pf_03154 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

and the need for an EIS on the project. Without draft and final versions of the EAW, minor errors or omissions should be noted only if they bear on larger issues. If a reviewer feels that the process is impeded by a lack of information that could be reason- ably obtained, the reviewer should ask for the information during the comment period rather than issuing a comment letter. All substantive comments received during the comment period must be given a written response by the RGU. The number of comment letters received by the RGU varies widely. For some projects only one or two letters are received, usually from state agencies. On other projects, dozens of letters may be received from concerned citizens. If the project is controversial and the RGU anticipates many public letters, it may be advantageous to hold a public meeting to hear comments and to answer the public's questions. RGU response to comments and decision on the need for an EIS The rules require most RGUs to make a decision on the need for an EIS between three working days and 30 days after the com- ment period ends; this time frame applies to all RGUs where the decision is made by a councilor board that only meets occasion- ally. If the decision will be made by a single individual, such as by an agency commissioner, then the decision must be made within 15 working days, although a 15 working day extension may be requested from the EQB chair. An RGU may postpone its decision for 30 days under certain circumstances as discussed below. As part of the process of determining if an EIS will be needed, the RGU must respond in writing to all substantive comments re- ceived during the comment period. Late comments may be responded to if the RGU chooses to do so. Each person or unit that submitted timely and substantive comments must be sent the RGU's response to those comments. Usually the responses are sent along with the notice of the EIS need decision, however, in certain cases, it may be advisable to send out responses in ad- vance of the decision to solicit comments before the EIS need decision is made. The RGU may ask the proposer to help prepare responses if the comments ask for changes in the project or a commitment to mitigation, or question the purpose or value of the project. The purpose of the EAW, comments and comment responses is to provide the record on which the RGU can base a decision about whether an EIS needs to be prepared for a project. EIS need is described in the rules: "An EIS shall be ordered for projects that have the potential for significant environmental effects" (part 4410.1700. subpart 1). In deciding whether a project has the potential for significant environmental effects, the RGU "shall compare the impacts that may reasonably be expected to occur from the project with the " Environmental Assessment Worksheet process criteria in this rule," considering the following factors (part 4410.1700, subparts 6 and 7): . A. Type, extent, and reversibility of environmental effects; . B. Cumulative potential effects of related or anticipated future projects; . C. The extent to which environmental effects are subject to mitigation by ongoing public regulatory authority; and . D. The extent to which environmental effects can be antici- pated and controlled as a result of other available environmental studies undertaken by public agencies or the projec.t proposer, including other Environmental Impact Statements. The rules also require the RGU to document how it reached a decision: "The RGU shall maintain a record, including specific findings of fact, supporting its decision. The record must include specific responses to all substantive and timely comments on the EAW. This record shall either be a separately prepared document or contained within the records of the governmental unit" (part 4410.1700, subpart 4). For most RGUs, the staff or a consultant will draft a proposed or sample record of decision document for consideration and pos- sible adoption by the councilor board. This document may be in the form of a resolution or it may be adopted by a resolution. Other RGUs may satisfy the requirements for a decision record through detailed meeting minutes that reflect discussion of the relevant information from the EAW, comments and responses about impacts, mitigation and regulatory oversight. The record of decision should do more than rely on the absence of adverse comments to justify a decision not to order an EIS. The RGU is obligated to examine the facts. consider the criteria and draw its own conclusions about the significance of potential environmental effects, and it is the purpose of the record of deci- sion to document that the RGU fulfilled this obligation. Among the four criteria, the first and the third are usually the most relevant. The first deals with the nature and significance of the environmental effects that will or could result from the project. It relies directly on the EAW information and may be augmented by information from the comments and responses. The third criterion is frequently the main justification for why an EIS is not required. Projects often have impacts that could be significant if not for permit conditions and other aspects of public regulatory authority. However, the RGU must be careful to rely on ongoing public regulatory authority to prevent environmental impacts only where is it reasonable to conclude that such author- ity will adequately handle the potential problem. The second and fourth criteria are less often important in the EIS need decision. The fourth criterion enters in only where the same information that would be sought in an EIS already is available through past studies, including other impact statements. This Environmental Quality Board 3