Agenda - Environmental Policy Board - 01/18/2017

Home

Environmental Assessment Worksheet Process Chapter advance of the decision to solicit comments before the EIS need decision is made.The RGU may ask the proposer to help prepare The record of decision should do more than rely on the absence responses if the comments ask for changes in the project or a of adverse comments to justify a decision not to order an EIS. commitment to mitigation,or question the purpose or value of The RGU is obligated to examine the facts,consider the criteria the project. and draw its own conclusions about the significance of potential environmental effects,and it is the purpose of the record of The purpose of the EAW,comments and comment responses is to decision to document that the RGU fulfilled this obligation. 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 Among the four criteria,the first and the third are usually the described in the rules:"An EIS shall be ordered for projects that most relevant.The first deals with the nature and significance have the potential for significant environmental effects" of the environmental effects that will or could result from the (Minnesota Rules 4410.1700,subpart 1). project.It relies directly on the EAW information and may be augmented by information from the comments and responses. In deciding whether a project has the potential for significant The third criterion is frequently the main justification for why environmental effects,the RGU"shall compare the impacts that an EIS is not required.Projects often have impacts that could may reasonably be expected to occur from the project with the be significant if not for permit conditions and other aspects of criteria in this rule,"considering the following factors(part public regulatory authority.However,the RGU must be 4410.1700,subparts 6 and 7): careful to rely on ongoing public regulatory authority to prevent environmental impacts only where is it reasonable to A.Type,extent,and reversibility of environmental effects; conclude that such authority will adequately handle the B.Cumulative potential effects; potential problem. C.The extent to which environmental effects are subject to mitigation by ongoing public regulatory authority provided The second criterion,cumulative potential effects of related or that the RGU may rely only on mitigation measures that are anticipated further projects,has historically been given little specific and can reasonably be expected to be effective;and attention but is currently in the forefront.It remains difficult to D.The extent to which environmental effects can be anticipated apply in practice when little is known about other potential and controlled as a result of other available environmental studies projects unless they are also under review at the same time. undertaken by public agencies or the project proposer,including Nevertheless,the RGU must be alert to the possibility that an EIS other Environmental Impact Statements. could be needed because of cumulative potential effects of multiple projects.The RGU should address the project's The rules also require the RGU to document how it reached a interaction with other past,present and future projects in the decision:"The RGU shall maintain a record,including specific vicinity when answering EAW questions. The fourth criterion findings of fact,supporting its decision.The record must enters in only where the same information that would be sought include specific responses to all substantive and timely in an EIS already is available through past studies,including comments on the EAW.This record shall either be a separately other impact statements.This situation rarely occurs,in part prepared document or contained within the records of the because the environmental issues are usually quite specific to the governmental unit"(Minnesota Rules 4410.1700,subpart 4). project in question. For most RGUs,the staff or a consultant will draft a proposed Appeal of an RGU decision or sample record of decision document for consideration and The decision of the RGU whether to prepare an EIS can be possible adoption by the council or board.This document may appealed in the State Court of Appeals.The appeal must be be in the form of a resolution or it may be adopted by a filed within 30 days of the date on the appealing party receives resolution.Other RGUs may satisfy the requirements for a the final decision and order of the RGU.There is no decision record through detailed meeting minutes that reflect administrative appeal of an RGU;the EQB has no jurisdiction discussion of the relevant information from the EAW, to review an RGU's decision. comments and responses about impacts,mitigation and regulatory oversight. Environmental Quality Board EAW Guidelines—October 2013 3