Environmental Checklist Form

2. LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS:
Santa Clara Valley Water District
5750 Almaden Expressway
San Jose CA 95118

3. CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER:
Ms. Cindy Roessler, Project Manager
(408) 265-2607, extension 2765

4. PROJECT LOCATION

Activities associated with the Stream Maintenance Program are undertaken in streams and canals of Santa Clara County, and adjacent property and easement of the Santa Clara Valley Water District (District). Only those streams within the District's jurisdiction are included in this program. The District's jurisdiction on a stream begins at that point where 320 acres of watershed drain to the stream, and continues downstream to San Francisco Bay or the limits of the Pajaro River in Santa Clara County. The Stream Maintenance Program area consists of 191 streams for approximately 829 miles and 10 canals for approximately 41 miles. Click here for Figure 1.1, Streams and Canals in SCVWD Jurisdiction.

5. PROJECT SPONSOR'S NAME AND ADDRESS: Santa Clara Valley Water District.

6, 7. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION AND ZONING

The District's jurisdiction falls within Santa Clara County and its 15 incorporated cities. District land is generally recognized as governmental or open space designations in local general plans and zoning ordinances.

8. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT

Activities Covered

The Stream Maintenance Program is designed to provide long-term guidance to the District to implement routine stream maintenance projects to meet the District's flood protection and water supply mandates in a cost-effective and environmentally sensitive manner. Objectives of preparing the Stream Maintenance Program are to coordinate the various aspects of routine stream maintenance to better achieve this goal, and to assist in obtaining multiple-year permits.

The Stream Maintenance Program applies to all of the District's routine stream maintenance activities, including sediment removal, vegetation management, and bank protection. Other, more minor, routine maintenance activities include maintenance of revegetation sites, fence repair, trash removal, and removal of downed trees or other blockages from streams. Typically, routine maintenance requires the operation of heavy equipment in the channel during the dry season (summer).

Sediment Removal

Sediment removal is the act of mechanically removing sediment deposited within a stream. The District's purposes in performing sediment removal activities are to ensure that a stream will continue to provide flood capacity and to ensure that appurtenant facilities are working as designed. Typically, sediment is removed when it (1) reduces capacity, (2) prevents facilities or appurtenant structures from functioning as intended, or (3) impedes fish passage and access to fish ladders.

Typical equipment used for sediment removal includes excavators, draglines, loaders, and 10- or 20-cubic-yard dump trucks. If water must be bypassed around the site during work, water pumps and piping, and cofferdams of earth, gravel, sandbags, hay bales, rubber or other appropriate material may be used. In some cases, a bypass channel or detention basin is appropriate to isolate a site. Saturated sediments may be temporarily placed adjacent to the work site to dry out before being removed to a landfill or to other suitable disposal or reuse sites.

The District estimates that it removes an average of 80,000 cubic yards of sediment on about 17 miles of channel per year in Santa Clara County (SCVWD 2000a). This is an average annual quantity and will vary from year-to-year depending, in part, on rainfall conditions of the past season.

Vegetation Management

Management of vegetation in and adjacent to creeks is necessary to maintain the ability of channels to function as flood protection facilities. Dense vegetation can adversely affect the ability of the channel to contain the volume and velocity of flood waters for which it was designed. Therefore, most flood protection facilities require some type of periodic vegetation removal. Depending on the original design and the characteristics of the channel, the frequency of vegetation management varies from annually to every few years.

The District also plants and maintains revegetation or mitigation projects, often along creeks. In the first few years, it is important to control weeds at revegetation sites to increase the number of native trees and shrubs which survive and to more quickly establish a self-sustaining plant community which provides wildlife habitat.

The control of invasive, non-native plants is another purpose for which the District undertakes vegetation control. These plants can migrate into other areas where they can affect channel capacity as well as reduce native plant populations. Plant species are targeted that are not native to this area of California and are known to aggressively spread. This can lead to reduced channel capacity and overall habitat degradation.

The District manages vegetation for other purposes including the protection of levees, and concrete linings from plant roots; meeting local fire codes requiring the control of combustible weeds and grasses; providing visual clearance to inspect the condition of a facility; and providing access along maintenance roads.

Over the past 30 years, the District has continually revised vegetation management approaches to control vegetation on District facilities. This approach consists of balancing three basic methods: hand removal (chain saws, weed-eaters, etc.); mechanical (mowing and discing); and chemical control through the use of herbicides. A method or combination of methods is chosen for each site depending on the maintenance requirements of the facility. Efficiency, economics and the protection of public health and environmental resources are all considered in the selection of methods.

The District only uses herbicides according to the label directions and for uses approved by the United States Environmental Protection Agency and the California Department of Pesticide Regulation. Currently, the primary herbicides which the District uses are Roundup^® Pro and Rodeo^®. These herbicides are formulations of the chemical glyphosate, which is a non-selective broad spectrum herbicide. Rodeo^® is approved for use in aquatic areas, whereas Roundup^® Pro is not approved for application directly in water or to areas where surface water is present.

Other herbicides which might be used by the District are shown in the following table.

Common Name	Product Name	Use
Glyphosate	Roundup, Rodeo Pro	Post emergent, nonselective. Rodeo approved for aquatic use.
Clopyralid	Transline	Post emergent, selective to specific broadleaf families. Some minor pre-emergent activity.
Sulfometuron	Oust	Pre-emergent, nonselective
Chlorsulfuron	Telar	Pre-emergent, selective to broadleaf
Oryzalin	Surflan (AS)	Pre-emergent, selective to grasses
Pendimethalin	Pendulum	Pre-emergent, selective to grasses
Triclopyr	Garlon (4, 3A), triethylamine salt	Post-emergent, selective to broadleaf
Isoxaben	Gallery	Pre-emergent for broadleaf
	Target Pro-spreader/activator	Surfactant
	Wilbur-Elis R-11 spreader activator	Surfactant

On average, roughly 3,000 acres of vegetation management work is performed annually (equivalent to approximately 214 miles) (SCVWD 2000a). This total includes the following approximate levels of activity:

125 acres of in-stream work for flood conveyance, which includes the application of aquatic herbicide on approximately 65 acres of vegetation (native and nonnative) and 60 acres of in-stream vegetation removal using mechanical means.

2,700 acres of right-of-way maintenance immediately adjacent to the streams in the District's jurisdiction. These right-of-way activities include mowing, discing or hand clearing of weeds for fire prevention or access; removal of overhanging brush impeding maintenance access; and herbicide applications on roadways and firebreaks for fire prevention and access (these activities are performed twice annually). All of this work is outside of the area of innundation, is on flat areas, and generally has a buffer of grass or vegetation on the slopes between the right-of-way and the stream. This type of vegetation management is typically broad-scale vegetation management that is, vegetation management activities are not targeted on certain species or growths.

190 acres of revegetation maintenance to meet the requirements for mitigation. This type of vegetation management activity is typically spot-spraying or removal, where invasive species are targeted. Typically, vegetation management of mitigation sites is more aggressive during the early establishment period, and management is reduced as native vegetation becomes established.

Bank Protection

Bank protection involves an action by the District to repair stream banks that are eroding or are in need of preventative erosion protection. The District implements bank protection when the problem (1) causes or could cause significant damage to a property or adjacent property, (2) is a public safety concern, (3) negatively affects transportation or recreational use, (4) negatively affects water quality, or (5) negatively affects riparian habitat. Repairs may take several forms from installing "hard" structures (e.g., rock, concrete, sack concrete, gabions) to "soft" structures (e.g., willow brush mattresses, log crib walls, pole plantings). Bank protection work may either occur as repair of an existing bank protection project which is failing, or as new work along a bank which is eroding.

Equipment used for bank protection may include excavators, dozers, cranes, loaders and 10- and 20-cubic-yard dump trucks, concrete trucks, and pumps and water trucks. If water must be bypassed around the site during repair work, water pumps and piping, and cofferdams of earth, gravel, sandbag, hay bales or rubber or other suitable material may be used. In some cases, a bypass channel or detention basin is appropriate to isolate a site. Most often, bank protection projects are implemented in the dry season.

The District estimates that an average of 5,000 linear feet of banks may be repaired annually based on historical records, District experience, and current levels of funding (SCVWD 2000a). This is an average annual quantity and will vary from year-to-year.

Resource Protection

The Stream Maintenance Program includes policies and implementation measures to ensure resources are protected to the furthest extent feasible during the implementation of routine stream maintenance projects. The policies and implementation measures included in the Stream Maintenance Program address the following resource and policy areas (SCVWD 2000a):

• Process and Protocols

• Watershed Restoration and Management

• Protection of Listed Species and Species of Concern

• Fisheries Protection and Enhancement

• Maintenance Site Dewatering

• Minimization of Erosion

• Preservation and Replacement of Riparian and Shaded Riverine Habitat

• Wetlands Protection

• Use and Management of Herbicides

• Hazardous Material Management and Control

• Additional Work Site Management Practices

Impacts

Over the long-term, the Stream Maintenance Program has the potential to significantly affect the environment of Santa Clara County by cumulatively affecting wetland and riparian habitats. Preliminary estimates indicate that the Stream Maintenance Program may affect 30 acres of tidal wetlands, 100 acres of nontidal wetlands, and 76 acres of riparian vegetation. The routine maintenance of canals is currently being evaluated, and these impacts will be evaluated in the EIR.

Mitigation

A mitigation package for significant residual impacts of the Stream Maintenance Program is being considered that includes a substantial investment toward the protection and enhancement of the watersheds and streams of Santa Clara County. Actions proposed to be taken include: (1) watershed and habitat protection through preservation of existing high quality habitat and restoration of damaged watershed areas; (2) restoration of riparian habitat through exotic pest plant removal (primarily giant reed, Arundo donax) and riparian revegetation; (3) creation and restoration of tidal wetlands; (4) protection of tidal wetlands through exotic pest plant removal (smooth cordgrass, Spartina alterniflora); and (5) creation and restoration of non-tidal wetlands. These actions will be coordinated so that multiple functions of the natural systems are provided or enhanced. In some cases, this may result in a concentration of mitigation actions on certain sections of a stream or streams to gain the maximum benefit to the natural values of the watersheds and streams.

9. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND SETTING

Land uses adjacent to the District's jurisdiction include low and high density residential, commercial and services, industrial, institutional, parks and recreation, and natural lands with a variety of general plan and zoning designations (Association of Bay Area Governments 1993).

10. OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED

• California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG)--Memorandum of Understanding or some other form of approval under Section 1601 of the California Fish and Game Code regarding Streambed Alterations, and review under California Fish and Game Code 2050 regarding threatened and endangered species.


• California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) (San Francisco Bay Region and Central Coast Regions)--Waste discharge requirement under the Porter-Cologne Act and water quality certification under section 401 of the US Clean Water Act.


• San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission--Permit for work in tidal areas as defined under the McAteer-Petris Act.


• US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) - An individual permit under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899.


• US Fish and Wildlife Service and US National Marine Fisheries Service - consultation under the federal Endangered Species Act.

11. OBJECTIVES/PURPOSE OF THE INITIAL STUDY

The District as lead agency under CEQA will prepare a Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Stream Maintenance Program. The District has prepared the attached Initial Study to serve as a guide for the environmental analysis necessary in the EIR.

The current Stream Maintenance Program has been developed with the advice of an external stakeholder committee. The stakeholder process included four meetings between May 1999 and August 2000 with over 20 organizations and representatives. Stakeholders include regulatory agencies, municipalities, and environmental and business groups. Stakeholders' thoughts, questions and recommendations were solicited through a variety of forums with the goal of developing a Stream Maintenance Program that reflects community interests and achieves maximum acceptance (SCVWD 2000a).

In May 1995, the District issued two Notices of Preparation regarding routine stream maintenance work. These two projects were entitled: Routine Stream Maintenance Program - Sedimentation Removal/Erosion Control; and Routine Maintenance - Integrated Vegetation Management Program. Since 1995, the District has been working through many issues regarding routine stream maintenance, and has revised its program in response to concerns expressed by the environmental and regulatory communities. The current Notice of Preparation supercedes the 1995 Notices of Preparation.

12. ALTERNATIVES

Alternatives to the above described Stream Maintenance Program are currently under consideration. Not all of these alternatives may be evaluated in the EIR. These are briefly described below.

• No Program Alternative - Under the No Program Alternative the existing stream maintenance program would continue. The District would need to apply for annual permits each year from the various regulatory agencies to undertake maintenance work. The use of herbicides would continue to be excluded from south county areas, no new best management practices would be implemented, and the implementation and reporting of maintenance would not be coordinated.


• Reduced Scope of Work Alternative - The Reduced Scope of Work Alternative would reduce the amount of stream maintenance conducted, although how this would be determined and implemented has not been determined yet. It is assumed that a reduced amount of maintenance work would reduce potential significant biological impacts.
  
• No Herbicides Alternative - This alternative would evaluate a Stream Maintenance Program where no herbicides will be used throughout the County. Instead, vegetation management activities would consist of hand and mechanical methods only.
  
• Regional General Permit Alternative - The San Francisco Bay RWQCB and the USACE are formulating a regional general permit and a waste discharge requirement that allow removal of sediment (and associated wetland vegetation, if present) and debris in concrete channels, vegetation management activities including the use of herbicides, maintenance of structures and bank stabilization less than 500 feet in length. Work completed under conditions proposed for the general permit would be assumed to result in a less-than-significant impact, and would require no mitigation. The Regional General Permit Alternative would reevaluate the significance of impacts by the Stream Maintenance Program by these types of activities in a similar manner to that proposed by this potential regulation. It is likely that this alternative will result in an evaluation of less impacts and therefore less mitigation.
  
• Alternative Baseline--The Stream Maintenance Program currently assumes that impacts to any existing wetland are cumulatively significant and mitigation will be provided. The Alternative Baseline would consider other baselines for determining the significance of impacts to wetlands and riparian vegetation. For example, the USACE Nationwide Permit No. 31 for Maintenance of Flood protection does not require mitigation for cyclical maintenance activities, with some exceptions, once a maintenance baseline as been established (Hess 1997).

13. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

The Initial Study for the Stream Maintenance Program indicates that the proposed project could have potentially significant impacts upon the environment. A Program EIR will be prepared to address these potential effects and mitigation strategies will be presented to reduce these potential impacts.

Environmental Factors Potentially Affected

The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is as "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist o the following pages.

X	Aesthetics		Agricultural Resources	X	Air Quality
X	Biological Resources	X	Cultural Resources	X	Geology / Soils
X	Hazards & Hazardous Materials	X	Hydrology / Water Quality	X	Land Use / Planning
X	Mineral Resources	X	Noise		Population / Housing
X	Public Services		Recreation	X	Transportation / Traffic
X	Utilities / Service Systems	X	Mandatory Findings of Significance

3.3 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanation of answers are found in Section 4.0-Environmental Evaluation)	Potentially Significant Issues	Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated	Less Than Significant Impact	No Impact
1. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?	X
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?	X
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?	X
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area				X
2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES.  In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.  Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?				X
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?				X
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to nonagricultural use?				X
3. AIR QUALITY.  Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?			X
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation?			X
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?		X
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?			X
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?		X
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?	X
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?	X
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?	X
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?	X
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?	X
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?	X
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES.  Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5?			X
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?		X
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?			X
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?		X
6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS.  Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
a) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.				X
b) Strong seismic ground shaking?				X
c) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?				X
d) Landslides?				X
e) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?		X
f) Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?			X
g) Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?				X
h) Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water.				X
7. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?		X
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?		X
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within ¼ mile of an existing or proposed school?		X
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?		X
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?				X
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?				X
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?		X
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?			X
8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?		X
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local ground water table level (for example, the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?			X
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site.		X
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site.		X
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?		X
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?		X
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood-hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?				X
h) Place within a 100-year flood-hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows?		X
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?			X
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?				X
9. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?				X
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?	X
c) Conflict with any applicable Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan?	X
10. MINERAL RESOURCES.  Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?	X
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?	X
11. NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies.		X
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels?			X
c) Substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?				X
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?		X
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?			X
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?			X
12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?				X
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?				X
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?				X
13. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities or need for new or physical altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
a) Fire protection?			X
b) Police protection?				X
c) Schools?				X
d) Parks?				X
e) Other public facilities?			X
14. RECREATION. Would the project:
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?			X
b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?			X
15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (for example, result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)?			X
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion			X
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location, that results in substantial safety risks?				X
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (for example, sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (for example, farm equipment)?			X
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?		X
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?			X
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (for example, bus turnouts, bicycle racks.				X
16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?				X
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction or which could cause significant environmental effects?				X
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?				X
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?				X
e) 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?				X
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?	X
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?	X
17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. Does the project:
a) 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	X
b) 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 the past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.)	X
c) Have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?			X

DETERMINATION: the basis of this initial evaluation:

_______________________________	_______________________________
Signature	Date

Cindy Roessler, Project Manager

Printed name, Title

The following discussion provides an analysis for the response to each question on the checklist. A preliminary review of the Stream Maintenance Program was conducted and potential impacts and mitigation were identified (SCVWD 2000a). Much of the following analysis is based on this document.

1. AESTHETICS

a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?

Sediment removal and vegetation management remove vegetation from the channel. Depending on the aspect from the surrounding land uses, this may result in a scenic vista being temporarily changed from that of a vegetated creek to a partially vegetated or bare creek until the vegetation regrows. Large trees are not removed by these types of routine stream maintenance activities and the bottom of the channel is not always visible from adjacent land uses.

Vegetation removal along levees and maintenance roads will be limited to that necessary for facility inspection purposes, to meet regulatory requirements, to comply with fire codes, and to meet capacity requirements. If maintenance work leaves slopes in a bare soil condition, the District will plant slopes with native vegetation through hydroseeding or other vegetation methods consistent with the facility's design.

Bank protection may replace an eroded earthen bank with hard structures (i.e., rock, concrete, sack concrete, gabions) which may or may not include planted vegetation within or at the top of the bank above the structures. Occasionally, bank protection may result in the removal of a few large trees, but usually the eroded bank is unvegetated by the time an erosion problem has developed. Hard bank protection structures without plantings may change the scenic vista of a creek.

See the discussion under Biological Resources regarding the use of biotechnical bank protection methods and replanting of temporary access routes for measures which also will reduce the level of aesthetic impacts from vegetation removal.

One of the minor routine stream maintenance activities, trash and debris removal, improves the scenic vista of a creek.

b) Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?

Routine stream maintenance may occur adjacent to scenic highways but it does not result in the removal of historic buildings or rock outcroppings. Large trees may occasionally be removed by bank protection. Natural-looking creeks provide a scenic resource which may be altered as described above.

c) Would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?

The existing visual quality of natural-looking creeks may be altered as described above.

d) Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?

Routine stream maintenance does not add new sources of light or glare.

2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES

In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.

a) Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use?

b) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?

c) Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to nonagricultural use?

Routine stream maintenance does not alter existing land uses and therefore would not convert Farmlands to nonagricultural use or result in other new changes affecting Farmland.

3. AIR QUALITY

Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.

a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?

b) Would the project violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation?

c) Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?

d) Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?

Santa Clara County is located in the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). The bay area is in attainment for all national standards, but is in non-attainment for state standards for two pollutants: ozone (one-hour standard) and fine particulate (PM10) (both annual mean and 24-hour standards).

The operation of construction equipment during routine maintenance work will result in emissions, however, this type of work is for short periods and distributed across the county at various sites. Sediment removal activities and operation of equipment on unpaved levee roads may cause dust.

In order to limit the generation of fine particulate matter (PM₁₀) at maintenance sites, these measures shall be implemented consistently with Bay Area Air Quality Management District regulations:

• Active maintenance areas shall be watered at least twice per day.