Agenda Packet — Redding City Council, December 4, 2025 (part 3 of 3)

Less than
Significant No No No No Less than
Significant Yes
Discussion:

The General Plan EIR described existing conditions in the Plan Area related to public services, parks, and recreational facilities, and evaluated the potential impacts of the build-out of the General Plan on such services and resources. There have been no substantive changes to the regulatory framework, environmental conditions, or the City’s Municipal Code since certification of the General Plan Update EIR.

APPLICABLE GENERAL PLAN POLICIES:

The following goals and policies from the Redding General Plan are applicable to the Project.

Goal CDD2: Work to assure the ability of the City, school districts, and other public-service providers to efficiently provide expected and necessary public facilities and services to constituents.

Policy CDD2B: Require new developments to maintain adequate service levels for existing development while providing for the upgrade/expansion of existing public services as appropriate.

Policy PF3D: Implement the California Building Code and any local ordinances to protect life, control fire losses and fire protection costs through the use of automatic suppression systems. Adequate water supplies to construct fire suppression infrastructure as necessary should be available.

Goal PF3: Ensure adequate fire protection and emergency medical response for residents and businesses in the community.

Packet Pg. 357 Attachment: CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist_Peaks 850 Quartz Hill Subdivision (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Section 15183 CEQA Exemption Checklist 79 The Peaks – 850 Quartz Hill Subdivision Policy PF3F: Ensure through development review, projects adequately address on-site fire safety and protection and comply with applicable fire and building codes.

Goal PS4: Minimize the potential for loss of life, injury, and property damage resulting from urban and wildland fires.

Policy PS4B: Design new development and redevelopment projects to meet state and local standards for fire protection; encourage the upgrade of existing structures to current standards. Encourage the installation of smoke detectors in residential and commercial facilities constructed prior to the requirement of their installation, as appropriate.

Policy PS4C: Apply appropriate codes and standards, to ensure all new and existing developments provide:
• Defensible space.
• Non-combustible design with appropriate building exterior and roofing materials. • Spark arresting system, Fire alarms, and fire sprinkler systems are installed.

Policy PS4D: Continue to include the Fire Department in the project development review process to ensure projects adequately address safety, on-site fire protection, and comply with applicable fire and building codes.

Policy PS4F: Prioritize developing and funding a comprehensive vegetation management and weed-abatement program, beyond the wildfire mitigation through the Electric Utility, for City-owned properties, open-space areas, including those that are located in existing subdivisions and in new developments to prevent and reduce the risk of fire.

Policy PS4G: Develop a program to construct and maintain fire-access roads in ravine areas considered to have a very high fire danger to enhance the ability to suppress wildland fires. These roads need not be surfaced and may also function as part of the City's trail system. Erosion and impacts to native vegetation and natural features shall be minimized.

Policy PS4J: Utilize techniques, as determined appropriate by the Fire Marshal, to reduce fire damage in those areas with a high wildland fire potential.

Policy PS4K: Enforce subdivision regulations that generally limit cul-de-sac lengths to no greater than 600 feet and strive to ensure that sufficient emergency-vehicle turnaround areas are provided.

Policy PS4M: Construct emergency-vehicle access routes to open-space areas at optimal locations within projects during the development process, as funding or law allows. As funding and physical conditions allow, construct such access routes in existing developments where warranted.

Policy PS4N: Ensure new subdivisions have adequate fire protection measures such as multi-access for firefighting apparatus, noncombustible building construction, appropriate defensible space, street widths and grade to accommodate emergency vehicles and evacuees simultaneously.

Goal R6: Ensure that new development contributes to the park, recreation, and improved open-space needs of the City.

Policy R6A: Adhere to the standards of the Parks, Trails, and Open Space Master Plan to ensure that new residential projects provide appropriate levels of improved open-space and/or recreational amenities.

Policy R6B: Continue to require developers of residential property to contribute park sites or pay in-lieu fees at the maximum rate allowed by State law or as directed by the City Council.

Policy R6C: Continue to require both residential and commercial development to pay impact fees for their fair share of the costs of constructing/providing new facilities so that new development maintains the current service level of park facilities.

Goal R9: Minimize the impacts of recreational facilities on adjacent residential development.

Policy R9A: Lighting in parks and recreational facilities should incorporate appropriate mitigation features such as:
• Restrictions on the height, wattage, and/or orientation of the lighting equipment. • Shielding requirements for light fixtures.
• Limitations on the times the lights may be utilized.
• Installation of vegetative screens where playing fields abut adjacent residential uses.

Packet Pg. 358 Attachment: CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist_Peaks 850 Quartz Hill Subdivision (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Section 15183 CEQA Exemption Checklist 80 The Peaks – 850 Quartz Hill Subdivision • Restrictions on lighting color and temperature.

GP EIR Impact PS-1 through PS-7: The GP EIR identified less-than-significant impacts relative to the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, including but not limited to fire protection facilities, police facilities, schools, parks and libraries in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance service ratios or objectives for any public services.

Project Analysis
The Project site is within the coverage area of Redding Fire Station #1 and Redding Fire Station #6. Fire Station #1 is located at 1335 Shasta Street, approximately 2.5 miles to the southeast of the site, while Fire Station #6 is located at 1695 Beltline Road, approximately 2 miles northeast of the site. The Redding Police Department is located approximately 3.5 miles southeast of the site. The Project site is located in the Gateway Unified Elementary School District and Gateway Unified High School District. The closest schools to the Project site are the Buckeye School of the Arts located approximately 1.5 miles northeast, and Shasta High School located approximately 2 miles south. Shasta Public Library is the nearest library to the Project site, located approximately 3.5 miles southeast of the Project site along Parkview Avenue.

The Project site is zoned “RS-2.5” Residential Single Family, which permits a base residential density of 2.5 dwelling units per gross developable acre. The Project is a Tentative Map for the development of infrastructure and grading that would support a 120-lot singlefamily housing development. The Project site is 114 acres, with 65.3 acres planned for development. Within the 65.3 acre development area, 16.8 acres have slopes over 20%, leaving 48.5 acres for net development. The Project proposes 120 housing lots on the 48.5 developable acres, resulting in a net density of 2.5 units per gross developable acre, which is consistent with the density evaluated by the General Plan EIR for this setting. Therefore, the growth projections of the General Plan EIR remain valid, and the Project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth in the area or result in the need for new or physically altered fire or police facilities.

The Project is subject to Chapter 16.20 of the Redding Municipal Code, which requires new development to pay a fire facilities-impact fee calculated to mitigate a project’s fair share of cumulative impacts to the City’s fire-protection infrastructure based upon improvements necessary to accommodate new development under the City’s General. The development would include multiple public access points in compliance with the California Fire Code, the City’s Municipal Code, and General Plan policy PS4L to ensure adequate emergency access. All new roads would be designed to allow access by Fire Department, Law Enforcement, and other emergency responder use, and would provide widths in accordance with the City’s construction standards. Additionally, an Evacuation Assessment completed as part of this 15183 CEQA Exemption Checklist concluded that, even under a conservative worst-case scenario, the Project would minimally increase evacuation times and would not substantially impair the City’s emergency response or evacuation capabilities (W-Trans 2025b).

Chapter 16.24 of the Redding Municipal Code directs school districts to levy fees on development in school districts that have been determined to be overcrowded, which would reduce impacts to less than significant per Section 65996 of the California Government Code. In accordance with state subdivision law, projects containing 50 or more lots may be required to dedicate land for park development. The proposed subdivision would meet that threshold and would thus be required to dedicate land to create a new park (or pay the established in-lieu fee at the City’s discretion) as part of the Project design. As discussed in Impact REC-1 and REC-2, the Project would include an approximately 3-acre neighborhood park, as well as designated trails through native vegetated open space, and playgrounds. The potential environmental impacts associated with construction of the proposed new on-site recreational facilities are evaluated as part of this 15183 CEQA Exemption Checklist. No additional new or expanded recreational facilities would be required.

Overall, the Project impact relative to the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities would be less than significant, and would be within the scope of the General Plan EIR relative to Impact PS-1 through PS-7.

GP EIR Impact REC-1 through REC-2: The GP EIR identified less-than-significant impacts relative to recreational facilities.

Project Analysis
The Project includes an approximately 3-acre neighborhood park, as well as designated trails through native vegetated open space and playgrounds. The potential environmental impacts associated with construction of the proposed new on-site recreational facilities are evaluated as part of this 15183 CEQA Exemption Checklist. The Project could result in more people utilizing existing local and regional parks and other recreational facilities. Several primary parks and recreational facilities are located within approximately two miles of the Project site, including Buckeye Park, Amethyst Park, Carnelian Park, Lake Redding Park, Caldwell Park, and the Redding Aquatic Center. Given the number of existing park and recreational options available in the Project vicinity, the Project is unlikely to increase use of parks such that substantial physical deterioration would occur or such that expansion of recreational facilities would be required.

The Project impact would be less than significant, and would be within the scope of the General Plan EIR relative to Impact REC-1 and REC-2.

OFF-SITE ANALYSIS:

Project-related off-site improvements include construction of a 550-foot access road with underlying utility extensions across BLM land Packet Pg. 359 Attachment: CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist_Peaks 850 Quartz Hill Subdivision (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Section 15183 CEQA Exemption Checklist 81 The Peaks – 850 Quartz Hill Subdivision west of the site, a 50-foot extension of a paved maintenance access road and sewer line onto the adjacent property to the east, and minor grading to connect Road B to an existing gravel road on the neighboring parcel to the south. Additionally, intersection warning signs will be installed on both Buenaventura Boulevard approaches and at the intersection of Keswick Dam Road and Quartz Hill Road. The off-site improvements that would extend across BLM land extend would occur within a Growth Area identified in the General Plan. The off-site improvements would not result in new significant environmental impacts relative to public services, parks, and recreation.

Therefore, the off-site improvements would be within the scope of the General Plan EIR relative to Impact PS-1 through PS-8, and REC1 through REC-2.

CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS:

The General Plan EIR evaluated the potential cumulative impacts of the build-out of the General Plan on public services, parks, and recreation. Cumulative impacts were evaluated in Impact PS-2, PS-4, PS-6, and REC-3 of the General Plan EIR as less than significant.

The Project site and off-site improvements are located within the cumulative area of analysis evaluated in the General Plan EIR, and the site is located within the city limits. The Project is consistent with the General Plan density allowance and Zoning designation of the site. Therefore, the conclusions of the General Plan EIR relative to cumulative impacts remain valid. The Project would include onsite recreational facilities and would not substantially increase demand on regional parks such that physical damage would occur, nor result in the need to acquire and develop additional off-site park facilities or new or physically altered governmental facilities. The Project’s contribution to cumulative impacts would not be cumulatively considerable, and no new potential cumulative impacts not previously addressed in the General Plan EIR would occur as a result of the Project. The Project would be within the scope of the General Plan EIR relative to Impact PS-2, PS-4, PS-6, and REC-3.

APPLICABLE GENERAL PLAN EIR MITIGATION MEASURES AND STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:

General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures were identified in the General Plan EIR related to public services, parks, and recreation.

SCOAs for Subdivisions – Final Map
In accordance with City of Redding Ordinance 2469, Section 26, the following park-related standard conditions of approval apply to all tentative subdivision map projects:
#4. Prior to recording the final map, in-lieu park fees must be paid accordance with Chapter 17.54 of the Subdivision Ordinance, unless an equivalent parkland dedication is made in conformance with the tentative map approval.

CONCLUSION:

As addressed above, there are no public services, parks, and recreation related impacts that are peculiar to the Project site that were not adequately evaluated by the General Plan EIR. There are no new off-site or cumulatively-considerable impacts that are peculiar to the Project, nor any new or more severe impacts to the environment beyond what was previously evaluated and disclosed by the General Plan EIR.

Packet Pg. 360 Attachment: CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist_Peaks 850 Quartz Hill Subdivision (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Section 15183 CEQA Exemption Checklist 82 The Peaks – 850 Quartz Hill Subdivision

16. Transportation
Impact Statement
from General Plan EIR
GP EIR
level of
significance
New effect
peculiar to
Project or
site?
New
significant
effect?
New
significant
off-site or
cumulative
impact?
More
severe
adverse
impact?
Project
level of
significance
Within
scope of
GP EIR?
TRANS-1: The proposed General Plan
would not conflict with a program, plan,
ordinance, or policy addressing the
circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian
facilities.
(Appendix G question XVII. a)
Less than
Significant No No No No Less than Significant Yes
TRANS-2: Implementation of the
proposed General Plan may generate
VMT levels inconsistent with CEQA
Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision
(b) regarding policies to reduce VMT.
(Appendix G question XVII. b)
Less than
Significant No No No No Less than
Significant Yes
TRANS-3: The proposed General Plan
would not substantially increase hazards
due to a geometric design feature (e.g.
sharp curves or dangerous intersections)
or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment).
(Appendix G question XVII. c)
Less than
Significant No No No No Less than
Significant Yes
TRANS-4: The proposed General Plan
would not result in inadequate emergency
access.
(Appendix G question XVII. d)
Less than
Significant No No No No Less than
Significant Yes
TRANS-5: Implementation of the
proposed General Plan would not, in
combination with past, present, and
reasonably foreseeable projects, result in
a cumulative impact with respect to
transportation.

Less than
Significant No No No No Less than Significant Yes
Discussion:

The General Plan EIR described existing conditions in the Plan Area related to transportation, and evaluated the potential impacts of the build-out of the General Plan on transportation. There have been no substantive changes to the regulatory framework, environmental conditions, or the City’s Municipal Code since certification of the General Plan Update EIR.

APPLICABLE GENERAL PLAN POLICIES:

The following goals and policies from the Redding General Plan are applicable to the Project.

Goal PS4: Minimize the potential for loss of life, injury, and property damage resulting from urban and wildland fires.

Policy PS4K: Enforce subdivision regulations that generally limit cul-de-sac lengths to no greater than 600 feet and strive to ensure that sufficient emergency-vehicle turnaround areas are provided.

Policy PS4L: Apply as appropriate, subdivision regulations requiring each residential development having 50 or more dwelling units and each commercial development employing 150 or more people to have at least two connected points of public Packet Pg. 361 Attachment: CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist_Peaks 850 Quartz Hill Subdivision (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Section 15183 CEQA Exemption Checklist 83 The Peaks – 850 Quartz Hill Subdivision access as may be determined necessary by the Fire Marshal.

Goal T1: A transportation system that meets the diverse needs of users of all ages and abilities, including safe, efficient, sustainable, and comfortable routes for walking, bicycling, and public transportation to increase the use of these modes of transportation, and enable convenient and active travel as part of daily activities.

Policy T1A: Strive to ensure that where complete streets infrastructure is constructed, it improves transportation choices for pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists, and public transportation riders and that users of all ages and abilities are considered in the planning, design, approval, construction, and operation of new streets, and the alteration and maintenance phases of existing streets by:
• Including infrastructure that promotes a safe means of travel for all users along the right of way, such as sidewalks, shared-use paths, bicycle lanes (including protected bicycle lanes or buffered bicycle lanes where feasible) or paved shoulders.
• Providing pedestrian and bike connections from developments to adjacent main streets, open space areas, parks, transit stops, schools, commercial and employment centers, and other activity centers as opportunities arise. • Designing new development to incorporate street connectivity for all users. • Including new or alteration of existing infrastructure that facilitates safe crossing of the right-of-way for all users, such as: accessible curb ramps, high-visibility crosswalks, pedestrian refuge islands, smaller curb radii, corner bulb-outs, pedestrian signals, and bicycle detection at traffic signals where warranted. • Incorporating features that improve the comfort, convenience, and safety of users such as pedestrianoriented/wayfinding signs, pedestrian-scale lighting, benches and other street furniture, bicycle parking facilities, comfortable and attractive public transportation stops and facilities, street trees, landscape, and planting strips.

Goal CDD17: Provide residential streets that are designed to reduce vehicle speed, that encourage pedestrian and bicycle use, and that are aesthetically pleasing.

Policy CDD17A: Allow a variety of residential street widths and designs to be incorporated into new residential developments based on the function of the various streets. Pavement width should generally be limited to the minimum necessary to adequately meet circulation demands and emergency vehicle access.

Policy CDD17B: Encourage new neighborhoods to incorporate detached sidewalks and to establish landscaped “parkways” between curb and sidewalk. Continuous and consistent tree planting to form canopy closure is encouraged.

GP EIR Impact TRANS-1: The GP EIR identified less-than-significant impacts relative to conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system.

Project Analysis
The Project is consistent with the land use designation for the site, the RS-2.5 zoning district, and City development standards. The development would include multiple public access points in compliance with the California Fire Code, the City’s Municipal Code and General Plan policy PS4L to ensure adequate emergency access. The primary vehicular access to the Project site is proposed via a new off-site roadway that would extend from Buenaventura Boulevard to the site, which would be constructed within an approved City right-of-way across BLM property west of the site. A new tee intersection with Buenaventura Boulevard would be stop controlled on the new connecting roadway. The Project would also include residential streets that would connect to Steamboat Street and Keel Court to the east, which then connect to Spinnaker Drive. All new roads would be designed to allow access by Fire Department, Law Enforcement, and other emergency responder use, and would provide widths in accordance with the City’s construction standards.

Pedestrian and bicycle access would be provided along sidewalks, on-site multi-use trails, and shared use of minor streets. Pathways and sidewalks would be placed throughout the development for easy pedestrian circulation to and from the residential areas, parks, Packet Pg. 362 Attachment: CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist_Peaks 850 Quartz Hill Subdivision (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Section 15183 CEQA Exemption Checklist 84 The Peaks – 850 Quartz Hill Subdivision and open space areas. The Project will dedicate street rights-of-ways and construct streets that will accommodate all forms of transportation as provided by the City’s Complete Streets policy, the Subdivision Ordinance, right-of-way and construction requirements of RMC Chapter 16.13, and the City’s construction standards.

As part of this 15183 CEQA Exemption Checklist, a Transportation Impact Study was completed to evaluate the potential transportation impacts and operational effects associated with the Project (W-Trans 2025a). The Transportation Impact Study notes that the Project includes sidewalks and trails that provide adequate connectivity within the site and to neighboring developments. The proposed sidewalks are at least five feet wide and are proposed on either side of each Project street. Proposed trails would provide pedestrian and bicycle connectivity between the Project streets and the proposed open spaces and park. ADA-compliant curb ramps would be included at new intersections. With these improvements, the Project is consistent with the City policies related to pedestrian facilities and the Project would be adequately connected to the nearby neighborhoods and the surrounding pedestrian network.

The Transportation Impact Study notes that existing bicycle facilities, along with shared use of minor streets and proposed trails, would provide adequate access for cyclists. Connectivity is expected to improve further with City planned bicycle lane extensions along Quartz Hill Road, as outlined in the City’s Active Transportation Plan and Bikeway Action Plan. The Project does not include any bicycle facilities that would inhibit or conflict with the City’s Active Transportation Plan and Bikeway Action Plan.

The Transportation Impact Study notes that although transit access is limited in the area, it is considered acceptable given the Project’s location and expected minimal demand. The Project would not conflict with City policies related to transit facilities.

Overall, the Project would not conflict with any existing City policies related to pedestrians, bicyclists, or transit and would therefore have a less-than-significant impact on these modes with provision of sidewalks and streetlighting along the new project streets and ADA-compliant curb ramps at intersections. The impact relative to conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system would be less than significant, and would be within the scope of the General Plan EIR relative to Impact TRANS-1.

GP EIR Impact TRANS-2: The GP EIR identified less-than-significant impacts relative to generation of vehicle miles travelled (VMT) levels, given that the forecasted rate of VMT per resident under GP Year 2045 conditions would not exceed the established regional threshold. This finding was consistent with the 2018 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) for the Shasta Region, which noted that Redding has the lowest rate of VMT per capita in Shasta County, and the shortest average trip lengths in the County, reflecting the proximity of homes, jobs, and services within Redding.

Project Analysis
The Project’s Transportation Impact Study (W-Trans 2025a) evaluated anticipated VMT levels. The Shasta Regional Transportation Agency (SRTA) travel demand model includes hundreds of traffic analysis zones (TAZs) within the region that contain information for scenario years between 2015 and 2040. The model includes aggregate travel data for factors such as trip counts, travel distances, total VMT, population, and employment figures. The Project site is located within TAZ 463, which has a total projected VMT of 18,789 miles per day in 2025. With a combined population of 1,145 persons, the total daily VMT per capita would be 18.4.

As contained in the 2018 RTP, the projected total daily VMT per capita with implementation of the RTP initiatives is 26.8 miles per day in 2020. Applying OPR’s guidance, a residential project generating a VMT that is 15 percent or more below this value, or 22.8 miles per capita per day or less, would have a less-than-significant VMT impact. The Project is expected to have a daily VMT per capita of

18.4, which is approximately 31 percent below the countywide average. Since this is more than 15 percent below the countywide average value, the Project’s transportation impact related to VMT would be considered less than significant. Accordingly, based on OPR guidance and information contained within the SRTA travel demand model and the 2018 RTP, the Project’s impact on VMT would be less than significant and would be within the scope of the General Plan EIR relative to Impact TRANS-2.

GP EIR Impact TRANS-3: The GP EIR identified less-than-significant impacts relative to increasing roadway hazards due to a geometric design feature.

Project Analysis
The primary vehicular access to the Project site is proposed via a new off-site roadway that would extend from Buenaventura Boulevard to the site, which would be constructed within an approved City right-of-way across BLM property west of the site. A new tee intersection with Buenaventura Boulevard would be stop controlled on the new connecting roadway. The Project would also include residential streets that would connect to Steamboat Street and Keel Court to the east, which then connect to Spinnaker Drive.

The Project’s Transportation Impact Study (W-Trans 2025a) evaluated sight distance at the proposed new intersection with Buenaventura Boulevard. The proposed intersection would be stop-controlled on the minor street approach, therefore, the Highway Design Manual’s corner sight distance criteria were applied. The segment of Buenaventura Boulevard adjacent to the Project site does not have a posted speed limit, so a design speed of 45 miles per hour (mph) was applied for evaluation purposes. The Transportation Impact Study found that while corner sight distance criteria for a design speed of 45 mph are not met, stopping sight distance criteria are satisfied. To promote safe and effective intersection visibility, the Project design incorporates recommendations from the study.

Packet Pg. 363 Attachment: CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist_Peaks 850 Quartz Hill Subdivision (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Section 15183 CEQA Exemption Checklist 85 The Peaks – 850 Quartz Hill Subdivision These include maximizing available sight lines by placing signage, monuments, and other structures outside the vision triangles for drivers on the minor street approach, installing intersection lighting, and adding intersection warning signs on both Buenaventura Boulevard approaches.

The analysis also considered whether Project traffic would cause queues to extend out of dedicated turn lanes into through lanes or create sight distance issues. The findings determined that there are no scenarios where the projected maximum queue lengths at intersections would exceed the available stacking space due to Project traffic. The Project would not increase queues to a position where adequate stopping sight distance would no longer be available.

Overall, implementation of the Project would not result in conflicts with adopted policies, plans, or actions or otherwise increase hazards due to a design feature that may have a significant impact on the environment. The Project impact would be less than significant, and would be within the scope of the General Plan EIR relative to Impact TRANS-3.

GP EIR Impact TRANS-4: The GP EIR identified less-than-significant impacts relative to emergency access.

Project Analysis
During construction, impairment of emergency response and evacuation plans could occur if temporary road closures are required.

The Project would require work within Buenaventura Boulevard, including connection of a new access road intersection and utility tieins. Such construction would potentially require temporary partial lane closures over a period of two to four weeks. No full roadway closures would occur during construction of the Project, and no on-street worker parking or equipment staging would occur.

Encroachment permits and the City’s SCOA for tentative subdivision maps include conditions of approval related to traffic control (Condition 27), which require preparation and implementation of a Traffic Control Plan to ensure that construction equipment and activities do not obstruct roadways. The Traffic Control Plan will be submitted to the Redding Fire Department and Police Department for review and approval prior to approval of building permits.

The Project would be constructed in accordance with City roadway specifications, including accommodation of necessary fire apparatus turning movements to ensure emergency vehicle accessibility. The Project includes multiple access points (Buenaventura Boulevard, Steamboat Street, and Keel Court) in compliance with the California Fire Code, General Plan policy PS4L, and the City’s Municipal Code to ensure adequate emergency access. In addition, the existing unimproved maintenance access road that connects directly to Quartz Hill Road could be used by the Fire Department and other emergency vehicles and first responders in the event of an emergency, resulting in a total of four potential access points.

The Project would be consistent with subdivision regulations that limits cul-de-sac lengths to no greater than 600 feet and provision of sufficient emergency-vehicle turnaround areas. Emergency-vehicle access routes are provided in the proposed open-space areas at the site, and street widths and grades will accommodate emergency vehicles and evacuees simultaneously. Additionally, the City of Redding Public Works Department and Fire Department have reviewed the Project plans according to adopted construction standards and specifications and confirmed that adequate emergency access is provided. The Project provides adequate emergency access and on-site circulation, meeting the necessary design standards. While the Project would be expected to result in a slight increase in delay for traffic on Quartz Hill Road, emergency response vehicles can claim the right-of-way by using lights and sirens, and the Project is expected to have a negligible effect on emergency response times, ensuring that emergency services can still operate efficiently.

Overall, the Project would meet and exceed the minimum number of access points required under City Code and the California Fire Code. Emergency access and site circulation are anticipated to function acceptably with incorporation of applicable design standards into the site layout, and traffic from the Project would be expected to have a less-than-significant impact on emergency response times.

The Project impact would be less than significant, and would be within the scope of the General Plan EIR relative to Impact TRANS-4.

OFF-SITE ANALYSIS:

Project-related off-site improvements include construction of a 550-foot access road with underlying utility extensions across BLM land west of the site, a 50-foot extension of a paved maintenance access road and sewer line onto the adjacent property to the east, and minor grading to connect Road B to an existing gravel road on the neighboring parcel to the south. Additionally, intersection warning signs will be installed on both Buenaventura Boulevard approaches and at the intersection of Keswick Dam Road and Quartz Hill Road. The off-site improvement areas are located within the Sphere of Influence and Planning Area of the General Plan 2045. The off-site improvements extending across BLM land extend across a Growth Area identified in the General Plan 2045. The proposed new off-site roadway would be designed and constructed in accordance with the City’s construction standards and specifications, and with State regulations on roadway and facility design, materials, and signage. The road would allow access by Fire Department, Law Enforcement, and other emergency responder use, and would provide widths in accordance with the City’s construction standards. As discussed in Impact TRANS-3, the Project’s Transportation Impact Study (W-Trans 2025a) evaluated sight distance at the proposed new off-site intersection with Buenaventura Boulevard, and includes recommendations that incorporated into the Project to ensure acceptable site distance. The off-site improvements would not result in additional transportation impacts, and would be within the scope of the General Plan EIR relative to Impact TRANS-1 through TRANS-4.

Packet Pg. 364 Attachment: CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist_Peaks 850 Quartz Hill Subdivision (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Section 15183 CEQA Exemption Checklist 86 The Peaks – 850 Quartz Hill Subdivision CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS:

The General Plan EIR evaluated the potential cumulative impacts of the build-out of the General Plan on transportation. Cumulative impacts were evaluated in Impact TRANS-5 of the General Plan EIR as less than significant. The Project site and off-site improvements are located within the cumulative area of analysis evaluated in the General Plan EIR, and the site is located within the city limits. The Project is consistent with the General Plan density allowance and Zoning designation of the site. The conclusions of the General Plan EIR relative to cumulative impacts on transportation, including VMT, are still valid. The Project’s contribution to cumulative impacts would not be cumulatively considerable, and no new potential cumulative impacts not previously addressed in the General Plan EIR would occur as a result of the Project. The Project would be within the scope of the General Plan EIR relative to Impacts TRANS-5.

APPLICABLE GENERAL PLAN EIR MITIGATION MEASURES AND STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:

General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures were identified in the General Plan EIR related to transportation.

SCOAs for Subdivisions
In accordance with City of Redding Ordinance 2469, Section 26, the following transportation-related standard conditions of approval apply to all tentative subdivision map projects:
#27. Projects within the VHFHSZ shall provide a Traffic Control Plan ensuring that construction equipment or activities do not block roadways during the construction period. The plan shall be prepared in accordance with the City’s Guidelines for Temporary Traffic Control Plan Development. The Traffic Control Plan shall be submitted to the Redding Fire Department and Police Department for review and approval prior to approval of building permits.

CONCLUSION:

As addressed above, there are no transportation related impacts that are peculiar to the Project site that were not adequately evaluated by the General Plan EIR. There are no new off-site or cumulatively-considerable impacts that are peculiar to the Project, nor any new or more severe impacts to the environment beyond what was previously evaluated and disclosed by the General Plan EIR.

Packet Pg. 365 Attachment: CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist_Peaks 850 Quartz Hill Subdivision (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Section 15183 CEQA Exemption Checklist 87 The Peaks – 850 Quartz Hill Subdivision

17. Utilities and Service Systems
Impact Statement
from General Plan EIR
GP EIR
level of
significance
New effect
peculiar to
Project or
site?
New
significant
effect?
New
significant
off-site or
cumulative
impact?
More
severe
adverse
impact?
Project
level of
significance
Within
scope of
GP EIR?
UTIL-1: Sewer and wastewater treatment
systems have adequate capacity to meet
proposed General Plan requirements, and
would not result in the need for new or
expanded wastewater treatment facilities.
(Appendix G question XIX. a)
Less than
Significant No No No No Less than Significant Yes
UTIL-2: Implementation of the proposed
General Plan would not result in a
determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or may
serve the Project that it has adequate
capacity to serve the Project’s projected
demand in addition to the provider’s
existing commitments.
(Appendix G question XIX. c)
Less than
Significant No No No No Less than
Significant Yes
UTIL-3: Water supply and delivery
systems are adequate to meet proposed
General Plan requirements.
(Appendix G question XIX. b)
Less than
Significant No No No No Less than Significant Yes
UTIL-4: Implementation of the proposed
General Plan would not, in combination
with past, present, and reasonably
foreseeable projects, result in a
cumulative impact with respect to water
supply.
(Appendix G question XIX. a)
Less than
Significant No No No No Less than Significant Yes
UTIL-5: Existing and/or proposed storm
drainage systems are adequate to serve
the drainage requirements of the proposed
General Plan.
(Appendix G question XIX. a)
Less than
Significant No No No No Less than Significant Yes
UTIL-6: Implementation of the proposed
General Plan would not, in combination
with past, present, and reasonably
foreseeable projects, result in a
cumulative impact with respect to
stormwater facilities.
(Appendix G questions XIX. a)
Less than
Significant No No No No Less than Significant Yes
UTIL-7: Existing and/or proposed
facilities would be able to accommodate
proposed General Plan -generated solid
waste.
(Appendix G questions XIX. d)
Less than
Significant No No No No Less than Significant Yes
Packet Pg. 366 Attachment: CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist_Peaks 850 Quartz Hill Subdivision (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Section 15183 CEQA Exemption Checklist 88 The Peaks – 850 Quartz Hill Subdivision Impact Statement
from General Plan EIR
GP EIR
level of
significance
New effect
peculiar to
Project or
site?
New
significant
effect?
New
significant
off-site or
cumulative
impact?
More
severe
adverse
impact?
Project
level of
significance
Within
scope of
GP EIR?
UTIL-8: The proposed General Plan
would comply with federal, state, and
local statutes and regulations related to
solid waste.
(Appendix G questions XIX. e)
Less than
Significant No No No No Less than
Significant Yes
UTIL-9: Implementation of the proposed
General Plan would not, in combination
with past, present, and reasonably
foreseeable projects, result in a
cumulative impact with respect to solid
waste facilities.

Less than
Significant No No No No Less than
Significant Yes
Discussion:

The General Plan EIR described existing conditions in the Plan Area related to utilities and service systems, and evaluated the potential impacts of the build-out of the General Plan on utility systems. There have been no substantive changes to the regulatory framework, environmental conditions, or the City’s Municipal Code since certification of the General Plan Update EIR.

APPLICABLE GENERAL PLAN POLICIES:

The following goals and policies from the Redding General Plan are applicable to the Project.

Goal PF1: Ensure that adequate public services and facilities are available to support development in an efficient and orderly manner.

Policy PF1A: Require all new development, including major modifications to existing development, construct necessary on-site infrastructure to serve the project in accordance with the City standards.

Policy PF1B: Require all new development, including major modifications to existing development, to construct or provide a fair share contribution toward the construction of any off-site improvements necessary to offset project impacts and/or support the project ensuring that established service levels are maintained.

Policy PF1D: Require that the provision of streets, sewer, electric, water, drainage, and other needed infrastructure be coordinated in a logical manner between adjacent developments so as to reduce design, construction, and maintenance costs.

Goal PF3: Ensure adequate fire protection and emergency medical response for residents and businesses in the community.

Policy PF3F: Ensure, through development review, that projects adequately address on-site fire safety and protection and comply with applicable fire and building codes.

Goal PF7: Provide for efficient collection, recycling, or disposal of solid waste while maintaining an adequate waste disposal capacity.

Policy PF7B: Continue to require solid waste collection service for residential, commercial, and industrial uses within the incorporated area.

Goal PF8: Avoid increases in existing 100-year flood levels.

Policy PF8A: Adhere to the following thresholds for stormwater drainage facilities to the extent feasible:
• Design drainage facilities to convey a 100-year storm.

Packet Pg. 367 Attachment: CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist_Peaks 850 Quartz Hill Subdivision (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Section 15183 CEQA Exemption Checklist 89 The Peaks – 850 Quartz Hill Subdivision • Until adequate stormwater facilities are in place, utilize a policy of “no net increase in runoff” for development projects in all drainage basins.

Policy PF8B: Work toward constructing stormwater detention/retention basins at strategic locations to minimize current flooding risk. Select and pursue the acquisition of sites considered appropriate for such facilities as funding permits.

Policy PF8D: Encourage project designs that minimize drainage concentrations and coverage by impermeable surfaces.

Policy PF8F: Encourage the use of green infrastructure design and Low Impact Development techniques for stormwater facilities.

Policy CDD2B: Require new developments to maintain adequate service levels for existing development while providing for the upgrade/expansion of existing public services, as appropriate.

GP EIR Impact UTIL-1 and UTIL-2: The GP EIR identified less-than-significant impacts relative to sewer and wastewater treatment systems.

Project Analysis
The Project is consistent with the land use designation for the site, the RS-2.5 zoning district, City development standards, and is within city limits where supporting utilities and public services exist. The Project includes construction of necessary on-site infrastructure to serve the Project in accordance with the City standards. Utility extensions within the Project site would be installed underground and each residential lot would be served by an approved sanitary sewer lateral connection. The Project site is located within the North Redding wastewater tributary zone. Wastewater is collected and transported to the Clear Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) located on Metz Road. The Clear Creek WWTP is operated and maintained in compliance with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit limits and best management practices (BMPs). As summarized in the General Plan EIR, the Clear Creek WWTP is currently sized to provide treatment capacity for 9.4 million gallons per day (MGD) of average dry weather flow (ADWF) and 40 MGD for peak hour wet weather flow (WWF). The WWTP’s ADWF range from 3.8 MGD to 7.8 MGD. Clear Creek WWTP recently completed a capacity upgrade, and analysis of the facility capacity indicates that the facility should have capacity to manage peak sewer flows to Ultimate Build-Out model scenario. The City of Redding Public Work’s Department currently meets the wastewater treatment and collection demands of its service area, and based on the existing capacity of the Clear Creek WWTP and the projected Project wastewater flows, the Project can be adequately served from existing wastewater treatment facilities. Therefore, the Project would not require or result in the construction of new wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, and no environmental impacts associated with construction of new treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities would result. Therefore, the Project impact would be less than significant, and would be within the scope of the General Plan EIR relative to Impact UTIL-1 and UTIL-2.

GP EIR Impact UTIL-3 and UTIL-4: The GP EIR identified less-than-significant impacts relative to water supply and delivery systems.

Project Analysis
The Project is consistent with the land use designation for the site, the RS-2.5 zoning district, City development standards, and is within city limits where supporting utilities and public services exist. The Project includes 120 single family residential lots, which would increase potable water demand in the immediate vicinity as compared to existing conditions. As summarized in the General Plan EIR, the City’s water supplies would be able to serve General Plan build-out demands under normal, single-dry, and multiple dry years from 2025 through 2045 for properties within the City’s service area, including the Project site. Because the Project is consistent with the General Plan and would be within the buildout analyzed in the General Plan EIR, adequate water supplies would be available to serve the Project, and construction of new water treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities would not be required. The Project impact would be less than significant, and would be within the scope of the General Plan EIR relative to Impact UTIL-3 and UTIL-4.

GP EIR Impact UTIL-5 and UTIL-6: The GP EIR identified less-than-significant impacts relative to storm drainage systems.

Project Analysis
The Project includes storm-drainage facilities that will be designed and constructed consistent with the requirements of City Construction Standards, the City of Redding Storm Water Quality Improvement Plan, and the City of Redding Phase II NPDES Permit from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board. This includes on-site storm water facilities that will drain to new on-site detention basins. In accordance with the City’s SCOA for Subdivisions, prior to improvement-plan approval, proper management of stormwater peak flows in accordance with City Council Policy 1806 and the specifications of the City Engineer will be required. Such measures address impacts from the 10-, 25-, and 100-year-storm events, and the Project will address peak flows to maintain predevelopment levels at all locations downstream of the Project. The adequacy of the storm water drainage system to serve the site has been identified and incorporated into the Project design. No additional storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities beyond those identified in the Project and evaluated in this Checklist would be required. The Project impact would be less than Packet Pg. 368 Attachment: CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist_Peaks 850 Quartz Hill Subdivision (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Section 15183 CEQA Exemption Checklist 90 The Peaks – 850 Quartz Hill Subdivision significant, and would be within the scope of the General Plan EIR relative to Impact UTIL-5 and UTIL-6.

GP EIR Impact UTIL-7, UTIL-8, and UTIL-9: The GP EIR identified less-than-significant impacts relative to solid waste facilities and compliance with solid waste regulations.

Project Analysis
Construction of the Project would result in a temporary increase in solid waste disposal needs associated with construction, including solid waste and vegetation from site clearing, grading, tree removal, and street improvements. During construction, the contractor would be required to comply with CALGreen requirements, specifically recycling and/or salvaging for reuse a minimum of 65 percent of nonhazardous construction and demolition waste generated during most “new construction” projects. Excavated soils may be utilized for backfill at the site or off-hauled with other construction debris for recycling or disposal as required by City and County regulations.

Following construction, solid waste within the City of Redding is collected and transported to the Redding Transfer Station and Material Recovery Facility and then to the West Central Landfill. On behalf of Shasta County, the City operates the West Central Landfill.

According to CalRecycle, the landfill has a remaining capacity of over 6.5 million cubic yards and a maximum daily throughput capacity of 700 tons (CalRecycle 2025). The proposed 120-lot residential subdivision is expected to generate less than one ton of solid waste per day, based on the assumption that single-family homes in California produce approximately 10 pounds of waste per household daily.

The landfill has sufficient capacity to adequately serve the Project. Solid waste generated during construction and operation of the Project would represent a small fraction of the daily permitted tonnage of this facility and other regional landfill facilities. The Project would not generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals.

The City provides solid waste disposal (curbside pick-up) service, which homes in the proposed subdivision would utilize.

The Project would be required to comply with City of Redding ordinances governing storage, collection, and disposal of solid waste set forth in Municipal Code Chapter 9.28, Solid Waste and Recycling. Solid waste disposal services provided within Redding must also follow the applicable State and local regulations related to the collection of solid waste. The Project is consistent with the residential type and density established for the site by the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, as well as the analysis presented in the General Plan EIR. The Project’s solid waste disposal needs would be sufficiently accommodated by existing landfills, and compliance with applicable statutes and regulations would be required by Municipal Code Chapter 9.28. The Project impact would be less than significant and would be within the scope of the General Plan EIR relative to Impact UTIL-7, UTIL-8, and UTIL-9.

OFF-SITE ANALYSIS:

CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS:

The General Plan EIR evaluated the potential cumulative impacts of the build-out of the General Plan on utilities and service systems.

Cumulative impacts were evaluated in Impact UTIL-2, UTIL-4, UTIL-6, and UTIL-9 of the General Plan EIR as less than significant.

The Project site and off-site improvements are located within the cumulative area of analysis evaluated in the General Plan EIR, and the site is located within the city limits. The Project is consistent with the General Plan density allowance and Zoning designation of the site. The conclusions of the General Plan EIR relative to cumulative impacts on utilities and service systems are still valid. The Project’s contribution to cumulative impacts would not be cumulatively considerable, and no new potential cumulative impacts not previously addressed in the General Plan EIR would occur as a result of the Project. The Project would be within the scope of the General Plan EIR relative to Impacts UTIL-2, UTIL-4, UTIL-6, and UTIL-9.

APPLICABLE GENERAL PLAN EIR MITIGATION MEASURES AND STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:

General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures were identified in the General Plan EIR related to utilities and service systems.

SCOAs for Subdivisions
In accordance with City of Redding Ordinance 2469, Section 26, the following utilities and service systems-related standard conditions of approval apply to all tentative subdivision map projects:
#16. Essential utilities, including, but not limited to, sanitary sewer, water, electric, natural gas, and communication distribution lines, including main lines and service laterals, shall be extended and sized to serve each lot and to provide logical extensions Packet Pg. 369 Attachment: CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist_Peaks 850 Quartz Hill Subdivision (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Section 15183 CEQA Exemption Checklist 91 The Peaks – 850 Quartz Hill Subdivision of service to subsequent phases and adjacent properties in accordance with Section 17.60.080 of the Subdivision Ordinance.

These utilities shall be installed in accordance with the capacity, construction, metering, and testing standards of the City and other involved private utility company(s), including applicable utility master plans. #18. Any necessary off-site utility extensions shall be placed in a public-street right-of-way or public-service easement in a location approved by the City Engineer and other responsible utility companies. Vehicular access for maintenance purposes shall be provided to all utility infrastructure outside a public right-of-way as determined necessary by, and in a manner approved by, the City Engineer.
#19. New “dry” utilities, including electric, telephone, and cable television, must be installed underground in accordance with Section 17.60.090 of the Subdivision Ordinance. Any existing overhead facilities within a proposed subdivision and along peripheral streets must also be placed underground, unless waived under the project-specific conditions and the overhead facilities are determined to not constitute or exacerbate the risk of wildfire. #20. Electric-supply facilities shall be furnished and installed in accordance with the Redding Electric Utility Service Policy Resolution currently in effect at the time the developer’s plans are approved by the City. #21. The developer shall be responsible for all costs associated with the relocation or modification of existing utility facilities or structures necessitated by the construction of the project or of improvements required as a condition of approval of this project, including reimbursement of any costs to the affected utility for work performed to support the project, unless other arrangements are made between the developer and the affected utility. #22. After the initial review of project improvement plans by the Engineering Division, the developer shall consult with the Redding Electric Utility (REU) for preparation of an electric-service plan. A copy of the electric-service plan, developed and approved by REU, shall be incorporated into the final improvement plans. #23. Streetlights shall be provided in accordance with applicable Redding Electric Utility Construction Standards 553.0, et seq. #27. Projects within the VHFHSZ shall provide a Traffic Control Plan ensuring that construction equipment or activities do not block roadways during the construction period. The plan shall be prepared in accordance with the City’s Guidelines for Temporary Traffic Control Plan Development. The Traffic Control Plan shall be submitted to the Redding Fire Department and Police Department for review and approval prior to approval of building permits.

CONCLUSION:

As addressed above, there are no utilities and service systems related impacts that are peculiar to the Project site that were not adequately evaluated by the General Plan EIR. There are no new off-site or cumulatively-considerable impacts that are peculiar to the Project, nor any new or more severe impacts to the environment beyond what was previously evaluated and disclosed by the General Plan EIR.

Packet Pg. 370 Attachment: CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist_Peaks 850 Quartz Hill Subdivision (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Section 15183 CEQA Exemption Checklist 92 The Peaks – 850 Quartz Hill Subdivision

18. Wildfire
Impact Statement
from General Plan EIR
GP EIR
level of
significance
New effect
peculiar to
Project or
site?
New
significant
effect?
New
significant
off-site or
cumulative
impact?
More
severe
adverse
impact?
Project
level of
significance
Within
scope of
GP EIR?
WILD-1: Development under the 2023-
2045 General Plan Update could
substantially impair an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan.
(Appendix G question XX. a)
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
No No No No
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Yes
WILD-2: Development under the 2023-
2045 General Plan could exacerbate
wildfire risks due to slope, prevailing
winds, and other factors, thereby
exposing Project occupants to elevated
particulate concentrations from a wildfire.
(Appendix G question XX. b)
Significant
and
Unavoidable
No No No No
Significant
and
Unavoidable
Yes
WILD-3: The 2023-2045 General Plan
would not require the installation and
maintenance of associated infrastructure
in areas that are undeveloped or vacant,
which could exacerbate fire risk or result
in temporary or ongoing impacts to the
environment.
(Appendix G question XXI. c)
Less than
Significant No No No No Less than Significant Yes
WILD-4: The proposed General Plan
would not expose people or structures to
significant risks, including downslope or
downstream flooding or landslides, as a
result of runoff, postfire slope instability,
or drainage changes
(Appendix G question XXI. d)
Less than
Significant No No No No Less than
Significant Yes
WILD-5: The proposed General Plan, in
combination with past, present, and
reasonably foreseeable projects, would
result in significant and unavoidable
cumulative impacts with respect to
wildfire.

Significant
and
Unavoidable
No No No No
Significant
and
Unavoidable
Yes
Discussion:

The General Plan EIR described existing conditions in the Plan Area related to wildfire hazards, and evaluated the potential impacts of the build-out of the General Plan on wildfire conditions and related hazards. Following certification of the General Plan EIR, the City of Redding adopted a Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP). The CWPP establishes a coordinated framework for reducing wildfire risk through strategic planning, fuel management, and emergency preparedness. Developed in collaboration with CAL FIRE, the Redding Fire Department, the Buckeye Fire Protection District, and other local, state, and federal agencies, the CWPP identifies high-risk areas and outlines strategies for vegetation treatment, public education, and evacuation readiness. The CWPP directly supports and reinforces the wildfire-related goals and policies of the City’s General Plan and is incorporated into the analysis in this 15183 CEQA Exemption Checklist.

APPLICABLE GENERAL PLAN POLICIES:

The following goals and policies from the Redding General Plan are applicable to the Project.

Goal PS4: Minimize the potential for loss of life, injury, and property damage resulting from urban and wildland fires.

Packet Pg. 371 Attachment: CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist_Peaks 850 Quartz Hill Subdivision (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Section 15183 CEQA Exemption Checklist 93 The Peaks – 850 Quartz Hill Subdivision Policy PS4B: Design new development and redevelopment projects to meet State and local standards for fire protection; encourage the upgrade of existing structures to current standards. Encourage the installation of smoke detectors in residential and commercial facilities constructed prior to the requirement of their installation, as appropriate.

Policy PS4C: Apply appropriate codes and standards to ensure all new and existing developments provide:
• Defensible space.
• Non-combustible design with appropriate building exterior and roofing materials. • Spark arresting system, fire alarms, and fire sprinkler systems are installed.

Policy PS4E: Prioritize developing and funding a comprehensive vegetation management and weed-abatement program, beyond the wildfire mitigation through the Electric Utility, for City-owned properties and open-space areas, including those that are located in existing subdivisions and in new developments, to prevent and reduce the risk of fire.

Policy PS4G: Develop a program to construct and maintain fire-access roads in ravine areas considered to have a very high fire danger to enhance the ability to suppress wildland fires. These roads need not be surfaced and may also function as part of the City’s trail system. Erosion and impacts to native vegetation and natural features should be minimized.

Policy PS4J: Utilize techniques, as determined appropriate by the Fire Marshal, to reduce fire damage in those areas with a high wildland fire potential.

Policy PS4K: Enforce subdivision regulations that generally limit cul-de-sac lengths to no greater than 600 feet and strive to ensure that sufficient emergency-vehicle turnaround areas are provided.

Goal PF3: Ensure adequate fire protection and emergency medical response for residents and businesses in the community.

Policy PF3F: Ensure, through development review, that projects adequately address on-site fire safety and protection and comply with applicable fire and building codes.

GP EIR Impact WILD-1: The GP EIR identified significant impacts relative to construction of new development within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone that could cause a temporary impairment of an evacuation route due to road closure during construction. The GP EIR includes Mitigation Measure WILD-1, requiring development within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone to prepare a Traffic Control Plan, to ensure that construction equipment or activities do not block roadways during the construction period. The Traffic Control Plan would be submitted to the Redding Fire Department and Police Department for review and approval prior to approval of building permits.

Project Analysis
Coordinated emergency response and evacuation planning within the City of Redding is guided by the City’s Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) and the Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP). The City’s EOP is an all-hazard plan that outlines the roles and responsibilities of various agencies and public services in organizing and responding to emergencies and disasters within the City of Redding. The EOP provides a framework for coordinating response and recovery activities during a large-scale emergency. The City’s CWWP was developed in partnership with CAL FIRE, the Redding Fire Department, the Buckeye Fire Protection District, and other Packet Pg. 372 Attachment: CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist_Peaks 850 Quartz Hill Subdivision (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Section 15183 CEQA Exemption Checklist 94 The Peaks – 850 Quartz Hill Subdivision local, state, and federal agencies, and identifies high-risk areas, vegetation treatment, public education and evacuation readiness. The City’s CWPP was adopted in 2024 after certification of the General Plan EIR, and supports the goals and policies outlined in the City’s General Plan relative to wildfire, emergency response, and evacuation planning.

The Project site is within a CAL FIRE designated Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) in a Local Responsibility Area (LRA), where fire protection services are provided by the City of Redding. Surrounding land uses to the east and south are also located within a VHFHSZ in an LRA. The off-site improvement area to the west on BLM land is within a Federal Responsibility Area (FRA), where the federal government is responsible for fire protection. To the north, the off-site improvement area is located within a designated VHFHSZ within a State Responsibility Area (SRA), where CAL FIRE provides fire protection services. Fire protection for the Project site would be provided by the Redding Fire Department (RFD). The Project site is within the coverage area of Redding Fire Station #1 located at 1335 Shasta Street, approximately 2.5 miles to the southeast of the site, and Redding Fire Station #6 located at 1695 Beltline Road, approximately 2 miles northeast of the site.

During Project construction, impairment of emergency response and evacuation plans could occur if temporary road closures are required. The Project would require work within Buenaventura Boulevard, including connection of a new access road intersection and utility tie-ins. Such construction would potentially require temporary partial lane closures over a period of two to four weeks. No full roadway closures would occur during construction of the Project, and no on-street worker parking or equipment staging would occur.

The normal functionality of Buenaventura Boulevard would be temporarily altered with partial lane closures and traffic controls to accommodate construction activities. However, General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure WILD-1 and the City’s SCOAs for tentative subdivision maps (Condition 27) include conditions of approval related to traffic control, which would require preparation and implementation of a Traffic Control Plan reviewed and approved by the Redding Fire and Police Departments to ensure that construction equipment or activities do not obstruct roadways during the construction period, and to ensure provision of access to emergency response services. The Traffic Control Plan would include the following:
• During construction, two-way traffic would be maintained along Buenaventura Drive and surrounding local roads. • Through traffic would be maintained through temporary signals, flaggers, or other means. • As construction progresses, emergency providers would be notified in advance of the timing, location, and duration of construction activities and the locations and durations of any temporary detours and/or lane closures. • The contractor would be required to have ready the means necessary to accommodate access by emergency vehicles, such as plating over excavations, flaggers, or other means.

Following construction, the Project would increase the number of people who would need to evacuate northwest Redding in the event of an emergency, however, the Project would not alter the functionality of the surrounding roadways or affect the use of Quartz Hill Road and Buenaventura Boulevard as regional evacuation routes. As part of this 15183 CEQA Exemption Checklist, an Evacuation Assessment was completed to conservatively determine the potential effect on evacuation times in the Project vicinity (W-Trans 2025b).

In a conservative worst-case scenario, the Project is expected to add 225 vehicles to an evacuation occurring all at once during the nighttime hours when all residents would typically be at home. The Evacuation Assessment analyzed two different fire scenarios from two origin points with extreme wind conditions where the fire would move toward the project site. The Evacuation Assessment determined that the addition of Project-generated traffic would increase the time needed to evacuate existing residents by 4.6 to 6.9 minutes, assuming a worst-case, single-surge scenario. The Evacuation Assessment notes that when considering the City’s actual operational practices, including phased evacuation zones managed through Genasys Protect, active traffic control at intersections by City staff, and more realistic vehicle spacing, the true added clearance times would be lower. With application of the measures detailed above, the Evacuation Assessment estimates that the expected increase in evacuation time would be approximately 2 to 5 minutes, and would not materially affect the City’s ability to move residents from high-risk areas to defensible corridors such as Quartz Hill Road and onward to low-risk dispersal routes. In accordance with the published guidance by the State Attorney General, entitled “Best Practices for Analyzing and Mitigating Wildfire Impacts of Development Projects Under the California Environmental Quality Act,” the Evacuation Assessment was used to inform expert judgment and support a determination of whether the Project would significantly affect residents’ ability to safely and reasonably evacuate. Both the Fire Department and Police Department confirmed that the Project would not substantially impair or physically interfere with the City’s Emergency Operations Plan or the emergency evacuation of the Project area.

As described in the Evacuation Assessment, in the aftermath of the Carr Fire, the City has implemented major improvements in evacuation readiness, including the following:
• Adoption of the Genasys Protect platform to pre-map evacuation zones and support phased evacuation orders. • Formal integration of traffic control practices so that intersections can be actively managed during evacuations. • Enacting limits to road construction projects that would result in closures on City arterials to take into account emergency evacuations.
• Expanded public communication systems for timely evacuation warnings and orders as well as constant communications between field staff and the modernized Emergency Operations Center (EOC). • Ongoing Fire and Police training and coordination based directly on the gaps identified in 2018.

Packet Pg. 373 Attachment: CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist_Peaks 850 Quartz Hill Subdivision (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Section 15183 CEQA Exemption Checklist 95 The Peaks – 850 Quartz Hill Subdivision • Implementation of a new standard for developments and road construction projects in very high fire hazard severity zones where an evacuation plan is made to ensure adequate ingress and egress is provided during an emergency throughout the duration of construction.
• Adoption of a CWPP to identify priority areas for fire prevention, special fuel treatment, conduct targeted outreach and propose policies to effectively increase wildfire preparedness.

The Project would be consistent with subdivision regulations and General Plan policy PS4K that limits cul-de-sac lengths to no greater than 600 feet and provision of sufficient emergency-vehicle turnaround areas. In accordance with General Plan policies PS4L, PS4M, and PS4N, emergency-vehicle access routes are provided in the proposed open-space areas at the site, and street widths and grades will accommodate emergency vehicles and evacuees simultaneously. Additionally, the City of Redding Public Works Department and Fire Department have reviewed the Project plans according to adopted construction standards and specifications and confirmed that adequate emergency access is provided. While the Project would be expected to result in a slight increase in delay for traffic on Quartz Hill Road, emergency response vehicles can claim the right-of-way by using lights and sirens, and the Project is expected to have a negligible effect on emergency response times, ensuring that emergency services can still operate efficiently.

Overall, the Project would not substantially impair or interfere with the City’s emergency response and evacuation plans. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant, and the Project would be within the scope of the General Plan EIR relative to Impact WILD1.

GP EIR Impact WILD-2: The GP EIR determined that implementation of the General Plan could increase population, buildings, and infrastructure in wildfire-prone areas. The GP EIR noted that prohibiting development in areas within High and Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones and the wildland urban interface is not feasible or practical as the City has a responsibility to meet other obligations, such as promoting both economic development and corresponding residential development, as required by State housing law, within its adopted growth boundaries. With implementation of the General Plan policies and actions, and mandatory wildfire hazard reduction measures per State regulations, impacts related to exacerbating the risk of pollutant concentrations from wildfire and the uncontrolled spread of wildfire could be reduced, but not necessarily to a less-thansignificant level. Therefore, due to potential unknown impacts from future development under the General Plan, impacts at the programmatic level were determined to be significant and unavoidable, and were addressed in the adopted CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations.

Project Analysis
The Project site is located within a CAL FIRE designated VHFHSZ and was previously subjected to damage during the 2018 Carr Fire.

To mitigate risks associated with development in the VHFHSZ, the City enforces adherence to a comprehensive set of State and local codes regulations, including the California Building Standards Code, California Fire Code, SRA Fire Safe Regulations, Public Resources Code Section 4291, and Redding Municipal Code Chapter 9.20. These codes require specific fire safety measures such as the creation of defensible space and fuel reduction within 100 feet of structures, ember-resistant zones within 5 feet, and the overall maintenance of properties to reduce the risk of uncontrolled fires or the spread of fires to other properties. The California Fire Code, particularly Section 4905.2 and Chapter 49, outlines construction methods and vegetation management standards for wildland-urban interface areas, further reinforcing these requirements.

In accordance with General Plan policies PS4E and PS4G, the City is developing a comprehensive vegetation management and weedabatement program for public lands placed and private open space easements to prevent and reduce the risk of fire. Additionally, a program is being developed to construct and maintain fire-access roads in ravine areas considered to have a very high fire danger to enhance the ability to suppress wildland fires.

The Project itself incorporates a range of wildfire resiliency features consistent with General Plan policies and State and local codes described below, including roadways designed to accommodate both emergency vehicles and evacuating residents, multiple access points to prevent bottlenecks, and the strategic use of natural and constructed firebreaks such as wide roads and open spaces to disrupt fuel continuity. As outlined in the Project Description, wildfire resiliency features include:
• New roads are designed to accommodate both emergency vehicles and evacuating residents simultaneously. • Multiple points of access are provided to prevent bottlenecks and ensure that residents can evacuate quickly and safely, as required by local regulations.

Packet Pg. 374 Attachment: CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist_Peaks 850 Quartz Hill Subdivision (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Section 15183 CEQA Exemption Checklist 96 The Peaks – 850 Quartz Hill Subdivision • The design of the subdivision incorporates natural and constructed firebreaks to protect the community from wildfires, including wide roadways and strategically placed open spaces that reduce the continuity of fuel and slow the spread of fire. • Homes and community structures will be required to maintain defensible space around their perimeters, including clearing flammable vegetation and other combustible materials to create defensible spaces to be mandated by local fire codes and guidelines.
• A fire fuel reduction plan has been developed to lower wildfire risk by clearing flammable vegetation. Zone 1, within 100 feet of structures, will have 90-100% of brush and small trees removed, designated trees cleared per the grading plan, and large trees thinned to 10% canopy. Zone 2, from 100 to 200 feet out, will see 50% of the brush and small trees removed, with similar tree clearing and thinning to 50% canopy.
• Vegetation management would involve regular maintenance, including pruning, clearing, and spacing of plants to reduce fire risk. Within developed areas, residents would choose from recommended plants that are less likely to ignite and that can act as a barrier to slow the spread of fire. A Landscape Maintenance District (LMD) would be established to maintain common areas/parks, wildland fuel vegetation management areas, and landscaping along roadways involving regular inspections and maintenance to ensure that vegetation is kept at safe levels, reducing the overall fire risk to the community. • Homes will incorporate non-combustible materials for exterior walls, such as cement board cladding, masonry, or stucco following the guidelines of the California Residential Code. • Homes will feature Class A fire-rated roofing systems designed to block embers from penetrating and per the standards outlined in CAL FIRE’s Home Hardening program, the California Residential Code, California Building Code, and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) guidelines.
• Windows and glass doors will be double-paned and made of tempered glass, aligning with the California Residential Code and FEMA recommendations.
• Attic, soffit, and crawlspace vents in future homes will be covered with non-combustible mesh, with openings no larger than 1/8 inch to prevent embers from entering the home while still allowing adequate air circulation, as required by the California Residential Code and FEMA standards.
• Homes will be equipped with residential sprinkler systems. • Fencing and decking attached to residences or adjacent to slopes would be constructed of fire-resistant or non-flammable materials.

The Project site’s topography generally slopes to the southwest, while prevailing wind directions fluctuate seasonally between northto-south and south-to-north. Although substantial grading will occur at the site to accommodate development, the site's overall slope orientation will remain unchanged. Additionally, because a large portion of the area will be left undeveloped as open space, the Project is not expected to alter prevailing wind patterns.

Taken together, the Project’s adherence to stringent building codes, fire safety regulations, incorporation of fire-resilient design features, and implementation of vegetation and fuel management strategies represent the most effective wildfire hazard-reduction measures currently available. Nonetheless, due to the inherent risks associated with development in a VHFHSZ, the potential wildfire impact remains significant and unavoidable, but falls within the scope of the General Plan EIR relative to Impact WILD-2.

GP EIR Impact WILD-3: The GP EIR identified less-than-significant impacts relative to wildfire impacts from installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure including those in VHFHSZ, given that projects would be required to adhere to applicable local, regional, and State plans and regulations addressing wildfire prevention, including adopted State regulations, Redding Municipal Code standards, and General Plan 2045 policies aimed at minimizing the impact of infrastructure on the environment.

Project Analysis
The Project will construct public streets and utilities to serve the development. New utilities, including electric service, will be placed underground. No new aboveground power transmission lines would be installed at the site. The Project is not classified as a remote hillside development due to its proximity to existing infrastructure, therefore, emergency water sources are not required as part of the Project.

The Western Area Power Administration (WAPA) owns, operates, and maintains the 230-kV overhead electrical power transmission Packet Pg. 375 Attachment: CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist_Peaks 850 Quartz Hill Subdivision (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Section 15183 CEQA Exemption Checklist 97 The Peaks – 850 Quartz Hill Subdivision lines that cross a portion of the Project site within 250-foot easements. The existing power lines would continue to be maintained per California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) requirements, including maintenance of vegetation around the existing power lines, strict wire-to-wire clearances, annual inspections of aboveground power lines, and the implementation of fire prevention plans. WAPA regulates land uses and vegetation within its easement area. No Project structures will be constructed within the WAPA easement area on the site, such as homes, buildings, sheds, swimming pools, basketball courts, tennis courts, gazebos, etc. As required, vegetation to be planted within the easement areas will not exceed a maximum height of 12 feet at maturity, and will be selected in accordance with the WAPA’s Preferred Vegetation List for the Redding area. Lighting standards will be less than 15 feet in height, and will be grounded and located away from power lines. A minimum of 30 feet of unobstructed access will be provided to be maintained around all towers, and guard rails will be included to protect the tower structures from the possibility of a motor vehicle hitting a transmission line structure. WAPA conducts vegetation management around its transmission lines to reduce wildfire risks, including clearing brush, trimming trees, and removing potential fuel sources. The City of Redding and WAPA will continue to collaborate for vegetation management, including advanced reporting systems to help with early detection and preventive maintenance. These measures collectively help mitigate fire risks along the electrical power lines at the Project site. Additionally, the Redding Electric Utility’s (REU) Wildfire Mitigation Plan provides strategies and measures, such as vegetation management, enhanced inspections, and operational practices, aimed at reducing fire hazards from public utilities.

Implementation of the City's CWPP will further reduce wildfire risk by establishing a coordinated framework for fuel management, emergency preparedness, and community engagement. The CWPP was developed in partnership with CAL FIRE, the Redding Fire Department, the Buckeye Fire Protection District, and other local, state, and federal agencies, and identifies high-risk areas and vegetation treatment. The Project would be required to comply with building and design standards in the California Building Code and California Fire Code, which include provisions for fire-resistant building materials, the clearance of debris, and fire safety requirements during construction activities. Public Resources Code Section 4291 also requires vegetation around buildings or structures to maintain defensible space and fuel reduction within 100 feet of structures, ember-resistant zones within 5 feet, and the overall maintenance of properties to reduce the risk of uncontrolled fires or the spread of fires to other properties. Additionally, SRA Fire Safe Regulations would prevent structures from being placed within 30 feet of a roadway, reducing the potential for new roadways to exacerbate wildfire risks. These measures, along with policies and actions in the General Plan for undergrounding of power lines, would minimize wildfire risks associated with the installation and maintenance of infrastructure.

Overall, the Project impact relative to wildfire impacts from installation or maintenance of infrastructure would be less than significant, and would be within the scope of the General Plan EIR relative to Impact WILD-3.

GP EIR Impact WILD-4: The GP EIR identified less-than-significant impacts relative to wildfire impacts from post-fire instability, given that projects would be required to adhere to applicable local, regional, and State plans and regulations addressing wildfire prevention, including adopted State regulations, Redding Municipal Code standards, and General Plan 2045 policies aimed at minimizing the impact of post-fire hazards.

Project Analysis
Grading of slopes at the Project site will require compliance with the City’s Grading Ordinance. The Project site is not located within a designated high-risk flood zone, such as a 100-year or 500-year flood hazard area (see Section 10, Hydrology and Water Quality, Impact HYD-3). Published landslide maps do not indicate large-scale slope instability at the Project site (see Section 7, Geology and Soils, Impact GEO-1). Additionally, no active landslides were observed at the Project site during completion of site-specific geotechnical study field activities. Retaining walls would be constructed as part of the Project to provide stability to hillside slopes where needed.

Implementation of California Building Code mandated grading, drainage, and slope stabilization measures substantially reduces geologic risks and helps ensure long-term site stability and safety. With compliance with the California Building Code, it is unlikely that a landslide would occur on-site as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes.

Storm water from impervious surfaces would be conveyed to proposed on-site detention basins located along the eastern edge of the site. The detention basins will be appropriately sized to detain and treat storm water runoff in accordance with City requirements (see Section 10, Hydrology and Water Quality, Impact HYD-3). All components will be designed and constructed as required by City standards and any specific requirements of the Building Official and/or City Engineer. As such, it is not anticipated that the Project would expose people or structures to significant risks including flooding or landslides as a result of runoff, post-fire instability, or drainage changes.

Overall, the Project impact relative to post-fire instability would be less than significant, and would be within the scope of the General Plan EIR relative to Impact WILD-4.

OFF-SITE ANALYSIS:

Implementation of Mitigation Measure WILD-1 would ensure that during construction of the off-site improvements at the intersection with Buenaventura Boulevard, adequate traffic access for the public and emergency responders would be provided during construction and during a potential evacuation scenario. The off-site improvements would be designed and constructed in adherence with applicable local, regional, and State plans and regulations addressing wildfire prevention, including adopted State regulations, Redding Municipal Code standards, and General Plan policies aimed at minimizing the impact of infrastructure on the environment. No hillsides or geologic structures known to be at risk of landslide or flooding are located adjacent to the off-site areas. Therefore, the off-site improvements would be within the scope of the General Plan EIR relative to Impacts WILD-1 through WILD-4.

CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS:

The General Plan EIR evaluated the potential cumulative impacts of the build-out of the General Plan on wildfire hazards. Cumulative wildfire impacts were evaluated in Impact WILD-5 of the General Plan EIR as significant and unavoidable, given that the increase of potential development projects within a VHFHSZ could result in a cumulatively significant impact, and since contributions from the General Plan would result in new development in such areas. The impact was addressed in the adopted CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations. The Project site and off-site improvements are located within the cumulative area of analysis evaluated in the General Plan EIR, and the site is located within the city limits. The Project is consistent with the General Plan density allowance and Zoning designation of the site. The Project will implement Mitigation Measure WILD-1, as well as standards in the California Fire Code, California Building Standards Code, SRA Fire Safe Regulations, the requirements in the Redding Municipal Code, City Fire and Public Works Standards, Redding Fire Department wildfire requirements, Public Resources Code Section 4291, General Plan policies, and the City’s wildfire-related standard conditions of approval for tentative subdivision map projects.

Implementation of the City's CWPP will also reduce wildfire risk within the City by establishing a coordinated framework for fuel management, emergency preparedness, and community engagement. The CWPP includes interagency response protocols and promotes public education initiatives that improve evacuation readiness and defensible space compliance. However, the Project could still result in significant and unavoidable impacts, as described in Impact WILD-2. Therefore, the Project’s contribution to cumulative impacts would be cumulatively considerable, but would be within the scope of the General Plan EIR relative to Impact WILD-5.

APPLICABLE GENERAL PLAN EIR MITIGATION MEASURES AND STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:

General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measure was identified in the General Plan EIR related to wildfire.

WILD-1: Project applicants proposing development within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone shall prepare a Traffic Control Plan to ensure that construction equipment or activities do not block roadways during the construction period. The Traffic Control Plan shall be submitted to the Redding Fire Department and Police Department for review and approval prior to approval of building permits.

SCOAs for Subdivisions
In accordance with City of Redding Ordinance 2469, Section 26, the following wildfire-related standard conditions of approval apply to all tentative subdivision map projects:
#19. New “dry” utilities, including electric, telephone, and cable television, must be installed underground in accordance with Section 17.60.090 of the Subdivision Ordinance. Any existing overhead facilities within a proposed subdivision and along peripheral streets must also be placed underground, unless waived under the project-specific conditions and the overhead facilities are determined to not constitute or exacerbate the risk of wildfire. #24. Developments shall be designed to provide adequate fire-safety and shall comply with the requirements of Section 17.60.110, Fire Safety, of the Subdivision Ordinance, the California Building Code, and the California Fire Code as approved by the Fire Marshal. This includes the location and necessary easements to service “on-lot” hydrants on flag lots or oversized lots as required.
#25. Brush piles resulting from land-clearing activity shall be fully removed or otherwise eliminated from the site prior to the start of the fire season or, if generated during fire season, be removed immediately. #26. For projects located within a Cal Fire designated Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) and adjacent to steep slopes/open space, wildfire fuel reduction shall be conducted as required by the Redding Fire Department and shall be thereafter maintained in a fire safe condition through a Landscape Maintenance District or other program approved by the Fire Department.
#27. Projects within the VHFHSZ shall provide a Traffic Control Plan ensuring that construction equipment or activities do not block roadways during the construction period. The plan shall be prepared in accordance with the City’s Guidelines for Packet Pg. 377 Attachment: CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist_Peaks 850 Quartz Hill Subdivision (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Section 15183 CEQA Exemption Checklist 99 The Peaks – 850 Quartz Hill Subdivision Temporary Traffic Control Plan Development. The Traffic Control Plan shall be submitted to the Redding Fire Department and Police Department for review and approval prior to approval of building permits.

CONCLUSION:

As addressed above, there are no wildfire related impacts that are peculiar to the Project site that were not adequately evaluated by the General Plan EIR. There are no new off-site or cumulatively-considerable impacts that are peculiar to the Project, nor any new or more severe impacts to the environment beyond what was previously evaluated and disclosed by the General Plan EIR.

Packet Pg. 378 Attachment: CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist_Peaks 850 Quartz Hill Subdivision (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Section 15183 CEQA Exemption Checklist 100 The Peaks – 850 Quartz Hill Subdivision REFERENCES:

California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2022. Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality.

California Arts Council. Redding Cultural District. Website accessed in September 2025, https://www.caculturaldistricts.org/redding.

California Department of Conservation. 2024. Shasta County Important Farmland 2020.

California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA). 2025. Cortese List Data Resources. Accessed September 2025.

California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). 2025. West Central Landfill Facility Summary (SWIS No. 45-AA-0043). Website accessed in September 2025, SWIS Facility/Site Summary.

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2025. California Scenic Highway Program.

Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (CVRWQCB). 2019. Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento River Basin and the San Joaquin River Basin.

City of Redding. 2003. Stormwater Quality Improvement Plan. Redding, CA.

City of Redding. 2004. Parks, Trails & Open Space Master Plan. Redding, CA.

City of Redding. 2014. Emergency Operations Plan. Redding, CA.

City of Redding. 2024. General Plan 2045. Redding, CA.

City of Redding. 2024. Final Environmental Impact Report for the Redding 2023-2045 General Plan Update (SCH No. 2022050300).

City of Redding. 2024. Community Wildfire Protection Plan. October.

County of Shasta. 2024. Shasta County Open Data Portal. https://data-shasta.opendata.arcgis.com ENPLAN. 2024. Tree Survey Report for The Peaks Subdivision Project. Redding, CA.

Enterprise Anderson Groundwater Sustainability Agency (EAGSA). 2022. Enterprise Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan Gallaway Enterprises. 2025a. Biological Resources Assessment - Aquatic and Terrestrial Wildlife, and Botanical Resources, The Peaks Single-Family Housing Development Project. September.

Gallaway Enterprises. 2025b. Crotch’s Bumble Bee Report for the Peaks Single-Family Housing Development Project. September.

Gallaway Enterprises. 2025c. Milkweed Survey Report for the Peaks Single-Family Housing Development Project. September.

Gallaway Enterprises. 2025d. Draft Delineation of Aquatic Resources. The Peaks Single-Family Housing Development Project.

September.

GHD. 2025a. Carter Creek Watershed-Existing Conditions Hydrology. July 3.

GHD. 2025b. Carter Creek Watershed-Proposed Conditions Hydrology. July 9.

Historic Resource Associates. 2025. Phase I Archaeological Resources Study. The Peaks Subdivision Project. July.

Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. 2025a. The Peaks Subdivision, 850 Quartz Hill Road, Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment.

September.

Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. 2025b. The Peaks Subdivision Noise and Vibration Assessment. September.

Mid Pacific Engineering Inc. (MPE). 2024. Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report - The Peaks Residential Subdivision.

Redding Electric Utility (REU). 2023. Wildfire Mitigation Plan.

Sacramento Valley Air Quality Engineering and Enforcement Professionals (SVAQEEP). 2024. Northern Sacramento Valley Planning Area: 2024, Triennial Air Quality Attainment Plan.

Shasta Regional Transportation Agency. 2018. Regional Transportation Plan & Sustainable Communities Strategy for the Shasta Region. Redding, CA.

W-Trans. 2025a. Final Transportation Impact Study for The Peaks Subdivision. September.

W-Trans. 2025b. The Peaks Evacuation Assessment. September.

Packet Pg. 379 Attachment: CEQA 15183 Exemption Checklist_Peaks 850 Quartz Hill Subdivision (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Packet Pg. 380 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision Final Transportation Impact Study (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision Map Packet Pg. 381 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision Final Transportation Impact Study (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision Map Packet Pg. 382 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision Final Transportation Impact Study (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision Map Packet Pg. 383 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision Final Transportation Impact Study (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision Map Packet Pg. 384 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision Final Transportation Impact Study (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision Map Packet Pg. 385 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision Final Transportation Impact Study (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision Map Packet Pg. 386 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision Final Transportation Impact Study (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision Map Packet Pg. 387 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision Final Transportation Impact Study (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Packet Pg. 388 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision Final Transportation Impact Study (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision Map Packet Pg. 389 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision Final Transportation Impact Study (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision Map Packet Pg. 390 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision Final Transportation Impact Study (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision Map Packet Pg. 391 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision Final Transportation Impact Study (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision Map WAPA EASEMENT WAPA EASEMENT CITY OF REDDING SHASTA COUNTY CITY OF REDDING SHASTA COUNTY QUARTZ HILL RDBUENAVENTURA BLVD KESWICK DAM RD KEEL CT CITY OF REDDING SHASTA COUNTY 4 5 1 2 3 32 31
30 28 29
27 26
25 24
23 22
21 19
18 17
16 15
14 13
12 11
1098
20 27 L-1
G-1
U-1
E-1
L-2
G-2
U-2
E-2
L-3
G-3
U-3
E-3 76 ROAD E ROAD A KE L RD ROAD H ROAD B ROAD C

ROAD I STEAMBOAT ST ROAD J ROAD D

DETENTION

BASIN ROAD F WHITE SAIL DR AMERICANA WAY FIRST CABIN CT OLD LANTERN DR 33 WAGON DR BAKER RD

LOCATION MAP KEEL RD C TI Y OF REDDING SHASTA COUNTY CITY OF REDDING SHASTA COUNTY Packet Pg. 392 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision Final Transportation Impact Study (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Packet Pg. 393 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision Final Transportation Impact Study (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision Map Packet Pg. 394 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision Final Transportation Impact Study (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision Map Packet Pg. 395 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision Final Transportation Impact Study (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision Map Packet Pg. 396 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision Final Transportation Impact Study (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision Map Packet Pg. 397 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision Final Transportation Impact Study (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision Map Packet Pg. 398 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision Final Transportation Impact Study (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision Map Packet Pg. 399 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision Final Transportation Impact Study (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision Map Packet Pg. 400 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision Final Transportation Impact Study (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision Map Packet Pg. 401 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision Final Transportation Impact Study (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision Map Packet Pg. 402 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision Final Transportation Impact Study (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision Map Packet Pg. 403 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision Final Transportation Impact Study (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision Map Packet Pg. 404 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision Final Transportation Impact Study (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision Map Packet Pg. 405 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision Final Transportation Impact Study (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision Map 3(3)
4(5)
11(11)
(64)80
(4)0
(106)110 113(94) 343(271) 2(1) (105)42 (280)297 (14)5
5(20)
52(53)
21(55)
(4)2
(84)45 1(3) 0(1) 37(10) (1)2 (2)0 (28)57
10(28)
91(85)
91(52)
(38)66
(86)77
(3)1 4(1) 36(12) 37(14) (50)17 (52)7 (73)67
89(156)
5(30)
(9)3
(108)188 (4)8 (11)32
86(182)
22(62)
(7)6
(112)216 (4)9 (28)63
4(4)
24(8) 311(141) 2(9) (265)115 (20)5
(81)117
(2)4 0(2) 338(156) (121)53 (292)127
11(13)
53(143)
73(55)
(137)293
(74)168
(30)38 24(38) 341(181) 10(12) (264)116 (282)238 (29)45
7(10)
4(6)
13(13)
(142)176
(1)3
(30)97 75(62) 722(492) 14(12) (231)94 (752)618 (16)16
Packet Pg. 406 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision Final Transportation Impact Study (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Packet Pg. 407 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision Final Transportation Impact Study (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision Map 3(3)
4(5)
11(11)
(66)83
(109)113 113(97) 343(271) 2(1) (107)42 (280)297 (4)0 (14)5 5(20)
55(55)
21(55)
(4)2
(86)45 1(3) 37(10) (1)2 (28)57 0(1) (2)0
16(33)
52(85)
94(54)
(38)66
(86)77
(3)1 4(1) 36(12) 37(19) (50)17 (52)7 (75)67
11(13)
68(184)
73(55)
(149)310
(97)204
(45)59 33(61) 341(181) 10(12) (283)123 (282)238 (29)45
7(10)
4(6)
13(13)
(165)212
(1)3
(30)97 75(62) 737(502) 14(12) (272)109 (766)623 (16)16
98(163)
5(30)
(9)3
(115)188 (4)8 (11)32
95(189)
22(62)
(7)6
(119)216 (4)9 (28)63
4(4)
24(8) 385(191) 2(9) (348)146 (20)5
(81)117
(2)4 0(2) 412(206) (121)53 (375)158
Packet Pg. 408 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision Final Transportation Impact Study (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Packet Pg. 409 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision Final Transportation Impact Study (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision Map 3(3)
4(5)
11(11)
(66)83
(6)0
(142)120 136(111) 343(283) 2(1) (107)48 (282)341 (16)5
5(20)
75(63)
45(60)
(4)2
(97)49 1(3) 0(1) 37(10) (1)2 (2)0 (43)59
16(33)
92(93)
94(54)
(41)72
(114)78
(4)1 6(1) 36(12) 37(19) (57)22 (61)7 (78)67
7(10)
4(6)
13(13)
(165)212
(1)3
(30)101 76(62) 778(502) 14(12) (272)109 (772)623 (17)16 12(13)
68(184)
78(62)
(149)310
(97)204
(45)59 33(61) 349(193) 10(12) (285)123 (285)242 (32)45
98(173)
5(30)
(9)3
(115)193 (4)8 (11)32
95(197)
22(74)
(10)6
(119)223 (5)9 (28)65
4(7)
25(12) 385(191) 6(9) (348)146 (21)10
(81)117
(5)6 0(4) 412(206) (121)55 (375)158
Packet Pg. 410 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision Final Transportation Impact Study (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Packet Pg. 411 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision Final Transportation Impact Study (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision Map (5)7
(5)7 3(8) (8)3
3(3)
5(12)
(1)1
(3)0 (15)10
1(2)
5(14)
(10) 9
(2)2 (12)6 (9)12
12(31)
(16)20
(22)27
(3)4 2(4) (24)9
13(17)
7(19)
(6)2
(18)12 (4)5 (13)16
11(29)
11(30)
(11)4
(20)25 (7)9 (21)25 50(40) (59)22 50(40) (59)22
(19)23
(3)4 2(4) (27)10
Packet Pg. 412 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision Final Transportation Impact Study (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Packet Pg. 413 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision Final Transportation Impact Study (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision Map Packet Pg. 414 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision Final Transportation Impact Study (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision Map Packet Pg. 415 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision Final Transportation Impact Study (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision Map

CITY OF REDDING SHASTA COUNTY CITY OF REDDING SHASTA COUNTY QUARTZ HILL RD BUENAVENTURA BLVD KESWICK DAM RD SP NI NAKER DR KEEL CT CITY OF REDDING SHASTA COUNTY KEEL RD ROAD E ROAD A KE L RD ROAD H ROAD C ROAD B ROAD C ROAD I STEAMBOAT ST ROAD J ROAD D ROAD F DETENTION BASIN WHITE SAIL DR AMERICANA WAY 1ST CABIN CT OLD LANTERN DR

WAGON DR BAKER RD

DETENTION BASIN

PROJECT

BOUNDARY A WAY
Packet Pg. 416 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision Final Transportation Impact Study (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Packet Pg. 417 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision Final Transportation Impact Study (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision Map Packet Pg. 418 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision Final Transportation Impact Study (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision Map Packet Pg. 419 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision Final Transportation Impact Study (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision Map oooooo
Packet Pg. 420 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision Final Transportation Impact Study (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision Map Packet Pg. 421 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision Final Transportation Impact Study (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision Map Packet Pg. 422 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision Final Transportation Impact Study (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision Map Packet Pg. 423 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision Final Transportation Impact Study (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision Map W-Trans 10/24/2024 Page 1 of 5
Packet Pg. 424 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision Final Transportation Impact Study (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision Map W-Trans 10/24/2024 Page 2 of 5
Packet Pg. 425 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision Final Transportation Impact Study (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision Map W-Trans 10/24/2024 Page 3 of 5
Packet Pg. 426 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision Final Transportation Impact Study (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision Map W-Trans 10/24/2024 Page 4 of 5
Packet Pg. 427 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision Final Transportation Impact Study (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision Map W-Trans 10/24/2024 Page 5 of 5
Packet Pg. 428 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision Final Transportation Impact Study (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision Map Packet Pg. 429 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision Final Transportation Impact Study (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision Map Packet Pg. 430 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision Final Transportation Impact Study (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision Map Packet Pg. 431 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision Final Transportation Impact Study (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision Map Packet Pg. 432 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision Final Transportation Impact Study (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision Map Packet Pg. 433 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision Final Transportation Impact Study (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision Map Packet Pg. 434 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision Final Transportation Impact Study (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision Map Packet Pg. 435 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision Final Transportation Impact Study (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision Map Packet Pg. 436 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision Final Transportation Impact Study (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision Map Packet Pg. 437 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision Final Transportation Impact Study (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision Map Packet Pg. 438 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision Final Transportation Impact Study (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision Map Packet Pg. 439 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision Final Transportation Impact Study (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision Map Packet Pg. 440 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision Final Transportation Impact Study (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision Map Packet Pg. 441 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision Final Transportation Impact Study (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision Map Packet Pg. 442 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision Final Transportation Impact Study (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision Map Packet Pg. 443 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision Final Transportation Impact Study (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision Map Packet Pg. 444 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision Final Transportation Impact Study (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision Map Packet Pg. 445 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision Final Transportation Impact Study (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision Map Packet Pg. 446 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision Final Transportation Impact Study (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision Map Packet Pg. 447 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision Final Transportation Impact Study (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision Map Packet Pg. 448 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision Final Transportation Impact Study (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Packet Pg. 449 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision Final Transportation Impact Study (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Packet Pg. 450 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision Final Transportation Impact Study (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Packet Pg. 451 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision Final Transportation Impact Study (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Packet Pg. 452 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision Final Transportation Impact Study (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Packet Pg. 453 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision Final Transportation Impact Study (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Packet Pg. 454 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision Final Transportation Impact Study (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Packet Pg. 455 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision Final Transportation Impact Study (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Packet Pg. 456 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision Final Transportation Impact Study (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Packet Pg. 457 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision Final Transportation Impact Study (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Packet Pg. 458 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision Final Transportation Impact Study (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Packet Pg. 459 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision Final Transportation Impact Study (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Packet Pg. 460 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision Final Transportation Impact Study (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision Map Packet Pg. 461 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision Final Transportation Impact Study (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision Map Packet Pg. 462 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision Final Transportation Impact Study (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Packet Pg. 463 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision Final Transportation Impact Study (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Packet Pg. 464 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision Final Transportation Impact Study (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Packet Pg. 465 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision Final Transportation Impact Study (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Packet Pg. 466 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision Final Transportation Impact Study (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Packet Pg. 467 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision Final Transportation Impact Study (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Packet Pg. 468 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision Final Transportation Impact Study (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Packet Pg. 469 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision Final Transportation Impact Study (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Packet Pg. 470 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision Final Transportation Impact Study (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Packet Pg. 471 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision Final Transportation Impact Study (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Packet Pg. 472 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision Final Transportation Impact Study (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Packet Pg. 473 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision Final Transportation Impact Study (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Packet Pg. 474 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision Final Transportation Impact Study (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Packet Pg. 475 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision Final Transportation Impact Study (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Packet Pg. 476 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision Final Transportation Impact Study (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Packet Pg. 477 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision Final Transportation Impact Study (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Packet Pg. 478 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision Final Transportation Impact Study (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Packet Pg. 479 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision Final Transportation Impact Study (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Packet Pg. 480 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision Final Transportation Impact Study (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Packet Pg. 481 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision Final Transportation Impact Study (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Packet Pg. 482 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision Final Transportation Impact Study (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Packet Pg. 483 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision Final Transportation Impact Study (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Packet Pg. 484 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision Final Transportation Impact Study (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Packet Pg. 485 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision Final Transportation Impact Study (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Packet Pg. 486 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision Final Transportation Impact Study (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Packet Pg. 487 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision Final Transportation Impact Study (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Packet Pg. 488 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision Final Transportation Impact Study (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Packet Pg. 489 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision Final Transportation Impact Study (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Packet Pg. 490 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision Final Transportation Impact Study (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Packet Pg. 491 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision Final Transportation Impact Study (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Packet Pg. 492 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision Final Transportation Impact Study (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Packet Pg. 493 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision Final Transportation Impact Study (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Packet Pg. 494 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision Final Transportation Impact Study (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Packet Pg. 495 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision Final Transportation Impact Study (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Packet Pg. 496 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision Final Transportation Impact Study (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Packet Pg. 497 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision Final Transportation Impact Study (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Packet Pg. 498 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision Final Transportation Impact Study (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Packet Pg. 499 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision Final Transportation Impact Study (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Packet Pg. 500 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision Final Transportation Impact Study (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Packet Pg. 501 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision Final Transportation Impact Study (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Packet Pg. 502 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision Final Transportation Impact Study (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Packet Pg. 503 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision Final Transportation Impact Study (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Packet Pg. 504 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision Final Transportation Impact Study (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Packet Pg. 505 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision Final Transportation Impact Study (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Packet Pg. 506 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision Final Transportation Impact Study (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Packet Pg. 507 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision Final Transportation Impact Study (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Packet Pg. 508 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision Final Transportation Impact Study (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Packet Pg. 509 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision Final Transportation Impact Study (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Packet Pg. 510 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision Final Transportation Impact Study (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Packet Pg. 511 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision Final Transportation Impact Study (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Packet Pg. 512 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision Final Transportation Impact Study (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Packet Pg. 513 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision Final Transportation Impact Study (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Packet Pg. 514 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision Final Transportation Impact Study (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The 490 Mendocino Avenue, Suite 201 Santa Rosa, CA 95401 707. 542. 9500 w-trans. com SANTA ROSA • OAKLAND
Memorandum
Date: September 11, 2025 Project: RED031-1
To: Roy Hastings
R.L. Hastings & Associates
From: Dalene J. Whitlock
dwhitlock@w-trans. com
Cameron Nye
cnye@w-trans. com
Subject: The Peaks Evacuation Assessment
W-Trans has completed an assessment of the potential effect that The Peaks residential subdivision would have on evacuation times in the vicinity of the project site. This analysis focuses on specific emergency events identified in coordination with the project team and City staff.

As emergency evacuation assessment is an emerging field, methodologies are still being developed for use in conducting such an analysis. Accordingly, rather than applying an established standard of significance to evaluate a project’s potential evacuation impacts, the City of Redding currently evaluates projects using data and project design features to inform expert analysis of whether evacuation times remain safe and reasonable under existing and proposed development conditions. This approach is consistent with the published guidance by the State Attorney General entitled Best Practices for Analyzing and Mitigating Wildfire Impacts of Development Projects Under the California Environmental Quality Act.

Unlike vehicle miles traveled (VMT), where the State has provided thorough guidance and sample significance criteria, no similar standards currently exist for evaluating a project’s impact on evacuation times or how a project might substantially impair an emergency evacuation. As a result, this analysis does not present a threshold of significance or reach a conclusion regarding the level of significance of the project’s impact. Instead, it provides scenario-based evacuation time estimates under existing and proposed development conditions, which are intended to inform expert judgment and support a determination as to whether the project would significantly affect the ability of residents to safely and reasonably evacuate.

Project Description
The proposed project includes 122 single-family residences, an approximately three-acre public park, and about

1.5 miles of public trails to be located on a currently vacant City-owned site south of Quartz Hill Road and east of Buenaventura Boulevard.

In addition to housing, a park and trails, the project will include new public streets that will be built to City standards, extend the roadway network and improve emergency access to existing nearby subdivisions. A new internal circulation system will connect to Buenaventura Boulevard, providing an additional evacuation outlet to the east and a planned connection from Spinnaker Lane to the west will create another route for existing residents in the area, dispersing evacuation traffic across multiple corridors. These new roadways will function as secondary fire breaks, reducing continuity of the wildland fuels and providing defensible space within and around the subdivision.

Packet Pg. 515 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Final Evacuation Study (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision Map Application S- Roy Hastings Page 2 September 11, 2025
The subdivision design also incorporates landscape treatments and fuel management. Perimeter and internal landscaping will be maintained to City standards to prevent the re-establishment of unmanaged wildland fuels.

Any remaining natural open-space areas will be subject to ongoing vegetation management, ensuring that fire hazards do not accumulate adjacent to residences. The inclusion of a public park provides an additional shelterin-place area, offering both defensible space and community refuge if immediate evacuation is not possible.

Finally, the creation of the subdivision would include new fire hydrants and water mains, thereby enhancing the water supply and fire defense water network.

Together, these features not only provide neighborhood amenities but also enhance the overall evacuation and fire resiliency of the area compared to its current undeveloped condition.

Carr Fire Background
The Carr Fire of July 2018 was an unprecedented event that burned nearly 230,000 acres, including the project site, and destroyed more than one thousand homes. The Carr Fire revealed various vulnerabilities in Redding’s evacuation framework at the time. The fire advanced rapidly from SR-299 into the northwest Redding neighborhoods, and evacuation operations were at times chaotic. Quartz Hill Road was closed for construction, limiting access; traffic bottlenecks developed on major arterials; and communication to residents was fragmented across multiple platforms. While the process was marked by confusion and congestion, thousands of residents were ultimately evacuated safely.

In the aftermath, the City of Redding, and in particular the Redding Fire and Police Departments, recognized that existing tools and protocols were not sufficient for an urban-interface wildfire of that magnitude. Since then, the City has implemented major improvements in evacuation readiness, including the following.  Adoption of the Genasys Protect platform to pre-map evacuation zones and support phased evacuation orders.
 Formal integration of traffic control practices so that intersections can be actively managed during evacuations.
 Enacting limits to road construction projects that would result in closures on City arterials to take into account emergency evacuations.
 Expanded public communication systems for timely evacuation warnings and orders as well as constant communications between field staff and the modernized Emergency Operations Center (EOC).  Ongoing Fire and Police training and coordination based directly on the gaps identified in 2018.  Implementation of a new standard for developments and road construction projects in very high fire hazard severity zones where an evacuation plan is made to ensure adequate ingress and egress is provided during an emergency throughout the duration of construction.
 Adoption of a Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) to identify priority areas for fire prevention, special fuel treatment, conduct targeted outreach and propose policies to effectively increase wildfire preparedness.

The Carr Fire was a turning point: while evacuation in that instance was reactive and improvised, today the City approaches wildfire evacuation with tested tools, defined roles, and operational discipline. These measures position Redding to manage evacuations under full build-out conditions on Quartz Hill Road and other growth areas.

Evacuation Progression by Risk Zone
In a wildfire evacuation, residents do not need to reach the far side of the city to be considered safe. Instead, the priority is to move people from areas of immediate danger (“hot zones”) into locations where risk is reduced and Packet Pg. 516 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Final Evacuation Study (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision Map Application S- Roy Hastings Page 3 September 11, 2025
survival is feasible until the fire front is contained or redirected. This analysis recognizes three tiers of evacuation zones, as shown in Attachment 1.
 Hot Zone (Immediate Threat) Hot zones consist of neighborhoods immediately adjacent to an active wildland fire or on long cul-de-sacs or limited-access streets where both resident egress and fire responder ingress are restricted. In these areas, rapid evacuation is essential.  Medium-Risk Zone (Defensible Corridors) Once residents have reached a major roadway such as Quartz Hill Road, they have exited the most dangerous terrain. According to Fire Department input, Quartz Hill Road within the City limits functions as a defensible corridor: the roadway is wide, fuel has been reduced, and suppression personnel can actively protect evacuees if traffic slows or halts. In this zone, residents are no longer in imminent risk of direct flame contact, and “shelter-in-place” strategies are viable if full evacuation cannot be completed immediately.
 Low-Risk Zone (Dispersal Network/Multiple Options) Beyond Quartz Hill Road and other arterial connections, traffic disperses onto multiple routes (e.g., Market Street, Lake Boulevard, I-5, SR-299, SR-44).

These corridors are far enough from the fire perimeter that residents are no longer exposed to the immediate wildland threat. Evacuees can then either leave the City entirely or relocate to designated shelters with minimal danger of fire impact.

Study Area and Scenarios
Based on discussions with staff regarding the most likely scenarios for a wildfire in the study area, it was assumed that in the event of an evacuation residents of the proposed project and those living in the surrounding vicinity would drive to the nearest arterial roadways and ultimately to a regional route that would allow them to reach a safe part of the City or leave the City altogether. The study area was limited to those routes and roadway segments in the immediate area that provide access to a larger network of roads where traffic could disperse and get outside what the Fire Department considers the high risk, or “hot zone,” and through the medium-risk zone to the lowrisk zone. As a result, the study area for the evacuation analysis was limited to the following roadway segments that are within the hot and warm zones, or high- and medium-risk areas.

1. Keswick Dam Road between Iron Mountain Road and west of Lake Boulevard

2. Quartz Hill Road between Keswick Dam Road and west of Benton Lane Per a meeting with City staff and first responders, the following two scenarios were chosen for analysis. For both scenarios it was assumed that the measures for emergency evacuation set forth in the City’s EOP, such as enhanced public notification, staggering evacuations, enacting intersection traffic control, and directing traffic to alternate routes, would be applied, including evacuating sections at a time to allow traffic to disperse prior to releasing the next group of evacuees.

Scenario A: The fire would come from the northeast, closing Keswick Dam Road to the north. Some of the project residents were assumed to exit the area via Keswick Dam Road over the dam to Iron Mountain Road and ultimately to SR-299 or other roadways; most of the existing residents to the east as well as some project residents were assumed to use Quartz Hill Road. This is the scenario that is more likely to occur due to the fuel loading in the area.

A graphic showing the fire progression model output over a map of the fire evacuation zones is provided in Plate

1. Packet Pg. 517 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Final Evacuation Study (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision Map Application S- Roy Hastings Page 4 September 11, 2025
Plate 1 - Scenario A Fire Progression Model Output
Scenario B: Like the Carr Fire in 2018, roads to the west would be closed and residents would need to use Quartz Hill Road and Keswick Dam Road towards the east to Lake Boulevard, Benton Drive, Market Street, and ultimately freeways in the area such as I-5, SR-299, or SR-44. The output from the fire progression model and evacuation zones are shown in Plate 2.

Plate 2 Scenario B Fire Progression Model Output
Packet Pg. 518 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Final Evacuation Study (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision Map Application S- Roy Hastings Page 5 September 11, 2025
Basis of Analysis
In evaluating the project’s impact on wildfire evacuation, the approach taken was to determine how much longer it would take for all residents of the area to evacuate due to adding the new homes so that measures could be implemented to provide the additional time needed for evacuation through better fuel management, notification, and preparation.

Methodology
Vehicle Demand Projections
To estimate the number of vehicles that would be added to the street network during an evacuation, the following assumptions were applied.
 The evacuation would occur during the nighttime hours when all residents would be at home.  Per data published by the US Census Bureau, households in Census Tract 107.02 where the project site is located own an average of 1.84 vehicles per household.
 Based on observations during the evacuation for the Carr Fire, many residents pulled their horse and boat trailers when evacuating.

Based on the application of vehicle ownership to the numbers of units and conservatively assuming that residents would choose to take all their vehicles when evacuating, 225 vehicles would be leaving The Peaks subdivision.

This number of vehicle trips was used to develop the time associated with the added trips from the development that would be needed for all existing residents of the area to reach a low-risk zone.

Key Assumptions
This evacuation analysis converts the number of vehicles generated by the proposed subdivision into added minutes of clearance time for each potential evacuation route. The approach relies on several conservative assumptions intended to avoid understating potential delays. The following key assumptions were applied to the analysis.
 Vehicle Speed: An average speed of 10 miles per hour (mph) was assumed. This speed reflects congested conditions where the roadway is operating above capacity.  Vehicle Spacing: Drivers evacuating during a wildfire event are likely to be anxious and therefore stay as close to the vehicle in front of them as possible. While the space used per vehicle is typically about 30 to 35 feet in stop-and-go traffic, a 45-foot spacing was assumed to capture larger vehicles such as RVs, or those vehicles that are towing a trailer.
 Headway: Headway is the average time spacing between vehicles moving in a queue time, or the time it takes for one vehicle to pass a point before the next vehicle arrives. It reflects how close vehicles can follow one another safely at low speed. Based on the assumed 45-foot spacing and 10 mph average speed, the headway equals 3.07 seconds per vehicle.
 Phasing: The analysis assumes a single-surge evacuation, with all vehicles entering the network simultaneously (worst case scenario), rather than a phased zone release, which is the current standard practice for the City of Redding.

Packet Pg. 519 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Final Evacuation Study (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision Map Application S- Roy Hastings Page 6 September 11, 2025
Evacuation Analysis
For both scenarios it was assumed that each vehicle leaving the project site would cause all other vehicles behind them to experience an additional 3.07 seconds of travel time to accommodate that vehicle within a stream of traffic moving at an average speed of 10 mph. Consideration was also given to the potential for added travel time at critical intersections; however, there are no critical intersections in the high-and medium-risk zones. Based on discussions with City staff and emergency responders, it is understood that traffic control was provided at key intersections during the Carr Fire and is part of the City’s plans for emergency preparedness for potential future evacuations. It can reasonably be assumed that upon reaching these critical intersections in the low-risk zone traffic will be able to disperse reasonably quickly.

Scenario A
Under this scenario it was assumed that 124 of the 225 vehicles exiting the project site (55 percent) would travel west on Keswick Dam Road to Iron Mountain Road with the remaining 101 (45 percent) using Quartz Hill Road.

Based on the applied travel speed and headway (spacing), the addition of project generated traffic would be expected to increase the evacuation time via Keswick Dam Road by 6.3 minutes and via Quartz Hill Road by 5.4 minutes. The basis of this estimate is shown in Table 1.

Table 1 – Scenario A Added Evacuation Time
Route/Location Design Speed
(mph)
Design
Speed (fps)
Headway
(sec)
No. of
Vehicles
Added Evac
Time (min)
Keswick Dam Rd to Iron Mountain Rd 10 14.67 3.07 124 6.3 Quartz Hill Rd to Benton Ln 10 14.67 3.07 105 5.4
If traffic from the community of Keswick were routed west on Rock Creek Road rather than south on Iron Mountain Road, this would reduce delays for all residents exiting Keswick Estates and The Peak subdivision.

To offset the additional 5.4 minutes along the Quartz Hill Road route the City’s evacuation zones would need to be updated to include additional residential development and adjusted to better balance the number of vehicles exiting simultaneously. It is understood that the City’s Genasys Protect tool helps staff determine evacuation zones and the order in which to notify residents to evacuate and could be used in this effort, and that such updates are already part of the City’s standard operating procedure. The added delays calculated above are therefore unlikely to materialize as the City is already taking the appropriate steps to maintain their evacuation protocol.

Scenario B
Under this scenario the residents of the proposed project would have two primary options for exiting the area – southeast on Quartz Hill Road or northeast on Keswick Dam Road. Because it is more direct, it was assumed that 135 of the 225 exiting residents (60 percent) would use the southerly route along Quartz Hill Road, and the remaining 90 (40 percent) would use Keswick Dam Road. As noted for Scenario A, the study area was constrained to the route that all exiting traffic would use. The analysis ends where multiple options are available and drivers could disperse, or at the beginning of the low-risk zone.

Based on application of the headways and assumptions detailed above, evacuation to the south would add a maximum of 6.9 minutes to the time needed for all residents to evacuate to a low-risk zone. The results for both routes are shown in Table 2.

Packet Pg. 520 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Final Evacuation Study (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision Map Application S- Roy Hastings Page 7 September 11, 2025
Table 2 – Scenario B Added Evacuation Time
Route/Location Design Speed
(mph)
Design Speed
(fps)
Headway
(sec)
No. of
Vehicles
Added Evac
Time (min)
Quartz Hill Rd to Benton Ln 10 14.67 3.07 135 6.9
Keswick Dam Rd to Lake Blvd 10 14.67 3.07 90 4.6
To offset the additional time needed for evacuation, and as noted for Scenario A, the City’s evacuation zones would need to be updated to include additional residential development and the zones adjusted to better balance the number of vehicles exiting simultaneously. Through regular updates using the Genasys Protect tool the City would be prepared to efficiently evacuate residents as The Peaks and other residential developments are occupied.

Summary
As previously noted, the above analysis is intended to provide a framework for City staff to estimate any changes needed to accommodate traffic added by The Peaks residential project. In practice, the City does not evacuate residents in a single surge, so there would be little, if any time added to the evacuation time for residents of existing subdivisions. Fire and Police used a phased zone release such that evacuation zones are released sequentially using the Genasys Protect platform, ideally allowing traffic to clear before new waves are added.

Phasing typically reduces delays by 50 to 75 percent. Further, observations in Redding indicate that vehicle spacing averages 30 to 35 feet, reducing headways by 20 to 30 percent below the value used in the analysis.

This conservative approach was applied to ensure that potential evacuation delays are not understated. However, when realistic operational practices are applied, the true added clearance time is a fraction of the values indicated above. In all modeled scenarios, residents are expected to reach defensible corridors within minutes where Fire Department personnel can direct citizens to shelter in place, if necessary. Quartz Hill Road could be an area of temporary safe refuge before dispersing to low-risk areas with multiple evacuation options.

It is further noted that the project would contribute to improved wildfire safety for existing residents, as follows.  City-standard roads will extend the evacuation network, creating additional outlets to Buenaventura Boulevard and Spinnaker Drive.
 The extended road system would improve egress for the Stanford Hills and Land Park subdivisions by connecting Buenaventura Boulevard to Quartz Hill Road, eliminating the need for these residents to route to Keswick Dam Road.
 These new roadways, along with landscaped buffers, would function as secondary fire breaks that interrupt fuel continuity and improve defensible space.
 Any remaining wildland areas would be subject to ongoing vegetation management, preventing the reestablishment of hazardous fuels.  The planned three-acre park would provide a large open area that could serve as a shelter-in-place option if needed.
 The creation of the subdivision would enhance the water supply and fire water network by adding fire hydrants and water mains.

Packet Pg. 521 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Final Evacuation Study (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision Map Application S- Roy Hastings Page 8 September 11, 2025
Conclusions and Recommendations
 The Peaks subdivision is anticipated to add a total of 225 vehicles to an evacuation during the nighttime hours when all residents would typically be at home.
 The addition of project-generated traffic would increase the time needed to evacuate existing residents by

4.6 to 6.9 minutes, assuming a worst-case, single-surge scenario. When considering the City’s actual operational practices, including phased evacuation zones managed through Genasys Protect, active traffic control at intersections by City staff, and realistic vehicle spacing, the true added clearance times are significantly lower. In most cases, with application of the measures detailed above, the expected increase in evacuation time would be up to 75 percent lower, or only 2 to 5 minutes, which does not materially affect the City’s ability to move residents from high-risk areas to defensible corridors such as Quartz Hill Road and onward to low-risk dispersal routes.
 The increase in delay for the westerly route along Keswick Dam Road to Iron Mountain Road could be reduced by routing residents of the community of Keswick west along Rock Creek Road rather than south on Iron Mountain Road.
 The City should routinely update the Genasys Protect tool as new subdivisions are occupied to adjust evacuation zones and the order in which zones would be evacuated depending on the location and direction of a wildfire. This would help in managing traffic during an evacuation and accommodating new developments.
 Overall, while the project introduces new households, it also enhances the roadway system, creates additional fire protection features, and leverages the City’s improved evacuation planning and operations. On balance, the subdivision is expected to be more defensible than the existing undeveloped condition.

Please let us know if there are any questions about this information.

DJW/cjn/RED031-1. M1
Enclosures: Attachment 1 - Schematic of Evacuation Zones Packet Pg. 522 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Final Evacuation Study (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision Map Application S- DO (XUHND:D\ (DVW6
6W &DOLIRUQLD6W &RXUW6W
7KH3HDNV6XEGLYLVLRQ
(YDFXDWLRQ$UHDV
RFN&U
%HQWRQ'U
+DUODQ'U
0LOHV 6DFUDP

/HJHQG
(YDFXDWLRQ$UHD 7KH3HDNV6WUHHWV
7KH3HDNV6XEGLYLVLRQ5HGGLQJ&LW\/LPLW
(YDFXDWLRQ6DIHW\&RUULGRU(YDFXDWLRQ=RQH H
zy

6DIH'LVSHUVDO$UHD
%HOWOLQH5G
2YHUK
DV
LO
L
O
5
'U
6KDVWD6W
1&RXUW6W
3DQRUDPD'U
0RXQWDLQ/DNHV%OYG
3LQH W
10DUNHW6W
%X

HQDYHQWX
U
6S
D
%OYG
.HVZLFN'DP5G
,URQ
0RXQWDLQ5G
,URQ
5 DND
HHN5G
Q
G
+ OD$YH
/DNH%OYG
DUW]
2 5G
V 0RXQWDLQ
4X
5G
DUW]
L
+LOO
QQ U'U D HN
4X
5G +LOO
3 ?)LUH?3UR3URMHFWV?7KH3HDNVB(YDF3ODQQLQJ?7KH3HDNVB(YDF3ODQQLQJDSU[ 3ULQW 'DWH

H WR 5LYHU
Attachment 1 — Evacuation Schematic
Packet Pg. 523
Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Final Evacuation Study (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" i The Peaks Single
-Family Housing Development Project
Biological Resource Assessment (GE# 24-088)

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT
Aquatic and Terrestrial Wildlife, and Botanical Resources The Peaks Single-Family Housing Development Project
City of Redding, California
September 2025
Prepared for:

Russ Wenham, PE, TE, PTOE
Project Director, GHD
330 Hartnell Avenue, Suite B
Redding, CA 96002 USA
Prepared by:

Gallaway Enterprises
117 Meyers Street, Suite 120
Chico CA 95928
530-332-9909
www.gallawayenterprises.com
Packet Pg. 524 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Biological Resource Assessment September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative i The Peaks Single-Family Housing Development Project
Biological Resource Assessment (GE# 24-088)

CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................................. 1 Purpose and Overview ........................................................................................................................... 1 Project Location and Environmental Setting.......................................................................................... 1 METHODS...................................................................................................................................................... 5 References Consulted............................................................................................................................. 5 Special-Status Species ............................................................................................................................ 5 Critical Habitat........................................................................................................................................ 7 Sensitive Natural Communities.............................................................................................................. 7 Habitat Assessments .............................................................................................................................. 7 Botanical Assessment......................................................................................................................... 7 Biological Assessment ........................................................................................................................ 8 RESULTS ........................................................................................................................................................ 8 Habitat Types.......................................................................................................................................... 8 Critical Habitat........................................................................................................................................ 9 Sensitive Natural Communities.............................................................................................................. 9 Special-Status Species ............................................................................................................................ 9 Endangered, Threatened and Rare Plants............................................................................................ 16 Henderson’s Bent Grass.................................................................................................................. 16 Maverick Clover .............................................................................................................................. 16 Red Bluff Dwarf Rush ...................................................................................................................... 17 Sulphur Creek Brodiaea .................................................................................................................. 17 Endangered, Threatened and Special-Status Wildlife.......................................................................... 17 Crotch’s Bumble Bee....................................................................................................................... 17 Monarch Butterfly........................................................................................................................... 18 Western Spadefoot......................................................................................................................... 19 Migratory Birds and Raptors........................................................................................................... 20 Pallid Bat ......................................................................................................................................... 20 Western Red Bat............................................................................................................................. 21 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK ................................................................................................................. 22 Federal .................................................................................................................................................. 22 Migratory Bird Treaty Act ............................................................................................................... 22 Federal Endangered Species Act..................................................................................................... 22 Waters of the United States, Clean Water Act, Section 404 .......................................................... 22 Packet Pg. 525 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Biological Resource Assessment September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative ii The Peaks Single-Family Housing Development Project
Biological Resource Assessment (GE# 24-088)
Clean Water Act, Section 401 ......................................................................................................... 23 State of California ................................................................................................................................. 23 California Endangered Species Act ................................................................................................. 23 California Fish and Game Code (§3503.5) ....................................................................................... 23 Rare and Endangered Plants ........................................................................................................... 24 Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement, CFGC (§1602) ........................................................... 24 California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines §15380 ............................................................... 24 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................................... 25 Endangered, Threatened and Rare Plants ............................................................................................ 25 Henderson’s Bent Grass, Maverick Clover, Red Bluff Dwarf Rush, and Sulphur Creek Brodiaea .... 25 Endangered, Threatened, and Special-Status Wildlife ......................................................................... 25 Crotch’s Bumble Bee ........................................................................................................................ 25 Monarch Butterfly ............................................................................................................................ 26 Western Spadefoot ........................................................................................................................... 26 Migratory Birds and Raptors ............................................................................................................ 26 Pallid Bat and Western Red Bat ........................................................................................................ 27 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................................ 29 LIST OF PREPARERS ..................................................................................................................................... 31

FIGURES
Figure 1. Regional Location ........................................................................................................................... 3 Figure 2. Biological Survey Area .................................................................................................................... 4 Figure 3. CNDDB and Critical Habitat Occurrences ....................................................................................... 6 Figure 4. Habitat Map ................................................................................................................................. 10 TABLES
Table 1. Special-Status Species and Sensitive Natural Communities and Their Potential to Occur in the BSA. .................................................................................................................................................................... 11

APPENDICES
Appendix A: Species Lists
Appendix B: Observed Species
Appendix C: Site Photos
Packet Pg. 526 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Biological Resource Assessment September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative 1 The Peaks Single-Family Housing Development Project
Biological Resource Assessment (GE# 24-088)

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT
The Peaks Single-Family Housing Development Project
City of Redding, California
Section 22 Township 32N Range 05E
Redding USGS 7.5’ Quadrangle

INTRODUCTION
Purpose and Overview
The purpose of this Biological Resource Assessment (BRA) is to document the endangered, threatened, sensitive, and rare species, and their habitats that occur or may occur in the biological survey area (BSA) of The Peaks Single-Family Housing Development Project (Project). The Project is a Tentative Map for the development of infrastructure and grading that would support a 120-lot single-family housing development at 850 Quartz Hill Road (APN 115-170-001) within the Redding city limits in Shasta County, California. The City was awarded Community Development Block Grant - Disaster Recovery - Infrastructure (CDBG-DR-INF) funds to complete this Project in response to the 2018 Carr Fire.

The Project site is 114 acres, with 65.3 acres planned for development. The Project site is located approximately 550 feet south of Quartz Hill Road and approximately 400 feet east of Buenaventura Boulevard. Additionally, the Project would include approximately 1.26 acres of off-site improvements.

These include a new access road with underlying utility extensions extending within a new City right-ofway across BLM land west of the Project site (approximately 1.25 acres), extension of a paved trail approximately 250 linear feet onto the adjacent property to the north of the Project site (approximately

0.1 acre), and minor grading where proposed Road B would connect to an existing gravel road on a neighboring parcel to the south (less than 0.01 acre). (Figure 1).

The Project’s BSA encompasses approximately 149.73 acres, which includes the 114-acre Project site, 1.26 acres of proposed off-site improvements, and additional off-site areas along Buenaventura Boulevard and Quartz Hill Road that were conservatively evaluated as potential infrastructure improvement areas that are not currently part of the proposed Project. (Figure 2). Gallaway Enterprises (GE) conducted biological and botanical habitat assessments in the BSA to evaluate site conditions and potential for rare and listed species to occur. Other primary references consulted include species lists and information gathered using the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Information, Planning, and Conservation System (IPaC), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) on-line resources, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) list of rare and endangered plants, and literature review. The results of the BRA are the findings of surveys, habitat assessments, and recommendations for avoidance and minimization measures.

Project Location and Environmental Setting
The BSA is located in the northwestern portion of the City of Redding, latitude 40.607026, longitude - 122.421663, within the United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute “Redding” quadrangle, Section Packet Pg. 527 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Biological Resource Assessment September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative 2 The Peaks Single-Family Housing Development Project
Biological Resource Assessment (GE# 24-088)
22, Township 32N, Range 05E. The BSA is bound by Spinnaker Drive to the east, Quartz Hill Road to the north, Buenaventura Boulevard to the west, and Keel Court to the south. The surrounding land uses consist primarily of subdivisions and undeveloped land along Quartz Hill Road.

Topography within the BSA consists of hills, drainages, and ridge tops, and is predominately comprised of blue oak-foothill pine and annual grassland vegetation. Large volcanic rocks punctuate the landscape.

Unnamed ephemeral and intermittent drainages occur throughout the BSA flowing west to east. A drainage enters the BSA on the southern boundary from the southwest, along Keel Court and flows to the east. Evidence of drainages occur during the spring and winter months. Overhead transmission lines, near the southern and northern borders, span the BSA. Evidence of pedestrian/vehicular trails, most likely of maintenance or recreational use, occur in proximity to the transmission lines and parallel to some drainage features. Historically, the BSA has experienced wildfires, most notably the Carr Fire in 2018.

The average annual precipitation is 39.23 inches, and the average annual temperature is 63° F (WRCC 2024) in the region where the BSA is located. The BSA’s elevation ranges from approximately 665 feet to 800 feet, with an average of 725 feet above sea level. The BSA is sloped between 0 and 30 percent. Soils within the BSA consist of primarily Auburn very stony loam with a restrictive layer occurring between 20 to 24 inches (USDA 2024). Other soils include Auburn clay loam, Newtown gravelly loam, Red Bluff loam, and Redding gravelly loam.

Packet Pg. 528 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Biological Resource Assessment September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative 0 0.25 0.5 Miles
1:24,000
Data Sources: ESRI, OpenStreetMap,GHD
The Peaks Subdivision
Regional Location
Figure 1
Survey Area - (149.73 acres)
Project Location
M GE: #24-088 Map Date: 09/17/2025
USGS 7.5' Quad: Redding
T32N R05W
Section 21,22,23,27,28
UTM Zone 10
Project Location
Packet Pg. 529 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Biological Resource Assessment September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative 0 500 1,000 Feet
1:15,000
Data Sources: ESRI, Maxar 04/25/2023
The Peaks Subdivision
Biological Survey Area
Figure 2
Biological Survey Area - (149.73 acres)

40.606355,
-122.421688

40.614218,
-122.426130
1 inch = 1,250 feet
M GE: #24-088 Map Date: 09/17/2025 Quartz Hill Rd.

Packet Pg. 530 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Biological Resource Assessment September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative 5 The Peaks Single-Family Housing Development Project
Biological Resource Assessment (GE# 24-088)

METHODS
References Consulted
Gallaway Enterprises obtained lists of special-status species that occur in the vicinity of the BSA. The CNDDB Geographic Information System (GIS) database was also consulted and showed special-status species occurrences within a five-mile radius of the BSA (Figure 3). Other primary sources of information regarding the occurrence of federally listed threatened, endangered, proposed and candidate species, and their habitats within the BSA used in the preparation of this BRA are:
• The USFWS IPaC Official Species List for the BSA, October 22, 2024, Project Code 2025-0009321 (Appendix A; Species Lists);
• The NMFS Official Species List for the USGS 7.5’ “Redding” quadrangle, October 22, 2024 (Appendix A; Species Lists);
• Results of a species record search of the CDFW CNDDB, RareFind 5, for the USGS 7.5’ “Redding” and eight surrounding quadrangles, October 22, 2024 (Appendix A; Species Lists); • Review of the CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California for the USGS

7.5’ “Redding” and eight surrounding quadrangles, October 22, 2024 (Appendix A; Species Lists); • Review of the USFWS and NMFS Critical Habitat webmaps, accessed October 22, 2024; • Results from the botanical habitat assessment conducted by Gallaway Enterprises on September 10, 2024, and November 4, 2024 (Appendix B; Observed Species Lists); and • Results from the biological habitat assessment conducted by Gallaway Enterprises on October 24 & 28, 2024 (Appendix B; Observed Species Lists).

Special-Status Species
For the purposes of this BRA special-status species are those that fall into one of the following categories:
• Listed as threatened or endangered, or are proposed or candidates for listing under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA; 14 California Code of Regulations 670.5) or the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA; 50 Code of Federal Regulations 17.12); • Listed as a Species of Special Concern (SSC) by CDFW or protected under the California Fish and Game Code (CFGC; i.e., Fully Protected Species);
• Ranked by the CNPS as 1A, 1B, or 2;
• Protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA); • Protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act; or • Species that are otherwise protected under policies or ordinances at the local or regional level as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; §15380).

Packet Pg. 531 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Biological Resource Assessment September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative !
!
!
!
! !
!
!
! !
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
dubious pea
maverick clover
Shasta chaparral
American bumble bee
steelhead - Central Valley DPS
foothill yellow-legged frog - north coast DPS
Townsend's big-eared bat
western pearlshell
green sturgeon - southern DPS
green sturgeon - southern DPS
vernal pool tadpole shrimp
Oregon shoulderband
chinook salmon - Sacramento River winter-run ESU
chinook salmon - Central Valley spring-run ESU
Great Valley Valley Oak Riparian Forest
northwestern pond turtle
Townsend's big-eared bat
Sulphur Creek brodiaea
silver-haired bat
Sulphur Creek brodiaea
California linderiella
Shasta chaparral
Red Bluff dwarf rush
Red Bluff dwarf rush
northwestern pond turtle
northwestern pond turtle
silver-haired bat
valley elderberry longhorn beetle
foothill yellow-legged frog - north coast DPS
northwestern pond turtle
foothill yellow-legged frog - north coast DPS
Great Valley Cottonwood Riparian Forest
bald eagle
kneecap lanx
Henderson's bent grass
northwestern pond turtle
foothill yellow-legged frog - north coast DPS
Sulphur Creek brodiaea
Steelhead
Sturgeon, green
Steelhead
Steelhead
Steelhead
Steelhead
Salmon, Chinook
Steelhead
0 1 2 Miles
1:100,000
Data Sources: ESRI, OpenStreetMap
The Peaks Subdivision
CNDDB Occurrences and Critical Habitat
Figure 3
Biological Survey Area - (149.73 acres)
5 mile Buffer
Critical Habitat
Chinook Salmon
Steelhead
! ! Green Sturgeon
CNDDB Occurrences
Plant
Animal
Terrestrial
Multiple
M GE: #24-088 Map Date: 09/17/2025
Project Location
Packet Pg. 532 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Biological Resource Assessment September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative 7 The Peaks Single-Family Housing Development Project
Biological Resource Assessment (GE# 24-088)
Critical Habitat
The ESA requires that critical habitat be designated for all federally listed species. Critical habitat is designated for areas that provide essential habitat elements that enable a species’ survival, and which are occupied by the species during the species listing under the ESA. Areas outside of the species’ range of occupancy during the time of its listing can also be determined as critical habitat if the agency decides that the area is essential to the conservation of the species.

The USFWS Critical Habitat for Threatened & Endangered Species web map was accessed on October 22, 2024, to determine if critical habitat occurred within the BSA. Appropriate Federal Registers were also used to confirm the presence or absence of critical habitat.

The NOAA Fisheries Critical Habitat Protected Resources App for the West Coast region was accessed on October 22, 2024, to determine if critical habitat for anadromous species listed under the ESA occurred within the BSA.

Sensitive Natural Communities
Sensitive Natural Communities (SNCs) are evaluated using NatureServe’s Heritage Methodology, the same system used to assign global and state rarity ranks for plant and animal species in the CNDDB. They are monitored by CDFW with the goal of preserving these areas of habitat that are rare or ecologically important. Designated CDFW SNCs are addressed in the environmental review processes of CEQA and it equivalents. Many SNCs are designated as such because they represent a historical landscape and are typically preserved as valued components of California’s diverse habitat assemblage. The CNDDB was consulted on October 22, 2024, to determine if the BSA occurs within a mapped SNC.

Habitat Assessments
Habitat assessments were conducted on September 10, 2024, and November 4, 2024, by GE botanist Cheryl Ballantyne, and on October 24 and 28, 2024 by GE biologist Nick Perazzo. The habitat assessments were conducted to determine if suitable habitat elements for special-status species occur within the BSA.

A list of observed species is provided in Appendix B. Please note that any additional species-specific surveys, performed as a result of information gathered during initial assessments and recommendations provided in this document, are detailed in their own individual reports and are not discussed in this BRA.

Botanical Assessment
A botanical habitat assessment was conducted on September 10, 2024, and November 4, 2024. The habitat assessment was conducted by walking through all accessible areas of the BSA and taking a detailed inventory of habitat elements. A Trimble Global Positioning System (GPS) unit was on hand to record the location, extent, and estimated number of individuals of any special-status plant populations observed within the BSA.

Packet Pg. 533 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Biological Resource Assessment September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative 8 The Peaks Single-Family Housing Development Project
Biological Resource Assessment (GE# 24-088)
Biological Assessment
A wildlife habitat assessment was conducted on October 24 and 28, 2024. The habitat assessment was conducted by walking the entire BSA and recording observed species and specific habitat types and elements. If habitat was observed for special-status species it was then evaluated for quality based on vegetation composition and structure, physical features (e.g., soils, elevation), microclimate, surrounding area, presence of predatory species and available resources (e.g., prey items, nesting substrates), and land use patterns.

RESULTS
Habitat Types
The habitat types that are present within the BSA have been classified, as detailed below, to follow the current classification scheme identified in A Guide to Wildlife Habitats of California (Mayer and Laudenslayer 1988). A map depicting the approximate extent of the habitat types within the BSA is included as Figure 4.

Blue Oak-Foothill Pine
The majority of the BSA is composed of blue oak-foothill pine habitat (Figure 4). Blue oak-foothill pine habitat within the BSA is characterized by an overstory of primarily blue oaks (Quercus douglasii) and scattered ponderosa pines (Pinus ponderosa) and a sparse to moderately dense understory dominated by whiteleaf manzanita (Arctostaphylos viscida ssp. viscida) and poison oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum).

This habitat type is typically diverse in structure, consisting of a mix of hardwoods, conifers, and shrubs.

This habitat type provides valuable breeding, nesting, and foraging opportunities for migratory birds.

Common wildlife species that utilize the blue oak-foothill pine habitat include California scrub-jay (Aphelocoma californica), acorn woodpecker (Melanerpes formicivorus), and western gray squirrel (Sciurus griseus).

Annual Grassland
Annual grassland occurs throughout the BSA, primarily as the herbaceous layer of blue oak-foothill pine woodland, but also along the transmission corridors within the BSA (Figure 4). Annual grassland habitats and species composition depend largely on annual precipitation, fire regimes, and grazing practices (Mayer and Laudenslayer 1988). Species observed in the annual grassland in the BSA include greater rattlesnake grass (Briza maxima), slim oat (Avena barbata), medusahead (Elymus caput-medusae), smooth cat’s ear (Hypochaeris glabra), rattlesnake weed (Daucus pusillus), and soft chess (Bromus hordeaceus). Most wildlife species use grassland habitat for foraging, but generally require some additional habitat characteristics such as rocky outcrops, cliffs, caves, or ponds in order to find shelter and cover for escapement. Some rodents, such as ground squirrel (Otospermophilus beecheyi), utilize annual grasslands for burrowing.

Riverine
Riverine habitat within the BSA is comprised of intermittent drainages. Riverine habitat is typified by intermittent or continually flowing watercourses. The intermittent drainages within the BSA will flow with surface runoff during the wet season and then dry up. They play an important role in conveying and Packet Pg. 534 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Biological Resource Assessment September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative 9 The Peaks Single-Family Housing Development Project
Biological Resource Assessment (GE# 24-088)
filtering seasonal runoff into larger perennial riverine systems. Surface flows within the BSA eventually reach the Sacramento River approximately 1.25 miles downstream.

Valley Foothill Riparian
Valley foothill riparian associates with portions of the riverine habitat within the BSA. Valley foothill riparian within the BSA is comprised of dense understory of willows, blackberry, and poison oak. These areas have the highest moisture content within the soil of all the terrestrial habitats within the BSA, thus providing the most vegetation. Wildlife species that utilize these habitats include a variety of songbird and amphibian species.

Barren
Barren habitat within the BSA is comprised of the unpaved gravel and dirt roads. Barren habitat is typified by non-vegetated soil, rock, paved roads, and gravel areas void of vegetation. It is typically considered low-quality habitat for most wildlife species, although some ground nesting avian species such as killdeer (Charadrius vociferous) and small reptiles such as western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis) can be found breeding in barren habitat.

Critical Habitat
There is no designated critical habitat within or adjacent to the BSA.

Sensitive Natural Communities
No SNCs occur within the BSA.

Special-Status Species
A summary of special-status species assessed for potential occurrence within the BSA based on the USFWS IPaC species list, NMFS species list, CNDDB, and the CNPS list of rare and endangered plants within the

7.5-minute USGS “Redding” and the eight surrounding quadrangles, and their potential to occur within the BSA are described in Table 1. Potential for occurrence was determined by reviewing database queries from federal and state agencies and evaluating habitat characteristics. The following special-status species have potential to occur within the BSA based on the presence of suitable habitat and/or known records of species occurrence within the vicinity of the BSA.

Packet Pg. 535 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Biological Resource Assessment September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative M
0 250 500 Feet
1:9,000
Data Sources: ESRI, Maxar 09/18/2021
The Peaks Subdivision
Habitat Map
Figure 4
Biological Survey Area - (149.73 acres)
Habitat Type
Barren - (16.55 acres)
Blue Oak - Foothill Pine - (103.12 acres)
Annual Grassland - (21.97 acres)
Riverine - (1.37 acres)
Valley Oak Riparian - (6.72 acres)
1 inch = 750 feet
GE: #24-088 Map Date: 09/12/2025 Packet Pg. 536 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Biological Resource Assessment September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL- 11 The Peaks Single-Family Housing Development Project
Biological Resource Assessment (GE# 24-088)
Table 1. Special-Status Species and Sensitive Natural Communities and Their Potential to Occur in the BSA.

Common Name (Scientific
Name)
Status
Fed/State/CNPS
Associated Habitats Potential for Occurrence

SENSITIVE NATURAL COMMUNITIES
Great Valley Cottonwood
Riparian Forest _/SNC/_ Riparian forest.

None. There is no designated
great valley cottonwood riparian
forest habitat within the BSA.

Great Valley Valley Oak
Riparian Forest _/SNC/_ Riparian forest.

None. There is no designated
great valley valley oak riparian
forest habitat within the BSA.

Great Valley Willow
Scrub _/SNC/_ Riparian scrub.

None. There is no designated
great valley willow scrub habitat
within the BSA.

PLANTS
Brazilian watermeal
(Wolffia brasiliensis) _/_/2B.3 Shallow freshwater marshes; 65 to 330 feet (BP: Apr-Dec).

None. The BSA does not contain
suitable aquatic resources.

Canyon Creek stonecrop
(Sedum paradisum ssp.
paradisum)
_/_/1B.3
Rock faces and crevices of
exposed granite; 985 to 6235
feet (BP: May-Jun).

None. The BSA does not occur
within the known elevation
range for this species.

Hairy marsh hedge-nettle
(Stachys Pilosa) _/_/2B.3
Meadows and seeps,
sagebrush and Great Basin
scrub usually associated with
lake margins; 3935 to 5805 feet
(BP: Jun-Aug).

None. The BSA does not occur
within the known elevation
range for this species.

Henderson’s bent grass
(Agrostis hendersonii) _/_/3.2
Moist places in grassland or
vernal pool habitat. (BP: Apr –
Jun).

Low. There is marginal habitat
present within the ephemeral
drainages. Additional surveys
recommended.

Koch's cord moss
(Entosthodon kochii) _/_/1B.3
Openings with barren soil on
riverbanks and in grasslands;
560 to 3280 feet.

None. There is no suitable
habitat present within the BSA.

Legenere
(Legenere limosa) _/_/1B.1 Vernal pools; 5 to 2,885 feet(BP: Apr-Jun).

None. There are no vernal pools
within the BSA.

Maverick clover
(Trifolium piorkowskii) _/_/1B.2
Shallow vernal depressions on
volcanic flats or the open banks
of intermittent or perennial
streams in the foothills of
Shasta County; 525 to 2230
feet (BP: Apr-May).

Low. There is suitable habitat
present within the BSA,
however, the most recent
occurrence in the vicinity of the
BSA is from 1911. Additional
surveys recommended.

Nuttall’s ribbon-leaved
pondweed
(Potamogeton epihydrus)
_/_/2B.2
Assorted shallow freshwater
marshes and swamps; 1210 to
7,125 feet (BP: [Jun] Jul-Sep).

None. The BSA does not occur
within the known elevation
range for this species and does
not consist of aquatic resources.

Oval-leaved viburnum
(Viburnum ellipticum) _/_/2B.3
Chaparral, cismontane
woodland, lower montane
coniferous forest; 705 to 4595
feet (BP: May-Jun).

None. There is no suitable
habitat present within the BSA.

Packet Pg. 537 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Biological Resource Assessment September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative 12 The Peaks Single-Family Housing Development Project
Biological Resource Assessment (GE# 24-088)
Common Name (Scientific
Name)
Status
Fed/State/CNPS
Associated Habitats Potential for Occurrence
PLANTS
Pink creamsacs
(Castilleja rubicundula
var. rubicundula)
_/_/1B.2
Seeps and mesic area in
serpentine soils; 65 to 2985
feet (BP: Apr-Jun).

None. There is no suitable
habitat present within the BSA.

Red Bluff dwarf rush
(Juncus leiospermus var.
leiospermus)
_/_/1B.1
Vernal pools and vernally mesic
sites; 115 to 4,100 feet (BP:

Mar-Jun).

Low. There is marginal habitat
present within aquatic habitat
within the BSA. Additional
surveys recommended.

Sanford's arrowhead
(Sagittaria sanfordii) _/_/1B.2
In standing or slow-moving
freshwater ponds, marshes,
and ditches; 0 to 2,135 feet
(BP: May-Oct [Nov]).

None. The BSA does not contain
suitable aquatic resources.

Shasta huckleberry
(Vaccinium shastense ssp.
shastense)
_/_/1B.3
Microhabitat is acidic, mesic;
often streambanks; sometimes
seeps, rocky outcrops,
roadsides, and disturbed areas;
1,065 to 4,005 feet (BP: DecMay [Jun-Sep]).

None. The BSA does not occur
within the known elevation
range for this species.

Shasta snow-wreath
(Neviusia cliftonii) _/SC/1B.2
In the mountains around Lake
Shasta on shaded, north facing,
or sheltered canyons. Often
found by stream sides,
sometimes on limestone or
volcanic soils; 985 to 1,935 feet
(PB: Apr-Jun).

None. The BSA does not occur
within the known elevation
range for this species.

Silky cryptantha
(Cryptantha crinita) _/_/1B.2
Gravelly streambeds and
wetland swales; 200 to 3,985
feet (BP: Apr-May).

None. The BSA does not contain
suitable aquatic resources.

Slender Orcutt grass
(Orcuttia tenuis) FT/SE/1B.1 Deep vernal pools; 115 to 5,774 feet (BP: May-Sep [Oct]).

None. There are no vernal pools
within the BSA.

Sulphur Creek brodiaea
(Brodiaea matsonii) _/_/1B.1
Streambanks. In cracks and
crevices of metamorphic
amphibolite schist; 640 to 720
feet (BP: May-Jun).

Low. There is marginal habitat
present within aquatic habitat
within the BSA. Additional
surveys recommended.

INVERTEBRATES
Crotch’s bumble bee
(Bombus crotchii) _/CE/_
Woodlands, grasslands and
upland scrub that contain
requisite habitat elements,
such as small mammal burrows
Low. Small mammal burrows
are present throughout the BSA
providing suitable nesting
habitat.

Monarch butterfly
(Danaus plexippus) PFT/_/_
Egg and larval stage dependent
upon milkweed. Adults migrate
seasonally, amassing in dense
tree canopies; e.g., eucalyptus.

Low. Milkweed has been
reported as present at the site
and provides breeding habitat.

Additional surveys
recommended.

Valley Elderberry
longhorn beetle
(Desmocerus californicus
dimorphus)
FT/_/_ Blue elderberry shrubs; usually
associated with riparian areas.

None. There are no elderberry
shrubs within the BSA.

Packet Pg. 538 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Biological Resource Assessment September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative 13 The Peaks Single-Family Housing Development Project
Biological Resource Assessment (GE# 24-088)
Common Name (Scientific
Name)
Status
Fed/State/CNPS
Associated Habitats Potential for Occurrence
Vernal pool fairy shrimp
(Branchinecta lynchi) FT/_/_ Vernal pools and seasonally ponded areas.

None. There are no vernal pools
within the BSA.

Vernal pool tadpole
shrimp
(Lepidurus packardi)
FE/_/_ Deep vernal pools. None. There are no vernal pools within the BSA.

FISH: The potential for occurrence of Central Valley DPS steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus pop. 11), Central Valley spring-run ESU Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha pop. 11), Sacramento River winterrun ESU Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha pop. 7), and green sturgeon - southern DPS (Acipenser medirostris pop. 1) is None because the riverine habitat within the BSA does not contain enough water.

AMPHIBIANS AND REPTILES
Foothill yellow-legged
frog North Coast DPS
(Rana boylii pop. 1)
_/SSC/_
Perennial, shallow streams and
riffles with rocky substrates
and partial shade; commonly
found in canyons and narrow
streams.

None. The BSA does not contain
suitable aquatic resources.

Northwestern pond
turtle
(Actinemys marmorata)
PFT/SSC/_
Bodies of water with deep
pools, emergent vegetation for
foraging and cover, and
locations for basking and
nesting.

None. The BSA does not contain
suitable aquatic resources.

Pacific tailed frog
(Ascaphus truei) _/SSC/_
Perennial montane streams.

Tadpoles require water below
15 degrees Celsius.

None. The BSA does not contain
suitable aquatic resources.

Shasta salamander
(Hydromantes shastae) _/ST/_
Moist limestone fissures and
caves, in volcanic and other
rock outcroppings, and under
woody debris in mixed pinehardwood stands near Lake
Shasta 1,000- 3,000 ft
elevation.

None. No suitable habitat occurs
within the BSA and the BSA is
located outside of the known
range of this species.

Western spadefoot
(Spea hammondii) PFT/SSC/_
Occurs primarily in grassland
habpools and seasonal
drainages are typically used for
breeding and egg-laying.

Low. Areas within the BSA could
provide ponded water for 30
days or longer. Suitable
aestivation habitat is also
present in the open grassland
habitats adjacent to the aquatic
resources within the BSA.

Packet Pg. 539 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Biological Resource Assessment September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative 14 The Peaks Single-Family Housing Development Project
Biological Resource Assessment (GE# 24-088)
Common Name (Scientific
Name)
Status
Fed/State/CNPS
Associated Habitats Potential for Occurrence
BIRDS
Bald eagle
(Haliaeetus
leucocephalus)
_/SE, FP/_
Coast, large lakes and river
systems with open forests with
large trees and snags near
permanent water.

None. There is no suitable
nesting or foraging habitat
within the BSA.

Bank swallow
(Riparia riparia) _/ST/_
Requires vertical banks or cliffs
with fine-textured sandy soils
near streams, rivers, lakes,
ocean to dig nesting burrow.

None. There is no suitable
nesting habitat within the BSA.

Northern Spotted Owl
(Strix occidentalis
caurina)
FT/ST/_
Forests characterized by dense
canopy closure of mature and
old growth trees, abundant
logs, standing snags, and live
trees with broken tops.

None. There is no suitable
nesting habitat within or near
the BSA.

Tricolored blackbird
(Agelaius tricolor) _/ST, SSC/_
Colony nester within
freshwater marshes, swamps,
and wetlands. Requires open
water, protected nesting
substrates and foraging habitat
within open fields.

None. The aquatic resources do
not provide sufficient nesting
habitat.

MAMMALS
Fisher
(Pekania pennanti) _/SSC/_
Intermediate to large-tree
stages of coniferous forests
and deciduous-riparian areas
with high percent canopy
closure. Uses cavities, snags,
logs and rocky areas for cover
and denning. Needs large areas
of mature, dense forest.

None. There is no suitable
habitat within the BSA.

Pallid bat
(Antrozous pallidus) _/SSC/_
Rocky outcroppings to open,
sparsely vegetated grasslands
with nearby water source. Day
and night roosts include
crevices in rocky outcrops and
cliffs, caves, mines, trees (e.g.,
cavities and sloughing bark),
and various human structures
(i.e., bridges).

Low. There are some
trees/snags that provide
suitable cavities and sloughing
bark that could provide marginal
roosting habitat.

Packet Pg. 540 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Biological Resource Assessment September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative 15 The Peaks Single-Family Housing Development Project
Biological Resource Assessment (GE# 24-088)
Common Name (Scientific
Name)
Status
Fed/State/CNPS
Associated Habitats Potential for Occurrence
Townsend's big-eared
bat
(Corynorhinus
townsendii)
_/SSC/_
Roost in caves and cave-like
cavities, occasionally in
bridges.

None. There is no suitable
roosting habitat within the BSA.

Western red bat
(Lasiurus blossevillii) _/SSC/_
Riparian areas dominated by
walnuts, oaks, willows,
cottonwoods, and sycamores
where they roost in these
broad-leafed trees.

Low. There are some
trees/snags that provide
suitable cavities and sloughing
bark that could provide marginal
roosting habitat, however, there
is no riparian habitat that
features any broad-leafed trees
within the BSA.

CODE DESIGNATIONS
FE = Federally-listed Endangered
FT = Federally-listed Threatened
P(FE/FT) = Proposed Federally-listed
FC = Federal Candidate Species
SE = State-listed Endangered
ST = State-listed Threatened
SC = State Candidate for Listing as Threatened or
Endangered
SR = State-listed Rare
SSC = State Species of Special Concern
FP =CDFW Fully Protected Species
SNC = CDFW Sensitive Natural Community
CNPS California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR):

CRPR 1B = Rare or Endangered in California or
elsewhere
CRPR 2 = Rare, Threatened or Endangered in California,
more common elsewhere
CRPR 3 = More information is needed
CRPR 4 = Plants with limited distribution, not
considered rare, threatened, or endangered

0.1=Seriously Threatened

0.2= Fairly Threatened

0.3= Not very Threatened
Potential for Occurrence: Any bird or bat species could fly over the BSA, but this is not considered a potential occurrence. The categories for the potential for occurrence include:

None: The species or natural community does not occur and has no potential to occur in the BSA based on sufficient surveys, the lack suitable habitat, and/or the BSA is well outside of the known distribution of the species.

Low: Potential habitat in the BSA is sub-marginal and/or the species is known to occur in the vicinity of the BSA.

Moderate: Suitable habitat is present in the BSA and/or the species is known to occur in the vicinity of the BSA.

Pre-construction surveys may be required.

High: Habitat in the BSA is highly suitable for the species and there are reliable records close to the BSA, but the species was not observed. Pre-construction surveys required.

Known: Species was detected in the BSA or a recent reliable record exists for the BSA.

Packet Pg. 541 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Biological Resource Assessment September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative 16 The Peaks Single-Family Housing Development Project
Biological Resource Assessment (GE# 24-088)
Endangered, Threatened and Rare Plants
Botanical habitat assessments and general botanical surveys were conducted within the BSA on September 10, 2024, and November 4, 2024, by GE botanist Cheryl Ballantyne. No special-status plant species were observed within the BSA; however, potentially suitable habitat was identified for Henderson’s bent grass, Maverick clover, Red Bluff dwarf rush, and Sulphur Creek brodiaea. As their blooming periods did not occur at the time of the site visit, these species were unable to be positively identified within the BSA. A list of all plant species observed within the BSA can be found in Appendix B.

Henderson’s Bent Grass
Henderson’s bent grass is a CNPS Rank 3.2 plant. It is an annual grass native to northern California and Oregon. It usually occurs in vernal pool and swale habitats; however, it can also be found in moist areas in annual grasslands. It is associated with valley grasslands, vernal and seasonal wetlands, and swale and streambank plant communities. Current threats facing Henderson’s bent grass is loss of habitat, changes in hydrology, and invasive species.

CNDDB Occurrences
The nearest CNDDB occurrence (#21) of Henderson’s bent grass is located approximately 4 miles northeast of the BSA. The observation occurred in a vernal pool southeast of the Gold Hills Golf Club, in 2006.

Status of Henderson’s Bent Grass occurring in the BSA
There is marginally suitable habitat present in and around the intermittent drainages and natural holding basins within the BSA. There is a low potential for Henderson’s bent grass to occur within the BSA.

Maverick Clover
Maverick clover is ranked by the CNPS as a 1B.2 plant species. It is an annual dicot native to the lower foothills of the Cascade Range and the upper Sacramento Valley in southern Shasta County and possibly in adjacent portions of Tehama County. Maverick clover can be found in shallow vernal depressions on volcanic flats, or along the banks of intermittent or perennial watercourses flowing through open rocky grassland with scattered oaks.

CNDDB Occurrences
The nearest CNDDB occurrence (4) of Maverick clover was an observation from 1911, near Middle Creek Station in Redding, California. The accuracy of the observance is within a 1-mile radius of (40.59293, - 122.43695), which overlaps the BSA at the southwest corner on Buenaventura Boulevard.

Status of Henderson’s Bent Grass occurring in the BSA
The habitat that occurs in the area where the CNDDB occurrence of Maverick clover overlaps the BSA does not provide suitable habitat for the plant. However, suitable habitat for Maverick clover is present along all the riverine habitat within the BSA, but, due to the lack of CNDDB occurrences in the area with none occurring over the last 100-years within 5-miles of the BSA, there is a low potential for Maverick clover to occur within the BSA.

Packet Pg. 542 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Biological Resource Assessment September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative 17 The Peaks Single-Family Housing Development Project
Biological Resource Assessment (GE# 24-088)
Red Bluff Dwarf Rush
Red Bluff dwarf rush is ranked by the CNPS as a 1B.1 plant species. It is an annual monocot that is endemic to California. Red Bluff dwarf rush is found in mesic annual grasslands and the edges of vernal pools.

CNDDB Occurrences
The nearest CNDDB occurrence (#51) of Red Bluff dwarf rush is located approximately 4 miles northeast of the BSA. The observation occurred in a vernal pool southeast of the Gold Hills Golf Club, in 2006.

Status of Red Bluff Dwarf Rush occurring in the BSA
There is marginally suitable habitat present around the natural holding basins within the BSA. There is a low potential for Red Bluff dwarf rush to occur within the BSA.

Sulphur Creek Brodiaea
Sulphur Creek brodiaea is ranked by the CNPS as a 1B.1 plant species. It is a rare annual monocot that is only found in three upper tributaries to Sulphur Creek in Redding, California. It grows from cracks and crevices in bedrock along the banks and rocky islands within the channel of the creek.

CNDDB Occurrences
There are two (2) CNDDB occurrences (#1, #2) of Sulphur Creek brodiaea, both occurring on a tributary to the west branch of Sulphur Creek, located within approximately ½ mile of the BSA. The occurrences are directly north of the BSA and Quartz Hill Road.

Status of Sulphur Creek Brodiaea in the BSA
The BSA provides suitable habitat for Sulphur Creek brodiaea, however, the only known CNDDB occurrences of the plant are solely located along tributaries to the Sulphur Creek drainage. The BSA is not hydrologically connected to Sulphur Creek, but because of the proximity in which Sulphur Creek brodiaea occurs to the BSA and the necessary habitat elements, there is a low potential for Sulphur Creek brodiaea to occur within the BSA.

Endangered, Threatened and Special-Status Wildlife
Wildlife habitat assessments were conducted within the BSA on October 24 and 28, 2024. Suitable habitat was identified for crotch’s bumble bee, western spadefoot, pallid bat, western red bat, and avian species protected under the MBTA and CFGC. A list of wildlife species observed within the BSA can be found in Appendix B.

Crotch’s Bumble Bee
Crotch bumble bees (CBB) are listed as candidate endangered in the state of California. In California, CBB inhabit open grassland and scrub habitats. Suitable bee habitat is based three basic habitat requirements:
suitable nesting sites for the colonies, availability of nectar and pollen from floral resources throughout the duration of the colony period (spring, summer, and fall), and suitable overwintering sites for the queens (Xerces Society 2018). CBB, like most bumble bee species, nest underground. The range of CBB historically extended throughout the southern two-thirds of California, from coastal California east to the Sierra-Cascade crest and south into Mexico, but recent data indicates that this species is absent from the center of its historical range due to extensive agricultural intensification and urbanization (Xerces Society 2018). This species was historically common in the Central Valley of California but now appears to be Packet Pg. 543 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Biological Resource Assessment September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative 18 The Peaks Single-Family Housing Development Project
Biological Resource Assessment (GE# 24-088)
absent from most of it. They are known to feed on plants in the genera Antirrhinum, Phacelia, Clarkia, Dendromecon, Eschscholzia, and Eriogonum.

CNDDB Occurrences
The nearest CNDDB occurrence (#4) of CBB is located approximately 30 miles southeast of the BSA in Red Bluff in 1956. The exact location of the occurrence is unknown.

Status of Crotch’s Bumble Bee occurring in the BSA
Small mammal burrows were observed throughout the BSA. Several burrows were observed to harbor remnants of wasp nests that were uncovered by predators. CBB would be deterred from nesting within burrows that harbor wasps, as wasps are known to prey upon bees. Flowering plants preferred by foraging bumble bees are also available throughout the project area. However, focused surveys for bumble bees were conducted in the BSA on July 28-30 and August 13, 2025, and no CBB were observed (Gallway 2025).

Because there are no documented occurrences within a 20-mile radius of the Project, and focused surveys did not detect any evidence of bees within the Project, the data supports that there is little risk of take.

The potential for CBB occurring within the BSA is low.

Monarch Butterfly
On December 12, 2024, the monarch butterfly was proposed for listing as threatened under the ESA, and 4,395 acres in Alameda, Marin, Monterey, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Santa Cruz, and Ventura Counties, California, were proposed as critical habitat (USFWS 2025). North American migratory monarchs are divided into eastern and western populations. The Rocky Mountains limit contact between these two populations, however, the populations are not completely isolated from each other and still occasionally interbreed.

Loss of breeding, migrating, and overwintering habitat is the greatest threat facing monarchs. Other major threats include residential and commercial pesticide use, parasitoids, and habitat fragmentation. The loss of milkweed in agricultural fields across the U.S. is a major cause of the decline in monarchs, though there are other factors contributing to the decline in milkweed availability. Herbicide application and increased mowing in roadside ditches and agricultural margins is eradicating milkweed habitat, even from more rural areas (MJV). In addition, herbicides kill species of native flowering plants that would otherwise be used as foraging habitat for migrating monarchs, contributing to habitat fragmentation. Losses of overwintering habitats are caused by municipal and commercial development, legal and illegal logging, land conversion for agricultural use, and climate change events like severe storms and extended drought (Nature Conservancy 2022). Pesticides are often used to prevent infestation of only a few crop-damaging pests, but their effects are indiscriminate, and many pollinators are lethally affected by their use. There are also several species of Tachinidae fly and a protozoan (Ophryocystis elektroscirrha (OE)) that are parasites of monarchs. OE is of particular concern in the west because the average infection prevalence is four times higher in western compared to eastern populations, and because infections lower flight performance and increase mortality (Majewska et. al. 2019). This is thought to be primarily because the non-native tropical milkweed (A. curassavica), a popular choice for landscaping because of its prolific, colorful blooms, can persist year-round in temperate climates. OE persists in higher numbers on tropical milkweed, which increases transmission rates (MJV). Insects exposed to environmental stressors such as Packet Pg. 544 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Biological Resource Assessment September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative 19 The Peaks Single-Family Housing Development Project
Biological Resource Assessment (GE# 24-088)
pesticides or thermal stress can become more susceptible to pathogen-mediated declines (Majewska et. al.).

As with other pollinator species, such as the bumble bees discussed above, encouraging land managers and homeowners to foster an increase in native floral diversity across the landscape would be greatly beneficial for migrating monarchs, especially if the mix of floral resources includes native milkweeds for reproduction. If managed appropriately, roadsides could provide millions of acres of habitat suitable for monarchs and other pollinators and would be beneficial despite the increased risk for vehicle collisions.

Reducing or eliminating pesticide and herbicide use at these sites will further reduce risk of lethal exposures.

CNDDB Occurrences
There are no CNDDB occurrences of monarch butterflies within Shasta County, although their migration range covers all of California and parts of New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, and Canada. Overwintering monarchs are monitored through annual large-scale efforts of researchers and citizen scientists to better understand changes in their migration patterns and population dynamics.

Monarchs are tagged with geographic information that can be recovered later to inform researchers about where the monarch originated. In California, it is illegal to tag monarchs without the appropriate handling permit.

Although there are no observations of monarchs, there are documented occurrences of their host plants recorded with websites and applications such as iNaturalist and the Western Monarch Milkweed Mapper.

A variety of milkweed species have been identified in and near the BSA.

Status of Occurrence in the BSA
Because milkweed can be found within the Project and the range of migrating monarchs extends over the entire BSA, but there are no documented occurrences of monarchs, there is low potential for monarchs to occur in the BSA. If a tagged monarch is recovered, information from the tag should be used to contact the individual or group who tagged that individual.

Western Spadefoot
The western spadefoot is a SSC in California and is proposed for listing as federally threatened. It is an endemic species in California. The western spadefoot toad ranges from the northern point of the Central Valley south to the western corner of California. They are a stocky, small toad that varies in colors from gray, green and brown and typically have four irregular spots or stripes on their back. Their eyes are described as being golden with vertical pupils. The most distinguishing feature of the toad is a hardened, black spade on the hind foot. The spade is used for burrowing into moist soils. Suitable habitat consists of open grasslands with intermittent streams and vernal pools. Vernal pools and water sources that are ponded for a minimum of 30 days are essential for breeding and depositing eggs. Current threats facing the western spadefoot toad are loss of habitat, changes in hydrological regimes, and human disturbances.

CNDDB Occurrences
The nearest CNDDB occurrence (#462) of western spadefoot is located approximately 9.4 miles southeast of the BSA. Individuals were observed occurring within a pair of vernal pools within the Stillwater Plains Mitigation Bank, in 2006.

Packet Pg. 545 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Biological Resource Assessment September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative 20 The Peaks Single-Family Housing Development Project
Biological Resource Assessment (GE# 24-088)
Status of Western Spadefoot occurring in the BSA
Aquatic features within the BSA have the potential to hold water for at least 30 days, and the surrounding grassland habitat provides suitable aestivation conditions. The potential for western spadefoot occurring within the BSA is low.

Migratory Birds and Raptors
Nesting birds are protected under the MBTA (16 USC §703) and the CFGC (§3503). The MBTA prohibits the killing of migratory birds or the destruction of their occupied nests and eggs except in accordance with regulations prescribed by the USFWS. The bird species covered by the MBTA includes nearly all of those that breed in North America, excluding introduced (i.e., exotic) species (50 Code of Federal Regulations §10.13). Activities that involve the removal of vegetation including trees, shrubs, grasses, and forbs or ground disturbance has the potential to affect bird species protected by the MBTA.

The CFGC (§3503.5) states that it is “unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds in the order Falconiformes (hawks, eagles, and falcons) or Strigiformes (owls) or to take, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird except as otherwise provided by this code or any regulation adopted pursuant thereto.” Take includes the disturbance of an active nest resulting in the abandonment or loss of young.

The CFGC (§3503) also states that “it is unlawful to take, possess, or needlessly destroy the nest or eggs of any bird, except as otherwise provided by this code or any regulation made pursuant thereto.” CNDDB Occurrences
The majority of migratory birds and raptors protected under the MBTA and CFGC are not recorded on the CNDDB because they are abundant and widespread.

Status of Migratory Birds and Raptors occurring in the BSA There is suitable nesting habitat for a variety of avian species within the BSA. Several well-established nest structures were observed throughout the BSA, most occurring in the northeast corner. All nest structures observed within the BSA at the time of the habitat assessments conducted on October 24 and 28, 2024, were in-active (i.e. not containing eggs or chicks) as the assessment was conducted outside of the assumed nesting season window in the area of the BSA (February 1 through August 31). Due to the presence of nest structures, the potential for nesting migratory birds and raptors within the BSA is known.

Pallid Bat
Pallid bats (Antrozous pallidus) are designated as a CDFW SSC. Pallid bats roost alone, in small groups (2 to 20 bats), or gregariously (100s of individuals). Day and night roosts include crevices in rocky outcrops and cliffs, caves, mines, trees (e.g., basal hollows of coast redwoods and giant sequoias, bole cavities of oaks, exfoliating Ponderosa pine and valley oak bark, deciduous trees in riparian areas, and fruit trees in orchards), and various human structures such as bridges (especially wooden and concrete girder designs), barns, porches, bat boxes, and human-occupied as well as vacant buildings. Roosts generally have unobstructed entrances/exits, and are high above the ground, warm, and inaccessible to terrestrial predators. However, this species has also been found roosting on or near the ground under burlap sacks, stone piles, rags, and baseboards. Lewis 1996 found that pallid bats have low roost fidelity and both pregnant and lactating pallid bats changed roosts an average of once every 1.4 days throughout the summer. Overwintering roosts have relatively cool, stable temperatures and are located in protected structures beneath the forest canopy or on the ground, out of direct sunlight. In other parts of the species’ Packet Pg. 546 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Biological Resource Assessment September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative 21 The Peaks Single-Family Housing Development Project
Biological Resource Assessment (GE# 24-088)
range, males and females have been found hibernating alone or in small groups, wedged deeply into narrow fissures in mines, caves, and buildings. At low latitudes, outdoor winter activity has been reported at temperatures between –5 and 10 °C (Western Bat Working Group 2019).

CNDDB Occurrences
The nearest CNDDB occurrence (#111) of pallid bat is located approximately 7.5 miles west of the BSA.

Several individuals were observed roosting within the Brady Creek bridge on Kennedy Memorial Drive, on the south side of Whiskeytown Reservoir, in 2002. *Most bats are not recorded on the CNDDB due to low detectability and widespread abundance.

Status of Pallid Bats occurring in the BSA
Trees and snags with a greater than 12” diameter at breast height (DBH) within the BSA that have suitable habitat elements (e.g. cavities, peeling bark) may provide suitable roosting habitat. The potential for pallid bats occurring within the BSA is low.

Western Red Bat
Western red bat (Lasiurus blossevillii) is designated as a CDFW SSC. Western red bats are typically solitary, roosting primarily in the foliage of trees or shrubs. Day roosts are commonly in edge habitats adjacent to streams or open fields, in orchards, and sometimes in urban areas. There may be an association with intact riparian habitat (particularly willows, cottonwoods, and sycamores). Roost sites are generally hidden from view from all directions except below; lack obstruction beneath, allowing the bat to drop downward for flight; lack lower perches that would allow visibility by predators; have dark ground cover to minimize solar reflection; have nearby vegetation to reduce wind and dust; and are generally located on the south or southwest side of a tree. Red bats generally begin to forage one to two hours after sunset. Although some may forage all night, most typically have an initial foraging period corresponding to the early period of nocturnal insect activity, and a minor secondary activity period corresponding to insects that become active several hours before sunrise. Red bats mate in late summer or early fall. Females become pregnant in spring and have a pregnancy of 80-90 days. Females may have litters of up to five pups per year. This species is highly migratory. Although generally solitary, red bats appear to migrate in groups and forage in close association with one another in summer. The timing of migration and the summer ranges of males and females seem to be different. Winter behavior of this species is poorly understood (Western Bat Working Group 2019).

CNDDB Occurrences
The nearest CNDDB occurrence (#4) of western red bat is located approximately 5.35 miles southwest of the BSA. One adult was captured in Salt Creek canyon, south of Buck Hollow, within the Whiskeytown National Recreation Area, in 2002. *Most bats are not recorded on the CNDDB due to low detectability and widespread abundance.

Status of Western Red Bats Occurring within the BSA
Trees and snags with a greater than 12” DBH within the BSA that have suitable habitat elements (e.g. cavities, peeling bark) may provide suitable roosting habitat. The potential for western red bats occurring within the BSA is low.

Packet Pg. 547 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Biological Resource Assessment September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative 22 The Peaks Single-Family Housing Development Project
Biological Resource Assessment (GE# 24-088)

REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
The following describes federal, state, and local environmental laws and policies that may be relevant if the BSA were to be developed or modified.

Federal
Migratory Bird Treaty Act
The MBTA (16 USC §703) prohibits the killing of migratory birds or the destruction of their occupied nests and eggs except in accordance with regulations prescribed by the USFWS. The bird species covered by the MBTA includes nearly all of those that breed in North America, excluding introduced (i.e. exotic) species (50 CFR §10.13). Activities that involve the removal of vegetation including trees, shrubs, grasses, and forbs or ground disturbance have the potential to affect bird species protected by the MBTA. Thus, vegetation removal and ground disturbance in areas with breeding birds should be conducted outside of the breeding season (approximately February 1 through August 31 in the Central Valley). If vegetation removal or ground disturbance activities are conducted during the breeding season, then a qualified biologist must determine if there are any nests of bird species protected under the MBTA present in the construction area prior to commencement of construction. If active nests are located or presumed present, then appropriate avoidance measures (e.g. spatial or temporal buffers) must be implemented.

Federal Endangered Species Act
The United States Congress passed the ESA in 1973 to protect species that are endangered or threatened with extinction. The ESA is intended to operate in conjunction with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to help protect the ecosystems upon which endangered and threatened species depend.

Under the ESA, species may be listed as either “endangered” or “threatened.” Endangered means a species is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Threatened means a species is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. All species of plants and animals, except non-native species and pest insects, are eligible for listing as endangered or threatened. The USFWS also maintains a list of “candidate” species.

Candidate species are species for which there is enough information to warrant proposing them for listing, but that have not yet been proposed. “Proposed” species are those that have been proposed for listing but have not yet been listed.

The ESA makes it unlawful to “take” a listed animal without a permit. Take is defined as “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect or attempt to engage in any such conduct.” Through regulations, the term “harm” is defined as “an act which actually kills or injures wildlife. Such an act may include significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering.” Waters of the United States, Clean Water Act, Section 404 The U.S. Amy Corp of Engineers (USACE) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulate the discharge of dredged or fill material into jurisdictional waters of the United States, under the Clean Water Act (§404). The term “waters of the United States” is an encompassing term that includes “wetlands” and “other waters.” Wetlands have been defined for regulatory purposes as follows: “those areas that are Packet Pg. 548 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Biological Resource Assessment September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative 23 The Peaks Single-Family Housing Development Project
Biological Resource Assessment (GE# 24-088)
inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions (33 CFR §328.3, 40 CFR 230.3). Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas. “Other waters” of the United States are seasonal or perennial water bodies, including lakes, stream channels, drainages, ponds, and other surface water features, that exhibit an ordinary high-water mark but lack positive indicators for one or more of the three wetland parameters (i.e., hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soil, and wetland hydrology) (33 CFR 328.4).

The USACE may issue either individual permits on a case-by-case basis or general permits on a program level. General permits are pre-authorized and are issued to cover similar activities that are expected to cause only minimal adverse environmental effects. Nationwide permits are general permits issued to cover particular fill activities. All nationwide permits have general conditions that must be met for the permits to apply to a particular project, as well as specific conditions that apply to each nationwide permit.

Clean Water Act, Section 401
The Clean Water Act (§401) requires water quality certification and authorization for placement of dredged or fill material in wetlands and Other Waters of the United States. In accordance with the Clean Water Act (§401), criteria for allowable discharges into surface waters have been developed by the State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Water Quality. The resulting requirements are used as criteria in granting National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits or waivers, which are obtained through the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) per the Clean Water Act (§402).

Any activity or facility that will discharge waste (such as soils from construction) into surface waters, or from which waste may be discharged, must obtain an NPDES permit or waiver from the RWQCB. The RWQCB evaluates an NPDES permit application to determine whether the proposed discharge is consistent with the adopted water quality objectives of the basin plan.

State of California
California Endangered Species Act
The CESA is similar to the ESA but pertains to state-listed endangered and threatened species. The CESA requires state agencies to consult with the CDFW when preparing documents to comply with the CEQA.

The purpose is to ensure that the actions of the lead agency do not jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or result in the destruction, or adverse modification of habitat essential to the continued existence of those species. In addition to formal listing under the federal and state endangered species acts, “species of special concern” receive consideration by CDFW. Species of special concern are those whose numbers, reproductive success, or habitat may be threatened.

California Fish and Game Code (§3503.5)
The CFGC (§3503.5) states that it is “unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds in the order Falconiformes (hawks, eagles, and falcons) or Strigiformes (all owls except barn owls) or to take, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird except as otherwise provided by this code or any regulation adopted pursuant thereto.” Take includes the disturbance of an active nest resulting in the abandonment or loss of young. The CFGC (§3503) also states that “it is unlawful to take, possess, or needlessly destroy Packet Pg. 549 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Biological Resource Assessment September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative 24 The Peaks Single-Family Housing Development Project
Biological Resource Assessment (GE# 24-088)
the nest or eggs of any bird, except as otherwise provided by this code or any regulation made pursuant thereto.”
Rare and Endangered Plants
The CNPS maintains a list of plant species native to California with low population numbers, limited distribution, or otherwise threatened with extinction. This information is published in the Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California. Potential impacts to populations of CNPS California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) plants receive consideration under CEQA review. The CNPS CRPR categorizes plants as follows:
• Rank 1A: Plants presumed extinct in California;
• Rank 1B: Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California or elsewhere; • Rank 2A: Plants presumed extirpated or extinct in California, but not elsewhere; • Rank 2B: Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more numerous elsewhere; • Rank 3: Plants about which we need more information; and • Rank 4: Plants of limited distribution.

The California Native Plant Protection Act (CFGC §1900-1913) prohibits the taking, possessing, or sale within the state of any plants with a state designation of rare, threatened, or endangered as defined by CDFW. An exception to this prohibition allows landowners, under specific circumstances, to take listed plant species, provided that the owners first notify CDFW and give the agency at least 10 days to retrieve (and presumably replant) the plants and/or seeds before they are destroyed. Fish and game Code §1913 exempts from the ‘take’ prohibition “the removal of endangered or rare native plants from a canal, lateral channel, building site, or road, or other right of way.” Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement, CFGC (§1602)
The CDFW is a trustee agency that has jurisdiction under the CFGC (§1600 et seq.). The CFGC (§1602), requires that a state or local government agency, public utility, or private entity must notify CDFW if a proposed project will “substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow or substantially change the bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake designated by the department, or use any material from the streambeds… except when the department has been notified pursuant to Section 1601.” If an existing fish or wildlife resource may be substantially adversely affected by the activity, CDFW may propose reasonable measures that will allow protection of those resources. If these measures are agreeable to the parties involved, they may enter into an agreement with CDFW identifying the approved activities and associated mitigation measures.

California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines §15380
Although threatened and endangered species are protected by specific federal and state statutes, CEQA Guidelines §15380(d) provides that a species not listed on the federal or state list of protected species may be considered rare or endangered if the species can be shown to meet certain specified criteria.

These criteria have been modeled based on the definition in the ESA and the section of the CFGC dealing with rare, threatened, and endangered plants and animals. The CEQA Guidelines (§15380) allows a public agency to undertake a review to determine if a significant effect on species that have not yet been listed by either the USFWS or CDFW (e.g. candidate species, species of concern) would occur. Thus, CEQA Packet Pg. 550 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Biological Resource Assessment September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative 25 The Peaks Single-Family Housing Development Project
Biological Resource Assessment (GE# 24-088)
provides an agency with the ability to protect a species from a project’s potential impacts until the respective government agencies have an opportunity to designate the species as protected, if warranted.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Endangered, Threatened and Rare Plants
Henderson’s Bent Grass, Maverick Clover, Red Bluff Dwarf Rush, and Sulphur Creek Brodiaea Consistent with the City of Redding's Standard Conditions of Approval (COA) for Tentative Subdivision Maps, implement COA #35, with the following specifics. If impacts to the drainages present within the BSA are proposed, it is recommended that pre-construction CDFW protocol-level surveys be conducted during the appropriate survey windows (i.e., blooming periods) for Henderson’s bent grass, Maverick Clover, Red Bluff dwarf rush, and Sulphur Creek brodiaea by a qualified botanist to determine presence or absence within the BSA (See Table 1 for bloom periods (BP.)). If special-status botanical species are observed within the BSA, then avoidance and minimization measures that are recognized by CDFW shall be implemented based on the level of potential impacts. Minimization options recognized include:

1. The Project shall be designed to avoid or minimize impacts to areas where special-status botanical species occur and maintain protective elements such as fencing, open space or conservation easements, and/or buffer zones around suitable habitat where special-status botanical species occur prior to construction activities, and/or;

2. If the Project cannot completely avoid impacts to special-status botanical species, then consultation with the CDFW shall be conducted. As a result of consultation with CDFW, minimization measures may include collecting seeds and/or transplanting the impacted plants, or on-site and offsite compensation.

Endangered, Threatened, and Special-Status Wildlife
Crotch’s Bumble Bee
To avoid impacts to CBB, the following are recommended avoidance and minimization measures:
 Continue coordinating with CDFW on CBB survey efforts, including submitting the 2025 survey report. Based on the low likelihood of CBB presence and site-specific conditions, such as no documented occurrences within a 20-mile radius and no individuals observed during the initial survey, confirm whether CDFW recommends additional surveys.  If CBB or other species of bumble bees are observed during Project activities, allow the bumble bee to leave the work area under its own volition and notify a qualified biologist of the observation to determine appropriate avoidance measures.  If a CBB nest is discovered during surveys or construction activities, the qualified biologist shall establish a non-disturbance buffer around the suitable nesting habitat and CDFW should be consulted. No work shall occur within the buffer until the nest is confirmed to be inactive.

Packet Pg. 551 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Biological Resource Assessment September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative 26 The Peaks Single-Family Housing Development Project
Biological Resource Assessment (GE# 24-088)
 If CBB are discovered to be present at the site, then it is advised that a CESA incidental Take Permit (ITP) is obtained prior to construction activities occurring in the buffer area defined by the biologist in coordination with CDFW.

Monarch Butterfly
If, during the review of the project or the implementation of development of the project, monarch butterfly becomes listed under the Federal Endangered Species Act, the following are recommended avoidance and minimization measures to avoid impacts to monarch butterflies:
 Any vegetation removal/ground disturbing activities should be conducted between November 1 through March 15, when monarchs are not likely to be present.  If vegetation removal/ground disturbing activities cannot be conducted between November 1 through March 15, then a survey of milkweed shall be conducted, and protection buffers shall be established around the milkweed plants, as determined by a qualified biologist.  If a monarch butterfly is observed during Project activities, allow the monarch butterfly to leave the work area on its own accord.
 Occurrences of milkweed should be avoided to the greatest extent practicable.  Consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service shall be initiated. The results of the consultation efforts with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service shall be incorporated into the project activities, and any additional conditions adhered to.

Western Spadefoot
To avoid impacts to western spadefoot, the following are recommended avoidance and minimization measures:
 Prior to the start of construction, two (2) nighttime pre-construction surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist during and/or immediately following separate precipitation events that occur between October and May, when ponded water is present.  Should any life stage of western spadefoot be found within the Project site, CDFW shall be consulted prior to initiation of Project activities.
 If listed under the Federal ESA, and there is any life stage of western spadefoot toad found within the Project site, USFWS shall be consulted prior to initiation of Project activities.

Migratory Birds and Raptors
Consistent with the City of Redding's Standard Conditions of Approval (COA) for Tentative Subdivision Maps, implement COA #35, with the following specifics. To avoid impacts to avian species protected under the MBTA and the CFGC, project activities should occur outside of the typical nesting season (February 1 - August 31) whenever feasible. When work is planned to occur within the nesting season for migratory birds and raptors, the following are recommended avoidance and minimization measures to be implemented:
 If work is proposed during the nesting season, a pre-construction survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist within seven (7) days prior to the initiation of any site disturbing activities for Packet Pg. 552 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Biological Resource Assessment September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative 27 The Peaks Single-Family Housing Development Project
Biological Resource Assessment (GE# 24-088)
nesting birds and raptors within and within 500 feet, where accessible, of the BSA, followed by a results report.
o If an active nest is identified during the pre-construction survey, a non-disturbance buffer will be established by the qualified biologist, in consultation with CDFW and USFWS, to comply Fish and Game Code sections 3503 and 3503.5 and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. o The non-disturbance buffer defined by the qualified biologist will be established based on the species, nest type and tolerance to disturbance. Construction activity shall be prohibited within the buffer zones until the young have fledged, or the nest fails. Nests shall be monitored by a qualified biologist once per week; or more frequently as requested by CDFW or USFWS; and a nesting status report shall be submitted to the CEQA lead agency upon the nest status being deemed as inactive by the biologist.  If feasible, grubbing and vegetation removal should be initiated outside of the bird-nesting season (February 1 through August 31). If grubbing and vegetation removal cannot be initiated outside of the bird nesting season, then the following shall occur:
o A qualified biologist shall conduct a pre-construction survey within and within 500-feet of the BSA, where accessible, within seven (7) days prior to the start grubbing or vegetation removals, followed by a results report.
o All vegetation and grubbing shall be monitored by a qualified biologist to minimize impacts to nesting birds and other native wildlife.
 Removal or burning of slash piles should be initiated outside of the bird-nesting season (February 1 through August 31). If removal or burning of slash piles cannot be initiated outside of the bird nesting season, a qualified biologist shall conduct a survey of the slash piles for nesting birds within and within 500-feet, where accessible, of the slash pile, followed by a results report.

Removal and burning of slash piles shall not occur until a qualified biologist determines that there are no active nests within the piles
Pallid Bat and Western Red Bat
Consistent with the City of Redding's Standard Conditions of Approval (COA) for Tentative Subdivision Maps, implement COA #35, with the following specifics. To avoid impacts to bats, the following are recommended avoidance and minimization measures:
 Trees and/or snags with a greater than 12” DBH should be removed and/or fallen at dusk from September 1 through April 15 outside of the bat maternity season (mid-April to August) and when ambient temperatures are above 45 degrees Fahrenheit.  If tree removal cannot be performed outside of the maternity season, a qualified biologist shall conduct a bat habitat assessment (survey) of suitable roosting habitat within seven (7) days prior to tree removal activities, followed by a results report.  Trees greater than 12” DBH should be removed using a two-step tree removal process to allow roosting bats to evict the roost on their own prior to removal of the tree. A two-step tree removal process is conducted as follows:
o Day 1: Remove all limbs/branches that are void of any roosting bat habitat potential (cavities, crevices, or exfoliating bark) from the tree to create a change to the Packet Pg. 553 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Biological Resource Assessment September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative 28 The Peaks Single-Family Housing Development Project
Biological Resource Assessment (GE# 24-088)
microclimate within the tree that may be unappealing to bats roosting within the tree.

Additionally, remove small-diameter trees and brush in the area of the larger trees to create changes to the surrounding environment of the tree and to create noise and vibration to encourage bats to vacate the roost on their own. The tree shall be left for 24 hours to allow bats to vacate the roost. No heavy equipment shall be used on Day 1. Only hand tools (i.e. chainsaws, loppers, weed eaters, etc.) o Day 2: Remove the entire tree.
 A qualified bat biologist must be on-site during any alteration or disturbance to or in the area of an active bat roost.

Packet Pg. 554 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Biological Resource Assessment September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative 29 The Peaks Single-Family Housing Development Project
Biological Resource Assessment (GE# 24-088)

REFERENCES
Baldwin, B. G., D. H. Goldman, D. J. Keil, R. Patterson, T. J. Rosatti, and D. H. Wilken, editors. 2012. The Jepson Manual: vascular plants of California, second edition. University of California Press, Berkeley.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2018. Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities. State of California; California Natural Resources Agency.

California Native Plant Society, Rare Plant Program. 2024. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (online edition, v8-03 0.39). California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, California. [accessed 22 October 2024].

California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). 2024. Rarefind 5. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Sacramento, California [accessed 22 October 2024].

Gallaway Enterprises, Inc. August 2025. Crotch’s Bumble Bee Survey Report for the Peaks Single-Family Housing Development Project. Redding, Shasta County, California.

Gallaway Enterprises, Inc. August 2025. Milkweed Survey Report for the Peaks Single-Family Housing Development Project. Redding, Shasta County, California.

Gogol-Prokurat, Melanie. 2016. Shasta Salamander Range - CWHR A024 [ds1153]. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Biogeographic Information and Observation System (BIOS). Retrieved 22 October 2024 from https://apps.wildlife.ca.gov/bios/
Lewis, Susan. 1996. Low Roost-Site Fidelity in Pallid Bats: Associated Factors and Effect on Group Stability.

Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology Vol. 39, No. 5, pp. 335-344.

Mayer, K.E and W.F. Laudenslayer. 1988. A guide to Wildlife Habitats of California. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. Sacramento, California.

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2024. Species List for the “Redding” Quadrangle. [accessed 22 October 2024].

NMFS. 2024. Critical Habitat Protected Resources App. West Coast Region. Website:
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/resource/map/protected-resources-app [accessed 22 October 2024].

United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2024. Web Soil Survey.

Website https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm [accessed 22 October 2024].

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2024. Critical Habitat Mapper. Critical Habitat for Threatened & Endangered Species. Website:
https://www.arcgis.com/apps/mapviewer/index.html?url=https://services.arcgis.com/QVENGd aPbd4LUkLV/ArcGIS/rest/services/USFWS_Critical_Habitat/FeatureServer&source=sd [accessed 22 October 2024].

USFWS. 2024. USFWS Official Species List for The Peaks Subdivision – Redding, CA Project. USFWS, Information for Planning and Consultation. The Environmental Conservation Online System. [accessed 22 October 2024].

Packet Pg. 555 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Biological Resource Assessment September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative 30 The Peaks Single-Family Housing Development Project
Biological Resource Assessment (GE# 24-088)
Western Bat Working Group (WBWG). 2024. Western Bat Species Accounts. Available:
http://wbwg.org/western-bat-species [22 October 2024].

Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC). 2024. Period of Record Monthly Climate Summary for Redding Muni AP, California (047304). Available: http:// wrcc.dri.edu [22 October 2024].

Zeiner, D.C., W.F. Laudenslayer, Jr., K.E. Mayer, and M. White, eds. 1990. California's Wildlife. Vol. I-III.

California Depart. of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California.

Packet Pg. 556 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Biological Resource Assessment September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative 31 The Peaks Single-Family Housing Development Project
Biological Resource Assessment (GE# 24-088)

LIST OF PREPARERS
Nick Perazzo. Biologist. (B.S. in Fisheries and Wildlife Sciences, Oregon State University) has 4 years of experience working in biological field conducting hands on field surveys and assessments for anadromous salmonids, fish culture, data collection, and preparing technical documents and reports.

Cheryl Ballantyne. Botanist. (B.S. in Plant Science, University of California, Davis) has 10 years of experience conducting rare plant surveys, nesting bird surveys, and California red-legged frog and foothill yellow-legged frog surveys. She is experienced in preparing maps for Timber Harvest Plans and Mitigated Negative Declarations using ArcGIS 10.8 and ArcGIS Pro as well as conducting geospatial analysis for cumulative effects for Timber Harvest Plans.

Kaela Gamio. Biologist. (B.S. in Biological Sciences, Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo, CA). Her range of expertise encompasses survey, monitoring, and handling protocols for a variety of federal and state listed species, as well as bat acoustic monitoring and botanical surveys. In addition, she has field and husbandry experience in wildlife rehabilitation, captive rearing of northwestern pond turtles, wildlife monitoring, population management, species recovery efforts, invasive species management, and wildlife capture and handling.

Packet Pg. 557 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Biological Resource Assessment September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative A The Peaks Single
-Family Housing Development Project
Biological Resource Assessment (GE# 24-088)
Appendix A: Species Lists
Packet Pg. 558 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Biological Resource Assessment September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Species Element Code Federal Status State Status Global Rank State Rank Rare Plant
Rank/CDFW
SSC or FP
American bumble bee
Bombus pensylvanicus
IIHYM24260 None None G3G4 S2
Antioch Dunes anthicid beetle
Anthicus antiochensis
IICOL49020 None None G3 S3
bald eagle
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
ABNKC10010 Delisted Endangered G5 S3 FP
bank swallow
Riparia riparia
ABPAU08010 None Threatened G5 S3
California linderiella
Linderiella occidentalis
ICBRA06010 None None G2G3 S2S3
Canyon Creek stonecrop
Sedum paradisum ssp. paradisum
PDCRA0A0U3 None None G3G4T3 S3 1B.3
chinook salmon - Central Valley spring-run ESU
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha pop. 11
AFCHA0205L Threatened Threatened G5T2Q S2
chinook salmon - Sacramento River winter-run ESU
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha pop. 7
AFCHA0205B Endangered Endangered G5T2Q S2
Damnation Pass phacelia
Phacelia damnationensis
PDHYD0C750 None None G2 S2 1B.3
dubious pea
Lathyrus sulphureus var. argillaceus
PDFAB25101 None None G5T1T2Q S1S2 3
Fisher
Pekania pennanti
AMAJF01020 None None G5 S2S3 SSC
foothill yellow-legged frog - north coast DPS
Rana boylii pop. 1
AAABH01051 None None G3T4 S4 SSC
great egret
Ardea alba
ABNGA04040 None None G5 S4
Great Valley Cottonwood Riparian Forest
Great Valley Cottonwood Riparian Forest
CTT61410CA None None G2 S2.1
Great Valley Valley Oak Riparian Forest
Great Valley Valley Oak Riparian Forest
CTT61430CA None None G1 S1.1
Great Valley Willow Scrub
Great Valley Willow Scrub
CTT63410CA None None G3 S3.2
green sturgeon - southern DPS
Acipenser medirostris pop. 1
AFCAA01031 Threatened None G2T1 S1 SSC
hairy marsh hedge-nettle
Stachys pilosa
PDLAM1X1A0 None None G5 S3 2B.3
Henderson's bent grass
Agrostis hendersonii
PMPOA040K0 None None G2Q S2 3.2
Query Criteria: Quad IS (Whiskeytown (4012265) OR Shasta Dam (4012264) OR Project City (4012263) OR Igo (4012255) OR Redding (4012254) OR Enterprise (4012253) OR Ono (4012245) OR Olinda (4012244) OR Cottonwood (4012243)) Report Printed on Tuesday, September 02, 2025
Commercial Version -- Dated August, 31 2025 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 1 of 3 Information Expires 2/28/2026
Selected Elements by Common Name
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
Packet Pg. 559 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Biological Resource Assessment September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Species Element Code Federal Status State Status Global Rank State Rank Rare Plant
Rank/CDFW
SSC or FP
hoary bat
Lasiurus cinereus
AMACC05032 None None G3G4 S4
kneecap lanx
Lanx patelloides
IMGASL7030 None None G2? S2
Koch's cord moss
Entosthodon kochii
NBMUS2P050 None None G1 S1S2 1B.3
legenere
Legenere limosa
PDCAM0C010 None None G2 S2 1B.1
long-eared myotis
Myotis evotis
AMACC01070 None None G5 S3
maverick clover
Trifolium piorkowskii
PDFAB40410 None None G2 S2 1B.2
northern clarkia
Clarkia borealis ssp. borealis
PDONA05062 None None G3T4 S4 4.3
northwestern pond turtle
Actinemys marmorata
ARAAD02031 Proposed
Threatened
None G2 SNR SSC
Nuttall's ribbon-leaved pondweed
Potamogeton epihydrus
PMPOT03080 None None G5 S2S3 2B.2
Oregon shoulderband
Helminthoglypta hertleini
IMGASC2280 None None G3Q S1S2
osprey
Pandion haliaetus
ABNKC01010 None None G5 S4 WL
Pacific tailed frog
Ascaphus truei
AAABA01010 None None G4 S3S4 SSC
pallid bat
Antrozous pallidus
AMACC10010 None None G4 S3 SSC
pink creamsacs
Castilleja rubicundula var. rubicundula
PDSCR0D482 None None G5T2 S2 1B.2
Red Bluff dwarf rush
Juncus leiospermus var. leiospermus
PMJUN011L2 None None G2T2 S2 1B.1
Sacramento anthicid beetle
Anthicus sacramento
IICOL49010 None None G4 S4
Sanford's arrowhead
Sagittaria sanfordii
PMALI040Q0 None None G3 S3 1B.2
Shasta chaparral
Trilobopsis roperi
IMGASA2030 None None G2 S1
Shasta hesperian
Vespericola shasta
IMGASA4070 None None G3 S3
Shasta huckleberry
Vaccinium shastense ssp. shastense
PDERI181Z1 None None G4T3 S3 1B.3
Shasta salamander
Hydromantes shastae
AAAAD09030 None Threatened G3 S3
Report Printed on Tuesday, September 02, 2025
Commercial Version -- Dated August, 31 2025 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 2 of 3 Information Expires 2/28/2026
Selected Elements by Common Name
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
Packet Pg. 560 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Biological Resource Assessment September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Species Element Code Federal Status State Status Global Rank State Rank Rare Plant
Rank/CDFW
SSC or FP
Shasta snow-wreath
Neviusia cliftonii
PDROS14020 None Threatened G2 S2 1B.2
silky cryptantha
Cryptantha crinita
PDBOR0A0Q0 None None G2 S2 1B.2
silver-haired bat
Lasionycteris noctivagans
AMACC02010 None None G4 S3S4
slender Orcutt grass
Orcuttia tenuis
PMPOA4G050 Threatened Endangered G2 S2 1B.1
slender silver moss
Anomobryum julaceum
NBMUS80010 None None G5 S2 4.2
starry-tentacled bushmallow
Malacothamnus astrotentaculatus
PDMAL0Q0R0 None None G2 S2 1B.3
steelhead - Central Valley DPS
Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus pop. 11
AFCHA0209K Threatened None G5T2Q S2 SSC
Sulphur Creek brodiaea
Brodiaea matsonii
PMLIL0C0H0 None None G1 S1 1B.1
Townsend's big-eared bat
Corynorhinus townsendii
AMACC08010 None None G4 S2 SSC
tricolored blackbird
Agelaius tricolor
ABPBXB0020 None Threatened G1G2 S2 SSC
valley elderberry longhorn beetle
Desmocerus californicus dimorphus
IICOL48011 Threatened None G3T3 S3
vernal pool fairy shrimp
Branchinecta lynchi
ICBRA03030 Threatened None G3 S3
vernal pool tadpole shrimp
Lepidurus packardi
ICBRA10010 Endangered None G3 S3
Wawona riffle beetle
Atractelmis wawona
IICOL58010 None None G3 S1S2
western pearlshell
Margaritifera falcata
IMBIV27020 None None G3G4 S1S2
western red bat
Lasiurus frantzii
AMACC05080 None None G4 S3 SSC
western spadefoot
Spea hammondii
AAABF02020 Proposed
Threatened
None G2G3 S3S4 SSC
Wintu sideband
Monadenia troglodytes wintu
IMGASC7092 None None G2T2 S2
woolly meadowfoam
Limnanthes floccosa ssp. floccosa
PDLIM02043 None None G4T4 S3 4.2
Yuma myotis
Myotis yumanensis
AMACC01020 None None G5 S4
Record Count: 60
Report Printed on Tuesday, September 02, 2025
Commercial Version -- Dated August, 31 2025 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 3 of 3 Information Expires 2/28/2026
Selected Elements by Common Name
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
Packet Pg. 561 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Biological Resource Assessment September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Search Results
CNPS Rare Plant Inventory
35 matches found. Click on scientific name for details
Search Criteria: 9-Quad include [4012243:4012253:4012264:4012255:4012244:4012245:4012263:4012254:4012265] SCIENTIFIC NAME ▲ COMMON NAME FAMILY LIFEFORM

BLOOMING
PERIOD
FED
LIST
STATE
LIST

CA RARE
PLANT
RANK
Wolffia brasiliensis Brazilian watermeal Araceae perennial herb (aquatic) Apr-Dec None None 2B.3 Leptosiphon latisectus broad-lobed
leptosiphon
Polemoniaceae annual herb Apr-Jun None None 4.3
Sedum paradisum ssp.
paradisum
Canyon Creek
stonecrop
Crassulaceae perennial herb May-Jun None None 1B.3
Eriogonum congdonii Congdon's buckwheat Polygonaceae perennial deciduous shrub
(May)JunAug(Sep)None None 4.3
Phacelia damnationensis Damnation Pass
phacelia
Hydrophyllaceae perennial herb Jun-Sep None None 1B.3
Astragalus pauperculus depauperate milkvetchFabaceae annual herb Mar-Jun None None 4.3 Lathyrus sulphureus var.
argillaceus
dubious pea Fabaceae perennial herb Apr-May None None 3 Stachys pilosa hairy marsh hedgenettleLamiaceae perennial rhizomatous herb
Jun-Aug None None 2B.3
Agrostis hendersonii Henderson's bent
grass
Poaceae annual herb Apr-Jun None None 3.2
Entosthodon kochii Koch's cord moss Funariaceae moss None None 1B.3 Legenere limosa legenere Campanulaceae annual herb Apr-Jun None None 1B.1 Arctostaphylos malloryi Mallory's manzanita Ericaceae perennial evergreen shrub
Apr-Jul None None 4.3
Trifolium piorkowskii maverick clover Fabaceae annual herb Apr-May None None 1B.2 Clarkia borealis ssp.
borealis
northern clarkia Onagraceae annual herb Jun-Sep None None 4.3 Potamogeton epihydrus Nuttall's ribbon-leaved
pondweed
Potamogetonaceae perennial rhizomatous
herb (aquatic)
(Jun)Jul-Sep None None 2B.2
Viburnum ellipticum oval-leaved viburnum Viburnaceae perennial deciduous shrub
May-Jun None None 2B.3
Castilleja rubicundula var.
rubicundula
pink creamsacs Orobanchaceae annual herb
(hemiparasitic)
Apr-Jun None None 1B.2
Juncus leiospermus var.
leiospermus
Red Bluff dwarf rush Juncaceae annual herb Mar-Jun None None 1B.1 Packet Pg. 562 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Biological Resource Assessment September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision Map Application S-2025-00613) Sidalcea celata Redding
checkerbloom
Malvaceae perennial herb Apr-Aug None None 3
Allium sanbornii var.
sanbornii
Sanborn's onion Alliaceae perennial bulbiferous
herb
May-Sep None None 4.2
Sagittaria sanfordii Sanford's arrowhead Alismataceae perennial rhizomatous herb (emergent)
May-Oct(Nov) None None 1B.2
Arnica venosa Shasta County arnica Asteraceae perennial rhizomatous herb
May-Jul(Sep) None None 4.2
Vaccinium shastense ssp.
shastense
Shasta huckleberry Ericaceae perennial deciduous
shrub
(Jun-Sep)DecMayNone None 1B.3
Adiantum shastense Shasta maidenhair
fern
Pteridaceae perennial herb Apr-Aug None None 4.3
Neviusia cliftonii Shasta snow-wreath Rosaceae perennial deciduous shrub
Apr-Jun None CT 1B.2
Erythranthe glaucescens shield-bracted
monkeyflower
Phrymaceae annual herb Feb-Aug(Sep) None None 4.3
Cryptantha crinita silky cryptantha Boraginaceae annual herb Apr-May None None 1B.2 Iris bracteata Siskiyou iris Iridaceae perennial rhizomatous herb
May-Jun None None 3.3
Orcuttia tenuis slender Orcutt grass Poaceae annual herb May-Sep(Oct) FT CE 1B.1 Anomobryum julaceum slender silver moss Bryaceae moss None None 4.2 Malacothamnus
astrotentaculatus
starry-tentacled
bushmallow
Malvaceae perennial deciduous
shrub
Jun-Jul(AugSep)None None 1B.3
Brodiaea matsonii Sulphur Creek
brodiaea
Themidaceae perennial bulbiferous
herb
May-Jun None None 1B.1
Bulbostylis capillaris thread-leaved
beakseed
Cyperaceae annual herb Jun-Aug None None 4.2
Eriogonum tripodum tripod buckwheat Polygonaceae perennial deciduous shrub
May-Jul None None 4.2
Limnanthes floccosa ssp.
floccosa
woolly meadowfoam Limnanthaceae annual herb Mar-May(Jun) None None 4.2 Showing 1 to 35 of 35 entries
Suggested Citation:

California Native Plant Society, Rare Plant Program. 2024. Rare Plant Inventory (online edition, v9.5). Website https://www.rareplants.cnps.org [accessed 22 October 2024].

Packet Pg. 563 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Biological Resource Assessment September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision Map Application S-2025-00613) 10/22/2024 16:47:34 UTC
United States Department of the Interior

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Sacramento Fish And Wildlife Office
Federal Building
2800 Cottage Way, Room W-2605
Sacramento, CA 95825-1846
Phone: (916) 414-6600 Fax: (916) 414-6713
In Reply Refer To:

Project Code: 2025-0009321
Project Name: The Peaks Subdivision - Redding, CA
Subject: List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project location or may be affected by your proposed project
To Whom It May Concern:

The enclosed species list identifies threatened, endangered, proposed and candidate species, as well as proposed and final designated critical habitat, that may occur within the boundary of your proposed project and/or may be affected by your proposed project. The species list fulfills the requirements of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) under section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

New information based on updated surveys, changes in the abundance and distribution of species, changed habitat conditions, or other factors could change this list. Please feel free to contact us if you need more current information or assistance regarding the potential impacts to federally proposed, listed, and candidate species and federally designated and proposed critical habitat. Please note that under 50 CFR 402.12(e) of the regulations implementing section 7 of the Act, the accuracy of this species list should be verified after 90 days. This verification can be completed formally or informally as desired. The Service recommends that verification be completed by visiting the IPaC website at regular intervals during project planning and implementation for updates to species lists and information. An updated list may be requested through the IPaC system by completing the same process used to receive the enclosed list.

The purpose of the Act is to provide a means whereby threatened and endangered species and the ecosystems upon which they depend may be conserved. Under sections 7(a)(1) and 7(a)(2) of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 402 et seq.), Federal agencies are required to utilize their authorities to carry out programs for the conservation of threatened and endangered species and to determine whether projects may affect threatened and endangered species and/or designated critical habitat.

A Biological Assessment is required for construction projects (or other undertakings having similar physical impacts) that are major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment as defined in the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2) Packet Pg. 564 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Biological Resource Assessment September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Project code: 2025-0009321 10/22/2024 16:47:34 UTC
2 of 7
(c)). For projects other than major construction activities, the Service suggests that a biological evaluation similar to a Biological Assessment be prepared to determine whether the project may affect listed or proposed species and/or designated or proposed critical habitat. Recommended contents of a Biological Assessment are described at 50 CFR 402.12.

If a Federal agency determines, based on the Biological Assessment or biological evaluation, that listed species and/or designated critical habitat may be affected by the proposed project, the agency is required to consult with the Service pursuant to 50 CFR 402. In addition, the Service recommends that candidate species, proposed species and proposed critical habitat be addressed within the consultation. More information on the regulations and procedures for section 7 consultation, including the role of permit or license applicants, can be found in the "Endangered Species Consultation Handbook" at:
https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/endangered-species-consultationhandbook.pdf Migratory Birds: In addition to responsibilities to protect threatened and endangered species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), there are additional responsibilities under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) to protect native birds from project-related impacts. Any activity, intentional or unintentional, resulting in take of migratory birds, including eagles, is prohibited unless otherwise permitted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (50 C.F.R. Sec. 10.12 and 16 U.S.C. Sec. 668(a)). For more information regarding these Acts, see https://www.fws.gov/program/migratory-bird-permit/whatwe-do.

The MBTA has no provision for allowing take of migratory birds that may be unintentionally killed or injured by otherwise lawful activities. It is the responsibility of the project proponent to comply with these Acts by identifying potential impacts to migratory birds and eagles within applicable NEPA documents (when there is a federal nexus) or a Bird/Eagle Conservation Plan (when there is no federal nexus). Proponents should implement conservation measures to avoid or minimize the production of project-related stressors or minimize the exposure of birds and their resources to the project-related stressors. For more information on avian stressors and recommended conservation measures, see https://www.fws.gov/library/collections/threats-birds.

In addition to MBTA and BGEPA, Executive Order 13186: Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds, obligates all Federal agencies that engage in or authorize activities that might affect migratory birds, to minimize those effects and encourage conservation measures that will improve bird populations. Executive Order 13186 provides for the protection of both migratory birds and migratory bird habitat. For information regarding the implementation of Executive Order 13186, please visit https://www.fws.gov/partner/council-conservationmigratory-birds.

We appreciate your concern for threatened and endangered species. The Service encourages Federal agencies to include conservation of threatened and endangered species into their project planning to further the purposes of the Act. Please include the Consultation Code in the header of this letter with any request for consultation or correspondence about your project that you submit to our office.

Packet Pg. 565 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Biological Resource Assessment September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Project code: 2025-0009321 10/22/2024 16:47:34 UTC
3 of 7
▪
Attachment(s):

Official Species List

OFFICIAL SPECIES LIST
This list is provided pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and fulfills the requirement for Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary of the Interior information whether any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of a proposed action".

This species list is provided by:

Sacramento Fish And Wildlife Office
Federal Building
2800 Cottage Way, Room W-2605
Sacramento, CA 95825-1846
(916) 414-6600
Packet Pg. 566 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Biological Resource Assessment September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Project code: 2025-0009321 10/22/2024 16:47:34 UTC
4 of 7

PROJECT SUMMARY
Project Code: 2025-0009321
Project Name: The Peaks Subdivision - Redding, CA
Project Type: Residential Construction
Project Description: Subdivision development
Project Location:

The approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps: https:// www.google.com/maps/@40.6103517,-122.42621821788698,14z Counties: Shasta County, California
Packet Pg. 567 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Biological Resource Assessment September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Project code: 2025-0009321 10/22/2024 16:47:34 UTC
5 of 7

1. ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT SPECIES
There is a total of 7 threatened, endangered, or candidate species on this species list.

Species on this list should be considered in an effects analysis for your project and could include species that exist in another geographic area. For example, certain fish may appear on the species list because a project could affect downstream species.

IPaC does not display listed species or critical habitats under the sole jurisdiction of NOAA Fisheries , as USFWS does not have the authority to speak on behalf of NOAA and the Department of Commerce.

See the "Critical habitats" section below for those critical habitats that lie wholly or partially within your project area under this office's jurisdiction. Please contact the designated FWS office if you have questions.

NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of Commerce.
1 Packet Pg. 568 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Biological Resource Assessment September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Project code: 2025-0009321 10/22/2024 16:47:34 UTC
6 of 7
BIRDS

NAME STATUS
Northern Spotted Owl Strix occidentalis caurina
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1123
Threatened

REPTILES

NAME STATUS
Northwestern Pond Turtle Actinemys marmorata
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1111
Proposed
Threatened

AMPHIBIANS

NAME STATUS
Western Spadefoot Spea hammondii
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5425
Proposed
Threatened

INSECTS

NAME STATUS
Monarch Butterfly Danaus plexippus
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9743
Candidate
Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle Desmocerus californicus dimorphus There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/7850
Threatened

CRUSTACEANS

NAME STATUS
Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp Branchinecta lynchi
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/498
Threatened
Vernal Pool Tadpole Shrimp Lepidurus packardi
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2246
Endangered

CRITICAL HABITATS

THERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS WITHIN YOUR PROJECT AREA UNDER THIS OFFICE'S JURISDICTION.

YOU ARE STILL REQUIRED TO DETERMINE IF YOUR PROJECT(S) MAY HAVE EFFECTS ON ALL ABOVE LISTED SPECIES.

Packet Pg. 569 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Biological Resource Assessment September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Project code: 2025-0009321 10/22/2024 16:47:34 UTC
7 of 7

IPAC USER CONTACT INFORMATION
Agency: Private Entity
Name: Nick Perazzo
Address: 117 Meyers Street
Address Line 2: Suite 120
City: Chico
State: CA
Zip: 95928
Email [email protected]
Phone: 5303329909
Packet Pg. 570 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Biological Resource Assessment September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative 1 Nicholas Perazzo
To: [email protected]
Subject: The Peaks Subdivision - Redding, CA
Quad Name Redding
Quad Number 40122
-E4
ESA Anadromous Fish
SONCC Coho ESU (T) -
CCC Coho ESU (E) -
CC Chinook Salmon ESU (T) -
CVSR Chinook Salmon ESU (T) -
X
SRWR Chinook Salmon ESU (E) -
X
NC Steelhead DPS (T) -
CCC Steelhead DPS (T) -
SCCC Steelhead DPS (T) -
SC Steelhead DPS (E) -
CCV Steelhead DPS (T) -
X
Eulachon (T) -
sDPS Green Sturgeon (T) -
X
ESA Anadromous Fish Critical Habitat
SONCC Coho Critical Habitat -
CCC Coho Critical Habitat -
CC Chinook Salmon Critical Habitat -
CVSR Chinook Salmon Critical Habitat -
X
SRWR Chinook Salmon Critical Habitat -
X
NC Steelhead Critical Habitat -
CCC Steelhead Critical Habitat -
SCCC Steelhead Critical Habitat -
SC Steelhead Critical Habitat -
CCV Steelhead Critical Habitat -
X
Eulachon Critical Habitat -
sDPS Green Sturgeon Critical Habitat -
X
ESA Marine Invertebrates
Range Black Abalone (E) -
Packet Pg. 571 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Biological Resource Assessment September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative 2 Range White Abalone (E) -
ESA Marine Invertebrates Critical Habitat
Black Abalone Critical Habitat -
ESA Sea Turtles
East Pacific Green Sea Turtle (T) -
Olive Ridley Sea Turtle (T/E) -
Leatherback Sea Turtle (E) -
North Pacific Loggerhead Sea Turtle (E) -
ESA Whales
Blue Whale (E) -
Fin Whale (E) -
Humpback Whale (E) -
Southern Resident Killer Whale (E) -
North Pacific Right Whale (E) -
Sei Whale (E) -
Sperm Whale (E) -
ESA Pinnipeds
Guadalupe Fur Seal (T) -
Steller Sea Lion Critical Habitat -
Essential Fish Habitat
Coho EFH -
Chinook Salmon EFH -
X
Groundfish EFH -
Coastal Pelagics EFH -
Highly Migratory Species EFH -
MMPA Species (See list at left)
ESA and MMPA Cetaceans/Pinnipeds
See list at left and consult the NMFS Long Beach office 562-980-4000
MMPA Cetaceans -
MMPA Pinnipeds -
Packet Pg. 572 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Biological Resource Assessment September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative 3 Packet Pg. 573 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Biological Resource Assessment September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative B The Peaks Single
-Family Housing Development Project
Biological Resource Assessment (GE# 24-088)
Appendix B: Observed Species
Packet Pg. 574 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Biological Resource Assessment September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Scientific Name Common Name
Aphelocoma californica California scrub jay
Buteo jamaicensis Red-tailed hawk
Callipepla californica California quail
Cathartes aura Turkey Vulture
Catharus guttatus Hermit thrush
Colaptes auratus Northern flicker
Corixidae Water boatman
Corvus brachyrhynchos American crow
Corvus corax Common raven
Falco sparverius American kestrel
Haemorhous mexicanus House finch
Melanerpes formicivorus Acorn woodpecker
Melospiza melodia Song sparrow
Melozone crissalis California towhee
Odocoileus hemionus columbianus Black-tailed deer
Picoides nuttallii Nuttall's woodpecker
Pipilo maculatus Spotted towhee
Psaltriparus minimus American bushtit
Pseudacris regilla Pacific chorus frog
Sayornis saya Say's phoebe
Sceloporus occidentalis Western fence lizard
Setophaga coronata Yellow-rumped warbler
Sialia mexicana Western bluebird
Streptopelia decaocto Eurasian collared dove
Sturnus vulgaris Common starling
Thamnophis sirtalis fitchi Valley gartersnake
Thryomanes bewickii Bewick's wren
Turdus migratorius American robin
Zonotrichia albicollis White-throated sparrow
Zonotrichia atricapilla Golden-crowned sparrow
Zonotrichia leucophrys White-crowned sparrow
Observed Wildlife List at The Peaks Subdivision Project on October 24, 28, 2024 and September 17,2025
Packet Pg. 575 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Biological Resource Assessment September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Scientific Name: Common Name:

Acmispon americanus American bird's foot trefoil
Aegilops triuncialis Goatgrass
Alopecurus saccatus Pacific foxtail
Amaranthus alba Tumbleweed
Ammania coccinea Valley redstem
Asclepsia speciosa Showy milkweed
Avena sp. Wild oats
Bellardia viscosa Yellow glandweed
Brassica nigra Black mustard
Briza maxima Rattlesnake grass
Brodiaea elegans Harvest brodiaea
Bromus diandrus Ripgut brome
Bromus hordeaceus Soft chess
Bromus rubens Red brome
Centaurea solstitialis Yellow starthistle
Centaurium tenuiflorum Slender centaury
Centromadia fitchii Spikeweed
Cercis occidentalis Redbud
Chenopodium album Lamb's quarters
Chlorogalum pomeridianum Soap plant
Cirsium vulgare Bullthistle
Convovulus arvensis Field bindweed
Croton setiger Turkey mullein
Cynosurus echinatus Dogtail grass
Cyperus eragrostis Tall nutsedge
Dittrichia graveolens Stinkwort
Elymus caput-medusae Medusa head
Eriodictyon californicum Yerba santa
Erodium botrys Long-beaked stork's-bill
Eryngium castrense Great valley button celery
Festuca perennis Italian rye grass
Frangula californica California coffeeberry
Frasera albicaulis Whitestem frasera
Grindelia sp. Gumweed
Heliotropium europaeum European heliotrope
Heteromeles arbutifolia Toyon
Hordeum murinum Foxtail barley
Hypericum perforatum Klamathweed
Juncus bufonius Common toad rush
Juncus effusus Common rush
Juncus xiphioides Iris leaf rush
Lactuca serriola Prickly lettuce
Lupinus sp. Lupine
Lysimachia arvensis Scarlet pimpernel
The Peaks observed species 6/4,6/5 and 9/17/2025
Packet Pg. 576 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Biological Resource Assessment September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Lythrum hyssopifolia Hyssop loosestrife
Madia elegans Common madia
Medicago polymorpha California burclover
Mentha pulegium Pennyroyal
Micropus californicus Q tips
Polypogon monspeliensis Annual rabbitsfoot grass
Pseudognaphalium beneolens Cudweed
Quercus douglasii Blue oak
Quercus wislizeni Interior live oak
Ranunculus muricatus Buttercup
Raphanus raphanistrum Wild radish
Rubus armeniacus Himalayan blackberry
Rumex crispus Curly dock
Sonchus asper Spiny sowthistle
Spartium junceum Spanish broom
Spiranthes porrifolia Western ladies tresses
Stachys sp Stachys
Toxicodendron diversilobum Poison oak
Trichostema lanceolatum Vinegarweed
Triadica sebifera Chinese tallowtree
Tribulus terrestris Punture vine
Typha angustifolia Narrow leaf cattail
Trifolium hirtum Rose clover
Vicia americanus American vetch
Packet Pg. 577 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Biological Resource Assessment September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative C The Peaks Single
-Family Housing Development Project
Biological Resource Assessment (GE# 24-088)
Appendix C: Site Photos
Packet Pg. 578 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Biological Resource Assessment September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Site Photos
Taken: October 24 & 28, 2024
Biological Survey Area (BSA), facing north.
(40.606556, -122.424981)
Intermittent drainage flowing south to north into the BSA from the southern boundary, facing south. (40.606903, -122.424269) Annual grassland habitat within the BSA, facing south.
(40.613553, -122.424667)
Blue Oak-Foothill Pine habitat within the BSA, facing west. (40.611822, -122.425033)
Barren habitat, present in the form of a graded gravel road, dividing Blue Oak-Foothill Pine habitat at the southern portion of the BSA, facing east. (40.607006, -122.424156)
Transmission corridor clearing areas around high-voltage transmission lines exhibit annual grassland habitat features through the BSA, facing north. (40.609219, -122.424706) Packet Pg. 579 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Biological Resource Assessment September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative (40.611597, -122.421494) (40.612178, -122.422189)
Valley Foothill Riparian habitat is found along the Riverine habitat within the BSA, providing wildlife denser vegetation cover and water.
(40.607153, -122.423781) (40.610869, -122.421967)
Mammal burrows abundant throughout the BSA providing suitable habitat for special-status species including Crotch’s bumble bee (CBB) and western spadefoot.

Packet Pg. 580 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Biological Resource Assessment September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative (40.607261, -122.423972) (40.607411, -122.421989)
Snags provide suitable day-roosting habitat for a variety of bat species within the BSA, including special-status species like pallid bat and western red bat.
(40.607656, -122.422417) (40.607681, -122.422408)
Natural holding basins, located along the Riverine habitat within the BSA, provide suitable aquatic resources that can be utlized as oviposition sites for a variety of amphibian species, including special status species like western spadefoot.

Packet Pg. 581 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Biological Resource Assessment September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Red-tailed hawk observed utilizing the BSA for foraging. (40.608733, -122.428886)
Valley gartersnake observed within the BSA.
(40.609958, -122.424817)
Well-established avian nest observed within a piece of scrap metal tangled in a burned oak tree within the BSA.
(40.608322, -122.430406)
Location of avian nest present within piece of scrap metal in a burned oak tree within the BSA. (40.608342, -122.430406) Well-established avian nest within an oak tree in the northeast section of the BSA. (40.613756, -122.423011)
Uncovered wasp nest from mammal burrow within the BSA.
(40.610703, -122.421928)
Packet Pg. 582 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Biological Resource Assessment September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Riverine habitat with flow along eastern boundary, facing southeast. (40.610614, -122.421669)
BSA along Buenaventura Blvd, facing north.
(40.607536, -122.432272)
Packet Pg. 583 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Biological Resource Assessment September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative i The Peaks Single-Family Housing Development Project
Draft Delineation of Aquatic Resources (GE# 24-088)

DRAFT DELINEATION OF AQUATIC RESOURCES
The Peaks Single-Family Housing Development Project
City of Redding, California
September 2025
Prepared for:

Russ Wenham, PE, TE, PTOE
Project Director, GHD
330 Hartnell Avenue, Suite B
Redding, CA 96002 USA
Prepared by:

Gallaway Enterprises
117 Meyers Street, Suite 120
Chico CA 95928
530-332-9909
www.gallawayenterprises.com
Packet Pg. 584 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Draft Aquatic Delineation September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision ii The Peaks Single-Family Housing Development Project
Draft Delineation of Aquatic Resources (GE# 24-088)

CONTENTS
Introduction and Project Location ................................................................................................................ 1 Environmental Setting and Site Conditions............................................................................................ 1 Survey Methodology..................................................................................................................................... 2 Determination of Hydrophytic Vegetation............................................................................................. 6 Determination of Hydric Soils ................................................................................................................ 6 Determination of Wetland Hydrology.................................................................................................... 6 Determination of Ordinary High-Water Mark........................................................................................ 7 Determination of Wetland Boundaries in Difficult Wetland Situations................................................. 7 Aquatic Resource Boundary Determination and Acreage Calculation................................................... 7 Results........................................................................................................................................................... 8 Waters of the United States: Other Waters........................................................................................... 8 Waters of the United States: Wetlands.................................................................................................. 8 Soils ......................................................................................................................................................... 8 Hydrology ............................................................................................................................................... 9 Site Photos........................................................................................................................................... 11 References.................................................................................................................................................. 22

FIGURES
Figure 1. Regional Location Map................................................................................................................... 3 Figure 2. Survey Area Map............................................................................................................................ 4 Figure 3. Ground Photograph Map............................................................................................................... 5 TABLES
Table 1. Soil Map Units, NRCS hydric soil designation, and approximate totals.......................................... 9

APPENDICES
Appendix A: Wetland Delineation Data Sheets
Appendix B: Ordinary High Water Mark Data Sheet
Appendix C: NRCS Soils Map and Soil Series Description
Appendix D: Draft Delineation of Aquatic Resources Maps Appendix E: Draft Delineation of Aquatic Resources Table Packet Pg. 585 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Draft Aquatic Delineation September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision 1 The Peaks Single-Family Housing Development Project
Draft Delineation of Aquatic Resources (GE# 24-088)

DRAFT DELINEATION OF AQUATIC RESOURCES
The Peaks Single-Family Housing Development Project
City of Redding, CA
Introduction and Project Location
Gallaway Enterprises conducted a Delineation of Aquatic Resources including waters of the United States (WOTUS) for the Peaks Single-Family Housing Development Project (Project), City of Redding, Shasta County, California. The Survey Area (SA, Site) is approximately 149.73 acres, which includes the 114-acre Project site, 1.26 acres of proposed off-site improvements, and additional off-site areas along Buenaventura Boulevard and Quartz Hill Road that were conservatively evaluated as potential infrastructure improvement areas (Figure 1 and Figure 2). The Survey Area is located east of Keswick dam, between Quartz Hill Road and Buenaventura Boulevard, and is primarily characterized by annual grassland and blue oak pine habitat.

A survey of WOTUS was conducted on September 5, 10, 2024, August 13, and September 17, 2025. Data regarding the location and extent of waters of the United States and other aquatic resources were collected using a Trimble Geo Explorer 6000 Series GPS Receiver. The survey involved an examination of botanical resources, soils, hydrological features, and determination of wetland characteristics based on the United States Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (1987) (1987 Delineation Manual); the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (2008) (Arid West Manual); the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Jurisdictional Determination Form Instructional Guidebook (2007); the Field Guide to the Identification of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in the Arid West Region of the Western United States (2008), and the 2020 Arid West Regional Wetland Plant List and the 2020 National Wetland Plant List. In addition, the South Pacific Division Regulatory Program Wetlands Determination and Delineation Procedures for Irrigated Lands (2012) was also used in preparing this report. Gallaway Enterprises has prepared this report in compliance with the Minimum Standards for Acceptance of Aquatic Resources Delineation Reports (January 2016). The purpose of this report is to document and describe potential waters of the United States to support a Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination from the US Arny Corps of Engineers (USACE). This delineation is subject to verification by USACE- Sacramento District. If USACE wishes to conduct a field verification, the City of Redding requests that USACE contact Amber Kelley by telephone at (530) 225-4046 or by email at [email protected] to schedule a date and time to access the study area.

Environmental Setting and Site Conditions
The SA is located in the northwestern portion of the City of Redding, latitude 40.607026, longitude - 122.421663, within the United States Geological Survey (USGS) “Redding” quadrangle, Section 22 Township 32 north and Range 05 west. It is bound by Spinnaker Drive to the east, Quartz Hill Road to the north, Buenaventura Road to the west, and Keel Court to the south. The SA’s elevation ranges from approximately 665 feet to 800 feet, with an average of 725 feet above sea level. Surrounding land uses consist primarily of subdivisions and barren land along Quartz Hill Road The SA’s topography consists of hills, drainages, and ridge tops, and is predominately comprised of oak woodland and annual grassland vegetation. Large volcanic rocks punctuate the landscape. Unnamed ephemeral and intermittent drainages occur throughout the SA flowing west to east. A drainage enters Packet Pg. 586 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Draft Aquatic Delineation September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision 2 The Peaks Single-Family Housing Development Project
Draft Delineation of Aquatic Resources (GE# 24-088)
on the southern boundary from the southwest, along Keel Court, and flows to the east. Evidence of drainages occur during the spring and winter months. Overhead transmission lines, near the southern and northern borders, span the SA. Evidence of pedestrian/vehicular trails, most likely of maintenance or recreational use, occur in proximity to the transmission lines and parallel to some drainage features.

Historically, the Site has experienced wildfires, most notably the Carr Fire in 2018.

Survey Methodology
The entire SA was surveyed on-foot by Gallaway Enterprises staff on September 5, 10, 11, November 4, 2024,August 13, and September 17, 2025, to identify any potentially jurisdictional features. Gallaway Enterprises staff, Cheryl Ballantyne and consulting botanist Elena Gregg conducted the field work. The survey, mapping efforts, and report production were performed according to the current valid legal definitions of WOTUS in effect on September 5, 2024. The boundaries of non-tidal, non-wetland waters, when present, at the ordinary high-water mark (OHWM) as defined in 33 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 328.3. The OHWM represents the limit of United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) jurisdiction over non-tidal waters (e.g., streams and ponds) in the absence of adjacent wetlands (33 CFR 328.04) (Curtis, et. al. 2011). Historic aerial photographs available on Google Earth were analyzed prior to conducting the field visit. Areas identified as having potential wetland or unusual aerial signatures were assessed in the field to determine the current conditions.

Wetland perimeters based on the 1987 Delineation Manual and the Arid West Manual were mapped and defined according to their topographic and hydrologic orientation throughout the entire SA. Sample point data was then gathered using the transect method outlined in the Corps 1987 Delineation Manual. Three transects were established within the SA perpendicular to the main drainage and field data was recorded for the wetland features that intercepted the transect lines. The field data was entered onto data sheets using the most current format (Appendix A). Paired sample points were established for each intercepted wetland and the corresponding upland zone. In addition, test pit sampling was performed and/or photographs were taken in areas displaying potential wetland signatures on aerial photographs and depressional topography. At each sampling point/test pit the data collected involved physical sampling of soils, recording dominant vegetation, and investigation regarding wetland hydrology indicators and hydrological connectivity. Only areas exhibiting the necessary wetland parameters according to the 1987 Delineation Manual and Arid West Manual on the date surveyed were mapped as wetlands. Photographs were taken to show wetland features, test pit areas, and/or areas identified as having unusual aerial signatures. The locations of the photo points are depicted in Figure 3 and the associated photographs are provided at the end of the report.

Many of the terms used throughout this report have specific meanings relating to the federal wetland delineation process. Term definitions are based on the Corps 1987 Delineation Manual; the Arid West Manual; Field Guide to the Identification of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in the Arid West Region of the Western United States, (Lichvar and McColley 2008), the March 20, 2023 Revised Definition of “Waters of the United States” published in the Federal Register, Vol.88, No. 11 (2023 WOTUS Rule), and the September 8, 2023 Revised Definition of “Waters of the United States”; Conforming (2023 Conforming Rule) as published in the Federal Register (Vol. 88, No. 173). The terms defined below have specific meaning relating to the delineation of WOTUS as prescribed by §404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and described in 33 CFR Part 328 and 40 CFR Parts 110, 112, and 116, and 122.

Packet Pg. 587 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Draft Aquatic Delineation September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision 0 0.25 0.5 Miles
1:24,000
Data Sources: ESRI, OpenStreetMap,GHD
The Peaks Subdivision
Regional Location
Figure 1
Survey Area - (149.73 acres)
Project Location
M GE: #24-088 Map Date: 09/17/2025
USGS 7.5' Quad: Redding
T32N R05W
Section 21,22,23,27,28
UTM Zone 10
Project Location
Packet Pg. 588 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Draft Aquatic Delineation September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision 0 500 1,000 Feet
1:15,000
Data Sources: ESRI, Maxar 04/25/2023,GHD
The Peaks Subdivision
Survey Area
Figure 2
Survey Area - (149.73 acres)

40.606355,
-122.421688

40.614218,
-122.426130
1 inch = 1,250 feet
M GE: #24-088 Map Date: 09/17/2025 Quartz hill Rd. Buenaventura Blvd.

Packet Pg. 589 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Draft Aquatic Delineation September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision Èâ
Èâ
âÈ
âÈ
Èâ âÈ
â
âÈ
â
ÈâÈ
È
âÈ
âÈ
â
È
È
â
âÈÈ
â
Èâ
Èâ
Èâ
Èâ
Èâ
Èâ
âÈ
âÈ
âÈ
Èâ
Èâ
âÈ
P16
P31
P30
P29
P15
P27
P26
P24
P23
P20
P17 P18
P14
P12
P13
P11 P10
P09
P08
P05
P03
P02
P32
0 200 400 Feet
1:10,000
Data Sources: ESRI, NAIP 2022,GHD
The Peaks Subdivision
Ground Photographs
Figure 3
Survey Area - (149.73 acres)
Èâ Photo Point - P#
1 inch = 833 feet M GE: #24-088 Map Date: 09/17/2025

40.606357,
-122.421651

40.614247,
-122.426167
Èâ
âÈ
âÈ
Èâ
âÈ
Èâ
âÈ
âÈ
Èâ
âÈ
âÈ
P30
P14
P12
P13
P11
P10
P09
âÈ
Èâ
âÈ
Èâ
â
Èâ
È
Èâ
Èâ
âÈ
Èâ
P18
P17
P16
P15
P26
Detail
Detail
Label Direction Latitude Longitude Comments
P02 SE 40.61009 -122.4255331 Looking souteast at OW13
P03 NW 40.613358 -122.425453 Looking northeast at OW22
P05 W 40.607511 -122.4219247 Looking west at OW1
P08 S 40.609941 -122.4215551 Looking south at OW11
P09 E 40.612157 -122.4215297 Looking east at culvert
P10 SW 40.612235 -122.4215236 Looking west at wet area
P11 SW 40.612205 -122.4223513 Looking southwest at WF03 P11 N 40.612205 -122.4223513 Looking north at WF03
P12 SE 40.611844 -122.4226523 Looking southeast at OW16 P12 SW 40.611844 -122.4226521 Looking southwest at OW17 P12 N 40.611844 -122.4226521 Looking north at OW16
P13 N 40.612122 -122.422652 Looking north
P14 W 40.61161 -122.4226284 Looking west at OW17
P15 N 40.61301 -122.422956 Looking northeast at uplant swale The Peaks Ground Photograph Table
Label Direction Latitude Longitude Comments
P16 NE 40.612988 -122.422823 Looking northeast at upland swale P17 N 40.613054 -122.423921 Looking north at OW16
P18 W 40.609609 -122.42475 Looking west
P20 E 40.60936 -122.426113 Looking east at culvert
P23 SE 40.613904 -122.424221 Looking southeast at OW16
P24 E 40.609532 -122.421235 Looking east at culvert
P24 N 40.609532 -122.421235 Looking north at storm drain P26 E 40.612675 -122.423619 Looking east at end of ephemeral P27 NE 40.613928 -122.423307 Looking northeast at upland swale P29 S 40.606943 -122.423736 Looking south at upland swale P30 SW 40.612005 -122.42323 Looking southwest at upland swale P31 SW 40.612445 -122.424702 Looking southwest at erosional feature.

P32 NW 40.614841 -122.424821 Looking northwest toward culvert The Peaks Ground Photograph Table
Packet Pg. 590 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Draft Aquatic Delineation September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 6 The Peaks Single-Family Housing Development Project
Draft Delineation of Aquatic Resources (GE# 24-088)
Determination of Hydrophytic Vegetation
The presence of hydrophytic vegetation was determined using the methods outlined in the 1987 Delineation Manual and the Arid West Manual. Areas were considered to have positive indicators of hydrophytic vegetation if they pass the dominance test, meaning more than 50 percent of the dominant species are obligate wetland, facultative wetland and facultative plants. Plant species were identified to the lowest taxonomy possible. Plant indicator status was determined by reviewing the 2020 National Wetland Plant List and the 2022 National Wetland Plant List update. In situations where dominance can be misleading due to seasonality, the prevalence index will be used to determine hydrophytic status of the community surrounding sample sites.

Plant indicator status categories:

Obligate wetland plants (OBL) – plants that occur almost always (estimated probability 99%) in wetlands under normal conditions, but which may also occur rarely (estimated probability 1%) in non-wetlands.

Facultative wetland plants (FACW) - plants that usually occur (estimated probability 67% to 99%) in wetlands under normal conditions but also occur (estimated probability 1% to 33%) in non-wetlands.

Facultative plants (FAC) – Plants with a similar likelihood (estimated probability 33% to 67%) of occurring in both wetlands and non-wetlands.

Facultative upland plants (FACU) – Plants that occur sometimes (estimated probability1% to 33%) in wetlands but occur more often (estimated probability 67% to 99%) in non-wetlands.

Obligate upland plants (UPL) – Plants that occur rarely (estimated probability 1%) in wetlands but occur almost always (estimated probability 99%) in non-wetlands under natural conditions.

Determination of Hydric Soils
Soil survey information was reviewed for the current Site conditions. Field samples, when taken, were evaluated by using the Munsell soil color chart (2009 Edition), hand texturing, and assessing soil features (e.g. oxidized root channels, evidence of hardpan, Mn and Fe concretions). Information regarding local soil and series descriptions is provided in Appendix B. Numerous soil pits (Appendix A) were dug in portions of the Site that exhibited concave or swale-like micro-topography. The current Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States, Version 8.2 (NRCS 2018) was used in conjunction with the Arid West Manual to determine the presence of hydric soil indicators when necessary.

Determination of Wetland Hydrology
Wetland hydrology was determined to be present if an area supported one or more of the following characteristics:
• Landscape position and surface topography (e.g. position of the site relative to an up-slope water source, location within a distinct wetland drainage pattern, and concave surface topography),
• Inundation or saturation for a long duration either inferred based on field indicators or observed during repeated site visits, and
• Residual evidence of ponding or flooding resulting in field indicators such as scour marks, sediment deposits, algal matting, surface soil cracks and drift lines.

Packet Pg. 591 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Draft Aquatic Delineation September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision 7 The Peaks Single-Family Housing Development Project
Draft Delineation of Aquatic Resources (GE# 24-088)
The presence of water or saturated soil for approximately 12% or 14 consecutive days during the growing season typically creates anaerobic conditions in the soil, and these conditions affect the types of plants that can grow and the types of soils that develop (Wetland Training Institute 1995).

Historic aerial photographs and drone imagery were analyzed to look for primary and secondary wetland hydrology indicators of inundation or saturation. If aerial signatures demonstrated the presence of surface water on 1 or more of the aerial photographs viewed, inundation and a primary indicator of wetland hydrology was determined to be present. Saturation, a secondary indicator of wetland hydrology, was determined to be present if saturation, “darker patches within the field,” were observed on 1 or more of the historic aerial photographs viewed and the presence of hydric soils was confirmed in these areas during the field survey.

Determination of Ordinary High-Water Mark
Gallaway Enterprises utilized methods consistent with the Arid West Manual and Field Guide to the Identification of the Ordinary High-Water Mark (OHWM) in the Arid West Region of the Western United States, (2008) to determine the OHWM. The lateral extents of non-tidal water bodies (e.g. intermittent and ephemeral streams) were based on the OHWM, which is “the line on the shore established by the fluctuations of water” (Corps 2005). The OHWM was determined based on multiple observed physical characteristics of the area, which can include scour, multiple observed flow events (from current and historical aerial photos), shelving, and changes in the character of soil, presence of mature vegetation, deposition, and topography. If any other physical indicators as described in the Arid West OHWM Field Guide are observed, these indicators are also utilized to help determine the location of the OHWM.

Representative OHWM widths were measured in the field in feet incrementally throughout each drainage feature mapped as required by the Corps Final Map and Drawing Standards for the South Pacific Division Regulatory Program (2012). The widths measured in the field were used to ensure that other waters of the United States identified within the SA are mapped and calculated at the appropriate average width for each channel segment based on the Corps definition of OHWM as defined in the Arid West OHWM Field Guide and the Ordinary High Water Mark Identification RGL 05-05 (2005) (RGL 05-05) (Appendix C).

Determination of Wetland Boundaries in Difficult Wetland Situations According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, in April 2024 the region in which the SA is located experienced a second winter with consecutive average to above average winter precipitation (NOAA 2024), therefore, drought conditions were not present during the time in which this delineation of aquatic resources was conducted.

Aquatic Resource Boundary Determination and Acreage Calculation The wetland-upland boundary was determined based on the presence or inference of positive indicators of all mandatory criteria. The SA was traversed on foot to identify wetland features and boundaries. The spatial data obtained during the preparation of this wetland delineation was collected using a Trimble Geo Explorer 6000 Series GPS Receiver. No readings were taken with fewer than 5 satellites. Point data locations were recorded for at least 25 seconds at a rate of 1 position per second. Area and line data were recorded at a rate of 1 position per second while walking at a slow pace. All GPS data were differentially corrected for maximum accuracy. In some cases, when visual errors and degrees of precision are identified due to environmental factors negatively influencing the precision of the GPS instrument (i.e. dense tree cover, steep topography, and other factors affecting satellite connection) mapping procedures utilized Packet Pg. 592 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Draft Aquatic Delineation September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision 8 The Peaks Single-Family Housing Development Project
Draft Delineation of Aquatic Resources (GE# 24-088)
available topographic and aerial imagery datasets in order to improve accuracy in feature alignment and location.

Results
Appendix E Summarizes the area calculations for the pre-jurisdictional and potentially excluded features within the SA. A complete Draft Delineation of Aquatic Resources map package, utilizing a 1” to 200’ scale for the development site and 1” to 400’ scale along Quartz Hill Road, is included as Appendix D.

Waters of the United States: Other Waters
There are thirty-one (31) features identified as “other waters of the United States” (OW) within the SA (Appendix D). The area and linear footage data associated with these features are provided in Appendix E. Other waters of the United States are seasonal or perennial water bodies, including lakes, stream channels, ephemeral and intermittent drainages, ponds, and other surface water features that exhibit an ordinary high-water mark but lack positive indicators for one or more of the three wetland parameters (hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soil, and wetland hydrology) (33 CFR 328.4). The boundaries of all other waters identified within the SA were delineated based on the observed OHWM, including physical characteristics such as natural lines impressed on the bank, shelving, changes in the character of the soil, the destruction of terrestrial vegetation, debris lines and other appropriate indicators.

The drainages identified on the Site are classified as Non-Relatively Permanent Waters and are defined as tributaries that typically flow for less than 3 months of the year. The drainages present within the SA are typified by rock composing the bed of the channel, with a vegetation change at the OHWM. One drainage (OW1-OW09) exits to the southeast and into an unnamed tributary which then flows into the Sacramento River (TNW). The northern portion of the property drains to the east through a storm drain (OW11-OW24) flowing toward the same unnamed tributary that flows into the Sacramento River (TNW) as described in the Hydrology section below.

Waters of the United States: Wetlands
A total of four (4) potentially jurisdictional features were identified in the SA. (WF01-04). These are characterized as two (2) seasonal wetlands and two (2) fresh emergent wetlands. (See Appendix D).

During the topographic map and aerial photography review of the Property conducted prior to the field visit, there were also a number of areas that appeared to be potential wetlands, pools and swales due to the landscape position and aerial signatures observed. However, during the Site visit, many of these areas did not meet the necessary parameters to be considered wetlands or other waters and were not mapped as features. Seven (7) upland data points, labeled Test Pits (TP) were taken to demonstrate the lack of wetlands in areas that have visual cues of potential wetlands when viewed on aerial photographs. Test Pits TP-1 – TP7 demonstrate the lack of hydrophytic vegetation and hydric soils. Data sheets can be found in Appendix A.

Soils
Field observations of soil characteristics included soil color, texture, structure, and the visual assessment of soil features (e.g. the presence, or absence of redoximorphic features and the depth of restrictive layers such as hardpans). Field observations of soil characteristics at the test pit sites are included in the data sheet forms presented in Appendix A.

Packet Pg. 593 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Draft Aquatic Delineation September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision 9 The Peaks Single-Family Housing Development Project
Draft Delineation of Aquatic Resources (GE# 24-088)
Five (5) soil map units occur within the study area according to a query of the National Cooperative Soil Survey database. Soils present on the Site were relatively dark in color. Soil textures were primarily loams with some gravel present. A copy of the soil survey map and a description of mapped soil units for the SA are included as Appendix B. The five identified map units are listed below in Table 1. Based on Gallaway Enterprises’ review, none of the five soil map units contain hydric soil components.

Table 1. Soil Map Units, NRCS hydric soil designation, and approximate totals Map Unit
Symbol Map Unit Name
% Hydric
Component
in Map Unit
Landform of
Hydric
Component
% Map
Unit in
Survey
Area
ArD Auburn very stony loam, 8 to 30 percent
slopes 0% Hillslopes 76.5%
AsD2 Auburn clay loam, 8 to 30 percent slopes 0% Hillslopes 1.5% NeC Newtown gravelly loam, 8 to 15 percent
slopes 0% Fan remnants

1.1%
RbB Red Bluff loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes 0% Fan
remnants

12.2%
RdB Redding gravelly loam, 0 to 15 percent
slopes, moist, MLRA 17 0% Fan remnants

8.8%
Vegetation
The vegetation within the SA is comprised of annual grassland with minor overstory components of oak woodland. The dominant vegetation within the annual grassland habitat included medusa head (Elymus caput-medusae) and slim oats (Avena barbata) (NL). Vegetation within the drainages and swales was mainly comprised of himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus) (FAC), and narrow leaf willow (Salix exigua) (FACW). Cattail (Typha angustifolia) (OBL), common bog rush (Juncus effusus) (FACW), pennyroyal (Mentha pulegium) (Obl), and spearmint (Mentha spicata) (FACW) are the dominant vegetation in the wetland areas. The upland annual grassland areas were typified by medusa head (Elymus caput-medusae), (NL), and slim oats (Avena barbata) (NL), with a shrub component primarily made up of white leaf manzanita (Arctostaphlos viscida) (NL) and toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia) (NL). The tree canopy component includes blue oak (Quercus douglasiana) (FACU) and ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) (FACU).

Hydrology
Precipitation and drainage from the adjacent subdivision on the east are the main hydrological inputs for the fresh emergent wetlands. Precipitation is the main hydrological input for the NRPWs that are found within the SA. Nearly all precipitation that falls within the SA flows via NRPWs, swales, or sheet flow into one of the NRPWs within the SA. Three (3) wetlands are hydrologically connected to adjacent NRPWs Packet Pg. 594 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Draft Aquatic Delineation September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision 10 The Peaks Single-Family Housing Development Project
Draft Delineation of Aquatic Resources (GE# 24-088)
either via surface sheet flow or subsurface flows. All the NRPWs flow in an easterly direction, the drainage on the southern portion of the SA drains into an unnamed tributary and into the Sacramento River (TNW), the drainage on the northern portion of the SA flows into the same unnamed tributary and then into the Sacramento River (TNW).

Packet Pg. 595 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Draft Aquatic Delineation September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision 11 The Peaks Single-Family Housing Development Project
Draft Delineation of Aquatic Resources (GE# 24-088)
Site Photos
P02- Looking southeast at OW13 P03- Looking northeast at OW22 P05- looking west at OW1 P08- looking south at OW11
Packet Pg. 596 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Draft Aquatic Delineation September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision 12 The Peaks Single-Family Housing Development Project
Draft Delineation of Aquatic Resources (GE# 24-088)
P09- looking east at culvert P10- looking west toward WF02 P11- looking southwest at WF03 P11- looking north at WF03 Packet Pg. 597 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Draft Aquatic Delineation September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision 13 The Peaks Single-Family Housing Development Project
Draft Delineation of Aquatic Resources (GE# 24-088)
P12- looking north at OW16 P12- looking southeast at OW16 P12- looking southwest at OW17 P13- looking south at OW16 Packet Pg. 598 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Draft Aquatic Delineation September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision 14 The Peaks Single-Family Housing Development Project
Draft Delineation of Aquatic Resources (GE# 24-088)
P13- looking north P14- looking west at OW17
P15- Looking northeast at upland swale P16- Looking northeast at upland swale.

Packet Pg. 599 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Draft Aquatic Delineation September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision 15 The Peaks Single-Family Housing Development Project
Draft Delineation of Aquatic Resources (GE# 24-088)
P17- Looking north at OW16 P18- Looking west
P20- Looking east at culvert above OW11b P23- Looking southeast at OW16 Packet Pg. 600 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Draft Aquatic Delineation September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision 16 The Peaks Single-Family Housing Development Project
Draft Delineation of Aquatic Resources (GE# 24-088)
P24- Looking east at culvert P24- Looking north at storm drain P26- Looking east at end of ephemeral and road P27- Looking northeast at upland swale Packet Pg. 601 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Draft Aquatic Delineation September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision 17 The Peaks Single-Family Housing Development Project
Draft Delineation of Aquatic Resources (GE# 24-088)
P29- Looking south at upland swale P30- Looking southwest at upland swale P31- Looking southwest at erosional feature P32 – Looking northwest at culvert Packet Pg. 602 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Draft Aquatic Delineation September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision 18 The Peaks Single-Family Housing Development Project
Draft Delineation of Aquatic Resources (GE# 24-088)
Glossary
Abutting: When referring to wetlands that are adjacent to a tributary, abutting defines those wetlands that are not separated from the tributary by an upland feature, such as a berm or dike.

Adjacent: Adjacent as used in “Adjacent to traditional navigable water,” is defined in Corps and EPA regulations as “bordering, contiguous, or neighboring.” Wetlands separated from other waters of the U.S. by man-made dikes or barriers, natural river berms, beach dunes and the like are ‘adjacent wetlands. A wetland “abuts” a tributary if it is not separated from the tributary by uplands, a berm, dike, or similar feature.

While all wetlands that meet the agencies' definitions are considered adjacent wetlands, only those adjacent wetlands that have a continuous surface connection because they directly abut the tributary (e.g., they are not separated by uplands, a berm, dike, or similar feature) are considered jurisdictional under the plurality standard and recent supreme court case. (CWA Jurisdiction Following Rapanos v US and Carabell v US 12-02-08 and Sackett vs. EPA).

The current regulations define “adjacent” as follows: “[t]he term adjacent means bordering, contiguous, or neighboring. Wetlands separated from other waters of the United States by man-made dikes or barriers, natural river berms, beach dunes and the like are ‘adjacent wetlands.’” Under this definition, a wetland does not need to meet all criteria to be considered adjacent. The agencies consider wetlands to be bordering, contiguous, or neighboring, and therefore “adjacent” if at least one of following three criteria is satisfied:
(1) There is an unbroken surface or shallow sub-surface hydrologic connection between the wetland and jurisdictional waters; or
(2) The wetlands are physically separated from jurisdictional waters by “manmade dikes or barriers, natural river berms, beach dunes, and the like;” or,
(3) Where a wetland’s physical proximity to a jurisdictional water is reasonably close, that wetland is “neighboring” and thus adjacent. For example, wetlands located within the riparian area or floodplain of a jurisdictional water will generally be considered neighboring, and thus adjacent. One test for whether a wetland is sufficiently proximate to be considered “neighboring” is whether there is a demonstrable ecological interconnection between the wetland and the jurisdictional waterbody. For example, ifresident aquatic species (e.g., amphibians, reptiles, fish, mammals, or waterfowl) rely on both the wetland and the jurisdictional waterbody for all or part of their life cycles (e.g., nesting, rearing, feeding, etc.), that may demonstrate that the wetland is neighboring and thus adjacent. The agencies recognize that as the distance between the wetland and jurisdictional water increases, the potential ecological interconnection between the waters is likely to decrease.

The agencies are currently reviewing how they apply jurisdiction over “adjacent” wetlands in light of the recent supreme court decision in Sackett vs. EPA.

Atypical situation (significantly disturbed): In an atypical (significantly disturbed) situation, recent human activities or natural events have created conditions where positive indicators for hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soil, or wetland hydrology are not present or observable.

Channel. "An open conduit either naturally or artificially created which periodically or continuously contains moving water, or which forms a connecting link between two bodies of standing water" (Langbein and Iseri 1960:5).

Packet Pg. 603 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Draft Aquatic Delineation September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision 19 The Peaks Single-Family Housing Development Project
Draft Delineation of Aquatic Resources (GE# 24-088)
Channel bank. The sloping land bordering a channel. The bank has steeper slope than the bottom of the channel and is usually steeper than the land surrounding the channel.

Cobbles. Rock fragments 7.6 cm (3 inches) to 25 .4 cm (10 inches) in diameter.

Debris flow. A moving mass of rock fragments, soil, and mud where more than 50% of the particles are larger than sand-sized.

Ditch. A constructed or excavated channel used to convey water.

Drift. Organic debris oriented to flow direction(s) (larger than small twigs).

Ephemeral stream. An ephemeral stream has flowing water only in direct response to precipitation events in a typical year. Ephemeral streambeds are located above the water table year-round. Groundwater is not a source of water for the stream. Runoff from rainfall is the primary source of water for stream flow.

Facultative wetland (FACW). Wetland indicator category; species usually occurs in wetlands (estimated probability 67–99%) but occasionally found in non-wetlands.

Flat. A level landform composed of unconsolidated sediments usually mud or sand. Flats may be irregularly shaped or elongate and continuous with the shore, whereas bars are generally elongate, parallel to the shore, and separated from the shore by water.

Gravel. A mixture composed primarily of rock fragments 2mm (0 .08 inch) to 7.6 cm (3 inches) in diameter.

Usually contains much sand.

Growing season. The frost-free period of the year (see U.S. Department of Interior, National Atlas 1970:110-111 for generalized regional delineation).

Herbaceous. With the characteristics of an herb; a plant with no persistent woody stem above ground.

Hydric soil. Soil is hydric that is saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic (oxygen-depleted) conditions in its upper part (i.e., within the shallow rooting zone of herbaceous plants).

Hydrophyte, hydrophytic. Any plant growing in water or on a substrate that is at least periodically deficient in oxygen as a result of excessive water content.

Intermittent stream. An intermittent stream has flowing water during certain times of the year and more than in direct response from precipitation, when elevated groundwater provides water for stream flow.

During dry periods, intermittent streams may not have flowing water.

Jurisdictional Waters. Features that meet the definition of waters of the Unites States provided below and that fall under Corps regulations pursuant to Section 404 of the CWA are considered jurisdictional features.

Litter. Organic debris oriented to flow direction(s) (small twigs and leaves).

Man-induced wetlands. A man-induced wetland is an area that has developed at least some characteristics of naturally occurring wetlands due to either intentional or incidental human activities.

Non-Relatively Permanent Water: A non-relatively permanent water (NRPW) is defined as a tributary that is not a TNW and that typically flows for periods for less than 3 months. All NRPWs must also contain appropriate morphology of bed, bank and scour and be clearly connected to a TNW.

Normal circumstances. This term refers to the soil and hydrologic conditions that are normally present, without regard to whether the vegetation has been removed.

Packet Pg. 604 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Draft Aquatic Delineation September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision 20 The Peaks Single-Family Housing Development Project
Draft Delineation of Aquatic Resources (GE# 24-088)
Obligate hydrophytes. Species that are found only in wetlands e.g., cattail (Typha latifolia) as opposed to ubiquitous species that grow either in wetland or on upland-e.g., red maple (Acer rubrum).

Obligate wetland (OBL). Wetland indicator category; species occurs almost always (estimated probability 99%) under natural conditions in wetlands.

Other Waters of the United States. Other waters of the United States are seasonal or perennial water bodies, including lakes, stream channels, drainages, ponds, and other surface water features, that exhibit an ordinary high-water mark but lack positive indicators for one or more of the three wetland parameters (hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soil, and wetland hydrology) (33 CFR 328.4).

Palustrine the Palustrine System includes all nontidal wetlands dominated by trees, shrubs, persistent emergents, emergent mosses or lichens, and all such wetlands that occur in tidal areas where salinity due to ocean derived salts is below 0.5 parts per thousand. It also includes wetlands lacking such vegetation, but with all of the following four characteristics: (1) area less than 8 ha (20 acres); (2) active wave-formed or bedrock shoreline features lacking; (3) water depth in the deepest part of basin less than 2 m (6.6 feet) at low water; and (4) salinity due to ocean-derived salts is less than 0.5 parts per thousand.

Perennial stream. A perennial stream has flowing water year-round during atypical year. The water table is located above the stream bed for most of the year. Groundwater is the primary source of water for stream flow. Runoff from rainfall is a supplemental source of water for stream flow.

Ponded. Ponding is a condition in which free water covers the soil surface (e.g., in a closed depression) and is removed only by percolation, evaporation, or transpiration.

Problem area. Problem areas are those where one or more wetland parameters may be lacking because of normal seasonal or annual variations in environmental conditions that result from causes other than human activities or catastrophic natural events.

Relatively Permanent Waters of the U.S. Non-navigable tributaries of traditional navigable waters that are relatively permanent where the tributaries typically flow year-round or have continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g., typically three months).

Scour. Soil and debris movement.

Sheetflow. Overland flow occurring in a continuous sheet; a relatively high-frequency, low-magnitude event.

Shrub. A woody plant which at maturity is usually less than 6 m(20 feet) tall and generally exhibits several erect, spreading, or prostrate stems and has a bushy appearance ; e.g., speckled alder (Alnus rugosa) or buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis).

Succession. Changes in the composition or structure of an ecological community.

Traditional Navigable Waters (TNWs).“[a]ll waters which are currently used, or were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide.” These waters are referred to in this guidance as traditional navigable waters.

The traditional navigable waters include all of the “navigable waters of the United States,” as defined in 33 C.F.R. Part 329 and by numerous decisions of the federal courts, plus all other waters that are navigable-in-fact (for example, the Great Salt Lake, UT, and Lake Minnetonka, MN). Thus, the traditional navigable waters include, but are not limited to, the “navigable waters of the United States” within the meaning of Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (also known as “Section 10 waters”).

Packet Pg. 605 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Draft Aquatic Delineation September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision 21 The Peaks Single-Family Housing Development Project
Draft Delineation of Aquatic Resources (GE# 24-088)
Tree. A woody plant which at maturity is usually 6 m (20 feet) or more in height and generally has a single trunk, unbranched for 1 m or more above the ground, and a more or less definite crown; e.g., red maple (Acer rubrum), northern white cedar (Thuja occidentalis).

Typical Year. Defined by the EPA and Corps as meaning when precipitation and other climactic variables are within the normal periodic range for the geographic area based on a rolling thirty-year period.

Water table. The upper surface of a zone of saturation. No water table exists where that surface is formed by an impermeable body.

Waters of the United States (WOTUS). This is the encompassing term for areas under federal jurisdiction pursuant to Section 404 of the CWA. Waters of the United States are divided into “wetlands” and “other waters of the United States.”
Watershed (drainage basin). An area of land that drains to a single outlet and is separated from other watersheds by a divide.

Wetland. Wetlands are defined as “areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions” (33 CFR 328.3 [b], 40 CFR 230.3). To be considered under potential federal jurisdiction, a wetland must support positive indicators for hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soil, and wetland hydrology.

Woody plant. A seed plant (gymnosperm or angiosperm) that develops persistent, hard, fibrous tissues, basically xylem; e.g., trees and shrubs.

Xeric. Relating or adapted to an extremely dry habitat.

Packet Pg. 606 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Draft Aquatic Delineation September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision 22 The Peaks Single-Family Housing Development Project
Draft Delineation of Aquatic Resources (GE# 24-088)
References
Cheatham, N.H., and J.R. Haller. 1975. An annotated list of California habitat types. Univ. of California Natural Land and Water Reserve System, unpubl. manuscript.

Cowardin, Lewis M., Virginia Carter, Francis C. Golet and Edward T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington D.C.

Curtis, Katherine E., Robert W. Lichvar. 2010. Updated Datasheet for the Identification of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in the Arid West Region of the Western United States.

ERDC/CRREL TN- 10-1. U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, Hanover, NH
Curtis, Katherine E., Robert W. Lichvar, Lindsey E. Dixon. 2011. Ordinary High Flows and the StageDischarge Relationship in the Arid West Region (Technical Report). U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, Hanover, NH
Environmental Laboratory 1987. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual. (Technical Report Y-87-1). U.S. Army Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, MS.

Hanover, NH: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory.

Lichvar, R.W., and J.S. Wakeley, ed. 2004. Review of Ordinary High Water Mark indicators for delineating arid streams in the southwestern United States. ERDC/CRREL TR-04-1. Hanover, NH: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory. (https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA424157.pdf) Lichvar, R.W., D. Finnegan, M. Ericsson, and W. Ochs. 2006. Distribution of Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) indicators and their reliability in identifying the limits of “Waters of the United States” in arid southwestern channels. ERDC/CRREL TR-06-5. Hanover, NH: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory. (https://erdc-library.erdc.dren.mil/jspui/handle/11681/5327) Lichvar, R.W. and S.M. McColley. 2008. A Field Guide to the Identification of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in the Western Region of the Western United States. ERDC/CRREL TR08-12.

Lichvar, R.W., D.L. Banks, W.N. Kirchner, and N.C. Melvin. 2016. State of California 2016 Wetland Plant List: The National Wetland Plant List: 2016 wetland ratings. Phytoneuron 2016-30: 1-

17. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. ISSN 2153 733X.

Mayer, K.E. and W.F. Laudenslayer. 1988. A Guide to Wildlife Habitats of California. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. Sacramento, CA.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2024. National Integrated Drought Information System. U.S. Drought Monitor. Accessed online through the U.S. Drought Portal (www.drought.gov).

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2024. Custom Soil Resource Report for Shasta County Area, California. Accessed through the NRCS Web Soil Survey website (http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm).

Packet Pg. 607 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Draft Aquatic Delineation September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision Appendix A
The Peaks Single-Family Housing Development Project
Draft Delineation of Aquatic Resources (GE# 24-088))
Appendix A: Wetland Delineation Data Sheets
Packet Pg. 608 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Draft Aquatic Delineation September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Arid West Region
Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:

Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:

Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):

Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:

Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:

Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:

VEGETATION
Dominance Test worksheet:

Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

Prevalence Index is 3.0 1
Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1
(Explain) 1
Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present.

Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Use scientific names.) % Cover Species? Status

1. 2.

3. 4.

Sapling/Shrub Stratum

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. Total Cover:

Herb Stratum

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.

Total Cover:

Woody Vine Stratum

1. 2.

Total Cover:
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks:

Dominance Test is >50%
Total Cover: % %
%
%
%
% %
24-088 Redding/Shasta 9/10/2024
The Peaks DP1 Test
C. Ballantyne Section 22 T32N R5W
None 2%
CA
C - Mediterranean California 40.609799 122.421432 WGS 84 Auburn stoney loam/ Red Bluff loam
2 3

66.7 40
20 5
35 Quercus douglasiana 20 Yes UPL
20 Salix exigua 40 Yes
40 FACW
Yes
No
5 No
5 30
Asclepias speciosa
Hypericum perforatum
Rubus armeniacus
40 FAC
FACU
FAC
100 305
100
20 105
80 0

3.05 TP#01
Packet Pg. 609 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Draft Aquatic Delineation September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision Arid West - Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point:

Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc 2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix. CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains 2 Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.

Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils 3 :

Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Reduced Vertic (F18) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Red Parent Material (TF2) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) Depleted Matrix (F3) Other (Explain in Remarks) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Vernal Pools (F9) 3 Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
wetland hydrology must be present.

Restrictive Layer (if present):

Type:

Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Water Marks (B1) (Riverine) Surface Water (A1) Salt Crust (B11) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine) High Water Table (A2) Biotic Crust (B12) Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Recent Iron Reduction in Plowed Soils (C6) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:

Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
(includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:

Remarks:

US Army Corps of Engineers
unless distributed or problematic
DP1 Test
0-6 7.5YR 4/6 100 Clay-loam

Packet Pg. 610 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Draft Aquatic Delineation September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Arid West Region
Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:

Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point :

Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):

Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:

Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:

VEGETATION
Dominance Test worksheet:

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Use scientific names.) % Cover Species? Status

1. 2.

3. 4.

Sapling/Shrub Stratum

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. Total Cover:

Herb Stratum

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.

Total Cover:

Woody Vine Stratum

1. 2.

Total Cover:
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks:

Dominance Test is >50%
Total Cover: % %
%
%
%
% %
24-088 Redding/Shasta 9/10/2024
The Peaks DP2 Test
C. Ballantyne Section 22 T32N R5W
None 0
CA
C - Mediterranean California 40.607497 -122.421778 WGS 84 Auburn stoney loam/ Red Bluff loam
2 2
100.0
7 91
2 Triadica sebifera 1 No FAC
1 Cephalanthus occidentalis No
4 Yes
2 Salix exigua
6 OBL
FACW
Yes
3 No
90 Mentha puligium
Carex barbarae
93 FAC
FACW
100 289
0 0
273
14 2

2.89 TP#02
Packet Pg. 611 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Draft Aquatic Delineation September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision Arid West - Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point:

Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils 3 :

Restrictive Layer (if present):

Type:

Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Remarks:

US Army Corps of Engineers
unless distributed or problematic
DP2 Test
0-8 5YR 4/3 99 5YR5/6 1 PL Loam

Packet Pg. 612 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Draft Aquatic Delineation September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Arid West Region
Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:

Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:

Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):

Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:

Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:

VEGETATION
Dominance Test worksheet:

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Use scientific names.) % Cover Species? Status

1. 2.

3. 4.

Sapling/Shrub Stratum

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. Total Cover:

Herb Stratum

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.

Total Cover:

Woody Vine Stratum

1. 2.

Total Cover:
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks:

Dominance Test is >50%
Total Cover: % %
%
%
%
% %
24-088 Redding/Shasta 9/10/2024
The Peaks DP3
C. Ballantyne Section 22 T32N R5W
None 0
CA
C - Mediterranean California 40.60776 -122.422668 WGS 84 Auburn stoney loam/ Red Bluff loam
3 3
100.0
15 85
Cephalanthus occidentalis 60 Yes
60 OBL Yes
Yes
5 No
15 20
Mentha puligium
Juncus effusus
Typha angustifolia
40 OBL
FACW
OBL
100 115
0 0
0 30
85 1.15
TP#03
Packet Pg. 613 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Draft Aquatic Delineation September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision Arid West - Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point:

Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils 3 :

Restrictive Layer (if present):

Type:

Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Remarks:

US Army Corps of Engineers
unless distributed or problematic
DP3
0-1 5YR 4/3 95 5YR 5/6 5 PL Loam
1-8 5YR 4/3 97 5YR5/6 3
TP#03
Packet Pg. 614 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Draft Aquatic Delineation September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Arid West Region
Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:

Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:

Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):

Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:

Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:

VEGETATION
Dominance Test worksheet:

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Use scientific names.) % Cover Species? Status

1. 2.

3. 4.

Sapling/Shrub Stratum

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. Total Cover:

Herb Stratum

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.

Total Cover:

Woody Vine Stratum

1. 2.

Total Cover:
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks:

Dominance Test is >50%
Total Cover: % %
%
%
%
% %
24-088 Redding/Shasta 9/11/2024
The Peaks DP9 Test04
C. Ballantyne Section 22 T32N R5W
None 1
CA
C - Mediterranean California 40.612185 -122.422613 WGS 84 Auburn stoney loam/ Red Bluff loam
1 1
100.0
10 90
No
No
Yes
10 No
70 10
10 Cyperus eragrostis
Festuca perrenis
Rubus armeniacus
Plantago lanceolata
100
FAC
FAC
FAC
FACW
100 290
0 0
270
20 0

2.90 TP#04
Packet Pg. 615 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Draft Aquatic Delineation September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision Arid West - Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point:

Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils 3 :

Restrictive Layer (if present):

Type:

Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Remarks:

US Army Corps of Engineers
unless distributed or problematic
DP9 Test04
0-6 7.5YR4/4 100 Loam

Packet Pg. 616 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Draft Aquatic Delineation September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Arid West Region
Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:

Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:

Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):

Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:

Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:

VEGETATION
Dominance Test worksheet:

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Use scientific names.) % Cover Species? Status

1. 2.

3. 4.

Sapling/Shrub Stratum

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. Total Cover:

Herb Stratum

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.

Total Cover:

Woody Vine Stratum

1. 2.

Total Cover:
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks:

Dominance Test is >50%
Total Cover: % %
%
%
%
% %
24-088 Redding/Shasta 9/11/2024
The Peaks DP10 Test
C. Ballantyne Section 22 T32N R5W
None 0
CA
C - Mediterranean California 40.613684 -122.42399 WGS 84 Auburn stoney loam/ Red Bluff loam
1 1
100.0
9 91
No
Yes
9 No
90 1
Rumex crispus
Mentha pulegium
Eryngium castrense
100 OBL OBL
FAC
100 118
0 0
27 0
91 1.18
TP#05
Packet Pg. 617 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Draft Aquatic Delineation September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision Arid West - Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point:

Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils 3 :

Restrictive Layer (if present):

Type:

Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Remarks:

US Army Corps of Engineers
unless distributed or problematic
DP10 Test
0-6 5YR4/3 100 Loam

Packet Pg. 618 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Draft Aquatic Delineation September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Arid West Region
Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:

Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:

Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):

Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:

Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:

VEGETATION
Dominance Test worksheet:

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Use scientific names.) % Cover Species? Status

1. 2.

3. 4.

Sapling/Shrub Stratum

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. Total Cover:

Herb Stratum

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.

Total Cover:

Woody Vine Stratum

1. 2.

Total Cover:
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks:

Dominance Test is >50%
Total Cover: % %
%
%
%
% %
24-088 Redding/Shasta 11/4/2024
The Peaks DP22 T#06
C. Ballantyne Section 22 T32N R5W
Hillslope None 3
CA
C - Mediterranean California 40.610608 -122.426251 WGS 84 Auburn stoney loam/ Red Bluff loam
1 2

50.0 50
30 20
Salix exigua 40 Yes
40 FACW
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
10 10
10 20
3 Panicum accuminatum
Elymus caput-medusae
Juncus effusus
Briza maxima
Rubus armeniacus
Pseudognaphalium luteoalbum 7
60 FAC Not Listed FACW
Not Listed FAC
FAC
100 310
150
0 60
100
0 3.10
Packet Pg. 619 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Draft Aquatic Delineation September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision Arid West - Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point:

Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils 3 :

Restrictive Layer (if present):

Type:

Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Remarks:

US Army Corps of Engineers
unless distributed or problematic
DP22 T#06
0-6 5YR3/2 85 5YR6/6 15 D M Loam

Packet Pg. 620 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Draft Aquatic Delineation September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Arid West Region
Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:

Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:

Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):

Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:

Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:

VEGETATION
Dominance Test worksheet:

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Use scientific names.) % Cover Species? Status

1. 2.

3. 4.

Sapling/Shrub Stratum

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. Total Cover:

Herb Stratum

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.

Total Cover:

Woody Vine Stratum

1. 2.

Total Cover:
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks:

Dominance Test is >50%
Total Cover: % %
%
%
%
% %
24-088 Redding/Shasta 9/11/2024
The Peaks DP10 U#01
C. Ballantyne Section 22 T32N R5W
None 1
CA
C - Mediterranean California 40.61039 -122.421553 WGS 84 Auburn stoney loam/ Red Bluff loam
1 2

50.0 50
35 Yes
Yes
No
15 20
50 Rumex crispus
Paspalum dilatatum
Elymus caput-medusae
85 Not Listed FAC
FAC
85 355
250
0 105
0 0

4.18 Packet Pg. 621 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Draft Aquatic Delineation September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Arid West Region
Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:

Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:

Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):

Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:

Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:

VEGETATION
Dominance Test worksheet:

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Use scientific names.) % Cover Species? Status

1. 2.

3. 4.

Sapling/Shrub Stratum

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. Total Cover:

Herb Stratum

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.

Total Cover:

Woody Vine Stratum

1. 2.

Total Cover:
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks:

Dominance Test is >50%
Total Cover: % %
%
%
%
% %
24-088 Redding/Shasta 8/13/2025
The Peaks TP#7
C. Ballantyne Section 22 T32N R5W
Hillslope None 3
CA
C - Mediterranean California 40.610608 -122.426251 WGS 84 Auburn stoney loam/ Red Bluff loam
2 2
100.0
50 90
Salix exigua 40 Yes
40 FACW
Yes
No
No
No
5 10
5 80
Eryngium articulatum
Juncus effusus
Typha angustifolia
Mentha pulegium
100 OBL OBL
FACW
OBL
140 190
0 0
0 100
90 1.36
Packet Pg. 622 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Draft Aquatic Delineation September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision Arid West - Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point:

Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils 3 :

Restrictive Layer (if present):

Type:

Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Remarks:

US Army Corps of Engineers
unless distributed or problematic
TP#7
0-6 10YR7/3 99 10YR7/6 1 D M Loam

Packet Pg. 623 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Draft Aquatic Delineation September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision Arid West - Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point:

Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils 3 :

Restrictive Layer (if present):

Type:

Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Remarks:

US Army Corps of Engineers
unless distributed or problematic
DP10 U#01
0-6 5YR4/4 100 Loam

Packet Pg. 624 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Draft Aquatic Delineation September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Arid West Region
Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:

Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:

Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):

Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:

Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:

VEGETATION
Dominance Test worksheet:

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Use scientific names.) % Cover Species? Status

1. 2.

3. 4.

Sapling/Shrub Stratum

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. Total Cover:

Herb Stratum

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.

Total Cover:

Woody Vine Stratum

1. 2.

Total Cover:
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks:

Dominance Test is >50%
Total Cover: % %
%
%
%
% %
24-088 Redding/Shasta 9/11/2024
The Peaks DP12 W#01
C. Ballantyne Section 22 T32N R5W
None 1
CA
C - Mediterranean California 40.610394 -122.421561 WGS 84 Auburn stoney loam/ Red Bluff loam
3 3
100.0
40 30

Yes
Yes
Yes
20 20
30 Rubus armeniacus
Paspalum dilatatum
Persicaria punctata
70 OBL
FAC
FAC
70 150
0 0
120
0 30

2.14 Packet Pg. 625 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Draft Aquatic Delineation September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision Arid West - Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point:

Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils 3 :

Restrictive Layer (if present):

Type:

Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Remarks:

US Army Corps of Engineers
unless distributed or problematic
DP12 W#01
0-5 5YR2.5/1 100 Loam
6-12 5YR5/2 85 5YR5/6
Packet Pg. 626 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Draft Aquatic Delineation September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Arid West Region
Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:

Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:

Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):

Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:

Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:

VEGETATION
Dominance Test worksheet:

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Use scientific names.) % Cover Species? Status

1. 2.

3. 4.

Sapling/Shrub Stratum

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. Total Cover:

Herb Stratum

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.

Total Cover:

Woody Vine Stratum

1. 2.

Total Cover:
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks:

Dominance Test is >50%
Total Cover: % %
%
%
%
% %
24-088 Redding/Shasta 9/11/2024
The Peaks DP5 U02
C. Ballantyne Section 22 T32N R5W
None 0
CA
C - Mediterranean California 40.612148 -122.421601 WGS 84 Auburn stoney loam/ Red Bluff loam
2 3

66.7 10
30 5
25 Yes
Yes
Yes
5 No
10 30
25 Rubus armeniacus
Cyperus eragrostis
Verbascum thapsis
Persicaria punctata
70 OBL
FACU
FACW
FAC
30 70 180
0 120
15 20
25 2.57
Packet Pg. 627 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Draft Aquatic Delineation September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision Arid West - Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point:

Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils 3 :

Restrictive Layer (if present):

Type:

Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Remarks:

US Army Corps of Engineers
unless distributed or problematic
DP5 U02
0-14 5YR2.5/1 100 Loam

Soil moist throughout, but not saturated.

Packet Pg. 628 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Draft Aquatic Delineation September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Arid West Region
Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:

Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:

Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):

Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:

Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:

VEGETATION
Dominance Test worksheet:

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Use scientific names.) % Cover Species? Status

1. 2.

3. 4.

Sapling/Shrub Stratum

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. Total Cover:

Herb Stratum

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.

Total Cover:

Woody Vine Stratum

1. 2.

Total Cover:
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks:

Dominance Test is >50%
Total Cover: % %
%
%
%
% %
24-088 Redding/Shasta 9/11/2024
The Peaks DP4 W#02
C. Ballantyne Section 22 T32N R5W
None 0
CA
C - Mediterranean California 40.612174 -122.421627 WGS 84 Auburn stoney loam/ Red Bluff loam
3 3
100.0
37 8
25 Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
3 5
10 25
25 Rumex crispus
Rubus armeniacus
Cyperus eragrostis
Juncus effusus
Persicaria punctata
Mentha puligium 2
70 OBL
FACW
FACW
FAC
FAC
FACW
30 70 123
0 0
24 74
25 1.76
Packet Pg. 629 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Draft Aquatic Delineation September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision Arid West - Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point:

Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils 3 :

Restrictive Layer (if present):

Type:

Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Remarks:

US Army Corps of Engineers
unless distributed or problematic
DP4 W#02
0-6 5YR3/1 100 Loam
6-12 5YR5/1 90 5YR5/4 10 PL Loam
Soil moist throughout, but not saturated.

Packet Pg. 630 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Draft Aquatic Delineation September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Arid West Region
Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:

Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:

Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):

Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:

Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:

VEGETATION
Dominance Test worksheet:

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Use scientific names.) % Cover Species? Status

1. 2.

3. 4.

Sapling/Shrub Stratum

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. Total Cover:

Herb Stratum

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.

Total Cover:

Woody Vine Stratum

1. 2.

Total Cover:
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks:

Dominance Test is >50%
Total Cover: % %
%
%
%
% %
24-088 Redding/Shasta 9/11/2024
The Peaks DP7 U#03
C. Ballantyne Section 22 T32N R5W
None 1
CA
C - Mediterranean California 40.612171 -122.422325 WGS 84 Auburn stoney loam/ Red Bluff loam
1 2

50.0 60
35 Yes
Yes
No
No
10 15
20 50
Plantago laceolata
Rumex crispus
Paspalum dilatatum
Elymus caput-medusae
95 Not Listed FAC
FAC Not Listed
95 405
300
0 105
0 0

4.26 Packet Pg. 631 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Draft Aquatic Delineation September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision Arid West - Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point:

Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils 3 :

Restrictive Layer (if present):

Type:

Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Remarks:

US Army Corps of Engineers
unless distributed or problematic
DP7 U#03
0-6 5YR4/4 100 Loam

Packet Pg. 632 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Draft Aquatic Delineation September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Arid West Region
Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:

Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:

Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):

Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:

Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:

VEGETATION
Dominance Test worksheet:

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Use scientific names.) % Cover Species? Status

1. 2.

3. 4.

Sapling/Shrub Stratum

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. Total Cover:

Herb Stratum

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.

Total Cover:

Woody Vine Stratum

1. 2.

Total Cover:
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks:

Dominance Test is >50%
Total Cover: % %
%
%
%
% %
24-088 Redding/Shasta 9/10/2024
The Peaks DP6 W#03
C. Ballantyne Section 22 T32N R5W
None 0
CA
C - Mediterranean California 40.612217 -122.422346 WGS 84 Auburn stoney loam/ Red Bluff loam
2 2
100.0
32 13
25 Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
5 10
2 25
25 Cyperus eragrostis
Rubus armeniacus
Mentha spicata
Juncus effusus
Persicaria punctat
Rumex crispus 3
70 OBL
FACW
FACW
FAC
FACW
FAC
70 128
0 0
39 64
25 1.83
Packet Pg. 633 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Draft Aquatic Delineation September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision Arid West - Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point:

Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils 3 :

Restrictive Layer (if present):

Type:

Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Remarks:

US Army Corps of Engineers
unless distributed or problematic
DP6 W#03
0-6 5YR3/1 100 Loam
6-12 5YR5/1 90 5YR5/4 10 PL
Packet Pg. 634 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Draft Aquatic Delineation September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Arid West Region
Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:

Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:

Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):

Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:

Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:

VEGETATION
Dominance Test worksheet:

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Use scientific names.) % Cover Species? Status

1. 2.

3. 4.

Sapling/Shrub Stratum

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. Total Cover:

Herb Stratum

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.

Total Cover:

Woody Vine Stratum

1. 2.

Total Cover:
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks:

Dominance Test is >50%
Total Cover: % %
%
%
%
% %
24-088 Redding/Shasta 9/10/2024
The Peaks DP21 U#04
C. Ballantyne Section 22 T32N R5W
1 CA
C - Mediterranean California 40.61309 -122.42406 WGS 84 Auburn stoney loam/ Red Bluff loam
0 1

0.0 100
Quercus douglasii 5 No Not Listed
5 Yes
No
No
5 5
85 Hypericum perforatum
Plantago lanceolata
Elymus caput-medusae
95 Not Listed UPL UPL
100 500
500
0 0
0 0

5.00 Packet Pg. 635 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Draft Aquatic Delineation September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision Arid West - Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point:

Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils 3 :

Restrictive Layer (if present):

Type:

Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Remarks:

US Army Corps of Engineers
unless distributed or problematic
DP21 U#04
0-6 5YR5/6 100 Clay-loam

Packet Pg. 636 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Draft Aquatic Delineation September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Arid West Region
Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:

Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:

Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):

Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:

Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:

VEGETATION
Dominance Test worksheet:

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Use scientific names.) % Cover Species? Status

1. 2.

3. 4.

Sapling/Shrub Stratum

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. Total Cover:

Herb Stratum

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.

Total Cover:

Woody Vine Stratum

1. 2.

Total Cover:
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks:

Dominance Test is >50%
Total Cover: % %
%
%
%
% %
24-088 Redding/Shasta 11/4/2024
The Peaks DP20 W04
C. Ballantyne Section 22 T32N R5W
Convex
CA
C - Mediterranean California 40.613116 -122.42405 WGS 84 Auburn stoney loam/ Red Bluff loam
2 2
100.0
30 5
60 Yes
No
No
Yes
5 No
20 5
5 60
Rumex crispus
Cyperus eragrostis
Juncus effusis
Polypogon monspeliensis
Mentha pulegium
95 OBL
FACW
FACW
FACW
FAC
5 95 135
0 0
15 60
60 1.42
Packet Pg. 637 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Draft Aquatic Delineation September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision Arid West - Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point:

Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils 3 :

Restrictive Layer (if present):

Type:

Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Remarks:

US Army Corps of Engineers
unless distributed or problematic
DP20 W04
0-2 5YR4/3 95 5YR5/6 5 D M Loam
3-7 5YR 5/2 95 5YR5/6 7 D M Loam
Vegetation was laid over, past debris in pockets.

Packet Pg. 638 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Draft Aquatic Delineation September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision Appendix B
The Peaks Single-Family Housing Development Project
Draft Delineation of Aquatic Resources (GE# 24-088)
Appendix B: Ordinary High Water Mark Data Sheets
Packet Pg. 639 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Draft Aquatic Delineation September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision ENG FORM 6250, AUG 2021 PREVIOUS EDITIONS ARE OBSOLETE. Page of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)

RAPID ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK (OHWM) FIELD IDENTIFICATION DATA SHEET The proponent agency is Headquarters USACE CECW-CO-R.

OMB Control No. 0710-XXXX
Approval Expires:

Project ID #: Site Name: Date and Time:

Location (lat/long): Investigator(s):

Step 1 Site overview from remote and online resources
Check boxes for online resources used to evaluate site:
gage data LiDAR geologic maps
climatic data satellite imagery land use maps
aerial photos topographic maps Other:

Step 2 Site conditions during field assessment
First look for changes in channel shape, depositional and erosional features, and changes in vegetation and sediment type, size, density, and distribution. Make note of natural or man-made disturbances that would affect flow and channel form, such as bridges, riprap, landslides, rockfalls etc.

Step 3 Check the boxes next to the indicators used to identify the location of the OHWM.

OHWM is at a transition point, therefore some indicators that are used to determine location may be just below and above the OHWM. From the drop-down menu next to each indicator, select the appropriate location of the indicator by selecting either just below `b', at `x', or just above `a' the OHWM.

OHWM. Go to page 2 to describe overall rationale for location of OHWM, write any additional observations, and to attach a photo log.

Geomorphic indicators
Break in slope: on the bank:
undercut bank:
valley bottom:

Other:

Shelving:
shelf at top of bank:
natural levee:
man-made berms or levees:
other
berms:

Channel bar: shelving (berms) on bar:
unvegetated:
vegetation transition
(go to veg. indicators)
sediment transition
(go to sed. indicators)
upper limit of deposition
on bar:
lnstream bedforms and other
bedload transport evidence:
deposition bedload indicators
(e.g., imbricated clasts,
gravel sheets, etc.)
bedforms (e.g., poofs,
riffles, steps, etc.):
erosional bedload indicators
(e.g., obstacle marks, scour,
smoothing, etc.)
Secondary channels:

Sediment indicators
Soil development:

Changes in character of soil: Mudcracks:

Changes in particle-sized
distribution:
transition from to
upper limit of sand-sized particles
silt deposits:

Vegetation Indicators
Change in vegetation type
and/or density:

Check the appropriate boxes and select
the general vegetation change (e.g.,
graminoids to woody shrubs). Describe
the vegetation transition looking from
the middle of the channel, up the
banks, and into the floodplain.
vegetation
absent to:
moss to:
forbs to:
graminoids to:
woody
shrubs to:
deciduous
trees to:
coniferous
trees to:

Vegetation matted down
and/or bent:

Exposed roots below
intact soil layer:

Ancillary indicators
Wracking/presence of
organic litter:

Presence of large wood:

Leaf litter disturbed or washed away:

Water staining: Weathered clasts or bedrock: Other observed indicators? Describe:

Step 4 Is additional information needed to
support this determination?
Yes No
If yes, describe and attach information
to datasheet:
1 4
24-088 OHWM4 The Peaks 9/10/2024 12:45
CBallantyne
Describe land use and flow conditions from online resources.

Were there any recent extreme events (floods or drought)? No floods/droughts
Slight scouring, change in plant community from Typha, Mentha, Buttonbush and Juncus, 4 ft. wide to graminoids
Slight scour
b
x
forbs
graminoids

40.607748, -121.42267
Packet Pg. 640 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Draft Aquatic Delineation September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision ENG FORM 6250, AUG 2021 Page of
Step 5 Describe rationale for location of OHWM
Project ID #:

Attach a photo log of the site. Use the table below, or attach separately.

Photo log attached? Yes No If no, explain why not:

List photographs and include descriptions in the table below.

Number photographs in the order that they are taken. Attach photographs and include annotations of features.

Photo
Number Photograph description
Additional observations or notes
2 4
Change in vegetation to obligates to grasses.
24-088 OHWM4
Packet Pg. 641 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Draft Aquatic Delineation September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision ENG FORM 6250, AUG 2021 PREVIOUS EDITIONS ARE OBSOLETE. Page of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)

RAPID ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK (OHWM) FIELD IDENTIFICATION DATA SHEET The proponent agency is Headquarters USACE CECW-CO-R.

OMB Control No. 0710-XXXX
Approval Expires:

Project ID #: Site Name: Date and Time:

Location (lat/long): Investigator(s):

Describe land use and flow conditions from online resources.

Were there any recent extreme events (floods or drought)? Step 2 Site conditions during field assessment
First look for changes in channel shape, depositional and erosional features, and changes in vegetation and sediment type, size, density, and distribution. Make note of natural or man-made disturbances that would affect flow and channel form, such as bridges, riprap, landslides, rockfalls etc.

Step 3 Check the boxes next to the indicators used to identify the location of the OHWM.

OHWM. Go to page 2 to describe overall rationale for location of OHWM, write any additional observations, and to attach a photo log.

Geomorphic indicators
Break in slope: on the bank:
undercut bank:
valley bottom:

Other:

Shelving:
shelf at top of bank:
natural levee:
man-made berms or levees:
other
berms:

Sediment indicators
Soil development:

Changes in character of soil: Mudcracks:

Changes in particle-sized
distribution:
transition from to
upper limit of sand-sized particles
silt deposits:

Vegetation Indicators
Change in vegetation type
and/or density:

Vegetation matted down
and/or bent:

Exposed roots below
intact soil layer:

Ancillary indicators
Wracking/presence of
organic litter:

Presence of large wood:

Leaf litter disturbed or washed away:

Water staining: Weathered clasts or bedrock: Other observed indicators? Describe:

Step 4 Is additional information needed to
support this determination?
Yes No
If yes, describe and attach information
to datasheet:
1 4
24-088 OHWM8 The Peaks 9/11/2024 10:18
CBallantyne
Channel composed of bedrock and boulders (12+). One to 3 feet wide x
xb
graminoids

40.61616, -121.42269
Packet Pg. 642 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Draft Aquatic Delineation September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision ENG FORM 6250, AUG 2021 Page of
Step 5 Describe rationale for location of OHWM
Project ID #:

Attach a photo log of the site. Use the table below, or attach separately.

Photo log attached? Yes No If no, explain why not:

List photographs and include descriptions in the table below.

Number photographs in the order that they are taken. Attach photographs and include annotations of features.

Photo
Number Photograph description
Additional observations or notes
2 4
No vegetation in channel, bed and bank evident.
24-088 OHWM8
Packet Pg. 643 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Draft Aquatic Delineation September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision ENG FORM 6250, AUG 2021 PREVIOUS EDITIONS ARE OBSOLETE. Page of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)

RAPID ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK (OHWM) FIELD IDENTIFICATION DATA SHEET The proponent agency is Headquarters USACE CECW-CO-R.

OMB Control No. 0710-XXXX
Approval Expires:

Project ID #: Site Name: Date and Time:

Location (lat/long): Investigator(s):

Describe land use and flow conditions from online resources.

Step 3 Check the boxes next to the indicators used to identify the location of the OHWM.

OHWM. Go to page 2 to describe overall rationale for location of OHWM, write any additional observations, and to attach a photo log.

Geomorphic indicators
Break in slope: on the bank:
undercut bank:
valley bottom:

Other:

Shelving:
shelf at top of bank:
natural levee:
man-made berms or levees:
other
berms:

Sediment indicators
Soil development:

Changes in character of soil: Mudcracks:

Changes in particle-sized
distribution:
transition from to
upper limit of sand-sized particles
silt deposits:

Vegetation Indicators
Change in vegetation type
and/or density:

Vegetation matted down
and/or bent:

Exposed roots below
intact soil layer:

Ancillary indicators
Wracking/presence of
organic litter:

Presence of large wood:

Leaf litter disturbed or washed away:

Water staining: Weathered clasts or bedrock: Other observed indicators? Describe:

Step 4 Is additional information needed to
support this determination?
Yes No
If yes, describe and attach information
to datasheet:
1 4
24-088 OHWM10 The Peaks 8/13/2025 9:20
CBallantyne
Channel composed of bedrock Eryngium, Erythranthe and Menthe in channel. Graminoids in the upslope area. x
x
Slight scour
xb
x

40.61469, -121.424705
Packet Pg. 644 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Draft Aquatic Delineation September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision ENG FORM 6250, AUG 2021 Page of
Step 5 Describe rationale for location of OHWM
Project ID #:

Attach a photo log of the site. Use the table below, or attach separately.

Photo log attached? Yes No If no, explain why not:

List photographs and include descriptions in the table below.

Number photographs in the order that they are taken. Attach photographs and include annotations of features.

Photo
Number Photograph description
Additional observations or notes
2 4
Channel scoured.
24-088 OHWM10
Packet Pg. 645 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Draft Aquatic Delineation September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision Appendix C
The Peaks Single-Family Housing Development Project
Draft Delineation of Aquatic Resources (GE# 24-088)
Appendix C: NRCS Soils Map and Soil Series Description
Packet Pg. 646 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Draft Aquatic Delineation September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision United States
Department of
Agriculture
A product of the National
Cooperative Soil Survey,
a joint effort of the United
States Department of
Agriculture and other
Federal agencies, State
agencies including the
Agricultural Experiment
Stations, and local
participants
Custom Soil Resource
Report for
Shasta County
Area, California
The Peaks
Natural
Resources
Conservation
Service
October 8, 2024 Packet Pg. 647 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Draft Aquatic Delineation September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision Preface
Soil surveys contain information that affects land use planning in survey areas.

They highlight soil limitations that affect various land uses and provide information about the properties of the soils in the survey areas. Soil surveys are designed for many different users, including farmers, ranchers, foresters, agronomists, urban planners, community officials, engineers, developers, builders, and home buyers.

Also, conservationists, teachers, students, and specialists in recreation, waste disposal, and pollution control can use the surveys to help them understand, protect, or enhance the environment.

Various land use regulations of Federal, State, and local governments may impose special restrictions on land use or land treatment. Soil surveys identify soil properties that are used in making various land use or land treatment decisions.

The information is intended to help the land users identify and reduce the effects of soil limitations on various land uses. The landowner or user is responsible for identifying and complying with existing laws and regulations.

Although soil survey information can be used for general farm, local, and wider area planning, onsite investigation is needed to supplement this information in some cases. Examples include soil quality assessments (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/ portal/nrcs/main/soils/health/) and certain conservation and engineering applications. For more detailed information, contact your local USDA Service Center (https://offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app?agency=nrcs) or your NRCS State Soil Scientist (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/contactus/? cid=nrcs142p2_053951).

Great differences in soil properties can occur within short distances. Some soils are seasonally wet or subject to flooding. Some are too unstable to be used as a foundation for buildings or roads. Clayey or wet soils are poorly suited to use as septic tank absorption fields. A high water table makes a soil poorly suited to basements or underground installations.

The National Cooperative Soil Survey is a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local agencies. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has leadership for the Federal part of the National Cooperative Soil Survey.

Information about soils is updated periodically. Updated information is available through the NRCS Web Soil Survey, the site for official soil survey information.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require 2 Packet Pg. 648 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Draft Aquatic Delineation September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
3 Packet Pg. 649 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Draft Aquatic Delineation September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision Contents
Preface....................................................................................................................2 How Soil Surveys Are Made..................................................................................5 Soil Map.................................................................................................................. 8 Soil Map................................................................................................................9 Legend................................................................................................................10 Map Unit Legend................................................................................................ 11 Map Unit Descriptions.........................................................................................11 Shasta County Area, California.......................................................................13 ArD—Auburn very stony loam, 8 to 30 percent slopes............................... 13 AsD2—Auburn clay loam, 8 to 30 percent slopes, eroded..........................14 NeC—Newtown gravelly loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes...............................16 RbB—Red Bluff loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes...............................................17 RdB—Redding gravelly loam, 0 to 15 percent slopes, moist, MLRA 17.....19 References............................................................................................................21 4 Packet Pg. 650 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Draft Aquatic Delineation September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision How Soil Surveys Are Made
Soil surveys are made to provide information about the soils and miscellaneous areas in a specific area. They include a description of the soils and miscellaneous areas and their location on the landscape and tables that show soil properties and limitations affecting various uses. Soil scientists observed the steepness, length, and shape of the slopes; the general pattern of drainage; the kinds of crops and native plants; and the kinds of bedrock. They observed and described many soil profiles. A soil profile is the sequence of natural layers, or horizons, in a soil. The profile extends from the surface down into the unconsolidated material in which the soil formed or from the surface down to bedrock. The unconsolidated material is devoid of roots and other living organisms and has not been changed by other biological activity.

Currently, soils are mapped according to the boundaries of major land resource areas (MLRAs). MLRAs are geographically associated land resource units that share common characteristics related to physiography, geology, climate, water resources, soils, biological resources, and land uses (USDA, 2006). Soil survey areas typically consist of parts of one or more MLRA.

The soils and miscellaneous areas in a survey area occur in an orderly pattern that is related to the geology, landforms, relief, climate, and natural vegetation of the area. Each kind of soil and miscellaneous area is associated with a particular kind of landform or with a segment of the landform. By observing the soils and miscellaneous areas in the survey area and relating their position to specific segments of the landform, a soil scientist develops a concept, or model, of how they were formed. Thus, during mapping, this model enables the soil scientist to predict with a considerable degree of accuracy the kind of soil or miscellaneous area at a specific location on the landscape.

Commonly, individual soils on the landscape merge into one another as their characteristics gradually change. To construct an accurate soil map, however, soil scientists must determine the boundaries between the soils. They can observe only a limited number of soil profiles. Nevertheless, these observations, supplemented by an understanding of the soil-vegetation-landscape relationship, are sufficient to verify predictions of the kinds of soil in an area and to determine the boundaries.

Soil scientists recorded the characteristics of the soil profiles that they studied. They noted soil color, texture, size and shape of soil aggregates, kind and amount of rock fragments, distribution of plant roots, reaction, and other features that enable them to identify soils. After describing the soils in the survey area and determining their properties, the soil scientists assigned the soils to taxonomic classes (units).

Taxonomic classes are concepts. Each taxonomic class has a set of soil characteristics with precisely defined limits. The classes are used as a basis for comparison to classify soils systematically. Soil taxonomy, the system of taxonomic classification used in the United States, is based mainly on the kind and character of soil properties and the arrangement of horizons within the profile. After the soil 5 Packet Pg. 651 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Draft Aquatic Delineation September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision scientists classified and named the soils in the survey area, they compared the individual soils with similar soils in the same taxonomic class in other areas so that they could confirm data and assemble additional data based on experience and research.

The objective of soil mapping is not to delineate pure map unit components; the objective is to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. Each map unit is defined by a unique combination of soil components and/or miscellaneous areas in predictable proportions. Some components may be highly contrasting to the other components of the map unit. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The delineation of such landforms and landform segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas.

Soil scientists make many field observations in the process of producing a soil map.

The frequency of observation is dependent upon several factors, including scale of mapping, intensity of mapping, design of map units, complexity of the landscape, and experience of the soil scientist. Observations are made to test and refine the soil-landscape model and predictions and to verify the classification of the soils at specific locations. Once the soil-landscape model is refined, a significantly smaller number of measurements of individual soil properties are made and recorded.

These measurements may include field measurements, such as those for color, depth to bedrock, and texture, and laboratory measurements, such as those for content of sand, silt, clay, salt, and other components. Properties of each soil typically vary from one point to another across the landscape.

Observations for map unit components are aggregated to develop ranges of characteristics for the components. The aggregated values are presented. Direct measurements do not exist for every property presented for every map unit component. Values for some properties are estimated from combinations of other properties.

While a soil survey is in progress, samples of some of the soils in the area generally are collected for laboratory analyses and for engineering tests. Soil scientists interpret the data from these analyses and tests as well as the field-observed characteristics and the soil properties to determine the expected behavior of the soils under different uses. Interpretations for all of the soils are field tested through observation of the soils in different uses and under different levels of management.

Some interpretations are modified to fit local conditions, and some new interpretations are developed to meet local needs. Data are assembled from other sources, such as research information, production records, and field experience of specialists. For example, data on crop yields under defined levels of management are assembled from farm records and from field or plot experiments on the same kinds of soil.

Predictions about soil behavior are based not only on soil properties but also on such variables as climate and biological activity. Soil conditions are predictable over long periods of time, but they are not predictable from year to year. For example, soil scientists can predict with a fairly high degree of accuracy that a given soil will have a high water table within certain depths in most years, but they cannot predict that a high water table will always be at a specific level in the soil on a specific date.

After soil scientists located and identified the significant natural bodies of soil in the survey area, they drew the boundaries of these bodies on aerial photographs and Custom Soil Resource Report
6 Packet Pg. 652 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Draft Aquatic Delineation September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision identified each as a specific map unit. Aerial photographs show trees, buildings, fields, roads, and rivers, all of which help in locating boundaries accurately.

Custom Soil Resource Report
7 Packet Pg. 653 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Draft Aquatic Delineation September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision Soil Map
The soil map section includes the soil map for the defined area of interest, a list of soil map units on the map and extent of each map unit, and cartographic symbols displayed on the map. Also presented are various metadata about data used to produce the map, and a description of each soil map unit. 8 Packet Pg. 654 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Draft Aquatic Delineation September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision 9 Custom Soil Resource Report
Soil Map
4495000 4495200 4495400 4495600 4495800 4496000 4496200 4496400 4496600 4495000 4495200 4495400 4495600 4495800 4496000 4496200 4496400 4496600 547800 548000 548200 548400 548600 548800 549000 549200 549400 549600 549800 550000 550200 550400 547800 548000 548200 548400 548600 548800 549000 549200 549400 549600 549800 550000 550200 550400 40° 37' 9'' N
122° 26' 7'' W
40° 37' 9'' N
122° 24' 12'' W
40° 36' 12'' N
122° 26' 7'' W
40° 36' 12'' N
122° 24' 12'' W
N
Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 10N WGS84 0 500 1000 2000 3000
Feet
0 150 300 600 900
Meters
Map Scale: 1:12,300 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet.

Packet Pg. 655 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Draft Aquatic Delineation September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438

MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION
Area of Interest (AOI)
Area of Interest (AOI)
Soils
Soil Map Unit Polygons
Soil Map Unit Lines
Soil Map Unit Points
Special Point Features
Blowout
Borrow Pit
Clay Spot
Closed Depression
Gravel Pit
Gravelly Spot
Landfill
Lava Flow
Marsh or swamp
Mine or Quarry
Miscellaneous Water
Perennial Water
Rock Outcrop
Saline Spot
Sandy Spot
Severely Eroded Spot
Sinkhole
Slide or Slip
Sodic Spot
Spoil Area
Stony Spot
Very Stony Spot
Wet Spot
Other
Special Line Features
Water Features
Streams and Canals
Transportation
Rails
Interstate Highways
US Routes
Major Roads
Local Roads
Background
Aerial Photography
The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at
1:20,000.

Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map
measurements.

Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey URL:

Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)
Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required.

This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below.

Soil Survey Area: Shasta County Area, California
Survey Area Data: Version 20, Aug 28, 2024
Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger.

Date(s) aerial images were photographed: May 8, 2019—Jun 21, 2019
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident.

Custom Soil Resource Report
10 Packet Pg. 656 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Draft Aquatic Delineation September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 Map Unit Legend
Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI ArD Auburn very stony loam, 8 to 30
percent slopes
113.7 76.5%
AsD2 Auburn clay loam, 8 to 30
percent slopes, eroded

2.2 1.5%
NeC Newtown gravelly loam, 8 to 15
percent slopes

1.6 1.1%
RbB Red Bluff loam, 3 to 8 percent
slopes

18.1 12.2%
RdB Redding gravelly loam, 0 to 15
percent slopes, moist, MLRA
17 13.0 8.8%
Totals for Area of Interest 148.7 100.0%
Map Unit Descriptions
The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the soils or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit descriptions, along with the maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit.

A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified and named according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic class there are precisely defined limits for the properties of the soils. On the landscape, however, the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the characteristic variability of all natural phenomena. Thus, the range of some observed properties may extend beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class.

Areas of soils of a single taxonomic class rarely, if ever, can be mapped without including areas of other taxonomic classes. Consequently, every map unit is made up of the soils or miscellaneous areas for which it is named and some minor components that belong to taxonomic classes other than those of the major soils.

Most minor soils have properties similar to those of the dominant soil or soils in the map unit, and thus they do not affect use and management. These are called noncontrasting, or similar, components. They may or may not be mentioned in a particular map unit description. Other minor components, however, have properties and behavioral characteristics divergent enough to affect use or to require different management. These are called contrasting, or dissimilar, components. They generally are in small areas and could not be mapped separately because of the scale used. Some small areas of strongly contrasting soils or miscellaneous areas are identified by a special symbol on the maps. If included in the database for a given area, the contrasting minor components are identified in the map unit descriptions along with some characteristics of each. A few areas of minor components may not have been observed, and consequently they are not mentioned in the descriptions, especially where the pattern was so complex that it Custom Soil Resource Report
11 Packet Pg. 657 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Draft Aquatic Delineation September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision was impractical to make enough observations to identify all the soils and miscellaneous areas on the landscape.

The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The objective of mapping is not to delineate pure taxonomic classes but rather to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. The delineation of such segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, however, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas.

An identifying symbol precedes the map unit name in the map unit descriptions.

Each description includes general facts about the unit and gives important soil properties and qualities.

Soils that have profiles that are almost alike make up a soil series. Except for differences in texture of the surface layer, all the soils of a series have major horizons that are similar in composition, thickness, and arrangement.

Soils of one series can differ in texture of the surface layer, slope, stoniness, salinity, degree of erosion, and other characteristics that affect their use. On the basis of such differences, a soil series is divided into soil phases. Most of the areas shown on the detailed soil maps are phases of soil series. The name of a soil phase commonly indicates a feature that affects use or management. For example, Alpha silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is a phase of the Alpha series.

Some map units are made up of two or more major soils or miscellaneous areas.

These map units are complexes, associations, or undifferentiated groups.

A complex consists of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas in such an intricate pattern or in such small areas that they cannot be shown separately on the maps.

The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar in all areas. Alpha-Beta complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes, is an example.

An association is made up of two or more geographically associated soils or miscellaneous areas that are shown as one unit on the maps. Because of present or anticipated uses of the map units in the survey area, it was not considered practical or necessary to map the soils or miscellaneous areas separately. The pattern and relative proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar. Alpha-Beta association, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example.

An undifferentiated group is made up of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas that could be mapped individually but are mapped as one unit because similar interpretations can be made for use and management. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas in a mapped area are not uniform. An area can be made up of only one of the major soils or miscellaneous areas, or it can be made up of all of them. Alpha and Beta soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example.

Some surveys include miscellaneous areas. Such areas have little or no soil material and support little or no vegetation. Rock outcrop is an example.

Custom Soil Resource Report
12 Packet Pg. 658 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Draft Aquatic Delineation September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision Shasta County Area, California
ArD—Auburn very stony loam, 8 to 30 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: hflp
Elevation: 300 to 2,000 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 30 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 61 degrees F
Frost-free period: 175 to 275 days
Farmland classification: Not prime farmland
Map Unit Composition
Auburn and similar soils: 85 percent
Minor components: 15 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.

Description of Auburn
Setting
Landform: Hillslopes
Landform position (two-dimensional): Shoulder, footslope Landform position (three-dimensional): Base slope
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Residuum weathered from metavolcanics
Typical profile
H1 - 0 to 8 inches: very stony loam
H2 - 8 to 20 inches: gravelly loam
H3 - 20 to 24 inches: unweathered bedrock
Properties and qualities
Slope: 8 to 30 percent
Surface area covered with cobbles, stones or boulders: 5.0 percent Depth to restrictive feature: 20 to 24 inches to lithic bedrock Drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: Medium
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Very low to moderately low (0.00 to 0.06 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Very low (about 2.5 inches) Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6s
Hydrologic Soil Group: C
Ecological site: R015XD093CA - SHALLOW LOAMY
Hydric soil rating: No
Minor Components
Unnamed
Percent of map unit: 10 percent
Custom Soil Resource Report
13 Packet Pg. 659 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Draft Aquatic Delineation September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision Landform: Hillslopes
Landform position (two-dimensional): Shoulder, footslope Landform position (three-dimensional): Base slope
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Hydric soil rating: No
Tailings and placer diggings
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Landform: Stream terraces
Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Hydric soil rating: No
AsD2—Auburn clay loam, 8 to 30 percent slopes, eroded
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: hflq
Elevation: 120 to 3,000 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 20 to 40 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 55 to 63 degrees F
Frost-free period: 175 to 275 days
Farmland classification: Not prime farmland
Map Unit Composition
Auburn and similar soils: 85 percent
Minor components: 15 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.

Description of Auburn
Setting
Landform: Hillslopes
Landform position (two-dimensional): Shoulder, footslope Landform position (three-dimensional): Base slope
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Residuum weathered from metavolcanics
Typical profile
H1 - 0 to 5 inches: clay loam
H2 - 5 to 27 inches: gravelly clay loam
H3 - 27 to 31 inches: unweathered bedrock
Properties and qualities
Slope: 8 to 30 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: 27 to 31 inches to lithic bedrock Drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: Medium
Custom Soil Resource Report
14 Packet Pg. 660 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Draft Aquatic Delineation September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Very low to moderately low (0.00 to 0.06 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Low (about 3.8 inches) Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6e
Hydrologic Soil Group: C
Ecological site: R015XD093CA - SHALLOW LOAMY
Hydric soil rating: No
Minor Components
Goulding
Percent of map unit: 4 percent
Landform: Hillslopes
Landform position (two-dimensional): Shoulder, footslope Landform position (three-dimensional): Base slope
Down-slope shape: Convex
Across-slope shape: Convex
Hydric soil rating: No
Boomer
Percent of map unit: 4 percent
Landform: Hillslopes
Landform position (two-dimensional): Shoulder, footslope Landform position (three-dimensional): Base slope
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Hydric soil rating: No
Tailings and placer diggings
Percent of map unit: 4 percent
Landform: Stream terraces
Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Hydric soil rating: No
Maymen
Percent of map unit: 3 percent
Landform: Hillslopes
Landform position (two-dimensional): Shoulder
Landform position (three-dimensional): Base slope
Down-slope shape: Convex
Across-slope shape: Convex
Hydric soil rating: No
Custom Soil Resource Report
15 Packet Pg. 661 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Draft Aquatic Delineation September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision NeC—Newtown gravelly loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: hfr7
Elevation: 600 to 1,000 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 30 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 61 degrees F
Frost-free period: 200 to 250 days
Farmland classification: Not prime farmland
Map Unit Composition
Newtown and similar soils: 85 percent
Minor components: 15 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.

Description of Newtown
Setting
Landform: Fan remnants
Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit, backslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Riser, tread
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Alluvium
Typical profile
H1 - 0 to 10 inches: gravelly loam
H2 - 10 to 18 inches: very gravelly clay loam
H3 - 18 to 35 inches: clay loam
H4 - 35 to 65 inches: silty clay loam
H5 - 65 to 72 inches: gravelly silty clay loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 8 to 15 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: Very high
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately low to moderately high (0.06 to 0.20 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: High (about 9.1 inches) Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3e
Hydrologic Soil Group: C
Ecological site: R017XD088CA - UPLAND TERRACE
Hydric soil rating: No
Custom Soil Resource Report
16 Packet Pg. 662 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Draft Aquatic Delineation September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision Minor Components
Perkins
Percent of map unit: 10 percent
Landform: Stream terraces
Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Hydric soil rating: No
Red bluff
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Landform: Fan remnants
Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit
Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Hydric soil rating: No
RbB—Red Bluff loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: hfrt
Elevation: 200 to 800 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 30 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 63 degrees F
Frost-free period: 200 to 250 days
Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated
Map Unit Composition
Red bluff and similar soils: 85 percent
Minor components: 15 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.

Description of Red Bluff
Setting
Landform: Fan remnants
Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit, shoulder, backslope Landform position (three-dimensional): Riser, tread
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Alluvium
Typical profile
H1 - 0 to 6 inches: loam
H2 - 6 to 28 inches: clay loam
H3 - 28 to 57 inches: clay loam
H4 - 57 to 67 inches: gravelly clay loam
Custom Soil Resource Report
17 Packet Pg. 663 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Draft Aquatic Delineation September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision Properties and qualities
Slope: 3 to 8 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: High
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high (0.20 to 0.57 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: High (about 9.4 inches) Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3e
Hydrologic Soil Group: C
Ecological site: R017XD089CA - ACID TERRACE
Hydric soil rating: No
Minor Components
Newtown
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Landform: Fan remnants
Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Riser
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Convex
Hydric soil rating: No
Redding
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Landform: Fan remnants
Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit, shoulder
Landform position (three-dimensional): Riser, tread
Down-slope shape: Convex
Across-slope shape: Linear
Hydric soil rating: No
Perkins
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Landform: Stream terraces
Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Hydric soil rating: No
Custom Soil Resource Report
18 Packet Pg. 664 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Draft Aquatic Delineation September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision RdB—Redding gravelly loam, 0 to 15 percent slopes, moist, MLRA 17 Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: 2w8bn
Elevation: 430 to 1,100 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 28 to 48 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 61 to 63 degrees F
Frost-free period: 310 to 335 days
Farmland classification: Not prime farmland
Map Unit Composition
Redding and similar soils: 85 percent
Minor components: 15 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.

Description of Redding
Setting
Landform: Fan remnants
Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit, shoulder
Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Loamy alluvium derived from igneous, metamorphic and sedimentary rock over clayey alluvium derived from igneous, metamorphic and sedimentary rock over cemented alluvium derived from igneous, metamorphic and sedimentary rock over tehama formation
Typical profile
A1 - 0 to 5 inches: gravelly loam
A2 - 5 to 6 inches: loam
Bt - 6 to 13 inches: clay
Btqm - 13 to 28 inches: cemented very gravelly material 2C - 28 to 60 inches: stratified sand to loam to clay
Properties and qualities
Slope: 0 to 15 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches; 10 to 30 inches to duripan Drainage class: Moderately well drained
Runoff class: Very high
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Very low (0.00 in/hr) Depth to water table: About 5 to 13 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Maximum salinity: Nonsaline (0.2 to 0.5 mmhos/cm)
Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Very low (about 0.9 inches) Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): 4e
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e
Custom Soil Resource Report
19 Packet Pg. 665 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Draft Aquatic Delineation September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision Hydrologic Soil Group:

D
Ecological site: R017XD089CA - ACID TERRACE
Hydric soil rating: No
Minor Components
Clough
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Landform: Fan remnants
Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit, toeslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread
Microfeatures of landform position: Swales
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear, concave
Hydric soil rating: No
Red bluff
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Landform: Fan remnants
Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Riser
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Concave
Hydric soil rating: No
Newtown
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Landform: Fan remnants
Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Riser
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Convex
Hydric soil rating: No
Custom Soil Resource Report
20 Packet Pg. 666 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Draft Aquatic Delineation September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision References
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 2004. Standard specifications for transportation materials and methods of sampling and testing. 24th edition.

American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2005. Standard classification of soils for engineering purposes. ASTM Standard D2487-00.

Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deep-water habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS-79/31.

Federal Register. July 13, 1994. Changes in hydric soils of the United States.

Federal Register. September 18, 2002. Hydric soils of the United States.

Hurt, G.W., and L.M. Vasilas, editors. Version 6.0, 2006. Field indicators of hydric soils in the United States.

National Research Council. 1995. Wetlands: Characteristics and boundaries.

Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service.

U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 18. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_054262
Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for making and interpreting soil surveys. 2nd edition. Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053577 Soil Survey Staff. 2010. Keys to soil taxonomy. 11th edition. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053580 Tiner, R.W., Jr. 1985. Wetlands of Delaware. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Wetlands Section.

United States Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual. Waterways Experiment Station Technical Report Y-87-1.

United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.

National forestry manual. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/ home/?cid=nrcs142p2_053374
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.

National range and pasture handbook. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/ detail/national/landuse/rangepasture/?cid=stelprdb1043084 21 Packet Pg. 667 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Draft Aquatic Delineation September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.

National soil survey handbook, title 430-VI. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nrcs/detail/soils/scientists/?cid=nrcs142p2_054242
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2006. Land resource regions and major land resource areas of the United States, the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 296. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/? cid=nrcs142p2_053624
United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1961. Land capability classification. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 210. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_052290.pdf Custom Soil Resource Report
22 Packet Pg. 668 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Draft Aquatic Delineation September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision Appendix D
The Peaks Single-Family Housing Development Project
Draft Delineation of Aquatic Resources (GE# 24-088))
Appendix D: Draft Delineation of Aquatic Resources Maps Packet Pg. 669 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Draft Aquatic Delineation September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
Ô
Ô
Ô
Ô
Ô
Ô
Ô
Ô
Ô
D-D'
H-H'
F-F'
E-E'
B-B'

I-I' C-C'
G-G'
Quartz Hill Road Buenaventura Blvd
Spinnaker Dr.
"6
"7
"4 "5
"2 "3
"1
0 200 400 Feet
1:12,000
Data Sources: ESRI, NAIP 2022,USGS,GHD
The Peaks Subdivision
Draft Delineation of Aquatic Resources
Index Map
1 inch = 1,000 feet M GE: #24-088 Map Date: 09/17/2025
Coordinate System: NAD1983 California State Plane I (Feet) Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic
Datum: North American 1983
Vertical Datum: NAVD 88
Made in accordance with the Updated Map & Drawing Standards for the South Pacific Division Regulatory Program
The features represented on this graphic
are considered preliminary until verified
by the USACE.

Survey Area - (149.73 acres)
Photo Point - P#
Ô
SheetFlow
Flow Direction
OHWM Transect- X-X'
Map Panel - #
Culvert
10 Foot Contour
Data Point
!( Test Pit - TP#
Upland - U#
Wetland - W#
Other Waters - OW# - 1.20
Intermittent (0.544 acres)
Ephemeral (0.656 acres)
Wetland Features - WF# - 0.134
Fresh Emergent- (0.057 acres)
Seasonal Wetland - (0.077 acres)
Label Cowardin Description Width+ Length Area (sq ft) Acres* Potentially
Excluded
Features**
OW1 R4 NRPW 40.607024 -122.424842 5 2020.2 10101.0 0.232 No OW2 R6 NRPW 40.608112 -122.422569 1 260.3 260.3 0.006 No OW3 R6 NRPW 40.607718 -122.423804 1 228.6 228.6 0.005 No OW3A R6 NRPW 40.608396 -122.424438 3 460.3 1380.9 0.032 No OW4 R6 NRPW 40.607939 -122.427762 1 57.9 57.9 0.001 No
OW4a R6 NRPW 40.608054 -122.42799 1 4932.3 4932.3 0.113 No OW4b R6 NRPW 40.608544 -122.428996 1 448.3 448.3 0.010 No OW5 R6 NRPW 40.608234 -122.427524 1 737.8 737.8 0.017 No OW6 R6 NRPW 40.609387 -122.427984 1 224.6 224.6 0.005 No OW7 R6 NRPW 40.607267 -122.429079 5 225.6 1055.5 0.024 No OW7a R6 NRPW 40.607267 -122.429079 19 256 4759.8 0.109 No OW8 R6 NRPW 40.607315 -122.422934 3 338.2 1014.7 0.023 No OW8A R6 NRPW 40.606735 -122.422724 5 233.6 1168.2 0.027 No OW9 R6 NRPW 40.606658 -122.424226 2 323.2 646.5 0.015 No OW11 R6 NRPW 40.609827 -122.422263 30 233.9 7016.3 0.161 No OW11a R6 NRPW 40.609623 -122.424374 1 629.4 629.4 0.014 No OW11b R6 NRPW 40.609623 -122.424374 1 336.3 336.3 0.008 No OW12 R6 NRPW 40.610076 -122.42356 3 180.4 541.2 0.012 No OW13 R6 NRPW 40.609858 -122.425157 1 713.9 713.9 0.016 No OW14 R4 NRPW 40.609955 -122.421464 7 94 673.2 0.015 No
OW15 R4 NRPW 40.610704 -122.421573 1 77.9 77.9 0.002 No OW16 R4 NRPW 40.612869 -122.42351 23 420 9658.3 0.222 No OW17 R6 NRPW 40.611656 -122.422659 2 89.3 178.6 0.004 No OW18 R4 NRPW 40.612245 -122.421946 3 143.6 430.7 0.010 No OW19 R6 NRPW 40.612399 -122.422323 1 34.9 34.9 0.001 No OW20 R6 NRPW 40.612615 -122.424082 3 333.3 999.9 0.023 No OW20A R6 NRPW 40.61249 -122.424557 12 24.6 295.7 0.007 No OW21 R6 NRPW 40.613242 -122.425028 1 258.0 258.0 0.006 No OW22 R6 NRPW 40.613498 -122.424894 1 356.0 356.0 0.008 No OW23 R6 NRPW 40.613793 -122.423628 1 305.5 305.5 0.007 No OW24 R4 NRPW 40.614062 -122.424445 6 462.1 2772.4 0.064 No 15440.1 52294.7 1.200
+Widths are represented as averages
* Acres rounded to thousandth place
WF01 PEM1 Fresh Emergent 40.610489 -122.421583 N/A N/A 2038.3 0.047 No WF02 PEM1 Fresh Emergent 40.612201 -122.421617 N/A N/A 461.6 0.011 No WF03 PEM Seasonal 40.612195 -122.422407 N/A N/A 2927.0 0.067 No WF04 PEM Seasonal 40.613111 -122.424037 N/A N/A 432.5 0.010 No 5859.5 0.134
Aquatic Resources= 58154.2 1.334
Wetland Features
Draft Delineation of Aquatic Resources Other Waters
Location (Lat, Long)
Other Waters Totals=
Wetland Feature Totals=
Packet Pg. 670 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Draft Aquatic Delineation September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 !(
!(
!(
Ô
Ô
Ô
Ô
Ô
P23
P18
P17
P16
P15
P14
P12
P13
P11
P10
P09
P03
P27
P30
P26
P31
P32
OW16
OW18
OW22
OW21
OW17
OW16
OW19
OW23
OW20
OW24
OW20a
WF03
WF02
WF04
B-B'
C-C'
TP4
TP5
W3
W2 U3 U2
W4
U4
TP7
0 100 200 Feet
1:2,460
Data Sources: ESRI, NAIP 2022,USGS,GHD
The Peaks Subdivision
Draft Delineation of Aquatic Resources
Panel
1 inch = 205 feet M GE: #24-088 Map Date: 09/17/2025
1 Packet Pg. 671 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Draft Aquatic Delineation September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 Ô
P20
OW5
OW4b
OW6
TP6
0 100 200 Feet
1:2,460
Data Sources: ESRI, NAIP 2022,USGS,GHD
The Peaks Subdivision
Draft Delineation of Aquatic Resources
Panel
1 inch = 205 feet
M GE: #24-088 Map Date: 09/17/2025 2
Packet Pg. 672 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Draft Aquatic Delineation September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 \\
\\
!(
!(
!(
Ô
Ô
P24
P20
P14
P12
P13
P11
P10
P09
P08
P02
P30
P31
OW16
OW5
OW11a
OW11b
OW2
OW14
OW17
OW11
OW15
OW13
OW3a
OW12
WF01
WF03
WF02
B-B'
TP1
TP4
W1
W3
W2 U2
U1
U3
TP6
0 100 200 Feet
1:2,460
Data Sources: ESRI, NAIP 2022,USGS,GHD
The Peaks Subdivision
Draft Delineation of Aquatic Resources
Panel
1 inch = 205 feet M GE: #24-088 Map Date: 09/17/2025
OW14
OW15
W1
U1
WF01
Detail
3 Packet Pg. 673 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Draft Aquatic Delineation September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 OW1
OW5
OW4a
OW7
OW4b
OW
OW7a
0 100 200 Feet
1:2,460
Data Sources: ESRI, NAIP 2022,USGS,GHD
The Peaks Subdivision
Draft Delineation of Aquatic Resources
Panel
1 inch = 205 feet
M GE: #24-088 Map Date: 09/17/2025 4
Packet Pg. 674 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Draft Aquatic Delineation September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 !(
!(
Ô
Ô
Ô
P05
P29
OW1
OW1
OW5
OW4a
OW2
OW3
OW4
OW8
OW8a
OW9
OW3a
A-A'
TP3
TP2
0 100 200 Feet
1:2,460
Data Sources: ESRI, NAIP 2022,USGS,GHD
The Peaks Subdivision
Draft Delineation of Aquatic Resources
Panel
1 inch = 205 feet
M GE: #24-088 Map Date: 09/17/2025 5
Packet Pg. 675 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Draft Aquatic Delineation September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 !(
!(
!(Ô
Ô
Ô
Ô
Ô
P23
P18
P17
P16
P15
P14
P12
P13
P11
P10
P09
P03
P27
P30
P26
P31
P32
OW16
OW18
OW22
OW21
OW17
OW16
OW15
OW19
OW23
OW20
OW24
OW20a
WF03
WF02
WF04
B-B'
C-C'
TP4
TP5
W3
W2 U3 U2
W4
U4
TP7
0 100 200 Feet
1:5,540
Data Sources: ESRI, NAIP 2022,USGS,GHD
The Peaks Subdivision
Draft Delineation of Aquatic Resources
Panel 6
1 inch = 462 feet
M GE: #24-088 Map Date: 09/17/2025 Packet Pg. 676 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Draft Aquatic Delineation September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 0 100 200 Feet
1:5,540
Data Sources: ESRI, NAIP 2022,USGS,GHD
The Peaks Subdivision
Draft Delineation of Aquatic Resources
Panel 7
1 inch = 462 feet
M GE: #24-088 Map Date: 09/17/2025 Packet Pg. 677 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Draft Aquatic Delineation September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 Appendix E
The Peaks Single-Family Housing Development Project
Draft Delineation of Aquatic Resources (GE# 24-088)
Appendix E: Draft Delineation of Aquatic Resources Table Packet Pg. 678 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Draft Aquatic Delineation September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision Label Cowardin Description Width+ Length Area (sq ft) Acres* Potentially
Excluded
Features**
OW1 R4 NRPW 40.607024 -122.424842 5 2020.2 10101.0 0.232 No OW2 R6 NRPW 40.608112 -122.422569 1 260.3 260.3 0.006 No OW3 R6 NRPW 40.607718 -122.423804 1 228.6 228.6 0.005 No OW3A R6 NRPW 40.608396 -122.424438 3 460.3 1380.9 0.032 No OW4 R6 NRPW 40.607939 -122.427762 1 57.9 57.9 0.001 No
OW4a R6 NRPW 40.608054 -122.42799 1 4932.3 4932.3 0.113 No OW4b R6 NRPW 40.608544 -122.428996 1 448.3 448.3 0.010 No OW5 R6 NRPW 40.608234 -122.427524 1 737.8 737.8 0.017 No OW6 R6 NRPW 40.609387 -122.427984 1 224.6 224.6 0.005 No OW7 R6 NRPW 40.607267 -122.429079 5 225.6 1055.5 0.024 No OW7a R6 NRPW 40.607267 -122.429079 19 256 4759.8 0.109 No OW8 R6 NRPW 40.607315 -122.422934 3 338.2 1014.7 0.023 No OW8A R6 NRPW 40.606735 -122.422724 5 233.6 1168.2 0.027 No OW9 R6 NRPW 40.606658 -122.424226 2 323.2 646.5 0.015 No OW11 R6 NRPW 40.609827 -122.422263 30 233.9 7016.3 0.161 No OW11a R6 NRPW 40.609623 -122.424374 1 629.4 629.4 0.014 No OW11b R6 NRPW 40.609623 -122.424374 1 336.3 336.3 0.008 No OW12 R6 NRPW 40.610076 -122.42356 3 180.4 541.2 0.012 No OW13 R6 NRPW 40.609858 -122.425157 1 713.9 713.9 0.016 No OW14 R4 NRPW 40.609955 -122.421464 7 94 673.2 0.015 No
OW15 R4 NRPW 40.610704 -122.421573 1 77.9 77.9 0.002 No OW16 R4 NRPW 40.612869 -122.42351 23 420 9658.3 0.222 No OW17 R6 NRPW 40.611656 -122.422659 2 89.3 178.6 0.004 No OW18 R4 NRPW 40.612245 -122.421946 3 143.6 430.7 0.010 No OW19 R6 NRPW 40.612399 -122.422323 1 34.9 34.9 0.001 No OW20 R6 NRPW 40.612615 -122.424082 3 333.3 999.9 0.023 No OW20A R6 NRPW 40.61249 -122.424557 12 24.6 295.7 0.007 No OW21 R6 NRPW 40.613242 -122.425028 1 258.0 258.0 0.006 No OW22 R6 NRPW 40.613498 -122.424894 1 356.0 356.0 0.008 No OW23 R6 NRPW 40.613793 -122.423628 1 305.5 305.5 0.007 No OW24 R4 NRPW 40.614062 -122.424445 6 462.1 2772.4 0.064 No 15440.1 52294.7 1.200
+Widths are represented as averages
* Acres rounded to thousandth place
WF01 PEM1 Fresh Emergent 40.610489 -122.421583 N/A N/A 2038.3 0.047 No WF02 PEM1 Fresh Emergent 40.612201 -122.421617 N/A N/A 461.6 0.011 No WF03 PEM Seasonal 40.612195 -122.422407 N/A N/A 2927.0 0.067 No WF04 PEM Seasonal 40.613111 -122.424037 N/A N/A 432.5 0.010 No 5859.5 0.134
Aquatic Resources= 58154.2 1.334
Wetland Features
Draft Delineation of Aquatic Resources
Other Waters
Location (Lat, Long)
Other Waters Totals=
Wetland Feature Totals=
Packet Pg. 679 Attachment: Peaks Subdivision-Draft Aquatic Delineation September 2025 (2.1--Appeal APPL-2025-01438 of "The Peaks" Tentative Subdivision

Redding City CouncilDecember 4, 2025

Redding City Council
December 4, 2025