Initial Landscape Changes Associated with Marcellus Shale Development- Implications for Forests and Wildlife M. Brittingham, P. Drohan, and J. Bishop – Penn State University

•

Patterns of well and pad development

•

Landscape changes pre and post Marcellus

•

Implications for forests and wildlife

We conducted a GIS analysis using available DEP permit/drilled data, before and after photos, ground truthing, and on the ground measurements to describe landscape change.

Our GIS study covers the state. Our field study is focused in a 11 county region in the Northcentral part of the state where forest habitat is most abundant

Number of permits and wells drilled increased exponentially and is now slowing down

Number of pads is a better indication of landscape change 2500 2000 1500 1000 Variable New Pads Total Pads 500 0 2005 2006 2007 2008

Year

2009 2010 2011 >2350 pads built

Pad location – Public land versus private land

• Available resources to manage and monitor environmental conditions differ • Size of management unit differs Private • Education and information needs differ 93%

Pads n=2353

47 % of pads are in farmland . Highest numbers on private land in the NE and SW part of State

53% of pads are in forest lands with highest numbers in the North Central Regions of State

Gas well development changes the landscape

Areas are cleared for the well pad

Completed pad stabilized with stone

Many pads are covered with a protective liner

On some pads, impoundments are created to hold water for fracking

We measured the pad footprint

Well pad footprint and area of local disturbance GIS NAIP photos (n=1081) Mean pad = 1 ha (2.47 acres). Pad+ local disturbance= 2.7 ha (6.7 acres) Range = 0.1- 19 ha (0.25-49.4)

Horizontal drilling allows for multiple wells per pad

Number of wells per pad

n=2,931 wells and 1465 pads Mean = 2.3 wells per pad

Noise and Light Pollution associated with pad development and drilling may have local site-specific impacts but probably not long-term effects

Compressors are a long term source of noise

50 45 40 35 75 70 65 60 55 Compressor (n=4) Completed pad (n=3) 50 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 100 50 150

Distance (ft)

200 100 150

Distance (ft)

200 250 250

Tracking proximity of wells to streams is a concern. Smaller streams are generally not mapped 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 0

n=3322, mean=327 m, median=293m

240 480 720 960 1200

Distance from pad to nearest mapped stream (m)

1440

Pipelines and roads create linear corridors

Distance from pad to pre-existing road n=3322, mean=264 m (0.16 miles), median=209 m, Range = 0.02m-2324 m (1.4 miles)

600 500 400 300 200 100 0 0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800

Distance from pad to pre-existing road (m)

2100

A min of 598 km (371 miles) of new roads have been built to pads and an additional 280 km (174 miles) expected to currently permitted pads

Up to 60,000 miles of pipeline are predicted

Bradford County Gathering Lines – Johnson et al. 2011

• • 1.65 miles ( 2.65 km ) per pad 10,000 – 25,000 new miles predicted at build out (16,093-40,233 km)

Habitat Fragmentation is a result of gas exploration and development and is a primary concern

• • • • Change in species composition and abundance (winners and losers) Spread of invasive species Disturbance to sensitive habitats Negative effects on biological diversity and ecosystem functions

Pad placement by forest fragmentation classification (n=2221)

• • • Agricultural and open habitat = 48% Edge forest (within 100 m of pre existing opening or edge) = 25% Patch forest (woodlots) = 2%

Approximately 25% of wells are going into core forest (forest > 100 m from pre-existing opening or edge)

Fragmentation Index Before =0.753 After pads= 0.681 (-0.072) After mapped = 0.580 (-0.173)

For select blocks we mapped the entire infrastructure

Reclamation status for 1283 pads

• • 84% no reclamation 16% reclaimed Pad + local disturbance went from 6.7 acres before to 1 acre after • Most reclamation to grassy cover

Comparing Effects Shallow Marcellus

Electronic Field Guide-http://marcellusfieldguide.org/ http://ee3.cei.vvvvpsu.edu/index.php

• • • • Private forest landowners are in need of information on ways to minimize disturbance upfront and on ways to use restoration to achieve landowner management goals There is a trend toward more wells per pad but currently over 75% have only 1 or 2 wells per pad Current trends put core forest habitat at risk particularly on private land Public land will become increasingly important for large blocks of undeveloped habitat and the ecosystem services provided

We thank the following organizations for funding support

• • • Heinz Endowments Marcellus Center for Outreach and Research (MCOR) PA Game Commission State Wildlife Grants

We thank the following individuals for assistance in the field and with database analysis K. Yoder, E. Thomas, N. Fronk, E. Barton, J. Driscoll, C. Fink, M.K. Lupton, M. Marsicano, and K. Medash