on the cover contents - south texas geological …south texas geological society (2017 2 march 2017...
TRANSCRIPT
Bulletin of the
South Texas Geological Society
South Texas Geological Society March 2017 1
The South Texas Geological Society Bulletin is published monthly from September through May by the South Texas Geological Society, P.O. Box 17805, San Antonio, Texas, 78217. Phone: 210-822-9092. Copyright 2016 by the South Texas Geological Society. All rights reserved.
Subscriptions: Subscriptions to this publication is included in the membership dues (annual renewal). Subscription price for non-members is $80.00, single copy is $10.00.
Advertising: Advertising accepted any time. Please contact the South Texas Geological Society Advertising Chair for additional information, Allison Craig, [email protected].
Contents
Directory ………….…….........................
Index of Advertisers ………….……..........
President’s Message ………...……............
Editor’s Message ………….......................
Joint STGS & SAGS Meeting Notice..........
SIPES Meeting Notice………………………
Upcoming Events……………………………
Featured Article………….…….………..
Impacts from Above-Ground
Activities in the Eagle Ford Shale
Play on Landscapes and Hydrologic
Flows, LaSalle County, Texas
Volume LVII Issue No. 7
March, 2017
On The Cover
Jesse Mesa standing on the
Boquillas Fm at Big Bend
National Park
2
5
Joint STGS & SAGS Lunch Meeting Notice
Date: Wednesday, March 8th, 2017
Time: 11:30 am
Location: Petroleum Club, 7th Floor
8620 N. New Braunfels,
San Antonio, Texas
Speaker: William A. Ambrose,
Bureau of Economic Geology
Topic: Depositional History of the Upper Wilcox Group and Lower Reklaw Formation, Northern Bee County, Texas
Visit our webpage: www.STGS.org
3
15
7
11
14
37
Bulletin of the
South Texas Geological Society
March 2017 South Texas Geological Society 2
President Ted Flanigan, Independent 830-796-0032 [email protected]
Past President (2015-16) & Webmaster
Tim McGovern, Geological Consultant 210-698-6629 [email protected]
President Elect (2017-18)
Allan Clark, USGS, Texas Water Science Center—South Texas Program
210-691-9228 [email protected]
Vice President David Clay, Ames Energy Advisors, LLC. 210-824-3100 Ext. 22
Secretary Mary Hughes, Petroleum Geologist 936-203-4444 [email protected]
Secretarial Services Doreen Brooner, Professional Secretarial Svcs 210-822-9092 [email protected]
Treasurer Bradley Arnett, GulfTex Energy LLC 210-402-9600 [email protected]
Bulletin Editor Joe McGovern, BlackBrush Oil & Gas 361-331-0540 [email protected]
Advertising Chair Allison Craig, Weatherford 210-307-9122 [email protected]
Nominating Chair John Long, Independent 210-276-0318 [email protected]
Programs Committee Bonnie Weise, Geological Consultant 210-402-0957 [email protected]
Lunch Meeting Reservation Connie Mechler, AWP Operating Company 210-820-2081 [email protected]
Continuing Education Alf Hawkins, Hawkins Remote Sensing & Exploration
210-829-5530 [email protected]
Field Trips Tom Fett, Independent Consultant 830-612-2929 [email protected]
Community Outreach/Youth Service
Katie Urbis, Silverback Exploration 817-694-8404 [email protected]
Academic Liaison Glen S. Tanck, Palo Alto College 210-921-5483 [email protected]
Christmas Party Margaret R. Perales-Graham, MPG Petroleum
210-828-4666 [email protected]
Accountants Gibbons, Vogel & Company 210-826-4347
Executive Committee Gene Ames III, Ames Energy Advisors, LLC 210-824-3100 [email protected]
Ken Helm, Hurd Enterprises, Ltd. 210-829-2234 [email protected]
Scholarship Committee
Debbie Dorsett, Geological Engineer 210-379-5511 [email protected]
Ken Helm, Hurd Enterprises, Ltd. 210-829-2234 [email protected]
Ben Boyer, Hurd Enterprises, Ltd. 210-829-2269 [email protected]
Mark E. Thompson, Independent 210-415-3508 [email protected]
Ted Flanigan, Independent 830-796-0032 [email protected]
Jones-Amsbury Grant Mark E. Thompson, Independent 210-415-3508 [email protected]
AAPG Delegates Ken Helm, Hurd Enterprises, Ltd. 210-829-2234 [email protected]
John Casiano, Abraxas Petroleum 210-757-9853 [email protected]
Andrea Smith, Smitty Geological Consulting 214-476-0369 [email protected]
(Alternate) Tim McGovern, Geological Consultant
361-537-3572 [email protected]
Offi
cers
& C
om
mitt
ee
s 2
01
6 -
20
17
Bulletin of the
South Texas Geological Society
South Texas Geological Society March 2017 3
To Our Advertisers: On Behalf of the South Texas Geological Society, we would like to take this opportunity to
thank each and every one of you for your contributions to the
bulletin. Without your support, we could not provide our
members with such a high quality publication.
Thank you very much!
To Our Members and Readers: Please recognize and extend your
appreciation to the various bulletin advertisers by either using
their services or recommending them to others whenever possible.
If you are interested in having an
Ad Space, please contact: Allison Craig
STGS Advertising Chair 2016-2017
[email protected] Office - 210-307-9122
Ad
verti
sin
g In
dex
2
01
6 -
20
17
Advertiser Page
Activa Resources 9
Ageron Energy 29
AWP Operating Company 26
BlackBrush Oil & Gas 30
CGG Outside
Cover
Core Lab 4
Dan A. Hughes Company 26
EOG Resources 26
GeoSteering 9
Geotech Logging Services 27
Global Geophysical Services 29
Gulftex Energy 30
Go Big Bend 25
Halliburton 4
Hurd Enterprises, LTD. 30
Killam Companies 28
McGovco 27
McGovern Geological Consulting 8
Metano Energy 28
MJ Systems 8
Paleo Control, Inc. 27
Petrophysics 27
Pioneer Drilling Company 6
Sage Energy 6
Society of Petroleum Engineers
(Balcones Section) 27
Thunder Exploration, Inc. 28
Valor Exploration 6
Welder Exploration & Production 28
South Texas Geological Society March 2017 5
President’s Message
I love South Texas in the spring! The
days are getting longer, the land is
greening up, maybe the cold weather
is behind us, and the wildflowers are right
around the corner.
Last week I served as a judge at the Alamo
Regional Science Fair at St. Mary's
University, and boy was that ever fun!
There were several hundred displays from
middle and high school students with lots
of talent on display. The STGS is giving out
awards of $150, $100, and $50 for the top
students in both the high school and
middle school divisions.
The 100th annual AAPG meeting is coming
up in Houston in the first week of April. It
looks like the Houston Geological Society
is pulling out all the stops to put on a first
class gala event to celebrate this landmark
anniversary, I encourage everyone to
attend.
On Saturday, April 8th, John Cooper and
Tom Fett will lead a field trip to examine
and discuss four Austin Chalk outcrops in
the San Antonio area.
Best regards,
Ted Flanigan STGS President 2016-2017
Pre
sid
ent’
s M
essa
ge
South Texas Geological Society March 2017 7
Editor’s Message
Edit
or’
s M
ess
age
I managed to make it out to NAPE
again a couple of weeks ago. Much like
the price of oil, the attendance
appeared to be on the rise in comparison to
last year, which was very encouraging. It
never ceases to amaze me how many great
south Texas deals can be brought together
into one big convention center, and of
course west Texas deals along with other
great ideas from all over the world. The
city managed to wrap up the construction
just in time for the Super Bowl, so the
George R. Brown convention center was a
fantastic site to walk into.
I lucked into an excellent paper for this
month’s Bulletin article by Jon Paul Pierre,
et al. with the Bureau of Economic Geology
titled “Impacts from above-ground activities
in the Eagle Ford Shale play on landscapes
and hydrologic flows” . Beyond the LaSalle
County case study, I believe the authors are
also working to complete an analysis of the
entire play, so I will certainly keep my eyes
peeled for that once it becomes available.
STGS is always on the lookout for
interesting technical articles and opinion
editorials. If you have participated in a
South Texas geological study, I strongly
encourage you to submit your paper in an
upcoming STGS Bulletin. It is a great
opportunity to put your work out there so
others can better educate themselves in
your area of expertise.
I would like to thank all of our Advertisers
for their gracious contributions that allow
for the Bulletin to finance print every
month. Thank you to the authors for
contributing your technical articles, they
have been paramount to the Bulletin. Last
but certainly not least, I would like to thank
all of the readers for their infinite interest.
Joe McGovern
STGS Editor 2016-2017
Bulletin of the
South Texas Geological Society
March 2017 South Texas Geological Society 10
C
ale
nd
ar
SUN MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT
1
Ash Wednesday
2
3
4
5
6 7
8
STGS & SAGS Joint Meeting
11:30 AM
Petroleum Club
9 10
11
Purim (begins at sunset)
12
Daylight Savings Time Begins
13
South-Central GSA Annual Meeting
14
South-Central GSA Annual Meeting
15
16
SIPES Monthly Lunch Meeting
11:30 AM
Petroleum Club
17
St. Patrick’s Day
18
19 20
21
STGS Neogeos
Happy Hour
5:30 PM
Freetail Brewing
22 23
24
25
26
27
28
29 30
31
March 2017
Bulletin of the
South Texas Geological Society
South Texas Geological Society March 2017 11
ST
GS
& S
AG
S Jo
int
Lun
ch M
ee
tin
g
SPEAKER: William A. Ambrose, Bureau of Economic Geology
TOPIC: Depositional History of the Upper Wilcox Group and Lower Reklaw
Formation, Northern bee County, Texas
LOCATION: San Antonio Petroleum Club, 8620 N. New Braunfels, 7th Floor
TIME: 11:30 AM to 1:00 PM, Wednesday, March 8th, 2017
*Always the second Wednesday of the month*
COST: $25.00 for members with reservations **NEW POLICY**
$30.00 for members without reservations **NEW POLICY**
Free for Student members (Sponsored by CoreLabs)
RESERVATIONS: **New** Register AND pre-pay online at www.STGS.org
Abstract
A detailed study of the upper Wilcox and lower Reklaw stratigraphic succession in a ~190-mi2 (490-km2) area along
the upper Wilcox shelf margin in northern Bee County, Texas, resolves these units into a series of 19 fourth-order
sequences and demonstrates that the upper Wilcox to lower Reklaw succession contains significant variability in
depositional systems, facies, and reservoir sandstone-body geometry than previously documented. Although wave-modified, fluvial-dominated deltaic systems are inferred in the upper Wilcox succession from previous studies in
which facies tracts and depositional systems are inferred from thick (commonly >400-ft [>122-m]) stratigraphic
intervals that encompass several fourth-order sequences, this study documents a wide variety of other depositional systems such as wave-dominated shoreface, inner-shelf, lower-coastal-plain streamplain, and lowstand fluvial
systems. This study further demonstrates the need to divide the upper Wilcox succession into high-resolution fourth-
order sequences in order to better infer controls on facies and sandstone-body geometry on reservoir distribution and productivity at a fine scale.
A complex shoreline trajectory in the upper Wilcox to lower Reklaw succession records net coastal offlap,
punctuated by numerous transgressive-regressive cycles representing shoreline retreat and advance. The lower one-half of the upper Wilcox succession represents a major, 700-ft (213-m) retrogradational cycle composed mostly of
deltaic and shoreface deposits. This retrogradational cycle, capped by shelf deposits that represent maximum coastal
onlap, is overlain by a 300-ft (91.5-m) regressive cycle that culminated in a period of forced regression associated with lowstand incised-valley fill deposits. The shoreline trajectory in the uppermost upper Wilcox section records
another cycle, 150 to 200 ft (45 to 60 m thick) of transgression and shoreline retreat, followed by a final, 100- to 150
-ft (30- to 45-m) phase of coastal offlap. In contrast, the overlying lower Reklaw stratigraphic succession represents
a period of shoreline stabilization with a series of aggradational shoreface depositional intervals along the downthrown side of a major growth fault in northern Bee County along the upper Wilcox/lower Reklaw shelf
margin.
Bulletin of the
South Texas Geological Society
March 2017 South Texas Geological Society 12
ST
GS
& S
AG
S Jo
int
Lun
ch M
ee
tin
g
The upper Wilcox succession in northern Bee County, Texas includes a prominent valley-fill system within the Luling Sand, a composite of a lower, shallow-marine, shoreface system truncated by an upper incised-valley-fill fluvial system (Figs. 1 to
3). The lower Luling Sand consists of barrier-core and barrier-margin (backbarrier) deposits in a wave-dominated shoreline
setting (Figs. 2 and 4). Modern depositional analogs for wave-dominated coastal deposits in lower Luling Sand core include
the wave-dominated, microtidal, and transgressive shoreline near the Santee Delta and Cape Romain in South Carolina, where the sandy coastline pinches out landward into muddy backbarrier and transgressive washover-fan and destructional-
beach facies.
In contrast, the upper Luling Sand represents lowstand, incised-valley deposits that truncate shallow-marine deposits in the
lower Luling Sand (Figs. 1 and 3). Diagnostic features for this incised-valley system include (1) inferred truncation of
underlying strata (Fig. 1), aggradational wireline-log responses commonly characterized by blocky gamma-ray (GR) and spontaneous potential (SP) curves, and straight-to-braided gross-sandstone patterns in map view (Fig. 3). Differences
between sandstone-body geometry and architecture between the upper and lower Luling Sand are a function of unique
depositional origin and have implications for future reservoir development in northern Bee County and adjacent areas in
south-central Texas. Detailed knowledge of sandstone-body geometry and reservoir continuity in each system (fluvial versus shallow-marine, upper versus lower Luling Sands, respectively) can be used for strategically targeting additional areas for
infill and stepout wells where combination structural-stratigraphic traps may exist.
Publication approved by the Director, Bureau of Economic Geology.
Biography
William A. Ambrose is a Research Scientist at the Bureau of Economic Geology. He received a Master of Arts degree in
geological sciences in 1983 from the University of Texas at Austin. Since joining the Bureau of Economic Geology in 1987,
he has worked on a variety of projects at the Bureau, including characterization of the Woodbine Group in the East Texas Basin, Frio fluvial and deltaic reservoirs in South Texas, tight-gas reservoirs in the Cleveland Formation in the Texas
Panhandle, co-production of gas and hot brine from Oligocene reservoirs in the Texas Gulf Coast, evaluation of coalbed
methane reservoirs in Rocky Mountain basins, and reservoir characterization and basin analysis studies in Venezuela and Mexico. He is currently the principal investigator of the Bureau’s STARR (State of Texas Advanced Oil and Gas Resource
Recovery) program, past president of the Energy Minerals Division (EMD) of AAPG, chair of the EMD Coal Committee,
and past co-chair of the AAPG Astrogeology Committee. His contact information is--email: [email protected] , telephone: 512-471-0258, address: Bureau of Economic Geology, The University of
Texas at Austin, University Station, Box X, Austin, TX, 78713-8924.
Figure 1. Northwest-southeast stratigraphic cross section A-A’ depicting lowstand incised
valley-fill deposits in the upper Luling Sand that truncate highstand, wave-dominated shoreline
deposits in the lower Luling Sand. Line of cross section shown in Figs. 2 and 3. Gross-
sandstone thickness maps of the lower and upper Luling Sand are shown in Figs. 2 and 3,
respectively.
Bulletin of the
South Texas Geological Society
South Texas Geological Society March 2017 13
ST
GS
& S
AG
S Jo
int
Lun
ch M
ee
tin
g
Figure 2. Gross-sandstone thickness and initial-potential data in the lower part of the Luling Sand in northern Bee
County. Northwest-southeast stratigraphic section is
shown in Fig. 1. Description of the Carl No. 1 Gillette
well is shown in Fig. 4
Figure 3. Gross-sandstone thickness and initial-potential data from oil and gas wells in the upper part of the Luling
Sand in northern Bee County. Northwest-southeast
stratigraphic section is shown in Fig. 1. Core description
of the Carl No. 1 Gillette well is shown in Fig. 4.
Figure 4. Log response and core description of part of the lower Luling Sand in the Carl No. 1 Gillette well, located
in Fig. 3.
March 2017 South Texas Geological Society 14
SPEAKER: Paul M. Bommer, Distinguished Senior Lecturer
TOPIC: The Causes and Aftermath of the Macondo Disaster—A Cautionary Tale
LOCATION: San Antonio Petroleum Club, 8620 N. New Braunfels, San Antonio, Texas 78217
TIME: 11:30 AM to 1:00 PM, Thursday, March 16th, 2017
*Always the third Thursday of the month*
COST: Free for paying dues members
$25.00 for guests (Includes Lunch)
RESERVATIONS: Please call Doreen at 210-822-9092 or email [email protected]
ABSTRACT The Macondo blow out was the worst oil field catastrophe to occur in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico to date. This talk
discusses how such a calamity could have been allowed to occur. The background of BP is discussed followed by
the technical facts. Finally the aftermath of the disaster are discussed not the least of which was the temporary
suspension of new drilling permits for the Gulf and the as yet unknown effects of the oil released and the chemicals used during the blow out.
BIOGRAPHY Paul M. Bommer is a Distinguished Senior Lecturer and holder of the Chevron Lectureship in Petroleum
Engineering at the University of Texas at Austin. He was awarded the University of Texas Regents Outstanding
Teaching Award in 2014. He received his Bachelor’s (1976), Master’s (1977), and Doctoral (1979) degrees in
Petroleum Engineering, all from the University of Texas at Austin.
He served on a NOAA committee tasked with estimating the flow rate from the Macondo well and on the
NAE and NTSB committee that investigated the cause of the blow out and made recommendations about steps to
prevent future disasters.
He is the author of several technical papers and one text book and the holder of one patent. His current
research interests are in artificial lift and well bore sealants.
He spent over twenty-five years in industry as an oil and gas operator and consultant in Texas and other
parts of the United States. He and his brother Peter (University of Texas, BS-PGE, 1978) are co-owners of Bommer
Engineering Company.
SIP
ES L
un
ch M
ee
tin
g Society of Independent Professional Earth Scientists (SIPES)
Bulletin of the
South Texas Geological Society
South Texas Geological Society March 2017 15
Ev
en
ts
Bulletin of the
South Texas Geological Society
March 2017 South Texas Geological Society 16
Ev
en
ts
Bulletin of the
South Texas Geological Society
South Texas Geological Society March 2017 17
Ev
en
ts
Bulletin of the
South Texas Geological Society
March 2017 South Texas Geological Society 18
Ev
en
ts
Bulletin of the
South Texas Geological Society
South Texas Geological Society March 2017 19
Ev
en
ts
March 2017 South Texas Geological Society 20
THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT SAN ANTONIO DEPARTMENT OF GEOLOGICAL SCIENCES
ENDOWED DISTINGUISHED PROFESSORSHIP IN
HYDROGEOLOGY
The University of Texas at San Antonio (UTSA) invites applications from senior scholars in the field of Hydrology to
fill a tenured position at the Professor or Associate Professor level, subject to qualifications, to begin Fall 2017. The
successful candidate will be awarded the Dr. Weldon W. Hammond, Jr. Endowed Distinguished Professorship in
Hydrogeology. Read more about the endowed chair at:
http://www.utsa.edu/geosci/pdf/wwh_endowment_brief.pdf.
Information on the geoscience program and details on what to include in an application can be viewed at
www.utsa.edu/geosci/positions.html. Review of completed applications will begin November 18, 2016 and
continue until the position is filled.
STGS “GUIDEBOOKS IN SCHOOLS” PROJECT
Sponsored by Frank Morrill
In 2008, the South Texas Geological Society published the guidebook
“Landscapes, Water, and Man: Geology and History in the San Antonio Area of Texas”,
written by Tom Ewing and based on earlier versions of his work. Although this
guidebook had been sold primarily through the Society’s regular publication sales, it
had never been directly distributed to schools in the San Antonio area. Last year, STGS
member Frank Morrill recognized that this guidebook would indeed be a great
resource for local teachers to use for their Earth science and environmental science
classes. So Frank proposed that the STGS embark on a project to deliver
complimentary copies to the local high schools, and he very generously provided the
funding to cover the cost of those books.
South Texas Geological Society March 2017 21
2017-2018 STGS Candidates
President elect: Alexis Godet, Tom Fett
Vice President: John Cooper, Jose Rodriguez
Secretary: Kathryn Branley, Mary Hughes
Treasurer: Bradley Arnett, Nick Quante
Executive Committee: Bud Holzman, Tim McGovern, John Waugh, Kim Wright
Editor: Joe McGovern
*Candidate resumes and photographs will be published in the April Bulletin
March 2017 South Texas Geological Society 22
South Texas Geological Society 2017 Jones-Amsbury Research Grant
The San Antonio based South Texas Geological Society (STGS) offers a financial assistance research grant
of $1,000 to graduate students currently enrolled in a Texas university who are pursuing the Masters Degree
in Geology or Earth Science. The subject of the research, usually being a thesis undertaken as part of the
requirement for earning the Masters Degree, must pertain to some aspect of the geology of south, or south-
central Texas.
Each applicant for the research grant must have an estimated completion date of one and one-half years or
less from the time of funding. Therefore, the ideal candidate would be completing his/her first year of
graduate work at the time of submittal of the application, and would be in a position to finish the proposed
research by the spring or fall of the following year.
Application Procedure
Submit the following to the Chairman of the STGS Jones-Amsbury Research Grant Committee no later than
April 1, 2017.
1. The one page Application Form for the 2017 Jones-Amsbury Research Grant which is listed on the STGS
web site at www.stgs.org
2. A research proposal, limited to three pages in length. The submittal may be a copy of the thesis proposal
or other research proposal previously submitted to and approved by academic supervisors. The proposal
must clearly state: a) how the research relates to the geology of south Texas, either directly or indirectly, b)
research purpose/objectives, c) methods of investigation, and d) projected uses of the research grant funds.
3. A letter of endorsement from the applicant's academic advisor either included with the application and
proposal or sent directly by the advisor. The letter should verify the qualifications of the student to conduct
the proposed research and the attainability of the one and one-half year time limit to complete the research.
Obligation of Student Candidate and Academic Advisor
In addition to encouraging geological research in south Texas, the STGS also desires to disseminate
information to its members. Toward this goal, the STGS requires that all recipients of the Jones-Amsbury
Research Grant submit their research upon its completion to the STGS for publication in the Bulletin of the
South Texas Geological Society. Being that most completed research will be in the form of a formal thesis
presented to the candidate's university, a summary of the research or some other format compatible with
publication in the STGS Bulletin will be deemed acceptable for this requirement. At the time of funding, all
recipients and the recipient’s academic advisor will sign an acknowledgement of this publication
requirement.
All applicants will be notified of the results by May 15, 2017. Funding will be awarded by May 31, 2017.
Return all research proposal material either by mail or email to:
Chairman, Jones-Amsbury Research Grant Committee
South Texas Geological Society
P.O. Box 17805
San Antonio, Texas 78217
Mark E. Thompson
Chairman, Jones-Amsbury Research Grant Committee
South Texas Geological Society March 2017 23
SOUTH TEXAS GEOLOGICAL SOCIETY
P.O. Box 17805, San Antonio, Texas 78217
Telephone 210.822.9092 - fax 210.822.7375
2017 Scholarship Committee: Debbie Dorsett, Ken Helm,
Mark Thompson, Ben Boyer, Ted Flanigan
Instructions For The STGS Field Camp Scholarship
The South Texas Geological Society Scholarship Fund provides scholarships to assist
students with the expense to attend a summer geology field camp that is required in the
pursuit of a degree in the geological sciences. These Field Camp Scholarship awards are
limited to those students that are enrolled at either Trinity University or the University of
Texas at San Antonio.
All applicants for the Field Camp Scholarship award should complete the two page
Application for STGS 2017 Field Camp Scholarship and return it to the address listed on
the application form by the April 1, 2017 deadline date.
South Texas Geological Society March 2017 25
Explore One Billion Years of
West Texas History Leading Geologist: Pat Dickerson, Ph.D.
Visit 3 National Parks, a National Monument, a National Historic Site, 4 State Parks, and the 3rd most powerful
telescope in the world.
Enjoy comfortable hotel accommodations, great meals and spectacular landscapes.
Go to https://gobigbend.com/time-travel-tour, or call Mike Davidson at (432)386-5635 for more information.
12 Days and 11 Nights beginning and ending in El Paso, TX, 3 National Parks, 3 State Park, a National Monument, and a National Historic Site
March 2017 South Texas Geological Society 26
Contact Allison Craig for Advertising
Information!
Or go to
www.STGS.org
For more information!
South Texas Geological Society March 2017 27
Gulf Coast Onshore Data Resource
Synthetic Seismograms
Velocity Surveys
Digital Sonic Log Database
www.petrophysics.com
Contact Allison Craig for Advertising
Information!
Or go to
www.STGS.org
For more information!
March 2017 South Texas Geological Society 28
KILLAM
RICK HOIN CHIEF GEOLOGIST
DAVE MILLER GEOLOGIST
KEVIN FOWLER GEOLOGIST
NATHAN GLONDYS GEOLOGIST
MARK MECKE DRILLING ENGINEER
LOUIS DOUBLET RESERVOIR ENGINEER
CLIFFE KILLAM Partner
Actively seeking prospects and properties
Contact Cliffe Killam
17115 San Pedro – Suite 300
San Antonio, Texas 78232
Office 210-403-3404, Fax 210-403-3773
www.killamcompanies.com
Exploring, Drilling, and Producing in the
Texas Costal Bend and South Texas
Seeking Prospects-Confidentiality Assured
Prospects can be sent to [email protected]
March 2017 South Texas Geological Society 32
GLS Solutions, Inc.
Grant L. Snyder, PG
Vice-President / Principal Hydrogeologist
15714 Huebner Road, Building 3
San Antonio, TX 78248
Phone (210) 601-0219
Fax (210) 447-3301
South Texas Geological Society March 2017 33
Fin
d u
s o
n F
ace
bo
ok
Find the South Texas Geological Society on Facebook
Bulletin of the
South Texas Geological Society
March 2017 South Texas Geological Society 34
Objectives: The South Texas Geological Society, founded in 1929, is a non-profit organization whose purposes are:
To advance the science of geology;
To promote the technology of exploring for, finding and producing raw material from the earth, their conservation and propitious use;
To foster the spirit of scientific research;
To disseminate facts relating to geological science;
To inspire and maintain a high standard of professional conduct on the part of its members; and
To provide the public with means of recognition of adequately trained and professionally responsible geologists.
Membership: Membership includes individuals who are concerned with the professional application of geological sciences and have been judged qualified by the Board of Directors.
Membership class and related qualifications are detailed in the South Texas Geological Society By-Laws, Article III, and are summarized in the membership requirements section of this application.
Bulletin: The Society’s primary publication is the Bulletin of The South Texas Geological Society, published monthly from September through May. The Bulletin provides members with technical articles and news of the Society.
Activities: Activities of the Society include monthly meetings from September through May. Guest speakers provide the foundation for the monthly meetings. Business of the Society is also transacted. Speaker topics and meeting location, times, and dates are announced in the Bulletin and by mail and email notices sent to members. Additional activities include short courses, field trips, seminars and social events.
Classes of Membership and Requirements:
Active: Any person engaged in the practice or teaching of geological science may apply for Active membership, provided the applicant holds a degree in geological science from an acceptable college. The degree
requirement may be waived by the Board of Directors if the applicant has adequate geological experience.
Associate: Associate members are those not eligible for other classes of membership.
Student: Student members must be enrolled in a college, majoring in geological science.
Corporate: A corporate member may be any corporation or organization whose activities and/or interests, at least in part, concern the science of geology and the advancement of geological study within their industry and community. The member will be awarded two (2) designated representatives, both of which must qualify as Active members established under the By-Laws of the Society and both shall be in the employ of the company. The two (2) designated representatives of the corporation shall be exempt from paying individual dues but will have all rights established for individual Active members under Article III, Section 1A. The corporation shall have no voting rights. Membership eligibility, dues and certain rights and privileges of the corporate members require a majority vote of the Board of Directors.
Honorary: Honorary membership is the highest honor which the Society may confer on a member. Nominees for Honorary membership must be voting members of the Society who have distinguished themselves in their services to the Society and to their profession. They must be sponsored by three (3) voting members in good standing in a written recommendation to the Board of Directors. On approval of such recommendation by the Board, nominees will be presented to the voting membership. Election to this high honor shall be by an affirmative vote of two-thirds (2/3) of the voting members of the Society who cast written ballots. Honorary members are not required to pay dues.
Active and Honorary members comprise the voting membership. Associate and Student members are non-voting.
STG
S M
em
be
rsh
ip A
pp
licati
on
Bulletin of the
South Texas Geological Society
South Texas Geological Society March 2017 35
ST
GS
Me
mb
ers
hip
Ap
plic
atio
n
Instructions to Applicants:
Application for membership admissions, reinstatement, or change in status should be made on this form. It is necessary that all relevant parts of this application be filled out completely so that the Board of Directors may judge the eligibility and adequacy of qualifications. Normal processing time is 45 days. Upon election, the Secretary will notify you of your instatement.
Note: Application for Corporate Membership should be made on the separate Corporate Membership Application Form, which can be obtained from the Society Secretary or the website (www.stgs.org).
Reinstatement: Former members who have allowed their memberships to lapse will be reinstated upon payment of their membership dues for one full year, and upon completion and return of this membership application. The signature of three voting members is not required.
Change in Class: Members who wish to change their membership class should complete and return this application and remit the appropriate dues.
Dues: Payment must be included with application. Dues are not refundable after applicant is approved by the Board of Directors. A dues summary is scheduled below.
Dues Summary: Memberships are annual and dues payments are due June 1st each year.
Active and Associate Membership: $25.00
Student Membership: $10.00
Corporate Membership: $450.00
Complete all parts of this form, obtain proper sponsors’ signatures, if available, and return with a check to: South Texas Geological Society
P.O. Box 17805 San Antonio, Texas 78217
I am applying for: Admission Reinstatement Change of Status
Type of Membership: Active Associate Student
The Board of Directors, after reviewing this application, may change your membership application status in order to insure proper membership classification.
General Information: (Please type or print)
Name:__________________________________________________________________________________________________ Last First Middle
Preferred Name:_______________________________________ Spouse’s Name:_______________________________________
Company or School:_____________________________________ Present Position:______________________________________
Business or School Address:___________________________________________________________________________________ Street City State Zip
Business Phone:________________________________________ Home Phone:________________________________________
Business Fax:__________________________________________ Home Fax:__________________________________________
Home Address:___________________________________________________________________________________________ Street City State Zip
Preferred Mailing Address: Business Home
Email Address:____________________________________________________________________________________________
Professional Affiliations: Active AAPG SIPES SAGS
List Others:_______________________________________________________________________________________
Society Use Only
Date Initials
President
Vice-President
Secretary
Treasurer
Editor
Director
Director
Application Received
Dues Received
Added to Mail List
Bulletin of the
South Texas Geological Society
March 2017 South Texas Geological Society 36
Record of Experience
Education: College(s) or University(s)
Professional Experience: (If additional space is required use a separate sheet)
Dates Worked:____________________________ Company:________________________________ Position:______________________________________________ Company’s Address:______________________________________________________________________________ Responsibilities:______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Dates Worked:____________________________ Company:________________________________ Position:______________________________________________ Company’s Address:______________________________________________________________________________ Responsibilities:______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Dates Worked:____________________________ Company:________________________________ Position:______________________________________________ Company’s Address:______________________________________________________________________________ Responsibilities:______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Total years of professional geological experience: _____________ Endorsement: Applicant is required to try and secure signatures of three voting members of the South Texas Geological Society. Please sign and date your application for membership in the appropriate space at the bottom of this application. If you do not know any current members, please check the box below and forward your application for membership along with the appropriate fees to the address given on this form.
I do not know three (3) voting members of the South Texas Geological Society.
We, the undersigned, judge the applicant to be qualified for the class of membership in the South Texas Geological Society indicated on this application.
Signature of Applicant:____________________________________________ Date of Application:______________________________________________
STG
S M
em
be
rsh
ip A
pp
licati
on
School City and State Degree Major Date of Completion
Sponsor’s Name (print or type) Sponsor’s Signature
Impacts from Above-Ground Activities in the Eagle Ford ShalePlay on Landscapes and Hydrologic Flows, La Salle County,Texas
Jon Paul Pierre1,2 • Charles J. Abolt2,3 • Michael H. Young2
Received: 8 July 2014 / Accepted: 31 March 2015
� Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015
Abstract We assess the spatial and geomorphic frag-
mentation from the recent Eagle Ford Shale play in La
Salle County, Texas, USA. Wells and pipelines were
overlaid onto base maps of land cover, soil properties,
vegetation assemblages, and hydrologic units. Changes to
continuity of different ecoregions and supporting land-
scapes were assessed using the Landscape Fragmentation
Tool (a third-party ArcGIS extension) as quantified by land
area and continuity of core landscape areas (i.e., those
degraded by ‘‘edge effects’’). Results show decreases in
core areas (8.7 %; *33,290 ha) and increases in landscape
patches (0.2 %; *640 ha), edges (1.8 %; *6940 ha), and
perforated areas (4.2 %; *16230 ha). Pipeline construc-
tion dominates landscape disturbance, followed by drilling
and injection pads (85, 15, and 0.03 % of disturbed area,
respectively). An increased potential for soil loss is indi-
cated, with 51 % (*5790 ha) of all disturbance regimes
occurring on soils with low water-transmission rates (depth
to impermeable layer less than 50 cm) and a high surface
runoff potential (hydrologic soil group D). Additionally,
88 % (*10,020 ha) of all disturbances occurred on soils
with a wind erodibility index of approximately 19 kt/km2/
year (0.19 kt/ha/year) or higher, resulting in an estimated
potential of 2 million tons of soil loss per year. Results
demonstrate that infrastructure placement is occurring on
soils susceptible to erosion while reducing and splitting
core areas potentially vital to ecosystem services.
Keywords Eagle Ford � Landscape impacts �Fragmentation � Ecosystems
Introduction
As human populations and new economies grow, so do our
demands for natural resources. Concentrated energy ex-
traction can potentially lead to ecosystem degradation,
landscape fragmentation, and a loss of biodiversity. Re-
search has shown that anthropogenically induced landscape
disturbance transforms heterogeneous ecosystems to more
simplified homogeneous ecosystems that support less di-
verse wildlife (Daily 1997; Haila 2002; Pardini et al. 2010).
These disturbances stem from a variety of activities, in-
cluding slash and burn agricultural practices, timber har-
vesting, road building (Burnett et al. 2011), urbanization
(Wu 2009), and extraction of hydrocarbons such as coal,
oil, and gas (Linke et al. 2005; Bi et al. 2011; Krauss et al.
2013).
Within the last 10–15 years, advancements in tech-
nology have revolutionized the extraction of hydrocarbons
from tight geologic formations (e.g., shale and tight sands),
greatly increasing oil and gas recovery in the U.S. (Driskill
et al. 2012; U.S. Government Accountability Office 2012).
In South Texas, for example, permits acquired for the
Eagle Ford (EF) Shale play increased from 94 to 1010
Electronic supplementary material The online version of thisarticle (doi:10.1007/s00267-015-0492-2) contains supplementarymaterial, which is available to authorized users.
& Michael H. Young
1 Energy and Earth Resources Program, Jackson School
of Geosciences, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin,
TX, USA
2 Bureau of Economic Geology, Jackson School
of Geosciences, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin,
TX, USA
3 Department of Geological Sciences, Jackson School
of Geosciences, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin,
TX, USA
123
Environmental Management
DOI 10.1007/s00267-015-0492-2
between 2009 and 2010, and permits issued in 2011 nearly
tripled (2826) those issued in 2010 (Railroad Commission
of Texas 2014). In April 2014, over 200 drilling rigs were
maintaining operation in the EF play (compared to an av-
erage of 269 rigs in 2012, or 15 % of all 2012 U.S. rigs)
(Gong et al. 2013), making it the most active shale play in
the world (Dukes 2014). This rapid increase in oil and gas
(O&G) drilling activity in South Texas is accompanied by
the building of roads, pipelines, and other infrastructure,
and by substantial economic and employment impacts. As
of 2012, for example, the total economic impact in the
14-county core area of the EF was estimated at over $46
billion in revenues, with over 86,000 jobs created (Tunstall
et al. 2013).
Several recent studies have found that the hydraulic-
fracturing process itself has had little impact on environ-
mental quality and that most incidences of contamination
occurred on the surface (U.S. Government Accountability
Office 2012). Considering the landscape, researchers in
Pennsylvania analyzed early trends of land-cover change in
the Marcellus Shale play. Preliminary results indicate the
importance of well-pad location and support infrastructure
to minimize soil erosion, stream sedimentation, alteration
in stream flow rates, and landscape fragmentation (Johnson
2010; Entrekin et al. 2011; Drohan and Brittingham 2012;
Drohan et al. 2012). This research examines the early years
of play development and shows how exploration can be
done with reduced above-ground impact. In the Marcellus,
Drohan et al. (2012) suggested that land reserved for dril-
ling competes somewhat with land previously reserved for
food production, and that sites chosen for infrastructure
development do not take into account soil and landscape
factors, potentially leading to higher risk of soil-related
issues and pollution of streams. Drohan and Brittingham
(2012) characterized soil properties in locations where
shale-gas infrastructure was built. They concluded that
reclamation practices will be most successful if site char-
acteristics such as revegetation potential, soils, climate, and
topography are considered on a case-by-case basis. In
China, Bi et al. (2011) showed that above-ground issues,
such as landscape fragmentation and changes in hydrologic
flow pathways from disturbances, continue to be eco-
logically important throughout the life of a play. They
showed that older oil-field infrastructure altered the eco-
logical function of wetlands and played a larger role in
overall landscape fragmentation, when compared to more
recent oil-field developments, because little to no eco-
logical considerations were used in the placement of the
initial infrastructure.
Considering hydrologic changes, researchers (Entrekin
et al. 2011; Olmstead et al. 2013) identified threats to
streams, including increased sedimentation and chloride
concentrations determined to be from shale-gas activities.
Entrekin et al. (2011) demonstrated that gas-well devel-
opment in the Fayetteville and Marcellus plays was located
in close proximity to headwater streams, and that sediments
and contaminants associated with drilling activities were
entering surface-water systems. They suggested a need for
more restrictions on siting infrastructure near surface-water
resources and for in-depth research on the ecological im-
pacts from the widespread development of shale resources.
Drohan et al. (2012) found that pads in non-forested areas
were located in closer proximity to streams than pads in
forested areas. However, they also expressed concerns for
headwater stream quality in forested regions and stressed
the need for focused stream quality monitoring in core
forest areas with concentrated drilling activity. Olmstead
et al. (2013) also assessed surface-water impacts from de-
velopment of the Marcellus Shale and concluded that
elevated levels of suspended solids and Cl- were migrating
into surface waters because of inadequate erosion-control
measures and improper treatment of produced water,
respectively.
Landscape impacts are a potential issue in other energy-
related projects as well. Diffendorfer and Compton (2014)
examined fragmentation from wind-energy development
across the United States. They examined new wind-energy
developments and different scales of infrastructure, in-
cluding individual turbines and roads, strings of turbines
with roads and transmission lines, and entire facilities.
They concluded that entire facilities had the greatest im-
pact on landscape fragmentation, though geographic vari-
ables (topography and land cover) played a large role in
quantifying land change. Their results suggest that land
change from wind is not yet understood and thus cannot be
compared to other types of energy development; however,
they also suggested preferentially choosing sites for new
wind development on already disturbed or degraded land.
Very little, if any, research has examined the spatial and
geomorphic fragmentation effects of the recent shale boom
in the semiarid climate of South Texas (or in any semiarid
climate). Here, reduced rainfall rates may minimize water
erosion and contaminant transport, but may also lengthen
landscape reclamation periods following drilling and in-
frastructure development on soils susceptible to wind ero-
sion. In recent years, investigators have been focusing
research on the effects of fragmentation in semiarid envi-
ronments. For example, Saiz and Alados (2011) observed
in semiarid fragmented landscapes that habitat subdivision
was complicated by shrub and grass competition and fa-
cilitation. In the context of anthropogenic land use coupled
with regional climate change, John et al. (2009) concluded
that land disturbances on a local level can quickly manifest
into changes at the regional biome level. Secondary detri-
mental effects from man-made impacts to ecosystems have
long been noticed by researchers in ecology (John et al.
Environmental Management
123
2009; Saiz and Alados 2011; Alados et al. 2011). Lowe
(1985) found that encroachment from urbanization and
agriculture into headwater (first-order ephemeral streams)
riparian areas was the largest threat to obligate riparian
amphibian and reptile species in the American Southwest
(Arizona, USA and Sonora, Mexico). Alados et al. (2009)
modeled extinction probabilities in semiarid Spain and
found that the temporal and spatial autocorrelation of dis-
turbance regimes could reach a critical threshold of habitat
destruction capable of causing an extinction event. They
recommended both considering spatial patterns of distur-
bance when predicting fragmentation effects and improv-
ing management strategies.
Given the findings of research conducted in the Mar-
cellus Shale (Entrekin et al. 2011; Drohan and Brittingham
2012; Drohan et al. 2012; Olmstead et al. 2013), the po-
tential complications caused by landscape fragmentation in
semiarid climates (Lowe 1985; John et al. 2009; Saiz and
Alados 2011; Alados et al. 2011) and the pace at which
development is proceeding in the semiarid Eagle Ford
(Martin et al. 2011), we set out to lay the framework and
build a foundational dataset for future comparative ana-
lyses. To this end, the goal of this research was to answer
the following questions:
(1) How much landscape fragmentation has occurred in
La Salle County from O&G activities?
(2) What soil characteristics are associated with land-
scape disturbance regimes?
(3) Can the hot spots of core-area degradation and hot
spots of stream disruptions be statistically identified?
The results of this research could be used to create a
development guide—as suggested previously by Drohan
and Brittingham (2012)—that can help avoid and limit
potential harmful effects from land disturbance and frag-
mentation. To our knowledge, no such work is being car-
ried out in the EF or any other semiarid shale play.
Methods and Materials
This study focuses on landscape conversion resulting from
O&G infrastructure development over a 12-year period
(March 30, 2001–December 11, 2012) in La Salle County,
Texas. We defined ‘‘disturbance’’ as the area (ha) of a
landscape that, as a result of O&G infrastructure, was bare
earth or developed during the time period the 2012 imagery
was taken. We then defined ‘‘landscape fragmentation’’ as
a change in size (ha) of landscape classes established by
Vogt et al. (2006) and analyzed using the Landscape
Fragmentation Tool (LFT) (Parent and Hurd 2007).
Landscape ecology and spatial statistical techniques were
used to quantify disturbance regimes and to identify
landscape-alteration hot spots and stream-disruption hot
spots. Analyses were performed across the entire EF play
to eliminate edge effects and to account for O&G activity
across the entire play, but we are reporting only on the
methods and results from La Salle County.
Site Description
The EF play spans an area in Texas from the southwest
border of Webb and Maverick Counties to Leon and
Madison Counties in the east (Fig. 1). Early exploration
activity in the EF began in La Salle County in July 2008.
La Salle County is situated in the West Gulf Coastal Plain
in South Texas Brush Country. La Salle County consists of
croplands (52 %), Mesquite–Granjeno Woods (40 %),
Mesquite–Blackbrush Brush (4 %), and developed or not
classified (4 %) (Homer et al. 2007). Five soil orders are
present in La Salle County: Aridisols (30 %), Alfisols
(26 %), Mollisols (13 %), Vertisols (12 %), Inceptisols
(5 %), and unclassified (14 %) (Soil Survey Staff 2013).
For the 25-county EF play, precipitation ranges from 23 to
119 cm, respectively, in the west and east, and vegetation
biomes range from a forest grassland mosaic of mesquite,
blackbrush, and blue stem in the west to post-oak woods in
the east. The dominant soil orders in La Salle County are
similar across the play. The bulk of activity in the EF is
occurring in South Texas, which is dominated by an Ustic
soil moisture regime.
La Salle County was chosen for this case study because
it provides the best representative subset of the entire play
with regards to climate, vegetation, and soil. Additionally,
owing to discoveries of liquid rich reservoirs where pro-
longed development is likely to occur, La Salle County is
situated in an area of substantial EF activity (Gong et al.
2013).
Data and GIS methods
Landscape Fragmentation
To avoid unrealistic edges created by arbitrary county
boundaries and to account for fragmentation effects from
energy development in surrounding counties, we per-
formed analyses on all 25 counties of the play, applying a
3000-m buffer to ensure that core areas found at county
edges would be accurately assessed in fragmentation ana-
lyses. Extending the buffer into counties outside the study
area leads to a more accurate assessment of landscape
classification, particularly when assigning edge areas and
assessing core areas where the status of adjacent pixels is
needed. Coordinates and associated attributes for wells
permitted between March 2001 and December 2012 were
obtained from Information Handling Services, Inc. (2013).
Environmental Management
123
We plotted wells and then overlaid the plots onto 1-m
resolution aerial imagery from 2012 obtained from the
National Agricultural Imagery Program (NAIP) (U.S.
Department of Agriculture Aerial Photography Field Office
2012). Land adjacent to each well and disturbed from the
development of O&G infrastructure (well pads, contain-
ment ponds, staging areas, etc.) was manually digitized at a
1:4000 scale. Areas with uncertain cause of disturbance
were not included. We obtained O&G pipeline data from
the Railroad Commission of Texas (2013). Based on ob-
servations at field sites in the area, we applied a 90-m
buffer to the pipelines when extracting disturbance from
classified NAIP images. Disturbance was assessed by
identifying where bare ground existed in the 2012 NAIP
imagery.
Because the pipeline network in LaSalle County is ex-
tensive, we performed unsupervised image classification on
the spectral signature (amount of red, green, and blue) of
the NAIP imagery to automate the extraction of pipeline
disturbance. This avoided the extensive man-hours needed
for manually digitizing the disturbance. Through compar-
ison with NAIP, we verified the locations and obtained
accurate values for bare ground (disturbed), and then re-
classified these results into two valued groups representing
disturbed (bare ground or developed) and undisturbed
(vegetated) landscapes. The resulting raster was resampled
to 30-m resolution to allow for later incorporation into the
2001 National Land Cover Dataset (NLCD) (Homer et al.
2007). Additionally, the pipeline data contain both
regulated and non-regulated pipeline segments with po-
tential positional inaccuracies ranging from within 15 to
over 300 m with potentially some unknown positional ac-
curacies (Railroad Commission of Texas 2013). Through
extensive visual inspection using the NAIP photography,
we found a 90-m buffer accurately captured disturbance
from pipeline installations. The 30-m raster cells, all within
the 90-m pipeline buffer, were extracted to obtain distur-
bance areas from recent pipeline installation. Where
pipelines crossed over pads (drilling or waste water injec-
tion), the disturbance was attributed to the pads to avoid
counting disturbances twice.
The NLCD of 2001 was downloaded from the USGS
Landcover Institute (Homer et al. 2007) to establish a
baseline—that is, any features that showed evidence of
vegetation or water—before EF development. As with the
NAIP imagery, we reclassified the NLCD raster image into
two groups: disturbed and undisturbed. Only values rep-
resenting bare ground or development were classified as
disturbed; all vegetated and water elements were classified
as undisturbed. The reclassified NLCD image represented
pre-EF (2001) conditions and will be referred to as ‘‘pre-
EF’’ in further discussions. The reclassified NLCD image
with the incorporated disturbances from drilling pads,
wastewater injection pads, and pipelines represented 2012
EF conditions and will be referred to as ‘‘2012-EF’’ in
further discussions. Although the 2001 NLCD is rather
Fig. 1 Study area of La Salle
County, Texas, with oil and gas
wells
Environmental Management
123
coarse (30-m resolution) compared to NAIP (1-m resolu-
tion), these data are created from digitized photography,
using a methodology similar to that described above for
extracting pipeline disturbance. Use of NLCD as a land
cover dataset is well documented in the literature (Niu and
Duiker 2006; Scanlon et al. 2014), and this dataset readily
serves as a baseline for play-wide or nationwide analyses.
We are reporting our La Salle County results to establish a
methodology for on-going analyses with expanded areas of
interest.
We used the LFT (Parent and Hurd 2007), a python script
that serves as an extension in ArcGIS, to assess landscape
fragmentation based on methods established by Vogt et al.
(2006).We assessed cumulative landscape fragmentation by
considering the impacts of all three disturbance regimes
(drill pads, injection pads, and pipelines) simultaneously.
Because disturbances overlap, analyzing each disturbance
regime individually will produce results that vary slightly
from the simultaneous analysis of disturbances. LFT clas-
sifies four different types of landscapes in a specified area:
(1) ‘‘core’’ areas (in our case, vegetated land) containing
pixels greater than 90 m from nonvegetated pixels; (2)
‘‘perforated’’ areas containing vegetated pixels within 90 m
of nonvegetated pixels; (3) ‘‘edge’’ areas containing
vegetated pixels along the outside edge of a core area; and (4)
‘‘patch’’ areas containing vegetated pixels that do not contain
core areas (within 90 m of disturbed areas). Core areas are
then further subdivided into small (\100 ha), medium
(100–200 ha), and large ([200 ha) areas. Edge and perfo-
rated areas both contain pixels within 90 m of a core area;
however, perforated areas exist only on the interior (con-
cave) edge of a core area, while edge areas exist on the
exterior (convex) edge of a core area. Though previous in-
vestigators (Goodrich et al. 2004; Howell et al. 2006; Svo-
bodova et al. 2010; Robson et al. 2011) have used a 100-m
edge distance [two to three times tree height in a forested
environment (McGarigal et al. 2005)], wemaintained a 90-m
edge distance, as didNeel et al. (2004), considering the lower
height of vegetation in our study area and the upward bias in
edge lengths that are created by the stair-step outline of raster
data (McGarigal et al. 2005). Additionally, a 90-m edge
maintained consistency with our cell size (i.e., edge = 3
cells).
Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) data, which range
in resolution from 1:12,000 to 1:63,360, were downloaded
from the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS) National Geospatial Center of Excellence (USDA/
NRCS 2014). Representative data containing soil order,
great group, soil series, particle size, hydrologic soil group,
wind erodibility index, and other attributes were extracted
from SSURGO using the dominant component when ap-
plicable for each O&G disturbance regime. Soil taxonomic
data, soil order, and great group provide information on
differences in dominant pedogenic processes, and the hy-
drologic soil group (HSG) provides runoff potential in
thoroughly saturated, unfrozen bare ground with fully ex-
panded clays (Soil Survey Staff 1993). Runoff potential for
HSG’s is ranked from A to D, where A has low potential
and D has high potential.
Stream Fragmentation
‘‘Stream fragmentation’’ is defined as the direct intersec-
tion of O&G infrastructure with the NHDPlusV2 flowlines
(Horizon Systems Corporation 2013). NHDPlusV2 flowli-
nes are produced by an interdisciplinary team from the
USGS, the EPA, and private contractors. These flowlines
are a digitized form of stream networks found on USGS
orthophoto quadrangles. Polylines were converted to raster
form and then overlaid onto the O&G infrastructure land
disturbance layer. All stream fragmentation was performed
on the 3000-m buffered extent of the entire (25-county) EF
play, to remain consistent with the fragmentation analyses.
Statistical Analysis of Geospatial Data
Spatial autocorrelation (SAC) was assessed using global
and local statistics. In this study, we used Moran’s I and
Getis-Ord General G statistics as global statistical metrics,
as has been done by Roberts et al. (2000), Chen et al.
(2012), and Chas-Amil et al. (2013) to analyze landscape
disturbances. Moran’s I (Moran 1950) indicates whether a
spatial pattern exists in the study region or whether the
feature is dispersed. The General G statistic (Getis and Ord
1992) indicates whether the clusters have a high or low
specific attribute within a specified distance in relation to
the entire study area (e.g., whether the cluster of core areas
identified in Moran’s I has a high or low amount of dis-
turbance). The General G statistic determines (1) whether
pre-EF core polygons (derived from the 2001 NLCD) show
a high degree of landscape or hydrologic fragmentation
when their neighbors are also fragmented (known as H–H
polygons), and (2) whether core polygons and their
neighbors also have a low degree of fragmentation (known
as L–L polygons). We used P value and z score to deter-
mine the significance of the spatial autocorrelation, using
P value\0.01 and a z score[1.96 for cases dominated by
clusters showing fragmentation and a z score \1.96 for
cases dominated by clusters showing little or no distur-
bance. Data based on the percentage of disturbance with
core areas and stream areas were then analyzed on pre-EF
core polygons using local indicators of spatial autocorre-
lation (LISA) (Anselin 1995) and Gi* (Hot Spot Analysis)
(Getis and Ord 1992). Features can be clustered with sta-
tistically significant high values (hot spots) and low values
(cold spots).
Environmental Management
123
In the analysis, each pre-EF polygon was weighted by
the percentage decrease in the original area of the core
itself and the percentage of new O&G infrastructure that
intersects with stream area within the pre-EF core. To
examine the effects of scale and to determine an appro-
priate size for a fixed-distance (band) threshold to use in
local spatial analyses, we first performed an incremental
SAC analysis with Moran’s I global spatial statistics, using
an incremental distance of *658 m. We observed a peak
in spatial autocorrelation at 8480 m for the percentages of
core-area loss and stream-area intersection with O&G in-
frastructure; therefore, we chose this value as the fixed-
distance band threshold for all subsequent local spatial
statistical analyses (Horta e Costa et al. 2013). Fixed-dis-
tance band conceptualizations can be based on knowledge
of the feature and the parameters under investigation
(Mitchell 2005). Though the approach is often used for
organisms, we generalized the approach and used the dis-
tance corresponding to the first z score peak as the fixed-
distance threshold for all local statistical tests. All statis-
tical tests were executed using row standardization.
Results
Landscape Fragmentation
We identified 724 permitted wells in La Salle County, with
628 wells with visual evidence of associated O&G infras-
tructure in the 2012 NAIP imagery. Because we are in-
terested in land impacts, which begin at construction, we
used permit dates for the wells as our benchmark for
measuring land disturbance rather than spud dates. A
considerable lag time can exist between permit date and
when pad construction actually begins; however, our
methods only captured disturbance when it was visually
evident in the 2012 NAIP. Whether or not a well was
spudded, abandoned, or producing was not considered
important relative to land impact. By manually digitizing
pads at a scale of 1:4000 using the 2012 NAIP, we iden-
tified a total of 585 drilling pads, of which only 5.4 % had
three or more wells per pad. Most are still single-well pads,
and only 23 % of well pads host two or more wells. Our
analyses showed a median drilling-pad size of *2.3 ha
(maximum *20 ha). The area disturbed from construction
of wastewater injection pads was the smallest of all the
disturbance sources, with a median pad size of 0.2 ha
(maximum 15 ha). As stated above, we classified distur-
bance as the actual footprint created by infrastructure de-
velopment and fragmentation as the change in landscape
classes as a result of this disturbance. Pipeline disturbance
(9700 ha) was five times greater than the resultant distur-
bance from drilling pads (drilling pads *1700 ha;
injection pads \100 ha). We also found that 110 ha of
infrastructure (combining pads and pipelines) intersected
stream networks (*1 % of all infrastructures), of which
70 ha were first-order streams. Using a 10-m resolution
digital elevation model (DEM) from the United States
Geological Survey National Elevation Dataset (2013), an
area of 160 ha of pipeline development was present on
slopes between 3 and 20 %, while an area of 28 ha of
drilling pads occurred on slopes between 3 and 13 %. In-
jection pads were not constructed on slopes exceeding 3 %.
We were not able to verify slope values in the field.
Using the 2001 NLCD thematic land classifications, we
observed that *48 % of all disturbance regimes (pads and
pipelines) occurred on land classified as shrub/scrub,
*22 % occurred on land classified as herbaceous, *12 %
on hay/pasture land, *6 % on low intensity developed
land, and *5 % on land used for crop cultivation. Ap-
proximately 11 % of infrastructure development occurred
on land already classified as developed/disturbed. Assess-
ing the impacts from each disturbance regime separately,
we noted that disturbances from pipelines and drilling pads
were nearly identical to the values listed above, but that
water injection pads, which had the smallest landscape
impact, occurred on *42 % hay/pasture land, *36 % on
land already developed, and *14 % on shrub/scrub land.
Though the disturbed area from new O&G infrastructure
was *3 % of the total county area, *33,300 ha of core
areas (all three size classes of core) were lost or converted
to another classification due to O&G infrastructure, ac-
counting for 8.7 % of county area. Results indicate that the
total vegetated area decreased from 91 to 89 % of the
county area, and that core areas declined (either lost or
converted to new classification) from 76 to 68 % of the
county area. The difference between these two impacts is
that disturbances from (mostly) pipeline networks intersect
and subdivide large core areas, resulting in an increase in
smaller (i.e.,\100 and 100–200 ha) core areas (Fig. 2) as
well as in patch, edge, and perforated areas. Figure 2
highlights the areas to the east and south of Cotulla, where
pipelines (shown as white linear features) subdivide the
larger core areas into medium and smaller core areas.
Figure 3 represents changes (in both area and percentage of
county area) in landscape classes for the entire county as a
result of O&G activity. Results show a 55,100 ha (27.6 %)
reduction of large core areas, from 254,600 to 199,500 ha,
with a redistribution of this land area to patch (600 ha),
edge (7000 ha), perforated (16,200 ha), and smaller core
areas (9800 and 12,000 ha for medium and small core ar-
eas, respectively). The remaining 9,500 ha is now classi-
fied as developed, 11 % of which was on already disturbed
or degraded land. We also note that, of the 96 permitted
wells for which no visible disturbance was observed in the
2012 NAIP imagery, approximately two-thirds (64) will
Environmental Management
123
fall into core areas if they are developed; thus, further re-
duction in large core areas is expected.
Our results show that pipeline installation accounted for
*84 % of the changes in landscape-class composition
across the county. Analyses of all O&G disturbance
showed the greatest reduction in larger core areas, with
increases in medium core, small core, perforated, patch,
and edge classes. As indicated above, we are reporting the
cumulative areas of disturbance and simultaneously
assessing impacts from drilling pads, injection pads, and
pipeline installation. Because of overlapping disturbance
between pipelines and pads, these numbers differ slightly
when impacts from these sources are assessed separately
(Table S1).
Erosion Characteristics of Disturbance Regimes
For this study, soil erosion from disturbed lands is con-
sidered to occur from either wind or water. Estimates of
wind erosion can be determined using a wind erodibility
index (WEI) based on several soil properties that affect
resistance to soil blowing in cultivated areas, or, in this
case, disturbed areas (see USDA/NRCS National soil sur-
vey handbook 2014). From the analyses conducted, ap-
proximately 88 % of O&G disturbance occurred on soils
with a WEI of 0.19 kt/ha/year or more (Table 1), with the
SSURGO dominant component soil surface texture being
clay (38 % of disturbed area) and very fine sandy loam soil
(34 % of disturbed area) (Table 2). Using the dominant
component for WEI data from SSURGO, we estimate that
2 million tons of soil could be lost per year from wind
erosion (using area of disturbance multiplied by WEI factor
in SSURGO) on landscapes disturbed by O&G infrastruc-
ture, particularly if the land is not quickly reclaimed using
revegetation and/or land contouring practices.
According to the geomorphic description in SSURGO,
74 % of the infrastructure has been built on interfluvial
areas, and 24.6 % has been built on drainageways or
floodplains, where concentrated flow from convective
storms could enhance water erosion. Although[98 % of
the soils in La Salle County are considered well drained or
moderately well drained (Soil Survey Staff 2013), 51 % of
soils underlying disturbed areas have low infiltration and
transmission rates (hydrologic soil group D) (Soil Survey
Staff 1993; USDA 2009) and may be susceptible to erosion
during heavy rainfall events (Table 3).
Spatial Statistical Analyses
Moran’s I incremental analysis showed that, at distances
exceeding 28,900 m, the percent core-area loss was no
longer clustered and became random (z\ 1.96). This il-
lustrates the nature of how exploration proceeds: operators
drill wells on some parcels of land, but other parcels are
left undisturbed, leading to patches of disturbed areas.
When this analysis was applied to stream-area intersection
with O&G infrastructure, we found that disturbance re-
mained clustered (z[ 1.96) at all incremental distances up
Small Core (<100 ha) Medium Core (100-200 ha) Large Core (>200 ha)
N
(b)(a)
7 3.5 0 7 Kilometers
Fig. 2 Changes in landscape classes after 12 years of Eagle Ford development. a Pre-EF development in 2001 and b EF development as of 2012
Environmental Management
123
to and beyond 28,900 m. Subsequently, we confirmed
spatial autocorrelation at specific distance ranges using the
global General G statistic at three separate metrics: the
minimum neighbor distance (5190 m), the peak Moran’s
I z score distance (8480 m), and the maximum distance at
which the Moran’s I z score for percent core-area loss was
non-vegetated
patch
edge
perforated
core (<100 ha)
core (100-200 ha)
core (>200 ha)
(a)
* units in ha
* units in %
(b)
(d)(c)
QAe3625
11 0
16
5
7
8
52
80
14
14
666
40,6621,133
61,178
20,542
28,097
32,016
199,516
31,196488
54,238
4,30716,082
254,60122,233
Fig. 3 Change in landscape classes after 12 years of EF development: a 2001 pre-EF conditions by area, b 2012 EF conditions by area, c 2001pre-EF conditions by percent of county area, and d 2012 EF conditions by percent of county area
Table 1 Summed SSURGO values for potential wind erodibility across disturbance regimes
Wind erodibility
index (kt/ha/year)
Drilling
pads (kt/year)
Pipelines
(kt/year)
Injection pads
(kt/year)
All disturbance
regimes (kt/year)
Percentage of all
disturbance regimes
0 0 0 0 0 2.6
0.11 2.07 12.08 0 14.15 1.2
0.13 14.07 97.53 0 111.59 7.8
0.19 256.96 1465.20 0.73 1722.90 78.7
0.30 59.69 264.83 0 324.53 9.5
Missing 0 0 0 0 0.2
Totals 332.80 1839.64 0.73 2173.16 100
Environmental Management
123
correlated (28,900 m) (Table 4). Beyond 28,900 m, no
clustering was observed for percent core-area loss, and
disturbances were random.
Results of local statistics (e.g., LISA map in Fig. 4a)
show core-area loss (H–H) clustered in two general areas:
one east of Cotulla and north of FM 624, and the other in
the southwest corner of the county. The Gi* map (Fig. 4b)
shows hot spots in the same two general areas, where
clustering of disturbance is considered most likely. Results
also show two smaller areas of cold spots appearing in the
northern section of the county, highlighting core areas that
were not degraded by recent O&G activity during the study
period. We also noted the presence of H–L outliers, which
represent clusters of highly disturbed core areas adjacent to
core areas with low levels of disturbance. As with core-area
fragmentation, H–H clusters are also present for hydrologic
fragmentation (Fig. 5a). Hot spots for hydrologic frag-
mentation partially overlap hot spots of core-area frag-
mentation; however, the overlap is more pronounced in the
east-central region of the county. Figure 5b also indicates
the presence of cold spots for hydrologic fragmentation in
the northeastern portion of La Salle County. Strategies
focused on limiting potential impacts can use cold spots as
areas where future infrastructure development could be
avoided.
Discussion
Landscape Fragmentation
Results showed that pipeline construction was the domi-
nant source of land disturbance and therefore had the lar-
gest influence on fragmentation effects. Moreover, because
pipelines tend to be long, linear features or corridors rather
Table 2 SSURGO values for soil surface texture across disturbance regimes
Surface texture Drilling pads
(ha)
Pipelines
(ha)
Injection
pads (ha)
All disturbance
regimes (ha)
Percentage of all
disturbance regimes (%)
Clay 696 3613 1 4309 37.9
Very fine sandy loam 564 3304 3 3871 34.0
Clay loam 83 1067 0 1150 10.1
Loamy fine sand 204 877 0 1081 9.5
Fine sandy loam 78 226 0 304 2.7
Gravelly sandy clay loam 9 238 0 247 2.2
Sandy clay loam 47 126 0 174 1.5
Loam 20 108 0 128 1.1
Silty clay loam 15 35 0 50 0.4
Very gravelly sandy clay loam 14 28 0 42 0.4
Very gravelly sandy loam 9 2 0 11 0.1
Missing 0 12 0 12 0.1
Table 3 SSURGO values for hydrologic soil group-dominant condition across disturbance regimes
Hydrologic soil group Drilling
pads
Pipelines Injection pads All disturbance
regimes
Percentage of all
disturbance regimes
Dominant condition ha ha ha ha %
B 422 3019 2 3443 30.3
C 349 1750 1 2100 18.5
D 923 4870 1 5794 51.0
Missing 9 16 0 25 0.2
Table 4 Moran’s I and general G z scores for (A) percent core-area
loss and (B) percent stream-area intersection with O&G infrastructure
Distance Threshold Moran’s I General G
(m2) z score z score
Percent core-area loss
A
5190 8.07 7.79
8480 10.16 9.72
28900 1.98 2.86
Percent stream-area intersection
B
5190 3.51 3.33
8480 4.62 4.46
28900 4.70 3.23
Environmental Management
123
than isolated ‘‘islands’’ of disturbance, there is a greater
chance that wildlife movement could be curtailed or in-
fluenced by the infrastructure (Albrecht et al. 2000; John-
son 2010; Kalyn Bogard and Davis 2014; Buchanan et al.
2014; Brittingham et al. 2014). Depending on the species
or process of concern, this shift to a smaller number of
large core areas and a larger number of smaller core ar-
eas—along with a substantial increase in transitionary
(edge) and localized (perforated) disturbances—could lead
to degeneration and loss of habitat (Johnson 2010; Krauss
2013; Kiviat 2013; Kalyn Bogard and Davis 2014; Brit-
tingham et al. 2014).
We note that construction of pipelines is a relatively
short process compared to the productive lifetime of drill
pads. Areas set aside for pipelines are often reclaimed after
installation is complete. Native restoration guidelines tai-
lored specifically to South Texas are currently being re-
searched and developed (Smith et al. 2010; TPWD 2013).
If seasonal timing is suitable for native seed establishment,
these sites could be returned to approximate original con-
ditions, reducing long-term impacts.
We also note that infrastructure development is prefer-
entially occurring on land classified as shrub/scrub,
herbaceous, and hay/pasture land. Only a small percentage
of development is occurring on cropland or already de-
veloped land. This indicates that preferred habitat of native
species is likely to be removed or altered with increased
development.
Trends in La Salle County differ from infrastructure
development in the Marcellus Shale of Pennsylvania. For
example, in La Salle County, *48 % of development
occurs on shrub/scrub land (equivalent in LFT to
forested land in Pennsylvania), whereas only *5 % of
development occurs on cropland; in the Marcellus Shale,
Drohan et al. (2012) found that 45–62 % of development
occurred on agricultural land and 38–54 % occurred on
forested land. Diffendorfer and Compton (2014) found
that land transformation from wind development oc-
curred less on agricultural land than in forests or
shrublands. Diffendorfer and Compton (2014) suggested
two explanations for this difference: first, agricultural
land typically already has road networks capable of
supporting heavy agricultural equipment, essentially
eliminating the need for additional road networks to
support wind facilities; and, second, agricultural land is
likely to be quickly replanted and restored to agricultural
production, whereas with other land cover types this land
was not quickly re-used.
Not Significant
Not Significant
High-High Cluster
High-Low Outlier
Low-High Outlier
Low-Low Outlier
Cold Spot – 99%
Cold Spot – 95%
Cold Spot – 90%
Hot Spot – 90%
Hot Spot – 95%
Hot Spot – 99%
ConfidenceN
(b)(a)
7.5 3.75 0 7.5 Kilometers
Fig. 4 Cluster maps weighted by percent decrease of core area based on fixed-distance band. a LISA and b Gi*
Environmental Management
123
Important Soil Characteristics Associated
with O&G Development
Reclamation success is potentially more likely if pre-ex-
isting (baseline) conditions are assessed before develop-
ment begins (DellaSala et al. 2003; Drohan and
Brittingham 2012). For example, soil characteristics (e.g.,
bulk density, pH, and hydraulic conductivity) and vegeta-
tion assessments could be measured at the site before de-
velopment. Amelioration efforts could then be tailored to
match prior conditions (Skousen et al. 1994; DellaSala
et al. 2003; Drohan and Brittingham 2012). Soil stabiliza-
tion practices, where cement or other stabilizers are added
to permanent infrastructure (e.g., pads or permanent access
roads), will help reduce wind and water erosion but may
hinder reclamation when O&G production ends. Careful
handling of soil resources during site development can
preserve original substrate, water-holding capacity, fer-
tility, and pH, all of which can improve restoration success
(Skousen et al. 1994; DellaSala et al. 2003; Drohan and
Brittingham 2012). Generally, soils in semiarid regions are
eroded more from the forces of wind than from water (Ravi
et al. 2011). Some research has been conducted on con-
trolling the erosive forces from surface runoff on O&G
infrastructure in more humid regions of Texas (Wachal
et al. 2009); however, we are unaware of research focusing
on drier regions of Texas, where erosive forces from wind
are the dominate sources of soil erosion. For comparative
purposes, we used the SSURGO database to assess the
susceptibility of existing cropland soils in La Salle County
to wind erosion. We found that approximately 16,000 ha of
cropland exists—with a potential for 3.5 million tons of
soil loss from wind erosion—compared to *11,000 ha of
disturbance from new O&G infrastructure with a potential
for 2 million tons of soil loss from wind erosion. Finally,
more passive measures that prevent landscape fragmenta-
tion and degradation could be considered in pre-develop-
ment planning; for example, O&G infrastructure could be
constructed next to existing infrastructure or already de-
graded lands to maintain intact core-habitat areas and cri-
tical habitat corridors when possible (DellaSala et al. 2003;
Johnson 2010; Diffendorfer and Compton 2014).
Applying Spatial Statistical Analyses
Spatial statistical analyses in the decision-support process
for infrastructure siting (Porter et al. 2009) can guide de-
velopment and minimize further impacts to the landscape.
Not Significant
Not Significant
High-High Cluster
High-Low Outlier
Low-High Outlier
Low-Low Outlier
Cold Spot – 99%
Cold Spot – 95%
Cold Spot – 90%
Hot Spot – 90%
Hot Spot – 95%
Hot Spot – 99%
ConfidenceN
(b)(a)
7.5 3.75 0 7.5 Kilometers
Fig. 5 Cluster maps weighted by percent O&G infrastructure intersection with stream area based on fixed-distance band. a LISA and b Gi*
Environmental Management
123
In our study, the analyses of core-area and stream-area
fragmentation show ‘‘cold’’ spots within the county (i.e.,
those with low fragmentation during the study period).
Depending on the conditions written into land leases and
distances from drill pads to target areas, these areas could
be avoided, which would preserve larger core areas while
allowing operators to continue exploration practices.
Conclusions
Our results indicate that approximately 3 % of the total
area of LaSalle County has been disrupted by O&G in-
frastructure (drilling pads, injection pads, and pipelines),
causing an 8.7 % decrease in what we defined as core ar-
eas. Most (88 %) disturbance has occurred on soils highly
susceptible to wind erosion. Although precipitation is low
in La Salle County, 51 % of soils underlying O&G dis-
turbance are susceptible to erosion during runoff from
heavy rainfall events. Recent estimates suggest that only
10 % of the expected number of wells have been drilled to
date in the EF (Gong et al. 2013; Scanlon et al. 2014). This
estimate stems from a potential tenfold increase in wells
drilled over the next 20–30 years, before the hydrocarbon
reserves in the EF are depleted (Pack 2012; personal
communication with T. Tunstall).
In this study, local spatial statistics provided a means for
mapping likely hot spots and potential disturbances to
ecosystems; these statistics also show areas where distur-
bances are minimal, perhaps guiding decisions about which
areas to avoid in the future. Identifying these hot spots
could also be useful for deciding where to place new in-
frastructure—if regional planning and operator cooperation
were used to manage the lands in a more integrated fash-
ion. Knowing hot spots could help guide stream monitoring
of pollutants and sediment or correlate disturbance regimes
with threatened or endangered species.
Oil and gas exploration in the EF play will continue for
the foreseeable future, but landscape impacts could be re-
duced or minimized by employing best management
practices. One such practice would be to encourage a
continued increase in multi-well pads. Increasing the den-
sity of wells on pads could centrally locate other supporting
infrastructure (e.g., roadways, pipelines, and electrical
service) and could ultimately reduce the level of landscape
disturbance from pad construction (Drohan et al. 2012;
Thuot 2014). Paradoxically, though, the density increase
could extend the operational period of individual drilling
pads and thus result in a longer time until reclamation
(Drohan et al. 2012). Collaborative research at a national
level comparing landscape impacts from shale develop-
ment will help us develop a broader understanding of how
shale exploitation is changing the landscape.
This analysis highlights the possibility that removal or
degradation of core-habitat areas may have compounded
effects on the landscape composition available to wildlife.
In this case study of La Salle County, the disturbance from
infrastructure development (3 % of county area) decreased
the available core areas by almost three times the area of
disturbance (8.7 % decrease in county core areas). Careful
and considered placement of future infrastructure will help
preserve the landscape, soil resources, and ecosystem ser-
vices of this area.
Acknowledgments Funding for this project was made available by
the State of Texas Advanced Resource Recovery (STARR) program.
We appreciate the support of the Railroad Commission of Texas,
which provided data on locations of pipelines. We thank Stephanie
Jones and Justin Perry, who helped edit the manuscript, and we thank
the reviewers who helped improve it. Publication was approved by the
Director, Bureau of Economic Geology.
References
Alados CL, Pueyo Y, Escos J, Andujar A (2009) Effects of the spatial
pattern of disturbance on the patch-occupancy dynamics of
juniper–pine open woodland. Ecol Model 220:1544–1550.
doi:10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2009.03.029
Alados CL, Puigdefabregas J, Martınez-Fernandez J (2011) Eco-
logical and socio-economical thresholds of land and plant-
community degradation in semi-arid Mediterranean areas of
southeastern Spain. J Arid Environ 75:1368–1376. doi:10.1016/j.
jaridenv.2010.12.004
Albrecht S, Hinkle R, Nathanson E, et al (2000) Direct relevance to
the natural gas industry of the habitat fragmentation/biodiversity
issue resulting from the construction of new pipelines: Topical
Report. Gas Research Institute, Chicago, IL
Anselin L (1995) Local indicators of spatial association—LISA.
Geogr Anal 27:93–115
Bi X, Wang B, Lu Q (2011) Fragmentation effects of oil wells and
roads on the Yellow River Delta, North China. Ocean Coast
Manag 54:256–264. doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2010.12.005
Brittingham MC, Maloney KO, Farag AM, Harper DD, Bowen ZH
(2014) Ecological risks of shale oil and gas development to
wildlife, aquatic resources and their habitats. Environ Sci
Technol 48:11034–11047. doi:10.1021/es5020482
Buchanan CB, Beck JL, Bills TE, Miller SN (2014) Seasonal resource
selection and distributional response by Elk to development of a
natural gas field. Rangel Ecol Manag 67:369–379. doi:10.2111/
REM-D-13-00136.1
Burnett DB, McDowell J, Scott JB, Dolan C (2011) Field site testing
of low impact oil field access roads: reducing the environmental
footprint in desert ecosystems. In: SPE Americas E&P health,
safety, security, and environmental conference, Houston. Society
of Petroleum Engineers. SPE 142139, 10. doi:10.2118/142139-
MS
Chas-Amil ML, Touza J, Garcıa-Martınez E (2013) Forest fires in the
wildland–urban interface: a spatial analysis of forest fragmen-
tation and human impacts. Appl Geogr 43:127–137. doi:10.1016/
j.apgeog.2013.06.010
Chen M, Rowland JC, Wilson CJ, Altmann GL, Brumby SP (2012)
Temporal and spatial pattern of thermokarst lake area changes at
Yukon Flats, Alaska. Hydrol Process 28:837–852. doi:10.1002/
hyp.9642
Environmental Management
123
Daily GC (1997) Nature’s services: societal dependence on natural
ecosystems. Island Press, Washington, DC, p 412
DellaSala DA, Martin A, Spivak R, Schulke T, Bird B, Criley M, van
Daalen C, Kreilick J, Brown R, Aplet G (2003) A citizen’s call
for ecological forest restoration principles and criteria. Ecol
Restor 21:14–23
Diffendorfer JE, Compton RW (2014) Land cover and topography
affect the land transformation caused by wind facilities. PLoS
One 9:e88914. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0088914
Driskill B, Suurmeyer N, Rilling-Hall S, Govert A, Garbowicz A,
Shell Exploration and Production Company (2012) Reservoir
description of the subsurface Eagle Ford Formation, Maverick
Basin Area, South Texas, USA. In: SPE Europec/EAGE annual
conference, Copenhagen. Society of Petroleum Engineers, SPE
154528, 23. doi:10.2118/154528-MS
Drohan PJ, Brittingham M (2012) Topographic and soil constraints to
shale-gas development in the Northcentral Appalachians. Soil
Sci Soc Am J 76:1696–1706. doi:10.2136/sssaj2012.0087
Drohan PJ, Brittingham M, Bishop J, Yoder K (2012) Early trends in
landcover change and forest fragmentation due to shale-gas
development in Pennsylvania: a potential outcome for the
Northcentral Appalachians. Environ Manag 49:1061–1075.
doi:10.1007/s00267-012-9841-6
Dukes RT (2014) Eagle Ford Shale Overview. Eagle Ford Shale:
news, MarketPlace, Jobs. KED Interests, LLC. http://eagleford
shale.com/. Accessed 04 March 2014
Entrekin S, Evans-White M, Johnson B, Hagenbuch E (2011) Rapid
expansion of natural gas development poses a threat to surface
waters. Front Ecol Environ 9:503–511. doi:10.1890/110053
Getis A, Ord JK (1992) The analysis of spatial association by use of
distance statistics. Geogr Anal 24:189–206
Gong X, McVay DA, Ayers WB, Tian Y, Lee J (2013) Assessment of
Eagle Ford Shale oil and gas resources. Society of Petroleum
Engineers. In: SPE unconventional resources conference, SPE-
167241-MS, p 26. doi:10.2118/167241-MS
Goodrich LJ, Brittingham M, Bishop JA, Barber P (2004) Wildlife
habitat in Pennsylvania: past, present, and future. Pennsylvania
Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Philadel-
phia, p 236
Haila Y (2002) A conceptual genealogy of fragmentation research:
from island biogeography to landscape ecology. Ecol Appl
12:321–334
Homer C, Dewitz J, Fry J, Coan M, Hossain N, Larson C, Herold N,
McKerrow A, VanDriel JN, Wickham J (2007) Completion of
the 2001 national land cover database for the conterminous
United States. Photogramm Eng Remote Sens 73:337–341
Horizon Systems Corporation (2013) NHDPlus Home. http://www.
horizon-systems.com/NHDPlus/index.php. Accessed 02 Oct
2013
Horta e Costa B, Batista MI, Goncalves L, Erzini K, Caselle JE,
Cabral HN, Goncalves EJ (2013) Fishers’ behaviour in response
to the implementation of a marine protected area. PLoS One
8:e65057. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0065057
Howell CA, Dijak WD, Thompson FR (2006) Landscape context and
selection for forest edge by breeding brown-headed cowbirds.
Landsc Ecol 22:273–284. doi:10.1007/s10980-006-9022-1
Information Handling Services, Inc. (2013) IHS: information,
analytics, expertise. http://www.ihs.com/index.aspx. Accessed
23 May 2013
John R, Chen J, Lu N, Wilske B (2009) Land cover/land use change in
semi-arid Inner Mongolia: 1992–2004. Environ Res Lett
4:045010. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/4/4/045010
JohnsonN (2010) Pennsylvania energy impacts assessment. TheNature
Conservancy, Harrisburg, PA. http://www.nature.org/media/pa/
tnc_energy_analysis.pdf. Accessed 10 March 2014
Kalyn Bogard HJ, Davis SK (2014) Grassland songbirds exhibit
variable responses to the proximity and density of natural gas
wells. J Wildl Manag 78:471–482. doi:10.1002/jwmg.684
Kiviat E (2013) Risks to biodiversity from hydraulic fracturing for
natural gas in the Marcellus and Utica shales. Ann N Y Acad Sci
1286:1–14. doi:10.1111/nyas.12146
Krauss RF (2013) Addressing well and field infrastructure siting
challenges in the Wetlands and Streams of the Haynesville,
Marcellus, Utica, and Eagle Ford Shale Plays. In: SPE Americas
E&P health, safety, security and environmental conference,
Society of Petroleum Engineers, p 8
Linke J, Franklin SE, Huettmann F, Stenhouse GB (2005) Seismic
cutlines, changing landscape metrics and grizzly bear landscape
use in Alberta. Landsc. Ecol 20:811–826. doi:10.1007/s10980-
005-0066-4
Lowe CH (1985) Amphibians and reptiles in Southwest riparian
ecosystems. U.S. Forest Service General Technical Report RM-
120. In: First North American Riparian conference, Tucson, p 3
Martin R, Baihly J, Malpani R, Lindsay G, Atwood WK, Schlum-
berger (2011) Understanding production form Eagle Ford-Austin
Chalk system. Soc Pet Eng 145117:28
McGarigal K, Cushman S, Regan, C (2005) Quantifying terrestrial
habitat loss and fragmentation: a protocol: US For Serv Gen
Tech Repl RM-GTR, p 115
Mitchell A (2005) The ESRI guide to GIS analysis: spatial
measurements and statistics. ESRI Press, Redlands, p 252
Moran PAP (1950) Notes on continuous stochastic phenomena.
Biometrika 37:17–23
Neel MC, McGarigal K, Cushman SA (2004) Behavior of class-level
landscape metrics across gradients of class aggregation and area.
Landsc Ecol 19:435–455
NiuX,Duiker SW(2006)Carbon sequestration potential by afforestation
of marginal agricultural land in the Midwestern U.S. For Ecol
Manag 223:415–427. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2005.12.044
Olmstead SM, Muehlenbachs LA, Shih J-S, Chu Z, Krupnick AJ
(2013) Shale gas development impacts on surface water quality
in Pennsylvania. Proc Natl Acad Sci 110:4962–4967. doi:10.
1073/pnas.1213871110
Pack W (2012) The years of Eagle Ford expected to be a sweet 16 at
least. Houston Chronicle 2. http://www.chron.com/business/
energy/article/The-years-of-Eagle-Ford-expected-to-be-a-sweet-
16-3920669.php. Accessed 30 April 2014
Pardini R, de Arruda Bueno A, Gardner TA, Prado PI, Metzger JP
(2010) Beyond the fragmentation threshold hypothesis: regime
shifts in biodiversity across fragmented landscapes. PLoS ONE
5:e13666. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0013666
Parent J, Hurd JD (2007) Landscape Fragmentation Tool v 2.0. The
University of Connecticut, Center for Land Use Education and
Research. http://clear.uconn.edu/tools/lft/lft2/index.htm. Accessed
22 Sep 2013
Porter JR, Howell FM, Mason PB, Blanchard TC (2009) Existing
biomass infrastructure and theoretical potential biomass produc-
tion in the US. J Maps 5:206–218. doi:10.4113/jom.2009.1067
RailroadCommission of Texas (2013) Pipelines Shapefile dataset. http://
www.rrc.state.tx.us/aboutus/resource-center/research/data-sets-
available-for-purchase/digital-map-data/. Accessed June 2013
Railroad Commission of Texas (2014) http://www.rrc.state.tx.us/.
Accessed 03 April 2014
Ravi S, D’Odorico P, Breshears DD, Field JP, Goudie AS, Huxman
TE, Li J, Okin GS, Swap RJ, Thomas AD, Whicker JJ, Zobeck
TM (2011) Aeolian processes and the biosphere. Rev Geophys
49:RG3001. doi:10.1029/2010RG000328
Roberts SA, Hall GB, Calamai PH (2000) Analysing forest fragmen-
tation using spatial autocorrelation, graphs and GIS. Int J Geogr
Inf Sci 14:185–204
Environmental Management
123
Robson BJ, Chester ET, Austin CM (2011) Why life history
information matters: drought refuges and macroinvertebrate
persistence in non-perennial streams subject to a drier climate.
Mar Freshw Res 62:801–810
SaizH, Alados CL (2011) Effect of Stipa tenacissima L. on the structure
of plant co-occurrence networks in a semi-arid community. Ecol
Res 26:595–603. doi:10.1007/s11284-011-0818-3
Scanlon BR, Reedy RC, Nicot J-P (2014) Will water scarcity in
semiarid regions limit hydraulic fracturing of shale plays?
Environ Res Lett 9:124011. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/9/12/124011
Skousen JG, Johnson CD, Garbutt K (1994) Natural revegetation of
15 abandoned mine land sites in West Virginia. J Environ Qual
23:1224–1230. doi:10.2134/jeq1994.00472425002300060015x
Smith FS, Lloyd-Reilley J, Ocumpaugh WR (2010) South Texas
natives: a collaborative regional effort to meet restoration needs
in South Texas. Nativ Plants J 11:252–268
Soil Survey Staff (1993) Soil survey manual. Agric. Handbook No.
18, USDA-NRCS, U.S. Gov. Print. Office, Washington, DC
Soil Survey Staff (20130) Natural Resources Conservation Service,
United States Department of Agriculture. http://websoilsurvey.
nrcs.usda.gov/. Accessed 21 June 2013
Svobodova J, Kreisinger J, Salek M, Koubova M, Albrecht T (2010)
Testing mechanistic explanations for mammalian predator
responses to habitat edges. Eur J Wildl Res 57:467–474.
doi:10.1007/s10344-010-0455-0
Thuot K (2014) On the launch pad: the rise of pad drilling. Drilling
info. http://info.drillinginfo.com/launch-pad-rise-pad-drilling/.
Accessed 03 April 2014
TPWD (Texas Parks and Wildlife Department) (2013) Voluntary
conservation practices: balancing wildlife conservation and oil
and gas development in the Eagle Ford Shale region, p 4
Tunstall T, Oyakawa J, Roberts S, Eid H, Abalos R, Wang T,
Calderon E, Melara K (2013) Economic impact of the Eagle
Ford Shale. The University of Texas at San Antonio, Institute for
Economic Development, Center for Community and Business
Research, San Antonio, p 88
United States Geological Survey (2013) USGS National elevation
dataset. http://ned.usgs.gov/. Accessed 6 Jun 2013
U.S. Department of Agriculture Aerial Photography Field Office
(2012) National agriculture imagery program (NAIP). http://
www.fsa.usda.gov/FSA/apfoapp?area=home&subject=prod&to
pic=landing. Downloaded June 2013
U.S. Government Accountability Office (2012) Oil and gas:
information on shale resources, development, and environmental
and public health risks. GAO-12-732 70, p 65
USDA (2009) Hydrologic soil groups. Chapter 7, Part 630. Hy-
drology. National engineering handbook. City. http://directives.
sc.egov.usda.gov/OpenNonWebContent.aspx?content=22526.
wba. 13
USDA/NRCS (2014) National Geospatial Center of Excellence.
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/ngce/.
Accessed 21 June 2013
USDA/NRCS, National soil survey handbook, title 430-VI. http://
www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail//?cid=nrcs142p2_054
242. Accessed 12 Dec 2014
Vogt P, Riitters KH, Estreguil C, Kozak J, Wade TG, Wickham JD
(2006) Mapping spatial patterns with morphological image
processing. Landsc Ecol 22:171–177. doi:10.1007/s10980-006-
9013-2
Wachal DJ, Banks KE, Hudak PF, Harmel RD (2009) Modeling
erosion and sediment control practices with RUSLE 2.0: a
management approach for natural gas well sites in Denton
County, TX, USA. Environ Geol 56:1615–1627. doi:10.1007/
s00254-008-1259-3
Wu J (2009) Ecological dynamics in fragmented landscapes. In:
Levin SA (ed) Princeton guide to ecology. Princeton University
Press, Princeton, pp 438–444
Environmental Management
123