Shale-GasMonitoring Reportphoto courtesy of Martha Rial aApril 2014 PrefaceAs scientists, we define “monitoring” as repeatedmeasurements over time to determine trends or patterns.As managers and stewards of our forests on behalf of allPennsylvanians, those trends and patterns inform ourdecisions as we balance the many uses and values of thestate forest system.This Shale-Gas Monitoring Report represents afirst iteration of our measurements and is intendedto represent a snapshot in time. Future reports areanticipated as more data are collected and analyzed and more trends are observed.Monitoring is a long-term effort and one that the department is committed to continue.Most people want to be assured that shale-gas activity on state forest land is being“monitored” properly. They may have different perspectives on how monitoring isdefined, but they want to know that staff members are on the ground observing andmanaging the activity that is occurring. I hope that the breadth and depth of this reportallays those concerns and demonstrates that shale-gas production on the state forestsis being carefully managed.Monitoring helps us learn whether our management decisions are successful. Wealready have and continue to make adjustments based on our observations, and ourmanagement guidelines will continually be updated as more information is broughtforth to inform our decision-making.It is important to note that a broad set of values is being monitored. This is critical aslimiting data collection to one or a few values may lead to misplaced conclusions. Onlyby viewing this activity in the broadest sense can one get a more complete picture of thevarious tradeoffs involved. Monitoring does not necessarily give you answers – it givesyou data to inform or to be used for decision-making.This report is not intended to impose a certain viewpoint on the reader. The intent ofthe report is to present information in as objective a manner as possible. Dependingon one’s viewpoint, or perspective, the reader can place his or her values on theinformation presented in the report. For example, the addition of new roads on the stateforest can be viewed as increasing access for forest visitors or viewed as diminishmentof wild character, depending on one’s perspective.2Shale-Gas Monitoring ReportOftentimes, trends, or effects, are not evident for years ordecades. Despite that, there are some findings that can begleaned from this initial report.First and foremost is that shale-gas production on stateforest lands is neither benign nor catastrophic. There areclearly impacts and tradeoffs associated with this activity.The question is what tradeoffs are acceptable. The Bureauof Forestry considers these tradeoffs and attempts tobalance the various uses and values of the forest.Some examples:• Water is the resource that most people cite whenexpressing their concerns about shale-gas production.This report describes our monitoring efforts, as wellas other agencies’ efforts, in some detail. Althoughincidents have occurred, the monitoring data show thatwater quality has not been affected due to this activity.• Forest conversion and fragmentation also are oftencited as concerns. The data do demonstrate that forestsare being converted and fragmented, but less thanoriginally expected. This is probably a result of themanagement decision to place this activity withinor adjacent to existing infrastructure or existingdisturbances, where it is more noticeable to the publicbut requires less forest disturbance.• Invasive species are a concern as areas of disturbancetend to create conditions conducive to invasion bypests or unwanted species. The report clearly showsthat invasive species need to be carefully managedand controlled.• Recreational experiences and expectations vary byuser. Some recreationists prefer solitude and a morewilderness-type experience, whereas others, suchas motorized vehicle enthusiasts, are happy with aless primitive and more developed experience. Themonitoring data show a trend from the more remoteexperience to a semi-primitive experience. Thiswarrants close scrutiny in the future to ensure that awide variety of recreational experiences are availableon the state forests.These observations are but a few that could be extractedfrom the report. Future iterations of the monitoringreport will reveal more emerging and interestingtrends. As well pads are reclaimed; impoundments aredrained and converted back to forest; new well padsand pipelines are added; and new best managementpractices are implemented, there will be new findingsand observations.Shale-gas production on the state forest likely willcontinue to grow as the areas currently leased beginor continue to be developed. It is the managementphilosophy of the bureau to avoid this activity altogetherin the most sensitive areas of the state forest. Where theactivity is permitted to occur, we will strive to minimizethe surface impact to the greatest reasonable extent andto mitigate for the impact whenever possible. And ofcourse, we will continue to monitor this activity, use ourobservations to adjust management decisions, and reportour findings periodically.This monitoring report is the result of the hard workand effort of many dedicated staff members in theDepartment of Conservation and Natural Resources andspecifically the Bureau of Forestry. I trust that you willfind their work and this report informative.We welcome your observations on this report and onour efforts to manage the state forests in a sustainablemanner while balancing the many uses and values ofthese forests.Daniel A. DevlinDeputy Secretary for Parks and Forestry(Former Director, Bureau of Forestry)Department of Conservation and Natural ResourcesShale-Gas Monitoring Report1Table of ContentsExecutive Summary........................................ 3Part 1: Introduction........................................12A Steward of the Commonwealth’s Forest SystemNatural Gas Development and State Forest LandsShale-Gas Monitoring ProgramPart 2: Monitoring Values............................. 34Infrastructure.................34Fauna (Wildlife)....................144Flora (Plants)..................70Recreation............................ 152Forest Health.................88Community Engagement... 174Invasive Species............94Timber...................................180Water.............................102Energy...................................188Soil.................................126Revenue................................198Air..................................134The Forest Landscape........204Incidents.......................140Part 3: Partner Monitoring......................... 220SRBC Remote Water Quality Monitoring NetworkForest CertificationPart 4: Research Partnerships ................. 244Part 5: References...................................... 256Part 6: Index of Figures & Tables.............. 2602Shale-Gas Monitoring ReportExecutive SummaryIntroductionThe Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR) Bureau of Forestryis broadly responsible for conserving the forests of the commonwealth. One ofthe bureau’s most significant roles is to act, in the public trust, as steward of thecommonwealth’s 2.2-million-acre state forest system.Natural gas development is one of the management activities that historically hasoccurred on state forest land. The activity contributes significantly to Pennsylvania’seconomy and provides a source of domestic energy. Natural gas development, however,especially at the scale seen in the modern shale-gas era, affects a variety of forestresources and values, such as recreational opportunities, the forest’s wild character,scenic beauty, and plant and wildlife habitat.photo courtesy of Martha RialOverall, approximately 1.5 million acres of state forest are underlain by Marcellusshale. Of that acreage, 44 percent (673,000 acres) is available for gas development eitherthrough bureau-issued leases (386,000 acres) or severed lands development (287,000).Modern shale-gas leases restrict surface disturbance in sensitive areas and limit overallsurface disturbance to approximately 2 percent of the acreage within the lease tract.Shale-Gas Monitoring Report33Monitoring ValuesTo help guide its monitoring program, the bureaudevised a suite of “monitoring values.” These values,developed with input from its advisory committees,help focus monitoring efforts on values that relate tothe sustainability of the state forest system, the impactsof natural gas drilling on state forest to stakeholdersand communities, and the bureau’s mission. The valuesfollow with key points and findings:Given the host of potential impacts of shale-gasdevelopment to the state forest system and its associateduses and values, the bureau has established a Shale-GasMonitoring Program to track, detect, and report on theimpacts of the activity. The program aims to provideobjective and credible information to the public andinform and improve shale-gas management efforts. Thebureau’s Shale-Gas Monitoring Program was initiatedin late 2010, when the bureau was authorized to hire adedicated monitoring team of 15 staff members. Theprogram began full implementation in 2011, whenthe bureau completed staff hiring, met with advisorycommittees, and began developing monitoring protocolsand building a variety of internal monitoring tools.The bureau takes a three-tiered approach to itsmonitoring, recognizing that an effective, long-termmonitoring program must be multifaceted. These tiersinclude: 1) an integrated and dedicated Shale-GasMonitoring Team; 2) related forest resource monitoringand on-the-ground management activities; and3) research and external partner collaboration. Thesetiers form the foundation for the bureau’s shale-gasmonitoring effort.An essential function of the Shale-Gas MonitoringProgram is to regularly compile and analyze its dataand findings. This first report is also an opportunityto communicate basic information about the bureau’smonitoring program and its plans for futuremonitoring efforts.4Shale-Gas Monitoring ReportInfrastructureNatural gas exploration and development can causeshort-term or long-term conversion of existing naturalhabitats to gas infrastructure. The footprint of shalegas infrastructure is a necessary part of shale-gasdevelopment; however, the bureau attempts to managethis infrastructure to reduce surface disturbance andminimize impacts to other state forest uses and values.Key points and findings include:• Approximately 1,486 acres of forest have beenconverted to facilitate gas development in the core gasdistricts (state forests subject to shale gas development),including roads, infrastructure and well pads andpipelines. During the same time period (2008 to2012), the bureau acquired 33,500 acres to add tostate forest system, including 8,900 acres in core gasforest districts.• One hundred and sixty-one total miles of roadhave been improved or constructed for shale-gasdevelopment in the core gas districts. Of these,131 miles of state forest roads that existed prior tothe shale-gas development have been improved orupgraded for gas development activities, and 30miles of new roads have been constructed for gasdevelopment activities.• One hundred and ninety-one infrastructure pads havebeen constructed to facilitate shale-gas development inthe core gas forest districts.• One hundred and four miles of pipeline corridorhave been constructed or widened in the core gasforest districts.Flora (Plants)The bureau oversees the protection of Pennsylvaniastate-listed native wild plants on state forest lands byreviewing proposed shale-gas development projects andadvising bureau managers on the best means to avoidimpacts to rare plant species and communities.There are four main components of the plant monitoringprogram, including: evaluating vegetation communitiesimmediately adjacent to shale-gas development;monitoring tracts subject to shale-gas developmentfor non-native, invasive plant species; assessing rareplant populations and important wetland habitats; andconducting vegetation inventories in areas of potentialfuture shale-gas extraction.Key points and findings include:• A majority of forest conversion for the construction ofgas infrastructure on state forest lands occurs in thedry oak-heath community type.• In undisturbed forest habitat surrounding pads, NewYork fern (Thelypteris noveboracensis) and hayscented fern (Dennstaedtia punctilobula) had thehighest average percent cover in the understory, with31.2 percent and 31.0 percent cover, respectively.• The most prevalent species in areas around the edgesof pads re-vegetated with erosion and sedimentationcontrol seed mixes were Festuca species, with19.2 percent average percent cover, Orchardgrass(Dactylis glomerata, 16.0 percent), and red clover(Trifolium pratense, 14.2 percent).Forest HealthThe bureau promotes programs to improve andmaintain the long-term health and biodiversity of forestecosystems. The bureau evaluates biotic and abioticfactors affecting the health of trees and woodlands,utilizes integrated pest management techniques tomitigate the effects of destructive agents, and promotesforest health to the public.Key points and findings include:• The bureau participates with the USDA Forest Servicein the Forest Health Monitoring Program, a nationalprogram designed to determine the status, changes,and trends in indicators of forest condition on anannual basis.• The principal damage-causing agents from 2008 to2012 in the core gas forest districts were gypsy moth,forest tent caterpillar, and frost.• Impacts to the forest surrounding disturbancecan only be discovered through long-term foresthealth monitoring.Invasive SpeciesThe development of shale-gas resources on state forestlands has the potential to increase the spread of nonnativeinvasive species. The bureau works cooperativelywith the Pennsylvania Invasive Species Council, thePennsylvania Department of Agriculture, the U.S.Department of Agriculture, and other state agenciesand organizations to coordinate efforts regardinginvasive species.Key points and findings include:• Eleven non-native invasive plant species werepresent at 14 of 18 representative pads across coregas forest districts. The invasive plant with thelargest mean population size was Japanese stilt-grass(Microstegium vimineum).• Increased susceptibility to pest attack, especially bynonnative invasive species, may occur wherever thereis forest disturbance, especially for trees along newlycreated edges. However, impacts in the surroundingforests can be discovered only through long-term foresthealth monitoring.WaterNumerous methods are employed by the bureau tosample and analyze water resources within the coregas forest districts, with an emphasis on water qualityof surface waters. The present focus is surface waterShale-Gas Monitoring Report5quality because this forest system value is of criticalconcern to stakeholders, could be impacted byshale-gas development, and can be readily and costeffectively assessed.Key points and findings include:• The majority of streams in the core gas forest districts(71 percent) are first-order, headwater streams.• The majority of streams in the shale-gas region (87percent) are classified as high quality or exceptionalvalue by the DEP, and many streams are identified ashaving naturally reproducing trout populations by theFish and Boat Commission.• A widespread sampling of field chemistry, includingover 300 locations, showed that pH results wereprimarily in the circum-neutral range, with 72 percentof results between 6.5 and 7.5 and a median pH of 7.01.• A widespread sampling of field chemistry showedthat 91 percent of specific conductance results werebelow 100 microsiemens(μS)/cm, with a median of41.3 μS/cm.• Initial water monitoring results have not identifiedany significant impacts due to shale-gas development.This is based on one round of field chemistry samplingthroughout the shale-gas region and over a year ofoperation for 10 continuous monitoring devices in keywatersheds. At this early stage, the data collected areprimarily for establishing baseline conditions.• Future monitoring efforts include longitudinal surveysof field chemistry, surface water grab sampling,installation of continuous monitoring devices, and anassessment of pipeline-stream crossings.SoilShale-gas development often involves earth disturbanceactivities that require careful planning and oversight tominimize negative effects on soil quality. Soil resourcemanagement and monitoring is achieved in collaborationwith DEP. Regulation of earth disturbing activities fallswithin DEP’s jurisdiction. The bureau helps to monitorfor problems relating to erosion and sediment control andreports issues to DEP.6Shale-Gas Monitoring ReportKey points and findings include:• To the extent possible, placement of shale-gasinfrastructure has avoided wet soils and soils with highrunoff potential.• Of all pads, impoundments, and compressorsconstructed, over 85 percent were on well-drained toexcessively well-drained soils, and over 80 percent wereon soils with medium to very low surface runoff index.• Of all pipelines constructed, over 70 percent occurredwithin well-drained to excessively well-drained soilsand within soils with medium to very low surfacerunoff index.• Of all roads newly constructed or improved due toshale-gas development, over 80 percent occurredwithin well-drained to excessively well-drained soilsand within soils with medium to very low surfacerunoff index.• Future research and monitoring will focus on the effectsof well pad construction on soil physical and chemicalproperties, as well as the effects of best managementpractices on hydrology and sediment loads.AirShale-gas development involves many stages thatprovide different avenues for the release of air pollutants.Although shale-gas development may emit variouspollutants, the natural gas produced through shale-gasdevelopment also has the potential to create an overallpositive effect on air quality.The bureau is not conducting air quality monitoring.The bureau relies on DEP to assess potential effects ofair emissions from the shale-gas industry and to requireapplicable air permits of shale-gas operations.Key points and findings include:• Since shale-gas development began in Pennsylvaniain 2008, there has been a marked decrease in severalmajor air pollutants, such as sulfur, nitrogen oxides,and carbon dioxide. This is due, in part, to theincreased use of natural gas for power generation,the shutdown of several major facilities, and theinstallation of air pollution control equipment.• Short-term air sampling at several locations aroundthe state has detected natural gas constituents andassociated compounds in the vicinity of shale-gasoperations. These compounds were not detected atconcentrations that would likely cause health-relatedimpacts, although some were detected at levels whichwould produce an odor.• A one-year study is under way in southwestPennsylvania to study the potential long-term andcumulative effect of air emissions from compressorstations and a major processing facility. A study is alsounder way to examine the concentrations of groundlevel ozone in the vicinity of shale-gas operations.• A short-term air quality study in Ramsey Village,in Lycoming County along the Pine Creek RailTrail, did not detect air pollutants above ruralbackground conditions.IncidentsIncidents occurring on state forest lands related toshale gas development are recorded by both DEP andthe bureau. DEP tracks incidents that are investigatedinvolving violations of state environmental laws andregulations. Additionally, the bureau’s Incident ReportingSystem records more general incidents in a variety ofcategories that occur on state forest land.Fauna (Wildlife)State forest lands are an important source of food,cover, water, and space for wildlife, which are criticalcomponents of ecosystems. The bureau manages forestedhabitat, ensuring that natural biological communities canthrive. The bureau will base wildlife monitoring effortson habitat and certain indicator species. The bureau willfocus on habitats adjacent to gas development, along withrestored gas infrastructure areas. Monitoring efforts willfocus on well pads, roadsides, pipeline rights of way,wetlands adjacent to development, forest interior areasnear gas infrastructure, and reclaimed or reforested areas.Key points and findings include:Key points and findings include:• From 2008 through 2012, DEP investigated 324incidents on state forest land, resulting in 308 noticesof violations (NOVs).• From July 1, 2009, through 2012, 264 incidents in 50different categories were reported through the bureauIncident Reporting System across all state forestdistricts directly related to gas development activity.• Wildlife habitat will change due to shale-gasinfrastructure, resulting in more edge and earlysuccessional habitat.• The bureau is monitoring the positive and negativeimpacts of shale-gas development on wildlifecommunities to better understand their long-rangeimplications and steps that can be instituted to avoidand mitigate negative impacts.• The bureau is in the early stages of developing itswildlife monitoring protocols. The bureau will focuson monitoring changes in habitat conditions in relationto shale-gas development.Shale-Gas Monitoring Report7• Through its monitoring program, the bureau isfunding multiple research projects to advance theunderstanding of the impacts of shale-gas developmentto wildlife species, such as interior forest birds andtimber rattlesnakes.RecreationGas development includes extensive infrastructurethat requires careful siting to minimize impacts torecreational features. New infrastructure can affect wildcharacter and viewsheds. Noise-generating activities mayaffect visitor experience. Roads, well pads, pipelines andother shale-gas infrastructure also can affect snowmobileand hiking trails. At the same time, opportunities toenhance recreational trails and experiences can berealized through new shale-gas infrastructure.Key points and findings include:• No national hiking trails in Pennsylvania have beenimpacted by shale-gas development. Three designatedstate forest hiking trails have been impacted.• Statewide, since 2006, there has been a 5 percentincrease (145 miles) in total snowmobile trail milesacross the state forest system. This is the result of a203-mile decrease in joint-use trails and a 348-mileincrease in designated snowmobile trails.• Snowmobile trail systems have been impacted ineach of the core gas forest districts. New snowmobiletrails have been created to replace impactedsnowmobile trails.• The need for road access for shale-gas developmenthas resulted in heavier traffic on state forest roads.Upgraded roads may be safer and easier to drive butmay have lost some of their “wild character” value.• The impact of shale-gas development on recreationalexperience and wild character as measured by theRecreation Opportunity Spectrum is a 9,341-acreincrease in semi-developed and developed acreage; a913-acre decrease in semi-primitive acreage; an 8,409acre decrease in semi-primitive non-motorized acreage;and a 19-acre decrease in primitive acreage.8Shale-Gas Monitoring Report• Initial measurements at six out of the seven operatingcompressor stations measured on state forest landswere louder than the 55db(A) suggested by the updatedGuidelines for Administering Oil and Gas Activity onState Forest Lands.• Forty-six out of 116 comment card respondents in coregas forest districts indicated that Marcellus activity hadchanged their visitation experience. Forty-one out of116 respondents indicated that Marcellus activity hadchanged their recreational use of the state forest.Community EngagementNatural gas development on state forest lands haspotential economic and social effects on localcommunities. The bureau interacts with localcommunities through the implementation of its publicparticipation policy, which includes public education andparticipation as an integral part of the management ofstate forest lands.The components included in the community engagementsection of this report are advisory committees, gas tourson state forest land, and focus groups.Key points and findings include:• Natural gas development on state forest landshas potential economic and social effects onlocal communities.• The bureau uses advisory committees to promotestakeholder feedback and produce recommendations.• Outreach offers valuable opportunities to demonstratehow natural gas activity is conducted and managed onpublic lands and has become a source of understandingpublic perceptions.• Focus groups have been designed to identify andunderstand the social effects on communities resultingfrom natural gas development on state forest lands.One pilot focus group targeting community leaders inPine Creek Valley was conducted in November of 2013.Two additional groups targeting government leaders inTioga and Clinton counties were conducted in 2014.and nuclear energy. The second-largest portion of U.S.energy usage is derived from natural gas or methane atapproximately 25 percent of all consumption. Natural gasis a fuel of choice for heating and industrial processesand electrical production where available in largequantities at a competitive price. Natural gas can beexpected to gain market share over time and may gainthe majority of new national energy consumption thatarises from normal annual energy need increases.TimberOne of the purposes for the creation of a state forestsystem was to provide a continuous supply of timber,lumber, wood and other forest products. According to thebureau’s strategic plan, state forest lands should providea sustained yield of high-quality timber consistent withthe principles of ecosystem management. In relationshipto shale-gas management, the bureau will monitorthe impacts to silvicultural practices, timber sales,distribution and placement, logging access, and revenues.• Approximately 15 percent of all shale gas producedin Pennsylvania comes from state forest lands. Thisgas is sold and distributed across the eastern andmidwestern United States to service energy marketson a daily basis.• Natural gas in the United States is an open-markettraded commodity that has seen the price per productunit fall from a high of approximately $10 per Mcf(1,000 cubic feet) in 2010 to the current (end of 2013)$4.75 per Mcf as a direct result of Pennsylvania shalegas coming onto the market grid and forcing gas pricesto moderate with respect to the gas supply.• On state forest land, the number of wells per padranges from one to ten, with approximately four toeight wells being the average. A typical well drainsapproximately 100 acres, but that figure can be less orgreater depending on a number of factors.• The bureau anticipates that approximately 3,000 gaswells may be drilled on state forest lands to fullydevelop the current leased acreage on commonwealthgas leases, on which approximately 568 had beendrilled by the end of 2013. A portion of these new wellswill be drilled on existing well pads.• State forest lease tracts targeting shale gas areestimated to be approximately one-fifth developed.This, however, is only a projection, as future energydevelopment patterns are difficult to accurately predictand depend on market conditions and the performanceof individual tracts.Key points and findings include:• Initial analysis shows that some timber managementactivities in core gas forest districts may be shiftingaway from areas leased for shale-gas development.Some of this change, however, may be due to gypsymoth salvage harvesting.• The effect of shale-gas development on timber harvestplacement and harvest allocation goals is inconsistentacross core gas forest districts. More information anddata are needed to discern reliable trends.• Shale-gas development is indirectly decreasingtimber harvest revenue due to Route 44 bondingcosts resulting from heavy hauling associated withshale-gas development.EnergyThe modern energy mix within the United States todayconsists chiefly of five energy sources: oil or petroleum,natural gas, coal, various renewable energy sources,Key points and findings include:Shale-Gas Monitoring Report9RevenueSince the first leases in 1947, the development of naturalgas resources on state forest land has generated a steadyand increasing revenue source for the commonwealth inthe form of rents and royalties. The data presented havebeen tracked and tabulated by the bureau since 1947.Key findings and points include:• The pre-shale-gas period of oil and gas activityprovided a total income to the commonwealth ofapproximately $153,659,522. The shale-gas period(through 2012, for the purposes of this report) hasprovided $582,250,644 in revenue. The combinedtotal of all revenue from the oil and gas lease programfrom 1947 to the end of 2012 has been approximately$735,910,166.• The influx of shale-gas production revenue beganin 2009 when most of the wells that had been firstproposed in 2007, 2008, and early 2009 were drilledand connected to the pipeline system and gas wasdelivered to the market.• Royalty income is just beginning to come to DCNRfrom the hundreds of new shale-gas wells on stateforest land.• Steady revenue growth from gas extraction is expectedto continue for the next decade as the full developmentof the leases comes to a conclusion.Forest LandscapesApproaches to forest management must take into accountnot only the direct impacts of various activities, butalso the cumulative, landscape-level impacts of theseactivities over time. Landscapes are contextual in nature,and thus there is no firm definition of what constitutes a“landscape” in a forested setting. This chapter, however,attempts to address certain forest values and impacts ofshale-gas activities across the greater forested land base.This initial report focuses on the landscape-level impactsof shale-gas development to forest conversion, the valueof “wild character,” forest fragmentation, and restoration.10Shale-Gas Monitoring ReportKey points and findings include:• Approximately 1,486 acres of the 2.2-million-acre stateforest system have been converted to facilitate shalegas development. During the same time period (2008 to2012), the bureau acquired 33,500 acres to add to stateforest system, including 8,900 acres in the core gasforest districts.• One assessment of the current impact of gasinfrastructure on wild character, using the RecreationOpportunity Spectrum as a measurement tool, is a9,340-acre increase in semi-developed and developedacreage. Correspondingly, there was a 912-acredecrease in semi-primitive area, an 8,409-acre decreasein semi-primitive non-motorized area, and a 19-acredecrease in primitive area.• In core gas forest districts, the bureau’s forestfragmentation analysis showed the largest increases inedge forest in Tiadaghton State Forest (1,813 acres) andTioga State Forest (1,257 acres). Overall, core gas forestdistricts added 4,355 acres of edge forest.• In the core gas forest districts, there was a loss of 9,242acres of core forest greater than 200 hectares. Coreforests are large parcels of interior forest not affectedby roads, pipelines, well pads, and other infrastructure.• Elk, Moshannon, and Tiadaghton state forests havehad a combined total of 10 well pads that have beenpartially reclaimed by reducing the pad size andreplanting the adjacent areas with vegetation.No gas infrastructure sites have received fullecological restoration.Partner MonitoringSusquehanna River Basin Commission(Remote Water Quality Monitoring Network)The Susquehanna River Basin Commission (SRBC)is a federal, interstate commission that guides theconservation, development, and administration of waterresources of the Susquehanna River basin.In response to increased levels of shale-gas developmentin the Susquehanna River basin, SRBC establishedits Remote Water Quality Monitoring Network(RWQMN) for real-time, continuous monitoring offield chemistry parameters. The RWQMN is intendedto help SRBC and its stakeholders develop a baselinecharacterization of water quality in the shale-gas regionand monitor for potential changes in water quality dueto shale-gas development.In November 2009, SRBC announced it was seekingpartners with whom it could expand its RWQMN torivers and streams remotely located in the northern tierof Pennsylvania. In 2010, the bureau provided $280,000from the Oil and Gas Lease Fund to SRBC to purchasemonitoring equipment and for subsequent operation andmaintenance costs. This funding source allowed for theestablishment of 10 monitoring stations.The bureau selected sites on state forest that wereexpected to experience shale-gas development and aidin the collection of baseline water quality data. It alsoselected areas where private shale gas developmentborders state forest and which DEP designated highquality or exceptional value streams.Forest CertificationPennsylvania state forests are certified (FSC® C017154)under Forest Stewardship Council™ standards. Timberharvested from Pennsylvania’s state forests are FSCcertified to ensure that the chain of custody from theforestland to the mill can be continued and that productsare coming from forests managed in an environmentallyresponsible manner.Third-party audits are conducted annually to ensurethat state forests are managed in compliance withFSC® standards. Every five years, a comprehensive recertification audit is conducted, followed by four annualsurveillance audits. Results of these audits are includedin reports to reflect the focus of the audit and to outlineany areas for needed improvement.In 2010, an audit with an intensified focus on shale-gasactivities was conducted. In 2013, the bureau underwenta comprehensive five-year re-certification and wasissued a new certificate with no major corrective actionrequests issued.Since 2008, there have been four corrective actionrequests and six observations made related to the recentshale-gas activity and management. A summary of thosefindings by the auditors is listed in the report.Research PartnershipsThe bureau regularly seeks partnerships and cooperateswith projects that advance the goals of its shale-gasmonitoring program. These research projects are partof the bureau’s overall monitoring approach, and helpaddress specific questions and issues with a greaterdegree of scientific vigor and certainty. Researchpartnerships also help the bureau address managementissues and questions with additional expertise andresources. The projects listed in this section will becompleted in 2014 and 2015, and represent the bureau’sinitial round of research projects related to shale-gasdevelopment on state forest lands.The following are research projects currently funded bythe bureau’s Shale-Gas Monitoring Program:• Evaluating Storm Water and Erosion andSedimentation Control Measures Associated withShale-Gas Infrastructure in Forested Landscapes• Quantifying Soil and Landform Change AcrossShale-Gas Infrastructure in Northern Pennsylvania• Quantifying the Cumulative Effects of MultipleDisturbance Regimes on Forested Ecosystems inNorthern Pennsylvania• Effects of Natural Gas Pipelines and Infrastructureon Forest Wildlife• Assessing Potential Impacts of Marcellus and UticaShale Energy Development on the Timber Rattlesnake(Crotalus horridus) in North Central PennsylvaniaShale-Gas Monitoring Report11Part 1: Introduction›› A Steward of theState Forest SystemThe Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR) Bureau ofForestry is broadly responsible for conserving the forests of the commonwealth.Specifically, its mission is to “ensure the long-term health, viability, and productivityof the commonwealth’s forests and to conserve native, wild plants.” While this forestconservation responsibility extends across all ownerships in Pennsylvania, one ofthe bureau’s most significant roles is to act, in the public trust, as steward of thecommonwealth’s 2.2-million-acre state forest system (Figure 1.1).The state forest system is truly a priceless asset for the citizens of Pennsylvania,stretching across 48 of the commonwealth’s 67 counties and comprising 13 percentof Pennsylvania’s forested land base. State forests were originally created “toprovide a continuous supply of timber, lumber, wood and other forest products,to protect the watersheds, conserve the waters and regulate the flow of riversand streams of this Commonwealth and to furnish opportunities for healthfulrecreation to the public” (Conservation and Natural Resources Act, 1995).The Bureau of Forestry manages state forests – the largest block of public land inthe commonwealth – for many uses and values. The overarching goal of state forestmanagement is to “managestate forests sustainablyunder sound ecosystemmanagement, to retaintheir wild character andmaintain biological diversitywhile providing pure water,emphasizing opportunities fordispersed recreation, habitatsfor forest plants and animals,sustained yields of qualitytimber, and environmentallysound utilization of mineralresources” (Penn’s Woods1995).Figure 1.112Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 1: IntroductionNatural gas developmentis one of the managementactivities that havehistorically occurredon state forest land.The activity contributessignificantly toPennsylvania’s economyand provides a source ofdomestic energy. Stateforests, in providingmultiple uses and valuesto society, are considered“working forests.”The economic use andsound utilization of mineral resources is part of thebureau’s mission in managing these lands. Natural gasdevelopment, however, especially at the scale seen inthe modern shale-gas era, can have impacts on a varietyof forest resources and values, such as recreationalopportunities, the forest’s wild character, scenic beauty,and plant and wildlife habitat.As part of its overarching goal of ensuring thesustainability of the commonwealth’s forests, the bureau,in 2010 and 2011, put into place a Shale-gas MonitoringProgram to monitor, evaluate, and report on the impactsof shale-gas development to the state forest system andits stakeholders. Additionally, in 2011, the Governor’sMarcellus Shale Advisory Commission recommendedthat “DCNR should monitor and document effects,both positive and negative, of natural gas developmenton plants and forests, wildlife, habitat, water, soil, andrecreational resources.” This document represents thebureau’s effort to report on the initial findings of thismonitoring program and to communicate to stakeholdersinformation about the activity on state forest lands.The Bureau’s Challenge: Balancing Uses and ValuesGiven the broad set of uses and values for which thestate forest is managed and the diverse expectations ofits stakeholders, the bureau aims to balance these usesand values across the state forest system. Managingfor multiple resources as well as human needs andvalues in a single landbase is a considerable challenge.Different forest uses and values can sometimes conflict.Furthermore, all citizens of Pennsylvania shareownership of the state forest system, and as a result, thereare many contrasting views and perspectives regardingmanagement strategies and permitted activities.The resource management conflicts and trade-offsinvolved in natural gas development are reflected inthe variety of views expressed by bureau stakeholders,which often depend on the perspectives, experiences, andvalues of the individual or group. State forest users whoenjoy back-country recreational experiences or have acabin near heavy gas activity may look upon shale-gasdevelopment unfavorably. Other users who utilize naturalgas for home heating or who experience improved roadaccess because of the development may have morepositive views of the activity. Some stakeholders mayapprove of the activity but only at a limited scale, whileothers may believe any natural gas development isincompatible with state forest management. The bureaumust consider the many viewpoints about the activity andits impacts as the bureau manages the state forest systemfor the citizens of the commonwealth.Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 1: Introduction13An Ecosystem ApproachIn managing for the varied uses and values of thestate forest system, the bureau takes an “ecosystemmanagement approach.” A key principle of this approachis to keep the complex interdependencies amongorganisms, communities, and natural processes withinan ecosystem functioning over long periods of time.Forest ecosystem management is the implementationof practices that promote the long-term health of theforested systems. Another aim of this approach is themaintenance of ecosystem integrity to accommodateshort-term stresses and adapt to long-term changes. Theapplication of ecosystem management should guaranteethat resource management activities are compatible withthe long-term ecological health of the state forest system.Forest Resource MonitoringForest resource monitoring plays an essential rolein ecosystem management by aiding in measuringecological health, as well as other social and economicconsiderations. Systematically monitoring key indicatorsand the results and impacts of management activitiescreates an important feedback loop for forest managers.Monitoring allows managers to objectively analyze bothshort-term and long-term changes in the forest and theimpacts of management decisions. Forest managers canthen learn from this information and adapt managementpractices accordingly.The bureau monitors a variety of activities and resourceson state forest land. Monitoring shale-gas developmentis especially important because the activity has thepotential to impact other important forest uses andvalues. The systematic monitoring of shale-gas activityhelps forest managers better understand the impactsand inform management decisions and practices. Theseimpacts can be positive, negative, or neutral, dependingon the forest resource value being considered and theperspective of the individual stakeholder or state forestuser. The objective reporting of shale-gas monitoringinformation promotes transparency while providingstakeholders with credible, objective information aboutthe activity on state forest lands.14Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 1: IntroductionII. Natural Gas Developmentand State Forest LandsPennsylvania allows land to be subdivided not only bysurface acreage but also by subsurface minerals (coal,limestone, sandstone, etc.) and various fluids (oil andgas). This ability to “sever” certain subsurface rights inpart or whole has been a key feature in Pennsylvania landownership patterns since minerals extraction first beganin Pennsylvania in the late 1700s.In the case of state forest lands in Pennsylvania,approximately 312,000 acres have some severed gasand oil subsurface rights attached to the title, which isapproximately 14 percent of the system (Figure 1.2). Onthese “severed lands,” The bureau respects the ownershipof the subsurface rights and, consistent with state law,allows “reasonable” surface access for mineral extraction.The commonwealth owns the majority of state forestland, approximately 1.8 million acres (86 percent), in“fee simple,” meaning the bureau owns and controlsall the surface and subsurface rights (Table 1.1). Acrossthe 2.2-million-acre state forest system, approximately388,000 acres have been leased by the commonwealth(Figure 1.2).Figure 1.2DCNR IssuedLease AcresSevered GasRights AcresRemainingAcreage OwnedFee SimpleTotal StateForest Acreage08,29677,20685,502Buchanan2,0078,11959,55169,677Tuscarora05,03790,98896,02517,3504,14937,02158,519Rothrock01,20494,77195,975Gallitzin2,5973,01318,76024,370Bald Eagle01,601191,789193,390Clear Creek46312,8332,67015,966Moshannon45,01640,157104,858190,032Sproul140,41432,996132,030305,439Lackawanna0029,60329,603Tiadaghton50,0761,56694,948146,590Elk7,49344,427148,032199,95201,3621291,491Susquehannock61,45686,372112,286260,113Tioga40,70417,710103,477161,890William Penn073473807Weiser031027,74928,059Delaware051282,59183,103Loyalsock20,64641,79852,106114,550Total388,222312,1971,460,6362,161,054State ForestMichauxForbesCornplanterTable 1.1 Statewide state forest acreage by gas ownership type (All state forest districts).Note: Data is based on GIS analysis. In some severed rights acres the Commonwealth has partial ownership.Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 1: Introduction15Figure 1.3Pre-Shale-Gas DevelopmentOil and gas development has been part of state forestmanagement since 1947. During this time, DCNR (or itspredecessor agencies) has conducted 74 oil and gas leasesales, resulting in more than 2,000 wells drilled on stateforest lands.For purposes of this report, state forest gas developmentis divided into two time periods – the historical periodfrom 1947 to 2008, and the shale-gas time period from2008 to present day.In the pre-Marcellus period, approximately 1,400 historicnatural gas wells were drilled on state forest lands forthe Oriskany sandstone and the Upper Devonian gassandstone targets (Figure 1.4). The Oriskany sandstoneis a conventional gas target present in the geologicsection below the Marcellus and considered to be a“deep” target in Pennsylvania. The Upper Devoniansandstones are a “shallow” gas target and are consideredto be unconventional targets as their reservoir propertiestend toward low permeability and porosity. Of theapproximate 1,400 gas wells drilled on state forest landsfrom 1947 to 2008, approximately 750 remain in service16Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 1: Introductionas producing gas wells or as gas storage wells.The gas storage wells are entirely developed withinthe Oriskany sandstone horizon and for the most partutilize the original existing wells for production accessto the reservoirs.The 74 lease sales mentioned above resulted in hundredsof thousands of acres of state forest lands being underlease at various times. The least amount of acreage underlease in any one year was fewer than 50,000 acres in thestartup years of 1947 to 1951, and the greatest amount ofacres under lease peaked in 1984 at near 1 million acres.The largest single lease sale offering of 450,000 acresoccurred in 1982. Prior to Marcellus Shale development,a lease sale of 217,000 acres was offered targeting theTrenton-Black River formation, which occurred in 2002.A large decrease in the acreage under lease occurredbetween 1984 and 1997 (Figure 1.5). This was due to thefact that natural gas operators had been unsuccessfulin discovering commercially feasible quantities of gasduring this time period. In order to avoid paying annuallease agreement rental fees, the operators relinquishedundeveloped leased acreage back to the commonwealth.Figure 1.4The bureau’s leases currently do not limit the depthsor geologic formations which may be drilled for oil ornatural gas. Consequently, many historically leased acresnow include a combination of both older deep and shallownatural gas wells, as well as more recent shale-gas wells.Natural Gas Storage on State Forest Lands: Thebureau issued its first natural gas storage agreementin 1956. Since then, the number of acres under leasefor this purpose has remained under 100,000 acres.Most of the acreage under lease by the bureau for gasstorage is represented by the Wharton, Leidy, andGreenlick storage fields located in northern Clinton andsoutheastern Potter counties. The Oriskany sandstonewas originally drilled for natural gas production in thisarea in the early 1950s, and the sandstone formationwas converted over to natural gas storage within a shortperiod of time.Marcellus and Other Shale-GasGeology and DevelopmentThe geologic diagram shown in Figure 1.6 represents asimplified “layer cake” depiction of the rock formations,which historically have been and currently are beingtargeted for natural gas development in Pennsylvania.On the top right of the diagram are the shallowsandstones that were the mainstay of Pennsylvania’s gasdrilling for many decades – these include the Venango,Bradford, and Elk groups of rocks. Closer to the bottomof the diagram is the much deeper Oriskany sandstone,which was targeted for drilling in about the 1950s. Inbetween these two depths of rock targets are other blackshales, including the Marcellus.Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 1: Introduction17Figure 1.5Marcellus Shale: The Marcellus Shale is an organic-richrock unit of Middle Devonian Age (approximately 375million years in age), which is found throughout mostof Pennsylvania (except for the southeastern portion ofthe state). At some locations, it is present at the groundsurface and can be seen in road cuts, etc.However, in most locations within the state, it is locatedonly below the ground surface. Where the Marcellusis located at certain depths and certain thicknesses, itdoes lend itself to natural gas drilling and production.These areas are generally located north and west of theAllegheny Front, which is a physical geographic lineof demarcation between the uplifted plateau section ofthe state (the northern, northwestern, and southwesternareas) and the ridge and valley areas of the state.In general, Marcellus Shale is thickest (>250 feet) innortheastern Pennsylvania and thinnest (<50 feet)in western and northwestern Pennsylvania. Figure1.7 is a contour map of Marcellus Shale thickness18Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 1: Introductionin Pennsylvania. The limit-of-study area edge isapproximately coincident with the Allegheny Front.Marcellus Shale is composed of very fine grain silicaparticles resembling sand, some clay content, and upto 10 percent organic material called kerogen. It isthe kerogen material that has been acted upon by heatand pressure over millions of years to produce oil,condensate, natural gas liquids, and natural gas.Prior to the success of Range Resources’ Marcelluswell development in the early 2000s in southwesternPennsylvania, natural gas drillers often observed “hits”of gas coming from the Marcellus and other black shaleswhile drilling through them to reach deeper rock targets.The flow of gas from these shales was not sustained forany length of time and thus not considered economicallyfeasible to develop. However, using a combination oflateral drilling (technology which has existed in at leastbasic form since the early 1870s) and hydraulic fracturing(used in Pennsylvania since at least the 1950s), shale-gaswells did become economically viable. By 2007, it wasbecoming apparent that the Marcellus was becoming alegitimate new gas “play” (an area of gas development)in the state.the rock unit has commercial potential across vast areas.The map in Figure 1.9 shows the locations of Marcelluswells permitted and completed through the end of 2012.Other black shales: Two other black shales lying abovethe Marcellus are also being targeted for drilling. Theseare the Burket and Geneseo black shales. As Marcelluswells are being drilled, the natural gas operators aredrilling through these shallower black shales. If theseshales have potential, they too are being developed forgas production.The Utica Shale is located several thousand feet deeperthan the Marcellus and is not shown on Figure 1.7.Currently, there are no wells on state forest landsproducing gas from the Utica Shale.The overwhelming majority of shale-gas production onstate forest lands is coming from the Marcellus Shale,and for purposes of this report, discussion will focus onMarcellus Shale wells.Marcellus Shale production areas in PA: So far, thenatural gas industry has focused on two main areas inPennsylvania where they have had the most success inestablishing commercial production – in northeastern/north-central and southwestern Pennsylvania. Insouthwestern PA (where there are fewer acres of stateforest lands), the Marcellus is considered a “wet gas”because it produces natural gas liquids in addition tonatural gas. These liquids add to the value of the gasproduced from the wells. Figure 1.8 shows these two areasof the greatest current Marcellus production and highlightsthe economic fairway for the Marcellus in Pennsylvania.Since the first wells were drilled into the Marcellus inPennsylvania in the mid-2000s, nearly 8,000 such wellshave been drilled across the state. Very few Marcelluswells have been plugged and abandoned, indicating thatFigure 1.6 Stratigraphic column of shale targetsin central Pennsylvania.Carter, Harper, Schmidt, and Kostelnik, AAPG Journal,January 2014Marcellus Shale and State Forest LandBecause the Marcellus Shale play underlies such alarge area in northern and western Pennsylvania, it iscoincident with large areas of state forest lands. Figure1.10 indicates the position of state forest lands in relationto the Marcellus play fairway and the lease/subsurfaceownership status of the acreage on state forest lands.Overall, approximately 1.5 million acres of state forestare underlain by Marcellus Shale. Of that acreage,44 percent (673,000 acres) is currently subjected togas development either through bureau-issued leases(386,000 acres) or severed lands development (287,000).See Figure 1.11, Figure 1.12, and Table 1.2.Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 1: Introduction19Figure 1.7 Possible limits of the Marcellus Shale present in Pennsylvania.Harper, Topographic and Geologic Survey of PA, 2012Figure 1.8 Location of current concentrations of driiling activity for the Marcellus in the Appalachian Basin.Harper, Topographic and Geologic Survey of PA, 201220Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 1: IntroductionFigure 1.9 Extent of the Marcellus In PA and locations of well permits issuedby the state for the Marcellus from 2008 to the end of 2012.Harper, Topographic and Geologic Survey of PA, 2012Pennsylvania State Forest Land and The Marcellus Shale·Date: 02/27/20141:1,900,000DCNR Oil & Gas Lease AgreementsState Forest LandPrivately Owned Oil & Gas RightsMarcellus Shale FairwayFigure 1.10Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 1: Introduction21Figure 1.11DCNR Shale-Gas LeasesIn 2008, DCNR held its first competitive gas leasesale targeting the Marcellus Shale in its north-centralPennsylvania holdings. The summary of the results ofthe 2008 leasing event and the subsequent events in2010 is detailed in Table 1.3. The shale-gas leases thebureau issued in 2008 and 2010 provide enhancedsurface protections, such as:increased setbacks from criticalrecreation infrastructure,streams, state parks, anddesignated wild and naturalareas; surface disturbance limitof approximately 2 percent oftotal tract acreage; increasedbonding for well plugging;requirement for pollutionliability and deep drillinginsurance; and prohibited entryin areas of special concernwithout written approval.An executive order, issuedin 2010, prohibits additionalleasing of state forest and parks for oil and naturalgas development.As a result of the 2008 and 2010 lease sales and the largeacreage inventory of the existing historical leases, theperiod from 2008 until 2013 saw approximately 568 newwells drilled on state forest lands. Table 1.4 details aDistrict Acreage inMarcellus Shale FairwayLease TractAcresSevered RightsAcresTotal AcreageSubject to GasDevelopmentForbes58,51917,3504,14921,499Gallitzin24,3702,5973,0135,610Clear Creek15,96646312,83313,296Moshannon190,03245,01640,15785,173Sproul305,348139,82932,996172,825Lackawanna18,159000Tiadaghton105,57250,0761,29051,367Elk199,9527,49344,42751,9201,49101,3621,362Susquehannock260,11361,45686,372147,828Tioga161,89040,70417,71058,414Delaware83,1030512512Loyalsock114,03320,64641,79862,4441,538,548385,630286,620672,250State ForestCornplanterTotalTable 1.2 State forest acreage in Marcellus fairway subject to natural gas exploration and development.22Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 1: IntroductionFigure 1.12listing of well activity on state forestlands from 2008 to the end of 2013.Leased Tract SummaryThis document http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/cs/groups/public/documents/document/dcnr_20028689.pdfrepresents an index to existingcommonwealth oil and gas leases onPennsylvania state forest lands. Thedocument details the current lessee(s)of record for each lease contractin existence, the correspondingeffective lease date, contract number,contract acreage, and defined royaltyrate due the commonwealth for oil orgas production from the leased tract.Additional information regardingstate forest district, county, andtownship pertinent to each leasecan also be found on this index.Lease Event# of Tracts# of AcresHigh Bid TotalSeptember 20081874,023$168,408,695January 2010631,947$128,397,888May 20101132,896$120,162,000Total35138,866$416,968,583Table 1.3 State forest shale-gas leases 2008-2010.YearWells Approvedon State ForestLeasesWells Approved onSevered Lands(Private Subsurface Rights)Total WellsApproved200810112120091364317920102445930320112645131520126412762013592079Totals777196973Total Number of Shale-Gas Wells Drilled on SF Lands: 568(Wells spud by the DEP definition)Total Number of Shale-Gas Wells Reporting RoyaltyProduction in December 2013: 394Table 1.4 Shale-gas well locations approved by BOF (end of 2013).YearWell Pads Approved onState Forest LeasesWell Pads Approved onSevered Rights LandsTotalWell Pads2008 to 201319927226Table 1.5 Number of approved well pads on state forest, Dec. 2013.Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 1: Introduction23The index also contains information related toenvironmental provisions included in the 2008 and 2010leases pertaining to allowable disturbance thresholdspermitted per lease and current status of each tract inrelation to those defined lease thresholds.Shale-Gas Management on State Forest LandsThe Bureau of Forestry’s mission statement recognizesnatural gas as a component of state forest management.When considering shale-gas resources, the bureauapproaches its management in the context of ensuringthe long-term sustainability of the state forest system.Decisions are guided by many sources of information,including laws and regulations, public input, the StateForest Resource Management Plan, gas leases andcontracts, and guidelines and procedures. Examples oflegislation or regulations that influence decisions include:• Act 18 (Conservation and Natural Resources Act):This act created the Department of Conservation andNatural Resources and states, “The department ishereby empowered to make and execute contracts orleases in the name of the commonwealth for the miningor removal of any valuable minerals that may be foundin state forests.”• State Forest Rules and Regulations: Lawful rules andregulations provided under Act 18 for “land which isowned or leased by the commonwealth and which isadministered by the Bureau of Forestry.”• Act 13 (Oil and Gas Act): Since DCNR shale-gaslease agreements occurred in 2008 and 2010, therehave been substantial changes to state oil and gaslaw. Some of these changes include: increasednotification; increased setback distances fromrivers, streams, wetlands, wells, and public watersupplies; increased well bonding; increased penalties;enhanced ability for the state to suspend, revoke, ordeny a permit; mandatory disclosure of hydraulicfracturing chemicals; mandatory on-site inspectionof erosion and sedimentation controls; mandatorynotification to DEP prior to commencing criticalstages of development, such as hydraulic fracturingand cementing; updating well construction and casing24Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 1: Introductionstandards; consideration of public resources; new airquality standards; and the adoption of permit updates.These enhanced environmental standards, many signedinto law by Gov. Corbett under Act 13, strengthenedthe protections in place for all shale-gas development,included that conducted on state forest lands.• Applicable Department of Environmental Protectionregulations, including but not limited to: Chapter78 (Oil and Gas Wells), Chapter 102 (Erosion andSedimentation Control), and Chapter 105 (Dam Safetyand Waterway Management).According to the bureau’s State Forest ResourceManagement Plan, “…The extraction of mineralresources on state forest lands will be managed andutilized by exploration and development using wise andsound conservation practices for the long-term good ofthe citizens of the commonwealth.”When administering the activity, whether through thelease or other agreement with a private owner, severalkey principles guide management decisions:• The bureau is responsible for managing and protectingnatural resource values and uses on state forest landswhere multiple activities occurring in close proximitymay present conflicts. The bureau strives to balancethose potential conflicts to ensure the long-termviability of those resources for the commonwealth.• The safety of workers and the general public will beforemost when making management decisions.• The lease is a binding contract, and the bureau isobligated to ensure that all lessees are following thelease provisions. Bureau staff should have a detailedunderstanding of the applicable leases in order tosuccessfully manage oil and gas activities on stateforest lands in accordance with the bureau’s mission.Historic leases are referred to as “legacy leases.”• Bureau staff and operators should work cooperativelyto establish constructive relationships to enableconsistent, reasonable, and environmentally sounddevelopment of oil and gas resources.• Planning is an important component of state forestmanagement. The bureau and operators should worktogether to review and discuss work plans relating tooil and gas development, production, and transmissionprior to the initiation of the activity (for leased andprivate ownership). Planning is a mutually beneficialtool that promotes efficiency and cost effectiveness,while minimizing adverse impacts to state forestresources, uses, and values.• Bureau staff will use adaptive resource management tomonitor oil and gas activities on state forest lands. Thisapproach includes the documentation of impacts – bothbeneficial and adverse. The knowledge and experiencegained from these efforts will promote continuedunderstanding to and improvement to the guidelines,best management practices, and the bureau’s ability tomanage oil and gas activity.• Whenever feasible, the placement of roads, pipelines,impoundments, compressor stations, well pads, andassociated oil and gas infrastructure should utilizeexisting disturbances, such as road networks, rightof-way corridors, or abandoned mine lands in orderto minimize forest conversion and impacts to stateforest lands.The Oil and Gas LeaseThe oil and gas lease the bureau uses to manage oil andgas exploration and development on state forest lands isa product of multiple generations of experience since thefirst leases were issued in 1947. The lease agreement usedfor shale-gas operations on state forest lands is one of themost robust and comprehensive oil and gas agreements inthe country. The lease itself is multifaceted and designedto protect the environment, recreation opportunities, andrare plant and wildlife habitat while considering otherforest management values and activities, such as timberharvesting. At the same time, the lease allows for aneconomic return to the commonwealth through rentaland royalty payments as the gas resource is extracted.The modern shale-gas lease agreement is designedto minimize the surface impacts of exploration anddevelopment, especially during development, whenlarge amounts of surface infrastructure are needed tosupport operations.One method the bureau uses is to limit the numberof well pads that any given lease tract may contain,thus limiting overall surface development impacts.Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 1: Introduction25Figure 1.13 Sample lease tract map with ecological, recreational, timber management,and scenic areas of special consideration.Technology advancements in shale-gas developmentare conducive to this goal as operators continue toimprove how much shale gas they can drain from asingle well and well pad. Expected future technologicalimprovements are all considered to be positive in respectto reducing the amount of surface disturbance.Another way the bureau limits impacts to state forestresources is through extensive pre-lease and developmentplanning. Before tracts are offered for lease, the bureauidentifies areas off limits to surface development, such asdesignated Wild and Natural Areas as well as sensitiveareas that require special consideration when planningdevelopment activities. Figure 1.13 shows an example ofa map provided to potential lessees.Surface Use AgreementsOn lands where the oil and gas rights have beenpreviously severed from the surface, the deed reservationclause is used as the primary guidance for management26Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 1: Introductionof the lands by the bureau. In most cases, the reservationsare such that the commonwealth has little to no abilityto directly control gas management activities due to therights of the subsurface owner, reserved in the deed. Inthese cases, the bureau strives to enter into a voluntarysurface use agreement (SUA) with the severed-rightsowner or lessee, which has advantages to both parties.With an agreement in place, both parties know withcertainty that operations can be scheduled and carriedout with a minimal difficulty as both parties are requiredto agree on operations prior to their commencement.This near elimination of uncertainty is beneficial to theoperator, and the ability to manage surface impacts hasmuch value to the bureau. The SUA typically includesenvironmental guidance, best management practices, andsurface impact mitigation provisions.Guidelines for Administering Oil and Gas Activityon State Forest LandsAnother critical document that guides gas activity onstate forest lands is Guidelines for Administering Oil &Gas Activity on State Forest Lands. The administrationof oil and gas development is complicated by a myriadof existing ownership rights, the quantity and variousvintages of existing lease agreements, the number ofprivate operators involved, and rapid advancements inoil and gas technologies. The objective of the guidelinesdocument is to establish and communicate a set of“guidelines” and best management practices (BMPs) thatprovide consistent, reasonable, and appropriate directionfor managing oil and gas activity on state forest lands inaccordance with the bureau’s mission. Specifically, theseguidelines provide information for:• Bureau staff: to manage oil and gas activitiesconsistently across state forest districts• Operators: to clearly communicate the Bureau ofForestry’s mission, expectations, and protocols formanaging natural gas development activities in anenvironmentally sound manner• Public: to provide transparency in the management oftheir state forest landsGuidelines for Administering Oil & Gas Activity on StateForest Lands can be found at http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/cs/groups/public/documents/document/dcnr_20028601.pdf.engaged in shale-gas management. The GMT is amultidisciplinary team that implements management ofall aspects of the gas leasing and development program.The team consists of approximately 65 professionals whomeet regularly to discuss the larger issues within the gasand land management program.The bureau’s Minerals Division administerssubsurface management programs, including oil andgas management. The division has 10 staff members,including geologists, an accountant, administrativepersonnel, and one water monitoring specialist. Thedivision administers subsurface minerals leases,manages gas development on state forest lands, serves asgeologic consultants for other commonwealth agencies,and coordinates and/or conducts geologic research onstate forest lands. Other central office program staffinvolved with shale-gas management include right-ofway specialists, wildlife biologists, botanists, recreationspecialists, communications specialists, silviculturespecialists, and program managers and directors.Field staff in the bureau’s state forest districts areresponsible for on-the-ground implementation of shalegas development programs and directly coordinate withnatural gas operators during all phases of development.Personnel involved include dedicated gas foresters anddistrict managers to oversee the program.The bureau tracks staff time dedicated to differentprograms. In 2012, approximately 56,500 hours werededicated to gas-related activities.StaffingWith the advent of shale-gas development on state forestlands, the bureau adjusted its internal structure to moreeffectively administer leases and address the myriadmanagement issues associated with the activity. Thebureau formed a Gas Leadership Team in its centraloffice headquarters to coordinate the activity, provideguidance to field staff, and address issues related toshale-gas development.Shale-gas development raises concerns about a widerange of environmental and social values of the stateforest system, including water quality and quantity, plantand animal habitats, core forest areas, recreation andaesthetics, forest soils, and air quality.The bureau also formed a Gas Management Team(GMT), which includes field and central office staffShale-gas development requires the clearing of foreststo construct well pads, roads, pipelines, and otherIII. Monitoring Efforts/ResultsShale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 1: Introduction27infrastructure. This conversion directly affects forestlandby increasing habitat fragmentation and reducing theoverall amount of forest cover. Construction activitiescould impact plants and animals and their habitat, suchas wetlands, forest-interior bird species, and species ofconcern, including timber rattlesnakes, bats, Alleghenywoodrats, and an array of native plant species.In addition to environmental concerns, shale-gasdevelopment could alter the character of north-centralPennsylvania, an area known as the “PennsylvaniaWilds,” that abounds with scenic beauty and outdoorrecreational opportunities. Understanding impacts tostate forest visitors is critical to sustaining tourismand the ability to provide healthful outdoor recreationopportunities to Pennsylvanians.Monitoring also helps the Bureau of Forestry understandthe positive effects of shale-gas development on stateforest lands. Road improvements and constructionassociated with the development has promoted increasedaccess to state forest land for recreation activities andadministrative purposes. The increase in forest edgearound well pads and pipeline corridors may provideadditional habitat for edge-frequenting wildlife species.Seeded pipeline corridors have the potential to increasesightings of popular wildlife species such as turkeysand white-tailed deer. Restoring cleared and disturbedforestlands may also bring additional opportunities toenhance habitat diversity in large blocks of mature forest.Shale-gas development on state forest lands has alsoplayed a significant role by increasing domestic energysupplies and revitalizing the economies of many localcommunities. Revenue generated from state forestleasing has provided a significant funding source forDCNR and other conservation efforts and state forestand park improvements. Additionally, each well onstate forest land is assessed an “impact fee,” which isallocated by state law and helps fund, among otherinitiatives, Growing Greener and the environmentaland conservation programs funded under the MarcellusLegacy Fund.28Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 1: IntroductionThe Bureau’s Shale-Gas Monitoring ProgramGiven the host of potential impacts of shale-gasdevelopment to the state forest system and its associateduses and values, the bureau has established a Shale-GasMonitoring Program to track, detect, and report on theimpacts of the activity. The program aims to provideobjective and credible information to the public andinform and improve shale-gas management efforts.The bureau’s Shale-Gas Monitoring Program wasinitiated in late 2010, when the Bureau of Forestry wasauthorized to hire a dedicated monitoring team of 15staff members. The program began full implementationin 2011, when the bureau completed staff hiring, metwith advisory committees, and began developingmonitoring protocols and building a variety of internalmonitoring tools, such as tracking and mappingdatabases. At this time, the bureau also initiated avariety of shale-gas-specific research projects to betterunderstand the specific potential impacts to state forestland. Data collection and field implementation beganin earnest in 2012, with a fully staffed program andestablished protocols and procedures. In early 2013, thebureau began compiling its monitoring data and initiatedthe writing of this report.Monitoring DefinedMonitoring is defined as “…the collection and analysisof repeated observations or measurements to evaluatechanges in condition and progress toward meeting amanagement objective” (Elzinga et al. 1998). A welldesigned monitoring program can demonstrate thatcurrent management objectives and strategies areworking and provide supporting evidence for theircontinuation. A monitoring program can also identifywhen current management objectives and strategies arenot working by detecting changes. These changes, eitherdesirable or undesirable, are critical for providing theevidence supporting updates, changes, or continuation ofon-the-ground management practices.It is important to note that monitoring data aresometimes of limited value in conclusively identifyingthe exact cause of detected changes. Identifying theexact cause of change falls into the realm of “research,”where great effort is made in isolating and testing theresponses from potential change agents in a controlledenvironment through a rigorous experimental design.However, monitoring data and information plays animportant role in identifying trends, guiding research,and evaluating management guidelines and practices.(The Bureau of Forestry does fund research projects aspart of its overall monitoring program. See Part 4 foradditional information.)• Revenue• Energy• Recreation• Local communities (community engagement)• Forest health• Timber products• InfrastructureDepending on the monitoring value and indicator, theamount of time and data necessary to register change ortrends varies significantly. Measuring acres of clearedforest, fragmentation, visitor attitudes, and certain waterquality parameters can be accomplished in a short timeframe. However, other data related to changes in plantcommunities, wildlife habitat, aquatic communities, treemortality, soil impacts, and forest health – to name afew – may take longer for change to be noted or for anyclear trends to emerge, which is why monitoring must beapproached from a long-term perspective.To systematically monitor these values, the bureau takesa three-tiered approach, recognizing that an effective,long-term monitoring program must be multifaceted.These tiers include: 1) an integrated and dedicatedShale-Gas Monitoring Team; 2) related forest resourcemonitoring and on-the-ground management activities;and 3) research and external partner collaboration.These tiers form the foundation for the bureau’s shale-gasmonitoring effort.The Bureau’s Monitoring ApproachTo help guide its monitoring program, the bureaudevised a suite of “monitoring values.” These values,developed with input from its advisory committees,help focus monitoring efforts on values that relate to thesustainability of the state forest system, the impacts ofnatural gas drilling on state forest to stakeholders andcommunities, and the Bureau of Forestry’s mission.The bureau organizes and reports on its monitoringefforts by these values, which include:• Water• Wildlife• Plants• Invasive species• Incidents• Air• Land-use (forest landscapes)• SoilsThese monitoring values may change over time as moreis learned about the activity and its impacts on stateforest lands.An Integrated and Dedicated Monitoring TeamThe core of the bureau’s monitoring effort includes adedicated and integrated Shale-Gas Monitoring Team.This team consists of 15 staff positions embedded invarious program areas of the the bureau. Staff are locatedin the bureau’s headquarters in Harrisburg, Penn Nurseryin Spring Mills, and the Tiadaghton Forest ResourceManagement Center in Waterville. The dedicatedmonitoring team positions and their program areas areoutlined below.• Forest assistant manager – Resource Inventory andMonitoring Section• Forester (three positions) – Resource Inventory andMonitoring Section• Forest technician (three positions) – ResourceInventory and Monitoring Section• Biometrician – Resource Inventory and MonitoringSection• Plant specialist – Resource Inventory and MonitoringSectionShale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 1: Introduction29Figure 1.14 Dedicated and integrated Shale-Gas Monitoring Team.• Plant specialist – Ecological Services Section• Wildlife specialist – Ecological Services Section• Water specialist – Minerals Division• Infrastructure specialist – Recreation Section• Social specialist – Resource Planning Section• GIS specialist – Geospatial Applications SectionSupervision and coordination of the dedicatedmonitoring team falls under the responsibility ofthe forest program manager for the Forest ResourceInventory and Monitoring Section. The organizationalstructure is shown in Figure 1.14.The Shale-Gas Monitoring Team has compiled and/ordeveloped numerous monitoring protocols to addressspecific monitoring values. These protocols are invarious stages (proposed, pilot, implementation, anddiscontinued) and subject to continuous review andrefinement. In total, there exist three protocols forsoils, five for water, six for local communities, five forinfrastructure, one for invasive species, seven for plants,30Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 1: Introductionand one for animals. A summary of these protocols isfound in Table 1.6.Related Forest Resource Monitoringand On-the-Ground Management ActivitiesMonitoring data used in this report is not limited totargeted protocols developed specifically for shale-gasmonitoring. The bureau and its partners regularly collectdata and information on forest resources – such as foresthealth data and forest community inventories – that arevaluable in discerning trends and analyzing potentialimpacts. Where appropriate, these data sources are usedto support monitoring the values outlined in this report.When it comes to on-the-ground management activities,the bureau incorporates regular monitoring as part ofits oil and gas management program administration.These mechanisms include planning, on-the-groundmanagement, and tracking and reporting of activitiesand accomplishments.Monitoring ValueProtocol NameStatusWaterWidespread Field Water Chemistry Sampling (hand-held meters)Pebble CountsPipeline ROW Stream CrossingWater Quality Monitoring Stations (sondes & grab samples)Water Quality Monitoring Stations (HOBOs & grab samples)ImplementedImplementedPilotImplementedImplementedSoilsWell Pad SoilsWetland Buffer SoilsRoadside SoilsProposedProposedProposedLocalCommunitiesFocus GroupsGas Tour SurveysDCNR Comment CardsNoiseViewshed AnalysisROS AnalysisPilotImplementedImplementedImplementedImplementedImplementedInfrastructureRoad AssessmentChemical Dust ControlBridgesTrailsPost Construction Stormwater ManagementImplementedImplementedImplementedImplementedImplementedInvasive SpeciesEarly Detection – Rapid Response (EDRR)ImplementedPlantsWell Pad VegetationRoadside VegetationSpecies of Special ConcernWetland Buffer VegetationSeismicReclamationVegetation & Overstory InventoryImplementedImplementedPilotPilotProposedProposedImplementedAnimalsDrift Fence ArraysDiscontinuedTable 1.6 Shale-gas monitoring protocols.Details regarding each protocol can be found in the respective sections of this report and theBureau of Forestry’s website.DCNR has dedicated nine forester positions toadministering shale-gas programs in the core-gasstate forest districts (Figure 1.15). Core-gas state forestdistricts are state forest districts that fall in the shale-gasfairway and are involved with the majority of the leasingand development for shale-gas that is occurring on stateforest land.These districts currently include the Moshannon, Sproul,Tiadaghton, Elk, Susquehannock, Tioga, and Loyalsockstate forests. These “gas foresters” are responsible for:• Maintaining district mineral records and reviewingmineral exploration permitsShale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 1: Introduction31• Monitoring compliance with various specific termsof the lease• Reviewing lease development plans and providingrecommendations• Administering and monitoring infrastructureconstruction• Administering right-of-way agreements andmonitoring the implementation of and compliance withspecific terms of the agreement• Administering road use agreements and monitoringthe implementation of and compliance with specificterms of the agreement• Monitoring and mitigating impacts to other forestuses by negotiating restricted gas traffic during peakrecreational use periods, e.g. hunting seasons, joint-usesnowmobile trails, etc.Proposed locations for well pads, rights-of-way, accessroads, compressor stations, and water impoundmentsare thoroughly reviewed by district personnel in thefield as well as by central office program area specialistsprior to approval and construction. In certain situations,additional field surveys are conducted by bureau expertsor environmental consultants. Overall, this effortrepresents a significant and critical process as potentialnegative impacts are avoided or minimized as a result.Significant measures are taken to protect, minimize,avoid, or mitigate impacts to water quality, wetlands,vernal ponds, spring seeps, sensitive habitats, federallyor state-listed plant and wildlife species, trails,recreation features, and other special resources.Appropriate monitoring of the resources follows toensure long-term protection.The major components of the bureau’s approach toon-the-ground management include:Field management and inspections. Once approvalis granted and construction begins, on-the-groundmanagement and inspections are critical for protectingspecial natural resources and state forest uses andvalues. Weekly inspections occur for most constructionactivities. Field inspections include items for safety andrecreation, permitting, and environmental resources.Proactive planning to avoid sensitive resource areas.This planning occurs at various points in time andranges from the State Forest Environmental Reviews(SFER) that occur prior to lease sales to the review andapproval process for locating specific infrastructure.Figure 1.15 Core gas state forest districts.32Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 1: IntroductionIncidents. The bureau tracks environmental and publicincidents that occur on its lands, including areas withshale-gas development. When appropriate, bureau staffreport incidents to DEP.Waivers. Operators may submit waiver requests forcertain conditions specified in the lease, includingbuffers, non-development areas, viewshed areas,spacing, offsets, and drilling requirements. Anydeviation from conditions specified in any of the leasesor agreements requires a waiver. Proper justification andreview ensures that potential impacts to environmentaland social values (non-development areas, aesthetics,wetland buffers, etc.) are avoided or minimized.Requests must be justified and submitted in writing tothe state forester for review and approval. The bureau’sintent is to review the waiver requests on a case-by-casebasis and to consider granting waivers where the waiverprovides greater protection for environmental or socialvalues and is in the best interest of the commonwealth.The waiver process aids in the further refinement offuture lease terms and management practices.Research and External Partner CollaborationWhen appropriate and as resources become available,the bureau seeks to fund and cooperate with researchentities in a coordinated fashion to address specificbureau needs related to shale-gas development. Theintent is to leverage opportunities and resources forwork that the bureau would not be able to accomplishotherwise, or work that is best suited for a researcheffort. In addition to working directly with researcherson state forest land, the bureau stays abreast of projectsoccurring on other ownerships in the shale-gas region.The bureau is currently working with several partnersor pursuing projects relating to water quality, habitatfragmentation, rattlesnake impacts, and visitor use andrecreation impacts. See the chapter specifically devotedto this topic for more information.Core Monitoring AreasWhile the shale-gas region in Pennsylvania covers almosttwo-thirds of the state and many state forest districts, thebureau currently focuses its monitoring efforts in what itrefers to as “core gas districts.” While conventional gasactivity has occurred outside these defined districts, andshale-gas activity may occur outside the region in thefuture, this region – consisting of Susquehannock, Elk,Moshannon, Sproul, Tioga, Tiadaghton, and Loyalsockstate forest districts – currently is home to the mostconcentrated shale-gas activity. Monitoring efforts, datacollection, and reporting are all focused on this sevendistrict region. The composition of this core area maychange over time if there are changes in the patterns ofgas exploration and development.Shale-Gas Monitoring ReportsAn essential function of the Shale-Gas MonitoringProgram is to regularly compile and analyze its data andfindings. As mentioned previously, this reporting servestwo functions: It assists the bureau in evaluating impactsand adjusting, if necessary, its management planningand practices. And it communicates to the public theimpact of the activity on commonwealth-owned stateforest lands. This first report is also an opportunityto communicate basic information about the bureau’smonitoring program and its plans for future monitoringefforts. Periodically, the bureau will issue additionalreports as more data and information are collected.The data included in this report are derived from avariety of sources. Most of the data and informationpresented go through Dec. 31, 2012. When possible, themost up-to-date information was incorporated into eachsection’s monitoring analysis.Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 1: Introduction33Part 2: Monitoring Values›› InfrastructureI. Key Points:• Approximately 1,486 acres of forest have been converted to facilitate gas development inthe core gas districts, including roads, infrastructure, well pads, and pipelines.• 161 total miles of road have been improved or constructed for shale-gas development inthe core gas districts. Of these, 131 miles of state forest roads that existed prior to theshale-gas development have been improved or upgraded for gas development activities,and 30 miles of new roads have been constructed for gas development activities. This roadwork involved the conversion of approximately 242 acres of forest.• 191 infrastructure pads have been constructed to facilitate shale-gas development in thecore gas districts. This involved the conversion of approximately 786 acres of forest.• 104 miles of pipeline corridor have been constructed or widened in the core gas districts.This involved the conversion of approximately 459 acres of forest.• Six new bridges and six large culvert stream crossings have been either replaced orinstalled by gas companies in the core gas districts.• 83 percent of all dust control activities on state forest lands related to shale-gasdevelopment have used non-potable water rather than chemical dust suppressants.• Extensive amounts of heavy truck traffic have been reduced on state forest roads throughthe use of water transport systems.• Waivers are typically granted to reduce overall impact to the forest. The most commonlease-term waivers are related to buffers on wetlands and roads.II. IntroductionState forest lands located within the shale-gas region are experiencing significant activityassociated with the development of the shale-gas resource. Natural gas exploration anddevelopment can cause short-term or long-term conversion of existing natural habitats togas infrastructure. The footprint of shale-gas infrastructure is a necessary part of shale-gasdevelopment; however, the bureau attempts to manage this infrastructure to reduce surfacedisturbance and minimize impacts to other state forest uses and values.In addition, the existing transportation infrastructure on state forest lands, such as roadsand bridges, is experiencing a considerable increase in use due to shale-gas development.The bureau strives to design and maintain its infrastructure to efficiently serve itsintended purpose and ensure the safety of its staff and state forest users, while providingopportunities for quality outdoor experiences.34Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, InfrastructureThis chapter focuses on the infrastructure required forshale-gas development as well as the effect of shale-gasdevelopment on existing state forest roads. State forestinfrastructure that is generally associated with recreation,such as hiking and ATV trails, is covered in greaterdetail in the Recreation section of this report.RoadsThe right of ingress and egress to private subsurfaceestates is provided for by law. This may include the rightto construct new roads as necessary. Similarly, lesseesare permitted to construct new roads to develop theirleased lands. The bureau works with private subsurfaceowners and lessees to use existing roads wheneverfeasible, reducing the need for additional clearing andnew road construction. The use of state forest roadsby private subsurface operators is mandated by a roaduse agreement. A road use agreement is required forlessees using state forest roads outside of their leaseboundaries. Road use agreements set limitations onroad use and establish conditions for road improvementsand maintenance. Some state forest districts have alsosuccessfully used road use agreements to coordinatethe construction of recreational infrastructure, such asalternative snowmobile trails, where the operators haveaffected traditional recreational use of state forest roadsand trails.Most state forest roads are improved dirt roadssurfaced with shale, gravel, or limestone and designedto accommodate travel by licensed motor vehicles atmaximum speeds of 25 miles per hour. Historically,the majority of traffic on state forest roads has beenattributed to the following:• Recreational users of state forests in passenger vehicles• Bureau personnel in light duty and occasional heavyduty vehicles for administration of state forest lands• Bureau maintenance staff and equipment to maintainand rehabilitate roads• Commercial timber operators utilizing tri-axle logtrucks or tractor-trailers to haul timber purchased fromthe bureau to lumber mills (averaging two to four tripsper day)These types of traffic are considered the traditional usesof state forest roads, and the roads were constructed andare maintained to accommodate such uses.Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, Infrastructure35On average over the past few years, the bureauhas annually administered the construction ofapproximately 12 miles of new road and 100 milesof road improvements as part of its statewide timbermanagement program. These timber haul roads are builtto the specifications in the Silviculture Manual. This newconstruction is typically considered temporary in thatthe majority of these roads are retired at the conclusionof the timber sale operation. Roads that are improvedas part of a timber sale include both public use roadsand previously retired haul roads that are reopened.Improvements to these types of roads as part of a timbersale are implemented to bring the road condition up to theminimum standard necessary to accommodate the sale.The minimum road standards required to facilitate shalegas development on state forest land exceed the minimumrequirements necessary to accommodate the traditionaluses of state forest roads. Shale-gas development requiresextensive truck traffic (hundreds of trips per day duringperiods of peak activity) by vehicles larger than thosetypically using state forest roads. As a result, existingroads that are utilized by the shale-gas industry must beupgraded to meet different standards. Commonly, theroad’s base material must be increased to accommodatefrequent trips of heavier equipment, and road widthsmust be increased to accommodate wider trucks and twolane travel. Similar road characteristics are necessarywhen new roads are constructed for this activity.Although temporary in nature, the volume and frequencyof shale-gas truck traffic is in stark contrast to thepublic’s expectations and typical experiences on stateforest lands. Heavy truck traffic increases social andenvironmental concerns related to noise, dust, accesslimitations, public safety, and user experience, as wellas operational concerns associated with road conditions,maintenance, and rehabilitation. One primary attributeof the state forest roads being affected by shale-gasdevelopment is the “wild character” of the road. Stateforest roads, in general, have a traditionally rustic andaesthetically pleasing value and wild character. Scenic36or pleasure driving is the largest motorized recreationaluse of state forest lands. Even when other recreationalactivities are the primary reason for forest visits, most ofthe visiting public appreciates and values what they seeon their way to their ultimate destination. It is importantthat the wild character of state forest roads be preservedto the greatest extent possible during and following useby gas companies.The bureau has adapted to this non-traditional forestroad use by shale-gas operators by developingupdated standards applying to road constructionand road improvements for shale-gas development.Implementation of these new standards is required beforeuse of state forest roads commences. This ensures thatany road suitability issues are addressed prior to handlingthe increased truck traffic.In addition, heavy-hauling restriction guidance has beengiven to gas operators to avoid conflict with traditionalforest users. On days with heavy-hauling restrictions,operators are asked not to operate heavy-hauling trucks(e.g., water trucks, drill rigs) on state forest roads. Theheavy-hauling restriction dates are adapted from year toyear, but the general timeframes are found in Figure 2.1.Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, InfrastructureState Forest Heavy Hauling RestrictionsHolidays• Memorial Day weekend• Fourth of July holiday and weekend(if applicable)• Labor Day weekendHunting and Fishing Seasons• Opening weekend of trout season• Opening weekend of youth spring gobbler season• Opening weekend of regular spring gobbler season• Regular bear season• Portion of regular firearms deer season, including opening dayHeavy hauling and seismic activity may be restricted during the following dates at the discretionof the district forester:• Seismic activity may be restricted during the morninghours of spring turkey season.• Special activities or events on state forest or adjacent statepark lands as identified by district. Restricted roads andhours of operation will be determined by the district.• Opening day of deer archery season• Opening day of youth/special use hunting• Opening day of early muzzleloader seasonOperators should be advised that the list of restricted dates has been minimized to the greatest extent possibleand that potential visitor use conflict may be encountered beyond the specified dates.The bureau will permit minor truck traffic between the hours of 10 p.m. and 4 a.m. for daily or essential needsonly (e.g., cutting removal, drinking water delivery, sanitation, cement).Figure 2.1There are distinct benefits associated with the use ofstate forest infrastructure by shale-gas operators fortheir development operations. With regard to cost, it isof benefit to the bureau that the roads needed for gasoperations are improved or constructed at the cost of thegas companies. Forest managers ensure that that theseroads meet or will meet the standards needed by thebureau and forest users while also being suitable for thegas industry. In most cases, roads used by gas companieswill not need large scale maintenance investments by thebureau for many years. This allows the bureau’s limitedroad maintenance budget to be utilized on other roads.Not only are roads improved, but also bridges and largeculverts. These stream crossing improvements havealso been completed by gas companies at no cost to thebureau. In some cases, crossings have been installed inareas where it may have been cost prohibitive for thebureau to otherwise provide access for traditional forestactivities such as timber management and recreation.In such cases, construction by the gas companies hasopened new areas for access by other forest users.Another distinct benefit of working with the gascompanies on infrastructure construction has beenan increased knowledge of new technologies forinfrastructure construction and maintenance. This newknowledge has and will continue to benefit the bureauthrough cost savings and durability improvements relatedto construction and maintenance techniques.Well PadsA well pad is the area where shale-gas well drilling andhydraulic fracturing occurs. A typical shale-gas wellpad is approximately 3.5 to 7 acres. On state forest land,the number of wells per pad ranges from one to 10, withapproximately four to eight wells being the average.A typical well drains approximately 100 acres, but thatShale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, Infrastructure37figure can vary depending on a number of factors. Wellpads are typically constructed of crushed limestone orother rock, compacted to form a stable operating surface.Modern drilling rigs weigh several thousand tons andrequire construction of a solid pad that can adequatelysupport their weight and maneuverability needs.Compressor Pads and Compression SystemsCompressor stations are commonly used in associationwith gas production and pipelines. Gas well pressuresand volumes steadily decline over the life of production.Similarly, gas moving through steel pipelines createsfriction, causing pressure loss. Compressor stations useturbines, motors, or engines powered by electricity,diesel fuel, or natural gas to increase the pressure of thegas within the pipelines to overcome friction and movethe gas from one location to another. During production,compressors draw gas from the well bore as productionvolumes decrease and discharge it at higher pressurethrough the gathering pipeline. Secondary compressionmay be necessary, depending on the length of thegathering line, to increase pressure as the gas enterslarger marketing or transmission lines.The footprint of a compressor station is variable.Compressors are specifically engineered for a givencompression need. Compressors are generally housedwithin a structure and under roof. These sites may alsoinclude gas-related infrastructure such as separators,which capture undesirable particles or liquids, thatmay condense out of the gas stream as it flows throughthe pipeline. Chemicals necessary to aid productionduring cold temperatures can also be stored at acompression site.There are currently two strategies for providing thecompression necessary for successful gas production:• Distributed – The compressors are co-located on theestablished well pad and service all the producing wellswithin that pad. Distributed compressors are smaller,produce less horsepower, and are more numerous than38those associated with centralized compression. Theconfiguration is dynamic, and compression is movedand adjusted as necessary.• Centralized – The compression is strategically locatedwithin the development field to service gas producedfrom multiple well pads and dozens of individualwells. Centralized compression often requires severallarge units that produce considerable horsepower.These facilities typically require the development ofan additional pad site to accommodate the necessaryinfrastructure.A negative aspect of gas compression is the noisecreated by the engines. Noise from compressors candramatically affect a state forest user’s recreationalexperience and generate conflict. The undevelopedwild character of state forests offers peace, solitude,and a feeling of remoteness for many users. Unlikecompressors, most sources of potential noise onstate forest land are temporary in nature. Thus, thecontinuous noise from compressor stations makesthem predominantly incompatible with other stateforest resources, uses, and values. As such, alternativesthat avoid siting compressors on state forest lands arepursued where possible; however, a certain amount ofcompression will be necessary on state forest lands forefficient gas transportation and production. The bureau’sobjective is to maintain and perpetuate a visitor’santicipated recreational experience on state forest lands.Additional information regarding compressor noiseand monitoring of compressor noise is presented in theRecreation section of this report.Fresh Water Storage and Water Conveyance SystemsThe water-intensive nature of shale-gas developmentrequires extensive advance planning. DEP andcorresponding interstate river basin commissionshave jurisdictional responsibility for surface waterresources and associated withdrawal requests. However,when the surface or groundwater withdrawal point islocated within state forest lands and the commonwealthowns the surface and subsurface rights, the terms forShale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, InfrastructureWhen reviewing requests forwater acquisition, the bureautakes into consideration potentialimpacts to watersheds, headwaterstreams, wetlands, and adjacentecological resources.accessing the water withdrawal site are set forth in thelease agreement. On the other hand, when the surfaceor groundwater withdrawal point is located within stateforest lands and the commonwealth owns the surfacerights and a private party owns the subsurface rights,the terms for accessing the water withdrawal site arecustomarily contained in a surface use agreement.The development of a single shale-gas well requiresan average of 5 million gallons of water for thecompletion process (i.e., hydraulic fracturing). Thisquantity of water must be readily available and in closeproximity to the well site throughout this process.Centralized fresh water storage facilities and temporarypipelines for transporting water are preferred over thetraditional method of housing multiple storage tankson the well pad and filling them via truck. Centralizedfreshwater facilities reduce truck traffic and in somecases can decrease total acreage disturbed because animpoundment is not needed at each pad.Typically, water needed for shale-gas development can beacquired through:• Surface water withdrawals• A third-party supplier who trucks the water on site• Groundwater well withdrawals.Whenever feasible, freshwater ismoved from centralized storagefacilities to the active location(s)via pipeline, significantly reducingheavy hauling, minimizing vehicularconflicts, and decreasing air anddust pollution. These pipelines may be above-ground orburied water pipeline networks, or a combination of both.When feasible, buried pipelines are installed to minimizeadditional earth disturbances by being co-located withexisting gas pipelines, buried in the ditchline or vegetatedberm, or trenched and buried beneath the running surfaceof the road.There are several options for water storage, depending onthe specific needs of the project:• Earthen impoundments – non-portable, open pitsthat may involve significant construction operations;typically five to 14 acres in size and can serve manywell pads, thereby reducing the overall disturbance.Constructed dam breasts over 15 feet high must bepermitted. These water impoundments are tracked as atype of pad by the bureau.• PortaDams – semi-portable, above-groundimpoundments consisting of heavy-duty liners on asteel framework; perimeter can be lined with hydraulicfracturing tanks for additional storage capacity;typically three to five acres in size and can servemultiple well pads.• Above-ground storage tanks – semi-portable, boltedtogether, cylindrical tanks that are often set on concrete.Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, Infrastructure39Other Types of Infrastructure and PadsOther types of infrastructure are occasionally requiredto facilitate shale-gas development. These includestorage pads, meter stations, valve stations, tap stations,and stone pits.• Storage pads – facilities that provide for the temporarystorage of equipment and stockpiling of materials usedin the development of shale-gas infrastructure. Not tobe confused with gas storage fields.• Meter stations – facilities that measure the amountof natural gas being supplied by a given source toa gas transmission pipeline (receipt meter station)or the amount of natural gas being withdrawn froma gas transmission pipeline by a customer (salesmeter station).• Valve stations – facilities used to isolate a segmentof the main pipeline on a gas transmission pipeline.These stations are typically located at distances of15 to 50 miles along each line to limit the amount ofpipeline that may need to be depressurized for tie-insand maintenance. These facilities also aid in reducingthe amount of gas that would be lost in the event of apipeline break.• Tap stations – facilities that direct gas from agathering system to a transmission pipeline to otherlocations. These facilities typically have only pressureregulating equipment.• Stone pits – facilities where stone is extracted tosupport shale-gas development activities.For reporting, these types of infrastructure havebeen grouped together and referred to as “other”infrastructure pads.PipelinesThe development of oil and gas resources requirespipelines for delivering the product to market. Movingproduced gas from the well to the marketplace requiressignificant planning, engineering, and infrastructuredevelopment. Gathering pipelines move natural gas frommultiple well pads to centralized marketing pipelines.40Marketing pipelines flow to transmission pipelines, whichtransport large volumes of gas over long distances todistribution centers or storage facilities.Existing pipeline infrastructure and capacity may beinadequate for current and anticipated gas productionneeds. When compared to other aspects of gasdevelopment, pipeline construction has the greatestpotential to cause forest conversion and fragmentation dueto the length and quantity of pipelines required. Therefore,careful pipeline planning occurs early in the developmentprocess to address production needs while minimizingimpacts and implementing ecosystem management.Midstream pipelines accommodate multiple operators,thereby reducing additional right-of-way needs, costs, andunnecessary impacts and improving efficiency.Lessees or subsurface owners have the right to constructpipelines to transport oil and gas produced on state forestland. To construct a pipeline on state forest lands, lesseesmust obtain a license for right-of-way. The bureau hasdeveloped a formal process to administer such requests. Thebureau works with all operators to coordinate the locationand establish the conditions for pipeline construction.Infrastructure Approvals and WaiversThe bureau conducts an extensive review of all gasactivities and infrastructure proposed by operators. Tofacilitate these reviews, the bureau is typically providedwith the operator’s unconstrained conceptual site plan asearly in the development process as possible. The bureauthen evaluates the plan for known areas of concern orpotential conflicts and coordinates with the operator todevelop an infrastructure layout that minimizes impacts tostate forest land while facilitating efficient extraction of gas.Bureau staff confirm that all approvals, permits, and reviewrequirements have been satisfied for the proposed activityand provide final approval. Final approval letters are issuedto lessees for all proposed infrastructure. Commencementof construction and installation of proposed infrastructureis authorized upon receipt of final approval from the bureau.Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, InfrastructureThe recent DCNR Oil and Gas Leases and also theGuidelines for Administering Oil and Gas Activityon State Forest Land contain a number of provisionsintended to prevent gas development operations frominterfering with other state forest uses and values. Forexample, the recent vintage of leases prohibits welldrilling and site clearing within the following distancesfrom certain features:• 200 feet from any building• 200 feet from any stream or body of water• 300 feet from any stream or body of water designatedas exceptional value by DEP• 300 feet from any trail or road• 300 feet from the boundary line of leased premises• 600 feet from the boundary line of a state park or astate forest Wild or Natural Area.These restrictions are in place to minimize the impact ofdevelopment when it occurs near valued resources. Forinstance, the buffer for streams helps prevent erosionand sedimentation impacts, and the buffer for trailsand roads helps preserve the wild character of thesetravel corridors.Any deviation from conditions specified in leases oragreements with the bureau requires an approved waiver.The bureau grants waivers when the proposed deviationfrom lease terms is the most effective way to resolveconflicts between competing resource uses and values,minimizes overall impact to the forest, and is in the bestinterest of the commonwealth. The waiver process is amechanism to resolve complex, on-the-ground resourcemanagement challenges and to monitor the effectivenessof management practices and guidelines. Each waiverrequest is reviewed on a case-by-case basis.To request a waiver, the operator submits the followingto the bureau:• Identification of the specific lease term for which awaiver is sought• Description of the proposed deviation• Justification of the need to deviate from the identifiedlease term• Identification of alternatives considered andinvestigated• Any necessary mapping, including GIS datawhere applicableThe waiver request is reviewed by bureau staff todetermine if it is sufficiently documented, justified,and consistent with local management objectives.Modifications to the project or additional alternativesmay be suggested to the operator during this reviewprocess. Often a compromise can be reached thatbalances the objectives of the operator and the protectionof high-value resources.The state forester reviews the waiver request andprovides an approval or denial. If it is determined thatthe requested waiver does not minimize overall impact tostate forest resources, uses, or values and is not inthe best interest of the commonwealth, the waiverrequest will be denied. Waiver approvals may be subjectto additional conditions that require the operator toprovide reasonable protection or mitigation measures.Through 2012, the bureau approved 35 waivers of leaseterms for well drilling and site clearing. The breakdownof waivers by type is shown in Table 2.1. The mostcommonly waived lease term was the buffer on wetlands.At times, the development plans for gas extractionnecessitate impacts in the vicinity of wetlands. In suchcases, the goal is to minimize impacts to the wetlandsthemselves and allow impacts in the wetland buffers onlywhen absolutely necessary.Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, Infrastructure41The justification for waiving wetland buffers wastypically that doing so minimized impacts on thewetlands themselves. In several instances, wetlandsoccurred in previously disturbed areas (e.g., clear cut,strip mine), and these disturbed/low-quality wetlandswere preferentially developed instead of impactingundisturbed forest. See the Flora chapter for moreinformation about wetland buffer waivers.Type of WaiverNumber of WaiversWetland Buffer15Road Buffer9Lease Boundary Buffer5Trail Buffer2Natural Area Buffer1Stream Buffer0Other3Table 2.1The second most common waiver of lease terms wasfor buffers of existing roads. The justification for roadwaivers was typically that the waiver eliminated theneed to construct a new access road, thereby reducingforest fragmentation.Justification for other types of waivers of lease termsfollowed these same themes. Waivers were often grantedto take advantage of existing disturbance. The decisionto grant a waiver typically balanced one type of impactagainst another, such as allowing a lease boundary bufferto be encroached upon to maximize the distance froma water supply watershed. For pad placement, waiverswere sometimes granted to minimize the number ofpads necessary to drain the gas from a leased tract. Padlocation was preferentially given to flat areas in order tolimit the amount of cut and fill necessary and to reduceerosion risks.Overall, the waiver of lease terms approval process isviewed as successful adaptation that gives operatorsaccess to gas resources while minimizing impacts tostate forest resources, uses, and values. The waiverapproval process is a collaborative effort in which the42concerns of the operator and the bureau are all balancedto achieve an outcome that is in the best interest ofthe commonwealth.III. Monitoring Efforts/ResultsSeveral practices have been designed to monitor thedevelopment of new shale-gas infrastructure and theimpacts on existing state forest infrastructure:• Spatial data assessment – GIS analysis of data collectedon the construction of shale-gas infrastructure and theeffects on the state forest road system• Infrastructure and recreation field visits – a periodicreview of issues, new methods, products, and benefitsof shale-gas development with district personnel andthe bureau’s infrastructure monitoring specialist• Forest road survey - designed to monitor thestructural and material aspects of forest roads thatare newly constructed or improved for utilization byshale-gas development• Road shutdown, reroute, and general traffic controlmonitoring – within each of the core shale-gas districts• Bridge and crossing inspection – the evaluation andentry into the bureau bridge inspection database ofnew and replacement bridges and culverts greaterthan 36 inches• Dust control notification - implementation of the dustcontrol notification form and database for all chemicaldust control applications for state forest roadsEach of these monitoring efforts is discussed in greaterdetail in the sections that follow.Spatial Data AssessmentThe bureau monitors the state forest and shale-gasinfrastructure spatially, through the use of GPS andGIS systems, and in tabular form through numerousdatabase applications. This spatial data comes from bothsubmittals by the gas companies and data gathered bybureau field staff. The analysis that follows providesa spatial assessment of the state forest road system, asaffected by shale-gas development, and the infrastructureconstructed specifically for shale-gas development.Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, InfrastructureRoadsAn inventory of state forest roads has been used sincethe late 1960s in the form of straight-line diagrams.These documents describe the road condition, length,width, materials, and drainage infrastructure. Overtime, as technology has advanced, so has the bureau’smethodology for inventorying and monitoring roadinfrastructure. Presently, the bureau incorporates theuse of GIS technology as the primary data capturingand analysis tool.In the core gas state forestdistricts, a total of 161miles of roads have beenconstructed or modifiedto facilitate shale-gasdevelopment (see Table2.2). The Tiadaghton StateForest has seen the greatestmileage of new roadconstruction and existingroad modifications toaccommodate this activity(see Figure 2.2).The linear distance of new road construction and existingroad miles that were widened to facilitate gas developmentcan be expressed in acres by estimating the final rightof-way width that will be maintained in a non-forestedcondition. It is estimated that approximately 242 acresof forest were cleared to construct new roads and widenexisting roads (Table 2.3). Final right-of-way (ROW) widthsthat will be maintained in a non-forested condition forsome roads have not yet been determined, and some of thisacreage could be returned to a forested condition over time.Miles ofNew RoadConstructionMiles ofExisting RoadModifiedTotalMoshannon4.711.516.2Sproul4.039.143.1Tiadaghton13.544.457.9Elk0.30.00.3Susquehannock0.18.38.4Tioga6.015.821.8Loyalsock1.611.813.4Total30.2130.9161.1State Forest DistrictTable 2.2 Miles of road construction and modification for 2008-2012 bystate forest in the core gas region.Overall, the increase inroad miles on developedtracts resulting from newconstruction to supportshale-gas activities rangedfrom 0.1 percent in theSusquehannock StateForest to 9.7 percent in theTiadaghton State Forest(see Figure 2.3).Figure 2.2 Miles of road construction and modification for 2008-2012by state forest in the core gas forest districts.Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, Infrastructure43Figure 2.3 Percent increase in total district road mileage on developed tractsattributed to gas development from 2008 to 2012.State Forest DistrictAcres Convertedto Road ROWMoshannon31.7Sproul20.8Tiadaghton68.1Elk1.2Susquehannock4.1Tioga47.5Loyalsock68.2Total241.6Table 2.3 Acres converted from forest to road ROWfrom 2008 to 2012.The density of roads can be expressed as an averageof the miles of roads in relation to the area of each stateforest tract. As would be expected, given the mileagedata presented above, an increase in road density hasalso resulted between pre-development (2008) and 2012(Table 2.4).Each state forest in the core gas region has experiencedan increase in road density (Figure 2.4). The greatestpercentage change in road density has occurred onthe Tiadaghton State Forest, followed by the TiogaState Forest.Pre-DevelopmentAverage TractRoad Density(miles/square mile)Current (2012)Average TractRoad Density(miles/square mile)Change inRoad Density(miles/square mile)PercentChange inRoad DensityMoshannon1.82.00.29.5Sproul1.01.10.112.7Tiadaghton1.01.50.438.9Elk0.90.90.02.7Susquehannock1.21.20.17.5Tioga1.11.30.221.0Loyalsock0.70.80.119.1State Forest DistrictTable 2.4 Road density on tracts with shale-gas development from 2008 to 2012.44Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, InfrastructureFigure 2.4 Average road density on tracts with development from 2008 to 2012.PadsThe term “pad” is used to reference infrastructure sitesthat include well pads, compressor stations, freshwaterimpoundments, storage pads, stone pits, and meter,valve, or tap stations. Associated with each pad is a limitof clearance (LOC). The LOC is a bureau designationthat is negotiated between the district and gas companywhere actual removal of predominant vegetation cover –including overstory, midcanopy, or understory vegetation,and/or original soil substrate – will occur. The LOCincludes the as-built operational area of the infrastructureplus the area that was cleared around it to facilitate theconstruction of that infrastructure.In the core gas state forest districts, there are atotal of 191 infrastructure pads (all types) coveringapproximately 786 acres and requiring a limit ofclearance of approximately 1,087 acres (see Table 2.5).Number ofInfrastructure PadsActualPad AcresLOC AcresMoshannon1263.396.7Sproul42156.5196.0Tiadaghton69318.3389.2Elk46.519.3Susquehannock1132.237.3Tioga39135.7252.6Loyalsock1473.195.6Total191785.61,086.7State Forest DistrictTable 2.5 Number and acreage of all infrastructure pads by state forest district from 2008 to 2012.Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, Infrastructure45The Tiadaghton State Forest hasthe greatest number of pads and thegreatest number of acres convertedto infrastructure pads (Figure 2.5).Figure 2.6 shows that the majorityof acres converted were for wellpad infrastructure (531), followedby freshwater impoundments (194).A synopsis of impacts related toeach pad type is provided in theparagraphs and tables below.Figure 2.5 Acres converted to infrastructure pads by state forestdistrict from 2008 to 2012.In the core gas state forest districts,there are 143 individual gas wellpads covering approximately 531acres and requiring a limit ofclearance of approximately 773acres (see Table 2.6). The well padacreage presented is the as-builtfootprint of the operational areas ofthe well pads. The Tiadaghton StateForest has the greatest number ofwell pads and acres converted tothis infrastructure.Figure 2.6 Acres converted by infrastructure type from 2008 to 2012.Number ofWell PadsWell PadAcresLOCAcresMoshannon1147.685.9Sproul35115.9150.8Tiadaghton51189.2235.3Elk46.519.3Susquehannock520.822.0Tioga27103.1193.3Loyalsock1047.966.4Total143531.1773State Forest DistrictTable 2.6 Number and acreage of well pads by state forest districtfrom 2008 to 2012.46Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, InfrastructureIn the core gas state forest districts,there are nine individual compressorpads covering approximately 32acres and requiring a limit ofclearance of approximately 40 acres(see Table 2.7). The compressorpad acreage presented is the asbuilt footprint of the operationalareas of the compressor stations.The Tiadaghton and Tioga stateforests have the greatest number ofcompressor pads, but the LoyalsockState Forest has the greatestnumber of acres converted tothis infrastructure.Number ofCompressor PadsCompressorPad AcresLOCAcresSproul11.72.6Tiadaghton35.76.1Susquehannock10.031.0Tioga39.415.0Susquehannock39.010.7Tioga517.529.7Loyalsock26.56.5Total26193.8229.1State Forest Districtimpoundments andthe greatest number ofacres converted to thisinfrastructure.Approximately 70 percentof the impoundmentsLoyalsock115.015.0on state forest landsTotal931.739.5employ a freshwaterconveyance systemTable 2.7 Number and acreage of compressor pads by state forestdistrict from 2008 to 2012.to pump water from asurface water source to theimpoundment. This has led to a significant reduction inIn the core gas state forest districts, there are 26the amount of trucks using the state forest road system.freshwater impoundment pads covering approximatelyAs a result, this has alleviated some of the forest visitor194 acres and requiring a limit of clearance ofconcerns related to the frequency of encountering trucksapproximately 229 acres (see Table 2.8). The freshwateron state forest roads, the amount of dust and noise, andimpoundment acreage is the as-built footprint of thethe overall condition of state forest roads. Table 2.9operational areas of the impoundments. The Tiadaghtonprovides data from Pennsylvania General Energy andState Forest has the greatest number of freshwaterAnadarko PetroleumCorporation regarding theNumber ofFreshwaterbenefits of using waterFreshwaterImpoundmentLOCState Forest DistrictImpoundmentsAcresAcresconveyance systems overthe use of conventionalMoshannon115.615.6trucking in TiadaghtonSproul336.740.4State Forest.Tiadaghton12108.4133.6Table 2.8 Number and acreage of freshwater impoundments by state forest from 2008 to 2012.Million GallonsPumped in 2012Truck Round Trips EliminatedDue to Pumping in 2012Pennsylvania General Energy190.941,300Anadarko Petroleum Corporation*100.822,000OperatorTable 2.9 Statistics on water use and truck trips saved due to the use of waterconveyance systems. Data provided by operators.*Anadarko utilized its water conveyance system for both commonwealth andprivate land development. The data presented cover both.Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, Infrastructure47Numberof OtherInfrastructureOtherInfrastructureAcresLOC AcresMoshannon00.02.7Sproul32.22.2Tiadaghton314.914.9Susquehannock22.43.6Tioga45.714.6Loyalsock13.88.5Total1329.045.7State Forest DistrictTable 2.10 Number and acreage of other infrastructure pads by state forest district from 2008 to 2012.In the core shale-gas state forest districts, thereare 13 other types of infrastructure pads coveringapproximately 29 acres and requiring a limit of clearanceof approximately 46 acres (see Table 2.10). The otherinfrastructure acreage is the as-built footprint of theoperational areas of the other types of infrastructure.The Tioga State Forest has the greatest number ofthese types of pads, but the Tiadaghton State Forest hasthe greatest number of acres converted to these typesof infrastructure.Throughout the state forest system, primary land use andland capability are dictated by the bureau’s managementzoning designations. Management practices are applied tothese zones to protect and enhance the values for whichthe land was zoned. The different land managementzones are described below.• Multiple Resource Management Zone is the leastrestrictive management zone and applies to areasmanaged for many resources, such as timber, water,recreation, fauna, flora, and minerals.• Aesthetic/Buffer Management Zone applies to areaswhere connectivity, aesthetics, and water qualityconservation are the primary values. These areas areassociated with linear features such as roads, trails,and streams, or encompass a significant feature of stateforest land.48• Limited Resource Management Zone is applied toareas where management alternatives are limiteddue to site quality or topographic constraints.Recreation, aesthetics, water, and soil protection arethe primary values.• Natural Area Management Zone applies to areas thathave been designated as or are pending designation asState Forest Natural Areas. Natural areas are defined asareas of unique scenic, historic, geologic, or ecologicalvalue, that will be maintained in a natural condition,usually without direct human intervention.• Wild Area Management Zone applies to areas that havebeen designated or are pending designation as StateForest Wild Areas. Wild areas are defined as extensiveareas that the general public will be permitted tosee, use, and enjoy through such activities as hiking,hunting, fishing, and the pursuit of peace and solitude.No development of a permanent nature will bepermitted so as to retain the undeveloped character ofthe area and conserve ecological resources.• Special Resource Management Zone applies to areasthat will be managed for specific values, such as publicwild plant sanctuaries, special wildlife managementareas, certain recreation sites, vistas, and reservoirs.• Anthropogenic Site Management Zone appliesto human-made structures or facilities such asroads, ROWs, mineral sites, tower sites, buildings,and so forth. The primary value for this zone ishuman amenities.Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, Infrastructurebeen minimized, but occasionallyinfrastructure is sited in such zonesto take advantage of proximity toexisting road corridors and thus limitnew forest clearing.PipelinesIn the core gas forest districts,approximately 104 miles of pipelinecorridor have been constructed asa result of shale-gas development.Twenty-one miles of these corridorsare coincident with previously existingpipeline corridors. Co-locatingpipelines was done to utilize existingcorridors rather than create newFigure 2.7 Acres converted to infrastructure pads by managementzone from 2008 to 2012.corridors. This has resulted in a total of843 miles of pipeline corridor withinThe pie chart above (Figure 2.7) shows the impact ofthe gas state forest districts. Approximately 760 miles ofinfrastructure pads by management zone. The majoritypipeline corridor existed prior to the commencement ofof acres (620) converted to support shale-gasshale-gas development. These pre-existing corridors areinfrastructure are in the Multiple Resource Managementcovered by right-of-way agreements. Sproul State ForestZone designation. It should be noted that no padhas the greatest number of miles of pipeline corridor,infrastructure has been allowed in the Natural Area andwith approximately 215 miles, and the Moshannon andWild Area management zones, as surface developmentSusquehannock state forests following closely behind,is incompatible with these zones. To the extent possible,with approximately 191 miles and 177 miles respectivelyimpacts to the Aesthetic/Buffer Management Zone have(see Table 2.11 and Figure 2.8).Pipeline Corridor TypeExistingShale-Gas LeaseMiles of Shale-GasLease ROWs Coincidentwith Existing ROWsMoshannon188.55.93.6190.8Sproul207.314.57.0214.7Tiadaghton25.452.47.170.7Elk110.82.00.0112.9Susquehannock173.73.90.2177.4Tioga44.718.52.760.5Loyalsock9.26.50.015.6759.5103.720.6842.7State Forest DistrictTotalTotalTable 2.11 Miles of pipeline corridor by type, 2012.Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, Infrastructure49determined, and some of thisacreage could be returned to aforested condition over time.The density of pipeline corridor canbe expressed as an average of themiles of pipeline corridor in relationto the area of each state forestdistrict. Table 2.13 shows the densityof existing and shale-gas leasepipeline corridor types for eachstate forest district. The MoshannonState Forest has the highest densityFigure 2.8 Miles of pipeline corridor by state forest district 2012.of existing pipeline corridors, withapproximately 0.6 miles of pipeline corridor per squareThe linear distance of new pipeline construction andmile, and the Tiadaghton State Forest has the highestexisting pipeline miles that were widened to facilitatedensity of shale-gas lease pipeline corridors, with 0.23gas development can be expressed in acres by estimatingmiles per square mile.the final ROW width that will be maintained in a nonforested condition. It is estimated that approximately459 acres of forest have been cleared to construct newpipelines and widen existing pipelines (Table 2.12).Final ROW widths that will be maintained in a nonforested condition for some pipelines have not yet beenState Forest DistrictAcres Convertedto Pipeline ROWMoshannon39.2Sproul78.2Tiadaghton144.2Elk9.1Susquehannock29.4Tioga94.4Loyalsock64.3Total458.8Table 2.12 Acres converted from forest to pipeline ROWfrom 2008 to 2012.50Pipeline corridors at times must cross streams. Pipelinecrossings represent a potentially significant impact onstreams and rivers in state forests. Pipeline crossingsare typically constructed by an open-cut trench acrossthe stream or by horizontal directional drilling (HDD)beneath the stream. The open-cut trench represents adirect impact on the riparian vegetation, stream bed,and water. The HDD can affect riparian vegetation,depending on the details of the operation, and can affectnearby water bodies through an inadvertent return – arelease of high-pressure drilling mud outside the drillinghole. Following construction, riparian areas must berevegetated (at least with herbaceous vegetation), whichmay have varying degrees of success, leading to potentialerosion and sedimentation control issues. The numberof stream crossings and the DEP Chapter 93 streamdesignations for lease agreement crossings are found inTable 2.14 and Figure 2.9. A total of 35 lease agreementpipeline corridor stream crossings occur in the core gasdistricts, with the highest number occurring in the TiogaState Forest. A protocol has been developed to examinethe condition of pipeline stream crossings, and it ispresented in the Water chapter of this report.Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, InfrastructurePipeline Corridor TypeExistingShale-GasLeaseTotalDensityMoshannon0.60.020.6Sproul0.40.030.4Tiadaghton0.30.230.3Elk0.40.010.4Susquehannock0.40.010.4Tioga0.20.070.2Loyalsock0.10.040.1Total Avg. Density (mi./sq. mi.)0.30.10.4State Forest DistrictTable 2.13 Density of pipeline corridors per square mile by state forest district 2012.Stream ClassificationState Forest DistrictEVHQMoshannon2Sproul1Tiadaghton1SusquehannockCWFNot ClassifiedTotal2327822Tioga16Loyalsock12Total214117318135Table 2.14 Number of stream crossing by DEP Chapter 93 stream classification from 2008 to 2012.EV = Exceptional Value, HQ = High Quality, and CWF = Cold Water FishesFigure 2.9 Number of stream crossings by DEP Chapter 93 stream classification from 2008 to 2012.EV = Exceptional Value, HQ = High Quality, and CWF = Cold Water FishesShale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, Infrastructure51Extracted gas must be transported from well padsthrough gathering pipelines to connect with marketingpipelines that lead to storage or distribution centers.Gathering pipelines are constructed to reach marketingpipelines in the most efficient and ecologically sensitiveway possible. Many pipelines follow existing roador ROW corridors to minimize forest conversion. Inmost cases, this results in pipelines that follow gentleslopes. However, there are times when the most efficientmethod is to cross a mountain ridge perpendicular tothe slope. This results in pipeline segments that fall onrelatively steep slopes. Slopes of the lease agreementpipeline corridors for the core gas districts are foundin Table 2.15 and Figure 2.10. The majority of pipelinecorridors on lease agreements are on slopes less than20 percent. However, there are approximately threemiles of pipeline that were constructed on slopes inexcess of 20 percent. Gas companies are required toinstall erosion and sedimentation control measures forall pipeline construction, but particular attention is paidto these measures when building on steep slopes. Theeffectiveness of erosion and sediment control practicesis monitored by both DEP and bureau gas foresters ona regular basis.Slope CategoryState Forest District0 to 10% 11 to 20%21 to 30%31 to 40%41 to 50%> 50%5.9Moshannon5.700.23Sproul13.590.840.020.07Tiadaghton47.323.210.860.37Elk2.000.01Susquehannock2.520.950.30Tioga17.560.800.090.10Loyalsock4.241.430.460.250.040.056.5Total92.97.51.70.80.50.310414.50.400.2352.42.03.90.1018.5Table 2.15 Miles of lease agreement pipeline corridor by slope class and state forest from 2008 to 2012.Figure 2.10 Miles of lease agreement pipeline corridor by slope class and state forest from 2008 to 2012.52TotalShale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, InfrastructureTotal ConversionFrom 2008 to 2012, approximately 1,486 acres of state forestland were converted from a forested condition to facilitategas development activities (Table 2.16 and Figure 2.11). Thisfigure could change with time because some edges of pads,roads, and pipelines may not be maintained and could revertto a forested condition in the future.PadAcreageRoadAcreagePipelineAcreageTotalAcreageMoshannon63.331.739.2134.2Sproul156.520.878.2255.5Tiadaghton318.368.1144.2530.6Elk6.51.29.116.8Susquehannock32.24.129.465.7Tioga135.747.594.4277.6Loyalsock73.168.264.3205.6Total Acreage785.6241.6458.81,486.0State Forest DistrictTable 2.16 Total acreage converted to non-forest by infrastructure type from 2008 to 2012.Figure 2.11 Total acreage converted to non-forest by infrastructure type from 2008 to 2012.Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, Infrastructure53Seismic SurveysSeismic data facilitates the successful exploration anddevelopment of conventional and unconventional oiland natural gas reservoirs in Pennsylvania. Seismicdata is acquired when an energy wave travels throughthe subsurface and is reflected off of the various layersof rock at depth to a data recording device at the earth’ssurface called a geophone. Each layer of rock acts as itsown reflective surface, where the reflectivity of any givensurface is dependent on its density and the velocity atwhich the energy wave can travel through the medium.These energy waves aremost commonly generatedon land from an explosivecharge buried withina previously drilledborehole, or from a heavytruck-mounted vibratingplate (commonly referredto as vibroseis). TheFigure 2.12energy reflection fromthe layers of rock (the signal) is gathered and recordedon the surface by geophones and is processed to producean image, which may be interpreted and used to guidethe exploration and development process. The imagesproduced are representative of a cross-section throughthe earth and show the various layers of rockencountered at the subsurface (Figure 2.12). Theacquisition of seismic data is considered integralto interpreting subsurface structure and effectivelydeveloping oil and natural gas reservoirs.Seismic data is acquired in two-dimensional (2-D) orthree-dimensional (3-D) form as indicated by the imageproduced of the subsurface.2-D surveys: require an energy source that is in linewith the receiver to produce a vertical profile of thesubsurface. 2-D surveys consist of one or more seismiclines acquired individually. Each line will produce animage in a single vertical plane.543-D surveys: require a multitude of geophones placed inan array, which collect the reflection signals from pointsoutside the plane of the energy source to produce a “cubelike” profile of the subsurface. Multiple seismic linescollecting data simultaneously are required to produce athree-dimensional image. 3-D surveys are more complexand labor intensive and require more land-base.Two methods of seismic surveys commonly occur onstate forest lands:Explosive surveys: utilized for cross-country surveyswhere road access is limited; drill buggies, heli-portabledrills, or tracked machines drill a 20-foot “shot-hole”every 220 feet along a linear survey route; data collectionreceivers (or geophones) are placed at fixed intervals anddata is collected.Vibroseis surveys: utilized when a sufficient roadnetwork exists; large weighted trucks strike the roadsurface and collect data in a similar fashion to thatdescribed above.Seismic operators are highly encouraged to employthe least intrusive technologies available for gatheringseismic survey data. Exclusion areas containing sensitiveresources are clearly delineated by the operator in thefield and seismic crews are informed of operationalrestrictions and/or avoidance measures.Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, InfrastructureThe bureau has developed guidelines to help manageseismic activity on state forest lands. See Guidelines ofAdministering Oil and Gas Activity on State Forest Landfor more information.Field management and inspections are used to documentcompliance with the operating specifications set forthin the seismic permit and the pre-activity meeting.Examples of incidents documented during past fieldinspections include damage to trees, debris or trashfound, unauthorized use of trails, damage to gates, illegalparking, vandalism, and unauthorized shot-hole locations.Between 2007 and 2012, the bureau approved 26individual seismic surveys to take place on state forestlands. As a result of these 26 seismic survey permits,over 643,000 acres of 3-D seismic data and 49 linemiles of 2-D seismic data have been acquired. Avegetation monitoring protocol has been designed tomonitor vegetation impacts. Impacts to vegetation fromseismic operations should be temporary (Figure 2.13),as vegetation will restore itself naturally. Additionalmonitoring protocols may be developed to account foradditional potential impacts as a result of seismic dataacquisition activities.Figure 2.13 Seismic activity on state forest lands.Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, Infrastructure55Infrastructure and Recreation Field VisitsThe bureau implements on-site forest infrastructuremonitoring and recreation field visits. Staff from thecore gas forest districts and the infrastructure specialistin the Recreation Section periodically meet to reviewshale-gas development. They discuss, document, andreview issues, new methods, products, and benefits thatstem from shale-gas development. Several of the findingsand lessons learned from these visits are reviewed here.Traditional state forest roads typically have a closed ornearly closed canopy over the top of the road and arebarely wide enough for two passenger vehicles to safelypass each other. Such roads exhibit the wild character andback-country experience that state forest users have cometo expect. Conversely, some roads used by the shale-gasindustry are considerably wider, enough for two haulingtrucks to pass each other safely, and often the tree canopyhas been opened over the top of the road.Based on the traditional traffic use of state forestroads, minimal road sub-base construction wastypical. However, the original state forest roads werenot adequate for the volume of traffic or the increasedvehicle weights that came with shale-gas development.Changes were necessary to modify and create roads inthe forest that could withstand this new type of traffic.The challenge is to balance the needs of gas operatorswith the traditional needs of other forest users. The roadsalso need to be constructed in a manner that would becompatible with bureau road maintenance operations56after gas companies finish using the roads. In somecases, existing state forest roads that were improved ornew forest roads that were constructed during the firsttwo years of shale-gas development began to take onindustrialized characteristics, such as heavily fortifiedsub-base, undesirable drop-offs along the sides, andexcessively wide running surfaces. In response to thesechanges, the roads section of the bureau’s Guidelinesfor Administering Oil and Gas Activity on State ForestLands was updated to offer clarification and guidanceto both bureau staff who were implementing the gasprogram and also the gas companies that were operatingon state forest lands.The updated guidelines described a clearer vision forhow state forest roads were to be constructed to meettraditional forest visitor expectations, the bureau’slong-term maintenance capabilities, and gas companies’operational needs. The changes primarily deal with thecreation of a stable road sub-base using geo-textiles, suchas geo-fabrics, geo-grids, and geo-cells, in conjunctionwith the traditional sub-base stone. Another successfulmethod has been the use of soil cementing to create theroad sub-base (described in more detail below). Theseapproaches have greatly reduced the height and width ofthe road profile, enhancing the appearance of the forestroad while still providing the capabilities needed tohandle large volumes of heavy truck traffic.Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, InfrastructureFigure 2.14 Traditional state forest road in Loyalsock State Forest. Note the closed canopy and narrow road base.Figure 2.15 State forest road in Tiadaghton State Forest that has minimal wild character value after it wasimproved for shale-gas development. Note the break in the tree canopy, wide base, and heavily armored edges.Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, Infrastructure57Figure 2.16 Constructed forest road, with adjacent pipeline ROW, used for shale-gas development access.This demonstrates reduced wild character value due to wide road surface and long, straight profile.Figure 2.17 State forest road in Tioga State Forest that is utilized for shale-gas developmentthat demonstrates reduced wild character value due to overwidening.58Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, InfrastructureFigure 2.18 State forest road in Moshannon State Forest that was improved for shale-gasdevelopment but retained significant wild character value. A gas line ROW is adjacent to the road.Figure 2.19 State forest road in Moshannon State Forest that was improved for shale-gas developmentbut retained wild character value. Note that the canopy is still closed over the top of the road.Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, Infrastructure59Figure 2.20 State forest road in Tiadaghton State Forest that was improved for shale-gasdevelopment but retained wild character value. Note that the canopy is still closed overthe top of the road.60Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, InfrastructureA recent technology for improving some state forestroads is the use of soil cementing. Soil cementing limitsthe increased height of the road profile by eliminatingthe need for a large amount of stone to be placed as thesub-base. Soil cementing, or stabilizing the road sub-basewith cement, has been shown to be effective in stabilizingthe road sub-base. This technology involves addingcement to the road surface in a 7 percent concentration,sometimes adding additional stone, and then mixing theconglomerate together. The new material is then gradedwith a proper crown and rolled. This new road sub-baseis then covered with a running surface of six to 12 inchesof crushed limestone or driving surface aggregate.Although proven to be stable, an initial concern withthis new sub-base was how it would impact futureroad maintenance activities by the bureau. It wasunclear whether typical equipment operated by bureaumaintenance staff could manage the soil cementingsub-base. The technique was tested on a short sectionof road in the Sproul State Forest (Figure 2.21), and itwas found that the treated sub-base could be maintainedthrough existing bureau procedures and would not posemaintenance problems like a standard concrete materialwould. Presently, 5.6 miles of state forest road havereceived a soil cement treatment to the sub-base. Whilethis road sub-base treatment is not appropriate for use onall state forest roads, it does have applicability in somecases without negatively impacting future maintenanceactivities by the bureau.An innovative method to preserve the wild character ofa state forest road has been implemented at several largepipeline crossings. Traditionally, the intersections ofpipelines and roads have created long, linear views of thecleared and maintained pipeline ROW. In the TiadaghtonState Forest, the district staff and gas company personnelcollaborated to develop a layout for a large pipelineproject that would minimize this negative visual effect(Figures 2.22 and 2.23). They minimized the width ofFigure 2.21 State forest road in Sproul State Forest that was improved for shale-gasdevelopment and received a soil cement treatment to the sub-base.Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, Infrastructure61the permanently maintained ROW, allowing for 60 to70 percent of the initial clearing to be replanted as aforested site. Conifer plantings are planned for the sitebecause conifer trees grow at a faster pace and hold theirfoliage year round to further reduce the visual impacts.In addition, the ROW layout incorporated the use ofa crescent shape as the ROW climbed the slope andalso embedded “doglegs” to further break up the linearvisibility of the ROW. These layout modifications limitthe distance that the ROW is visible from the road.In considering whether to place pipeline ROWs alongexisting state forest roads, the bureau is confronted withthe conflicting goals of maintaining the wild character offorest roads and limiting forest fragmentation due tonew pipelines. The addition of a pipeline ROW along a roadcorridor can detract from the wild character of the road,but it minimizes the amount of new forest fragmentationby taking advantage of the existing disturbance corridor.Conversely, placing the ROW at a distance or setback fromthe road creates an additional disturbance corridor butpreserves the wild character of the road. In some cases, theroad and/or pipeline corridor can be kept narrow enoughthat there is still a closed canopy over the disturbancecorridor. The bureau is implementing both approaches andis evaluating their outcome and effectiveness.Figure 2.22 View of pipeline in Tiadaghton State Forest discussed here. Note doglegon opposite side of stream to minimize long, linear view of pipeline.62Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, InfrastructureFigure 2.23 View of pipeline in Tiadaghton State Forest discussed here. Note dogleg attop of hill to minimize long, linear view of pipeline.Forest Road SurveysForest roads are the primary means of access for nearlyevery forest user group. Forest roads also represent asignificant investment to infrastructure that requirescontinual long-term monetary and manpower investmentsby the Bureau of Forestry. Shale-gas developmentrepresents a considerable increase in the amount oftraffic and types of vehicles using forest roads. Thesechanges are not compatible with traditional forest roadconstruction, and major road improvements are necessaryto accommodate gas development. Since the 2008state forest lease, impacts to the forest road system andassociated corrective measures have greatly changed thestructure and character of the state forest road system.The purpose of this survey work is to document andquantify the condition of state forest roads and howthey change over time in relation to how the roads wereconstructed or improved and what materials were used toaccommodate shale-gas development traffic.In addition, a comparison of required maintenance forroads that were improved for shale-gas developmentversus traditional state forest roads will also beevaluated. Experience has shown that the increase intraffic and heavy hauling will result in road failure if theroad profile and materials are not improved and that, overtime, the improved roads will require less maintenanceand remain in better condition following shale-gasdevelopment activities.Roads that have received or will receive heavy shale-gasrelated traffic since 2008 are considered for this survey.The road to be surveyed is divided into quarter-milesections. Data collection points are established at thebeginning of the road and at quarter-mile intervals to theend of the road or to the point where gas-related trafficterminates. If the road extends beyond the terminationpoint, an additional point is established one quarter-milepast where gas-related traffic ends.Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, Infrastructure63GPS coordinates are collected at the starting location,at every data collection point, at every road or trailintersection, and at the end of the road survey. Thepoints are collected at the center of the running surface.An assessment and site evaluation is performed at eachpoint. The running surface width, cross-sectional width,limit of clearance width, and ditch widths are measured.In addition, a visual determination of road featureassessments is made at each collection point. Theseassessments include the ditch type and condition, roadprofile, road surface aggregate material, condition ofthe road, road sub-base material, and dust conditionsrelated to the road.All state forest roads in each state forest district thatare used for shale-gas development are scheduled tobe surveyed. This survey work began with the testingof the Road Survey Monitoring Protocol in May 2012.Following field testing of the protocol and associatededits, the survey began on roads in the core gasforest districts.64Initial survey results show that the average runningsurface width of roads used for gas development is14.5 feet, and the average road cross-sectional width is34.5 feet. The primary road profile is of a “crowned”shape for nearly 95 percent of the road survey points.The most common road running surface material foundin the road surveys is 2A limestone, followed by 2RClimestone and driving surface aggregate (DSA). Theroad sub-base improvement materials include the useof geo-textiles (geo-grid, geo-fabric, and geo-cell) inconjunction with the use of native stone materials andimported #3 and #4 stone, which is most commonly alimestone base material. Soil cementing was also used ina limited number of situations and has been found to bevery effective. Road drainage methods include sheetflowand ditch. This road drainage method was indicated on55 percent of the road survey points.In addition to these findings, the survey protocol wasalso conducted, when possible, on the portions ofroads not used for shale-gas development. SurveysShale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, Infrastructurewere also conducted on some roadsin anticipation of future shale-gasdevelopment. Results from these datasets indicate that the average runningsurface is 9.4 feet and the averageroad cross-sectional width is 25.6 feet.The primary running surface materialis native materials on 50 percent ofthe points. 2A and 2RC limestonerepresent the remaining runningsurface material, with 31 percent and18 percent, respectively. This shows anaverage of 5.1 feet increase in runningsurface width and 8.9 feet increase inroad cross-sectional width due to shalegas development. The running surfacematerials typically changed from primarily nativematerials to limestone- based road surfacing products.Future efforts include the surveying of all of theremaining roads that have been used or are likely to beused in the Moshannon, Sproul, Elk, and Loyalsockstate forests. The return interval for resurveying theseroad plots will be determined based on periodic surveysof certain roads to gauge measureable change in roadconditions. The road data collected will continue to guidethe bureau in road construction methods, materials, andmaintenance intervals for roads utilized in shale-gasdevelopment. The data will also assist in guiding thebureau in improving other forest roads that are not usedfor shale-gas development due to lessons learned onshale-gas used roads. The bureau will track the useablelife of the various road materials to determine thebest products to be used in traditional state forest roadmaintenance and construction. Based on what is learnedfrom the roads utilized for shale-gas development, it isanticipated that the bureau will find cost-saving measuresin its maintenance and improvement of traditional stateforest roads.Road Shutdown, Reroute, and GeneralTraffic Control MonitoringThe Bureau of Forestry strives to keep all public useroads open to the public during shale-gas development,but there are exceptions when roads must be closed.In a few instances, there have been long-term closuresof roads due to public safety concerns. More typically,however, road closures are temporary, usually froma few minutes to a few hours, for operational reasonssuch as road improvement projects, pipeline crossingconstruction, bridge or culvert replacement, drillingrig moves, and oversized loads. Although not closed topublic travel, there have been roads within the Sproul andLoyalsock state forests that have had long-term reroutesimplemented on them that resulted in different trafficpatterns than the public has traditionally experienced.These reroutes consist of changing a road from two-wayto one-way traffic flows.In addition to road closures and traffic pattern reroutes,many users have experienced sign-in/sign-out procedureswhen accessing certain areas by vehicle. Mannedsecurity stations are located in some areas where allpersons passing must stop and sign in/sign out. This isrequired so that, in the event of an accident at or near awell pad that is being developed, the company willShale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, Infrastructure65have a roster of all persons and vehicles for whichthey need to account. These security practices arecommon in all of the state forests that have active gasdevelopment activities during the drilling and hydraulicfracturing stages.Below is a summary of altered traffic patterns and roadclosures by state forest district:Tiadaghton State ForestThere have been two roads with long-term closures.Moore Road has been closed for its entirety since2009, and a quarter-mile section of Ramsey Road hasbeen closed since 2010. Each of these road closures isanticipated to be opened when the wells along theseroads go into the production stage (i.e., when drillingand hydraulic fracturing are completed).Sproul State ForestThere has been a reroute of Penrose Road to Coon RunRoad for one-way traffic. This was in place from 2010until 2012. The road is now open for two-way traffic,since gas development activity has slowed in the district.It is anticipated that this road will return to a one-waytraffic pattern when gas development activity increases.The one-way traffic pattern was a solution that thedistrict implemented due to the very steep topographyand the narrow roadway. These conditions resulted inlimited places for vehicles to pass one another safely.In addition, a section of the road passes a formerCivilian Conservation Corps camp location. To preservethis cultural resource, road widening was not permitted.66Loyalsock State ForestThere is a reroute affecting Hagerman Run, Brown,Long Run, and Gray’s Run roads for one-way traffic.This has been in place since 2011 and will likely continueuntil shale-gas development is completed in this area.The one-way traffic pattern was a solution that thedistrict implemented due to the very steep topography.This condition resulted in limited places for vehiclesto pass one another safely. In addition, Hagerman RunRoad’s proximity to the stream doesn’t allow for thewidening of the road. A further consideration in thistraffic solution was the impact of heavy truck trafficpassing through the village of Gray’s Run. The one-waytraffic plan reduces the amount of traffic affecting theresidents of Gray’s Run.Bridge and Crossing InspectionVarious gas companies have made significant additionsand repairs to bridges and other large stream crossingsas part of their use of state forest roads. There have beenfive new bridges and one bridge deck replacement in thestate forests since shale-gas development began in 2008.The bridges have been primarily prefabricated metalbridges that are constructed off site and then transportedand installed. Also, six stream crossings have beencompleted by the installation of large, greater than36-inch culverts. The culverts are either corrugatedmetal or smooth-bore plastic construction.The bridge crossings are added into the PennsylvaniaDepartment of Transportation’s Bridge Database System.Each of these crossings is then scheduled for periodicfield inspections for safety and structural analysis.These inspections take place on average every five yearsand are performed by DCNR inspectors or through acertified contractor.Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, InfrastructureFigure 2.24 New bridge installed in Tiadaghton State Forest.Figure 2.25 New bridge installed in Tioga State Forest.Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, Infrastructure67Dust Control NotificationState forest roads consist of a soil and aggregatematerial that can lead to potential issues with dustcaused by vehicle traffic. Road dust is created as vehicletires pulverize the surface aggregate, releasing smallparticles of dust referred to as fines. These fines from thepulverized material can then become airborne and areknown as fugitive dust. Fugitive dust has the potentialto be a detriment to forest users’ safety, impact personalproperty, and cause environmental concerns.The nature of gas development on state forest landsrequires access across state forest roads by a multitudeof vehicle types and sizes. The frequency of trafficis a factor that contributes to releasing fugitive dust.The trips made by these vehicles carry the potential tocreate fugitive dust to various extents based on weatherconditions. While all stages of gas development requiremany more vehicles per day than a traditional stateforest road typically experiences, of greatest concernis the period of time when a well is being hydraulicallyfractured. This generally requires the greatestconcentration of heavy vehicular traffic.The primary dust control method recommended byforest district management and utilized by naturalgas companies is the use of non-potable water as asuppressant. Eighty-three percent of the roads that have68had some type of dust suppressant applied used nonpotable water. Non-potable water (water drafted froma source such as a stream or river and not treated todrinking water standards) is preferred over potable water,as potable water can retain chemicals that injure plantand aquatic life. Among other concerns, chemical dustsuppressants have been known to change the chemicalproperties of dirt and gravel roads to the extent that theroad itself hardens and becomes impossible to maintainusing the bureau’s standard maintenance practices. Whenthe road reaches this condition, the only alternative isto completely rehabilitate the road through full-depthreclamation. However, chemical dust suppressants havebeen used on some state forest roads, and their usage issummarized below.Sproul State Forest• Chemical dust control treatments on segments of fiveroads, totaling 3.5 miles.• Road segments have been treated since August 2010,and they have been approved for reoccurring treatmentas conditions require.• Justifications for the usage of chemical dust controlhave been: 1) for safety – traffic visibility, and 2) tocontrol fugitive dust that impacts both private and stateforest leased camps.• Products used have been “Dustless” and “Aggrabond.”Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, InfrastructureTioga State Forest• Chemical dust control treatments on segments of sevenroads, totaling 12.5 miles.• Most road segments have been treated since May 2011,and they have been approved for reoccurring treatmentas conditions require.• Justification for the usage of chemical dust control hasbeen for safety related to traffic visibility.• Products used have been “Ultrabond 2000” and“Dustless.” Feedback from the company that usedDustless was “the application was not as effective asmarketed” and, following the initial application, allfurther dust control was by water only. Companiesusing Ultrabond 2000 were satisfied with the results.Loyalsock State Forest• Chemical dust control treatments on segments offive roads, totaling 12.1 miles.• Road segments have been treated since July 2011, andthey have been approved for reoccurring treatment asconditions require.• The justifications for the utilization of chemical dustcontrol have been: 1) for safety – traffic visibility, and2) to control fugitive dust that impacts a private campwithin the forest. There have been complaints receivedfrom private residents and the public due to fugitivedust on state forest roads.• Product utilized has been “Ultrabond 2000.”IV. Conclusion/DiscussionState forest lands located in the shale-gas region haveseen changes in infrastructure due to the developmentand extraction of this resource. Overall, approximately1,486 acres of forest have been converted to facilitateshale-gas development. This included 161 miles of newor improved roads, 191 pads (of all types), and 104miles of new or widened pipelines. Road surveys havedemonstrated an average of 5.1 feet increase in runningsurface width and 8.9 feet increase in road crosssectional width due to shale-gas development, as wellas a change from primarily native road bed materialsto limestone-based road surfacing products. To helpminimize these effects on ecology, aesthetics, andwild character, the bureau is encouraging theimplementation of best management practices for road,pad, and pipeline construction.While there are physical changes in new or modifiedinfrastructure that can be measured and comparedrelatively easily, it has been difficult to measure thevisual changes and changes in experience that resultfrom infrastructure development. Each forest visitor islikely to have a different perception and expectation ofthe forested environment, which leads to challenges inquantifying and describing those effects. The bureau willcontinue to explore avenues for assessing such impacts.There are plans for a formal dust monitoring study ofstate forest roads in the core gas forest districts. TheBureau of Forestry will be working with the PennState Center for Dirt and Gravel Road Studies for thismonitoring effort. The bureau will also be working onmethods for monitoring the reclamation of forest roadsthat have been impacted by shale-gas developmentthrough natural or man-made processes.Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, Infrastructure69Part 2: Monitoring Values›› Flora (Plants)I. Key Points:• The four components of the plant monitoring program are:– Evaluating vegetation communities immediately adjacent to shale-gas development.– Monitoring tracts subject to shale-gas development for non-native, invasiveplant species.– Assessing rare plant populations and important wetland habitats.– Conducting vegetation inventories in areas of potential future shale-gas extraction.• A majority of forest conversion for the construction of gas infrastructure on state forestlands occurs in the dry oak-heath community type.• In undisturbed forest habitat surrounding pads, New York fern (Thelypterisnoveboracensis) and hay-scented fern (Dennstaedtia punctilobula) had the highestaverage percent cover in the understory, with 31.2 percent and 31.0 percent coverrespectively. The most prevalent species in areas around the edges of padsre-vegetated with erosion and sedimentation control seed mixes were Festuca species,with 19.2 percent average cover, orchardgrass (Dactylis glomerata, 16.0 percent), andred clover (Trifolium pratense, 14.2 percent).• Eleven non-native, invasive species were present on 14 of 18 pads. The invasivespecies with the largest mean population size was Japanese stilt-grass (Microstegiumvimineum), which has become common across most state forest districts and spreadseasily, especially along roadside corridors.• Protocols to assess vegetation communities on rights of way, in wetlands, andfor Plant Species of Special Concern populations will be developed, implementedand evaluated.• Early Detection Rapid Response protocols for invasive plant species will be employedopportunistically during all gas monitoring activities.70Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, FloraII. IntroductionThe Bureau of Forestry works to help conserve rare plantspecies, enhance existing vegetation communities, andprevent non-native, invasive species from overwhelmingthese communities. The ecological importance of ournative flora to Pennsylvania’s ecosystems cannot beunderstated. Plants serve as keystone species in almostevery ecosystem by providing food and habitat, andby shaping site conditions such as temperature, waterquality, light, and air quality. Plants also provide valuableeconomic resources, such as timber, and shape orinfluence many recreational experiences.Approximately 3,400 plant species have been foundin the commonwealth. Of the 3,400 total species,approximately 1,900 are native, flowering plants, and1,200 are species not native to Pennsylvania (Rhoads& Block, 2007). Many of these native species havebeen classified into 136 unique plant community types(87 palustrine and 49 terrestrial) by Zimmerman, et al.(2012). Pursuant to the Wild Resource ConservationAct and the regulations promulgated thereunder, DCNRprotects and conserves native wild plants. As a partof this act, the Bureau of Forestry, based on scientificevidence and recommendations from the Vascular PlantTechnical Committee, has listed approximately 228of the plant species in Pennsylvania as endangered,78 as Pennsylvania threatened, and an additional 41 asPennsylvania rare. Of these species, approximately 60 areknown to exist in state forest districts subject to currentshale-gas development activities. Scientific researchand administrative work has been undertaken to beginrevising these listings to reflect the most current field dataand ecological conditions in Pennsylvania.The bureau oversees the protection of Pennsylvaniastate-listed native wild plants on state forest lands byreviewing proposed shale-gas development projects andadvising bureau managers on the best means to avoidimpacts to rare plant species and communities. In somecases, biologists in the bureau work with operators tominimize potential impacts to species in the vicinity ofdevelopment or to develop periodic monitoring to ensurethat infrastructure construction and gas extraction donot have any long-term effects on the viability of rareplant populations. In addition, the bureau provides for themanagement of unique plant species and communitiesby selecting high-value sites as state forest public plantsanctuaries and state forest natural areas. In 2011, thebureau evaluated and selected sites to become highconservation value forests based on the presence ofendangered or threatened species, unique vegetationcommunities, or watershed protection areas.Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, Flora71Categorizing flora resources in these ways provides thebureau with a means to prepare site- and species-specificmanagement techniques paired with periodic monitoringto improve the viability of these unique habitats on stateforest lands. As the results of studies on the impacts offorest management on native flora become available,the Bureau of Forestry continuously adapts forestrypractices to protect and enhance native flora acrossstate forest lands.With the advent of shale-gas development, the Bureauof Forestry is interested in how this activity willimpact and change native plant communities. Dueto the construction of well pads, pipelines, and otherassociated infrastructure, thousands of acres of existingforest habitat may be converted, either temporarily orpermanently, into non-forest. Similarly, many areasthat were once interior forest will be converted intoearly-successional communities or forest edge. Whilethis may negatively affect forest interior species, earlysuccessional habitat often can result in a higher diversityof plant species. In addition, once temporary utilizationof forest acreage by energy companies is complete,opportunities to reclaim these sites provide the bureauwith the chance to restore under-represented forest typesor provide unique habitat for endangered or threatenedwildlife species.72With an increase in forest openings and traffic onstate forest roads, the potential exists for the spread ofnon-native, invasive plant species into interior forest orwetland habitats that were previously less likely to beinvaded. Forest managers work closely with each lesseeto provide guidance in regard to pre-construction and/orpost-construction monitoring for invasive plant species.In addition, district staff review plans and providetechnical guidance for treatment of invasive species inconstruction areas.While energy development on state forest lands doespresent a new form of disturbance to the forest habitat,it is still unclear what potential impacts may be mostcritical to address to fulfill the bureau’s mission to protectand conserve native wild plants. The purpose of the plantmonitoring program is to learn more about any potentialimpacts to vegetation communities within areas utilizedfor gas extraction, as well as to monitor observable longterm changes in the composition of these communitiesacross our state forest landscape. The vegetationdata collected will be used to develop more adaptivemanagement practices that allow the development ofgas resources while protecting or enhancing native plantcommunities in the state forest.Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, FloraIII. Monitoring Efforts/ResultsMany existing management efforts are taking placeon state forest land to better understand the ecologicalroles plant communities play on overall forest health.The Continuous Forest Inventory program as it existstoday began in 1997 and provides basic biological dataon understory plants, shrubs, tree growth and mortality,forest stand structure, volume, and change on forest lands(Bureau of Forestry, 2007). These inventories providevaluable data regarding the distribution of plant speciesand overall viability of the vegetation communities.This data guides decisions regarding landscape levelmanagement and silvicultural harvest schedules in allstate forest districts. The forest inventory data also playa crucial role in how forest stands are classified in eachdistrict. Detailed information regarding each communitytype can be found in the Bureau of Forestry InventoryManual of Procedure for the Fourth State ForestManagement Plan (1999). These “forest communitytypes” are used to evaluate timber management needsas well as provide for sound ecological planning on aforest landscape level. This typing data exists for theentire state forest land base, including areas utilized forgas extraction, and can be analyzed to determine howcertain types of gas infrastructure impact different forestcommunity types.Figure 3.1 indicates that the overwhelming majorityof forest conversion for the construction of gasinfrastructure on state forest lands occurred in the dryoak – heath forest type, with only one other type, redmaple forest, having been subject to close to 100 acrescleared. These forest types are categorized by forestersbased on on-the-ground conditions and the dominanttree species across each forest landscape. These typesof comparisons can be explored for any type of gasextraction infrastructure across all state forest lands orby each individual district. For instance, acres cleared forwell pad construction can be seen in Figure 3.2. Currentconstruction build-out organized by forest communitytype can aid district managers as new projects areplanned and additional forest acreage is affected.Figure 3.1 Acres cleared for shale-gas development infrastructure, arrangedby forest community type.Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, Flora73Figure 3.2 Acres cleared for well pads constructed for shale-gas development,arranged by forest community type.The importance placed on native flora and vegetationcommunities by the Bureau of Forestry is reflectedin vegetation monitoring efforts as part of the ShaleGas Monitoring Program. The four components of theplant monitoring program are: 1) evaluating vegetationcommunities immediately adjacent to shale-gasdevelopment, including areas adjacent to well pads,roads, and rights of way; 2) monitoring tracts subjectto shale-gas development for non-native, invasive plantspecies; 3) assessing rare plant populations and importantwetland habitats that could be potentially impacted bynatural gas development; and 4) conducting vegetationinventories in areas of potential future gas extraction toassess the composition of vegetation communities prior toshale-gas development. Eight protocols that address thesefour components of the plant monitoring program weredeveloped, and most were piloted in the field in 2012.741. Evaluating Vegetation Communities Adjacentto Shale-Gas DevelopmentAs gas infrastructure is constructed, forest and forestplant communities are disturbed or removed, andinterior forest habitat is converted to forest edge. Asthis conversion occurs, it is important for the bureauto monitor how plant communities adjacent to thesesites may change over time. To that end, assessmentand monitoring of adjacent vegetation communitieswill occur on existing well pads, state forest roads usedheavily for gas-related traffic and hauling, pipeline rightsof way, and paths cut through the forest to facilitateseismic studies.Well Pad AssessmentAs of 2012, 143 shale-gas well pads had been constructedon state forest lands. This assessment has been createdto provide a means to assess, monitor, and compareShale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, Florafactors such as: soil conditions, vegetation communities,wildlife habitat, and erosion and sedimentation featuresacross multiple well pads, to better understand theimpacts of well pad construction in the state forestsystem. In addition, the monitoring design easily allowsfor reassessment of sites into the future to evaluate ifthe forest edge communities adjacent to these sites arechanging. The bureau is also interested in monitoringif any opportunistic weed species become establishedon well pads and spread into the adjacent interior forest.Similarly, learning which native forest species are firstto re-colonize the disturbed well pad edges can guiderestoration efforts or provide a relative time scale tonatural re-forestation efforts at these disturbed forestedges. This careful examination of vegetation at wellpad edges also provides an opportunity to collect dataregarding the establishment success of species typicallyused in seed mixes. During the 2012 field season, thisprotocol was piloted, and 18 well pads across all statestate forest districts subject to shale-gas developmentwere assessed. An attempt was also made to ensure thatthe cohort of pads selected was representative of thevariety of lessees operating on state forest lands.The vegetation portions of the well pad assessmentprotocol categorize plant species into three types ofcommunities found immediately adjacent to a well pad:undisturbed forest, disturbed native vegetation (usuallycleared of trees), and planted erosion and sedimentationseed mixes. Vegetation inventories are taken withinmilacre (1/1000-acre) plots positioned on three sides ofthe well pad, with two milacre plots inventoried on eachside (the side of the pad with the access road is excluded).One milacre is placed 25 feet from the edge of the wellpad and another 25 feet into undisturbed forest. If thefirst milacre plot on a side is undisturbed forest, a secondplot is not completed. The relative percent cover of allspecies is recorded within each milacre plot, as wellas a tally of all tree regeneration present. In additionto the milacre plots, the entire well pad edge is walkedto determine the presence or absence of non-native,invasive plants.Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, Flora75The section below provides a summary of the vegetationdata collected during the 2012 field season, categorizedby community type: undisturbed forest, disturbed nativevegetation (usually cleared of trees), and planted erosionand sedimentation seed mixes. The species with thehighest incidence at well pad edges, as well as those withthe highest mean percent cover across all pads, are noted.The “undisturbed forest” community type was presenton 17 of 18 pads and on 51 milacre plots. New York fern(Thelypteris noveboracensis) had the highest averagepercent cover, 31.2 percent (see Table 3.1). As would beexpected, hay-scented fern (Dennstaedtia punctilobula)was also among the species with the highest percentcover across multiple pads (31.0 percent). All specieslisted in Table 3.1 that had the highest mean percent coveracross multiple pads were common species that wouldbe expected in most of the forest vegetation communitiesin north-central Pennsylvania. The highest percentcover of any species was Japanese barberry (Berberisthunbergii) at 62.5 percent, but it was only present on oneplot at one pad location. Other species with high meanpercent cover that were only present on one pad wereclimbing false-buckwheat (Polygonum scandens, 28.9percent) and whorled loosestrife (Lysimachia quadrifolia,percent). These results are all somewhat expected, basedSpeciesNew York Fern (Thelypteris noveboracensis)Hay-Scented Fern (Dennstaedtia punctilobula)Mountain Laurel (Kalmia latifolia)Southern Low Blueberry (Vaccinium pallidum)Wintergreen (Gaultheria procumbens)Striped Maple (Acer pensylvanicum)Late Low Blueberry (Vaccinium angustifolium)American Beech (Fagus grandifolia)Sweet-Fern (Comptonia peregrina)Bracken Fern (Pteridium aquilinum)on historical observations and forest inventory dataregarding the most common species found in interiorforest habitat in state forests in northern Pennsylvania.Red maple (Acer rubrum) and hay-scented fern(Dennstaedtia punctilobula) were the species with thehighest incidence among “undisturbed forest” vegetationplots (Table 3.2). In the case of this community type,three out of four of the plants with the highest incidencewere tree species. These results were also expected basedon existing forest inventory data. Red maple and hayscented fern are very common across Pennsylvania.The “disturbed native” vegetation type was present onfive of 18 pads and on nine milacre plots. These areaswere typically used for staging of equipment during wellpad construction and were cleared of trees; however,the native vegetation was not removed entirely andsupplemental plantings were not always necessary.bracken fern (Pteridium aquilinum) had the highestaverage percent cover, 23.2 percent (see Table 3.3). Onceagain, all species listed in Table 3.3 that had the highestmean percent cover across multiple pads were commonwoody species that would be expected in most of theforest edge vegetation communities in north-centralPennsylvania. The highest percent cover of any specieswas white clover (Trifolium repens)at 41.5 percent, but it was onlyNumber Percentpresent on one plot at one padof PadsCoverlocation. Other species with high331.2mean percent cover that were1131.0only present on one pad were515.3sweet-fern (Comptonia peregrina,410.841.5 percent) and common wheat410.6(Triticum aestivum, 10.2 percent).210.2The white clover and commonwheat were found in areas where69.7supplemental seeding took place59.3within the areas of disturbed,28.9native vegetation.47.9Table 3.1 Highest mean percent cover values for “undisturbed forest” plots.Species found on only one pad not included in table.76Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, FloraNumberof PadsNumberof PlotsRed Maple (Acer rubrum)1534Hay-Scented Fern (Dennstaedtia punctilobula)1121American Beech (Fagus grandifolia)712Striped Maple (Acer pensylvanicum)79SpeciesTable 3.2 Highest species incidence for “undisturbed forest” plots.Numberof PadsPercentCoverBracken Fern (Pteridium aquilinum)223.2Wintergreen (Gaultheria procumbens)212.5Hay-Scented Fern (Dennstaedtia punctilobula)210.2Witch-Hazel (Hamamelis virginiana)26.6SpeciesTable 3.3 Highest mean percent cover values for “disturbed native”vegetation plots.Numberof PadsNumberof PlotsCarex Species (Carex spp.)44Bracken Fern (Pteridium aquilinum)34Northern Red Oak (Quercus rubra)34Deer-Tongue Grass (Panicum clandestinum)33SpeciesTable 3.4 Highest species incidence for “disturbed native” vegetation plots.Bracken fern (Pteridium aquilinum)and northern red oak (Quercus rubra)were among the species with thehighest incidence among “disturbednative” vegetation plots (Table 3.4).It was somewhat surprising to notsee high incidence of red maple(Acer rubrum) and hay-scented fern(Dennstaedtia punctilobula), givenhow common these species are acrossforest habitats in Pennsylvania.The “erosion and sedimentation”vegetation type was present on 16of 18 pads and on 30 milacre plots.Festuca species had the highestaverage percent cover, 19.2 percent(see Table 3.5). Orchardgrass(Dactylis glomerata) and red clover(Trifolium pratense) were alsoamong the species with the highestpercent cover across multiple pads(16.0 percent and 14.2 percent,respectively). All species listed inTable 3.5 that had the highest meanpercent cover across multiple padsare species that are often foundin seed mixes used to re-vegetateareas following construction, withthe exception of bigtooth aspen(Populus grandidentata) and fieldsorrel (Rumex acetosella). The highestpercent cover of any species wasquackgrass (Elymus repens) at 62.5percent, but it was only present on oneplot at one pad location. Other specieswith high mean percent cover thatwere only present on one pad werefringed brome grass (Bromus ciliatus,12.5 percent) and common wheat(Triticum aestivum, 10.2 percent).Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, Flora77SpeciesNumberof PadsPercentCoverFescue Species (Festuca spp.)419.2Orchardgrass (Dactylis glomerata)216.0Red Clover (Trifolium pratense)614.2Rush Species (Juncus spp.)212.7Bigtooth Aspen (Populus grandidentata)210.2Virginia Wildrye (Elymus virginicus)29.1Birdsfoot Trefoil (Lotus corniculatus)77.8Field Sorrel (Rumex acetosella)27.5White Clover (Trifolium repens)77.3Table 3.5 Highest mean percent cover values for “erosion andsedimentation” vegetation plots.Species found on only one pad not included in table.Numberof PadsNumberof PlotsWhite Clover (Trifolium repens)79Birdsfoot Trefoil (Lotus corniculatus)712Red Clover (Trifolium pratense)611Timothy (Phleum pratense)57Perennial Rye Grass (Lolium perenne)57Species(Microstegium vimineum). Thisspecies is found throughout thestate forest system and is oftenone of the first invasive speciesto invade disturbed habitats,roadsides, and recently harvestedforest stands. Many of the otherinvasives found in Table 3.7, suchas crown-vetch (Coronilla varia),Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense),and spotted knapweed (Centaureastoebe) also prefer disturbed edgehabitats. Some troubling speciesinclude Japanese knotweed(Polygonum cuspidatum) andgarlic-mustard (Alliaria petiolala),which can quickly colonize largeportions of the well pad edge andinhibit native vegetation or preventerosion and sedimentation seedmixes from establishing.Few conclusions or managementrecommendations can be drawnfrom only one year of well padTable 3.6 Highest species incidence for “erosion and sedimentation”vegetation plots.vegetation data. However, thisdata will be valuable as plotWhite clover (Trifolium repens), birdsfoot trefoil (Lotusre-measurement begins in subsequent years to establishcorniculatus), and red clover (Trifolium pratense) werehow these vegetation communities are changing overthe species with the highest incidence among “erosiontime. In 2013, another 18 well pads were selected. Theand sedimentation” vegetation plots (Table 3.6). This isfocus for the 2013 well pad cohort was to segregatean expected result since these are likely the three specieswell pads based on the surrounding forest type and useused most often in seed mixes to fix nitrogen in theadjacent forest as a means to stratify random sampling.soils. Similarly, Phleum pratense (Timothy) and LoliumConsideration was also given to well pads adjacent toperenne (perennial rye grass) are frequently includedother disturbed forest habitats, such as rights-of-wayin soil stabilization seed mixes used following wellor recently harvested forest stands. It is possible thatpad construction.disturbed habitats are more vulnerable to invasion thanthe oak-heath forests that surround most of the 2012Non-native species were present on 14 of 18 pads, andcohort of well pads, due to the heavy mountain-laurel11 species on the DCNR Invasive Plants List wereand ericaceous cover in these stands that limit mostfound (see Table 3.7). The invasive species with theearly-successional vegetation. Developing a betterlargest mean population size was Japanese stilt grassunderstanding of vulnerable sites will yield further78Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, FloraNumber ofPadsSpeciesPopulation Size(# of plants)Japanese Stilt Grass (Microstegium vimineum)360Crown-Vetch (Coronilla varia)138Canada Thistle (Cirsium arvense)427Reed Canary-Grass (Phalaris australis)227Bull-Thistle (Cirsium vulgare)116Spotted Knapweed (Centaurea stoebe)513Japanese Barberry (Berberis thunbergii)13Honeysuckles (Lonicera spp.)13Multiflora Rose (Rosa multiflora)13Japanese Knotweed (Polygonum cuspidatum)13Garlic-Mustard (Alliaria petiolala)13Table 3.7 Mean population size among invasive species.insights that should aid in future well pad invasivespecies management. Similarly, by monitoring erosionand sedimentation seed mix communities over time, thebureau can better determine which mixes perform best ineach state forest district subject to shale-gas development.The goal in measuring the same plots over time is tobetter understand how frequently native forest species arecolonizing pad edges and how often non-native plantedspecies in the seed mix are colonizing forest habitatsadjacent to the well pads.In addition to analyzingwell pad data, the Bureauof Forestry is collaboratingwith researchers at PennState University to betterunderstand vegetationcomposition at the disturbededges of well pads and howinvasive plant species are spreading across the landscapesas a result of well pad construction. Both the bureau’s andPenn State’s efforts can be combined to provide a richerview of the vegetation communities found at shale-gaswell pads and enable more pads to be visited each year.Roadside Plant CommunitiesPrior to the use of state forest lands for shale-gasextraction, state forest roads often saw little use exceptfor occasional timber hauling, snowmobiling in thewinter months, and other general forest recreation by thepublic. Since shale-gas development began in 2008 onstate forest lands, the quantity of truck traffic on theseforest roads has increased. State forest roads are essentialfor transporting equipment and materials to and fromnatural gas development sites and remote leased tracts.As tracts have been developed, there has also been a needfor widening or expansion of existing roads and, at times,the construction of new roads. As of December 2012,approximately 161 miles of state forest roads had beenused in some way for shale-gas development activities(See Figure 3.3). Due to the heavy use and expansionof roads on state forest lands, there is a desire to betterevaluate how existing roadside vegetation communitiesmay be impacted and assess the composition of thesecommunities along newly constructed roads. In addition,the increased traffic has the potential to carry with itnon-native weeds and invasive plant species into habitatswhich were previously not impacted by these species.Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, Flora79The purpose of this roadside vegetationprotocol is to attempt to understand how thecomposition of roadside plant communitiesmay change over time as a result of increasedstate forest road use. The increase in haulingand truck traffic on state forest roads hasthe potential to carry plant seed onto newroadside habitats and to increase the amountof non-native weeds and invasive species insome heavily used corridors. Similarly, whenroads are widened to accommodate trucktraffic, this disturbance may shift speciescomposition to early successional plantspecies. Efforts will be focused on monitoringroadside plant communities along heavily travelledcorridors, but they will also assess similar roadsidecommunities along state forest roads not used forgas-related activities.Four sections of state forest roads were chosen withineach district subject to shale-gas development. All roadsthat were chosen are not maintained by PennDOT ormunicipalities. Within each district, two roads that aresubject to heavy gas traffic and two roads not yet usedfor gas hauling were selected. For the roads chosen forthe study, 2.5-mile portions were identified that werefree of intersections with roads of other types. Withinthese 2.5-mile portions, milacre vegetation plots wereestablished at 0.25 miles, 1.25 miles, and 2.25 mileson both sides of the roadway. The first and last quartermiles function primarily to buffer any effects fromintersections with roads of other types. These milacreplots were established 90 degrees perpendicular to theroadway and four feet from the road edge.Similar to the well pad vegetation data protocols, beforevegetation sampling began, the habitat/vegetation type ateach milacre plot was recorded. The protocol categorizesplant species into three types of communities that arefound along roadsides: undisturbed forest, disturbednative vegetation (usually cleared of trees), and plantederosion and sedimentation seed mixes. The abundance of80Figure 3.3 Miles of state forest roads affected by shalegas development activities (per district).all herbaceous plants and tree seedlings was estimatedin terms of the percent of the area of the milacre plotoccupied by each species. Visual estimates of abundancehave been chosen as the most effective and expedientmeans of quantification. In addition to the visualestimates of abundance, the number of regenerating treesis counted in each milacre plot. Tree saplings greaterthan or equal to one foot in height and less than oneinch in diameter will qualify as regeneration. After thevegetation plots are completed, a vegetation assessmentand invasive plant species inventory is completed at theroad culvert closest to each pair of plots.During the 2012 field season, this protocol was pilotedby monitoring field staff and plant specialists. Fielddata collection was tested along John Merrell Road andHillsgrove Road in Loyalsock State Forest. Twenty-eightroads were selected for this study, and data collectionwas completed during the 2013 field season. The periodbetween monitoring events will be determined once the2013 data has been evaluated.Pipeline Rights of WayThe cleared right-of-way (ROW) corridors on stateforest land account for many acres of linear disturbanceand forest edge habitat. These rights of way often arecomprised of disturbed grassland or shrub habitat infull sun, which often provides ideal habitat conditionsShale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, Florafor non-native, invasive plant species. Additionally,these rights of way can act as a starting point for furthermovement of invasives established in the right-of-wayto forested habitat outside of the existing corridor. Theability for invasives to “jump” from the right of way toadjacent habitats is especially concerning in areas suchas stream crossings, timber sales, burned areas, roador trail crossings, wetlands, and other sensitivepalustrine ecosystems.This protocol addresses the need to develop a betterunderstanding of where non-native invasive speciesare currently colonizing newly constructed ROWs andto track treatment efforts of these populations. It willalso help to determine where established populationsof invasive species are moving from these corridors toadjacent forest habitats. By targeting habitat areas ofhighest concern along the right-of-way corridor, suchas stream crossings, road crossings, spring seeps, andrecently harvested timber sales, resources can be focusedon the areas with the highest potential for establishmentby an invasive plant species. It is likely that manyportions of newly constructed rights of way have beensuccessfully reclaimed and native forest vegetation hasbecome established; however, it is important for forestmanagers to understand where the most vulnerable sitesare located and how to manage these sites into the future.The proposed protocol for right-of-way vegetationmonitoring is two-fold: collect vegetation communitydata at randomly selected locations and conductvegetation assessments at habitat “hot spots.” Basedon the proposed/finished width of the selected pipelinerights of way, center points will be generated for gridcells 100 feet long and equal to the right-of-way width. Atthe center point, the first milacre plot will be establishedand data collected. Based on the width of the right ofway, two additional milacre plots will be established. Ifthe right of way is greater than 100 feet wide, the milacreplots will be located 33 feet from the center point at abearing perpendicular to the pipeline. If the corridoris less than 100 feet in width, the milacre plots will belocated by calculating an equal distance from the centerpoint to the undisturbed edge (ex. 50-foot-wide right ofway, then locate additional plots at 12.5 feet from centerpoint). The abundance of all herbaceous plants and treeseedlings will be estimated in terms of the percent of thearea of the milacre plot occupied by each species. Visualestimates of abundance have been chosen as the mosteffective and expedient means of quantification.In addition to the visual estimates of abundance, thenumber of regenerating trees will be counted in eachmilacre plot. Tree saplings greater than or equal to onefoot in height and less than one inch in diameter willqualify as regeneration.Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, Flora81To allow the field staff to react to conditions on theground, a procedure for establishing vegetation plotsin the field for vulnerable features not accounted for inthe random selection has also been developed. Oncea potential vector has been identified, field crews willproceed to the edge of the right of way and use GPSequipment to map the site. After proceeding 100 feetalong a transect, a milacre plot will be established andvegetation data will be collected. When possible, datacollection will continue by following the same transectfor another 100 feet, and another plot will be established.If the feature is nonlinear in shape, additional plots willbe established at 90-degree intervals from initial plotcenter to achieve necessary representation of conditionsacross the site.The initial scope of this protocol is to sample a subsetof the current pipeline right-of-way corridors, but itmay also have application on evaluating areas beingconsidered for future rights of way. Upon successfulpiloting in 2013, a randomly generated sample of allpipeline corridors across state forest lands will be82evaluated annually beginning in 2014. This protocol can alsobe used to address sites that land managers and gas operatorsfound to be extremely difficult to construct or reclaim.Seismic Survey LinesDuring the course of seismic survey activities, at timesthere is a need to cut trails or paths into the forest toaccess remote areas of the state forest for testing. Whilethis is often accomplished by hand trimming or tyingof the vegetation, there are situations where mulchingequipment is used to cut a wider access path. The seismiclines subject to mulching have the potential to facilitatethe colonization of non-native, invasive species intointerior forest habitats that otherwise would have beenunsuitable for invasion. To better inform managementpractices, one objective is to analyze the effects of thesemulched or cleared seismic lines on forest vegetationcommunities and track the increase or decrease in nativeherbaceous and woody regeneration along these seismicline corridors. A sample of mulched or mowed seismicline routes created over the past four years for 3D seismicsurveys will be evaluated to determine the compositionShale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, Floraof the vegetation communities within these corridors,and to determine if invasive species exist within themulched areas and how any invasive species may bespreading along these lines into interior forest habitats.For each seismic project selected for this study, sixseismic lines will be randomly selected to assess theimpacts on herbaceous/woody plant communities. Foreach seismic line (beginning at the point of access), sixmilacre plots will be placed at 200-foot intervals alongthe same transect. This distance provides an opportunityto attempt to minimize effects on the composition offorest vegetation due to the nearby road and forest edge.Six additional milacre plots will be placed at 200-footintervals on an azimuth parallel to the seismic line andending at a point 200 feet parallel from the startingpoint in undisturbed forest habitat. At plot centers3 and 7, a wooden stake will be placed at the centerpoint to remain at the site for navigation and futurereference. The abundance of all herbaceous plants andtree seedlings will be estimated in terms of the percentof the area of the milacre plot occupied by each species.Visual estimates of abundance have been chosen as themost effective and expedient means of quantification.In addition to the visual estimates of abundance, thenumber of regenerating trees will be counted in eachmilacre plot. Tree saplings greater than or equal to onefoot in height and less than one inch in diameter willqualify as regeneration. Upon completion of milacreplots, a walkabout survey will be conducted from theaccess point (often a road edge) to the first plot center toinclude the area within the mowed seismic line and theforest/seismic line interface. This walkabout will captureany invasive or non-native weed species that have begunto colonize the seismic line corridor from roadsidehabitats. For the 2013 field season, four seismic projectswere chosen to include a sampling of operators and standtypes, as well as state forest lands that border privateland holdings.2. Monitoring Shale-Gas Development Areasfor Invasive Plant SpeciesInvasive plant material can be brought onto stateforest lands on construction equipment, vehicles, orfill material, such as rock, hay, or mulch. Similarly, bycreating additional openings (well pads, pipeline rightsof way, etc.) newly developed areas could be more easilycolonized by invasive species than interior forest habitat.This type of opportunistic colonization of state forestlands by invasive species has been occurring for manyyears due to visitor use, dispersal by birds, and forestmanagement activities; however, the development ofnatural gas resources has the potential to escalate thisphenomenon and bring certain species into remote foresttracts that previously were considered less likely to besubject to invasion by new invasive plant populations.The bureau has developed an Early Detection RapidResponse protocol to help detect and control invasiveplant species introductions in areas of shale-gasdevelopment. See the Invasive Species chapter formore information.3. Assessing Rare Plant Populations andCritical Wetland HabitatsState forest lands provide a protected landscape thatharbors many rare plants, as well as many uniquewetland or palustrine forest habitats. These rareplants are state-listed or proposed to be listed as PAEndangered, PA Threatened, and PA Rare. In the past,many of these plant occurrences or wetland habitats wereconsidered to be “secure” based on their remote, interiorforest location on state forest lands and, therefore, werenot well surveyed or visited often. During the planningstages of placing gas infrastructure on state forestlands, the bureau goes to great lengths to attempt toavoid impacts to wetland habitats. In almost all cases,a 200-foot no-disturbance buffer is required betweennew construction and the delineated edge of the wetland.However, there are projects in which no viable optionexists to avoid encroaching on the wetland buffer, and awaiver is issued, if appropriate. With increased shale-gasShale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, Flora83development activity, it is important to evaluate thesesites to examine potential changes in the surroundingplant communities to intervene before any perceivedchanges can impact populations of these listed speciesor these unique habitats.populations that are located within 1,000 feet of shale-gasdevelopment areas or infrastructure. As plant populationsare visited, they will be evaluated relative to one anotherto determine if any species or individual populations arebeing affected by nearby shale-gas development.Evaluating Wetland Encroachment BuffersOne planning tool used by the bureau to avoid impactsto wetland habitats is the 200-foot no-encroachmentbuffer from disturbance that is applied around alldelineated wetland habitats. This buffer helps preventdirect or indirect impacts as a result of the constructionof infrastructure for shale-gas development. In almostall cases, gas operators work with forest managers tomaintain these buffer zones and shift infrastructureto comply with this buffer guideline. However, attimes, deviations from this practice are necessary dueto construction limitations, topography, or to resolveMonitoring Rare Plant PopulationsPopulations of many Pennsylvania rare plants, such ascreeping snowberry (Gaultheria hispidula, PA Rare),yellow-fringed orchid (Platanthera ciliaris, ProposedPA Threatened), great spurred violet (Viola selkirkii, PARare), and northeastern bulrush (Scirpus ancistrochaetus,PA Threatened, Federally Endangered), are known toexist in the vicinity of shale-gas development on stateforest lands. As time allows, updating data for knownoccurrences will help provide insight regarding the healthof these populations as well as the surrounding plantcommunities. Similarly, opportunities exist for discoveryof new populations of rare plants. In both the case ofoccurrence updates and new discoveries, it is importantthat the appropriate survey and data collection processestake place to fully document the population for inclusionor update within the PA Natural Diversity Inventory(PNDI) system. To that end, protocols have beencreated based on Goff et al. (1982) and “Protocolsfor Conducting Surveys for Plant Species of SpecialConcern” (PA DCNR, 2011).resource management conflicts. In these cases, ifappropriate, a waiver is issued. (See the InfrastructureChapter for more information on waivers).While the bureau does grant waivers for encroachmentwithin wetland buffers, these bureau buffer guidelinesare often larger than permit requirements (Act 13 of 2012requires well bores to be 300 feet from a wetland andany disturbance to be at least 100 feet from a wetland).Bureau buffer guidelines are 200 feet from the edge ofdisturbance. Encroachment within a bureau wetlandbuffer area does not necessarily mean an encroachmentwithin a wetland buffer associated with an applicableDEP permit.This protocol will compare the areas in which a wetlandbuffer encroachment waiver was granted, as well ascomparable areas in which the 200-foot wetland bufferwas maintained. Monitoring the wetland vegetationcommunities that were not subject to a 200-foot bufferallows for better assessment of how the bureau shouldgrant these types of waivers in the future. This workThis particular protocol will apply to core gas forestdistricts. The main focus will be on known state-listed84can inform policy decisions in the short and long termby assessing current best management practices forShale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, Florawetland avoidance as well as the potential effects ofreducing or expanding the wetland buffer size. Oftenbureau personnel have to balance a number of factorsas they consider proposals for infrastructure from gasoperators on state forest lands. By having more dataregarding potential impacts to wetland habitats, bureaupersonnel can make more informed decisions in thefuture regarding where to locate proposed infrastructure,or how to more effectively review waiver proposals, oreven the size of the 200-foot buffer distance itself.and the delineated edge of the wetland. The third milacreplot center will be placed at the delineated edge of thewetland. The final milacre plot center will be located 100feet from the edge into the wetland, or at the perceivedcenter of the wetland, whichever distance is less. Whenanother wetland habitat adjacent to the same projectthat was able to be buffered by 200 feet is present, asimilar milacre plot arrangement can be used to evaluatethis second wetland as a reference site to serve as acomparison to conditions at the encroached wetland.The protocol developed to assess these buffer areas andassociated wetland habitats will allow for data collectionin the buffer zone as well as within the nearby wetlandcommunity and will be carried out on all applicable sites.Starting from the edge of the encroachment site, theexact distance will be measured to the delineated edgeof the wetland habitat to verify the distance describedin the waiver request. In total, four milacre plots will beexamined within the area from the edge of constructionto the center of the wetland. All four milacre plots areto be located along the same transect, with the first plotlocated four feet from the edge of construction in thedirection of the wetland. The second milacre plot centerwill be located equidistant from the edge of constructionThe abundance of all herbaceous plants and treeseedlings will be estimated in terms of the percent ofthe area of the milacre plot occupied by each species.Visual estimates of abundance have been chosen as themost effective and expedient means of quantification.In addition to the visual estimates of abundance, thenumber of regenerating trees will be counted in eachmilacre plot. Tree saplings greater than or equal to onefoot in height and less than one inch in diameter willqualify as regeneration. This vegetation data will be usedto track any changes in vegetation communities overtime, as well as to attempt to evaluate the effectiveness ofwetland buffer zones as a means to protect the health ofthese wetland habitats.Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, Flora854. Baseline Vegetation Community Inventories inPotential Shale-Gas Development AreasAnother component of the vegetation monitoringprogram is conducting vegetation inventories in areasthat have yet to be developed for natural gas extraction.The sampling design for this monitoring will be basedon Before-After Control Impact (BACI). This samplingdesign allows for data collection before a particular eventin areas likely to be impacted by an event and in areasthat will not be impacted. Then, following a particularevent, the same sites are re-evaluated. Vegetation plotswill be established within a given tract or state forestdistrict in areas that will be impacted by development andthose that will not. These plots will be permanent andwill be visited before development takes place and afterdevelopment has concluded. The first cluster of samplingplots is chosen based on forest stand type and is situatedadjacent to proposed gas infrastructure (well pad, rightof-way, new road). A second cluster is then chosen in thatsame stand type, but in a random location at least 300 feetfrom proposed infrastructure.This cluster sampling process is similar to the Bureau ofForestry’s Wild Areas Inventory (2007). The abundanceof all herbaceous plants and tree seedlings will beestimated in terms of the percent of the area of themilacre plot occupied by each species. Visual estimatesof abundance have been chosen as the most effectiveand expedient means of quantification. In additionto the visual estimates of abundance, the number ofregenerating trees will be counted in each milacreplot. Tree saplings greater than or equal to one foot inheight and less than one inch in diameter will qualify asregeneration. Over time, this data can be used to describepotential changes to forest communities due to shale-gasdevelopment within varying stand types across the stateforest. As these changes are described and understood,the data can provide valuable insight into how best todevelop gas resources on state forest lands in the futureor adapt best management practices to better protectnative forest vegetation communities.86IV. ConclusionField work occurred in 2013 relating to all eight protocolsthat address the four components of the plant monitoringprogram. A second cohort of 18 well pads will beselected, with a focus on selecting pads that are adjacentto other disturbed forest habitats, such as rights of way orrecently harvested forest stands, as well as pads that arelocated in more unique forest stand types. Twenty-eightsections of state forest roads in shale-gas developmentareas have been selected for roadside vegetationcommunity monitoring – 14 sections that are heavilyutilized for gas hauling and 14 that are not used for gashauling. Protocols to assess vegetation communitieson pipeline rights of way and lines cleared for seismicsurveys will be piloted. Twenty populations of rare plantspecies that are within 1,000 feet of disturbance due togas extraction will be surveyed to assess any potentialthreats to their viability. Pre-development inventoriesof vegetation communities will continue across leasedstate forest tracts during upcoming field seasons. Anassessment of vegetation communities in areas in whichwetland encroachment waivers were granted duringinfrastructure construction also will take place. EarlyDetection Rapid Response protocols for invasive plantspecies will be employed opportunistically during allgas monitoring activities, and any invasive plant speciesfound while completing vegetation monitoring activitieswill be immediately treated or brought to the attention offorest managers.In addition to plant monitoring efforts already scheduled,monitoring personnel also will evaluate additionalpartnerships or studies to undertake to further theunderstanding of the potential effects of natural gasdevelopment on state forest vegetation communities.As mentioned above, the bureau has entered into apartnership with Penn State researchers to betterunderstand vegetation communities surroundingcompleted well pads and how species on these well padedges may spread into adjacent interior forest. Similarly,ecologists from the Western Pennsylvania ConservancyShale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, Florawill begin a project to assess moss and lichen speciesaround well pads and compare these species to thosefound within recently harvested forest stands, and tomosses and lichens found in undisturbed, mature forests.As some development sites enter the production phase,the bureau also hopes to begin to monitor reclamationefforts that utilize native plant species. As pipeline rightsof way, well pads, and other associated infrastructure areseeded and reclaimed, evaluating the success of theseefforts is necessary to further the bureau’s knowledgeof appropriate seed mixes and planting procedures. Thiswork would be carried out based on the bureau’s SeedMonitoring Protocol in conjunction with the bureau’sNative Planting Guidelines. This monitoring would takeplace as sites are reclaimed using the guidelines and willfollow the protocol developed for that particular type ofinfrastructure. For instance, if a right-of-way is seededwith a native seed mix, it would be monitored using rightof-way protocols explained above.It is difficult to draw solid conclusions from thisinitial plant monitoring data. As the data set growsand vegetation data from multiple years is available,comparisons across sites will be possible. Annualmonitoring of some sites also will provide a betterunderstanding of how vegetation is changingimmediately adjacent to shale-gas infrastructure andthe ways in which the undisturbed forest communitiesare beginning to reclaim disturbed sites. As conclusionsregarding the changes in vegetation communities aredrawn, this data will be utilized to better the bureau’sadaptive management strategy across all state forestdistricts subject to shale-gas extraction, and to facilitatebetter siting of infrastructure and management ofconstruction to limit potential impacts that threaten theviability of forest plant communities.Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, Flora87Part 2: Monitoring Values›› Forest HealthI. Key Points:• The principal damage-causingagents from 2008 to 2012 in the coregas forest districts activities were thegypsy moth, forest tent caterpillar,and frost.• The bureau will monitor forestedges created by well pads, pipelinesand roads for tree dieback, decline,and mortality.• Increased susceptibility to pestattack, especially by non-nativeinvasive species, may occur whereverthere is forest disturbance, especiallyfor trees along newly created edges.• Impacts in the forests surroundingdisturbance can only be discoveredthrough long-term forest healthmonitoring.II. IntroductionThe bureau’s forest health program is conducted under authority of the Conservation andNatural Resources Act and has as its purpose the protection of all forestland in the statefrom “fungi, insects, and other enemies.” The program is designed to reduce pest-causedeconomic losses by utilizing integrated forest pest management strategies, providingassistance, and conducting projects aimed at preventing, detecting, evaluating, andsuppressing forest pest outbreaks. Protection is provided to the extent possiblewith available manpower and funding commensurate with the involved values andecological concerns.The purpose of the forest health program in Pennsylvania is to protect forest resourcesfrom forest pests and other adverse factors to ensure the long-term health of thecommonwealth’s forest ecosystems. The bureau promotes programs to improve and88Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, Forest Healthmaintain the long-term health and biodiversity offorest ecosystems, including urban forests. The bureauevaluates biotic and abiotic factors affecting the health oftrees and woodlands, utilizes integrated pest managementtechniques to mitigate the effects of destructive agents,and promotes forest health to the public.Maintaining forest health and the management ofdestructive insects and disease is a statewide concern.For the purposes of this report, however, the focus is ondata and information available in the core gas forest districts where shale gas development is the most prevalent.Over time this will allow the bureau to evaluate if anyforest health trends are related to shale gas activity.Non-native invasive forest pests are a significantthreat to forests, and considerable effort and resourcesare expended to detect, monitor, assess, and controlnon-native invasive forest pests. The bureau workscooperatively with the Pennsylvania Invasive SpeciesCouncil, the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture,the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), andother state agencies and organizations to coordinate itsefforts regarding invasive species. Some of the majorinvasive forest insect and disease pests established inPennsylvania are the gypsy moth (GM), hemlock woollyadelgid (HWA), emerald ash borer (EAB), thousandcankers disease (TCD) and walnut twig beetle (WTB),Sirex woodwasp, butternut canker (BC), elongatehemlock scale (EHS), chestnut blight, Dutch elm disease,and beech bark disease (BBD). Other non-native invasiveforest pests not yet detected in Pennsylvania but whichwould cause considerable tree mortality are the suddenoak death (SOD) pathogen, Asian longhorned beetle(ALB), exotic bark beetle, and winter moth.The following strategies are used throughoutPennsylvania in the forest health program: 1) IntegratedPest Management – Utilize ecologically sound integratedpest management techniques to study, survey, monitor,assess, and protect forest ecosystems; 2) Information andEducation – Provide employees, cooperators, forest landowners, and forest users with readily available, easilyunderstood, and usable forest health information andtraining; 3) Technology and Innovation – Use innovativeand technological solutions to improve forest healthprograms; and 4) Organizational Performance – Operatea professional organization that efficiently and effectivelymeets the needs of employees, cooperators, forest landowners, and forest users.Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, Forest Health89III. Monitoring Efforts/ResultsThe Bureau of Forestry participates with the USDAForest Service in the Forest Health Monitoring (FHM)program. Forest Health Monitoring is a national programdesigned to determine the status, changes, and trendsin indicators of forest condition on an annual basis.The FHM program uses data from ground plots andsurveys, aerial surveys, and other biotic and abiotic datasources and develops analytical approaches to addressforest health issues that affect the sustainability of forestecosystems. FHM covers all forested lands through apartnership involving the USDA Forest Service, stateforesters, and other state and federal agencies andacademic groups.The evaluation monitoring component of the ForestHealth Monitoring program is designed to determine theextent, severity, and causes of undesirable changes inforest health identified through detection monitoring andother means. The need for evaluation monitoring projectsarises when significant forest health changes or trendsare found in detection monitoring. Evaluation monitoring90also provides additional information about forest healthimprovements, such as improved plant vigor, resultingfrom air pollution abatement. Detection monitoring isconducted by the bureau on an annual basis throughaerial forest health surveys, forest insect and diseasereporting, and specialized surveys.Annual aerial surveys are conducted across Pennsylvaniato detect forest damage and tree mortality. Groundtruthing is conducted to confirm unknown causes ofthe damage. Ground surveys using forest insect anddisease reporting procedures are used to determine thepresence or absence of forest pests and to documentdamage when present.Specialized surveys conducted include Asian longhornedbeetle, emerald ash borer, hemlock woolly adelgid,elongate hemlock scale, Sirex noctilio woodwasp, exoticbark beetle, sudden oak death, sugar maple decline,butternut canker, ash yellows, beech bark disease, gypsymoth, forest tent caterpillar, winter moth, and thousandcankers disease and the walnut twig beetle vector.Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, Forest HealthForest Damage and Pest Suppression Results for North-Central Pennsylvania from 2008-2012  Figure 4.1Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, Forest Health91Forest DistrictsYear2008Programs20112012Total139,72649,3203245,9591,66910,811394,667Mortality (acres)10,77011,889-----22,659GM Suppression(acres treated)28,6526,791172----35,615--------Damage (acres)2,00826,315101,4962,570297,82014,2463,588478,043Mortality (acres)66940,5194771976973824542,842GM Suppression(acres treated)5,46518,63510,362--20919234,863--------Damage (acres)1,23114,42613,63565,733289,28554,00913,67551,994Mortality (acres)41541,0801,2533---42,751GM Suppression(acres treated)--------HWA Suppression(acres treated)-5576-1511100257Damage (acres)2,6791-----2,680Mortality (acres)6,5101921,1022,11119,5175,302634,739GM Suppression(acres treated)--------HWA Suppression(acres treated)--------Damage (acres)--50-2012211,6302,102Mortality (acres)-6521,3703914,4263,7793510,653GM Suppression(acres treated)--------HWA Suppression(acres treated)------1313HWA Suppression(acres treated)201010-Sproul 12-Tiadaghton 13-Elk 15-Susquehannock 16- Tioga 20-Loyalsock147,150HWA Suppression(acres treated)20099-MoshannonDamage (acres)Table 4.1 Principal damage-causing agents from 2008-2012.The principal damage-causing agents from 2008 to2012 in this region of Pennsylvania were the forest tentcaterpillar and the gypsy moth. The last gypsy mothoutbreak in Pennsylvania occurred from 2005 to 2009,mainly in northeastern, central, and south-centralPennsylvania. During the 2008-2012 period in core gasforest districts, gypsy moth defoliation occurred only in2008 and 2009, causing 336,527 acres of defoliation in2008 (principally in Moshannon, Sproul, and Tiadaghtonstate forests) and 115,148 acres of defoliation in 2009(principally in Sproul and Tiadaghton state forests). Treemortality from gypsy moth was detected in 2008 inMoshannon State Forest (10,770 acres) and Sproul StateForest (11,889 acres) due to defoliation in previous years.Another 16,116 acres of mortality occurred in Sproul92State Forest in 2009; 40,903 acres in Sproul State Forestin 2010; and 6,424 acres in Moshannon in 2011.The forest tent caterpillar, a native forest insect defoliatorof sugar maple in Pennsylvania, but also of oak andaspen, caused defoliation across this region from 20082010. A total of 57,967 acres were defoliated in 2008(Susquehannock, Tioga, and Loyalsock state forests);344,237 acres in 2009 (all districts except for Sproul,with 297,819 acres defoliated in Susquehannock); and434,218 acres in 2010 (all districts, with 288,529 acresdefoliated in Susquehannock). Extensive tree mortalityappeared in 2011 (23,516 acres, with 19,459 acres inSusquehannock) and 2012 (9,505 acres, with 4,403 acresin Susquehannock and 3,695 acres in Tioga).Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, Forest HealthOne abiotic damage-causing agent of note was extensivefrost, totaling 16,570 acres in 2010 across all the stateforests except Sproul.Gypsy moth suppression treatments occurred inPennsylvania from 2006 to 2009. In 2008 and 2009,a total of 35,615 acres and 34,863 acres were treated,respectively, across the region. Moshannon, Sproul, andTiadaghton state forests had treatment areas in 2008, andMoshannon, Sproul, Tiadaghton, Tioga, and Loyalsockstate forests had treatment areas in 2009.IV. Conclusion/DiscussionMonitoring impacts to forest health is a long-termendeavor. The bureau will monitor forest edges createdby well pads, pipelines and roads for tree dieback, declineand mortality. Increased susceptibility to pest attack,especially by non-native invasive species, may occurwherever there is forest disturbance, especially for treesalong newly created edges. However, impacts in thesurrounding forests can only be discovered through longterm forest health monitoring. The bureau, the USDAForest Service, and other agencies all have a role in theforest health monitoring effort.Evaluation monitoring projects may be initiated if foresthealth changes are detected through the Bureau ofForestry’s detection monitoring activities. These projectsare done in conjunction with the USDA Forest Service,which provides funding for these activities.The bureau is preparing an Eastern hemlock conservationplan that will address tree management, hemlock woollyadelgid management and control, genetic resistance,individual tree treatments with systemic insecticides topreserve hemlock in high value sites, and restoration.Gas drilling activities will have to be considered in thedevelopment of this conservation plan.The emerald ash borer will be a serious threat tothis region. Much of the high-quality ash stands inPennsylvania are located in the northern tier of counties.Approximately 3.6 percent of Pennsylvania’s forestsare ash, but much of it is concentrated in the northerncounties. Management plans for emerald ash borerinclude collecting and preserving ash seed, reducingbasal area of ash to 20 percent or less, and introducingbiological control agents, and treating individual treeswith systemic insecticides to preserve some ash treesin clusters and thus preserve ash seed sources. A majorfactor that will be monitored is ash stands with newlycreated edges due to gas drilling activities. The emeraldash borer seeks ash trees along forest edges and attacksash trees that are under stress or are in decline. As thenorthern tier counties in Pennsylvania contain most of thehigh-quality ash stands, impacts to ash will be an issueaddressed over the next several years.Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, Forest Health93Part 2: Monitoring Values›› Invasive SpeciesI. Key Points:• Eleven non-native invasive plant species were present at14 of 18 representative pads across core gas forest districts.– The invasive plant with the largest mean population sizewas Japanese stilt-grass (Microstegium vimineum), whichhas become common across most state forest districtsand spreads easily, especially along roadside corridors.– An Early Detection Rapid Response protocol for invasiveplant species was employed opportunistically duringall field work conducted by the bureau’s Shale-GasMonitoring Program during the 2013 growing season.• The principal forest damage-causing agent from 2008 to2012 in core gas forest districts activities was the gypsymoth (a non-native invasive species).• Increased susceptibility to pest attack, especially by nonnative invasive species, will occur wherever there is forestdisturbance, especially for trees along newly creatededges. However, impacts in the surrounding forests can bediscovered only through long-term forest health monitoring.II. IntroductionNon-native invasive species pose a serious threat to forest ecosystems in Pennsylvania.The bureau expends considerable resources to detect, monitor, assess, and control nonnative, invasive plants and forests pests. The bureau attempts to take a comprehensiveapproach when evaluating the threats to forest stands due to non-native, invasive species – considering species in all taxa, including plants, insects, and diseases. Invasivespecies are an issue and management challenge in all the forests of Pennsylvania. Thisreport will focus on data and information available in the core gas forest districts, whereshale gas activity is most prevalent. Over time this will allow the bureau to evaluateinvasive species trends related to shale gas activity.Invasive plant species, both terrestrial and aquatic, have the potential to severely impactthe native vegetation and wildlife habitat quality within the commonwealth’s forests byspreading quickly and out-competing native plants. Invasive plants have the potentialto negatively impact soil chemistry, sunlight levels, reproduction of native species, andhydrology in wetland habitats.94Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, Invasive SpeciesInvasive plants that are widespread across the stateforest system include: garlic-mustard (Alliaria petiolata),tree-of-heaven (Ailanthus altissima), Japanese stilt-grass(Microstegium vimineum), Japanese knotweed, (Fallopiajaponica), multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), and Japanesebarberry (Berberis thunbergii). Invasive plants thathave become a concern more recently and are spreadingquickly include: mile-a-minute vine (Persicariaperfoliata), black and pale swallow-worts (Vincetoxicumnigrum and V. rossicum), and Japanese angelica tree(Aralia elata). These species are difficult and expensiveto control or eradicate across the forested landscape.Currently, 88 plant species found in Pennsylvania areconsidered invasive by the bureau.The development of shale-gas resources on state forestlands has the potential to increase the spread of nonnative invasive species. Invasive plant material can bebrought onto state forest lands on construction equipmentand vehicles, or in fill material such as rock, hay, ormulch. Similarly, by creating additional openings (wellpads, pipeline rights-of-way, etc.), these newly disturbedareas are more easily colonized by invasive speciescompared to the interior forest habitat. Opportunisticcolonization of state forest lands by all types of invasivespecies has been occurring for many years due to visitoruse, dispersal by birds and other animals, and forestmanagement activities; however, the development ofnatural gas resources has the potential to escalate thisphenomenon and bring certain species into remote foresttracts that were previously considered less likely to besubject to invasion by new invasive species.The bureau works cooperatively with the PennsylvaniaInvasive Species Council, the Pennsylvania Departmentof Agriculture, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, andother state agencies and organizations to coordinate itsefforts regarding invasive species. Some of the majorinvasive forest insect and disease pests established inPennsylvania are the gypsy moth, hemlock woollyadelgid, emerald ash borer, thousand cankers diseaseand the walnut twig beetle, Sirex woodwasp, butternutcanker, elongate hemlock scale, chestnut blight, Dutchelm disease, and beech bark disease. Other non-nativeinvasive forest pests not yet detected in Pennsylvania,but which would cause considerable tree mortality, arethe sudden oak death pathogen, Asian longhorned beetle,exotic bark beetle, and winter moth.Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, Invasive Species95III. Monitoring Efforts/ResultsIn addition to the Early Detection Rapid Responseprotocol discussed in this section, all protocols involvingthe assessment of newly constructed infrastructureinclude surveys for non-native, invasive plant species.Similarly, the bureau will systematically check asubset of all infrastructure for new populations ofinvasive species. For leases granted prior to 2008,operators are not responsible for post-constructionsurveys for invasive species or treatment of anyspecies found on site following construction. For leasesgranted in 2008 and 2010, operators are responsiblefor conducting invasive species surveys within thedisturbance areas of their infrastructure annually untiltheir surveys show no invasive species presence for twoconsecutive growing seasons.Invasive PlantsOne of the four main components of the bureau’s plantmonitoring program is to monitor forest tracts subjectto shale-gas development for non-native, invasiveplants species. In addition to the Early Detection96Rapid Response protocol discussed in this section, allprotocols involving the assessment of newly constructedinfrastructure (see the Flora chapter of this report)include surveys for non-native invasive plant species.Similarly, the Bureau of Forestry will systematicallycheck a subset of all infrastructure for new populationsof invasive plants.The bureau recognizes 88 plant species as invasive inPennsylvania; the complete list of these species can befound here: http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/forestry/plants/invasiveplants/. In addition, another 25 species areincluded in the bureau’s “watch list.” These species areeither listed as invasive in neighboring states or exhibitcertain traits that suggest they could become a threat tonative forest ecosystems.In addition to the plant species already consideredinvasive in Pennsylvania, the bureau also has investigatedsome additional species that are present in stateswhere natural gas development is taking place, such asOklahoma, Texas, Louisiana, North Dakota, Montana,Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, Invasive SpeciesSpeciesPurple star-thistle (Centaurea calcitrapa)Yellow star-thistle (Centaurea solstitialis)Houndstongue (Cynoglossum officinale)Scotch broom (Cytisus scoparius)Leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula)Hairy whitetop (Lepidium appelianum)Whitetop (Lepidium draba)Dalmatian toadflax (Linaria dalmatica)Scotch thistle (Onopordum acanthium)Wavy-leaf basket grass (Oplismenus hirtellus ssp. undulatifolius)1Sawtooth oak (Quercus accutissima)Medusahead (Taeniatherum caput-medusae)Table 5.1 Plant species found in Pennsylvania known to be invasive in other gas-producing states.1 Wavy-leaf basket grass has not yet been found in Pennsylvania but is known to exist in very closeproximity to the Pennsylvania-Maryland border.and West Virginia. There is the potential for invasiveplant material from these states to be transported toPennsylvania if construction or drilling equipment ismoved from state to state. This research is ongoingas new invasive species are listed in other states.Table 5.1 includes a partial list of the species that havebeen found in Pennsylvania, but which, at this time, areonly considered invasive in other states extracting naturalgas resources.Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, Invasive Species97SpeciesNumberof PadsPopulation Size(Avg. # of Plants)Japanese stilt-grass (Microstegium vimineum)359.7Crown-vetch (Coronilla varia)138.0Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense)427.3Reed canary-grass (Phalaris australis)226.8Bull-thistle (Cirsium vulgare)115.5Spotted knapweed (Centaurea stoebe)512.5Japanese barberry (Berberis thunbergii)13.0Honeysuckles (Lonicera spp.)13.0Multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora)13.0Japanese knotweed (Polygonum cuspidatum)13.0Garlic-mustard (Alliaria petiolala)13.0Table 5.2 Mean population size among invasive species found during well pad walkabouts.Field data collection and vegetation assessments werecompleted for the first 12 well pads in the long-termvegetation monitoring. In total, 18 well pads were chosenthat were representative of most operators across thecore gas forest districts. Eleven non-native, invasivespecies were present on 14 of 18 pads (see Table 5.2). Theinvasive species with the largest mean population sizewas Japanese stilt-grass (Microstegium vimineum). Thisspecies is found throughout the state forest system and isoften one of the first invasive species to invade disturbedhabitats, roadsides, and recently harvested forest stands.Many of the other invasive species found in Table 5.2,such as crown-vetch (Coronilla varia), Canada thistle(Cirsium arvense), and spotted knapweed (Centaureastoebe), also prefer disturbed edge habitats. Sometroubling species include Japanese knotweed (Polygonumcuspidatum) and garlic-mustard (Alliaria petiolala), if leftuntreated, can quickly colonize large portions of the wellpad edge and inhibit native vegetation or prevent erosionand sedimentation seed mixes from establishing.Early Detection Rapid Response ProtocolNew forest clearings or disturbances due to shale-gasdevelopment have the potential to provide ideal habitatand growing conditions for invasive plant species. Often98these species thrive in disturbed sites that provide openlight and exposed soils where seed can readily germinate.Tracking these novel populations and treating thempromptly is essential to slowing the spread of invasiveplants on state forest lands.The bureau has developed an Early Detection andRapid Response protocol similar to that developedby Keefer et al. (2010) for the National Park Service.The development of this protocol has the potentialto maximize both sampling efficiency and discoveryopportunities for new invasive plant species occurrences.This protocol provides a brief (less than five-minute)Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, Invasive Speciesreporting procedure that can be carried out by allmonitoring program personnel and allows not only forthe discovery of new invasive plant populations but alsofor the future treatment of these occurrences. Since allmonitoring specialists and foresters will be using theprotocol, it has the potential to create a large datasetbased on opportunistic sampling.In addition to developing the protocol and providingidentification training, a list of three to five high-priorityinvasive species will be developed for each forest districtsubject to shale-gas development. These lists will beevaluated annually based on the latest field data. Thefocus of this protocol will be on high-priority species thatare either new or uncommon to a forest district or arecurrently found outside a district but have the potentialto move in. New occurrences are likely to be relativelysmall in size and, if treated, can be removed without anoverwhelming amount of effort, time, or cost.The Early Detection Rapid Response protocol will beapplied to core gas forest districts. It has been designedto be completed quickly while working on othermonitoring projects, and, if additional time is needed,to assess a particular site or population, a follow-upvisit can be scheduled. When an occurrence of a high-priority invasive plant species is found, the occurrencewill be flagged and data will be collected regarding thepopulation size and the perceived vector. Photographsalso will be taken and GPS locations recorded.If treatment of the invasive species is practical,monitoring field staff will treat the population basedon established guidelines. Before each field season,these techniques will be discussed and training will beprovided. If a species is deemed not to be treatable viathe Early Detection Rapid Response protocol, locationinformation will be recorded for subsequent treatment.As the data set of treated occurrences grows, theeffectiveness of these treatments can be evaluated. Overtime, spatial data can be developed that indicate patternsof invasive species dispersal. This information may beuseful in adapting management guidelines and predictingareas that are vulnerable to colonization.Invasive Pests and DiseasesThe bureau, in cooperation with other state and federalagencies, regularly monitors a variety of forest healthindicators across Pennsylvania. As part of this effort,the bureau monitors and tracks outbreaks of non-native,invasive insects and diseases. (See the Forest HealthShale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, Invasive Species99chapter for more information.) In addition to itslarge-scale monitoring efforts, the bureau also conductsspecialized surveys for a variety of non-native diseaseand insects, including Asian longhorned beetle, emeraldash borer, hemlock woolly adelgid, gypsy moth, beechbark disease, and butternut canker.The principal non-native, damage causing agent from2008 to 2012 in the core gas forest districts was the gypsymoth. The last gypsy moth outbreak in Pennsylvaniaoccurred from 2005 to 2009, mainly in northeastern,central, and south-central Pennsylvania. During the 2008to 2012 period in seven state forest districts, gypsy mothdefoliation occurred only in 2008 and 2009, causing336,527 acres of defoliation in 2008 (principally inMoshannon, Sproul, and Tiadaghton state forests) and115,148 acres of defoliation in 2009 (principally in Sprouland Tiadaghton state forests). Tree mortality from gypsymoth was detected in 2008 in Moshannon State Forest(10,770 acres) and Sproul State Forest (11,889 acres) dueto defoliation in previous years. Another 16,116 acres ofmortality occurred in Sproul in 2009; 40,903 acres inSproul in 2010; and 6,424 acres in Moshannon in 2011.IV. Conclusion/DiscussionDue to the threat that invasive plants pose to the healthof forest ecosystems, monitoring and treatment ofnon-native invasive plant species in areas of shale-gasdevelopment will continue. Early Detection RapidResponse protocols for invasive plant species will beemployed opportunistically during all gas monitoringactivities, and any invasive plant species found whilecompleting vegetation monitoring activities will beimmediately treated or brought to the attention of forestdistrict managers. In addition to formal Early DetectionRapid Response protocols, any assessment of vegetationcommunities within or adjacent to gas development siteswill include a thorough search for invasive plant species.As novel species are found on state forest lands or asnew, effective treatments are discovered for existinginvasive species, this information will be shared acrossall state state forest districts.In addition to existing plant monitoring efforts, thebureau has entered into a partnership with PennsylvaniaState University researchers to better understandvegetation communities surrounding completed well100 Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, Invasive Speciespads and how species on the edges of well pads mayspread into adjacent interior forest. This researchincludes a thorough assessment of well pad edges andaccess roads for non-native, invasive species.The bureau will continue to further expand itsinvasive species monitoring program to respond toparticular species and infestations as gas developmentcontinues. As the monitoring program moves forward,annual monitoring of treated invasive populationsalso will provide a better understanding of how thesespecies are affecting native vegetation immediatelyadjacent to shale-gas infrastructure. As conclusionsregarding the effects on vegetation communities aredrawn, this data will be utilized to improve the bureau’smanagement practices.The bureau and its partners all have a role in the foresthealth monitoring effort as it pertains to non-nativeinvasive species. Evaluation monitoring projects may beinitiated if forest health changes are detected through thebureau’s detection monitoring activities. These projectsare done in conjunction with the USDA Forest Service,which provides funding for these activities.forests are ash, but much of this species is concentratedin the northern counties. Management plans for EABinclude collecting and preserving ash seed, reducingbasal area of ash to 20 percent or less, introducingbiological control agents, and treating individual treeswith systemic insecticides to preserve some ash treesin clusters as ash seed sources. Ash stands with newlycreated edges due to gas drilling activities will betargeted for some of the EAB monitoring. The emeraldash borer seeks ash trees along forest edges and attacksash trees that are under stress or in decline.Monitoring impacts to forest health is a long-termendeavor. Increased susceptibility to pest attack,especially by non-native invasive species, may occurwherever there is forest disturbance, especially for treesalong newly created edges. This effect has been seenover time during the course of typical forest managementprojects that create new forest edge, such as overstoryremoval of timber resources. Impacts from creating newforest edges due to well pads, pipelines, and roads mayinclude edge trees suffering dieback, decline, and evenmortality. However, impacts to the surrounding forestscan only be discovered and measured through long-termforest health monitoring.The emerald ash borer (EAB) will be a serious threat tothis region. Approximately 3.6 percent of Pennsylvania’sShale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, Invasive Species 101Part 2: Monitoring Values›› WaterI. Key Points:• The majority of streams in the core gas forest districts (71 percent) are first-order,headwater streams.• The majority of streams in the shale-gas region (87 percent) are classified as highquality or exceptional value by the DEP, and many streams are identified as havingnaturally reproducing trout populations by the Fish and Boat Commission.• A widespread sampling of field chemistry, including over 300 locations, showed that pHresults were primarily in the circum-neutral range, with 72 percent of results between6.5 and 7.5 and a median pH of 7.01.• A widespread sampling of field chemistry showed that 91 percent of specific conductance results were below 100 microsiemens(µS)/cm, with a median of 41.3 µS/cm.• Initial water monitoring results have not identified any significant impacts due to shalegas development. This is based on one round of field chemistry sampling throughoutthe shale-gas region and over one year of operation for 10 continuous monitoringdevices in key watersheds. At this early stage, the data collected are primarily forestablishing baseline conditions.• A pilot study of a pebble count protocol in Tiadaghton State Forest showed BrownsRun to be a reference quality stream, according to a DEP criterion.• Future monitoring efforts include longitudinal surveys of field chemistry, surface watergrab sampling, installation of additional continuous monitoring devices, andan assessment of pipeline-stream crossings.102 Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, WaterII. Introductionforest districts, including many of the best-known fishingand boating waters in Pennsylvania.Maintaining and protecting the quality of water onstate forest lands continues to be one of the bureau’shighest priorities. One of the objectives of the shale-gasmonitoring program is to evaluate the potential effectof shale-gas development on water resources withinstate forest lands.This report will present current and planned activitiesof the bureau, as well as other agencies, in monitoringthe potential effect of shale-gas development on stateforest land waters.State forest lands within the shale-gas region are host toa vast network of streams and rivers as well as importantgroundwater resources. Since its inception, one of theprimary purposes of the state forest system has been toprotect and conserve water resources for recreationalenjoyment, wildlife use, and drinking water supply.According to DEP data, approximately 3,400 miles ofstream traverse state forest lands within the core gasWater and State Forest LandsStreams and rivers in Pennsylvania can be classifiedin a number of ways. One informative manner ofclassification is stream order, which is the position of astream within the hierarchy of tributaries in a drainagenetwork. A first-order stream has no discernibletributaries. A second-order stream occurs at the junctionof two first-order streams, and so forth up the hierarchy.Figure 6.1 Stream map of shale-gas districts based on NHD Plus dataset.Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, Water 103Thus, headwater streams are low orders and large riversare high orders.The order of a stream is dependent on the map scaleused to determine stream order. As map detail increases,smaller channels can be seen. A first-order stream on a1:100,000 map might be a second- or third-order streamon a 1:24,000 map. For the purposes of this report, theNational Hydrography Dataset Plus (NHD Plus) wasused to determine stream order throughout the shale-gasregion. The NHD Plus maps streams at 1:100,000 scale.Table 6.1 and Figure 6.1 provide the distribution ofstream orders on state forest lands in the core gasforest districts. The vast majority of the streams, over70 percent, are first-order streams. This means that thestreams on state forest land are generally small, andthey are highly dependent on the forested land thatimmediately surrounds them.Another important stream classification is thatpromulgated under Chapter 93 of DEP regulations.Chapter 93 pertains to water quality standards andprotected uses of state waters. The most commonChapter 93 water designations in the shale-gas region arewarm water fishes (WWF), trout stocked waters (TSF),cold water fishes (CWF), high-quality waters (HQ), andexceptional value waters (EV). The water uses protectedunder Chapter 93 for a given water body are designatedwithin the Chapter 93 regulations (i.e., in a list of streamsfound throughout the state), and the designation fromChapter 93 can be updated by DEP if deemed appropriatebased on new data. This revision of the stream’sdesignation is called a change in its “existing use.”A water body can qualify as HQ or EV if it meetscertain chemical or biological criteria laid out in Chapter93. Classification as HQ or EV protects a water bodyfrom new, additional, or increased discharges unlessall non-discharge alternatives have been eliminated.If a proposed discharge is the only environmentallysound and cost-effective alternative, then it may beStream OrderMiles ofStreamPercentage ofStream Miles1st1,567.171.72nd379.917.43rd179.78.24th32.51.55th26.31.2Total2,185.5--Table 6.1 Distribution of stream orders withinthe shale-gas region.permitted if it can be demonstrated that the dischargewill not diminish the quality of the receiving waters.The exception to this rule is that the DEP may allowa reduction in water quality in an HQ water if it isdemonstrated that doing so is important to economicor social development. No such exception exists forEV waters.Based on the rules and criteria, this DEP classificationsystem represents a good indicator of both the qualityof a water body and the protection it receives underregulations. As shown in Table 6.2 and Figure 6.2, DEPdata sources were used to determine the DEP Chapter 93classification of streams throughout the shale-gas region.Over 85 percent of the stream miles fall within one of thehigher protection waters, HQ or EV. The total number ofstream miles is greater for this dataset than for the NHDPlus because a finer scale of mapping is used.A third important stream classification is based ondesignations by the Fish and Boat Commission (PFBC).PFBC classifies certain water bodies in a numberof ways, including trout-stocked streams, naturallyreproducing trout streams, Class A wild trout streams,and wilderness trout streams. A trout-stocked streamreceives periodic stocking of trout by the PFBC. Anaturally reproducing trout stream is any stream wherewild reproducing trout are present, and a Class A wildtrout stream has biomass (or abundance) of wild troutabove a standard PFBC threshold for either brown orbrook trout. Class A wild trout streams can be classified104 Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, Wateras HQ under DEP Chapter 93. A wilderness trout streamis a classification by PFBC based on the wild setting of astream, taking into account such factors as the number ofroads crossing the stream. A wilderness trout stream canbe classified as EV under DEP Chapter 93.Chapter 93ClassificationMiles ofStreamPercentage ofStream MilesWWF2.80.1TSF40.01.2CWF404.612.0HQ1,621.048.2EV1,292.138.5Total3,360.5--Table 6.2 Classification of streams within the shale-gasregion under DEP Chapter 93.These PFBC classifications are valuable not only asan indicator of the health of the trout population, andthereby of the water quality, but also as an indicator ofthe recreational experience available to state forest users.As shown in Table 6.3 and Figure 6.3, PFBC data sourceswere used to determine the trout classification of streamsthroughout the core gas forest districts.The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has divided thenation’s waters into a hierarchy of hydrologic units.The largest unit, designated as a region, is successivelydivided into smaller hydrologic units down to smallwatersheds of a single stream. Each hydrologic unit isidentified by a unique, numeric hydrologic unit code(HUC). These HUCs are a convenient way to identifyand describe waters and watersheds.Figure 6.2 Stream map of the shale-gas districts showing the DEP Chapter 93 designations of the streams.Where applicable, the existing use is shown. Otherwise, the designated use is shown.Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, Water 105Figure 6.3 Stream map of the shale-gas districts showing classification by the PFBC.The waters within core gas forest districts are within theMid-Atlantic HUC Region. At the sub-region HUC level,the shale-gas region is divided into the Susquehanna andAllegheny sub-regions. However, 97.7 percent of the coregas forest districts falls within the Susquehanna SubRegion. The HUC-8 (or eight digit code) will be used inthis report to provide an overview of water resources inPFBC ClassificationTrout-stockedNaturally Reproducing Wild TroutMiles ofStream173.91,852.5Class A Wild Trout373.1Wilderness Trout204.9Table 6.3 Classification of streams within theshale-gas region by the PFBC.the core gas forest districts. Most of the state forest landin the core gas forest districts falls within seven HUC-8sof the Susquehanna Sub-Region (see Table 6.4 and Figure6.4). A small portion (2.3 percent) of the core gas forestdistricts falls within the Upper Allegheny and ClarionHUC-8s of the Allegheny Sub-Region.SinnemahoningNearly 350,000 acres of state forest fall within theSinnemahoning HUC-8, including significant portionsof Elk, Moshannon, and Susquehannock state forests.The Sinnemahoning is a major drainage of the WestBranch Susquehanna River. Major sub-basins of theSinnemahoning are the Bennett Branch, DriftwoodBranch, and First Fork Sinnemahoning Creek. The106 Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, WaterFigure 6.4 HUC-8 watersheds of the shale-gas region. Leased tracts and severed rights tracts areshown overlaying the state forest boundaries.Sinnemahoning is largely forested (89 percent), with52.4 percent of its land area comprising state forestland. Shale-gas development on state forest land in thisHUC-8 is concentrated to the north and west. The upperportions of the First Fork and Bennett Branch containlarge areas of severed lands.HUC-8 NumberAcres of StateForest in HUC-8Sinnemahoning02050202346,942Middle West Branch Susquehanna02050203342,512Pine02050205264,891Lower West Branch Susquehanna02050206205,200Upper West Branch Susquehanna02050102148,761Bald Eagle0205020482,362Tioga0205010433,349HUC-8 NameTable 6.4 Primary HUC-8s of the shale-gas region.Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, Water 107Middle West Branch SusquehannaApproximately 340,000 acres of state forest fall withinthe Middle West Branch Susquehanna HUC-8, primarilywithin Susqehannock and Sproul state forests. ThisHUC-8 includes major and minor tributaries both to thesouth and north of the West Branch Susquehanna Riverin this area. The major tributaries are Young Woman’sCreek and Kettle Creek. This HUC-8 is largely forested(91 percent), with 68.2 percent of its land area comprisingstate forest land. Shale-gas development on state forestland is intense in the southern portion of this watershedon leased tracts. Severed lands are lightly dispersedthroughout the watershed.PineApproximately 265,000 acres of state forest fall withinthe Pine HUC-8, primarily within the Tioga and Tiadaghton state forests. The Pine is a major drainage ofthe West Branch Susquehanna River. Major tributariesto the Pine include Marsh Creek, Babb Creek, and LittlePine Creek. This HUC-8 is largely forested (83 percent),with 42.2 percent of its land area comprising state forestland. Shale-gas development on state forest land is intense in the southern portion of this watershed on leasedtracts. Leased tracts and severed lands also are present inthe upper Pine Creek and Marsh Creek watersheds.Lower West Branch SusquehannaApproximately 205,000 acres of state forest fall withinthe Lower West Branch Susquehanna HUC-8, includingsignificant portions of Tiadaghton, Bald Eagle, andLoyalsock state forests. This HUC-8 includes majorand minor tributaries of the West Branch SusquehannaRiver. Major tributaries that include state forest land areLycoming Creek, Loyalsock Creek, White Deer HoleCreek, and Buffalo Creek. This HUC-8 has mixed landuse, with 65 percent forested and 25 percent agriculture.Shale-gas development on state forest land in thiswatershed is primarily in Loyalsock State Forest, whichcontains significant areas of both leased tracts andsevered lands.Upper West Branch SusquehannaNearly 150,000 acres of state forest fall within the UpperWest Branch Susquehanna HUC-8, including portionsof Sproul and Moshannon state forests. This HUC-8includes major and minor tributaries of the West BranchSusquehanna River. Major tributaries that include stateforest land are Mosquito Creek, Moshannon Creek, andAnderson Creek. This HUC-8 has mixed land use, with77 percent forest and 11 percent agriculture. Shale-gas development on state forest land in this watershed is widespread, including both leased tracts and severed lands.108 Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, WaterBald EagleApproximately 82,000 acres of state forest fall withinthe Bald Eagle HUC-8, including parts of the Sprouland Bald Eagle state forests. This HUC-8 drains to theWest Branch Susquehanna River. Major tributaries thatinclude state forest land are Beech Creek and FishingCreek. This HUC-8 has mixed land use, with 72 percentforest and 17 percent agriculture. Shale-gas developmenton state forest land in this watershed is concentrated inthe Beech Creek sub-basin, which includes both leasedtracts and severed lands.TiogaApproximately 33,000 acres of Tioga State Forest fallwithin the Tioga HUC-8. The Tioga is a major drainageof the Chemung River, which feeds the SusquehannaRiver. State forest land is limited to the upper TiogaRiver and one tributary – Crooked Creek. Most of thestate forest lands in this watershed are either leased tractsor severed lands.Importance of Water MonitoringThe development of shale-gas wells requires largeamounts of freshwater, typically 5 million gallons perwell. Due to economic and logistic constraints, the sourcefor much of this water is local – drawn from nearbystreams or groundwater wells. Because the majorityof forest land within the shale-gas region drains to theSusquehanna River (97.7 percent), with a small portionflowing to the upper Allegheny River, the SusquehannaRiver Basin Commission (SRBC) regulates the use offreshwater for shale-gas development on nearly all stateforest lands. Accordingly, the bureau depends on SRBCto properly manage the extraction of freshwater fromstreams that flow within and through state forest landswithin the basin. Additionally, Act 13 requires all gaswell applicants to submit and obtain a water managementplan from DEP, outlining where water will be obtained,how water will be reused, and wastewater treatmentplans. Presently, there are no groundwater withdrawalsfor shale-gas development on state forest land. Moreinformation on SRBC’s project review regulations, whichapply to shale-gas development, can be found at: http://www.srbc.net/programs/projreviewnaturalgas.htm.In addition to the freshwater supply required for welldevelopment, a mixture of hydraulic fracturing fluids isinjected into the well. These fracturing fluids can posea potential spill risk during transportation to well sitesor during well development operations. Monitoring forsuch potential impacts is achieved mainly by testingwaters for the materials of concern (e.g., hydrocarbons,glycols). Such monitoring methods are described laterin this report (Grab Sampling section). In addition tothe monitoring performed by the bureau, DEP enforcesregulations regarding spills on well sites. DEP mayperform or require an operator to perform additionalmonitoring related to a specific spill event. It shouldalso be noted that, in 2011, DEP adopted significantlyenhanced well construction and casing and cementingstandards to protect water supplies.Once hydraulic fracturing is complete, in general,between 10 percent and 30 percent of the water used inthe process returns to the surface and must be reused ordisposed. This water is typically referred to as flowbackwater. Flowback water contains hydraulic fracturingfluids as well as other chemicals, such as metals (e.g.,barium, strontium) and salts (e.g., chloride, bromide), thatare picked up from the shale formation while the wateris underground. Monitoring for these chemicals can beachieved in two ways. First, waters can be tested for themetals and other chemicals typically present in flowbackwater. Second, waters can be tested for more generalparameters, such as total dissolved solids or specificconductance, that serve as indicators of thehigh salinity typically associated with flowback water.Both types of monitoring methods are described laterin this report (Widespread Sampling of Field Chemistrysection, Grab Sampling section, Continuous MonitoringDevices section).Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, Water 109Approximately 70 percent to 90 percent of the injectedwater remains in the shale formation. During gasproduction, some of this water will return to the surfacewith the flowing gas. The water will be removed fromthe gas with dehydration units at the pad site and storedin steel tanks that have adequate secondary containment.This formation water may or may not have similarcharacteristics to flowback water; thus, monitoring forpotential impacts in the shallow groundwater or surfacewater could follow the same two-pronged approachdescribed in the paragraph above. Such monitoringmethods are described later in this report (WidespreadSampling of Field Chemistry section, Grab Samplingsection, Continuous Monitoring Devices section).Concerns have been expressed regarding the treatmentof flowback water in municipal wastewater treatmentfacilities. Due to a formal request in April 2011 by DEP,at the direction of Gov. Tom Corbett, gas companies inPennsylvania have ceased disposal of flowback water atmunicipal wastewater facilities. Because current industrystandard practice on state forest land is to reuse flowbackwater or haul it to permitted subsurface disposallocations, monitoring of flowback disposal is not plannedat the present time.Throughout the shale-gas development process,there are numerous occasions where land clearingor earth disturbance is required, such as pad, road,and pipeline construction. Each of these constructionactivities requires an erosion and sedimentation controlpermit from DEP. DEP monitors the installation andmaintenance of erosion and sedimentation controlmeasures. Monitoring for sediment pollution, which canaffect aquatic organisms, including benthic invertebratesand fish, can be conducted by testing waters for thecontent of suspended sediment or by testing watersfor turbidity (a measure of a water’s relative clarity orcloudiness). Sediment deposition in streams also can beexamined by studying the particle size profile in the bedof the stream. Lastly, erosion potential can be assessedat the source by examining conditions on the ground,such as vegetative cover and erosion and sedimentationcontrol measures. Such methods for monitoring sedimentimpacts are described later in this report (Pebble Countssection, Grab Sampling section, Pipeline CrossingAssessment section).III. Monitoring Efforts/ResultsNumerous methods are employed by the bureauto sample and analyze water resources within thecore gas forest districts, with an emphasis on waterquality of surface waters. The present focus is surfacewater quality because this forest system value is ofcritical concern to stakeholders, could be impactedby shale-gas development, and can be assessed readilyand cost-effectively.Water quality monitoring by the bureau began in2011 with a widespread sampling of field chemistryparameters. This study and additional protocols thatalready have been initiated or are planned for the futureare described in this section.Widespread Sampling of Field ChemistryShale-gas development involves a number of activitiesthat potentially can release materials of high salinitydirectly or indirectly into streams.110 Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, WaterHigh salinities can be detected through measurementof specific conductance, a temperature-correctedmeasurement of a solution’s ability to transmit anelectrical current. Another common impairment tostreams in the shale-gas region, which existed priorto shale-gas development, is low pH, often caused byabandoned-mine drainage. Field chemistry measurementcovers these parameters, giving a snapshot of generalstream water quality. In the shale-gas region, a streamwith good water quality will have relatively lowconductivity, cool temperatures, and moderate pH.These conditions make the stream suitable habitat forfish and other aquatic life. Two positive attributes of fieldchemistry measurement are that it can be performedquickly, with a handheld meter, and it does not requiresampling for (more costly) laboratory analysis.Field chemistry measurement will be used in a numberof applications in the water monitoring program, but hereit is discussed in the context of a widespread samplingprogram performed throughout the shale-gas region.Widespread sampling provides some assurance tothat local streams are notimpacted by shale-gasdevelopment (or it will aid in identification of suchimpacts). Widespread sampling also will providereference points for the bureau or DEP should a pollutionevent occur in the vicinity of a sampling location.Field chemistry measurement will be conducted atwidespread locations throughout the shale-gas region.Although this dataset will be limited temporally (oneor two measurements per year), there will be value inits geographic scope. The widespread sampling mayidentify contamination of streams by high conductivitywaters or, when repeated over time, may identify gradualincreases in conductivity.Widespread sampling points were established in 2011based on their proximity to existing or planned shale-gasdevelopment pads. The sampling points were selectedusing ArcHydro analysis of flow from pads to the neareststreams. In 2011, 345 sampling points were established(Figure 6.5).Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, Water 111Figure 6.5 Locations for widespread sampling of field chemistry. Leased tracts and severed rights tracts areshown overlaying the state forest boundaries.A LaMotte pH/TDS/Salt Tracer Pocketester was used forfield chemistry measurement. It was calibrated accordingto manufacturer instructions on a weekly basis or asindicated by the unit’s built-in calibration sensor (whichwould indicate the unit should be calibrated if the sensordid not appear to be reading correctly). At each samplingpoint, a water sample was obtained from the middle ofthe stream using a sterile, plastic sampling container.The probe was inserted into the water and kept in placeuntil readings stabilized. This process was repeated fora duplicate measurement. The following parameterswere recorded on a datasheet: specific conductance(microseimens/cm), temperature (degrees Fahrenheit), andpH. A surrogate measurement of stream flow was madeby measuring the stream width and average stream depth.Data collected for the widespread sampling are notintended for rigorous analysis. Rather, these data arecollected for reference purposes and to characterizegeneral stream conditions. It is important to recognizethat the results represent one discrete measurement intime. They do not take into account diurnal or seasonalvariation and may miss important stream-related events(e.g., storms, spills). Still, the dataset is valuable due to itsgeographic scope. After a period of several years, thesedata can be used to evaluate long-term trends in generalstream conditions.An average of the two field measurements was usedfor data analysis. The 2011 results are summarizedin Table 6.5.112 Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, WaterMinMaxpH2.828.11Specific Conductance (µS/cm)11.6866Table 6.5 Descriptive statistics of 2011 widespread sampling of field chemistry.Figure 6.6 is a histogram of pH results for 2011.The histogram shows that results were primarilyin the circum-neutral range, with 72 percent ofresults between 6.5 and 7.5. Very few streams hadpH greater than 8. A number of streams had acidicpH, likely due to either abandoned-mine drainage oratmospheric deposition. Figure 6.7 is a map of the pHresults, symbolized by pH value. Streams that DEPhas identified as having issues with abandoned-minedrainage or atmospheric deposition are indicated onFigure 6.7. Nearly all of the low pH values are locatedon or in the vicinity of such streams, suggesting thatlow pH is attributable to one of these causes.Figure 6.8 is a histogram of specific conductanceresults for 2011. The histogram shows that most results(91 percent) were below 100 µS/cm, with the majorityfalling below 50 µS/cm. This is to be expected forheadwater mountain streams of this region, which werethe dominant stream type sampled. No measurementsexceeded 1,000 µS/cm. The few measurements thatexceeded 200 µS/cm can largely be explained as samplepoints having low pH. In situations where pH is low,metals are mobilized into the water, resulting in higherspecific conductance readings. Figure 6.9 is an X-Yscatter plot of pH and specific conductance results.The slight inverse relationship between the twopH  Histogram  180  160  140  Number  of  Sites  120  100  80  60  40  20  0  4.0  or  less  4.1-­‐4.5  4.6-­‐5.0  5.1-­‐5.5  5.6-­‐6.0  6.1-­‐6.5  6.6-­‐7.0  7.1-­‐7.5  7.6-­‐8.0  >  8.0  pH  Figure 6.6 Histogram of pH results from widespread sampling of field chemistry.Most results were in the circum-neutral range.Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, Water 113Figure 6.7 Map of pH results of widespread sampling of field chemistry. Symbols for samplinglocations reflect pH results. Streams that DEP has identified as having acid deposition orabandoned-mine drainage problems are shown in red.Table 6.6 and Table 6.7 present descriptive statistics ofpH and specific conductance, respectively, broken downby the HUC-8 watersheds within the shale-gas region.Slight differences can be observed between some ofthe HUC-8s, and these statistics are presented forgeneral reference.measurements is evidence that acidic water is largelyresponsible for elevated specific conductance results.There are two notable exceptions: the results at samplingpoint 1252-2 (7.55 pH and 342 µS/cm) and the resultsat sampling point 1263-2 (7.21 pH and 761 µS/cm).These data points have been highlighted for furtherinvestigation.Widespread sampling was conducted during thewinter of 2012-2013, and thereafter during the fall/winter of each year. Sampling will not be conductedduring drought or flood conditions. Such conditionswill be gauged using the USGS Water Watch website’sstate-level maps (http://waterwatch.usgs.gov/index.php?id=ww). In future years, a subset of approximately100 sample points will be assessed by randomly selectingone point within each HUC-12 watershed in the shale-gas114 Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, WaterSpecific  Conducatnce  Histogram  250  Number  of  Sites  200  150  100  50  0  50  or  less  51-­‐100  101-­‐150  151-­‐200  201-­‐250  251-­‐300  >  300  Specific  Conductance  (µS/cm)  Figure 6.8 Histogram of specific conductance results from widespread sampling of field chemistry.Most results were less than 100 µS/cm.9  8  7  6  pH  5  4  3  2  1  0  0  100  200  300  400  500  600  700  800  900  1000  Specific  Conductance  (uS/cm)  Figure 6.9 X-Y scatter plot of pH versus specific conductance results from widespread sampling of fieldchemistry. Plot shows that most of the high specific conductance results also had relatively low pH.Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, Water 115Frequency (n)MedianMinMaxTioga296.74.27.6Sinnemahoning857.22.88.1Bald Eagle267.03.37.7Pine607.15.07.5Upper West Branch Susquehanna345.94.87.8Middle West Branch Susquehanna546.94.17.5Lower West Branch Susquehanna426.94.37.7Allegheny (HUC-4)156.94.67.8Frequency (n)MedianMinMaxTioga2931.416.9286.0Sinnemahoning8549.816.3866.0Bald Eagle2654.017.6655.0Pine6040.621.8144.7Upper West Branch Susquehanna3427.911.6185.8Middle West Branch Susquehanna5447.218.2653.5Lower West Branch Susquehanna4233.314.091.8Allegheny (HUC-4)1534.724.5104.1Table 6.6 Descriptive statistics of pH results by HUC-8 watershed.**All numbers except frequency are pH standard unitsTable 6.7 Descriptive statistics of specific conductance results by HUC-8 watershed.**All numbers except frequency are µS/cmregion. This approach will give a broadgeographic distribution of points while maintaininga manageable workload.• Temperature will be recorded in degrees Celsius, andconductivity also will be recorded (as opposed to onlyspecific conductance).A few changes will be made to the protocol infuture years:Pebble CountsLike many other forms of earth disturbance, shale-gasdevelopment includes a number of activities that maycause erosion and sedimentation in streams, such as padconstruction, road construction or modification, andpipeline construction. Sedimentation and the resultingchange in streambed particle size can be detrimental toaquatic macroinvertebrate and fish populations. Pebblecounts will be conducted over time at the same locationsto detect changes in particle size profile that may be• The field meter will be inserted directly into thestream, rather than using a container.• Rather than the LaMotte Pocketester, either a YSIModel 63 or YSI Pro Plus will be used.• Field meters will be calibrated daily, except thatthe YSI Model 63 will be calibrated monthly forspecific conductance.116 Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, Watersegments were selected in each category (based onstream order). All of the selected stream segments wereexamined for accessibility and whether the watershedwas primarily state forest land. If the stream segmentwas inaccessible or a large percentage of the watershedwas not on state forest land, the segment was rejected andthe segment in that stream order category with the nexthighest random number was selected as its replacement.This random selection was employed to provide themost representative sampling of the control or referencecondition in the area of interest.attributed to shale-gas development. In addition, pebblecounts will be conducted in similar locations frompaired watersheds to assess whether shale-gasdevelopment seems to change particle size profiles ona watershed scale.For the impact area, sampling stations were located bychoosing stream segments most likely to be impacted byshale-gas development. Again, three first-order segments,one second-order segment, and one third-order segmentwere chosen. This conservative approach was employedto provide the maximum chance of detecting changesdue to shale-gas development, such that a finding of nochange would suggest that areas less impacted would notexperience a change either.Pebble counts will be an element of comprehensivewater quality monitoring stations established as part ofthe Before-After-Control-Impact monitoring approachcurrently in development. It was determined that 10monitoring stations would be established within thearea of interest – five in the control area and five in thepotential impact area.The population of possible monitoring station locationswas organized based on stream order – identifying eachstream segment within the area of interest in one of threecategories: first-order, second-order, or third-order andgreater. Based on the relative contribution of each ofthese stream sizes to the total stream mileage in the areaof interest, it was determined that six sampling stationsshould be on first-order streams, two on second-orderstreams, and two on third-order and greater streams.For the control area, sampling stations were located byrandomly selecting three first-order stream segments, onesecond-order stream segment, and one third-order streamsegment. Stream segments were established from theNHD high-resolution dataset, which generally segmentsstreams based on intersections with tributaries. Eachstream segment in the control area was given a randomnumber between 0 and 1, and the lowest numberedThe sample reach for pebble counts will typically be200 meters in length and should encompass at least tworiffle-pool sequences. Within each sample reach, a pebblecount will be performed based on the methodologydescribed in the DEP’s Instream ComprehensiveEvaluation Protocol (DEP 2009). At least 200 particleswill be counted from each sample reach. Particles willbe measured and tallied. Sampling of paired reaches(high development versus no development) should occuras near in time as possible (i.e., ideally within days).Analysis will revolve around the percentage of particlesfiner than 8 mm, which is recommended in both DEP2009 and Bevenger and King 1995. Particles of 8 mmand smaller are of most concern for negatively affectingfish resources.In the short term, if streambed particle size profilesare finer in watersheds with high levels of shale-gasdevelopment than in watersheds with no shale-gasdevelopment, it will suggest that past and present shale-Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, Water 117Figure 6.10 Cumulative percent diagram of particle size distribution from pilot study of pebble countmethodology in Browns Run. Diagram shows that approximately 10 percent of the particles werebelow the 8-mm critical size threshold, indicating that this stream is in a reference condition.gas development activities could be the cause for thisdifference. However, this short-term result will be moreof a correlation than a proven cause-effect relationship,because documentation of pre-development conditionsdoes not exist. In the long term, if streambed particlesize becomes finer over time in watersheds with highlevels of shale-gas development but not in watershedswith no shale-gas development, it could suggest thatgas development is the primary cause of this fining,unless another cause has been identified (e.g., highwayconstruction, timber harvesting). This will suggest thaterosion caused by shale-gas development activities isaffecting streambed particle size profiles.For the 2012 field season, this approach was pilot testedin Browns Run – a second-order stream in the PineHUC-8. The watershed of Browns Run is nearly entirelywithin Tiadaghton State Forest, and it is encompassed byseveral leased tracts. The pilot study results from BrownsRun are presented in Figure 6.10. The particle size profilefor Browns Run shows that, on average, 10.3 percentof the particles are finer than 8 mm. According to DEPcriteria, reference streams should have no more than 15percent of particles finer than 8 mm, and impaired reacheshave greater than or equal to 35 percent of particles finerthan 8 mm. Thus, as of summer 2012, Browns Run wasconsidered a reference quality stream. Future samplingwill lend itself to additional data analysis.In future years, pebble counts will be conductedannually in the spring, prior to leaf out and greeningof vegetation (when vegetation fieldwork will becomemore of a priority). The timing of pebble counts is notparticularly weather dependent, but they are more easilyconducted when the streams are not choked with fallenleaves or frozen.118 Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, WaterLongitudinal Transects of Field ChemistryAs described above in the section on WidespreadSampling of Field Chemistry, field chemistrymeasurement gives a snapshot of general stream waterquality. The resulting measurements of temperature,pH, and specific conductance can be indicative of goodstream health or potential sources of impairment. Tosupplement the widespread sampling program, thelongitudinal transects monitoring will examine howfield chemistry parameters vary along a stream corridorfrom its mouth to its headwaters. In conjunction with thewidespread sampling, this study will provide valuablereference data for the bureau or DEP should a pollutionevent occur in the vicinity of a widespread samplinglocation. Field chemistry measurement will be conductedincrementally along a stream from its headwaters to itsmouth into a larger body of water. This will provide dataon the variability along such a transect.For longitudinal transects, two streams will be examinedwithin each core gas forest district. The selectedstreams for longitudinal transects will have a samplingpoint along them from the widespread field chemistrysampling protocol described above. This will tie thetwo datasets together. The longitudinal transect streamswill be chosen by randomly selecting two widespreadsampling points within each district.The sampling will begin where the stream joins a largerwater body (i.e., at its mouth) and will proceed upstreamto the point where bed and banks disappear. The pathupstream will follow the main stem of the stream, notdeviating to a tributary or branch. Field chemistrymeasurements will be at a specific interval along thetransect, with the chosen interval dependent on thelength of the transect. Before each day of sampling,the handheld meter will be calibrated according toShale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, Water 119the manufacturer’s instructions. At each measurementlocation, the probe will be inserted into the water, in anarea of good mixing, and kept in place until readingsstabilize. The following parameters will be recorded in afieldbook or datasheet: conductivity (microsiemens/cm),specific conductance (microseimens/cm), temperature(degrees Celsius), and pH.Grab SamplingSurface water grab sampling and flow measurementare employed to obtain a discrete analysis of chemicalconstituents and flow at a given point in a stream. Thisinformation can be used to identify pollutants and/or tocharacterize the background chemical and hydrologicalcharacteristics of the stream. The stream’s flow rate isdetermined at the same time as the grab sampling sothat the chemical “load” (a measurement of mass) to thestream can be calculated. Flow data are also importantfor understanding the potential effect that flow level canhave on chemistry results. Although only representativeof a point in time at a single location, these techniquesprovide the opportunity to accurately measure theconcentrations and loads of various parameters in astream. By repeating these measurements over time atthe same location, a trend may be observed in constituentconcentrations or loads. Grab sampling also will providereference points for the bureau and DEP should amajor pollution event occur in the vicinity of asampling location.Grab sampling will be an element of the Before-AfterControl-Impact monitoring approach currently indevelopment. By sampling streams outside the influenceof shale-gas development, chemical and hydrological datawill be obtained on the natural, or reference, conditionof streams in the shale-gas region. Such datasets will beuseful for comparison to potentially impacted streams.Streams of various sizes will be sampled to account forvariation due to drainage area or flow level.120 Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, WaterThe comprehensive water quality monitoring stations willinclude the deployment of a continuous monitoring waterquality probe/sonde and periodic grab sampling withflow measurements. It was determined that 10 monitoringstations would be established within the area of interest– five in the control area and five in the potential impactarea. The selection of monitoring station locations wasdescribed in the section on Pebble Counts.For grab sampling and flow measurement, an area ofthe stream with relatively uniform flow from bank tobank will be selected, likely a run or gentle riffle. Largein-stream obstructions, such as downed trees or largeboulders, will be avoided. This will allow for accurateflow measurement and grab sampling of well-mixedwater. The grab sampling and flow location will bedownstream of the continuous monitoring probe/sondedeployment. The location will be marked with flaggingand recorded with a GPS. The grab sampling protocolinvolves a number of steps that will be overviewed here.The first step in the grab sampling protocol will be togather data on field chemistry. A YSI ProPlus multiparameter meter will be used to measure the followingparameters: temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen,conductance, and specific conductance. A Hach 2100Qwill be used to measure turbidity.Then, grab sampling will be performed by gatheringa water sample into a sample bottle at mid-channel,mid-depth. Chemical preservatives will be added to thesample bottle in the field, as appropriate.Lastly, the flow will be measured using a Hach FH950flow meter and top-set wading rod. Ideally, flow will bemeasured at 22 fixed-width stations across the streamprofile. At each station, a velocity measurement, at 60percent of the water depth, will be averaged over 10seconds. The FH950 then calculates the flow/dischargerate according to the USGS mid-section method. In verynarrow headwater streams, 22 fixed points may not befeasible and a lesser number of stations may be performed.Lab analysis will be performed by the DEP Bureauof Laboratories. On a monthly basis, a cost-effectiveindicator suite of parameters will be analyzed: specificconductance, pH, total dissolved solids, total suspendedsolids, bromide, chloride, barium, and strontium. Ona semi-annual basis, a more comprehensive analysiswill occur, including additional metals, nutrients, andorganic compounds.The field chemistry, flow data, and laboratory data willbe used to develop chemical and hydrological profiles ofthe streams. This will be done using descriptive statistics,such as a range of flows or an average concentration ofa substance. For first-order streams, which will havethree replicates sampled, some generalizations can bemade for both the control and impact areas. For example,confidence intervals of measurements/results can becalculated for first-order streams. Differences betweenthe control and impact areas will be examined, butwithin the limitations of the data set. Natural spatial ortemporal variability may be fully or partially responsiblefor differences observed between streams. After a periodof several years, these data can be used to evaluate longterm trends in stream conditions. Laboratory resultswill be compared to relevant benchmarks, such as DEPstandards or U.S. EPA water quality criteria.Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, Water 121Continuous Monitoring DevicesContinuous monitoring temperature-conductivity probes(HOBOs) are deployed to measure and record streamtemperature and conductivity over time. HOBOs arestaked into the stream bed and left for a period of time torecord data, then periodically visited for maintenance anddownloading of data. Data collected by HOBOs can beused to characterize stream conditions, monitor for influxof high-conductivity water (such as flowback water), ormonitor for influences on stream temperature (such ascleared riparian forest).Periodic maintenance of HOBOs is necessary for severalreasons. HOBOs can experience burial or disturbanceof their staked positions. They can experience “fouling”of their sensor, which is growth of algae/bacteria on thesensor, or plugging of the sensor area with sediment.HOBOs also may experience calibration drift, wherebythe calibrated value for conductivity changes over time.Although the conductivity calibration cannot be correctedor changed on HOBOs, a check of their readingsrelative to calibration standards can be valuable in post-processing of data. Each of these potential negativeeffects should be checked, documented, and addressedduring maintenance visits.HOBO data collection will be employed along withgrab sampling to establish comprehensive water qualitymonitoring stations. This will be done within watershedsinfluenced by shale-gas development and also inreference or control watersheds.HOBO deployment will be an element of comprehensivewater quality monitoring stations established as part ofthe Before-After-Control-Impact monitoring approachcurrently in development. The comprehensive waterquality monitoring stations will include the deploymentof a continuously monitoring water quality probe/sondeand periodic grab sampling with flow measurements.It was determined that 10 monitoring stations would beestablished within the area of interest – five in the controlarea and five in the impact area. The population and siteselection process for the monitoring stations is describedabove in the section on Pebble Counts.122 Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, WaterFor HOBO deployment, an area of the stream with goodmixing and sufficient water depth will be selected. TheHOBO deployment location will be upstream of the grabsampling location to minimize disturbance of the HOBOduring grab sampling activities. The HOBO location willbe recorded with a GPS and photographs. The HOBOmaintenance protocol involves a number of steps that willbe overviewed here.The first step in the protocol will be to gather side-by-sidefield chemistry data for comparison with data collectedby the HOBO. A YSI ProPlus multi-parameter meterwill be used to measure the following: temperature,conductivity, and specific conductance. Then, theHOBO will be retrieved from the stream. The degree ofsedimentation and fouling will be documented throughfield notes and photographs. The HOBO will be cleanedaccording to manufacturer instructions. The calibrationof the HOBO will be checked by immersing it in severalconductivity standards. Although the HOBO cannot bere-calibrated, this process confirms whether or not theHOBO continues to read accurately. After downloadingdata from the HOBO, it will be redeployed in the stream.A final side-by-side measurement of field chemistry willbe conducted. Comparison of the side-by-side results andHOBO results permits a data processing correction to bemade for drift in HOBO readings due to fouling.The data from HOBOs will be analyzed and graphedusing the HOBOware software. Records will be searchedfor potential spikes due to pollution events. Descriptivestatistics, such as a range of temperatures or an averageconductivity, also will be calculated. Differencesbetween the control and impact areas will be examined,but within the limitations of the data set. Naturalspatial or temporal variability may be fully or partiallyresponsible for differences observed between streams.After a period of several years, these data can be used toevaluate long-term trends in stream conditions.Pipeline Crossing AssessmentPipeline crossings represent a potentially significantimpact on streams and rivers in state forests. Thepipeline crossings are typically constructed by an open-Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, Water 123cut trench across the stream or by horizontal directionaldrilling (HDD) beneath the stream. The open-cut trenchrepresents a direct impact on the riparian vegetation,stream bed, and water. The HDD can affect riparianvegetation, depending on the details of the operation, andcan affect nearby water bodies through the occurrence ofan inadvertent return – a release of high-pressure drillingmud outside the drilling hole. Following construction,riparian areas must be revegetated (at least withherbaceous vegetation), which may have varying degreesof success, leading to potential erosion and sedimentationcontrol issues. The type and density of ground cover willbe a good indication of how prone a surface is to erosion.Shrub and tree canopy cover will intercept rainwater,thus slowing its velocity and helping to prevent erosion.The number of pipeline crossings on state forest land canbe evaluated through GIS analysis, comparing pipelineinfrastructure to stream layers. Through 2012, 35 streamcrossings occurred due to shale-gas pipelines. Thepipeline crossing assessment will be a multidisciplinaryprotocol that examines vegetation and physical featuresof pipeline crossings.Each crossing will be visited and the coordinatesrecorded by GPS at the center of the intersection of thestream and right of way. Vegetation condition (groundcover, shrub cover, and canopy cover) will be assessedon the right of way, upstream of the right of way, anddownstream of the right of way. Various physicalmeasurements of the right of way will be performed,such as its width and slope. The right-of-way andadjacent areas will be photo-documented. The conditionof the stream banks will be assessed for indicators oferoding banks. Sedimentation could also be evaluatedthrough use of the Pebble Count Protocol, which may beapplied at certain pipeline crossings. The characteristicsand condition of post-construction stormwatermanagement structures will be evaluated.If photo-documentation and visual assessment indicatethat rights of way are not adequately revegetating andstabilizing, then increased emphasis will be placed oninspections and best management practices at streamcrossings. Measurements may suggest that revegetation/stabilization problems occur predominantly for rightsof way of certain slopes or width ranges, in which caseinspections and best management practices can betargeted to such crossings. Observations of right of waycondition must be made in the context of the upstreamand downstream assessment units. For instance, if theupstream units show erosion problems, then there maybe inherent channel instability (unrelated to pipelineconstruction) contributing to erosion problems on theright of way.124 Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, WaterAs time and resources allow, this study will examine allinstances, since 2008, in which gas or water pipelinesrelated to the shale-gas industry have crossed streamson state forest lands. This protocol also can be used atvarious other units of analysis based on need (e.g., apaired watershed, specific district, region). Wheneverpossible, future rights of way will be assessed preconstruction. Future monitoring efforts will includetesting and evaluating the pipeline stream crossingprotocol. The goal is to eventually assess every shalegas-related pipeline stream crossing. In subsequent years,the goal will be to assess each pipeline crossing prior toconstruction and again after it is installed. From then,a percentage of assessed pipeline crossings willbe reassessed on a periodic basis.Monitoring PartnersThe bureau has partnered with the Susquehanna RiverBasin Commission (SRBC) to install 10 continuousmonitoring devices on state forest lands. These devicesmonitor pH, dissolved oxygen, specific conductance,turbidity, and temperature. A discussion of thismonitoring program is provided in the chapter onExternal Partner Collaboration.IV. Discussion / ConclusionA GIS assessment of streams in the shale-gas regionhas demonstrated that the majority are headwater streamsthat have good water quality and provide excellent trouthabitat. This makes it paramount that these streams beprotected from potential effects of shale-gas development.A number of additional protocols were initiated in2013 to monitor water resources in the shale-gasregion. Many of the water monitoring protocols willbe implemented in a Before-After-Control-Impactmonitoring approach. This allows for a comparisonof data between reference conditions and impacted orpotentially impacted conditions.Future work, in collaboration with SRBC, may examinethe potential for shale-gas development to affectgroundwater resources. This likely will be approachedby examining water quality of springs. The bureauis presently in discussions with SRBC regarding thismonitoring concept.Initial water monitoring results have not identifiedany significant impacts due to shale-gas development.This is based on one round of field chemistry samplingthroughout the shale-gas region and over one year ofoperation for 10 continuous monitoring devices in keywatersheds (see External Partner chapter). At this earlystage, the data collected are primarily for establishingbaseline conditions, but no results have indicated aninitial impact due to shale-gas. The few high conductivityreadings from the field chemistry sampling appear to berelated to acid mine drainage. Future monitoring willinvestigate this further and will permit the analysis ofwater quality trends over time.With specific conductance being a good indicatorparameter for the influence of shale-gas development,the 2011 widespread sampling of field chemistry showedpositive results, with over 90 percent of samples havinga specific conductance reading below 100 µS/cm. Mostsamples with higher specific conductance readingsappear to be linked to acid mine drainage or acidicatmospheric deposition. Field chemistry measurementwill be repeated at a subset of the original locations tocontinue this monitoring effort.Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, Water 125Part 2: Monitoring Values›› SoilI. Key Points:• Erosion and sediment control practices for shale-gas infrastructure on stateforest lands are regulated by DEP and jointly monitored by DEP and the bureau.• To the extent possible, placement of shale-gas infrastructure has avoided wetsoils and soils with high runoff potential.– Of all pads, impoundments, and compressors constructed, over 85 percentwere on well-drained to excessively well-drained soils, and over 80 percentwere on soils with medium to very low surface runoff index.– Of all pipelines constructed, over 70 percent occurred within welldrained to excessively well-drained soils and within soils with mediumto very low surface runoff index.– Of all roads newly constructed or improved due to shale-gasdevelopment, over 80 percent occurred within well-drained toexcessively well-drained soils and within soils with medium tovery low surface runoff index.• Future research and monitoring will focus on the effects of wellpad construction on soil physical and chemical properties, as wellas the effects of best management practices on hydrology andsediment loads.II. IntroductionBureau policy states that soil quality should be maintained at the highest possible level(Bureau of Forestry, 1995). The soil ecosystem performs a number of key functions thatare essential to a healthy forest ecosystem:• Sustains biological activity, diversity, and productivity by providing habitat for plants,animals, and other organisms• Regulates water storage and flow• Filters, buffers, immobilizes, and detoxifies potential pollutants• Stores and cycles nutrientsThe bureau evaluates the potential effects of management actions on soil resourcesand employs best management practices to minimize impacts to soils during timberharvesting, road construction, and other forest management activities.126 Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, SoilShale-gas development often involves earth disturbanceactivities that require careful planning and oversightto minimize negative effects on soil quality. Theconstruction or improvement of roads increases directsoil impacts in road corridors, and runoff from roadspresents a risk for erosion and sedimentation. Pipelinescreate similar corridor impacts and often can involvesoil disturbance on steep slopes where erosion andstormwater control can be a challenge. Pad constructionclears the topsoil (stockpiling it for future use) and causescompaction of soils beneath the pad infrastructure.Spills of chemicals or fuels also can threaten soil quality.Lastly, soil management becomes a critical componentof pad restoration activities. One of the objectives of theshale-gas monitoring program is to evaluate the effectsof these activities on soil resources.III. Monitoring Efforts/ResultsSoil resource management and monitoring is achieved incollaboration with DEP. Regulation of earth disturbanceactivities falls within DEP’s jurisdiction. The bureauhelps to monitor for problems relating to erosion andsediment control and reports issues to DEP. The bureaualso plans to institute several monitoring protocolsspecifically focused on the effects of gas infrastructureon soil resources.Erosion and Sediment Control PermitsMost earth disturbance activities involving gasdevelopment require an erosion and sediment control planor permit from DEP. Disturbances of greater than 5,000square feet (0.11 acres) require an erosion and sedimentcontrol plan, while disturbances greater than five acresrequire an erosion and sediment control permit. The planor permit specifies the erosion and sediment control bestmanagement practices that must be implemented forcompliance. The bureau provides DEP input on erosionand sediment control plans and permits with the goal ofensuring that practices are designed appropriately fora forested environment as opposed to a practices moresuited for an urban or commercial setting.Gas operators and their subcontractors are required toself-monitor their erosion and sediment control practicesand make any necessary improvements or corrections.DEP inspectors regularly check active work sites toverify compliance with the plan or permit. The bureau’sgas foresters assist by also monitoring for signs of noncompliance and report any potential problems to theoperators, and if necessary, to the proper DEP authorities.Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, Soil 127Infrastructure LocationsThe bureau plays a large role in decidingthe location of gas infrastructure on leasedtracts. The location of each pad and pathwayof each pipeline must be approved by thedistrict forester. The gas operators initiallypropose the location of pads and pipelinesbased on the most effective means of drainingthe natural gas reservoir from an area, butthe district forester may require changes tothe initial locations based on environmentalfactors. Often, the location selection is basedon topography, with preference given toflatter areas for development. This minimizesthe amount of cut and fill necessary for constructionand reduces erosion risks. To the extent possible, wetareas also are avoided for location of infrastructure inorder to minimize problems with drainage, stormwatermanagement, and wetland and headwater impacts.In addition, infrastructure is often sited along existingdisturbance corridors.Well pads, impoundments, and compressors have beenconstructed on 55 different soil types (based on analysisof SSURGO data, Soil Survey Staff 2012, throughDecember 31, 2012). As shown in Figure 7.1, the most128 Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, SoilFigure 7.1 Ten most common soil series componentsdisturbed by pads, impoundments, and compressors.Analysis based on SSURGO data (Soil Survey Staff 2012).common soil series were Clymer, Dekalb, and Cookport.All three of these soils form primarily through theweathering of sandstone in place. The Clymer seriesconsists of deep, well-drained soils and occurs on uplandridges, hills, and sideslopes. The Dekalb series consistsof moderately deep, excessively drained soils andforms on nearly level to very steep, uplands and ridges.The Cookport series consists of deep and very deep,moderately well-drained soils occurring mainly on nearlylevel to gently sloping ridgetops and moderatelysteep sideslopes (Soil Survey Staff 2013). Figure 7.1shows the 10 most common soil types on which pads,impoundments, and compressors were constructed.Soils can be categorized by drainage class, an indicatorof the soil’s wetness. As shown in Table 7.1, the vastmajority of pads, impoundments, and compressorshave been constructed on soils that are well drained ormoderately well drained. This demonstrates that wetareas have largely been avoided for placementof infrastructure.Soils also can be classified according to an index ofsurface runoff. Surface runoff index refers to the lossof water from an area by flow over the land surface, andit is dependent on the slope of the soil and its hydraulicconductivity. As shown in Table 7.2, the majority of pads,impoundments, and compressors have been constructedon soils with medium to very low surface runoffpotential. This indicates that areas with high runoffpotential, and thereby erosion risk, have largely beenavoided for placement of infrastructure.Drainage ClassPercent TotalLand Area inGas DistrictsPercent ofArea of PadDisturbancePercentLength ofPipelinePercentLength ofRoadExcessively Drained1.30%0.42%0.24%0%Somewhat Excessively Drained2.31%2.72%2.30%0.62%Well Drained76.11%82.17%71.50%81.21%Moderately Well Drained16.90%12.55%22.12%16.86%Somewhat Poorly Drained1.49%1.80%2.81%1.24%Poorly Drained1.52%0.29%0.83%0.07%Very Poorly Drained0.28%0.05%0.20%0%Table 7.1 Percent of total area disturbed by pads, impoundments, and compressors, and percent of totallength disturbed by new pipelines and roads according to soil drainage class. For comparison, the percentof total land area within the gas districts in each soil drainage class is presented as well. Analysis based onSSURGO data (Soil Survey Staff 2012).Drainage ClassPercent TotalLand Area inGas DistrictsPercent ofArea of PadDisturbancePercentLength ofPipelinePercentLength ofRoadVery low5.33%18.57%12.48%17.65%Low26.25%29.24%31.15%29.26%Medium44.22%32.89%29.24%35.46%High16.90%14.00%18.49%14.32%Very high6.61%5.51%8.63%3.31%Table 7.2 Percent of total area disturbed by pads, impoundments, and compressors, and percent of totallength disturbed by new pipelines and roads according to soil index of surface runoff. For comparison, thepercent of total land area within the gas districts in each runoff class is presented as well. Analysis based onSSURGO data (Soil Survey Staff 2012).Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, Soil 129Consideration must also be given to the changesin natural water flow to an area with natural gasdevelopment. By altering water flow, especially withthe implementation of stormwater collection basins, itis likely that the surrounding soil hydrology is impactedto some extent. Research is underway by PennsylvaniaState University to examine pad placement and its effecton soil wetness and other soil properties. This research isdiscussed further in the research section.Pipeline construction affects a variety of soil types aswell. Often, pipelines are routed along existing roadcorridors, so the soils affected can be similar. The soilseries most commonly crossed by pipelines are theClymer, Dekalb, and Cookport – the same three soilsmost commonly impacted by pads, impoundments,and compressors. The breakdown of soils crossed bypipelines according to drainage class and index of surfacerunoff is shown in Tables 7.1 and 7.2, respectively.While wet and steep soils are avoided to the extentpossible for pipeline construction, the nature of pipelines,in moving gas/water across the landscape, necessitatesconstruction on some steep slopes. Table 7.3 provides abreakdown of pipeline miles according to slope category.Figure 7.2 provides an example of pipeline traversingan area of Lycoming County in Tiadaghton State Forest.The figure shows an aerial photograph of the Honniasontpipeline’s path and a graph of the pipeline’s change inelevation over that path. In general, the pipeline is kepton relatively flat ground until it is necessary to cross theLittle Pine Creek valley.The construction of new roads similarly creates soildisturbance, with Clymer, Dekalb, and Cookport soils,again, being the mostly commonly affected soil series.The breakdown of soils traversed by new roads accordingto drainage class and index of surface runoff is shown inTables 7.1 and 7.2, respectively. The majority of shalegas roads are constructed on well-drained or moderatelywell-drained soils, and most were located on soils withmedium to very low index of surface runoff. As withpipelines, some roads must traverse steeper slopesin order to give access to ridgetops, where pads arecommonly constructed.Soils can also be rated based on their suitability forcertain land use. One of the ratings available is forerosion hazard from forest road or trail construction.This rating for shale-gas roads is shown in Table 7.4.Slope CategoryMiles of PipelinePercent of Pipeline0 to10 %11 to20%21 to30%31 to40%41 to50%> 50%Total92.97.51.70.80.50.3103.789.6%7.2%1.6%<1%<1%<1%----------Table 7.3 Miles of pipeline by slope category.130 Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, SoilFigure 7.2 Illustration of the path and elevation change of the Honniasont pipeline in Lycoming County.Over 80 percent of road construction was performedalong areas with moderate or slight erosion hazard.Sometimes road construction is necessary where severeerosion hazard exists in order to minimize overall forestfragmentation or to avoid sensitive resources, such aswetlands or threatened wildlife habitat.Erosion Hazard FromForest Road or TrailPercent Lengthof RoadSlight35.47%Moderate47.01%Severe17.52%Table 7.4 Percent of newly constructed length of roadaccording to erosion hazard from forest road or trailconstruction. Analysis based on SSURGO data(Soil Survey Staff 2012).Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, Soil 131Pad Soil Sampling ProtocolThe construction of gas well pads on state forest landproduces a distinct impact footprint. Trees are harvestedand land is cleared for the pad area and for temporarywork areas. Fill material, typically crushed limestone,is placed over an area of several acres to create the padsurface. This is followed by a series of industrial activitieson the pad to drill and develop the gas well. The padsurface remains in place for potential future work on thewell. While the direct impact within the pad footprintis clear, the effect of pad development beyond the padfootprint is unknown. It is possible that limestone dustor other pollutants are dispersed into adjacent forestsoils, potentially having effects on plant or wildlifecommunities. A protocol has been developed to evaluatewhether surface soil chemistry varies based on proximityto a well pad. The protocol will also serve to establishbaseline levels of contaminants of concern in surfacesoils around well pads, such that this baseline data will beavailable for comparison should any pollution event occurat the pad site.132 Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, SoilFor each pad evaluated, there will be two assessmentunits: plot A and plot B. Assessment units will be locatedin proximity to the lowest point (in elevation) around theperimeter of the pad. This location is the mostly likelydischarge point for any surface spills that occur on thewell pad; therefore, it will serve as a reference point forestablishing the soil sampling plots. The plot centers willbe located 25 feet away from the well pad and 25 feetpast the forest edge for plots A and B, respectively (seeFigure 3). The shape of both soil sampling plots will bea rectangle 160 feet (parallel to the edge of the well pad)by 30 feet (perpendicular to the edge of the well pad). Ineach plot, 48 surface soil increments will be collectedusing a multi-increment sampling tool. At the laboratory,the increments will be ground and mixed to generateone sample per plot. This is a cost-effective and precisemethod for estimating average soil concentrations. Soilanalysis will include: dry weight and moisture content,organic carbon, alkalinity, pH, barium, strontium, othermetals, and oil and grease.FOREST    CLEARING  A  PAD  Down-­‐slope  25  ft  B  25  ft    Figure 7.3 Diagram of sample plots for soil sampling around pads.Similar sampling plots will be established in referenceareas to obtain representative samples of naturalconditions. The reference plots will be located in the samesoil type that is dominant beneath pads.IV. Conclusion/DiscussionWhile significant soil disturbance is occurring due toshale-gas development, the bureau and DEP are closelymonitoring compliance with erosion and sediment controlpractices. To the extent possible, wet soils and soils withhigh runoff potential are being avoided in the siting ofgas infrastructure. However, sometimes it is necessary tobuild upon wet soils or soils with high runoff potential inorder to avoid impacts to other sensitive resources or takeadvantage of existing disturbance corridors. Ongoing andfuture research will examine the effect of pad placementon soil physical and chemical properties.A topic requiring additional attention in the future isthat of soil management during pad restoration. To date,there are very few examples of pad restoration on stateforest lands. Discussions are ongoing regarding guidanceto operators for soil management and other restorationprocedures. Impacts to soils may differ between theactual pad footprint and the adjacent temporary workareas where trees have been cleared. Successful padrestoration may require physical treatment (e.g., ripping)to reduce soil compaction and/or soil amendments tooptimize soil fertility. These activities will help ensurethat soil quality is restored to the greatest extent possible.Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, Soil 133Part 2: Monitoring Values›› AirI. Key Points:• Since shale-gas development began in Pennsylvania in 2008, there has been a markeddecrease in several major air pollutants, such as sulfur, nitrogen oxides and carbondioxide. This is due, in part, to the increased use of natural gas for power generation, theshutdown of several major facilities, and the installation of air pollution control equipment.• Short-term air sampling at several locations around the state has detected natural gasconstituents and associated compounds in the vicinity of shale-gas operations. Thesecompounds were not detected at concentrations that would likely cause health-relatedimpacts, although some were detected at levels that would produce an odor.• A one-year study is underway in southwest Pennsylvania to study the potential longterm and cumulative effects of air emissions from compressor stations and a majorprocessing facility.• A study is underway to examine the concentrations of ground-level ozone in the vicinityof shale-gas operations.• A short-term air quality study in Ramsey Village, in Lycoming County along the Pine CreekRail Trail, did not detect air pollutants above rural background conditions.II. IntroductionClean air is a fundamental requirement of plants, animals, and humans. Good air qualityis an expectation of state forest users. This is true both from a human health perspectiveand an aesthetic perspective. Visitors expect to breathe clean, “fresh” air duringactivities on state forest lands, and they anticipate that the views along state forest roadsand trails will not be marred by smog, dust, or other air pollutants.134 Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, AirShale-gas development involves many stages that providedifferent avenues for the release of air pollutants. Themajor stages of shale-gas development and relatedpollution sources are as follows:• Pad, impoundment, and road construction – Pollutantsare emitted from diesel engines that performconstruction, and dust is produced from truck trafficand heavy equipment.• Drilling – Drilling rigs require power from diesel ornatural gas engines, and there are emissions fromthese engines.• Hydraulic fracturing – Emissions can come fromengines, the evaporation of fracturing wastewater, orthe release of fracturing fluids, such as volatile organiccompounds (VOCs).• Flaring – Flaring is done to test the gas well beforeproduction. Emissions are created from the burning ofthe gas and atmospheric venting of non-combusted gas.• Dehydration/condensate tanks – Gas pumped fromthe well may contain brine and VOCs that condensein collection tanks. Air space in the tanks is vented tothe atmosphere during periods of filling. If the natureof the gas is considered “wet” (versus “dry”), thecondensate may contain many other compounds, suchas benzene, toluene, and xylenes.• Compression – Emissions come from engines thatpower the compressors. Emissions may also come fromcompression equipment, pipes, or tanks.These emission sources can emit a number of specificpollutants, some of which are described below:• Methane, ethane, propane, and butane – Thesecompounds are the main components of naturalgas found in shale-gas formations. Burning thesecompounds in the presence of excess oxygen producescarbon dioxide and water, but incomplete combustioncan produce undesirable pollutants such as carbonmonoxide and formaldehyde. Methane itself is a potentgreenhouse gas. Indoor air quality standards havebeen established for these compounds in workplacesettings, but EPA has not established ambient air qualitystandards for these pollutants.• “BTEX” – A group of compounds – namely benzene,toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes – is primarily foundin petroleum derivatives, but also occurs naturally insome shale-gas formations. These compounds also areused as solvents and/or intermediates in the productionof other chemicals. There are many health-related issuesassociated with chronic exposure to these compounds.• Methyl mercaptan – This is a naturally occurringcompound present in some shale-gas formations. It hasa strong, unpleasant smell that can be detected by thehuman nose at very low levels. Olfactory fatigue, orthe inability to smell methyl mercaptan, occurs afterprolonged exposure.• Carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and ozone –These pollutants are among the “criteria air pollutants”regulated by the U. S. Environmental ProtectionAgency, and they are considered harmful to publichealth above certain levels. They come from or arecaused by reactions of emissions from a wide variety ofsources such as industry, energy production, and mobilesources (e.g., vehicles). The EPA has set health-basedambient air standards for these pollutants. Ozone is ofparticular concern in the state forest system, as it is themost toxic air pollutant to plants.• Particulate matter – This is a complex mixture ofextremely small particles and liquid droplets. Particlepollution is made up of a number of components,including acids (such as nitrates and sulfates), organicchemicals, metals, and soil or dust particles. The size ofparticles is directly linked to their potential for causinghealth problems. Particles that are 10 micrometers indiameter or smaller (PM10) are of concern becausethese are the particles that generally pass through thethroat and nose and enter the lungs. Once inhaled,these particles can affect the heart and lungs andcause serious health effects. Finer particles that are 2.5micrometers in diameter and smaller (PM2.5) constitutesmoke and haze. These particles can be directly emittedShale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, Air 135from sources such as forest fires, or they can formwhen gases emitted from power plants, industries, andmobile sources react in the air.Although shale-gas development may emit these variouspollutants through the processes described above, thenatural gas produced through shale-gas development alsohas the potential to create an overall positive effect on airquality in Pennsylvania and the nation. This is mainlybecause natural gas emits fewer core emissions whencompared to coal that is widely used in power generationin Pennsylvania and surrounding states. In February2013, the DEP released air emissions inventory data thatdemonstrates a decrease in numerous pollutants from2008 (the time that shale-gas development began at ahigh level) to 2011. Emissions inventory data specific toshale-gas development also was presented. These dataare shown in Table 8.1. (The sulfur oxide emissions havedecreased both as a result of the conversion to naturalgas and the installation of control equipment on electricgenerating units.)III. Monitoring Efforts/ResultsThe bureau is not conducting air quality monitoring.The bureau relies on DEP to assess potential effects ofair emissions from the shale-gas industry and to requireapplicable air permits of shale-gas operations. DEP hasconducted or is in the process of conducting severalstudies related to air quality and shale-gas development.These studies are described below.Short-Term Ambient Air SamplingDEP conducted a series of three short-term, screeninglevel ambient air sampling studies, each targeting adifferent region of the state. The goals of the studieswere to assess preliminary air quality impacts nearcertain shale-gas operations and to determine if therewere immediate health risks to nearby residents orcommunities from ambient pollutant concentrations.The studies are summarized in Table 8.2. Each studyinvolved four or five sampling weeks using DEP’s mobileanalytical unit and air sampling canisters.The key findings from the studies can be summarizedas follows:• Short-term sampling did detect concentrations ofcertain natural gas constituents, including methane,ethane, and propane, and associated compounds,such as benzene, in the air near shale-gas drillingoperations.• Elevated levels of natural gas constituents weredetected at all compressor stations sampled in thethree regions.• Certain compounds, mainly methyl mercaptan, weredetected at levels that generally produce odors.NitrogenOxides(TPY)PM10CategoryYearCarbonMonoxide(TPY)VOCs(TPY)SulfurOxides(TPY)All Point Sources200894,409235,48530,719864,78924,671All Point Sources201185,990192,27522,588353,48020,363Difference------8,41943,2108,131511,3094,308Shale-gas Development20116,85216,5425771222,820Net Difference------1,56726,6687,554511,1871,488Table 8.1 Statewide pollution inventory data and emissions data from shale-gas development,in tons per year (TPY).The DEP will continue to collect annual emissions inventory data from the shale-gas industry,as well as other industries, for future comparison.136 Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, Air(TPY)• Results did not identify concentrations of anycompound that likely would trigger air-related healthissues associated with shale-gas development activities.The long-term monitoring will focus on large-scalecompressors and/or gas processing stations. Thesefacilities are being targeted for the following reasons:DEP was unable to determine whether the potentialcumulative emissions of criteria pollutants from shalegas development activities would result in violations ofthe health and welfare-based federal National AmbientAir Quality standards. Due to the limited scope andduration of the sampling and the limited number ofsources sampled, these findings only representedconditions at the time of the sampling and did not providea comprehensive long-term study of ambient conditions.• They are permanent facilities, whereas well installationThe full reports on these studies are available on the DEPBureau of Air Quality website: http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/airwaste/aq/default.htm.activities are more short-term and thus not as relevantto chronic risk analysis.• During the short-term studies, such facilities wereshown to be sources of methane, NOx, carbonmonoxide, and other hazardous air pollutants.• They are a common source of complaints to the DEPregional offices for odors or other issues.• They are components of industry that, as a whole,could be considered a major new source of emissions.The study will involve a main monitoring site and threesatellite monitoring sites, including one backgroundRegionPeriod (2010)Facilities SampledSouthwestApr. to Aug.Two compressor stations, condensate tank farm, wastewaterimpoundment, background siteNortheastAug. to Oct.Two compressor stations, an active well site, a well site during frackingoperations, background siteNorthcentralAug. to Dec.Two compressor stations, a well site during flaring operations, a wellsite during drilling operations, background siteTable 8.2 Description of DEP short-term, screening-level ambient air sampling studies.Long-Term Ambient Air MonitoringDEP presently is conducting a long-term, one-yearair monitoring study of shale-gas development. Thestudy, which is taking place in Washington County,will measure ambient airborne pollutants in an effort todetermine potential air quality impacts associated withthe processing and transmission of unconventionallyproduced natural gas. The data from the study will allowDEP to assess potential long-term impacts of emissionsfrom unconventional natural gas operations on nearbycommunities. This initiative also will assist the DEPin its efforts to address the cumulative impact of theseoperations in the Marcellus Shale region.location. Target pollutant concentrations will bemeasured for a period of one year. The monitoringsites will analyze for a variety of pollutants, includingmethane, Nitrogen oxides (NOx), carbon monoxide,PM2.5, ozone, and hydrogen sulfide. In addition toanalysis of concentration data, the output of the studywill include a human-health risk assessment.The protocol for the long-term ambient air monitoring isavailable on the DEP Bureau of Air Quality website:http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/airwaste/aq/default.htm.Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, Air 137Ozone AssessmentPenn State University and the DEP Bureau of Air Qualityare collaborating on a study of ground-level ozone.Ozone is a colorless gas that exists naturally in the upperatmosphere, where it shields the earth from the sun’sultraviolet rays, but ozone close to the earth’s surfaceis an air pollutant. It is formed by chemical reactionsbetween VOCs and NOx in the presence of sunlight andelevated temperatures. The primary human sources ofVOCs and NOx are industrial and automobile emissions.located on opposite sides of Ramsey along the Pine CreekRail Trail. Samples were obtained during three days inFebruary and analyzed for a suite of organic compounds.Results from February 3 had trace levels of severalalkylbenzenes, which may be present in diesel fuel, butthe concentrations were well below levels of concernfor health effects. On the other two days of the study,air pollutants were not detected above rural backgroundconditions. Given these results, DEP does not plan afollow-up to the study.Plants are generally more sensitive to ozone than humans.The effects of ozone on plants range from visible injuryto the leaves and needles of deciduous trees and conifersto premature leaf loss, reduced photosynthesis, andreduced growth in sensitive plant species. The airbornetransport of ozone to remote forested areas has led toincreasing concern about how this pollutant is influencingthe health of individual trees and forest ecosystems.Possible impacts of ozone on forest species includereduced growth and vigor, reduced seed production, andincreased susceptibility to insects and disease. Long-termozone stress may lead to changes in species composition,reduced species diversity, and simplification of ecosystemstructure and function.Air Permitting for Shale-Gas OperationsThe DEP Bureau of Air Quality regulates air emissionsthrough four different mechanisms: permit exemptions,general permits, plan approvals, and operating permits.A permit exemption sets forth detailed emission controland monitoring conditions that a pollution sourcemust meet in order to be exempt from permittingrequirements; this does not exempt the source fromcompliance with applicable standards. A general permitis a pre-determined permit for a general category ofpollution sources that sets forth detailed emission controland monitoring requirements that must be met for thegeneral permit to be applicable. General permits makethe permitting process more efficient for common typesof pollution sources, as the general permits must beauthorized by the Bureau of Air Quality within 30 daysof application. If a general permit does not apply, then anindividual plan approval and operating permit must beobtained. The plan approval is the construction permitfor the pollution source, and the operating permit is theapproval for emissions once the source is operational.Penn State presently manages three ozone monitoringstations in the northern tier of the state, in the areasexperiencing high levels of shale-gas development.Stations are located in Clearfield, Tioga, and Bradfordcounties. Depending on project funding, one or more ofthese stations eventually may include an assessment ofozone damage to plants.Ramsey Air Monitoring StudyIn response to a citizen complaint, the DEP Bureau of AirQuality conducted a short-term monitoring study nearthe village of Ramsey (Cummings Township, LycomingCounty) in February 2012. The primary concern wasdiesel emissions from the heavy truck traffic, relatedto shale-gas development, along State Route 44 nearRamsey. The study involved two air monitoring stations138 Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, AirDepending on the details of the pollution source, oneor more of these regulatory mechanisms may apply toshale-gas operations. For the most part, shale-gas drillingand hydraulic fracturing operations will fall under theCategory Number 38 Permit Exemption for Oil andGas Exploration, Development, Production Facilities,and Associated Equipment. Well sites would only beeligible for the exemption if the operations meet emissioncontrol and monitoring criteria, and these Pennsylvaniarequirements are stricter than federal air quality rulesfor controlling wellhead emissions. The DEP exemptioncriteria includes practices, such as a leak detectionand repair program for the entire well pad and facility,rather than just the storage vessels as required by federalrules. Emissions of volatile organic compounds andhazardous air pollutants must also be controlled beyondlevels required by the federal rules. Even withthe exemption, drilling and hydraulic fracturingoperations are subject to federal reporting requirementsfor volatile organic compounds, and they must beincluded in an operator’s annual report for the DEP’semissions inventory.The Bureau of Air Quality has finalized revisions toa general plan approval and general operating permit(GP-5) for natural gas-fired engines and equipment atcompressor stations, which help move gas from well sitesinto transmission pipelines. The revised general permit,which was developed after considering public comment,includes significantly lower allowable emission limitsthan the previous general permit. It imposes emissionslimits that are 75 to 90 percent stricter than current limitsfor the largest, most common types of engines used atcompressor stations. Operators of facilities permittedby the GP-5 must demonstrate that their facilitiescontinue to be minor sources as defined by the Clean AirAct, allowing for operational flexibility. The owner oroperator of the facility must use forward-looking infraredcameras or other leak detection monitoring devicesapproved by DEP for the detection of fugitive leaks ona quarterly basis. GP-5 addresses control of various aircontaminants, including volatile organic compounds andhazardous air pollutants, as well as greenhouse gases(specifically methane). If a leak is detected, the leak mustbe repaired as expeditiously as practicable but no laterthan 15 days after the leak is detected. The final GP-5includes all applicable requirements of the Federal NewSource Performance standards and National EmissionStandards for Hazardous Air Pollutants requirements forthe Oil and Gas Sector.If a pollution source related to shale-gas developmentdoes not meet the requirements for Permit ExemptionNumber 38 or General Permit 5, then it must apply for anindividual plan approval and operating permit. the planapproval and operating permit would include projectspecific emission control and monitoring requirements.IV. Conclusion/DiscussionThere are both positive and negative effects on air qualityfrom shale-gas development. Short-term studies havedemonstrated that gas-related compounds, particularlyodor-causing compounds, are present in the vicinity ofshale-gas operations. However, these short-term studieswere not able to offer conclusive evidence about the longterm or cumulative impacts of shale-gas development onair quality. DEP is in the midst of a long-term study thatwill address these concerns. DEP continues to regulateair emissions from shale-gas operators, primarily throughindustry-specific permit exemptions and general permits.The supply of natural gas will continue to increase asshale-gas development proceeds, leading to additionaluses for this cleaner-burning alternative. For example, thebureau has discussed the possibility of switching part ofits vehicle fleet to compressed natural gas.The bureau will continue to monitor the air qualitystudies being performed by DEP. At present time, thebureau does not have plans to initiate its own air qualitymonitoring. As the plant monitoring program develops,the bureau may become involved in monitoring ozonedamage to plants.Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, Air 139Part 2: Monitoring Values›› IncidentsI. Key Points:• From 2008 through 2012, DEP investigated 324 incidents on state forest land, resultingin 308 notices of violations (NOVs).• In 2012, a spill incident report was prepared by the shale-gas monitoring program todocument and report on the diesel fuel spill and inadvertent discharge of brine on Tract729 A, Pad C. The bureau investigation did not identify elevated conductivity readingsin the down-gradient stream. Subsequent additional monitoring and site remediation bythe responsible operator was conducted to the satisfaction of DEP.• From July 1, 2009, when incidents specific to oil and gas began to be tracked, throughDecember 31, 2012, 264 incidents in 50 different categories were reported through theBureau of Forestry Incident Reporting System across all state forest districts directlyrelated to gas development activity.II. IntroductionIncidents occurring on state forest lands related to shale gas development are recordedby both DEP and the bureau. DEP tracks incidents that are investigated involvingviolations of state environmental laws and regulations. Additionally, the bureau’sIncident Reporting System records more general incidents in a variety of categoriesthat occur on state forest land.During the initial stages of shale gas development activity from 2008 to 2012,incidents have occurred and have been investigated or reported to the Department ofEnvironmental Protection (DEP). These incidents involve health and safety violations,along with administrative issues. Pennsylvania environmental laws and regulationsrequire the operator to report all spills, regardless of substance type, on all roads,rights of way, pads, and storage locations. DEP has primary enforcement authority forincidents of pollution and violations of state environmental laws and regulation andconducts regular inspections of permitted sites.The bureau’s oil and gas lease agreements require all lessees to comport with federal,state, and local law as well as all current regulations. While the bureau does not havedirect environmental regulatory enforcement authority, it does have the ability tomonitor activity and determine whether or not the lessee is comporting with the termsof the lease agreement and to take appropriate actions to correct the situation. Inaddition, the bureau works closely with DEP and its inspectorsand communicates regularly with them regarding potential violations.140 Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, IncidentsThe listings of incidents on state forest lands, as wellas on private lands, can be found on the DEP website athttp://www.ahs.dep.pa.gov/eFACTSWeb/default.aspx.Year# of IncidentsReportedDEP NOVIssued200811III. Monitoring Efforts/Results20093333As part of the shale-gas monitoring program, bureaustaff document the incidents that occur on state forestland and, when warranted, consults with DEP inspectorsregarding remediation and reclamation requirements.2010121114201111110220125858TOTALS324308Table 9.1 Summary of incidents reported by DEP onstate forest land by year.Incidents recorded by DEP and the bureau aresummarized here to illustrate how they are beingmonitored and tracked by the agencies.Field InspectionsBureau staff members conduct weekly inspectionsduring active construction unless problems or weatherconditions dictate otherwise. When feasible, these fieldinspection activities are coordinated with DEP DistrictOil & Gas Operations. It is from these inspectionsthat violations and potential issues are identified andaddressed. Guidance for reporting spill issues to DEP isfound inthe DEP publication: Addressing Spills and Releases atOil & Gas Well Sites or Access Roads (800-5000-001).A notice of violation (NOV) maybe issued as a result of a DEPinvestigation. A DEP NOV servesas a notification to the responsibleparty (typically the operator) of thedetails of the violation. There aretwo categories of NOVs: Healthand Safety, and Administrative.Examples of Health and SafetyNOVs include inadequate silt fences,residual waste discharge, and brinespills. Examples of AdministrativeNOVs include failure to post apermit and failure to post an erosionand sedimentation plan.Table 9.1 is a summary of incidents reported by DEPbetween 2008 to 2012, on state forest lands where DEPconducted an investigation and either issued an NOV orclosed the investigation without a violation notice beingissued. This table includes DEP’s record of both Healthand Safety and Administrative incidents.Overall, the number of incidents has increased as thenumber of wells drilled on state forest lands has increased,but the overall number of incidents per well decreased bya factor of three from 2009 to 2012 (Table 9.2). This showsa trend toward improvement of operator compliance withstate environmental laws and regulations.Year# of IncidentsReported# Wells Drilledon SF Lands(spud)# Incidents PerWell Drilled2008121<1200933261.320101211201.020111112030.552012581430.41TOTALS3245130.63 avg.Table 9.2 Incidents reported by DEP per well drilled 2008-2012.Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, Incidents 141Many factors are likely involved in the improvedperformance, such as:• Increased oversight by DEP with its increased staff• Implementation of new regulations and guidancefrom DEP since 2008• Sharing of information among industry groups tofoster improved performance.• Increased familiarity with Pennsylvania laws andregulations by out-of-state operators• Individual company implementation of safetyand environmental programs similar to the AnadarkoEYES ON program*• The bureau’s issuance of its Guidelines for Administering Oil and Gas Activity on State Forest Lands.• Increase in bureau staff and resources to monitor andmanage the shale-gas program• The bureau’s policy of active management, with weeklystaff visits to well sites and construction sites• Bureau staff gaining experience in managing shale-gasactivity on state forest lands* Anadarko Exploration and Production Company implementedits EYES ON safety and environmental protocols in late 2010 as aresponse to rising numbers of incidents on Anadarko drill pads andnotices of violation issued by DEP.Spill Incident ReportingIn addition to spill reports required by DEP, the bureaualso creates individual spill incident reports to documentthe spill incident in greater detail. For example, onJanuary 31, 2012, the shale-gas monitoring team learnedof a diesel fuel spill and two inadvertent brine dischargeson Tract 729A, Pad C. This triggered a response by theteam to document the details of the incident and gatherwater quality measurements on the pad and adjacentstreams. The bureau investigation did not identifyelevated conductivity readings in the down-gradientstream. Subsequent additional monitoring and siteremediation by the responsible operator was conductedto the satisfaction of DEP.Incident Reporting SystemIn addition to DEP’s tracking of investigations andincidents, the bureau records and tracks all incidents onstate forest land in accordance with Visitor Services andProtection Directive #9, Incident Reporting. Incidentsrecorded by the bureau’s system include those related toall activities on state forest land. Incidents are categorizedinto three main categories:1.Major ReportableExamples include:• Any felonies or misdemeanors• Any use of force, including drawing of a firearm (if authorized to carry a firearm), or call for assistance or backup outside the bureau• All deaths and all injuries to visitors or employees requiring admittance to a medical facility• Damage to commonwealth property causing a loss value of $3,000 or more, including labor to repair• Any fire causing damage to a commonwealth structure2.Minor ReportableExamples include:• Damage, vandalism, and/or criminal mischief to any commonwealth property causing a loss value between $100 and $500, including cost to repair, and that otherwise does not constitute a misdemeanor or higher offense. The loss value does not include investigation time. Clean up costs exceeding $100.142 Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, Incidents• Search and rescue operations not reportable as a major incident• Motor vehicle accidents that are not major incidents• Revocations of fuelwood permits or camping permits• Any injury to a visitor or employee requiring medical treatment or an accident report• Assistance to outside agencies• Any theft not reportable as a major incident• All citations• Any hostile interaction with the public that may result in a complaintIV. Conclusion3.Non-ReportableExamples include:• Requesting a visitor to voluntarily comply with laws, rules, and regulations• A minor amount of litter• A missing cardboard signRankBeginning on July 1, 2009, the bureau began identifyingincidents that were related to oil and gas activities.The bureau does not discriminate between shale gasand shallow oil and gas activities when tracking theseincidents. From July 1, 2009, to December 31, 2012, therewere a total of 264 incident reports in 50 different incidenttypes related to oil and gas activities across the 20 stateforest districts. Table 9.3 illustrates the top 15 types ofincidents reported in the bureau’s Incident ReportingSystem across all 20 state forest districts from July 1,2009, to December 31, 2012.Incident TypeSince the inception of the shale gas program on state forestlands in 2008, incidents have occurred and have beenreported. During this period, DEP investigated 324 totalhealth and safety and administrative incidents, resultingin 308 NOVs. A spill incident report was prepared by theMarcellus shale-gas monitoring program to document andreport on the diesel fuel spill and inadvertent discharge ofbrine on Tract 729 A, Pad C.In addition, there have been# of IncidentReportsa total of 264 incidents in 5022different categories reportedthrough the bureau’s Incident21Reporting System across all20state forest districts directly20related to oil and gas activity.1Miscellaneous (not otherwise classified)2Closure3Crimes Code4No Injury5Hazards (manmade)6Criminal Mischief157Motor Vehicle Code (Title 75)158Misc. Title 75 Violations (not otherwise classified)139Theft810Vandalism811Operation of Vehicle Without Official Certificateof Inspection812MISC. Crime Code (not otherwise classified)713Complaint714Motor Vehicle Accident (Visitor)615Outside Agencies, Assistance518Table 9.3 Top 15 reportable incident types in the bureau’s Incident ReportingSystem related to oil and gas activity from July1, 2009 to December 31, 2012.Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, Incidents 143Part 2: Monitoring Values›› Fauna (Wildlife)I. Key Points:• Wildlife habitat will change due to gasinfrastructure within the shale gas region.• Gas infrastructure will result in more edgeand early successional habitat.• The bureau is monitoring the positive andnegative impacts of shale gas developmenton wildlife communities to better understandtheir long-range implications and steps thatcan be instituted to avoid and mitigatenegative impacts.• The bureau is in the early stages of developingits wildlife monitoring protocols. The bureauwill focus on monitoring changes in habitatconditions in relation to gas development.• Through its monitoring program, the bureau isfunding multiple research projects to advancethe understanding of the impacts of shale-gasdevelopment to wildlife species such as interiorforest birds and timber rattlesnakes.II. IntroductionWildlife and fish in Pennsylvania fall under the jurisdiction of two commissions: birdsand mammals are the responsibility of the Pennsylvania Game Commission (PGC),while the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission (PFBC) has the responsibility forfish, reptiles, amphibians, and aquatic invertebrates. The bureau does not directlymanage wildlife in Pennsylvania but instead manages habitat, ensuring that naturalbiological communities can thrive.Two documents, Penn’s Woods and the State Forest Resource Management Plan(SFRMP), lay the foundation for the bureau’s approach to managing wildlife habitat onstate forest lands.Penn’s Woods establishes the bureau’s mission and states it will manage state forestsusing an ecosystem management approach that maintains biological diversity andprovides habitats for plants and animals.144 Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, FaunaSFRMP further defines the bureau’s ecosystemmanagement approach to state forest management. TheSFRMP provides guidance on how state forests will bemanaged to conserve the diversity of native wild faunaand their habitats. The bureau also has the ability to adaptits management for a particular species in need ofprotection or to focus on a habitat type or a particularbiological community.Wildlife and HabitatEcosystems consist of complex interactions betweenspecies and habitat. Wildlife and fish species aredependent on suitable habitat to maintain naturallyreproducing populations and require food, water, cover,and space as components of their habitat.The various wildlife species have different requirementsand are associated with specific habitat types. Speciesthat have similar habitat needs are grouped into speciesguilds. Groups of insectivorous birds that are commonto deciduous forests are an example of a guild. Thecollection of species living and interacting within a givenarea is defined as a community. Communities often aredefined by habitat type, such as coniferous forest wildlifecommunities. Many different types of communities arerepresented on state forest lands and are managed indifferent ways.Some species of wildlife and fish are termed generalistsand are opportunistic, meaning they are adaptable andcan thrive in a wide range of habitats. Other species aredefined as specialists, meaning they have very specifichabitat requirements. Specialists are often used asindicator species, meaning their occurrence indicatesthe presence of suitable habitat.A great amount of literature exists describing theassociations of wildlife species and habitat types. ThePennsylvania State University Cooperative Extensionpublishes many wildlife handouts explaining habitatsuccession leading to changes in wildlife communities.(Habitat succession can be thought of as a progressionShale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, Fauna 145of the vegetation community from an herbaceousopening to shrubs to mature forest.) The U.S. ForestService published New England Wildlife: Management ofForested Habitats, which describes wildlife and habitatinteractions (DeGraaf et al, 1992). This publicationfeatures matrices showing what species of wildlife utilizecertain habitat types and features. The U.S. Fish andWildlife Service developed Habitat Suitability Index(HSI) models, which incorporate formulas using specifichabitat variables and give a quantitative result of habitatsuitability for a given species. Using this information,it is possible to evaluate habitat suitability and predictchanges in wildlife due to changes in habitat.State forest land provides many habitat types andfeatures, including forest, herbaceous openings, andthe edge between herbaceous and forest habitats. Foresthabitats can be further divided into deciduous, conifer,or mixed species forest. They also can be classified withrespect to age, ranging from young forest to matureforest. Forest interior is defined as non-disturbed areasover 300 feet from a non-forest edge.Forest interior habitats often include large diametertrees, downed dead wood, standing dead trees (snags),tree cavities, a high percentage of canopy cover, and thepresence of mature fruit or nut producing trees. Conifers,if present, add a cover component to the habitat. Speciesof wildlife typical to forestinterior habitats include,but are not limited to, thebarred owl, black-cappedchickadee, woodpecker,nuthatch, ovenbird,scarlet tanager, wood thrush, fisher, gray squirrel, andred squirrel. Many of these species require mature mastproducing trees and cavities in which to nest. Some ofthe species require mature forest features such as largediameter trees, cavities, and large snags. The barredowl and pileated woodpecker, in particular, are goodindicators of mature forest.Herbaceous open areas often include grasses andforbs, abundant insects, exposed rock, and sometimesbrushy vegetation. This early successional habitat isoften used by species such as the eastern meadowlark,eastern cottontail rabbit, ruffed grouse, goldfinch,chipping sparrow, song sparrow, gray catbird, indigobunting, meadow vole, red-tailed hawk, white-taileddeer, and turkey.Edges between forest and open areas are oftencharacterized by brushy vegetation and are intermediatebetween both habitat types. The forest edge usuallyreceives more light and is warmer and drier than theforest interior. The herbaceous edge receives moreshade than the interior of the opening. Species thatcommonly use edge habitat include the American crow,common grackle, raccoon, Virginia opossum, cowbird,red fox, and indigo bunting. Popular game species suchas white-tailed deer, ruffed grouse, and turkey also useedge habitat.Figure 10.1 Image from Penn Sate Cooperative Extension (Forest Stewardship #5: Wildlife)Illustration by Rae Chambers, College of Agricultural Sciences, Penn State.146 Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, FaunaAs with all development, there is potential for shale-gasdevelopment on state forest lands to impact wildlifepopulations and habitats. The disturbance due to gasactivity typically sets succession back to an earlier state.Any alteration of habitat could lead to a shift in wildlife.The bureau deals with development by first attemptingto avoid conflict with sensitive habitats and wildlife.When avoidance is not possible, the bureau thenattempts to minimize impacts. The Pennsylvania StateUniversity provides an Electronic Marcellus Field Guide(http://www.marcellusfieldguide.org/) that includesinformation about the gas industry and wildlife impacts.Shale-gas infrastructure, when placed within forestedhabitat, will result in increased forest fragmentation.Some of this forest habitat will be converted to edgeand to herbaceous openings. The conversion of largeblocks of forest interior may negatively impact forestinterior-dependent communities. Conversely, the sameimpacts may benefit communities preferring earlysuccessional habitat by providing edge and openingswithin the forest. Pipeline rights-of-way (ROW) willhave a portion maintained as long-term openings. Ingeneral, fragmentation is thought to benefit generalistsover specialists, since generalists are opportunistic andadaptable to change.More information about forest fragmentation is availablein the Fragmentation chapter of this report.Why Monitor Wildlife Habitat?The wildlife monitoring effort will strive to answerthese questions:• How is wildlife habitat changing due to an increase ingas development?• Which species guilds or communities are benefitting,and which are not?• What can be done to alter management and minimizeimpacts (adaptive management)?Because the interaction between wildlife and habitat iscomplex, the impacts of a novel disturbance may notbe evident for several years. Therefore, it is crucial tomonitor the impacts of shale-gas development on habitat.Habitat monitoring is needed to establish baselineinformation and identify trends. By measuring habitatparameters, monitoring will provide the data necessaryto evaluate habitat for indicator species within forests,herbaceous openings, and edge habitats. Collectingthis data allows habitat suitability to be quantified andanalyzed objectively. Monitoring efforts will revealwhich communities will benefit and which communitiesare negatively affected by gas development. MonitoringShale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, Fauna 147must also be done inorder to determine theeffectiveness of gasinfrastructure restorationand mitigation practicesand to provide a basis foradaptive management.Over time, restorationand reforestation effortsshould result in moresuitable habitat for a givencommunity. For example, seedlings that are plantedon some reclaimed infrastructure sites are intended tosurvive and grow into forest habitat. Monitoringis needed to determine if our practices are fulfillingtheir intended purposes. Potential concerns revealedthrough wildlife monitoring can then be addressedin more detail.III. Monitoring Efforts/ResultsWildlife MonitoringThe bureau has access to a number of general wildlifeand fish information sources. These include CountyNatural Area Inventory Reports (CNAIs). The CNAIsare a product of the Natural Heritage Program thatbiologists use for planning purposes. CNAIs provideoverviews of sites that are biologically unique or targetsfor habitat improvements.The bureau is part of Pennsylvania’s Natural HeritageProgram (PNHP), which gathers and providesinformation on the location and status of importantecological resources. Its purpose is to provide current,reliable, and objective information to help informenvironmental decisions. PNHP maintains a statewidedatabase of species and resources of concern. Thisinformation is accessed to obtain data on rare speciesknown on state forest lands near areas where shale-gasdevelopment is occurring.The bureau conducts environmental review of allprojects on state forest lands, including shale-gasdevelopment projects. Pennsylvania Natural DiversityInventory (PNDI) is the environmental review functionof PNHP. The four agencies (DCNR, PGC, PFBC, andUSFWS) review projects that have potential impacts withspecies under their jurisdiction. Most projects reviewedfor PNDIs are for permitted activities, since PNDIs arerequired for DEP permits. As a proactive measure, thebureau performs PNDIs for all disturbance activities onstate forest lands, not just for DEP-permitted activities.The bureau uses this measure as a way to ensure thatall resources are kept in mind when conducting projectsor development on state forest lands. As such, there isa record of projects that have been done on state forestlands that have had potential impacts with species ofspecial concern and their outcomes.148 Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, FaunaThe bureau also collects data relating to deer impacts onforest habitats. The bureau uses the Vegetation ImpactProtocol (VIP) to determine deer impacts by assessingvegetation indicators. These data are used to makedecisions concerning Deer Management AssistanceProgram (DMAP) tag requests for state forest land.The bureau applies for the DMAP tags, and the PGC isresponsible for issuing the tags.Habitat MonitoringMany wildlife species are difficult to track and monitor,especially over a large landscape, such as the shale-gasregion within state forest lands. Therefore, to be mosteffective, the bureau will monitor wildlife in terms ofindicator species and the habitats they utilize. Indicatorspecies are useful since they reflect the long-termcondition of the habitat rather than just a snapshot of theconditions present at the time of sampling. The bureauwill focus on habitats adjacent to gas development,along with restored gas infrastructure areas. Monitoringefforts will focus on well pads, roadsides, pipeline ROWs,wetlands adjacent to development, forest interior areasnear gas infrastructure, and reclaimed or reforestedareas. The habitat types that will be evaluated are forest,herbaceous, and edge habitats.Specific habitat components will be monitored todetermine if suitable habitat is present for a given speciesor community in accordance with existing literature.The monitoring protocol mirrors the flora section’sprotocol (see Flora chapter), and the monitoring plotswill be in the same locations as the flora monitoringplots. The monitoring plots will collect forest habitatdata in addition to the herbaceous vegetation andtree regeneration data at each plot. The data will beinterpreted to evaluate the habitat’s suitability for agiven community, and to detect change over time.Habitat ParametersCertain wildlife species require specific habitat features.Many of these features can be measured and evaluated todetermine suitability of habitat. The habitat parametersthat will be measured are: diameter at breast height (dbh)of trees, overstory species, species richness of trees, treeheight, basal area, trees per acre, snags per acre, percentcanopy cover, and the species of regeneration present.The flora monitoring already captures the herbaceouscomponent of habitat. The species of trees presentdetermines the availability of food or cover. Speciesrichness of trees present is an indicator of biologicaldiversity. The change in average dbh of trees in foresthabitat will lead to increasing or decreasing suitabilityof habitat for a given species. The dbh of trees also canindicate whether they are mature and can provide mast.The average height of trees is important since verticalstructure is vital to songbird habitat. Average heightsalso will show the growth of forest regeneration and treeplantings. The number of snags per acre relates directlyto suitability of habitat for woodpeckers, along withother species. Some species that depend on snags requirea minimum diameter in order to be useful. The treeregeneration present is an indicator of what species maybe present in the habitat in the future.Habitat can be evaluated using the HSI models andDeGraaf et al. (1992) habitat matrices for indicatorspecies of various habitats. This will allow reasonablepredictions of how wildlife will respond to changesin habitat.Well Pad AssessmentHabitat monitoring on well pads allows for assessinghabitat, establishing a baseline set of current conditions,and comparing habitats across multiple sites. Themonitoring plots are located along a gradient fromreclaimed habitat to disturbed habitat to undisturbedforest habitat. Manmade habitat, such as rock pilesand brush piles, will be monitored to determineif wildlife species are using these features. Themonitoring of manmade habitat features is addressedlater in this chapter.Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, Fauna 149Roadside Habitat AssessmentThese plots will assess the impacts of roads and roadsidegas industry activities on habitat. Many existing forestroads were made wider to accommodate the increase inindustry-related traffic. The impacts on habitat, such asincreasing edge and possibly barring wildlife movement,directly relate to the impacts on wildlife.Pipeline Rights of Way AssessmentRights of way are maintained as early successionalhabitat. This habitat may be utilized by species requiringgrasses and forbs or the insects that are abundant in thishabitat type. ROWs are maintained in this way primarilyto ease pipeline monitoring and maintenance by the gascompany. The ROWs are seeded and receive periodicmowing or herbicide treatments. Practices relating totiming, height, and return interval of mowing can impacthabitat and wildlife. Monitoring will be conducted todetermine trends and to quantitatively describe the habitatprovided by the ROWs. The data provided may be used foradaptive management pertaining to maintaining ROWs.Wetland Encroachment BuffersIt is the bureau’s practice to place protective bufferson water bodies and wetlands. Waivers are granted ona case-by-case basis if the prescribed buffer cannotbe implemented. Wetlands located adjacent to gasinfrastructure may be impacted differently, depending onthe presence of buffers. Monitoring will be done on selectwetlands abiding to the 200-foot buffer and on some thatare within 200 feet of gas infrastructure. Wetland habitatinformation will detect any changes in habitat suitabilityfor associated species.One particular type of wetland found in Pennsylvania isthe vernal pool. Vernal pools are vital habitat features,especially for amphibians and some invertebrates, whichoften are used as indicator species reflecting changesin an ecosystem before it is noticeable elsewhere.Amphibians, such as wood frogs, spotted salamanders,and Jefferson salamanders, belong to the guild ofspecies requiring vernal pools for breeding. The bureau isconsidering a protocol in which a sample of vernal poolswill be monitored for the presence of breeding salamandersand wood frogs.Restoration, Mitigation, and Reforestation EvaluationSome infrastructure reclamation areas will not bereforested, but rather managed to provide other typesof habitat. These areas will be monitored via the floramonitoring procedures. Monitoring also will includeevaluation of reforestation efforts along ROWs. It isexpected that plantings eventually will become mature andcontribute to habitat needs of wildlife. Conifers are plantedwith the intention of providing cover and nesting habitatfor species such as ruffed grouse, small mammals, andsongbirds. Conifers also provide food for red squirrels andsong birds when the trees are mature. Deciduous trees areplanted in hopes that they will provide canopy cover andmast when mature. Long-term monitoring will documentthe progression of habitat through succession fromherbaceous habitat to forest habitat.Mitigation practices, such as providing rock piles forsnake basking sites and brush piles for small mammalsand birds, are common along pipeline ROWs and wellpads. Brush piles may benefit many species, includingweasels, voles, eastern cottontails, Virginia opossum, redfox, and the northern black racer. These manmade featuresmust be monitored to determine if they are being used, andby what species. The presence and type of animal tracks inthe immediate area around the rock piles and brush pileswill indicate patterns of use by wildlife. Track data wouldbe collected during the winter season. The bureau also islooking into using cover boards at reclaimed sitesto monitor terrestrial salamander occurrences. Coverboards could be located near vegetation plots at well padsthat already are being monitored.Aquatic Community MonitoringStreams are also basic necessities to many species ofwildlife on state forest lands. Aquatic insects such as150 Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, Faunamayfly, stonefly, and caddis fly all are indicators of highwater quality. The bureau will cooperate with the PFBC,which collects data such as the presence of fish species,with an emphasis on brook trout as an indicator of highquality habitat. The PFBC also collects data including thepresence of young of the year brook trout, pH, specificconductivity, and temperature. All of this data canpotentially be used to create a baseline and determinetrends due to gas development.Wildlife Population MonitoringThe bureau will work on forming cooperative effortswith many different entities in order to monitor wildlifepopulations. The PGC collects population data on thefisher, which can be used as an indicator of forest habitat.The U.S. Geological Survey oversees the Breeding BirdSurvey (BBS), coordinated by the PGC in Pennsylvania.The BBS provides data on bird species present in the areaduring breeding season. Efforts will be made to cooperatewith these organizations to facilitate data sharing. Thebird data are not at a fine enough scale to correlate withspecific habitat features and changes, but are still usefulto establish long-term baselines and to determine trends.Other Bureau of Forestry Shale-Gas MonitoringThe bureau will continue to monitor the impacts ofshale-gas development on hunting and fishing experienceson state forest land. For more information see theRecreation section.Aquatic habitat monitoring will be tied to waterquality monitoring efforts. Water chemistry – such aspH, specific conductance, and temperature – directlyimpacts the suitability of a water body as habitat. Moreinformation pertaining to water quality monitoring can befound in the Water section.Wildlife monitoring also will be tied to flora monitoringefforts. Plant and natural community monitoring datawill help form the baseline data for wildlife habitat,since vegetation forms the foundation of wildlife habitat.IV. Other ResearchThe bureau is funding research projects relating towildlife and gas development, including Dr. MargaretBrittingham’s (Penn State) study on forest interiorbird species and forest connectivity. This research willprovide data to form a baseline and determine trends incommunity impacts. Dr. Brittingham also is researchingthe effects of gas development on forest-dependentsalamanders and frogs.Dr. Gian Rocco (Penn State) is investigating the potentialimpacts of the Marcellus shale-gas industry on the timberrattlesnake. Occupied rattlesnake habitat is being assessedbefore, during, and after development on state forest land.Radio telemetry is being used to provide information onthe dependence of rattlesnakes on critical habitats.V. Conclusion/DiscussionPennsylvania’s state forest lands are an important sourceof food, cover, water, and space for wildlife, which arecritical components of ecosystems. Due to the difficultiesin monitoring a suite of species, the bureau will basewildlife monitoring efforts on habitat and certain indicatorspecies, rather than strictly on animal abundance data.Habitat alterations will result in wildlife changes. Theintent is to show what habitat is found across the stateforest system and relate this to what wildlife communitiesutilize this habitat, in an objective manner.Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, Fauna 151Part 2: Monitoring Values›› RecreationI. Key Points:• No national hiking trails in Pennsylvania have been impacted by shale-gas development.Three designated state forest hiking trails have been impacted.• One state forest scenic vista, the Ramsey Vista in Tiadaghton State Forest, has been directlyimpacted in the core gas forest districts. It was closed to vehicle access.• Statewide, since 2006, there has been a 5 percent increase (145 miles) in total snowmobile trailmiles across the state forest system. This is the result of a 203-mile decrease in joint-use trailsand a 348-mile increase in designated snowmobile trails.• Snowmobile trail systems have been impacted in each of the core gas forest districts. Newsnowmobile trails have been created to replace impacted snowmobile trails.• The need for road access for shale-gas development has resulted in heavier traffic on stateforest roads. Upgraded roads may be safer and easier to drive but may have lost some of their“wild character” value.• There are both gains and losses in access to state forest lands via roads due to shale-gasdevelopment. Some roads may be closed or restricted, while newly constructed roads will offernew opportunities for access.• The impact of shale-gas development on recreational experience and wild character asmeasured by the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum is a 9,341-acre increase in semi-developedand developed acreage; a 913-acre decrease in semi-primitive acreage; a 8,409-acre decreasein semi-primitive non-motorized acreage; and a 19-acre decrease in primitive acreage.• Three gas infrastructure features have been constructed within scenic viewshed “Areas ofSpecial Consideration” identified in gas leases. Additional methods to assess viewsheds andaesthetic changes should be identified or developed.• Initial measurements at six out of the seven operating compressor stations measured onstate forest lands were louder than the 55db(A) suggested by the updated Guidelines forAdministering Oil and Gas Activity on State Forest Lands.• 46 out of 116 comment card respondents in coregas forest districts indicated that Marcellusactivity had changed their visitation experience.41 out of 116 respondents indicated thatMarcellus activity had changed theirrecreational use of the state forest.152 Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, RecreationII. IntroductionThe bureau acknowledges the value of recreation withinits mission statement and within policies that specificallyidentify “recreation” as it applies to the state forestsystem and the value that recreation has for the citizensof Pennsylvania. State forests are able to provide a uniqueopportunity for dispersed, low-density outdoor recreationthat cannot be obtained from small forest areas or fromprivate ownership.The bureau’s mission statement includes a directivefor “managing state forests under sound ecosystemmanagement, to retain their wild character and maintainbiological diversity while providing pure water,opportunities for low-density recreation, habitatsfor forest plants and animals, sustained yields ofquality timber, and environmentally sound utilizationof mineral resources.”The Conservation and Natural Resource Act authorizesthe establishment of and provides for the use and controlof state forest lands. This law states, in part, that oneof the purposes for which the state forests were createdis “to furnish opportunities for healthful recreation tothe public.”Recreation on state forest lands can mean many thingsto many different people. State forest visitors can find awhole host of recreational activities on Pennsylvania’s2.2-million-acre state forest system. Some of the mostcommon activities include scenic driving, hunting,camping, hiking, and nature watching. Others includehang gliding, dog sledding, kayaking, ATV riding,snowmobiling, horseback riding, mountain biking,fishing, cross-country skiing, birding, nature observing,and geocaching, to name a few.Gas development includes extensive infrastructurethat requires careful siting to minimize impacts. Newinfrastructure can affect wild character and viewsheds.Noise-generating activities may affect visitor experience.While there are quantitative measurements for factorsaffecting recreation experience, the qualitative impactsmay be more relevant.Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, Recreation 153The primary management decisions related to shale-gasdevelopment and associated with state forest recreationcomprise constant efforts to first avoid impacts if atall possible. When avoidance is not a viable option,the efforts switch to minimizing impacts to thegreatest extent. For those impacts that are unavoidable,management efforts also are expended on the mitigationof impacts to recreation infrastructure. Finally, thebureau monitors the effects of its management decisionsto see if the appropriate outcome was obtained or howthe system can be improved.While there may be an impact to a piece of recreationinfrastructure, such as a temporary trail closure, it is thebureau’s goal to improve the infrastructure and create abetter experience if possible. An example would be thetraditional joint-use roads, which are snowmobile trailsthat are colocated on public use roads in the winter.Many of these joint-use roads have been used for shalegas development and are not suitable for snowmobilinganymore for safety reasons because they have becomeplowed road surfaces. The loss of these trails is animpact, but as pipelines to carry natural gas are installedadjacent to the impacted roads, new snowmobile trailsare being established on the pipelines. The moving ofsnowmobile trails to the pipelines generally will createa better riding experience and provide a trail surfacenot as likely to be impacted by activities that requireplowing. If an impact to the recreation infrastructurecannot be avoided, it is the bureau’s goal to work withthe operators to enhance the recreational infrastructureand visitor experience when it is replaced or improved.The bureau maintains a fact sheet to provide stateforest visitors with the necessary information for a safe,enjoyable experience when visiting areas near natural gasdevelopment activities.The importance of monitoring state forest recreationcannot be understated. A recreational activity is likelythe most common reason to bring a person to a stateforest. Many constituents have a very personal andlasting bond to their recreational experiences.154 Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, RecreationIII. Monitoring Efforts/ResultsDesignated State Forest Hiking TrailsDesignated State Forest Hiking Trails (SFHT) are 18hiking-only trails that are located across the state forestsystem. These premier trails encompass all types ofhikes, from a long-distance trail such as the Mid StateTrail (310 miles), which traverses the length of the state,to a one-day or hours-long short trail, such as the RockyKnob Trail (four miles), and everything in between. The18 SFHTs traverse a combined 1,180 trail miles that covera variety of terrain and difficulty levels. There are 13SFHT trails in the core gas forest districts:• Black Forest Trail (42 miles)• Chuck Keiper Trail (53 miles)• John P. Saylor Trail (18 miles)• Loyalsock Trail (59 miles)• Old Loggers Path (27 miles)• Quehanna Trail (75 miles)• Susquehannock Trail (85 miles)• Bucktail Path (34 miles)• Donut Hole Trail (90 miles)• Golden Eagle Trail (9 miles)• Lost Turkey Trail (26 miles)• Mid State Trail (309 miles)• West Rim Trail (30 miles)There have been three impacts to state forest hiking trailsrelated to shale-gas development. Limiting the impactsto three trails has been achieved through the strictavoidance of development near SFHTs.A half-mile section of the Mid State Trail in TiadaghtonState Forest was rerouted in 2010. This reroute wasundertaken through cooperation with the KeystoneTrails Association (KTA), Mid State Trail Association,and Tiadaghton staff. Through the waiver process, theoperator requested that a gas access road be located onan existing old-woods road which had a segment of theMid-State Trail co-located on it. Rather than create a newroad parallel to the existing woods road just outside ofthe buffer distance for the trail, the decision was madeto allow a well pad access road to be built in the originalold-woods road corridor, which served as a section ofthe Mid State Trail. The trail was relocated to a newlycreated single-track trail positioned so that little to novisual impacts would be seen from the new trail otherthan at a road crossing. The location of the new trail alsoeliminated any visual impact related to a well pad andassociated pipelines in the area.There has been an indirect impact to the Donut HoleSFHT in Sproul State Forest. This trail was impactedbecause the joint-use snowmobile trail had to be movedoff Carrier Road due to Endless Mountain’s use of theroad for development of private lands in the area. Thegas company has to plow the road for access in winter,thereby eliminating the snowmobile trail on CarrierRoad. The road is not entirely on state forest lands,and the bureau only has a right-of-way (ROW) for theroad across private lands. The ROW corridor is notsufficiently wide to allow for both a snowmobile trailand the road in a parallel manner. In addition, there areobvious safety concerns of having development trafficand snowmobiles on the same road. There are no otheralternative routes for the snowmobiles to use to completethe snowmobile system.With little recourse but to relocate the snowmobiletrail from Carrier Road, a new pathway for that trailwas sought. The Donut Hole Trail in this area had beenco-located onto an old-woods/timber sale access roadfor approximately 1.1 miles. This section of the DonutHole Trail is slated to become part of the new LickRun Snowmobile Trail. District staff are working withmembers of KTA to locate a new single-track hikingtrail corridor for that portion of the Donut Hole Trailin a manner that would remove it from any likely gasdevelopment and/or other motorized trails. The potentialnew trail corridor would cross a section of The NatureConservancy lands and then go back onto state forestlands on its way into Hyner View State Park. WithinShale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, Recreation 155Hyner View State Park, the new proposed trail will thencontinue on the original Donut Hole Trail route. Thenew proposed trail route is located on fee simple andnonleased forest lands, which likely will eliminate theneed to relocate these sections of trail again in the future.A 500-foot portion of the Chuck Keiper Trail in SproulState Forest was relocated an additional 300 yards awayfrom a well pad. The pad was located outside the bufferzone for the trail, as suggested by the Guidelines forAdministering Oil and Gas Activity on State ForestLands; however, the bureau took the opportunity tomove the trail farther away from the well pad and toclose a section of trail that was entrenched. The originaltrail section was rehabilitated to eliminate erosion andsedimentation issues and was planted. Because the wellpad was kept outside the trail buffer, this trail relocationwas not completed as a direct result of gas development.This relocation was an effort to correct a poor trailsection and also an increase of visual distance awayfrom a well pad location.Local Forest District Hiking TrailsLocal forest district hiking trails are not part of thepurview of this monitoring report; however, futuremonitoring efforts will attempt to evaluate and quantifythe impacts of shale-gas development to local state forestdistrict trails.National Hiking TrailsThere have been no direct shale-gas related impacts toany national hiking trail in the region.VistasRamsey Vista on Ramsey Road in Tiadaghton StateForest has been closed to vehicle access since 2010 dueto gas activity. The vista will remain closed to publicvehicle traffic until gas development work in the area hasbeen completed. The public still can access this vista byfoot. The road to the vista is closed one-fourth mile fromthe overlook.There also is potential for new roads to be constructedfor gas development to increase access for scenic driving,including vistas. No other vista has been impacted byshale-gas development in any other forest district.State Forest Picnic AreasThere have been no direct impacts to any state forestpicnic areas due to shale-gas development.Recreation Agreements (LOAs, CAAs, and SAAs)There has been anecdotal evidence of forest userswho have changed venues for events that requireagreements, from a forest district that is experiencinggas development to another forest district that does nothave gas development. In some cases, this is creating amuch greater demand for forest services than typicallyare experienced in the “new” forest district. For example,a snowmobile poker-run/benefit ride that was goingto be held in Loyalsock State Forest was moved by itsorganizers to Bald Eagle State Forest. The move to BaldEagle State Forest, as communicated to staff, was “due toa number of the snowmobile trails being closed/lost dueto heavy flooding damage and in part to get away fromheavy gas development in the area of other trails.”The bureau has since created a new method to capturethese instances of recreational activities being movedfrom one location to another and why. This was aneffort to determine whether shale-gas developmentwas impacting various recreation activities. As part ofthe application for a Letter of Authorization (LOA), aCommercial Activity Agreement (CAA), or a SpecialActivity Agreement (SAA), a new form is filled out bythe person or entity that is applying for the agreement.This form was created and included with all newagreements from September 2012 forward to determinewhether the activity has been adjusted due to gas activity.Since introduction of this form, there have not beenany impacts noted by groups or individuals applyingfor agreements.156 Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, RecreationATV TrailsThere have been no impacts to any of the ATV trails ortrail systems due to shale-gas development.Snowmobile TrailsThe snowmobile trails that are located in the northcentral state forests have traditionally been some of themost popular snowmobiling destinations in the state.Core gas forest districts happen to correlate with thiskey snowmobile trail area. Trails located on state forestand state park lands open the day after the last day ofPennsylvania regular or extended deer season andclose on April 1.There are two types of trails available for snowmobileriding: joint-use roads and dedicated snowmobile trails.Joint-use roads are regular state forest roads, eitherpublic-use or drivable trails, that are open to both regularmotor vehicle traffic and snowmobiles. The joint-useroads do not have any winter maintenance (plowing,cindering, etc.) performed by the bureau. Dedicatedsnowmobile trails are closed to regular vehicle trafficand only allow snowmobiles and co-located winterATV/snowmobile trails.Joint-use roads and designated snowmobile trailstraditionally may have been closed or plowed fora variety of reasons as part of regular state forestoperations. These closures or plowing schedules mayhave to be implemented for the entire riding season or atany time during the snowmobiling season. Traditionalreasons encountered for a snowmobile trail or jointuse road closure include timber harvesting, access toprivate lands, water companies, antenna site lessees,shallow-well gas and gas storage operations, or miningoperations. However, due to shale-gas development,many additional roads that are traditionally open tosnowmobiling are now closed for the safety of thesnowmobilers. Joint-use roads and snowmobile trailsthat are being utilized for gas development now have tobe plowed for access to the gas infrastructure, leavingan unfit trail condition for snowmobiles. In addition totrails not being in a suitable condition for riding, therewould also be a safety issue if snowmobiles and gasdevelopment traffic utilized the same roads and trails.Depending on which road or trail is being used for gasactivities, a portion of a trail loop may be lost or a largesection of the trail system may be isolated and out ofreach by loss of connectivity.Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, Recreation 157Efforts are underway to reestablish former trails andcreate new snowmobile trails by making use of the newgas pipeline infrastructure system. Often pipelines arecreated adjacent to or near the forest roads that are usedby the gas companies to access their infrastructure. Thesepipelines can be ideal for the placement of snowmobiletrails. While some pipelines are favorable for placementof snowmobile trails, other pipelines or sections ofpipelines may not be favorable. Considerations beforeplanning placement of snowmobile trails onto a pipelineinclude: steep terrain, crossing private lands, wetlands,stream crossings, historic sites, and numerous others.New trails and loops are likely a favorable outcomeof this new gas activity. Unfortunately, there will be apiecemeal approach for a few years until all trail linkscan be completed.New trails also have been created that are not associatedwith gas pipelines. In many cases, these trails werelocated in areas that already had old-woods roads ortimber sale access roads, and these dormant roads neededonly to have minimal rehabilitation work done to makethem suitable for winter snowmobile traffic. Greaterefforts are being made to work with the gas companies toget the snowmobiles onto these new trails, whether on oroff a pipeline, as soon as possible.From the start of shale-gas development, the bureauhas worked to communicate to the Pennsylvania StateSnowmobilers Association (PSSA) that there wouldbe temporary impacts to snowmobile trails. The PSSAhas conveyed this message to its constituents in thesnowmobile community. The local state forest districtsalso have been working with their local snowmobileclubs to inform them of impacts and changes to thesnowmobile trail systems yearly. The bureau is workingwith gas companies as part of the planning and approvalprocess to create an action plan related to impactedsnowmobile trails. The goal is to have a plan for thelocation of replacement snowmobile trails and a concretetimeline for them to be back in service.Pre-shale-gas development snowmobile ridingopportunities can be shown by comparing the trailsavailable for the 2006-07 riding season to later years.Shale-gas development began on state forest lands in2008. The changes to the trail system related to shale-gasdevelopment can be shown through the 2007-08riding season and continuing on through 2012-13.(Note: State forest roads also are used for timberharvesting operations, an activity that may also causeplowing and temporary impacts to snowmobile trails.For the purposes of this report, only shale-gas relatedimpacts are reported.) What follows are annualsummaries of snowmobile trail conditions:2006-2007 Snowmobile Trails• Joint-use roads open – 2,046 miles (1,984.1 state forestand 61.9 state park)• Designated snowmobile trails – 703 miles• No roads designated to be closed in core gas forestdistricts. There were 61 roads with the possibility thatthe entire road or sections of the road would be plowedin the core gas forest districts.2007-2008 Snowmobile Trails• Joint-use roads open – 1,973 miles (1,943 state forestand 29.7 state park)• Designated snowmobile trails – 714 miles• No roads designated to be closed in core gas forestdistricts. There were 86 roads with the possibility thatthe entire road or sections of the road would be plowedin the core gas forest districts.2008-2009 Snowmobile Trails• Joint-use roads open – 2,022 miles (1,959.1 state forestand 62.9 state park)• Designated snowmobile trails – 864 miles2009-2010 Snowmobile Trails• Joint-use roads open – 1,962 miles (1,898.2 state forestand 63.8 state park)• Designated snowmobile trails – 871 miles158 Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, RecreationFigure 11.12010-2011 Snowmobile Trails• Joint-use roads open – 1,934 miles (1,871.4 state forestand 62.6 state park)• Designated snowmobile trails – 1,014 miles• There were 64 roads with the possibility that the entireroad or sections of the road would be plowed in the coregas forest districts.2011-2012 Snowmobile Trails• Joint-use roads open – 1,871 miles (1,808.4 state forestand 62.6 state park)• Designated snowmobile trails – 1,023 milesSproul State Forest:• Thirteen roads closed for 49.1 miles due to shale-gasdevelopment• Fourteen roads possibly plowed for 74.9 miles due toshale-gas developmentTiadaghton State Forest:• Seventeen roads closed for 57.5 miles due to shale-gasdevelopmentElk State Forest:• Three roads possibly plowed for 3.2 miles due toshale-gas developmentMoshannon State Forest:• Seven roads closed for 16 miles due to shale-gasdevelopment• Seven roads possibly plowed for 14.6 miles due toshale-gas developmentSusquehannock State Forest:• Three roads possibly plowed for 18.4 miles due toshale-gas developmentTioga State Forest:• Three roads closed for 6.1 miles due to shale-gasdevelopmentShale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, Recreation 159Loyalsock State Forest:• Five roads closed for 9.3 miles due to shale-gasdevelopment• One road possibly plowed for 5.7 miles due to shale-gasdevelopmentTotal for all roads in the core gas forest districts thatcould be plowed due to shale-gas development activitiesduring the 2011-12 season was 28 roads for 116.8 miles.Total for all roads in the core gas forest districts closeddue to shale-gas development for 2011-12 season was45 roads for 138 miles. 2012-2013 Snowmobile Trails• Joint-use roads open – 1,843 miles (1,778.3 state forestand 62.6 state park)• Designated snowmobile trails – 1,051 milesTioga State Forest:• Three roads possibly plowed for 5.9 miles due toshale-gas developmentMoshannon State Forest:• Nine roads closed for 23.3 miles due to shale-gasdevelopment• Four roads possibly plowed for 14.5 miles due to shalegas developmentLoyalsock State Forest:• Five roads closed for 12 miles due to shale-gasSproul State Forest:• Thirteen roads closed for 57.8 miles due to shale-gasTotal for all roads in the core gas region that could beplowed due to shale-gas development activities duringthe 2012-13 season was 29 roads for 132 miles.development• Fourteen roads possibly plowed for 74.9 miles due toshale-gas developmentTiadaghton State Forest:• Seventeen roads closed for 57.5 miles due to shale-gasdevelopmentElk State Forest:• Four roads possibly plowed for 12.4 miles due toshale-gas developmentSusquehannock State Forest:• Three roads possibly plowed for 18.6 miles due toshale-gas developmentdevelopment• One road possibly plowed for 5.7 miles due to shale-gasdevelopmentTotal for all roads in the core gas region closed dueto shale-gas development for 2012-13 season was44 roads for 150.6 miles.New Snowmobile Trails:The following is a list of the new trails that were createdand opened to replace trails impacted by shale-gasdevelopment from 2007 (prior to shale-gas development)through December 2012:• Moshannon State Forest: Five miles of replacementtrails created• Sproul State Forest: Three miles of trail placed onto anew pipeline160 Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, Recreation• Tiadaghton State Forest: Five miles of trail placedonto a new pipeline• Elk State Forest: No trails replaced• Susquehannock State Forest: Two miles of trailplaced on a new pipeline• Tioga State Forest: Five miles of trail placed onnew pipelines• Loyalsock State Forest: No new trails created,primarily due to steep topography and the gasindustry’s current work on completing pipeline ROWs.Additional new trails may be needed to tie into existingsnowmobile trails and new pipelines.Scenic DrivingIn both past and current visitor use monitoring studies,the single largest recreational use of state forest lands hasbeen scenic driving. Most recreational users participatein this activity coming to and from the state forest, but formany this is the sole purpose of their visit to state forestland. The beauty of the forest, the solitude, tumblingmountain streams, scenic vistas, and ever-changingcolors attract great numbers of visitors.The bureau recognized the need for road access for gasdevelopment and co-located gas traffic on state forestroads to minimize new disturbance and ecologicalimpact. This strategy has resulted in state forest roadswith heavier traffic. Roads that are upgraded to handleheavier traffic may be safer and easier to drive but losesome wild character. In some cases, new roads have beenconstructed for gas development, which may reducetraffic impacts on traditional state forest roads whileproviding new opportunities for scenic driving.Hauling restrictions are used to manage gas developmenttraffic during high visitor-use periods (see section below).Some gas-related traffic is necessary for essential needs,but traffic can be limited to specific times. The strategyis to decrease the impact of traffic during the highest useperiods, at the cost of increased traffic at some other time.other public contact. A combination of traffic volumemeasurements and qualitative impacts may beimplemented in the future to monitor impacts onscenic driving.Hunting and FishingThe bureau has received qualitative evidence relating togas development impacts on hunting and fishing accessand experience. Traditional public contact, commentcards, and articles in the media suggest that some huntersand fishermen have been impacted. For future reports,implementation of qualitative and quantitative measuresof hunting impacts will be considered.There may be gains and losses with regard to accessfor hunting and fishing. Some roads may be closed orrestricted, while newly constructed roads will offernew opportunities for access. Traffic related to gasdevelopment has the potential to impact access andexperience. Traffic can be managed to some degree,which may include trade-offs in the time when theimpact occurs. Traffic and hauling restrictions areaddressed in the bureau’s Guidelines for AdministeringOil and Gas Activity on State Forest Lands.During certain holidays and high visitor use periodsthere should be no heavy hauling during the day (i.e., rigmoves, water trucking, sand trucking, etc.) or seismicactivity, to protect public safety and prevent conflicts.In addition to these statewide timeframes, the forestdistricts will provide gas operators with a list of highconflict dates on an annual basis to aid in the planningand scheduling of activities.Hunting and Fishing Seasons• Opening weekend of trout• Opening weekend of youth spring gobbler season• Opening weekend of regular spring gobbler season• Regular bear season• Portion of regular firearms deer season, includingopening dayRoad conditions, traffic, dust, and noise are commoncomplaints in the bureau’s comment cards and inShale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, Recreation 161Heavy hauling and seismic activity may be restrictedduring the following dates at the discretion of thedistrict forester:• Seismic activity may be restricted during the morninghours of spring turkey season.• Special activities or events on state forest or adjacentstate park lands as identified by the district. Restrictedroads and hours of operation will be determined bythe district.• Opening day of deer archery season.• Opening day of youth/special use hunting.• Opening day of early muzzleloader season.The bureau will consider minor truck traffic on stateforest roads between the hours of 10 p.m. and 4 a.m.for daily or essential needs only (e.g., cuttings removal,drinking water delivery, sanitation, cement). Themanagement of traffic comes with trade-offs. Theimpact to hunters may be mitigated, but state forestusers between the hours of 10 p.m. and 4 a.m. may beunusually impacted by traffic.Leased CampsitesThere are over 4,000 leased campsites on state forestlands across 16 state forest districts. Users who lease stateforest land for their cabins have the potential for uniqueimpacts from natural gas development. Other state forestusers may have the option to use a less impacted location,but since cabins are stationary, users’ options may belimited to enduring the impact, transferring the lease,or staying away during periods of impact. Since lesseesmay visit for extensive periods of time, they might beimpacted more than other users by activities such asheavy hauling that are moved to “off hours,” which is atrade-off the bureau uses to reduce the impact to otheruser groups.Leased campsites often have water use agreementsand could be directly impacted by any change in waterquality or quantity. There have been no known impactsto leased campsite water quality or quantity resultingfrom gas management.No leased campsites have been removed or leasesreturned to the bureau due to gas development. Realestate data on lease transfers could be analyzed, butthe bureau does not have that information, and it mightnot reflect gas impacts as much as it does real estateand economic trends. The bureau has receivedcomplaints from camp lessees regarding impacts fromshale-gas consistent with complaints from other usergroups. Qualitative measures, such as surveys and focusgroups, may be used to assess impacts to camp lesseesin the future.162 Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, RecreationFigure 11.2Recreation Opportunity SpectrumThe 2007 State Forest Resource Management PlanUpdate stated: “Utilize Recreation OpportunitySpectrum (ROS) to make and communicate recreationalmanagement decisions that are transparent, credible,and compatible with other state forest managementgoals.” The U.S. Forest Service developed the RecreationOpportunity Spectrum system, which has been adaptedby the bureau for application in Pennsylvania.According to the ROS manual: “Recreation opportunitySpectrum (ROS) is an inventory system built on thepremise that people expect certain types of recreationalexperiences on public land, and that land managersshould be able to direct people to appropriate placesfor those experiences. ROS allows the land manager toprovide recreational opportunities across a spectrum, orcontinuum, of five land-use classes so that the user mayfind satisfying recreational experiences in a variety ofrecreational activities.”The ROS land-use classes follow a continuum from“primitive” to “developed” and can be used as a measureof wild character (Figure 11.2). The ROS classes are:• Primitive– Remoteness: Greater than one mile from amotorized road/trail/railroad– Size: Greater than 1,000 acres• Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized– Remoteness: Greater than one half mile from amotorized road/trail/railroad– Size: Greater than 500 acres• Semi-Primitive– Remoteness: Greater than one fourth mile from amotorized road/trail/railroad– Size: Greater than 250 acres• Semi-Developed and Developed– Remoteness: None– Size: NoneShale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, Recreation 163ROS is a long-term planning tool that guidesmanagement activities. State forests are managed tomaintain the conditions that define each ROS landuse class, or increase the primitive acreage, but not toincrease developed acreage. According to the Guidelinesfor Administering Oil and Gas Activity on State ForestLands, “Natural gas activities will be restricted withinPrimitive and Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized zones asidentified through the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum(ROS) inventory and planning tool.”The bureau has a custom GIS tool that delineates ROSzones from the state forest landbase and motorized road/trail spatial data using the remoteness and size criteria.The bureau maintains a GIS base layer of the ROSclasses for pre-shale-gas conditions. As gas developmentprogresses, the bureau will continue to compare currentROS conditions to pre-shale-gas conditions and strive toattain those pre-shale-gas conditions for final restoration.Gas development activities change the condition of stateforest acreage to the more developed side of the ROScontinuum, although when sites associated with gasdevelopment are restored, they should return to theirmore primitive pre-shale-gas ROS conditions. Mitigationefforts could make other areas more primitive in theinterim. Table 11.1 and Figure 11.3 quantify the changein recreational experience and wild character frompre-shale-gas conditions until 2012, due to shale-gasdevelopment as measured by the ROS tool.The current impact of gas infrastructure on wildcharacter in core gas districts is: 9,341-acre increasein semi-developed and developed acreage, 913-acredecrease in semi-primitive acreage, 8,409-acre decreasein semi-primitive motorized acreage, and 19-acredecrease in primitive acreage.Before shale-gas activity, 19.5 percent of the stateforest in core gas districts was in the semi-primitivenon-motorized land-use class; the effects of shale-gasdevelopment as of 2012, resulted in a decrease to 18.9percent. The semi-developed and developed acreageincreased from 50.9 percent to 51.6 percent of the region’sstate forest. Semi-primitive and primitive acreages eachchanged by less than one tenth of one percent.The changes in ROS land-use classification also can beshown spatially. Currently, the changes in ROS haveall been decreases in primitive quality of the land base.As developed gas sites are restored to pre-shale-gasconditions, acreage should return to more primitivecharacter. In future ROS analyses, it will be informativeto separate acreage returned to primitive classificationsfrom acreage developed to show that the net result willinclude both gains and losses.PrimitiveSemi-PrimitiveNon-MotorizedSemi-PrimitiveSemi-Developed& DevelopedMoshannon0-1,164356808Sproul0-77051719Tiadaghton0-3,259-723,332Elk0000-19-9-1846Tioga0-3,207-3913,597Loyalsock00-838838-19-8,409-9139,341DistrictSusquehannockTotalTable 11.1 Net ROS Acreage Change (Pre-Shale-Gas vs. 2012).164 Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, RecreationFigure 11.3Aesthetics – ViewshedSince 2008, the bureau’s oil and gas leases have includedscenic viewshed “Areas of Special Consideration,”coordinated with the district forester to preventdisruption of scenic viewsheds wherever possible. Stateforest trails, rivers, and major roads were identifiedas scenic viewsheds. Incidents of gas developmentoccurring in those scenic viewshed Areas of SpecialConsideration have been identified and evaluated.Impacts on viewsheds can be evaluated using aspecialized tool in ArcGIS. This tool was utilized priorto the 2008 leases in order to identify the viewsheds thatshould be protected in the leases.Viewsheds were identified in 2008 using thefollowing procedure:1. Each forest district with potential gas leases wasasked to identify:a.Roads with high scenic value. These roadsare heavily used by the public, and there is anexpectation of high scenic value.b.Streams with scenic river designation or whichreceive heavy use with an expectation of exceptionalscenic value.c.Trails with heavy recreation use and an expectationof high scenic value.The selection of these features was based on localknowledge and was subjective:2. The ESRI ArcMap viewshed tool was used to estimateviewshed from the features identified in Step 1.a.Road, stream, and trail features from thestatewide dataset identified in Step 1 were usedas input features.3. The viewshed tool creates a layer with two symbols:0- not in viewshed and >0- in viewshed.Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, Recreation 165Figure 11.4 Change in ROS zones.Figure 11.5 Map of scenic viewsheds indentified in 2008 and newer leases (scenic viewshed in red).166 Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, RecreationImpacts from infrastructure were evaluated using thefollowing procedure:1. Gas infrastructure features are overlayed on theviewshed raster using ArcMap. If gas infrastructureis located within a raster cell with a value greaterthan 0, it is considered potentially visible from aninput feature.2. The occurrence of gas infrastructure within thosescenic viewsheds identified in leases will be identifiedby type and size.As a result of gas development, three pieces of gasinfrastructure have been constructed within scenicviewshed Areas of Special Consideration identified in gasleases. Development in these areas requires coordinationbetween operators and the bureau to protect specificforest uses and values. At times, development in theseareas is necessary to protect other sensitive areas and totake advantage of existing disturbance corridors.FeatureSizeViewshed ImpactedRoad724 feetPA-153Road963 feetInterstate 80Pipeline2,960 feetLittle Pine RoadTable 11.2 Gas infrastructure in scenic viewsheds.The features identified above were specifically related togas development. The size given for roads and pipelinesis the length of the feature within designated scenicviewsheds. While the size of the feature suggests howmuch of it could be visible, it is important to recognizethe limitations of viewshed software. It might be possibleto see more or less of the infringing infrastructure thanis actually suggested by the software. There are manyvariables that the software uses which would need to befurther developed to make the tool more reliable. Theimpact is qualitative and should not be determined bysoftware. Furthermore, the scenic viewsheds identified inthe leases are relatively small in acreage compared to thetotal acreage affected by gas development and, therefore,a limited quantification of the aesthetic impact.The 724-foot section of road visible from PA-153 is notan entirely new road. Prior to gas activity, it was a campsite access road. Only a very short portion of the road isvisible from PA-153.The 963-foot section of road visible from I-80 existedprior to gas development as a state forest road and isstill used in that capacity. The road has been improvedfor gas development use. In this case, the road was onlyslightly widened, similar to normal road maintenance,with minimal aesthetic change. This is unlike someother roads improved for gas development, whereimprovement has included significant widening and/oradditional rights of way.The 2,960-foot pipeline in the viewshed of Little PineRoad is a new gathering pipeline and rights of waywhere none existed previously. In this case, no suitableexisting pipeline or right of way existed to transport thegas to marketing lines, and the lease gives operatorsthe right to transport their gas from the leased area.Alternate routes were considered, but based on a hostof concerns about other sensitive resources, this routewas determined to have the least impact. Any routeacross the valley would have to cross Little Pine Road,impacting the viewshed; thus, this aesthetic impactcould not be avoided. The right of way needed to be100 to 130 feet wide to accommodate safe constructionon the steep slope. After construction was completed,reclamation began, narrowing the width to the 40-footminimum necessary for operation. Instead of the typicallong straight line, the forest district requested curves anddoglegs to mitigate the aesthetic appearance of the rightof way. Even though 2,960 feet of pipeline is within theviewshed, the amount you can see at any given time issignificantly less.Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, Recreation 167The viewshed from vistas may be impacted, both byactivities on state forest land and those on private land.The viewshed software tool was found to be limited inits capability to accurately reflect whether a viewshedwas actually impacted and needs further development.Qualitative analysis may be more informative thanquantitative measures. The bureau may also work tomanage vistas to maintain high quality and mitigateimpacted sites.In the future, state forest districts and the state forestsystem may be examined more holistically for viewshedimpacts with ArcMap viewshed software. However, thelimitations of the tool may suggest the use of a differentmethod to quantify the value of the impact. For example,photos may also be used to document the change inappearance before and after development.NoiseBecause of the size of their land base, state forestsprovide a unique opportunity for dispersed low-densityoutdoor recreation that cannot be obtained from smallforest areas or from private ownership. The undevelopedwild character of state forests offers peace, solitude, anda feeling of remoteness for many users. Ambient noisecan dramatically affect a user’s recreational experienceand generate conflict. Most sources of potential noiseconflicts on state forest land are temporary in nature;however, gas compressor stations produce continuousnoise and thus have the potential to greatly impactthe experiences of the recreating public. The bureau’sobjective is to maintain and perpetuate a visitor’santicipated recreational experience on state forest landsand to maintain the wild character of the state forest.The Guidelines for Administering Oil and Gas Activityon State Forest Lands include recommended thresholdsfor compressor noise levels. It’s important to note that thecurrent noise guideline did not exist when many ofthe state forest compressor stations were approved.The current guideline reads:When no suitable alternatives exist and a compressorstation must be sited on state forest lands, the operatingnoise level of the compressor station should not exceedan Ldn of 55 db(A) at any distance greater than 300 feetfrom the compressor building.The bureau measured noise levels of compressor stationson state forest lands. The operating noise level ofcompressors was measured at 300 feet or greater. Thesound level meter (SLM) was set to collect db(A) datafor 24 hours, recording one reading every five seconds.The Ldn, which is a standard weighted average of thenoise level, was calculated. The SLM was positioned athuman ear level, using a strap to attach the meter to atree or other suitable object. A GPS point for the locationof the meter and a photograph and/or physical descriptionwere recorded so the same point can be found for repeatmeasurements. The same protocol could be used tomeasure other noise sources.The SLMs were deployed when weather conditionswere appropriate for SLM data collection. Although theSLM is fitted with a windshield under all circumstances,the preferred wind speed limit is 10 mph, with anupper limit of 15 mph. The weather conditions duringdata collection were recorded. Measurements wereavoided in rainy or dense foggy conditions. Objects thatgenerate wind-derived noises were avoided in SLMplacement. Table 11.3 provides the results of noise levelmeasurements conducted.DistrictLeasedTractLeqdb(A)DateTiadaghton28955.612/13/2013Tiadaghton68559.152/14/2013Tioga58761.852/20/2013Tioga59560.472/26/2013Tioga83960.23/5/2013Sproul28569.633/7/2013Table 11.3 Sound meter data – operatingcompressor stations.168 Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, RecreationMeasurements at the six compressor stations monitoredon state forest lands were louder than 55db(A). Thesemeasurements are only indicative of the noise levelon the day of the measurement. The quantity of datais limited to one 24-hour period for each compressorstation, and winter conditions only. Each compressorand site is unique. Two sites had high winds onmultiple attempts to collect data. The high winds likelycontributed to higher db(A) readings. Wind may be aperennial issue at certain sites. One site also had heavyequipment operating nearby, and another site hadsnowmobile traffic as additional contributingnoise sources.Operators have been working cooperatively withthe bureau to address compressor noise and to meetrecommended guideline thresholds. The bureau is alsoworking with DCNR’s Natural Gas Advisory Committeeto better understand compressor noise and mitigateimpacts to wildlife, the wild character of the state forest,and the recreating public. With the committee, the bureauis guiding research to better characterize compressornoise, its impacts, and to develop adequate and effectivemanagement guidelines.Comment CardsThe bureau has cooperated with Penn State Universityto adapt a Visitor Use Monitoring program (VUM) forstate forests and parks and added two shale gas-relatedquestions. This VUM study is scheduled to collect datain select parks and forests each year. Penn State willanalyze the data collected.The National Visitor Use Monitoring program has twoconcurrent goals: to produce estimates of the volume ofrecreation visitation to national forests and grasslandsand to produce descriptive information about thatvisitation, including activity participation, demographics,visit duration, measures of satisfaction, and spendingconnected to the visit.To begin gathering statewide data in the short term, thebureau duplicated a portion of the VUM survey andshale-gas questions on postage-paid index cards. Thecards were placed in boxes in high-use recreation areas.Between July and October 2012, the bureau received223 completed comment cards. Additional cardscontinue to be received.Figure 11.6 Example of bureau’s distributed comment card.Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, Recreation 169Summary of Marcellus Comments;July to October 2012The sample size is relatively small for this period, butthe summary of the open-ended Marcellus commentsis informative.Has Marcellus activity changed your recreational useof this state forest?Following the question, a blank space was provided toanswer. “Yes,” “no,” or nothing at all were commonresponses, and there were additional comments writtenin the space provided. Not everyone explicitly included a“yes” or “no” answer, but when the answer was implicit,those comments were included in the tally. The data arealso presented in Figure 11.7.All forest districts: 46 yes, 158 no, 19 blankCore gas forest districts only: 41 yes, 66 no, 9 blankThe following is a summary of the comments received.Similar comments are grouped together, with thenumber noted in parentheses and “yes” or “no”identified in brackets.Not Yet (17) [No] The most common comment on allcards in this time period other than “yes” or “no” was“not yet;” that comment was written verbatim 11 times.Similar answers were included in this theme. Theseanswers indicate that recreational use has not changed,the user is aware of shale-gas activity, and the userdirectly or indirectly implies it may affect his or heruse at some point in time.Emphatic no (8) [No] Some comments were moreemphatic than a simple “no,” for example: “Not at all.”Not applicable (7) [No] “Not applicable,” or “N/A,” wasa common response. Similar comments indicate thatrecreational use has not changed, the user is aware ofshale-gas activity, and perhaps the user does not think itwill affect his or her use.Don’t know (2) [No] Some comments admitted lackof knowledge.Avoidance (11) [Yes] There were unique commentspertaining to “avoidance” as a change in recreationaluse. Every comment was unique, but directly addressedthe question. Lumped together, avoidance was the mostcommon change in recreational use identified.Roads, Traffic, Trucks, Noise, Dust (9) [Yes] Therewere a variety of comments identifying road traffic as aspecific shale-gas activity affecting their use.Some (9) [Yes] There were understated comments thatimplied changes had occurred. These comments indicatethere is a perceived change, but the users do not want tospecify, or do not know what has changed.General Opposition (5) [Yes] There were commentsthat didn’t specify a change, but generally opposed shalegas activity. These comments relate to perception ofshale-gas activity and its effects on state forests.Access (4) [Yes] Some comments identified access asa change in recreational use. These comments directlyidentify a change in recreational use.Other Environmental Impact (8) [Yes] There weresparse comments related to environmental quality,including water quantity, water quality, land use,aesthetics, air quality, wildlife populations, andfavorite spots.Has Marcellus activity changed your visitationexperience of this state forest?Following the question, a blank space was provided toanswer. “Yes,” “no,” or nothing at all were commonresponses, and there were additional comments writtenin the space provided. Not everyone explicitly included a“yes” or “no” answer, but when the answer was implicitthose comments were included in the tally. The data alsopresented in Figure 11.7.All forest districts: 53 yes, 152 no, 18 blankCore gas forest districts only: 46 yes, 62 no, 8 blankThe following is a summary of the comments received.Similar comments are grouped together, with thenumber noted in parentheses and “yes” or “no”identified in brackets.170 Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, RecreationNot Yet (11) [No] The most common comment on allcards in this time period, other than “yes” or “no,” was“not yet;” that comment was written verbatim nine times.These answers indicate that recreational experience hasnot changed, the user is aware of shale-gas activity, andthe user perhaps thinks it may affect his or her use atsome point in time.Not applicable (5) [No] “Not applicable,” or “N/A,”was a common response. Similar comments indicatethat recreational experience has not changed, the user isaware of shale-gas activity, and the user perhaps does notthink it will affect his or her experience.Emphatic no (2) [No] Some comments were moreemphatic than just “no,” for example: “Not at all.”Roads, Traffic, Trucks, Noise, Dust (16) [Yes] Therewere a variety of comments identifying road traffic asa specific shale-gas activity affecting their experience.Unpleasant experience (8) [Yes] Unique commentsrelated to pleasantness were identified as a change invisitation experience.General Opposition (4) [Yes] There were commentsthat didn’t specify a change, but generally opposed shalegas activity. These comments relate to perception ofshale-gas activity and its effects on state forests.Avoidance (3) [Yes] There were unique commentspertaining to avoidance as a change in visitationexperience. Each comment referred to areas the personuses or does not use due to shale-gas activity.Wildlife (3) [Yes] There were comments relating towildlife presence and behavior.Some (3) [Yes] There were understated comments thatimplied changes had occurred. These comments indicatethere is a perceived change but the user does not want tospecify, or does not know, what has changed.Litter (2) [Yes] There were comments specificallyabout litter, and specifically litter related to shale-gasindustrial activities.Noise (2) [Yes] Helicopter noise and machinery noisewere specifically identified as experience changes. Noisealso was identified with traffic.Other Environmental Impact (4) [Yes] Therewere sparse comments related to environmental quality,including water quantity, water quality, land use,aesthetics, air quality, wildlife populations, andfavorite spots.Availability of goods (1) [yes] There was one commentabout the lack of availability of kerosene.Figure 11.7 Shale-gas comment card responses.Forty-six out of 116 respondents in core gas districtsindicated that shale-gas activity had changed theirvisitation experience. Forty-one out of 116 respondentsin core gas districts indicated that shale-gas activityhad changed their recreational use of the state forest.Responses for both questions in non-core districts hadsignificantly more responses that neither visitationexperience nor use was changed by shale-gas activity.The combination of road condition, traffic, trucks, noise,and dust was the most common comment included forboth questions.Additional comment cards have been received sinceOctober 2012 and will be included in future reportingefforts. Responses could be organized by forest districtto provide greater detail. The visitor use monitoringresearch being done by Penn State will have greaterstatistical validity and more detailed analysis, butthis comment card effort provides immediate andcontinuous feedback.Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, Recreation 171IV. Discussion / ConclusionWhile there have been impacts to recreationalinfrastructure due to shale-gas development, therealso have been improvements to that infrastructurethat otherwise likely would not have happened. Whenimpacts could not be avoided, they have been consideredtemporary, and throughout the process the goal hasbeen eventually to improve any impacted recreationalinfrastructure to a condition better than it was beforegas development.Though it is a small percentage of total acreage, there issignificant acreage affected by changes to recreationalexperience and wild character measured by ROS. Stateforest visitors looking for a more primitive experiencemay find fewer appropriate places for those experiences,while visitors who enjoy semi-developed anddeveloped areas may find more appropriate placesfor those experiences.There have been impacts to scenic viewsheds identifiedas Areas of Special Consideration. Each case wascarefully considered and determined the least overallimpact to state forest values and uses. Additionally,gas development affects the aesthetics of state forestsoutside those Areas of Special Consideration, whichshould be considered in future monitoring efforts. Theviewshed tool can be used to measure impacts, but itneeds further refinement before it can be applied in ameaningful way. Each type of infrastructure may affectthe perception of the person viewing it differently, andeach viewer is unique.172 Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, RecreationSound level measurements at operating compressorstations on state forest lands were louder than suggestedby the current Guidelines for Administering Oil and GasActivity on State Forest Lands. Attenuation hasbeen developed. Repeat measurements and ambientnoise level measurements would improve understandingof noise levels as well as additional research andcontinued refinement of guideline standards.The comment cards have provided immediate andongoing insight into changes to use and experiencecaused by shale-gas activity. The visitor use monitoringresearch being done by Penn State will have greaterstatistical validity and more detailed analysis.Quantitative measures are limited in their ability tomeasure experience since the effect of the impact onthe user’s experience only can be determined by theuser. Spatial data has similar limitations; if a visitor isusing a site unaffected by any of the measures discussedhere, but passes through them on the way, he or shemay feel the impact nonetheless. Qualitative measuresare probably more relevant to the impact on recreationexperience than quantitative or spatial measures.The bureau will continue to focus on avoiding impactsto recreation when possible. When impacts cannotbe avoided, the bureau will work towards makingthe impacts temporary in nature and minimizing thetemporary time period to the greatest extent possible.The bureau will continue to work with gas operators,recreation groups, and the visiting public to addresspotential impacts.Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, Recreation 173Part 2: Monitoring Values›› Community EngagementI. Key Points:• Natural gas development on state forest lands has potential economic and socialeffects on local communities.• The bureau uses advisory committees to promote stakeholder feedback andproduce recommendations.• Outreach offers valuable opportunities to demonstrate how naturalgas activity is conducted and managed on public lands and has become a sourceof understanding public perceptions.• Focus groups have been designed to identify and understand the social effectson communities resulting from natural gas development on state forest lands.One pilot focus group targeting community leaders in Pine Creek Valley wasconducted in November of 2013. Two additional groups targeting governmentleaders in Tioga and Clinton counties were conducted in 2014.II. IntroductionNatural gas development on state forest lands has potential economic and social effectson local communities. The bureau interacts with local communities through the implementation of its public participation policy (Penn’s Woods, 1996), which includes publiceducation and participation as an integral part of the management of state forest lands.On a daily basis, bureau staff interact with the public in a variety of ways, includingface-to-face, telephone, email, and educational outreach efforts. State forest districtshave significant interactions with local elected officials in dealing with the impacts fromdevelopment on local and state roads in their communities (development on state forestlands may have local community, county, and regional impacts). These communicationsprovide constant direct input and feedback, which is considered in management activities.Advisory committees, shale-gas outreach tours, and focus groups are more formalized andbetter documented examples of community engagement.174 Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, Community EngagementThe bureau has cooperated with Penn State to adapt aVisitor Use Monitoring program (VUM) for state forestsand parks and added two shale-gas related questions.This VUM study is scheduled to collect data in selectparks and forests each year. More information on theVUM study can be found in the Research section of thisreport. To begin gathering statewide data in the shortterm, the bureau duplicated a portion of the VUM surveyand Marcellus questions on postage paid index cards.The cards were placed in boxes in high use recreationareas. The comment cards are discussed further in theRecreation section of this report.Updating and developing the bureau’s State ForestResource Management Plan (SFRMP) will incorporatepublic involvement in a more formal way. The SFRMPis the bureau’s comprehensive document for guidingthe management of the state forests. The 2007 SFRMPupdate process represented the first iteration of theperiodic updates to the management plan implementedin 2003. Current issues and other plan updates to bereviewed or addressed were compiled into the SFRMPUpdate Document and posted on the web for publicreview and comment. The bureau conducted nineregional public meetings and solicited written andweb-based comments on the 2007 Update Document.The 2007 SFRMP public update process comment period,including the nine public meetings, was publicized viathe following outlets:• DCNR’s websites• DCNR’s newsletter The Resource• Press releases to statewide and local news sources• Advance notice to advisory groups• Mailed invitations to state, county, and township electedofficials and constituency stakeholder groups• Email notificationThe bureau anticipates completing the next SFRMPupdate in 2015, which will include a similar public inputprocess. Comments from this process that are relevant tonatural gas management will be incorporated into futuremonitoring reports.Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, Community Engagement 175III. Monitoring Efforts/ResultsThe components included in the community engagementsection of this report are: advisory committees, gastours on state forest land, and focus groups. Advisorycommittees are used to promote stakeholder feedbackand produce recommendations. Outreach tours offervaluable opportunities to demonstrate how natural gasactivity is conducted and managed on public lands. Thesetours are also a source of additional public input. Focusgroups have been designed to identify and understand thesocial effects on communities resulting from natural gasdevelopment on state forest lands.Advisory CommitteesWorking with staff in other bureaus as well as theDCNR secretary’s office, the bureau manages andfacilitates several advisory committees, including theEcosystem Management Advisory Committee (EMAC),the Natural Gas Advisory Committee (NGAC), theRecreation Advisory Committee (RAC), and theSilviculture/Timber Advisory Committee (STAC). Inaddition to these four advisory committees, the bureaumanages other committees and councils focused on foreststewardship, urban and community forestry, wild plants,and the Pine Creek Rail Trail.Collaboration, facilitation, information sharing, andinformal dialogue are key principles that guide themanagement and work of bureau advisory committees.Gathering diverse opinions allows the bureau tomake better, more-informed decisions. The grouptypically does not vote on recommendations. Therecommendations are provided to the bureaufor consideration.Bureau program experts and field staff are critical tothe process because they manage the programs that arethe subjects of the conversation. Staff members providecritical information and perspectives, and they benefitfrom being part of the discussion, and hearing theperspectives of committee members.Committee members are expected to participate, makepresentations, and produce written recommendations andreports. Other “support staff” receive agendas, minutes,and other information but do not attend unless they arecritical to the items on the agenda.Natural gas management on state forest lands hasbeen a common topic of discussion at advisorycommittee meetings.For example:• EMAC provided comments on the bureau’s gasguidelines and its shale-gas monitoring program.– The EMAC Energy Subcommittee evaluated shallow gas compatibility and made deep-drillingrecommendations.• NGAC has provided input on noise managementrelated to compressor stations. This committee’soverall purpose is to advise and providerecommendations for implementing natural gasmanagement in a manner that is consistent with themission of DCNR and its bureaus.• The STAC agenda included discussion of shale gas asa topic/priority.• The RAC agenda included the bureau’s gasmanagement and its shale-gas monitoring program.176 Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, Community EngagementOrganized Outreach Tours on State Forest LandsShale-gas drilling activity has generated significantinterest from a variety of stakeholders, organizations,educational institutions, government agencies, and othergroups. Periodically, these groups request an organizedtour of state forest lands. These tours, conducted by boththe bureau and the operators, offer valuable opportunitiesto demonstrate how natural gas activity is conducted andmanaged on public lands.The bureau’s goal is to coordinate and manage organizedoutreach tours in a way that represents the full suite ofuses and values of the state forest system. The bureaudemonstrates that gas development can occur whileavoiding impacts to state forest operations and publicDateuse. The bureau also takes the opportunity to conveystewardship messages, impressing upon attendees thatecosystem management is the core principle by whichthe bureau manages state forest land, even when gasdevelopment is involved.In 2011, there were 17 organized gas tours, including391 attendees (Table 12.1). In 2012, there were 15organized gas tours, including 337 attendees (Table 12.2).Tours have been identified as a source of public input,as many questions and comments are received fromattendees during the tours. A survey currently in draftform will be used to capture input from tour attendees tobe included in future monitoring reports.Group NameAttendees02/04/11Governor Ridge Policy Group3403/18/11DEP Secretary Krancer & Pennsylvania State Senator Gene Yaw1904/07/11DCNR Park Managers5605/05/11State Parks Environmental Education Specialists2606/08/11Sierra Club1106/29/11Executive Team #12307/13/11Latvian Delegation2507/18/11House Finance Committee2507/25/11Executive Team #23408/24/11Ohio Delegation #11409/07/11Governor’s Office Staff1509/15/11Senate Appropriations Committee1509/29/11Anadarko/Pennsylvania State Senator Gene Yaw1010/06/11DEP/Governor’s Office staff2610/19/11Ohio Delegation #22211/30/11National Forest Service912/19/11DEP/Department of Revenue27Table 12.1 2011 Bureau of forestry marcellus shale tours.Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, Community Engagement 177DateGroup NameAttendees3/6/2012Volvo243/16/2012Wildlife Society403/20/2012Williams/Transco1603/22/12Transco/Homeland Security64/12/2012U.S. Congresswoman A. Schwartz104/20/2012Department of Revenue/DCNR Policy Interns354/25/2012Pennsylvania State Representative Keller195/10/2012Leadership Lycoming265/14/2012Forest Coalition86/8/2012PA Environmental Defense Foundation167/10/2012Governor’s Advisory Council (Sportsmen)347/18/2012Keystone Soil Scientists2908/17/12U.S. Geological Survey/NY Agencies/MD Agencies2609/19/12Mid Atlantic States’ Forest Health Managers and USDA Forest Service2309/26/12NC and NY Departments of Transportation/Anadarko25Table 12.2 2012 Bureau of forestry marcellus shale tours.Focus GroupsNatural gas development on state forest lands has thepotential to affect many different stakeholder groups.Focus groups can be used to gather targeted public input.Rationale and Uses of Focus GroupsFocus groups are a form of group interview thatcapitalizes on communication between researchparticipants in order to generate data. Althoughgroup interviews often are used simply as a quick andconvenient way to collect data from several peoplesimultaneously, focus groups explicitly use groupinteraction as part of the method. This means that insteadof the researcher asking each person to respond to aquestion in turn, people are encouraged to talk to oneanother – asking questions, exchanging anecdotes, andcommenting on each other’s experiences and points ofview. The method is particularly useful for exploringpeople’s knowledge and experiences and can be used toexamine not only what people think but how they thinkand why they think that way (Kitzinger).Questions are developed into a tool for the facilitator,or a “focus group instrument.” The instrument isdesigned to identify and understand the social effects oncommunities resulting from natural gas development onstate forest lands. The questions and probes are intendedto facilitate discussion. Written or scripted answersdiscourage conversational interaction and spontaneity;therefore, the questions and probes are not provided inadvance of the focus group meeting. Targeting differenttypes of participants and different regions will helpidentify how different types of groups respond, and howthe same type of group responds in different regions. Thebureau will lead focus groups and refine the focus groupinstrument, focus group types, and locations. Focusgroup meetings will be hosted, and the notes will beanalyzed qualitatively.178 Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, Community EngagementThe pilot focus group targeted government andcommunity leaders in Pine Creek Valley. The focusgroup instrument, focus group type, and location arebeing analyzed for effectiveness. Additional focusgroups are needed to help identify trends, commonalities,and differences. Two additional groups targetinggovernment leaders in Tioga and Clinton counties wereconducted in 2014.The analysis should help the bureau implement its publicparticipation policy by identifying issues related tonatural gas development and how and why people feelthe way they do. The results may show the need for otherpublic participation tools, such as facilitated discussions,key informant interviews, and surveys.IV. Conclusion/DiscussionImplementing the bureau’s public participation andeducation policies engage the bureau with localcommunities. Advisory committees have been andcontinue to be a valuable source of guidance. Ongoingrequests for organized tours are anticipated. A method togather feedback from tour attendees has been developed.Focus groups have been piloted, but additional groups areneeded before analysis can be completed.The impacts identified and measured in the Recreationsection – such as wild character, viewsheds, and noise– need qualitative analysis attained from the people andcommunities affected. The public participation toolsdescribed above will help to address these needs. Any ofthe monitoring values discussed throughout this reportcan affect local communities. The bureau will continue toengage communities and citizens and advance additionalmethods to further measure the impacts of shale-gas onlocal communities.Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, Community Engagement 179Part 2: Monitoring Values›› TimberI. Key Points:• Initial analysis shows that some timber managementactivities in core-gas forest districts may be shiftingaway from areas leased for shale-gas development.Some of this change, however, may be due to gypsymoth salvage harvesting.• The effects of shale-gas development on timberharvest placement and harvest allocation goalsis inconsistent across core gas forest districts.More information and data are needed to discernreliable trends.• Shale-gas development is indirectly decreasingtimber harvest revenue due to Route 44 bondingcosts resulting from heavy hauling associated withshale-gas development.• New haul road construction and associateddisturbances have been curtailed through the usageof gas development access roads for timber sales.II. IntroductionThe purpose of this chapter is to report on the effects of shale-gas development tothe implementation of the bureau’s silviculture program. This includes timberharvesting goals, revenue, and impacts to the forest products industry that operateson state forest lands.According to the Conservation and Natural Resources Act, one of the purposes forthe creation of a state forest system was “. . . to provide a continuous supply of timber,lumber, wood, and other forest products. . . .”According to the bureau’s strategic plan, Penn’s Woods, the state forest timber policyis: “State forest lands should provide a sustained yield of high quality timber consistentwith the principles of ecosystem management.” The bureau uses silviculture as a toolfor regenerating the forest, following a timber harvest scheduling model that leadstoward the goal of balancing the age class distribution; securing a sustainable flow oftimber products; conserving and perpetuating underrepresented forest communitytypes; and creating specific types of wildlife habitat.180 Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, TimberThe bureau formed a partnership with the PennsylvaniaState University’s School of Forest Resources in 1999 todevelop a timber harvest scheduling model for longterm timber harvest scheduling on state forest land. Thecurrent timber harvest schedule for state forest landcalls for an average annual harvest of 14,337 acres. Keyoutcomes of the model include distributing the forest’sage classes more evenly, thereby creating a sustainableyield of timber products over time; creating a varietyof succession forest stages; diversifying habitats; andestablishing harvest levels that match the growth of thecommercial landbase.Meeting the timber harvest schedule’s acreage targets isalso important to the sustainability of the timber industryin Pennsylvania, which relies heavily on sustained yieldsof forest products from state forest lands. A continuous,steady supply of quality timber from state forest lands isessential to the survivability of the hardwood industryand the economy of some regions of Pennsylvania.State Forest Timber Stumpage Sale Bidding:The bureau offers for sale more than 70 millionboard feet of timber per year. Typically, 130 to 140timber sales are available to eligible buyers to bidon annually. These timber sales are sold by sealedbids that are opened during a public bid openingat a scheduled time and date.The state forest system has been third-party certified bythe Forest Stewardship Council as “well managed.” Tomaintain forest certification and market harvested timberproducts from state forest land as “certified” wood, thebureau must show that its timber harvesting levels canbe permanently sustained and that harvesting levels areachieving desired future conditions.Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, Timber 181III. Monitoring Efforts/ResultsUsing data collected on an annual basis in relation toharvest allocation, it is possible to establish a baselineprior to the arrival of shale-gas development. These datainclude acreage treated and bid prices received. Whatfollows is a look at some of those comparisons and anexplanation of each.One of the key questions in evaluating the impact ofshale gas development is whether or not the activity isaffecting, in core gas forest districts, the attainment ofannual harvest goals. And, along with that, whether ornot gas activity is impacting the placement of timbersales. Table 13.1 and Figures 13.1-13.8 include datatabulated from the core gas forest districts. The firstyear tracked is 2005, well before shale-gas arrival. Usingthese data, a forest district’s activity can be comparedprior to and after shale-gas development activity. It isthen possible to discern any reductions in total acresharvested and/or acres harvested within areas now undershale-gas lease. For clarification, leased lands are thosedefined as being under lease regardless of activityrelating to development.YearTreatments inLeased LandsFigure 13.1Figure 13.2Treatments Outsideof Leased Lands20051,9456,03820063,3166,20320072,0175,83020082,5144,86420094,6615,62020104,5065,49220112,2365,52920122,6277,301Total23,82246,877Figure 13.3Table 13.1 Silvicultural treatment acreage forcore gas forest districts.Figure 13.4182 Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, TimberFigure 13.5Figure 13.6Figure 13.7In general, shale gas development does not seem to beimpacting timber harvesting activity and placement.However, there are some initial trends that thebureau will have to monitor. In Moshannon, Sproul,and Susquehannock state forests, there is a gradualdownward trend in both timber sale acreages outsideleased lands and timber sale acreages within leasedareas. However, it is too early to gauge whether thesetrends are just temporary fluctuations that occur year toyear with the timber harvest schedule or are indicative ofa larger trend. If the trends continue, it may indicate thatforesters are choosing not to harvest in areas with gasdevelopment activity.Prioritizing areas for gypsy moth salvage operationsmay be one explanation for this initial trend. This is acommon practice within the bureau when large tractsof timber succumb to a forest pest. For example, inSproul State Forest, salvage operations were south of theSusquehanna River, away from gas development activity.In Moshannon State Forest, salvage operations wereoccurring on the tract surrounding Black MoshannonState Park, an area not heavily leased for shale-gasdevelopment. Susquehannock State Forest has continuedto evenly distribute timber sales as part of the normalplanning process, particularly where desirable timberharvest conditions in leased areas existed prior to thearrival of shale-gas development.Road Bonding, Route 44 and Timber RevenueBackgroundThe deterioration of state highways throughout the shalegas region and associated road bonding has been an issueof significance for the forest products industry, uponwhom the bureau depends to implement harvests plansand its long-term management plan.The weight, timing, and dramatically increasedfrequency of shale gas development-related payloadscontrasts the traditional use of these highways by loggingcontractors, which involves fewer loads and carefulFigure 13.8Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, Timber 183attention to seasonal conditions. As a result, roads in thisregion have suffered accelerated damage compared totraditional wear.The Pennsylvania Department of Transportationhas responded by instituting increased roadbonding requirements and damage assessments. When shale-gas development activity decreased andgas operators were no longer using the state highwaysystem in the area, forest products companies wereleft to bear the impact of paying for damages to roads.Predictably, forest products companies throughout theregion responded by reducing prices being offered forstate forest timber sales or by declining to bid outright.PA Route 44, which bisects the core shale gasregion through the Susquehannock and Sproul stateforests, provides primary access to several hundredthousand acres of some of the most valuable timber.Accordingly, Route 44 provides a particularlyrelevant opportunity to assess the impacts of the roadbonding and damage issue initiated by shale-gasdevelopment. As part of its monitoring program, thebureau has been tracking timber revenues in theRoute 44 region and the road bonding impacts to stateforest timber harvesting operations. The Oil and Gas Act (Act 13 of 2012) provides certainprotections to the timber industry and other at-riskindustries in regards to road bonding. Additionally, thetransportation bill passed in 2013 addresses road bondingissues across Pennsylvania. The bureau is working withPennDot and other partners to address these impacts onstate forest lands and the forest products industry.Measuring Reduced BidsThe logging industry has adjusted its business modelto offset the cost of hauling; however, that adjustmenthas translated into reduced bid prices for bureau timbersales. In spring of 2012, the bureau was owed almost$14 million in outstanding payments on 36 timber salesaccessed via Route 44. In October of 2012, that balancehad fallen to about $6.5 million. With one exception,every operator with an outstanding balance had a saleon Route 44.In an effort to gauge how much the Route 44 issue iscosting the bureau, the baseline behavior prior to May2011 must first be assessed. Tables 13.9 to 13.12 representan analysis, using the Penn State Timber Market Report(TMR), Northwest Region, as a baseline. Against this,timber prices per thousand board feet (MBF) for bothblack cherry and red maple were measured to gaugebidding behavior. Both nominal and percentage valueswere used for sales in the Susquehannock State Forest.Focusing on percentage values (versus nominal),however, is the most relevant way to analyze these data.184 Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, TimberFigure 13.9 Red maple nominal values in relation to timber market reportand Route 44 corridor, 2005-2012.Figure 13.10 Black cherry nominal values in relation to timber market reportand Route 44 corridor, 2005-2012.Based on the results of tracking bid activity since 2005, itis evident that the Route 44 bond issue is having an effect.Timber market report data from 2005-2010 indicate that,black cherry sales that used Route 44 were between 150200 percent of the value of the timber market report, withan average of 183 percent. This trend continued throughthe timber market collapse of 2008-2009. Since 2011,the average has fallen to 137 percent. The bureau is onlyreceiving about 75 percent of the pre-2011 bid prices.Red maple also dropped by a comparable amount alongRoute 44.Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, Timber 185Figure 13.11 Red maple stumpage price as percent of timber market reportin relationship to Route 44 corridor, 2005-2012.Figure 13.12 Black cherry stumpage price as percent of timber marketreport in relationship to Route 44 corridor, 2005-2012.Comparing these market trends to areas outside of theRoute 44 corridor, black cherry in Susquehannock StateForest dropped from a pre-2011 average of 143 percentto about 132 percent. This means the bureau is stillreceiving about 93 percent of the value for timber salesunaffected by the Route 44 bonding issue.The bureau relies heavily on timber revenue for itsoperating budget (approximately $25 million annually).Approximately 25 percent of the bureau’s timber revenuecomes from the Route 44 corridor. It’s important to notethat while the bureau’s timber revenues have declinedin recent years, additional revenue from the Oil and GasLease Fund has kept the its overall budget stable.186 Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, TimberMiles of Gas Access Roads Utilizedfor Timber Sale AccessOne of the positive impacts of natural gas developmenthas been the use of gas development access roads fortimber sales. New haul road construction and associateddisturbance have been decreased by obtaining duelusage of the same roads. This is baseline data thatonly was captured for 2012 and will be monitored insubsequent years. (See Figure 13.13)Figure 13.13Number of Pipeline Crossings Neededto Access Timber SalesThe number of pipeline crossings that may impacttimber sales is important to monitor over time. Therehas been recent concern that some tracts are becoming“landlocked” by pipelines in regards to access to timberharvests. With newer, higher-pressurized lines, pipelinecrossings are becoming more expensive and morecomplex. On sites that are marginally economical fortimber sales to operate, this may become an issue toaddress as the number of pipelines increase on stateforest lands. Cost prohibition of access may be an issuewith increased management of poor and marginal sites.The data is 2012 baseline data and will be tracked insubsequent years going forward. (See Figure 13.14)Timber Revenue Generated from GasThe following table is a summary of timber revenuegenerated in association with gas activity. Bothsubsurface ownership rights and state forest gas leasesallow for the infrastructure necessary to developmineral resources, such as pad clearings, compressorstations, roads, and pipelines. In the absence of existingdisturbance, the construction of infrastructure mayrequire the clearing and conversion of forest land. Thecommonwealth must be compensated for assets includingtimber and pulpwood and loss of future growth. Thebureau determines the timber value and charges theoperator accordingly. Timber harvested from conversionof forest to gas development infrastructure is notmarketed as “certified” wood. (See Figure 13.15)Figure 13.14Figure 13.15IV. Conclusion/DiscussionThe bureau will continue to monitor the impact of shalegas activity on its silvicultural practices, timber saledistribution and placement, logging access, and revenues.Additional considerations for future reports may include:bonding of local municipal roads, state forest commerciallandbase available for timber harvesting, and invasivespecies impacts on forest regeneration.Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, Timber 187Part 2: Monitoring Values›› EnergyI. Key Points:• Approximately 15 percent of all shale gas produced inPennsylvania comes from state forest lands. This gas is soldand distributed across the eastern and midwestern UnitedStates to service energy markets on a daily basis.• Natural gas in the United States is an open-market tradedcommodity that has seen the price per product unit fall froma high of approximately $10 per Mcf (1,000 cubic feet) in 2010to the current (end of 2013) $4.75 per Mcf as a direct resultof Pennsylvania shale gas coming onto the market grid andforcing gas prices to moderate with respect to the gas supply.• On state forest land, the number of wells per pad rangesfrom one to 10, with approximately four to eight wells beingthe average. A typical well drains approximately 100 acres,but that figure can be more or less depending on a numberof factors (i.e., lateral length and spacing, well stimulationoperations, rock properties). In addition, multiple shaleformations – such as the Marcellus and Geneseo/Burket –can be targeted from the same well pad.• The bureau anticipates that approximately 3,000 gas wellsmay be drilled on state forest lands to fully develop thecurrent leased acreage on commonwealth gas leases, onwhich approximately 568 had been drilled by the end of 2013.• State forest lease tracts targeting shale gas are estimated tobe approximately one-fifth developed. This, however, is only aprojection, as future energy development patterns are difficultto accurately predict and depend on market conditions andthe performance of individual tracts.II. IntroductionThroughout human history, various forms of energy have been extracted and utilized tomeet the needs of society. This long history has at its core the use of chemical energy,such as wood and physical energy in the form of human labor and draft animals. The useof chemical energy for most of history was from wood and wood byproducts, which overtime transitioned into water power where available, then coal upon its discovery, and theninto oil and natural gas, wind, nuclear, and solar as technology progressed. Figure 14.1 is188 Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, EnergyThe modern energy mixwithin the United Statestoday consists chiefly offive energy sources: oilor petroleum, natural gas,coal, various renewableenergy sources, andnuclear energy. The largestportion of U.S. energyusage is derived frompetroleum or oil (all liquidhydrocarbons) at 35.3quads or approximately36 percent of U.S.consumption. Oil has beena primary transportationfuel of choice for nearlya century in the UnitedStates because its formprovides the greatestFigure 14.1 U. S. historical energy consumption by source.an illustration of the estimate of energy usage within theUnited States from the 1700s to modern day, showing theprogression from one form of energy to the next.Consumption of energy in the United States in 2011was 97.5 quadrillion Btu, with a Btu defined as a BritishThermal Unit, which is the energy required to raise onepound of water by one degree Fahrenheit. See Figure14.2 for a graph of total U.S. energy consumption in 2011from the Energy Information Administration. Energyconsumption also is defined in quads, with one quadequaling one quadrillion Btu. A Btu is a small amountof energy, but the measure value is convenient as it issmall enough to be used as a universal measurementtool across all forms of energy and to be easily measuredand converted between chemical, electrical, kinetic,and nuclear sources. Coincidently, since the totalenergy consumption in the United States in 2011 wasapproximately 100 quads, any energy source that ismeasured is close to its actual percentage of usage as well.Figure 14.2Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, Energy 189convenience as an easily handled, energy-dense liquid atroom temperature. A single gallon of unleaded gasolinecontains approximately 114,000 Btu per gallon, in a formthat is stable and easily stored and used.The second largest source is natural gas or methaneat 24.9 quads or approximately 25 percent of allconsumption. Note that there is no difference betweenmethane produced from coal seams and that produced inconventional and unconventional sources. Natural gas isa fuel of choice for heating and industrial processes andelectrical production where available in large quantitiesat a competitive price.Figure 14.4 details the total energy consumed in theUnited States versus the total energy produced. Althoughnet imports have fallen significantly since 2005, from30 percent to 19 percent of total energy consumption,and indeed are projected by the Energy InformationAdministration to fall to less than 10 percent by 2035,new energy sources will be necessary to close the gapbetween production and consumption as projected.Third place is held by coal at 19.9 quads, orapproximately 20 percent of all U.S. consumption.Coal is primarily used as a fuel for electrical energyproduction. Recently, coal exports from the United Stateshave begun to climb in response to the switch from coalto gas in power generation here. Exports of coal are notcounted as consumption in the numbers presented.Fourth place is renewable energy sources, such aswind, hydro, solar, recycled hydrocarbons, and plantderived energy at 9.1 quads, or approximately 9 percentof U.S. consumption.Figure 14.3Last is nuclear energy, also primarily used for electricalproduction, at 8.3 quads or approximately 8 percent ofU.S. energy consumption.The only energy source to gain market share in recentyears is the renewable category, which has grown to atenth of the U.S. energy market.Natural gas can be expected to gain market share overtime and may gain the majority of new national energyconsumption that arises from normal annual energyneed increases.Figure 14.3 details the use of energy by sectorand amount.Figure 14.4190 Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, EnergyGov. Corbett’s State Energy Plan has additionalinformation about energy statistics and trends inPennsylvania. Visit governor.pa.gov/energyIII. Monitoring Efforts/ResultsThe oil and gas production data from state forest landspresented here has been tracked and tabulated since1947. During this time, reporting was largely internalin nature, as little demand for production data existedprior to the Marcellus boom in 2007. As stated in theRevenue section of this report, the data have been usedinternally, primarily for planning purposes, whichmainly revolved around royalty income. Consequently,this is the first public presentation of the production datafor the historical portion of the program from 1947 to2008 and then on into the shale-gas years from 2008 tothe end of 2012. The projection of production data intothe future is beyond the scope of this report. However,it can be assumed that production is likely to remainsteady or increase as drilling activity adds new gas wellsthat will furnish royalty income to the commonwealthand add to gas production volumes from state forestlands in Pennsylvania.IV. DiscussionGas production from all oil and gas activity on stateforest lands in Pennsylvania has been tracked historicallyand on into the Marcellus yearsas monthly production reports arereceived from the producers for eachwell. In general, a monthly statementis submitted to the commonwealthby each lessee operator, as requiredby the standard commonwealth leaseagreement, wherein the amount ofgas produced from a given gas well isreported along with the gas price androyalty value to the commonwealth’sroyalty share, which varies fromlease to lease.Gas Well Production Decline and BehaviorA brief discussion is necessary on gas well productiontheory and behavior so that a basic understanding may begained as to the overall production profile of any givengas well and its contribution to the production numbersas a whole. Gas wells drilled into similar gas reservoirsusually follow a similar production curve behavior. Forinstance, conventional reservoirs such as sandstonereservoirs follow a predictable decline in volume aspressures decrease in the reservoir, which allows thepetroleum reservoir engineer monitoring the well toprovide a prediction of future production and income,as well as monitor for mechanical problems that crop upfrom time to time as production proceeds. As a gas wellproduces, gas pressures in the well bore and the reservoirdecline, and the flow of gas to the surface decreases.Unconventional reservoirs with low permeability andporosity produce on a strongly exponentially shapedcurve, as the reservoir pressure decline near the well boreis usually greater than away from the well bore in theundrained rock volume. This causes the produced gasvolume to decline rapidly in the first few years and thento stabilize at a low rate for long periods into the future.Figure 14.5 illustrates a typical decline production curvethat might be used for a Marcellus shale well to track andpredict the actual reservoir behavior on a per well basis.Figure 14.5 Theoretical Type Marcellus Well Gas Rate Decline CurveShale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, Energy 191This curve yields a well with an Estimated UltimateRecovery (EUR) over its life of about 2.5 billion cubicfeet of gas. Production analogs from other shale regionsindicate the wells may have a total economic life ofnearly 50 years or most certainly a life to be measuredin decades. This is only an example of a theoreticalexponential gas well decline curve. Shale-gas operatorshave reported EURs for gas wells ranging from 2.5 Bcfto up to 12 Bcf for economic wells. It is thought that atcurrent gas prices, wells yielding less than an EUR ofabout 4 Bcf would be deferred until a later time for morefavorable gas prices.Referring to the curve in Figure 11.5, in this particularcase as pressure and gas volume decline into thefuture, the rate at which gas may be produced fromthe well stabilizes and declines at a more gradual ratethan in the first few years. This is very typical of anunconventional gas well developed in shale or otherlow permeability rock.The act of recording and tracking volume data hasbeen part of the bureau’s responsibilities since theprogram’s inception, and indeed the program has seenhundreds of wells come on production, decline to anuneconomic state, and subsequently be plugged andabandoned as the full cycle of exploration, production,and abandonment has proceeded over the decades onstate forest lands.The primary reason for tracking production volumesfor the commonwealth is to predict near-term – fouror five years out – well behavior in order to provide areliable income picture for budgetary purposes. In thecase where there are only a few years of data to analyze,the reliability of the prediction for future production isnot as dependable as a more settled well decline curvemany years into its life. There exist many possiblereasons why a reliable curve may not be possible toplot for a given gas well, such as a constrained gasmarket limiting production, an inherent well mechanicalproblem, poor results from the completion technique,production constraints at a local compressor facility, orpossibly some other issue that may be the result of poorplacement of the well bore in the gas field related directlyto the geology.Pennsylvania Marcellus Gas Volume EstimatesOverall, the Marcellus shale has had a dramatic effect onthe Pennsylvania state decline curve, which is the annualtotal reported production from all wells and reservoirscompiled into a master state curve to track performance.Any state with significant oil and gas production may betracked as such, and increases or decreases in that state’sdecline curve may be analyzed.In Figure 14.6, the Energy Information Administration(an agency of the U.S. Department of Energy) has plottedtotal reported gas production from all Pennsylvania gas192 Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, Energy100 acres, but can beless or greater dependingon a number of factors(i.e., lateral length andspacing, well stimulationoperations, rockproperties). In addition,multiple shale formations– such as the Marcellusand Geneseo/Burket – canbe targeted from the samewell pad.Figure 14.6wells from 2005 to 2012 to see if a predictable patternmight emerge relating new gas wells to increasedproduction rates overall. The overall assumption is thatthe vast majority of new gas wells were developed in theMarcellus shale formation as horizontal wells and thatshallow wells, traditionally the mainstay of Pennsylvaniadrillers, were all vertical in configuration. Thus, a directindicator of Marcellus activity is the plot of horizontalgas wells.Indeed, it can be seen that gas production in Pennsylvaniawas less than a half billion cubic feet per day in 2005,2006, and 2007, before drilling activity in the Marcellusbegan to result in significant well numbers and gas flow tomarket. The rise in overall production was dramatic andsustained from 2010 to 2013. It is possible at this point tosay with a large degree of confidence that the Marcellusshale is capable of producing large amounts of gas fromfewer wells, which is quite different from the traditionalshallow Upper Devonian gas play in Pennsylvania thathas many vertical wells on 40-acre or less spacing andlow per well reserve recoveries. Shale-gas operators havethe ability to drill numerous unconventional horizontalwells from a single well pad. On state forest land todate, the number of wells per pad ranges from one to 10producing wells, with approximately four to eight wellsbeing the average. A typical well drains approximatelyPrior to 2008, the UnitedStates, as a whole, produced about 68 billion cubic feetof gas per day from all domestic sources, but by 2013 theshale gas alone was producing almost 12 billion cubicfeet per day of gas from about 4,900 new gas wells inPennsylvania, which added more than 8 percent to theU.S. gas market in three years. The 68 billion cubic feetper day yields approximately 24.8 trillion cubic feet ofgas per year into the U.S. gas markets (a trillion cubicfeet is normally referred to as a Tcf).Note that the reported 3,500 producing Marcellus wellsto date represents approximately 3 percent of the totalthat some industry representatives predict eventuallywill be required for full development of the resource inPennsylvania. If this assessment holds true, it will takeseveral decades to achieve full development.Pre-Marcellus Gas Production on State Forest LandsAs long as the bureau has managed oil and gas activityon state forest, since 1947, the primary phase ofproduction has been natural gas. Table 14.1 is the totalannual gas production reported to the bureau from 1947to the close of 2007, along with U.S. and Pennsylvaniaannual gas production as tabulated by the EnergyInformation Administration.Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, Energy 193YearU.S.TotalTcfPATotalTcfStateForestGas TcfStateForest %PA TotalYearU.S.TotalTcfPATotalTcfStateForestGas TcfStateForest %PA Total19476.7NA0NA197821.30.0980.0003<1.019487.2NA0.0019NA197921.90.0960.0003<1.019497.6NA0.0046NA198021.90.0980.0003<1.019508.5NA0.0038NA198121.60.1220.0002<1.019519.7NA0.0033NA198220.30.1210.0002<1.0195210.3NA0.0183NA198318.70.1180.0002<1.0195310.7NA0.0307NA198420.30.1660.0001<1.0195410.9NA0.0942NA198519.60.1500.0002<1.0195511.7NA0.0444NA198619.10.1600.0003<1.0195612.4NA0.0472NA198720.10.1630.0002<1.0195712.9NA0.0182NA198821.00.1670.0002<1.0195813.1NA0.0157NA198921.10.1920.0002<1.0195914.2NA0.0093NA199021.50.1780.0003<1.0196015.0NA0.0074NA199121.80.1520.00151.0196115.5NA0.0041NA199222.10.1390.00151.0196216.0NA0.0136NA199322.70.1320.00554.2196316.9NA0.0035NA199423.60.1210.00463.8196417.5NA0.0031NA199523.70.1110.00393.5196517.9NA0.0025NA199624.10.1350.00312.3196619.0NA0.0013NA199724.20.0800.00313.8196720.20.0900.00111.2199824.10.1300.00312.4196821.30.0900.00111.2199923.80.1750.00301.7196922.70.0800.00091.1200024.20.1500.00281.9197023.80.0800.00091.1200124.50.1310.00241.8197124.00.0770.00071.1200223.90.1580.00231.5197224.00.0740.00061.1200324.10.1600.00211.3197324.10.0770.00061.0200424.00.1970.00201.0197422.90.0830.00232.7200523.50.1680.00201.2197521.10.0850.00071.0200623.50.1760.00211.2197620.90.0900.00111.2200724.70.1820.00241.3197721.10.0920.0005<1.0Table 14.1 U. S. and Pennsylvania historic gas production comparison to gas prodution fromPA state forest leases (pre-shale gas).194 Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, EnergyA critical look at Table 14.1 indicates the program’sgas production peaked in 1954 and 1993 in total gasproduction and the overall trend has been cyclicalin nature over the years as wells were drilled duringfavorable price environments and waned as gasprices declined. First, the total amount of gross gasproduced from state forest and park lands over theprogram’s lifetime, excluding Marcellus production, isapproximately 387 Bcf (billion cubic feet). Although alarge quantity, it does not really register on the nationallevel with any significance. If the Marcellus is added inuntil the end of 2012, the total jumps to 684 Bcf. TheMarcellus has contributed approximately 297 Bcf to thetotals since 2008. In just four years, the Marcellus shalehas produced almost 43 percent of all the gas producedfrom state forest lands since the program’s inceptionand is 76 percent of the way to equaling the historicproduction, a milestone which may occur in the next yearat the present rate of production.YearTractLesseeMcf2008324Energy Corporation of America3,2622653Anadarko E&P Company LP3,43216,694331,4941385,84023,425297,4263518,185877,6501Totals2009154Pennsylvania General Energy/Exxon285Anadarko E&P Company LP324Energy Corporation of America653Anadarko E&P Company LPTotals2010TotalsWells100Seneca Resources Corporation154Pennsylvania General Energy/Exxon460,0872231Anadarko E&P Company LP848,1344252Anadarko E&P Company LP41,3291259Anadarko E&P Company LP13,7582285Anadarko E&P Company LP849,2855289Anadarko E&P Company LP1,284,5653324Energy Corporation of America2,5592343Anadarko E&P Company LP164,3311587Talisman Energy USA Inc.12,927,73225595Seneca Resources Corporation1,155,3614653Anadarko E&P Company LP601,7214678Anadarko E&P Company LP325,3013839Ultra Resources1,687,7111220,439,52469Table 14.2 Shale gas production from state forest leases by year, lease tract, andoperator (2008 through 2012).Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, Energy 195YearTractLesseeMcf2011001Seneca Resources Corporation92,8162007Seneca Resources Corporation11,3501154Pennsylvania General Energy/Exxon1,679,6084231Anadarko E&P Company LP1,904,3094285Anadarko E&P Company LP10,791,10121289Anadarko E&P Company LP20,793,72623290Anadarko E&P Company LP1,443,1964324Energy Corporation of America4022343Anadarko E&P Company LP232,0932356Anadarko E&P Company LP853,3006587Talisman Energy USA Inc.34,989,67250595Seneca Resources Corporation3,487,1414653Anadarko E&P Company LP991,8684678Anadarko E&P Company LP1,583,8633685Anadarko E&P Company LP6,159,29910706EXCO Resources (PA) Inc.402,4615729Pennsylvania General Energy/Exxon4,963,8376746XTO47,1481839Ultra Resources3,257,0151593,684,205167TotalsWellsTable 14.2 ContinuedMarcellus Gas Production on State Forest LandsMarcellus production history on state forest land isshort, as the actual significant production did not beginuntil 2010. For completeness, the entire time framefrom 2008 to the end of 2012 is presented. Table 14.2is a compilation of data for the Marcellus productionhistory organized by lease tract, which is the form inwhich the data is reported to the bureau by the variouslessee operators.The annual gross gas production is restated in Table 14.3for clarity and to show the rapid upward progression theproduction numbers have exhibited in the past few years.YearGross Mcf GasProducedTotal ProducingWells20086,69432009518,1858201020,439,52469201193,684,2051672012181,817,133283Totals296,465,741Table 14.3 DCNR annual lease gas production from2008 through 2012 and number of producing wells.196 Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, EnergyYearTractLesseeMcf2012001Seneca Resources Corporation672,7372007Seneca Resources Corporation11,3501100Seneca Resources Corporation8,630,3387154Pennsylvania General Energy/Exxon953,3584231Anadarko E&P Company LP1,447,9254252Anadarko E&P Company LP42,9431285Anadarko E&P Company LP26,409,86633289Anadarko E&P Company LP18,249,05223290Anadarko E&P Company LP4,595,2734293Pennsylvania General Energy/Exxon5,638,4499324Energy Corporation of America73,6811343Anadarko E&P Company LP117,3902344Anadarko E&P Company LP1,883,0434356Anadarko E&P Company LP19,812,89922587Talisman Energy USA, Inc.44,150,15559595Seneca Resources Corporation16,76119653Anadarko E&P Company LP1,281,5616678Anadarko E&P Company LP933,8473685Anadarko E&P Company LP13,039,96515706EXCO Resources (PA) Inc.631,9985728Anadarko E&P Company LP9,538,62111729Pennsylvania General Energy/Exxon20,341,79827745XTO141,5132746XTO943,8524839Ultra Resources2,258,75815181,817,133283TotalsWellsTable 14.2 ContinuedThe DEP website production number from theMarcellus for the entire state of Pennsylvania since thefirst Marcellus wells came on production in 2007 isapproximately 2,000,000 Mcf or 2 Tcf gross production.The gross gas production from state forest lands is about15 percent of all gas produced in Pennsylvania since 2007from the Marcellus formation. By any measure, this issignificant production for Pennsylvania. It is anticipatedthat just over 3,000 gas wells may be drilled on stateforest lands to fully develop the current leased acreageon commonwealth gas leases, of which approximately568 had been drilled by the end of 2013. State forestlease tracts targeting shale gas are estimated to beapproximately one-fifth developed. This, however, isonly a projection, as future energy development patternsare difficult to accurately predict and depend on marketconditions and the performance of individual tracts.Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, Energy 197Part 2: Monitoring Values›› RevenueI. Key Points:• The pre-shale-gas period of oil and gas activityprovided a total income to the commonwealth ofapproximately $153,659,522. The shale-gas period(through 2012, for the purposes of this report) hasprovided $582,250,644 in revenue. The combinedtotal of all revenue from the oil and gas leaseprogram from 1947 to the end of 2012 has beenapproximately $735,910,166.• The influx of shale-gas production revenue beganin 2009 when most of the wells that had beenfirst proposed in 2007, 2008, and early 2009 weredrilled and connected to the pipeline system andgas was delivered to the market.• Royalty income is just beginning to come to DCNRfrom the hundreds of new shale-gas wells on stateforest land.• Steady revenue growth from gas extraction isexpected to continue for the next decade as the fulldevelopment of the leases comes to a conclusion.II. IntroductionSince the first leases in 1947, the development of natural gas resources on state forest landhas generated a steady and increasing revenue source for the commonwealth in the form ofrents and royalties. This revenue can be examined by the pre-Marcellus period from 1947to 2007 and the Marcellus period beginning in 2008. The pre-Marcellus period of oil andgas activity – during which the geologic targets were deep Oriskany sandstones and theshallow Upper Devonian low permeability gas sandstones – provided a total income to thecommonwealth of approximately $153,659,522. The Marcellus period (ending in 2012, forthe purposes of this report) has provided $582,250,644 in revenue, almost exclusively fromthe production of shale gas. The combined total of all revenue from the oil and gas leaseprogram from 1947 to the end of 2012 has been approximately $735,910,166.198 Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, RevenueIII. Monitoring Efforts/ResultsIV. DiscussionThe data presented in this chapter have been trackedand tabulated by the bureau since 1947. This is thefirst report of its kind of oil and gas revenue. Prior tothe shale-gas boom, there was little interest in thisinformation by the public and stakeholders. Reportsof oil and gas income were largely for internalplanning purposes.Revenues generated from a lease sale on state forestlands, rents, and royalties generated from productionare deposited into the Oil and Gas Lease Fund. Thefund was created in 1955 to be used for conservation,recreation, and flood control programs at the directionof the secretary of what is now DCNR. Lease sale fundshave been used to purchase state park lands; to acquirethe mineral rights for state parks and forests; to makeinfrastructure and trail improvements; to conduct habitatprotection and restoration; to provide for recreation andpurchase other equipment; and to support the operationsof the DCNR. The types of income that are depositedinto the fund include all rentals, bonus payments (whichare classed as rentals), royalties, and gas storage rentalpayments. Table 15.1 represents a compilation of allincome from state forest gas development from 1947 to2012. Note that after 1955 funds were placed in the Oiland Gas Lease Fund.The bureau maintains a database on all oil and gasrevenue generated on state forest lands, which will bereported in this section. The purpose of this chapter isto report on current revenue resulting from shale-gasactivity. It is beyond this report’s scope to speculate whatincome future Marcellus activity may generate.Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, Revenue 199YearGas StorageRentalsO&G LeaseRentalsO&G LeaseRoyalties1947$0$1,022$0$1,022$1,022$1,0221948$0$2,016$119,328$121,344$121,344$122,3661949$0$1,633$288,105$289,738$289,738$412,1041950$0$143,561$237,969$381,530$381,530$793,6341951$0$189,473$204,660$394,133$394,133$1,187,7671952$0$723,225$1,143,385$1,866,610$1,866,610$3,054,3771953$0$817,535$1,879,386$2,696,921$2,696,921$5,751,2981954$0$469,023$5,887,370$6,356,393$6,356,393$12,107,6911955$0$228,275$4,158,730$4,387,005$4,387,005$16,494,6961956$39,700$208,928$4,427,055$4,635,983$4,675,683$21,170,3791957$83,113$279,963$1,685,703$1,965,666$2,048,779$23,219,1581958$84,966$360,604$1,356,979$1,717,583$1,802,549$25,021,7071959$84,172$333,377$793,399$1,126,776$1,210,948$26,232,6551960$100,202$219,191$651,082$870,273$970,475$27,203,1301961$113,853$189,360$476,858$666,218$780,071$27,983,2011962$114,861$230,360$1,672,554$1,902,914$2,017,775$30,000,9761963$114,861$277,046$429,122$706,168$821,029$30,822,0051964$114,861$230,546$377,151$607,697$722,558$31,544,5631965$114,861$198,845$294,604$493,449$608,310$32,152,8731966$114,861$25,035$224,740$249,775$364,636$32,517,5091967$114,861$56,719$202,923$259,642$374,503$32,892,0121968$115,192$213,121$195,644$408,765$523,957$33,415,9691969$116,399$59,946$165,071$225,017$341,416$33,757,3851970$116,383$65,108$155,570$220,678$337,061$34,094,4461971$118,525$267,188$139,658$406,846$525,371$34,619,8171972$118,646$751,659$129,224$880,883$999,529$35,619,3461973$121,846$358,802$120,378$479,180$601,026$36,220,3721974$230,293$355,160$357,150$712,310$942,603$37,162,9751975$275,772$150,160$75,247$225,407$501,179$37,664,1541976$360,763$96,783$246,426$343,209$703,972$38,368,1261977$417,492$166,600$88,688$255,288$672,780$39,040,9061978$489,157$2,912,824$37,628$2,950,452$3,439,609$42,480,5151979$607,064$670,732$41,099$711,831$1,318,895$43,799,4101980$668,212$3,259,679$53,596$3,313,275$3,981,487$47,780,897Table 15.1 State forest land oil and gas income by year.200 Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, RevenueO&G LeaseTotalTotalIncomeCumulativeIncomeYearGas StorageRentalsTotalIncomeCumulativeIncome1981$720,040$5,782,264$55,207$5,837,471$6,557,511$54,338,4081982$740,970$4,096,289$63,401$4,159,690$4,900,660$59,239,0681983$733,494$1,770,915$409,421$2,180,336$2,913,830$62,152,8981984$927,993$2,596,954$1,051,065$3,648,019$4,576,012$66,728,9101985$935,426$2,780,875$1,282,461$4,063,336$4,998,762$71,727,6721986$966,932$1,661,590$1,442,148$3,103,738$4,070,670$75,798,3421987$970,508$1,733,042$1,360,171$3,093,213$4,063,721$79,862,0631988$988,362$1,231,895$1,800,408$3,032,303$4,020,665$83,882,7281989$1,041,656$1,005,234$2,707,610$3,712,844$4,754,500$88,637,2281990$1,048,531$1,588,668$2,513,166$4,101,834$5,150,365$93,787,5931991$1,100,705$1,325,086$2,187,643$3,512,729$4,613,434$98,401,0271992$1,103,538$744,043$2,108,048$2,852,091$3,955,629$102,356,6561993$1,124,917$481,886$1,619,350$2,101,236$3,226,153$105,582,8091994$1,185,549$321,717$1,327,362$1,649,079$2,834,628$108,417,4371995$1,197,003$295,306$976,654$1,271,960$2,468,963$110,886,4001996$1,625,090$721,927$1,010,017$1,731,944$3,357,034$114,243,4341997$1,628,117$189,629$1,003,610$1,193,239$2,821,356$117,064,7901998$1,628,278$131,879$1,104,162$1,236,041$2,864,319$119,929,1091999$1,557,019$170,891$975,496$1,146,387$2,703,406$122,632,5152000$1,493,019$44,381$1,528,179$1,572,560$3,065,579$125,698,0942001$1,910,493$183,905$1,540,417$1,724,322$3,634,815$129,332,9092002$1,794,620$1,653,644$1,048,710$2,702,354$4,496,974$133,829,8832003$1,838,959$112,409$1,519,285$1,631,694$3,470,653$137,300,5362004$1,785,640$141,247$1,545,974$1,687,221$3,472,861$140,773,3972005$1,828,472$90,494$1,783,592$1,874,086$3,702,558$144,475,9552006$2,238,026$173,434$2,402,583$2,576,017$4,814,043$149,289,9982007$2,224,935$75,426$2,069,163$2,144,589$4,369,524$153,659,5222008$2,245,823$6,064,636$3,128,586$9,193,222$11,439,045$165,098,5672009$2,331,670$163,303,356 $1,596,962$164,900,318$167,231,988$332,330,5552010$2,288,064$262,796,706 $11,821,463$274,618,169$276,906,233$609,236,7882011$2,749,056$3,703,849$42,786,628$46,490,477$49,239,533$658,476,3212012$2,731,718$2,967,309$71,734,818$74,702,127$77,433,845$735,910,166$53,635,539$484,454,385$197,820,242$682,274,627TOTALSO&G LeaseRentalsO&G LeaseRoyaltiesO&G LeaseTotal--------$735,910,166Table 15.1 Continued State forest land oil and gas income by year.Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, Revenue 201Pre-Shale Gas RevenueFigure 15.1 is a graphical representation of the numericaltabulation in Table 15.1, color coded for ease of viewing,from 1947 to 2007, which represents the annual incomeup to the first shale-gas lease sale in 2008. Differentclasses of income ebb and flow through the chartedyears. The initial income increase in each income boomcycle is caused by large bonus payments and rentals fornew acreage under lease. Over time, as the acreage isdeveloped, rentals decrease and royalties increase.The first income boom cycle occurred in 1952, withseveral lease sales. As the acreage was tested, gasproduction was established in the Oriskany sandstone.This led to the large royalty income from 1952 to 1958.Also, in 1957 some small gas storage income began toshow as the first large Oriskany sandstone gas fieldswere converted to gas storage and primary productionceased. The characteristics of the Oriskany sandstoneare such that it has very favorable reservoir propertiesfor gas storage.The second prominent cycle began around 1978 withindustry interest in the shallow Upper Devonian gasplay in Centre and Clinton counties, now known as theCouncil Run Gas Field. The large rental numbers from1978 to 1985 represent the large bonus paid for the leasesales. Beginning in 1981, the amount of royalty increasedand then peaked in 1990 and flattened until 2007. Thisis a reflection of changing gas prices and markets. Gasprices generally increased during this period and peakedin 2007. So even though well production declined, thehigher gas prices maintained a steady income stream.The price of natural gas has a large effect on the incomestream from gas sales and royalty to the commonwealth,but the number of wells drilled and placed in productionalso has a large effect. This can be seen in the early daysof a development boom in Figure 15.1. Figure 15.2 isa graph of crude oil and natural gas prices from 1988to 2012. There is a gradual increase in gas prices tothe spikes in 2006 and 2008. These price spikes, alongwith arrival of the hydraulic fracturing and horizontalOIL & GAS LEASE FUND HISTORICAL ANNUAL INCOME STREAMFROM 1947 THROUGH 2008$14,000,000$12,000,000BEGINNING OF THEMARCELLUS EFFECT$ DOOLLARS$10,000,000$8,000,000$6,000,000BONUS $$4,000,000$019471948194919501951195219531954195519561957195819591960196119621963196419651966196719681969197019711972197319741975197619771978197919801981198219831984198519861987198819891990199119921993199419951996199719981999200020012002200320042005200620072008$2,000,000YEARSGas StorageRentalsFigure 15.1202 Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, RevenueRoyaltydrilling technology, arethree of the main driversof the Marcellus boom inPennsylvania from 2007.HISTORICAL OIL & GAS LEASE SALEACREAGE OFFERINGS FOR COMPETITIVE BID ON AN ANNUAL BASIS500,000450,000Economic Collapse of DomesticIndustryOil & Gas Industry in USA400,000350,000Shale-Gas Revenue300,000The influx of shale-gas250,000production revenue began200,000MarcellusShort-Lived Deep Oriskanyin 2009, when most of theGas Play150,000wells that had been first2008  2010  100,000proposed in 2007, 2008, and50,000early 2009 were drilled and0connected to the pipelineYEARSsystem and gas delivered toMINERALS SECTIONTotal Offered AcreageNet Leased Acreagethe market. Figure 15.3 isa graphical representationFigure 15.2 From EIA 2012 Energy Report.of the numerical tabulation2008 and 2010 lease sales. In addition, royalty income isabove from 1947 to 2012, which represents the annualjust beginning to come to DCNR from the hundreds ofincome up to the end of 2012. This graph shows how thenew shale-gas wells on state forest land.historic oil and gas income is dwarfed by the shale-gasACRESFIRST TRENTON-BLACK RIVER LEASESALE201020092008200720062004200320052002200120001999199819971996199419931995199219911990198919881987198619841985198319821981198019791978197719761974197319751972197119701969PERIOD OF LITTLE TO NO INDUSTRYINTERESTIN LEASING STATE LANDSincome stream, largely due to bonus payments from theOIL & GAS LEASE FUND HISTORICAL ANNUAL INCOME STREAMFrom 1947 through 2012$300,000,000$250,000,000MARCELLUS EFFECT$ DOLLARS$200,000,000$150,000,000BONUS $$100,000,000ROYALTY $$50,000,000194719481949195019511952195319541955195619571958195919601961196219631964196519661967196819691970197119721973197419751976197719781979198019811982198319841985198619871988198919901991199219931994199519961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012$0YEARSMINERALSSECTIONGas Storage RentalsPrimary Lease RentalsPrimary Lease RoyaltiesFigure 15.3Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, Revenue 203Part 2: Monitoring Values›› The Forest Landscape Conversion, wild character, fragmentation, and restorationI. Key Points:• This chapter addresses forest values and impacts of shale-gas activities across thegreater forested landbase. This initial report focuses on forest conversion, the valueof “wild character,” forest fragmentation, and restoration.• Approximately 1,486 acres of the 2.2-million-acre state forest system have beenconverted to facilitate shale-gas development. During the same time period (2008to 2012), the bureau acquired 33,500 acres to add to state forest system, including8,900 acres in the core shale gas districts.• One assessment of the current impact of gas infrastructure on wild character, usingthe Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) as a measurement tool, is a 9,340-acreincrease in semi-developed and developed acreage. Correspondingly, there was a912-acre decrease in semi-primitive area, an 8,409-acre decrease in semi-primitivenon-motorized area, and a 19-acre decrease in primitive area.• Before shale-gas activity, 19.5 percent of the state forest in core gas districts wasin the semi-primitive non-motorized class. The effects of shale-gas development asof 2012 resulted in a decrease to 18.9 percent. The semi-developed and developedacreage total increased from 50.9 percent to 51.6 percent. Semi-primitive andprimitive acreages each changed by less than one tenth of one percent.• In core gas forest districts, the Bureau of Forestry’s forest fragmentation analysisshowed the largest increases in edge forest in Tiadaghton State Forest (1,813 acres)and Tioga State Forest (1,257 acres). Overall, core gas forest districts added 4,355acres of edge forest.• In the core gas forest districts, there was a loss of 9,242 acres of core forest greaterthan 200 hectares (495 acres). However, some of this loss was converted to a gainin smaller core forest blocks, as an overall gain of 1,247 acres was observed in coreforest blocks between 100 and 200 hectares (247 and 495 acres) and a gain of 1,152acres was seen in core forest blocks less than 100 hectares (247 acres).• Elk, Moshannon, and Tiadaghton state forests have had a combined total of 10 wellpads that have been partially reclaimed by reducing the pad size and replantingthe adjacent areas with vegetation. No gas infrastructure sites have received fullecological restoration.204 Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, The Forest LandscapeII. IntroductionApproaches to forest management must take into accountnot only the direct impacts of various activities, butalso the cumulative, landscape-level impacts of theseactivities over time. Landscapes are contextual in nature,and thus there is no firm definition of what constitutes a“landscape” in a forested setting. This chapter, however,attempts to address certain forest values and impacts ofshale-gas activities across the greater forested landbase.This initial report focuses on the landscape-level impactsof shale-gas development to forest conversion, the valueof “wild character,” forest fragmentation, and restoration.Forest ConversionNatural gas exploration and development can temporarilyor permanently convert existing forestland to nonforestland to accommodate gas infrastructure. Someconversion may be temporary in nature. For example, afive-acre tract of forest cleared for a water impoundmentis considered a conversion to non-forest. However, if aftera period of time that impoundment is no longer neededand the five acres is restored and replanted, it can againbecome part of the forest system. Other conversions,such as pipelines and roads, may be more permanent innature. Regardless of the type, forest conversion has bothdirect and cumulative, landscape-level impacts that areimportant to monitor across the state forest system.Wild CharacterBecause of the size of the landbase, state forestsprovide a unique opportunity for dispersed, low-densityoutdoor recreation that cannot be obtained from smallerforest areas.Part of the bureau’s mission with regard to the state forestsystem is to retain its “wild character.” While the value of“wild character” can be subjective in nature, it commonlyrelates to the quality of experience for state forest visitorswith regard to scenic beauty, feeling of solitude, sense ofremoteness, and the undeveloped and aesthetic nature ofthe state forest system.The state forests in the north-central region, because oftheir size, location, and rugged terrain, offer some of thebest opportunities for remote, back-country experiencesin Pennsylvania. This same region is also the locationof the most extensive shale-gas development activity.Accommodating gas development while maintaining the“wild character” of the forest is a significant challenge forforest managers. As a result, monitoring “wild character”and associated values is an important part of the overallmonitoring program.Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, The Forest Landscape 205FragmentationThe size and location of the commonwealth’s state forestsin north-central Pennsylvania contribute to the formationof core forest habitat and play an important role inmaintaining the connectivity of this habitat across muchof the state. In addition, these state forests help comprisethe largest continuous block of forest in the northeasternUnited States.One important consideration when overseeing such alandbase is managing the potential effects due to forestloss and forest fragmentation. Forest fragmentation canbe described as a process by which a continuous foresthabitat is converted to non-forest or becomes separatedinto smaller or more isolated forest patches (Halia, 1999).The isolation of these patches from one another oftencan be attributed to disturbances that significantlyalter the impacted forest areas. These disturbances canbe natural (e.g., forest fire, windfall, or flooding) ormanmade (e.g., timber harvesting, road construction, orresidential development) in origin. Disturbances, whethernatural or manmade, can vary in scale and intensity.These disturbances could merely separate mature forestblocks with younger, disturbed forest, or could result inblocks of non-forest habitat.The consequences of a fragmented forest vary by speciesand forest community type but generally are due to oneor more of the following: the reduction or change in forestarea, the increased vulnerability of patches to furtherdisturbance and degradation, or the increasing separationbetween patches.Forest loss due to disturbance (natural or manmade)can result in less available forest habitat or a decreasedforest carrying capacity. As core forests are furtherfragmented by non-forest, remaining patches becomemore susceptible to invasion by exotic species andpathogens due to increased forest edge. The loss ofconnectivity between patches of forest habitat can resultin a loss of biodiversity and genetic variation acrossa landscape as plants or animals of the same speciesbecome increasingly isolated from one another. Whileforest loss in itself may more directly result in a reductionin resources available for forest species, fragmentationdue to forest loss can further degrade remaining forestsand have far-reaching effects beyond the actual acreageof forest habitat that was lost.In addition to creating smaller forest patches out ofcontinuous forest, fragmentation also leads to anincrease in forest edge habitat. While not removed orconverted directly by a disturbance, the portions ofremaining forest that form the edges of the patch areinvariably changed and typically vary from the interiorportions of the forest. Although the proportion of theremaining patch that can be characterized as edge variessignificantly, an area from the edge of disturbance up to100 meters into the forest patch is the zone which is oftenaccepted as edge forest.Many factors influence how the edge forest varies fromthe interior of the patch itself. First and foremost is thetype of disturbance that created the edge. For instance,a human-created edge, such as a timber sale boundaryor the limit of clearing for a right of way, often ismore abrupt, forming straight lines that can cut acrosslandscape features. Natural disturbances, however,often cause ragged, feathered, and non-symmetricalboundaries that follow landscape features like ridge topsor creeks. At the forest edge, microclimate changes inair temperature, wind speed, light availability, andrelative humidity often contribute to edge forests thatcan be hotter and drier than the interior forest(Gelhausen et al., 2000).206 Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, The Forest LandscapeEdge effects due to fragmentation often create conditionsthat can become unsuitable for species that once utilizedthe interior forest habitat. At times, these edge effectshave been shown to increase plant species richness atthe forest edge; however, often associated with this gainin early-successional, disturbance-tolerant plants arenon-native, invasive plant species such as garlic mustard(Alliaria petiolata), honeysuckle (Lonicera spp.), or privet(Ligustrum spp.) (Haila, 1999).The effects of fragmentation and an increase in forestedge on wildlife vary, depending on the species and itsrelative location in the food chain. Game species, suchas ruffed grouse and white-tailed deer, often utilizeedge habitats. Some species of songbirds prefer the thickshrub vegetation that often forms along forest edges.Patton et al. (2010) encourage the use of forest edgewhen managing for golden-winged warblers. However,prey may be easier for some predators to hunt along aforest edge than in interior forest. For instance, Souleet al. (1988) found that increased forest fragmentationin California caused a decline in large predators, butbenefited mesopredators such as possums, raccoons,and cats. As a result of the increase in mesopredators, anoticeable decrease occurred in some vulnerable preyspecies found at the forest edge. With marked variationsin the types of species and the extent of edge forest orconnectivity loss in these studies, more work is neededat a species-specific level to more carefully predict whichwildlife species may benefit and which species could benegatively impacted by these landscape changes.The bureau recognizes the implications of an increasein forest fragmentation and forest edge to biodiversityand ecosystem health across the state forest system.Regarding fragmentation, the bureau’s State ForestResource Management Plan states that “forestfragmentation, connectivity, and patch distributionwill be considered in management decisions affectingstate forest resources.” The goal of the bureau is tolimit forest fragmentation and promote connectivity offorest habitat. This philosophy extends not only to forestmanagement activities, such as timber harvesting andhabitat improvement projects, but also to recreationplanning, road and infrastructure improvements, andenergy development. Timber harvesting is a manmadedisturbance that can impact interior forest habitat;however, managers ensure that harvesting will resultin early successional habitat adjacent to interior forest,providing for a mosaic of habitats across the landscape.Other types of human disturbance, such as roadconstruction and energy development, can result in aconversion of forest habitat into non-forest, potentiallycausing forest fragmentation.New pipeline rights of way, in particular, can createedge forest and have the potential to fragment morecontiguous blocks of forest. The bureau’s Guidelinesfor Administering Oil and Gas Activity on StateForest Lands also address the potential impacts dueto energy development on state forest land, suggestingthat “operators should use existing disturbances whenpossible to limit forest fragmentation.” This managementpractice extends across all types of gas infrastructure,including roads, pipelines, and well pads. The bureauworks with gas operators early in the approval processto design these features to fit within the landscape whenpractical and reduce construction disturbance to thegreatest extent possible.Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, The Forest Landscape 207Reclamation and RestorationThe bureau’s goal is to reduce the impact of shalegas development by restoring areas converted forgas infrastructure to their original habitat or creatinghabitat for plants and wildlife. With proper planning andeffective, thoughtful implementation, suitable habitat canbe created for many species of plants and wildlife duringpartial and complete restoration of gas-related sites.Restoration may be in many forms, includingre-vegetation for erosion andsedimentation control, reforestation,State Forestreclamation, habitat enhancement,Districtand invasive plant removal. TheMoshannonobjective is to restore the site to aSproulself-sustaining natural communitythat provides ecological benefits.TiadaghtonIn many state forest areas, gasactivities are in the developmentphase. Complete and full restorationof sites converted for gas use isa long-term prospect. Overall,restoration of gas sites, and themonitoring of them, is still in theearly stages. Forest managers areonly beginning to understandthe challenges and opportunitiesassociated with successfulrestoration. As part of its monitoringprogram, the bureau will track thesuccess of individual restorationprojects as well as landscape-levelecological impacts.numbers will change over time, depending on the scale ofadditional development as well as the pace of restorationefforts. A well pad that is cleared for development isconsidered conversion. However, once the site is fullyrestored and replanted, it can again be considered partof the forest landbase. Also, with some activities, suchas right of way construction, a significant portion of thecorridor is cleared for the movement of machinery. Onceconstruction is complete, these areas can be restored andonce again become part of the forest landbase.PadAcreageRoadAcreagePipelineAcreageTotalAcreage63.331.739.2134.2156.520.878.2255.5318.368.1144.2530.6Elk6.51.29.116.8Susquehannock32.24.129.465.7Tioga135.747.594.4277.6Loyalsock73.168.264.3205.6Total Acreage785.6241.6458.81,486Table 16.1 Total acreage converted to non-forest by infrastructure type.III. Monitoring Efforts/ResultsForest ConversionDCNR estimates that approximately1,486 acres of forest have beenconverted to non-forest to facilitateshale-gas development activities(Table 16.1 and Figure 16.1). TheseFigure 16.1 Total acreage converted to non-forest by infrastructure type.208 Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, The Forest LandscapeDuring the same time period that this forest conversiontook place for shale gas development (2008 to 2012), thebureau acquired 33,500 acres to add to state forest system,including 8,900 acres in the core shale gas districts.Wild CharacterThe U.S. Forest Service developed a recreationalplanning tool called the Recreation OpportunitySpectrum (ROS) system. The bureau has adapted thistool for application in Pennsylvania. ROS is an inventorysystem built on the premise that people expect certaintypes of recreational experiences on public land andthat land managers should be able to direct people toappropriate places for those experiences. ROS allowsconsider consistent with “wild character,” while areasclassified as “developed” may not.The measure of the current impact of gas infrastructureon wild character – using ROS as an indicator – is a9,340-acre increase in semi-developed and developedareas, a 912-acre decrease in semi-primitive areas, an8,409-acre decrease in semi-primitive non-motorizedareas, and a 19-acre decrease in primitive areas.Before shale-gas activity, 19.5 percent of the stateforest in core gas districts was in the semi-primitivenon-motorized class. As of 2012, there was a decreaseto 18.9 percent. In that same period, the semi-developedPrimitiveSemi-PrimitiveNon-MotorizedSemi-PrimitiveSemi-Developed& DevelopedMoshannon0-1,164356808Sproul0-77051719Tiadaghton0-3,259-723,332Elk0000-19-9-1846Tioga0-3,207-3913,597Loyalsock00-838838-19-8,409-9129,340DistrictSusquehannockTotalTable 16.2 Net ROS acreage change (pre-Marcellus vs. Dec. 31, 2012).the land manager to provide recreational opportunitiesacross a spectrum, or continuum, of five land-useclasses so that the user may find satisfying recreationalexperiences in a variety of recreational activities.The ROS land-use classes follow a continuum from“primitive” to “developed.” See the Recreation sectionfor more information about ROS designations.While ROS is geared toward recreational managementand experience, it is one helpful tool in assessing the“wild character” of the state forest system. Areas with a“primitive” classification have values that many visitorsand developed acreage increased from 50.9 percent to51.6 percent. Semi-primitive and primitive areas eachchanged by less than one-tenth of one percent.Since 2008, the bureau’s gas leases have included“Areas of Special Consideration” for high-value timber,recreational sites, and viewsheds. Whenever possible,the bureau coordinates with gas operators to prevent thedisruption of scenic viewsheds due to gas development.State forest trails, rivers, and major roads were identifiedas scenic viewsheds. Incidents of gas developmentoccurring in these scenic viewshed “Areas of SpecialConsideration” have been identified and evaluated.Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, The Forest Landscape 209Figure 16.2 Change in ROS zones.As a result of gas development, three types of gasinfrastructure have been constructed within scenicviewshed “Areas of Special Consideration” identifiedin gas leases. Development in these areas requirescoordination between operators and the bureau to protectspecific forest uses and values. At times, development inthese areas is necessary to protect other sensitive areasand to take advantage of existing disturbance corridors.In the future, state forest districts and the state forestsystem may be examined more holistically for viewshedimpacts with ArcMap viewshed software. However, thelimitations of the tool may suggest the use of a differentmethod to quantify the value of the impact. For example,photo documentation may also be used to document thechange in appearance before and after development.The bureau will continue to investigate additional toolsand methods to assess the wild character value of stateforest lands. A blend of both subjective and data-drivenmethodologies likely will be the most useful in assessingand monitoring wild character.Forest FragmentationSince the onset of shale-gas development on state forestlands, the bureau has worked with gas operators tolimit forest fragmentation resulting from infrastructureconstruction. As part of its monitoring efforts, DCNRrecognized the need for a landscape-level analysis ofthe change in forest habitat since the onset of shale-gasdevelopment on state forest lands.210 Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, The Forest LandscapeAfter reviewing a variety of methods and types ofanalysis, the Landscape Fragmentation Tool v 2.0,developed by the University of Connecticut Centerfor Land Use Education and Research (CLEAR), wasselected as a means to complete an assessment of thechange in forest habitat across the state forest districtssubject to gas development (Parent & Hurd, 2008). Thistool is based on research completed by Vogt et al. (2007),which proposed a pixel-based approach to quantifyingfragmented forested landscapes. The LandscapeFragmentation Tool (LFT) uses ArcGIS spatial analysistechnology to classify forest into four categories: patch,edge, perforated, and core forest. One drawback of thistool, however, is that it only can distinguish forest fromnon-forest and cannot assess early successional forest orshrublands from mature forest.One assumption utilized by this analysis is an edgewidth of 100 meters. This is the general width typicallyaccepted as the extent of “edge effects” on interiorforest due to nearby disturbance. This distance of 100meters also was accepted for use in the landscape toolby Drohan et al. (2012) to describe forest land coverchange due to shale-gas development in Pennsylvania.In the Drohan model, edge is defined as the first 100meters of forest along the outside edge of a forest patch.Forest patch pixels are small areas of forest completelysurrounded by forest edge or non-forest pixels (Parent& Hurd, 2008) and are completely subject to anyedge effects.Perforated forest is the zone around a small clearing ordisturbance that is completely surrounded by core forest.Core forest is forest habitat not subject to disturbance orthe edge effect and is split into three size classes by theLFT: small (less than 100 hectares or 247 acres), medium(between 100 and 200 hectares or 247 and 495 acres),and large (greater than 200 hectares or 495 acres).Since the datasets available to the bureau were differentthan those used by CLEAR, as the use of LFT wasinvestigated, certain parameters and assumptions wereFigure 16.3 Example of forest fragmentation inTiadaghton State Forest.made during the analysis. A GIS basemap layer to beused in the tool as a pre-shale gas dataset was createdusing the 2005 National Land Cover Data (NLCD)and the 2006 Bureau of Forestry Forest CommunitiesClassification data layer. All datasets, aerial photos,and rasters had to be converted into forest or non-forestareas. Many non-forest plant community types arecaptured in this classification layer, including: pipelines,orchards, wetlands, food plots, roads, trails, well sites,and picnic areas. Therefore, all “types” within the forestcommunities classification dataset were classified as“forest or “non-forest” before being converted into araster dataset.To further develop the baseline dataset (pre-shale gas),features such as pipelines, roads, waterlines, electriclines, shallow gas wells, and historic wells were added asnon-forest features. To create the comparison dataset forShale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, The Forest Landscape 211the period after shale-gas development had begun, spatialdata regarding shale-gas infrastructure were added to thebase maps. This included roads widened or constructedfor gas development, gas pipelines, well pads, waterlines, and any other associated infrastructure. In mostcases, limit-of-clearance spatial data were available;however, at times, assumptions were made to estimatethis area if the data were not available. Road andpipeline polylines were buffered by 10 feet to accountfor non-forested area if limit-of-clearance data were notavailable or the feature was not captured in vegetationtyping. Since timber harvests are temporary and rarelyresult in non-forest (just regenerating early successionalforest), they were excluded from this analysis due to thelimitations of the LFT.The analysis results provided by the LandscapeFragmentation Tool, based on conditions beforeshale-gas development (Table 16.3) and as of 2012,(Table 16.4) on the seven core gas state forest districtsare provided below. Prior to shale-gas development,Moshannon, Sproul, and Susquehannock state forestshad the most acres of non-forest (6,155, 9,362, and 4,032respectively), due in part to the amount of shallownatural gas exploration that had historically occurred inthose districts. Sproul and Moshannon state forests alsohad the highest amount of edge forest acres (53,485 and35,808, respectively). Perforated forest acreage was fairlyconsistent across districts, with the exception of SproulState Forest, which had 8,535 acres of perforated forests– nearly 4,800 acres more than the next highest district.CoreForestCoreForestCoreForestTotalAcresNonforestEdgePerforatedPatch(>200 ha)(100-200 ha)(<100 ha)Moshannon183,9556,15535,8083,7471,045116,22911,0529,919Sproul302,9379,36253,4858,5351,111209,8798,94711,618Tiadaghton145,1531,98917,8881,156401114,2495,3154,155Elk190,4723,64921,0333,696449153,2304,0564,359Susquehannock257,8404,03230,6382,5321,310209,2665,5834,479Tioga157,3213,09419,8461,972248120,3167,8483,997Loyalsock114,4491,04911,9381,60826297,1051,76072729,330190,63623,2464,8261,020,27444,56139,254Forest DistrictTotalTable 16.3 Landscape analysis results – pre-shale gas landscape conditions (all values in acres).For the analysis, a 100-meter (or approximately 328 feet)distance was used to delineate edge forest, and pixel sizefor the raster analysis was 15 feet by 15 feet. A decisionalso was made to not include new forest acquisitions thatoccurred during the time period encompassed by theanalysis. In most cases, these newly acquired lands hadnot been subject to forest stand typing, which served asbase data for this analysis. Rather than attempt to providedesktop delineations of these acquired areas, they wereexcluded in this first analysis.Again, this is due in part to the history of shallownatural gas extraction in this district and the tendencyfor shallow gas pads to create perforating features on thelandscape. Across all seven districts in the analysis, patchforest acreage was low due to the fact that for the mostpart, these districts are composed of large forest blocks.Many of the same fragmentation trends at the landscapelevel prior to shale-gas development were still evidentas of 2012 in the state forest districts subject to naturalgas development (see Table 16.4). Moshannon, Sproul,212 Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, The Forest LandscapeCoreForestCoreForestCoreForestTotalAcresNonforestEdgePerforatedPatch(>200 ha)(100-200 ha)(<100 ha)Moshannon183,9556,30236,1383,8331,056115,19311,5179,916Sproul302,9379,63153,8488,6591,213209,1368,70211,748Tiadaghton145,1532,57519,7011,225429111,1025,4374,684Elk190,4723,68121,0603,705452153,1634,0564,355Susquehannock257,8404,09930,7552,5741,336208,7285,8644,484Tioga157,3213,46221,1031,989287117,5188,4704,492Loyalsock114,4491,27012,3861,85126496,1931,76172431,020194,99123,8365,0371,011,03345,80740,403Forest DistrictTotalTable 16.4 Landscape analysis results – 2012 landscape conditions (all values in acres).and Susquehannock state forestsstill have the most acres of nonforest (6,302, 9,631, and 4,099acres respectively) than the otherfour districts, and Moshannon andSproul districts still exhibit thehighest acres of edge forest of allseven districts (see Figure 16.4).Figure 16.4 Acres of edge forest (by state forest district) as of 2012.Figure 16.5 Change in edge acres per district from pre-shale gas to 2012.Table 16.5 illustrates the change(in acres) from the pre-shale gaslandscape analysis to that of thelandscape conditions as of 2012.Across the seven districts inthe analysis, acres of non-forestincreased by a total of 1,690acres, with the largest increasein Tiadaghton State Forest (586acres). The largest increases in edgeforest, by a large margin, were seenin Tiadaghton State Forest (1,813acres, 1.3 percent of total stateforest acreage) and Tioga StateForest (1,257 acres, 0.8 percent oftotal acreage).Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, The Forest Landscape 213CoreForestCoreForestCoreForestNonforestEdgePerforatedPatch(>200 ha)(100-200 ha)(<100 ha)Moshannon1463308611-1,036465-3Sproul269363124102-743-245130Tiadaghton5861,8136928-3,147122529Elk322793-670-4Susquehannock671174226-5382815Tioga3681,2571739-2,798622495Loyalsock2214482432-9121-31,6904,355590211-9,2411,2461,149Forest DistrictTotalTable 16.5 Landscape analysis results – total change from pre-shale gas to 2012, (in acres).This is due in part to the number of well padsconstructed, but is likely mostly due to the number ofnew roads and rights of way built in these districts. Onlymodest increases were seen in perforated and patch foresttypes, with the highest amount of perforated forest addedin Loyalsock State Forest (243 acres).In total, across all seven districts in the analysis, a lossof 9,241 acres of core forest greater than 200 hectares(495 acres) was observed. However, some of this loss wasconverted to a gain in smaller core forest blocks, as anoverall gain of 1,246 acres was observed in the 100- to200-hectare (247- to 495-acre) category and a gainof 1,149 acres was seen in the less-than-100-hectare(247-acre) category.Table 16.6 illustrates the percentage of total districtacreage made up of small (less-than-200 hectare) andlarge (greater-than-200-hectare) core forest blocks atboth analysis periods. The highest loss in large coreforest blocks was evident in Tiadaghton State Forest(2.2 percent or 3,147 acres), which is indicative of thehigh level of natural gas development activity that thedistrict underwent in the years between the two analyses.Pre-Shale GasCoreForestCoreForestPercentage PointChange2012CoreForestCoreForestCoreForestCoreForestTotalAcres(>200 ha)(<200 ha)(>200 ha)(<200 ha)(>200 ha)(<200 ha)Moshannon183,95563.211.462.611.7-0.60.3Sproul302,93769.36.869.06.8-0.30.0Tiadaghton145,15378.76.576.57.0-2.20.5Elk190,47280.44.480.44.40.00.0Susquehannock257,84081.23.981.04.0-0.20.1Tioga157,32176.57.574.78.2-1.80.7Loyalsock114,44984.82.284.02.2-0.80.0Forest DistrictTable 16.6 Landscape analysis results – percentage of core forest acres per district.214 Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, The Forest LandscapeTioga State Forest, which also has seena high level of activity, was found tohave lost 2,798 acres (1.8 percent ofTioga’s total acreage) of large coreforest. Conversely, Elk State Forest hasseen very little development and is notexhibiting a significant change in coreforest habitat. The increase in smallcore forest blocks was not enough tooffset the loss in large core forest in anydistrict. The largest gain in small coreforest is found in Tioga State Forest,where 1,119 acres were converted tosmall core forest blocks, which accountsfor 0.7 percent of Tioga’s total acreage.Figure 16.6Figure 16.7PreShale Gas(in acres)2012(in acres)29,33031,020Edge190,636194,991Perforated23,24623,835Patch4,8275,0371,020,2741,011,033Core Forest (100-200 ha)44,56145,808Core Forest (<100 ha)39,25340,404Non-forestCore Forest (>200 ha)Total State Forest AcresTable 16.7 summarizes the combinedpercent change across all seven stateforest districts in the fragmentationanalysis. Across all seven state forestdistricts subject to gas development, atotal of 1,690 acres classified as forestin this pre-shale gas analysis werechanged to non-forest by December2012. This value differs from thereported 1,486 acres of converted forestdue mostly to the differences in the wayin which these values were computed.Conversion is based on acres clearedfor gas development andinfrastructure, while thisChangeTotalfragmentation analysis(in acres) % Changeuses pixel and raster data to1,6905.8create forest and non-forest4,3552.3areas across the landscape.5892.5This analysis method2104.4accounts for all shifts-9,242-0.9from forest to non-forest1,2472.8and is not exclusive to gas1,1512.9development activities.1,352,127Table 16.7 Landscape analysis results – change from pre-shale gas to 2012(all shale-gas districts combined).Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, The Forest Landscape 215In addition, 4,355 acres of edge forest have been created(new roads as well as pipeline and waterline rights of waycontribute significantly to edge forest), along with 589acres of perforated forest and 210 acres of forest patches.The largest change at the landscape level was a loss of9,242 acres of large core forest. However, some of thatloss was converted to smaller core forests, with 1,247acres of core forest between 100 and 200 hectares (247and 495 acres) and 1,151 acres of core forest less than100 hectares (247 acres) created by landscape changes,including shale-gas development.RestorationFull restoration to gas infrastructure sites on stateforest land is a long-term process. Because shale-gasdevelopment is in its early stages, there are currently noexamples of infrastructure pads that have achieved whatthe bureau considers full ecological restoration – thereturn of the site to a functioning ecosystem. The focusof this initial report, therefore, will be what is consideredinterim well pad reclamation.One hundred and ninety-one infrastructure pads havebeen constructed to facilitate shale-gas developmentin the core gas districts. Of these, 10 pads have beenrestored and reduced in size to an interim reclamationfootprint. The remaining pads are considered to be insome other stage of development. Interim reclamation ofwell pads has taken place in three state forest districts.Elk, Moshannon, and Tiadaghton state forests have hadwell pads reduced in size and replanted with vegetation.Elk State Forest has had three pads reclaimed in theEast Branch Dam area. Moshannon State Forest has hadsix pads reclaimed to production size. Tiadaghton StateForest has had one well pad reclaimed to production size.The production stage of a well pad site can be a smallerfootprint. The onsite infrastructure includes the wellhead or “Christmas tree,” gas dryer or dehydrator,gas sediment traps and filters, produced fluid tanks –permanent and possibly mobile, pressure gauges, volumemeters, and associated valves and piping. There maybe a shelter or building installed over some or most ofthese pieces of infrastructure, depending on the specificcompany’s policy. Required secondary containmentfeatures also are installed to address any potential leakor spill that may happen. Post-construction stormwatermanagement (PCSM) features are also on site topermanently address any erosion and sedimentationissues that may stem from storm events.Elk State Forest:The three well pads thathave been reclaimed inthis forest district havebeen reduced in size fromsix combined total acresto approximately threecombined total acres.The remaining areas thathave not been restored toa natural state contain thegas infrastructure that isrequired while the wellsare in production.Example of interim reclamation in Elk State Forest (DSCN 0527).216 Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, The Forest LandscapeMoshannon State Forest:Six well pads averagingapproximately 3.6acres each, where thedevelopment has beencompleted and the wellsare now on production,have been partlyreclaimed, reducing theoverall footprint from acombined 22 acres downto 6 acres. The reclaimedarea is now vegetated andthe remaining operationalportion of the pad siteremains in hard stonecovering for access andmaintenance of the wells.Example of interim reclamation in Moshannon State Forest (DSCN 2489).Tiadaghton State Forest:One well pad in thisdistrict has been partlyreclaimed. The originalpad size was 4 acres,which has been reducedto 2 acres and vegetated.The portion of the padleft in hard stone coverwill be used by theoperator for access andmaintenance purposes.Area adjacent to production stage of pad in Tiadaghton State Forest, withinterim reclamation and PCSM (DSCN 2144).Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, The Forest Landscape 217Susquehannock, Sproul, Tioga, and Loyalsock stateforests have not had any pad reduction and reclamationactivity as they remain in active drilling and development mode. However, it is expected that in the next fewyears numerous drill pads will see significant reductionand reclamation activity as development is completed.IV. Conclusion/DiscussionState forest lands in the core gas forest districtshave seen changes due to the exploration and development of gas resources. Overall, approximately 1,486acres of forest have been converted to non-forest tofacilitate development.The value of wild character has been impacted in thecore gas districts. Using the ROS tool as one measureof wild character, 8,409 acres have been lost from thesemi-primitive, non-motorized category. State forestvisitors looking for a more primitive experience mayfind less appropriate places for those experiences, whilevisitors who enjoy semi-developed and developed areasmay find more.Also related to the wild character value, there have beenimpacts to scenic viewsheds identified as Areas of SpecialConsideration. Each case was carefully considered,and the least overall impact to state forest values anduses determined. Additionally, gas development affectsthe aesthetics of state forests outside of those Areas ofSpecial Consideration, which should be considered infuture monitoring efforts. The viewshed tool can beused to measure impacts, but it needs further refinementbefore it can be applied in a meaningful way. Each typeof infrastructure may affect the perception of the personviewing it differently, and each viewer is unique.While the Landscape Fragmentation Tool has provideda unique view of how the forested landscape is changingas a result of gas development, this analysis does havesome limitations. One major drawback is that thelandscape can only be divided into two major categories:forest and non-forest. This structure does not allow theevaluation of another important part of the landscape –timber management. While this drawback is significant,using the tool for this first analysis is not a significant218 Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, The Forest Landscapelimitation. Most construction and infrastructure put inplace between 2005 and 2012 is still relatively new, andvery little has had a chance to re-vegetate or convert backto early successional forest. Moving forward, the analysismay need to be adjusted to account for temporal changesas non-forest becomes early successional forest.Another limitation related to the temporal aspect of theanalysis is that the results only provide a snapshot ofhow the forested landscape has changed up to December2012. As gas development in already leased tractscontinues to progress, it is likely that these numberswill change. At this time, most changes are relativelysmall, but gas development in the state forests is still inits early stages.The analysis does provide valuable insight into theamount of forest acres being changed to non-forestor fragmented forest, and how much core forest acreageis being altered. However, to get a true picture of how gasdevelopment may be affecting forest landscapes,a thorough evaluation of forest fragmentation shouldtake place first at a landscape level, and also at anindividual species level. Due to the variation of wildlifeand plant responses to an increase in forest edge or aloss of habitat connectivity, species-specific studiesshould be initiated to more clearly evaluate how theselandscape-level changes are providing positive, as wellas negative, effects on species residing within the stateforests. These studies also could consider evaluating theeffects of habitat fragmentation due to gas developmentand due to timber harvesting for the same species orgroup of species.In addition to species-specific research, another meansto increase our understanding of this landscape-levelfragmentation data would be to group results by onlyone disturbance type, rather than combining all typesof infrastructure. Another approach may be to evaluatethe changes in forest habitat by the bureau’s forestcommunity classification forest types, rather than bystate forest district. This could target management andresearch onto forest stand types that are becoming morefragmented or that might be more uncommon in theseven districts subject to natural gas extraction.Restoration will continue to be an important activityto monitor across the core gas districts. Restoringgas infrastructure areas will reduce the impacts offragmentation as well as enhance and improvethe wild character of the forest. The bureau willmonitor restoration not only by site, but also in alandscape context.Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 2: Monitoring Values, The Forest Landscape 219Part 3: Partner Monitoring›› Susquehanna River Basin CommissionRemote Water Quality Monitoring NetworkIntroductionThe Susquehanna River Basin Commission (SRBC) is a federal, interstatecommission involving the states of Pennsylvania, New York, and Maryland, and thefederal government. The Susquehanna River Basin Compact was signed into law inthe late 1970s for the purpose of providing the mechanism to guide the conservation,development, and administration of water resources of the Susquehanna River basin.In response to increased levels of shale-gas development in the SusquehannaRiver basin, SRBC established its Remote Water Quality Monitoring Network(RWQMN) for real-time, continuous monitoring of field chemistry parameters.The RWQMN is composed of 59 monitoring stations throughout the area withinthe basin that is underlain by shale-gas resources. Each monitoring station isequipped with a water quality sonde, a data platform, a solar panel, and a datatransmission device. The water quality sonde continuously monitors the followingparameters: pH, temperature, specific conductance, dissolved oxygen, and turbidity.The RWQMN is intended to help SRBC and its stakeholders develop a baselinecharacterization of water quality in the shale-gas region and monitor for potentialchanges in water quality due to shale-gas development. The real-time nature ofthe data collection allows a timely response in the case of pollution events.Detailed information about the SRBC RWQMN and real-time data are availableat http://mdw.srbc.net/remotewaterquality/.220 Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 3: Partner MonitoringIn November 2009, SRBC announced it was seekingpartners with whom it could expand its RWQMN torivers and streams remotely located in the northerntier of Pennsylvania. Much of the area that was underconsideration by SRBC was coincident with large,contiguous areas of state forest land where shale-gasdrilling already was occurring or was expected to occur.In 2010, the bureau provided $280,000 from the Oiland Gas Lease Fund to SRBC to purchase monitoringequipment and for subsequent operation and maintenancecosts. This funding source allowed for the establishmentof 10 monitoring stations, and SRBC since has assumedthe operations and maintenance costs for future years.Site SelectionDuring the sonde site selection process, SRBCdetermined the most likely origin of negative impactsto surface waters would be the instantaneous release ofup to 5,000 gallons of flowback water resulting fromtrucking accidents on bridges. The agency conductedbench-scale testing using this scenario in order todevelop a degree of confidence in its ability to detecta spill or release in targeted watersheds. Using thisscenario and other criteria previously established forsonde placement, SRBC developed the following criteriato be used in selecting station locations:• A watershed size of about 30-60 square miles to ensurecontinuous year-round flow of water and to maximizespill detection capability• Non-impaired or minimally impaired water bodies• Sufficient flow in winter to prevent water from freezingso that equipment could remain in place year-round• Proximity to an existing U.S. Geological Surveygaging station• DEP drilling permit density in the area of interest• Well pad density per square mile, if known• Proximity to public water supply intakes fromsurface waters• All-season access to allow for the maintenance of eachsonde approximately every six to eight weeks• Openings in riparian tree cover to allow for good datatransmission using solar-powered panelsWhen selecting locations for the bureau-funded sondes,bureau staff added the following criteria to the siteselection process:• New leases that were expected to primarily targetshale gas for development• The ability to collect pre-development, baseline waterquality parameters to help better differentiate betweennormal ranges of variability in water quality (includingfrom salting in the winter or other stormwater runoff)and something unusual that would warrant furtherinvestigation at the drilling activity site• Private land shale-gas development adjacent to stateforest lands where a spill to the surface waters on thatprivate land could make its way onto state forest lands• Whether or not the watershed is classified by DEP asHQ or EV.Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 3: Partner Monitoring 221The two agencies ultimately agreed upon 10 sonde locations based on the criteria outlined on page 221, as well as on-fieldevaluation by SRBC. The sondes were installed between spring and fall of 2011. The sondes located on state forest lands arelisted in Table 17.1 and shown in Figure 17.1. Table 17.2 presents basic watershed characteristics of the bureau-funded sondes.Name ofWaterwayAdditionalLocationInformationForest DistrictDataCollectionStart DateState Forest Operatorsin WatershedBaker RunNear Glen UnionSproul9/19/11Numerous NCL andAnadarko tracts in thewatershedEast ForkSinnemahoningNear LogueSusquehannock5/25/11PGE Tract 154Grays RunNear GrayLoyalsock5/5/11Seneca Tract 100Hicks RunNear Hicks RunElk6/16/11Shale-gas developmenton private lands and stategame lands, adjacent tostate forest landsLittle Pine CreekNear WatervilleTiadaghton6/23/11Exxon/PGE and AnadarkoTracts 293, 322, 356, 357,and 729Marsh CreekIn Tioga County*Tioga6/9/11Seneca Tract 007Moose CreekNear PlymptonvilleMoshannon5/2/11EXCO Tract 323 andupstream of a publicwater supply reservoirNinemile RunNear WaltonSusquehannock5/25/11Part of Seneca Tract 001Pine CreekNear BlackwellTioga8/8/11Ultra Tracts 839 and 856Upper Pine CreekNear TelescopeSusquehannock5/25/11Part of Seneca Tract 001Table 17.1 SRBC RWQMN sonde stations funded by the bureau and located on state forest land.* This location is different from SRBC’s Marsh Creek near Blanchard, in Centre County.MethodologyThe sondes measure and record the followinginformation on a real-time basis:• Temperature• Specific conductance• pH• Turbidity• Dissolved oxygen concentration• Dissolved oxygen saturationRegular maintenance occurs at approximately six- toeight-week intervals at each station. The data sonde is222 Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 3: Partner Monitoringswitched for a newly calibrated sonde during each visit,and field chemistry parameters are measured with ahand-held meter for comparison with sonde data.SRBC uses two types of stations – cellular andsatellite – to transmit real-time data from the sondesback to the SRBC Harrisburg office. All of the bureausites, except for Moose Creek and Grays Run, usesatellite data transmission. Satellite stations recorddata at five-minute intervals, and the average of thosefive-minute readings is transmitted every four hours.Stations using cellular transmission collect and reportfive-minute interval data every two hours. Stations useFigure 17.1 Locations and watersheds of SRBC sondes funded by DCNR (First order streams have beenremoved for aesthetic reasons).solar panels as their energy source. In the winter whenthere is less sunlight, SRBC must sometimes reduce thedata transmission frequency to conserve battery power.During such periods, the number of measurementstaken is not reduced, but the frequency at which theyare transmitted to SRBC is reduced.Periodically, grab samples are taken at the sonde stationsfor laboratory analysis. Table 17.3 indicates parametersthat are analyzed at specified intervals.An annual benthic macroinvertebrate survey iscompleted at each sonde station. SRBC’s protocol forthe collection of macroinvertebrates follows samplingmethodology in DEP’s Benthic MacroinvertebrateIndex of Biotic Integrity for Wadeable FreestoneRiffle-Run Streams in Pennsylvania (DEP 2012).SRBC uses a 500-micron D-frame net and compositessix kicks in a 100-meter reach of stream in the bestpossible habitat (riffle/run). A random 200-countsubsample of macroinvertebrates is identified to genuslevel either in house by SRBC aquatic biologists or bya contracted taxonomist.Tolerance limits for expected ranges of values associatedwith most of the sonde-measured parameters (except fortemperature and dissolved oxygen saturation) have beenestablished by SRBC for all sondes (based on historicalsonde data). If values go outside the anticipated tolerancelimits, SRBC staff and bureau staff are automaticallyShale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 3: Partner Monitoring 223StationMonitoredDrainageArea(squaremiles)*DominantLand Use*PercentageofWatershedComprisedof StateForest LandAverageAnnualFlow atStation (cfs)*Natural GasDrillingPads(as trackedby SRBC)*PermittedDischarges(e.g.,wastewater,industrial)*BakerRun3599% Forested86%5890EastForkSinnem.3389% Forested,10% Grassland94%5120GraysRun16.295% Forested,5% Grassland34%30.480HicksRun3492% Forested,6% Grassland34%58.142LittlePineCreek18083% Forested,13%Agriculture13%251.22611MarshCreek7872% Forested,22%Agriculture34%110.43423MooseCreek3.395% Forested98%6.11015.785% Forested,7%Agriculture,7% Grassland73%22.66138580% Forested,11%Agriculture,8% Grassland36%545.8833418.675% Forested,17%Agriculture,8% Grassland28%26.100NinemileRunPineCreekUpperPineCreekTable 17.2 Basic watershed characteristics of sonde stations.notified via e-mail. SRBC staff then research theanomalous readings, which could be due to equipmentmalfunctions or natural fluctuations (e.g., storm eventscausing high turbidity), in addition to an actual pollutionevent. Table 17.4 displays the tolerance limits currentlyused for bureau-funded sondes.Evaluation of Selected Sonde LocationsThe bureau-funded sonde locations were selected in early224 Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 3: Partner Monitoringto mid-2010 based on information regarding existing orexpected shale-gas development at that time. Due to adrop in gas prices and increased knowledge as to whichareas of Pennsylvania are producing higher volumesof shale-gas and higher volumes of “wet” gas, somedrilling operators have since changed their plans fordevelopment. As a result, some of the selected sondesite locations are not currently expected to see the samelevel of development initially anticipated in 2010.Six Times/Year*Four Times/YearAcidity, HotAlkalinity, BicarbonateAlkalinityAlkalinity, CarbonateBariumBromideChlorideCalciumpHCarbon DioxideSpecific ConductanceGross AlphaSulfateGross BetaTotal Dissolved SolidsLithiumTotal Organic CarbonMagnesiumNitratePotassiumSodiumStrontiumTable 17.3 Analysis parameters and frequency for grabsamples at sonde stations.* Beginning in 2013, SRBC moved to four times/year forall parameters.This does not mean that thedata being collected from thoselocations are not valuable.Stations located in areas wheredevelopment has been or willbe curtailed will be able tocollect more baseline data priorto development, or they mayserve more as “control sites”for comparison to those areasexperiencing a higher level ofdevelopment.The following section is a reviewof sonde locations based oncurrent and expected shale-gasdevelopment. It should be notedthat operators on state forestland in these watersheds would not necessarily be solelyresponsible for impacts observed at the sonde locations.The watersheds that drain to the sondes include both stateforest land and private land where other companies maybe operating or where other land use may contribute toimpacts observed at the sonde location.Baker Run – This location in Clinton County wasoriginally suggested by SRBC and agreed to by thebureau. The watershed represented by this sonde includesnumerous tracts on which historical, conventional (i.e.,shallow gas) wells are being operated by NCL and severaltracts (343, 344, 653, 678) that have more recent shale gasdevelopment by Anadarko Exploration and Petroleum.East Fork Sinnemahoning Creek – This location wasintended to monitor for drilling development within Tract154, under lease to PGE in central Potter County. PGE isworking under a 1930s lease which the bureau assumedwhen the land was purchased by the commonwealth;therefore, that lease has fewer constraints on it comparedto those issued by the bureau. The surface managementof the tract does fall under a “coordination agreement”SpecificConductivity(µmho/cm)1DissolvedOxygen(mg/l)2pH3Turbidity(NTU)1Baker Run5095.7-6.725East ForkSinnemahoning8086.0-7.525Grays Run5086.0-7.025Hicks Run8086.2-7.550Little Pine Creek14086.5-7.550Marsh Creek22066.7-7.8100Moose Creek11085.5-6.725Ninemile Run11096.2-7.625Pine Creek14096.7-8.0100Upper Pine Creek10096.7-7.825Sondes on StateForest LandsTable 17.4 Tolerance limits that trigger email notification for sondes.Notice sent for concentrations higher than tolerance limitNotice sent for concentrations lower than tolerance limit3Notice sent for values outside of tolerance range12Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 3: Partner Monitoring 225that was negotiated between the bureau and PGE, but stilldoes not include all of the bureau’s typical lease language.There are currently four producing Marcellus wells andnumerous conventional (i.e., shallow gas) wells producingwithin this tract, but PGE has decided to curtailMarcellus development in this area for the near future.Grays Run – This location was chosen to monitorpotential effects related to the development of SenecaTract 100, which was leased in late 2008.Hicks Run – This sonde site was chosen due to expectedgas development on private lands where influences onsurface water may impact waters within state forestlands. In 2011, DEP issued a total of 20 permits to JWOperating and to EQT for their operations in the vicinityof the watershed monitored by the Hicks Run sonde,and three wells were spud in this area in 2011. EQT isdeveloping the shale gas on State Game Lands Number14 in southern Cameron County, immediately north of226 Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 3: Partner Monitoringand adjacent to Elk State Forest lands. At least two padsand six wells are planned for development on State GameLands 14. JW Operating is developing private lands in alarge block between Rt. 120/Bucktail Natural Area andState Game Lands Number 14. Impacts from some ofthese operations could potentially influence the HicksRun Watershed.Little Pine Creek – The location of this sonde is at theconfluence of Little Pine Creek and Pine Creek, near thetown of Waterville in Lycoming County. It was selectedbased on its proximity to Tracts 356 and 357 (leased toAnadarko in 2008) and Tracts 293, 322, and 729 (leasedto ExxonMobil in 2008). Tracts 293, 356, and 729 arebeing developed for both the Marcellus and Burket/Geneseo shales.Marsh Creek in Tioga County – This location wasselected for its downstream proximity to Seneca Tract007, leased in January 2010.Moose Creek – This location was selected due toits potential to monitor downstream effects fromdevelopment on Tract 323, leased in January 2010 toEXCO Resources. EXCO has completed constructionof one well pad. EXCO scaled back development on thistract for the near future; however, the sonde locationremains important because it is located upstream fromthe Moose Creek reservoir, which provides public waterto the Clearfield Municipal Authority. In January 2010,the authority placed a new filtration plant into operationat the reservoir. The sonde might also serve as an earlywarning system for the safety of the reservoir water,which could potentially be impacted by contaminantsreleased during large-scale vehicular accidents on anearby stretch of I-80 that bisects Tract 323.Pine Creek – This sonde location in Tioga County wastargeted for its proximity to Ultra Resources Tracts839, 856, and 990. Ultra built one pad on each of thesetracts and drilled several wells on Tract 839, which arecurrently producing gas. However, Ultra has curtailedadditional development in this area.Upper Pine Creek and Ninemile Run – These twostream reaches were chosen based on their proximity toexpected development on Seneca Tract 001, which wasleased in January 2010. This tract is located in PotterCounty, east of Coudersport and along Route 6. Sixteenwells have been permitted on the tract, and four havebeen spud.Data AnalysisSRBC prepared a RWQMN Data Report of BaselineConditions for 2010/2011 (SRBC Publication No. 280),available at http://mdw.srbc.net/remotewaterquality/reports.htm. Although the report does not includeanalysis of the bureau-funded sonde stations, it providesa thorough presentation of the RWQMN and analysis ofthe initial 37 stations installed by SRBC. SRBC plans toproduce a follow-up report in 2014.The real-time sonde data provided on the SRBC webpageare provisional in nature, in that these data have not beenreviewed or undergone quality assurance measures.Periodically, SRBC prepares a corrected version ofthe data that takes into account quality assuranceprotocols and equipment malfunction. For the purposesof this report, only the corrected data through June 30,2012, have been analyzed and will be presented. Forconsistency, the supplemental data, such as lab analysesand benthic macroinvertebrate data, are presentedthrough June 30, 2012, as well.A large portion of the data for Pine Creek has been ratedas suspect by SRBC due to sonde malfunctions or otherissues with data quality control. For this reason, statisticsregarding the Pine Creek data have a limited degreeof confidence. Results shown for Pine Creek should beconsidered qualitative or approximate.The analysis of data acquired thus far through theRWQMN is considered a characterization of baselineconditions. The first year of data, and potentially the firstseveral years, will serve as a reference for comparisonwith future data. More data acquisition and analysiswill be necessary before potential effects of shale-gasdevelopment can be identified.Sonde and Grab Sampling DataIn general, the sonde data indicate that the 10 sondes arelocated on good quality streams having moderate pH,high dissolved oxygen, low turbidity, and low specificconductance. This is to be expected for these watershedsthat drain predominantly forested land. Because turbidityand specific conductance are the parameters most likelyto be affected by shale-gas development, they are thefocus of data analysis; however, pH and dissolved oxygenare also presented below to describe these fundamentalstream characteristics.Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 3: Partner Monitoring 227As shown in Figure 17.2, median pH values for thestreams were between 6.3 and 7.3. The stations withinthe Pine Creek HUC-8 were neutral to slightly basic,with median pH from 7.0 to 7.3. The remaining stations,with median pH from 6.3 to 6.9, can be characterized asnaturally acidic with low buffering capacity. There are noknown abandoned mine issues or atmospheric depositionimpairments on the acidic streams. The low bufferingcapacity is indicated by low alkalinity levels from grabsamples in these streams, which means that even smallintroductions of acidic waters could cause a significantdrop in pH in these streams.Forested watersheds also typically have very lowturbidity because the tree canopy and root systemsminimize erosion. The sonde data demonstrate as much,with all but two stations having median turbidity levelsbelow 2.0 NTU. The exceptions, with somewhat higherturbidity, were Marsh Creek and Pine Creek, with medianturbidity of 6.7 NTU and 26.2 NTU, respectively. Thesetwo streams have the most permitted discharges and alsomore agriculture in their watersheds than most of theother streams. These anthropogenic sources could be thecause of the higher turbidity levels observed. Turbiditydata for the sondes are summarized in Table 17.5.Median dissolved oxygen levels were 10.6 to 12.1 mg/L,with median dissolved oxygen percent saturation above93 percent for all sondes. This is indicative of welloxygenated, cool waters typical of forested watersheds.Figure 17.3 shows monthly median dissolved oxygenconcentrations for three different-sized watersheds,illustrating the trend of higher dissolved oxygen duringcooler months.Turbidity is closely linked to precipitation and flow data,as erosion in watersheds is typically associated withrain and flood events. Higher turbidity is associatedwith higher precipitation and higher flow. For several ofthe sonde stations, a comparison can be made betweendaily average flow from a nearby USGS flow stationand turbidity data from the sonde, such as that shownpH  -­‐  Median  8  7.5  pH  7  6.5  6  5.5  5  Figure 17.2 Median pH data from SRBC sondes from date of installation through June 30, 2012.228 Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 3: Partner MonitoringMonthly  Median  Dissolved  Oxygen  16  14  Dissolved  Oxygen  (mg/L)  12  10  8  Li9le  Pine  EF  Sinn.  Upper  Pine  6  4  2  0  May-­‐11  Jul-­‐11  Sep-­‐11  Nov-­‐11  Jan-­‐12  Mar-­‐12  May-­‐12  Figure 17.3 Monthly median dissolved oxygen readings for three SRBC sondes from dateof installation through June 2012.MedianMeanStandardDeviationMinimum*MaximumBaker Run0.712.182.1-1.11117.9East ForkSinnemahoning1.22.07.9-0.6188.9Grays Run0.02.127.8-3.31373.5Hicks Run1.32.39.5-4.5213.4Little Pine Creek1.314.083.3-2.01021.1Marsh Creek6.715.733.2-1.5353.5Moose Creek0.71.721.3-3.91167.0Ninemile Run1.22.16.4-4.3107.5Pine Creek26.2151.0276.0-1.91254.3Upper Pine Creek1.33.712.4-4.2291.8Sonde StationTable 17.5 Summary of turbidity data from sondes. All units are NTU.*Due to the nature of the electronic signal received from the turbidity probe, sondes maysometimes read a slightly negative turbidity value. In essence, this indicates a turbidityvalue of zero.Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 3: Partner Monitoring 229in Figure 17.4 for East Fork Sinnemahoning. This figureshows that high-flow events are associated with elevatedturbidity levels. The imperfect relationship betweenturbidity and flow is due to variation in precipitationintensity, timing, and geographic distribution withinthe watershed.SRBC and the bureau plan additional research intothe relationship between flow or precipitation dataand turbidity data at sonde stations. One focus of thisresearch will be spikes in turbidity without accompanyingspikes in flow or precipitation. Such an event couldsignify a release of sediment-laden water, such as thatwhich occurs in an inadvertent return during horizontaldirection drilling (HDD) for pipeline construction.While performing an HDD beneath a stream, operatorsuse drilling mud (typically bentonite) at very highpressures within the drilling hole. If this high-pressuremud escapes the drilling hole, a plume of mud can enternearby streams. This would produce a spike in turbiditywithout a significant increase in flow. It should be noted,however, that there are numerous other explanations foran increase in turbidity without a corresponding increasein flow. For example, turbidity could be elevated due toan angler or hiker crossing upstream of a sonde. Still,monitoring for inadvertent returns and other erosionevents is one of the applications of the sonde data.Additional turbidity data analyses will be covered infuture editions of this report.Specific conductance data for the sondes aresummarized in Table 17.6, and median values are shownin Figure 17.5. Median and mean specific conductancefor all sondes was below 0.150 mS/cm. These averageswere relatively low compared to other RWQMN stationsthroughout the Susquehanna River basin.East  Fork  Sinnemahoning  -­‐  Turbidity  and  Flow  100  400  90  350  80  300  Flow  (cfs)  250  60  200  50  40  150  Turbidity  (NTU)  70  Flow  Turbidity  30  100  20  50  10  0  0  8/29/12  7/10/12  5/21/12  4/1/12  2/11/12  12/23/11  11/3/11  9/14/11  7/26/11  6/6/11  4/17/11  Note:  Turbidity  scale  is  truncated  at  100  NTU  because  peaks  below  10  NTU  are  more  visible  at  this  scale.    Actuall  maximum  is  189  NTU.  Figure 17.4 Turbidity data from sonde and flow data from nearby USGS gauge for East Fork Sinnemahoning.230 Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 3: Partner MonitoringMedianMeanStandardDeviationMinimumMaximumBaker Run0.0240.0240.0030.0180.032Grays Run0.0300.0300.0030.0210.050Sonde StationTable 17.6a Summary of specific conductance data from sondes in Group 1. All units are mS/cm.MedianMeanStandardDeviationMinimumMaximumEast ForkSinnemahoning0.0420.0460.0100.0310.073Hicks Run0.0460.0510.0150.0210.124Ninemile Run0.0530.0560.0130.0350.102Upper Pine Creek0.0650.0700.0200.0120.114Sonde StationTable 17.6b Summary of specific conductance data from sondes in Group 2. All units are mS/cm.Sonde StationMedianMeanStandardDeviationMinimumMaximumLittle Pine Creek0.0910.1100.0500.0570.246Marsh Creek0.1310.1410.0450.0710.327Moose Creek0.1020.1241.0170.017154Pine Creek0.0730.0820.0260.0470.180Table 17.6c Summary of specific conductance data from sondes in Group 3. All units are mS/cm.This is largely due to the underlying geology andminimal anthropogenic influences on the streams.The sondes can be divided into three groups basedon specific conductance results:• Group 1: Sondes with low specific conductance andshowing little variation (Baker Run and Grays Run)• Group 2: Sondes with low specific conductance andshowing little variation but with a marked seasonalshift (East Fork Sinnemahoning, Hicks Run, NinemileRun, Upper Pine Creek)• Group 3: Sondes with low to moderate specificconductance results and greater variation (Little PineCreek, Marsh Creek, Moose Creek, and Pine Creek)Monthly median results for these three groups are shownin Figures 17.6, 17.7, and 17.8, respectively. The specificconductance of the first group, containing Baker Run andGrays Run, did not exceed 0.050 mS/cm for the entireperiod of record. As seen in Figure 17.6, these stationsexhibit very little variation from month to month, with astandard deviation of just 0.003 mS/cm. Data from thesesondes suggest there are no significant influences fromanthropogenic sources.Sondes within the second group (East Fork Sinnemahoning, Hicks Run, Ninemile Run, Upper Pine Creek) alsoexhibit little variability, with standard deviations in thisgroup ranging from 0.010 to 0.020 mS/cm.Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 3: Partner Monitoring 231Specifc  Conductance  -­‐  Median  0.2  0.18  0.16  Specific  Conductance  (mS/cm)  0.14  0.12  0.1  0.08  0.06  0.04  0.02  0  Figure 17.5 Median specific conductance of SRBC sondes from date of installation through June 30, 2012.Monthly  Median  Specific  Conductance  0.5  Specific  Conductance  (mS/cm)  0.4  0.3  Baker  Run  0.2  Grays  Run  0.1  0  May-­‐11  Jul-­‐11  Sep-­‐11  Nov-­‐11  Jan-­‐12  Mar-­‐12  May-­‐12  Figure 17.6 Monthly median specific conductance data for SRBC sondes that have low specificconductance with little monthly variability (i.e., Group 1).232 Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 3: Partner MonitoringHowever, Figure 17.7 shows a noticeable drop in specificconductance between September and October 2011,preceded by a gradual increase in specific conductancefrom May to September. This trend follows the generalflow level in the streams. From May to September, duringthe summer, precipitation events are less common. Thismeans that the water contributing to the baseflow in thestreams is primarily groundwater, which has a higherspecific conductance than rainwater; thus, the specificconductance in the streams increases during drier periods. A large flood in late September flushed the systemswith rainwater, yielding lower specific conductancein October. Specific conductance stayed low in thecooler fall and winter months, when evapotranspirationwas low and precipitation events more common. ForNinemile Run and Upper Pine Creek, Figure 17.7 showsspecific conductance beginning to rise again by June2012. It is important to recognize these natural, seasonalincreases in specific conductance so that they are notattributed to anthropogenic effects.The sonde data for Hicks Run, Ninemile Run, and UpperPine Creek show some minor spikes of elevated specificconductance, with values increasing by approximately50 percent over a short period of time. These spikesappear to be related to high-flow events as they areassociated with elevated turbidity levels; however, noflow data are available near these stations for directcomparison. The bureau is investigating precipitationdata from nearby atmospheric stations, but comparisonswith sonde data will be challenging given that noatmospheric stations exist within the watersheds of thesestreams. Given the link between specific conductanceand turbidity for the observed spikes, they are mostlikely due to an anthropogenic source of runoff, such asagriculture or roads. The bureau will continue to trackand investigate these events and will report further onthem in future editions of this report.Sondes in the third group (Little Pine Creek, MarshCreek, Moose Creek, and Pine Creek) have relativelyMonthly  Median  Specific  Conductance  0.5  Specific  Conductance  (mS/cm)  0.4  0.3  E.  F.  Sinnemahoning  Hicks  Run  0.2  Ninemile  Run  Upper  Pine  0.1  0  May-­‐11  Jul-­‐11  Sep-­‐11  Nov-­‐11  Jan-­‐12  Mar-­‐12  May-­‐12  Figure 17.7 Monthly median specific conductance data for SRBC sondes that have low specificconductance and show seasonal variability (i.e., Group 2).Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 3: Partner Monitoring 233Monthly  Median  Specific  Conductance  0.5  Specific  Conductance  (mS/cm)  0.4  0.3  Li:le  Pine  Marsh  Creek  0.2  Moose  Creek  Pine  Creek  0.1  0  May-­‐11  Jul-­‐11  Sep-­‐11  Nov-­‐11  Jan-­‐12  Mar-­‐12  May-­‐12  Figure 17.8 Monthly median specific conductance data for SRBC sondes that have moderate specificconductance and show greater variability (i.e., Group 3).higher median specific conductance with greatervariability. While Figure 17.8 expresses this variability,it also shows the same seasonal shift noted above.Except for Moose Creek, this group includes the largestthree watersheds monitored through bureau funding,and Pine Creek is the largest watershed in the entireRWQMN. With these larger watersheds, there is agreater diversity in land use, more road crossings, andan increased number of permitted discharges (see Table17.2). These various anthropogenic sources could lead tothe higher and more variable specific conductance resultsobserved by the sondes on Pine Creek, Little Pine Creek,and Marsh Creek. On the other side of the spectrum,Moose Creek is the smallest watershed in the RWQMN.Although the Moose Creek watershed has no permitteddischarges and is 95 percent forested, the Interstate 80corridor runs through the watershed. This major featureappears to have a significant effect on the chemistry ofMoose Creek.234 Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 3: Partner MonitoringThe sonde data for the third group show a number ofsudden increases or decreases in specific conductance,with values increasing or decreasing by up to 200percent over a short period of time. As described forsondes in the second group, these changes in specificconductance seem to largely correspond with changesin turbidity or flow. For example, specific conductancewill drop abruptly following a major flow event and thenrise gradually until the next event. Figure 17.9 showsthis pattern with specific conductance from the LittlePine Creek sonde and flow data from the nearby USGSstation on Pine Creek (to which Little Pine Creek is atributary). As with the seasonal trend described above,this pattern between flow events is due to the low specificconductance of rainwater relative to the groundwater thatsustains flow between rain events.Li9le  Pine  Specific  Conductance  and  Pine  Creek  Flow  1  12000  0.9  10000  0.7  8000  0.6  0.5  6000  Flow  (cfs)  Specific  Conductance  (mS/cm)  0.8  0.4  4000  0.3  Specific  Conductance  Pine  Creek  Flow  0.2  2000  0.1  0  0  3/22/12  12:00  AM  2/21/12  12:00  AM  1/22/12  12:00  AM  12/23/11  12:00  AM  11/23/11  12:00  AM  10/24/11  12:00  AM  9/24/11  12:00  AM  8/25/11  12:00  AM  Figure 17.9 Specific conductance data from Little Pine Creek sonde and flow data from nearbyPine Creek USGS gauge.Due to numerous potential pollution sources within theGroup 3 watersheds (e.g., gas development, municipalwastewater, road runoff, agricultural runoff), it isdifficult to discern which might be the source of increasesin specific conductance. Chloride appears to be partiallyresponsible. Average chloride concentration from grabsamples was 7.0 mg/L for the Group 3 sonde stations and1.2 mg/L for the other sonde stations. Although chlorideis found in flowback water from shale-gas development,it is also found in road de-icing salts, inorganic fertilizers,septic tank effluents, and industrial effluents. Withonly one year of data, it is too soon to make definitiveconclusions and still not possible to detect any long-termtrends in chloride or specific conductance results.The bureau will continue to investigate the specificconductance readings at these sonde stations and willreport further on them in future editions of this report.As shown in Table 17.7, SRBC analyzed grab samplesfrom the sonde stations for a number of chemicals.Although it is too early in the sampling program to assesstrends in this chemistry data, the data do provide a goodbaseline reference. In the case of a known pollution eventin the vicinity of the sonde stations, the data also willbe valuable for comparison to samples taken as part ofthe remedial investigation. Descriptive statistics for theanalytical results are provided in Table 17.7.Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 3: Partner Monitoring 235FrequencyMedian*Mean*StandardDeviation*MinimumMaximum677.036.980.465.137.950.0480.0590.0620.0340.0220.175Total Dissolved Solids (mg/L)4834412315124Alkalinity (mg/L)5781011<145Aluminum (mg/L)320.000.040.06<0.050.20Barium (mg/L)480.0200.0220.008<0.0110.040Bromide (mg/L)350.0000.0010.004<0.0100.010Calcium (mg/L)385.26.13.71.915.3Chloride (mg/L)482.83.85.8<2.025.5Gross Alpha (pCi/L)350.000.260.43<1.301.42Gross Beta (pCi/L)330.000.490.97<1.804.21Lithium (mg/L)380.000.000.00<0.05<0.05Magnesium (mg/L)381.501.601.050.676.60Nitrate(mg/L)380.260.270.22<0.200.78Organic carbon (mg/L)481.11.00.9<1.03.8Phosphorus (mg/L)220.0100.0170.017<0.0100.080Potassium (mg/L)380.770.790.45<0.562.90Sodium (mg/L)382.103.003.14<0.5613.00Strontium (mg/L)380.0200.0210.0130.0100.050Sulfate (mg/L)487.79.47.35.350.4AnalysispHSpecific Conductance (mS/cm)Table 17.7 Descriptive statistics for analytical results from grab sampling at sonde stations.Statistics calculated across all results at all stations.* For calculation of these statistics, results below detection limit were considered zero.Benthic Macroinvertebrate DataBenthic macroinvertebrate data were analyzed basedon DEP’s Benthic Macroinvertebrate Index of BioticIntegrity for Wadeable Freestone Riffle-Run Streamsin Pennsylvania (DEP 2012), the basics of which areoverviewed below. DEP uses a multi-metric index ofbiotic integrity (IBI) to assess benthic macroinvertebratedata. This process is overviewed below, but detailedinformation is available in DEP 2012.Based on the benthic macroinvertebrate identificationresults, a series of six biological metrics, such as taxa236 Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 3: Partner Monitoringrichness, were calculated (see Table 17.8). The metricswere then standardized by relating them mathematicallyto data that DEP collected from reference streamsthroughout the state. This resulted in a score between0 and 1 for each metric, with 0 indicative of a poorerquality benthic macroinvertebrate community and 1indicative of a better quality community. The scores foreach metric were then averaged and multiplied by 100,yielding a single IBI value between 0 and 100. Table17.8b presents the 2011 and 2012 metric and IBI resultsfor the sonde stations.DateSampledTotalTaxaRichnessEPT TaxRichnessBeck’sIndexHilsenhoffBioticIndexShannonDiversityIndexBaker Run7/26/114426433.353.1946.789.5East ForkSinnemahoning5/25/112721291.992.6172.889.0Grays Run5/5/113622322.363.0069.593.5Hicks Run6/16/113222373.452.7145.387.3Little PineCreek6/23/112716143.391.8071.584.8Marsh Creek6/9/112314223.292.2343.969.0Moose Creek5/2/112315242.282.7471.381.2Ninemile Run5/4/114028382.682.6067.493.5Pine Creek6/9/112820233.182.8257.095.4Upper PineCreek5/4/114032422.653.2764.296.2Sonde StationPercentSensitiveIBIIndividuals ScoreTable 17.8a Benthic macroinvertebrate data from sonde stations for 2011.EPT = Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera IBI = Index of Biological IntegrityDateSampledTotalTaxaRichnessEPT TaxRichnessBeck’sIndexHilsenhoffBioticIndexShannonDiversityIndexBaker Run10/1/123118332.792.7557.188.0East ForkFirst ForkSinnemahoning10/16/123222392.792.8570.094.7Grays Run10/4/123022382.482.7069.093.3Hicks Run10/16/123520343.022.8967.192.5Little PineCreek10/16/12201093.682.1060.470.5Marsh Creek,Tioga County10/17/1223663.581.9951.463.0Moose Creek10/1/122711272.162.6571.280.7Ninemile Run10/17/122817312.672.7970.187.8Pine Creek10/17/1218864.361.8837.156.3Upper PineCreek10/2/123222352.982.6963.190.7Sonde StationPercentSensitiveIBIIndividuals ScoreTable 17.8b Benthic macroinvertebrate data from sonde stations for 2012.EPT = Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera IBI = Index of Biological IntegrityShale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 3: Partner Monitoring 237In general, these results indicate that all of the sondestations are located on streams with good quality benthicmacroinvertebrate communities. An IBI score of 80 orhigher can be used to help qualify a stream for specialprotection designation of HQ or EV. One notable result isthe change in IBI score at the Pine Creek location, fromJune 2011 (95.4) to October 2012 (56.3). In addition to theSRBC results shown in the tables above, DEP sampledmacroinvertebrates at this location twice previously inSeptember 2009 and December 2009, scoring a 75.8 and238 Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 3: Partner Monitoring60.3, respectively. Hence, the IBI outlier is most likelythe June 2011 score. There can be natural variation inIBI scores based on seasonality in streams like PineCreek, which is the likely case here, and is not a result ofwater quality degradation. The continuous water qualitymonitoring sonde at this site detected no anomalies in theperiod preceding biological sampling in October 2012.As additional IBI results are compiled in future years,possible shifts in the communities can be examined.Future WorkThe bureau’s partnership with SRBC on theRWQMN and associated water monitoringcontinues to develop. In 2012, the bureau providedfunding for two additional sondes to be addedto the network. One sonde was placed alongPleasant Stream in the Loyalsock State Forestto provide baseline data and monitor potentialfuture development. The other sonde was placedon Young Woman’s Creek in Sproul State Forest.This station will serve as a reference stream, as nogas development is anticipated in its watershed.SRBC also is performing biological assessments(fish, macroinvertebrates) within these watershedsas well as within several of the watershedsthat already contain sondes. These biologicalassessments are intended to provide more detailedbaseline information and examine potential effectsof specific gas development activities. Additionalinformation on the new sondes and on thebiological assessments will be provided in futureeditions of this report.In addition, SRBC has made efforts to enhanceexisting stations. Three of the sonde stationsthat were originally funded by the bureau havereceived upgrades. The stations on Grays Run,Baker Run, and Upper Pine Creek each havebeen outfitted with a vented pressure transducer.The pressure transducer system provides for anaccurate reading of water depth to be made bythe sonde. Water depth can be used as a surrogatefor flow rate, permitting a comparison betweensonde chemistry data and a hydrologic parameter.Additionally, SRBC plans to install precipitationgauges at Upper Pine Creek and Baker Run,providing a mechanism to track rainfall events thatwould affect water chemistry and depth.Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 3: Partner Monitoring 239Part 3: Partner Monitoring›› Forest CertificationFSC CertificationPennsylvania state forests are certified (FSC® C017154)under Forest Stewardship Council™ standards. The FSC®is an independent organization supporting environmentallyappropriate, socially beneficial, and economically viablemanagement of the world’s forests.Timber harvested from Pennsylvania’s state forests are FSCcertified to ensure that the chain of custody from the forestland to the mill can becontinued and that products are coming from forests managed in an environmentallyresponsible manner.AuditsThird-party audits are conducted annually to ensure that state forests are managed incompliance with FSC® standards. Every five years, a comprehensive re-certificationaudit is conducted, followed by four annual surveillance audits. Results of theseaudits are included in reports to reflect the focus of the audit and to outline any areasfor needed improvement. In 2010, an audit with an intensified focus on shale-gasactivities was conducted; the corresponding report for that audit is dated 2011.This report and others are available for public review at http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/forestry/stateforestmanagement/Certification/index.htm. In 2013, the bureau240 Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 3: Partner Monitoringunderwent a comprehensive 5-year re-certification andwas issued a new certificate with no major correctiveaction requests issued. This most recent audit report isalso available on the website.Observations and CorrectiveAction RequestsFor areas where the bureau might fall short of auditorexpectations in meeting the standard, a Corrective ActionRequest (CAR) may be given. If a CAR is given, thebureau must make changes to bring its management orprocesses in line with the standard. Each audit reportincludes a “conformance with applicable nonconformityreport” section, which includes the activities undertakento address each applicable CAR. For areas whereimprovement could be made but is not directly anonconformance with the standard, an observation(OBS) is given.Since 2008 there have been four corrective actionrequests and six observations made related to the recentshale-gas activity and management. A summary of thosefindings by the auditors is listed here:CAR 01/08 — 2009 ReportSome, but not all districts notify gas lessees whendevelopment activity is planned around lease interests(pad sites, pipelines) or when activities impact thelessee’s rights.CAR 04/10 — 2010 ReportThe bureau converts some areas to non-forest use bydeveloping gas wells where it owns the mineral and gasrights. Approximate 324 acres have been converted byPA DCNR over the past 5-½ years. This constitutes a“very limited portion” of the 2.14 million-acre ForestManagement Unit (FMU). However, as of 2009,the bureau has designated the entire forest as HighConservation Value Forest (HCVF). Thus, technically,the gas well conversions are occurring in HCVF. DCNRhas taken a conservative approach to designating HCVFand likely has placed more acres in HCVF than theminimum that would be required by the standard andunder emerging guidance (the draft FSC-U.S. HCVFAssessment Framework). Because conversions are onlyoccurring in multiple use areas and do not appear to bethreatening the HCVs of these areas at current rates ofconversion, the risk of adverse impacts is considered tobe low and thus a minor, not a major, CAR is warranted.CAR 04/11 — 2011 ReportDCNR’s 2008 and later Marcellus gas leasing providesthe option for invasive plant species to be monitoredprior to approval for site development in order to collectbaseline data. If invasive plants are identified aftersite development, they must be controlled prior to sitedisturbance. Leases from 2008 to the present requirethat the lease holder monitor invasive species for fiveyears following construction, or until invasive speciesare not observed on site, whichever is longer, and newoccurrences of invasive plants must be controlled (forexample, see FY 2009-10 Gas Lease Sale EnvironmentalReview, Section 20). However, the bureau does not havesimilar invasive plant monitoring for pre-2008 leases andhas even less control over lands with severed subsurfacerights that do not have a recent negotiated land useagreement. While the bureau is planning an expandedmonitoring program for gas activities, the details havenot been specified and the funding has not been secured.CAR 06/11 — 2011 ReportMonitoring data from oil and gas development impacts tothe surrounding forest has been collected by the bureaufor decades, with increased monitoring efforts overthe last few years associated with the expansion of gasleasing. Some monitoring information is available on thewebsite; however, the bureau has not fully reported norsummarized for the public all of these oil and gas data.OBS 06/10 — 2010 ReportAt the current rate of conversion, the lease incomegained from gas well development is beneficial to thebureau budget and thus is securing long-term benefitsacross the FMU, especially considering the overall stateShale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 3: Partner Monitoring 241budget crisis. However, there is political pressure tosignificantly increase the number of wells, which at somepoint could result in adverse impacts of gas development.These adverse impacts could outweigh benefits such thatlong-term benefits could not be demonstrated.OBS 05/11 — 2011 ReportWhile the audit team is confident that the total amountof conversion is well below the FSC-U.S. definition ofvery limited amount, the following areas of concern werenoted in the conversion estimates supplied by the bureau:1. Marcellus conversion estimates reported by the bureauare based on average well pad size.2. In reviewing the data, it was not clear how accuratelyconversion due to roads and pipelines was accountedfor in the conversion estimates, which were based onan average figure per well pad.The bureau reports that conversion from older leasesand other sources are minimal, but it does not haveaccurate records.OBS 06/11 — 2011 ReportGas and oil development is occurring on forestlandwhere the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania owns thesubsurface rights (the areas leased as mentioned above)and also on forestland where the commonwealth doesnot own the subsurface rights. For the areas subject toleases (where the subsurface rights are owned by thecommonwealth), PA DCNR has substantial control overactivities to ensure conformance with FSC standards andrequirements.For lands where the Commonwealth does not own thesubsurface rights, it is not clear, in all situations, whetherPA DCNR has enough control over activities to ensureconformance with FSC standards and requirements.PA DCNR needs to evaluate the certified landbase anddetermine in which situations it maintains enough controlto ensure conformance with the FSC standards. For242 Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 3: Partner Monitoringsevered lands where they cannot ensure conformance,these lands will need to be excised. (Note: The entireleased area does not need to be excised. Only the areasthat are directly impacted by oil and gas activities — i.e.,converted to non-forest use — need to be excised.) PADCNR needs to provide SmartWood with the protocolused in making this determination and the results ofthis evaluation.OBS 07/11 — 2011 ReportWhile the Bureau of Forestry has documentation thataddresses issues related to oil and gas leasing, sectionsin the State Forest Resource Management Plan arebrief and do not reflect the current level of gas leasingactivity. Key supplemental documents are relatively new,in draft form, and/or in development and not presentlylinked to the SFRMP.OBS 08/11 — 2011 ReportRapid expansion in gas development and new monitoringprograms will produce monitoring reports in subsequentyears; the bureau does not have monitoring reports todate on oil and gas activities. While the audit team didreview data on current oil and gas program managementand field inspection forms, full reports on the spectrum ofoil and gas monitoring are not currently available.OBS 09/11 — 2011 ReportOnce an oil and gas project is under construction,the bureau relies in part on the Department ofEnvironmental Protection for site-specific monitoringof direct impacts from drilling operations (e.g., roadsediment, spills, leaks, etc.). DEP monitoring personnelreport being understaffed, and they do not have the timeto visit all phases of each operation and cannot respondto all spills. Because DEP does not have the resourcesto visit all sites frequently, DEP relies on self-reportingfrom the gas companies. Thus, there are potential gapsin the monitoring of gas drilling and associated road andpipeline construction.Forest ConversionForest conversion is defined by FSC as modificationsto the structure and dynamics of a forest as a resultof management activities, resulting in a significantreduction in the complexity of the forest system; or thetransformation of a forest into a permanently non-forestedarea; or the transformation of a natural forest into aplantation. Specifically, an area cleared for gas activitywould be considered conversion since it is not considereda forest use. Conversely, an area cleared for a trailheadparking lot or log landing is considered a forest use and istherefore not considered conversion.Principal 6, Criteria 10 of the U.S. Forest ManagementStandard states that forest conversion to plantationor non-forest land uses shall not occur, except incircumstances where conversion: (a) entails a very limitedportion of the forest management unit (<2 percent over afive-year rolling period); and (b) does not occur on highconservation value forest areas; and (c) will enable clear,substantial, additional, secure, long-term conservationbenefits across the forest management unit.One hundred and sixty-one total miles of road havebeen improved or constructed for shale-gas developmentin the core gas districts. Of these, 131 miles ofstate forest roads that existed prior to the shale-gasdevelopment have been improved or upgraded for gasdevelopment activities, and 30 miles of new roads havebeen constructed for gas development activities. Onehundred and ninety-one infrastructure pads have beenconstructed to facilitate shale-gas development in thecore gas districts. This involved the conversion of 786acres of forest. Eight hundred and forty-three miles ofpipeline corridor exist in the core gas districts. A total ofapproximately 1,486 acres of forest have been convertedto facilitate gas development.Timber Sold Due toConversion PracticesTimber that is sold due to conversion practices (rightsof way, well pads) is not sold as FSC certified sinceconversion is not in line with the FSC U.S. managementstandard. The Timber section of this report includes afigure on revenue related to timber sold as a result of gasinfrastructure construction.Excision PolicyIn March 2004, the FSC finalized a policy that soughtto address impacts to certified forestlands which werebeyond the control of the forest managers. FSC realizedthat some legally permissible activities occurringon certified forestlands, such as the developmentof subsurface resources, were inconsistent withthe requirements for certification. These activitiesgenerally affect a portion of the larger certifiedforest management area. Thus, FSC was left with adifficult decision to make: remove or “excise” theentire forest management area from certified statusor remove specific portions of the forest managementarea impacted by the activity from certification whileretaining certification consideration for the remainderof the area. FSC-POL-20-003 (2004) EN addresses thisconcern and provides forest managers with the ability toexcise specific areas of the greater forest managementarea directly affected by activities inconsistent withcertification requirements.As a result of the observation in 2011 (OBS 06/11),the bureau developed an excision policy that outlineswhen lands will be excised from certification. Duringthis process, it was decided that only lands in whichthe subsurface rights were not owned and adequatecontrol over the surface use could not be obtainedwould be excised.Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 3: Partner Monitoring 243Part4:ResearchPartnershipsIntroductionThe bureau regularly seeks partnerships and cooperates with projects that advancethe goals of its Shale-Gas Monitoring Program. To that end, the bureau allocatesfunds for research projects related to shale-gas development on state forest lands.These research projects are part of the bureau’s overall monitoring approach, andhelp address specific questions and issues with a greater degree of scientific vigorand certainty. Research partnerships also help the bureau address managementissues and questions with additional expertise and resources. The projects listed inthis section will be completed in 2014 and 2015, and represent the bureau’s initialround of research projects related to shale-gas development on state forest lands.Project TitlePrinciple InvestigatorEvaluating Storm Water and Erosionand Sedimentation Control MeasuresAssociated with Shale-Gas Infrastructurein Forested LandscapesDr. Barry M. Evans,Penn State UniversityBackgroundMany of the current and planned shale-gas drilling operations in Pennsylvaniaare located on state forest lands. The bureau manages oil and gas activities onstate forest lands by following a set of guidelines and best management practiceswith a focus on minimizing impacts to other forest uses and values. In addition towater quality issues associated with spills and hydraulic fracturing (which are notspecifically addressed in this project), another significant concern is erosion andsedimentation resulting from land disturbance associated with the developmentof the shale-gas drilling sites and related infrastructure. Although such lands aretypically heavily forested and pristine compared to other areas of the state, thepotential for deleterious impacts on surface water resources still exists.Figure 19.1 shows gas drilling permits (black) plotted on top of state forest lands(shown in light brown) in the north-central part of the state. Also illustrated arestreams, with their water quality status shown in blue (not assessed), green (good),and red (impaired) as determined by DEP field biologists in 2009. In the case ofmany of the impaired streams, the water quality problems have been judged to bea result of excessive sediment loads. As can be seen in the figure, there are clustersof drilling permits in areas where local streams have been deemed to be impaired244 Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 4: Research Partnerships(see areas labeled “A”), as well as in areas where streamsare currently in fairly good condition (see “B”). In theformer case, ongoing and future drilling operations, ifnot properly safeguarded, may cause sediment-relatedproblems that aggravate existing water quality problems.Whereas, in the latter case, poorly maintained operationscould create problems that currently do not exist.In recent and ongoing work (much of it supported by thebureau and other state agency funds), various other PennState researchers (e.g., P. Drohan, M. Brittingham, andJ. Bishop) have/are examining the effects of gas drillingoperations with respect to local landscape disturbancesand changes in hydrology. While all of these studies arenot yet completed, it is evident from the findings obtainedthus far that these studies will be quite useful in trying toidentify potential mitigation strategies for minimizing theimpacts that such operations may have on local streams.Scope of WorkTask 1The findings of the Penn State researchers cited abovewill be evaluated in combination with material presentedin DEP’s most recent stormwater management manual(DEP 2006) to determine if more appropriate techniques(i.e., best management practices) might be employed inplace of those currently utilized. For example, DEP hasrecently has been placing much more emphasis on the useof mitigation measures involving the utilization of moreinnovative approaches such as bio-retention, infiltration,and reduction of impervious surfaces, rather than theuse of more “traditional” engineering approaches, suchas those typically used at drilling sites (e.g., detention/retention ponds). As shown via numerous studies inurban areas, the former approaches typically providebeneficial results similar to more traditional controlmeasures. However, more innovative measures may alsoFigure 19.1 Gas drilling permits (black dots) on state forest lands (light brown), overlaid withstream condition: blue = not assessed, green = good, red = impaired.Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 4: Research Partnerships 245result in less disturbance to existing forested landscapes(i.e., fewer trees removed) due to the smaller “footprint”required. The key outcome of this task will be to providerecommendations for best management practices forstormwater management associated with shale-gasdevelopment in forested landscapes.post-development conditions will be simulated in testwatersheds to evaluate the potential effects of variousmitigation measures, as well as to quantify the potentialeffects of multiple drilling operations within these areas.Task 2In addition to the above evaluation, a new modelingtool recently developed by Dr. Evans’ group at PennState, called MapShed, will be used to evaluate potentialchanges to hydrology and sediment loads. This modelingsystem was created with funds from DEP to supportthe evaluation of sediment and nutrient loads at thewatershed scale and includes tools for evaluating changesin both upland areas and stream channels, as well asfunctions for estimating potential load reductions thatmight be achieved via future implementation of a widerange of rural and urban BMPs. In this case, pre- andIn terms of geographic area, the work describedabove is focused on state forest lands in north-centralPennsylvania, which include the Moshannon, Sproul,Tiadaghton, Elk, Susquehannock, Tioga, and Loyalsockstate forests. The specific field locations for analysiswill be determined as the detailed research protocols areidentified and implemented. However, it is anticipatedthat five to 10 field sites will be evaluated as part of thework. Each of these “sites” will actually be a watershedthat includes a half-dozen or more drilling pads and thatmay vary in size from about two to 20 square miles.A key outcome of this study will be to quantify thepotential effects of multiple drilling operations at thewatershed scale.Project TitlePrinciple InvestigatorQuantifying Soil and Landform Change acrossShale-Gas Infrastructure in Northern PennsylvaniaDr. Patrick Drohan,Penn State UniversityBackgroundtechniques, in development by the Penn State SoilCharacterization Laboratory and U.S. Department ofAgriculture (USDA) – Agricultural Research Service.Shale gas development raises concerns about thepotential short- and long-term effects on soils, waterquality, and local hydrology, which are all criticalto forest ecosystem sustainability. This project willprovide insights to enable improved decision-making formanaging oil and gas activities on state forest lands.Scope of WorkTask 1A decision support strategy to assess potentialhydrological change due to shale-gas infrastructuredevelopment will be developed. This combines potentialwet-soil modeling and hydrologic capture estimation246 Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 4: Research PartnershipsTask 2This task will identify and quantify site-specific changesin quick-to-respond soil and flora indicators acrossa range of reclaimed shale-gas infrastructure sites.Working with bureau staff, researchers will comparechanges in reference ecological sites (non-disturbedsites) to “states” of the same ecological site derived viashale-gas development using measurements of bulkdensity, particle size analysis, penetration resistance,infiltration, saturated hydraulic conductivity, soil pH andelectrical conductivity, soil organic carbon, and plantcover. This step will help us quantify landscape changeacross shale-gas infrastructure, evaluate restorationsuccess, and provide data beyond the referred literaturefor development of state and transition models (Task 3)specific to shale-gas development. This objectivewill result in the training of bureau personnel in theapplication of field monitoring protocols specific tomonitoring soil and hydrologic landscape change dueto shale-gas infrastructure.Task 3Ecological sites and land types in northern Pennsylvaniamost impacted by development will be identified.Task 4State and transition models specific to shale-gasinfrastructure will be developed.Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 4: Research Partnerships 247Project TitlePrinciple InvestigatorsQuantifying the Cumulative Effects of MultipleDisturbance Regimes on Forested Ecosystemsin Northern PennsylvaniaDr. Patrick Drohan,Dr. James C. Finley, andDr. James R. Grace,Penn State UniversityBackgroundbase harvest extension and generate estimates of BAUforest conditions for testing differences. The resultsof these simulations will enable evaluation of forestcomposition, biomass (and the suite of metrics this allowsfor estimation and testing), and spatial pattern of theidentified disturbance factors at 10-year time steps for atwo-year to 300-year analysis period.The core model to be utilized in this research willbe LANDIS II (Scheller et al. 2007), developed in apartnership of the U.S. Forest Service Northern ResearchStation, University of Wisconsin, and Portland StateUniversity. LANDIS II is a landscape disturbancemodel that provides the opportunity to simulate thetime and space (temporal and spatial) interactions ofindividual and/or multiple disturbance events acrosslarge forested landscapes.There are a suite of drivers, or disturbance events, thathave varying levels of impact on the health, productivity,and composition of forested ecosystems in northernPennsylvania. For example, there are numerous forestpests and pathogens, such as gypsy moth, hemlockwoolly adelgid, and emerald ash borer. There are thedocumented effects of atmospheric acid deposition.There are the effects of climate change, timbermanagement, wind and weather disturbance, invasivespecies, and ungulate populations beyond carryingcapacity, just to name a few.Scope of WorkThis project will utilize a number of forest biometricmodels, ranging from stand- or site-level estimatesto the landscape level, to quantify the cumulativeeffects of multiple disturbance events on forestedecosystems within northern Pennsylvania. It willfocus on the following four factors, in lieu of theexhaustive list mentioned above: insects and disease,deer, unconventional gas development, and ownership.This will also be accompanied by a base scenariothat will simulate a forest ecosystem in a businessas usual (BAU) baseline, which will necessitate the248 Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 4: Research PartnershipsThis project is to:1.Identify the cumulative ecological impacts of shalegas development on forested ecosystems in northernPennsylvania and classify which factors or componentscontribute the greatest impact or present the greatestopportunity for enhancing, minimizing, or mitigatingany of the potential effects.2.Model differing scenarios of gas development(increasing/decreasing numbers of wells, rights of way,locations, etc.) to evaluate how shale-gas developmentaffects ecological function at the landscape level.3.Assess if the disturbance pattern of shale-gasdevelopment is similar to other disturbance events(deer, timber harvesting, forest pests, and pathogens).Task 1A comprehensive literature review of existing landscapedisturbance modeling approaches will be generated.Task 2This task will focus on assembling and pre-processingnumerous datasets for input into the landscapedisturbance model. These data sets will include:forest inventory, climate, soils, land cover, and gasinfrastructure, all representing the physical andterrestrial conditions of northern Pennsylvania.Task 3Multiple development scenario outputs will begenerated from the disturbance model. These willquantify the effects on landscape-level ecologicalfunction and generate estimated breakpoints, orthresholds, when specific ecological functions or valuesmay begin to degrade.Task 4A comprehensive report will be produced for bureaumanagers, field staff, and the monitoring programto consider as a means of broadening the currentunderstanding of landscape-level effects of shalegas development.Project TitlePrinciple InvestigatorEffects of Natural Gas Pipelines and Infrastructureon Forest WildlifeDr. Margaret Brittingham,Penn State UniversityBackgroundgathering lines (lines that carry the gas from the wellpad site to a larger transmission line), along with thelarger interstate transmission lines. A recent analysis ofpipelines in Bradford County estimated approximately1.65 miles of gathering line per pad, with an associatedcorridor width of 50 to 150 feet (Johnson 2011). Interstatepipelines are larger and have a larger corridor width.The northern tier of Pennsylvania has some of themost intact, forested patches in the Appalachians andhosts numerous interior-forest flora and fauna species(Bishop, 2008, Brittingham and Goodrich, 2010, Wilsonet al., 2012). Much of this core forest is state forest land.Projected drilling estimates are variable but suggestthat the final number of wells will be in the hundreds tothousands in this region. The footprint of an individualwell site includes the well pad plus associated pipelinesand roads to service the wells. Pipelines includeThe number of miles of new pipeline predicted at buildout ranges from 10,000 to 25,000, leading to significantpotential for habitat conversion and fragmentation andShale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 4: Research Partnerships 249landscape disturbance. Pipelines can affect the wildlifecommunity and the interactions among species directlythrough habitat conversion or indirectly as a result offragmentation effects. Depending on how the vegetationis managed, pipelines can potentially provide habitatfor declining shrub-scrub associated species (similar topowerline corridors allowed to revert to shrubs; King etal., 2009) or may provide herbaceous openings used bygame species such as white-tailed deer or wild turkey.In addition, depending on the species, corridors mayserve as travel corridors for some species and barriersto movement and dispersal for others. This research isdesigned to: 1) address questions about the short-termand potential long-term effects of pipeline corridorsin forest habitat on wildlife and 2) use these results toelucidate tradeoffs between management options andto develop guidelines for maximizing benefits whileminimizing negative effects.250 Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 4: Research PartnershipsScope of WorkTask 1Conduct a GIS analysis of pipelines and roads associatedwith Marcellus and other shale gases in north-centralPennsylvania. The landscape fragmentation tooldeveloped by the University of Connecticut will beused to measure changes in forest fragmentation andcore forest before and during shale-gas development,using the Tiadaghton State Forest and LycomingCounty as case studies. All pads and pipelines will bemapped. Two approaches will be used to determineforest fragmentation. The first approach will assumepre-existing forest roads are a fragmenting feature. Inother words, forest adjacent to these roads is alreadyedge forest. The second approach will assume preexisting forest roads are not a fragmenting feature. Inthis scenario, the forest adjacent to the forest roads is stillconsidered core forest. The rationale for this is that manyof the roads are narrow and have a closed canopy. Thetwo methods provide for a low (first approach) and high(second approach) estimate of forest fragmentation as aresult of shale-gas development.Task 2Vernal ponds are critical breeding habitat for forestamphibians. To understand the effects of shale-gasdevelopment on vernal ponds and the amphibians thatdepend on them, a monitoring program of vernal ponds isbeing developed.Task 3As a group, amphibians have experienced extensivedeclines. In the short term, pipelines and pads mayreduce habitat quality near these features due to warmerand drier conditions. In the long-term, shale-relatedinfrastructure may affect movement and dispersalabilities. As a pilot study, natural cover and coverboardsearches will be used to identify and quantify theabundance and diversity of amphibians and selectedreptiles near Marcellus pads and pipelines and withinundeveloped forest habitat. These data will serve asbaseline data for further monitoring.Task 3This task will examine use of pipelines by wildlife andeffects of pipeline placement and structure on forestbirds. This task will involve spot mapping the use ofpipelines by early successional and forest interior speciesto determine how they use the pipeline habitat.Additional studies on forest birds and habitat changehave been funded through grants from The HeinzEndowments and Pennsylvania Game Commission.These studies include quantifying the effects ofpad placement on the forest bird community and onsalamander abundance.Preliminary ResultsThe case study for Task 1 has been completed.Depending on the definition of a fragmenting feature,loss of core forest within the leased portion of theTiadaghton ranged from 4.3 to 9.8 percent. Leased tractsvary in the stage of development, indicating additionalcore forest will be lost as leased tracts continueto be developed. Future plans include comparingfragmentation effects on public versus private land.Additional research that could be initiated wouldbe looking at the response of individual species toroads, pipelines, and other infrastructure to betterunderstand how fragmentation affects different speciesor groups of species.Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 4: Research Partnerships 251Project TitlePrinciple InvestigatorsAssessing Potential Impacts of Marcellusand Utica Shale Energy Development on theTimber Rattlesnake (Crotalus horridus) inNorth Central PennsylvaniaDr. Gian L. Rocco andDr. Robert P. Brooks,Penn State UniversityBackgroundThe timber rattlesnakeis restricted to thegenerally larger unbrokenforest expanses withinthe commonwealth, asituation that earns itthe title of “indicatorspecies” of such minimallydisturbed, wilderness-typeenvironments. Indicatorspecies are animals or groupsof animals (communities)that tend to be intolerant ofenvironmental degradationin one or more forms.Monitoring of such speciesis considered helpful when ascertaining or anticipatingenvironmental degradation. The logic is that changefor the worse in the indicator species (or community) isindicative of environmental stress. It is also worth notingthat the timber rattlesnake is a middle trophic levelpredator, so its ecological function is one of both predatorand prey. This dual functionality affords greater utility toan already potentially useful indicator.Large portions of the Marcellus and Utica coincidestrongly with the geographic distribution and habitat(large, unbroken, forested tracts) of the timberrattlesnake. To what extent the construction, operation,and maintenance of natural gas wells and associatedinfrastructure (e.g., well pad clearings, impoundments,access roads, and utility corridors) will impact the timberrattlesnake remains unknown. Monitoring efforts, as252 Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 4: Research Partnershipswith some of the other species currently being monitored,would help ascertain the response of this species to oiland gas related development.Scope of WorkThis study seeks to evaluate the potential impact ofMarcellus and Utica Shale energy development onthe timber rattlesnake. Multiple rattlesnake-occupiedsites are being sampled to assess population statusbefore, during, and after energy developmentwithin two large state forest tracts, one slated fordevelopment (treatment) and the other unlikely to bedeveloped (control).The collection of data about a species of interest priorto, during, and after the application of a “treatment,”in combination with comparable data collection effortselsewhere at control sites (no treatment), presents theopportunity for an optimal impact study design andis known as a Before-After/Control-Impact studydesign (BACI). In 2011, the study proposed to evaluatethe impact of oil and gas development on the timberrattlesnake by a BACI sampling design because thetiming for such a study was ideal. A multitude of stateforest gas leases known to be occupied by the timberrattlesnake were not slated for development (potential“treatment” areas) until 2013, whereas portions of theQuehanna Wild Area, also timber rattlesnake-occupied,were unlikely to be developed in the foreseeable future(control areas).Evaluation of forest gas leases known at the time(2011) in consultation with bureau staff resulted in theselection of two leases in the Moshannon State Forestfor their exceptional suitability. Development of thetracts in 2013 would allow several years of samplingprior to their development (baseline or pre-disturbancecondition). A multitude of timber rattlesnake“communal gestation sites” existed, and the adjacencyof the two tracts created a single 8,000-acre, isolatedstudy area likely to comprise the activity ranges of mostresident snakes. Lastly, the distance between the leases(the “treatment tract”) and the Quehanna Wild Area(the “control tract”) was great enough for the areas tobe occupied by two entirely different timber rattlesnakepopulations (independent) yet close enough to be quitesimilar ecologically (comparing apples to apples).Monitoring timber rattlesnakes is best and rather easilyaccomplished by identifying and repeatedly sampling“communal gestation sites.” Gestation sites are rockysites that are occupied by two or more (several dozenin some places) gravid or pregnant females during theirbrooding period (late June through early September).Timber rattlesnakes give birth to live young andremain sedentary during much of their gestationperiod. Targeting gravid females focuses monitoringefforts on the most vulnerable and most importantpopulation segment, the individuals that on any givenyear will produce the new cohort of animals (continuedpopulation recruitment). Monitoring gravid femalesis also the most logistically sensible approach as theyare easily detected and enumerated. Males, nongravid females, and juveniles, in contrast, are almostimpossible to find or sample upon departure from theirwinter sites in the spring.Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 4: Research Partnerships 253Project TitlePrinciple InvestigatorsPennsylvania State Forest VisitorUse Monitoring (VUM) ProgramDr. Alan Graefe, Dr. Andrew Mowen, andDudley Kyle Olcott (Penn State University)Dr. David Graefe (Marshall University)Dr. Donald English (U.S. Forest Service)BackgroundScope of WorkIn 2011, Penn State University, in cooperation withthe bureau, initiated a long-term, systematic approachfor measuring and describing recreational use atPennsylvania state forests. The bureau had identified aneed to better understand the recreational visitors whouse the state forests. This need includes understandingvisitors’ use patterns as well as their expectations,spending patterns, desires, and satisfaction levels.Overall, the project will survey visitors to 10 selectedstate forests. Two forests will be surveyed per year overa five-year period. In the survey, forest visitors are askedseveral questions about how Marcellus shale-relatedactivity had affected: 1) their use of the state forest and2) their enjoyment of their recreation experience at thestate forest. Data were collected through the use ofon-site interviews and use measurements at a stratifiedrandom sample of the forests’developed sites and dispersed areasopen for recreation.Preliminary ResultsAt this stage, data are available fromthe first year of the project, in whichsurveys were conducted in the SproulState Forest (District #10) and theSusquehannock State Forest (District#15). The majority of visitors in bothforests (72 percent in Sproul and 81percent in Susquehannock) reportedthat Marcellus shale-related activity hadnot affected their use of the state forest.Visitors were slightly more likely toreport that gas-related activity affectedtheir recreation experience at the forest.However, again, the majority of visitorsin both forests (65 percent in Sproul and77 percent in Susquehannock) reportedthat Marcellus shale-related activity hadnot affected their recreation experienceat the state forest.254 Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 4: Research PartnershipsFollow-up questions probed the reasons for visitors’responses to the initial yes/no questions. Amongthose reporting that their use of the state forest hadbeen impacted by shale-related operations, the mostcommon responses reflected traffic-related issues. Themost frequently mentioned traffic concerns includedincreased road traffic, poor driving behavior, roadsbeing blocked, or areas made inaccessible to the public.Many respondents in both forests also mentionedvarious hunting-related concerns. The most commonhunting-related issues were that the drilling activityscares game away or reduces their places to hunt,although some offered general statements indicatingthat drilling affects hunting negatively. The thirdmajor theme of shale-related impacts on recreation useincluded several general environmental concerns.These concerns included pollution, habitat destruction,and water quality as well as changes in landscape,noise pollution, and crowds and loss of a relaxing andserene environment.Forest visitors also were asked to explain the reasonwhy Marcellus shale-related activity had or had notaffected their recreation experience at the state forest.Responses to the experiential impacts tended to reflectthe same themes as the answers to the questions aboutthe impacts of shale-related activity on visitors’ use ofthe forests. However, some differences were noted. Forexample, noise pollution was mentioned more frequentlyas a factor affecting visitors’ recreation experience thanas a factor affecting their recreation use. Changes inlandscape and crowds and changes in atmosphere alsowere mentioned more frequently as factors affectingvisitors’ recreation experience than as factors affectingtheir recreation use. Other specific experiential impactsof shale-related activity included loss of satisfaction, lightpollution, and bad smells. And, as in the case of reportedimpacts on recreational use of the forest, a few visitorsexpressed support for the drilling activity, stating theirbelief that it does not have a negative effect, is controlled,or is good for the economy.Some visitors in both forests reported that shale-relatedactivity had directly affected their use of the forest,mainly by causing them to avoid drilling locationsor causing them to visit the forest less often. A fewrespondents also expressed positive impacts of theshale-related activity. These comments focused on thecreation of new access roads, providing better access tothe forest, and road improvements.Responses by those visitors who stated that theirrecreation experience at the forest had not been affectedby Marcellus shale-related activity also reflected thesame awareness-related and general acceptance ofdrilling activity themes as their previous explanationsfor why the shale-related activity had not affected theirrecreational use of the forests. Again, many visitorsin both forests indicated that they had not noticed theactivity or had not noticed it in the areas they visit, orthat the drilling activity does not bother them, has notchanged their use, or does not affect their activities.Those visitors who stated that their recreational use ofthe forest had not been affected by Marcellus shalerelated activity also were asked to explain why not.Many visitors in both forests indicated that they had notnoticed the activity or had not noticed it in the areas theyvisit. Some visitors stated that they had not heardof the Marcellus shale phenomenon. Many visitors inboth forests reported that the drilling activity does notbother them, has not changed their use, or does notaffect their activities. Some visitors expressed concernabout drilling activity but said that it had not changedtheir use yet.Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 4: Research Partnerships 255Part 5: ReferencesConsulted in the preparation of this document:Flora (Plants)Goff, F.G., Dawson, G.A., & J.J. Rochow. 1982. Site examination for threatened orendangered plant species. Environmental Management, Vol. 6, No. 4, pp. 307-316.Keefer, J.S., Marshall, M.R., & B.R. Mitchell. 2010. Early detection of invasive species:Surveillance, monitoring, and rapid response: Eastern Rivers and Mountains Networkand Northeast Temperate Network. Natural Resources Report NPS/ERMN/NRR2010/196. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado.Pennsylvania Bureau of Forestry. 1999. Inventory Manual of Procedure for the FourthState Forest Management Plan.Pennsylvania Bureau of Forestry. 2007. Analysis of first 5-year continuous forestinventory cycle. Division of Resource Planning and Information: Forest Inventoryand Analysis Unit. Available at http://intraforestry/planning/Documents/Overview_Analysis_First_5_yr_CFI_Cycle.pdf.Pennsylvania Bureau of Forestry. 2007. Manual for inventory of Wild Areas. Divisionof Resource Planning and Information: Forest Inventory and Analysis Unit.Pennsylvania Bureau of Forestry. 2011. Protocols for Conducting Surveys for PlantSpecies of Special Concern. Ecological Services Section. Available at: http://www.gis.dcnr.state.pa.us/hgis-er/PNDI_DCNR.aspx .Rhoads, A.F. & T.A. Block. 2007. The Plants of Pennsylvania: An illustrated manual.University of Pennsylvania Press: Philadelphia.Conservation and Natural Resources Act, Act of June 28, 1995, P.L. 89, No. 18(71 P.S. § 1340.101 et seq.)WaterPA Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). 2009. Instream ComprehensiveEvaluation Surveys. Bureau of Water Standards and Facility Regulation. DocumentNumber: 391-3200-001.Bevenger, G.S. & R.M. King. 1995. A Pebble Count Procedure for Assessing WatershedCumulative Effects. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, RockyMountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Research Paper: RM-RP-319.256 Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 5: ReferencesSoilSoil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Departmentof Agriculture. Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) Database for Pennsylvania.Available online at http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov. Accessed [10/15/12].Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Departmentof Agriculture. Official Soil Series Descriptions. Available online at http://soils.usda.gov/technical/classification/osd/index.html. Accessed [3-14-13].Bureau of Forestry, Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources.1995. Penn’s Woods: Sustaining Our Forests. Document ID: 8100-BK-DCNR1767.Fauna (Wildlife)DeGraaf, R.M., M. Yamasaki, W.B. Leak, & J.W. Lanier. 1992. New England Wildlife:Management of Forested Habitats. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-144, Radnor, PA:U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest ExperimentalStation. 271p.Illustration by Rae Chambers, College of Agricultural Sciences, Penn State.The Forest LandscapesDrohan, P.J., Brittingham, M., Bishop, J. & K. Yoder. (2012). Early trends in landcoverchange and forest fragmentation due to shale-gas development in Pennsylvania: A potential outcome for the northcentral Appalachians.  EnvironmentalManagement,  49: 1061-1075.Gelhausen, S.M., Schwartz, M.W., & C.K. Augspurger. (2000). Vegetation andmicroclimatic edge effects in two mixed-mesophytic forest fragments. Plant Ecology,147:  21-35.Haila, Y. (1999). Islands and fragments. In M.L. Hunter (Ed.), Maintaining biodiversityin forest ecosystems (pp. 234-264). Cambridge, United Kingdom: CambridgeUniversity Press.Parent, J.R. & Hurd, J,D. (2008). Landscape Fragmentation Tool (LFT) v 2.0: Overview. University of Connecticut College of Agriculture & Natural Resources,Center for Land Use Education and Research. Retrieved 11/30/12. http://clear.uconn.edu/tools/lft/lft2/index.htm.Patton, L. L., D. S. Maehr, J. E. Duchamp, S. Fei, J. W. Gassett, & J. L. Larkin. 2010.Do the golden-winged warbler and blue-winged warbler exhibit species-specificdifferences in their breeding habitat use?  Avian Conservation and Ecology: 5(2): 2.Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 5: References 257Pennsylvania Bureau of Forestry. (2007). State Forest Resource Management Plan,pp. 93-95.Pennsylvania Bureau of Forestry. (2013). Guidelines for Administering Oil and GasActivity on State Forest Lands.Soule, M.E., Bolger, D.T., Alberts, A.C., Wrights, J., Sorice, M., S. Hill. 1988. Reconstructed dynamics of rapid extinctions of chaparral-requiring birds in urbanhabitat islands.  Conservation Biology, Vol. 2 (1): 75-92.Vogt, P., Riitters, K.H., Estreguil, C., Kozak, J., Wade, T.G. & J.D. Wickahm. 2007. Mapping spatial patterns with morphological image processing.  Landscape Ecology,22: 171-177.Partner MonitoringPennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). 2012. A BenthicMacroinvertebrate Index of Biotic Integrity for Wadebable Freestone Riffle-RunStreams in Pennsylvania. Division of Water Quality Standards. Published March 2012.Research PartnershipsPennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, 2006. Pennsylvania StormwaterBMP Manual, 685 pp.Scheller, R. M., Domingo, J. B., Sturtevant, B. R., Williams, J. S., Rudy, A., Gustafson,E. J., & D. J. Mladenoff. (2007). Design, development, and application of LANDISII, a spatial landscape simulation model with flexible temporal and spatial resolution.Ecological Modelling, 201(3), 409-419.Bishop, J. A. 2008. Temporal dynamics of forest patch size distribution andfragmentation of habitat types in Pennsylvania. PhD Dissertation. Penn StateUniversity. University Park, PA.Brittingham, M. C. & L. J. Goodrich. 2010. Habitat fragmentation: a threat toPennsylvania’s forest birds. In: S. K. Majumdar, T. L. Master, M. Brittingham, R.M. Ross, R. Mulvihill, and J. Huffman (eds.). Avian ecology and conservation: aPennsylvania focus with national implications. Pennsylvania Academy of Science,Easton, Pennsylvania, USA. Pages 204-216.Johnson, N., T. Gagnolet, R. Ralls, & J. Stevens. 2011. Natural gas pipelines – Excerptfrom report w of the Pennsylvania energy impact assessment. http://www.nature.org/ourinitiatives/regions/northamerica/unitedstates/pennsylvania/ng-pipelines.pdf.258 Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 5: ReferencesKing D. I., Chandler R. B., Collins J. M., Petersen, W.R. & T.E. Lautzenheiser. 2009.Effects of width, edge and habitat on the abundance and nesting success of scrub-shrubbirds in powerline corridors. Biological Conservation 142: 2672-2680.Wilson, A. M., D. W. Brauning & R. S. Mulvihill, editors. 2012. Second Atlas ofBreeding Birds in Pennsylvania. Penn State University Press, University Park, PA, USA.Conservation and Natural Resources Act, Act of June 28, 1995, P.L. 89, No. 18(71 P.S. § 1340.101 et seq.).Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 5: References 259Part6:IndexofFigures&TablesIndex of FiguresFigure 1.2 Percentage of statewide state forestacreage by gas ownership type....................15Figure 2.3 Percent increase in total district roadmileage on developed tracts attributedto gas development from 2008 to 2012....... 44Figure 1.3 Statewide state forest acreage bygas ownership status....................................16Figure 2.4 Average road density on tracts withdevelopment from 2008 to 2012..................45Figure 1.4 Historical summary of wells drilledon state forest lands......................................17Figure 2.5 Acres converted to infrastructurepads by state forest district from2008 to 2012................................................ 46Figure 1.1 Pennsylvania state forest system.................12Figure 1.5 Annual cumulative leased acreage..............18Figure 1.6 Stratigraphic column of shale targetsin central pennsylvania................................19Figure 2.6 Acres converted by infrastructure typefrom 2008 to 2012....................................... 46Figure 1.7 Possible limits of the marcellus shalepresent in pennsylvania............................... 20Figure 2.7 Acres converted to infrastructurepads by management zone from2008 to 2012................................................ 49Figure 1.8 Location of current concentrationsof drilling activity for the marcellusin the appalachain basin.............................. 20Figure 2.8 Miles of pipeline corridor by stateforest district 2012....................................... 50Figure 1.9 Extent of the marcellus in pennsylvaniaand locations of well permits issue..............21Figure 1.10 Pennsylvania state forest land andthe marcellus shale.......................................21Figure 1.11 Percentage of state forest acreage inmarcellus fairway by lease/subsurfaceownership status.......................................... 22Figure 2.9 Number of stream crossings by DEPChapter 93 stream classification from2008 to 2012.................................................51Figure 2.10 Miles of lease agreement pipelinecorridor by slope class and state forestfrom 2008 to 2012........................................52Figure 2.11 Total acreage converted to non-forest byinfrastructure type from 2008 to 2012........53Figure 1.12 Marcellus fairway state forest acreageby lease/subsurface ownership status......... 23Figure 2.12 Seismic survey cross-section image........... 54Figure 1.13 Sample lease tract map with ecological,recreational, timber management, andscenic areas of special consideration.......... 26Figure 2.14 Traditional state forest road inLoyalsock State Forest.................................57Figure 1.14 Dedicated and integrated shale-gasmonitoring team.......................................... 30Figure 1.15 Core gas state forest districts.......................32Figure 2.1 State forest heavy hauling restrictions........37Figure 2.2 Miles of road construction andmodification for 2008-2012 bystate forest in the core gas region.................43Figure 2.13 Vegetation monitoring protocol...................55Figure 2.15State forest road in Tiadaghton StateForest that has minimal wild charactervalue after it was improved for shale-gasdevelopment..................................................57Figure 2.16 Constructed forest road, with adjacentpipeline ROW, used for shale-gasdevelopment access......................................58260 Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 6: Index of Figures & TablesFigure 2.17State forest road in Tioga State Forestthat is utilized for shale-gas developmentthat demonstrates reduced wild charactervalue due to overwidening...........................58Figure 2.18State forest road in Moshannon StateForest that was improved for shale-gasdevelopment but retained significantwild character value.....................................59Figure 2.19State forest road in MoshannonState Forest that was improved forshale-gas development but retained wildcharacter value..............................................59Figure 2.20 State forest road in Tiadaghton StateForest that was improved for shale-gasdevelopment but retained wildcharacter value............................................. 60Figure 2.21 State forest road in Sproul State Forestthat was improved for shale-gasdevelopment and received a soil cementtreatment to the sub-base.............................61Figure 2.22 View of pipeline in TiadaghtonState Forest...................................................62Figure 2.23 View of pipeline in TiadaghtonState Forest.................................................. 63Figure 2.24 New bridge installed in TiadaghtonState Forest...................................................67Figure 2.25 New bridge installed in TiogaState Forest...................................................67Figure 3.1 Acres cleared for shale-gasdevelopment infrastructure, arrangedby forest community type........................... 73Figure 3.2 Acres cleared for well pads constructedfor shale-gas development, arranged byforest community type.................................74Figure 3.3 Miles of state forest roads affectedby shale-gas development activities(per district)................................................. 80Figure 6.2 Stream map of the shale-gas districtsshowing the DEP Chapter 93 designationsof the streams..............................................105Figure 6.3 Stream map of the shale-gas districtsshowing classification by the PFBC..........106Figure 6.4 HUC-8 watersheds of theshale-gas region..........................................107Figure 6.5 Sampling locations for widespreadsampling of field chemistry........................112Figure 6.6 Histogram of pH results fromwidespread sampling of field chemistry....113Figure 6.7 Map of pH results of widespreadsampling of field chemistry........................114Figure 6.8 Histogram of specific conductanceresults from widespread sampling offield chemistry.......................................... 1115Figure 6.9 X-Y scatter plot of pH versus specificconductance results from widespreadsampling of field chemistry........................115Figure 6.10 Cumulative percent diagram of particle sizedistribution from pilot study of pebblecount methodology in Browns Run...........118Figure 7.1 Ten most common soil seriescomponents disturbed by pads,impoundments, and compressors..............128Figure 7.2 Illustration of the path and elevationchange of the Honniasont pipeline inLycoming County.......................................131Figure 7.3 Diagram of sample plots for soilsampling around pads................................133Figure 10.1 Image from Penn Sate CooperativeExtension....................................................146Figure 11.1 Miles of snowmobile trails byriding season...............................................159Figure 11.2 Recreational opportunity spectrumcontinuum...................................................163Figure 4.1 forest damage and pest suppressionresults for gas districts from 2008-2012......91Figure 11.3 Change in ROS category acres frompre-shale-gas to 2012 ................................165Figure 6.1 Stream map of shale-gas districts basedon NHD Plus dataset..................................103Figure 11.4 Change in ROS zones.................................166Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 6: Index of Figures & Tables 261Figure 11.5 Map of scenic viewsheds indentifiedin 2008 and newer leases...........................166Figure 14.2 Primary energy use by source, 2011........189Figure 11.6 Example of bureau’s distributedcomment card.............................................169Figure 14.4 Total energy production andconsumption, 1980-2040..........................190Figure 11.7 Shale-Gas comment card responses..........171Figure 14.5 Theoretical type marcellus wellgas rate decline curve...............................191Figure 13.1 Harvest acreage for core gas forestdistricts by year..........................................182Figure 13.2 Moshannon State Forest harvestacreage by year...........................................182Figure 13.3 Sproul State Forest harvestacreage by year...........................................182Figure 14.3 Primary energy use by sector, 2011.........190Figure 14.6 Annual natural gas well starts andproduction in Pennsylvania......................193Figure 15.1 Oil and gas lease fund historicalannual income stream from 1947-2008.. 202Figure 15.2 U.S. oil and gas prices 1988-2012............. 203Figure 13.4 Tiadaghton State Forest harvestacreage by year.........................................182Figure 15.3 Oil and gas lease fund annualincome stream from 1947-2012................. 203Figure 13.5 Elk State Forest harvestacreage by year.........................................183Figure 16.1 Total acreage converted to non-forestby infrastructure type............................... 208Figure 13.6 Susquehannock State Forest harvestacreage by year.........................................183Figure 16.2 Change in ROS zones.................................210Figure 13.7 Tioga State Forest harvestacreage by year.........................................183Figure 13.8 Loyalsock State Forest harvestacreage by year.........................................183Figure 13.9 Red Maple Nominal Values inRelation to Timber Market Reportand Route 44 Corridor, 2005-2012...........185Figure 16.3 Tiadaghton State Forest Huntley Mountain......................................211Figure 16.4 Acres of edge forest(by state forest district) as of 2012.............213Figure 16.5 Change in edge acres per districtfrom pre-shale gas to 2012.........................213Figure 16.6 Acreage change in core forest....................215Figure 13.10 Black Cherry Nominal Values inRelation to Timber Market Reportand Route 44 Corridor, 2005-2012...........185Figure 16.7 Percent change in core forest.....................215Figure 13.11 Red Maple Stumpage Price as Percentof Timber Market Report in Relationshipto Rt. 44 Corridor, 2005-2012..................186Figure 17.2 Median pH data from SRBC sondesfrom date of installation throughJune 30, 2012............................................. 228Figure 13.12 Black Cherry Stumpage Price as Percentof Timber Market Report in Relationshipto Rt. 44 Corridor, 2005-2012..................186Figure 17.3 Monthly median dissolved oxygenreadings for three SRBC sondes fromdate of installation through June 2012...... 229Figure 13.13 Miles of Marcellus access roads utilizedfor harvesting operations 2012.................187Figure 17.4 Turbidity data from sonde and flowdata from nearby USGS gauge forEast Fork Sinnemahoning......................... 230Figure 13.14 Number of pipeline crossings utilizedfor harvesting operations 2012.................187Figure 13.15 Timber sale revenues related toMarcellus gas activity 2005-2012............187Figure 17.1 Locations and watersheds of SRBCsondes funded by DCNR.......................... 223Figure 17.5 Median specific conductance of SRBCsondes from date of installation throughJune 30, 2012..............................................232Figure 14.1 U.S. historical energy consumptionby source...................................................189262 Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 6: Index of Figures & TablesFigure 17.6Monthly median specific conductancedata for SRBC sondes that have lowspecific conductance with little monthlyvariability (i.e., Group 1)............................232Table 2.6 Number and acreage of well pads bystate forest district from 2008 to 2012.......... 46Figure 17.7Monthly median specific conductancedata for SRBC sondes that have lowspecific conductance and show seasonalvariability (i.e., Group 2)............................233Table 2.8 Number and acreage of freshwaterimpoundments by state forest from2008 to 2012...................................................47Figure 17.8Monthly median specific conductancedata for SRBC sondes that have moderatespecific conductance and show greatervariability (i.e., Group 3)........................... 234Figure 17.9 Specific conductance data fromLittle Pine Creek sonde and flow datafrom nearby Pine Creek USGS gauge.......235Figure 19.1 Gas drilling permits on state forestlands, overlaid with stream condition........245Index of TablesTable 2.7 Number and acreage of compressor padsby state forest district from 2008 to 2012.....47Table 2.9 Statistics on water use and truck tripssaved due to the use of water conveyancesystems. Data provided by operators............47Table 2.10 Number and acreage of other infrastructurepads by State Forest from 2008 to 2012....... 48Table 2.11 Miles of pipeline corridor by type, 2012...... 49Table 2.12 Acres converted from forest to pipelineROW from 2008 to 2012............................... 50Table 2.13 Density of pipeline corridors persquare mile by state forest districtfrom 2008 to 2012..........................................51Table 1.1 Natural gas development andstate forest lands.............................................15Table 2.14 Number of stream crossing by DEPChapter 93 stream classification from2008 to 2012...................................................51Table 1.2 State forest in marcellus fairwaysubject to natural gas explorationand development........................................... 22Table 2.15 Miles of lease agreement pipelinecorridor by slope class and state forestfrom 2008 to 2012..........................................52Table 1.3 State forest shale-gas leases 2008-2010....... 23Table 2.16 Total acreage converted to non-forest byinfrastructure type from 2008 to 2012..........53Table 1.4 Shale-gas well locations approvedby bof (end of 2013)....................................... 23Table 1.5 Number of approved well pads onstate forest, dec. 2013.................................... 23Table 1.6 Shale-gas monitoring protocols.....................31Table 2.1 Wetland buffer waivers..................................42Table 2.2 Miles of road construction andmodification for 2008-2012 by stateforest in the core gas region...........................43Table 2.3 Acres converted from forest to roadROW from 2008 to 2012............................... 44Table 2.4 Road density on tracts with shale-gasdevelopment from 2008 to 2012................... 44Table 2.5 Number and acreage of allinfrastructure pads by state forestdistrict from 2008 to 2012.............................45Table 3.1 Highest mean percent cover valuesper for “undisturbed forest” plots..................76Table 3.2 Highest species incidence for“undisturbed forest” plots............................. 77Table 3.3 Highest mean percent cover values for“disturbed native” vegetation plots.............. 77Table 3.4 Highest species incidence for “disturbednative” vegetation plots................................. 77Table 3.5 Highest mean percent cover valuesfor “erosion and sedimentation”vegetation plots..............................................78Table 3.6 Highest species incidence for “erosionand sedimentation” vegetation plots..............78Table 3.7 Mean population size among invasivespecies found during well padwalkabouts.................................................... 79Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 6: Index of Figures & Tables 263Table 4.1 Principal damage-causing agentsfrom 2008-2012 . .......................................... 92Table 9.1 Summary of incidents on state forestland by year..................................................141Table 5.1 Plant species found in Pennsylvaniaknown to be invasive in othergas-producing states..................................... 97Table 9.3 Top 15 reportable incident types relatedto oil and gas activity from July1, 2009to December 31, 2012...................................143Table 5.2 Mean population size among invasivespecies found during well padwalkabouts.................................................... 98Table 11.1 Net ros acreage change (pre-shale-gasvs. 2012)........................................................164Table 6.1 Distribution of stream orders withinthe shale-gas region......................................104Table 11.3 Sound meter data – operatingcompressor stations......................................168Table 6.2 Classification of streams within theshale-gas region under DEP Chapter 93.....105Table 12.1 2011 Bureau of forestry marcellusshale tours.....................................................177Table 6.3 Classification of streams within theshale-gas region by the PFBC......................106Table 12.2 2012 Bureau of forestry marcellusshale tours.....................................................178Table 6.4 Primary HUC-8s of the Shale-Gas Region.107Table 13.1 Silvicultural treatment acreage forcore gas forest districts................................182Table 6.5 Descriptive statistics of 2011widespread sampling of field chemistry.....113Table 6.6 Descriptive statistics of pH resultsby HUC-8 watershed...................................116Table 6.7 Descriptive statistics of specific conductanceresults by HUC-8 watershed........................116Table 7.1Percent of total area disturbed by pads,impoundments, and compressors andpercent of total length disturbed bynew pipelines and roads according tosoil drainage class........................................129Table 7.2Percent of total area disturbed by pads,impoundments, and compressors andpercent of total length disturbed by newpipelines and roads according to soilindex of surface runoff................................129Table 11.2 Gas infrastructure in scenic viewsheds......167Table 14.1U.S. & Pennsylvania historic gasproduction comparison to gasprodution from PA state forest leases(pre-shale gas)..............................................194Table 14.2 Shale gas production from stateforest leases by year, lease tract,and operator (2008 thru 2012).....195, 196, 197Table 14.3 DCNR annual lease gas productionfrom 2008 thru 2012 & number ofproducing wells............................................196Table 15.1 State forest land oil & gas incomeby year................................................. 200, 201Table 16.1 Total acreage converted to non-forestby infrastructure type................................. 208Table 7.3 Miles of pipeline by slope category.............130Table 16.2 Net ROS acreage change(pre-marcellus vs. Dec. 31, 2012)............... 209Table 7.4 Percent of newly constructed length ofroad according to erosion hazard fromforest road or trail construction...................131Table 16.3 Landscape analysis results –pre-shale gas landscape conditions.............212Table 8.1 Statewide pollution inventory data andemissions data from shale-gasdevelopment, in tons per year (TPY)..........136Table 8.2 Description of DEP short-term, screeninglevel ambient air sampling studies..............137Table 9.2 Incidents per well drilled 2008-2012...........141Table 16.4 Landscape analysis results –2012 landscape conditions...........................213Table 16.5 Landscape analysis results – totalchange from pre-shale gas to 2012..............214Table 16.6 Landscape analysis results – percentageof core forest acres per district....................214264 Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 6: Index of Figures & TablesTable 16.7 Landscape analysis results – changefrom pre-shale gas to 2012(all shale-gas districts combined)................215Table 17.1 SRBC rwqmn sonde stationsfunded by the bureau and located onstate forest land........................................... 222Table 17.2 Basic watershed characteristics ofsonde stations.............................................. 224Table 17.3 Analysis parameters and frequencyfor grab samples at sonde stations.............. 225Table 17.4 Tolerance limits that trigger emailnotification for sondes................................. 225Table 17.5 Summary of turbidity data from sondes.... 229Table 17.6aSummary of specific conductance datafrom sondes in Group 1...............................231Table 17.6bSummary of specific conductance datafrom sondes in Group 2...............................231Table 17.6cSummary of specific conductance datafrom sondes in Group 3...............................231Table 17.7 Descriptive statistics for analyticalresults from grab sampling atsonde stations.............................................. 236Table 17.8aBenthic macroinvertebrate data fromsonde stations for 2011.................................237Table 17.8bBenthic macroinvertebrate data fromsonde stations for 2012.................................237Shale-Gas Monitoring Report – Part 6: Index of Figures & Tables 265DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATIONAND NATURAL RESOURCES