Court Opinion

ID: 9700954
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 21:54:44.865213+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:16.477817
License: Public Domain

LANSING, Judge
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent. Three fundamental principles apply in this case. First, an urban areawide review (AUAR) must evaluate cumulative impacts caused by the project. Second, cumulative impacts, unlike direct impacts, are impacts outside the project area. Third, no evaluation of public responses or mitigation proposals can be adequate if a responsible governmental unit (RGU) does not properly evaluate cumulative impacts to determine what is necessary.
Although the alternative AUAR process provides for a more streamlined review of the environmental impacts of a development project than an environmental impact statement (EIS), nothing in the AUAR rules relieves an RGU of its obligation to engage in reasoned decision-making and to issue written findings in support of its determinations. See Minn. R. 4410.3610 (2005) (specifying process for AUAR); Reserve Mining Co. v. Minn. Pollution Control Agency, 364 N.W.2d 411, *538414-15 (Minn.App.1985) (concluding that agency’s failure to provide written findings and reasons for its determination was arbitrary and capricious), review dismissed (Minn. June 10, 1985). Neither does the AUAR process eliminate the need to examine cumulative impacts outside the project area. To the contrary, an AUAR “must provide for a level of analysis comparable to that of an EIS for [environmental] impacts.” Minn. R. 4410.3610, subp. 4.
The district court concluded that “[t]here are no specific requirements that the AUAR consider cumulative impacts outside of the AUAR area.” But both the rules and the cases to which we look for interpretation of these rules state otherwise. The AUAR process requires the RGU, as an initial step, to “adopt an order for each review ... that specifies the boundaries of the geographic area within which the review will apply and specifies the anticipated nature, location, and intensity of [development] within those boundaries.” Id., subp. 3. This initial step need not be as comprehensive as the full scoping process of an EIS, but the RGU must define the geographic boundary of the AUAR in an independent order before the RGU may draft an AUAR. Envtl. Quality Bd., Guide to Minnesota Environmental Review Rules 15-16 (1998).
The depth of analysis required for the selection of the geographic boundary is clearly set forth in federal caselaw. Although the RGU has discretion to select the geographic boundary for analysis of cumulative impacts of the project, the selection must “represent a reasoned decision and cannot be arbitrary.” Habitat Educ. Ctr., Inc. v. Bosworth, 381 F.Supp.2d 842, 849 (E.D.Wis.2005) (quoting Idaho Sporting Cong., Inc. v. Rittenhouse, 305 F.3d 957, 973 (9th Cir.2002)) (concluding that agency’s geographic-boundary determination was arbitrary); see also Kleppe v. Sierra Club, 427 U.S. 390, 414, 96 S.Ct. 2718, 2732, 49 L.Ed.2d 576 (1976) (requiring deference to agency’s selection of scope of analysis). The agency’s decision must provide support for its selection and demonstrate that it considered the relevant factors. Native Ecosystems Council v. Dombeck, 304 F.3d 886, 902 (9th Cir.2002); Bosworth, 381 F.Supp.2d at 849. “The presence of species habitat outside the project area is ... a relevant consideration in determining the geographic scope of a cumulative impacts analysis.” Bosworth, 381 F.Supp.2d at 849; see also TOMAC, Taxpayers of Mich. Against Casinos v. Norton, 433 F.3d 852, 864 (D.C.Cir.2006) (construing federal requirement to examine cumulative effects to mandate consideration of cumulative impacts outside project area, but within same geographic area); Selkirk Conservation Alliance v. Forsgren, 336 F.3d 944, 958 (9th Cir.2003) (requiring consideration of cumulative impacts in selection of geographic boundary).
The record provides no order that sets forth the reasons for selecting the geographic boundary of the cumulative-impacts analysis. The AUAR itself refers to the geographic boundary of the project area as the geographic boundary of the cumulative-impacts review but, again, contains no discussion of the reasons for its decision to limit its analysis to the project area and no indication that the RGU considered cumulative impacts outside the project area.
The procedural failure to make an initial geographic-boundary determination that accounts for cumulative impacts outside the project area results in a legally deficient substantive consideration of these effects in the AUAR process. The limitation on the consideration of the appropriate geographic scope at the outset necessarily reduces the scope of analysis in the subse*539quent processes, and the overall substantive consideration becomes arbitrary. See Bosworth, 381 F.Supp.2d at 850 (observing that failure to explain reasons for selecting geographic boundary adversely affects decision-making process and renders determination arbitrary). The failure to consider the project’s impact outside the project area at any point in the determination defeats the ordinary deference that this court accords to agency decisions. See id. (stating that failure to discuss selection of area indicates agency did not employ reasoned decision-making); Reserve Mining Co. v. Herbst, 256 N.W.2d 808, 825 (Minn.1977) (“[W]here there is a combination of danger signals which suggest the agency has not taken a hard look at the salient problems and has not genuinely engaged in reasoned decision making it is the duty of the court to intervene.” (quotation omitted)).
The majority recognizes “the potential for abuse in setting the AUAR boundary,” but interprets MCEA’s appeal to be limited solely to the adequacy of the final AUAR document. Whether the question is framed substantively or procedurally, the issue at the heart of the appeal remains the same: the failure to consider cumulative impacts outside the project area. The purpose of requiring a cumulative-impacts analysis is to “preclude the breaking down of projects into small component parts to avoid cumulative significance.” Colo. Wild v. U.S. Forest Serv., 435 F.3d 1204, 1221 (10th Cir.2006). The AUAR’s omission of the required cumulative-impacts analysis creates a significant risk of- serious environmental harm because the geographic area immediately surrounding the project area is designated as a critical area. The existence of the critical area not only highlights the potential for irreversible damage to important environmental resources, but also provides an alternative and readily definable geographic boundary for the AUAR.
Although a significant number of public comments were submitted throughout the AUAR process, the absence of an explicit decision on the geographic boundary of the AUAR “deprived the public of an opportunity to comment on the issue and thus assist in the decision-making process.” See Bosworth, 381 F.Supp.2d at 850 (expressing concern that procedural flaw undermines purpose of review process). The RGU cannot evade responsibility for a decision by failing to make it. The procedural irregularities are also evidenced by the evolving position of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR). The DNR initially objected to the AUAR and later withdrew its objection. But the DNR renewed its objection in an amicus brief on appeal because of the AUAR’s failure to examine cumulative impacts outside the project area. In its brief, the DNR emphasizes the heavy ecological price of piecemeal development of discrete portions of land within the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area without considering the environmental impacts on the entire critical area.
Requiring the RGU to consider cumulative impacts outside the.project area does not preclude development in the area. Rather, it ensures that the purposes of the Minnesota Environmental Policy Act are fulfilled by fostering informed decision-making and by avoiding incremental analysis that fails to assess adequately a project’s impact on the environment. Because the AUAR fails to comply with the requirements to analyze cumulative impacts outside the project area and is therefore inadequate, I would reverse the district court’s grant of summary judgment.