There are 816 surface water withdrawal locations used by oil and gas operations in Pennsylvania.
Key Findings
State designated waters in Pennsylvania are protected from pollution, but not from oil and gas related water withdrawals, despite being critical habitat for rare, sensitive, and endangered species.
Small watersheds are at risk for ecological degradation due to the high volume of surface water withdrawn for fracking in Pennsylvania.
Overview
Clean water is equally as important for environmental health as it is for societal well-being. Nearly a third of the species tracked by the Pennsylvania Natural Heritage Program are at risk of Marcellus unconventional well development in PA, with 132 considered to be globally rare or critically endangered or imperiled in the state. These species are at risk due to the deforestation, pollution, and water withdrawal that occurs during fracking well development.
Withdrawal of water from any point in a body of water can alter the naturally occurring flow regime, which can impact various chemical, physical, and biological attributes of rivers. Furthermore, these changes can lead to declines in water quality, water supply, and the ecological integrity of river and stream ecosystems. Changes to the natural flow regime can have detrimental impacts on fish, including changes to physical habitat, habitat access, food supplies, behavior, community composition, energy expenditure, and population dynamics. Importantly, aquatic organisms with migratory behaviors may be disproportionately affected by flow alterations.
The flow of a stream is directly related to the drainage area and its ability to catch water during precipitation events. For that reason, smaller drainage areas are more susceptible to drought and withdrawals. These drainage areas can be considered through the Strahler’s Stream Order System. Under this numbering system, illustrated below, the headwater channels with no upstream boundaries are designated as first-order streams down to their first join. A second-order stream is formed when two first-order streams meet, a third-order stream is created when two second-order streams join, and so on. The Ohio River is the largest order in PA at a 9th order.
Image: Kilom691, CC BY-SA 3.0, via Wikimedia Commons
One study in 2013 found that one fifth of the fracking wells in PA pulled water from streams with drainage areas under 100 km2 (38.6 mi2). This study found that further protections are needed for 3rd order streams and smaller, and requested that more stringent water withdrawal practices were adopted. We were motivated by this study to look at fracking withdrawals within watersheds containing small streams and from protected waters.
In this study, “Small Watersheds” are defined as watersheds containing no higher than 4th order streams because these are most at risk of water withdrawal harming the ecosystem. By looking at watersheds containing small ordered streams, we eliminate instances where small drainage areas contain large streams or rivers within their watershed, which is a caveat of using spatial water data.
There are 1,451 watersheds at the watershed scale (HUC 12) across PA. Of these, half (715) contain protected waters, classified as High Quality (HQ) or Exceptional Value (EV). These are protected under PA Code Title 25 Chapter 93 Water Quality Standards because they represent the highest water quality in the state and are supposed to be pristine and free from pollution. These streams were tested and permitted as having reached these designations as part of the PA Clean Streams Law. These protections require stringent considerations for point source and non-point source pollution to prevent degradation of high quality habitat.
By limiting harmful practices, designations are supposed to preserve already suitable habitats for sensitive, migratory, and rare species, including cold-water fish species. Two thirds of all HUC 12 PA watersheds (972) were Small Watersheds, with a mean drainage area of 75.7 km2 (29.2 mi2). Almost half of these Small Watersheds (470) are home to designated HQ or EV waters.
Designated Streams and Fracking Activity
This interactive map looks at fracking wells and surface water withdrawal points in Pennsylvania, including interactive flowlines, withdrawal locations, and watersheds throughout the state.
View the map “Details” tab below in the top right corner to learn more and access the data, or click on the map to explore the dynamic version of this data. Data sources are also listed at the end of this article. In order to turn layers on and off in the map, use the Layers dropdown menu. This tool is only available in Full Screen view. Items will activate in this map dependent on the level of zoom in or out.
View Full Size Map | Updated 7/1/2023 | Map Tutorial
Fracking Impacts on Surface Water
Our study found that as of 2022, there are 8,653 hydraulic fracturing wells in PA in the FracFocus database. It’s important to note that there are far more wells depending on what datasource is used, and according to the PA DEP, there are 23,842 unconventional fracked wells. This discrepancy is likely due to the self-reporting nature of FracFocus, which results in dramatic under-estimates in studies that require disclosure information.
Across the state of Pennsylvania there are 816 surface water withdrawal locations used by oil and gas operations. However, we are limited in knowing the operator of the withdrawal point and cannot determine which fracked gas wells are specifically served by this water, and some of these withdrawal locations are shared by many operators. We found that of the watersheds that contain withdrawal locations, two fifths of the watersheds (110) contain Small Streams.
We were motivated to look at this because of the Barth-Naftilan et al., study that found one fifth of the fracking wells during 2013 pulled water from streams with drainage areas under 100 km2 (38.6 mi2). Our findings suggest that this Small Stream withdrawal behavior has doubled since 2013 and that water resources have not protected small streams from oil and gas related water use throughout the last decade. These small streams and their inhabitants cannot afford to have multi-million gallon, daily withdrawals altering their flow and need more protection.
Inadequate Protections for Designated Waters
State designated waters are protected from pollution, but not from oil and gas related water withdrawals, despite being critical habitat for rare, sensitive, and endangered species. Among all oil and gas surface withdrawal locations in PA (816), 24 EV or HQ streams have withdrawals. Migratory fish depend on 11 of these streams. Rare and sensitive species also likely rely on these streams, but this information is not readily available, and typically needs to be requested from a state agency or conservancy. Half of these designated streams facing withdrawals are 4th order or less, meaning they are especially susceptible to the dangers of withdrawals.
These waters reach their designation status because of their importance in the ecosystem.
Nine of the 24 designated streams containing withdrawal locations are also non-attaining, meaning they do not support the aquatic life or human use the waters should be capable of. These streams should be a priority in restoration efforts, and restoration should (but often does not) include restoring stream flow. These streams are listed in Table 1.
The Takeaway
There are 816 surface water withdrawal locations used by oil and gas operations in Pennsylvania. Of the watersheds that contain withdrawal locations, two fifths of the watersheds (110) contain Small Streams.
Our findings further suggest that withdrawals from Small Streams have doubled since 2013. As a result, small watersheds are at risk of appropriation from high quantity water withdrawals and need support on a larger, regional scale. Recommendations for this support may include:
- Historical flow monitoring requirements prior to fracking: Requiring historical flow monitoring, with a minimum of 5 years of flow monitoring data, would be one regulatory protection that could prevent quality degradation in streams. This would verify flow conditions for modeling purposes, and monitor their reactions to drought and dry periods, across varying seasons.
- Antidegradation requirements for withdrawals: Pennsylvania’s Antidegradation requirements state, “Existing instream water uses and the level of water quality necessary to protect the existing uses shall be maintained and protected.” These protected discharges from polluting waters, but the level of water quality drops when the water level drops, so these regulations must be extended to water level and flow.
References & Where to Learn More
- Read more articles in this series:
- Watch the research presentation featuring Kat Wilson, FracTracker Environmental Health Fellow, on the impacts of fracking on surface water in Pennsylvania
Topics in This Article:
Join the Conversation
Stay Informed
FracTracker Newsletter
Support Our Work
FracTracker Alliance helps communicate the risks of oil and gas and petrochemical development to advance just energy alternatives that protect public health, natural resources, and the climate.
By contributing to FracTracker, you are helping to make tangible changes, such as decreasing the number of oil and gas wells in the US, protecting the public from toxic and radioactive chemicals, and stopping petrochemical expansion into vulnerable communities.
Your donations help fund the sourcing and analysis of new data so that we can keep you informed and continually update our resources.
Please donate to FracTracker today as a way to advocate for clean water, clean air, and healthy communities.
What You Should Read Next
Indigenous Communities’ Fight Against CO2 Pipelines in the Great Plains
Pennsylvania Oil and Gas Industry Trends: Drilled Wells, Violations, Production, and Waste
A Closer Look at Risks of the Appalachian Hydrogen Hub
Falcon Pipeline Criminal Charges Explained
The Importance of Surveying Rural Landowners in North Dakota on Fracking
Exploring the Fallout of Precision Scheduled Rail: A Rail Worker’s Perspective on Precision Scheduled Rail
Not-So-Radical Transparency: An Ineffective and Unnecessary Partnership Between Pennsylvania Governor Shapiro and the Gas Company CNX
California Must Improve Management of Idle Wells
Holes in FracFocus
Mapping PFAS Chemicals Used in Fracking Operations in West Virginia
Chevron’s $2.3 Billion Asset Adjustment Raises Questions Amidst Regulatory Changes in California
Data Gaps: A Critical Examination of Oil and Gas Well Incidents in Ohio
Stop Toxic Threat: A Heavy Industrial Zoning Battle
East Palestine Warning: The Growing Threat From Hazardous Waste Storage
Index of Oil and Gas Operator Health in California Shows Risks to State Economy and Taxpayers
Calling for Change: Life on the Fracking Frontlines
On the Wrong Track: Risks to Residents of the Upper Ohio River Valley From Railroad Incidents
Digital Atlas: Exploring Nature and Industry in the Raccoon Creek Watershed
Why Do Houses Keep Exploding in One Pennsylvania Suburb?
FracTracker Alliance Releases Statement Opposing Governor Shapiro’s Agreement With CNX
Oil and Gas Activity Within California Public Health Protection Zones
Assessment of Oil and Gas Well Ownership Transfers in California
Evaluation of the Capacity for Water Recycling for Colorado Oil and Gas Extraction Operations
Evidence Shows Oil and Gas Companies Use PFAS in New Mexico Wells
CalGEM Permit Review Q1 2023: Well Rework Permits Increase by 76% in California
2022 Pipeline Incidents Update: Is Pipeline Safety Achievable?
Testimony On EPA’s Proposed Methane Pollution Standards for the Oil and Gas Industry
Assessment of Rework Permits on Oil Production from Operational Wells Within the 3,200-Foot Public Health Protection Zone
CalGEM Permit Review Q4 2022: Oil Permit Approvals Show Steep Rise Within Protective Buffer Zones
A Contentious Landscape of Pipeline Build-outs in the Eastern US
Major Gas Leak Reveals Risks of Aging Gas Storage Wells in Pennsylvania
Coursing Through Gasland: A Digital Atlas Exploring Natural Gas Development in the Towanda Creek Watershed
Falcon Pipeline Online, Begins Operations Following Violations of Clean Streams Law
Synopsis: Risks to the Greater Columbus Water Supply from Oil and Gas Production
Desalination: The Chemical Industry’s Demand for Water in Texas
Take Action in Support of No New Leases
Carbon Capture and Storage: Developments in the Law of Pore Space in North Dakota
Carbon Capture and Storage: Industry Connections and Community Impacts
Carbon Capture and Storage: Fact or Fiction?
Pipeline Right-of-Ways: Making the Connection between Forest Fragmentation and the Spread of Lyme Disease in Southwestern Pennsylvania
FracTracker Finds Widespread Hydrocarbon Emissions from Active & Idle Oil and Gas Wells and Infrastructure in California
California Regulators Approve More Oil Well Permits Amid a Crisis of Leaking Oil Wells that Should be Plugged
An Insider Take on the Appalachian Hydrogen & CCUS Conference
Does Hydrogen Have a Role in our Energy Future?
Oil and Gas Brine in Ohio
PA Environment Digest Blog: Conventional Oil & Gas Drillers Dispose Of Drill Cuttings By ‘Dusting’
Real Talk on Pipelines
2021 Production from Pennsylvania’s Oil and Gas Wells
Mapping Energy Systems Impacted by the Russia-Ukraine War
Dimock residents working to protect water from a new threat: fracking waste
Implications of a 3,200-foot Setback in California
New Trends in Drilling Permit Approvals Take Shape in CA
Oil and Gas Drilling in California Legislative Districts
New Report: Fracking with “Forever Chemicals” in Colorado
Introducing: FracTracker’s comprehensive new Pennsylvania map!
New Letter from Federal Regulators Regarding how the Falcon has Been Investigated
US Army Corps Muskingum Watershed Plan ignores local concerns of oil and gas effects
Oil and gas companies use a lot of water to extract oil in drought-stricken California
Southeastern Texas Petrochemical Industry Needs 318 Billion Gallons of Water, but the US EPA Says Not So Fast
Chickahominy Pipeline project tries to exploit an apparent regulatory loophole
Map Update on Criminal Charges Facing Mariner East 2 Pipeline
It’s Time to Stop Urban Oil Drilling in Los Angeles
Infrastructure Networks in Texas
California Prisons are Within 2,500’ of Oil and Gas Extraction
New power plant proposal called senseless and wasteful by climate groups
Ongoing Safety Concerns over Shell’s Falcon Pipeline
New Neighborhood Drilling Permits Issued While California Fails to Act on Public Health Rules
The world is watching as bitcoin battle brews in the US
California Oil & Gas Drilling Permits Drop in Response to Decreased Permit Applications to CalGEM
California Denies Well Stimulation Permits
Mapping PFAS “Forever Chemicals” in Oil & Gas Operations
Updated National Energy and Petrochemical Map
Ohio, West Virginia, Pennsylvania Fracking Story Map
Ohio & Fracking Waste: The Case for Better Waste Management
Pennsylvania Conventional Well Map Update
Impacts of 2020 Colonial Pipeline Rupture Continue to Grow
Gas Storage Plan vs. Indigenous Rights in Nova Scotia
Mapping Gathering Lines in Bradford County, Pennsylvania
Trends in fracking waste coming to New York State from Pennsylvania
2021 Pipeline Incidents Update: Safety Record Not Improving
New York State Oil & Gas Well Drilling: Patterns Over Time
Risky Byhalia Connection Pipeline Threatens Tennessee & Mississippi Health, Water Supply
Shell’s Falcon Pipeline Under Investigation for Serious Public Safety Threats
Kern County’s Drafted EIR Will Increase the Burden for Frontline Communities
Pennsylvania’s Waste Disposal Wells – A Tale of Two Datasets
California Oil & Gas Setbacks Recommendations Memo
Oil and Gas Wells on California State Lands
Industrial Impacts in Michigan: A Photo Essay & Story Map
People and Production: Reducing Risk in California Extraction
Documenting emissions from new oil and gas wells in California
FracTracker in the Field: Building a Live Virtual Map
Mapping Gathering Lines in Ohio and West Virginia
The North Dakota Shale Viewer Reimagined: Mapping the Water and Waste Impact
Falcon Pipeline Construction Releases over 250,000 Gallons of Drilling Fluid in Pennsylvania and Ohio
Systematic Racism in Kern County Oil and Gas Permitting Ordinance
Fracking Water Use in Pennsylvania Increases Dramatically
New Yorkers mount resistance against North Brooklyn Pipeline
California, Back in Frack
California Setback Analyses Summary
Air Pollution from Pennsylvania Shale Gas Compressor Stations – REPORT
New York State Oil & Gas Wells – 2020 Update
National Energy and Petrochemical Map
Governor Newsom Must Do More to Address the Cause of Oil Spill Surface Expressions
Oil & Gas Well Permits Issued By Newsom Administration Rival Those Issued Under Gov. Jerry Brown
Pipelines Continue to Catch Fire and Explode
The Hidden Inefficiencies and Environmental Costs of Fracking in Ohio
Fracking in Pennsylvania: Not Worth It
Fracking Threatens Ohio’s Captina Creek Watershed
How State Regulations Hold Us back and What Other Countries are doing about Fracking
New Method for Locating Abandoned Oil and Gas Wells is Tested in New York State
Abandoned Wells in Pennsylvania: We’re Not Doing Enough
The Underlying Politics and Unconventional Well Fundamentals of an Appalachian Storage Hub
Permitting New Oil and Gas Wells Under the Newsom Administration
Mapping the Petrochemical Build-Out Along the Ohio River
Impact of a 2,500′ Oil and Gas Well Setback in California
Production and Location Trends in PA: A Moving Target
The Falcon Public Monitoring Project
Release: The 2019 You Are Here map launches, showing New York’s hurdles to climate leadership
Idle Wells are a Major Risk
Literally Millions of Failing, Abandoned Wells
Wicked Witch of the Waste
The Growing Web of Oil and Gas Pipelines
Unnatural Disasters
Getting Rid of All of that Waste – Increasing Use of Oil and Gas Injection Wells in Pennsylvania
A Disturbing Tale of Diminishing Returns in Ohio
Pennsylvania Drilling Trends in 2018
216 Franklin St, Suite 400, Johnstown, PA 15901
Phone: +1 (717) 303-0403 | info@fractracker.org
FracTracker Alliance is a 501(c)3 non-profit: Tax identification number: 80-0844297
Leave a Reply
Want to join the discussion?Feel free to contribute!