July 2021 Environmental Review Implementation Subcommittee Meeting - Minnesota Environmental Quality ...
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
520 Lafayette Road North, Saint Paul, MN 55155| www.eqb.state.mn.us
Phone: 651-757-2873 | Fax: 651-757-2343
July 2021 Environmental Review Implementation
Subcommittee Meeting
July 21, 2021 1:00 - 4:00 p.m.
Meeting location: Virtual via WebEx
Meeting link: https://minnesota.webex.com/minnesota/onstage/g.php?MTID=ed2543dc09640a45b78007553393eee13
Meeting Time and Location
In light of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Environmental Quality Board (EQB or Board) will convene its July
Environmental Review Implementation Subcommittee (ERIS) meeting virtually through the WebEx
platform. To access the meeting, use the link under the “Meeting Location” above.
Instructions for joining the meeting via WebEx are included on page 5 of this packet.
This material can be provided in different forms, like large print, braille, or on a recording. Please
contact EQB staff at least one week prior to the event at info.EQB@state.mn.us to arrange an
accommodation.
Public Engagement Opportunities at EQB Meetings
EQB encourages public input and appreciates the opportunity to build shared understanding with
members of the public. During the July ERIS meeting, public comment will be taken on agenda items IV
and V. Members of the public may submit a written comment or make oral comments. Oral commenters
are asked to keep their statements to fewer than two minutes of speaking (approximately 260 words).
Additional details are listed under agenda item VI below. In advanced of the Board meeting, please
review our “Guide to WebEx Participation” that starts on page 5 of this packet to learn how to use the
WebEx platform for engaging in the EQB meeting.
Meeting Objectives
• Review and discuss final recommendations developed by the Interagency Climate Technical Team
(ICTT) for integrating climate change into environmental review.
• Deliberate on implementation options for final recommendations and consider the pros and cons of
different approaches.
• ERIS members consider input, identify opportunities to meet more needs of Minnesotans, and
advise ICTT members on the best path forward with the final recommendations.
EQB Packet - 2
Agenda
I. Adoption of Consent Agenda & Minutes
Proposed Agenda for July 21, 2021 ERIS Meeting
December 16, 2020 Meeting Minutes
II. ERIS Welcome & Introductions
Sarah Strommen
Environmental Review Implementation Subcommittee Chair
Commissioner, Department of Natural Resources
ERIS Members
Margaret Anderson Kelliher; Commissioner – Department of Transportation
Grace Arnold; Commissioner – Department of Commerce
Kristen Eide-Tollefson; Public Member – Congressional District 2
Alan Forsberg; Public Member – Congressional District 1
Jan Malcolm; Commissioner – Department of Health
Bryan Murdock; Public Member – Congressional District 8
Thom Petersen; Commissioner – Department of Agriculture
Peter Tester; Commissioner – Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Benjamin Yawakie; Public Member – Congressional District 3
III. Executive Director’s Report
Katie Pratt
Executive Director
Environmental Quality Board
Katie.Pratt@state.mn.us
IV. Integrating Climate Information into Minnesota Environmental Policy Act
Program Requirements
The Interagency Climate Technical Team (ICTT) began their work in December 2019, with a
public listening session and concluded with an extensive engagement process on a set of draft
recommendations for Environmental Review Program changes. From January through May of
2021, the ICTT offered multiple opportunities for anyone interested in providing feedback to
submit comments on the draft recommendations. Final ICTT recommendations consider
concerns and opportunities identified from feedback. All feedback received is available on the
EQB’s Climate Change and Environmental Review project webpage:
https://www.eqb.state.mn.us/content/climate-change-and-environmental-review
ICTT members will present final recommendations for changes to Minnesota’s Environmental
Review Program that consider climate change and discuss options for implementing the
recommended changes. Supporting information and rationale for the final recommendations
are presented in the enclosed memo from the ICCT to ERIS members. The memo includes:
EQB Packet - 3
• A summary of feedback received during the public engagement process (page 2)
• A summary of a technical assessment of the December 2020 draft recommendations (page
4; Appendix D)
• Final ICTT recommendations (pages 6-9)
1. Use a phased approach for approving and implementing EAW form changes that
includes adaptation and resilience assessments and a revised approach for GHG
assessment (Appendix B)
2. Direct EQB staff and state agency technical staff to implement an engagement
process and recommend revisions to the decision criteria used to determine the
potential significance of climate related information
3. Direct EQB staff and state agency technical staff to continue to work on the
mandatory EIS category criteria and threshold
Materials enclosed:
Memo to ERIS: Integrating Climate Information into MEPA Program Requirements
Presenters:
Denise Wilson Louise Miltich
Director, Environmental Review Program Energy Environmental Review and Analysis
Environmental Quality Board Supervisor
Denise.Wilson@state.mn.us Department of Commerce
louise.miltich@state.mn.us
Kate Fairman Melissa Kuskie
Planning Director, Manager, Certifications,
Environmental Review Unit Environmental Review & Rules Section
Department of Natural Resources Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
kate.fairman@state.mn.us melissa.kuskie@state.mn.us
ICTT Members:
Agriculture Steve Roos, Steve.Roos@state.mn.us
Commerce Louise Miltich, Louise.Miltich@state.mn.us
EQB Erik Dahl, Erik.Dahl@state.mn.us
Katrina Hapka, Katrina.Hapka@state.mn.us
Giuseppe Tumminello Giuseppe.Tumminello@state.mn.us
Health David Bell, David.Bell@state.mn.us
James Kelly, James.Kelly@state.mn.us
Metropolitan Council: Eric Wojchik, Eric.Wojchik@metc.state.mn.us
Natural Resources: Kate Fairman, Kate.Fairman@state.mn.us
Pollution Control: Peter Ciborowski, Peter.Ciborowski@state.mn.us
Melissa Kuskie, Melissa.Kuskie@state.mn.us
Laura Millberg, Laura.Millberg@state.mn.us
Transportation: Katherine Lind, Katherine.Lind@state.mn.us
Jeff Meeks, Jeffrey.Meek@state.mn.us
Deb Moynihan, Debra.Moynihan@state.mn.us
Peter Wasko, Peter.Wasko@state.mn.us
EQB Packet - 4
V. Dialogue on integrating climate information into Minnesota Environmental
Policy Act Program Requirements
EQB invited representatives of organizations with different viewpoints on recommended
changes to the Environmental Review Program to share concerns and opportunities they raised
in their comment letters to the EQB.
Following initial comments, participants and ERIS members will engage in a dialogue around the
following question:
Given the concerns and opportunities you articulated in your letter, what changes could be made
to the final recommendations that would potentially resolve barriers to implementation?
VI. Public Discussion on Agenda Items IV and V
The Board welcomes public comment on the ICTT’s final recommendations, as well as
reflections on the dialogue with organizations.
Question for public discussion:
Given the concerns and opportunities you have identified or that you heard during the dialogue,
what changes could be made to the final recommendations that would potentially resolve
barriers to implementation?
Procedure for giving oral comment:
• To allow time for the Board to hear from a diversity of perspectives, commenters are asked
to keep their statements to fewer than 260 words or two minutes of speaking.
• Comments are taken on a first come basis. To be placed in the queue, please indicate in the
WebEx chat that you would like to make public comment.
• Please see the “Guide to WebEx Participation” on page 5 of this packet for instructions on
using the WebEx platform.
• Introduce yourself before beginning your comment.
• Members of the public may also submit a written comment. Written comments will be
reviewed after the meeting and included in the subsequent ERIS meeting packet.
VII. ERIS Deliberation
ERIS members will reflect on presentations, dialogue, and public comment and provide
additional feedback to the ICTT recommendations.
VIII. Closing Remarks
IX. Adjourn
EQB Packet - 5
EQB Guide to Participating in WebEx Meetings
If you have any questions or technical difficulties regarding the Board meeting or WebEx, please
contact EQB staff at (651) 757-2873.
Contents
• Connecting to WebEx
• Submitting Written Comment (Written Comments will be included in the subsequent Board
Packet)
• Troubleshooting your connection
Connecting to WebEx
Step 1: Join WebEx through the provided link found on our website or public meeting notification
through GovDelivery.
Step 2: Input your name and email address, then select join.
EQB Packet - 6 Step 3: This will prompt you to register for the meeting by confirming your email address, after confirming, select “Submit” Step 4: If you have not already used WebEx before, follow the prompts to download the plug-in for your web browser. This typically does not take long, but be sure to budget time in advanced to connect to the meeting.
EQB Packet - 7 Step 5: Configure your Audio and Video Connection, if you wish to use your computer’s microphone and camera, select “Call Using Computer.” If you prefer to connect by phone you can either call in or have the WebEx system call a number that you provide. Note: you will be muted upon entry to the conference call. If you are joining audio by phone, you will only be able to unmute through your computer. If you wish to submit written public comment Note: Written comments will not be visible to the Board in real time. They will be included in the subsequent Board packet. Step 1: Open the chat clicking the chat bubble icon. Step 2: Then in the chat box, select “Environmental Quality Board (Host)” to submit your written public comment.
EQB Packet - 8
Troubleshooting your Connection
If you have any questions or technical difficulties regarding the Board meeting or WebEx, please contact
EQB staff at (651) 757-2873.
Having trouble with hearing or speaking? Try joining by phone.
Step 1: Open Step 2: Select
the options by “Audio Connection”
selecting the in the menu.
three dots icon.
Step 3: Select “Switch Connection.” Step 4: Press
“I will call in”
to get unique
call in
information
for your
phone’s
connection.
EQB Packet - 9
MINNESOTA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY BOARD – Environmental Review Implementation
Subcommittee
MEETING MINUTES
December 16, 2020
Environmental Review Implementation Subcommittee Meetings
Meeting Location: Virtual Meeting
1:00 pm – 4:00 pm
Subcommittee Members Present: Margaret Anderson Kelliher, Grace Arnold, Laura Bishop, Alan
Forsberg, Kristen Eide-Tollefson, Jan Malcolm (proxy Dan Huff), Bryan Murdock, Sarah Strommen,
Benjamin Yawakie
Subcommittee Members Absent: [None]
EQB Members Present: Julie Goehring, Steve Grove (proxy Kevin McKinnon), Nick Martin, Thom
Petersen, Alice Roberts-Davis, Gerald van Amburg, Sue Vento
Activity Audio*
I. Adoption of Consent Agenda and Minutes 00:00:00
II. Introductions and Opening Remarks 00:00:01
III. Executive Director’s Report 00:04:15
Executive Director Katie Pratt announced 2021 EQB Monitor changes including a publication
date change to Tuesdays at noon. Katie Pratt also notified attendees about the upcoming EQB
meetings schedule and staff transitioning.
IV. Integrating Climate Information into the Minnesota Environmental Review Program 01:09:40
Requirements
EQB Environmental Review Program Director Denise Wilson presented highlights of the draft
recommendations report for integrating climate information onto the MN Environmental
Policy Act Program requirements. Denise Wilson also discussed the engagement plan that will
be implemented in 2021 to get broad feedback on the recommendations. Board members and
members of the public provided initial feedback on the recommendations and engagement
plan.
V. Closing Remarks 01:54:50
VI. Adjourn 01:58:30
* Recording and presentations of December 16th meeting resides on our website:
https://www.eqb.state.mn.us/content/environmental-review-implementation-subcommittee-eris
EQB Packet - 10
Date: July 21, 2021
To: Environmental Review Implementation Subcommittee
From: Interagency Climate Technical Team
Environmental Quality Board Denise Wilson, Katrina Hapka, Erik Cedarleaf Dahl,
Giuseppe Tumminello
Department of Agriculture Stephan Roos
Department of Commerce Louise Miltich
Department of Health James Kelly, Kristin Raab, and David Bell
Department of Natural Resources Kate Fairman
Pollution Control Agency Melissa Kuskie, Peter Ciborowski, Laura Millberg
Department of Transportation Deb Moynihan, Peter Wasko, Jeff Meeks,
Katherine Lind
Metropolitan Council Eric Wojchik
RE: Final recommendations for integrating climate related information into Minnesota
Environmental Policy Act Program requirements
At the December 2020 Environmental Review Implementation Subcommittee (ERIS) meeting, the
Interagency Climate Technical Team (ICTT) presented draft recommendations for integrating climate
related information into Minnesota Environmental Policy Act Program. Since then, ICTT members have
been working to get feedback from anyone impacted by the draft recommendations.
This memo offers an overview of the engagement process, summarizes feedback received and provides
a summary of the technical assessment of the draft recommendations. In addition, the memo discusses
changes ICTT made to the draft recommendations and presents ICTT’s final recommendations. Attached
to the memo are:
• A summary of the project background and timeline (Appendix A)
• Draft, reivsed EAW form (Appendix B)
• Guidance documents (Appendix C)
• A technical analysis of the draft recommendations (Appendix D)
Engagement and feedback overview
The ICCT began their work in December 2019 with a public listening session and concluded with an
extensive engagement process on the draft recommendations for Environmental Review Program
changes presented to ERIS members. From January through May of 2021, ICTT members offered
multiple opportunities for anyone interested in providing feedback on the draft recommendations to
submit comments.
Environmental Quality Board (EQB) staff engaged Barr Engineering to assist with carrying out the
engagement efforts and to apply their Environmental Review Program experience and technicalEQB Packet - 11
expertise to help ICTT members understand estimated time and costs of potential paths forward. EQB
staff, ICTT members, and Board members have sole decision-making authority on the design,
implementation, and results of the project. EQB staff worked closely with Barr Engineering at every step
of the process. ICTT members reviewed all feedback submitted to EQB and Barr Engineering.
Summary of all feedback
Survey responses provided mixed feedback on whether including climate related information in
environmental review documents provides a benefit to Minnesotans. Comments received from the
open comment period, listening sessions were generally supportive. Seventy-nine percent of those
interviewed believed including climate related information in environmental review documents provides
a benefit to Minnesotans.
Across all feedback, there was general support of the draft recommendations for updates to the EAW
form and the recommendations for a new EIS mandatory category related to climate. However,
comments identified more work needed on the criteria and threshold for the new EIS mandatory
category.
There were also concerns with how Responsible Governmental Units (RGUs) will use the climate related
information for decision-making on environmental review documents. Comments highlighted the need
for more detailed, project-specific guidance and training for RGUs to ensure consistency and accuracy of
the climate related information. Some comments discussed concerns about the time and cost for
implementing the recommended changes.
Finally, there was general concern for whether the information provided will result in effective decision-
making because of the lack of existing RGU climate expertise and regulatory context in which to
evaluate the potential significance of GHG emissions.
Engagement opportunities and feedback themes
• Public comment period. Written feedback created the opportunity to express thoughts on the
recommended changes without constraints. Comment letters were assigned primary themes to
assist with the evaluation. In many cases, the content of an individual comment letter contained
multiple primary themes; resulting in approximately 1,115 cataloged comments.
Comment themes
o Identified the need for additional guidance and training
o Support for GHG quantification and assessment recommendations, and requests for
additional information:
All projects should quantify GHG emissions
All projects should consider mitigation
Requests for assessments of environmental justice areas
Some comments suggested additional requirements for feedlots
Requests for life-cycle assessments
o Opposition to the recommended changes because of to concerns with:
Potential litigation
Cost versus lack of clarity on benefit of efforts
Need for more project specific guidance
Concerns with approach for assessing mitigation in the EAW form
o Mixed concerns and support for the recommended Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) threshold and need for guidance
Summary memo of public comments: https://www.eqb.state.mn.us/comment-period
2EQB Packet - 12
• Survey. A survey provided an opportunity to share reflections on the proposed
recommendations more quickly and consisted of eight questions that were designed to get
input on the draft recommendations. There were 496 responses to at least one or more of the
questions.
Comment themes
o 64% of responders identified themselves as members of the public
o Approximately half of the responses strongly agree, and approximately half of the
responses strongly disagree, with whether climate related information will benefit
Minnesotans
o The majority of responses indicated support for recommended changes to the EAW
form
Some responses identified additional elements
Some responses indicated the need for more guidance and resources
o A total of 49% of responses either strongly disagree or disagree that a new category
requiring preparation of an EIS related to climate change is important for Minnesota.
Summary memo of survey responses:
https://www.eqb.state.mn.us/sites/default/files/documents/Survey%20Results%20Memo
randum_Final.pdf
• Interviews. A list of 45 individuals that represented different interests from around the state
were invited to participate in the interview process. There were 23 individuals that agreed to be
interviewed. The interviews used similar questions to the survey, but allowed for additional
discussion time that provides greater understanding about responses.
Comment themes
o 79% of interviewees either strongly agree or agree that adding climate related
information to the EAW form will benefit Minnesota.
o General support for the draft changes to the EAW form
The majority of responses indicated support for draft changes to the EAW
form
Some responses identified additional elements
Some responses indicated the need for a standardized approach, and
documents, trainings, webinars, etc.
o 73% of interviewees either strongly agree or agree that a new category requiring
preparation of an EIS related to climate change is important for Minnesota.
o Some responses indicated the need for “significance” thresholds
Summary memo of interview responses: https://www.eqb.state.mn.us/interview-
summary
• Two listening sessions. The listening sessions provided the opportunity to ask clarifying
questions and hear different perspectives from other participants; total attendance from both
listening sessions was 105 people.
Comment Themes
o Comments suggested the new requirements might place a significant burden on
project proposers
o Feedback was provided on the expectations/burden the new requirements might
place upon different RGU’s
o Feedback was provided on the draft thresholds and GHG
methodology/documentation expectations that may over-burden (with effort) the
proposers, reviewers, public or RGU’s for smaller scale projects
o Feedback was provided that indicated how GHG emissions might change during the
project’s operation life should be included on the EAW form
3EQB Packet - 13
Summary memo of listening sessions: https://www.eqb.state.mn.us/listening-session
Technical assessment summary
According to Barr Engineering’s technical assessment of the draft recommendations (Appendix D), the
proposed changes will result in additional time, cost and complexity to project proposers and RGUs for
completing the environmental review process. The technical assessment evaluated the annual number
of mandatory category project types; project descriptions that may potentially have no GHG emissions
sources; and projects that will potentially exceed 25,000 tons per year (TPY) carbon dioxide equivalent
(CO2e). Barr Engineering assessed two examples of project types that may exceed a 25,000 TPY CO2e
threshold.
The technical assessment includes identification of project types that could be subject to a new EIS
mandatory category. Also included, is the estimated cost to complete additional climate assessment
requirements as well as a discussion of potential economic impacts associated with climate change.
Conclusions from technical assessment
• De minimis threshold. Based on the emission categories outlined in the draft recommendations,
31 of the 39 mandatory category project types have the potential to exceed 25,000 TPY CO2e.
• Estimated cost to implement draft recommendations for EAW form. The level of effort
necessary to prepare an EAW varies based on the scale and complexity of a project and
depending on type, location, and potential impacts. The total estimated incremental costs to
prepare the emission calculations and climate adaptation/resiliency responses to the EAW form
as presented in Appendix A of the draft recommendations are approximately $10,040 to
$13,400.; or a cost increase of approximately 33% from the average cost of $30,000 for
preparing an EAW.
• Mitigation assessment. The development of GHG emissions reductions, mitigations and/or
offsets is most likely a new work activity for project proposers. Determining the geography,
timing and duration of mitigation efforts relative to implementation of the proposed action will
be an additional cash flow consideration.
• Estimated social cost of carbon. The estimated social cost of carbon for a project that emits
25,000 TPY of CO2e is ~ $1M per year. Calculating individual project GHG emissions estimates,
considering emissions reduction and resiliency measures, and making this information available
to the public during environmental review are strategies that can be deployed to work
incrementally toward meeting the state’s emissions reduction goals and reducing this estimated
impact of climate effects.
• EIS mandatory category. Projects that may potentially exceed 100,000 TPY tend to have a high
electrical demand, produce high emissions from non-CO2 GHGs that have a high Global
Warming Potential, and include operating large processing equipment (stationary sources with
direct emissions). Approximately 10 project types include these types of emission sources and
have the potential to be subject to the new EIS mandatory category.
Additional conclusions
• In at least some cases, additional time and costs have been considerably lower than identified in
the technical assessment. This cannot be interpreted to mean implementation costs will be
lower, rather that costs will vary across project types and based on RGU expertise.
4EQB Packet - 14
• The ICTT notes efforts to identify and incorporate GHG mitigation strategies may result in costs
to project proposers, if not previously factored into project planning. However, some GHG
mitigation strategies may provide cost-neutral tradeoffs and operational cost savings.
• On average, there are approximately 100 environmental reviews performed each year; and two-
thirds of those reviews are conducted by local governmental units. Local governmental units
may recover the cost by charging the project proposer. In most cases, the project proposer will
assume the cost of recommend EAW form changes. Anecdotally, an RGU recently spent
approximately $60,000 in attorney fees alone to defend their decision not to include GHG
emissions to the Minnesota Court of Appeals. As a result, climate related information has
already begun to be incorporated by RGUs into EAWs.
• Assessing a proposed project’s potential climate related effects encourages informed decision-
making to reduce those effects. Projects that take no action may result in a greater social cost to
Minnesotans than the cost incurred by a project proposer to produce the climate assessments.
Changes to draft recommendations
In response to feedback received and with consideration of the technical assessment, the ICTT made
changes to their draft recommendations. These changes include:
• A revised approach for GHG assessment in the EAW form. We simplified the process by
eliminating the GHG de minimis threshold for minimal review of some projects, reducing the
types of assessment information, and requiring all EAWs to provide the same information, as
follows:
o Remove the 25,000 TPY threshold requiring more detailed assessment information. In
the final recommendations, all projects that use the EAW form are subject to the same
requirements.
Rationale: The draft recommendations provided a qualitative discussion of mitigation
considered for projects under this threshold. There was confusion about two different
assessment requirements and concerns that a qualitative discussion of mitigation will
not result in sufficient information to reduce the potential effects of the proposed
project related to climate change. In addition, the majority of project types had the
potential to exceed the threshold.
o Remove requirement for assessing potential mitigation options not selected.
Rationale: While the ICTT believes there is value in understanding all potential
mitigation options, assessing the options not selected requires additional time, cost and
complexity. More project specific training and resources may be necessary, before
adding this requirement.
o Remove the requirement for discussing renewable energy credits.
Rationale: This information provides an opportunity for reducing GHG emissions when
mitigation is not feasible. However, there is not currently a process for validating
whether the credits were purchased and/or how long they were owned.
• Consider a phased approach for implementing the EAW form.
Rationale: Once the form is approved by the EQB, the expectation is set for considering what
climate related information is necessary. Allowing time and resources for RGUs and project
proposers to acquire expertise and experience, will ensure confidence in the accuracy of the
climate related information.
5EQB Packet - 15
• More engagement is needed for developing recommendations for future changes to the
decision criteria (MR 4410.1700) used for determining the need for an EAW and the need for an
EIS.
Rationale: In the draft recommendations, ICTT members did not suggest changes to the decision
criteria ahead of a regulatory framework for GHG emissions. An RGU was encouraged to use
their discretion on a case-by-case basis, until a more robust regulatory framework for GHG
pollution is available across all relevant GHG emissions sources. However, after more
deliberation and consideration of the feedback provided, ICTT members believe some changes
to the criteria are necessary to ensure accountability and consistency for making decisions
based on the climate related information included in the EAW form.
• More work is needed on the criteria and threshold for the EIS mandatory category.
Rationale: In the draft recommendations, ICTT members identified the need for a mandatory EIS
category related to climate for proposed projects not considered through existing mandatory
category project types. Based on feedback received and the results of the technical assessment,
it is unclear whether the recommended criteria and threshold are sufficient to ensure all
projects with the potential for significant effects related to climate change will require the
appropriate level of review.
Final recommendations
Minnesota Statutes, section 116C.04 gives the Board the responsibility to function as the coordinating
body for Minnesota’s Environmental Review Program. On behalf of the Board, EQB staff monitor the
effectiveness of the Environmental Review Program and make recommendations to modify and improve
its effectiveness. Led by EQB staff, the ICTT proposes the following final recommended changes to
consider potential effects related to climate change in Minnesota’s Environmental Review Program.
The following final recommendations reflect ICTT members’ best judgment and consideration of:
• what climate related information is needed and meaningful;
• what climate related information is reliably possible, given available technical resources;
• feedback received on the draft recommendations;
• the technical assessment of the draft recommendations; and
• continuously evolving technical advancements.
In addition to the recommendations presented below, the ICTT recommends that EQB staff create a
feedback process to assess evolving effectiveness of proposed changes to the EAW form and integrate
the results of the feedback into the annual Environmental Review Program Performance Report.
1. Use a phased approach for approving and implementing EAW form changes
that includes adaptation and resilience assessments and a revised approach for
GHG assessment
Recommended EAW form changes
The ICTT recommends the following changes to the EAW form (Appendix B), and offers general guidance
for implementing the changes (Appendix C):
• a new item 7 that summarizes adaptation and resilience assessments, in addition to prompts
throughout the document for technical assessment of adaptation and resilience, and
6EQB Packet - 16
• a new item 18 that describes the carbon footprint for proposed projects
Minnesota rules chapter 4410.1200 define major categories of content for the EAW form. Minnesota
rules grant authority to the EQB chair to develop the standard EAW form used by the RGU when
evaluating a proposed project. This standard EAW form is general enough to apply to all project types
and locations across the state. The RGU determines the elements of the EAW form that are applicable to
a proposed project and decides how much information will be included in their assessment. The RGU is
responsible for verifying the accuracy of environmental documents and complying with environmental
review processes in a timely manner.
The EQB chair may also approve the use of an alternative EAW form if an RGU demonstrates the
alternative form will better accommodate the RGU's function or better address a particular type of
project. Currently, animal feedlots are the only project type with an approved alternative EAW form.
The ICTT recommends the animal feedlot alternative EAW form be updated based on the approved
changes to the standard EAW form; in the same timeframe.
Outreach, guidance and support activities in support of Recommendation #1
To varying degrees and depending on the nature of the project, the proposed changes to the EAW form
will affect the type of information project proposers provide; and will require RGUs to validate the
information and perform additional climate related assessments. On behalf of the Board, EQB staff
assist RGUs and interested persons in understanding and implementing the rules related to the
Environmental Review Program, by creating general guidance that applies to diverse project types that
occur in different locations across the state. Following are activities EQB staff can provide in support for
implementing recommendation #1:
General outreach, guidance, and support activities implemented by EQB staff, without additional
funding:
• EQB staff continue the Climate and Environmental Review web page to post available guidance
• EQB staff to host an informational meeting to highlight the EAW form and general guidance
documents
• EQB staff convene RGU cohort meetings for sharing experiences and expertise, for a minimum
of one-year
The designated RGU is responsible for interpreting how the rules should apply to an individual project.
Based on feedback received, project proposers and RGUs feel unprepared to apply the recommended
changes to their project reviews. Compared with other types of environmental assessments that rely on
a regulatory framework, climate related information may require different professional judgement than
currently required to complete the EAW form. While tools and resources are readily available, selecting
the best assessment tools/procedures for any given project involves technical expertise.
Additionally, legal challenges to the professional judgment of the RGU about the appropriate climate
related information could potentially lead to project delays. To support successful implementation of
recommendation #1, ICTT offers the following suggestions for development project-specific guidance
and support activities, if funding is available. These expanded support activities would require
contracting with a technical consultant.
Expanded outreach, guidance, and support activities that could be implemented with additional funding
and the expertise of a technical contractor:
• EQB staff leads the development of project-specific guidance and training tools, with support of
a technical contractor
7EQB Packet - 17
• EQB staff leads outreach and training activities with project-specific guidance and training tools
EAW form phased implementation options
The ICTT believes the revised EAW form requires climate related information that is necessary and
relevant and that there is a sense of urgency in incorporating climate information into Minnesota’s
Environmental Review Program. However, the ICCT also understands based on feedback, that there is a
significant need to support project proposers and RGUs as they become familiar with tools and
resources for implementing a revised EAW form, and train their technical staff to respond to these new
requirements. Phasing implementation of the EAW form allows time to put that support system in place
while ensuring a date when the requirements are effective. Following are three options for phased
implementation, including a discussion of the pros and cons of each option.
Option #1: Board approval of the new EAW Form with effective date of 4-months. (September 2021
Board approval date; January 2022 effective date). The effective date defines when the EAW form is
required for all projects. The time between the approval date and the effective date provides a
transition period. New projects that submit their project data after the effective date will be required to
use the new form.
Pros
• Public disclosure of climate related information provided more quickly
• Allows for transition between current form and new form for projects underway
• RGUS and project proposers anticipate what climate assessment is needed
Cons
• RGUs and project proposers may not have sufficient guidance and resources to produce
accurate, reliable and consistent climate related information by the time of effective date
Option #2: RGU Pilot through the end of calendar year 2022, delayed Board approval until pilot
conclusion. Delay Board approval of the revised EAW form through the end of calendar year 2022 while
allowing RGUs to voluntarily enroll in a pilot process for implementing the revised EAW form. EQB staff
will create a process for state and local RGUs to enroll in the pilot. EQB staff will then convene a cohort
group for enrolled RGUs to share experiences, expertise, and learning. At the end of the pilot, the cohort
group will make suggestions for improvement based on their shared learning before final Board
approval of the EAW form.
Pros
• Benefit of learning that could inform more detailed guidance for all RGUs
• Benefit of learning that could inform continued work on decision criteria and determination of
potential significance
• More targeted and interactive engagement with RGUs to develop support based on project-
specific needs
• Many RGUs are already implementing the recommended elements, this option continues to
build on existing efforts
Cons
• Some mandatory categories have different thresholds that designate either a state or local RGU.
Similar projects may have different time and cost based on whether the RGU is enrolled in the
pilot
• Potential litigation increases for RGUs that do not include climate related information
8EQB Packet - 18
Option# 3: Delay Board approval of revised EAW form through the end of calendar year 2022. Delay
Board approval of the revised EAW form through the end of calendar year 2022 to allow time for project
proposers, consultants and RGUs to become familiar with the new EAW form. This option differs from
Option 2 in that it does not require consistent implementation of the new EAW form for all projects by
an RGU, but will include general EQB outreach.
Pros
• RGUs can voluntarily include climate related information before the EAW form is approved
• All projects anticipate and plan for the new EAW form at the same time
• More time for RGUs and project proposers to train and/or hire staff with climate expertise
Cons
• More time before public disclosure of climate related information in EAWs
• Though this option will likely reduce legal vulnerability to challenges seeking to compel inclusion
of information prior to form adoption, it likely will not eliminate such vulnerability/risk
altogether
2. Direct EQB staff and state agency technical staff to implement an engagement
process and recommend revisions to the decision criteria used to determine the
potential significance of climate related information
After considering feedback, ICTT members are reversing their draft recommendation on the need for
revising the decision criteria in rule (MR 4410.1700). ICTT members believe changes to the decision
criteria are necessary to ensure accountability and consistency for making approval decisions based on a
proposed project’s climate related information included in EAW form.
3. Direct EQB staff and state agency technical staff to continue to work on the
mandatory EIS category criteria and threshold
Feedback generally indicated agreement with the need for mandatory EIS category related to climate.
However, comments were mixed on the effectiveness of the recommended threshold and criteria. The
ICTT believes more engagement with technical expertise is need to ensure all projects with the potential
for significant climate effects will result in the preparation of an EIS.
9EQB Packet - 19
APPENDIX A:
Environmental Review and Climate Project Background and Timeline
2018
Environmental Review Advisory Panel recommendations in their 2018 Report
(https://www.eqb.state.mn.us/environmental-review-advisory-panel-1).
2019
Governor Walz’s 2019 executive Order 19-37 on climate change
https://mn.gov/governor/assets/2019_12_2_EO_19-37_Climate_tcm1055-412094.pdf )
January 2020
ERIS members approved a set of strategies used by the Climate Technical Team to develop draft
recommendations for integrating climate related information into the ER Program. The strategies
described the plan for identifying Environmental Review Program changes needed to ensure program
effectiveness for climate considerations.
July 2020
As the ICTT worked with other technical and program staff as well as Agency leadership, they recognized
potential challenges for requiring GHG quantification and assessments. These challenges included
consideration that:
• requirements apply to a broad range of mandatory category project types;
• not all RGUs may have sufficient expertise to provide consistent and accurate climate
information; and
• existing calculators and GHG quantification tools do not anticipate the types of proposed
assessment information.
ERIS members understood the concerns and directed the ICTT to consider challenges for providing
accurate and consistent climate information; when developing recommendations for what climate
information should be required.
December 2020
The Climate Technical presented draft recommendations for changes to the Environmental Review
Program that focused on:
• Climate change information and assessment requirements
• Decision-making requirements
• Mandatory review requirements
APPENDIX B: Draft EAW Form
10EQB Packet - 20
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
2021 version
This most recent Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) form and guidance documents are
available at the Environmental Quality Board’s website at: https://www.eqb.state.mn.us/ The EAW form
provides information about a proposed project‘s potential environmental effects, and also used as the
basis for scoping an Environmental Impact Statement. Guidance documents provide additional detail
and links to resources for completing the EAW form.
Cumulative potential effects can either be addressed under each applicable EAW Item or can be
addressed collectively under EAW Item 21.
Note to reviewers: Comments must be submitted to the RGU during the 30-day comment period
following notice of the EAW in the EQB Monitor. Comments should address the accuracy and
completeness of information, potential impacts that warrant further investigation and the need for an
EIS.
1. Project title:
2. Proposer: 3. RGU
Contact person: Contact person:
Title: Title:
Address: Address:
City, State, ZIP: City, State, ZIP:
Phone: Phone:
Fax: Fax:
Email: Email:
4. Reason for EAW Preparation: (check one)
Required: Discretionary:
EIS Scoping Citizen petition
Mandatory EAW RGU discretion
Proposer initiated
If EAW or EIS is mandatory give EQB rule category subpart number(s) and name(s):
5. Project Location:
• County:
• City/Township:
• PLS Location (¼, ¼, Section, Township, Range):
• Watershed (81 major watershed scale):
• GPS Coordinates:
• Tax Parcel Number:
11EQB Packet - 21
At a minimum attach each of the following to the EAW:
• County map showing the general location of the project;
• U.S. Geological Survey 7.5 minute, 1:24,000 scale map indicating project boundaries (photocopy
acceptable); and
• Site plans showing all significant project and natural features. Pre-construction site plan and
post-construction site plan.
• List of data sources, models, and other resources (from the Item-by-Item Guidance: Climate
Adaptation and Resilience or other) used for information about current Minnesota climate
trends and how climate change is anticipated to affect the general location of the project during
the life of the project (as detailed below in item 7. Climate Adaptation and Resilience).
6. Project Description:
a. Provide the brief project summary to be published in the EQB Monitor, (approximately 50
words).
b. Give a complete description of the proposed project and related new construction, including
infrastructure needs. If the project is an expansion include a description of the existing facility.
Emphasize: 1) construction, operation methods and features that will cause physical
manipulation of the environment or will produce wastes, 2) modifications to existing equipment
or industrial processes, 3) significant demolition, removal or remodeling of existing structures,
and 4) timing and duration of construction activities
c. Project magnitude:
Description Number
Total Project Acreage
Linear project length
Number and type of residential units
Residential building area (in square feet)
Commercial building area (in square feet)
Industrial building area (in square feet)
Institutional building area (in square feet)
Other uses – specify (in square feet)
Structure height(s)
d. Explain the project purpose; if the project will be carried out by a governmental unit, explain the
need for the project and identify its beneficiaries.
e. Are future stages of this development including development on any other property planned or
likely to happen? Yes No
If yes, briefly describe future stages, relationship to present project, timeline and plans for
environmental review.
f. Is this project a subsequent stage of an earlier project? Yes No
If yes, briefly describe the past development, timeline and any past environmental review.
12EQB Packet - 22
7. Climate Adaptation and Resilience:
a. Describe the climate trends in the general location of the project (see guidance: Climate
Adaptation and Resilience) and how climate change is anticipated to affect that location during
the life of the project.
b. For each Resource Category in the table below: Describe how the project’s proposed activities
and how the project’s design will interact with those climate trends. Describe proposed
adaptations to address the project effects identified.
Resource Climate Considerations Project Information Adaptations
Category (example text provided below is
to be replaced with project-
specific information)
Project Design For example, aspects of the Climate change risks
building and vulnerabilities
architecture/materials identified include:
choices and site design that
may negatively affect urban
heat island conditions in the
area considering changing
climate zones, temperature
trends, and potential for
extended heat waves
Land Use For example, any critical Climate change risks
facilities (i.e. facilities and vulnerabilities
necessary for public health identified include:
and safety, those storing
hazardous materials, or
those with housing
occupants who may be
insufficiently mobile) that
are proposed in floodplain
areas and other areas
identified as at risk for
localized flooding; describe
the risk potential
considering changing
precipitation and event
intensity
Water Resources Address in item 12 Address in item 12 Address in item 12
Contamination/ For example, how current Climate change risks
Hazardous Minnesota climate trends and vulnerabilities
Materials/Wastes and anticipated climate identified include:
change in the general
location of the project may
influence the potential
environmental effects of
generation/use/storage of
13EQB Packet - 23
Resource Climate Considerations Project Information Adaptations
Category (example text provided below is
to be replaced with project-
specific information)
hazardous waste and
materials
Fish, wildlife, Address in item 14. Address in item 14. Address in item 14.
plant
communities, and
sensitive
ecological
resources (rare
features)
8. Cover types: Estimate the acreage of the site with each of the following cover types before and after
development:
Cover Types Before After
(acres) (acres)
Wetlands and shallow lakes (2 meters deep)
Wooded/forest
Rivers and/streams
Brush/Grassland
Cropland
Livestock rangeland/pastureland
Lawn/landscaping
Green infrastructure TOTAL (from table below*)
Impervious surface
Stormwater Pond (wet sedimentation basin)
Other (describe)
TOTAL
Green Infrastructure* Before After
(acreage) (acreage)
Constructed infiltration systems (infiltration
basins/infiltration trenches/ rainwater
gardens/bioretention areas without
underdrains/swales with impermeable check
dams)
Constructed tree trenches and tree boxes
14EQB Packet - 24
Constructed wetlands
Constructed green roofs
Constructed permeable pavements
Other (describe)
TOTAL*
Trees Percent Number
Percent tree canopy removed or number of
mature trees removed during development
Number of new trees planted
9. Permits and approvals required: List all known local, state and federal permits, approvals,
certifications and financial assistance for the project. Include modifications of any existing permits,
governmental review of plans and all direct and indirect forms of public financial assistance including
bond guarantees, Tax Increment Financing and infrastructure. All of these final decisions are prohibited
until all appropriate environmental review has been completed. See Minnesota Rules, Chapter
4410.3100.
Unit of Government Type of Application Status
Cumulative potential effects may be considered and addressed in response to individual EAW Item Nos.
19-1810-20, or the RGU can address all cumulative potential effects in response to EAW Item No. 1922.
If addressing cumulative effect under individual items, make sure to include information requested in
EAW Item No. 1921.
10. Land use:
a. Describe:
i. Existing land use of the site as well as areas adjacent to and near the site, including parks
and open space, cemeteries, trails, prime or unique farmlands.
ii. Plans. Describe planned land use as identified in comprehensive plan (if available) and any
other applicable plan for land use, water, or resources management by a local, regional,
state, or federal agency.
iii. Zoning, including special districts or overlays such as shoreland, floodplain, wild and scenic
rivers, critical area, agricultural preserves, etc.
15EQB Packet - 25
iv. If any critical facilities (i.e. facilities necessary for public health and safety, those storing
hazardous materials, or those with housing occupants who may be insufficiently mobile)
are proposed in floodplain areas and other areas identified as at risk for localized flooding,
describe the risk potential considering changing precipitation and event intensity.
b. Discuss the project’s compatibility with nearby land uses, zoning, and plans listed in Item 9a
above, concentrating on implications for environmental effects.
c. Identify measures incorporated into the proposed project to mitigate any potential
incompatibility as discussed in Item 9b10b above and any risk potential.
11. Geology, soils and topography/land forms:
a. Geology - Describe the geology underlying the project area and identify and map any susceptible
geologic features such as sinkholes, shallow limestone formations, unconfined/shallow aquifers,
or karst conditions. Discuss any limitations of these features for the project and any effects the
project could have on these features. Identify any project designs or mitigation measures to
address effects to geologic features.
b. Soils and topography - Describe the soils on the site, giving NRCS (SCS) classifications and
descriptions, including limitations of soils. Describe topography, any special site conditions
relating to erosion potential, soil stability or other soils limitations, such as steep slopes, highly
permeable soils. Provide estimated volume and acreage of soil excavation and/or grading.
Discuss impacts from project activities (distinguish between construction and operational
activities) related to soils and topography. Identify measures during and after project
construction to address soil limitations including stabilization, soil corrections or other
measures. Erosion/sedimentation control related to stormwater runoff should be addressed in
response to Item 1112.b.ii.
• NOTE: For silica sand projects, the EAW must include a hydrogeologic investigation assessing the
potential groundwater and surface water effects and geologic conditions that could create an
increased risk of potentially significant effects on groundwater and surface water. Descriptions of
water resources and potential effects from the project in EAW Item 12 must be consistent with the
geology, soils and topography/land forms and potential effects described in EAW Item 11.
12. Water resources:
a. Describe surface water and groundwater features on or near the site in a.i. and a.ii. below.
i. Surface water - lakes, streams, wetlands, intermittent channels, and county/judicial ditches.
Include any special designations such as public waters, shoreland classification and
floodway/floodplain, trout stream/lake, wildlife lakes, migratory waterfowl feeding/resting
lake, and outstanding resource value water. Include the presence of aquatic invasive species
and the water quality impairments or special designations listed on the current MPCA 303d
Impaired Waters List that are within 1 mile of the project. Include DNR Public Waters
Inventory number(s), if any.
ii. Groundwater – aquifers, springs, seeps. Include: 1) depth to groundwater; 2) if project is
within a MDH wellhead protection area; 3) identification of any onsite and/or nearby wells,
including unique numbers and well logs if available. If there are no wells known on site or
nearby, explain the methodology used to determine this.
16EQB Packet - 26
b. Describe effects from project activities on water resources and measures to minimize or mitigate
the effects in Item b.i. through Item b.iv. below.
i. Wastewater - For each of the following, describe the sources, quantities and composition of
all sanitary, municipal/domestic and industrial wastewater produced or treated at the site.
1) If the wastewater discharge is to a publicly owned treatment facility, identify any
pretreatment measures and the ability of the facility to handle the added water and
waste loadings, including any effects on, or required expansion of, municipal
wastewater infrastructure.
2) If the wastewater discharge is to a subsurface sewage treatment systems (SSTS),
describe the system used, the design flow, and suitability of site conditions for such
a system. If septic systems are part of the project, describe the availability of
septage disposal options within the region to handle the ongoing amounts
generated as a result of the project. Consider the effects of current Minnesota
climate trends and anticipated changes in rainfall frequency, intensity and amount
with this discussion.
3) If the wastewater discharge is to surface water, identify the wastewater treatment
methods and identify discharge points and proposed effluent limitations to mitigate
impacts. Discuss any effects to surface or groundwater from wastewater discharges,
taking into consideration how current Minnesota climate trends and anticipated
climate change in the general location of the project may influence the effects.
ii. Stormwater - Describe changes in surface hydrology resulting from change of land cover.
Describe the routes and receiving water bodies for runoff from the project site (major
downstream water bodies as well as the immediate receiving waters). Discuss
environmental effects from stormwater discharges on receiving waters post construction
including how the project will affect runoff volume, discharge rate and change in pollutants.
Consider the effects of current Minnesota climate trends and anticipated changes in rainfall
frequency, intensity and amount with this discussion. For projects requiring NPDES/SDS
Construction Stormwater permit coverage, state the total number of acres that will be
disturbed by the project and describe the stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP),
including specific best management practices to address soil erosion and sedimentation
during and after project construction. Discuss permanent stormwater management plans,
including methods of achieving volume reduction to restore or maintain the natural
hydrology of the site using green infrastructure practices or other stormwater management
practices. Identify any receiving waters that have construction-related water impairments or
are classified as special as defined in the Construction Stormwater permit. Describe
additional requirements for special and/or impaired waters.
iii. Water appropriation - Describe if the project proposes to appropriate surface or
groundwater (including dewatering). Describe the source, quantity, duration, use and
purpose of the water use and if a DNR water appropriation permit is required. Describe any
well abandonment. If connecting to an existing municipal water supply, identify the wells to
be used as a water source and any effects on, or required expansion of, municipal water
infrastructure. Discuss environmental effects from water appropriation, including an
assessment of the water resources available for appropriation. Discuss how the proposed
water use is resilient in the event of changes in total precipitation, large precipitation
events, drought, increased temperatures, variable surface water flows and elevations, and
17You can also read
