-------- Original Message --------

Subject: Re: incorrect license again 1st request
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2004 13:01:02 -0600
From: John <fishes@brainerd.net>
To: Roy Johannes <roy.johannes@dnr.state.mn.us>
CC: ron.payer <ron.payer@dnr.state.mn.us>, Steve Hirsch <steve.hirsch@dnr.state.mn.us>, Representative Dale Walz <rep.dale.walz@house.mn>, Senator Paul Koering <sen.paul.koering@senate.mn>, gene merriam <gene.merriam@dnr.state.mn.us>, John Guenther <john.guenther@dnr.state.mn.us>, Cindy Oswald <cindyoswald@hotmail.com>, fishes@brainerd.net
References: <s042e263.063@co5.dnr.state.mn.us>



March 1 2004


Mr. Johannes,

I have included links to documents for your convenience.  You should already have them since they are in my file.  My initial comments are below your comments in the applicable section.  I will add more later.

Sincerely,
John Reynolds
Midwest Fish and Crayfish
26385 County Road 3
Merrifield MN 56465



Roy Johannes wrote:
 

March 1, 2004
 
Dear Mr. Reynolds:
 

I am responding to your Email of February 17, 2004 regarding several issues you raised with your private fish hatchery license renewal for 2004 and your February 26, 2004 Email regarding the procedure for appealing DNR Fisheries’ decisions.  Ron Payer asked me to respond to your February 17, 2004 Email to him as well, since it includes the issue regarding listing of mussel species on your license.

 

Minnesota Statutes, sec. 15.99

This statute applies to written requests for a permit, license, or other governmental action related to zoning, septic systems, or expansion of the metropolitan urban service area; therefore, it does not apply to the license issues raised in your letter.  This means that there is no requirement to ask for new information within 10 days of receiving a private fish hatchery license or permit application.  Minn. Stat., sec. 15.992, subd. 1, which requires state agencies to act on license applications within 60 days of submission of a completed application, would apply to your requests.  If you want a legal opinion from the Attorney General’s Office regarding the timing of our responses to your various license applications, that request would have to go to the Director of Fish and Wildlife.

 

Listing of Mussel Species

I could not find any record of a 2001 request from you to add mussel species to your license. If you have specific information on requests you made to add mussel species in 2001, please let me know.

 

*** I was mistaken.  The request to add the mussel species was in 2002 not 2001.
 

 

I did find a March 17, 1998 request from you to add giant floater mussels to your license, which was approved on March 25, 1998.  You also requested to add three ridge and white heelsplitter mussels on April 6, 2002 and July 2, 2002, respectively.  I responded to these requests in letters dated July 25, 2002 and August 15, 2002.  In the August 15 response, I asked for additional information related to request and also indicated that approval for three ridge mussels was unlikely.

 

To date I am still waiting on the following information: 1) the waters listed on your license that you plan to rear mussels in; 2) your planned source of mussels; and 3) a site plan of your proposed facility specifying measures to prevent the escape of mussels.  Once you provide this information, the Section of Fisheries will act on your request.

 

I apologize for not responding to your April 6, 2002 request to add three ridge mussels within 60 days.  However, this request was for the 2002 license year.  DNR Fisheries still needs to receive the additional information requested, before deciding whether or not to list three ridge or other mussel species on your 2004 license.

 

Listing of turtle species

I could not find any record of a 2001 request from you to add turtle species to your license. If you have specific information on requests you made to add turtle species in 2001, please let me know.

 

I do have records indicating that you requested to add turtle species to your license in March 2002, although I cannot find a written record of your request.  I responded to this request on April 22, 2002 and August 15, 2002.  I asked for additional information in these responses and, to date, have not received all of the requested information.  In the April 22 response, I indicated that it was unlikely that smooth softshell turtles would be approved on your license.

 

I am waiting to receive the following information for your turtle request: 1) estimates of the expected size of your turtle farming activities (“1 to 1,000,000” does not provide us with the information we need); 2) planned source of turtles; and 3) a sketch of your proposed turtle operations including drainage, containment, and proximity to public waters.  Once you provide this information, the Section of Fisheries will act on your request.  Note that the requirement to act on your requests to add turtle species within 60 days does not apply, because you have not yet provided the requested information.

 

Non-indigenous species list is incomplete

We have no record of you requesting to list these species.  I have forwarded the list to Tim Goeman, so he can review it and determine if these species can be approved.

*** The new pond approvals signed personally by Mr. Goeman are my requests.  See comments below after (Ponds east of Rebel Road....).
 

 

Non-indigenous species list has undefined species

The species denoted by the codes listed in your Email can be found in the “Users Guide,” which we have provided to you.  Please let me know if you need another copy.  The codes you listed do not include the mussel and turtle species you have requested.

*** On the issue of the undefined species if you look at the User Guide you will see they do not exist.  IF they had I would not have asked about them.
 

 

Ponds east of Rebel Road are licensed for indigenous species only

This issue has been previously addressed in numerous pieces of correspondence.  I have no additional information to provide regarding the species these ponds are currently approved for.  You had first requested these ponds be added to your license during the 2001 license year.  There was a great deal of confusion that year with regard to which ponds you were using and which ponds you wanted to add to your license.  DNR fisheries staff met with you in December 2001 to clear up that confusion and reach agreement on these licensing issues.  The species that are approved in these ponds for 2004 are based on this agreement.  As such, these ponds will continue to be licensed ! for indigenous species only until you complete the barrier as you agreed to at the 2001 meeting.

 

*** It is disingenuous for Fisheries to continue to claim there was any confusion regarding Mr. Goeman's approval of my levee ponds for all species.  The map clearly shows the ponds are on the east side of the road.  It also clearly requests the ponds be approved for all species.  It also clearly shows Mr. Goeman's signature approving those ponds for all species unconditionally. 

*** http://www.angelfire.com/mn3/dnrdocuments/1998approval.html
This document shows Mr. Goemans signature on the 1998 new pond approval for the first levee ponds built on the east side of the road.  This approves those ponds for all species unconditionally.  I have attached the second page of the approval as a Word document.

*** http://www.angelfire.com/mn3/dnrdocuments/2001approval.html
This document shows Mr. Goeman's signature on the 2001 new pond approval for the second levee ponds built on the east side of the road.  It approves those ponds for all species unconditionally.

*** As you can see I have requested all species for my levee ponds and all species were approved personally by Mr. Goeman. 

 

Aeration approval

I will forward this request to Tim Goeman for review.  I could not locate any previous requests for aeration except for Pond No. 10, which had been approved.

 

Renewal license does not list aquariums in residence

The renewal licenses were mailed out before I received the information regarding your residence.  This will be added and an amended license sent to you.

 

Appeals Procedure

A private fish hatchery licensee may appeal denial of a license or permit in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act in Minn. Stat., sec. 14.57-14.62.

*** Why then when I asked about appealing DNR Fisheries decision in the past was I told that no appeal procedure existed?
 

Roy J. Johannes
Commercial Fisheries Program Consultant
Phone 651-296-2308
Fax 651-297-4916
e-mail:  roy.johannes@dnr.state.mn.us
 



>>> John <fishes@brainerd.net> 2/17/2004 8:38:11 PM >>>
 
February 17, 2004


Mr. Johannes,

I finished reviewing the 2004 license renewal.

As expected it is incorrect on numerous counts.  I will list them.


1.   The mussel species I requested in 2001 still have not made it to my license.  According to Minnesota statute 15.99 (see below) you had 10 days to ask for additional information or 60 days to approve or deny the request.  Once the 60 day period expired the license amendment was automatically granted.  Either provide me with dated documents showing the license renewal as received is in compliance with state statute or add those species to my license immediately.  See #4.

2.   The turtle species I requested in 2001 still have not made it to my license.  According to Minnesota statute 15.99 (see below) you had 10 days to ask for additional information or 60 days to approve or deny the request.  Once the 60 ! day period expired the license amendment was automatically granted.  Either provide me with dated documents showing the license renewal as received is in compliance with state statute or add those species to my license immediately.   See #4.

3.    The list of non-indigenous species is missing many species.  They are:  GRR, FRD, FHD, HBG and SPG.

4.   The list of non-indigenous species has undefined species.  They are:   BDD, BKF, BNM, BNS, LSR, RFS, RVD, SKM, SLD, STK, TKS, GOF.  I will assume these codes contain the missing mussel and turtle species.

5.   The ponds on the east side of the road continue to be licensed for indigenous species only.  Those pond additions were approved personally by Mr. Goeman in 1998 and 2001 for ALL species in accordance to Minnesota statutes.  They are not at risk for flooding as Mr. Goeman states according to the 1996 document from! Mr. Feiler to Mr. Hirsch and according to the laws of physics.  They are also not at risk for overflowing from rainfall as Mr. Goeman stated as his revised excuse for the illegal permit denial.  They have no permanent connection to public water and they have no temporary connection to public water.  This puts them in compliance with Minnesota state statute which allows licensing for ALL species.  Either provide me with dated documents showing the restricted license complies with state statute or license for ALL species immediately.

6.   ALL of my ponds are designed for aeration so they need to be licensed for aeration.

7.   The license renewal does not list the aquariums in my home that Mr. Goeman insisted I add to my license.  When you add my home aquariums be sure to include the ENTIRE legal description of my property that Mr. Goeman insisted on receiving.  Use extra pages if necessary.  Be sure to license those 10 gallon aquariums for ALL species.  Also, be sure to l! icense them for aeration.

Notice to Mr. Payer and Mr. Hirsch:  You are both now aware of this situation and if you fail to instruct your staff to comply with Minnesota state statutes and make ALL of the necessary corrections to my license I will file another ethics complaint against each of you.  It will be added to my website.

Sincerely,
John Reynolds
Midwest Fish and Crayfish
26385 County Road 3
Merrifield MN 56465



 

Minnesota Statutes 2001, Table of Chapters

Table of contents for Chapter 15

     15.99 Time deadline for agency action.

 

    Subdivision 1.    Definition.  For purposes of this

 section, "agency" means a department, agency, board, commission,

 or other group in the executive branch of state government; a

 statutory or home rule charter city, county, town, or school

 district; any metropolitan agency or regional entity; and any

 other political subdivision of the state.

>

    Subd. 2.    Deadline for response.  Except as otherwise

 provided in this section and notwithstanding any other law to

 the contrary, an agency must approve or deny within 60 days a

 written request relating to zoning, septic systems, or expansion

 of the metropolitan urban service area for a permit, license, or

 other governmental approval of an action.  Failure of an agency

 to deny a request within 60 days is approval of the request.  If

 an agency denies the request, it must state in writing the

 reasons for the denial at the time that it denies the request.

 

    Subd. 3.    Application; extensions.  (a) The time limit

 in subdivision 2 begins upon the agency's receipt of a written

 request containing all information required by law or by a

 previously adopted rule, ordinance, or policy of the agency.  If

 an agency receives a written request that does not contain all

 required information, the 60-day limit starts over only if the

 agency sends notice within ten business days of receipt of the

 request telling the requester what information is missing.

 

    (b) If an action relating to zoning, septic systems, or

 expansion of the metropolitan urban service area requires the

 approval of more than one state agency in the executive branch,

 the 60-day period in subdivision 2 begins to run for all

 executive branch agencies on the day a request containing all

 required information is received by one state agency.  The

 agency receiving the request must forward copies to other state

 agencies whose approval is required.

 

    (c) An agency response meets the 60-day time limit if the

 agency can document that the response was sent within 60 days of

 receipt of the written request.

 

    (d) The time limit in subdivision 2 is extended if a state

 statute, federal law, or court order requires a process to occur

 before the agency acts on the request, and the time periods

 prescribed in the state statute, federal law, or court order

 make it impossible to act on the request within 60 days.  In

 cases described in this paragraph, the deadline is extended to

 60 days after completion of the last process required in the

 applicable statute, law, or order.  Final approval of an agency

 receiving a request is not considered a process for purposes of

 this paragraph.

 

    (e) The time limit in subdivision 2 is extended if:  (1) a

 request submitted to a state agency requires prior approval of a

 federal agency; or (2) an application submitted to a city,

 county, town, school district, metropolitan or regional entity,

 or other political subdivision requires prior approval of a

 state or federal agency.  In cases described in this paragraph,

 the deadline for agency action is extended to 60 days after the

 required prior approval is granted.

 

    (f) An agency may extend the time limit in subdivision 2

 before the end of the initial 60-day period by providing written

 notice of the extension to the applicant.  The notification must

 state the reasons for the extension and its anticipated length,

 which may not exceed 60 days unless approved by the applicant.

Home