middle field land use analysis final

8/3/2019 Middle Field Land Use Analysis Final

1/78

LAND USE ANALYSIS: HEAVY INDUSTRY AND OIL, GAS OR

SOLUTION MINING AND DRILLING

PREPARED FOR:

TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MIDDLEFIELD

PREPARED BY:

GREENPLAN INC.

MAY 10, 2011 (FINAL)

T O W N O F M I D D L E F I E L D

Otsego County, New York

3 0 2 P e l l s R o a d , R h i n e b e c k , N Y 1 2 5 7 2 t e l e p h o n e : 8 4 5 . 8 7 6 . 5 7 7 5 w w w . g r e e n p l a n . o r g
http://www.greenplan.org/http://www.greenplan.org/


2/78

Table of Contents

A) Introduction ..............................................................................................................................................................................2

B) Regional Land Use Trends......................................................................................................................................................5

C) Town Planning and Zoning ...................................................................................................................................................9

D) Land Resources.......................................................................................................................................................................27

E) Water Resources .....................................................................................................................................................................29

F) Plants, Animals and Ecosystem Services...........................................................................................................................35

G) Air Quality...............................................................................................................................................................................42

H) Agriculture ..............................................................................................................................................................................46

I) Visual Resources ....................................................................................................................................................................48

J) Cultural Resources.................................................................................................................................................................52

K) Tourism ....................................................................................................................................................................................55

L) Transportation ........................................................................................................................................................................56

M) Energy Trends .........................................................................................................................................................................58

N) Noise.........................................................................................................................................................................................60

O) Public Health ..........................................................................................................................................................................62

P) Energy Boomtown Effects ....................................................................................................................................................65

Q) Community Character ...........................................................................................................................................................69

R) Conclusions and Recommendations..................................................................................................................................70

Bibliography - Sources used in preparing the Town of Middlefield Land Use Analysis

M i d d l e f i e l d L a n d U s e A n a l y s i s! G R E E N P L A N I n c .

1


3/78

Middlefield Land Use Analysis

A. Introduction

This Land Use Analysis has been prepared for the Town Board of the Town of Middlefield. It is

intended to provide background information on the potential effects of adopting a comprehensive

plan and zoning amendments in the unincorporated areas of the Town, which is located in Otsego

County, New York. Middlefields current comprehensive plan (Master Plan for the Township of

Middlefield) was adopted in 1989. Zoning regulations were adopted in 1975 and several amend-

ments have been adopted since that time as well. The comprehensive plan amendments proposed

in 2011 (Addendum to 1989 Master Plan) incorporate a broad analysis of environmental condi-

tions in the Town, prepared as part of the Towns accepted 2002 Final Generic Environmental Im-

pact Statement (FGEIS) on the Capacities of the Cooperstown Region. The Zoning Ordinance

amendments, if adopted, would prohibit, Heavy industry and all oil, gas or solution mining and

drilling, due to concerns for Middlefields health, safety, and general welfare from these potentialland uses if they were to become established in the Town.

This Land Use Analysis focuses on the effects to the community from a ban on Heavy industry

and all oil, gas or solution mining and drilling. Of greatest significance is the direct effect the

proposed amendments would have on current demands for tapping into the Marcellus Shale geo-

logic formation for extraction of natural gas. At the time this Land Use Analysis was prepared,

there were no operating heavy industries, oil, gas or solution mining and drilling operations in the

Town. It is the intent of the Town to prevent the establishment of such uses.

The planning, environmental, engineering, and legal literature is filled with documentation of the

effects of heavy industry including mining activities such as those involving oil, gas and similar op-

erations. Early large-scale atmospheric pollution has been documented from measurements taken

of Greenlands ice cores for lead. The lead was deposited in Greenland, when ancient Carthagin-

ian and Roman silver miners working in southern Spain, polluted the atmosphere more than 900

years ago. Today, there are more than 1,200 superfund1 sites found throughout the country where

heavy industries have left countless acres of land unfit for human habitation.

New York State is currently home to almost 100 superfund sites with nearly half of them contami-

nating or threatening contamination of drinking water sources. Industrial operations affect thefull spectrum of environmental conditions including land, air, water, traffic, plants and animals,

scenic and cultural resources, open space, energy, noise and odors, public health and community


2

1 Superfund is the name for the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980. It was designed

to clean up sites contaminated with hazardous substances. The law authorized the EPA to identify parties responsible for contami-

nation and compel them to clean up the sites. Where responsible parties cannot be found, the Agency can clean up sites itself.


4/78

character. Oil and gas operations have likewise accounted for impacts to the same environmental

conditions from the processes of drilling, stimulation, produced water, separation and dehydra-

tion, gas compression, production, refinement, delivery and use. Some of the substances known to

be released directly by oil and gas operations include but are not limited to hydrogen sulfide, diesel

fuel, methane, benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylenes (BTEX), nitrogen oxides, toxic metals,

polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, radionuclides, heavy metals, and sulfur dioxide. Otsego County

has been fortunate to have largely escaped the severe impacts of heavy industrial activities to date.

This will change as current demands for exploitation of finite fossil fuel resources in underground

formations becomes greater.

The Draft Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement (dSGEIS), prepared by the

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) in 2009, characterized the

trend as follows: The Department of Environmental Conservation ("DEC" or "Department") has received

applications for permits to drill horizontal wells to evaluate and develop the Marcellus Shale for natural gas

production. Wells will undergo a stimulation process known as hydraulic fracturing, which functions to releasegas embedded in shale deep below the surface. While the horizontal well applications received to date are for

proposed locations in Chemung, Chenango, Delaware and Tioga Counties, the Department expects to receive

applications to drill in other areas, including counties where natural gas production has not previously oc-

curred. There is also potential for development of the Utica Shale using horizontal drilling and high-volume

hydraulic fracturing, and the Department is aware that this could bring use of those techniques to areas such

as Otsego and Schoharie Counties, which would also be new to natural gas development. Other shale and low-

permeability formations in New York may be targeted for future application of horizontal drilling and hydrau-

lic fracturing if Marcellus and Utica development using this method is successful and the requisite infrastruc-

ture is in place.

According towww.geology.com, Marcellus was the Opening Act. A rock layer below the Marcellus Shale

could prove to be another incredible source of natural gas. The Marcellus Shale captured public attention

when leasing and drilling activities began pumping billions of dollars into local economies and citizens began

debating the environmental, social and economic impacts. All of this began suddenly in 2004 when Range

Resources Corporation drilled the first Marcellus well using modern drilling technology. Now, just a few years

later, the Marcellus Shale is being developed into one of the world's largest natural gas fields. However, what

we are seeing today from the Marcellus is only the first step in a sequence of natural gas plays. The second

step is starting in the Utica Shale. The Utica Shale is a rock unit located a few thousand feet below the Mar-

cellus Shale. It also has the potential to become an enormous natural gas resource. The Utica Shale is thickerthan the Marcellus, it is more geographically extensive and it has already proven its ability to support commer-

cial production. It is impossible to say at this time how large the Utica Shale resource might be because it has

not been thoroughly evaluated and little public information is available about its organic content, the thickness

of organic-rich intervals and how it will respond to horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing. However, the

results of early testing indicate that the Utica Shale will be a very significant resource. To corroborate the


3
http://www.geology.com/http://www.geology.com/http://www.geology.com/


5/78


6/78

Virginia and westward to Ohio. The Marcellus Shale region covers six states with Otsego County

at the northernmost extent of the formation as shown on the maps below and the Utica Shale re-

gion is even larger in area.

This analysis has relied on other previous studies and on information available from Federal, State,

and Regional government agencies as well as municipal agencies, universities and other authorita-

tive sources. A complete Bibliography of sources used can be found at the end of the Report.

B. Regional Land Use Trends

According to the US Department of Energy, the Marcellus Shale covers an area of 95,000 square

miles at an average thickness of 50 feet to 200 feet. New Yorks portion of the Marcellus Shale is

approximately 18,750 square miles and is found very deep over 1 mile below ground in places.

To date, there are almost fifty companies that are already exploiting the Marcellus Shale for naturalgas production, or have expressed interest in conducting gas drilling in the Marcellus Shale region.

One company alone, Statoil ASAof Oslo, Norway partnering with Chesapeake Energy, says it

could drill as many as 17,000 natural gas wells in the Marcellus Shale field over the next 20 years.

According to the United States Geological Survey, In 2008, two professors at Pennsylvania State Uni-

versity and the State University of New York (SUNY) Fredonia estimated that about 50 TCF (trillion cubic

feet) of recoverable natural gas could be extracted from the Marcellus Shale (Engelder and Lash, 2008). In

November 2008, on the basis of production information from Chesapeake Energy Corporation, the estimate of

recoverable gas from the Marcellus Shale was raised to more than 363 TCF (Esch, 2008). The United States

uses about 23 TCF of natural gas per year (U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2009), so the Marcellus

gas resource may be large enough to supply the needs of the entire Nation for roughly 15 years at the current

rates of consumption. These estimates do not account for natural gas found in the even deeper

Utica Shales. As discussed above, the EIA has now estimated the United States possesses 2,552

trillion cubic feet (Tcf) of potential natural gas resources and shale resources accounts for 827 Tcf

of this estimate.

Interest in the Marcellus Shale formation has been likened historically to the gold rush in mid-19th

century California. Potential Marcellus gas production revenues of $16 billion to $22 billion have

been predicted in several publications. Of course, predictions are based on circumstances that can

change, sometimes rapidly, depending on markets, worldwide volatility from political unrest, theassumptions that qualify the models, and most importantly the strengths and weaknesses of the

studies used to make the predictions. However, the reason there is great interest in the Marcellus

and Utica Shales is the current and projected demand for natural gas and the economic opportu-

nities it represents to landowners, gas companies and others that could benefit.


5
http://www.statoil.com/en/About/Worldwide/USA/Pages/ShaleGasMarcellus.aspxhttp://www.statoil.com/en/About/Worldwide/USA/Pages/ShaleGasMarcellus.aspxhttp://www.statoil.com/en/About/Worldwide/USA/Pages/ShaleGasMarcellus.aspx


7/78

Natural gas is in demand in the United States, in part, because it has become widely available

(87% was produced domestically in 2009 and 97% in North America) through a network of

305,000 miles of interstate and intrastate transmission pipelines. Compared to wood, coal or oil,

natural gas is convenient to use and relatively clean to burn in comparison to these other fuels.

According to the US Energy Information Administration (EIA), the United States possesses 2,552

trillion cubic feet (Tcf) of potential natural gas resources. Natural gas from shale resources, consid-

ered uneconomical just a few years ago, accounts for 827 Tcf of this resource estimate, more than

double the estimate published in 2010. Shale gas in 2009 made up 14 percent of total U.S. natural

gas supply. Production of shale gas is expected to continue to increase, and constitute 45 percent

of U.S. total natural gas supply in 2035, as projected in the EIAs Annual Energy Outlook 2011.

While the nation is beginning to transition to renewable energy sources such as solar, wind, geo-

thermal and others, natural gas creates electricity, heats millions of homes, heats water, cooks food

and makes backyard barbecues possible year-round. As a fossil fuel, it is a finite resource yet de-

mand for it is rising. Like oil and coal, natural gas was formed from the fossilized remains of deadplants and animals exposed to heat and pressure in the Earth's crust over millions of years (for dec-

ades, the coal industry has referred to coal as "buried sunshine"). Estimates are that society today

burns about 100,000 years of ancient plant growth each year. This has created an imbalance in

carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere.

A review of the literature describing the economic factors associated with exploitation of natural

gas has revealed a variety of outcomes. A study commissioned by the Broome County Legislature

in 2009 estimated a potential value per gas well by multiplying projected prices of natural gas times

the anticipated quantity of gas per well, resulting in ten-year gross revenues per well of $9.3 mil-

lion. However, this figure does not factor in the costs of well development, which have been esti-

mated to average $3.5 million per well. The Broome County study has been criticized by some

economists. A report entitled Unanswered Questions About The Economic Impact of Gas Drill-

ing In the Marcellus Shale: Dont Jump to Conclusions by Jannett Barth, PhD of J. M. Barth &

Associates, Inc. (March 22, 2010), analyzed several economic studies of natural gas drilling and

production including the Broome County study, the DECs 1992 GEIS and 2009 dSGEIS, eco-

nomic and employment indicators from gas and non-gas producing counties in New York State

and Pennsylvania,3 and economic studies of the natural gas experiences in Texas and other West-

ern states. The conclusions of the report are as follows:

Decision makers may be on the verge of making bad choices for the health of the regional

economy. The oil & gas industry is not a reliable industry on which to base an economic de-

velopment plan. Alan B. Krueger, Chief Economist and Assistant Secretary for Economic


6

3 Data sources included the US Census Bureaus American Community Survey and County Business Patterns reports.


8/78

Policy at the US Department of Treasury, stated, The oil & gas industry is about ten times

more capital intensive than the US economy as a whole. Krueger continues, saying that

encouraging oil and gas production is not an effective strategy for creating jobs. (Remarks of

Alan B. Krueger to the American Tax Policy Institute Conference, October 15, 2009).

Headwater Economics...study...conclusions are that while energy-focused counties race for-

ward and then falter, the non-energy peer counties continue to grow steadilyCounties that

have focused on broader development choices are better off, with higher rates of growth, more

diverse economies, better-educated populations, a smaller gap between high and low income

households, and more retirement and investment income.

The entire Marcellus Shale region in New York may be at risk both economically and envi-

ronmentally. While the environmental risks have been a focus of concern, many stakeholders

have assumed that a positive economic impact may result. In reality, the economic impact

may very well be negative. And the likelihood is that gas drilling would adversely affect othereconomic activities such as tourism and sport fishing and hunting. To some extent gas drill-

ing and these other industries are likely to be mutually exclusive. The net effect is what must

be considered.

One of the more recent analyses of the economic implications of Marcellus Shale development was

carried on at the Cornell University Department of City and Regional Planning. According to the

December 2010 Comprehensive Economic Impact Analysis Working Paper by David Kay:

Several studies have projected large positive economic impacts of shale gas development in the Mar-

cellus region. To make informed choices for their communities, policy makers need to understand thestrengths and limitations of these studies. Most importantly, they need to understand that there is a

tenuous relationship at best between positive economic impacts and long term economic development

based on an extractive, exhaustible natural resource. In addressing the relationship, proactive policy

can make a difference.

We conclude that existing evidence about the Marcellus shale gas operations is inadequate to make

predictions about the numbers of jobs that will be created, business expansion, or revenue generation

with high levels of confidence. Gas development will direct new money into the region, and the pros-

pects for substantial short-term economic gain for some local businesses and property owners are real.

Many economic development opportunities will also arise. On the other hand, mixed economic results

are likely even in the short run. The rising tide is not likely to lift all boats: there will be losing con-

stituencies among communities and individuals who are displaced or left behind. Moreover, the expe-

rience of many economies based on extractive industries is a warning that their short-term gains fre-

quently fail to translate into lasting, community-wide economic development. Most alarmingly, in re-


7


9/78

cent decades credible research evidence has grown showing that resource dependent communities can

and often do end up worse off than they would have been without exploiting their extractive sector

reserves. When the metaphorical economic waters recede, the f lotsam left behind can in some circum-

stances be seen more as the aftermath of a flood than of a rising tide.

According to the DEC, more than

75,000 oil, gas and solution salt min-

ing wells have been drilled in New

York State since the late 1800s with

about 14,000 wells currently active.

The first natural gas well in the coun-

try was drilled in Fredonia, NY by

William Hart (1821). The first com-

mercially successful oil well in the

world was drilled just south of Jame-stown, NY in Titusville, PA (1859).

Gas has been produced from the

Marcellus Shale since 1880 when the

first well was completed in the Naples

field in Ontario County. The Naples field produced 32 MMcf (million cubic feet) during its pro-

ductive life and nearly all shale gas discoveries in New York since then have been in the Marcellus

Shale.

In New York, all gas wells completed in the Marcellus Shale so far are vertical wells. To date, 49

wells have been developed, 18 of these wells are active while the remainder are either inactive,

plugged and abandoned, or shut-in. According to DEC records, two (2) gas wells have been drilled

in Otsego County in the Utica Shale Formation (one each is in the neighboring towns of Cherry

Valley and Springfield) while the other 17 are classified as Not Applicable or Confidential. In

addition to the local gas resources potentially available in Middlefield, other natural gas facilities

have recently been constructed in nearby locations. These include the Millennium Pipeline de-

scribed above.

According to the Millennium Pipeline Company, the Millennium Pipeline offers Unparalleled

Pathways to Northeast Marcellus Shale...Traditional natural gas markets are expected to grow in theNortheast as efforts increase to improve air quality. Western New York storage development supports seasonal

use of natural gas and discoveries of local gas production including Marcellus Shale gas improve optionality

and reliability of natural gas. Millennium Pipeline is well positioned to deliver these benefits to gas consum-

ers.

Richburg, 1882Richburg, 1882


8

Historic Gas Drilling in Richburg, NY - NY State Museum Collection
http://www.millenniumpipeline.com/http://www.millenniumpipeline.com/http://www.millenniumpipeline.com/


10/78

The Millennium Pipeline went into service in 2008. Millennium makes extensive use of existing

utility easements, extending from Independence in Steuben County NY to Buena Vista in Rock-

land County NY. Millennium, which is supplied by local production and storage fields and inter-

connecting upstream pipelines, serves customers along its route in the Southern Tier and Lower

Hudson Valley as well as serving several major utility customers in New England and the New York

City area. One of the Towns that the Millennium Pipeline crosses, the Town of Hancock in Dela-

ware County had recorded a total of 24,741 acres leased to gas drilling companies as of April 2009.

The graphics below illustrate the extent of the geologic formations discussed in this Analysis.

Marcellus Shale in the RegionMarcellus Shale in the State

Utica Shale Extent (in green)

C. Town Planning and Zoning

The Town of Middlefield Planning Board prepared and the Town Board adopted a Master Plan

for the Township of Middlefield in 1989. The Master Plan, which is a valid comprehensive plan

pursuant to 272-a.1(h) of New York State Town Law, establishes four general goals as follows:

1. That the senior citizens of the Township, who have stewarded these lands in such a way as to deliver

them to a younger generation in a beneficial condition, may continue to live here in a manner which

they find harmonious;

2. That men and women of the current generation who live and work on these lands may prosper in an

environment that is both flexible and secure;

3. That perhaps more importantly, future generations shall inherit these lands in a condition which al-

lows for a healthful, prosperous and independent way of life;


9


11/78

4. That improvement of land be encouraged and fostered in a manner which benefits the community as a

whole, but that development of land in a manner which threatens the health or well-being of the

community as a whole be prevented.

The Master Plan,4 through a 1989 Addendum, adds specific additional goals To sustain the viability

of farm lands where possible and to encourage and foster improvement that does not diminish farm

lands...preservation of Otsego Lake, of wooded areas harboring game and of important aesthetic and historical

characteristics of the Middlefield Township.

This Land Use Analysis has found that there is a material discrepancy and conflict between the

Master Plan and Zoning Ordinance as it pertains to industrial uses such as heavy industry and all

oil, gas or solution mining and drilling. Sensing this conflict, the Town Board adopted two reso-

lutions in 2010 to encourage the County and State to place a moratorium on horizontal drilling

for natural gas using the hydrofracking process and and to encourage the federal government to

repeal federal laws that exempt gas company activities, including exploration, extraction, and proc-essing, from the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act.

The principal purposes of this Land Use Analysis are to document the material discrepancy and

conflict, to review the proposed amendments to the 1989 Master Plan and 1975 Zoning Ordi-

nance, and to review the regional land use trends in the context of the Towns current land use

controls and land use plan to aid the Town Board in its decision-making process. This Land Use

Analysis will:

Provide a build-out analysis of the potential for gas well development in the Town of Mid-

dlefield and the implications of such heavy industrialization of the Town, through acceptedmeasures of impact, in categories such as loss of farmland and forestland, truck impacts on

local roads, water, chemical use and wastewater disposal, employees needed by the industry,

and potential effects to community services;

Summarize the documented characteristics as well as the potential beneficial and adverse

impacts associated with heavy industry including oil, gas and solution mining and drilling;

Place particular emphasis on the most recent technologies being used to develop unconven-

tional gas reserves, such as the Marcellus Shale formation, because over the past few years,

there has been the greatest interest in exploitation of such reserves in the region and suchinterest is expected to grow as all other sources of energy decline as shown on the US De-

partmentof Energys chart below;


10

4 The Town Master Plan is a comprehensive plan as defined by 272-a of New York State Town Law. When it was adopted in

1989, New York Law referred to comprehensive plans as master plans.


12/78

Provide a basis for the Town Boards environmental review of the proposed Plan and

Zoning amendments under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR);

Articulate in a summary form the substantial and documented evidence that exists con-

cerning the potential for heavy industry, including oil, gas and solution mining, to

threaten the health and well-bring of the community as a whole and to otherwise preventthe Town from achieving its well-established goals.

Heavy industry has been defined by the American Planning Association as A use engaged in the

basic processing and manufacturing of materials and products predominately from extracted or raw mate-

rials, or a use engaged in storage of, or manufacturing processes using flammable or explosive materials, or

storage or manufacturing processes that potentially involve hazardous or commonly recognized offensive

conditions. The U.S. Department of Labor, in the Standard Industrial Classification Manual,

includes Industry Group 131 (Crude Petroleum and Natural Gas) and Group 138 (Oil and Gas

Field Services) under Division B: Mining. Most other heavy industrial operations are classified

in Division D: Manufacturing. Examples include primary metals, chemicals, and petroleum.

These would fit the general category of heavy industry. While there are many characteristics of

these operations that differ significantly, they do share some common effects including the po-

tential for economic benefits to the community in which they reside through employment and

tax revenues. But, new industrial jobs not only create income for a community, they also create


11


13/78

costs as new families move in and public services must be provided. Furthermore, industrial

growth also carries with it inevitable and unavoidable adverse environmental impacts. These

include significant truck traffic, noise, odors, safety hazards, unsightly conditions, loss of habi-

tats, declines in water and air quality, to name a few topical areas. The costs of heavy industry

are not always felt while the industries are in operation. The superfund sites described above

have left a toxic legacy that has sometimes been paid for using tax revenues so the actual eco-

nomic costs of heavy industry are shared by all.

The following sections will analyze and discuss the build-out analysis results based upon the

potential for gas well development in Middlefield. Also included is an examination of the po-

tential adverse and beneficial impacts that can be expected to a variety of relevant areas of envi-

ronmental concern.

Heavy Industry (Photo: Sura Nualpradid)NY Oil Well (Photo: investments-and-acquisitions.com)

Gas Well Drilling (Photo: NYC-DEP)

Heavy Industry Build-out Analysis

Geologists have long known about the natural gas resources of the Marcellus Shale formation. It is

buried deep beneath Middlefield. Until recently however, use of conventional vertical drilling

technologies failed to provide a significant supply of natural gas from the formation. Beginning in

the 1970s, the US Department of Energy funded the Eastern States Shale Project to develop new

technologies to advance development of shale gas. The Project resulted in a new application of an

already known technology referred to as directional drilling. This technology uses an initial vertical

drillhole at the surface and then slowly turns the drill 90 degrees to penetrate long horizontal dis-

tances, sometimes over a mile, through the Marcellus Shale bedrock. Hydraulic fractures are then

created into the rock at intervals from the horizontal section of the borehole, allowing a substantial

number of high-permeability pathways to contact a large volume of rock. This technology is com-monly referred to as hydraulic fracturing, hydrofracking, hydrofrac, or simply fracking. Use of the

new technology (also referred to as unconventional drilling or unconventional gas), combined with

a substantial increase in the price of natural gas and the other factors described herein, has created

unprecedented demands for new gas wells in the Marcellus Shale formation.


12


14/78

Below the Marcellus Shale formation is the Utica Shale formation. As discussed in Section B

above, this formation is considered to have the potential to become an enormous natural gas resource.

Staff of the New York State Museum have stated that Gastem has had some recent success drilling ver-

tical Utica wells in Otsego County[and]...The overlay of Utica and Marcellus fairways create a potential

two-for-one opportunity for drilling shale gas. According to DECs well records, one vertical well has

been drilled into the Utica Formation in the adjoining Town of Cherry Valley and another in theadjoining Town of Springfield. No further information was available at the time this Land Use

Analysis was prepared on these two wells, but it is possible that both Marcellus and Utica Shale

formations could be exploited either consecutively or concurrently. While additional gas well de-

velopment of the Utica Shales is likely in the future, potential build-out of the Utica Shale for-

mation was not included in this analysis. As a result, this build-out analysis likely understates

the overall impact from heavy industrial activities in the Town.

In order to estimate the number of new gas wells that could potentially be developed in the Town

of Middlefield, using high-volume hydraulic fracturing combined with horizontal drilling and/or

new vertical wells, a build-out analysis was performed of the potential rates and densities of naturalgas well development that the Town of Middlefield could see in the coming years in the Marcellus

Shale formation.

Build-out is a planning tool that estimates the impact of cumulative development upon a commu-

nitys land areas once all of the potentially developable land has been converted to the use or uses

under study. No attempt has been made to conduct a build-out for other heavy industrial activities

or for oil or solution well development since none of these uses are currently in as high demand as

natural gas using hydrofracking. This does not mean that they will not be developed in the Town

in the future, absent amendments to the Town Zoning Ordinance, just that any exercise aimed at

estimating the extent to which heavy industries like gas processing plants, chemical or other similar

operations or oil or solution well development would become established in the town is highly

speculative at this time. But, horizontal drilling combined with hydrofracking is the hottest devel-

opment to hit the Marcellus Shale region in decades. Like hydrofracking combined with horizon-

tal drilling, future technologies could eventually be developed to more efficiently extract oil that is

known to exist in the region. With Otsego County positioned well in relation to Interstate 88 and

even Interstate 86 (i.e. the former Route 17), industrial growth in the future is possible. In fact, the

presence of natural gas in the Marcellus and Utica Shale formations could induce new industrial

development in the region including Middlefield for support industries or other heavy industries

that rely on the use of fossil fuels as illustrated in the photo below.


13
http://esogis.nysm.nysed.gov/esogisdata/downloads/talks/Oil_and_Gas_Plays.pdfhttp://esogis.nysm.nysed.gov/esogisdata/downloads/talks/Oil_and_Gas_Plays.pdf


15/78

,Photo by Halliburton of a Gas Processing Plant in the Burnett Shale region of north Texas

The build-out provides a peek into the future by examining probable future gas development in-

tensities and patterns. It helps residents and Town officials to envision the extent of heavy indus-

trial growth from hydrofracking operations. The primary issue to consider, in light of the ex-

pected demand for gas drilling in Middlefield illustrated by this build-out analysis, is whether

the community priorities to sustain the viability of farmland, to preserve Otsego Lake, to pre-

serve wooded areas harboring game and to preserve important aesthetic and historical character-

istics can be realized if the scenarios presented come to fruition. New York State Town Law has

delegated to local government the authority and responsibility to undertake town comprehensive planning

and to regulate land use for the purpose of protecting the public health, safety and general welfare of its citi-

zens. [ 272-a.1(b)]. Currently, the Zoning regulations have been interpreted to allow for unre-

stricted development of heavy industrial activities like oil, gas or solution mining throughout the

community. If this were to occur, then farmland, forests, scenic areas and historical resources are

likely to disappear or otherwise be adversely affected and/or degraded. Water quality of OtsegoLake (a public water supply), the Susquehanna River, Cherry Valley Creek and their tributaries will

likely become polluted based upon what is known about the unavoidable adverse impacts of high-

volume hydraulic fracturing combined with horizontal drilling as well as vertical drilling employing

hydrofracking, unless changes are made to the Towns land use controls.


14


16/78

If examined in isolation, the risks and impacts from one individual well, may not be significant,

but once examined cumulatively, the overall effect on the Town is significant and may be unac-

ceptable. The build-out analysis can assist residents and decision-makers in understanding, ahead

of time, the impacts heavy industrial activities can have on the community. It identifies the poten-

tial number of wells, the amount of water consumed, wastewater (flowback) generated, chemicals

used, the number of acres of farmland and forests which will be converted or impacted, the num-ber of truck trips made on local roads, potential employees needed for each well by heavy industrial

uses like gas drilling and production in the future. This information can be used by Town officials

to estimate the infrastructure that may need to be built, expanded or improved to accommodate

the growth of industrial development. This includes the secondary growth needed by employees of

the companies that attempt to develop new wells, the need to construct or reconstruct Town roads

and bridges that are capable of accommodating the truck loads of 80,000 pounds or more (rigging

equipment can be as heavy as 100,000 pounds) and can help Town officials and others quantify

the services required by local government. The assessment also helps in the selection of policy al-

ternatives to determine whether or not to accommodate the anticipated new industrial develop-

ment.

The steps to undertaking the build-out analysis are relatively straightforward. First, lands that are

not suitable for gas well development, such as State parkland and the portion of the Town within

the Village of Cooperstown are deducted from the overall Town gross acreage. There is only one

State Park in Middlefield, Glimmerglass State Park and the acreage in the Town is 26.04 acres.

Roseboom State Forest, while comprising a total of 629.67 acres in the Town, may be available for

gas leases in the future since New York States Forest lands (and even Allegheny State Park) have

been subject to oil and gas leases in the past and it is currently unknown whether this practice will

continue. An additional 942 acres of land are owned by Otsego County, but these lands could

be subject to lease arrangements between the County and gas companies if approved by the

County Board of Representatives.

According to the New York State Museums Reservoir Characterization Group (for petroleum)

there is Great potential for natural gas production in Marcellus and Utica Shales. However, due to the

recent dramatic increase in use of the Marcellus Shale just the past few years (primarily in Pennsyl-

vania and other states without a moratorium on horizontal drilling combined with hydraulic frac-

turing like New York), there is little information that would allow for a characterization of the spe-

cific factors that can be used to estimate full build-out of gas production in Middlefield. According

to Otsego County records, while there have been at least 6,000 acres (at least 50 parcels) that have

already been leased to gas companies,5 no wells have been drilled in Middlefield yet. Therefore,

build-out analysis conducted by others has been relied upon to develop the assumptions applied inthis analysis of the Town of Middlefield.


15

5 The number of acres and parcels identified may understate the lands already subject to gas leases since not all leases are filed with

the County.
http://esogis.nysm.nysed.gov/esogisdata/downloads/talks/Smith_1130_Weds_AAPG_Shale.pdfhttp://esogis.nysm.nysed.gov/esogisdata/downloads/talks/Smith_1130_Weds_AAPG_Shale.pdfhttp://esogis.nysm.nysed.gov/esogisdata/downloads/talks/Smith_1130_Weds_AAPG_Shale.pdf


17/78

This includes the analysis conducted by the New York City Department of Environmental Protec-

tion (NYC-DEP), for its water supply watershed in the Final Impact Assessment Report prepared by

Hazen and Sawyer in December 22, 2009. This study was relied upon to develop reasonable as-

sumptions that could apply to Middlefield. The assumptions generated by the DEC in their 2009

dSGEIS document, to estimate the number of well pads per square mile and other relevant factors,

were used to estimate the potential for well development in the Town. The Nature Conservancy,in cooperation with Audubon Pennsylvania conducted a study of the impacts on forests, based

upon before and after aerial photographic comparisons of gas well developments in Pennsylvania.

The Nature Conservancys report is entitled Pennsylvania Energy Impacts Assessment Report 1:

Marcellus Shale Natural Gas and Wind (November 15, 2010) and it was relied upon to assess the

potential impacts on forests in the Town both directly (i.e. acres of land disturbed) and indirectly

(i.e. acres subject to edge effect alteration).

The three studies used in developing the Middlefield build-out, including the NYC-DEP Report,

the DECs dSGEIS document, and TNC Report, reviewed shale gas formations around the coun-

try that have similar high potential for gas production as the Marcellus. Many of the locationsused in developing multipliers and the other factors used in calculating the build-out numbers

were for similar rural areas. Readers are encouraged to examine the information used by those

agencies in applying the baseline multipliers and other measurement standards used by these

sources and by this analysis.

The Marcellus formation is an extensive resource that occurs beneath much of the State and it has

been estimated by the DEC that it will require tens of thousands of wells to fully exploit. As such,

cumulative impacts from many wells constructed throughout the Town and the Region must be

evaluated in order to fully characterize the potential risk from both concurrent and consecutive

activities at multiple locations. This Land Use Analysis only attempts to answer the question of

how much of an impact the heavy industrial activity of gas development will have on the Town of

Middlefield. The well build-out density in the Town has been combined with quantitative esti-

mates for various activities associated with each well to develop cumulative values. The analysis is

designed to assess gas well development taking place at one point in time and space. It is not a

prediction, per se, of what will occur at any particular time. For policy-makers however, it

shows the consequences of taking no action to change the Towns land use controls.

The entire process of gas well development, from site development through completion, takes ap-

proximately four to ten months for one well. Multiple horizontal wells may be drilled from a

common well pad. One multi-well pad can accommodate six or more wells and can recover the

natural gas from a spacing unit covering a maximum of one square mile. New York State requiresthat all wells from a pad must be drilled within three years of the first well, so sites will likely expe-

rience a relatively high and constant level of heavy industrial activity for at least one and up to

three years. The low and high estimate of 157 to 838 well pads that could be developed in Middle-

field could be drilled in a relatively intensive but short period of time or could be drilled over a

period of generations as all areas in the Town that are potentially available for drilling are pursued


16
http://www.nyc.gov/html/dep/pdf/natural_gas_drilling/12_23_2009_final_assessment_report.pdfhttp://www.nyc.gov/html/dep/pdf/natural_gas_drilling/12_23_2009_final_assessment_report.pdf


18/78

by the gas industry. In addition, the fracturing process is usually repeated multiple times over the

life of a well (i.e. refracking) to restore declining gas production rates. According to Halliburton

(one of the worlds largest providers of products and services to the gas industry), It has been estab-

lished that only 10% of GIP[Gas In Place] is recovered with the initial completion. Refracturing the shale

can increase the recovery rate by an additional 8% to 10%. Simple reperforation of the original interval and

pumping a job volume at least 25% larger than the previous frac has produced positive results in vertical shalewells. Schlumberger, an oilfield services company for the oil and gas industries, states that Shale

gas wells dont come on as strong as tight gas, but once the production stabilizes, they will produce consistently

for 30 years or more. Thus, the true impacts of each well that is drilled can be felt for decades as the

gas resource is fully exploited. Readers should also carefully note the exclusion of wells drilled into

the Utica Shale formation, which may create an additional heavy industrial demand in the Town

for generations.

Build-out Analysis Assumptions

The following assumptions were adapted from the research methodologies adopted by the City of

New York in its Final Impact Assessment Report prepared by Hazen and Sawyer in December 22,

2009, by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation in its Draft Supplemen-

tal Generic Environmental Impact Statement On The Oil, Gas and Solution Mining Regulatory

Program: Well Permit Issuance for Horizontal Drilling And High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing to

Develop the Marcellus Shale and Other Low-Permeability Gas Reservoirs, by the Pennsylvania En-

ergy Impacts Assessment Report 1: Marcellus Shale Natural Gas and Wind by The Nature Conser-

vancy and Audubon Pennsylvania, and by the Manual of Build-Out Analysis by the Center for Ru-

ral Massachusetts at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst.

Infill wells. This analysis does not include the development of additional infill wells that can be

drilled. Infill wells, resulting in more than one well per 40 acres or other spacing requirement of

the Environmental Conservation Law, may be drilled upon justification to the DEC that they are

necessary to efficiently recover gas reserves. The gas industry refers to this as downspacing and it

is a technique that is widely used in other gas formations around the nation. According to Oil and

Gas Investor, As plays become further developed and the reservoir is better understood, downspacing begins.

Utica Shale and Other Gas-Bearing Formations. This analysis has not included future develop-

ment of the Utica Shale formation for natural gas since not enough information is known today

about the full extent of the resource available there. It is also important to note that the well spac-

ing assumptions discussed below are not applicable when wells are drilled into different gas-bearing

formations.

Potential Developable Land Area. The Town of Middlefield is the largest town in land area in

Otsego County. There are a total of 39,669.41 acres (or 61.98 square miles) in the Town. The Vil-

lage of Cooperstown consists of 192 acres (0.3 square miles) within the Town. Glimmerglass State


17


19/78

Park consists of 26 acres in the Town. Both areas were excluded from the analysis. As discussed

above, there are other State and County owned lands in the Town but currently, it is unknown

whether such lands could be leased to a gas company. Therefore, they have been included in the

analysis.

The NYC-DEP Report, in conducting their potential build-out of the New York City Watershedlands in the Catskills, first established a reasonable land area that may be subject to gas leases by

gas companies. The NYC-DEP analysis, for comparison purposes, used Bradford County, Pennsyl-

vania with a population density of 54 persons per square mile, as roughly comparable to the Cat-

skill Watersheds population density. Bradford County, to date, has experienced mineral leasing of

about 85 percent of their total land area and so the NYC-DEP conducted their build-out of the

Catskill Watershed using the 85 percent factor to estimate the land area that could potentially be

leased in the Watershed. Even though Bradford Countys population density is substantially

greater than Middlefield's 36 persons per square mile, if this rate of leasing (i.e. 85%) were to occur

in Middlefield, a total of 33,533.69 acres (52.4 square miles) of land would potentially be available

for natural gas development. This build-out analysis has used the 85 percent rate to estimate thetotal land area in Middlefield that could be available if landowners were willing to enter into lease

arrangements. The 85 percent rate is reasonable because Middlefield is a rural town, with a popu-

lation density of 36 persons per square mile and an average lot size of 25 acres, where the pre-

dominant features are farms, forests, with a small scattering of residences.

Well Density. New York State regula-

tions allow up to 16 wells per square

mile. This equates to 16 wells per 640

acres or 1 well per 40 acres. The US

Energy Department has stated that av-

erage well spacing in the Marcellus is 40 to

160 acres per well. The DECs dSGEIS

indicates a lower density, approximately

six to nine wells per square mile, is

more likely. According to the NYC-

DEP Report, this estimate is corrobo-

rated by recent permit applications in

Sullivan County, which are based on

five to six wells per square mile. Well densities to date in excess of three wells per square mile in

other areas have been documented from shale gas plays with significantly higher localized densities.

For example, Denton County, TX has a well density of 5.5 wells per square mile over approxi-mately 400 square miles (40 percent) of the countys land area. It has not been established that

these areas have been completely developed so higher gas well densities are possible. Similarly, an-

nual well completion rates in excess of five wells per square mile have been documented, and

permit applications suggest that these rates could be higher also. The Google Earth aerial photo


18


20/78

above was prepared by Tony Ingraffea,6 a Professor in the School of Civil and Environmental En-

gineering at Cornell University. It shows an overlay with the ideal well spacing (red dots) for a

location in southern Otsego County. According to Dr. Ingraffea, a minimum of eight wells per

square mile will be needed to maximize gas recovery. This would equate to development of a

minimum of 419 wells in Middlefield in the Marcellus Shale.

A visual build-out (shown in the following figures) was also conducted for the Town of Hancock in

Delaware County. While this level of gas well development may not occur in Middlefield, the two

images illustrate the results of visualization efforts in a similar community.

High and Low Future Development Scenarios. This build-out analysis was conducted at two po-tential levels of well development. One assumes that 50 percent of the lands that could be leased

are eventually developed (assuming 85% of the Towns land area minus protected lands and the

Village) and the other assumes that 100% of the lands could be leased (again assuming 85% of the


19

6 Professor Ingraffea has been a principal investigator on R&D projects from the National Science Foundation, NASA, FAA, Kodak,

IBM, Schlumberger, and the Gas Research Institute.


21/78

Towns land area minus protected lands and the Village). This range is based upon an assumption

that 50 to 100 percent of the currently uncontrolled land is ultimately developed using a threshold

of 16 wells per square mile for vertical wells, nine wells per square mile for horizontal wells each on

a single pad (for nine pads per square mile), and six to eight wells per square mile on a single pad

with multiple wells (one pad per square mile). This estimate is based on the best available data on

industry intent for developing the resource in conformance with New York State regulations at thistime, and presents a range of development within the Town that is consistent with that observed in

other natural gas regions (referred to as plays).

Farmland and Forestland Acreage. The National Land Cover Gap Analysis Project (GAP) was

used to calculate the number of acres of farmland and forest cover in the Town. Based upon the

GAP data, the number of acres of farmland in Middlefield is 11,240 or 28 percent of the Towns

land area while forestland is 25,331 acres or 63 percent of the Towns land area. The 11,240 acres

of farmland in cultivation is significantly less than the estimated 18,616.79 acres of agricultural

lands (46.93 percent of the Town) identified in the Town of Middlefield Master Plan Profile and

Inventory. The likely discrepancy between the two figures can be accounted for by the two differ-ent methods of estimating the areas devoted to farming. GAP uses multi-season satellite imagery

(Landsat ETM+) from 1999-2001 in conjunction with digital elevation model (DEM) derived data-

sets (e.g. elevation, landform) to model natural and semi-natural vegetation. Vegetation classes are

drawn from NatureServe's Ecological System Classification. In some areas, manual techniques

were used in the GAP analysis to discriminate small patch vegetation systems and systems not dis-

tinguishable through topography.

The method used for calculating agricultural lands in the Town of Middlefield Master Plan Profile

and Inventory relied on information available from New York State tax and assessment records for

lands within Agricultural Districts. As stated in the Profile and Inventory, Most Ag districts have a

scattering of houses, idle lands, woodlands, and active farmlands mixed together. While the higher farm-

land figure of 18,616.79 acres may have once represented all of the lands devoted to agricultural

operations, due to the decline in the number of farms in Middlefield, some of the formerly active

agricultural fields may no longer be in production, as borne out by the GAP analysis. However, as

discussed below in Section H, Agriculture, the Town of Middlefield is committed to protection of

its farmland and there are many techniques available to encourage farmland retention and preser-

vation that are outside of the scope of this Land Use Analysis. Furthermore, there are encouraging

signs that farmlands that were once productive but may have been taken out of active production

may be subject once again to farming in the future if the trends that have emerged elsewhere are

reflected in Middlefield.

Forest Lost. As shown in the illustrations below, The Nature Conservancy used aerial photo-

graphs from before and after development of a Marcellus gas well pad site in Susquehanna County,

PA. to assess the impacts of this type of energy development. The Nature Conservancy digitized

the spatial footprint of 242 gas well pad sites and associated infrastructure. According to The Na-

ture Conservancy, well pads occupy 3.1 acres on average while the associated infrastructure (roads, water


20


22/78

impoundments, pipelines) takes up an additional 5.7 acres or a total of 8.8 acres per well pad. Adjacent

lands can also be impacted, even if they are not directly cleared. This is most notable in forest set-

tings where clearings fragment contiguous forest patches, create new edges, and change habitat

conditions for sensitive wildlife and plant species that depend on interior forest conditions. For-

est ecologists call this the edge effect. While the effect is somewhat different for each species, re-

search has shown measurable impacts often extend at least 330 feet (100 meters) from forest adja-cent to an edge. To assess the potential interior forest habitat impact, the build-out analysis as-

sumes a 330 foot buffer into forest patches from new edges created by well pad and associated in-

frastructure development. For those well sites developed in forest areas or along forest edges (about

half of the assessed sites), an average of 21 acres of interior forest habitat was lost.

Farmland Lost. For estimating the number of acres of farmland lost as a result of site disturbance

activities, The Nature Conservancys aerial photographic analysis was relied upon as above for for-

estland. This showed that well pads occupy 3.1 acres on average while the associated infrastructure

(roads, water impoundments, pipelines) takes up an additional 5.7 acres, for a total of 8.8 acres per

well pad. Adjacent lands can also be impacted, even if they are not directly cleared, for instance,

when chemical spills occur. However, to remain conservative, the 8.8 acre figure per pad site was

used for the calculation of farmland lost. The forest edge impacts included in the forestland lostcalculations was not included in the analysis of farmland. It should be noted that the DECs

dSGEIS provided several ranges of estimates for well site impact. According to the dSGEIS, Most

wells will be drilled on multi-well pads, described in Chapter 5 as likely to be between 4 and 5 acres in size,

with pads larger than 5 acres possible, during the drilling and hydraulic fracturing stages of operations. Aver-

age production pad size, after reclamation, is likely to be between 1 and 3 acres. Access road acreage depends

!!

!

! !!

!

!

!

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !!

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !!

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

!!!

!

' ' ' ' ' '

' ' ' ' ' '

' ' ' ' ' ' ' '

'' ' ' ' '

' ' ' ' ''

' ' ' ' ' ' '

' ' ' ' ' '

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ' ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

!


21


23/78

on the location, the length of the road and other factors. In general, each 150 feet of access road adds 1/10th

of an acre to the total surface acreage disturbance. Centralized flowback water surface impoundments, when

included in the project scope, may be as large as five acres for the impoundment itself, plus the acreage neces-

sary for the access road, work areas, and to restrict access . . . the proposed disturbed access road acreage for

these sites ranges from 0.1 acres to 2.75 acres, with the access roads ranging from 130 feet to approximately

3,000 feet in length.

The NYC-DEP Report used a pad size disturbance area of seven acres per pad from experience with

the Fayetteville Shale formation reported by the US Department of the Interior. The 8.8 acres

associated with each gas well for the pad site, access road, pipeline infrastructure and water holding

facilities developed by The Nature Conservancy for lands in Pennsylvania is similar to what can be

expected to be found in Otsego County, is based upon aerial photographic analysis, and appears to

be the most reasonable data source and assumption for purposes of the Middlefield analysis. The

8.8 acre figure may actually be an understatement of the area of site disturbance that can be ex-

pected for each gas well, depending upon numerous other factors such as accidents. According to

the US Forest Services General Technical Report NRS-76 Probably the most severe, and certainly themost dramatic, of the unexpected impacts are related to the drilling and hydrofracking fluids. Because there

was no brine indicated within the geology of the well site, the risk to vegetation was assumed to be minimal.

However, obvious and measurable damage to vegetation did occur from these fluids at three different locations

. . . These symptoms were attributed to a loss of control of the drill bore on May 29, 2008, resulting in an aer-

ial release of materials that drifted over areas immediately adjacent to the well pad and drill pit.

Water Consumption. The volume of water required to fracture a horizontal well depends on a

variety of factors, including characteristics of the target formation, the length of the lateral, and

fracture goal. Industry data cited in the DECs dSGEIS indicates that on the order of 3,000,000

to 8,000,000 gallons of water may be required to fracture a single horizontal well in the Marcellus

formation. Professor Tony Ingraffea of Cornell University has stated that Chesapeake Energy is

averaging 5.5 million gallons of water per well in Pennsylvanias Marcellus Shale play. Neverthe-

less, the NYC-DEP in their build-out of the Catskill Watershed assumed an average of 4,000,000

gallons of water would be consumed per well. Therefore, this analysis uses the assumption that

4,000,000 gallons of water will be needed to develop each new horizontal well. For vertical wells

subject to hydrofracking, a lower assumption has been used, relying on the NYC-DEP assumption

of 300,000 gallons per well.

Chemical Use. Water and sand use have been reported by the gas industry and the US Depart-

ment of Energy to comprise 98 to 99.5 percent of the fracturing fluid mixture, with the remaining

0.5 to 2.0 percent consisting of an array of chemical additives used to control fluid properties dur-ing the various stages of the fracking process. Though the proportion of chemicals in fracturing

fluid is low relative to the large amounts of water required by the fracturing process, meaningful

assessment of potential water quality impacts requires that chemical additives be expressed on a

mass basis. This is especially important due to the toxicity of the chemicals used, as described be-


22


24/78

low in the section on Water Resources. The 167 tons (334,000 pounds) of chemicals used per well

figure cited by the NYC-DEP has been assumed in this analysis.

Flowback. After the hydraulic fracturing procedure is completed and pressure is released, the di-

rection of fluids pumped into the well reverses and a significant f low comes back to the surface.

The process and the returned chemical and water mixture are referred to as flowback. Accordingto the DECs dSGEIS, Flowback water recoveries reported from horizontal Marcellus wells in the northern

tier of Pennsylvania range between 9 and 35 percent of the fracturing fluid pumped. Flowback water volume,

then, could be 216,000 gallons to 2.7 million gallons per well. The NYC-DEP Report cites a flowback

volume of 400,000 to 2,800,000 gallons per well and for purposes of their build-out analysis, the

NYC-DEP Report uses (and this analysis will assume) an average of 2,000,000 gallons of f lowback

to the surface. This flowback water and chemical mixture has been found to include not only the

chemicals pumped into the well but it also contains heavy metals and radionuclides found in the

bedrock that are released during the hydrofracking process. According to the U.S. Geological Sur-

vey, a typical 3 million gallon hydrofrac produces 15,000 gallons of chemical waste. In existing

Marcellus wells outside of New York this waste is stored on-site in large holding ponds to evapo-rate, be land spread if legal, or until trucks haul it to other locations, for processing and disposal,

where suitable facilities exist. The flowback fluids must be contained and are subject to treatment

and sometimes reuse. There are no facilities in the Town of Middlefield that can accept such

flowback, so they must be transported to facilities outside the Town that can accommodate their

treatment.

Truck Trips. Development of natural gas resources are accompanied by a significant increase in

the level of heavy truck traffic compared to current conditions. The DECs dSGEIS estimates the

number of truck trips per well at roughly 900 to 1,300, approximately two-thirds of which are for

water and flowback hauling. The NYC-DEP Report cites a range of 800 to 2,000 truck trips per

well and for purposes of their build-out analysis, the NYC-DEP Report uses (and this analysis will

assume) an average of 1,200 truck trips per well.


23


25/78

Photo by Halliburton of a well pad in Burton, TX.

Employment. James Ladlee, Director of Penn State Cooperative Extension's Clinton County of-

fice and Larry Michael, Executive Director of Workforce and Economic Development at Pennsyl-vania College of Technology, have estimated the creation of Marcellus Shale jobs involving the de-

velopment of the well pad itself. Several studies, including theirs, have found roughly the same

statistic: statewide in Pennsylvania, preparing, drilling and beginning the production of a Marcellus

Shale well will require the equivalent of 11 to 13 full-time jobs per well. This doesnt mean that

only a dozen or so people do all the work. Instead, their study found that, on average, it takes 410

individuals, across 150 different job types from roustabout and truck driver, to roughneck and

mud logger to get a well up and running. But nearly all of the workers are only there for a few days

or weeks at a time. Adding up the hours, it's equivalent to 11 to 13 people working on one well

site for an entire year. This analysis assumes an average of 12 employees per well. These employees

will require lodging and services in the community for the duration of the well drilling activity,which has been estimated to last up to three years for one well pad with six to eight wells and from

four to eight months per well with one well per pad. Re-fracking of each well must also be ac-

counted for as described above.


24


26/78

A Final Build-out Analysis Caution. As Neils Bohr, a Nobel Laureate in Physics once stated, Pre-

diction is very difficult, especially about the future. This analysis of the extent of heavy industrial

growth, principally in the development of natural gas wells, may understate the overall impact that

could be experienced in the Town of Middlefield. It should not be viewed as a prediction of what

will occur but as an exercise that can help residents and decision-makers understand the implica-

tions of taking no action to control the possible growth of heavy industrial development that is oc-curring in other locations with the energy resources identified herein.

The results of the build-out calculations can be found in the following table summarizing several

impact categories. The impacts of the build-out will be discussed in detail in the sections that fol-

low the table.


25


27/78

Summary of the Build-out Analysis

MEASURES

UNIT OF

MEAS-URE

VE RT ICA L

DRIL L ING

16 WE L L S

PE R SQ. MI .WIT H

FRA CKING

HORIZONT A L

DRIL L ING

1 WELL PER

PA D9 WE L L S PE R

SQ. MI .

HORIZONT A L

DRIL L ING

6-8 WE L L S

PER PAD6-8 WE L L S

PE R SQ. MI

Potential Land Area Available for WellsTown Land Area is 61.98 square milesor 39,669.41 acres

A s s u m e 2a t 5 0

6 . 2 t o 5 2 . 4 s q u a r eP e r c e n t u p t o 1 0 0 P

m i l e s o f t h e T o w n se r c e n t B u i l d - o u t S c

L a n d A r e an a r i o s

Number of Wells50% to 100% Build-out Scenarios

1 well 419 to 838 wells 236 to 472 wells 157 to 419 wells

Townwide Site Disturbance

(acres/pad & infrastructure) 8.8 acres 3,687 to 7,374 acres 2,077 to 4,154 acres 1,382 to 3,687 acres

Active Farmland Lost (acres)(11,240 acres 28% of town)

8.8 acres 1,032 to 2,065 acres 582 to 1,163 acres 65 to 129 acres

Forest Lost for Well Pad (acres)(25,331 acres 64% of town)

8.8 acres 2,360 to 4,720 acres 1,329 to 2,659 acres 148 to 295 acres

Indirect Forest Impact (acres) 21.2 acres 5,685 to 11,370 acres 3,202 to 6,404 acres 355 to 711 acres

Water Consumption(gallons per well)

300,000/vertical well

4,000,000/horizontal well

125,700,000 to251,400,000 gallons

944,000,000 to1,888,000,000 gallons

628,000,000 to1,676,000,000 gallons

Chemical Use (tons per well)0.5 to 2% of frack fluid

167 tons/well 69,973 to 139,946 tons 39,412 to 78,824 tons 26,219 to 69,973 tons

Flowback (gallons per well)10 to 70% of frack fluid

2,000,000 gallons62,900,000 to

125,700,000 gallons476,000,000 to

954,000,000 gallons314,000,000 to

838,000,000 gallons

Truck Trips Per Well 1,200 502,800 to 1,005,600 283,000 to 566,400 188,400 to 502,800

Employee Equivalent Per Well 12 5,028 to 10,056 2,832 to 5,664 1,884 to 5,028


26


28/78

D. Land Resources

In the past, land was viewed largely as a commodity and its only function was to enable the owner

to make money. Over the past few decades, that attitude has changed. Many now think that land

should only be viewed as a resource rather than a commodity. While this resource view correctly

indicates the direction of the changed attitudes, it ignores the constitutional right to own land andto buy and sell it freely. Land must be treated as both a resource and a commodity. Those who

view land only as a resource ignore the social and economic impact that would come with any mas-

sive restrictions on the free alienability of land. Those who view land only as a commodity ignore

the decades of research that now helps us to understand the science of ecology and the benefits,

including economic, of protecting nature and natural resources. The commodity view also ignores

the considerable attention that has been afforded to environmental protection and legitimate land

use control regulations by our executive, legislative and judicial branches of government.

If local government wants to protect its natural resources, it must also weigh the costs and benefits

of doing so. Sometimes, protecting natural resources has obvious benefits. Tourism is driven by

those who visit a community because it has protected the unique qualities of its lands, waters, and

other important resources. In this context, it makes financial sense to protect land resources to

ensure that visitors have a positive experience with nature within their jurisdiction. Why would

tourists want to flock to a community that has invested heavily in industrial operations? Many

studies have now documented that preservation of natural resources and protection of open space

are essential factors in helping a community retain existing jobs and to attract new ones. For in-

stance, the Trust for Public Land in their study The Economic Benefits of Parks and Open Space

found that retention of natural amenities are critical to ensuring a higher quality of life and are

one of the most important components for attracting both employers and employees. Rural areaswith a high quality of life tend to see more growth in small businesses.

The effects of changes in the land use makeup of the Town, if heavy industry, oil, gas and solution

mining were to become established, could be dramatic and permanent. These changes were re-

searched and characterized by the DEC in their 1992 Generic Environmental Impact Statement

(GEIS) on the Oil, Gas and Solution Mining Regulatory Program. Much additional research has

been conducted since that time.

The following has been summarized from the assessments of impact on land conducted both by

the DEC and The Nature Conservancy for their study Pennsylvania Energy Impacts Assessment,Report 1: Marcellus Shale Natural Gas and Wind (November 15, 2010). The Nature Conservancy

analyzed aerial photography before and after development of a Marcellus gas well pad site in Sus-

quehanna County, PA. To assess the impacts of this type of energy development, The Nature Con-


27


29/78

servancy also digitized the spatial footprint of 242 gas well pad sites and associated infrastructure to

arrive at conclusions about the average amount of site disturbance associated with each gas well.

The majority of the industry's (i.e. oil, gas and solution mining industry) activity centers on drilling

individual oil and gas wells for primary production. Oil and gas operations vary in the amount of

land used, their effect on local topography and the volume of soil disturbed during construction

operations. In 1992, DEC estimated that generally access road and site construction disturb less than

two acres of land. In the 2009 dSGEIS, the DEC increased their estimates and discussed well pads

averaging between four and five acres in size during the drilling and fracturing phase and theymay be as

large as 500 feet by 500 feet, or 5.7 acres. The aerial photography research conducted in Pennsylva-

nia by The Nature Conservancy has found that well pads disturb, on average 3.1 acres of land with

an additional 5.7 acres devoted to associated infrastructure, such as roads, pipelines, and water im-

poundments for a total area of disturbance for each well pad of 8.8 acres. It is reasonable to con-

clude that the experience in Pennsylvania will be similar to what can be expected in New York.

Impacts associated with the siting of well operations are directly related to the location, size and

land contours of each well site. Middlefield has numerous areas of steep slopes as shown on Figure

4 of the Towns proposed Master Plan Profile and Inventory. Areas of steep slope, if proposed for

drilling operations or for heavy industry, will involve greater regrading operations than areas with

gentle slopes because a relatively flat site is required in order to accommodate the industrial opera-

tions. The direct impacts are virtually the same as those for all other earth moving and construc-

tion operations. Vegetation is removed, soil is regraded to accommodate the infrastructure, and

then stabilized with structures or by other means. The regrading of land and conversion of soils to

infrastructure uses unavoidably alters the natural soil profile. Some areas not needed permanently

will be reclaimed under State regulations. However, areas that will be permanently altered for ac-

cess, gas production, and gas transmission, including sufficient areas needed for refracking opera-

tions in the future, will also result in a permanent visual alteration in the Towns landscapes. This

would lead to an unavoidable impact on both land and aesthetic resources.

The build-out analysis estimated the total land area in the Town that will be directly impacted as a

result of gas well development ranges from 1,382 acres up to 7,374 acres depending upon the well

type and whether the well pad locates one or multiple wells. The direct impacts on land stem from

regrading for construction of the pad itself including accommodating drilling rigs and auxiliary

equipment such as tanks or ponds (for water, fuel, chemicals, and wastewater), generators, com-pressors, solids control equipment (shale shaker, de-silter, de-sander), choke manifold, accumulator,

pipe racks, office space, equipment maneuvering areas and other associated facilities. Roads to ac-

cess well and other sites must be built, and accidents involving chemical spills (See Water Quality

below) as well as trucks transporting fluids and other materials increase the risk of soil contamina-

tion. In the case of heavy industry, typically raw materials must be transported away from the site


28


30/78

for processing elsewhere. In addition to the drilling and extraction operations, the gas, oil or salt

solution products must be transported. The transmission requires the construction of gathering

lines, transmission lines and compressor stations, all of which can adversely impact land and other

resources. The long-term adverse environmental impacts on a property from the drilling opera-

tions will remain well into the foreseeable future.

Erosion and sedimentation result largely from site preparation and include grading operations,

which often involve a failure to install erosion control measures properly. Regardless, erosion and

sedimentation is unavoidable when a site is constructed in steep slope areas. Vegetation losses are

unavoidable (see Plants and Animals below). Every site must be stripped of vegetation and long-

term vegetation losses are most severe when an operator fails to properly segregate topsoil from

other excavated material. Topsoil takes hundreds of years to form and its loss can have serious

long term impacts on the land's ability to support crops and other vegetation. (See Plants and

Animals and Agriculture below). Persistent erosion can also result in significant changes in the

landscape (See Aesthetics below). The potential for accelerated rates of erosion continues long af-ter the construction activities are completed. When the topsoil is not set aside and redistributed

properly, the topsoil layer can become buried, effectively sterilizing surface soils.

Negative environmental impacts on soil also result from accidental spills of oil, brine or chemical

materials used by heavy industry or involved in drilling and production of oil and gas wells. De-

pending upon the type and amount of material spilled, the contaminated soil may be unable to

support vegetative growth. Brine and other waste fluids high in salt can kill vegetation and retard

growth for years. Similarly, oil and other petroleum products, such as diesel fuel used by machin-

ery and in the fracking process itself, when spilled on the ground surface, can kill plants and retard

new growth.

Middlefields proposed planning and zoning document adoption, that would result in prohibition

of heavy industry, oil, gas or solution mining operations would in turn lead to the elimination of

the impacts identified herein as a result of the build-out activities. With the exception of potential

soil contamination from heavy industrial activities, it should be noted that all land development

activities requiring vegetation removal, regrading and then stabilization with structures, like resi-

dential or commercial development, can have similar impacts on land.

E. Water Resources

While DEP is mindful of the potential economic opportunity that this represents for the State, hy-

draulic fracturing poses an unacceptable threat to the unfiltered water supply of nine million New

Yorkers and cannot safely be permitted with the New York City watershed.


29


31/78

NYC Department of Environmental Protection

The impacts of heavy industrial development, hydrofracking in particular, on water resources in-

clude watershed impacts, water supply, water quality, and accidents, described as follows.

1. Watershed impacts

Land clearing, loss of forested cover, soil compaction, erosion and stormwater runoff are all associ-

ated with well pad construction, road and pipeline construction, and well operation. Loss of for-

ested cover and soil compaction interfere with groundwater recharge and contribute to watershed

impairment. Erosion and subsequent runoff have the potential to significantly contribute to deg-

radation of surface water quality. Heavy industrial development including gas wells results in a de-

crease in overall watershed forest cover, and an increase in compacted impervious surfaces. The

disruption of local drainage patterns caused by heavy truck traffic and other equipment on small

rural roads and nonpaved cleared surfaces, including numerous wetland and small stream cross-

ings, has the potential to substantially interfere with the ability of watersheds to provide adequate

water supply and high quality water, especially when these activities occur over a large area. Sur-

face compaction may substantially reduce the flood control capability of natural systems, especially

in floodplains and wetlands. Nonpoint source pollution from stormwater runoff and erosion often

results from site clearing and grading. Especially where well pads are near small wetlands or

streams, the ensuing sedimentation effects may be significant. On a single gas well pad site in Fer-

now forest, WV, a US Forest Service study provides a conservative estimated loss of 2.3 tons of soil

per 2.47 acres, measured at this single site, due to improperly installed and maintained silt fences.

Any streams or wetlands in close proximity would likely be affected by this level of erosion and po-

tential sedimentation. The potentially large amount of land cleared for well pads, pits, roads andpipelines increases the chances of widespread and cumulative sedimentation and subsequent water

quality issues.

The impact on wetlands is especially significant. Small wetlands are some of the most ecologically

and economically valuable habitats

middle field land use analysis final

Documents