems on soils incapable of adequate support, resulting in no impact.

Mitigation. No mitigation required.

3.7.4.6 Impact GEO-6: Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature (Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)
As noted above in Section 3.7.1.6, paleontological sensitivity with the Modesto Formation in the study area varies from very low along Skyway and Paradise to moderate in and around the Chico area.

Construction
Excavations associated with the Core and Extended Collection Systems are unlikely to reach a sufficient depth to encroach on the formation. However, due to the depth of ground disturbance associated with microtunneling and/or HDD during construction of the Export Pipeline System, the Proposed Project has the potential to intersect with the geological unit. Although the likelihood of 371
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 193
encountering a paleontological resource during construction is low for most of the study area, ground disturbance during construction activities could disturb unknown paleontological resources and impacts are considered potentially significant.

Mitigation. To minimize potentially significant impacts on paleontological resources during construction of the Proposed Project to a less than significant level, mitigation measure MM-GEO-2 will be implemented.

MM-GEO-2: Inadvertent Discovery Protocol. If paleontological resources are discovered during earth-moving activities, the construction crew will immediately cease work within a 50-foot radius of the find and notify the Town’s Project Manager. Construction work will be halted until the collection of fossil specimens has been completed. The collection and treatment actions will occur after recovery of specimens and once scientific value can be confirmed and documented. If fossils are found, treatment actions will include sampling for microfossils, conducting paleomagnetic analysis, identifying and preparing fossils, arranging for a repository, and preparing a final report.

Significance after Mitigation. With implementation of MM-GEO-2, impacts on paleontological resources during construction of the Proposed Project would be less than significant.

Operation and Maintenance
Operation and maintenance activities, as described in Section 2.8, would not include ground disturbing activities except if there were a pipe break and a section of pipeline needed to be replaced. Operation and maintenance activities would mostly occur in previously disturbed areas (within paved roads), resulting in no potential to impact paleontological resources. In the case of a pipe break, the section would be repaired and returned to previous conditions as expeditiously as possible so as to limit impacts to the public and sewer service. Therefore, impacts on paleontological resources during operation and maintenance of the Proposed Project would be less than significant.

Mitigation. No mitigation required.

3.7.5 Impacts Summary
Table 3.7-1 summarizes the geology, soils, and paleontological resources impacts of the Proposed Project.

Table 3.7-1. Geology, Soils, and Paleontological Resources Impacts Summary Impact
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation
Mitigation
Level of
Significance
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Impact GEO-1(a): Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault

NI N/A NI
Impact GEO-1(b): Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: Strong seismic SI MM-GEO-1 S/M
372
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 194
Impact
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation
Mitigation
Level of
Significance
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
ground shaking
Impact GEO-1(c): Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction
SI MM-GEO-1 S/M
Impact GEO-1(d): Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: Landslides SI MM-GEO-1 S/M
Impact GEO-2: Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil LTS N/A LTS Impact GEO-3: Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the Project, and potentially result in onor off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse SI MM-GEO-1 S/M
Impact GEO-4: Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risk to life or property
SI MM-GEO-1 S/M
Impact GEO-5: Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater

NI N/A NI
Impact GEO-6: Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature
SI MM-GEO-2 S/M
Notes: LTS = Less than Significant Impact, NI = No Impact, N/A = Not Applicable, SI = Significant Impact, S/M = Significant Impact but Mitigable to a Less than Significant Level

3.7.6 References
Branum, D., R. Chen, M. Petersen., and C. Wills. 2016. “Earthquake Shaking Potential for California.” Map Sheet 48. California Geological Survey and US Geological Survey. Revised 2016. https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/Documents/Publications/Map-Sheets/MS_048.pdf.

Bureau of Land Management. 2016. Potential Fossil Yield Classification (PFYC) System for Paleontological Resources on Public Lands. July 8. https://www.blm.gov/policy/im-2016-124.

Butte County. 2010. Butte County General Plan 2030 EIR. April 8, 2010. https://www.buttecounty.net/ dds/Planning/Butte-County-General-Plan.

Butte County. 2019b. Butte County Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update. Prepared by Foster Morrison.

October 2019. http://www.buttecounty.net/oem/mitigationplans.

Butte County. 2021c. Butte County Code. Chapter 13, Grading and Mining. Updated February 25, 2021. Accessed April 15, 2021. https://library.municode.com/ca/butte_county/codes/ code_of_ordinances?nodeId=CH13GRMI.
373
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 195
Caltrans. 2018. State Route 70 Corridor Improvements Project. Initial Study with Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration/Environmental Assessment and Section 4(f) Evaluation. August. http://www.bcag.org/documents/projects/SR%2070%20Corridor/SR70_ISEA_Public_Draft_WEB.pdf.

City of Chico. 2010. Chico 2030 General Plan Update Draft Environmental Impact Report. September 2010. https://chico.ca.us/sites/main/files/file-attachments/chicodeir_combined_ noappendices.pdf?1577755314.

City of Chico. 2017. Chico 2030 General Plan. Adopted April 2011. Amended March 2017. https://chico.ca.us/post/chico-2030-general-plan.

City of Chico. 2021b. Chico Municipal Code. Chapter 16.28 Grading Regulations – Permits. Updated January 5, 2021. Accessed April 15, 2021. https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/chico/latest/ chico_ca/0-0-0-12070.

DOC. 2015b. “Geologic Map of California.” California Geological Survey. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/gmc/.

DOC. 2019a. “Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation.” California Geological Survey. Updated April 4, 2019. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/.

Peterson, Kelly. 2021. Groundwater Status Report: 2020 Water Year. Prepared for Butte County Department of Water and Resource Conservation. February 2021. http://www.buttecounty.net/ wrcdocs/Reports/GWStatusReports/2020/2020GWSR_COVER_FINAL.pdf.

Saucedo, G.J., and D.L. Wagner. 1992. Geologic Map of the Chico Quadrangle. https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/Documents/Publications/Regional-GeologicMaps/RGM_007A/RGM_007a_Chico_1992_Sheet1of5.pdf.

Society of Vertebrate Paleontology. 2010. Standard Procedures for the Assessment and Mitigation of Adverse Impacts to Paleontological Resources. Prepared by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology Impact Mitigation Guidelines Revision Committee. https://vertpaleo.org/wpcontent/uploads/2021/01/SVP_Impact_Mitigation_Guidelines.pdf.

Town of Paradise. 2022c. Municipal Code of Paradise, California. Chapter 15.02 – 2019 California Building Standards Code. Updated May 19, 2022. Accessed June 16, 2022. https://library.municode.com/ca/paradise/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId= TIT15BUCO_CH15.022019CABUSTCOTI24PA2BAUPINBUCOIC.

3.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
This section describes the environmental setting and regulatory framework for GHG emissions, and it identifies direct and indirect impacts of the Proposed Project during construction, operation, and maintenance. In particular, the analysis focuses on emissions of GHGs in the study area during construction, operation, and maintenance of the Proposed Project. GHG emissions effects are not localized to areas where they are produced. Climate change is a global phenomenon resulting from the combined effects of GHG emissions produced worldwide. While the true study area affected by GHG emissions is global, for purposes of this PEIR, the study area is considered as the State of California.

3.8.1 Environmental Setting

3.8.1.1 Climate Change and GHG Emissions
Climate change refers to long-term changes in temperature, precipitation, wind patterns, and other elements of the earth’s climate system. An ever-increasing body of scientific research attributes these climatological changes to GHG emissions, particularly those generated from the production and use of fossil fuels.

While climate change has been a concern for several decades, the establishment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change by the United Nations and the World Meteorological Organization in 1988 has led to increased efforts devoted to GHG emissions reduction and climate change research and policy. These efforts are concerned primarily with the emissions of GHGs generated by human activity, including carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), tetrafluoromethane, hexafluoroethane, sulfur hexafluoride, HFC-23 (fluoroform), HFC-134a (1,1,1,2 tetrafluoroethane), and HFC-152a (difluoroethane).

In the United States, fossil fuel combustion accounted for 92.4 percent of CO2 emissions in 2019 (USEPA 2021b). Transportation was the largest emitter of CO2 in 2019 followed by electric power generation (USEPA 2021b). In California, transportation was the largest source of GHG emissions in 2019, followed by electric power (ARB 2021d).

3.8.1.2 GHG Emissions Inventories
An emissions inventory that identifies and quantifies the primary human generated sources and sinks of GHGs is a well-recognized and useful tool for addressing climate change. This section summarizes recent information on global, national, California, and local GHG emission inventories.

Global Emissions
Worldwide emissions of GHGs in 2018 were 33.51 billion metric tons (MT) of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) per year (International Energy Agency 2021). Global estimates are based on country inventories developed as part of programs of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

Federal Emissions
In 2019, total US emissions of GHGs were 6,558.3 million MT of CO2e (USEPA 2021b). Total US emissions increased by 1.8 percent from 1990 to 2019, down from a high of 15.6 percent above 1990 levels in 2007. Emissions decreased from 2018 to 2019 by 1.7 percent (113.1 million MT CO2e). Net 375
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 197
emissions (including sinks) were 5,769.1 million MT of CO2e. Overall, net emissions decreased 1.7 percent from 2018 to 2019 and decreased 13 percent from 2005 levels. Between 2018 and 2019, the decrease in total GHG emissions was largely driven by the decrease in CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion. The decrease in CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion was a result of a 1 percent decrease in total energy use and reflects a continued shift from coal to less carbon intensive natural gas and renewables in the electric power sector.

California Emissions
The California Greenhouse Gas Emissions for 2000 to 2019: Trends of Emissions and Other Indicators (ARB 2021d) is an important tool in tracking progress of California’s climate programs toward achieving the statewide GHG goals. In 2019, emissions from GHG emitting activities statewide were 418.2 million MT of CO2e, 7.2 million MT of CO2e lower than 2018 levels and almost 13 million MT of CO2e below the 2020 GHG target of 431 million MT of CO2e (ARB 2021d). Since the peak level in 2004, California’s GHG emissions have generally followed a decreasing trend. In 2016, statewide GHG emissions dropped below the 2020 GHG target and have remained below the target since then.

Per capita GHG emissions in California have dropped from a 2001 peak of 14.0 tons per person to

10.5 tons per person in 2019, a 25 percent decrease (ARB 2021d). Overall trends in the inventory also continue to demonstrate that the carbon intensity of California’s economy; i.e., the amount of carbon pollution per million dollars of gross domestic product is declining. From 2000 to 2019, the carbon intensity of California’s economy decreased by 45 percent while the gross domestic product increased by 63 percent. In 2019, gross domestic product grew 2.6 percent while the emissions per gross domestic product declined by 4.1 percent compared to 2018 (ARB 2021d).

3.8.2 Regulatory Framework
This section summarizes the federal, state, regional, and local laws, regulations, policies, and plans relevant to evaluation of the Proposed Project’s impacts on GHG emissions. Additional information on the relevant regulations, laws, and plans is provided in Appendix C, Regulatory Framework.

3.8.2.1 Federal
United States Environmental Protection Agency
On April 2, 2007, in Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, 549 U.S. 497, the U.S.

Supreme Court found that GHGs are air pollutants covered by the Federal Clean Air Act. The court held that USEPA must determine whether GHG emissions from new motor vehicles cause or contribute to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare, or whether the science is too uncertain to make a reasoned decision.

The Proposed Project will be held to the decision in Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency.

3.8.2.2 State
Executive Order S-3-05
In June 2005, Governor Schwarzenegger issued EO S-3-05, which established the following GHG emissions reduction targets: 1) reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels by 2010, 2) reduce GHG 376
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 198
emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, and 3) reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.

The Proposed Project will be held to the principles of EO S-3-05.

Assembly Bill 32
In September 2006, the California State Legislature enacted the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, also known as AB 32. AB 32 required that statewide GHG emissions be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020. California met its 2020 reduction goal in 2018.

The standards set forth by this act are obsolete and would not apply to the Proposed Project.

Executive Order B-30-15
On April 20, 2015, Governor Brown signed EO B-30-15 to establish a California GHG reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. California’s emission reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 would make it possible to reach the ultimate goal of reducing emissions 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.

The Proposed Project will be held to the principles of EO B-30-15.

Senate Bill 32
SB 32 was signed into law on September 8, 2016, and expands upon AB 32 to reduce GHG emissions.

SB 32 sets into law the mandated GHG emissions target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 written into EO B-30-15.

The Proposed Project will be held to the standards set forth by SB 32.

Climate Change Scoping Plan
The 2017 Scoping Plan (ARB 2017) reflects the 2030 target as codified by SB 32 (Section 0 Energy).

The 2017 Scoping Plan outlines several high-level objectives and goals for reducing GHG emissions in the water sector, including reducing the carbon footprint of water systems and water uses for both surface and groundwater supplies through integrated strategies that reduce GHG emissions while meeting the needs of a growing population, improving public safety, fostering environmental stewardship, aiding in adaptation to climate change, and supporting a stable economy. According to the 2017 Scoping Plan, the 2030 target of 260 million MT of CO2e requires the reduction of 129 million MT of CO2e, or approximately 33.2 percent, from the state’s projected 2030 business-as-usual scenario emissions level of 389 million MT of CO2e (ARB 2017).

The Proposed Project will be held to the targets in the 2017 Scoping Plan.

Assembly Bill 1493
AB 1493 of 2002 (Pavley Bill) required the ARB to develop and adopt regulations that reduce GHGs emitted by passenger vehicles and light duty trucks. In September 2004, pursuant to this directive, the ARB approved regulations to reduce GHG emissions from new motor vehicles beginning with the 2009 model year. These regulations created the Pavley standards. In September 2009, the ARB adopted amendments to the Pavley standards to reduce GHG emissions from new motor vehicles through the 2016 model year. These regulations created the Pavley II standards. 377
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 199
The Proposed Project will be held to the Pavley II standards.

Advanced Clean Cars Program
In January 2012, the ARB approved a new emissions control program called the Advanced Clean Cars Program for model years 2017 through 2025. The program includes the Zero Emission Vehicle Program, which is designed to achieve California’s long-term emission reduction goals by requiring manufacturers to offer for sale specific numbers of zero-emission vehicles, which include battery electric, fuel cell, and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles.

The Proposed Project will be held to the goals of the Advanced Clean Cars Program.

3.8.2.3 Regional and Local
Butte County Air Quality Management District
BCAQMD is the air quality regulating authority in Butte County. The CEQA Air Quality Handbook (BCAQMD 2014) includes analysis requirements for construction and operational emissions. BCAQMD has not adopted thresholds of significance for GHG emissions. Instead, BCAQMD recommends thresholds for construction and operational GHG emissions: 1) compliance with a qualified GHG reduction strategy, or 2) compliance with the lead agency’s threshold, or 3) consistency with the goals of AB 32.

Although considered during the analysis, BCAQMD has not adopted thresholds of significance for GHG emissions that apply to the Proposed Project.

Town of Paradise General Plan
The Town of Paradise General Plan (Town of Paradise and Quad Consultants 2008) does not contain any objectives or policies that specifically address GHG emissions. The Town has not yet adopted a climate action plan or any other plan to quantify existing GHG inventories or provide goals and measures to reduce GHG emissions in the Town.

Although considered during the analysis, the Town has not adopted any plans or policies for GHG emissions that apply to the Proposed Project. Therefore, the Town uses and complies with the provisions of federal and State regulations.

Butte County General Plan 2030
The Butte County General Plan 2030 (Butte County 2012) includes the following policies related to GHG emissions that are relevant to the Proposed Project:
 Policy COS-P1.1: Greenhouse gas emission impacts from proposed development projects will be evaluated as required by the CEQA.
 Policy COS-P1.2: New development projects will mitigate greenhouse gas emissions on-site or as close to the site as possible.

The Proposed Project will be held to the policies in the Butte County General Plan 2030.

Butte County 2021 Climate Action Plan
The Butte County 2021 Climate Action Plan (Placeworks 2021) was adopted on December 14, 2021.

Butte County is committed to reducing GHG emissions to 6.0 MT CO2e per person by 2030 and 2.0 MT 378
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 200
CO2e per person by 2050, consistent with the 2017 Scoping Plan guidance. Butte County is also setting forth an interim target of 4.0 MT CO2e per person by 2040. The climate action plan identifies 15 strategies that, if implemented, will allow the County to achieve its GHG emissions reductions targets.

The Proposed Project will be held to the strategies in this climate action plan.

Chico 2030 General Plan
The Chico 2030 General Plan (City of Chico 2017) includes the following policies related to GHG emissions that are relevant to the Proposed Project:
 Policy SUS-6.1, Greenhouse Gas Reduction Efforts: Support local, regional, and statewide efforts to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases linked to climate change.  Policy SUS-6.2, Greenhouse Gas Inventory and Climate Action Plan: Maintain a Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory and implement the Climate Action Plan to make progress toward meeting the City’s greenhouse gas emissions reduction goal.  Policy SUS-6.3, Greenhouse Gas Emissions and CEQA: Analyze and mitigate potentially significant increases in greenhouse gas emissions during project review, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act.
 Policy SUS-6.4, Community Trees: Continue to support the planting and maintenance of trees in the community to increase carbon sequestration.

The Proposed Project will be held to the policies in the Chico 2030 General Plan.

City of Chico Climate Action Plan Update
The City of Chico Climate Action Plan Update (Rincon Consultants 2021) was adopted on October 19, 2021. The City of Chico is committed to a GHG emissions reduction target of 2.71 MT of CO2e per person (or 292,437 MT of CO2e in total emissions) by 2030. This corresponds to an 80 percent reduction in per capita emissions (or a 46 percent reduction in total emissions) below 1990 levels by 2030, exceeding the SB 32 target of 40 percent reduction in total emissions by 2030. To achieve the GHG emissions reduction target, the climate action plan includes 13 measures related to energy efficiency, renewable energy, sustainable transportation, development patterns, solid waste, water, urban trees and greenspace, and community engagement.

The Proposed Project will be held to the strategies in this climate action plan.

3.8.3 Method of Analysis
This section describes the methods used to analyze impacts on GHG emissions within the study area.

3.8.3.1 CEQA Significance Criteria
For the purposes of this PEIR, the Proposed Project would result in a significant impact on GHG emissions if it would:
 Impact GHG-1: Generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment
379
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 201
 Impact GHG-2: Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reduction the emissions of GHG

3.8.3.2 Approach to Analysis
Impacts on GHG emissions were identified qualitatively and quantitively based on the Proposed Project’s potential to generate substantial GHG emissions.

The analysis of environmental effects focuses on foreseeable changes to GHG emissions in the context of effects listed in Section 3.8.3.1, CEQA Significance Criteria. The analysis considers the Core Collection System, Export Pipeline System, and Extended Collection System, as appropriate, in the context of construction, operation, and maintenance.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Thresholds
BCAQMD has not adopted thresholds for GHG emissions. BCAQMD’s recommends the following thresholds for construction and operational GHG emissions: compliance with a qualified GHG reduction strategy, or compliance with the Lead Agency’s threshold, or consistency with the goals of AB 32. The Town (or Lead Agency) has not adopted a climate action plan, nor does it include thresholds of significance for evaluating GHG emissions using either a bright-line or an efficiency-based approach.

Additionally, SB 32, which expands on AB 32, is the current legislation to reduce GHG emissions within California.

In the absence of locally adopted numeric thresholds for GHG emissions, it is appropriate to evaluate the Proposed Project’s impacts against thresholds established by another jurisdiction. The adjoining air districts are the Tehama County Air Pollution Control District (comprising of Tehama County), Northern Sierra Air Quality Management District (comprising of Nevada, Sierra, and Plumas counties), Glenn County Air Pollution Control District (comprising of Glenn County), Colusa County Air Pollution Control District (comprising of Colusa County), and Feather River Air Quality Management District (comprising of Sutter and Yuba counties). Except for Tehama County Air Pollution Control District, none of these air districts have established or adopted a threshold for determining the significance of GHG impacts. The Tehama County Air Pollution Control District has established a threshold of 900 MT CO2e per year for operational GHG emissions but has not established a threshold for construction emissions (Tehama County Air Pollution Control District 2015).

The next closest air district with adopted construction GHG thresholds of significance based on current legislation (SB 32) is the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD). For typical land use projects, SMAQMD recommends use of a 1,100 MT CO2e per year threshold for construction and operational emissions (SMAQMD 2021). SMAQMD’s threshold is consistent with GHG emissions reduction goals set forth by SB 32, which mandates a GHG emissions target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. Refer to Section 3.8.2, Regulatory Framework, for more information on SB

32. Therefore, the Town in its discretion is using the SMAQMD threshold of 1,100 MT CO2e per year to determine significance of GHG emissions.

Construction
Impacts on GHG emissions during construction of the Proposed Project were analyzed quantitatively.

Construction of the Core Collection System, Export Pipeline System, and Extended Collection System 380
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 202
would generate GHG emissions from the operation of construction equipment, hauling of materials, and commute of construction crews. GHG emissions associated with construction of the Core Collection System and Export Pipeline System were estimated using CalEEMod 2020.4.0. CalEEMod is a statewide land use emissions computer model designed to quantify potential GHG emissions associated with both construction and operation from a variety of land use projects. Construction emissions were estimated in CalEEMod using a combination of information presented in Chapter 2 and model defaults. The area of disturbance for the Core Collection System presented in Section 2.5.1.1 and Export Pipeline System presented in Section 2.5.2.1 were used as inputs in CalEEMod. The construction schedules for the Core Collection System and Export Pipeline System presented in Section 2.6 were used in CalEEMod. Types and quantities of equipment, construction crew size, excavation and fill quantities, and number of truck trips presented in Sections 2.5.1.3 and 2.5.2.3 were used as inputs to CaIEEMod. GHG emissions associated with construction of the Extended Collection System were estimated using comparable measures and assumptions to the Core Collection System.

GHG impacts were determined by comparing the GHG emissions generated during construction of the Core Collection System, Export Pipeline System, and Extended Collection System against the appropriate thresholds. As noted above, the assessment uses the SMAQMD threshold of 1,100 MT CO2e per year to determine significance of GHG emissions during construction.

Operation and Maintenance
Impacts on GHG emissions during operation and maintenance were assessed qualitatively based on the information in Section 2.8, Operations and Maintenance.

3.8.4 Impact Analysis
This section describes the potential environmental impacts on GHG emissions as a result of implementation of the Proposed Project. It includes an analysis of the Proposed Project’s potential to generate GHG emissions and conflict with a plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions.

3.8.4.1 Impact GHG-1: Generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment (Less than Significant Impact) Construction
Construction activities associated with the Proposed Project would generate short-term GHG emissions from the operation of construction equipment, hauling of materials, and commute of construction crews.

GHG emissions generated during construction of the Core Collection System and Export Pipeline System were estimated using CalEEMod. The unmitigated construction GHG emissions are summarized in Table 3.8-1. The detailed CalEEMod output is included in Appendix D Emissions Modeling. The total GHG emissions generated during construction of the Core Collection System and the Export Pipeline System were compared with appropriate GHG thresholds to determine significance.

Table 3.8-1. Unmitigated Construction GHG Emissions
Year GHG Emissions (MT CO2e)
Core Collection System
2023 706.62
381
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 203
Year GHG Emissions (MT CO2e)
2024 3,032.48
2025 522.31
Total 4,261.41
Export Pipeline System
2023 655.68
2024 793.39
Total 1,449.07
Overall Total Emissions 5,710.48
Source: CalEEMod (see Appendix D)
Notes: MT = metric tons, CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent, GHG = greenhouse gas As shown in Table 3.8-1, the Core Collection System and the Export Pipeline System would generate a total of 5,710 MT CO2e of unmitigated GHG emissions over the construction duration. This total is amortized over the expected 30-year life of the Proposed Project to yield a yearly emissions volume of approximately 190 MT CO2e.

As described in Section 3.8.3, the threshold of significance adopted by SMAQMD (1,100 MT CO2e per year) will be used to determine significance of GHG emissions.

The amortized unmitigated GHG emissions during construction of the Core Collection System and Export Pipeline System would be approximately 190 MT CO2e per year, which is below SMAQMD’s threshold of significance of 1,100 MT CO2e per year.

The construction methodology for the Extended Collection System would be similar to the Core Collection System. Crews and equipment used for the Extended Collection System would be similar to the Core Collection System, except that the duration would be shorter. Therefore, the GHG emissions generated during construction of the Extended Collection System would be similar to those generated during construction of the Core Collection System. The amortized unmitigated GHG emissions associated with construction of the Core Collection System (4,261 MT CO2e / 30 years = 142 MT CO2e per year) would not exceed SMAQMD thresholds (1,100 MT CO2e per year). Similar to the Core Collection System, amortized unmitigated GHG emissions associated with construction of the Extended Collection System would not exceed SMAQMD thresholds.

Based on the discussion above, the Proposed Project would not exceed the SMAQMD thresholds for GHG emissions during construction. Therefore, construction of the Proposed Project would generate GHG emissions that have a less-than-significant impact on the environment.

Mitigation. No mitigation required.

Operation and Maintenance
Operation and maintenance activities, as described in Section 2.8, would generate GHG emissions from the use of vehicles. However, GHG emissions from operations and maintenance activities would be minimal and immeasurable due to the infrequency of these activities. Therefore, operation and maintenance of the Proposed Project would generate GHG emissions that have a less-than-significant impact on the environment.
382
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 204
Mitigation. No mitigation required.

3.8.4.2 Impact GHG-2: Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions (No Impact)
As discussed under Section 3.8.3, SB 32 is the current legislation to reduce GHG emissions within California.

Construction
The Proposed Project would generate GHG emissions during construction. As indicated under Impact GHG-1, the GHG emissions generated during construction would not exceed SMAQMD’s threshold of significance of 1,100 MT CO2e per year. SMAQMD’s threshold is consistent with GHG emissions reduction goals set forth by SB 32, which mandates a GHG emissions target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. Since the construction GHG emissions generated by the Proposed Project are below SMAQMD’s threshold of significance, it would not conflict with SB 32 GHG emissions reduction goals.

Therefore, construction of the Proposed Project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions, resulting in no impact.

Mitigation. No mitigation required.

Operation and Maintenance
Operation and maintenance activities, as described in Section 2.8, would generate GHG emissions from the use of vehicles. However, GHG emissions from operations and maintenance activities would be minimal and immeasurable due to the infrequency of these activities. Therefore, operation and maintenance of the Proposed Project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions, resulting in no impact.

Mitigation. No mitigation required.

3.8.5 Impacts Summary
Table 3.8-2 summarizes the GHG emissions impacts of the Proposed Project.

Table 3.8-2. GHG Emissions Impacts Summary
Impact
Level of
Significance
Before Mitigation
Mitigation
Level of
Significance
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Impact GHG-1: Generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment

LTS N/A LTS
Impact GHG-2: Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions

NI N/A NI
Notes: LTS = Less than Significant Impact, NI = No Impact, N/A = Not Applicable, SI = Significant Impact, S/M = Significant Impact but Mitigable to a Less than Significant Level
383
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 205

3.8.6 References
ARB. 2017. California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan. The Strategy for Achieving California’s 2030 Greenhouse Gas Target. November 2017. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/ classic//cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf.

ARB. 2021d. California Greenhouse Gas Emissions for 2000 to 2019: Trends of Emissions and Other Indicators. July 28, 2021. https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/pubs/reports/2000_2019/ ghg_inventory_trends_00-19.pdf.

BCAQMD. 2014. CEQA Air Quality Handbook. Guidelines for Assessing Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impacts for Project Subject to CEQA Review. Adopted October 23, 2014. https://bcaqmd.org/wp-content/uploads/CEQA-Handbook-Appendices-2014.pdf.

City of Chico. 2017. Chico 2030 General Plan. Adopted April 2011. Amended March 2017. https://chico.ca.us/post/chico-2030-general-plan.

International Energy Agency. 2021. “Data and Statistics.” Accessed April 1, 2021. https://www.iea.org/ data-and-statistics?country=WORLD&fuel=CO2%20emissions&indicator=CO2BySource.

Placeworks. 2021. Butte County 2021 Climate Action Plan. December 14, 2021. https://www.buttecounty.net/Portals/10/Planning/CAP/Butte-County-Final-CAP.pdf?ver=2021- 12-20-135801-597.

Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD). 2021. Guide to Air Quality Assessment in Sacramento County. Chapter 6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Updated February 26, 2021. http://www.airquality.org/LandUseTransportation/Documents/Ch6GHG2-26-2021.pdf.

Tehama County Air Pollution Control District. 2015. Air Quality Planning and Permitting Handbook.

Guidelines for Assessing Air Quality Impacts. April 2015. http://tehcoapcd.net/PDF/ CEQA%20Handbook%20Mar%202015%20Final.pdf.

Town of Paradise and Quad Consultants. 2008. Town of Paradise 1994 General Plan. Prepared for Town of Paradise Community Development Department. Amended January 2008. https://www.townofparadise.com/sites/default/files/fileattachments/planning/page/3251/townofp aradise-generalplan_1994.pdf.
384
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 206
USEPA. 2021b. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2019. April 14, 2021. https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-04/documents/us-ghg-inventory-2021-maintext.pdf?VersionId=wEy8wQuGrWS8Ef_hSLXHy1kYwKs4.ZaU. 385
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 207

3.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
This section describes the environmental setting and regulatory framework for hazards and hazardous materials, and it identifies direct and indirect impacts of the Proposed Project during construction, operation, and maintenance. In particular, the analysis focuses on hazards and hazardous materials that may be present in the study area and the use of hazardous materials during implementation of the Proposed Project’s construction, operation, and maintenance. The study area for hazards and hazardous materials is defined as the area of disturbance for the Proposed Project and a 500-foot buffer to account for potential adjoining properties with soil and groundwater contamination. However, the potential for hazards and hazardous material effects are not limited to the immediate study area but can extend to locations where removed materials are transported after use and to sensitive receptors that may be present in the vicinity of the study area. Therefore, transport of materials and sensitive receptors are also considered when addressing the potential for effects.

3.9.1 Environmental Setting

3.9.1.1 Site Description and History
The study area consists of the Town and primarily rural land between the Town and City. The Core Collection System is in the Town in the vicinity of residences and businesses, while the Export Pipeline System passes through mostly vacant agricultural land along Skyway Road near the Feather River in unincorporated Butte County (see Figure 2-1, Project Location in Chapter 2, Project Description). The site contains overhead utility lines and roadways as well as agricultural, residential, commercial, and industrial areas. In 2018, much of the Town of Paradise was destroyed by the Camp Fire. Historical land uses were similar to present day land uses in the area. As discussed in Section 0 Wildfire, the Core Collection System and Extended Collection System are in a Local Responsibility Area (LRA) Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ) (California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection [CALFIRE] 2008). Farther south of Paradise, the Export Pipeline traverses Very High, Moderate and High FHSZ in the State Responsibility Area (SRA). The Chico WPCP is in a LRA Non-Very High FHSZ.

Please refer to Section 0 for more information on existing conditions and detailed evaluation of potential effects for wildfire from implementation of Proposed Project. The closest sensitive receptors to the Proposed Project are the residential dwelling units along Entler Avenue in Chico, which are located within 50 feet of the proposed pipeline alignment (Google Earth 2022). Fourteen schools exist within one-quarter mile of the Core and Extended Collection Systems in Paradise, including both public and private schools. No schools exist within one-quarter mile of the Export Pipeline System in unincorporated Butte County or Chico. No public airports exist within two miles of the study area. The Butte County Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update (Butte County 2019b), Town of Paradise General Plan (Town of Paradise and Quad Consultants 2008), and Chico 2030 General Plan (City of Chico 2017) provide emergency evacuation, action, and response plans for county wide and city-wide emergencies.

3.9.1.2 Previous Site Investigations
Database Searches
Database searches were conducted on the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) Envirostor database and the SWRCB GeoTracker database to identify any active and closed sites where releases 386
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 208
or spills of hazardous materials have occurred within the study area. The search performed for this assessment was conducted in April 2022. Several sites were identified as containing potentially hazardous materials handling, storage, or incidents in the computerized regulatory databases searched on a list of sites complied pursuant to California Government Code Section 65962.5. In total, thirty-six sites were identified in the study area, but only one site was identified as a site of concern because it is still under remediation and is not yet considered closed.

One state response site and one school investigation site were identified within the Core Collection System footprint of the Town. A state response site is a site that the DTSC is leading the remediation of the site. A school investigation site is a site that DTSC is investigating for contamination. The state response site is in the core collection system at 8336 Skyway at a former air conditioning and radiator repair facility. The site has been fully remediated from arsenic and lead contamination found in the soil and certified by DTSC. Contaminated soils were disposed of, and the site was restored by backfilling the excavation with clean soil. Groundwater monitoring was performed to confirm that no groundwater contamination remained. The 8336 Skyway site currently has land use restrictions to limit the use of the property for commercial and industrial uses. The school investigation site is in the Extended Collection System at Ridgeview Continuation High School, located at 5944 Maxwell Drive in Paradise; however, the site is no longer active and no clean up action is required at this site according to DTSC. No sites were identified in the study area along the Export Pipeline System (Envirostor 2022).

Thirty-four leaking underground storage tank (LUST) sites and cleanup program sites exist in the study area for the Core and Extended Collection Systems in Paradise; however, only one of the sites remains open. The open LUST site is located within the Extended Collection System footprint but not within the Core Collection System footprint (GeoTracker 2022). This site is called the Cypress Lane Paradise site and is located at 1620 Cypress Lane in Paradise. During Camp Fire debris removal, a 500-gallon residential leaking underground storage tank containing kerosine was discovered at the Cypress Lane Paradise site. The tank has been subsequently removed; however, the site has not yet been remediated. While several open and closed leaking underground storage tank (LUST) sites and cleanup program sites exist near the Export Pipeline System alignment, only one closed LUST site exists within the Export Pipeline System alignment footprint (Envirostor 2022). Because this site is closed, it is no longer considered a threat from hazardous materials.

3.9.2 Regulatory Framework
This section summarizes the federal, state, regional, and local laws, regulations, policies, and plans relevant to evaluation of the Proposed Project’s impacts on hazards and hazardous materials.

Additional information on the relevant regulations, laws, and plans is provided in Appendix C, Regulatory Framework.

3.9.2.1 Federal
Hazardous Waste Management
The Federal Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 established a program administered by the USEPA for the regulation of the generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste. 387
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 209
The Proposed Project will be subject to these hazardous waste management regulations.

Asbestos National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants The USEPA’s Asbestos National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants regulations specify work practices for asbestos to be followed during demolition and renovation of all structures, installations, and buildings (excluding residential buildings that have four or fewer dwelling units).

The Proposed Project will be subject to the Asbestos National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants during construction.

Universal Waste Management
40 CFR Part 273 governs the collection and management of widely generated waste, including batteries, pesticides, mercury-containing equipment, and bulbs. This regulation streamlines the hazardous waste management standards and ensures that such waste is diverted to the appropriate treatment or recycling facility.

Hazardous waste generated by the Proposed Project will be subject to 40 CFR Part 273.

U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration) 29 CFR Part 1910, Occupational Safety and Health Standards, requires facilities that use, store, manufacture, handle, process, or move hazardous materials to conduct employee safety training; inventory safety equipment relevant to potential hazards; have knowledge on safety equipment use; prepare an illness prevention program; provide hazardous substance exposure warnings; prepare an emergency response plan, and prepare a fire prevention plan. 29 CFR Part 1926 establishes similar safety and health regulations for construction.

The Proposed Project will be held to the standards of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

U.S. Department of Transportation
Transportation of hazardous materials is regulated by the US Department of Transportation’s Office of Hazardous Materials Safety. The office formulates, issues, and revises hazardous materials regulations under the Federal Hazardous Materials Transportation Law.

Hazardous materials transport associated with the Proposed Project will be subject to these regulations.

3.9.2.2 State
California Hazardous Waste Control Law
The California Hazardous Waste Control Law is administered by the California Environmental Protection Agency to regulate hazardous wastes. The California Hazardous Waste Control Law lists 791 chemicals and about 300 common materials that may be hazardous; establishes criteria for identifying, packaging, and labeling hazardous wastes; prescribes management controls; establishes permit requirements for treatment, storage, disposal and transportation; and identifies some wastes that cannot be disposed of in landfills.
388
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 210
The waste generated by the Proposed Project will be subject to conformance with the Hazardous Waste Control Law.

California Occupational Safety and Health Administration The California Occupational Safety and Health Administration is the primary agency responsible for worker safety in the handling and use of chemicals in the workplace.

The Proposed Project will be subject to the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s standards.

Field Act
Under the Field Act, the Department of General Services is required to supervise the design and construction, reconstruction, or alteration of any school buildings to ensure that the plans and specifications comply with adopted rules, regulations, and building standards for the protection of life and property.

The Proposed Project will be subject to the standards of the Field Act.

Lead-Based Paint
The California Department of Public Health enforces lead laws and regulations related to the prevention of lead poisoning in children, prevention of lead poisoning in occupational workers, accreditation and training for construction-related activities, lead exposure screening and reporting, disclosures, and limitations on the amount of lead found in products. Accredited lead specialists are required to find and abate lead hazards in a construction project and to perform lead-related construction work in an effective and safe manner. Specific regulations include:

California Health & Safety Code Section 105250: Establishes a program to accredit lead-related construction training providers and certify individuals to conduct lead-related construction activities.

California Civil Code Sections 1102 to 1102.16: Requires the disclosure of known lead-based paint hazards upon sale of a property.

California Labor Code Sections 6716 to 6717: Provides for the establishment of standards that protect the health and safety of employees who engage in lead-related construction work, including construction, demolition, renovation, and repair.

California Health & Safety Code Sections 105185 to 105197: Establishes an occupational lead poisoning prevention program to register and monitor laboratory reports of adult lead toxicity cases, monitor reported cases of occupational lead poisoning to ascertain lead poisoning sources, conduct investigations of take-home exposure cases, train employees and health professionals regarding occupational lead poisoning prevention, and recommended means for lead poisoning prevention.

The Proposed Project will be subject to conformance with all lead-based paint regulations.

State Water Resources Control Board
The SWRCB protects water quality in California by setting statewide policy. The SWRCB supports the nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards, which, within their areas of jurisdiction, protect surface and groundwater from pollutants discharged or threatened to be discharged to the waters of the state. 389
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 211
The Proposed Project will subject to SWRCB regulations to protect water quality.

California Health and Safety Code – Handling and Storage of Hazardous Waste In California, the handling and storage of hazardous materials is regulated by Chapter 6.95 of the California Health and Safety Code. Under Sections 25500–25543.3, facilities handling hazardous materials are required to prepare a Hazardous Materials Business Plan.

The Proposed Project will be subject to the principles of the California Health and Safety Code for the handling and storage of hazardous waste.

California Health and Safety Code – Transportation of Hazardous Waste In California, transportation of hazardous waste is regulated under Chapter 6.5 of the California Health and Safety Code. Under Section 21560, hazardous waste generators must complete a manifest for the waste before it is transported or offered for transportation.

Transportation of hazardous waste associated with the Proposed Project will be subject to the standards of Chapter 6.5 of the California Health and Safety Code.

Emergency Response/Evacuation Plans
The state of California passed legislation authorizing the Office of Emergency Services to prepare a Standard Emergency Management System program, which sets forth measures by which a jurisdiction should handle emergency disasters.

The Proposed Project would not conflict with and will be held to the standards of the local emergency response and evacuation plans.

California Disaster and Civil Defense Master Mutual Aid Agreement The California Disaster and Civil Defense Master Mutual Aid Agreement states that all resources and facilities of the state, including all political subdivisions, shall voluntarily aid and assist each other in the event of a disaster by the interchange of services, including rescue, relief, evacuation, rehabilitation, and reconstruction (California Office of Emergency Services 1950).

The Proposed Project is a part of the California Disaster and Civil Defense Master Mutual Aid Agreement.

3.9.2.3 Regional and Local
Butte County Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update
The Butte County Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update (Butte County 2019b) includes an assessment of the county’s risk and vulnerability related to natural and other identified hazards and a comprehensive mitigation strategy which includes actions and projects designed to mitigate or reduce the impacts of those hazards and to increase community resiliency.

The Proposed Project will be held to the strategies in the Butte County Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update.
390
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 212
Butte County General Plan 2030
The Butte County General Plan 2030 (Butte County 2012) includes the following goals, policies related to hazards and hazardous materials that are relevant to the Proposed Project:
 Goal HS-11: Reduce risks from wildland fire and urban fire.  Policy HS-P11.1: Fire hazards will be considered in all land use and zoning decisions, environmental review, subdivisions review and the provision of public services.  Policy HS-P11.2: Create communities that are resistant to wildfire by supporting the implementation of community wildfire protection plans and wildfire fuel load reduction measures in coordination with the appropriate government, community group, or non-profit organization and California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CALFIRE).  Policy HS-P11.3: The County supports the Wildfire Mitigation Action Plan, the Butte County Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP), and the Butte Unit Community Wildfire Protection Plan prepared by CALFIRE and will cooperate with the Butte County Fire Department and the Butte County Fire Safe Council in implementing these plans.
 Policy HS-P11.4: New development projects will meet current fire safe ordinance standards for adequate emergency water flow, emergency vehicle access, signage, evacuation routes, fuel management, defensible space, fire safe building construction and wildfire preparedness.  Goal HS-12: Protect people and property from wildland or urban fires.  Policy HS-P12.4: All development projects in wildland urban interface areas in High or Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones will provide, at a minimum, small-scale water systems for fire protection.
 Goal HS-13: Identify safe and effective evacuation routes and access for fire prevention and suppression
 Policy HS-P13.1: New development in High or Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones, as shown in Figure HS-9, shall identify access and egress routes and make improvements or contribute to a fund to develop upgrade and maintain these routes.  Goal HS-14: Reduce risks from the harmful effects of hazardous materials.  Policy HS-P14.1: Hazardous materials carrier routes shall be designated to direct hazardous materials transport away from populated areas.
 Policy HS-P14.3: Hazardous and toxic materials shall be transported only along the designated highway and rail routes shown in Figure HS-11.
 Policy HS-P14.4: Proponents of new hazardous waste management facilities shall demonstrate that potential environmental impacts can be mitigated as a condition of approval.  Goal HS-15: Ensure that Butte County is prepared for emergency situations.  Policy HS-P15.3: Emergency access routes shall be kept free of traffic impediments.

Hazardous Materials Joint Powers Agreement
The Hazardous Materials Joint Powers Agreement was initiated in December 1990 by Butte County and its five cities: Biggs, Chico, Gridley, Oroville, and the Town of Paradise. It is governed and enforced by the fire chiefs of the six signatory agencies.

The study area is located within the jurisdiction of the Hazardous Materials Joint Powers Agreement. 391
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 213
Chico 2030 General Plan
The Chico 2030 General Plan (City of Chico 2017) includes the following goals, policies, and actions related to hazards and hazardous materials that are relevant to the Proposed Project:
 Goal S-1: Minimize the loss of life and property resulting from natural and human-caused hazards.
 Policy S-1.1, Emergency Preparedness: Promote public safety from hazards that may cause death, injury, or property damage through emergency preparedness and awareness.  Action S-1.1.1, Emergency Plan Maintenance: Maintain, and update as needed, the City’s Emergency Plan to guide emergency management in the City.  Action S-1.1.2, Emergency Response Awareness: Promote community preparedness for hazards and awareness of emergency notification methods.  Action S-1.1.3, Incident Training: Continue to participate in the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s National Incident Management System program, which provides a standardized approach to emergency incidents.
 Goal S-4: Continue to provide effective and efficient fire protection and prevention services to Chico area residents.
 Policy S-4.1, Fire Safety Staffing: Maintain adequate fire suppression and prevention staffing levels.
 Policy S-4.2, Interagency Coordination: Continue to maintain interagency relationships to maximize fire protection services and support programs that reduce fire hazards.  Policy S-4.3, Fire Safety Standards and Programs: Support the development and implementation of standards and programs to reduce fire hazards and review development and building applications for opportunities to ensure compliance with relevant codes.  Goal S-8: Reduce the potential for public exposure to hazardous materials or the accidental releases of toxic or hazardous substances.
 Policy S-8.1, Hazardous Materials Safety Coordination: Support efforts to reduce the potential for accidental releases of toxic and hazardous substances.  Action S-8.1.1, Planning for Hazardous Materials Safety: Consult with the State Office of Emergency Services, the State Department of Toxic Substances Control, the California Highway Patrol (CHP), Butte County, and other relevant agencies regarding hazardous materials routing and incident response programs.
 Policy S-8.2, Reduce Toxic Materials Use: Reduce the use of hazardous and toxic materials in City operations.

The Proposed Project will be subject to the goals, policies, and actions of the Chico 2030 General Plan.

Town of Paradise General Plan
The Town of Paradise Safety Element (2022) and the Town of Paradise Hazardous Waste Management Element (2022) include the following goals, objectives, and policies related to hazards and hazardous materials that are relevant to the Proposed Project:

Safety Element (updated June 2022)
 Goal SG-1: Assure that law enforcement and fire protection services are enhanced sufficiently to meet the demands of new and existing land use development 392
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 214
 Goal SG-2: Provide adequate access, including emergency vehicle access and evacuation, to all new parcels and existing parcels where feasible.
 Goal SG-3: Strive to protect the Paradise community from injury, loss of life and property damage resulting from catastrophes and hazardous conditions.  Goal SG-6: Improve the communication systems used during Town-wide emergencies, such as wildland fires, earthquakes or volcanic occurrences.
 Objective SO-2: Maintain an overall fire insurance (ISO) rating of three or better, and an emergency fire response within five minutes for 90% of all emergency incidents within Town limits.
 Objective SO-3: Maintain the Paradise Multihazard Disaster Plan and conduct practice exercises throughout the life of the General Plan.
 Policy SP-1: New and unmitigated land use development shall not cause the police and fire protection services emergency response times to full below the service levels established by this plan.
 Policy SP-2: Through the development review process, adequate roads shall be required to be constructed and/or improved for emergency vehicle access, particularly in high wildland fire hazard areas.
 Policy SP-3: Future development should be designed and constructed to take maximum advantage of known fire and crime prevention siting, orientation and building techniques.  Policy SP-5: The Town should promote fire prevention by continuing to require brush removal and fuel load clearing as ongoing conditions of development approval and property maintenance.
 Policy SP-8: The Town shall encourage Butte County to enforce standards conforming to the fire safety standards established by the state Board of Forestry for state responsibility areas within the Paradise secondary and tertiary planting areas, including:
o Road standards for fire equipment access
o Standards for signs identifying streets, roads and buildings o Minimum private water supply reserves for emergency fire use o Fuel breaks and greenbelts
o Land use policies and safety standards that take into account the recurrent nature of wildland fires
o Design standards establishing minimum road widths and clearances around structures o Emergency preparedness protocol and procedures
o Maximum length of cul-de-sac roadways
 Policy SP-13: The Town shall attempt to require all new development to comply with the airport height restriction policy, airport safety area(s) policies and land use guidelines for safety compatibility of the Paradise Skypark Airport Land Use Plan.  Policy SP-14: Detrimental and toxic discharge into natural waterways shall not be permitted.

Hazardous Waste Management Element (updated June 2022)
 Goal SG-7: Provide for the safe disposal and handling of toxic and hazardous waste. 393
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 215
 Goal SG-8: Direct and promote hazardous waste management practices and technologies that will, in order of priority:
o Reduce the use of hazardous substances and the generation of hazardous wastes at their source;
o Recover and recycle the remaining waste for reuse to the extent feasible; o Treat those wastes not amenable to source reduction or recycling so that the environment and community health are not harmed by their ultimate release or disposal; o Ensure the safe transportation and disposal of treated hazardous waste residuals in repositories made secure from liquids that might create a toxic leachate and contaminate groundwater.
 Goal SG-9: Reduce the need for additional hazardous waste disposal sites.  Objective SO-7: Minimize the generation of hazardous wastes by seeking waste reduction alternatives which are safe, economically viable, and which represent the best technology available to the generator.
 Policy SP-24: The county, and each city, shall require that all local land use decisions on siting specified hazardous waste management facilities are consistent with the goals and policies and the siting criteria contained in the Hazardous Waste Management Plan.

The Proposed Project will be subject to the goals, objectives, and policies of the Safety Element and Hazardous Waste Management Element.

3.9.3 Method of Analysis
This section describes the methods used to analyze hazards and hazardous materials within the study area.

3.9.3.1 CEQA Significance Criteria
For the purposes of this PEIR, the Proposed Project would result in a significant impact on hazards and hazardous materials if it would:
 Impact HAZ-1: Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials
 Impact HAZ-2: Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment
 Impact HAZ-3: Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school  Impact HAZ-4: Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
 Impact HAZ-5: For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area 394
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 216
 Impact HAZ-6: Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan
 Impact HAZ-7: Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires

3.9.3.2 Approach to Analysis
Construction, Operations and Maintenance
A desktop analysis was completed to collect and analyze data related to hazards and hazardous materials in the study area. Information was collected on known hazardous material sites within the study area and GIS data and aerial imagery were used to identify the hazardous sites within the study area. Additionally, the following resources were used for data collection:
 Envirostor Database (Envirostor 2022)
 GeoTracker Database (GeoTracker 2022)
 CALFIRE’s Fire Hazard Severity Zone Maps (CALFIRE 2008) The potential impacts from construction, operation and maintenance of the Proposed Project on hazards and hazardous materials were evaluated qualitatively using known hazardous materials site data and quantitatively using regulations that would be applicable to the Proposed Project.

3.9.4 Impact Analysis
This section describes the environmental impacts on hazards and hazardous materials that could result from implementation of the Proposed Project. The analysis considers consistency with existing policies and regulations, as well as impacts to the study area from hazards and hazardous materials that the Proposed Project may introduce to the study area.

3.9.4.1 Impact HAZ-1: Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials (Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated)
Construction
The Proposed Project would involve the transport and use of common construction materials such as vehicle fuels, grease, asphalt, concrete, lubricants, and drilling fluids which could pose a threat as hazardous materials. Using these materials, including their routine transport and disposal, carries the potential for an accidental release into the local environment, including near the waterbodies that are the locations of the proposed trenchless crossings (Butte Creek, Comanche Creek and Little Chico Creek). However, the Proposed Project will require the implementation of a SWPPP and coverage under the NPDES construction general permit for discharges of storm water associated with construction and land disturbance activities. The SWPPP will include measures to safely use and store such hazardous materials to reduce impacts. One open LUST site, located at 1620 Cypress Lane Paradise, exists in the study area within the Extended Collection System footprint. While the tank has been removed from this site, it has not yet been fully remediated and has the potential to contain contaminated soils that could be encountered during extended sewer line construction. However, any contaminated soils or groundwater encountered by the project will be managed, stored, and disposed of in accordance with requirements of the SWPPP and NPDES construction general permit thus 395
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 217
reducing impacts. Additionally, any hazardous materials encountered, including contaminated soils, will be managed and disposed of in accordance with California Department of Toxic Substances Control regulations. Further, the Proposed Project will comply with Regional, State, and Federal requirements for the transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials. However, with vehicle and equipment use comes the potential for spills during maintenance and refueling which would be a significant impact. As a result, the Proposed Project would have a significant impact on hazards to the public or environment created through routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.

Mitigation. To minimize significant impacts from the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials associated with the construction of the Proposed Project to a less than significant level, mitigation measure MM-HAZ-1 will be implemented.

MM-HAZ-1: Vehicle Equipment Access and Fueling: During construction, the Town will require and enforce through encroachment permit conditions and construction documents that all vehicle traffic associated with Proposed Project-related activities will be confined to established roads, staging areas, and parking areas. Additionally, maintenance or refueling of vehicles or equipment must occur in designated areas and/or secondary containment away from waterbodies.

Significance after Mitigation. With implementation of MM-HAZ-1, impacts from the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials would be reduced to a less than significant level.

Operation and Maintenance
Operation and maintenance of the Proposed Project would require the routine inspection of the Core and Extended Collection Systems and Export Pipeline System. This would involve the use of trucks and equipment that would use fuel and grease. However, these vehicles would be operated in areas that already experience vehicle traffic and these inspections would be very infrequent, not increasing the potential for fuel and grease drips significantly over existing levels. Therefore, the Proposed Project would have a less-than-significant impact on hazards to the public or environment created through routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.

Mitigation: No mitigation required.

3.9.4.2 Impact HAZ-2: Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment (Less than Significant Impact) Construction
As discussed above, the Proposed Project would involve the use of common construction materials such as vehicle fuels, grease, asphalt, concrete, lubricants, and drilling fluids that would be hazardous if they were to accidentally be released into the environment. However, the Proposed Project will be required to implement a SWPPP with best management practices to reduce the likelihood and severity of the release of construction related pollutants like fuel and grease to a less-than-significant level. Any contaminated soils or groundwater encountered by the project will be managed, stored, and disposed of in accordance with requirements of the SWPPP and NPDES construction general permit reducing impacts to a less-than-significant level. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions 396
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 218
involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment and impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation: No mitigation required.

Operation and Maintenance
As discussed above, Operation and Maintenance of the Proposed Project would require the routine inspection of the Core and Extended Collection Systems and Export Pipeline System. This would involve the use of trucks and equipment that would use fuel and grease. However, these vehicles would be operated in areas that already experience vehicle traffic and inspections will be performed periodically according to the schedule discussed in Section 2.8, Proposed Operations and Maintenance; as a result, operation and maintenance of the Proposed Project would not increase the potential for fuel and grease drips significantly over existing levels. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment; impacts would be less than significant during operation and maintenance.

Mitigation: No mitigation required.

3.9.4.3 Impact HAZ-3: Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school (Less than Significant Impact)
Construction
Fourteen schools exist within one-quarter mile of the Core and Extended Collection Systems in Paradise. No schools exist within one-quarter mile of the Export Pipeline System in unincorporated Butte County or Chico. As discussed above, although the Proposed Project has the potential to emit hazardous materials or substances through the use of common construction materials, the risk of release would be reduced through implementation of the Project SWPPP.

The Proposed Project would require construction vehicles to be operated within the study area over the construction duration, which could result in emissions of air quality pollutants within one-quarter mile of an existing school. Fuel combustion results in the release of air quality pollutants that can be considered hazardous. Air quality impacts are discussed in Section 3.3 Air Quality. As discussed in Section 3.3, construction activities would be temporary and short-term. Only portions of the study area would be disturbed at a time throughout the construction period, with operation of construction equipment occurring intermittently throughout the course of a day rather than continuously at any one location in the study area. Operation of construction equipment within portions of the study area would allow for the dispersal of TAC emissions by avoiding continuous construction activity in the portions of the study closest to existing sensitive receptors. Additionally, the Proposed Project will implement BCAQMD BMPs (listed in Section 3.3 Air Quality) to reduce diesel particulate matter. Therefore, with implementation of a Project SWPPP, BCAQMD BMPs, and consistency with hazardous materials handling and air quality district requirements, impacts from construction within one-quarter mile of an existing school would be less than significant.

Mitigation: No mitigation required.
397
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 219
Operation and Maintenance
As discussed above, operation and maintenance of the Proposed Project would require the periodic inspection of the Core and Extended Collection Systems and Export Pipeline System. This would involve the use of a small number of trucks and equipment that would use and emit potentially hazardous materials. However, these vehicles would be operated in areas near schools that already experience vehicle use and these inspections would be performed once or twice a year according to the schedule discussed in Section 2.8, Proposed Operations and Maintenance; therefore, the inspections would not increase the potential for emissions significantly over existing levels.

As discussed in Section 2.8 Proposed Operation and Maintenance, while the Core Collection System, Extended Collection System, and Export Pipeline System pipelines are designed to maintain their integrity during operations, it is always possible that a segment of pipeline could break, for example during excavations near a pipeline by others. Procedures to address a pipeline break are discussed in Section 2.8. As discussed for the periodic inspections, pipeline repairs would involve the use of a small number of trucks and equipment that would use and emit potentially hazardous materials. However, this effort would be temporary and rare, and these vehicles would be operated in areas near schools that already experience vehicle use. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substance, or waste that would have a significant impact within one-quarter mile of a school and impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation: No mitigation required.

3.9.4.4 Impact HAZ-4: Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment (Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)
Construction, Operation, and Maintenance
A desktop search of the Envirostor and GeoTracker databases was performed to find known potentially hazardous sites in the study area. As described above, one open site at 1620 Cypress Lane was identified in the study area during the desktop search. The site was classified as an open LUST site.

While the tank has been removed from this site and would not pose a threat from a new release of kerosine, the site has not yet been fully remediated and has the potential to contain contaminated soils that could be encountered during extended sewer line construction. However, any contaminated soils encountered by the project will be managed, stored, and disposed of in accordance with requirements of the SWPPP and NPDES construction general permit thus reducing impacts. Additionally, any hazardous materials encountered, including contaminated soils and groundwater, will be managed and disposed of in accordance with California Department of Toxic Substances Control regulations. Further, the Proposed Project will have to comply with regional, state, and federal requirements for the transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials. However, while unlikely, the potential remains to encounter contaminated soils from the Cypress Lane site. As a result, the Proposed Project would be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 that would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment and impacts would be significant.
398
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 220
Mitigation. To minimize potentially significant impacts from being located on a hazardous materials site associated with construction, operation, and maintenance of the Proposed Project to a less than significant level, mitigation measure MM-HAZ-2 will be implemented.

MM-HAZ-2: Cypress Lane Site Specific Contaminated Soil Management Plan. Prior to any work set to occur within 500 feet of the Cypress Lane Site, a parcel-specific contaminated soil management plan shall be prepared to address the known contamination at the site for submittal to and approval by DTSC. The plan shall include specific hazards and provisions for how soils and groundwater will be managed at the Cypress Lane Site. The plan shall provide requirements for soil testing and characterization, soil disposal protocols, protocols governing the discovery of unknown contaminants, and soil management. The plan shall also include health and safety provisions including training requirements for site workers who may be handling contaminated material, including the transport and disposal of contaminated material; chemical exposure hazards in soil, groundwater, or soil vapor that are known to be present at the property; and mitigation and monitoring measures that are protective of the site worker and public health and safety. These health and safety provisions shall be prepared to meet OSHA requirements, Title 29 of the CFR 1910.120 and CCR Title 8, Section 5192, and all applicable federal, state, and local regulations and agency ordinances related to the proposed management, transport, and disposal of contaminated media during implementation of work and field activities. The plan shall be signed and sealed by a Certified Industrial Hygienist, who is licensed by the American Board of Industrial Hygiene. The plan shall be enforced by DTSC or another applicable regulator and included as a requirement of construction/in construction documents.

Significance after Mitigation. With implementation of MM-HAZ-2, impacts from work located at a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 that would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment would be reduced to a less than significant level.

3.9.4.5 Impact HAZ-5: For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area (No Impact)
Construction, Operation, and Maintenance
There are no public airports within 2 miles of the Proposed Project. Therefore, the Proposed Project would have no impact on safety hazards or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area due to nearby airports.

Mitigation: No mitigation required.

3.9.4.6 Impact HAZ-6: Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan (Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated)
Construction
The Proposed Project study area includes emergency evacuation routes, and all four lanes of Skyway would be required to be available in some emergency situations. Construction would be completed in phases and would not require permanent road closures. For locations where the pipeline is being 399
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 221
installed along existing Town public ROW, there would be single-lane road closures with traffic controls around the work areas. Temporary full road closures are not anticipated; however, could occur, if necessary for public safety for a short duration (approximately 2-4 hours).

However, installation of the Export Pipeline System would occur along Skyway. Therefore, the construction area for the Export Pipeline System along Skyway could potentially interfere with the flow of evacuation traffic. As a result, the impact on an emergency response or emergency evacuation plan would be significant during construction.

Mitigation. To minimize significant impacts on an emergency response and emergency evacuation plan associated with construction of the Proposed Project to a less than significant level, mitigation measures MM-HAZ-3, MM-HAZ-4, MM-HAZ-5, and MM-HAZ-6 will be implemented.

As discussed in Section 3.9.2.3, any contractor on the project, whether in the Town, City or County, will be required to implement procedures defined in the Butte County Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update, as adopted and annexed by the Town of Paradise. As stated in Section 3.9.2.3, The Butte County Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update (Butte County 2019b) includes an assessment of the county’s risk and vulnerability related to natural and other identified hazards and a comprehensive mitigation strategy which includes actions and projects designed to mitigate or reduce the impacts of those hazards and to increase community resiliency. The Proposed Project will be held to the strategies in the Butte County Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update. In addition, the same section also refers to the Butte County General Plan 2030 (Butte County 2012), noting that the Town would be held accountable to multiple goals and associated policies related to hazards and hazardous material, such as: "Policy HS-P15.3: Emergency access routes shall be kept free of traffic impediments." Finally, Section 3.9.2.3 also states that the Town will be held to their own policies presented in drafts of the "Town of Paradise General Plan, Safety Element (1994) and Hazardous Waste Management Element (1994)". Policies within these elements include:

Policy SP-1: New and unmitigated land use development shall not cause the police and fire protection services emergency response times to fall below the service levels established by this plan, and Policy SP-2: Through the development review process, adequate roads shall be required to be constructed and/or improved for emergency vehicle access, particularly in high wildland fire hazard areas. Proposed Project mitigation measures, discussed below support implementation of the County and Town policies by ensuring evacuation routes would not be blocked during an emergency, that emergency response services have access to major routes, which is critical during an emergency, and that there is a plan for rapid demobilization in a situation requiring evacuation.

MM-HAZ-3: Road Closure Restrictions. The Proposed Project will require a Butte County encroachment permit. The standard Butte County encroachment permit requires that “at least one lane of any public road … shall be kept open for travel by the general public at all times.” Skyway consists of four lanes of traffic, two in each direction. The Proposed Project will require a Town of Paradise encroachment permit for work within the Town limits.

The Proposed Project will be held accountable to the Butte County Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update and policies included in the Butte County General Plan and the Town’s draft Safety Element (1994) and Hazardous Waste Management Element (1994). Further, during construction, 400
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 222
to minimize the potential for impeding emergency response vehicles at any time, the Proposed Project will only close one lane of traffic at any given time, other than short instances where a two-lane closure might be required for relocation of large equipment; this will be a requirement stated in the construction documents issued by the Town. Therefore, three lanes of Skyway will always remain open.

MM-HAZ-4: Rapid Demobilization Plan. The Proposed Project will be held accountable to the Butte County Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update and policies included in the Butte County General Plan and the Town’s draft Safety Element (1994) and Hazardous Waste Management Element (1994). Further, in the contractor construction documentation issued by the Town, as part of special conditions, the contractor will be required to prepare a rapid demobilization plan covering the one Skyway lane it occupies; this will be enforceable as a contract provision. Demobilization would require the contractor to cover any open trench with metal plates sufficiently strong to carry vehicle traffic, patching cut pavement, removing traffic barrier rails (if used), and moving construction equipment completely clear of the road. During fire season, the contractor will be required to have sufficient metal plating on-site to immediately cover any open trench, and conversely the length of open trenching will be limited to the amount of metal plating on-site. The contractor will also be required to have sufficient coldmix asphalt on site to temporarily patch any cut road surface. The plan will be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Director and enforced by the Town.

MM-HAZ-5: Evacuation Warning Procedures. The Proposed Project will be held accountable to the Butte County Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update and policies included in the Butte County General Plan and the Town’s draft Safety Element (1994) and Hazardous Waste Management Element (1994). Further, to minimize the potential for impeding emergency response vehicles and at the direction of the Town during an evacuation, the contractor will cease all construction operations and implement the rapid demobilization plan (MM-HAZ-4). As part of the rapid demobilization plan approved by the Public Works Director and enforced by the Town as a contract provision, the contractor will be required to demobilize off of Skyway, leaving all four lanes clear for public traffic and emergency crews, within four hours if no traffic barrier rails are being used and within eight hours if traffic barrier rails are being used. Again, other than short instances where a two-lane closure might be required for public safety, during construction, three of the four lanes of Skyway will be continuously open.

MM-HAZ-6: Traffic Management Plan. During final design, the Town will require that the engineering designer prepare a Traffic Management Plan that complies with Section 110.7 Traffic Control Plans of 401
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 223
the Highway Design Manual (Caltrans 2020), that will be included in the contractor construction documentation as special conditions, enforceable as a contract provision, and implemented by the construction contractor. The designer will submit the plan to the Town of Paradise, Butte County, and City of Chico’s transportation and engineering departments for review and approval before it is included in the construction documents. The plan will be enforced by the Town and/or contracted construction manager hired by the Town for the project. The plan will be prepared in accordance with professional engineering standards and will include, but not be limited to, the following requirements:
 Schedule truck trips outside of the peak traffic hours, when feasible.  Store all equipment and materials in designated staging areas.  Use of signage to guide vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians through and/or around the construction areas.
 Install traffic control devices where traffic conditions warrant.  Provide safe detours to reroute vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic.  Encourage construction crews to park at staging areas to limit lane closures in the public rightof-way.  Consult with Butte Regional Transit prior to construction to coordinate bus stop relocations (as necessary).
 Coordinate all construction activities with the emergency service providers in the area.  Stop all construction work during any period of time declared as a Red Flag Warning. A Red Flag Warning is issued by the National Weather Service for weather events that may produce an increased risk of fire danger.
 Post notices and/or appropriate signage to notify the public of upcoming construction activities, including exact location, schedule, and duration. This will include alternative access routes if a short-term full-lane closure will be required to transport equipment.  The Traffic Management Plan will be enforced by the Town of Paradise.

Significance after Mitigation. With implementation of MM-HAZ-3, MM-HAZ-4 MM-HAZ-5 and MMHAZ-6, impacts on an emergency response or evacuation plan would be reduced to a less than significant level.

Operation and Maintenance
No full or partial road closures would be required for routine inspections and maintenance activities.

These activities would occur periodically, as described in Section 2.8, Proposed Operations and Maintenance, and would require few vehicles so they would not alter the traffic volumes on roads in the study area. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not impair the implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan and impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation: No mitigation required.
402
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 224

3.9.4.7 Impact HAZ-7: Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires Construction, Operation, and Maintenance
As discussed in Section 0, Wildfire, the Study Area is in a LRA Very High FHSZ in Paradise. The export pipeline passes through State or Federal Responsibility Area Very High, High, and Moderate FHSZs (CALFIRE 2008). Project construction and routine maintenance would temporarily expose workers to hazards associated with being in areas with high wildfire danger. Therefore, impacts would be significant.

Mitigation. To minimize significant impacts from wildfire risk associated with construction of the Proposed Project to a less than significant level, mitigation measures MM-HAZ-1, MM-HAZ-7, MMHAZ-8, and MM-HAZ-9 will be implemented.

MM-HAZ-7: Incorporate Fire Prevention Measures. Require that construction crews and equipment avoid circumstances that could cause wildfire and that crews and staff have access to fire-prevention equipment onsite. Specific fire prevention measures include: fire extinguishers or other approved fire suppressants are to be available at all times, proper storage of flammable materials, safe cutting and welding practices, proper installation of temporary electrical equipment, and use of dust-collecting apparatus on power equipment.

MM-HAZ-8: Incorporate Public Safety Measures. Requires that the public will receive adequate warning of construction activities and any dangerous condition that might result from the use of fences, barriers, lights, flagging, guards, and signs. A plan for these notifications will be incorporated into the Traffic Management Plan.

MM-HAZ-9: Wildland Fire Area. The Contractor will be advised that the Town of Paradise is in a Wildland Fire Area and during the summer months the fire hazard is EXTREME.

Significance after Mitigation. With implementation of MM-HAZ-1, MM-HAZ-7, MM-HAZ-8, and MMHAZ-9, impacts from exposing people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires would be reduced to a less than significant level. Please see Section 0 Wildfire for a complete analysis of the potential for impacts and details on each of the mitigation measures.

3.9.5 Impacts Summary
Table 3.9-1 summarizes the hazards and hazardous materials impacts of the Proposed Project.

Table 3.9-1. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impacts Summary Impact
Level of
Significance
Before Mitigation
Mitigation
Level of
Significance
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Impact HAZ-1: Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials
S/M MM-HAZ-1 LTS
403
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 225
Impact
Level of
Significance
Before Mitigation
Mitigation
Level of
Significance
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Impact HAZ-2: Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment

LTS N/A LTS
Impact HAZ-3: Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within onequarter mile of an existing or proposed school

LTS N/A LTS
Impact HAZ-4: Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
S/M MM-HAZ-2 LTS
Impact HAZ-5: For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area

NI N/A NI
Impact HAZ-6: Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan
S/M MM-HAZ-3, MMHAZ-4, MM-HAZ5, MM-HAZ-6
LTS
Impact HAZ-7: Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires
S/M MM-HAZ-1, MMHAZ-7, MM-HAZ8, and MM-HAZ-9 LTS
Notes: LTS = Less than Significant Impact, NI = No Impact, N/A = Not Applicable, SI = Significant Impact, S/M = Significant Impact but Mitigable to a Less than Significant Level

3.9.6 References
Butte County. 2012. Butte County General Plan 2030. Adopted October 26, 2010. Updated November 6, 2012. http://www.buttecounty.net/Portals/10/Planning/ButteCountyGeneralPlan2030_ May2018red.pdf?ver=2019-12-18-141822-357.

Butte County. 2019b. Butte County Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update. Prepared by Foster Morrison.

October 2019. http://www.buttecounty.net/oem/mitigationplans.

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CALFIRE). 2008. Fire Hazard Severity Zones Maps. Accessed April 20, 2022. https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/divisions/community-wildfirepreparedness-and-mitigation/wildland-hazards-building-codes/fire-hazard-severity-zonesmaps/. Accessed April 20, 2022.

Caltrans. 2020. Highway Design Manual. Chapter 100 – Basic Design Policies. July 1, 2020. https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/design/documents/chp0100-dec-2020-changesa11y.pdf. 404
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 226
California Office of Emergency Services. 1950. California Disaster and Civil Defense Master Mutual Aid Agreement. November 15, 1950. https://www.caloes.ca.gov/PlanningPreparednessSite/ Documents/CAMasterMutAidAgreement.pdf.

City of Chico. 2017. Chico 2030 General Plan. Adopted April 2011. Amended March 2017. https://chico.ca.us/post/chico-2030-general-plan.

Envirostor. 2022. Envirostor Database. Accessed April 20, 2022. https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/ public/map/?myaddress=paradise%2C+ca.

GeoTracker. 2022. Geotracker Database. Accessed April 20, 2022. https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/profile_report.asp?global_id=T10000013352. Accessed April 20, 2022.

Google Earth. 2022. Aerial imagery and street view of the study area. Accessed March 20, 2022. https://earth.google.com/web/.

3.10 Hydrology and Water Quality
This section describes the environmental setting and regulatory framework for hydrology and water quality, and it identifies direct and indirect impacts of the Proposed Project during construction, operation, and maintenance. In particular, the hydrology and water quality analysis addresses hydrology, surface water quality, groundwater, and floodplains in the study area where hydrology and water quality are most susceptible to change as a result of the Proposed Project’s construction, operation, and maintenance. The study area for hydrology and water quality is the groundwater underlying the site, and the surface waterbodies immediately surrounding the Proposed Project in Butte County, Chico, and Paradise, including the west branch of the Feather River, Little Butte Creek, Butte Creek, Little Chico Creek, and Comanche Creek. The Sacramento River is also part of the study area for hydrology and water quality because the treated wastewater from the Chico WPCP would continue to be discharged to the Sacramento River.

3.10.1 Environmental Setting

3.10.1.1 Regional Context
Butte County is located in the Sacramento River Hydrological Region. This region includes the Sacramento River, which is the longest river system in California, and its tributaries, including the Pit, Feather, American, and Bear Rivers. The Sacramento River Hydrological Region is the primary water source for many of the urban and agricultural areas of California. Surface storage reservoirs provide much of the water supply in the region (Butte County 2012).

Approximately 69 percent of Butte County’s water needs are provided by surface water sources and approximately 31 percent of water needs are supplied by groundwater sources. Approximately 90 percent of water demand in Butte County is agricultural, 5 percent wildlife, and 5 percent residential (Butte County 2012).

3.10.1.2 Surface Water
According to the Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) data provided by the NRCS (2018), the study area crosses the following nine hydrologic units:
 Dry Creek (HUC12 180201580401)
 Little Dry Creek (HUC12 180201580403)
 Little Butte Creek (HUC12 180201580201)
 Lake DeSalba-Butte Creek (HUC12 180201580202)
 Hamlin Slough (HUC12 180201580203)
 Dubock Slough-Little Butte Creek (HUC12 180201580204)  Durham Slough-Butte Creek (HUC12 180201580205)
 Comanche Creek (HUC12 180201580301)
 Little Chico Creek (HUC12 180201580302)
Feather River watershed accumulates in Lake Oroville and supplies the majority of surface water supply to Butte County residents and businesses as a part of the State Water Project. The water rights 406
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 228
of local irrigation districts are provided through the California water rights priority system (Butte County 2010).

3.10.1.3 Groundwater
Groundwater makes up approximately 75 percent of residential water supply in Butte County. The availability of groundwater depends on climactic, geologic, and hydrologic conditions. Primary sources of groundwater recharge in Butte County are precipitation, infiltration from streams, inflow and percolation of irrigation water in agricultural areas. Groundwater reserves in the county are found in sedimentary deposits of the Sacramento Valley and mountainous areas to the east and north. Major portions of groundwater occur in floodplain and alluvial fan deposits and are unconfined or semiunconfined (Butte County 2012).

Butte County is located within the Sacramento Valley groundwater basin. The groundwater basin and its subbasins are primarily located in the western portion of Butte County; groundwater in the eastern portion of the county is found in more limited amounts within volcanic, metamorphic, and granite rock.

The Sacramento Valley Groundwater Basins include East Side Basin, East Butte Subbasin, Vina Subbasin, and West Butte Subbasin (Butte County 2010). The Proposed Project is underlain by each of these subbasins.

Depth to groundwater varies substantially throughout the study area, particularly underneath the Core and Extended Collection Systems. Depth to groundwater underneath the collection system varies so greatly due to the Andesite Volcanic formations in this area and the perched water zones. Because of this, groundwater in this area is not consistently monitored by the Groundwater Management Authorities (DWR 2004). Underneath the Export Pipeline System in the Vina Subbasin (Chico area), groundwater levels in the unconfined portion of the aquifer system are encountered at approximately 5 to 7 feet during normal precipitation and up to approximately 16 feet during periods of drought. Annual fluctuation in the confined or semiconfined portion of the aquifer system is approximately 15 to 25 feet during normal years and up to approximately 30 feet during periods of drought (DWR 2004). Depth to groundwater adjacent to Butte Creek, south of Chico, vary between 45 to 121 feet below ground surface depending on agricultural pumping, and wet versus drought conditions (Peterson 2019).

The Butte County Department of Public Health, Environmental Health Division issues well drilling permits for all wells drilled throughout the county. The number of well permit applications provide a general indication of the development of the groundwater resources and potential drilling activities.

According to the most recent Butte County Water Inventory and Analysis, Butte County had over 12,000 domestic wells and 2,500 irrigation wells in 2015 (Butte County 2016).

3.10.1.4 Water Quality
The study area is located within the Sacramento Valley Basin which falls under the control of the RWQCB. The Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Valley Region was revised in May 2018. The regulatory mechanism for the discharge of pollutants into the water is the NPDES permit program, which is designed to protect water quality by regulating point sources of pollutants (City of Chico 2017).

The Town’s sewer system would fall under the City’s NPDES permit (Section 2.4.2 Chico Water Pollution Control Plant).
407
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 229
Beneficial Uses
Beneficial uses are a very important aspect of water quality management in California. State law defines beneficial uses of California’s waters that may be protected against degradation to include, and not be limited to, “…domestic; municipal; agricultural and industrial supply; power generation; recreation; aesthetic enjoyment; navigation; and preservation and enhancement of fish, wildlife, and other aquatic resources or preserves” (Water Code Section 13050 (f)). Existing beneficial uses are present at the following surface waterbodies in the vicinity of the study area:
 Big Chico Creek (Hydro Unit Number 509.14): Agriculture, Recreation, Freshwater Habitat, Migration, and Spawning Habitat
 Black Butte Reservoir Butte Creek (Hydro Unit Number 522.12): Agriculture, Recreation, Freshwater Habitat, Spawning Habitat, and Wildlife Habitat Comanche Creek, Little Butte Creek, Butte Creek, Little Chico Creek have not been assigned beneficial uses.

Feather River
Water quality in Feather River has been identified by the State of California as impaired by copper, mercury, toxicity and more than 15 pesticides including diazinon chlorpyrifos and lindane (USEPA 2021c).

Town of Paradise
Historical use of high-density septic systems and leach fields in Paradise have resulted in surface and groundwater contamination. As discussed in Section 2.3, Project Background, in 1983 James Montgomery Consulting Engineers performed a Phase I Wastewater Management Study for the Town of Paradise to identify existing and potential water quality or public health problems associated with the continued use of individually managed on-site wastewater treatment systems. Results of this study showed evidence of high levels of fecal coliform and septic system effluent in water supply resulting in degradation of water quality. It was therefore recommended in this study that a sewer system or centralized wastewater management facilities be considered in the Town (Montgomery 1983). This led to the development of the Town of Paradise Onsite Wastewater Management Zone in 1992 (S.

Hartman, personal communication, November 19, 2021), which is still active and would remain so with implementation of the Proposed Project for those parcels that would not or had not yet connected to the sewer system.

According to the Paradise Irrigation District (PID) Annual Consumer Confidence Report, contaminants that may be present in source water (rivers, lakes, streams, ponds, reservoirs, springs, and groundwater wells) as a result of historical septic system usage and wastewater discharges include microbial contaminants, such as viruses and bacteria; inorganic contaminants, such as salts and metals; and organic chemical contaminants, including synthetic and volatile organic chemicals (PID 2019).

Data from the USEPA indicates that leakage of waste from septic leach fields can reach a water source and result in microorganisms, including bacteria, viruses, and parasites being present in the water supply (USEPA 2021d). Unabsorbed phosphorus in leach fields can also travel in groundwater toward a waterbody and become a source of contamination. Additionally, some nitrogen may be removed as 408
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 230
wastewater flows through septic systems and the soil. However, nitrogen that remains can enter the underlying groundwater and flow towards a surface waterbody. If there are a number of septic systems in a small area, the nitrogen flowing through groundwater could overload a waterbody causing eutrophication (USEPA 2020). In addition to contamination from septic systems and leach fields, fire damage from the 2018 Camp Fire caused a potential for pipes to be contaminated with volatile organic compounds such as benzene and others. Volatile organic compounds are known carcinogens, and even low levels of volatile organic compounds are dangerous over time (PID 2019).

City of Chico
According to the Chico 2030 General Plan, the primary issues related to surface and groundwater quality in Chico are urban stormwater runoff, groundwater contamination from septic tanks, infiltration of urban stormwater runoff, and pollutants from dry cleaning and industrial uses (City of Chico 2017). In 1985, the City of Chico and Butte County adopted the Nitrate Action Plan to address high levels of nitrates in portions of the groundwater under Chico that resulted from the widespread use of septic tanks within the urban area. As a result, the Chico Urban Area Nitrate Compliance Plan (“Nitrate Action Plan”) was developed to provide consistency between Chico and Butte County land use and utility infrastructure policies (City of Chico 2017). Also, because of the Nitrate Action Plan, the City of Chico completed sanitary sewer installation in high nitrate areas (referred to as Nitrate Area 3N and Nitrate Area 3S) in 2021.

3.10.1.5 Tsunami, Seiche, and Flood Hazards
According to the DOC tsunami map, the Proposed Project is not located within a tsunami hazard area (DOC 2019b). Further, because the study area is in an inland area away from oceans or other large waterbodies, a seiche is unlikely to occur.

Butte Creek Diversion Channel (National Levee ID 5205000592) is a federal levee that traverses the study area. Therefore, the Proposed Project will be subject to USACE Section 408 permitting requirements. Other Butte County levees also traverse the study area along Comanche Creek and Little Chico Creek; however, these levees are locally constructed, operated and maintained (USACE 2016).

Most of the study area is in a FEMA minimal flood hazard zone. Portions of the study area are also located within Moderate Flood Hazard Areas, which are areas susceptible to a 0.2 percent annual chance or 500-year flood, and Special Flood Hazard Areas, which are areas that are susceptible to a 1 percent annual chance or 100-year flood (FEMA 2020; Butte County 2021d). The Export Pipeline System crossing of Butte Creek and the segment of the pipeline located along Crouch Avenue are located in a Special Flood Hazard Area (Butte County 2021d). In Butte County, a number of developed impoundments and natural wetlands store some of the county’s surface water supply and provide flood protection. These developed impoundments include Oroville Dam and Reservoir on the Feather River, Thermalito Afterbay, Thermalito Forebay, Paradise Reservoir, and Magalia Reservoir, and various smaller water storage reservoirs.

3.10.1.6 Stormwater Management
As required by Phase II of the NPDES, Butte County operates under a Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) stormwater permit, which authorizes the discharge of stormwater to surface water 409
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 231
in the state from small municipal separate storm sewer systems. The Town’s MS4 Permit is currently operating under an approved waiver secured in 2021 due to the reduced population associated with the 2018 Camp Fire and other factors. See Section 2.4.2 for information on the Chico WPCP and associated NPDES permit.

3.10.2 Regulatory Framework
This section summarizes the federal, state, regional, and local laws, regulations, policies, and plans relevant to evaluation of the Proposed Project’s impacts on hydrology and water quality. Additional information on the relevant regulations, laws, and plans is provided in Appendix C, Regulatory Framework.

3.10.2.1 Federal
Clean Water Act
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1948 was the first major United States law to address water pollution. Amended in 1972, the law became commonly known as the CWA (33 USC Section 1251).

The CWA established the structure for regulating discharge of pollutants into waters of the United States and regulating quality standards for surface waters.

The Proposed Project will be subject to surface water quality and wastewater standards under the CWA.

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
The NPDES permit was established in the CWA to regulate municipal and industrial discharges to surface waters of the US. The ultimate objective of the CWA is zero pollutant discharge, but it recognizes the need for a system to regulate non-zero pollutant discharges until the zero-pollutant objective is feasible. CWA Section 402 established NPDES for this purpose. The NPDES regulates all pollutant discharges, particularly point source discharges, to the waters of the US.

The Proposed Project will be required to obtain a NPDES permit for discharges during construction.

During operations, the Town’s sewer system would fall under the City’s existing NPDES permit (Section

2.4.2 Chico Water Pollution Control Plant).
410
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 232
Construction General Permit
The CGP (NPDES No. CAS000002, SWRCB Order No. 2012-0006-DWQ) authorizes the discharge of stormwater (and certain unauthorized non-stormwater discharges) from construction sites that disturb 1 acre or more of land, and from smaller sites that are part of a larger, common plan of development. For all projects subject to the CGP, the applicant is required to hire a qualified developer to develop and implement an effective SWPPP. All project registration documents, including the SWPPP, are required to be uploaded into the SWRCB’s online Stormwater Multiple Application and Report Tracking System at least 30 days prior to construction.

The Proposed Project will be required to obtain a CGP and implement a SWPPP during construction.

Section 14 of the Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899, Section 408 Under Section 408 (33 USC Section 408), any use or alteration of a Civil Works project is subject to the approval of USACE. This requirement was established in Section 14 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. Section 408 provides that USACE may grant permission for another party to alter a Civil Works project upon a determination that the alteration proposed will not be injurious to the public interest and will not impair the usefulness of the Civil Works project.

The Proposed Project will be subject to compliance with Section 408.

3.10.2.2 State
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act of 1966 (California Water Code Section 13000 et seq.; CCR Title 23, Chapter 3, Subchapter 15) is the primary state regulation that addresses water quality.

The Proposed Project will be subject to waste discharge and water quality standards under the PorterCologne Water Quality Control Act.

The Proposed Project will be subject to Section 401 for protecting water resources.

Delegated Permit Authority
California has been delegated permit authority for the NPDES permit program, including storm water permits for all areas except tribal lands. Issuance of CWA Section 404 permits remains the 411
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 233
responsibility of USACE; however, the state actively uses its CWA Section 401 certification authority to safeguard that CWA Section 404 permits will comply with state water quality standards.

The Proposed Project will be under the authority of the State of California for Section 401 certification and the NPDES permit program.

State Definition of Covered Waters
Under California state law, waters of the state refer to “any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters, within the boundaries of the state” (California Water Code Section 13050). Therefore, water quality laws apply to both surface water and groundwater. After the United States Supreme Court decision in Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, the Office of Chief Counsel of the State Water Resources Control Board released a legal memorandum confirming the state’s jurisdiction over isolated wetlands. In general, the SWRCB regulates discharges to isolated waters in much the same way as they do for waters of the United States, but the regulation is via Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act rather than the CWA.

The Proposed Project will be subject to laws regulating isolated waters and waters of the United States.

Central Valley Flood Protection Board
The Central Valley Flood Protection Board exercises regulatory authority within its jurisdiction to maintain the integrity of the existing flood control system and designated floodways by issuing permits for encroachments. The jurisdiction of the Central Valley Flood Protection Board includes the Central Valley, including all tributaries and distributaries of the Sacramento River, the San Joaquin River, and designated floodways (23 CCR Section 2). Projects that encroach in a designated floodway or regulated stream, or within 10 feet of the toe of a state-federal flood control structure (levee), require an encroachment permit and the submission of an associated application, including an environmental assessment questionnaire. A project must demonstrate that it will not reduce the channel flow capacity and that it will comply with channel and levee safety requirements. In cooperation with USACE, the Central Valley Flood Protection Board enforces standards for the construction, maintenance, and protection of adopted flood control plans that will protect public lands from floods.

The Central Valley Flood Protection Board has jurisdiction over waterbodies in the Project Area and will be subject to its standards.

State Water Resources Control Board and Regional Water Quality Control Boards The SWRCB adjudicates water rights, sets water pollution control policy, issues water board orders on matters of statewide application, and oversees water quality functions throughout the state by approving Basin Plans, Total Maximum Daily Loads, and NPDES permits. RWQCBs are responsible for protecting beneficial uses of water resources within their regional jurisdiction using planning, permitting, and enforcement authorities to meet this responsibility.

Since the Town’s sewer system would fall under the City’s NPDES permit (Section 2.4.2 Chico Water Pollution Control Plant), the Proposed Project is within the jurisdiction of the SWRCB and will be subject to its standards and permitting requirements.
412
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 234

3.10.2.3 Regional and Local
Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan)
The proposed Project is under the jurisdiction of the RWQCB. The RWQCB implements the Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region (RWQCB 2018) to regulate surface and groundwater quality in the region. The Basin Plan covers the entire Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. The Basin Plan lists beneficial uses and water quality objectives to protect those uses. The Proposed Project is in the Sacramento River Basin and will follow the requirements laid out in that portion of the Basin Plan.

The Proposed Project will be subject to the requirements of the RWQCB and the Basin Plan.

Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems
CWA Section 402(p) requires the issuance of NPDES permits for five categories of stormwater dischargers, including MS4s. Pursuant to CWA Section 402, NPDES permits are required and issued for discharges from an MS4 serving a population of 100,000 or more for the Phase I MS4 Municipal Program and serving a population of 10,000 or more for the Phase II Small MS4 Program. As discussed, Butte County operates under Small MS4 stormwater permit.

The Proposed Project is located in an area that operated under a Small MS4 stormwater permit.

Town of Paradise General Plan
The Proposed Project will be subject to the policies, goals and actions of the Town of Paradise General Plan. The General Plan (Town of Paradise and Quad Consultants 2008) includes the following policies related to hydrology and water quality that are relevant to the Proposed Project:
 Policy SP-17: Development projects shall be designed to minimize soil erosion and shall be required to comply with all Town of Paradise adopted soil erosion standards maintained by the Town Engineering Office.
 Policy OCEP-23: Stream courses identified and designated as significantly important shall be carefully protected from the impacts of land use development, both within and outside the Town limits.
 Policy OCEP-25: Natural riparian vegetation along creeks will be protected.

Town of Paradise Stormwater Ordinance (Ord. No. 548, Section 1, Adopted September 9, 2014) The Town of Paradise has adopted an ordinance relating to Stormwater Quality Management for the purpose of protecting and promoting the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of the Town.

The purpose of the ordinance is also to protect and enhance the water quality, beneficial uses, habitats, and ecosystems in receiving waters by reducing pollution and pollutant loads discharged in urban runoff from areas within the Town’s jurisdiction, and by prohibiting non-stormwater discharges to municipal storm drain systems.

The Proposed Project will be subject to regulations in the Town of Paradise Stormwater Ordinance. 413
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 235
Butte County General Plan 2030
The Proposed Project will be subject to the policies, goals and actions of the Butte County General Plan 2030. The Butte County General Plan 2030 (Butte County 2012) includes the following policies related to hydrology and water quality that are relevant to the Proposed Project:
 Policy W-P1.4: Where appropriate, new development shall be Low Impact Development (LID) that minimizes impervious area, minimizes runoff and pollution and incorporates best management practices.
 Policy W-P1.8: The County supports conversion from septic systems to public sewer service, where feasible.
 Policy W-P2.1: The County supports solutions to ensure the sustainability of community water supplies.
 Policy W-P2.2: The County may continue the Four-County Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Colusa, Glenn, Tehama and Sutter Counties, and may support the development of the Northern Sacramento Valley Integrated Regional Water Management Plan.  Policy W-P2.6: The County supports water development projects that are needed to supply local demands.
 Policy W-P2.7: The Butte County Water Commission and the Department of Water Resource Conservation shall continue to be utilized as important partners in the water resource planning process.
 Policy W-P3.3: The County shall protect groundwater recharge and groundwater quality when considering new development projects.
 Policy W-P4.4: Opportunities to recover and utilize wastewater for beneficial purposes shall be promoted and encouraged.
 Policy W-P4.6: New development projects shall adopt best management practices for water use efficiency and demonstrate specific water conservation measures.  Policy W-P4.7: County facilities shall adopt water conservation measures and when appropriate retrofit existing facilities to improve water conservation.  Policy W-P5.2: New development projects shall identify and adequately mitigate their water quality impacts from stormwater runoff.
 Policy W-P5.4: Temporary facilities shall be installed as necessary during construction activities to adequately treat stormwater runoff from construction sites.

Butte County Groundwater Conservation Ordinance (Chapter 33) In November 1996, the voters in Butte County approved an ordinance to protect the groundwater resources in Butte County. One of the stated purposes of the ordinance was that the groundwater underlying Butte County is a significant water resource which must be reasonably and beneficially used and conserved for the benefit of the overlying land by avoiding extractions which harm the Butte Basin aquifer, causing exceedance of the safe yield or a condition of overdraft. The ordinance is now codified as Chapter 33 of the Butte County Code relating to groundwater conservation. The Proposed Project would not extract or use groundwater resources during construction and operations and would not conflict with the Butte County Groundwater Conservation Ordinance. 414
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 236
The Proposed Project will be subject to regulations in the Butte County Groundwater Conservation Ordinance.

Butte County Integrated Water Resources Plan
The purpose of the Butte County Integrated Water Resources Plan (CDM 2005) is to document the stakeholder-centered process used by Butte County to develop water resources policy recommendations for consideration by the Butte County Board of Supervisors. This plan is part of the Butte County’s proactive Integrated Water Resources Program.

The Proposed Project will be subject to standards in the Butte County Integrated Water Resources Plan.

Four-County Memorandum of Understanding
The counties of Butte, Colusa, Glenn, and Tehama share common surface water and groundwater resources. The purpose of the Four-County Memorandum of Understanding is to establish the mutual understandings of the four counties with respect to their voluntary joint efforts toward regional coordination, collaboration and communication. Treated wastewater from the Proposed Project would be discharged into the Sacramento River in accordance with the City’s NPDES permitting requirements.

The Proposed Project will also include a Frac-out Plan, which will outline all standard BMPs, monitoring, and contingency procedures in the event of frac-out during ground disturbing activities to protect groundwater resources. Therefore, the Proposed Project will be subject to the standards of and will not conflict with the Four-County Memorandum of Understanding.

Chico 2030 General Plan
The Proposed Project will be subject to the policies, goals and actions of the Chico 2030 General Plan.

The Chico 2030 General Plan (City of Chico 2017) includes the following policies related to hydrology and water quality that are relevant to the Proposed Project:
 Policy OS-3.1, Surface Water Resources: Protect and improve the quality of surface water.  Policy OS-3.2, Protect Groundwater: Protect groundwater and aquifer recharge areas to maintain groundwater supply and quality.
 Policy OS-3.3, Water Conservation and Reclamation: Encourage water conservation and the reuse of water.

Chico Urban Area Nitrate Compliance Plan
The Chico Urban Area Nitrate Compliance Plan (Butte County 2000) was prepared in response to the contamination of groundwater in the Chico Urban Area by nitrate, a form of nitrogen, and the subsequent issuance of Prohibition Order No. 90-126 adopted by the RWQCB on April 27, 1990. The discharge from individual septic systems was the primary source of groundwater nitrate contamination that exceeded drinking water standards set by the USEPA and the SWRCB. Nitrate levels that exceed the standards pose a threat to public health and are subject to regulation. The Chico Urban Area Nitrate Compliance Plan supersedes the Nitrate Action Plan, which was adopted by the Butte County Board of Supervisors and Chico City Council in 1985.

The Proposed Project will support the initiates of the Chico Urban Area Nitrate Compliance Plan by implementing an improved sewer collection system.
415
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 237

3.10.3 Method of Analysis
This section describes the methods used to analyze hydrology and water quality within the study area.

3.10.3.1 CEQA Significance Criteria
For the purposes of this PEIR, the Proposed Project would result in a significant impact on hydrology and water quality if it would:
 Impact HYD-1: Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality  Impact HYD-2: Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the Project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin
 Impact HYD-3: Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
(a) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off-site (b) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site
(c) Create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff (d) Impede or redirect flood flows
 Impact HYD-4: In flood hazard zones, risk release of pollutants due to Project inundation  Impact HYD-5: Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan

3.10.3.2 Approach to Analysis
Construction, Operation and Maintenance
A desktop analysis was completed to collect and analyze data related to hydrology and water quality in the study area. Key sources of information and plans include the following:
 Town of Paradise General Plan (Town of Paradise and Quad Consultants 2008)  Chico 2030 General Plan (City of Chico 2017)
 Butte County General Plan 2030 (Butte County 2012)
 Butte County Public Works Information interactive GIS map (Butte County 2021d)  FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FEMA 2011)
 DOC California tsunami maps (DOC 2019b)
This analysis of environmental effects focuses on foreseeable changes to the existing hydrologic conditions in the context of effects criteria listed in Section 3.10.3.1, CEQA Significance Criteria. The analysis considers each of the major Project components, as appropriate, in the context of construction, (specifically as to off-site staging areas), operation, and maintenance. 416
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 238
This analysis of water quality effects considers the potential for the Proposed Project to affect local and regional quality. In evaluating the potential for adverse water quality effects, this analysis considers existing data, reports, or studies on surface water quality that characterize baseline surface water quality in the study area.

Groundwater impacts were assessed based on whether construction, operation, and maintenance of the Proposed Project would result in permanent decreases in the groundwater table or water levels in an aquifer underlying the study area. Hydrology impacts are considered the permanent addition of new impervious surfaces, alterations in drainage patters, alteration of a stream or river, and increased runoff or erosion and siltation as a result of construction, operation, and maintenance of the Proposed Project.

Flood hazard, tsunami, and seiche were also considered in the study area per CEQA guidelines. A tsunami is a catastrophic ocean wave, usually caused by a submarine earthquake, an underwater or coastal landslide, or a volcanic eruption. A seiche is a temporary disturbance or oscillation in the water level of a partially enclosed body of water, especially one caused by changes in atmospheric pressure.

Tsunami hazards were assessed using the DOC tsunami map (2019), and the likelihood of the occurrence of a seiche was determined based on the Proposed Project’s topography and proximity to oceans and other large bodies of water. Neither tsunami or seiches are issues in this area and are not evaluated further; however, flood risks were determined to be worthy of evaluation in this area using FEMA floodplain data and USACE’s National Levee Database.

3.10.4 Impact Analysis
This section describes the potential environmental effects on hydrology and water quality as a result of implementation of the Proposed Project. Excavation and ground disturbing activities because of construction activities, particularly near waterbodies, have the potential to impact hydrology and water quality in the study area. Inadvertent fuel or chemical spills associated with the operation of construction vehicles and equipment during construction could also impact water quality in the study area.

Operation and maintenance activities associated with the newly proposed Core and Extended Collection Systems and Export Pipeline would employ typical municipal wastewater collection systems methodology, as described in Section 2.7 Proposed Operation and Maintenance. These activities would minimize the potential for sanitary backups, pump station outages, and sewer main breaks.

3.10.4.1 Impact HYD-1: Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality (Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)
Construction
The lack of a viable sewer infrastructure in the study area has negatively affected groundwater and surface water quality through increases in nutrients and contaminants from failing septic tanks. As discussed in Section 3.10.1, Environmental Setting, the primary issues related to water quality in Chico are urban stormwater runoff, groundwater contamination from septic tanks, infiltration of urban stormwater runoff, and pollutants from dry cleaning and industrial uses. In addition, there are high 417
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 239
levels of nitrates in portions of the groundwater under Chico that resulted from the widespread use of septic tanks within the urban area.

Likewise, historical use of high-density septic systems and leach fields in Paradise have resulted in surface and groundwater contamination. According to the PID Annual Consumer Confidence Report, contaminants that may be present in source water (rivers, lakes, streams, ponds, reservoirs, springs, and groundwater wells) as a result of historical septic system usage and wastewater discharges include microbial contaminants, such as viruses and bacteria; inorganic contaminants, such as salts and metals; and organic chemical contaminants, including synthetic and volatile organic chemicals (PID 2019). High levels of fecal coliform and septic system effluent have also degraded water quality because of septic system usage in the study area (Montgomery 1983). The Proposed Project would improve groundwater and surface water quality in the study area by developing a wastewater collection, treatment, and dispersal solution that fits the needs of the Town.

Depth to groundwater in the study area varies significantly and is not monitored under the Core and Extended Collection Systems. Groundwater underneath the Export Pipeline System can vary anywhere from 5 to 7 feet in some areas of Chico and between 45 and 121 feet near Butte Creek (DWR 2004; Peterson 2019). Collection pipes would be trenched using mechanical trench and backfill methods anywhere from 3 feet to 15 feet below ground surface. The Export Pipeline System would be constructed using open cut methods up to 10 feet deep, and trenchless crossings (microtunneling or HDD). As discussed in Section 2.5.2 Export Pipeline System, trenchless crossings would occur at least 20 feet below the creek bed and would involve constructing pits at either end of the crossing. See Section 2.5.2.2 Construction Methods for more information on trenchless crossings.

Construction activities described above near the waterbodies located along and intersecting the study area, including Butte Creek, Little Butte Creek, Little Chico Creek, and Comanche Creek, would have the potential to impact water quality through sediment discharge and potential frac-out during trenching.

Frac-out occurs when drilling fluid penetrates fractured bedrock or seeps into the environment that surrounds the bedrock. There is also a possibility that groundwater would be encountered during excavations and construction associated with the Core Collection System, the Export Pipeline System, and the Extended Collection System; however, dewatering would likely not be necessary. Operation of construction vehicles and equipment in the vicinity of waterbodies could also result in water quality impacts through the inadvertent release of fuels or chemicals in the event of an accident.

Launching and receiving pits used for trenchless crossings would be set back to avoid riparian vegetation, which would also minimize affects to surface water quality. The Town will require that the contractor comply with the SWRCB’s CGP, which requires the preparation and implementation of a SWPPP, prior to construction and ground disturbing activities. The construction SWPPP will require BMPs to minimize potential short-term increases in sediment transport caused by construction, including erosion control requirements and stormwater management. The SWPPP must also contain a visual monitoring program for “nonvisible“ pollutants to be implemented if there is a failure of BMPs, and a sediment monitoring plan if the site discharges directly to a waterbody listed on the CWA 303(d) list for sediment.
418
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 240
In addition to the CGP, the Project will require regulatory permits from USACE (Sections 404 and 408), the Regional Board (Section 401), and the CDFW (Streambed Alteration Agreement). The Project will also require a Small MS4 Permit. These permits are briefly described below:
 Section 404 enables regulation of the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, including wetlands. To comply with CWA Section 404, a permittee must document the measures taken to avoid and minimize impacts on waters of the United States and provide compensatory mitigation for any unavoidable impacts.  Section 408 provides that USACE may grant permission for another party to alter a Civil Works project upon a determination that the alteration proposed will not be injurious to the public interest and will not impair the usefulness of the Civil Works project.  Under CWA Section 401, federal agencies are not authorized to issue a permit or license for any activity that may result in discharges to waters of the United States, unless a state or tribe where the discharge originates either grants, waives or denies CWA Section 401 certification.  CDFW requires a Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement when a project activity may substantially adversely affect fish and wildlife.
 The MS4 permit is designed to reduce the amount of sediment and other pollutants entering state waters from stormwater systems.

The Proposed Project will comply with applicable permitting requirements during construction.

However, there is still potential for adverse water quality impacts during construction. If implementation of the project were to cause adverse water quality impacts, this would result in a significant impact.

Mitigation. To minimize potentially significant impacts on water quality associated with construction of the Proposed Project to a less than significant level, mitigation measures MM-HAZ-1, MM-HYD-1, MMHYD-2, and MM-BIO-15 will be implemented.

MM-HAZ-1: Vehicle and Equipment Access and Fueling (see Section 0 Hazards and Hazardous Materials for description)
MM-HYD-1: Stormwater Management and Treatment Plan. As special conditions to the contractor construction documentation, the Town will require that the contractor prepare and implement a Proposed Project-specific Stormwater Management and Treatment Plan that addresses constructionrelated activities. The plan will include all of the SWPPP and Small MS4 permits, as well as the Construction BMPs included in MM-HYD-2 below, and will be enforceable as a contract provision.

MM-HYD-2: Construction Best Management Practices: Prior to initiation of ground- disturbing activities within 250 feet of vernal pools or 100 feet of other aquatic resources, construction BMPs will be employed on-site to prevent degradation to on-site and off-site aquatic resources. Methods will include the use of appropriate measures to intercept and capture sediment prior to entering aquatic resources, as well as erosion control measures along the perimeter of all work areas to prevent the displacement of fill material. All BMPs will be in place prior to initiation of any construction activities and will remain until construction activities are completed. All erosion control methods will be maintained until all on-site soils are stabilized.)
MM-BIO-15: Frac-Out-Plan (see Section 0 Biological Resources for description) 419
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 241
Significance after Mitigation. With implementation of MM-HAZ-1, MM-HYD-1, MM-HYD-2, and MMBIO-15, impacts on water quality would be reduced to a less than significant level.

Operation and Maintenance
Compliance with standard federal, state, and local regulations and policies related to water quality would also be required during operation of the Proposed Project. Operation and maintenance activities would employ typical municipal wastewater collection systems methodology, as described in Section 2.7, Proposed Operation and Maintenance. These activities would minimize the potential for sanitary backups, pump station outages, and sewer main breaks. As discussed in Section 2.8 Proposed Operation and Maintenance, while the Core Collection System, Extended Collection System, and Export Pipeline System pipelines are designed to maintain their integrity during operations, it is always possible that a segment of pipeline could break, for example during excavations near a pipeline by others. Each system will have in place pressure gauges to help detect the loss of pressure resulting from a break, which in turn will notify the Town Wastewater Department that such a break has occurred.

The Town Wastewater Department will develop an Operations Response Plan as part of its overall operations and maintenance processes that will provide direction for handling such an occurrence.

During any excavations or other work on the pipeline by Town Public Works, the same procedures and standards would apply. The Town Wastewater Department will also have on-hand the equipment and spare parts necessary to rapidly implement a repair.

The Chico WPCP is licensed to treat 12 mgd of wastewater and is operating at 6.3 mgd (Chico WPCP monitoring data, Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board 2021). The Proposed Project would add a maximum of an additional 0.464 mgd of wastewater to the system during operations, which would then be discharged into the Sacramento River. Consistent with existing conditions, the treated wastewater from the Chico WPCP would continue to be discharged to the Sacramento River through a submerged outfall diffuser and is regulated in accordance with NPDES Permit No.

CA0079081 (Order No. R5-2016-0023). This incremental increase in discharge as a result of the Proposed Project is within the permitted allowance and would not violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements.

The Proposed Project will comply with water quality standards and would not conflict with waste discharge requirements. The Proposed Project would not degrade surface or ground water quality but would beneficially impact water quality once operational. There would be no impact during operations and maintenance.

Mitigation. No mitigation required.

3.10.4.2 Impact HYD-2: Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the Project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin (Less than Significant Impact) Construction
The Proposed Project is in the Sacramento Valley Groundwater Basin. The Project would not involve the use of groundwater for construction of the Core Collection System, Export Pipeline System, or Extended Collection System, which could otherwise carry potential for interference with current groundwater recharge, possible depletion of groundwater supplies, or interference with wells. However, 420
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 242
there is potential that groundwater would be encountered during construction of the Core Collection System, Export Pipeline System, and Extended Collection System. Depth to groundwater in the study area varies significantly and is not monitored under the Core Collection System and Extended Collection System. Groundwater underneath the Export Pipeline System can vary anywhere from 5 to 7 feet in some areas of Chico and between 45 and 121 feet near Butte Creek (DWR 2004; Peterson 2019).

The Core Collection System pipelines would be installed anywhere from 3 to 15 feet below ground surface. Trenchless crossings for the Export Pipeline System would be required for installing the pipe beneath the feature (creek, highway, or railroad). Trenchless crossings via microtunneling methods under SR 99 and the Union Pacific Railroad would occur at depths of 30 feet below the roadway and rail centerlines, respectively. Trenchless crossings via HDD methods under Butte Creek, Comanche Creek, and Little Chico Creek would occur between 20 to 30 feet below the creek bed. Water encountered during pit excavation for the trenchless crossings would be placed into a settling tank before being trucked to a nearby sewer main for discharge. Perched water and nuisance water encountered in trenches during open cut construction methods for installation of the Core Collection System and Extended Collection System would be collected via sump pump to a Baker Tank for settling and reused for truck dust control. Perched water and nuisance water could also discharge to surface water or infiltrate into the ground after sediment removal.

Any localized lowering of the groundwater table as a result of the construction methods described above would be anticipated to recover quickly and would not cause a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the groundwater table. Most of the proposed construction of the Core Collection System, Export Pipeline System, and Extended Collection System would occur within the existing ROW and conditions would be restored to current conditions once construction is complete. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not introduce impervious surfaces that would have the potential to impede groundwater recharge because the ROW or other area disturbed during construction would be restored and impacts would be less-than-significant during construction.

Operation and Maintenance
No groundwater would be required to operate or maintain the Proposed Project. Therefore, no impact would occur on groundwater supply and recharge during operations and maintenance.

Mitigation. No mitigation required.

3.10.4.3 Impact HYD-3: Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
(a) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off-site (Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)
Construction
The Core Collection System, Export Pipeline System, and Extended Collection System would primarily occur within the existing ROW on previously disturbed areas and would only rise to the surface for parcel connections, at pump station locations within the Core and Extended Collection System areas, 421
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 243
and at the Chico WPCP Connection. All surfaces would be restored to their original conditions and would not introduce new impervious surfaces.

Temporary water quality impacts could result from sediment discharge from areas of disturbance and construction near water resources. Construction work would not take place inside of any waterbodies and the Project would not result in the alteration of a stream or river. The Proposed Project would involve trenchless crossings underneath Butte Creek, Comanche Creek, and Little Chico Creek via HDD methods. The crossings would be required to have a minimum depth of 20 feet below the waterbody with a launching and receiving pit on either end of the crossing. As discussed in Section 2.5.2 Export Pipeline System, and shown in Figure 2-12 Typical HDD Installation, there would be an approximate 10- by 5- foot launching and receiving pit and additional protected space on either end of the waterbody.

Portions of the Core Collection System and the Extended Collection System would be constructed near waterbodies. Prior to construction and ground disturbing activities, the Town will require that the contractor comply with SWRCB’s CGP, which requires the preparation and implementation of a SWPPP. The construction SWPPP will require BMPs to minimize potential short-term increases in sediment transport caused by construction, including erosion control requirements and stormwater management. In addition to the CGP, the Project will also require a Small MS4 Permit and will comply with mandates set forth in these permits. Potential still exists for construction activities to result in erosion or siltation. Therefore, impacts would be significant.

Mitigation. To minimize potentially significant impacts on erosion or siltation associated with construction of the Proposed Project to a less than significant level, mitigation measure MM-HYD-1 will be implemented.

MM-HYD-1: Stormwater Management and Treatment Plan. (see Impact HYD-1 for description) Significance after Mitigation. With implementation of MM-HYD-1, impacts on erosion and siltation would be reduced to a less than significant level.

Operation and Maintenance
Post construction, no changes are proposed to the current operational discharge of treated water to the Sacramento River that would potentially alter the drainage patterns or course of the waterway or create additional erosion or siltation. Maintenance activities would not require in-water work and would therefore not alter the course of a stream or river or create erosion and siltation. Therefore, impacts during operation and maintenance would be less than significant.

Mitigation. No mitigation required.
(b) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site (Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)
Construction
Construction of the Proposed Project, including the Core Collection System, Export Pipeline System, and Extended Collection System would primarily occur within the existing public ROW and below 422
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 244
ground and would only rise to the surface for parcel connections, at pump station locations within the Core and Extended Collection System areas, and at the Chico WPCP Connection. Disturbed areas would be backfilled, and surfaces would be restored to pre-construction conditions once construction is complete. Additional impervious surfaces that could increase surface water runoff and create flooding on- or off-site are not proposed. As a result, after construction, runoff and flooding conditions would be similar to current conditions. There would be no additional runoff into a FEMA floodplain as a result of the Proposed Project. As discussed, the Town will require that the contractor comply with SWRCB’s CGP, which requires the preparation and implementation of a SWPPP. However, the potential for on- or off-site flooding still exists during construction and impacts would be considered significant.

Mitigation. To minimize potentially significant impacts on flooding associated with construction of the Proposed Project to a less than significant level, mitigation measures MM-HYD-1 and MM-HYD-3 will be implemented.

MM-HYD-3: Flood Protection Plan. Prior to construction, the Town will require that the contractor prepare and implement a Flood Protection Plan for the Proposed Project. The Flood Protection Plan must include evacuation routes in the event of a flood, and will include the implementation of temporary flood barriers, such as sandbags, berms or portable fence systems, to be set up around the perimeter of the construction work area in high flood hazard areas, as discussed in Section 3.10.1.5, Tsunami, Seiche and Flood Hazards.

Significance after Mitigation. With implementation of MM-HYD-1 and MM-HYD-3, impacts on flooding would be reduced to a less than significant level.

Operation and Maintenance
Once operational, it is possible that the Proposed Project could indirectly foster or accommodate regrowth in Paradise, leading to the construction of additional impervious surfaces (see Section 4.4 Growth Inducing Impacts). However, new developments would be subject to approval by the Town of Paradise and compliance with applicable design standards, codes and regulations concerning surface runoff and drainage. Maintenance activities would not require in-water work and would therefore not alter the course of a stream or river or create flooding. Therefore, impacts during operations, and maintenance would be less than significant.

Mitigation. No mitigation required.
(c) Create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff (Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated) Construction
As discussed in Impact HYD-3 (b) above, the Proposed Project would not increase the amount of runoff in the study area. The Proposed Project would not introduce new impervious surfaces because the ROW or other area disturbed during construction would be restored. During construction of the Core Collection System, Export Pipeline System, and Extended Collection System, runoff will be controlled through the implementation of a Construction SWPPP.
423
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 245
During construction and ground disturbing activities associated with installation of the Core Collection System, Export Pipeline System, and Extended Collection System, construction flows to existing drainage systems may occur, as well as potential sources of polluted runoff. BMPs and compliance with mandates set forth in the CGP and Small MS4 Permit would help prevent runoff from entering nearby existing drainage systems. However, the potential for polluted runoff still exists during construction.

Impacts would therefore be significant. As discussed, implementation of mitigation measures MM-HYD-1 and MM-HYD-3 will reduce potentially significant impacts.

Significance after Mitigation. With implementation of MM-HYD-1 and MM-HYD-3, impacts on polluted runoff would be reduced to a less than significant level.

Operation and Maintenance
After construction is complete, stormwater runoff conditions would be similar to pre-construction conditions given that most work would have occurred below ground and disturbed surfaces would be backfilled and restored. During operation of the Proposed Project, the treated wastewater from the Chico WPCP would continue to be discharged to the Sacramento River through a submerged outfall diffuser and is regulated in accordance with NPDES Permit No. CA0079081 (Order No. R5-2016-0023).

Maintenance activities would not require in-water work and would therefore not alter the course of a stream or river or create polluted runoff. Impacts from runoff and polluted runoff during operation and maintenance would be less than significant.

Mitigation. No mitigation required.
(d) Impede or redirect flood flows (Less than Significant Impact) Construction
No impacts would occur during operations because treated wastewater would continue to be discharged to the Sacramento River. The Core Collection System, Export Pipeline System, and Extended Collection System would require work near waterbodies in some areas, as shown in Figure 2-1, Project Location. However, construction would not occur within any waterbodies.

Construction of the Export Pipeline System would involve trenchless crossings below Butte Creek, Comanche Creek, and Little Chico Creek at depths of at least 20 feet below the creek bed using HDD methods. As discussed in Section 3.10.1 Environmental Setting, levees also traverse the study area along Comanche Creek, Little Chico Creek, and Butte Creek Diversion Channel. Levees located along Comanche Creek and Little Chico Creek are locally constructed, operated and maintained (USACE 2016). Butte Creek Diversion Channel (National Levee ID 5205000592) is a federal levee that traverses the study area (USACE 2016). Launching and receiving pits would be set back sufficiently far from the levees to avoid potential impacts from the pits. The tunnels themselves would pass under the levees, but at a sufficient depth to avoid impacting them. Waters within Butte Creek, Comanche Creek and Little Chico Creek would therefore not be redirected or impeded. Additionally, with compliance with applicable permits, impacts from impeding or redirecting flood flows would be less than significant.

Mitigation. No mitigation required.
424
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 246
Operation and Maintenance
No impacts would occur during operations because treated wastewater would continue to be discharged to the Sacramento River. Maintenance activities would not require in-water work and would therefore not alter the course of a stream or river or impede or redirect flows. Impacts during operation and maintenance would be less than significant.

Mitigation. No mitigation required.

3.10.4.4 Impact HYD-4: In flood hazard zones, risk release of pollutants due to Project inundation (Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated) Construction
Most of the study area is in a minimal flood hazard zone. However, in some areas there is a 0.2 percent or 1 percent chance that the study area would flood in any given year (FEMA 2020, Butte County 2021d). Levees also traverse the study area along Comanche Creek, Little Chico Creek, and Butte Creek Diversion Channel. Levees located along Comanche Creek and Little Chico Creek are locally constructed, operated and maintained (USACE 2016). Butte Creek Diversion Channel (National Levee ID 5205000592) is a federal levee that traverses the study area (USACE 2016). Therefore, the Proposed Project will be subject to USACE Section 408 permitting requirements. The Proposed Project will comply with Section 408 permitting requirements and will be designed in accordance with USACE standards. As discussed in Section 3.10.2, Regulatory Framework, Section 408 provides that USACE may grant permission for another party to alter a Civil Works project upon a determination that the alteration proposed will not be injurious to the public interest and will not impair the usefulness of the Civil Works project. Impacts on the Butte Creek Diversion Channel and other levees in the study area would be avoided because construction of the Export Pipeline System would involve a trenchless crossing at Butte Creek, Comanche Creek and Little Chico Creek at least 20 feet below the waterbody, and no physical modifications to the waterbody or the levee are proposed. Further, no other Project components would impact Butte, Comanche, and Little Chico Creeks. However, because there is a possibility that the study area could experience flooding, this impact would be significant. As discussed, implementation of MM-HYD-3 would reduce potentially significant impacts.

Significance after Mitigation. With implementation of MM-HYD-3, impacts from the release of pollutants due to Proposed Project inundation would be reduced to a less than significant level.

Operation and Maintenance
Treated water would continue to be discharged to the Sacramento River in compliance with flow and water quality standards laid out in the NPDES Permit No. CA0079081 (Order No. R5-2016-0023).

Therefore, impacts during operation and maintenance would be considered less than significant.

Mitigation. No mitigation required.
425
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 247

3.10.4.5 Impact HYD-5: Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan (Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)
Construction
The current wastewater system in Paradise is characteristic of a high percentage of failed or failing septic systems, which can create a public health risk due to the potential for direct or indirect public contact with sewage. The lack of a viable sewer infrastructure also poses an environmental threat to groundwater and surface water quality. As discussed under Impact HYD-1, the Proposed Project would improve groundwater and surface water quality and increase water supplies in the study area by developing a wastewater collection, treatment, and dispersal solution that fits the needs of the Town.

As noted in the California Water Boards’ Strategic Plan Summary: 2008–2012 (SWRCB 2008), improving groundwater quality and increasing water supplies are two key objectives of the State of California. The Proposed Project will align with these state goals.

During construction, the Proposed Project will involve the preparation and compliance with a construction SWPPP. The Project will require regulatory permits from USACE (Section 404), the Regional Board (Section 401), CDFW (Streambed Alteration Agreement), CGP and Small MS4 Permit.

With implementation of requirements within Section 404, 408, 401, the Streambed Alteration Agreement, CGP, MS4 Permit, and other standard water treatment BMPs, the Proposed Project will comply with applicable permitting requirements during construction.

Additionally, as discussed in Impact HYD-2, the Proposed Project would not include the use of groundwater. The Proposed Project would not introduce additional impervious surfaces that would have the potential to impede groundwater recharge, and no impact on a sustainable groundwater management plan or ordinance, such as the Butte County Groundwater Conservation Ordinance, would occur.

A Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Valley Region was revised in May 2018. The regulatory mechanism for the discharge of pollutants into the water is the NPDES permit program, which is designed to protect water quality by regulating point sources of pollutants (City of Chico 2017). The Proposed Project will comply with NPDES permitting. However, there is potential that water quality impacts could occur during construction. Impacts would therefore be significant.

Significance after Mitigation. With implementation of MM-HYD-1, impacts on a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan would be reduced to a less than significant level.

Operation and Maintenance
Compliance with standard federal, state, and local regulations and policies related to water quality would also occur during operation and maintenance of the Proposed Project. As discussed under Impact HYD-1, the Proposed Project would add an additional 0.464 mgd of wastewater to be treated at Chico WPCP and discharged to the Sacramento River through a submerged outfall diffuser regulated in accordance with NPDES Permit No. CA0079081 (Order No. R5-2016-0023). The additional 0.464 mgd of wastewater is within the permitted allowance. Based on these factors, there would be no impact on a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan during operation and maintenance.
426
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 248
Mitigation. No mitigation required.

3.10.5 Impacts Summary
Table 3.10-1 summarizes the hydrology and water quality impacts of the Proposed Project.

Table 3.10-1. Hydrology and Water Quality Impacts Summary Impact
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation
Mitigation
Level of
Significance
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Impact HYD-1: Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality
S/M MM-HAZ-1,
MMBIO-1, MMHYD-2, MM-HYD-1
LTS
Impact HYD-2: Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the Project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin

LTS N/A LTS
Impact HYD-3(a): Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: Result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off-site
S/M MM-HYD-1 LTS
Impact HYD-3(b): Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite S/M MM-HYD-1, MMHYD-3 LTS
Impact HYD-3(c): Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: Create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff S/M MM-HYD-1, MMHYD-3 LTS
Impact HYD-3(d): Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: Impede or redirect flood flows

LTS N/A LTS
Impact HYD-4: In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to Project inundation
S/M MM-HYD-3 LTS
Impact HYD-5: Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan S/M MM-HYD-1 LTS
Notes: LTS = Less than Significant Impact, NI = No Impact, N/A = Not Applicable, SI = Significant Impact, S/M = Significant Impact but Mitigable to a Less than Significant Level
427
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 249

3.10.6 References
Butte County. 2000. Chico Urban Area Nitrate Compliance Plan. Program Report and Proposed Implementation Plan for Groundwater Nitrate Compliance in the Chico Urban Area. http://www.buttecounty.net/Portals/1/NitrateComplianceProgram/Chico_Urban_Area_Nitrate_C ompliance_Plan_Final-2000.pdf.

Butte County. 2010. Butte County General Plan 2030 EIR. April 8, 2010. https://www.buttecounty.net/ dds/Planning/Butte-County-General-Plan.

Butte County. 2016. Butte County Water Inventory and Analysis. Final Report. Butte County Department of Water and Resource Conservation. June. https://www.buttecounty.net/wrcdocs/ Reports/I%26A/2016WI%26AFINAL.pdf.

Butte County. 2021d. Public Works Information Interactive GIS Map. Accessed April 2021 and July 17, 2021. http://gis.buttecounty.net/public/index.html?viewer=pwsearch/.

CDM. 2005. Butte County Integrated Water Resources Plan. May 2005. https://www.buttecounty.net/ waterresourceconservation/integratedwaterresourcesplan.

RWQCB. 2018. The Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region. Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018. https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/water_issues/basin_plans/sacsjr_201805.pdf.

City of Chico. 2017. Chico 2030 General Plan. Adopted April 2011. Amended March 2017. https://chico.ca.us/post/chico-2030-general-plan.

DOC. 2019b. “California Tsunami Map and Data.” Accessed July 17, 2021. https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/tsunami/maps.

California Department of Water Resources (DWR). 2004. “Sacramento Valley Groundwater Basin, Vina Subbasin.” California’s Groundwater Bulletin 118. February 27. https://water.ca.gov/-/media/ DWR-Website/Web-Pages/Programs/Groundwater-Management/Bulletin-118/Files/2003-BasinDescriptions/5_021_57_VinaSubbasin.pdf.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2011. Flood Insurance Rate Maps.

FEMA. 2020. “Flood Zones.” Updated July 8, 2020. https://www.fema.gov/glossary/flood-zones.

Hartman, Susan. 2021. Personal communication with Susan Hartman, Town of Paradise, on November 19, 2021.
428
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 250
Montgomery, James. 1983. Town of Paradise Wastewater Management Study Phase I Report. May 1983. https://paradisesewer.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/1983-TOP-WastewaterManagement-Study-Phase-I-Report.pdf.

NRCS. 2018. “California Hydrologic Units.” US Department of Agriculture. September 5. https://koordinates.com/layer/96058-california-hydrologic-units/.

Peterson, Kelly. 2019. Spring & Fall 2019 Groundwater Level Conditions. Butte County Department of Water and Resource Conservation. http://www.buttecounty.net/wrcdocs/Programs/Monitoring/ GWLevels/2019/2019_Spring_Fall_GWL_graphs.pdf.

Paradise Irrigation District (PID). 2019. Annual Consumer Confidence Report. https://pidwater.com/ docs/about-your-water/water-quality/1750-2019-consumer-confidence-report/file.

SWRCB. 2008. Strategic Plan Summary: 2008–2012. California Water Boards. September. https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/board_reference/docs/summary_strategic_plan_2008- 2012.pdf.

United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2016. National Levee Database. Accessed May 19, 2022. https://levees.sec.usace.army.mil/#/. Accessed May 19, 2022.

USEPA. 2020. Septic Systems and Surface Water. Accessed September 3, 2021. https://www.epa.gov/septic/septic-systems-and-surface-water.

USEPA. 2021c. Feather and Sacramento Rivers Watersheds. Accessed May 18, 2022. https://www.epa.gov/sfbay-delta/feather-and-sacramento-rivers-watersheds. Accessed May 18, 2022.

USEPA. 2021d. Potential Well Water Contaminants and their Impacts. Accessed September 3, 2021. https://www.epa.gov/privatewells/potential-well-water-contaminants-and-their-impacts. 429
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 251

3.11 Land Use and Planning
This section describes the environmental setting and regulatory framework for land use and planning, and it identifies direct and indirect impacts of the Proposed Project during construction, operation, and maintenance. In particular, the land use analysis focuses on land use designation and planning characteristics for Butte County, Paradise, and Chico in the study area. For the purposes of this PEIR, the land use and planning study area is defined as the land use designations within the proposed Core and Extended Collection Systems and the Export Pipeline System. This includes land use designations of the Town and City as well as the land use designations for Butte County and the unincorporated areas of Butte County.

3.11.1 Environmental Setting
The Proposed Project would fall within the Town’s land use jurisdiction, the City’s land use jurisdiction, and the County’s land use jurisdiction for unincorporated areas of Butte County. Land use designations do not apply to the County, Town or City ROWs, but are noted here as they would be adjacent to the Proposed Project located primarily in County, City and Town roads (ROW). In the Town, the Proposed Project study area would be adjacent to lands with Residential, Commercial, Industrial, Community Service, Public Institutional, and Recreational land use designations; installing components of the Core Collection System, such as pipelines or pump stations could require temporary or permanent easements on parcels with Residential, Commercial, Industrial, Community Service, and Public Institutional land use designations. Within unincorporated Butte County along the Skyway segment of the pipeline, the Proposed Project study area would remain within the County ROW and be adjacent to land with Agriculture, Residential, Recreation, Commercial, Planned Unit Development, Public, Resource Conservation, and Industrial land use designations. In the City, the Proposed Project study area would be adjacent to land with Open Space, Special Planning Area, Residential, Public, and Manufacturing land use designations. The small segment of the pipeline that crosses private property after leaving Skyway occurs in the City (Section 2.5.2.4 Easement or Encroachment Requirements; Figure 2-8) and would require temporary and permanent easements on two parcels with a land use designation of Regional Commercial. Land use designations within the study area are presented in Figure 3.11-1.

3.11.1.1 Town of Paradise General Plan
The current Town of Paradise General Plan was initially adopted by the Paradise Town Council on October 4, 1994. As noted in Section 2.2.1 Pre-fire History, since 1994, it continuously has been reviewed and amended for consistency and applicability. Amendments to the General Plan since 1994 can be found in Appendix B Town of Paradise 1994 General Plan Resolution and Amendments and are incorporated when referencing the Town of Paradise General Plan or General Plan in this document.

The General Plan serves as a long-term guide for orderly growth and development in Paradise. The General Plan also forms the foundation for zoning, subdivision regulation, and other planning decisions.

The document is the third general plan adopted by the Town since its incorporation in 1979 and is organized into three separate volumes: Volume I – Policy Document, Volume II - Environmental Impact Report and Volume III – Environmental Setting. Volume I, the Policy Document, contains a 430
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 252
comprehensive assemblage of all mandatory general plan elements and an additional, non-mandatory Education and Social Services element.

The Housing Element has been periodically updated, with the most recent Town of Paradise 2022– 2030 Housing Element Update (as submitted to the California Department of Housing and Community Development [HCD]) and adopted by Town Council on June 14, 2022 (Town of Paradise 2022a). In the Housing Element, the Town Council adopted an implementation measure to create a Sewer Service Overlay zone if and when the Proposed Project moves forward. This makes the Paradise Housing Element consistent with the Butte County Association of Governments’ (BCAG) Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) and current State Housing Element law.

In order for the Housing Element to be adopted by the Town, which it was, the document was reviewed and conceptually approved by HCD, which regulates general plans in California, as well as specific elements of those plans (https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing-element).

Certification of the Housing Element by HCD, which included consideration of the full General Plan, is confirmation of the continued validity of the local government’s General Plan. As of May 25, 2022, the Town Planning Director has also provided a review of the Town of Paradise General Plan (Town of Paradise and Quad Consultants 2008) and confirmed that all required elements are current (see all amendments to the General Plan since 1994 in Appendix B: Town of Paradise 1994 General Plan Resolution and Amendments). The Town of Paradise Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 13-04 finding the Town of Paradise 1994 General Plan with updates “substantially complies with the statutory mandates under Government Code Section 65302” and recommended that the Town Council adopt the amendments to the Housing Element. (Appendix B Town of Paradise 1994 General Plan Resolution and Amendments). The Commission found the Town of Paradise General Plan, as updated, remains a valid document because of the slow growth and change of the town.

State legislation now requires the Safety Element be updated whenever the Housing Element is updated. Therefore, the Town’s Safety Element was updated at the same time as the 2022-2030 Housing Element. It is currently in the process of review by CalFire and then will be reviewed by the Department of Conservation. After these reviews, and before adoption, it will be available for public review and comment.
431
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 253
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
Figure 3.11-1. Land Use Designation and Zoning within the Study Area 432
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 254

3.11.1.2 Butte County General Plan
The Butte County General Plan 2030 (Butte County 2012) was updated and adopted on October 26, 2010 (Butte County Resolution 10-152) and Amended on November 6, 2012 (Butte County Resolution 12-124). Butte County General Plan 2030 represents the conclusion of a multi-year effort begun in 2006 to comprehensively update the County’s General Plan to provide areas for future growth and conservation until the year 2030. The Butte County General Plan 2030 Action Plan was updated by the Board of Supervisors in April 2018 for an additional 5-year planning period, ending in 2023 (Butte County Board of Supervisors Resolution No. 18-069). The Action Plan includes information related to the timing, primary and additional responsible agencies, and estimate costs for each action. The Action Plan also includes a Post General Plan 2030 Adoption Strategy to address future changes and corrections to the General Plan (https://www.buttecounty.net/dds/Planning/Butte-County-General-Plan).

3.11.1.3 Chico 2030 General Plan
The Chico 2030 General Plan (City of Chico 2017) was adopted in April 2011and provides a comprehensive, long-range policy framework for the growth and preservation of Chico. The policies of the Plan apply to all properties within the City limits (https://chico.ca.us/general-plan-other-planningdocuments).

3.11.2 Regulatory Framework
This section summarizes the federal, state, regional, and local laws, regulations, policies, and plans relevant to evaluation of the Proposed Project’s impacts on land use and planning. Additional information on the relevant regulations, laws, and plans is provided in Appendix C, Regulatory Framework.

3.11.2.1 Federal
No identified federal laws, regulations, orders, policies, or plans regarding land use and planning are relevant to the Proposed Project.

3.11.2.2 State
California State Planning and Zoning Law (California Government Code Sections 65000 to 66037) The California State Planning and Zoning Law generally delegates local land use and development decisions to the respective city or county and provides laws that pertain to the land use regulations set out by the local government’s general plan requirements, specific plans, and zoning.

3.11.2.3 Regional and Local
Town of Paradise “Dig Once” Policy
The Town of Paradise adopted the “Dig Once” Policy in 2019 to rebuild the Town’s infrastructure after the 2018 Camp Fire. Per this policy, the Town strives to place all utility lines underground and direct utility agencies and companies to coordinate with each other when constructing and maintaining their infrastructure. This coordination would lessen the impact on the Town’s roadways. Full relocation of utilities is estimated to take 5 years to complete, and work has already begun in Paradise. 433
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 255
Town of Paradise General Plan
The Town of Paradise General Plan (Town of Paradise and Quad Consultants 2008) with updates includes the following goals, objectives, and policies related to land use and planning that are relevant to the Proposed Project:
 Goal LUG-2: Accommodate a rate of growth consistent with the physical and infrastructural limitations in Paradise.
 Objective LUO-2: Stimulate and accommodate commercial/industrial growth while maintaining the current quality of life.
 Objective LUO-4: Carefully manage and control population growth, while stimulating local economic growth.
 Policy ESP-6: School sites should have on a timely basis access to all utilities and services, including sewer, water, gas, electricity, and drainage.  Implementation Measure LUI-7: Identify subareas, pipeline routes and priorities for the sewer system and complete construction for a sewer system to serve the central area of Paradise.  Policy LUP-27: The Town shall create a Central Commercial area generally bounded by Skyway, the Paradise Memorial Trailway, Elliott Road, and Pearson Road, evidencing the following: ready access from a variety of directions, visibility, established businesses, available developable land, and sufficient infrastructure planned or in place to support a more concentrated form of activity.
 Objective LUO-10: Consider the construction and installation of a formal sewer system to service the commercial and industrial areas in the Town within the 15-year planning period.  Goal LUG-13: Designate appropriate areas for high density residential use and for institutional and public uses in centralized and convenient locations.  Policy LUP-16: The Town will attempt to implement all feasible steps to assure that sewer service is made available to the commercial area of the Town as expeditiously as possible.  Goal LUG-32: Assure that all land uses in the Town conform to the goals and policies of the General Plan.
 Policy LUP-45: New higher density land use development should only be permitted in areas compatible with surrounding land uses, infrastructure capabilities and established service levels.

Town of Paradise 2022–2030 Housing Element Update
The Town of Paradise 2022-2030 Housing Element Update (Town of Paradise 2022a) includes the following goals related to land use and planning that are relevant to the Proposed Project:
 HI-1: Reduce Infrastructure Constraints to Development – Continue to reduce infrastructure constraints to new development, particularly those constraints associated with wastewater disposal. The General Plan authorizes an ongoing identification of infrastructure and service limitations including those related to sanitary waste disposal which inhibit housing development.  HI-4: Density Bonus, SSA Overlay, and Other Opportunities for Increased Density - Revise the density bonus ordinance (Chapter 17.44) to be consistent with State law, including AB 2345 and Government Code Sections 65915 and 65917 and identify incentives for affordable housing development. Perform the re-zonings described in Chapter 4 (of the 2022-2030 Housing 434
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 256
Element of the Town of Paradise General Plan), for key parcels in the (sewer service area) and establish a Sewer Service Overlay Zone to allow increased densities up to 30 dwelling units/acre in the (sewer service area) to accommodate affordable housing.  HI-7: Small Lot Consolidation and Development - Continue to encourage consolidation of small multi-family parcels as well as small, commercially designated parcels appropriate for residential use. This program can facilitate the development of affordable housing by creating lots large enough to accommodate denser multi-family residential projects. The planned sewer system is anticipated to also be an impetus for lot consolidation.

Butte County General Plan 2030
The Butte County General Plan 2030 (Butte County 2012) includes the following goals related to land use and planning that are relevant to the Proposed Project:
 Goal LU-1: Continue to uphold and respect the planning principles on which the County’s land use map is based.
 Goal LU-3: Create communities where there is a sense of well-being where families and neighbors can socialize, interact, and play.
 Goal LU-5: Provide adequate land for and promote the development of attractive commercial and industrial areas and uses that provide goods, services, and jobs.  Goal LU-9: Coordinate land development with provision of new services and infrastructure.

Chico 2030 General Plan
The Chico 2030 General Plan (City of Chico 2017) includes the following goals related to land use and planning that are relevant to the Proposed Project:
 Goal LU-1: Reinforce the City’s compact urban form, establish urban growth limits, and manage where and how growth and conservation will occur.
 Goal LU-2: Maintain a land use plan that provides a mix and distribution of uses that meet the identified needs of the community.

3.11.3 Method of Analysis
This section describes the methods used to analyze land use and planning characteristics within the study area.

3.11.3.1 CEQA Significance Criteria
For the purposes of this PEIR, the Proposed Project would result in a significant impact on land use if it would:
 Impact LU-1: Physically divide an established community  Impact LU-2: Cause any significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect
435
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 257

3.11.3.2 Approach to Analysis
Construction, Operation and Maintenance
A desktop analysis was completed to collect and analyze data related to land use and planning characteristics in the study area. Information was collected on land use designation and zoning within the study area. GIS data and aerial imagery were used to identify the land uses that encompass the study area. Additionally, the following resources were used for data collection:
 Butte County Development Services Information interactive GIS map (Butte County 2021b)  Butte County Public Works Information interactive GIS map (Butte County 2021d)  Butte County General Plan 2030 land use designations map (Butte County 2012)  Butte County Zoning Map (Butte County 2019a)
 Town of Paradise interactive viewer map (Town of Paradise 2021a)  City of Chico General Plan Diagram land use designation map (City of Chico 2013)  City of Chico Planning Division interactive GIS map (City of Chico 2021c) The following methods were used to evaluate the potential impacts from construction, operation and maintenance of the Proposed Project on land use designations:
 The GIS data, aerial imagery, static and interactive maps were used to pinpoint the land use designations and zoning within the study area.
 Analysis of construction methods, ROW, and staging areas.  Analysis of the Project’s consistency with the requirements of all plans, policies, and regulations listed in the regulatory setting of the chapter.

The analysis of environmental effects focuses on foreseeable changes to the existing land use and planning characteristics resulting from the Proposed Project in the context of effects listed in Section 3.11.3.1, CEQA Significance Criteria. The analysis considers the Core Collection System, Export Pipeline System, and Extended Collection System, as appropriate, in the context of construction, off-site staging areas, post-construction operation, and maintenance.

3.11.4 Impact Analysis
This section describes the direct and indirect environmental impacts on land use that could result from implementation of the Proposed Project. The analysis considers land use consistency with existing policies and regulations, as well as the potential for changes to land use designations or zoning.

3.11.4.1 Impact LU-1: Physically divide an established community (No Impact) Construction
The Proposed Project would primarily be constructed below the surface within the public ROW and would only rise to the surface for parcel connections, at pump station locations within the Core and Extended Collection System areas, and at the Chico WPCP connection. Within the Town, construction of the Core and Extended Collection Systems would use in-street pipe trenching, which after construction would be backfilled and restored to existing or better conditions. 436
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 258
The Export Pipeline System would also be constructed underground, primarily within existing ROW.

Approximately 1.1 miles of the pipeline would traverse private property and require a permanent easement from the private property owners (Section 2.5.2.4 Easement or Encroachment Requirements). Above ground structures including pump stations, the transition chamber and the flow control and metering structure would be part of the system (Section 2.5.2 Export Pipeline System); however, these would be in the public ROW and would not segment or divide an established community. Based on these factors, there would be no impact from physically dividing an established community during construction.

Mitigation. No mitigation required.

Operation and Maintenance
According to the Town of Paradise 2022–2030 Housing Element Update, an implementation measure to create a Sewer Service Overlay Zone was established to allow increased densities up to 30 dwelling units per acre in the sewer service area (Town of Paradise 2022a). As discussed in Section 2.5.1 Core Collection System, this Proposed Project component aligns geographically with what is defined as the Sewer Service Area (SSA) in the Town of Paradise 2022 Housing Element (Town of Paradise 2022a).

The Proposed Project is consistent with the goals and policies in the Housing Element as it would serve most businesses in the Town of Paradise and provide for future development of more multi-family residences, which is currently limited because of septic system constraints. Further, the Proposed Project assists the Town in meeting the goals presented in the Town of Paradise 2022–2030 Housing Element Update as it provides the sewage capacity for the increase in densities per acre to occur.

Operation and maintenance of the Proposed Project will involve periodic inspection of the Core Collection System, Extended Collection System, Export Pipeline System and associated instrumentation, and flow data sampling (2.8 Proposed Operation and Maintenance). These activities will be required periodically throughout the year and will not involve activities or permanent structures that would divide established communities.

In summary, because most of the Proposed Project components would be below the surface and all exposed ground would be restored back to existing conditions post construction, any above-ground components would be within existing ROW and would be relatively small structures, and rezoning would be consistent with the Town of Paradise 2022–2030 Housing Element Update, the Proposed Project would not physically divide an established community and no impact would occur during operation and maintenance.

Mitigation. No mitigation required.

3.11.4.2 Impact LU-2: Cause any significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect (No Impact)
The objective of the Proposed Project is to provide a sewer system to serve the Town in compliance with the Town of Paradise General Plan policies LUG-2, LUO-2, LUO-4, ESP-6, LUI-7, LUO-10, LUG13,LUP-16, LUP-27, LUG-32, and LUP-45 (Town of Paradise and Quad Consultants 2008), as well as the Town of Paradise 2022-2030 Housing Element Update (Town of Paradise 2022a) goals: HI-1, HI-5, 437
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 259
and HI-8. The Proposed Project is consistent with these aforementioned policies and all other applicable land use and planning goals and policies identified in the General Plan. The Town of Paradise will be updating its General Plan in response to the 2018 Camp Fire, and will include updates to its land use, circulation, conservation, noise, open space, and air quality elements. This is anticipated to be a minimum 3-year process (S. Hartman, personal communication, November 19, 2021). The Proposed Project is also consistent with the goals and policies planned to be included in the Town of Paradise General Plan updates (S. Hartman, personal communication, November 19, 2021).

Table 3.11-1 provides a consistency analysis of applicable land use goals, policies, and regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating environmental effects.

Table 3.11-1. Consistency with State and Local Land Use Plans, Policies, and Regulations Goals and Policies Project Consistency
Land Use and Planning
California State Planning and Zoning Law Consistent. The Proposed Project will follow all Butte County, Town of Paradise, and City of Chico laws and regulations as it relates to land use. These include Butte County General Plan 2030 (Butte County 2012), Town of Paradise General Plan (Town of Paradise and Quad Consultants 2008), and Chico 2030 General Plan (City of Chico 2017).

Butte County General Plan 2030 Goal LU-1: Continue to
uphold and respect the planning principles on which Butte County’s land use map is based.

Consistent. The Proposed Project would not impact any
existing land use designation and will follow all Butte County planning principles.

Butte County General Plan 2030 Goal LU-3: Create
communities where there is a sense of well-being where
families and neighbors can socialize, interact, and play.

Consistent. The Proposed Project’s objective is to encourage economic vitality and improve the overall Paradise community by reducing the potential for public health concerns.

Butte County General Plan 2030 Goal LU-5: Provide
adequate land for and promote the development of attractive commercial and industrial areas and uses that provide goods, services, and jobs.

Consistent. The Proposed Project’s objective is to improve the local economy by stimulating existing businesses and
encouraging new businesses. This, in effect, would provide more goods, services, and job opportunities for residents.

Butte County General Plan 2030 Goal LU-9: Coordinate land development with provision of new service and infrastructure.

Consistent. The Proposed Project would take into
consideration of any existing land use designation and land development with the new sewer service and infrastructure.

Town of Paradise General Plan Objective LUO-10: Consider the construction and installation of a formal sewer system to service the commercial and industrial areas in the Town within the 15-year planning period.

Consistent. The objective of the Proposed Project is to provide a sewer system to serve the Town in compliance with the Town of Paradise General Plan policies LUO-10, ESP-6, LUP-16, and LUI-7 (Town of Paradise and Quad Consultants 2008) and those policies being included by the Town in their current process to update the General Plan.
438
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 260
Goals and Policies Project Consistency
Town of Paradise General Plan Policy ESP-6: School sites should have on a timely basis access to all utilities and services, including sewer, water, gas, electricity, and drainage.

Town of Paradise General Plan Goal LUG-2: Accommodate
a rate of growth consistent with the physical and infrastructural limitations in Paradise.

Consistent. The Proposed Project will provide sewer service to approximately 1,500 parcels that would serve most
businesses in the Town and future multi-family residential developments. Additional parcels could be added through considerations of the Extended Collection System.

Town of Paradise General Plan Objective LUO-2: Stimulate and accommodate commercial/industrial growth while
maintaining the current quality of life.

Consistent. The Proposed Project’s objective is to encourage economic vitality and improve the overall Paradise community by reducing the potential for public health concerns.

Town of Paradise General Plan Objective LUO-4: Carefully manage and control population growth, while stimulating local economic growth.

Town of Paradise General Plan Policy LUP-45: New higher density land use development should only be permitted in areas compatible with surrounding land uses, infrastructure capabilities and established service levels.

Consistent. The sewer service area would be compatible with surrounding land uses, infrastructure capabilities and
established service levels.

Town of Paradise 2022-2030 Housing Element Update Goal
HG-1: Encourage and facilitate the production of all housing types, from affordable workforce housing to executive homes, to meet the town’s share of regional housing needs consistent with the overall goal, objectives and policies of the Paradise General Plan.

Consistent. The sewer service area would provide for future development of more multi-family residences, which is
currently limited because of septic system constraints.

Town of Paradise 2022-2030 Housing Element Update
Incentive HI-4: Density bonus, SSA overlay, and other
opportunities for increased density
Consistent. The sewer service area would provide for future development of more multi-family residences, which is
currently limited because of septic system constraints. The Proposed Project assists the Town in meeting the goals
presented in the Town of Paradise Housing Element as it provides the sewage capacity for the increase in densities per acre to occur.

Chico 2030 General Plan Goal LU-1: Reinforce the City of Chico’s compact urban form, establish urban growth limits, and manage where and how growth and conservation will occur.

Consistent. The Proposed Project’s objectives would not affect Chico’s compact urban form or create any substantial population growth in Chico, as discussed in Section 0,
Population and Housing.

Chico 2030 General Plan Goal LU-2: Maintain a land use
plan that provides a mix and distribution of uses that meet the identified needs of the community
Consistent. The Proposed Project would provide efficient regional wastewater treatment for Chico and would not impact existing land use.
439
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 261
Goals and Policies Project Consistency
Air Quality
SB 32 Consistent. The Proposed Project would not generate GHG emissions during construction that would exceed SMAQMD’s significance thresholds, which are based on SB 32 GHG
emissions reduction goals. Because of this, it would not conflict with SB 32 GHG emissions reduction goals. (Note: the
Proposed Project is in the BCAQMD, but since no GHG
thresholds have been set for this District, SMAQMD’s
significance thresholds were used in impact analysis (Section

3.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions).

Northern Sacramento Valley Planning Area 2018 Triennial Air Quality Attainment Plan
Consistent. The Proposed Project could foster re-population and economic re-growth indirectly recovering from the 2018 Camp Fire; however, that growth would be contained within the Town and as a result, the Proposed Project would be
consistent with BCAG’s growth projections. Thus, it would not conflict with the Attainment Plan.

Hydrology and Water Quality
Clean Water Act (Section 401 and 404) Consistent. The Proposed Project will comply with applicable permitting requirements during construction.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife Lake and
Streambed Alteration Program
Consistent. The Proposed Project will comply with applicable permitting requirements during construction.

California Water Board’s Strategic Plan Summary 2008-
2012
Consistent. The Proposed Project intends to improve
groundwater quality and increase water supplies, which are the two key objectives in the strategic plan.

Butte County Groundwater Conservation Ordinance Consistent. The Proposed Project would not include the use of groundwater. The Proposed Project would not introduce impervious surfaces that would have the potential to impede groundwater recharge, and no impact on a sustainable
groundwater management plan or ordinance would occur.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials
2017 Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Consistent. The Proposed Project would not include tall structures that have the potential to intrude upon protected airspace and would not include land use features that have the potential to attract birds and certain other potentially hazardous wildlife to the Airport area. Visual hazards, including certain types of lights, sources of glare, and sources of dust, steam or smoke would be minimized during construction through project controls.

Biological Resources
Butte Regional Conservation Plan Consistent. The Proposed Project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan. A portion of the study area overlaps with the Butte Regional Conservation Plan (BRCP), which as of summer 2021 had not been formally
adopted, though it was in the final phase of development.

However, Project construction activities will not conflict with the Plan.
440
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 262
Construction
As shown in Table 3.11-1, the Proposed Project will not conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect during construction. No impact would occur.

Mitigation. No mitigation required.

Operation and Maintenance
As shown in Table 3.11-1, the Proposed Project will not conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect during operation and maintenance and there would be no impact.

Mitigation. No mitigation required.

3.11.5 Impacts Summary
Table 3.11-2 summarizes the land use and planning impacts of the Proposed Project.

Table 3.11-2. Land Use and Planning Impacts Summary
Impact
Level of
Significance
Before Mitigation
Mitigation
Level of
Significance
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Impact LU-1: Physically divide an established community NI N/A NI Impact LU-2: Cause any significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect

NI N/A NI
Notes: LTS = Less than Significant Impact, NI = No Impact, N/A = Not Applicable, SI = Significant Impact, S/M = Significant Impact but Mitigable to a Less than Significant Level

3.11.6 References
Butte County. 2012. Butte County General Plan 2030. Adopted October 26, 2010. Updated November 6, 2012. http://www.buttecounty.net/Portals/10/Planning/ ButteCountyGeneralPlan2030_May2018red.pdf?ver=2019-12-18-141822-357.

Butte County. 2019a. Butte County Zoning Map. April 2019. https://www.buttecounty.net/Portals/10/ Docs/Zoning/Zoning_Map_Poster.pdf?ver=2019-04-30-104419-940.

Butte County. 2021b. Development Services Information Interactive GIS Map. Accessed April 2021 and July 30, 2021. http://gis.buttecounty.net/Public/index.html?viewer=dssearch.

Butte County. 2021d. Public Works Information Interactive GIS Map. Accessed April 2021 and July 17, 2001. http://gis.buttecounty.net/public/index.html?viewer=pwsearch/.

City of Chico. 2013. General Plan Diagram. January 1. Accessed April 2021. https://chico.ca.us/sites/ main/files/file-attachments/hiresgpmap.pdf?1577749027.
441
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 263
City of Chico. 2017. Chico 2030 General Plan. Adopted April 2011. Amended March 2017. https://chico.ca.us/post/chico-2030-general-plan.

City of Chico. 2021c. City of Chico Planning Division Interactive GIS Map. Accessed April 2021. https://chico.gc.facilitiesmap.com/Html5Viewer/Index.html?configBase=https://chico.gc.facilities map.com/Geocortex/Essentials/REST/sites/City_of_Chico_GIS/viewers/HTML5_Viewer/virtuald irectory/Resources/Config/Default&viewer=City_of_Chico_GIS.City_of_Chico_GIS.

Hartman, Susan. 2021. Personal communication with Susan Hartman, Town of Paradise, on November 19, 2021.

Town of Paradise. 2021a. Town of Paradise Interactive GIS Viewer. Accessed April 2021. https://www.townofparadisemapping.com/.

Town of Paradise. 2022a. Town of Paradise 2022-2030 Housing Element Update. HCD Revisions Draft. May 2022. https://www.townofparadise.com/sites/default/files/fileattachments/planning/ page/41461/compiled_he_cleanappendices_5-23-22.pdf.

3.12 Noise and Groundborne Vibration
This section describes the environmental setting and regulatory framework for noise and groundborne vibration, and it identifies direct and indirect impacts of the Proposed Project during construction, operation, and maintenance. The section discusses whether the Proposed Project would generate temporary or permanent increases in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Proposed Project such that the noise level would exceed standards set in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable noise standards set by other agencies. This section also focuses on the possible generation of excessive noise and groundborne vibration in the study area where sensitive receptors are most susceptible to impacts as a result of the Proposed Project’s construction, operation, and maintenance. The study area for noise and groundborne vibration refers to the areas within and directly adjacent to the Town of Paradise and areas of unincorporated Butte County and Chico where the proposed pipeline alignment runs, as well as a 1,000-foot buffer radius surrounding the Proposed Project, as prescribed in Policy HS-P1.7 in the Butte County 2030 General Plan.

3.12.1 Environmental Setting

3.12.1.1 Overview of Noise and Sound
Noise levels are presented on a logarithmic scale to account for the large pressure response range of the human ear and are expressed in units of decibels (dB). A decibel is defined as the ratio between a measured value and a reference value usually corresponding to the lower threshold of human hearing defined as 20 micropascals. Because the human ear does not perceive every frequency with equal loudness, sounds are often adjusted with a weighting filter. The A-weighted filter is applied to compensate for the frequency response of the human auditory system and is known as an A-weighted decibel (dBA). Figure 3.12-1 shows typical A-weighted sound levels for transit and non-transit sources.

With respect to how the human ear perceives changes in sound pressure level relative to changes in “loudness,” scientific research demonstrates the following general relationships between sound level and human perception for two sound levels with the same or very similar frequency characteristics:
 One dBA is the practical limit of accuracy for sound measurement systems and corresponds to an approximate 10 percent variation in the sound pressure level. A 1 dBA increase or decrease is an imperceptible change in sound.
 A 3 dBA increase or decrease is a doubling (or halving) of acoustic pressure level, and it corresponds to the threshold of change in loudness perceptible in a laboratory environment. In practice, the average person is not able to distinguish a 3 dBA difference in environmental sound outdoors.
 A 5 dBA increase or decrease is described as a perceptible change in sound level and is a discernible change in an outdoor environment.
 A 10 dBA increase or decrease is a tenfold increase or decrease in acoustic pressure level but is perceived as a doubling or halving in loudness (that is, the average person would judge a 10 dBA change in sound level to be twice or half as loud). 443
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 265
Source: Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 2018
Figure 3.12-1. Typical A-weighted Sound Levels
Noise levels can be measured, modeled, and presented in various formats. The noise descriptors used in this analysis have the following definitions:
 Equivalent Sound Level (Leq): Conventionally expressed in dBA, the Leq is the energy averaged, A weighted sound level over a specified period. It is defined as the steady, continuous sound level over a specified period that has the same acoustic energy as the actual varying sound levels over the specified period. It is a mean average sound level.  Maximum Sound Level (Lmax): The Lmax is the maximum A-weighted sound level as determined during a specified measurement period. It can also be described as the maximum instantaneous sound pressure level generated by a piece of equipment or during a construction activity.
 Day-Night Average Sound Level (Ldn): The Ldn is the average hourly A-weighted Leq for a 24hour period with a 10 dB penalty added to sound levels occurring during the evening hours (7 p.m. to 10 p.m.) to account for people’s increased sensitivity to noise levels during nighttime hours.
 Community Noise Equivalent Level: The community noise equivalent level is another average A-weighted Leq sound level measured over a 24-hour period; however, this noise scale is adjusted to account for some people’s increased sensitivity to noise levels during the evening and nighttime hours. A community noise equivalent level noise measurement is obtained after adding 5 dB to sound levels occurring during evening hours (7 p.m. to 10 p.m.) and 10 dB to noise levels occurring during nighttime hours (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.). 444
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 266

3.12.1.2 Overview of Groundborne Vibration
Activities such as pile-driving and operation of heavy equipment may cause groundborne vibration during construction of the Proposed Project. Vibration is an oscillatory motion that can be described in terms of the displacement, velocity, or acceleration (Federal Transit Administration [FTA] 2018).

Velocity or acceleration is typically used to describe vibration. The vibration descriptors used in this analysis have the following definitions:
 Peak Particle Velocity (PPV): The maximum instantaneous positive or negative peak of the vibration signal. The potential for damage to buildings as a result of construction related vibration is evaluated using PPV. PPV is expressed in inch per second (in/sec).  Root Mean Square (RMS): The square root of the average of the squared amplitude of the vibration signal, typically calculated over a 1 second period. The potential to annoy humans as a result of construction-related vibration is evaluated using RMS. RMS is expressed in in/sec.  Vibration Velocity Level (LV): Ten times the common logarithm of the ratio of the square of the amplitude of the RMS vibration velocity to the square of the amplitude of the reference RMS vibration velocity. The reference velocity in the United States is 1 micro-inch per second. LV is expressed in vibration decibel (VdB).

Groundborne vibrations are generally reduced with distance depending on the local geological conditions. A receiver is a vibration-sensitive building (for example, residence, hospital, or school) where the vibrations may cause perceptible shaking of the floors, walls, and ceilings and a rumbling sound inside rooms. Not all receivers have the same vibration sensitivity. Consequently, vibration criteria are established for the various types of receivers. Groundborne noise occurs as a perceptible rumble and is caused by the noise radiated from the vibration of room surfaces.

Vibration above certain levels can damage buildings, disrupt sensitive operations, and cause annoyance to humans within buildings. The response of humans, buildings, and equipment to vibration is most accurately described using velocity or acceleration. In this analysis, vibration velocity (VdB) is the primary measure to evaluate the effects of vibration.

Figure 3.12-2 illustrates typical groundborne vibration velocity levels for common sources and thresholds for human and structural response to groundborne vibration. As shown, the range of interest is from approximately 50 to 100 VdB in terms of vibration velocity level (that is, from imperceptible background vibration to the threshold of damage). Although the threshold of human perception to vibration is approximately 65 VdB, annoyance does not usually occur unless the vibration exceeds 70 VdB.
445
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 267
Source: FTA 2018
Figure 3.12-2. Typical Groundborne Vibration Levels

3.12.1.3 Noise Sensitive Land Uses
Certain land uses are considered more sensitive to noise than others. Examples of these types of land uses include residential areas, educational facilities, hospitals, childcare facilities, and senior housing.

Several sensitive receptors including residential dwelling units, schools, nursing homes, hospitals, and day care centers are found within the study area. The closest sensitive receptors to the Proposed Project are the residential dwelling units along Entler Avenue, which are located within 50 feet of the proposed pipeline alignment (Google Earth 2022). See Figure 3.3-1 for the location of sensitive receptors within a 1,000-foot buffer radius surrounding the Project.

3.12.2 Regulatory Framework
This section summarizes the federal, state, regional, and local laws, regulations, policies, and plans relevant to evaluation of the Proposed Project’s impacts on noise and groundborne vibration. Additional information on the relevant regulations, laws, and plans is provided in Appendix C, Regulatory Framework.
446
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 268

3.12.2.1 Federal
Noise Control Act of 1972
The Noise Control Act of 1972 (42 USC 4901 to 4918) was the first comprehensive statement of national noise policy. The Noise Control Act declared “it is the policy of the U.S. to promote an environment for all Americans free from noise that jeopardizes their health or welfare.” Although the Noise Control Act, as a funded program, was ultimately abandoned at the federal level, it served as the catalyst for comprehensive noise studies and the generation of noise assessment and mitigation policies, regulations, ordinances, standards, and guidance for many states, counties, and municipal governments.

The Proposed Project will be held to the principles set forth by this act.

Occupational Safety and Health Administration
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration established standards for occupational noise exposure under 29 CFR 1910.95. These regulations protect employees from excessive noise exposure and require a Hearing Conservation Program when routine exposure to high noise levels would occur.

The regulations identify permissible daily noise exposures and stipulate that personal protection against the effects of noise exposure must be provided if those levels are exceeded.

The Proposed Project will be held to the standards set forth by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

Federal Transit Administration
The FTA developed the Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (Noise Manual) in September 2018. The Noise Manual provides technical guidance for conducting noise and vibration analyses for transit projects. While these standards and impact assessment methodologies are not directly applicable to the Proposed Project, they are routinely used as guidelines for projects in state and local jurisdictions. The Noise Manual provides vibration criteria for structural damage by building/structural category as shown in Table 3.12-1.

Table 3.12-1. Groundborne Vibration Structural Damage Criteria Building Category PPV
(in/sec)
LV
(VdB)
I. Reinforced concrete, steel, or timber
(no plaster) 0.5 102
II. Engineered concrete and masonry (no
plaster) 0.3 98
III. Non-engineered timber and masonry
buildings 0.2 94
IV. Buildings extremely susceptible to
vibration damage 0.12 90
Source: FTA 2018
Notes: PPV = peak particle velocity, in/sec = inch per second, LV = vibration velocity level, VdB = vibration decibel The Noise Manual also includes criteria for acceptable levels of groundborne vibration by vibrationsensitive land uses as shown in Table 3.12-2. 447
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 269
Table 3.12-2. Groundborne Vibration Human Annoyance Criteria Land Use Category Maximum LV (VdB) Description
Workshop 90 Vibration is distinctly felt. Appropriate for workshops and similar areas not as sensitive to vibration.

Office 84 Vibration can be felt. Appropriate for offices and similar areas not as sensitive to vibration
Residential – daytime 78 Vibration is barely felt. Adequate for land uses that are sensitive to vibration.

Residential – nighttime 72 Vibration is not felt, but groundborne noise may be audible inside quiet rooms.

Source: FTA 2018
Notes: LV = vibration velocity level, VdB = vibration decibel The Proposed Project will be held to the criteria established by FTA.

3.12.2.2 State
California Noise Control Act
The California Noise Control Act, enacted in 1973, finds that excessive noise is a serious hazard to public health and welfare and that exposure to certain levels of noise can result in physiological, psychological, and economic damage. The act requires the Office of Noise Control in the Department of Health Services to provide assistance to local communities in developing local noise control programs.

The Office of Noise Control also works with the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research to provide guidance for preparing required noise elements in city and county general plans, pursuant to Government Code Section 65302(f).

The Proposed Project will be held to the principles set forth by this act.

Governor’s Office of Planning and Research
The State of California General Plan 2017 Guidelines published by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research provides a basis for local programs to control and abate environmental noise and to protect residents from excessive exposure (Governor’s Office of Planning and Research 2017). These guidelines include a noise level/land use compatibility chart that categorizes various outdoor Ldn ranges into up to four compatibility categories: normally acceptable, conditionally acceptable, normally unacceptable, and clearly unacceptable, depending on land use. These guidelines are used by many agencies, environmental planners, and acoustical specialists as a starting point to evaluate the potential for noise impacts on and by a project. The guidelines are also used to evaluate methods for achieving noise compatibility with respect to nearby existing uses.

The Proposed Project will be held to the State of California General Plan 2017 Guidelines.

3.12.2.3 Regional and Local
Town of Paradise General Plan
The Town of Paradise General Plan (Town of Paradise and Quad Consultants 2008) includes the following policies related to noise and groundborne vibration that are relevant to the Proposed Project:
448
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 270
 Policy NP-1: Where proposed nonresidential land uses are likely to produce noise levels exceeding the performance standards of Table 6.4-1 at existing or planned noise-sensitive uses, an acoustical analysis will be required as part NP-7 of the environmental review process so that noise mitigation may be included in the project design.  Policy NP-4: Where noise mitigation measures are required to achieve the standards of Tables 6.4-1 and 6.4-2, the emphasis of such measures will be placed upon site planning and project design. The use of noise barriers should be considered a supplemental means of achieving the noise standards after all practical design-related noise mitigation measures have been integrated into the project.
 Policy NP-5: Acoustical analyses should be prepared in accordance with the requirements of Table 6.4-3.
 Policy NP-10: The Town will ensure that new development situated near existing residential care and retirement facilities is consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the Noise Element.

The Proposed Project will be held to the policies in the Town of Paradise General Plan.

Butte County General Plan 2030
The Butte County General Plan 2030 (Butte County 2012) includes the following policies related to noise and groundborne vibration that are relevant to the Proposed Project:
 Policy HS-P1.6: Applicants proposing a new noise-producing development project near existing or planned noise-sensitive uses will provide a noise analysis prepared by an acoustical specialist with recommendations for design mitigation.
 Policy HS-P1.7: Applicants for discretionary permits will be required to limit noise-generating construction activities located within 1,000 feet of residential uses to daytime hours between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on weekdays and non-holidays.
 Policy HS-P1.8: Noise from generators will be regulated near existing and future residential uses.
 Policy HS-P1.9: The following standard construction noise control measures will be required at construction sites in order to minimize construction noise impacts:
o Equip all internal combustion engine driven equipment with intake and exhaust mufflers that are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment. o Locate stationary noise-generating equipment as far as possible from sensitive receptors when sensitive receptors adjoin or are near a construction project area. o Utilize quiet air compressors and other stationary noise-generating equipment where appropriate technology exists and is feasible.

The Proposed Project will be held to the policies in the Butte County General Plan 2030.

Chico 2030 General Plan
The Chico 2030 General Plan (City of Chico 2017) includes the following policies related to noise and groundborne vibration that are relevant to the Proposed Project:
449
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 271
 Policy N-1.3, Acoustical Analysis: Where proposed projects are likely to expose noisesensitive land uses to noise levels exceeding the City’s standards, require an acoustical analysis as part of environmental review so that noise mitigation measures may be identified and included in the project design. The requirements for the content of an acoustical analysis are outlined in Table N-3.

The Proposed Project will be held to the policies in the Chico 2030 General Plan.

Noise Ordinances
The Town of Paradise, Butte County, and City of Chico each have established policies and standards that aim to minimize the effects of noise on people through prescriptive construction standards, zoning restrictions, hours of operation, and suppression techniques. Table 3.12-3 summarizes the applicable noise standards and policies.

Table 3.12-3. Noise Ordinance Specifications
Jurisdiction Noise Criteria
Town of Paradise The operation of any tools or equipment used in construction, drilling, repair, alteration, or demolition work is prohibited between the hours of 7 p.m. and 6 a.m. on weekdays or at any time on Sundays or holidays.

Butte County Noise sources associated with construction activities occurring within 1,000 feet of residential uses is prohibited between the following hours:
 Sunset to sunrise on weekdays and non-holidays;
 Friday commencing at 6 p.m. through and including 8 a.m. on Saturday, as well as not before 8 a.m. on holidays;
 Saturday commencing at 6 p.m. through and including 10 a.m. on Sunday; and  Sunday after the hour of 6 p.m.

City of Chico Construction activities occurring between the hours of 10 a.m. and 6 p.m. on Sundays and holidays, and 7 a.m. and 9 p.m. on other days will be subject to one of the following limits:
 No individual device or piece of equipment may produce a noise level exceeding 83 dBA at a distance of 25 feet from the source.
 The noise level at any point outside of the property plane of the project may not exceed 86 dBA.

The generation of noise in exceedance of 70 dBA at the property line of residential or commercial property is prohibited.

Source: Town of Paradise 2022d, Butte County 2021e, and City of Chico 2021d Notes: dBA = A-weighted decibel
The Proposed Project will be held to these noise ordinances.

3.12.3 Method of Analysis
This section describes the methods used to analyze ambient noise and groundborne vibration impacts within the study area.

3.12.3.1 CEQA Significance Criteria
For the purposes of this PEIR, the Proposed Project would result in a significant impact on noise and groundborne vibration if it would:
450
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 272
 Impact NSE-1: Generate a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or in applicable standards of other agencies  Impact NSE-2: Generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels  Impact NSE-3: Be located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land-use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public-use airport, expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels

3.12.3.2 Approach to Analysis
Impacts on ambient noise and groundborne vibration were identified qualitatively and quantitively. The analysis of environmental effects focuses on foreseeable changes to noise and groundborne vibration in the context of effects listed in Section3.12.3.1, CEQA Significance Criteria. The analysis considers the Core Collection System, Export Pipeline System, and Extended Collection System, as appropriate, in the context of construction, operation, and maintenance.

Construction
Impact on noise and groundborne vibration during construction of the Proposed Project were analyzed quantitatively. The anticipated increase in noise during construction of the Core Collection System and Export Pipeline System and the effect on noise-sensitive receptors was estimated using typical noise levels associated with construction equipment, derived from representative data presented in the Noise Manual (FTA 2018). Reference noise levels were used to estimate noise levels at nearby sensitive receptors based on a standard noise attenuation rate of 6 dB per doubling of distance (line-of-sight method of sound attenuation for point sources of noise). The increase in noise levels during construction of the Extended Collection System were estimated using comparable measures and assumptions to the Core Collection System. Noise impacts were determined by comparing the noise levels associated with construction of the Proposed Project against the noise limits adopted by Paradise, Butte County, and Chico.

Groundborne vibration levels associated with construction of the Core Collection System and Export Pipeline System were estimated using typical groundborne vibration levels associated with construction equipment obtained from Noise Manual (FTA 2018). Groundborne vibration levels associated with construction of the Extended Collection System were estimated using comparable measures and assumptions to the Core Collection System. Groundborne vibration impacts were determined by comparing the groundborne vibration levels associated with construction of the Proposed Project against FTA’s groundborne vibration criteria for structural damage and human annoyance.

Operation and Maintenance
Impacts on noise and groundborne vibration during operation and maintenance were assessed qualitatively based on the information in Section 2.8 Proposed Operation and Maintenance.

3.12.4 Impact Analysis
This section includes an analysis of the Proposed Project’s potential to generate an increase in ambient noise levels in excess of applicable noise standards, result in excessive groundborne vibration, and expose people residing or working in the study area to excessive noise levels as a result of being 451
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 273
located in the vicinity of an airport. The noise and groundborne vibration impact analysis focuses on impacts from construction, operation, and maintenance of the Core Collection system, the Export Pipeline System, and the Extended Collection System.

3.12.4.1 Impact NSE-1: Generate a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or in applicable standards of other agencies (Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated) Construction
Construction activities associated with the Proposed Project would introduce new sources of noise in the study area in the form of construction traffic and construction equipment on a temporary basis.

Construction activities, although temporary, could affect nearby noise-sensitive receptors. Several sensitive receptors including residential dwelling units, schools, nursing homes, hospitals, and day care centers are found in the study area. The closest sensitive receptors to the Proposed Project are the residential dwelling units along Entler Avenue, which are located within 50 feet of the proposed pipeline alignment (Google Earth 2022). See Figure 3.3-1 for the location of sensitive receptors within a 1,000- foot buffer surrounding the Proposed Project.

The traffic noise on roadways in the vicinity of the study area would increase due to commute of construction crews and the transport of equipment and materials on a short-term basis. Although construction traffic would temporarily increase noise along local roadways, the effect of construction traffic on long-term (i.e., hourly or daily) ambient noise levels would be minimal.

Construction of the Core Collection System and Export Pipeline System would require the use of heavy equipment that could be periodically audible at offsite locations. Anticipated construction equipment for the Core Collection System and Export Pipeline System are presented in Chapter 2 Project Description, Tables 2-2 and 2-5. Construction noise levels would fluctuate depending on the construction activity, equipment type, and distance between noise source and receiver. Additionally, noise from construction equipment would vary depending on the construction phase and the number and type of equipment at a location at any given time. Construction equipment noise levels are usually measured 50 feet from the source.

Table 3.12-4 lists typical noise levels for construction equipment associated with the Core Collection System and Export Pipeline System.

Table 3.12-4. Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels Equipment Typical Noise Level (dBA) 50 feet from Source Backhoe 80
Compactor 82
Concrete Mixer 85
Concrete Pump 82
Generator 82
Loader 80
Paver 85
452
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 274
Equipment Typical Noise Level (dBA) 50 feet from Source Pump 77
Roller 85
Saw 76
Truck 84
Source: FTA 2018
As shown in Table 3.12-4, typical construction equipment would generate noise levels of up to 85 dBA at a distance of 50 feet. Therefore, at 50 feet, the nearest sensitive receptor would be exposed to noise levels of up to 85 dBA from construction equipment.

As presented earlier, the Paradise, Butte County, and Chico, have established noise standards and ordinances for construction activities. Construction activities associated with the Core Collection System and Export Pipeline System would exceed the daytime noise limits within these jurisdictions.

The construction methodology for the Extended Collection System would be similar to the Core Collection System. Crews and equipment used for the Extended Collection System would be similar to the Core Collection System, except that the duration would be shorter. The noise levels generated during construction of the Extended Collection System would be similar to those generated during construction of the Core Collection System. As presented earlier, noise levels associated with construction of the Core Collection System would exceed the noise limits within the applicable jurisdictions. Similar to the Core Collection System, construction of the Extended Collection System would generate noise levels that exceed the Town’s daytime noise limits.

Based on the factors above, noise levels during construction of the Proposed Project would exceed the established noise standards, resulting in a potentially significant impact.

Mitigation. To minimize potentially significant noise impacts during construction of the Proposed Project to a less than significant level, mitigation measure MM-NSE-1 will be implemented.

MM-NSE-1: Minimize Construction Noise. Prior to construction, the Town will incorporate the following measures into all construction plans and agreements to reduce noise levels during construction:
 Equip all internal combustion engine driven equipment with intake and exhaust mufflers that are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment.
 Locate stationary noise-generating equipment as far as possible from noise-sensitive receptors.  Use quiet air compressors and other stationary noise-generating equipment where appropriate technology exists and is feasible.
 Maintain and tune all equipment in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations to minimize noise emission.
 Install temporary construction-site sound barriers near noise sources.  Prohibit unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines.  Limit use of public address systems.
453
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 275
 Post the days and hours of construction as well as the name and phone number of a designated representative to be contacted for noise-related concerns at the perimeter of the construction site.
 Comply with county, city and/or town noise policies applicable to the location’s jurisdiction.

Significance after Mitigation. With the implementation of mitigation measure MM-NSE-1, noise impacts during construction would be less than significant.

Operation and maintenance activities, as described in Section 2.8, would result in an increase in noise levels in the study area. Relative to existing noise levels on roadways in the study area, the addition of traffic associated with operation and maintenance of the Proposed Project would not affect ambient noise levels in the study area. As a result, noise levels would remain similar to existing conditions during operations and maintenance. Therefore, noise levels during operation and maintenance of the Proposed Project would not exceed the established standards, resulting in a less-than-significant impact.

Mitigation. No mitigation required.

3.12.4.2 Impact NSE-2: Generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels (Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated) Construction
Increases in groundborne vibration levels attributable to the Proposed Project would be primarily associated with construction-related activities from the Core Collection System, the Export Pipeline System, and the Extended Collection System.

Construction of the Core Collection System and the Export Pipeline System has the potential to result in varying degrees of temporary groundborne vibration, depending on the specific construction equipment used. Construction activities are anticipated to use equipment such as backhoes, roller compactors, vibratory plate compactors, excavators, drilling rigs, and trucks that have the potential to result in groundborne vibrations.

Vibration generated by construction equipment spreads through the ground and diminishes in magnitude with increases in distance. The types of construction vibration impacts include building damage and human annoyance. Table 3.12-1 and Table 3.12-2 present the groundborne vibration criteria for structural damage and human annoyance criteria respectively, based on the Noise Manual (FTA 2018).
454
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 276
Table 3.12-5 lists typical vibration levels for construction equipment associated with the Core Collection System and the Export Pipeline System.

Table 3.12-5. Typical Construction Equipment Vibration Levels Equipment PPV at 25 feet (in/sec) LV at 25 feet (VdB)
Vibratory Roller 0.21 94
Hoe Ram 0.089 87
Caisson Drilling 0.089 87
Loaded Trucks 0.076 86
Source: FTA 2018
Notes: PPV = peak particle velocity, in/sec = inch per second, LV = vibration velocity level, VdB = vibration decibel As shown in Table 3.12-5, the highest reference PPV at 25 feet from the construction equipment would be 0.21 inch per second (in/sec). As noted earlier, the closest sensitive receptors to the Proposed Project are the residential dwelling units along Entler Avenue, which are located within 50 feet of the proposed pipeline alignment (Google Earth 2022). The Noise Manual (FTA 2018) provides the following equation to assess construction vibration related to building damage for each piece of equipment:

PPVEquipment = PPVRef (25/D)1.5
Where:

PPVEquipment = PPV of equipment adjusted for distance (in/sec), PPVRef = source reference PPV at 25 feet (in/sec), and
D = distance from equipment to the receiver (feet).

Using this equation, the construction vibration levels from the construction equipment at 50 feet would be 0.07 in/sec. This level is much lower than the 0.12 in/sec threshold in Table 3.12-1 for buildings extremely susceptible to vibration damage.

As shown in Table 3.12-5, the highest reference LV at 25 feet from the construction equipment would be 94 VdB. As noted earlier, the closest sensitive receptors to the Proposed Project are the residential dwelling units along Entler Avenue, which are located within 50 feet of the proposed pipeline alignment (Google Earth 2022). For consideration of annoyance or interference with vibration-sensitive activities, the vibration level at any distance is calculated using the following formula from the Noise Manual (FTA 2018):

LV,distance = LV,reference – 30 log (D/25)
Where:

LV,distance = the RMS velocity level adjusted for distance (VdB), LV,reference = the source reference vibration level at 25 feet (VdB), and D = distance from the equipment to the receiver (feet).

Using this equation, the groundborne vibration level at 50 feet from the construction equipment would be 85 VdB. This level would exceed the daytime annoyance threshold of 78 VdB for residential uses as listed in Table 3.12-2.
455
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 277
The construction methodology for the Extended Collection System would be similar to the Core Collection System. Crews and equipment used for the Extended Collection System would be similar to the Core Collection System, except that the duration would be shorter. The groundborne vibration levels generated during construction of the Extended Collection System would be similar to those generated during construction of the Core Collection System. As presented earlier, construction of the Core Collection System would generate groundborne vibration that exceeds the threshold for human annoyance. Similar to the Core Collection System, the Extended Collection System would generate groundborne vibration that exceeds the threshold for human annoyance.

Based on the discussion above, groundborne vibration levels during construction of the Proposed Project would exceed the threshold for human annoyance, resulting in a potentially significant impact.

Mitigation. To minimize potentially significant groundborne vibration impacts during construction of the Proposed Project to a less than significant level, mitigation measure MM-NSE-1 will be implemented.

MM-NSE-1: Minimize Construction Noise (see Impact NSE-1 for description) Significance after Mitigation. With the implementation of mitigation measure MM-NSE-1, groundborne vibration impacts during construction of the Proposed Project would be less than significant.

Operation and maintenance activities, as described in Section 2.8, would not include ground disturbing activities or the use of vibration-generating equipment except if there were a pipe break and a section of pipeline needed to be replaced. In the case of a pipe break, the section would be repaired and returned to previous conditions as expeditiously as possible so as to limit impacts to the public and sewer service. Therefore, operation and maintenance of the Proposed Project would not generate excessive groundborne vibration, resulting in no impact.

Mitigation. No mitigation required.

3.12.4.3 Impact NSE-3: Be located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land-use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public-use airport, expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels (Less than Significant Impact)
Construction, Operation, and Maintenance
The Proposed Project is not located within 2 miles of any public or public-use airport. A portion of the Proposed Project along Chico River Road is located approximately 1.5 mile from the privately owned Ranchaero Airport, which is west of Chico. A review of the Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Butte County Airport Land Use Commission 2017) shows that the portion of the Proposed Project 456
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 278
along Chico River Road is located within the low noise impact zone for Ranchaero Airport. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not expose people residing or working in the area to excessive noise levels, resulting in a less-than-significant impact.

Mitigation. No mitigation required.

3.12.5 Impacts Summary
Table 3.12-6 summarizes the noise and groundborne vibration impacts of the Proposed Project.

Table 3.12-6. Noise and Groundborne Vibration Impacts Summary Impact
Level of
Significance
Before Mitigation
Mitigation
Level of
Significance
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Impact NSE-1: Generate a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or in applicable standards of other agencies SI MM-NSE-1 S/M
Impact NSE-2: Generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels
SI MM-NSE-1 S/M
Impact NSE-3: Be located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land-use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public-use airport, expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels

LTS N/A LTS
Notes: LTS = Less than Significant Impact, NI = No Impact, N/A = Not Applicable, SI = Significant Impact, S/M = Significant Impact but Mitigable to a Less than Significant Level

3.12.6 References
Butte County. 2012. Butte County General Plan 2030. Adopted October 26, 2010. Updated November 6, 2012. http://www.buttecounty.net/Portals/10/Planning/ButteCountyGeneralPlan2030_ May2018red.pdf?ver=2019-12-18-141822-357.

Butte County. 2021e. Butte County Code. Chapter 41A – Noise Control. Updated February 25, 2021.

Accessed April 1, 2021. https://library.municode.com/ca/butte_county/codes/code_of_ ordinances?nodeId=CH41ANOCO.

Butte County Airport Land Use Commission. 2017. Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.

November 15, 2017. https://www.buttecounty.net/Portals/10/Docs/ALUC/BCALUCP_11-15-17/ Butte_County_Airport_Land_Use_Compatibility_Plan_2017-11-15.pdf.

City of Chico. 2017. Chico 2030 General Plan. Adopted April 2011. Amended March 2017. https://chico.ca.us/post/chico-2030-general-plan.

City of Chico. 2021d. Chico Municipal Code. Chapter 9.38 Noise. Updated January 5, 2021. Accessed April 1, 2021. https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/chico/latest/chico_ca/0-0-0-7450. 457
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 279
Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual.

September 2018. https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research-innovation/ 118131/transit-noise-and-vibration-impact-assessment-manual-fta-report-no-0123_0.pdf.

Google Earth. 2022. Aerial imagery and street view of the study area. Accessed March 20, 2022. https://earth.google.com/web/.

Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. 2017. State of California General Plan 2017 Guidelines.

July 31, 2017. http://opr.ca.gov/docs/OPR_COMPLETE_7.31.17.pdf.

Town of Paradise. 2022d. Municipal Code of Paradise, California. Chapter 9.18 – Noise Control.

Updated May 19, 2022. Accessed June 16, 2022. https://library.municode.com/ca/paradise/ codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT9PUPEMOWE_CH9.18NOCO.

3.13 Population and Housing
This section describes the environmental setting and regulatory framework for population and housing, and it identifies direct and indirect impacts of the Proposed Project during construction, operation, and maintenance on population and housing in the study area. In particular, the population and housing analysis focuses on population and housing characteristics for Butte County, Paradise, and Chico in the study area. For the purposes of this PEIR, the population and housing study area refers to the areas within and directly adjacent to Paradise and areas of unincorporated Butte County and Chico where the proposed pipeline alignment runs.

3.13.1 Environmental Setting
This section begins by discussing the population and housing effects caused by the 2018 Camp Fire from each respective jurisdiction. It then discusses historical population and housing trends over the course of the past 20 years and also discusses current population and housing trends as it relates to future development.

3.13.1.1 Population and Housing Effects of the 2018 Camp Fire On November 8, 2018, the Paradise was hit by the Camp Fire, the deadliest wildfire in California’s history. Prior to the Camp Fire, Paradise was the second most populated city in Butte County. However, because of the fire, the population and housing in Paradise was significantly reduced. Almost 14,000 residential homes were lost and about 30,000 residents lost their homes (Boghani 2019). Because of the fire, most Paradise residents relocated to neighboring cities, in particular Chico. According to data provided by researchers at California State University, Chico, 28 percent of Paradise residents who relocated moved to Chico (Finch 2019).

Paradise saw a substantial decrease in population of over 83 percent from 26,581 to 4,474 (Table 3.13-1). Butte County also saw a slight decrease in population, most likely due to Paradise and neighboring residents relocating away from areas of Camp Fire damages. Chico, however, has experienced an increase in population since 2018. The population of Chico in 2018 was 92,040 (DOF 2021a). The population of Chico in 2019 was 110,126, an increase of over 19 percent (DOF 2021a). As of 2021, the population of Chico has steadily increased, with population estimates at 111,490 (DOF 2021b). As discussed, this population increase is likely due to Paradise residents relocating to Chico because of the Camp Fire.

Table 3.13-1. Population Before and After the Paradise Camp Fire Geography 2017 2018 2019 Percentage Change
2018–2019
Butte County 225,468 226,098 220,855 -2.3
Town of Paradise 26,424 26,581 4,474 -83.2
City of Chico 91,166 92,040 110,126 19.7
Source: DOF 2021a
As shown in Table 3.13-2, Paradise also saw a substantial decrease in housing units of over 86 percent from 13,091 to 1,720. Butte County also saw a decrease in housing units, most likely due to the 459
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 281
housing units lost in the Camp Fire. Chico saw a slight increase in housing units of over 1 percent from 39,810 to 40,378 (DOF 2021b).

Table 3.13-2. Housing Units Before and After the Paradise Camp Fire Geography 2017 2018 2019 Percentage Change
2018–2019
Butte County 98,871 99,353 85,447 -14
Town of Paradise 13,064 13,091 1,720 -86.9
City of Chico 39,341 39,810 40,378 1.4
Source: DOF 2021b
Finally, as shown in Table 3.13-3, Paradise saw a substantial decrease in households of over 82 percent from 26,173 to 4,474. Butte County also saw a slight decrease in households. Chico saw an increase in households of over 20 percent from 88,315 to 106,496 (DOF 2021b).

Table 3.13-3. Households Before and After the Paradise Camp Fire Geography 2017 2018 2019 Percentage Change
2018–2019
Butte County 291,979 220,580 215,885 -2.1
Town of Paradise 26,016 26,173 4,474 -82.9
City of Chico 87,470 88,315 106,496 20.6
Source: DOF 2021b

3.13.1.2 Population
Table 3.13-4 and Table 3.13-5 present the historical and current population trends for Butte County, Paradise, and Chico for the past 20 years.

Table 3.13-4. Historic Population Trend
Geography 2000 2010 2020 Percentage Change
2000–2020
Butte County 203,171 220,000 208,951 2.8
Town of Paradise 26,408 26,218 4,608 -82.6
City of Chico 60,516 86,187 110,364 82.4
Source: DOF 2012, 2021a
As shown in Table 3.13-4, Butte County’s total population increased from 203,171 in 2000 to 208,951 in 2020. Paradise saw a significant decrease in population from 26,408 in 2000 to 4,608 in 2020.

Conversely, Chico saw an increase in population from 60,516 in 2000 to 110,364 in 2020 (DOF 2012, 2021a). As mentioned above, the Camp Fire drastically decreased the population of Paradise by over 82 percent. Damages caused by the fire moved existing Paradise residents into Chico, which inadvertently increased Chico’s population.
460
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 282
Table 3.13-5. Current Population Trend Since Paradise Camp Fire Geography 2019 2020 2021 Percentage Change
2019–2021
Butte County 220,855 208,951 202,669 -8.2
Town of Paradise 4,474 4,608 6,046 35.1
City of Chico 110,126 110,364 111,490 1.2
Source: DOF 2021a
As shown in Table 3.13-5, since 2018 Paradise has seen an increase in population between 2019 and 2021, with population estimates in 2021 at 6,046. Because the Camp Fire occurred toward the end of 2018 in November, the 2019 data is used for comparison. This immediate growth likely results from the return of residents to Town areas where damage was less. Chico’s population also increased, but at a much slower rate of 1.2 percent (DOF 2021a). In contrast, Butte County’s overall population decreased since the Camp Fire.

3.13.1.3 Housing and Households
Table 3.13-6 presents the historical housing trends for Butte County, Paradise, and Chico for the past 10 years.

Table 3.13-6. Historic Housing Trend
Geography 2010 2020 Occupied Housing
Units (2020)
Vacancy Rate
(2020)
Persons per
Household (2020)
Butte County 95,835 86,122 79,220 5.4% 2.57
Town of Paradise 12,981 1,766 1,663 5.8% 2.77
City of Chico 37,050 41,738 39,490 8.0% 2.70
Source: DOF 2021b
As shown in Table 3.13-6, the total number of housing units in Butte County decreased from 95,835 in 2010 to 86,122 in 2020. Paradise saw a significant decrease in housing units from 12,981 in 2010 to 1,766 in 2020 (DOF 2021b). Conversely, Chico saw an increase in housing units from 37,050 in 2010 to 41,738 in 2020 (DOF 2021b).

Table 3.13-7 presents the historical and current household trends for Butte County, Paradise, and Chico for the past 10 years.

Table 3.13-7. Historic Household Trends
Geography 2010 2020 Percentage Change 2019–2020
Butte County 215,058 203,865 -5.2
Town of Paradise 25,810 4,608 -82.2
City of Chico 83,009 106,643 28.5
Source: DOF 2021b
As shown in Table 3.13-7, the total households for Butte County decreased from 215,058 in 2010 to 203,865 in 2020. Paradise saw a significant decrease in households from 25,810 in 2010 to 4,608 in 461
Paradise Sewer Project | Final Program Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis
hdrinc.com
Final Program Environmental Impact Report 283
2020 (DOF 2021b). Conversely, Chico saw an increase in households from 83,009 in 2010 to 106,643 in 2020 (DOF 2021b).

In terms of forecasting future growth in housing, the Provisional Long-Term Regional Growth Forecasts 2018-2040 (BCAG 2019b) forecasted a Low, Medium, and High Scenario for total housing growth for Paradise that reflects -31 percent, -13 percent, or 6 percent growth, respectively, between pre-fire conditions in 2018 and 2040. The assumptions for these forecasts did not include construction of the sewer system. Further, in the Post Camp Fire Regional Population and Transportation Study (Fehr and Peers 2021) prepared for BCAG in 2021, key findings in the housing and employment forecast included that there would be a reduction in total county housing count for each forecast year as compared to findings in a previous study in 2020, partially because the DOF lowered their population projections for all of Butte County (Fehr and Peers 2021). Further, specific to the Town, the report states “In addition to the countywide reduction, Paradise is expected to have slower growth (as compared to their 2020 study) in both near and long-term forecasts, with Chico’s growth making up the difference” (Fehr and Peers 2021). BCAG will be finalizing their regional growth forecasts through 2040 using the findings of the Post Camp Fire Regional Population and Transportation Study (Fehr and Peers 2021) and incorporating that information in BCAG’s 2024 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (BCAG 2019b).

In comparison to the regional forecast prepared by BCAG in 2014, the 2019 forecast presents a significantly slower growth trend. Compound annual growth rates presented in the 2019 forecasts (2018-2040) range from 0.48 to 0.88 percent for housing, compared to the 1.17 to 1.57 percent compound annual growth rates prepared in 2014 (2014-2040). This represents a 50 percent decrease for the medium scenario (BCAG 2019b).

3.13.2 Regulatory Framework
This section summarizes the federal, state, regional, and local laws, regulations, policies, and plans relevant to evaluation of the Proposed Project’s impacts on population and housing. Additional information on the relevant regulations, laws, and plans is provided in Appendix C, Regulatory Framework.

3.13.2.1 Federal
No identified federal laws, regulations, orders, policies, or plans regarding population and housing are relevant to the Proposed Project.

Paradise City CouncilNovember 7, 2022

Paradise City Council
November 7, 2022