OFFICE OF THE MAYOR ___________________________ Stephanie A.

Miner, Mayor

January 10, 2012 Attn: dSGEIS Comments New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 625 Broadway, Albany, NY 12233-6510 Re: City of Syracuse, NY Public Comments on:
Revised Draft SGEIS on the Oil, Gas and Solution Mining Regulatory Program (September 2011) Well Permit Issuance for Horizontal Drilling and High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing in the Marcellus Shale and Other Low-Permeability Gas Reservoirs and the related Proposed Express Terms 6 NYCRR Parts 52 and 190, Parts 550 through 556 and 560, and Parts 750.1 and 750.3.

To whom it may concern: I applaud the amount of research, consideration and rewriting that took place between the issue of the original dSGEIS on high-volume hydraulic fracturing (HVHF) and your revised draft that we are commenting on today. It was our pleasure to see that our Filtration Avoidance Determination will not be threatened by the uncertain ultimate consequences of HVHF activities in the watershed of an unfiltered water supply. We agree that standard stormwater control and other mitigation measures would not fully mitigate the risk of potential significant impacts on Skaneateles Lake and its tributaries. We thank you for implementing our requests in the last round of public comments and urge you to remain steadfast in these determinations, despite any pressure from the natural gas industry to rescind them. I commend you for strengthening other critical parts of the permits and regulations. Revisions that we particularly noted include: 1) prohibiting surface drilling on state lands administered by the Division of Fish, Wildlife and Marine resources, 2) increased regulations for the acceptance of HVHF waste water at POTWs and private facilities, 3) the requirement for a manifest with original signatures showing source, permittee and chemicals used, and 4) prohibiting a new owner or operator from obtaining coverage under a continued HVHF general permit. However, we are once again compelled to comment on the revised dSGEIS. Syracuses water supply conduits run in a corridor outside the Skaneateles Lake watershed (approximately 19.3 miles from the Village of Skaneateles to the citys western reservoirs map enclosed) and so are unprotected from the lake watershed drilling prohibition that you have instituted.

203 CITY HALL SYRACUSE, N.Y. 13202-1473 (315) 448-8005 FAX: (315) 448-8067 WEB PAGE: www.syracuse.ny.us

Attn: dSGEIS Comments, January 10, 2012, page 2

In addition, most of the City is within the Onondaga Lake watershed and contains upslope rural properties not far from city limits. These areas already have gas leases and may see HVHF activities, particularly from the Utica Shale formation. Tributaries from the watershed drain through the City to Onondaga Lake. By 2018 over $1 billion dollars will have been spent on the ongoing rehabilitation of Onondaga Lake in compliance with the 1989 Judgment on Consent (amended 1998) to settle litigation between the State of New York, the Atlantic States Legal Foundation (ASLF) and Onondaga County in connection with alleged violations of state and federal water pollution control laws. In addition, the City of Syracuse and Onondaga County have just completed a $10 million dollar Onondaga Creek Walk to benefit development of alternative transportation links, recreation, and appreciation and conservation of our water resources. The risks associated with HVHF that could affect the creek jeopardizes the amount of federal, state, local and private funding that has gone into both the efforts to clean up the lake and its tributaries and provide this public recreational amenity. Listed below are a few of the most important points to address in your consideration of our comments. These highlighted points are not meant to lessen the importance of our enclosed Technical Comments on the documents that you have released for public comment. The DEC should either add the Onondaga Lake Watershed to its list of prohibited areas for issuing a permit for HVHF activities or apply the most stringent setbacks allowable in the permit process. The City of Syracuse requests a 2-mile wide ban on HFVF activities on either side of and including the rights of way of our three water supply conduits located in a corridor from Skaneateles Lake to our reservoirs in the city. The City of Syracuse has a 60-foot right of way containing three (3) conduits for part of its length between Skaneateles Lake and Syracuse. The third conduit deviates from the path of the other two for a lesser distance. The outer two conduits are located approximately fifteen (15) feet from the edge of the right of way. We must rely on the DECs ability, through its proposed permits and regulations, to provide an adequate setback for HVHF activities from our unfiltered water supply conduits. The tops of our conduits range in depth from right at the surface to approximately 20 feet below surface, with the predominant average at roughly about five (5) feet below surface grade. Syracuse has one primary drinking water supply source, Skaneateles Lake. We are limited by law and by the capacity of our conduits to a daily amount that can be withdrawn from the lake. In the event of physical or vibration damage to our conduits from HVHF activities, we will be unable to supply the citys entire needs from our alternative source, Lake Ontario, through the Metropolitan Water Board (MWB). The capacity of the connection to the MWB source is limited and we have an allotment agreement that only allows us to take 45.5 million gallons per year (or 0.12 MGD, averaged), much less than the 35 to 39 MGD required to service the city. In a crisis, the MWB annual allotment would only service Syracuses water customers for two days. The revised Well Permit must require well pad setbacks of a minimum of 150 feet from manmade surface water conveyances that include (but may not be limited to) all ditches (road, agricultural , commercial and residential) and agricultural best management practices

Attn: dSGEIS Comments, January 10, 2012, page 3

(BMPs), such as grassed waterways, water and sediment control basins with controlled outlets, etc. The potential of spill runoff in channelized farm ditches (prolific in this area of the state) to enter watercourses that are tributary to public water supplies, demands the need for a setback. Farm ditches often connect directly to DEC regulated streams (see enclosed air photo). Anything that spills can quickly reach the classified stream and enter a public water supply within a short period. While the NYS DEC may not feel that it has the authority to regulate ditches under your authority to regulate Waters of the State, we would argue that you do have the authority under ECL Section 230305, to prevent the pollution of fresh water supplies by oil, gas, salt water or other contaminants; .... We are concerned that the wording of your prohibition of HVHF in the Skaneateles Lake and New York City watersheds (in 750-3.3, (b), in the proposed regulations), as it appears now, might allow a centralized flowback impoundment and its attendant pipelines to be constructed in either of these watersheds. Centralized flowback impoundments would be the most risky of the impoundment types, and should not be permitted in an unfiltered water supply watershed. The definition of HVHF Operations refers back to among other definitions, Construction Phase, defined as ... the construction of access roads, well pad, and other appurtenances. Unless you consider a centralized flowback impoundment an appurtenance, it is unclear where this type of impoundment fits into the definition. We are under the impression that such an impoundment can be located somewhere off the well pad site. We believed from your public announcements stating all flowback water must be in closed loop systems, that these structures were being prohibited in the revised dSGEIS; however, they appear in the proposed SPDES General Permit for Stormwater Discharges from HVHF, as not eligible for a general permit. This indicates that they will be approved with a specific permit. Please clarify this in your documents and revise if necessary. The Prohibition on drilling in primary aquifers (with an immutable setback, not a buffer) should be extended to include principal aquifers that already serve substantial populations with both publically- and privately-supplied ground water. In addition, included in the prohibition (also with a setback) should be principal aquifers within a stated distance of metropolitan areas. This would allow for protection of aquifers that could fulfill a future need for new or expanded water supplies. To facilitate this designation, the DEC could check for aquifers that could potentially serve areas already mapped as MS-4s. The NYS DEC must not put the states future water resources at risk to take advantage of a short-term boost to the states economy. Refer to definition (49) Section 750-3.2, Definitions, in the proposed regulations. The word Lake should be inserted in the last line of the definition of unfiltered surface water supplies to read Skaneateles Lake Drinking Water Supply Watershed. Elsewhere in the documents, the term Syracuse Watersheds should appear as Skaneateles Lake Watershed, to avoid confusion with watersheds in the City of Syracuse. Deep well injection of flowback water and brine should be prohibited in the Skaneateles Lake and New York City watersheds for the same reasons that you have prohibited HVHF drilling.

Attn: dSGEIS Comments, January 10, 2012, page 4

The state of New York should enact some method of fee or tax that will provide not only ample funds to cover the NYSDEC, NYSDOT and other state incurred costs of HVHF drilling, but will provide adequate funds to defray local government costs in the areas impacted by drilling. Thank you for the opportunity to comment again on this controversial issue. Our complete Technical Comments are enclosed. Sincerely,

Stephanie A. Miner Mayor Enclosures (3) Sent under separate cover by FedEx January 6, 2012 cc: Commissioner Joseph Martens, NYSDEC