1 Completing the CEQA Checklist Terry Rivasplata.

Slides:



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

BASIN PLAN AMENDMENTS ADOPTION HEARING Item 2 Water Board Meeting of April 9, 2014 Chuck Curtis and Robert Larsen Lahontan Water Board.
Summary of NEPA and SEPA Coastal Engineering and Land Use Issues in North Carolina Greenville, NC January 13, 2009 Sean M. Sullivan.
Presented to: 2010 Airports Conference By: Sue McDonald With slides by Tom Klin, CH2M HILL Date: March 3, 2010 Federal Aviation Administration Cumulative.
Bill Orme, Senior Environmental Scientist, State Water Board Liz Haven, Asst. Deputy Director, Surface Water Regulatory Branch, State Water Board Dyan.
USAID Africa Bureau EIA Procedures for Sub-Projects
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Ecological Services Utah Field Office.
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Deciding How To Apply NEPA Environmental Assessments Findings of No Significant Impact Environmental Impact Statements.
Forest Plan Revision Using the 2012 Planning Rule Process Overview Steps and Expectations (I don’t know….but I’ve been told…if the horse don’t pull….you.
Connecticut Department of Transportation Bureau of Policy & Planning.
Lassen Lodge Hydroelectric Project Public Scoping Meetings November 5, 2014 (Sacramento and Red Bluff) State Water Resources Control Board Division of.
What If I Must Go Beyond a Preliminary Assessment? (the example of a USAID EA under Reg. 216) [DATE][SPEAKERS NAMES]
Navigating SB 375: CEQA Streamlining and SB 743 Transportation Analysis 2014 San Joaquin Valley Fall Policy Conference.
Summit #1 San Juan County Shoreline Master Program Update March 1 st, 2 nd, and 3 rd
USAID Environmental Procedures. EA Training Course Tellus Institute 2 USAID Procedures Overview  USAID environmental review requirements are:  A specific.
1 Overview of National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)  Objective: Clarify the roles of NEPA and Negotiated Rulemaking Clarify the roles of NEPA and Negotiated.
ODOE Presentations and EFSC Standards Presented by Max Woods and Sarah Esterson September 18, 2015.
At the last Steering Team meeting… Goals (Rule-level) EPS (Measurable and Reportable) Natural Resources Human/Cultural Environment Administrative Avoid,
Climate Action Plans and CEQA Charlotte Strem Assistant Director, Physical and Environmental Planning University of California Office of the President.
Implementing the Regulatory Flexibility Act. 2 Background The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601–612) requires Federal agencies to— –Consider the.
Date Event Global Design Effort 1 CF&S Environmental Timelines & Radiation Impacts Jerry Aarons, PG/CHG (SLAC) Rod Walton, PhD (FNAL)
WEST BERKELEY PROJECT Master Use Permits (MUP) May 15, 2012 Response to Concerns & Issues.
Case study: SEA for land-use plan amendments of Krasna Hora municipality.
CA Regional Water Quality Control Board San Diego Region CEQA SCOPING MEETING: TENTATIVE CLEANUP AND ABATMEMENT ORDER (CAO) NO. R January 21,
Dominguez-Escalante National Conservation Area Dominguez Canyon Wilderness Resource Management Plan Scoping Meetings August 30 and 31, 2010.
STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY AND TECHNIQUES.
Greenhouse Gas CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group April 30, 2008 SCAQMD Diamond Bar, California.
1 Implementing the Concepts Environment Pre-Conference Workshop TRB MPOs Present and Future Conference August 27, 2006 Michael Culp FHWA Office of Project.
Regulatory Framework for Uranium Production Facilities in the U.S.
Winery Ordinance Update Scoping Meeting for the Environmental Impact Report County of Santa Barbara July 16, 2014.
CORPS OF ENGINEERS REGULATORY PROGRAM PUBLIC INTEREST REVIEW (33 CFR Part 320) August 12, 2005.
Delta Plan Draft Program EIR Status and Summary of Approach October 27, 2011 Not Reviewed/Approved by Delta Stewardship Council1October 27, 2011.
PDP SUBMISSION Purpose (1) The purpose of this Act is to promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources. (2) In this Act, sustainable.
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.
CEQA and Climate Change Evaluating & Addressing GHG Emissions from Projects Barbara Lee, CAPCOA.
1 Integrating Biodiversity Conservation Into Impact Assessment: The Experience of Uganda BERINA UWIMBABAZI.
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.
White Hill Middle School Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Ross Valley School District Community Meeting November 1, 2011.
1 1 CEQA Scoping Naomi Feger Planning TMDL Section Leader Region 2.
Director’s Order 12 contains information concerning review of other agency proposals.
The Fish and Game Commission has designated the states portion of the South Bay Salt Ponds an Ecological Reserve. Planning for the management of Ecological.
Durham Villas Planned Unit Development TSM & REZ Morris Bud Keeney Butte County Board of Supervisors December 11, 2012.
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.
Environmental Scoping Meeting April 9, Meeting Outline Overview of the Proposed Project Purpose of the Scoping Meeting Environmental Review Process.
LAKE FOREST SPORTS PARK SCOPING MEETING JUNE 23, 2009.
CE 360Dr SaMeH1 Environmental Eng. 1 (CE 360) Associate Professor of Environmental Eng. Civil Engineering Department Engineering College Majma’ah University.
1 1 The Project Description: Framing the CEQA Analysis Terry Rivasplata.
California WaterFix Aquatic Science Peer Review Sacramento, California April 5, 2016.
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.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Migratory Bird Program Conserving America’s Birds Addressing Migratory Birds in NEPA Migratory Bird Conservation for Federal.
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
Overview of the Draft EIR
Introduction to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
La Mesa Climate Action Plan Supplemental Environmental Impact Report Scoping Meeting May 31, 2017.
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS INVENTORY
Facebook Campus Expansion Project EIR
Environmental Impact Reports
Overview What is the CEQA environmental review process?
Fifth Standard Solar Project Complex
SEQRA as a Tool to Review Energy Projects
Vista Verde Residential Project Environmental Impact Report Public Scoping Meeting May 19, 2010 Michael Brandman Associates.
Relationship between World Bank and Romanian EA requirements
Brackish Water Desalination Project Draft EIR
Camarillo Springs Project Draft EIR Scoping Meeting
Presentation transcript:

1 Completing the CEQA Checklist Terry Rivasplata

2 Purpose of the Checklist  Used to evaluate environmental effects  Promotes a consistent approach  Requires review of all environmental impacts (not just water quality)  Provides framework for environmental analysis  Requires explanations for each determination

3 Use the Correct Checklist  Correct for Certified Regulatory Programs  State Board CEQA regulations Appendix A  Framework for SED environmental analysis  Under revision for Water Boards  Incorrect for CRP processes  CEQA Guidelines Appendix G  Model checklist for initial study preparation  Used for “normal” CEQA

4 What Topics Are Covered?  Aesthetics  Agricultural resources  Air quality  Biological resources  Cultural resources  Geology and soils  Hazards and hazardous materials  Hydrology and water quality  Land Use/planning  Mineral resources  Noise  Population and housing  Public services  Recreation  Transportation and traffic  Utilities and service systems

5 Water Quality and Beyond…  Lead agency must analyze all environmental impacts in all topic areas—not just water quality  Provide sufficient technical basis for all determinations  Analysis must provide enough information to allow Board members to make an independent judgment to approve the SED  Lead agency must take full ownership of contents and validity of the SED  May incorporate technical input from others  May even use draft prepared by dischargers or others, as long as analysis reflects our best work and judgment

6

7 Determining “Significance”  “Fair argument”  Thresholds from other agencies’ plans and regulations  Mandatory findings of significance (Checklist XVII)

8 “Fair Argument” Test  If anyone presents evidence that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency must prepare an EIR-level SED—even when presented with contrary evidence  The SED must analyze each of these potentially significant effects  City of Arcadia case (LA Trash TMDL) CEQA Guidelines 15064(f)

9 More about Fair Argument  A fair argument must be based on evidence:  Facts, supposition predicated upon facts, and/or expert opinion based on facts  NOT unsupported opinion or controversy alone  A fair argument may be raised at any time while the administrative record is open  From beginning the process until the final decision

10 Fair Argument and SED  Even if an impact doesn’t reach a threshold of significance, a fair argument can cause the lead agency to treat the impact as significant in the SED  The SED must identify these effects as potentially significant  Further analysis will be required to evaluate these impacts  Mitigation measures may reduce significance of these impacts -- Mitigated Neg Dec-level SED

11 Thresholds of significance  Established standards may define when an impact is significant  Standards of other agencies Examples: water quality standards, noise ordinances, air quality standards, etc. Examples: water quality standards, noise ordinances, air quality standards, etc.  Many of these are published in agencies’ regs, guidelines, or plans

12 Thresholds of Significance (cont’d)  These help determine when an impact can be considered less than significant  However, thresholds are trumped by a “fair argument”

13 Mandatory Findings of Significance  Check the left column box on Question XVII if the project will:  Substantially degrade environmental quality  Substantially reduce fish or wildlife habitat  Cause a fish or wildlife habitat to drop below self- sustaining levels  Threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community  Substantially reduce numbers or restrict range of a rare, threatened, or endangered species  Eliminate important examples of major periods of California history or prehistory

14  Or, check the left box if the project will  Cause substantial adverse effects on humans  Achieve short-term environmental goals to detriment of long-term goals  Result in possible cumulative impacts  (partial list; see Guidelines §15065) Mandatory Findings of Significance, cont’d

15 Checklist Categories: The Four Columns  Potentially significant impact  Less than significant with mitigation incorporated  Less than significant impact  No impact

16 Potentially Significant Impact  The project may have a substantial adverse impact on the environment OR  Mitigation has been identified but is within jurisdiction and discretion of others to impose  Any one check in this column requires an EIR-level SED (or mitigation/recirculation)

17 Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated  Mitigation must be within Water Board authority, or relatively certain to be required by another agency  Neg Dec or Mitigated Neg Dec-level SED possible if:  There are no checks in the potentially significant column  AND  All mitigation measures are incorporated into the project before public document review  Incorporation of mitigation after public review may require recirculation

18 Less Than Significant Impact  Environmental impact is not substantial OR  Impact is not adverse

19 No Impact  The project will not affect the resource being analyzed

20 Scan Your Checks!  Any check in the far left column requires an EIR-level SED  If applicable, consider additional mitigation/ recirculation If all checks are in the right three columns, you get to do a Neg Dec-level SED! If all checks are in the right three columns, you get to do a Neg Dec-level SED!  Unlikely for TMDLs—where we can’t specify manner of compliance, and must specify reasonable range of compliance measures and analyze  For CRPs, distinction between Mitigated Neg Dec- and Neg Dec-level SEDs is largely immaterial

21Explanations  Support each check with an Explanation  All checklist conclusions must be supported by evidence and analysis  Sometimes this is simple  Sometimes it requires research or additional studies (include in analysis)  Sometimes it requires technical expertise or analysis  If you include explanations in the Staff Report, reference location in checklist

22 Example: Air Quality  Consult with local/regional air quality districts  Describe air quality regulatory status (e.g., attainment/non-attainment)  Describe regional air quality plans and policies  Describe existing ambient conditions and emissions  Will the project result in direct or indirect significant impacts on air quality?  Determination may depend on environmental setting

23 Resources  There are resources available to help analyze project impacts  The handout lists resources by subject  Use these resources to start researching the baseline, the resource issues, thresholds/standards, significance, and cumulative impacts

24 Questions?