Micro Land Use. Rick Copeland Watershed Monitoring Section

Transcription

1 Micro Land Use Rick Copeland Watershed Monitoring Section

2 Micro Land Use

3 Micro Land Use WATERSHED MONITORING STATUS AND TREND NETWORK FEATURES & MICRO gfffgd LAND USE SHEET Status Random ID Station DDDDDFDDD Name Date Major Land Use Group (Check one) 300 feet _ 1 Low Impact (LI) _ 2 Urban/Suburban d (US) _ 3 Mining/Excavation (ME) _ 4 Intense Agriculture (AG) _ 5 Industrial (IN)

4 Micro Land Use (MLU) Developed for the old Ambient GWQ Mon. Network during the 1990s - Background Network (BN) - Very Intensely Studied Area (VISA) Net VISA and BN developed to compare GWQ from potentially impacted regions of the state (VISAs) to minimally impacted areas (BN) Experimental Design [Control (BN) versus Impact (VISA)]

5 Micro Land Use Background Ground Water Quality Representative of generalized GWQ in a region; several wells used to define Background Not intended to represent GWQ from a specific contamination source Not necessarily representative of pristine conditions

6 Micro Land Use By mid 1990s Ambient GW Network began evolving to Status Monitoring Network (SMN) SMN includes both SW and GW Streams, Rivers, Large Lakes, Small Lakes, and Canals Confined GW, Unconfined GW

7 Micro Land Use SMN Program needed to modify the control versus impact idea Began using WMD Land use maps (coarse-scale) At the time, WMD maps were inconsistent (WMD to WMD) Thus, statewide LU maps not readily available By 2010 we have GIS polygon maps Based on FDOT LU classifications Covers the entire state

8 Micro Land Use Developed by participants at Q meetings Purpose - Determine predominant land use in the immediate vicinity of well 300 ft radius around well (length of a football field) (fine-scale)

9 Micro Land Use Five categories (Group Decisions at Q meetings) Low Impact (LI) background Urban/Suburban (US) Mining/Excavation (ME) Intense Agriculture (AG) Industrial (IN)

10 Micro Land Use Can compare US, ME, AG, and IN to LI Determine effects of land use, relative to LI, on GWQ over an area MLU developed to be independent of GIS LU categories Ideally, will use in conjunction with FDOT GIS land use polygons

11 Micro Land Use Many contaminants originate at land surface and migrate downward to underlying aquifers Sediments overlying Confined GW buffer the downward migration of contaminants For Uncon GW, MLU should work well For partially Con GW, MLU may work well For highly Con GW, MLU should not work well

12 Potential Use of MLU Hypothetical Reporting Unit (Zone) We sample 20 Unconfined GW samples Identify MLU classifications surrounding the 20 wells Compare Nitrate (NO3) concentrations to MLU for a given analyte Compare NO3 in AG wells to LI wells for the Reporting Unit

13 Potential Use of MLU

14 NO3 in Unconfined GW MLU Category Number of Observations Median Concen (mg/l) 1. Low Impact (LI) Urb/Surb (US) Mine/Excav (ME) Intensive Ag (AG) Industrial (IN)

15 Compare NO3 (LI to AG) (Mann-Whitney Test) (Significance level = 0.05) Category # Obs Median P-val Conclusion LI AG > LI AG

16 MLU along with GIS LU (Real Example) Arsenic (As) concen in GW in Tampa Bay Region (47 wells sampled in wet and dry seasons) Three factors Land use Seasonal changes in GW levels Aquifer system lithology Do the factors affect As concen in GW? Do factor interactions affect As concen in GW?

17 Factors Potentially Affecting As in GW (concentrations in μg/l)s Wet and Dry seasons Mean: wet = 3.57 ; dry = 3.66 Aq. System Predominate Lithology Silica sands (SAS); carbonates (IAS/FAS) Mean: SAS = 1.08; IAS/FAS = 4.55 Land Use Potential Impact Mean: Minimal = 0.32; High = 3.18

18 Results of Tampa Bay Study Of the three factors and their interactions LU was a significant factor Interaction of LU and Lithology was significant Seasonal GW Levels and Lithology: not significant Other interactions were not significant

19 Land Use for Study Minimal Impact (MI)Potential 1. GIS land use (DOT) classifications (2006) and 2. MLU categories

20 Land Use for Tampa Bay Study Minimal Impact Potential included Institutional, Recreation, Rangeland, Swamp, Forrest, Hardwood, and Low and Med Residential plus MLU = LI or US High Impact Potential included All DOT classes not in Min Impact Evaluation of LU was subjective Want objective method

21 MLU Categorizing LU as having minimal or high impact potential is: Dependent on chemical Can be subjective (Tampa Bay example) Nevertheless, using MLU, as well as GIS LU, has potential to assist in evaluating the effects of land use on GW quality throughout Florida

22 Recommendations (1) Each year, or cycle, evaluate affects of LU on GWQ using MLU and data from SMN (2) Potentially develop method of using both FDOT LU, along with MLU, to evaluate effects of LU on GWQ Method (2) would be an improvement to (1)

23 Micro Land Use

24 MLU Form (Lower Half) Check All Features Observed within 300 feet of Well Agri. Chemical Mix/Storage Pipeline(s) & Pump Station Airports Power Plant Animal feeding operation Railroad(s) Borrow Pit Repair Shops (e.g. Automotive) Campground Residence Canal(s) River Cave(s) Roads, major Highway Cemetery Roads, Other Crops, Field Septic Tank (s) Crops, Row Service Station Ditch, Drainage Sewage Treatment Plan Ditch, Irrigation Sewage Treatment Sprayfield Dry Cleaners Sinks/Sinkholes Food Processing Plant Spring (s) Golf Course Storage Tanks (Above Ground) Groves, Citrus Storage Tanks (Below Ground) Groves, Others Stream (s).

25 MLU Form (Lower Half) Only purpose If extremely high (or possibly low) concentration of a sampled analyte is discovered, then the features can assist in determining the cause of the abnormal value

26 MLU Form For Upper Half Be thorough Determine the Predominate MLU (LI, US, ME, AG, IN) Do not over think! For Lower Half Be thorough

27 MLU Form (Lower Half) 90.3% of all features reported between fell into 21 feature code classes (Next Slide) 9.7% of the features fell into 31 classes Nine codes had no features reported

28

29 MLU Form (Lower Half) Check All Features Observed within 300 feet of Well Agri. Chemical Mix/Storage Pipeline(s) & Pump Station Airports Power Plant Animal feeding operation Railroad(s) Borrow Pit Repair Shops (e.g. Automotive) Campground Residence Canal(s) River Cave(s) Roads, major Highway Cemetery Roads, Other Crops, Field Septic Tank (s) Crops, Row Service Station Ditch, Drainage Sewage Treatment Plan Ditch, Irrigation Sewage Treatment Sprayfield Dry Cleaners Sinks/Sinkholes Food Processing Plant Spring (s) Golf Course Storage Tanks (Above Ground) Groves, Citrus Storage Tanks (Below Ground) Groves, Others Stream (s) Wells, Oil & Gas, Zoos, Petroleum Processing Hospitals, Hunt Camps

30 Questions? (850)