Talk:2011 SGEIS Flaws(NY)

From SourceWatch
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Welcome all editors!

  • The purpose of the SGEIS Flaws Wiki is to drive common people to submit substantive comments on the SGEIS to the DEC.
  • The majority of this content should keep this in mind.
  • Substantive material which is only tangential to the above purpose, or only loosely related to SGEIS Flaws, or information about how to make a comment, should be moved to a separate page.
  • It is permissible to briefly mention tangential material, e.g., legislative bans, but consider moving the substance to another page.
  • Feel free to add substantively, new material to the SGEIS Flaws Wiki.
  • Kindly discuss substantial deletions before you make them.
  • Please use good Wiki Markup Style. Please format for readability and useability.
  • If have questions: leave me a message here: User_talk:Bhuston
  • We operate by consensus, ALL AGREE.
  • No renegades, fat egos, heroes, superstars, or martyrs.
  • We are polite, make no demands,
  • We use persuasion and reason to justify our edits.
  • No feet stamping or fist pounding or special people.
  • We cite relevant sections of the SGEIS where possible. (very important!)
  • We cite white papers, audio, and videos by experts.
  • We cite NY and Federal Statutes, and Code.
  • We controversy exists, we defer to subject matter experts.
  • Any editor who agrees to play by these rules is welcome.
  • The SGEIS Flaws wiki is presently protected, due to peristent vandalism, i.e., not playing by these rules.
  • This is expected to be resolved shortly.
  • For now, if you have an idea for an edit, please post them here on the Talk Page: Talk:2011_SGEIS_Flaws(NY)
  • Use the "+" above to create a new section.
  • Be sure to sign your Talk Page contributions with four tildes "~" This will be replaced by your name.

Discussion Threats to Water

I want to add a new section to Threats to Water currently section 8.1. I would like to add it as section 8.1.1 subtitling Water Quality Model. I will first post the content here and then after a week for discussion cut it into the main article page.--JohnWunder 09:17, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Water Quality Model

The Revised dSGIES does a better job enumerating the indivividual threats to water quality than the earlier draft but still does not properly model the interaction of those threats. Adverse affects on water quality are likely the biggest threat introduced by hydraulic fracturing and the interplay of a change of this magnitude needs to be modeled using the EPA Water Quality Models. In particular FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps in Table 3.4 should be updated to account for the floods of 2005, 2006 and 2011 particularly for Tioga County and the Town/Village of Owego as they are currently dated 1997 and 1982. Using current floodplains models of fracturing activity should be run to account for waste treatment, storm run-off and leakage during normal day-to-day operation through the 30 year cycle planned for the Marcellus Shale Region A of the dSGEIS. Additionally at least 2 models should be run in extreme situations such as flood, earthquake or terrorist attack.

The current dSGEIS only mentions water quality models once. The Q7-10 flow model used by the DRBC 'when evaluating waste load assimilative capacity' on page 7-14. This is a good start but the dSGEIS needs to go beyond existing models and build it's own water quality models to understand the integrated affect hydraulic fracturing will have on the water cycle in the Marcellus Shale region. For example, while wells are already designated not to be in floodplains what is the impact of fracturing wastes being in waste treatment plants that are in floodplain or how will those floodplains change when the storm runoff is altered by the construction of 1600 new wells a year. The same due diligence needs to be put into the water quality model that the dSGEIS put into the air quality model!--JohnWunder 09:57, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

There is some concern with generally stating the dSGEIS does well on individual threats as it could be perceived as contradictory with other portions of the page. Changed wording to now read it is better than the earlier draft which shoul be less controversial--JohnWunder 10:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC)