Practitioner guide

How should you document a Cortese List screen in an Initial Study?

A reusable record for preserving the evidence from a Cortese List check, reconciling it with related project records, and carrying verified facts into an Initial Study.

Published Last materially reviewed

After you have selected the applicable sources and made a first-pass property comparison, create one record for each source and statutory category. Capture the source date, query date and method, result, relationship to the project, open question, and retained evidence so another practitioner can reopen the check. The record supports the Initial Study's setting discussion. It does not decide the project's hazard conclusion.

Keep three things separate: the research record, the applicant's signed Hazardous Waste and Substances Statement under Government Code section 65962.5(f), and the Initial Study's impact conclusion. Appendix G, Hazards and Hazardous Materials IX(d) asks both whether the project is on a listed site and whether, as a result, it would create a significant hazard.

Start with the minimum record

Before adding detail, make sure each check answers these questions:

Capture Minimum entry
What was checked Statutory category, official source, and publisher.
Which version Source date or version, or “not stated.”
When and how Query date, property inputs, geography, and search method.
What came back Returned record, no-record result, category-wide agency statement, or unavailable source.
How it relates to the project On the footprint, off site, or unresolved, with the supporting map, address, or document.
What remains open Specific question, next action, and responsible person.
What supports the entry Saved result, export, screenshot, footprint comparison, and reviewed documents.

This compact record is the minimum handoff. Build it out only as far as the source result requires.

Build the full record

Use How to check California's Cortese List for a property to select the statutory sources and make the first-pass property comparison. This page begins after that check. It preserves the evidence, explains what the result means for the record, reconciles related documents, and carries verified facts into the Initial Study.

Section 65962.5 assigns list duties covering hazardous-waste facilities and sites, drinking-water wells, underground storage tanks for which an unauthorized-release report was filed, specified post-1986 cease-and-desist, cleanup, or abatement orders concerning discharges of wastes that are hazardous materials, and solid-waste facilities. That is why each entry must identify its exact subdivision and source. A direct EnviroStor Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List (Cortese) report and the Water Board's GeoTracker Leaking Underground Storage Tank Sites search are distinct, category-specific resources. They are not interchangeable evidence.

Identify the project name, addresses, assessor's parcel numbers (APNs), jurisdiction, and dated footprint map once. Identify off-site construction areas and alternatives separately so every entry has a clear geographic subject.

What you checked

Field What to enter
Subdivision and category Exact subdivision, such as (c)(1), and the category checked. Keep unchecked categories visible.
Publisher Agency or local enforcement agency responsible for the information; name the underlying program if CalEPA hosts the resource.
Source Exact report, search, list, or file title and official URL. Distinguish a Cortese-specific report from a broader database search.
Source date or version Stated list date, submission date, export version, or record-update date. Enter “not stated” where absent.
Query date Date and, for a changing portal, time and time zone of the search or access.
Property inputs and method Addresses, APNs, names, map extent, and footprint exhibit used; selected programs and filters; query link or PDF search terms and pages reviewed.

What the source returned

Field What to enter
Result What the source returned, including candidate records or an agency statement about source availability. Do not substitute the property-match decision here.
Record name and ID Displayed site or facility name, regulatory ID or Global ID, and record URL. For a static list, identify the page and row.
Program and status Program type and status exactly as shown.
Relationship to the project On the footprint, off site, or unresolved, with the address, map, or document evidence supporting that assessment.

Follow-up and evidence

Field What to enter
Documents reviewed Titles, dates, links, and relevant pages of orders, closure decisions, restrictions, or other documents actually read. Identify missing documents.
Open question What remains unknown, the next action, and who will resolve it. Record “none identified from this source check” only when supported.
Review Preparer and reviewer names, review date, and any correction or follow-up disposition.
Retained evidence Appendix or project-file reference for the search results, export, screenshots, footprint comparison, and reviewed documents.

Retain a dated copy of the evidence used, including a no-record result. If a search returned candidates that you later ruled off site, keep both the returned results and the location reasoning.

Keep the two dates distinct

The source date says which information you used. The query date says when you consulted it. A 2026 list accessed in September is not necessarily a September update.

For example, CalEPA's section 65962.5(a) page identifies information submitted on June 3, 2026. Retain that submission date separately from your access date. For a portal without a stated update date, record “source update date not stated” rather than substituting the query date. The statute's at-least-annual compilation requirements do not establish when an individual portal record last changed.

For a PDF, retain its title or version and the pages, rows, and search terms reviewed. For a map or portal, retain the inputs, selected programs, filters, and geographic extent needed to reproduce the check.

Describe the result without overstating it

Use the language that fits the evidence. These are research outcomes, not impact conclusions.

Outcome Suggested record language
Record returned “On [date], [source/version] returned [name/ID], displaying [program/status]. Its relationship to the project footprint is [confirmed on site/off site/unresolved], based on [evidence].”
Nearby or incomplete location “[Source] returned [ID] with [nearby location/city-only/partial-address] correspondence. The available evidence does not establish whether it lies on the project footprint; [review step] remains open.”
No record returned from a named source “On [date], the search of [source/version] using [inputs, geography, and method] returned no record. This result is limited to that source and search.”
Source unavailable or restricted “[Source/category] could not be checked on [date] because [specific condition]. No property-level result is reported; [follow-up] remains open.”
Agency reports no designations “As accessed on [date], [official source] reports no designations under [subdivision]. This is the agency's category-wide statement, not a property-search result.”
Category not yet checked “[Category/source] has not yet been checked. The screen leaves that category open.”

A city, county, similar name, or map point can identify a candidate without establishing its relationship to the property. Where the comparison remains uncertain, record “unresolved” and the next step.

When an official source does not yield a property result

These are different conditions. Record the agency's exact statement and the access date.

  • No designations: CalEPA's section 65962.5(a) explanation says DTSC has not designated hazardous waste property or border zone property under the cited provisions.
  • No separate tracking for specified reports: For reports relating to city, county, or state agency property, CalEPA says DTSC's Emergency Response program does not keep separate records. CalEPA also says DTSC is developing a tracking mechanism for reports received under Health and Safety Code section 25242. Do not extend that statement to every public-land report described by section 65962.5(a)(3).
  • Nonpublic information and no current analysis requirement: CalEPA's section 65962.5(b) page says drinking-water-well locations are not publicly available and no wells are currently subject to the referenced analysis requirement.
  • Former (d) reporting no longer performed: CalEPA's section 65962.5(d) page says this information is no longer reported to the Secretary by CalRecycle. Its page directs readers to section 65962.5(c)(2) and/or (c)(3) for the related facilities.

A temporary portal outage is different. Retry or use another official access route; do not record it as a negative property result.

Review the documents behind a status

A “closed” or “completed” status is the source's label for a case. Review the closure decision, cleanup order, land-use restriction, or monitoring document that explains what was addressed and under what conditions.

For petroleum UST cases that meet the Low-Threat Underground Storage Tank Case Closure Policy's low-threat criteria, a case may be proposed for closure while limited residual hydrocarbons remain and naturally degrade over a reasonable time. That policy-specific example means a closure status alone is not proof that all contamination was removed.

For a returned record, preserve the displayed status and note the affected area, residual conditions, restrictions, and assumptions relevant to the proposed use or construction. Cite the document pages supporting each fact carried into the Initial Study. If the needed closure letter or restriction cannot be found, identify the missing document and the question it prevents you from resolving.

Reconcile the applicant statement

Section 65962.5(f) requires the applicant, before the lead agency accepts the development application as complete, to consult the lists sent to the appropriate city or county and submit a signed statement. It addresses the project and any alternatives, identifies whether they are on a compiled list, and requires the applicable list to be specified.

The statutory form calls for applicant and site information, the local agency, parcel identification, specified list, regulatory ID, and list date. Keep the signed statement and the research record together, then reconcile their site identities, lists, IDs, and dates. Explain a discrepancy instead of silently editing the records to agree.

Carry verified facts into the Initial Study

Appendix G IX(d) asks whether the project would:

Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?

Part of the question What the Initial Study should explain
Listed-site fact Which statutory list and dated evidence support the site's inclusion or the documented screen result; how the record was matched to the footprint; and what remains unresolved.
Resulting hazard How the reviewed site conditions, governing documents, and proposed project support the hazard conclusion, including relevant construction or operational pathways and measures.

Put the verified source facts in the setting discussion and cite the supporting table, exhibit, and document pages. For the broader public-source sequence, continue with the Initial Study public-source checklist. Explain the project-specific reasoning in the impact discussion.

Before relying on the screen, confirm that each conclusion can be traced to retained evidence and that unresolved categories remain visible. Then resolve the identified records or evidence gaps and complete the hazard discussion with the lead agency's judgment.

Sources