100 Grange Place, Room 202, Cortland, NY 13045
Phone: (607) 756-5991 • Fax: (607) 756-0029
SWCD...established to promote the conservation and wise use of our county’s natural resources
December 28, 2009
Jack K. Dahl, Director
Bureau of Oil and Gas Regulations
NYSDEC Division of Mineral Resources
625 Broadway, Third Floor
Albany, NY 12233-6500
Attn: dSGEIS Comments
Dear Mr. Dahl:
The following comments on the Draft Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact
Statement on the Oil, Gas and Solution Mining Regulatory Program are submitted on behalf of the Cortland County Soil and Water Conservation District.
Purpose/Scope
The Department, in this GEIS and the 1992 GEIS, fails to adequately address the cumulative environmental impacts associated with Marcellus shale gas production. By its design, this GEIS was limited in scope and purpose. It does not reconsider any of the 1992 findings as they relate to the overall impact of this industry on our landscape. The impact of large well pads with multiple wells, and the associated pipelines and infrastructure, was only really considered within the context of the three key factors prompting the supplemental GEIS – water use in excess of the previous GEIS assumptions, drilling in the NYC watershed, and longer duration of drilling.
Only the latter provides any consideration of these cumulative effects, and the conclusion is that fewer larger pads will have less impact than numerous small pads because drilling may be done more efficiently with up to two rigs per pad and sequential drilling of wells - one continuous activity in a single mobilization.
This GEIS states on numerous occasions that the type of drilling and activity expected to develop the Marcellus shale differs significantly in practice from oil and gas exploration we have seen to date in New York. While there is some similarity to the activities reviewed 20 years ago (which are the basis for the 1992 GEIS and its conclusions), the new high-volume hydraulic horizontal
1

fracturing process being reviewed now is vastly different. The large volumes of water and harmful chemicals on-site, water use/withdrawals, proposed impoundments, proposed on-site treatment and high-volume disposal, as well as the additional environmental impacts from the transportation of water and chemicals and long duration of the proposed activities, all represent significant departures from circumstances and potential impacts under consideration in the 1992
GEIS and supporting documents. The Department needs to evaluate the impact that the size and scope of this proposed activity will have on the environment, promulgate necessary and appropriate rules and regulations to adequately address the associated risks and demonstrate the ability to implement and enforce those regulations. Engagement of all divisions within the department, and local agencies and officials in this matter, would go a long way toward building public confidence while protecting our resources.
The impact of hydraulic fracturing itself should include the impact of ancillary activities and associated appurtenances, not be separate and distinct from it. The GEIS states in several instances that the impact of the hydraulic fracturing procedure is not reasonably anticipated, yet frequently documents the potential risks of associated activities such as stormwater controls, site management and surface/subsurface fluid containment practices, casing construction, fluid transfers, material defects, spills, releases and leakage. It is misleading to assert that 15 states testify that hydraulic fracturing is not causing groundwater contamination, when several of those states are dealing with numerous complaints and allegations regarding pollution from natural gas exploration activity that includes hydraulic fracturing.
Pipelines should not be separate and distinct from the activities contemplated by this SGEIS.
Resource Concerns
Setbacks from property boundaries are not addressed and should be observed for all activities.
The ECL provides for notification to surface owners prior to commencing operations and the
GEIS provides for notification of town supervisors. Given that adjacent landowners are served no notification, nor provided any opportunity to comment on location or activities, especially if they are unleased and made part of a unit through compulsory integratation, setbacks from property lines should be required to provide some buffer from the activity.
The GEIS maintains that hydrofracing is not the concern, but rather that other associated activities present the risks. All resources should be afforded the same setback/protection. There should be an established setback where no activity is allowed, such as 250 feet from any well, spring, reservoir, river, wetland, etc. AND that setback should also be observed from structures, dwellings, and property lines. It is unclear as to why some features require a greater or lesser threshold for proximity before additional environmental assessment is required. A stream is no more vulnerable to an equipment accident/tip-over than a municipal well. Nor is a wetland more vulnerable to a spill than a home.
Sole source aquifers should be afforded the same protection and consideration as principle and primary aquifers.
2

Occupied structures or places of assembly should include all places of business, including agricultural facilities ie. barns, shops, etc. and associated outbuildings and infrastructure such as septic systems, etc.
Topsoil should always be stockpiled, protected or stabilized and reserved on-site for reclamation.
Refracturing should also trigger well water quality testing.
All gas drilling and associated activities (well pads, impoundments, pipelines, etc.) should be required to follow Stormwater Construction General Permit requirements. Coverage under the
MSGP appears to allow partial reclamation, which is unacceptable.
All gas drilling and associated activities reviewed and approved as part of any permit issued by the Department should be in compliance with the OPRHP/SHPO Environmental Review program.
All groundwater withdrawals should be evaluated for local and temporary, as well as sustained impacts on groundwater and aquifer supplies.
Tanks/On-Site Storage
Secondary containment should be required for all tanks regardless of their size and/or the nature of their use (ie. permanent/temporary/non-stationary). Tanks should also be subject to Chemical and Petroleum Bulk Storage Regulations, and in addition, be subject to additional precautionary requirements or setbacks based on size and proximity to water supplies, etc.
Information regarding all tanks, their contents, and spill response plans for them should be provided to County Health and Emergency Management, regardless of their size and/or the nature of their use (ie. permanent/temporary/non-stationary). The Department should also require that all installed gathering lines be located by GPS and that information provided to local municipalities, County Health and Emergency Management agencies for safety, emergency response and mapping purposes.
Applicant should be required to submit fluid disposal plans with the application including proof of agreement/location to accept waste, as well as plans for disposal of other wastes according to all applicable Department regulations. This step would avoid potential problems or pitfalls relating to timely and appropriate disposal.
The GEIS states that the use of steel tanks for flowback water is required. On-site storage of flowback in surface impoundments is also contemplated in the GEIS with sizes of up to 5 acres suggested. In the Proposed Supplementary Permit Conditions, item number 36) discusses their use pursuant to a fluid disposal plan. Centralized flowback water surface impoundments present a significant risk. This flowback contains concentrations of chemical constituents exceeding water quality standards. It appears their use is acceptable, except over principle and primary aquifers, and as long as Part 360 and dam safety requirements are met. Clarification should be provided as to when their use is deemed acceptable and under what conditions.
3

GWPC recommended 20” separation between impoundment or “pit” bottom and seasonal high water table, but Alpha recommended a case-by-case determination? What was the decision?
The landowner should not be considered the “owner” of any impoundments of fresh water and/or flowback water or other stored fluids, nor should they be held liable or responsible for any operations occurring on-site, rather the operator should be the responsible party.
A licensed professional engineer should be licensed in New York to perform work required in this permit.
Review, Oversight and References
Soil and Water Conservation Districts (SWCDs) should be included in the application review process to provide information on local resources and resource concerns, especially when the
Department is making a site specific determination of significance. SWCDs can also provide information on issues such as reclamation plans, pipelines, conformance/consultation with local landuse plans, etc. and should be identified as a resource for applicants and the Department.
New FIRM maps were released for Cortland County and will be effective in March 2010.
Reference should be made to “most recent” mapping and verification/proof of location should be provided with the application rather than a simple affirmation.
PSC oversight of pipelines is not sufficient to protect against local resource impacts.
The Department should require that all gathering lines regardless of size and or length be installed to PSC and NYS Department of Agriculture and Markets guidelines within non ag and ag areas respectively. Currently there are no siting requirements for these lines and as a result issues of installation and future exposure are concerns.
Permit applications should undergo a coordinated review with all Divisions of the Department and other local government agencies, not just be reviewed based on regulated activity or impact as proposed in Table 8.1.
There should be minimum basis or reference for streams and natural resources, such as the
NYSDEC Environmental Resource Mapper, while maintaining expectations of due diligence to
“ground truth” references and identify other local or unmapped resources.
Applications involving agricultural land should be reviewed by the NYS Department of
Agriculture and Markets and the county SWCD for appropriate mitigation. Reclamation plans, especially for large impoundment areas, but including all surface and soil disturbance on agricultural land, should be reviewed by the NYS Department of Agriculture and Markets and the county SWCD.
General
“Significant” is a term used without explanation as to how it is defined or established.
Subjective terms and phrases such as “as far as practical” should be avoided.
4

The same courtesy offered to work with NYC and NYSDOH on ensuring that FAD requirements are fulfilled and not compromised by gas drilling activity should be afforded to the City of
Syracuse and the Skaneateles Lake Watershed.
Errors make the document difficult to follow. Section 7.1.5 refers to Section 6.15?
Penalties/consequences and responsibility for violations, clean-up and remediation were not made clear in the document. Gas companies should be responsible for all mitigation and cleanup costs associated with well contamination and other environmental pollution/degradation and, in addition all costs associated with state and local oversight.
Thank you for your consideration of our concerns.
Sincerely,
Amanda A. Barber
District Manager
Copy: Governor David Patterson
Senator James Seward
Assemblywoman Barbara Lifton
Assemblyman Brian Kolb
5