EVEREST June, 2013 - California Department of Boating and ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Orange County Coastal Regional Sediment Management Plan loss of eelgrass requires mitigation in accordance with the Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy, as discussed in Appendix B. Establishing a geospatial database to track projects would facilitate assessment of potential cumulative impacts on the basis of both geographical and temporal scales of disturbance. This information in combination with monitoring would support evaluations of project performance and possibly future adaptive refinement of implementation to optimize long-term benefits and reduce recreational and environmental impacts associated with RSM in Orange County. Impacts of RSM projects would depend on project-specific details, site-specific environmental conditions, and construction schedule. Project-specific impact assessments would be conducted as part of the environmental review and permitting process prior to project implementation. Monitoring requirements may vary for different projects depending on resources within the vicinity of the proposed RSM project. Impact verification monitoring may be a permit requirement depending on level of concern or uncertainty associated with potential impacts to sensitive habitats. Monitoring requirements would be determined during environmental review and permitting. Additionally, monitoring may provide opportunities to gather additional information relative to sand placement techniques or minimization measures that would support adaptive management decision-making to improve the environmental effectiveness of plan implementation over time. 3.6 Regulatory and Permitting The regulatory compliance process for construction projects consists of two key concepts: (i) environmental review, and (ii) permitting. The environmental review process consists of compliance with the NEPA and/or CEQA, as applicable, as well as other environmental laws and regulations. The most relevant federal and state regulations pertaining to coastal RSM projects are summarized in Table 3.11, along with the corresponding regulatory requirements and agency responsible for administering each regulation. Permits or variances also may be required from local agencies. A more detailed review of relevant laws and regulations is provided in Appendix C. The geographic locations conceptually subject to these regulations are shown schematically in Figure 3.10. An overview of the environmental review process and corresponding documents is given in Section 3.6.1. Practical considerations for coastal RSM implementation are reviewed in Section 3.6.2. Other regulatory considerations pertinent to the Orange County coastal RSM are identified in Section 3.6.3. These processes, rules, and regulations are explained in greater detail by the Beach Restoration Regulatory Guide (Everest, 2006) and the Final Sand Compatibility and Opportunistic Use Program Plan (Moffatt & Nichol, 2006). Everest International Consultants, Inc. 3.44
Orange County Coastal Regional Sediment Management Plan 3.6.1 Overview of the Environmental Review Process Projects undertaken by federal agencies must comply with the NEPA. Projects requiring state or local government approval, financing, or participation must comply with CEQA. Different environmental documents are required under CEQA and NEPA, although joint documents may be prepared when there is shared responsibility between federal and local (e.g., state and municipal) agencies. CEQA documents may either be a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or environmental impact report (EIR). A negative declaration is appropriate when the project has no significant impacts. A mitigated negative declaration is appropriate for projects with potentially significant impacts that can be mitigated to be less than significant. An EIR is required for projects with impacts that cannot be mitigated to be less than significant or projects that are controversial with substantial public scrutiny. NEPA documents may include an environmental assessment (EA) followed by a finding of no significant impact (FONSI) or a more comprehensive environmental impact statement (EIS). An EA and FONSI are prepared for most regulatory actions. An EIS is required for projects that cannot be mitigated to be less than significant. Environmental review is a public process that requires public notification, meetings, and specific time periods for public review and comment of the NEPA and/or CEQA document. NEPA or CEQA compliance can involve several steps with various decision points, depending on the complexity of the environmental issues as illustrated in Figures 3.11 and 3.12. Projects with a mitigated negative declaration or EA/FONSI generally take 3 to 6 months to complete environmental review, although Endangered Species Act consultations can lengthen the process. Completion of environmental review for an EIR or EIS can take 9 to 15 months. Timeframes may be influenced by the effectiveness of coordination with governmental and nongovernmental organizations during the environmental review process. Everest International Consultants, Inc. 3.45
Page 1 and 2:
Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Eng
Page 3 and 4:
Orange County Coastal Regional Sedi
Page 5 and 6:
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54: Orange County Coastal Regional Sedi
Page 103: Orange County Coastal Regional Sedi
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
show all

EVEREST June, 2013 - California Department of Boating and ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?