Hydro-fracking

April 6 2012 Update
By Maryanne Adams

Fracking on the Big Screen
Two films with opposite points of view about hydraulic fracturing will be in production soon. Matt Damon will be starring in an anti-fracking film called “The Promised Land.” Not many plot details are available; we only know that ‘a salesman experiences life-changing events after arriving in a small town’. It is known that another well-known actor, John Krasinski of “The Office” will co-star. Filming will take place in the Pittsburgh area, starting in late April and continuing through June. Already, pro-fracking interests are concerned that this new film will ‘increase unfounded concerns about fracking’.

To counter this, Ann McElhinney and Phelim McAleer will be directing a film that they call “FrackNation.” According to them, “There are two sides to every story. Then there is the truth. FrackNation is the film that will tell the truth about fracking.” McElhinney and McAleer intend to point out misrepresentations in Josh Fox’s Gasland and to show how fracking helps those who are suffering from economic hard times. They have been using a fundraising site called Kickstarter to raise money for their project. (I just looked there (4/6/12) and saw that $212,265 has been pledged. This surpasses their goal of $150,000.)

April, 5, 2012 Update
By Maryanne Adams

Leaders of the Tioga County Landowners Association have reached an agreement with eCorp, GasFrac Energy Services to begin fracturing Marcellus Shale using liquid propane. They believe that this process, which involves the use of liquid propane instead of millions of gallons of water, is not included under New York State’s current moratorium. They hope that initial test wells in Tioga County will demonstrate the environmental benefits of the Gasfrac process (less water use and less waste) and will also prove the worth of the Marcellus and Utica Shales in terms of productivity. The landowner coalition and GasFrac Energy Services will be able to move forward with their plan as long as it is determined that the regulations outlined in New York’s Generic Environmental Impact Statement (SGEIS) from 1992 are deemed applicable to propane fracking.
Sourced from Gannett’s Press Connects. Read more about this issue on Press Connects.

Find out more about this development by reading Fred LeBrun’s thought-provoking commentary in the Albany Times Union.

April 1, 2012 Update
By Maryanne Adams, Conservation Chair

For those of you who are interested in what is happening with regard to fracking in Pennsylvania, here is a link to the April, 2012 edition of “Marcellus Monthly,” a newsletter from Marcellus Protest of Western Pennsylvania. You may link to it at http://www.marcellusprotest.org/news.

February 23, 2012 Update
By Maryanne Adams, Conservation Chair

It seems that nearly every day there’s another development having to do with hydraulic fracturing. If you would like to receive daily updates via e-mail, you may join the Marcellus Protest discussion group at Google Groups. Although much of the information is generated from Pennsylvania, New York State also receives attention. It’s been a very useful source of information for me.

There is reason to hope that towns and communities that wish to ban fracking will be allowed to do so in New York. On Tuesday, February 21, State Supreme Court Judge Phillip Rumsey ruled that the Town of Dryden’s zoning amendment that banned oil and gas exploration was not pre-empted by state law. That’s good news for most of the residents of the Ithaca suburb, but not-so-good for Denver-based Anschutz Exploration Corp. who leased more than 22,000 acres there and has already invested $5.1 million in drilling operations. When ruling on this issue, Judge Rumsey wrote some strong words in support of home rule:

Nowhere in the legislative history (of the state oil and gas law) is there any
suggestion that the legislature intended – as argued by Anschutz—to encourage
the maximum ultimate recovery of oil and gas . . . or to preempt local zoning
authority.

If the corporation wishes to challenge Judge Rumsey’s decision, Anschutz has 30 days to appeal in state court.

An article by Sharon Guynup, “The Fracking Industry Buys Congress,” provides some alarming statistics that demonstrate how the oil and gas industry has used billions of dollars from fracking profits to effectively block federal regulation. According to Guynup, “Today, only four of 31 fracking states have significant drilling rules, while the gas industry is exempted from seven major federal regulations.”

There are approximately 493,000 natural gas wells of this type across the United States. For years, complaints about human health problems, tainted drinking water, and the deaths of livestock and pets had been dismissed as anecdotal in the absence of scientific data. But, finally there IS data linking fracking to the contamination of an aquifer. From 2008-2011, the EPA investigated complaints from the residents around the 162 natural gas wells dug in Pavillion, Wyoming between 1990 and 2006. The EPA identified numerous fracking chemicals in Pavillion’s water. According to the report, “cancer-causing benzene was found at 50 times safe levels, along with other hazardous chemicals, methane, diesel fuel, and toxic metals – in both groundwater and deep wells.”

The House subcommittee on Energy and the Environment is currently holding hearings on the EPA’s Pavillion report. And, in spite of the evidence directly linking water pollution to fracking, it is the conclusions of the EPA report that are being attacked by the industry and pro-drilling politicians. Subcommittee chairman Andy Harris, a Maryland Republican, accuses the EPA of ‘trying to go after fracking everywhere they can’ and that they have ‘absolutely no proof that fracking had polluted drinking water, that I know of.’Industry spokesmen and elected officials like Harris blame the media for creating “a poorly-informed frenzy, spreading fear and mistrust of fracking.” They must not like the simple explanation from EPA’s James Martin that cement casings that should have protected Pavillion’s water were weak or missing from some wells.

In addition to documenting a variety of problems linked to fracking nationwide, the article provides exact amounts of cash donated to political campaigns and for lobbying efforts by the oil and gas industry since 1990. The donations to several specific individuals who were put into office are also given. Is it any surprise that Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett received $361,207 from the industry to help get him elected? Guynup goes on to discuss existing loopholes in current industry regulation and the need for appropriate mandates for the protection of public health. I can’t do this article justice in a summary. There are far too many interesting details supporting Guynup’s premise. I urge you to read it for yourself.

Another great source of information about the impacts of unconventional gas drilling is a website maintained by a group called “Protecting Our Waters.” Protecting Our Waters is “a Philadelphia-based grassroots alliance committed to protecting the Delaware River Basin, the state of Pennsylvania, and our region from unconventional gas drilling and other threats to our drinking water, environment, and public health”. Two recent articles by Iris Marie Bloom illustrate the seriousness of the impact of water contamination on families who can no longer use their well water safely:

•  “SOS Butler County: Black Water + Purple Water= A Fracking Nightmare” (2/11/12)
•  “Help Butler County Families Hurt by Gas Drilling Now!” (2/24/12)

In an area near thirty gas wells, 51 neighbors have reported discolored, foamy, and/or smelly water. (That is, unless their wells have dried up.)  In addition, residents often have to put up with “odor events.”  An “odor event” is the term regulators use to describe the overpowering stench often encountered at drilling operations. Even worse, health symptoms like rashes, nosebleeds, vomiting, and headaches are also being reported.  The lack of assistance from authorities and the unwillingness of Rex Energy to bear responsibility for the water problems may make it impossible for people to stay in their homes. (These articles and others that may be of interest can be easily accessed at the Protecting Our Waters website.)

When you read about the health problems of people living near intensive drilling operations, you might wonder why not much is being done to help them. Well, finally, things are about to change. A medical program to assess the health impacts of widespread Marcellus Shale gas development has been set up in Washington County, Pennsylvania. This county has about 700 Marcellus Shale gas wells and a dozen compressor stations.  On February 14, the nonprofit Southwest Pennsylvania Environmental Health Project (SPEHP) opened its office in response to “growing local and medical concerns over the potential health effects from hazardous chemical and pollutant releases associated with the rapid growth of shale gas development”. The office in McMurray will help residents understand exposure pathways and will conduct medical exams and evaluations. A nurse-practitioner will be on staff to make home visits.  In the words of Raina Rippel, project director, ‘Our goal is to help individuals—help them navigate the health care systems, help them get the answers to the health care questions they have and put them in contact with the resources they need, whether that’s water testing or filtration or medical systems.’ All services will be free of charge to area residents.

The SPEHP has a website that describes their services in detail. They even provide a fact sheet for those who are concerned about pollution in their immediate environment, called “Here are 3 Good Things to Do if You Live Near Gas Drilling.” After I read their suggestions, (“Vent the air in places where you use water,” for example) I felt a bit unsettled. This is not the Third World.  I feel sorry for any American families who would need to take such steps in their own homes in order to protect themselves from pollution.

February 2012 Fracking Update—New York and Pennsylvania

By Maryanne Adams, Conservation Chair

“THANK YOU,” to all who wrote letters to the Department of Environmental Conservation, Governor Cuomo, and other legislators. You certainly did make a difference! According to Fred LeBrun, there’s “a lull in the fight over bringing hydrofracking to New York” . It will take months for the DEC to review the 61,000 comments it received regarding the dSGEIS before it can create appropriate regulations for allowing hydrofracking in New York State. At the present time, both Cuomo and DEC Commissioner, Joe Martens, say “no decision has been made as to whether fracking will actually be allowed in the state”. But, ultimately, it is Governor Cuomo who has the final say. On Wednesday he told the Syracuse Post-Standard that “a decision about it could come ‘in a couple of months’” .

When questioned about the time schedule for gas drilling in New York State, DEC Commissioner Martens commented that “It is ‘conceivable’ a handful of permits could be issued this year”. Will the review of all the SGEIS comments be completed that soon?

A factor that may affect the future profitability of drilling for natural gas in New York is “keeping options alive on the cheap leases negotiated with landowners in the Southern Tier and Catskills” . Many of these leases have already expired and more will as time passes. Gas companies are attempting to obtain a court ruling that would include “time-consuming governmental rule-making as an unforeseeable impediment” , like wars or natural disasters, so they would be allowed to renew leases with the original terms. Lawyers who are familiar with such leasing issues have told LeBrun that “it’s possible drilling a few wells might be enough to keep the cheap options alive for when Chesapeake might want to come roaring back to New York”.

Should we be concerned about the “handful of permits” that might be issued this year? Issuing them would indicate that there was a business-friendly administration at the helm. LeBrun points out that fostering this impression would be helpful to Governor Cuomo if he were to consider running for President.

At the end of January, I came across an internet posting by journalist Ellen Cantarow titled “Fracking Gets Its Own Occupy Movement.” In it she explains how the grassroots movement made up of people from all social strata and walks of life came into existence in New York as people learned about the process of hydraulic fracturing and all its implications. Out of discussions from neighbors meeting in livingrooms grew the first anti-fracking organizations. As people became aware of the problems that were developing in heavily drilled areas of Pennsylvania, the word continued to spread and the influence of these people and organizations grew. Gas corporations “have spent millions of dollars on advertising, lobbying, and political contributions to counter it” .

In May, 2009, after visiting Dimock, Pennsylvania, lawyers Helen and David Slottje decided to devote all of their time to doing pro bono work in support of the anti-fracking movement. Because of their interpretation of the home rule provision in New York State’s constitution, many towns decided to fight fracking by zoning it out. As of January 25, 2012, 61 towns have blocked fracking by banning it or declaring moratoria.

The degree of public involvement became very clear early in 2012 when the DEC received an astounding number of dSGEIS comment letters. Agency officials told the New York Times that they knew of no issues that had generated even 1,000 comment letters before this ). And, by the way, Gannett’s Albany Bureau reported that “anti-drilling submissions outnumber those of drilling supporters by at least ten to one” .

In stark contrast, on February 8, 2012, the Pennsylvania legislature passed House Bill 1950- “a one-size-fits-all ordinance that super cedes all existing ordinances and prevents municipalities from adopting any zoning provisions that are stricter than the [state’s] weak, mandated standards” . In addition, “The bill requires that all types of oil and gas operations (except for natural gas processing plants) – unlike any other commercial or industrial business – be allowed in all zoning districts, even in residential neighborhoods and near schools, parks, hospitals, and sensitive natural and cultural resource protection areas”. Another provision of this bill is that “impact fees” will be provided to municipalities where gas operations take place. However, it also prohibits municipalities from “regulating drilling activities more stringently than other industrial activities if they want to remain eligible for the fee revenues”. Pa. State representative Jesse White blasts the Marcellus Shale bill on You Tube for eleven minutes as a “one-sided giveaway to billion-dollar drilling conglomerates that strips local government of reasonable controls” .

The placement and construction of pipelines to transport Marcellus shale gas is another issue with the potential for huge impact on New Yorkers. Again, events in Pennsylvania could foreshadow what might happen in New York should fracking be permitted. On November 14, 2011, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) approved the $250 million MARC 1 pipeline. This 39-mile natural gas pipeline will pass through “northern Pennsylvania’s pristine Endless Mountains”. In the AP wire story, “Landowners Fight Eminent Domain in Pa. Gas Field,” Michael Rubinkam of Laporte, Pennsylvania, describes the interaction between Central New York Oil and Gas Co., LLC, and landowners who would be affected by the pipeline. The company insisted that it was “acquiring land ‘through negotiated agreements with landowners, thus minimizing the need’ to condemn people’s land”. However, within two days of gaining approval for the project from FERC, CNY Oil and Gas began eminent domain proceedings against 74 out of 152 property owners in Bradford, Lycoming, and Sullivan Counties. In this situation, “eminent domain” does not mean that landowners would lose their property; rather, the company would be accorded “the right to excavate and lay the 30-inch diameter pipeline on private property”. Although the Environmental Protection Agency had concerns that the pipeline project might damage the forest ecosystem and the FERC had received 22,000 comments raising safety and environmental concerns, the commission decided that the pipeline would not significantly impact the environment and granted approval.

Some landowners are concerned that they are not receiving adequate compensation for the easements. Others care more about the pipeline’s route. “The company told Bob Swartz that it plans to cut a 50-foot-wide long gash through an ancient stand of trees across the front of his property. When Swartz proposed an alternate route through an open field that would preserve his trees and views, the company said it wasn’t interested and offered instead to pay him for the wood”. Is it any wonder that landowners are worried?

Dr. Sandra Steingraber, one of the most eloquent voices to speak up for the environment, clean air, and clean water, gave a moving speech at a rally in Albany on 1/23/2012. In this speech, she compared banning fracking to abolishing slavery. She made the point that “doing fracking ‘right’ simply means building time bombs with longer fuses”. She pointed out that a week before her speech was made that the country of Bulgaria announced a total ban on fracking. The ban is permanent and unlimited. The permits that had been issued to Chevron have been revoked. This was not easy to accomplish, but the citizens of Bulgaria marched in the streets until their parliament listened. Steingraber pointed out that Harriet Tubman “did not advocate for state of the art slavery or for promulgating 1500 pages of regulations about slavery or for allowing a few showcase plantations in the Southern Tier to demonstrate how slavery could be done right. Harriet Tubman settled for nothing less than a total ban, on the grounds that slave labor – however useful to the economy- is a homicidal abomination”. Steingraber asks New Yorkers if they are meeker, more frightened, or more resigned to a toxic future than the people of Bulgaria. In my opinion, she makes a very good point.

If any reader has not yet formed an opinion about whether or not High Volume Slick Water Hydraulic Fracturing would be beneficial to the residents of New York State, I encourage you to watch the 216-slide Power Point presentation put together by Dr. Stephen Cleghorn and his late wife, Lucinda. It recently became available for viewing online. When they realized that their organic farm in Jefferson County, Pennsylvania might be fracked because of a previous-existing lease, the Cleghorns spent many hours researching hydraulic fracturing. Their presentation “makes a case for a moratorium on unconventional gas drilling in Pennsylvania (or anywhere) until there is a scientific consensus that it cannot cause irreparable environmental harm to one half of our state and all its living populations of people and creatures” . The presentation takes about an hour and ten minutes to view. Because it is so informative and well-documented, it is well-worth the time needed to watch the entire slide show.

I wish to point out two slides that had a lot of impact for me. Slide # 179 clearly illuminates the long-term economic risk of fracking New York. It compares the potential Marcellus Shale Royalties–$16 billion, to other upstate New York incomes. Wildlife Watching, Hunting and Fishing, Dairy, Grapes and Wine, Farm Receipts, and Tourism have a potential yield of $350 billion. According to Cleghorn, “Industrializing the countryside could compromise and diminish the other larger drivers of rural economies” .

Slide #202 presents a concept called The Precautionary Principle. It is based on the UNESCO statement of the principle. It states that:
When credible evidence exists that irreparable harm to the public health
or the environment is possible, and in the absence of scientific consensus
that an activity cannot cause such irreparable harm, the burden of proof for
proceeding with such activity falls upon those who wish to undertake it.

With regard to fracking, “I (Cleghorn) do not believe such a consensus is possible because there are too many facts arrayed against this drilling ever being safe. But first we have to stop it”.

On February 8, 2012, a report prepared by the Democratic Staff of the Natural Resources Committee at the request of Representatives Edward J. Markey and Rush D. Hart became available. The title says it all. Drilling Dysfunction—How the failure to Oversee Drilling on Public Lands Endangers Health and the Environment. It clearly demonstrates the difficulty of monitoring natural gas production on public lands. I was surprised to read that in the last 5 years, “more than 90 percent of the natural gas wells drilled on federal lands were accessed using hydraulic fracturing”. A variety of procedural violations were described as well as the inconsistent issuance of monetary fines. In addition, fines issued for a variety of safety and environmental reasons are inconsequential in the eyes of the gas companies. For example, in 2003 when an operator was caught discharging fluids directly into the Washita River in Oklahoma, the fine levied was $2,500 – “less than what some of the largest oil and gas companies can earn in a minute”. You may access the entire report about drilling on public lands at http://catskillcitizens.org/.

Just four days after the report describing these oversight problems was made available, President Obama made a speech in Las Vegas touting natural gas as a way to power our cars, homes, and factories in a “cleaner and cheaper way”. He indicated that the supply of natural gas could last America nearly a hundred years and that it could support “more than 600,000 jobs by the end of the decade”. (These glowing projections about the gas supply and the resultant jobs were called into question at http://catskillcitizens.org/.) In the same speech, the President also stated that he “wanted to lead by example by promoting the safe use of hydraulic fracturing on public lands.” (Apparently, he has not yet had time to read the report from the Natural Resources Committee.)

The President’s endorsement of the development of natural gas was excellent news for the gas industry. So was Kevin D. Williamson’s pro-fracking piece in which he states “the advent of fracking… prompted the state [Pennsylvania] Department of Environmental protection to overhaul its regulatory regime, working closely with individual firms and industry groups to develop best practices and high environmental standards” . He explains how the state of Pennsylvania has developed “a system of environmental-protection regulations that actually works”. I wonder how many Pennsylvania residents would agree with this observation of Mr. Williamson.

In New York State, three bills related to fracking have been introduced in the legislature. One of these bills, S5830, has a chance of passing in the current session. Called the “Home Rule” bill, it “clarifies the right of towns to enact zoning ordinances that prohibit fracking”. Bill A7013/S4616 passed in the Assembly last year, but not the Senate. It closes “the hazardous waste loophole that permits the oil and gas industry to get away with improperly disposing of toxic and radioactive wastewater”. Last, but not least, bill A07218A/S4220-A, would “prohibit hydraulic fracturing anywhere in the state”.

Letter to New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

As Conservation Chair of the Onondaga Audubon Society and member of Audubon New York, I provide the following comments on the RDSGEIS for the Oil, Gas, and Solution Mining Regulatory Program. I am deeply concerned with the rush to expand drilling for natural gas and the profound and lasting impacts this large scale industrial process could have on public health and the landscape of New York State. This current draft does not adequately protect birds, other wildlife and their habitats from drilling.

First, the Marcellus shale region includes some of the best remaining unfragmented forests in our state. As numerous wells, roads, pipelines and other infrastructure will be built to facilitate expanded drilling; this will undoubtedly cause fragmentation of this precious habitat, adversely affecting fauna and flora throughout the drilling region. In the SGEIS, the cumulative effects of the entire development process of the Marcellus shale have not been addressed. The SGEIS discusses the impact of wells and roads but leaves out the environmental impact of building thousands of miles of pipelines and multiple compressor stations. These will cause further fragmentation of habitat. The New York State Public Service Commission has the regulatory authority over constructing and operating natural gas gathering pipes. There has not been a full analysis of the cumulative and indirect impacts of gas pipelines taken together with the impacts of hydraulic fracturing. The public Service Commission needs to be made a cooperating agency so that a full analysis of the environmental effects of the actions of drilling, hydro fracturing, collecting, and transporting natural gas be considered as a single entity.

Next, while I support the DEC’s efforts to reduce the impact of fragmentation by prohibiting drilling on state lands, I am particularly alarmed that 40 of our state’s 136 Important Bird Areas are found within the projected drilling area and yet are not included as a Key Habitat Focus Area. They must be. Some of these IBA’s are not protected because they are on private land. Others are off-limits only temporarily and may be developed after a “sunset date.” In addition, some areas, called “buffer-zones” will only receive site-specific environmental review, not straight-forward protection. Fragmentation of core forests and large grasslands will further endanger bird species already in decline. These include forest species such as Wood Thrush and Cerulean Warbler and grassland birds like Northern Harrier, Bobolink, Savannah Sparrow, and Eastern Meadowlark. All important bird habitat needs to remain permanently off-limits to gas development.
Another troublesome detail is that open waste pits are not clearly banned by the SGEIS. According to section 5.11.1, Flow back Water Recovery, flow back water could range from 216,000 gallons to 2.7 million gallons per well. That is a great deal of liquid to isolate and confine. Section 5.11.2, states that “the Department will require water-tight tanks for on-site handling of flow back water for wells covered by the SGEIS.” In 5.2.5.2 the SGEIS states that using a closed-loop tank system will eliminate the need for a reserve pit. “The objective is to fully contain the cuttings and fluids in such a manner as to prevent direct contact with the ground surface or the need to construct a lined reserve pit” (SGEIS). However, in section 5.2.5.1, there is a discussion about lined reserve pits (also called “drilling pits” or “mud pits”) which contain cuttings and fluids used during the drilling process. A single pit may be maintained at the well pad until “all wells are drilled and completed” (SGEIS). Even though fluid associated with each well would have to be removed “within 45 days of the cessation of drilling operations,” this may not happen if the operation has submitted a plan to use the fluid in subsequent operations and the Department has inspected and approved the pit” (SGEIS).This is not acceptable. If multiple wells are present, the drilling process may go on for months or even years. How long will an open pit of toxic fluid be allowed to remain?

In section 5.13.2, Reserve Pit Liner from Mud Drilling, there is mention of on-site burial for plastic liners used for reserve pits. The document goes on to say “pit liners for reserve pits where polymer- or oil-based drilling muds are used must be removed from the site by a permitted Part 364 Waste Transporter and properly disposed in a solid waste landfill” (SGEIS). Insects trapped in reserve pit fluids attract songbirds, bats, amphibians, and small mammals. The risk of mortality to any organism landing in an open reserve pit containing oil-based fluid is very high. Therefore, the SGEIS should make it clear that open reserve pits of toxic flow back are not to be allowed. This SGEIS should reflect the highest levels of protection for wildlife.

Yet another issue is the ecological impact of water use for HVHF. Removal of water for fracking from the water cycle is permanent. Each hydrofracked shale gas well will require roughly 5 million gallons of water. If 70,000 Marcellus wells are drilled, 350 billion gallons of water will be removed from the environment. The impact on our surface water will be significant and wildlife that depends on this water will suffer adverse effects. According article by John L. Confer, New York State Ornithological Association Conservation Committee member, the SGEIS “seriously misrepresents the ecological impact of [water] withdrawal for HVHF” (http://www.nybirds.org/Articles/conservation/fracking-SGEIS comments-confer 2011_10.html.). Confer points out that “the estimate of ecological impact of water use for HVHF compares water used for HVHF in a localized part of the state to water withdrawn for the entire state” ((www.nybirds.org). It would be more realistic to compare the volume of water used for fracking to other water uses within the region where fracking will occur. The estimated ecological impact of water use for HVHF is therefore MUCH greater than the impact described in the SGEIS. The perception that the impact of water use for hydraulic fracturing will be minimal is inaccurate and should be modified in the SGEIS to ensure that the aquatic ecosystems of New York State will be given the protection and oversight they deserve. There need to be an adequate number of DEC staff members in place to monitor them.

I wholeheartedly endorse the position of Audubon New York and agree with the points that were made in the 22-page letter that was sent to Commissioner Martens. It would be silly for me to reiterate them here. Let me just say that I would like to emphasize the need for an intense revision of the section of the SGEIS dealing with lighting at well pads. There is no reason why the most stringent guidelines for down-shielding light should not be followed. Also, the gas industry should be required to employ light sources that minimize the kind of lighting that is most harmful to migrating birds. Every effort must be made to minimize the potential for large bird kills during migration. And, as our scientific knowledge improves, the industry should be required to update their lighting practices to keep up with these developments.

I appreciate the DEC for requiring Best Management Practices (BMPs); however, it is unclear how effective this will be in reducing the impacts to forests and grasslands. The DEC must develop regulations to protect forest and grassland habitats and wildlife and not approach this through the permitting process. The DEC must also develop benchmarks for environmental and biotic integrity to be used to evaluate the drilling impacts and to trigger changes in regulations if necessary.

In order to fully understand the impacts to key habitats and species, the DEC must undertake a comprehensive cumulative impact analysis before finalizing this impact statement, and ensure proper mitigation funding is established. Before drilling is permitted in the state, these inadequacies must be addressed.

Thank you for consideration of these comments.

Maryanne Adams
Conservation Chair
Onondaga Audubon

Information Resources

 The amount of information about fracking can be overwhelming. So is the idea of reading the entire draft SGEIS, and making suggestions for improving it. A very good way to get a better understanding of the fracking process, its cumulative impacts, and ideas for your letters to the DEC and to government officials is to visit shaleshockmedia.org. At that site, you’ll be able to access videos of some of the best presentations that have been given on the subject.

 Once you are at the shaleshockmedia site, you can type the name of a person or an event in the “Find Something” search box and a direct link to a video presentation will appear. All you need to do is click on the arrow on the screen to start the show. Here are some good sources of information:

• Dr. Anthony Ingraffea
• Dr. Sandra Steingraber
• James (Chip) Northrup
• Tompkins County Forum on Revised Draft SGEIS (July 25, 2010)
• Fracking the Fingerlakes – conference in Hammondsport, NY (9-15-11)

The last reference I’d like to mention is “Natural Gas Drilling in the Marcellus Shale: Potential Impacts on the Tourism Economy of the Southern Tier” by Andrew Rumbach, a doctoral candidate in the Department of City and Regional Planning at Cornell University. It was written in April, 2011 and can be found at stcplanning.org.  This thorough document clearly describes the potential impacts of gas drilling on the tourism economy and the quality of life in the region. Most importantly, it provides data and facts that support the author’s conclusions.