Procedure for Determining Near-Surface Pollution Sensitivity

Similar documents
Methods to Estimate Near-Surface Pollution Sensitivity

Groundwater Hydrology

Clay Robinson, PhD, CPSS, PG copyright 2009

Hydrogeology of Karst NE Wisconsin. Dr. Maureen A. Muldoon UW-Oshkosh Geology Department

Pierce County Department of Planning and Land Services Development Engineering Section

Harvey Thorleifson, Director, Minnesota Geological Survey. Status of geological mapping needed for groundwater protection in Minnesota

How & Where does infiltration work? Summary of Geologic History Constraints/benefits for different geologic units

Identifying Sensitive Aquifers in Ohio

Solution:Example 1. Example 2. Solution: Example 2. clay. Textural Soil Classification System (USDA) CE353 Soil Mechanics Dr.

Soils in Minnesota Calcareous Fens

Soil Map Boulder County Area, Colorado (Planet Blue Grass) Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey

Soils, Hydrogeology, and Aquifer Properties. Philip B. Bedient 2006 Rice University

Ground-Water Exploration in the Worthington Area of Nobles County: Summary of Seismic Data and Recent Test Drilling Results

AWRA PMAS Engineers Club of Philadelphia. A Geologic Perspective on Stormwater

THE ROLE OF 3-D GEOLOGIC MODELING AND DATABASE SOLUTIONS IN THE VIRTTAANKANGAS ARTIFICIAL RECHARGE PROJECT, SOUTHWESTERN FINLAND

1. Water in Soils: Infiltration and Redistribution

11/22/2010. Groundwater in Unconsolidated Deposits. Alluvial (fluvial) deposits. - consist of gravel, sand, silt and clay

Introduction to Soil Science and Wetlands Kids at Wilderness Camp

Appendix D. Sediment Texture and Other Soil Data

J.H. Campbell Generating Facility Pond A - Location Restriction Certification Report

Soils of Rhode Island

Finding Large Capacity Groundwater Supplies for Irrigation

FORENSIC GEOLOGY A CIVIL ACTION

Soil Surveys. What are the most important properties to consider in a taxonomic system used for making a soil survey?

Connecticut's Aquifers

Maggie Payne Jim Turenne

CE 240 Soil Mechanics & Foundations Lecture 5.2. Permeability III (Das, Ch. 6) Summary Soil Index Properties (Das, Ch. 2-6)

Online Weather Resources for Manure Application UW Extension Nutrient Management Team Custom Manure Applicator Subcommittee 1

Land subsidence due to groundwater withdrawal in Hanoi, Vietnam

Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation for Ponds

Subsurface Geology of the Kennebec River

5. Which surface soil type has the slowest permeability rate and is most likely to produce flooding? A) pebbles B) sand C) silt D) clay A) B) C) D)

Quantifying shallow subsurface flow and salt transport in the Canadian Prairies

Vermont Stream Geomorphic Assessment. Appendix E. River Corridor Delineation Process. VT Agency of Natural Resources. April, E0 - April, 2004

Michigan s Geology and Groundwater

Hydric Rating by Map Unit Harrison County, Mississippi. Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey

O\.OLSSON \ ASSOC I ATES

2012 Rainfall, Runoff, Water Level & Temperature Beebe Lake Wright County, MN (# )

Groundwater Vulnerability Mapping Eastern Newfoundland Executive Summary

Jim Turenne. Soils on Social Media

Geology and New England Landscapes

GLG 471; MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY INSTRUCTOR R.L. VAN DAM PROJECT: ELECTRICAL RESISTIVITY

Predicting the soil-water characteristics of mine soils

Custom Soil Resource Report for Missoula County Area, Montana

Hydrogeologic Tables Data Dictionary

KANSAS GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Open File Report LAND SUBSIDENCE KIOWA COUNTY, KANSAS. May 2, 2007

Hydric Rating by Map Unit Harrison County, Mississippi

Geology 229 Engineering Geology. Lecture 8. Elementary Soil Mechanics (West, Ch. 7)

Enhanced Characterization of the Mississippi River Valley Alluvial Aquifer Using Surface Geophysical Methods


August 21, 2015 Project No. EH130228A. Concrete Nor West P.O. Box 280 Mount Vernon, Washington Attention: Mr. Dan Cox

Custom Soil Resource Report for Forrest County, Mississippi

4.11 Groundwater model

GEOL.3250 Geology for Engineers Glacial Geology

' International Institute for Land Reclamation and Improvement. 2 Groundwater Investigations. N.A. de Ridder'? 2.1 Introduction. 2.

Hydric Rating by Map Unit Harrison County, Mississippi 30 27' 27'' 30 26' 57''

Our File: 92 F/1, 92 F/8. Numerous licenced springs occur north of the B.C. Hydro right-of-way on. Water Management Branch

Urban storm water management

HYDROGEOLOGIC EVALUATION of REDUCED ISOLATION DISTANCE from WELL to WASTEWATER PIPING

Custom Soil Resource Report for Clackamas County Area, Oregon

This is start of the single grain view

How to Identify and Properly Classify Drill Cuttings

THE MINISTRY OF ENERGY AND ENERGY INDUSTRIES MINERALS DIVISION MINE DESIGN TEMPLATE OPERATOR NAME: OPERATOR ADDRESS: PHONE NUMBER: FACSIMILE:

Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration. CSO-012 Sewer Separation Cincinnati, Hamilton County, Ohio. February, 2011

12 SWAT USER S MANUAL, VERSION 98.1

EPS 50 - Lab 10: Groundwater Flow and Glaciers

Unsaturated Flow (brief lecture)

CE 240 Soil Mechanics & Foundations Lecture 3.2. Engineering Classification of Soil (AASHTO and USCS) (Das, Ch. 4)

Geotechnical Properties of Soil

SOIL AND AGGREGATE FUNDAMENTALS STUDENT GUIDE AMRC April, 2006 AREA MANAGER ROADS CERTIFICATION PROGRAM FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY

Groundwater Investigation SOUTHGATE GRAVEL PIT Part of Lot 15, Concession 15 (formerly Township of Proton), Township of Southgate.

Custom Soil Resource Report for Clackamas County Area, Oregon

Custom Soil Resource Report Soil Map

SASKATCHEWAN STRATIGRAPHY GLACIAL EXAMPLE BOULDERS IN GLACIAL DEPOSITS

Evaluation of Subsurface Formation of Pabna District, Bangladesh

Custom Soil Resource Report for Clark County, Washington

README: LIQUEFACTION SUSCEPTIBILITY MAP OF TETON COUNTY, IDAHO. William M. Phillips Digital Database 6

DATA ACQUISITION METHODS FOR GROUNDWATER INVESTIGATION AND THE SITING OF WATER SUPPLY WELLS

SHAWN NAYLOR. Research Hydrogeologist Center for Geospatial Data Analysis, Indiana Geological Survey

WMS 9.0 Tutorial GSSHA Modeling Basics Infiltration Learn how to add infiltration to your GSSHA model

A Standardized Digital Well-Record Database for the Glaciated U.S.

SUPPLEMENTARY INVESTIGATION AND LABORATORY TESTING Aggregate Resource Evaluation Proposed Bernand Quarry San Diego County, California

16 January 2018 Job Number: RICHARD NEWMAN C\- CLARK FORTUNE MCDONALD AND ASSOCIATES PO BOX 553 QUEENSTOWN

Depth (ft) USCS Soil Description TOPSOIL & FOREST DUFF

Minnesota Ground Water Association

Custom Soil Resource Report for Multnomah County Area, Oregon


Aquitard Characterization The Legend of Indiana s Magic Clay Layer. Juliet Port, LPG #2214 July 2014

Module 1 GEOTECHNICAL PROPERTIES OF SOIL AND OF REINFORCED SOIL (Lectures 1 to 4)

Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey

Florida s Karst Geology

Impact of the Danube River on the groundwater dynamics in the Kozloduy Lowland

On the hydraulic properties of coarse-textured sediments at intermediate water contents

Custom Soil Resource Report for Okeechobee County, Florida

A. V T = 1 B. Ms = 1 C. Vs = 1 D. Vv = 1

Soil Taxonomy Classification Osage County, Kansas. Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey

Geology and Soil Mechanics /1A ( ) Mark the best answer on the multiple choice answer sheet.

Groundwater in Bayfield County

RESISTIVITY IMAGING AND BOREHOLE INVESTIGATION OF THE BANTING AREA AQUIFER, SELANGOR, MALAYSIA. A.N. Ibrahim Z.Z.T. Harith M.N.M.

A NOVEL APPROACH TO GROUNDWATER MODEL DEVELOPMENT. Thomas D. Krom 1 and Richard Lane 2

Transcription:

Procedure for Determining Near-Surface Pollution Sensitivity Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Division of Ecological and Water Resources County Geologic Atlas Program March 2014 Version 2.1 I. Background This procedure document outlines modifications to the DNR s Near-Surface Pollution Sensitivity mapping approach and provides supporting documentation for the transmission rates that will be used in future mapping of Near-Surface Pollution Sensitivity. It incorporates a systematic approach for determining infiltration developed by the Minnesota Geological Survey (MGS) for the Scott County Geologic Atlas update (Tipping, 2006) that was based on previous work completed by Barr Engineering (Barr, 2005). Barr s approach used estimated transmission rates to evaluate the near-surface time of travel to interpret infiltration for resource management. The estimated transmission rates for the nearsurface materials were taken from a Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) online publication that estimated unsaturated hydraulic conductivities of soil hydrologic groups A, B, C, and D. Unfortunately, the NRCS documentation for the infiltration rates used in 2006 investigation is no longer available. DNR staff have adapted the approach for determining near surface pollution sensitivity for the Todd County Part B Geologic Atlas (Petersen, 2010), the Carlton County Part B Geologic Atlas (Berg, 2011), and the Benton County Part B Geologic Atlas (Rivord, 2012). II. Determination of Transmission Rates using Matrix Textures The sensitivity-to-pollution assessment for near-surface materials estimates the time it would take for water to travel from the land surface to a depth of 10 feet in unsaturated conditions. Soil and sediment texture are the primary inputs into the determination of transmission rates. Texture is a measure of the range of particle sizes from coarse materials such as gravel and sand to finer materials such as silt and clay. In general, coarse-grained materials have faster transmission rates than fine grained materials. In this approach, attributes of the hydrologic soil group and surficial geologic matrix texture are coupled to estimate the time of travel. The hydrologic soil group, provided by the NRCS county soil survey, generally combines soils into one to four hydrologic groups based on the soils hydrologic properties. Soils are classified with a Hydrologic Soil Group description ranging from A to D, with A soils being primarily coarse grained and D soils being primarily fine grained. The surficial geologic matrix texture is assigned using specific matrix textural data provided in the MGS Part A atlas. Soils assigned dual hydrologic soil groups, A/D, B/D, C/D, are typically soils that are saturated yet can be drained. This model assumes unsaturated conditions to a depth of 10 feet, so dual hydrologic soil groups don t apply. Soils with dual hydrologic soil group designations are reclassified using the first letter of the dual hydrologic soil group.

A. Method to Derive Transmission Rate from Texture This approach begins with saturated hydraulic conductivity (K s ) rates to derive transmission rates that can be used for time-of-travel calculations. Numerous investigators have determined K s rates for a range of soil textures. A comprehensive dataset of saturated K s values for fourteen USDA-NRCS soil texture classes (Rawls, 1998) agrees with investigations conducted by others (NRCS, 2007 and Ferguson & Debo, 1990). Table 1 illustrates ranges of K s values determined by hydrologic soil groups for common geologic textures from three different sources. K s varies within each hydrologic soil group depending on a number of factors including the soil s relative percentages of sand, silt, and clay, antecedent moisture conditions, the presence or absence of macropores and hydraulic head. Table 1. Ranges of Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity (K s ) for Hydrologic Soil Group and Geologic Texture Hydrologic Soil Group NRCS,2007 Rawls, 1998 Ferguson & Debo, 1990 Geologic Textural Classification A, A/D B, B/D C, C/D >1.42 >5.3 >8.27 Gravel, Sandy Gravel, Silty Gravel 1.42 5.3-4.8 8.27 Sand, Fine Sand, Silty Sand 1.42 2.6-2.3 2.41 Silt, Silty Fine Sand, Loamy Sand 0.57 0.9-0.3 1.02 Sandy Loam, Peat * 0.57 0.3-0.2 0.27 Silt Loam, Loam 0.06 0.14 0.17 Sandy Clay Loam D <0.06 0.17-0.04 0.09-0.02 Clay, Clay Loam, Silty Clay Loam, Sandy Clay, Silty Clay * Assumes Hemic Peat Transmission, synonymous with infiltration in this document, is estimated using the Green and Ampt equation (Bouwer, 2002). The transmission rate or the hydraulic conductivity (K) of the wetted zone which has water and entrapped air in the pore spaces is less than K s at saturation, about 0.5 K s for sandy soils, and 0.25 K s for clays and loams (Bouwer 1978, Bouwer 1995, Bouwer 2002). The nearsurface-sensitivity model developed herein assumes that soils are unsaturated to a depth of 10 feet so hydraulic conductivity values are lowered for this interval by using K (Bouwer, 2002). Additional saturated to unsaturated hydraulic conductivity references are found in ASTM D 5126 and Jammal and Assoc. (1989). Table 2 is a modified version of Table 2.4 Design Infiltration Rates from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency s Stormwater Manual (MPCA, 2005) that was used as a starting point. It breaks down hydrologic soil group rates by texture, allowing greater flexibility to the user and lists a range of saturated hydraulic conductivity values based on hydrologic soil group that are primarily from the National Engineering Handbook published by the NRCS (NRCS, 2007), but are supplemented with values from Rawls (Rawls, 1998). Included within the table are two columns, columns I and II that list the transmission rates to be used in this model. The transmission rates were determined by applying Bouwer s coefficients, listed in the column titled % saturated K, to the saturated K values. The saturated K values that were empirically corrected for unsaturated conditions that fall within published ranges of infiltration from a number of investigations. Comparison of the saturated rates listed in Table 1 to those

used in Table 2 demonstrates that the rates used are generally consistent with respect to soil texture / hydrologic soil group. Table 2. Transmission Rates through unsaturated materials for Hydrologic Soil Groups and Geologic Textures I Hydrologic Soil Group (0'-3') Transmission Rate II Geologic Texture (3'-10') Transmission Rate Hydrologic Soil Group Saturated K s % Ks Geologic Textural Classification A, A/D B, B/D C, C/D 2 * 0.5 1 Gravel, Sandy Gravel, Silty Gravel 1 1.42 * 0.5 0.71 Sand, Fine Sand, Silty Sand 1 * 0.5 0.50 Silt, Silty Fine Sand, Loamy Sand 0.50 0.57 * 0.5 0.28 Sandy Loam, Peat *** 0.3 ** 0.25 0.075 Silt Loam, Loam 0.075 0.14 ** 0.25 0.035 Sandy Clay Loam D 0.06 * 0.25 0.015 0.015 * Values derived from range of values published within NRCS, 2007 ** Values derived from range of values published within Rawls, 1998 *** Assumes Hemic Peat Clay, Clay Loam, Silty Clay Loam, Sandy Clay, Silty Clay B. Method to Assign Texture to Mapped Surficial Geologic Units Matrix texture is the less than 2mm fraction of a sediment sample that has been separated by standard sieve analysis. The matrix texture for most surficial geologic units and some Quaternary Stratigraphic units is usually shown in a Part A table characterizing the relative sand, silt, and clay percentages of the unit. If a surficial geologic unit is not shown in the table, then the matrix texture must be determined from the map unit description. Sometimes, the matrix texture data are not presented in the Part A report. These data may be available directly from the MGS by contacting the MGS geologist who created the plate. If matrix texture data are not available, the surficial geologic unit descriptions usually provide sufficient information to select the appropriate unit texture. If it is necessary to choose the transmission rate based on unit description, choose the fastest rate available within a unit descriptions range. For instance, if the unit description states the unit is loam to sandy loam, then the sandy loam rate of 0.28 inches/hour would apply. Note that geologic units are not homogenous and vary in texture both laterally and with depth. This approach assigns a uniform transmission rate for entire units. Plotting matrix texture for geologic units described in the counties Part A Surficial Geology and/or Quaternary Stratigraphy plates on the USDA soil texture classification ternary diagram allows the user to assign objective and reproducible transmission rates to the units for which sieve results are available. For example, a surficial geologic unit is described in a Part A matrix texture table as having a composition of 55% sand, 30% silt, and 15% clay. When plotted on the soil texture triangle, Figure 1, this composition

classifies the unit as a Sandy Loam. The geologic texture Sandy Loam is then selected from Table 2 to choose the appropriate transmission rate of 0.28 inches/hour for the geologic unit with this texture. Figure 1. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Soil Textural Triangle from: http://soils.usda.gov/education/resources/lessons/texture/textural_tri_hi.jpg

III. Applying Transmission Rates to Determine Sensitivity of Near-Surface Materials The near-surface-materials sensitivity rating is determined using the transmission rates from Table 2 to calculate an estimated time of travel time of a contaniment that moves conservatively with water to a depth of 10 feet below land surface. The steps below offer the general approach used to create the maps. 1. GIS polygons from soil and surficial geologic units are brought together by the GIS union process. Soil polygons are a product of the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and the surficial geologic polygons are a product of the MGS Part A (Geologic) mapping. The union process creates new polygons that have the attributes of both the soil and surficial geologic unit polygons. The soil polygons are obtained from the NRCS Soil Data Mart, available on-line at: http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov/default.aspx. The surficial geology polygons are obtained from the MGS and are available on-line at: http://www.mngs.umn.edu/county_atlas/countyatlas.htm. 2. The travel time for 0 to 3 feet below land surface is calculated using the transmission rates from the Hydrologic Soil Group (0-3 feet) column labeled A in Table 2. 3. The travel time for 3 feet to 10 feet below land surface is calculated using the transmission rates from the Geologic Texture (3-10 feet) column labeled B in Table 2. Determine the geologic unit texture from a Part A matrix texture table, a unit description from a Part A Surficial Geology plate, or from descriptions provided in a Part A Quaternary Stratigraphy plate. Geologic units with texture data should be classified using the soil textural triangle approach outlined above. If a unioned polygon is not populated with soil hydrologic group data, then use the surficial geologic unit texture for the entire 0-10 foot range. Figure 2 illustrates the approach used to calculate the estimated time of travel for a polygon with both Hydrologic Soil Group and Geologic Texture inputs; and the approach used to calculated time of travel for a polygon for which there is no soil data available. Figure 2. Example Time of Travel Calculations Example A - The unioned polygon has attributes of both the Hydrologic Soil Group (HSG) and the surficial geologic texture. In this example, the polygon's HSG is A and the surficial geologic texture is Loamy Sand. 0-3 ft. below ground surface 3-10 ft. below ground surface Total Time of Travel (hours) 36"/ soil 84"/ surficial geologic transmission rate (in/hr) transmission rate (in/hr) 36"/ 0.50"/hr 84"/ 0.5"/hr 72 168 240 Sensitivity Category Moderate, 170-430 hours

Example B - The unioned polygon has no hydrologic soil group attributes (e.g.- gravel pit), only surficial geologic texture attributes (Loamy Sand) are used for the travel time calculation. 0-10 ft. 120"/ surficial geologic transmission rate (in/hr) 120"/ 0.5"/hr 240 240 Moderate, 170-430 hours 1. The total travel time from 0 to 10 feet below land surface is the sum of the estimated travel times for 0-3 feet and 3-10 feet. The total travel time for each unioned polygon is then interpreted using the Near-Surface Pollution Sensitivity criteria outlined in Table 3. Table 3. Near-Surface Pollution Sensitivity Criteria Near-Surface Pollution Sensitivity Very High Time of Travel Very Fast Description Overlay in karst areas or where fractured bedrock is within 10 feet of land surface High <170 hours Hours to a week Moderate 170.01 to 430 hours A week to weeks Low 430.01 to 1600 hours Weeks to months Very Low 1600.01 to 8000 hours Months to a year IV. Model Limitations This model is heavily dependent on matrix texture of soils and the parent material and assumes that they are relatively homogenous within mapped units. This model does not explicitly take into account other variables such as hydraulic head, soil compaction, drain tiles, macropores, or other soil heterogeneities. Dense soils will decrease infiltration and an overlay of dense soils can be created where appropriate by querying the NRCS data. Some investigators have found a correlation between matrix texture and the likelihood of subsurface fracturing (Kim & Christy, 2006). In regions of the state where karstic or fractured bedrock lies within 10 feet of the land surface, a GIS overlay should be used to re-classify areas calculated as high into a category of very high. The maps generated through this process are generalized interpretations of near-surface sensitivity. They are intended to be used for resource protection planning and to help focus the gathering of information for site-specific investigations.

V. References American Society of Testing Materials, 1992, Standard Guide for Comparison of Field Methods for Determining Hydraulic Conductivity in the Vadose Zone, ASTM D 5126-90, 134-143 p. Barr Engineering Company, 2005, Intercommunity groundwater protection--sustaining growth and natural resources in the Woodbury/Afton Area: Report on development of a groundwater flow model of southern Washington County, Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minn. Berg, J. A., 2011, Geologic Atlas of Carlton County, Minnesota: Minnesota Department of Natural Resources County Atlas Series C-19, Part B, 4 pls., scale 1:100,000 to 1:300,000. Bouwer, H., 1978, Groundwater Hydrology: McGraw-Hill Book Company. Bouwer, H., 1995, Estimating the Ability of the Vadose Zone to Transmit Liquids: Handbook of Vadose Zone Characterization and Monitoring, 177-188 p. Bouwer, H., 2002, Artificial Recharge of groundwater: hydrogeology and engineering, Hydrogeology Journal, 10:121-142. Ferguson and Debo, 1990, Onsite Stormwater Management: http://www.wichita.gov/nr/rdonlyres/ 662DD017-477C-426D-B31F-0F5E2E6A9D5B/0/Volume2_Chapter4_2011March16.pdf Jammal and Associates, 1991, Stormwater Retention Pond Infiltration Analyses in Unconfined Aquifers: 197 p. Kim, E.K. and Christy, A.D., 2006, Use of Soil Texture Analysis to Predict Subsurface Fracturing in Glacial Tills and Other Unconsolidated Materials: Ohio Journal of Science, 22-26 p. https://kb.osu.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/1811/36447/?sequence=1 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, 2005, The Minnesota Stormwater Manual: Available online at http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/view-document.html?gid=8937 accessed 09/20/12 Petersen, T. 2010, Geologic Atlas of Todd County, Minnesota: Minnesota Department of Natural Resources County Atlas Series C-18, Part B, 4 pls., scale 1:150,000 to 1:350,000. Rawls, W.J., D. Gimenez, and R. Grossman, 1998. Use of Soil Texture, Bulk Density, and Slope of the Water Retention Curve to Predict Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity: Proc. ASAE 41(4):983-88. Rivord, J.S., 2012, Geologic Atlas of Benton County, Minnesota: Minnesota Department of Natural Resources County Atlas Series C-23, Part B, 4 pls., scale 1:100,000 to 1:275,000. Tipping, R. G., 2006, Subsurface recharge and surface infiltration, Geologic Atlas of Scott County, Minnesota: Minnesota Geological Survey Atlas Series C-17, Plate 6, scale 1:150,000. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Part 630 Hydrology

National Engineering Handbook, Available online at http://directives.sc.egov.usda.gov/ OpenNonWebContent.aspx?content=17757.wba accessed 09/27/12