| Literature DB >> 23619809 |
Kent Werner1, Per Collinder, Sten Berglund, Erik Mårtensson.
Abstract
Planning and license applications concerning groundwater diversion in areas containing water-dependent or water-favored habitats must take into account both hydrological effects and associated ecological consequences. There is at present no established methodology to assess such ecohydrological responses. Thus, this paper describes a new stepwise methodology to assess ecohydrological responses to groundwater diversion from, e.g., water-drained pits, shafts, tunnels, and caverns in rock below the groundwater table. The methodology is illustrated using the planned deep-rock repository for spent nuclear fuel at Forsmark in central Sweden as a case study, offering access to a unique hydrological and ecological dataset. The case study demonstrates that results of ecohydrological assessments can provide useful inputs to planning of monitoring programs and mitigation measures in infrastructure projects. As a result of the assessment, artificial water supply to wetlands is planned in order to preserve biological diversity, nature values, and vulnerable species.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2013 PMID: 23619809 PMCID: PMC3636376 DOI: 10.1007/s13280-013-0404-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Ambio ISSN: 0044-7447 Impact factor: 5.129
Classification schemes for nature values, hydrological sensitivities, hydrological effects, and ecological consequences. NA not applicable, GTD groundwater-table drawdown, IAB influence-area boundary (annual average GTD = 0.1 m)
| Type of classification | Class 1 | Class 2 | Class 3 | Class 4 | Class 5 | Class 6 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nature values | National | Regional | Local | Municipal | NA | NA |
| Hydrological sensitivities | Very high | High | Sensitive | Less sensitive | Not sensitive | NA |
| Hydrological effects | GTD > 2 m | GTD = 0.5–2 m | GTD = 0.1–0.5 m | IAB = 0–100 m | IAB = 100–200 m | IAB = 200–300 m |
| Ecological consequences | Very large | Large | Noticeable | Small | Very small | No conseq. |
Fig. 1Overview map showing locations and nature-value classifications of delineated wetland objects at Forsmark
Fig. 2Model-calculated annual average drawdown of the groundwater table at Forsmark. K grout denotes the hydraulic conductivity of the grouted zone
Fig. 3Classification of ecological consequences for wetland objects at Forsmark, without mitigation measures in the surface system