USGS WaterNow: On-demand current-conditions for water data directly to your mobile phone or email

March 16, 2013

USGS WaterNow: On-demand current-conditions for water data directly to your mobile phone or email.

Filed under Water Tagged with , ,

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

March 16, 2013

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

Filed under events, Geology, Shale Gas Development-Hydrofracking, Water Tagged with , , , , , , , , ,

DEC seeks input on management of land in Onondaga and Cortland counties | syracuse.com

February 24, 2013

DEC seeks input on management of land in Onondaga and Cortland counties | syracuse.com.

The following is a DEC press release:
Public comments are being accepted on two draft unit management plans (UMPs), Hill and Hollow and Taylor Valley,

The UMPs cover 17,613 acres on seven state forests, one unique area and one multiple-use area in Cortland and Onondaga counties.

The Hill and Hollow UMP (7,346 acres) consist of Morgan Hill State Forest, Kettlebail State Forest and Labrador Hollow Unique Area.   The Taylor Valley UMP (10,267 acres) includes: Taylor Valley State Forest, Hoxie Gorge State Forest, Baker School House State Forest, Donahue Woods State Forest, Gee Brook State Forest and Papish Pond Multiple-Use Area.

The Draft UMPs have been developed to address management activities on these state forests. It is DEC’s policy to manage State lands for multiple benefits to serve the people of New York State. The proposed UMPs will help maintain healthy, sustainable and biologically diverse ecosystems for fish and wildlife while providing continued opportunities for forest product sales, recreational use, environmental education and research.

The State lands covered by the proposed plans currently offer many recreational opportunities including: hiking, hang gliding, camping, picnicking, nature observation, boating, fishing, hunting, trapping, snowmobiling, snowshoeing, cross-country skiing, and all terrain vehicle (ATV) access for people with mobility impairments. New or major changes to existing recreational facilities proposed in the plans include:

Hill and Hollow UMP
• The construction of 10 to 15 miles of new single track mountain bike trails on Morgan Hill State Forest.

• The designation of the North Country National Scenic Trail on the unit as foot travel only (hiking, snowshoeing and skiing).

• The construction of a 1.7 mile ATV trail expansion for people with qualified accessibility needs on Morgan Hill State Forest.

• The construction of Tinker Falls sustainable trail project.

• The development of three universally designed campsites for people with accessibility needs.

• The designation of six to eight additional campsites on Morgan Hill State Forest.

• The installation of informational kiosks.

Taylor Valley UMP

• The construction of 5.3 miles of new hiking trail on Hoxie Gorge State Forest.

• The designation of the Finger Lakes Trail/North Country National Scenic Trail on the unit as foot travel only (hiking, snowshoeing and skiing).

• The construction of three parking areas with one each on: Taylor Valley State Forest; Hoxie Gorge State Forest; and Papish Pond Multiple-Use Area.

• The construction of a 0.5 mile ATV trail loop expansion for people with qualified accessibility needs on Hoxie Gorge State Forest.

• The construction of a lean-to on Taylor Valley State Forest.

• The designation six drive-up campsites, two of which will be upgraded to provide camping opportunities for people with disabilities on Taylor Valley State Forest and one drive-up site on Baker School House State Forest.

• The designation of four walk-in campsites, one at Papish Pond Multiple-Use Area and three on Gee Brook State Forest.

• The installation of informational kiosks.

The UMPs also contain proposed maintenance projects for roads and boundary lines. A detailed schedule of other activities such as natural resource inventories, mowing, forest product sales, and survey requests are included in the UMPs.

Those unable to attend the meeting may submit comments by mail to: DEC, Division of Lands and Forests, 1285 Fisher Avenue, Cortland, NY 13045 or by email to hcdedric@gw.dec.state.ny.us for the Taylor Valley UMP and tomlzubal@gw.dec.state.ny.us for the Hill and Hollow UMP.

Copies of the plans are posted on the DEC’s website .. The plans are also available, for public review, at the following locations:

• DEC Region 7 Headquarters, 615 Erie Blvd. West, Syracuse

• DEC Region 7 Sub-office, 1285 Fisher Ave., Cortland

• Peck Memorial Library, East Main St., Marathon

• Cortland Free Library, 32 Church St., Cortland

• Lamont Memorial Library, 5 East Main St., McGraw

• Kellogg Free Library, 5681 Telephone Rd., Cincinnatus

• DeRuyter Free Library, 735 Utica St., DeRuyter

• Tully Free Library, 12 State St., Tully

Copies are available in digital format on compact discs from the Cortland office and may be requested by calling (607)753-3095 ext. 217.

Comments on the plans will be accepted until April 11, 2013.

If Hartnett Elementary School is closed for adverse weather conditions the meeting will take place on Monday, April 8, 2013, from 6:30 to 9:00 p.m. at the Hartnett Gymnasium.

If the weather appears inclement, please check local TV and radio stations or the Homer Central School District’s website at www.homercentral.org.

Nature Conservancy Report on Pipelines in PA forest lands:

http://www.nature.org/ourinitiatives/regions/northamerica/unitedstates/pennsylvania/ng-pipelines.pdf

“Given that Bradford County is less forested than Pennsylvania’s Marcellus region as a whole, we anticipate that the statewide percentage of pipelines built in forest
areas will be higher. A conservative estimate would be that 50 percent of all future pipelines will be built in forest areas, or approximately 5,000 miles in the low Marcellus development scenario, 8,250 miles in the medium scenario, and 12,500
miles in the high scenario. Each mile of a 100‐foot right‐of‐way directly disturbs 528,000 square feet or approximately 12 acres and creates an additional 72 acres of new forest edges.

Therefore, we project that statewide forest area cleared from future
pipeline development could be approximately 60,000 acres in the low scenario, 100,000 acres in the medium scenario, and 150,000
acres in the high scenario over the next two decades. In addition to
these direct impacts, new gathering pipelines will create between 360,000 and 900,000 acres of new forest edges that deprive interior forest
species, such as black‐throated blue warblers, salamanders, and many
woodland flowers, of the shade, humidity, and tree canopy protection that only deep forest environments can provide. We were unable to find any comprehensive plans for new transport lines in Pennsylvania. In general, however, we believe that the length of new gathering lines will dwarf mileage of new transport lines, perhaps by an order of magnitude.”

-Kevin Heatley, Hammondsport 9-15-11

3-Kevin Heatley is a senior scientist at Biohabitats, Inc. and tech consultant for Responsible Drilling Alliance in Wiliamspot, Pa. DA is a grassroots, all-volunteer education and advocacy coalition that seeks to educate its members and the public about deep shale gas drilling and all of its ramifications. Kevin Heatley works as a habitat restorer. His presentation draws on the experience in Louisiana where environmental impacts by the gas and oil industry have been severe, and the cost of remediation externalized. A very animated and passionate speaker, Kevin Heatley discussion of our situation in the Northeast builds upon Bill Belitskus’s discussion of the impacts on the Allegheny National Forest and contiguous Allegheny State Forest in New York. He was the third speaker at the public forum “Fracking the Fingerlakes: The Rest of the Story” held in Hammondsport, NY on September 15, 2011.

N

Filed under DEC, Shale Gas Development-Hydrofracking, Water

Hill and Hollow Unit Management Plan

February 23, 2013

Hill and Hollow Unit Management Plan.

Filed under DEC, Environment, Maps, Shale Gas Development-Hydrofracking, Water Tagged with , , , , , , ,

EPA Hydrofracking Study Technical Roundtables 12/12

February 21, 2013

www.epa.gov/hfstudy/pdfs/summary-of-technical-roundtables.pdf.

Filed under EPA, Shale Gas Development-Hydrofracking, Waste, Water Tagged with , ,

U.S. Geological Survey: Natural Gas Fracking Is Destroying Pennsylvania Forests – Natural Gas Watch.org

February 20, 2013

 

U.S. Geological Survey: Natural Gas Fracking Is Destroying Pennsylvania Forests

Oct 24th, 2012 | By fjgallagher | Category: Fracking, Lead Articles

“>

Natural gas drilling rigs, similar to the one shown here in Colorado, are destroying thousands of acres of forest in Pennsylvania, according to a recent report issued by the U.S. Geological Survey.

Natural gas drilling activity is destroying thousands of acres of forest in Pennsylvania, according to a recent report issued by the U.S. Geological Survey.

“This type of extensive and long-term habitat conversion has a greater impact on natural ecosystems than activities such as logging or agriculture, given the great dissimilarity between gas-well pad infrastructure and adjacent natural areas and the low probability that the disturbed land will revert back to a natural state in the near future,” the U.S.G.S. report states.

Much of the damage can be traced to the consequences of hydraulic fracturing — or “fracking,” as it is called in the parlance of our time — although the extraction of coal-bed methane has also contributed to the ongoing environmental degredation, the report notes.

Ed. note – If you enjoy the content and coverage provided by NaturalGasWatch.org, please take a moment to click on one of the advertisements on the right-hand side of the page. Your support will help us keep the site up and running. Thanks, fj.

Much of the damage, the report states, stems from fragmentation of the existing forest, where a habitat is divided by roads, drilling pads, pipelines and other infrastructure development associated with fracking into smaller, less functional areas.

From the U.S.G.S. report:

Although many human and natural activities result in habitat fragmentation, gas exploration and development activity can be extreme in their effect on the landscape. Numerous secondary roads and pipeline networks crisscross and subdivide habitat structure. Landscape disturbance associated with shale-gas development infrastructure directly alters habitat through loss, fragmentation, and edge effects, which in turn alters the flora and fauna dependent on that habitat. The fragmentation of habitat is expected to amplify the problem of total habitat area reduction for wildlife species, as well as contribute towards habitat degradation.

The picture, below, (Figure 2 from the U.S.G.S. report) illustrates the effect that fragmentation has on a forest.

A photograph from a recent report issued by the U.S. Geological Survey illustrates the degree of damage done to forest land in Pennsylvania by natural gas drilling activity. The report found that natural gas driling activity is a primary force behind the destruction of Pennsylvania forest land.

The bottom line, according to the report: natural gas drilling has profoundly altered the forest in Pennsylvania.

From the U.S.G.S. report:

The overall landscape effects of natural gas development have been substantial. (emphasis added) Over 9,600 Marcellus Shale gas drilling permits and over 49,500 non-Marcellus Shale permits have been issued from 2000 to 2011 in Pennsylvania (Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, 2011) and over 2,300 Marcellus Shale permits in West Virginia (West Virginia Geological and Economic Survey, 2011), with most of the development activity occurring since 2005.

With the accompanying areas of disturbance, well pads, new roads, and pipelines from both types of natural gas wells, the effect on the landscape is often dramatic. Figure 2 (below) shows a pattern of landscape change from forest to forest, interspersed with gas extraction infrastructure. These landscape effects have consequences for the ecosystems, wildlife, and human populations that are colocated with natural gas extraction activities.

Read the complete report here: Landscape Consequences of Natural Gas Extraction in Bradford and Washington Counties, Pennsylvania, 2004–2010

Tags: , , , , , ,, , , , , , , , , , , , ,, 

Filed under Air Pollution, Environment, Shale Gas Development-Hydrofracking, Water Tagged with , , ,

Draft Unit Management Plan for Taylor Valley

February 19, 2013

  • I just received notification of a March  public meeting in Truxton to discuss the Draft Unit Management Plan for Taylor Valley.  I think it will be important to flood that meeting with concerned citizens from the area.

    Dear Taylor Valley Unit Management Area Stakeholder,

    A draft Unit Management Plan (UMP) has been developed for the Taylor Valley Unit Management Area, which includes Baker School House, Donahue Woods, Gee Brook, Hoxie Gorge, and Taylor Valley State Forests along with Papish Pond Multiple-Use Area. The UMP process, for this Unit began with a public meeting at the McGraw Central School’s cafeteria in February 2010. This meeting was used to gather input from the public with regards to the future management of the Unit.  Input from this meeting along with a long-range vision, the principles of ecosystem management, and the current use were used to develop management activities in the UMP.

    There is a meeting scheduled to gather feedback from the public on two draft UMPs (Taylor Valley and Hill and Hollow). I look forward to receiving feedback from you at the upcoming meeting. The following announcement contains details about the meeting:

      DEC Seeks Public Feedback on Two Draft Unit Management Plans (UMPs): Hill & Hollow and Taylor Valley

    WHEN: Monday, March 11, 2013, from 6:30 to 9:00 p.m.

    WHERE: Homer Central School District’s Hartnet Elementary School Gymnasium located on Academy Street in Truxton, NY.

    WHAT: To receive public feedback on the Draft Hill & Hollow and Draft Taylor Valley UMPs.  Copies of the plans are posted on the DEC’s website at: http://www.dec.ny.gov/lands/4979.html .The plans are also available, for public review, at local libraries and DEC offices. Copies of the UMPs are available on compact discs from the Cortland DEC office and may be requested by calling (607)753-3095 ext. 217.

    The meeting will begin with an open house format, to allow the public to meet informally with staff, discuss their concerns and provide written comments. Beginning at 7 p.m., staff will briefly present highlights of the two UMPs.  Following the presentation, the public will be able to provide verbal comments about the UMPs. Those unable to attend the meeting may submit comments (until April 11, 2013) by mail to: DEC, Division of Lands and Forests, 1285 Fisher Avenue, Cortland, NY  13045 or  by email to hcdedric@gw.dec.state.ny.us  for the Taylor Valley UMP and  to mlzubal@gw.dec.state.ny.us forthe Hill and Hollow UMP.

     

    WHY: The Draft UMPs have been developed to address management activities on State lands. The Hill & Hollow UMP contains Morgan Hill and Kettlebail State Forests as well as Labrador Hollow Unique Area. The Taylor Valley UMP includes: Taylor Valley, Hoxie Gorge, Baker School House, Donahue Woods and Gee Brook State Forests as well as Papish Pond Multiple-Use Area.

    Henry C. Dedrick Jr.
    Senior Forester, Region 7
    NYS DEC, Division of Lands & Forests
    1285 Fisher Ave.
    Cortland, NY 13045
    Phone: (607)753-3095 ext. 218
    1-800-388-8244 ext. 218
    Fax:      (607)753-8532
    e-mail:   hcdedric@gw.dec.state.ny.us

     

    The following   action by the DEC  is proposed in  the January  2013 Draft Taylor Valley Unit Management Plan (http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/regions_pdf/tayvy1.pdf ).   Is the DEC anticipating a reversal of the decision not to allow surface activity associated with drilling in our state forests?     The final paragraph of page 60 says the following:

     

    “This prohibition is subject to change if the Draft Supplemental Generic Environmental Statements regarding Well Permit Issuance for Horizontal Drilling and High-Volume Fracturing to Develop the Marcellus Shale and Other Low-Permeability Gas Reservoirs is amended during finalization processes.”

    Here’s a more extended quote from the Draft Unit Management Plan:

    b. Consider future requests for oil and gas leasing using an open public process while protecting natural and recreational resources. Prior to leasing lands in this Unit, an open public process must be followed. This process includes coordination with the Division of Mineral Resources to determine: areas that can be leased with full rights granted (100% surface entry and no special conditions required); areas that may require special environmental and safety conditions; and areas that may be leased with no surface-disturbance/entry conditions (non-drilling clause). The following is a summary of the leasing process of State Forest lands:

    Receive requests to nominate specific lands within the Unit for leasing of mineral rights, from interested parties.

    Conduct tract assessments of nominated properties to determine where lands are able to support or accommodate related surface disturbance associated with oil and gas exploration, development, and extraction. Factors considered during the tract assessment process include the proximity to sensitive resources of the Unit. These resources include, but are not limited to certain management strategies, wetland, riparian zones, steep slopes, recreational trails and areas, unique ecological communities, habitat of rare and endangered species, archeological and cultural sites and scenic vistas and view sheds.

    o Apply a hierarchical approach that classifies areas of each State Forest into four categories as part of a tract assessment to be conducted prior to leasing.

    § Category A ‐ Compatible with well pad, road, and utility development. These areas can be considered the least sensitive to surface disturbance and should be considered first for well pad development to limit the overall impact of development. Examples of Category A areas include open fields, conifer plantations, and even-aged management areas.

    § Category B ‐ Uneven-age Management Areas with one well pad per State Forest. These areas are being managed for species that require large blocks of un-fragmented (diameters of temporary openings in the canopy shall be no larger than 2.5 times the height of surrounding trees) forests.

    § Category C ‐ 250-foot stream and designated recreational trail buffers. Not compatible with well pad development; may be compatible with road and utility development.

    § Category D – Infrastructure Exclusion areas. Not compatible with well pad, road, or utility development. These include: ponds, wetlands, spring seeps, and vernal pools with appropriate 250-foot buffers; slopes greater than 15 percent; archeological and cultural concerns; and areas being managed as Natural Areas.

    o Prohibit surface disturbance associated with high-volume hydraulic fracturing. This prohibition is subject to change if the Draft Supplemental Generic Environmental Statements regarding Well Permit Issuance for Horizontal Drilling and High-Volume Fracturing to Develop the Marcellus Shale and Other Low-Permeability Gas Reservoirs is amended during finalization processes.

    Is it a coincidence that there has been heavy logging in the state forest next to my home for the past two summers? Well-pad sized sections have been clear-cut or significantly thinned in Kennedy State Forest, and pipeline-width corridors have been cleared of debris.   It could be coincidence,  but this logging activity was well ahead of scheduled logging in the management plan for Kennedy State Forest  (according to conversations I had with the forester).    The clearing areas are congruent with the Department’s 2008(?) published maps of “Areas compatible with drilling. ”  Now the Draft Unit Management Plan  for Taylor Valley  shows that the DEC is planning for a possible reversal of the prohibition against surface activity associated with hvhf.  Has the DEC planned to allow drilling in the state forests all along  -despite claims to the contrary in the revised SGEIS?

    STATE FORESTS IN PA UNDER HYDROFRACKING

    U.S. Geological Survey: Natural Gas Fracking Is Destroying Pennsylvania Forests – Natural Gas Watch.org.

  • Full Report:  https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.naturalgaswatch.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F10%2FUSGS-fracking-landuse-report.pdf

Filed under DEC, Environment, Pipelines, Shale Gas Development-Hydrofracking, Water Tagged with , , ,

Taylor Valley Unit Management Plan

February 19, 2013

Taylor Valley Unit Management Plan.

I just received notification of a March  public meeting in Truxton to discuss the Draft Unit Management Plan for Taylor Valley.  I think it will be important to flood that meeting with concerned citizens from the area.

 

The following   action by the DEC  is proposed in  the January  2013 Draft Taylor Valley Unit Management Plan (http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/regions_pdf/tayvy1.pdf ).   Is the DEC anticipating a reversal of the decision not to allow surface activity associated with drilling in our state forests?     The final paragraph of page 60 says the following:

 

“This prohibition is subject to change if the Draft Supplemental Generic Environmental Statements regarding Well Permit Issuance for Horizontal Drilling and High-Volume Fracturing to Develop the Marcellus Shale and Other Low-Permeability Gas Reservoirs is amended during finalization processes.”

 

Here’s a more extended quote from the Draft Unit Management Plan:

 

b. Consider future requests for oil and gas leasing using an open public process while protecting natural and recreational resources. Prior to leasing lands in this Unit, an open public process must be followed. This process includes coordination with the Division of Mineral Resources to determine: areas that can be leased with full rights granted (100% surface entry and no special conditions required); areas that may require special environmental and safety conditions; and areas that may be leased with no surface-disturbance/entry conditions (non-drilling clause). The following is a summary of the leasing process of State Forest lands:

Receive requests to nominate specific lands within the Unit for leasing of mineral rights, from interested parties.

Conduct tract assessments of nominated properties to determine where lands are able to support or accommodate related surface disturbance associated with oil and gas exploration, development, and extraction. Factors considered during the tract assessment process include the proximity to sensitive resources of the Unit. These resources include, but are not limited to certain management strategies, wetland, riparian zones, steep slopes, recreational trails and areas, unique ecological communities, habitat of rare and endangered species, archeological and cultural sites and scenic vistas and view sheds.

o Apply a hierarchical approach that classifies areas of each State Forest into four categories as part of a tract assessment to be conducted prior to leasing.

§ Category A ‐ Compatible with well pad, road, and utility development. These areas can be considered the least sensitive to surface disturbance and should be considered first for well pad development to limit the overall impact of development. Examples of Category A areas include open fields, conifer plantations, and even-aged management areas.

§ Category B ‐ Uneven-age Management Areas with one well pad per State Forest. These areas are being managed for species that require large blocks of un-fragmented (diameters of temporary openings in the canopy shall be no larger than 2.5 times the height of surrounding trees) forests.

§ Category C ‐ 250-foot stream and designated recreational trail buffers. Not compatible with well pad development; may be compatible with road and utility development.

§ Category D – Infrastructure Exclusion areas. Not compatible with well pad, road, or utility development. These include: ponds, wetlands, spring seeps, and vernal pools with appropriate 250-foot buffers; slopes greater than 15 percent; archeological and cultural concerns; and areas being managed as Natural Areas.

o Prohibit surface disturbance associated with high-volume hydraulic fracturing. This prohibition is subject to change if the Draft Supplemental Generic Environmental Statements regarding Well Permit Issuance for Horizontal Drilling and High-Volume Fracturing to Develop the Marcellus Shale and Other Low-Permeability Gas Reservoirs is amended during finalization processes.

 

 

Is it a coincidence that there has been heavy logging in the state forest next to my home for the past two summers? Well-pad sized sections have been clear-cut or significantly thinned in Kennedy State Forest, and pipeline-width corridors have been cleared of debris.   It could be coincidence,  but this logging activity was well ahead of scheduled logging in the management plan for Kennedy State Forest  (according to conversations I had with the forester).    The clearing areas are congruent with the Department’s 2008(?) published maps of “Areas compatible with drilling. ”  Now the Draft Unit Management Plan  for Taylor Valley  shows that the DEC is planning for a possible reversal of the prohibition against surface activity associated with hvhf.  Has the DEC planned to allow drilling in the state forests all along  -despite claims to the contrary in the revised SGEIS?

BA

Filed under Cortland Data, DEC, Environment, Maps, Parks & Recreation, Shale Gas Development-Hydrofracking, Water Tagged with , , , , , , , , ,

Strategic Plan for State Forest Management – NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation

February 19, 2013

Strategic Plan for State Forest Management – NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation.

The plan has been edited based on public input and is now considered final, and will be used to guide the management of all State Forests and for the development of State Forest unit management plans. A responsiveness document has been incorporated as an appendix to the plan, and includes DEC’s responses to the many comments received. Revision of the plan is scheduled to occur every 10 years.

Documents

Complete plan. This is a very large document and may take a long time to download.
Complete Plan (PDF) (14.4 MB)
This is a large file and may take a long time to download.

Cover — Chapter 1 (PDF) (5.5 MB)
Chapter 2 — Chapter 4 (PDF) (4.3 MB)
Chapters 5 — 7 and Appendices (PDF) (4.2 MB)

Executive Summary (PDF) (3 MB)
A brief 11 page overview of the plan.

SPSFM Additional Resources

The following additional resources have been referenced in the strategic plan and are listed according to Chapter and Section of reference.

Chapter 1 – New York State Forests

Management Planning Overview

Statewide Map of Units and UMP Completion Schedule (PDF, 203 K)
A statewide schedule, organized by year of first draft completion, and map delineating the new UMP boundaries

Chapter 2 – Ecosystem Management

Landscape Assessment

TNC Ecoregions – full size map (PDF, 1.09 MB)
Map of The Nature Conservancy Ecoregions and State Forest ecoregional distribution

Active Forest Management

Forest Matrix Blocks and Connectivity – full size map (PDF, 872 K)
Map of matrix blocks and “least cost path” LCP corridors showing potential State Forest contributions to habitat connectivity across New York’s landscape

Program Policy: Retention on State Forests (PDF, 139 K)
Policy for retention of forest habitat structure and biodiversity on State Forests during forest management activities

Program Policy: Clearcutting on State Forests (PDF, 142 K)
Policy for clearcutting or conducting other regeneration cuttings on State Forests

Chapter 3 – Resource Protection

Soil and Water Protection

Rules for Establishment of Special Management Zones on State Forests (PDF, 58 K)
Establishes the Bureau of State Land Management’s buffer guidelines to protect water resources and ecological features

Rutting Guidelines for Timber Harvests and TRPs (PDF, 49 K)
Guidelines to minimize surface impacts during harvesting and TRP activity

At-Risk Species and Communities

List of SGCN that Rely on Forested Habitat (PDF, 132 K)
A list created for the SPSFM, noting forest-dependent Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN) by ecoregion, as identified in the NYS Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy

Chapter 4 – Real Property and Infrastructure

Infrastructure

DEC Unpaved Forest Road Handbook (PDF, 618 K)
Establishes standards for the establishment and maintenance of public forest access roads and haul roads on State Forests

Chapter 5 – Public/Permitted Use

Mineral Resources

Current Oil and Gas Leases on State Forests (PDF, 29 K)
Listing of current leases by DEC region

Management of Mineral Resources (PDF, 92 K)
Memorandum of Understanding between Mineral Resources and Lands & Forests, along with collected law and regulations pertaining to minerals management

DRAFT Guidelines for Pipeline Construction on DEC Administered State Lands (PDF, 41 K)
Guidelines for construction of oil and natural gas pipelines

Guidelines for Seismic Testing on DEC Administered State Land (PDF, 23 K)
Guidelines for the use of seismic exploration to discover natural gas reserves and optimally site the drill location

What is Carbon Capture and Sequestration? (PDF, 2.12 MB)
Pamphlet explaining the technology

Chapter 6 – Forest Management and Health

Plantation Management

Program Policy: Plantation Management on State Forests (PDF, 68 K)
Policy providing guidance and procedures for managing plantations on State Forests

Forest Health

Invasive Plant Control Methods (PDF, 174 K)
Suggested methods for controlling select invasive plant species on State Forests

 

Filed under DEC, Maps, Pipelines, Shale Gas Development-Hydrofracking, Water

Croton Watershed Clean Water Coallition Newsletter

February 13, 2013

newyorkwater.org/content/newsletters/13_jan_feb.pdf.

Filed under DEC, Regulation, Shale Gas Development-Hydrofracking, Water Tagged with , ,

← Older posts

Newer posts →