new impactsofhydraulicfracturinginfrastructuredevelopment ! … · 2015. 3. 9. ·...

$: New ImpactsofHydraulicFracturingInfrastructureDevelopment ! … · 2015. 3. 9. · Impactsof!hydraulicfracturing!infrastructuredevelopment!onvalued!fish(brook!trout)!habitat! This$

Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing Infrastructure Development

on Valued Fish (Brook Trout) Habitat

Maya Weltman-‐Fahs, Cornell University Department of Natural Resources and New York Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research, [email protected];

Todd Walter, Cornell University Department of Biological and Environmental Engineering, [email protected]

Abstract Eastern brook trout are native to the eastern United States and a good indicator species of anthropogenic disturbance in streams because they require clean cold water, intact habitat, and strong supporting food webs to maintain healthy populations. Brook trout have been reduced or extirpated across much of their native range, primarily because of anthropogenic land and water alterations, which have resulted in habitat reduction and fragmentation, water quality and temperature changes, and modification of the biological environment through introduction of other species. This declining species faces further pressure from the rapid expansion natural gas extraction activity in the Marcellus Shale region, which overlaps twenty-‐six percent of the historical distribution of brook trout habitat. The objective of this study is twofold: (1) to observe the effects of infrastructure development for well pads, roads and pipelines on brook trout habitat and populations under the existing regime of shale gas activities in Pennsylvania and (2) to build a model for prediction of shale gas infrastructure locations and impacts in New York State. Three Summary Points of Interest • Initial data processing shows significant differences in brook trout sizes (length and weight) across the three

drilling treatments (Active Drilling; Pre-‐drilling Land Clearing; Control); • Field collected data (including water chemistry and macroinvertebrate community structures) is being analyzed to

examine possible correlations between observed fish sizes and environmental conditions; • Third field collection year is currently underway, with seasonal collections for spring-‐summer-‐fall. Keywords: brook trout, freshwater macroinvertebrates; hydraulic fracturing infrastructure, land use impact modeling, stream ecology

NEW YORK STATE WATER RESOURCES INSTITUTE

Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences 1123 Bradfield Hall, Cornell University Tel: (607) 255-3034 Ithaca, NY 14853-1901 Fax: (607) 255-2016 http://wri.eas.cornell.edu Email: [email protected]

Impacts of hydraulic fracturing infrastructure development on valued fish (brook trout) habitat

This report was prepared for the New York State Water Resources Institute (WRI) and the Hudson River Estuary program of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, with support from the

NYS Environmental Protection Fund.

Introduction Eastern brook trout have a historic range extending from the southern Appalachians in Georgia north to Maine

(MacCrimmon and Campbell 1969) (Fig. 1). Substantial loss of brook trout populations within their native range has occurred due to anthropogenic impacts; in fact only 31% of subwatersheds (6th level, 12-‐digit Hydrological Units (HUC12), as defined by the Watershed Boundary Dataset – USDA-‐NRCS 2012) within the historic range of brook trout are currently expected to support intact populations (self-‐sustaining populations greater than 50% of the historical population) (Hudy et al. 2008). Expansion of hydraulic fracturing infrastructure within the Marcellus Shale region presents another potential threat to native brook trout populations.

Natural gas extraction from subterranean gas-‐rich shale deposits has been underway in the northeastern United States for almost 200 years, but has expanded rapidly over the past decade within the Devonian Marcellus Shale formation (Williams 2008; Fig. 1). This expansion has largely been driven by the development and refinement of the horizontal hydraulic fracturing process (USEIA 2011), which was granted exemptions to the Clean Water and the Safe Drinking Water Acts under the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPA 2005). Hydraulic fracturing has since expanded rapidly in the Marcellus Shale deposit in portions of West Virginia and Pennsylvania (Fig. 1), is expected to continue into Ohio and New York, and will likely continue to expand within these states to include the gas-‐bearing Utica Shale formation (Williams 2008).

Examination of potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing for natural gas extraction in the Marcellus Shale on brook trout populations reveals three key pathways of influence: hydrological, physical, and chemical. These pathways originate from the various activities associated with the hydraulic fracturing method of natural gas extraction and may affect brook trout at one or more stages of their life cycle through direct and indirect mechanisms (Fig. 2). For the purpose of this study, the planned (“deterministic”) activities, including building and land clearing for the required infrastructure (Rahm and Riha 2012) are examined. The study includes a field component in Pennsylvania and a modeling component in New York State

Pennsylvania Study background The Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (PADCNR) manages 2.2 million acres of

Pennsylvania State Forest land, of which 1.5 million acres overlies the Marcellus Shale deposit (PADCNR 2014). The State Forests have a variety of recreational land uses that have historically involved minimal land alteration (PADCNR 2012), allowing many subwatersheds in the state forest land to have maintained greater than 95% forest cover prior to 2008 (PADCNR 2010, 2012). Since 2008, a total of 138,866 acres of state forest land were leased by DCNR to various drilling companies for natural gas exploration in the Marcellus Shale (PADCNR 2014). As of the most recent report released in June 20142, DCNR had approved 227 well pads and 977 shale gas wells, of which 429 wells had been drilled (PADCNR 2014).

The field study site is in the Hyner Run State Park area of Sproul State Forest in Clinton County Pennsylvania. Sproul State Forest occupies 305,450 acres of northern central Pennsylvania, in Cameron, Centre, Clearfield, Clinton, Lycoming, and Potter Counties (PADCNR 2012) (Fig. 1). Within Sproul, the Hyner Run area is a 74.7 km2 HUC12 subwatershed (USDA-‐NRCS 2012) with more than 99% forest cover, no known water contamination sources, extremely limited road construction and virtually no land clearing for agriculture or other development, making it a suitable ecological ‘control’ environment prior to hydraulic fracturing expansion. Hyner Run itself is a forked third order coldwater creek that flows into the West Branch of the Susquehanna River, with second order West and East Branches that converge into the main branch approximately six kilometers north of the mouth. The system has several contributing headwaters, all expressing suitable brook trout habitat. One of the two main branches, East Branch Hyner Run, is classified as a Class A Trout Stream (PAFBC 2012). (Fig. 3)

Hyner Run is a unique research opportunity because the subwatershed contains headwater catchments featuring three distinct drilling treatments (active hydraulic fracturing, pre-‐hydraulic fracturing land clearing and control/no hydraulic fracturing activity planned) (Table 1) at the inception of the project. The eastern portion of the Hyner Run subwatershed study area has three headwater catchments with active hydraulic fracturing activity (Treatment ‘A’ – Fig. 3: sites A1, A2, A3). In the western portion of the area, two headwater tributaries flow from




catchments where land clearing for several well pads has occurred, and vertical test wells have been initiated, but no hydraulic fracturing activity had yet begun at the time of data collection in 2012 (Treatment ‘B’ – Fig. 3: sites B1, B2). Of the three sites with drilling Treatment A, two sites (A1, A2) represent low density drilling (≤1.5 wells/km2), while one (A3) is a higher drilling density catchment (>1.5 wells/km2) (Table 1). Treatment B includes a high density (B2) and a low density site (B1) (Table 1). Of five originally identified potential control locations in the central portion of the subwatershed, three streams were actively flowing at the time of initial data collection (Fig. 3: C1, C2, C3).

New York Study The Pennsylvania field study will inform a predictive, modeling-‐based approach for New York State, where

hydraulic fracturing has not yet commenced (Figure 1), pending an environmental safety review and a decision by New York State Governor Andrew Cuomo (NYDEC 2011). In New York, future drilling locations and associated land clearing requirements, rather than being known, must be predicted or interpreted based on available relevant data. The model currently in progress seeks to predict hydraulic fracturing development scenarios of different intensities (with well pad, pipeline, and roadway locations and estimated footprints) for the northern Marcellus Shale region (southern tier of New York) using Pennsylvania hydraulic fracturing expansion/development as the basis for predictive modelling, and to model the possible impacts of sediment mobilization from land clearing for the hydraulic fracturing method of natural gas extraction in the Marcellus Shale on a brook trout population. Toward this end, a process-‐based model of brook trout at various life cycle phases will be used in concert with a spatial statistical model that predicts sediment release from the land clearing associated with predicted well pad densities/locations. The output from spatial statistical model will be used to add a sediment influx (in tons per land area) to the brook trout model, which will influence the egg survival rate. Methods

Pennsylvania Study Field data collections have occurred seasonally (excluding winter season) for three years (2012-‐2014: 2014 is currently underway). Field data collection/processing methods are generally conducted according to the accepted United States Geological Society (USGS) National Water Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Protocols as follows: 1) Riparian land-‐use/land-‐cover: qualitative notes on the condition of the reach, including any obvious alteration to the

channel and riparian land use/vegetation types (Fitzpatrick et al 1998; Johnson and Zelt 2005). 2) Discharge transects with USGS standard flow meter: measurement interval between wetted width/10 and wetted

width/15; flow measured at 60% of depth (Bain and Stevenson 1999, Rantz and others 1982a,b, Fitzpatrick et al 1998).

3) Chemical sampling with YSI sonde in field and using ion chromatography in lab: a. Water samples for lab analysis (Wilde 2006a, USGS 2006) b. In-‐field measurements:

1. Turbidity (Wilde 2006a, Anderson 2005) 2. pH (Wilde 2006a, Ritz and Collins 2005) 3. Conductivity (Wilde 2006a, Radtke et al 2005) 4. Dissolved Oxygen (Wilde 2006a, Lewis 2006) 5. Temperature (Wilde 2006a,b)

4) Biological sampling: a. Electrofishing fish sampling with a backpack electroshocker: species identified visually, weighed, and

measured in the field (Moulton et al. 2002). Any unknown species brought in for verification in lab.




b. Kick-‐net macroinvertebrate sampling with 500-‐micron D-‐frame kick nets: three samples per site, sorted and identified in laboratory (Moulton et al. 2002).

New York Study The New York modeling effort is a two-‐part process:

Part 1: A probabilistic model using spatial statistics techniques to infer likely drilling locations based on a suite of landscape characteristics is being designed. The landscape and shale characteristic predictor variables (Table 1) were aggregated over the HUC12 watersheds (USDA-‐NRCS 2012) overlying the Pennsylvania and New York portions of the Marcellus Shale deposit. Various spatial statistics modeling approaches have been compared (including Generalized Linear Modeling (GLM), Generalized Additive Modeling (GAM), and Kriging/Cokriging) to determine how to best quantify the relationship between the hydraulic fracturing drilling locations in the Pennsylvania Marcellus Shale and characteristics of the Marcellus Shale deposit. A number of different versions of each of the three model types were compared in attempt to find the best model of that type. The best models were then applied to the same predictor variables in New York State to predict the probability of future well presence in a given watershed. Part 2: The dynamic, process based model simulates brook trout populations in discrete time with an annual timestep, representing three state variables which are phases of the brook trout life cycle: fry-‐fingerlings (year zero fish that emerged in the spring from eggs laid in the fall [F]), juveniles (year one or two fish who are not yet reproductive adults [J]), and adults (year three or older fish who are reproductive adults [A]). The model takes an annual snapshot of the populations of each type of fish in the late summer, at the time immediately before the reproductive cycle begins, such that each living adult is considered a spawner, each living one or two year old fish is considered a juvenile, and each living fry/fingerling is considered a surviving year zero fish. The dynamics of the population are described by a set of four equations, one for each of the state variables, and a fourth calculating the number of eggs (E) at the start of the reproductive cycle. The majority of the parameters were set to numerical values based on previous published studies. Preliminary Results

The dataset collected in the Pennsylvania sites contains a broad suite of data, including water chemistry, macroinvertebrate samples, and fish community samples. The vast majority of the data is still being processed, but initial statistical analysis of brook trout length and weight data collected in Summer 2012 reveals statistically significant differences in both the length and weight distributions of brook trout by treatment (Fig. 4). Much more data analysis and collection with be required to attempt to form any conclusions about the cause of this discrepancy in brook trout size between treatments. Future Directions

1) Laboratory analysis (in progress): a) Analysis of water samples for concentrations of particular additives known to be associated with hydraulic

fracturing, including but not limited to: total dissolved solids (TDS), total suspended solids (TSS), metals, pH, carbon (organic and inorganic), cations, anions (nitrates, etcs.), methane.

b) Analysis of macroinvertebrate samples for: overall abundance, relative abundance, diversity/species richness, community structure.

2) Statistical analysis of field data (in progress) 3) Seasonal replication of field data collection (in progress – third collection year: spring/summer/fall 2014) 4) Model development (in progress)

Student Training Undergraduate and graduate research assistants have supported this project in the field and in the lab. Nine individuals have participated directly in field data collection (5 undergraduates, 3 graduate students, one post-‐doctoral researcher) including macroinvertebrate and fish collection and water chemistry assessment. Nine individuals have supported




laboratory activities (7 undergraduates and 2 graduate students) including ion chromatography and macroinvertebrate identification. Policy Implications This research could be used by policymakers to help provide a foundational scientific understanding of the likely impacts of natural gas drilling, using the high-‐volume hydraulic fracturing method, on stream-‐dwelling biota. Figures Figure 1 – Overlay of the Marcellus Shale region of the eastern United States (USGS 2011) and the historic distribution of eastern brook trout (Hudy et al. 2008) with permitted Marcellus Shale well locations, 2001-‐2011 (ODNR 2011, PADEP 2012b, WVGES 2011)




Figure 2 – Conceptual model of relationships between hydraulic fracturing drilling activities and the life cycle of eastern brook trout (modified from conceptual models based on Entrekin et al. (2011) and Rahm and Riha (2012)).




Figure 3 – Study area map depicting key elements of the area and sampling locations (inset: Pennsylvania context map)




Figure 4 – Boxplot of the length distribution of the fingerling brook trout, divided by site treatment, in Summer 2012

Tables Table 1 – Known initial characteristics of study site locations (status pre-‐Summer 2012 data collection)

Site ID Catchment area (km2)

Drilling intensity

Hydraulic fracturing

status

# well pads # wells Well density

(wells/km2) Treatment

category code

A1 6.885 Low Active 1 4 0.581 A-low

A2 4.205 Low Active 2 6 1.427 A-low

A3 8.854 High Active 3 18 2.033 A-high

B1 2.922 Low Pre-drilling 1 4 (planned) 1.369 B-low

B2 3.4 High Pre-drilling 1 7 (planned) 2.059 B-high

C1 4.239 None Control 0 0 0 C






Table 2 – Known initial characteristics of study site locations (status pre-‐Summer 2012 data collection) Type Description Source

Mar

cellu

s Sha

le

Cha

ract

eris

tics

Depth (minimum, maximum, and

average in HUC12 watershed)

Penn State Marcellus Center for Outreach and Research (PSMCOR 2013a)

Thickness (minimum, maximum, and

average in HUC12 watershed)

Penn State Marcellus Center for Outreach and Research (PSMCOR 2013b)

Extent United Sates Geological Survey (USGS 2011)

Wat

ersh

ed c

hara

cter

istic

s

Watershed boundaries United Stated Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA-NRCS 2012)

Soil types United Stated Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA-NRCS variously dated)

Stream locations, habitat characteristics

(size, gradient, temperature, buffering/pH)

The Nature Conservancy and Northeast Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (Olivero and Anderson 2008)

Adm

in B

ound

s States United States Census Bureau (USCB 2013a)

Counties United States Census Bureau (USCB 2013b)

Tax parcels United States Census Bureau (USCB 2013c)

Road density United States Census Bureau (USCB 2013d)

Lan

dcov

er Forest

(% within HUC12 watershed) National Landcover dataset

(NLCD 2006; Fry et al 2011)

Agriculture (% within HUC12 watershed)

National Landcover dataset (NLCD 2006; Fry et al 2011)

Stat

e

Fore

sts Pennsylvania State

forest extents and development Pennsylvania Department of Natural Resources

(PADCNR 1999,2010,2014)

New York State forest extents New York Department of Environmental Conservation (NYDEC 2012)

Dri

lling

/Lea

sing

/ Pe

rmitt

ing

loca

tions

Pennsylvania active hydraulic fracturing wells

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Preservation (PADEP 2012a)

Pennsylvania hydraulic fracturing well permits

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Preservation (PADEP 2012b)

New York parcels leased for hydraulic fracturing

Broome County (BCGIS 2012)

Tompkins County (MAPTC 2010)

Tioga County (TING 2012)




References Anderson, C. W. 2005. Turbidity (ver. 2.1): U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-‐Resources Investigations, book 9, chap. A6., sec. 6.7. Available at: http://water.usgs.gov/owq/FieldManual/Chapter6/Section6.7_v2.1.pdf. Bain, M. B., and N. J. Stevenson. 1999. Aquatic habitat assessment : common methods. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD. BCGIS (Broome County New York GIS). 2012. Broome County Existing Leased Parcels As of 9/30/12. Broome County Department of Planning GIS and Mapping Services. Available at: http://www.bcgis.com/website/gisweb/maps/nat_gas/12_10_br_current_gas_leases.pdf Entrekin, S., M. Evans-‐White, B. Johnson, and E. Hagenbuch. 2011. Rapid expansion of natural gas development poses a threat to surface waters. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 9(9):503-‐511. EPA (Energy Policy Act). 2005. Public Law No. 109-‐58, § 321, 119 Stat. 694. Available at: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/femp/pdfs/epact_2005.pdf Fitzpatrick, F. A., I. R. Waite, P. J. D’Arconte, M. R. Meador, M. A. Maupin, and M. E. Gurtz. 1998. Revised Methods for Characterizing Stream Habitat in the National Water-‐Quality Assessment Program. US Geological Survey Water-‐Resources Investigations Report 98-‐4052. Available at: http://pubs.usgs.gov/wri/wri984052/pdf/wri98-‐4052.pdf. Fry, J., Xian, G., Jin, S., Dewitz, J., Homer, C., Yang, L., Barnes, C., Herold, N., and Wickham, J. 2011. Completion of the 2006 National Land Cover Database for the Conterminous United States, Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 77(9):858-‐864. Hudy, M., T. M. Thieling, N. Gillespie, and E. P. Smith. 2008. Distribution, Status, and Land Use Characteristics of Watersheds within the Native Range of Brook Trout in the Eastern United States. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 28(4):1069-‐1085. Johnson, M. R. and R. B. Zelt. 2005. Protocols for Mapping and Characterizing Land Use/Land Cover in Riparian Zones as Part of the National Water-‐Quality Assessment Program. US Geological Survey Open-‐File Report 2005-‐1302. Available at: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1302/pdf/ofr2005-‐1302.pdf. Lewis, M. E. 2006. Dissolved Oxygen (ver. 2.1). U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-‐Resources Investigations, book 9, chap. A6., sec. 6.2. Available at: http://water.usgs.gov/owq/FieldManual/Chapter6/6.1_ver2.pdf. MacCrimmon, H. R., and J. S. Campbell. 1969. World Distribution of Brook Trout, Salvelinus fontinalis. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 26(7):1699-‐1725. MAPTC (Marcellus Accounability Project for Tompkins County. 2010. Tompkins County Gas Lease Map. Available at: http://www.tcgasmap.org/tompkins/ Moulton, S. R. II, J. G. Kennen, R. M. Goldstein, and J. A. Hambrook. 2002. Revised Protocols for Sampling Algal, Invertebrate, and Fish Communities as Part of the National Water-‐Quality Assessment Program. US Geological Survey Open-‐File Report 02-‐150. Available at: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2002/ofr-‐02-‐150/pdf/ofr02-‐150.pdf. NLCD (National Land Cover Database). 2006. NLCD2006 Land Cover. Available at: http://www.mrlc.gov/nlcd06_data.php




NYDEC (New York State Department of Environmental Conservation). 2011. Revised Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SGEIS). Chapter 2: Description of Proposed Action. Available: http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/materials_minerals_pdf/rdsgeisch2a0911.pdf. NYDEC (New York State Department of Environmental Conservation). 2012. DEC Lands – New York State Shapefile. (via NYSGIS Clearinghouse. Available at:http://gis.ny.gov/gisdata/inventories/details.cfm?DSID=1114 Olivero, A. P., and Anderson, M. G. 2008. Northeast Aquatic Habitat Classification System. The Nature Conservancy and Northeast Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Boston MA. Available at: http://sifn.bse.vt.edu/sifnwiki/images/b/b5/Eastern_Region_Stream_Classification.pdf PADCNR (Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources). 1999. Rules and Regulations. Title 17. Pennsylvania Code, Part 1. Department of Conservation and Natural Resources Subpart C. State Forests. Chapter 21. General Provisions. 8130-‐FM-‐FR0092 1/99. Available at: http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/ucmprd2/groups/public/documents/document/dcnr_008795.pdf PADCNR (Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources). 2010. DCNR – State Forest Lands 2010. Available (through PASDA (Pennsylvania Spatial Data Access)) at: http://www.pasda.psu.edu/uci/MetadataDisplay.aspx?entry=PASDA&file=dcnr_stateforestlands_2010.xml&dataset=263 PADCNR (Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources). 2012. Sproul State Forest. Available at: http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/forestry/stateforests/sproul/index.htm PADCNR (Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources). 2014. Natural Gas Development and State Forests Shale Gas Leasing Statistics. Available at: http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/forestry/NaturalGas/index.htm PADEP (Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection). 2012a. Oil and Gas Reports: SPUD Data Report. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Harrisburg, PA. Available at: http://www.depreportingservices.state.pa.us/ReportServer/Pages/ReportViewer.aspx?/Oil_Gas/Spud_External_Data PADEP (Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection). 2012b. Oil and Gas Reports: Permits Issued Detail Report. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Harrisburg, PA. Available at: http://www.depreportingservices.state.pa.us/ReportServer/Pages/ReportViewer.aspx?/Oil_Gas/Permits_Issued_Detail PAFBC (Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission). 2012. Class A Wild Trout Streams. Available (through PASDA (Pennsylvania Spatial Data Access)) at: http://www.pasda.psu.edu/uci/MetadataDisplay.aspx?entry=PASDA&file=ClassA_Streams201204.xml&dataset=986 PSMCOR (Penn State Marcellus Center for Outreach and Research) 2013a. Depth to Marcellus Shale Base. Available: http://www.marcellus.psu.edu/images/Marcellus_Depth.gif PSMCOR (Penn State Marcellus Center for Outreach and Research) 2013b. Extent and Thickness of Marcellus Shale. Available: http://www.marcellus.psu.edu/images/Marcellus_thickness.gif Rahm, B. G., and S. J. Riha. 2012. Toward strategic management of shale gas development: Regional, collective impacts on water resources. Environmental Science & Policy 17:12-‐23.




Radtke, D. B., J. V. Davis, and F. D. Wilde. 2005. Specific Electrical Conductance (ver. 1.2): U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-‐Resources Investigations, book 9, chap. A6., sec. 6.3. Available at: http://water.usgs.gov/owq/FieldManual/Chapter6/Final508Chapter6.3.pdf Rantz, S. E. and others. 1982a. Measurement and Computation of Streamflow: Volume 1. Measurement of Stage and Discharge. United States Geological Survey Water-‐Supply Paper 2175. Available at: http://pubs.usgs.gov/wsp/wsp2175/pdf/WSP2175_vol1a.pdf. Rantz, S. E. and others. 198b2. Measurement and Computation of Streamflow: Volume 2. Computation of Discharge. United States Geological Survey Water-‐Supply Paper 2175. Available at: http://pubs.usgs.gov/wsp/wsp2175/pdf/WSP2175_vol2a.pdf. Ritz, G. F. and J. A. Collins. 2005. pH (ver. 2.0): U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-‐Resources Investigations, book 9, chap. A6., sec. 6.4. Available at: http://water.usgs.gov/owq/FieldManual/Chapter6/6.4_ver2.0.pdf. TING (Tioga Investigates Natural Gas). 2012. Parcels with Natural Gas or Oil Leases Past and Present. Tioga County GIS Department. Available at: http://www.tiogacountyny.com/images/stories/PDFs/government/TING/TiogaCoNYLeases.pdf USCB (United States Census Bureau) 2013a. Tiger/Line Shapefiles: States (and equivant). Available: http://www.census.gov/cgi-‐bin/geo/shapefiles2013/main USCB (United States Census Bureau) 2013b. Tiger/Line Shapefiles: Counties (and equivalent). Available: http://www.census.gov/cgi-‐bin/geo/shapefiles2013/main USCB (United States Census Bureau) 2013c. Tiger/Line Shapefiles: Census Tracts. Available: http://www.census.gov/cgi-‐bin/geo/shapefiles2013/main USCB (United States Census Bureau) 2013c. Tiger/Line Shapefiles: Roads. Available: http://www.census.gov/cgi-‐bin/geo/shapefiles2013/main USDA-‐NRCS (United States Department of Agriculture – Natural Resource Conservation Service). 2012. Watersheds, Hydrologic Units, Hydrologic Unit Codes, Watershed Approach, and Rapid Watershed Assessments. United States Department of Agriculture -‐ Natural Resource Conservation Service, Washington DC. Available at: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb1042207.pdf USDA-‐NRCS (United States Department of Agriculture – Natural Resource Conservation Service). Variously dated. Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) Database. United States Department of Agriculture -‐ Natural Resource Conservation Service, Washington DC. Available at: http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov. USEIA (United States Energy Information Administration). 2011. Annual Energy Outlook 2011 with Projections to 2035. DOE/EIA-‐0383(2011) U.S. Energy Information Administration, Washington, DC. 235 pp. Available at: http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/pdf/0383(2011).pdf USGS (United States Geological Survey). 2006. Collection of water samples (ver. 2.0): U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-‐Resources Investigations, Book 9, Chapter A4. Available at: http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A4/.




USGS (United States Geological Survey). 2011. Marcellus Shale Assessment Unit GIS Shapefile. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA. Available at: http://certmapper.cr.usgs.gov/noga/servlet/NogaNewGISResultsSubServ?page=gis&tps=506704 Wilde, F. D. 2006a. Guidelines for Field-‐Measured Water-‐Quality Properties (ver. 2.0): U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-‐Resources Investigations, book 9, chap. A6., sec. 6.0. Available at: http://water.usgs.gov/owq/FieldManual/Chapter6/Chapter6.0v2.pdf. Wilde, F. D.. 2006b. Temperature (ver. 2): U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-‐Resources Investigations, book 9, chap. A6., sec. 6.1. Available at: http://water.usgs.gov/owq/FieldManual/Chapter6/6.1_ver2.pdf. Williams, P. 2008. Appalacian Shales. Oil & Gas Investor 28(6):46-‐58.

new impactsofhydraulicfracturinginfrastructuredevelopment ! … · 2015. 3. 9. ·...

Documents