Landscape Consequences of Natural Gas Extraction in Armstrong and Indiana Counties, Pennsylvania, 2004–2010 By L.E. Milheim, E.T. Slonecker, C.M. Roig-Silva, and A.R. Malizia Open-File Report 2013–1263 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior SALLY JEWELL, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Suzette M. Kimball, Acting Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2013 For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment—visit http://www.usgs.gov or call 1–888–ASK–USGS For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, visit http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod To order this and other USGS information products, visit http://store.usgs.gov Suggested citation: Milheim, L.E., Slonecker, E.T., Roig-Silva, C.M., and Malizia, A.R., 2013, Landscape consequences of natural gas extraction in Armstrong and Indiana Counties, Pennsylvania, 2004–2010: U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 2013–1263, 35 p., http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ofr20131263. Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Although this information product, for the most part, is in the public domain, it may also contain copyrighted materials as noted in the text. Permission to reproduce copyrighted items must be secured from the copyright owner. ISSN 2331-1258 (online) Contents Abstract ......................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Introduction: Natural Gas Extraction .............................................................................................................................. 1 Location ..................................................................................................................................................................... 4 The Biogeography of Pennsylvania Forests ............................................................................................................... 4 Key Research Questions ........................................................................................................................................... 6 Landscape Metrics and a Landscape Perspective ......................................................................................................... 7 Disturbance ................................................................................................................................................................ 8 Forest Fragmentation ................................................................................................................................................. 9 Interior Forest ........................................................................................................................................................... 10 Forest Edge ............................................................................................................................................................. 11 Contagion ................................................................................................................................................................. 11 Fractal Dimension .................................................................................................................................................... 12 Dominance ............................................................................................................................................................... 12 Methodology: Mapping and Measuring Disturbance Effects ........................................................................................ 13 Data ......................................................................................................................................................................... 13 Sources ................................................................................................................................................................ 13 Collection .............................................................................................................................................................. 15 Land Cover Update .................................................................................................................................................. 17 Calculation of Landscape Metrics ............................................................................................................................ 18 Results: Summary Statistics and Graphics .................................................................................................................. 18 Disturbed Area ......................................................................................................................................................... 18 Land Cover Metrics of Interest ................................................................................................................................. 24 Forest Fragmentation ............................................................................................................................................... 26 Interior and Edge Forest .......................................................................................................................................... 28 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................................... 31 References Cited ......................................................................................................................................................... 32 Figures 1. Map of the Appalachian Basin Province showing the three Marcellus Shale assessment units ....................... 2 2. Example of forested landscapes from Washington County, Pennsylvania, showing the spatial effects of roads, well pads, and pipelines ......................................................................................................................... 3 3. The distribution of Marcellus and non-Marcellus natural gas permits issued between 2004 and 2010 within Pennsylvania, the focal counties of Armstrong and Indiana, and their relation to the interior Marcellus Shale assessment unit ................................................................................................................................................ 4 4. The distribution of percent forest cover by county based on the U.S. Geological Survey 2001 National Land Cover Data ....................................................................................................................................................... 6 5. Example of a natural gas disturbance footprint from Bradford County, Pennsylvania, embedded within the National Land Cover Dataset (NLCD) 2001 ...................................................................................................... 9 6. Conceptual illustration of interior forest and how this critical habitat is affected by linear disturbance ............ 11 7. The concept of contagion ............................................................................................................................... 12 8. Examples of spatially explicit features of disturbance that were extracted from aerial photographs into a geographic information system (GIS) format .................................................................................................. 16 iii 9. Workflow diagram for creating an updated land cover map ............................................................................ 17 10. Gas extraction-related disturbance identified between 2004 and 2010 in Armstrong and Indiana Counties, Pennsylvania .................................................................................................................................................. 19 11. Change in number of forest patches from 2001 to 2010 showing the increasing fragmentation in Armstrong and Indiana Counties, Pennsylvania ............................................................................................................... 28 12. Change in percent interior forest by watershed in Armstrong and Indiana Counties, Pennsylvania, from 2001 to 2010 ................................................................................................................................................... 31 13. Change in percent of edge forest by watershed in Armstrong and Indiana Counties, Pennsylvania, from 2001 to 2010 ................................................................................................................................................... 32 Tables 1. Acquisition dates of National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP) source data. ............................................ 14 2. Cumulative amount of landscape disturbance for natural gas extraction development and infrastructure based on disturbance type from 2004 to 2010 by county. .............................................................................. 21 3. Percent land cover (2001) and land cover change (2004–2010) presented for each county. ......................... 23 4. Landscape metrics by county for 2001 (original land cover) and as updated for natural gas development disturbance (2004–2010). ............................................................................................................................... 25 5. Forest fragmentation metrics by county for 2001 (original land cover) and as updated for natural gas development disturbance (2004–2010). ......................................................................................................... 27 6. Change in percent interior forest and percent edge forest by county for 2001 (original land cover) and as updated for natural gas development disturbance (2004–2010). .................................................................... 30 iv Conversion Factors Inch/Pound to SI Multiply By To obtain Length mile (mi) 1.609 kilometer (km) Area acre 4,047 square meter (m2) acre 0.4047 hectare (ha) SI to Inch/Pound Multiply By To obtain Length meter (m) 3.281 foot (ft) kilometer (km) 0.6214 mile (mi) Area square meter (m2) 0.0002471 acre hectare (ha) 2.471 acre Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83). v Landscape Consequences of Natural Gas Extraction in Armstrong and Indiana Counties, Pennsylvania, 2004– 2010 By L.E. Milheim, E.T. Slonecker, C.M. Roig-Silva, and A.R. Malizia Abstract Increased demands for cleaner burning energy, coupled with the relatively recent technological advances in accessing unconventional hydrocarbon-rich geologic formations, have led to an intense effort to find and extract natural gas from various underground sources around the country. One of these sources, the Marcellus Shale, located in the Allegheny Plateau, is currently undergoing extensive drilling and production. The technology used to extract gas in the Marcellus Shale is known as hydraulic fracturing and has garnered much attention because of its use of large amounts of fresh water, its use of proprietary fluids for the hydraulic-fracturing process, its potential to release contaminants into the environment, and its potential effect on water resources. Nonetheless, development of natural gas extraction wells in the Marcellus Shale is only part of the overall natural gas story in this area of Pennsylvania. Conventional natural gas wells are commonly located in the same general area as the Marcellus Shale and are frequently developed in clusters across the landscape. The combined effects of these two natural gas extraction methods create potentially serious patterns of disturbance on the landscape. This document quantifies the landscape changes and consequences of natural gas extraction for Armstrong County and Indiana County in Pennsylvania between 2004 and 2010. Patterns of landscape disturbance related to natural gas extraction activities were collected and digitized using National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP) imagery for 2004, 2005/2006, 2008, and 2010. The disturbance patterns were then used to measure changes in land cover and land use using the National Land Cover Database (NLCD) of 2001. A series of landscape metrics is also used to quantify these changes and is included in this publication. Introduction: Natural Gas Extraction The need for cleaner burning energy, coupled with the relatively recent technological advances in accessing hydrocarbon-rich geologic formations, has led to an intense effort to find and extract natural gas from various underground sources around the country. One of these formations, the Marcellus Shale, is currently the target of extensive drilling and production in the Allegheny Plateau. Marcellus Shale generally extends from New York to West Virginia as shown in figure 1 (Coleman and others, 2011). Coleman and others (2011) defined assessment units (AU) of Marcellus Shale production based on the geology of the region. 1 Figure 1. Map of the Appalachian Basin Province showing the three Marcellus Shale assessment units (AU), which encompass the extent of the Middle Devonian from its zero-isopach edge in the west to its erosional truncation within the Appalachian fold and thrust belt in the east. The Interior Marcellus Shale AU is expected to be a major production area for natural gas (Coleman and others, 2011). Base-map data courtesy of The National Map [(http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer) (U.S. Geological Survey, 2011a)]. The overall landscape effects of natural gas development have been considerable. Over 9,600 Marcellus Shale gas drilling permits and over 49,500 non-Marcellus Shale permits have been issued from 2000 to 2011 in Pennsylvania (Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, 2011) and over 2,300 Marcellus Shale permits in West Virginia (West Virginia Geological and Economic Survey, 2011), with most of the development activity occurring since 2005. The Marcellus Shale is generally 600 to 3,000 meters (m) below the land surface (Coleman and others, 2011). Gas and petroleum liquids are produced with a combination of vertical and horizontal drilling techniques, coupled with a process of hydraulically fracturing the shale formation, known as “fracking,” which releases the natural gas. The hydraulic-fracturing process has garnered much attention because of its use of large amounts of fresh water, its use of proprietary fluids for the hydraulic-fracturing process, its potential to 2 release contaminants into the environment, and its potential effect on groundwater and drinking-water resources. Development of natural gas wells in the Marcellus Shale is only part of the overall natural gas story in this area. Conventional natural gas wells are commonly located in the same general area as the Marcellus Shale AU. Conventional wells are much shallower and less productive than Marcellus Shale wells and commonly are located in clusters that cover large areas of the landscape with nearly 60,000 total gas wells established. Both types of wells may affect a given area. With the accompanying areas of disturbance, well pads, new roads, and pipelines from both types of natural gas wells, the effect on the landscape is often dramatic. Figure 2 shows an example of a pattern of landscape change from forest to forest interspersed with gas extraction infrastructure. These landscape effects have consequences for the ecosystems, wildlife, and human populations that are collocated with natural gas extraction activities. This document examines the landscape consequences of gas extraction for two areas of current Marcellus Shale and non-Marcellus Shale natural gas extraction activity. Figure 2. Example of forested landscapes from Washington County, Pennsylvania, showing the spatial effects of roads, well pads, and pipelines related to (a) Marcellus Shale and (b) Conventional natural gas development. Inset shows the location of the images. Base-map data courtesy of The National Map [(http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer) (U.S. Geological Survey, 2011a)]. 3 Location This assessment of landscape effects focuses on two counties, Armstrong County and Indiana County in Pennsylvania, within the Marcellus Shale area of development known as the “Marcellus Shale Play” or the Interior Marcellus Shale AU. These counties were chosen for their position adjacent to a “sweet spot” of exceptionally productive Marcellus Shale (Stevens and Kuuskraa, 2009). Figure 3 identifies the selected counties in relation to the Interior Marcellus Shale AU and the distribution of Marcellus and non-Marcellus gas extraction permits granted by Pennsylvania. Figure 3. The distribution of Marcellus and non-Marcellus natural gas permits issued between 2004 and 2010 within Pennsylvania, the focal counties of Armstrong and Indiana, and their relation to the interior Marcellus Shale assessment unit. Base-map data courtesy of The National Map [(http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer) (U.S. Geological Survey, 2011a)]. The Biogeography of Pennsylvania Forests Forests are a critical land cover in Pennsylvania. Prior to the European settlements, Pennsylvania was almost completely forested and even today, with modern agriculture, urban growth, and population growth, Pennsylvania is still roughly 60 percent forested. Pennsylvania forests of the 17th century were 4 diverse but were dominated by beech and hemlock, which composed 65 percent of the total forest (Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, 2011). In the late 19th century, Pennsylvania became the country’s leading source of lumber, and a number of products, from lumber to the production of tannic acid, were generated from the forestry industry (Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, 2011). By the early 20th century, most of Pennsylvania’s forests had been harvested. Soon after most of the trees were felled, wildfires, erosion, and flooding became prevalent, especially in the Allegheny Plateau region (Pennsylvania Parks and Forests Foundation, 2010). The 20th century saw resurgence in Pennsylvania forests. The Weeks Act of 1911 authorized the Federal purchase of forest land on the headwaters of navigable rivers to control the flow of water downstream and act as a measure of flood control for the thriving steel industry of Pittsburgh. Slowly, the forests began to grow back but with a vastly different composition, this time composed of black cherry, red maple, and sugar maple species (Pennsylvania Parks and Forests Foundation, 2010). For the most part, except for a few isolated areas in north central Pennsylvania and some State parks, the majority of forest cover is currently of the new composition and not of virgin forest. Figure 4 shows that today the concentrations of forests in Pennsylvania are highest in the central and north-central parts of the State, which is also a main area of hydraulic-fracturing activity in the Marcellus Shale. 5