Initial Study by linxiaoqin

VIEWS: 7 PAGES: 46

									 Ammendment of Water Right Permit 12952
(Application 15704) for the City of Ukiah and
 Water Right License 492 and Permit 13936
(Applications 3601 and 17587, respectively)
     for Millview County Water District




            Initial Study
 Amendment of Water Right Permit 12952 (Application 15704) for
 the City of Ukiah and Water Right License 492 and Permit 13936
        (Applications 3601 and 17587, respectively) for the
                  Millview County Water District


                             Project Description

The City of Ukiah (City) will be preparing a Draft Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) for review and comment on the Amendment of Water Right Permit 12952
(Application 15704) proposed for and by the City of Ukiah and Water Right
License 492 and Permit 13936 (Applications 3601 and 17587, respectively)
proposed for and by Millview County Water District .

The proposed amendments are set forth in Petitions filed with the State Water
Resources Control Board (SWRCB) seeking changes to: The place of use, the
purpose of use, and points of diversion (points of extraction) that have occurred
since the time the Permits and Licenses were issued.

Additionally, the water right permits held by the City and the District have
expired, and Pe.ti,tions have been filed to request additional time in which to
perfect the full beneficial use of water under the permits.

The proposal does not include construction of any new points of diversion or any
other physical improvements. Details regarding the Petitions are provided in
Section 3.0 of the Initial Study.
                                                     CrrY OF UKIAH
                                    Department of Planning & Community Development
                                               300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, CA 95482
                                                     planning@cityofukiah.com




                                              Notice of Preparation
                                         Environmental Impact Report
 Amendment of Water Right Permit 12952 (Application 15704) for the City of Ukiah and
 Water Right License 492 and Perrrlit 13936 (Applications 3601 and 17587, respectively)
                          for Millview County Water District


To:     State Water Resources Control Board             CA Dept of Fish and Game, Region 3   Russian River Flood Control
        Division of Water Rights                        P.O. Box 47                          District
        901 P Street, 3m Floor                          Yountville, CA 94599
        Sacramento, CA 95814

        State Regional Water Quality Control Board     Mendocino County Water Agency         Sonoma County Water
        North Coast Region (1)                         890 North Bush Street, RM 21          Agency
        5550 Skylane Blvd., Suite A                    Ukiah, CA 95482
        Santa Rosa, CA 95403

        U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service                 U.S. A m y Corps of Engineers         Cities of Santa Rosa,
        U.S. Department of Interior                    San Francisco District Office         Cloverdale, Healdsburg,
        2800 Cottage Way, RM W260                      333 Market Street, RM 701             and Wtndsor
        Sacramento, CA 95821-6340                      San Francisco, CA 94105-2195

        Mendocino County Russian River                 National Marine Fisheries Service     County of Sonoma
        Flood Control &Water Conservation              777 Sonoma Avenue, RM 325
        Improvement District                           Santa Rosa, CA 95404
        151 Laws Avenue
        Ukiah, CA 95482                                State Clearinghouse. Sacramento       Sonoma County Water
                                                                                             Agency
        Other Interested Groups.                       Willow County Water District
        Organization, and Persons



Lead Agency: Pursuant to state and local guidelines implementing the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA), please be advised that the City of Ukiah Department of Planning and Community Development will be
the lead agency for the project. Contact: Charley Stump, Director

Consulting Firm: Leonard Charles 8 Associates - 7 Roble Court, San Anselmo, CA 94960

Project Description: The City of Ukiah (City) will be preparing a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for
review and comment on the Amendment of Water Right Permit 12952 (Application 15704) proposed for and by
the City of Ukiah and Water Right License 492 and Permit 13936 (Applications 3601 and 17587, respectivelyj
proposed for and by Millview County Water District (hereafter called the project). The proposed amendments are
set forth in Petitions filed with the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) seeking changes to the place
of use, purpose of use, and points of diversion (points of extraction) that have occurred since the time the Permits
and Licenses were issued. Additionally, the water right permits held by the City and the District have expired, and
Petitions have been filed to request additional time in which to perfect the full beneficial use of water under the
permits. The proposal does not include construction of any new points of diversion or any other physical
improvements. Details regarding the Petitions are provided in Section 3.0 of the lnitial Study.

Initial Study: The City has prepared the lnitial Study that describes the proposed project and the environmental
resources that could be affected by the project. The Initial Study is attached for your review (or if the lnitial Study
is not attached, it is on file at the Ukiah Department of Planning and Community Development, 300 Seminary
Drive, Ukiah, CA 95482, where it is available for public review between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.,
Monday through Friday.
      The Initial Study concludes that because the project will not includt! construction of new facilities and would
      include diversions consistent with its Water Right Permit, it would not have a direct or cumulative impact on most
      environmental resources. Therefore, the EIR will focus on the following three areas of potential impact

                  The on!: direct impact the project could have on the environment is by potentially increasing
                  dry season diversion as allowed under the City's Water Right Permit. lncreas~ngthe
                  diversion pursuant to this Permit would cause additional withdrawals of water from Lake
                  Mendocino. The EIR will examine the cumulative effect of additional withdrawals from Lake
                  Mendocino on water quality (i.e., the temperature of the water and the dissolved oxygen of
                  the water) and the consequent effects on fish and other aquatic species.

                  The EIR will assess project consistency with the County of Mendocino and City of Ukiah
                  General Plans and Zoning regulations.

                  The EIR will assess the potential growth-inducing impacts that could be caused by the
                  increased diversion under the City's Water Right Permit and the expanded place of use
                  proposed both by the City and Millview County Water District.

                  The EIR will also assess alternatives to the proposed project


     Comments on the Scope of the EIR: To ensure that the EIR for this project is thorough and adequate, and
     meets all needs of all agencies reviewing it, we are soliciting comments on the specific issues to be included in
     the environmental review and the project alternatives that should be evaluated. Public comments on the scope of
     issues to be evaluated in the EIR are encouraged.

     Project Scoping Meeting: Because the project would potentially affect habitat used by threatened and
     endangered species and because it could potentially affect the environment beyond the city and county, the
     project is of state, regional, and areawide significance. Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section
     15082(c)(I), the City will hold a public EIR scoping meeting to determine the scope of issues to be evaluated in
     the EIR. The EIR scoping meeting will be held on October 3, 2006 from 4:00 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. in the Ukiah City
     Council Chambers located at 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, CA. Responsible and Trustee Agencies are
     requested to attend, and all other agencies and members of the public are encouraged to attend.

     Deadline for Comments: Please submit your written comments to the Ukiah Department of Planning and
     Community Development by Comments by FAX or E-mail may not be able to be confirmed as officially received
     and accepted before the end of the comment period deadline. Accordingly, you are advised to mail written
     comments postmarked on or before October 23, 2006. Questions about the project should be directed to Charley
     Stump, Director of Planning and Community Development - 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, CA 95482 1
     charleys@cityofukiah.com / (707) 463-6200.




,/
t
  y?;$Ukiah
            g and Community

    (7071 463-6200
 /
j (707j 463-6204 (Fax)
    planning@cityofukiah.com
Amendment of Water Right Permit 12952 (Application 15704)
for the City of Ukiah and Water Right License 492 and Permit
     13936 (Applications 3601 and 17587, respectively) for
                 Millview County Water District



                                Initial Study




May 2006




Prepared for:   City of Llkiah
                300 Seminary Avenue
                Ukiah, California 95482

Prepared by:    Leonard Charles and Associates
                7 Roble Court
                San Anselmo, California 94960
                                          TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section                                                              Page

1.    Introduction and Background

2.    Project Location and Setting

3.    Proposed Project Description

4.    Lead Agency

5.    Regulatory Oversight

6.    Cumulative and Growth-Inducing Impacts

7.    Initial Study Checklist

8.    Sources and References




                                          TABLE OF FIGURES
                                                                 Following
Map                                                                   Paqe

1.    Regional Location

2.    Projectvicinity

3.    Proposed Place of Use for City of Ukiah

4.    Points of Diversion - City of Ukiah

5.    Proposed Place of Use for Millview County Water District

6.    Points of Diversion - Millview County Water District




Initial Study for Water Right Petitions                             Page 1
City of Ukiah
                   INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
This lnitial Study has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code 21000 et seq and the State CEQA
Guidelines, California Code of Regulations Section 15000 et se. The project assessed
in this lnitial Study consists of the amendment of Water Right Permits and/or Licenses
for the City of Ukiah and Millview County Water District (hereafter called "the project").
The proposed amendments are set forth in Petitions filed with the State Water
Resources Control Board (SWRCB) seeking changes to the place of use, purpose of
use, and points of diversion (points of extraction) that have occurred since the time the
Permits and Licenses were issued. Additionally, the water right Permits held by the City
and the District have expired, and Petitions have been filed to request additional time in
which to perfect the full beneficial use of water under the Pemlits.

The City of Ukiah, as Lead Agency, has determined that an Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) will be prepared for this proposed project. This lnitial Study has two aims.
First, it will identify which environmental resources would 1) not be affected by the
project, or 2) be affected at a less than significant level. Supporting data will be provided
to demonstrate how a conclusion of "no impact" or "less than significant impad" is
reached. Second, the lnitial Study will identify the remaining resources that the project
may significantly impact. These are the resources and areas of impact that will be
addressed in the EIR. Thus, the lnitial Study "focuses" the analyses to be included in
the EIR.

Please note that this lnitial Study is more detailed than many lnitial Studies for a
project where an E!R will be prepared. The City request that reviewing parties
carefully review the Initial Study and the proposed scope of the subsequent EIR
for completeness, s o that the City correctly understands the issues that should be
addressed in the EIR.


                   PROJECT LOCATION AND SETTING
The City of Ukiah, Millview CWD, Calpella CWD, and Willow CWD currently provide
water service to much of the developed portion of the Ukiah Valley (the planning area).
The City provides water to areas within the Ukiah City Limits and limited areas outside
the City. Wlllow CWD provides water to the area south of the City limits to south of the
planning area, extending generalty from the ~orth&st Pacific Railroad on the east, to
large blocks of land south and southwest of the City including the Oak Knoll area and
lands along Highway 253. Millview CWD serves an area extending north of Ukiah to
south of Calpella, and west of Highway 101 into the eastern Valley, including the
Redemeyer Road area. Calpella CWD provides water to the area surrounding the rural
community of Calpella near the north end of the Ukiah Valley. Approval of the Petitions
would result in one place of use that indudes the existing and proposed service areas of
the City of Ukiah, Millview CWD, W~llow  CWD, and Calpella CWD.

Figures 1 and 2 show the regional location and the Ukiah Valley region. Figures 3 and 5
show the location of the existing and proposed places of use. Figures 4 and 6 show the
diversion points that would be changedladded to the Permits.

Initial Study for Water Right Petitions                                              Page 2
City of Ukiah
                   PROPOSED PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project includes the following Petitions to Amend Water Right Permits and Licenses.

A.        Permit 12952 (Application 15704) - City of Ukiah

Petition for Extension of Time

The City of Ukiah holds Permit 12952 for the diversion of Russian River underflow for
municipal purposes. Water can be diverted at a rate not to exceed 20.0 cubic feet per
second from January 1 through December 31. The Permit expired on December 31,
2000, and the City filed a Petition for Extension of Time for Permit 12952 with the State
Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). The Petition for Extension of Time will allow
the City additional time in which to perfect the full beneficial use of water authorized by
Permit 12952. The Petition asked for a 15-year extension (i.e., to the year 2015).

Petition for Change in Point of Diversion

The SWRCB has requested that the City add two of its existing wells, Wells #5 and #6
(UW5 and UW6), as Points of Diversion under its Permit. UW5 was installed in 1985
and UW6 was installed in 1986. These wells are shown on Figure 4. A Ranney Collector
facility and Wells # I , #2 and #3 (RC, UWI, UW2 and UW3) are the other Points of
Diversion already named in the Permit. All of the diversion facilities are existing, and the
project does not involve the construction of any new facilities. The locations of all
facilities are shown on Figure 4.

Petition for Change in Place of Use

In its compliance inspection report of the City's Permit, the SWRCB requested that the
City's Permit be amended to include Millview and W~llow     County Water Districts' service
areas, and other lands currently served or potentially to be served by the City of Ukiah.
The reason for the request is that there are physical facilities in place that allow for
service of water from the City to Millview and Willow County Water Districts (CWDs).
The facilities exist in order for water to be transferred between the entities pursuant to
existing Emergency Interconnection Agreements (EIAs) between the parties.

The City of Ukiah has Emergency Interconnection Agreements (EIAs) with Willow and
Millview CWDs that stipulate if one of the entities requires water on an emergency basis,
with proper notice, water will be provided to the other entity. The intent of the EIA is to
improve the reliability of water service to each entity's customers in times of an
emergency and/or equipment failure, to combat a fire, to allow for maintenance or repair,
or in cases of contamination. Presently, water served under the ElAs can only occur
with SWRCB approval.

If the City increases its place of use under its Permit to indude Millview and Willow
CWDs, it could serve both entities water under the ElAs without obtaining further
SWRCB approval for each instance of service. If the City does not add Millview and
initial Study for Water Right Petitions                                              Page 3
City of Ukiah
NOT TO SCALE



               FIGURE 1: REGIONAL LOCATION
Figure 2: Area Encompassed by Ukiah Valley Area Plan
W~llowCWDs to its place of use, the City would have to file a Temporary Urgency
Change Petition with the SWRCB each time such water is to be served under the EIAs.
The City would be responsible for preparing an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of CEQA to support each temporary transfer. The Temporary Urgency
Change Petition, if granted, would be valid for 180 days.

Currently, the service of water from the City to Millview and Willow CWDs is limited to
that provided for in the EIAs. If the Petition is approved to add Millview and W~llow
CWDs to its Permit, the water right Permit would not restrict the water use, but service
for purposes other that what is specified in the ElAs would require execution of a new
water service agreement between the entities. Such an agreement would be an action
subject to CEQA review.

While the City's EIA does not currently provide for water to be served to Calpella CWD,
the City is seeking to add Calpella's service area to its place of use since the physical
facilities exist for the City's water to be used within Calpella CWD by way of Millview
CWD's system. The lands sought to be added to the City's place of use are shown on
Figure 3.

Willow CWD has concluded that it is not currently interested in expanding its place of
use to include the City. Instead, W~llow    CWD will seek Temporary Urgency Change
Petitions each time they serve water to the City pursuant to the EIA.

B.       License 492 (Application 3601) and Permit 13936 (Application 17587)
         - Millview CWD
Petition for Extension of Time

Millview County Water District holds License 492 (Application 3601) and Permit 13936
(Application 17587) for the diversion of Russian River underflow for domestic purposes.
Under the License, water can be diverted from Well #6 (MW6) at a rate of 0.18 cubic feet
per second from June 1 to August 15. Under the Permit, water can be diverted from
Wells #1 and #3 (MW1 and MW3) at a rate of 3.0 cubic feet per second from November
1 to July 1. The Permit expired on December 31, 2003 and Millview filed a Petition for
Extension of Time. The Petition for Extension of Time will allow Millview additional time
in which to perfect the full beneficial use of water authorized by Permit 13936.

Petition for Change in Point of Diversion

In 1989, MW1 was abandoned. Extractions from MW6 were suspended due to water
quality issues. Millview has been diverting water from an existing Well Field and from its
two existing pumps on the Russian River, MP3 and MP4, all of which are proposed to be
added as Points of Diversion under its License and Permit. The Well Field is a 7.15-acre
parcel that contains multiple wellheads, a 0.5-acre gravel recharge basin, and a water
treatment plant. MP3 and MP4 are located at the edge of the Well Field and convey
water directly to the treatment plant. They are also used to recharge the existing gravel
basin to raise water levels in the Well Field. Millview plans to continue water diversions
from MW3, and will attempt to address the water quality issues of MW6 so that it may be
used in the future. All of the diversion facilities are existing, and the project does not

Initial Study for Water Right Petitions                                            Page 4
City of Ukiah
involve the construction of any new facilities. The District states that diversion under
License 492 (Application 3601) would be better utilized if the diversion point were moved
to the existing well field. Water quality would be improved and the existing facility could
be eliminated. The locations of all facilities are shown on Figure 6.

Petition for Change in Place of Use

When the SWRCB conducted a compliance inspection of Millview CWD's water rights, it
requested that their License and Permit be amended to include the City of Ukiah,
Calpella and W~llowCWDs, and all other lands it was currently serving or had the
potential to serve. As stated above, the reason for the request is that there are physical
facilities in place that allow for service of water from Millview CWD to the City and
Calpella CWD. The facilities are in place in order for Millview CWD to transfer water to
the City pursuant to an existing Emergency lnterconnection Agreement (EIA), and to
wheel (i.e., deliver) water that Calpella CWD receives under contract from the
Mendocino County Russian River Flood Control & Water Conservation Improvement
District (RRFCD). Under its Permit and License, Millview has no current authority to
serve water to Calpella CWD.

The Emergency lnterconnection Agreement with the City of Ukiah stipulates that if the
City or Millview CWD requires water on an emergency basis, with proper notice, water
will be provided to the other entity. Presently, water served to the City under the EIA can
only occur with SWRCB approval. By increasing its place of use, Millview CWD could
serve water to the City without obtaining further SWRCB approval for each instance of
service.

If Millview CWD does not add the City to its place of use under its Permit and License, it
would have to file a Temporary Urgency Change Petition with the SWRCB each time
such water is to be served to City under the EIA. Millview CWD would be responsible for
preparing an environmental document pursuant to the requirements of CEQA to support
each temporary transfer. The Temporary Urgency Change, if granted, would be valid for
180 days.

Currently, the service of water from Millview CWD to the City is limited to the conditions
of the EIA. If the Millview CWD Petition is approved to add the City to its water right
Permit and License, the rights would not restrict the water use but service for purposes
other than what is specified in the EIA would require execution of a new water service
agreement between the parties. Such an agreement would be an action subject to
CEQA review.

While Millview CWD's EIA does not currently provide for water to be served to Willow
CWD, Millview is seeking to add Willow CWD to its place of use since the physical
facilities exist for Millview CWD's water to be used within W~llowCWD by way of the
City's system. Millview CWD is seeking to add Calpella CWD to its place of use since
the physical facilities are in place for the purpose of wheeling RRFCD water thereby
providing the potential for Millview CWD water to be used within Calpella CWD. The
lands to be added to the place of use are shown on Figure 5.



Initial Study for Water Right Petitions                                             Page 5
City of Ukiah
Petition for Change in Purpose of Use

Millview CWD seeks to add irrigation as a purpose of use under its License and Permit
to cover the existing use for ten agricultural service connections. Millview CWD has
adopted a policy to prohibit any future use of water for commercial crop irrigation over
and above the ten properties currently being irrigated.


C.       Project Objectives

The Petitioner's objectives include the following:

              To amend the pertinent license and permits to accurately reflect the existing
              points of diversion and place of use of the City and Millview CWD.

              To amend the pertinent license and permits to accurately reflect the existing
              purposes of use of the water diverted by Millview CWD.

              To provide additional time for the Millview CWD and the City to perfect the full
              beneficial use of water authorized by each entity's permit.

              To amend the place of use under pertinent license and permits to allow for
              service of water to other entities pursuant to the existing ElAs and other
              operating or water service agreements that may be executed in the future.


D.       Scope of the Environmental Study

The Petitions do not include construction of any new facilities, so there would be no
direct impact to any environmental resources resulting from construction. The Petitions
seek to expand the area where water can be used and extend the period of time within
which the City and Millview CWD can perfect the full beneficial use of water authorized
by their permits. If the Petitions are approved, the rights would not restrict the water use,
but service for purposes other than what is specified in the ElAs or other existing water
agreements would require execution of new water service agreements between the
parties. Such agreements would be actions subject to CEQA review. While no new
agreements are proposed, this EIR assesses impacts that could occur if such future
service agreements were executed. This ensures that the EIR assesses a worst case
scenario.


                   LEAD AGENCY
1.       Project Title

         Amendment of Water Right Permit 12952 (Application 15704) for the City of
         Ukiah, and Water Right License 492 and Permit 13936 (Applications 3601 and
         17587, respectively) for Millview County Water District


Initial Study for Water RigM Petitions                                                 Page 6
City of Ukjah
2.        Lead Agency Name and Address

          City of Ukiah
          300 Seminary Avenue
          Ukiah, CA 95482

3.        Contact Person and Phone Number

          Ann Burck, Water & Utilities Project Engineer
          (707) 463-6286


                   REGULATORY OVERSIGHT
The Ukiah City Council is responsible for proceeding with the Petitions to amend its
Water Right Permit. The Millview CWD Board of Directors is responsible for proceeding
with the Petitions to amend its Water Right Permit and License.

The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Rights is a
Responsible Agency, and would be the entity that approves the Petitions. The SWRCB
will use the EIR in making its determinations. Under Water Code Section 1702, the
State Water Resources Control Board may not approve any change in a water right
permit or license that would cause injury of any legal user of the water involved. This EIR
will assume that the SWRCB would not approve the Petitions unless the City and
Millview CWD provide the necessary documentation to show compliance with this legal
requirement.

The California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) is a Responsible Agency that
would use the EIR to determine whether the project would adversely affect fish or other
resources under its jurisdiction. On August 2, 2004, Millview CWD received a 1601
Streambed Alteration Agreement from CDFG for the two pumps on the Russian River
(Notification Number 160G2001-1023-3). The Notice of Preparation and EIR will be
sent to CDFG for comments.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - Fisheries (NOAA - Fisheries) is
a Responsible Agency with regard to impacts to anadromous fishery resources. The
Notice of Preparation and EIR will be sent to NOAA - Fisheries for comments.

Mendocino County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) would need to
approve any changes in the City limits and county water district service boundaries, and
approve any out-of-district water supply agreements. However, at this time, neither the
City nor Millview CWD is proposing to annex areas into their service areas. The City
states that changes in the place of use do not require LAFCO approval.

Concerned Agencies

The Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA) operates Coyote Dam and holds permits
that allow diversion and rediversion of stored water in Lake Mendocino at diversion and
rediversion points along the Russian River. While SCWA has no authority to approve or

Initial Study for Water Right Petitions                                             Page 7
City of Ukiah
regulate the proposed project, it is a party of interest since additional diversion of water
that adversely affected its legal rights to diversion and rediversion would adversely affect
its ability to serve its customers.

The Mendocino County Russian River Flood Control & Water Conservation
Improvement District (RRFCD) is the holder of water right Permit 129478 (Application
129198) that allows annual direct diversion from the East Fork Russian River of 53 cubic
feet per second and 122,500 acre-feet diversion to storage in Lake Mendocino, with a
maximum annual use of 8,000 acre-feet by direct diversion and rediversion of stored
water. The Permit identifies the allowed place of use for this water.

Protests Filed Against Petitions

Four agencies and one individual have filed Protests against the Petitions. The SWRCB
has acknowledged receipt of these Protests, but has not officially accepted them. Once
SWRCB has officialty accepted the Protests, it willrequire that Millview CWD and the
City formally respond to them.

Sonoma Countv Water A ~ e n c y

The Sonoma County Water Agency filed Protests against the City's and Millview CWD's
petitions. These Protests will be withdrawn if the City and Millview CWD agree to
include SWRCB Division of Water Rights standard permit terms 80(a) and 90(a) that
provide for the continuing jurisdiction of the SWRCB and for recognition that prior rights
to the water be included in any order issued on the permits. If the Protests are
accepted, the City and Millview CWD have indicated that they would agree to those
standard terms.

Mendocino Countv Russian River Flood Control 8 Water Conservation Improvement
District

As described previousty, the Mendocino County Russian River Flood Control & Water
Conservation Improvement District (RRFCD) is the holder of water right Permit 12947B
(Application 129198). The Permit identifies the allowed place of use for this water.
RRFCD protested the City's and Millview CWD's petitions stating that it could result in
water provided under RRFCD's permit being used outside of the allowed place of use.
While the RRFCD Protests were never accepted by the SWRCB, the RRFCD stated it
would withdraw its Protest against the City's Petitions provided that the City
acknowledged that the water diverted under the RRFCD's permit would not be used to
serve lands outside of the RRFCD boundary. The City and Millview CWD both have
indicated that they would agree to this condition.

California Department of Fish 8 Game

CDFG filed Protests against the City and Millview CWD's Petitions with regard to
impacts to aquatic, biological and fishery habitat. Their Protest states that 1) the
proposals may result in "take" of steelhead trout, Chinook salmon, and coho salmon (all
federally threatened speaes and coho salmon is a California endangered speaes); 2)
Millview CWD's proposal to add irrigation as an allowed use (for 10 properties that are

Initial Study for Water Right Petitions                                              Page 8
City of Uldah
currently served) may result in use of water above allowed amounts; 3) growth-induc~ng
impacts of the proposal could adversely affect biological habitat; and 4) clarification of
several components of the proposals is needed. The EIR will address the three
identified impact concerns and provide the requested project clarifications.

NOAA - Fisheries

NOAA - Fisheries filed a Protest against the Millview CWD petition. The Protest stated
that the proposed changes might result in "take" of steelhead trout, a Federally
threatened species, and that the project be conditioned with terms set forth in the
CDFGINOAA - Fisheries lnstream Flow Guidelines dated June 17, 2002. The EIR will
address proposed project impacts on steelhead trout.

Lee Howard

Lee Howard (a private citizen) filed Protests against both the City and Millview CWD's
petitions claiming injury to existing rights and fishing in the watershed. The EIR will
assess proposed project impacts on fish.


                   CUMULATIVE AND GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS
Cumulative Impacts

As required by the CEQA Guidelines, the EIR will assess cumulative impacts. Because
the proposed project does not include the construction of any new facilities, including
any new points of diversion, the project would not combine with the impads of other
reposed projects in the area to result in any direct impacts to environmental resources.
Additional water diversion by the City that may result from the proposed project could
combine with other projects that include water diversion to result in potentially significant
cumulative impacts. Millview CWD also has submitted a petition to extend the time to
perfect its water right Permit. However, Millview CWD already diverts all of the water
ailowed by its Permit and License during the summer months, but it has not fully
perfected the use of water under Its Permit during the winter months. As winter
diversion is not expected to result in any impacts to downstream users or the riverine
environment, Millview CWD's petition to extend the time to perfect its water right would
not have an environmental impact nor be an increment of a cumulative environmental
impact.

Willow CWD has submitted petitions to extend the period of time to perfect its water right
Permit, change its place of use, amend its purpose of use, and change the allowed
points of diversion under Water Right Permit 13935 and Licenses 6793 (Applications
17232 and 15721, respectively). These petitions could also result in potential increased
diversion from the Russian River. Willow CWD's Petitions seek to add only the
unincorporated areas south of the City to its place of use and does not propose adding
the City, Millview or Calpella CWDs.

Millview CWD is also negotiating with the Masonite Corporation to obtain the right to use
up to 1,000 acre-feet of water each year pursuant to Masonite's water right License.

Initial Study for Water Right Petitions                                               Page 9
City of Ukiah
The License provides for the diversion of water from the Russian River on the Masonite
property, which is located east of Highway 101 near the Highway 101 overcrossing of
North State Street in Ukiah. In order for Millview CWD to use the water under the
Masonite License, it would require approval of a change petition from the SWRCB, an
action subject to CEQA review. If Millview CWD is successful in obtaining the use of
water under the Masonite License, there could be a potential for increased diversions
from the Russian River.

Other proposed or planned residential, commercial, and industrial projects would be
served with water from the City or the county water districts using additional diversion
that is included in the proposals for extension of time of the Permits held by the City and
Millview CWD.

Analysis of cumulative impacts will include potential adverse impacts that might result
from increased summer diversion of Russian River water. By potentially diverting
additional flow of the Russian River, the project by itself and/or in combination with the
other projects listed above could reduce water available to holders of existing permits
and licenses downstream of the diversion points. The EIR will assess any potential
environmental impacts to downstream water users having a priority of right junior or
senior to that of the City and Millview CWD. Regarding downstream flows, it is noted
that the SWRCB set minimum flow standards in the Russian River pursuant to its
Decision 1610. Per Decision 1610, Sonoma County Water Agency is responsible for
meeting those minimum flow standards via releases from Lake Mendocino. The full
permitted diversion amounts for both the City's and Millview CWD's Permits were
considered by the SWRCB when it issued Decision 1610.

Growth-Inducing Impacts

The ability of the City to divert additional water could be seen as inducing growth in the
Ukiah Valley. As described above, the Millview CWD Petitions would not result in
additional summer diversion, so these petitions would not induce growth.

There are several reasons why the CEQA Guidelines do not require the EIR that will be
prepared to assess those growth-inducing impacts. First, the approval of the project
does not commit the City to transfer water outside its current service area. The City
Council and the Board of Directors of the receiving CWD would need to execute a new
water service agreement in order to serve water other than under the conditions set forth
in the existing EIAs. Approval of the proposed petitions does not commit to water
sharing between the City and any CWDs. In the absence of such a commitment, the
potential future effects of such interagency transfers would be speculative and not
subject to CEQA review.

Second, any growth that requires water that may be made available through approval of
this project would be growth that was foreseen and allowed in the City and County
General Plans. The ElRs prepared for those plans addressed the environmental effects
of allowing such growth and discussion of those impacts in those ElRs can be
referenced and incorporated herein without additional analysis. The EIR for the City's
general plan is available from the Ukiah City Clerk located at the Ukiah Civic Center, 300
Seminary Ave., Ukiah. The EIR for the county general plan is available from the

Initial Study for Water Right Petitions                                            Page 10
City o Ukiah
       f
Mendocino County Department of Planning and Building Services located at Room
 1440,501 Low Gap Road, Ukiah, Ca. (See Friends of the Eel Riverv. SCWA (2003) 108
Cal. App. 4th 859, 877). The City General Plan forecasts a projected 2015 population of
22,739 people. The County General Plan Housing Element projects a 2020 City
population of 23,760 people. It forecasts a 2020 population in unincorporated areas of
78,680 people or about 20,000 more people than lived in that area in 2005. The Draft
Ukiah Valley Area Plan (see below) projected that over 50% of the County's growth in
the unincorporated areas would occur in the Ukiah Valley. Thus, the level of growth
projected within the proposed place of use is within the projections included in these
adopted general plans.

Third, it is speculative that the City or Millview CWD would sell or transfer water to
another entity. There has been no indication that the City or any of the other districts
propose to transfer water out of their service areas. CEQA does not require assessment
of speculative impacts. CEQA only requires consideration of impacts that are either
foreseeable or to which the approval of this project legally commits an agency. For the
reasons already stated, service other than under the ElAs is not foreseeable, and
approval of the change in place of use does not legally commit Llkiah or Millview CWD to
provide water for non-emergency purposes. Ukiah and Millview CWD are seeking the
change in place of use to permit service under the ElAs without having to seek SWRCB
approval each time emergency service is requested.

Fourth, if any entity proposed to serve water to another entity, that project would need to
undergo CEQA review at that time. The growth ramifications of such transfers could
then be more precisely measured and assessed.

Fifth, Millview CWD's potential future use of water diverted pursuant to Masonite's water
right License would require amendments to the License and CEQA review.

Finally, any proposal to expand the boundaries of any water provider would require
LAFCO approval, which would again trigger the need for CEQA review.

For any and all of these reasons, the potential growth-inducing impacts do not need to
be assessed in this EIR. However, to ensure full disclosure and because the City is
interested in understanding the possible long-term effects of an increased water supply,
this EIR will discuss the growth-inducing impacts that might occur if the project is
approved.

Growth projections were developed by the County when preparing the Draft EIR for the
Draft Ukiah Valley Area Plan (Draft UVAP). These projections were based on the State
Department of Finance's projections for growth in the county as a whole and adjusted to
estimate growth in the Ukiah Valley area. Though these projections have not been
officially adopted, they are the only recent projections that have been developed for the
area. They are considered a worst case scenario, and they are not intended to predict
that all this growth will actually occur (this is noted because some people commenting on
the Draft UVAP EIR commented that the projections in and of themselves somehow
induced or pre-approved this level of development). It is recognized that the County is
currently revising the Draft UVAP. It is possible that the new Draft UVAP may include
restrictions on new development that could reduce the total buildout possible by 2025.

Initial Study for Water Right Petitions                                            Page 11
City of Ukiah
However, at this time, the projections developed for the original Draft UVAP EIR are the
most accurate worst-case predictions. The projections are used solely to describe and
assess the impacts if the worst-case development did occur. W~th       these caveats, this
EIR will examine the worst case scenario described in the Draft UVAP Draft EIR
(Leonard Charles and Associates, 2005), as shown on Tables 1 and 2 below.

                                                                              Table 1
                                                                       Population Projections


Area                                                     Year 2000 (people)       Year 2025 (people)            Increase from 2000 to 2025
                                                                                                                        (people)
The Forks Rural        1,560                                                            2,320                              760
Cornrnunrty
Suburban Res~denbal      82 1                                                           1,180
area west of Lake
Wendoc~no
Area outsrde Rural       637                                                             685
              in
Comrnun~bes north
plan area
Zalpella Rural           494                                                             900
Cornrnunrty
U State Street Complex 1,500                                                            4,570
6 State Street Area
-                      3,897
                       -
Brush Street Triangle    200                                                              935                                 735
Talrnage Rural         1,048                                                            1,170                                 122
Cornrnunrty
East s~de,south of       523                                                             695                                  172
Talrnage R C
East side north of     2,300                                                            2,760                                 460
Talrnage R C
Total UVAP Plan Area                                               12,980             21,685                              8,705
   %% ' . * -*>% J-- b~+-&$%.fl$-**?- X" -+x
   '-
      ?2&w ?                              =:+   >?< t - .;-
                                                      k:
                                                    $; "--      - ;*                      - -7    a - . ,   i           *L!           * ,
                                                                                                                                                 --
                                                                                                                                                $1    ,
                                                                                                                                                      .     _     ". L . - i
                                                                                                                                                                     L         <-
Crty of Ukiah                                                     15,497              17,990                              2,493
                                                                                                                          ,
    .a-;rr.;,^;r%ps
    * 7   a- +b,%9*>
                             crccCz, .yT2s
                           <$*
                            $?
                            .,
                                  r*
                                     >%-&   *">     e
                                                    -
                                                   5 "   $7    :-
                                                              - - tL 2                    , IC                          -L    -   f
                                                                                                                                      ?
                                                                                                                                      .     8
                                                                                                                                                 k
                                                                                                                                                 4.
                                                                                                                                                  .
                                                                                                                                                      ,-x   2
                                                                                                                                                                .,>"-     :.
  Total Clty and UVAP                                            28,477                39,675                            11,198



Based on the predicted year 2025 average household size of 2.44 people per
household, the projected population would result in 1,022 new households within the
City and 3,568 in the unincorporated portion of the Ukiah Valley. The proposed place of
use, which would include the Calpella CWD, Millview CWD, Willow CWD, and City
proposed service areas, would include all the areas listed above except for some of the
north plan area that is outside the Rural Community designation, the east side south of
Talmage, and some of the east side north of Talmage. Approximately 500 people of the
projected population increase would reside in these areas outside the proposed place of
use. The proposed place of use (i.e., the City plus the unincorporated area in the
proposed service areas) would experience a population increase of about 10,700 people
(or about 4,380 new households) by 2025 given these projections.

The City's General Plan projected a year 2015 population of 22,739 people in the City.
Given an estimated 2005 population of 15,959 people, an additional 6,780 people would
be added to meet the General Plan projection. This projection assumed annexation of

Initial Study for Water Right Petitions                                                                                                         Page 12
City of Ukiah
lands outside the existing City limits.' This projection is consistent with the projections
described above

                                        Table 2
                 Projected New Non-Residential Development t o Year 2025

                                 New Commercial                   New Industrial
                                 Development (in square           Development (in square
Area
-   -                            feet)                            feet)
N. State Street, S. State               434,000                          1,115,000
Street, and Forks Rural
Community
Brush Street Triangle                   600,000
Calpella Rural Community                 43,000                                   0
Citv of Ukiah                           500.000                                   0
TO& I                                 1,577,000                          1,355,000
Based on proiecbons developed for the Draft UVAP Draft EIR. Leonard Charles and Associates. 2005;
adjusted to'deiete the area in south State Street that would be served by Wllow CWD

For purposes of this EIR, the new commercial development will be rounded to 1.6 million
square feet and the new industrial development to 1.3 million square feet, for a total of
2.9 million square feet of new non-residential development. This would average 145,000
square feet of new nonresidential development per year in the proposed place of use.

Most of this projected growth would occur within the proposed place of use for the City,
Millview CWD, Willow CWD, and Calpella CWD. It is expected that future growth within
the proposed place of use would be approximately:

        City of Ukiah - 1,000 housing units and 500,000 square feet of commercial
        development

        Proposed Place of Use Outside the City Limits - 3,400 housing units, 1,100,000
        square feet of commercial development, and 1.3 million square feet of industrial
        development

        Total - 3,400 dwelling units, 1.6 million square feet of commercial development, and
        1.3 million square feet of industrial development.

Conclusion

The EIR will examine the potential growth-inducing impacts that would result from the
City diverting additional water that could be used for future City annexations and
development of the annexed areas andlor the City providing water service to Willow,
Millview, and/or Calpella CWDs. The impacts of this projected growth have been
assessed in the Draft EIR prepared from the Draft UVAP. Those impacts will be
summarized in this EIR.



    The 2005 population estimate is from the State Department of Finance. It is a January 1,2005 estimate.
Initial Study for Water Right Petitions                                                           Page 13
City of Ukiah
7.0                INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
This section documents the anticipated environmental effects of the proposed project
using an Initial Study Checklist and provides a brief explanation supporting the findings
of each checklist item.

ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED

The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is "Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated"
                                                                    owg
                                                                     l i
or "Potentially Significant" as indicated by the checklist on the f o n      pages. Because
the City determined that an Environmental Impact Report would be prepared for the
project prior to completing this Initial Study, this lnitial Study does not attempt to provide
in-depth discussions of some of the impacts. Instead, the Initial Study simply identifies
these impacts as "potentially significant," thereby indicating that they will be further
addressed in the EIR. The EIR will identrfy mitigation measures where warranted and
determine if any of the possible impacts identified in this lnitial Study remain significant
after mitigation measures have been applied.

Agriculture Resources                     Aesthetics                           Air Quality



Biological Resources                      Cultural Resources                   Geolo    8 Soils

                                                                                   d
Hazards 8 Hazardous Materials             HydrologyMlater Quality              Land    Use        8
                                                                               Planning
                                                                                   E
                                                                                   LI
Mineral Resources                         Population & Housing                 Noise



Public Services                           Recreation                           Transportation 8
                                                                               Traftic



Utilities & Service Systems               Mandatory Findings of Significance




Initial Study for Water Right Petitions                                                      Page 14
City of Ukiah
DETERMINATION

On the basis of this initial evaluation:


I find that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on
the environment and a Negative Declaration will be prepared.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect
on the environment, there will not be a significant effed in this case
because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the
applicant. A Mitigated Negative Declaration will be prepared.

I find that the proposed project may have a significant effect on the
environment, and an Environmental Impact Report is required.                  X

I find that the proposed project may have a "potentially significant
impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated impact" 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. An Environmental Impact Report 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, because all potentially significant effects (a) have
been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration
pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or
mitigated pursuant to an earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation
measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further
is required.



Signature                                                          Date

Charley Stump, Community Development Director
City of Wkiah




                         ih
Initial Study for Water R g t Petitions                                     Page 15
City of Ukiah
 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

'This lnitial Study is based on CEQA's Environmental Checklist Form. Each item on the
checklist is answered as either "potentially significant impact," "less than significant with
mitigation incorporated," "less than significant," or "no impact" depending on the
anticipated level of impact. The checklist is followed by explanatory comments
corresponding to each checklist item.

A "no impact" response indicates that it is clear that the project will not have any impact.
In some cases, the explanation to this response may include reference to an adopted
plan or map. A "less than significant impact" response indicates that there will be some
impact but that the level of impact is insufficiently substantial to be deemed significant.
The text explains the rationale for this conclusion. A "less than significant impact with
mitigation incorporated" response indicates that there will be a potentially significant
impact, but the lnitial Study determines there are adequate mitigations, which are
described, to reduce the level of impact to an insignificant level. These mitigation
measures will be camed forward into the EIR. Finally, a "potentially significant impact"
response would indicate that the lnitial Study cannot identify mitigation measures to
adequately reduce the impact to a level that is less than significant. The EIR will address
these areas of impact.


Discussion of Environmental Impacts
The proposed project would have potentially significant impacts in the areas of biological
resources, land use and planning, and mandatory findings of significance. Based on this
lnitial Study, the EIR will focus on analyzing project-specific and cumulative impacts on
biological resources, plan consistency, and growth-inducing impacts.




Initial Study for Water Right Petitions                                              Page 16
City of Llkiah
I.        Aesthetics

Would the project:                                                                   LESS than
                                                                     Polentialtq     Sgnifkant       Less than
                                                                     Signifkanl    with Mitigation   Signifcant
                                                                       Impact       Incorporaled       Impact     No Impact


a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?                                                              x

b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not                                                         x
   limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings
   within a state scenic highway?

c.    Substantially degrade the existing visual character or                                                         x
      quality of the site and its surroundings?

d.    Create a new source of substantial light or glare which                                                        x
      would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?

The project does not include construction of any new facilities or new lights. Therefore,
it would not change or impact views from any public or private vantage point. Because
the project will not alter any existing views, it will not be a component of any cumulative
aesthetic impact. The project may induce or facilitate additional growth in Ukiah and the
proposed place of use. The potential aesthetic impacts of that induced growth will be
assessed in the Growth-Inducing Impacts section of the EIR.


II.      Agricultural Resources

In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are         pdentvtq       Less Ulan
                                                                                    sbnrrun          -
                                                                                                     L
significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the    Signfmnt      wah w,igarDn      Signifmnt
Califomia Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment            Impact       Incorporated          Impact   No Impact
Model (1997) prepared by the Califomia Dept. 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                                                        x
      Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps
      prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
      Program of the Califomia Resources Agency, to non-
      agricultural use?

b.    Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a                                                       x
      Williamson Act contract?

c.    Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due                                                   x
      to their location or nature, could result in conversion of
      Farmland, to non-agricuttural use?

The project does not include construction of any new facilities or the conversion of
farmland to other uses. Approval of the petitions would not be in conflict with the
existing zoning ordinances. Therefore, there would not be any impact on agricultural
land or agricultural operations. Because the project will not affect agricultural lands or

Initial Study for Water Right Petitions                                                            Page 17
City of Ukiah
operations, it will not be a component of any cumulative agricultural impact. The project
may induce or facilitate additional growth in Ukiah and the proposed place of use. The
potential agricultural impacts of that induced growth will be assessed in the Growth-
Inducing Impacts section of the EIR.


Ill.       Air Quality

Where available, the significance criteria by the applicable air                      Less than
                                                                                     Slgnrmnt    Lessthan
qualify management or air pollution control district may be relied       signrmnt   wah M~~~~~~~~~
                                                                                                 SigniCmnt
upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:             Impad     Incorporated      Impact   NO Impact


a.     Confiict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable                                                 x
       air quality plan?

b.     Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially                                               x
       to an existing or projected air quality violation?

c.     Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any                                                  x
       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. Expose        sensitive    receptors   to   substantial   pollutant                                            x
       concentrations ?

e.     Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number                                                  x
       of people?

The project does not include construction of any new facilities. Therefore, it would not
result in any new sources of emissions of pollutants into the air. All pumps and engines
associated with the project are electric and do not generate air pollutants. Because the
project will not increase emissions of pollutants into the air, it will not be a component of
any cumulative air quality impact. The project may induce or facilitate additional growth
in the proposed place of use. The potential air quality impacts of that induced growth will
be assessed in the Growth-Inducing Impacts section of the EIR.




Initial Study for Water Right Petitions                                                            Page 18
City of Ukiah
 IV.      Biological Resources

 Would the project:                                                         Potentially
                                                                                            Less than
                                                                                            SgniTcant       Less than
                                                                            SgniTcant     with Mifigation   SgniTmnt
                                                                             lmpacl       lnmrporated        lrnpact    No Impact


a.     Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through           x
       habitat modification, 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 US Fish and Wldlife Service?

b.     Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or
       other sensitive natural community identified in local or
       regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California
       Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wldlife
       Service?

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, filing, hydrological interruption, or
       other means?

d.     Interfere substantially with the movement of any native                 x
       resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
       established native resident or migratory wildlife conidors, or
       impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?

e.     Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting                                                           x
       biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
       ordinance?

f      Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat                                                                  x
       Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or
       other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation
       plan?

a.        Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly o r through habitat modification,
          on a n y species identified a s a candidate, sensitive, or special status species i n
          local o r regional plans, policies, o r regulations, o r by the California Department o f
          Fish and G a m e o r U S Fish and Wildlife Service? Potentially significant impact.

         The proposed diversion points are all currently being used. There will be no new
         construction of diversion points pursuant to the Petitions. Thus, the project will
         not have any direct impacts on sensitive species or any other biological
         resources.    Millview CWD has already obtained a Streambed Alteration
         Agreement (SAA) from CDFG for the Russian River pumps it is seeking to add,
         and it abides by the conditions set forth in that SAA. Presently, Millview CWD
         diverts water from its River pumps during the summer months pursuant to the
         RRFCD's existing water right permit, which does not require CEQA review.


Initial Study for Water Right Petitions                                                                 Page 19
City of Ukiah
          By extending the time to perfect the City and Millview CWD's water right permits,
          the project has the potential to withdraw additional Russian River water thereby
          potentially affecting the amount of water in the River below the diversion points.
          However, the Sonorna County Water Agency's (SCWA) existing water right
          Permit 12947A (Application 12919A) requires that it meet minimum flow
          standards in the Russian River by releasing water from Lake Mendocino for the
          purpose of maintaining minimum streamtlows necessary to support listed fish
          and other instream uses.

          The SWRCB set forth these flow standards in its Decision 1610 which ordered
          SCWA to maintain a continuous streamflow of 25 cfs in the East Fork of the
          Russian River from Lake Mendocino to its confluence with the Russian River.
          Depending on the combined water in storage in Lake Pillsbury and Lake
          Mendocino, SCWA must maintain a minimum streamflow of 7 5 185 d s between
          the East Fork Russian River and Dry Creek during normal water supply
          conditions, during different months of the year. During dry and critical water
          supply conditions, the minimum streamflow amount is reduced to 75 cfs and 25
          cfs, respectively, for the entire year.

         Unless there are "critical water supply conditions," streamflows on the main stem
         of the river are required to be maintained at 75185 d s depending on the time of
         year and the water supply conditions. Therefore, even if the City of Llkiah were
         to increase its diversions up to its full Permitted amount, the flow in the Russian
         River will not drop below the levels that the SWRCB established in Decision
          1610, which were determined necessary to support listed and other fish and
         aquatic species. The full permitted amounts of the City, Millview and Willow
         CWD's Permits were considered by the SWRCB when it issued Deasion 1610.
         This is the same condusion reached by NOAA - Fisheries in a letter sent to the
         City and Millvieds consulting engineers that addressed the issues that need to
                                                          E.
         be addressed in this EIR (letter from W~lliam Heam dated June 21, 2002; the
         letter is included in the Appendix). That letter states, Therefore, Ukiah's project
         would have little effect on the actual flows within the Russian River. Therefore,
         the cumulative impacts of the project would be less than significant on
         streamflow and corresponding impacts on biological resources.

         NOAA - Fisheries stated in the aforementioned letter that additional diversions
         would potentially affect releases of water from Lake Mendocino if releases are
         accelerated or increased to meet the City's needs (or the possible needs of
         Millview and Willow CWDs). The EIR will examine the cumulative effect of
         additional withdrawals from Lake Mendoano on water quality (i-e., the
         temperature of the water and the dissolved oxygen of the water). Impacts to
         water quality could adversely affect fish and other aquatic species. This impact
         will be assessed in the EIR

         The potential changes in water quality could adversely affect a number of
         candidate, sensitive, and special status species of fish and wildlife, induding:




Initial Study for Water Right Petitions                                             Page 20
City of Ukah
              Central California Coast (CCC) Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) of coho
              salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) (Federally threatened and State endangered
              species);

              Central California Coast (CCC) Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) of
              steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus) (Federally threatened
              species);

              summer run steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus) (Federal
              candidate species);

               green sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris) (Federal concern species);

              California coastal chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) (Federal
              threatened species);

              Russian River tule perch (Hysterocarpus traski pomo) (Federal concem
              species);

                                                (Federal concern species);
              river lamprey (Lampetra a y ~ s i )

              northern red-legged frog (Rana aurora aumra) (Federal concern species);

              California red-legged frog (Rana aumra draytonii) (Federally threatened
              species),

              foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana boylii) (Federal concem species); and

              northwestern pond turtle (Clemmys morata monta)                (Federal concern
              species).

         NOAA - Fisheries recognizes that instream flows in the highly regulated Russian
         River is a complex issue that is currently governed by SWRCB Decision 1610.
         As the aforementioned letter states, Stream flows in the Russian River are also
         the subject of ongoing analysis and discussions between the Army Corps of
         Engineers, Sonoma County Water Agency, and NMFS, thmugh an Endangered
         Species Ad, Sedion 7 consultation pertaining to the operations o f Coyote Dam
         and Warm Springs Dam. It is anticipated that the Section 7 consultation's draft
         Biological Opinion will be issued in 2006 or 2007, which could result in
         modifications to the minimum flow standards established in the SWRCB's
         Decision 1610. The EIR will summarize the findings of that Section 7
         consultation to the degree that information is available at the time the Drafi EIR is
         prepared.

         The EIR assessments of impacts to special status species will use existing
         sources of information and will not include field surveys or original base research.




Initial Study for Water RigM Petitions                                                  Page 21
City of Ukiah
          The project may induce or facilitate additional growth in the proposed place of
          use. The potential biological impacts of that induced growth will be assessed in
          the Growth-Inducing Impacts section of the EIR.


b.        Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive
          natural community identified i n local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or
          by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service ?
          Less than significant impact.

          Potential changes in temperatures and dissolved oxygen in water released from
          Lake Mendocino would not be expected to significantly affect the riparian habitat.
          The project may induce or facilitate additional growth in the proposed place of
          use. The potential biological impacts of that induced growth will be assessed in
          the Growth-Inducing lmpacts section of the EIR.


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? Less than significant impact

         Potential changes in temperatures and dissolved oxygen in water released from
         Lake Mendocino would not be expected to significantly affect wetlands. The
         project may induce or facilitate additional growth in the proposed place of use.
         The potential biological impacts of that induced growth will be assessed in the
         Growth-Inducing lmpads sedion of the EiR.


d.       Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish
         or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife
         corn-dors, o r impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Potentially
         significant impact

         Changes in the water quality of releases from Lake Mendocino could affect fish
         migration and spawning. This potential impact will be assessed in the EIR. The
         project may induce or facilitate additional growth in the proposed place of use.
         The potential biological impacts of that induced growth will be assessed in the
         Growth-lnduang Impads section of the EIR.


e.       Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources,
         such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? No impact.

         The project does not involve removing any trees. Neither the City nor the County
         has adopted specific ordinances or policies for protecting biological resources,
         other than policies in the General Plans and Zoning Ordinances. Consistency
         with these documents will be assessed in the Land Use and Planning Section,
         Checklist Item IX(b).

Initial Study for Water Right Petitions                                                 Page 22
City of Ukiah
f.        Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Na tuml
          Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
          conservation plan? No impact.

         There is no adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
         Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
         conservation plan for the project site. The project would not conflict with the
         provisions of a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan.


V.       Cultural Resources

Would the project:                                                   Potentially
                                                                                      Less than
                                                                                     Sgnrcanl        Less lhan
                                                                     Signifiint    wilh Mitigalion   Sgnfmnt
                                                                      Impact        Incorporated      Impact     No Impact


a.    Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a                                                   x
      historicalresource as defined in Section 15064.5?

6.    Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an                                                  x
      archaeologicalresource pursuant to Section 15064.5?

c.    Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological                                                       x
      resource or site or unique geologic feature?

d.    Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside                                                   x
      of formal cemeteries?

The project does not include construction of any new facilities. Therefore, it would not
result in any impacts on cultural resources. Because the project will not affect cultural
resources, it will not be a component of any cumulative cultural resource impact. The
project may induce or facilitate additional growth in Ukiah and the proposed place of use.
The potential cultural resource impacts of that induced growth will be assessed in the
Growth-Inducing Impacts section of the EIR.




Initial Study for Water Right Petitions                                                          Page 23
City of Ukiah
     VI.       Geology and Soils

I Would the project:                                                             Potentialb
                                                                                                 Less than
                                                                                                Sgnifmnt                  Less than
                                                                                 signifcant   w i t h ~ i l i ~ a t l o n Signifmnr
                                                                                   impact      Inoorporaied                 Impact    No Impact


     a.    Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse
           effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:

               i.       Rupture of 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.

              ii.       Strong seismic ground shaking?                                                                                   x
               ...
              111.      Seismic-related        ground   failure,   including
                        liquefaction?


II            jV.
                        Landslides?                                                                                                      x
                                                                                                                                                  I
     b.

     c.
           Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?

           Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that
                                                                                                                                         x
                                                                                                                                                  I
           would become unstable as a result of the project, and
           potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
           subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?

     d.    Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-8 of
           the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks
           to life or property?

     e.    Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of
           septic tanks or alternative water disposal systems where
           sewers are not available for the disoosal of waste water?

     The project does not include construction of any new facilities. Therefore, it would not
     result in any geologic or soil impacts. Because the project will not disturb the earth, it
     will not be a component of any cumulative geologic or soil impact. The project may
     induce or facilitate additional growth in Llkiah and the proposed place of use. T h e
     potential geologic and soil impacts of that induced growth will be assessed in the
     Growth-Inducing Impacts section of the EIR.




     Initial Study for Water Right Petitions                                                                    Page 24
     City of Ukiah
    VII.      Hazards and Hazardous Materials

     Would the project:                                                                              Less than
I                                                                                   Potenlialty     Signifcant      Less than
                                                                                    Sgnfcant      with Mitigation   Sgnfcanl
                                                                                     Impact        Incorporated      Impact     No lmpad


    a.     Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
           through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
           materials?

    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?

    c.     Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
           hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-
           quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?

    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?

    e.     For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where
           such a plan has not been adopted, within fwo miles of a
           public airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for
           people residing or working in the project area.

    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?

    g.     Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
           adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
           plan ?

    h.     Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury                                                      x
                                                                                .
           or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands
           are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are
           intermixed with wildlands?

    The project does not include construction of any new facilities. The project includes
    pumping water from existing diversion facilities. This pumping does not involve the use
    of any hazardous materials. The project would not create any new health hazards or be
    subject to any hazards. Because the project will not increase the use of hazardous
    materials or be exposed to hazardous conditions, it will not be a component of any
    cumulative hazard-related impact. The projed may induce or facilitate additional growth
    in Ukiah and the proposed place of use. The potential hazard-related impacts of that
    induced growth will be assessed in the Growth-Inducing Impacts section of the EIR.




    Initial Study for Water Right Petitions                                                                     Page 25
    City of Ukiah
    VIII.      Hydrology and Water Quality

                                                                                                Less than
                                                                                Potentialk     Signifcant      Less than
                                                                                Signifcant   with Mitigation   Signifcant
                                                                                  lmpact      lnmrporated        lmpact     No lmpact


    a.      Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge                                                             X
            requirements ?

    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 groundwater table level (e.g., 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)?

    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?

    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?

    e.      Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
            capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems
            or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?


I   f
    g.
            Otherwise substantially degrade water quaity?

            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?

    h.      Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which
            would impede or redirect flood flows?

    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 ?

I j.        Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudow?

    The project does not include construction of any new facilities. Thus, there would be no
    new development within a floodplain, no new runoff, and no changes to drainage
    patterns. The water diverted under the License and Permits is considered by the
    SWRCB to be Russian River surface water or underflow, so there would be no impact on
    groundwater supplies. The project would not add pollutants to the Russian River and
    would have no impact on water quality, or expose people or structures to flooding. The

    Initial Study for Water Right Petitions                                                                Page 26
    City of Ukiah
project would not be a componect of any cumulative hydrologic impact. The project may
induce or facilitate additional growth in Ukiah and the proposed place of use. The
potential hydrologic and water quality impacts of that induced growth will be assessed in
the Growth-Inducing Impacts section of the EIR.


IX.       Land Use and Planning

Would the project:                                                                         Less than
                                                                          Potentially     Signifcant       Less than
                                                                          SgniFcant     wilh Mitigation    Sgnifiint
                                                                           Impact        Incorporated       lmpact     No Impact


a.    Physically divide an established community?                                                                         x

b.    Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or                  x
      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?

c.    Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or                                                           x
      natural community conservation plan?

The project does not include construction of any new facilities so it would not divide a
community. There is no adopted habitat conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan for the area. The project could potentially affect biological resources
and, therefore, be inconsistent with some City and County General Plan policies and
Zoning Ordinance guidelines aimed at protecting these resources. The EIR will assess
the project for consistency with pertinent policies, regulations, and guidelines. However,
it is noted that determination of consistency is ultimately the responsibility of the Lead
Agency decisionmakers. It is also noted that an inconsistency with a policy is not an
environmental impact under CEQA. A Lead Agency cannot approve a projed it finds
inconsistent with its adopted policies and regulations, but such an inconsistency is not a
physical impact on the environment. Nevertheless, a plan consistency analysis will be
provided to allow the public and decisionmakers to understand whether the project is
consistent with said policies.


X.       Mineral Resources

Would the project:                                                                               s
                                                                                           ~ e s than
                                                                          Potentially     Sgnifiint        Less than
                                                                          Sgnifiint     with Mligation     Sgnifiint
                                                                           Impact        Incorporated       Impact     No lmpad


a.    Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource                                                      x
      that would be of value to the region and the residents of the
      state ?

b.    Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral                                                   x
      resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan,
      specific plan or other land use plan?

Initial Study for Water Right Petitions                                                                  Page 27
City of Ukiah
The project does not include construction of any new facilities. Therefore, it would not
result in any impacts on mineral resources. Therefore, it will not be a component of any
curnulati;~e impact on these resources. The project may induce or facilitate additional
growth in Llkiah and the proposed place of use. The potential mineral resource impacts
of that induced growth will be assessed in the Growth-Inducing lmpacts section of the
EIR.



XI.       Noise

Would the project result in:                                                                Less than
                                                                           Polenlially     Sgnifinl       Less lhan
                                                                           Sgnifint      wilh Mligalion   Signifcant
                                                                            Impact        Incorporaled      Impact     No Impact


a.    Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in                                                             x
      excess of standards established in the local general plan or
      noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?

b.    Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive                                                                   x
      groundbome vibration of gro undbome noise levels ?

c.    A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in                                                         x
      the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?

d.    A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise                                                       x
      levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the
      project?

e.    For a project located wrfhin an airport land use plan or, where                                                     x
      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?

f     For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the                                                  x
      project expose people residing or working in the project area
      to excessive noise levels?

The project does not include construction of any new facilities. Therefore, it would not
result in any new noise impacts. Therefore, it will not be a component of any cumulative
noise impact. The project may induce or facilitate additional growth in Ukiah and the
proposed place of use. The potential noise impacts of that induced growth will be
assessed in the Growth-Inducing lmpacts section of the EIR.




Initial Study for Water Right Petitions                                                               Page 28
City of Ukiah
XII.      Population and Housing

Would the project:                                                    Polentialty
                                                                                       L-   than
                                                                                      Swjnifmnl       Less than
                                                                      Sinifcant     with Mitigation   Signifant
                                                                       Impad         Incorporated       Impact    No Impact


a.     Induce substantial population growth in an area, either           x
       directly (for example, by proposing new homes and
       businesses) or indirectiy (for example, through extension of
       roads or other infrastructure)?

b.     Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,                                                             x
       necessitating the construction of replacement housing
       elsewhere?

c.     Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the                                                     x
       construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

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 infm structure) ? Potentially significant impact.

         The project will potentially provide potable water to areas not currently within the
         places of use under the water rights held by the City or Millview CWD. As
         discussed earlier in this report, it is possible that some portion of the projected
         development for this area over the next 20 years might not be possible without
         approval of the petitions for extension of time. However, water served by the City
         or Millview CWD for any use other than that provided for under the existing EIAs,
         would require execution of a new water service agreement between the entities.
         Such an agreement would require the preparation of a separate CEQA document
         at that time.

         The EIR will contain a discussion of the projected 20-year growth in population
         within the region and will summarize the possible impacts of that projected
         growth. This discussion will be a summary of the impacts identified and
         discussed in the Draft EIR that was prepared for the Draft UVAP, as revised per
         comments received on that Draft EIR. See Section 6.0 earlier in this Initial Study
         for a more detailed discussion of the proposed approach to examining growth-
         inducing impacts.

         The projed would not result in displacement of housing or population, and those
         issues will not be discussed further in the EIR.




Initial Study for Water RigM Petitions                                                            Page 29
City of Ukiah
     XIII.      Public Services

     Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts           Polenti31)y       Less than
                                                                                                  Signrmnl        Less
     associated with the provision of new or physically altered                 ~     ,     ~       ~            tsignifant
                                                                                                i ~ h ~ ~ i t~ i ~ ~ t i ~ ~
     governmental facilities, the need for new or physically altered                Impad        lnc~porated       Impact      N O I ~ P ~ C ~
     governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause
     signllicant environmental impacts, in order to maintain
     acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance
     objectives for any of the public services:


II   Fire protection?                                                                                                             x

     Police protection?    ,


                                                                                                                                           I
1 Other public facilities?                                                                                                        x

     The project does not include construction of any new facilities. Therefore, it would not
     require any new public services. Therefore, it will not be a component of any cumulative
     public service impact. The project may induce or facilitate additional growth in Ukiah
     and the proposed place of use. The potential public service impacts of that induced
     growth will be assessed in the Growth-Inducing lmpacts section of the EIR.


     XIV.       Recreation

                                                                                                   Less than
                                                                                Potentially       Sgniiiint       Less than
                                                                                SgniTint        wilh Miligafion   Signfcant
                                                                                 lmpad           Incorporated       lmpad      No Impact


     a.      Would the project increase the use of existing neighbohood                                                           x
             and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that
             substantial physical deterioration of the facildy would occur or
             be accelerated?

 b.          Does the project include recreational facilities or require the                                                      x
             construction or expansion of recreational facilities which
             might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?

 The project does not include construction of any new facilities. Therefore, it would not
 result in any new recreation impacts. Therefore, it will not be a component of any
 cumulative recreation impact. The project may induce or facilitate additional growth in
 Ukiah and the proposed place of use. The potential recreation impacts of that induced
 growth will be assessed in the Growth-Inducing lmpacts section of the EIR.




 Initial Study for Water Right Petitions                                                                      Page 30
 City of Ukiah
    XV.       TransportationlTraffic

     Would fhe project result in:                                                               Less than
                                                                               Polentialty     Sgnifcant        Less lhan
                                                                               Sgnifmnt      vvlth Miligation   Signifcant
                                                                                Impad         Incorporated        Impact     No Impact


    a.    Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to
          the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e.,
          result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle
          trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at
          intersections?

    b.    Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service
          standard established by the county congestion management
          agency for designated roads or highways?

    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 ?

    d.    Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g.,
          sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible
          uses (e.g., farm equipment)?



I
    e.    Result in inadequate emergency access?                                                                                x
                                                                                                                                         I
    I

    g.
          Result in inadequate parking capacity?

          Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting
                                                                                                                                x

                                                                                                                                x
                                                                                                                                         I
          alternative iransportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?

    The project does not include construction of any new facilities. Therefore, it would not
    result in any new traffic or transportation impacts. Therefore, it will not be a component
    of any cumulative traffic impact. The project may induce or facilitate additional growth in
    Ukiah and the proposed place of use. The potential traffic impacts of that induced
    growth will be assessed in the Growth-Inducing Impacts section of the EIR.




    lnitial Study for Water Right Petitions                                                                 Page 31
    City of Ukiah
XVI.       Utilities and Service Systems

Would the project:                                                       Potenlially
                                                                                          Less than
                                                                                         Sqnifkant       Less than
                                                                         Sgnifkant     with Miligation   Sgnfcanl
                                                                          Impact        lnwrpotated       Impact     No Impact


a.      Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable                                                      X
        Regional Water Quality Control Board?

b.      Require or result in the construction of new water or
        wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
        facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
        environmental effects?

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 ?

d.      Have smcient water supplies available to serve the project
        from existing entitiements and resources, or are new or
        expanded entitlements needed?

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?

f       Be served by a landtill with sufficient pennitfed capacity to
        accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?

g.      Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations
        related to solid waste?

The project does not include construction of any new facilities. Therefore, it would not
result in any new impacts on utilities or service systems. The project would allow water
use within the proposed service areas of the City, Millview CWD, Willow CWD and
Calpella CWD. Any development of additional diversion facilities and/or improvements
to water treatment facilities, would be assessed in a CEQA review when an actual
project is defined and proposed. The project will not be a component of any cumulative
utilities impact. The project may induce or facilitate additional growth in Ukiah and the
proposed place of use. The potential impacts on utilities and service systems of that
induced growthl w be assessed in the Growth-Inducing Impacts section of the EIR.
                l i


XVII.      Energy Use

The Checklist does not contain items related to energy use, though the CEQA
Guidelines require that energy use be assessed in EIRs. Electricity to operate pumps
and other equipment used to divert water is supplied to the project site by PG&E. If
diversions are increased, the additional pumping would use proportionally more


Initial Study for Water Right Petitions                                                              Page 32
       f
City o Ukiah
electricity. However, this increase would not be expected to represent a substantial
increase in electrical use nor would it be used in a wasteful fashion.


XVIII. Mandatory Findings o f Significance

                                                                                        Less than
                                                                       Potentially     Sgnifcanl       Less than
                                                                       Signifant     with Mitigation   Signifcant
                                                                         Impact       Incorporated       Impact     No lrnpact


a.    Does the project have the potential to degrade the quala of         x
      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 resfrict the range of
      a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
      examples of the major periods of Califomia history or
      prehistory?

b.    Does the project have impacts that are individually limited,        x
      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)?

c.    Does the project have environmental effects which will cause        x
      substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly
      or indiredly?

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 Califomia history or prehistory? Potentially significant impact.

         The project has the potential to affect the temperature and dissolved oxygen
         levels in the water released from Lake Mendocino. These changes in water
         quality could adversely affect sensitive fish species and other aquatic wildlife.
         These issues will be addressed in the EIR.


b.       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)? Potentially significant impact.

         The project plus the projected development to the year 2025 described in Section
         6.0 of this report could have potentially significant cumulative impactst w regard
                                                                                hi

Initial Study for Water Right Petitions                                                            Page 33
City of Ukiah
          to water quality in the Russian River and the corresponding impacts on biological
          resources as described above. The cumulative impact analysis in the EIR will
          address cumulative impacts to those resources.


c.        Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse
          effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Potentially significant
          impact.

         The project may accommodate additional development within the proposed place
         of use. That development could cause potentially substantial effects on human
         beings. These potential growth-inducing impacts of the project will be identified
         and discussed in the EIR.




Initial Study for Water Right Petitions                                            Page 34
City of Ukiah
                   SOURCES AND REFERENCES
Bibliography

California Department of Health Services
        1999. Annual Inspection Report for Millview County Water Distn'ct.
        2002. Drinking Water Adequacy Assessment - Ukiah Valley, Mendocino
              County, Drinking Water Field Operations Branch, Mendocino District.

Entrix, Inc.
        2004. Russian River Biological Assessment. Prepared for the U. S. Army Corps
              of Engineers and the Sonoma County Water Agency.

Leonard Charles and Associates
      2005. Draft EIR for Drat7 Ukiah Valley Area Plan.

Mendocino, County of
     n.d.    Mendocino County Code, Division 11, Appendix C (Inland Zoning Code)
     1981. Mendocino County General Plan; some elements have been revised
             since 1981.
     2004 General Plan Housing Element.

Millview County Water District
        2004. Mill View County Water District LWS Annual Report to the Drinking Water
              Program.

Ukiah, City of
       1995. Ukiah Valley General Plan.
       2004. LWS Annual Report to the Drinking Water Program (For Calendar Year
               2003 ending December 31, 2003).


Persons Contacted

Bradley, Tim                              Millview CWD Manager
Stump, Charley                            City of Llkiah Community Development Director
Wagner, Robert                            Wagner & Bonsignore Consulting Civil Engineers
Whealen, Paula                            Wagner & Bonsignore Consulting Civil Engineers
Ziemianek, Bernie                         Former Ukiah Public Utilities Director

Report Preparation

     Leonard Charles, Ph.D., Project Manager and Environmental Analyst
     Lynn Milliman, Environmental Analyst




Initial Study for Water Right Petitions                                                Page 35
City of Ukiah

								
To top