INTS final paper fish and fracking

RUNNING HEAD: Fracking and Fisheries
The Good, the Bad, Fish and Fracking: Are They Environmentally Compatible?
Faith Warren
INTS 3300 – 001
Dr. Gail Bentley
Texas Tech University

2
RUNNING HEAD: Fisheries, Conservation, and Fracking
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to investigate and provide more understanding of the good
and bad aspects of high volume fracturing from an ecological standpoint. The literature chosen
for this research study had to provide insights and different perspectives regarding fracking, fish,
and water conservation and how they interact. Scientific articles found provided information of
how harmful fracking can be, and on the other side of the spectrum, how beneficial it can be with
more regulation. In conclusion, hydraulic fracking does pose threats to ecosystems, but provides
a stable energy source that is cleaner than coal, conventional oil, and nuclear energy. With strict
regulations on fracking and equipment, fracking could potentially be environmentally
compatible.

3
This research paper is an interdisciplinary research project using Allen F. Repko’s ten
step process to investigate if fracking, fisheries management, and conservation can potentially be
environmentally compatible. The information presented provides insights and perspectives of
fisheries management and water conservation and how it correlates with hydraulic fracking and
its processes. All scientific articles utilized provide different information about the good and bad
aspects of fracking, and were integrated to provide a final perspective.
STEP 1: State the Focus of Your Paper
This first step according to Repko’s ten stop process is stating the focus of this paper.
This is an important step and is used to define the scope of the problem. (Repko, 2012) Fracking
in regards to ecological concerns has become a hot topic among several types of scientists:
Environmentalists, Natural Resource Managers, and Fisheries Managers, just to name a few.
Hydraulic fracturing has become very popular over the last few decades and can access usually
inaccessible reservoirs to harvest oil and natural gas. (Burton, Basu, Ellis, Kapo, Entrekin,
Nadelhoffer, 2014) Horizontal drilling to extract unconventional oil and natural gas is certainly
driving an economic boom and is generating income, (Jackson, Vengosh, Carey, Davies, Darrah,
O’Sullivan, & Petron, 2014) but can this practice be compatible with possible at-risk ecosystems
and aquatic habitats? And if so, for how long? This makes for a complex problem because of
clashing insights and disciplines. With the use of Repko’s ten steps of interdisciplinary research
process, (Repko, 2012) the focus of this paper is to address good outcomes and adverse effects of
high-volume hydraulic fracturing (HVHF), and how it could possibly affect the surrounding
habitat, especially fisheries resources and water quality. This paper will also compare fracking to
other habitat fragmentation processes such as “agriculture, silviculture (forestry), mining, and
urban development. (Burton et al., 2014)

4
STEP 2: Justify Using an Interdisciplinary Approach
Possible compatibility issues are noticeably present when researching hydraulic
fracturing and fisheries resources. An interdisciplinary approach is needed because this problem
is complex, it requires more than one discipline in order to understand the problem’s depth, and
this problem has not been solved to satisfy environmental needs. (Repko, 2012) The fact that this
problem is very complex and has not been fully solved is the justification of research for this
paper. Using two disciplines is critical to identify complexities and provide integration of
information in order to glimpse all possibly suitable solutions.
STEP 3 & 4: Identify Relevant Disciplines and Conduct a Literature Search
One hurdle upon choosing relevant disciplines is choosing the most relevant discipline
for the problem to be researched. (Repko, 2012) Several various disciplines that would satisfy
studying of this particular complex problem can include Fisheries, Economics, Politics, Finance,
Government, Engineering (petroleum and mechanical), Ecology, Environmental toxicology,
Conservation, Natural Resource Management, and many others. The two disciplines used for the
focus in this paper are Fisheries Management and Conservation Science.
Fisheries management was chosen as a discipline because hydraulic fracking requires a
very large amount of water to be used and contains harmful chemicals. Both of these damaging
effects are potentially harmful to aquifers, groundwater, and surface waters (lakes, rivers,
streams). (Burton et al., 2014) This discipline is useful for this study because by using it, it
would be able to identify potentially bad fracking behaviors while reducing the threat fracking
can cause on aquatic environments. For example, fracking fluid was accidentally released into

5
Acorn Fork Creek in Kentucky which had detrimental effects on the local fish and invertebrates.
(Papoulias, & Velasco, 2013)
Conservation Science was the second discipline chosen for this library research.
Conservation can be used as a viable discipline because along with the large amounts of water
that fracking requires, usually in the millions of gallons, gas wells and frack pads are typically
located near streams and rivers more often than not; the construction of roads, frack pads, wells,
and other equipment generally erode the terrestrial habitat. This could lead to sedimentation,
chemical runoff, and riparian zone degradation (stream or river embankments). Although this is a
very risky process, it needs to be managed because the neighboring water body being used for
fracking water withdrawal may also be used for agriculture; agriculture is the highest aquatic
habitat villain that not a lot of people think about when compared to fracking. (Burton et al.,
2014)
STEP 5: Develop Adequacy in Each Relevant Discipline
Developing adequacy in each relevant discipline is needed in order to accurately
approach a complex problem and to allow the user to think critically to form useable
recommendations and allow a better synthesis of both discipline’s information. (Repko, 2012)
This paper’s first relevant discipline is that of Fisheries Management which is the science
of managing fish populations and their required habitats. Fisheries management includes a
variety of subjects such as water quality, riparian health, food web science, stream flows and
tributaries, watersheds, and discharge just to describe a few. However, focusing on the aspects of
water quality, water management, and species diversity and habitat are more applicable to this

6
project. Research of water management as it relates to fisheries management provides insight to
ecological concerns as a whole.
The second relevant discipline utilized is Conservation Science. Conservation Science’s
goal is to conserve and protect current wildlife and their ecosystems. In regards to this project,
this comprises conserving terrestrial habitats, groundwater systems, diversity, species ranges
(migratory or spawning range), and possibilities of recycling used materials. This is important to
consider because finding compatibility between fracking and conservation within water and
fisheries would be beneficial to not only the environment but to human health concerns as well.
STEP 6: Analyze the Problem and Evaluate Each Insight or Theory
The literature chosen for each relevant discipline provides insights and analysis to the
complexities of environmental compatibility with hydraulic fracturing and aquatic resources.
During the research process, it was shown that there are joint environmental and economic
profitable processes in regards to the many stages of fracking, but conversely there are also
adverse effects.
Insights of Fisheries Management
Fisheries management has been around in North America as early as the 1800’s. This
started when Europeans started to migrate to North America and began to utilize fisheries and
water for resources. It was not until recently that Americans began to be concerned about species
extirpation from certain areas (extinction), and especially with recent droughts, be concerned
about water availability. So, why is fracking a concern for fisheries and resource managers?
There are several ecological impacts in mostly all stages of fracking that are a cause for concern
to include road and structure construction (i.e. frack pads and wells), terrestrial erosion, and the

7
ongoing risks of spills, accidents, and mismanagement of wastes. (Burton et al., 2014) According
to Papoulias et al. (2013), fracking fluid that was accidentally released into Acorn Fork Creek in
Kentucky caused distinctive population losses and altered habitat and water quality downstream
from the effluent expulsion point. This is very unfortunate because this creek is home to the
threatened species Chrosomus cumberlandensis, or most commonly called Blackside Dace. Prior
to 2007, Acorn Fork Creek had good water quality and suitable habitat for healthy populations of
Blackside Dace. This incident has killed and/or distressed the population, as well as other species
that occupy this habitat, causing them to be displaced further downstream away from their usual
waters. (Papoulias et al., 2013) Another study performed around the Marcellus Shale Region of
Pennsylvania, which contains the native range of Salvelinus fontinalis (Brook Trout), had
concluded that the expansion of wells in this region have reduced Brook Trout’s native range due
to sedimentation, temperature changes, and water contamination. This event is very concerning
to fisheries managers in this region because this species of trout is the only naturally occurring
native salmonid of the Eastern United States. (Weltman-Fahs, M., & Taylor, J.M., 2013)
Both of these studies pose very concerning threats to these region and creek’s inhabitants,
however there are some other factors that could be contributing to their decline that do not only
include the practices of fracking. In regards to the native Brook Trout in the Marcellus Shale
Region, it was stated in the research that hydraulic fracturing is “another potential threat”
amongst others which include habitat fragmentation, temperature changes, and water quality
changes, as mentioned earlier, coupled with the introduction and removal of invasive species.
(Weltman-Fahs et al., 2013) It is agreeable that fracking does pose threats to sensitive
ecosystems, like the accidental leak at Acorn Fork, but other habitat degradation and chemical
exposure is much more prominent in other practices such as agriculture, mining, silviculture, and

8
urban development. These practices require proportionately more water withdrawals and higher
chances of contaminating aquatic ecosystems than fracking. (Burton et al., 2014)
Insights of Conservation Science
Conservation science has the same definition in any application on which it is used; it is
the science or practice of conserving, protecting, and in other cases, recycling resources for the
greater good of the environment. Conservation science in regards to fracking practices is very
important. Research used for this paper cites sources that identify potential problems and better
practices associated with fracking chemicals, water abundance and usage, and flowback and
waste water management.
Many case studies and research is performed in regards to human health as the main
concern with fracking practices, however much of this information can be applicable in regards
to aquatic systems and its inhabitants. According to Burton’s study (2014), identified chemicals
and toxicants in fracking fluid were shown to affect the following human systems: respiratory,
gastrointestinal, sensory organs (i.e. eyes and skin), nervous, immune, cardiovascular, and renal.
If these chemicals have such effects to the human systems, the same chemicals would be just as
dangerous to aquatic specimens if exposed. Not all chemicals that are present within frack sites
are purely from fracking fluid; when hydraulic fracking causes fissures that allow natural gas and
oil to leak and be extracted, the whole volume does not always get collected. These leaks can
contaminate drinking water, aquifers, and groundwater that would affect aquatic habitats and
humans. (Jackson et al., 2014) With this in mind, fracking equipment and well integrity needs to
be managed.

9
Water usage and availability is also a big concern; as mentioned above, fracking requires
very large amounts of water to be withdrawn. Possible conflicts with this is that no research is
done prior to drilling if this body of water is being utilized for other practices (i.e., agriculture or
drinking water) and this is a large public concern. (Burton et al., 2014; Jackson et al., 2014)
Jackson’s study mentioned a surprising list of other processes that require a substantial amount
of water compared to shale gas extractions. For instance, water requirements for coal, nuclear,
and conventional oil extraction are two to ten times greater than for shale gas. This study also
mentioned water requirements for corn ethanol production is greater in comparison and even
more so if those crops are irrigated. (Jackson et al., 2014)
The last conservation effort to mention is flowback and waste water treatment, and
although it is a slow technology to implement, it is noteworthy. The ever growing science and
technology of recycling and reusing flowback or fracking water is a relatively new method. One
study is researching the use of fouling-resistant membranes that could treat flowback water to
use again, and would be cost effective and water conservation friendly. (Miller, Huang, Li,
Kasemset, Lee, Agnihotri, Hayes, Paul, & Freeman, 2013) These membranes are an attractive
and viable solution for flowback water recycling because they remove harmful salts from the
water that are detrimental to soils, and are an attractive option for on-site purification systems
because they are cost effective. (Miller et al., 2013)
STEP 7 & 8: Identify Conflict Between Insights and Their Sources and Create Common
Ground
Identifying conflict is necessary because if conflict is not identified, integration will be
difficult. ( Repko, 2012) Both insights of Fisheries Management and Conservation Science can

10
be compatible with each other because most of the time these two disciplines have the same
goals in mind. Therefore there are no conflicting vocabulary issues or confusing phenomena,
and, though basic assumptions may differ at times, they do not conflict. The literature research
found for this paper had some conflicting as well as similar insights between their own
researches. Fisheries management typically concentrates on all aquatic habitats that contain
commercial or sport fishery resources. This insight also concentrates on water quality,
hydrology, conductivity, riparian habitats, and other aspects that encompass aquatics.
Conversely, conservation science can encompass more than aquatic habitats and be applied to
other interests completely. Within this paper, sources cited for fisheries management in regards
to Blackside Dace and Brook Trout are purely concerned with those species and how fracking
poses potential threats. Sources cited for conservation, although used and applied towards
aquatic ecosystems, are still applied for conservation because of waters being overdrawn and
possible recycling opportunities of flowback water. Both disciplines used for this research create
common ground regularly. Common grounds between the sources used can be both applied
toward conservation and fisheries because conserving water and resources benefits fish and
habitats, and managing fish and their habitats benefit freshwater conservation.
STEP 9: Construct a More Comprehensive Understanding
Integration is one of the most important parts of thinking critically and performing
interdisciplinary research, this comes from a more comprehensive understanding. (Repko, 2012)
Both disciplines strive to achieve a similar long term goal which is maintaining current aquatic
habitats and ecosystems. Fracking, overall, does seem to pose short term and long term threats.
However, in comparison to other habitat (aquatic and terrestrial) degrading practices such as
agriculture run-off, silviculture, mining and urban development, fracking poses less of a

11
proportional threat for these systems as well as uses less water while harvesting a very valuable
energy source. (Burton et al., 2014 & Jackson et al., 2014) According to Burton’s study,
hydraulic fracturing for unconventional oil also produces less harmful emissions into the air,
which is beneficial to water, fisheries, and humans. (2014) With this in mind, fracturing fluid has
also been proven to be detrimental to aquatic systems in regards to well integrity and possible
leakages. Research management proposed by Jackson et al., 2014, recommends better
management of wells, pipes, and plugs in order to keep utilizing the drilling for unconventional
oil and gas and maintains aquatic habitat integrity.
STEP 10: Communicating the Results
The self-conscious activities of communicating the results provide why choices were
made in the research process and how research had developed from these choices. (Repko, 2012)
Accessing unconventional oil reserves within shale gas formations is definitely creating jobs,
boosting economic activity, and is creating a more stable energy that is actually showing more
promise to decrease greenhouse gas emissions if a full switch from other sources were
performed. However, as there are environmental risks involved with fracking, better
management of point source and nonpoint source leakages of fluids (fracking and natural fluids),
equipment, wells, and fracking sites in general would heavily decrease the risks associated with
all fracking stages. (Burton et al., 2014) Another positive and steadily rising technology for
fracking is the more attractive and cost effect membrane treatment of flowback water to be
reused, continuing with the extraction processes. (Weltman-Fahs et al., 2013) Some weaknesses
of this study could include habitat and diversity already lost before such studies were performed.
Another weakness presented in this study is the amount of water being used in the extraction
process without the consideration of what other uses the water body is being used for; ignorance

12
or indifference of water usage proves to be highly detrimental and requires further research and
management. (Burton et al., 2014) These findings can be applied to and considered in the real
world for more precise research of this complex problem.
However, a few a list of considerations to remember;
 Research needs to be conducted while maintaining the understanding that there are other
habitat degrading practices happening.
 There will always be some sort of a risk per fracking and, with it, possible exposure of
chemicals via leakages, accidents, spills, and very rarely, explosions, and
 Finally, that there is new and upcoming technology that is being tested to provide more
environmentally friendly recycling processes.
All of these considerations will not only benefit fisheries and freshwater resources, but also
human health, and terrestrial and riparian health while continuing to provide the booming
resource of natural gas.

13
References
Burton, G. A., Basu, N., Ellis, B. R., Kapo, K. E., Entrekin, S., & Nadelhoffer, K. (2014).
Hydraulic ‘Fracking’: Are surface water impacts an ecological concern?, Environmental
Toxicology & Chemistry, 33(8), 1679-1689.
Jackson, R. B., Vengosh, A., Carey, J. W., Davies, R. J., Darrah, T. H., O’Sullican, F., & Petron,
G. (2014). The environmental costs and benefits of fracking. Annual Review of
Environment & Resources, 39(1), 327-362
Miller, D. J., Huang, X., Li, H., Kasemset, S., Lee, A., Agnihotri, D., & Freeman, B. D. (2013).
Fouling-resistant membranes for the treatment of flowback water from hydraulic shale
fracturing: A pilot study. Journal of Membrane Science, 437265-275.
Papoulias, D. M., & Velasco, A. L. (2013). Histopathological analysis of fish from Acorn Fork
Creek, Kentucky, exposed to hydraulic fracturing fluid releases. Southeastern Naturalist,
1292-111
Repko, A. F., (2012). Interdisciplinary research: process and theory. Los Angeles: SAGE.
Weltman-Fahs, M., & Taylor, J.M. (2013). Hydraulic fracturing and Brook Trout habitat in the
Marcellus Shale region: Potential impacts and research needs. Fisheries, 38(1), 4-15.

INTS final paper fish and fracking

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (6)

Similar to INTS final paper fish and fracking

Similar to INTS final paper fish and fracking (20)

More from Faith Warren

More from Faith Warren (7)

INTS final paper fish and fracking