On Saturday, January 25, 2014 1:02 PM,
Bobby King <bking@landstewardshipproject.org> wrote:
All-
Below are LSP’s draft comments to the EQB’s
Tools to Assist Local Governments in Planning for and Regulating Silica Sand
Projects. Comments are due in by Monday. I wasn’t able to get an action alert
out on this due to all the activity around the Citizens’ Frac Sand Summit. Feel
free to borrow from this in sending in your own comments. Also, give me any
feedback you have, apart from comments on spelling, punctuation, grammar etc.
It will get a thorough edit for that on Monday.
Overall, the more time I spend
with this EQB guidance document the more disappointing I find it. Unless the
final document is much improved and includes how to severely limit and ban the
industry and the DNR setback recommendations, I think it is a failure, and we
will be best served by labeling it as such.
Bobby
DRAFT – To be finalized and sent in on Monday,
Jan. 27.
RE: LSP Comments on draft EQB document “Tools
to Assist Local Governments in Planning for and Regulating Silica Sand Projects.
Dear Mr. Seuffert,
Land Stewardship Project believes these items
need be included in the final guidance document for local governments in dealing
with the frac sand industry:
1. The guide should include the ability of
local government to adopt a moratorium (interim ordinance) to protect the
planning process while comprehensive plans and zoning ordinance are being
created or updated. Use of the moratorium power needs to be encouraged. The Land
Stewardship Project has a manual for townships on how to adopt an interim
ordinance and it should be included as a reference: “Protecting your Township from Unwanted Development: A
guide for Minnesota townships on using an interim ordinance to promote
responsible development.”
2. There is no clear explanation of the
ability of local government to ban the frac sand industry in portions or all of
the municipality if they conclude it is an incompatible use. A section of the
document needs to be devoted to this issue. Banning incompatible uses in
specific zoning districts is common and should be done with the frac sand
industry. The EQB should recommend that frac sand mines, processing plants, and
loading and transfer facilities be prohibited from areas zoned for residential
use and agricultural use and possibly others. Some municipalities have
determined that the frac sand industry is incompatible all together and chosen
to ban it completely. As long as the local government concludes that the nature
of the industry is incompatible with the vision of the community as outlined in
the comprehensive plan than this is clearly within their power. Frac sand mining
can be distinguished from other types of mining through several means including
intensity of the activity (blasting, truck traffic, daily operation etc.) and
the production of industrial silica. The frac sand industry argument that it
cannot be distinguished from the many existing gravel and aggregate mines is a
ruse designed to confuse local decision makers and planners and this guide needs
to clarify this issue.
3. The title of this document, “Tools to
Assist Local Governments in Planning for and Regulating Silica Sand Project.”
suggests that local governments will necessarily be allowing the frac sand
industry to operate in their community and their only role will be to put limits
on where and how. This is not the case. Some communities have chosen to ban
elements of frac sand mining like processing and other have banned the industry
all together. We would propose the title: “Tools to Assist Local Government in
Responding to Silica Sand Projects.”
4. The document needs to include the many
violations of state and local laws in both Minnesota and Wisconsin that the frac
sand industry is responsible for. Many of the violations in Wisconsin were
committed by Minnesota based companies that will likely seek to expand in
Minnesota. In developing local regulations, local decision makers and citizens
need to be made fully aware that this is an industry that has a track record of
disregarding state and local laws.
5. The document needs to include as guidance
the restrictions which the DNR has very publicly made clear are necessary to
protect trout streams. These are:
1.
Ban on mining within one mile of all
·
Designated trout streams (“DTS”),
·
Class 2A waters (trout streams not yet designated as such
by DNR),
·
Perennial tributaries of DTS and Class 2A,
·
Springs,especially those feeding designate trout streams
and tributaries.
2.
Prohibiting mining within 25 feet of the water table
3.
Capping groundwater use at 1 million gallons per year for mining
and/or processing
If the EQB cannot restate what the DNR has
clearly stated is necessary on several public occasions and on the public
record, then it calls into question the integrity of this entire effort.
6. In the reference section the only link to a
local ordinances is to the Winona County ordinance. This is puzzling at the
Winona ordinance is among the least protective of any county ordinance. This
shows a lack of familiarity with the many local ordinances that have been passed
and the online resources they have created. Among others, there needs to be a
link to these resources:
·
The city of Red Wing has a well-developed ordinance and
detailed background information on the issue here: Red Wing Silica Sand Mining Moratorium
·
The Goodhue County ordinances and background information
are compiled here: http://www.co.goodhue.mn.us/countygovernment/committees/MiningCommittee/Miningcomm.aspx
·
Florence Township has a comprehensive plan and zoning
ordinance that bans the frac sand industry from their township. They have an
excellent website with information on how they did this. Their website and
ordinance need to be referenced for communities seeking to ban the industry. http://www.florencetwp.org/
·
Pepin County. Wisconsin, has a page on the issue Frac Sand Mining in Pepin County that has much
useful information. In addition, Pepin County’s approach to the issue of a
protective overlay district and aggressive road use agreements needs to be
covered thoroughly in this document.
·
Save the Bluffs has compiled many of the studies and the
literature available on the subject and it should be included as a reference: https://sites.google.com/site/savethebluffs/
7. The document urges caution on using
setbacks and yet provides no model setbacks. The tone of the setback section
should be revised and model setbacks to protect air quality, property values,
water quality etc. should be provided. In addition this section states, “If
restrictions or prohibitions on silica sand projects are what are desired by the
LGU for local reasons, other methods such as zoning or ordinance development can
more effectively meet their objective.” However, the document fails to give
guidance on how to best do this.
We appreciate the extension of the comment
period, but even this extended time is not adequate for the public to have time
to review a complicated 165 page document and prepare a response. Much of the
validity of this document will depend on the pubic having confidence in it. LSP
would like to see a process that allows for comment on an updated draft before
it is finalized. This will allow for further public participation.
Sincerely,
Bobby King
No comments:
Post a Comment