ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROGRAM OVERVIEW

Transcription

1 Minnesota Environmental Policy Act, M.S. 116D.04 (MEPA) ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROGRAM OVERVIEW

2 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) Minnesota Environmental Policy Act of 1973 (MEPA) NEPA MEPA Required for federal actions policy, permitting, funding etc. Federal agencies prepare review documents Created the Environmental Quality Board Implements Minnesota Rule Chapter 4410 (identifies what projects need review, which unit of government should perform the review, and how the review should be done) Required for categories of projects that exceed a threshold Prepared by unit of government with the greatest responsibility for supervising or approving the project as a whole. 10/16/2018 2

3 Minnesota Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) Minnesota Statute 116D The purposes of MEPA, are: (a) to declare a state policy that will encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between human beings and their environment; (b) to promote efforts that will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere and stimulate the health and welfare of human beings; and (c) to enrich the understanding of the ecological systems and natural resources important to the state and to the nation. 10/16/

4 Other State Environmental Policy Acts State California Connecticut District of Columbia Georgia Hawaii Indiana Massachusetts Maryland Minnesota Montana Act/Regulation CEQA CEPA EPA GEPA OEQC IDEM MEPA MEPA MEPA MEPA New Jersey Executive Order #215 New York North Carolina South Dakota Virginia Washington Wisconsin SEQR SEPA Statute 34A Virginia Code SEPA WEPA 10/16/2018 4

5 MN Dept. of Health MN Dept. of Transportation MN Dept. of Natural Resources MN Pollution Control Agency MN Dept. of Commerce Board of Water and Soil Resources Alan Forsberg Kristen Eide- Tollefson MN Dept. of Employment and Economic Development Bryan Murdock Kate Knuth MN Dept. of Administration Julie Goehring Tom Moibi The Environmental Quality Board John Saxhaug MN Dept. of Agriculture Metropolitan Council EQB Staff Environmental Review Silica Sand Pollinator Protection Water Climate Change Other Emerging Issues

6 Role of the Environmental Quality Board Oversight of Environmental Review Program rules (Minn. R and 4405) Provide assistance to the public, project proposers and governmental units Publish EQB Monitor Notice of Alternative Review Receipt of valid petition Public comment periods Public meetings Records of decisions 10/16/

7 Environmental Review may have potential for significant environmental effects 10/16/2018 7

8 Environmental Review Objectives ( ) Environmental Effects of a Project Public access to decision makers Delegate authority to Responsible Governmental Unit Eliminate duplication Reduce delay and uncertainty

9 Environmental Review Information gathering process Does NOT approve or disapprove a project Does NOT itself impose conditions on projects But CAN work in conjunction with permits and other approval processes 10/16/2018 9

10 Environmental Review and Permitting Environmental Review Environmental review is broad in scope The review is not an approval process Permitting Permitting is narrow in scope, focused on a facility Mitigation measures can be requirements Permit issuance does not always include a public comment period 10/16/

11 Who Does What: Environmental Review Roles EQB RGU Project Proposer Public Keeper of the Rules Provides Technical Assistance Continuous Improvement Decision maker Applies Rules Provides Project Details to RGU Provides Local Knowledge Participates in Decision-making 10/16/

12 Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU) Prepares ER documents according to EQB rules RGU is identified according to EQB rules Determines what projects require ER, what information needs to be collected, and when ER is complete EQB provides assistance but RGUs are accountable for decisions ER decisions are appealable in district court 10/16/

13 When is Environmental Review required? Mandatory environmental review Certain projects are required to complete an EAW or EIS Discretionary environmental review (EAW) Initiated by RGU, EQB or project proposer Environmental review exemptions Certain projects are exempted from environmental review 10/16/

14 What is a project? A governmental action that changes the environment, either directly or indirectly Mandatory Category: Wetlands 10/16/

15 Mandatory Categories: Local Government as the RGU Nonmetallic mineral mining Industrial, commercial, and institutional facilities Residential development Campgrounds and RV parks Resorts, campgrounds, and RV parks in shorelands Airport projects Highway projects Barge fleeting Marinas Land use conversion, including golf courses Stream diversion Wetlands and public waters Animal feedlots Natural areas Historical places Mixed residential and industrial-commercial projects. Communications towers Sports or entertainment facilities Recreational trails. 10/16/

16 Phased actions , subpart 60 Phased actions: 1. two or more projects, by the same proposer, 2. that an RGU determines will have environmental effects on the same geographic area, and 3. are substantially certain to be undertaken sequentially over a limited period of time.

17 Connected actions , subpart 9b Three types of relationships between projects qualify as connected actions 1. One induces the other; 2. One is a prerequisite for the other and is not justified by itself (the first occurring previously or simultaneously); or 3. Neither is justified by itself; that is, the two projects are interdependent parts of a larger whole.

18 3-yr. look-back , subpart 1 A proposed expansion requires a mandatory EAW if: Construction was less than 3 years from the date the application for a permit or approval was submitted An existing stage or component that was reviewed under a previously completed EAW or EIS need not be included

19 Citizen Petitions Formalized way to seek a discretionary EAW Content: Description of proposed project Description of potential environmental effects Material evidence of potential environmental effects At least 100 signatures Air Pollution Increased Flooding 10/16/

20 Citizen Petition Process Public EQB RGU (Pre-process) Citizens complete petition 1) Petition is filed with the EQB 2) EQB determines completeness 3) EQB assigns an RGU 4) Petition forwarded to RGU 5) RGU makes EAW Need Decision 10/16/

21 What type of Review is required? Environmental Assessment Worksheet Assess potential for significant environmental effects Environmental Impact statement Has potential for significant environmental effects Mandatory category RGU Discretion Citizen petition Mandatory category EAW Decision 10/16/

22 EAW Environmental Assessment Worksheet 6-page worksheet 20 standardized questions Discloses information necessary to decide if an EIS is needed 10/16/

23 EAW Process Incomplete Complete EAW required (discretionary or mandatory) Project proposer submits data for EAW to RGU RGU reviews data and determines completeness Project proposer notified of completeness RGU makes EIS Need Decision Reviewers have 30 days to submit written comments RGU distributes draft EAW for comments RGU adds data as needed 10/16/

24 Criteria for Need Decision A. Type, extent, and reversibility of environmental effects; B. Cumulative potential effects: C. Extent environmental effects are subject to mitigation by ongoing public regulatory authority; D. Extent environmental effects can be anticipated and controlled as a result of other available environmental studies undertaken by public agencies or the project proposer, including other EISs. 10/16/

25 EIS - Environmental Impact Statement More in-depth Alternatives Social Environmental, economic & social Mitigation of impacts Economic Environmental 10/16/

26 Alternative Review ALTERNATIVE REVIEW (Categories of projects) Pipelines -MN PUC Transportation-MN DOT Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) (not just for urban areas) Review includes anticipated development in a geographic area within a jurisdiction Must have and adopted comprehensive plan Content and format must be similar to that of the EAW, but must provide for a level of analysis comparable to that of an EIS 5-year updates Projects exempt from review 10/16/

27 ER Program Effectiveness Data 1. Collect data on implementation of the process that EQB staff are unable to track 2. Collect data on the perceived outcomes of the process 3. Collect data on EQB technical assistance 27

28 2017 Survey Demographics 28

29 Program Statistics 2017 RGUs 2017 Monitor Submission ER Types State Agency 36% City 41% Petition 5% EIS 3% AUAR 12% Township 2% SWCD 2% County 19% EAW 80% (n=122) 10/16/

30 Agreement on the ER process provided usable info to the proposer on a project s potential environmental effects Project proposers 48% RGU 77% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% % Agreement 30

31 RGU Agreement on Comments received provided useable info Allowing for public participation 59% 63% Identifying environmental effects Providing info to proposers Providing info to citizens Providing info to RGUs 72% 77% 77% 82% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% % Agreement 31

32 Average Timeline for EAWs Average Timeline Varies based on project complexity ~ 106 days ~ 95 days EAW Preparation Phase EQB Monitor Publication 30-Day Comment Period RGU Makes EIS Need Decision 32

33 How much does the process cost? Cost 16% 67% Project Proposer RGU Time 29% 28% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% % Tracking 33

34 Benefits of Environmental Review Provides an holistic, ecological view of potential environmental effects for decisionmakers Considers cumulative environmental impacts Considers phased and connected actions 3-Year Look-back include past project action. Public-oriented Provides the public with relevant technical environmental information in a single document, to help them participate in local decisions before projects can be constructed. Helps project proposers early in their design process Identify regulatory and community concerns, before project designs are final 10/16/

35 Program Challenges Tensions between the public, project proposers and regulatory requirements can lead to perceptions of dissatisfaction with the process. Some projects, that minimally exceed the threshold, can be delayed without an obvious environmental benefit. It can be difficult to engage stakeholders on environmental concerns, when some members of a community don t approve of a proposed project for other reasons. Balancing the need for program effectiveness, with cost and timeliness 10/16/

36 ER Program Improvement Initiatives Master Contract o Reduce time developing an RFP o More confidence with consultant expertise Mandatory Category Rulemaking o Improve clarity for interpreting rules Updates to guidance Training webinars for RGUs RGU networking group Local Government Liaison: o Kristin Mroz kristin.mroz-risse@state.mn.us o Align with other applicable regulations o Updates, based on most recent information 10/16/

37 Resources and Assistance Available at: Written guidance documents: Rules Guide to MN Environmental Review Rules EAW Guidelines Guides for citizens and local govt. units Quick Reference: AUAR Distribution Lists EQB Monitor current issue and archives Technical Assistance: o Env.Review@state.mn.us o Phone: Videos: Minnesota Environmental Review Program The Environmental Assessment Worksheet Guide to the Citizen Petition Process - Environmental Review 10/16/

38 QUESTIONS? Will Seuffert, Executive Director