I think it would be a good idea to get ahead of the curve with these fracking projects. Some of them are going to be done. Probably many of them.
Things that conservation-minded individuals and groups can do of their own accord, without a great deal of expense (although it will take some time and effort):
1) Do a 'triage' assessment- prioritize which watersheds [including streams, springs, wells, and aquifer basins] are the most highly valued, healthy, ecologically diverse, unique, extensive, and vulnerable. That's always going to be something of a judgment call- but some cases are bound to be more obvious than others.
You guys are the Pa. native trout fishers- and that makes you expert informants on the ground on that subject. There's no need to commission some research project that delivers it's findings after what's done is done.
First you map it out. Then you rank the watersheds, in order of the ones that most require protection. Not easy, but this is triage.
2) Obtain a map of all of the planned/possible drilling sites.
3) Then you overlay those maps, and figure out which locations need the most protection.
Then you have a clear idea of what most needs to be defended.
4) Learn the important basic facts about fracking chemicals and procedures- in order to figure out what constitutes a minor spill, and what constitutes a major spill. You want some sound science-based perspective, so you don't fly off the handle over every last thing.
An example: this spill being discussed is 13,000 gallons- equivalent to the size of a 24 ft. round pool with a depth of 52 inches.
http://www.backyardcitypools.com/swimming-pools/Pool-Volume-Calculate.htm
Big question: how bad is a 13,000 gallon spill, really?
Speaking for myself- I don't know.
I'm still in the very beginning stages of learning about all of this, so I don't have the answers to most of my questions- but this is the next thing I want to ask:
How much of that 13,000 gallons is water, and how much is other stuff- salt, petroleum distillates, detergents, etc.?
Then you want to run a rough comparison of the effects of that spill, versus the amounts contributed to the well/aquifer/watershed by the sort of non-point source runoff that we've come to accept as part of the modern world. Things like the grease and oil of vehicles washing off of pavement into streams, or road salt. It's important to figure out how much of an added burden is being imposed on the watershed.
5) Then you want to figure out the array of possible consequences from a "no-problem" spill; a minor spill, that would cause negative cumulative effects if repeated in the same place; the levels of major spill that could lead to ever more serious consequences like aquatic insect dieoffs or fishkills; and finally, what a catastrophe would look like. Including one from cumulative insults and traumas.
In order to do that, you need to involve environmental scientists. It might even be possible to get some of those people to do studies and risk assessments pro bono (i.e., without getting paid.) Documented findings and estimates are important.
6) Then you need to get the local environmental scientists/watershed keepers (and that's you, some of you) and petro geologists, hydrologists, and engineers to talk to each other. How well this dialogue would go, I can't say. But I think it's important to try. I don't think it should be necessary to make it about government hearings- at least at first. More like a meeting of the minds (with minutes taken), and informal community Q&A sessions. Try for reasonable cooperation, first. If you don't get it, document that.
7) I think one goal should be to allow monitoring of the drilling operations by trained local volunteer teams. If the gas companies are above-board and honest, I think they ought to find a way to permit that sort of oversight. But the volunteers need to be trained so that they know what they're looking at. (And, sad to say, it's probably important to have a check on them by rotating the teams, to prevent the possibility of bribery.)
