Environmental Geology

, Volume 54, Issue 5, pp 913–920 | Cite as

Groundwater sensitivity mapping in Kentucky using GIS and digitally vectorized geologic quadrangles

Original Paper

Abstract

Groundwater sensitivity (Ray and O’dell in Environ Geol 22:345–352, 1993a) refers to the inherent ease with which groundwater can be contaminated based on hydrogeologic characteristics. We have developed digital methods for identifying areas of varying groundwater sensitivity for a ten county area of south central Kentucky at a scale of 1:100,000. The study area includes extensive limestone karst sinkhole plains, with groundwater extremely sensitive to contamination. Digitally vectorized geologic quadrangles (DVGQs) were combined with elevation data to identify both hydrogeologic groundwater sensitivity regions and zones of “high risk runoff” where contaminants could be transported in runoff from less sensitive to higher sensitivity (particularly karst) areas. While future work will fine-tune these maps with additional layers of data (soils for example) as digital data have become available, using DVGQs allows a relatively rapid assessment of groundwater sensitivity for Kentucky at a more useful scale than previously available assessment methods, such as DRASTIC and DIVERSITY.

Keywords

Groundwater Karst DVGQs Runoff Contamination 

References

  1. Adams B, Foster SD (1992) Land-surface zoning for groundwater protection. J Inst water Environ Manage 6:312–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aller L, Bennett T, Lehr JH, and Petty RJ (1985) DRASTIC—a standardized system for evaluating ground water pollution potential using hydrogeologic settings. US Environmental Protection Agency Report EPA/600/2-85/018Google Scholar
  3. Amharref M, Mania J, Haddouchi B (2001) Adaptation of a vulnerability evaluation method to groundwater pollution.In: Proceedings of the first international conference on saltwater intrusion and coastal aquifers—monitoring, modeling, and management. Essaouira, Morocco, 23–25 April 2001Google Scholar
  4. Beard LM, Roland B (1988) Madison County, Alabama—DRASTIC application, Report No. WR28-1520-146, 22Google Scholar
  5. Carbonell A (1993) Ground water vulnerability assessment: predicting relative contamination potential under conditions of uncertainty. In: Committee on techniques for assessing ground water vulnerability. National Academy Press, Washington, p 204Google Scholar
  6. Ceballos RP, Ávila JP (2004) Vulnerabilidad del agua subterránea a la contaminación de nitratos en el estado de Yucatán. Ingeniería 8:33–42Google Scholar
  7. Cimino A (2001) Hydrogeological and geophysical contributions to karst aquifer protection: the Carburangeli Wildlife Reserve, North-west Sicily. In: 7th conference on limestone hydrology and fissured media. Besancon, France 20–22 September 2001, pp 83–86Google Scholar
  8. Civita M, Chiappone A, Falco M, Jarre P (1990) Preparazione della cartado vulnerabilità per la rilocalizzazione di un impianto pozzi dell’ Aquedotto do Torino. In: Proceedings of the 1st National Convention “Protzione e Gestione delle Acque Sotterranee: Metologie, Tecnologie e Objettivi 2:461–461Google Scholar
  9. Corwin DL, Vaughn PJ, Loague K (1997) Modeling nonpoint source pollutants in the vadose zone with GIS. Environ Sci Technol 31:2157–2174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Crawford NC, Smith JH (1989) “DRASTIC”: an assessment of groundwater pollution vulnerability in Warren County, Kentucky, Warren County. Comprehensive Plan Technical Report, Bowling Green, KentuckyGoogle Scholar
  11. Daly D, Dassargues A, Drew D, Dunne S, Goldscheider N, Neale S, Popescu IC, Zwahlen F (2002) Main concepts of the European approach for (karst) groundwater vulnerability assessment and mapping. Hydrogeol J 10(2):340–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Doerfliger N, Zwahlen F (1997) EPIK: a new method for outlining of protection areas in karstic environment. In: Gunay and Jonshon (eds). International symposium on Karst waters and environmental impacts, Antalya, Turkey. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 117–123Google Scholar
  13. Doerfliger N, Jeannin PY, Zwahlen F (1999) Water vulnerability assessment in karst environments: a new method of defining protection areas using a multi-attribute approach and GIS tools (EPIK method), Environ Geol 39(2):165–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Eckhardt DA, Stackelberg PE (1995) Relation of ground-water quality to land use on Long Island, New York. Ground Water 33:1019–1033CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Eimers JL, Weaver JC, Terziotti S, Midgette RW (2000) Methods of rating unsaturated zone and watershed characteristics of public water supplies in North Carolina. US Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 99-4283, p 31Google Scholar
  16. Fetter CW (2001) Applied hydrogeology, 4th edn. Prentice-Hall, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  17. Foster S (1987) Fundamental concepts in aquifer vulnerability, pollution risk and protection strategy. In: Proceedings, vulnerability of soil and groundwater to pollutants, International conference (Noordwijk aan Zee, The Netherlands), proceedings and information No. 38, pp 69–86Google Scholar
  18. Goldscheider N, Klute M, Sturm S, Hötzl H (2000) The PI method—a GIS-based approach to mapping groundwater vulnerability with special consideration to karst aquifers Zeitschrift Angew. Geologie 46:157–166Google Scholar
  19. Goldscheider N, Hötzl H, Fries W, Jordan P (2001a) Validation of a vulnerability map (EPIK) with tracer tests. In: Proceedings of the 7th conference on limestone hydrology and fissured media, Besancon, 20–22 September 2001, pp 167–170Google Scholar
  20. Goldscheider NC, Hötzl H, Neukum C, and Werz H (2001b) Tracer tests and vulnerability mapping in the alpine karst system Winterstaude as the scientific basis of a drinking water protection strategy for the community of Bezau (Austria). In: J Mudry and F Zwahlen (eds) 7th conference on limestone hydrology and fissured media, Besancon, pp 171–174Google Scholar
  21. Grady SJ (1994) Effects of land use on quality of water in stratified-drift aquifers in Connecticut: US Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2381, p 56Google Scholar
  22. Helsel DR, Ragone SE (1984) Evaluation of regional ground-water quality in relation to land use. US Geological Survey toxic waste-ground-water contamination program. US Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 84-4217, p 33Google Scholar
  23. Hötzl H, Adams B, Aldwell R, Daly D, Herlicska H, Humberg G, Ketelaere D, Silva ML, Sindler M, and Tripet JP (1995) Karst groundwater protection. Regulations—European Commission Report EUR 16547EN, COST-ACTION 65, pp 403–434Google Scholar
  24. Hoyer BE, Hallberg GR (1991) Groundwater vulnerability regions of Iowa. Iowa Geological Survey Bureau, Iowa City (1:500,000 map sheet)Google Scholar
  25. Johnson RH, Van Driel JN (1978) Susceptibility of coastal plain aquifers to contamination, Fairfax County, Virginia, A computer composite map: US Geological Survey Open-File Map 78-265, 1 sheetGoogle Scholar
  26. Kentucky Division of Water (2004) Overview of Kentucky's Waters. http://www.water.ky.gov/homepage_repository/overview.htm. Cited 20 Mar 2006
  27. Margat J (1968) Vulnérabilité des nappes d’eau souterraines à la pollution–Bases de la cartographie. BRGM # 68. Bureau de recherches géologiques et minières, Département eau) #68, SLG 198 HYD. Orléans, FranceGoogle Scholar
  28. Meiman J, Groves C, Herstein S (2001) In-cave dye tracing and drainage basin divides in the Mammoth Cave karst aquifer, Kentucky,US Geological Survey Karst Interest Group Proceedings, Water-Resources Investigations Report, 01-4011, pp 179–185Google Scholar
  29. Paylor RL, Currens JC (2001) Mapping karst ground-water basins in the inner bluegrass as a nonpoint-source pollution management tool. In: Beck BF, Pettit AJ, Herring JG (eds) Proceedings of the 2001 sinkhole conference, Louisville, pp 229–234Google Scholar
  30. Ray JA, O’dell PW (1993a) DIVERSITY: a new method for evaluating sensitivity of groundwater to contamination. Environ Geol 22:345–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ray JA, O’dell PW (1993b). 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. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 189–198Google Scholar
  32. Ray JA, Webb JS, O’dell PW (1994) Groundwater sensitivity regions of Kentucky. Kentucky Department for Environmental Protection—Division of Water—Groundwater Branch. 1:500,000Google Scholar
  33. Rudek J (1999) Improvements to the DRASTIC ground-water vulnerability mapping method. US Geological Survey Fact Sheet FS-066-99, p 6Google Scholar
  34. Schmidt R (1987) Groundwater contamination susceptibility in Wisconsin. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Groundwater Management Plan Report # 5. WR 177-87, Madison, pp 1–27Google Scholar
  35. Triplet JP, Doerfliger N, Zwahlen F (1997) Vulnerability mapping in karst areas and its uses in Switzerland. Hydrogéologie 3:15–57Google Scholar
  36. Vermeulen H, Lobo-Ferreira JP, Oliveira MM (1994) A method for estimating aquifer recharge in DRASTIC vulnerability mapping. In: Proceedings of the second European conference on advances in water resources technology and management. Lisbon, June 1994. AA Balkema and EWRA, RotterdamGoogle Scholar
  37. Vías JM, Andeo B, Perles MJ, Carrasco F (2005) A comparative study of four schemes for groundwater vulnerability mapping in a diffuse flow carbonate aquifer under Mediterranean climatic conditions. Environ Geol 47:586–595CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Villumsen A, Jacobson O, Sonderskov C (1983) Mapping the vulnerability of groundwater reservoirs with regard to surface pollution. Geological Survey of Denmark Yearbook 1982. Copenhagen, pp 17–38Google Scholar
  39. Vrba J, Zaporozec A eds. (1994) Guidebook on mapping groundwater vulnerability: Verlag Heinz Heise, International Association of Hydrogeologists, vol 16, International contributions to hydrogeology, p 131Google Scholar
  40. White WB (1988) Geomorphology and hydrology of karst terrains. Oxford University Press, New York, p 464Google Scholar
  41. Whittemore DO, Merchant JW, Whistler J, McElwee CE, Woods JJ (1987) Ground water protection planning using the ERDAS geographic information system, Automation of DRASTIC and time-related capture zones. In: Proceedings of the NWWA FOCUS conference on Midwestern Ground Water Issues. National Water Well Association. Dublin, pp 359–374Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Geologic Resources DivisionNational Park ServiceDenverUSA
  2. 2.Hoffman Environmental Research Institute, Department of Geography and GeologyWestern Kentucky UniversityBowling GreenUSA

Personalised recommendations