Environmental Management

, Volume 57, Issue 1, pp 21–30 | Cite as

Synergies and Tradeoffs Among Environmental Impacts Under Conservation Planning of Shale Gas Surface Infrastructure

  • Austin W. MiltEmail author
  • Tamara Gagnolet
  • Paul R. Armsworth


Hydraulic fracturing and related ground water issues are growing features in public discourse. Few have given much attention to surface impacts from shale gas development, which result from building necessary surface infrastructure. One way to reduce future impacts from gas surface development without radically changing industry practice is by formulating simple, conservation-oriented planning guidelines. We explore how four such guidelines affect the locations of well pads, access roads, and gathering pipelines on state lands in Pennsylvania. Our four guidelines aim to (1) reduce impacts on water, reduce impacts from (2) gathering pipelines and (3) access roads, and (4) reduce impacts on forests. We assessed whether the use of such guidelines accompanies tradeoffs among impacts, and if any guidelines perform better than others at avoiding impacts. We find that impacts are mostly synergistic, such that avoiding one impact will result in avoiding others. However, we found that avoiding forest fragmentation may result in increased impacts on other environmental features. We also found that single simple planning guidelines can be effective in targeted situations, but no one guideline was universally optimal in avoiding all impacts. As such, we suggest that when multiple environmental features are important in an area, more comprehensive planning strategies and tools should be used.


Access roads Decision making Energy infrastructure Environmental impacts Forest fragmentation Gas companies Gas developers Gathering pipelines Well pads 



We gratefully acknowledge the feedback of C. Dumoulin, R. Fovargue, G. Iacona, E. Larson, N. Sutton, S. Ward. The first author was funded by the National Institute for Mathematical and Biological Synthesis, the Colcom Foundation, and the Richard King Mellon Foundation during the completion of this work.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

267_2015_592_MOESM1_ESM.docx (5.1 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 5233 kb)


  1. Bennett EM, Peterson GD, Gordon LJ (2009) Understanding relationships among multiple ecosystem services. Ecol Lett 12:1394–1404. doi: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2009.01387.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Burton GA, Basu N, Ellis BR et al (2014) Hydraulic “fracking”: are surface water impacts an ecological concern? Environ Toxicol Chem 33:1679–1689. doi: 10.1002/etc.2619 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cattaneo A, Hellerstein D, Nickerson C, Myers C (2006) Balancing the multiple objectives of conservation programs. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Washington, D.CGoogle Scholar
  4. Clark CE, Burnham AJ, Harto CB, Horner RM (2012) The technology and policy of hydraulic fracturing and potential environmental impacts of shale gas development. Environ Pract 14:249–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Davis JB, Robinson GR (2012) A geographic model to assess and limit cumulative ecological degradation from marcellus shale exploitation in New York, USA. Ecol Soc 17(2):25Google Scholar
  6. Detrow S (2012) Lycoming County fracking spill: truck belongs to spill response company. StateImpact, p 3–5Google Scholar
  7. Drohan PJ, Brittingham M, Bishop J, Yoder K (2012) Early trends in landcover change and forest fragmentation due to shale-gas development in Pennsylvania: a potential outcome for the Northcentral Appalachians. Environ Manag 49:1–15. doi: 10.1007/s00267-012-9841-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Entrekin S, Evans-White M, Johnson B, Hagenbuch E (2011) Rapid expansion of natural gas development poses a threat to surface waters. Front Ecol Environ 9:503–511. doi: 10.1890/110053 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI) (2013) ArcGIS Desktop: Release 10.1. Environmental Systems Research Institute, Redlands, CAGoogle Scholar
  10. Evans JS, Kiesecker JM (2014) Shale gas, wind and water: assessing the potential cumulative impacts of energy development on ecosystem services within the Marcellus play. PLoS One 9:e89210. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0089210 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gillen JL, Kiviat E (2012) Hydraulic fracturing threats to species with restricted geographic ranges in the Eastern United States. Environ Pract 14:320–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Howarth RW, Ingraffea A, Engelder T (2011) Natural gas: should fracking stop? Nature 477:271–275. doi: 10.1038/477271a CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Howe C, Suich H, Vira B, Mace GM (2014) Creating win-wins from trade-offs? Ecosystem services for human well-being: a meta-analysis of ecosystem service trade-offs and synergies in the real world. Glob Environ Chang 28:263–275. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.07.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jaeger JAG (2000) Landscape division, splitting index, and effective mesh size: new measures of landscape fragmentation. Landsc Ecol 15:115–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Johnson N, Gagnolet T, Ralls R et al (2010) Pennsylvania energy impacts assessment. The Nature Conservancy, HarrisburgGoogle Scholar
  16. Kargbo DM, Wilhelm RG, Campbell DJ (2010) Natural gas plays in the Marcellus shale: challenges and potential opportunities. Environ Sci Technol 44:5679–5684. doi: 10.1021/es903811p CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kiviat E (2013) Risks to biodiversity from hydraulic fracturing for natural gas in the Marcellus and Utica shales. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1286:1–14. doi: 10.1111/nyas.12146 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lustgarten A (2009) Frack Fluid spill in dimock contaminates stream, killing fish. ProPublica, p 3–4Google Scholar
  19. Maskell LC, Crowe A, Dunbar MJ et al (2013) Exploring the ecological constraints to multiple ecosystem service delivery and biodiversity. J Appl Ecol 50:561–571. doi: 10.1111/1365-2664.12085 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Moilanen A, Anderson BJ, Eigenbrod F et al (2011) Balancing alternative land uses in conservation prioritization. Ecol Appl 21:1419–1426. doi: 10.1890/10-1865.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Olmstead SM, Muehlenbachs LA, Shih J-S et al (2013) Shale gas development impacts on surface water quality in Pennsylvania. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 110:4962–4967. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1213871110 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Phalan B, Onial M, Balmford A, Green RE (2011) Reconciling food production and biodiversity conservation: land sharing and land sparing compared. Science 333:1289–1291. doi: 10.1126/science.1208742 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Racicot A, Babin-Roussel V, Dauphinais J-F et al (2014) A framework to predict the impacts of shale gas infrastructures on the forest fragmentation of an Agroforest region. Environ Manage. doi: 10.1007/s00267-014-0250-x Google Scholar
  24. Raudsepp-Hearne C, Peterson GD, Bennett EM (2010) Ecosystem service bundles for analyzing tradeoffs in diverse landscapes. Proc Natl Acad Sci 107:5242–5247. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0907284107 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Robles MD, Flather CH, Stein SM et al (2008) The geography of private forests that support at-risk species in the conterminous United States. Front Ecol Environ 6:301–307. doi: 10.1890/070106 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sayer J, Sunderland T, Ghazoul J et al (2013) Ten principles for a landscape approach to reconciling agriculture, conservation, and other competing land uses. Proc Natl Acad Sci 110:8349–8356. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1210595110 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Slonecker ET, Milheim LE, Roig-Silva CM, et al (2012) Landscape consequences of natural gas extraction in Bradford and Washington Counties, Pennsylvania, 2004–2010Google Scholar
  28. Smith DR, Snyder CD, Hitt NP et al (2012) Shale gas development and brook trout: scaling best management practices to anticipate cumulative effects. Environ Pract 14:366–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sovacool BK (2014) Cornucopia or curse? Reviewing the costs and benefits of shale gas hydraulic fracturing (fracking). Renew Sustain Energy Rev 37:249–264. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2014.04.068 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. U.S. Energy Information Administration (2013) Technically recoverable shale oil and shale gas resources: an assessment of 137 shale formations in 41 countries outside the United StatesGoogle Scholar
  31. West Virginia TAGIS Unit (2014) Oil & Gas permit download. Accessed 3 Jun 2014
  32. Whitacre J (2014) Carnegie Museum of Natural History Pennsylvania unconventional natural gas wells geodatabase. Carnegie Museum of Natural History, PittsburghGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of TennesseeKnoxvilleUSA
  2. 2.The Nature ConservancyHarrisburgUSA

Personalised recommendations