Well, Association of Freeborn County Landowners got Subpoenas, served them, and for some reason, the Dept. of Commerce and Dept. of Health really don’t want to bring their reports into the Freeborn Wind docket:

Subpoena_OAH_Cover&Subpoenas

Here are the reports that really matter:

Dept of Health – Public Health Impacts of Wind Turbines

Dept of Health – Comment Pages 59-61 from Siting_InitialFiling_Appendix A_Agency Correspondence

Commerce – Bent Tree Noise Monitoring and Noise Report

Commerece – email_8-14-2017_Dokouzian-Miltich

One way or another, these reports WILL get in the record.  Why?  Well, look at the recommendations in the Dept. of Health comment:

Pretty specific? And the more general recommendations fro the “Public Health Impacts of Wind Turbines” report:

The Dept. of Health report is part of Invenergy’s Roberts’ testimony, but it’s not entered in the record yet.  The Dept. of Health 5/2/2017 Comment was part of the Applicant’s Appendix A (pps. 59-61) and again, it’s not part of the record yet.  So just making sure it all gets in there one way or another.

Do tell — has the Applicant followed these recommendations of the Minnesota Department of Health in siting their project?  Has the Dept. of Commerce followed these recommendations in reviewing the project?  Has the Public Utilities Commission followed these recommendations in considering permitting the project?

And what about Commerce?  We have documentation that in the Bent Tree project, which had wind noise modeling performed as a part of the application and permitting process, noise modeling which said, “no problem,” and yet (click for larger version):

And the full Bent Tree Noise Monitoring and Noise Report ordered by the Public Utilities Commission.

Commerce filed a Motion to Quash:

17-410-Motion_to_Quash_Hearing_Subpoena

And we reached an agreement:

Commerce-AFCL_Agreement_20181-139130-01

Oh, but wait… they’re really not wanting that Bent Tree info to get in the record! So once more with feeling:

Motion To Exclude_Commerce_20181-139379-01

OK, whatever…

AFCL Response_Motion to Exclude_20181-139493-01

And then there’s the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH), and they also jumped on the bandwagon, clearly the Asst. Commissioner who signed the Dept of Health – Comment wasn’t the author and didn’t know much about it (!), so:

Letter and Stipulation for the Release of the Assistant Commissioner

Which leaves the DNR. Got a call from DNR Counsel Sherry Enzler, who clearly didn’t get that Commerce Motion to Quash had no bearing on DNR Subpoena, and that wed reached an agreement and Commerce had withdrawn their Motion, oh my… but anyway, we agreed that we’d set a time certain the last day of the hearing for the DNR staff.  No problem… though we’ll need an Order from the judge confirming that.

DNR_Time Certain

So on we go…

Oh, but wait, the Applicants, Invenergy, also got their $0.02 in, and filed a Motion:

20181-139400-02_Freeborn_Motion to Strike Hansen Testimony

… OK, again, whatever, gotta get response in on this one…

And may the ALJ decide!!!

The Administrative Law Judge in this case, and the Public Utilities Commission, the ultimate decider, need to recognize that the permitting system is fatally flawed.  Prevention, precaution, prudence…

FYI, there’s a St. Croix State Park Management Plan open for comment, due July 7!  Never been to this one, yet, have looked but… Last year after Lindbergh, I sent the DNR a “We’re All Ears” comment about general experiences in the state parks, and this is more specific, so what the hell!!  I want to encourage them to have wifi in all the camps, particularly where there’s no phone access.  In Michigan, the park way way up at the tip of the peninsula of the UP has WiFi, why can’t we?

Here’s a tour of campsites at St. Croix State Park:


Their page about this plan is HERE.

The DNR will host an open house on June 22, 2017 at the St. Croix Lodge visitor center in St. Croix State Park from 6:30 to 8:00 p.m. to answer questions and collect comments on the draft plan.

And the plan itself?  It’s here, check it out:

Draft St. Croix State Park management plan

Comments are due by July 7, and should be sent to:

Jade Templin    via email: jade.templin@state.mn.us

MNDNR Division of Parks and Trails
St. Croix Management Plan Comments
500 Lafayette Road Box 39
St. Paul, MN  55155-4039

Draft St. Croix State Park management plan

There’s also a 25 year Parks and Trails Legacy Plan and from that, there’s a Minnesota State Parks and Trails System Plan, and parks are one of three categories, a “Destination” park, a “Core park, or a “Rustic” park. The “Rustic” parks are ones that they say have minimal amenities, but Charles A. Lindbergh, classified as “Rustic,” had great facilities, and even canoes for rent!  Anyway, I’m digging through this today because we’re not out camping until later this month.

Check how they’ve categorized the parks in the Parks and Trails Legacy Plan, above.  The only one I’d not recommend for any reason is Big Bog, it’s buggy, hot, pretty much just a grassy parking lot, and full of big honkin’ RVs and big honkin’ pick up trucks and big honkin’ boats (it does have docks for most of the campsites).  It’s a class thing. UGH!

Destination Parks and Recreation Areas
Bear Head Lake
Forestville/Mystery Cave
Fort Snelling
Gooseberry Falls
Itasca
Jay Cooke
Lake Carlos
Lake Vermilion-Soudan Underground Mine
Mille Lacs Kathio
Sibley
Split Rock Lighthouse
St. Croix
Tettegouche
Whitewater
Wild River
William O’Brien

Core/Adventure Parks and Recreation Areas
Banning
Blue Mounds
Cuyuna Country
Interstate
Iron Range OHV
Temperance River

Core/Gateway Parks and Recreation Areas
Afton
Buffalo River
Camden
Flandreau
Frontenac
Grand Portage
Lake Bemidji
Lake Maria
Maplewood
Minneopa
Myre-Big Island
Nerstrand-Big Woods
Upper Sioux Agency

Core/Classic Parks and Recreation Areas
Big Bog
Big Stone Lake
Cascade River
Crow Wing
Father Hennepin
Fort Ridgely
Glacial Lakes
Glendalough
Great River Bluffs
Hayes Lake
La Salle Lake
Lac Qui Parle
Lake Bronson
Lake Shetek
McCarthy Beach
Moose Lake
Red River
Rice Lake
Sakatah Lake
Savanna Portage
Scenic
Split Rock Creek
Zippel Bay

Rustic Parks
Beaver Creek Valley
Carley
Charles A. Lindbergh
Franz Jevne
Garden Island
George H. Crosby Manitou
Greenleaf Lake
Hill Annex Mine
John A. Latsch
Judge C.R. Magney
Kilen Woods
Lake Louise
Minnesota Valley
Monson Lake
Old Mill
St. Croix Islands
Schoolcraft

Male Eastern Bluebird (Sialia sialis) on a stump with a green background

Many thanks to the “little birdie” who brought this decades old report to my attention:

Rulemaking – Legislative Auditor-93-04-1

Yes, this is a report from the Minnesota Legislative Auditor from 1993, and if you read it, you’ll see little has changed is so many years…  The issues raised are issues we’ve been raising in the Public Utilities Commission rulemaking for Minn. R. Ch. 7849 and 7850 (Certificate of Need and Siting/Routing).  AAAAAAAAAAAACK!

For example, from the Summary:

One unintended consequence of negotiated rulemaking is that the public participation process mandated by the APA has become less important because the content of rules is largely decided during the negotiation phase. As a result, by the time a rule is formally published in the State Register with a request for public comments, an informal agreement between an agency and parties to the negotiation may already have been reached. Those groups and individuals not consulted often are left out. Nearly 70 percent of the affected parties who responded to our survey said they hear about rules too late for their input to make a difference. People who live outside the Twin Cities area were much more likely to feel unable to influence the rulemaking process and to express dissatisfaction with agency rulemaking performance generally.

For example, in the PUC Rulemaking for 7849 and 7850 (PUC Docket 12-1246), it’s been an over two-year-long process, and few are showing up anymore.  We weigh in, some things are taken into account in the drafts, and then that disappears from the next draft.  How can it feel like anything but a colossal waste of time?  Yet if we weren’t there, the utilities would get everything they want.  And as with the utility Certificate of Need and Siting/Routing processes, rulemaking has the same notice and public participation problems.  It’s all the same, deja vu all over again.

dejavualloveragain

… and also from the report …

Furthermore, the rule negotiation process is not part of the official rulemaking record nor subject to statutory controls or legal review that would guarantee equal access. Therefore, it can easily be dominated by those groups and organizations with more resources. In the absence of formal guidelines or standards, agency practices vary, and some agencies are better than others at obtaining broad-based input.

We also conclude that:

Does this sound familiar?

Once more with feeling:  … the rule negotiation process is not part of the official rulemaking record nor subject to statutory controls or legal review that would guarantee equal access. Therefore, it can easily be dominated by those groups and organizations with more resources.

DOH!

So what is the bottom line of this report?

Therefore, we recommend that:

The Legislature should consider amending the Administrative Procedure Act to require that a “notice of regulatory action” be published in the State Register and mailed to all affected parties when an agency begins drafting a rule.

We also recommend that:

The recommendations we make are designed to revitalize the formal rulemaking process, ensure more equitable access to agencies at a time when comments can reasonably be considered, and strengthen public accountability over agency rules. We think that replacing the current “notice to solicit outside opinion,” which is published for 62 percent of all rules, with a mandatory “notice of regulatory action” will not represent an undue burden on agencies. The current notice is not widely distributed and does not contain enough information to enable interested parties to respond. Therefore, we recommend that the new notice should contain more information about the rule and the process to be used in drafting it, and that it should receive wider distribution than the current notice. A mandatory rulemaking docket, to be submitted to the Legislature and made available to the public upon request, should help the Legislature monitor rulemaking and provide better oversight.

Also, we recommend the following additional changes to the Administrative Procedure Act:

… and …

In addition to changing the APA and other statutes that govern agency rulemaking, we recommend that:

For example, they should make a greater effort to educate the public about how to receive direct information about rulemaking actions and make greater use of agency-held public hearings or widely publicized public meetings early in the rulemaking process. They should also include circulation of rule drafts and “statements of need and reasonableness” earlier and more widely among all parties affected by rules. Finally, agencies should terminate the negotiation process when it fails to make progress toward resolving issues and either proceed more quickly to an official public hearing, employ the services of a professional negotiator or mediator, or return to the Legislature for guidance.

Adopting these recommendations should shorten the informal process, broaden public input in the early stages of rulemaking, and make rules more responsive to the Legislature.

 

 

 

 

DNR Logo

Today in the inbox, this DNR Comment on the Chapter 7829 Rulemaking appeared:

DNR 7829 Comment_20157-112548-01

Here’s the juicy part:

DNR

DOH!  Brilliant!  So I quick wrote this up and filed a few minutes ago:

Overland 7829 Comments July 2015

Agencies have contributed so much when they show up, and now the DNR and DOT do show up and it’s so much appreciated!  How can building the record and getting their comments in be anything but good!  Let’s do it!!  Let’s establish a distinct status for state agencies to participate in Public Utility Commission dockets!

 

Double trouble for AWA – taken in the AWA Goodhue wind project footprint:

eagledoubletrouble

to be clear, there are lots and lots of bald eagles here, and there are documented golden eagles too.  USFWS has said there are no permits available for golden eagles for this project.

ABPP – that’s Avian and Bat Protection Plan:

AVIAN AND BAT PROTECTION PLAN

AWA Goodhue Fall Migration Study

U.S. Fish and Wildlife and the Minnesota Dept. of Natural Resources have filed comments on the Avian and Bat Protection Plan.  These are MUST READ Comments!

USFWS Comments on ABPP

DNR Comments on ABPP

And here is the response to my Data Request to the Board of Animal Health asking for copies of AWA Complaints to Board of Animal Health about Eagle Baiting and the reports of their investigations showing no violations found, that there is no basis for enforcement action:

Response to Data Request – Board of Animal Health

In the AWA Goodhue wind project footprint, T. Boone Pickens is at it again – the helicopters are flying today:

awa-hellicopter-1-19-11-009

Does that look like 200 feet??  Is it the same one from Brainerd Helicopter Service?

Here they are by the met tower, that’s 197 feet tall,  just enough to keep under the lighting requirement, and the helicopter is just above:

awa-hellicopter-1-19-11-011

Clients got the call from sheriff and utilized their phone tree to spread the word that AWA Goodhue helicopters would be flying today, notice came in at 10:00 a.m. and helicopter sighted at 10:30 a.m.  Sheriff did a good job in notifying as soon as notice came in, but come on AWA, how about letting the landowners know reasonably ahead of time, report it when you book the helicopter???  It’s not that hard!

Here it is near a communications tower – the lights are out on that tower, somebody call maintenance!

awa-hellicopter-1-19-11-008