Premium
The costs of avoiding environmental impacts from shale‐gas surface infrastructure
Author(s) -
Milt Austin W.,
Gagnolet Tamara D.,
Armsworth Paul R.
Publication year - 2016
Publication title -
conservation biology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.2
H-Index - 222
eISSN - 1523-1739
pISSN - 0888-8892
DOI - 10.1111/cobi.12766
Subject(s) - environmental impact assessment , environmental science , wetland , shale gas , natural resource economics , business , hydraulic fracturing , environmental resource management , environmental economics , oil shale , ecology , engineering , economics , biology , waste management , petroleum engineering
Growing energy demand has increased the need to manage conflicts between energy production and the environment. As an example, shale‐gas extraction requires substantial surface infrastructure, which fragments habitats, erodes soils, degrades freshwater systems, and displaces rare species. Strategic planning of shale‐gas infrastructure can reduce trade‐offs between economic and environmental objectives, but the specific nature of these trade‐offs is not known. We estimated the cost of avoiding impacts from land‐use change on forests, wetlands, rare species, and streams from shale‐energy development within leaseholds. We created software for optimally siting shale‐gas surface infrastructure to minimize its environmental impacts at reasonable construction cost. We visually assessed sites before infrastructure optimization to test whether such inspection could be used to predict whether impacts could be avoided at the site. On average, up to 38% of aggregate environmental impacts of infrastructure could be avoided for 20% greater development costs by spatially optimizing infrastructure. However, we found trade‐offs between environmental impacts and costs among sites. In visual inspections, we often distinguished between sites that could be developed to avoid impacts at relatively low cost (29%) and those that could not (20%). Reductions in a metric of aggregate environmental impact could be largely attributed to potential displacement of rare species, sedimentation, and forest fragmentation. Planners and regulators can estimate and use heterogeneous trade‐offs among development sites to create industry‐wide improvements in environmental performance and do so at reasonable costs by, for example, leveraging low‐cost avoidance of impacts at some sites to offset others. This could require substantial effort, but the results and software we provide can facilitate the process.