Wednesday, December 4, 2013

Call to Action: Comment by 12/6 on rule to ship toxic frac-waste on our Mississippi River

The Coast Guard is considering a dangerous new rule to allow shipment of fracking "flow-back" waste on our nation's rivers via barge (full of toxic chemicals and some of which are radioactive). This would include the Mississippi River.

The Coast Guard is asking for public comments - deadline is this Friday 12/06.
 
In a barge accident they wouldn't be able to clean up this toxic brew as they would an oil spill. Oil stays on the top of the water, whereas this fracking flow-back would end up at the bottom of our rivers, making cleanup extremely problematic. 
Please write an email (brief is okay) to the Coast Guard by Friday if you are so inclined.  

Thank you,
Jim Gurley
Citizens Against Silica Mining (CASM)
Winona County, Minnesota
Forest JahnkeCitizen, Farmer, and Crawford Stewardship Project Co-coordinator forestjahnke@gmail.com
http://www.crawfordstewardshipproject.org/

Thursday, October 24, 2013

Fracking Fight Focuses on a New York Town’s Ban

Local Control:Keeping informed on legal maneuvers 
-- NY Times Article
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/24/nyregion/court-case-on-fracking-ban-in-dryden-ny-may-have-wide-implications.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp&

Monday, October 21, 2013

Listening Sessions on Air Permit Process Improvements
The Air Management Program (Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources) invites you to attend one of four listening sessions on air permit process improvements scheduled for later this month. The Program is seeking public input and ideas on how the application, review and issuance process can be improved for air pollution operation and construction permits.
The meetings will be held as open houses where individuals can attend anytime during the two-hour session to make suggestions, ask questions and have informal conversations with staff. During the early part of the open house, staff will make a presentation on the air permit application process and discuss improvement ideas that the Program is already considering.
A meeting notice with more details including the dates, times and locations of these sessions is here:
http://links.govdelivery.com/track?type=click&enid=ZWFzPTEmbWFpbGluZ2lkPTIwMTMxMDExLjI0MDA3NjUxJm1lc3NhZ2VpZD1NREItUFJELUJVTC0yMDEzMTAxMS4yNDAwNzY1MSZkYXRhYmFzZWlkPTEwMDEmc2VyaWFsPTE3ODE3MzcyJmVtYWlsaWQ9c3VubnlkYXk1QGNoYXJ0ZXIubmV0JnVzZXJpZD1zdW5ueWRheTVAY2hhcnRlci5uZXQmZmw9JmV4dHJhPU11bHRpdmFyaWF0ZUlkPSYmJg==&&&100&&&http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/AirPermits/documents/AirPermitListeningTourPublicNotice.pdf
DNR Public Meeting Notice:
Listening Sessions on Air Permit Process Improvements
What is the topic of the meeting?
The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Air Management Program is seeking public input and ideas on how the application, review and issuance process can be improved for air pollution operation and construction permits. The Air Management Program is seeking the broadest range of input so that all permit program customers can have their input received and considered by the department.
Meeting times and locations
Monday, October 21, 2013 – Eau Claire
2:00-4:00 PM, Rooms 158 &185, DNR Eau Claire Service Center, 1300 W. Clairemont Avenue, Eau Claire, WI 54701
Tuesday, October 22, 2013 –Mosinee
1:30-3:30 PM, Mosinee Room, Mosinee Branch Library*, 123 Main Street, Mosinee, WI 54455
*This meeting is not sponsored by the Marathon County Public Library
Wednesday, October 23, 2013 – Milwaukee
1:00-3:00 PM, Rooms 140 & 141, DNR Southeast Region Headquarters, 2300 N. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Drive, Milwaukee, WI 53212
Thursday, October 24, 2013 – Green Bay
1:30-3:30 PM, Lake Michigan Room, DNR Green Bay Service Center, 2984 Shawano Avenue, Green Bay, WI 54313
Format of meeting
The meeting will be held as an open house, including an open discussion with Air Program staff. Informal conversations and questions with staff and time for providing public input and comments will be the primary focus of the meeting. However, approximately 30 minutes after the start of the open house, Air Program staff will make a presentation on the air permit application process and discuss some process improvement ideas that the department is already considering
Other methods of providing input
If you are unable to make the meeting, you may also provide your input by sending your ideas to:
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of Air Management, PO Box 7921, Madison, WI 53707, Attn: Steve Dunn or by email to Steven.Dunn@wisconsin.gov
Reasonable accommodation, including the provision of informational material
AMSG Meeting Materials Posted

Air Management Study Group

The Air Management Study Group is a stakeholder working group formed in 2013 by the (WI) DNR Bureau of Air Management. The group serves as a forum for the bureau to receive input from and provide information to stakeholder organizations. The goal of the study group is to provide the bureau with constructive feedback on policy and technical issues and to work collaboratively with DNR staff to find workable solutions.
The study group identifies issues and topics of interest that can be addressed by ad hoc subgroups. Subgroup members are expected to research and develop recommendations on the selected topics for presentation to the full group.
The study group meets quarterly or semi-annually, with additional subgroup meetings scheduled as needed. Meetings are open to the public.

Thursday, October 3, 2013

Frac Sand Mining in IA, w/Regional map of Jordon Sandstone Thickness - including MN

Introduction to a Huge Issue for Iowa

With newly located data, it can now be stated with certainty, that all citizens who value Iowa's rich landscapes and small remaining patches of wildlife habitat, will need to pay very close attention to what industrial strength strip mining for frac sand does to the land surface, and to what fracking does to subsurface resources including essential groundwater aquifers where more than 90% of Iowans obtain their drinking water.

There are no rules or regulations at the state level, nor within any county that we are aware of, which address: 1.) Test drilling deep into vital groundwater aquifers (Jordan and St. Peter Sandstone Formations); 2.) Removing entire landscapes during the strip mining process for frac sand; 3.) Fracking (hydraulic fracturing) of vital underground aquifers; 4.) Frac sand processing facilities that traditionally use a million gallons of water per day of operation; 5.) Transporting frac sand on small to large roads and highways; and 6.) Health concerns stemming from such new issues as carginogenic fugitive silica sand dust, spillage of chemicals directly into exposed groundwater aquifers, and other as yet unidentified issues.

Until now we (in Allamakee and Winneshiek Counties) thought we were essentially alone in seeking to prevent the destructiveness of frac sand mining (as Clayton County had already capitulated to the whims of these miners at a grandfathered in mine).  But with the data I will distribute tonight, it will become obvious that scores of county governments and the state legislature will have to become directly involved in entirely new ways of protecting the health of Iowans, our state's natural resource base, and the quality of life we cherish.

Please scroll to the bottom of this page for quick and obvious visual lessons on this topic.

This is the first of three brief emails.  Each covers specific aspects of this issue.

Thank you.
Ric 

Ric Zarwell, President
Allamakee County Protectors - Education Campaign
P.O. Box 299
210 North Third Street
Lansing, Iowa 52151-0299
Home/Office: 563-538-4991
Mobile: 563-419-4991
 
The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, 
but because of the people who don't do anything about it.   Albert Einstein

Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about the things that matter.   Dr. Martin Luther King

If not now, when?  If not us, who?   John F. Kennedy  


THE MAP near the bottom of this page reveals WAY MORE FRAC SAND in IOWA than had been expected before.  And thus, a lot more danger than previously realized!!
 
 
 
 
Frac sand production
This chart illustrates the spectacular rise in the production of frac sand in the United States. Data from the United States Geological Survey Minerals Yearbook, Silica, 2011.
simplified diagram of hydraulic fracturing
Simplified diagram of a natural gas well that has been constructed with horizontal drilling to increase the length of penetration through the Marcellus Shale. Hydraulic fracturing is typically done in the horizontal portion of the well to stimulate a flow of gas from the shale. This well configuration is used in shale plays of the United States.


A frac sand mine in Wisconsin
Aerial view of a frac sand mining operation in Wisconsin. Frac sand is a highly specialized product that can only be produced from a small number of sand deposits. Photo © BanksPhotos, iStockphoto.


frac sand processing facility
Aerial view of a frac sand processing facility in Wisconsin. Photo © BanksPhotos, iStockphoto.


St. Peter Sandstone
A photo of the St. Peter Sandstone capped by the Joachim Dolomite taken near Pacific, Missouri. Public domain image by Kbh3rd.





St. Peter Sandstone
Many of the rock units that are currently being mined for frac sand are also aquifers. This makes ground water research publications, such as the ground water atlas series of the United States Geological Survey, valuable prospecting documents for determining the presence, thickness and structure of sandstone rock units. This map is from the Ground Water Atlas of the United States for Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin. It shows the geographic extent and thickness of the Jordan Sandstone in Minnesota and Iowa. Similar maps have been published in this series for other sandstone rock units and other geographic areas

Iowa currently has no regulations that address fracking

 
There are many definitions and explanations to be found at the links provided below.  Please educate yourself at EACH of these.

There is a company going around with lease offers for fracking in different counties in Iowa. 

Iowa currently has no regulations that address fracking.
 
According to the shale basin map, 1/3+ of Iowa sits atop the Forest City Shale Basin, which is ripe for fracking.
 
Iowa and fracking.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Iowa_and_fracking 
 
       
On April 1, 2012, it was reported that Timothy Berge of Pangean Resources LLC of Denver, Colorado is hoping to persuade companies to drill new test wells into Iowa groundwater aquifers in the next few years. The wells would involve fracking. Berge has sent out lease offers for hundreds of thousands of acres to various Iowa counties. Liabilities are on the owner of the land.  This is why oil & gas companies want to use leases.  Iowa has no regulations that address fracking.
Please do not miss the many definitions and explanations at the links in the box to the right of these words . . . . . . . .    >>>>>>>>>>>
 
.


Ric 

Ric Zarwell, President
Allamakee County Protectors - Education Campaign
P.O. Box 299
210 North Third Street
Lansing, Iowa 52151-0299
Home/Office: 563-538-4991
Mobile: 563-419-4991
 
The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, 
but because of the people who don't do anything about it.   Albert Einstein
Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about the things that matter.   Dr. Martin Luther King

If not now, when?  If not us, who?  John F. Kennedy   

Sunday, September 22, 2013

Demand Tough State Air & Water Quality Standards for the Frac Sand Industry


Dear Friends and Neighbors,
   The MPCA borrowed the language for aggregate/construction quarries in the draft for silica sand mining in Minnesota.... as the industry lobbyists were proposing during the last legislative session (that silica sand mining is just like aggregate mining that they've been doing for generations). 
  Now we need to lean together to make our energy felt.
Wishing you well,
Bonita
Forward this message to a friend.
Demand Tough State Air & Water Quality Standards for the Frac Sand Industry
Critical Public Comment Period Ends Sept. 30 
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) is taking public comments on how it should regulate the frac sand industry in order to protect air and water. The MPCA needs to hear from you about creating tough standards that put protecting public health and well-being before corporate profits. The frac sand industry complains loudly about any proposed regulation, claiming it is unneeded, while denying its history of polluting air and water and violating regulations. Frac sand corporations operate with a mentality of profit at the expense of the community and the land. Only tough rules aggressively enforced will change this.
In June, Land Stewardship Project members and others met with Gov. Mark Dayton and the MPCA Commissioner. At that meeting, Gov. Dayton told us that he wants tough standards done right. Recently, the Governor advocated a ban on frac sand mining for southeast Minnesota and tough standards for the rest of the state. The MPCA needs to follow through on the Governor’s instructions.
State Standards Must Protect our Air from Frac Sand Pollution. Frac sand is silica sand. Long-term exposure to low levels of silica dust can cause severe health problems including silicosis, an incurable disease that can kill. An effective strategy to regulate silica sand should have these components:
  • Air quality permit required. A “Silica Sand Ambient Air Quality permit” must be created and required for all frac sand facilities (mines, processing and loading facilities, etc.). Requiring a permit to operate gives the MPCA leverage to enforce compliance. Without the threat of being able to shut the operation down by revoking the permit, frac sand facilities can ignore rules and pay fines while continuing to pollute. Meaningful setbacks from adjoining property lines, residences, schools, nursing homes, etc., should be required as part of the permit.
  • Continuous ambient air quality monitoring. All frac sand facilities—mines, processing facilities and loading and transfer stations—should pay for the installation and maintenance of state-of-the-art continuous air monitoring equipment that is overseen by the MPCA. Facilities must not allow silica dust in the ambient air at their property line to exceed the level of safe exposure established by the Minnesota Department of Health
  • Monitoring data is made public. Air monitoring results are available to the public in real time via the web.    
  • Violations have meaningful and immediate consequences. Violations result in substantial fines and the scaling down of operations to make them come into compliance. Swift and meaningful consequences are the only way to ensure compliance from the industry. Repeated violations will result in revocation of the permit.
  • Industry pays. The permit costs cover the cost of regulating the industry, including the air monitoring equipment.
State Regulations Must Protect our Water from Frac Sand Pollution. The processing of frac sand can involve the use of harmful chemicals and millions of gallons of water. Also, frac sand mining can open up conduits that allow surface pollution to enter into the groundwater quickly. This is especially true for southeast Minnesota’s sensitive karst geology. An effective strategy to protect water quality should have these components:
  • Water quality permit required. Frac sand mines and frac sand processing facilities that use water should require an individual water quality permit that requires public notice and allows for public comment. No permits should be allowed within any well head protection area. All chemicals used by frac sand companies must be publicly disclosed. Industry claims of “proprietary information” cannot be allowed to trump the public’s right to know what chemicals they may be exposed to.
  • Disruption of the hydrological function of the landscape must be considered. Frac sand mining could disturb thousands of acres of land in southeast Minnesota’s karst landscape. Karst geology is made up of fractured limestone and is typified by sinkholes that can allow surface pollution to enter groundwater immediately.  Disruption of the landscape through strip mining for frac sand threatens to create many more points of entry for surface pollution to enter the groundwater. This issue has to be addressed up front and cannot be done on a case-by-case basis. The Governor has said he supports a frac sand mining ban in this area of the state and protecting water quality is a good reason to simply declare this region off-limits to frac sand mining and processing.
Take Action! We need people to weigh in from all over Minnesota. While people living in southeast Minnesota and the Minnesota River Valley where frac sand mining is proposed or happening are most directly impacted, we all want to see these beautiful areas of the state protected. We know that without these type of strong regulations, the frac sand industry will continue its track record of abusing the land and people.
  • Send your individual comments about this issue to the MPCA by Sept. 30 at 4:30 p.m. to: Nathan Brooks Cooley, MPCA, 520 Lafayette Road North, Saint Paul, MN 55155; phone: 651-757-2290; e-mail: natan.cooley@state.mn.us. Use the above points and add details that you think are important.
  • Sign LSP’s comment letter by clicking HERE. LSP will submit a comment letter that we would like to be signed by hundreds of Minnesotans. 
  • Forward this e-mail widely. Use you personal contacts to help us increase the number of people engaged and involved in this issue.
For more information on this issue, contact LSP's Bobby King at 612-722-6377 or bking@landstewardshipproject.org.
More background on this issue:
  • Also, read about LSP’s recently released report “The People’s EIS Scoping Document” that calls for the frac sand Environmental Impact Statement on the biggest frac sand mining project ever proposed in southeast Minnesota to be rigorous and comprehensive.
 


thedatabank, inc.


details of 20,000 fracking wells in just one county

From: Ric Zarwell <ric.zarwell@mchsi.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2013 12:51 AM
Subject: Poisons used in Fracking + Mother Nature in Colorado

What "mainstream media" has not told U.S. citizens. . . . . Will they ever???

This smells like a strangle hold on corporate media by oil & gas companies who don't want such information to get out . . . . . 

Nasty details of 20,000 fracking wells in just one county, and sickening photographic evidence of what's happening.

This is a very vicious and extremely vindictive situation.  One end strip mining landscapes away for frac sand, the other end destroying precious subsurface water resources needed for as long as human and other life lasts.

Can we believe mainstream media on other, related frac sand issues?


Ric 

Ric Zarwell, President
Allamakee County Protectors - Education Campaign
P.O. Box 299
210 North Third Street
Lansing, Iowa 52151-0299
Home/Office: 563-538-4991
Mobile: 563-419-4991
 
The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it.   Albert Einstein

Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about the things that matter.   Dr. Martin Luther King

If not now, when?  If not us, who?   John F. Kennedy   

Thursday, September 12, 2013

2013 Fracktivist Conference

2013 Fracktivist Conference
September 13-15 Knoxville, TN
 
 Hello everyone!
 
We are about a week out from what is shaping up to be a fantastic conference! There are going to be lots of great workshops attended, new friends made, fantastic food eaten, films screened, some live music heard, regional strategy sessions, and visits to active fracking sites during a most memorable weekend!
 
Don't miss out! Register today: http://frackconference2013.eventbrite.com/

The first FIFTY registrants get a FREE t-shirt!
 
Our schedule is packed with conversations about exports, pipelines, health impacts, citizen enforcement, economic issues, non-violent direct action, media, and more. Here's our schedule: http://earthroot.net/frackconference/schedule.
 
We'll be hosted by the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church as well as the University of Tennessee Knoxville for this conference. Many thanks to them & our conference sponsors: http://earthroot.net/frackconference/sponsors.
 
We will have childcare available from the Radical Sparkle Childcare Collective out of Tennessee: http://earthroot.net/frackconference/childcare.
 
 
We hope you decide to attend this exciting conference that will be happening from September 13-15 in Knoxville, TN. We will see you all there!
 
 
-The 2013 Fracktivist Conference Planning Team
 
 
P.S. Please find and share us on FACEBOOK and TWITTER!
Our official conference hashtag is: #fracktivist13
Follow these links to download flyers to use for promoting this conference:
Bi-Page Flyer: http://db.tt/dVLikrel
Quarter Sheet Flyer: http://db.tt/nrqafh9B
 
 

Tuesday, August 6, 2013

Study raises new concern about earthquakes and fracking fluids

Sharon Begley July 12, 2013
Filmmaker Josh Fox joins a protest against fracking in California in this file photo
.
Filmmaker Josh Fox (C) joins a protest against fracking in California, in Los Angeles in this May 30, …
By Sharon Begley
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Powerful earthquakes thousands of miles away can trigger swarms of minor quakes near wastewater-injection wells like those used in oil and gas recovery, scientists reported on Thursday, sometimes followed months later by quakes big enough to destroy buildings.
The discovery, published in the journal Science by one of the world's leading seismology labs, threatens to make hydraulic fracturing, or "fracking," which involves injecting fluid deep underground, even more controversial.
It comes as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency conducts a study of the effects of fracking, particularly the disposal of wastewater, which could form the basis of new regulations on oil and gas drilling.
Geologists have known for 50 years that injecting fluid underground can increase pressure on seismic faults and make them more likely to slip. The result is an "induced" quake.
A recent surge in U.S. oil and gas production - much of it using vast amounts of water to crack open rocks and release natural gas, as in fracking, or to bring up oil and gas from standard wells - has been linked to an increase in small to moderate induced earthquakes in Oklahoma, Arkansas, Ohio, Texas and Colorado.
Now seismologists at Columbia University say they have identified three quakes - in Oklahoma, Colorado and Texas - that were triggered at injection-well sites by major earthquakes a long distance away.
"The fluids (in wastewater injection wells) are driving the faults to their tipping point," said Nicholas van der Elst of Columbia's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, New York, who led the study. It was funded by the National Science Foundation and the U.S. Geological Survey.
Fracking opponents' main concern is that it will release toxic chemicals into water supplies, said John Armstrong, a spokesman for New Yorkers Against Fracking, an advocacy group.
But "when you tell people the process is linked to earthquakes, the reaction is, 'what? They're doing something that can cause earthquakes?' This really should be a stark warning," he said.
Fracking proponents reacted cautiously to the study.
"More fact-based research ... aimed at further reducing the very rare occurrence of seismicity associated with underground injection wells is welcomed, and will certainly help enable more responsible natural gas development," said Kathryn Klaber, chief executive of the Marcellus Shale Coalition.
'DYNAMIC TRIGGERING'
Quakes with a magnitude of 2 or lower, which can hardly be felt, are routinely produced in fracking, said geologist William Ellsworth of the U.S. Geological Survey, an expert on human-induced earthquakes who was not involved in the study.
The largest fracking-induced earthquake "was magnitude 3.6, which is too small to pose a serious risk," he wrote in Science.
But van der Elst and colleagues found evidence that injection wells can set the stage for more dangerous quakes. Because pressure from wastewater wells stresses nearby faults, if seismic waves speeding across Earth's surface hit the fault it can rupture and, months later, produce an earthquake stronger than magnitude 5.
What seems to happen is that wastewater injection leaves local faults "critically loaded," or on the verge of rupture. Even weak seismic waves from faraway quakes are therefore enough to set off a swarm of small quakes in a process called "dynamic triggering."
"I have observed remote triggering in Oklahoma," said seismologist Austin Holland of the Oklahoma Geological Survey, who was not involved in the study. "This has occurred in areas where no injections are going on, but it is more likely to occur in injection areas."
Once these triggered quakes stop, the danger is not necessarily over. The swarm of quakes, said Heather Savage of Lamont-Doherty and a co-author of the study, "could indicate that faults are becoming critically stressed and might soon host a larger earthquake."
For instance, seismic waves from an 8.8 quake in Maule, Chile, in February 2010 rippled across the planet and triggered a 4.1 quake in Prague, Oklahoma - site of the Wilzetta oil field - some 16 hours later.
That was followed by months of smaller tremors in Oklahoma, and then the largest quake yet associated with wastewater injection, a 5.7 temblor in Prague on November 6, 2011.
That quake destroyed 14 homes, buckled a highway and injured two people.
The Prague quake is "not only one of the largest earthquakes to be associated with wastewater disposal, but also one of the largest linked to a remote triggering event," said van der Elst.
The Chile quake also caused a swarm of small temblors in Trinidad, Colorado, near wells where wastewater used to extract methane from coal beds had been injected.
On August 22, 2011, a magnitude 5.3 quake hit Trinidad, damaging dozens of buildings.
The 9.1 earthquake in Japan in March 2011, which caused a devastating tsunami, triggered a swarm of small quakes in Snyder, Texas - site of the Cogdell oil field. That autumn, Snyder experienced a 4.5 quake.
The presence of injection wells does not mean an area is doomed to have a swarm of earthquakes as a result of seismic activity half a world away, and a swarm of induced quakes does not necessarily portend a big one.
Guy, Arkansas; Jones, Oklahoma; and Youngstown, Ohio, have all experienced moderate induced quakes due to fluid injection from oil or gas drilling. But none has had a quake triggered by a distant temblor.
Long-distance triggering is most likely where wastewater wells have been operating for decades and where there is little history of earthquake activity, the researchers write.
"The important thing now is to establish how common this is," said Oklahoma's Holland, referring to remotely triggered quakes. "We don't have a good answer to that question yet."
Before the advent of injection wells, triggered earthquakes were a purely natural phenomenon. A 7.3 quake in California's Mojave Desert in 1992 set off a series of tiny quakes north of Yellowstone National Park in Wyoming, for instance.
Now, according to the Science paper, triggered quakes can occur where human activity has weakened faults.
Current federal and state regulations for wastewater disposal wells focus on protecting drinking water sources from contamination, not on earthquake hazards.
(Reporting by Sharon Begley; Additional reporting by Edward McAllister; Editing by Michele Gershberg and Xavier Briand)


--
 Contact us; mail unsubscribeIf you no longer wish to receive electronic mail, please reply to the e-mail with the word “remove” in the subject heading.
 
STHA, Inc., 12568 44th Ave., Chippewa Falls, WI 54729 - (877) 353-4976
501(c)(3) tax deductible status pending - wisair.wordpress.com 

Monday, July 8, 2013

National Geographic coverage

Dear Friends and Neighbors,

  When a complex issue is addressed in a mainstream publication with inevitable gaps, it's up to us to complete the picture with more information in personal conversations, letters to the editor, and public meetings.
Not the best article in the world, but at least the topic's getting more national coverage. . . The article implies all the costs (roads) are being borne by the miners. The only concern identified is air quality. But, hey, it's somethin'. 

Article about the issues related to shipping gas out of ports Take action!

P.O. Box 103
Fremont Center, NY 12736

June 28, 2013

Ms. Yvette Fields
Director, Office of Deepwater Ports
Maritime Administration
1200 New Jersey Ave. SE
Washington, D.C. 20590

Mr. Mark Prescott
Chief, Deepwater Ports Standards Division
U.S. Coast Guard
2100 Second St., SW
Washington, D.C. 20593

Re: Docket Number USCG-2013-0363

Dear Ms. Fields and Mr. Prescott:

On Friday, June 14, the Maritime Administration published a notice of application for the abovereferenced
project, a proposed liquefied natural gas (LNG) deepwater port called “Port
Ambrose” to be located in coastal waters in the vicinity of Long Beach, New York, and Sandy
Hook, New Jersey. On June 24, the public was informed that the Maritime Administration
intended to schedule only two public scoping hearings on the project, and that the public
comment period would conclude just twenty-two days later, on July 15. This is the minimum
number of hearings, and the minimum amount of time allowed by law, and we think it is
inadequate given the scale of the project, and its potential impacts.
We understand that the project’s sponsor, Liberty LNG, is entitled to have its application handled
in a timely way, but the public also has a right to fully consider the impacts of an LNG port that
could pose a major security threat to a densely populated area, that will certainly produce air and
water pollution, and that will tend to discourage investment in renewable energy supplies. Also,
while the project sponsors persist in describing Port Ambrose as an import terminal that will
receive LNG from Trinidad and Tobago, we recognize that the Deepwater Port Act does not
distinguish between import and export facilities, and there are compelling reasons to believe that,
if built, this facility will actually be used to export domestic shale gas abroad. For that reason, all
the “upstream impacts” associated with the extraction and transmission of shale gas should also
be considered in assessing the potential impacts of this project.
Notice of the two public hearings (on Tuesday, July 9, in Long Beach, N.Y., and on Wednesday,
July 10 in Edison, N.J.) was published in the Federal Register on Monday, June 24, just fifteen
days in advance of the first hearing, which is inadequate notice for such important events.
Moreover, both hearings were scheduled during the week immediately following the Fourth of
July weekend, which is typically one of the most popular vacation weeks of the year. This will
make it difficult or impossible for many interested parties to attend either of these hearings or to
prepare for meaningful public participation. Each hearing is scheduled to last only two hours,
barely enough time for forty people to speak for three minutes each. Given that an LNG port in
coastal waters could negatively impact millions of Americans, a total of four hours of public
comment is clearly inadequate.
Finally, the public is expected to provide detailed scoping comments on the proposed project in
the absence of critical information. In a letter dated June 21, 2013, M. A. Prescott, chief,
Deepwater Ports Standards Division of the U.S. Coast Guard, summarized over one hundred and
fifty data gaps in Liberty LNG’s application affecting such crucial concerns as air and water
quality, noise pollution, biological and cultural resources, navigation issues, multiple use issues,
safety and security issues, LNG export and public-need questions, and failures to adequately
analyze alternatives. The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management has also raised questions about
the impact the LNG port would have on a proposed offshore wind farm sited in the same location
as the deepwater port, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has not yet commented on the
application.
Under these circumstances, it is manifestly unfair to expect either the general public or
concerned individuals with scientific and technical expertise to submit thoughtful and
comprehensive scoping comments on an application that is more than four thousand pages long
by the July 15 deadline. Therefore we respectfully request that the Maritime Authority use its
statutory authority to stop the Deepwater Port Act clock for an extended public comment period
of at least one hundred and twenty days and schedule additional hearings in New Jersey and on
Long Island. We also request that public hearings be held in the shale-bearing regions of New
York State and Pennsylvania, because it is reasonable to assume that these regions may be
impacted by this project.

Sincerely,
Bruce Ferguson Cindy Zipf, Executive Director
Catskill Citizens for Safe Energy Clean Ocean Action

[additional signatories]
cc: Ray LaHood, Secretary, Department of Transportation
The Honorable Andrew M. Cuomo
The Honorable Chris Christie
Senator Charles E. Schumer
Senator Kirsten Gillibrand
Senator Robert Menendez
Senator Jeff Chiesa
Representative Robert E. Andrews
Representative Timothy H. Bishop
Representative Yvette D. Clarke
Representative Chris Collins
Representative Joseph Crowley
Representative Eliot L. Engel
Representative Rodney P. Frelinghuysen
Representative Scott Garrett
Representative Chris Gibson
Representative Michael Grimm
Representative Richard L. Hanna
Representative Brian Higgins
Representative Rush D. Holt, Jr.
Representative Steve Israel
Representative Hakeem Jeffries
Representative Peter T. King
Representative Leonard Lance
Representative Frank LoBiondo
Representative Nita M. Lowey
Representative Dan Maffei
Representative Carolyn B. Maloney
Representative Sean Patrick Maloney
Representative Carolyn McCarthy
Representative Gregory W. Meeks
Representative Grace Meng
Representative Jerrold Nadler
Representative William Owens
Representative Frank Pallone, Jr.
Representative Bill Pascrell
Representative Donald M. Payne, Jr.
Representative Charles B. Rangel
Representative Tom Reed
Representative John Runyon
Representative Jose Serrano
Representative Albio Sires
Representative Louise Slaughter
Representative Chris Smith
Representative Paul Tonko
Representative Nydia Velázquez

Tuesday, May 28, 2013

Take Action!

Wrap-up & Action to Take on MN State Legislation to
Control Corporate Frac Sand Interests
We Fell Short on our Legislative Goals but Important Progress was Made 
During the recently adjourned session of the Minnesota Legislature, frac sand provisions were passed and signed into law, but they did not include a moratorium or a hard setback from trout streams. The provisions were part of the Omnibus Environment and Agriculture Finance bill signed by Governor Mark Dayton this week.The Senate floor vote on a setback from trout streams for frac sand mines ultimately did not happen. Before the vote could happen, Gov. Dayton met with industry representatives and withdrew support for a hard setback of a mile. After that, legislative leaders, industry representatives and state agency representatives developed provisions short of that, which were eventually added into the omnibus bill. (Details on those provisions are below.)
We called for legislation that put rural communities before corporate profits. We started the legislative session calling for a comprehensive approach to the threat the frac sand industry poses to southeast Minnesota. We called for an in-depth study that would be used to establish strong state-level regulations and appropriate fees and taxes. We wanted a moratorium to be in place while the study was being conducted and regulations adopted. This approach would also keep local control strong, allowing local government to keep their right to set stronger controls if they felt they were necessary
We had a big impact at the Capitol. LSP members and others packed hearing rooms. At the first three hearings, the rooms were filled to capacity with more supporters in overflow rooms. Literally busloads of southeast Minnesotans and others were at the Capitol to demand strong action. We garnered front page coverage in the Star Tribune, the Winona Daily News, the Winona Post, Red Wing Republican Eagle, the Rochester Post-Bulletin and many other papers time and time again. The Winona Daily News and Star Tribune weighed in with editorials in favor of what we were working for. Dozens of letters to the editors from around the region were published. 
The movement to control frac sand mining was strengthened. Local activists from around southeast Minnesota came together time and time again and made deeper connections on bus rides to the Capitol. The Land Stewardship Project, Save the Bluffs, Houston County Protectors, Winona Area Citizens Concerned About Silica Mining, Minnesota Trout Unlimited, Friends of Wabasha, Audubon Minnesota and others worked as an effective and unified coalition. The new documentary The Price of Sand was shown to crowds who moved from education to action.
Sen. Matt Schmit of Red Wing took up this cause with us. Sen. Schmit authored legislation that put a comprehensive approach forward, incorporating all the elements of what we wanted. Sen. Schmit pushed to the end to get as much passed as possible. Without his leadership, it is likely that no meaningful legislation would have passed. All the other legislators from the heart of southeast Minnesota — Sen. Jeremy Miller (Winona), Rep. Greg Davids (Preston), Rep. Gene Pelowski (Winona), Rep. Tim Kelly (Red Wing), and Rep. Steve Drazkowski (Mazeppa) — all sided with frac sand interests in opposing a moratorium, and none proposed any meaningful legislation on the issue.
Provisions pass that can make a difference if implemented aggressively by the Dayton administration. In the end, we did not win the comprehensive approach that was necessary to fully protect southeast Minnesota. Here is a summary of the most important pieces that did pass and how they could be helpful if aggressively implemented:
  • In southeast Minnesota, frac sand mines within a mile of a trout stream are prohibited unless granted a “trout stream setback permit” from the Department of Natural Resources (DNR). The DNR Commissioner testified at the legislature that a mile setback is necessary to protect trout streams. We need the DNR to be consistent and deny these permits.
  • Local governments can now extend moratoriums on frac sand facilities until March 2015 regardless of how long moratoriums have already been in place. State law limited local moratoriums to two years at most and some local governments are approaching this limit..
  • The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) must create rules to address silica dust from frac sand projects. We need the MPCA to use this authority to set an ambient air quality standard this is enforceable at the property line of the frac sand facility.
  • The DNR must create rules for reclamation of frac sand mines. Among other things, this must include posting a bond so that frac sand companies that go out of business or go bankrupt don’t shift this reclamation cost onto the public.
  • For two years, the threshold for environmental review for frac sand mines is lowered from 40 acres to 20 acres and the environmental review requires studies dealing with water quality and quantity, air quality and traffic impacts.  
  • During this two-year period, the Environmental Quality Board must update its environmental review rules to better address the frac sand industry. We need to ensure that, among other things, the new rules set strict standards on cumulative impacts and defining as one project multiple mines that will be operated or managed by the same owners.
All the provisions that passed in the bill can be found HERE. If you have other ideas about how these should be implemented or how they can help on the ground let us know.
Take Action! The test of these provisions will be, “Do they make a difference on the ground?” That will depend on how aggressively the Dayton administration implements and enforces these laws. We will be pushing for the DNR, MPCA and Environmental Quality Board to use this new authority to put the well-being of rural communities before profits for the outside investors driving the frac sand industry. 
1. Contact Governor Mark Dayton at 651-201-3400 or 800-657-3717, or e-mail him HERE.
Suggested message: “I was disappointed that in the end you did not support a hard setback of a mile from trout streams for frac sand mines. These most sensitive areas of southeast Minnesota should have been clearly put off limits to the frac sand industry. We know from looking at western Wisconsin that without strong regulation the frac sand industry will pollute our air and water, destroy our roads and harm the local economy. The Legislature has now given the MPCA, DNR and Environmental Quality Board new authority to control the frac sand industry. I am calling on you to direct these state agencies to adopt strong controls that put the well-being of the community before corporate profits for the frac sand industry. I want you to make it clear that the DNR’s policy should be that issuing “trout stream setback” permits for frac sand should happen rarely, if ever. Also, the MPCA needs to establish an enforceable air quality standard for silica dust at frac sand facilities. This needs to be monitored at the property line and if exceeded, the operation needs to be shut down until it can comply. Long-term exposure to silica can cause serious health problems, including silicosis.”
2. Thank Sen. Matt  Schmit via e-mail at sen.matt.schmit@senate.mn or by writing him at 75 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd., Capitol, Room G-24, St. Paul, MN 55155-1606. Let Sen. Schmit know you appreciate that he stood with us and fought to the end even when that meant standing up to powerful special interests and some Senate leaders. The bills he authored gave us the opportunity to fully address the scope of the problem, to show the depth of local opposition to the frac sand industry and what a comprehensive state level solution would look like.

For more information on this issue, contact LSP's Bobby King at 612-722-6377 or bking@landstewardshipproject.org.