Transcript Proposal Presentation

Manager: John Daneri
Assistant Manager: Jacob Powell
Analyst: Kathleen Callahan
Analyst: Leah Gibson



Identify areas that are sensitive to development or other land
use changes.
Specifically determine which groundwater and surface water
areas are most vulnerable to non-point source pollution,
taking into account various hydro-geologic and geographic
criteria.
Use Geographical Information Systems to delineate the most
vulnerable regions where development should not occur.
The analysis will be based on the following data:
 Ground Vegetation
 Soil Hydraulic Conductivity (KSAT)
 Cave Density (Groundwater map only)
 Soil Thickness/Depth
 Floodplains
 Slope
All data is provided by Marston & Marston; excluding vegetation,
which was acquired through the seamless data distribution server
on the USGS website
Reference layer (not put into vulnerability
study)
 Areas where development is obstructed
 Data provided by Marston & Marston
(FEMA floodplains)
 Missing Data





Gillespie County
Kimble County
Mason County (except Mason City)
Part of Blanco County
Provided by Marston & Marston Inc.
 Complete Data Set
 Steepest Slopes = Most Vulnerable Area

 Both groundwater and surface water
 Slopes will be evaluated relatively
○ Between 0 = low and 1 = high


Each data set that we are evaluating will be divided into a
continuous grid comprised of one square kilometer cells.
Each grid will be assigned a vulnerability score.
Image Source: https://www.e-education.psu.edu/natureofgeoinfo/c9_p6.html

Groundwater Vulnerability
 Evaluate soil thickness, soil KSAT, slope, land cover, and cave
density.
 Each item will be analyzed for its vulnerability criteria and
assigned a value from 0-1.
 A value of 0 indicates the least vulnerable areas.
 A value of 1 indicate the most vulnerable areas.

Surface Water Vulnerability
 Evaluate soil thickness, KSAT, slope, and land cover.
 Each item analyzed for vulnerability criteria and assigned a
value from 0-1.
 A value of 0 indicates the least vulnerable areas.
 A value of 1 indicate the most vulnerable areas.
Vulnerability
Criteria
Groundwater
Vulnerability
Surface Water
Vulnerability
Soil Thickness
Thin Soils
Thin Soils
Soil KSAT
Increased Values
Decreased
Values
Slope
Steep Slope
Steep Slope
Vegetation
Cover
No Vegetation
Cover
No Vegetation
Cover
Cave Density
High Cave
Density
[Soil Thickness * W] + [Soil KSAT * W] + [Slope * W ] +
[Vegetation * W ] + [Cave Density * W] = Vulnerability Score
[Soil Thickness * W] + [Soil KSAT * W] + [Slope * W] +
[Vegetation * W ] = Vulnerability Score
W = Weight (Level of importance)
Initial values will be provided by the client.
Image Source: https://www.e-education.psu.edu/natureofgeoinfo/c9_p6.html
Feb 2009
ID
Mar 2009
Apr 2009
May 2009
Task
2/1
1
Data Collection
2
Data Processing
3
Data Analysis
4
Data Interpretation
5
Project Preparation
2/8
2/15
2/22
3/1
3/8
3/15
3/22
Important Dates:
2/23/09
3/2/09
4/6/09
4/13/09
5/11/09
Proposal due
Presentation to client
Progress report due
Progress Report Presentation
Project Presentation
3/29
4/5
4/12
4/19
4/26
5/3
5/10
Data Collection
Total Hours (10 hours/week * 3 weeks * 4 consultants)
120
Hourly Pay
Total
Data Analysis
Total Hours (10 hours/week * 8 weeks * 4 consultants)
320
Hourly Pay
Total
System Management
Project Manager
Total Hours
50
Hourly Pay
Total
Assistant Project Manager
Total Hours
20
Hourly Pay
Total
Equipment Costs
Supplies ($200/workstation * 4 workstations)
$800.00
Maintenance ($125/workstation * 4 workstations)
Depreciation([$2000/workstation * 4 workstations] *
[4 months/36 months] * 2.5 [months equipment
will be used for project]
Total
Data
Purchased Data
$0.00
Total
Total Cost
$21,722.00
$30.00
$3,600.00
$30.00
$9,600.00
$80.00
$4,000.00
$50.00
$1,000.00
$500.00
$2222.00
$3,522.00
$0.00
Work Completed up to Today

Acquired 90% of data sets
 Provided by Scott Appleton of Marston & Marston
 Vegetation data obtained from USGS
 In the process of retrieving missing data

Examined data layers and started classifying

Completed initial proposal
 Established goals and objectives
Final Deliverables

The final product will include the following:
 Detailed final report discussing findings.
 Groundwater vulnerability static map.
 Surface water vulnerability static map.
 Website summarizing final report information.
 Web maps with the ability to click and focus on specific areas.
 Two posters summarizing the results of our analysis.
Potential Problems / Challenges

Missing Data Creating Deceptive Final
Product
 Where data is missing the vulnerability score
will be based on fewer criteria
 Example: Mason County
○ Potential Solution = Clearly highlighting the
areas that are assessed on less than 5 (or in
the case of surface water 4) criteria and state
which criteria were used for analysis
Conclusion

Rapid growth rates in the Central Texas region and the desire to
maintain quality water resources have motivated this analysis.
Through a geospatial investigation, SMART will highlight areas in
the Central Texas region where groundwater and surface water
resources are vulnerable to non-point source pollution. The maps,
along with accompanying products, will be delivered to the Hill
Country Alliance and used as a reference for future development in
the Central Texas area.
The SMART team

John Daneri
 Project Manager

Jacob Powell
 Assistant Manager

Kathleen Callahan
 GIS Analyst

Leah Gibson
 GIS Analyst