From Carol
A. Overland (overland@legalectric.org)
Subject:
Re: Dayton's latest
statements and SE Minnesota v. other silica sand mining area
During the legislative session I raised this SE Minnesota issue after seeing how it was characterized/presented, having the same objections.
Regarding "Though, of course, their charge is SE right now," well, not quite... the language of the statute is broadly applicable to the state, specifying that standards and criteria shall be different for different areas, and "unique" is to be considered "unique" and WHETHER requirements shall be different for different areas. That's the language that passed, the only parts specifying SE are below:
Subd. 2. Standards and criteria. (a) By October 1, 2013, the Environmental Quality Board, in consultation with local units of government, shall develop model standards and criteria for mining, processing, and transporting silica sand. These standards and criteria may be used by local units of government in developing local ordinances. The standards and criteria shall be different for different geographic areas of the state. The unique karst conditions and landforms of southeastern Minnesota shall be considered unique when compared with the flat scoured river terraces and uniform hydrology of the Minnesota Valley. The standards and criteria developed shall reflect those differences in varying regions of the state. The standards and criteria must include: ...and:
(d) The Environmental Quality Board shall amend its rules for environmental review, adopted under Minnesota Statutes, chapter 116D, for silica sand mining and processing to take into account the increased activity in the state and concerns over the size of specific operations. TheMeanwhile, a new permit was just issued near Mankato -- I sent this around this morning:
Environmental Quality Board shall consider whether the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, section 116C.991, should remain part of the environmental review requirements for silica sand and whether the requirements should be different for different geographic areas of the state. The rulemaking is exempt from Minnesota Statutes, section 14.125.
The horse is out of the barn... again...
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
http://www.startribune.com/local/221643901.html
Local commission approves silica sand mine operation in Mankato
- Article by: Associated Press
- Updated: August 29, 2013 - 10:00 AM
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++MANKATO, Minn. — A silica sand mining project had cleared its last local hurdle in Mankato.The Planning Commission has approved a conditional use permit for Jordan Sands, an affiliate of Coughlan Companies, which is planning to mine 70 acres and use another 40 acres just north of the city for processing the sand.The Free Press (http://bit.ly/1a0RI2G ) says Commissioner Mark Luepke abstained from the vote on the mine Wednesday night. Luepke says approving the project would be like "swallowing a poison pill" because any new jobs wouldn't justify environmental concerns. The commission's approval was needed under an annexation agreement with Lime Township where the mining site is located.The project still needs state approval. The sand is sought by businesses that use a process called "fracking" to release natural gas and oil from the ground.
http://mankatofreepress.com/local/x86512562/Sand-mine-approved
August 28, 2013Sand mine approved
Opponents turned out, but knew plans would move forward
MANKATO — It’s not often that a Mankato Planning Commission meeting draws a full house, but that happened Wednesday evening as dozens turned out to watch a proposed silica sand mining and processing operation clear its last hurdle for local approval.After hearing from the operation’s planners and opponents members of the commission approved a conditional use permit for Jordan Sands, an affiliate of Coughlan Companies that is planning to mine 70 acres and use another 40 acres for processing the sand. The property is just north of the city limits on Third Avenue.No one voted against the permit, but one commissioner, Mark Luepke, abstained. He said approving the plan would be like “swallowing a poison pill” and that any new jobs didn’t justify possible environmental concerns.Silaca sand that will be mined from the site, if the project gets final clearances from state agencies such as the Department of Natural Resources, is of the quality that is sought by businesses that use a process called “fracking” to release natural gas and oil from the ground. The process of injecting sand into the ground through hydraulic fracturing, the technical term for fracking, isn’t taking place in this region.There was actually very little the Planning Commission could do even if a majority of its members wanted to look into the proposal more or deny it. The Lime Township Board had already approved the permit earlier this month after more than a year of public hearings that hammered out a plan that created restrictions to protect air and water quality and monitor new truck traffic on the already busy road.Under the terms of a 1997 annexation agreement between the city and Lime Township, the commission was required to approve the permit as long as it didn’t violate the terms of that agreement or the township’s zoning ordinances. The township board found Jordan Sands’ proposal doesn’t violate mining or manufacturing ordinances. City staff told commissioners they agreed with that assessment.The area where the mine and processing facilities would be is just north of the city’s Sakatah Industrial Park around Pilgrims Rest Cemetery. Portions of the property are adjacent to the Southern Minnesota Construction landfill that city residents use to dump yard waste. Other products have been mined from the properties for decades.Sand will be transported from that mine and other mines in the area to a facility on the west side of Third Avenue that will be used to wash it and turn it into a slurry. An underground piping system will be used during warmer months to transfer the slurry from the wet plant to a drying facility on the east side of the road. Trucks will be used to ship the slurry when temperatures are too cold to use the pipe system.Preliminary plans provided to Lime Township by Jordan Sands said the business expected to start construction of its wet plant in September and have it completed by March 2014. Those plans have likely been pushed back a bit, however, because the business also expected to have conditional use permits finalized by June when the plans were created. It’s estimated that both plants will have an operation life of 50 years.Most of the people who spoke against the project told commissioners they understood they had little chance of stopping it. One speaker was Sarah Richards, co-owner of Jones Metal Products. She said her family-owned business has invested millions of dollars in its Sakatah Industrial Park facility and she hopes Coughlin Companies will address any concerns about air quality, blasting damage or traffic problems if they come up.On 8/29/2013 6:08 PM, Kristen Eide-Tollefson wrote:KristenThanks for the great maps and analysis!That's what I know about this. So I don't see it as an ethical dilemna -- but more of an incomplete set of considerations. Which your material outlines very well. Hope it gets passed on to EQB. Though, of course, their charge is SE right now. The new OSHA ruling on silica is a new context. And maybe this will be a deciding factor once the state has some recommendations on this. Probably the easiest thing to show that there is no geographical difference to the dust and health factors.Hi Carol,
I think we have to keep in mind that a number of of us have been pitching the special concerns of the SE -- Driftless area -- to the governor for almost 2 years. So I think this is the context. Also the distinction came up in session because of the sand lobbyists trying to represent MN silica sand mining as local "family businesses", or as Sen Rose called them "small business"! It really is a very different group of players, that are operating in MN River Valley and threatening SE (multi nationals, Tx, Canada etc).I know I testified in the house -- responding to the sand lobbyists who had testified before me -- to the distinctions: different kind of companies; predominance of karst geology; shallow aquifers; and the Great River road tourism and recreational economies. Many others including Trout Unlimited and Audubon lobbied heavily for the Driftless area. SE is where we had the organized political will to push for protections.That said, if mining is not allowed in SE, that could press companies into the MN River Valley, where there are these important issues you outline -- about water especially. I guess we didn't, or I didn't realize, that there was much Karst in the MN River Valley. It is a different base though (not glacial?) Not that you can't draw important parallels. But there did seem to be some genuine differences. I think that it did help the legislative outcome that the active sand lobbyists started to make the SE/MN valley distinction too. I'm not sure we would have gotten the legislation we did if no special claims were made for the sensitivity of the Driftless area.
Once the standards are in place, maybe the questions/issues you are raising will have a better chance (politically speaking) to be heard. But the reason we are getting standards and criteria is because of the focus on SE. As we soon discovered, a whole state approach would not have been possible to pass this session. I am worried about the St. Croix Valley too. First organizing piece we did was a "Three Rivers" approach: Ms,. MN, and St. Croix. But was hard to hold together from that distance.
Again, once we get that done, and that case made. Then if there are activists in MN Valley who want to follow up -- it would seem a good case could be made -- such as you are making. These are just my reflections. I don't think we need to blame the governor for this. He is responding to the case that has been made to him by the SE activists and others. That is, US.
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 3:52 PM, Carol A. Overland <overland@legalectric.org> wrote:
All - I found Dayton's statements very disturbing, not encouraging.Dayton is the one who rejected the moratorium last session... the GEIS... and any ban!Gov. Dayton says, "Fracking frankly I would keep out of MN entirely." and "I would ban further silica sand mining and any processing of that in Southeastern Minnesota." He goes on to say that there are some silica mines in the Mankato area that he wouldn't ban, because the area is not as fragile as SE MN. He goes on to say that he "couldn't get the legislature to go along with the ban in SE MN." but "We did get some very very tight regulations."
The quote above says to me that Dayton would ban "fracking" in Minnesota, and would ban mining and processing in SE Minnesota.
Will someone please explain what it means when Dayton says:
"He goes on to say that there are some silica mines in the Mankato area that he wouldn't ban, because the area is not as fragile as SE MN"We've got a significant ethical issue happening here, and obviously I'm directing this question directly to Dayton too.
We had extensive information in the CapX 2020 transmission hearing regarding the Minnesota River and potential sites for crossing, and there are many protected areas, USFWS sites, MCBS sites, eagles and other bird and wildlife species, DOT scenic easements, state byways. Further west, in the Minnesota River watershed there are additional water problems due to ethanol water-sucking practices, and due to ag practices, the Minnesota River is contaminated with coliform and pesticides and in need of remedial efforts and protections. Is silicosis any different 100+ miles away? Is burgeoning truck traffic along Hwy. 169 different from that along Hwy. 61?
Karst is less prevalent, but it is found on the Minnesota River sites in Nicollet and Scott county where they're mining.
How is the Minnesota River area less fragile? How can a significantly detrimental activity be prohibited in one part of the state yet deemed OK in another? How are such statements and policies helpful to the cause and the public interest? The people on the Minnesota River sites have valuable information about impacts of living with sand mines yet they're being ignored and shuffled aside. One township Supervisor in Le Sueur County came all the way over to Red Wing on Aug. 2 to voice his concerns to the agency heads -- they didn't hold meetings in his area where there are active mines and processing facilities. He said he lived 300 feet from the mine. A high school classmate who was in Red Wing for the CD2 meeting held the day Dayton was at the park said they were mining in her township and more was planned near her home in Scott County. A cohort working on preservation of the St. Croix Wild & Scenic River let me know about the Wisconsin impoundment break that spilled frac sand mining waste into the St. Croix River, and the Tiller processing plant in North Branch that went forward without securing permits! Are these not problems? Do we want to/can we afford to ignore those experiencing silica sand mining along other rivers and toss them under the bus? Are groups talking this through and making conscious policy decisions about this?
Carol- "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about the things that matter." Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Carol A. Overland Attorney at Law Legalectric - Overland Law Office 1110 West Avenue Red Wing, MN 55066 612-227-8638 overland@legalectric.org http://www.legalectric.org/ http://www.nocapx2020.info
No comments:
Post a Comment