1. Manager: John Daneri Analyst: Kathleen Callahan Assistant Manager: Jacob Powell Analyst: Leah Gibson

5.  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.

6. 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

8.  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

10.  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

16.  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

17.  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.

18.  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.

19. Vulnerability Criteria Groundwater Vulnerability Surface Water Vulnerability Soil ThicknessThin Soils Soil KSATIncreased Values Decreased Values SlopeSteep Slope Vegetation Cover No Vegetation Cover Cave DensityHigh Cave Density

20. [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.

21. Image Source: https://www.e-education.psu.edu/natureofgeoinfo/c9_p6.html

22. Important Dates: 2/23/09Proposal due 3/2/09Presentation to client 4/6/09Progress report due 4/13/09Progress Report Presentation 5/11/09Project Presentation

23. Data Collection Total Hours (10 hours/week * 3 weeks * 4 consultants) 120 Hourly Pay $30.00 Total $3,600.00 Data Analysis Total Hours (10 hours/week * 8 weeks * 4 consultants) 320 Hourly Pay $30.00 Total $9,600.00 System Management Project Manager Total Hours 50 Hourly Pay $80.00 Total $4,000.00 Assistant Project Manager Total Hours 20 Hourly Pay $50.00 Total $1,000.00 Equipment Costs Supplies ($200/workstation * 4 workstations) $800.00 Maintenance ($125/workstation * 4 workstations) $500.00 Depreciation([$2000/workstation * 4 workstations] * [4 months/36 months] * 2.5 [months equipment will be used for project] $2222.00 Total $3,522.00 Data Purchased Data $0.00 Total $0.00 Total Cost $21,722.00

24. 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

25. 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.

26. 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

27. 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.

28. The SMART team  John Daneri Project Manager  Jacob Powell Assistant Manager  Kathleen Callahan GIS Analyst  Leah Gibson GIS Analyst