SierraActivist » Water

DEP Promises Action on Perchlorate

Dennis — Tue, 04 May 2010 13:04:47 +0000

For Immediate Release
Contact Jeff Tittel, 609-558-9100
April 30, 2010

DEP Promises Action on Perchlorate

DEP Commissioner, Bob Martin, has finally agreed to implement a perchlorate standard. Perchlorate is a chemical found in fertilizer and rocket fuel that has been identified in the drinking water supply. It causes thyroid disorders in children and adults. Perchlorate is especially harmful to pregnant women and fetuses, leading to learning disabilities.

New Jersey’s perchlorate standard was allowed to expire in March, as a result of Governor Christie’s first executive Execute Order. The new standard had been in the works for five years before the administration put a moratorium on rules. Commissioner Martin originally refused sign a proposed rule restricting perchlorate in drinking water, stating that the DEP research was “shoddy”.

The DEP perchlorate research was both sound and reliable. The results aligned New Jersey’s proposal of 5 mg/l with that of other states that conducted similar studies. California’s standard is 6 mg/l and Massachusetts currently regulates at 2 mg/l.

“The DEP used good science. The standard should never have been allowed to lapse,” said Jeff Tittel, Director of the New Jersey Sierra Club.

The commissioner addressed questions and concerns about the lapsed standard by saying that the NJDEP would wait for the EPA’s findings, which could take up to six years. This six-year waiting period could expose New Jersey residents to high levels of perchlorate and cause serious health risks. The commissioner took the side of toxic pollution over the protection of drinking water.

“Delay means more toxins getting into the drinking water and more toxins getting into the people of New Jersey. Commissioner Martin must do an emergency rule to adopt the proposed standard and protect the health and safety of New Jersey residents,” Tittel said.

Acid Rain and Its Impact on Fish and Forest in the Catskills – Thursday April 29, Sullivan County Community College

Dennis — Sun, 25 Apr 2010 22:00:23 +0000

Acid Rain Impacts Topic of Program

From The Walton Reporter (no website), April 14, 2010

Two U.S. Geological Survey scientists will share the results of their research on the effects of acid deposition on trees and streams of the Catskills at a program to be held Thursday, April 29, at 4:30 P.m. in the Seelig Theater at Sullivan County Community College, Loch Sheldrake.

“Acid Rain and Its Impact on Fish and Forest of the Catskills” will feature presentations by Doug Burns, director of the National Acid Deposition Assessment Program, and Barry Baldigo, research biologist with the USGS. The free program is sponsored by the Catskill Institute for the Environment (CIE). The public is welcome.

For further information, contact 845-434-5750, ext 4447 or kscullion@suny.sullivan.edu.

Burns has worked as a research hydrologist at the USGS in Troy since 1987. He holds an MS in environment sciences from the University of Virginia and a Ph.D. in water resources management from the State University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry (SUNY ESF) in Syracuse. Author of more than 60 scientific papers and reports, Dr Burns will be lead author of a report to the U.S. Congress due to be submitted in fall 2010.

Barry Baldigo holds an MS in fisheries biology from SUNY ESF and has worked as a research biologist with the USGS since 1990. Baldigo currently leads several collaborative studies with the New York State Department of Conservation (DEC), New York City Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and other agencies. He has worked closely with the DEP over the past 20 years to document the effects of acid deposition, flow modification and restoration of fish communities ion streams of the Catskill region.

The CIE, established in 1998, is a consortium of representatives of colleges, institutions and individuals that coordinates symposia and special programming to promote environmental awareness, education and scientific cooperation in the Catskill region. For more information, contact Dr. Morton (Sam) Adams, chairman, at madams@mail.nysed.gov or go to www.catskillinstitute.org.

Delaware County SWCD to Lead Streamside Protection Program Funded by DEP

Dennis — Tue, 23 Mar 2010 03:34:51 +0000

West Kill Spring Scenic 2, originally uploaded by Anton de Flon.

From The Walton Reporter (no website), January 27, 2010

By Glenn Graves

WALTON – The Delaware County Soil and Water Conservation District (DCSWCD) will administer a new incentive of the New York City Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to protect and manage stream banks within Delaware County and the Catskill/Delaware Watershed. The DEP has committed $3.6 million to the program in the watershed, and Delaware County is slated to receive $600,000 in funding in the next four years.

The Catskills Stream Buffer Initiative is for residential conservation projects only, but could include some projects that have already been implemented on many watershed farms, such as developing riparian buffers. Originally, the DEP announced that the deadline for filing an application for funding was Feb. 1, but DCSWCD Executive Director Rick Weidenbach said his organization will be accepting and prioritizing applications until all the grant money has been allocated.

“We’ve got approximately $150,000 a year to work with,” Weidenbach said. “Our problem at this point is staffing. We figure we may be able to do about 20 projects this year, and we probably already have 10 in the pipeline.”

The DEP explains that the program will help landowners obtain permits for a streamside project or provide access to financial support, labor and materials. The initiative also offers free planning assistance and educational seminars to help landowners understand how best to keep stream banks stable and protect property from erosion.

“We’ll be doing ongoing education and outreach throughout the four-year contract period,” he added.

Weidenbach said the grant program is set up to fund projects that will protect stream banks, help improve water quality, create shade and reduce the amount of nutrients, such as phosphorus and nitrogen, from entering the stream.

“We’re going to provide technical assistance to establish or enhance vegetative buffers,” he said. “We want to have people call us up and we’ll determine whether they’re eligible. I would encourage them to do a little website browsing so they’re familiar with the program when they call.”

Weidenbach said this program fills an acknowledged need, because prior and concurrent programs have only addressed stream corridor protection for agriculture and municipalities.

“The purpose of this program is not to fix every stream bank, obviously we aren’t going to have the funding for that, but to provide assistance where it’s needed most,” he said.

Among the guidelines for the Catskill Streams Buffers Initiative is the provision that landowners who are involved in another DEP-funded program, such as the Watershed Forestry program’s Management Assistance program, may be eligible for supplemental assistance for riparian planting activities or bank stabilization projects.

Applicants will be selected based on how high they score in the rating criteria. The criteria includes information on the number and specifics of riparian functions to be addressed, location, whether the applicant is eligible for other watershed programs, the presence of invasive species and sustainability of the completed projects.

Applicant contributions are also among the criteria, according to the program’s website, and applicants who are willing to sign “a 10-year temporary easement or greater” rate higher than those wherein the landowner is only willing to sign “a five-year license agreement.” Projects score better when landowners are willing to contribute 10 percent of the costs of the projects, as well.

Landowners can view eligibility guidelines and the program rules for the projects at the website www.CatskillStreams.org/CSBI. The telephone number for the DCSWCD is 607-865-7161. The office is located at 44 West Street in Walton.

Live in the NYC Watershed? You May Qualify for a FREE Septic Pump-Out & Dye Test!

Dennis — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 22:38:13 +0000

NYC’s Catskill watershed provides clean drinking water to eleven million people in New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. It is one of the nation’s most critial water supply areas. It is also unique in that the EPA has granted New York City a filtration requirement waver as long as the City maintains the high level of water quality. One of the many programs NYC has created to protect its watershed and drinking water are its septic programs.

The most well known is the Septic Rehab and Replacement:

“The program reimburses permanent residents 100 percent of eligible costs of repairing or replacing a failed septic system. Non-primary residents are reimbursed 60 percent of eligible costs.”

Free Septic Pump-Out & Dye Test

Today I recieved a letter from the Catskill Watershed Corporation inviting homeowners located in environmental priority areas of the NYC Watershed to participate in a program that will help preserve the Watershed’s high water quality. Participants are offered a FREE septic pump-out, a dye test of the system, and payment of all or part of any improvements needed. Sounds like a good deal to me!

If you live within the Catskill NYC Watershed, and are interested, please contact the Catskill Watershed Corporation (CWC) office at 877-928-7433 (toll free) and ask to speak to someone in the technical department. They will explain how the program works. For an initial site visit, a simple one-page form must be filled out and returned to CWC.

I will be participating in the program and encourage others that are qualified to do the same. You can’t beat the price!

Alert: Gas Driller Wants Delaware Water – DRBC Public Hearing 2/24

Dennis — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 15:34:03 +0000

natural gas drilling, originally uploaded by arimoore.

From NY H2O- GAS DRILLING CONTAMINATES WATER NATIONWIDE. BUT WE CAN SAVE NY!

SAVE THE DELAWARE RIVER!

The Delaware River Basin Commission is at it again…
Stone Energy Corporation is trying to ‘frack’ with the protected Delaware River.

We need everyone at the Public Hearing to stand up against toxic gas drilling!

When: Wednesday, Feb. 24th 3-7pm

Where: Best Western Inn at Hunt’s Landing, 126 Routes 6 & 209, Matamoras, Pennsylvania 18336

Write in if you can offer a ride. Thank you!

Keep swimming,

Monica and Laura

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING

Stone Energy Corporation Proposed Surface Water Withdrawal and Natural Gas Well Site

View Draft Dockets D-2009-013-1and D-2009-018-1

SUMMARY: Because of the high level of public interest in projects within the Delaware Basin that are associated with natural gas drilling activities, the Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC or “Commission”) will hold a special public hearing on two projects sponsored by the Stone Energy Corporation (hereinafter, “Stone Energy”) to support natural gas exploration and development activities within the basin. One of the two projects entails a surface water withdrawal from the West Branch Lackawaxen River in Mount Pleasant Township, Pennsylvania (Docket No. D-2009-13-1). The other concerns an existing natural gas well drilling pad site in Clinton Township, Pennsylvania (Docket No. D-2009-18-1). Both projects are located in Wayne County, Pennsylvania, within the drainage area of a portion of the main stem Delaware River that the Commission has classified as Special Protection Waters.

DATES: The hearing will take place on Wednesday, February 24, 2010 from 3:00 p.m. until 7:00 p.m. Written comments will be accepted until 5:00 p.m. on March 12, 2010.

ADDRESSES: The hearing will take place at the Best Western Inn at Hunt’s Landing, 126 Routes 6 & 209, Matamoras, Pennsylvania 18336, beginning at 3:00 p.m. and ending at 7:00 p.m. Written comments may be submitted at the hearing and may also be sent as follows: via email to Paula.Schmitt@drbc.state.nj.us and otherwise to the attention of the Commission Secretary, DRBC, either by fax to (609) 883-9522; U.S. Mail to P.O. Box 7360, West Trenton, NJ 08628-0360; or delivery service to 25 State Police Drive, West Trenton, NJ 08628-0360. Regardless of the method of submission, comments should include the name, affiliation (if any) and address of the commenter and the subject line “Public Comment – Stone Energy Dockets.”

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Draft dockets. Dockets Nos. D-2009-13-1** (water withdrawal) and D-2009-18-1** (natural gas well drilling pad site) can be viewed on the Commission’s website, DRBC.net, as a link from this notice.

Hearing Procedure. In order to give everyone who wishes to testify a fair and equal opportunity to do so at the public hearing, which is expected to be heavily attended, the following procedures will be in effect:

Registration to testify. Individuals who wish to speak at the hearing will be requested to print their names on a numbered list and complete a separate DRBC commenter card. Registration to present oral testimony will begin at approximately 2:30 p.m. (30 minutes prior to the beginning of the hearing) and will continue until the hearing is closed. There will be no advance registration prior to February 24. For the convenience of those who wish to speak, more than one registration list may be used. Accordingly, speakers will be called in roughly, but not exactly, the order in which they registered.
Time allowances. In order to allow everyone who wishes to speak an opportunity to do so, individuals will be allotted no more than three minutes to present their oral testimony. Speakers will not be permitted to cede their time to others; however, after everyone who wishes to speak has had a chance to do so, the hearing officer will accept requests from those who wish to supplement their earlier remarks. Individuals who have prepared written testimony are asked to summarize their comments during the three-minute period for oral testimony and to submit their complete written comments either at the public hearing or via email, fax, U.S. Mail, delivery service, or hand delivery in accordance with the “Addresses” section above, before 5:00 p.m. on March 12.
Stenographic record. A court stenographer will be present to capture all verbal comments for the public record.
Other. The sole purpose of the hearing on February 24 is to provide members of the public with an opportunity for oral testimony on the proposed Stone Energy dockets. The Commissioners and staff will not respond to comments at the hearing, nor will they conduct any other business that day. Because a separate hearing on the Stone Energy dockets is being held on February 24, oral testimony on these dockets will not be accepted during the Commission’s regularly scheduled business meeting and public hearing on March 3, 2010. A separate notice will be published listing the hearing items and other matters to be considered during the meeting on March 3.

Project Descriptions. Detailed descriptions of the two projects are included in the draft dockets posted on the Commission’s website (DRBC.net) as links from this notice. Brief descriptions of the two projects follow:

Stone Energy Corporation D-2009-13-1. An application for approval of a surface water withdrawal project to supply up to 21.0 mg/30 days (0.70 mgd) of water from a withdrawal point located on the West Branch Lackawaxen River in Mount Pleasant Township, Wayne County, Pennsylvania within the drainage area of the section of the Delaware River classified as Special Protection Waters (SPW). The water will be used to support natural gas well stimulation activities in an existing well located in Clinton Township, Wayne County, Pennsylvania (the Matoushek #1 well), located within the drainage area of SPW, and in proposed natural gas wells targeting the Marcellus Shale geologic formation within the SPW drainage area in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Flow-back water from well stimulation activities is proposed to be exported to approved treatment facilities located outside of the Delaware River Basin.

Stone Energy Corporation D-2009-18-1. An application for approval of an existing natural gas well drilling pad site, including an existing vertically orientated natural gas well known as Matoushek #1, located in Clinton Township, Wayne County, Pennsylvania. The well is proposed to be stimulated through hydraulic fracturing from a proposed surface water source. An application for the proposed surface water withdrawal is being reviewed by the Commission under Docket No. D-2009-13-1. The proposed surface water withdrawal is located on the West Branch Lackawaxen River in Mount Pleasant Township, Wayne County, Pennsylvania. The target gas bearing geologic formation of Matoushek #1 is the Devonian-age Marcellus Shale. Flow-back water resulting from stimulation activities at the well is proposed to be exported to approved treatment facilities outside of the Delaware River Basin. The proposed drilling site is located within the drainage area of the section of the non-tidal Delaware River known as the Upper Delaware, which is designated as Special Protection Waters.

Additional public records relating to the draft Stone Energy docket may be available for review consistent with Article 8 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (RPP) governing public access to records and information. The RPP are also available on the Commission’s website, http://www.drbc.net.

Individuals in need of an accommodation as provided for in the Americans with Disabilities Act who wish to attend the hearing should contact the commission secretary directly at 609-883-9500 ext. 203 or through the Telecommunications Relay Services (TRS) at 711, to discuss how the Commission can accommodate your needs.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about the upcoming hearing that are not answered in the section of this notice entitled “Supplementary Information”, please contact Ms. Paula Schmitt at 609-477-7224 or Ms. Katharine O’Hara at 609-477-7205.

Dated: February 9, 2010
Pamela M. Bush
Commission Secretary & Assistant General Counsel

DRBC Releases Results of Flood Analysis Model

Dennis — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 16:41:17 +0000

West Branch Delaware River, looking down river from a window on the Hamden Covered Bridge.

From the Walton Reporter (no website), December 16, 2009.

The Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC) reported yesterday that its review of the 2004, 2005, and 2006 storm events, utilizing the new Delaware River Basin Flood Analysis Model, demonstrate that widespread river flooding would have occurred regardless of the pre-event storage conditions in the upper basin reservoirs. The findings were announced by DRBC staff at a public meeting of the Delaware River Basin Interstate Flood Mitigation Task Force held in Flemington, N.J.

“The results of the flood analysis computer model developed by a federal interagency team for the commission, as well as a review of inundation mapping and structural surveys prepared by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, indicate that operational changes to reservoirs alone will not substantially reduce flooding if we experience storms similar to the three major events in September 2004, April 2005, and June 2006,” DRBC Executive Director Carol R. Collier said. “We believe the results support the earlier conclusion of the Interstate Flood Mitigation Task Force that no single approach will eliminate flooding along the Delaware River and that we must continue to focus efforts on implementing a combination of flood loss reduction strategies.”

Of the 13 reservoirs simulated in the model upstream of Trenton, N.J., five did not spill during any of the three storm events and thus can provide no further flood mitigation with additional pre-event void space. For the eight reservoirs that did spill, the model results indicate that larger pre-event voids could have reduced flood crests, but much of the main stem would still have remained in the National Weather Service (NWS) designated moderate or major flood stage. The amount of reduction in the flood crest that could potentially be achieved with the pre-event voids was found to depend upon the characteristics of the storm event (path, precipitation intensity, duration, timing and antecedent soil saturation) as well as on proximity to the reservoir, stream channel characteristics and local topography.

The flood analysis model was used by DRBC staff to predict river stages for six hypothetical pre-event reservoir conditions for each of the three storms. In each scenario, river stages were simulated at nine NWS Advanced Hydrologic Prediction Service (AHPC) flood forecast points.

The model predicted that with the three New York City (NYC) reservoirs, Pepacton, Canonsville and Neversink hypothetically empty preceding each of the three storm events, river elevations would still have reached or exceeded flood stage at all but three of the AHPS forecast locations where flooding actually occurred. These three locations were on tributaries a short distance below the reservoirs, at Hale Eddy in 2005, Harvard in 2004/2005 and Bridgeville in 2006.

The model predicted that with partial voids, river elevations would still have reached or exceeded flood stage at all but two of the AHPS forecast locations that experienced flooding- again, at Harvard with a pre-event void of 10 or 20 percent n 2004 and at Bridgeville with a pre-event void of 20 percent in 2006.

The model results predicted that river elevations would have exceeded flood stage at all other AHPS forecast points regardless of pre-event reservoir levels. However, partial voids did result in flood crest reductions. The largest simulated potential reduction in river elevation on the main stem Delaware under the 20 percent reservoir void scenario was approximately 4.5 feet at Easton, Pa. in connection with the 2006 storm event. Despite this predicted reduction, the stage at Easton would still have exceeded the NWS major flood stage. Inundation mapping and structural surveys prepared by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) indicate that in this scenario 34 of 60 surveyed properties should still have been inundated.

The number of units spared under a hypothetical pre-event void scenario is less favorable when the analysis is extended to multiple sites. Thus, when Easton is considered together with 11 other basin locations included in the USACE structural damage survey, 1,191 out of 1,484 properties would still have been flooded with a simulated 20 percent pre-event reservoir void in connection with the 2006 event.

“Property analysis such as this reminds us that persons living in a flood hazard area have a high level of risk for experiencing flooding,” Collier said. “Considering operational changes to existing reservoirs as the only flood mitigation strategy would unfortunately provide a false sense of security for people who own or occupy the vast majority of structures currently located in, or proposed to be located in, flood prone areas. I believe it is clear that we need to work with all levels of government and the public, including our floodplain residents, to move forward with implementing all 45 recommendations of the Delaware River Basin Interstate Flood Mitigation Task Force which call for a comprehensive approach to flood loss reduction.”

DRBC will continue to work with basin reservoir operators to evolve spill mitigation programs that shift spilled water to managed water without diminishing the security of regional water supplies. Eleven million people in New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania depend upon NYC’s three Delaware Basin reservoirs for drinking water – either directly or through releases to augment river flows downstream. Other actions being pursued by DRBC for flood damage mitigation include:

Continuing to implement non-reservoir related task force recommendations, such as flood warning system upgrades and basin-wide storm water management with retrofits in developed areas.
Strengthening flood plain management.
Continuing to explore basin-wide water resource strategies that may include additional multi-purpose storage.

Development of the flood analysis computer model was among the 45 recommendations identified by the Delaware River Basin Interstate Flood Mitigation Task Force, formed at the request of the four governors, in its July 2007 action agenda for a more proactive, sustainable and systematic approach to flood damage reduction.

The interagency team that developed the flood analysis model included staff from the USACE Hydrologic Engineering Center, NWS, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and DRBC. Work on the flood analysis model began in August 2007 with $500,000 provided by the four basin state governors. Additional funds and in-kind services from USACE, NWS, and USGS have totaled $285,000. The development of the model proved to be a more complicated undertaking than originally expected, delaying its release.

The flood analysis model used to generate yesterday’s presentation will be posted on the DRBC web site no later than today, Dec. 16. The model’s documentation and graphical user interface are still being finalized. The DRBC expects to be able to publish these products in January 2010. DRBC also plans to have an independent technical review of the flood analysis model performed.

The DRBC was created by compact in 1961 through legislation signed into law by President John F. Kennedy and the governors of the four basin states that encompass land draining to the Delaware River. The passage of this compact marked the first time in our nation’s history that the federal government and a group of states joined together as equal partners in a river basin planning development and regulatory agency.

Additional information can be found on the commission’s web site at www.drbc.net.

Local Leaders Say NYC Should Buy Gas Development Rights if Drilling is Prevented in the Watershed

Dennis — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 15:18:07 +0000

West Branch Delaware River, looking upriver from a window on the Hamden Covered Bridge.

From the Walton Reporter (no website), January 27, 2010.

New York State Senator John Bonacic said, last week, that New York City should purchase natural gas drilling rights in the watershed, rather than try to have the state Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) prohibit the drilling through regulation. Bonacic said the attempt to have gas drilling prevented in the watershed is an attempt to expand New York City Watershed Rules and Regulations without any compensation.

Bonacic said the city is trying to sidestep the procedures set up in the Memorandum of Agreement that was signed by upstate communities, New York City, the state of New York, the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and environmental groups. He said the city has attempted to have specific rules placed on watershed properties before, through the Army Corps of Engineers, and is now attempting the same “back door” maneuver to get the state to impose stiffer regulations on the watershed than the remainder of the state.

“If New York City can stop development of energy sources in the Catskills, they can diminish the value of the people’s land without compensation,” Bonacic said. “Anytime a government singles out my constituents and tries to diminish their wealth potential, without offering compensation, I am opposed on principle.”

The DEC is currently reviewing comments made in response to proposed draft regulations for gas drilling in New York. New York City in its comments provided a detailed description of potential dangers drilling in the watershed could impose on its drinking water and that drilling could also jeopardize its filtration avoidance determination (FAD) from the EPA.

Drilling opponents are asking for a statewide ban on drilling or a moratorium until DEC has addressed all concerns to protect drinking water aquifers. A prohibition of drilling in the New York City Watershed would enhance their abilities to prove that the processes proposed for extraction of gas in the state are potentially harmful in any watershed.

Bonacic offered a solution to the city Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and the “so-called environmental groups” which oppose gas drilling in the Catskills. “Let them buy the development rights,” he said. “For those landowners who want to sell their gas rights, let the city pay the same market rate to keep the land undeveloped. We buy agricultural development rights for tracts of land we wish to preserve. Let those who oppose the lawful exploration and extraction of gas in the Catskills pay for those development tights the same way the state and local governments pay for development rights owned by farmers.”

Bonacic concluded, “Attempting to backdoor more regulation onto the watershed lands is offensive, breaches the spirit of the watershed agreement and diminishes trust between the watershed communities and the city. If the city wants to renegotiate the watershed agreement, then let them do it, but it is patently wrong for them to try to use sneaky back door efforts through another government agency to do their bidding.”

Bonacic’s proposal was met with support from Assemblyman Clifford Crouch, who said, “With the potential natural gas development comes the potential for job growth and financial stimulus which upstaters have for lo long been deprived of. The economic development and job creation linked to natural gas exploration is necessary for the survival of the upstate economy.”

Crouch said the development of natural gas in New York can ensure the stability of state financed programs and combat the ballooning deficit, adding, “The reality is that New York City does not control the mineral rights in the watershed, and to impose such regulations constitutes the taking of mineral rights without adequate compensation.”

Delaware County Board of Supervisors Chairman James Eisel said the county has already passed a resolution that states just what Bonacic and Crouch have proposed. “We stated that months ago,” he said.” “If the state is going to be allowed to profit from this modern day gold rush, then the citizens of Delaware County must not be left out. If the city doesn’t want drilling in the watershed, then our property owners should be compensated fairly, for the development rights and the potential royalties.”

Eisel said he doesn’t believe the administration is going to allow the watershed to be singled out, however. “I’ll tell you, since he took over for Spitzer, so much of what he’s done and said has made sense to me, about the state’s predicament and the measures we have to take to straighten things out. He’s got to understand the economic potential that gas development will provide and see to it that the entire state can take advantage.”

A Delaware County Democrat has also voiced his support for the monetary compensation solution. Town of Hamden supervisor Wayne Marshfield, who is a member of the Catskill Watershed Corporation Board of Directors, said, “People in the Catskills are struggling. There is not a lot of wealth here. Trying to impose new regulations by using a state agency to do its bidding is wrong. If the city wants to further limit our property rights, they should pay us to limit them. That would be in keeping with the spirit of the watershed agreement and the respect both the city and upstate need to have for each other.”

Board Chairman Says Delaware County Is ‘Losing Incentive’ to Continue Negotiations for NYC Land Acquisition Permit

Dennis — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 16:45:55 +0000

From the Walton Reporter, abbreviated, January 20, 2010

(The article expressed the disapproval of a New York Attorney General settlement with five healthcare facilities within the NYC watershed to cease flushing unused pharmaceuticals down sinks and toilets, and to pay a fine of less than $18,000 for the five institutions combined. The board felt the institutions were not doing anything wrong. The end of the article (which follows) concerns James Eisel, Chairman of the Delaware County Board of Supervisors and the NYC land acquisition program.)

Eisel also claims the attorney general’s enforcement activities are selective and not intended for the betterment of all New York residents. “The AG’s office is concerned about the law and ‘proper conduct,’ yet did not take action when the state, environmental groups and federal government cut a deal behind closed doors, absent a watershed resident presence, requiring New York City add $241 million more to its land acquisition program for another 10 years. NYC Environmental Protection staff had already stated they only needed a $55 million land acquisition program to safeguard their water supply. The burden of this backdoor decision is being borne by the watershed residents and the NYC water ratepayers, two groups who can ill afford to fund such a large effort.

“New York City is currently negotiating to receive a new land acquisition permit to acquire land ion the watershed. This action against upstate healthcare institutions, combined with the AG’s office actions undertaken during the negotiations over the renewal of the NYC permit, the AG’s office has breeched the spirit of partnership contained in the landmark Memorandum of Agreement. In light of this breech, Delaware County is fast losing incentive to continue negotiations for the renewal of the land acquisition permit.”

In summation, Eisel wrote, “it is unfortunate the AG’s office doesn’t have the same respect and compassion for watershed residents as they do for the nine million water consumers in and around New York City. The NYS Attorney General ‘serves as the guardian of the legal rights of the citizens of New York, its organizations and its natural resources,’ but, obviously, the rights of the citizens in Delaware County are not included under its mission.”

Delaware County Supervisors Support DEC Actions on Gas Drilling Regulations

Dennis — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 13:13:05 +0000

Delaware County, Hamden Bridge over a flooding West Branch Delaware River.

From the Walton Reporter (no website), December 23, 2009.

DELHI – The Delaware County Board of Supervisors has gone on record as supporting the process used by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) to create an environmental impact statement as part of the process of creating regulations for drilling of natural gas wells in the Marcellus Shale, which lies beneath much of New York, including Delaware County.

At last week’s board meeting, supervisors adopted a resolution in support of the process and asked the DEC to move forward to completion of the environmental impact statement. Only Meredith Supervisor Keitha Capouya opposed the resolution.

Several supervisors acknowledged concerns over the safety of drilling, but said hazards could be mitigated. “There are a lot of concerns about impacts. I think they’re being addressed by the DEC,” said Davenport Supervisor Dennis Valente. He said that everyone wants the benefits of energy, but no one wants to live where it is produced. “We’re all part of this society that lives so well from this technology,” he said.

Board Chairman and Harperfield Supervisor James Eisel said, “They’re doing their due diligence and I think it’ll be safe when they’re done.”

Capouya disagreed. “I don’t think its adequate,” she said. “There are many grave dangers for us.”

Valente replied, “I don’t know of any energy source that doesn’t have someone opposed to it.”

Colchester Supervisor Robert Homovich noted that over 14,000 gas wells are already in operation in the state, “Delaware County is a county that basically, has survived by harvesting its natural resources.” He said natural gas has the potential for long-term positive financial impacts and that local governments would benefit from tax revenue. “There’s only so many alternatives you have,” he said.

Capouya responded, saying there are very few hydrofractured or “fracked” wells in New York, and said such wells have caused problems in Pennsylvania. She said the wells would poison water and land. “I don’t like to see cattle, whose water has been poisoned, with their legs up and stiff,” she said.

Hamden Supervisor Wayne Marshfield noted that the resolution called for an evaluation of the risks of pollution. He said problems in western states were due to a lack of regulation by those states. As an example, he cited the use of unlined holding ponds for fracking fluid, which contains chemicals. New York regulations call for the fluid to be held in sealed tanks. He said New York’s regulations will be more stringent than those in places where problems have occurred. “I think there’s a lot to be gained from it,” he said.

Colchester Adopts Drilling Resolution

Dennis — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 12:43:43 +0000

Colchester: Cole Clove Brook emptying into the Pepacton Reservoir.

From the Walton Reporter (no website), December 23, 2009.

DOWNSVILLE – The Colchester Town Council has passed a resolution in support of natural gas development in the town, and the town supervisor says he believes drilling fo natural gas in the Marcellus shale formation that extends through Delaware County will be critical to the economic well being of the county, as well as to that of the town.

Colchester Supervisor Robert Homovich, who has succeeded the late John Meredith as county budget director, said the town council sees natural gas development as an “economic development” opportunity that the town and county can’t afford to let slip away, despite the objections of some residents who claim the drilling method, hydrofracturing, will contaminate the water table. He said the potential tax revenue the county will receive is one of three options it has to balance its budget in the coming years, “and I don’t like the other two.”

The other two options to gas development, Homovich said, “are massive tax hikes or massive lay-offs.”

Homovich said the county has been able to keep the annual tax increases low during the present economic downturn, because of reserved fund balances, which have been used to supplement lost revenues. He said the county’s sales tax revenue has been way below anticipated levels for the past couple of years and he doesn’t expect to see it rebound by year’s end or in the coming year.

He said he believes the county can get through the next two years without having to have a significant tax increase or a wholesale lay-off of employees, unless the state’s financial condition worsens and it imposes further on the state’s smaller municipalities to balance its budget.

“The school districts have already been told they’re taking a mid-year hit in their state aid and the state isn’t showing any signs of backing off its social commitments,” Homovich said. “So, we’ve still got to pay for all the obligations the state has mandated, and hopefully they won’t pile any more on or cut payments to the municipalities any further.”

Homovich said he thinks county residents had better look at gas development as a benefit, rather than a detriment, because, at this time, it appears to be the single route the county has that won’t increase the financial woes of county residents or decrease the services the county can offer.

“I wish this wasn’t the only way out of the trouble we’re finding ourselves in,” Homovich said, “but, I expect that if we don’t do something, we’re going to see a double digit increase in property taxes at the county level or we’re going to have to cut a whole lot of jobs,” Homovich said.

Gas Drilling – At What Price?

Dennis — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 12:32:47 +0000

From the Walton Reporter (no website), December 30, 2009.

(The following letter was sent to Colchester Supervisor Robert Homovich, the letter writer has informed The Walton Reporter and asked that it be printed here.)

Dear Mr. Homovich,

I am due to inherit land in Colchester, not far from Shinhopple, and I am deeply upset that you would permit the dangerous practice of hydrofracking in this valley. Horizontal drilling will introduce a mixture of toxic chemicals into billions of gallons of clean water, which must be sucked out of the Delaware River. It is a fairytale to think that none of these carcinogenic fluids will end up in our water supplies – killing fish, killing wildlife, killing livestock, and making our wells undrinkable. It’s happened in Colorado, it’s happened in Texas, it’s happened in Pennsylvania, and yes, it would happen here.

I am aware, as you yourself have said, that this region has relied on “harvesting it’s natural resources” to survive, but so far, Delaware County has been able to thrive in the midst of harvesting lumber and stone. Outside of the temporary disruption of trout fishing due to the Downsville dam at times, people come from all over to enjoy the river. Clean water, clean air and abundant wildlife have characterized this region. Hydrofracking requires the release of its toxic wastewater to continue production. Clean water must be continuously supplied, contaminated and then discarded. Now, where is all this toxic fluid going to go? Into our soil and into our water.

And, to top it off, the gas companies are not legally bound to clean up after themselves. Check your contract. They can trash your property and, with horizontal drilling, they can infiltrate all your neighbors’ properties and just walk away. They don’t answer to the 1974 Clean Water Act, they don’t answer to local authorities and they are too big and powerful to sue. The Department of Environmental Conservation’s (DEC) own spill reports document that existing regulations have not required the cleanup of hundreds of drill related incidents, including air pollution, explosions, polluted water wells, home evacuations due to unbearable noise levels and massive wastewater releases.

I have looked forward for almost 20 years to retiring to the beautiful Catskill region to hike, fish and spend my days, and my money, in peace. It truly sickens me to think my pristine property may become unlivable, uninsurable and impossible to sell! Please do not risk the lives and livelihood of so many for a temporary monetary profit that may not amount to much.

Patricia Rigby

NY, Delaware County: Local Drilling Opponents Ask to Be Heard

Dennis — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 12:18:56 +0000

From the Walton Reporter (no website), December 30, 2009.

Local opponents to the development of gas drilling in the region have asked the Delaware County Board of Supervisors to hold another meeting on gas drilling. In a letter written by Carole Marner of Franklin, the group says a previous meeting of the board only included information that was “the supportive point of view of the gas industry,” and that it is now time for the board to hear the concerns of residents who oppose gas drilling.

Marner’s letter responds to a letter addressed to her from the county board Chairman James Eisel, in which he states that the decision to allow or prohibit hydrofracking drilling is in the hands of the state and not the county. Two weeks ago, the board passed a resolution supporting DEC’s process for developing the dSGEIS, which prompted Marner to first contact the chairman.

In her letter, Marner writes, “we understand that the county does not regulate gas drilling, that it is indeed a state function, but the county is responsible to inform citizens about, and protect citizens from, disputed state legislation and then to hear the opposing opinions and recommendations on behalf of the citizens. The fact that the county did hold a public meeting on the subject of gas drilling from the supportive point of the view of the gas industry, on Nov. 25, 2008, is proof that the county understands it obligation to be informed about the implications of gas drilling and to share with its citizens its findings.

“It is now the time for the county to hear the opinions of those who do not support gas drilling. The county’s endorsement of gas drilling in the Marcellus Shale, we feel, was premature as it was based on one-sided information. The fact that the press was given the news of this endorsement, which was widely publicized, and thus may have prejudiced the public about the possibility of alternative energy strategies to gas drilling also strongly supports our claim that another hearing must be held.

“That two Delaware County town board supervisors now dissent from the majority opinion, and the dissent of one, William Layton, followed the announcement of the board’s endorsement, is further validation for our request that a re-evaluation of hydraulic fracture gas drilling be based on a broader base of information.”

DEP Calls for Prohibition on Gas Drilling in NYC Watershed

Dennis — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 13:46:27 +0000

Fall Clove Brook with Barnes Hill in the Background

From the Walton Reporter (no website), December 30, 2009.

According to a report commissioned by the New York City Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), natural gas drilling and exploration are incompatible with the operation of New York City’s unfiltered water supply system and pose unacceptable risks for more than nine million New Yorkers in the city and state. Drilling in the watershed requires invasive industrialization and creates a substantial risk of chemical contamination and infrastructure damage, according to the Final Impact Assessment Report prepared for the New York City Department of Environmental Protection (DEP).

After reviewing the report, DEP has called for a prohibition on any drilling in the New York City Watershed.

“Based on the latest science and available technology, as well as the data and limited analysis presented by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), high-volume hydrofracking and horizontal drilling pose unacceptable threats to the unfiltered fresh water supply of nine million New Yorkers,” said acting DEP Commissioner Steven W. Lawitts. “New York City has invested $1.5 billion to protect the watershed and prevent degradation of the water supply; and to maintain its Filtration Avoidance Determination (FAD). The known and unknown impacts associated with drilling simply cannot be justified.”

Since 1997, the city has been granted a Filtration Avoidance Determination by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Since that time, the City has spent or committed approximately $1.5 billion to protect watershed waters. Gas drilling, in its current form, is inconsistent with ensuring both the protection of these source waters and the continuance of the FAD and the inherent environmental impacts and risks of gas drilling could result in the need to construct a filtration plant, at a minimum cost of $10 billion, which would translate into a 30-percent increase in city users’ water rates, the DEP claims.

In addition, in comments submitted to DEC, the city called on DEC to rescind the draft Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement (dSGEIS) that was released on Sept. 30, because DEP feels it does not adequately address the risks of drilling in the New York City watershed.

DEP Deputy Commissioner Paul Rush has briefed the New York City Water Board on the report, which the City initiated in fall 2008 when DEC commenced its dSGEIS, addressing horizontal drilling and high-volume hydraulic fracturing in the Marcellus Shale formation. The Marcellus Shale formation runs through parts of Virginia, West Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New York. In New York State alone it extends for approximately 18,700 square miles, including under the entire 1,585-mile west of Hudson watershed.

As part of their review, DEP’s consulting team, Hazen and Sawyer/Leggette, Brashears and Graham studied the unique hydrological and geological conditions of the watershed, the technology and chemicals necessary to conduct hydrofracking, the experience of other jurisdictions that currently allow hydrofracking and the scientific literature, and found the following risks:

Gas drilling brings with it an industrial infrastructure with inherent environmental risks. As many as 3,000 to 6,000 wells would result in millions of truck trips, thousands of acres of site clearing and grading, millions of tons of fracking chemicals and millions of tons of waste from produced water, all of which can contaminate water.
The chemicals used as part of the process are injected into subsurface rock formations and can travel along underground fissures to ground water and ultimately streams that feed reservoirs. Extensive subsurface fracture systems and known “brittle” geological structure exist that commonly extend over a mile in length, and as far as seven miles in the vicinity of New York City infrastructure. ?In addition, the resulting waste water – potentially one billion gallons per year – can also contaminate water supplies. Currently, there is no way to locally treat this wastewater.
High-volume hydraulic fracking could damage the city’s water supply infrastructure. Of greatest concern are the tunnels that are located both inside and outside the New York City watershed. Naturally occurring fracture systems have been demonstrated to transmit fluid and pressure, as evidenced by saline water and methane seeps encountered at grade and in shallow formations during and since its construction.

In addition to explaining the impacts and risks identified in the report, the city states in its comments that the dSGEIS does not meet the requirements of the New York Environmental Conservation Law because it does not include critical and necessary analyses, including cumulative impacts of the industrialization necessary for drilling, waste disposal, air quality, pipeline construction and ancillary infrastructure, nor does the document sufficiently address public health concerns.

Also, a separate impact assessment on public health is needed given the hazardous chemicals that are proposed for use, the potential radioactivity of the waste products and the rate and scale of the drilling and related activities, the city included in its comments. The city had previously requested that the New York state Department of Health undertake such a study.

NYC DEP dSGEIS Comment Letter Marcellus Gas Drilling –

NYC DEP Comments dSGEIS Marcellu Shale –

Public Employees Federation Asks Governor for Delay in Permitting, Others Ask for Process to Proceed

Dennis — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 12:41:33 +0000

Gas Drilling Rigs Coming Soon?

From the Walton Reporter (no website), January 6, 2010.

Last week, the union that represents DEC employees sent a letter to Governor David Paterson, asking the governor to extend the comment period on the dGEIS for at least another 30 days and to express the union’s judgment that the expansion of gas well hydrofracturing must not be allowed within the next calendar year, if not longer. The Public Employees Federation (PEF), which represents nearly 2,000 professional, technical and scientific staff of DEC, also sent its comments to DEC.

PEF is also concerned that the staffing and funding resources needed to assure that the state’s natural resources will be fully protected have not been identified in the dSGEIS. The union believes New York should not allow hydrofracturing until a funding source for increased staff has been identified.

In addition, PEF said a large amount of water is needed for the hydrofracturing process and that the dSGEIS should identify how to avoid excessive withdrawals in sensitive areas, where habitat could suffer. The backwater and its treatment have also not been fully explored and considered, PEF added.

The PEF does maintain that the dGEIS “is a vast improvement over plans developed by other states,” but adds, “standards set by other states leave a great deal to be desired…”

PEF concludes. “There has not been any cost benefit analysis performed, nor are any planned, to develop a full accounting of actual costs and opportunity costs, such as the costs of municipal treatment plant upgrades, new road construction, increased road maintenance on existing roads or community emergency response costs, such as spill response, emergency preparedness or remediation expenses associated with allowing this type of drilling.”

While the PEF claims there has been no cost benefit analysis, a group of organizations sent a letter to the governor claiming that “Marcellus Shale development in New York will generate more than $1.4 billion in annual economic impact.” A letter, written by Brad R. Gill, executive director of the Independent Gas & Oil Association of NY and signed by other industrial associations and New York economic and development representatives, as well as Delaware County Board of Supervisors James Eisel, asked the governor to not postpone the development of the Marcellus Shale.

In the letter, Gill wrote, “The extremely stringent requirements proposed by the DEC in the dSGEIS provide the public with the necessary oversight that natural gas exploration and extraction will be conducted in an environmentally safe manner.”

The letter further states, “In Broome County, a recent study showed that 2,000 wells would annually generate more than $7.4 billion in economic activity, and nearly $400 million in wages, salaries and benefits. Also, more than $600 million in property tax income and $22 million in state and local taxes would be generated.”

Public Employees Federation Letter – NY dSGEIS Comments Marcellus Shale Gas Drilling –

EPA Weighs in on Hydrofracturing Environmental Impact Statement

Dennis — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 14:10:02 +0000

Will Fall Clove Brook, feeder stream to the Pepacton Reservoir, be polluted by gas-drilling fracking chemicals?

From the Walton Reporter (no website), January 6, 2010, abbreviated.

On Dec 30, the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) submitted its comments on the draft Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement (DSGEIS), which was prepared by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), for horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing to develop natural gas from the Marcellus Shale formation. The last date to comment on the DSGEIS was Dec 31.

In a cover letter to the comments submitted to the DEC, the EPA Region 2 chief of strategic planning, John Filippelli, listed the EPA’s “major concerns.”

The DSGEIS does not fully review and anticipate the “past, present and reasonably foreseeable future” impacts of the horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing of the shale that could occur in the area of the drilling and at a distance from the drilling, such as increased truck traffic and water usage.
The DSGEIS does not include an evaluation of the environmental impacts of the separate yet inter-related actions of siting and constructing gathering lines. The New York State Service Commission (PSC) has the regulatory authority over the construction and operation of the natural gas gathering pipes.
The DSGEIS does not analyze the impacts from new drilling service industries that would undoubtedly result.
EPA recommends that the PSC become a cooperating agency “to ensure a full analysis of cumulative and indirect impacts.
EPA suggests that since the New York State Department of Health has been delegated primary enforcement responsibility commonly referred to as primacy, of the Safe Water Drinking Act by the EPA, that the Department of Health should be given co-leader status in developing the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) document, so it can offer its expertise to the process.
Despite the mitigation measures already proposed by DEC in the DSGEIS, EPA has serious reservations about whether gas drilling in the New York City Watershed is consistent with the version of the long term maintenance of a high quality unfiltered water supply. As DEC is well aware, the watershed supplies drinking water to over nine million people and the avoidance of filtration saves New York taxpayers billions of dollars that would be needed to construct and operate a water filtration plant should the watershed be compromised.
DEC should partner with the EPA and DEP to develop regulatory programs specific to the watershed and offers to have EPA partner with DEC to develop regulatory programs for the remainder of the state.
The DSGEIS does not take into account population increases, habitat fragmentation and climate change that have occurred since the original GEIS on gas drilling was written in 1992.
EPA suggests that DEC consult with the Indian Nation of the state, as the DSGEIS does not specifically address the impact on the Nations. In November 2009, at the EPA’s annual meeting with Indian leaders, the leaders expressed “serious opposition to hydrofracturing. Indian Nation concerns include the radioactivity of cuttings and flowback materials, the fate of toxic/carcinogenic chemicals used in hydrofracturing solutions, the impact on water quality, climate impacts and long-term sustainability.”
EPA encourages DEC to release information regarding the composition of hydrofracturing solutions that are expected to be used.
EPA observes that the DEC is relying on other agencies to regulate the withdrawal of high volumes of surface and groundwater for the hydrofracturing process. The EPA said that it wants further explanation of who will regulate the withdrawal of water in the parts of the state that are not under the aegis of the Delaware River Basin Commission, the Susquehanna River Basin Commission and the Great Lakes Commission.
EPA is asking DEC to describe how it expects to finance the staff necessary to regulate the anticipated proliferation of gas wells.
EPA believes that DEC has prepared an informative DSGEIS on hydrologic fracturing of the Marcellus Shale. However, we have concerns regarding potential impacts to human health and the environment that we believe warrant further scientific and regulatory analysis. Of particular concern to EPA are issues involving water supply, water quality, wastewater treatment operations, local and regional air quality, management of naturally occurring radioactive materials disturbed during drilling, cumulative environmental impacts and the New York City Watershed.

EPA Comments on NY Marcellus Gas Drilling DSGEIS –

SierraActivist » Water

DEP Promises Action on Perchlorate

Related Posts

Acid Rain and Its Impact on Fish and Forest in the Catskills – Thursday April 29, Sullivan County Community College

Related Posts

Delaware County SWCD to Lead Streamside Protection Program Funded by DEP

Related Posts

Live in the NYC Watershed? You May Qualify for a FREE Septic Pump-Out & Dye Test!

Related Posts

Alert: Gas Driller Wants Delaware Water – DRBC Public Hearing 2/24

Related Posts

DRBC Releases Results of Flood Analysis Model

Related Posts

Local Leaders Say NYC Should Buy Gas Development Rights if Drilling is Prevented in the Watershed

Related Posts

Board Chairman Says Delaware County Is ‘Losing Incentive’ to Continue Negotiations for NYC Land Acquisition Permit

Related Posts

Delaware County Supervisors Support DEC Actions on Gas Drilling Regulations

Related Posts

Colchester Adopts Drilling Resolution

Related Posts

Gas Drilling – At What Price?

Related Posts

NY, Delaware County: Local Drilling Opponents Ask to Be Heard

Related Posts

DEP Calls for Prohibition on Gas Drilling in NYC Watershed

Related Posts

Public Employees Federation Asks Governor for Delay in Permitting, Others Ask for Process to Proceed

Related Posts

EPA Weighs in on Hydrofracturing Environmental Impact Statement

Related Posts