Agenda - Environmental Policy Board - 01/18/2017

Home

Item-by-item guidance Chapter Minnesota Rules 4410.0200, Subp. 58 that includes virtually any form of permission or assistance from any unit of government; II. whether detailed plans and specifications have been prepared regarding the future project; III. whether the future development is indicated by any adopted comprehensive plans zoning,or other ordinances; IV. historic or forecasted development trends, and V. any other factors found to be relevant by the RGU, (for example,the status of funding for the project may be relevant). The EQB staff believes that each of these sources of information is not intended to be a determining factor that by itself necessarily means that a project is or is not"reasonably likely to occur."However, in some cases a single piece of information may be found to be definitive. In fact, sometimes the different information sources may contradict each other.For example,the adopted local comprehensive plan might not be consistent with the project as proposed,while other factors tend to predict that it is likely to occur,presumably after the local comprehensive plan is amended. In general, the RGU is advised to synthesize available information from all sources to determine the likelihood that the project in question will,in fact,occur. 2. The second half of the test determines whether"sufficiently detailed information is available about the project to contribute to the understanding of CPE." Note: Minnesota Rules state that this part of the test is only applied if the first half is met.This half of the test reflects the fact that identifying CPE is not simply an academic exercise,but is a practical effort to predict potential environmental effects as accurately as possible. If in a given case it appears to the RGU that an identified future project is"reasonably likely to occur"but very little specific information is available about its potential impacts,then that future project fails this half of the test and is not considered to have a basis of expectation laid for it; thus,it would not be considered when CPE are evaluated. The same five sources of information as discussed above are to be used to answer the question of whether sufficiently detailed information is available. In many cases,the RGU may need to consult with other units of government as part of the process of looking for other projects that need to be considered as part of CPE analysis. It may be useful for the RGU to document any such inquiries to include in its record for the EAW. c. Determining if CPE could potentially result in significant environmental effects In order to give proper consideration to the role of CPE in making the EIS need decision,the RGU must have obtained the proper information in EAW preparation. Assuming the RGU has obtained sufficient information about the potential impacts from other past,present and future projects which need to be considered as part of the CPE analyses,Minnesota Rules 4410.0200 11 a states that the RGU should examine the information about each of the types of possible CPE with respect to the following factors: • Factor 1.Whether the cumulative potential effect is significant. This means that the RGU should decide if the sum total of the contributions from all the sources is significant. If the total impact is not significant,then the contribution from the project under review cannot be significant. • Factor 2. Whether the contribution from the project is significant when viewed in connection with other contributions to the cumulative potential effect. If consideration of the first factor results in a determination that the sum total impact is significant,then the RGU must look to the significance of the contribution from the project under review,viewed in connection with the contributions from other sources. • Factor 3. The degree to which the project complies with approved mitigation measures specifically designed to address the cumulative potential effect. This factor only applies if some governmental unit(or units)has previously developed and put into effect a plan or program of some sort whose purpose is to specifically mitigate the type of cumulative effect under consideration. Comprehensive land use or water plans can contain recommendations that are intended to be applied broadly for the Environmental Quality Board EAW Guidelines—October 2013 44