Share your ideas for improving Minnesota's environmental review program
The Environmental Quality Board (EQB) is gathering ideas for improving the state’s environmental review program, and we’d like to know what’s important to you. This is part of a wider effort to identify and prioritize program changes in a strategic, transparent, and efficient manner. Find more information on our continuous improvement webpage.
The ideas you share here will be considered by third-party consultants. Consultants will also conduct background research which includes analyzing past evaluations of the environmental review program. Consultants will prepare a report with program recommendations to the board this summer.
Please provide your ideas by Friday, February 17. Continue reading
-
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin Email this link
Post any idea you have related to Minnesota's Environmental Review Program in the public forum, below. You may post more than once and respond to others' ideas as well. Not sure how to get started? Consider answering one of the following prompts:
- If you had a magic wand, what one thing would you do to improve the environmental review program?
- What is the environmental review program doing well or not well?
- What are the characteristics of an effective environmental review program?
View All Ideas20 days ago
More Checks & Balances within the MnDNR License to Cross Public Lands & Waters Program
I had a project for which an ACOE NWP and a MnDNR License to Cross Public Water License were required (among others) for a federal waterway crossing. We submitted the applications, and received the ACOE NWP in a few weeks. Much later we inquired with MnDNR about the status of the License request, and were informed that the project was being held up at the ACOE for a NWP (the same crossing the ACOE had already issued a NWP for). So we contacted both ACOE project managers - the one that had already issued our NWP for this crossing the one that was in the process of writing a duplicate NWP for this same crossing, and discussed with them. The duplicate NWP was abandoned and the MnDNR issued the License. The MnDNR reviewers needs to know that their work is not occurring in a vacuum - our scope of work (as an environmental consultant) is to acquire ALL environmental permits necessary for our client's projects - wetlands, waterways, licenses, endangered species, archaeological, etc. Thus the License request is just one small part of the overall project scope. The MnDNR staff should have asked us about the ACOE NWP before sending the request on to the ACOE, thereby saving all involved parties much time and effort. There needs to be a better system of checks and balances within the Licensing program to prevent duplication of effort with other permitting entities.
19 days ago
Improve Federal Endangered Species Act Compliance
Section 9 of the federal Endangered Species Act ("Act") prohibits ANY PERSON from “taking” an endangered species of fish or wildlife. Note "person" under the Act includes businesses and other corporations. The Section 9 take prohibition applies to federal and non-federal activities, including activities on private property. “Take” is broadly defined under the Act. To take a species is to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect. Harm includes activities that destroy or significantly modify habitat to an extent that it actually kills or injuries the endangered species. Harassment includes intentional or negligent act or omission which creates the likelihood of injury by annoying it in a way that disrupts normal behavioral patterns. Despite the Act's applicability to state and private projects, state EAWs typically fail to adequately discuss effects to federally endangered and threatened species. EAWs also typically fail to address compliance strategies for projects that are reasonably certain to result in "take" under the Act. Absent this information, RGUs are making project approval decisions without taking a hard look at the proposed project's effects to species protected by the Act. Note that many proposed projects occurring within the Twin Cities metro are reasonably certain to result in take (i.e., adverse effects) for the federally endangered rusty-patched bumble bee per USFWS guidelines. In greater Minnesota, take of northern long-eared bats is also reasonably certain to occur in many cases.
20 days ago
Stream Diversion - Subpart 26 of EAW
Recommendations: Recommend modifying this category to exempt stream realignment projects on streams (both trout and warm water streams) that fit the following criteria: the project 1) is ecologically-based, 2) is grant-funded, 3) adds sinuosity to the project reach, and 4) is implemented by the RGU. Justification: South St. Louis SWCD is currently working on a project to restore a ditched reach of a trout stream in Duluth. This creek is impaired for aquatic life and this project has long been a high priority for delisting the stream according to area natural resource professionals. The project has been vetted and is 100% funded by LSOHF dollars administered by the MN DNR River Ecology Unit. In spite of the project's clear environmental goals and outcomes, South St. Louis SWCD is required to complete an EAW because of the mandatory category criteria. Completing an EAW properly requires significant staff capacity and takes away from the other good work that our office does. It is not in the spirit of the law to require EAWs for stream restoration projects that seek to restore floodplain connectivity and ecological function to highly degraded, ditched trout streams using grant funding. Our office has completed many EAWs in the past and has never once received a comment through the process that has resulted in any meaningful change in the project scope or design. Any questions or concerns about project particulars can be addressed through the various permitting processes that these projects have to also go through.
20 days ago
Transparency
There have been many projects that been approved that don't support the environment long term. MN has pristine environments that have been damaged with approved plans that include unrealistic expectations that those environments will become pristine after the project is finished. There is no logic in expecting the environment to become repaired after oil leaks, chemical releases, and additional roads that have been constructed to complete projects. There needs to be full realization and communication of any damage short term and long term on our part of this planet.
3 days ago
Revise language regarding MEPA appeals in Minn. R. 4410.0400 to be consistent with MEPA.
MCEA proposes revising language about the format of appeals in Minn. R. 4410.0400, subp. 4 because the Rule is inconsistent with MEPA. The Rule provides that decisions on the need for an EAW, the need for an EIS, the adequacy of an EIS, and the adequacy of an alternative urban areawide review (“AUAR”) document may be reviewed through a declaratory judgment action in district court. This language came from the 1980 version of MEPA, which was enacted before the Court of Appeals was created. However, in 2011, the Minnesota Legislature revised MEPA to authorize review of decisions on the need for an EAW, the need for an EIS, or the adequacy of an EIS pursuant to the Minnesota Administrative Procedure Act in the Court of Appeals. Minn. Stat. 116D.04, subd. 10. Accordingly, the rule is now inconsistent with the statute with regard to the method of obtaining judicial review for such decisions. The Rule should be revised to be consistent with MEPA. This would ensure parties are aware that (1) these decisions are now reviewed in the Court of Appeals and (2) a petition for writ of certiorari must be filed and served within 30 days of notice of the final decision in the EQB Monitor. In addition, because the statutory language does not specifically provide for judicial review of an AUAR, MCEA proposes that the language of the rule be changed to provide for review of an AUAR in the Court of Appeals as well, to ensure that review of all decisions may be obtained in the same manner. See Final Alternative Urban Areawide Review and Mitigation Plan For the Upper Harbor Terminal Development, 973 N.W.2d 331 (Minn. App. 2022). MCEA proposes the following rule language: Decisions by an RGU on the need for an EAW, the need for an EIS, the adequacy of an EIS, or the need for or adequacy of an AUAR are final decisions and may be reviewed as provided in Minn. Stat. 116D.04, subd. 10.
Who's Listening
-
-
Email Karen.Gaides@state.mn.us