EQB votes to begin expedited rulemaking to change EIS scoping procedures
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Sign Up Free
Summary
The Environmental Quality Board approved a resolution to proceed with exempt rulemaking to implement 2025 legislative changes that let a scoping document other than an EAW be used for mandatory EISs and impose a 280-business-day scoping deadline; staff said the ALJ already approved the energy-infrastructure rule without changes.
The Environmental Quality Board voted unanimously on Feb. 18 to direct staff to begin an expedited, exempt rulemaking process to amend how environmental impact statement (EIS) scoping is done for projects the legislature designated as mandatory EISs.
Executive Director Katherine Neuschler told the board the changes respond to the 2025 legislative directive and replace the current requirement that an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) must be used to scope mandatory EISs. "The ALJ reviewed and approved the rule without any changes," Neuschler said, noting staff expect the final step to be publication in the State Register and an effective date likely in early March.
The proposed amendments add a definition of a "scoping document," clarify that the scoping document may be an EAW or a different document, and revise process steps in Minnesota Rule part 44.10.2100 so an EAW is not required when it is known from the outset that an EIS will be prepared. Staff also plan to incorporate the legislature's 280-business-day deadline for completing the scoping process after publication of a scoping‑document notice of availability.
Neuschler emphasized that the substantive steps of scoping — preparing and circulating a scoping document and draft scoping decision, holding public participation, and including required scoping‑decision contents such as issues to be addressed, permits, alternatives and necessary studies — remain unchanged. She described the board action as limited to adopting the exempt procedural path the legislature prescribed.
During public questions, a virtual commenter asked whether there will be public review before final adoption and what the alternative scoping document must contain. Neuschler and staff explained that the exempt process includes a five-business-day public comment window after notice of submission to the Court of Administrative Hearings, and that the content of a scoping document will generally be set by the responsible government unit (RGU) but must include the information needed to support the scoping decision.
Board members stressed the importance of guidance and consistency for RGUs if the EAW is no longer required as the scoping template; Neuschler agreed to incorporate comments into staff work plans as the rulemaking proceeds.
Member Dan Katzenberger moved the resolution and Member Nelson seconded. A roll-call tally recorded 12 ayes and the resolution passed, authorizing staff to file the notice of submission and proceed with the exempt rulemaking process.