1 / 23

Evaluating Mesic vs. Xeric Landscapes for Wetland Water Level Responses

This presentation focuses on a study evaluating candidate sites in relation to mesic and xeric landscape settings and their impact on wetland water level responses. Highlighting the importance of surrounding soil types in predicting changes in water levels due to water table fluctuations, the study reveals that mesic-associated sites are less vulnerable to drawdown compared to xeric sites. Conducted for the Environmental Measures Group of Tampa Bay Water, this analysis utilized data from 28,000 acres and 1,631 potential sites, establishing critical insights for effective hydrologic recovery assessment.

liluye
Télécharger la présentation

Evaluating Mesic vs. Xeric Landscapes for Wetland Water Level Responses

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Candidate Sites Evaluation Study:Mesic vs. Xeric Landscape Setting January 25, 2012 Presentation to the CFWI Environmental Measures Group Dan Schmutz, M.S. GPI Southeast, Inc.

  2. Acknowledgments • Tampa Bay Water • SDI Environmental Services, Inc. • Shirley Denton, Ph.D., C.E.P.

  3. Take Home Message In areas with a lack of actual data, landscape setting, as defined by surrounding soil types, may be used to improve prediction of isolated wetland water level responses to water table changes.

  4. Candidate Sites Evaluation Study A condition of Tampa Bay Water’s original Consolidated Permit (1999) required a hydrologic recovery analysis predicting the magnitude of water level recovery at Candidate Site* wetlands and lakes due to scheduled pumpage reductions at 11 public supply wellfields. *sites with unacceptable adverse impacts within study area

  5. Project Location

  6. Potential Candidate Sites 28,000 acres, 1631 sites

  7. Scheduled Production Cutbacks

  8. CNTB Integrated Model

  9. Pre-Development Wetland For monitored sites use linear regression to predict staff levels from well levels

  10. Wetland Sites Used in Development of Recovery Analysis Methodology

  11. Example Pattern 1

  12. Example Pattern II

  13. Belowground Slopes Always 1:1

  14. (GPI Southeast, Inc. 2008)

  15. GIS buffer analysis (500 Ft) %Xeric = Areas (Xeric/(Xeric + Mesic)) >34% Xeric = Xeric-associated Determining Xeric/Mesic-association

  16. Xeric-associated deep marsh in sand pine scrub matrix (west Starkey)

  17. Mesic-associated shallow cypress in pine flatwoods matrix (east Starkey)

  18. Xeric-associated Surrounded by sandhill, scrub, or scrubby flatwoods Mesic-associated Surrounded by pine flatwoods Two Wetland Types

  19. Distribution of Aboveground Slopes by Soil Type Xeric mean slope= 0.67 Mesic mean slope = 0.28

  20. Conceptual Drawdown/Recovery Xeric mean depth = 3.84 Mesic mean depth = 1.87

  21. Recovery Predicted at 90 MGD

  22. Conclusions • Belowground slopes same for all • Aboveground slopes for xeric-associated sites are steep (mean=0.67) • Aboveground slopes for mesic-associated sites are shallow (mean=0.28) • Mesic-associated sites less vulnerable to SAS drawdown • Xeric-associated sites more vulnerable to SAS drawdown

  23. Questions? dschmutz@gpinet.com

More Related