Yesterday two meetings were held by the the Environmental Quality Board, Dept. of Natural Resources, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Dept. of Health, and Dept. of Transportation, and the Gov.’s Ellen Anderson, joined by a large crew of agency staff and a good sampling of county, city and township officials — good to see a crew from Red Wing and Goodhue County.   The MPCA’s Stine has been on Alan’s list for some time, and we’ve been dealing with him a lot lately, the EQB and Ellen Anderson too, and I think it helps to be able to have some history with them and get right to business.

A good time was had by all.  The agency reps appeared more engaged and tracking than they usually are, and you could dance to it — I’ll give it a 98.  But come on… not even coffee… granted I was up at “too early o’clock” to finish my handout, but… zzzzzzzzzzzz…

Notice of these meetings was a problem, or rather, lack of notice, because this was a stage where public participation is crucial — they need to know we care and can contribute.  They wanted it kept to “local governments,” but that doesn’t cut it, this is a public meeting about an immediate and high-profile issue.  It must be open.  There’s no excuse for keeping it under wraps.

The most important thing I heard was repeated comments by Jon Linc Stine, MPCA, in particular, was whether local governments had taken advantage of the new legislative option to extend a moratorium.  At the Red Wing meeting, Goodhue County had Lisa Hanni responding for the county.  Hanni was dodging and weaving on that moratorium question, stating that they acted based on the law as it was, that they had to get their work done on the timeline of their moratorium.  I’d sure have appreciated the addition of a simple statement that the County would take that suggestion of extending the moritorium under advisement!!!  State agency officials have a typically hands off approach to local units of government, there are turf issues here, but the repeated questions and statements encouraging extension of the moratorium are as close to a direct statement as I’ve ever seen.  There was encouragement to check with attorneys about extension, and encouragement for local governments to participate in this state process — they’re looking for input — so let’s give it to them!!!

Prior to the meeting, I drafted a letter and proposed standards and criteria, off the cuff suggestions to get the ball rolling.  In the letter, there were two important requests:

• Appointment of a rulemaking Advisory Committee.
• No state permitting of silica sand mines until Standards & Criteria AND rules are completed.

Here are the Comments of Winona County Citizens Concerned About Silica Mining:

CASM Comments August 2, 2013

At the Red Wing meeting, I was particularly encouraged to note that Richard Peterson from a township in Le Sueur County was there to discuss what it’s like to live with a mine next door.  Specific points were that despite a provision for an “annual review,” the community received no notification that the annual review was happening!  Blasting was an issue because they are blasting constantly.  Reclamation is not keeping up, and they’re piling up large piles, 600 FOOT PILES, and not capping it, so the wind is blowing it all around.  I’m glad someone near the Minnesota River mines was here, and hope the state will schedule meetings there, and also near the St. Croix mines.  It’s not just SE Minnesota, folks, this is a far broader problem (map from StPPP)

James Riddle spoke at the Winona meeting.  He’s from Winona, and has recently been appointed to the MPCA Citizens Board, and had quite a back and forth regarding trout streams, protected areas, and groundwater.

One thing they’ll be doing is providing notice to local governments, AND I HOPE THE PUBLIC, of pre-application meetings with the agencies so that local governments will have a heads up.  That’s important because if there is an application to a local government, there’s only a 60 day window to act, and that’s just not enough time for permit review of something with potential for such extensive impacts.

Something that came up repeatedly was counties ability to work together on road issues, to jointly institute road impact fees, and the DOT will be digging up more information about this.  That’s good because road impacts is an issue mandated for Standards and Criteria development.

Also, reclamation was a recurring issue, and the importance of reclamation standards and requirements to keep up with destruction, and also to address dormancy, if the mine just sits, how long can it sit before reclamation kicks in.

It was a great relief to have the DOT COMMISSIONER there, that’s Charles Zelle.  The DOT isn’t directly involved in rulemaking mandated in the statute, but transportation is such an important issue here with potential for major impacts.  And the Commissioner is a better choice to represent the agency.  At past meetings we’ve seen that awful Dave Christian, who was a frac sand mining toady, actively advocating for sand mining (he said he has family or friends involved in mining … own land?  An inappropriate role as he wears his DOT hat.  Perhaps, as with Dennis Egan, he should be fired.).  Zelle was up on some issues, and others he needs to do some research, and particularly he should take a drive through Winona on the haul routes, look at the piles, and head down Highway 76 between Houston and Caledonia during hauling times!

Here’s the write up of the meetings in the Roch PB:

State enters silica sand fracas

John Weiss, weiss@postbulletin.com | Posted: Friday, August 2, 2013 9:30 pm

RED WING ­ Louy Stambaugh wants state agencies to help stop many trucks loaded with silica sand from pounding past her Lake City home.

Jeanne Pietig, a member of the Wabasha County Planning and Zoning Commission, wants help from the Minnesota Attorney General’s office to fight legal battles with large silica-sand mining or processing companies.

Kevin Krause, Wabasha County zoning administrator, wants state help in monitoring levels of crystalline silica in the air.

All three, and many more county, city and township officials, and the public, told several top state officials what they want from them as part of a new process that is offering expertise of agencies such as the Department of Natural Resources, Pollution Control Agency and Minnesota Department of Transportation, to local governments. They met Friday morning in Red Wing and Friday afternoon in Winona, both hotbeds for silica sand issues, and they heard a lot about what the state can, or should, do.

The 2013 Minnesota Legislature allocated money not to regulate the growing industry to mine, move and process the sand used in fracking for oil and natural gas, but to offer state expertise.

The meetings were a first big step in having top state officials hear from local people what’s needed, said DNR Commissioner Tom Landwehr. He said after the Red Wing meeting that he heard a lot of issues he expected, as well as two he hadn’t heard before ­ the need for legal help and for monitoring for pollution.

MPCA Commissioner John Linc Stine said he also heard a great idea ­ hold a “tabletop” exercise before any major silica sand mines are proposed, to find out which township, city, county and state agencies would do what, how they might overlap and where there would be gaps.

Stambaugh was a voice for quiet. She said she lives along U.S. 61 in Lake City where a big increase in silica mining, moving or processing would mean more trucks and less peace for her and neighbors. Or it could mean more trains coming a few blocks behind her house and the local high school, she said.

While she applauded new state rules that protect trout, she said the state also has to look out for her. Companies have a right to mine, but not at the expense of others’ health, she said.

“We need more help, we need some more leverage because we’re small,” she said.

Pietig said big companies can threaten to sue small governments, and those governments need state legal help. “They don’t have the money to fund the lawyers to oppose major corporations,” she said. Big companies can also just ignore rules and pay small fines, she said. “Those issues are bigger than teensy little cities or counties,” she said.

Krause said the county can have great regulations and equipment to keep an eye on silica in the air, but often don’t have people to monitor it.

Goodhue County Commissioner Dan Rechtzigel suggested that state help would be great in protecting ground water. If a major mine comes in, it could deplete ground water resources in a large area, possibly across county lines, he said. Or it could pollute ground water in more than one county, he said.

At the end of the meeting, state agency heads said they will take the information, and suggestions, back to St. Paul to try find what the state can or can’t do.

One of the first concrete things local governments will see is a draft model ordinance for local governments. It will be available soon and will be the subject of a Minnesota Environmental Quality Board meeting Sept. 18.

Tthe EQB is made up mostly of heads of the agencies, including those at the Friday meetings.

—

A public hearing on whether to extent the Goodhue County silica sand mining moratorium is on the county board’s agenda for its meeting that begins at 10 a.m. Tuesday. The county’s planning advisory committee unanimously voted to recommend the county board not extend its moratorium, which is set to expire Sept. 6. That vote echoes a July 8 recommendation from the county’s silica sand study committee, which has been meeting for most of the two-year interim ordinance.

A little light reading — Comments, request to open the process, establish Advisory Committees for rulemaking, and 9 pages of specific language suggestions for 116C.99 Standards and Criteria:

Comments of Winona CASM – August 2, 2013

Meetings today hosted by EQB, MPCA, DNR, MDH and DOT:

Red Wing
 9:00 a.m.
St. James Hotel

Winona
 1:30 p.m.
Winona State University
Tau Center Rotunda
511 Hilbert St

The Environmental Quality Board, Pollution Control Agency, Department of Natural Resources and Department of Health are hosting meetings in Red Wing and Winona regarding implementation of the frac sand mining mandates from the last legislative session:

Red Wing
 9:00 a.m.
St. James Hotel

 

Winona
 1:30 p.m.
Winona State University
Tau Center Rotunda
511 Hilbert St

I’ll be in Red Wing and Winona tomorrow, on behalf of Winona County Citizens Concerned About Silica Mining, reiterating a request for an immediate ban on frac sand mining, presenting the first round of comments and suggestions for language on the EQB Standards and Criteria for frac sand mining and requests to open up the EQB Standards and Criteria meetings to public participation and comment, and to open the the EQB, DNR, MPCA rulemakings and MDH “value” development for public participation by appointing Advisory Committees for the rulemakings.

So far this has been a pretty closed process.  It’s important to register requests to open it up early on to set up the expectation of public participation.  They’re primed, but we have to make sure they “find time” for the public.

I’ve not seen much in the way of notice on this — please send far and wide to alert the troops, bring your friends and neighbors. 

This is TOMORROW!!!

FRIDAY!!

9:00 a.m. in Red Wing

1:30 p.m. in Winona

Here are notice letters sent to local governments in June and July:

Silica Sand Legis Letter to LGU SEC ERA (sent June 9, 2013)

Invite Letter FINAL.Sent July 19, 2013

One more step closer to being DONE!  The Public Utilities Commission has issued its “Order Declining to Extend Certificate of Need, Finding Statutory Violatino, Requiring Further Filings, and Giving Notice of Intent to Revoke Site Permit” for all the world to see:

 July 26 2013 Order of the Public Utilities Commission

Here’s the upshot:

1) The Commission will require the project to make a filing within 14 days in which it either surrenders its site permit or states that it intends to begin construction by August 23. If the project states that it intends to begin construction by August 23, it must demonstrate its ability to do so.

If the project states that it intends to begin construction by August 23, it must also provide by that date a more comprehensive response to the Commission’s request in section IV of the March 20 order that it investigate and respond to comments by members of the public alleging deficiencies in its performance on wildlife monitoring and protection issues. It must also file a summary of the March 27, 2013 site visit, referred to in its April 17 letter, conducted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, and the Energy Facility Permitting Staff of the Minnesota Department of Commerce.

The Commission has declined to extend the certificate of need for this project for the reasons set forth above; therefore, any construction of the project must proceed under the exemption provisions of Minn. Stat. § 216B.243. The Commission hereby gives notice of its intent to revoke the site permit if the project has neither surrendered its site permit nor filed an exemption petition by August 23, 2013.

2) The Commission finds that the transfer of the project and its associated purchased power agreements to the current owner is prohibited under Minn. Stat. § 216B.1612, subd. 3 (c), which reads as follows:

The commission shall require that C-BED projects provide sufficient security to secure performance under the power purchase agreement, and shall prohibit transfer of a C-BED project during the initial term of a power purchase agreement if the transfer will result in the project no longer qualifying under subdivision 2, paragraph (h).

First, the ownership transfer violates the plain meaning of subdivision 3 (c) of the C-BED statute. It eliminated local ownership, apparently reducing the in-state economic benefits below the threshold required for the project to qualify under subdivision 2, paragraph (h)…

Subdivision 10 Does Not Make the Anti-Transfer Provision of Subdivision 3 (c) Inapplicable to New Era… This subdivision does not repeal subdivision 3, and its provisions do not conflict with the anti-transfer provision subdivision 3 contains. It does not invalidate or otherwise free existing C-BED projects from the statutory prohibition on ownership transfers that result in existing C-BED projects failing to qualify under the eligibility criteria of subdivision 2, paragraph (h).

BOTTOM LINE:

ORDER

1. The Commission denies the project’s April 17 request to hold the case in abeyance and its June 18 request for an extension of time.

2. The Commission finds that the project violated the anti-transfer provision of Minn. Stat. § 216B.1612, subd. 3 (c) and that the transfer of power purchase agreements that occurred is prohibited.

3. The Commission declines to recertify the certificate of need due to New Era’s failure to demonstrate that it will comply with the Commission’s orders and due to its failure to show that it is prepared to move forward with the project for which the certificate of need was obtained, including the failure to specify a current in-service date.

4. Within 14 days of the date of this order, New Era shall either surrender its site permit or show cause that it intends to begin construction by August 23 and that its site permit should not be revoked. If the project states that it intends to begin construction by August 23, it shall demonstrate that it is able to begin construction by that date.

5. If New Era makes a filing stating that it intends to begin construction by August 23, it shall provide by that date a more comprehensive response to the Commission’s request in section IV of the March 20 order that it investigate and respond to comments by members of the public alleging deficiencies in its performance on wildlife monitoring and protection issues.

6. If New Era makes a filing stating that it intends to begin construction by August 23, it shall provide by that date a summary of the March 27, 2013 site visit, referred to in its April 17 letter, conducted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, and the Energy Facility Permitting Staff of the Minnesota Department of Commerce.

7. The Commission gives notice of its intent to revoke the project’s site permit if it has neither surrendered its site permit nor filed a certificate of need exemption petition by August 23, 2013.

8. This Order shall become effective immediately.

YES!!!  ‘BOUT TIME!

YES!  Today NSP filed a letter that says that NSP and New Era Wind Farm agreed to terminate the Power Power Agreements:

Termination of PPAs

One more step, it’s getting closer to over, but it’s not quite over yet…