file. - Otsego County Conservation Association

Chapter 11 Comments
Introduction
While the existence of this table is a highly valuable summarization tool, the weight of each
impact description is not evenly distributed across the board. Certain impacts lack description
(e.g. “Depletion of water supply in streams.”) while others are cluttered as a list of every impact
included in that resource category (e.g. “Transportation” – “Increased traffic on roadways;
damage to local roads, bridges and other infrastructure; increased number of breakdowns and
other accidents; risk of potentially hazardous spills; traffic impacts near rail centers.”). Likewise,
the mitigation measures adhere to a similar discrepancy. Greater balance is needed within the
descriptions of each category in order to best convey a unified value for each potential impact
and mitigation measure.
Impacts
“Depletion of water supply in streams.” 6.1.1.1
While this statement represents a relevant impact, nowhere in this section is this term used.
“Reduced stream flow” is the acceptable term throughout the document and even in Chapter 11 is
designated within the same section of Chapter 6. Therefore, this impact statement should be
removed so as to not cause confusion between the two terms.
“Contamination of surface waters, groundwater, or drinking water aquifers from chemical,
fuel, or lubricant spills (including drilling and fracturing fluids).” 6.1.3
A secondary containment system has been left out as a mitigation measure for this impact. Page
7-34 of Chapter 7 reads: “For all wells subject to the SGEIS, supplementary permit conditions for
high-volume hydraulic fracturing would include the following requirements with respect to
fueling tank and refilling activities:
Secondary containment consistent with the objectives of SPOTS 10 for all fueling tanks;
Fueling tanks would not be positioned within 500 feet of a perennial or intermittent
stream, storm drain, wetland, lake or pond;
26