Opinion ID: 1749632
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Air Pollution

Text: CARD also claims that the county insufficiently considered concerns expressed by some citizens regarding air pollution via dust, increased traffic, and noise. The concerns regarding air quality were mostly speculative (e.g., we are concerned about possible dust and odors.). Additionally, as the county points out, the MPCA made no mention of air pollution concerns in its letter regarding the EAW. Nevertheless, the county addressed air pollution concerns in its EIS determination supplement, pointing out that Duininck's equipment would be subject to emission control regulations and noting that the MPCA did not consider the projected traffic increase to be problematic. Additionally, Duininck included in the EAW its estimations on the traffic increase, which estimations provided a basis for the county's decision. Regarding dust and noise, the EAW states that the county's Zoning Ordinance provides standards for mitigation of dust and noise that would be discussed during the permitting process. We conclude that, because no specific evidence or substantive allegation is put forward regarding air pollution, the MPCA did not express any concerns, and there appear to be pre-existing standards for dust, traffic, and noise control, the county's decision that air pollution concerns did not mandate an EIS is supported by substantial evidence.