Environmental Review | Environmental Impact Assessment: State Environmental Review Requirements

Showing posts with label State Environmental Review Requirements. Show all posts

Wednesday, December 26, 2012

Preliminary Rulemaking In California For Hydraulic Fracturing Operations

On December 18, the California Department of Conservation/Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources released a draft of regulations covering hydraulic fracturing. The Division says the draft regulations are a "discussion draft," meaning the version does not begin a formal rulemaking process, but rather, starts the discussion by key stakeholders, such as industry, environmental groups, regulators, and any interested members of the public. The discussions will help prepare for the more formal rulemaking process, which is expected to begin by February 2013. The Division will accept written comments until 45 days after the formal rulemaking begins.

The discussion draft regulations touch on topics such as:

Pre-fracturing well-testing;
Advance notification;
Monitoring during and after drilling operations;
Disclosure of fracturing fluid materials;
Confidential business information; and
Handling and Storage of hydraulic fracturing fluids;

The proposed regulations would require hydraulic fracturing operators to publicly disclose detailed information about their operations, including a complete list of chemicals, and their concentrations. If the material is a trade secret, then operators must inform the public of its chemical family or use a similar method to describe it.

Caltha LLP provides expert consulting services to public and private sector clients nationwide to address Environmental Review and Environmental Impact Assessment.
Caltha Environmental Review Website

Tuesday, October 9, 2012

Use of e-NEPA System Required After October 1, 2012

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has announced the release of e-NEPA, a new online system that allows federal agencies to submit environmental impact statements (EISs) electronically. Traditionally, EISs have been submitted to EPA in hard copy. e-NEPA eliminates the need to mail or deliver copies of EISs to EPA headquarters, reducing printing, shipping, and delivery costs. EPA also belives it will save time through electronic filing and e-confirmation and improves transparency, allowing EPA to post EIS documents to EPA’s website.

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires federal agencies to integrate environmental considerations into their decision-making processes by identifying the environmental impacts and reasonable alternatives to their proposed actions. To meet NEPA requirements federal agencies prepare detailed analyses known as EISs. EPA reviews, provides comments, and maintains a national filing system for EISs.

Beginning on October 1, 2012, all agencies are required to use the e-NEPA filing system.

Caltha LLP provides expert consulting services to public and private sector clients nationwide to address Environmental Review and Environmental Impact Assessment.
Caltha Environmental Review Website

Wednesday, June 27, 2012

Four New Chemicals Added To California Prop 65 List

Effective June 22, 2012, the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) within the California Environmental Protection Agency is adding benzophenone (CAS No. 119-61-9), coconut oil diethanolamine condensate (cocamide diethanolamine) (CAS No. 68603-42-9), diethanolamine (CAS No. 111-42-2), and 2-methylimidazole (CAS No. 693-98-1) to the list of chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer for purposes of the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Proposition 65).

The updated list of Prop 65 chemicals now includes these compounds. The basis for the listing of benzophenone, coconut oil diethanolamine condensate (cocamide diethanolamine), diethanolamine, and 2-methylimidazole was described in a public notice published in the January 20, 2012, in the California Regulatory Notice Register. The publication of the notice initiated a public comment period that closed on April 6, 2012.

Caltha LLP provides expert consulting services to public and private sector clients nationwide to address Environmental Review and Environmental Impact Assessment.

Caltha Environmental Review Website

Monday, January 24, 2011

Minnesota EQB Proposes Mandatory Environmental Review Threshold For GHG

The Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (EQB) has published its intent to adopt rules without a public hearing that would add a specific threshold number applying to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to the mandatory EAW category for air pollutants at part 4410.4300, subpart 15. The level proposed is a combined total of 100,000 tons per year of GHGs, expressed as carbon dioxide equivalents. The gases to which this threshold would apply are carbon dioxide; methane; nitrous oxide; hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs); perfluorocarbons (PFCs); and sulfur hexafluoride. Written comments on the proposed rule amendment are being accepted by EQB until February 23, 2011.

Caltha LLP provides expert consulting services to public and private sector clients nationwide to address Environmental Review and Environmental Impact Assessment.

Caltha Environmental Review Website

Friday, December 3, 2010

Wind Farm Siting Criteria Proposed By WDNR

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resource (WDNR) has issued recommended guidelines for the environmentally-sound siting of utility-scale wind-electric generating facilities. These guidelines are intended to identify and characterize the presence of resources that are considered sensitive to windfarm development in the area under consideration.

Some of the key siting criteria WDNR recommends include:

Wildlife Areas
Migration Corridors
Current or Proposed Major State Ecosystem Acquisition & Restoration Projects
State and Local Parks and Recreation Areas
Active Landfills
Wetlands
Wooded Corridors
Major Tourist/Scenic Areas
Airport/Landing Strip Clear Zones and other lighted facilities

Site Characterization Studies
WDNR belives that a site characterization study is an important step in considering and evaluating potential windfarm locations. A baseline wildlife evaluation should be conducted for each site under serious consideration for windfarm development. To allow comparison with other studies, this evaluation should follow accepted standard protocols for windfarm evaluations.

Caltha LLP provides expert consulting services to public and private sector clients nationwide to address Environmental Review and Environmental Impact Assessment.

Caltha Environmental Review Website

WDNR Report On Authorities Needed To Minimize Impacts of Wind Energy Projects

The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) has submitted a report to the Wisconsin Legislature in November 2010 regarding the agency’s authority to protect wildlife and natural resources from wind project impacts. The WDNR report was submitted in response to 2009 Wisconsin Act 40, which required the agency to determine if its “statutory authority is sufficient to adequately protect wildlife and the environment from any adverse effect from the siting, construction, or operation of wind energy systems.”

WDNR made four recommendations to enhance its current authority to minimize potential impacts from wind projects:

1. Require WDNR to prepare a formal “biological opinion” and require the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin (PSCW) to consider that opinion before PSCW approves a wind project; this opinion would 1) describe the potential impacts of the project to wildlife and natural resources; 2) identify potential conflicts with wildlife protection laws; 3) reach a conclusion as to whether the project has the potential to cause a significant adverse impact to habitat and fish and wildlife resources; and 4) reach a conclusion as to whether mitigation measures can be implemented to substantially reduce those impacts below the level of significance;

2. Require a wind project developer to obtain Incidental Take Permits or Authorizations under the Wisconsin Endangered Species Law before constructing a wind project; currently, developers are encouraged but not required to obtain such authorizations;

3. Expand the Wisconsin Endangered Species Law to protect endangered and threatened species habitat, as currently included the Federal Endangered Species Act; and

4. Require easements for wind facilities to authorize access to those properties for the conduct of biological studies by developers, WDNR personnel and/or authorized agents.

Caltha LLP provides expert consulting services to public and private sector clients nationwide to address Environmental Review and Environmental Impact Assessment.

Caltha Environmental Review Website

Sunday, November 21, 2010

Environmental Review Guidelines For New School Siting

U.S. EPA has released draft voluntary guidelines to help communities protect the health of students and staff from environmental threats when selecting new locations for schools. The voluntary guidelines also provide tools to help communities ensure that new locations for schools are accessible to the students they are intended to serve.

The new draft voluntary guidelines will give local communities tools to help them consider environmental health issues in establishing school site selection criteria and in conducting effective environmental reviews of potential school sites. The draft guidelines recommend involving the public in the site selection process from the beginning to help ensure community support for these decisions.

The draft school siting guidelines are being made available for public comment for 90 days (through February 18, 2011).

Caltha LLP provides expert consulting services to public and private sector clients nationwide to address Environmental Review and Environmental Impact Assessment.

Caltha Environmental Review Website

Tuesday, May 4, 2010

Minnesota EQB 60 Day Rule

With some exceptions, Minnesota Statute 15.99 requires that an agency must approve or deny within 60 days a written request relating to some specific types petitions. Failure of an agency to deny a request within 60 days is approval of the request. If an agency denies the request, it must state in writing the reasons for the denial at the time that it denies the request.

The “sixty day rule” (MN Statute 15.99) does not apply to projects that are going through the environmental review process. Because environmental review decisions can often take months (and in some cases years) to be reached, environmental review is one of the exceptions to the rule. The clock stops ticking on the “sixty day rule” until environmental review has been completed and, once environmental review has been completed, the clock is reset at 60 days.

Caltha LLP provides expert consulting services to public and private sector clients nationwide to address Environmental Review and Environmental Impact Assessment.

Caltha Environmental Review Website

Thursday, February 4, 2010

State Environmental Review - Environmental Impact Assessment

Tuesday, December 15, 2009

3 Year Look Back Rule For Environmental Review

The "Three Year Look Back Rule" under Minnesota Environmental Quality Board Environmental Review requirements addresses how to determine whether a proposed expansion of an existing project requires a mandatory EAW due to the combined size of the existing project and the proposed expansion. The existing project’s magnitude must be added to that of the proposed expansion under the following conditions:

Construction of the existing project commenced less than three years ago; and
The existing project was not reviewed through an EAW or EIS.

The purpose of the 3-year look-back rule is to identify phased actions that are subject to review. This provision does not require EAW review of any existing stages of the project. It only requires the RGU to include previous stages in the calculation to determine if the EAW mandatory threshold is exceeded, not to review completed construction.

Caltha LLP provides expert consulting services to public and private sector clients nationwide to address Environmental Review and Environmental Impact Assessment.

Caltha Environmental Review Website

Monday, December 14, 2009

EQB Mandatory Environmental Review Categories Proposed

The Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (EQB) is proposing amendments to environmental review rules adding several categories of projects that would require a Mandatory Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) or a Mandatory Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). These amendments are in five areas:

New mandatory EAW, EIS, and Exemption categories that would apply to certain projects located in the shoreland areas of lake and rivers;
Amendments to how the rules handle treatment of “cumulative potential effects” in EAWs, EIS, and Alternative Urban Areawide Reviews (AUARs) in response to a 2006 Minnesota Supreme Court decision;
Amendments to the Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) process with respect to how specific individual projects are treated or how they affect the review;
A new mandatory EIS category for releases of genetically-engineered wild rice, in response to a legislative directive in the 2007 session; and
Miscellaneous other amendments to clarify the meaning of certain rule provisions.

Saturday, December 5, 2009

What Is A Phased Action For Environmental Impact Analysis?

Phased actions are often defined as two or more projects by the same proposer that will have environmental effects on the same geographic area and are substantially certain to be undertaken sequentially over a limited period of time. This definition usually involves three components:

Same proposer,
Same area affected, and
Timing.

The third component, the relative timing of the phases, involves the most uncertainty and therefore is often the most difficult component to apply.

Environmental Review For Connected Projects - Connected Actions

Certain types of projects are regulated as "connected actions" for purposes of defining a project for environmental review. Three types of relationships between projects often qualify as connected actions:

One induces the other;
One is a prerequisite for the other and is not justified by itself (the first occurring previously or simultaneously); or
Neither is justified by itself; that is, the two projects are interdependent parts of a larger whole.

Whenever two or more projects are related in any of these ways, they may have to be considered as one project, regardless of ownership or timing.

It is not common for projects to be “connected actions.” Common examples of connected actions include multi-site animal feedlots or when a major development project triggers construction of public infrastructure, such as a road or sewer that would not otherwise be needed.

State Environmental Review - Environmental Assessment