Abstract
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.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
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
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
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.C
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 14:249–261
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):25
Detrow S (2012) Lycoming County fracking spill: truck belongs to spill response company. StateImpact, p 3–5
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
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
Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI) (2013) ArcGIS Desktop: Release 10.1. Environmental Systems Research Institute, Redlands, CA
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
Gillen JL, Kiviat E (2012) Hydraulic fracturing threats to species with restricted geographic ranges in the Eastern United States. Environ Pract 14:320–331
Howarth RW, Ingraffea A, Engelder T (2011) Natural gas: should fracking stop? Nature 477:271–275. doi:10.1038/477271a
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
Jaeger JAG (2000) Landscape division, splitting index, and effective mesh size: new measures of landscape fragmentation. Landsc Ecol 15:115–130
Johnson N, Gagnolet T, Ralls R et al (2010) Pennsylvania energy impacts assessment. The Nature Conservancy, Harrisburg
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
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
Lustgarten A (2009) Frack Fluid spill in dimock contaminates stream, killing fish. ProPublica, p 3–4
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Slonecker ET, Milheim LE, Roig-Silva CM, et al (2012) Landscape consequences of natural gas extraction in Bradford and Washington Counties, Pennsylvania, 2004–2010
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 14:366–381
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
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 States
West Virginia TAGIS Unit (2014) Oil & Gas permit download. http://tagis.dep.wv.gov/home/OGPermitDownload. Accessed 3 Jun 2014
Whitacre J (2014) Carnegie Museum of Natural History Pennsylvania unconventional natural gas wells geodatabase. Carnegie Museum of Natural History, Pittsburgh
Acknowledgments
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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Electronic Supplementary Material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Milt, A.W., Gagnolet, T. & Armsworth, P.R. Synergies and Tradeoffs Among Environmental Impacts Under Conservation Planning of Shale Gas Surface Infrastructure. Environmental Management 57, 21–30 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-015-0592-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-015-0592-z