Environmental Geology

, Volume 22, Issue 4, pp 345–352 | Cite as

DIVERSITY: A new method for evaluating sensitivity of groundwater to contamination

  • J. A. Ray
  • P. W. O'dell
Original Paper


This study outlines an improved method, DIVERSITY, for delineating and rating groundwater sensitivity. It is an acronym for DIspersion/VElocity-Rated SensitivITY, which is based on an assessment of three aquifer characteristics: recharge potential, flow velocity, and flow directions. The primary objective of this method is to produce sensitivity maps at the county or state scale that illustrate intrinsic potential for contamination of the uppermost aquifer. Such maps can be used for recognition of aquifer sensitivity and for protection of groundwater quality. We suggest that overriding factors that strongly affect one or more of the three basic aquifer characteristics may systematically elevate or lower the sensitivity rating. The basic method employs a three-step procedure: (1) Hydrogeologic settings are delineated on the basis of geology and groundwater recharge/discharge position within a terrane. (2) A sensitivity envelope or model for each setting is outlined on a three-component rating graph. (3) Sensitivity ratings derived from the envelope are extrapolated to hydrogeologic setting polygons utilizing overriding and key factors, when appropriate. The three-component sensitivity rating graph employs two logarithmic scales and a relative area scale on which measured and estimated values may be plotted. The flow velocity scale ranging from 0.01 to more than 10,000 m/d is the keystone of the rating graph. Whenever possible, actual time-of-travel values are plotted on the velocity scale to bracket the position of a sensitivity envelope. The DIVERSITY method was developed and tested for statewide use in Kentucky, but we believe it is also practical and applicable for use in almost any other area.

Key words

Groundwater Sensitivity Vulnerability Aquifer protection Hydrogeologic setting Karst 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Aley T (1992) Groundwater tracing at the former Rockwell International Facility, Russellville, Kentucky. Consultant report prepared by Ozark Underground Laboratory, Protem, Missouri, for Geraghty & Miller, Inc., Milwaukee, Wisconsin. 77 ppGoogle Scholar
  2. Aller L, Bennett T, Lehr JH and Petty RJ (1985) DRASTIC: A standardized system for evaluating groundwater pollution potential using hydrogeologic settings; Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory, Environmental Protection Agency, National Water Well Association, Cooperative Agreement CR-810715-01, Ada, Oklahoma. 163 ppGoogle Scholar
  3. Brucker RW, Hess JW and White WB (1972) Role of vertical shafts in the movement of ground water in carbonate aquifers. Ground Water 10:5–13Google Scholar
  4. Crawford NC, Groves CG, Feeney TP and Keller BJ (1987) Hydrogeology of the Lost River karst groundwater basin, Warren County, Kentucky. Report prepared for Kentucky Division of Water and Barren River Area Development District. 229 ppGoogle Scholar
  5. Couch AW (1988) A DRASTIC evaluation for parts of Bourbon, Fayette and Scott counties, Kentucky: The Centerville, Georgetown, Lexington East and Lexington West Quadrangles. MS thesis, Geology. University of Kentucky, Lexington. 70 ppGoogle Scholar
  6. Davis RW (1987) Movement of ground water in coal-bearing rocks near Fishtrap Lake in Pike County, Kentucky US Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 87-4084. 24 ppGoogle Scholar
  7. Everett AG (1987) Some significant attributes of aquifers as related to wellhead protection considerations. Unpublished Report to the US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Ground-Water Protection. In: Guidelines for delineation of wellhead protection areas, 1987, US Environmental Protection Agency (440/6-87-010), Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  8. Everts CJ, Kanwar RS, Alexander EC Jr and Alexander SC (1989) Comparison of tracer mobilities under laboratory and field conditions. J Environ Qual 18(4):491–498Google Scholar
  9. Gish TJ and Shirmohammadi A (Eds) (1991) Preferential flow: Proceedings of the national symposium. St. Joseph, Michigan: American Society of Agricultural Engineers. 410 ppGoogle Scholar
  10. Hoyer BE and Hallberg GR (1991) Groundwater vulnerability regions of Iowa. Iowa Department of Natural Resources and Geological Survey Bureau, Iowa City (map)Google Scholar
  11. Porcher EN (1989) Ground water contamination susceptibility in Minnesota. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, St. Paul. (map)Google Scholar
  12. Quinlan JF (1990) Hydrologic evaluation of Patterson Property proposed for landfilling near Dandridge (Tennessee): Preliminary report and interpretation of tracing results. Letter report of August 15, to City of Dandridge, prepared for ATEC Environmental Consultants, Nashville, TennesseeGoogle Scholar
  13. Quinlan JF (1991) DRASTIC evaluation of potential for groundwater pollution from landfilling in Hart County, Kentucky. Contract report prepared for US Environmental Protection Agency, Tennessee Valley Authority, Knoxville, Tennessee, and Public Welfare Foundation, Washington, DC, by American Cave Conservation Association, Horse Cave, Kentucky. 12 ppGoogle Scholar
  14. Quinlan JF and Aley T (1987) Discussion of “A new approach to the disposal of solid waste on land,” by Heath RC and Lehr JH. Ground Water 25(5):615–616Google Scholar
  15. Quinlan JF and Ray JA (1981) Groundwater basins in the Mammoth Cave Region, Kentucky. Friends of the Karst Occasional Pub. 1. (map)Google Scholar
  16. Quinlan JF, Ewers RO, Ray JA, Powell RL and Krothe NC (1983) Ground-water hydrology and geomorphology of the Mammoth Cave Region, Kentucky, and of the Mitchell Plain, Indiana. In Shaver RH and Sunderman JA (Eds), Field trips in Midwestern geology: Bloomington, Indiana vol 2. Geological Society of America and Indiana Geological Survey, pp 1–85Google Scholar
  17. Quinlan JF, Smart PL, Schindel GM, Alexander EC Jr, Edwards AJ and Smith AR (1992) Recommended administrative/regulatory definition of karst aquifer, principles for classification of carbonate aquifers, practical evaluation of vulnerability of karst aquifers, and determination of optimum sampling frequency at springs. Hydrology, ecology, monitoring, and management of ground water. In: Quinlan JF and Stanley A (Eds), Karst terranes conference (3rd, Nashville, Tennessee, 1991), proceedings. Dublin, Ohio: National Ground Water Association. pp 573–635Google Scholar
  18. Ray JA and O'dell PW (1993) Dispersion/velocity-rated groundwater sensitivity. In: Beck BF (Ed), Applied karst geology, multidisciplinary conference on sinkholes and the engineering and environmental impacts of karst (4th, Panama City, Florida, 1993), Proceedings. Rotterdam: Balkema. pp 189–198Google Scholar
  19. Ray JA, Webb JS and O'dell PW (1993) Generalized groundwater sensitivity regions of Kentucky. Preliminary map, prepared for Kentucky Division of Water, Groundwater Branch, Frankfort, KentuckyGoogle Scholar
  20. Rundquist DC, Rodekohr DA, Di L, Peters AJ, Ehrman RL and Murray G (1991) Statewide groundwater-vulnerability assessment in Nebraska using the DRASTIC/GIS model. Geocarto Int 6(2): 51–58Google Scholar
  21. Schmidt RR and Kessler K (1987) Groundwater contamination susceptibility in Wisconsin (Wisconsin's groundwater management plan, report No. 5: PUBL-WR-177-87). Wisconsin Geologicaland Natural History Survey, Madison, Wisconsin. 27 pp (map)Google Scholar
  22. Sendlein LVA (1989) DRASTIC analysis for application by state government, final report. Groundwater Branch, Division of Water, Division of Waste, Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Cabinet, Kentucky, Frankfort, Kentucky. 59 ppGoogle Scholar
  23. Sendlein LVA (1992) Analysis of DRASTIC and wellhead protection methods applied to a karst setting. Hydrology, ecology, monitoring, and management of ground water. In Quinlan JF and Stanley A (Eds), Karst terranes conference (3rd, Nashville, Tennessee, 1991), proceedings. Dublin, Ohio: National Ground Water Association, pp 669–683Google Scholar
  24. Smart CC (1988) Quantitative tracing of the Maligne karst system, Alberta, Canada. J Hydrol 98:185–204Google Scholar
  25. Smith JH and Crawford NC (1989) “DRASTIC”: An assessment of groundwater pollution vulnerability in Warren County, Kentucky. Warren County Comprehensive Plan, Technical Report, Warren County City-County Planning Commission, Bowling Green, Kentucky. 35 ppGoogle Scholar
  26. Songer NL and Ewers RO (1987) Seepage velocities in stress-relief fractures in the Eastern Kentucky Coal Field. Division of Water, Groundwater Branch, Frankfort, Kentucky. MOA 005131. 87 ppGoogle Scholar
  27. Thomas GW and Phillips RE (1979) Consequences of water movement in macropores. J Environ Qual 8(2): 149–152Google Scholar
  28. Thrailkill J, Spangler LE, Hopper WM Jr, McCann MR, Troester JW and Gouzie DR (1982) Groundwater in the Inner Bluegrass karst region, Kentucky. Research report No. 136, University of Kentucky Water Resources Research Institute, Lexington, Kentucky. 108 ppGoogle Scholar
  29. Thrailkill J, Byrd PE, Sullivan SB, Spangler LE, Taylor CJ, Nelson GK and Pogue JR (1983) Studies in dye-tracing techniques and karst hydrogeology. Research report No. 140, University of Kentucky Water Resources Institute, Lexington, Kentucky. 89 ppGoogle Scholar
  30. US EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) (1991) A review of methods for assessing the sensitivity of aquifers to pesticide contamination. Preliminary document No. 68-CO-0083. Washington, DC 73 ppGoogle Scholar
  31. Watson KW and Luxmore RJ (1986) Estimating macroporosity in a forest watershed by use of a tension infiltrometer: Soil Sci Soc J 50:578–582Google Scholar
  32. Wells ER and Krothe NC (1989) Seasonal fluctuation in ∂15 N of groundwater nitrate in a mantled karst aquifer due to macropore transport of fertilizer-derived nitrate. J Hydrol 112:191–201Google Scholar
  33. White WB (1988) Geomorphology and hydrology of karst terrains. New York: Oxford University Press. p 154Google Scholar
  34. Worthington SRH (1991) Karst hydrogeology of the Canadian Rocky Mountains. Unpublished PhD thesis, geography. McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario. 227 ppGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. A. Ray
    • 1
  • P. W. O'dell
    • 1
  1. 1.Kentucky Division of WaterFrankfortUSA

Personalised recommendations