Is the CEQA environmental checklist (Appendix G) used for an initial study?
Yes, if the agency chooses: Appendix G's Environmental Checklist Form, with the applicant's project description form and a brief explanation of each answer, meets the requirements for an initial study, though agencies may use their own format[1][5]. An initial study is not an MND: it is the analysis that leads to a negative declaration, an MND or an EIR, and is attached to a proposed negative declaration or MND[2][9][3].
Each question gets one of four answers: potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, less than significant, or no impact. Explain each briefly, covering off-site, cumulative, indirect and construction impacts. Agencies should also consider impacts the form does not list, and its questions are not necessarily thresholds of significance. The topics[5]:
- Aesthetics, agriculture and forestry resources, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources
- Energy, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality
- Land use and planning, mineral resources, noise, population and housing, public services
- Recreation, transportation, tribal cultural resources, utilities and service systems, wildfire
- Mandatory findings of significance
How long is the public review period for an MND?
At least 20 days, or 30 through the State Clearinghouse[6][7]. The proposed MND circulates with the initial study[9] under a notice of intent to adopt[10]. An MND substantially revised after notice, for example with new mitigation, is recirculated[11].
Example: San Bernardino County's MND for the Hume SoCal Campground expansion (SCH 2025110453) would grow a 107-acre camp near Green Valley Lake to 252.1 acres. The first MND, for about 3,000 campers and staff, was in state review from November 12, 2025 to January 16, 2026. A second, for about 2,400, has a state review period from September 30 to October 30, 2026[12][13].
The mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP)
The decision-making body adopts an MND only if the whole record shows no substantial evidence of a significant effect[14]. It also adopts an MMRP, and each measure must be fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements or other means[15]. The agency stays responsible even if it delegates monitoring[16].
When is an EIR required instead of an MND?
If a fair argument backed by substantial evidence shows the project may have a significant effect, the agency must prepare an EIR, even if other evidence says it will not[3][17]. Any potentially significant impact left on the Appendix G form at the determination means an EIR[5].
Substantial evidence means facts, reasonable assumptions from facts, and expert opinion backed by facts, not argument, speculation or public controversy. When such experts disagree, the agency treats the effect as significant[3].