FillmoreCounty

Findings of Fact and Conclusions

Regarding Decision on Need for an

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)

April 23, 2013

Rein Quarry Expansion

FillmoreCounty

HoltTownship on County Road 10 next to Highland, MN

NE ¼ SW ¼ Section 35 Township 103 N Range 9 W

NW ¼ SE ¼ Section 35 Township 103 N Range 9 W

Parcel ID: 11.0295.000

INTRODUCTION

The Fillmore County Board of Commissioners, at its regular meeting on April 23, 2013, considered the matter of whether there is a need for an environmental impact statement (EIS) regarding the proposed expansion of the Rein Quarry sand mining project. The Fillmore County Board of Commissioners makes the following findings, based upon its consideration of the entire record in this matter, which includes:

  • The environmental assessment worksheet (EAW) prepared by the project proposer,
  • The comments of the public and government agencies received by FillmoreCounty,
  • The responses of FillmoreCounty staff to the comments of the public and government agencies,
  • The applicable provisions of the Fillmore County Zoning Ordinance,
  • The applicable environmental review rules of the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board,
  • The minutes, recordings and comments of the Fillmore County Silica Sand Mining Committee during 2012,
  • The minutes, recordings and comments of the FillmoreCounty planning commission reviewing silica sand mining issues during 2012.

I.PROJECT DESCRIPTION

1.John and Sandra Rein own the project parcel located on County Road 10 in Section 35 of Holt Township. The Rein’s property consists of 159.1 acres zoned agricultural. Most of the property consists of tillable acreage, and has been used by the Reins for farming. In 2008, Fillmore County approved a conditional use permit (CUP) allowing the Reins and Reilly Construction of Ossian, Iowa to mine and extract sand from a 2.1 acre quarry site on the property. In 2010 the operation increased to 18.36 acres via CUP and Reilly Construction has continued to extract and mine under the CUP. The Reins and Reilly Construction now propose to expand the sand mining operation to a total of 50 acres at the property. Reilly Construction (Mine Operator) would continue to extract and mine sand from the St. Peter Sandstone Formation at the expanded quarry site.

2.The sandstone will be mined to the extent practical using typical earthmoving equipment, including but not limited to backhoes, bulldozers, front end loaders, conveyors, and dump trucks. It is estimated that blasting of the cap rock will occur as needed in 10 acre phases. Once the area is blasted, overburden material will be excavated and sand material sent through the screening process to remove rock chunks and debris. Activities at the site will include excavation, screening, crushing, stockpiling and loading. Trucks will be used to transport raw sand to an offsite processing facility. Various actions will be taken to manage stormwater, minimize erosion, and extract sand at the mine site. Washing and processing will not occur at the mining site.

IIADMINISTRATIVE BACKGROUND

1.The proposed expansion of the quarry site and mining operation proposed by the Reins and Reilly Construction would require the approval and issuance of a new CUP by Fillmore County. The proposed industrial minerals and metals mining CUP would be approved and issued to the Reins and Reilly Construction, pursuant to section 736 of the Fillmore County Zoning Ordinance.

2.The Reins and Mining Operator submitted a pre-application to FillmoreCounty on November 27, 2012, with the expectation that they would be required to participate in mandatory environmental review of the proposed expansion of the quarry site and mining operation.

3.FillmoreCounty is designated the Responsible Government Unit (RGU) forthis environmental review project, pursuant to Minnesota Rule 4410.4300, subp. 12B.

4.An Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW)was prepared as part of the National Environmental Policy Act process and thestate environmental review process to fulfill the requirements of both 42 U.S.C.4332 and M.S. 116D. At the federal level, the EAW is used to provide sufficientenvironmental documentation to determine the need for an Environmental ImpactStatement (EIS) or that a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) isappropriate. At the state level, the EAW is used to provide sufficient environmentaldocumentation to determine the need for a state EIS or that a NegativeDeclaration is appropriate.

5.The EAW for this proposed mining project expansion was completed and certified by FillmoreCounty as RGU on January 10, 2013.

6.Notice of the completed EAW was published in the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board’s Monitor on January 21, 2013. The period of time for public comment on the EAW started on January 21, 2013, and ended on February 20, 2013.

7.During the 30-day comment period, FillmoreCountyreceived a total of 12 letters, email messages and other written comments from the public on the proposed mining project expansion and the EAW.

8.As part of the EAW process, FillmoreCounty sent copies of the EAW to 16 state and federal agencies requesting comments. The agencies selected are based on the EAW Distribution List dated November 20, 2012 as dictated by the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board. The EAW was posted on the FillmoreCounty website and a public notice was printed in the Fillmore County Journal. Six state and local government agencies responded to the Rein Quarry Expansion EAW during the comment period, including the (i) Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (letter dated February 20, 2013), (ii) Minnesota Department of Health (letter dated February 20, 2013), (iii) Minnesota Department of Transportation (letter dated February 19, 2013), (iv) MinnesotaPollution Control Agency (letter dated February 20, 2013), (v) Houston County Board of Commissioners dated February 19, 2013, and (vi) Allamakee County, Iowa Zoning Administrator.

9.Following the comment period, FillmoreCounty received a letter from the Commissioner of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency dated March 22, 2013.

10.Following the comment period, FillmoreCounty and the Mining Operator reviewed the written comments and prepared responses to the comments.

11.Pursuant to Minnesota Rule 4410.1700, FillmoreCounty must make a decision on the need for an EIS on the proposed expansion project. With the knowledge of the EQB and the written approval of the proposer, FillmoreCounty, on April 2, 2013, extended the date for making a decision on the need for an EIS to receive additional information necessary to make a reasoned decision until April 23, 2013.

12.Based upon the information in the record, which consists of the EAW forthe proposed project, the issues raised during the public comment period, theresponses to the comments and other supporting documents, FillmoreCountymakes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions:

IIIFINDINGS OF FACT

1.Minnesota Rule 4410.1700 provides that an EIS shall be ordered for projects thathave the potential for significant environmental effects. In deciding whether aproject has the potential for significant environmental effects, the following factorsshall be considered:

A. Types, extent, and reversibility of environmental impacts.

B. Cumulative potential effects. In determining whether the proposed project has the potential for cumulative effects, the RGU must consider the following factors: whether the cumulative potential effect is significant; whether the contribution from the project is significant when viewed in connection with other contributions to the cumulative potential effect; the degree to which the project complies with approved mitigation measures specifically designed to address the cumulative potential effect; and the efforts of the proposer to minimize the contributions from the project.

C. Extent to which the environmental effects are subject to mitigation by ongoing public regulatory authority. The RGU may rely only on mitigation measures that are specific and that can be reasonably expected to effectively mitigate the identified environmental impacts of the project.

D. The extent to which environmental effects can be anticipated and controlled as a result of other environmental studies undertaken bypublic agencies or the project proposer, including other EISs.

2.Based on the information contained in the Rein Quarry Expansion EAW, commentsreceived on the EAW, and the criteria listed above, the findings of factinclude:

  1. Types, extent, and reversibility of environmental impacts.

1.FillmoreCounty staff and commissioners have identified and analyzed potential environmental impacts presented by the proposed expansion of the Rein Quarry expansion project, and disclosed in the EAW. The potential environmental impacts of the project would include:

  • Excessive use of water from aquifers or other water resources for processing and washing excavated sand.
  • Pollution of water resources from excavating and mining sand.
  • Permanent landscape destruction without adequate reclamation.
  • Degradation and damage to public roads from heavy hauling of sand to destinations, without reimbursement by the mining operator.
  • Noise from heavy excavation equipment.
  • Dust and ambient particles causing public health issues for mining workers and nearby residents.
  • Use of flocculants and toxic chemicals for processing excavated sand.
  • Heavy truck traffic flowing through nearby towns disrupting residents and businesses.
  • Trucks parking along public roads awaiting loading and unloading.
  • Large industrialized mining sites located in low density agricultural and rural residential areas.

2.Public and government agency commenter’sthrough the EAW also identified many of these issues in their letters. The EAW process and FillmoreCounty staff provided responses to these comments. FillmoreCounty provides the following findings and conclusions regarding the potential environmental impacts of the Rein Quarry expansion project disclosed in the EAW.

3.On February 28, 2012, Fillmore County approved a moratorium on Section 721 of Fillmore County Zoning Ordinance, Excavation and Mining of Construction Materials. During the moratorium, the Fillmore County Silica Sand Mining Committee, the Planning Commission, and county commissioners explored the public’s concerns regarding the mining, processing and transportation of silica sand. The moratorium ended on November 27, 2012 with the approval of a new section to the Fillmore County Zoning Ordinance, Section 736. This new series of strict regulations of industrial minerals (silica) excavation, mining, processing and hauling, responds to many of the concerns raised by the public during the moratorium on silica sand mining and processing.

4.The Fillmore County Board of Commissioners finds that the new industrial minerals excavation and mining ordinance (Section 736 of the Fillmore County Zoning Ordinance) will substantially reduce potential environmental impacts of the proposed expanded Rein Quarry project, in the following manner:

5.Excessive use of water from aquifers or other water resources for processing and washing excavated sand. Section 736 prohibits washing and processing of excavated sand at the mining site. The Rein Quarry mining operator will be required to transport unwashed and processed sand to their destination points for washing and processing. This prohibition eliminates the need for appropriating and using excessive amounts of water at the mining site.

It is important to note the Rein Quarry mining operator originally requested a water appropriations permit from DNR in the amount of 198,000,000 gallons of water annually. Section 736 prevents this size appropriation and with the restricted use of chemicals, streams and aquifers are being protected from harmful chemicals and flocculants. The application to the Department of Natural Resources for a water appropriation permit has been halted. The Reins were also proposing a two-cell holding pond for washing but that will not be allowed as indicated above.

6.Pollution of water resources from excavating and mining sand. Section 736 prohibits the vertical mining of sand close to identified water tables. This reduces the potential for dewatering problems that ultimately contaminate aquifers and other water resources when water is filtered back into the ground. Additionally, flocculants and other toxic chemicals are prohibited from use at the mining site, thereby eliminating chemical pollution filtering into the ground.

Additional water concerns focused on the depth to the high water table. As indicated in the Rein Quarry expansion EAW there will be approximately 100 feet from the bottom of the quarry to the high water table. To put this into perspective, human effluent only requires three feet of separation for filtration. The proposed 100 foot separation from the bottom of the quarry to the high water table is more than adequate.

The Rein Quarry site is situated on the watershed divide between Gribben Creek to the northwest, the South Fork Diamond Creek to the northeast, and Nepstad Creek to the south.Any offsite flow will go to the south and therefore will not affect Gribben or South Fork Diamond Creeks. The closest segment of DNR Protected Waters which would have perennial flow is Nepstad Creek at least one mile south of the site.During mining operations there will be water retention berms to control runoff and they will filter water through waterways and dry runs before water can reach any of the trout streams.

7.Permanent landscape destruction without adequate reclamation. The Rein Quarry mining site consists of primarily sand mounds with light vegetation cover. The EAW review determined that there are no sensitive features at the mining site. Once these sand mounds are removed from the mining activity, the overburden and vegetation that was removed prior to mining will be replaced. Section 736 provides for ongoing and phased reclamation of the mining site, rather than anticipating total reclamation once the mining project is completed. Ongoing and phased reclamation will provide considerable incentive to the mining operator to return the mining site as close to it original condition as possible.

Section 736.13 provides that a property owner and excavation/mining operator applying for an Industrial Minerals or Metals Conditional Use Permit will submit a detailed reclamation plan identifying all proposed steps that will be taken to return the mining site to its natural condition as much as possible and to prevent the occurrence of any adverse environmental effects. No mining or excavation activity shall begin until the CountyBoard has approved the reclamation plan as a condition of issuing a conditional use permit. To the fullest extent possible, the reclamation plan will provide for phased reclamation of the site during and throughout mining operations and immediately following the end of mining operations. Phased reclamation is best implemented by having no more than twenty-five (25) acres operational at any given time.

The proposed reclamation plan is in 10 acre increments.

While mining will create a temporary depression, the haul back and final reclamation will create a floor at minimum grade of 0.5% which will naturally drain in directions similar to existing drainage conditions. There will not be concentrated flows entering the mine. Reclamation will be completed in 10 acres phases to ensure the land isrecovered. A reclamation plan will be included in the Conditional Use Permit application and requires approval from the Fillmore County Technical Evaluation Panel, as described in Section 736.13 of the Fillmore County Zoning Ordinance, prior to the Conditional Use Permit hearing. The intent is to have active reclamation as the DNR recommends in their letter dated February 20, 2013. Stripping of topsoil or overburden for a future phase will coincide with final reclamation of the current phase. Topsoil is currently being used as a storm water buffer around the quarry.

8.Degradation and damage to public roads from heavy hauling of sand to destinations, without reimbursement by the mining operator. Section 736 requires the Rein Quarry mining operator to enter into road impact agreements with Fillmore County, and to reimburse the county for anticipated road damage from the hauling to sand to destination points. Section 736.11 provides that all new or expanded excavation and mining operators will be required to enter into road maintenance agreements with FillmoreCounty. The road maintenance agreements will provide for:

1)A roundtrip hauling route for the shipping of industrial minerals and metals from the excavation or mining site to a targeted delivery location.

2)Mining operator’s agreement to pay a road pavement impact fee, as decided by the County Highway Engineer and County Commissioners, to reimburse Fillmore County for the projected costs of repairing and replacing road pavement damage by the hauling of industrial minerals and metals from an excavation or mining site. If excavation and mining minerals or materials are hauled back to the site the road pavement impact fee will also be assessed. The fee established at the time of application will be reviewed every two (2) years.

The current reimbursement rate has not been set by the Fillmore County Board, but it is expected to be $.219 per ton per mile. Additionally, the road impact agreements would enable FillmoreCounty to designate the hauling routes allowed to prevent more fragile roads and bridges from being used.

It is important to note the proposed project is only extracting sand for shipment to its destination in Winona. Although Reilly Construction sought an alternative route south toward New Albin, Iowa to its proposed Black Hawk spur rail siding destination, that destination is not currently feasible. The comment letter from the Allamakee County, Iowa zoning administrator and other information available to Fillmore County staff disclose that processing at the proposed Black Hawk spur rail siding destination would violate Allamakee County’s current moratorium on silica sand mining, processing and transfer. The proposed destination is not currently zoned for the proposed rail siding purpose. Some commenters from FillmoreCounty stated that the alternative route proposed by Reilly Construction was unsafe for large numbers of heavy trucks hauling sand, and would damage valuable bridge infrastructure. Any proposed route change would require a new road impact agreement and public hearing through the Planning Commission with recommendation to the Fillmore County Commissioners.