Sign the petition to the MN Legislature

Another opportunity to combine energy. http://signon.org/sign/mn-legislature-stop-the?mailing_id=10447&source=s.icn.em.cr&r_by=1917642

Is there really 100 years’ worth of natural gas beneath the United States?

The info in this article differs from the larger picture proclaimed by the industry.

For those of you who like those facts and figures.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/future_tense/2011/12/is_there_really_100_years_worth_of_natural_gas_beneath_the_united_states_.html?fb_ref=sm_fb_share_toolbar

Does Dayton have an effective backup plan

Dayton says no need for moratorium ?!?;   

SD claims Black Hills land for SAND

So...Does Dayton have an effective backup plan for when the industry does spiral out of control?   We need to keep telling him:         We need 1) a statewide moratorium to provide time for                    2) in-depth, state level research & study (GEIS) which will be used to develop                    3)strong, state-level regulations.     FYI:Sand mines in SD would be handy for Bakken Shale. FRAC SAND: Minnesota’s governor says he doesn’t support a state moratorium on frac sand mining, and a South Dakota company secures claims for sand mining in three Black Hills counties. (Rochester Post-Bulletin, Associated Press)

Clarification from LSP's Johanna, with steps we still need to do

Bonita, Jane, and all (please forward to the rest of your list),   I just want to clarify that the EQB vote yesterday was specific to one company's project only. The EQB (Environmental Quality Board) will be the Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU) for the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on the mines proposed by Minnesota Sands, LLC. This includes 11 proposed mines in 3 counties, Winona, Fillmore, and Houston, and the EQB is taking over this EIS because the counties asked them to. We don't know what will happen if other cases come up of a single company wanting to mine in more than one county. As Jane mentioned, the EQB also discussed the final report on the silica sand issue, prepared by EQB staff. The report is available online here: http://www.eqb.state.mn.us/resource.html?Id=33124. It does note many areas where further research is needed, but unfortunately, there aren't any requirements built in for that research to actually be done. So, yes, we absolutely need to keep telling Governor Dayton and the legislature that we need (1) a statewide moratorium, to provide time for (2) in-depth state level research and study (such as a GEIS) which will be used to develop (3) strong state-level regulations. Johanna Rupprecht Policy Organizer Land Stewardship Project Lewiston, MN 507-523-3366 jrupprecht@landstewardshipproject.org Date: Thursday, March 21, 2013 4:13 PM Subject: Fw: Dayton, moratorium, EQB Dear Friends and Neighbors,   Jane's summary contains points we can use in writing our Fillmore County Commissioners, and tells why the EIS is required. Wishing you well, Bonita Dear Bonita and all, I attended the meeting of the Environmental Quality Board  (EQB)  yesterday. They voted to be the advisory/ regulatory board for sand mining companies that work in more than one county. They presented a preliminary study of silica sand mining to serve as  basis for future regulation.  They repeatedly said and wrote in the study that there were at least 8 major areas where there just had not been enough research or research-gathering to do proper regulating.  This means they need at least a year's moratorium to do this detailed research. This study that we saw should be available to the public by calling Bob Patton and the MN Pollution Control Agency.  I returned home that evening only to discover that Gov. Dayton has decided to vote against a moratorium! We must inform him (and the legislature) that a year's moratorium is essential for proper study and consequent regulation of this new industry. (The EQB  agreed that silica mining was hugely different from construction sand mining.) -- Jane Skinner Peck Adjunct Professor,  Dance and Theater Dept.  Winona State University JPeck@winona.edu revels@janepeck.com

CONTACT EQB

By MARCH 20

Contact Environmental Quality Board

  We can tune in 5:00 pm and maybe catch it around Fillmore County.

Bonita

--- On Thu, 3/21/13, Patricia J. Popple <sunnyday5@charter.net> wrote:

From: Patricia J. Popple <sunnyday5@charter.net>
Subject: frac sand mining program WEST SIDE
To:
Date: Thursday, March 21, 2013, 12:14 AM

Hey everyone..............listen in tomorrow to THE WEST SIDE and call in!!! Pat      (Wisconsin Public Radio)
Pass the information on to people in your area of the state and/or MN/Iowa/Illinois/Michigan and make your statements.

Hi Pat,

 

Just wanted to let you know that I'm hosting a program tomorrow on the different approaches WI and MN are taking in dealing with/permitting/regulating the frac sand industry.  I've got MN State Senator Matt Schmit, WI State Senator Kathleen Vinehout, Wisconsin Towns Association Director Rick Stadelman and MN Industrial Sand Council representative Kirsten Pauly on the program.  The West Side is collaborating with WPR Regional Show Newsmakers which means we'll be broadcasting well into the Winona/southeastern MN area.  I hope we get a bunch of calls from folks over there.  Maybe you could pass this info along? 

 

 Rich Kremer

Reporter / Host of The West Side

Wisconsin Public Radio

1221 W Clairemont Ave

Eau Claire, WI

richard.kremer@wpr.org

715-839-3869 (office)

218-591-6728 (cell)

715-839-2939 (fax)

UPDATE: Last weeks 2 House Committee meetings of HF906

we have opportunities to share energy and ideas about what we can do. WHAT IS NEXT?   This has been the question I'm getting.  Here are my thoughts with help from Bobby & others: UPDATE: Last weeks 2 House Committee meetings of HF906 (Rep. Hansen's Bill) passed the bill on.  The first was Environ. & Nat. Resource Policy Comm.  It was attended by my van load of 14 people and others that made their own way.  We had a strong group.  The folks that testified that did an amazing job. The second meeting was with Government Operations Committee where it also passed.  It is now been recommended to the Environment, Natural Resources and Agriculture Finance committee. There is not a date set yet.   Today there is a committee meeting in the Senate on Schmit's "other" bill, SF1018 (this one does not include the moritorium or GEIS and is the same at HF906).  This meeting is at 12 noon with the Environment & Energy Committee.    I put together a list of UPCOMING EVENTS/MEETINGS and an attachment of some MESSAGE templates    UPCOMING MEETINGS AND EVENTS:   WEDNESDAY, MARCH 20TH EQB Hearing  1pm till 4pm  :   They will be deciding who will be the RGU for all EIS applications for MN Sands.  Bob Patton would be the one to call.  We should let him know that we DO NOT want the DNR to be this regulating body on the EIS reviews.  Our preference is the MPCA.   Bob Patton 625 No. Robert St. St. Paul, MN 55155 651-201-6226 bob.patton@state.mn.us Sen. State & Local Gov't Committee:  3pm & 6pm SF1018 is up for discussion.  Call committee members with your message.  There are also examples below and attached in a document.  Click on this link for their contact information:   State and Local Government Committee THURSDAY, MARCH 21ST  MPR/WPR On-Air Special - Frac Sand Mining 90.3FM La Crosse 88.3FM Eau Claire FRIDAY, MARCH 22ND  Movie Night: The Price of Sand Friday, March 22, 7:00 PM Sheldon Theatre 443 W. 3rd St. Red Wing, MN SATURDAY, MARCH 23RD WI Network for Peace and Justice Spring Meeting: Focus on Frac Sand Mining Saturday, March 23, 12:30PM - 4:00PM Frac sand discussion led by Pat Popple w/Heather Anderson Save the Hills Alliance and Concerned Chippewa Citizens Unitarian Universalist Congregation 421 S. Farwell St. Eau Claire, WI ACTION ALERT: KEEP ACTIVE LOCALLY CALL COMMITTEE MEMBERS OF UPCOMING BILLS (ABOVE) #1 WRITE LETTERS TO THE PAPERS (INCLUDE PAPER IN THE CITIES) SET ASIDE THE EVENING OF TUESDAY MARCH, 26TH I am working with Bobby putting together a regional meeting for Tuesday night in Winona.  As a group of IA & SE MN concern citizens it is important we put together a unified plan and share information.  Bobby will give some insight on the State level and help organize a good strategy that won't exhaust us. I will send out more information on this later!!!!!  Please let me know if there is a conflict I do not know about. Thank you to everyone for all you are and do!!!  I will be at the capitol tomorrow for the EQB & SF1018 meetings.   I'll be in touch, AmAndA S GriGGs Cell:  507-459-6700 OR  507-896-2165

From: Dennis DeKeyrel

Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 10:15 PM

Subject: Re: Contact Sen Schmit - plus, Community Mtg this Saturday in St. Charles

 

Looking at the bills that have been introduced and listening to the public testimony I'm struck by the absence of any reference to the density issue.  If there are only two or three small mines in Fillmore County, for example, the negative impact on the environment and most of the people will not great.  But as the density increases the impact will increase exponentially.  Establishing permitting standards for individual mines does not address this concern.  In fact, Drazkowski's bill seems to be setting a trap by essentially making it very difficult for a permitting unit to deny a request that meets these standards.  And I think the mining interests are quite willing to bear a small delay if in the end they are free to "clear cut" the bluffs.   

 

If I'm mistaken, please let me know.  I do know that the Fillmore County Frac Sand Study Group didn't want to discuss it.

Sen. Schmit has a town hall meeting / St. Charles Community Center

From: Bobby King <bking@landstewardshipproject.org>
Subject: Sen Schmit Community Mtg this Saturday in St. Charles

Sen. Schmit has a town hall meeting this Sat., March 16, 11:30 a.m. at the St. Charles Community Center.  It is important to have people there thanking him for his frac sand bill, Senate File 786, and encouraging him to keep fighting for it.  Sen. Schmit’s bill has the three key elements we are asking for 1) a moratorium; 2) an in-depth environmental study and 3) requiring the MPCA to develop stronger permit requirements.  It would be good for people to articulate these three elements and let him know how important they are to protecting southeast Minnesota.  He needs to see that there is strong community support for this and that people feel like this a common sense approach.  

A bill passed out of the House Environment Committee last night (HF 906) that is much weaker then Sen. Schmit’s bill.  It  calls for the state to give assistance to local governments on developing ordinances and for the state to adopt the Wisconsin Air Quality standards.  (I don’t know how good those standards are.) The amended version of HF 906 is not up on the web yet but should be soon.  

Please share this email with others.  

 

Bobby King
Land Stewardship Project

612-722-6377

transportation to Wednesday, March 13th's State Capitol hearing in the House

Hello All.

I am organizing the transportation to Wednesday, March 13th's State Capitol hearing in the House.  

To be ready and well organized, I will be calling committee members to set up meetings.  The capitol is really buzzing now, but I will do my best.  

Finally, Bobby believes there is a VERY high important to sign up as many people that we can to testify.  In doing so, it is crucial for each interested party to email their request to the following people:

DAVID DILL Committee Chair:  rep.david.dill@house.mn

PETER STROHMEIR Committee Administrator:peter.strohmeier@house.mn

Be sure to also Cc:

Rep. Rick Hansen (bill author):   rep.rick.hansen@house.mn

Rep. Paul Thissen (Speaker of the House):  rep.paul.thissen@house.mn

Don't forget to shoot Bobby a message also to let him know you have signed up to testify!!!

PEACE.  AmAndA

GET ON THE SE MN EXPRESS!!!!!

Wednesday, MARCH 13th: 

MN House of Representatives Hearing

Environment & Natural Resources Policy Committee

Bus Information/Schedule: To reserve your seat please contact: AmAndA S. GriGGs: 507-896-2165  griggsamanda1@gmail.com **Be sure to leave your full name & phone number. 10:10 AM Houston  Barista's Coffee House

10:25 AM Rushford 

Lynndyn-Bridge Restaurant (102 West Jessie St.)

 

11:00 AM Winona 

JC Penney parking lot (Hwy. 61 and Pelzer St.)

 11:45 AM Wabasha

City of Wabasha overflow parking lot across from Supervalu

12:30 PM Red Wing 

Target Store parking lot just off Tyler Road on the north side of town

1:30 PM Arrive at the Capitol

Meeting on the BUS w/ LSP's Bobby King

2:00-3:45 PM Lobby   Environment & Nat. Resources Policy members and others

4:00-6:30 PM Hearing: State Office Building RM200

Environment & Natural Resources Policy Meeting  

7:00 PM Start the Return Trip  
Please pack a lunch/dinner, as no meal stops are planned.  

MN House Holding First Hearing on Frac Sand Issue March 13

MN House Holding First Hearing on Frac Sand Issue March 13; Call to Let Representatives
Know We Need a Moratorium & Strong State Pollution Standards

Frac Sand Moratorium Bill Moves Forward in the State Senate!

Senate moves a strong bill forward. On Wednesday, March 6, citizens packed the Minnesota Senate State and Local Government Committee in support of Senate File 786, authored by Sen. Matt Schmit (DFL-Redwing). The bill passed out of committee and was referred to the Senate Environment Finance Committee. The bill calls for a one-year moratorium on frac sand mining and an in-depth environmental study that will be used to establish state-level pollution standards to protect air and water. The state level pollution standards are in addition to county, city and township local control, which stays strong under this bill. 

MN House to hold first hearing on the issue. House File 906, authored by Rep. Rick Hansen (DFL-Mendota Heights), will be heard Wednesday, March 13, in the House Environment Policy Committee. House File 906 calls for the Environmental Quality Board to develop standards for frac sand ordinances that can be used by local units of government and to create a technical assistance team to help local units of government. We must work to strengthen this bill by making sure it contains the key elements of Senate File 786.

The frac sand industry in Wisconsin has destroyed rural communities and flouted pollution regulations. In a recent article, a Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources official said he “expects 90 percent of companies in a regulated industry to comply with rules on their own. But in his visits to a dozen frac sand facilities, [DNR official] Sellers encountered the opposite pattern, and he sent letters of noncompliance to 80 to 90 percent of the sites.”  The article says nearly a fifth of all Wisconsin frac sand facilities were cited for environmental violations last year (La Crosse Tribune: “Growing frac sand industry faces DNR violations, warnings,” March 3, 2013).

TAKE ACTION:

1. Attend the House Environment Policy Committee hearing on House File 906 on Wednesday, March 13, at 4 p.m., in Room 200 of the State Office Building. If you want to testify on the bill, contact committee administrator Peter Strohmeier at 651-296-5069 or peter.strohmeier@house.mn. If you plan to attend, please let Bobby King at LSP know at 612-722-6377 orbking@landstewardshipproject.org.

2. Contact members of the House Environment Policy Committee. Every committee member needs to hear how important it is that the Legislature take strong action on this issue during thislegislative session.

Below is a suggested message. It is lengthy because we need to educate legislators on the issue and let them know how we need House File 906 strengthened:

“I am calling about House File 906, authored by Rep. Rick Hansen, which you will hear this Wednesday in the Environment Policy Committee.  The bill deals with the frac sand industry. The frac sand industry has been devastating to western Wisconsin, where at least 70 mines are now operating. The frac sand industry has shown no respect for rural communities and according to the Wisconsin DNR at least 80 percent of the operations visited by officials are in non-compliance with pollution rules. Nearly a fifth of Wisconsin’s sand mines and processing plants were cited for environmental violations in 2013, according to the DNR.  Regulating this large and new industry has been primarily left to local governments, but they need assistance from the state. House File 906 provides assistance to local governments dealing with the issue, but we need more than that. We need state legislation that calls for an in-depth environmental study of the industry and the establishment of state-level pollution standards to protect air and water. The state level pollution standards would be in addition to county, city and township local control, which must stay strong. Most importantly, while this is going on we need a state moratorium on new and expanding frac sand facilities. I urge you to support House File 906 and to support strengthening it to include these elements, which are moving forward in the Senate as part of Senate File 786, carried by Sen. Matt Schmit." If you live in an area potentially affected by frac sand mining, be sure and say how this issue will impact you personally. 

Members of the House Environment Policy Committee:

• Rep. David Dill (DFL), Committee Chair, 651-296-2190, rep.david.dill@house.mn
• Rep. Peter Fischer (DFL), 651-296-5363, rep.peter.fischer@house.mn
• Rep. John Benson (DFL), 651-296-9934, rep.john.benson@house.mn
• Rep. Jason Isaacson (DFL), 651-296-7153, rep.jason.isaacson@house.mn
• Rep. Clark Johnson (DFL), bill co-author, 651-296-8634, rep.clark.johnson@house.mn
• Rep. John Persell (DFL), 651-296-5516, rep.john.persell@house.mn
• Rep. JoAnn Ward (DFL), 651-296-7807, rep.joann.ward@house.mn
• Rep. Barb Yarusso (DFL), 651-296-0141, rep.barb.yarusso@house.mn
• Rep. Tom Hackbarth  (R), 651-296-2439, rep.tom.hackbarth@house.mn
• Rep. Tony Cornish (R), 651-296-4240, rep.tony.cornish@house.mn
• Rep. Dan Fabian (R), 651-296-9635, rep.dan.fabian@house.mn
• Rep. Steve Green (R), 651-296-9918, rep.steve.green@house.mn
• Rep. Denny McNamara (R), 651-296-3135, rep.denny.mcnamara@house.mn
• Rep. Mark Uglem (R), 651-296-5513, rep.mark.uglem@house.mn
• Rep. Rick Hansen (DFL), bill author, 651-296-6828, rep.rick.hansen@house.mn
• Rep. Jean Wagenius (DFL), 651-296-4200, rep.jean.wagenius@house.mn

For more information on LSP's work on this issue contact Bobby King at 612-722-6377 orbking@landstewardshipproject.org.

Environmental Review of Multiple Silica Sand Projects Proposed in Fillmore, Houston, and Winona Counties

 We need to build support for MPCA's Environmental Quality Board to do an Environmental Impact Study for Minn. Sands projects in Fillmore, Houston, and Winona counties.

  The important issues that affect us affect the whole driftless region, and our local levels of government do not have the resources to handle this. 

  Please contact Exec. Dir. Bob Patton    bob.patton@state.mn.us  (651/201-6226).

Wishing you well,

Bonita

From: Patton, Bob (MDA) [mailto:bob.patton@state.mn.us]
Sent: Friday, March 08, 2013 1:26 PM
Subject: Draft Findings of Fact, Conclusions and Order on Requests to Designate a Different RGU (Minnesota Sands, LLC, Projects)

 

Dear Interested Party:

 

Please see the attached Conclusions and Order on requests to designate a different responsible governmental unit for environmental review of multiple silica sand projects proposed by Minnesota Sands, LLC, in Fillmore, Houston, and Winona Counties.

 

If you have any questions, please contact me.

 

Sincerely,

 

 

Bob Patton

Executive Director

Environmental Quality Board

520 Lafayette Road North

St. Paul, MN 55155

Ph: 651-201-6226

 

www.eqb.state.mn.us


March 8, 2011
RE: Draft Findings of Fact, Conclusions and Order on Requests to Designate a Different
Responsible Governmental Unit for Environmental Review of Multiple Silica Sand
Projects Proposed in Fillmore, Houston, and Winona Counties

To Whom it May Concern:

Enclosed are draft findings of fact, conclusions and order on the above-referenced matter.
The draft findings of fact, conclusions and order reflect the EQB staffs recommendation. They
will, of course, he revised as needed to reflect whatever decision is arrived at by the
Environmental Quality Board.

The EQB meeting will be as follows

March 20, 2013

1:00 to 4:00 p.m.

MPCA Board Room
520 Lafayette Road North
St Paul, MN

If you have any questions or need any assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me at
651-201-6226.

Sincerely,
Rob Patton
Executive Director
Environmental Quality Board
Enclosure: Draft Findings of Fact, Conclusions and Order
cc: Leah 1-ledman, Assistant Attorney General
Dave Frederickson, EQB Chair
Environmental Quality hard
520 LAFAYETTE ROAD NORTH
ST. PAUt., MN 55155
PHONE: 651.757.2873
WMN.EQB.STATE.MN.US

X\EQB\ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROGRAM\RGU reassignments\2U1 3\Minnesota Sands LLQ-FilImore--Houston-Winona Sdica Sand
Proects\Draf’t FCO\Minnesota Sands drati FCO-transininal docx

STATE OF MINNESOTA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY BOARD

In the Matter of Requests to Designate a

Different Responsible Governmental Unit For

Environmental Review of Multiple Silica

Sand Projects Proposed by Minnesota Sands,

LLC, in Fillmore, Houston, and Winona Counties

FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND ORDER

The above-captioned matter came before the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board
(EQB) at a special meeting on March 20, 2013, pursuant to requests from Fillmore and
Houston Counties to designate a different responsible governmental unit (RGU) for silica
sand mines proposed by Minnesota Sands, LLC, in Fillmore, Houston, and Winona
Counties.

Based upon all of the proceedings herein, the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board
makes the following:

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The EQB received a letter from Fillmore County dated February 28, 2013, stating that
Minnesota Sands, LLC “proposes to operate [silica sand] mines in at least the
following: Fillmore County at the Boyum, Dabelstein, Kesler, and Wadewitz sites;
Houston County at the Erickson site; and Winona County at the Dabelstein and Yoder
sites.”

2. The February 28, 2013 Fillmore County letter states that “Fillmore County
understands the need to complete and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) because
the sites are located in close proximity, span across the three counties, and concern
the same developer.”

3. The February 28, 2013 Fillmore County letter states, “[i]n Fillmore County,
Minnesota Sands planned to complete separate EAWs for the Boyum, Dabelstein, and
Kesler sites, but has voluntarily agreed to complete an EIS for their proposed projects
spanning Fillmore, Houston, and Winona Counties. Fillmore County agrees one
comprehensive EIS is appropriate for the Minnesota Sands projects located in all
three counties.”

4. The February 28, 2013 Fillmore County letter states. “Fillmore County requests the
Environmental Quality Board to designate a State agency to act as the regulatory
government unit (RGU) to prepare an EIS for the Minnesota Sands projects…”

5. The EQB received a letter from Houston County dated March 5, 2013, stating,
“…Houston County requests the Environmental Quality Board to designate a State agency to act as the regulatory governmental unit (RGU) to prepare an EIS for the proposed frac sand mines [concerning Minnesota Sands, LLC].”

6. EQB staff has been in communication with Winona County staff about the requests
from Fillmore and Houston Counties.

7. Based on discussions with Houston County staff, in addition to the Boyum,
Dabelstein (Fillmore County), Kesler, Wadewitz; Erickson; Dabelstein (Winona
County), and Yoder sites, there are also mines proposed by Minnesota Sands, LLC, in
Houston County on land owned by Leonard and Kathleen Tostenson, Porteous Olson,
James Chapel, and Thomas and Virginia Johnson.

8. Minnesota Rule 4410.0200, Subp. 68 reads:
"Proposer" means the person or governmental unit that proposes to undertake or to direct others to undertake a project. Minn. R 4410.0200, Subp. 68 (2011).

9. The EQB finds that Minnesota Sands, LLC, as the entity proposing to operate silica
sand mines in Fillmore County, Houston County, and Winona County, meets the
definition of “proposer.”

10. Minnesota Rule 4410.0200, Subp. 60 reads:
"Phased action" means two or more projects to be undertaken by the same proposer that a RGU determines:
A. will have environmental effects on the same geographic area; and
B. are substantially certain to be undertaken sequentially over a limited
period of time. Minn. R. 4410.0200, Subp. 60 (2011).

11. The EQB finds that the Boyum, Dabelstein (Fillmore County), Kesler, Wadewitz;
Erickson; Dabelstein (Winona County), and Yoder sites are within an 8.5 mile radius.
When the Tostenson, Olson, Chapel, and Johnson sites are included, all the sites
together are within a 12.5 mile radius.

12. The EQB finds that the projects are in various stages of local approval and therefore
are substantially certain to be undertaken over a limited period of time.

13. The EQB finds that the projects proposed by Minnesota Sands, LLC, in Fillmore,
Houston, and Winona Counties:
a. are two or more projects to be undertaken by the same proposer;
b. will have environmental effects on the same geographic area; and
c. are substantially certain to be undertaken sequentially over a limited period of
time.

14. The EQB finds that projects proposed by the Minnesota Sands, LLC, in Fillmore,
Houston, and Winona Counties meet the definition of a phased action.

15. Minnesota Rule 4410.1000, Subp. 4 reads in relevant part:
Connected actions and phased actions. Multiple projects and multiple stages of a single project that are connected actions or phased actions must be considered in total when determining the need for an EAW, preparing the EAW, and determining the need for an EIS.
***Minn. R. 4410.1000, Subp. 4 (2011).

16. Minnesota Rule 4410.2000, Subp. 4 reads in relevant part:
Connected actions and phased actions. Multiple projects and multiple
stages of a single project that are connected actions or phased actions must
be considered in total when determining the need for an EIS and in
preparing the EIS. *** Minn. R. 4410.2000, Subp. 4 (2011).

17. Minnesota Rule 4410.2000, Subp. 5 reads:
Related actions EIS. An RGU may prepare a single EIS for independent projects with potential cumulative environmental impacts on the same geographic area if the RGU determines that review can be accomplished in a more effective or efficient manner through a related actions EIS. Aproject must not be included in a related actions EIS if its inclusion would unreasonably delay review of the project compared to review of the project through an independent EIS.
Minn. R. 4410.2000, Subp. 5 (2011).

18. The EQB finds that projects proposed by the Minnesota Sands, LLC, in Fillmore,
Houston, and Winona Counties are multiple projects that are phased actions, and therefore must be considered in total when preparing an EAW or EIS.

19. The EQB finds that projects proposed by the Minnesota Sands, LLC, in Fillmore,
Houston, and Winona Counties have potential cumulative environmental impacts on the same geographic area and review of the projects can be accomplished in a more effective and efficient manner through a single EIS.

20. Minn. R. 4410.4300, Subp. 12 reads in relevant part:
Nonmetallic mineral mining. Items A to C designate the RGU for the type of project listed:
***
B. For development of a facility for the extraction or mining of sand, gravel, stone, or other nonmetallic minerals, other than peat, which will excavate 40 or more acres of land to a mean depth of ten feet or more during its existence, the local government unit shall be the RGU.
***

21. Minn. R. 4410.4400, Subp. 9 reads in relevant part:
Nonmetallic mineral mining. Items A to C designate the RGU for the type of project listed:
***

B. For development of a facility for the extraction or mining of sand, gravel, stone, or other nonmetallic minerals, other than peat, which will excavate 160 acres of land or more to a mean depth of ten feet or more during its existence, the local government unit shall be the RGU.
*** Minn. R. 4410.4400, Subp. 9 (2011).

22. Minn. R. 4410.0500, Subp. 1 reads:
RGU for mandatory categories. For any project listed in part 4410.4300 or 4410.4400, the governmental unit specified in those rules shall be the RGU unless the project will be carried out by a state agency, in which case that state agency shall be the RGU. For any project listed in both parts 4410.4300 and 4410.4400, the RGU shall be the unit specified in part
4410.4400. For any project listed in two or more subparts of part 4410.4300 or two or more subparts of part 4410.4400, the RGU shall be determined as specified in subpart 5.
Minn. R. 4410.0500, Subp. 1 (2011).

23. Minnesota Rule 4410.0500, Subp. 5 reads:
For any project where the RGU is not listed in part 4410.4300 or 4410.4400 or which falls into more than one category in part 4410.4300 or 4410.4400, or for which the RGU is in question, the RGU shall be determined as follows:
A. When a single governmental unit proposes to carry out or has sole jurisdiction to approve a project, it shall be the RGU.
B. When two or more governmental units propose to carry out or have jurisdiction to approve the project, the RGU shall be the governmental unit with the greatest responsibility for supervising or approving the project as a whole. Where it is not clear which governmental unit has the greatest responsibility for supervising or approving the project or where there is a
dispute about which governmental until has the greatest responsibility for supervising or approving the project, the governmental units shall either:
(1) by agreement, designate which unit shall be the RGU within five days of receipt of the completed data portion of the EAW: or
(2) submit the question to the EQB chairperson, who shall within five days of receipt of the completed data portions of the EAW designate the RGU based on consideration of which governmental unit has the greatest responsibility for supervising or approving the project or has
expertise that is relevant for the environmental review.
Minn. R. 4410.0500, Subp. 5 (2011).

24. The EQB finds that Minnesota Rule 4410.0500, Subp. 5, paragraph B is applicable to
the projects proposed by the Minnesota Sands, LLC, in Fillmore, Houston, and
Winona Counties because two or more governmental units have jurisdiction to
approve the projects.
25. The EQB finds that Fillmore, Houston, or Winona Counties could be RGU for a
single EIS on multiple sites in multiple counties pursuant to Minn. R. 4410.0500,
Subp. 5, paragraph B.

26. Minn. R. 4410.0500, Subp. 6 reads:
Notwithstanding subparts 1 to 5, the EQB may designate, within five days of receipt of the completed data portions of the EAW, a different RGU for the project if the EQB determines the designee has greater expertise in analyzing the potential impacts of the project. Minn. R. 4410.0500, Subp. 6 (2011).

27. The EQB finds that, in the instances of the Boyum, Dabelstein, Kesler, and Wadewitz
sites in Fillmore County, and the Erickson, Tostenson, Olson, Chapel, and Johnson
sites in Houston County, no EAW has been started, and therefore no completed data
portion of the new EAW has yet been received by an RGU, or EQB.

28. The EQB finds that, in its history of applying Minn. R. 4410.0500, Subp. 6, in every
known instance, no EAW data submittal had been made.

29. The EQB finds that, to designate a different RGU than Fillmore County, under Minn.
R. 4410.0500, Subp. 6, the EQB must determine that the designee has greater
expertise in analyzing the potential impacts of the project.

30. The EQB finds that local governments are the RGU for mandatory EAWs and EISs
for nonmetallic mineral mining projects, with the exception of peat mines.

31. The EQB finds that by application of Minn. R. 4410.0500, Subp. 1 and 5, local
governments are commonly presumed to have greater responsibility for approving,
and greater expertise in analyzing potential impacts of nonmetallic mineral mining
projects than other units of government. However, in this case, multiple projects are
proposed in multiple counties that are phased actions. Based on Minn. R. 4410.1000,
Subp. 4, paragraph 1, and 4410.2000, Subp. 4, paragraph 1, multiple projects that are
phased actions must be considered in total in preparing an EAW or EIS.
Additionally, state agencies may have greater expertise than local government in
analyzing certain potential impacts.

32. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency was RGU for the EIS for Hancock Pro Pork
Feedlot Project, in Stevens and Pope Counties. The project consisted of feedlot
facilities on multiple sites in two counties, Stevens and Pope.

33. The EQB finds that the MPCA has expertise regarding multi-site and multi-county
EISs.

34. The EQB finds the projects proposed by Minnesota Sands, LLC, in Fillmore,
Houston, and Winona Counties have potential impacts such as those on air quality,
water resources, and transportation, where state agencies have greater expertise than
local government.

35. The EQB finds that the potential impacts for the proposed projects encompass the
responsibilities of several state agencies.

36. Minnesota Statutes, Section 116C.01, reads:
FINDINGS.
The legislature of the state of Minnesota finds that problems related to the environment often encompass the responsibilities of several state agencies and that solutions to these environmental problems require the interaction of these agencies. The legislature also finds that further debate concerning population, economic and technological growth should be encouraged so that the consequences and causes of alternative decisions can be better
known and understood by the public and its government. Minn. Stat. Section 116C.01 (2011)

37. The EQB finds that its membership includes the heads of state agencies including the
Departments of Administration, Agriculture, Commerce, Employment and Economic
Development, Health, Natural Resources, and Transportation, the Pollution Control
Agency, and the Board of Water and Soil Resources, and the EQB is able to draw
upon the expertise of its member agencies.

38. The EQB finds the EQB has greater expertise in analyzing the potential impacts of
the multiple, phased-action, and cross-county projects than Fillmore, Houston, or
Winona Counties.

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact, the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board
makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Any of the foregoing Findings of Fact more properly designated as Conclusions of
Law are hereby adopted as such.

2. The Environmental Quality Board has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this
proceeding pursuant to Minnesota Statutes chapter 116D and Minnesota Rules
4410.0500, Subpart 6.

3. The request for EQB to decide the question whether to designate a different RGU for
the proposed projects were properly brought to the EQB Board.

4. The EQB concludes that the EQB has greater expertise in analyzing the potential
impacts of the proposed project than Fillmore, Houston, or Winona Counties.

Based on the Findings of Fact, Conclusions and the entire record of this proceeding, the
Minnesota Environmental Quality Board hereby makes the following:
ORDER
The EQB hereby reassigns the status and responsibilities of responsible governmental
unit for silica sand mines proposed by Minnesota Sands, LLC, in Fillmore, Houston, and
Winona Counties, from Fillmore, Houston, or Winona County to the Environmental
Quality Board.

Approved and adopted this 20th day of March, 2013.
____________________________________
David J. Frederickson, Chair
Minnesota Environmental Quality Board