HCA provided a list of data layers they felt would be useful in determining environmental vulnerability of the Hill Country. The data requirements for the project were prioritized into 3 categories:
Core/Critical These data comprise the fundamental base of the deliverable, and the omission of any of these would severely compromise the utility of the product
Value-Add These data are highly desirable, although the product would remain useful if one or more could not be obtained
Nice-to-Have Lowest-priority data, would enhance the product but will be the first omissions due to time constraints
These divisions allowed for flexibility during the project, ensuring that the lower-priority data would not interfere with the completion of basic functionality. Responsibility for the many data layers was divided among the members of the team, with each member responsible for various A-C components.
All data layers have been projected to North American Datum (NAD) 1983 UTM Zone14N.
The following data is fully referenced and discussed in TerraCorps' project report. Please refer to their report for data sources and full descriptions.
Additional data was obtained that was not originally assigned to AquaKESKA or TerraCorps. One set of layers would be useful in determining land values and future land use for private landowners and developers alike, and include: superfund sites, radioactive waste disposal sites, and permanent industrial hazardous waste disposal sites, all obtained from TNRIS. Each layer was projected to NAD 1983 UTM Zone14N, and clipped to the area of interest.
Another set of data was obtained from the TWDB in pursuit of information on groundwater quality and water table levels, which were later determined to be either incomplete or not of use to the GVM. These data layers include: groundwater quality data from wells in the form of a comprehensive geodatabase, and drillers reports as tabular data.
Four data layers (all B or C) were either not obtained, or were obtained, but we were unable to utilize the data. Aquifer hydraulic characteristics were not found. After speaking with the Texas Water Development Board, it was determined that they did not have the data we needed, nor was it likely to be easily found from other sources. Surface water withdrawals can theoretically be obtained from the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, however, coordination with them proved difficult. We were able to obtain a data layer of the actual withdrawal sites, but amounts withdrawn and by who are not in the attribute table. Large well withdrawals must be obtained by each Groundwater Conservation District (when one exists). The Edwards Aquifer Authority and Barton Springs-Edwards Aquifer Conservation District both provided this data, but none of the other ten GCDs provided information. The data provided required extensive work, and due to the low priority of the data, was pushed aside. Dye tracer study data was obtained from Barton Springs-Edwards Aquifer Conservation District, but the data was not in digital form. We would have had to recreate the flow study based on well locations, spring locations, stream runs, and some arbitrary data. This task proved too difficult to do in a short time, so this data was also excluded.
Finally, the Geologic Atlas of Texas was obtained from the Bureau of Economic Geology. This data is freely available in raster form from TNRIS, however, the data is simply an image of the original geologic maps, the raster cells do not actually contain geologic information. A vector form of this map is available for purchase from the BEG, which we did. Unfortunately, the data did not arrive until a few days before our deadline, so we were unable to incorporate it into the maps. The data CD will be given to HCA so that it may be used in the future.
Go back to aquaKESKA's website!