1. Changing Environmental Requirements in Minnesota Mn APA Conference September 28, 2011

2. Agenda Introduction – Beth Bartz, AICP Legislative Auditor’s Report: Environmental Review and Permitting – Jody Hauer, OLA 2011 Legislative Activities Addressing Environmental Review and Permitting – Tom Johnson, Gray Plant Mooty Questions and Discussion – Beth Bartz

3. Minnesota Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) Requires review of construction activities that meet threshold requirements regardless of who is conducting the activity or how it is funded Thresholds vary by size of construction, size of city, and/or degree of impact Provides for review by citizen petition if threshold isn’t met Formats include EAW (to determine if EIS is needed), EIS or AUAR Process overseen by an assigned Regulatory Governmental Unit (RGU) Concluding determination is whether the review was adequate; does not grant any project approvals Appeals go to the state Environmental Quality Board

4. State agency permitting In contrast to environmental review, these permits do grant project approvals and must be in place prior to construction activity. Typically occur in the final stages of project design. Requirements vary by type of permit. Mitigation for impacts may be required. Most common permits are those from the DNR (e.g. public waters, mining, endangered species), PCA (e.g. stormwater, air quality, hazardous waste) and Watershed Districts (e.g. wetlands, stormwater).

5. Environmental review and permitting criticisms Environmental review adds unnecessary time and cost for projects that will likely not result in significant impacts Thresholds are inconsistent and arbitrary Permit decisions are not timely Many environmental concerns are now addressed by local zoning and land use laws making environmental review unnecessary Oversight of the environmental review process by local governments or the state agency proposing the project is a conflict of interest – the fox is watching the hen house Reviews are not based on solid science