MGIS Candidate: Collin Strine-Zuroski Advisor: Dr. Jay Parrish.
Sara Holm Penn State MGIS Program
-
Upload
zenia-larson -
Category
Documents
-
view
27 -
download
0
description
Transcript of Sara Holm Penn State MGIS Program
Coal Bed Methane Development Impact Assessment
and Landcover Analysis
for the Vermejo Park Ranch, Northern New Mexico and Southern Colorado.
Sara HolmPenn State MGIS Program
Vermejo Park RanchLocation Map
•584,000 acres•Taos & Colfax Counties, NM•Costilla & Las Animas Counties, CO•5,850’-12,920’ elevation
Vermejo Park Ranch
• Working Bison Ranch• Guest Ranch for
Hunting and Fishing• Coal Bed Methane
(CBM) Development Monitoring Program
• Forest Thinning Projects & Wildland Fire Management
North American Bison, VPR
Mission Statement: “to manage Turner lands in an economically sustainable and ecologically sensitive manner
while promoting the conservation of native species."
Project Goals
• Create a Landcover Analysis to assist forest thinning operations, wildland fire management, and habitat estimation.
• Create a CBM Impact Analysis to quantify effects of CBM development on the landscape.
• Integrate analyses into existing ranch enterprise GIS to aid in ranch management.
2005 Satellite Imagery 60cm, 4 color, 1:12,000 NMAS
1995-97 DOQQ
Land Cover Analysis
Forest Thinning Program
• Areas of the ranch were heavily logged during previous ownerships.
• As result of logging, forests grew back too densely.
• Forestry department implemented thinning operations to restore forests to a healthy tree spacing.
• Thinned areas aid in wildland fire managementThinned Non-thinned
Designated Landcover Types:Forested
• Aspen• Cottonwood• Mixed Conifer: Ponderosa
Pine, Douglas Fir, White Fir• Oak: Gamble Oak, Mountain
Mahogany• Piñon-Juniper• Ponderosa Pine• Riparian Shrubs: Willows,
Locust• Spruce-Fir: Englemann
Spruce, Subalpine Fir
Designated Landcover Types:Non-Forested
• Barren Ground• Road: Accessible
human disturbance• Prairie Grass• Riparian Grass• Upland Grass• Water
Forestry Land Cover Analysis
Created a landcover grid from 2005 satellite imagery :
• Land cover analysis utilized a 1000m (1km) spacing of points (2366 point features).
• Determination of attributes for each point location included slope, aspect, elevation, access, species cover type, cover density, patch size, and tree size where applicable.
• Selected points were field checked for cover accuracy and digital photos linked to point data.
• Manageable thinning attribute was calculated.
Landcover Attributes• Slope: ‘extract to point’ from 10m DEM and 20
acre mean slope using zonal statistics• Aspect and elevation: ‘extract to point’ from 10m
DEM• Access: combination of road availability and
topography• Species cover type: species at point on imagery if
patch exceeds minimum of 10 acres• Cover density: low, medium or high• Patch size: 10, 25, 50 … >= 200 acres using 25
acre grid overlay• Tree size: regrowth (<6”), pole (6-12”), saw log
(>=12”) diameter
Field Verification/Photos• 71 of 2366 points located
using GPS unit (3%)• Field checks still in
progress• Digital photos of locations
taken with 12” square marker
• Photo files linked to point features
• Currently 99% accuracy rate for cover type attribute
Piñon-Juniper
Landcover Analysis Results:Cover Types by Percent• Ponderosa Pine: 31.74%• Mixed Conifer: 15.89%• Piñon-Juniper: 11.92%• Oak: 10.44%• Prairie Grass: 10.31%• Upland Grass: 7.86%• Spruce-Fir: 5.07%• Riparian Grass: 2.41%• Aspen: 1.86%• Roads: 1.18%• Barren Ground: 0.72%• Water: 0.38%• Cottonwood: 0.17%• Riparian Shrub: 0.05%
Ponderosa Pine
Cover Types by Estimated Acreage
Ponderosa Pine: 185,350 acresMixed Conifer: 92,799 acresPiñon-Juniper: 69,599 acresOak: 60,961 acresPrairie Grass: 60,220 acresUpland Grass: 45,906 acresSpruce-Fir: 29,617 acresRiparian Grass: 14,068 acresAspen: 10,859 acresRoads: 6,911 acresBarren Ground: 4,196 acresWater: 2,221 acresCottonwood: 987 acresRiparian Shrub: 247 acres
Mixed Conifer
Manageable Thinning Attribute
“Manageable” locations were selected using the following query parameters :
• Slope<50% (using 20 acre buffer mean slope)• Patch Size >= 100 acres• Cover Density = Medium or High• Cover Type = Ponderosa Pine, Piñon-Juniper,
Aspen, Spruce-Fir, or Mixed Conifer• Access = Road in patch or available from nearby
patch
Manageable Query Results: 618 points
CBM Development Impact Assessment
CBM Well Pad, VPR
Coal Bed Methane (CBM)• A portion of the Vermejo Park
Ranch is being developed by mineral rights owner, El Paso Energy for methane gas production.
• Methane gas wells extract gas from subsurface coal seams.
• Water produced to release gas from the coals flows by pipeline to facilities where the water is re-injected into lower stratigraphic units.
• Produced gas is pressurized by compressor facilities and sent via underground pipelines to sales as “natural gas”.
CBM Well Location
Compressor Facility
CBM Disturbance Types
• Roads with adjacent pipeline and cable
• High and Low Pressure Pipeline Corridors
• METL (Overhead Electric Lines) Corridors
• Facility Sites (Compressors, Injection Sites, Staging Areas)
• Well Locations (Pads)
CBM Project Area
At time of Fall 2005 imagery acquisition:
• Project consisted of 634 well locations
• Well spacing is 160 acres
• Approximate Total Impacted Area: 634x160=101,440 acres
Creating CBM Disturbance Polygons
• Roads with adjacent pipeline: existing GPS’ed line feature buffered by width attribute
• Low and High Pressure Pipeline Corridors: existing GPS’ed line feature buffered by width attribute
• Main Electric Transmission Lines (METL): existing GPS’ed line feature buffered by width attribute
• Well Locations or Pads: polygon feature digitized from 2005 imagery
• Main Facilities (Compressors, Water Injection sites, Staging Areas): polygon features digitized from 2005 imagery
Disturbance Width Attributes
• Roads: 22’, 24’, or 34’ depending on year constructed
• Low Pressure Pipeline Corridors: 24’ or 34’ based on location
• METL Corridor: 50’• High Pressure Pipeline
Corridors: 40’
Eliminating Overlapping Disturbance
Polygon overlaps eliminated
Hierarchy:1. Well Pads2. Facility Sites3. High Pressure Pipe4. METL5. Low Pressure Pipe6. Roads
New vs. Pre-CBM Disturbance
• Pre-CBM disturbance used when possible for CBM development
• CBM disturbance features were designated as New or Pre-CBM (existing)
• Utilized pre-CBM DOQQ
• Pre-CBM road width:16 feet
Linear Distances for CBM Roads
At time of fall 2005 imagery acquisition:
• 417 miles of CBM roads• 180 miles of Pre-CBM
ranch roads were used• 237 miles of new CBM
roads were constructed
Pre-CBM Disturbance Areas Utilized and New Construction
Total Pre-CBM Disturbance
Area Utilized: 406 acres• Roads: 340 acres• Well Locations: 0 acres• METL: 11 acres • HP Corridors: 33 acres • LP Corridors: 22 acres• Facility Sites: 0 acres
Total New Construction Disturbance Area: 2279 acres
• Roads: 1,406 acres• Well Locations: 380 acres• METL: 185 acres • HP Corridors: 158 acres • LP Corridors: 114 acres• Facility Sites: 36 acres
Total CBM Disturbance Area and Percent Pre-CBM Disturbance Utilized
Total CBM Disturbance Area: 2,685 acres
• Roads: 1,747 acres• Well Locations: 380 acres• METL: 195 acres • HP Corridors: 191 acres • LP Corridors: 135 acres• Facility Sites: 36 acres
Pre-CBM/Total CBM Disturbance Area: 15%
• Roads: 19%• Well Locations: 0%• METL: 5% • HP Corridors: 17% • LP Corridors: 16%• Facility Sites: 0%
Analysis of Disturbance of Landcover Types
• Cover types data from 1 km landcover grid• Recalculated landcover grid in Spatial Analyst• Individual disturbance type and total disturbance
polygons set as analysis mask• Only cover types within disturbance polygons
retained in new grids• Calculated percent total for each resulting grid
by disturbance type and total disturbance
1 km Landcover Grid “clipped” to Total Disturbance Mask
Cover Types Disturbed by Well Locations
Cover: %Total: Normalized*Water: 0.15%: -0.23%Riparian Grass: 0.82%: -1.59%Road: 3.53%: 2.35%Piñon-Juniper: 5.05%: -6.87%Upland Grass: 6.44%: -1.42%Ponderosa: 47.25%: 15.51%Oak: 9.49%: -0.95%Mixed Conifer: 27.26%: 11.37%
*Normalized= %Total - Total Ranch Cover %
Cover Types Disturbed by Facility Sites
Cover: %Total: Normalized
Riparian Grass: 8.17%: 5.76%
Road: 10.89%: 9.71%
Piñon-Juniper: 8.73%: -3.19%
Upland Grass: 7.89%: 0.03%
Ponderosa: 34.85%: 3.11%
Oak: 1.33%: -9.11%
Mixed Conifer: 28.14%: 12.25%
Cover Types Disturbed by METL
Cover: %Total: Normalized• Riparian Grass: 1.77%: -0.64%• Road: 4.78%: 3.60%• Piñon-Juniper: 12.10%: 0.18%• Upland Grass: 10.45%: 2.59%• Ponderosa: 50.02%: 18.28%• Oak: 7.23%: -3.21%• Mixed Conifer: 13.64%: -2.25%
Cover Types Disturbed by High Pressure Pipeline Corridors
Cover: %Total: Normalized• Water: 1.94%: 1.56%• Riparian Grass: 4.47%: 2.06%• Road: 5.92%: 4.74%• Piñon-Juniper: 16.53%: 4.61%• Upland Grass: 5.16%: -2.70%• Ponderosa: 32.88%: 1.13%• Oak: 13.70%: 3.26%• Mixed Conifer: 19.41%: 3.51%
Cover Types Disturbed by Low Pressure Pipe Corridors
Cover: %Total: Normalized• Riparian Grass: 3.66%: 1.25%• Road: 6.48%: 5.29%• Piñon-Juniper: 3.24%: -8.68%• Upland Grass: 14.68%: 6.82%• Ponderosa: 50.48%: 18.44%• Oak: 1.33%: -9.11%• Mixed Conifer: 20.25%: 4.36%• Aspen 0.18% -1.68%
Cover Types Disturbed by Roads
Cover: %Total: Normalized• Water: 0.69%: 0.31%• Riparian Grass: 1.35%: -1.06%• Road: 3.64%: 2.46%• Piñon-Juniper: 5.28%: -6.64%• Upland Grass: 8.24%: 0.38%• Ponderosa: 49.33%: 17.59%• Oak: 7.46%: -2.98%• Mixed Conifer: 24.01%: 8.11%
Cover Type Disturbed by Total CBM Disturbance
Cover: %Total: Normalized• Water: 0.60%: 0.22%• Riparian Grass: 1.72%: -0.69%• Road: 4.08%: 2.90%• Piñon-Juniper: 6.46%: -5.46%• Upland Grass: 8.18%: 0.32%• Ponderosa: 47.95%: 16.21%• Oak: 7.76%: -2.68%• Mixed Conifer: 23.23%: 7.33%• Aspen 0.01% -1.85%
Patch Fragmentation Analysis• Landscapes comprised of patches
and corridors• Human activities, i.e. road building,
tend to straighten patch edges• Elk and deer tend to cross or enter
curved boundaries and travel parallel to straight edges
• Will patch analysis indicate that CBM disturbance has simplified patch edges?
Creating Landscape Patches
• Patches defined by cover type vs. habitat patches
• Disturbance corridors defined as background• 1996 cover type patches digitized from
DOQQ using landcover analysis points• 2005 patches created by removing total CBM
disturbance polygons from 1996 patch polygons
• Patch change limited to CBM disturbance
Preparation for FRAGSTATS
• FRAGSTATS 3.3: standard landscape ecology fragmentation software
• Created grids from 1996 and 2005 polygons in Spatial Analyst
• Calculated grid*(-1) to created signed integer file in raster calculator
• Reclassified grid values within landscape to be positive leaving negative border background area to retain signed integer grid format
• Converted grids to ASCII format• Built class properties text file
Patch Grids and Disturbance
FRAGSTATS Structural Patch Metrics
1. Area: Area of individual patches2. Perimeter: Patch edge measurement3. Perimeter to Area Ratio (PARA): Complexity of patch
shape or edge4. Fractal Dimension Index (FRAC): Complexity of the
patch shape or edge5. Related Circumscribing Circle (CIRCLE): How patch
compares to a true circle 6. Shape Index (SHAPE): Compact vs. Irregular patch
shape
Negative values for metrics 3-6 indicate simplification.
Selected Patch Change Study Areas
9 square kilometer areas: • High Disturbance Area: surrounding
central facility site including all disturbance types
• Medium Disturbance Area: incorporating small facility site, well locations and roads
• Low Disturbance Area: adjacent to and includes sensitive area (non-drillable) with nearby well locations and roads only
Landscape 1-HighMean Values of Metric Results:• Area 1996: 6.01 hectares• Area 2005: 2.66 hectares (-)• Perimeter 1996: 1557.62 m• Perimeter 2005: 794.67 m (-)• PARA 1996: 1960.17 m/m^2• PARA 2005: 5218.57 m/m^2 (+)• FRAC 1996: 1.140• FRAC 2005: 1.140 (no change)• SHAPE 1996: 2.014• SHAPE 2005: 1.762 (-)• CIRCLE 1996: 0.69• CIRCLE 2005: 0.66 (-)
Number of Patches increased from 148 to 325
Landscape 2-Medium
Mean Values of Metric Results:• Area 1996: 13.784 hectares• Area 2005: 10.509 hectares (-)• Perimeter 1996: 2528.738 m• Perimeter 2005: 2218.381 m (-)• PARA 1996: 1147.098 m/m^2• PARA 2005: 1907.466 m/m^2 (+)• FRAC 1996: 1.133• FRAC 2005: 1.129 (-)• SHAPE 1996: 2.085• SHAPE 2005: 2.023 (-)• CIRCLE 1996: 0.731• CIRCLE 2005: 0.723 (-)
Number of Patches increased from 65 to 84
Landscape 3-LowMean Values of Metric Results:• Area 1996: 11.015 hectares• Area 2005: 9.709 hectares (-)• Perimeter 1996: 2471.16 m• Perimeter 2005: 2330.68 m (-)• PARA 1996: 1755.17 m/m^2• PARA 2005: 1617.57 m/m^2 (-)• FRAC 1996: 1.140• FRAC 2005: 1.145 (+)• SHAPE 1996: 2.212• SHAPE 2005: 2.197 (-)• CIRCLE 1996: 0.715• CIRCLE 2005: 0.723 (+)
Number of Patches increased from 81 to 91
Patch Metrics Comparison
Landscape 1:
High Disturbance
Metric %change
AREA -55.80
PERIM -48.98
PARA +166.23
SHAPE -12.53
FRAC -0.02
CIRCLE -3.11
Landscape 2:
Medium Disturbance
Metric %change
AREA -23.76
PERIM -12.27
PARA +66.29
SHAPE -2.99
FRAC -0.34
CIRCLE -1.21
Landscape 3:
Low Disturbance
Metric %change
AREA -11.86
PERIM -5.68
PARA -7.84
SHAPE -0.68
FRAC +0.47
CIRCLE +1.09
CBM Main Facility Area Coal Strip Mine-Final Reclamation
Disturbance vs. Production Comparison
Energy Production/Disturbance
CBM Strip Mine 634 wells Ancho/Gachupin
Total Area 2,685 2,428disturbed: (acres)
Total Production: 195,335,400 * 171,779,604(MMBTU)
Production/Acre: 72,751 70,750(MMBTU/acre)
* Estimated minimum production from Valle Vidal, Carson National Forest RFDS report, 2004
Assumptions/Problems Encountered:
• Snow cover on portions of satellite imagery made landcover analysis and digitizing disturbance areas difficult
• Satellite Imagery had problems representing steep north slope areas
• FRAGSTATS analysis assumes no natural patch change (i.e. no wildland fires) between 1996 and 2005
Conclusion:Landcover: • Valuable tool for thinning site selection • Good base for higher detail studiesCBM Impact: • Accurate assessment of new, pre-CBM and total
disturbance• Provided general estimation of the highest
impacted cover species• FRAGSTATS indicates that CBM development
simplifies patches and edges in high and medium disturbance areas
• Energy-Disturbance comparison indicates CBM production per acre similar to coal strip mine operations
Acknowledgements
• Vermejo Park Ranch– Forestry: S. Chase, L. Dhaseleer, G. Estoll– Environmental: G. Holm, L. Camp– Manager: M. Jensen
• El Paso Energy-Raton Basin CBM
• Pittsburg and Midway Coal Company
• The Pennsylvania State University– D. Miller
Selected References• Brister, B., Hoffman, G., Engler, T., Oil and Gas
Resource Development Potential Eastern Valle Vidal Unit: A 20 year RFDS, Carson National Forest, July 2004, www.fs.fed.us/r3/carson/plans/valle_vidal/
• Forman, Richard T. T., Land Mosaics, The Ecology of Landscapes and Regions, Cambridge University Press, 1995
• McGarigal, K., S.A. Cushman, M.C. Neel, and E. Ene, 2002, FRAGSTATS: Spatial Pattern Analysis Program for Categorical Maps. Computer software program produced at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. www.umass.edu/landeco/research/fragstats.html
• Paine, D., Kiser, J., Aerial Photography and Image Interpretation, 2nd Edition, John Wiley, 2003
• Turner, M., Gardner, R., O’Neill, R, Landscape Ecology In Theory and Practice Pattern and Process, Springer, 2001