Cited by

II On appeal from an RGU’s decision about whether an EIS is statutorily required, appellate courts “evaluate whether the RGU took a ‘hard look’ at the salient issues, but defer to the RGU’s decision unless the decision reflects an error of law, is arbitrary and capricious, or is unsupported by substantial evidence.” (citing CARD, d at 832).

ion is arbitrary and capricious if it is “based on factors that the legislature did not intend”; “entirely fails to address an important aspect of the problem”; “offers an explanation that is counter to the evidence”; or is “so implausible that it could not be explained as a difference in view or the result of the RGU’s decision- making expertise.”

A party challenging an RGU’s decision bears “the burden of proving that its findings are unsupported by the evidence as a whole.”

if it “(1) is based on factors that the legislature did not intend for the RGU to consider; (2) entirely fails to address an important aspect of the problem; (3) offers an explanation that is counter to the evidence; or (4) is so implausible that it could not be explained as a difference in view or the result of the RGU’s decision-making expertise.”

5 evidence,” or is “so implausible that it could not be explained as a difference in view or the result of the RGU’s decision-making expertise.”

The party challenging the DNR’s decision “has the burden of proving that [the DNR’s] findings are unsupported by the evidence as a whole.” Friends of Twin Lakes v. City of Roseville

(citing CARD, d at 832).

dered arbitrary and capricious if it is “based on factors that the legislature did not intend”; “entirely fails to address an important aspect of the problem ”; “offers an explanation that is counter to the evidence” ; or is “so implausible that it could not be explained as a difference in view or the result of the RGU’s decision -making expertise.” d 378, 381 (Minn. App. 2009); see also Trout Unlimited, Inc. v. Minn. Dep’t of Agric., (Minn. App. 4 CAMP includes relators Michael Guentzel and Eri

Rela tor has the burden on appeal “of proving that [the agency’s] findings are unsupport ed by the evidence as a whole.” Friends of Twin Lakes v. City of Roseville , (Mi nn.

“When an RGU considers mitigation measures as offsetting the potential for significant environmental effects under Minn. R. 4410.1700, it may reasonably do so only if those measures are specific, targeted, and are certain to be able to mitigate the environmental effects.”

–82 (Minn. App. 2009) (stating that appellant had “not met its burden of proving that respondent’s decision was unsupported by substantial evidence” where it failed to point out “evidence to the contrary”).

See Friends of Twin Lakes v. City of Roseville , (stating caselaw supports the use of “regulatory oversight as a means of preventing significant environmental effects”).

We evaluate “whether the RGU took a hard look at the salient issues, but defer to the RGU’s decision unless the decision reflects an error of law, is arbitrary and capricious, or is unsupported by substantial evidence.” *76 (quotation omitted).