Opinion ID: 1749632
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Cumulative potential effects

Text: Finally, CARD and amici contend that the county did not properly consider cumulative potential effects; they point to the county's decision statement as support for this argument. We agree with CARD that the county's statements regarding cumulative potential effects in its supplemental submittal to its negative EIS determination are problematic. The county appears to have based its cumulative potential effects determination, not on a reasoned consideration of the evidence, but on the erroneous assumption that if a given project does not in itself have the potential for causing significant negative environmental effects, there is no possibility of cumulative potential effects resulting from the project. The county's supplemental submittal read: To show a cumulative negative impact, there must be reason to believe that each project in itself will at least have a significant negative impact to the environment. Based on the EAW, the responses given in this supplemental submittal to the comments received, along with the responses given by the proposer, RGU staff determines a cumulative negative impact has not been identified. (Emphasis added.) The county's first sentence is a direct quote from Duininck's response to the letters from citizens and governmental agencies that expressed environmental concerns regarding the proposed pits. The Duininck response referred to reads: To show a cumulative negative impact, there must be a reason to believe that each project in itself will at least have a significant negative impact to the environment. It has been shown in these EAW's and proven time and time again that gravel pits do not have a negative environmental impact, and many times have a quite positive impact, especially given the current reclamation standards. (Emphasis added.) This statement was also included in a subsequent Duininck letter to the county. Duininck's argument was reproduced by the county in its statement above to support its conclusion that a cumulative negative impact has not been identified. We conclude that an assertion that in order for a group of projects in the aggregate to have a significant environmental impact they must each individually have a significant impact is an arbitrary and capricious basis for an RGU decision. It is contrary to a key underlying premise of a cumulative potential effects review  that an individually insignificant project may have a significant environmental effect when considered in conjunction with other projects. In the present instance, we consider it problematic to suggest that no matter how many gravel pits are established and mined in Kandiyohi County, there is no possibility of significant environmental effects. The county's conclusion that projects must each have individually significant environmental effects before they can have a cumulative effect is so implausible that it could not be explained as a difference in view or the result of the agency's expertise. In re Charges, 597 N.W.2d at 567. Additionally, Duininck's assertion that gravel pits do not have a negative environmental impact, an assertion upon which the county apparently based its conclusion regarding cumulative potential effects, is dubious at best. We acknowledge that in this case the proposed gravel pits will not involve any toxic chemicals or other poisoning of the environment. But we consider it problematic to say that removing 92 acres of trees, brush, and other vegetation and digging a hole approximately 35 feet deep across those 92 acres results in absolutely no negative environmental impact (or, more pertinently, no potential for significant environmental effects). We conclude that the county's use of the two foregoing erroneous propositions as a basis for its determination that the proposed gravel pits have no potential for cumulatively causing significant environmental effects is arbitrary and capricious. The record also indicates that the county's cumulative potential effects determination was not supported by substantial evidence. The county stated that it based its cumulative potential effects determination on three things: the EAW, and the responses given in this supplemental submittal to the comments received, along with the responses given by the proposer. Regarding cumulative potential effects, Duininck's EAW states only: The mining of this site will be conforming to the uses of adjacent property, which are gravel mining and agriculture. There will not be any significant environmental effects due to cumulative impacts regarding the CA pit, and Because additional mining is being done on the east side of Highway 71, the mining of this site will be in conformity to the use of nearby property. There should not be any significant environmental effects due to cumulative impacts regarding the Eagle Lake West pit. The second item the county considered was the county's own responses to the environmental concerns raised by government agencies and citizens, which it stated were expressed elsewhere in its EIS-determination supplement. This second reference is at best confusing, as there is no other cumulative potential effects analysis in the supplemental submittal. [17] The final item was Duininck's response to the citizen concerns. As shown above, Duininck's response consisted of a blanket assertion that there is no possibility of cumulative potential effects from the proposed gravel pits because gravel pits never have a negative environmental impact and a significant negative environmental impact must be shown before there can be cumulative negative effects. [18] None of these documents cited by the county as providing support for its cumulative potential effects analysis contain anything other than bare assertions that no cumulative potential effects will occur. The documents do not contain any independent scientific data, agency opinions, or studies regarding cumulative potential effects, and there is no indication that the county ever sought any information on cumulative potential effects aside from Duininck's assurances that there would not be any. Therefore, we conclude that the record contains no actual evidence or even substantive explanation to support the county's cumulative potential effects determination. At this point, it is important to note that the court of appeals erroneously concluded that the county sufficiently considered cumulative potential effects based on the minutes of the county board meetings from the earlier denied and otherwise unsuccessful conditional use permit applications for the two proposed gravel pits and the one board meeting conducted after the EIS determination. Citizens Advocating Responsible Dev., 2005 WL 44823 at . In those minutes, members of the community and some board members expressed concern about the number of existing gravel pits in the area and how to reclaim them. However, none of the meetings in the record before us concerned the EIS determination; they were meetings regarding earlier and subsequent conditional use permit applications (all of which were denied or withdrawn). In fact, the main county board meeting at which environmental concerns were discussed by the board took place after the county's negative EIS determination, and even then, the concerns discussed were more of an aesthetic nature than an analysis of environmental effects. Even if the foregoing meetings were relevant to the county's decision, the county did not explicitly consider or discuss the potential environmental effects in depth in any of these meetings. We conclude that there is simply not enough evidence in the record before us to show that the county actually took a hard look at the question of cumulative potential effects during the EIS determination as required by Minn. R. 4410.1700, subp. 1, and our case law. Reserve Mining Co., 256 N.W.2d at 825. The county's determination does not appear to be based on any real examination of the question, but rather on its problematic statement that [t]o show a cumulative negative impact, there must be a reason to believe that each project in itself will at least have a significant negative impact to the environment. Therefore, we conclude that the county's decision regarding cumulative potential effects was not supported by substantial evidence. Additionally, while the county was apparently looking for negative effects, Minn. R. 4410.1700 specifically requires that an EIS be ordered if the RGU finds the potential for any significant environmental effects, negative or otherwise. In fact, the rules as initially proposed contained a requirement that the environmental effects be adverse, but this requirement was purposely deleted from the rules as adopted. See 7 S.R. 354. The county's supplemental submittal indicates that the county erroneously failed to consider any potential for significant environmental effects which it did not deem negative. We conclude that the county's consideration of only whether cumulative potential effects would result in a negative environmental impact was a mistake of law. Because we conclude that the county did not appropriately consider one of the required criteria  the cumulative potential effects of related or anticipated future projects  we reverse the court of appeals. However, as the county did not collect substantial evidence on cumulative potential effects, we do not have sufficient information at our disposal to determine whether an EIS is required in this case. Accordingly, we remand this matter to the county to conduct a new EIS determination process in accordance with the standards set forth in this opinion. In doing so, we explicitly express no opinion as to whether an EIS is required. Reversed and remanded to the county for a new administrative determination. GILDEA, J., not having been a member of this court at the time of the argument and submission, took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. Concurring, ANDERSON, G. BARRY, J. Took no part, GILDEA, J.