a look at updates to the nysdec september 2011 revised draft sgeis: environmental impacts, march...

Upload: randall-west

Post on 06-Apr-2018

218 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

  • 8/2/2019 A look at updates to the NYSDEC September 2011 revised draft SGEIS: Environmental Impacts, March 2012

    1/85

    Hello! Im C.J. Randall and Im Rima Shamieh and on behalf of CaRDI (the

    Community & Regional Development Institute at Cornell University) wed like to welcome

    you to a comprehensive look at updates to the September 2011 revised draft SGEIS issued

    by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. We waded through the

    1500-plus-page document to bring you summary and analysis but weve attempted to limit

    our scope to the most significant and compelling portions of the SGEIS update. This is a lotto bite off, so well be doing two separate presentations; this first one is on the anticipated

    Water, Air, and Ecosystem impacts and the proposed mitigation strategies. The second

    presentation -- to follow shortly examines a range of community and economic impacts.

    So thanks for being with us today!

  • 8/2/2019 A look at updates to the NYSDEC September 2011 revised draft SGEIS: Environmental Impacts, March 2012

    2/85

    Rather than go chapter by chapter, we decided to break the SGEIS down three accessible

    topics for this presentation: water, air, and ecosystem impacts. Weve interviewed and

    gathered comments from Cornell faculty with expertise in their respective section to help

    explain some of the complexities in the SGEIS. Whenever possible weve linked directly to

    their research. When referencing the DECs recent updates to the SGEIS which are

    indicated in the text by underlining we do by page number in the latest draft. This is animportant distinction since theres been a lot of new pages added just since the July draft

    and especially since the 2009 draft. Weve also included associated developments at the

    federal level and have linked to those hearings and related documents whenever possible.

    And finally, well conclude with some tips for making substantive comments to the DEC.

    Note that were trying to report to you what the DEC has changed in its analysis and

    proposals, as well as the current state and federal contexts of these proposals. We are

    reserving judgment on the value of these proposals.

  • 8/2/2019 A look at updates to the NYSDEC September 2011 revised draft SGEIS: Environmental Impacts, March 2012

    3/85

    For just a bit of background on the document itself, the SGEIS stands for Supplemental

    Generic Environmental Impact Statement, a review process required before the state

    Department of Environmental Conservation may issue permits for this specific type of gas

    extraction, High Volume Hydraulic Fracturing. That original scoping document which is

    linked here is kind of like the bones of the SGEIS as it identifies what the agency is and

    isnt going to consider in a subsequent impact statement. The SGEIS specifically covershydraulic fracturing in all dense shales like the Marcellus. The Utica Shale is a deeper

    formation underneath much of the Marcellus that extends further north into western New

    York and Canada and is in the early stages of research on its production potential. SEQR is

    the statute passed by the state legislature in 1975 that gives agencies (not just the DEC, which

    is important to remember when looking at the SGEIS) the authority to protect and enhance

    the environment while weighing community and economic resources.

  • 8/2/2019 A look at updates to the NYSDEC September 2011 revised draft SGEIS: Environmental Impacts, March 2012

    4/85

    The departments original Impact Statement was released in draft form in 1988 and

    finalized in July 1992. The current draft SGEIS is a supplement to this, and you can find it

    at the link above or as Appendix 2 in the SGEIS. Most of the 850 comments received during

    this review process were technical comments from industry and trade groups so the

    circumstances surrounding the issuance of this document were quite different. Its release

    didnt garner a single mention even in the Albany newspaper. Just as an aside, if youreinterested in the DECs position on takings you may want to take a look at the 1992 GEIS.

  • 8/2/2019 A look at updates to the NYSDEC September 2011 revised draft SGEIS: Environmental Impacts, March 2012

    5/85

    So keep in mind that the SGEIS is not a regulation but rather part of the departments

    responsibility to take a hard look at the issues defined in the scoping process. Its built on

    the 92 GEIS so it is an addition to that document *not* independent of it. So it applies only

    to horizontal and high-volume hydraulic fracturing, not vertical wells already established in

    New York. Most importantly, this is not the last word from the department. After collecting

    comments, the DEC will issue a final SGEIS and a findings statement with a rationale fortheir decisions. No state agency can take action until this is done.

  • 8/2/2019 A look at updates to the NYSDEC September 2011 revised draft SGEIS: Environmental Impacts, March 2012

    6/85

    High-volume hydraulic fracturing or HVHF is a process where sand and chemicals are

    mixed with millions of gallons of water and pumped into the ground under pressure and

    stresses are applied to release natural gas trapped inside the dense shale rock. The DEC is

    estimating average water usage per well to be 3.6 million gallons as of the most recent

    SGEIS draft, but estimates from previous drafts range from 2.4 million to almost 8 million

    gallons. The water that returns to the surface along with the natural gas is called flowback.Click the link above for a short video animation on the process of HVHF.

  • 8/2/2019 A look at updates to the NYSDEC September 2011 revised draft SGEIS: Environmental Impacts, March 2012

    7/85

    Just to illustrate what the four well per pad model looks like, we turn to a graphic from

    Cornell fracture engineering professor Anthony Ingraffea. This is the development scenario

    that the DEC is using for a lot of its critical assumptions in the SGEIS, from air and

    greenhouse gas emissions calculations to truck traffic to forest fragmentation. According to

    a new report from Penn States Jim Ladlee and Cornells Jeff Jacquet, PA is averaging just

    over two wells per pad; click the link above for their short brief on well pad development inthe Marcellus Shale.

  • 8/2/2019 A look at updates to the NYSDEC September 2011 revised draft SGEIS: Environmental Impacts, March 2012

    8/85

    There are four main phases of natural gas extraction: exploration, development, production,

    and reclamation. The SGEIS also includes a separate completion phase to specifically

    identify well fracturing and flowback. This is an important distinction since many of the

    new proposed federal and state emission regulations deal with these processes. In the

    exploratory phase, geologists and petroleum engineers use surveys to locate natural gas

    deposits and determine the best methods for extracting the gas. This phase can also includeeverything from lease negotiation to permitting. The development phase is when well

    construction and drilling begins. The production phase includes everything from processing

    to transmission to storage of the gas. The reclamation phase marks the transition back to

    vegetation cover. In this draft the DEC is clear that a department inspector will determine

    when reclamation of a site has been fulfilled.

  • 8/2/2019 A look at updates to the NYSDEC September 2011 revised draft SGEIS: Environmental Impacts, March 2012

    9/85

    The DEC received 13,300 comments from the 2009 draft version of the SGEIS, including

    petitions and transcripts from public hearings. Independent consultants provided much of

    the scientific analysis. They collaborated with other New York State agencies as well as PA

    agencies, as theyve had several years of HVHF experience. Also included in Appendix 15

    are statements made by officials at five different state regulatory agencies.

  • 8/2/2019 A look at updates to the NYSDEC September 2011 revised draft SGEIS: Environmental Impacts, March 2012

    10/85

    The first proposed regulation thats gotten a lot of press is the protection of the Syracuse and

    New York City watersheds. As we will explain, these areas are protected at the federal level

    by the USEPA which determines the criteria to protect public water systems that are

    supplied by a surface water source. Whats new in this draft is the addition of a 4000 foot

    buffer around these watersheds. Well also discuss the proposed regulations to recycle

    flowback water and the disposal of other wastes like drill cuttings. The DEC proposes thatno drilling take place within 100-year f loodplains. The method to construct a well will require

    a third, intermediate casing installed between the outer surface casing and the inner

    production casing. Well illustrate casing and cementing practices a little later on.

  • 8/2/2019 A look at updates to the NYSDEC September 2011 revised draft SGEIS: Environmental Impacts, March 2012

    11/85

    The DEC reduced the ten wells per pad maximum proposed in previous versions to a

    maximum four wells per pad standard. All emissions calculations are based on this scenario.

    Operators will not simultaneously run equipment to drill and fracture the well. The DEC is

    also proposing a GHG emissions mitigation plan that includes a Leak Detection and Repair

    program to limit potent gases released during the production phase. This emissions plan is

    designed to limit two of the biggest HVHF offenders known to the USEPA and the DEC:

    VOCs and methane. More on this after we take a look at water impacts and the proposed

    mitigation strategies.

  • 8/2/2019 A look at updates to the NYSDEC September 2011 revised draft SGEIS: Environmental Impacts, March 2012

    12/85

    In this presentation I will highlight the major changes in the 2011 SGEIS that relate to water

    withdrawals, wastewater management, drinking water and groundwater protections, and

    well pad setbacks.

  • 8/2/2019 A look at updates to the NYSDEC September 2011 revised draft SGEIS: Environmental Impacts, March 2012

    13/85

    There are several significant changes in the SGEIS with regards to regulating water

    withdrawals. New York State recently adopted the Water Resources Bill. This new law

    allows the DEC to monitor and enforce quality and quantity standards, and also regulate

    water withdrawals over 100,000 gallons per day in all New York State watersheds. A major

    goal of the law is to prevent withdrawals when the water flow is too low.

  • 8/2/2019 A look at updates to the NYSDEC September 2011 revised draft SGEIS: Environmental Impacts, March 2012

    14/85

    Here is a summary of the quality and quantity standards the DEC must monitor. Passby

    flow is a measure of the amount of water flowing through the stream channel, and is

    determined downstream of withdrawal locations.

    Another requirement is protecting against fish impingement and entrainment. Fish

    impingement occurs when fish become trapped on the water intake screens. Entrainment

    occurs when fish are sucked into the intake system. The figure on the right is an example of

    an end-of-pipe screen that's used to protect wildlife against such occurrences. The law also

    requires that the DEC evaluate the cumulative impacts of drilling industry withdrawals on

    other withdrawals.

  • 8/2/2019 A look at updates to the NYSDEC September 2011 revised draft SGEIS: Environmental Impacts, March 2012

    15/85

    As I mentioned in a previous slide, the new Water Resources Law allows the DEC to

    regulate all water withdrawals over 100,000 gallons per day, in all watersheds in the state.

    When regulating surface water withdrawals, it's important to determine how low the flow

    can be in the waterway before significant negative impacts on the environment can be felt.

    There are several flow rate cutoffs that regulators use to set the limit for withdrawals. The

    Delaware River Basin Commission and the Susquehanna River Basin Commission each hasits own method of regulating withdrawals, but the DEC had proposed yet a third method

    called the Natural Flow Regime Method. The DEC does intend to work with the two

    commissions to seek consistency in water resource management within New York.

  • 8/2/2019 A look at updates to the NYSDEC September 2011 revised draft SGEIS: Environmental Impacts, March 2012

    16/85

    Here's how the Natural Flow Regime Method works. All waterways have variable seasonal

    flows. For example, a river might have a high flow in the spring due to snow melt, and a

    lower flow in late summer, when there's less rain. These seasonal flow variations are

    crucial for natural ecological processes and for supporting wildlife.

    The natural flow regime method would allow withdrawals only to the extent that they would

    avoid significantly disrupting the stream's natural seasonal variation, so that the stream's

    flow is high when it should be high and low, but not too low, when it is seasonally

    appropriate.

    One downside to using this method to regulate withdrawals is that there needs to be enough

    high-quality data over time to accurately represent the natural flows of the stream.

  • 8/2/2019 A look at updates to the NYSDEC September 2011 revised draft SGEIS: Environmental Impacts, March 2012

    17/85

    We'll now move on to discuss wastewater. On average, 3.6 million gallons of water are

    used to hydraulically fracture a well in the Marcellus Shale, but only about 9 to 35% of that

    water comes back up in the form of flowback. Flowback water is the water that comes back

    out of the well after it's fractured, but before the well is in production. It may contain salts,

    heavy metals, petroleum derivatives, and naturally occurring radioactive materials known as

    NORMs.

    Wastewater primarily presents a risk to ground and surface waters through possible surface

    spills and leaks.

  • 8/2/2019 A look at updates to the NYSDEC September 2011 revised draft SGEIS: Environmental Impacts, March 2012

    18/85

    To protect our water resources against these risks, wastewater is required to be stored in air-

    tight containers. The DEC is also requiring a secondary containment system that can

    contain at least 110% of the sealed container's volume. This would be like taking a sealed

    paint can and placing it onto a casserole dish. The casserole dish would contain the paint if

    the paint can ever sprung a leak. The figure on this slide illustrates a secondary

    containment system currently being used in Bradford County, Pennsylvania.

    The DEC also proposes to regulate the transport and handling of wastewater through a

    Drilling and Production Waste Tracking Form. This would help ensure that wastes are

    disposed of properly. The record-keeping requirements and level of detail would be similar

    to what is presently required for medical waste.

  • 8/2/2019 A look at updates to the NYSDEC September 2011 revised draft SGEIS: Environmental Impacts, March 2012

    19/85

    Publicly Owned Treatment Works, known as POTWs, are municipal facilities that treat

    publicly generated wastewater. The DEC analysis indicated that New York State POTWs

    have a limited capacity to treat hydraulic fracturing wastewater. This is even if all POTWs

    that could take fracturing fluid actually would, though experts believe that this is unlikely

    due to local political pressures and logistical issues.

    In terms of private wastewater treatment facilities, the DEC primarily discussed potential

    risks such as surface spills and groundwater discharges due to improper maintenance and

    overloading. The DEC also pointed out that these risks can be minimized with proper

    maintenance and regulated systems, waste tracking, and permitting control measures.

    It's also important to note that drillers are required to submit a waste disposal plan before

    DEC will issue a drilling permit.

  • 8/2/2019 A look at updates to the NYSDEC September 2011 revised draft SGEIS: Environmental Impacts, March 2012

    20/85

    As a permitting condition, the DEC proposes to require drillers to test private water wells

    within 1,000 feet of the well pad. If a property owner within that 1,000 foot range does not

    give permission, than the driller must test wells out to 2,000 feet of the well pad. The driller

    must provide the results to the water well owners, and is also required to provide them to

    the Department of Health and DEC for the purposes of investigating possible well

    contamination. A detailed testing protocol is included in the latest draft of the SGEIS.

  • 8/2/2019 A look at updates to the NYSDEC September 2011 revised draft SGEIS: Environmental Impacts, March 2012

    21/85

    The NYS Department of Health provided a list of recommended compounds and water

    characteristics that private water wells should be tested for. The 2009 list was really intended

    for new residential wells, so in the 2011 draft the list was tailored more specifically towards

    diagnosing issues related to gas drilling. A few compounds were added to the updated list and

    several compounds that were not relevant to gas development were removed.

  • 8/2/2019 A look at updates to the NYSDEC September 2011 revised draft SGEIS: Environmental Impacts, March 2012

    22/85

    Since the latest draft of the SGEIS was released in September 2011, the Center for Rural

    Pennsylvania published a study on the impacts of drilling on private water wells. This study

    analyzed pre-drilling and post-drilling water samples from 48 wells within 5,000 feet of a

    well pad, and analyzed post-drilling samples from 185 water wells, for a total of 233 water

    wells. The researchers found that 40% of the water wells that were tested before drilling

    took place actually failed at least one federal water quality standard. The most commonreasons for these failures were elevated levels of: coliform bacteria, turbidity, or manganese.

    20% of the private water wells tested also had very low levels of dissolved methane gas.

    The study found that there were no statistically significant changes in water chemistry after

    drilling.

  • 8/2/2019 A look at updates to the NYSDEC September 2011 revised draft SGEIS: Environmental Impacts, March 2012

    23/85

    The DEC recognizes that there is a risk of surface spills and leaks of fracturing additives

    that could cause water pollution. Like wastewater, the DEC will require secondary

    containment for fracturing additives. Chemical exposure scenarios were already addressed

    in the 1992 GEIS.

  • 8/2/2019 A look at updates to the NYSDEC September 2011 revised draft SGEIS: Environmental Impacts, March 2012

    24/85

    We're now moving on to DEC's analysis of the risks of water pollution caused by the

    hydraulic fracturing process itself. There is strong evidence indicating that groundwater

    contamination caused by the fracturing process is not a significant risk. DEC based this

    conclusion on sworn testimony of regulatory officials from 15 states, and also on an

    analysis conducted by the consulting firm ICF International. All regulatory officials who

    provided testimony to the House Committee on Natural Resources indicated that no case ofcontamination caused by hydraulic fracturing has been documented in their states.

  • 8/2/2019 A look at updates to the NYSDEC September 2011 revised draft SGEIS: Environmental Impacts, March 2012

    25/85

    This is a summary of the key points in ICFs analysis. First, in the areas where drilling is

    allowed, the Marcellus Shale is separated from the water table by at least 1,000 feet of low-

    to moderate-permeability rock. Second, the volume of fluid used to fracture a well is

    relatively small in comparison to the large void between the shale layer and the water table.

    Also, the amount of time the fluid is under pressure is relatively small when compared to

    the time required to travel the large distance between the shale and the water table. Finally,any flow of fracking fluid towards the aquifer layer would be reversed during flowback and

    production, because of the directional pressure change inside the well.

  • 8/2/2019 A look at updates to the NYSDEC September 2011 revised draft SGEIS: Environmental Impacts, March 2012

    26/85

    We are now moving on to DECs proposed protections of Primary and Principal aquifers.

    First, well briefly review these two designations. A Primary aquifer is highly productive

    and currently supplies water to major municipal systems. This designation is determined by

    the NYS Department of Health. There are currently eighteen primary aquifers in the state,

    which are indicated on this map in red.

  • 8/2/2019 A look at updates to the NYSDEC September 2011 revised draft SGEIS: Environmental Impacts, March 2012

    27/85

    Principal Aquifers are not intensely used as sources of water by major municipal systems at

    this time, but are known to be or could potentially be highly productive. They are used by

    individual households as well as small public water supplies such as those for schools or

    restaurants. Principal Aquifers are awarded a slightly lower priority than what's assigned to

    Primary Aquifers by the Department of Health. Principal Aquifers could become Primary

    Aquifers depending on future public water supply use. The Principal Aquifers in the stateare indicated on this map in orange.

  • 8/2/2019 A look at updates to the NYSDEC September 2011 revised draft SGEIS: Environmental Impacts, March 2012

    28/85

    NYS primary and principal aquifers are overlaid by sand and gravel, which are highly

    permeable. They are also relatively close to the surface. Surface contamination via spills,

    leaks, and runoff are the chief concern for protecting primary and principal aquifers.

  • 8/2/2019 A look at updates to the NYSDEC September 2011 revised draft SGEIS: Environmental Impacts, March 2012

    29/85

    In order to protect Primary Aquifers, DEC will not allow well pads within their boundaries,

    or anywhere within a 500 foot buffer. As for Principal Aquifers, well pad development will

    be allowed. However, site-specific State Environmental Quality reviews (SEQRA) and a

    State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) permit are required. After two

    years, the DEC will review these policies in light of NYS experiences drilling in the

    Marcellus Shale.

  • 8/2/2019 A look at updates to the NYSDEC September 2011 revised draft SGEIS: Environmental Impacts, March 2012

    30/85

    The federal Environmental Protection Agency awarded the water sources for both New York

    City and the City of Syracuse a Filtration Avoidance Determination status, commonly

    referred to as FAD. This means that these drinking water sources are unfiltered.

    Heightened public health sensitivities are associated with unfiltered surface water systems.

    The only treatment that these drinking waters receive before human consumption is basic

    disinfection. There is no application of widely employed treatment measures such as

    chemical coagulation or physical filtration to remove pathogens, sediments, organic matter

    or other contaminants from the drinking water.

  • 8/2/2019 A look at updates to the NYSDEC September 2011 revised draft SGEIS: Environmental Impacts, March 2012

    31/85

    Instead, these municipalities must ensure the quality of their drinking water using principles

    of source water protection and a multi-barrier approach. Because there is no mechanism

    in place to remove contaminants once they have entered the water, management programs

    focus on systematically preventing contaminants from reaching the water in the first place.

    The critical potential for contamination of these two unfiltered water supplies stems from

    human activities that place contaminants on the ground that can be washed into reservoirsand tributaries.

    Filtration avoidance also requires that a watershed control program be implemented to

    minimize microbial contamination of the source water. This program must identify, monitor

    and control manmade and naturally occurring activities that are detrimental to water quality

    such as large-scale development and deforestation. The watershed control program must

    also be able to control activities through land ownership or written agreements.

  • 8/2/2019 A look at updates to the NYSDEC September 2011 revised draft SGEIS: Environmental Impacts, March 2012

    32/85

    These figures indicate the two FAD water sources in NYS. On the left is the Catskill and

    Delaware watersheds, which supply NYC with the bulk of its drinking water needs. On the

    right is the Skaneateles Lake watershed that provides Syracuse with its drinking water.

    Each watershed's approximate location in the state in indicated in the center figure.

  • 8/2/2019 A look at updates to the NYSDEC September 2011 revised draft SGEIS: Environmental Impacts, March 2012

    33/85

    No well pad will be allowed inside a FAD watershed, or within 4,000 feet of any FAD

    boundary.

  • 8/2/2019 A look at updates to the NYSDEC September 2011 revised draft SGEIS: Environmental Impacts, March 2012

    34/85

    This is a summary of groundwater and surface water source contaminants. Surface spills,

    leaks, and runoff all pose risks to drinking water. Methane migration from gas wells also

    poses a risk. However, the hydraulic fracturing process itself is not a risk to drinking water.

  • 8/2/2019 A look at updates to the NYSDEC September 2011 revised draft SGEIS: Environmental Impacts, March 2012

    35/85

    Well pad setbacks are intended to safeguard drinking water against significant adverse

    impacts associated with surface spills and leaks. Setbacks are measured from the closest

    edge of the well pad to the water source, rather than from the well head itself. This is

    because the well pad acts a bit like a bath tub. If a spill were to occur anywhere in a bath

    tub, the contaminant could spread anywhere within the tub, but also would be fully

    contained. Likewise, drilling-related activities can happen anywhere within the well pad.Drilling related site disturbances are prohibited within 2,000 feet of public drinking

    supplies, including supply wells, reservoirs, natural lakes, man-made impoundments and

    river or stream intakes. The DEC will re-evaluate this policy after three years of issuing

    permits in NYS. Private water wells and domestic-supply springs will be protected by a

    500 foot setback, unless waived by the landowner.

  • 8/2/2019 A look at updates to the NYSDEC September 2011 revised draft SGEIS: Environmental Impacts, March 2012

    36/85

    Well pads must be set at least 150 feet away from a perennial or intermittent stream, or a

    storm drain, lake, or pond. A tributary of a public water supply is protected by a 500 foot

    setback.

  • 8/2/2019 A look at updates to the NYSDEC September 2011 revised draft SGEIS: Environmental Impacts, March 2012

    37/85

    This figure provides a handy visual summary of the proposed well pad setbacks.

  • 8/2/2019 A look at updates to the NYSDEC September 2011 revised draft SGEIS: Environmental Impacts, March 2012

    38/85

    The air quality section of the revised draft SGEIS found in sections 6.5 and 7.5 starts out

    by explaining what regulations couldapply to HVHF drilling in New York and then lists a

    hosts of federal and state regulations and definitions. Beginning with a regulatory overview

    is a different approach than has been used in other sections of the SGEIS, and its important

    to note that the USEPA in the midst of making new rules and performance standards that

    will apply to the oil & gas industry and specifically to HVHF drilling. The EPA was sued bytwo environmental groups and must now issue final standards on air toxics for the industry

    in 2012. More on this as we explain a bit about air emissions.

  • 8/2/2019 A look at updates to the NYSDEC September 2011 revised draft SGEIS: Environmental Impacts, March 2012

    39/85

    This is an example of a drilling rig used on shales like the Marcellus on a site covering

    about 3 and a half acres. To drill the well and extract the gas, operators use drilling engines,

    drilling air compressors, and completion engines. The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette recently

    published a panoramic view of a Marcellus Shale well site in the drilling and completion

    phases; check it out by clicking the link above.

  • 8/2/2019 A look at updates to the NYSDEC September 2011 revised draft SGEIS: Environmental Impacts, March 2012

    40/85

    Pictured above on the left is a natural gas drilling rig powered by several large diesel engines

    about 5000 hp worth equipped with emission controls known as Selective Catalytic

    Reducers or SCR, shown in more detail in the photo on the bottom left. On the right is a

    fracturing system installed on a trailer. These are examples of engines that meet EPA Tier 2

    emissions standards Tiers run from 0 to 4 for nonroad diesel engines and the DEC

    proposes that this be the minimum standard for drilling engines in New York. All enginesmust also run on ultra low sulfur diesel fuel. Tier 2 and 3 engines comprise about 70% of the

    industrys rigs and meet the DECs requirements for particulates. For emissions calculations,

    drilling equipment is considered temporary, since the wells can be drilled and completed

    within a year.

  • 8/2/2019 A look at updates to the NYSDEC September 2011 revised draft SGEIS: Environmental Impacts, March 2012

    41/85

    When reading the air quality section its fairly easy to get lost in paragraphs made up mostly

    of acronyms so heres a bit of translation. HAPs are Hazardous Air Pollutants. The Clean

    Air Act is an enormously complex national regulation signed into law in 1970 and it defines

    the EPAs responsibility to protect and improve the nations air quality. Setting New Source

    Performance Standards, or NSPS, are part of that responsibility. The Clean Air Act does

    give states the primary authority to manage air quality but they must develop StateImplementation Plans to comply with federal law.

    Whats important here in the revised draft SGEIS are the EPAs ambient air quality

    standards, which they set for six common air pollutants. These are referred to as criteria

    pollutants because the EPA relies on scientific criteria to guide their judgment for whats

    OK for public health and welfare and whats not. The DEC addresses five of these six

    pollutants in relation to hydraulic fracturing in the SGEIS. Much of the new air quality

    assessment done by the DEC in this draft is based on the NOx and SOx standards updated

    by the EPA in 2010. You can click the links above to learn more about the field pilot

    program the EPA is launching to collect data to help them form a multi-pollutant standard

    related to NOx and SOx.

  • 8/2/2019 A look at updates to the NYSDEC September 2011 revised draft SGEIS: Environmental Impacts, March 2012

    42/85

    Volatile Organic Compounds, or VOCs, are by definition reactive. They react in the air

    along with sunlight to form ozone and particulate matter. So when VOCs get together with

    NOx, they literally cook and form smog. This may sound familiar from LA and Houston,

    both classified by the EPA as places with severe smog problems. There are many VOCs out

    there, but both the DEC and the EPA are particularly concerned about benzene as a

    carcinogen. A few months ago the EPA proposed rules on VOC emissions as they relate tothe oil and gas industry and specifically the first proposed federal air standards for HVHF

    wells. More on that shortly.

  • 8/2/2019 A look at updates to the NYSDEC September 2011 revised draft SGEIS: Environmental Impacts, March 2012

    43/85

    As the initial look at emissions in the 2009 draft indicated some issues with levels of

    particulates and did not include the updates to NOx and SOx the EPA made in 2010, the

    DEC modeled two years of air quality data from six sites Albany, Syracuse, Binghamton,

    Jamestown, Buffalo, and the Village of Montgomery all within either Marcellus or the

    Utica Shale. In this, DEC also explained to commenters on the last draft that this twelve

    years total look is a more conservative analysis than the EPA standard of five years. Allemissions estimates were based on the assumption that drilling and fracturing would not

    happen at the same time at a single well pad. As mentioned before, the estimates are also

    based on four wells per pad per year so if the emissions standards were met in the 2009 draft,

    there was no update in this draft.

  • 8/2/2019 A look at updates to the NYSDEC September 2011 revised draft SGEIS: Environmental Impacts, March 2012

    44/85

    Heres a quick rundown of the equipment associated with HVHF and what emissions they

    produce, taken directly from the SGEIS. The DEC calculates emissions based on a 5400Hp

    drilling rig and a 2300Hp fracturing engine just like the photos in the earlier slide. Drilling

    engines are rated in tiers according to the amount of emissions they produce, and if they do

    not meet the Tier 2 requirement theyll have to be retrofitted with exhaust treatments to

    capture particulates as well as Nox. Although fracturing engines will run for about 2000 hoursa year as they go from well pad to well pad every couple weeks, the DEC has calculated

    emissions based on a 24 hour/365 day a year operation.

  • 8/2/2019 A look at updates to the NYSDEC September 2011 revised draft SGEIS: Environmental Impacts, March 2012

    45/85

    Compressor stations move natural gas through pipelines using engines that compress the gas

    and are spaced between 40 and 100 miles apart. Permits for these stations will be issued by the

    NYS Public Service Commission, the lead agency for that process, on a case-by-case basis. But

    the associated air permit application for that facility would be reviewed by the DEC following

    the US EPAs determination process. This is a photo of a compressor station exhaust system.

  • 8/2/2019 A look at updates to the NYSDEC September 2011 revised draft SGEIS: Environmental Impacts, March 2012

    46/85

    According to the EPAs regulatory impact analysis, the process of HVHF vents 23 tons of

    VOCs versus .1 tons using conventional drilling. If youre interested in where the EPA

    stands on on air emissions and the oil & gas industry, click the fact sheet for a quick read.

    For more complete analysis, click the technical information link for more documents made

    available for public comment. The EPA held a series of public hearings on the rule changes

    and you can watch video and listen to audio from those meetings at the link above.Additionally, the EPA recently extended the public comment period on these proposed rules

    on HVHF and you can click above to include your comment until November 30th.

  • 8/2/2019 A look at updates to the NYSDEC September 2011 revised draft SGEIS: Environmental Impacts, March 2012

    47/85

  • 8/2/2019 A look at updates to the NYSDEC September 2011 revised draft SGEIS: Environmental Impacts, March 2012

    48/85

    Natural gas is composed primarily of methane, pictured on the right. Both government and

    industry have been aware of the role of methane in greenhouse gas emissions for some time,

    and the EPA has furthered research on methane emissions through the voluntary Natural

    Gas STAR program. But the DEC is suggesting that proof of participation in the STAR

    program be a prerequisite for a greenhouse gas mitigation plan, and thus, part of the

    conditions to receive a permit for HVHF drilling. See appendix 23, 24, 25 for furtherinformation on the Natural Gas STAR program these are short memoranda explaining

    how the program works.

  • 8/2/2019 A look at updates to the NYSDEC September 2011 revised draft SGEIS: Environmental Impacts, March 2012

    49/85

    The DEC is proposing a greenhouse gas mitigation plan be part of the HVHF permitting

    process. The US EPA estimates that 90% of gas vented during well completion can be

    recovered using reduced emissions completions, sometimes referred to as green

    completions. Portable equipment processes the gas, capturing it for sale rather than venting

    it into the air. As methane is colorless and odorless, it must be detection using infrared

    cameras or vapor analyzers as part of the proposed Leak Detection and Repair Program. TheDEC plans to study usage of reduced emissions completions two years after the first well is

    drilled in New York and then consider whether it should be a requirement for HVHF

    permitting.

  • 8/2/2019 A look at updates to the NYSDEC September 2011 revised draft SGEIS: Environmental Impacts, March 2012

    50/85

    Much of the interest in emissions is in the conversion of methane to its CO2 equivalent; this

    is known as its GWP, or Global Warming Potential, measured on a 20-year, 100-year, or

    500-year horizon. GWP is a measure of how much heat is trapped by a greenhouse gas in

    the atmosphere. Many studies have been released recently, some informal, some in peer-

    reviewed journals, evaluating the potential for GWP as a result shale gas drilling in terms of

    how much is leaked and when. It is calculated over 20 years in the case of ProfessorHowarths study, or 100 years in Professor Cathles study. Click the link on the left for a

    letter by Robert Howarth, Renee Santoro, and Anthony Ingraffea of Cornell University on

    methane and GHG emissions in the journal of Climatic Change in April 2011. Click the link

    on the right for a Cornell Professor Cathles response to Professor Howarths study. Click

    the link at the bottom for the National Energy Technology Labs presentation at the Cornell

    University Lecture Series this past May.

    09/02/

  • 8/2/2019 A look at updates to the NYSDEC September 2011 revised draft SGEIS: Environmental Impacts, March 2012

    51/85

    Comments from last draft indicated extensive concern on potential for gas migration which

    results from poor casing and cementing of a well. As Rima mentioned earlier, gas can migrate

    into underground sources of drinking water this way. The response in the current revised draft

    is to point readers to Chapter 9 of the 1992 GEIS. The DEC describes the proposed

    mitigation measure intermediate casing on page 7-52 of the revised draft SGEIS. While

    this represents an additional barrier, the EPA has recently studied cement sheath defects and

    what happens when well integrity is compromised. See the above links for further details on

    these studies.

  • 8/2/2019 A look at updates to the NYSDEC September 2011 revised draft SGEIS: Environmental Impacts, March 2012

    52/85

    Ecoregions are where our air and water sections combine. This is an EPA map of the 22

    acid-sensitive ecoregions in the United States. The EPA is planning a 5-year field pilot

    program to study 3 to 5 of these regions to help establish a multi pollutant standard. Theyre

    planning to use CASTNET sites, of which New York State has three: one in Ulster County,

    one in the Adirondacks, and one in Tompkins County. The Clean Air Status and Trends

    Network (or CASTNET) is a collaborative effort between the EPA and the National ParkService to assess trends in air quality due to changes in pollutant emissions.

  • 8/2/2019 A look at updates to the NYSDEC September 2011 revised draft SGEIS: Environmental Impacts, March 2012

    53/85

    09/02/09/02/

    5

    09/02/

    Since the 2009 draft, the DEC has made significant additions to the SGEIS regarding habitat

    protections. In this section I will be covering the impacts and proposed protections of

    habitat loss and fragmentation, as well as briefly touching on endangered species and state-

    owned lands.

  • 8/2/2019 A look at updates to the NYSDEC September 2011 revised draft SGEIS: Environmental Impacts, March 2012

    54/85

    09/02/09/02/

    5

    09/02/

    First, I'll give a quick crash course in ecosystems, habitat loss, and habitat fragmentation.

    An ecosystem is a natural system in a given geographic area that is made up of all its living

    and non-living components such as animals, plants, and fungi, air, water, soil, and rock, and

    topography.

  • 8/2/2019 A look at updates to the NYSDEC September 2011 revised draft SGEIS: Environmental Impacts, March 2012

    55/85

    09/02/09/02/

    5

    09/02/

    In ecosystems, individual components interact with all other components, creating an

    exceedingly complex system. Disturbances can have far-reaching and cascading effects that

    are difficult to predict. And there is still a lot we don't know how ecosystems function. This

    figure is a simplistic diagram of a forest ecosystem and how a few of its components

    interact.

  • 8/2/2019 A look at updates to the NYSDEC September 2011 revised draft SGEIS: Environmental Impacts, March 2012

    56/85

    09/02/09/02/

    5

    09/02/

    Habitat loss occurs when a habitat is damaged or destroyed severely enough so that it no

    longer supports naturally occurring species, and no longer functions in its natural state.

    Habitat fragmentation can be defined as the breaking up of continuous habitat into smaller

    patches.

    A forest edge is the transition area between a forest stand and a different ecosystem type

    such as a clearing. The area of forest along the edge has different characteristics than the

    interior core of a forest stand, such as differences in humidity, soil moisture, light, and

    canopy cover. These so-called edge effects change habitat conditions that affect sensitive

    wildlife and plant species that require interior forest conditions. Ecosystem services are

    the resources and processes that ecosystems may provide that humans benefit from in

    some capacity. Examples include: carbon storage, flood protection, clean air, and

    recreational opportunities.

  • 8/2/2019 A look at updates to the NYSDEC September 2011 revised draft SGEIS: Environmental Impacts, March 2012

    57/85

    09/02/09/02/

    5

    09/02/

    Both habitat losses and fragmentation reduce the total area of habitat. Fragmentation

    isolates populations from each other, which can reduce a species' genetic diversity and lead

    to inbreeding.

    Large forested patches are especially valuable because of their large core areas. In fact,many forest and grassland dependent species require a minimum size of core habitat in

    order to sustain their populations. The figure on this slide illustrates the impacts of habitat

    fragmentation. On the left side of the figure, a forest patch with a large core area supports

    multiple species that are dependent on that core forest habitat. The patch also supports

    various species that thrive in the forest edge habitat. When the large patch is fragmented

    into two smaller patches, core habitat is lost and the two new core patches no longer meet

    the minimum requirements of some core species. In the illustration, bears are an example of

    wildlife that can no longer be supported by the fragmented patch. In contrast, when the

    patch is fragmented, new edge habitat is created and provides additional habitat for edge

    species. The basic result of fragmentation is that the species that require a minimum core

    patch size end up suffering, while edge species are more likely to thrive.

  • 8/2/2019 A look at updates to the NYSDEC September 2011 revised draft SGEIS: Environmental Impacts, March 2012

    58/85

    09/02/

    Now that we've got the basics of habitat disturbance out of the way, we can ask the question, How do

  • 8/2/2019 A look at updates to the NYSDEC September 2011 revised draft SGEIS: Environmental Impacts, March 2012

    59/85

    09/02/

    The 2008 study by Wilbert and others measured the degree of fragmentation in a gas field and tied it to

  • 8/2/2019 A look at updates to the NYSDEC September 2011 revised draft SGEIS: Environmental Impacts, March 2012

    60/85

    09/02/

    They found that the area disturbed by drilling operations increased as pad density increased, which if y

  • 8/2/2019 A look at updates to the NYSDEC September 2011 revised draft SGEIS: Environmental Impacts, March 2012

    61/85

    09/02/

    The researchers recommended that before development even begins, landscape-level planning and infr

  • 8/2/2019 A look at updates to the NYSDEC September 2011 revised draft SGEIS: Environmental Impacts, March 2012

    62/85

    09/02/

    The 2002 study by Weller and others identified impacts of fragmentation by spatially analyzing a Wyo

  • 8/2/2019 A look at updates to the NYSDEC September 2011 revised draft SGEIS: Environmental Impacts, March 2012

    63/85

    09/02/

    The researchers of this study found that while the physical footprint of all gas infrastructure amounted

  • 8/2/2019 A look at updates to the NYSDEC September 2011 revised draft SGEIS: Environmental Impacts, March 2012

    64/85

    09/02/

    This study concluded that the impacts on wildlife extend beyond the direct effects of the physically alt

  • 8/2/2019 A look at updates to the NYSDEC September 2011 revised draft SGEIS: Environmental Impacts, March 2012

    65/85

    09/02/

    The DEC proposed a list of Best Management Practices to reduce direct impacts on land disturbance.

  • 8/2/2019 A look at updates to the NYSDEC September 2011 revised draft SGEIS: Environmental Impacts, March 2012

    66/85

    09/02/

    The DEC chose to focus on impacts on two major ecosystem types that occur in the Marcellus Shale:

  • 8/2/2019 A look at updates to the NYSDEC September 2011 revised draft SGEIS: Environmental Impacts, March 2012

    67/85

    09/02/

    57% of the surface area that overlays the Marcellus Shale is forested, while 28% is grassland or agric

    Large forest patches provide ecosystem services such as carbon storage, flood protection, clean air, an

  • 8/2/2019 A look at updates to the NYSDEC September 2011 revised draft SGEIS: Environmental Impacts, March 2012

    68/85

    09/02/

    The Johnson 2010 study investigated impacts in Pennsylvania. This study sought to create a credible

  • 8/2/2019 A look at updates to the NYSDEC September 2011 revised draft SGEIS: Environmental Impacts, March 2012

    69/85

    09/02/

    This is a summary of the average spatial disturbance of well pads in forested areas. The average well

  • 8/2/2019 A look at updates to the NYSDEC September 2011 revised draft SGEIS: Environmental Impacts, March 2012

    70/85

    09/02/

    The Johnson study also found that forest impacts could be reduced by relocating well pads to open are

    The DEC determined that similar to Pennsylvania, New York State will experience a combined direct

  • 8/2/2019 A look at updates to the NYSDEC September 2011 revised draft SGEIS: Environmental Impacts, March 2012

    71/85

    09/02/

    So now that we've covered impacts we can move on to protections. The DEC has designated key habi

  • 8/2/2019 A look at updates to the NYSDEC September 2011 revised draft SGEIS: Environmental Impacts, March 2012

    72/85

    09/02/

    There are 8 grassland focus areas in NYS. 4 overlap with the Marcellus Shale. To be designated a foc

  • 8/2/2019 A look at updates to the NYSDEC September 2011 revised draft SGEIS: Environmental Impacts, March 2012

    73/85

    09/02/

    22% of the land area that overlays the Marcellus Shale is contained within the grassland focus areas. H

  • 8/2/2019 A look at updates to the NYSDEC September 2011 revised draft SGEIS: Environmental Impacts, March 2012

    74/85

    09/02/

    Forest focus areas were determined based on size, landscape context, and the minimum size a forest st

  • 8/2/2019 A look at updates to the NYSDEC September 2011 revised draft SGEIS: Environmental Impacts, March 2012

    75/85

    09/02/

    Like grassland focus areas, no surface disturbances will be allowed in forest focus area patches that are

  • 8/2/2019 A look at updates to the NYSDEC September 2011 revised draft SGEIS: Environmental Impacts, March 2012

    76/85

    09/02/

    There are still some unanswered questions when it comes to habitat loss and fragmentation. This secti

    Another issue that was not addressed is how we may be able to protect wildlife from increased traffic.

  • 8/2/2019 A look at updates to the NYSDEC September 2011 revised draft SGEIS: Environmental Impacts, March 2012

    77/85

    09/02/

    On to endangered species. There are 18 endangered or threatened species that can be found in the Ma

  • 8/2/2019 A look at updates to the NYSDEC September 2011 revised draft SGEIS: Environmental Impacts, March 2012

    78/85

    09/02/

    This map shows areas of concern for endangered or threatened species in the Marcellus Shale region.

  • 8/2/2019 A look at updates to the NYSDEC September 2011 revised draft SGEIS: Environmental Impacts, March 2012

    79/85

    09/02/

    Finally, we come to DEC's proposed policy with regards to state forests, wildlife management areas, a

  • 8/2/2019 A look at updates to the NYSDEC September 2011 revised draft SGEIS: Environmental Impacts, March 2012

    80/85

    The revised draft SGEIS begins by explaining that the DECs expectation is that public

    comments will focus on revisions made since the last draft as weve made every attempt to

    do in this presentation. As part of the SEQR process that we discussed earlier, the DEC must

    respond to every substantive comment. To learn more about the SEQR Act and the process

    the DEC must go through to take action under that law. It is probably not coincidental that

    the last revision to the SEQR Handbook was made shortly after the release of the 1992GEIS and that this latest version was released in 2010. The public comment period on the

    SGEIS and the proposed regulations ends at the close of business at the DEC on December

    12th, 2011.

    09/02/

  • 8/2/2019 A look at updates to the NYSDEC September 2011 revised draft SGEIS: Environmental Impacts, March 2012

    81/85

    When commenting on the SGEIS, make sure it is in your own words. The DEC will not

    accept phone calls, faxes, or emails for their official record on the SGEIS. You must mail a

    letter to them at 625 Broadway in Albany, 12233, or click the web-based comment form

    link above. Above are links to find your New York State Senator or Assembly representative

    as well as direct comment links for the offices of both Governor Andrew Cuomo and state

    Attorney General Eric Schneiderman. It bears repeating: The public comment period on theSGEIS and the proposed regulations ends at the close of business at the DEC on December

    12th, 2011.

    09/02/

  • 8/2/2019 A look at updates to the NYSDEC September 2011 revised draft SGEIS: Environmental Impacts, March 2012

    82/85

    Bring your questions to Cornell faculty and staff for a CaRDI webinar on the draft SGEIS

    on Wednesday, November 9th from 4 to 5:30 p.m. Click the link above to register for that

    event. The chart above lists the dates, times, and locations of the public hearings the DEC

    will hold on HVHF in New York State.

    09/02/

  • 8/2/2019 A look at updates to the NYSDEC September 2011 revised draft SGEIS: Environmental Impacts, March 2012

    83/85

    A special thanks to the David R. Atkinson Center for a Sustainable Future at Cornell

    University for their support on natural gas drilling research.

    09/02/

  • 8/2/2019 A look at updates to the NYSDEC September 2011 revised draft SGEIS: Environmental Impacts, March 2012

    84/85

    In conjunction with Cornell Cooperative Extension, the Community and Regional

    Development Institute has published and linked to a vast array of resources on natural gas

    drilling. Follow the Natural Gas Resource Center link above to this and many other

    presentations and publications from industry and academia. There you can find this

    presentation in full as well as in easy-to-go pdfs of each section water, air, and

    ecosystems. We hope youve enjoyed this presentation on updates to the revised draftSGEIS from CaRDI. If you have questions, please contact Rima Shamieh at

    [email protected] or C.J. Randall at [email protected].

    09/02/

  • 8/2/2019 A look at updates to the NYSDEC September 2011 revised draft SGEIS: Environmental Impacts, March 2012

    85/85

    If you have questions, please contact Rima Shamieh at [email protected] or C.J. Randall

    at [email protected].

    09/02/