1 Findings and Board Resolution Steven Blum. 2 CEQA Findings in the Board Resolution  Resolution or separate appended document contains findings critical.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Ron Bass, J.D., AICP, Senior Regulatory Specialist Jones & Stokes Common NEPA Mistakes and How to Avoid Them January 17, 2008 Oregon Department of Transportation.
Advertisements

Ventura County Mobile Home Park Rent Review Board Hearing February 26, 2014 Proposed Amendments to Mobile Home Park Rent Control Ordinance Project No.
SAFETEA-LU Efficient Environmental Review Process (Section 6002) Kelly Dunlap.
BASIN PLAN AMENDMENTS ADOPTION HEARING Item 2 Water Board Meeting of April 9, 2014 Chuck Curtis and Robert Larsen Lahontan Water Board.
Agency Drafts Statement of Scope Governor Approves (2) No Agency Drafts: Special Report for rules impacting housing Fiscal Estimate.
29e CONFÉRENCE INTERNATIONALE DES COMMISSAIRES À LA PROTECTION DES DONNÉES ET DE LA VIE PRIVÉE 29 th INTERNATIONAL DATA PROTECTION AND PRIVACY COMMISSIONERS.
COMPLIANCE WITH PROCUREMENT VEHICLES AND PROTESTING THOSE WHO DON’T COMPLY William J. Cea, Esq. Becker & Poliakoff, P.A. Deborah Bovarnick Mastin, Esq.
CEQA FUNDAMENTALS for LAFCo’s
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
1 Restricted Materials Permitting Pest Management Workshop Catheys Valley March 2, 2011.
Deciding How To Apply NEPA Environmental Assessments Findings of No Significant Impact Environmental Impact Statements.
1 State Water Resources Control Board Environmental Review for State Bond Funded Grant Projects Presented by Lisa Lee, Environmental Review Unit.
1 Delta Levees Investment Strategy Delta Stewardship Council Central Valley Flood Protection Board Levees Workshop July 10, 2015.
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.
Agency Drafts Statement of Scope Governor Approves Statement of Scope (2) No Agency Drafts: Special Report for rules impacting housing
1 The Impact of SAS 112 on Governmental Financial Statement Audits GAQC Member Conference Call January 4, 2007 Presented by Chuck Landes, CPA.
Monterey Peninsula Water Management District 1 Confirm Scope of Work and Description for MPWMD ASR Project Item 13 April 18, 2005 Regular Meeting Staff.
CEQA Nuts and Bolts Adam U. Lindgren. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) was passed in 1970 with numerous expressed legislative intents and.
UNEP Training Resource Manual Topic 10 Slide 1. UNEP Training Resource Manual Topic 10 Slide 2 EIA is a process to: F gather information necessary for.
Summary of Rulemaking in California for the Forensic Alcohol Laboratories Regulation Review Committee Cathy L. Ruebusch, RN, MSN Office of Regulations.
SAFETEA-LU Section 6002 “ Efficient Environmental Reviews for Project Decisionmaking”
Implementing the Regulatory Flexibility Act. 2 Background The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601–612) requires Federal agencies to— –Consider the.
Advisory Committee Kickoff Meeting SWRCB Program to Develop Sediment Quality Objectives for Enclosed Bays and Estuaries of California July 29, 2003 CAL/EPA.
1 CEQA and CEQA-Plus Presented by Cookie Hirn, Lisa Lee, and Michelle Jones Regional Programs Unit July 2008.
Addressing Cumulative Impacts of Pollution: A CEQA Perspective A Forum Presented by the Contra Costa County Hazardous Materials Commission December 4,
1 Status Report Wetland Policy Development Team July 15, 2008 Dyan Whyte Bill Orme.
ISO Environmental Management Systems 1 ISO LEGAL AND OTHER REQUIREMENTS.
Winery Ordinance Update Scoping Meeting for the Environmental Impact Report County of Santa Barbara July 16, 2014.
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.
1 Completing the CEQA Checklist Terry Rivasplata.
Central Valley Flood Protection Board Meeting – Agenda Item No. 9A CVFPB MEETING – October 25, 2013.
1 Responding to Comments Janet Cox TMDL/Planning Communications Region 2.
CEQA and Climate Change Evaluating & Addressing GHG Emissions from Projects Barbara Lee, CAPCOA.
The Kern Regional Transportation Plan A Vision and Guidebook for Kern County in 2025.
CEQA and the Delta Plan Presentation to Delta Stewardship Council February 24, 2011.
1 Final Regulation Order for Truck and Bus Regulation California Environmental Protection Agency Air Resources Board November 20, 2014.
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.
Rulemaking by APHIS. What is a rule and when must APHIS conduct rulemaking? Under U.S. law, a rule is any requirement of general applicability and future.
NYS Department of Environmental Conservation Flow Standard Amendment to New York’s Water Quality Standards Regulations Scott J. Stoner Chief, Standards.
1 Economic Analysis Steven Blum Alan T. Monji Environmental Scientist Region 9.
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.
CEQA 101 CEQA City of Sacramento Community Development Dept. March 2016.
Overview of the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act and Designation Process County of San Luis Obispo Office of the County Counsel January 8, 2015.
Integration of National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) NEPA and NHPA A Handbook for Integrating NEPA and.
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.
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.
1 1 The Project Description: Framing the CEQA Analysis Terry Rivasplata.
Welcome to the Public Comment Hearing on the Proposed Regulatory Update to the California Environmental Quality Act AB 52, Gatto (2014) Heather Baugh Assistant.
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.
1 Roles of the State and Regional Boards in the basin Plan Amendment Process.
JSGS Professional Workshop Series Copyright ©Heather McWhinney, 2016 WRITING A CABINET DECISION ITEM.
STOCKTON DELTA WATER SUPPLY PROJECT (DWSP) Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Certification Hearing November 8, 2005 Mark J. Madison, Director Municipal.
The Plaza at Santa Monica Project PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING
1828 Ocean Ave & 1921 Ocean Front Walk PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING
Introduction to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Facebook Campus Expansion Project EIR
Amendment to the Cooperative Agreement with Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District for Upper Temescal Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Jayne.
Rulemaking Part II.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 2017 AMENDMENT PROCESS and DOCKET
Overview What is the CEQA environmental review process?
IS YOUR LOCAL GOVERNMENT PREPARED
Relationship between World Bank and Romanian EA requirements
What is OAL? The Office of Administrative Law (OAL) ensures that agency regulations are clear, necessary, legally valid, and available to the public. OAL.
LAFCO AND CEQA LAFCO Role as A Responsible Agency
Making Local Government a Participatory Sport
Presentation transcript:

1 Findings and Board Resolution Steven Blum

2 CEQA Findings in the Board Resolution  Resolution or separate appended document contains findings critical to surviving a legal challenge  Findings must be supported by substantial evidence in the record

3 If there are No Significant Impacts  CEQA Findings must include  Statement that Board has reviewed and considered SED  Finding that there is no potential for significant adverse impacts

4 If There are Significant Impacts  One of these findings is required for each significant impact:  Mitigation has been incorporated in the project  Mitigation is within another agency’s jurisdiction and has been adopted or can and should be adopted by that agency  Project alternatives and mitigation measures have been considered and are infeasible Infeasibility must be based on specific economic, legal, social, technological or other considerations Infeasibility must be based on specific economic, legal, social, technological or other considerations

5 If There are Significant Impacts (cont’d)  Include brief statement of rationale for each finding  Statement of Overriding Considerations must be included in the Board Resolution  Not a substitute for CEQA findings

6 Statement of Overriding Considerations  States that for each significant impact, lead agency balances benefits and risks when making its determination  Benefits can be economic, legal, social, technological or “other”  Risks are unmitigated environmental impacts  Must be supported by substantial evidence in the record  Include evidence of benefits

7 In the Board Resolution  Provide a history of the project  State the date the Basin Plan was last amended  Provide 303(d) listing date (if applicable)  Define the pollution problem or reason for policy or Basin Plan amendment  Provide dates for public notices, workshops, peer review, board hearings, other important milestones

8 In the Board Resolution (cont’d)  Describe CEQA compliance  State that Basin Planning/policy adoption process is a Certified Regulatory Program  State that the SED consists of the Basin Plan amendment, Staff Report (including environmental Checklist), comments, responses to comments, and resolution  State the these documents were provided to individuals and public agencies for review and comment

9 Now Therefore Be it Resolved…  That the Basin Plan is being amended  That the SED meets all requirements of CEQA

10 Before the Gavel Falls…STOP!  Was new information presented that merits recirculation?

11 After State Board Approval…

12 Notice of Decision  After “final approval” of the BPA/TMDL/ policy, the Regional Board must file a Notice of Decision with the Resources Agency  We interpret “final approval” to mean OAL approval  Filing begins 30-day statute of limitations on lawsuits challenging the Board’s CEQA process  Failure to file results in a 180-day statute of limitations

13 Use of SED by Parties Implementing Compliance Projects  Agency implementing a compliance project must prepare a subsequent or supplemental environmental document, with project-level impact analysis  In some cases, may use previously adopted SED for program-level analysis  Must follow standard CEQA process

14 Questions?