Environmental Management

, Volume 49, Issue 5, pp 1061–1075 | Cite as

Early Trends in Landcover Change and Forest Fragmentation Due to Shale-Gas Development in Pennsylvania: A Potential Outcome for the Northcentral Appalachians

  • P. J. Drohan
  • M. Brittingham
  • J. Bishop
  • K. Yoder


Worldwide shale-gas development has the potential to cause substantial landscape disturbance. The northeastern U.S., specifically the Allegheny Plateau in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio, and Kentucky, is experiencing rapid exploration. Using Pennsylvania as a proxy for regional development across the Plateau, we examine land cover change due to shale-gas exploration, with emphasis on forest fragmentation. Pennsylvania’s shale-gas development is greatest on private land, and is dominated by pads with 1–2 wells; less than 10 % of pads have five wells or more. Approximately 45–62 % of pads occur on agricultural land and 38–54 % in forest land (many in core forest on private land). Development of permits granted as of June 3, 2011, would convert at least 644–1072 ha of agricultural land and 536–894 ha of forest land. Agricultural land conversion suggests that drilling is somewhat competing with food production. Accounting for existing pads and development of all permits would result in at least 649 km of new road, which, along with pipelines, would fragment forest cover. The Susquehanna River basin (feeding the Chesapeake Bay), is most developed, with 885 pads (26 % in core forest); permit data suggests the basin will experience continued heavy development. The intensity of core forest disturbance, where many headwater streams occur, suggests that such streams should become a focus of aquatic monitoring. Given the intense development on private lands, we believe a regional strategy is needed to help guide infrastructure development, so that habitat loss, farmland conversion, and the risk to waterways are better managed.


Shale-gas Gas Marcellus Fragmentation Core forest Disturbance 



We wish to thank the following organizations for funding support leading to completion of this research: The Heinz Foundation; Marcellus Center for Outreach and Research, Penn State; and the USDA-NRCS Soil Survey program. We thank the Pennsylvania DEP for assistance in database development and Pennsylvania DCNR for information on shale-gas management across state lands. We thank the following individuals for assistance with database analysis: John Driscoll, Cody Fink, Mary Kay Lupton, Michael Marsicano, and Kyle Medash.


  1. Anderson AP, Hardy EE, Roach JT, Witmer RE (1976) A land use and land cover classification system for use with remote sensor data. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 964Google Scholar
  2. Arendt R, Brabec EA, Dodson H, Reid C, Yaro RD (1994) Rural by design: maintaining small town character. American Planning Association, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  3. Brabec E, Smith C (2002) Agricultural land fragmentation: the spatial effects of three land protection strategies in the eastern United States. Landscape Urban Planning 58:255–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brittingham MC, Goodrich LJ (2010) Habitat fragmentation: a threat to Pennsylvania’s forest birds. In: Majumdar SK, Master TL, Brittingham M, Ross RM, Mulvihill R, Huffman J (eds) Avian ecology and conservation: a Pennsylvania focus with national implications. Pennsylvania Academy of Science, Easton, pp 204–216Google Scholar
  5. Campbell K, Horne M (2011) Shale gas in British Columbia: risks to B.C.’s water resources. The Pembina Institute and The Pembina Foundation. Accessed 7 Feb 2011
  6. Chevron Polska Energy Resources (2011) Developing natural gas from shale. Accessed 7 Feb 2011
  7. Cushman SA (2006) Effects of habitat loss and fragmentation on amphibians: a review and prospectus. Biological Conservation 128:231–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. DellaSala DA, Martin A, Spivak R, Schulke T, Bird B, Criley M, van Daalen C, Kreilick J, Brown R, Aplet G (2003) A citizen’s call for ecological forest restoration forest restoration principles and criteria. Ecological Restoration 21:14–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dramstad WE, Olson JD, Forman RTT (1996) Landscape ecology principles in landscape architecture and land-use planning. Harvard University Graduate School of Design, Island Press, and the American Society of Landscape Architects, Boston, MAGoogle Scholar
  10. Drohan PJ, DeWalle DR (2002) Defoliation and atmospheric deposition influences on spring baseflow chemistry in 56 Pennsylvania mixed land-use watersheds. Water, Air, Soil Pollution 133:31–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Engelder T, Lash GG (2008) Marcellus shale play’s vast resource potential creating stir in Appalachia. The American Oil and Gas Reporter 51:76–87Google Scholar
  12. ESRI (2011) Environmental Systems Resource Institute, ArcMap 9.3. ESRI, Redlands, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  13. Fahring L (2003) Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution and Systematics 34:487–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Forman RTT, Alexander LE (1998) Roads and their major ecological effects. Annual Reviews of Ecology and Systematics 29:207–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gilbert MM, Chalfoun AD (2011) Energy development affects populations of sagebrush songbirds in Wyoming. Journal of Wildlife Management 75:816–824CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Goodrich LJ, Brittingham MC, Bishop JA, Barber P (2002) Wildlife habitat in Pennsylvania: past, present, and future. Published by the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, in cooperation with Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission, Pennsylvania Game Commission, and Governor’s Conservation Advisor. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. Accessed 6 Jun 2011
  17. Harper JA (2008) The Marcellus shale: an old “new” gas reservoir in Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania Geology 28:2–12Google Scholar
  18. Heilman GE Jr, Strittholt JR, Slosser NC, Dellasala DA (2002) Forest fragmentation of the conterminous United States: assessing forest intactness through road density and spatial characteristics. Bioscience 52:411–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Heimlich RE, Brooks DH (1989) Metropolitan growth and agriculture: farming in the city’s shadow. AER-619. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research ServiceGoogle Scholar
  20. Holloran MJ, Kaiser RC, Hubert WA (2010) Yearling greater sage-grouse response to energy development in Wyoming. Journal of Wildlife Management 74:65–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Howell CA, Dijak WD, Thompson FR (2007) Landscape contest and selection for forest edge by breeding brown-headed cowbirds. Landscape Ecology 22:273–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Johnson N (2010) Pennsylvania energy impacts assessment. The nature conservancy. Accessed 6 Jun 2011
  23. Kelsey TW, Shields M, Ladleee JR, Ward M (2011) Economic impacts of Marcellus shale in Pennsylvania: employment and income in 2009. Marcellus shale education and training center (MSETC), Pennsylvania College of Technology and Penn State Extension. Accessed 31 Aug 2011
  24. Lindenmayer DB, Fischer J (2006) Habitat fragmentation and landscape change: an ecological and conservation synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  25. Lowrance R, Altier LS, Newbold JD, Schnabel RR, Groffman PM, Denver JM, Correll DL, Gilliam JW, Robinson JL, Brinsfield RB, Staver KW, Lucas W, Todd AH (1997) Water quality functions of riparian forest buffers in Chesapeake watersheds. Environmental Management 21:687–712CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Machtans CS (2006) Songbird response to seismic lines in western boreal forest: a manipulative experiment. Canadian Journal of Zoology 84:1421–1430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. MCOR (2011a) Wet-dry gas. Marcellus center for outreach and research, The Pennsylvania State University, Penn State Corporative Extension. Accessed 14 Dec 2011
  28. MCOR (2011b) Temporal well animation map. Marcellus center for outreach and research, The Pennsylvania State University, Penn State Corporative Extension. Accessed 14 Dec 2011
  29. Minitab Inc (2003) Minitab Release 14 for Windows, Minitab, State College, PAGoogle Scholar
  30. Mortensen DA, Rauschert ESJ, Nord AN, Jones BP (2009) Forest roads facilitate the spread of invasive plants. Invasive Plant Science and Management 2:191–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Moseley KR, Ford WM, Edwards JW, Adams MB (2010) Reptile, amphibian, and small mammal species associated with natural gas development in the Monongahela National Forest, West Virginia. Res. Pap. NRS-10. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research StationGoogle Scholar
  32. Myers N (1997) The world’s forests and their ecosystem services. In: Daily GC (ed) Nature’s services: societal dependence on natural ecosystems. Island Press, Washington, DC, pp 215–236Google Scholar
  33. Nadeau TL, Rains MC (2007) Hydrological connectivity between headwater streams and downstream waters: how science can inform policy. Journal of the American Water Resources 43:118–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. NYDEC (2011) Land use in New York state. Accessed 15 Dec 2011
  35. OHDNR (2011) Ohio land use data. Accessed 15 Dec 2011
  36. PADCNR (2011a) Forest wildlife trends; Status of wildlife: an indicator of habitat health. Accessed 6 Jun 2011
  37. PADCNR (2011b) Impacts of leasing additional state forest land. Accessed 6 Jun 2011
  38. PADEP (2011a) Marcellus shale fact sheet. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. Accessed 6 Jun 2011
  39. PADEP (2011b) Operators with active wells inventory. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. Accessed 19 Aug 2011
  40. PADEP (2011c) Landowner and oil and gas leases in Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. Accessed 6 Jun 2011
  41. PADEP (2011d) Oil and gas operators manual, Pennsylvania laws and regulations applicable to oil and gas exploration and development. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. Accessed 28 Dec 2011
  42. PAGS (2011) Pennsylvania physiographic sections. Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Bureau of Topographic and Geologic Survey Accessed 6 Jun 2011
  43. PGDC (2011a) Major watershed boundaries for Pennsylvania conservation gap analysis. Pennsylvania Geospatial Data Clearinghouse. Accessed 6 Jun 2011
  44. PGDC (2011b) Networked streams of Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania Geospatial Data Clearinghouse. Accessed 6 Jun 2011
  45. PGDC (2011c) Unpaved roads. Pennsylvania Geospatial Data Clearinghouse. Accessed 6 Jun 2011
  46. PGDC (2011d) Local roads. Pennsylvania Geospatial Data Clearinghouse. Accessed 6 Jun 2011
  47. PGDC (2011e) State roads. Pennsylvania Geospatial Data Clearinghouse. Accessed 6 Jun 2011
  48. PGDC (2011f) Pennsylvania state gameland. Pennsylvania geospatial data clearinghouse. Accessed 6 Jun 2011
  49. PGDC (2011g) Pennsylvania state forest lands. Pennsylvania Geospatial Data Clearinghouse. Accessed 6 Jun 2011
  50. PGDC (2011h) PAMAP program land cover for Pennsylvania, 2005. Pennsylvania geospatial data clearinghouse. Accessed 6 Jun 2011
  51. PGDC (2011i) Pennsylvania atlas, 2005 land cover. Pennsylvania geospatial data clearinghouse. Accessed 14 Dec 2011
  52. Rich TD, Beardmore CJ, Berlanga H, Blancher PJ, Bradstreet MSW, Butcher GS, Demarest DW, Dunn EH, Hunter WC, Inigo-Elias EE, Kennedy JA, Martell AM, Panjabi AO, Pashley DN, Rosenberg KV, Rustay CM, Wendt JS, Will TC (2004) Partners in flight north American Landbird Conservation Plan. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, IthacaGoogle Scholar
  53. Ritters KH, Wickham JD, O’Neill RV, Jones KB, Smith ER, Coulston JW, Wade TG, Smith JH (2002) Fragmentation of continental United States forests. Ecosystems 5:815–822CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Robbins CS, Dawson DK, Dowell BA (1989) Habitat area requirements of breeding forest birds of the middle Atlantic states. Wildlife Monographs 103:1–34Google Scholar
  55. Robinson SK, Thompson RR III, Donovan TM, Whitehead DR, Faaborg J (1995) Regional forest fragmentation and the nesting success of migratory birds. Science 267:1987–1990CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Rosenberg B (2003) Partners in flight landbird conservation plan: physiographic area 24: Allegheny plateau. Cornell Lab of Ornithology and American Bird Conservancy. Accessed 15 Dec 2011
  57. Sayler K (2011) Land cover trends, Western Allegheny Plateau. U.S. Geological Survey, Center for Earth Resources Observation and Science, Sioux Falls, SD. Accessed 15 Dec 2011
  58. Smail RA, Lewis DJ (2009) Forest-land conversion, ecosystem services, and economic issues for policy: a review. PNW-GTR-797. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research StationGoogle Scholar
  59. Steele MA, Brittingham MC, Maret TJ, Merritt JF (2010) Terrestrial vertebrates of Pennsylvania: a complete guide to species of conservation concern. Johns Hopkins University Press, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
  60. Stuart ME (2011) Potential groundwater impact from exploitation of shale gas in the UK. British Geological Survey Groundwater Science Programme, Open Report OR/12/001 Accessed 7 Feb 2011
  61. Svobodová J, Kreisinger J, Šálek M, Albrecht T (2011) Testing mechanistic explanations for mammalian predator responses to habitat edges. European Journal of Wildlife Research 57:467–474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Temple SA (1986) Predicting impacts of habitat fragmentation on forest birds: a comparison of two models. In: Verner J, Morrison ML, Ralph CJ (eds) Wildlife 2000: modeling habitat relationships of terrestrial vertebrates. University Wisconsin, Madison, pp 301–304Google Scholar
  63. Urbina I (2011) Geologists sharply cut estimate of shale gas. New York Times. Accessed 31 Aug 2011
  64. USDA-ANF (2007) Allegheny national forest plan appendix f, oil, gas, and mineral development on the allegheny national forest. Allegheny national forest, p 5. Accessed 15 Aug 2011
  65. USDA-ANF (2011) Surface ownership: parcels of land ownership within the proclamation boundary of the Allegheny National Forest. Accessed 6 Jun 2011
  66. USDA-ERS (2011) U.S. Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service, food desert locator, Accessed 6 Jun 2011
  67. USDA-NAIP (2011) U.S. Department of Agriculture National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP) data and GIS server connection information Accessed 6 Jun 2011
  68. USEIA (2011a) Natural gas pipelines in the northeast region. Accessed 14 Dec 2011
  69. USEIA (2011b) Natural gas monthly with data for June 2011 (1973–2011). Accessed 31 Aug 2011
  70. USFS (2011) Pennsylvania forest resource fact sheet. Accessed 15 Dec 2011
  71. USGS (2011) USGS Marcellus shale assessment team, Information relevant to the U.S. Geological Survey assessment of the Middle Devonian Shale of the Appalachian Basin Province, 2011: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2011–1298Google Scholar
  72. Ver Ploeg M, Breneman V, Farrigan T, Hamrick K, Hopkins D, Kaufman P and others (2009) Access to affordable and nutritious food: measuring and understanding food deserts and their consequences: report to Congress. Administrative publication no. (AP-036). Accessed 6 Jun 2011
  73. Vogt P, Riitters KH, Estreguil C, Kozak J, Wade TG, Wickham JD (2006) Mapping spatial patterns with morphological image processing. Landscape Ecology 22:171–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Walton R (2011) Williams CEO says future of natural gas looks good. Tulsa World. Accessed 31 Aug 2011
  75. Wickham JD, Ritters KH, Wade TG, Vogt P (2010) A national assessment of green infrastructure and change for the conterminous United State using morphological image processing. Landscape Urban Planning 94:186–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • P. J. Drohan
    • 1
  • M. Brittingham
    • 2
  • J. Bishop
    • 3
  • K. Yoder
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Crop and Soil SciencesThe Pennsylvania State UniversityUniversity ParkUSA
  2. 2.School of Forest ResourcesThe Pennsylvania State UniversityUniversity ParkUSA
  3. 3.Department of GeographyThe Pennsylvania State UniversityUniversity ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations