On The Cover Contents - South Texas Geological …South Texas Geological Society (2017 2 March 2017...

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


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

[email protected]

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


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


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


Offi

cers

& C

om

mitt

ee

s 2

01

6 -

20

17

mailto:[email protected]




















Bulletin of the



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


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


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



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



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



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



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.


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



Ev

en

ts


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.


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


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


P.O. Box 17805

San Antonio, Texas 78217

Mark E. Thompson

Chairman, Jones-Amsbury Research Grant Committee

[email protected]


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.


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

https://gobigbend.com/time-travel-tour


Contact Allison Craig for Advertising

Information!

Or go to

www.STGS.org

For more information!


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!


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

[email protected]

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]



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

[email protected]


Fin

d u

s o

n F

ace

bo

ok

Find the South Texas Geological Society on Facebook

Bulletin of the



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



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



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

[email protected]

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


TX, USA

3 Department of Geological Sciences, Jackson School


TX, USA

123

Environmental Management

DOI 10.1007/s00267-015-0492-2

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00267-015-0492-2

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1007/s00267-015-0492-2&domain=pdf

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1007/s00267-015-0492-2&domain=pdf

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.


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).


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


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).


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


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


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


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


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


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


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*


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*


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


123

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2009.03.029

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2010.12.004

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2010.12.004

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2010.12.005

http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es5020482

http://dx.doi.org/10.2111/REM-D-13-00136.1

http://dx.doi.org/10.2111/REM-D-13-00136.1

http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/142139-MS


http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2013.06.010

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2013.06.010

http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hyp.9642

http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hyp.9642

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


123

http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0088914


http://dx.doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2012.0087

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00267-012-9841-6

http://eaglefordshale.com/

http://eaglefordshale.com/

http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/110053


http://www.horizon-systems.com/NHDPlus/index.php

http://www.horizon-systems.com/NHDPlus/index.php


http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10980-006-9022-1

http://www.ihs.com/index.aspx

http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/4/4/045010

http://www.nature.org/media/pa/tnc_energy_analysis.pdf

http://www.nature.org/media/pa/tnc_energy_analysis.pdf

http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.684

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/nyas.12146

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10980-005-0066-4

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10980-005-0066-4

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2005.12.044

http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1213871110

http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1213871110

http://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/The-years-of-Eagle-Ford-expected-to-be-a-sweet-16-3920669.php




http://clear.uconn.edu/tools/lft/lft2/index.htm

http://dx.doi.org/10.4113/jom.2009.1067

http://www.rrc.state.tx.us/aboutus/resource-center/research/data-sets-available-for-purchase/digital-map-data/



http://www.rrc.state.tx.us/

http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2010RG000328

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


123

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11284-011-0818-3

http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/9/12/124011

http://dx.doi.org/10.2134/jeq1994.00472425002300060015x

http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/

http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10344-010-0455-0

http://info.drillinginfo.com/launch-pad-rise-pad-drilling/

http://ned.usgs.gov/

http://www.fsa.usda.gov/FSA/apfoapp?area=home&subject=prod&topic=landing



http://directives.sc.egov.usda.gov/OpenNonWebContent.aspx?content=22526.wba



http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/ngce/

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail//?cid=nrcs142p2_054242



http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10980-006-9013-2

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10980-006-9013-2

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00254-008-1259-3

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00254-008-1259-3

On The Cover Contents - South Texas Geological …South Texas Geological Society (2017 2 March 2017...

Documents

Transcript of On The Cover Contents - South Texas Geological …South Texas Geological Society (2017 2 March 2017...