What is a responsible government unit required to do when deciding whether an environmental impact statement is necessary? Iron Rangers Ridge Action v. Iron Range Resources and Rehabilitation Board and St. Louis County, 531 N.W.2d 874 (Minn.App. 1995) The St. Louis County Planning Commission issued a draft environmental assessment worksheet (EAW) in connection with the proposed construction of a golf course. Following public hearings, the county determined that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was unnecessary, although they did require four environmental studies before they would issue a conditional use permit. A citizen's group brought suit against the development project sponsor (Iron Range Resources and Rehabilitation Board (or IRRRB)) and St. Louis County. The citizen's group argued that the county's finding that an EIS was unnecessary was in error and that the county used the four environmental studies as a subterfuge to avoid an EIS. The plaintiffs also alleged that the county failed to pursue alternative project sites. First the court established the standard of review for examining EAW determinations. The court held that judicial review of an RGU's determinations that a project did not have "potential for significant environmental effects" under the Minnesota Environmental Protection Act (MEPA) is limited to whether its determinations were "unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious." Carl Bolander and Sons v. City of Minneapolis, 502 N.W.2d 203, 207 (Minn. 1993). In applying the standard, the court looks to whether the government unit's decision is "based on substantial evidence in the record." Swanson v. City of Bloomington, 421 N.W.2d 307, 313 (Minn. 1988). In this case, the court ruled that "the comprehensive information in the EAW, the agency and public comments, and the extended public hearings" were sufficient evidence that the county's decision was neither unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious. Likewise, the court used the same evidence to conclude that the four environmental studies mandated by the county were likewise supported by the "substantial evidence" in the record. Finally, the court decided that the county need not consider alternative sites where the threshold of "significant effects" required to trigger an EIS is not crossed. Minn.Stat. § 116D.04 subd. 6 (1992) (see also State v. Hennepin, 495 N.W.2d 416, 426 (Minn. 1993)).
|
||
 |
||