EC December 2013

ec@lists.wvsierraclub.org

4 participants
6 discussions

FW: You Can Shape The Future of Sierra Club's Climate Movement Process!! Survey and Dialog Process- Action Required
by James Kotcon 24 Dec '13

24 Dec '13

I completed the questionnaire at the link below, but I urge you to check it out, as it gives a pretty good synopsis of what a strong conservation campaign might look like. A lot of the suggestions of things to do, such as to help build allies, are pretty obvious, yet we do relatively few of them. The dialogue process described for Jan. 6-8 for a climate campaign is also important. I am out of town those days (Stink Bug meetings in New Jersey)and it would be a good idea to identify a new volunteer to coordinate that campaign. If climate change is an issue you are ready to tackle, let's plan a Chapter call for Jan. 2-4 to begin some Chapter-level campaign planning. Anybody interested? Jim Kotcon ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Sarah Hodgdon <sarah.hodgdon(a)sierraclub.org<mailto:sarah.hodgdon@sierraclub.org>> Date: Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 5:07 PM Subject: You Can Shape The Future of Sierra Club's Climate Movement Process!! Survey and Dialog Process- Action Required To: Sarah Hodgdon <sarah.hodgdon(a)sierraclub.org<mailto:sarah.hodgdon@sierraclub.org>> Cc: Spencer Black <sblackmsn(a)yahoo.com<mailto:sblackmsn@yahoo.com>>, Robin Mann <robinlmann(a)gmail.com<mailto:robinlmann@gmail.com>>, Josh Aufhauser <josh.aufhauser(a)sierraclub.org<mailto:josh.aufhauser@sierraclub.org>> To: Group and Chapter Leaders, Campaign Leadership Teams and Grassroots Network Teams From: The Climate Movement Task Force Scientists have issued increasingly urgent warnings about the pace and extent of climate disruption. As the nation's largest and most influential grassroots environmental organization, the Sierra Club needs to respond to these warnings by leading a stronger and bolder climate movement. Input from all parts of Sierra Club is essential to build a climate movement strong enough to achieve a clean energy future. That's why the Sierra Club Board of Directors just voted to establish the Climate Movement Task Force to make sure that every part of our organization is involved in developing an effective and inclusive movement to fight climate disruption. To that end, we have two major upcoming steps where your participation is critical: #1- A leadership questionnaire to solicit input from Sierra Club chapter and national team leaders. #2- A dialogue process to solicit recommendations from chapter and team leaders on key questions. The Climate Movement Task Force’s previous engagements have included: Distributing a survey to the entire organization's staff and volunteers; issuing an online sign-up for project updates; conducting dialogues with the senior management group and Council of Club Leaders at the annual meeting; and organizing a meeting with a well-balanced group of 40 staff and volunteers in September. Building on what has been learned in our process to date, we now seek more specific information from leaders and members of Sierra Club chapters and groups, national leadership teams, and staff teams. The Sierra Club's chapters, groups, and teams are on the front-lines of the fight against climate disruption, and your input on how to build a stronger climate movement within and beyond the Sierra Club is critical. STEP ONE- We are inviting participation in a questionnaire<https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/BZCVC7P> aimed specifically at the leadership of chapters, groups, and teams. The questionnaire focuses on learning how your Club chapters/groups and/or teams are engaged, what works when building a climate movement, what can be changed, and more. The deadline for survey answers is January 10, 2014. Please forward to active and engaged members of your Chapter/Group ExCom or other campaign team members with whom you work regularly. Take the survey here: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/BZCVC7P STEP TWO- We want to solicit feedback from chapter and team leadership on some key questions through an intentional dialogue process. We are asking each of these entities to convene discussions on building a stronger climate movement. We are asking each Chapter/Group or Team to determine your “dialogue leader.” The dialogue leader role can be designated as the Chair or Team lead or someone else designated by that leader(s). The person in this role should be able to both participate in a prep call in advance of their dialogue process and convene that Chapter/Group or Team’s dialogue conversation. The process will take 90 minutes and involve discussion of three questions which result in answers that are collated and will be used to inform the task force’s recommendations. Your dialogue leader or someone else should be prepared to record the results of your conversation using an online survey tool. We will send a more detailed email to everyone who RSVP's below. To prepare to do this, we are offering three orientation calls for the dialogue leaders from each entity to walk through the questions in real time and answer any questions about the process. Then those leaders will convene dialogue sessions in person or by phone to gather input and put forward recommendations from their own specific chapters, groups and teams between January 15 and February 15, 2014 and due by February 21. Please RSVP for one of the three orientation calls<https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1utuTqR73TDuyB1HCM4yPjn9IMPwvLd9bRNZQguEEOT…> which will be held on the following dates: January 6 4 pm pst, 5 pm mst, 6 pm cst, 7 pm est January 7 6 pm pst, 7 pm mst, 8 pm cst, 9 pm est January 8 4 pm pst, 5 pm mst, 6 pm cst, 7 pm est By late February, we will compile the results and begin shaping recommendations. We will meet with the Conservation Department Leadership Group, the Sierra Club Board Advisory Committees and the Executive Staff. We will make our final recommendations to the full board in March and expect final decisions on climate movement building from the Board of Directors in April of 2014. Ultimately, the Climate Movement process is designed to chart the course for a bigger, stronger and more effective Sierra Club that will play a leadership role in solving the 21st Century’s most important crisis. Sincerely, Spencer Black, Vice-President, Sierra Club Board of Directors Robin Mann, Member, Sierra Club Board of Directors Sarah Hodgdon, National Program Director p.s. Email josh.aufhauser(a)sierraclub.org<mailto:josh.aufhauser@sierraclub.org> if you would like to receive future updates about this task force.

1 0

Fwd: E&E: EPA hits gas driller with historic civil penalty for filling W.Va. wetlands
by Paul Wilson 23 Dec '13

23 Dec '13

FYI, paul ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Fred Heutte" <phred(a)sunlightdata.com> Date: Dec 19, 2013 6:20 PM Subject: E&E: EPA hits gas driller with historic civil penalty for filling W.Va. wetlands To: <CONS-AWL-RESILIENT-HABITATS(a)lists.sierraclub.org> Cc: EPA hits gas driller with historic civil penalty for filling W.Va. wetlands Jeremy P. Jacobs, E&E reporter Published: Thursday, December 19, 2013 A subsidiary of Chesapeake Energy will pay a $3.2 million penalty and spend $6.5 million to restore 27 West Virginia sites where it allegedly discharged fill material into streams and wetlands as part of its natural gas drilling operations, U.S. EPA said today. The civil penalty is one of the largest ever levied by EPA for filling wetlands, rivers or streams without a Clean Water Act permit. The agreement requires Chesapeake, the country's second-largest natural gas producer, to implement a plan to ensure compliance with federal and state water laws at its natural gas drilling sites in West Virginia -- including many that involve hydraulic fracturing. "With this agreement, Chesapeake is taking important steps to comply with state and federal laws that are essential to protecting the integrity of the nation's waters, wetlands and streams," said Robert Dreher, acting assistant attorney general of the Justice Department's Environment and Natural Resources Division. EPA and West Virginia alleged that Chesapeake Appalachia LLC funneled discharged sand, dirt, rocks and other fill material into streams and wetlands to construct well pads and other platforms for natural gas operations. The agency said the 27 sites affected 2.2 miles of streams and more than 3 acres of wetlands. Sixteen of the sites involved the controversial practice of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking. Chesapeake will be required to fully restore the wetlands and streams where feasible under the settlement. It will also undertake other mitigation projects for areas that cannot be restored. Gordon Pennoyer, a spokesman for Chesapeake, called the settlement a "key milestone" in resolving claims relating to surface construction that occurred before November 2010. "The company is fully committed to regulatory compliance and is working with the Environmental Protection Agency, Army Corps of Engineers and West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection to restore the impacted sites," Pennoyer said. EPA discovered the discharges through public tips as well as routine inspections. Chesapeake also disclosed 19 potential violations after an internal audit. EPA issued compliance orders for violations at 11 of the sites in 2010 and 2011, and since then Chesapeake has taken steps to restore those areas. EPA's settlement comes a year after Chesapeake also pleaded guilty to three Clean Water Act violations at a natural gas site in Wetzel County that is also at issue in today's action. Last year, Chesapeake was sentenced to pay a $600,000 penalty to the government for allegedly discharging crushed stone into a local stream. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe from the CONS-AWL-RESILIENT-HABITATS list, send any message to: CONS-AWL-RESILIENT-HABITATS-signoff-request(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp To view the Sierra Club List Terms & Conditions, see: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/terms.asp

1 0

Fwd: InsideClimate News: Gas Pipeline Boom Fragmenting Pennsylvania's Forests
by Paul Wilson 10 Dec '13

10 Dec '13

fyi, paul w. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Fred Heutte <phred(a)sunlightdata.com> Date: Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 12:20 PM Subject: InsideClimate News: Gas Pipeline Boom Fragmenting Pennsylvania's Forests To: CONS-AWL-RESILIENT-HABITATS(a)lists.sierraclub.org http://insideclimatenews.org/news/20131210/gas-pipeline-boom-fragmenting-pe… forests Gas Pipeline Boom Fragmenting Pennsylvania's Forests Many of the pipelines to serve fracking are being built deep in the state's 16 million acres of forest. 'The scale of this thing is off the charts.' By Naveena Sadasivam, InsideClimate News Dec 10, 2013 Jerry Skinner stands in his garden, looking into the distance at the edge of a forested mountain. Amid the lush shades of green, a muddy brown strip of earth stands out. It's the telltale sign of a buried pipeline. "The pipelines are all around this property," Skinner said. "When I came here, the county had an allure that it doesn't have anymore. I'm not sure I want to live here anymore." Skinner is the resident naturalist at the Woodbourne Forest and Wildlife Preserve, a 650-acre forestland that runs through parts of northeastern Pennsylvania that are experiencing intensive gas drilling because of a hotly contested method called hydraulic fracturing, or fracking. Around his house, in the town of Dimock, gas wells have sprung up and a vast network of interconnected pipelines transports the gas underground. Skinner worries that as drilling activity heads deeper into forests and pipelines chop up large blocks of land, rare species native to Pennsylvania will be driven out. In recent years, Pennsylvania has become ground zero for fracking, along with neighboring states that sit atop a large shale reserve known as the Marcellus Formation. Pennsylvania has more than 6,000 active gas wells, and Marcellus-related production has soared to 12 billion cubic feet per day, six times the production rate in 2009. Gas drilling has long raised concerns about water contamination and air pollution. But until recently, little public attention has been paid to the pipelines that must be built to carry the gas. In Pennsylvania, concerns about these pipelines are growing because many of them are being built in the state's 16 million acres of forest, which include some of the largest contiguous blocks of forestland east of the Mississippi River. Nearly 700,000 acres of forestland already have been leased for drilling, allowing companies to cut paths through pristine stretches of trees, fragment forests, decrease biodiversity and introduce invasive species. "In Pennsylvania, the gas companies are working in essentially the most ecologically sensitive area of the commonwealth," said John Quigley, who served as secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources for two years under former Democratic Gov. Ed Rendell. "The scale of this thing is off the charts. It's unprecedented." Of particular concern are gathering lines, the pipes that carry gas from wells to long-distance transmission lines. Although they are often the same size as transmission lines and operate at the same pressure levels, about 90 percent of the nation's gathering lines aren't regulated by state or federal authorities. In fact, regulators don't even know where many gathering lines are located, even though they sometimes run close to homes and businesses. Gathering lines are likely to generate even more controversy in the years ahead. The Interstate Natural Gas Association of America, an industry group, estimated two years ago that more than 400,000 new miles of gathering lines will be installed by 2035. Concerns about forest fragmentation due to industrial activity are not unique to Pennsylvania. In Alberta, Canada, for instance, recent oil and gas projects have reduced core forest area, including habitats for Woodland Caribou. As pipelines, roads and well pads slash across forests in Alberta, the Woodland Caribou, which tends to avoid forest edges, has been driven close to extinction. Biologists and other forestry experts said curtailing or reversing the trend in Pennsylvania would be difficult because Pennsylvania's land management system is so fragmented. Although the state oversees 16 million acres of forest, it does not own mineral rights for about 2.2 million of them, leaving those areas open to drilling. The Nature Conservancy released a report three years ago projecting that under a medium-growth scenario, a minimum of 6,000 well pads with 60,000 wells will be drilled in Pennsylvania by 2030—and that two- thirds of them will be in forest areas. In 2011, in testimony before the Maryland House Environmental Committee as an independent environmental consultant, Quigley warned that the cumulative effect of gas drilling "will dwarf all of Pennsylvania's previous waves of resource extraction combined," and that Maryland must avoid the mistakes that Pennsylvania has made. Industry Dismisses Fears On average, each well pad requires 8.8 acres to be cleared, according to The Nature Conservancy. About three of these acres are for the well pad itself, while the rest are needed for infrastructure such as roads, pipelines and water impoundments. In total, the conservancy estimated that 61,000 forest acres in Pennsylvania will be cleared by 2030. The group believes this deforestation will affect an additional 91,000 to 220,000 acres of interior forestland near the developed areas. The gas industry disagrees with conservationists about the impact of pipeline corridors on wildlife habitats. Right-of-ways with "widths typical of single natural gas pipeline facilities are not likely to present major problems," said Catherine Landry, communications director for the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America. John Stoody, director of governmental and public relations for the Association of Oil Pipe Lines, said: "Wildlife is invited to cross our rights-of-way happily and safely anytime they like." He also pointed out the tradeoff in using pipelines: When compared to trains and trucks, Stoody said, pipelines are a safer means of transportation with lower greenhouse-gas emissions. The American Gas Association similarly denied that pipeline corridors cause forest fragmentation. In fact, they "can actually enhance habitat by serving to connect fragmented forest, allowing pathways for wildlife and creating forest edge meadowlands," said Christina Nyquist, a spokeswoman for the organization. She cited alternate detrimental factors, contending that roadways, urbanization, agriculture and other human activities are the more likely culprits. For decades now, ecologists and conservationists have been studying how human activities have disrupted forest ecosystems, including how far the impact extends from the actual site of a pipeline right-of-way. They have confirmed that the reverberations go deep into woodlands. Recently, for example, researchers in Wyoming concluded that energy development in the state was leading to excessive habitat alteration and accelerating the decline of songbirds. Scientists abroad have also examined the relationship between forest fragmentation and habitat loss. Researchers in Australia analyzed several forest areas in India, South America and Indonesia and found that linear clearings like those linked to road and pipeline construction block the movement of some native animals and serve as pathways for invasive species. "Pipelines are going in and dissecting forest habitats and creating corridors within (them)," said Margaret Brittingham, an ecologist at Penn State University who has been studying the impact of gas drilling on forest habitats, concentrating on songbirds in Pennsylvania. She and others have discovered that right-of-ways enable larger animals to move into parts of the interior forest they had not explored. As a result, interior species become exposed to new predators. Brittingham and her colleagues predict that as more forest territory is chopped up into smaller pieces, habitat for specialists—species that require a specific set of conditions for survival—will decrease, which may in turn lead to their extinction. Those include the scarlet tanager, the blue-headed vireo and the hooded warbler. In contrast, animals that tend to do well around people will likely increase in number. Raccoons, deer, crows and blue jays are among them. "It's a shift in the competitive advantages that you give species," Brittingham said. "It's biotic homogenization." Fighting for Rights In their fight to preserve forests and biodiversity, conservationists and other wildlife advocates in Pennsylvania have confronted another adversary – the state's property-rights system. In Pennsylvania, surface and mineral rights are sold separately. That means while the state Department of Conservation and Natural Resources oversees 16 million acres of forest, it owns only 85 percent of the mineral rights in that area. The remaining 15 percent is still controlled by people who once owned parcels of the land—even though they have sold their parcels to the state. Those people can negotiate individual contracts for mineral-exploration leases, including fracking. In a study of land-usage patterns in Pennsylvania's interior forests, Brittingham and her colleagues found that development is greater on properties with private ownership of mineral rights. They said the split in private and public management of land will complicate the preservation efforts by agencies and nonprofit groups. A major test case involves the Allegheny National Forest in Pennsylvania. In 1923, the federal government purchased that forest, piece by piece, but landowners were given the option to sell surface rights or both surface and mineral rights. As a result, 93 percent of the mineral rights in the 510,000-acre forest are now held by a vast number of private owners. Citing this surface-mineral rights bifurcation, the gas industry argues that the U.S. Forest Service cannot regulate drilling in the Allegheny because it does not own most of the mineral rights there. Environmental groups such as the Sierra Club and the Allegheny Defense Project insist the Forest Service has such authority as part of its overall mission to protect the forest. In October, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the gas industry. Meanwhile, Pennsylvania's Department of Conservation and Natural Resources has logged a mixed record in its forestry-management efforts. In 2010, the agency released a 48-page presentation on the state's forestland, mapping ecologically sensitive regions, areas with gas leases and forest patches that had been severely fragmented. The department concluded that it could not lease out any more land for gas drilling without causing significant damage to forest habitats. A few months before the study was released, the state issued two gas- drilling leases totaling more than 64,000 forest acres. The sale brought in $250 million and has led to approval for construction of 438 shale gas well pads. After those leases were issued, the administration of Gov. Ed Rendell imposed a moratorium on the leasing of forestland. That measure remains in effect. However, the current version of the 2010 presentation, which has been revised under the administration of Gov. Tom Corbett, a Republican who strongly supports the drilling industry, is only 12 pages long and no longer contains the strongly worded conclusion that any further leasing would be severely detrimental to forest ecosystems. "Since the 2010 analysis, many things have changed—including our understanding of the development patterns and impacts, and technology related to horizontal drilling," said Christina Novak, press secretary for the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. Novak also said the agency continues to maintain that the regions referenced in the 2010 presentation "are important areas to protect and consider if additional drilling is contemplated." Corbett once declared that he wanted to "make Pennsylvania the Texas of the natural gas boom." A month after taking office in 2011, he repealed a policy meant to minimize environmental damage to state parks. The architect of that repeal, Corbett's former environmental protection commissioner, Michael Krancer, now works at a law firm with clients in the gas industry. Last year, Corbett signed Act 13, which requires oil and gas companies to pay an impact fee for their projects. In 2012, the state distributed 60 percent of the more than $200 million it collected through that law to counties and municipalities. The money was spent on reducing taxes and repairing roads and stormwater drains. The remaining 40 percent of the impact fee was divided among various state agencies, including the Department of Environmental Protection, Public Utility Commission and Marcellus Legacy Fund, which distributed funds for environmental and infrastructure projects. Act 13 also requires the state to study the placement of natural gas gathering lines and investigate their environmental impact. The study, conducted last year, recommended that pipeline operators consult with experts to restore vegetation in right-of-ways and identify better ways to assess the environmental footprint of their activities. The Business Case Since activists and state regulators have little legal leverage over where gas wells are dug and pipelines laid in Pennsylvania, some environmental groups are looking for other strategies. Working with the University of Tennessee, the Nature Conservancy has produced Development by Design, a software tool that allows pipeline companies to find routes that minimize ecological damage while also being cost-effective. "Making the business case for these kinds of sustainability issues is absolutely key," said Quigley, the former Pennsylvania environmental commissioner. The conservancy is testing a beta version with four companies. Currently the software can analyze habitat fragmentation, provide information to minimize sediment loss and help evaluate the effect of pipeline crossings on rivers. "Some companies seem to be very interested, others less so," said Nels Johnson, the conservancy's deputy state director for Pennsylvania. "The real question is whether [the companies will] use it in a way that fundamentally changes the way they do planning." For residents of Pennsylvania, the software will likely come too late. One of those residents, Emily Krafjack, is president of the grassroots group Connection for Oil, Gas & Environment in the Northern Tier. Since 2010, she has been providing property owners with information about pipelines in an effort to balance gas-industry exploration with safeguarding landowners' rights, the environment and the region's traditional way of life. She said the rampant development—the rumbling of construction trucks, the ever-greater intrusion into forests—has caused Pennsylvania to lose its charm. On a recent drive around some of the forestlands, Krafjack pointed to the pipeline right-of-ways that periodically sliced through the forest. She said she sometimes struggles to recognize her hometown. "I'm over 50 now," Krafjack said, "and I just can’t catch my breath." - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe from the CONS-AWL-RESILIENT-HABITATS list, send any message to: CONS-AWL-RESILIENT-HABITATS-signoff-request(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp To view the Sierra Club List Terms & Conditions, see: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/terms.asp -- Paul Wilson Sierra Club 504 Jefferson Ave Charles Town, WV 25414-1130 Phone: 304-725-4360 Cell: 304-279-1361 "There is no forward until you have gone back" ~Buddha "In all things of nature there is something of the marvelous" ~ Aristotle

1 0

FW: McKinley-WVU Energy Forum Agenda
by James Kotcon 05 Dec '13

05 Dec '13

Attached is the schedule and speakers list for the McKinley Energy Forum Monday. Any suggestions for homework on the 5 topics outlined would be appreciated. Jim Kotcon ________________________________ From: James Kotcon <jkotcon(a)gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2013 4:59 PM To: James Kotcon Subject: Fwd: McKinley-WVU Energy Forum Agenda ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Seibert, Devon <Devon.Seibert(a)mail.house.gov<mailto:Devon.Seibert@mail.house.gov>> Date: Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 8:35 AM Subject: McKinley-WVU Energy Forum Agenda To: "Seibert, Devon" <Devon.Seibert(a)mail.house.gov<mailto:Devon.Seibert@mail.house.gov>> Ladies and Gentlemen, Attached is the approved agenda. You will see on the second page the list of participants. Many of you have forwarded to us your short bio and photo but we are still waiting for a few. Please get those to me as soon as possible. Please let me know if you have any questions for Monday. Thanks, Devon Devon Elizabeth Seibert Legislative Director Congressman David McKinley, P.E. (WV-1) 412 Cannon House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 202-225-4172<tel:202-225-4172> http://mckinley.house.gov/ [facebook-logo]<https://www.facebook.com/RepMcKinley> [Twitter_Logo_65] <https://twitter.com/RepMcKinley> [HOR_Symbol] <http://mckinley.house.gov/>

2 1

Some Republicans champion Solar
by Beth Little 03 Dec '13

03 Dec '13

http://cleantechnica.com/2013/11/27/solar-power-war/

1 0

Fwd: 93% support govt actions to regulate gas development to avoid damaging forest and streams important for hunting, fishing and hiking
by Paul Wilson 02 Dec '13

02 Dec '13

fyi, paul ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Angie Rosser <arosser(a)wvrivers.org> Date: Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 10:09 AM Subject: 93% support govt actions to regulate gas development to avoid damaging forest and streams important for hunting, fishing and hiking To: "birthplaceofrivers(a)tws.org" <birthplaceofrivers(a)tws.org> Gas drillers should minimize impact on nature, poll says<http://www.post-gazette.com/local/marcellusshale/2013/12/02/Gas-drillers-sh…> December 1, 2013 10:42 PM By Don Hopey / Pittsburgh Post-Gazette Results of a poll by The Nature Conservancy in the six-state Marcellus Shale gas region of the Appalachians indicate strong support for better regional planning to minimize impacts on forest and water resources, as well as tougher environmental safeguards. The poll, scheduled for release at noon today, also shows that a majority of those polled -- 54 percent -- say conservation of natural habitats and water resources should be a higher priority than shale gas development, even if that would produce higher energy costs. Forty-two percent of those polled say creation of new natural gas industry jobs should be a higher priority. "Clearly people value forests and rivers and natural habitats, and they don't want to see natural gas development come at the expense of those areas," said Nels Johnson, the oil and gas lead for the conservancy's North America Energy Program. Asked about government actions to regulate shale gas development, overwhelming majorities said they support requiring drilling companies to: avoid damaging forests and streams important for hunting, fishing and hiking (93 percent); follow regional plans for location of wells and pipelines to minimize wildlife habitat impacts (93 percent); mitigate adverse impacts to forests and water quality (92 percent); and base well locations on sound science (91 percent). Majorities above 80 percent said they favored requiring drillers to take measures to prevent methane releases during drilling, performing regional studies to determine how much water fracking will use and where it will come from, and establishing a state commission to set gas drilling standards. Mr. Johnson said he was surprised by the strong public support for regional planning for locating shale gas development sites. "There's been a lot of polling on fracking and a lot of attention paid to economic issues, but not much focus by policymakers on natural habitat issues," he said. "But this [poll] shows that even though the policymakers aren't focused on valuable habitat, the public is." The Nature Conservancy poll release is the first part of a multistage program aimed at minimizing the shale gas development impacts on natural habitat and water resources. The conservancy also is working with drilling companies to develop new tools to guide the industry's siting of well pads, pipelines and other shale gas infrastructure to minimize damage to natural habitats. Travis Windle, a spokesman for the Marcellus Shale Coalition, a gas industry lobbying organization, said he wasn't aware of any coalition member companies working with the conservancy. Mr. Windle declined to comment on the poll results because he hadn't had a chance to review them, but said a Robert Morris University poll released in November demonstrated "strong public support" for the shale gas industry. "It's a false choice to suggest that we can have affordable and reliable energy and job growth or we can protect our environment," he said, "and our industry continues to work collaboratively with a broad base of stakeholders to make certain that we continue to achieve these shared goals." Of the 1,002 people nationwide polled by Robert Morris, 42 percent support fracking, 33 percent oppose it and 25 percent were unsure. Three out of 4 said fracking will make the nation more energy independent. The poll's margin of error was plus or minus 3 percentage points. The Nature Conservancy poll -- based on August telephone interviews with 1,250 voters in the shale gas regions of Pennsylvania, New York, Ohio, West Virginia, Kentucky and Maryland -- has a sampling error margin of plus or minus 2.8 percentage points. Don Hopey: dhopey(a)post-gazette.com or 412-263-1983. Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/local/marcellusshale/2013/12/02/Gas-drillers-sh… ______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com ______________________________________________________________________ -- Paul Wilson Sierra Club 504 Jefferson Ave Charles Town, WV 25414-1130 Phone: 304-725-4360 Cell: 304-279-1361 "There is no forward until you have gone back" ~Buddha "In all things of nature there is something of the marvelous" ~ Aristotle

1 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

EC December 2013