Cited by

Indeed, “MEPA’s purpose is ‘to force agencies to make their own impartial evaluation of environmental considerations before reaching their decisions.’” (quoting No Power Line, Inc. v. Minn. Env’t Quality Council, ), rev. denied (Minn. July 28, 1995).

8 “MEPA’s purpose is ‘to force agencies to make their own impartial evaluation of environmental considerations before reaching their decisions.’” (quoting No Power Line, Inc. v. Minn. Env’t Quality Council, ), rev. denied (Minn. July 28, 1995).

RGU has exercised its discretion appropriately,” rev. denied (Minn. July 28, 1995).

The Minnesota Environmental Policy Act (MEPA), Minn. Stat. §§ 116D.01 -.11 (2022), exists “to force agencies to make their own impartial evaluation of environmental 5 considerations before reaching their decisions.” (quoting No Power Line, Inc. v. Minn. Env’t Quality Council, ), rev. denied (Minn. July 28, 1995).

See Iron Ran gers for Responsible Ridge Action v. Iron Range Resources , ( noting that when there are “uncertainties, the court must assume that the agency or [responsible governmental unit] has exercised its discretion appropriately”), review denied (Minn. July 28, 1995).

d at 215, 217-18; see also Iron Rangers for Res ponsible Ridge Action v. IRRRB , d 874, 881-82 (Minn. App. 1995) (holding an agency cannot be compelled to prepare an EIS based on speculative data), review denied (Minn. July 28, 1995).

The city also contends that relators’ claims amount to “[b]ald assertions and unsupported speculation.” An RGU “cannot be compelled to prepare an EIS on the basis of speculative factors.”

(deferring to “discretion of the county” when proposed project would leave “over 100 acres of forest cover” in a 250-acre woodland, and stating that when “there are technical disputes and uncertainties, the court must assume that the agency or RGU has exercised its discretion appropriately”)

(“MEPA’s purpose is to force agencies to make their own impartial evaluation of environmental considerations before reaching their decisions.” (quotation omitted)), review denied (Minn. July 28, 1995).

See CARD, d at 835 (summarizing inquiry for determining whether EIS required as “whether the project, as proposed, ha[s] the potential for causing significant environmental effects” (emphasis added)); (holding that responsible governmental unit “cannot be compelled to prepare an EIS on the basis of speculative factors”), review denied (Minn. July 28, 1995).

Although it must consider all known potential impacts to the environment, “the county cannot be compelled to prepare an EIS on the basis of speculative factors.” review denied (Minn. July 28, 1995).

review denied (Minn. July 28, 1995) (Iron Rangers ).

ANALYSIS When reviewing a district court’s summary-judgment affirming' an agency’s negative declaration regarding the need for an environmental-impact statement (EIS), this court focuses “on the proceedings be *418 fore the decision-making body * * *, not the findings of the trial court.” (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. July 28, 1995).

As the court of appeals has correctly held, “[an RGU] cannot be compelled to prepare an EIS on the basis of speculative factors.” see also White v. Minn. Dept, of Natural Res., (“Appellants cannot avoid summary judgment by producing evidence of a mere possibility of harm to rare and sensitive plants.”).

("Appellants cannot avoid summary judgment by producing evidence of a mere possibility of harm to rare and sensitive plants.").

Mitigation measures must be “more than mere vague statements of good intentions.” (quoting Audubon Soc’y v. Dailey, 977 F.2d 428 , 435-36 (8th Cir.1992)), review denied (Minn. July 28, 1995).

not the findings of the [district] court.” review denied (Minn. July 28, 1995).

review denied (Minn. July 28,1995).

review denied (Minn. July 28, 1995).

district court’s summary judgment affirming a responsible governmental agency’s (RGU) negative declaration regarding the need for an EIS, this court reviews the agency decision to determine if it is “ ‘unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious, with review focused on the legal sufficiency of and factual basis for the reasons given.’ ” review denied (Minn. July 28, 1995); ().