Freeborn Wind hearing just ended…
February 22nd, 2018
KAAL’s star witness!
It’s over, only two days, well, three, the public hearing was on Tuesday, lots and lots of people attended and spoke up.
This was before the public hearing started, and not long after it started they added two more sections o seating over on our side to my right. It was a god crowd, articulate and well spoken.
The AP article about this project is all over the country.
New rebellion against wind energy stalls or stops projects:
Enough, you get the idea…
Red Wing City Council Workshop
January 27th, 2018
Today the Red Wing City Council started its Day 2 of the Council Workshop, and it was worth going to, but too early o’clock. Getting the last Icelandic Almond Roll was some consolation!
Here is what was part of yesterday’s discussion… really…
What’s that? It’s a shield, under the bench, one for each of the City Council members and staff , to pull out in case of terrorist attack.
Oh well, they already did it, and this was mostly a report on what had been done. Rumor has it that these were about $8,000 each, or $50K+ total… Oh my…
Onward… today first was a discussion of painting on Barn Bluff. I rather enjoy the painting cropping up on the outcrop. But I also hear that this bluff is a sacred Dakota area. I’ve seen the flag on the bluff, it hasn’t been there all that long, and to me, that flag there is inconsistent with respect for Dakota tradition. Flagpole and flag here in upper right hand corner of this borrowed photo:
Today, from the discussion, I learn that the flag was sited right in the midst of a burial area! WHAT?!?! And this is not the first time siting is an issue, probably this happens a lot here, but I do know it was also an issue with the siting of the Red Wing lay down yard, where that Lot and building and storage area was right within the Water Tank Mounds area and that was not fully disclosed during that permitting, nor was the timing of agency involvement and review correctly disclosed during the Ash Mine permitting proceeding. Looks to me like the City has a pattern of inadequate investigation of and respect for Dakota sacred and burial areas. Falling through the holes, being pushed through, how do we fix this, assure it doesn’t keep happening, and make amends?
And then on to the “Public Hearing Process Discussion.” Oh my… Here’s the background from the workshop packet:
Overland’s $0.02: The discussion of civic engagement and “Public Hearing Process Discussion” morphed into a “no public comments on agenda items where there has been a Public Hearing at Planning Commission” as a council policy and taking it off the Council President. NO, not OK. The “No public comments” is bad policy. I note that 2-3 council members felt it was important for the public to be able to address, face to face, the decision makers. YES, it is. And when that is not allowed, it is the job of those council members to stand up for the public!
Today’s discussion, from the packet, was framed in binary, either Option A, where board/commission brings recommendation to Council, “No public input would occur at the Council meeting.” Option B, Boards and commissions have a lesser role in government decisions. Public input often happens at both the board/commission meetings and the City Council meetings.
Note the framing — problematic, as Option A would as policy eliminate public comment at CC meetings on agenda items. NOT OK! Option B frames it as allowing public comment at meetings means “boards and commission have a lesser role in government decision.” NOT OK! The notion that allowing public comment means undermining the Planning Commission is absurd. If there’s crucial determinative “new information,” then it should go back to the Planning Commission with a clear directive, and mindful that the Planning Commission is an “Advisory” Planning Commission, they are NOT the decision makers.
The framing of the options was off, and impact of this framing was to guide toward making it Council policy not to allow comment. NOT OK! Was that intended or not? Who knows… The framing was NOT OK for two reasons, first, public comment should as policy be allowed and encouraged. Second, the decision not to allow public comment has been a decision of the Council President, and he’s accountable for that. NOT OK! I do think that bullet was dodged, and instead a more reasonable Option C, that public comment WILL be allowed, and if Council has issues about what’s proposed, it will go back to Board/Commission. It took a lot of objecting and targeted statements to pull this into encouraging public participation, and not further limiting it as a matter of policy. We shall see…
PolyMet Draft Permit issued — WHERE IS IT?
January 6th, 2018
PolyMet’s Draft Site Permit has been released by the Dept. of Natural Resources. Here’s the link:
And in there are some links — official word from Barb Naramore, DNR, is that the Permit to Mine Application & Appendices and DNR’s Draft Special Conditions constitute the “Draft Site Permit” for the PolyMet mine, based on this statement:
Following review of PolyMet’s permit to mine application, DNR has prepared draft special conditions for the application. Together, the application and the draft special conditions are considered the draft permit to mine for the NorthMet project.
Guess that’s what they’re presenting as the “Draft Site Permit” for review and comment, but it looks pretty bizarre to me!
Here is that application and special conditions:
- Permit to Mine Application and Appendices (755 MB)
(12/13/2017)- Appendix 16 provided separately – Final Environmental Impact Statement and Related Environmental Reports(1.3 GB)
(12/13/2017)- Appendix 18.1 Wetland Replacement Plan Attachment D-1 (1 MB)
(01/05/2018)- DNR’s Draft Special Conditions (2 MB)
Why did I ask about this? You’ll note above, there is the DNR’s Draft Special Conditions, but tell me, do you see a Draft Site Permit anywhere? I’d spent a lot of time looking, and cannot find anything that resembles a “Draft Site Permit.” So I asked around. Oh, but wait, there’s no project contact info on any of the DNR’s pages or press release. WHAT? No problem, I have contact info for the chief grand poohbahs at the DNR, and that worked.
To Comment:
DNR’s PolyMet’s Permitting COMMENT Page (note you are asked to accept set up to Comment online
In the news:
4 things to know about the PolyMet mine — MPR
With Minnesota mining permit, PolyMet proposal reaches a turning point – STrib
Comments will be accepted through March 6, 2018. Two public meetings (not hearings?) will be held. Petitions for a Contested Case may NOT be filed using the online commenting form, so they say at the link above!
Comments and objections may be submitted by US mail to the following address:
|
Letter in Albert Lea Tribune re: Freeborn Wind Farm
December 16th, 2017
On Tuesday, Commerce is having a wind project transmission scoping meeting (MPUC Docket 17-322):
6 p.m. on December 19, 2017
Room 124
Riverland Community College
Albert Lea, MN
The Albert Lea Tribune printed my Letter to the Editor about the Freeborn Wind Farm transmission scoping meeting:
Letter: Meeting on new wind farm is planned next week
At 6 p.m. Dec. 19 in Room 124 at Riverland Community College, the Minnesota Department of Commerce is holding a public comment and scoping meeting for the transmission line designed to serve the Freeborn Wind project. This is the opportunity for you to raise any questions and concerns about what issues should be investigated and reviewed in the Department of Commerce’s environmental review. This includes all of the things you know about the area, and any alternatives that should be in the mix.
Minnesota has a policy of non-proliferation of transmission corridors, which means that as a matter of law, transmission should be routed using existing corridors, such as transmission lines already in place or road right of way. This line, instead, is proposed to traverse cross country. That’s not non-proliferation.
Another problem is that Freeborn Wind developers claim they have land rights to all land needed for this transmission line, and then state that they’ll use eminent domain if they don’t. Well, which is it? And it’s troubling, because only public service corporations have the power of eminent domain, but Freeborn is a LLC, not a public service corporation. To make things more complicated, need has not been demonstrated, and there is no certificate of need. Need is a requirement for use of eminent domain. What’s their basis for saying they can use eminent domain?
This is yet another overreach by the developers — more infrastructure, which would forever change the landscape of this community. Dec. 19 at Riverland College — now is the time to speak up!
Carol A. Overland
Attorney for Association of Freeborn County Landowners
Commerce releases Freeborn Draft Site Permit
December 5th, 2017
Here it is:
17-410+Comments & Draft Site Permit
Now, get to work reading and doing a thorough mark-up!