RESPONSE TO WRITTEN COMMENTS ON REIN APPLICATION

It should be noted that the Written Responses ard provided by Fillmore County staff, not commissioners.

FILLMORE COUNTY

REIN QUARRY EXPANSION, HIGHLAND, MN

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET

WRITTEN COMMENT INDEX

March 14, 2013

Comments received from:

1.      MN Department of Health – Michele Ross, Environmental Review Coordinator

2.      MN Department of Natural Resources – Melissa Doperalski, Regional Environmental Assessment Ecologist

3.      MN Department of Transportation – Mark Schoenfelder, Planning Director District 6

4.      Houston County – Justin Zmyewski, Chairperson of Houston County Board

5.      Minnesota Pollution Control Agency – Craig Affeldt, Environmental Review Unit

6.      Allamakee County Zoning and Planning Office – Thomas Blake, Zoning Administrator

7.      Allamakee County Engineer – Brian Ridenour

8.      Ric Zarwell - President of Allamakee County Protectors

9.      Loni Kemp – Canton MN resident

10.   Roy House – Chatfield MN resident

11.   Paul and Rita LeDuc – Fountain MN residents

12.   Dale Forster – Lanesboro MN resident

13.   Beth Hennessy – Lanesboro MN resident

14.   Bonita Underbakke – Lanesboro MN resident

15.   David Williams – Lanesboro MN resident

16.   Donna Buckbee – Rushford MN resident

17.   Karen Swanson –( emailed comment )

In order to organize and provide adequate comment on the significant record of written comment received for the Rein Quarry Expansion EAW, a reference number has been assigned to each written comment received along with a list of concerns and issues contained in each correspondence. All letters were read in their entirety and concerns summarized herein.  The letters contained nuances related to specific issues which we have attempted to summarize.

The following is a summary of comments received intended only for indexing and referencing to assist in organizing the response document.

The following written comments were received for the Rein Quarry Expansion EAW:

Comment #         Author                                                               Comments                                                      

1.                           MN Dept.  of Health       

Groundwater quality - mining in Karst area, depth to underlying bedrock, concern for creation of depression, concern for infiltration of dissolved solids and soluble contaminates, impact on groundwater flows

Recommends reclamation plan revisions reducing infiltration

Recommends a monitoring well program, comprehensive well survey, collect baseline samples Recommends mined area be memorialized on deed

Recommends well for dust suppression be identified

Air Quality – toxicity of silica, respirable particle sizes, California’s standard, lack of an ambient air standard requirement by Minnesota Department of Health, potential for development of exposure limit mid-2013, ongoing studies will establish exposure limits based on potential health concerns.

Recommend a plan for monitoring respirable crystalline silica

Truck traffic – potential for increase in vehicular and pedestrian injuries, emission of particulate matter and chemicals, exposure to sensitive populations, interference with emergency vehicle routes.

Health Impact Assessment – could benefit project

2.                           MN Department of Natural Resources     

Request clarification of contradiction in reclamation

Recommendation on an invasive species management plan

Requests identification of water supply for dust suppression

Requests mine operator report water volume use related to appropriation permit requirements

Cumulative Potential Effects Concerns

3.                           MN Department of Transportation

Concern haul trucks will be a hazard until they reach posted speeds and ask that all haul truck drivers continue to be mindful of this condition.

List upcoming projects that may impact the proposed haul routes

4.                           Houston County Board of Commissioners (on Houston DOT letterhead)

Truck Traffic - proposed hours and days of hauling, concern for use of Houston County Highway 2 due to roadway width, bituminous depth, spring load restrictions, acknowledgement of a draft road use agreement within Houston County.

Fish, Wildlife and Ecologically sensitive resources – lists impaired waters

Physical impacts on water resources – recommends a plan be in place to address sinkholes should they form

Vehicle related air emissions – request for traffic route modeling

Odor, noise and dust – will trucks be fully enclosed to prevent dust and sediment from coming off trucks

Impact on infrastructure and public services – roadway upgrades anticipated in Houston County, proximity to Spring Grove school, request that City of Spring Grove and City of Eitzen be contacted and allowed to make comment, list of upcoming projects that may impact proposed haul routes.

5.                           MN Pollution Control Agency

Project Magnitude – is more than 160 acres available for expansion?

Phased Action – statement that future permitting appear to exceed 160 acres limit, therefore requiring an EIS.

Cumulative Potential Effects – references other mining projects within Winona and Fillmore County, recommends and EIS

General Comments – EAW lacks detail with respect to types of activities to be conducted at quarry, eventual destination of sand taken, processing activities at other sites, recommendation for EIS.

Permit and Approvals required – discussion on MNG 49 permit vs MNR10000 permit currently in place

Stationary Source Air Emissions – basis for not requiring an air emission permit is not adequately addressed.

Odors, Noise and Dust – notes allowable dust control guidance

Conclusion/Summary – recommend additional study of the proposed project including consideration of project phases and a cumulative potential effects analysis

6.                           Allamakee County Zoning and Planning Office

Notes a discrepancy in classification of haul route option in Houston County and Allamakee County as being along County, not State roads as identified in the EAW. 

Notes New Albin Siding has not been approved for processing of sand.

Notes an 18 month moratorium on mining and processing of silica sand in Allamakee County

7.                           Allamakee County Engineer

Notes a discrepancy in classification of haul route option in Houston County and Allamakee County as being along County, not State roads as identified in the EAW.  Requests more clarification on haul routes in Allamakee County. 

Notes an 18 month moratorium on mining and processing of silica sand in Allamakee County

 Notes spring road embargos

8.                           Allamakee County Protectors

Notes a discrepancy in classification of haul route option in Houston County and Allamakee County as being along County, not State roads as identified in the EAW. 

Reasons for opposition to proposed haul route to New Albin Siding location: impact on roads, zoning of facility, moratorium currently in place, states moratorium was enacted to prevent the development and operation of both frac sand mines and frac sand processing facilities thereby making the location not viable as a destination for sand from the Rein Quarry.

9.                           Loni Kemp – Canton resident

Water concerns: presence of sinkholes and springs in the vicinity, karst geology, requests survey of wells, aquifer studies, trout stream studies, study of impaired waters downstream and along haul routes, notes failure of structures due to sinkhole formations, concern for return of undesirable sand to the mine and

Dust, Airborne Silica and vehicle related air emissions: concern related to airborne crystalline silica particles, diesel emissions, lack of an air monitoring plan, lack of standards to apply to an air monitoring or mitigation plan.

Reclamation concerns

Impact on tourism, economy, fishing, fishing locations, and agriculture

Roads – New Albin Siding site, haul route changes, hours of transportation, road use agreements and fees, and negotiations with neighboring states and counties should be evaluated now

Requests an EIS

10.                        Roy House – Chatfield resident

Concerned with proximity to trout streams, potential expansion due to additional silica sand sources, EAW does not list neighbors to be notified of blasting, diesel emissions concerns, concerns with hydrocarbon spills, weighing of trucks, dismissal of ecology around the mine in the EAW, lack of listing of visual impacts, recommendation for inclusion of a member of the Fillmore County Department of Health on the Technical Review Panel.

11.                        Paul and Rita LeDuc – Fountain residents

Concerned with proximity of sinkholes and springs, well and aquifer concerns, dewatering, impact of blasting on aquifers, function of the temporary infiltration basins, request emergency spill kits be mandatory

12.                        Dale Forster – Lanesboro resident

Concerned there will be damage to trout streams in the event of massive rains.

Who has liability for damage to trout streams or aquifers or to human and animal health or existing businesses.

Concern related to silica dust.  Recommends an extensive monitoring system.

Concern regarding diesel particulates.  Recommends monitoring with same stipulations for silica dust monitoring.

Comment and statement that proposal is at odds with the county comprehensive land use plan regarding preserving agricultural crop growing land.

Comment on hours of operation

Comments on reapproval of CUP regarding: number of trucks, haul routes, expansion of the mine

Question as to why an EAW or EIS previously was not required in 2008 or 2011.

Statements on ponding, reclamation plan, requiring SWCD and DNR personnel to inspect  the site, lack of inspection protocol, lack of details on taxes and fees, employment, origination of employees, payroll.

Statement that more information, monitoring and controls are required.  That mine bottom should not go deeper than 1180 feet above sea level, and no depression or flat area be left after mining ends.

Requests an EIS after state has stringent inplace standards

13.                        Beth Hennessy – Lanesboro resident

Concern about silica dust, need for air emissions permit, dust mitigation

Request the Board to ask for an EIS

 14.                       Bonita Underbakke – Lanesboro resident

Water Quality Risks – concerned with petroleum distillate pollution of aquifer, concentration of heavy equipment.  Questions how much total water will actually be used, when will it be used, function at temperatures below freezing, where sources of water are.  Questions how often haulback material will be tested for contaminants.

Air Quality and Health Risks – concerned with silica dust and potential effects, recommends air monitoring equipment prior to any expansion, notes diesel modeling does not include emission from equipment, wants diesel particulates counted in a more detailed EIS.

Reclamation – comment that changes need to be approved by Technical EvaluationTeam, questions where 6” topsoil will come from, that it will not deplete other parcels of land, asks what species of tree will be planted for 20 years into the future when our weather forecast is that of present day Kansas.

Infrastructure – questions alternative routes, what will happen if there is a lack of funds to make improvements.

Economic Impacts – questions taxes and fees, pay for drivers and operators, income lost in tourism and agriculture, property value losses.

Cumulative Potential Effects - Requests an EIS to study

15.                        David Williams – Lanesboro resident        

Objects to the proposed haul route to New Albin Siding – would create an unsafe traffic condition, would quickly deteriorate the bridges, impact of trucks on fishing under bridges, references the Allamakee moratorium and makes conclusion that there is no legitimate reason to haul material to the New Albin Iowa area. 

16.                        Donna Buckbee – Rushford resident

Concerns for cumulative effects listed: road safety, road damage, lost property values, negative impacts on tourism, recreation, agriculture based economy, water quality and water quantity impairments and air quality impairments due to increased diesel truck traffic.

Provides links and references to statistics and studies

Hopes an EIS is required

17.                        Karen Swanson – email

Requests EIS based on ground water protection, health protection and county not becoming polluted.

RESPONSES TO WRITTEN COMMENT

In order to organize and provide adequate comment on the significant record of written comment received for the Rein Quarry Expansion EAW, a reference number was assigned to each written comment received along with a list of concerns and issues contained in each correspondence. This reference number is listed after each comment contained herein to reference those pertinent concerns in each letter.

Comments or portions of comments that have no relevance to the Environmental Impact Statement determination or are simple statements by commenters are acknowledged by “Comment Noted”.

-Groundwater quality - mining in Karst area, depth to underlying bedrock, concern for creation of depression, concern for infiltration of dissolved solids and soluble contaminates, impact on groundwater flows, trout streams  (Comments: 1, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17)

Response:  Fillmore County Ordinance 736 included provisions specific to providing protection of underlying aquifers in the geologic formations encountered in areas where silica sand is accessible in Fillmore County.  The proposed plan, as described in the EAW, will have a mine floor of 1155 which is greater than 5 feet above the Shakopee dolomite, which based on the available information, is at an elevation of 1147.  The elevation of the water table, based on well logs, is near 975, 180 feet below the mine floor.  The mine floor is the target excavation elevation.  Haul back material, overburden and topsoil will elevate the final elevation to greater than five feet above the Shakopee dolomite.

It is noted that the current MPCA standards related to treatment of sanitary sewer effluent (Chapter 7080) require 3 feet of soil between the bottom of the distribution media and bedrock or the watertable.  3 feet of separation from seasonally saturated soils or from bedrock is also the standard established by the MPCA in reference to design of infiltration/filtration basins required under the NPDES stormwater permit program (Permit No. MNR100001).  Neither standard has additional criteria pertaining to working in Karst areas.  The separations mentioned meet the requirements for excavation with regards to bedrock and aquifer interfaces. 

Risk of infiltration of contaminates are greatly reduced due to the lack of an upstream watershed which could carry contaminants onto the site and/or provide a vehicle which to transport them in a rapid manner.  Any spills would be specific to equipment failure which would be noticeable and addressable as discussed in Section 20 of the EAW.  The storage of petroleum products and quantities is also addressed in Section 20 of the EAW.  Spills of less than five gallons are still to be contained and cleaned up; they just do not require reporting to the Minnesota Duty Officer.

Liability for contamination or injury is a based on investigation after an incident.  Comments noted.

-Recommends reclamation plan revisions reducing infiltration (Commenter: 1, 9, 11, 12, and 14)  

Response: 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 as Commenter 1 ascertains.  This is depicted on the reclamation plan.  Testing of haul back material and provisions for topsoil can be administered in the Operations Plan and CUP.  The protocol for who and how often the haul back material is tested  for chemicals used in flocculation was not identified in Section 736 of the ordinance but will be established as part of the Conditional Use Permit.  The applicant has proposed testing of haul back material be provided every 2500 cubic yards of material returned to the site or as directed by the county.  Currently Winona Aggregate, the primary destination point for the sand, does not process sand using flocculants.  Testing of haul back material can be completed, but is not needed unless the material is processed with chemicals.  100,000 yards of sand have been hauled from the Rein site and the material has not been washed or processed with flocculants, or washed in general.  Additional measures could include testing and documentation of reject sand at the processing facility.  It could work like a precertification process which would provide documentation at both ends of the operation.  

-Recommends a monitoring well program, comprehensive well survey, collect baseline samples. (Commenter: 1, 9, 10)

Response: The size of the operation proposed and location in context with geology and watersheds adequately minimizes the potential for ground water contamination.  The operation will not produce sewage or apply nitrates.  Any petroleum based contaminants would be lighter than water so their presence would occur at the top of the water table.  Therefore sampling for them would require drilling of wells.  Requiring monitoring wells be drilled and an ongoing monitoring program is beyond the scope of requirements for a quarry of the size proposed.  The Fillmore County Board may recommend provisions to the Conditional Use Permit regarding periodic testing of existing nearby wells for specific compounds. 

-Recommends mined area is memorialized on deed (Commenter: 1)

Response: The Conditional Use Permit is a recorded document thereby the mining activity is memorialized and future owners have the ability to determine the limits of potential disturbances based on the legal descriptions of the mine boundary which are a requirement of the CUP.

-Recommends well for dust suppression are identified (Commenter: 1, 2, and 14)

Response:  The mine operator may bring water to the site from their base located in Ossian Iowa or they may procure it from existing wells in the vicinity such as the existing well at the property owners building site.  The quantity of water required for dust suppression is estimated at 3 gallons per minute when required.  Figuring for a full day of dust suppression… a 12 hour period, this is only 2160 gallons per day which is well below the threshold for an appropriations permit of 10,000 gallons per day and/or 1 million gallon per year.  In no viable situation would dust suppression appropriate 1 million gallons per year.)  For context, the average single family home is estimated to use 450 to 600 gallons of water per day.

Using storm water runoff water for use in dust suppression is not considered a viable option since the timeframe when runoff water would be in basins would not coincide with times when dust suppression is likely required.  Another conflict with this recycling effort is that any sediment in runoff storm water could plug and damage the nozzles of the equipment.

-Air Quality – toxicity of silica, respirable particle sizes, California’s standard, lack of an ambient off-site air standard requirement by Minnesota Department of Health, potential for development of exposure limit mid-2013, ongoing studies will establish exposure limits based on potential health concerns.  (Commenter: 1, 4, 5, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17)

Response: Should air quality standards for silica mining and hauling be established, Fillmore County will work with agencies and companies involved to ensure compliance and enforcement.  If air quality standards are enacted, Fillmore County can require compliance of air quality standards through the Conditional Use Permit.  Comments noted.

-Recommend a plan for monitoring respirable crystalline silica (Commenter: 1, 4, 5, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 16, and 17)

Response: Reilly Construction has operated the Rein Quarry since 2010.  They have mined and hauled approximately 100,000 tons of sand to Winona since then without complaints from residents in close proximity of the quarry or agencies overseeing the quarry.  With regards to respirable crystalline silica, the discussion of where, how and what should be monitored as well as who should be doing the monitoring leads to additional questions that are admittedly not easily answered.  At this time, some questions are unanswerable.  This is because the health impact of respirable crystalline silica related to mining and transport in the setting of southeastern Minnesota is unknown.  It can be concluded that testing and studies would be better performed at large scale mines and/or processing facilities which would provide much better data for analysis and future policy than data that could be collected at the Rein Quarry.  Further, without a more efficient processing facilities in the region, mining 200,000 tons of sand per year from the Rein Quarry is highly unlikely.   (200,000 tons per year is the average quantity based on 4 million tons over 20 years.) 

This conclusion is not to overlook the potential negative health impacts.  It is with understanding that as data from air monitoring at other sites is analyzed and weighed against occupational and ambient risks, new  rules and procedures are likely to evolve and be implemented.  These rules and procedures can and will be enforced on all future mining activities by agencies such as the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MHSA), MPCA, MDH, in addition to Fillmore County.  Mine safety and public health is not grandfathered.  – Comments noted.

NOTE:  The mission of MSHA is to administer the provisions of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (Mine Act) and to enforce compliance with mandatory safety and health standards as a means to eliminate fatal accidents; to reduce the frequency and severity of nonfatal accidents; to minimize health hazards; and to promote improved safety and health conditions in the Nation's mines. MSHA carries out the mandates of the Mine Act at all mining and mineral processing operations in the United States, regardless of size, number of employees, commodity mined, or method of extraction. 
The Mine Act requires the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) to inspect surface mines at least twice a year and underground mines at least four times a year (seasonal or intermittent operations are inspected less frequently). MSHA performs other important mandatory activities under the Mine Act. These include:
   -investigating mine accidents, complaints of retaliatory discrimination filed by miners, hazardous condition complaints, knowing or willful (criminal) violations committed by agents of mine operators, and petitions for modification of mandatory safety standards;
   -developing improved mandatory safety and health standards;
   -assessing and collecting civil monetary penalties for violations of mine safety and health standards;
   -expanding programs for the education and training of miners, operators and agents;
   -reviewing for approval mine operators' mining plans and education and training plans; and
   -approving and certifying the design of certain mining products.

-Truck traffic – potential for increase in vehicular and pedestrian injuries, emission of particulate matter and chemicals, exposure to sensitive populations, interference with emergency vehicle routes. (Commenter: 1, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 14, 15, 16)

Response:  As referenced in Section 21 (Traffic) of the EAW, all haul routes are on roads permitting truck traffic.  The proposed number of trucks does not exceed the design capacity which is expressed in annual average daily trips (AADT) by MnDOT.  The mine operator is subject to seasonal road bans and local enforcement of road usage fees.  Additional comments related to injuries, emissions, road wear, exposure, interferences and correspondence with neighboring cities, counties and states are all noted.  Traffic concerns can be addressed through the Conditional Use Permitting process.  

-Health Impact Assessment – could benefit project (Commenter: 1)

Response: Comment noted.

-Request for clarification of contradiction in reclamation (Commenter: 2)

Response:  The intent is to have active reclamation as the DNR recommends.  Stripping of topsoil or overburden for a future phase will coincide with final reclamation of the current phase.

-Recommendation on an invasive species management plan (Commenter: 2)

Response: Comment noted.

-Requests mine operator report water volume use related to appropriation permit requirements (Commenter: 2)

Response: There are no requirements in the Conditional Use Permit process for monitoring of water used for dust suppression.  However, the reporting of the number of truckloads of water used at the mine is not an unreasonable or difficult provision to add to the CUP and the applicant has expressed their willingness to provide this documentation if required.  This provision for annual reporting may be discussed as a CUP condition.  Comment noted.

-Concern haul trucks will be a hazard until they reach posted speeds and ask that all haul truck drivers continue to be mindful of this condition. (Commenter: 3)

Response: Comment noted

-List upcoming projects that may impact the proposed haul routes (Commenter: 3, 4)

Response: When truck routes are temporarily closed for reconstruction or improvements, it will be the responsibility of the mine operator to notify the Fillmore County Zoning Administrator of any changes to their haul route.  If associated detours are not classified as viable truck routes, hauling may be prohibited until the approved haul route is reopened to truck traffic.  Comment noted

-What are proposed hours of hauling (Commenter:  4, 9, and 12)

Response:  The ordinance addresses operations at the mine which includes loading of trucks.  Mining operations times at the site will be restricted to Monday through Friday, 6:00 am to 8:00 pm Central Daylight Time (CDT) and Monday through Friday, 7:00 am to 5:00 pm Central Standard Time (CST). Operations may also occur year-round on Saturdays, 7:00 am to 3:00 pm.  Mining operations will not be conducted on federally observed holidays or on Sundays. Hours of operation may be further restricted through the Conditional Use Process. Trucks will not be allowed to exit the site  outside the quarry’s operating hours which are listed under Section 6b of the EAW and adhere to Section 736 of the Fillmore County Ordinance.  The operator will be subject to any applicable operating constraints related to road use.

-Haul Route classifications regarding the New Albin Siding site. (Commenter: 4, 6, 7, 8, 15)

Response: It was pointed out that the haul route referenced MN State Hwy 2 which is actually Houston County Hwy 2 and Allamakee County Hwy A-11.  Comment noted.

-Fish, Wildlife and Ecologically sensitive resources – lists impaired waters (Commenter: 4)

Response: Comment on impaired waters is noted.

-Physical impacts on water resources – recommends a plan be in place to address sinkholes should they form (Commenter: 4)

Response: The Applicant has agreed that a section be added to the Operation and Reclamation Plan addressing sinkhole mitigation.  The procedure for addressing a sinkhole that forms during mining is:

A.     Immediately stop all excavations within the vicinity of the feature and take pictures for records.  Protect the area from further disturbance.

B.     Contact Fillmore County Zoning and SWCD about the formation and set up an onsite meeting.

C.     Grade berms or swales as required to divert concentrated surface runoff from entering the vicinity of the sinkhole. 

D.     Develop a sinkhole sealing plan with the SWCD.

E.      File the GPS coordinates the sinkhole and any record reports in the CUP file. 

F.      Adjust the Operation and Reclamation Plan accordingly.

-Vehicle related air emissions – request for traffic route modeling (Commenter: 4)

Response:  The applicant’s use of the term “model” would have been better worded as “reviewed” as modeling using scientific formulas was not performed along the route.  The route does not flow through any areas of traffic congestion or enclosures which would contribute to concentrated air quality problems.

-Odor, noise and dust – will trucks be fully enclosed to prevent dust and sediment from coming off trucks (Commenter: 4)

Response:  Enclosure of material in trucks via either tarp or other covering is required per the Fillmore County Ordinance Section 736.  This requirement is enforceable through Section 736 of the Fillmore County Zoning Ordinance.

-Impact on infrastructure and public services – roadway upgrades anticipated in Houston County, proximity to Spring Grove school, request that City of Spring Grove and City of Eitzen be contacted and allowed to make comment, list of upcoming projects that may impact proposed haul routes. (Commenter: 4, 14, 15)

Response:  Comments noted.  Regarding contacting individual Cities, they were and are still allowed to provide comments though they will not be addressed as part of this EAW comment and response process.  Legal notices were sent to the required entities required through the EAW process and documented by the Fillmore County Zoning Office. 

-Permit and Approvals required – discussion on MNG 49 permit vs MNR10000 permit currently in place (Commenter: 5)

Response:  The current NPDES (MRN10000) permit is a valid application for the activities based on previous discussions the applicant had with MPCA officials.  .The applicant is working with MPCA staff to verify the quarry continues to operate under a valid stormwater permit.  Comments noted.

-Stationary Source Air Emissions – basis for not requiring an air emission permit is not adequately addressed. (Commenter: 5, 13)

Response:  The sandstone material is loosely cemented and can be broken up by excavation and driving on the material with the metal tracks of the excavating equipment.  Mechanical crushing equipment using jaws, gyratory, cone, roll, rodmill, hammermill and impactor are not used during excavation, screening or loading onto trucks.  Reference to crushing in the EAW is in relation to the limestone cap material which may or may not have marketable value.  If there is a determined market value for the limestone in a crushed form, the operator would employ a portable crushing machine for periods estimated at two to four weeks per crushing session which would provide sufficient stockpiles to supply one to two years’ worth of aggregate material.  The operator is familiar with and holds the EPA air emissions permit required for their portable crushing equipment which exceeds the capacity to crush 150 tons of cap limestone in an hour. 

-Odors, Noise and Dust – notes allowable dust control guidance (Commenter: 5)

Response: Comment and links to guidance are noted.  On-site occupational health standards for dust are regulated and administered by federal standards.  As stated above, no guidance or standard has been established for ambient air impacts off-site to the general public. If off-site ambient air standards are developed in the future, ambient air impacts for off-site concerns can be address through the Conditional Use Permitting process.

-Notes New Albin Siding is not approved for processing of sand. (Commenter: 6, 7, 8, 9, 15)

Response:   The term “processing” related to the New Albin Siding site was used incorrectly.  New Albin Siding is listed as an alternative destination for the material where it may be loaded onto rail cars for further shipping via rail.  The site currently has a 30 railcar capacity. This activity is transporting, not processing  Transporting sand through this site has not been performed by the applicant though they have expressed their desire to make improvements to the property to local officials. Improvements may include an increase to a 100 railcar capacity. The approval for loading at the New Albin Siding site may be subject to further review by the RGU in New Albin, IA.  Comments noted.

-Notes an 18 month moratorium on mining and processing of silica sand in Allamakee County. (Commenter: 6, 7, 8, 15)

Response:  We respect the moratorium and zoning ordinance process Allamakee County is currently undertaking.   Comments noted. 

-Impact on tourism, economy, fishing, fishing locations, and agriculture (Commenter: 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, and 16)

Response:  During Fillmore County’s moratorium and prior to adoption of the Section 736 of the Ordinance, Cris Gastner with the Community and Economic Development Associates (CEDA) provided information about the effects to tourism and the general economy during a Silica Sand Committee meeting.

Comments tying the proposed project to a decrease in tourism, depressing the economy, wages, pay scale, origination of employees, removal of land from cropland are all noted.

-Question as to why an EAW or EIS previously was not required in 2008 or 2010. (Commenter: 12)

Response: An EAW is not required on any and all sand or gravel mines under 40 acres in size.  None of the mines in Fillmore County have an EAW because they are under administrative requirements.

-Cumulative Potential Effects Concerns (Commenter: 2, 5, 8, 9, 10, 12, 14, and 16)

Response:  No other quarries have been proposed in the vicinity of the Rein Quarry.  The Rein Quarry is an existing permitted silica sand mine operation which applied to expand to 50 acres as part of the application for Conditional Use Permit following the guidelines of the recently adopted Fillmore County Ordinance Section 736 which was created specifically to govern mining of silica sand.  While the property owner has approximately 160 acres of contiguous land which has been linked as reason for an EIS, the formation containing the desirable silica sand only covers approximately 80 acres of the property.  The total area of the formation is also approximately 160 acres but mining all of it is not realistic due to multiple property owners, vicinity to the community of Highland but mainly the depth of overburden (economics).  The Rein Quarry is simply a source of material as Fillmore County does not allow processing and there are no rail facilities within Fillmore County. 

Concerns and comments related to cumulative effects and phased and connected actions are noted. 

-Recommendation for EIS – EAW lacks detail with respect to types of activities to be conducted at quarry, eventual destination of sand taken, processing activities at other sites, recommendation for additional study. (Commenter: 5, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17)

Response:  While the EAW is considered a brief on the potential for significant environmental impact, it does not fully study each issue to the point of a definite conclusion. The data submittals provided by the applicant represented the best information available at the time of EAW submittal.  The need for an EIS will be determined by the RGU’s elected body based on the potential for significant environmental impact. This decision will involve consideration of the EAW content, written comment from agencies and the general public, and staff and legal materials.  It is important to note the proposed project is only extracting sand for shipment to its final destination in Winona. Winona is the primary destination, New Albin is not considered a feasible destination point at this time because of much planning and investment, which may take years to complete. Processing with the use of water and chemicals will not take place on the proposed Rein Quarry expansion.   Road concerns will be addressed through the Conditional Use Permit process and updated as required in Section 736 of the Fillmore County Zoning Ordinance.  Any proposed route change requires a new road impact agreement and public hearing through the Planning Commission with recommendation to the Fillmore County Commissioners.