IMPACT OF HYDRAULIC FRACTURING ON WILDLIFE
By E.M. FAY
There is considerable debate about the environmental effects of the natural gas extraction method called hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” for short.   
Interested parties include energy corporations, landowners, politicians, state “conservation” agencies, and individuals concerned with the damage to water, soil, and air.  The risks of fracking to humans have been extensively discussed, but less time has been devoted to the deadly impacts on wildlife.
Conventional well-drilling uses under 80,000 gallons of water per well.  But a more recent, aggressive technique, “high-volume horizontal hydraulic fracturing,” requires millions of gallons of water per well.  
High-volume hydraulic fracturing releases natural gas from the ground by high-pressure injection of water, sand, and chemical agents into horizontally drilled wells.  Rock layers are cracked by the pressurized mixture, the fissures held open by the sand; then gas is released from shale and flows up through the well. (www.propublica.org )
Natural gas is touted as a “greener,” alternative fuel that burns more cleanly than coal or oil.  Available in the US, its proponents claim it could provide energy independence for America – an attractive suggestion, given the often-troubled geo-political scene.  But at what cost? 
Of particular interest to drillers is the Marcellus Shale, an enormous tract extending from New York to West Virginia.  Opponents have pressured state officials to study the potential consequences of hydraulic fracturing in this area; the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation says it has done so.    
Fragmentation and destruction of wildlife habitat is unavoidable when cutting forests for drilling and road building.  As the “NYS DEC Revised Draft Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement,” released Sept. 7, 2011, states: “Habitat loss, conversion, and fragmentation (both short-term and long-term) would result from land grading, clearing, the construction of well pads, roads, pipelines, and other infrastructure associated with gas drilling.”  Other problems for wildlife are “increased mortality, increase of edge habitats, altered microclimates, and increased traffic, noise, lighting, and well flares.” 
“Habitat fragmentation from human infrastructure has been identified as one of the greatest threats to biological diversity.”   
http://www.dec.ny.gov/energy/75370.html
ALL LIVING BEINGS 
NEED CLEAN WATER
Hydro-fracturing threatens water quality.  Duke University researchers found high levels of leaked methane in well water collected near hydro-fracking sites.  http://tinyurl.com/3p6l99t 
The EPA has found methane and benzene in ground water near gas wells. 
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/08/31/wyoming.epa.water/index.html  
State regulators have documented over 1,000 incidents of groundwater contamination.   “…fracking generates enormous quantities of highly toxic—and even radioactive—wastewater….”  www.waterdefense.org  
As harmful as fracking is for humans, wild animals are at even greater risk.  Wildlife doesn’t have the multiple resources that we have.  If our water source is polluted, we often have the option to get water elsewhere.  Wildlife has one choice and one choice only: whatever water is in their immediate vicinity.  When animals have to travel farther to find safe water, crossing more roads, many more individuals are run over by vehicles.  

ANIMAL STUDIES
Harm to wildlife from fracking has been reported on Animal Planet’s website.  From October 2009:  “Dead and tumoured cattle, deer, chipmunks, and other wildlife near fracturing sites have surfaced in various locales.”  Also: “On September 16th [2009], 8,000 gallons of frack fluid leaked into Stevens Creek near Dimock, Pennsylvania, causing minnows, salamanders and tadpoles to swim erratically and die.  Cabot Oil & Gas was responsible for three frac gel spills within a few weeks time….” And: “….between West Virginia and Pennsylvania, much of the entire 38 miles of Dunkard Creek ecosystem has died in a very short time in mid-September, and officials suspect fracking fluid is to blame.”  
Over 10,000 fish, plus salamanders, frogs, crayfish, aquatic insects, and freshwater mussels, were killed in that instance.
Biologists called it “the worst environmental disaster of their lifetime.”  It’s now being treated as a crime scene, since someone may have illegally dumped fracking fluid rather than treating the chemicals.  
http://tinyurl.com/6deww9t 
In Pennsylvania, a mapping project showed that scarlet tanager populations could decline by as much as 23 percent because of drilling in their habitat; and the black-throated warbler, whose breeding grounds overlap the Marcellus region, would be even more drastically affected.  
Pennsylvania brook trout are especially sensitive to water temperature, sediments, and contaminants.  Their now severely shrinking population depends upon watersheds in Marcellus shale areas.  Drilling is highly likely to have an extremely negative impact on the trout.
More problems for animals are documented by ProPublica’s Abrahm Lustgarten and Nicholas Kusnetz, in an article on Sept. 16, 2011:
“In September 2009, Range Resources began drilling a natural gas well near the home of Beth Voyles in one of the most heavily drilled counties in southwestern PA. The following spring, Range began filling a giant waste impoundment near Voyles’ home, and wastewater accumulated in puddles on the dirt roads.... The family immediately noticed a stench, and its dog, which lapped the fluid from the puddles, got sick..
A veterinarian determined that the dog had been exposed to ethylene glycol, a component of antifreeze that is also used in hydraulic fracturing. The dog’s organs began to crystallize, and ultimately failed, the vet told Voyles, and the family had to euthanize the dog. A short time later the family had to euthanize a horse after it exhibited similar symptoms.”
When Voyles began to suspect drilling might be the cause, she had her doctors run blood tests for chemicals known to be used in the processes. The results came back showing high levels of benzene, toluene and arsenic.
After more complaints came in, the DEP finally asked Range to treat the impoundment pond for hydrogen sulfide, a toxic gas that can be fatal at high levels and cause nausea, vomiting and headaches in lower amounts. The impoundment was briefly emptied in June, but filled again in August.  Voyles has lost much of her sense of smell, and she says everything tastes like metal.
Voyles’ lawsuit against the DEP argues that they ignored concerns about chemicals from the waste nearby, never advised her that its tests showed her well water was also contaminated with an industrial solvent, and never issued any violations to Range.  The waste impoundment did not meet minimum state regulatory requirements.  Voyles’ suit does not seek compensation, but asks that DEP investigate her complaints according to state regulations. ProPublica says that the DEP did not respond to calls requesting comment.   
http://www.propublica.org/article/science-lags-as-health-problems-emerge-near-gas-fields/single 
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT 
AWARENESS
Government regulation is notoriously lax where energy corporations are concerned, but Congress is aware of fracking dangers.  A House Committee on Energy and Commerce report states that between 2005 and 2009, 14 oil and gas companies used over 750 chemicals and components.  A few are “seemingly harmless,” such as salt and citric acid, but many are known to cause cancer and birth defects.  
Methanol is widely used, even though a known “hazardous air pollutant.” Some other chemicals used in fracking are benzene, toluene, formaldehyde, ethylene glycol, and hydrochloric acid.  Very small quantities of benzene, a known carcinogen, are capable of contaminating millions of gallons of water.  
http://tinyurl.com/42u9dwd   
Breathing benzene harms developing animal foetuses.  Exposure to food or water contaminated with benzene damages their blood and immune systems, and can cause cancer. 
http://www.eco-usa.net/toxics/chemicals/benzene.shtml   
And the EPA says that inhalation or oral exposure to benzene has the same effects on animals and humans.  
NEW YORK STATE
Regardless of hazards, whenever big money is a factor, jobs involved, and the public ill informed, wildlife’s welfare is invariably trumped by vested business interests.  As the NRDC reported, in “Drilling Down,” October 2007:  “Unfortunately, the oil and gas industry now enjoys significant exemptions from the Clean Water Act’s storm water permit requirements.”
Although hydro-fracking is occurring in many states, NY’s deeper wells would require approx. 200 tanker trucks to transport the massive amount of water for each well.  Extra traffic would bring added dangers for wildlife near every well and all roads leading to wells.
A broad spectrum of citizens protested fracking in NYS, so a moratorium was imposed on any new drilling permits.  The DEC is accepting public comments until Dec. 12, 2011.   Visit
http://www.dec.ny.gov/energy/76838.html 
Some members of the NY Assembly and Senate have proposed a bill, A02108 (S893), with language concerning the dangers of fracking.  An extract reads:
Numerous hazards have been associated with this type of industrial activity.  Chemicals used in fracking may be toxic, cause life-threatening illnesses, including cancer, and can be non-biodegradable and difficult or impossible to remove once they enter the natural environment.
The bill notes that well pads may take up to five acres of land each, which implies the destruction of much wildlife habitat; and millions of gallons of water will be used for each well – again, detrimental to wildlife.  It states that fires, explosions and earthquakes may be caused, and that   “Open pits of chemically-laced water, laden with salt, heavy metals and radioactive elements have been known to kill wildlife and farm animals that have mistakenly drunk from them, and upon evaporation, contribute to air pollution.”
In June, the DEC announced that it would recommend no drilling in and around watersheds serving New York City and Syracuse, or near primary aquifers or state-owned land, including parks and wildlife areas.  This seems to be a tacit acknowledgement by the DEC that drilling could endanger water quality.
(See www.un-naturalgas.org for more useful information.)
WHOM DO YOU TRUST?
When state agencies say they will “regulate” or “monitor” hydraulic fracturing to reduce the known threats, we should not accept this as a guarantee.  The quality of governmental oversight is often very low, when it is not downright non-existent.  (This was evident with the BP oil spill of 2010.)  Sometimes officials “look the other way” or don’t do their duty for a variety of reasons.  Finally, cutbacks at most agencies mean that enforcement is not consistently carried out.  Therefore, those of us who care about animal welfare must keep constant pressure on our legislators to safeguard the health of our precious wild neighbors – just as assiduously as we protect our own. 
To see the full version, please visit www.wildwatch.org and link to “Binocular,” then link to “Fracking – the Whole  Story”
------------------------
E.M. FAY reports on environmental and animal related issues.  She is Associate Editor of the Wildlife Watch Binocular.