Legalectric

Today was the deadline for filing Exceptions to the Administrative Law Judge’s Recommendation for Line 3 Certificate of Need and Route.  Here’s the ALJ’s Recommendation:

Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Recommendation

I quick filed an Exception on behalf of Association of Freeborn County Landowners, objecting to inclusion and objecting to any consideration of “System Alternative 04” or SA-04, because no notice was given to landowners in Freeborn County, and well, to any of the landowners along SA-04.

Association of Freeborn County Landowners_ Exceptions to Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommendation of ALJ

Friends of the Headwaters proposed SA-04, the only “System Alternative” proposed in the Certificate of Need proceeding.  … sigh…. foisting it elsewhere is not a good strategy.  Search their Exceptions for more info on their rationale – do a search for “SA-04” of this filing:

20185-142900-04_Exceptions – Friends Of The Headwaters

Are there others advocating for AS-04?  Looking… it’ll take a bit.

System Alternative SA-04 is noted 139 times in the ALJ’s Recommendation, and is first mentioned on p. 24:

And the Public Utilities Commission accepted it for further evaluation, but no notice was provided:

But no meetings in the area — and still no notice:

… sigh… on it goes…

And regarding the DNR’s take on SA-04 (will find DNR comment):

Here are all the other references to SA-04 in order — the ALJ does reject it, saying it is not a viable alternative:

And then the ALJ considers comments:

The DNR comments are troubling:

Here’s the actual DNR Comment:

201711-137640-01_DNR’s  Comment (SA-04)

The DNR said about SA-04:

And back to the ALJ’s mentions of SA-04:

The DNR changed its logo to the same boring one all MN agencies now use, UGH!

The DNR, after agreeing to a time certain for staff to testified, filed a Motion to Quash!!

DNR-Motion Packet

WHAT?  So I filed a response:

Response_DNR_Motion to Quash_FINAL

And the Administrative Law Judge told the DNR what they could do with their Motion:

Order_DNR Quash_20182-140121-01

And the meat of it:

Yeah… delightful… Now, can we get at why it is that the DNR, Dept. of Health, and Commerce do not want to testify in this docket?  Hmmmmm…

Freeborn Wind Project is ramping up.

20182-139890-01_Rep. Walz Letter on behalf of “constituent Melville Nickerson, Director of Governmental Relations, Invenergy,” both of CHICAGO!

Photo taken by moi.  This is the bald eagle that flew up from the 120th St. ditch as I approached the Hansen home in the Freeborn Wind permit footprint.  There’s a nest just a bit to the west, just south of 120th.  Guess they don’t want me posting any more eagle photos on their fb page:

And in the news:

Albert Lea City Council Hears Economic Benefits Freeborn Wind Farm

Wind Farm Proposal in Freeborn County

Today, the Department of Natural Resources filed a Motion to Quash so its employees wouldn’t have to appear, filed February 9 regarding Subpoenas that were served December 11 and 18, 2017.  Roughly two months ago.  After a conversation with DNR Counsel Sherry Enzler where she didn’t want her people sitting around all day so we agreed to a 3 p.m. time, which would need to be locked in with the judge.  Now this.  Good grief.  But our conversation that day was so bizarre that I memorialized it with a letter to the judge, though not in technicolor.

Joyal_Motion_20182-139915-01

Joyal_Memo_20182-139915-02

Joyal_Aff_20182-139915-03

Mixon_Motion_20182-139916-01-2

Mixon_Memo_20182-139916-02

Mixon_Aff_20182-139916-03

OK, fine, whatever… here we go!

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