Share your ideas for improving Minnesota's environmental review program

Require the MNPUC to strictly follow the MN ERP in their approval process whenever their decision could impact state waters or wetlands.

Idea: Include Lifecycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions in All Environmental Review

Short description: I appreciate your recent improvements on the Environment Assessment Worksheet (EAW) to include calculation of greenhouse gas emissions for projects undergoing environmental review. However, the current agency guidance on the revised EAW only requires calculation of direct and indirect emissions, rather than full lifecycle accounting. Calculating lifecycle emissions is especially important for making sound decisions about fossil fuel infrastructure, because these types of projects will often enable the transportation/release of massive amounts of carbon. I ask that you update the agency guidance and/or the EAW to include a full lifecycle accounting of greenhouse gas emissions related to a project, in addition to the currently required calculation of direct and indirect emissions.

Examine all long-term climate impacts of a project

The Minnesota Environmental Partnership appreciates the EQB’s work to improve the Environmental Assessment Worksheet and account for potential projects’ climate impacts. We suggest that this aspect of the review be strengthened to account not only for direct and indirect emissions, but for the project’s lifecycle emissions. Oil pipelines, for example, exacerbate the climate crisis not only by consuming energy for their operation but also by enabling - and indeed encouraging - the consumption of highly carbon-dense fuel. In order to effectively live up to our climate action obligations, Minnesota must not take a neutral stance on fossil fuel transportation merely because the direct emissions will be generated downstream. While the EAW may not be able to directly address the demand for oil and other carbon-intensive fuels, it should not disregard the effects of carbon-enabling activities like oil transport. We respectfully request that the EQB add a full lifecycle accounting of greenhouse gas emissions to its review process.

MN Drainage Concerns

The Minnesota Environmental Policy Act, Minn. Stat. § 116D.04, subd. 2a(a), requires an environmental impact statement for any project that has the “potential for significant environmental effects.” Drainage projects have dramatically altered Minnesota's landscapes and significantly affected our water quality. For example, increased flow to the Minnesota River from drainage tiles has caused high sediment levels, unstable stream banks, ravines, and collapsing bluffs. These conditions create an environment in which macrophytes (plant life) or mussels (clams, etc.) are unable to survive due to lack of oxygen, sunlight, and hard surfaces to which they can attach. Further, nutrients and pesticides make their way to our rivers and streams, leading to algae blooms, fish kills, and drinking water contamination. Yet under the current EQB rules, it is not clear that environmental review is required for many drainage projects. Although the Minnesota Rules provide for mandatory environmental review of some drainage projects, in many cases environmental review is discretionary. See Minn. R. 4410.4300, subps. 20, 24(B), 26, 27(A). In practice, environmental review is often not required even where the project have the potential for significant environmental effects. Environmental review is essential to understand the downstream impacts of drainage project, especially their cumulative impacts to the Minnesota River and other at-risk or already-impaired watersheds. It is only once those impacts are understood that mitigation measures can be developed to reduce or prevent downstream and cumulative impacts. EQB should provide for clarity for all interested parties, including downstream landowners and public citizens, by promulgating a mandatory environmental review category for drainage projects.

Tribes should be consulted during projects that impact Tribal Land

Coordination Policies for Collaborative Work between Tribal Staff and State Agency Staff Federally recognized Indian tribes are sovereign nations. Within the boundaries of Minnesota, tribes retain hunting, fishing, and other usufructuary rights that extend throughout the state. To protect usufructuary rights, or property rights, tribes have a legal interest in the natural resources and co-management responsibilities that are shared with the state. At the earliest opportunity, to demonstrate respect for the unique legal relationship with tribes, state agencies are required to conduct meaningful consultation on matters of common interest to purposely achieve mutually beneficial solutions. At a minimum, a EQB should: 1. As early in the process as possible, provide tribal staff all relevant information. 2. Provide the tribe with technical assistance and/or data, if requested. 3. Ensure the tribe has sufficient time to consider the information provided. 4. Collaboratively set meeting or conference call dates and times. 5. Address tribal concerns in a timely manner, and keep the tribes informed of project or process developments or changes. 6. Consider alternatives. Act in good faith and be open to looking at things from the tribe's perspective. 7. Document the coordination process by sending minutes or a summary after phone calls or meetings. 8. Accept the tribe's recommendations unless compelling reasons require otherwise. After the first coordination meeting on a topic, the EQB should provide written updates demonstrating that tribal recommendations have been considered, and how they were resolved. Rationale for not accepting a recommendation must be provided, as well as indicating where Tribal suggestions will be included. If no tribal recommendations are going to be included from the first meeting, tribes may reasonably conclude that meaningful consultation thresholds have not been met, and further coordination meetings or teleconferences on that topic would not be productive for tribal staff with limited resources. In this situation, tribal leaders may choose to engage with agency leaders to determine alternative outcomes. However, if an approach to an issue substantially changes from the first meetings where no suggestions were incorporated from Tribes, the meetings can begin again if the Tribes express an interest. There are training programs available to help EQB learn how to properly work with Tribal governments. Generally, meaningful consultation requires direct engagement with appropriate Tribal officials and staff. A simple letter or notice does not constitute meaningful consultation. I strongly encourage EQB to develop its relationship with Tribes throughout this revision process and to implement any Tribal recommendations that will promote coordination in environmental review. This may include the development of internal EQB procedures for Tribal coordination and guidance for other agencies conducting environmental review.