02-10-1997 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1 tax ” As part of this proems ihe RGU must make specific wriuen re^xxises 10 all subaantive and timely comments received on the EAW (and provide the responses to those who submitted the comments). There is no sp»Hfir fonnal that must be used for the record of decision. It may be a specially prepared document a a section of the minutes a other document routinely prepared by the RGU. The important thing is that there be evidence that the RGU took a "hard look” at eadt reasonably likely environmental effect as HicrifiMirf by the EAW and comments, drew a reasonable conclusion about the agnificance of each effect based on the fects disclosed and the four criteria cited above, and made a reason^te overall conclusion about the potential of the pojea for significant cnvirormcnial effects. One way to organize the findings of fact in the recori of decision would be to foltow the order in which the various environmental effects are listed in the EAWfonn. Delay of decisions; insulli^ Subpan 2a of 4410.1700 provides that the RGU may delay the EIS need decision in the event that it determines that "information necessary to a irasoned decision about the potential for, or significance of, one or more possible environmental impact is laddng, bta a^d be reasonably obtained." It is intended that the decision be delayed only if the missing information is important to the EIS need decisbn. In other words, the tea Cor delaying the decision requires nwre than just inissing information — the missing information mua have the potential to sway the EIS need decisioa If. in the RGU’s judgement, the lacking information is not critical to the EIS need decision, the EIS rreed deciaon should not be delayed to gather the information; rather, the information should be obtained later as part of some appropriate penniiiing process. U would be appropriate fa the t«rord of decision on the tKxd for the EIS to indicate what the lacking infonnation is and how it will be obtained and used. The rules allow that the EIS need deciaon be delayed fa up to 30 da>-s to allow fa gathering necessary addidotol infonnation. •* Appeal of the RGU'S Decision The decision of the RGU todoarroiiodoanEIScanbe jqrpcaled by filing an appeal in the District COurt fa the county where the project would take place. According to the EQB roles, this appeal must be filed witfiin 30 days of the notice (rf the decision in the EQB Moruta , however, according to the aatuie (116DD4, subd. 10), it must be filed widiin 30 days of the date of the deciaon. There is no administrative appeal fa an RGU’s decision (e.g.. the EQB has no prMction over an RGlfs deciaon). • Mill