Local Plans to be included in the Minnesota Environmental Policy Act
Contact: Karen Harder
612-824-4136
Abstract
Many planning documents are developed by local units of government and are designed to protect or enhance the natural resources within their jurisdiction. State guidance clearly supports the consideration of these documents in the environmental review process. Guidance is not legally enforceable, however, and projects are not consistently reviewed for their compatibility with these plans. Legislation will be proposed this session to require the consideration of all applicable planning documents approved by local units of government for project reviews on sites within those jurisdictions.
Problem
A number of plans are developed by local units of government to protect the natural resources within their jurisdictions. Soil and Water Conservation Districts, Watershed Districts, Watershed Management Organizations, counties, and cities, all have the charge of protecting these resources. To do this, they have developed Comprehensive Local Water Plans, Stormwater Management Plans, Watershed Plans, Ground Water Plans, and others to implement their objectives.
State statutes require the state government to use all practicable means to coordinate with state plans to be sure that growth occurs only in an environmentally acceptable manner (MS 116D.02, Subd. 2.). Plans that are developed by local units of government that reflect intentions of environmental protection but that do not require approval by a state agency, however, are not included. In addition, the statutes refer to coordinating land use and environmental policies, plans, and standards, but only for the state as a whole and for major regions thereof (MS 116D.02, Subd. 2(6)). Similar policies, plans, and standards developed for local units of government are not included.
Guidance provided by the state Environmental Quality Board (EQB) is clear on this issue. Environmental review documents should discuss whether the project is subject to any official governmental management plans but also must indicate if no such plans exist. If there is a plan, discussion should be included regarding how the project does or does not comply with the plan. Conflicts or incompatibilities should be specifically discussed. Guidance also states that if project compatibility with such plans has not been assessed, an explanation for this should also be provided. Guidance elements are considered suggestions and are not required elements.
The rules that govern implementation of the environmental review process include a listing of the elements required in environmental assessment worksheets (EAWs) and environmental impact statements (EISs). These lists include a number of appropriate considerations, but do not include consideration of local planning documents (Minn. Rules Chapter 4410.1200 and 4410.2300). For this reason, the consideration of local plans in the environmental review process has been inconsistent.
Position
The state statutes governing environmental review should be amended to be clear that local plans as well as state plans are to be considered when reviewing project proposals for determining the potential for significant environmental impact.
The state statutes should also be amended to require the EQB to establish in the rules the clear consideration of local plans in the content of EAWs and EISs.