1 State Water Resources Control Board Environmental Review for State Bond Funded Grant Projects Presented by Lisa Lee, Environmental Review Unit.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
City Council Hearing March 3, 2008 SIERRA POINT BIOTECH PROJECT.
Advertisements

Summary of NEPA and SEPA Coastal Engineering and Land Use Issues in North Carolina Greenville, NC January 13, 2009 Sean M. Sullivan.
CEQA and Fuels Treatments California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Allen S. Robertson Environmental Protection - Sacramento.
General Information on Permitting Electric Transmission Projects at the California Public Utilities Commission June 2009 Presentation created by the Transmission.
PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING Draft Environmental Impact Report for the SEWER AUTHORITY MID-COASTSIDE (SAM) WET WEATHER FLOW MANAGEMENT PROJECT August 28, 2007.
Environmental Impact Statement Process Development Services Department Carol Helland, Land Use Director/SEPA Official (DSD) David Pyle, Senior Land Use.
City of St Helena Upper York Creek Ecosystem Restoration Project April 28, 2015 St. Helena City Council Meeting.
CEQA FUNDAMENTALS for LAFCo’s
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Planning & Community Development Department Municipal Code Amendments: Adoption/Certification Authority of California Environmental Quality Act Reviews,
Grants Management Overview 2013 Minority Fellowship Program Grantee Meeting April 23-24, 2013 Salvador Ortiz; Maria Martinez;
An Introduction to General Plans and CEQA
SCOPING MEETING FOR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT REQUIRED BY PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION 3161 (b)(3) AND (4) (SENATE BILL 4) (PAVLEY) C ALIFORNIA D EPARTMENT.
Overview of Grants Process Prof. James Machoki M’Imunya Principal Investigator, IEARDA University of Nairobi, Kenya.
Lassen Lodge Hydroelectric Project Public Scoping Meetings November 5, 2014 (Sacramento and Red Bluff) State Water Resources Control Board Division of.
Page CDBG Recipients' Workshop Community Finance Division NEPA Environmental Procedures.
Overview Of The CEQA Process CALAFCO Staff Workshop April 15, 2010 Fernando Avila (213) (Direct) Best Best.
1 Overview of National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)  Objective: Clarify the roles of NEPA and Negotiated Rulemaking Clarify the roles of NEPA and Negotiated.
Water Supply Planning Initiative State Water Commission November 22, 2004.
SUMMARY OF INFORMAL COMMENTS Temporary Waiver of Terms Regulations May 2006.
CHAPTER 3 SCOPING AND AGENCY COORDINATION. Scoping - the procedure for determining the appropriate level of study of a proposed project/activity - process.
Department of Transportation Consideration of Potential City of Pasadena Position Related to SR710 Extension Alternatives Being Considered By Metro City.
CEQA Nuts and Bolts Adam U. Lindgren. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) was passed in 1970 with numerous expressed legislative intents and.
SAFETEA-LU Section 6002 “ Efficient Environmental Reviews for Project Decisionmaking”
Integrating Other Laws into BLM Planning. Objectives Integrate legal requirements into the planning process. Discuss laws with review and consultation.
1 CEQA and CEQA-Plus Presented by Cookie Hirn, Lisa Lee, and Michelle Jones Regional Programs Unit July 2008.
Thursday, April 15,  Lead and responsible agency roles as they apply to environmental review of LAFCO actions  Overview of the roles of a responsible.
Winery Ordinance Update Scoping Meeting for the Environmental Impact Report County of Santa Barbara July 16, 2014.
Environmental Assessment in British Columbia Forum of Federations Conference September 14, 2009.
CALENDAR ITEM 101 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) S A N F R A N C I S C O B A Y A N D D E L T A S A N D M I N I N G P R O J E C T STATE CLEARINGHOUSE.
Cooperating Agency Status Presented by Horst Greczmiel Associate Director, NEPA Oversight Council on Environmental Quality Washington, DC September 14,
Proposition 1 Workshop: the Grant Application Process July 2015.
NRC Environmental Reviews for Uranium Recovery Applicants and Licensees James Park (301)
1 Findings and Board Resolution Steven Blum. 2 CEQA Findings in the Board Resolution  Resolution or separate appended document contains findings critical.
1 Responding to Comments Janet Cox TMDL/Planning Communications Region 2.
Report On The Status Of The Remediation Of The Sonoma County Waste Tire Sites Board Meeting Agenda Item 4 February 18, 2004.
CEQA and the Delta Plan Presentation to Delta Stewardship Council February 24, 2011.
Horse Creek Wind Farm Community Review Workshop #1: Introductory Meeting April 21, 2011—6:30pm at the Paynter Center.
Responsibilities of Lead Agency Pages 7-8 of Training Guide 1. Preliminary review a) Determine if activity is a project as described by CEQA b) May require.
1 1 CEQA Scoping Naomi Feger Planning TMDL Section Leader Region 2.
Gregory Canyon Landfill San Diego County LEA Gary Erbeck, Director California Integrated Waste Management Board Hearing December 14-15, 2004.
400 Mendocino Avenue Suite 100 Santa Rosa, CA Tel.: © 2010 Meyers Nave Riback Silver & Wilson. All rights reserved.
CEQA 101 CEQA City of Sacramento Community Development Dept. March 2016.
Scoping Meeting August 25, 2010 Project Description, and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Overview.
CEQA 101  CA Legislature passed CEQA in 1970; signed by Governor Reagan  CEQA statutes are found in Public Resources Code sections et seq.  The.
Joint Public Hearing - Closed Redevelopment Agency & City Council Amended and Restated Redevelopment Plan for the North Stockton Redevelopment Project.
Environmental Scoping Meeting April 9, Meeting Outline Overview of the Proposed Project Purpose of the Scoping Meeting Environmental Review Process.
1 EIS CONTENT & USE: ROBERTSON v METHOW VALLEY CITIZENS COUNCIL (207) FACTS  CHALLENGE TO ADEQUACY OF EIS FOR FOREST SERVICE PERMITS FOR SKI RESORT ON.
Environmental Review for Grant Projects Montana Coal Board December 2014.
Welcome to the Public Comment Hearing on the Proposed Regulatory Update to the California Environmental Quality Act AB 52, Gatto (2014) Heather Baugh Assistant.
Required Documentation: Determination and Overview (EPTM Chapter 3)
1 “Fair Argument” Test Triggering EIR: Friends of “B” Street v City of Hayward Facts & Issue Trial court: city abused discretion in adopting negative declaration.
Malibu Lagoon Why the permit for excavating and severely altering this coastal wetland should be revoked.
1 Roles of the State and Regional Boards in the basin Plan Amendment Process.
Office of the State Fire Marshal Pipeline Safety Division
The Plaza at Santa Monica Project PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING
1828 Ocean Ave & 1921 Ocean Front Walk PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING
Scoping Meeting April 20th 6:00 pm
Public Meeting For Scoping Of An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) For The Perham Resource Recovery Facility: Introductions Agenda Good evening, my.
Introduction to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
La Mesa Climate Action Plan Supplemental Environmental Impact Report Scoping Meeting May 31, 2017.
Planning Commission Public Hearing September 9, 2016
The Development Process
Facebook Campus Expansion Project EIR
Overview What is the CEQA environmental review process?
Fifth Standard Solar Project Complex
Red Flags Rule An Introduction County College of Morris
LAFCO AND CEQA LAFCO Role as A Responsible Agency
Presentation transcript:

1 State Water Resources Control Board Environmental Review for State Bond Funded Grant Projects Presented by Lisa Lee, Environmental Review Unit

2 Topics We Will Cover Today  Quick CEQA overview  Proposition 84 funding and Native American Consultation  Environmental Review Unit (ERU) Role  Environmental Review Steps  ERU Contacts

3 What is CEQA? C alifornia E nvironmental Q uality A ct CEQA was enacted in 1970 to ensure that state and local governmental agencies consider the environmental impact of their decisions when approving a project.

4 CEQA objectives:  Disclose to decision makers and the public the significant environmental effects of proposed activities  Identify ways to avoid or reduce environmental damage and prevent environmental damage by requiring implementation of feasible alternatives or mitigation measures  Disclose to the public reasons for agency approval of projects with significant environmental effects  Foster interagency coordination in the review of projects  Enhance public participation in the planning process

5 Agency Responsibility 3 levels of agency responsibility under CEQA: Lead Agency – Government agency with the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project. Must complete the CEQA document. Lead Agency – Government agency with the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project. Must complete the CEQA document. Responsible Agency – Government agency that has a legal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project (e.g. issue permit or give funding *State Water Board*). Responsible Agency – Government agency that has a legal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project (e.g. issue permit or give funding *State Water Board*). Trustee Agency – Government agency with jurisdiction over certain resources held in trust for the people of California (e.g. DFG). Trustee Agency – Government agency with jurisdiction over certain resources held in trust for the people of California (e.g. DFG).

6 Lead Agency and Responsible Agency interactions during the CEQA Process

7 What’s considered a “project” under CEQA? An activity is considered a project when a government agency: An activity is considered a project when a government agency: ~Builds something ~Builds something ~Funds an activity ~Funds an activity ~Issues a permit for an activity ~Issues a permit for an activity

8 Types of CEQA Documents  Notice of Exemption  Initial Study Negative Declaration Negative Declaration Mitigated Negative Declaration Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Report  Addendum, Supplemental and Subsequent CEQA documents.

9Exemptions  Projects may be exempt from CEQA requirements based on the type of activity(s) that will not have a significant environmental impact (i.e. no mitigation or avoidance measures are required to reduce environmental impacts).  Exceptions to exemptions (Classes 3, 4, 5, 6 and 11) disqualify a project from meeting exemption requirements (see Public Resources Code Sections 21084(b), (c), and (e); CEQA Guidelines, Section )

10 Proposition 84 funding and Native American consultation requirements Public Resources Code (PRC) §75102 Public Resources Code (PRC) §75102 requires “ that before the adoption of a Negative Declaration or an Environmental Impact Report required for any project to be financed with Proposition 84 funds, the lead agency shall notify the proposed action to a California Native American tribe, which is on the contact list maintained by the Native American Heritage Commission, if that tribe has traditional lands located within the area of the proposed Project.”

11 The ERU’s role Under CEQA, Lead and Responsible Agencies are required to adopt CEQA “findings” for a project. The State Water Board as a responsible agency must consider the CEQA document prepared by the Lead Agency when funding a project. The ERU’s role is to review project environmental documents and document environmental compliance on behalf of the State Water Board (due to the State Water Board’s funding action).

12 Recent Procedure Changes Due to recent management decision, the Grant Managers have been delegated to take on the responsibility of reviewing the environmental documents, and making the CEQA findings on behalf of the State Water Board. Due to recent management decision, the Grant Managers have been delegated to take on the responsibility of reviewing the environmental documents, and making the CEQA findings on behalf of the State Water Board.

13 Environmental Review Steps - The grantee submits the applicable CEQA documents to the Grant Manager (GM) - The GM reviews the CEQA documents and makes an adequacy and completeness determination

14 Environmental Review Steps - continued Adequacy: - Are the documents adequate for the State Water Board to make CEQA findings? - Have all GM’s concerns been addressed? Completeness: - Did the grantee submit all the applicable required supporting documentation? Documentation: - State Water Board finding documents

15 Adequacy - Issues to consider  Projects that will result in unavoidable significant adverse water quality impacts - Statements of Overriding Consideration (SOC)  Controversial and non-routine projects - Litigation - Public controversy - Projects that are ‘out of the norm’  Potential changes in the scope of work due to resource agency consultations - Permitting (404/401, DFG SAA) - State and Federal Agency consultations * DFG, California Coastal Commission * DFG, California Coastal Commission * USACOE, USFWS, SHPO * USACOE, USFWS, SHPO

16 Completeness – Types of documents to look for  Notice of Exemption – Copy of filed NOE containing the county clerk(-s) and OPR date stamps, plus any supporting documents  Initial Study/Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration 1. Draft and Final IS/ND or IS/MND 2. Resolution adopting the IS/ND or IS/MND, any applicable Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (if using IS/MND), and making CEQA findings 3. Comment letters and response to comments 4. Notice of Determination filed with the county clerk(-s) and OPR 5. Supporting documents (including permits, BOs, etc.)

17 Completeness – Types of documents to look for, continued.  Environmental Impact Report (EIR) 1. Draft and Final EIR 2. Resolution certifying the final EIR, adopting an MMRP and an applicable SOC, and making CEQA findings 3. Comment letters and response to comments 4. Notice of Determination filed with the county clerk(-s) and OPR 5. Supporting documents (including permits, BO, etc.)

18 Documentation – How to document your findings Document CEQA compliance: If the Project is routine and not controversial: Develop a CEQA Administrative Staff Report that includes the State Water Board CEQA findings and prepare the applicable CEQA document (NOE, ND, MND and EIR)*. Submit the completed staff report to the Program Analyst at the State Water Board to process. *Note that if a project is determined to be exempt under CEQA and the State Water Board is the CEQA Lead Agency, the GM must also prepare and submit an NOE to go along with the CEQA Administrative Staff Report. However, if the Project is controversial and/or non-routine, then the Project must go before the State Water Board for consideration. Contact the ERU for more information on how to proceed.

19 Documentation - continued State Water Board Environmental approval is completed when either: A. The State Water Board’s Division Deputy Director (DFA) or designee approves the environmental findings, and signs the CEQA Administrative Staff Report and any applicable NOE (if the State Water Board is the CEQA Lead Agency). The Program Analyst files the applicable NOE with the OPR within 5 business days following the approval date. OR B. The State Water Board considers and makes a decision on the non-routine and/or controversial project. The Program Analyst files a Notice of Determination or Notice of Exemption with the OPR within 5 business days following the State Water Board decision.

20 Environmental Review Steps, continued The Program Analyst notifies the GM of the Project’s CEQA status and provides the GM with copies of any applicable approval documents (signed CEQA Administrative Staff Report, NOE/NOD filings). The Program Analyst notifies the GM of the Project’s CEQA status and provides the GM with copies of any applicable approval documents (signed CEQA Administrative Staff Report, NOE/NOD filings).

21 For more information, please contact the ERU Ahmad Kashkoli, Unit Supervisor (916) Lisa Lee, Environmental Scientist (916)