Robert Klamt / (707) 576-2661
Theresa Wistrom / (707) 576-2663
4. Name and Address of Agency Requiring Checklist
The California Regional Water Quality Control Board, North Coast Region (Regional Water Board) is proposing to establish a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) based on a proposed Garcia River Watershed Water Quality Attainment Strategy for Sediment (Strategy) and to adopt a corresponding amendment to the Water Quality Control Plan for the North Coast Region (Basin Plan.) The affected area is the Garcia River Watershed in Mendocino County, which is located in the North Coastal Basin of the North Coast Region.
The Regional Water Board’s Basin Planning process has been certified as functionally equivalent to the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or Negative Declaration for the purposes of complying with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code section 21000 et seq. (Title 14, California Code of Regulations , section 15251.) Based on this certification, the Garcia River Watershed Water Quality Attainment Strategy for Sediment (Strategy) , the corresponding proposed Basin Plan amendment, and the accompanying staff reports, including this environmental checklist, are used in lieu of a Programmatic EIR or Negative Declaration.
Project Description: For the purposes of analyzing the environmental impacts of this Strategy and corresponding Basin Plan amendment, the project is defined as the adoption of the Strategy and the corresponding Basin Plan amendment, and future approvals by the Executive Officer of Site-Specific Sedimentation Reduction Plans submitted pursuant to the Strategy and Basin Plan amendment. The Strategy and Basin Plan amendment contemplate that landowners in the Garcia River watershed whose activities have the potential to cause discharges of sediment to waters of the state will take actions to control potential sources of sediment to the Garcia River and its tributaries in order to attempt to attain the identified numeric targets for the protection of salmonids. Landowners may implement the Garcia River Water shed Sedimentation Reduction Plan contained in the Strategy, submit a Site-Specific Sedimentation Reduction Plan, or cease discharges of sediment. Although the contents of the Site-Specific Sedimentation Reduction Plans will vary from landowner to landowner, they will provide an equivalent level of water quality protection and restoration as the Garcia River Watershed Sedimentation Reduction Plan. Therefore, the environmental impacts resulting from the Site-Specific Sedimentation Reduction Plan are expected to be similar to those resulting from the Garcia River Watershed Sedimentation Reduction Plan. If a landowner submits a Site-Specific Sedimentation Reduction Plan that may have environmental impacts that were not previously examined, the Regional Water Board will conduct additional environmental analysis prior the approving the Site-Specific Sedimentation Reduction Plan.
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed Basin Plan amendment COULD NOT have a
significant effect on the environment. x
I find that although the proposed Basin Plan Amendment COULD
have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT
BE a significant effect in this case, because the mitigation
measures described on an attached sheet have been incorporated
into the proposed Basin Plan amendment.
I find that the proposed Basin Plan amendment MAY have a
significant effect on the environment. Under the CEQA
functional equivalent process, alternatives or mitigation
must be incorporated into the plan to eliminate significant
environmental impacts. Therefore, I recommend the
subject Basin Plan amendment not be adopted or approved as proposed.
I find that the proposed Basin Plan amendment MAY have a
significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least
one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and
2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the
earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the
effect is a "potentially significant impact" or
"potentially significant unless mitigated." Additional
analysis under the CEQA functional equivalent process
is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project COULD have a
significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT
be a significant effect in this case because all
potentially significant effects a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier document pursuant to applicable
legal standards and b) have been avoided or mitigated
pursuant to that document, including revisions or
mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed
Lee A. Michlin, Executive Officer Date
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposed action:
a) Conflict with general plan designation
b) Conflict with applicable environmental
plans or policies adopted by agencies with
jurisdiction over the project? x
(See III. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the
(See III. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations
(e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts
from incompatible land uses)? x
(See III. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement
or an established community (including a low-
income or minority community)? x
2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposed action:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either
directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects
in an undeveloped area or extension of major
c) Displace existing housing, especially
3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposed action result
in or expose people to potential impacts involving:
c) Seismic Ground failure, including
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? x
(See III. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
f) Erosion, changes in topography or
unstable soil conditions from excavation,
(See III. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
(See III. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
i) Unique geologic or physical features? x
4. WATER. Would the proposed action result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage
patterns, or the rate and amount of
(See III. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
b) Exposure of people or property to water
related hazards such as flooding? x
c) Discharge into surface waters or other
alteration of surface water quality (e.g.
temperature, dissolved oxygen or
(See III. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
d) Changes in the amount of surface water
(See III. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction
f) Change in the quantity of ground waters,
either through direct additions or withdrawals,
or through interception of an aquifer by cuts
or excavations or through substantial loss of
groundwater recharge capability? x
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of
h) Impacts to groundwater quality x
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of
groundwater otherwise available for
5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposed action:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
to an existing or projected air quality
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? x
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature,
or cause any change in climate? x
d) Create objectionable odors? x
6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposed action result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? x x
b) Hazards to safety from design features
(e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections)
or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? x
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting
alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts,
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic
7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposed action result in impacts to:
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or
their habitats (including but not limited
to plants, fish, insects, animals,
(See III. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage
(See III. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
c) Locally designated natural communities
(e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? x
(See III. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and
(See III. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration
(See III. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposed action:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of future value to
the region and the residents of the state?( ) x
9. HAZARDS. Would the proposed action involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of
hazardous substances (including, but not
limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals
b) Possible interference with an emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
c) The creation of any health hazard or
d) Exposure of people to existing sources
of potential health hazards? x
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable
10. NOISE. Would the proposed action result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? x
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
b) Exposure of people to serve noise
11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposed action have an effect upon,
or result in a need for new or altered government services in any
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including
e) Other governmental services? -- x
12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposed
action result in a need for new systems or supplies, or
substantial alterations to the following utilities:
c) Local or regional water treatment or
g) Local or regional water supplies? x
13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposed action:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposed action:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? x
b) Disturb archaeological resources? x
c) Affect historical resources? x
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change
which would affect unique ethnic cultural
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses
within the potential impact area? x
15. RECREATION. Would the proposed action:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or
regional parks or other recreational
b) Affect existing recreational
(See III. DISCUSSION of Environmental Evaluation)
16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade
the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below
self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered
plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California
b) Does the project have the potential to
achieve short-term, to the disadvantage
of long-term, environmental goals? x
c) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and the
effects of probable future projects.) x
d) Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or
1.b) The proposed Basin Plan amendment may, for those operations within the Garcia River watershed which are or will be identified as contributing or potentially contributing to the discharge of sediment yet are in compliance with existing plans and policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over certain land use operations, result in increased land protection measures than are currently in effect. Such operations may include timber harvesting, production of agriculture, grazing, and gravel mining. However, the end result is expected to benefit the environment by reducing the discharge of sediment to the Garcia River watershed.
1.c) A reduction of existing land uses and changes in land use may result from the propose Basin Plan amendment. For examples, land owners who will implement the land use measures set forth in the proposed Basin Plan amendment may experience a reduction the in harvesting of timber, or the production of agriculture, or a reduction in the area available for grazing, in certain areas adjacent to the Garcia River and its tributaries. However, the end result is expected to benefit the environment by reducing the discharge of sediment from the lands within the Garcia River watershed.
1.d) The proposed Basin Plan amendment may affect agricultural operations which have been or will be identified as contributing or potentially contributing to the discharge of sediment to the Garcia River watershed. This may result in a reduction of agricultural operations in areas which are adjacent to the Garcia River or its tributaries. The potententially impacted agricultural land area may be as much as 14,000 acres. However, the expected end results of reduced erosion and reduced discharges of sediment to the Garcia River watershed are likely to sustain lands suitable for agricultural operations over the long-term, and will be a beneficial use to the environment.
3.e, f and g) The proposed Basin Plan amendment will provide measures which are intended to reduce the discharge of sediment to the Garcia River and its tributaries, and will also reduce the potential for landslides or mudflows, reduce erosion, and reduce the subsidence of land within the entire watershed area.
4.a) The proposed Basin Plan amendment may result in changes in absorption rates of soils in the long-term, and is expected to reduce or eliminate drainage which will or have been identified as resulting in the discharge of sediment to the Garcia River or its tributaries. Also, the proposed Basin Plan amendment, by setting forth measures to reduce the discharge of sediment to the Garcia River or its tributaries, may result in alterations of the patterns of surface runoff during storm events. For example, in choosing to implement the land use measures set forth in the proposed Basin Plan amendment, a landowner may change the location of a stream crossing or a road, a choice which is expected to enhance the beneficial uses of the Garcia River in the long term.
4.c) The proposed Basin Plan amendment is intended to improve existing water quality by resulting in the reduction of the discharge of sediment into the Garcia River and its tributaries. Similarly, as implementation measures resulting from the proposed Basin Plan amendment are set in place, a reduction in water temperatures is expected to occur, and turbidity in the Garcia River and its tributaries is expected to decrease.
4.d) The proposed Basin Plan amendment may reduce the amount of storm water runoff entering the Garcia River and its tributaries. For an example, the land use measures contained in the proposed Basin Plan amendment may result in a suspension or reduction of operations of land use activities in an area adjacent to a waterway, thus providing an undisturbed soil absorption area. During storm events, the increase in absorption area that is expected to result from this reduction of operations would also be expected to curtail the rate and quantity of surface runoff and improve the quality of surface runoff entering the Garcia River or its tributaries. As another example, the proposed Basin Plan amendment encourages the establishment of riparian vegetation in areas currently devoid of such. During storm events, the improved riparian vegetation may also serve to increase the absorption area for storm water before it reaches the Garcia River or its tributaries.
7.a, b, c, d, and e) The proposed Basin Plan amendment is expected to support these beneficial uses and resources as they relate to water quality.
15.b) As the long-term goal of the proposed Basin Plan amendment is
achieved, the population of the cold water fishery in the Garcia River
watershed will increase, and thereby result in increased recreational opportunities.
