In the Matter of the Determination of Need for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the Border to Border Touring Route.

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by
Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A21-0631

In the Matter of the Determination of Need for an
Environmental Assessment Worksheet for
the Border to Border Touring Route.

Filed March 7, 2022
Affirmed
Smith, Tracy M., Judge

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources

Marshall H. Tanick, David Robbins, Meyer Njus Tanick, PA, Minneapolis, Minnesota; and

James P. Peters, Law Offices of James P. Peters, PLLC, Glenwood, Minnesota (for relators
Citizens for Sustainable Off-Roading, et al.)

Keith Ellison, Attorney General, J. Qortney McLeod, Assistant Attorney General, St. Paul,
Minnesota (for respondent Minnesota Department of Natural Resources)

David J. Zoll, Kristen G. Marttila, Rachel A. Kitze Collins, Lockridge Grindal Nauen
P.L.L.P., Minneapolis, Minnesota (for amicus curiae Sierra Club North Star Chapter)

Considered and decided by Gaïtas, Presid ing Judge; Smith, Tracy M., Judge; and
Slieter, Judge.
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
SMITH, TRACY M., Judge
In this certiorari appeal, relators, a group of individuals and organizations, challenge
a decision by respondent Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) denying their
petition to prepare an environmental-assessment worksheet (EAW) for a proposed project
that maps existing backroads ac ross northern Minnesota into wh at is called the Border to
2
Border Touring Route (the project). Relators assert that the DNR’s decision is arbitrary,
capricious, unsupported by substantial evidence, and contrary to law. We affirm.
FACTS
In 2015, the Minnesota legislature approp riated $200,000 to the DNR to plan or
designate new off-road-vehicle touring routes in collaboration with the Minnesota 4-Wheel
Drive Association. Pursuant to this ap propriation, the DNR, the 4-Wheel Drive
Association, and the National Off-Highway Vehicle Conservation Council (NOHVCC)
worked on designating a new touring route.
The project emerged from that collaboration. The project designates 764.6 miles of
existing unpaved roads to creat e a new off-highway-vehicle route stretching from Lake
Superior to the North Dakota border. The project requires no new construction or
immediate road improvements. Instead, the DNR will provide maps, signage, and roadside
markers to indicate the designated route. The roads that will make up the project are already
open for public use by highway-licensed vehicles, and the project is meant for use only by
high-clearance highway-licensed vehicles. ATVs and motorcycles will not be permitted on
the route. The route will be open only during part of the year.
To help plan and design the project, the DNR contracted with NOHVCC and the
consulting company UP!. The DNR also engage d with several agencies and interested
communities to determine the project’s final route. Over two years, the DNR held listening
sessions with impacted communities. During that time, the project garnered opposition
from some counties, an Indian tribe, inte rest groups, and legislators. Based on the
3
opposition and the feedback re ceived during the listening sessions, the DNR adjusted the
project’s route several times.
The DNR struggled to estimate the increas e in traffic along the project’s route
because there was not baseline traffic data for all the roads included in the project. Based
on the data available for certain roadways in cluded in the project as well as studies of
similar projects, the DNR estimated that the project will cause an increase in traffic ranging
from 5 to 15 more vehicles per week to a few thousand more vehicles per year. This range
reflects the DNR’s expectation that some part s of the project will be more popular than
others.
In light of the uncertainty regarding increased traffic, the DNR committed to several
mitigation and monitoring programs. Firs t, when possible, the DNR chose higher
objective-maintenance-level ro ads, which do not require si gnificant maintenance to
support additional traffic. Second, DNR officials will patrol the project in its first years of
operation to ensure compliance with the route designation and applicable laws. Third, the
DNR contracted with UP! to develop a mitigation plan to combat noncompliance. Finally,
the DNR will maintain a fund to help address maintenance requirements.
The DNR’s Environmental Review Unit determ ined that the project is not subject
to a mandatory EAW. After that determina tion, relators petitioned for a discretionary
EAW. The petition raised a number of enviro nmental concerns in connection with the
project, including water pollution, air pollu tion, fire damage, impacts to endangered
species, spread of invasive species, noise po llution, and impacts to existing animals and
plants. The DNR denied the petition. In its re cord of decision, the DNR determined that
4
any environmental impact would be minimal and could be mitigated by its to-be-developed
management plan.
Relators appeal.
DECISION
Relators argue that the DNR’s decision to deny their petition and not prepare an
EAW for the project was arbitrary and capricious, unsupported by the substantial evidence,
and contrary to law.
The preparation of an EAW may be required if a petition, signed by more than 100
citizens, establishes that, becau se of the nature or location of a project, “there may be
potential for significant environmental effects.” Minn. Stat. § 116D.04, subd. 2a(e) (2020);
see also Minn. R. 4410.1100 (2021) (governing the petition process). “A person aggrieved
by a final decision on the need for an envir onmental assessment worksheet . . . is entitled
to judicial review of the decision.” Minn. Stat. § 116D.04, subd. 10 (2020). 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 , 764
N.W.2d 378, 381 (Minn. App. 2009). When reviewing agency action, an appellate court’s
role is “to determine whether the agency has taken a ‘hard look’ at the problems involved,
and whether it has ‘genuinely engaged in reasoned decision-making.’” Citizens Advocating
Responsible Dev. v. Kandiyohi Cnty. Bd. of Comm’rs, 713 N.W.2d 817, 832 (Minn. 2006)
(CARD) (quoting Rsrv. Mining Co. v. Herbst, 256 N.W.2d 808, 825 (Minn. 1977)).
We presume agency decisions are correct and, recognizing agencies’ expertise and
special knowledge in their fiel ds, defer to those decisions. Minn. Ctr. for Env’t Advoc. v.
5
Minn. Pollution Control Agency, 644 N.W.2d 457, 463 (Mi nn. 2002) (quotation omitted)
(citing Minn. Stat. § 14.69 (2000)). “A determ ination whether signif icant environmental
effects result from [a] project is primarily fa ctual and necessarily requires application of
the agency’s technical knowledge and expertise to the facts presented.” Id. at 464.
However, we do not defer to the DNR’s decision if it “reflect[s] an error of law, the findings
are arbitrary and capricious, or the findings are unsupported by substantial evidence.”
CARD, 713 N.W.2d at 832; see also Minn. Stat. § 14.69 (2020).
A decision 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 re sult of the DNR’s decision-making expertise.
Friends of Twin Lakes, 764 N.W.2d at 381. A decision is supported by substantial evidence
if it is based on relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
support a conclusion. CARD, 713 N.W.2d at 832. We will affirm an agency’s reasoned
decision even if we might have reached a different result if acting as the factfinder. White
v. Minn. Dep’t of Nat. Res., 567 N.W.2d 724, 730 (Minn. App. 1997), rev. denied (Minn.
Oct. 31, 1997).
The DNR, when determining whether a petition warrants a di scretionary EAW,
reviews whether the petition su fficiently sets forth “mater ial evidence” showing the
project’s “potential for significant enviro nmental effects.” Minn. Stat. § 116D.04,
subd. 2a(e); see also Minn. R. 4410.1100. “Material evidence” is admissible evidence that
is “relevant and consequential to whether the project may have the potential for significant
6
environmental effects.” Watab Twp. Citizen All. v. Benton Cnty. Bd. of Comm’rs , 728
N.W.2d 82, 90 (Minn. App. 2007), rev. denied (Minn. May 15, 2007). While relators face
a low burden of proving the potential for sign ificant environmental effects, “[a]llegations
of vague or generalized fears and concerns” are insufficient. Id.; Carl Bolander & Sons Co.
v. City of Minneapolis , 488 N.W.2d 804, 810 (Minn. Ap p. 1992) (classifying an EAW
petitioner’s burden of providin g evidence of significant environmental effects as a
“minimal standard”), aff’d, 502 N.W.2d 203, 207 (Minn. 1993).
In determining whether a petitioner has se t forth material evidence showing the
potential for significant environmental effects, the DNR must consider these factors: (1) the
“type, extent, and reversibility of environmen tal effects”; (2) the “cumulative potential
effects” caused by the project; (3) “the ex tent to which the envi ronmental effects are
subject to mitigation by ongoing public regulatory authority”; and (4) “the extent to which
environmental effects can be anticipated and controlled as a result of other available
environmental studies undertaken by public ag encies or the project proposer.” Minn. R.
4410.1700, subp. 7 (2021); see also Minn. R. 4410.1100, su bp. 6 (stating that the
responsible government unit must consider the factors in rule 4410.1700, subpart 7, when
evaluating a petition for an EAW).
Relators’ arguments on appeal relate to the first three of these factors: (1) the “type,
extent, and reversibility” of the project’s environmental effects; (2) the project’s
cumulative effects; and (3) the DNR’s proposed mitigation plan. We address each in turn.
7
I. The DNR’s determination that the proj ect does not have the potential for
significant environmental effects is not arbitrary and capricious, is based on
substantial evidence, and is not based on an error of law.

Relators argue that the DNR erred in four ways when it determined that the project
does not have the potential for significant environmental effects. First, they argue that the
DNR’s estimate of the increase in traffic ca used by the project is too low. Second, they
argue that the DNR ignored six categories of environmental harm that the project could
cause that relators claimed in their petition. Third, they argue that the DNR erred by
determining that the project would not change the current uses of the existing roads.
Finally, they argue that the DNR erred as a matter of law by not reviewing the project as
part of a phased or connected action.
A. The DNR’s determination that the pr oject will not cause a substantial
increase in vehicle traffic was not arbitrary or capricious and is
supported by the record.

Because the project consists of existing roads and trails, the potential for an increase
in traffic on those roads and trails is cr itical to evaluating the project’s potential
environmental effects.
As noted above, the DNR struggled to estimate the exact traffic increase attributable
to the project. To come to its determination, the DNR relied on articles by scholars, studies
of similar routes by federal agencies, a nd guidance from the Minnesota Department of
Transportation. The DNR re lied on a 2001 study by the economic consulting firm
Economic Development Research Group, which estimated that the traffic increase caused
by the designation of a new scenic byway is between 3.4% and 20%. Based on that study
and estimates from NOHVCC, the DNR told the United States Forest Service (USFS) that
8
segments of the route could experience up to “5-15 extra vehicles per week.” The DNR
also concluded, based on a study of another scenic byway in California, that the increase
in traffic will likely not be consistent acros s the entire route. Based on these studies, the
DNR found that there would be minimal traffic increase and thus any environmental effects
caused by this increase in traffic would be likewise limited.
Relators’ raise four arguments against this determination, but they are unpersuasive.
First, relators argue that the DNR’s estimate of an additional 5 to 15 vehicles per week is
too low. But the DNR’s reasonable conclusi ons and inferences drawn from the evidence
are entitled to judicial deference. See Red Owl Stores, Inc. v. Comm’r of Agric. , 310
N.W.2d 99, 104 (Minn. 1981) (stating that a c ourt’s “judgment concerning inferences to
be drawn from the evidence should not be substituted for that of the agency”).
Second, relators argue that the DNR di d not listen to concerns raised by
collaborating agencies and organizations , leading to an arbitrary decision. See Trout
Unlimited, Inc. v. Mi nn. Dep’t of Agric. , 528 N.W.2d 903, 907- 08 (Minn. App. 1995)
(holding that an agency acted arbitrarily when it ignored the concerns from sister agencies
about the cumulative effects of a proposed project), rev. denied (Minn. Apr. 27, 1995). But
the record shows that the DNR responded to those con cerns. The DNR responded to the
USFS’s concern about increased impact on US FS-maintained roads, explaining that it
would reroute the project around a specific cl ass of USFS-maintained roads in favor of
roads that could handle increased traffic and would require less maintenance. And the DNR
responded to the increased-traffic concerns of the counties, interest groups, and Indian tribe
opposed to the project by rerouting the project outside of their boundaries.
9
Third, relators point to the difference be tween the DNR’s public promotion of the
project and the DNR’s estimation of minimal traffic increases. They argue that the DNR’s
public posturing does not square with its u ltimate estimate that increased traffic will be
minimal across the route. But the fact that th e route will be promoted to enthusiasts does
not mean that DNR’s reliance on studies and other sources of information to estimate actual
traffic increase was unreasonable.
Finally, relators argue that the DNR’s re view failed to consider the project’s
“capacity.” To make this ar gument, relators rely on Berne Area All. for Quality Living v.
Dodge Cnty. Bd . of Comm’rs , 694 N.W.2d 577 (Minn. App. 2005), rev. denied (Minn.
June 28, 2005). There, we interpreted a stat ute that exempted from environmental review
proposed feedlots with a “capacity of less than 1,000” animals. Id. at 580 (quotation
omitted). We held that, applyi ng the correct meaning of “c apacity,” a feedlot that was
permitted to hold 995 hogs bu t that could physically hold mo re than 1,000 hogs was not
exempt from mandatory environmental review. Id. at 578-79, 581 (interpreting Minn. Stat.
§ 116D.04, subd. 2a(d)(1)(i) (2004)). Berne is inapplicable here. In this case, we are not
interpreting a statutory exemption based on “capacity”; rather, we are evaluating the
agency’s determination that the project do es not pose the potential for significant
environmental effects. That determination depended on whether there will be an increase
in vehicular traffic, and the DNR reasonably found that any increase will be small.
In sum, the DNR’s determination that the project will on ly cause a minor increase
in traffic was not arbitrary and capricious and is supported by the record.
10
B. The DNR’s conclusion that the pr oject will not have significant
environmental effects is supported by the record.

Relators argue that the DNR’s decision th at the project will not have significant
environmental effects is not su pported by substantial evidence . In their petition, relators
pointed to six potential categories of environmental harm that may be caused by the project:
water pollution, air pollution, increased fire ri sk, increased risk to endangered plants and
animals, increased spread of invasive species, and noise pollution. To meet their burden of
proving the potential for significant environmental effects, relators’ petition had to include
material evidence that is “relevant and consequential to whether the project may have the
potential for significant environmental effects.” Watab Twp. Citizen All. , 728 N.W.2d at
90.
As for the spread of invasive species, re lators did present material evidence about
an increase in the spread of invasive species that may be caused by the project. Relators
cited a 2017 study finding that off-highway vehicles are more likely to spread the seeds of
invasive species than other modes of tran sportation like hiking or mountain biking.
Because the project runs along protected forests, relators argue, this unknowing
transportation could have significant environmental effects.
But, while the relators included material evidence, the DNR’s decision rejecting the
invasive-species concern was nevertheless su pported by substantia l evidence. The DNR
explicitly responded to the study presented by re lators in its record of decision. It found
that the risk for invasive species transport was low because “the Proposed Project does not
include any authorizations for new vehicle us es along the route” and the project will be
11
closed during wet seasons when transportation of invasive species is more prevalent. We
defer to the agency’s review of the study and its factual determinations.1 See Minn. Ctr. for
Env’t. Advoc., 644 N.W.2d at 463.
As for the other environmenta l effects that relators raised, we conclude that the
evidence included in relators’ petition is not material to whether the project will cause the
significant environmental effects. Each of relators’ arguments regarding the other six
potential environmental effects would require us to conclude that the DNR erred when
estimating the increase in vehicle use along th e project. Because we conclude that the
DNR’s estimate is not arbitrary or capricious and is supported by the record, the evidence
that relators present is no longer material. Watab Twp. Citizen All. , 728 N.W.2d at 90
(stating that the agency need only consider material evidence th at is “relevant and
consequential” to their determination and not “vague or generalized fears and concerns”).
Thus, the DNR’s determination that rela tors did not show—u nder any of the six
categories—that the project could lead to si gnificant environmental impacts is supported
by the record.

1 Relators also argue that the DNR will be unable to mitigate any spread of invasive species
because the DNR’s fund for eradicating inva sive species is empt y. The DNR collects
revenues, and part of those re venues go into the invasive sp ecies account. The same year
that the fund was empty, the DNR spent mo re than $3 million in invasive-species
prevention and eradication. While there may not be reserves, the DNR has funded annual
invasive-species eradication.
12
C. The DNR’s determination that the project will not change the included
roads’ existing uses is supported by the record.

Relators next argue that the DNR erred by determining that the project would not
change the existing use of the included roads. The DNR found that the project “does not
include new vehicles or new authorizations for use.” Rela tors contend that the DNR’s
finding disregards individuals who might leave the marked trail. But the record shows that
the DNR does recognize that users will stray fro m the marked trail. In its contract with
UP!, the DNR included language requiring UP! to assist the DNR’s enforcement division
in managing the project and developing a mitigation prog ram. This work with UP! will
include estimating funding ne eds, putting in place a sele ction process for “[off-road
vehicle] trail ambassadors,” assisting in trai ning, and “[a]ssist[ing] in development of
responsible messages.” This plan to implement a mitigation program, coupled with the fact
that the roads have already been in use, is enough to support the DNR’s determination that
the project “does not include new vehicles or new authorizations for use” and will therefore
not have significant environmental effects related to off-road use.
D. The DNR did not err by not treating th e project as part of a phased or
connected action.

Relators next argue that the DNR erred by not reviewing the project as part of a
phased or connected action in li ght of supposed future relate d projects. In its record of
decision, the DNR determined that the project was not part of a “phased action” but did not
address whether it was part of a “connected action,” although the DNR considered the
project as a stand-alone project.
13
“Phased actions” must be evaluated by the DNR as a single project. Minn. R.
4410.1000, subp. 4 (applying the phased-action rule to reviews for EAWs), .1700, subp. 9
(requiring consideration of ph ased actions in reviews for the need for environmental-
impact statements) (2021). A “phased action” consists of (1) two or more projects,
(2) undertaken by the same proposer, (3) with environmental effects on the same
geographic area, and (4) which are substantially certain to be undertaken sequentially over
a limited time. Minn. R. 4410.0200, subp. 60 (2021).
Like phased actions, “connected actions” must also be evaluated as a single project
when determining the need for an EAW. Minn. R. 4410.1700, subp. 9. Two projects are
connected actions if the DNR determines that (1) one project directly induces the other,
(2) “one project is a prerequisite for the othe r and the prerequisite project is not justified
by itself,” or (3) neither project can be justified by itself. Minn. R. 4410.0200, subp. 9(c),
.1000, subp. 4 (applying connected-action rule to reviews for EAWs) (2021).
Both phased actions and connected actions require the existence of two or more
projects. Our caselaw defines “project” as “a definite, site-specific, action that
contemplates on-the-ground environmental changes.” Minnesotans for Responsible
Recreation v. Dep’t of Nat. Res., 651 N.W.2d 533, 540 (Minn. App. 2002); see also Minn.
R. 4410.0200, subp. 65 (2021) (defining “project” as “governmental action, the results of
which would cause physical manipulation of th e environment, directly or indirectly”);
Minn. Stat. § 116D.04, subd. 1a (2020) (defining “governm ental action” as “activities,
including projects wholly or partially conduc ted, permitted, assisted, financed, regulated,
or approved by units of government”). The “definiteness” and “maturity” of the plans and
14
proposed location help determin e whether a project exists. In re Env’t Assessment
Worksheet for the 33rd Sale of State Metallic Leases , 838 N.W.2d 212, 217 (Minn. App.
2013), rev. denied (Minn. Nov. 26, 2013).
Relators contend that the DNR’s cont racts with UP! and NOHVCC demonstrate
that there will be two or more projects. The UP! contract requires UP! to “find areas off of
or connecting to the initial route where add itional opportunities are possible.” Similarly,
the NOHVCC contract requires the analysis of a potential “South to North adventure
touring trail” consisting of “existing legal routes” from Crow Wing County to Koochiching
County. The language in both contracts is neithe r specific nor definite enough to classify
as a “project.” Instead, they merely require that the or ganization research potential
expansions. See id. Neither contemplates on-the-groun d environmental changes at this
juncture. Minnesotans for Responsible Recreation, 651 N.W.2d at 540.
Relators also point to public reports and comments about the project. A 2018 DNR
report on the project listed “Concerns for Ph ase II” when classifying public comments
about the project. That same report also disc usses a potential south-to-north route to be
built after the project. The report states that, “[a]lthough the end-product will be 2 distinct
routes, the team will approach th e project as one full route with 2 sections or branches of
the route.” But these comments, like the contract language, do not establish that the DNR
is engaged in two or more pr ojects. Nothing in the record suggests a second route will
imminently occur, has a definite route, or even funding. Thus, relators have not shown that
any of the DNR’s plans for future off-road touring routes constitute a second project, and
15
the agency’s review of the pr oject as a stand-alone project is supported by substantial
evidence.2
II. The DNR adequately considered the project’s cumulative potential effects.
Relators next argue that the DNR did not adequately consider the project’s
cumulative potential effects. When determining whether a project warrants an EAW, one
of the factors that must be considered is the project’s “cumulative potential effects.” Minn.
R. 4410.1700, subp. 7(B); see also Minn. R. 4410.1100, subp. 6. Regulations define
“cumulative potential effects” as
the effect on the environment that results from the incremental
effects of a project in addition to other projects in the
environmentally relevant ar ea that might reasonably be
expected to affect the same environmental resources, including
future projects actually planned or for which a basis of
expectation has been laid, regardless of what person undertakes
the other projects or what jurisdictions have authority over the
projects.

Minn. R. 4410.0200, subp . 11a (2021). This definition incl udes minor projects that take
place over time. Id. If there is an expected future project, then the DNR must “determine
whether a project is reasonably likely to occur and, if so , whether sufficiently detailed
information is available about the project to contribute to the understanding of cumulative

2 Relators observe that the DNR’s decision does not discuss the connected-action rule, and
they assert that, at the very least, the matte r must be remanded fo r further findings. But
relators’ claim that there are two or more pr ojects for purposes of a connected action is
identical to its argument that there are two or more projects for purposes of a phased action.
Since substantial evidence supports the DNR’s determination that there are not two or more
projects for purposes of a phased action, it follows that there are not two or more projects
for purposes of a connected action. Any error by the DNR in not addressing the connected-
action issue therefore does not prejudice relato rs’ substantial rights a nd is not a basis for
reversal. See Minn. Stat. § 14.69.
16
potential effects.” Id. This determination requires re viewing any permit applications,
prepared plans or specifications, zoning laws or local ordinances that suggest the project
will begin, trends that forecast additional projects, and any othe r relevant factors. Id. If
there is a past project, then “it is sufficient to consider the current aggregate effects of past
actions. It is not required to list or analyze the impacts of individual past actions, unless
such information is necessary to describe the cumulative potential effects.” Id.
Relators argue that the DNR disregarded the cumulative effects arising from (1) off-
trail use, (2) the DNR’s plan for a broader off-highway vehicle tra il system, and (3) the
DNR’s failure to address traffic on spur routes extending off the project.
Relators first argue that it is inevitable th at drivers on the project will stray off the
roads, which will increase environmental damage and “social conflict” and will cause law-
enforcement problems. This argument is un persuasive for the sa me reasons described
above regarding relators’ arguments on ex isting use. The DNR plans to increase
enforcement along the project to curb off-trail activities. In its contract with UP!, the DNR
requires UP! to assist the DNR’s enforcement division to manage the project and develop
a mitigation program. This plan shows that the DNR adequately considered potential off-
road uses in its analysis of relators’ petition for an EAW.
Relators’ second argument relates to the Prospector ATV trail, which uses the same
roads as the project in certain places along the project’s route. The first portion of the
Prospector Trail opened in June 2020 and trav erses the same region as the project, but,
unlike the project, allows the use of ATVs. Be cause the Prospector Trail and the project
run coextensively in places, relators argue, the DNR must consider the project and the
17
Prospector Trail together to adequately de termine the project’s cu mulative effects. The
DNR argues that it need not look at the entire lengths of the two trails, but rather only the
places where the two trails overlap. The DNR’s argument aligns more closely with the text
of the rule. Because the Prospector Trail is a past project, the DNR need only consider the
“current aggregate effects of” that trail. Id. And the DNR considered where the two trails
run coextensively, concluding that ATV and off-highway-vehicle uses, which are allowed
on the Prospector Trail, will “not be extended to other segments of the route that do not
allow these uses.” This determination is su pported by the record. Only high-clearance
highway-licensed vehicles will be allowed to use the project.
Finally, relators argue that the DNR omitte d the network of ex isting spur routes
from its environmental review. But the DNR did consider existing circumstances where
the two trails run coextensively, which is all that the rule requires. See id. (stating the DNR
need only consider the “current aggregate effects” of past projects). To the extent relators
are referring to roads that are not part of the trail, examining the project’s impact on those
roads is not necessary to determine the project’s cumulative potential effects. See id. And
there is support in the record that the DNR considered the project’s environmental effects.
Thus, the DNR adequately considered the project’s cumulative potential effects.
III. The DNR did not act arbitrarily when it committed to devising a mitigation
plan after determining whether to prepare an EAW.

Relators next contend that the DNR failed to consider specific mitigation of the
project’s potential environmental effects. When determining whether the project could lead
to significant environmental effects, the DNR must consider “the extent to which the
18
environmental effects are subject to mitiga tion by ongoing public re gulatory authority.”
Minn. R. 4410.1700, subp. 7(C). These m itigation measures must be “specific” and
“reasonably expected to effec tively mitigate the identified e nvironmental impacts of the
project.” Id.; see also CARD, 713 N.W.2d at 834-35. Relia nce on an already existing
regulatory scheme is sufficiently specific mitigation. Friends of Twin Lakes, 764 N.W.2d
at 383.
The DNR has committed to mitigating any of the project’s environmental effects
while the mitigation plan is fi nalized. First, the DNR contr acted with UP! to develop a
mitigation plan to combat non compliance. Second, the DNR w ill maintain a fund to help
address maintenance requirements. Third, DNR o fficials will patrol the project in its first
years of operation to ensure compliance with the route designation and applicable laws.
Relators argue that, by committing to devi se a mitigation plan after the project’s
completion, the DNR failed to adequately co nsider how mitigation impacts the project’s
potential environmental effects. Relators point to Trout Unlimited, Inc. in support of their
argument. There, we reversed the Minnesota Department of Agriculture’s decision not to
order an environmental-impact statement for a proposed irrigation project. 528 N.W.2d at
905. We reversed, partly because the department of agriculture relied on future monitoring
and permit conditions to “identify significant impacts.” Id. at 909.
But Trout Unlimited, Inc. does not compel reversal here. Unlike the department of
agriculture in Trout Unlimited, Inc., the DNR is not waiting for later monitoring to identify
significant environmental impact s. Instead, it committed to cr afting a mitigation plan to
address minor environmental impacts that may occur. Because the DNR explicitly found
19
that the project would “have limited direct environmental effects,” how much these effects
are “subject to mitigation” is also limited. The DNR determined—w ith support from the
record—that the project will not have significa nt environmental effects. As a result, the
DNR’s commitment to develop a mitigation plan is suffici ent for the DNR to have
adequately considered mitigation under rule 4410.1700.
Affirmed.