Reiter Updates: Summer/Fall 2010

Binder · Jan 19, 2011

EIS required when?

RCW 43.21C.031
Significant impacts.

(1) An environmental impact statement (the detailed statement required by RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c)) shall be prepared on proposals for legislation and other major actions having a probable significant, adverse environmental impact. The environmental impact statement may be combined with the recommendation or report on the proposal or issued as a separate document. The substantive decisions or recommendations shall be clearly identifiable in the combined document. Actions categorically exempt under RCW 43.21C.110(1)(a) do not require environmental review or the preparation of an environmental impact statement under this chapter. In a county, city, or town planning under RCW 36.70A.040, a planned action, as provided for in subsection (2) of this section, does not require a threshold determination or the preparation of an environmental impact statement under this chapter, but is subject to environmental review and mitigation as provided in this chapter.

An environmental impact statement is required to analyze only those probable adverse environmental impacts which are significant. Beneficial environmental impacts may be discussed. The responsible official shall consult with agencies and the public to identify such impacts and limit the scope of an environmental impact statement. The subjects listed in RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c) need not be treated as separate sections of an environmental impact statement. Discussions of significant short-term and long-term environmental impacts, significant irrevocable commitments of natural resources, significant alternatives including mitigation measures, and significant environmental impacts which cannot be mitigated should be consolidated or included, as applicable, in those sections of an environmental impact statement where the responsible official decides they logically belong.

(2)(a) For purposes of this section, a planned action means one or more types of project action that:

(i) Are designated planned actions by an ordinance or resolution adopted by a county, city, or town planning under RCW 36.70A.040;

(ii) Have had the significant impacts adequately addressed in an environmental impact statement prepared in conjunction with (A) a comprehensive plan or subarea plan adopted under chapter 36.70A RCW, or (B) a fully contained community, a master planned resort, a master planned development, or a phased project;

(iii) Are subsequent or implementing projects for the proposals listed in (a)(ii) of this subsection;

(iv) Are located within an urban growth area, as defined in RCW 36.70A.030;

(v) Are not essential public facilities, as defined in RCW 36.70A.200; and

(vi) Are consistent with a comprehensive plan adopted under chapter 36.70A RCW.

(b) A county, city, or town shall limit planned actions to certain types of development or to specific geographical areas that are less extensive than the jurisdictional boundaries of the county, city, or town and may limit a planned action to a time period identified in the environmental impact statement or the ordinance or resolution adopted under this subsection.

Binder · Jan 19, 2011

The full EIS isn't always required and from what I understand the site specific SEPA is designed to incorporate the EIS....I'm not convinced it's required but I'm not sure........There is another possibility here....The DNR knows they're between a rock and a hard place with the funding issues. Something like this would sure buy them time to figure it out.......:;

The_Shocker said:
They tried to answer the EIS questions without actually doing an official EIS from what I can figure out. The full EIS likely wont be an easy or quick process.

Here is an article about how they were able to stop the Forest Service from expanding ORV access at Mad River. They used a court to decide that an EIS was required.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003080248_madriver23e.html

Binder · Jan 19, 2011

From here page 31.

11) Monitoring and Follow-up
a) Describe any monitoring that will occur to ensure the impacts were as predicted and that mitigation is effective, including responsible party, timing, and method(s) to be used.
We do not anticipate environmental impacts will occur due to implementing this recreation plan. Activities will be designed to meet, at a minimum, all state and federal laws including standards set in Board of Natural Resources-adopted Policy for Sustainable Forests (2006), DNR

Money Mark · Jan 19, 2011

From a thorough presentation about Reiter I saw on Friday Evening at the monthly Audubon Society meeting in Everett, presented by the lawyering environmental force "against" Reiter; the Ecology side of the DNR determined the environmental factor in the motorized areas was DNS (Determination of Non-Significance). They would have liked the DNR made it DS (Determination of Significance).

That is the source of the need (the request) of the EIS.

DNS = no EIS

DS = EIS required

Money Mark · Jan 19, 2011

Binder said:
Something like this would sure buy them time to figure it out.......:;

Yaaah.....:haha:

Binder · Jan 19, 2011

Money Mark said:
They would have liked the DNR made it DS (Determination of Significance).

But just like all of us, user groups what they want and what they get are probably two different things.....Are they threatening lawsuit or just talking?

Money Mark · Jan 19, 2011

Total speculation, but........I believe a middle ground will be found and the Reiter Master Plan will progress to the next obstacle / level.

These "Greenies" you guys fear don't stand on the higher and solid ground they used to......you could consider the playing field now level.

crash2 · Feb 1, 2011

Well the SEPA closed with no lawsuits filed--so thats a plus...

Rennurder · Feb 16, 2011

Just saw this on my FB page. Worth a shot???

http://www.petitiononline.com/Reiter/petition.html

crash2 · Feb 16, 2011

Rennurder said:
http://www.petitiononline.com/Reiter/petition.html

psssssst

http://www.nw-wheelers.com/forum/showthread.php?t=59505

bigdog165511 · Feb 16, 2011

crash said:
Well the SEPA closed with no lawsuits filed--so thats a plus...

:cheer:

nowires · Apr 21, 2011

IT'S HERE

The Deparhnent of Natural Resources issued a I X ] Determination ofNon-sigrrificance (DNS), [ ] Mitigated
Determination of Non-significance (MDNS), [ ] Modified DNS/]4DNS on [December 20,20101for this proposal
under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEP

Eric · Apr 21, 2011

nowires said:
IT'S HERE

The Deparhnent of Natural Resources issued a I X ] Determination ofNon-sigrrificance (DNS), [ ] Mitigated
Determination of Non-significance (MDNS), [ ] Modified DNS/]4DNS on [December 20,20101for this proposal
under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEP

Money Mark · Apr 21, 2011

There are no cliffs notes.

My new thread on the subject http://nw-wheelers.com/forum/showthread.php?t=61197

nowires · Apr 21, 2011

:cheer:

Eric said:
Cliff Notes Please :corn:

REITER PASSED THE SEPA

:cheer::cheer::cheer:

Maverick26 · Apr 21, 2011

nowires said:
:cheer:
REITER PASSED THE SEPA

:cheer::cheer::cheer:

What does this mean oh fearless leader? Congrats to all that work so hard for this and for those that still believe! :awesomework:

nowires · Apr 21, 2011

Maverick26 said:
What does this mean oh fearless leader? Congrats to all that work so hard for this and for those that still believe! :awesomework:

In the endless race to get Reiter open, we are one step closer. Hold our breath for the next 15 days and see if the enviros are going to try and stop it. After that it is on to permits. There is a flaw in the county codes that will have to be addressed and when I have more info I can explain that more. But in the short, the county doesn't have a code for large scale outdoor recreation areas and want to classify ALL of Reiter the same as a housing development or as if you were developing your own property. They want 1 foot contour map of the entire 3000 acres. I think that Snohomish County needs to look at other counties around the state and follow in their footsteps, or adopt the USFS standards for forested area trails

Binder · Apr 21, 2011

Maverick26 said:
What does this mean oh fearless leader?

It means nothing. The SEPA is not a pass/ fail scenario so there is no "pass" to get. There is however a time period where things can be challenged.......Yesterday the DNR issued a DNS which has a 14 day comment period of which the DNR can't start any work involved. Being that there was a amendment to the DNS I believe that also starts the initial comment period which is 2 weeks public notice plus 21 days comment. These are the time periods where suit is most likely to be filed....Even after these periods if the process isn't followed to a tee then a suit can be filed at any time.......We will never be out of the woods even after the place is open and we're wheeling there.

crash2 · May 11, 2011

SO let me see if I get this right. The county wants the trail system to have a stormwater plan? Now I assume this is like what you see new housing developments and so on doing with holding ponds and such?

boardbysled · May 11, 2011

crash said:
SO let me see if I get this right. The county wants the trail system to have a stormwater plan? Now I assume this is like what you see new housing developments and so on doing with holding ponds and such?

Bingo, they want it to be able to handle a storm event. I am not all sure what that entails, but I can tell you, I know who pushed for it...