Development and Implementation of a Bayesian-based Aquifer Vulnerability Assessment in Florida

The Florida Aquifer Vulnerability Assessment (FAVA) was designed to provide a tool for environmental, regulatory, resource management, and planning professionals to facilitate protection of groundwater resources from surface sources of contamination. The FAVA project implements weights-of-evidence (WofE), a data-driven, Bayesian-probabilistic model to generate a series of maps reflecting relative aquifer vulnerability of Florida’s principal aquifer systems. The vulnerability assessment process, from project design to map implementation is described herein in reference to the Floridan aquifer system (FAS). The WofE model calculates weighted relationships between hydrogeologic data layers that influence aquifer vulnerability and ambient groundwater parameters in wells that reflect relative degrees of vulnerability. Statewide model input data layers (evidential themes) include soil hydraulic conductivity, density of karst features, thickness of aquifer confinement, and hydraulic head difference between the FAS and the watertable. Wells with median dissolved nitrogen concentrations exceeding statistically established thresholds serve as training points in the WofE model. The resulting vulnerability map (response theme) reflects classified posterior probabilities based on spatial relationships between the evidential themes and training points. The response theme is subjected to extensive sensitivity and validation testing. Among the model validation techniques is calculation of a response theme based on a different water-quality indicator of relative recharge or vulnerability: dissolved oxygen. Successful implementation of the FAVA maps was facilitated by the overall project design, which included a needs assessment and iterative technical advisory committee input and review. Ongoing programs to protect Florida’s springsheds have led to development of larger-scale WofE-based vulnerability assessments. Additional applications of the maps include land-use planning amendments and prioritization of land purchases to protect groundwater resources.

[1]  L. Connell,et al.  A quantitative approach to aquifer vulnerability mapping , 2003 .

[2]  K. Loague,et al.  Development of type transfer functions for regional‐scale nonpoint source groundwater vulnerability assessments , 2003 .

[3]  D. Bosch.  Ground Water Vulnerability Assessment: Predicting Relative Contamination Potential under Conditions of Uncertainty , 1995 .

[4]  Q. Cheng,et al.  Weights of evidence modeling and weighted logistic regression for mineral potential mapping , 1993 .

[5]  Richard L. Marella,et al.  Water withdrawals, use, discharge, and trends in Florida, 2000 , 2004 .

[6]  T. C. Winter,et al.  Ground Water and Surface Water: A Single Resource , 1999 .

[7]  S. Upchurch,et al.  Identification of Recharge Areas Using Geochemical Factor Analysis , 1982 .

[8]  Gabor Bekesi,et al.  Empirical Assessment of the Influence of the Unsaturated Zone on Aquifer Vulnerability, Manawatu Region, New Zealand , 2000 .

[9]  S. Sterlacchini,et al.  Aquifer vulnerability assessment using Weights of Evidence Modelling Technique: application to the Province of Milan, Northern Italy , 2005 .

[10]  Simone Sterlacchini,et al.  The Use of the Weights-of-Evidence Modeling Technique to Estimate the Vulnerability of Groundwater to Nitrate Contamination , 2007 .

[11]  J. Mcconchie,et al.  The use of aquifer-media characteristics to model vulnerability to contamination, Manawatu region, New Zealand , 2002 .

[12]  Mitchell J Small,et al.  The Relationship between Historic Industrial Site Use and Environmental Contamination. , 1998, Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association.

[13]  John C. Davis,et al.  Computers in geology---25 years of progress , 1993 .

[14]  B. Nolan,et al.  Relating Nitrogen Sources and Aquifer Susceptibility to Nitrate in Shallow Ground Waters of the United States , 2001, Ground water.

[15]  J. Merchant.  GIS-based groundwater pollution hazard assessment: a critical review of the DRASTIC model , 1994 .

[16]  A. Edet,et al.  Vulnerability evaluation of a coastal plain sand aquifer with a case example from Calabar, southeastern Nigeria , 2004 .

[17]  Application of Neuro-Fuzzy Technique+2:9s to Predict Ground Water Vulnerability in Northwest Arkansas , 2001 .

[18]  Michael G. Rupert,et al.  Improvements to the DRASTIC ground-water vulnerability mapping method , 1999 .

[19]  R. L. Marella,et al.  Water withdrawals, use, discharge, and trends in Florida, 1995 , 1999 .

[20]  Kumar Chandra Sekhar Navulur.  Groundwater vulnerability evaluation to nitrate pollution on a regional scale using GIS , 1996 .

[21]  G. Bonham-Carter.  Geographic Information Systems for Geoscientists: Modelling with GIS , 1995 .

[22]  G. Raines.  Evaluation of Weights of Evidence to Predict Epithermal-Gold Deposits in the Great Basin of the Western United States , 1999 .

[23]  Dennis R. Helsel,et al.  Assessing ground-water vulnerability to contamination: Providing scientifically defensible information for decision makers , 2002 .

[24]  Yan-xin Wang,et al.  Specific vulnerability assessment using the MLPI model in Datong city, Shanxi province, China , 2004 .

[25]  K. Murray,et al.  Groundwater Vulnerability, Brownfield Redevelopment and Land Use Planning , 1999 .

[26]  J. R. Landis,et al.  The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. , 1977, Biometrics.

[27]  M. Rupert.  Nitrate (NO 2 +NO 3 -N) in ground water of the Upper Snake River basin, Idaho and western Wyoming, 1991-95 , 1997 .

[28]  F. Zwahlen,et al.  Water vulnerability assessment in karst environments: a new method of defining protection areas using a multi-attribute approach and GIS tools (EPIK method) , 1999 .