|
Environmental Assessment Worksheet Process Chapter
<br /> expenses for preparing an EAW.In most cases,the proposer reasonably obtained,the reviewer should ask for the information
<br /> incurs most data costs. during the comment period rather than issuing a comment letter.
<br /> The 30-day comment period All substantive comments received during the comment period
<br /> Once the RGU has prepared the EAW,it must be available for must be given a written response by the RGU. The number of
<br /> public comment for 30 days. The RGU must submit a signed, comment letters received by the RGU varies widely. For some
<br /> completed EAW to the Environmental Quality Board staff,(at projects only one or two letters are received,usually from state
<br /> EQB.monitorkstate.mn.us),who publishes a notice of the EAW's agencies.On other projects,dozens of letters may be received
<br /> availability in the EQB Monitor. The EQB Monitor is from concerned citizens.If the project is controversial and the
<br /> electronically distributed biweekly on Mondays and anyone can RGU anticipates many public letters,it may be advantageous
<br /> receive the EQB Monitor via email by signing up at the EQB to hold a public meeting to hear comments and to answer the
<br /> website.The public comment period begins on the distribution public's questions.
<br /> date of the EQB Monitor containing the EAW notice.The 30-day
<br /> comment period usually ends on a Wednesday at 4:30 p.m.unless RGU decision on the need for an EIS
<br /> indicated otherwise by the RGU;comments must reach the RGU The rules require most RGUs to make a decision on the need for
<br /> by this deadline. an EIS between three working days and 30 days after the
<br /> comment period ends.This time frame applies to all RGUs
<br /> At the same time the EAW is sent to the EQB staff,the RGU must where the decision is made by a council or board that only meets
<br /> also distribute the EAW to all offices on the EQB's official occasionally. If the decision will be made by a single individual
<br /> distribution list.Available online from the EQB,the distribution such as by an agency commissioner,then the decision must be
<br /> list includes state,federal,regional and local units of government made within 15 working days,although a 15 working day
<br /> that have expertise and responsibilities in the environmental area, extension may be requested from the EQB chair.
<br /> as well as several libraries that serve as repositories for
<br /> environmental reports.EAWs may be distributed in electronic Delay of EIS decision due to insufficient
<br /> form,such as an emailed pdf file or on a mailed CD,however, information
<br /> anyone entitled to receive an EAW must be given a paper copy The RGU may postpone its decision on the need for an EIS for
<br /> upon request. Many RGUs now post EAWs on their websites. In up to 30 additional calendar days if it determines that
<br /> addition,copies should be made available locally for public "information necessary to a reasoned decision about the potential
<br /> review,at such locations as a local library or the RGU offices. for,or significance of,one or more possible environmental
<br /> The rules require that a copy be given to any person submitting a impacts is lacking,but could be reasonably obtained" (part
<br /> written request,although the RGU may charge a copying fee.The 4410.1700,subpart 2a).
<br /> RGU should also make extra copies for requests by the public.
<br /> This provision is intended to provide for a postponement only on
<br /> Once distributed,the RGU must also announce the availability of the basis of important missing information that bears on the
<br /> the EAW for public review. The RGU must send a press release question of potential for significant environmental impacts.If the
<br /> to,and publish a notice in,at least one newspaper in the project missing information is not critical to the EIS need decision in the
<br /> area or an official website for the area. The press release and opinion of the RGU,the decision should not be delayed. The
<br /> notice should briefly describe the project,explain that an EAW is information can be developed later as part of an appropriate
<br /> available for review and comment,and give details such as when permitting process.In its record of decision,the RGU can
<br /> comments are due,a contact person name and address and how to describe the information and how it will be obtained and used.
<br /> obtain a copy of the EAW for review.If there will be a public
<br /> meeting for oral comments,it should be announced in this notice If the project proposer agrees,an RGU can extend the
<br /> or press release as well.The RGU should keep a record postponement beyond the 30 days stated in the rules.In unusual
<br /> documenting that it complied with the requirement of distributing cases where important information is found to be lacking from
<br /> and publishing the press release and the published notice.As of the EAW,the RGU may simply withdraw the EAW,revise it and
<br /> 2012,the law requires not only that a press release be distributed, restart the 30-day comment period.This can normally only be
<br /> but that the RGU be responsible for publishing a notice in one of justified if the project description information is so incomplete or
<br /> the aforementioned ways as well. inaccurate that reviewers are not given a fair chance to review
<br /> Anyone who wishes may review and comment on the EAW the true project.
<br /> during the comment period.Unless the RGU holds an optional RGU response to comments and record of decision
<br /> public meeting,all comments must be submitted in writing within As part of the process of determining if an EIS will be needed,
<br /> the 30 days.Comments on an EAW may be submitted in the RGU must respond in writing to all substantive comments
<br /> electronic form if the RGU provides an email address in the received during the comment period.Late comments may be
<br /> EAW. The rules suggest that comments address:the accuracy and responded to if the RGU chooses to do so.Each person or entity
<br /> completeness of the information,potential impacts that may that submitted timely and substantive comments must be sent the
<br /> warrant further investigation before the project is commenced and RGU's response to those comments.Responses to comments
<br /> the need for an EIS on the project.Without draft and final may be distributed electronically,with the proviso that a paper
<br /> versions of the EAW,minor errors or omissions should be noted copy must be supplied upon request. Usually the responses are
<br /> only if they bear on larger issues.If a reviewer feels that the sent along with the notice of the EIS need decision,however,in
<br /> process is impeded by a lack of information that could be certain cases,it may be advisable to send out responses in
<br /> Environmental Quality Board EAW Guidelines—October 2013 2
<br />
|