City of Rochester | News Release – City, State Preserve Pristine Reservoirs

City of Rochester | News Release – City, State Preserve Pristine Reservoirs.

Putting Local Aquifer Protections in Place in New York

Putting Local Aquifer Protections in Place in New York.

 

 

March 16, 2013

Putting Local Aquifer Protections in Place

A USGS report released this week on the hydrogeology of the aquifer system in the Susquehanna River Valley in parts of Broome and Chenango Counties, New York highlights the role of aquifer protection in the context of gas drilling impacts. In the section, “Considerations for Aquifer Protection,” the report states:

“Aquifer protection in the study area is a topic of public concern in relation to the potential for natural gas drilling in this part of New York. Aquifer protection efforts likely will focus on currently used resources. Information provided in this report may help managers prioritize protection of largely unused aquifers whose characteristics suggest that they are capable of providing large public or commercial water supplies.” p. 17.

In the press release accompanying the report, the author of the report, USGS scientist Paul Heisig, states,”This study is intended to put basic facts into the hands of those tasked with making decisions on future groundwater use and protection. We have identified and mapped a variety of aquifer types and described their current use and their potential as groundwater sources.”

Local officials and concerned citizens in the study area now have excellent information to assist efforts to put appropriate aquifer protections in place. Because the study area is located in an area that is likely to be the target of some of the first high volume horizontal hydrofracking (HVHF) activity in New York if HVHF is allowed to go forward in the state, if local aquifer protections are sought in the area, such efforts should be initiated quickly.

The report and accompanying maps are among the most detailed and comprehensive reports and maps yet produced in the ongoing effort of USGS and the DEC to issue detailed maps of New York’s aquifers. The report fills a gap in that effort. The report maps the section of the Susquehanna River Valley shown between sections 10 and 33 on the map below of the detailed reports produced so far. Another report recently released by USGS on the Cayuta Creek and Catatonk Creek valley aquifers, fills the gap above sections 32 and 27 on the map below.

One of the most important aspects of the newly released Susquehanna River valley aquifer report is the detailed consideration given to the upland watersheds and the fractured bedrock aquifers in those watersheds. The report points out the close connections between the uplands and the valley aquifers:

“If water quality in those streams [flowing from the uplands] is compromised by activites in the upland watershed, groundwater quality in the valley may, in turn, be degraded; therefore, the maintenance of good water quality in the upland watersheds that are the source of these streams is an important aspect of protecting the Susquehanna River valley-fill aquifer system.”

While a number of communities in New York have put aquifer protection strategies in place, many more communities are becoming aware of the need to do so and are looking at protection options. I spoke about watershed protection options recently at a program in Elmira on Feb. 22, 2013, and am scheduled to speak again on the topic at a program in Candor on March 27, 2013. Some of the options I discussed were zoning to create aquifer protection districts, establishing critical environmental areas under the State Environmental Quality Review Act regulations, obtaining sole source aquifer status from the federal EPA, establishing municipal compacts and setting up watershed protection associations. Slides and notes from my presentation in Elmira are posted on my law office website.

Posted by Rachel Treichler at 03/16/13 12:30 PM

Copyright 2013, Rachel Treichler

NORSE ENERGY CORP. USA, Petitioner-Plaintiff-Appellant -against- TOWN OF DRYDEN AND TOWN OF DRYDEN TOWN BOARD, Respondents-Defendants-Respondents

48. Respondents’ Brief 12-20-12

 

To be argued by: Deborah Goldberg

Time Requested: 20 minutes

Appellate Division Case No. 515227

New York Supreme Court

Appellate Division – Third Department

NORSE ENERGY CORP. USA,

Petitioner-Plaintiff-Appellant

-against-

TOWN OF DRYDEN AND TOWN OF DRYDEN TOWN BOARD,

Respondents-Defendants-Respondents

-and-

DRYDEN RESOURCES AWARENESS COALITION, by its President, Marie McRae,

Proposed Intervenor-Cross-Appellant

Tompkins County Index. No. 2011-0902

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BRIEF OF RESPONDENTS-DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS TOWN OF DRYDEN AND TOWN OF DRYDEN TOWN BOARD

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EARTHJUSTICE Deborah Goldberg Bridget Lee
156 William Street, Suite 800
New York, NY 10038-5326
212-845-7376

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
Dated: December 20, 2012

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
Attorneys for Respondents-Defendants- Respondents Town of Dryden and Town of Dryden Town Board

USGS Scientific Investigations Report 2012-5282: Hydrogeology of the Susquehanna River Valley-Fill Aquifer System and Adjacent Areas in Eastern Broome and Southeastern Chenango Counties, New York

USGS Scientific Investigations Report 2012-5282: Hydrogeology of the Susquehanna River Valley-Fill Aquifer System and Adjacent Areas in Eastern Broome and Southeastern Chenango Counties, New York.

Prepared in cooperation with New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

Hydrogeology of the Susquehanna River Valley-Fill Aquifer System and Adjacent Areas in Eastern Broome and Southeastern Chenango Counties, New York

By Paul M. Heisig

Thumbnail of and link to report PDF (3.56 MB)Abstract

The hydrogeology of the valley-fill aquifer system along a 32-mile reach of the Susquehanna River valley and adjacent areas was evaluated in eastern Broome and southeastern Chenango Counties, New York. The surficial geology, inferred ice-marginal positions, and distribution of stratified-drift aquifers were mapped from existing data. Ice-marginal positions, which represent pauses in the retreat of glacial ice from the region, favored the accumulation of coarse-grained deposits whereas more steady or rapid ice retreat between these positions favored deposition of fine-grained lacustrine deposits with limited coarse-grained deposits at depth. Unconfined aquifers with thick saturated coarse-grained deposits are the most favorable settings for water-resource development, and three several-mile-long sections of valley were identified (mostly in Broome County) as potentially favorable: (1) the southernmost valley section, which extends from the New York–Pennsylvania border to about 1 mile north of South Windsor, (2) the valley section that rounds the west side of the umlaufberg (an isolated bedrock hill within a valley) north of Windsor, and (3) the east–west valley section at the Broome County–Chenango County border from Nineveh to East of Bettsburg (including the lower reach of the Cornell Brook valley). Fine-grained lacustrine deposits form extensive confining units between the unconfined areas, and the water-resource potential of confined aquifers is largely untested.

Recharge, or replenishment, of these aquifers is dependent not only on infiltration of precipitation directly on unconfined aquifers, but perhaps more so from precipitation that falls in adjacent upland areas. Surface runoff and shallow groundwater from the valley walls flow downslope and recharge valley aquifers. Tributary streams that drain upland areas lose flow as they enter main valleys on permeable alluvial fans. This infiltrating water also recharges valley aquifers.

Current (2012) use of water resources in the area is primarily through domestic wells, most of which are completed in fractured bedrock in upland areas. A few villages in the Susquehanna River valley have supply wells that draw water from beneath alluvial fans and near the Susquehanna River, which is a large potential source of water from induced infiltration.

First posted February 20, 2013

  • Appendix 1 XLS (864 kB)
    Well data for Susquehanna River valley and adjacent uplands, eastern Broome and southeastern Chenango Counties, New York.
  • Plate 1 html
    Hydrogeology of the Susquehanna valley-fill aquifer system and adjacent areas in eastern Broome and southeastern Chenango Counties, New York

For additional information contact:
Director
U.S. Geological Survey
New York Water Science Center
425 Jordan Road
Troy, NY 12180
(518) 285-5600
http://ny.water.usgs.gov

COMMENTS
What the USGS are saying is that these three regions/locations are prime for “developers” (AKA drillers) to sink MAJOR water wells to supply frack operations. This paper relates to what I heard a Senior SRBS scientist present last year, that SRBC was quite concerned that as gas drilling moved North from PA it would be getting to the “headwaters regions (low water volume) of the Susq and other rivers and thus they anticipated more emphasis by the drillers to use groundwater for their fracking uses.
This directly goes to the issue of impacts on water quantity of residential and public water wells; that is what will a big mother of a “comercial” well by a driller do to the QUANTITY of water available from your private well.  In other words, will your water well dry up?
This is an issue that is NOT adressed at all in NYS draft regs OR the rdSGEIS – only pre-drill baseline testing of wells near(1000ft) a proposed well pad need be tested by the driller for QUALITY.
The potential impact on private property values is clear; mitigation by drilling a private well deeper would probably work, although I dont know enoug hydrology to float a boat, so to speak.
————————————
“Unconfined aquifers with thick saturated coarse-grained deposits are the most favorable settings for water-resource development, and three several-mile-long sections of valley were identified (mostly in Broome County) as potentially favorable: (1) the southernmost valley section, which extends from the New York–Pennsylvania border to about 1 mile north of South Windsor, (2) the valley section that rounds the west side of the umlaufberg (an isolated bedrock hill within a valley) north of Windsor, and (3) the east–west valley section at the Broome County–Chenango County border from Nineveh to East of Bettsburg (including the lower reach of the Cornell Brook valley).”
————————————
Finally, this water source/quantity issue will apply equally to regions further north of the NY/PA border, and one hope USGS is studying such; remember, drilling a bit north likely wont be marcellus but rather the deeper Utica Shale.
S
Stan Scobie, Binghamton, NY, 607-669-4683

Putting Local Aquifer Protections in Place in New York. Rachel Treichler

Drill Baby Drill, David Hughes

Drill Baby Drill.

In this landmark report, PCI Fossil Fuel Fellow David Hughes takes a far-ranging and painstakingly researched look at the prospects for various unconventional fuels to provide energy abundance for the United States in the 21st Century. While the report examines a range of energy sources, the centerpiece of “Drill, Baby, Drill” is a critical analysis of shale gas and shale oil (tight oil) and the potential of a shale “revolution.”

A print version of the report can be purchased here.

abstract

It’s now assumed that recent advances in fossil fuel production – particularly for shale gas and shale oil – herald a new age of energy abundance, even “energy independence,” for the United States. Nevertheless, the most thorough public analysis to date of the production history and the economic, environmental, and geological constraints of these resources in North America shows that they will inevitably fall short of such expectations, for two main reasons: First, shale gas and shale oil wells have proven to deplete quickly, the best fields have already been tapped, and no major new field discoveries are expected; thus with average per-well productivity declining and ever-more wells (and fields) required simply to maintain production, an “exploration treadmill” limits the long-term potential of shale resources. Second, although tar sands, deepwater oil, oil shales, coalbed methane, and other non-conventional fossil fuel resources exist in vast deposits, their exploitation continues to require such enormous expenditures of resources and logistical effort that rapid scaling up of production to market-transforming levels is all but impossible; the big “tanks” of these resources are inherently constrained by small “taps.”

about the author

J. David Hughes is a geoscientist who has studied the energy resources of Canada for nearly four decades, including 32 years with the Geological Survey of Canada as a scientist and research manager. He developed the National Coal Inventory to determine the availability and environmental constraints associated with Canada’s coal resources.

As Team Leader for Unconventional Gas on the Canadian Gas Potential Committee, he coordinated the recent publication of a comprehensive assessment of Canada’s unconventional natural gas potential. Over the past decade, he has researched, published and lectured widely on global energy and sustainability issues in North America and internationally.

He is a board member of the Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas – Canada and is a Fellow of the Post Carbon Institute. He recently contributed to Carbon Shift, an anthology edited by Thomas Homer-Dixon on the twin issues of peak energy and climate change, and his work has been featured in Nature, Canadian Business, and other journals, as well as through the popular press, radio, television and the internet. He is currently president of a consultancy dedicated to research on energy and sustainability issues.

National Research Council Project on Risk Management and Governance Issues in Shale Gas Extraction

National Research Council Project on Risk Management and Governance Issues in Shale Gas Extraction.

Sienna poll on hydrofracking in NY 1/2013

SNY0313 Crosstabs.xlsx.

There is tremendous stability over time in the overall result for support/oppose fracking
Support:  39%
Oppose:  43%
Upstate support:  39%
Oppose:              49%
(beyond margin of error)
=====================
Income <50K:
Support:  36%
Oppose:   46%
——————–
Income <$100K:
Support: 33%
Oppose:  51%
——————–
Income  $100K+:
Support:  47%
Oppose:   35%
(all beyond margin of error)
========================
So…Upstate : don’t like, higher income folks: like.
Hmm.
S
Stan Scobie, Binghamton, NY, 607-669-4683

The longest horizontal legs in Ohio’s Utica shale are about three miles in length.

Leftover tidbits from OOGA winter meeting in Columbus – Drilling – Ohio.

MarcellusGas.Org Home Page

MarcellusGas.Org Home Page.

Information Related to Pennsylvania Deep Gas Well Activity
Home
How To Use This Site
Wells » Well Data Reports
Wells » Drilling Maps
Wells » Well Packet Information
Wells » Frac Fluid Composition Reports
Graphs and Statistics
  – by State
  – by County
  – by Township
Impact Fee Revenue Calculator
Record Setting Wells
Record Setting Gas Companies
State Maps
Gas Company Information
Waste Facility Information
FREE Guest Membership
Full Membership Sign Up
Membership Benefits
Your Account Information
Contact MarcellusGas.Org
About MarcellusGas.Org
Related Sites & Links
Privacy Policy
Terms Of Use

U.S. Crude Oil and Natural Gas Production in Federal and Non-Federal Areas

www.crs.gov/Products/R/PDF/R42432.pdf.

U.S. Crude Oil and Natural Gas Production in 

Federal and Non-Federal Areas 

Marc Humphries

Specialist in Energy Policy

February 28, 2013