The guidance below is designed to help environmental review practitioners and project proposers implement environmental review processes more effectively and efficiently. Please contact EQB Staff with any questions at Env.Review@state.mn.us or 651-757-2873. Below, please find documents frequently downloaded for the EAW process.
Page contents
Getting started
The environmental assessment worksheet (EAW) is a document designed to lay out the basic facts of a proposed project to determine if it has potential for significant environmental effects and therefore requires an environmental impact statement (EIS). In addition to the legal purpose of the EAW in determining the need for an EIS, the EAW provides information for permits before they are approved, informs the public of the project, and identifies ways to protect the environment. The EAW is not meant to approve or deny a project, but act as a source of information to guide other approvals and permitting decisions. The EAW is completed by the designated responsible governmental unit (RGU) according to Minnesota Rules 4410.0500.
The current official form must be used for all EAWs, unless an alternative form is approved in advance by the EQB chair, or a federal Environmental Assessment is prepared for the same project and addresses all questions on the EAW form that would relate to the project. The EQB develops and revises the official EAW form as necessary.
When is an EAW necessary?
Mandatory environmental review
Environmental review rules name criteria that make EAWs mandatory for many different types of projects. Projects that meet or exceed the thresholds described in Minnesota Rules 4410.4300 are required to complete an EAW. An EIS is required if a project meets or exceeds the thresholds described in Minnesota Rules 4410.4400. When determining if a project meets a mandatory environmental review category threshold, it is important to keep in mind any connected actions, phased actions, or project expansions within the last three years that cumulatively may trigger mandatory environmental review.
Discretionary environmental review
Projects that do not require a mandatory environmental review (but are not exempt from review) can still go through the EAW process according to Minnesota Rules 4410.1000, Subpart 3. A government unit with approval authority over a project can order a discretionary EAW if it determines that the project may have the potential for significant environmental effects. A discretionary EAW can be particularly appropriate for projects with some possibility of significant adverse environmental impacts or the perception of such. A discretionary EAW can help the RGU identify the adverse environmental impacts of a project and their severity. Additionally, discretionary environmental review may be ordered by a RGU in response to a petition or if the project proposer wishes to initiate environmental review to determine if the project may have the potential for significant environmental impacts.
Exemptions
Some projects of a specific size, location, and nature are exempt from the environmental review process as indicated in Minnesota Rules 4410.4600. If a project is identified as exempt, then it is not required to go through environmental review in order to move forward.
How is the RGU determined?
Minnesota Rules Chapter 4410.0500 assign the responsibility of preparing environmental review documents to specific units of government. The specific unit of government determined to have responsibility for the EAW preparation is called the responsible governmental unit or RGU. Commonly, the RGU is the unit with the greatest responsibility for approving or supervising the project as a whole. For projects that exceed a threshold which requires a mandatory EAW, the rules that define these categories also identify the designated RGU. For projects where a petition for an EAW was submitted to EQB, the EQB chair or staff designee assigns the RGU consistent with the Rules. If a unit of government orders an EAW or responds to an EAW request of the project proposer, that unit is the RGU. A state agency is always the RGU for projects it will conduct.
The EAW process
The EAW process is outlined in Minnesota Rules 4410.1000 – 1700
- Project development
- The EAW is prepared early in the project development process. The designated RGU is responsible for preparing the EAW based on data submitted by the project proposer.
- Public participation
- A comment period and the option for an RGU to host a public meeting helps gather additional information.
- Determining the need for an EIS
- Once the EAW process is completed, the RGU decides on the need for an EIS.
Minnesota Rules 4410.1700, Subpart 1 specifies that a positive EIS decision (meaning an EIS is needed) shall be made for projects that “have the potential for significant environmental effects.” If a project does not have the potential for significant environmental effects, then the RGU determines no EIS is needed and the project can move forward.
Steps to complete an EAW
- Communication between project proposer and RGU in preparation for filing EAW data submission (usually in conjunction with discussions about permit needs).
- Retain a consultant (if needed); the RGU can start by reviewing the Environmental Review and Technical Services master contract.
- Proposer submits completed data portions of the EAW to the RGU.
- The RGU reviews data submittal for completeness (within 30 calendar days – extendable with agreement of proposer).
- If incomplete, the RGU returns the data submittal for corrections (EAW process steps 3 & 4 repeat).
- If the RGU decides the data submittal is complete, the RGU notifies the project proposer within 5 business days of that decision.
- The RGU prepares and approves the EAW for public comment (within 30 calendar days of notice of completeness sent to proposer).
- The RGU submits notice to EQB for publication in the EQB Monitor and distributes the EAW to persons listed on the official EQB distribution list and Tribal notification list (within five business days of approval of an EAW).
- The RGU publishes a press release/notice about the EAW in at least one newspaper of general circulation in the project area or a designated official publication website.
- Within five business days of submission of notice to EQB, the RGU shall provide a press release, containing the notice of availability of the EAW for public review, to at least one newspaper of general circulation within the area where the project is proposed.
- The notice appears in the EQB Monitor and are typically published the following week they are received. Publication dates can be found on the EQB Monitor webpage. Public comment starts the day after the EAW is published.
- Optional: The RGU may hold public meeting(s) to receive comments; if a meeting will be held, information regarding the meeting (such as date, time, and location) should be submitted to the EQB for inclusion in a Monitor notice and should also be included in the press release. This should occur within the 30 calendar day comment period.
- Comment period ends (30 calendar days after the date the project is published in the Monitor).
- The RGU prepares written responses to substantive and timely comments and compiles the documents needed to support their decision (the compiled documents are referred to as the Record of Decision/Findings of Facts and Responses to Comments documents).
- The RGU makes an EIS need decision taking into consideration the criteria listed in rule Minnesota Rules 4410.1700 subp. 7 (within 30 calendar days after the comment period ends). The RGU may postpone the decision longer if agreed to by the project proposer.
- The RGU distributes a notice of the EIS need decision (within 5 business days to the EAW distribution list and anyone else who submitted timely and substantive comments; commenters must receive a copy of the response to their comments). EQB highly recommends that all internal processes (including potential local or internal appeals processes) are completed at the RGU’s discretion prior to making a need determination and submitting the decision to the EQB Monitor.
- The EQB publishes notice of the EIS need decision in the EQB Monitor. Publication at this stage in the process in the EQB Monitor indicates a final decision has been made. Once a decision has been published, an appeal of the decision can only happen through the court of appeals and is limited to the date of publication and the 30 calendar days thereafter.
Submitting data for the EAW 
Prior to initiating work on an EAW, project proposers are advised to contact the appropriate RGU for guidance. RGUs may have specific requirements for individual EAW items, or for specific categories of projects. The project proposer is required to submit the EAW’s completed data portions to the RGU to initiate EAW preparation. The RGU must promptly review the proposer’s submittal and return the submittal to the proposer if it is found to be incomplete. If the submittal is complete, the RGU must notify the proposer in writing within five business days.
Proposers are obligated to supply any relevant information to which they have reasonable access. The proposer usually submits the data portions on a copy of the EAW form. In preparing the submittal the proposer should refrain from offering conclusions. Rather, it should focus on supplying data. The proposer should discuss EAW content requirements with RGU staff before beginning work on the EAW data submittal to expedite the process.
RGU responsibilities
EAW costs
While the RGU prepares the EAW, project proposers must supply the RGU with any relevant data or information they possess or have reasonable access to. Upon receipt, the RGU reviews the submitted information for completeness. The RGU may hire consultants to prepare all or part of the EAW. If the RGU lacks the necessary expertise on staff, it can consider hiring a consultant to assist with reviewing information and preparing the EAW. Even though environmental review statutes don't address charging for EAW costs, some local governments have enacted ordinances to recoup these expenses. If the RGU has adopted such ordinances, it can charge the costs to the proposer. Local governments that haven't yet adopted these ordinances may want to consider doing so in advance.
EAW preparation
The RGU is legally responsible for the accuracy and completeness of the information presented in the EAW. After the RGU notifies the proposer that the submittal is complete, the RGU has 30 calendar days to add additional information, revise the text as necessary and approve the EAW for public distribution. Even if the proposer’s data submittal seems complete and accurate, the RGU must exercise independent judgment about the information. The RGU must be in charge of any conclusions that discuss the significance of impacts or the adequacy of mitigation. The risk involved is that if the RGU fails to exercise independent review of the proposer’s information, it could lose a legal challenge and have to repeat the EAW process.
The EQB statutes define the EAW as “a brief document which is designed to set out the basic facts necessary to determine whether an EIS is required for a proposed action” (Minnesota Statutes, section 116D.04, subdivision 1a). Several considerations should be taken into account in preparing an EAW and deciding how much information should be included:
- Information that reduces uncertainties about impacts and their significance can belong in an EAW. Any information that helps clarify the likelihood or level of significance of a potential impact is useful in an EAW because it helps the RGU make a better determination about the need for an EIS. It could be related to the nature of the potential impact, its likelihood, or how the impact could be mitigated.
- Incomplete information in the EAW may lead to a delay in the EIS need decision. The EQB rules provide that if important information is deemed missing in the EAW record, the RGU may postpone the decision. Failure to include relevant information in the EAW may lead to unnecessary delays.
The 30-day comment period and redistribution
Once the RGU has prepared, reviewed, and approved the EAW form for distribution, it must be available for public comment for at least 30 calendar days. The RGU must submit a signed, completed EAW using the EQB Monitor online submittal service; this publishes a notice of the EAW’s availability in the EQB Monitor and enters it into the EQB environmental review database. The EQB Monitor is electronically distributed and anyone can receive the EQB Monitor via email by signing up through govDelivery. Day one of the public comment period begins on the day after the date the EQB Monitor is published via email, containing the EAW notice. Information on public meeting details is also entered into the Monitor.
Within five business days after the RGU approves the EAW, the RGU must distribute the EAW to EQB staff (for the EQB Monitor), and the EQB’s official distribution list. It is recommended that the EAW be sent to the Tribal notification list as well.
EAWs are published on the EQB website but must also meet two other requirements for publishing. The first requirement is that a notice be published in a local newspaper in the geographic area of the project or on a designated official publication website. The notice may be distributed in electronic form, such as a .pdf file that is emailed or posted on the RGU website at a link provided, however, anyone entitled to receive an EAW must be given a paper copy upon request. The second requirement is the RGU will provide a press release that includes the name and location of the project, a brief description of the project, the location at which copies of the EAW are available for review, the date the comment period expires, and the procedures for commenting. The RGU shall publish legal notice or advertisement of the availability of the EAW if the proposer requests and agrees to pay for the notice or advertisement.
The RGU should keep a record documenting that it complied with the requirement of distributing and publishing the press release and the published notice. Anyone who wishes may review and comment on the EAW during the comment period. This can be done electronically. The rules suggest that comments address: the accuracy and completeness of the information, potential impacts that may warrant further investigation before the project is commenced and the need for an EIS on the project.
All substantive comments received during the comment period must be given a written response by the RGU. The number of comment letters received by the RGU varies widely. If the project is controversial and the RGU anticipates many public letters, it may be advantageous to hold a public meeting to hear comments and to answer the public’s questions.
Responding to comments
As part of the process of determining if an EIS will be needed, the RGU must respond in writing to all substantive comments received during the comment period. Late comments may be responded to if the RGU chooses to do so. Everyone that submitted timely and substantive comments must be sent the RGU’s response to comments.
Making an EIS needs decision
The purpose of the EAW, comments, and comment responses is to provide the record on which the RGU can base a decision about whether an EIS needs to be prepared for a project. Rule says, “An EIS shall be ordered for projects that have the potential for significant environmental effects” (Minnesota Rules 4410.1700, subpart 1). In deciding whether a project has the potential for significant environmental effects, the RGU “shall compare the impacts that may reasonably be expected to occur from the project with the criteria in this rule,” considering the following factors (Minnesota Rules 4410.1700, subparts 6 and 7):
- Type, extent, and reversibility of environmental effects;
- Cumulative potential effects;
- The extent to which environmental effects are subject to mitigation by ongoing public regulatory authority provided that the RGU may rely only on mitigation measures that are specific and can reasonably be expected to be effective; and
- The extent to which environmental effects can be anticipated and controlled as a result of other available environmental studies undertaken by public agencies or the project proposer, including other environmental impact statements.
EIS decision
Minnesota rules require most RGUs to make a decision on the need for an EIS no later than 30 calendar days after the comment period ends. This time frame applies to all RGUs where the decision is made by a council or board that only meets occasionally. If the decision will be made by a single individual such as an agency commissioner, then the decision must be made within 15 business days, and a 15 business day extension may be requested from the EQB chair.
Delayed decision
The RGU may postpone its decision on the need for an EIS for up to 30 additional calendar days if it determines that “information necessary to a reasoned decision about the potential for, or significance of, one or more possible environmental impacts is lacking, but could be reasonably obtained” (Minnesota Rules 4410.1700, subpart 2a). This provision is intended to provide for a postponement only on the basis of important missing information that bears on the question of potential for significant environmental impacts. If the missing information is not critical to the EIS need decision in the opinion of the RGU, the decision should not be delayed. In its record of decision, the RGU can describe the information and how it will be obtained and used. If the project proposer agrees, an RGU can extend the postponement of a decision beyond the 30 days stated in the rules. One such situation may be if the project description information is so incomplete or inaccurate that reviewers are not given a fair chance to review the true project.
Maintaining records
The rules also require the RGU to document how it reached a decision: “The RGU shall maintain a record, including specific findings of fact, supporting its decision. The record must include specific responses to all substantive and timely comments on the EAW. This record shall either be a separately prepared document or contained within the records of the governmental unit” (Minnesota Rules 4410.1700, subpart 4). For most RGUs, the staff or a consultant will draft a record of decision document for consideration and possible adoption by the council or board. This document may be in the form of a resolution, or it may be adopted by a resolution. Other RGUs may satisfy the requirements for a decision record through detailed meeting minutes that reflect discussion of the relevant information from the EAW, comments and responses about impacts, mitigation, and regulatory oversight. The record of decision should not rely on the absence of adverse comments to justify a decision not to order an EIS. The RGU is obligated to examine the facts, consider the criteria, and draw its own conclusions about the significance of potential environmental effects. It is the purpose of the record of decision to document that the RGU has completed the process as directed by rule and fulfilled this obligation.
EAW appeal process
The decision of the RGU whether to prepare an EIS can be appealed in the State Court of Appeals. The appeal must be filed within 30 calendar days of the date the final decision is published in the EQB Monitor. The EQB has no jurisdiction to review an RGU’s decision.
Alternative forms
The rules authorize the automatic substitution of a federal Environmental Assessment in place of the EAW form as long as the federal assessment addresses all the environmental effects identified by the EAW form. This avoids the need for two different review documents for projects that require both a state EAW and federal National Environmental Policy Act review. NOTE: Only the document can be substituted – all procedural aspects of the state EAW process must still be followed.
EQB may approve an alternative EAW form per Minnesota Rule 4410.1300 which says, “The EQB chair may approve the use of an alternative EAW form if an RGU demonstrates the alternative form will better accommodate the RGU's function or better address a particular type of project and the alternative form will provide more complete, more accurate, or more relevant information.”
Animal feedlots
A special customized EAW form that applies only to animal feedlots was approved in 2000 and replaced with a new form in December 2024. This customized form may be filled out in preparing feedlot EAWs (Minnesota Rule 4410.4300 subp. 29). Questions can be directed to EQB staff or the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency is the RGU for most animal feedlot projects and the author of the feedlot form.
To access the form and learn more, please visit our animal feedlots webpage.
Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR)
Alternative Urban Areawide Reviews are designed to look at the cumulative impacts of anticipated development scenarios within a given geographic area that also has a comprehensive plan. The AUAR is a planning tool that local governments can use to understand how different development scenarios for projects that fall into these categories, residential, commercial, light industrial and associated infrastructure, will affect the environment of their community. It is a way of performing an environmental analysis in advance, before major development occurs in an area, and to use the information to guide local planning and zoning decisions. RGUs can find guidance about the process on our AUAR webpage.
Resources
Provides a brief overview of the process for completing an EAW
EAW Guidelines: Preparing Environmental Assessment Worksheets
A guide prepared for governmental units and project proposers on how to complete the EAW form (2013)
2010 Guide to Minnesota Environmental Review Rules
This guidance document is meant to support an RGU as they develop climate related information on the EAW form.
ER 101 - for Local Governments
A quick guide to the environmental review process.
Working with Consultants: A Guide for Local Governments
Information and tips for local governments about hiring and working with consultants to help prepare environmental review documents.
Working with Consultants: A Guide for Project Proposers
Information and tips for project proposers about hiring and working with consultants to prepare environmental review data submittals.
Please note, the information provided on this webpage is provided as a resource; the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) has no jurisdiction over local government planning and community development. Guidance documents and webpages are not intended to be a substitute for Minnesota Rules 4410, they are designed to assist in the implementation of the environmental review process. The guidance does not alter the rules or change their meaning; if any inconsistencies arise between these documents and the rules, the rules take precedence.