No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-12- 29JOB 12 -2M9 TOWN OF DRYDEN ID TOWN BOARD MEETING December 29, 2009 _ ti Present: Supervisor Mary Ann Sumner, Cl Stephen St:elick, Jr., Cl .Jason Leifer Absent: Cl David Makar, Cl Joseph Solomon Elected Officials: Bambi L. Avery, Town Clerk Supv Sumner opened the meeting at 6:09 p.m. and board members and guests participated in the pledge: of allegiance. PUBLIC HEARING PROPOSED LOCAL LAW INCREASING THE PARTIAL TAX EXEMPTION FOR REAL PROPERTY OWNED BY PERSONS WITH DISABIILITIES WHOSE INCOMES ARE LIMITED BY REASON OF SUCH DISABILITIES Supv Sumner opened the public hearing at 6:1 H. p.m. and Town Clerk Avery read the notice published in The Ithaca. Journal. There were no comments and the hearing was left open. PUBLIC HEARING PROPOSED RESOLUTION INCREASING THE PARTIAL TAX EXEMPTION FOR PROPERTY OWNERS SIXTY -FIVE YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER BASED ON INCOME ELIGIBILITY LEVELS Supv Sumner opened the public hearing at 6:12 p.m. and Towel Clerk Avery read the notice published in The Ithaca Journal. There were no comments and the hearing was left open. PUBLIC HEARING PROPOSED RESOLUTION REGARDING WAIVER OF CERTAIN TOWN OF DRYDEN FEES IN CONNECTION WITH THE DRYDEN HOME REHABILITATION PROGRAM Supv Sumner opened the public hearing at 6:13 p.m. and Town Clerk Avery read the notice published in The Ithaca Journal. Supv Sumner explained that the Town has a grant for housing rehabilitation for people with low and moderate incomes. This resolution would waive the fees the 'Town would normally collect: for any building permit and allow those funds to go toward the rehabilitation. There are currently about ten projects underway and they expect to do several more. There, were no further comments auzd the hearing was left open. CITIZENS PRIVILEGE Peter Wrege, 452 Ringwood Road, thanked the -± board for the work it has done during the comment process for the dSGEIS for the ularcellus Shale drilling project. He said it may be one of the most important issues in terms of the health and contentedness of residents of the town. Supv Sumner thanked everyone-' who has participated in the process and particularly Cl Leifer for the work done on the comments to be submitted_ Page 1 of 12 T3 12�29=09 Hillary Lambert said this i% provably the beginning, not the end of something here, and this group, DRAG, and other supporters have come together to go thro ugh the prooess, They hope to be of help to the Town as the process continues. Joseph Osmeloski, 21.80 Dryden Load, said he and hi% WIC J c have a small horse farm and is concerned because it is 1ocatted downstream of the proposed Cook well on the corner o Ferguson Road and Irish Settlement Road. They have heard all the stories about v elts and sPrC.anls being coraurrrinated. His stream and well are used evcry day to water the horses and if they were ever contaminated his land would be worthless, his hursrts would be worthless and he would be oui' of business, Tlie TuWT1 of Dryden is currendy involved in two water monitoring contracts with the Community Science Institute. J Osmelo ski said he has spoken with S Pen ningroth and they. ate able to set up mother volunteer monitoring prograrn with a more narrow focus to test and monitor the waterways that wi11 be affected by any gas drilling that occur in Dryden. As they find out more abbout what chemical;; arc: used in the fracturing process they learn What they should be testing far. The more chemicals they test for, the more expensive the testing will be. Currently they anticipate the cost to 1w. about $500 per test. He is hoping the Town will help with funding for these Costs near gas drilling sites in Dryden The monitoring Colo Id be do tie by youth 1 ruups looking for projects, Supv Sumner said she will he happy to discuss it with S Penningroth. She added the permit for th01. project has not been issuerl yc;t., and iL is a Trenton Black River depoRit sn they arc thinking the chemicals are less f:hrc:atening than the Marcellus Shale proicct. Cl Leifer said the corn mrnts prepared by the D RAC group and himself arc probably the most thorough of any Town's he has seen, Hopefully DEC will listen because there are a lot of things they need to correct. Supv Sumner said the work done by the group is phenomenak_ Cl Makar corrrrrrentcd in ass email that it is a gift to the.• Town of Dryden. Cl Leifer said the Town will no -v need 1 :0 sl:Uy ore ilop of this and be a watchdog to niake sore DEC doc ms ii;!5 job- Joanne Cipolla- Dennis said she is interested in seeking a moratorium on hydro- fracking swells around the Finger Uakeg Region (100 mile radius around each lake). They did not come here four years ago to became industrialized, They awn 33 in the'[ own near Lan fsing and built their o%-vn home out of past and beam with Araw bzale in%ula ion. She said it is the greenest house in the Town and they have been asked to build more of them. They have con Lodered building a house for people with C1i�qabili Ili cs, but' .giny fvtum plans art on hold untiI they kno w what is going to happen here. People who avant those kinds of houses will not live in an cnvIronincrrt with these wclIs_ Shit said they will nr,t pui: any mare money into their horne until they know what urill happen, and if they can't live in their house, they will not pay taxes on it or pay their mortgage_ This is not the deal that: they bargained for_ The Town ha.s done a good job with its own building and supporting alternative energy, but v,?e have to do more, and supporting gas is not the way we should ga. Supv Sumner said they could talk about a morailorturn. She was encouraged that Cornell University has announced a moratorium on leasing of Carvell lauid. C1 Leifer said a moratorium has been disCUswf;d a. , TC p0 and they iu-e pretty sure they ca n get awry wi i:h qix months before 1ir.ig-ation starts, A lot of this is uncharted waters, but weII cio what we can do and ere arming ourselves. Joe Wllaonp Hunt_ Hill Road, said he is hoping that Whatever dcrlay we are successful with that we will do our best to create a kind of be W. practices environment, because it il� inevitable at some level that energy (_xl:rocbori is going to be attempLed hcrc;. There appear to be a rnuinber of best prarrir_c!s i-,hat would further rninim1w- f.hr; chances that we will suffer terrible degradation_ He warts to put his energies tnward minimizing that c.hinr- a and taking Page 2 of 12 "CTB' 12 -29 -09 advantage: of any extra time we get to create an environment: where we are not: so vulnerable to • the gas companies. Supv Sumner said her personal position is that it is possible to develop stringent regulations and she is okay with that.. M Hatch urged the board to instruct staff, including legal staff, to find all available means to force a strong regimen on anyone coming into to the t:owill Supv Sumner said she hopes to develop a vary, very safe protocol even it precludes drilling here. RESOLUTION #209 - ACCEPT COMMENTS ON MARCELLUS SHALE DRILLING PROJECT AND FORWARD TO NYS DEC Supv Sumner offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption: RESOLVED, ghat this Town Board hereby accepts with extraordinary gratitude the torments prepared by Jason Leifer (attached to these mi.nutc s) and endorses them as the official Town of Dryden comment on the dSGEIS for the Marcellus Shale Drilling project, and it is further RESOLVED, that the Town Supervisor is authorized to sign the comments and Submit them to Mr. Jack Dahl, Director, Bureau of Oil and Gas Regulation, NYSDEC Division of Mineral Resources. 2,,d Cl Leifer • Roll Call Vote Cl Stelick Yes Supv Sumner Yes C1 Leifer Yes Supv Sumner thanked Cl heifer for coordinating this effort and said lie has done an extraordinary job. CI Stelick also thanked Cl Leifer and said he was impressed with the effort and passion in the Town of Dryden and that lie appreciates the work of everyone involved. At 6:38 p.m. Supv Sumner close(] the public hearing on the local law for providing for an increase in the partial tax exemption for persons with disabilities whose incomes are limited by reason of such disability. RESOLUTION #210 - ADOPT LOCAL LAW #7 -2009 - INCREASING PARTIAL TAX EXEMPTION FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES C1 Stelick offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption: RESOI..VP.D, that this Town Board hereby adopts Local Law #7 -2009 - a local law increasing the partial Gax exemption for real property owned by persons with disabilities whose incomes are limited by reason of such disability, as follows, and directs the Town Clerk to file the same with the NYS Department of Stotc: A local law increasing the partial tax exemption for real property owned by persons with disabilities whose incomes are limited by reason of such disabilities. 1. This local law is enacted pursuant to Section 4.59 -c of the Real property Tax Laws of the ® State of New York as most recently amended. Page 3 of 12 TB 12-29-09 . Real property loceited in the Town of Dryden, owned by one or more persons each oi` whom is disabled and whose income is limited by reason of such disability or real property 4P owned 1 y hosband and wife, or siblings 01-le cif whom is disabled and whale incorne i limited by reason of such disability shall be partially exempt fmTn taxation by said Town for the applicable taxes specified in Section 459 -c W, led upon the income of the o{7L?ner or combined income of the owne.rs, Such partial exemption shall be to the extent: !�e_t forth in the schedule follo }wing_ less than $31,000 40 percent $01,001 PF.RCENTAGE ASSESSED more but less VALUATION EXEMPT AKNUAIr IN O MPS percent FROM TAXA•I'iON Not more than $29,000 50 percent $29,001 or more but less than $30,000 45 perce_rit $30,001 or more but less than $31,000 40 percent $01,001 or more but less than $32,000 35 percent $32,001 or more but less than $32,900 30 percent $32,901 or more but less than $33,800 25 POMCFT]t $337801 or more but 1csa than $34,700 20 percent $34,701 or more but less than $35,600 1.5 percent $35,601 Or more bgoC Icas Ilhan $36,500 10 percent $36,501 or more but less than $37,400 3 percent M[)r(_ than $37,400 0 percent. 3_ The pari'io.i exerrLP60rk pMvidC(3 by i'.hi% lain %ho.11, howf.;ver, ix 11mikcd to LoA(Nh prgperiy and persons as meet the conditions, qualifications, exclusions, and limitations set fordo in Section 459 -c of the Real Property Tax LawL This local law shall be administered in accordance with said �e'I.tionx of the Real Property Tax Law. as now adopted, and as they may be amended from tune to time, acid the provisions of said section as provided in Section 459 -r, shall be applicable to the effectuai:ion of the rxernption provided for in this local law, 4, Application for such exemption must be made by the owner or all of the owners of the propc:rt.y on forms prescribed by the State Board to be furnished by the Tornpkins County Assessment Department and :hall Include the information and be executed in the manner required or prescribed in such fortes, and shall be filed in the said Assessment Department office on or before the appropriate t;�xobltr status date, _ Any conviction of having made any willful false statement of the application for Suc}s exemption shall be punit5bable,' by a fine or not snore than 100 and shall disqualify the applivant or applicants from further exempilion under this local law for a period of five; {5) years, 6, This local Jaw shall be applicable to the Town 1,OX for assessment rolls based on inyablc stats da1'" occurring; on and after January 1„ 20]0 and the provi u sions of said Iocal law shall gavern the granting of On exemption under Section 459 -c, notv4•ithstanding any contrary provisiona of 1.h at section. 7_ This local law shall Fake} affect immediately. Did CI Keifer Roll Call Vote C1 Stelick Yea upv Surriner Yes C1 LA:ifvr Yes At 6;39 p_rr,. Supv 5urnner closed the public l3eaE ing on the proposed resnlul;ion increasing the partial tax exemption for persons over sixty -five years of age. Page 4 of 12 TB 12-29-09 RESOLUTION #211 — ADOPT RESOLUTION INCREASING PARTIAL TAX EXEMPTION FOR PERSONS OVER SIXTY -FIVE YEARS OF AGE Cl i'Oirk oiTcre„d i:he following resolution and asked for its adoption. WHEREAS, Real Property Tax Law §467 permits fhe 'l'own Board to adopt a resolution partially exempting from taxation by the Town certain real property within the Town owned by persons sixty -five (65) years of age or over, and WHEREAS, the Real Pmpetfy Tax Law providrsi an option for t kc[ 'I'pWr, tb sat the income eligibility levels, Ik over or shall be formula: IOW, THEREFORE, BE 1 Real property owned real property owned by exempt by taxation by ANNUAL INCOME T RESOLVED BY THE TOWN BOARD AS FOLLOWS= 1Z }Y one or more persons each of wham is 65 years of agc or a husband and wife, one of whom is 65 years of age or over , the To)Am of Dryden to the extent sel: forth in the following Not more than $29,000 perveni: 4 $29,001 or more but less than $30,000 $10,001. or more but less than $3 t,000 $31,001 ot• more bull ]""% than $32,000 $32,001. or mare but less than $32,900 $32,901 or more but' loss than $38,800 $33,801 or more but less than $54,700 $34,701 or more but lest than $35,600 $357601 or more but less than $36540 $36,501 or more but less than $07,400 More than $37,400 PERCENTAGE ASSESSED AWATI N F?X MPT FROM TAXATION So perveni: 4 per-Cent 40 percent 35 percent 30 percent: 5 percent 20 percent 15 percent 14 pe:rc_enC. 5 percent 0 percent 2. Any exemption provided in this resolution shall be computed after all other partial exemptions allowwml long as the survi%ring spouse is by law have been subtracted from the total amount assessed_ 3. The real property of whom is 65 years of age: tax exemption on real property or over, once granwd, shall not owned by a husband and be rescinded solely because wife, one of the death of the older spouse so long as the survi%ring spouse is at least 62 years or age, 4, No exe .LrnpUon shall be granted: (a If the income of the okur�r;r or the cornbinrd income of the owners of the property for the incomes tax year irrtme:c3i:�teIV preceding the date of making application ror exemption exceeds the amounts set forth in the formula in this resol-ution. income tax year %hall meal they twelve month pur iud for which the owner or o wners filed a fC;taurxl personal uicoine tax return, or if rku such return i� filed, the calendar year. Where title is v sited in either the husband or the wife? Their combined income may not exceed such sum. Such income shall include social security and retirement benefits, interest, dividends, total gain from the sale or exchange 0f a capital asset whic11 may be offset by a foss fro in the sal C or exchange of a Capital asset in the same incorne tax year, net rental inc;orne, salary or earnuigs, and net income from self -em ploy me_nt, but shall root inchide a m. furs of capital, gifts or inheritances, In Page 5 or 1 Tai 12 -29 -09 computing net rental income and net income from self - employment no depreciation shall be allowed for the exhaListi or] , wear and ((car of real Or PC, rsOnal property held for the production of I ncome; (b) Unless the title of the property shall have been vesilyd in ilhe owner or on(o of the downers of I:he property for at least twelve (12) consecutive months prior to the date of snaking application for exem c n ption, provided, however, that: in ilhe ovi: Of i: ci hc death f either a husband or wif(. in whose namc CiLle Of the property shall have been vested at the time of death and them becomes vested solely in the survivor by virtue of devise, by or descent from the deceased husband or wife, the dTne of olaenership of the property by the deceased husband or wife shall be deemed also a time of owncrship by the imrvivor and such Ownership shall be deemed confinuoki% for the purposes of computing such period of twelve (l) consecutive months. In the nrent of a transfer by either a husbsnd or wife to the other spouse Of all or part of i:he title Lo the property) the time of ownership of the property by the transferor spouse shall be deemed also a time of ownership by the transferee spouse and such ownership shall be& deemed continuous fOr tfk( -. purposes of computing such period of tW,21Vs..L (12) consecutive irkonl:hs. Where property of the owner or owners h:�s been acquired to replace property formerly owned by such owner or owners and taken by eminent domain or other involuntary proceedings, except a tax sale, the period of ownership of the former property shall be combined with the: period Of ownership of the property for which application is trade for exernptiun and such periods of ownership shall he deemed to be consecutive for purpose of this section, Where a residence iq sold and replaced with anol:hr,r within one (1) year and both residences are within the state, the period Of ownership Of both properties shall be deeined consecutive for purposes of this resolution. Where the owner Or owners transfer title to property whit %h as of the date of transfer was exempt from taxation under the provision of this resolution, the reacquisition of l:itle_ by such ovnier or owners within nine (9) months of the date of transfer shall be deemed to satisfy the mquirement of this paragraph that the title of the property shall have been vested in the owner or one of the owners for such period of iNWOW (1.2) consecutive months. Where, upon or subsegLie_ni. l:o the death of an owrior or owners, title to property which as of the date of sUcrh death was exempt from taxation under such provisions, becomes vested, by virtue of devise or desceTrL I'T -UTU the deceased owner or owners, or by transfer by any Other means wit.hin nine (9) inonths after such death, solely in a person Or p6;rsoris who, at the time of such death, maintained such property as a primary residence, the requirement of this paragraph that the title of the property shall have been vested in the owner or one, of the owners for such period of twelve, (1.2) con seoutive months shall be deemed satisfied; (o) Unless the property is used exclusively for residential purposes, provided, however, that in the f`vent any portion of %iAch property is not so used exclusively for residential purposes but is used for other purposes, such portion shall be subject to taxation arld the remaining portion only shall be entitled to Che exemption provided by this section; (d) Unless thc: real property is i:he legal residence of and is occupied in whole or in part by the owner or by all of the owners of the property, provided that an owmer who is ahLe .Lnt while receiving health - related care as an inpatient of a residential health care, facility, as dcCned in Sec=tion 2801 Of the Public Health Lain, shall be deemed to !•ern;�iri a legal residQnt and are or=r:upa.nt of the prsapertV while so r:onfined and income accruing to that person shall be income only to the extent. that it exceeds the alnounl, paid by such Owner, spouse, Or co- owner for care in the facility; and provided farther, that during such c.nnrnement aLich property is not occupied by oi:her than the spouse or co -owner of such owner, 5, The Town shall notify or seise to be nol:ified, each TLX-rson owning residential real property in the Town of the provisions of this resolution- This may be met by a notice: or legend scat. cm Or with each tax bill to such prtrsons reading "You may be eligible for senior citizen tax exempLivns. Senior cii:i7ens have until (nionth) (day) _ (ycar) _ to Page 6 of 12 TB 1 -?9 -09 apply for such exemptions_ For information please call or write , followed by the natne, telephone number and/or address of a person or department selected to explain the provisions of this resolution. Fu to notify, or (Notise w be nol:ifi d art}' Txprson who i�, in fact, eligible to receive the exemption provided by this resolution or the failure of such person to receive khcr SaTrit; shall not pv�wcni. the levy, wlicction and onforcerncent of the pdymc.nt of the taxes on property owned by such person, 6, Application for such exemption must be made by the owner, or all of the owners of the property, an fvrn,s prescribed by the Office of Deal Property Services and shall furnish the information and be executed in the manner required or prescribed in suel•t for=,4, end shall be filed in such assessors office on or before the taxable status date. 7. At least sixty (60) days prior to the taxable status date, there shall be mailed to each person who was granted an aged exemption on the latest completed assessment roU an application form and a rtnl:ice that such application must be filed on or before the taxable status date and be approved in order for the exemption to be granted. Within three (3) days of the completion and filing of the: tentative assessment roll, notice by mail shall br, given to any applicant {oho has included with his application at lest one self- addressed, pre -paid envelope, of the approval or denial of the application; provided, however, that upon the r( .Lceipt Urid filing or I :he application there shall be seat by mail nMificatiori of receipt of the same to any applicant who has included two (2) of sw,h envelopes with the application_ Where an applicant is endi:lcd to a notice of denial such notice shall be on a form prescribed by the State, BoaTCI of Equalization and Asscssmcnt and shall state the reasons for such denial and shall further state that the applicant may have such, dctQrmination reviewed in the mariner provided by ]acv. Failure to mail any such application form or notices or the faiIUrC.F of such person to receive any of the same sha11 clot prevent the levy, collection and enforcement of the paytne irk i: of the Loxes on property owned by such person, 8. Any conviction of hiving made any willful false statement in the application for such exemption shall be punishable as set fori:h in Real Property Tax Lave Sec tion 467(7), 9, 'Phis resolution shall be applicable to taxable Staj.rUN dates occurring on and after Jar resolution shall govern the grzuitiiig of an exempti contrary provisions of that section- 2F111 C1 heifer Roll Gall Vote 1 Stelick 8rxpv LLrrtner 1 [.eirer thc_ Town tax for assessment rolls based on aar-v 1, 2010 and the provision of said Mn under Seaion 467 notwithstanding any yeS Yes Y es At 6:40 p.rn. Supv Sumner closed the publiU hearing on tl3e proposed resolution waiving fees related to the 140MIa� program. RESOLUTION #212 - WAIVER Or OERTAM TOWN OF DHYDEN FITS IN CONNECTION WITH THE DRYDEN HOME REHABILITATION PROGPAbf C1 lic_ Stc�k offered thy: FulIo}7uing resol u ti on and asked fi r its adoption= WHEREAS, the town was aiwa.rded a New fork State HOME Grant in the amount: of $3.1.5,160.00 and has provided L55000_00 in local funds to provide financial assistance by vway of the f)ryden HON]]/ Rehabilitation Program for low income eligible property owners i.p rel•tabilitate subgwndard single- family homer in the town, and Page 7 of 1 'rB 12 -29 -09 WHEREAS, eligible property o�vrners era those who have incomes at or Wow 80% of the Tompkins County median family income, with priority given to eligiblr; homeowners with lower incomes, at least one homeowner with income below 00/a of such median income and scven horneowners with incomes between 300/4, and 50% of such median income, Acmd WHEREAS, the town adopl :cd Local Law No. 1 of the year 2007 (A local law providing for the Administration end Enforcement of New York Statc. Uniform Fire Prevention and Buildiag 'ode and Other Town of Dryden Loral Laws and Ordinances), and WHEREAS, Section l.6 or such local law requires the Town Board to esi:ablish a fee schedule for the submission of applications, iSSuanCO of permits and certificates and inspections therewith, and WKEREAS, the Town Board adopted Resolution No. 65 (2007) establishing such fee %c.hedule, and WHEREAS, waiving of such such fee schedule can be amended followirng a public hearing as provided in said local law, and compliance with Housing WHEREAS, the funds awarded the town for the Dryden HOME Rehabilitation Program are public monies, and WHEREAS, the Town of Dryden desires to obtain the maximum benefit from such public monies by vwa_ivin r:�T-tain fees or the town in c;onne[_i_ion with home n!habi]itafjorr I mprovements which will be needed to bring such homes into compliance with Housing Quality Standards, and WHEREAS, the waiving of such fees will result in more of such monies being availabi to bring the homes into compliance with Housing Quality Standards, N()W, THFREFO RE, be it RESUVED, that the Code Enforcement Officer is directed to waive the fees set forth in Sections 1(B) and 1(0) as set by resolution No. 65 (2007) for Dryden HOME rehabilitation Program participantN, and it it� FURTHER RCS0LVE[], that nothirng contained in this resolution or waiver of foes shall be con struecl as o waiver of the requirement of all other Dryden H 0 M e Rehabilitation Program requirements or aity other applicable codes, 10wL5, statutes, rules or regulations_ na ej Leifer Rex]] Call Vote Cl Stelick Yes Supv Surnn(-:r Yes Cl Leifer Yes The Town Clerk ha r> asked for resolutions authorizing the postage for mailing the tax bills and to pay to a Depejty Clerk /Receiver of Taxes. RtESOLC7'1'ION #213 - AUTHORIZE POSTAGE FOR TAX BILLS Cl l.elirk offered the following resolu6on and asked for ii:s adoption: RE, S0LVZL), that this Town Board hereby authorizes an arno�unt not to exceed 27300.00 for postage for mailing 11h 2010 tax bills_ 2"11 C1 Leifer Pagc 8 of 12 T3 1 2.29.09 Roll Call Vote Cl Stc lick Yes Supv Sumner Yes Cl 1 eifer Yes RESOL[7TION #214 - AUTHORIZE PAYMENT FOR DEPUTY CLERK f RECIEPJER Supv S urrmer offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption= WHEREAS, the Town Clerk will appoint Lee Aran Parker as Deputy clerk f Receiver to asszst with the 2010 tax collection season and (in an as- needed basis at other times throughout 20 1.0, end WHEREAS, funds are available in the budget to rt)vc.,r anticipated wages, now, therlfors', tie it RZS0LVED0 that this Town Board herc;by authorizes payment to Lce Ann Parker at the hourly rate of 10 -f}0 per hirer for work performed during 2010 for Assistance with tax colleotion and other duties as determined by aw Town Clerk, 2«l' Cl Stelick Roll Call Vote Cl Stelick fifes Supv Sumner Yes Cl Leifer YGs Supv Sumner asked the board to approve the coin m unity center grant application forms as submitted. Cl Stelic k and Cl Leifer have boill -1 reviewed them, RESOLUTION #215 - APPROVE GRANT APPLICATION FORMS FOR COMMUNITY CENTER GRANTS Supv Sumner offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption: RESOLVER ]7, that this Town Board hereby approves the community renter grant application Forms as submitted, and authorizes the Recreation Director to distribute them to the centers, 21°i1 Cl Stelick Roll CaJI Vote CJ Stclick Yes Supv Sumner Yes C1 Leifer Yes Supv S2lmncr asked the board to review the AT&T upgrade application in preparation For an upcoming hearing- Comments on the Reercatian Master Pi an are reyuc;sted of board members by January. Larry Hinkle has resigiied From the Recreation Commission and Billie Downs. has been recommended by the School as his replacemcn.f., RESOILUTION 0216 - APPOINT RECREATION COMMISSION 0 Supv Sumner offered the F0IIowing re soIudon and asked for its adoption; Page 9 of 12 - DOW WS TB 12 -29-09 RESOLVED, that this Town Board hereby appoints Billie Downs as the Dryden School representative to the Dryden Recreation Commission. 2ral C1 Stelick Roll Fall Vote Cl Stelick Yes Supv Sumner Yes C1 Leifer Ycs Supv Sumner said the Health Insurance Ccmnsorl:iurn believes they will be rip and running by March 1., but q hcL thinks June 1 is more likely. She expectts Ca nCSotiate with the Teamsters, to get a part- ,}year contract for health insurance- Cl I cifcr and ZO Slater have submitted a proposed policy for dealing with time limits on the weatherization grants, and that will be considered in January. Supv Surrkrker explained that the 'Technology Committee put out an RFP for the software needed for archiving and retrieving email and an cxchange server_ The committee reviewed the responses and recornrnends contracl.ing with The Computing Center in the aoiount of $26,074.0 ]. , RESOLUTION #127 - AUTHORIZE CONTRACT WITH COMFrUTING CENTER FOR EXCHANGE SERVED AND EMAIL ARCHrMG Cl SLeliek oFfe:red the fallowing msoIu6ork and asked for it's adopl'ion: RESOLVL D, that this Town board herr;;bY aCCvT)i:S thy: TampOSa1 0f ThC C:orrTI -Laing Center dated July 27, 2009, Phase 1 totaling $18,877,01 and Phase 2 totaling $12,197.00, and the Town Supervisor is authorized to sign a contract For thr. serviccC, afi'er approval by t'hV Town Attorney, .,.E Cl Leifer Roll Call Vote Cl Stelick Yes Supv Summer Yes Cl Leifer Yes Supv Sumner has }prepared a doctkmcnt En bt inserted with the tax bills announcing the new proposed zoning law and January 26 rnof t'ing_ This needs board approval before it can be inserted with the bills_ RESOLUTION #218 - APPROVE TAX SILL INSERT Supv Sumner of "cmd the following resolution and asked for its adoption: RESOLVED, that I'hi Town Board hereby approves the following document for insertion with thr, 201.0 real property tax ljiIIs= In 2007 Lhc Planning Board began working on Prnpnscd changes to town coning rcgutation5. The work has centered oa descriptions ()f ra)nina districts to enhance land use patterns that will help "preserve tht, rural and srnali town character ofthc Town oI'Drvden," Dozens of poopie have participated in tlic discusslons ovor the past three years_ Now we want to know wliat you th i nic. Plew4e jain us January 26, 201() at 7;00 PM at Tawn Hall for a presentation and discussion of proposed new inning dig #ricfs. (Siiuw Day JUnuary 27) .Page 10 of 1 TB 12 -2 -09 • Ncw Znniug Districts. o Rural Residtintial o lethal Agrictilf MI 0 Conservation o Hamlet o Cc�rrrmercitsl o Light IndustriailOffice • New Subdivision ConcepLs 4 New Design Guidelines + New Density Patterris For more information call 844 -8888 eAL 216, We have ineJutled this noke with your Lox t9ll In oohs to reach all property owners. IT you nave an ascrcaw aoeou art and your bank has requested e COPY, a nuil)[3V appears in the bank coda r*W on the bill and we have seni it to Ihem. No acdDn is negesrpry an yqur part. If Wei have questions, please call us at 607 -944 -8986, option 3. „ Cl Stelick Roll Call Vote Cl Stelick. Yes Supv Sunnier Ytts Cl Yes Supv Sumner said Joe LaQuakrz has written a guest editorial announcing thy: new proposed zoning low end meeting date and encouraging people to come_ She will send that on try hoard members. uF)v Sumner has an agreement for the rnuniraipalities involved in the law suii. with Energy East to share the; l(Lgal costs associated with any k&&al liability since 1981 when the Town became partners, in proportion Lo the Town's ownership, Atty Perking has seen and approved the agreement. RESOLUTION 0219 — APPROVE LEGAL DEFENSE AGREEMENT ktpv Sumner offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption- RESOLVED, that this To wn Board liereby approve the Agreement as to L�-gal Defense Costs and Datnags;� (il' any) Associated with a Lawsuit Against the Ci [y of Ithaca Regarding the Ithaca A reo Wastewater `FreatmenL Facility Site in con necfion with the law suit W 9111.h Energy Saut, and authorizes the 'Gown Supervisor to sign the same. 2nd Cl tetick- Roll Call Vote Cl Stelick Yes Supv Sumner Yes C:l U iFer Y {_L upu SUMrler noted there is another law suit. pending for the wazitewater treatment plant invoIving one of the con trarr tor s, a change_ of standards for the concrete and u delay, She just rerxived the docurnerits from Atty Perkins today and wi11 pass thetas on to the board - The City Attorney hay agiked the other owners to agree that it is not solc;ly the responsibility of the City, and she has no problem with that, Page 11 of 12 Tho curreos draft of rho proposed 14q is available at the Town Hall, the Village Hall, 5outhworth Library.- rho Varna Conununiry Centel and on our website (wwwAryden -ny u)- For more information call 844 -8888 eAL 216, We have ineJutled this noke with your Lox t9ll In oohs to reach all property owners. IT you nave an ascrcaw aoeou art and your bank has requested e COPY, a nuil)[3V appears in the bank coda r*W on the bill and we have seni it to Ihem. No acdDn is negesrpry an yqur part. If Wei have questions, please call us at 607 -944 -8986, option 3. „ Cl Stelick Roll Call Vote Cl Stelick. Yes Supv Sunnier Ytts Cl Yes Supv Sumner said Joe LaQuakrz has written a guest editorial announcing thy: new proposed zoning low end meeting date and encouraging people to come_ She will send that on try hoard members. uF)v Sumner has an agreement for the rnuniraipalities involved in the law suii. with Energy East to share the; l(Lgal costs associated with any k&&al liability since 1981 when the Town became partners, in proportion Lo the Town's ownership, Atty Perking has seen and approved the agreement. RESOLUTION 0219 — APPROVE LEGAL DEFENSE AGREEMENT ktpv Sumner offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption- RESOLVED, that this To wn Board liereby approve the Agreement as to L�-gal Defense Costs and Datnags;� (il' any) Associated with a Lawsuit Against the Ci [y of Ithaca Regarding the Ithaca A reo Wastewater `FreatmenL Facility Site in con necfion with the law suit W 9111.h Energy Saut, and authorizes the 'Gown Supervisor to sign the same. 2nd Cl tetick- Roll Call Vote Cl Stelick Yes Supv Sumner Yes C:l U iFer Y {_L upu SUMrler noted there is another law suit. pending for the wazitewater treatment plant invoIving one of the con trarr tor s, a change_ of standards for the concrete and u delay, She just rerxived the docurnerits from Atty Perkins today and wi11 pass thetas on to the board - The City Attorney hay agiked the other owners to agree that it is not solc;ly the responsibility of the City, and she has no problem with that, Page 11 of 12 TB 12=29=09 The board needs to do a budget mod for the Cortland Road Sewer District. As a result of the fate increase last October, we paid the Village more, There was also substantially more revenue- This budget rnod will appropriate the excess revenue. RESOLUTION #220 - BUDGET MODIFICATION Cl Ste lick offered the foil owing resolution ;�rrd :asked For its adoption; RESOLVED, that this Town Board hereby authorizes the appropriation of additional funds as listed below: FROM TO FOR AMOUNT SS3 -2120 Appropriate Sewer Rents S93- 8120.4 Sanitary Sewers 523.328,30 "Due to large increase in Village water rates - effective 14115108 And repair work done by HWYlDPVV Nol ertiough in budget to cover costs SS3 -2120 Ap pro priale Sewer Rents SS3 -8110.1 Pefwnal Services 823,95 HWWDPVw over budget SS3 -2720 Appropriate Sewer Rents 54309430 -8 Emplayeo Benefits FICA 3$.69 553-2120 Appropriate Sewer Rents s53 -90XU Employee Ben efitsNedicare 3.46 CI Stelick noted that there am still problems with the heating /cooling in the building - `Llj]V umrtr,r said Pasco was hcrc 110day an€1 it seems that they are getting it figured out. They discovered today that the wiring for one of the heat pumps had burned out. The architm.t is paying for Lhe repairs becausc the Town hasn't sigmt d afl" on it yet. The cysl em mad+ not be dcMgmed appropriately for the building. Thcrtb doesn't appear to tic any problem with the wells, upv Sumner will ask Jack Bush to report on this at the next board meeting- There being no Further business, Can motion made, and unanimoumily carried, the meeting was adjourned at 7 =05 p.mI Respectfully submitted, ?rnohi I,, Avery Town Clerk Page 12 of 1 12 -29 -09 SPEAKER SIGN IN SH:F,El If you wish to address the Board under citizens privilege of the floor please sign in below. Speakers will be limited to a maximum of three minutes. Please provide the Clerk with a ��n-itten summar;�• of. your statement. Name Address LO N� c= / �U �r Y l�r ,iC'!� J�,c.c.•f ((� icr Y iao�- Town of nrvden Budget Meeting December 29, 2009 Name - ;Please Print} Address or Board Rd T� D � e bU{t.l„ b C -1 C, p L1 ✓t Cl D C� t be A J1..S 7 (p + ) r q (v L4 �� �- y_ct-e 0ccernber 29, 2009 Mr. Jack Dahl, Director Bureau of Oil and Gas Regulation NYSDEC Division of Mineral Resources 625 Broadway, Third floor Albany, NY 12.233 -6500 Office of the Supervisor 93 East Main Street Dryden, NY 13053 SU Pe rVI so r@ d ry dan,ny. us Subject: C M ENTS ON TEl11 DRAFT SO E1 S FOR MA RCELLU S SHALE GAS DRILLING Dear heir. Dahl: Thank you for the opportunity to corn ment on the graft Sup pleinental C}erieric Enviroruriental Inipart Statement (d SG EIS) on the 0 i1, 0 as, and Solution M inirig Regulatory Program_ The Town of.0ryden supports efforts to limit the impact of shale -gas development in Necw York on our environment and our cornrnunities, Dryden i.s a large township in Tompkins County with a will- established comprehensive plan and zoning law_ Our Comprehensive plan and zoning law has been implemented to guide development, protect our unique natural and %eater resources, encourage business growth, and ensure that the character of our community is respected and Protected. The DEC roust take (lie cumulativ impacts of this industry into account and not dismiss Dryden's proper community planning as "insignificant" aald "temporary" (words used many tirn s throughout this dsGEI ). The Town Board of the Tom of Dryden is concerned that water resources, our natural resources, Or OUr Golnrnunity's a halm -mile of any point are residences, all using wells that allowed Linder the guidelines in the current MGM. I=ui respected in terns of name, air pollution, water pollution, and viqual degradation of the landscape. the dS EIS in its current farm will riot protect our character. Drycim is not an industrial [own. Within wil l be at risk. of contamination if hydro- fraGking is Cher, these landowners' private property should be plus deleterious and value - degrading excess traffic Residents of the Town of Dryden, some of whom have leased gas rights to drilling companie.S, and the Town Board and Town Staff, have contributed to this doGUnlellt_ We also support the Comments ,submitted by the Tompkins County Water Resources COLincil, the Tornklns County Leglslaturc, the 'Tompkins County Council of Governments, as well as comrnents submitted by other Towns and Villages within Tompkins County. However, due to the short time allowed for public colrimeiit on the highly technical document that is the dSGEf , we were unable to comment on each and every section that deserved c.oirlment. To that end, we ask the DEC to extend the comment period for a in1nimurn of another 90 -days or, ill the aItcrna(ive, to withdraw the d SG El and begin a fresh ana]ysis of the issues associated with unconventional shale drilling and its impact can the State of Nl ,w York_ Mary Ann Sumner Supervisor Town of Dryden GENCRAL COMMENTS Water ■ The s CIS should compirehensively address the cumulative impacts on stream lows from surface water withdrawal from creeps acknowledging pre - existing and future water needs. [p.7-22]. Water withdraws from streams and creeks that feed the Cayuga Lake Watershed, Dryden Lake Watershed, Fall Creek Watershed, Virgil Creek Watershed, Cascadilla Creek Watershed, Owego Creek Watershed, and the Six- NI'Lle Creek Watershed, as well as agtiIfers that serve private or public wells, should be prohibited, ■ Local control should be increased where groundwater resources serve its the primary source of drinking water, The d SG El fair to provide for adequate protections o F local water resources by using a cookie cutter approach to discussing possible environmental impacts and mitigation. Local oversight over the well siting process would permit municipalities to protect local water resources from overwithdraw and contamination_ This issue L very i111portant to Dryden. The following in an excerpt from page 10 of the Town of Dryden Comprehensive Plain; {t oirounda #er resources within the town constitute a very important resource in the Town of Dryden. 14'ith the exception of residences and businesses in the wc.stern part of the tow» served by the Bolton Point system, residents and businesses in the town depend on groundwater as theeir primary water Source_ The Village of Dryden municipal water system uses groundwater for its municipal water supply_ 0 "Groundwater is not uniformly distributed in the 'I "own, but is concentrated in aquifers the 1110sl significant of which are found in the major valleys, and result From fluvial and glacial processes. These aquifers are all composed of sand, gravel, and coarser material deposited by running water, originating either from melting glaciers or from more typical streams, a "Outside the major valleys a large mimber of residents rely on wells that penetrate fractures in the bedrock, which locally conLiists primarily of sandstone and sIItstone. These bedrock "ayLnfers" generally require deeper wells to penetrate enough fractures to provide even ininimal water flows, and the water quality is general I lower than that of sand and gravel aquifers because of higher inineral content_ a "Most municipal and private water supplies in t110 town are expected to continue to rely on groundwater for the foreseeable future. It is thus a resource that needs to be monitored and protected_ Some aquifers lire relatively shatlow and are recharged from rainfall and Slruarn flow. Because they are open to the surface, they are particularly susceptible to contamination from hLUinan activities such as fueltank leakage, sewage, oil and gas spills, and agricultural chernicals_" ■ The sGEIS should provide for setbacks that will protect' the current classifications of water re5otirees within Towns, In Dryden many of the Town's water resoLIrces are classified as (r) or higher per the following excerpt from the Town of Dryden Cornprehens ivc flan page 9: Page 2 "The DEC has classified most water bodies in the state based on existing or expected "best use." These uses, shown in the table below, range from AA (highest class) to D. Water bodies classified as CM or higher are collectively referred to as protected streams and are subject to more stringent regulation.2 Most of the major streams in the town are classed C(TS) or higher. Downstream of rreeville Fall Creek and its tributaries carry the "A" designation, as does much of Six Mile Creek and its tributaries. The main stem of Six Mile Creek upstream of the Town of Caroline, and its major tributary that nuns along Midline Road, carry the "A(T)" designation. Approximately 25 percent of Mill Creek and its major tributaries, all of Owasco Inlet and Virgil Creek within the town and much of Cascadilla Creek and its main tributaries upstream of Genung Road carry a "C(T ") designation. Two small tributaries of Fall Creek just west of McLean are classed as "C(TS)" streams. ■ The sGE.LS states it will encourage operators to position rig fuel tanks 500 feet from any primary or principal aquifer, public or private water well, domestic - supply spring, reservoir, reservoir stem, controlled lake, watercourse, perennial or intennittent stream, storm drain, wetland, lake or pond, but does not require this setback. It should be required [p 7 -27]. The setback should also be extended to 1000 feet. ■ The DEC may require the applicant to identify in application materials the anticipated maximum number, type, and volume of liquid fracturing additive containers to be simultaneously present onsite. [p 7 -32]. This should be required rather than leaving it optional. ■ Although hydrofracturing used in the extraction of natural gas is exempt from the federal Safe Drinking Water Act, the DEC should require adherence to this law in its sGE1S regulations. Tile use of "Chromium - 6", "Hexavalent Chromium ", or other known carcinogens in the hydrofracturing process should be prohibited. • The draft sGEIS states on pale 7 -38 that routine testing of drinking water should no longer be necessary a year after the last hydrofracturing event. Given that little is known about the hydrofracturing process, annual testing should continue for at least 10 years. ■ Public or private drinking water wells and aquifers within 1000 feet of a gas well are required to be tested for contamination. This is insufficient and should be extended to the maximum horizontal distance that a drilling rig may reach. Surface water drinking sources within 1000 feet should be included as well. ■ The DEC needs to specify the methods used to evaluate water quality data and the criteria it will use to make determinations. • County Health Departments are required to investigate complaints about water contamination, but are not funded by the State to increase staffing for this work. The DEC must provide for a fee structure that will fully fund comprehensive well and aquifer testing to protect and work in conjunction with the County Health Departments to protect water resources [page 7 -42]. is ■ Centralized flowback water surface impoundments should not be allowed. All flowback liquid should be stored in closed steel containers. (section 7.1.7 pb. 7 -51 ]. Page 3 ■ Publically Owned Treatment Works (POTWs) cannot adequately treat the quantity of brine and chernicais predicted to be generated as flowback. The total dissolved solids are too high for POT Ws to treat in facilities not designed for this type of disposal. The draft sOEIS does not require flowback tv be tested for materials that cannot be sanely treated in POTW9 such as benzene, toluene, hexavalant chromium, naturally occurring radioactive materials (NORMS), and the high concentrations of salt prior to receiving the liquid_ With the chemicals now allowed in the dsGEIS, flowback water must be treated at facilities specifically designed and built to treat contaminants generated from this hydro fractu ri ng process not in I'OTWs. [section 7.1.8.1 pg 7 -56]. These water treatment facilities must luiaw the full chemical content of the flowback water prior to treatment. If hydra fracturing additives could be restricted to biodegradable materials, this could be rcconsidere:d [section 7-1-8]. The Town of Dryden k a 2% owner of the Ithaca area Wastewater Treatrni�nt Plant and residents are aISO customers of the Cayu ga He] ghis Water treattrtent fvility as wel l as the facility owned and operated by the Village of Dryden. ■ Section 7.1.11 is titled Protecting the Quality of New York Cis ''s- Drinking Fader :Supply. This protection cannot be limited to the water supply of New Fork City. Cayuga Lake and its watershed is a major supply of dri nking water for the Tompkins County region including the Town of Dryden_ The draft sGEIS suggests drillers avoid drilling in the vicinity of New York City's drinking water, but this should be expanded to AID1. watersheds, aquifers, and private drinking water weIIs in Now `fork S tam. With In the Town of Dryden two pillages. the Village ofPrceville and the Village of Dryden, rely On rouniCIpal wells to supply drinking water to residents, In addition, private water companies exist, such as the fellow Bam Water Co. These water companies own and operate wells that serve the needs of residents within certain residential neighborhoods. ■ Setbacks from any strum, river; lake or other body of water should be increased from the proposed 154 feet to 1400 feet [section 7.1.12,2 page 7 -691, to be consistent with the requirements for drinking water wells, This is especially important in Dryden where, in addition Lo groundwater, a majority of the streams and creeks are of sufficient quaff ity to provide for drinking water as well as sport fishing, ■ Actions located within Other wetland resources Inventory. All of these 3 speci fic analyses should feet, Towns should also Marcellus Shale permits. 104 feet of a DEC- regulated wetland require should be considered as well such as those %eetlands serve important roles to water qualitl include mapping of all existing wetlands on a be afforded an opportunity to catalog unlisted permits fi-orn the DEC [Page 7 -6]. identified by the National Wetland i, habitat, and other functions. Site - sitc and setbacks expanded to 1000 wetlands prior to tht issuing of any * The draft sGEIS requires that additive pro&cts for the hydrufracturing process be disclosed, but the actual ingredients and their proportions within those products are not. The DEC should require full disclosure of all ingredients and proport ions, in parts per million, in additive products (8,2.1.2]. 'This information must be mach public for the benefit of first responders, physicians, anti for scientific review. ■ Section 5.4 discusses specific chemicals that may be used in the fracturing fluids and lists the desirable properties, including minimal environmental effects, but does not identify which additives meet these criteria. Section 5,4.3.1 lists serious health hazards associated with the chemicals along with a statement that "toxicity data are very liniited for many chemical additives to fracturing fluids ". The DFG should identify which additives would minimize environmental anti huinan health irnpacisI Ifdrillcrs wish to use alternative chetnicals, they must be required to provide an additional environmental review for approval_ Additives that are known carcinogens should be prohibited. Pogo 4 ■ in section 9.3.1 the DEC discusses preliminary work on green chemical alternatives. They should return to this investigation and identify green chemicals. ■ Tests of tlowback liquid in Pennsylvania and West Virginia frequently Nitroquinoline -l- oxide, a highly toxic chemical. The dsGEIS does not concern. The DEC must provide better guidelines for chemical additives from high -risk chemicals. The DEC should also assess the additive effec used together, show high concentrations of 4- address this finding which is a to prevent water contamination ;ts of the many chemicals being ■ Due to their extreme toxicity, 4- Nitroquinoline-l- oxide, benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes must be banned from use in fracturing fluids. • Cracks in well casings are one of the main avenues for contamination from hydrofracturing liquid into drinking water wells. DEC inspectors must be on site when well casings are being poured and regular inspections by DEC inspectors must be conducted. ■ The industry has used carcinogens such as hexavalent chromium as a corrosion tighter when hydraulically fracturing shale. In Texas, where hydrological fracturing in the Barnett Shale is occtu-ring, hexavalent chromium has been found in the drinking water in South Midland County. Planning and Zoning ®■ Local zoning ordinances should be followed and Towns should be designated as involved agencies for determining environmental impacts from gas drilling. Gas drilling is an industrial use of land and should not be allowed in or within 1000 feet of R1 -rural residential, R2- moderate residential, 141 and 2- hamlets, or PR- Park/recreation in the Town of Dryden. • Drilling activities must be required to adhere to the local noise and light ordinances that exist at the time of permitting or are implemented after a permit has been issued. The DEC must also require all facilities to be constructed with noise mitigation and lighting mitigation equipment and screening. • Drilling activities occurring in the Town of Dryden must take into consideration the intent of the Comprehensive Plan for the Town of Dryden especially regarding the designated areas for conservation, environmental protection, unique natural areas, residential zones, agricultural lands, and existing and planned recreation facilities. The Comprehensive Plan strongly encourages activities that will increase tourism, agriculture, and outdoor recreation. Natural gas drilling should be prohibited in areas that will compromise these activities and negate the actions of the Comprehensive Plan. As a baseline rule, planning documents in all affected municipalities should be followed. ■ Drilling activities must not occur within 1000 feet of a critical environmental area as designated by towns. ■ Many adverse impacts may be avoided by planning a development to fit site characteristics like avoiding steep slopes and maintaining sufficient separation from environmentally sensitive features, such as streams, ponds, and wetlands [7 -23]. O Other Page 5 on 'the dSGEIS dewcribes that physical barriers to public access at least 500 feet from the well pad could prevent negative exposure to pollutants_ The S EIS should specifically require a physical barrier_ Working with the Public Service Cofnmission, the NYS DEC needs to determine the proper setback distance to limit exposure, not simply assign 500 Feet as a setback. (p. 7 -89 to 90). Exposures to airborne toxins such as benzene above "sore" levels have been docurnerltcd in Texas and such exposure can cacise blood diseases leading up to leukemia. ,See http ;Ilwww.wfaa;corrL'ktornelMorc- Known - about- Barnett- Shale- Air -Qua l i ty- Study- 7 3 645 2 07 _ h tm ■ Drilling companies should be required to notif 1 Towns when EACH permit is applied for and not simply W11en the i�nvironnwr,tal impact statement is issued or a perinit is granted. Notification must be required for each permit and not simply the first permit, Thu DEC'nlust require gas companies to enter in to a road use aveenient w a condition for receiving a drilling permit. The road use agreement must include route selection for maximum efficiency and safety, coordination with emergency management and highway departments, road upgrades for water tTamport, and agreements to pay for road repairs in the event (�f damage due to heavy truck traffic ,section 7.11 pg 7- 109/1101 The road use agreement should also inquire drilling companies to provide the funds accessary for conducting the tests and studies necessary to establishing the baseline road conditions for the routes travelled. In addition, the road use agreement should regUire drilling companies to post a bone[ or other security prior to the commencement of any activity related to constructing a well pact or other drilling facility, ■ The sGEIS does not evaluate the impact of increased truck- traffic and states that this is more appropriately considered in (11e context of policy making, primarily at the local level, but local goveniments are understaffed for pro)ccts oi'this magnitude without additional funding, ■ DUe to the chemicals contained in the hydrorracturing liquid as stated above, DEC should not allow this liquid should to N3 spread on roads, * The s EIS sliould include quantification of possible culrrulatiVE impacts of gas well drilling not only on water resources, but also on community infrastnrcture and social services, and at least semi - quantitative analyses of a range c) f potent] al m itigation strategies. This wi 11 require coordirnation among a number of state and local agencies, as well as additional funding For them. ■ The State of New fork`s official policy, enacted into law, is "to conserve, improve and protect its natural resources and environment , . ," and it is the Department's responsibility to carry out this policy. natural gas dri 11 ing does not conserve, improve and pro tecl New York Slate 's natural resources and environment, ■ The DEC currently t ntly has only 17 inspectors for over 13,000 existing �vells; if gas production by hydraulic Fracturing begins, thore could potentially be tens oC thousands of more wells in Now Fork Mate. The draft S EIS does not address 11(jw the number of inspectors will be increased or where funds will come frorn to pay For more inspectors; this is woefully inadequate to manage nohiral resources to assu+-e their protection and balonced uldization, preveni and abate woler, land and air Pollution, and regu(ade storage, handling and transport of 'so lids, lrguids and gases to prevenl polluliorr_ ■ Obviously, th3,se more stringent and detailed requircrnents For permitting would create jobs in the DEC, These ticw jobs could be. a help to N ew York's economy. Fees for permits must fund these jobs_ If this industry truly wants to recover this has in a responsible manner, they should be more than willing to provide Funding to understand, act to prevent, and mitigate the risks of this gas removal, Page 6 ■ DEC should impicirment regulations that presume the operator to be the cause of adverse water duality impacts unless demonstrated otherwise by pre - drilling haseline testing, assuming the larLddr���ner gave permission. ■ DEC should require operators to past a bond and/or provide proof of insurance of a sufficient amount necessary to supply mun icipal water to residents with contr,]_ninated wells, ■ The original LEIS adopted in 1992 sloes not do enough to prevent accidents_ As reported by DEC's own records, there have been 270 of contamination events in the- State of NY caused by gas &1111nc related activates that have not been remedied_ In. some cases not i �verL assessed, This is unacceptable. As wi` move into a w,w and more risky type of dulling activity that has a history of accidents, we cannot depend on a document that wits drafl-ed almost twenty years ago_ 'T'he review conducted by the DEC on the original document is not comprehensive. The DEC needs io demand From the State additional resources to tymnage, regulate, and adequaWly enforce the regulations needed to protect the atrnospherc and environment for the people. If the DEC is unable to do this, then they must relinquish control of the permitting process and enf'brcernent to the local rnLinicipxlities_ ■ This d000 ment is currently not written as a regulation, but as a suggestion. It is the Department ()f Environmental Conservation's responsibility to protect the environment and the citizens of [slew York State. This document must lie framed as regulation, and must mandate they parametcrs in which drilling will be allowed and haw these regulations will be enforced. Words like may and sho uld, are weak and subject to intorpretadon_ Words like must, shall, will and requ ired are legally binding and MLISt replace the weaker words that imply that the drilling companies are encouraged but not required to ensure the safe operation, ■ Unquantifiable words such as "SLIbstantlal" "limited ", and "minimal ". The use of these words sets up a system that wil I result in the courts de Fining these terms in an inconsistent manner, R.eguIations are intended to reduce court actions, not create them, ■ The DEC must reconcile several insuinces of conflict throughout the document. One instance is: page 7 -36 states that "the opportunity for state regulators to witness the cement lacing poured "; however later sec:tion$ state the DEC inspector is required to witness the cement being poured. Again, this opens the door for court action. ■ DEC needs to conduct a financial assessment of the estimated costs astiociated with the influx ofwell permits and the need for additional enforcement_ This estimate needs to be ca I. cm Ia.tedl before gas companies arc allowed to begin oht,aining permits, The PennsyI van ia DEP seri ously underestimated the number of Penn it app] ications. and this has been a hardship for that state, ,Bascd upon the finan6al assessment, permit fees can be accurately dewrmined and applied uniformly, A portion of this permitting fee must be allocated and disseminaCud to the local municipalities to cover unfunded mandates such as water testing, emergency management, and local oversight. ■ The operating documents including logs, Safety records, water usage, was towater irnanagernent, and other crucial documents roust be made part of the public record to ensure public oversight. The DEC does not Page 7 have the resources and appears to not have. the de -sire to review these records for important infractions that could affect local people. ■ AI l Bes( Management Practices (BMP) as defined need he required and plans rnus( be Filed with (lie DEC and provided to the local muicipali n ty by the drilling company as part of the perrnit application. ■ A violation section needs to be created and included in this dOcurnent. It is unciear what the congegriences arc for failure to comply with these regulations. This section should docurnerit the taenal(ies, romediation enforcement, who assurnes these costs, and tlle recourse available to individual citizens, local goverilments, and other stakeholders, ■ Clear definitions need to be niade o C a I I terms used in the document; process such as "cease drilling", "s4ispend drillincr", and "drilling hiatus" need to be defined. ■ Cumulative impacts arc not addressed in this document and are extremely imporurnt. The DEC can control cumulative impacts by implementing a permitting process in which companies must apply for permits by a certrain cralendar date foe• a certain operational time lcriodr once the permitting application time has closed; no additional periniis will be. allowed for that operational tiine period. For example, the DEC could open an application tune period beginning July 1, 2015 and ending December 31, 2015 for the operational (ime period of July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2018, In this case, the DEC could adequately assess Cumulative impacts and determine the nurnber of perm its that will be issued during that tiinefraine_ 0 SPECIFIC COMMENTS, BY SECTION 7.1 Water resources Comments subnlitted by= Jail Shay, Judith Pierpont, Murtha Fischer OEIS comments for the Dryden'1'own 13oard —Judy Pierpont Protecting Water Resources — Withdrawals and Fracking Contamination Upstate Nely York relies on its water; it is our most important resource. Only villages and some towns have munie -ipal water supplies while most residents rely on weIIs, i.c ground water. WithouI water, households can't function, houses and property Iose their val uc. (Even the possibility that they inight lose water has already lowered their sale value and led banks to refuse financing_) tubs( important, the livelihoods of all our citizens depend on our water; it is the economic backbone of dairy farariing, the raising of aniinak for food, viticulture and crucially, hay, brain and vegetable production, in particular the burgeoning orgaanjo agriculture economy, Tourism plaays a major role in the econoiny of the Finger Ltukes area hecause. of the opportuni(its for recreation and enjoyment of wondrous natural beauty and rural landscapes. Who would come if they anticipated an industrial countryside and polluted air and water`' Protecting Water Resources Water Withdrawals Whilo Chapter 6 {6-4 to 5 -8) discusses the do leterlOLis efFects of water dra downs, it does not address the effects of cumulative e!'fccts on the arena's means of livelillood —its agriculture and tourism. There are already 0 water ,shortages in some areas in some years and any further dra down would be catastrophic to the area's Page d econoimv and individual I ive,Iihoods. Section 7.1.1.1 stains that the DEC is studying aquifer depletion, For our area, wc, need to know how much water eve have in our aquifers and hoer much surface water in the streams and rivers originates as ground water. We need to know where it is being pulled from if it taken out of streams and rivers for gas dri[ ling- • These studies should be completed and their results reported in the SGEIS, • Permits for drilling in this area should not be granted until all the necessary studies have documented the amounts, sources, and interactions of water resources in this area, • Any withdrawals for drilling should be prohibited where they would deplete groundwater supplies. Section 7 -1 -1.4 advises that l 1pw fork State regulations do not address water quantity issL�es in a manner consistent with those applicable w1thi n the Susquehanna and Delaware River Basins with respect to controlling, cva]ua6ng, and monitoring surface water and ground water witbd rawaIs f -br shale gas development, Section 7.1.1.1 states that "although they may be subject to the reporting and registration requirements described below, surface and ground water withdrawals that are not on Long Island and not for drinking water supply currently are unrc�g ;ulated unless the withdrawals occur within the lands regulated by the DRBC and the SRBC." Water for drill ing in our area w i I I not for the most part come, from those watersheds, but from the Great LakeN Basin. In the SGEIS, there is inadequate regulation and monitoring of water withd raw, als for the area in the Great Lakes Basin Watershed- The protocols are not in place, While surface water withdrawals are subject to N YCRR 703.? designed to assure water quality standards by prohibiting; any alteration in flow that would impair a fresh surface waterbody's designated best use, the technical guidance on the application ofthis measure of water quality for flow has not been promulgated. In the SGF,]StheDEC proposes using the Natural 40 Flow Regime Method "as an interim protection measure in l ieu of the flow standard pending completion of the flow standard TO0S." But the appl ication of thie Natural F] ow Regime Nl thod seems to be suggested only as an option to address cumulative iinpacts on stream floxv;, The document sags only that "ad versc cumulative impacts could be addressed by the Natural Flow Regime Method -- . if each operator of a permitted surface water withdrawal estimated or reported the maximum wi Ili dra al rats and moasured the actual pass by #how for any period of withdrawal -" Such depondenc-e on the individual operator anti language which nowhere mgnires this protocol seems to put this mitigation in the realm of speculation, dreams, reaching at straws, We really must not leave the fate of our streams to thu mercy of such imprecise and untested methods. The ex isting Great Lakes/SL Lawrence River Basin Water Resources Compact is also not yet operational in Now York, but its stipulations would set much more protective regulation for this area In other words, reg4ilatory methods for WLthdra al of water M the Great Lakes Basin area are not fully in place- • 1n the final version of the SG EIS, we urge the DEG to establish clear and verifiable limits on the acceptable di,awdown of Water resources iri the Great Fakes Basin. Safeguarding water resources in this area roust be as stringent and well- monitored as in the DI WB and SRWB- T11e DpaC should priori tize implementing legislation and regulations under the Great Lakes- St. Law renee ]diver 13asin Water Resources Compact, ■ Ilermits for drilling in this area should not be approved until the regulations under the corn pact are in place- Water Contamination In the discussion of the authority and regulations of the Delaware, River Basin Commision, Reduced Stream 40 Flow, SGEIS 7. ] - ] -3 states that groundwater is required to be maintained in a safe and satisfactory condition for use as a source of surface water suitable for wildlife, fish and other aquatic life. It shall be "free from substances Page 9 or properties in concentrations or Combinations %krhich t-re toxic or harmfuI to human, animal, plant, or aquatic Iife, or that produce color; taste, or odor of the waters," The regulations of the DR.BC as regards pollutants should be the sLandard for surface and groundwater for a] l of the areas in which gas drilling takes place. With0LIt spCCif (, standards iii place for the Great Fakes }basin, the standards for water inLegrity are not adequately spelled out, • until the Great Lakes -5t. Lawrence River Basin Compact is famed by New York, standards at least as stringent as those of the DR-BC should be written into the SGEIS. These should be maintained if the standards of the new approved Gornpact are not as stringent, • D 6 must develop monitoring and testing protocols equivalent to those of the DRBC for the Great Lakes Basin. Polluting {accidents; It has become evident from the experienee particularly in Texas, Colorado; Wyoming and Pennsylvania that the high - volume hydimuIic fracturing technology to extract natural gas is not advancCd enough to prevent s p i I Is, leakage, breaks, and other accidents, Even small amounts of petroleum- derived chemicals in groundwater will make it unusable, most of the chemicals used in fracking have negative impacts on huunan lienlLh should they get into (lie water. They will also impair the health of anirnals, birds, and organisms of all sorts in the ecosystem, including plants- -crops and otherwise, It would be simply the height of i rnprudence to risk impairing our water, our roost important resource. Bad water or ruined aquifers it l kill the upstate economy_ I'he ,survival of Iong -term, essential agricultural produ cers and the businesses that serve them Will be threatened_ Since it is inevitable that some of the chemicals will escape into the environment; the DEC must make the most serious and careful effort to protect New York's people and environment from noxious chemicals_ we do not believe that thcc DEC has fulfilled this responsibility and that we are very much at risk of being irreparably haunned. We do not believe any entity has the right to bring this level of risk into our lives for any purpose, no matter how potentially lucrative. We bel ieve that there is an unacceptable amount of chemicals that we will potentia] ly be exposed to and that they are unacceptably dangerous. The DEC needs to address both ofthese issues with further study arrd more dependable mitigation, W e have the opportunity to learn from the inistakcs of other states which are sLIffering the effects ofpaIIuting their water and dainaging the health of their citizens_ A sensible course would be to spend the time needed to study alternative.-s to using chemicals with s4ich high toxicity and/or wait until they are more fully available_ Yes, there are pressures to proceed quickly from those who stand to gain, but DEC needs to consider at what future cost to thr,F health and livelihoods of all the residents of the area, including those who want. their profits but havf2 not understood the risks to themselves, The amounts of fracking c-lieini cal s to be used in this now high - volume horizontal drilling to hydraulically fracture the shale are massively greater than for conventional wells into the shale, The SG EIS does not put any limits on the cumulative effects of using so much poison_ Tf ] 00 times the amount of Chemicals is used, a fair estimate, we can anticipate 100 times the amount of escape, as in the past. The docu rn entati on of spills and contamination froin brcrakage and leakage on Walter Hang's Toxiestargeting.com website is incontroverhble- incidents repotted to tho DEC, some of which were administratively closed because there was noway to satisfactorily clean up the problem. Once toxic cheraiGals get into x body of water, it is pretty hard to do anything. of Course. There were probably ether incidents which were never reported to the DEC. Now, we are facing the prospect of multi file Wells on a pad with 100 times the tricking chemicals used for each_ With no liin it on acceptable cumulative i rnpact, the risk of tox is pollution cif water is multiplied iar beyond acceptable limits. Page 10 • The impacts of a realistically calculated amount of (racking additives must be taken up in the SGEIS. If there are possible mitigations, these should be advanced. • 'The cumulative effects of the increased amount of toxic additives must be addressed in the SGEIS. The most reasonable, perhaps only, mitigation is a limit on the number of wells in an area to avoid the inevitable cumulative el %cts. • Local governments should be expressly given the authority as involved agencies to set limits on development in order to safeguard the water resources upon which their local economy and residential base depend. The DEC must also require the disclosure of the chemical composition of the (racking fluids. We cannot safeguard the health of people who accidentally come into contact with leaked or spilled fluids without the specific knowledge of the chemicals and amounts that they might have been exposed to. Health professionals as well as emergency first responders need quick access to this information through the DEC. It is not in the interests of New York citizens to abet: the corporate desire to keep their chemical cocktail recipes secret. If they want to drill in our state, we need to know exactly what they propose to inject under our houses, Gelds, forests, and aquifers. DEC needs to have at least that much authority over what is done in our name. They want to drill and they are not going to go away when we make full disclosure a condition of being granted a permit. In addition to keeping that information in your offices so that it is accessible to health and safety personnel, it should also be available to responsible researchers. We need to learn all we can about these chemicals and their effects. • As a condition of permitting, DEC must require full disclosure of all chemicals that will be used in fracking the proposed well and the amounts of each. • 'fhe information about chemical composition must be accessible as needed to health and safety personnel and to researchers for scientific study. In the assessment of chemicals in Chapter 5, some are listed in 5.4.3.1 that present such serious hazards to health that they should not be allowed in the hydrofracking fluid. We should not acquiesce to the possibility, whether remote or likely, of polluting our state with such poisons. If we deny permits, the companies will find more acceptable ways to get their product out. In fact, as Chapter 9 indicates, there do exist in Europe and this country fracking additives which are non -toxic and are considered "green." If so, it seems premature and foolish to go ahead and accept the use of highly toxic ones. It would be better to do more research and wait until the DEC can make informed decisions about which chemicals are acceptable. The necessary principle is to regulate with the authority vested in the DEC to protect health and the environment. In particular, the DEC should not allow the use of petroleum distillates— benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, or xylenes. • The DEC should identify and ban the use of highly toxic chemicals in fracking fluid. • The DEC should pursue research to identify acceptable green fracking fluids. In Chapter 6, the SGEIS does not discuss adequately the health and environmental impacts that could be anticipated as a result of fracking fluids getting into groundwater and polluting underground drinking water sources. This is a serious oversight, or perhaps a case of unreasonable optimism, or denial. As more and more ® cases of what are most likely fracking fluid contamination are revealed, particularly in Wyoming, it has become Page 1 t • clear that the lack of "evidence" or "confinned cases" does not mean that we should be complacent or rely on defensive logic to dodge acknowledging the risks. It's hard to find "scientific" evidence that well drilling has "caused" contamination. This does not mean that we should not reasonably suppose that there is a causal relation and take precautionary measures in the future. It is a problem for the gas companies to have it known that these fluids leak from tanks, escape from broken well casings, are spilled in the various stages of the process, not to mention the contamination problems posed by dealing with flog ;back fluids. We can assume that we know about only a fraction of the incidents. We need to be aware of the possibility and implications of contamination. Do we really want future generations to curse us for not taking adequate precautions when we actually knew the possible cost of negligence" • The SGEIS must expose in detail the real possibilities of failure to contain the fracking fluids and the risks of contamination of groundwater. • The DEC should require that a "tracer" compound be added to the fracking fluid. This will identify the source of pollution if a water well is contaminated. • The SGEIS needs to stare that gas companies will be responsible for all mitigation and cleanup costs associated with well contamination and how this process will be handled with state and local oversight. • No permits should be approved until the EPA has reviewed and updated its 2004 study of contarination from escaped fi-acking fluids, recently mandated by Congress. In Chapter 7.1.4, the SGEIS only addresses direct pollution of a water well, but aside from such contamination, ground water and thus local drinking water sources, can be disturbed physically by the drilling of gas wells. Water in wells can become turbid and undrinkable or gas under pressure can migrate into ground water. Recently 13 wells in Dimock, PA have been polluted by methane and a gas well exploded. • The SGEIS must recognize the real possibilities of various kinds of disturbance and pollution of groundwater, and thus underground drinking water sources, and propose adequate mitigations beyond requiring the companies to provide a lifelong supply of bottled drinking water. Chapter 7.1.4.1 requires that water wells within 1000 ft. of a proposed gas well be tested before drilling begins. This is not adequate protection for wells in the area where contamination may occur. • DEC should require that private water well testing include any private water wells within the production unit for hydraulic fracturing of natural gas wells. Aside from proper handling of flowback fluids and solid wastes, proper handling of chemicals on the site can help to prevent contamination of surface and groundwater. In Chapter 7.1.3.1, it is weakly suggested that tanks holding toxic diesel fuel should be positioned more than 500 feet from water resources. Operators are "encouraged" to do so "to the extent practicable." This minimum separation from all water sources should be required and enforceable. • The SGEIS should require a distance of at least 500 feet of all diesel and other tanks containing toxic materials from any water source. The strongest possible requirements for control of runoti'should also be followed. This area is prone to heavy rain and snowmelt floods. If the municipality has in place stone water codes, these must be incorporated into the permitting process. Pogo 12 • Any well drilling activities proposed in MS4 cominututies with local stormwater and/or erosion and sediment control policies must comply with the permit requirement for an MS4 review and acceptance form. REGULATORY COORDINATION WiTH MUNICIPALITIES Environmental, economic and social impacts will be occurring at the local levels as a result of drilling activities. In order for municipalities to fulfill their most basic responsibility of protecting their citizens, they must be informed of the drilling activity proposed within their boundaries. • Chapter 8.1.1.3 should require that the DISC notify the town supervisor of a municipality of all pen-nit applications in their communities, as they are received. Chapter 8.1.1.0 should stipulate that all activities within a municipality should be in accordance with their comprehensive and other plans. Communities have spent numerous hours developing; and implementing local planning documents such as comprehensive plans, revitalization strategic plans, open space plans, and agricultural and farmland protection plans. These plans document a community's vision for their future. Therefore, instead of encouraging operators to consult with local government on this, NYS DEC should require operators to consult with local government regarding any existing local plan prior to siting operations. The affirmation of review should also require an applicable local official signature. For example, review of certain agricultural plans (i.e. conservation plans) may inform companies of potential practices and land improvements that would be impacted by earth disturbance activities. Consultations with local officials and agencies prior to siting drilling operations could result in less and avoidable environmental impacts. • DEC should require operators to consult with local government regarding; any existing local plan prior to siting operations. • DEC should recognize all local aquifer protection and wellhead protection laws and require that gas companies comply with local regulations, as must all activities within the proposed aquifer and wellhead protection areas. Martha Fischer, Marie McRae 7.1 Protecting Water Resources Draft SGEIS 9/30/2009, Page 7 -2 CITIZEN COMMEN,r: Unless the Department has the funding and personnel to enforce requirements to prevent or remedy "the escape of oil, gas, brine or water out of one stratum into another" and "the pollution of fresh water supplies by oil, gas, salt water or other contaminants ", then these requirements are nothing but words on paper. This sDGh:IS must include a regulation that the Department must have the funding and personnel necessary to enforce these requirements prior to approval of applications for drilling. 7.1.2 Stormwrater Draft SGEIS 910'30/2009, Page 7 -23 CITIZEN COMMENT: A huge loophole exists in this statement because the Clean Water Act grants oil and gas drilling companies exemptions from laws protecting water. The DEC should rewrite this part of the sDGEIS after the EPA has reviewed the daw on which the Clean Water Act is based. 18 7.1.3.1 Drilling Rig Fuel Tank and Tank Refillingx Activities Draft SGEIS 9/30/2009, Page 7 -28 CITIZEN COMMENT; These regulations are excellent! This whole section has a lot of effective and specific Page 13 0 rules. 7, ,1. i.r�rtt calve Wafer Wdhdrawai Inapaefs Draft SG E [S 9/30/ 009, Page 7 -22 CITIZEN COMMENT, Nothing in phis section estztblishes rcoulaf.ions with regard to cumulative water withdrawal impacts. Article 15 c the ECL regulates use of water resources, but dues not address the cumulative impacts of the withdrawal of millions of gallons of water from the Great Lakes Basin_ I do not know the basis for the quantities of water outlined in Article 15, Title lb: the quantities outlined require registration of the water withdrawals, A maximum amount of withdrawal, cumulative to the Great Lakes Basin must be established if the area is to maintain its ohairacter Other comments on curnuIative water impacts relating to Monsanto statement of water use 7.1.3.3 Hydraulic Frocruring ,4ddiffve.s Draft SG61S 9/30/2009, Page. 7 -32 CITIZENS COMMENT: Drilling corpanies submitted a list of 48 chemicals to ihe: DEC. I obtained the list, and learned about MSOSs_ I was alarmed at the numher of safety pan arneters for whicl7 information was ' Not Detcrrnined ". The use of-BE -3S Bactericide, for example, must be banned until ecological information about inobility of the substance in water, soil, and air has been determined; banned until biomaCccurnulation has been determined; banned until ecotox I cologicit 1 information relating to chemical fate has been determined. AI l of the chemicals on the list that nave ecology- related information "blot Daerrnined" should be banned. The MSDS for BE -3 S Bactericide states Acute 1"ish Toxicity: May be toxic to aquatic life. release of this substance to the Great Lakes Basin. which includes the pond on the land for which I am responsible and Six Mile Creek, the water 4ourco for the City of Ithaca, is totally unacceptable. Thee DEC must require gas drilling companies and all other drilling- related companies to release to the public a list of fracturing additives used in local drilling operations. f have the Fight to know when substances such as 13E -3S Bactericide are going; to be released upstream of the drinking waver well on the property for which I am responsible and 4pstream of Six Mile Creek drainage, 7.1.3.4 Ffnwback Water Draft SGEIS 9130,'2009, .Page 7 -34 CI'I,12L -1J COMMENT: DEC inust require that steel containment tanks be leakproof and tight against tampering by hLIMUMS or invasion by wildlife. Valves on the tanks must be inspected weekly, since these seem to have been weak points in other site contamination events. 7.1.4 Ground darer In7pacfs• Associated With WeN Dialifing and Construction Draft SGEIS 913012409, Rage 7 -3 CITIZEN COMMENT: D 6 must require the drilling companies to be responsible for testing drinking water )vells within one mile of the drill site. We need a lave that mandates that companies, not citizens, have the onus of proving that degradation of water is not due to drilling company activities_ 7.1.4.1 Private Water Wcll Tsting Complaints Draft SGEIS 913[}.12009, Page 7 -42 CITIZEN! COMMENT: Drilling companies must be responsible for the cost of water well testing, and must contract the task to a third party weII- established testing company. DEC; must require, not jLISI propose, the ongoing nionitoririg schedule, Please require that contaminant - indicators be included in the initial predriIIing or baseline round ofsampIing. Local departments of health are understaffed and underfunded. Until sufficient funding, staffing, and Page 14 • training are achieved, responses to complaints should be the responsibility of the state or federal govenunent. The statement on page 7 -43 that "DEC and the county health department will share information" must include it time by which the deparhnents will release inforniation. Citizens must have access to information in a timely manner. I propose a one -week turn- around time. 7.1.6 Waste Tran.vyort CITIZEN COMMENT: More time needed to provide comment on this topic. 7.1.7 Centralized Flowback Water Surface Impoundments CITIZEN COM.ME:NT: In Sect 7.1.7 it states: ....require submission and approval for a fluid disposal plan "[p]rior to the issuance of a well drilling pennit for any operation in which the probability exists that brine, salt water or other polluting fluids will be produced or obtained during drilling operations in sufficient quantities to be deleterious to the surrounding environment." Who determines "sufficient quantity "? What is the exact meaning of "deleterious "') Sect 7.1.7 further states: ". Consistent with GWPC's recommendation that long -term storage pits be prohibited within the boundaries of public water supplies (Section 5.18.1.2), the Department will not approve use of centralized flowback water surface impoundments within the boundaries of primary and principal aquifers or unfiltered water supplies" 0 This should include and clearly state that surface impoundments will not be permitted within the boundries of PRIVATE WATER WELL SUPPLIES, as those water wells are "unfiltered water supplies ". Sect 6.1.8 states: "Direct. discharge of fluids onto the ground or into surface water bodies from the well pad are prohibited." However, Sect 7.1.7.3 states: "The maximum leakage rate monitored between the two liner systems should not exceed 100 gallons per acre per day (based on a 30 -day average)." Prohibition must be maintained. As read; 3,000 gallons of flowback water is permitted to be discharged each month. This is not acceptable. Sect 7.1.7 states: "While it is acknowledged that flowback waters are not solid wastes, the characteristics of the flowback waters best compare qualitatively with landfill leachate regulated under the Part 360 provisions." in describing the choice of holding pond liner requirements. And goes on to state: "The best way to ensure that leakage is prevented in lined facilities is to minimize the hydraulic head on the liner system." We live in a region of prolific rain and snow fall. One good thunderstorm can produce enough water to exceed the recommended "hydraulic head" on any such containment pond. This is acknowledged in section 7.1.7.4: "Precipitation loading in a surface impoundment with a large surface area can, over time, increase the volumes of liquid....." Page 15 We reject the use of open contajjiment ponds for the storage of flowback waters on any NY lands, and call instead for the use of closed holding tanks, Covered tanks Wilt reduce the possibility of spills, floods, air contamination from evaporation, wildlife and bird kills. This system must be required. Therefore we reject and propose deletion of all sections relating to the use of pond liners, liner selection, material, placement, closure and disposal. 7, f.8 SPDESmRcg?4lrjtcd Dischw -ges C1TI I N COMMENT, Sect 7.1.8 and following sections addressing the disposal and treatment of flowback waters place the burden of analysis on local Publically [sic] Owned Treatment Works (POTWs), as [hey should. "State P0117W permittees with industrial pretreatment or mini - pretreatment programs are required to notify NYSDI'�C of new discharges or substantial changes in the volume or character of policItants discharged to the peritte �I d POTW. YSDE no then dctcrnnine if the SPDES perm needs to nee to be mod fied to account for the proposed discharge, change or increase." Fuither: "The large volumes of retuni water from high- volumc hydraulic fracturing combined with the diverse mixture of chemicals a17d high total dissolved solids (TDS) that oxisL in both floWbaGk water and produced brine, requires that the permittee submit a hcadworks analysis to the Department for rew1ew in accordance with DO 's Technical and Operational Guidance eries(TOGS )T'• Yet, later in that section, 1t is noted;" The high concentrations of Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) present in this source of wastewater may prove to b� inhibitory to bic}togi Gal lva5teater ti eatntent processes, It has been noted that the concentrations of TDS in the retuni and process water increase over the life of the well_ The expected concentrations of TDS for both the initial f7owback water as well as for the ongoing well operation must therefore be considered i n the deveIopmcnt of the head works analysis." The text does not address the radioactive content or the waswwaLer except in the headworks analysis list. In order to do proper analysis of the flowback water, the chemical and 'NORM content of the waste MUST he public information_ I '.ach well ownerrdrillerroperator must disclose in a public way, the content of each particular well's fracktng fluids and flowback content.. DEC has acknowledged that taking drilling flo back waters into existing POTWs may well kill the biological processes necessary for the Proper functioning of the POT in its daily, primary, work of treating sewage. No treatment plants for industrial wastewater currently exist in NTY. Until riuch treatment facilities are built and tested it is unconscionable to allow the production of any flowbxck water in the state of NY. Treatment of the flowback water must Comply with the statement at the end of Sect 7.1.8.1 scich that "limitations [on chemical; TDS, and radioactive Qontent] are the maximum allowable concentrations or ranges for various physical, chemical, anchor biological parannecers co ensure that there are no impacts to the receiving water body_" These limitations must be set at, or above, the fi deriLI EPA standards, 7.1.9 Solids Disposal CITIZEN COMMENT. Sect 7.1.9 discusses the disposal of solids generated in tht, drilling process_ These solids must not be spread or buried without proper analysis of Convent. Paga 16 The oversight of drilling pads, holding tanks, wastevo+atcr treatment, site clean -up and oilier related issues around thcc drilling for natural cr s will require many hours of personal work in the field. We insist that NY DEC does 130t cuMently maintain staff numbers sufficient to do proper oversight - We demand that no permitting for slick• water, high volume, hydraulic fraetUring of 141 Urcel[us, or other, shales be allowed until such time as it has been proved a safe practice by peer- reviewed study by the EPA, and until such time as the DEC is appropriately staffed, 7- 1.12 . efbacks IT.i.ZEN COMMENT: It seems to me that the nature of the Iand should dictate setbacks. If a stream is 150 feet downhill from a gas well, then water resources downstream will be affected, Distances From well sites must to be site specific; 150 Feet is inadequate when considering the curnulative impacts downstream, General Comments re: Proteetion of Water Resources .Fan. Shay; Concerns About Gas Drilling From it 40 Vcar Town Resident .I have lived in the Town of Dryden for f o r t y m our years, and 1 have observed continual change, but Gas Dnfling poses an unprecedented and threatening degree of change to nny world. 1 accept that it is not possible to say not in my back yard' in tilt, face of unemployment, of the near•bankrupt economy of NY S, and of the larger issues cf energy and Climate Change for our elation. Nevertheless, 1 expect that before Gas Drilling is undertaken, I will not be asked to accept the profound changes that will occur in our region without binding protection being provided for by use of current scientific input, careful supen?ision, lebal redress for individuals; and assured and proper remcdiation for any harm that results from the process. Without that, 1 have grave concerns for the longer -term health of fiat only the Town but the entire region of the Finger Lakes that is now rich in the. esseNial reso4LrCcs of agricultural land and water in a World that is losing both at a rapid rate, The road on which I live reflects the concerns 1 feel for the Finger Lakes region- at•largc. They are as toilows: f Water i_s part and parcel of the world I live in, and it could be vulnerE,ble to contamination by the hydrofractingprocess, . J live in an area where everyone: has a well. Hoines are scattered throughout the area, in some places as densely as suburbia, • Many of nny neighbors have sinned leases to al low either above ground or below ground rights for 6 as Drilling. Some of them were unaware of the: impact there could be on their property and their own wellbeing, let alone their surrounding community, Further up the road are the headwaters of Cascadilla Creek that passes through nny backyard, and ultimately flows into Cayuga Lake. Also, further up the road is Ringwood I? reserve, a series of glacial ponds filled and surrounded with fauna and fl ora, owned by Come [I Uriiversity for teachi11 purposes,- - The creek winds down through the valley and spreads out in wetlands at the end of my road.. There are many sorin s in the hI cles and numerous tributaries and undergrOUnd streams thin eventually reach the rake Efforts are already mounted to_research and remedy existing problems in the Uke. We are interested in safeguardipZ it from any further deterioration acknowledging its importance to our way of life, • Agricultural and farmland is interspersed throughout the area, Uncontaminated water is essentia[ to both. Palle 17 • Daily reading of articles about the contamination of our waterways and of ever - increasing drought conditions, and of the essentialness of water to food production reminds us of the preciousness of water around the World and at home. We should take great care of this tremendous resource in NYS. • Therefore, 1 am concerned about the amount of water that the hydrofracturing process requires, about the character of the returned water, and about the adequacy of our waste systems and the integrity of the lagoons created to handle the toxic, radioactive. and salty wastewater. Indeed, I worry about accidents that can happen within the process itself with their implications for our land and water and people. • Who will bear the responsibility for adequate inspection and remediation, and will there be money available in a near- bankrupt State to guarantee proper procedure and remediation? And who bears responsibility for the wear and tear on our local infrastructure? • The people and land in the area need protections from non- resident companies (some may be international companies), workers, and landowners who are deriving benefit from the process, but who are without a stake in the welfare of the region. All the more need for greater inspection and regulation. • Without a doubt, Gas Drilling will impose tremendous and undesirable change under the best of circumstances. We must be assured of the reg atest protection possible in the region through the use of scientific knowledge, and the provision for legal recourse for individuals, vigorous and adequate inspection and remediation BEFORE beginning Gas Drilling, We are sadly mistaken if we do not value the land and water and way of life of the people of NYS for the long term. Short -term thinking and unwillingness to pay a true cost has led to our present desperation for solutions to our problems. �7.2. Floodplains: More time needed to provide comment on this topic. 7.3. Freshwater Wetlands: Comments submitted by: Peter H. Wrege The greatest potential impacts to these systems come from the above- ground activities associated with drilling and materials brought to the surface by these activities, and this is the focus of these comments. However, risks of contamination of aquifers, subsurface waters, and springs also apply to these systems, and comments focused on those risks are included by reference here. A general concern applicable here is identification of `at risk' systems that should inform the siting of well pads. Local government entities are best situated to provide this input and should be part of the permitting; process. The gas companies must be required to pay the costs of this review process. Wetlands Freshwater wetland environments play a critical role in the health of surrounding ecosystems and in the purity of drinking water supplies for residents. Among the benefits of wetlands is their role in charging groundwater and aquifers, flood and storm control, high biodiversity — particularly of amphibian species, and they are the base of important food webs that extend far into the surrounding; forests, woodlands, fields, and gardens. These benefits apply to wetlands considerably smaller in size than the 12.4 acres and larger recognized by Federal and State law and requiring special permitting. The potential importance of smaller wetlands is specifically recognized in the GEIS document (845). 6.1.1.5 Impacts to Downstream Wetlands 46 11. Even small changes in the hydrology of the wetland can ishave significant impacts on the wetland plant community and on the animals that depend on that Pogo 18 wetland. It is important to preserve the hydrologic conditions and to understand the surface water and groundwater interaction to protect wetland areas." Given recognition that freshwater wetlands are fragile (6.1.1.0, the dsGEIS then refers to the GEIS of 1992 for mitigation recommendations. These are wholly inadequate, are focused on siting of well sites within wetlands, activities within 100 ft of wetlands, and creation of replacement wetland habitats. Given that (1) the current technology of horizontal drilling obviates the need to have well pads close to wetlands, (2) damage to wetland ecosystems is often irreversible or requires long recovery periods, (3) chemical contamination from runoff, spills, etc. „could be particularly devastating to wildlife and poses serious risk to degradation of drinking water supplies, the following should be required: buffer zone for setback from all wetlands (of any size) shall be increased from 100 feet to 500 feet. No activities or construction shall occur within this zone. No surface impoundments for flowback water pennitted at any location, period. Steel holding tanks. 7.1.7 re Centralized flowback water surface impoundments (CF "WSI): "...Department will not approve use of C.FWSI within the boundaries of primary and principal aquifers or unfiltered water supplies." Titis includes all areas of Town of Dryden. "...acknowledged that conservative liner requirements alone do not guarantee groundwater protection." Therefore, these i»mpoundinews should not be allowed — Period. ® - All access roads and well -pad construction must include provision to maintain normal hydrology for the wetland, including diversion of drainage (especially storm surge) around well -pad and under access roads. Provision to isolate, capture, and store all runoff from the entire well -pad area as well as any area subject to potential leaking or spill of fluids associated with drilling and drippingispill of fuel or oil from vehicles and motors used on site. This should involve, at minimum, an impervious plastic liner extending from under the edges of the concrete well -pad and running up a constructed dike of sufficient height that storm- related runoff from the well -pad is entirely captured. This runoff nnust be captured (sump pumps, etc.) and disposed of is accordance with procedures for flowback fluids. 7.1.3.4 (2c) additional mitigation for flowback water: "Fluid transfer operations from tanks to tanker trucks must be manned at the truck and at the tank if the tank is not visible to the truck operator from the truck." This requires additional protection — e.g. all transfers must occur on the well -pad to protect against any leaking or spills that could then contaminate runoff water into wetlands. Or entire distance from pad to truck, under the pipeline and under the parking area of the trucks, must be protected with impervious liner and dike that will capture all runoff that could be contaminated. - All potential sources of water for drilling activities, including lakes, ponds, streams, reservoirs, and marshes, that are upstream of wetlands [what size ?] must be evaluated for the impact of water removal on the wetland health. This requirement is consistent with the concerns raised in section 6.1.1,5, but is not included in mitigation requirements. Page 19 - Suggestions for mitigation concerning stormwater runoff `will be revised as necessary'. What is this revision'? How can it be commented upon? 7.4. Ecosystems and Wildlife: Comments submitted by: Peter 1.1. Wrege The mosaic of woodland and forest, field and stream, village and garden that cloaks our hills is precious. These ecosystems, and the wildlife they sustain, provide recreation, livelihoods, safe, clean water, clean air — they are the essence of our quality of life in Upstate N.Y. These resources are more valuable in the long term than any that can be extracted from beneath the earth's surface. Our governmental entities must protect them from irrevocable harm. The dsGEIS and sections of the 1992 GEIS referred to, discuss only three issues: water withdrawals (dealt with elsewhere), invasive species, and the `attractive nuisance' of open impoundments. This is wholly inadequate because it ignores general pollution impacts as well as the effects of fragmentation of habitats. truck traffic, 7.4.1 invasive species. Mitigation recommendations dealing with transfer and encouragement of invasive species by drilling disturbances and movement of equipment around the area is reasonable as written, but there is no provision for oversight of compliance. Who will do this and who will pay for this'? 7.4.2 centralized flowback impoundments. There of open impoundments for flowback fluids. The would be expected. This is not true, Numerous Federal migratory species act) would be attracted all, they must be both fenced and covered by nctti Required Additions: are already numerous other reasons to completely ban the use dsGEIS suggests that only occasional use by some waterfowl species, including migrating shorebirds (protected under the to such `water' bodies. !f such impoundments are permitted at ng that will keep all bird species away from the toxic fluids. any spill and /or runoff of brine and chemicals reaching oiry water source, however small (e.g. stream, wetland, venal pools), have potentially serious impacts on wildlife and ecosystems. The dsG.EIS itself mentions the decimation of vegetation in the path of documented spills. Thus, all well pads, regardless of where situated, need secondary protection from runoff and spills = impervious liners and dikes and methods for recovering all runoff for offsite disposal (or independent testing before approved release). Construction of pipelines, access roads, and well pads all potentially result in fragmentation of habitat, which is well studied and known to have detrimental impacts on many species of wildlife as well as on plant communities. 1. Fragmentation could be minimized by requiring well pads on open land if at all possible 2. Pipelines could be required to run adjacent to existing roads and within existing rights -of- -way through forested areas. Prohibit cutting new transacts through woodlands larger than some minimum size. Well pads sited within large forested patches would be reached by pipeline running only along the access road. - The dsGEIS treats air quality only from the perspective of human impacts, but all manner of wildlife are similarly affected, plus plant and amphibian communities are sensitive to acidification of precipitation where smokestack emissions are high. Concern about pollution associated with high diesel truck traffic, generators, and other internal combustion engines. High ozone, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, etc. which contribute to respiratory conditions and acid rain. Page 20 7.5. Air Quality. by Sarah Highland, 89 German Cross Road 1. Incolnplete Analysis of Impacts 4 Additives to Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid. The dS E1S notes in Section 5,4 that it does not leave chemical composition information on all of the proposed additives to hydraulic fracturing water. Further, in its computer modeling of the ilripac#s of these additives to air quality when they are exposed to the air in on -site or central impoundments, the agency only analyzed x handful of the seven, I hul]Clrcd chemical additives_ The rebore acknowledges [hat additive chemicals were left out of the modeling process due to insufficient data or a lack of regulatory thresholds beea4tse the co npounds in question have nQt yet been studied foil adverse effects on human health. 0 page 5 -52 it says, "compound - specific toxicity dakta are very limited for many additives to fracturing fluids ", and on page 5 -64, "readily available health efrects information is lacking for many of these constituents_" The computer modeling is incomplete, having failed to consider a large number of possible additives to fracturing water. The fact that little is yet known about the impacts of new compounds can human or environmental health does not mean such impacts do not exist_ If health effects are unknown for a given additive, then rather than excluding rt from study, it must not be allowed for use in fracturing water, Air duality analysis must be done on all powtitially toxic additive compounds before considering how to regulate their exposure to the air o FN York SLitc, 2, No Analysis of Impacts of Subterranean Contaminants of 1.1ydratilic Fracturing Fluid. While the dS EIS acknowledges that flowback water brlll'S with it soluble Chemicals found in the Marcellus shale and the wetlhore, the computer modeling of air quality impacts from flowback water impoundments is limited to a consideration of only the chemicals added to the hydraulic fracturing water by the Operator, According to Table 5 -8 the following compounds have been found in iMarcellus shale flowback water; acetone, henzene, ethyl bcnzcne, naphthalene, toluene, and xylene. All of these chemicals halve known toxic effects on human health, and most of them are addressed in the dSGE1S as toxins. As additives to fracturing fluid, benzene and xylene are addressed with particular concern by the DEC to the extent that on pago 7 -88 the agency proposes prohibiting their addition to the fluid, yet their natural occurrence in flowback water is not addressed. Modeling must be done on the array of chemicals found in flowback water and their impacts on air quality. This modeling inust include any chemical reactions which may occur bctween dissolved naturally occurring chemicals and industry additives and the resultant compounds, 3. Specific Rcgulla #ions Needed, In Section 7.5.3 -2 on Centralized ImpoundmentN, there are two statements that need to be warded strongly and specifically in order to address the air quality concerns at which they are directed, A third mitigation statement also needs to be reworded, First, in "...assessing the air quality impacts of these compounds might be necessary unless the same additive mix has been analyzed for a similar con tralized Irnpoun din ctnt" the phrase " pin i,ght be necessary" must be cl1anged to "shall be required ", since the modeling of impoundments found that significant impacts by additives on air quality were probable, Furthermore, a discussion of the required mitigation measures stenvning from this analysis is necessary. Second, where it states that the EAF Addendum will require the operator "to identify proposed control measures for preventing public exposure Co HAP's in excess of guidance thresholds ", the. ,DEC document must 40 instead mandate the measures which MUSt be taken to meet specifi ed thresholds. Pago 21 Third, in the discussion of airborne particulate matter on page 749 it is stated, ",,, a physical barrier to public access at least 500 feet from the well pad could be required unless the applicant demonstrates that specific control equipment will be used to further reduce particulate rnattcr emissions" the phrase "could be, required" must be changed to "shall be required ", because the analysis of the topic revealed a probable hazardous exposure level within that distance limit. Furthcrrnorc, the distance of the barrier must be contingent on veril`ied background levels of particulate matter of 15 micrograms per cubic meter, which was the level at which a 500 foot exclusion radius was -Pound to be acceptable. Vbackground partic4ilate levck are higher, as in the original computer model, than the barrier mint be placed 500 meters from the well pad, not 500 feet. 4, Stronger Language Ncede;d Regarding On -,bite Impoundments. 0n page 7 -89 where it says "...[various concerns] have led the Department to propose that flow back water not. be directed to an on -site reservoir pit but instead to be held on the well pad in tanks ", the words "to propose" should be changed to "[a strongly recommend requiring "_ Having dernonstratcd that open -air impoundments are highly probable hazardous chbniicxl emissions sources, the agency rnust follow through with a clear and strong mitigation recommendation for the regulations cratled to address the problem_ 7.6. Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Comments submitted by_ Deborah and Joanne Cipolla- Dennis • Before this document is approved, a full understanding of the total carbon footprint of this type of drilling is needed. The totality of trucking, drilling, fracking, i]owback management, wastewater trcatmerit, site remediation, and gas delivery will be a significant producer of greenhouse gases. This basic research should be conducted by a reputuble research institution and financially sponsored through the State of Nlcw York with none y provided by the gas drilling ind4istry, In order to apply for a pennit, well operators must be required to have completed and filed as public record, a comprehensive greenhouse gas emissions impact mii.igation plan that is thoroughly reviewed by a reputable research institution before a permit is issued_ This is discussed in section 7,6,4. It needs to be required not just encouraged. This plan should be. reviewed annually by a reputable research institution as compared to the actual actions of the well operator. if their actions are found to be significantly different than that of the plan, then drilling operations must cease until a near, acceptable plan has been filed, A penalty table should be created, advertised and applied to ineentivize adherence to the plan- Ex teri o r lighting should be required to nuke use of the best possible technology to redLice energy use. ■ Leak detection seirvey5 should be conducted routinely, unannounccd by DEC inspectors_ The costs of this enforcement can be estimated by DEC and included in determining the permitting fees needed. ■ The DEC should require that companies operating in NY State be active participants in the Natural Cias STAR I'mgrarn and provide a written report annually about its participation and adherence to the ProgiranVs recornrnendations for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, ■ Part of the permitting fee should include the gas company paying for tho carbon footprint they are making through some consistently applied carbon tax_ This tax should be devised to ince,ndvize the reduction of greenhouse gas o nisaions. Page 22 • The DEC should require that all activities at a single well pad be done sequentially and that ad be b p q Y P completed before the company moves onto another site. This will reduce the movement of equipment between sites and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It is likely that this will be done due to economic factors of moving equipment, but it should be required. ■ The DEC should require that before any drilling begins, appropriate wastewater disposal facilities are identified or built. These facilities must be state -of =the -art, using the best water treatment technology to ensure all chemicals are eliminated. To reduce the VMT (vehicle miles traveled), these facilities should be located no more than 100 miles from the drilling site. This will reduce the greenhouse gas emissions as well as reducing the probability of a spill due to MVA (motor vehicle accident). ■ The DEC needs to quantify the term "efficient transportation engine" used in section 7.6.3. The use of these types of engines should be required not suggested. ■ In section 7.6.5, well operators must provide a document showing how they are doing the following (these need to mandated, not suggested): • Re -use of flowback water • Use of recycled materials • Use of efficient hydraulic fracturing pump engines • Use of eflcient exterior lighting • Use of REC equipment (reduced emissions completions) to limit flaring during flowback • Construction of gathering lines so that the first well on the pad can initially be flowed into a sales line. • Ensure all flow connections arc tight and sealed • Handling of methane (flare or vent) — should be controlled and captured when possible, when not possible, must be flared • Action plan for performing leak detection and a corrective action plan that outlines that leaks will be fixed within 24 hours of detection • Section 7.6.6: Well operators must follow the following USEPA's Natural Gas Star Bes Management Practices and these must be included in the greenhouse gas emissions impacts mitigation plan: • Reducing Methane Emissions From Pneumatic Devices in the Natural Gas Industry • Reducing Methane Emissions from compressor rod packing systems • Reducing emissions when taking compressors off =line • Replacing Glycol Dehydrators with Desiccant Dehydrators • Replacing gas - assisted glycol pumps with electric pumps • Optimizing glycol circulation and installing flash tank separators in glycol dehydrators ® Using efficient compressor engines Page 23 • Using efficient line heaters • Using efficient glycol dehydrators • Ensuring all flow connections are tight and scaled • Performing leak detection surveys and taking corrective actions • Using efficient exterior lighting • Using solar - powered telemetry devices • Section 7.6.7 states "Supplementary permit conditions for high- volume hydraulic facturing will include a requirement that the operator construct and operate the site in accordance with a greenhouse gas emissions impacts mitigation plan that may incorporate the above practices and considers, to the extent practicable, any relative Department policy documents. However, at a minimum, the plan must include the list of BMPs planned.for implementation at the permitted well site and the first compressor facility receiving the well's production. Partners in USEPA's• Natural Gas STAR Program should include proof of their participation and starting date. The operators greenhouse gas emissions impacts mitigation plan shall be available to the Department upon request ". This should be changed to the following: "Supplernentary permit conditions for high - volume hydraulic fracturing will include a requirement that the operator construct and operate the site in accordance ivith a greenhouse gas emissions impacts mitigation plan that must incorporate the above practices and considers, any relative Department policy documents. The plan must include the list of BMPs planned for implementation at the permitted well site and all compressor- facilities receiving the well's production. Partners in USEPA 's Natural Gas STAR Program must include proof of their participation and starting date. The operator's greenhouse gas emissions impacts mitigation plan shall be available to the public: via DEC and municipal records ". 7.7. Centralized I+lowback Water Impoundments: Comments appear on or about page 15 of this document.. Page 24 • 7.8. naturally Occurin g Radioactive Material: Comments submitted bv: Peter J. Davies Professor of Biology, Cornell University The author is a licensed handler of low - level radioactive material. Radioactivity: A Description of its Nature, Dangers, Presence in the Marcellus Shale and Recommendations by The Town Of Dryden to The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation for Handling and Disposal of such Radioactive Materials. Radioactivity is the term used for the subatomic particles emitted by unstable elements as they decay into other elements. The intensity of radiation depends on how rapidly the element in question decays, and the energy of the subatomic particles produced. Radioactivity is dangerous even at low levels because the emitted particles can cause damaging mutations in the DNA of cells. If the damage occurs to genes regulating cell division, the result can be uncontrolled cell growth, producing cancer. Radioactivity cannot be seen, felt or otherwise detected by humans without special instruments, but can nonetheless be extremely damaging. There is no safe level of radioactivity, as damage is proportional to dose, and exposure is cumulative. Humans are constantly exposed to low -level radiation in the environment, and any further exposure simply adds to the overall burden. There is no lruly safe level of exposure: permitted levels of exposure are simply based on cost - benefit analyses. It is important to realize that radioactive wastes cannot be decontaminated; they are radioactive essentially forever, and will expose anyone near them or who breathes in the radioactive dust or gas. The only "treatment" is to remove the solids (if they can be captured) and transport them, by road, to a radioactive materials holding site. The only treatment for radioactive gas is ventilation, The continuous release of radioactivity from solids, Liquids, or gas means continuous exposure. Radium and Radon The Marcellus shale is known to contain radium, which is a product of the decay of uranium. Radium (226Ra) is extremely radioactive, being over one million times more radioactive than the same amount of uranium. It decays in seven stages, producing three kinds of radiation: alpha particles, beta particles, and gamma rays, as it decays to successive products, which are themselves radioactive elements. The first product is the element radon, which is a dangerously - radioactive heavy gas, and the later products are radioactive solids. Radium loses about 1 %, of its radioactivity in 25 years, being transformed into a series of elements, each with an atomic weight a little lower than its predecessor, with lead being the final product of disintegration. 226 R radiation is caused by the emission of alpha particles. Alpha particles travel only a very short distance, and quickly lose their energy within a short distance of their source. However this results in all their energy being deposited in a relatively small volume of material, which increases the chance of cellular damage in cases of internal body contain 1nation. Alpha radiation is more effective at causing cancer or cell -death than the equivalent radiation exposure from other forms of radiation. Radium is, chemically; an alkaline earth metal, as is calcium. Because radium is chemically similar to calcium, it has the potential to cause great harm by replacing calcium in bones. This is because radium is treated as calcium by the body, and deposited in the bones, where the radioactivity degrades marrow and can mutate bone cells. Inhalation, ingestion, or body exposure to radium can cause cancer and other disorders. Radon is a highly radioactive, colorless, odorless, tasteless "noble" (or chemically un- reactive) gas, occurring naturally as the decay product of radium. Radon is responsible for the majority of the public's exposure to Pago 25 ionizing adiation. It is often the single largest contributor to an individual's background radiation dose, and is g g g the most variable from location to location. Radon gas from natural sources can accumulate in buildings, especially in confined areas such as attics, and basements. It can also be found in some spring waters. hpidemiological evidence shows a clear link between breathing high concentrations of radon and the incidence of lung cancer. Thus radon is considered a significant contaminant that affects indoor air quality. According to the EPA, radon is estimated to cause 21,000 deaths per year in the US; radon is the second most frequent cause of lung cancer, after cigarette stroking. Radon emanates naturally from the ground, particularly in regions with soils containing granite or shale, which have a relatively high concentration of uranium. It usually migrates freely through faults and fragmented soils, and may accumulate in caves or water. Gas from a gas well often contains radon. The radon decays to form solid radioactive elements, which form coatings on the inside of pipework, so that used pipework is frequently radioactive. In the open air, radon concentration ranges from 27 to 2,700 pCi per cubic yard of air (one picoCurie [pCi] is a unit of radiation representing 2.2 atomic disintegrations per minute). Typical domestic exposure to radon in homes is approximately 2,700 pCi per cubic yard of air; in poorly - aerated houses over radioactive rocks its concentration can climb to 27,000 pCi per cubic yard. The EPA recom.rnends that homes should be fixed if an occupant's long -teen exposure will average 4,000 pCi per cubic yard or more, the equivalent to roughly 200 chest x -rays per year. The limits do not correspond to a known threshold of biological effect, but are determined solely by a cost - efficiency analysis. Radiation Exposure Measurement Radiation exposure depends upon the amount of radioactivity, the nature of the radiation, the proximity of the exposed tissue, and the duration of exposure. There is no fixed conversion from radiation measured in pCi., it depending on all the above factors. Units: a RAD (Radiation Absorbed Dose) is a measure of the absorbed dose of energy and one REA4 is the damage produced by 1 RAD in body tissue, which varies with the radiation type, and has a factor of x20 per RAD for the alpha radiation given off by 226Ra. 226 R is most dangerous if ingested in drinking water, as the radiation accumulates in the body. Dosage Limits The Nuclear Regulatory Con- tnission limits dosage to less than 100mrem per year,. The New York State regulations state: "Discharge of radioactive material to the environment... is not permitted for... naturally- occurring... radioactive material... that presents a realistic potential for exposures to the public in excess of the limits for doses to the public in Part 380" 380 -5.1 Dose limits for individual members of the public states: "The total effective dose equivalent to individual members of the public [shall] not exceed 0.1 rem [= 100 mrem] in a year" However it should be noted that all radiation is potentially dangerous, and these amounts are in addition to any natural radiation in the environment to which an individual is exposed. The International Atomic Energy Authority has recommended 1 -10 tnrern per year, and the Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors rcconunends a range of 4 -5 mrem per year as "more appropriate in light of risk estimates" Intake of 226 R results leads to a steadily accumulating dose: for example a daily ingestion of 10 pCi 226Ra would lead to an annual dose of 4.4 mrem by the end of 10 years. While this is negligible, proportionally more radioactivity would lead to greater exposures so that if the daily ingestion was 1000 pCi, the annual exposure at 10 years would be 440 mrem, well in excess of even the most lax regulations. Pogo 26 (Natural radiation exposure is approximately 50 mremlyear from cosmic radiation, and 200 mrem from radon, depending on location. A chest x ray exposes to about 6 mrem. Radiation effects are cumulative.) Radioactivity in the Marcellus Shale In the gas industry, radioactive materials known as "Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials" or NORM, can be brought to the surface through gas wells. This can happen when fluids that are present in the radioactive formation are pumped out of the well or when radon is present in the natural gas. It must be emphasized that such radioactive materials are not normal just because they are naturally occurring at 3,000 feet below the surface; on the surface they are not part of the normal environment and should be treated as hazardous. Because the radioactive materials become concentrated on gas -field equipment, the highest risk of exposure to oil and gas NORM is to workers who cut and ream oilfield pipe, remove solids from tanks and pits, and refurbish gas - processing equipment. The Marcellus shale is considered to be "highly radioactive." In Onondaga County, NY, where the Marcellus shale is close to the surface, all of the homes underlain by Marcellus shale had indoor air levels of radon above EPA's "action level ", with the average concentration being more than twice that level. The Pennsylvania Bureau of Oil and Gas Management (BOGM) and Bureau of Radiation Protection found that a concentration of radon in a gas sample from the Marcellus shale of Pennsylvania was 1,000 times the above level. The New York Department of Environmental Conservation found 13 samples of returned drilling wastewater (flowback) from vertical Marcellus shale wells in Schuyler, Chemung, and Chenango Counties to contain levels of radium as high as 267 times the limit for discharge into the environment, and thousands of times the limit for drinking water. In the DEC dSGEIS, radioactivity receives detailed attention only in section 5.2.4.2, where radioactivity measurements are reported in Table 5 -2 for various rock core samples, and in section 6.8. The radioactivity for the rock samples is claimed to be background, but calculations show that it is well above background (see footnote). It also reports that the EPA measured values of radioactivity for flowback water of 9,000 picocuries per liter (pCill), or 9,000 times the natural radiation in normal well water (see Eisenbud & Gesell), and >100,000 picocuries per tram (pCi /g) for pipe and tank scale, or about 1,000 times the radiation level given off by normal concrete (see Radioactivity in Nature). Given that samples measured were only 1 grain (1128 of an ounce in size) or 1 liter (close to I quart) the conclusion can be made that the radiation from tons of removed shale or thousands of gallons of water would be proportionally higher, and thus significantly radioactive. A major concern is the radioactivity of recovered gas, but there is no mention of radon in the dSGEIS beyond noting that it is a product of radium decay. Given that radon is of major concern, this is a major deficiency of the dSG h,IS. As the Marcellus shale is developed it will be important to understand the radioactivity of the various waste streams that are produced (e.g., returning fluid (flowback), gas, pit/tank sludge, and drill cuttings). During drilling there may be a large volume of radioactive shale rock removed in the drill cuttings, especially from horizontally drilled wells. It is therefore imperative that drilling wastes not be disposed of, by either on -site burial or landspreading, in areas that are located close to residences or public facilities, or where they can contaminate water supplies. Radioactive wastes must be taken to an appropriate facility that is designed to handle radioactive waste. Measures must also be taken to ensure that the radioactive gas does not leak into the water supply from wellheads, through generated fractures in the overlying rock, or from well casings. "The findings [of high -level radioactivity in the Mlarcellus shale] have several implications: The energy industry [inustf face steer regulations ... Companies l'wi1l] need to license their waste hurdlers and test their workers.for radioactive arposurer, and possibly ship waste across the country jfor disposolJ. And the state [will] Page 27 have to sort out how its laws or radioactive ►caste might o) lv to drilling and how the waste could impact .f � gyp. b t water supplies and the environment. "(Lrssigarten). The Town of Dryden Recommends to the .DEC: 1) That, other than small analytical quantities, no use fluids for injection into the Marcellus shale be permitted until there is a thorough analysis of the levels of radioactivity in both the returned fluids and the gas contained therein in every well, and all potential withdrawals of liquid or gas be subject to the rules of the EPA, and that surveys be conducted monthly thereafter. Given that, under New York State regulations, discharge of radioactive material to the environment is not permitted for naturally- occurring radioactive material that presents a realistic potential for exposures to the public, we request that, if such levels of radioactivity are detected: 2) That all radioactivity that is elevated to the surface but that, regardless of its source, is not normally present on the surface at that location, be treated as non - natural for the purpose of state regulations. 3) All such radioactive fluids and the solids therein are not permitted to be disposed of on or in the locality of the site and must be transported to approved and licensed radioactive -waste handling; facilities. 4) All precautions be taken to prevent contamination of ground water supplies with any form of radioactive material from any source, with heavy penalties being imposed for any violation of this rule. 5) That all workers dealing with any solid or fluid with radioactivity above the stated limits be trained and licensed to handle radioactive materials. E) Given that radioactive deposits can accumulate on the inside of pipes and all equipment involved in gas handling, that all such pipes and equipment be monitored for radioactivity and if found to have a level exceeding the above limits that they must not be left on or in the vicinity of the drilling site but must be transported to an approved and licensed radioactive waste handling facility when no longer in use. 7) Given that radon, from the actual well, the gas, or potential fractures in the rock., in homes and other buildings is of major concern, that all homes and buildings within one mile of the drill site are surveyed for radon prior to drilling, and annually thereafter, at the expense of the gas drilling companies, and that, should the level of radon exceed the EPA action level following drilling, the gas company shall either remedy the problem (e.g., by sealing the basement) or purchase the home and surrounding land at the current market value, or the market value prior to drilling, whichever is the greater. 8) Further we recommend to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation that the New York State limits for the exposure to the public resulting from industrial uses be reduced from 100 to 10 mrem per year in light of the limits set forth by the International Atomic Energy Authority. References: Brodsky, A. (1978) Handbook of Radiation Measurement and Protection, CRC Press 1978 arid, Eisenbud, M and Gesell T. (1997) Environmental Radioactivity from Natural, Industrial and Military Sources, Academic Press. Environmental protection Agency: Radon. http:f wwW; .h;r,boviraduru'I)U t? fi lid ex. htmI Radioactivity in :Nature, Iowa State University. http:!/ Izhvsics .isu.edu ?rf�clinf'natural.hhr Lustgarten, A. (2009) Is Neiv York's ,tlarcellres Shale Too Hot to Handle? ProPublica. htt2p:itAlvui,propublica,o &.'(caturelis- the- ma rev Ilus- shale -%io- hot -ro- handle -1 109 Radium, wikipedia httpsG ren.wikipedirl,orr: /wikilRadium Radon. Wikipedia. Mtn_.,,' cn..�ikipadia.urrlwikir'Itaclim Sumi, L. (2008) Shale Gas: locus on the iWarcellus Shale. The Oil & Gas Accountability Project/Earthworks. http:!l�> tv�ti artltworl:sactiort �reipuhs +'t��if11' Marcella; lialeReporl- f,J12 -08. Af Note: Some quotes ant taken directly from the above references without further attribution. Page 28 Other web sites consulted include: hoar ?rwww.dei .m yovfchelrtic n1 /29G.html htq ?:#www•.dec.nv.g o v& hern i c a 112�1 47S,html httn ;1 /www.dec,itl;, i�vJrcgulatiut�y125242.htmI 11 tp:flw'ww.ans,Q,r <�pi /resources ?dosechart! http:G' +w,v.ndt- cd.orafF d�c: ationResnurcesf��otnmunitvCc�Ury+ RacliationSstfi y /qu<ju utiitslunits.htni N"cr%v.nrc.aovlreadinq - nnlbasic- ref.lr��i lters/OS.t�df h up: r` /1Ar ww jai jS:tl .ore /radiatigZ61UU1RllE: +NitRF) ttnl http :�7v+�+�.crcnd.or};1Positions Resolvtionsi\tARMfnarni lrl`;90i21.asps 7.9. Visual Resources: Towns must be given at least 12 months from the date the SGEIS is finalized to prepare an inventory of visual resources before any permit applications for shale drilling are accepted for a municipality. The size and nature of shale drilling facilities is far different from the facilities used in non -shale drilling plays and, as a result, visual mitigation measures applicable to the practices used in New York under current regulations are inadequate. 7.10. Noise: Noise mitigation equipment should be required for all compressors and other permanent fixtures that create noise above » decibels. Noise mitigation measures must be a requirement of any permit issued. Applicants must be notified that, as a condition of operating a well, they shall abide by any municipal noise ordinances that are in effect on or after the date drilling activity begins. *Chapter 6 states "with proper pad location and design the adverse noise impacts can be significantly reduced." Municipalities are the entities most concerned about and ultimately responsible for the well being of their residents. They thus must be considered involved agencies in the siting and planning of a well pad, taking into account in particular the effect of noise on nearby residents; more distant communities, and wildlife. Cumulative effects of multiple wells in an area must also be considered; Chapter 6 of the SGEIS claims that noise impacts for high- volume hydraulic fracturing of the Marcellus Shale will be comparable to noise regulated by the 1992 GE-IS. The noise may be generated by the same types of sources, but for noise, more is the problem. With multiple wells proposed per pad, each of which requires more, much more, water and much greater pressure, there will be more of every one of the sources of noise listed in Chapter 6. The SGEIS doesn't acknowledge the inevitability of greater concentration of noise or assess what levels of noise this might lead to. The SGEIS needs to specify mitigation measures that will be performed if noise levels exceed the acceptable level. If there is nothing to be done but shut down some part of the drilling operation, then the municipalities and drilling companies must both understand that this may be the only option. The drilling companies themselves should be required to monitor the cumulative noise levels of their operations and adjust if they find that the levels are higher than the acceptable level. To mitigate truck noise to the extent possible, the Town of Dryden in its authority to permit truck use of Town roads will limit the number of truck trips overall and will allow gas drilling related truck trips only in daylight hours, 7.11. Road Use: Pogo 29 DEC must state that it will require companies to enter into a road use agreement with all affected municipalities before it will issue a permit for any Marcellus Shale well location. See comment to 7.12.1 (below). 7.12. Community Character: Comments submitted by: Deborah and Joanne Cipolla- Dennis (May receive comments from Suzanne McMannis) • Other factors not considered by NTC Consultants regarding community character impacts include: • The change in a community's demographics. For example the reduction in agriculture lands available will reduce the number of family Farms in the area. • The addition of noise, light, and air pollution to the area will reduce the attractiveness of the area to tourism. This will adversely affect the economy and community pride. • Law enforcement personnel from towns such as Rifle, Colorado, have reported a significant increase in violent crimes, methamphetamine use, and other undesirable affects of the culture of the well- drilling atmosphere. The requirement of 24 -7 work by drill workers feeds the drug use. Lack of family and community commitment by temporary workers means less community engagement. • Additionally, the impact of people leaving the area due to the undesirable effects of the drilling process will change the dynamic of the community. Those that can afford to leave will do so, leaving the less - economically advantaged people of the community to pay higher taxes and the community will decline. • The jobs brought by well drilling are dangerous and temporary. The long -term effect will be increased unemployment. • Photographers from all over the world travel to upstate New York, particularly, the Finger Lakes region because some of the most artistic photos can be taken in this region due to the lakes, falls, forested lands, and rock formations. if the landscape is dotted with wells, the artistic value of the land will be lost. • Section 7.12.1 states: "While local authorities retain control over local roads, the Department strongly encourages operators and municipalities to attain road use agreements. The road use agreement, or the operator's trucking plan if no agreement is reached, will be on file with the Depat4ttne►7t. " It is essential that local authorities have unfettered control of road use. This is an incredible impact to local budgets and has great tax implications. The above should be replaced with the following: "Local authorities retain control over local roads. Operators and municipalities nnrst create and agree to a road use contract. The road use contract will befiled with the DEC and made public via municipal records. No permit shall be issued by DEC unless a road use agreernent has been entered into with the municipality hosting the well. to • Section 7, 1,22 states that applicants are required to attest to having reviewed any existing comprehensive, open space and /or agricultural plan or similar document. This does not do anything to protect the community. Instead the applicant should be required to provide documentation that includes a report from local authorities that they have discussed well site plans and the impacts to the community of these sites. Page 30 Applicants should have to 'usti ' r and have concurrence from local authorities when siting a well ad in an Pl J h g P Y area that has not been previously disturbed. The tern previously disturbed should be defined as a site that has been mined or used industrially (not farming) within the past 5 years. • Not addressed in considerations of land use is the potential reduction of quality local foods by local food producers. Organic farms are very valuable to the Dryden area. The introduction of a drilling pad on or near an organic farm will negate its primary advantage of providing good quality, nontoxic foods to the community. Any well pad that is going to be sited within one mile of an organic farm should have to show how they will ensure that no toxic materials, including air pollutants, will impact the farm as part of the permitting process. 7.13. Cumulative Impacts: Comments submitted by Lily Gershon and Margaret McCasland Lily Gershon The DEC must assess the specifics of the cumulative impacts of a large number of wells in our surrounding community. We need to know not only the effects of one well site, as if it is isolated in a bubble, but rather the effects of a multitude of sites with their combined noise, air and water pollutions and traffic. To begin drilling on such a large scale without knowledge of combined effects is irresponsible and dangerous. Furthermore, if local town authorities are not able to participate fully in the legal aspects of drilling, then it is unfair to make them deal with the cumulative impacts without holding the companies responsible. The document states that it is not possible to "define the threshold at which development results in adverse noise, visual and community character impacts ". Clearly, this is a place where the towns themselves should be creating the definitions as the local community is more aware of its own needs. Nlargaret McCasland Doesn't cumulative mean "accumulating over time," as well as "across the landscape "'? I agree the major known likely problem is scale, eg, accumulating across locations, but I also worry about small items such as air pollution, water pollution, etc, which may accumulate over time, such as Cayuga Lake gradually getting higher and higher concentrations of whatever is in contaminated runoffs and/or "treated" discharges. This of course gets very speculative, because it's premised on "what ifs," but some long -term problems seem more likely than others. 7.14. Seismicity Concerns. CHAPTER 8 P.ERiV11T PROCESS AND REGULATORY COORDINATION: Pace 8 -1 8.1 INTERAGENCY COORDINATION 8.1.1.3 Notification to 'Town Supervisors Page 8 -3 ■ Environmental, economic. and social impacts will be occurring at the local levels as it result of drilling activities; DEC must notify a municipality of all permit applications in their communities, as they are received. Notification upon receipt of a permit application should also occur under the existing GEIS. Currently, this does not occur. Page 31 • 8.1.1.6 Local Planning Documents Page 84 ■ Stronger language should be included in this section since all activities within a municipality should be in accordance with their comprehensive and other plans. Communities have spent many years and taxpayer dollars developing and implementing local planning documents such as comprehensive plans, revitalization strategic plans, open space plans, and agricultural and farmland protection plans. These plans document a community's vision for their future. Therefore, instead of encouraging operators to consult with local government on this, NYS DEC should require operators to consult with local government regarding any existing local comprehensive and zoning plans prior to siting operations. The affirmation of review should also require the signature of the Town Supervisor. For example, review of certain agricultural plans (i.e. conservation plans) may inform companies of potential practices and land improvements that would be impacted by earth disturbance activities. Consultations with local officials and agencies prior to siting drilling operations could result in less and avoidable environmental impacts. • NYSDEC should recognize all local stormwater, groundwater, aquifer protection and wellhead protection laws and require that gas companies comply with local regulations, as do all activities within the proposed aquifer and wellhead protection areas. Wetlands ( §6.3, §7.3), Ecosystems & Wildlife ( §6.4, §7.4) Outline of potential comments on dsGEIS The greatest potential impacts to these systems come from the aboveground activities associated with drilling and materials brought to the surface by these activities, and this is the focus of these comments. However, risks ofcontamination of aquifers, subsurface waters, and springs also apply to these systems, and comments focused on those risks are included by reference here. A general concern, but particularly applicable here, is over how 'at risk' habitats and systems will be identified in order to inform the siting of well pads. Local government entities are best situated to provide this input and should be part of the permitting process. The gas companies must be required to pay the costs of this review process in all of its particulars. Wetlands, ecosystems, and wildlife are inextricably bound into a mutually reinforcing, regenerating natural interplay that includes the human occupants of this town, the air we breathe and the water we depend on. In what way is our state protecting it's citizen's health, safety, and pursuit of happiness if it accepts that the Federal government has exempted this industrial activity from the federal clean air and clean water acts? This is unconscionable and all gas drilling activities at a minimum should be required to adhere to these federal acts, which exist for the protection of We, The People. As is true with almost all aspects of drilling activity, there is no explicit provision for monitoring compliance with the sGEIS regulations and guidelines. Scattered throughout these sections on wetlands and ecosystems are recommendations to follow `best practices', to exert `due diligence', and then leaves all compliance up to the good intentions of the companies being regulated. The DEC must include provision within the sGEIS for independent monitoring of all aspects of drilling activity, and the cost of monitoring must be born by the drilling companies. No permits should be issued for a geographic area until personnel are available to handle the critical oversight, and the funds banded to cover costs. Wetlands isFreshwater wetland environments play a critical role in the health of surrounding ecosystems and in the purity of drinking water supplies for residents. Among the benefits of wetlands is their role in charging groundwater Pogo 32 and aquifers, flood and storm control, high biodiversit — particularly of amphibian species. Wetlands are the base of important food webs that extend far into the surrounding forests, woodlands, fields, and gardens. These benefits apply to wetlands considerably smaller in size than the 12.4 acres and larger recognized by Federal and State law. The potential importance of smaller wetlands is specifically recognized in the GEIS document (8 -45), incorporated by reference in the dsGEIS. The dsG1�1S itself recognizes the sensitivity of wetlands: 6.1.1.4: "Aquatic ecosystems could be adversely impacted by (1) changes to water quality or quantity, (2) insufficient stream flow for aquatic biota or to maintain stream habitat, or (3) the actual water withdrawal infrastructure." 6.1.1.5 Impacts to Downstream Wetlands "... Even small changes in the hydrology of the wetland can have significant impacts on the wetland plant corununity and on the animals that depend on that wetland. It is important to preserve the hydrologic conditions and to understand the surface water and groundwater interaction to protect wetland areas." Given recognition that freshwater wetlands are fragile (6.1.1.4, 6.1.1.5), the dsGEIS then refers to the GEIS of 1992 for mitigation recommendations. These are wholly inadequate, are focused on regulating well sites within wetlands, activities within 100 ft of wetlands, and creation of replacement wetland habitats. Given that (l) the current technology of horizontal drilling obviates the need to have well pads close to wetlands, (2) damage to wetland ecosystems is often irreversible or requires long recovery periods, (3) chemical ®contamination from runoff, spills, etc. would be particularly devastating to wildlife and poses serious risk to drinking water supplies, the following should be required: [note: the following extracts from the dsGEIS that are frorrr other sections of the document were explicitly included by reference in the draft document as being relevant to freshwater Welland protection.] buffer zone for setback from all wetlands designated significant by the Town shall be increased from 100 feet to 500 feet. No activities or construction shall occur within this zone. No surface impoundments for flowback water peniiitted at any location, period, Steel holding tanks shall be required at all locations. 7.1.7 re Centralized flowback water surface impoundments (CF'WSI): "...Department will not approve use of CFWSl within the boundaries of primary and principal aquifers or unfiltered water supplies." This includes all areas of Town of Dryden "...acknowledged that conservative liner requirement`s alone do not guarantee groundwater protection." Therefore, these impoundments should not be allowed — period. All access roads and well-pad construction must include provision to maintain normal hydrology for the wetland, including diversion of drainage (especially storm surge) around well -pads and under access roads. Provision to isolate, capture, and store all runoff from the entire well -pad area as well as any area subject to potential leaking or spill of fluids associated with drilling and dripping/spill of fuel or oil from vehicles and motors used on site. This should involve, at minimum, an impervious plastic liner extending from under the edges of the concrete well -pad and running up a constructed dike of sufficient height that storm- related runoff from the well -pad is entirely captured. This runoff must be captured (sump pumps, etc.) and disposed of in accordance with procedures for flowback fluids. Page 33 • - 7.1.3.4 (2c) additional mitigation for flowback water; "Fluid transfer operations from tanks to tanker trucks must be manned at the truck and at the tank if the tank is not visible to the truck operator from the truck." This requires additional protection — e,g. all transfers must occur on the well -pad to protect against any leaking or spills that could then contaminate runoff water into wetlands. Or entire distance from pad to truck, under the pipeline and under the parking area of the trucks, must be protected with impervious liner and dike that will capture all runoff that could be contaminated. All potential sources of water for drilling activities, including lakes, ponds, streams, reservoirs, and marshes, that are upstream of wetlands designated significant by the Town must be evaluated by an independent and accredited entity for the impact of water removal on the wetland's health. This requirement is consistent with the concerns raised in section 6.1.1.5, but is not included in mitigation requirements. The drilling companies must pay all costs associated with such evaluation. 7.1.2.2 "The MSGP will be revised as necessary to incorporate a required SWPP13 for industrial activities to address potential sources of pollution which may reasonably be expected to afTect the quality of stormwater discharges associated with industrial activity from Mareellus Shale and other low - permeability gas reservoir hydraulic fracturing operations." What is this revision? Who determines when it is needed? If the reason for revision is "...to address potential sources of pollution which may reasonably... ", why is it not revised now? How can it be commented upon? Ecosystems & Wildlife isThe mosaic of woodland and forest, field and stream, village and garden that cloaks our hills is precious. These ecosystems, and the wildlife they sustain, provide recreation, livelihoods, safe clean water, clean air — they are the essence of our quality of life in Upstate N.Y. These resources are more valuable in the long term than any that can be extracted from beneath the earth's surface. Our governmental entities must protect them from irrevocable harm. The dsGEIS and sections of the 1992 GEIS referred to, discuss only three issues: water withdrawals (dealt with elsewhere), invasive species, and the `attractive nuisance' of open impoundments. This is wholly inadequate because it ignores general pollution impacts, including runoff from well pads, access roads, parking areas, air pollution from engines and compressors including potentially high concentrations of ozone, as well as the effects of fragmentation of habitats. 7.4.1 invasive species. Mitigation reconunendations dealing; with transfer and encouragement of invasive species by drilling disturbances and movement of equipment around th is no provision for oversight of compliance. Who will do this and who for drilling companies to comply with these regulations unless (l) there review on site that procedures are followed, and (2) meaningful penalty v area is reasonable as written, but there will pay for this? There is no incentive is substantial probability of independent for failure to comply. 7.4.2 centralized flowback impoundments. There are already numerous other reasons to completely ban the use of open impoundments for flowback fluids. The dsGEIS suggests that only occasional use by some waterfowl would be expected. This is not true. Numerous species, including; migrating shorebirds (protected under the Federal Migratory Species Act) would be attracted to such 'water' bodies. If such impoundments are permitted at all, they must be both fenced and covered by netting that will keep all bird species away from the toxic fluids. Areas of concern not included in the dsGEIS document that should be explicitly discussed and mitigation ift regulations determined. X11 Runoff from well pads, roads, parking areas, etc.: any spill and/or runoff of brine and chemicals reaching any water source, however small (e.g. stream, wetland, vernal pools), have potentially serious impacts on wildlife and ecosystems. The dsGE1S itself mentions the decimation of vegetation in the path of documented spills. Thus, all well pads, regardless of where situated, need secondary protection from runoff and spills. For example, impervious liners and dikes and methods for recovering all runoff for offsite disposal (or independent testing before approved release). Air pollutants that affect humans also affect ecosystems and wildlife. in particular, mitigation of potentially high levels of some pollutants by restricting hiunan approach to the affected area in no way reduces the impact of these some pollutants on ecosystems and wildlife: - The dsGEIS treats air quality only from the perspective of human impacts, but all manner of wildlife are similarly affected, plus plant and amphibian communities are sensitive to acidification of precipitation where smokestack emissions are high. Concern about pollution associated with high diesel truck traffic, generators, and other internal combustion engines. High ozone, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, etc. which contribute to respiratory conditions and acid rain. A general impact to our ecosystems that will result _f•orn this industrial -scale activity is fragmentation of habitats, especially woodlands and forests. Construction of pipelines, access roads, and well pads all potentially result in fragmentation of habitat, which is well studied and known to have detrimental impacts on many species ref wildlife as well as on plant communities. Regulation of activities causing fragmentation on private property is outside the prevue of the DEC. However, regulations could be established to limit such damage for drilling activity that is permitted on State land. Fragmentation could be minimized by requiring well pads on open land if at all possible, and pipelines could be required to run adjacent to existing roads and within existing rights -of -way through forested areas. Prohibit cutting new transects through woodlands larger than some minimum size. Well pads sited within large forested patches would be reached by pipeline running only along the access road. This review of the dsGkoIS sections was prepared by: Peter lei, Wrege Doctoral degree from Cornell University in Terrestrial Ecology and Animal Behavior Title: Senior Research Associate, at the Cornell Lab of Ornithology Comments from Dan Kwasnowski, Town of Dryden Environmental Planner Section 7.1.10 and 7.1AI NYC Watershed The value of this watershed over any other is unconciable. Why are the people served by the NYC Watershed more important than the equivalent number of people served by other watersheds in the state? Why is this watershed more important than the Great Lakes Watershed, which contains 20% of the world's freshwater resources? Page 35 If the NYC watershed is to be so prominently displayed and concerned about, then shouldn't the rest of the state's residents receive similar consideration and concern? Or is it New York State's intention to create two classes of citizens, with the 2nd class open to more environmental harn? Dryden contains two important tributaries to the Cayuga Lake Watershed — Six Mile Creek and fall Creek, in addition to many smaller permanent and seasonal streams that flow into Cayuga Lake. in addition, Dryden has Section 7.1.2 Stormwater: It is unclear exactly how and by whom this will be administered. With the effort to build local capacity, the DEC should be consistent and continue to manage stonnwater in partnership with local municipalities. In addition to the document being very vague on this issue, current practice by the DEC is for one unit to say that compliance with stomiwater is not required, and another division saying that it is. As an MS4 community, the Town of Dryden has adopted a very stringent and unique stormwater law in an effort to exceed the requirements of Phase I1, and to head off inevitable requirements of the stormwater program. The town's LL does require a permit being issued, and coverage under the DEC General Permit for Construction cannot be obtained without local compliance occurring first in the Town of Dryden. In section 3.2.3 it is stated that "No site- specific determination is necessary when coverage under a general stonnwater permit is required, as the Department issues its general permits pursuant to a separate process." This does not factor in local laws developed under the DEC's stormwater General Permit. Finally, in Table 8.1 it is explicitly displayed that local governments will have no J urisdiction over stonnwater. This is in direct contradiction of the administrative strategy of the DEC to require stormwater management at the local level. The DEC has gone to extraordinary lengths to develop stormwater management capacity at the local level, and towns, not the least of which Dryden, have gone to great lengths and expense to ensure compliance with the Phase Il program. This type of inconsistency and miscommunication between divisions does not inspire confidence in the agency's ability to manage this program. Stormwater management must be administered at the local level. The town of Dryden could literally be fined by one division of DEC because another division of DEC has stated that they have no jurisdiction. Section 7.3 Wetlands It is unclear how wetlands would or would not be protected, and the role of the Army Corp. of Engineers in the review process. Please clarify. It is alluded to that drilling will be allowed in state wetlands. This seems completely contrary to state wetland regulations. How will impacts to state wetlands be mitigated? Flow will it be determined that locating in state wetlands is "unavoidable." Watershed Analysis /State Level Impacts Since the document clearly states that there is no local control of drillin, except for roads and assessment and ® apparently floodplains (see comment), it would seem to follow that there would be an analysis to resources of Page 36 *statewide concern, and that this analysis would be consistent with similar state ro gams. However, the bulk of Y P b described impacts are almost entirely local, or at best regional. What is the statewide interest that is so explicit as to warrant the blanket ban on local control, and what is the analysis that supports this? In the document, the ability of these projects to be compromised is described, and even the rate and consequences of such compromise is described in great detail. All of this points only to local impacts of wells, and possibly aquifers. What is needed to justify only state level control of gas drilling, is an analysis of: maximum density of wells, volume and composition of contaminated material, anticipated rate of well failure, the amount of contaminant released during failure at different stages of well development, and the resultant impact on groundwater and surface water resources, as well as wetlands etc. Without this analysis, it is unclear what the state's interest is in controlling regulation and siting of wells. If this analysis is not completed, then it appears that the only logical conclusion of this document is that the majority of impacts are local. Which begs the question of the lack of local control? When the DEC implemented the Phase It Stormwater Program, the focus was on developing local capacity to manage stonnwater impacts. Through General Permits, the DF;C sought to manage direct known impacts to surface water, and even to a certain extent groundwater, resources. The issuance of two General Permits, Municipal and Construction, seeks to accomplish the protection of statewide water resources. Through these general permits, the DEC required local municipalities to adopt two specific laws related to managing stor nwater runoff. If there are no impacts of statewide significance to groundwater resources, which this document seems to be leading toward without proper analysis, and the other impacts are of a local nature, and are to be governed through stormwater controls as well as road limitations etc. then why not have the same approach for gas drilling? On the surface these sites are not at all different from another construction site. 1 Find it unusual that the discussion of how the program is to be implemented is discussed within the document assessing the environmental impacts of an action that seems like it is as of yet undetermined, or should not be fully determined until the environmental assessment is complete. If there are significant environmental, or economic impacts associated with different regulatory scenarios, then these should be examined in the EIS document. SEQRA Addendum Information: Section 3.2.2.8 Required Affirmations The GEIS requires review of local Comprehensive, Open Space, Agricultural and other plans in this section. It is not clear why consultation of these documents is being undertaken. Some specification as to what the review will accomplish should be stated here. The GEIS requires affirmation of stomiwater permit coverage, it should specify that in MS4 communities this coverage must first be obtained at the local level. Page 37 This section also requires site plans for mitigation of visual and noise, invasive species mitigation and P g greenhouse gas emissions. Again, there is nothing here that indicates to what degree any of these shall be mitigated. The Town of Dryden will assume that as an involved agency on all wells (assuming that the stortmvater law adopted by the town as per the requirements of the DEC and which LL does require a stormwater permit) it will have some say as to the mitigation techniques of environmental impacts on individual wells. Page 38 Joseph M. Nilson 75 Hunt I•lill Road Ithaca NY 14950 November 11, 2009 Bureau of Oil & Gas NYSDEC Division of Mineral Resources 625 Broadway, Third Floor Albany, NY 12233 -6500 RE: Marcellus Shale dSGEIS Comments My Background and Reasons for Involvement: I have served as an elected and appointed public official in the local governments of San .lose, CA, Ithaca, New York, and the state government of Delaware. I have practiced law, taught in and led schools at the secondary, post - secondary, and graduate levels, have earned law, public administration, education, and history degrees from the University of Southern California, Harvard University, the University of Pennsylvania, and Amherst College, respectively. I live in Ithaca, New York in the "Ellis )-Hollow" area. My Wife, 1, all of our neighbors for miles around draw all of our water from wells that are several hundreds of feet deep. • Summary: ne proposed hydro - fracturing drilling in the Marcellus Shale in and around New York State will have a substantial and significant adverse effect on the environment in the area in which 1 live as well as elsewhere in the state. The dSGEIS and its predecessor are inadequate to minimize the negative environmental effects in our environment because of the proposed hydro- fracturing drilling in the Marcellus Shale. Primary reasons are that the practices known by DEC to be likely to mitigate the known and suspected negative effects of the proposed drilling are not required of those who will do and support the drilling, because there are too little or no resources to support testing and monitoring of drilling practices, and because there is no attempt to determine the cumulative effects of the many individually detrimental practices of drillers and their support on the environment. Actions to be Taken: DEC should continue to prohibit drilling until regulations are drawn and approved that will make good/best practices mandatory, until there are adequate resources in place to enable regulatory bodies and local entities to conduct appropriate testing and monitoring, until an appropriate and adequate calculation of the cumulative effects of "hydro- fracking" has been made, and until adequate mitigation measures have been required of the entities and person who will conduct and support the "fraeking" of the New York State portion of the Marce]IUS Shale, Water Issues: • ThP rier.PVZ m,,et li ravicurl to ranntrni-srm thn P.rt•t flint rrfumi nfrnc livinn nn rha Mart%alh.r Choler ho\r� nn reasonable alternative to relying on private wells and springs. Therefore, the revisions should also include Pogo 39 *protections for all water that can be affected by the drilling to be protected to the degree and in the manner that New York City drinking water is protected. • Regulations that affect our water should be statewide and mandatory there should NOT be any site - specific agreements or permits. Those needing site- specific variances should have to justify waivers from statewide regulations and pay a fee sufficient to cover the costs of investigating and determining the appropriateness of any waiver requested. • Applicants for wells should be required to post a bond or pay fees sufficient to pay the cost of baseline and frequent, periodic testing of drinking water supplies, adjacent aquifers, and a wide sampling of private springs and wells before, during, and after the beginning; of fracking. The bond can be drawn on by legitimate representatives of those whose water could be affected by fracking for testing, etc. • Methane and radioactivity should be included in the testing described above. • Applicants for wells should also be required to post bonds to cover potential claims against them for negative effects on wager they cause, AND the presumption should be that the driller's actions have caused any negative effects on the water. Those suffering the damage should not be required to prove fracking was the cause of the quality of water changed after the fracking began. • Drilling should be delayed until DEC has tested drilling waste, flow back, waste water, and water;%vaste— following the processes drilling applicants disclose they will use— public health outweighs any company's claim of a proprietary interest in their processes or the composition of their waste products. Drilling should be delayed until there are competent estimates of the potential volumes of the various waste products. • The funds from the testing/monitoring bonds posted by drilling applicants should be made available to water treatment plant representatives so that they can staff and then determine the kinds of wastes they will receive. • A tax should be placed on drilling applicants to cover the additional costs of treating the wastewaters generated and "given" to the water treatment 1p ants by the drillers. Local citizenry should NOT be taxed directly or indirectly to cover any of the public costs generated by the drillers of this unusually profitable activity. • "Road Spreading" of "produced water" should be prohibited. No local governmental entity should be required directly or indirectly to bear the costs of dealing with "produced water." • Motor fuel storage including; diesel fuel should be required to be under permit following local laws and practices or state laws and practices whichever one is more strict. Drillers should pay the costs of the permitting and monitoring processes. This includes the cost of additional staff needed to do the processes. • The dSGEIS must address the extraordinarily large water withdrawals that are anticipated to be part of the drilling process. Statewide regulations /laws need to be developed to protect the volume and quality of traditional sources of water for all locales where drilling is proposed. No drilling should be allowed until such laws /regulations are in place. • Regulations/laws, need to be developed to govern the creation and use of toxic waste "centralized impoundments." Mandatory storage in above ground tanks designed to prevent groundwater contamination must be included. Chemicals: • The effects of chemicals used in the fracking process interacting with one another need to be completed by DEC and addressed in the dSGEIS with mandatory, state -wide regulations /laws to mitigate their effects before drilling begins. • Full compositional disclosure needs to be required of all drillers at each of their sites and the drillers should pay the cost of testing and monitoring the fluids and the storage facilities. Local citizenry should NOT bear any of the costs of these activities. ® Air Pollution: Page 40 0 • dSGEIS must address mitigation of the air pollution frorn vehicle exhausts, well emissions, pipeline emissions, and flaring. Mitigation should reflect best current practice and science. All mitigation requirements must be in the form of statewide law or regulation. Costs of testing, monitoring, and staffing should be paid through fees by the drilling entities with none borne by the local citizenry. • Participation in the STAR program must be mandatory. Pipelines: • Before drilling begins, the dSGIHIS must include consideration of and mandatory approaches reflecting best practices to the effects on the environment of pipelines, compressors including loss of habitat, topsoil, setbacks, inspections, shutoff's and emissions. • Where emissions are involved, see "Air Pollution" immediately above. Cumulative Effects: • There must be a competent and serious effort by DEC and those charged with preparing the final version of the dSG1IS to describe and prescribe mitigation for the cumulative effects of drilling before drilling can begin. Visual Impact: • Drillers need to be required to mitigate the visual impact of their sites. Models should be sought and prescribed the competent statewide authorities. Costs must be borne by the drillers. Pogo 41 02/01/2010 09:24 :42 MONTHLY REPORT OF SUPERVISOR TO TH E TOWN BOARD OF TH E Tome oT Drvden: .cant to Section 125 of the Tot-in Law, I hereby -ender the following detai.ied statement 11 moneys received and disbvrsed by me during the month�f Cece ncr, 200.: DATED: TED: Vebmans 1. 2010 SUPERVISOR Balance Balance 11/30/2009 Increases Decreases 12/31/2009 A GENERAL FUND - TOWNWIDE CASH - CHECKING 183,608.12 214,785.35 3 "5,610 8.05 22, ?85.92 CASH - SAVIN S$ 4, 595, 965. 1. 3 1.53, 674.58 it CD3 47, 66;1..14 3, 71Y, 4-8.5? PETTY CASH 600.00 0.00 C.CO 600.00 PETTY CASH - PCISTF:GI 3, 736.':9 0.00 0.00 3, "J6. 99 DPW Fduipment Capital Reserve 0.00 34,000.00 0.00 340 0 1D 0.00 Ree_ention ;.apital. Reserve 0.00 250,000.0C 0.00 250,00'J.00 TOT ATj 9, ?83, 920.29 652, 959.93 9. 1., 413, 26'_9 4, 1123, lG0. 98 DA HIGHWAY TOWNWIDE FUND CASH - CHECKING 0.00 115,371.39 li5,371.39 00 CASH - SAVINGS 1.,281,648. ?9 143,'165.49 115,37 .?9 1.,310,Q92.89 HIGHWAY EQUIPMENT CIAPTTAL RF,SE 0.00 500,1000.00 0.0? 500,QO•`j. 100 ® TOTAL 1,281,648.79 75,9,136.88 2301742.78 1,8:0,042.89 B GENERAL - OUTSIDE FUND CASH - CHECK dG 0. C'0 37,697.35 37,6? ?,35 .00 CASH - SAVxNGS 591,987.99 5,692.09 37,697. 35 559,9 "2,73 PETTY Cl.SH - POSTAGE 2,591.35 0.00 0, 0c, 2,541.35 TOTAL 594, 529.34 43, 379.44 75o394 C, 562051L,08 DB HIGHWAY OUTSIDE FUND CASH - CHFCKTKG 0.00 42 656.70 42,656.70 0.00 CASH - SHVINO.? 1,200,61.7.72 1321327.94 42,656.7 1,290,28.96 MTAL 1,200',617, ?2 174,989.64 615,313.40 L, 290, 2x8. 96 SF1- DRYDEN FIRE DISTRICT CASH - SAVING~ 306,947.76 197.48 0.00 308,645.24 TOTAL 3M447,7016 197.48 O. OC ?Q8, 64 .29 SL1- VARNA LIGHTING DISTRICT CYSH - CFIECKING 0.00 614.82 614.$2 0.00 CASH - SAVINGS 3,092.57 1.59 614.82 2,919.34 TOTAL 3,G92.5 616.91 1,229.69 2,4 ?9.34 102 ETNA LIGHTING DISTRICT CAS:: - C ECK7.14G 0.0C 946.1.3 496.13 0,130 CASH - SAVINGS 2, "15.50 1.42 496.13 2,220.79 Page 1 11.10NTHI„ Y, REPORT OF SUPLR%'IS01( • TOTAL SL3- MEADOW /LEISURE LIGHTING CASH - CHECING CASK - SAV114GS SM AMBULANCE DISTRICT CASH - SAVINGS Balance Balance 11/30/2009 Increases Decreases 12/31/2009 2,71:,•.50 497,55 992.26 2,220.79 0.00 406.85 406.85 0,00 1,915,54 0.97 40E.85 1,509.66 TOTAL 1, 91 .59 407.82 TOR 'A- j SS1- SAPSUCKER SEWER - UNITS CASH - SAVINGS TOTAL SS2- VARNA SEWER - UNITS CASH - CHECK.TN" CASH - SAVINGS TOTAL SS3- CORTLAND RD SEWER CASH - CHECKING CASH - SAVINGS FOSTAGE TOTAL SS4- MONKEY RUN SEWER CASH - CHECKINGO. CASH - SAVINGS TOTAL SS5- TURKEY HILL SEWER CASH - CH: CX:Ia ?G CASH - 7r.VING:3 TOTAL SS6- PEREGRINE HOLLOW SEWER CASH - CHECKING �A - Si:'JFtdGS 1 ";6,620,89 114.49 8.136.70 1.1 5C9. 66 O,GO :1.78,'935.38 178,820.89 44,490,14 1,017.66 1.14,49 2.8.4'mw :1.,017.86 0.00 0.1^10 0.00 178,936.^.38 4415:8.62 166,553.99 94.558.10 44,490.14 11 432.22 1,017.66 28.48 185,746.47 0.00 21.24 44,518.62 0.00 0.00 icy, 61.2.57 1G5,612.57 2, 411..21 170.77 2 , 41'_ . 2.1. 2,411.21 0.00 163,372.13 2,581.96 4,822,=•2 :1.63,372.13 0.04 1,017.66 432.22 :1.,017.86 0.00 166,553.99 94.558.10 210.34 11 432.22 1,017.66 328. 185,746.47 94,290,43 21.24 0.00 0.00 21.24 1E6,575.23 .1•1228.20 2,035.72 165,76';.71 0,00 432.22 432.22 328.00 328.0; 0.00 1.42,901.5? 94.558.10 91.2 11 432.22 656.00 328. 142,56 .56 94,290,43 i42090i.5' 523.43 864.44 :1.42,560.56 0.00 135, 851.L'�3 328.00 66.77 328.00 328.0; c.no 1351609.60 135,651.03 94.558.10 414,77 60.33 656.00 328. 135,609.60 94,290,43 0.00 328.00 328.00 4.10 94.558.10 60.33 328. CO 94,290,43 TO'I'L 94, 558, 10 388, 33 656. 00 94, 290, 43 S7- ROYAL ROAD SEWER CASH - CHECKTNG 0,00 708,55 706.95 0100 CF:SH - SAVIMf'$ 161 324.37 1, 00 ?08.95 15f625.42 TOTA' 16,324,37 716.95 1,417.90 15,625.42 Page 2 iMONTHLY& REPORT OF SUPERVISOR " Balance Balance 11/30/2009 Increases Decreases 12/31/2009 VARNA WATER �1- CASH - SA'vT,NGS 327, 702.09 407.94 0.00 328, 1],0.03 TOTAL 327,702.09 401.94 0.00 328,110.03 SW2- SNYDER HILL WATER CASH - CHECKTNG 0.00 1., 006.33 1,006.33 0.00 CASH - 5A I1vGS 57 , 659.34 69.29 1, 006.33 56, 722 . 30 TOTAL 571659.34 1,075.62 2,012.66 56,722.30 SW3- MONKEY RUN WATER CASH - CHECKTNG 0.00 684.52 684.52 0.00 CASH - SAVINGS 158,05:.79 ].00.75 684.52 157,468.02 TGTP.L ` -5 =, u51.7a ?85.2? 1., 369.04 157, 4t <a.02 SW4- HALL ROAD WATER CASH - SAVINGS 32,187.67 20.61 0.00 32,208.28 TOTAL 32,187.6^ 20.61. 0.00 32,206.28 SW5- TURKEY HILL WATER CASH - CHECK ='NG 0. C'0 1, 898. 25 2 r 836. 25 11,00 CASH - SAVINGS IE8',489.88 106.66 1,898.25 166,696.29 TOTAL 168,489.86 2,004.91 3,796,50 1.66,698.29 SW6- ROYAL ROAD WATER CASH - CHECKING 0.00 2,25i.71 2,251.7_ C,OO CASH - SAVING$ - 8,325.69 10.29 2,251.7:1. 16,U84.22 TOTA•j 18,325.6.-1 2,262.00 4,503.42 161084.22 PN MCARTHUR SPECIAL RESERVE CHECK'I'NG - SGECTAL'RESERVE$ 2, 922. 9A 0.00 O.00 2,922.90 TOTAL 2, 922.9! 0.00 0.00 21922.90 CD REHABILITATION LOANS AND GRANTS CASH - CHECK�N` 171,759.14 2,988.32 990.0:; 1 73,757.46 TOTAL, 17i, ?59.14 2,988.32 990.00 1 "73,757,46 H CAPITAL PROJECTS - TOWN HALL CASH - SAVINGS 1, 01,3. 60 0.65 1,014.25 0100 TOTAL 0.65 1,014.25 0.00 TA AGENCY FUND ® CASH - «PUS'r A =ENCV 7, 175.49 175, 804. 3 1 175, 592.6? ?, 38 ?.1.3 TOTAL 7,175.49 1. ?5,804.31 1 ?=,592.67 7,367.13 CM MISC SPECIAL REVENUE /MCARTHUR Page 3 MON1111IL ' REPORT OF SU11ERVISOR Balance Balance 11/30/2009 Increases Decreases 12/31/2009 CASH - SAVIKGS 22.03 7.3; 0.00 25.40 TOTAL FIB CORTLAND ROAD SEWER BAN CAST - SAVTI•iGS TOTAL HE CAPITAL FUND — BARN CASH — SAV :NGS r. n T r: HF CAPITAL FUND — FPIG CASH — SAV7N S T07AL TOTAL ALL FU[dDS • 22.03 7.3? 0.00 29.40 24,798.65 30,0*00.00 35,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lo. owl 0 24, 96.65 24,79.55 0.D0 O. GO 0.00 24r.5 65 ?.�0 30, 000.Oi! �.DO 30,OC,0.00 x1.00 0.00 30,0*00.00 35,000.00 0.00 0.00 30,0)0.00 35,000.00 0.:)Cis50000.00 0.D0 35,000.00 10, 1i2, 119. 58 .1 , 888, 1:35.78 21 0'071 486. 9 9, 992, 606 . 67 Pa o. 4