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

Heading: Scope of the cumulative potential effects inquiry

Text: To determine the scope of a cumulative potential effects review, we first turn to the rule's language. Minnesota Rules 4410.1700 requires that an RGU making a project-specific EIS determination consider cumulative potential effects of related and anticipated future projects. It is unclear from this language which projects are related or anticipated future projects. In the initial version of chapter 4410, related actions [12] was defined in Minn. R. 4410.0200, and a section of Minn. R. 4410.1700 explained that the related action(s) definition was to be used to delineate the scope of cumulative potential effects of related or anticipated future projects. [13] Minn. R. 4410.0200,.1700 (1983). But the related action(s) definition and application sections were deleted in a 1988 revision of chapter 4410. Minn. R. 4410.0200 (1989). Thus, it is helpful for us to examine the rulemaking record to determine what the rulemakers intended the meaning of the terms related and anticipated future projects to be and to ascertain the effect of the deletion of the related action(s) definition and application sections. Minn.Stat. § 645.16(5) (stating that the intention of the legislature may be ascertained by considering, among other things, `the former law, if any,   .'). In its 1988 Statement of Need and Reasonableness (SONAR) deleting the definition of related action(s), the EQB stated that the term related as used in cumulative potential effects of related or anticipated future projects would retain the aspect of similar geography and timing. 1988 SONAR 10. [14] This statement appears to indicate that a cumulative potential effects inquiry used for project-specific EIS determinations is more limited in geography and timing than the cumulative impact inquiry used for generic EIS determinations. In regard to timing, the RGU considers all reasonably foreseeable future projects when deciding whether a generic EIS should be ordered. Minn. R. 4410.0200, subp. 11. But for a project-specific EIS determination, the RGU considers anticipated future projects  an inquiry that is less speculative because it involves specific projects actually planned or for which a basis of expectation has been laid. Minn. R. 4410.1700, subp. 7(B). As indicated by the 1988 SONAR, the geographic scope of a project-specific cumulative potential effects analysis is also more limited than that of a generic EIS cumulative impact analysis. The cumulative impact analysis does not establish limits on the geographic area of the outside projects to be considered. This lack of geographical limitation is consistent with the purpose of the generic EIS determination process  it is meant to be far-reaching, examining entire industries and their potential effects, the better to effectuate long-range planning for the regulation of such industries. The cumulative potential effects analysis, however, is more limited, because it establishes geographic limits, as discussed in the SONAR. Accordingly, we conclude that a cumulative potential effects analysis is limited geographically to projects in the surrounding area that might reasonably be expected to affect the same natural resources  for instance, a nearby lake  as the proposed project. We conclude that this type of geographically limited inquiry is consistent with the purpose of the project-specific EIS determination process  to alert a governing body to any potential significant environmental effects of a proposed project before the governing body takes action to approve or disapprove the project. The county urges a nonspecific, narrow interpretation of cumulative potential effects or of related projects  one that is so narrow that the county concludes that it properly evaluated the existence of related or anticipated future projects, and determined that none existed. This statement implies that the county's unspecified interpretation of the scope of cumulative potential effects review would not take into account other local gravel pits. We conclude, however, that such a limiting definition would be contrary to the EQB's intent. The legislature and the EQB have required RGUs to determine whether a proposed project would have significant environmental effects. The cumulative potential effects criterion requires consideration of other local projects because such projects could well contribute to the potential environmental effects of a proposed project. If a governmental body is allowed to strategically ignore pertinent local activities when conducting environmental review, the legislature's and EQB's intentions will not be fulfilled. Additionally, the EQB claims that a narrow definition of cumulative potential effects such as the one suggested by the county was neither intended by the EQB nor has it been used by the EQB. We previously concluded that the EQB's claim that the cumulative impact definition should be used for the term cumulative potential effects is not supported by the plain language of the rules. Here, however, we conclude that the EQB's assertion regarding the intent behind the cumulative potential effects term is not contradicted by the language of the rules and therefore is entitled to deference. St. Otto's Home, 437 N.W.2d at 40 (setting forth the criteria for when we defer to an agency's interpretation of its own rule). Moreover, the county's interpretation of the rule could lead to absurd results. Under such an interpretation, a reviewing body could simply ignore most other projects in the surrounding area of the proposed project, as if those other projects and their environmental consequences vanished from the map for environmental review purposes as soon as they were developed. In this case, the obvious candidates for cumulative potential effects analysis would be the several other gravel pits in the area of the proposed gravel pits. Had those pits been a natural occurrence  a feature of the local landscape  they would necessarily have been considered in the environmental review just as a lake or forest would be considered. It would be a strange consequence if the existing pits need not be considered in an analysis of the potential environmental effects of a proposed project simply because they were created by human beings rather than by the hand of nature. When a project is implemented and the land is developed, the changes become part of the environment  a benefit or a burden, to be considered when a new project comes into the area. In essence, our analysis of the rules' language and framework and the legislative intent evidence indicates that the cumulative potential effects and cumulative impact criteria both require an RGU to examine whether a given project may have a significant environmental effect when considered in conjunction with other projects. The main difference between the two criteria is in the scope of the analyses. In considering the cumulative potential effects of related or anticipated future actions criterion, an RGU must take into account outside projects that have the potential to cause significant environmental effects when considered in conjunction with the proposed project, but with a geographic and temporal scope limited as explained above.