Responding to Comments

1. Responding to Comments Janet CoxTMDL/Planning CommunicationsRegion 2

2. Today’s Presentation • Different types of comments • Response strategy • Organizing comments, and responses • Preparing the Responses to Comments document • Recirculation and comments on a recirculated SED

3. Range of Comments on the SED • Technical comments/questions about the proposed Basin Plan amendment or TMDL • Cost/economics questions • Jurisdictional challenges • Process comments/questions • Opposition to governmental regulation • General, non-specific criticism or unrelated issues • CEQA comments: re: environmental impacts, mitigation, alternatives, checklist, CEQA process

4. CEQA Scoping Comments • No legal requirement to respond in writing if submitted before the published comment period… BUT • Your environmental analysis must demonstrate consideration of all CEQA scoping comments

5. Written CEQA Scoping Comments • Respond in writing, along with all other comment-period responses • Not necessary to include a separate CEQA section in the RTC document

6. CEQA Comments Received After the Comment Period • State Board’s CEQA regulations require that we respond to late CEQA comments • Water Board Administrative Procedures Manual cites federal public participation requirements: “Responses to all significant comments, criticisms and suggestions must be prepared”

7. Basin Planning Requirement • Basin Planning procedures: • Respond in writing to comments received earlier than 15 days before Board adoption • Attempt to respond in writing, or at least respond verbally at the meeting, to comments received within 15 days of the Board hearing • This is the requirement until revised Water Board regs are approved State Board CEQA Regs Title 23 CCR §3779

8. Responsiveness Summary “Responses MUST indicate what changes were made to the draft amendment or give the reason for not changing the draft amendment as recommended. Responses to comments must demonstrate comprehension of the intent of the comment, and consideration of the comment by giving the rationale if not accepting suggested changes to the regulatory language.” Administrative Procedures Manual Ch. 8, p. 30

9. Responsiveness Summary • Summarizes changes to the SED and any information not reflected in Board package • New or late accepted comments • Responses • Indication if policy changed as a result, and why • To be added to the Admin Record and posted on the website with final approved documents

10. Example of CEQA Comments and Responses • “I suggested an alternative – controlling mercury emissions in China – and you ignored me!” • “CEQA requires that a reasonable range of alternatives be evaluated and that alternatives be feasible. The SED evaluated the proposed project and three alternative approaches to controlling mercury inputs to the Bay. Although controlling mercury emissions in China is highly desirable, it is not feasible for this project, because the Water Board does not have jurisdiction or regulatory authority in China.”

11. Example of CEQA Comments and Responses • “You held your meetings in a scary neighborhood at night, and I couldn’t come!” • “During TMDL development we held three public workshops, a CEQA scoping meeting, and a public hearing on adoption of the TMDL. (list dates and times) As required by law, these meetings were held in accessible locations within Water Board jurisdiction. Board staff consider the time and location of meetings to maximize public participation. Contact information is included in each official notice of a public hearing, to assist people with special needs. However, it is not necessary to attend a public meeting in order to comment on our public documents. We respond, officially and in writing, to all comments that we receive in writing.”

12. Response Strategy • Take all comments seriously • Respond in a way that demonstrates your understanding of the question, or lack… • Explain your reasoning • Respond to CEQA comments in CEQA context, using CEQA terms

13. Response Strategy • Anticipate non-technical readers/listeners • Be open to making requested text changes, as a courtesy • “Thank you for your comment” or “Comment noted” is not an adequate response!

14. Organizing Comments and Responses: Possible Categories • CEQA/environmental • Implementation • Economic • Technical/methodology • Jurisdiction • Basin Planning/TMDL process • Peer review/scientific justification • General

15. Use a Spreadsheet to Sort and Quote • Advantages of a sortable matrix of comments • Avoid restating the same point • Delegate types of responses to specific staff • Track document development progress • Quote comment directly whenever possible • Sequential numbering helps in reassembly of RTC document

16. Organizing Comments and Responses

17. Preparing the RTC Document • Simplify the reader’s job of understanding the project, and your responsiveness • RTC document should stand on its own with the BPA – these may be all some people read, and they need to tell the story • 1:1 relation between comments and responses

18. Writing Style and Tone • Your audience is non-technical: the public, the Board, and the judge • SEDs “shall be written in plain language …so that decision makers and the public can rapidly understand the documents” (CEQA Guidelines 15140) • Define technical terms, spell out acronyms • Voice: Use first person plural, third person, NO second person. • For the judge, cite relevant code and cite/provide evidence

19. Format of the RTC Document • Consider an introduction summarizing key and frequent comments, “master” responses -- APM • Try not to restate responses • Refer to earlier comments; don’t refer forward • Use type styles to your advantage • Show changes stemming from comments in underline/strikeout in the context of your response

20. Recirculation and Responding to Second-Round Comments

21. Recirculation of the SED • If, before adoption, new evidence arises requiring substantial revisions to the SED, the SED should be recirculated • New comment period required prior to adoption of revised SED Guidelines §15088

22. New Information Requiring Recirculation • Changes in the project or environmental setting • A new significant environmental impact • Substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact, if not mitigated • New mitigation measure proposed, which the Board declines to adopt Guidelines §15088.5

23. New Information NOT Requiring Recirculation • Mitigation measures … are added that are not required by CEQA, do not create new significant environmental effects, and are not necessary to mitigate an avoidable significant effect • The new information or document revision “merely” clarifies or amplifies or makes insignificant modifications to the SED • Mitigation measures are replaced with equivalent or more effective measures Guidelines §15088.5

24. Responding to Comments on Recirculated Documents • If the SED is substantially revised and recirculated for a new round of comments • We must notify all commenters of the need to resubmit comments on recirculated documents • We need not respond in writing to first-circulation comments. Guidelines §15088.5(f) et seq.

25. Responding to Comments on Recirculated Documents • If only part of the SED is revised and recirculated, the lead agency may request that reviewers limit second-round comments to revised portions of the documents. Lead agency then responds in writing to: • All comments on unchanged sections of the first-round review documents • All comments on revised sections of the recirculated documents Guidelines §15088.5

26. Questions?