FAQs

If you submitted feedback in the 2023 continuous improvement process, thank you so much for your contribution! We know that submittals take time and energy, so we have kept track of all ideas submitted in the past. You can view a document of collated previous submittals on the CI Environmental Review webpage. This list of ideas is compiled from many sources, and ideas have been rephrased to facilitate scoring them alongside the anticipated 2026 submittals. If you submitted an idea in 2023 and you are happy with how it appears on the list, you do not need to re-submit. But, we encourage you to consider re-submitting an idea if you want to provide more information or justification. There are two reasons to consider re-submitting: 1) We have updated the format of the survey and we are asking for more context than you may have provided in the past, and 2) you now have the benefit of seeing the 'criteria of an effective program' and identifying how your idea might relate to those criteria. 

EQB staff will group likeminded ideas and assess them using the "effectiveness matrix" mentioned in continuous improvement step 3. This matrix was designed based on public engagement and the environmental review rule objectives. EQB staff determine if an idea might improve any of the criteria of program effectiveness- i.e. does your idea improve scientific integrity, environmental protection, measurability, inclusivity, user-friendliness, accessibility, consistency, quality assurance, or accountability? EQB staff will recommend ideas for annual workplans for Board consideration. 

The continuous improvement (CI) effort is a way for EQB to systematically track and choose projects that will help make our program effective for all Minnesotans. Asking broadly for ideas in this engagement portal is part of CI Step 1.

Continuous improvement Steps:

1. EQB staff solicit ideas for program improvements.  
2. EQB staff review the scope of the improvements and adjust for step 3.  
3. EQB staff evaluate and score improvements using a program effectiveness matrix.  
4. EQB staff plan for implementation of improvements.  
5. ERIS completes review of implementation planning.  
6. Board completes review and directs staff to implement selected projects.

CI ideas EQB received in the past originated mostly from the following sources:

• CI Report: Building and approval of the continuous improvement process for environmental review; Publication of a final report (2023) that includes accounting of all historical recommendations. Previously submitted CI ideas and their “effectiveness” scores can be viewed in the 2023 CI Final Report, Appendix F, page 81. 
• Mandatory Category Report: Mandatory category report and outreach (2024) documented improvements that could be made to the mandatory categories, specifically.
• Ongoing technical assistance: EQB staff experience, technical assistance calls, and conversations with other governmental units and Tribes.

The state of Minnesota's environmental review program provides information about the potential environmental effects of certain proposed projects. The board oversees the program, including:

• Monitoring the effectiveness of the program
• Making program improvements (to the rules, guidance, procedures, etc.)
• Directing staff to implement rule-related administrative tasks

Effectiveness is based on 9 criteria, designed based on the objectives set out in rules, past recommendations, and public feedback. You can ask yourself if your idea supports any of the 9 effectiveness criteria: scientific integrity, environmental protection, measurability, inclusivity, user-friendliness, accessibility, consistency, quality assurance, and accountability. 

Ideas receive a score based on these nine criteria which, altogether, make up the "effectiveness matrix". This assessment is considered by the board in determining workplan priorities, but it is not the only factor used in decision-making.

The idea of “efficiency” or “streamlining” did come up occasionally in feedback when we created the criteria in 2023. In most cases, it was in reference to efficient permitting, which the environmental review program cannot control. EQB can only improve the ease and efficiency of environmental review and not the permitting of projects. Environmental review is inherently meant to be efficient and expedite permitting by providing information necessary for completing permits. RGUs have discretion to determine which topics they want to address in their review, so in this way, they may already exercise discretion to streamline how they do their own reviews. Opportunities for streamlining the ER program happen in the way that environmental review documents interact with permitting documents, but not necessarily in the design of the program. While the argument could be made that any of the criteria can increase efficiency, the idea of efficiency is added specifically under the definition of user-friendliness. This was decided because if we can ensure an easy-to-use processes, then we will see consistent and well-done reviews.