The fight to protect Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge

March 12, 2021/0 Comments/in Articles, Legislation & Politics, Social, Wildlife and Ecology /by Rebecca Johnson

Overview

For the past four decades, groups of Alaska Natives including the Gwich’in and Iñupiat, international institutions including the United Nations and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, the US government, the state of Alaska, and environmental groups have debated whether or not oil extraction should be allowed in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR).

Made up of 19.3 million acres in northeastern Alaska, ANWR is an area with great cultural significance and ecological richness. Fossil fuel extraction poses significant material, reputational, and human rights risks according to the Gwich’in Steering Committee, a group formed in 1988 in response to proposals to drill for oil in the coastal plain of ANWR, or what they call the Sacred Place Where All Life Begins, Iizhik Gwats’an Gwandaii Goodlit.

In the past few months, the Trump administration issued nine leases, the first ever in the Arctic refuge’s coastal plain, even as major oil companies skipped out on bidding in the area and all major U.S. and Canadian banks pledged not to fund fossil fuel development in the Refuge. The sale was a major flop, which points to the larger movement away from fossil fuels, an inevitable transition reinforced by President Joe Biden’s 60-day moratorium on oil and gas leasing on federal lands.

But despite efforts to protect ANWR, leases that went through under the Trump administration threaten to further violate human rights and damage wildlife.

The great risk of ecological devastation from oil & gas exploitation

Described as “North America’s Serengeti,” ANWR is the continent’s most intact and remote wilderness environment, a landscape of fragile tundra ecosystems and diverse wildlife. The Refuge is home to more than 40 fish and mammal species and over 200 bird species. Though harsh, the landscape exists in a delicate balance. Specially-adapted plant species thrive during long winters and short growing seasons, supporting annual wildlife migrations and hibernations, ecosystem functions, and a wealth of natural resources.

Of particular significance is Area 1002, mapped in Figure 2 below. The 1.5-million-acre area site within ANWR sits between the north slope of the Brooks Range in Alaska and the Beaufort Sea, and is the summer calving and feeding site of the Porcupine caribou, and a site sacred to the Gwich’in Tribe.

The Porcupine caribou herd has travelled the 1,500-mile trek, the longest documented terrestrial mammal migration in the world, to gather there for at least the past 23,000 years.

The herd is one of the area’s keystone species (i.e., if it were removed from the ecosystem, the landscape’s functional integrity would suffer and drastically change). The 125,000-strong herd plays a key ecological and cultural role in the Refuge, and the distribution and health of the herd is a direct indicator of the health of the entire ecosystem. Their annual journey provides them with good forage and relief from predators and mosquitos.

Oil and gas development could interfere with the Caribou herd’s migrations as industrial disturbances discourage the instinctual movements of pregnant and nursing caribou mothers – especially problematic given their slow reproductive rate – and could diminish the population.

The Porcupine caribou herd in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), Alaska. Photo courtesy of NWF Blogs, 2015.

Oil & Gas in ANWR

ANWR is also the site of oil fields, estimated by the US Geologic Survey in 2001 to contain between 11.6 to 31.5 billion barrels of oil (BBO) versus the 1987 estimate of 4.8 to 29.4 BBO, (95- and 5-percent probabilities) and mean values are 20.7 BBO versus 13.8 BBO (current assessment compared to 1998 assessment). and natural gas liquids (NGLs).

Opponents of drilling in the Arctic – including Indigenous groups, environmental organizations, and scientists – say these figures are outdated and that environmental and public health risks far outweigh any revenue. Proponents claim drilling here would significantly reduce prices and US foreign oil dependence, but such assertions are highly suspect. Market projections have shown that oil and gas exploration and production in ANWR’s North Slope would not increase US energy security or lower gas prices. Resource uncertainty and decreasing demand for fossil fuels nationally reveal a market that lures fewer and fewer investors.

Alaskan Native communities in the North Slope

For millennia, the northern Alaskan alpine tundra has been home to Native communities – including the Gwich’in, Hare, Iñupiaq, and Koyukon, who have a legacy of living sustainably in this complex, fragile, and sometimes very demanding, environment (see Figure 1). The health and wellbeing of these communities is intricately tied to the health of the environment surrounding them.

Along Alaska’s coast, outside of ANWR between Prudhoe Bay and Barrow (Utqiagvik) where oil and gas extraction is happening already, the current environmental damage from oil and gas extraction is undeniable. Extractive activities have disconnected wildlife corridors and negatively affected subsistence hunting, and the local tourism industry oriented around polar bear and whale viewing opportunities has suffered.

Though the issue has divided Alaskan communities, all those living in and around ANWR will likely face challenges borne of further oil and gas development.

Alaska’s Native peoples have led a decades-long fight to protect the area from unsustainable oil and gas development. This industry brought jobs, but introduced significant change to the way of life on the North Slope of the Athabaskan Gwazhał (Brook’s Mountain Range). Corporate profit has, in some locations, superseded the rights for health and safety of the Native people of this region.

Language Groups and Natural Features of the North Slope of Alaska

This map shows the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in the context of oil fields; Native Alaskan language groups in Alaska and eastward into Canada; along with the habitats of the Central Arctic, Western Arctic, and Porcupine caribou herd — a species held sacred by the Gwich’in people. Please note that the Native Alaskan language group territories should be interpreted somewhat loosely, as it’s difficult to estimate the precise location and distinction between groups. See Figure 2 for a detailed map of the oil fields.

Figure 1: Language groups and natural features of the North Slope of Alaska, FracTracker Alliance, January 2021. Language boundaries were taken from the Alaskan Native Language Center, and data from Alaska DCRA Data. Boundaries of these caribou herds are fluid, and may change from year to year. Caribou herd boundaries digitized by FracTracker from compiled images compiled from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Western Arctic Caribou Herd Working Group, and Wikipedia. Oil and gas area boundaries digitized by FracTracker from compiled images from North Slope Borough: Department of Planning & Community Services, and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Alaska ecoregions (including Coastal Plain) from USGS (link is a direct data download).

Trump’s Last-Minute Leasing in ANWR

President Trump claimed that the January 6, 2021, lease sale’s potential revenue would offset the costs of major 2017 tax cuts.

But pressure from drilling opponents – including Alaskan Natives, environmental activists, and scientists – a global recession, low oil prices, and waning faith and interest in the oil and gas sector curbed expected lease sales. Major oil companies chose to forego the auction – a sale that US banks (and some Canadian institutions) refused to bankroll. The auction received only three bidders – one of which was the State of Alaska – and generated only a fraction of the revenue it was projected to raise. Half of the parcels drew no bidders at all.

Results of the January 2021 oil & gas lease sale in Area 1002

This map shows parcels purchased by three entities during the January 6, 2021 lease sale in Area 1002, a site of particular cultural and ecological importance within ANWR.

Figure 2: Results of the January 6, 2021 oil and gas lease sale in Area 1002, FracTracker Alliance, January 2021. Data layer for oil and gas lease area digitized by Karen Edelstein using a Bureau of Land Management map.

Despite the lukewarm response, the BLM received 13 bids on 11 lease tracts (symbolized in Figure 2, above, with diagonal red lines). This area spans 437,804 acres, is valued at a little over 14.4 million dollars and is estimated to contain eight billion barrels of recoverable oil.

Knik Arm Services and Regenerate Alaska each secured one parcel. Half of the sale’s revenue will go to the federal government, and half will go to the State of Alaska. The leases auctioned off are renewable and active for ten years. The BLM announced on January 19 that it signed and issued leases on nine of the 11 tracts. View the record of lease sales here.

40 Year Timeline Leading to the Recent Auction

The Trump Administration’s leasing decision followed 40 years of gridlock over oil and gas exploration and drilling in one of the nation’s most pristine environments. The timeline below outlines major developments in the struggle to protect ANWR:

1960: President Dwight Eisenhower establishes an 8.9-million-acre expanse in Alaska’s tundra as the nation’s first ecosystem-scale conservation area, specifically for its “unique wildlife, wilderness, and recreational values.”

1972: The Arctic Slope Regional Corporation (ASRC) was recognized under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, which transferred 44 million acres to Indigenous control and instigated the creation of 12 regional, private, for-profit companies intended to represent and protect Indigenous business interests and their ownership of the land and its resources.

1977: Margaret Murie, American naturalist, author, adventurer, and conservationist and recipient of the Presidential Medal of Freedom stood before Congress on behalf of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, testifying to why we must defend our last wild places.

1980: President Jimmy Carter signs into law the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANICLA), which expands the protected area to 19.3 million acres and renames it the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). The Act mandates that potential oil reserves in the 1.5-million-acre Coastal Plain be considered for development only with Congress’ authorization.

1987: Under President Ronald Reagan, an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for ANWR’s oil and gas exploration is drafted, and the US Department of Interior recommends Congress open the Coastal Plain for exploration.

2002 – 2003: During President George W. Bush’s Administration, the House repeatedly approves drilling in ANWR – only to be met with the Senate’s rejection.

2012: The Gwich’in people present and defend a Resolution to Protect the Birthplace and Nursery Grounds of the Porcupine Caribou Herd to Congress and the President. The Resolution recognizes and affirms their right to continue and protect their way of life and the protection of the caribou they revere and depend on.

2015: President Barack Obama’s Administration releases the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service’s Comprehensive Conservation Plan for ANWR, calling for core areas – including the Coastal Plain – to be designated as wilderness, the highest level of protection for public lands.

2017: Following House instructions, the Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee legislates $1 billion in revenue creation between 2018 – 2027, and to that end, passes an ANWR drilling provision. President Donald Trump signs the bill into law through the Tax Cuts & Jobs Act, which makes several significant changes to individual income tax and — notably – mandates energy and job creation and economic growth for future generations, through which the Trump Administration and Republican lawmakers advance fossil fuel industry expansion. The law includes the ANWR lease provision as a way to generate revenue to offset the associated tax cuts, in turn opening up the Coastal Plain to drilling.

April, 2018: Gwich’in Council International (GCI) publishes Impact Assessment in the Arctic: Emerging Practices of Indigenous-led Review, identifying the strategic approaches Indigenous governments are taking as they lead their own major project assessment.

“Gwich’in Council International (GCI) represents 9,000 Gwich’in in the Northwest Territories (NWT), Yukon, and Alaska as a Permanent Participant in the Arctic Council; the only international organization where Indigenous peoples have a seat at the decision-making table alongside national governments. GCI supports Gwich’in by amplifying our voice on sustainable development and the environment at the international level to support resilient and healthy communities.”

December, 2018: The Trump administration’s Bureau of Land Management (BLM) released a draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) for oil and gas leasing in ANWR. Many opposed the DEIS as a violation of indigenous rights. The Center for American Progress analyzed public opinion concerning drilling in the refuge and found that an overwhelmingly majority opposed to drilling the refuge. Of the 1 million comments submitted in response to the draft EIS, 99 percent opposed the proposed oil and gas activity.

March 26, 2019: Gwich’in leaders from across the United States and Canada were joined by faith leaders, scientists, and veterans to stand before Congress and testify on behalf of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and its coastal plain, and to support passage of The Arctic Cultural and Coastal Plain Protection Act. Witnesses included Ms. Bernadette Demientieff, Executive Director, Gwich’in Steering Committee; The Honorable Galen GilbertChief, Arctic Village Council; The Honorable Dana Tizya-Tramm, Chief, Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation; The Honorable Victor Joseph, Chief/Chairman, Tanana Chiefs Conferece; Mr. Sam Alexander, Board Member, Gwich’in Council International; Mr. Fenton Rexford, Advisor to the Mayor of the North Slope Borough, Tribal Member, Native Village of Kaktovik; Rev. Mark Lattime, Bishop of Alaska, The Episcopal Church; Dr. Steven Amstrup, Chief Scientist, Polar Bears International; Mr. Chad Brown, Founder, Soul River, Inc.; Mr. Richard Glenn, Executive Vice President, External Affairs, Arctic Slope Regional Corporation; Mr. Matthew Rexford, Tribal Adminisrator, Native Village of Kaktovik.

October 2019: The Gwich’in Steering Committee, Cultural Survival, Land is Life, First Peoples Worldwide, and the American Indian Law Clinic at the University of Colorado submitted a report to the the United Nations Human Rights Council. In the report, “Observations on the State of Indigenous Human Rights in the United States of America,” groups state that “The government of the United States has repeatedly failed to protect the human rights of the Gwich’in by aggressively pursuing oil and gas development in the Coastal Plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge without first obtaining the Free, Prior and Informed Consent of the Gwich’in Nation.”

September 2020: Fifteen states sue the Trump Administration over drilling in ANWR, and two more lawsuits from environmental and social justice organizations and Indigenous groups assert that oil operations would violate the rights of Indigenous populations and threaten the landscape and wildlife it sustains. BLM withdraws approximately 460,000 acres from the plan after extensive comment and protest from Alaskan Natives, environmental nonprofit organizations, and the Canadian government, though the majority of the leases remain on the table.

In the same month, the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) released the Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program. Its release was a clear suppression of science and public opinion.

U.S. Secretary of the Interior David Bernhardt made the following dubious claims: “Affordable energy and great paying energy jobs help power our nation’s economy, which is clearly thriving under President Trump’s policies,” stated. After rigorous review, robust public comment, and a consideration of a range of alternatives, today’s announcement is a big step to carry out the clear mandate we received from Congress to develop and implement a leasing program for the Coastal Plain, a program the people of Alaska have been seeking for over 40 years.”

December 2020: The Gwich’in Steering Committee, including Tribal Governments and Village Councils, and more than a dozen conservation groups seek a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction prohibiting Trump from approving and issuing oil and gas leases along the Coastal Plain. The filing asserts that it is well-known and documented that seismic exploration would cause irreparable harm to the landscape, its biodiversity, and its people, as well as their tribal archaeological and cultural resources – negative impacts that go beyond the lease tracts granted to purchasers, because it promises rights-of-way and easements that breach parcel boundaries.

January 5, 2021: The day before the lease auction, an Alaskan judge denies the lawsuit from Indigenous and environmental groups arguing that the lease sales were based on inadequate, outdated environmental review. The judge claims the group didn’t provide enough evidence of environmental transgressions to warrant an injunction.

“This is bum news but it’s not going to stop us from fighting to protect it,” said Bernadette Demientieff, chair of the Gwich’in Steering Committee that brought the lawsuit. “This is sacred land to the Gwich’in. This is our way of life, and we’re not going to just allow anyone to come in and destroy our way of life, because our children are going to be the ones who have to live with the destruction that they caused.”

January 6, 2021: President Trump opens up the lease sale in a public auction hosted and streamed live on the BLM website.

January 19, 2021: On their last full day in office, the Trump Administration announces it had officially issued oil and gas leases in ANWR. The outgoing administration also tried to push through a law requiring banks to finance many industries, including oil and gas companies and assault weapons manufacturers, that major institutions – counting JP Morgan Chase and Goldman Sachs – announced they would no longer finance.

January 20, 2021: President Joe Biden signed 17 executive orders his first day in office – 30 in the first three days – that reverse several of his predecessor’s environmentally-damaging policies . Biden directed the Secretary of the Interior to “place a temporary moratorium on all activities of the Federal Government relating to the implementation of the Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program, as established by the Record of Decision signed August 17, 2020, in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The Secretary shall review the program and, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, conduct a new, comprehensive analysis of the potential environmental impacts of the oil and gas program.”

Subsequently, the Department of the Interior issued Secretarial Order No. 3395, implementing a 60-day suspension of new oil and gas leasing and drilling permits for federal land and water.

On the same day, one of the preexisting lease holders, 88 Energy, published an update related to its operations on the North Slope of Alaska, stating plans to extract oil from the Coastal Plain by drilling directionally into the land from state land.

The Gwich’in Steering Committee released the following statement in response: “The Gwich’in Steering Committee opposes all forms of development and calls on Regenerate Alaska and its parent company, 88 Energy, to halt its plans.”

January 27, 2021: Biden issues a pause on oil and gas leasing in non-tribal federal lands and offshore waters, which lengthened the 60-day moratorium issued the week prior. He also ordered the creation of an interagency working group to prioritize economic revitalization of communities dependent on fossil fuels, and to focus on transitioning these workers to cleaner energy industries.

“We’re not going to lose jobs; we’re going to create jobs,” Biden said in his remarks about this executive order. Republicans criticized this move, saying it will eliminate jobs and hurt US businesses, but Biden’s order didn’t apply to all permitting. He added, “We’re not going to ban fracking,” a point he emphasized in his 2020 presidential campaign.

Did we miss anything? Let us know if you have important milestones to add to the timeline above!

The future of ANWR

Despite his plan to temporarily halt oil and gas leasing, Biden has approved at least 31 drilling permits since his inauguration. The Department of the Interior – whose top officials Biden put in charge of oil permitting decisions – states that the order, set to expire March 20, does not equate to a drilling permit freeze and does not apply to tribal lands. However, energy companies are still worried they may not be able to secure permits.

There are a few tactics that Biden can use to delay oil and gas exploration in ANWR, including reopening the Department of Interior’s record of decision (ROD), instituting a bid rejection, or delaying permits that companies need to search for oil and build infrastructure – though it is possible that companies could secure their leases and just wait for the administration to change (in their favor).

But if Biden wants to stick to his plan for a “just energy transition,” and advance his environmental justice, racial equity, and job creation priorities, he has to listen to Alaskan Natives and integrate their interests moving forward. Their input and right to manage their lands must be prioritized.

“We are eager to hear the Biden administration’s plan to replace the economy that it’s brought to a standstill, and look forward to working side-by-side with the President to create new, sustainable solutions,” said Voice of the Arctic Iñupiat (VOICE) President Sayers Tuzroyluk.

Voice of the Arctic Iñupiat is a nonprofit organization and communication network working across North Slope communities to address and participate in legislation, regulations, and government programs to protect their culture, and to ensure natural resource development in a safe and responsible manner.

Biden will also need to prioritize fossil fuel industry workers whose livelihoods are uncertain from his extended moratorium – for people in ANWR, and in other US communities.

The Takeaway

Regulatory actions to open ANWR for drilling in ANWR have significant and potentially grievous implications for Alaska’s Native peoples, and do not bode well for Alaska’s air, water, and landscape, and the biodiverse species such as the Porcupine caribou that call it home.

Increased fossil fuel activity will also continue to alter the landscape and hinder its function by disconnecting migration and breeding habitat, disturbing and/or displacing animal populations, threatening their survival, and destroying the delicate ecological balance of the Coastal Plain.

However this issue is resolved, the rights of Alaskan Natives should be foremost in future decision-making and is of utmost importance to the future of their epic lands. Following their leadership, there’s hope that the solution will be equitable for both people and the environment

References & Where to Learn More

Gwich’in Steering Committee – The Gwich’in Steering Committee was formed in 1988 in response to proposals to drill for oil in the Sacred Place Where Life Begins, the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

The Gwich’in Place Name and Story Atlas is an interactive Story Map that invites visitors to explore the culture, history, traditional knowledge, and land use of the Gwich’in through Gwich’in place names. The Atlas is the result of more than two decades of collaboration between the Gwich’in Social and Cultural Institute, Gwich’in Elders, and traditional land users living in the Gwich’in Settlement Region communities of Aklavik, Fort McPherson, Inuvik and Tsiigehtchic.

The Gwich’in Elders’ Biographies Research Project is a project of the Gwich’in Social & Cultural Institute’s Department of Cultural Heritage. Researchers interviewed 24 elders from the four Gwich’in communities, and collected their life histories. Many of the elders describe a very traditional lifestyle of moving seasonally on the land, being the last generation to live in this traditional manner. Their stories communicate their love and knowledge of the land, and speak to the importance of family ties, place names, legends, and historical events. They also offer snapshots of the sweeping changes the Gwich’in experienced in the 20th century.

The Right to be Cold is Sheila Watt-Cloutier’s memoir of growing up in Quebec’s Arctic on the front lines of climate change. “It is the story of an Inuk woman finding her place in the world, only to find her native land giving way to the inexorable warming of the planet.” She became one of the most influential Indigenous environmental, cultural, and human rights advocates in the world. She served as the elected Canadian president of the Inuit Circumpolar Council from 1995 to 2002, and in 2002 she was elected its international chair. She launched the world’s first international legal action on climate change through a petition to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.

Saqiyuq: Stories from the Lives of Three Inuit Women by Nancy Wachowich, Apphia Agalakti Awa, Rhoda Kaukjak Katsak and Sandra Pikujak Katsak offers a collection of stories from a grandmother, daughter, and granddaughter from the Baffin Island community of Pond Inlet, Nunavut. Saqiyuq is the Inuktitut word for ‘a strong wind that suddenly shifts direction.’ Their stories illustrate the shift in Inuit life from nomadic subsistence hunting to permanent settlement in communities, and offer insight into the “enforced acculturation of the Inuit and the imposition of religious and cultural values useless to Inuit culture.”

A Moral Choice: The Human Rights Implications for the Gwich’in of Drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge by the Gwich’in Steering Committee, 2005.

Alaskan Natives https://www.alaskan-natives.com/

The Northern Alaska Environmental Center https://northern.org/

Environment America https://environmentamerica.org/blogs/environment-america-blog/ame/our-decades-long-campaign-defend-arctic-national-wildlife-refuge

NRDC https://www.nrdc.org/protect-arctic-national-wildlife-refuge

The Arctic Institute https://www.thearcticinstitute.org/topics/climate-and-environment/

The Arctic Council https://arctic-council.org/en/news/environment-and-climate/

Topics in this Article

Social | Legislation & Politics | Wildlife & Ecology

Oil and Gas Wells on California State Lands

February 12, 2021/0 Comments/in Articles, Infrastructure, Legislation & Politics, Wells, Wildlife and Ecology /by Kyle Ferrar, MPH

The fossil fuel industry has historically taken advantage of the nation’s mineral estate for private profit, while outsourcing the public health debts of degraded environmental quality to Frontline Communities. While President Biden has recently ordered the Department of Interior to put a 60-day halt on permitting new oil and gas drilling permits on federal lands, no such policy exists for state lands in California. Governor Newsom’s administration has allowed the California Geological Energy Management Division to issue rework and new drilling permits on California state lands, bringing the total number of operational oil and gas wells on state lands up to a total of 178, almost half of which are “idle.” This number pales in comparison to the number of California oil and gas wells on federal lands; a total of 6,997 operational wells.

FracTracker Alliance has mapped out the operational oil and gas wells located on state lands in California, using the California Protected Areas Database. The areas containing the highest concentrations of oil and gas wells on state lands include two sensitive ecosystem environments. Figure 1 shows the 102 operational oil and gas wells located in Southern California’s Bolsa Chica Ecological Preserve. The wells are part of the Huntington Beach oil field. The preserve shares marine habitat with a marine protected area (MPA) and is habitat for numerous rare and several endangered species. More sensitive habitat also threatened by oil and gas extraction; Figure 2 shows the oil and gas production wells on the Sacramento River Delta, just upriver of the Bay Area. It is habitat for several threatened and endangered species such as the Delta Smelt and Giant Garter Snake.

California needs Governor Newsom to take a stand against the further exploitation of California’s public lands. A ban on permitting new wells on state land and a commitment to plug existing wells would set an example for Biden’s administration to make the current 60-day freeze a permanent policy.

Figure 1. The Bolsa Chica Ecological Preserve hosts over 100 operational oil and gas wells that put the preserve’s ecological habitat at risk.

Figure 2. There are 50 operational oil and gas wells permitted on California state lands in the Sacramento River Delta.

See more California maps and articles here.

By Kyle Ferrar, Western Program Coordinator, FracTracker Alliance

Image courtesy of Lois Bower-Bjornson from the Clean Air Council.

Landscape Changes and Mental Health Impacts in Southwestern Pennsylvania Communities: A Qualitative Study

August 20, 2020/0 Comments/in Articles, Health & Safety, Land, Social, Wildlife and Ecology /by Intern FracTracker

By Emma Vieregge, FracTracker Summer 2020 Environmental and Health Fellow

Overview

Unconventional oil and natural gas development, or “fracking,” began in Pennsylvania in the early 2000s. Since then, over 12,000 unconventional wells have been drilled in the state, and over 15,000 violations have been documented at unconventional well sites. As fracking operations continue to expand, increasing numbers of residents have experienced significant health impacts and irreparable damage to their property. Southwest Pennsylvania in particular has been heavily impacted, with high concentrations of oil and gas infrastructure developed in Washington, Greene, and Fayette Counties.

Fracking operations have led to declining air quality, water and soil contamination, and drastic changes to the physical landscape including deforestation, habitat fragmentation, road construction, and damaged farmland. While the volume of scientific literature about the physical and mental health impacts of fracking is rising, few studies exist that specifically focus on residents’ perceptions of the changing physical landscape. The primary goal of this qualitative study was to identify residents’ attitudes about the changing physical landscape resulting from fracking operations. Furthermore, how have these landscape changes affected residents’ engagement with the outdoors and their overall health?

Mental health, green spaces, and a changing landscape

Many scientific studies have documented the relationship between fracking developments and mental health, and between mental health and access to green spaces and engagement with the outdoors. Peer-reviewed studies have looked at heavily fracked communities across the US, many of which focus on Pennsylvania residents. Methods typically involve one-on-one interviews, larger focus groups, surveys, or a combination of the three, to identify how living amongst oil and gas operations takes a toll on everyday life. These studies have found an increase in stress and anxiety, feelings of powerlessness against the oil and gas industry, social conflicts, sleep disturbances, and reduced life satisfaction. Additionally, residents have experienced disruptions in their sense of place and social identity. For a summary of published research about the mental health impacts from fracking, click here.

A healthy strategy many choose to cope with stress and anxiety is engagement in outdoor recreation. Having easily accessible “green spaces,” or land that is partly or completely covered with grass, trees, shrubs, or other vegetation such as parks and conservation areas have been shown to promote physical and mental health. Many scientific studies have identified significantly fewer symptoms of depression, anxiety, and stress in populations with higher levels of neighborhood green space.1 Additionally, green spaces can aid recovery from mental fatigue and community social cohesion.2 3 However, residents in Southwestern Pennsylvania may slowly see their access to green spaces and opportunities for outdoor recreation decline due to the expansion of fracking operations. Figure 1 below shows a visual representation of the interconnected relationship between fracking, access to green spaces, and negative mental health impacts.

Figure 1. The interconnected relationship between fracking operations, landscape changes and decreasing access to outdoor recreation, and negative mental health impacts.

In the last 10-15 years, fracking operations in Southwest Pennsylvania have exploded. The development of new pipelines, access roads, well pads, impoundments, and compressor stations is widespread and altering the physical landscape. Figure 2 below illustrates just one of many examples of landscape disruption caused from fracking operations.

Figure 2. Examples of changes in the physical landscape caused from fracking operations in Greene County (A) and Washington County (B), Pennsylvania. Images taken from Google Earth.

Additionally, this time-slider map (Figure 3) illustrates a larger scale view of landscape changes in Greene County, Pennsylvania in a region just east of Waynesburg.

Figure 3. Time-slider map of a region in Greene County, PA where the left portion of the map is imagery from 2005, and the right portion of the map is from 2017. Active oil and gas wells are indicated by a blue pin, and compressor stations are in green.

Study design

A qualitative study was conducted to answer the following research questions:

What are residents’ perception of the landscape changes brought about by fracking?
Have these landscape changes caused any mental health impacts?
Have changes to the physical landscape from oil and gas operations resulting in any changes in engagement with outdoor recreation?

To better understand these topics, residents living in Southwestern Pennsylvania were recruited to participate in one-on-one phone interviews, and an online survey was also distributed throughout the FracTracker Alliance network. Recruitment for the one-on-one phone interviews was accomplished through FracTracker’s social media, and email blasts through other partnering organizations such as Halt the Harm Network, People Over Petro, and the Clean Air Council. Similarly, the online survey was shared on FracTracker’s social media and also distributed through our monthly newsletter. Since this was not a randomized sample to select participants, these results should not be generalized to all residents living near oil and gas infrastructure. However, this study identifies how certain individuals have been impacted by the changing landscape brought about by fracking operations.

Eight residents completed phone interviews, all of whom resided in Washington County, PA. Residents were first asked how long they have lived in their current home, and if there was oil and gas infrastructure on or near their property. Oil and gas infrastructure was defined as well pads, compressor stations, pipelines, ponds or impoundments, or access roads. Next, residents were asked if they had any health concerns regarding fracking operations and gave personal accounts of how fracking operations have altered the physical landscape near their home and in their surrounding community. For those with agricultural land, additional questions were asked about fracking’s impact on residents’ ability to use their farmland. Lastly, residents were asked questions focused on engagement in outdoor recreation and if fracking had any impact on outdoor recreation opportunities. NVivo, a qualitative analysis software, was used identify emergent themes throughout the interviews,

In addition to the interviews, an online survey was also made available.The main purpose of the survey was to gauge where concerns about landscape changes from fracking operations fell in relation to other oil and gas impacts (i.e. air pollution, water contamination, excess noise and traffic, and soil contamination). Nine responses were recorded, and the results are discussed below. However, if you would like to add your thoughts, you can find the survey at https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/Z5DCWBD.

Main findings and emergent themes

Various emergent themes surrounding the oil and gas industry’s impact on public health and the environment were identified throughout the resident interviews. Residents shared their personal experiences and how they have been directly impacted by fracking operations, especially with reference to the changing physical landscape surrounding their homes and throughout their communities. Participants’ time of residence in Washington County ranged from 3 years to their entire life, and all participants had oil and gas infrastructure (well pad, pipelines, impoundment, access roads, or compressor station) on or next to their property.

Changes to the physical landscape and residents’ attitudes toward the altered environment

The first overarching theme was changes to the physical landscape and residents’ attitudes toward the altered environment. All interview participants expressed concerns about the changes to the physical landscape on or surrounding their property, especially regarding access roads and well pads. Although one participant mentioned that widening the township road in order to make room for fracking trucks benefited the local community, the majority of participants expressed frustration about the construction of access roads, excessive truck traffic, noise, and dust from the unpaved access roads. One individual stated, “My main concern is the dust from the road. I’m constantly breathing that in, and it’s all over my shed, on the cars, the inside of the house, the outside of the house.” Multiple participants discussed the oil and gas operations disrupting what was once peaceful farmland with beautiful scenery (see an example in Figure 4 below). Another individual stated, “And of course, the noise is just unbearable. They don’t stop…the clanging on the pipe, the blow off with the wells, pumps running, generators, trucks coming down the hill with their engine brakes on, blowing their horn every time they want another truck to move.”

Figure 4. Aerial view of oil and gas infrastructure next to a home in Scenery Hill, PA. Image courtesy of Lois Bower-Bjornson from the Clean Air Council.

Impacts to outdoor recreation activities

Impacts to outdoor recreation activities such as hunting, fishing, and hiking were another recurring theme throughout the interviews. Again, a majority of participants believed their opportunities to partake in outdoor recreation have been limited since fracking operations began in their area.

Among the top concerns was deteriorating air quality and increasing numbers of ozone action days, or days when the air quality index (AQI) for ozone reaches an unhealthy level for sensitive populations. Various participants expressed concerns about letting their children outside due to harmful air emissions and odors originating from well pads or compressor stations. Excessive truck traffic was also a safety concern that was mentioned, especially for those individuals with access roads on or neighboring their property.

Additionally, one individual noted landscape changes in areas commonly used for hiking stating, “You might be hiking along a trail and then realize that you’re no longer on the trail. You’re actually on a pipeline cut. Or you’ll get confused while you’re hiking because you’ll intersect with a road that was developed for a well pad, and it’s not on your map.” Along with hiking, participants also noted a change in hunting and fishing opportunities since fracking moved into the region. Concerns were expressed regarding harvesting any fish or wild game due to possible contamination from fracking chemicals, especially near watersheds with known chemical spills.

Going for a hike and immersing oneself in nature is a healthy way to unwind and relieve stress. However, a rising number of well pads and compressor stations are put in place near parks, hiking trails, and state game lands throughout Southwest Pennsylvania (Figure 5). Participants expressed concerns about feeling unable to escape oil and gas infrastructure, even when visiting these recreational areas. As one individual mentioned, “It really does change your experience of the outdoors. And, you know, it’s an area that’s supposed to be a protected natural area. Then you know you can’t really get away. Even there in public lands far away from buildings and roads. And you can’t really get away from it.”

Figure 5. A map of active oil and gas well pads and compressor stations in Washington County, Pennsylvania. Map layers also indicate wells pads and compressor stations within 1 mile of a park, hiking trail, ball park, or state game land.

View map fullscreen

Mental health impacts

But what are the mental health impacts that result from the changing physical landscape brought about by fracking? Aside from the physical health effects caused by fracking activity — such as respiratory illnesses from air pollution or skin irritation from contaminated well water — these landscape changes have taken a toll on participants’ mental health as well.

Sentimental value and emotional distress

Many participants described the sentimental value of their property, and the beautiful scenery surrounding their generational family farms. But after fracking began on neighboring property, witnessing their tranquil family farm suddenly become surrounded by dusty access roads, excessive truck traffic, noise, and deteriorating air quality took a serious emotional and mental toll. When asked about the impact of the changing landscape, one participant stated, “It’s the emotional part of watching her childhood farm being destroyed while she is trying to do everything she can to rebuild it to the way it used to be.”

An additional emergent theme surrounding fracking landscape changes was surrounding agricultural impacts. Participants with agricultural land were asked additional questions about fracking’s impacts on their ability to use their farmland. One individual noted that one of their fields was now unusable due to large rocks and filter fabrics left from construction of a well pad, and redirected runoff uphill of their fields. The loss of productive farmland has further contributed to the mental and emotional stress. One participant added, “Our house is ruined, our health is ruined, and our farms are ruined.” In addition to agricultural impacts on large farms, multiple participants also mentioned concerns about their smaller-scale gardens, citing uncertainty about the impacts of air pollution and soil contamination on their produce.

Feelings of powerlessness and social tension

Some participants mentioned feelings of powerlessness against the oil and gas industry. Many families were not consulted prior to fracking operations beginning adjacent to their property. In some cases, this has resulted in significant declines in property values, leaving residents with no financial means to escape oil and gas activity. It is important to note that many residents are given temporary financial incentives to allow fracking on their land. However, to some, the monetary compensation failed to make up for the toll fracking took on their physical and mental health. Lastly, some participants also mentioned feeling stress and anxiety from the social tension resulting from fracking. Debates about the restrictions and regulations on fracking have divided many communities, leading to conflicts and social tensions between once-amiable neighbors.

Survey results

In addition to the interviews, an online survey was distributed to gain more insight as to where concerns about the changing physical landscape fell in relation to other effects associated with oil and gas development (such as poor air quality, water or soil contamination, truck traffic, and noise).

Nine individuals responded to the survey, all of whom indicated having oil and gas infrastructure within five miles of their home. All respondents also indicated that they participated in a wide variety of outdoor recreation activities such as hiking, wildlife viewing/photography, camping, hunting, and fishing.

Interestedly, only five respondents stated they felt fracking had a negative impact on their health, three responded they were unsure, and one responded no. However, all participants felt fracking had a negative impact on their surrounding environment. When discussing outdoor recreation, eight of nine respondents stated they felt fracking limited their access to outdoor recreation opportunities.

Next, respondents indicated that the level of concern related to the changing landscape brought about by fracking was equal to concerns about air pollution, water and soil contamination, noise, and truck traffic (using a 5-point likert scale). Lastly, one respondent stated that they closed their outdoor recreation tourism business due to blowdown emission (the release of gas from a pipeline to the atmosphere in order to relieve pressure in the pipe so that maintenance or testing can take place) and noise from fracking operations.

Conclusion and future directions

In summary, fracking operations have deeply impacted these individuals living in Washington County, Pennsylvania. Not only do residents experience deteriorating air quality, water contamination, and physical health effects, but the mental and emotional toll of witnessing multigenerational farms become forever changed can be overbearing. Other mental health impacts included rising social tensions, feelings of powerlessness, and continuous emotional distress. Fracking operations continue to change the physical landscape, tarnishing Southwest Pennsylvania’s natural beauty and threatening access to outdoor recreation opportunities. Unfortunately, those not living in the direct path of fracking operations struggle to grasp the severity of fracking’s impact on families living with oil and gas infrastructure on or near their property. More widespread awareness of fracking’s impacts is needed to educate communities and call for stricter enforcement of regulations for the oil and gas industry. As one resident summed up their experiences,

“Engines are running full blast, shining lights, and just spewing toxins out there. And you can’t get away from it. You just can’t. You can’t drink the water. You can’t breathe the air. You can’t farm the ground. And you’re stuck here.”

Hopefully, shedding light on residents’ experiences such as these will bring policymakers to reconsider fracking regulations to minimize the impact on public health and the surrounding environment.

By Emma Vieregge, FracTracker Summer 2020 Environmental and Health Fellow

Acknowledgements

The 2020 Environmental Health Fellowship was made possible by the Community Foundation for the Alleghenies and the Heinz Endowments.

Many thanks to all participants who took the time to share their experiences with me, Lois Bower-Bjornson with the Clean Air Council, Jessa Chabeau at the Southwest Pennsylvania Environmental Health Project, and the FracTracker team for all of their feedback and expertise.

Feature image courtesy of Lois Bower-Bjornson from the Clean Air Council.

References:

1 Beyer, K., Kaltenbach, A., Szabo, A., Bogar, S., Nieto, F., & Malecki, K. (2014). Exposure to Neighborhood Green Space and Mental Health: Evidence from the Survey of the Health of Wisconsin. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 11(3), 3453-3472. doi:10.3390/ijerph110303453

2 Berman, M. G., Kross, E., Krpan, K. M., Askren, M. K., Burson, A., Deldin, P. J., . . . Jonides, J. (2012). Interacting with nature improves cognition and affect for individuals with depression. Journal of Affective Disorders, 140(3), 300-305. doi:10.1016/j.jad.2012.03.012

3 Maas, J., Dillen, S. M., Verheij, R. A., & Groenewegen, P. P. (2009). Social contacts as a possible mechanism behind the relation between green space and health. Health & Place, 15(2), 586-595. doi:10.1016/j.healthplace.2008.09.006

The Loyalsock Watershed Project

August 4, 2020/in Air, Articles, Infrastructure, Waste, Water, Wildlife and Ecology /by Shannon Smith

Endless Effects

A Digital Atlas Exploring the Environmental Impacts of a Decade of Unconventional Natural Gas Extraction in the Loyalsock Creek Watershed

Fig. 1. Appalachia Midstream SVC LLC , Cherry Compressor Station in Cherry, Sullivan County, PA. (FLIR camera footage by Earthworks, July 2020)

An Introduction to the Loyalsock Creek Watershed

Nestled in Pennsylvania’s scenic Endless Mountains region, the Loyalsock Creek flows 64 miles from its headwaters in Wyoming County near the Sullivan County line, to a peaceful confluence with the West Branch Susquehanna River at Montoursville, east of Williamsport in Lycoming County. The lively, clear water drains 495 square miles, journeying through thick forests of the Allegheny Plateau over a landscape prized for rugged outdoor recreation, bucolic wooded respites, and quaint villages.

Local place names reflect the Munsee-Lenape, Susquehannock, and Iroquois peoples who called the area home at the time of early colonial settlement. The name Loyalsock stems from the native word Lawi-sahquick, meaning “middle creek.”

A favorite for angling, swimming, and whitewater paddling, the waterway supports a notorious resident – the aquatic eastern hellbender, the largest salamander in North America. In 2018, the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR) crowned the Loyalsock “River of the Year,” a program honoring the state’s premier rivers and streams and encouraging their stewardship.

Fig 2. Loyalsock Watershed Overview Map. (FracTracker Alliance, July 2020)

Click on the section title to jump to that section

A Wealth of Public Lands and Recreational Opportunity

Public Lands

Nearly one third of the Loyalsock watershed consists of state-owned public lands, including the 780-acre Worlds End State Park; 37,519 acres of state game lands; and, 65,939 acres of the Loyalsock State Forest. The State Forest encompasses two Natural Areas, Tamarack Run (201 acres) and Kettle Creek Gorge (774 acres), as well as a 1935-acre portion of Kettle Creek Wild Area.

Worlds End State Park was originally purchased by the state in 1929 in an attempt to allow the area to recover from clear-cutting. The land was significantly improved due to the work of the Civilian Conservation Corps in the 1930s. There is some uncertainty about the historical name of the region, and as a result, the park was renamed Whirl’s End in 1936, but reverted to Worlds End in 1943.

The area is a deep gorge cut by water rushing over millions of years through the Loyalsock Creek, over sedimentary formations known as the Sullivan Highlands. The gorge reaches 800 feet deep in some locations, where the fossilized remnants of 350-million-year-old lungfish burrows can be found.

Current amenities include 70 tent camping sites, 19 cabins, as well as group camping options accommodating up to 90 campers. A small swimming area on Loyalsock Creek is open in the summer months, and the Creek is also used for boating and fishing.

The Tamarack Run Natural Area protects one of the few enclaves of the tamarack tree, a species of larch common in Canada, but relatively rare as far south as the Loyalsock watershed.

The Kettle Creek Gorge Natural Area follows the path of Falls Run, which as the name suggests, contains numerous majestic waterfalls, including Angel Falls, which drops around 70 feet. The Natural Area is buffered by the Kettle Creek Wild Area. Kettle Creek is a Class A Wild Trout stream, meaning that natural populations of trout are sufficient in quantity and size to support fishing activities.

BLenker_ecosystems-LoyalsockCreek-Warrensville-PA_Aug2019(2)

Fig. 3. A view of Loyalsock Creek from the High Rock Trail in Worlds End State Park. (Brook Lenker, FracTracker Alliance, August 2019)

BLenker_culture-tubing-LoyalsockCreek-PA_Aug2016

Fig. 4. Tubing on Loyalsock Creek. (Brook Lenker, FracTracker Alliance, August 2019)

Relaxing on the Water

The Loyalsock watershed contains 909 miles of streams, with more than 395 miles (43%) classified as high quality (358 miles) or exceptional value (37 miles). The watershed contains 10,573 acres of wetlands, including 4,844 acres of forested wetlands, 3,261 acres of riverine wetlands, 1,013 acres of freshwater ponds, 761 acres of lakes, and 694 acres of emergent wetlands.

Another popular recreation spot within the Loyalsock watershed is Rose Valley Lake, a 389-acre artificial reservoir managed by the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission. The lake contains a variety of fish, including bigmouth bass, bluegill, and walleye. Boating is restricted to electric motors and unpowered craft, making the area an idyllic getaway.

Trails

There are 238 miles of trails in the watershed, accommodating a variety of uses, including hiking, biking, horseback riding, cross-country skiing, and snowmobiles. Some notable examples include:

over 90 miles of snowmobile trails in the Loyalsock State Forest and Worlds End State Park;
most of the 64-mile-long Loyalsock Trail, showcasing numerous waterfalls;
the Double Run Ski Trail, providing cross-country opportunities in the Loyalsock State Forest;
and the 19-mile Loyalsock State Forest Bridle Trail for equestrian pursuits.

The Loyalsock Watershed also contains the entirety of state Game Lands #134 and #298, as well as parts of six others, including Game Lands #12, #13, #36, #57, #66, and #133. Not only hunting locations, these tracts preserve habitat for important bird and mammal species, provide opportunities for birding, and offer a variety of outdoor education resources.

Commercial Opportunities

There are also privately-owned recreational opportunities in the region. A portion of the historic Eagles Mere Country Club has provided golf and other activities for over 100 years. Eagles Mere Lake, just south of the watershed boundary, provides recreation opportunities for members of the privately-held Eagles Mere Association. At the south of the lake is the regionally-famous Eagles Mere Tobaggan Slide, where riders race down a specialized track at speeds up to 45 miles per hour, when winters are cold enough for sufficient ice conditions – a fleeting situation due to climate change.

A few miles to the east of Eagles Mere lies a cluster of lakes that surround the borough of Laporte, in Sullivan County. The largest of these lakes is Lake Mokoma, administered by the Lake Mokoma Association. Participation in the Association is limited to those who own residences or vacation homes in Sullivan County.

Fig. 5. Hiking trail in the Loyalsock State Forest. (FracTracker Alliance, July, 2020)

Fig. 6. An interactive map of recreation opportunities in the Loyalsock Watershed. (FracTracker Alliance, July 2020)

View map fullscreen

Note: Wetland data presented are from the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI), which is a geographically comprehensive dataset compiled by the US Fish and Wildlife Service from aerial photographs, but not a complete or accurate depiction of regulated wetlands for site-specific purposes. A relatively newer wetland mapping dataset for Pennsylvania appears to identify more areas of potential wetlands than NWI. Nevertheless, the NWI and other available map sources generally underestimate actual wetland coverage in Pennsylvania. Accurate wetland mapping requires the application of technical criteria in the field to identify the site-specific vegetation, soil, and hydrology indicators that define regulated wetlands (25 Pa. Code 105.451).

Stream data presented are from the Pennsylvania DEP Designated Use listing (25 Pa. Code 93.9), which is based on the National Hydrography Dataset. Some streams have updated designations of their existing water uses as depicted on other DEP datasets. Available electronic datasets and topographic maps do not display all permanent or intermittent streams included as Regulated Waters of the Commonwealth (25 Pa. Code 105.1). It is possible to map additional streams with the help of existing photo-based digital elevation models, although use of that technique was beyond the scope of this informational project. Such streams would add significantly to the total mileage, but they have not yet been acknowledged by the Pennsylvania DEP, and therefore are not included in the DEP’s inventories of high quality, exceptional value, or other streams.

The datasets used in this map collection can be found by following the links in the Details section of each map, found near the top-left corner of the page.

Fracking comes to the Loyalsock

Figures 7-9. Aerial imagery of unconventional oil and gas infrastructure in the Loyalsock State Forest. (Ted Auch, FracTracker Alliance, with aerial assistance from Lighthawk. June, 2020)

On November 17, 2009, Inflection Energy began drilling the Ultimate Warrior I well in Upper Fairfield Township, Lycoming County. In quick succession came Pennsylvania General Energy, Chesapeake Appalachia, Chief Oil & Gas, Anadarko E&P, Alta Resources (ARD), and Southwestern Production (SWN), all of which drilled a well by the end of 2010. It was a veritable invasion on the watershed, one that ushered in a dramatic change from a mostly agrarian landscape, to one with heavy industrial presence.

Residents have to deal with constant construction of well pads, pipelines, compressor stations, and staging grounds. Since each drilled well requires thousands of truck trips, enormous traffic jams are common, with each idling engine spewing diesel exhaust into the once clean air. The noise of drilling and fracking continues into the night, and bright flaring of gasses at wells and other facilities disrupts sleep schedules, and may contribute to serious health issues as well.

Fig. 10. An interactive map of the impacts of the unconventional oil and gas industry to the Loyalsock Creek Watershed. Note: Pipelines may be only partially depicted due to data limitations. (FracTracker Alliance, 2020)

View map fullscreen

Fracking is a nuisance and a risk in the best of times, but the Marcellus boom in the Loyalsock watershed has been notably problematic. The most frequent violations in the watershed are casing and cementing infractions, for which the “operator conducted casing and cementing activities that failed to prevent migration of gas or other fluids into sources of fresh groundwater.” This particular violation has been reported 47 times in the watershed, although there are dozens of additional casing and cementing issues that are similarly worded (see appendix). Erosion and sediment violations have also been commonplace, and these can have significant impacts on stream system health.

Improperly contained waste pits have leached toxic waste into the ground. A truck with drilling mud containing 103,000 milligrams per liter of chlorides – about five times more than ocean water – was driving down the road with an open valve, spewing fluids over a wide area. Some spills sent plumes of pollution directly into streams.

Fig. 11. Diesel truck traffic carrying fracking equipment in the Loyalsock watershed. (FracTracker Alliance, June, 2020)
Fig. 12. Diesel exhaust spewing from fracking equipment. (Barb Jarmoska)

$Diesel exhaust spewing from fracking equipment. Photo by Barb Jarmoska.$
Fig. 13. Fracking is a heavily industrial activity. Many of these sites in the Loyalsock Creek watershed are immediately adjacent to homes. (Barb Jarmoska)

$BJarmoska_infrastructure-frackingequipment-LoyalsockWatershed_2010$
Fig. 14. Open pits used to be permitted for temporary storage of oil and gas waste. Here, the liner is not properly covering the bottom-right corner, sludge is piled up past the liner in the top-right corner, and temporary fencing is failing in numerous locations. (Barb Jarmoska)

1 2 3 4

In short, it has been a mess. Altogether, there have been 631 violations issued for 317 unconventional wells drilled in the Loyalsock, an average of two violations per well.

The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) issues violations on pipelines as well, but we are unable to match pipeline violations to a specific location, so there is no way to know which ones occurred in the Loyalsock watershed.

We also know that pipeline construction is a process filled with mishaps. Specifically, there is a technique for drilling a pipeline segment underneath existing obstacles – such as streams and roads – known as horizontal directional drilling (HDD). These HDD sites frequently bleed large quantities of drilling mud into the ground or surface water. When these leaks surface, these spills are known euphemistically as “inadvertent returns.” Sometimes, the same phenomenon occurs but the fluid drains instead to an underground cavity, referred to as “loss of circulation.” We do not have data on either category for pipelines in the Loyalsock watershed. However, the DEP has published inadvertent returns for the Mariner East II route to the south, and when combining spills impacting the water and ground, these occur at a rate of about two spills for every three miles of installed pipe. Many of these releases are measured in thousands of gallons.

Unfortunately, drilling and all related activity continue in the Loyalsock Creek watershed. As the industry has proven incapable of conducting these activities in an unsullied manner that is protective of the environment and the health of nearby residents, we can expect the litany of errors to continue to grow.

A Brief Timeline of Infractions

In 2016, a major incident was reported to the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), a federal agency under the Department of Transportation (DOT). On October 21, a Sunoco pipeline ruptured, spilling 55,000 gallons of gasoline into Wallis Run, a tributary of Loyalsock Creek. The eight-inch pipeline burst when high winds and heavy floods triggered mudslides, sweeping away at least two homes and leaving flooded roads impassable. Water suppliers and national and state agencies advised locals to conserve water, and the DEP and water supplier American Water shut down intake valves until they had measured contamination levels in three water supplies serving thousands of people downstream, including populations in Lewisburg, Milton, and Gamble Township.

Limited access to the area delayed identifying the source of the rupture, though Sunoco shut off the pipeline that runs from Reading to Buffalo, NY. When waters receded, Sunoco officials replaced the broken pipe, which they said was broken by debris from a washed out bridge ten feet upstream. The pipeline was buried five feet below the creek, but heavy rains exposed it.

Agency authorities later found that heavy rains had flushed out much of the pollution, though they recorded the highest levels in the Loyalsock Creek. While this is obviously a weather-related event, local residents questioned the placement of a hazardous liquids pipeline crossing at such a volatile location, noting that the same pipeline had been exposed, (although not breached), just five years earlier.

Sunoco tops the list of U.S. crude oil spills. Sunoco and their subsidiaries reported 527 hazardous liquids pipeline incidents between 2002 and 2017, incidents that released over 87,000 barrels of hazardous liquids, according to Greenpeace USA and Waterkeeper Alliances’ 2018 report on Energy Transfer Partners (ETP) & Sunoco’s History of Pipeline Spills. Sunoco and its subsidiary ETP are developing the Dakota Access Pipeline, the Mariner East pipeline, and the Permian Express pipeline, sites that have already seen construction errors causing leaks and spills.

The area suffered another heavy spill in 2017, when a well operated by Colorado-based Inflection Energy leaked over 63,000 gallons of natural gas drilling waste into a Loyalsock Creek tributary. The spill occurred when waste was being transferred from one container to another, a neglect of the contracted worker who had fallen asleep. DEP spokesman Neil Shader said the waste – called “flowback” – was filtered and treated, but this brine can contain chemicals, metals, salts, and other inorganic materials that can pollute soil and groundwater. Carol Parenzan, at the time serving as Middle Susquehanna’s Riverkeeper, said many residents are supplied by well water, and were not alerted of the spill until a local began investigating and calling local and state authorities.

Fig. 16. At the Chesapeake Appalachia LLC Manning Well Site and Lambert Farms Well Site, the emissions sources appear to be engines or combustion devices. (FLIR camera footage by Earthworks, July 2020)

One of Earthworks’ trained and certified thermographers visited the Loyalsock watershed and surrounding area in mid-July with a FLIR optical gas imaging (OGI) camera. This industry standard tool can make visible pollutants that are typically invisible to the human eye, but that still pose significant risks to health and the environment–including 20 volatile organic compounds, such as the carcinogens benzene and toluene, and methane, a greenhouse gas 86 times more potent than carbon dioxide.

Oil and gas air pollution isn’t isolated to the Loyalsock watershed, and Earthworks has gathered optical gas imaging evidence of leaks and other air emissions on more PA public lands–like the Allegheny National Forest and the Pine Creek watershed area.

To see more photos and videos FracTracker collected in the Loyalsock Watershed, visit our Flickr album.

See Photos

Water – a precious resource

Water is the lifeblood of the Loyalsock watershed, as it is in any basin. However, in the Loyalsock, water is of particular importance. As we have seen, recreation opportunities in the area are defined by water, including fantastic fishing streams and lakes, meandering trails passing many waterfalls, various boating sites, and inviting swimming holes. For one reason or others, most visitors come to the Loyalsock to enjoy these natural aquatic locations.

Perhaps the most important water assets are underground aquifers. The majority of the watershed is rural, and private wells for potable household water are typical. Even the municipal water supply for the Borough of Montoursville is fed by groundwater, including five wells and an artesian spring.

Contamination

For a region so dependent on surface water for tourism, commercial activities, and groundwater for drinking supplies, the arrival of fracking is a significant concern. Unfortunately, spills and other violations are common at well pads and related infrastructure, with over 631 violations in the watershed since 2010.

Even pipelines that are not yet operational can have impacts on the waterways in the Loyalsock Creek watershed. In September 2012, for example, a “significant amount” of sediment and mud spilled into the Loyalsock Creek during the construction of Central New York Oil and Gas’ Marc I pipeline project. Such incidents introduce silt and clay into waterways, fine sediments that have the potential to deplete aquatic fauna. These types of episodes have received considerably more attention since this event, and it turns out that they are quite common during pipeline construction. For example, the Mariner East pipeline has had hundreds of these so-called inadvertent returns, many of which directly affected the waters of the Commonwealth.

Trucks withdrawing water for drilling-related activities at the Forksville Heritage Freshwater Station, operated by Chief Oil & Gas. Photo from FracTracker mobile app report.

Fig. 17. Trucks withdrawing water for drilling-related activities at the Forksville Heritage Freshwater Station, operated by Chief Oil & Gas. Photo from FracTracker mobile app report.

Average water use per well in the Loyalsock Watershed

Fig. 18. The average amount of water used per well in the Loyalsock Watershed has increased over time. In recent years, several wells exceeded 30 million gallons (FracTracker Alliance, 2020).

In addition to contamination concerns, unconventional oil and gas wells are extremely thirsty operations. FracTracker has analyzed wells in the watershed using the industry’s chemical registry site FracFocus. Of the 274 wells in the watershed reporting to FracFocus between January 2011 and April 2020, 38 did not include a value for total water usage. These wells were all fracked on or before September 13, 2012, when the registry was still in its early phase and its use was not well standardized. Two wells fracked in 2018 by Pennsylvania General Energy had very low water consumption figures, with one reporting 2,100 gallons, and the other reporting 6,636 gallons. These two reports appear to be erroneous, and so these wells were removed from our analysis.

Of the remaining 234 wells in the data repository, one reported using less than one million gallons, although it came close, with 925,606 gallons. Another 63 wells used between one and five million gallons, 137 wells used between five and ten million gallons, 25 wells used between ten and 20 million gallons, and eight used more than 20 million gallons. The average consumption was 7,739,542 gallons, while the maximum value was for Alta Resources’ Alden Evans A 2H well, which used 34,024,513 gallons of water.

The well’s operator has a tremendous impact on the total amount of water usage reported on FracFocus in the Loyalsock watershed.

However, it is worth noting that time factors into this analysis. None of the three companies averaging less than five million gallons of water per well – including Anadarko, Atlas, and Southwestern – have records after 2014, and water consumption has increased dramatically since then. Still, Alta’s average of nearly 24.7 million gallons per well stands out, with more than twice the amount of water consumed per well, compared to the next highest user.

Altogether, the wells on the FracFocus registry in the Loyalsock watershed consumed over 1.8 billion gallons of water, enough water to supply nearly 36,000 households for a year, assuming an average of 138 gallons per household, per day. This is a real need in the United States, as a 2019 report by DigDeep and US Water Alliance estimated that there were two million people in the U.S. without running water in their homes.

Operator	Average Gallons per Well
Alta Resources	24,658,871
Anadarko Petroleum Corporation	3,320,469
Atlas Energy, L.P.	4,926,427
Chesapeake Operating, Inc.	6,572,047
Chief Oil & Gas	8,537,475
Inflection Energy (PA) LLC	7,716,069
Pennsylvania General Energy	11,680,249
Seneca Resources Corporation	8,410,013
Southwestern Energy	2,355,864

Fig. 19. Total amount of water usage reported by oil and gas operators in the Loyalsock watershed. (FracFocus, 2020)

Fig. 20. An interactive map of oil and gas related water sites in the Loyalsock Creek Watershed. (FracTracker Alliance, 2020)

View map fullscreen

A Waste-Filled Proposition

Between January 2011 and April 2020, two conventional wells and 297 unconventional wells combined to produce 7,017,102 barrels (294.7 million gallons) of liquid waste, and 340,856 tons (681.7 million pounds) of solid waste.

Liquid oil and gas waste produced in the Loyalsock Creek watershed, in barrels. Note that 2020 includes data from January to March only.

Fig. 21. Liquid oil and gas waste produced in the Loyalsock Creek watershed, in barrels. Note that 2020 includes data from January to April only. (FracTracker Alliance, July 2020)

Solid oil and gas waste produced in the Loyalsock Creek watershed, in tons. Note that 2020 includes data from January to March only.

Fig. 22. Solid oil and gas waste produced in the Loyalsock Creek watershed, in tons. Note that 2020 includes data from January to April only. (FracTracker Alliance, July, 2020)

For sake of comparison, this amount of liquid waste could fill the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool more than 43 times, while the solid waste from this modest-sized watershed exceeds the weight of three Nimitz-class aircraft carriers.

This averages out to 23,469 barrels (985,680 gallons) and 1,140 tons (2,279,973 pounds) per well drilled in the basin, and most of these wells are active and continue to produce waste. Many of these wells have generated waste quantities in great excess of these averages.

Unlike gas production, which tends to drop off precipitously after the first year, liquid waste production remains at an elevated level for years. For example, the Brooks Family A-201H well, the well reporting the largest quantity of liquid waste in the basin, produced 1,499 barrels in 2017, 28,847 barrels in 2018, 35,143 barrels in 2019, and 23,829 barrels in the first four months of 2020. The volumes from this well increase substantially each year.

For all wells in the watershed reporting liquid waste between 2018 and 2019, waste totals decreased by almost 42%. While a significant decrease, these 237 wells still generated 829,267 barrels (34.8 million gallons) of waste in 2019, and some have been generating waste since at least 2011. Wells will continue to produce waste until they are permanently plugged, but unfortunately, there are plans for more drilling in the watershed. There are 17 active status wells that have been permitted and not yet drilled. Important to remember is that fracking waste is often radioactive, and laden with salt, chemicals, and other contaminants, making it a hazardous product to transport, treat, or dispose.

Fig. 23. Cumulative liquid waste totals produced by oil and gas wells in Loyalsock Creek watershed between January 2011 and April 2020. (FracTracker Alliance, July, 2020)

Fig. 24. An interactive map of oil and gas waste generated in the Loyalsock Creek Watershed between January 2011 and May 2020. (FracTracker Alliance, July, 2020)

View map fullscreen

Documentation Field Day

On a sunny Friday in June 2020, a group of 18 FracTracker staff members and volunteers gathered in the Loyalsock watershed to document activities and infrastructure related to unconventional oil and gas activities. FracTracker’s Matt Kelso used a variety of data from the DEP to prepare maps depicting an array of infrastructure, including 317 drilled wells on 110 different pads, five compressor stations, a compressed natural gas truck terminal, and 24 water facilities related to oil and gas extraction – including five surface water withdrawal sites and 19 storage reservoirs. He then divided an area of about 496 square miles into five sections, and at least two participants were assigned to explore each section.

Using the FracTracker mobile app, cameras, and other documentation tools, the group was able to verify the location of 91 infrastructure sites, including well pads, compressor stations, pipelines, water withdrawal sites and reservoirs, as well as significant truck traffic. As they made their way over the rural back roads, many participants were struck by the juxtaposition of a breathtaking landscape and peaceful farmlands with imposing, polluting fracking sites.

The day was also documented by Rachel McDevitt from StateImpact Pennsylvania, a reporting project of NPR member stations, as well as the filmmakers Justin Grubb, Alex Goatz, and Michael Clark from Running Wild Media.

With the geolocated photos and site descriptions documented on this day, FracTracker was able to compile this story atlas to serve as an educational tool for concerned residents of the Loyalsock.

You can find these reports and many more by downloading the FracTracker app on your iOS or Android device, or by going to the web app at https://app.fractracker.org/.

Fig. 25. FracTracker’s Executive Director Brook Lenker addresses the gathering of volunteers, media members, and FracTracker staff at Canfield Island Heritage Trail Park on documentation day. (FracTracker Alliance, June, 2020)

$Loyalsock watershed fractracker app expedition$
Fig. 26 FracTracker’s Matt Kelso explains the maps he made of different sections in the Loyalsock Watershed. (FracTracker Alliance, June, 2020)
Fig. 27 Running Wild Media’s filmmaker captures the introduction to the documentation day by FracTracker staff. These filmmakers tagged along for additions to a film about the eastern hellbender, to be released in spring 2021. (FracTracker Alliance, June, 2020)
Fig. 28. A compressor station is seen across a field of wildflowers, somewhere in the Loyalsock Watershed. (FracTracker Alliance, June, 2020)
Fig. 29. Volunteers stand outside gated infrastructure in the watershed on the documentation field day. (FracTracker Alliance, June, 2020)
Fig. 30. A pipeline path cutting through forest in the Loyalsock watershed. (FracTracker Alliance, June, 2020)
Fig. 31. Grass has grown to cover a pipeline path traversing a hillside in the Loyalsock. (FracTracker Alliance, June, 2020)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Click on various elements in te map to see visualizations such as videos, FLIR camera footage, gifs, and photos.

Fig. 32. An interactive map of community-led documentation of oil and gas related impacts in the Loyalsock Creek Watershed. (FracTracker Alliance, 2020)

View map fullscreen

Local Insights

Barb Jarmoska is a lifelong environmental and social justice activist with property adjacent to the Loyalsock State Forest that has been in her family for five generations. She has witnessed a dramatic and devastating transformation of the pristine area surrounding her home as the fracking industry moved into what they consider the Marcellus Sacrifice Zone.

This is Barb’s account, in her own words:

“For me, the door to the woods is the door to the temple,” wrote poet Mary Oliver. I understand those words, they are part of my lifetime of lived experience in the Loyalsock watershed.

I am a retired special-ed teacher and a business owner – a mother and a grandmother – and someone who treasures and reveres the rapidly dwindling wild places in Penns Woods.

Where my front yard ends, the Loyalsock State Forest (LSF) begins. Access to my property is via a no-outlet gravel road that dead-ends in the Forest.

In 1933, my grandfather bought 20 acres with an old cabin and barn bordering what is now the LSF.

As a child, I didn’t miss indoor plumbing or air conditioning in that cabin beside the Loyalsock Creek where we spent our summers. I now live on the land year-round, in a home I built in 2007, before I had ever heard the words Marcellus Shale. I have indoor plumbing now, but still no desire for air conditioning, preferring to rely on open windows and big shade trees.

The memories my family has made on this land are priceless, and my grandchildren are the fifth generation to run in the meadow, swim and fish in the creek, climb the trees, and play in the nearby woods of the PA Wilds. In our increasingly transient society, roots this deep are precious and rare.

My appalled, angry, and admittedly frightened response to the gas industry invasion of the Loyalsock watershed began in 2010, when a parade of trucks spewing diesel fumes rumbled up the no-outlet road I live on, enroute to leased COP tracts in the LSF.

That dirt trail that we loved to hike was the first thing to go. Dump trucks carrying fist-sized gravel and heavy equipment transformed the forest trail into a road – gated off and posted with trespass warnings carrying severe penalties. In my neighborhood, as in so many places in the watershed, land that legally belongs to the citizens now carries grim warnings of the consequences of trespassing.

When the drilling and fracking equipment passed my driveway, the ground shook. Oftentimes, I had to wait 15 or 20 minutes just to leave – or come home. There was a flag car pretty much permanently blocking my driveway for a while. I also walked out for the mail one day and found a porta-potty had been set up on my land. No one thought to ask permission. They just put it on my property – a few yards from my mailbox.

Life in my Loyalsock watershed neighborhood has forever changed at the hands of industry permitted to remove millions of gallons of water for fracking from the Loyalsock – the beautiful Creek that carries the designation “Exceptional Value”. Named PA’s River of the Year in 2018, the Loyalsock Creek begins in the endless mountain region of the PA Wilds, and travels 64 miles on its way to the West Branch of the Susquehanna River.

The beloved Loyalsock Creek provides recreation for hundreds of fishermen, kayakers, inner-tubers, swimmers, and summer cabin dwellers – offering clear water that to this day supports abundant fish, amphibians, birds, and wildlife – clear water the gas industry now pumps out by the millions of gallons, to be mixed with toxic chemicals and forced at great pressure through boreholes a mile deep and miles long, to release methane trapped in the Marcellus Shale.

In 2018, about two miles from my home, an estimated 55,000 gallons of “produced water” spilled from a well pad ironically named TLC. This toxic fluid ran downhill into a tributary and directly into the Loyalsock Creek. On its approximately two-mile path, the chemicals flooded a little tributary that runs through a rural neighborhood where children play in the water. Frightened residents gathered to question DEP about the safety of their private drinking water wells, and they expressed concern over the tadpoles and frogs, and in the deeper, shady pools – native trout they were used to seeing.

Pennsylvania lawmakers could obey the Constitution, protect the watershed, and choose a way forward that leads to a future of renewable energy and well-paying green jobs for Pennsylvania citizens, as well as the promise of a brighter future for our children and grandchildren.

Time is running out.

I look at my grandchildren and believe that such a shift of consciousness and political will is truly their last, great hope.

Keep It Wild

-By Barb Jarmoska

What Does the Future Hold?

On its own, climate change brings with it a wave of new and/or intensified challenges to PA’s state forests, parks, and natural areas. Flooding and erosion, insect-borne illnesses, invasive species, and changes to plant and animal life are ongoing issues the state’s natural resource managers have to consider as the climate changes. These interactive stressors will continue to disrupt ecosystem function, processes, and services; result in the loss of biodiversity and shifts in forest compositions; and negatively impact industries and communities reliant on Penns Woods.

Over the past 110 years, PA’s average temperature has increased nearly two degrees Fahrenheit, and the Commonwealth has also seen a gradual uptick in annual precipitation, but a decline in and shorter span of snow cover. As ranges shift, the state will see the distribution and abundance of native plants and animals change, a pattern that will continue to accelerate.

Penns Woods are home to over 100 species of trees. Oak/hickory forests contain primarily oaks, maples, and hickories, with an understory of rhododendrons and blueberry bushes. Northern hardwood forests are composed of black cherry, maples, American beech, and birch, with understories of ferns, striped maple and beech brush. But the composition of PA’s forests are changing. Smithsonian’s Conservation Biology Institute compared colonial-era data to recent U.S. Forest Service data, and found that maples have increased by as much as 20%, but beeches, oaks and chestnuts – important foliage for wildlife – have declined. The presence of pine trees has been more volatile, seeing increases in some areas, and decreases in others.

Overall, PA’s forests are becoming more unsustainable, conditions compounded by misaligned harvesting, suburban sprawl, insect infestations, and disease. These impacts trickle down to the wildlife that call Penns Woods home. PA’s Natural Heritage Program has begun to compile this Environmental Review List, to identify threatened and endangered species, species of special concern, and rare and significant ecological features.

One of the most notable among these is North America’s largest salamander, the eastern hellbender, designated PA’s official amphibian in April 2019. This salamander is a great indicator of clean and well-oxygenated water, as it requires fast-flowing, freshwater habitat with large rock deposits to thrive. Originally dispersed across the Appalachians from Georgia to New York, the eastern hellbender’s population has suffered greatly from the impacts of pollution, erosion and sedimentation, dams, and amphibious fungal disease.

These salamanders can reach lengths up to two feet, and live for as long as 50 years, so their presence is a key indicator of long-term stream and riparian health. Western Pennsylvania Conservancy has monitored their habitats throughout PA since 2007. Though named the state’s official amphibian, this title does not incorporate its special protection.

Fig. 33. An aerial view of the Loyalsock Creek. (Ted Auch, FracTracker Alliance, June 2020)

In its recent Loyalsock State Forest Resource Management Plan (SFRMP), PA DCNR states that “Natural gas development…especially at the scale seen in the modern shale-gas era, can affect a variety of forest resources, uses, and values, such as:

• recreational opportunities,

• the forest’s wild character and scenic beauty, and

• plant and wildlife habitat.”

Despite extensive areas marred by well pads and other fracking infrastructure, the Loyalsock watershed retains resplendent beauty and pastoral character. Natural resources have endured spills, leaks, habitat fragmentation, deforestation, and increases in impervious buildout related to the gas industry. While a global pandemic and cascading company debts have diminished extraction activities, the region remains vulnerable to future attempts to drill more — on both private and public lands.

Indicative of the omnipresent threats, Pennsylvania General Energy Company, LLC (PGE) intends to develop a substantial pipeline corridor across the Loyalsock Valley. According to PA DEP public records, the project includes the construction of the Shawnee Pipeline, with over 15,000 linear feet of an existing eight-inch diameter gas pipeline to be replaced with a 16-inch pipeline. It will be supplemented by the Shawnee Pipeline Phase 2, encompassing an additional 189 linear feet of gas pipeline.

Arranged to accompany the pipelines is a temporary waterline to extend from planned pump stations on both sides of the Loyalsock Creek, to a proposed impoundment site within Loyalsock State Forest.

The company envisions cofferdams and trenches to cross the Loyalsock Creek. Other streams and wetlands will also be traversed, further degrading and endangering these vulnerable resources. Visible scarring from the pipeline cut is a major concern adding to the diminishment of the valley’s lush, green slopes. Methods exist to minimize the visibility of such development, but no one knows if PGE will follow those practices, or if regulators will require this of them. Some believe the project portends more fracking — with ceaseless demands for more water, and endless production of noxious waste and climate-killing emissions.

Only a few miles northeast of the watershed, New Fortress Energy is constructing a 260-acre complex near Wyalusing, Pennsylvania, to convert fracked gas into liquified natural gas, or LNG. The LNG will be dangerously transported by truck and rail to a planned export facility in Gibbstown, New Jersey, to send these private exploits overseas. A local group, Protect Northern PA, has formed to encourage a more sustainable path forward for the area, one that values people and the planet. The New Fortress Energy plant, if completed, would create inertia for extended extraction across the Marcellus Shale.

But hope abides in the Loyalsock. Hikers flock to enchanted trails, revelers rejoice on graveled shores. The place exudes an invisible elixir called stewardship, rippling through the air, nourishing receptive hearts and minds. Brandished for free, it shares this necessary ethos, seeking more followers.

Thanks to…

Thank you to all of the inspiring and steadfast environmental stewards who have contributed to the creation of this digital atlas:

Dick Martin from PAForestCoalition.org;
Barb Jarmoska, Harvey M. Katz, and Ralph Kisberg from Responsible Drilling Alliance;
Ann Pinca from Lebanon Pipeline Awareness;
Paul V. Otruba and Victor Otruba from Environeers;
Justin Grubb, Alex Goatz, and Michael Clark from Running Wild Media;
and Rachel McDevitt from StateImpact
Leann Leiter from Earthworks
Lighthawk
Staff at FracTracker Alliance

Project funding provided by The Foundation for Pennsylvania Watersheds

Mapping gathering lines in OH and WV feature

Mapping Gathering Lines in Ohio and West Virginia

July 2, 2020/0 Comments/in Articles, Infrastructure, Pipelines, Water, Wildlife and Ecology /by Intern FracTracker

As a spring 2020 intern with FracTracker, my work mostly involved mapping gathering lines in West Virginia and Ohio. Gathering lines are pipelines that transport oil and gas from the wellhead to either compressor stations or storage/processing facilities. The transmission pipelines (which are often larger in diameter than gathering lines) take the oil and gas from the processing facilities to other storage facilities/compressor stations, or to distribution pipelines which go to end users and consumers. As you can see from Figure 2 in the map of Doddridge County, WV, many gathering lines eventually converge at a compressor station. You can think of gathering lines like small brooks and streams that feed transmission pipelines. The transmission lines are the main arteries, like a river, moving larger quantities of gas and oil over longer distances.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The main project and goal of my internship was to record as many gathering pipelines as I could find in Ohio and West Virginia, since gathering lines are not generally mapped and therefore not easily available for the public to view. For example, the National Pipeline Mapping System’s public map viewer (created by the Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration) has a note stating, “It does not contain gas gathering or distribution pipelines.” Mapping gathering lines makes this data accessible to the public and will allow us to see the bigger picture when it comes to assessing the environmental impact of pipelines.

After collecting gathering line location data, I performed GIS analysis to determine the amount of acreage of land that has been clearcut due to gathering pipeline installations.

Another analysis we could perform using this data is to count the total number of waterways that the gathering lines cross/interact with and assess the quality of water and wildlife in areas with higher concentrations of gathering pipelines.

Oil and Gas Wells and Gathering Lines in OH and WV

Figure 1. This map shows an overview of gathering line pipelines in the Powhatan Point, Ohio and Moundsville, West Virginia of the Ohio River Valley.

PIPELINE GATHERING LINE MAPPING PROCESS

I worked with an aerial imagery BaseMap layer (a BaseMap is the bottommost layer when viewing a map), a county boundaries layer, production well location points, and compressor station location points. I then traced lines on the earth that appeared to be gathering lines by creating polygon shapefiles in the GIS application ArcMap.

My methodology and process of finding the actual routes of the gathering lines included examining locations at various map scale ranges to find emerging line patterns of barren land that connect different production well points on the map. I would either concentrate on looking for patterns along well pad location points and look for paths that may connect those points, or I would begin at the nearest gathering line I had recorded to try to find off-shoot paths off of those pipelines that may connect to a well pad, compressor station or previously recorded gathering line.

I did run into a few problems during my search for gathering lines. Sometimes, I would begin to trace a gathering line path, only to either loose the path entirely, or on further inspection, find that it was a power line path. Other times when using the aerial imagery basemap, the gathering line would flow into an aerial photo from a year prior to the pipeline installation and I would again lose the path. To work around these issues, I would first follow the gathering line trail to its end point before I started tracing the path. I would also view the path very closely in various scale ranges to ensure I wasn’t tracing a road, waterway, or powerline pathway.

ACREAGE ANALYSIS

In the three months that I was working on recording gathering pipeline paths in Ohio and West Virginia, I found approximately 29,103 acres (3,494 miles) of barren land clearcut by gathering pipelines. These total amounts are not exact since not all gathering lines can be confirmed. There are still more gathering lines to be recorded in both Ohio and West Virginia, but these figures give the reader an idea of the land disturbance caused by gathering lines, as shown in Figures 1 and 2.

In Ohio, I recorded approximately 10,083 acres (641 miles) with the average individual gathering pipeline taking up about 45 acres of land. With my gathering line data and data previously recorded by FracTracker, I found that there are 28,490 acres (1,690 miles) of land spanning 9 counties in southeastern Ohio that have been cleared and used by gathering lines.

For West Virginia, I was able to record approximately 19,020 acres (1,547 miles) of gathering lines, with the average gathering line taking up about 48 acres of space each. With previous data recorded in West Virginia by FracTracker, the total we have so far for the state is 22,897 acres (1,804 miles), although that is only accounting for the 9 counties in northern West Virginia that are recorded.

Wells and Gathering Lines in Doddridge County, WV

Figure 2. This aerial view map shows connecting gathering line pipelines that cover a small portion of Doddridge County, WV.

CONCLUSION

I was shocked to see how many gathering lines there are in these rural areas. Not only are they very prevalent in these less populated communities, but it was surprising to see how concentrated and close together they tend to be. When most people think of pipelines, they think of the big transmission pipeline paths that cross multiple states and are unaware of how much land that the infrastructure of these gathering pipelines also take up.

It was also very eye-opening to find that there are at least 29,000 acres of land in Ohio and West Virginia that were clearcut for the installation of gathering lines. It is even more shocking that these gathering pipelines are not being recorded or mapped and that this data is not publicly available from the National Pipeline Mapping System. While driving through these areas you may only see one or two pipelines briefly from your car, but by viewing the land from a bird’s eye perspective, you get a sense of the scale of this massive network. While the transmission pipeline arteries tend to be bigger, the veins of gathering lines displace a large amount of land as well.

I was also surprised by the sheer number of gathering lines I found that crossed waterways, rivers, and streams. During this project, it wasn’t unusual at all to follow a gathering line path that would cross water multiple times. In the future, I would be interested to look at the number of times these gathering pipelines cross paths with a stream or river, and the impact that this has on water quality and surrounding environment. I hope to continue to record gathering lines in Ohio and West Virginia, as well as Pennsylvania, so that we may learn more about this infrastructure and the impact it may have on the environment.

About Me

I first heard of FracTracker three years ago when I was volunteering with an environmental group called Keep Wayne Wild in Ohio. Since learning about FracTracker, I have been impressed with their eye-opening projects and their ability to make the gas and oil industry more transparent. A few years after first hearing about FracTracker, and as my interest in the GIS field continued to grow, I began taking GIS classes and reached out to them for this internship opportunity.

By Trevor Oatts, FracTracker Spring 2020 Data & GIS Intern

Photo by Ted Auch, FracTracker Alliance

Fracking Threatens Ohio’s Captina Creek Watershed

December 20, 2019/0 Comments/in Articles, Infrastructure, Pipelines, Waste, Water, Wildlife and Ecology /by Ted Auch, PhD

FracTracker’s Great Lakes Program Coordinator Ted Auch explores the risks and damages brought on by fracking in Ohio’s Captina Creek Watershed

Scroll down or click here to view the story map full screen

View the Story Map Full Screen

The Captina Creek Watershed straddles the counties of Belmont and Monroe in Southeastern Ohio and feeds into the Ohio River. It is the highest quality watershed in all of Ohio and a great examples of what the Ohio River Valley’s tributaries once looked, smelled, and sounded like. Sadly, today it is caught in the cross-hairs of the oil and gas industry by way of drilling, massive amounts of water demands, pipeline construction, and fracking waste production, transport, and disposal. The images and footage presented in the story map below are testament to the risks and damage inherent to fracking in the Captina Creek watershed and to this industry at large. Data included herein includes gas gathering and interstate transmission pipelines like the Rover, NEXUS, and Utopia (Figure 1), along with Class II wastewater injection wells, compressor stations, unconventional laterals, and freshwater withdrawal sites and volumes.

The image at the top of the page captures my motivation for taking a deeper dive into this watershed. Having spent 13+ years living in Vermont and hiking throughout The Green and Adirondack Mountains, I fell in love with the two most prominent tree species in this photo: Yellow Birch (Betula alleghaniensis) and Northern Hemlock (Tsuga candadensis). This feeling of being at home was reason enough to be thankful for Captina Creek in my eyes. Seeing this region under pressure from the oil and gas industry really hit me in my botanical soul. We remain positive with regards to the area’s future, but protective action against fracking in the Captina Creek Watershed is needed immediately!

Fracking in the Captina Creek Watershed: A Story Map

Go to the story map fullscreen for a better viewing experience

Wildness Lost – Pine Creek

August 7, 2019/in Air, Compressor Stations, Health & Safety, Infrastructure, Land, Pipelines, Social, Waste, Water, Wells, Wildlife and Ecology /by Shannon Smith

WILDNESS LOST

A Digital Atlas Examining Over a Decade of Unconventional Natural Gas Development in Pennsylvania’s Pine Creek Watershed

Pine Creek compressor station FLIR camera footage by Earthworks (May 2019).

INTRODUCTION

“The Iroquois…called Pine Creek ‘Tiadaghton’ meaning either ‘The River of Pines’ or ‘The Lost or Bewildered River’.”[i] The river’s iconic watershed in North Central Pennsylvania spans 979 square miles, spanning parts of Clinton, Lycoming, Potter, and Tioga counties, and an infamous 47-mile gorge through which the Pine Creek flows. At 87 miles in length, it is the largest tributary to the West Branch Susquehanna River.[ii]

In 1964, Congress included Pine Creek as one of 27 rivers under study for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River System.[iii] Four years later, the US Department of the Interior designated twelve miles of the canyon a National Natural Landmark. In 1992, Pine Creek was recognized as a Pennsylvania Scenic River.[iv] These accolades underscore its vibrant beauty, ecological value, and cultural significance.

A rugged landscape carved into the Allegheny Plateau, the watershed contains extensive public lands and the highest concentrations of exceptional value (EV) and high quality (HQ) streams anywhere in Pennsylvania. It is a prized recreational attraction in the region known as the Pennsylvania Wilds, a destination for nature-based tourism. The area has endured episodes of resource extraction – logging, coal mining, and shallow gas development – but nothing quite the same as the assault from hundreds of new unconventional gas wells and the sprawling pads, pipelines, impoundments, compressor stations, and access roads accompanying such development.

Modern extraction is heavy industry – loud, dusty, and dirty. It is incongruent with the thick forests, sensitive habitats, hushed solitude, and star-drenched skies one expects to experience in many wilderness pursuits. Threats to air, water, and wildlife are manifest. Landscape fragmentation and forest loss are collateral damage. Ecological impacts, while sometimes immediate, are often insidious as they slowly degrade environmental health over time. The Oil and Gas Program of the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR) acknowledged in a 2012 presentation: “…that Marcellus Shale will be a long-term influence on the character of Pennsylvania landscapes.”[v] To what extent remains to be determined.

Writer and conservationist Samuel P. Hayes noted “The Pennsylvania Administrative Code of 1929 identified watershed protection as the primary purpose of the state forests.”[vi] Enduring more than 10 years of fracking history, and with more planned, the Pine Creek watershed is an experiment for this tenent and overdue for the geospatial examination that follows.

According to the NOAA, a watershed is a land area that channels rainfall and snowmelt to creeks, streams, and rivers, and eventually to outflow points such as reservoirs, bays, and the ocean.

Use the time slider below to explore the changes in the Pine Creek watershed from 2008 to 2016

click on the section title to jump to that section

A Legacy of Extraction

A Wealth of Public Lands & Recreational Opportunity

Fracking Comes to Pine Creek

Explore the Interactive Story Maps

Water – A Precious Resource

A Waste – Filled Proposition

And When It’s Over?

A LEGACY OF EXTRACTION

Humans have left their mark on Pine Creek for thousands of years, but the effects of timber and fossil fuel extraction in the last 220 years are most notable. Historical accounts and agency records provide substantial documentation of these impacts.

TIMBER

In 1799, Pine Creek’s first sawmill was set up near the confluence with Little Pine Creek. By 1810, eleven saw mills were in operation. In the next 30 years, that number rose to 145. Pine Creek earned the moniker of “Lumber Capital of the World,” but by the end of the Civil War, the great pine forests along Pine Creek were depleted due to clearcutting. By the end of the Civil War, the great pine forests along Pine Creek were depleted. Underappreciated for lumber, eastern hemlocks remained, but were eventually felled as well, their bark prized for tanning leather. The advent of logging railroads accelerated the forest’s demise. By the first years of the 20^th century, the trees were all but gone, “…branches and stumps littered the mountainsides and sparks from locomotives created fires of holocaustal proportions.”[vii]

Sadly, much of the wildlife was gone too. Bounties, market hunting, and habitat loss had taken a toll. The area’s last timber wolf was killed in 1875. The beaver, otter, fisher, martin, lynx, and wolverine were exterminated by the early 1900s. The remaining solitary panthers lasted until the 1930s, then “faded into oblivion.”[viii]

COAL

While not often thought of as a part of Pennsylvania’s coal country, the Pine Creek Watershed has seen its share of coal mining and related activity. Coal was first discovered along the Babb Creek portion of the watershed in 1782, and mining operations began in earnest in the 1860s. By 1990, the area was so impacted by mine drainage and other pollution that there were no fish found in Babb Creek. Efforts to rehabilitate the stream have made some progress, raising the pH of the stream and restoring fish populations, to the point where Babb Creek was officially removed from the list of impaired streams in 2016.

Within the watershed’s abandoned mine areas, 68 specific sites totaling nearly 500 acres are flagged as “containing public health, safety, and public welfare problems created by past coal mining.” This represents more than 11% of the total mined area. Only five of these 68 sites – all strip mines – have completed the reclamation process.

Table 1. Problematic coal mine areas in the Pine Creek Watershed

SITE TYPE	ABANDONED	RECLAMATION COMPLETE	TOTAL FACILITIES	TOTAL ACRES
Dry Strip Mine	31	5	36	322.0
Flooded Strip Mine	2	–	2	1.7
Spoil Pile	13	–	13	148.4
Refuse Pile	12	–	12	23.2
Known Subsidence Prone Area	2	–	2	0.4
Coal Processing Settling Basin	3	–	3	1.5
TOTAL	63	5	68	497.4

OIL & GAS

The oil and gas industry in Pennsylvania started with the Drake Well near Titusville in 1859, before the onset of the Civil War. In the years since, perhaps as many as 760,000 such wells have been drilled statewide.[ix] While the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) is the current state agency with regulatory oversight of the industry, it estimates that there could be as many as 560,000 wells drilled that they have no record of in their database. Given the lack of data for these early wells, it is not possible to know exactly how many wells have been drilled in the Pine Creek Watershed.[x]

Over a century ago, pollution was seen as the price to be paid for a job in timbering or mining. Some politicians seem to want a return to those bad old days by gutting some of our reasonable regulations that protect our air and water. Here, as in the rest of the Marcellus gas play, our politicians are not protecting our air and water as mandated in Article 1, Section 27 of our State Constitution.

-Dick Martin Coordinator for the Pennsylvania Forest Coalition and board member of Pennsylvania Environmental Defense Foundation, PEDF

A Wealth of Public Lands & Recreational Opportunity

The Pine Creek Watershed is in the heart of the Pennsylvania Wilds, a 12-county region in North Central Pennsylvania focused on nature-based tourism. “Adventure to one of the largest expanses of green between New York City and Chicago,” touts the initiative’s website.[xi] The area includes over two million acres of public land, and is marketed for its notorious starry skies, quaint towns, large elk herd, and other attractions, like Pine Creek.

The watershed and its trails and public lands contribute substantially to the PA Wilds estate and offerings, including:

1,666 stream miles (187.6 miles Exceptional Value and 1,011.5 miles High Quality)
Eight state parks, spanning 4,713 acres (7.36 sq. miles)
Four state forests, covering 264,771 acres (414 sq. miles)
Eight natural areas
Three wild areas
Seven state game lands, totaling 51,474 acres (80.42 sq. miles)
And 31 trails, traversing 789 miles

These largely remote and rugged spaces are relished for their idyllic and pristine qualities. Modern extraction brings discordant traffic, noise, lights, and releases of pollutants into the air and water. Stream waters – ideal for trout, anglers, and paddlers – are siphoned for the fracturing process. Trails are interrupted by pipelines and access roads. The erosion of outdoor experiences is piecemeal and pervasive.

A recent study lends credence to the concern that shale gas development is incongruent with the region’s ecotourism and recreational goals. “The Impacts of Shale Natural Gas Energy Development on Outdoor Recreation: A Statewide Assessment of Pennsylvanians” found that “only a small population of Pennsylvania outdoor recreationists were impacted by [shale natural gas energy development (SGD)] related activities. In the regions of Pennsylvania where SGD was most prominent (e.g., North Central and Southwest), outdoor recreation impacts were considerably higher.”[xii]

Weak rules favor the gas companies and allow them to waste resources, pollute our air, and destroy our climate. Continued exploitation of our public lands diminishes the value of this common good.

–Leann Leiter, OH/PA Field Advocate, Earthworks

Read more about Leann’s view on fracking in Pine Creek and using FLIR photography to expose polluting emissions. Go to this post on Earthworks’ blog.

Fracking Comes to Pine Creek

Natural resource extraction in the Pine Creek Watershed did not stop with timber, coal, and traditional oil and gas. The drilling landscape in Pennsylvania changed dramatically around 2005, as operators began to develop the Marcellus Shale, a carbon-rich black shale that had eluded the industry for decades, because the rock formation was reluctant to release the large quantities of gas trapped within it. Based on successes in other shale formations, the Marcellus began to be drilled with a combination of horizontal drilling and high volume hydraulic fracturing – now using millions of gallons of fluids, instead of tens of thousands – and built upon multi-acre well pads. Operators were successful in releasing the gas, and this type of well, known as “unconventional” drilling, took off in vast swaths of Pennsylvania. Similar techniques were extended to other formations, notably the Utica shale formation.

The map below shows the cumulative footprint of extractive practices in Pine Creek, with the exclusion of timber.

Midstream Infrastructure

In 2018, unconventional wells in the Pine Creek Watershed produced 203 billion cubic feet of gas, which is more than the entire state of West Virginia consumed in 2017, not including electricity generation. To get all of that gas to market requires an extensive network of pipelines, and multi-acre compressor stations are required to push the gas through those pipes.

Pipeline data for the region, largely based on the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration’s (PHMSA) public pipeline viewer map, includes over 85 miles of pipelines in the watershed. However, this data does not include any of the gathering lines that crisscross the watershed, connecting the drilling sites to the midstream network.

Among other concerns, gas pipelines need to be placed in areas where they will not be impacted by tree roots, and so operators clear a 50-foot wide right-of-way, at minimum. This width results in the clearing of more than 6 acres per linear mile of pipe, which would be a total of 515 acres for the known pipeline routes in the region. However, the 50-foot width is a minimum, and some rights-of-way exceeding 300 feet were observed in the watershed, which would require the clearing of more than 36 acres per linear mile. These land clearing impacts are in addition to those required for well pads, access roads, and other infrastructure.

Many of the compressor stations in the Pine Creek Watershed are considered major pollution sources, and therefore require a Title V permit from the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This means that they either produce at least 10 tons per year of any single hazardous air pollutant, or at least 25 tons of any combination of pollutants on the list.

Missing pipeline data is evidenced by FracTracker’s records of many compressor stations that are not along documented pipeline routes. Of the 26 compressors in the watershed that we have records for, only six are within 250 meters of known pipeline routes. Similarly, only 29 of the 594 drilled unconventional wells in the watershed are within the quarter-kilometer radius of known pipeline routes. One way or another, all compressors and well sites have to be connected to pipelines.

Table 2. Oil & Gas Well Status in the Pine Creek Watershed

Oil & Gas Well Status	# of Wells
Operator reported not drilled	404
Proposed but never materialized	111
Active (conventional)	25
Active (unconventional)	529
Other	304
TOTAL	1,374

The PA DEP has records for 1,374 oil and gas wells within the watershed, although not all of these were actually drilled. Of these wells, 404 wells have an official status of “operator reported not drilled,” while an additional 111 have a similar status of “proposed but never materialized.” Of the remaining 859 wells, 554 are currently considered active (including 25 conventional and 529 unconventional wells). An active status is given once the well is proposed — even before it is officially permitted by DEP, let alone drilled. The status remains until some other status applies.

Seventy-four wells are considered to be “regulatory inactive” (four conventional, 71 unconventional), meaning that the well has not been in production for at least a year, and must meet several other requirements. The remainder of the wells in the watershed have reached the end of their functional life, of which 168 have been plugged (119 conventional, 49 unconventional). This is done by filling the well bore with concrete, and is considered permanent, although the plugs have been known to fail from time to time. Fifty-seven additional conventional wells are considered abandoned, meaning that they are at the end of their useful life but have not been appropriately plugged, neither by the operator nor DEP. Five additional conventional wells are considered to be orphaned, which is a similar status to abandoned, but these wells are no longer linked to an operator active in the state. Given the lack of recordkeeping in the early part of the industry’s history in PA, the number of plugged, abandoned, and orphaned wells in the Pine Creek Watershed is likely significantly underrepresented.

Conventional drilling activity has essentially ceased in the watershed. A single well categorized as conventional, the Bliss 3H well, has been drilled in 2019. In fact, this well is almost certainly miscategorized. Not only does its well name follow conventions for horizontal unconventional wells, but the DEP’s formation report indicates that it is in fact drilled into the Marcellus Shale. Prior to Bliss 3H, the two most recent conventional wells were drilled in 2011.

Unconventional drilling is a different story altogether. In terms of the number of wells drilled, the peak within the Pine Creek Watershed was in 2011, with 186 wells drilled. That represented 9.5% of the statewide total that year, and Pine Creek is just one of 35 comparably sized watersheds targeted for unconventional development in Pennsylvania.

More recently, there were 16 wells drilled in the watershed in 2018, and 17 wells through the halfway point of 2019, indicating that the extraction efforts are once again on the upswing.

Table 3. Number of unconventional wells drilled in Pennsylvania and the Pine Creek Watershed

YEAR	STATEWIDE	PINE CREEK WATERSHED	PCT. TOTAL
2006	37	1	2.7%
2007	113	1	0.9%
2008	332	9	2.7%
2009	821	26	3.2%
2010	1598	114	7.1%
2011	1956	186	9.5%
2012	1351	85	6.3%
2013	1212	48	4.0%
2014	1369	30	2.2%
2015	784	11	1.4%
2016	503	20	4.0%
2017	810	29	3.6%
2018	777	16	2.1%
2019 (YTD)	366	17	4.6%
TOTAL	11999	593	5.8%

The map below shows a heavily forested section of the watershed that has been significantly damaged by unconventional oil and gas development. Notice the forest fragmentation and land disturbance that has occurred as a result of fracking activities.

Use the time slider below to explore the changes in the Pine Creek watershed from 2008 to 2016

On May 9, 2019, nearly two dozen people descended upon the Pine Creek Watershed for the purpose of chronicling the impacts that the oil and gas industry is currently wreaking on the landscape. The documentation began early in the morning at the William T. Piper Memorial Airport in the town of Lock Haven, located in Clinton County. FracTracker Alliance organized the blitz with numerous partner organizations, including EarthWorks, Sierra Club, Save Our Streams PA, Responsible Drilling Alliance, Pennsylvania Forest Coalition, Environeers, Pine Creek Headwaters Protection Group, and Lebanon Pipeline Awareness.

The massive watershed was broken up into 10 impact zones, which were mostly determined by concentrations of known sites such as well pads, compressor stations, retention ponds, and pipeline corridors.

Some people brought cameras and specialized equipment to Pine Ceek, such methane sensors and global positioning system devices. Participants were encouraged to try out the FracTracker Mobile App, which was designed to allow users to communicate and share the location of oil and gas concerns. Earthworks brought a FLIR infrared camera, which can capture volatile organic compounds and other pollutants that are typically invisible to the human eye, but that still pose significant risks to health and the environment. Others participants brought specialized knowledge of oil and gas operations from a variety of perspectives, from those who had previously interacted with the industry professionally, to those who have been forced to live in close proximity of these massive structures for more than a decade.

While we knew that it would not be possible to photograph every impact in the watershed, the results of this group effort were tremendous, including hundreds of photos, dozens of app submissions, and numerous infrared videos. All of these have been curated in the map above. In our exuberance, we documented a number of facilities that wound up not being in the Pine Creek Watershed – still impactful but beyond the scope of this project. In some cases, multiple photos were taken of the same location, and we selected the most representative one or two for each site. Altogether, the map above shows 22 aerial images, 84 app submissions, 46 additional photos, and nine infrared FLIR videos.

FracTracker also collaborated with a pilot from LightHawk, a nonprofit group that connects conservation-minded pilots with groups that can benefit from the rare opportunity to view infrastructure and impacts from the air. Together, LightHawk and FracTracker’s Ted Auch flew in a mostly clockwise loop around the watershed, producing the aerial photography highlighted in this article, and in the map below.

View this map full screen

The benefits of being able to see these impacts from the air is incalculable. Not only does it give viewers a sense of the full scope of the impact, but in some cases, it provides access to sites and activities that would otherwise be entirely occluded to the public, such as sites with active drilling or hydraulic fracturing operations, or when the access roads are behind barriers that are posted as no trespassing zones.

It can be difficult to maintain a sense of the massive scale of these operations when looking at aerial images. One thing that can help to maintain this perspective is by focusing on easily identifiable objects, such as nearby trees or large trucks, but it is even more useful to cross-reference these aerial images with those taken at ground level.

View this map full screen

Water – A Precious Resource

Drilling unconventional wells requires the use of millions of gallons of water per well, sometimes as high as 100 million gallons. Unconventional drilling operations in Pennsylvania are required to self-report water, sand, and chemical quantities used in the hydraulic fracturing stage of well production to a registry known as FracFocus. Because of this, we have a pretty good idea of water used for this stage of the operation.

This does not account for all of the industry’s water consumption. The amount of water required to maintain and operate pipelines, compressor stations and other processing facilities, and to suppress dust on well pads, access roads, and pipeline rights-of-way is unknown, but likely significant. Much of the water used for oil and gas operations in this watershed is withdrawn from rivers and streams and the groundwater beneath the watershed.

Table 3. Water consumption by well in the Pine Creek Watershed

CATEGORY	GALLONS	EQUIVALENT PERSONS (ANNUAL USAGE)
Average Single Well	6,745,697	246
Maximum Single Well	13,313,916	486
All Wells (2013-2017)	850,648,219	31,074

There are 60 water-related facilities for oil and gas operations active within the watershed in 2019, including two ground water withdrawal locations, 20 surface water withdrawal locations, and 38 interconnections, mostly retention ponds. This dataset does not include limits on the 22 withdrawal locations, however, one of the surface withdrawal sites was observed with signage permitting the removal of 936,000 gallons per day. If this amount is typical, then the combined facilities in the watershed would have a daily capacity of about 20.6 million gallons, which is about 27 times the daily residential consumption within the watershed.

Predictably, water withdrawals ebb and flow with fluctuations in drilling activity, with peak consumption exceeding 1.2 billion gallons in the three-month period between April and June 2014, and an aggregate total of nearly 20.4 billion gallons between July 2008 and December 2016. It is not known what fraction of these withdrawals occurred in the Pine Creek Watershed.

Violations

Between October 22, 2007, and April 24, 2019, the Pennsylvania DEP issued 949 violations to unconventional oil and gas operations within the Pine Creek Watershed.[xiii] It can be difficult to know precisely what happened in the field based on the notations in the corresponding compliance reports. For example, if an operator failed to comply with the terms of their erosion and sediment control permit, it is unclear whether there was a sediment runoff event that impacted surface waters or not. However, as these rules were put into place to protect Pennsylvania’s waterways, there is no question that the potential for negative water impacts exists. Therefore, erosion and sedimentation violations are included in this analysis.

Other violations are quite explicit, however. The operator of the Hoffman 2H well in Liberty Township, Tioga County was cited for failing to prevent “gas, oil, brine, completion and servicing fluids, and any other fluids or materials from below the casing seat from entering fresh groundwater,” and failing to “prevent pollution or diminution of fresh groundwater.” A well on the Tract 007 – Pad G well pad was left unplugged. “Upon abandoning a well, the owner or operator failed to plug the well to stop the vertical flow of fluids or gas within the well bore.”

The violation description falls into more than 100 categories for sites within the watershed. We have simplified those as follows:

Table 4. Oil and gas violations in the Pine Creek Watershed

VIOLATIONS	COUNT	WATER RELATED
Administrative	61	No
Casing / Cement Violation	31	Yes
Clean Streams Law Violation	32	Yes
Erosion & Sediment	84	Yes
Failed to Control / Dispose of Fluids	279	Yes
Failure to Comply With Permit	3	No
Failure to Plug Well	1	Yes
Failure to Prevent Pollution Event	23	Yes
Failure to Protect Water Supplies	8	Yes
Failure to Report Pollution Event	20	Yes
Failure to Restore Site	8	No
Hazardous Venting	1	No
Industrial Waste / Pollutional Material Discharge	229	Yes
Rat Hole Not Filled	7	Yes
Residual Waste Mismanagement	2	Yes
Restricted Site Access to Inspector	1	No
Site Restoration Violation	9	No
Unmarked Plugged Well	1	No
Unpermitted Residual Waste Processing	73	Yes
Unsound Impoundment	20	Yes
Unspecified Violation	48	No
Waste Analysis Not Completed	1	No
Water Obstruction & Encroachment	7	Yes
TOTAL	949	–

Altogether, 816 out of the 949 violations (86%) issued in the Pine Creek Watershed were likely to have an impact on either surface or ground water in the region. Two sites have more than 50 violations each, including the Phoenix Well Pad, with 116 violations in Duncan Township, Tioga County, and the Bonnell Run Hunting & Fishing Corp Well Pad in Pine Township, Lycoming County, with 94 violations.

Water Complaints

When things go wrong with oil and gas operations, it is often residents in the surrounding areas that are exposed to the impacts. There are limited actions that affected neighbors can take, but one thing that they can do is register a complaint with the appropriate regulatory agency, in this case the Pennsylvania DEP.

A thorough file review was conducted by Public Herald for complaints related to oil and gas operations in PA, yielding 9,442 complaints between 2004 and 2016. While this includes all oil and gas related complaints, Public Herald’s analysis show that the frequency is highly correlated with the unconventional drilling boom that occurred within that time frame, with the number of new wells and complaints both peaking in 2011.

Many of these complaints occurred in the Pine Creek Watershed. It is impossible to know the exact number, as the precise location of the events was redacted in the records provided by DEP. Most of the records do include the county and in some cases, the municipality. Altogether, there were complaints in 32 municipalities that are either partially or entirely within the watershed, for a total of 185 total complaints. Of those, 116 of (63%) specifically indicate water impacts, spread out over 25 municipalities throughout the watershed.

Additional complaints with unspecified municipalities were received by DEP in Lycoming County (n=4), Potter County (n=4), and Tioga County (n=3). These counties substantially overlap with the Pine Creek Watershed, but the data is unclear as to whether or not these impacts were noted within the watershed or not.

It is worth remembering that complaints are dependent upon observation from neighbors and other passersby. As Pine Creek is composed of rugged terrain with vast swaths of public land, it is relatively sparsely populated. It is likely that if these drilling sites were placed in more densely populated areas, the number of complaints related to these operations would be even higher.

“It was 2007, and my water well was fine. I mean, I didn’t have any problem with it. I was cooking, drinking, bathing with it and everything else. Well, then after they drilled I thought it was kind of…it didn’t taste like it did before.”[xiv]

– Judy Eckhart

A Waste-Filled Proposition

Since the Pine Creek Watershed has been the site of considerable oil and gas extraction activity, it has also been the site of significant quantities of waste generated by the industry, which is classified as residual waste in Pennsylvania. This category is supposedly for nonhazardous industrial waste, although both liquid and solid waste streams from oil and gas operations pose significant risks to people exposed to them, as well as to the environment. Oil and gas waste is contaminated with a variety of dangerous volatile organic compounds and heavy metals, which are frequently highly radioactive. There are also a large number of chemicals that are injected into the well bore that flow back to the surface, the content of which is often kept secret, even from workers who make use of them onsite.

There were 37 sites in the Pine Creek Watershed that accepted liquid waste between 2011 and 2018. Of these sites, 30 (81%) were well pads, where flowback from drilling may be partially reused. While this reduces the overall volume of waste that ultimately needs to be disposed of, it frequently increases the concentration of hazardous contaminants that are found in the waste stream, which can make its eventual disposal more challenging. Most of the sites that accept waste do reuse that waste. However, the largest quantity of waste are from the remaining seven sites.

Table 5. Disposal of liquid gas waste in the Pine Creek Watershed

CATEGORY	BARRELS	GALLONS	PCT. TOTAL
Reuse at Well Pads	2,042,662	85,791,801	23%
Other Facilities	6,701,292	281,454,261	77%
GRAND TOTAL	8,743,954	367,246,062	100%

One single site – the Hydro Recovery LP Antrim Facility in Pine Township, Lycoming County – accounted for the majority of liquid waste disposed in the watershed, with 6,622,255 barrels (278,134,704 gallons.) has This amounts to 98.8% of all liquid waste that was not reused at other well pads.

Wastewater is also spread on roads in some communities, as a way to suppress dust on dirt roads. 3,001 barrels (126,050 gallons) of liquid waste have been used for road spreading efforts in regions intersecting the watershed in Ulysses Township, Potter County, and across private lots and roads throughout Potter and Tioga counties. Note that these figures include waste generated from conventional wells, which have different legal requirements for disposal than waste from unconventional wells, despite a similar chemical profile.

There are three facilities that have accepted solid oil and gas waste in the watershed, including a small one operated by Environmental Products and Services of Vermont (55 tons), Hydro Recovery LP Antrim Facility (10,415 tons), and Phoenix Resources Landfill (900,094 tons). This includes 200,808 tons in 2018, which is close to the previous peak value of 216,873 tons accepted in 2012.

Figure 1. Tons of solid O&G waste accepted at the Phoenix Resources Landfill

Recap: How has a decade of fracking impacted the Pine Creek Watershed?

1,374 recorded oil and gas wells in the watershed
- 554 are currently considered active
- including 25 conventional and 529 unconventional wells
949 violations to unconventional oil and gas operations within the Pine Creek Watershed, 86% of which were likely to have an impact on either surface or ground water
185 complaints in 32 municipalities that are either partially or entirely within the watershed
A minimum of 515 acres cleared for the known gas pipeline routes in the region
26 compressor stations in the watershed
850,648,219 gallons of water used to frack wells in the watershed between 2013-2017
60 water-related facilities for oil and gas operations active within the watershed active in 2019, including two ground water withdrawal locations, 20 surface water withdrawal locations, and 38 interconnections (mostly retention ponds)
37 sites in the Pine Creek Watershed that accepted liquid waste between 2011 and 2018

And When It’s Over?

In the last ice age, glaciers came from the finger lakes area into Pine Creek. This made the soil there very deep and rich– in fact, people come from all over to study that soil. The Pine Creek area could be a mecca for sustainable agriculture. There is great soil, excellent water, and plenty of space for wind and solar. Under the right leadership, this region of Pennsylvania could feed people in a time when climate resilience is so urgently needed.

–Melissa Troutman, Research & Policy Analyst, Earthworks. Director of “Triple Divide.” Journalist, Public Herald

The Pine Creek region retains a primeval grandeur – an alluring wild spirit of great pride and significance to our state. Natural gas development has – and will further – compromise the natural and experiential qualities of this special place. For the benefit of Pennsylvanians today and tomorrow, extraction must be replaced by cleaner forms of energy and conservation values made preeminent.

– Brook Lenker, Executive Director, FracTracker Alliance

The Pine Creek Watershed in Pennsylvania’s Susquehanna River Basin has seen more than its fair share of industrial impacts in the centuries since European contact, from repeated timber clearcutting, to coal extraction, to the development of unconventional oil and gas resources in the 21st century. Despite all of this, Pine Creek remains one of the Commonwealth’s natural gems, a cornerstone of the famed Pennsylvania Wilds.

Many of the impacts to the watershed could be thought of as temporary, in that they would likely stop occurring when the oil and gas developers decide to pack up and leave for good. This includes things like truck traffic, with all of the dust and diesel exhaust that accompanies that, pollution from compressor stations and leaky pipe junctions, and even most surface spills.

And yet in some ways, the ability of the land to sustain this industry becomes substantially impaired, and impacts become much more prolonged. Consider, for example, that prior logging efforts have permanently changed both the flora and fauna of the region. Similarly, while there is no more active coal mining in Pine Creek, almost 500 acres of sites deemed to be problematic remain, and some streams impacted by contaminated runoff and mine drainage have yet to return to their former pristine state, even decades later.

Unconventional drilling in the watershed will have similarly permanent impacts. While there is a legal threshold for site restoration, these multi-acre drill sites will not resemble the heavily forested landscape that once stood there when they reach the end of their useful life. Access roads and gathering lines that crisscross the landscape must be maintained until all well pads in the area are out of service, and then the aging infrastructure will remain in situ. Contaminated groundwater supplies are likely to take centuries to recover, if it is even possible at all.

Thousands of feet of rock once separated the unconventional formations from the surface. That distance was a barrier not just to the gas, but also to salty brines, toxic heavy metals, and naturally occurring radioactive materials that are present at those depths. To date, 593 holes have been drilled in the Pine Creek Watershed, creating 593 pathways for all of these materials to move to the surface. The only things keeping them in place are concrete and steel, both of which will inevitably fail over the course of time, particularly in the highly saline environment of an old gas well.

Even if the industry were to leave today and properly plug all of the wells in the Pine Creek Watershed, impacts from the drilling are likely to remain for many years to come.

[i] Owlett, Steven. Seasons Along the Tiadaghton: An Environmental History of the Pine Creek Gorge. Wellsboro, PA: Steven E. Owlett, 1993. P. 11.

[ii] Wikipedia. Pine Creek (Pennsylvania). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pine_Creek_(Pennsylvania)

[iii] Owlett, Steven. Seasons Along the Tiadaghton: An Environmental History of the Pine Creek Gorge. Wellsboro, PA: Steven E. Owlett, 1993. P. 11.

[iv] DCNR. History of Colton Point State Park, 2019. https://www.dcnr.pa.gov/StateParks/FindAPark/ColtonPointStatePark/Pages/History.aspx

[v] DCNR, Bureau of Forestry. Marcellus Shale Management Field Tour, 2012. http://www.paforestcoalition.org/documents/Marcellus_Shale_Management_Field_Tour_5-14-12.pdf

[vi] Hayes, Samuel P. Wars in the Woods: The Rise of Ecological Forestry in America. Pittsburgh, PA. University of Pittsburgh Press, 2006. (2007). P 120-121.

[vii] Owlett, Steven. Seasons Along the Tiadaghton: An Environmental History of the Pine Creek Gorge. Wellsboro, PA: Steven E. Owlett, 1993. P.58-60.

[viii] Owlett, Steven. Seasons Along the Tiadaghton: An Environmental History of the Pine Creek Gorge. Wellsboro, PA: Steven E. Owlett, 1993. P.61.

[ix] Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Oil Gas Locations – Conventional Unconventional, 2019. https://www.pasda.psu.edu/uci/DataSummary.aspx?dataset=1088

[x] Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. Abandoned and Orphan Oil and Gas Wells and the Well Plugging Program, 2018. http://www.depgreenport.state.pa.us/elibrary/PDFProvider.ashx?action=PDFStream&docID=1419023&chksum=&revision=0&docName=ABANDONED+AND+ORPHAN+OIL+AND+GAS+WELLS+AND+THE+WELL+PLUGGING+PROGRAM&nativeExt=pdf&PromptToSave=False&Size=411528&ViewerMode=2&overlay=0

[xi] Pennsylvania Wilds. Homepage, 2019. https://pawilds.com/#modal-2

[xii] Ferguson et al. The impacts of shale natural gas energy development on outdoor recreation: A statewide assessment of pennsylvanians, September 2019. J ournal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism. Volume 27.

[xiii]Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. Oil and Gas Compliance Report Viewer. 2019. http://www.depreportingservices.state.pa.us/ReportServer/Pages/ReportViewer.aspx?/Oil_Gas/OG_Compliance

[xiv] Joshua Pribanic & Melissa Troutman. Triple Divide, 2013.

All aerial photography by Ted Auch with flight support by LightHawk (May 2019).

Pine Creek compressor station FLIR camera footage by Earthworks (May 2019).

Project funding provided by:

Living on the Front Lines with Silica Sand Mines

October 29, 2018/1 Comment/in Articles, Frac Sand, Social, Wildlife and Ecology /by Guest Author

Guest blog by Christine Yellowthunder, an environmental activist, tree farmer, and poet

Most people living in Wisconsin, Minnesota and Iowa have increased their knowledge over the past six years regarding the fracking destruction occurring across the country. The horror of fracking damages to life and land remain in the minds of most people who live near the massive land destruction from silica sand mining for what the unconventional oil and gas industry lovingly calls “proppant”.

Very often, we in the Midwest wonder if the rest of the country knows that this specialized form of silica sand mining destroys our rolling hills, woodlands, and water sources in order for silica sand to feed the fracking industry’s insatiable proppant demand.

Those of us who live in the direct path of this unhealthy silica sand mining need to make our stories known.

Bridge Creek Town, Wisconsin

The quiet abundance of life on an 80-acre tree farm in Wisconsin, fed by natural springs and wetlands, has nurtured every dream this prairie-raised transplant could conceive in the last 30 years. Six years of vigilance and rational debate has led to loss on every front when addressing the local government’s permitting of silica sand mines and its health and safety impacts on the community.

The largest sand mine in Bridge Creek Town lies one mile north of our tree farm. Two years ago, 40 acres of trees were culled for the installation of high intensity power lines to feed anticipated silica sand mine expansion under the legal provision of “Right-of-Way.” That document was signed by a previous land owner in 1948. No specific amount of land was specified on the original right-of-way, thus allowing significant legal destruction and permanent loss against the farm.

However, from a tree farm owner’s perspective, we have seen the variety and number of wildlife species increase at our farm over the past six years – likely because these species view our farm as an oasis, or what ecologists call a refugium, in an otherwise altered mixed-use landscape. The maximum capacity of the tree farm as a wildlife sanctuary is unknown. The adjacent silica Hi-Crush sand mine depletes the hillsides and woodlots in its path.

Frac sand mine in Eau Claire County, WI

Hi-Crush Partners LP’s frac sand mine

The weekly blasting away of the hillsides sends shock waves – shaking homes and outbuildings weekly, along with our nerves. Visible cracks appear in the walls of buildings, and private wells are monitored for collapse and contamination. The sand mine only guarantees repair to property lying within a half-mile of the mine. The mine blasts the land near Amish schools and has had a noticeable effect on the psyche of countless farm animals. The invisible silica is breathed by every living thing much to the mine’s denial, with deadly silicosis appearing up to 15 years after initial exposure. Our community is left to wonder who will manifest the health effects first. Blasting unearths arsenic, lead, and other contaminants into private wells and into the remaining soil.

There has been no successful reclamation of the land after it is mined, with most residents wondering what the actual point is of developing a reclamation plan is if timely implementation and stringent reclamation metrics are not enforced. All useful topsoil has been stripped away and is dead with the land only able to support sedge grasses and very few of them at best. No farming on this mined land can occur even though these mining companies promise farm owners that when they are done mining, soil productivity will meet or exceed pre-mining conditions and much milder slopes than the pre-mining bluffs that contained the silica sand. Needless to say, land values of homes, farms, and property decrease as the mines creeps closer.

Explore photos of Hi-Crush Partner’s frac sand mine:

The people of Bridge Creek

Bridge Creek, as well as many other towns, have been easy picking for the mines. Many towns are unzoned, having little industry, a meager tax base, and a huge land area for a very sparse population. The unemployment and underemployment rates are quite high. Many residents in Bridge Creek farm, including a very large population of Amish who own a checkerboard of land used for farming and saw mills. Most of these Amish families arrived here from Canada and bought farms when the mid 80’s drought put small farms up for sale. The Amish community seldom votes, and their strong religious beliefs prevent them from taking a stand on any political issues.

Video of contaminated well water an Amish farm in Augusta, WI near frac sand mining

Scroll to the end of the article to explore more impacts to the Amish community

The original residents of this land, the Ho-Chunk people, are few in number and wish to protect their home lands that they had purchased back from the government.

Furthermore, a significant number of artists live in this community and have chosen to keep their homes and studios in anonymity. Thus, it is very difficult to amass any unity among this diverse population to stand up to the local government. Many long-time residents have the attitude that you can’t stop “progress.” I wonder if they know that this kind of progress kills the future?

Broken promises made by the mining company for jobs and huge payments to the initial land sellers have divided families and the community. Even though the mining boom was sold as a job provider, few locals are employed by the mines. There is little faith that the local government will provide for the safety and well being of its residents. Presentation of research, facts regarding aquifer endangerment and silica sand health risks, and proposals written in detail outlining potential protective ordinances have cost citizens, including myself, enormous amounts of time and money. The government responses remain the same. The sand mines have been allowed to continue destruction of the natural resources to no one’s benefit except for the enormous profits lining the coffers of the mining corporations.

Today, after six years of continuous silica sand mining moving ever closer, I can no longer fight logically and linearly to eliminate the greed, injustice, and usurped power head on. I fight land destruction as a different warrior.

I choose to protect this land and wood by nurturing its existence through planting more native trees, educating others to the wisdom and wonder of nature, by photo journaling the struggle for its survival and documenting this land’s story so that future citizens will know the truth. Moreover, I will continue to spread the message loud and long: stopping the silica sand mining will stop fracking.

These efforts may be the best that I can manage with a grieving heart. A fierce spirit will continue to share this story and those of others living in the Midwest where the silica sand laden hills roll under the top soil of our lives.

Christine Yellowthunder is an environmental activist of Lakota heritage and is also a tree farmer and poet. She lives on her farm with her husband Ralph Yellowthunder, a Ho-Chunk elder and Vietnam combat veteran.

The Amish community in Bridge Creek:

Listen below to in interview of an Amish farmer and clock maker who lives adjacent to the Hi-Crush mine, by Ted Auch, FracTracker’s Great Lakes Program Coordinator, and local resident, Mary Ann O’Donahue:

The frac sand mine and its impact on well water

1:35 “We had no problem with the well until they started back here, and then from there on she was orange….in June, I put chickens in the barn and I put a new filter in the line…and in a month’s time it was stopped up”

4: 28 “They hauled all that toxic waste to the back of the mine and dumped it”

Water testing and dust in the air

1:35 “They test for magnesium and manganese and aluminum, metals…there’s like 5 pages of them, and iron, mercury, iodine…everything they say if it’s a certain color it’s high…It’s been going up ever since they started. The first test looked real good, before they started doing anything…and every year since, it’s getting higher and higher and higher…I don’t hear nothing from them, they take the sample and that’s it…They don’t come talk about it, they’re not concerned that it’s raising”

7:15 “I can have my cart sitting underneath the overhang by the shop and I’ve never had to worry about it being much dusty. But if it’s sitting underneath there over there in the summer time…it’s not there a day before it’s covered in it.” “And that stuff’s going in your mouth too.”

Hi-Crush pond and blasts from the mine

1:40 “Who knows what’s in the pond?” “Well, that’s the problem, all the chemicals they use they never tell anybody what they’re using to process this stuff, and it’s all in where ever it runs off”

7:15 “You should’ve been here Monday…It was a real hard blast… I had the engine running and was working in [the shop], and it was a very big shaking there, and I noticed it so it had to be a real big one and I came to the door to look and [the smoke from the blast] was still three lengths higher than the tree over there… Usually they’re doing it two times a week…I’m sure it [affected] my house, because my ceiling’s cracked more and more. There was one lady here once when it happened and she didn’t stay very long, she said ‘I’m going home, I’m not staying in this house'”

Impact to animals, light pollution, interactions with workers

0:50 “She was riding a buggy and…they just happened to blast about the time the horse was as close as it could be and the horse freaked out and ran and she couldn’t control it”

Relations between workers, local officials, and the Amish community

Accidents involving farm animals, workers, and residents

Photos of the property and workshop:

Feature image: Frac sand mining in Wisconsin. Photo by Ted Auch, FracTracker Alliance, with aerial assistance from LightHawk.

The Falcon: Water Crossings & Hazards

January 26, 2018/1 Comment/in Articles, Infrastructure, Pipelines, Water, Wildlife and Ecology /by FracTracker Alliance

Part of the Falcon Public EIA Project

In this section of the Falcon Public EIA Project, we explore the hydrological and geological conditions of the pipeline’s construction areas. We first identify the many streams, wetlands, and ponds the Falcon must cross, as well as describe techniques Shell will likely use in these water crossings. The second segment of this section highlights how the areas in the Falcon’s path are known for their complex geological features, such as porous karst limestone and shallow water tables that can complicate construction.

Quick Falcon Facts

Intersects 319 streams; 361 additional streams located only 500ft from construction areas
Intersects 174 wetlands; 470 additional wetlands located only 500ft from construction areas
Majority of crossings will be open cuts and dry-ditch trenching
A total of 19 horizontal directional drilling (HDD) sites; 40 conventional boring sites
25 miles of pipeline overlap karst limestone formations, including 9 HDD sites
240 groundwater wells within 1/4 mile of the pipeline; 24 within 1,000ft of an HDD site

Map of Falcon water crossings and hazards

The following map will serve as our guide in breaking down the Falcon’s risks to water bodies. Expand the map full-screen to explore its contents in greater depth. Some layers only become visible as you zoom in. A number of additional features of the map are not shown by default, but can be turned on in the “layers” tab. These include information on geological features, water tables, soil erosion characteristics, as well as drinking reservoir boundaries. Click the “details” tab in full-screen mode to read how the different layers were created.

View Map Fullscreen | How FracTracker Maps Work

Defining Water Bodies

The parts of Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Ohio where the Falcon pipeline will be built lie within the Ohio River Basin. This landscape contains thousands of streams, wetlands, and lakes, making it one of the most water rich regions in the United States. Pipeline operators are required to identify waters likely to be impacted by their project. This two-step process involves first mapping out waters provided by the U.S. Geological Survey’s national hydrological dataset. Detailed field surveys are then conducted in order to locate additional waters that may not yet be accounted for. Many of the streams and wetlands we see in our backyards are not represented in the national dataset because conditions can change on the ground over time. Yet, plans for crossing these must also be present in pipeline operator’s permit applications.

Streams

Streams (and rivers) have three general classifications. “Perennial” streams flow year-round, are typically supplied by smaller up-stream headwaters, and are supplemented by groundwater. In a sense, the Ohio River would be the ultimate perennial stream of the region as all smaller and larger streams eventually end up there. “Intermittent” streams flow for only a portion of the year and are dry at times, such as during the summer when water tables are low. Finally, “ephemeral” streams flow only during precipitation events.

These classifications are important because they can determine the extent of aquatic habitat that streams can support. Working in streams that have no dry period can put aquatic lifeforms at elevated risk. For this and other reasons, many states further designate streams based on their aquatic life “use” and water quality. In Pennsylvania, for instance, the PA DEP uses the designations: Warm Water Fishes (WWF), Trout Stocked (TSF), Cold Water Fisheries (CWF) and Migratory Fishes (MF). Streams with exceptional water quality may receive an additional designation of High Quality Waters (HQ) and Exceptional Value Waters (EV).

Wetlands

Similar to streams, wetlands also have unique designations. These are based on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services’ national wetlands inventory. Wetlands are generally defined as “lands transitional between terrestrial and aquatic systems where the water table is usually at or near the surface or the land is covered by shallow water.” As such, wetlands are categorized by their location (such as a tidal estuary or an inland wetland that lacks flowing water), its substrate (bedrock, sand, etc.), and plant life that might be present. While there are hundreds of such categories, only four pertain to the wetlands present in the regions where the Falcon pipeline will be built. Their designations roughly translate to the following:

Palustrine Emergent (PEM): Marshes and wet meadows hosting perennial small trees, shrubs, mosses, or lichens
Palustrine Shrub (PSS): Similar to PEMs, but characterized by also having well-established shrubs
Palustrine Forested (PFO): Similar to PEMs and PSSs, but having trees larger than 6 meters high
Palustrine Unconsolidated Bottom (PUB) and Palustrine Opem Water (POW) (aka ponds)

Pipeline operators are required to report the crossing length of each wetland they will encounter, as well as the area of permanent and temporary disturbance that would occur in each of these wetlands. When building the pipeline, operators are required to ensure that all measures are taken to protect wetlands by minimizing impacts to plant life, as well as by taking “upland protective measures” to prevent sedimentation runoff during precipitation events. When undergoing FERC EIA scrutiny, operators are also required to limit the width of wetland construction areas to 75 feet or less.

Crossing Methods

Open-Cut Trenching

Pipeline operators use a variety of methods when crossing streams, wetlands, and ponds. Shorter length crossings often employ a rudimentary trench. After the cuts, construction crews attempts to repair damage done in the process of laying the pipeline. For longer crossings, operators can use boring techniques to go underneath water features.

Open-cut trenching

There are two general types of trenches. The first, “open-cut” crossings, are typically used for smaller waterbodies, such as in intermittent streams where flow may not be present during time of construction, or when construction can be completed in a short period of time (typically 24-48 hours). In this process, a trench is laid through the water body without other provisions in place.

The second type, “dry-ditch” crossing, are required by FERC for waterbodies up to 30 feet wide “that are state-designated as either coldwater or significant coolwater or warmwater fisheries, or federally-designated as critical habitat.” In these spaces, pumps are used to transfer stream flow around the area where trenching occurs. In places where sensitive species are present, dry-ditches must include a flume to allow these species to pass through the work area.

Conventional Boring

Conventional boring consists of creating a tunnel for the pipeline to be installed below roads, waterbodies, and other sensitive resources. Bore pits are excavated on either sides of the site. A boring machine is then used to tunnel under the resource and the pipeline is pushed through the bore hole.

Horizontal Directional Drilling

In more difficult or lengthy crossings, operators may choose to bore under a water feature, road, or neighborhood. Horizontal directional drilling (HDD) involves constructing large staging areas on either side of the crossing. A large drill bit is piloted through the ground along with thousands of gallons of water and bentonite clay for lubricant (commonly referred to as drilling muds). HDDs are designed to protect sensitive areas, but operators prefer not to use them as HDDs can be expensive and require in-depth planning in order for things to go well.

Bentonite sediment pollutes a stream at a Mariner East HDD spill site
(source: Washington, PA, Observer-Reporter)

An example of what happens when things are rushed can be seen in Sunoco’s Mariner East 2 pipeline. The PA DEP has cited Sunoco for over 130 inadvertent returns (accidental releases of drilling muds) since construction began. These spills led to damaged water wells and heavy sedimentation in protected streams, as exemplified in the image above. Making matters worse, Sunoco later violated terms of a settlement that required them to re-survey before recommencing construction. See FracTracker’s article on these spills.

Footprint of the Falcon

The overwhelming majority of Falcon’s water body crossings will be executed with either open-cut or dry-ditch methods. There are 40 locations where conventional boring will be used, but only a 3 are used for crossing water resources. Shell intends to use 19 HDDs and, of these, only 13 are used for crossing water bodies of some kind (the longest of which crosses the Ohio River). All other conventional and HDD boring locations will be used to cross under roads and built structures. This is not entirely unusual for pipelines. However, we noted a number of locations where one would expect to see HDDs but did not, such as in the headwaters of the Ambridge and Tappen Reservoirs, as was seen in the images above.

Stream Impacts

Shell identified and/or surveyed a total of 993 stream sections in planning for the Falcon’s construction. As shown on FracTracker’s map, the pipeline’s workspace and access roads will directly intersect 319 of these streams with the following classifications: perennial (96), ephemeral (79), and intermittent (114). An additional 361 streams are located only 500ft from construction areas.

A number of these streams have special designations assigned by state agencies. For instance, in Pennsylvania, we found 10 stream segments listed as Trout Stocked (TS), which are shown on our interactive map.

Crossing HQ headwater streams of the Ambridge Reservoir

Perhaps more concerning, the Falcon will cross tributaries to the Service Creek watershed 13 times. These feed into three High Quality Cold Water Fishes (HQ/CWF) headwater streams of the Ambridge Reservoir in Beaver County, PA, shown in the image above. They also support the endangered Southern Redbelly Dace (discussed in greater depth here). On the eastern edge of the watershed, the Falcon will cross the raw water line leading out of the reservoir.

The reservoir supplies 6.5 million gallons of water a day to five townships in Beaver County (Ambridge, Baden, Economy, Harmony, and New Sewickley) and four townships in Allegheny County (Leet, Leetsdale, Bell Acres & Edgeworth). This includes drinking water services to 30,000 people.

We found a similar concern in Ohio where the Falcon will cross protected headwaters in the Tappan Reservoir watershed at six different locations. The Tappan is the primary drinking water source for residents in Scio. Below is a page from Shell’s permit applications to the PA DEP outlining the crossing of one of the Ambridge Reservoir’s CWF/HQ headwater streams.

Wetland Impacts

Shell identified a total of 682 wetland features relevant to Falcon’s construction, as well as 6 ponds. Of these, the pipeline’s workspace and access roads will directly intersect 174 wetlands with the following classifications: PEM (141), PSS (13), PFO (7), PUB (10), POW (3). An additional 470 of these wetlands, plus the 6 ponds, are located only 500ft from construction areas.

Example 1: Lower Raccoon Creek

A few wetland locations stand out as problematic in Shell’s construction plans. For instance, wetlands that drain into Raccoon Creek in Beaver County will be particularly vulnerable in two locations. The first is in Potter Township, where the Falcon will run along a wooded ridge populated by half a dozen perennial and intermittent streams that lead directly to a wetland of approximately 14 acres in size, seen below. Complicating erosion control further, Shell’s survey data shows that this ridge is susceptible to landslides, shown in the first map below in dotted red.

Landslide areas along Raccoon Creek wetlands and streams

This area is also characterized by the USGS as having a “high hazard” area for soil erosion, as seen in this second image. Shell’s engineers referenced this soil data in selecting their route. The erosion hazard status within 1/4 mile of the Falcon is a layer on our map and can be activated in the full-screen version.

High erosion hazard zones along Raccoon Creek

Shell’s permit applications to the PA DEP requires plans be submitted for erosion and sedimentation control of all areas along the Falcon route. Below are the pages that pertain to these high hazard areas.

Example 2: Independence Marsh

The other wetland area of concern along Raccoon Creek is found in Independence Township. Here, the Falcon will go under the Creek using horizontal drilling (highlighted in bright green), a process discussed in the next section. Nevertheless, the workspace needed to execute the crossing is within the designated wetland itself. An additional 15 acres of wetland lie only 300ft east of the crossing but are not accounted for in Shell’s data.

This unidentified wetland is called Independence Marsh, considered the crown jewel of the Independence Conservancy’s watershed stewardship program. Furthermore, the marsh and the property where the HDD will be executed are owned by the Beaver County Conservation District, meaning that the CCD signed an easement with Shell to cross publicly-owned land.

Independence Marsh, unidentified in Shell’s survey data

Groundwater Hazards

The Falcon’s HDD locations offer a few disturbing similarities to what caused the Mariner East pipeline spills. Many of Sunoco’s failures were due to inadequately conducted (or absent) geophysical surveys prior to drilling that failed to identify karst limestone formations and shallow groundwater tables, which then led to drilling muds entering nearby streams and groundwater wells.

Karst Limestone

Karst landscapes are known for containing sinkholes, caves, springs, and surface water streams that weave in and out of underground tunnels. Limestone formations are where we are most likely to see karst landscapes along the Falcon’s route.

In fact, more than 25 of the Falcon’s 97 pipeline miles will be laid within karst landscapes, including 9 HDD sites. However, only three of these HDDs sites are identified in Shell’s data as candidates for potential geophysical survey areas. The fact that the geology of the other 10 HDD sites will not be investigated is a concern.

One site where a geophysical survey is planned can be seen in the image below where the Falcon crosses under PA Highway 576. Note that this image shows a “geological formations” layer (with limestone in green). This layer shows the formation types within 1/4 mile of the Falcon and can activated in the full-screen version of our interactive map.

A potential HDD geophysical survey area in karst limestone

Water Tables

We also assessed the Falcon’s HDDs relative to the groundwater depths and nearby private groundwater wells. The USGS maintains information on minimum water table depths at different times of the year. In the image below we see the optional “water table depth” layer activated on the FracTracker map. The groundwater at this HDD site averages 20ft on its western side and only 8ft deep on the eastern side.

Shallow groundwater and private wells near a planned HDD site

Groundwater Wells

Also seen in the above image is the “groundwater wells” layer from the FracTracker map. We found 240 private water wells within 1/4 mile of the Falcon. This data is maintained by the PA Department of Natural Resources as well as by the Ohio Department of Natural Resources. Comparable GIS data for West Virginia were not readily available thus not shown on our map.

While all of these wells should be assessed for their level of risk with pipeline construction, the subset of wells nearest to HDD sites deserve particular attention. In fact, Shell’s data highlights 24 wells that are within 1,000 feet of a proposed HDD site. We’ve isolated the groundwater wells and HDD sites in a standalone map for closer inspection below. The 24 most at-risk wells are circled in blue.

View Map Fullscreen | How FracTracker Maps Work

* * *

Falcon Project Home

By Kirk Jalbert, FracTracker Alliance

The Falcon: Class Locations, Buildings & Recreational Areas

January 25, 2018/in Articles, Health & Safety, Infrastructure, Pipelines, Wildlife and Ecology /by FracTracker Alliance

Part of the Falcon Public EIA Project

In this segment of the Falcon Public EIA Project we begin to explore the different ways that pipelines are assessed for potential risk to populated areas. We outline a methods dictated by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) called Class Locations. This methods identifies occupied structures in proximity to a pipeline.

Quick Falcon Facts

67% of the Falcon route will qualify as Class 1, 27% as Class 2, and 3% as Class 3.
More than 557 single family residences and 20 businesses within 660ft of the pipeline.
Three recreational parks and a planned luxury housing development also at risk.

Map of Falcon Class Locations

The following map will serve as our guide in breaking down the Falcon’s Class Locations. Expand the map full-screen to explore its contents in greater depth. Some layers only become visible as you zoom in. A number of additional layers are not shown by default, but can be turned on in the “layers” tab. Click the “details” tab in full-screen mode to read how the different layers were created.

View Map Fullscreen | How FracTracker Maps Work

Pipeline Class Locations

Pipeline “Class locations” determine certain aspects of how a pipeline is constructed. Essentially, a pipeline’s route is segmented into lengths that are each given different classifications as outlined in PHMSA guidelines. In general terms, a segment’s Class is established by first calculating a buffer that extends 220 yards (660ft) on either side of the pipeline’s center in 1-mile continuous lengths. This buffer area is then analyzed for how many building structures are present. Classes are then assigned to each 1-mile segment using the follow criteria:

Class 1: a segment with 10 or fewer buildings intended for human occupancy
Class 2: a segment with more than 10, but less than 46 buildings intended for human occupancy
Class 3: a segment with 46 or more buildings intended for human occupancy, or where the pipeline lies within 100 yards of any building, or small well-defined outside area occupied by 20 or more people on at least 5 days a week for 10 weeks in any 12-month period (i.e. schools, businesses, recreation areas, churches)
Class 4: a segment where buildings with four or more stories aboveground are prevalent

The finer details of these calculations and their adjustments are complex, however. For instance, Class locations can be shortened to less than 1-mile lengths if building densities change dramatically in an certain area. The example image below shows one of the ways available to operators for doing this, called the “continuous sliding” method:

Calculating Class Locations
(source: PHMSA)

Class location designations may also be adjusted over time as densities change. For instance, if new homes were built in proximity to a previously constructed pipeline, the operator may be required to reduce their operating pressure, strengthen the pipeline, or conduct pressure tests to ensure the segment would technically meet the requirements of a higher Class. Alternatively, operators can apply for a special permit to avoid such changes.

What Class Locations Dictate

Pipeline segments with higher Classes must meet more rigorous safety standards, which are enforced either by PHMSA or by their state equivalent, such as the Pennsylvania Utility Commission. These include:

Soil depth: Class 1 locations must be installed with a minimum soil depth of 30 inches (18 inches in consolidated rock). Class 2, 3, and 4 locations require a minimum soil depth of 36 inches (24 inches in consolidated rock)
Shut-off valves: Class locations determine the maximum distance from shut-off valves to populated areas, as follows: Class 1 (10 miles), Class 2 (7.5 miles), Class 3 (4 miles), and Class 4 (2.5 miles).
Operating pressure: Classes also regulate the maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP) of pipeline segments
Structural integrity: Classes determine where thicker walled materials must be used to withstand higher pressures, as well as different structural testing methods used in safety inspections

By replicating the 600 foot buffer from the Falcon’s centerline (used as the standard distance for determining Class Locations) we found that 67% of the Falcon route will qualify as Class 1, 27% as Class 2, and 3% as Class 3. These are represented on our interactive maps as green, yellow, and orange segments, respectively. An additional segment is marked as having an “unknown” Class on our maps (shaded in gray). This is the stretch crossing the Ohio River, where Shell’s Class location analysis has not been updated to reflect the route change that occurred in the summer of 2017.

Residential Structures

In total, there are 557 single family residences, 20 businesses, and a church within the 660ft buffer. Shell’s data also identify non-occupied structures along the route, such as sheds, garages, and other outbuildings. There are 535 such structures, but we did not have the time to replicate the locations of these sites. It is also important to note that the points on our interactive map represent only those identified by Shell, which we believe is an incomplete assessment of occupied structures based on our quick review of satellite maps.

Three residential structures lie directly within the 50-foot right-of-way. One of these homes, located in a Class 2 segment in Independence Township, is shown below. The Falcon will come as close as 20 feet to the edge of the structure and surround the home on three sides.

An occupied residence in the right-of-way

Neighborhoods in the following five communities account for the entirety of Falcon’s Class 3 locations. These would be considered the most “at risk” areas along the route in terms of proximity to the number of occupied structures. For instance, below is a satellite view of the Class 3 section of Raccoon Township.

Rumley Township, Harrison OH
Knox Township, Jefferson County OH
Raccoon Township, Beaver County PA
Independence Township, Beaver County PA
Mount Pleasant Township, Washington County PA

Raccoon Township residences & Municipal Park in a Class 3

Recreational Areas

In the above image we also see the location of Raccoon Township Municipal Park (in purple), home to a number of ballfields. Two similar recreation areas are located in the 660ft Class Location buffer: Mill Creek Ballpark, in Beaver County PA, and Clinton Community Park, in Allegheny County PA.

However, the Raccoon Township park is notable in that the Falcon cuts directly through its property boundary. Shell intends to bore under the park using HDD techniques, as stated in their permit applications, “to avoid disturbance to Beaver County baseball field/recreational park,” also stating that, “this HDD may be removed if the recreational group will allow laying the pipeline along the entrance roadway.”

New Housing Developments

One discovery worth attention is that the Falcon runs straight through an under-construction luxury housing development. Located in Allegheny County, PA, its developer, Maronda Homes, bills this growing community as having “picturesque landscapes, waterfront views and a peaceful collection of homes.” Shell mentions this development in their permit applications, stating:

Maronda Homes is in the planning and design stage of a very large housing development and SPLC [Shell Pipeline LC] worked closely with the developer and the Project was rerouted to avoid most of the housing sites.

It stands to reason that this neighborhood will eventually rank as one of the densest Class 3 areas along the Falcon route. Whether or not the pipeline is updated with higher safety standards as a result remains to be seen. The image below illustrates where the Falcon will go relative to lots marked for new homes. This property lots diagram was obtained from Shell’s GIS data layer and can be viewed on the FracTracker interactive map as well.

The Falcon intersects a luxury home development

1/31/18 Note: the Pittsburg Post-Gazette obtained newer lot line records for a portion of the Maronda Farms during their investigation into this story. These new records appear to have some alterations to the development, as seen below.

Maronda Farms, updated lot lines

Issues with Setbacks

There are no setback restrictions for building new homes in proximity to a pipeline. Parcels will eventually be sectioned off and sold to home buyers, begging the question of whether or not people in this community will realize a hazardous liquid pipeline runs past their driveways and backyards. This is a dilemma that residents in a similar development in Firestone, Colorado, are now grappling with following a recent pipeline explosion that killed two people, seen below, due to inadequate building setbacks.

A pipeline explodes in a Colorado home development
(source: InsideEnergy, CO)

Interestingly, we researched these same Maronda Farms parcels in FracTracker’s Allegheny County Lease Mapping Project only to discover that Maronda Homes also auctioned off their mineral rights for future oil and gas drilling. New homeowners would become victims of split-estate, where drilling companies can explore for oil and gas without having to seek permission from property owners, amplifying their level of risk.

* * *

Falcon Project Home

Overview

The great risk of ecological devastation from oil & gas exploitation

Oil & Gas in ANWR

Alaskan Native communities in the North Slope

Language Groups and Natural Features of the North Slope of Alaska

Trump’s Last-Minute Leasing in ANWR

Results of the January 2021 oil & gas lease sale in Area 1002

40 Year Timeline Leading to the Recent Auction

The future of ANWR

The Takeaway

References & Where to Learn More

Topics in this Article

Support this work

Stay in the know

Support this work

Stay in the know

Overview

Mental health, green spaces, and a changing landscape

Study design

Main findings and emergent themes

Changes to the physical landscape and residents’ attitudes toward the altered environment

Impacts to outdoor recreation activities

Mental health impacts

Sentimental value and emotional distress

Feelings of powerlessness and social tension

Survey results

Conclusion and future directions

Acknowledgements

References:

Support this work

Stay in the know

Endless Effects

An Introduction to the Loyalsock Creek Watershed

Contents

A Wealth of Public Lands and Recreational Opportunity

Public Lands

Relaxing on the Water

Trails

Commercial Opportunities

Fracking comes to the Loyalsock

A Brief Timeline of Infractions

Water – a precious resource

Contamination

A Waste-Filled Proposition

Documentation Field Day

Local Insights

What Does the Future Hold?

Thanks to…

Support this work

Stay in the know

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

PIPELINE GATHERING LINE MAPPING PROCESS

ACREAGE ANALYSIS

CONCLUSION

About Me

Support this work

Stay in the know

Fracking in the Captina Creek Watershed: A Story Map

Support this work

Stay in the know

WILDNESS LOST

A Digital Atlas Examining Over a Decade of Unconventional Natural Gas Development in Pennsylvania’s Pine Creek Watershed

INTRODUCTION

According to the NOAA, a watershed is a land area that channels rainfall and snowmelt to creeks, streams, and rivers, and eventually to outflow points such as reservoirs, bays, and the ocean.

Use the time slider below to explore the changes in the Pine Creek watershed from 2008 to 2016

CONTENTS

A LEGACY OF EXTRACTION

TIMBER

COAL

Table 1. Problematic coal mine areas in the Pine Creek Watershed

OIL & GAS

A Wealth of Public Lands & Recreational Opportunity

Fracking Comes to Pine Creek

Midstream Infrastructure

Table 2. Oil & Gas Well Status in the Pine Creek Watershed

Table 3. Number of unconventional wells drilled in Pennsylvania and the Pine Creek Watershed

The map below shows a heavily forested section of the watershed that has been significantly damaged by unconventional oil and gas development. Notice the forest fragmentation and land disturbance that has occurred as a result of fracking activities.

Use the time slider below to explore the changes in the Pine Creek watershed from 2008 to 2016

Water – A Precious Resource

Table 3. Water consumption by well in the Pine Creek Watershed