Evaluating the Scientific Support of Conservation Best Management Practices for Shale Gas Extraction in the Appalachian Basin

Evaluating the Scientific Support of Conservation Best Management Practices for Shale Gas Extraction in the Appalachian Basin Pennsylvania Field Office Scott Bearer, Senior Scientist Tamara Gagnolet, Energy Program Manager

The Nature Conservancy The Nature Conservancy s mission is to protect the lands and waters on which all life depends. Global organization Science-based strategies Every U.S. state and over 30 countries ~ 1 million members

The Nature Conservancy Active in Pennsylvania for > 50 years 26,000 members in Pennsylvania Headquartered in Harrisburg with staff in Williamsport, Pittsburgh, Meadville, Poconos, & Philadelphia Photo: George Gress Focused on forests, freshwater, and rare species habitats as well as threats from energy development and climate change

Shale Gas Environmental Impacts Land use change and habitat fragmentation Terrestrial and aquatic systems, including wildlife focus of the work we are presenting today Water quality and quantity (withdrawals) Air quality Methane emissions Community impacts and quality of life (e.g. traffic, noise, light)

Pennsylvania Energy Impacts Assessment Goal: Develop projections of how land use change from new energy development could impact natural habitats in Pennsylvania Energy Types Assessed: Shale gas Wind Wood biomass Electric transmission lines Gas pipelines Acknowledgements: Collaborated with the Western Pennsylvania Conservancy and Audubon Pennsylvania Generously funded by the Heinz Endowments, the R.K. Mellon Foundation, and the William Penn Foundation

Assessment Steps and Results 1. SPATIAL FOOTPRINT of existing energy development: 8.8 acres of forest directly cleared per well pad, on average (including associated infrastructure) Additional 21.2 acres of new edge habitat per pad 2. PROJECTIONS: How much energy infrastructure might be developed by 2030 and where is it likely to occur? 60,000 new wells drilled by 2030 Scenarios: - Low: 10 wells per pad 6,000 new pads - Medium: 6 wells per pad 10,000 new pads - High: 4 wells per pad 15,000 new pads Photo: Tamara Gagnolet

Where Is Marcellus Development Most Likely? Model Drivers: - Drilling Permits from PA-DEP - Thermal Maturity - Shale Depth - Shale Thickness - Percent Slope - Distance to Roads - Distance to Pipelines

Where Is Marcellus Development Most Likely?

Assessment Steps and Results 1. SPATIAL FOOTPRINT of existing energy development: 8.8 acres of forest directly cleared per well pad, on average (including associated infrastructure) Additional 21.2 acres of new edge habitat per pad 2. PROJECTIONS: How much energy infrastructure might be developed by 2030 and where is it likely to occur? 60,000 new wells drilled by 2030 Scenarios: - Low: 10 wells per pad 6,000 new pads - Medium: 6 wells per pad 10,000 new pads - High: 4 wells per pad 15,000 new pads 10,000 to 25,000 miles of new gathering pipeline by 2030 1.6 miles of gathering pipeline per well pad Photo: Tamara Gagnolet

How Many New Gas Pipelines?

Assessment Steps and Results 1. SPATIAL FOOTPRINT of existing energy development: 8.8 acres of forest directly cleared per well pad, on average (including associated infrastructure) Additional 21.2 acres of new edge habitat per pad 2. PROJECTIONS: How much energy infrastructure might be developed by 2030 and where is it likely to occur? 60,000 new wells drilled by 2030 6,000 to 15,000 new well pads by 2030 10,000 to 25,000 miles of new gathering pipeline by 2030 1.6 miles of gathering pipeline per well pad Photo: Tamara Gagnolet 3. NATURAL HABITAT IMPACTS from future development Forest habitat Breeding birds Brook trout Rare species

How Could Brook Trout Be Affected?

Estimated Habitat Impacts From our spatial footprint assessment and development projections: 100,000 to 250,000 acres of direct forest clearing over next two decades Photo: Mark Godfrey - TNC Additional 400,000 to 1,000,000 forested acres becoming edge habitats - increased threats to interior species in areas adjacent to shale gas development Increased predation Changes in light, temp, humidity levels Expanded presence of invasive species

Estimated Habitat Impacts From our spatial footprint assessment and development projections: 100,000 to 250,000 acres of direct forest clearing over next two decades Photo: Mark Godfrey - TNC Additional 400,000 to 1,000,000 forested acres becoming edge habitats - increased threats to interior species in areas adjacent to shale gas development Increased predation Changes in light, temp, humidity levels Expanded presence of invasive species Photo: Nels Johnson - TNC The pipeline footprint alone is larger than the cumulative area impacted by all other shale gas infrastructure combined

PA Energy Impacts Assessment Full report available at: www.nature.org/paenergy

TNC Projects To Reduce Appalachian Shale Gas Impacts Assessments across Appalachian Basin: Energy resource modeling & projected impacts Development by Design Project (mitigation hierarchy) Decision Support Tools: Land-Use Impacts Spatial Planning Tool Best Management Practices Water Withdrawal Impacts Ecosystem Flow Study for Susquehanna River Basin Commission (available at: http://www.srbc.net/policies/lowflowpolicy.htm) Photo: Mark Godfrey - TNC

Shale Gas BMP Assessment Goal: Evaluate the scientific support for ecologically relevant shale gas Best Management Practices (BMPs) Focal BMP Categories: Wildlife impacts Terrestrial Ecosystems Aquatic Ecosystems Funded by: R.K. Mellon Foundation Colcom Foundation Photo: Mark Godfrey - TNC

Shale Gas BMP Assessment Overview BMP Database All unconventional gas BMPs from across the U.S. (N=429) Grouped to remove redundancies (N=187) Categorized by topic, development stage, ecological issue, etc.

Shale Gas BMP Sources Colorado Division of Wildlife (CPW). 2008, October 27. Actions to Minimize Adverse Impacts to Wildlife Resources. Natural Resources Law Center, University of Colorado Law School. 2012. Intermountain Oil and Gas Best Management Practices Project. The Nature Conservancy, Central Appalachians Program. 2011. Best Conservation Practices for Shale and Conventional Gas Drilling Activities. New York Department of Environmental Conservation (NY DEC). 2011. Revised Draft Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement on the Oil, Gas, and Solution Mining Regulatory Program. Ohio Department of Natural Resources (Ohio DNR). 2005. Best Management Practices for Oil and Gas Well Site Construction. Pennsylvania Chapter of the Wildlife Society (TWS). 2010. Position Statement on Marcellus Shale Gas Development in the Appalachians and High Allegheny Plateau. Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (PA DCNR). 2011. Guidelines for Administering Oil and Gas Activity on State Forest Lands. Pinchot Institute for Conservation. 2010. The Marcellus Shale: Protecting Watersheds During Gas Development. US Bureau of Land Management (US BLM). 2012. Best Management Practices Technical Information. US Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (US OSM). 2012. Appalachian Regional Reforestation Initiative. West Virginia Division of Natural Resources (WV DNR). 2008. Guidelines for Oil and Gas Development and Fish and Wildlife Resources. Wyoming Fish & Game Department. 2010. Recommendations for Development of Oil and Gas Resources within Important Wildlife Habitats.

Shale Gas BMP Assessment Overview BMP Database All unconventional gas BMPs from across the U.S. (N=429) Grouped to remove redundancies (N=187) Categorized by type, development stage, ecological issue Scientific Literature Database Comprehensive literature review Each citation given Relevancy Score based on similarity with infrastructure, habitats, and taxa found in the Appalachian Basin Combined BMP & literature databases to quantitatively assess level of support for each BMP in the scientific lit and to identify research gaps/needs

Shale Gas BMP Assessment Methods 1) Compile, summarize, and select focal gas development BMPs 2) Literature review and relevance rating for each article 3) Pair BMPs with relevant literature and assign support rating 4) Calculate pairing strength for BMP/citation pair 5) Average pairing score to calculate overall BMP support score

Shale Gas BMP Assessment Methods

Inconclusive Supports BMP Does Not Support BMP Shale Gas BMP Assessment Methods Rating Support Rating Definitions 2 The reference supports the BMP recommendation by providing direct evidence of a direct negative impact (e.g. species composition, species richness, population density) 1 0-1 The reference supports the BMP recommendation by providing direct evidence of an indirect negative impact (e.g. change in species behavior, intra-species communication, inter-species communication) The reference provides inconclusive or mixed evidence regarding the BMP recommendation. The reference does not support the BMP recommendation by providing direct evidence of no change (e.g. change in species behavior, intra-species communication, movement, dispersal) -2 The reference does not support the BMP recommendation by providing direct evidence of a positive impact (e.g. change in species richness, population density, reproductive rate, survival rate)

Shale Gas BMP Assessment Conclusions 1) Vast majority of BMPs are broad and lack site specific detail which may hamper effectiveness additional thresholds will improve efficiency 2) Strongly supported BMPs include landscape-level planning, sensitive area avoidance, seasonal restrictions, and road/pipeline location, design, and maintenance 3) More research is needed on impacts of noise and light pollution 4) Development should focus on site-specific BMPs to achieve ecological outcomes, more science and industry collaboration, and increased education with industry and public

Critical Shale Gas BMPs Several practices should be at the center of any set of Shale Gas BMPs: Landscape-Level Planning: Avoid/minimize clearing in large forest patches and sensitive habitats Avoid/minimize crossings of wetland and riparian habitats Stream Crossings: Locate stream crossing structures so they do not decrease channel stability or increase water velocity Design road crossings to allow fish passage at all flow levels Seasonal Restrictions / Timing of Operations: Avoid earth moving operations during wet seasons and wet periods Avoid construction in stream courses during spawning times Road and Pipeline Location, Design, and Maintenance: Manage pipelines for shrub cover rather than grass and create forested linkages at regular intervals to facilitate wildlife movement Provide proper drainage and erosion control for all roads and pipelines

Environmental Practice Volume 14, Issue 4 December 2012

BMP Project Status Completed: BMP database

BMP Project Status Completed: BMP database Peer-reviewed article published in Environmental Practice journal (December 2012)

BMP Project Status Completed: BMP database Peer-reviewed article published in Environmental Practice journal (December 2012) Policy database for Pennsylvania

BMP Project Status Next Steps: Complete BMP summary documents

BMP Project Status Next Steps: Complete BMP summary documents Put databases and BMP summaries on web platform

BMP Project Status Next Steps: Complete BMP summary documents Put databases and BMP summaries on web platform BMP performance-based framework

BMP Project Status Next Steps: Complete BMP summary documents Put databases and BMP summaries on web platform BMP performance-based framework Complete policy databases for surrounding states

Performance-Based Framework for BMPs Focus on ecological outcomes rather than prescriptive practices that may or may not be relevant/effective in all contexts DRAFT examples of ecological outcomes: 1. Natural habitats, especially large forest patches and rare species habitats, remain intact 2. Immediately downstream freshwater bodies experience little or no change to water quality (e.g., sediment, nutrients, conductivity, temperature) 3. Aquatic habitats and species have sufficient flows to remain healthy year round 4. Fish and wildlife retain ability to move between habitats needed for foraging, breeding, and seasonal movement

BMP Challenges Need for input from industry Lack of available data on industry costs and constraints General practices vs too prescriptive Lack of research specific to Appalachian shale gas Adapting to diverse environmental settings

Questions? www.nature.org/paenergy Scott Bearer sbearer@tnc.org Tamara Gagnolet tgagnolet@tnc.org Photo: Martha Rial