Mitigation Banks and Other Conservation Lands at Risk from Preferential Groundwater Flow and Hydroperiod Alterations by Existing and Proposed Northeast Florida Mines
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
When evaluating applications for proposed projects, agencies in the United States (U.S.) must consider mitigation options for the destruction of the aquatic environment such as wetlands, if no practicable alternative to the proposed action exists. Because attempts to create artificial wetlands as replacements for natural wetlands that were destroyed have had little success, particularly in the case of forested wetlands, mitigation options often include mitigation banks and conservation restrictions as permit requirements. In Florida, agencies issuing permits for projects involving groundwater alterations such as withdrawals from wells and mining, do not require an analysis of how on-site and off-site wetlands designated as mitigation, conservation or preservation for destroyed wetlands would be affected by fractures and other karst features that occur throughout the Floridan aquifer system (FAS). This study analyzed the underlying geological conditions in the FAS using lineaments as surface expressions of those conditions, in addition to indicators of preferential groundwater flow in an environmentally sensitive karst area of northeast Florida, including Baker and Clay Counties, where extensive mining has occurred in the recent past and more extensive mining is proposed in the immediate future. Established methods, such as spatial matching of scanned maps and remotely sensed images and control-point identification, were used for georectification of the analog maps. These techniques were applied to surface expressions of underlying fractures that were mapped in the early 1950s and 1970s, prior to extensive groundwater extractions, urbanization and mining in the region. The vegetation changes and reduced groundwater discharges from those alterations reduce the ability to identify fractures from post-development images. Geospatial analyses of lineament distribution revealed that the study area and surrounding counties included a dense network of lineaments, including through existing and proposed mines, mitigation banks and other conservation lands. Excavation, water use and operation of proposed mines associated with those fractures could result in irreversible adverse environmental impacts to those mitigation banks and other conservation lands linked by the network of fractures. To ensure sustainable developments and compliance with mitigation laws in this highly fractured area, adverse impacts to mitigation banks and other conservation lands from groundwater pumping and mining via fractures must be considered.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».