Citation
Exploring the vulnerability of state parks to hazards associated with proximity to oil and gas development in the Permian Basin region of Texas

Material Information

Title:
Exploring the vulnerability of state parks to hazards associated with proximity to oil and gas development in the Permian Basin region of Texas
Creator:
Ross, Samuel Thomas ( author )
Place of Publication:
Denver, CO
Publisher:
University of Colorado Denver
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
1 electronic file (53 pages) : ;

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Parks ( lcsh )
Natural gas -- Law and legislation ( lcsh )
Permian Basin (Tex. and N.M.) ( lcsh )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Review:
Protected lands, such as state parks, are located within shared confined space with oil and gas developments. Hazards associated with proximity to oil and gas extraction practices are well documented. The Permian Basin region of west Texas is a significant oil producing location and currently over 180,000 oil and gas wells are located within the region. Selecting state regulated public lands within counties of the Permian Basin region of Texas and oil and gas well location data obtained through Texas Railroad Commission, this study explores the issues of potential vulnerability through examining proximity of public lands to oil and gas development to state parks. By using geospatial methods, such as emerging hot spot analysis, this study identifies areas of vulnerability to concentrations of oil and gas development over time. This study adds to the discussion of protected area vulnerability and to the current research on hazards and landscape conditions affected by oil and gas development.
Thesis:
Thesis (M.A.)--University of Colorado Denver, 2017.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
System Details:
System requirements: Adobe Reader.
Statement of Responsibility:
Samuel Thomas Ross.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Colorado Denver
Holding Location:
Auraria Library
Rights Management:
Copyright Samuel Thomas Ross. Permission granted to University of Colorado Denver to digitize and display this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.
Resource Identifier:
on10833 ( NOTIS )
1083341016 ( OCLC )
on1083341016

Downloads

This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

EXPLORING VULNERABILITY OF STATE PARKS TO HAZARDS ASSOCIATED WITH PROXIMITY TO OIL AND GAS DEVELOPMENT IN THE PERMIAN BASIN REGION OF TEXAS by SAMUEL THOMAS ROSS B.S., Texas State University, 2016 A thesis submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Colorado in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Applied Geography and Geospatial Science 2018

PAGE 2

ii This thesis for th e Master of Arts degree by Samuel Thomas Ross has been approved for the Applied Geography and Geospatial Science Program By Brian Page, Chair Matthew Cross Greggory Simon Date: May 12, 2018

PAGE 3

iii Ross, Samuel (MA, Applied Geography and Geospatial Science) Exploring the Vulnerability of State Park Units in the Permian Basin Region of West Texas by Using Geospatial Methods to Define Oil and Gas Development Proximity to State Park Borders. Thesis directed by Assoc iate Professor Brian Page. ABSTRACT Protected lands, such as state parks, are located within shared confined space with oil and gas developments. Hazards associated with proximity to oil and gas extractive practices are well documented. The Permian Basin region of west Texas is a significant oil producing location and currently over 180,000 oil and gas wells are located within the region. Selecting state regulated public lands within counties of the Permian Basin region of Texas and oil and gas well locati on data obtained through Texas Railroad Commission, this study explores the issues of potential vulnerability through examining proximity of public lands to oil and gas development to state parks. By using geospatial methods, such as emerging hot spot anal ysis, this study identifies areas of vulnerability to concentrations of oil and gas development over time. This study adds to the discussion of protected area vulnerability and to the current research on hazards and landscape conditions affected by oil and gas development. The form and content of this abstract are approved. I recommend its publication. Approved: Brian Page

PAGE 4

iv Table of Contents I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 1 II. HISTORIC AND GEOGRAPHIC BACKGROUND ON THE TEXAS OIL & GAS INDUSTRY .................................................................................................................................... 4 Texan Oil History ........................................................................................................................ 4 The Spatial Movement of Oil Extraction .................................................................................... 6 III GEOSPATIAL METHODS & ANALYSIS ............................................................................. 10 Geospatial Methods ................................................................................................................... 10 Study Area Delineation ......................................................................................................... 10 Data ........................................................................................................................................ 10 Data Sources .......................................................................................................................... 10 Surface well data ................................................................................................................... 11 Texas state parks data ............................................................................................................ 11 Data Setup .............................................................................................................................. 11 Data Analysis ............................................................................................................................ 12 Spatiotemporal analysis: Emerging Hotspot Analysis .......................................................... 12 Proximity Analysis: MultiRing Buffer ................................................................................. 12 Testing Significance: Getis Ord GI Statistical Analysis ....................................................... 13 Geospatial Analysis Results ...................................................................................................... 13 Big Spring State Park in Howard county ............................................................................... 13 Lake Colorado in Mitchel county .......................................................................................... 14 Monahans Sand Dunes State Park in Winkler and Ward County ......................................... 14 Geospatial Analysis Discussion ................................................................................................ 14 Visualizations ............................................................................................................................ 16 Monahans State Park Emerging Hot Spot Z Scores .............................................................. 20 IV. State Parks Vulnerability to Oil & Gas Development ............................................................ 21 Vulnerability of Protected Lands Oil & Gas Development by Proximity ................................ 21 Literature Review ...................................................................................................................... 21 Hazards of Proximity to Oil and Gas Extraction ................................................................... 21 Geological Hazards ................................................................................................................ 22 Environmental Hazards ......................................................................................................... 24 Social and Health Hazards ..................................................................................................... 27 Health Hazards of Proximity ................................................................................................. 28

PAGE 5

v Public Lands in the Central Permian Basin Region of Texas ................................................... 28 Monahans Sandhills State Park ............................................................................................ 29 Recommendations; Dissemination of Conclusions ................................................................... 30 Texas Parks and Wildlife Department: Texas Conserv ation Action Plan ............................. 30 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 33 APPENDIX A. Texas conservation action plan (TCAP) Data gathering .. 39 B. City of Monahans Ordinance Section 193 Regarding Regulations of Proximity of Oil and Gas Wells.... 45 TABLE Table 1: Z scores of statically significant emerging hotspots of Monahans State Park. .............. 20

PAGE 6

vi FIGURE Figure 1: Permian Basin Oil and Gas well locations. Green points represent oil wells and red points represent gas wells. For more detailed information consult the image legend in the upper left portion of the figure. ................................................................................................................. 9 Figure 2: Emerging hot spot results for Howard County, Texas. ................................................. 16 Figure 3: Emerging hot spot results for Reeves County, Texas. .................................................. 17 Figure 4: Emerging hot spot results for Lake Colorado in Mitchel County, Texas...................... 18 Figure 5: Emerging hot spot results for Monahans Sandhills State park in Ward and Winkler County, Texas. .............................................................................................................................. 19

PAGE 7

1 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION In many parts of the United States, state protected public lands are threatened with environmental contamination, landscape degradation, and loss of visitation due to increased presence of nearby oil and gas development (Burton et al. 2014; Ann and Geltman 2016; Jasechko and Perrone 2017; Balise et al. 2016; Davis 2012; Vera 2016) This study examines the establishment of an increasing number of permitted oil a nd gas extraction sites near protected public state lands in the Permian Basin of west Texas. Texas is the largest oil and natural gas producing state in the U.S. (Lee 2015) Most of the oil and natural gas extracted in Texas comes from the south and western regions of the state (Johnston, Werder, and Sebastian 2016) The Permian Basin region is growing rapidly and now has over 9,000 oil and gas permits licensed and over 180,000 extraction sites (Texas Railroad Commission 2017) The region also has twelve state parks that number among the most frequently visited in Texas (Get The Frack Out Of Our Parks | Sierra Club 2017) This study will focus on five counties in the central Permian Basin: Reeves, Mitchell, Howard, Ward and Winkler. This study area was selected because each of these five counties contains an increasing number of oil and gas extraction sites as well as large state parks with active annual attendance. The purpose of this study is to utiliz e geospatial analysis techniques to visualize changing relationships between oil and natural gas extraction wells and state parks in the Permian Basin in the recent past (20052015). Two hypotheses guide the research. The first hypothesis states that pro ximity between the two has increased; meaning that oil and gas development has actively

PAGE 8

2 encroached upon public and protected lands. The second hypothesis states that as proximity has increased, state parks within the region are becoming more vulnerable to a wide range of potential geologic, environmental, and social hazards. The first hypothesis, concerning proximity, will be addressed by combining permitted oil and gas well location data with regional feature data in a geographic information system (GIS) allowing for a detailed analysis of the changing spatial relationship between extraction sites and state parks in the study area overtime. Oil and gas development near four different state parks in the region will be analyzed: Balmorhea State Park in Reeves county, Monahans Sandhills State Park in Ward and Winkler county, Big Spring State Park in Howard county, and Lake Colorado in Mitchel County. This study utilized various statistical methods, including hotspot analysis, in its analysis. The second hy pothesis, concerning vulnerability, will be addressed by examining the current situation in each of the four different state parks mentioned above. The potential vulnerability of these state parks to extractive industry encroachment will be explored with reference to the recent literature that assesses the hazards presented to public lands from defined close proximity to concentrated oil and gas development. This study is significant because the analysis generates new information on the spatiotemporal pat terns of oil and gas extraction areas in west Texas and provides new insights into the vulnerability of protected and public lands, thus allowing policy makers to take a more proactive approach to public land management strategies (Meng 2015) The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) is the authority that monitors the wellbeing and integrity of state public lands. The TPWD implements the Texas Conservation Action Plan (TCAP) for each region in the state of Texas. These plans outline the vulnerabilities, threats and status of the

PAGE 9

3 conditions of public lands within their respective regions (refer to appendix A). While these plans discuss the utilization of GIS technology for various public land management activities, advanced spatiotemporal analysis in the servic e of public land conservation has not yet been conducted. By expanding the conservation action plans to include emerging hotspot analysis, the TPWD can better visualize the movement and significance of clusters of surface wells near state parks and thereb y enhance landscape quality in protected areas. This study is organized as follows. Chapter II examines the historic and geographic background of oil and gas development in Texas, establishing the context for understanding recent industry activity in the south and west regions of the state. Chapter III discusses the geospatial methods used to explore the spatial relationships between oil and gas development and state parks in the study area and presents the results of that analysis. Chapter IV reviews t he literature on the vulnerability of public and protected lands to oil and gas extraction and discusses the implications of that literature for the four state parks located in the study area.

PAGE 10

4 CHAPTER II HISTORIC AND GEOGRAPHIC BACKGROUND ON THE TEXAS OIL & GAS INDUSTRY Texan Oil History Every Texan is guaranteed to learn two facts by the time they finish middle school: the Battle of the Alamo took place in 1836; and Spindletop changed Texas forever in 1901. The Spindletop oilfield of Jefferson County emerged as the dominant Texas oil producing field of its time, surpassing the earlier Corsicana oilfield in its first year by generating over seventeen million barrels of oil by 1902 (Spindletop Oil Discovery Transforms the Oil Industry, January 10, 1901 2012) The oil industry of Texas quickly created a massive amount of wealth for a select group of people at the turn of 20th Century. One of these men, J.S. Cullinan, spent most of his life in Pennsylvania where he was trained in the oilfields since the age of fourteen. He worked his way through every facet of the business and knew th e industry in an intimate way that only someone who grew with it could -he was molded by the oilfield. In 1894, Cullinan came to the Corsicana oilfields of Texas (Stringer 1979) Based on his Pennsylvania oilfield experience, Cullinan knew the potential of the Corsicana oilfields better than the speculators picking over the land. The area was co nsidered dead, dried up, and a sink for wasteful investments (Olien 2010) He began sinking wells in the area, creating a steady flow of crude oil. Cullinan saw oil as the energy future for America (Olie n 2010) Most people of the time firmly believed in the necessity of coal as an unstoppable

PAGE 11

5 force in the energy markets. As Cullinan watched more and more people move into the Corsicana oilfields and strike successful claims for crude oil, he saw the opportunity to capitalize on the need to transport and refine crude oil in Texas. His pioneering capitalist spirit would lead him to form of the Texas Company, known today as Texaco. Another man from Pennsylvania came to seek his fortune in the blossoming Texas oil market. Anthony Lucas, a Croatian, had been pulled to the Corsicana oilfields by Patillo Higgins, a self taught geologist colloquially known as the prophet of Spindletop (Lamar 2017) Higgins was a native Texan that believed he knew his home state better than any man of higher education, due to his long exposure to the area and interaction with Te xas natural landscapes. Ironically, he never had a successful oil claim in the oilfields until he collaborated with Anthony Lucas. In 1901 Anthony Lucas tapped the Lucas Gusher and heralded in the oil age of Texas and producing 75,000 barrels of oil a da y. Spindletop revolutionized how people viewed oil and especially how they viewed Texas. Oil camps were established in droves, postcards featured oil pumps, and to this day the old gravity well pump is a state icon of Texas. Not to be out done, Cullinan came in quickly after the Lucas Gusher to provide the necessary pipeline work for the transportation and distribution of the newly found crude oil. With this beneficial setup, the oil began to flow freely through the state of Texas and through the nation, contributing greatly to total oil production of the world. Pop culture even began to take notice, films and novels that came to portray the new Texan oil man as an embodiment of the rancher work ethic blended with the myth of the cowboy, creating the pe rfect cocktail of exploitative capitalism.

PAGE 12

6 The Spatial Movement of Oil Extraction The spatial movement of oil and natural gas extraction across the space of Texas has a clockwise pattern over time, which repeats itself as a cycle. Development began in northcentral Texas in the late 1800s with the Corsicana oilfield, which produced the first significant amount of oil in the state in the year of 1900 with over 830,000 barrels of oil produced. In 1901 the center of oil extraction moved southeast from C orsicana to the city of Beaumont where the Lucas Gusher was tapped at Spindletop. The success of the Spindletop oilfield opened the Gulf Coast region to great oil extraction operations. From 19021912, four major oilfields opened and expanded the wealth an d prominence of the Gulf Coast region. The Sun Pipeline company came to prominence in this time working with Texaco and other smaller oil companies to transport over 18,000,000 barrels of harvest crude oil from the Gulf Coast region (Olien 2010) The Gulf region remains a prolific producer of crude oil. As offshore drilling came into its own, the oil in dustry of the Gulf expanded outwards deep into the Gulf. Back on land, As drilling technology became more advanced, the oil fields begin to expand westward, following the oil rich geology through central Texas. As the oil exploration expanded, new fields began to spill out of the Beaumont Houston corridor to the south and west. Small cities began to develop around Houston, serving the oilfield production of the area. The great East Texas oil boom of the 1930s put Houston at the center of the oil industry, creating the basis for regional prosperity during the Great Depression. This was a time when agriculture was failing, when there was a mass exodus of people out of the Great Plains to the west, and when America overall was hurting. Yet, Houston w as moving in opposite direction.

PAGE 13

7 While great pockets of the nation struggled economically during the Great Depression, the East Texas oilfield expanded on the basis of energy development. During this era, the region produced about three fifths of Texas crude oil production, three eighths of U.S. production, and twenty two per cent of the entire world's crude oil output (McF arlane 2017) From Houston, the oil industry marched westward into central Texas, spurring a wave of oil exploration and discovery in the northern and central panhandle region. In 1924, the first oil surveys were conducted in the region around the c ity of Wichita Falls -the first oil production in the Permian Basin (Olien 2010) The region was not considered to have much potential for oil and energy extraction but as the surveys drifted south into the lower Permian Basin region the prospects for oil harvesting increased. The Permian Basin continued to be a sporadically low producing but stable oil market through the decades. Thousands of wells have been drilled within the Permian Basin since its explosive beginnings. In the 1980s, prior to the oil collapse that nearly too k out the Permian Basin market, the oil rig count in the area was one of the highest in the nation (Craig 1990) The Permian Basin is experiencing a revival with the advent of unconventional drilling techniques (Kibria et al. 2018) The state of Texas currently holds over thirty three thousand oil and gas extraction wells; over a third of which are in the Permian Basin (Hudgins and Lee 2016) There is great debate on the reliability of the oil deposits found in the Permian Basin region (Witkowski 2014) and many believe it will prove to be a short lived harvesting cycle. This would fall in line with the history of the Permian Ba sin (Tang 2016) where many wells are very productive for a short time, but then taper off to insignificance. Others argue that the expansion of unconventional oil harvesting methods such as updated hydraulic fracturing techniques will provide the basis for a longer term productivity in the region (Foran 2013) In

PAGE 14

8 fact, the amount of surface wells in the Permian Basin continues to grow each year. Even in the oil bust years of 2009 2013, when the domestic oil economy was taking a drastic turn for the worse, surface wells proliferated in the Permian Basin region. The geological makeup of the region makes for a safe, reliable source of oil energy (Galley 1958) While the East Texas oilfields and the Eagle Ford Shale continue to be characterized by volatile swings between gushers and dried wells, the Permian Basin is expected to remain a stable source of oil extraction in the foreseeable future. If current trends of surface well activity hold true for the region, the Permian Basin will experience surface well increases with each passing year.

PAGE 15

9 Figure 1: Permian Basin Oil and Gas well locations. Green points represent oil wells and red points represent gas wells. For more detailed information consult the image legend in the upper left portion of the figure.

PAGE 16

10 CHAPTER III GEOSPATIAL METHODS & ANALYSIS Geospatial Methods This chapter discusses the geospatial methods used to visualize if oil and gas development has encroached on state parks in the recent past (20052015). To address the first hypothesis of this research a spatiotemporal analy sis is conducted alongside a proximity analysis in a geographic information system (GIS) to collected data of a delineated study area within the Permian Basin. Study Area Delineation The delineated study area is comprised of four state parks located in five counties within the Permian Basin. Balmorhea State Park of Reeves county, Monahans Sand Dunes State Park of Ward and Winkler county, Big Spring State Park in Howard county and Lake Colorado in Mitchel county. These counties and state parks were selected based on their high amount of oil and gas surface wells and state parks with active visitation. Data This research focused on two data sets: surface well locations within selected counties, and selected state park units within the delineated study area. Data Sources Texas Rail Road Commission for All oil and gas extraction well locations within the Permian Basin from the time 2005 2015 < http://webapps2.rrc.state.tx.us/EWA/drillingPermitsQueryAction.do>

PAGE 17

11 Texas Parks and Wildlife for shapefiles of state public lands in the Permian Basin Surface well data Surface wells are used as a measure of oil and gas develo pment. All permitted oil and gas extraction well locations within the southwestern Permian Basin between the years of 2005 2015 was purchased from the Texas Railroad Commission data store. Purchased data includes county layers, well location API Data, ge ological data, pipeline location. Texas state parks data All geospatial data pertaining to the delineated study area was obtained through the Texas Parks and Wildlife department. Data includes shapefiles for all state park units. Data Setup Arc map 10.4 was used for all geospatial analysis. Surface well locations and state park units are visualized by county in the GIS. All data is projected in Texas State Plane meters coordinate system. A multiring buffer analysis was placed around each sta te park unit. Each multiring buffer was comprised of five individual buffers, each at a width of 1kilometer. The 5 kilometer radius around each of the state park units acts to gauge the significance of potential hotspots proximity to the parks. Space tim e cubes were created with the create space time cube tool from the time stamped surface well location data. These time cubes create the signature data required for emerging hotspot analysis. Emerging hot spot analysis was conducted to visualize the spati otemporal patterns of surface wells within the established buffer zone. Getis Ord statistical analysis was used within emerging hotspot analysis to rank the significance of emerging hotspot patterns.

PAGE 18

12 Data Analysis Spatiotemporal analysis: Emerging Hotsp ot Analysis Emerging hotspot analysis visualizes the development of spatial occurrences over determined time intervals in a specific geographic location. This form of analysis quantifies the level of significance of developing clusters derived from large sets of spatial variables in a set geographic location(TapiaArmijos, Homeier, and Draper Munt 2017) Two parameters of emerging hotspot analysis need to be defined, the neighborhood time step and the distance interval (Bunting et al. 2018) The neighborhood time step defines the time interval in which the count of the spatial vari able is calculated. For this research the neighborhood time stop was set to one year. The distance interval parameter dictates the spatial bin size where the surface wells are sorted into during each of the defined years of the neighborhood time step. For this research the distance interval remained at 1 kilometer. For each year from 2005 2015, the spatial distribution of surface wells of each county in the delineated study area was calculated in relation to the counties state park units multiring buffer. Proximity Analysis: MultiRing Buffer A mutiring buffer analysis was applied to each selected state park to analyze the proximity of emerging hotspots in relation to the parks boundaries. Buffer analysis visualizes specified areas of distance around a feature and allows for data within the specified space to be analyzed (Chakraborty and Armstrong 1997) A 2017 article published by scientists from University of California Santa Barbara explored the threshold of proximity of observable hazards associated with oi l wells (Jasechko and Perrone 2017) This study established a trend of oil wells having more of an observable impact on the landscape and increasing their hazard risk within a 3kilometer area. Building on this research, to gauge proximity of the emerging hotspot analysis,

PAGE 19

13 a multiring buffer analysis was put on each analyzed state park unit. The multi ring buffer was comprised of five individual rings of a width of 1kilometer each. Hotspots that fell outside of the 5 kil ometer buffer analysis were labeled low priority for monitoring. Hotspots that fell within the 4 5kilometer range were labeled as a moderate priority for monitoring. Hotspots within the defined 32kilometer range were labeled as high priority monitoring range. Testing Significance: Getis Ord GI Statistical Analysis Getis Ord is a statistical analysis that calculates the occurrence and significance of variables clustering within a confined geographic space. Getis Ord GI analysis creates clusters of da ta within a geographic area by their statistical significance. Getis Ord Gi statistical analysis ranks the significance of clusters of data through a measurement of z scores (Getis and Ord 2010) Z scores are considered significant if they are greater than 1.96 or 1.96 with indication to their trend in the positive or negative. In this analysis, only clusters that are greater than 1.96 will be considered as an indication of significant oil and gas development. This analysis was used within the emerging hot spot analysis to identify emerging clusters of surface wells within a 5 kilometer proximity to designated state parks. The emerging hot sp ot analysis produces a cluster analysis of input data and applies the temporal field of the input features to visualize statistically significant trends over time. This statistical analysis was used to gauge the significance of the emerging hotspots in the delineated study area. Geospatial Analysis Results Big Spring State Park in Howard county No significant emerging hotspots (Z values of 1.96 or greater) were found within the buffer proximity of Big Spring State Park in Howard county between the years of 2005 2015. (See Figure 1)

PAGE 20

14 Lake Colorado in Mitchel county No significant emerging hotspots (Z values of 1.96 or greater) were found within the buffer proximity of Lake Colorado in Mitchel county between the years of 2005 2015. (See Figure 2) Balmorhea State Park in Reeves county No significant emerging hotspots (Z values of 1.96 or greater) were found within the buffer proximity of Balmorhea State park in Reeves county between the years of 2005 2015. However, two significant hotspots were observed near the northeastern edge of the buffer zone. (See Figure 3) Monahans Sand Dunes State Park in Winkler and Ward County Significant hotspots (Z scores of 1.96 or greater) were found within the buffer proximity of Monahans Sand Dunes State park in Winkler and Ward County. Two emerging hotspots were located within the moderate priority buffer zone of 45kilometers proximity and two emerging hotspot s were found within the high priority buffer zone of 23kilometers of proximity to the park. (See Figure 4) Geospatial Analysis Discussion The emerging hotspot analysis applied to the study area yielded one significant result from the four tested state parks within the five counties. Monahans Sand Hills state park that sits on the southeastern border of Ward and Winkler county shows emerging hotspots developing around the western side of the park between the years of 2005 and 2015. Five significant hotspots were visualized in 5kilometer proximity buffer analysis applied to the park. Two hot spot are within two kilometers of the park, one hotspot is within three kilometers and two hotspots are within the five kilometer edge buffer for the park. The new em erging hot spots

PAGE 21

15 located around Monahans State Park all yielded a z score of 1.96 or greater utilizing the Getis Ord GI analysis, showing their significance within the confined area (see Table 1). Emerging hot spot analysis defines these newly emerging hot spots as areas of positive statistical significance that have not been statistically significant before within the defined time parameter (2005 2015). This indicates the emergence of areas that have become statistically significant within the confined spa ce. This was the only state park within the study area to show significant emerging hot spot development within a five kilometer area of any state park examined. Interestingly, intermingled with the emerging hot spots within proximity to Monahans Sandhil ls State Park were emerging cooling spots. These emerging cooling spots indicate areas of transition, moving away from higher surface well activity to a lower trend of surface well activity over the years. These cooling spots are in a well know active regi on, being able to visualize cooling off periods of surface well activity gives insight to the developing trends of surface well activity in the area. The observable emerging cooling spots are surrounded by new emerging hotspots that are trending towards the direction and proximity of the western portion of the Monahans Sandhills State Park. Examining the defined proximity to the park of these new emerging hotspots shows that over the analyzed time, surface well activity has encroached on the Monahans Sandhi lls State Park borders. The other three examined state parks in the three other counties did not result in significant results. There were few, new emerging hot spots in the individual counties of Reeves and Mitchell but none where within the 5kilometer buffer analysis region of the parks. There were significant observable trends in the examined counties of the study region, but they do not fall within the 5 kilometer buffer zone to any state parks in the specified areas.

PAGE 22

16 Visualizations Figure 2: Emerging hot spot results for Howard County, Texas.

PAGE 23

17 Figure 3: Emerging hot spot results for Reeves County, Texas.

PAGE 24

18 Figure 4: Emerging hot spot results for Lake Colorado in Mitchel County, Texas. The hollow boxes indicate areas of no detected trend. Boxes with a white border and red center are significant new hotspots. For further information consult the legend

PAGE 25

19 Figure 5: Emerging hot spot results for Monahans Sandhills State park in Ward and Winkler County, Texas. The hollow boxes indicate areas of no detected trend. Boxes with a white border and red center are significant new hotspots. For further information consult the legend. The buffer analys is applied to Big Spring State Park is a multi ring buffer. Each buffer ring width represents 1kilometer. Ward county is visualized in the bottom portion in purple. Winkler county is visualized on the upper portion in orange.

PAGE 26

20 Table 1: Z scores of statically significant emerging hotspots of Monahans State Park Monahans State Park Emerging Hot Spot Z Scores PATTERNPERC_HOTPERC_COLD TREND_Z TREND_P TREND_BIN New Hot Spot 5.882352941 41.17647059 3.35555006 0.00079207 3 New Hot Spot 5.882352941 41.17647059 3.4331286 0.00059666 3 New Hot Spot 5.882352941 41.17647059 3.26147217 0.00110835 3 New Hot Spot 5.882352941 41.17647059 3.26147217 0.00110835 3 New Hot Spot 5.882352941 41.17647059 3.34730039 0.00081603 3 Consecutive Hot Spot 11.76470588 0 3.17564396 0.00149504 3 New Hot Spot 5.882352941 23.52941176 2.79166667 0.00524373 3 New Hot Spot 5.882352941 0 2.0277668 0.04258405 2 New Hot Spot 5.882352941 23.52941176 3.6698735 0.00024267 3 New Hot Spot 5.882352941 0 3.93230864 8.4134E-05 3

PAGE 27

21 CHAPTER IV State Parks Vulnerability to Oil & Gas Development Vulnerability of Protected Lands Oil & Gas Development by Proximity This chapter discusses the documented hazards and conditions associated with proximity to oil and gas wells. Increased proximity to oil and gas wells impacts the vulnerability of geograp hic locations to documented hazards and conditions. The closer oil and gas wells are to a location, the vulnerability to these documented hazards and conditions increases. The geospatial analyses in chapter three defined the locations within the delineat ed study area that show concentrations of oil and gas wells within an analyzed zone of proximity. Monahans Sand Dunes State Park located in Ward and Winkler County showed the most significant results of emerging hotspots being located within a defined haza rdous proximity to its borders. This chapter will examine the current condition of both Ward and Winkler County regarding oil and gas development and focus on exploring the vulnerability of the Park This chapters expands on the observed results of Monahans State Park by discussing the conditions and hazards that influence vulnerability of protected lands on a national scale and also on the local scale of west Texas and the Permian Basin. Literature Review Hazards of Proximity to Oil and Gas Extraction Environmental hazards associated with proximity to oil and gas extraction areas are well observed and documented (Wattenberg et al. 2015) These hazards of proximity are classified as

PAGE 28

22 geologic (Meng and Ashby 2014) environmental (Burton et al. 2014) and human health (Adgate, Goldstein, and McKenzie 2014) The factor of proximity helps define the vulnerabi lity of protected lands. Lack of monitoring of oil and gas wells proximity can lead to potential contamination of the immediate and surrounding area while also posing a social health risk to nearby communities. While the potential of these hazards has been well documented, they have never been explored within a regional context of oil producing west Texas and used to forecast the implications of developing concentrations of oil and gas extraction to public land in the Permian basin. Geological Hazards Earthquakes Increased seismic activity coincides with the increased activity of oil and gas production within the Southwest Permian basin. Eighteen earthquakes occurred in the Cogdell oil field located near Snyder, Texas between the years of 2006 and 2011. Rise in earthquake activity coincide with a spike of injectionbased oil and gas extraction methods operations activity in the area (Gan, Wei et al. 2013.). These areas had been seismically quiet for decades before these oil and gas extraction operations activity spiked. With a history of seismic activity and at present time, there is not enough regional modeling data completed to take this correlation further. This study calls for the need of more predictive modeling of the correlation between earthquak e activity patterns in areas with growing concentrations of oil and gas extraction activity. Increased seismic activity has been documented in regions with increased concentrations of oil and natural gas extraction production in surrounding areas (Lund Snee and Zoback 2016) Data gathered from these regions over time show that as oil and gas extraction production

PAGE 29

23 increases so does the occurrence of earth quakes (Ogiesoba and Hammes 2014) Regions of once low or nonexistent seismic activity are becoming sites of documented earthquakes (Gan and Frohlich 2013) Areas of Pennsylvania, Oklahoma and Texas have seen increases of seismic activity in junction with concentrated increases of oil and natur al gas extraction (Kort et al. 2016) Tectonic shifting is relatively inactive in these regions. New research is being published frequently that supports the claim that increased oil and natural gas extraction plays some pa rt in increased regional seismic activity (Frohlich et al. 2016) With a higher concentration of oil and gas wells encroaching Monahan s state Park section of Ward County, there is a higher risk of seismic activity within the specific region over time. Higher oil and gas extraction wells put the city of Monahan s and Monahan s S and H ills s tate park at risk of increased earthquake activity Subsidence Subsidence has been documented in areas with concentrated oil and natural gas extraction operations (Khan, Huang, and Karacay 2014) Subsidence is the geological process of land mass shrin king in on itself. Extracting large amounts of oil and natural gas from a regional environment is a form of externally induced subsidence. Radical subsidence can lead to issues and hazards that impact groundwater, geological hazards, sinkhole development a nd create an unhospitable environment for wildlife as well as unhospitable for development (Liu et al. 2016) Subsidence within west Texas ha s been documented through LiDAR analysis over the past few years (Khan, Huang, and Karacay 2014) This study shows the increased rate of subsidence in west Texas coincides with the increased rate of oil and nat ural gas production. The study concludes with the findings that increased rates of nonconventional oil and gas production in

PAGE 30

24 west Texas could be a significant contributor to the increased rates of subsidence witnessed over time in the region. Sink holes develop as the bedrock underneath the surface is eroded away due to chemical reaction or due to subsidence. Due to the increase of subsidence in areas of oil and natural gas extraction, sinkholes have become a viable hazard to areas with increased oil and natural gas production. Sinkholes have become documented within the study region of this research, in Wink county of the southwest Permian basin located in west Texas. A study published in 2016 has been monitoring and tracking the development and occurrenc e of sinkholes in proximity to increased concentration of oil and gas extraction locations (Kim, Lu, and Degrandpre 2016) With the rise of nonconventional oil and gas extraction in Wink County, the empty spaces left behind in the bedrock begin to cave in on themselves and create the right conditions for sinkholes. These studies conclude that in areas with spiking concentrations of oil and natural gas extractions, sink hole activity is likely to increase. A higher level of sinkhole activity brought on by the increased concentration of oil and gas wells puts the Monahan s S and H ill state park at geological risks of stability and threatens the aesthetic virtue of the parks integrity. Environmental Hazards Air pollution The processes of extracting oil and natural gas exhibit a documented detrimental effect on the quality of air in the region of extraction (Adgate, Goldstein, and McKenzie 2014) Increased carbon emissions, volatile particles, carcinogens, smog, and ozone have been documented in areas with oil and natural gas extraction (Thompson et al. 2017) Hotspots of

PAGE 31

25 unconventional oil and gas extraction; Oklahoma, Pennsylvania and west Texas all exhibit worsening air quality as oil and gas extraction becomes more prevalent. Air quality in west Texas has show n drastic downwards trends since nonconventional oil harvesting became popularized in the region (Hildenbrand et al. 2016) Health effects associated with degrading air quality have been observed in regions of concentrated oil and gas extraction production (Kort et al. 2016) These health hazards range from emphysema, cancer, black lung, birth defects and sensory disorders. A 2015 study of west Texas concludes the quality of air in the region has degraded to the point of concern over the last ten years. Higher concentrations of oil and gas wells generate a higher amount of air pollutants. As oil and gas extraction wells increase within a s pecific area the more at risk the air quality becomes. Degraded air quality in the area of Ward County put the local residents and th average 45,000 visitors to Monahans state park at risk of air pollution. Soil contamination Soil samples gathered from areas with high oil and natural gas extraction activity have been tested periodically over time and constantly hold higher levels of dangerous substances than baseline soil samples (Meng 2017) The contaminated soil becomes spoiled and possess a significant health hazard to surrounding areas and communities. Thes e contaminates can be observed entering the food cycle of lower income areas (Fry, Briggle, and Kincaid 2015) Elevated levels of carbon and carcinogens can be found in the contaminated soil samples. Uniformly, areas soils tested around the United States that have higher than normal concentration of oil and natural gas production have soil samples that contain higher than average contamination levels.

PAGE 32

26 Higher levels of contaminated soil put natural pr otected areas at risk for associated hazards. Monahans Sand Hills state park has an increased risk of soil contamination as concentrations of oil and gas extraction wells encroach on to the state park. Water runoff The exact mixture of liquids and chemicals used in nonconventional oil and natural gas extraction has still not been disclosed to the public (Meegoda et al., n.d.) Spills of this toxic cocktail are a regular occurrence in normal oil and natural gas extraction operations (Burton et al. 2014) Water sample examined near conventional and nonconventional oil and natural gas extraction sites hold dangerously high levels of carbon, particulates, mercury, sulfates and other documented dangerous substances above normal regulation levels (Evensen et al. 2014) Elevated levels of potentially dangerous particulates have been documented in m ultiple areas in the United States with concentrated oil and gas extraction activity. These elevate levels of contaminates found in waste water runoff need a higher level of preventative action to ensure they are not contaminating their local regional environment (Johnston, Werder, and Sebastian 2016) Waste water runoff has the potential to contaminate local water and irrigation supplies. Transportation The large amount of mobile machinery to transport the extracted oil and natural gas from the extraction site displaces massive amounts of soil and sediment from the work environment (Aizemberg et al. 2014) The displaced biomass alters the local environment and can have regional pollutant affects in waterways. Locating an extraction site within proximity to public land such as a state or national park or recreation area can possibly have detrimental effects to the areas landscape integrity.

PAGE 33

27 Increased traffic of large trucks in along the roads of the city of Monahans will damage the roads structure more rapidly over time. Increased transportation disturbs and displaces large amounts of sediment and dust that has the potential to impact the landscape a nd quality of Monahans Sand Hills State Park. Social and Health Hazards Social Conditions Physical hazards are closely associated with areas of disadvantage and economic disparity (Stevenson 2014) Colonias are unincorporated municipalities along the Texas Mexico border in a state of tragic poverty well below the states average. Colinias have historically been ignored for problems they bring of responsibility to already existing incorporated municipalities in southern Texas. Colonias are situated near the Eagle Ford Shale region, that is densely populated by oil and gas extraction wells a nd offer insight into the benefits these extraction operations offer as hope to forgotten groups of people (De Len 2016) Annexation of the Colonias could have a range of positive environmental consequences by bringing their substandard environmental quality of life up to municipal standards (Salinas 2015) Unique economic benefits of oil and gas extraction operations that benefits the marginalized and economically despondent border residents of south Texas (Chomsky 2016) Increased encroaching concentrations of oil and gas extraction wells are indicative of an increased oil and gas industry within an area. As these industries increase, the lure of relationcation and gainful employment will increase. As people relocate over time to areas such as Ward County and the city of Monahans with the intent of gainful employment and a better future, the social conditions of exploitation will increa se. With these come the building of

PAGE 34

28 temporary housing and temporary landscapes that will border Monahans sand hills state park and effect the visual landscape aesthetic. Health Hazards of Proximity General Health Hazards Populations living within close proximity to concentrations of oil and gas extraction activity have observed higher risks of certain health conditions (Finkel et al. 2016). These health conditions include asthma, certain cancers, headaches, abdominal condi tions, hypertension, stress, skin irritations, sleeplessness, and fatigue (Wattenberg et al. 2015; Vera 2016) Wide spread contamination of water and air in areas densely populated near oil and gas extraction operations are being investigated as triggers for compounding the severity and prevalence of these health conditions within concentrated populations. The proximity of dense populations in relation to extraction operations needs to be examined in detail, but as long as these major operations are not willing to comply wit h evolving environmental standards and still exist within legal loopholes, these types of studies will be difficult to execute. (Wurtzebach 2015) The reach of these health hazards primary include the approximate 12,000 residents of ward county and the average 45,000 visitors to Monahans Sand Hills State Park. Public Lands in the Central Permian Basin Region of Texas Land has traditionally been viewed as an exploitable mechanism for profit in Texan History. Only 4.2 % of all land is Texas is designated as public (Public and Private Land Percentages by US St The leasing federal lands to private entities for oil and gas extraction has become a strong source of federal and state income (Brown, Kelly et al. 2014) The practice is projected to g enerate one hundredbillion

PAGE 35

29 dollars in the first ten years (Davis 2012) The oil and gas deposits that have been discovered within National Parks have been regarded as a natural federal asset (Ann and Geltman 2016) The importance of acknowledging the sensitivity of the protected areas and seeking to explore how to best mitigate the environmental impact from private entities harvesting oil and gas within the borde rs of national parks. Currently thirteen national park service units allow oil and gas extraction of some sort (Sierra Club 2017) and four of these units are located within the state of Texas. The Texas Railroad Commission (TRRC) is the leading regulatory agency for monitoring and governing oil well leasing in the state of Texas. Yet, the TRRC does not regulate the distance of oil wells to any area of specific designation. Cities in the state of Texas can set ordinances to establis h thresholds of distance. The TRRC only gives the guidelines that they recommend that No surface well should be located within two hundred feet of a densely populated area (Texas Railroad Commission 2017) The amount of oversight perpetrated by local and regional agencies can be attributed, at least partially, to the amount of feder al pressure being applied to once rural areas (Freilich et al. 2012). Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) is the states authority on the protection and management of state public lands, and manages multiple outdoor recreation areas in the Permian basin. The Permian Basin area of the service region contains parks, hunting grounds, family areas, hiking trails, public swimming areas and historical sites that range from state history to environmental history. Monahans Sandhills State Park Located on the borders of Winkler and Ward County, Monahans Sandhills State park is an active recreation site. The park also lies within two counties with high levels of oil and gas production. There are 15,330 drilled wells in Ward County and 12,935 drilled wells i n Winkler

PAGE 36

30 County as of 2017 (Texas Railroad Commission 2017) Ward County is where the significant hots pots of oil and gas development were located from the geospatial analyses of chapter III. According to current census data (2017), Ward County has a population of 11,721 of which 7,638 live within the city of Monahans. The city of Monahans does not have any special provisions within their city ordinances to regulate proximity of oil wells to any designation of area or building beyond the Texas Railroad Commissions 200 foot recommendations (City of Monahans 2018) (refer to Appendix B). Meaning; if oil wells stay two hundred feet away from Monahans Sandhills State Park they are within regulation. The major hazards associated with proximity of oil and gas wells and extractive practices have been documented to occur over time within a few kilometer s (Jasechko and Perrone 2017) (Meng and Ashby 2014) (Thompson et al. 2017) For this reason, based on the documented literature and the conducted geospatial analyses, this research finds the vulnerability of Monahans State Park of W ard County to be highly vulnerable to the hazards associated with proximity to oil and gas development with current standards and regulations for proximity. Recommendations; Dissemination of Conclusions It is the recommendation of this research that the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department enforce a greater level of geospatial monitoring of oil and gas development with relation to proximity of State Park Units. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department: Texas C onservation Action Plan The Texas Parks and wildlife department is the authority on monitoring the well being of state public lands and implementing measures that insure the enduring property of their public lands to the best of their ability. Currently the Texas parks and wildli fe department upholds a

PAGE 37

31 Texas Conservation Action Plan (TCAP) plan for each region in the state of Texas. These plans outline the vulnerabilities, threats, and status of the conditions of public lands within their authority (refer Appendix A). These plans mention the usage and implementation of utilizing GIS technology for the purposes of monitoring different attributes for the parks but there is no mention of using spatiotemporal analysis for the protection of the parks. This research purposes implementi ng and using emerging hotspot analysis for monitoring surface well activity within proximity to state parks. By expanding the Texas conservation action plan to include emerging hotspot analysis the Texas Parks and Wildlife department would gain depth of understanding regarding the spatiotemporal trends of variables that possibly have adverse effects to the landscape quality. A large amount of data collected over time is required to yield significant results from emerging hotspot analyses. This research used only a decade worth of surface data to experiment with the feasibility of spatiotemporal analysis in a concentrated geographic region. The region and specific results yielded significant results for monitoring the proximity of surface wells in the central Permian basin region. Future Applications This research is foundational for future studies of region al hazard planning and geospatial forecasting Goals for future research include; comparing emerging hotspot analysis, correlating specific hazards to extraction operations, and conducting humanistic case studies. Comparing emerging hotspot analysis will expand this research into a more robust source of information. We would like to conduct the emerging hotspot analysis through the statistical software R and compare its significant findings to the emerging hotspot analysis conducted through Arcmap. Correlating specific hazards to known variables of oi l and gas wells will give refined insights into the relationships between specific wells and hazards. Conducting case studies within regions

PAGE 38

32 designated as higher risk for encroachment of oil and gas wells will yield more significant understanding of why these rates of encroachment are happening in specific areas. The perspectives of the local people in high risk areas of oil and gas development a subject little is known written on Through the foundational geospatial research conducted here, we can expand t o a local level and understand the human element of oil and gas development within a regional context.

PAGE 39

33 REFERENCES Adgate, John L., Bernard D. Goldstein, and Lisa M. McKenzie. 2014. Potential Public Health Hazards, Exposures and Health Effects from Unconventional Natural Gas Development. Environmental Science & Technology 48 (15). American Chemical Society: 830720. doi:10.1021/es404621d. Aizemberg, Luiz, Hugo Harry Kramer, Artur Alves Pessoa, and Eduardo Uchoa. 2014. Formulations for a Problem of Petroleum Transportation. European Journal of Operational Research 237 (1): 8290. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2014.01.036. Ann Elizabeth, and Glass Geltman. 2016. Oil & Gas Drilling in National Parks. Natural Resources Journal Balise, Victoria D., Chun Xia Meng, Jennifer N. Cornelius Green, Christopher D. Kassotis, Rana Kennedy, and Susan C. Nagel. 2016. Systematic Revi ew of the Association between Oil and Natural Gas Extraction Processes and Human Reproduction. Fertility and Sterility 106 (4): 795819. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.07.1099. Brown, Gregory, Maggi Kelly, and Debra Whitall. 2014. Which public? Sampling Effects in Public Participation GIS (PPGIS) and Volunteered Geographic Information (VGI) Systems for Public Lands Management. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 57 (2). Taylor & Francis Group : 190214. doi:10.1080/09640568.2012.741045. Bunting, Ryan J, Oliver Yang Chang, Christopher Cowen, Richard Hankins, Staci Langston, Alexander Warner, Xiaxia Yang, Eric R Louderback, and Shouraseni Sen Roy. 2018. The Professional Geographer Spatial Patterns of Larceny and Aggravated Assault in Miami Dade County, 20072015 Spatial Patterns of Larceny and Aggravated Assault in Miami Dade County, 20072015. The Professional Geographer 70 (1): 3446. doi:10.1080/00330124.2017.1310622. Burton, G Allen, Niladri Basu, Brian R Ellis, Katherine E Kapo, Sall y Entrekin, and Knute Nadelhoffer. 2014. Hydraulic fracking: Are Surface Water Impacts an Ecological Concern? Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 33 (8): 167989. doi:10.1002/etc.2619.

PAGE 40

34 Chakraborty, Jayajit, and Marc P. Armstrong. 1997. Exploring the Use of Buffer Analysis for the Identification of Impacted Areas in Environmental Equity Assessment. Cartography and Geographic Information Systems 24 (3). Taylor & Francis Group : 145 57. doi:10.1559/152304097782476951. Chomsky, Aviva. 2016. Social Impacts of Resource Extraction. Latin American Research Review 51 (1): 24325439. doi:10.1353/lar.2016.0000. City of Monahans, Tx. 2018. Chapter 19 OIL AND GAS DRILLING OPERATIONS | Code of Ordinances | Monahans, TX | Municode Library. Accessed Marc h 3. https://library.municode.com/tx/monahans/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=PTIICOOR_ CH19OIGADROP. Craig, D. H. 1990. Yates and Other Guadalupian (Kazanian) Oil Fields, U. S. Permian Basin. Geological Society, London, Special Publications 50 (1). Geological Society of London: 24963. doi:10.1144/GSL.SP.1990.050.01.12. Davis, Charles. 2012. The Politics of Fracking: Regulating Natural Gas Drilling Practices in Colorado and Texas. Review of Policy Research 29 (2): 17791. doi:10.1111/j.15411338.2011.00547.x. Evensen, Darrick, Jeffrey B. Jacquet, Christopher E. Clarke, and Richard C. Stedman. 2014. Whats the Fracking Problem? One Word Cant Say It All. Extractive Industries and Society 1 (2): 13036. doi:10.1016/j.exis.2014.06.004. Foran, Clare B T Nationaljournal.com. 2013. Texas Oil and Gas Boom Sets New Record, December. http://link.galegroup.com.aurarialibrary.idm.oclc.org/apps/doc/A344606494/ITOF?u=aurari a_main&sid=ITOF&xid=62a68af8. Frohlich, Cliff, Heather DeShon, Brian Stump, Chris Hayward, Matt Hornbach, and Jacob I. Walter. 2016. A Historical Review of Induced Earthquakes in Texas. Seismological Research Letters 87 (4): 102238. doi:10.1785/0220160016.

PAGE 41

35 Fry, Matthew, Adam Briggle, and Jordan Kincaid. 2015. Fracking and Environmental (In)justice in a Texas City. Ecological Economics 117: 97107. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.06.012. Galley, John E. 1958. Oil and Geology in the Permian Basin of Texas and New Mexico: North America 125. AAPG Special Volumes: 395446. http://archives.datapages.com/data/specpubs/basinar2/data/a125/a125/0001/0350/0395.htm. Gan, Wei, and Cliff Frohlich. 2013. Gas Injection May Have Triggered Earthquakes in the Cogdell Oil Field, Texas. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America doi:10.1073/pnas.1311316110. Get The Frack Out Of Our Parks | Sierra Club. 2017. Sierra Club http://sierraclub.org/texas/blog/2017/02/get frack out our parks. Getis, Arthur, and J. K. Ord. 2010. The Analysis of Spatial Association by Use of Distance Statistics. Geographical Analysis 24 (3). Blackwell Publishing Ltd: 189206. doi:10.1111/j.15384632.1992.tb00261.x. Hildenbrand, Zacariah L., Doug D. Carlton, Brian E. Fontenot, Jesse M. Meik, Jayme L. Walton, Jonathan B. Thacker, Stephanie Korlie, et al. 2016. Temporal Variation in Groundwater Quality in the Permian Basin of Texas, a Region of Increasing Unconventional Oil and Gas Development. Science of The Total Environment 562: 90613. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.04.144. Hudgins, David, and Jim Lee. 2016. Modeling the Expansion of Oil Production in South Texas and Mexico. The International Trade Journal 30 (5). Routledge: 387414. doi:10.1080/08853908.2016.1204965. Jasechko, Scott, and Debra Perrone. 2017. Hydraulic Fracturing near Domestic Groundwater Wells. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 114 (50). National Academy of Sciences: 1313843. doi:10.1073/pnas.1701682114. Johnston, Jill E, Emily Werder, and Daniel Seba stian. 2016. Wastewater Disposal Wells, Fracking, and Environmental Injustice in Southern Texas. American Journal of Public Health doi:10.2105/AJPH.2015.303000.

PAGE 42

36 Khan, Shuhab D., Zheng Huang, and Ayca Karacay. 2014. Study of Ground Subsidence in Northwest Harris County Using GPS, LiDAR, and InSAR Techniques. Natural Hazards 73 (3). Springer Netherlands: 114373. doi:10.1007/s110690141067x. Kibria, Md Golam, Qinhong Hu, Hong Liu, Yuxiang Zhang, and Jianhong Kang. 2018. Pore Structure, Wettabi lity, and Spontaneous Imbibition of Woodford Shale, Permian Basin, West Texas. Marine and Petroleum Geology February. Elsevier. doi:10.1016/J.MARPETGEO.2018.02.001. Kim, Jin Woo, Zhong Lu, and Kimberly Degrandpre. 2016. Ongoing Deformation of Sinkholes in Wink, Texas, Observed by Time Series Sentinel1A SAR Interferometry (Preliminary Results). Remote Sensing 8 (4). Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute: 31 3. doi:10.3390/rs8040313. Kort, E. A., M. L. Smith, L. T. Murray, A. Gvakharia, A. R. Brandt, J. Peischl, T. B. Ryerson, C. Sweeney, and K. Travis. 2016. Fugitive Emissions from the Bakken Shale Illustrate Role of Shale Production in Global Ethane Shift. Geophysical Research Letters 43 (9): 4617 23. doi:10.1002/2016GL068703. Lamar, University. 2017. Spindletop Gladys City Boomtown Museum Lamar University. Boomtown Museum Accessed December 10. https://www.lamar.edu/spindletopgladys city/index.html. Lee, Jim. 2015. The Regional Economic Impact of Oil and Gas Extraction in Texas. Energy Policy 87 (December): 60 71. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2015.08.032. Len, Arnoldo De. 2016. Whats Amiss in Tejano History?: The Misrepresentation and Neglect of West T exas. Southwestern Historical Quarterly 120 (3). Texas State Historical Association: 31431. doi:10.1353/swh.2016.0085. Liu, Yilin, Haijun Huang, Yanxia Liu, and Haibo Bi. 2016. Linking Land Subsidence over the Yellow River Delta, China, to Hydrocarbon Exploitation Using MultiTemporal InSAR. Natural Hazards 84 (1): 27191. doi:10.1007/s1106901624275. Lund Snee, Jens Erik, and Mark D. Zoback. 2016. State of Stress in Texas: Implications for Induced Seismicity. Geophysical Research Letters 43 (19): 10,20810,214. doi:10.1002/2016GL070974.

PAGE 43

37 McFarlane, Wallace Scot. 2017. Oil on the Farm: The East Texas Oil Boom and the Origins of an Energy Economy. Journal of Southern History 83 (December): 853+. http://aurarialibrary.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http:// link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A51538247 8/WHIC?u=auraria_main&xid=79f01d58. Meegoda, Jay N, F Asce, Samuel Rudy, Zhenting Zou, and Michael Agbakpe. n.d. Can Fracking Be Environmentally Acceptable? doi:10.1061/(ASCE)HZ. Meng, Qingmin. 2015. Spatial Analys is of Environment and Population at Risk of Natural Gas Fracking in the State of Pennsylvania, USA. Science of The Total Environment 515: 198 206. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.02.030. 2017. The Impacts of Fracking on the Environment: A Total Environmental Study Paradigm. Science of The Total Environment 580 (February): 95357. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.12.045. Meng, Qingmin, and Steve Ashby. 2014. Distance: A Critical Aspect for Environmental Impact Assessment of Hydraulic Fracking. The Extractive Industries and Society doi:10.1016/j.exis.2014.07.004. Ogiesoba, Osareni, and Ursula Hammes. 2014. Seismic Attribute Identification of Brittle and TOC Rich Zones within the Eagle Ford Shale, Dimmit County, South Texas. Journal of Petroleum E xploration and Production Technology 4 (2). Springer Berlin Heidelberg: 133 51. doi:10.1007/s1320201401061. Olien, Roger. 2010. Handbook of Texas Online. Texas Historical Society. https://tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/doogz. Public and 2018. Accessed February 2. https://www.summitpost.org/public and private land percentages by us states/186111. Spindletop Oil Discovery Transforms the Oil Industry, January 10, 1901. 2012. Detroit: Gale. http://aurarialibrary.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/BT2359030 163/UHIC?u=auraria_main&xid=d0a36e8c.

PAGE 44

38 Stevenson, Michael. 2014. Public Private Partnering in Natural Resource Extraction. Global Envi ronmental Politics 14 (3): 13914534. https://muse.jhu.edu/article/552018. Stringer, Tommy. 1979. Biography Joseph S. Cullinan. Navarro County Scroll http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~txnavarr/biographies/c/cullinan_joseph_s.htm. Tang, Carol Marie. 2016. Permian Basin. Encyclopdia Britannica Online Encyclopdia Britannica Inc. http://auraria.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwY2AwNtIz0EUrEwzS EpMsTIFNfeMUM1PjpLS0xGQLM9DdcKArAy0NQPudQ5xMnKOMXf2MXZkYYJc6Jk LXiOulJkEmUEELaYr1k8F9aqDTU_Wh4atvCqzmIaeCmoNO0HfyDuFm4EoC9a_zQJssk OoMNwEGX_gYFpoFesXZlaDWnV5pMjDXl0FvqyJgqyADJ_xQWCEGptQ8EQbeANB KlsQ8BadEYI9flEHKzTXE2UMX4Z741KR4sGZjMQbeRNBa9rwS8J63FAkGBSPTlERg 3ki1TAPWnWbGhokm5hap5onJhqlG5qZAmyQZhLGYJIVVVJqBC1jFm4FGIw0tZRhYS opKU2UZ2BNLQV3xRADuO3wI. TapiaArmijos, Mara Fernanda, Jrgen Homeier, and David Draper Munt. 2017. SpatioTemporal Analysis of the Human Footprint in South Ecuador: Influence of Human Pressure on Ecosystems and Effectiveness of Protected Areas. Applied Geography 78: 2232. doi :10.1016/j.apgeog.2016.10.007. Texas Railroad Commission. 2017. Texas RRC Permian Basin Information. Accessed March 15. http://www.rrc.state.tx.us/oil gas/major oil gas formations/permian basin/. Thompson, Tammy M., Donald Shepherd, Andrea Stacy, M ichael G. Barna, and Bret A. Schichtel. 2017. Modeling to Evaluate Contribution of Oil and Gas Emissions to Air Pollution. Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 67 (4). Taylor & Francis: 44561. doi:10.1080/10962247.2016.1251508. Vera, Lourdes. 2016. Community Health Impacts from Oil and Gas Development in Texas. NEW SOLUTIONS: A Journal of Environmental and Occupational Health Policy 26 (3). SAGE PublicationsSage CA: Los Angeles, CA: 496507. doi:10.1177/1048291116665073. Watte nberg, Elizabeth V., Jeffrey M. Bielicki, Ashley E. Suchomel, Jessica T. Sweet, Elizabeth M. Vold, and Gurumurthy Ramachandran. 2015. Assessment of the Acute and Chronic Health Hazards of Hydraulic Fracturing Fluids. Journal of Occupational and Environme ntal Hygiene 12 (9). Taylor & Francis: 61124. doi:10.1080/15459624.2015.1029612

PAGE 45

39 Witkowski, Rachel B T American Banker. 2014. Texas Oil Boom Starting to Worry Regulators 179 (76): 1. http://link.galegroup.com.aurarialibrary.idm.oclc.org/apps/doc/A368397194/AONE?u=aura ria_main&sid=AONE&xid=7c19ad7d. Wurtzebach, Zachary. 2015. Adaptive Management for Oil and Gas Development on Public Lands: An Innovative Approach to Resource Protection, or Symbolic Placation of Public Interests? Review of Policy Research 32 (2): 246 68. doi:10.1111/ropr.12117.

PAGE 46

40 Appendix A Texas Conservation Action Plan; Sections Regarding Need for Data Analysis CONSERVATION ACTIONS To best conserve species populations, rare communities and the habitats on which they rely, conservation participants need to collaborate at different scales, document progress, share lessons learned, and adapt approaches when necessary.112 Conservation actions in this handbook are aimed at improving conditions for priority species and habitats and reducing the negative effects of priority issues. To this point, this handbook has covered the individual elements which guide actions: Species and Communities specific populations which are declining or at risk; Habitats physical places where we need to work and conditions we need to improve; and Issues direct harm or basic gaps which negatively affect our ability to improve SGCN populations and rare communities in their best contexts. Actions are the heart of the Plan, stating what we need to work on, where, and why (what problem we can solve with that action). Well crafted actions lay out how that work contributes to a specific desired effect progress and success. It is important to a cknowledge that one conservation action typically does not solve one conservation problem. There may be several actions employed over time to achieve a conservation goal. In some instances, defining the conservation goal is the action for some things, we dont yet know enough to define what successful conservation looks like for that SGCN population or rare community. In many cases the actions which have been provided to date are good frameworks and starting points. ACTION TYPES AND DEFINITIONS Twelve gen eric conservation action categories have been described in the recent AFWA TWW Effectiveness Measures of State Wildlife Grants (2011): Direct management (stewardship) Management planning Species restoration Land use planning Creation of new habitat Training & technical assistance Acquisition / Easement / Lease Data Collection / Analysis / Management Conservation area designation Education Environmental review All of the proposed actions in this plan fall into one or more of these categories; some conservation actions are complex and may touch on more than one of these categories. Definitions and more information about how the categories were developed can be found in the Overview handbook and the Actions Definitions on the TCAP 2012 website. Actions most recommended in the survey responses include the following: Data Collection, Analysis and Management, Acquisition/Lease/Easement ( including Landowner Incentives ), Conservation Area Designation, Education, and Regulation, Guidelines and Enforcem ent.

PAGE 47

41 Actions in this handbook are aimed at broader habitats (Table 3) and issues (Table 4) which affect an area larger than one ecoregion and require cooperation across ecoregions, state boundaries, and/or perhaps international boundaries. 112 Conserva tion Measures Partnership. 2008. Standards for Project Management. http://www.conservationmeasures.org/initiatives/standards forproject management

PAGE 48

42 Table 3. Statewide and Multi region Action Priority Habitats Groundwater Seasonal/Daily Corridors and Stopovers Surface Water Colonial Habitats Estuaries, Bays, and the Gulf of Mexico Caves and Karst Riparian and Floodplains Native Grasslands Table 4. Statewide and Multi region Action Priority Issues Ground and Surface Water Management/Conservation Environmental Flows: Source to Estuary Surface and Groundwater Planning Connectivity Impoundment and Dam Operations Water Quality Control and Improvement Basin Transfer Invasive Species Non native Native Problematic Population Growth and Demographic Changes Planning and Zoning Targeted practical outreach Environmental Review and Mitigation Conservation Practices Conservation Information and Management Functionality and Connectivity in Conservation Lands Conservation Practice Delivery Consistent Conservation Funding Voluntary Conservation and Compliance Enforcement Land and Water Management Farm & Ranch Erosion and stormwater runoff control Riparian protection Local Impoundments Desired Ecological Condition restoration and protection opportunities Competitive long term beneficial incentives Conservation delivery compatibility and focus Energy Production and Delivery Generation: Wind, Solar, Coal Fired and Biofuels Transmission Oil and Natural Gas Production and Delivery Climate Change

PAGE 49

43 Actions in this handbook should: Contribute to goals (if known) for stable, resilient SGCN populations, rare communities, and/or the habitats on which they depend (conservation targets and what success looks like); Identify where the most important work needs to occur and what problems need to be solved; Identify partners who are already worki ng or could work on a particular issue (existing or new networks, working groups, advisors, peers, landowner cooperatives or individuals); and, Promote effective project criteria stepping stones to achieve the goals and share information. That said, it w as important to encourage participation and not let a lack of information completely paralyze the desire to act (Dont let the perfect be the enemy of the good Nick Salafsky). The list of actions in this Plan (next section) are a guide; future regional and statewide conservation working groups will need to flesh some of these out for better results, guidance, and stakeholder engagement. For Implementation, Actions should include: Action Description type, proposed activities, description of how to make progress toward or completely meet the Conservation Goal Conservation Target(s) SGCN populations, assemblages of SGCN, and/or rare communities that will directly benefit from the action Conservation Goal the overarching conservation outcome(s) such as number of stable populations, number of individuals that constitute stable community, acres of habitat conserved that would reduce a threat, percentage of agencies implementing a best management practice, target audiences reached/behaviors changed, etc.) that this action contributes to or resolves ; sources (e.g. other conservation plan) are included if applicable Timeline for Goal and Action overall goal timeline and optimal timeline for a particular contributing (e.g. by 2025, in six months, in three br eeding cycles, before city expands ETJ) Habitat(s) Types broad and finer scale categories Issue(s) specific issues which the Action would help alleviate/solve Target areas where the action needs to take place specific watersheds, counties, network of public or private lands, mountain range, canyon, soil or geologic substrates, stream segments, adjacent to connectivity with ( specific land owners are not named in any actions without their explicit permission) and, why here (best opportunity for protection, best opportunity for restoration, largest contiguous area for best connection to other target sites, ) Partners stakeholders, those affected by the issue, and/or pr oject leaders who are working on the issue, could work on the issue (most knowledge, previous efforts, connectivity with the site, community based, etc.) Supporting Information (if known) management plan, working group guidance, peer reviewed documentation, methodology, best management practice, etc. that needs to be used to support this effort Intermediate Results those steps which demonstrate progress or the need for adapting the project to new information (Editors Note: a key document for action

PAGE 50

44 development, defining intermediate results, and guidance on action implementation is the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies Teaming with Wildlife Measuring the Effectiveness of State Wildlife Grants (2011).113 See also the Measuring Progress and Effectiveness section after the Actions table.) Monitoring evaluation points and elements to provide evidence that action leads to a reduction of impacts and/or an improvement in conservation target(s); sharing lessons learned. 113 AFWA TWW. 2011. Measuring the Effectiveness of State Wildlife Grants. http://www.fishwildlife.org/files/Effectiveness Measures Report_2011.pdf

PAGE 51

45 MEASURING PROGRESS AND EFFECTIVENESS Like the resource it seeks to protect, wildlife conservation must be dynamic, changing as conditions change, seeking always to become more effective. Rachel Carson It has become increasingly important to determine if the work we do on a daily basis is actually leading to the overall conservation outcomes we desire restoration, recovery, sustainability, resiliency As conservation practitioners, we can use milestone s (or intermediate results) and reporting to communicate our progress and leverage future conservation action, partnerships, policy changes, and funding. With this revision, the TCAP becomes more involved in a national movement to track conservation actions and progress across local, state, regional and national levels. As with the 2005 Plan, actions presented in this edition vary in detail, scale, and duration; however, in this edition, measures of success are identified where possible and specifically enc ouraged in future project development. Full cycle management from the Open Standards of Conservation Practice (2010) needs to be applied to all actions.114 Well crafted monitoring and evaluation (cost effective, answers key questions) informs management and allows conservation practitioners to course correct as necessary for effective conservation.115 This kind of reflection is necessary, albeit not currently widely written into project plans. It is critical to document measures, progress and success, to learn from our work, share lessons learned, and educate future conservation practitioners. With the need for Action Plans to take advantage of several pots of conservation money, the people we s erve and those who govern private and public conservation funds demand reporting, transparency, and demonstration that projects are positively impacting the conservation of species and habitats. To get beyond reporting that money was spent and projects wer e done, AFWA TWW convened a committee in 2009 to craft effectiveness measures for the conservation actions across all Plans. A toolkit for classifying and measuring conservation action effectiveness was produced in 2011, approved by AFWA TWW Executive Committee comprised of state fish and wildlife agency directors and others. These measures will be an important part of moving the plans and conservation forward. To that end, the toolkit in Measuring the Effectiveness of State Wildlife Grants116 is strongly recommended to define projects, target audiences and partners, identify desired stepwise intermediate results, and collect the right data to report our conservation achievements. 114 Conservation Measures Partnership. 2010. Conservation Open Standards, Version 2.0. http://www.conservationmeasures.org/wpcontent/uploads/2010/04/CMP_Open_Standards_Version_2.0.pdf

PAGE 52

46 115 Salzer and Salafsky 2006 116 AFWA Teaming with Wildlife Coalition.

PAGE 53

47 Appendix B City of Monahans, Texas Ordnance 193; Concerning the Regulation of Oil and Gas Well Proximity to Property Sec. 19 13. Proximity of wells, tanks or pipelines to buildings (a) No well shall be drilled and no permit shall be issued for any well to be drilled at any location or storage tank to be located which is nearer than two hundred (200) feet to any residence or commercial building without the applicant having first se cured the written permission of the city council. (b) No high pressure gas injection well or a compressor used in conjunction with the gas injection well shall be located nearer than two hundred (200) feet to any residential, commercial, or structure, except by permission of the city council. In exceptional cases for reasons of safety, the city council may require that any such facility shall be located at a greater distance than two hundred (200) feet to any such structure. (Ord. No. 508, 11, 527 63) (c) No residential, commercial or industrial structure other than structures necessary to operate the pipeline shall be erected or moved to a location nearer than thirty (30) feet to any pipeline transporting gas when the pipeline operating pressure is greater than two hundred and fifty (250) psi unless a greater or lesser distance is recommended by the then applicable ASA code. (Ord. No. 508, 11, 5)