Court Opinion

ID: 9688907
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 18:11:50.398103+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:42.970825
License: Public Domain

PAUL H. ANDERSON, Justice
(concurring).
I concur in the result reached by the majority, but I write separately because of the weakness I perceive in the majority’s mitigation analysis. Because of this weakness, the majority needs to extend itself to affirm the action of the MPCA — even given our narrow standard of review. Nevertheless, I agree that the court of appeals’ decision was in error and thus reluctantly concur in the majority’s holding. I do so because of the deferential standard of review we must apply to the decisions of administrative agencies.
The majority concludes that it does not. have to address whether voluntary mitigation measures are appropriate for consideration under Minn. R. 4410.1700, subp. 7(C). It reaches this conclusion on the grounds that the record indicates that both mandatory and voluntary mitigation measures are in place and were analyzed by the MPCA. The majority also declares that it is irrelevant whether the MFRC has regulatory authority because the MPCA has regulatory authority and can enforce mitigation through its permits.
However, the majority relies heavily on the assumption that the MPCA intended to incorporate mitigation measures (i.e., some or all of the MFRC guidelines) as necessary conditions of its air operation permits. The majority reaches this conclusion based on language found in the MPCA’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions, the document in which the MPCA made its final decision not to require an EIS. The majority specifically refers to the MPCA’s conclusion that “mitigative measures have been incorporated into the project design and proposed permits.”
While the majority’s interpretation of the language in the MPCA’s conclusion may be reasonable when taken by itself, a thorough review of the record raises serious questions about this conclusion. More particularly, the record reflects that neither the MPCA nor the DNR analyzed the potential environmental effects of Boise Cascade’s project under the assumption that mitigation measures for timber harvesting, such as the MFRC timber harvesting guidelines, would be included in any MPCA permits. Instead, the language that the majority relies upon is more likely in reference to the mitigation measures that are to be incorporated into the permits regarding air and water pollution. The MPCA’s findings contain a separate section with respect to each criteria, including mitigation; the single reference to timber harvesting mitigation in the mitigation section refers only to the ongoing implementation of the SFRA. Indeed, based on an analysis of the record, the MPCA appears to have specifically rejected incorporating timber harvesting mitigation measures into its permits.
A close reading of the proceedings before the MPCA confirms my conclusion. The record contains a letter sent to the MPCA on behalf of the Sierra Club, requesting that several mitigation measures, *470including the MFRC guidelines, be included as conditions in the MPCA’s permits. This is the first indication in the record that such a suggestion was ever considered. This suggestion was followed up by testimony from a Sierra Club volunteer at the final meeting of the MPCA Citizen’s Board Environmental Review Committee. The volunteer referred to the letter and reiterated the suggestion that mitigation measures be included in any permit. The committee chair then interrupted the volunteer with this comment: “Sir, you know that we’re talking about an adequacy decision of the EAW and not specific permit conditions. That would be a different process, so if you’re going to talk just about permitting conditions, that would be for another time. Okay?” At this point, the chair was referring to the only issue before the committee — whether an EIS was required for the Boise Cascade project or whether the current record was sufficient. The chair reiterated his point at the close of the volunteer’s comments, explaining that “You would get a chance, at a future date, you know. If we went ahead and determined that [the EAW] was adequate, it would go then to permit, and there is availability for public comment and to look at all that.”
Later in the meeting, a Board member raised a similar question about enforcing Boise Cascade’s commitment to the MFRC guidelines through permit conditions. In response, a member of the MPCA’s environmental review staff responded that this was “not a new suggestion.” The staff member went on to explain that inclusion of such guidelines in permits has never been done and that the agency does not advocate such an approach. The staff member stated:
I’m not aware of the agency taking that kind of action. We have had that suggestion with respect to the use of recycled fiber, to mandate recycled fiber usage. We have had — again, we have had commitments stated by companies, sometimes in writing, other times just verbally, but nevertheless commitments about implementing guidelines on lands that they made or with their loggers, sometimes writing it in the contracts that they do things, but its [sic] never been permitted.
I guess our attitude is that statements made in the record, the public record, are things that the PCA should be able to rely on when making permitting decisions, and we have not advocated carrying those over into permits.
Essentially, the MPCA rejected a suggestion very similar to the majority’s interpretation of the language in the Findings. Aside from this discussion, the record does contain discussion of permits and permit conditions, but only with respect to mitigation of air and water pollution — not with respect to the effects of timber harvesting.
I acknowledge that in reaching its holding the majority does not exclusively rely on the permit conditions, which is the reason that I concur rather than dissent. To support its holding, the majority also relies upon the mitigation measures implemented and enforced by the United States Forest Service (USFS), the DNR, and certain Minnesota counties. However, the MPCA did not address these measures as part of its specific findings on mitigation and presumably did not base its final decision on them. Although these mitigation measures are certainly not as comprehensive as those recommended in the Forestry GEIS, the mitigation measures noted by the majority do constitute more than a scintilla of evidence in the record that the MPCA did, in fact, consider the extent to which the effects of the project were subject to mitigation by ongoing public regulatory authority. When deciding matters of *471such import as the Boise Cascade project, it would be hoped, if not expected, that the MPCA would provide a stronger basis for its decision than was done here. But, given that our standard of review only requires that there be more than a scintilla of evidence in support of the MPCA’s decision, I concur with the result reached by the majority.