Death by a thousand cuts

The photo we printed on the front page of our February 4 issue, an aerial view of DISH, TX, nailed home one potential outcome of natural gas drilling that has not been given much attention: habitat fragmentation. The picture accompanying this editorial of Allegheny, PA, brings the point even closer to home.

The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations defines habitat fragmentation as “the breaking up of a continuous habitat, ecosystem or land-use type into smaller fragments.” Because many species require a certain minimum undisturbed area in order to survive, there are cases in which habitat fragmentation can wipe out entire species in a certain area.

Admittedly, this concern may appear a bit airy-fairy compared to economic benefits like jobs. It’s one thing to argue that it’s not worth drilling at the cost of our children’s health; but not worth signing a lease because of a bunch of animals and plants? At least to some, this argument lacks punch.

But there are a couple of reasons why such a dismissal is too simplistic. First, in our area there are some species, like fish and bald eagles, that have a direct connection to economic wellbeing through tourism. Beyond that, the “who cares” argument ignores the fact that ecosystems are complex; all too often, human beings have found that abolishing one organism or promoting another has had terrible unintended consequences. Eliminate a predator, for instance, and the pests that they feed on will breed out of control. Eliminate certain types of vegetation and headwater habitats will change, fish will no longer breed, and floods will become more frequent and deadly. Cut up our local habitat into tiny pieces, and we are likely to wind up surprised and chagrined at the impact it could have on our own wellbeing.

A recent article in The New York Times Magazine raises another issue. The topic of the article was solastalgia, the mental disturbance experienced by people in response to the destruction of the territory in which they make their homes—a syndrome that some psychologists believe is increasingly prevalent in the modern world. The idea that we may be making ourselves mentally ill by our treatment of the environment underlines the point that when we tear up, dig up, mow down or fence in the natural environment, the habitat that we are destroying isn’t just the eagle’s habitat, or the moles’ habitat, or the bears’ habitat. It’s our own.

Is there anything we can do to mitigate the habitat fragmentation caused by gas drilling? One approach would be to establish limits on how many well pads can be placed in a given area at any one time, then ensure that after drilling is finished, land is restored to original habitat. To establish density limits, studies should be done to identify particularly vulnerable species that are considered vital to the overall ecology and/or economy of the area, and then to determine what degree of fragmentation they can tolerate. There are, undoubtedly, many studies that will be forthcoming in the next little while, and we can only hope that there will be a cohesion established between the many pieces of data that are being collected and assembled and that the impacts of habitat fragmentation are recognized as important to the sustainability of our area through and beyond gas drilling.

One example of a type of analysis that would be particularly helpful is a paper done by the Wyoming Game and Fish Department (gf.state.wy.us/downloads/pdf/og.pdf). The study evaluates the impact of varying densities of drilling activity, as measured by acres disturbed per square mile, on a variety of local wildlife such as mule deer and sage grouse, and on high-value terrain like riparian corridors. It defines impacts at different densities as moderate, high or extreme, and comes up with best management practices to avoid or minimize any adverse impacts of gas extraction on the species and habitats in question.

Armed with a study like this, combined with information about the potential reach of horizontal bores in fracked wells of the type used in the Marcellus Shale, regulators and legislators ought to be able to come up with some sensible restrictions on drilling density and land rehabilitation that protect habitat while allowing drillers to operate effectively.

We strongly urge the New York and Pennsylvania game and fish departments, the environmental protection agencies and the National Park Service to champion habitat integrity as essential to our area’s sustainability, and to pull together research that can underpin strategies to preserve it. In an area with a tourist economy that depends largely on outdoor amenities, it seems like a sensible step to take before our open space is cut into fragments that can’t be put back together again.

Also in this issue:

• Protecting the Delaware River basin

Dr. Punnybone

I Stink, Therefore I Am!