Sen. Muth and Dimock, PA residents are fighting a permitted Eureka Resource Susquehanna facility that puts their water at risk.
The story of Victoria Switzer, a Dimock resident who is leading the charge to protect Burdick Creek and Dimock from toxic fracking waste.
The Mi’kmaq First Nations people are facing threats to their lands and water due to plans in Nova Scotia proposed by AltaGas.
Information on which bird species in northeastern Pennsylvania are affected by the fracking industry’s expansion.
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.
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
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.
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/
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
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.
See more California maps and articles here.
By Kyle Ferrar, Western Program Coordinator, FracTracker Alliance
By Emma Vieregge, FracTracker Summer 2020 Environmental and Health Fellow
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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
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.
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
A Digital Atlas Exploring the Environmental Impacts of a Decade of Unconventional Natural Gas Extraction in the Loyalsock Creek Watershed