Position Statement of Minnesota Trout Unlimited concerning the Mining of Silica Sand in Minnesota and the region.

Adopted April 14, 2012

At its April 2012 meeting, the Minnesota Council of Trout Unlimited spelled out its concerns regarding silica sand mining operations and their potential impacts upon water resources and coldwater fisheries.  The statement formalizes the approach which the Council, chapters and local members have taken for the past year and more as they work with citizens and government to address this serious threat.Minnesota Trout Unlimited’s mission is to conserve, protect and restore coldwater fisheries and their watersheds.  Working to ensure adequate supplies of clean, cold water is central to our mission.  Consequently, MNTU is particularly concerned over the impacts to water resources which silica sand mining operations could potentially have.

MNTU does not oppose all mining of silica sand in Minnesota.  Rather, we hope to aid citizens, elected officials and governmental agencies in their efforts to understand the resource issues involved and restrict mining operations to only those areas which will have very little or no impact on ground and surface water resources in the area.  In order not to jeopardize these resources for current and future generations, it is prudent to, at a minimum: (1) restrict silica sand mining operations to areas above the water table (eliminating the need for any substantial construction dewatering); (2) prohibit on-site washing of sand, including to sort the sand grains by size; (3) prohibit the appropriation of ground or surface waters for these operations; and (4) prohibit discharges of water from the operations into wetlands, streams and tributaries. 

We also realize that residents and citizens have many other very legitimate concerns beyond the potential impacts to water resources.  The State of Minnesota does not appear to regulate where this activity can occur, but leaves it up to local units of government to restrict.  MNTU believes that local communities can make wise decisions about whether and where to permit these mining operations if they have adequate time and resources to gather and thoroughly analyze all pertinent information. 

MNTU strongly supports rigorous, unbiased environmental review of all projects that may have the potential for significant impacts.  We also support the right of citizens to demand good governance practices and responsive elected officials who place long term resource protection over short term gain.

Again, Minnesota Trout Unlimited is not automatically opposed to all silica sand mining in Southeast Minnesota and elsewhere.  There may be many locations where mining could occur well above the water table, not require dewatering, not involve on-site washing, not otherwise affect ground and surface waters, and have rigorous, unbiased environmental review performed and findings utilized to improve projects and permit conditions.  At this time we do not know whether or where any such sites exist.  Furthermore, residents and citizens have other legitimate concerns which may further restrict where, and under what conditions, this type of commercial activity should be permitted.  

We will continue to work with citizens to challenge proposals to mine silica sand from inappropriate sites and advocate for appropriate restrictions by local and state governments.

As you are undoubtedly aware, efforts to get the MN Legislature to approve long overdue increases in fishing license fees have stalled in both House and Senate. We urgently need you, your friends, fishing buddies, neighbors, etc., to contact your legislators, as well as the leadership of both bodies.

Current status:

On Tuesday April 17 Sen. Ingebrigtsen attempted to attach fishing & hunting license fee increases to the Senate Game & Fish bill, SF 2171. The amendment failed and the Senate bill was set aside or “laid on the table”.

The House bill containing the license fee increases, HF 2951, languishes in the House, and the House Environment committee has not been permitted to vote on or move the bill. If they choose to, the House leadership can easily move this bill through committee and allow it to receive a vote on the House floor.

Your message to House members and leaders is simple: Give the bill containing fishing license fee increases a hearing and vote on the House floor.

Take Action Now – contact you legislators:

You can quickly locate and contact your legislators by using the State’s legislative website: http://www.leg.state.mn.us You can also call the MN Senate information line at: 651-296-0504 or 1- 888-234-1112. You can call the House switchboard at: 651-296-2146, or 1-800-657-3550

Here is the direct link for looking up your legislators: http://www.gis.leg.mn/OpenLayers/districts/?address=

Just click on their name and you will be taken to their individual web page. Calls and e mails to the leadership of House and Senate would also be helpful.

To contact Senate Majority Leader Sen. David Senjem:

Call: 651-296-3903 E mail: sen.david.senjem@senate.mn.

To contact House Speaker Kurt Zellars:

Call: 651-296-5502 E mail: rep.kurt.zellers@house.mn

To contact House Majority Leader Rep. Matt Dean:

Call: 651-296-9194 E mail: rep.matt.dean@house.mn

Basic message to the House leadership:

Give the bill containing fishing license fee increases a hearing and vote on the House floor.

A basic message to all legislators:

I am an angler and voter. I believe that fisheries and my fishing will suffer unless more revenue is raised for fisheries management activities through voluntary user fees (fishing license fees) which I will gladly pay. I support the license fee increases proposed by the DNR and want you to vote to for fee increases this year.

Capitol Rally for Fee increases on Monday April 23

On Monday April 23 there will be a rally at the MN Capitol rotunda at 10:30 a.m. If you can make it to St. Paul to show your support, great. If you cannot bend your schedule, you can have an impact by taking just a couple minutes to call and e mail your legislators and key leaders of the House and Senate.

Links to the bills and more information

Here is a link to HF 2951:

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bin/bldbill.php?bill=H2951.0.html&session=ls87

The Senate Environment Committee’s version rests in SF 2490. Here is the link:

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bin/bldbill.php?bill=S2490.0.html&session=ls87

The chart comparing the three versions can be viewed by clicking on the link in the March 17 blog entry on the MNTU website: www.mntu.org

There is a wealth of good information on the DNR’s license initiative on its website. Don’t forget to explore the impacts to your area from dwindling purchasing power of license dollars. Here is the direct link:

http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/heritage/index.html

———————————————————————————

Previously reported:

Press Conference Held in Support of fee increases:

In mid-March Minnesota Trout Unlimited spoke in support of increasing fishing license fees at a press conference organized by our friends at the Minnesota Conservation Federation. Representatives from Minnesota Environmental Partnership and the Fish & Wildlife Legislative Alliance joined us. MNTU stressed that properly managing fisheries and maintaining their quality requires personnel to gather and analyze data. We also pointed out the key roles which DNR field staff play in identifying, and helping design and implement quality habitat projects. We emphasized that more revenue is needed or our fisheries and fishing will suffer. The ad hoc coalition also distributed a letter to legislative leaders calling for their support for these fee increases. Thanks to those TU chapters who were able to respond on very short notice and join this letter.

Click here to view the letter.

Senate Committee Produces and Advances Bill:

The Senate Environment Committee heard and passed out of committee a version of the license fee increase bill. That bill is now SF 2490 and it can be found at:

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bin/bldbill.php?bill=S2490.0.html&session=ls87

House stalling:

On March 22 the House Environment and Natural Resources Policy and Finance Committee discussed the DNR/Governor’s proposal from 2011, which Rep Hanson had previously introduced, but which had not had a hearing. The DNR outlined the proposal and House committee members discussed it. On March 26 Rep. Hackbarth introduced a slightly different House version. However, since that time the House leadership has prevented the bill from moving forward.

Thanks for helping.

John P. Lenczewski

Executive Director

Minnesota Trout Unlimited

Please ask your representative to lead or support efforts to correct the bill’s many flaws via floor amendments and, if these fail, to oppose passage of HF 2164.  The worst provisions of HF 2164 would:

• roll back laws that protect clean water by reducing oversight of water quality permits
• weaken wetland protections
• exempt factory farms from air pollution permits
• weaken water conservation laws
• exchange 100% of school trust lands in the BWCA with federal lands outside the BWCA (against the advice of the Permanent School Trust Advisory Committee)
• change the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) Citizens’ Board, thereby weakening environmental review and public input to decision makers
• remove oversight of timber sales and mineral leasing from the Executive Council, thereby removing an avenue for public input on decisions impacting watersheds and fisheries resources in northern

View the latest version of HF 2164 at:

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bin/bldbill.php?bill=H2164.2.html&session=ls87

Read the latest version of House staff summary at:

http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd/bs/87/HF2164.html
Water quality standards – section 70

Section 70 bars the MPCA from adopting water quality standards which are “more restrictive than federal water quality standards” unless it shows “by clear and convincing evidence” they are needed.   This is an extremely high standard which is likely to effectively block any progress.  MNTU opposes efforts to limit the state’s power to enact appropriate water quality standards which protect our coldwater fisheries. We do not believe that the state should give away its authority to the federal government on something as important as clean water.  The bill effectively forbids water standards more protective than “federal standards”. However, there are no “federal standards”.  We are concerned this provision would have the effect of:

• Preventing regulation of some toxics substances currently covered by MN law only
• Interfering with rulemaking now underway, including anti-degradation rulemaking designed to keep clean water clean
• Encouraging litigation in order to clarify the provision’s effects.

Mandatory permit approval – section 89

HF 2164 also requires that the MPCA to automatically approve permits in 60 days, including water pollution permits which are deemed “minor” permits.  This makes a mockery of the permitting process, allowing automatic approval without meaningful agency review or oversight.  Water pollution permits are permits to pollute, and not minor matters.  The requirement of 60-day approval regardless of the permit or circumstances also appears to violate federal law.

MPCA Citizens’ Board – sections 83 to 88, 114

The bill proposes changing the duties of the MPCA Citizens’ Board and eliminating a vital public forum for environmental review and challenging exceptions from state rules. The public would no longer be able to trigger review by the Citizens’ Board.  Governor Dayton has already ordered an overall review of permitting processes and this legislation “fix” of a perceived problem is overly broad.

Wetland protections – sections 54 – 56

Wetland protections are substantially weakened by allowing exceptions to the Wetlands Conservation Act which allow development in shoreland wetland protection zones and other sensitive areas in the 11-county metropolitan area.  Very important wetlands that protect our water and the remaining metro trout streams could be impacted.See MNTU’s March 26, 2012 alert for additional information.

School Trust Lands – sections 28 – 29

Proposes exchanging 100% of the school trust lands (roughly 86,000 acres) in the BWCA with federal lands outside the BWCA in the Superior National Forest, despite decades of public sentiment opposing this magnitude of land leaving the Superior National Forest for intensive resource extraction management. The Permanent School Trust Fund Advisory Committee has endorsed selling 2/3 of the BWCA school trust lands to the federal government and investing that money for the trust, combined with exchanging 1/3 of the lands with federal lands in the Superior National Forest.  That approach would enable the federal cash to be used by state to “extinguish” the trust obligations on some sensitive state land, so that the pressure to manage them for maximum profit (and potentially at the expenses of water quality and fisheries benefits) would be substantially reduced or eliminated.  Essentially the state would use the federal cash to buy the school trust lands from the trust and the cash placed in the trust account to generate income off investments (rather than off extractive management of the land).  The most sensitive lands could be targeted for removal from the trust account’s constraint of profit maximization. HF 2164 ignores an existing process underway to find such a balanced solution.

Some of the other bad provisions

HF 2164 also takes away authority from the Army Corps of Engineers for dredge and fill permits, putting the burden on MPCA’s reduced budget (section 56), eliminates water conservation requirements (sections 59-60), and removes oversight of timber sales and mineral leasing from the Executive Council, thus removing public transparency and public input in public policy decision-making impacting watersheds and fisheries resources in northern MN (sections 25, 27, 30 to 34, 36).

Contact you legislators:

To voice your opinion, quickly locate and contact your legislators by using the State’s legislative website:  http://www.leg.state.mn.us

Here is the direct link for looking up your legislators:  http://www.gis.leg.mn/OpenLayers/districts/?address=

Just click on their name and you will be taken to their individual web page.  Note that e mails typically are accessed by legislators during the floor sessions. Messages to the leadership of House are also helpful.

The simplest message to House members:  Unless all these bad provisions are deleted, vote “no” on HF 2164.

It is now more important than ever to speak out to ensure that the Senate version of this legislation, SF 270, does not pass off the Senate floor.  Your calls and e mails, and those of many of our partners, have had already had a significant impact.  We need to keep up the pressure now, since SF 270 could be heard at any time.

Contact your Senator and Senate leadership today.

SF 270 can be heard and voted on at any time with very little advance notice, so calls and e mails are needed now.  Tell the senators to oppose SF 270 and vote “no” if it comes up for a Senate floor vote. 

1. Contact your Senator.   Click on this link to the State’s legislative website:  http://www.leg.state.mn.us     Locate your Senator’s, click on it and you will be taken to his or her individual web page.  You can also call the MN Senate information line at:  651-296-0504 or 1- 888-234-1112.

A suggested message re SF 270:

I urge you to oppose Senate File 270 and vote against it if it comes up on the Senate Floor.  I value strong local decision-making and township rights. SF 270 undermines these rights, including the right of local residents to enact an interim ordinance or land use moratorium.  This power is essential when a community is caught off-guard by unanticipated project proposals, especially those from outside corporate interests. I am aware that the bill has been amended, but it still unacceptably weakens local rights.  Local citizen democracy is working and should be left alone.  Please let me know I can count on you to oppose SF 270 on the Senate floor.  I will be watching this vote.

2. Contact Senate Majority Leader Sen. David Senjem:

Call:  651-296-3903   or e mail:   sen.david.senjem@senate.mn.

Use the message above and add that Sen. Senjem should use his leadership position to stand up for local control and not bring the bill up on the Senate floor.

Direct link to SF 270:

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bin/bldbill.php?bill=S0270.2.html&session=ls87

House action last week & the remaining notice provision.

HF 389 was heard on the House floor last Thursday with little advance notice.  It received strong opposition. Was substantially amended, and 53 Representatives voted against passage.  While the worst provisions of HF 389 were removed, the remaining provision undermines local control by requiring a 10-day notice (published in the newspaper) and a public hearing before a city, county or township enacts a moratorium. 

While this remaining provision might at first glance appear reasonable, in rural communities neighbors often do not learn about a proposed project until just days before a permit is going to be issued. By the time the township, city or county a 10-day notice can be published in a rural newspaper and a public hearing held on adopting the moratorium, the project could already be permitted. This provision is particularly problematic for township boards, which consist of volunteers and no paid staff.  HF 389 as passed imposes this new impediment to effective local government action, while requiring nothing of those corporate special interests who might seek inappropriately located development.

Rep. Terry Morrow (DFL-St. Peter) and Rep. Frank Hornstein (DFL-Minneapolis) led efforts to amend and defeat HF 389, arguing that the current law is working and we ought not micromanage how townships and counties handle a public process on controversial issues [such as silica sand mining].

How House members voted and why it matters.  If the Senate passes SF 270, House members will again have a chance to defeat this bill.  It is helpful to give your Representative immediate feedback on their vote.  This lets them know that you are watching the issue closely and it has a real impact on how legislators think about this issue.  View this link to see how your Representative voted on HF 389:

http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/votes/votes.asp?ls_year=87&session_number=0&year=2011&id=681

Locate and contact your representative using the State’s legislative website,   http://www.leg.state.mn.us   Locate your legislator’s name, click on it and you will be taken to his or her individual web page.  Direct calls and letters to your representative and House leadership will make a difference.  You can also call the MN House switchboard at:  651-296-2146, or 1-800-657-3550

Possible message to Representatives voting “yes” on HF 389:

I was disappointed to see that you voted for House File 389 and for weakening local democracy.  I am aware that the worst provisions were removed, but it still puts obstacles in the way of citizens enacting a moratorium.  The bill mandates that local governments publish a 10-day notice and hold a public hearing before enacting a moratorium, but requires nothing of project proposers.  Neighbors often do not learn about a proposed project until just days before a permit is going to be issued.  Townships would not be allowed to enact a moratorium quickly enough to protect citizens.  This one-sided bill favors outside corporate interests over local, democratic control.

Possible message to Representative voting “no” on House File 389:

Thank you for standing up for local communities and voting against House File 389.  Local, democratic control is working now and the push to change it is coming from corporate special interests. I appreciate your recognition of this and your vote to oppose attempts to undermine the strong local controls which Minnesotans value.

 See the March 8, 2012 news-blog entry for additional background

Where things stand today:

As most of you know, Minnesota’s wetlands provide critical stormwater storage, groundwater recharge, and water purification functions in the watersheds which support coldwater fisheries around the state.  They also provide habitat for hundreds of plants, animals, birds and other wildlife.  They play important, often vital, roles in every coldwater watershed.

Minnesota’s Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) has received strong bipartisan support for over two decades.  The law protects Minnesota’s wetlands, promising NO NET LOSS of remaining wetlands by requiring avoidance of impacts whenever possible, and replacement for any lost wetlands. However, several legislative initiatives which undermine Minnesota’s commitment to wetland conservation are still “in play” in the Minnesota Legislature this spring.  Provisions poised to pass the legislature include ones which would:

• exempt all agricultural land enrolled in the federal farm program from WCA requirements
• expand loopholes for minimum “free” losses
• diminish protections for wetlands near rivers and lakes

These proposals put thousands of acres of wetlands at risk, including many near trout streams or in watersheds supporting trout fisheries.  These provisions are unnecessary, especially coming just two years after a comprehensive public revision of current WCA rules.  They only serve to roll back critical and longstanding wetland protections.

HOW YOU CAN HELP

Send an email to Governor Dayton: Ask the Governor to stand by Minnesota’s policy of NO NET LOSS of wetlands. Send an email today to Governor Dayton.    Below is a sample letter which you can use or modify to express you particular, heartfelt concerns:

Dear Governor Dayton,

Since the passage of the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act in 1991, every Governor has reaffirmed their personal commitment to No Net Loss of wetlands in Minnesota.  Wetlands provide floodwater storage, groundwater recharge, and water purification functions statewide, including for coldwater fisheries and their watersheds.   They also provide habitat for hundreds of plants, animals, birds and other wildlife species.  The Wetland Conservation Act serves to minimize and replace unavoidable wetland losses. I urge you to voice your support for No Net Loss of wetlands and the Wetland Conservation Act.

 A number of provisions have appeared in legislation that weaken wetlands protections and offer a variety of loopholes that increase wetlands loss.  Please make it clear to legislators and members of the public that you will not sign any legislation which undermines wetland protection.

 Please stand with over 20 years of bipartisan commitment to No Net Loss of wetlands, and voice your intention to veto any bill that allows for expanded exemptions from the Wetland Conservation Act.

 Thank you.

Where/how to contact the Governor:

• By phone:  651-201-3400 , or Toll Free – 1-800-657-3717
• Message him on Facebook:  http://www.facebook.com/ussmbd
• With his web form (paste your comments onto the form):  http://mn.gov/governor/contact-us/
• Write and/or Fax (Fax: 651-797-1850):
  Office of the Governor
  130 State Capitol
  75 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd.
  St. Paul, MN 55155

Fax: 651-797-1850

Contact your legislators:

Also let your legislators to support wetlands and oppose rollback of the WCA.  To locate your legislator click on this direct link:  http://www.gis.leg.mn/OpenLayers/districts/?address=

Click on their name and you will be taken to their individual web page.

Thank you for taking a few minutes to help stop the rollback of wetland protections.

• rolls back laws that protect clean water by reducing oversight of water quality permits
• weakens wetland protections
• exempts factory farms from air pollution permits
• weakens water conservation laws
• exchanges 100% of school trust lands in the BWCA with federal lands outside the BWCA (against the advice of the Permanent School Trust Advisory Committee)
• changes the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) Citizens’ Board, thereby weakening environmental review and public input to decision makers.

View the bill at:

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bin/bldbill.php?bill=H2164.1.html&session=ls87

Read the House staff summary at:

http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd/bs/87/HF2164.html

Water quality & mandatory permit approval

MNTU opposes efforts to limit the state’s power to enact appropriate water quality standards. We do not believe that the state should give away its authority to the federal government on something as important as clean water.  The bill forbids water standards more protective than “federal standards”. However, there are no “federal standards”.  We are concerned this provision would have the effect of:

• Preventing regulation of some toxics substances currently covered by MN law only
• Interfering with rulemaking now underway, including anti-degradation rulemaking designed to keep clean water clean
• Encouraging litigation in order to clarify the provision’s effects.

HF 2164 also requires the MPCA to automatically approve permits in 60 days and considers all water pollution permits to be “minor” permits.  This makes a mockery of the permit process, allowing automatic approval without meaningful agency review or oversight.  Water pollution permits are permits to pollute, and not minor matters.  The requirement of 60-day approval no-matter-what also violates federal law.

MPCA Citizens’ Board

The bill proposes changing the duties of the MPCA Citizens’ Board and eliminating a vital public forum for environmental review and exceptions from state rules. The public would no longer be able to trigger review by the Citizens’ Board.  We believe the legislature should wait for the results of the overall review already ordered by Governor Dayton.

Wetland protections

Wetland protections are substantially weakened by allowing exceptions to the Wetlands Conservation Act which allow development in shoreland wetland protection zones and other sensitive areas in the 11-county metropolitan area.  Very important wetlands that protect our water and the remaining metro trout streams could be impacted.

Other bad provisions

HF 2164 also takes away authority from the Army Corps of Engineers for dredge and fill permits (putting the burden on MPCA’s reduced budget), eliminates water conservation requirements, and removes oversight of timber sales and mineral leasing form the Executive Council, thus removing public transparency and public input in public policy decision-making.

Contact you legislators:

To voice your opinion, quickly locate and contact your legislators by using the State’s legislative website:  http://www.leg.state.mn.us

Here is the direct link for looking up your legislators:  http://www.gis.leg.mn/OpenLayers/districts/?address=

Just click on their name and you will be taken to their individual web page.  Calls and e mails to the leadership of House may also be helpful.

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bin/bldbill.php?bill=H2951.0.html&session=ls87

Amendments to HF 2951 are due to the committee administrator by 7:30 a.m. March 22, and will be posted on the committee’s website shortly thereafter at:

http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/comm/committee.asp?comm=87007

———————————————————————————-

Previously reported on March 17, 2012:

Proposals to increase fishing and hunting license fees in Minnesota are at long last moving in both the Minnesota House and Senate. 

Press Conference Held in Support of fee increases:

On Monday Minnesota Trout Unlimited spoke in support of increasing fishing license fees at a press conference organized by our friends at the Minnesota Conservation Federation.  Representatives from Minnesota Environmental Partnership and the Fish & Wildlife Legislative Alliance joined us. MNTU stressed that properly managing fisheries and maintaining their quality requires personnel to gather and analyze data.  We also pointed out the key roles which DNR field staff play in identifying, and helping design and implement quality habitat projects.  We emphasized that more revenue is needed or our fisheries and fishing will suffer.  The ad hoc coalition also distributed a letter to legislative leaders calling for their support for these fee increases.  Thanks to those chapters who were able to respond on very short notice and join this letter.  Click here to view the letter.

Senate Committee Produces and Advances Bill:

Monday afternoon the Senate Environment Committee heard and passed out of committee a version of the license fee increase bill.  That bill is now SF 2490 and it can be found at:

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bin/bldbill.php?bill=S2490.0.html&session=ls87

House Discussions held:

On Thursday the House Environment and Natural Resources Policy and Finance Committee discussed the DNR/Governor’s proposal from 2011, which Rep Hanson had previously introduced, but which had not had a hearing.  The DNR outlined the proposal and House committee members discussed it.  Rep. Hackbarth intends to formally introduce a slightly different House version next week.  Discussions between the Senate, House and DNR are ongoing and will influence what that bill looks like.  The new House bill will probably be heard in committee next Wednesday March 21.

Chart comparing current versions (although they are in flux):

House staff produced a chart for the March 14 Committee hearing which compares the DNR/Governor’s proposal to the House and Senate versions.  Both House and Senate versions remain in a state of flux, but this gives you some idea of the parameters of the discussions. Click here to view the chart.

Take Action Now – contact you legislators:

You can quickly locate and contact your legislators by using the State’s legislative website:  http://www.leg.state.mn.us

Here is the direct link for looking up your legislators:  http://www.gis.leg.mn/OpenLayers/districts/?address=

Just click on their name and you will be taken to their individual web page.  Calls and e mails to the leadership of House and Senate would also be helpful.  The message is simple:  You are an angler and voter.  You believe that fisheries and fishing will suffer unless more revenue is raised for fisheries management activities through voluntary user fees (fishing license fees).  You support the DNR’s proposed fee increases and want the legislature to pass similar fee increases this session.

————————————————————————————–

More information:

There is a wealth of good information on the DNR’s license initiative on its website.  Don’t forget to explore the impacts to your area from dwindling purchasing power of license dollars.  Here is the direct link:

http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/heritage/index.html

Friday March 23

4:30-5:30 p.m. – Differing Approaches to Restoring Trout Habitat in MN & WI (John Lenczewski and Jeff Hastings)

Saturday, March 24

9:30-10:30 – USFWS Coaster Brook Trout assessment plans

10:45-11:45 – Utilizing Lessard & LCCMR dollars to Improve MN Coldwater Streams (John Lenczewski and Jeff Hastings)

 2:30- 3:30 – Silica sand mining in MN & WI (John Lenczewski, Duke Welter and others)

 Sunday, March 25

 10:45-11:45 – Varying Project Approaches to Restoring Trout Habitat in MN & WI (John Lenczewski and Jeff Hastings)

 1:30-2:30 – Impacts of Hard Rock Mining on WI & MN waters (Bob Tammen; with MNTU)

Tom Helgeson’s Great Waters Fly Fishing Expo website 

Press Conference Held in Support of fee increases:

On Monday Minnesota Trout Unlimited spoke
in support of increasing fishing license fees at a press conference organized
by our friends at the Minnesota Conservation Federation.  Representatives
from Minnesota Environmental Partnership and the Fish & Wildlife
Legislative Alliance joined us. MNTU stressed that properly managing fisheries
and maintaining their quality requires personnel to gather and analyze
data.  We also pointed out the key roles which DNR field staff play in
identifying, and helping design and implement quality habitat projects.
We emphasized that more revenue is needed or our fisheries and fishing
will suffer.  The ad hoc coalition also distributed a letter to
legislative leaders calling for their support for these fee increases.
Thanks to those chapters who were able to respond on very short notice and join
this letter.  Click here to view the letter.

Senate Committee Produces and Advances Bill:

Monday afternoon the Senate Environment Committee heard and passed out of committee a version of the
license fee increase bill.  That bill is now SF 2490 and it can be found at:

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bin/bldbill.php?bill=S2490.0.html&session=ls87

House Discussions held:

On Thursday the House Environment and Natural Resources Policy and Finance Committee
discussed the DNR/Governor’s proposal from 2011, which Rep Hanson had
previously introduced, but which had not had a hearing.  The DNR outlined
the proposal and House committee members discussed it.  Rep. Hackbarth
intends to formally introduce a slightly different House version next
week.  Discussions between the Senate, House and DNR are ongoing and will
influence what that bill looks like.  The new House bill will probably be
heard in committee next Wednesday March 21.

Chart comparing current versions (although they are in flux):

House staff produced a chart for the
March 14 Committee hearing which compares the DNR/Governor’s proposal to the
House and Senate versions.  Both House
and Senate versions remain in a state of flux, but this gives you some idea of
the parameters of the discussions. Click here to view the chart.

Take Action Now – contact your  legislators:

You can quickly locate and contact your legislators by using the State’s legislative website:  http://www.leg.state.mn.us

Here is the direct link for looking up your legislators:  http://www.gis.leg.mn/OpenLayers/districts/?address=

Just click on their name and you will
be taken to their individual web page.  Calls and e mails to the leadership
of House and Senate would also be helpful.  The message is simple:
You are an angler and voter.  You believe that fisheries and fishing will
suffer unless more revenue is raised for fisheries management activities
through voluntary user fees (fishing license fees).  You support the DNR’s
proposed fee increases and want the legislature to pass similar fee increases
this session.

————————————————————————————–

More information:

There is a wealth of good information
on the DNR’s license initiative on its website.
Don’t forget to explore the impacts to your area from dwindling purchasing
power of license dollars.  Here is the direct link:

http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/heritage/index.html

Bills weakening ability of Southeast MN residents to restrict silica sand mining could get Floor votes at any time – More calls are urgently needed

Two bills which would weaken the ability of local residents to place a hold on silica sand mining permit applications, while their communities study how best to restrict operations to locations with minimal impacts, could receive Floor votes this week. Your calls and e-mails are making a difference, but more calls and e-mails are needed now.

Current Status:

MN House – HF 389 was heard on the House floor on Thursday March 8, and many members expressed skepticism and opposition. The bill’s author, Rep. Beard (R-Shakopee) decided to continue the bill, rather than risk a floor vote. HF 389 can be heard again and voted on any day with very little advance notice. Calls to your Representative and to House leadership are needed now.

MN Senate – Opposition to SF 270 was strong at the Senate hearing in the Local Government Committee and the bill only passed out of committee on an 8-6 vote. It has been placed on “general orders”, meaning it can be heard on the Senate floor will little advance notice. Now is the time to speak out!

Background:

How the bills undermine efforts of residents of Southeast MN to protect coldwater resources and other community values
Both bills weaken the ability of a local government to enact an interim ordinance (moratorium) in a timely fashion. Interim ordinances allow local governments to put temporary freezes on major, often unforeseen developments. This power is essential when the community is caught off-guard by unanticipated and potentially harmful proposals, especially those from outside investors and corporate interests, such as the sudden convergence of silica sand mining companies on our Southeast MN watersheds. Some Southeast MN counties have enacted interim ordinances to maintain the status quo and allow the local community time to review and update their zoning ordinances to cover this new, unforeseen type of land use. The silica sand mining boom also caught state agencies unprepared, leaving this new type of activity essentially unregulated by the State and left to local governments to deal with as zoning matters. While local communities are wise enough to restrict such mining to locations that might have little impact on water resources (e.g., above the groundwater table and away from surface waters) they need time to do this right. These bills would deprive residents of adequate time, and instead would enable outside interests to force mining operations onto inappropriate areas of rural communities.

House bill provisions:

Despite amendments touted as compromises, HF 389 would still dramatically weaken local control over zoning. Local communities gain nothing by changing existing zoning related statutes, which are working well. HF 389 creates a very short window of time (30 days) after a project application is submitted to a local government office for the local unit of government to enact an interim ordinance. Given the infrequent meeting schedule of rural communities and the fact that the clock starts running once any public meeting is held (even where the application is not on the agenda), the clock will almost surely run out before residents can have meaningful input. Secondly, it requires a super majority to enact a moratorium, which can be a large hurdle for a county board where 4 of 5 votes would be needed. Finally, it prevents extending a moratorium beyond one year, even where more time is needed to adequately address complex issues.

Senate bill provisions:

SF 270 is not as bad, having been amended to grandfather in existing moratoria, yet one or more moratoria in Southeast MN may expire soon and the legislation could block needed extensions. While the window of time for the local unit of government to enact an interim ordinance has increased from 30 to 60 days, this is still far too short a time period to act in an informed way, especially in rural townships.

Take Action now:

1. Contact your state Representative and House leadership today, since HF 389 can be heard and voted on at any time with very little advance notice. Tell them to oppose HF 389 and vote “no” when it comes up again on the House floor.
Quickly locate and contact legislators by using the State’s legislative website, http://www.leg.state.mn.us Locate your legislator’s name, click on it and you will be taken to his or her individual web page. Direct calls and letters to your representative and House leadership will make a difference. You can also call the MN House switchboard at: 651-296-2146, or 1-800-657-3550

A suggested message re HF 389:

Minnesotans value strong local decision-making and township rights. House File 389 undermines these rights, specifically the right to enact an interim ordinance or land use moratorium. I urge you to oppose HF 389. This power is essential when a community is caught off-guard by unanticipated project proposals, especially those from outside interests. I am familiar with the amended language and find that it still unacceptably weakens local rights. Local citizen democracy is working and should be left alone. I want to know your position on this bill and whether you will oppose it on the House floor. I will be watching this vote.

2. Contact your Senator and Senate leadership today, since SF 270 can be heard and voted on at any time with very little advance notice. Tell them to oppose SF 270 and vote “no” when it comes up for the Senate floor vote.
Quickly locate and contact legislators by using the State’s legislative website, http://www.leg.state.mn.us Locate your legislator’s name, click on it and you will be taken to his or her individual web page. Direct calls and letters to your Senator as well as Senate leadership will make a difference. You can also call the Senate switchboard at: 651-296-0504, or 1-888-234-1112

A suggested message re SF 270:

Minnesotans value strong local decision-making and township rights. Senate File 270 undermines these rights, specifically the right to enact an interim ordinance or land use moratorium. I urge you to oppose SF 270. This power is essential when a community is caught off-guard by unanticipated project proposals, especially those from outside interests. I am familiar with the amended language and find that it still unacceptably weakens local rights. Local citizen democracy is working and should be left alone. I want to know your position on this bill and whether you will oppose it on the Senate floor. I will be watching this vote.

3. Contact Governor Dayton. The Governor can be reached at 651-201-3400 or 1-800-657-3717, or via e-mail at http://mn.gov/governor/contact-us/form/
While Governor Dayton has committed to vetoing legislation that weakens local control, there is always the danger that we may waiver as amendments are made (even if they do not go far enough). Let him know that we appreciate his support of local democracies and that we are doing what we can to stop this legislation from reaching his desk.

Here is a suggested message:

Minnesotans value strong local decision-making and township rights. House File 389 and Senate File 270 dramatically weaken these rights, specifically the right to enact a moratorium. This power is essential when a community is caught off-guard by unanticipated proposals, especially those from outside corporate interests. Despite amendments, I find that the bills still unacceptably weaken local rights. Local citizen democracy is working and should be left alone. I have contacted my legislators and urged them to oppose these bills. I urge you to veto the bill if it reaches your desk.

———————————————————————————-
Further details on this legislation:
Direct link to HF 389: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bin/bldbill.php?bill=H0389.1.html&session=ls87

Direct link to the House floor debate on March 8 (note – the discussion on HF 389 runs from approximately 0:34:00 to 1:16:00):

http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/htv/programa.asp?ls_year=87&session_year=2011&session_number=0&event_id=4093

Direct link to SF 270:

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bin/bldbill.php?bill=S0270.2.html&session=ls87

• Merely applying for a permit could exempt a proposed operation from any future interim ordinance if the local government cannot adopt one swiftly enough. Neighbors typically do not get any information about a project until after a permit has been applied for. An interim ordinance may be needed to maintain the status quo and create time to assess the situation.
• After a project proposer submits a permit application, a 30 or 60 day clock starts to run at the next public meeting of any kind. The application need not be on the agenda, nor Board members or citizens even aware of the application. For example, if a permit application for a frac sand mining operation were accepted on Tuesday and that Thursday the county commissioners meet at their regular time, a 30 or 60 day clock begins running even though it is very unlikely the application would be on the agenda at that meeting. By the time neighbors become aware of the application and the first real opportunity for public input arises (at the monthly commissioners’ meeting) a 30 day or 60 day deadline could have already expired.
• Currently, an interim ordinance can be enacted by a simple majority (50%), which is typically how democratic processes work in this country. Under this bill, a typical county board with 5 members would need 4 of 5 commissioners (80%) to adopt an ordinance. There is no sound reason for making the adoption of this type of ordinance significantly more difficult than any other.
• Both HF 389 and SF 270 actually slow the process for enacting a moratorium by mandating 10 days published public notice and a hearing before a moratorium can be put in place. This delay further increases the likelihood of the 30 or 60 day clock expiring. In many cases, a local unit of government such as a township does not get complete information on a proposed development until shortly before approval. Where there are legitimate concerns that the local government needs to address the enactment of an interim ordinance to protect local citizens may need to be done quickly in order to be effective. An interim ordinance can only be adopted at a public meeting, but currently no special notice is required to be given that the interim ordinance may be considered at the meeting. The very nature of an interim ordinance is to address unanticipated situations, and there are times when it must be enacted quickly as an emergency measure.