Notebook Ref. 4.3. Summary of the Issue ADEC policy states: “If the quality of a water exceeds levels necessary to support propagation of fish, shellfish,

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Residents Define the Role of Tourism in Montana Resident Attitudes Regarding Tourism Thale Dillon Institute for Tourism & Recreation Research The University.
Advertisements

Notebook Ref 3.5. Tier 3: No Degradation in ONRWs Applies only to waters classified as Outstanding National Resource Waters (ONRW) This classification.
The Individual Health Plan Essential to achieve educational equality for students with health management needs Ensures access to an education for students.
Antidegradation Demonstration: Alternatives Analysis Analysis WHAT IS IN THIS PAPER- Distinguish between need and necessity Recognize three general types.
Agency Drafts Statement of Scope Governor Approves (2) No Agency Drafts: Special Report for rules impacting housing Fiscal Estimate.
Overview of SMARA Responsibilities for Lead Agencies California Department of Conservation Office of Mine Reclamation Leah Gardner Senior Environmental.
Clean Water Act Integrated Planning Framework Sewer Smart Summit October 23, 2012.
Notebook Ref 6.3. Questions Tier 3 discussion has been addressed separately... How is Tier 1 / Tier 2 protection applied? ALL waterbodies are protected.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System -NPDES Permit Process-
New I-65 Interchange at Worthsville Road Welcome!.
The Saline County Study Knowledge-Based Community Decision Making.
Center for Land Use Education Understanding the Cost of Community Services Rebecca Roberts Center for Land Use Education.
Presented by Elliot F. Eisenberg, Ph.D. National Association of Home Builders July 23, 2008 Bryan, TX THE METRO AREA IMPACT OF HOME BUILDING IN BRYAN &
Fermilab Environmental Management System (EMS)
The Economic Impact of a University on its Community and State: Examining Trends Four Years Later Presented by: Allison M. Ohme Institutional Research.
ENVIRONMENTAL RIGHTS ARE HUMAN RIGHTS
ENVE 4505 Surface Water Quality Engineering Dr. Martin T. Auer.
Deciding How To Apply NEPA Environmental Assessments Findings of No Significant Impact Environmental Impact Statements.
Community Socioeconomic Profile Wayne County, West Virginia March 27, 2007.
Definition of Ecotourism  Ecotourism Kenya defines Ecotourism as, “the involvement of travelers in environmental conservation practices that address.
Economic Evaluation Tools Benefit-Cost Analysis Cost Effectiveness Analysis Financial Analysis/Feasibility Fiscal Impact Analysis Economic Impact Analysis.
Other Environmental Issues U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Noise Endangered and Threatened Species Explosive/Flammable Hazards and Underground.
Tribal Benefits from State Implementation Plan (SIP) Process Involvement Rosanne Sanchez New Mexico Environment Department Air Quality Bureau.
Michigan Economic Development Corporation Michigan 2007 CDBG Program.
Implementation of Antidegradation Policies for Indiana Waters.
Agency Drafts Statement of Scope Governor Approves Statement of Scope (2) No Agency Drafts: Special Report for rules impacting housing
1 IDEM Overview of March 14, 2008 Draft Antidegradation Rule Presented at the April 29, 2008 Antidegradation Stakeholder Meeting.
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act March 23, 2010.
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Division of Water Brock Tabor Nancy Sonafrank Alaska Forum on the Environment 2013.
Training Grant Program Capacity Building Grants
Lecture #1 The structure and role of the government and public sector in tourism.
FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED IN THE REVIEW OF PROPOSALS STUDY SESSION ON GOVERNMENT CODE §56668.
Highway Location Study CE 453 Lecture 4 See also lab 2 and lab 4 instructions, and EIS lecture notes See also 04 DOT development process.doc Refs:
Case study: SEA for land-use plan amendments of Krasna Hora municipality.
1 The Use of Institutional Controls Under the RCRA Corrective Action Program.
Big Sandy Rancheria Band of Western Mono Indians Casino and Resort Project Draft EIS Public Hearing Wednesday, February 2, p.m. – 9 p.m. Foothill.
Community Development Department GRAND HAVEN DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT Planning & Land Development Regulation Board May 21, 2014.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Decision Authority l All permit decisions, scope of analysis, 404(b)(1), mitigation, alternatives, jurisdiction -- Corps.
EIA for the proposed Desalination Plant North of Swakopmund: Social Impact Assessment.
Amherst County Comprehensive Plan (Update)
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.
Feasibility Study.
Environmental Justice: Context Sensitive Planning Grant Program California Department of Transportation Division of Transportation Planning Office of Community.
Notebook Ref Summary of the Issue Part of a Tier II antidegradation review should incorporate the consideration of feasible alternatives, some of.
Delta Plan Draft Program EIR Status and Summary of Approach October 27, 2011 Not Reviewed/Approved by Delta Stewardship Council1October 27, 2011.
Chapter 5 Part III. 2 Executive Orders Regulating Rulemaking What is the president's authority over rulemaking? What about for independent agencies? Why.
1 Completing the CEQA Checklist Terry Rivasplata.
NRC Environmental Reviews for Uranium Recovery Applicants and Licensees James Park (301)
Antidegradation and Alternatives Analysis Mary E. Gardner Regulatory Programs Administrator Littleton/Englewood WWTP Colorado.
ANTIDEGRADATION and THE BENEFITS OF PUMP LOGS FOR BATCH DISCHARGES Given by: Dan Murray, Terrell Hendren and Josh Frazier.
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS. KEY CHARACTERISTICS OF A SEP Projects must improve, protect or reduce risks to public health or environment. Projects.
1 Water Quality Antidegradation: Guidance to Implement Tier II Summary of Discussion: Review the Tier II Rule requirements. Clarify what feedback we are.
LBNE Environmental Assessment NEPA Informational Meeting May 23, 2013 Rod Walton, LBNE NEPA Manager.
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.
Forging Partnerships on Emerging Contaminants November 2, 2005 Elizabeth Southerland Director of Assessment & Remediation Division Office of Superfund.
REVISIONS TO THE FEDERAL WATER QUALITY STANDARDS RULE JILL CSEKITZ, TECHNICAL SPECIALIST TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY.
2015 CLARENDON TOWN PLAN Barbara Noyes Pulling Rutland Regional Planning Commission.
GBLWMP-SLUP Integration February 5, 2010 Deline. Ecological Integrity Policy GBLWMPSLUP (a): All activities in the GBLW must be consistent with.
RESOURCE POTENTIAL AND CONSERVATION VALUES. Traditional Land Use and Occupancy Archeology, Rare Features, Historic Sites Wildlife Habitat Value 2/15.
CE 360Dr SaMeH1 Environmental Eng. 1 (CE 360) Associate Professor of Environmental Eng. Civil Engineering Department Engineering College Majma’ah University.
ISO Session 3 Environmental Management and Ethics in Management.
Bureau of Land Management Federal Coal Leasing Program Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Scoping Meeting Supporting Text.
Proven Management – Proven Gold Districts – Safe Jurisdictions Symbol:PG Exchange:TSX Hardrock Project Environmental.
Tourism Master Plan A master plan for tourism destinations usually incorporates concerns that includes all aspects of Tourism development process. Factors.
Draft Transportation Element September 6, 2017
PUBLIC HEARING PRESENTATION: RESIDENTS’ CONCERNS
Hard Rock Mining in Oregon
An Overview of Farmland Protection Tools under The Agricultural Development and Farmland Preservation Enabling Act Theodore A. (Ted) Feitshans Department.
Camarillo Springs Project Draft EIR Scoping Meeting
Presentation transcript:

Notebook Ref. 4.3

Summary of the Issue ADEC policy states: “If the quality of a water exceeds levels necessary to support propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and recreation in and on the water, that quality must be maintained and protected unless the department… finds that (A) Allowing lower water quality is necessary to accommodate important economic or social development in the area where the water is located; (B) … reducing water quality will not violate the applicable criteria of 18 AAC or 18 AAC or the whole effluent toxicity limit in 18 AAC ; (C) the resulting water quality will be adequate to fully protect existing uses of the water;

Summary of the Issue What is required to demonstrate that social or economic benefits of a proposed activity justify the potential lessening of water quality of a waterbody segment is an important part of Tier II reviews. DEC needs to identify: What is considered a satisfactory demonstration? What determines whether a requested activity is “necessary”?

What factors should be considered? - Arizona, Delaware, West Virginia and Region 8 states: A. Increased production B. Employment C. Improved tax base D. Housing E. Correction of environmental or public health problem - Where information is inadequate or unavailable for determination, applicant may be required to submit the following: A. Information pertaining to water uses B. Information on potential environmental impacts C. Facts pertaining to current state of economic development D. Government fiscal base E. Land-use in surrounding area

What factors should be considered (cont’d)? Oregon – Similar factors as previous slide with the inclusion of: A. Local Economy B. Household income C. Indirect effects to other businesses D. Increases in sewer fees E. Financial impact analysis assessing whether allowing lower WQ provides socioeconomic benefits that outweigh the environmental costs Washington: A. Potential alternatives B. Economic and social benefits of maintaining or degrading WQ C. Cost of action as well as alternatives

Pennsylvania’s detailed list 1. Effect on Public Need/Social Services Identify any public services, including social services, that will be provided to or required of the communities in the affected area as a result of the proposed project. Explain any benefits that will be provided to enhance health/nursing care, police/fire protection, infrastructure, housing, public education, etc. 2. Effect on Public Health/Safety Identify any health and safety services that will be provided to or required of the communities in the affected area as a result of the proposed project. Explain any benefits that will be provided to enhance food/drinking water quality, control disease vectors, or to improve air quality, industrial hygiene, occupational health or public safety, including the benefits resulting from reclamation of abandoned mine land hazards. 3. Effect on Quality of Life Describe the impacts of the proposed project on the quality of life for residents of the affected area with respect to educational, cultural and recreational opportunities, daily life experience (dust, noise, traffic, etc.) and aesthetics (viewscape).

4. Effect on Employment Explain the impacts of the proposed project on employment practices in the affected area. Identify the number and type of jobs projected to be gained or lost as a result of the proposed project. Will the proposed project improve employment or mean household income in the affected area? Explain. 5. Effect on Tax Revenues Explain the impact of the proposed project on tax revenues and local or county government expenditures in the affected area. Will the project change property values or the tax status of properties? If yes, explain whether that change is a beneficial or detrimental to residents/businesses in the affected area. 6. Effect on Tourism Discuss the effects the proposed project may have on the economy of the affected area by creating new or enhancing existing tourist attractions. Conversely, describe any impacts resulting from the elimination of or reduction in existing attractions. 7. Other Factors Provide any other information that would explain why it is necessary to lower water quality to accommodate this proposed project. This category should be used to address any social or economic factors not considered above. Pennsylvania’s detailed list (cont.)

What level of information should be required of applicants? Washington: A. Consideration of 9 alternatives B. Test of importance C. Description of economic and social benefits Wyoming: A. Test of economic and social importance West Virginia A. List of available and cost-effective alternatives B. Identification of least-degrading alternative or mix of alternatives C. Social and economic importance analysis

What level of review and documentation is needed? Wyoming: A. Public comment period B. Substantial weight given to determinations by local governments and land-use planning authorities West Virginia: A. Social and economic importance analysis B. State considers views and concerns of public and selected governmental agencies Arizona and Delaware: A. Copies of antidegradation review and/or public notice are provided to state and federal agencies along with written request for comment.

Should level of review and documentation vary based on potential risk? Some states say they vary the level of review based on risk potential but don’t have a prescribed methodology for doing so. Most states make the distinction between need for a review or not based on risk potential (i.e., de minimus approach) but don’t clearly distinguish the level of review.