In 1999 Boise Cascade Corporation, a paper mill in International Falls, MN proposed modifications to its mill. The modifications resulted in increased air pollution, a 16% increase in cords of wood consumed by the plant, and an expansion of public land used to harvest trees.

The Department of Natural Resources and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) prepared an environmental assessment worksheet (EAW) for the project. MCEA submitted comments questioning the extent of negative environmental impacts and proposed mitigations outlined in the EAW and requested that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) be completed. MPCA denied the request because Minnesota’s forestry generic environmental impact statement determined an EIS was not required.

MCEA sued MPCA in Koochiching Country District Court challenging the agency’s decision not to produce an EIS for the Boise Cascade Mill modification. Judge Shumaker ruled that an EIS was not required for two reasons: One, because adverse environmental impacts could be mitigated by a regulatory authority and, two, the effectiveness of mitigation measures were reasonably assured.

In 2001 MCEA appealed the case to the Minnesota Court of Appeals and won. The court concluded many mitigation measures were “inchoate and subject only to future monitoring” and enforcement was not guaranteed by the regulatory body.

Defendants appealed to the Minnesota Supreme Court in 2002 where the court reinstated the district court’s order and judgment.