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