5.2. SR 09-08-1997 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP Mr. Stephen Rohlf Page 9 August 13, 1997 Finally, Item 20 addresses a variety of other important concerns, including historic resources, "prime or unique" farmlands, recreation areas, scenic views and vistas and "other unique resources". This item contains only the most cursory mention of the Historic Kelley Farm (there is one sentence, the unsubstantiated conclusion that the farm "is not expected to be impacted by the project"), and no discussion whatsoever of either the Mississippi River or the ANC. 3. Summary The foregoing highlights some of the substantial flaws in the details of the Urban Service EAW. This summary is not comprehensive, but it provides a sense of the extent of specific defects in this document. Cargill anticipates that it will provide additional information when it has had further time to review MSA's report. B. Significance and Mitigation of Potential Impacts Apart from the details addressed above, a major conceptual problem with the Urban Service EAW is that incorrectly applies MEPA's provisions with regard to evaluating the significance of potential environmental impacts and mitigation of such impacts. Under EQB's guidelines, an EAW must include information sufficient in quantity and quality to allow resolution of the statutorily-required inquiry of whether the project in question has the "potential for significant environmental effects." EQB, EAW Guidelines at 9. This information must identify the likelihood and significance of possible environmental impacts and the availability and scope of possible mitigation measures. If the quality or quantity of information disclosed in the EAW leaves too much uncertainty about potential impacts and their significance and about mitigation measures specifically designed to decrease such impacts, the RGU must either require the EAW to be redone or an EIS to be prepared. Id. at 9. The Minnesota Court of Appeals decision in Trout Unlimited, Inc. v. Minnesota Department of Agriculture, 528 N.W.2d 903 (Minn. App. 1995), provides further guidance on these issues. In that case, the Court ruled that a RGU cannot rely on future monitoring, permitting or other mitigation measures with regard to a potential environmental effects identified in the EAW process to determine that an EIS will not be needed. The Court also held that under the EQB's rules on related actions and cumulative impacts, potential, not merely existing or currently planned,