1 / 57

Coal Bed Methane Development Impact Assessment and Landcover Analysis for the Vermejo Park Ranch, Northern New Mexico

kimball
Download Presentation

Coal Bed Methane Development Impact Assessment and Landcover Analysis for the Vermejo Park Ranch, Northern New Mexico

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

    1. Coal Bed Methane Development Impact Assessment and Landcover Analysis for the Vermejo Park Ranch, Northern New Mexico and Southern Colorado. Title Slide: Coal Bed Methane Development Impact Assessment and Landcover Analysis for the Vermejo Park RanchTitle Slide: Coal Bed Methane Development Impact Assessment and Landcover Analysis for the Vermejo Park Ranch

    2. Vermejo Park Ranch Location Map Location Map showing general location and size of VPR. Ranch outline is shown in blue over ERDAS Imagine Topographic Relief map.Location Map showing general location and size of VPR. Ranch outline is shown in blue over ERDAS Imagine Topographic Relief map.

    3. 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 VPR Mission StatementVPR Mission Statement

    4. 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. Project GoalsProject Goals

    5. 2005 Satellite Imagery 60cm, 4 color, 1:12,000 NMAS Imagery ComparisonImagery Comparison

    6. Land Cover Analysis Land Cover Analysis Section DividerLand Cover Analysis Section Divider

    7. 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 management Thinning ProgramThinning Program

    8. Designated Landcover Types: Forested Aspen Cottonwood Mixed Conifer: Ponderosa Pine, Douglas Fir, White Fir Oak: Gamble Oak, Mountain Mahogany Pińon-Juniper Ponderosa Pine Riparian Shrubs: Willows, Locust Spruce-Fir: Englemann Spruce, Subalpine Fir Treed Landcover TypesTreed Landcover Types

    9. Designated Landcover Types: Non-Forested Non-treed landcover typesNon-treed landcover types

    10. 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. LCA summaryLCA summary

    11. 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

    12. 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 Field verificationField verification

    13. Landcover Analysis Results: Cover Types by Percent Ponderosa Pine: 31.74% Mixed Conifer: 15.89% Pińon-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% LCA results by percent cover typeLCA results by percent cover type

    14. LCA 1km grid by cover typeLCA 1km grid by cover type

    15. High Country LCA points mapHigh Country LCA points map

    16. LCA Canadian/Colorado point mapLCA Canadian/Colorado point map

    17. LCA Castle Rock and HQ point mapLCA Castle Rock and HQ point map

    18. LCA prairie and southern area point mapLCA prairie and southern area point map

    19. Cover Types by Estimated Acreage LCA results by estimated acreageLCA results by estimated acreage

    20. 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, Pińon-Juniper, Aspen, Spruce-Fir, or Mixed Conifer Access = Road in patch or available from nearby patch Calculating Manageable Thinning AttributeCalculating Manageable Thinning Attribute

    21. Manageable Query Results: 618 points Manageable LCA PointsManageable LCA Points

    22. CBM Development Impact Assessment Human Impact:Human Impact:

    23. 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”. Intro to CBMIntro to CBM

    24. 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 Disturbance TypesCBM Disturbance Types

    25. 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 General CBM project sizeGeneral CBM project size

    26. 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 CBM Disturbance PolygonsCBM Disturbance Polygons

    27. 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’ CBM disturbance width attributesCBM disturbance width attributes

    28. Eliminating Overlapping Disturbance Polygon overlaps eliminated Hierarchy: 1. Well Pads 2. Facility Sites 3. High Pressure Pipe 4. METL 5. Low Pressure Pipe 6. Roads Eliminating Overlapping disturbance to accurately evaluate acreageEliminating Overlapping disturbance to accurately evaluate acreage

    29. 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 Existing vs. New disturbance attributesExisting vs. New disturbance attributes

    30. 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 Linear distance calculation resultsLinear distance calculation results

    31. 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 Existing Disturbance AcreageExisting Disturbance Acreage

    32. 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% Total CBM disturbance acreage.Total CBM disturbance acreage.

    33. 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 Landcover Type Disturbance analysisLandcover Type Disturbance analysis

    34. Landcover CBM disturbance 1km grid total/disturbance clip exampleLandcover CBM disturbance 1km grid total/disturbance clip example

    35. 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% Pińon-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 well locationsCover types disturbed by well locations

    36. Cover Types Disturbed by Facility Sites Cover: %Total: Normalized Riparian Grass: 8.17%: 5.76% Road: 10.89%: 9.71% Pińon-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 facility sitesCover types disturbed by facility sites

    37. Cover Types Disturbed by METL Cover: %Total: Normalized Riparian Grass: 1.77%: -0.64% Road: 4.78%: 3.60% Pińon-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 METLCover types disturbed by METL

    38. 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% Pińon-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 HP pipeline corridorsCover types disturbed by HP pipeline corridors

    39. Cover Types Disturbed by Low Pressure Pipe Corridors Cover: %Total: Normalized Riparian Grass: 3.66%: 1.25% Road: 6.48%: 5.29% Pińon-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 LP pipeline corridorsCover types disturbed by LP pipeline corridors

    40. Cover Types Disturbed by Roads Cover: %Total: Normalized Water: 0.69%: 0.31% Riparian Grass: 1.35%: -1.06% Road: 3.64%: 2.46% Pińon-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 types disturbed by roadsCover types disturbed by roads

    41. 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% Pińon-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% Cover types disturbed by total disturbanceCover types disturbed by total disturbance

    42. 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? Landscape patch change analysis: Human activities tend to simplify boundaries creating less complex shapes into straighter lines (Turner, 2001) Forman studied elk and deer movements in Northern NM between PJ and grasslands, use of edge increases in both elk and deer with curvilinearity of the edge… straight boundaries appear to act as partial barriers (Forman, 1995 and Turner, 2001)Landscape patch change analysis: Human activities tend to simplify boundaries creating less complex shapes into straighter lines (Turner, 2001) Forman studied elk and deer movements in Northern NM between PJ and grasslands, use of edge increases in both elk and deer with curvilinearity of the edge… straight boundaries appear to act as partial barriers (Forman, 1995 and Turner, 2001)

    43. 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 Creating landscape patchesCreating landscape patches

    44. 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 FRAGSTATS 3.3 req’sFRAGSTATS 3.3 req’s

    45. Patch Grids and Disturbance Example of grids for 1996 and 2005Example of grids for 1996 and 2005

    46. FRAGSTATS Structural Patch Metrics Area: Area of individual patches Perimeter: Patch edge measurement Perimeter to Area Ratio (PARA): Complexity of patch shape or edge Fractal Dimension Index (FRAC): Complexity of the patch shape or edge Related Circumscribing Circle (CIRCLE): How patch compares to a true circle Shape Index (SHAPE): Compact vs. Irregular patch shape Negative values for metrics 3-6 indicate simplification. Patch MetricsPatch Metrics

    47. 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/Patch study areasLandscape/Patch study areas

    48. Landscape 1-High Mean 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 1: Facility Site, high impact area PARA-shows increase in complexity: non-standardized…decrease in patch size causes increase in PARA if shape remains similar: not a good measure in this example. FRAC-no change SHAPE-less irregular CIRCLE-change towards truer circle or simpler Shows disturbance has simplified patches and greatly reduced patch size.Landscape 1: Facility Site, high impact area PARA-shows increase in complexity: non-standardized…decrease in patch size causes increase in PARA if shape remains similar: not a good measure in this example. FRAC-no change SHAPE-less irregular CIRCLE-change towards truer circle or simpler Shows disturbance has simplified patches and greatly reduced patch size.

    49. 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 2: minor facility site, medium impact area PARA-again shows increase in complexity: non-standardized…decrease in patch size causes increase in PARA if shape remains similar: not a good measure in this example. FRAC-less irregular SHAPE-less irregular CIRCLE-change towards truer circle or simpler patch shape Shows disturbance has simplified patches and reduced patch size. Landscape 2: minor facility site, medium impact area PARA-again shows increase in complexity: non-standardized…decrease in patch size causes increase in PARA if shape remains similar: not a good measure in this example. FRAC-less irregular SHAPE-less irregular CIRCLE-change towards truer circle or simpler patch shape Shows disturbance has simplified patches and reduced patch size.

    50. Landscape 3-Low Mean 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 Landscape 3: well locations and roads only adjacent to sensitive area, low impact PARA-shows decrease in complexity FRAC-slightly more complex SHAPE-less irregular CIRCLE-slight change towards more complex Overall shows minimal changes as expected.Landscape 3: well locations and roads only adjacent to sensitive area, low impact PARA-shows decrease in complexity FRAC-slightly more complex SHAPE-less irregular CIRCLE-slight change towards more complex Overall shows minimal changes as expected.

    51. 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

    52. Disturbance vs. Production Comparison Disturbance imagery, left- high impact CBM area, right-strip coal mineDisturbance imagery, left- high impact CBM area, right-strip coal mine

    53. Energy Production/Disturbance CBM Strip Mine 634 wells Ancho/Gachupin Total Area 2,685 2,428 disturbed: (acres) Total Production: 195,335,400 * 171,779,604 (MMBTU) Production/Acre: 72,751 70,750 (MMBTU/acre) Disturbance vs. energy production resultsDisturbance vs. energy production results

    54. 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 Assumptions and problemsAssumptions and problems

    55. Conclusion: Landcover: Valuable tool for thinning site selection Good base for higher detail studies CBM 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 ConclusionConclusion

    56. 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 AcknowledgementsAcknowledgements

    57. 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 Selected referencesSelected references

More Related