EVALUATION — CEQA Statute and Guidelines (2025

A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors, as well as general standards (e.g., the project would not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).
All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as onsite, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
“Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level.
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
- a) Earlier Analyses Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
- b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
- c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project’s environmental effects in whatever format is selected.
The explanation of each issue should identify:
- a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
- b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance

361

Association of Environmental Professionals 2025

CEQA Guidelines Appendices

				Less Than
				Significant
		Potentially		With	Less Than
		Significant		Mitigation	Significant	No
	Issues	Impact		Incorporated	Impact	Impact
I. AESTHETICS.Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project:
a)	Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
b)	Substantially damage scenic resources,
	including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a
	state scenic highway?
c)	In nonurbanized areas, substantially
	degrade the existing visual character or
	quality of public views of the site and its
	surroundings? (Public views are those that
	are experienced from publicly accessible
	vantage point). If the project is in an
	urbanized area, would the project conflict
	with applicable zoning and other regulations
	governing scenic quality?
d)	Create a new source of substantial light or
	glare which would adversely affect day or
	nighttime views in the area?
II.	AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES. In		determining whether		impacts to agricultural
	resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural
	Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model	(1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation
	as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether
	impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies
	may refer to information compiled by the California		Department of Forestry and Fire			Protection
	regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range				Assessment Project and
	the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and	forest carbon		measurement methodology provided in
	Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project:
a)	Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland,
	or Farmland of Statewide Importance
	(Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
	Monitoring Program of the California
	Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
b)	Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
c)	Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
	rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public
	Resources Code Section 12220(g)),
	timberland (as defined by Public Resources
	Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned
	Timberland Production (as defined by
	Government Code Section 51104(g))?

362

CEQA Guidelines Appendices

Association of Environmental Professionals 2025

				Less Than
				Significant
		Potentially		With	Less Than
		Significant		Mitigation	Significant	No
	Issues	Impact		Incorporated	Impact	Impact
d)	Result in the loss of forest land or
	conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
e)	Involve other changes in the existing
	environment which, due to their location or
	nature, could result in conversion of
	Farmland, to non-agricultural use or
	conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
III.	AIR QUALITY.Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable					air quality
	management district or air pollution control	district	may	be relied upon	to make the following
	determinations. Would the project:
a)	Conflict with or obstruct implementation of
	the applicable air quality plan?
b)	Result in a cumulatively considerable net
	increase of any criteria pollutant for which
	the project region is non-attainment under
	an applicable federal or state ambient air
	quality standard?
c)	Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
	pollutant concentrations?
d)	Result in other emissions (such as those
	leading to odors) adversely affecting a
	substantial number of people?
IV.	BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.Would the project:
a)	Have a substantial adverse effect, either
	directly or through habitat modifications, on
	any species identified as a candidate,
	sensitive, or special status species in local
	or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or
	by the California Department of Fish and
	Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b)	Have a substantial adverse effect on any
	riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
	community identified in local or regional
	plans, policies, regulations or by the
	California Department of Fish and Wildlife or
	U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
c)	Have a substantial adverse effect on state or
	federally protected wetlands (including, but
	not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal,
	etc.) through direct removal, filling,
	hydrological interruption, or other means?

363

Association of Environmental Professionals 2025

CEQA Guidelines Appendices

			Less Than
			Significant
		Potentially	With	Less Than
		Significant	Mitigation	Significant	No
	Issues	Impact	Incorporated	Impact	Impact
d)	Interfere substantially with the movement of
	any native resident or migratory fish or
	wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
	impede the use of native wildlife nursery
	sites?
e)	Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
	protecting biological resources, such as a
	tree preservation policy or ordinance?
f)	Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
	Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
	Community Conservation Plan, or other
	approved local, regional, or state habitat
	conservation plan?
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES.Would the project:
a)	Cause a substantial adverse change in the
	significance of a historical resource pursuant
	to § 15064.5?
b)	Cause a substantial adverse change in the
	significance of an archaeological resource
	pursuant to § 15064.5?
c)	Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?
VI. ENERGY.Would the project:
a)	Result in potentially significant
	environmental impact due to wasteful,
	inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of
	energy resources, during project
	construction or operation?
b)	Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
VII.	GEOLOGY AND SOILS.Would the project:
a)	Directly or indirectly cause potential
	substantial adverse effects, including the risk
	of loss, injury, or death involving:

364

CEQA Guidelines Appendices

Association of Environmental Professionals 2025

			Less Than
			Significant
		Potentially	With	Less Than
		Significant	Mitigation	Significant	No
	Issues	Impact	Incorporated	Impact	Impact
	i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault,
	as delineated on the most recent
	Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning
	Map, issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial
	evidence of a known fault? Refer to
	Division of Mines and Geology Special
	Publication 42.
	ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
	iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
	iv) Landslides?
b)	Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
c)	Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
	unstable, or that would become unstable as
	a result of the project, and potentially result
	in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
	subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d)	Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
	Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect
	risks to life or property?
e)	Have soils incapable of adequately
	supporting the use of septic tanks or
	alternative waste water disposal systems
	where sewers are not available for the
	disposal of waste water?
f)	Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
	paleontological resource or site or unique
	geologic feature?
VIII.	GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS.Would the project:
a)	Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
	directly or indirectly, that may have a
	significant impact on the environment?
b)	Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
	regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse
	gases?

365

Association of Environmental Professionals 2025

CEQA Guidelines Appendices

			Less Than
			Significant
		Potentially	With	Less Than
		Significant	Mitigation	Significant	No
	Issues	Impact	Incorporated	Impact	Impact
IX.	HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS.Would the project:
a)	Create a significant hazard to the public or
	the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
	materials?
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 § 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 two miles of a public airport
	or public use airport, would the project result
	in a safety hazard or excessive noise for
	people residing or working in the project
	area?
f)	Impair implementation of or physically
	interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
	plan?
g)	Expose people or structures, either directly
	or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss,
	injury or death involving wildland fires?
X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY.Would		the project:
a)	Violate any water quality standards or waste
	discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground
	water quality?

366

CEQA Guidelines Appendices

Association of Environmental Professionals 2025

			Less Than
			Significant
		Potentially	With	Less Than
		Significant	Mitigation	Significant	No
	Issues	Impact	Incorporated	Impact	Impact
b)	Substantially decrease groundwater supplies
	or interfere substantially with groundwater
	recharge such that the project may impede
	sustainable groundwater management of the
	basin?
c)	Substantially alter the existing drainage
	pattern of the site or area, including through
	the alteration of the course of a stream or
	river or through the addition of impervious
	surfaces, in a manner which would:
	i) result in a substantial erosion or
	siltation on- or off-site;
	ii) substantially increase the rate or
	amount of surface runoff in a manner
	which would result in flooding on- or
	offsite;
	iii) 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; or
	iv) impede or redirect flood flows?
d)	In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones,
	risk release of pollutants due to project
	inundation?
e)	Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a
	water quality control plan or sustainable
	groundwater management plan?
XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING.Would the project:
a)	Physically divide an established community?
b)	Cause a significant environmental impact
	due to a conflict with any land use plan,
	policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose
	of avoiding or mitigating an environmental
	effect?
XII.	MINERAL RESOURCES.Would the project:
a)	Result in the loss of availability of a known
	mineral resource that would be a value to
	the region and the residents of the state?

367

Association of Environmental Professionals 2025

CEQA Guidelines Appendices

			Less Than
			Significant
		Potentially	With	Less Than
		Significant	Mitigation	Significant	No
	Issues	Impact	Incorporated	Impact	Impact
b)	Result in the loss of availability of a locally
	important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific
	plan or other land use plan?
XIII.	NOISE.Would the project result in:
a)	Generation of a substantial temporary or
	permanent increase in ambient noise levels
	in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general
	plan or noise ordinance, or applicable
	standards of other agencies?
b)	Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
c)	For a project located within the vicinity of a
	private airstrip or an airport land use plan or,
	where such a plan has not been adopted,
	within two miles of a public airport or public
	use airport, would the project expose people
	residing or working in the project area to
	excessive noise levels?
XIV.	POPULATION AND HOUSING.Would the project:
a)	Induce substantial unplanned population
	growth in an area, either directly (for
	example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example,
	through extension of roads or other
	infrastructure)?
b)	Displace substantial numbers of existing
	people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing
	elsewhere?
XV. PUBLIC SERVICES.Would the project:
a)	Result in substantial adverse physical
	impacts associated with the provision of new
	or physically altered governmental facilities,
	need for new or physically altered
	governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental
	impacts, in order to maintain acceptable
	service ratios, response times, or other
	performance objectives for any of the public
	services:

368

CEQA Guidelines Appendices

Association of Environmental Professionals 2025

			Less Than
			Significant
		Potentially	With	Less Than
		Significant	Mitigation	Significant	No
	Issues	Impact	Incorporated	Impact	Impact
	Fire protection?
	Police protection?
	Schools?
	Parks?
	Other public facilities?
XVI.	RECREATION.
a)	Would the project increase the use of
	existing neighborhood and regional parks or
	other recreational facilities such that
	substantial physical deterioration of the
	facility would occur or be accelerated?
b)	Does the project include recreational
	facilities or require the construction or
	expansion of recreational facilities which
	might have an adverse physical effect on the
	environment?
XVII. TRANSPORTATION.Would the project:
a)	Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or
	policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and
	pedestrian facilities?
b)	Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
c)	Substantially increase hazards due to a
	geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible
	uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
d)	Result in inadequate emergency access?
XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES.
a)	Would the project cause a substantial
	adverse change in the significance of a tribal
	cultural resource, defined in Public
	Resources Code § 21074 as either a site,
	feature, place, cultural landscape that is
	geographically defined in terms of the size
	and scope of the landscape, sacred place,
	or object with cultural value to a California
	Native American tribe, and that is:

369

Association of Environmental Professionals 2025

CEQA Guidelines Appendices

			Less Than
			Significant
		Potentially	With	Less Than
		Significant	Mitigation	Significant	No
	Issues	Impact	Incorporated	Impact	Impact
	i) Listed or eligible for listing in the
	California Register of Historical
	Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in
	Public Resources Code section
	5020.1(k), or
	ii) A resource determined by the lead
	agency, in its discretion and supported
	by substantial evidence, to be
	significant pursuant to criteria set forth
	in subdivision (c) of Public Resources
	Code § 5024.1. In applying the criteria
	set forth in subdivision (c) of Public
	Resource Code § 5024.1, the lead
	agency shall consider the significance
	of the resource to a California Native
	American tribe.
XIX.	UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS.Would the project:
a)	Require or result in the relocation or
	construction of new or expanded water,
	wastewater treatment or storm water
	drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
	telecommunications facilities, the
	construction or relocation of which could
	cause significant environmental effects?
b)	Have sufficient water supplies available to
	serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during
	normal, dry and multiple dry years?
c)	Result in a determination by the waste water
	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?
d)	Generate solid waste in excess of state or
	local standards, or in excess of the capacity
	of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair
	the attainment of solid waste reduction
	goals?
e)	Comply with federal, state, and local
	management and reduction statutes and
	regulations related to solid waste?

370

CEQA Guidelines Appendices

Association of Environmental Professionals 2025

			Less Than
			Significant
		Potentially	With	Less Than
		Significant	Mitigation	Significant		No
	Issues	Impact	Incorporated	Impact		Impact
XX.	WILDFIRE.If located in or near state responsibility areas or		lands classified	as very	high	fire hazard
	severity zones, would the project:
a)	Substantially impair an adopted emergency
	response plan or emergency evacuation
	plan?
b)	Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other
	factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and
	thereby expose project occupants to
	pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or
	the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
c)	Require the installation or maintenance of
	associated infrastructure (such as roads,
	fuel breaks, emergency water sources,
	power lines or other utilities) that may
	exacerbate fire risk or that may result in
	temporary or ongoing impacts to the
	environment?
d)	Expose people or structures to significant
	risks, including downslope or downstream
	flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff,
	post-fire slope instability, or drainage
	changes?
XXI.	MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a)	Does the project have the potential to
	substantially 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, substantially
	reduce the number or restrict the range of a
	rare or endangered plant or animal or
	eliminate important examples of the major
	periods of California history or prehistory?
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.)

371

Association of Environmental Professionals 2025

CEQA Guidelines Appendices

				Less Than
				Significant
			Potentially	With	Less Than
			Significant	Mitigation	Significant	No
		Issues	Impact	Incorporated	Impact	Impact
c)	Does the project have environmental effects
	which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
	indirectly?

372

CEQA Guidelines Appendices

Association of Environmental Professionals 2025