Author Archives: stephanie

Posts by stephanie

Natural Gas Development & Impact on NYC Water Supply

Posted on November 29, 2012 by stephanie

From the viewpoint of an environmentalist:

New York City’s water supply is primarily comprised of surface water, 19 reservoirs and 3 controlled lakes, from a 2,000 square mile watershed in 8 upstate counties. The supply serves half of the population of New York State, 9 million people, and is regulated by the NYC Department of Environmental Protection.

The Marcellus Shale covers approximately 95,000 square miles, or 500tcf of gas reserves. The shale formation underlies the NYC WOH watershed in its entirety. New developments in natural gas mean tapping into these gas reservoirs locked within the Marcellus Shale beneath the NYC water supply. The process of hydraulic fracturing, or hydrofracking, requires the injection of more than a million gallons of water, sand, and chemicals at a very high pressure down, across, and into a horizontally drilled well. This well may be as deep as 10,000 feet below the surface. The pressurized, toxic mixture causes the Marcellus Shale to crack. The fissures in the rock are held open by the sand particles, so as to allow the natural gas to flow up the well for harvesting. The chemicals within the mixture are said to represent only 1% of the hydrofrack fluid. The US Geological Survey, on the other hand, found that a typical 3 million gallon tap project produces 15,000 gallons of chemical waste—waste that threatens our water supply.

Back in January of 2009, the NYC Water Board hired a joint venture group to assess the possible impacts of gas drilling on the NYC water supply. The group measured the impacts to water quality, water quantity, and water supply infrastructure. The environment impacts found in association with hydrofracking include water consumption, wastewater disposal, toxic chemical use, air pollution, noise pollution, substantial truck traffic, and round-the-clock operations. Other impacts include potential groundwater and well water contamination, deforestation, spills, roadbuilding and surface water runoff from the large industrial sites. The overall impact of the project would be the complete transformation of once-rural communities into “fractured communities,” and most importantly the contamination and disruption of the NYC/NYS water supply. The water supply can be directly affected by any on-site spills, subsurface migration of contaminants, water withdrawals (which also impacts local aquatic habitats and biota), flowback water, and/or improper disposal and dilution of hydrofluid. Ultimately, there are far too many ways for natural gas drilling developments to negatively effect the NYC and NYS water supplies, the possible benefits may not necessarily outweigh the potential risks.

 

Garcia, Kathryn. “Natural Gas Development and the NYC Water Supply.” American Academy of Environmental Engineers. AAEE, 14 May 2012. Web. 29 Nov. 2012. <http://aaee.net/>.

“Natural Gas Drilling in Marcellus Shale – Overview.” Natural Gas Drilling in Marcellus Shale – Overview. The City of New York, 2012. Web. 29 Nov. 2012. <http://www.nyc.gov/>.

 

Questions for Marris

Posted on October 25, 2012 by stephanie

1. Which goal, listed in the final chapter, would you suggest aspiring to or focusing on?

2. What kind of feedback have you gotten from other people in your field in regard to Rambunctious Garden?

3. Of all the places you’ve visited, which did you find to be the best example of what you consider a rambunctious garden? Was it the most native, natural, or untouched region?

4. Which conservation techniques do you believe are most effective for urban ecosystems specifically?

Poster Questions

Posted on October 8, 2012 by stephanie

1. What is the effect of variations in flora diversity levels on air quality in different regions of New York City?

2. What are the differences in skin cancer rates in NYC vs. suburbs due to high rises in urban areas?

3. What are the effects of gas emissions on biodiversity in urban areas?

Rambunctious Gardening

Posted on October 3, 2012 by stephanie

It took me up until this point, the final sentence of chapter ten, to fully understand my point of view on everything Emma Marris has discussed. “In different places, in different chunks, we can manage nature for different ends–for historical restoration, for species preservation, for self-willed wilderness, for ecosystem services, for food and fiber and fish and flame trees and frogs. We’ve forever altered the Earth, and so now we cannot abandon it to a random fate” (171). Throughout the first nine chapters, and even half of the tenth, I found myself repeatedly saying that humanity should just let nature be. I am strong proponent of Darwinian theory and natural selection; whatever has happened to certain species and/or ecosystems, could partially or entirely, be attributed to human interaction, but regardless it was all apart the natural course of evolution. Man is just another aspect of Earth’s evolution and all intervention should be accounted as such. Now, I believe that humanity, animals, and plants are all players in the evolutionary game, but because man’s intervention is overwhelming and overpowering, we are obligated to somewhat go against natural processes and aid the other, less powerful players. We have an unfair advantage over the other two; humans, through technology and the like, have directly and indirectly altered the environment unnaturally, which is why, more specifically, we have this obligation of conservation.

I appreciated Marris’ initial claim that “Once you admit that you can’t put things back the way they were,” you get to a more realistic approach to conservation–various goals to strive to achieve. As far as practicality and realism goes, I’d rule out goal 1. The “deep ecologists” viewpoint seems much too extreme, though I do agree with the idea that “land as a unit has a right to run itself without human meddling in some places” (155). I find it important and almost humbling to have certain areas solely operated under the command of Mother Nature. The second goal, protecting charismatic megafauna, has its pros and cons, just as any of the others, and I found it most similar to defining and defending biodiversity–the goal with which I most strongly support. The third goal of slowing the rate of extinctions seemed like common sense in regard to conservation. What makes it a goal is the difficulty in actually going about slowing extinctions due to the limited amount of monetary resources allocated for conservationism, though this approach, as Marris states, may not be beneficial to overall ecosystems.

Protecting genetic diversity, goal four, is an ultra-modern approach to conservationism. The more technical, scientific approach requires the storage of actual genetic samples–tissue or cells stored for their particular DNA sequences. This goal seemed impractical without even a clear definition of “species.” Attempting to preserve biodiversity, or complexity, of ecosystems feels like a natural goal for conservationists to work towards. It encompasses so much, making it an arduous task, “Nevertheless, it may come closest to capturing what people like about nature” (163). Maximizing ecosystem services is vague and controversial and protecting the spiritual and aesthetic experience of nature came across as almost a hail Mary, last resort attempt to somehow appeal to and gain support from whomever. Ultimately, regardless of what the goal of conservation is at any given time, the interaction between humans and wildlife is a “conscious and responsible and joyful cohabitation [that] is the future of our planet, our vibrant, thriving, rambunctious garden” (170).

Marris Chapters 8 & 9

Posted on September 30, 2012 by stephanie

In chapter 8 of her novel, Marris discusses designer ecosystems–not an emulation of any baseline, but the best possible version of that ecosystem. Essentially, designer ecosystems are created to make the habitat better than normal; the goal is to make the area work and thrive most efficiently and effectively. Trying to restore an area to its baseline is an extreme amount of work, complex ecosystems have not yet been fully figured out. “The organisms and the relations between them that have emerged from million sof years of natural selection are likely going to outperform anything we cobble together n our computers, whether the goal is spaces for recreation, management of energy and nutrients, protection of biodiversity, or provision of services” (130). Marris wishes for an “unweedy and untidy” rambunctious garden and, similarly, Rene Dubos wished for “new environments that are ecologically sound, aesthetically satisfying, economically rewarding and favorable to the continued growth of civilization” (131).

In my opinion, I agree with Dubos; that seems like the most sensible and overall satisfying goal. Fundamentally, though, that idea lies on a foundation of anthropogenic acceptance. It boils down to the two opposing viewpoints of accepting or not accepting humanity’s inevitable interaction with and transformation of their natural surroundings. Some people are proponents of “island civilizations,” where there’s a separation between man and nature, while others, supporters of design ecosystems, lean toward “managed nature, designed to support humans and other species” (page 132).

As for chapter 9, Marris weaves together all the concepts she previously discussed up to this point–assisted migration, rewilding, exotic species, and novel ecosystems. I found myself agreeing with her point of view throughout; there truly was a strong emphasis on interconnectivity of man and wild. Similar to the Duwamish River Cleanup Coalition’s “eco-industrial vision,” a balance can be found between the natural and industrial worlds. “To make the most of our protected areas, we must think beyond their boundaries” (135). Industrial areas, like the roofs of factories such as the Hostess Cupcake factory in New Jersey, can transform the tops of their buildings into “green roofs,” which serve as habitats for plants and insects, simultaneously “reducing water runoff and counteracting the urban heat island effect, where dark roofs and pavements suck up sunlight” (143). This is an example of what Marris and other scientists refer to as “corridors”–small, natural areas that serve as bridges between larger habitats for various species. Implementing the creation of these natural spaces is a large step in overall conservation, considering how great of a role corridors play in the migration of species or the settlement of species. In the same way, farms and agricultural land are or can become “agri-environments” that serve both economic and preservation needs. Marris suggested that businesses, those of which have strips of outdoor land on their property, landscape with self-sustaining plants so as to create or add to the rambunctious garden that exists in so many places overtly or discretely. It simply requires adjustments be made to our aesthetics, accepting a more natural, wild look than we’re accustomed to. The Highline is an example of a “small city garden as a ‘reserve’ for nature,” (146) amidst the concrete jungle and business capital of the world. Ultimately, striving to find a balance between industry and wilderness is a more realistic approach to conservationism than investing all efforts and energy into reverting back to an assumed baseline environment.

Rambunctious Garden: Chapter 6 & 7

Posted on September 26, 2012 by stephanie

Within these next two chapters, Marris discussed the opposing views regarding exotic species. The argument that many ecologists and scientists agree with is that exotic species are invasive species–they take over, the ecosystem collapses, species go extinct, and complexity and diversity is diminished. Ultimately, that exotic/invasive species dominate over native species and deteriorates the native ecosystem. Regardless of whether or not exotic species are useful or beneficial, like the exotic tree species that were reforested on Rodrigues Island and revived native bird species, proponents of this argument fight for legislation and action against “enemy” species. Governmental and non-governmental efforts come at a high financial cost, though. Like Rita Beard, strikers against invasive species believe it is not a matter of aesthetics, but a matter of “saving the plant communities that have been here historically. It is also about maintaining ecosystems that can withstand the ecological changes that will inevitably occur” (101). Charles Elton’s theory states that invasive species take over native niches, as opposed to finding their own niches elsewhere, causing detrimental effects.

The opposing argument states that exotic species are truly not as devastating to native ecosystems as they’re made out to be. Dov Sax found that certain oceanic islands had increasing overall diversity due to the outnumbering of invasions over extinctions. And, “extinctions are almost never the result of introduced species” (104). Ecologist Mark Davis argues in favor of exotic species, stating that “change is the order of the day in all ecosystems, and that species move around constantly, on multiple scales” (104). Disturbance is thought to make resources–food, nutrients–more available in time. Invasive species are often times more beneficial to their new environments. Ariel Lugo found that “the exotic-dominated ecosystem was functioning better than nearby native forest, if function is measured as brute production of biomass” (113). So what really makes people go against exotic species? Marris poses the question, “More broadly, when we attack ‘invasive species,’ are we acting out of prudent caution to avoid likely extinctions, or do we merely fear and dislike any change?” (107).

Ultimately, the baseline of either argument is human interaction with nature. Anthropogenic change is either direct, as in species movement, or indirect–climate change. “Exotic pests and pathogens are introduced to control undesirable exotic species” (109). Ecologists like those who use non-native species to control other non-natives, who are against exotic species but in favor of assisted migration, are hypocritical. It boils down to the initial argument over humanity’s hand in the natural world. Once it’s accepted that man is inevitably affecting the world’s ecosystems forevermore, then the argument over exotic species seems more clear. We humans are apart of the natural world, as well. Whether some take actions like introducing non-native species or indirectly affecting areas, it is all apart of natural evolution. I am an advocate of, considerably, a “laissez-faire” environment, which does not exclude human interaction. “As the planet warms and adapts to human domination, it is the exotic species of the world that are busy moving, evolving, and forming new ecological relationships” (109). Novel ecosystems are not under active human management, but still defined by anthropogenic change. Essentially, Marris sums up my opinion of these two chapters when she says that, “We may have introduced the various parties to one another…but the rhythm of life they take up and the interplay of selection pressures they produce on one another are all up to them” (121).

The Highline

Posted on September 23, 2012 by stephanie

My very own rambunctious garden, right in my backyard—who would’ve thought? The Highline, a converted elevated railway track on Tenth Avenue between Gansevoort Street and West 34th, is an unexpected strip of nature in our concrete jungle. Once I walked up the steel steps overlooking the brick buildings that surround it, the Highline instantaneously transported me to a different place entirely. This walk of flora is home to various birds and bees, plants and pollinators. The variety of flowers and plants attract a diverse population of bees and insects—all of which buzzed freely among the greenery and around our heads.

In regard to Emma Marris’ idea of a “Rambunctious Garden,” I believe The Highline is just that. This strip of nature epitomizes the anthropocene that Marris discusses in her novel. Nature and humanity interact at the Highline, which not only exemplifies an anthropocene, but urban ecology. Not only is this area an attraction to tourists and residents for its aesthetic appeal, but this anthropocenic environment is medicinal to us city-dwellers looking for a little wildlife. This rambunctious garden was manmade, sure, but that’s beside the point. What matters most about The Highline is its function as a place for people to conserve and connect with nature.

Though I understand Richard Stalter’s argument about the transformation of The Highline’s natural evolutionary development during its days of abandonment, I don’t believe that the manmade garden was necessarily detrimental in any way. Stalter, in my opinion, comes off as one of the more extreme or intense conservationists who favor a laissez-faire ecosystem. I, on the other hand, acknowledge that an untouched area like the once-abandoned railway may have boasted more ecological or bio-diversity, but its functionality was zero to none. The interaction, or “engineering”, of the environment by man may be unnatural to an extent, but it’s a modern concept that allowed for a beneficial and highly popular park in Manhattan. In this case specifically, I agree that species introduction and transportation is positive. Nature can now be better experienced and appreciated due to the introduction of plants and animals, native or not, to that railway. The Highline is an escape from our concrete jungle, that I’ll be sure to visit time and again.

Assisted Migration

Posted on September 11, 2012 by stephanie

The foundation for the idea of assisted migration stemmed largely from climatic changes, specifically anthropogenic changes. Scientists believe that human emissions of certain gasses–like methane, carbon dioxide, hydrofluorocarbons–can be attributed to changing the composition of Earth’s atmosphere so it now retains more heat. The results include a warmer climate, sure, but also climate patterns, predictability, and rainfall. In 2003, it was ecologist Camille Parmesan predicted that “the average species’s range… moves 3.8 miles toward the pole every decade” (76). The solution, in some ecologists’ eyes, is assisted migration. It is the notion of taking a species from one ecosystem and transporting it into another in response to climate shifts, in hopes of providing that species with better conditions to survive and thrive.

Initially, this idea of assisted migration might sound somewhat logical. The intention is pure and sympathetic to those species that are having trouble withstanding and sustaining within the anthropogenic-changed-environment. Scientists who are in favor of assisted migration are ultimately concerned with increasing rates of species’ extinctions. On the other hand, “opponents are worried about the integrity of coevolved ecosystems” (78). Either argument strikes a chord with me, though I find myself siding more with the latter. I am a proponent of  a laissez-faire environment, so-to-speak. I believe that evolution is the only force that rightfully should hold weight over the workings of the natural world. We, man, should not “intervene on [nature’s] behalf” (81). What really raises some skepticism is that there is “very little evidence that [assisted migration] is going to help” at all (93).

That being said, the usefulness of assisted migration in urban ecosystems is also in question. According to Puth and Burns, 75% of land area of New York City’s five boroughs has been developed for either residential, commercial, and/or industrial uses. Due to filling, dredging, and the like 80% of tidal wetlands and 99% of freshwater wetlands in the five boroughs have been lost. In a more general sense, out of 79 studies reporting location-specific species richness data, 26 of them had data from multiple time periods. Out of those 26, 17 showed decreases in species richness–a large percentage. The impact of urbanization proves to have been/be rather negative on the environment.

In this case, I tend to lean towards a regulated form of assisted migration. Camille Parmesan and Hugh Possingham provide a good guide for deciding when to move species. They “suggested that species should be moved if they can be feasibly transported, and if ‘the benefits of translocation outweigh the biological and socioeconomic costs and constraints'” (82). In my opinion, somewhat following these guidelines, candidates from those species that are categorized as both high-risk and feasible-transporters, can be relocated to a “target” habitat (so to speak) that, after being tested for conditions in all regards, are found fit for them. The importance, I think, is not complete and total special transportation, but only enough to try adapting and reproducing in the new environment. I, and many scientists, are wary of the unpredictable outcomes of moving species in fear of maladaptation–failure to adapt or becoming invasive species.

Rewilding Revelation

Posted on September 8, 2012 by stephanie

I understand that ecologists and scientists of the like would be interested in recreating ecosystems that mimic those of 13,000 years ago, but I do not agree with or understand why they would want to do this on a large scale in America. Marris tells us, “The idea is to restore long-lost processes such as intensive grazing or population control by large predators, to restore ‘evolutionary and ecological potential’ to populations of large animals just barely hanging on in their current ranges, and to inspire people to support nature conservation” (62). In my opinion, rewilding is taking conservation and research to an extreme and negatively effects present-day environments. While reading through these chapters, I found myself thinking those ecologists taking part in rewilding schemes are somewhat selfish. Vera strives to recreate a “natural-processes-driven landscape,” claiming that a “natural ecosystem is better than a cultivated one.” The irony, as Marris states, is that “the whole place is cultivated, man-made, created” (70).

Rewilding, as coined by Dave Foreman in the mid-1990s, is the idea that the resilience and diversity of an ecosystem is based on the regulation by large, top-of-the-food-chain predators (60). I understand the idea of a species being squeezed out by others, in the absence of predator regulation, but I do not agree with Vera, or any person, “playing God”–though he claims that isn’t true. It seems silly that he’s picking and choosing certain animals or species that kind-of-sort-of work as those who may have been in that untouched environment years ago. Not only is Vera, and other scientists involved in rewilding initiatives, trying to cast present-day animals as ancient megafauna, but he is taking those animals out of their current natural habitats and relocating to new environments assuming they’ll be good fits. This proves to be a serious issue when death has become a prominent component of rewilding. Sure, death is a major component of any ecosystem, but rewilding projects and “pristine” areas like Bialowieza in Poland are either attracting or implementing species into unfamiliar territories. That rare black vulture from the French reintroduction program would never had died had it not been attracted to the carcasses nearby and not been unaccustomed to the proximity to or danger of the train tracks it perched on.

“What about bringing cheetahs to Arizona or elephants to Missouri to play the parts of related megafauna?” (61). Well, not only are the Arizona or Missouri environments unfamiliar to those species, but the current conditions of those ecosystems, not to mention the current human population, might not bode well with those animals living on the land. Similarly, Donlan deciding that the species of large tortoises were better off being translocated to islands seems selfish to me–“[he] finds them to be an ideal candidate for testing out the rewilding idea” (66). Not only is there the issue of some animals possibly being unable to adapt in new environments, but Marris has told us more than once now that nature does not need human involvement. The dynamic of environments, whether that be 13,000 years ago or present-day, may be very different but all are results of natural evolution, not man-made change. Vera’s project “looks to the past, but creates an unprecedented ecosystem” (68).

Rambunctious Garden: chapters 1-2

Posted on September 3, 2012 by stephanie

Emma Marris’ main point throughout chapters one and two of Rambunctious Garden is reassessing and revamping the concept of conservation—the hard-dying, unrealistic perspective of “wilderness”. She makes a subtle point of the fact that nature is not, and may never have been, truly pristine. Marris generally maintains a rather unbiased, matter-of-fact perspective when discussing the different perspectives of ecologists, scientists, and the like on the matter of conservation and the definition of nature or wilderness. She not only goes through many theories or schools of thought shared by various knowledgeable people, but also assesses their thought processes; she explains what they search for or work towards, their goals, their ideas of a “baseline” environment, and how they go about working towards those goals. Rather than striving to preserve a pristine environment, which is impossible to achieve, Marris suggests a more attainable goal—avoiding extinctions. I believe that is far better use of time and money for conservationists. She specifies that her belief is “layering goals and managing landscapes with an eye to the future, rather than the past, is the cutting edge of conservation”.

In regard to the case Marris makes, I agree completely. I agree that nature is all around us, that “We can marvel at the diversity of life and fight its disappearance, even if that diversity occurs in unfamiliar places. We can find beauty in nature, even if signs of humanity are present.” I enjoyed her realistic approach to nature and conservationism. She accepts and encourages the acceptance of the fact that humans are an integral part of the Earth’s ecosystem. “A historically faithful ecosystem is necessarily a heavily managed ecosystem. It is not quite the ‘pristine wilderness’ many nature lovers look to as the ideal.” Man has always had a hand in nature, and will continue to regardless of how hard any single person works to preserve a baseline or pristine region.

The Anthropocene is the modern reality for our Earth. It is necessary and desirable to have plots of land devoted to nature, like Yosemite and Yellowstone. But, in an age dominated by man, there can only realistically be so much land saved for the purpose of science and conservation. There is a slow transition toward accepting that humanity does not degrade all parts of the natural world they come in contact with, along with accepting that alterations and transformations brought about by man are simply successions of evolution. From climate, to new species introduction, to land transformation and all else in-between—“We humans have changed every centimeter of the globe.” Marris has had experience in various countries getting a firsthand look at conservation regions and she respects their quest to turn back the hands of time, “But the search for the untouched is as vain as the search for the unchanging.”

Vitousek and Kareiva

Posted on August 29, 2012 by stephanie

Anthropocene, the word itself, is of Greek origin literally meaning “human era”. The Anthropocene can be defined as the geologic period in which man is both dominant and intensely influential over the Earth’s ecology—the relationships between organisms and/or their natural environment. This current epoch contrasts what was the Holocene, the previous era in which humans had a lesser effect upon their ecosystems, and a state in which conservationists work to preserve. The Anthropocene though, is the reality in this day and age with the ever-increasing population and man’s involvement in and alteration of the environment. More specifically, the term urban ecology refers to the interaction or relationship between organisms in an urban setting—communities with higher population density. As discussed in the two articles, by Vitousek and Karieva respectively, humans both negatively and positively effect ecosystems. There seems to be much controversy over which effects outweigh the others; are humans as detrimental to the Earth’s environment as we’ve been led to believe? Maybe humanity benefits or assists Earth’s natural life and natural progression.

Both articles made clear the effects of man on both terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. Vitousek covered all the bases in terms of where and how humanity has made alterations. Many of those exposed effects were negative, including land transformation and fragmentation, which is directly related to a loss of biological diversity. Oceanic ecosystems and biotic changes have been affected by or linked to man, as well. The most prominent alterations discussed are those of biogeochemical cycles, including the modern increase in CO2, which shows the results of the Anthropocene. Increased levels of CO2 benefit flora and fauna, but in turn results in poorer food quality for other organisms. Ultimately, it’s clear that man’s existence has had a huge general effect on Earth’s ecosystems, and specifically a huge negative effect. But, in my opinion the Anthropocene is a welcomed and natural change in evolution and should not be seen as purely detrimental

Vitousek states, “…Most aspects of the structure and functioning of Earth’s ecosystems cannot be understood without accounting for the strong, often dominant influence of humanity.” Thus, a question posed is how exactly to go about “conserving” the environment and various ecosystems? How best to do conservation? And Kareiva answers, “Instead of trying to restore remote iconic landscapes to pre-European conditions, conservation will measure its achievement in large part by its relevance to people, including city dwellers… Protecting nature that is dynamic and resilient… that sustains human communities.” The strength and resilience of nature, he says, must be respected and the conservation of such an environment should be done with consideration to the people who benefit, alter, and depend on it. Karieva also mentions that, “The history of life on Earth is of species evolving to take advantage of new environments only to be at risk when the environment changes again.” This instinctively made me think of Darwinian theory—adaptation and survival. The Anthropocene must be the most pronounced example of evolution to date. Do humans inflict more harm on the environment than good or are they simply surviving among their environment and in the process causing alterations and new adaptations? I believe, it is the latter.

Comments by stephanie