pf_03154 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

c~r Environmental Assessment Worksheet process .JL situation rarely occurs, in part because the environmental issues are usually quite specific to the project in question. The second criterion, cumulative potential effects of related or anticipated further projects, has historically been given little attention. The issue of cumulative impacts, however, is currently in the forefront although it remains difficult to apply in practice often because little is known about other potential projects unless they are also under review at the same time. Nevertheless, the RGU must be alert to the possibility that an EIS could be needed because of cumulative impacts of multiple projects. The RGU should address the project's interaction with other past, present and future projects in the vicinity when answering EAW questions. Delay of EIS decision due to insufficient information The RGU may postpone its decision on the need for an EIS for up to 30 additional calendar days ifit determines that "information necessary to a reasoned decision about the potential for, or sig- nificance of. one or more possible environmental impacts is lacking, but could be reasonably obtained" (part 441 0.1700, subpart 2a). This provision is intended to provide for a postponement only on the basis of important missing information that bears on the question of potential for significant environmental impacts. If the missing information is not critical to the EIS need decision in the opinion of the RGU, the decision should not be delayed. The information can be developed later as part of an appropriate permitting process. In its record of decision, the RGU can describe the information and how it will be obtained and used. If the project proposer agrees, an RGU can extend the postpone- ment beyond the 30 days stated in the rules. In unusual cases where important information is found to be lacking from the EAW, the RGU may simply withdraw the EAW, revise it and restart the 3D-day comment period. This can normally only be justified if the project description information is so incomplete or inaccurate that reviewers are not given a fair chance to review the true project. Appeal of an RGU decision The decision of the RGU to prepare or not prepare an EIS can be appealed in the county district court where the project would take place. The appeal must be filed within 30 days of the date on which the RGU makes its decision, usually the date the council or board takes the action. There is no administrative appeal of an RGU; the EQB has no jurisdiction to review an RGU's decision. Use of a federal Environmental Assessment as a substitute for the EAW form Rule amendments in 1997 authorize the automatic substitution of a federal Environmental Assessment in place of the EAW form as long as the EA addresses all the environmental effects identified by the EAW form. This avoids the need for two different review documents for projects that require both a state EAW and federal National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review. NOTE: Only the document can be substituted - all procedural aspects of the state EAW process must still be followed. Alternative Urban Areawide Review in lieu of an EAW A more comprehensive and often more expeditious review can be accomplished through the Alternative Urban Areawide Review process. If several different projects in the same area will require preparation of an EAW, or if an RGU has concerns about overall development in an area where some projects require review and others do not the situation may be best suited for an Alternative Urban Areawide Review. RGUs can find guidance about the AUAR process in Chapter 5 of the Guide to Minnesota Environmental Review Rules or by consulting the EQB staff. 4 EA W Guidelines