More than 90 percent of the 53,638 public comments received by the U.S. Forest Service concerning a proposed federal ban on horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing in the George Washington National Forest support a ban, according to the agency’s website.
The Forest Service stirred up a lot of controversy earlier this year when it released a draft plan that called for a ban on horizontal drilling in large parts of the 1.1 million acre national forest, which stretches across Virginia and West Virginia.
“Clear cutting the forest for the acreage needed in gas drilling would break-up wildlife habitat and destroy critical wildlife food sources,” one letter writer, A.W. Simmons, wrote to the federal agency. “The clear cut areas would also allow soil erosion that would badly affect fish and streams in the George Washington National Forest.”
On the other side of the debate, Halliburton Energy Services wrote: “The ban on horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing…is unjustified and is inconsistent with the current administration’s efforts to incrase U.S. Energy Security and control emissions of greenhouse gases.”
The ban on horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing, if approved by the agency, would be the first such ban in any national forest. Much of the George Washington National Forest sits atop the Marcellus shale formation, which is rich with natural gas.
JoBeth Brown, a public affairs officer for the Forest Service, said today that her agency will make a decision on the proposed ban by March or April. The deadline for submitting comments ended on Oct. 17.
Because many of the comments were mass reproduced emails, instead of individually written and more thoughtful letters, the Forest Service will not make a decision based on simply counting the comments, Brown said. Instead, the agency will carefully consider the contents of each letter, along with other considerations.
“We don’t count them that way,” as a vote, Brown said. “We are looking for the substantive comments.”
One set of emailed comments came from 10,310 supporters of the National Wildlife Federation, who wrote that a ban "would go far to protect drinking water resources for more than 260,000 Shenandoah Valley area residents, preserve fish and wildlife habitat, and retain the remote rural quality of the forest that hosts almost a million visitors each year.”
My personal opinion? It strikes me that national forests deserve stronger environmental protections than private property, and so a prohibition would be warranted. If people want horizontal drilling or hydraulic fracking on their own land, their rights as the landowners should be an important consideration – so long as the drilling does not contaminate streams, drinking water supplies, or the air, and does not destroy the quality of life of surrounding community. But the national forests are owned by all of us, and should be carefully protected so that all of us -– and our children -- can benefit from them. Public lands do not exist for the private profits of drilling companies.
To ban or not to ban? Which way do you think the federal agency should act?
To learn more, click here or here.
By Tom Pelton
Chesapeake Bay Foundation
"National forest."
"National" means it belongs to the people of the United States, and "forest" means it's a large, undeveloped, wooded area.
Haliburton Energy Services is not the people of the United States, and a commercial drilling operation is not an undeveloped, wooded area.
Case closed.
Posted by: CJ | 11/01/2011 at 08:53 PM
If people want horizontally exploration or gas fracking on their own area, their privileges as the landowners should be an essential concern – so long as the exploration does not poison channels, water resources, or the air, and does not eliminate the lifestyle of around group.
Posted by: free job classifieds | 03/05/2012 at 02:58 AM