Date: TO: FROM:

26 Feb 2013 Chairman Marty and Members of the State of Minnesota Senate Environment and Energy Committee Lime Township/Mankato Area Citizens Concerned about the Safety of the Silica Sand Industry, Particularly Mining in our Drinking Water

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to present the concerns of over 250 people that live, work and play in Lime Township, Blue Earth County, Minnesota.

To protect the people of Minnesota we must have:

A state wide moratorium on any new silica sand operations. Please review the MN Department of Natural Resources (DNR) map indicating counties with silica sand deposits. Without a state wide moratorium, a large portion of MN is unprotected.

The state wide moratorium will give time to:

Prepare an in-depth Generic EIS that includes issues for all potential areas of silica sand mining in Minnesota ( DNR-map). Have the MN Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) set and strengthen standards and rules that will help insure the safety of people in the impacted areas. State Agencies need to set and strengthen standards (ambient air for silica and particulate matter 4), fugitive air emissions, drinking water, groundwater, aquifer fill material, surface water, and penalties). There are over 2000 surface acres in the Mankato area either being mined for silica sand or in stages of review. In other areas along the Minnesota River, more silica sand mines are operating or in stages of review. This is probably only the start. If approved, most of these mines will harvest silica sand from the Jordan Aquifer. The Jordan Aquifer is a major source of drinking water. More than one mine borders the MN River. At least one

mine has included in their plan a chemical flocculent that causes cancer, is a neurotoxin and toxic to fish. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Map (October 31, 2012)

I asked the MN Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and the MN Department of Health (MNDH) questions related to silica sand mining and the protection of drinking water aquifers. My questions (black) and the DNR response (in red) are as follows:

DNRs opening paragraph ----sand mining in Minnesota is regulated by local government units, so there is little overarching state regulations that cover typical activities at sand mines. Most of state regulation for sand mines are narrow aspects of the operations that trigger state regulation on a specific topic. Below is my attempt to answer your questions: What amount of an aquifer (surface area) can be mined? There is no statewide regulation. What type of fill material can be used in an aquifer? There is no statewide regulation. Obviously contamination or waste materials would be regulated by MPCA. To what depth the aquifer can be mined? There is no statewide regulation. If a grandfathered quarry is using a wet mining (not dewatering) does DNR or any State Agency has any control over the operation? Typically no. MPCA may have some water quality oversight. Is there any rule on blasting in drinking water aquifer? This is regulated by the local government. There are statewide standards for taconite mining, but this isnt required for sand mining. Are there chemicals and other parameters that must be monitored in the drinking water aquifer (due to silica sand mining/processing)? I am not sure about this, there may be some MPCA or Department of Health requirements. Last but not least, does any Agency model or attempt to determine the changes in capacity, quantity and quality of a drinking water aquifer after some or all the mining is done?

The last question about modeling capacity of aquifers is difficult as well. Typically this type of endeavor is done on a project specific basis. There has been some interest in getting a better understanding of groundwater quantity, but nothing has been done to develop a statewide model. Comments from the MNDH: You raise some good questions about mining activities. Relative to sand and aggregate mining in Minnesota, MDH oversight is rather limited.-------. From a state agency standpoint, DNR has the greatest purview relative to the questions and issues you raised in your email. However, I think youll find that most of the oversight authority on such projects rests with local governments.

This situation is scary for all areas of the state impacted, not just southeastern Minnesota!
People that live in potentially impacted areas would like to see answers other than NO STATE WIDE REGULATIONS, NOTHING HAS BEEN DONE ON A STATE WIDE BASIS or this falls to the RGU. Without technical resources local governments (typically counties or townships) are not equipped to deal with the issues. Add to that the intimidation/scare tactics of well sue you and/or well ask to be annexed by the City. Some project proposers play one local government entity against another to determine which one gives them the better deal on conditional uses.

To summarize, To protect the people in communities across our state, we must have a state wide moratorium which will allow us time to prepare an in depth GEIS and our regulatory agencies time to set and strengthen standards for this industry.

After the generic EIS and new / strengthened standards: Townships and counties need more available information and consultants to aid them in their review of industry proposals. Perhaps the MPCA and the DNR could establish area teams that could provide assistance in reviewing industry applications. Perhaps a list of environmental consultants that dont play both sides of the fence could be developed. The money to support these teams should come from the mining interests. Silica sand operations are not the same as dimensional stone or construction material mining. One hundred years of experience in one equals limited experience with another. At least one dimensional stone quarry in Mankato has been granted grandfather status and allowed to harvest silica sand using a wet mining technique. Do not allow grandfather status to be given for silica sand harvesting to mines that were historically dimensional stone/aggregate mines. Require that all silica sand harvesting in drinking water aquifers undergo environmental review. There are many evading the rules by limiting the size to less than 40 acres. Part of the tactics that have been used by some companies is we will ask to be annexed by a different government unit. Can anything be done to limit the threat of annexation by another government unit, City? (Get a better deal, which usually means little or no conditions). Respectfully, Bertha (Beth) Proctor, (Lime Township) 23471 3rd Ave Mankato, MN 56001 Phone: 507-387-3869 Partial list of supporters o Chris and Aura Austin o Lisa Coons o Larry and Pam Schultz o Joe and Donna Schabert o Lynn and Darla Austin o Bess Tsaouse o Rick and Amy Ites

o o o o o o o o

Gary Rowles Roger and Sally Coomes Carol, Kt and Edwin D. Harrington, MD Tom Brooks Becky Davis Hannah and Alex Baumann Cathy Winkler Erwin, Krista and Tiernan Collins

Dimensional/Construction Stone

Silica Sand