The results of a survey conducted by Ohio University's Voinovich School of Leadership and Public Affairs in summer 2013. The survey asked local elected officials in eastern Ohio counties that have seen Utica Shale drilling to respond to a series of questions gauging their perceptions of the impacts Utica drilling has had in their respective locales. It is an intriguing look at the perceptions of how Utica drilling has affected local residents in Ohio.

1.
OHIO SHALE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY IMPACT SURVEY
PRIMARY FINDINGS FROM THE 2013 SURVEY

2.
For more information on the survey instrument, methodology, or how to join
Ohio University’s Voinovich School of Leadership and Public Affairs
with ongoing shale activity research, please visit
http://www.ohio.edu/ce3/research/shale/shaleimpactsurvey.cfm
OHIO SHALE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY IMPACT SURVEY

3. OHIO SHALE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY IMPACT SURVEY

4. OHIO SHALE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY IMPACT SURVEY
PRIMARY FINDINGS FROM THE 2013 SURVEY
The Shale Development Community Impact Survey captured shale activity in 17 counties (see map).
Three types of local officials (N=227) were asked to “indicate the impact shale development has had” on
the area they serve. A total of 36 respondents were eliminated from all data because they did not
indicate which shale activities were occurring in their area, leaving 66 Mayors and City Managers (34.6%
of all respondents), who answered for their city or village; 16 County Commissioners (8.4% of all
respondents), who provided answers for their county; and 109 Township Trustees (57.1% of all
respondents), who responded for their township. Of the 191 remaining respondents, 99 reported two or
more ongoing shale development activities in their service area, while 56 indicated no activity in their
service area.
Survey results were analyzed in three ways: 1) By the type of shale development activity reported to be
taking place (horizontal shale well drilling, injection well construction, pipeline construction, shale
supply yards/other staging areas, worker camps, refinery development, and no activity). In these
analyses, respondents can be counted more than once, depending on how many activities they reported
in their service area. 2) By respondent’s reported local official position (mayor/city manager, county
commissioner, township trustee). 3) By collapsing across all respondents. In the last two types of
analyses, respondents were counted only once.
In the current report, “moderate increase” and “significant increase” responses were combined. All
charts, unless otherwise specified, depict the percent of respondents who reported an increase in their
service area.
•
•
According to the majority of local
officials, the impact of shale activity has
generally been positive.
Across all local officials, 61.4% reported
positive impacts, 25.7% reported that
shale had resulted in no change to their
service area, and only 7.8% indicated
that the impact had been negative.
100%
IMPACT OF SHALE ON AREA SERVED
BY RESPONDENT
81.3%
City
Manager/Mayor
80%
61.9%
Commissioner
60% 56.1%
40%
27.3% 27.8%
12.5%
20%
6.3%
0%
10.6%
5.2% 6.1% 5.2%
0.0%
For full survey methodology, please visit http://www.ohio.edu/ce3/research/shale/shaleimpactsurvey.cfm
OHIO SHALE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY IMPACT SURVEY
1

5. POPULATION, HOUSING, AND PUBLIC SAFETY
The impact of shale development was investigated to determine how population was influenced and the
effect it has had on local housing and public safety.
•
•
•
Counties with shale activity of all kinds
have seen increases in population.
Among counties with reported shale
activity, the percentage of respondents
indicating a population increase related
to shale development range from 42.9%
(horizontal shale well drilling and
injection well construction) to as high as
85.7% (refinery development).
In counties without shale activity, more
than ten percent (10.4%) of
respondents report that population has
increased due to shale development.
POPULATION
100%
85.7%
80%
61.5%
60%
42.9%
42.9%
59.3%
48.4%
40%
20%
10.4%
0%
PROPERTY/LAND COSTS
•
•
•
The cost of property and land has been
reported to be on the rise in counties
with and without ongoing shale activity.
Property and land costs have increased
in counties with shale activity according
to the majority of respondents, with
54.8% (injection well construction) to
90.5% (refinery development) of
respondents reporting moderate or
significant increases.
More than a third (38.8%) of
respondents in counties with no activity
report that shale development has led
to increases in property and land costs
in their area.
100%
90.5%
77.3%
80%
63.2%
60%
75.0%
68.0%
54.8%
40%
38.8%
20%
0%
OHIO SHALE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY IMPACT SURVEY
2

6.
HOUSING RENTAL COSTS
•
•
•
In counties with shale activity, nearly
two‐thirds or more of respondents
indicate an increase in housing rental
costs due to the impact of shale
development.
The activity with the highest percentage
(90.0%) of respondents indicating shale
development has increased housing
rental costs is refinery development.
In counties with no activity, a
considerable proportion of respondents
(31.3%) report that shale development
has increased housing rental costs.
100%
80%
86.2%
66.7%
61.9%
82.1%
90.0%
69.8%
60%
31.3%
40%
20%
0%
PUBLIC SAFETY
•
100%
Across all respondents, only a small
percentage indicated the following
crimes have increased due to shale
development: alcohol‐related offenses
(13.3%), drug‐related offenses (12.4%),
assaults (6.2%), property theft (11.2%),
and prostitution (2.8%).
80%
60%
40%
20%
13.3%
12.4%
11.2%
6.2%
2.8%
0%
OHIO SHALE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY IMPACT SURVEY
3

7. INFRASTRUCTURE AND ENVIRONMENT
The impact of shale development on local infrastructure and the environment was explored.
TRAFFIC VOLUME
•
•
In counties with ongoing shale
development activities, the majority of
respondents across activities, ranging
from 75.6% (injection well construction)
to 100% (refinery development),
indicate shale development has
increased traffic volume.
Nearly half (44.9%) of respondents in
counties with no shale development
activities reported that shale
development has increased traffic
volume.
100.0%
100%
84.8%
80%
75.6%
86.5%
87.9%
85.2%
60%
44.9%
40%
20%
0%
•
•
NEED FOR PUBLIC ROAD MAINTENANCE
Among counties with ongoing shale
development activities, 61.0% (injection
well construction) to 95.2% (refinery
development) of respondents indicate a
need for public road maintenance.
In counties without ongoing shale
development activities, over a third of
respondents (36.7%) report a need for
public road maintenance due to the
impact of shale development.
95.2%
100%
80%
79.2%
77.1%
80.3%
61.0%
70.4%
60%
40%
36.7%
20%
0%
OHIO SHALE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY IMPACT SURVEY
4

8.
•
•
BRIDGE MAINTENANCE/INSPECTION NEED
In counties with ongoing shale
development, more than half of
respondents across all activities report
shale development has increased the
need for bridge maintenance and
inspection.
Nearly a quarter (24.5%) of respondents
in counties with no shale activity
indicated that shale development has
increased the need for bridge
maintenance and inspection.
100%
80%
60%
57.5%
52.4%
56.7%
63.6%
64.3%
66.7%
40%
24.5%
20%
0%
NOISE POLLUTION
•
•
•
In counties with some sort of ongoing
shale development activity, nearly a
third or more respondents report
moderate or significant increases in
noise pollution related to shale
development.
Reports of increased noise pollution
were highest in counties with refinery
development, with 71.4% of
respondents reporting an increase.
In counties with no reported activity,
14.3% of respondents indicated that
shale development has increased noise
pollution.
100%
80%
60%
40%
71.4%
43.4%
42.3%
50.0%
46.4%
31.0%
20%
14.3%
0%
Respondents reporting refinery development in their area were more likely to report increased traffic
volume, need for road and bridge maintenance, as well as increased noise pollution compared to any
other shale development activity.
OHIO SHALE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY IMPACT SURVEY
5

9. RUMAS
Road Use Maintenance Agreements (RUMA) are a contractual agreement between a shale company
and a local governing body stating that the company will take on maintenance, repair, and potential
upgrading of specified bridges and roadways1. When asked, more than half (61.4%) of county
commissioners and township trustees indicated that RUMA agreements had been signed in their service
area.
•
•
Overall, reports of environmental harm
have been limited. Across all
respondents, some (12.8%) report an
increase in storm water runoff. A similar
percentage of respondents (14.4%)
indicate that shale development has
increased erosion. Some respondents
(17.8%) also indicate that light pollution
has increased due to shale
development, with the majority of
these reports coming from respondents
in areas with ongoing horizontal shale
well drilling, pipeline construction, and
shale supply yards or other shipping
areas.
Respondents also report that shale
development has increased the demand
for water (48.1%) and water disposal
(25.7%) to a considerable degree.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
100%
80%
60%
48.1%
40%
20%
25.7%
14.4%
12.8%
17.8%
0%
1 http://www.ceao.org/aws/CEAO/pt/sp/layout_details?get_content_from_session=1&suppress_tcsshare=1
OHIO SHALE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY IMPACT SURVEY
6

10. LOCAL EMPLOYMENT AND BUSINESS ACTIVITY
The impact of shale development on local employment and existing businesses was investigated. Across
all respondents, the majority (57.5%) indicated that employment of area residents has increased due to
shale development.
•
•
•
Workforce migration increased due to
shale development in counties with and
without reported shale activity.
An increase of workforce migration due
to shale development was reported by
all (100%) of respondents in counties
with refinery development, and nearly
all respondents in counties with worker
camps (92.9%) and supply yards/staging
areas (90.8%).
Over a quarter (29.2%) of respondents
with no activity in their area reported
an increase of workforce migration
related to shale development.
WORKFORCE MIGRATION
100%
80%
81.3%
72.4%
90.8%
100.0%
92.9%
61.9%
60%
40%
29.2%
20%
0%
•
•
RESTAURANT ACTIVITY
In counties with reported shale activity,
the range of respondents who indicated
an increase in restaurant activity
related to shale development was
70.8% (horizontal shale well drilling) to
90.5% (refinery development).
One fifth (20.4%) of respondents in
counties with no activity report an
increase in restaurant activity due to
the impact of shale development.
100%
80%
84.8%
70.8%
76.2%
85.7%
90.5%
77.3%
60%
40%
20.4%
20%
0%
OHIO SHALE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY IMPACT SURVEY
7

11. •
•
Among counties with ongoing shale
activity, the percentage of respondents
indicating an increase in other retail
activities ranged from 65.7% (horizontal
shale well drilling) to 90.5% (refinery
development).
In counties with no activity, nearly a
fifth (18.4%) of respondents reported
an increase in other retail activity due
to shale development.
OTHER RETAIL ACTIVITY
100%
80%
84.6%
65.7%
68.3%
71.9%
90.5%
77.8%
60%
40%
18.4%
20%
0%
HOTEL OCCUPANCY
•
•
•
Hotel occupancy has increased in
counties with shale activity, according
to the majority of respondents in
counties with some sort of ongoing
shale development.
In counties with horizontal shale well
drilling, 51.5% of respondents report an
increase in hotel occupancy due to the
impact of shale development. In
counties with injection well
construction, increases in hotel
occupancy was reported by 71.4% of
respondents.
In counties with no activity, 10.6% of
respondents indicate an increase in
hotel occupancy due to shale
development.
100%
80%
60%
71.4%
65.6%
58.1%
59.3%
65.0%
51.5%
40%
20%
10.6%
0%
OHIO SHALE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY IMPACT SURVEY
8

12. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Local officials – city managers and mayors, county commissioners and township trustees – reported that
the influence of shale development on local economic growth was primarily positive.
•
•
•
Across all local officials, only 35.6%
indicated that local tax revenues had
increased due to the impact of shale
activity. However, considerable
differences were seen between the
types of local officials.
Nearly half (43.1%) of city managers
and mayors reported an increase in tax
revenue. The majority (87.5%) of county
commissioners reported an increase in
tax revenues, while only 22.2% of
township trustees indicated shale
development had increased tax
revenues.
Local tax revenue is the only economic
survey item where major differences
were seen among the local official
positions.2
LOCAL TAX REVENUES
City Manager/Mayor
100%
87.5%
Commissioner
80%
62.6%
60%
Township Trustee
50.8%
43.1%
40%
22.2%
20%
12.5%
1.5%
0%
2.0%
0.0%
13.1%
4.6%
0.0%
•
•
Collapsing across respondent positions,
the majority of respondents (51.1%)
indicated that shale development had
led to an increase in the development
of businesses that serve the shale
industry.
The remainder of respondents reported
that either no change had occurred in
the development of businesses serving
the shale industry or that they did not
know.
DEVELOPMENT OF BUSINESSES SERVING
SHALE INDUSTRY
100%
80%
60%
51.1%
41.8%
40%
20%
7.1%
0.0%
0%
2 This study did not differentiate between different sources of taxation amongst various levels of government.
OHIO SHALE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY IMPACT SURVEY
PAGE 9

13.
COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL SPACE DEMAND
•
•
•
Nearly half of all respondents (43.9%)
reported that the demand for
commercial and industrial space has
increased due to the impact of shale
development activities.
A similar proportion of respondents
(49.4%) reported that the demand for
commercial and industrial space had
not changed.
Among the different shale activities, the
range of respondents indicating an
increase in the need for commercial
space fell between 85.7% (refinery
development) and 57.1% (injection well
construction).
100%
80%
60%
43.9%
49.4%
40%
20%
6.7%
0.0%
0%
•
•
HOTEL CONSTRUCTION
More than a quarter (27.5%) of all
respondents reported that there has
been an increase in hotel construction
due to the impact of shale
development.
The majority of respondents (65.2%)
indicated that no change has occurred
in hotel construction.
100%
80%
65.2%
60%
40%
27.5%
20%
7.3%
0.0%
0%
OHIO SHALE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY IMPACT SURVEY
PAGE 10