EQB tables tribal coordination and consultation policy to seek further tribal input

The Environmental Quality Board on April 17 heard a presentation on a draft tribal coordination and consultation policy but chose not to adopt it, tabling the resolution to allow further tribal review.

Kayla Walsh, EQB’s environmental review program administrator and point of contact for tribal relations, said the draft formalizes EQB’s commitments to share information early, offer consultations at least annually, and document how tribal input informed decision-making. “EQB really commits us to offering to meet at least annually with tribal nations and their leadership to identify priority issues for coordination or consultation,” Walsh said.

Walsh told the board the draft incorporates feedback from agency liaisons, tribal environmental committees, MnTEC and tribal leadership and that definitions are drawn from Minnesota Statute 10.65, which encourages—though does not require—such policies. Executive Director Catherine Neuschler said staff met with liaisons and tribal groups and that the policy is intended as a living document to be updated as EQB learns from implementation.

Board members asked for clarification about changes from the prior draft and urged more one-on-one outreach. Member Katzenberger asked whether recent edits were mainly cosmetic; Walsh said the principal substantive change was explicit language stating that EQB itself recognizes tribal sovereignty in alignment with statute. Member Sue Bento urged that public board members be given access to tribal relations training, calling it “one of the greatest courses I’ve taken.”

Chair Nancy Daubenberger said she had contacted MIAC Executive Director Shannon Keshek to offer placing the draft on a forthcoming MIAC executive board agenda. To allow that outreach, Commissioner Peterson moved to table the resolution to adopt the policy; Commissioner Kessler seconded the motion and the board voted to table.

The policy remains in draft form for further tribal consultation and staff follow-up. The board signaled interest in continuing to refine the language and outreach approach before bringing any adoption resolution back for a vote.