On Wednesday, the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board will meet in St. Paul; one item on its agenda for May 21, 2014 is the "Minnesota Sands multi-site EIS."
It's another frac sand fight, and the residents of Houston County, Minnesota, aren't happy about it.
As the May 13, 2014 Spring Grove Herald reported in Planning Commission tables mine renewal, much hangs on the EQB's decision on the request by the silica sand mine owner to remove one site from a connected multi-site project. SGH's Craig Moorhead reports:
The Houston County Planning Commission got an earful from residents on Wednesday, April 30.
More than 30 persons packed into the former courtroom - now the commissioner's room, and arguments were as intense as in any court case over the renewal of a controversial conditional use permit (CUP) for Tracie Erickson of Yucatan Township.
Erickson was embroiled in a drawn-out battle with the county after he signed an agreement with prospector Minnesota Sands to extract frac sand from the property in 2012. His relationship with Minnesota Sands has since dissolved, Erickson said. But resuming sand mining for commercial (not industrial) use at a much lower level of production did not set well with some neighbors last Wednesday. . . . .
Read the rest at the Herald. Safe to say that many Houston County residents have their doubts about the notion that the mine is now independent of the larger project. Nor are people in Houston County the only ones asking questions. Land Stewardship Project's policy director Bobby King raised a number of questions in a letter Monday.
With a field office in Lewiston, MN, LSP has taken an interest the regulation of industrial sand mining because of members' questions about land use, health, safety and water quality. Land Stewardship Project's letter isn't isolated; other comments are public here at the EQB site.
Here's King's letter:
From: Bobby King
Sent: Monday, May 19, 2014 4:15 PM
To: '[email protected]'
Subject: Erickson Mine/ Minnesota Sands EIS Decision
To: Environmental Quality Board Members
Land Stewardship Project members are greatly concerned about the Minnesota Sands Environmental Impact Statement issue to be taken up at your meeting on Wednesday, May 21. The decision the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) makes regarding the Erickson Mine and Minnesota Sands Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) has far-reaching repercussions for the health of the land and people in southeast Minnesota, as well as the integrity of the environmental review process.
The operator of the Erickson Mine now claims he is producing “construction sand,” not frac sand. The proposed plans for the “new” operation are essentially identical to the frac sand operation proposal. The owner of Minnesota Sands claims he has severed ties with the Erickson Mine owner and wants that mine removed from the EIS. Because of this, the EQB is considering removing the Erickson Mine from the EIS.
The EQB ordering the multi-site Environmental Impact Statement and becoming the Responsible Government Unit (RGU) has been by far the most significant state action to date to protect southeast Minnesota from frac sand mining. The EQB has the authority and obligation to deny this attempted end- run around the environmental review process.
Here are the factors we believe the EQB Board should keep in mind in making the decision to keep the Erickson Mine as part of the EIS:
The EQB has received incomplete information about the severing of the relationship between the mine owners and Minnesota Sands/ Minnesota Proppant/ Richard Frick. According to the documents in the EQB Board packet, the owners of the mine, Tracie and Michelle Erickson, have provided no information to the EQB. All information has come from Houston County staff or Richard Frick. More troubling is the proposed new project for “construction sand” is identical to the original one to produce frac sand. It is very possible this “construction sand” could be sold to some new enterprise operated or controlled by Mr. Frick and then sold as frac sand.
The EQB has asked for full and complete information on the relationship between the mine owner and Mr. Frick, Minnesota Sands and Minnesota Proppant, but has not received it. In a March 25, 2014, EQB letter to Mr. Frick, EQB staff writes: “Please describe in detail any association between the Tracie and Michelle Erickson site or Tracie and Michelle Erickson and Minnesota Sands, LLC and/ or Minnesota Proppant LLC. This would include any past, current, or anticipated future associations and include, but not be limited to, a partnership, ownership, shareholder, buyer, seller, processor, transporter, or relationship of any kind.”
In a letter received by the EQB from Mr. Frick on April 5, 2014, there was a “Dissolution of Contract” with no explanation or the other accompanying documents necessary to fully understand it, such as the original lease and/or agreement.
There is a process for a variance from the environmental review process spelled out in rules. This process allows for public input and requires more detailed information from the proposer. This is the process which should be followed for any proposed mining of silica sand at the site before the EIS is completed. The provisions for the variance are found in MN Rule 4010.3100. Subp. 4:
Subp. 4. Variance. Construction may begin on a project if the proposer applies for and is granted a variance from subparts 1 and 2. A variance for certain governmental approvals to be granted prior to completion of the environmental review process may also be requested. A variance may be requested at any time after the commencement of the 30-day review period following the filing of an EAW. The proposer shall submit an application for a variance to the EQB together with:
A. a detailed explanation of the construction proposed to be undertaken or the governmental approvals to be granted;
B. the anticipated environmental effects of undertaking the proposed construction or granting the governmental approvals;
C. the reversibility of the anticipated environmental effects;
D. the reasons necessitating the variance; and
E. a statement describing how approval would affect subsequent approvals needed for the project and how approval would affect the purpose of environmental review.
If an EQB order to remove the Erickson Mine from the EIS should move forward despite the above facts, the order should state that 1) a Silica Sand Trout Stream Setback Permit is required, 2) a previously started EAW on the mine must be completed, and 3) the RGU for the EAW will be the DNR. If the decision is made that the Erickson Mine is no longer part of the EIS, the issue should not simply be handed back to Houston County. This proposed mine is within a mile of trout stream and will require a DNR issued Silica Sand Trout Stream Setback permit to operate. The sand available at this site is silica sand and calling it “construction sand” does not change this. There was an EAW in process when the Erickson Mine was included in the EIS. That EAW must still be completed if the mine is removed from the EIS. While Houston County was named the RGU for the EAW at that time, the new requirement for a DNR Silica Sand Trout Stream Setback permit should require the DNR to be the RGU for the EAW.
The importance of this decision cannot be over-emphasized. If the EQB simply allows the Erickson Mine out of the EIS then it is creating a blueprint for the other mines in the EIS to do the same. We urge you to reject this obvious attempt to circumvent this much-needed environmental review.
Sincerely,
Bobby King
Land Stewardship Project
State Policy Organizer
The anti-mining site Sandpoint Times has published videos and articles about the process in Houston County in Erickson Mine in Houston, MN.
Photo: Aerial view of the site of the Erickson Mine. via the Tri-County Record.
If you enjoyed reading this post, consider giving a donation via mail (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, P.O. Box 108, Maynard MN 56260) or paypal:
Comments