|Regions of Fracking in Sask and Manitoba, map by Shea Coughlin, BS Student, University of Toronto|
Andrea tells me we may soon see a letter in the Regina Leader-Post on this topic, featuring some highlights from the memo. The memo itself, however, deserves to be read in its entirety, so here it is below. After you read it, you may want to use the information it contains to draft your own letter to Minister Moe, who can be reached at the following coordinates:
Hon. Scott Moe
Minister of Environment and Minister Responsible for the Saskatchewan Water Security Agency
34 Main Street
Shellbrook, SK, S0J2E0
Here is the original memo:
To: Honourable Scott Moe, Minister of Environment and Minister Responsible for the Saskatchewan Water Security Agency
From: Danielle Coore, BA student, University of Toronto
Date: August 21, 2014
Subject: Fracking, Species at Risk and Water
Hydraulic Fracturing (fracking) poses serious risks to endangered species, wildlife and farm animals as well as water supply and quality in the province of Saskatchewan. Fracking is occurring in Southern Saskatchewan, as indicated on the attached map. There are ten federally listed and protected endangered species that have range in that area of the province.[i] There is also very little surface water in Southern Saskatchewan suggesting that the fracking industry is drawing from ground water and posing possible threats to both water supply and water quality. As Minister of the Environment and the Minister Responsible for the Saskatchewan Water Security Agency fracking should be a serious concern and a top priority. This policy memo will outline the risks to endangered species and animals, water supply, and water quality. Ultimately, I recommend that Saskatchewan implement best practices, increase research, and engage in public disclosure to address these issues.
Risks to Endangered Species, Wildlife and Farm animals
Fracking poses a danger to flora and fauna in Saskatchewan in 4 primary number ways. First, fracking results in habitat fragmentation and destruction byway of altering the prairie landscape. For example, the soil compaction and displacement that can occur at the sit of a wellpad can reduce biomass productivity and heighten soil erosion. The result is sediment and nutrient loss or nutrient transport to streams and wetlands, which can then modify stream flow and damage aquatic habitat. It can also reduce habitat and vegetation for wildlife as well as alter migration habitats.[ii] Moreover, certain species such as songbirds experience population declines as they avoid roads, trails, pipelines and related human activities in areas of fracking.[iii]
Second, noise and light pollution at wellpad sites may adversely impact species. Cumulative effects are not presently known, but studies have found that noise/light pollution adversely impacts breeding, foraging, and predator/prey responses.[iv] Specifically, oil and gas production has already had adverse impacts on the species like the Greater Sage Grouse in Southern Saskatchewan. Breeding Sage Grouse avoid areas in which oil and gas developments have occurred, and these birds also have shown to have higher mortality in these regions.[v] Populations have dwindled by 45-80% on a wide scale level.[vi] In Canada, these species only inhabit southeast Alberta and southwest Saskatchewan.[vii] Only 6% of the original historical extent of the habitat remains[viii].
Third, fracking water and chemicals have also resulted in adverse impacts or death in animals, including farm animals. A recent study monitored 96 cows: 60 cows located near a creek with fracking wastewater purposely added and 36 cows situated far from the creek. The cows near the creek were impacted: 21 died and 16 did not reproduce new calves the subsequent spring. The cows far from the creek exhibited no health issues.[ix]Thus, there is good reason to believe that wastewater from fracking impacts a range of farm animals (and wildlife) and creates breeding issues, higher rates of stillborns, birth abnormalities, and acute liver or kidney failure.[x] Saskatchewan has an obvious interest in farm animals and other wildlife that provide ecosystems services throughout the province.
Fourth, invasive species are able to spread with roads and pipelines. Where there is soil and landscape disturbance at roads, wellpads, compressor stations and pipelines there is space for invasive species.[xi] Such species compete with native species for habitat and food. This sometimes pushes native species out of their natural range and can threaten them with extinction.
Risks to water supply
Fracking poses two primary threats to water supply in Saskatchewan.
First, fracking uses sizeable quantities of water. Typically 2-4 million gallons of water are used for deep unconventional shale deposits.[xii] Water can originate from surface water, groundwater supplies, municipal water sources, and recycled wastewater.[xiii] A single well can be fracked around 20 times and consume 40, 0000 gallons of chemicals.[xiv]The hydrology of Saskatchewan is characterized by low precipitation, and droughts in the south, rendering surface water supplies as undependable.[xv] The oil and gas industry uses surface water and also draws heavily from groundwater supplies.[xvi] This will present hydrological concerns for the province in coming years.
Secondly, hydrological changes can occur due to heightened surface and ground water withdrawal. This can have unforeseen effects on streams, floodplains, wetlands, springs, shallow groundwater, and seep patterns in the province. In Saskatchewan groundwater tables and flows can be affected by withdrawal and disposal of water because huge withdrawals of the magnitude necessary for fracking alters groundwater inputs to streams and wetlands. And when that input is polluted by fracking waste there is long standing impacts on biodiversity resulting in diminished water quality and species diversity.[xvii]
Risks to Water Quality
Fracking poses two main threats to water quality in Saskatchewan.
First, groundwater and surface water can be polluted by accidental leaks from the surface of shale pads, from chemical storage or during transportation routes.[xviii] Such spills will then seep into soil and groundwater and/or runoff into streams and other bodies of water. Related, shallow ground and surface water can be affected when wastewater is accidently discharged from its storage site or at the well site. Drinkable groundwater is then threatened by natural gas and saline water movement from well leakage.[xix]This is a threat to wildlife and public health.
Second, methane can contaminate wells.[xx]In a fracking region in Pennsylvania, methane rates were 17 times greater in wells in a 1 km span from drilling regions than those situated further away.[xxi] Other pollutants include included benzene, xylenes, purgeable hydrocarbons, and gasoline and diesel by-products. These are all chemicals associated with neurotocity, reproductive health issues, and cancer.[xxii]
How to Minimize Risks to Endangered Species
There are at three ways the Ministry of Environment can minimize risks to endangered species in Saskatchewan.
First, implement distance boundary requirements for habitat of at risk species.
Saskatchewan has requirements that do not permit for drilling in 100 m of water bodies, occupied dwellings, public institutions, or urban regions.[xxiii] These boundary requirements should be extended to include habitat for at risk species in order to minimize threats.
Second, map species habitat and this information publically available. Presently, the location of species’ habitat is unknown in the province. There are no publically available maps or GIS information. This makes it difficult for landowners (including industry) to make informed decisions about land management.
How to minimize risks to water supply
To minimize risks to water supply, Saskatchewan should establish best practices for water withdrawal and screening procedures. This should in the very least include permits based on the seasonality of withdrawals and for withdrawals over certain sizes (as already required by New Brunswick and New York jurisdictions).[xxv] Saskatchewan should ensure that water quantity monitoring is implemented before, during and after fracking has occurred, and account for effects on fish and wildlife as well as aquifer depletion. [xxvi] When using groundwater, non-potable sources should be used as this reduces competition with other water sources.[xxvii]In addition, the province should facilitate the use of municipal/industrial wastewater for fracking instead of allowing industry to overuse groundwater.[xxviii]
How to minimize risks to water quality
There are 4 primary ways Saskatchewan can reduce risk to water quality.
First, increase testing related to hydraulic fracturing. Saskatchewan does not require baseline testing for groundwater. This is a problem and the province should follow the lead of New Brunswick where there is mandatory baseline testing required at potable water wells within 500 km of oil/gas extraction.[xxix] Similarly, monitoring is not compulsory after hydraulic fracturing processes in Saskatchewan whereas New Brunswick requires sampling before and after fracking wells (within 30-60 days post fracking).[xxx]
Second, the least ecologically harmful chemicals should be required where possible to offset risks associated with leakage, contamination, and storage.[xxxi]
Third, increase public disclosure and involvement. Companies are not required to publically reveal what chemicals are used in fracking.[xxxii]Saskatchewan should require its fracking industry to provide this information on fracfocus.ca (as already done in British Columbia and Alberta).
Fourth, to reduce groundwater threats, Saskatchewan should have fracking located at certain and legally specified distances away from municipal, public or private water sources. And even in these cases proper impoundment liners should be mandatory so as to inhibit movement to water sources.[xxxiii]
Fracking poses many risks to endangered species, farm animals and wildlife as well as water quality and supply in Saskatchewan. Greater knowledge and attention to this effort is needed. Initiatives to address the many issues and concerns associated with fracking should include the public, government, First Nations and industry as well as other interested stakeholders. The Ministry of Environment should take the lead in examining the relationship fracking has with various ecological processes – especially species at risk and hydrology. This is the only way the necessary effective guidelines and regulations can be established and implemented.
[i] These species include the Greater Sage Grouse, Yellow Rail Coturnicops, Spragues’s Pipit, Burrowing Owl, Northern Leopard Frog Western Boral, Piping Plover, Ferruginous Hawk, Long-Billed Curlew, Great Plain’s Toad and the Longerhead Shrike Prairie subspecies.
[ii] Council of Canadian Academies. "Environmental Impacts of Shale Extraction in Canada Ottawa (ON): The Expert Panel on Harnessing Science and Technology to Understand the Environmental Impacts of Shale Gas Extraction." Scienceadvice.ca. 2014. http://www.scienceadvice.ca/uploads/eng/assessments%20and%20publications%20and%20news%20releases/shale%20gas/shalegas_fullreporten.pdf (accessed May 22, 2014).
[iii] Kiviat, Erik,"Risks to biodiversity from hydraulic fracturing for natural gas in the Marcellus and Utica shales," Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 2013: 1-14.
[iv] Bearer, Scott, Emily Nicholas, Tamara Gagnolet, Michele DePhilip, Tara Moberg, and Nels Johnson, "Environmental Reviews and Case Studies: Evaluating the Scientific Support of Conservation Best Management Practices for Shale Gas Extraction in the Appalachian Basin," Environmental Practice, 2012: 308-319.
[v] Aldridge, C. L., and M. S. Boyce, “Linking occurrence and fitness to persistence: a habitat-based approach for endangered greater sage-grouse," Ecological Applications , 2007: 508-526.
[vi] Aldridge, C. L., and R. M. Brigham", Distribution, abundance, and status of the greater sage-grouse, Centrocercus urophasianus, in Canada," Canadian Field-Naturalist, 2003: 25-34.
[vii] (Eco Justice N.D.)
[viii] (Eco Justice N.D.)
[ix] Bamberger, Michelle, and Robert E. Oswald, "Impacts of Gas Drilling on Human and Animal Health," New Solutions, 2012: 51-77.
[x] (Bamberger and Oswald 2012)
[xi] (Kiviat 2013)
[xii] American Petroleum Institute, "Water Management Associated with," The Natural Gas Subcommittee of the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board. June 2010. http://www.shalegas.energy.gov/resources/HF2_e1.pdf (accessed July 27, 2014).
[xiii] (American Petroleum Institute 2010)
[xiv] (Council of Canadian Academies 2014)
[xv] SaskAdapt:Prairie Adaptation Research Collaborative, Water & Drought, N.D., http://www.parc.ca/saskadapt/adaptation-options/theme-assessments/water-drought (accessed August 14, 2014).
[xvi] Precht, Paul, and Don Dempster, “Jurisdictional Review of Hydraulic Fracturing Regulation," Nova Scotia government. March 27, 2012. https://www.novascotia.ca/nse/pollutionprevention/docs/Consultation.Hydraulic.Fracturing-Jurisdictional.Review.pdf (accessed July 24, 2014).
[xvii] (Kiviat 2013)
[xviii] (Council of Canadian Academies 2014)
[xix] Council of Canadian Academies, 2014
[xx]McDermott-Levy, Ruth, Nina Kaktins and Barbara Sattler, “Fracking, the Environment, and Healt,” AJN, American Journal of Nursing, 2013: 45–51.
[xxi](McDermott-Levy, Kaktins and Sattler 2013)
[xxii] (McDermott-Levy, Kaktins and Sattler 2013)
[xxiii] (Precht and Dempster 2012, 47)
[xxiv] Smith, Trevor, "Environmental Considerations of Shale Gas Development," Chemical Engineering Progres, 2012: 53-59.
[xxv] (Precht and Dempster 2012, 49)
[xxvi] (American Petroleum Institute 2010)
[xxvii] (American Petroleum Institute 2010)
[xxviii] (American Petroleum Institute 2010)
[xxix] (Precht and Dempster 2012, 43)
[xxx] (Precht and Dempster 2012, 44)
[xxxi] (American Petroleum Institute 2010)
[xxxii] (Precht and Dempster 2012, 46)
[xxxiii] (American Petroleum Institute 2010)