The EQB’s Roundtable on Environmental Review Mandatory Categories is this Friday, April 19 from Noon – 1:00 pm.

PLEASE CLICK HERE TO JOIN THE ONLINE EQB ROUNDTABLE

The EQB is requesting your feedback on the rules for “mandatory categories” for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW)—an environmental review summary of a plan prepared by the project proponent—and for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)—the more rigorous and consequential analysis of potential environmental harms and alternatives to avoid and minimize them.

Why Comment on “Mandatory Categories” for Environmental Review?

The details in EQB rule language will determine if the public and environmental advocates will learn about a project before it is built and if we will have the scientific information needed to recommend changes to or oppose a mine, a major development, or a huge appropriation of water. If a “mandatory category” doesn’t require an EAW or an EIS, usually none will be prepared. Few EISs are done in Minnesota.

What value is provided by an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW)?

Although an EAW is done by the project proponent and is rarely comprehensive, it is often the only way that members of the public will learn about a new project or a change to an existing project. The EAW can provide information that allows community members to judge whether to oppose the action or seek an EIS.

What value is provided by an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)?

An EIS provides the primary scientific analysis for communities to review proposed projects, as well as for permitting and judicial review. An EIS may include tribal consultation, federal oversight, and detailed scientific evaluation of a proposed action. An EIS is required by law to consider cumulative effects and alternatives that would avoid or minimize environmental harm, including the alternative of not doing the project.

Talking Points

We suggest that you copy, edit, and/or add to these Talking Points to request that EQB modify its rules to strengthen environmental review:

1. Any action that requires an EIS under EQB rules should also require a Health Impact Assessment done by a qualified independent contractor selected by the Minnesota Department of Health and paid for by the project proposer. Health Impact Assessment is a community-based process to analyze cumulative health effects, including direct and indirect effects on physical, nutritional, cultural, and social factors that contribute to harmful and unjust environmental health impacts.
2. EQB rules should state that an EIS is mandatory for any action done or approved by government where there is a potential for significant environmental effects from that action, including all reasonably foreseeable cumulative potential effects. Agencies now seem to treat any EIS as “discretionary” if the project doesn’t meet one of the numeric thresholds for size in the EQB rules.
3. All EISs should have an expiration date specified in EQB rules so that analysis of expansions, phases, or changes in a project 15 years or even 50 years later aren’t allowed to rely on outdated facts and outdated scientific knowledge.
4. EQB rules should require an EAW for mineral leasing, so that the state of Minnesota doesn’t relinquish rights to control drilling and use of surface lands for 50 years without some level of environmental review and public notice.
5. EQB rules should make it less likely that mining facilities will spread and create additional environmental harm without new environmental review. Rules should require an EIS for expansions of mining, mine waste disposal, and processing based on the percent increase over the original permit as well as changes in acres or tons.
6. EQB rules should protect the quality and quantity of Minnesota surface water and groundwater, by requiring an EIS when large amounts of water are appropriated for industry or agriculture or when waters are diverted from the Lake Superior Basin at levels exceeding the limits in the Great Lakes Compact.

You can read WaterLegacy’s Comments HERE