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

Heading: Language in the cumulative potential effects and cumulative impact criteria

Text: One of the criteria that an RGU must apply when deciding whether a proposed project has the potential to cause significant environmental effects is the cumulative potential effects of related or anticipated future projects. Minn. R. 4410.1700, subp. 7(B). Chapter 4410 defines the term cumulative impact in Minn. R. 4410.0200, subp. 11, [5] but does not define the term cumulative potential effects. Minn. R. 4410.0200, subp. 11. CARD maintains that the cumulative impact definition in subpart 11 should be used to define cumulative potential effects. In attempting to determine whether the cumulative impact definition should be applied to cumulative potential effects, we look first to the plain meaning of the words as used in the rule. MBNA America Bank, N.A. v. Commissioner of Revenue, 694 N.W.2d 778, 780 (Minn.2005). We have noted that the words of a statute are to be viewed in their setting, not isolated from their context. State v. Anderson, 683 N.W.2d 818, 822 (Minn.2004) (citing Chiodo v. Bd. of Educ. of Special Sch. Dist. No. 1, 298 Minn. 380, 382, 215 N.W.2d 806, 808 (1974)). Cumulative impact and cumulative potential effects are different terms, and the fact that cumulative impact is specifically defined in chapter 4410 would appear to indicate that the EQB, which authored chapter 4410, intended to give that term a special and nontransferable meaning. This conclusion is supported by the fact that the language providing the context for cumulative potential effects is significantly different from that surrounding cumulative impact. Minnesota Rules 4410.1700, which articulates the criteria an RGU must use in determining whether an EIS is required for a specific proposed project, contains the term cumulative potential effects, and reads as follows: Subp. 7. Criteria. In deciding whether a project has the potential for significant environmental effects, the following factors shall be considered: A. type, extent, and reversibility of environmental effects; B. cumulative potential effects of related or anticipated future projects; C. the extent to which the environmental effects are subject to mitigation by ongoing public regulatory authority; and D. the extent to which environmental effects can be anticipated and controlled as a result of other available environmental studies undertaken by public agencies or the project proposer, including other EISs. Minn. R. 4410.1700, subp. 7 (emphasis added). On the other hand, the term cumulative impact appears in Minn. R. 4410.3800, which contains the criteria that the RGU [6] must consider when deciding whether a generic EIS is warranted: Subp. 5. Criteria. In determining the need for a generic EIS, the EQB shall consider: A. if the review of a type of action can be better accomplished by a generic EIS than by project specific review; B. if the possible effects on the human environment from a type of action are highly uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks; C. if a generic EIS can be used for tiering in a subsequent project specific EIS; D. the amount of basic research needed to understand the impacts of such projects; E. the degree to which decision makers or the public have a need to be informed of the potential impacts of such projects; F. the degree to which information to be presented in the generic EIS is needed for governmental or public planning; G. the potential for significant environmental effects as a result of the cumulative impacts of such projects; H. the regional and statewide significance of the impacts and the degree to which they can be addressed on a project-by-project basis; and I. the degree to which governmental policies affect the number or location of such projects or the potential for significant environmental effects. Minn. R. 4410.3800, subp. 5 (emphasis added). CARD's plain-meaning argument that cumulative potential effects and cumulative impact are the same is in essence based on the fact that the terms cumulative potential effects and cumulative impact contain one common word (cumulative) and two similar words (impact and effects). But this argument fails to recognize how the specific words are used in the respective subparts of chapter 4410. They are in fact embedded in two very differently worded criteria. In a project-specific EIS determination context, the RGU must consider  cumulative potential effects of related or anticipated future projects,  while for a generic EIS determination the RGU must consider  the potential for significant environmental effects as a result of the cumulative impacts of such projects.  Minn. R. 4410.1700, subp. 7(B), 4410.3800. subp. 5(G). When read in context, as they must be, the terms at least raise a question, if not a presumption, that they were not intended to be identical. The foregoing conclusion is further supported when we look at the environmental review framework established by the EQB in chapter 4410. This framework indicates that the definition of cumulative impact given in Minn. R. 4410.0200 should not be used to define cumulative potential effects as CARD has asserted. As previously noted, the term cumulative impact appears in the criteria for generic EIS determinations, while the term cumulative potential effects appears in the criteria for project-specific EIS determinations. Minn. R. 4410.1700, subp. 7, 4410.3800, subp. 5(G). A generic EIS is an EIS ordered not because there is a specific project under consideration, but because the EQB has a particular broad environmental concern unrelated to a specific project. See Minn. R. 4410.3800, subp. 1. The generic EIS section of the rules begins with the statement A generic EIS may be ordered by the EQB to study types of projects that are not adequately reviewed on a case-by-case-basis.  Minn. R. 4410.3800, subp. 1 (emphasis added). It appears to us that the meaning of this section is clear  a generic EIS is intended to go further and review more than a project-specific EIS. Furthermore, in accordance with the different purposes of the generic and project-specific EIS determinations, the generic EIS determination criteria are quite different from those used for project-specific EIS determinations. Compare Minn. R. 4410.1700, subp. 7, with Minn. R. 4410.3800, subp. 5. There are four project-specific EIS determination criteria and nine generic EIS determination criteria, and of the thirteen project-specific and generic EIS determination criteria, the only ones that are potentially comparable are the cumulative impact and cumulative potential effects criteria. Id. But as noted above, the language of the cumulative impact and cumulative potential effects criteria contains significant differences. CARD and amici the National Wildlife Federation and the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy point out that in regulations for the National Environmental Protection Act of 1969 (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321-4700 (2004), the words effects and impacts are used interchangeably, and assert that we should interpret MEPA's regulations as using the words interchangeably as well. But NEPA's regulations contain a specific provision which states that effects and impacts are to be used interchangeably. 40 C.F.R. 1508.8 (2005). [7] There is no comparable provision in chapter 4410. Therefore, we conclude that MEPA and NEPA cannot be equated vis-à-vis their treatment of the terms effects and impacts. Additionally, the fact that the governmental agency that composed NEPA's rules believed it was necessary to specify that effects and impacts were to be used interchangeably within NEPA's rules indicates that, without such a specification, a use of impacts in one place and effects in another would be considered by many to be a meaningful difference. CARD and amici the EQB, the National Wildlife Federation, the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy, and the Minnesota Attorney General advance an additional argument in support of their interpretation of cumulative potential effects. They point out that the EQB  both in its Guide to Minnesota Environmental Review Rules and as an amicus in this case  claims that it intended the cumulative impact definition to be used for the cumulative potential effects inquiry. Guide to Minnesota Environmental Review Rules, supra at 5. We give considerable deference to an agency's interpretation of its own rule, especially when the relevant language is unclear or susceptible to different interpretations.    If a regulation is ambiguous, agency interpretation will generally be upheld if it is reasonable. St. Otto's Home v. Minnesota Dept. of Human Services, 437 N.W.2d 35, 40 (Minn. 1989). But as we have already indicated, the environmental review framework and the context in which the cumulative impact and cumulative potential effects terms are used in the rules is contrary to the EQB's interpretation. When the plain meaning of a rule is contrary to an agency's interpretation, we cannot ignore the plain meaning by deferring to the agency's interpretation. Id.; see also Resident v. Noot, 305 N.W.2d 311, 312 (Minn.1981) (stating that we do not defer to an agency's interpretation of its own rule when the language employed or the standards delineated are clear and capable of understanding). Moreover, as will be shown in section II, the EQB's own rulemaking history does not support its argument that it intended the cumulative impact definition to be applied to cumulative potential effects. While we understand that the EQB is concerned because its rules lack an explicit definition for cumulative potential effects, the EQB cannot correct its failure to include a cumulative potential effects definition by importing an inapplicable definition from another section of the rules. In sum, we conclude from the framework and language of chapter 4410 that the EQB envisioned a different type of inquiry for generic EIS determinations than for project-specific EIS determinations, and used different language  cumulative impact versus cumulative potential effects  for that reason. We further conclude that the definition of cumulative impact given in Minn. R. 4410.0200, subp. 11, does not apply to the project-specific cumulative potential effects criterion in Minn. R. 4410.1700, subp. 7(B). Based on the differences outlined above, we conclude that it would be reaching too far for us to hold that these differently worded terms, contained in different environmental review criteria, are intended to have the same meaning.