1. Introduction 1
1.1. Results 1
1.2. Need for Project 2
2. Physical Description of Study Area. 3
2.1. Population 3
2.2. Land use. 4
2.3. Threats to groundwater, past and present. 6
2.4. Forest 6
2.5. Farms 7
2.6. Soils 7
2.7. Water 9
2.8. Springs 9
2.9. Fractures, faults and joint sets of study area. 11
2.10. Sinkholes 11
2.11. Wetlands 12
2.12. Hydrogeology 13
2.13. Radon and other studies. 13
3. History, Drilling, Mining and Solid Waste Disposal In Study Area. 14
3.1. Drilling 14
3.2. Mining 16
3.3. Solid Waste Disposal and Storage Data 17
3.3.1. Rock Formations As a depository of nuclear or liquid waste. 17
3.3.2. Farm and rural dumps. 18
3.3.3. Road salt storage areas. 18
3.3.4. Underground Storage Tanks. 18
3.3.5. State and County Databases 19
3.3.6. Environmental Regulation and Planning 20
3.4. Legislation 20
3.4.1. Federal 20
3.4.1.1. EPA 20
3.4.1.2. RCRA 21
3.4.1.3. Safe Drinking Water Act 24
3.4.1.4. Clean Water Act (CWA) 25
3.4.1.5. CERCLA (Superfund) 26
3.4.1.6. Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) 26
3.4.1.7. Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Roenticide Act 26
3.4.1.8. SPEDES 26
3.4.1.9. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) 27
3.4.2. State 27
3.4.2.1. DEC Bureau of Minerals 30
3.4.2.2. State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR) 30
3.4.2.3. Present New York State Generic EIS for gas drilling. 32
3.4.2.4. Present New York Rules and Regulations 33
4. Mapping Methodology 33
5. Original Research by the Author 34
5.1. Location 35
5.2. Well Name 35
5.3. Owner 35
5.4. API # 35
5.5. Formation Tops 35
5.6. Tops of other geologic features 36
5.7. Water shows and tops. 36
5.8. Existing hazardous waste sites 37
5.9. Hand and machine dug water wells. 37
5.9.1. Location. 37
5.9.2. Depth. 37
5.9.3. Casing record. 38
5.9.4. Driller's name. 38
5.9.5. Sealed or open. 38
5.9.6. Depth to water. 38
5.9.7. Flow (capacity) if known. 38
5.9.8. Domestic use. 38
5.9.9. Farm, industrial and/or irrigation use. 39
6. Mapping 39
6.1. Review of Rickard's and Fisher's work. 39
6.2. Author's picks. 39
6.3. Description of maps and formation shown. 40
6.3.1. Formations 41
6.3.1.1. Union Springs Shale 41
6.3.1.2. Cherry Valley Limestone 41
6.3.1.3. Onondaga LS 41
6.3.1.4. Phosphate nodule zone 43
6.3.1.5. Oriskany SS 43
6.3.1.6. Manlius 44
6.3.1.7. Rondout 45
6.3.1.8. Cobleskill 45
6.3.1.9. Bertie 45
6.3.1.10. Camillus 46
6.3.1.11. Syracuse 46
6.3.1.12. Vernon 46
6.3.1.13. Lockport Dolomite 47
6.3.1.14. Rochester 47
6.3.1.15. Irondequoit 47
6.3.1.16. Williamson 47
6.3.1.17. Wolcott 47
6.3.1.18. Sodus Shale 47
6.3.1.19. Furnaceville Hematite 47
6.3.1.20. White Medina "Whirlpool" 48
6.3.1.21. Queenston 48
6.4. Mapping of fractures and known faults. 48
6.5. Examination of Cross-sections 51
6.5.1. Union Springs 51
6.5.2. Cayuga 51
6.5.3. Auburn Landfill 51
7. Users. 51
7.1. Private sector 51
7.2. Government 52
7.2.1. Spill cleanup and containment. 52
7.2.2. PSC 52
7.2.2.1. Pipeline routes and construction. 52
7.2.3. Health departments 52
7.2.3.1. Radon studies. 52
7.2.3.2. Sewer leach fields 52
8. Summary of findings. 53
9. Recommended Actions 53
10. Appendix A. Oriskany sandstone locations and descriptions. 56
11. Appendix B: Union Springs Cross Section 63
12. Appendix C: Cayuga Cross Section 64
13. Appendix D: Auburn City Landfill Cross Section 65
14. Appendix E: Well database 66
15. Appendix F: County and State water well report forms. 67
16. Appendix G: NYSDEC report forms 68
17. Appendix H: Geologic Sections and Gamma Log 69
18. Maps 70
19. Glossary 71
20. Bibliography. 72
Analysis of the Subsurface Formations, Structure,
and Water Resources of Central and
Southern Cayuga County, New York, as a Guide to Future
Groundwater Management Programs
By
William S. Hecht
A Project
submitted in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the
Master of Science Degree
State University of New York
College of Environmental Science
and Forestry
1990
1. Need for Project
For more than 25 years numerous companies have actively drilled or prospected for natural gas in Cayuga County and the pace is quickening. If existing wells are not utilized for deeper exploration, a whole new program of new wells, drilled to other formations could be initiated. As natural gas and other energy prices escalate there will be renewed efforts to drill and develop the natural gas potential of the Trenton formation as well as the Medina and Queenston formations. As of November 1989 at least one firm is in the process of renewing the exploration for Trenton gas in Onondaga County near Baldwinsville and possibly in Cayuga County in the old Bluetail Rooster field and other areas. Since most of the existing wells are completed with 4 1/2 inch casing, it would be unlikely that the old wells would be deepened to the Trenton or other formations. New wells would be required and the process of permitting, drilling and completion would start anew.
Many companies and individuals have shown an interest in the extensive gypsum deposits that can be found near the surface just to the north of the Onondaga escarpment. The information included in this study gives the most up to date and detailed look at these formations, their location, and structure. Other mineral exploration includes the search for limestone, gravel, and clay. There is a continuing need for the limestone and gravel deposits of the Onondaga limestone which throughout Cayuga County meets the criteria of the New York State Department of Transportation for road building materials. The old General Crushed Stone Quarry in Auburn is presently closed but the Oakwood quarry is actively producing runner crush. The Oakwood quarry exhibits significant doming of the limestone due to the alteration of gypsum (CaSO4¥2 H2O) to anhydrite (CaSO4) and the accompanying 38% reduction in volume (Blatt, H.; Middleton, G. and Murry, R. 1970). Similar doming can be seen at the Springport Town Hall quarry on NY Route 326. This quarry is located just to the north of the present Town Hall on NY Route 326 and is in the Manlius limestone. The reduction in volume of gypsum to anhydrite can results in "...abnormally high fluid pressure..." and "...this fluid pressure may approach the lithostatic pressure if the permeability is insufficient to permit the brine to dissipate." "In addition a sedimentary horizon with abnormal fluid pressure may act as a locus for the generation of a thrust fault" (Blatt, H.; Middleton, G. and Murry, R. 1970).
1.1. Introduction
At present there is no accurate database of the stratigraphy, hydrology and subsurface geology of Cayuga County. The need for such a detailed database has been evident for many years and is increasing in urgency as numerous sites are identified as areas of groundwater contamination. Such a data base is needed to help with the increasing pressures from at least three major sources, gas and water well drilling, mining, and solid waste disposal.
Since the early 1960's, there have been increeasing efforts to expandthe search for gas between Auburn and Union Springs and efforts are presently underway to expand the Auburn gas field to the south of Union Springs. Pressure to expand well drilling may drive drillers to deeper explorations of the gas bearing formations below the Medina and Queenston formations. If existing wells are not used, a whole new program of new wells could be initiated. Pressures will increase to develop these deeper formations in Cayuga County as energy prices escalate.
In addition to pressures to expand gas drilling, there is continues to be need for limestone and gravel from the Onondaga Limestone deposits of the County because they meet the New York State Department of Transportation criteria for road building materials.
A third source of pressure comes from siting commissions. Recent activity to stop the siting of the Low Level Nuclear Waste Disposal Facility in Cayuga County would have been greatly enhanced by accurate records of the subsurface geology and hydrology of the area. In fact, a major argument contributing to the removal of Cayuga County from active consideration as a site was the potential impact on groundwater.
The goal of this paper is to provide a tool for legislative and planning bodies, including Cayuga County and New York State, as well as for individuals and businesses, as they continue to develop the physical assets of Cayuga County. It is hoped that the information available in this paper will encourage environmentally sound decision making in the future.
1.2. Results
This paper combines original research with a compilation of existing data. The author has created both maps and electronic databases, which are appended to the body of the paper. Extensive review of relevant historical and geologic literature on the County has also been compleatred.
Among the resources assembled in this paper are:
- Detailed geological structure maps including newly identified faults.
- Cross sections of selected gas wells.
- Database of gas wells and formation tops.
- Database of water shows.
- Literature search and bibliography
There are many potential applications for this information. The Maps and cross sections constructed from the database can be used in the design of a casing program specific to each new well in the area of study. This will, in many cases, result in significant savings to the drillers in drilling and casing costs. Such a collection of maps and data will also benefit water well drillers as well as speeding hydrogeologic and aquifer recharge studies. In addition, this study can be used as a building block for ground-water impact evaluation under the State Environmental Quality Review process (SEQR). The geologic geologic faults discovered by this study, and continued updating of the database and maps, will provide a three dimensional picture of the structure of the area and help in the understanding of groundwater flow. Also, under SEQR, aquifer recharge areas could be deemed "Critical Environmental Area" (CEA) by a state or local agency. Such designation would require any unlisted action within the CEA to address the impact and be treated as a "Type I" action by the involved agency (6 NYCRR Part 617, 1987). Yet another possible use of this information is in the siting of large projects such as power plants and waste disposal sites, nuclear, medical, or municipal. At the present time the New York State Low Level Radioactive Waste Siting Commission is actively considering the siting of the states low level radioactive waste site in Cayuga county and specifically within the drumlin fields and in a drumlin.
2. Physical Description of Study Area.
Cayuga county is situated in the heart of New York State, the Finger Lakes Region. The County is bounded on the north by Lake Ontario, on the west by Cayuga Lake and Wayne county, on the east by Skaneateles Lake and Onondaga County, and on the south by Tompkins county. Owasco lake is completely contained within the geographical boundaries of Cayuga county. Most of Owasco Lake's watershed is also within the county.
Dimensions of the County are as follows: it is 55 miles long from north to south. The max width at the southern end is 22 miles while it is only 6 miles at the north. In area the County ranks 28th in land area of the 53 counties of the State, covering about 700 square miles (447,360 acres) (US Department of Agriculture May 1971). In 1971, 70 % of the county was in farmland. The northern end of the County, north of the village of Cayuga and the City of Auburn, is dominated by numerous drumlins running roughly north to south. These drumlins are composed of compact glacial till and range in height from 20-30 feet to over 150 feet (Fairchild, H.L. 1907). Their length is often more than two or three miles. Excellent exposures of the drumlins are provided along lake Ontario east and west of the village of Fair Haven in northern Cayuga County.
2.1. Population
Although the population of Cayuga County has only shown moderate growth over the years, the geographic distribution has changed. More and more homes are being built on the fringes of the population centers and in strip development along once rural roads. Towns such as Weedsport, Cato, Victory, and Port-Byron are becoming bedroom communities for Syracuse and its environs. These towns are ill equipped to meet the new demands on them for expansion. Zoning is often nonexistent or only rudimentary.
With the increase in home building is an increase for domestic water wells and septic systems. Much important farmland is being lost permanently. These lands are often situated over important aquifers and if properly managed, act as an important filter for groundwater and recharge.
The following is a tabulation of the present distribution of the population of Cayuga County.
Cayuga County
Urban/ Rural Population Distribution
(NYS Dept. Ag. + Markets , January 1986)
Type/Location # %
Urban (City of Auburn) 32,400 41%
Rural 47,200 59%
Villages 11,500 14%
Outside Villages 31,200 39%
Outside Villages on Farms 4,500 6%
Total 79,600 100%
Cayuga County Population Distribution
Relative to Land Area Occupied
(NYS Dept. Ag. + Markets , January 1986)
% of Total % of Total
Location County Population County Land Area
City and Villages 55% 3%
Rural Non-Farm 39% 37%
Farm 6% 60%
2.2. Land use.
In any active groundwater protection plan consideration must be given to all land use areas and their relation to each other. With the expanding urban and city populations it is too often forgotten what "rural" truly means. Smells, sights, and sounds, not normally seen in the city are a common or seasonal occurrence in the country. To place, plan or zone a pig farm downwind from a residential area is asking for trouble.
The employment of land use information, especially in a Computer Geographical Information System (GIS), is a most powerful tool for rural and urban planning. Like all data, its usefulness and validity is only as good as the accuracy and validity of the information put in and the information that comes out. In Cayuga County there is no groundwater database and this renders the usefulness, for ground water investigations, of their GIS system, to just broad generalities and assumptions.
The Counties GIS system will play an important role in the future designation and enforcement of Critical Environmental Areas as defined under SEQR and the mapping of Aquifer Recharge Areas.
There is growing need in certain areas of the County that rely heavily on groundwater, to define the principal aquifer areas and areas of groundwater recharge. The Village of Union Springs has experienced the contamination of their municipal water supply with benzine, dichloroethane and trichloroethane (The Citizen Advertiser 1/8/89).
Efforts are presently underway to start the compilation of a groundwater database for Cayuga County. This will be a first step in understanding the Counties groundwater resources, their extent, and quality.
The following land use information, for the Towns of Springport and Aurelius which comprise most of the active gas drilling activity of the County, indicate that for these two Towns over 90% of the land use is composed of the following:
- Active Cropland
- Natural Waterbody
- Forest
- Active Pasture
- Inactive Cropland
- Brushland
Similar information is available for each Town within Cayuga County from the Cayuga County Planing Board.
The following land use information for just the Towns of Springport and Aurelius, should provide useful background for groundwater and wellhead protection plan(s). A plan incorporating a full water resource management plan for Cayuga County. The data was compiled from aerial photos taken in 1974. Interpretation took place by the Cayuga County Planning Board in 1979-80 and was undertaken as part of the Cayuga County Environmental Management Council's Natural Resource Inventory.
Data Aurelius Aurelius Springport Springport
Value Sym. % # of Acres % # of Acres
0 6867.682 - 9157.268
1 Ac Active Cropland 44.04 7591.539 51.05 10461.862
2 Ah Horticulture 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.000
3 Ai Inactive Cropland 8.15 1404.672 4.34 888.501
4 Ao Orchard 0.05 8.250 0.46 93.980
5 Ap Active Pasture 7.67 1321.812 10.34 2119.562
6 Ar Research Farm 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.000
7 At High Intensity Crop
0.06 11.120 0.00 0.000
8 Av Vineyard 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.000
9 Ay Speciality Farm 0.00 0.000 0.33 67.436
10 Cc Shopping Center 0.10 17.935 0.55 112.632
11 Cs Commercial 0.10 17.576 0.79 161.057
12 Cu Urban Center 0.19 32.642 0.00 0.000
13 Eg Sand or Gravel Pit 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.000
14 Fc Brushland 5.26 907.513 12.87 2636.449
15 Fn Forest 8.73 1504.390 9.39 1924.070
16 Fp Plantation 0.86 148.143 0.14 28.337
17 Ih Heavy Manufacturing
0.00 0.000 0.28 56.675
18 Il Light Manufacturing
0.00 0.000 0.00 0.000
19 Nr Exposed Rock 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.000
20 Ns Sands 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.000
21 Or Outdoor Recreation
0.04 7.533 0.73 149.219
22 P Public Use 0.74 128.056 0.27 54.522
23 Rc Labor Camp 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.000
24 Rh High Density Residential
0.67 115.143 0.74 151.372
25 Rk Developed Shoreline
0.91 156.035 0.65 133.795
26 Rl Low Density Residential
0.71 122.676 0.04 8.968
27 Ra Medium Density Residential
0.15 25.826 0.29 59.544
28 Rr Rural Hamlet 0.00 0.000 0.15 29.772
29 Rs Residential Strip 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.000
30 Ta Airport Facility 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.000
31 Th Transportation Facility
0.00 0.000 0.00 0.000
32 Tr Railroad Facility 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.000
33 Tt Communication Facility
0.00 0.000 0.01 1.435
34 Uc Under Construction
0.00 0.000 0.00 0.000
35 Wb Marshes, Swamps, Bogs
0.32 55.240 0.22 45.555
36 Wc Artificial Waterbody
0.00 0.000 0.06 13.272
37 Wn Natural Waterbody 20.88 3598.843 5.54 1136.005
38 Ws Streams and Rivers
0.00 0.000 0.00 0.000
39 Ww Wooded Wetland 0.36 62.055 0.77 157.470
TOTALS 100.00 17236.999 100.00 20491.489
As stated before, Cayuga County has virtually no grasp of their groundwater resources and contamination problems and therefore they are in no position to predict how these resources could potentially be utilized in the future. It is this authors opinion that Cayuga County has a vast groundwater system that should be defined in extent, amount and deliverability. This could be an important economic resource to the County in getting industry that needs water and in expanding the existing farming capacity of the region in the future. The author was in contact with the United States Geological Survey (USGS) in Ithaca in the summer of 1989 about the need to better define the recharge and aquifers in both the Union Springs and potential site of the Low Level Radioactive Waste Disposal facility. The USGS was most eager to start such a project and would fund 50% of the cost with the remainder to come from the County. It may be possible for all or part of the Counties share to be in the form of donated volunteer time.
2.3. Threats to groundwater, past and present.
The need to protect the recharge area of the Village of Union Springs water supply has been of concern for many years. No direct action has been taken to this end, although the Town of Springport does have zoning that could be utilized for such protection. In 1977 the engineering firm of Stearns and Wheler was requested by the Village of Union Springs to look into other potential water sources. Their recommendations at that time included the installation of a third well. They closed their report with the following remark:
"Because of the location and land use in the recharge area of the existing Village wells, we strongly recommend that the Village officials investigate, with the Cayuga County Health Department, the possibility of developing watershed rules and regulations as a means of preventing the degradation of groundwater quality resulting from present and future land uses in the recharge areas" (Stearns and Wheler 1977)
This advice remains relevant today if the County intends to protect its valuable groundwater resources.
2.4. Forest
The role of forests in groundwater protection has not been addressed by the County and deserves attention in an overall groundwater management plan. It may be possible, with the identification of important aquifer recharge areas, to implement forest planning in these areas to protect the groundwater supplies. A combined geologic study of bedrock and bedrock fracture patterns in conjunction with updated land use surveys of critical aquifer areas may help in locating areas that could benefit from increased forest plantings or increased use of no till farming practices. Although forests can lose great amounts of water from evapotranspiration, fewer chemicals applied in Cayuga County to forests than there are to cropland, thus making forests a safer land use then say active cropland or industrial. Furthermore such studies would identify areas where controlled growth or revised septic requirements would be required. For example, the feasibility of land application of effluent from the Moravia Sewage Treatment Works to forested land near the plant was recently under active consideration (Cayuga County EMC 1989-90)
Forests in Cayuga county are usually found in areas that have been unfit for agriculture due to bedrock being too close to the surface, steep slopes, or wetlands. Such areas should be preserved to help protect both surface and groundwater. Timber from farm woodlots has increased in use as a cash crop for many farmers and landowners and there has been an increase in "Managed" woodlots in recent years. Through the efforts of Cooperative Extension and the State forester, there has been a growing awareness of the value of timber as a cash crop and as an effective wildlife habitat and soil saver.
2.5. Farms
Farms provide a major threat to Cayuga County's groundwater resources. The chemicals used today in the fields and around the farmsteads are as hazardous as those found in many industries. Modern manure storage and disposal methods such as manure ponds and storage tanks are equivalent to unlined municipal garbage dumps.
Farming, as a way of life and business, has been of prominent importance in Cayuga County since its first settlement. A look at the three main industrial categories of manufacturing, wholesale trade, and retail trade will indicate that the food and agriculture business accounts for 20% of all firms in the County, provide 20% of jobs and 17% of wages paid (NYS Agricultural. + Markets, January 1985). The impact of farming on land use is dramatic. In 1985 there were 1,285 farms in the County comprising 60% of the total land and family farm ownership predominates.NYS Agricultural. + Markets, January 1985] The County ranks first in the state in harvested cropland. Total 1982 gross farm sales were $85,000,000, $28.2 million from crops and $57.3 from livestock (NYS Agricultural. + Markets, January 1985).
Much active and top quality farmland is presently being lost to urbanization in Cayuga County. At the present time many acres of quality farmland west of Auburn, near Half Acre, are up for sale. This area overlays fractured limestone bedrock with minimum soil cover which makes it a prime candidate for easily contaminated groundwater. Such karst topography is extensive throughout central Cayuga County and needs to be identified. With identification should come restrictions or control of the application of chemicals and land use within such areas. An environmental spill, or misuse of chemicals within such an area can quickly spread through the soil, into the bedrock fractures and then into the groundwater system. There would be little or no time for remedial action.
2.6. Soils
Cayuga County possesses no actively promoted plan for the controlled development of the County's numerous natural resources, soils among them. In addition to urban development there will be increased demand for this valuable farmland for farming, in the coming years as water supplies in other parts of the United States dry up, or become too expensive to develop. We are already seeing the depletion of vast aquifers in the Midwest and South as farmers desperate for irrigation water are forced to drill increasingly deeper to tap these groundwater resources. Much of the water used for irrigation in these areas is often thousands of years old and for all intent an non-renewable resource. New York is blessed with abundant rainfall and the long term outlook for the state would indicate a continuation of same.
The soils of concern in the study area can vary tremendously in characteristics that have a direct relation to groundwater quality. Slope, soil pH, depth to bedrock, composition all relate to groundwater and all can vary over time including slope. Slope can be altered by time and mass erosion or by the actions of man, such as terracing and diversion channels. Composition can vary over short distance. Often the demarcation lines that are drawn on the soils maps are only general approximations. There is often a graduation from one soil type to another however this is not always the case. The glacier and the glacial lakes often have left sharp demarcations between deposits of vastly differing composition.
For a detailed description on a site specific basis the reader is referred to the Soil Survey for Cayuga County (US Department of Agriculture May 1971; USDOA 1926). For more general descriptions of the soils refer to Appendix J of this report. Appendix J, is a hard copy printout of the Cornell University soils data base "SOILED" (Cornell University Cooperative Extension, 1990). This data base describes major soil groups on a county by county basis. Information included in the data base is divided into specific depths for each soil and includes the following:
- USDA texture
- Fraction > 3"
- Percent Clay
- Percent of material < 3" passing sieve No. 4, 10, 40, 200.
- Liquid limit.
- Plasticity index.
- Moist bulk density.
- Permeability.
- Water capacity.
- Soil reaction (pH)
- Erosion factors (K and T).
- Percent organic matter.
- Corrosivity of steel and concrete
- Potential frost action.
- Flooding frequency, duration and probable months.
- High water table depth, kind, and probable months.
- Hydrologic group.
- Bedrock depth.
The SOILED data base is of particular use to those not familiar with New York soils in general, and Cayuga County soils in particular. The corrosivity information and the depth to bedrock data is of particular use when planning the route of natural gas pipelines. This information was recently used to plot a major pipeline across a large area of New York.[Waltman, William 1990]
In addition, the SOILED data base will be useful in training local health department officials, watershed inspectors and building contractors in the proper and safe placement of septic fields, sewage disposal sited, farm feedlots, and irrigation sites.
2.7. Water
The surface water resources of Cayuga County are remarkably vast. Lakes such as Owasco have been extensively studied for many years, but remarkably, almost nothing is known of the groundwater resources of Cayuga County and how surface water and groundwater interact.
An important aspect of water usage that has not been addressed by the State or County, is the contribution of groundwater aquifer recharge areas in both quantity and quality of water and the effect of the cultural alteration of these recharge areas to groundwater quality and quantity. A proposal has recently been presented by the Cayuga County Environmental Management Council to the Cayuga County Legislature to start addressing this important gap in our knowledge. Information essential to protecting the health and economic well being of the citizens of the County.
The geographic area of this study is the Western Oswego River Basin (Finger Lakes Drainage Basin) and specifically the Cayuga, Seneca River, and Owasco Outlet subdrainage basins (NYSDOH 1956). Land use data is presently available on a Town by Town basis and efforts are now underway by the Cayuga County Planning Board and the Owasco Lake Water Group to look at the Owasco lake watershed through the County's GIS system. This will be expanded over time, to cover the whole of Cayuga County.
The following information on the lakes of Cayuga County has been gleaned from many sources. Measurements may vary, source to source (Bloomfield, Jay A., 1978; Thompson, John H., 1977; von Engeln, O.D., 1961).
Surface Drainage Area % Surface Ratio: Surf. Miles of
Sq. Miles Sq. Miles to total to total Shoreline El.
Skaneateles 13.6 72.9 0.19 5.4 32.8 863
Owasco 10.3 205 0.05 19.3 24.7 711
Cayuga 66.4 1,564 0.04 23.4 84.8 382
2.8. Springs
Numerous springs exist throughout the County and should be documented and tested as a part of any full investigation of water resources. Some of these springs originate in bedrock many others in surficial material.
Numerous springs exist in the area around Union Springs and the Village of Cayuga. In Union Springs, freshwater springs exist at both the north and south millponds. An analysis done of the north mill pond spring, February 23, 1989, on record with the DEC in Syracuse follows:
Aluminum, Total <400. MCG/L
Antimony, Total <200. MCG/L
Arsenic, Total <10. MCG/L
Barium, Total 84. MCG/L
Beryllium, Total <4.0 MCG/L
Cadmium, Total <20. MCG/L
Calcium, Total 176. MG/L
Chromium, Total <20. MCG/L
Cobalt, Total <20. MCG/L
Copper, Total <20. MCG/L
Iron, Total <40. MCG/L
Lead, Total <80. MCG/L
Magnesium, Total 35. MG/L
Manganese, Total <20. MCG/L
Mercury <0.2 MCG/L
Molybdenum, Total <80. MCG/L
Nickel, Total <20. MCG/L
Potassium, Total <4. MG/L
Selenium, Total <5. MCG/L
Silver, Total <40. MCG/L
Sodium, Total 41. MG/L
Strontium, Total 4530. MCG/L
Thallium, Total <100. MCG/L
Tin, Total <200. MCG/L
Titanium, Total <20. MCG/L
Vanadium, Total <20. MCG/L
Zinc, Total <40. MCG/L
On February 2, 1989 the Mill Pond was tested and showed 13 mcg/L Cis. 1,2 Dichloroethene; 3mcg/L Trichloroethene; and <0.5 mcg/L Benzene (NYSDEC 1989b). Efforts are presently underway by the DEC and the Village of Union Springs, to determine the source of this contamination.
Other springs emerge along the lakeshore and in Cayuga Lake near Union Springs
At Montezuma, salt springs have been known and utilized by the native Indians of the area. According to Beck, the brine was obtained by digging shallow holes in the marsh at the base of the hill upon which the present village of Montezuma now sits (Beck 1842). White settlers dug wells forty to fifty feet deep in depth near Montezuma for the manufacture of salt. Beck further suggests "...that the State should erect a pump works at these springs, as she has at those of Onondaga" (Beck 1842 p.109).
One mile north of the Village of Cayuga, on Route 90, on what was once known as the Willard Farm, O'Hara (O'Hara 1989) describes a sulphur spring. The waters were tested in 1870 by a Dr. S.A. Lattimore, professor of chemistry in Rochester, New York. The following is his analysis of one gallon of this water.
Sulphate of Magnesia 27.15 grains
Sulphate of Lime 94.16 grains
Carbonate of Lime 18.20
Chloride of Sodium 2.12 grains
Oxide of Iron 0.04 grains
Aluminum Trace
Silica Trace
Total Number of Grains 151.67
Reference is also made by O'Hara to a sulphur bath west of Half Acre and east of the New York Central Railroad on the Lilly farm. This farm was later purchased by Henry Wilson Baker and is now owned by the Hoskins. He also mentions sulphur springs on Grover Street in the City of Auburn.
Information on many springs is also included in the USGS GWSI database that can be accessed at the USGS office in Ithaca, New York.
Springs abound throughout the County and especially in Springport and Aurelius. Data and documentation as to the location, flow, and quality of the waters in these springs can provide an important benchmark for future groundwater comparisons. Due to the karstic nature of the area it would not be unlikely for theflows and chemical makeup of these spring to vary over time.
2.9. Fractures, faults and joint sets of study area.
Groundwater flow often follows fractures, faults and joints. Flow in such features can be of monumental proportions. In certain areas of the County there are actually underground caverns and streams. The knowledge of such features is known only to well drillers. The extent to which these features impact local and regional groundwater flow has not been documented in Cayuga County. Ongoing work in Erie County by the USGS relating to the Lockport dolomite and in Cortland County, may prove beneficial in helping to better understand and model Cayuga County bedrock groundwater flow.
Recent work by the author, has shown the existence of two and possibly three faults at the surface in the vicinity of Union Springs. One fault was discovered while digging the mud pit for the Staehr #3 well (31-011-15962) and was confirmed by the gamma ray log of that well. A second fault was discovered in the bed of Tunnel Creek to the south of Oakwood Cemetery. This creek flows through and under Union Springs. Faults were also described in the gypsum quarries to the north of Union Springs.[Clarke, J.M. 1893] Faults just north of Moravia are referenced and photos shown in a work by Carney.[Carney 1909] Numerous other faults are presumed to exist. The east, west striking faults may be due to decolement features. Numerous north, south striking faults may be drawn in all the formation top maps depending on the particular person doing the contouring. There are many possible causes for these faults; glacial loading, anhydrite-gypsum conversion, remnant Appalachian mountain building pressure, and basement techtonics. Future seismic work may help to give the necessary detailed look necessary in this seemingly simple structural area we know as Central New York.
2.10. Sinkholes
Sinkholes are an active reminder of the continuing forces of groundwater flow in the study area. When these holes collapse they may dramatically alter groundwater and surface water flow paths.
Sinkholes are extensive in the area just to the north and west of the Onondaga escarpment from the village of Union Spring to Auburn. Mapping of the sinkholes around Union Springs was conducted by Kenneth Clark however this information needs updating (Clarke, Kenneth 1968). The existence of sinkholes at the Backus quarries north of Union Springs was also mentioned by State Geologist John Clark in 1893 (Clarke, J.M. 1893).
2.11. Wetlands
Wetlands serve as an important natural filtration system for both surface and groundwater. For too long wetlands were only considered a source of mosquitoes and at best a source of muckland. The mucklands of the Montezuma area have been severely depleted due to improper management. In places over six feet of rich muck soil has been lost due to washing, wind erosion and oxidation. Efforts are now underway in Cayuga, Seneca and Wayne County by a combined effort of the United States Department of Interior, New York State DEC, Ducks Unlimited, private landowners and the Nature Conservancy to protect hundreds of additional acres of the Montezuma wetlands and surrounding area. Protection will include purchasing plus a program for acquiring developmental rights (Christenson, Barry 1989) The Draft Environmental Impact Statement will be released in 1990. The wetlands of Montezuma provide a natural filtration of groundwater and surface watter. The protection, restoration and expansion of these and other wetland should be pursued. Wetlands are a long term renewable and low cost of water protection.
There are a number of protected wetlands in the study area, all of which meet the DEC's size regulations of 12.4 acres. The New York State Freshwater Wetlands Act Article 24 ¤24-0105 #7c identifies the role wetlands play in "protection of subsurface water resources and provision for valuable watershed and recharging ground water supplies" (NYSDEC 1980). Although many wetland are mapped and identified this is not enough to secure their role in the protection of the water resources, surface and subsurface of the area for these wetlands are not protected from many agricultural activities; Article 24 Title 7 ¤24-0701,4. For a more detailed discussion of the classification of freshwater wetlands the reader is referred to NYSCRR Part 664.
2.12. Hydrogeology
Up to date Hydrogeology of the study area as a whole or on an aquifer basis is almost non-existent by today's standards. This is not to say that much valuable work was not done in the past, but that the detailed information needed in today's site and area evaluations is missing. The New York DEC does have a simplified map showing major aquifers and the State Museum has a surficial geology map showing features such as kames, laucustrine sand, moraines, swamps, dunes etc. (Muller, E. and Cadwell, D. 1986). Other general reports that cover the area include reports by the USGS and the New York State Water Resources Commission (Miller, T. 1988; Kantrowitz, I. 1970; USDOA 1972; Weist and Geise 1969) These reports provide a valuable starting point for preliminary investigation of the area. These earlier reports and investigators were hampered by the lack of detailed information on many of the domestic and public well records. It must be remembered by the reader of the reports that when viewing a map showing regions of chloride or sulfate concentration that many of the wells in close proximity are often of greatly differing depths and that almost no record of the casing or production zone for these wells exists. In spite of this lack of detailed information, the careful reader and student of the area can get much valuable information from these old reports if they combined it with a review of the local stratigraphy provided by the database supplied in this report. What is not supplied in any of these reports are maps showing specific aquifers and their related flow patterns. The Union Springs aquifer and the recharge area for the village wells needs to be identified in order to enact regulations to protect the area.
2.13. Radon and other studies.
Radon gas is often dissolved in groundwater and the Cayuga County Department of Health has recently warned residents of central and southern Cayuga County to test their homes for the presence of radon.
The value of a direct correlation of the black shales above the Onondaga limestone with occurrences of radon has been shown to be ineffective (Fakundiny, Whitney and Matuszek 1988). Existing bedrock maps provide only a starting point for investigation of radon. The important point to remember is that radon moves in the soil by air and water. To make a blanket statement that because a home which is built on the Marcellus black shale is in a high risk area for radon is inappropriate. Such statements only serve to unnecessarily worry homeowners and mortgage institutions. Studies in nearby Onondaga County have shown that groundwater will move through formations producing radon and into other formations that do not in and of themselves produce significant quantities of radon (Hand 1987). In a separate article by Hand a plot of radon activity against stratigraphic position shows that there are radon levels of one standard deviation from the mean of approximately 30 to 25 pico Curies per Liter in the section from the Marcellus shale to the Syracuse formation inclusive. In this section, although there are significant numbers of reading in this range for the Marcellus shale, there are also significant readings in the Onondaga limestone, the Helderberg, and Cobleskill, Bertie and Camillus sections (Hand and Banikowski 1988). An important further finding of the preceding study indicated that although the most likely source of the radon is the Marcellus shale, the radon is transported by groundwater to the underlying rock units and that this transport most likely took place over 24,000 years before present (Hand and Banikowski 1988)
3. History, Drilling, Mining and Solid Waste Disposal In Study Area.
3.1. Drilling
Gas drilling has been conducted in Central New York since the late 1800's. The earliest mention of natural gas, in Cayuga County, the author has come across was for the year 1865 (Citizen Advertiser, 1/12/1865)
With the advent of wire line exploration devices in this area in the 1960's, a sizable library of gamma ray and other logs has been collected by the State, private companies, and individuals such as the author. These logs allow the mapping of distinct rock formations and geologic structures. Limited studies have been done in the past of the gas bearing formations but few maps exist of the non gas formations. The most extensive examination and mapping of the upper formation was the effort in the late 70's and early 80's, of the US Department of Energy Eastern Gas Shale Program out of Morgantown West Virginia. Furthermore no study has been done with consistent "picks" on the gamma ray logs. A gamma ray log is nothing more than a strip chart recording of the natural radiation in the rocks of the surface and subsurface. This radiation is a measurement of radioactive uranium, potassium and thorium. A specific formation or group of formations regularly show a repeatable pattern of highs and lows of radiation as the instrument is lowered through the formation.
On the right hand side of the following illustration is a typical gamma ray pattern from a gas well. To the right of the gamma ray log is a typical strip log showing a graphical representation of the formations in their correct stratigraphic sequence.
A "pick" is nothing more than a consistent radiation high or low that is usually present in a a formation at the formation top, bottom or even somewhere in the middle. Much of the data the State has, are drillers' picks which are notoriously inaccurate and inconsistent in their terminology. The Cayuga County Environmental Management Council recognized the need for such information and its inclusion in the County's presently existing computerized Geographical Information System (GIS).
One of the most famous cases of unprofessional and irresponsible drilling occurred in Cayuga County in April of 1979 when the W. W. Patterson well #1 (31-011-13738) encountered salt water, and for unexplained reasons the company drilling the well was unable to contain the water, either in the well or in holding ponds. The water breached the ponds, flooded in excess of ten acres, contaminated a nearby well and flowed into an unnamed tributary of Cayuga Lake. The site was unable to be farmed for over eight years due to the high salt concentration in the soil. Furthermore, in the emergency efforts to build dikes to contain the brine, subsurface drainage tiles were destroyed. This disaster prompted the Cayuga County Environmental Management Council to request that the State DEC enact stricter guidelines for drilling, and most importantly, stricter enforcement of the then existing laws that would protect surface potable waters during the drilling process (Cayuga County EMC, March 1980). The recommendations at that time included: (Cayuga County EMC, March 1980).
3.1 A geological report should be submitted with the drilling permit application. It should include expected formation tops and expected occurrences of salt, fresh water, sulfur water, and high pressure areas.
3.2 A company should make reasonable efforts to familiarize themselves with local conditions. Local well data should be reviewed. (This can now(1980) be done through state offices, however much of this data is of questionable accuracy and does not include occurrences of salt and water that can be considered reliable).
3.3 Drilling should precede to within 100' of the first expected show of salt or salt water, and stop. At this point casing should be set and cemented to the surface under supervision of an official inspector. (Many times it is not possible to get cement circulation to the surface due to underground streams and or crevices).
3.4 If problems have been encountered and/or an important water supply could be jeopardized, logs should be run to determine the extent and quality of the casing job. (This action would be for both parties protection).
3.5 Sulfur water should not be considered unusable and should be cased off from both fresh and salt water.
Another close call was the drilling of the first Union Springs High School well in 1982. Since the groundwater flow was unknown at the time, and still is unknown, the author was concerned that special precaution be taken when drilling through the zone of the Village of Union Springs water supply. Previous to the time of drilling the author had constructed geologic cross sections of the area. Zones of concern were identified and recommendations made for a casing program. The most logical and important recommendation was to drill to within 100 feet of any known or suspected problem and then run a string of casing and cement, test for integrity and a proper seal, and then continue drilling. Contrary to the author's recommended approach the drilling company drilled 450 to 500 feet immediately after setting surface casing. The problem with this is that it can leave exposed up to 450 feet of open hole which may include important public water supplies. If salt water were to be encountered in this upper 450 feet it would then be in direct communication with these freshwater aquifers. This was the case with the first Union Springs High School well. The answer, as stated, is to case off before reaching such salt water of problem zones before any contamination can happen.
Attempts were made by Cayuga County in 1980 to assume regulatory and inspection functions from the state; however the state was reluctant to relinquish responsibility in spite of their lack of manpower. It was not until the publication of the Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement On the Oil, Gas and Solution Mining Regulatory Program that many of the concerns voiced by Cayuga County in 1979 and 1980 were addressed by the State DEC and its Bureau of Minerals.
3.2. Mining
Cayuga and, to a lesser extent, Seneca Counties have a long history of exploration and mining of gypsum and limestone. At the present time there is an active quarry in the Onondaga limestone at Oakwood operated by General Crushed Stone. The General Crushed Stone Company has closed their quarry in Auburn. The area in and around the Village of Union Springs was actively mined for both gypsum and limestone but all such activity ceased many years ago although many of the quarries still exist or have been used as dumps and filled. The use of these quarries as dumping grounds pose a significant threat to the ground water resources of the area and since many have been filled their existence and location are often forgotten.
The gypsum deposits of the area around Union Springs were of major economic importance to the local economy and the state in the 1800's and early 1900's. In 1893 quarrying operations had been going on for over 50 years and were described as occurring "...on the S.E. dip of a roll or fold" (Clark, John M., 1893). Mining for gypsum at the Union Springs quarries ceased by World War I due to three factors; 1.) The gypsum deposits of western New York were of higher purity and thus more economically mined, 2.) Increase use of phosphate fertilizers brought an end to the use of gypsum as a "soil conditioner", and 3.) "..too little was known about the stratigraphic position and aerial extent of the Union Springs deposits" (Duskin, J.D., June 1969). Duskin's thesis grew out of renewed economic interest by Cayuga Explorations, Inc. in the gypsum of the Union Springs area that resulted in extensive coring of the area to the north of Union Springs.[Clark, K.F., 12/28/1968] Clark in his 1968 report indicated that by his calculations there were reserves of 1,701,850 proven tons and 5,442,088 probable tons with a purity of 75-78 % (Clark, K.F., 12/28/1968) Clark further states that due to the thin overburden in this area, proximity to roads, electric and gas and its known extent, the gypsum of the Union Springs area could become economically feasible to mine as an additive to Portland cement, the manufacturing of gypsum wallboard, or manufacturing of ammonium sulfate fertilizer (Clark, K.F., 12/28/1968). The environmental impact of such mining in an area of known underground streams, fractured and faulted bedrock, and karst topography would prove to be a costly nightmare to monitor for environmental impact.
At the present time no mining for gypsum is being carried on in Cayuga County.
At the present time the limestone quarried at Oakwood is not taxed on the basis of production, only on the assessed value of the land. The old General Crushed stone quarry in the Onondaga limestone in Auburn is inactive. Gas production is taxed by the county, towns and school districts (Mosher, R., 1989).
3.3. Solid Waste Disposal and Storage Data
Cayuga County, along with all counties in New York State, faces the need to find environmentally safe and economically responsible means of disposing of the waste generated within its borders and that imported into the County. To do so requires an understanding of the impact to groundwater and surface water from the intentional or unintentional release of toxic or hazardous materials. In April of 1990 there was a break-out of the City of Auburn's sewage system into the General Crushed Stone quarry north of Auburn. Thousands of gallons of raw sewage flowed into the quarry. Although there are no faults in the quarry the limestone of the quarry is crossed by numerous joints. These joints provide a conduit for groundwater to enter the quarry and for the sewage to exit the quarry. Neither the Cayuga County Health Department nor the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation in Syracuse initially considered the impact of such mishap on groundwater. Because of budget constraints, the burden of responsibility is more frequently placed upon local government. Due to the lack of knowledge of the existing groundwater resources and hydrogeology in general, groundwater takes second place or no place to surface water concerns. All too often the link between groundwater and surface water is ignored.
3.3.1. Rock Formations As a Depository of Nuclear or Liquid Waste.
The salt beds off New York State have for many years been looked to as a repository of many forms of waste. The brine that is sometimes produced during normal oil and gas well drilling operations is often injected back into the salt formations and same well from which they came or they may be injected into a different well and formation. This injection process is controlled by the DEC through a SPDES permit process and there are further regulations from the EPA.
An extensive examination of the potential of using the salt deposits of the Syracuse formation in the southern tier of New York was conducted but now repositories were built.[Stone and Webster 1979]
Recent activity by Cayuga County in its efforts to stop the siting of the States Low Level Radioactive Waste Site would have been greatly enhanced by accurate records of the subsurface geology and hydrology of the area. A major argument contributing to the removal of Cayuga County from active consideration as a site was the impact to ground-water (Cayuga County and HJA Associates March 1989).
3.3.2. Farm and rural dumps.
Farm dumps pose a serious environmental and health threat that is not being addressed by the DEC, New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH) or local governments. Cayuga County now has a plan of identifying the location of Town and Village disposal sites but is taking no direct action toward farm dumps. Rural Farm dumps pose major potential threat to public health and groundwater as more and more rural land is developed for domestic housing and utilize these sites. Into many of these dumps have been thrown the most toxic and hazardous substances known. These substances are in, or were in, containers in all stages of disintegration. Many of these containers are still intact and will pose no threat till they are disturbed by uninformed excavation or when the containers decompose. As in landfills a survey should be conducted to establish their location and contents. Such a survey has been recently started by the Cayuga County Health Department.
3.3.3. Road salt storage areas.
Road salt was for many years stored at the most convenient place with almost no consideration given to potential runoff contamination of surface and/or groundwater. The quarry on Route 326 at the Springport Town Hall was such a location and this quarry is a famous site used to illustrate localized doming due to the conversion of anhydrite to gypsum. Recent instances of groundwater contamination from road salt have led to more stringent placement of such storage facilities and their protection from the elements. Many storage areas are now covered and further protected by berms to prevent runoff.
3.3.4. Underground Storage Tanks.
Recent years have seen a growing awareness by the public of the impact of buried tanks and above ground tanks. This has fostered new legislation by the State as set forth in the Petroleum Bulk Storage (PBS) regulations, 6 NYCRR Parts 612, 613, & 614 enacted December 27, 1985. This law set guidelines for the registration, installation of new tanks, including their construction, location, monitoring, and protection (cathodic) if necessary. Guidelines have also been set by the State on the removal and testing of old tanks and the registration of existing tanks over 1,000 gallons. At the present time the NYSDEC is involved in the following programs (NYSDEC 1988).
1- the Petroleum Bulk Storage Program (PBS)
2- the Major Petroleum Storage Facility Program (MPSF)
3- the Chemical Bulk Storage Program (CBS)
4- the Federal Underground Storage Tank Program (UST)
Programs 1 and 2 are presently in place and 3 and 4 are in development.
The Petroleum Bulk Storage Program provides for the registration of existing facilities that have a capacity of greater than 1,100 gallons but less than 400,000 gallons of petroleum, testing of the tanks, a system record keeping of the contents and quantity in the tanks to what is removed, and guidelines for the testing and spill prevention and containment structures needed for above ground tanks and facilities (NYSDEC 1988).
A main point of the Major Petroleum Storage Facility Program is the setting of a licence fee of one cent per barrel to help defray the cost of spill clean-up for sites where a responsible party is unknown or refuses responsibility. These monies are credited to the New York Environmental Protection and Spill Compensation Fund. There is also a surcharge of 3-1/2 cents per barrel which is applied to the Hazardous Waste Remedial Fund. This fund is used to clean up inactive waste sites.
DEC maintains a hotline to report spills. This assures that when a spill occurs that prompt action can be taken by DEC to respond to the site, determine what substances are involved, and direct cleanup. DEC, in effect, acts as a lead agency in the cleanup. Depending on the circumstances they will do the cleanup themselves or determine who the responsible party is and direct them in the containment and cleanup action required.
3.3.5. State and County Databases
At the present time the DEC Bureau of Minerals maintains an electronic and paper database of the wells drilled in New York. Information included is: API Number, location, owner, and ground level. Most completion reports are now kept on computer. However, to date the DEC has not integrated into one system the geologic maps that they can produce in Albany, the GIS system in Avon and the database of well information. A priority of the State and Counties should be to get the GIS systems of Cayuga County and DEC to communicate.
Work needs to be done to update and consolidate such information into a truly relational database and GIS system. Much mapping is done by other State and County agencies that directly apply to the permitting process of oil and gas wells and surface and subsurface mining. In the case of Cayuga County, the county planning board has two GIS systems, ERDAS and ARC/INFO. Information in these systems include soils, land use, utilities, roads, and water bodies. The planning board has frequently done soil and land use investigations for Meridian Exploration and Miller Brewing in their efforts to plan pipeline routes for environmental impact statements. Information in Cayuga County's GIS system should be incorporated or networked into the DEC's GIS system and this GIS database should cover the whole state and in many instances adjoining states and Canada.
The major consideration is water contamination, both surface and groundwater, and water knows no political boundaries. The environmental impacts by man know no boundaries. When the DEC reviews a drilling or mining permit it is required to investigate the impacts of such activities on local archaeological, paleontological or historical sites (NYSDEC 1986). Archaeological sites are those referred to in the NY State Museum Bulletins however many other sites are known and on record with the Cayuga County Historians office and at the Cayuga Museum of History and Art. Dr, Walter Long who was the director of the museum was a professional archaeologist and historian and kept USGS topographic maps showing the location of known archaeological sites. These maps should be incorporated in Cayuga County's and DEC's GIS system. It would be a simple matter to investigate and keep up to date, well and other environmental information, if all the varied maps portraying environmental factors such as wetlands, farmland, aquifer recharge areas, forests etc. were combined in a state-wide GIS system. Into this system would be fed the information from all the counties in the state. Everyone would and should use a common computer and GIS allowing all branches of government to avail themselves of this information.
3.3.6. Environmental Regulation and Planning
The Cayuga County Planning Board has struggled since 1979 to control drillers. The lack of manpower and funding for regulation and inspection on the part of the Bureau of Minerals and Cayuga County in the past has jeopardized the County's ground-water resources.
This has changed in recent years and this study can provide the cornerstone upon which a thorough understanding of the subsurface geology of this area can be better understood and utilized. The enclosed maps are the first detailed examination of the subsurface stratigraphy of Central and Southern Cayuga County. These maps, combined with further ground water investigations, will be the foundation to broader understanding of the total surface and groundwater cycle in the area.
At the present time Cayuga County planning board is not actively involved in the siting and permitting process for gas wells by any State agency. The Cayuga County planning board has a long history of active environmental protection and should be utilized to its fullest. The same can be said of the SCS and the ASCS Federal agencies. These local agencies can provide important information and local input. Such input is important in its site specific data as well as an important public relations tool.
In recent conversations DEC, EPA, USGS, Cayuga County Environmental Management Council, and Jim Carr and Bob Brower of the Cayuga County Planning Board have indicated to the author that it is up to Cayuga County and other Counties in the State to furnish the DEC and other State agencies information which supports their decision making authority. Furthermore a method of follow up and full cooperation and communication needs to be established.
3.4. Legislation
3.4.1. Federal
3.4.1.1. EPA
EPA grew out of the heightened environmental concern of the 1960's which resulted in congress passing the National Environmental Policy Act of 1970 (NEPA) and creation that same year of the Council on Environmental Quality (Viesmann, W. and Welty, C. 1985). The single most important outcome from NEPA was the concept and requirement of an environmental impact statement (EIS) for any project funded with federal monies. The EIS is probably the most influential and powerful legal tool that has been put into the hands of the private citizen in their efforts to protect the environment. Because of the presence of EIS many projects that have the potential of impacting the environment are required to address water both surface and groundwater, air quality, noise levels, aesthetics and impacts on animal and the human population.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is the agency that sets minimum safe drinking water standards. Superfund is administered by the EPA and is a major program for groundwater cleanup today. Indeed a urgent focus of Superfund is the identification and remedial action to be taken to cleanup groundwater contamination.
3.4.1.2. RCRA
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C. ¤ 6901 et. seq., regulates the generation, transportation, storage, treatment and disposal of hazardous and other municipal solid wastes and mining waste from "cradle to grave" and was created by Congress in 1976 (O'Brian and Gere 1987). It wasn't until May of 1980 that EPA published the first set of RCRA regulations (Page, W. 1987). Hazardous waste are controlled by provisions in Subtitle C of RCRA and solid wastes are covered by subtitle D. RCRA was basically an amendment and improvement to the Solid Waste Disposal Act (Page, W. 1987). Included in the classification of solid waste are sewage sludge and incinerator waste. Incinerator ash is presently classified as non hazardous by the EPA. To control present groundwater problems at abandoned dump sites section 7003 of RCRA has been used. A major concern of those living around such sites, new or old, is the potential treat of leakage and groundwater contamination. RCRA is administrated on the Federal level by the Office of Solid Waste in the EPA. 42 U.S.C. ¤ 6911. RCRA sets standards for environmentally acceptable landfills, 40C.F.R. Part 241, and publishes a list of sites not meeting such standards. Compliance schedules are required of the States by the EPA to assure sites not meeting standards are brought into compliance or closed within 5 years. 42 U.S.C. ¤¤ 6944-6945. A major element of RCRA is the identification of wastes the come under the definition "hazardous waste"(¤ 6921). RCRA also has regulation of land disposal of wastes. RCRA provides for a manifest system to trace hazardous waste from generator, to transporter, and to disposal site, destruction, or reuse or recycling (¤¤6922-24). Minimum standards for waste disposal and permits for disposal facilities are regulated by RCRA (¤ 6925). RCRA sets the standards but allows the individual states to enforce and implement the programs (¤ 6926). Under RCRA the transporter is responsible for cleanup when a spill or discharge occurs whether accidental or intentional. 40 C.F.R. Part 263 (Schoenbaum 1985). Siting of hazardous waste sites is left to the individual states.
RCRA was amended and improved in November 1984 with the passage of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA, P.L. 98-616). This is the act that first addressed the problem of underground storage tanks and the hazardous substances stored or disposed in them. There are imminent hazard and corrective action provisions within RCRA and HSWA regulating spills, leaks and seepages that pose a threat to human health or to the environment (¤¤3004(u), 3008(h), and 7003)(Page, W. 1987). These provisions give power to the EPA or to the States with approved RCRA programs to force the offending party(s) to cleanup or contain specific problem(s).
RCRA has had an impact on groundwater by regulating the uncontrolled disposal of hazardous waste. It has helped to control the unauthorized dumping of such waste into our air, soil, water and groundwater. The permit system required under RCRA for disposal sites also sets forth requirements for groundwater monitoring (Page, W. 1987). Subtitle C of RCRA pertained to hazardous wastes and stated specific guidelines impacting on groundwater for treatment, storage and disposal(TSD)facilities (Page, W. 1987). Guidelines included subsurface leachate collection and removal systems and monitoring of such systems and the environment they were designed to protect. These guidelines applied to both new and existing TSD facilities and are specific to each TSD. TSD permits have concentration limits or protection standards built in which are based on maximum containment levels(MCL) developed under the Safe Drinking Water Act(SDWA) of 1974.[Page, W. 1987] Ninety days after May 1980, all generators, transporter and TSD's were required to inform the EPA that they handled hazardous wastes. Also at this time the TSD's were required to obtain a Part A permit. Part B permits were required since 1983 in order for final permits to be granted and to assure compliance with the new stricter groundwater monitoring and site design standards. These Part B permits were required to be filed by November 1984 as set forth under the HSWA Amendments (section 213a). These same amendments also required land disposal facilities such as surface impoundment, landfills and waste piles, to come under full compliance with the groundwater monitoring requirements of RCRA by 1985. If a facility desired to close instead of filing a Part B permit it was still required to meet requirements for proper site closure and future environmental protection including groundwater.
The monitoring of sites and the provisions for removal, treatment and or containment of contamination detected by the monitoring are the main legal tools of RCRA and the HSWA Amendments. Any TSD's operating under interim status are required to install three groundwater monitoring wells. One up-gradient and two down. This provision if enforced in its simplest form and for certain sites could prove totally inadequate and disastrous. Only if one of these three wells indicates a problem is assessment monitoring begun.[Page, W. 1987] Additional wells then are placed to determine the extent of the problem. A feature of the Part B permit for a final operating permit is a plan for interim groundwater monitoring. If this plan has been approved its guidelines are incorporated in the cleanup and if no Part B permit was filed then the EPA can start enforcement action under RCRA ¤¤3004(u), 3008(h) and 7003, or under CERCLA ¤106.[Page, W. 1987] TSD's, by their permits, are required to monitor for "indicator parameters" that are spelled out in the permit and are tailored to the wastes managed at the facility (Page, W. 1987). What if something other than what is permitted is introduced at the site and escapes? Will the monitoring find it if they are not looking for it? Only if the indicators show a a change is more rigorous comprehensive monitoring set in motion. Compliance monitoring involves the instillation of cluster wells, the same as required under interim status assessment monitoring. Where compliance monitoring differs is in the scope of the constituents being tested for. If concentrations are found to exceed the permit then corrective action must be instituted as set forth in the permit. Clean up must bring concentration levels below acceptable levels as listed in the permit.
An important feature of RCRA and HSWA is its handling of land disposal facilities (surface impoundments, waste piles, and landfills) and the leachate from them. It requires these facilities to install double liners, a leachate collection and removal system (42 U.S.C. ¤6925). What is specifically required depends on the type of facility and whether it is an existing or new facility.
The generators of hazardous waste are targeted under the HSWA ¤224 amendments to RCRA ¤3002(b). These amendments require generators to reduce the volume and toxicity of their wastes. A deadline of February 1986, banning the placement of liquids that could potentially contaminate the groundwater was set by the HSWA ¤201 amendment to RCRA ¤3004(c). A deadline of November 1985 was set for TSD facilities and storage containers that pose a threat to underground drinking water. The road to banning by May 1990, land disposal of hazardous waste that poses a threat to human health or the environment as long as the waste remains hazardous, was established by HSWA ¤201 amending RCRA ¤¤3004(d) and (g) (Page, W. 1987).
RCRA and the HSWA amendments also governs waste disposal other than those classified as hazardous. Subtitle D of RCRA was enacted to encourage states to plan for environmentally sound waste disposal methods and alternatives. States must draw up a plan to implement such action and take on enforcement of such guidelines. Subtitle D does address groundwater by prohibiting solid waste facilities from contaminating groundwater beyond the limits of the facilities property or an alternate boundary as designated by a court.[Page, W. 1987]
Leaking underground storage tanks (LUST) have received much attention in the past few years due to HSWA ¤601 which added Subtitle I, ¤¤9001-9010 to RCRA. This requires owners of tanks of a specific size to notify the EPA or state agencies and to follow the guidelines for detection, prevention and correction. It should be noted that the provisions of LUST extend to underground pipes, any tanks, or combination of tanks, storing hazardous materials. Hazardous is here defined as those substances covered under CERCLA and oil and oil byproducts. Hazardous waste covered by RCRA Subtitle C are exempt since they are covered by TSD laws (Page, W. 1987). Under ¤9002 all owners must have informed the state or local agency responsible by May of 1986 as to the tanks age, size, type and location. This applies to all tanks in use since January 1, 1974, even if the tank no longer is in service. Unfortunately there are many tanks much older than this still in place. EPA guidelines now give the governing agencies the tools to mandate where a tank can be located, what it is to be made of specific to what is stored in it, how it is to be monitored, how it is to be abandoned, and sets forth the bonding or financial requirements needed from the owner to provide for closure and abandonment. In December of 1985 the NY DEC inaugurated the USEPA Underground Storage Tank Notification Program as mandated by EPA under RCRA. This program collected information on underground tanks relating to their size, location, age, and what they have contained such as materials designated in CERCLA. So far it has been found that most of the underground tanks contain petroleum products. The reason more chemical tanks were not found is that 90% of chemical tanks are above ground . Tank registration is required under two state programs. The Chemical Bulk Storage Registration Program applies to facilities that store hazardous chemicals. The second program, in place since December 25, 1985, is the Petroleum bulk storage Registration Program. This applies to petroleum tanks >1,100 gallons and < 400,000 gallons. A fine of $10,000 per day can be levied against those who ignore or fail to comply. Tanks >400,000 gallons are licensed under Article 12 of the New York State Navigation Law. There are many smaller bulk petroleum storage facilities and a regulatory program for there control is now under development (NYSDEC May 1987).
3.4.1.3. Safe Drinking Water Act
The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) (42 U.S.C.¤300f et seq.) became law in 1974 and was amended in 1986(Safe Drinking Water Amendments of 1986, P.L. 99-339). The 86 amendments created the "wellhead protection area" program directing states to protect the surface and subsurface areas around public water supply wells. The amendments relation to groundwater, is the law's control of public drinking water supplies including groundwater aquifers. Main programs of the act set forth guidelines for underground injection wells through the underground injection control program (UIC), drinking water standards, guidelines for treatment of water from aquifers and most importantly the sole source aquifer protection program. The EPA is presently stressing local action to protect these wellhead protection areas (USEPA March 29-30, 1990).
The EPA, under SDWA, sets primary standards for public water supplies, both primary(health based) and secondary (welfare based). These standards assign a maximum contaminant level (MCL). If the MCL limit is exceeded the law sets forth enforcement action. MCL limits have been established for coliform bacteria, metals, salts, radionuclides, vinyl chloride, trichloroethylene, and pesticides. At the present time trichloroethylene is a major contaminant in the groundwater aquifer of Cortland County and has required the County to install at their cost an $800,000 air stripper to remove the pollutant. The act also set forth Health Advisories for PCB's, benzine, and EDB. If MCL or Health Advisory levels are exceeded the EPA or its designate may either shut down a municipal well or require that the well be cleaned up to at least the maximum levels. The maximum level have proven of importance in determining legally what is "clean" water.
The 1986 amendments required EPA to set national primary drinking water standards by June 19, 1989 for the 83 chemicals that presently have interim standards or health advisories. The list will be revised every three years.
The sole source aquifer program allows EPA or the State to designate specific aquifers for protection. Once an aquifer is designated, any project in that zone that receives federal funding, will be subject to determination that it will not adversely impact the aquifer or pose a threat to human health. If so then federal funds may be withheld. Under the sole source aquifer program the EPA must establish criteria that identify "what is a critical aquifer". Considered in this evaluation is the population served by the aquifer, risk of contamination and the benefits and costs to the aquifer as opposed to knowingly allowing degradation. Local, regional, and or state governments and regional planning agencies may then apply to have a specific aquifer included in the program as an aquifer protection demonstration area. The agency applying for inclusion must define the boundary of the aquifer, designate a lead planning agency, set up procedures for public participation in the implementation of the project, and evaluate the surface and groundwater resources of the area. If approved for a demonstration the EPA may grant 50% of the cost up to $4,000,000 per aquifer. The present efforts of Cayuga County in their waste management plan, will help meet these requirements. In the case of the Union Springs aquifer it is extremely unlikely that it would qualify as a candidate as a sole source aquifer due to the close proximity of Cayuga Lake (Jarvis, N. January 1990).
The wellhead protection area program encourages the State or Cayuga County to define the surface and subsurface areas that contribute to a public water supply water well and for that governmental body to protect such a well from contaminants that would have an adverse effect on the health of persons ¤1428(e). The moneys will be used to specify who will organize the program, define the wellhead protection areas, identify all threats to the water supply from human activities, establish program implementation, and contingency or emergency plans to provide an alternative water source (Page, W.G. 1987). A very important point that this law stresses is that the implementing agency or the State will have the authorization to utilize land use controls and planning methods to protect these valuable aquifers. This is the present course of action that the Town of Cortlandville has taken through their newly enacted zoning ordinances.
3.4.1.4. Clean Water Act (CWA)
The Clean Water Act (CWA) mainly addresses surface water problems but it does focus on groundwater in section 303.[Water Pollution Control Federation 1987] The act was passed in 1972 with a goal of swimable, fishable waters by 1983. Section 303 endows EPA with the power to require States to set groundwater quality standards where a connection can be determined between the surface and groundwater systems (Page 1987). Groundwater is provided for in the Act in that the EPA is required to help the states in their development of management plans to control "nonpoint sources" of contamination from agricultural erosion and construction site erosion. Section 208b2f requires that any plan must include " a process to (i) identify, if appropriate, agriculturally and silviculture related nonpoint sources of pollution, including return flows from irrigated agriculture, and their cumulative effects, runoff from manure disposal areas, and from land used for livestock and crop production, and
(ii) set forth procedures and methods (including land use requirements) to control to the extent feasible such sources;..." Section 208(f)(3) states: (Water Pollution Control Federation 1987).
" The Secretary of Agriculture , with the concurrence of the Administrator, and acting through the Soil Conservation Service and such other agencies of the Department of Agriculture as the Secretary may designate, is authorized and directed to establish and administer a program to enter into contracts of not less than five years nor more then ten years with the owners and operators having control of rural land for the purpose of installing and maintaining measures incorporating best management practices to control nonpoint source pollution for improved water quality...".
Section 208b2g requires plans to "identify...mine-related sources of pollution including new, current, and abandoned surface and underground mine runoff,...." (Water Pollution Control Federation 1987).
Section 402 establish the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System(NPDES) permit system. These permits are required for the discharge of effluents from a point source into navigable waters (Getches 1984; Water Pollution Control Federation 1987). The State DEC administers on a local level the States State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Act (SPDES) established by the State in 1973. This power was delegated to the state by the USEPA in 1975. The SPDES act also regulates discharges of pollutants to groundwater (NYSDEC 1983).
3.4.1.5. CERCLA (Superfund)
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA)(42 U.S.C. ¤¤9601 et seq.) is better known as Superfund. Under this act EPA acts a lead agency to clean up or removal of sites containing hazardous substances. EPA also acts to recover the cost of such cleanup from the responsible party or parties. It also acts to enforce the cleanup or remedy of spills of hazardous substances. Groundwater is included in the environment that CERCLA is intended to protect.
3.4.1.6. Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)
The Toxic Substances control Act (TSCA, 42U.S.C. ¤2601 et seq.) grants the Environmental Protection Agency the authorization to regulate the use, manufacturing , processing, and disposal of toxic chemicals through notification (Page 1987). The act gives EPA the power to protect groundwater if a chemical has a potential to contaminate the groundwater. This may be done by placing limitations on the use of the chemical, require warning labels, require users to adopt procedures to control pollution, and require disposal programs. The reality is that the EPA seldom utilize TSCA for groundwater protection purposes (Page 1987; Gordon, W. 1984).
3.4.1.7. Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Roenticide Act
The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Roenticide Act (FIFRA, 7 U.S.C. ¤¤135-135k and 136-136y) also empowers EPA to control pesticides by means of registration of their production and procedures and guidelines for the determination of a pesticides possibility to leach into the groundwater through standard use (Page 1987).
3.4.1.8. SPEDES
In 1973 the State Pollutant Discharge Elimination Act was enacted. The SPDES program is authorized under Article 17, Title * of the New York State Environmental Conservation Law as amended in 1973. This act established a state permit system governing the point discharge to any surface water. The law also controlled the discharge of pollutants to groundwaters (NYSDEC 1983). Groundwater is also addressed in the NYS Environmental Conservation Law ¤17-0828 where it requires the notification of water suppliers in an area designated a sole source aquifer. A SPDES permit is required before wastewater treatment facilities in the state can discharge industrial or commercial wastewater into surface or groundwater. Such permits are issued to city, town and industrial wastewater treatment facilities. A typical permit sets forth a list of substances that may legally discharged, their amounts, and concentrations. In the case of sewage treatment plants the permit may be tied to a required stream flow to assure that stream loading is not exceeded. This is to maintain the standards of the receiving waters. The SPDES permit also spells out monitoring procedures that must be maintained, done, and filed in a specific time-frame. All permits are five years in duration and at the end of five years they are subject to review and renewal. This could mean a tightening or loosening of discharge standards. A permit holder is in violation of the permit if discharge exceeds the permit or if a pollutant not on the permit is released. A new permit is required for any new pollutant(s) or increase in discharge amounts. Any permit may be revoked, modified, or suspended if it can be found that there was misrepresentation upon application. For any public treatment plant, such plants must require any industry discharging to the plant to pre-treat their wastes that would interfere with the proper operation of the plant or can not be treated by the plant. It must also be stated that such industries are not required to themselves have a SPDES permit.
At the present time a SPDES permit is required to dispose of brine produced from a gas well. In order to take the brine off site to a disposal well or for some other use such as road application permits must be applied for.
3.4.1.9. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
There has been recent increased interest in the disposal of radioactive wastes in New York since the Federal Government passed the Low Level Radiation Waste Policy Act in 1980 and its amendments in 1985. What this act did was to require states to individually or jointly, be responsible for their own low level radioactive waste (Youngblood 1988; Tedrow 1988). New York has elected to be responsible for their own waste and has set up the New York State Low Level Radioactive Waste Siting Commission. It is their job to find possible sites and determine feasible methods for waste disposal both above and below ground. The Commission is required to follow Part 382 NYCRR that excludes sites which have been determined to be primary or principal aquifers. No aquifers have received such designation in Cayuga County.
3.4.2. State
At the present time the main management thrust of the NYSDEC is through the Upstate Groundwater Management Program (NYSDEC May 1987). The primary recommendations of the plan are as follows:
1. Resource Management Actions
Classification and standards: retain classification of all groundwater for drinking; continue work on standards for toxics.
Geographic targeting: focus state program activities on portions of the land surface which most directly affect groundwater; require localities to delineate their 'wellhead areas' (recharge areas which directly supply wells with water).
2. Source Control Actions
-Hazardous materials storage and handling: develop state and County controls for bulk storage of petroleum and hazardous materials, especially over primary aquifers; use local zoning to prevent major users of toxics from locating in sensitive areas.
-Oil and hazardous material spills: maintain strong state capability to clean up oil spills and develop a comparable capability for non-petroleum spills.
-Comprehensive controls for industrial/commercial facilities: focus on preventing spills and leaks in sensitive groundwater areas; develop best management practice guidelines for facilities in sensitive areas.
-Wastewater discharge regulation(SPDES): prohibit inappropriate new discharges in wellhead and primary aquifer areas; intensify inspection and enforcement in sensitive areas; continue to strengthen SPDES program in general.
-Municipal solid waste: prohibit new landfills in wellhead, primary and principal aquifer areas; close existing landfills which are contaminating primary or principal aquifers.
-Hazardous and industrial waste: use groundwater as a key factor in setting priorities for regulation of hazardous waste.
-Inactive hazardous waste site clean up: complete DEC investigations of inactive hazardous waste sites; improve site ranking system to better reflect impact on aquifers; move aggressively to clean up sites found to be contaminating aquifers.
-Pesticides: tighten federal controls on pesticides by carrying out recently strengthened federal screening procedures; asses the scope of pesticide contamination in upstate New York groundwater.
-Mineral extraction: use DEC permits to prevent groundwater impacts from mining, oil and gas drilling and related activities.
3. Critical Area Protection
-Local aquifer protection programs: selectively use tools such as local land use controls, SEQR Critical Environmental Area designations, federal Sole Source Aquifer designations and Watershed Rules and Regulations to protect important aquifers.
-State technical assistance and public information: make state groundwater maps available to localities; help state and local governments to communicate facts and issues by means of public information materials and advice.
4. Groundwater Response
-State contamination response: seek dedicated funds for groundwater contamination investigation and source track down; strengthen groundwater response coordination among state agencies.
-Local water supply planning: develop local emergency and drought contingency plans.
A companion document to the Upstate Groundwater Management Program is the Upstate Groundwater Problem Inventory (NYSDEC September 1983). Contained within this is a listing of known reported threats to groundwater. At the time of this specific report(1983) there were no threats to principal or primary aquifers in Cayuga County. This has since changed with the following listed inactive hazardous waste sites in Cayuga County (NYSDEC July 1988).
Name Class Site Code
Town Line Road Dump Site 2a 7-06-007
Auburn City Landfill 2a 7-06-001
Roberts & Carlson 3 7-06-004
Cole -Zaiser 2a 7-006-005
General Electric 2 7-006-006
Site Classification Codes
1. Causing or presenting an imminent danger of causing irreversible or irreparable damage to the public health or environment - immediate action required.
2. Significant threat to the public health or environment - action required.
2a. Temporary classification assigned to sites that inadequate and/or insufficient data for inclusion in any of the other classifications.
3. Does not present a significant threat to the public health or environment - action may be deferred.
4. Site properly closed - requires continued management.
5. Site improperly closed, no evidence of present or potential adverse impact - no further action required.
The GE, Auburn City landfill, and Townline Road sites are presently undergoing active investigation by the DEC, Cayuga County, and local government (Calocerinos and Spina November 1985; NYSDEC 1989; and Cayuga County Dept of Health 1989). The GE site is being tested by Dunn Geoscience but no information has been made public to date from their investigations. All these sites show contamination and the need to identify the probable flow paths of contaminants away from the site. The Townline Road dump site has already contaminated drinking water wells off site to the west of the dump with Cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene (NYSDEC January 1990).
The Upstate Groundwater Management Program in its organization, paid particular attention to management considerations such as the need to prioritize sites, cost involved, manpower required, expertise needed, and ranking of groundwater aquifers. The issue of just what groundwater needs to be protected or if some areas are not worth or necessary to be cleaned up is still a matter that needs further clarification (Male 12/2/88; Lister 10/14/88). In regards to statewide minimum land-use regulations as used in the Freshwater Wetlands Act, there is no present plan to adopt such language in the Upstate Groundwater Management Program.[Tedrow 1988]
The regulation of groundwater in New York is covered in the New York State Codes, Rules and Regulations Title 6, Chapter X Parts 700-705. Part 703 of this law is specific to groundwater and as its title indicates, covers ground water classification, quality standards and effluent standards and/or limitations. Although the law speaks of "best usage' and "classification of waters" in actual practice only one usage and no classifications are recognized by the state . The main purpose of this law is to protect the potable groundwater of the state. To this end the best usage is as potable water and such waters are classified Class GA . A second classification, Class GSA, are saline or minerals waters whose best usage is as a source of potable mineral water, for conversion to fresh potable waters or as a source of "sodium chloride or its derivatives" (NYSDEC 1986). A third classification is Class GSB groundwaters. "The best usage of class GSB water is as a receiving water for disposal of wastes." These are high saline waters.
Effluent discharge standards are set under ¤703.6 of the law which define maximum allowable concentrations for 87 substances and biological organisms.
More stringent standards may be set for sole or principal aquifers, where adverse accumulation of synergistic effects can be established or where there is discharge to consolidated rock or bedrock. The effluent standards set forth in section 703.6 do not apply to agricultural application of chemicals and fertilizer. At the present time commercial applicators and individual farmers must receive certification from the state DEC in order to purchase and apply pesticides, insecticides and roenticides.
3.4.2.1. DEC Bureau of Minerals
At he present time the DEC is the primary agency responsible for the cleanup of inactive hazardous waste sites. The DEC bureau of minerals is involved directly in groundwater protection by their permit procedure for oil and gas wells, injection wells, underground mining and permitting and siting of quarrying operations. Part 554 of NYCRR directly addresses the requirement for oil and gas well drilling. Note that domestic and public water or geothermal drilling is not regulated. Part 551.3 sets requirements for bonding of drilling operations to provide funds on a statewide basis for the plugging, abandoning, and surface restoration of oil and gas wells.
Section 554.1 states that "The drilling, casing, and completion program adopted for any well shall be such as to prevent pollution. Pollution of the land and/or surface or ground fresh water resulting from exploration or drilling is prohibited". Section 556.5 addresses solution mining and prohibits the pollution of ground fresh water. Solution mining was one of the methods long used by Allied Chemical for the removal of brine from depth in the Tully area.
3.4.2.2. State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR)
The purpose of SEQR was to require the state, County government, local government, and the private sector, at the very minimum, to make an attempt to incorporate in their planning a balance between "...social, economic, and environmental factors..." (SEQR 6/1/87). The main focus and goal of SEQR as stated in the legislation is:
"...to declare a state policy which will encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between man and his environment; to promote efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and enhance human and community resources; and to enrich the understanding of the ecological systems, natural, human and community resources important to the people of the state." SEQR applies to publicly and privately funded projects. It possible for local municipalities to adopt their own SEQR law and review process as long as it is no less strict than the state law. The local law can be stricter and incorporate factor of local interest by defining specific Type I and II actions that would trigger the SEQR process. SEQR is probably the most environmentally influential law to be enacted in recent years and has had an honorable history in providing for sound considered environmental planning. Its use and knowledge of the law should be required of all individuals and agencies in the planning process.
A most powerful tool for local governments an their efforts to protect both surface and groundwater, should be the use of the designation of important aquifer recharge areas as "Critical Environmental Areas(CEA's)" (NYSDEC 1982; USEPA March 29-30, 1990).
Critical Environmental Area
A specific geographic area designated by a local agency, having exceptional or unique characteristics that make the area important to the local community. Actions undertaken in a critical environmental area must be treated as a Type I action under SEQR by the involved agency.
Type I Action
An action or category of actions specifically identified in the statewide regulations or local procedures as likely to have a significant effect on the environment, and for which the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement is likely to be required. Type I action require fully coordinated review, a lead agency and the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Form.
Qualities that deem a geographic area worthy of designation as a CEA include:
- a benefit or threat to the public health or public safety (Benefit-water supply reservoir; Threat-abandoned landfill, flood hazard area)
- a natural setting (fish and wildlife habitat, forested area, aesthetic open space)
- a location having social, cultural, historic, archaeological, recreational, or educational importance (historic building, landmark, waterfront access)
- an inherent ecological, geological, or hydrological sensitivity to change which could be adversely affected by any change (groundwater aquifer, endangered species habitat)
To date no CEA's have been designated in Cayuga or Onondaga County although two have been designated in Tompkins County.[Carr 4/2/90; Barrow 4/2/90] The Union Springs and Moravia aquifer recharge areas are prime candidates for such designation. Conversation with DEC suggests that another alternative would be to beef up the local watershed rules and regulations to stipulate certain actions that would trigger a EIS or EAF in the area of concern.
3.4.2.3. Present New York State Generic EIS for gas drilling.
The present NYSDEC Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement on the Oil, Gas and Solution Mining Regulatory Program (GEIS) is now being used as the major guideline by all facets of the DEC that regulate or are impacted by the oil and gas industry.[NYSDEC 1988] This GEIS does not require adoption and is in its final form as of January 1990. The GEIS is open to alteration and expansion as needs and conditions change. The study was required under SEQR and prepared according to SEQR, Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law that requires governmental agencies to analyze the environmental, social, aesthetic, and economic impacts of their actions. Since 1963 New York State has been responsible for the regulation of the oil and gas activities with the passage of legislation at that time. This legislation was codified as Article 23 of the Environmental Conservation Law. In addition to Article 23 are the New York Code of Rules and Regulations Parts 550 to 559 of Title 6. The Generic Environmental Impact Statement is presently the main foundation to insure that these laws are implemented.
This GEIS also outlines mitigation measures to reduce the environmental impacts resulting from oil and gas exploration and production.
It should be pointed out that in addition to oil and gas; geothermal drilling is now under DEC Bureau of Minerals jurisdiction. When the geothermal well in Auburn was originally drilled the well was considered a water well and thus did not come under the jurisdiction of the DEC.
A major focus of the Draft GEIS is to provide the general public and local governments with a better understanding of past problems, the present state of the industry, minimum standards, mitigation possibilities, and "a framework for major changes to the state's rules and regulations that need to be updated and modernized." (NYSDEC 1988). A full knowledge of the GEIS should be required by and of local and state governmental agencies directly related to surface or groundwater protection, mining and quarry operations, gas drilling, and water well drilling.
The major ares of interest as identified in the scoping process for the GEIS included:
-Impacts on water quality;
-Impacts on drilling in sensitive areas, such as Agricultural Districts, areas of rugged topography, wetlands, drinking water watersheds, freshwater aquifers and other sensitive habitats;
-Impacts caused by drilling and production wastes;
-Impacts on land use;
-Socioeconomic impacts;
-Impacts on endangered species and species of concern.
Other areas of interest to Cayuga County that were not addressed included the leasing of oil and gas rights on State lands. This would include the extensive holdings of State forest lands near Moravia and Howland Island. Another vast holding of State lands is the land that underlies Cayuga and Owasco Lakes. With the increasing use of directional drilling and what is referred to as "horizontal drilling" the pressure to develop the gas potential under these lakes will increase but not in the near future due the increased cost of such techniques.
The GEIS does address Coastal Zones which include the area in Cayuga County bordering Lake Ontario. The coastal zone of Cayuga County was an area of concern during the late 70's and early 80's when there was increased gas drilling activity in the County (Cayuga County Planning Board 9/24/82).
3.4.2.4. Present New York Rules and Regulations
The main legislation governing the oil, gas, geothermal and injection well industry in the state at the present time is Article 23 of the Environmental Conservation Law. In addition there are the Codes of Rules and Regulations, Title 6, Parts 550 to 559. In order for a well to be drilled a permit must be filed with the DEC Bureau of Minerals. The Bureau of Minerals also follows the guidelines and intent of the State Environmental Quality Review Act in this permit review procedure (NYCRR 6, Part 617 June 1, 1987).
A. How this study may be used with an EIS to design a drilling plan.
1. To design casing programs.
2. To evaluate for potential groundwater contamination.
3. To design drilling plans.
4. To design cementing programs.
5. To design fracturing plans.
6. To plan pipeline and corrosion protection.
7. To find depth to bedrock.
4. Mapping Methodology
The scope of this work was limited to looking at just the formation tops, certain other gamma ray spikes that were easy to correlate over the area of study, and formation thicknesses. Once formation tops were picked it was possible to construct three dimensional views of each formation or pick, and construct cross sections of the area.
Gamma ray and density logs for the study area were examined and verified. The author was graciously granted permission by Miller Brewing Company and Meridian Explorations to review their logs. Much other information and logs were already in the authors files and library. The logs were examined and formation tops were selected. Data was entered into a portable laptop computer on a custom designed relational database called Foxbase. Foxbase files are easily opened and manipulated with dBASE relational software. Furthermore the information can be saved and exported to other databases or spreadsheets in ASCII or text format. It was a prime consideration of the author that the data be in an easily used format and transferable to other software database programs. The database was transferred to a desktop IBM compatible computer and also used in the authors Apple Macintosh II. The custom database has built in report generation for MacGridzo and Gridzo. Gamma ray log information was supplemented with field data of surface outcrops and photographs. Top and thickness maps for each formation and other picks of interest were generated from this information by hand and by computerized mapping utilizing Mac Gridzo on an Apple Macintosh II computer and Gridzo on an IBM compatible. Some field measurements of the strike and dip of faults and fractures were also utilized in interpretation. Cross sections were constructed with MacSection or with Mac Draw.
Mapping software was evaluated for both the IBM and Macintosh computers. Original work was done on MacGridzo but with the authors growing awareness of the inherent limitations of computerized mapping a search for better mapping algorithms was made. An experiment on Golden Software's SURFER and the use of the Kriging algorithm showed results closer to those that would be accomplished through hand contouring. The company that developed MacGridzo, Rockware Incorporated, also made an IBM version called Gridzo with an optional Kriging algorithm. This was tried but proved too cumbersome. In the summer of 1989 Rockware released to the author a new version of MacGridzo with a new gridding algorithm known as "moving weighted least squares fitting" to calculate grid node values. This produced the most eye appealing maps with smooth contours. After many months of experimentation with many programs, consultation with the writers of the programs, and with others, the author concludes that the best approach if accurate maps, faithful to the original data points is desired, is to do all research first, use the computer to generate preliminary maps to give a general "first view" and then use the computer to generate a base map showing location and the Z value of the desired formation. From this base map the contours are then drawn by hand. The results could then be scanned into a computer drafting program and then into a GIS such as ArcInfo or ERDAS. Furthermore, as new wells are drilled supplying better control they can now be entered into the CAD program and the contour lines can be manipulated as Bezier curves.
Another major goal of the author has been the inclusion of data accumulated in this thesis, in the Cayuga County GIS system. The Planning Board has maintained an extensive Geographic Information System (GIS) for over ten years and has been a pioneer in the utilization of GIS in dealing with environmental and cultural problems in the State. Maps and data will be utilized in the digitized data base maintained by the County and will be made accessible by all who could benefit.
Efforts are presently underway in a joint effort of the Owasco Lake Watershed Association, Cayuga County Health Department and the Cayuga County Planning Board to map the entire Owasco Lake watershed into the Cayuga County GIS system. The system will also record septic tank and leach field location, property boundaries and owners.
5. Original Research by the Author
Much effort has gone into the collection of the data and to assure its validity. During the collection of the data there was constant rechecking and verification of any points and data that was anomalous, especially the area northeast of the village of Cayuga. The author made frequent site visits to verify data and made numerous follow up visits to the drillers' files.
5.1. Location
Location has been recorded as degree, minute and seconds of latitude and longitude. This is then converted and shown in the database as decimal latitude and longitude so that the mapping program can utilize the data. This is the standard form of locating well location by the DEC Bureau of Minerals. It would be a simple matter to have decimal degrees converted to New York State Plane coordinates or to universal transverse Mercator coordinates so that the information could be utilized by another GIS system.
5.2. Well Name
Each well is usually given a name by the company that owns the lease and drills the well. This can be an alphabetic and/or numeric name which differs from the American Petroleum Institute (API) number that the DEC Bureau of Minerals assigns.
5.3. Owner
The well name is usually indicated as the original owner of the well although some of the wells are listed by the present owner. Many wells have gone though three or more owners. A trail of such owners may be important for legal reasons and thus should be maintained.
5.4. API #
The API (American Petroleum Institute) number is assigned by the New York State DEC Bureau of Minerals to a specific drill hole. The first two digits indicate the state (31 for New York). Digits three through five indicate the county (011 for Cayuga County). The last five digits are the individual well number. The API number is the best reference name or number to go by since in most cases it is unique to a well. API numbers are given to oil and gas wells, geothermal wells, and some of the old brine wells. In addition if a water well encounters gas as in the case of 31-011-04869 and 31-011-11593 it is assigned an API number. API numbers are not assigned to private or municipal water wells, environmental test wells, or to specific geological sites. No records are being kept by the State or Cayuga County for domestic water well or site investigation monitoring wells. In the authors database, API numbers 1 through 11 have been assigned to significant outcrops of the Oriskany sandstone. These outcrops serve as reference strata and reference points on the gamma ray logs.
5.5. Formation Tops
Formation tops in the days of cable tool drilling were usually picked by the driller at point of abrupt change in lithology. In Cayuga County important changes were recorded when drilling advanced from the black shales into the hard Onondaga limestone; from the soft Vernon Shales into the hard Lockport dolomites and limestone and from the Sodas shale into the Furnaceville hematite and Medina sandstone. These picks of the old drillers are for the most part reasonably accurate. However for the purpose of this database and the high degree of accuracy the author was looking for to distinguish potential geologic structure, it was important to review all existing formation picks and whenever possible use gamma ray logs and other logs to pick formations. The formation tops that are contained in Kreidler's "Deep Wells of New York State", other New York State Museum Bulletins, and the DEC Bureau of Minerals computer version of "Deep Wells of New York State" is often erroneous and typically inconsistent in where picks are made and in terminology (Kreidler, W. et.all. 1972; Kreidler, W. 1963; Kreidler, W. 1959). There is much valuable information in these State publications but for detailed work they are insufficient. For the wells drilled in Cayuga County in the 1930's and 1890's there is no other source of information since gamma ray logs were not in existence, not run, or available.
5.6. Tops of other geologic features
In addition to recognized formations the author has chosen distinct marker beds which are often nothing more than easily recognizable gamma ray highs or lows. "Highs" are areas in the stratigraphic column and on the gamma ray logs, of high radioactivity. In Central New York the formations of highest gamma ray readings are the black shales at the top of the Onondaga limestone, the Tioga ash, and the phosphate layer at the top of the Oriskany. Low radioactive areas are most often salt beds, gypsum, and anhydrite. Medium response is derived from the limestones, dolomites and sandy limestones. These typical responses are only general and the dividing line even between a limestone and shaly-limestone can be hard to discern from the gamma ray log alone, especially when there are closed spaced thin alternating beds of shale and limestone.
5.7. Water shows and tops.
Water shows are where the drillers encountered water, either fresh, salt-water brine, or black (sulfur or high iron content) water. While drilling, a water bearing horizon, be it a formation or a crevice, either horizontal or vertical, may be drilled through. This water usually is under hydrostatic head and will rise to the potentiometric surface. This may only be a few feet above the point of encounter or tens of feet above. If the potentiometric surface is above the top of the casing then the water will flow from the well in an artesian fashion. Artesian conditions were encountered in the Smith (Harvey 31-011-04519) well at 87 feet. It should be pointed out that this well is located within the area of northerly expansion of the Auburn Landfill. From cross sections of the area, it is most likely that the top of the Smith well is in the Manlius limestone. Much useful information on where water was encountered, flows and even water analysis was available in the authors files. This information was not on file with the DEC until the author supplied it to them.
Water shows on some well completion reports are not always thorough. Increased efforts should be made by the DEC to encourage the complete documentation of all water encountered and better estimates of volume and kind of water encountered. It has been shown that many of the waters encountered in Cayuga County can have a destructive corrosive effect on casing strings and has contributed to the failure of the casing. This corrosion, if not monitored, can have a disastrous effect on the integrity of a well completion and efforts by the Bureau of Minerals to protect potable water and prevent the migration of waters from one aquifer to another by way of the casing, either externally or internally. This is an area requiring further research and watchfulness. Efforts must be made to encourage gas and water well drillers to be aware of surface and sub-surface geological conditions. To more accurately record water shows, areas of cave-in, lost circulation, and other drilling problems. This information should all be recorded on well completion report. The only way for the DEC to be sure this information is recorded is to have a person from the DEC of local health department on sit to verify the information. This need not be for the whole well but at the very minimum the first 450 to 500 feet of drilling.
In addition the DEC could require all well drillers to have a minimum education of the local geology and hydrology of the area. Such a course used to be offered at Syracuse University (Robinson, J. 1989).
5.8. Existing hazardous waste sites
Information of such sites are recorded in quarterly publications of the DEC but have not at this time been included in this reports database. Cayuga County has started a mapping program to record the location of old farm and domestic dumps in the rural areas of the county. Such dumps pose a significant, undocumented threat to ground-water. Because such sites are too small and many of farm origin they have been avoided for political reasons.
5.9. Hand and machine dug water wells.
Information on such wells is presently not on record with the State or the Cayuga County Health Department. It is important to point out that the New York State Department of Health laws do allow individual counties to enact legislation that would require private water well drillers to file information on the wells drilled. To date the Cayuga County Legislature has failed to enact such local legislation.
Efforts are underway for a voluntary survey through Cooperative Extension to gather some of this information. The USGS office in Ithaca has indicated a willingness to work on such a project in the Union Springs to Auburn area, possibly in cooperation with student interns from Cornell, Syracuse University or SUNY ESF, with the total cost of a preliminary data gathering investigation to cost in the neighborhood of $50,000. The local share of the $50,000 total will amount to $15,000 but more likely $25,000 (Yager, T. 1989). Information to be included in such a study will include:
5.9.1. Location.
Recorded in the same manner as gas wells with departures north, south, east , or west of a specified degree, minute and second of latitude and longitude. This can then be easily converted to decimal form or New York State plane coordinate form.
5.9.2. Depth.
Total depth is important to determine the rock formation the well penetrates. It also serves as a means to determine if the well is silting up or there has been a cave in.
5.9.3. Casing record.
An accurate record of how the well was cased is important for piezometric studies to determine head and groundwater chemistry studies. If the well has been drilled through a number of differing rock formations each formation may have a unique groundwater chemistry. If other wells are drilled to the same formation or to the same aquifer it is important to know the history of the groundwater chemistry for the producing rock formation(s). Many domestic water wells encounter the same horizons that have caused casing corrosion problems in some Cayuga County wells. Wells are often cased to prevent caving. For accurate groundwater investigations, the producing interval (aquifer), must be known and if two or more intervals in a well are producing water of differing rates of flow and chemistry, and there is no casing in the well or there is communication between the two producing intervals it then becomes a difficult matter to identify where a problem may be originating.
5.9.4. Driller's name.
Who dug the well. Much information never is recorded, no matter how much is requested and it may be necessary to talk to the driller at a future date. This information may also be of importance in legal matters at a future date.
5.9.5. Sealed or open.
In landfill studies it is important that monitoring wells be properly constructed and sealed to prevent unauthorized access or vandalism to the well. The Auburn city landfill monitoring wells were inspected and in many instances the integrity of the well construction and sealing was in question. When this happens the integrity of the data is also in question. Information as to the type of grouting used is important. Was the well cemented or was bentonite clay used to grout the well.
5.9.6. Depth to water.
Water depth, water level, usually varies over time, due to the local weather, changes in the surface watershed, and even such actions as hydrostatic loading from the passing of a heavy train.
5.9.7. Flow (capacity) if known.
An accurate determination of the original flow rate is important in the determination of any changes that may have taken place in the well or the aquifer.
5.9.8. Domestic use.
A well and its aquifer have a maximum amount of water that can be produced. Pump too much and the capacity of the aquifer to supply water will be stressed or nearby wells may be intercepted and drawn down. It may be that at certain times of year and with sufficient rainfall and other surface water conditions that the well for a specified period can produce more.
5.9.9. Farm, industrial and/or irrigation use.
It is important to quantify the amount and quality of water needed for processes on farms and industry. Many uses of water do not require potable water. Black water, that is water high in iron or sulphur, may be utilized in food processing, irrigation, air conditioning, cleaning, etc.. The amount of water that can be withdrawn for irrigation can be substantial. While this use may not cause an adjacent drinking water well to go dry, it may drastically change the flow patterns in the aquifer and draw nearby contaminants to the drinking water well.
6. Mapping
6.1. Review of Rickard's and Fisher's work.
Many of the formation tops that were used in this study are those used by Lawrence Rickard or Donald Fisher of the New York State Geological Survey. The author has included a number of picks and correlation points to further refine the structure of the study area. The author did differ with Mr. Rickard's picks in the Rondout and Bertie sections. Examination, by the author, was made of cores done of these sections in the old gypsum mining area just north of the village of Union Springs.[Duskin 1969] In many instances there have been natural gas wells drilled in close proximity to these cored holes which allowed direct comparison of the gamma ray log to the core and core description. Unfortunately the quality of many of these gamma ray logs were poor (wells 31-011-20682 and 31-011-20681) due to inadequate logging equipment, logging through multiple strings of casing, and/or too fast of logging. Over 25 cored holes were drilled in the area north of Union Springs thus giving us a rather good look at this most important section of the stratigraphic column.
Lawrence V. Rickard of the New York State Museum and Geological Survey has published numerous articles and New York State Museum Bulletins on the stratigraphy of New York, Ohio and Pennsylvania (Rickard 1969; Rickard 1973; Rickard and Fisher 1970; Rickard 1962). Donald Fisher has also published many documents on New York stratigraphy (Fisher 1954; Fisher 1977; Fisher 1960; Fisher 1962). Additional work on New York stratigraphy has been done by Charles W. Flagler and Nancy A. Wright.
6.2. Author's picks.
The most commonly referred to database of formation tops is Deep Wells of New York; however, most of the formation tops (at least for Cayuga and Seneca Counties), have been selected by the well drillers or persons unfamiliar with the local stratigraphy. In many cases the terminology is wrong or, formations that are recorded are not even there, and the most usual problem of inaccuracies in depth. Other errors include inaccurate locations and surface elevations. For these reason the author undertook an extensive literature search and a program of field identification and correlation. Efforts were made to identify easily recognizable formations in outcrop and correlate these to nearby gas wells and their gamma ray logs. This work is continuously being updated by the author. Wherever possible Rickard's terminology and picks have been adhered to. Field work and correlation has necessitated the adjustment of some formation picks. The closest correlation of field data to the gamma ray logs was the work of Gilbert D. Harris (Harris 1905). The work of Duskin's and Ken Clark proved to be difficult to correlate to gamma ray logs. This was surprising in light of the fact that many of the cores examined by these two authors latter had gas wells drilled within a few feet of them and in spite of this there was an inconsistency of alignment of the data between the cores and gamma logs.
6.3. Description of maps and formation shown.
The main geological formations have been described below based on the point of view of a well driller or hydrogeologist. Descriptions of paleontology and paleoenvironments have not been included for they are not within the scope of this paper. Certain miscellaneous bits of information that the author deemed of importance or of general interest have been included.
The reference gamma ray log for the Union Springs area was the Staehr #2 well. The following is a tabulation of the authors picks down to the Lockport for this well.
Distance to
Formation next lowest Distance to
or pick formation or pick next formation
Oriskany 38 38
Rondout 32 32
Bertie 52 127
B_1 42
C_1 33
Camillus 20 88
G_1 68
Syr_F 4 97
F_1 17
F_2 76
Syr_E 25 312
E_1 19
E_2 50
C_2 58
C_3 40
C_4 10
C_5 110
C_6 54 54
Mid Vernon 99 99
Low Vernon 32 272
A_3 14
A_2 128
A_1 98
Lockport
TOTAL 1119 1119
The above can be read: The distance from the Oriskany sandstone to the top of the Rondout is 38 feet. The distance from the top of the Rondout to the top of the Bertie is 32 feet. The distance from the top of the Bertie to pick B_1 is 52 feet. and so forth. The total thickness from the top of the Oriskany sandstone to the top of the Lockport dolomite and limestone, at the Staehr #2 well is 1,119 feet.
6.3.1. Formations
The following are the most important formations to the drillers. Important for their easily recognized features, problems, or water shows. A brief review of each formation is given to aid the driller or site investigator in their review, with a particular emphasis toward groundwater.
6.3.1.1. Union Springs Shale
The Union Springs shale, submember of the Marcellus shale, is a dark black organic rich shale 5 to 12 feet thick in the Union Springs area. Baird and Brett describe the Union Springs as follows "The Union Springs is distinctly sooty and fractures, along within the numerous joint and fractures surfaces within limestone beds, are filled with pyrobitumen. Thin bone-rich beds occur within a 15-20 cm (6"-8")- thick interval of Styliolina packstone layers just above the base of the Union Springs (Baird and Brett 1979 p.74). The 6"-8" layer is the bone bed #7 of Conkin (Conkin and Conkin 1984) This shale is gradational downward into the Seneca member of the underlying Onondaga Limestone over a vertical distance of ten feet. Due this gradation it is difficult to pick a distinct top to the Onondaga on gamma ray logs. There are numerous volcanic ash beds in both the Onondaga limestone and the Union Springs shale. The formation is marked by high gamma ray readings.
6.3.1.2. Cherry Valley Limestone
The Cherry Valley limestone is a hard, dark gray, pyritic, two foot thick styliolinid and crinoidal limestone packstone containing numerous fossil nautiloids and goniatites (Baird and Brett 1986) This would be thee first hard limestone a driller would encounter through most of central Cayuga County and could easily be mistaken for the top of the Onondaga except that the drilling would quickly penetrate it and enter the dark black Union Springs shale. In spite of this color difference a rotary drilling rig could easily pass through the Union Springs with little notice made.
A fine exposure of the Cherry Valley is in a quarry 2000' south of the Village of Union Springs corporate line. There are old limestone quarries on both sides of the road at this locale with the Cherry Valley being exposed in the southern quarry on the east side of the road. On the west side of the quarry, in an escarpment that runs south-west toward the lake, one can see the Tioga ash and the beds of the Onondaga down to the layer of phosphate nodules at the top of the Oriskany. The Oriskany is however absent from this site.
6.3.1.3. Onondaga LS
The Onondaga limestone is composed of four main beds. The Edgecliff, Nedrow, Morehouse and Seneca. The authority on this formation continues to be William Oliver of the Smithsonian Institute. His continuing work since 1951 has been the main reference on the Onondaga (Oliver 1954; Oliver 1951; Oliver 1956a;Oliver 1956b; Oliver 1960; Oliver 1963; Oliver 1966; Oliver 1967a; Oliver1967b; Oliver 1969; Oliver 1983; Oliver 1981). The author is presently working with Mr. Oliver on a new paper specific to the corals found in the Oriskany sandstone specifically around the area between Auburn and Seneca County (Oliver and Hecht 1991).
The Edgecliff is a dense sandy limestone consisting or reworked sand from the underlying Oriskany sandstone.
The Nedrow member is composed of more shaley beds although it is still predominantly limestone.
The Morehouse is a medium-gray fine grained limestone with thin shale layers and numerous chert beds.
Overlying the Morehouse is the Tioga ash layer also referred to as the Tioga Ash bed B by Rickard (Rickard 1984). This layer is 6 to 8 inches in thickness in Cayuga and Seneca counties and is light gray to yellow in color. It has been postulated that the source area and volcano was somewhere in the State of Virginia (Dennison 1977; Dennison 1970; Oliver 1969). This layer also is referred to as the Tioga bentonite, the Tioga B layer or the Onondaga Indian Nation bentonite (Rickard 1984; Conkin and Conkin 1979). Although State Geologist James Hall in 1843 did not know the Tioga was an ash bed, he did describe its occurrence in Seneca County (Hall 1843).
"In one quarry I noticed a separation of the higher and lower strata by a 'wayboard', or seam of clay about four inches thick. This clay is exceedingly fine like the softest talc, and has a laminated structure and yellowish color; it differs greatly from the usual shaley matter separating the strata, and on this account was noticed" (p. 163)
Hall further states in this volume that the rocks of this area are dislocated and have been "... broken into faults" He further speculates:
"This dislocation of the strata is probably caused by the removal of the soft gypseous rocks from beneath, allowing the higher strata to fall down." (p. 163)
Another remarkable observation by Hall was of the occurrence and origin of the nitrogen spring(s) in Seneca County west of the village of Canoga. These springs can still be seen today and are marked by a New York State Historical Marker.
"From the facts before noticed, under the description of the Corniferous limestone, there is scarcely a doubt but these springs have their origin along a line of fault or fracture in the strata. Those on the eastern side of Cayuga lake at Springport have, probably, the same origin..."
In 1843, Hall could not have been aware of the faults, located directly west along their strike in the Seneca Stone Quarry. It should be pointed out that to this authors knowledge there are no nitrogen springs in the Town of Springport. All these observations of Hall and others of his time show the remarkable intuitive reasoning of these men so early in the the development of the geological sciences. The work supervised by James Hall was the first scientific account of the geology of this area and the state as a whole.
The possible groundwater connection between Seneca Lake and Cayuga Lake was postulated based on stream gaging and chemical analysis of Canoga Creek. The nitrogen spring at Canoga is one of the headwaters of this creek. The only reference to this is one paragraph. The author contacted the Water Resource Institute at Cornell, the USGS in Ithaca, Dr. Arthur Bloom at Cornell and the original author, Gene Likens, all in an attempt to find out more. None of these sources new of any response or follow-up by others to this paragraph, included below. (Likens 1974).
"The Drainage of the Canoga Creek watershed has an unusually high output compared to other watersheds around the lake... This did seem to suggest some rater direct groundwater connection between Seneca Lake and Canoga Creek. This anomaly is often shown in the seasonal patterns of streamwater chemistry as well as runoff."
The interconnection of the lakes is often spoken of in local folklore but this is the first written speculation to the authors knowledge. It must also be pointed out that Likens did not know of the occurrence of faults in the Seneca Stone Quarry or of the nitrogen spring. When you look at the occurrence of the spring, the faults, the elevated flows and chemistry you certainly are left with an intriguing question worthy of further investigation.
6.3.1.4. Phosphate nodule zone
At the top of the Oriskany sandstone, in all its exposures in Cayuga County, there is a layer of posphatic nodules. This phosphate layer gives readings on a hand held scintillation counter in the magnitude of the readings for the Marcellus Shale and the Tioga Bentonite in outcrop(this would be 150 to 250 API units) and is often recognizable on gamma ray logs and has been used to delineate the top of the Oriskany in the Union Springs-Auburn area.[Hecht 1989] Further to the east, at the General crushed stone quarry north of Skaneateles, the phosphatic zone is many feet thick as is the zone of reworked Oriskany sand (Hecht 1989; Hodgson 1979).
6.3.1.5. Oriskany SS
The Oriskany is a hard quartz sandstone. Thickness over the are of outcrop varies from zero to 4 1/2 feet and within a very short distance. North of Half Acre at the junction of NY 5+20 on the north-east corner is an old quarry on the Scott Coapman property, where the Oriskany is absent, across the road to the south-west at the Hoskins well the Oriskany is 4 1/2 feet thick and exposed in a ledge. To the north (3500') of the Coapman quarry on a hill the Oriskany is about 2 feet thick. This formation can prove troublesome to drillers due to its extreme hardness and fractures within it which can result in stuck or deflected bits. The Staehr #3 (31-011-15962) well had to be moved north to its present location due to drilling problems encountered in the Oriskany.
In regards the "phosphate" nodules
Hodgson states:
"Composition of the phosphatic nodules varies considerably within 'Zone A', and adjacent nodules in a single thin section (e.g.6.E) may be as dissimilar as if they were collected from widely separated parts of the state. Most nodules are composed of from 35-60% (volume%) rounded, sand size quartz, and collophane varies between 32 and 50%. Many are coated with 2-5 mm layer of pyrite that usually constitutes between 20 and 30% of the nodule volume and is particularly abundant (up to 70%) in certain nodules where it forms thick layers around individual quartz grains.
From nodule to nodule, collophane varies in color from pale brown to orange and its refractive index varies accordingly from 1.585 to 1.620. Dahllite is associated with collophane in some nodules and rounded grains of glauconite are usually present and locally abundant (e.g. at Station 3). Some of the nodules contain abundant sponge spicules with axial canals filled with glauconite and pellets of this mineral also occur." (Page 131-133).
Jensen also wrote extensively of the origin and chemical composition of the phosphate nodules (Jensen 1932). He spoke of the black cement which his chemical test showed to be "calcareous and phosphatic material". Also found in nodules from Phelps were, "...zircorn, amphibole (hornblend), pyrite, and magnetite".
Apsouri makes a point of stating that:
"...the phosphatic nodules occur in the Basil Onondaga and not in the Oriskany Sandstone." (Apsouri 1934).
Apsouri had two nodules analyzed by a Dr. Davis S. Morton. One from Phelps and one from Manlius.
Phelps Manlius
Silica (SiO2) 57.17% 29.78%
Iron Oxide (Fe2O3) 1.41 2.10
Aluminum Oxide (Al2O3) 5.18 4.09
Calcium Oxide (CaO) 18.65 34.51
Magnesium Oxide (MgO) 0.60 -
Sodium Oxide (Na2O) 0.49 0.97
Potassium Oxide (K2O) 0.30 0.95
Phosphous Pentoxide (P2O5) 12.45 25.81
Sulphur Trioxide (SO3) 0.39 0.34
Florine (F) 0.66
Volatile Matter 2.86 1.41
TOTAL 100.79
At present, the best sites to explore the Oriskany include Seneca Stone, O'Hara's Woods, and sites #11, and #13.(see appendix)
A point that is worthy of note is the intermittent nature of the Oriskany in outcrop between Union Springs and Auburn. Within a distance of 6/10 of a mile the Oriskany can vary from zero to four feet in thickness and back to two or more feet in thickness. The reported shows of Oriskany from gas wells must be viewed with caution. Even with very good cable tool well cuttings it is extremely difficult to determine if the sample is true Oriskany or just reworked sand from the Oriskany.
6.3.1.6. Manlius
The Olney member of the Manlius occurs in Cayuga County. It is a very hard, fine grained, bluish gray limestone similar to the overlying Onondaga limestone except for its distinctive blue color in fresh exposures. One of the best exposures is at the Springport town barn and hall on route 326. Here is an old quarry showing major subsidence activity due to the underlying gypsum beds or possibly solution channeling. The quarry is about 4000 ft. west of the site of the original Staehr #3 well (31-011-15962). The present well 31-011-15962 was originally planned for a site roughly 200 ft. south of the present site on the north bank of a small creek bed. While drilling the original well many crevices were encountered and a very large flow of water, an underground stream, was encountered in a void of about 8 feet vertical extent. Another famous exposure of the Manlius is on the old Yawger Farm in what is known as Yawger's Woods. Here the upper beds of the Manlius were quarried and are overlain by 3 to 4'6" of the Oriskany sandstone.
6.3.1.7. Rondout
In the literature the Rondout has for years been referred to as a "waterlime". In the central and southern sections of Cayuga County the Rondout is about 30-40 feet in thickness. In Seneca Falls the Rondout has been described as being 9 feet thick (Luther 1910).
6.3.1.8. Cobleskill
The most prominent outcrop of the Cobleskill in the Union Springs area is Frontenac Island (Belak 1978; Hartnagel 1903). Here the Cobleskill is a limestone with numerous fossils and stromatoporids (Rickard 1962). In the vicinity of Sennett, the Cobleskill has been described as a being composed of "...a 1.4 meter thick bed of massive dololutite that is overlain by 0.8 m of medium bedded dololutite." (Belak 1978). The use of applying the descriptive term,'lutite', to the Cobleskill is questionable where the formation is as hard and massive as it is on Frontenac island and at the old Wally Quarry on Cross Road. In outcrop the Cobleskill is easily confused with the Olney member of the Manlius which also contains numerous stromatoporids. The author has placed the top of the Cobleskill at the low gamma readings below the higher gamma ray readings of the lower part of Rondout formation.
6.3.1.9. Bertie
The Bertie is a grayish dolomitic shale, dolostone and waterlime (marly dolostone) up to 130 feet thick in the Union Springs area with an average thickness of 120 feet. The Bertie has been further divided into the Oxbow, Forge Hollow and Fiddlers Green and even further paleontological and stratigraphic subdivisions have been made by Ciurca and Hamell (Hamell 1981). The forge Hollow member is the bed that was principally mined for gypsum in the Union Springs area (Clark, K. 1968). The driller should expect areas of caving, and possible large water flows, usually sulfur water, in this formation. Any casing program should plan on the isolation of this formation from any overlying zones of potable water. This is not to say that potable water is not available from the Bertie. In the Syracuse area the Bertie is up to 90-100 feet in maximum thickness (Hamell 1981). In the Union Springs area the Bertie is in the neighborhood of 110 feet thick by my interpretation of gamma ray logs and review of the work of Harris (Harris 1905).
The author has made two additional picks in the Bertie, identified as B_1 and C_1. These are simply gamma highs and indicate zones of increased shale.
6.3.1.10. Camillus
The Camillus consists of green shales, anhydrite, gypsum and dolomite.[Rickard 1969; Luther 1910 In the Union Springs area and the southern part of Cayuga county the Camillus has a maximum thickness of 136 feet at the Dunn (31-011-16334) well and a minimum thickness of 79 feet at the Patterson well (31-011-20635). The Union Springs water wells bottom in the upper Camillus.
6.3.1.11. Syracuse
Much attention has been directed to the salt beds of the Syracuse formation for many years. This is the formation that brine is mined from in the Tully valley and in the salt mines at Lansing in Tompkins county. Rickard had divided the Syracuse into Units D, E, and F. Rickard's Unit D is a salt bed that was indicated in the gamma ray log of the Shoemaker (31-011-04068) but was not evident on any of the other logs in the Auburn field however the D unit is present on the logs from the wells drilled in the southern part of Cayuga County and in the Culver well (31-011-16118). An examination of Rickard's work at the salt mine in Lansing, will indicate a number of salt beds in his Unit D that pinch out to the north.[Rickard 1969] The D bed was not found on any of the wells drilled in the region around Union Springs, Cayuga, and Half Acre. The D was present in the Dickman well (31-011-17557). I have indicate by my nomenclature multiple salt beds of the D unit called D_1 and D_2. These may be distinct beds or repeats due to faulting or decollement processes.
6.3.1.12. Vernon
The Vernon is a series of red , green and gray shales with some small stringers of limestone and dolomite, especially just above the underlying Lockport.
There have been a few cases of unexpected gas in this formation. The EHP #2 (31-011-16149) well encountered a very large flow of gas and water at about 660 feet in the lower Vernon which required that this section be cased off. A few pieces of Vernon in well samples from this well showed vugs, small fractures and crystals of gypsum.
Rickard has subdivided the Vernon into three units the Lower Vernon, Unit A; the Middle Vernon, Unit B; and the Upper Vernon, Unit C (Rickard 1969). Although Rickard made a formation pick for the upper Vernon (unit C) the author was unable to make a reliable pick of this formation and thus it is absent, as a pick, for most of the wells in the Cayuga County database.
Within the Upper Vernon (Rickard's Unit C) is my pick C_6. Pick C_6 is about 2' above the bottom of a distinctive salt bed and about 6' below the top of this layer of salt which is of a uniform thickness of about 6 to 8 feet throughout the study area. This pick is of importance to the driller for it is regularly an area of large flows of salt water that should be planned for in the drilling and casing program (Sutherland 1989).
6.3.1.13. Lockport Dolomite
The Lockport in Cayuga County is a dense dolomitic limestone. Work by Zenger indicates that the east central area of New York is composed of some Oak Orchard dolomite but predominantly the Sconondoa limestone facies of the Lockport (Zenger 1965).
In describing the Oak Orchard section he refers to much of it having a "bituminous" nature. In the Oak Orchard section one can also expect to encounter vuggy sections, chert and stylolites. The Oak Orchard is "...brownish-gray to brownish-black, medium grained, medium to thick-bedded, saccharoidial dolomite..." (Zenger 1965).
Although the Lockport is considered a distinct pick by the driller it is not as distinct on gamma or density logs. This is due to the many instances of multiple zones of high gamma readings indicating probable limey or dolomitic stringers just above the Lockport in the basal Vernon. For the driller there is an abrupt change, akin to the change encountered when drilling into the hard upper Onondaga limestone, from the soft Marcellus shales. There have been instances of gas in the Lockport from the following wells:
Bacon 31-011-04448
Karim 31-011-06779
Downing 31-011-20471
6.3.1.14. Rochester
A series of alternating dark gray limestones and shales.
6.3.1.15. Irondequoit
The Irondequoit is referred to as the "Little Lime" or "Packer Shell" in Pennsylvania.
6.3.1.16. Williamson
Dark gray shale and limestone.
6.3.1.17. Wolcott
Is recognized as a dolostone in the subsurface although in outcrop samples it is "..primarily limestone..." (VanTyne 1966, p.98).
6.3.1.18. Sodus Shale
The Sodus is a greenish gray shale.
6.3.1.19. Furnaceville Hematite
The Furnaceville is easily recognized on density logs by its often dramatic kick to the right. In the rotary drilling of the Saxton well (31-011-15332) the author witnessed the dramatic color change from the overlying green-gray Sodus into the dramatic brick red of the Furnaceville. In the Saxton well, just prior to hitting the Furnaceville, the blow line alternated sharply from green to red to green and back to red. This may indicate other smaller zones of hematite or hematite coated sands. In outcrop near Stirling New York, just north of the study area, the Furnaceville is an oolitic, hematite coated shaly limestone. Oolites are easily recognized in drill cuttings.
6.3.1.20. White Medina "Whirlpool"
Although many drillers report the White Medina "Whirlpool" absent from Cayuga County it has been present in the cable tool well cuttings of the Wells College (31-011-15529), Staehr 2 (31-011-15377), Staehr 3 (31-011-15962), Fabian-Patterson (31-011-16151), Adams (31-011-16123), EHP2 (31-011-16149), McIntosh 2 (31-011-15963) and other wells drilled and sampled by the author. VanTyne describes the Whirlpool in outcrop as "...a massive, light gray to white, medium to coarse grained sandstone. Numerous inclusions of rounded shale fragments, magnetite and other dark accessory minerals often give it a salt and pepper look. In the subsurface it is white to grayish white, fine to coarse grained sandstone with occasional very coarse grains present (i.e. - greater than 1 mm. in size)." (VanTyne 1966, p100-101). The lower Whirlpool was deposited on the exposed beds of the Queenston as indicated in the Niagara region by the sun cracks in the Queenston that have been filled and covered by a thin layer of wind blown Whirlpool sand. Recent examination of the core data and core from the Delaney A124-5 (31-011-13645) well indicates that the White Medina is about 2 feet thick and occurs just above the point where the induction log flattens out, the authors "Flat" pick.
6.3.1.21. Queenston
The Queenston in Cayuga County does not contain the amount of shale that the Queenston is known for in its outcrops in western New York. In Cayuga County it is a quartz sand and brick red in color. Hughes has subdivided the Queenston of western and central New York into five lithofacies based on grain size, sorting and composition.[Hughes 1976] The top part of the Queenston that is the section gas is produced from in Cayuga County, are the Lithofacies V and III of Hughes. Lithofaces V and III are fluvial , coastal plain deposits. The red color for much of the Queenston is due to hematite coating the sand grains. The Queenston-Oswego sequence thickens to the south-west and has a total thickness in Cayuga County in the range of 1000 feet, in the northern section of the county where it outcrops , to 1200 to 1400 feet in the southern half of the county.
6.4. Mapping of fractures and known faults.
This information is valuable in planning for landfill sites. Although the faults of Cayuga County and Seneca County may no longer be active they do provide a ready conduit for the flow of contaminants and groundwater. To the authors knowledge no documentation has ben made of faults in the clays or other unconsolidated deposits of the area.
Although the computer mapping programs used in this study do not have the capacity to map faults it does give the careful observer a starting place to look for such features. The most striking feature of all the mapping in the study area was the dramatic structure indicated on all the formation top maps from the C_16 pick to the Syracuse picks. A stratigraphic interval of about 1500 feet. Furthermore this structure was indicated on all maps in roughly the same geographic area(s).
The following wells were the center of structural relief after hand contouring of the Furnaceville Hematite.
Chappell 31-011-19664
Chappell 31-011-19652
Chappell 31-011-19634
Chappell 31-011-19666
Chappell 31-011-19653
Case 31-011-19643
Case 31-011-19642
Case 31-011-04652
Heintz 31-011-19674
Quill 31-011-19635
Quill 31-011-19636
Quill 31-011-19637
Quill 31-011-19498
A east-west striking fault could easily be drawn between;
Chappell 31-011-19664
Chappell 31-011-19652
Chappell 31-011-19634
and
Chappell 31-011-19666
Hand contouring also revealed a possible north-south trending fault in the region of the following wells.
Bacon 2#2 31-011-19592
Rice 2 31-011-13785
Downing 31-011-20685
An east-west trending fault could possibly be drawn between the following wells.
Quill 423-5 31-011-19640
Quill 424-6 31-011-19641
Kirshner 763-2 31-011-19500
The reason the foregoing structure is important is that until this detailed mapping was undertaken it had been assumed that any faulting observed on the surface would not extend deeper than the salt and gypsum beds of the Syracuse or possibly the Vernon formations. A very good question is wether or not we are mapping an erosional surface or faulting such as block faulting typical of karst topography.
A review of the maps provided in this study will indicate a region of unusual structure north-east of the village of Cayuga. Although some faults were known to occur at the ground surface around the village of Union Springs and in Seneca county at the Seneca Stone Quarry west of the village of Canoga, it was thought that these faults were evidence of decollement. The most commonly referred process for faulting in the Finger Lakes region was decollement. Decollement structure may be present but is more than likely of slight relief that is almost impossible to distinguish from gamma ray logs. Decollement as used in this area is where two or more horizontal rock units (beds) are separated by a lubricating layer of salt, gypsum or anhydrite. When forces from the formation of the Appalachian mountains pushed horizontally against the rocks in Central New York it often caused one layer to slide over the underlying layer. Pressure was built up and the rocks would fault causing the rocks to push up and over themselves. This has been documented in work done in Chautauqua County New York in the same formations that we are dealing with here in Cayuga and Seneca Counties (Beinkafner 1983). (Note! Beinkafners study has numerous errors that make many maps inaccurate. In spite of this, it is a document wort reading)
A question arises with the structure seen around the Village of Cayuga since the structure seen in the maps continues through the Salina and Vernon sections which are the most likely lubricating areas. If the structure seen in near surface beds around Cayuga were the result of decollement you would expect such structure to disappear below these areas but such is not the case. The structure, assumed at the present time to be a fault, continues through all the formations from the near surface to the Queenston at a depth of 1500 to 1600 feet below the surface. From the authors discussions with Mr. Howard Pohn it is bleived that there is a strong possibility that the faults that are indicated in most of the formations from the Queenston upwards, may have their origin in the basement material. For further detailed discussion of the forces and theries regarding such structure the reade is refered to the writings of Mr. Pohn, M.H. Podwysocki and Mr. John Harper (Pohn 81,87,88,90; Podwysocki, M.H. and Pohn, Howard 1982; Stone and Webster 1979; Harper 1989).
An interesting feature of the structures seen is that similar structural relief is observed in roughly the same geographic area for all formations. This would indicate the possibility of near vertical faults.
The author has identified at least two new faults in the Union Springs area and further detailed mapping may reveal more or the extent of the known faults. One fault is located on the Staehr farm in the vicinity of the Staehr 3 well (31-011-15963).
The subsurface faults were previously mapped for the whole State; however, the reliability of this data in the Cayuga County area must, in the opinion of the author, be viewed with caution (Isachsen and McKendree 1977a). The joints of the Auburn 15 minute quadrangle of greatest prominence trend 10¡ East and 20¡ West of true north; the joints of intermediate prominence trend 70¡ East of true north and the joints of least prominence trend 65¡west of true north (Isachsen and McKendree 1977b). Very few record have been kept of joint strike and dip in New York and this is an area in need of further research and record keeping. Early work was done along the eastern shore of Cayuga Lake and an average dip of the bedrock of less than 1¡ was measured for most of this area (Long 1922). The importance of joint sets and faulting is not fully realized or analyzed in the movement of groundwater flow due to the extreme variability of their number, strike, dip and such data as what the fractures are filled with, either dirt, secondary deposits of calcite, lime, quartz, sulfur, or just air or water. Recent work in the Niagra Falls area may prove useful in understanding specific areas of Cayuga County (Yager and Kappel 1987). Joints in the study area are often up to many inches in width due to solution weathering in areas of karst topography and thus provide ideal pipe flow of subsurface groundwater both fresh, salt, sulfur, and those waters contaminated from toxic and hazardous material deposited at the surface in dumps, sprayed on fields or buried in the subsurface. Faulting has been identified in the gypsum quarries north of Union Springs (Clark, J. 1893).
There is significant dip to the rocks in the quarry south of Union Springs on the west side of the road. It is the opinion of the author that most of this structure is due to subsidence, not tectonic forces from the Appalachians. The importance of this site is its demonstration of the dramatic regional change in dip that can be found in the Union Springs area due to localized subsidence. This structure results in localized faulting and fracturing. Joint sets in these area can have their own unique patterns of strike and dip. Such localization can make modeling and mapping of groundwater flows a very difficult task.
6.5. Examination of Cross-sections
6.5.1. Union Springs
The Union Springs cross sections and strip logs provide a useful subsurface view of the strata penetrated by the Union Springs water supply wells (see appendix). The Union Springs water supply wells have been given an API number, by the author, of 31-011-00009. Note should be made that this is not an official API number but is strictly for use in this database. It can be seen in the cross-section that the rocks in the Union Springs area dip to the south roughly 55 to 60 feet per mile. Although there is no data such as gamma ray logs of the water wells, it is possible to get a rough picture of the formations penetrated by these wells and it can be determined that the top of the Union Springs water supply wells (ground level) is the top of the Bertie or the very bottom of the Rondout. The wells bottom in the upper Camillus. An examination of the topographic map showing the locations of the wells and the cross-section will reveal a number of sink holes 3000 to 4000 feet to the east. These most likely trace the strike of a fault or fracture(s).
6.5.2. Cayuga
The Cayuga cross section was constructed to indicate the abrupt change in the strata between wells 31-011-19664 and 31-011-19666. A displacement of 70± feet. Note that this displacement is uniform for all formations from the top of the wells to total depth (TD) in the Queenston. As indicated earlier, this has opened up new ways of looking at geologic structure and tectonics in Central New York.
6.5.3. Auburn Landfill
An east, west cross section of the landfill expansion site is shown in appendix D. In indicates that if bedrock extended to the surface that the site is situated in the upper Bertie formation.
7. Users.
7.1. Private sector
Drilling contractors for water, gas, and environmental monitoring will no longer have to guess or make educated decision based on old maps of the area. Information on many environmental concerns related to groundwater in the county will now be found under one cover with references to many more. If Cayuga County keeps the database supplied in this report up to date it will be a valuable tool in the regulatory process.
7.2. Government
7.2.1. Spill cleanup and containment.
Detailed information is needed in case of a spill in order to effectively trace to contaminant plume. Mapping and tracer studies should be initiated now to trace present flow patterns. In extreme cases it might even become feasible to do cement grouting of significant fractures and joints to divert or contain a contaminant.
7.2.2. PSC
7.2.2.1. Pipeline routes and construction.
Some work has been done in an attempt to correlate soil types to corrosion problems. Bedrock geology may contribute to corrosion and an exact knowledge of the geology of the area and the geochemistry would be necessary. This database can provide an accurate picture of the local geology.
7.2.3. Health departments
This study will provide the basis of a detailed understanding of the geology, stratigraphy and structure of central and southern Cayuga County for health officials.
7.2.3.1. Radon studies.
Although there are no detailed studies on radon in the study area, an accurate picture is now available of what geologic formations exist through this report. Work in Tompkins, Onondaga and southern Cayuga County indicate the problem does exist and warrants further examination and surveillance (Appling, 1988; Banikowski and Hand, 1987; Hand and Banikowski, 1988).
7.2.3.2. Sewer leach fields
Percolation tests and dye testing have been the historical method of siting and testing domestic sewer systems. These tests are only as good as the individuals conducting the tests. All too often the persons conducting percolation tests have no training in soils, groundwater or local geology. Dye testing is notoriously in error or insufficient. Personal making these tests need to be trained in the proper identification of soils in the field, their composition, and indications of water tables and areas of excessive permeability. All to often the attitude is that if the soils percs then all is fine. Such a mentality is dated. Even if fecal coliform has a long enough residence time in the soil to be destroyed or absorbed there are many man made chemicals that are poured down the drain that flow through the soil system and find there way to drinking water supplies , streams and lakes.
As mention previously, efforts are underway on the Owasco Lake watershed to map and record data on the leach fields and septic tanks on the watershed. Detailed geologic and soils information incorporated in the same GIS system will prove a powerful tool for future planning. Efforts are underway in Cayuga County to prompt the County Legislature into action on the issue of a watershed inspector.
8. Summary of findings.
The major accomplishment of this work has been the accurate mapping of the subsurface rock formations in the central and southern Cayuga County regions. The maps provided in this report provide the first detailed look of the geologic structure of the central and southern sections of Cayuga County. Furthermore, through this mapping, several subsurface faults have been identified which show a direct correlation to basement tectonics and Appalachian structure (Pohn 1990). It is remarkable that a scientific investigation into the surface rocks and stratigraphy can be so directly linked to tectonic activity four to five thousand feet below the area of investigation. In addition to the accompanying work future investigations into the ground-water chemistry will further define the true picture of ground-water flow in these areas.
At the present time the Village of Union Springs is contemplating the drilling of a new water supply well. The data base that accompanies this report will be most helpful in delimiting potential areas of contamination and groundwater concern in both vertical and horizontal extent.
9. Recommended Actions
-The County should empower, designate and fund an Office of Groundwater and Surface Water Affairs. This office should be the focal point for flowing environmental information between the County and the many New York State departments that have any environmental impact on Cayuga County. It should control issues to be considered by the County in the SEQR review process and the gas drilling permit process.
-Consolidate well database(s), GIS mapping, and imaging within the County and the State as a whole.
-Require, on a County level, the filing of information on domestically dug water wells, similar to that done in Suffolk County.
-Create detailed maps and databases of existing domestic water wells.
-Conduct research on groundwater chemistry and relate it to subsurface stratigraphy; include regular testing of important aquifers through-out the County.
-Update the inventory of industries, individuals, and farms that store hazardous materials and quantity stored.
-Educate fire departments and others on the potential catastrophic effect of runoff to surface waters and groundwater from fire sites that have hazardous and toxic materials. To have a spill response plan in action. At the very minimum they should help compile a list of places they can go to 24 hours a day to get absorbant materials such as hay bales, booms, and backhoe operators.
-The County Planning office should take the lead in educating the towns and villages in up to date land use controls, the need for them, and how they can benefit surface and groundwater protection efforts.
-Involve and fund Cooperative Extensions efforts on water resource protection.
-Map of groundwater recharge areas for the Village of Union Springs and Moravia. This is presently needed to help in the planning of Cayuga County's solid waste management plan and definition of a aquifer recharge area around Union Springs.
-Map rural private dumps and farm dumps.
-Conduct an inventory of industries and farms showing the chemicals stored and used on site.
-Conduct dye or tracer testing of the groundwater system in the Union Springs area, local quarries and the disappearing stream in Half Acre.
-Log one or more wells with a gamma ray tool that separates out the radioactive uranium, potassium and thorium.
-Form Agricultural Districts over major groundwater recharge areas.
-Encourage the involvement of the Soil Conservation Service in the education of farmers and landowners in their role in groundwater protection. Efforts toward this goal are starting in Cayuga County on the Yawger's Creek watershed.
-Map of joint orientation and density.
-Define "Wellhead Protection Areas". This should be done in cooperation with the Cayuga County Health Department.
-Investigate the feasibility of the establishment of Sole Source Aquifers.
-Rewrite the Cayuga County Health Departments rules to place greater emphasis and awareness on groundwater and its connection to surface water.
-Educate and assist local farmers in groundwater recharge areas to improve farming practices that reduce or eliminate the dependency on toxic or hazardous chemicals.
-Improve education of watershed inspectors and Health Department personal. Increased backing and support by the Cayuga County legislature of the Health Department is required.
-Review local zoning and County Health Code in relation to groundwater protection.
-Construct depth to bedrock maps from gas drilling information and the county soils map.
-Establish County agency with the power, to regulate activities on the watersheds of Owasco, Cayuga, and Skaneateles lakes. Environmental concerns and problems are fragmented among numerous authorities; the health department, DEC, NY Department of Transportation, Soil Conservation Service, NY State Office of Parks and Recreation.
-Review areas owned by firms in the quarry business with an eye on areas of potential expansion and how this might impact groundwater.
Until Cayuga County starts to realize its dependency environmentally and economically on the water resources , both surface and groundwater, within its control they will be forever playing a game of catch-up. These water resources can no longer be viewed as unlimited and naturally renewed resources. The potential for long term contamination of the groundwater demands immediate and firm action to protect the personal, environmental and economic health of Cayuga County.
10. Appendix A. Oriskany sandstone locations and descriptions.
One of the best exposed and most interesting rock formations exposed throughout central Cayuga County is the Oriskany sandstone and the overlying Onondaga Limestone. Those wishing to familiarize themselves withe the stratigraphy and geology of the area would be advised to begin their studies of the area with these two formations. The Following is a list of the major outcrops on the Union Springs, Cayuga, Auburn and Romulus 7 1/2 min. USGS topo sheets.
1 - Seneca Stone Corporation (the old Warren Brothers
quarry).
Romulus 7 1/2 min quadrangle
9,232 ft. 2,815 m. West 76¡45'00"
6,700 ft. 2,043 m. South 42¡52'30"
Elevation (ground level) 520 ft. (159 m.)(topo)
Elevation phosphate zone 440 ft. (134 m.)(topo)
This quarry is the best exposure of the complete stratigraphic section of the Onondaga Limestone in Cayuga and Seneca Counties. The complete Onondaga (83± feet)(25 meters), the underlying Manlius (5+ feet exposed)(2 m.), the Union Springs shale and the Cherry Valley limestone (2± ft.)(6.1 cm)may be seen. The quarry is also notable for the thrust fault(s) present. Where the actual top of the Onondaga should be placed is a matter of conjecture for there are numerous beds of dark black and brown shales in the upper 4-5 feet(12 cm-15 cm). The dark black shales of the Union Springs are 8+ feet(24 cm) thick and many of the limestone and dark shale beds below have been include by some authors in the Union Springs section at Seneca Stone.
The Oriskany at Seneca Stone reaches a maximum thickness of 20+ inches(5.08 cm) but totally disappears in the quarry to the south and east of the exposure and only the phosphatic zone is present. At these places the Onondaga is separated from the Manlius by only one to two inches (25 mm- 51 mm) of phosphatic material, light brown, tan, and green in color.
It may be possible to make a case for three zones in the Oriskany at the Seneca Stone Quarry. The upper eight (203 mm) to maybe ten (254 mm) inches seem to be composed of sand grains which are less frosted and larger than the bottom fossil sparse zone. This upper zone is also composed of much phosphatic material in the form of individual grains of phosphate and phosphate coated quartz grains.
The phosphatic zone at Seneca Stone is three to four inches thick (76-102 mm). The top of this phosphatic zone is nicely exposed in the floor of the quarry and numerous corals can be seen mixed in the quartz sand and phosphate nodules of the very top 3/4 inch (19.05 mm) of the phosphate zone.
Overlying the phosphate zone is 5 feet(15.24 cm) of sandy fossil-rich Edgecliff. Above this is 16 inches (4.064 cm) of a clean light gray limestone with chert throughout.
2 - Allen's Point Quarry
Union Springs 7 1/2 min. quadrangle
9,066 ft. 2,764 m. West 76¡40'00"
2,600 ft. 793 m. South 42¡50'00"
Estimated elevation of phosphate zone 460 ft. (140 m.)(topo) No Oriskany at this quarry.
There are phosphate nodules.
3 - Center Street, Union Springs. North side of street; east side of "Tunnel" creek.
Union Springs 7 1/2 min. quadrangle
5,833 ft. 1,778 m. West 76¡40"00" 12,832 ft. 3,912 m. South 42¡52"30"
Estimated elevation of phosphate zone 460 ft. (140 m.)(topo)
Phosphate zone is about 10 ft. (3 m.)below road.
No Oriskany present.
4 - Old quarry at Maier's
Union Springs 7 1/2 min. quadrangle
8,000 ft. 2,439 m. South 42¡52'00"
5,166 ft. 1,575 m. West 76¡40'00"
Estimated elevation of phosphate zone 520 ft. (159 m.)(topo).
No Oriskany.
Phosphate zone present.
5 - Oakridge Cemetery woods to west of cemetery.
Union Springs 7 1/2 min. quadrangle
4,000 ft. 1,220 m. West 76¡40'00"
6,466 ft. 1,971 m. South 42¡52'00"
Estimated elevation of phosphate zone 530 ft. (162 m.)(topo)
Possibly? one foot, or less, of Oriskany sandstone present. No good exposures but a few loose blocks of Oriskany scattered in woods.
6 - Yawger's Woods
Union Springs 7 1/2 min. quadrangle
2,500 ft. 763 m. West 76¡40'00"
3,166 ft. 965 m. South 42¡52'00"
Estimated elevation of phosphate zone 575 ft. (175 m.)(topo).
Phosphate zone 3-4 inches thick.
Edgecliff present.
The formation may be traced 1,500 feet(457 meters) to the north and 600 feet(183 meters) to the south. At the central portion of Yawger's Woods the Oriskany reaches a maximum thickness of 4 feet 6 inches(1.37 meters). About 1,500 feet(457 meters) to the north it thins to twenty inches(5.08 cm). At an outcrop roughly 600 feet(183 meters) to the south of the main site the Oriskany is two feet(6.1 cm) thick. A block of Oriskany 4'6"(1.37 meters) thick showed 11"(279 mm) of relatively clean sand at the bottom. The remainder of the block was dense fossils, somewhat increasing in numbers toward the top.
7 - Woods north-east of junction of Webb Road, New York Route 326, and Fitzpatrick Road.
Cayuga 7 1/2 min. quadrangle
167 ft. 51 m. South 42¡52'30"
1,500 ft. 457 m. East 76¡40'00"
Estimated elevation of phosphate zone 600 ft. (183 m.)(topo)
No Oriskany found in place although there are some loose blocks.
Phosphate zone can be seen in place.
8 - Fabian's Hill Hillside south of Townline Road and east of Webb Road. Exposure on north and west sides of hill.
Cayuga 7 1/2 min. quadrangle
8,932 ft. 2,723 m. West 76¡37'30"
6,166 ft. 1,880 m. North 42¡52"30"
Estimated elevation of phosphate zone 590 ft. (180 m.)(topo)
No Oriskany.
Phosphate nodules present.
9 - Crest of hill 1800 ft. NNW of Oakwood
Cayuga 7 1/2 min. quadrangle
7,466 ft. 2,276 m. West 76¡37'30"
7,333 ft. 2,236 m. North 42¡52'30"
Estimated elevation of phosphate zone 600 ft. (183 m.)(topo).
No Oriskany.
Phosphate present.
10 - O'Hara's Woods also known as
Lot 69
Cayuga 7 1/2 min. quadrangle
4,133 ft. 1,260 m. West 76¡37'30"
4,133 ft. 1,260 m. South 42¡55'00"
Estimated elevation of phosphate zone 615 ft. (188 m.)(topo).
The Oriskany is two feet thick here. Where the coral was collected and photographed at this site there is 4 to 6 inches of clean, dense and relatively fossil free sand at the very bottom of the Oriskany. No more than 100 feet (30 m.) to the north, along the outcrop, this clean sand zone vanishes. There are 4 feet of the Edgecliff just above the Oriskany and phosphate zone. About 1,000 feet(305 m) to the south the Oriskany is still very much evident and measures 28 to 32 inches(7.1 cm-8.1 cm) in thickness.
11 - Junction of Stony Pitch Road and Genesee Street
Cayuga 7 1/2 min. quadrangle
367 ft. 112 m. South 42¡55'00"
3,266 ft. 996 m. West 76¡37'30"
Estimated elevation of phosphate zone 626 ft.(191 m.)(topo).
No Oriskany.
Phosphate zone 2-4 inches (51-102 mm)thick.
12 - Woods 1500 feet south-west of intersection of Half Acre Road and NY Route 5+20.
Cayuga 7 1/2 min. quadrangle
1,000 ft. 305 m. West 76¡37'30"
2,166 ft. 660 m. North 42¡55'00"
Estimated elevation of phosphate zone 630 ft. (192 m.)(topo).
Oriskany is ±4 feet thick here with two plus feet of overlying Edgecliff. Phosphate zone is four inches thick.
13 - Coapman's quarry. 800 (244 m.) feet north-east of
intersection of Half Acre Road and NY Route 5+20.
Auburn 7 1/2 min. quadrangle
500 ft 152 m. East 76¡37'30"
3,900 ft. 1,189 m. North 42¡55'00"
Estimated elevation of phosphate zone 625 ft.(191 m.)(topo)
No Oriskany.
Phosphate zone present.
14 - Crest of hill north of Coapman's quarry
Auburn 7 1/2 min. quadrangle
500 ft. 152 m. East 76¡37'30"
7,333 ft. 2,236 m. North 42¡55'00"
Estimated elevation of phosphate zone 650 ft. (198 m.)(topo).
Oriskany 2 feet (6.10 cm) thick.
Phosphate present.
50 inches (12.70 cm) of Edgecliff.
The following is a description in a Gilbert D. Harris publication Guide to the Geology Of Union Springs 1905 Harris Publishing Company, Ithaca, New York.
"There are true Mollusks, both bi- and uni-valve. Of the former, a large Megambonia, or fragment of it are now and then broken out. Curved or loosely coiled univalves like Platyceras and Cyrtolites are not rare here. A few coral fragments are found, now and then, but we have yet to find our first trilobite."
In regards the "phosphate" nodules
Hodgson states:
"Composition of the phosphatic nodules varies considerably within 'Zone A', and adjacent nodules in a single thin section (e.g.6.E) may be as dissimilar as if they were collected from widely separated parts of the state. Most nodules are composed of from 35-60% (volume%) rounded, sand size quartz, and collophane varies between 32 and 50%. Many are coated with 2-5 mm layer of pyrite that usually constitutes between 20 and 30% of the nodule volume and is particularly abundant (up to 70%) in certain nodules where it forms thick layers around individual quartz grains.
From nodule to nodule, collophane varies in color from pale brown to orange and its refractive index varies accordingly from 1.585 to 1.620. Dahllite is associated with collophane in some nodules and rounded grains of glauconite are usually present and locally abundant (e.g. at Station 3). Some of the nodules contain abundant sponge spicules with axial canals filled with glauconite and pellets of this mineral also occur." (Page 131-133)
Jensen also wrote extensively of the origin and chemical composition of the phosphate nodules. He spoke of the black cement which his chemical test showed to be "calcareous and phosphatic material". Also found in nodules from Phelps were, "...zircorn, amphibole (hornblend), pyrite, and magnetite".
Apsouri makes a point of stating that
"...the phosphatic nodules occur in the Basil Onondaga and not in the Oriskany Sandstone."
Apsouri had two nodules analyzed by a Dr. Davis S. Morton. One from Phelps and one from Manlius.
Phelps Manlius
Silica (SiO2) 57.17% 29.78%
Iron Oxide (Fe2O3) 1.41 2.10
Aluminum Oxide (Al2O3) 5.18 4.09
Calcium Oxide (CaO) 18.65 34.51
Magnesium Oxide (MgO) 0.60 -
Sodium Oxide (Na2O) 0.49 0.97
Potassium Oxide (K2O) 0.30 0.95
Phosphous Pentoxide (P2O5) 12.45 25.81
Sulphur Trioxide (SO3) 0.39 0.34
Florine (F) 0.66
Volatile Matter 2.86 1.41
At present, the best sites to explore the Oriskany include Seneca Stone, O'Hara's Woods, and sites #11, and #13.
A point that is worthy of note is the intermittent nature of the Oriskany in outcrop between Union Springs and Auburn. Within a distance of 6/10 of a mile the Oriskany can go from zero to four feet in thickness and back to two or more feet in thickness. The reported shows of Oriskany from gas wells must be view with caution. Even with very good cable tool well cuttings it is extremely difficult to determine if the sample is true Oriskany or just reworked sand from the Oriskany.
Seneca Stone Corporation
PO box 76
County Road121
Fayette, New York 13065
1-549-8253
The owner of the O'Hara Woods site is:
Mr. Ted O'Hara
Oakwood Road, Route 326
Auburn, N.Y.
13152
The owner of the Yawger's Woods site is:
Mr. William W. Patterson, Jr.
Box 399 RD #3
Townline Road
Auburn, New York
13021
All elevations are taken or derived from the USGS topographic 7 1/2 minute quadrangles.
11. Appendix B: Union Springs Cross Section
- Map of Union Springs area
- Cross sections
- Log of well 31-011-20488 [USCS, A.J. Smith]
- Log of well 31-011-16991 [USCS Gable 1A]
- Log of well 31-011-17593 [Seven Day Adventists]
12. Appendix C: Cayuga Cross Section
- Map
- Cross section
- Log of well 31-011-19498 [Quill 762-1]
- Log of well 31-011-19664 [Chappel 1 (433-2)]
- Log of well 31-011-19666 [Chappel 431-3]
13. Appendix D: Auburn City Landfill Cross Section
- Map
- Cross section
- Log of well 31-011-11547 [Jordan T122V-8]
- Log of well 31-011-15643 [NYSEG T121-5]
14. Appendix E: Well database
Included under separate cover is a paper copy of the computer database. The database is indexed by API number and Alpha. Please contact the author for an update to the data.
15. Appendix F: County and State water well report forms.
Samples of County and State water well report forms.
16. Appendix G: NYSDEC report forms
- Instruction sheet
- Oil, Gas and Solution Mining Well Drilling Environmental Assessment Form
- State Environmental Quality Review: Full Environmental Assessment Form
- Environmental Assessment - Part II; Project Impacts and Their Magnitude (copy of Patterson well 31-011-20639)
- NYSDEC Casing and Cementing Practices
- Annual Well Report
- Application for Permit to Drill, Deepen, Plug Back or Convert a Well Subject to the Oil, Gas and Solution Mining Law
- Well Gas Oil Ratio Test Report
- Organizational Report
- Financial Security Worksheet
- Organizational Report for Oil, Gas and Solution Mining Activities
- Well Plugging and Surface Restoration Bond
- Plugging Report
- Notice of Intention to Plug and Abandon
- Well Drilling and Completion Report
- Well Completion Report
- Mining Permit Application
- NYSDEC Mined Land Use Plan Outline
- Mined Land Reclamation Bond
- Mining Termination Notice
17. Appendix H: Geologic Sections and Gamma Log
The following illustration shows selected geologic sections in relation to a typical gamma ray log for the Union Springs area.
18. Maps
Springport and Aurelius Roads Map folder
Camillus Top 8/2/89 Map folder
Rondout 9/5/89 Map folder
Rondout Top 8/2/89 Map folder
Bertie Top 8/2/89 Map folder
B-1 Center 8/2/89 Map folder
E-1 Top 8/3/89 Map folder
Syr-F Top 8/2/89 Map folder
F-1 Top 8/2/89 Map folder
C-1 8/29/89 Map folder
C-6 8/4/89 Map folder
C-8 8/6/89 Map folder
C-10 8/14/89 Map folder
Mid Vernon Top 8/4/89 Map folder
Lower Vernon Top 8/4/89 Map folder
Lockport Top 8/5/89 Map folder
Irondequoit Top 8/7/89 Map folder
Williamson Top 8/14/89 Map folder
Wolcott Top 8/6/89 Map folder
Sodus Top 8/6/89 Map folder
Mid Furnaceville 8/8/89 Map folder
Mid Furnaceville Top 9/5/89 Map folder
C-14 8/10/89 Map folder
C-14 9/2/89 Map folder
C-15 8/12/89 Map folder
C-16 Queenston Top 8/13/89 Map folder
19. Glossary
ACL's Alternate Concentration Limits
API American Petroleum Institute
CAA Clean Air Act
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation Liability Act
CWA Clean Water Act
DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement
EIS Environmental Impact Statement
EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
FIFRA Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
GWSI Ground Wate Site Information
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
NYSDEC New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (or DEC)
NYSDOT New York State Department of Transportation
OGWP Office of Ground Water Protection
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
SEQRA State Environmental Quality Review Act
SIA Surface Impoundment Assessment
SSA Sole Source Aquifer
TDS Total dissolved solids
TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act
USGS United States Geological Survey
UIC Underground Injection Control
UMTRCA Uranium Mining and Mill Tailings, Reclamation and Control Act
USDA United States Department of Agriculture
20. Bibliography.
6 NYCRR Part 617 1987 State Environmental Quality Review Statutory authority: Environmental Conservation Law Section 8-0113.
Appling, Jeanne W. October, 1988 Radon in Groundwater Supplying Private Wells: an Exposure Assessment and Risk Communication Study. Water Resources Institute, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York.
Apsouri, Constantin Nicolas August 1934 Contributions to the Study of the Oriskany Sandstone, Basil Onondaga, and the Contact Thereof. Unpublished M.S. thesis, Syracuse University.
Baird, Gordon C. and Brett, Carlton E. 1986 Submarine Erosion on the Dysaerobic Seafloor: Middle Devonian Corrosional Disconformaties In The Cayuga Valley Region. in New York Geological Association 58th Annual Meeting Field Trip Guidebook, October 10-11, 1986.
Banikowski, Jeffrey E. and Hand, Bryce M. May 1987 Radon in Onondaga County: Preliminary Report. Prepared for Onondaga County Department of Health, Division of Environmental Health.
Barrow, Barry 4/2/90 Environmental Analyst, NYSDEC Syracuse, personal communication.
Beck, Lewis C. 1842 Mineralogy of New-York; Comprising Detailed Descriptions of the Minerals Hitherto Found in the State of New-York, and Notices of Their Uses in the Arts and Agriculture. Albany.
Beinkafner, Kathie J. 1983 Thermal Expression of Decollement in Chautauqua County, New York. Northeastern Geology Vol 5 No. 3 & 4, Troy New York. (NOTE! this report, and the thesis from Syracuse University that it is based on, has numerous errors.)
Belak, Ronald 1978 Stratigraphy and Sedimentology of the Cobleskill Formation (Upper Silurian), New York State. Unpublished Masters Thesis Indiana University, 191 pages.
Blatt, H.; Middleton, G. and Murry, R. 1970 Origin of Sedimentary Rocks. 2nd edition. Prentice Hall.
Bloomfield, Jay A. 1978 Lakes of New York State.
Calocerinos and Spina November 1985 Hydrogeologic Assessment Report on Auburn City Landfill for City of Auburn, Cayuga County, New York.
Carney, Frank 1909 Pleistocene Geology of the Moravia Quadrangle, New York. Bulletin of the Science Laboratory of Denison University; Volume XIV, pp335-440.
Carr, James 4/2/90 Personal communication.
Cayuga County and HJA Associates March 1989 Low Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Site 21. Unpublished report by Cayuga County Planning Board.
Cayuga County Department of Health 1989 Unpublished files on Union Spring's, Cato's, and Moravia's water supply system and their histories.
Cayuga County EMC 1989-90 Member Dick Fox (a professional forester) is actively looking into this in cooperation with staff members of the EMC.
Cayuga County EMC March 1980 Position Paper: Subsurface Exploration in Cayuga County, 2nd Draft-For Discussion Only. Auburn, N.Y..
Cayuga County Planning Board 9/24/82 Coastal Energy Impact Program, Planning Grant Application 29 January 1982. Auburn, NY.
Christenson, Barry January 6, 1989 Assistant Manager of Montezuma National Wildlife Refuge, Personal conversation.
Citizen Advertiser January 12, 1865 Article on gas in the Village of Moravia.
Clark, John M. 1893 in F.J. H. Merrill Salt and Gypsum Industry of New York. N.Y. State State Museum Bulletin No.11.
Clark, Kenneth F. December 28, 1968 Unpublished economic, chemical and geologic evaluation of the gypsum deposits at Union Springs.
Conkin, James and Conkin, Barbara 1979 Devonian-Mississippian Boundary in Southern Indiana-Northwestern Kentucky. Field Trip 7/ Ninth International Congress of Carboniferous Stratigraphy and Geology, University of Louisville.
Conkin, J.E. and Conkin, B.A. 1984 Paleozoic Metabentonites of North America: Pt1. Devonian Metabentonites in the Eastern United States and Southern Ontario: Their Identities, Stratigraphic Positions, and Correlations. University of Louisville Studies in Paleontology and Stratigraphy, V.16.
Conkin, J.E. and Conkin, B.M. 1979 Paper 3, Devonian Pyroclastics in Eastern North America, Their Stratigraphic Relationship and Correlation. In: Devonian Mississippian Boundary in Southern Indiana and Northwestern Kentucky. Conkin and Conkin Editors.
Cornell University Cooperative Extension 1990 Unpublished computer data base of New York soils, compiled by Shaw Reed.
Crain, L.J. 1974 Ground Water Resources of the Western Oswego River Basin, New York. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Basin Planning Report ORB-5, 137p..
Crain, L.J. 1975 Chemical Quality of the Ground Water in the Western Oswego River Basin, New York. State of New York DEC Basin Planning Report ORB-3, 69p..
Dennison, J.M. and Textoris, D.A.1970 Devonian Tioga Tuff in Northeastern United States. Bulletin Volcanologique, Tome XXXIV-1, p.289-294 Napoli, Italy.
Dennison, John M. and Textoris, Daniel A. 1977 Tioga Bentonite Time-Marker Associated With Devonian Shales in Appalachian Basin. Proceedings First Eastern Gas Shales Symposium, October 17-19, 1977 Garry L. Schott editor; U.S. Department of Energy, Morgantown Energy Research Center MERC/SP-77/5.
Duskin, John Douglas June 1969 Economic Geology of the Gypsum Deposits at Union Springs, New York. Masters Thesis, Cornell University.
Fairchild, Herman L. 1907 Drumlins of Central Western New York. New York State Museum Bulletin 111.
Fakundiny, Robert H.; Whitney, Philip R. and Matuszek, John 1988 Inappropriateness of Bedrock Maps for Predicting Radon in Soil. Abstract from Radon in the Northeast. Perspectives and Geologic Research presented by The Northeastern Science Foundation May 31-June 2, 1988. Northeastern Environmental Science, Vol. 7 Number 1, 1988.
Fisher, D. 1977 Correlation of the Hadrynian, Cambrian and Ordovician Rocks in New York State. New York State Museum Map and Chart Series Number 25: 75p., 5 pls.,76 figs..
Fisher, D. September 1954 Stratigraphy of Medina Group, New York and Ontario. Bulletin of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Vol 38, No. 9 pp. 1979-1996.
Fisher, D.W. 1960 Correlation of the Silurian Rocks in New York State. New York State Museum and Science Service Geological Survey Map and Chart Series Number 1.
Fisher, D.W. 1962 Correlation of the Ordovician Rocks in New York State. New York State Museum and Science Service, Map and Chart Series: Number 3.
Geologist USGS .
Getches, David H. 1984 Water Law; In A Nut Shell. West Publishing Company, St. Paul, Minn..
Gordon, Wendy 1984 A Citizens Handbook on Groundwater Protection. Natural Resource Defense Council, New York.
Hall, James 1843 Geology of New York. State of New York, Albany part 4.
Hamell, Richard D. 1981 Stratigraphy, Petrology, and Paleoenvironmental Interpretation of the Bertie Group (Late Cayugan) in New York State. Masters Thesis, University of Rochester.
Hand, Brice and Banikowski, J. 1988 Radon in Onondaga County, New York: Paleohydrogeology and Redistribution of Uranium in Paleozoic Sedimentary Rocks. Geology. Volume 16, p. 775-778 September 1988.
Harper, John 1989 Effects of Recurrent Tectonic Patterns on the Occurrence and Development of Oil and Gas Resources in Western Pennsylvania. Northeastern Geology vol. 11, no. 4, p.p. 225-245.
Harris, Gilbert D. 1905 Guide to the Geology of Union Springs. Harris Publishing Company, Ithaca, N.Y., 25 p..
Hartnagel, C.A. 1903 Preliminary Observations on the Cobleskill ("Coralline") Limestone of New York. New York State Museum Bulletin 69, p. 1108-1175.
Hecht, W.S. 1989 Unpublished investigation of the Radioactivity of the Tioga Ash and the Phosphate Layer in Cayuga and Seneca Counties.
Hodgson, E.A. 1970 Petrogenesis of the Lower Devonian Oriskany Sandstone and its Correlates in New York, With a Note on Their Acritarchs. Ph.D. Thesis, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, 193p..
Hughes, Susan E. September 1976 The Paleogeography and Subsurface of the Late Ordovician Queenston Coastal Complex in New York. Masters Thesis Cornell University.
Isachsen, Yngvar W. and McKendree, William G. 1977a Generalized Map of Recorded Joint Systems of New York. New York State Museum Map and Chart Series No. 31F.
Isachsen, Yngvar W. and McKendree, William G. 1977b Preliminary Brittle Structures Map of New York. New York State Museum Map and Chart Series No. 31E.
Jarvis, Nancy 1988 Interview conducted by William S. Hecht.
Jarvis, Nancy January 1990 Cortland County Groundwater Coordinator, personal communication.
Jensen, David E. 1932 Some Aspects of the Sedimentation of the Oriskany Formation of West-Central New York. Unpublished M.S. Thesis, University of Rochester.
Kantrowitz, Irving H. 1970 Ground Water Resources in the Eastern Oswego River Basin. New York Water Resources Commission Basin Planning Report ORB-2, 129p..
Kreidler, W. Lynn et. all 1972 Deep Wells of New York State, New York State Museum and Science Service, Bulletin Number 418A.
Kreidler, Wm. Lynn 1959 Selected Deep Wells and Areas of Gas Production in Eastern and Central New York, New York State Museum and Science Service Bulletin Number 373.
Kreidler, Wm. Lynn 1963 Selected Deep Wells and Areas of Gas Production in Western New York, New York State Museum and Science Service Bulletin Number 390.
Likens, Gene E. 1974 February The Runoff of Water and Nutrients From Watersheds Tributary to Cayuga Lake, New York. Cornell Water Resources and Marine Sciences Center Technical Report No. 81 124pp..
Lister, James 10/14/1988 Mr. Lister is a Senior Sanitary Engineer with the NYSDEC Bureau of Water Quality Management. Personal conversation and in house memorandum he supplied to author.
Long, Tatum E. 1922 Minor Faulting in the Cayuga Lake Region. American Journal of Science-Fifth Series, Vol.3, No.16 April, 1922.
Luther, D.D. 1910 Geology of the Auburn-Genoa Quadrangle. New York State Museum Bulletin 137, 36p.
Male, Tom 12/2/88 Personal conversation with Tom Male of the DEC in Syracuse, NY.
Miller, Todd S. 1988 Unconsolidated Aquifers in the Upstate New York -- Finger Lakes Sheet. USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 87-4122.
Mosher, Ralph 1989 Cayuga County Tax Assessor. Personal communication, June 23, 1989.
Muller, Ernst and Cadwell, Donald H. 1986 Surficial Geologic Map of New York. New York State Museum Map and Chart Series 40.
NYCRR 6, Part 617 June 1, 1987 State Environmental Quality Review, Statutory authority: Environmental Conservation Law, Section 8-0113.
NYS Dept. Ag. + Markets January 1985 The Importance of Agriculture to Cayuga County. New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets, Division of Rural Affairs, in cooperation with the Cayuga County Planning Department.
NYSCRR Subchapter B, Part 550.
NYSDEC 1951 The Ground Water Resources of Wayne County New York, Water Power and Control Commission Bulletin GW-29. Griswald, R.E.
NYSDEC 1980 Freshwater Wetlands. Article 24 and Title 23 of Article 71 of the Environmental Conservation Law.
NYSDEC 1982 State Environmental Quality Review Act; The SEQR Handbook. Issued by NYSDEC Division of Regulatory Affairs.
NYSDEC 1983 SPDES...Water Pollution Control In New York. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, December 1983.
NYSDEC 1986 Oil, Gas and Solution Mining Well Drilling Environmental Assessment Form Part II.
NYSDEC 1986 Water Quality Regulations: Surface Water and Groundwater Classifications and Standards, New York State Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations.
NYSDEC 1987 Groundwater Management Program: Summary. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany.
NYSDEC 1987 May Final Upstate New York Groundwater Management Program.
NYSDEC 1988a. Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement On the Oil Gas and Solution Mining Regulatory Program; Volume 1,2 and 3. January 1988.
NYSDEC 1988b. Tank Bulletin. NYSDEC Division of Water, Bureau of Information and Bulk Storage; Volume 1, Number 1 Spring, 1988.
NYSDEC 1989a File on record in DEC's Syracuse office on the Auburn City landfill.
NYSDEC 1989b Unpublished files on specific hazardous waste sites in Cayuga County reviewed by author.
NYSDEC 1990 January Engineering Investigations at Inactive Hazardous Waste Sites, Phase 1 Investigation Town Line Road Dumpsite, Site No. 706007.
NYSDEC1987 May Water Bulletin May 1987 Number 40.
NYSDEC1988 July Quarterly Status Report of Inactive Hazardous Waste Disposal Sites.
NYSDEDC 1983 September The Upstate Groundwater Problem Inventory. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation- Bureau of Water Resources.
NYSDOH 1956 Oswego River Drainage Basin Survey Series Report No. 4; Finger Lakes Drainage Basin. New York State Department of Health; Water Pollution Control Board.
O'Brian and Gere 1987 Hazardous Waste Site Remediation: The Engineers Perspective. Syracuse N.Y., September 1987.
O'Hara, Ward 1989 Aurelius. Published by author.
Oliver, W. A. 1951 Middle Devonian Coral Beds of Central New York. American Journal of Science, V. 249: page,705-728 October 1951.
Oliver, W. A. 1963 The Onondaga Limestone. In Stratigraphy, Facies Changes and Paleoecology of the Lower Devonian Helderberg Limestones and Middle Devonian Onondaga Limestone. Geological Society of America Guidebook, Field Trip #1, New York, pp. 11-16, 20-21, 26-27, 29-33.
Oliver, W. A. 1981 Devonian Biostratigraphy of New York. International Union of Geological Sciences, Subcommission on Devonian Stratigraphy, part 1 text and part 2 stop descriptions.
Oliver, W.A. 1956a Biostromes and Biohermes of the Onondaga Limestone in Eastern New York. New York State Museum Circular 45.
Oliver, W.A. 1956b Stratigraphy of the Onondaga Limestone in Eastern New York. Geological Society of America Bull. 67: p. 1441-1474.
Oliver, W.A. 1960 Coral Faunas in the Onondaga Limestone of New York. United States Geological Survey Professional Paper 400-B: 172-174.
Oliver, W.A. 1966 Bois Blanc and the Onondaga Formations in Western New York and Adjacent Ontario. New York State Geological Association Guidebook, 38th Annual Meeting, SUNY Buffalo, p. 32-43.
Oliver, W.A. 1967 Stratigraphy of the Bois Blanc Formation in New York. U.S.G.S. Prof. Paper 584-A.
Oliver, W.A. 1983 Silurian and Devonian Corals and Stromatoporoids of New York. Forth International Symposium on Fossil Cnidaria, James E. Sorauf and William A. Oliver Jr. Editors.
Oliver, W.A.; deWitt, W. Jr.; Dennison, J.M.; Hoskins, D.M.; and Huddle, J.W.1967 Devonian of the Appalachian Basin, United States. In Oswald, D.H., ed., International Symposium on the Devonian System, Part 1, p. 1001-1040.
Oliver, W.A.;deWitt, W. Jr.; Dennison, J.M.; Hoskins, D.M.; and Huddle, J.W.1969 Correlation of Devonian Rock Units in the Appalachian Basin. U.S.G.S. Oil and Gas Investigation Chart OC-64.
Oliver, William A. 1954 Stratigraphy of the Onondaga Limestone (Devonian) in Central New York. Bulletin of the Geological Society of America Vol. 65 p.621-652 July 1954.
Oliver, William A. Jr. (United States Geological Survey) and Hecht, William S. Well Preserved Favositid Corals in the Oriskany Sandstone (Lower Devonian) of New York, , accepted for publication by the New York State Museum, Albany, New York, 1991 (Funded in part by United States Geological Survey).
Page, William G. 1987 Planning for Groundwater Protection. Academic Press, New York.
Podwysocki, M.H. and Pohn, Howard 1982 Evaluation of Remote Sensing, Geological, and Geophysical Data for South-Central New York and Northern Pennsylvania. USGS Open FIle Report 82-319.(unpublished)
Pohn, Howard June 1981 Joint Spacing as a Method of Locating Faults. Geology Vol. 9 p. 258-261.
Pohn, Howard July 1987 Central Appalachia Gets New Look. Northeast Oil World
Pohn, Howard 1988 Disturbed Zones, Lateral Ramps and Their Relationship to the Structural Framework of the Central Appalachians. Eastern Section AAPG Meeting, Guidebook for Field Trip 3.
Pohn, Howard January 31, 1990 Meeting between Mr. Pohn and the author at USGS Reston, VA..
Rickard, L.V. 1962 Late Cayugan (Upper Silurian) and Helderbergian (Lower Devonian) Stratigraphy in New York. New York State Museum Bulletin #386, 157p..
Rickard, L.V. 1969 Stratigraphy of the Upper Silurian Salina Group New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Ontario. New York State Museum and Science Service, Map and Chart 12, 57p..
Rickard, L.V. 1973 Stratigraphy and Structure of the Subsurface Cambrian and Ordovician Carbonates of New York. New York State Museum and Science Service Map and Chart Series No. 18, 26p..
Rickard, L.V. 1984 Correlations of the Subsurface Lower and Middle Devonian of the Lake Erie Region. Geological Society of America Bulletin, V. 95, p. 814-828.
Rickard, L.V. and Fisher, D. 1970 Geologic Map, Finger Lakes Sheet. New York State Museum and Science Service Series #15.
Robinson, Joseph 1989 Personal communication with the author.
Schoenbaum, Thomas J. 1985 Environmental Policy Law. The Foundation Press, Mineola, NY.
SEQR 6/1/1987 New York State Environmental Quality Review Act, 6 NYCRR Part 617.
Stearns and Wheler 1977 Unpublished feasibility study on supplemental water supplies; December 16, 1977.
Stone and Webster 1979 New York and Ohio Technical Update and Summary; A Report of the Geologic Project Manager Salina Basin for the Period February, 1978 - September, 1979. October 1979. Prepared for the Office of Nuclear Waste Isolation. Battelle Memorial Institute, Project Management Division.
Sutherland, Tony 1989 Manager of Miller Brewing Drilling and natural gas production field in Cayuga County. Personal communication.
Tedrow, Al 1988 With DEC's Division of Water Quality, Albany; personal conversation December 1988.
The Citizen Advertiser 1/8/89 Tests Confirm Water Contaminated. By Brenda Hiles, Auburn, New York.
Thompson, John H. 1977 Geography of New York State. Syracuse University Press, 543pp.
US Department of Agriculture May 1971 Soil Survey: Cayuga County New York.
USDOA 1926 Soil Survey of Cayuga County New York. pp 1023-1079.
USDOA June 1972 United States Department of Agriculture Report for the Oswego River Basin. Western New York Type IV River Basins Study.
USEPA March 29-30, 1990 Management Workshop: Wellhead Protection Programs: Tools for Local Governments. Ithaca, NY.
USGS 1990 GWSI data base of groundwater resources stored on computer in Albany New York but accessed through terminal at USGS office in Ithaca New York.
VanTyne, Arthur M. October 1966 Progress Report- Subsurface Stratigraphy of the Pre Rochester Silurian Rocks of New York. 25th Technical Conference on Petroleum Production, Proceeding of the Symposium; Petroleum Geology of the Appalachian Basin. Pennsylvania State University.
Viessmann, Warren and Welty, Claire 1985 Water Management Technology and Institutions. Harper and Row.
von Engeln, O.D. 1961 The Finger Lakes Region: Its Origin and Nature. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY. 156pp.
Waltman, William 1990 Unpublished report and GIS system for Iroquois Pipeline.
Water Pollution Control Federation 1987 The Clean Water Act of 1987, 2nd ed. Alexandria, Virginia , July 9, 1987.
Weist, W.G. and Giese, G.L. 1969 The Water Resources of the Central New York Region. prepared by United States Department of Interior and New York Water Resources Commission Bulletin 64, 58p..
Yager, Tom 1989 Personal communications by author with Mr. Yager of the USGS Ithaca.
Yager, Richard M and Kappel William M. 1987 Detection and Characterization of Fractures and Their Relation to Groundwater Movement in the Lockport Dolomite, Niagra County, New York. In Pollution, Risk Assessment, and Remediation in Groundwater Systems, Edited by Reza M. Khanbilvardi and John Fillos; Scientific Publications Inc..
Youngblood, Barbara 1988 Environmental Radiation Specialist with the DEC's Bureau of Energy in Albany, personal conversation December1988.
Zenger, Donald H. 1965 Stratigraphy of the Lockport Formation (Middle Silurian) in New York State. New York State Museum and Science Service Bulletin Number 404, p.210.