January 4, 2013 Attn: Draft HVHF Regulations Comments New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 625 Broadway

Albany, NY 12233-6510 Dear Commissioner Martens, Please accept the following comments regarding draft regulations on High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing. First I wish to protest the process by which these draft regulations have been released for final public comment prior to completion of the revised SGEIS, which by law is required to inform the subsequent development of regulations. Furthermore, the burden that DEC has placed upon individuals, organizations, and local governments to submit final comment on regulations within 30 days over the holiday season discourages meaningful public participation. Because of the inherent risks to public health, the environment, sustainable economies, and communities, in addition to programmatic deficiencies within the DEC, high-volume hydraulic fracturing should not be permitted in the state of New York anytime in the foreseeable future. Notwithstanding the above objection, I submit the following comments relating to one of many problems with the draft regulations, specifically well pad spacing. The last version of the revised draft SGEIS which the public has seen suggests that surface impacts of HVHF development such as habitat loss, fragmentation, or interference with agriculture would be limited because of spacing units anticipated to be 640 acres in size with wells drilled laterally beneath the ground from a single pad. These stated advantages, however, are defeated if the size of a spacing unit is smaller, if wells are drilled outside of a single pad, or if other activities and infrastructure can be scattered within the spacing unit. Nothing is written in the draft regulations to prevent this from occurring. Rather than establishing a strict spacing unit size, the draft regulations rely on a myriad of spacing configurations for different circumstances and formations (Section 553(a)(1)-(13)). The smallest of these is 40 acres in size. Furthermore Section 553(c) as revised would allow DEC to approve any other size or wellbore distance from a unit boundary. As drafted, the regulations also fail to clearly stipulate that drilling must occur from a single pad within a spacing unit, referring to infill wells which appear to be permissible either on or outside of the original pad. It is understood that operators are likely to seek drilling locations where gas reserves exist in more than one formation (the "triple play" being Marcellus, Sandstone, and Utica). Thus the potential overlay of nonaligned spacing units for different formations ranging in size from 40 to 640 acres, combined with the potential drilling of multiple pads or infill wells scattered throughout larger units creates a scenario in which there is no assurance that surface impacts will be limited. With horizontal drilling technology, it is possible to drill over a mile from a single location, thereby making any position within a 640 acre spacing unit accessible. This being so and recognizing that the desire to maximize extraction must be balanced with the protection of surface ecology and protection of other land uses, if high volume fracking is permitted, drillers should either use lateral lines from a single pad or forego outlying reserves.

In order to limit surface impacts, the regulations should be significantly rewritten to accomplish the following:

Require the largest spacing unit size possible, with no spacing unit less than 160 acres in size for any HVHF well. Within all forests, a spacing unit of at least 640 acres should be required and well pads located at least one mile apart, regardless of the type of well. Require that once approved, a spacing unit and its boundaries apply to all gas bearing formations beneath the unit. Require that all drilling and staging activities within the spacing unit be restricted to a single pad, not to exceed five acres in size. Require that any future gas well within the spacing unit, regardless of type or volume of fracking fluid uses, be drilled from the original pad.

Variances granted on the aforementioned well spacing should be limited to very rare circumstances and subject to a scheduled hearing with adequate public notice. Changes proposed to Section 553.4(a) and new text in Section 553.4(b) improperly eliminate the requirement to show "good and sufficient" reason for variances, shift the burden to outside parties to show that a variance should not be granted, and stifle public input. These changes should not be enacted. A formal hearing should continue to be required for all variances, and a public comment period of at least 60 days should be provided. Only minor variances to the size of a spacing unit should be permitted.

Your truly,