The statewide debate over hydraulic fracturing for natural gas in the George Washington National Forest continues. Last week, Governor Terry McAuliffe announced at a climate change commission meeting that he will not support fracking in the GW. Local environmentalists and forest advocates said they’re grateful for the governor’s support, but because the decision is ultimately up to a federal agency, how much weight does McAuliffe’s announcement actually hold?
Despite supporting a controversial 550-mile natural gas pipeline that would cut through the forest, McAuliffe was quoted in the Washington Post saying he’s opposed to opening the GW to fracking.
“I won’t allow it as long as I’m governor,” McAuliffe said at the meeting. “We made it clear to everyone we will not allow fracking in our national forest. I’m not going to allow it.”
The process of fracking requires the high-pressure injection of chemicals and water deep underground to crack open deep-rock formations and release natural gas.
Environmentalists have urged legislators to limit fracking in Virginia for years, concerned that the process would contaminate crucial drinking water sources, and the industrial footprint from clear cutting and bulldozing for well pads, access roads, and pipelines would endanger wildlife and disrupt recreational use of the forest.
The Forest Service, part of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, oversees management of national forests like the GW, and will ultimately determine whether or not to open up its nearly two million acres to fracking when it issues its revised management plan for the forest—a long-delayed document originally slated for completion in 2012. According to Charlottesville-based Southern Environmental Law Center chief attorney Sarah Francisco, McAuliffe’s statement against fracking is a good sign.
“It’s not necessarily the governor’s decision, but I think it does mean something,” Francisco said. “It shows the depth and strength of his commitment, which is important. And we believe the Forest Service should be listening to the overwhelming voices of Virginians, from the governor to the 11 cities and counties near the forest that have weighed in on this.”
Francisco noted that the Forest Service’s initial plan, drafted in 2011, would have prohibited horizontal drilling—the gas extraction method most associated with fracking—but was reconsidered under pressure from industry. Since then, she said, more than 75,000 public comments from nearby residents, government agencies, and three major metropolitan water suppliers have urged the agency to stand firm on its original ban.
Lynn Cameron, a Shenandoah Valley resident and member of Friends of Shenandoah Mountain, a regional environmental advocacy group, said she’s been hiking and camping in the GW for more than 30 years.
“Fracking would mean that our national forest, a public land, would be used for just one purpose,” Cameron said. “The need is so great to fulfill all these other purposes of recreation and also clean water that many of these localities completely depend on.”
Forest Service representatives did not address questions about McAuliffe’s involvement finalizing the forest management plan, and the governor’s office did not return calls for comment. Francisco said the agency’s new management plan could come any day now. And even if it does call for opening up the GW to fracking, the potential of an administrative appeal means the debate could continue.
“It’s been a long process, and I’m glad the agency’s taking the time they must think they need to make a decision,” Francisco said. “But it’s time, and we hope they make a good decision soon.”