MONITORING HYDROGEOLOGIC RESPONSE TO ...pub/@ssrd/...MONITORING HYDROGEOLOGIC RESPONSE TO REGIONAL AGGREGATE MINING AND SITE DEVELOPMENT DATA ASSESSMENT AND GROUNDWATER EVALUATION

MONITORING HYDROGEOLOGIC RESPONSE

TO REGIONAL AGGREGATE MINING AND SITE DEVELOPMENT

DATA ASSESSMENT AND GROUNDWATER EVALUATION

University of Minnesota Outreach, Research, and Educational Park

(UMore Park)

Cale T. Anger

Dr. E. Calvin Alexander, Jr.

University of Minnesota – Twin Cities

Department of Geology and Geophysics

Minneapolis, MN 55455

Groundwater Monitoring Update

March 26, 2010

UMore Park Hydrogeologic Assessment

Rosemount, MN - 2 -

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

University of Minnesota 26 March 2010


TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................5 1.1 Project Update

1.1.1 Groundwater Temperature

1.1.2 Groundwater Geochemistry

1.1.3 UMore Park Groundwater Modeling

2. LONG TERM GROUNDWATER DATA AND ANALYSIS…………………7 2.1 Monitoring Locations and Data Collection

2.1.1 Monitoring Wells

2.1.2 Climate Data

2.2 Groundwater Elevation Variability

2.3 Temperature

2.3.1 Thermal Groundwater Patterns

2.4 Specific Conductivity

2.5 Groundwater Geochemistry

2.6 Groundwater Monitoring Summary

3. PRELIMINARY THERMAL MODELING………………………………….15 3.1 Motivation for Thermal Modeling

3.2 Model Parameters

3.2.1 Geological Site Assessment

3.2.2 Governing Equations

3.2.3 Model Assumptions

3.2.4 Boundary Conditions

3.3 Preliminary Modeling Results

3.3.1 Heat Transport in Saturated Flow

3.4 Model Implications

3. CURRENT AND FUTURE MONITORING NEEDS………………………..22 4.1 Continued Monitoring of Groundwater Characteristics

4.2 Sustainable Groundwater at UMore Park

4.2.1 Hydrological and Recharge Modeling

4. PROJECT SUMMARY………………………………………………………...26


Rosemount, MN - 3 -

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________



APPENDICES

APPENDIX I. MODEL VARIABLES..........................................................................30

APPENDIX II: FIGURES..............................................................................................31

Long –Term Groundwater Data and Analysis

Figure 1: 2009-2010 On-Site Groundwater Monitoring Well Locations

Figure 2: 2009-2010 Off–Site Groundwater Well

Figure 3: UMore Park Well Identification Grid and Barr Engineering Monitoring Network

Figure 4: Regional Groundwater Elevations

Figure 5: MW: C2-002-769493 – Groundwater Temperature, Average Daily Temperature

and Regional Precipitation

Figure 6: MW: E2-009-769488 – Groundwater Temperature, Average Daily Temperature






Figure 9: MW: D3-007-769490 – Groundwater Temperature, Conductivity, Elevation,

Average Daily Temperature and Regional Precipitation

Figure 10: MW: PDC-C7- T00019 – Groundwater Temperature, Average Daily Temperature


Figure 11: MW: PDC-C5-T00006 – Groundwater Temperature, Conductivity, Elevation,

Average Daily Temperature and Regional Precipitation

Figure 12: MW: Q-698456 – Groundwater Temperature, Average Daily Temperature, and

Regional Precipitation

Figure 13: Groundwater Geochemistry – Piper Diagram 1 – February and April, 2009

Figure 14: Groundwater Geochemistry - Piper Diagram 2 – August, November, December, 2009

Figure 15: Monitoring Well Chloride (Cl) Concentrations

Figure 16: Monitoring Well Chloride/Bromide Ratios – Temporal Variation

Figure 17: Monitoring Well Chloride/Bromide Ratios – Spatial Variation

Figure 18: Monitoring Well Nitrate (NO3 – N) Concentrations

Preliminary Thermal Modeling Figure 19: HYDRUS 1D Thermal Model Location

Figure 20: HYDRUS 1D Thermal Model Cross Section (G-G’)

Figure 21: Geological Discretization

Figure 22: Groundwater Flow Boundary Conditions

Figure 23: Heat Flow Boundary Conditions

Figure 24: 100 m transect – 10 Year Temperature Model

Figure 25: Hypothetical 10 Year Temperature Model – Outwash Only (100% Sand and Gravel)

Figure 26: Hypothetical 10 Year Temperature Mode – Outwash w/Fines (70% Sand, 30% Fines)

Figure 27: Hypothetical 10 Year Temperature Model - Diamicton only – (60% Fines, 40% Sand)

Figure 28: Stormwater Concept Model – UMore Park


Rosemount, MN - 4 -

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________



APPENDIX III: TABLES……………………………………………………………58

Table 1: Monitoring Well Specifications

Table 2: Monitoring Well Groundwater Elevations

Table 3: Barr Engineering Well Identification Code

Table 4: Data Logger Specifications

Table 5: Analytical Groundwater Geochemistry Table 6: Aquifer Hydraulic Conductivity (Barr Engineering, 2009)

Table 7: Aquifer Vertical Hydraulic Gradients (Barr Engineering, 2009)

Table 8: HYDRUS 4.0 1D Model – Geologic and Hydrogeologic Input Data


Rosemount, MN - 5 -

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________



1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Project Updates

Groundwater monitoring at the University of Minnesota Outreach, Research, and Educational

Park (UMore Park) has provided crucial data for characterizing background hydrogeologic

conditions on the property. Continuous monitoring of physical groundwater parameters, including

temperature, specific conductance, groundwater elevation, and geochemistry, provides insight

into regional aquifer dynamics at varying temporal and spatial scales. Data derived from the

groundwater assessment will be instrumental in characterizing aquifer responses to aggregate

mining operations and future site development.

1.1.1 Groundwater Temperature

Recent assessments of groundwater characteristics at UMore Park have focused on defining

physical and chemical responses of the Quaternary (Q) and Prairie du Chien (PDC) aquifers over

a semi-annual to annual period. Temperature monitoring has been an integral part of this process

and has helped define natural thermal fluctuations in the groundwater. These fluctuations help

define the connectivity of the Q and PDC aquifers to the regional hydrologic cycle. Specifically,

analysis of temperature responses provides important data for determining aquifer susceptibility

to changes in surface climate and land-use change. These data will be particularly important

when characterizing the effects of site development on the property.

1.1.2 Groundwater Geochemistry

Seasonal responses of groundwater geochemistry in the Q and PDC aquifers were characterized

during an annual monitoring period. Data were collected during five sampling campaigns and

provide insight into variability in groundwater recharge across UMore Park. The data also supply

background information on the impacts of current land-use on the groundwater quality and

provide a necessary reference for assessing future changes in groundwater chemistry.

1.1.3 UMore Park Groundwater Modeling

Documentation of physical and chemical aquifer responses is an important component in

planning for future site development. Data collected will not only aid in the assessment of


Rosemount, MN - 6 -

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________



aggregate extraction impacts on groundwater characteristics, but will also assist efforts in

developing sustainable groundwater practices at UMore Park.

Using the data collected through this investigation and those conducted by Barr Engineering

(2009), groundwater modeling techniques are being investigated to assess the impact of changes

in topography and land-use on aquifer temperature and recharge characteristics. The following

are preliminary goals for modeling such impacts:

1. Temperature - Modeling of groundwater temperature may be important in predicting

thermal penetration from the development of man-made water bodies after aggregate

extraction. Evaluation of thermal penetration lengths over varying time scales will help

determine the maximum extent at which groundwater temperature will be impacted.

Although thermal impacts from such water bodies are not expected to impact the

Vermillion River or other sensitive hydrologic systems, changes in groundwater

temperature may impact a variety of groundwater conditions in the subsurface, including

geochemical reaction rates, biological processes, and local hydraulic properties

(Anderson, 2005). Understanding the impact of seasonal temperature changes from

surface water bodies will be important in determining the effects of land-use change on

water quantity and quality during various stages of site development.

A simple model is presented to estimate the thermal impacts of a man-made water body

on groundwater at UMore Park. The one-dimensional (1D) model provides a preliminary

view of thermal penetration into the aquifer in various types of media and under defined

hydraulic and temperature boundary conditions. Results from the model provide an

estimate of thermal penetration in the Q aquifer from the man-made water body.

Subsequent modeling may include similar simulations in two and three dimensions (2D

and 3D). The multi-dimensional models may be compared to determine the efficacy of

the 1D model in predicting groundwater thermal anomalies at UMore Park.

2. Groundwater Recharge – Maximizing recharge on the UMore Park property will be

crucial in ensuring that groundwater is sustainable after aggregate extraction is complete.

This will require a quantitative estimate of the amount of runoff that will occur in the


Rosemount, MN - 7 -

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________



Concept Master Plan (CMP) and may require modifications in the design to

accommodate appropriate infiltration rates. These rates will need to consider any

groundwater that is being extracted from below the site and the amount of impervious

surface that exists after development. This will help determine the amount of recharge

that would be required to maintain groundwater levels.

Although recharge is difficult to quantify over such a large area, individual stormwater

basins could be modeled to determine the optimal conditions for rapid infiltration,

including the best soil texture and basin geometry under variably saturated soil

conditions. Barr Engineering (2009) estimated recharge on the property to range from 4-

10 inches per year based on the Soil Water Balance (SWB) recharge model (Westenbroek

et al, 2008). Results from this effort could be greatly supplemented by investigating

individual stormwater basins and their impact on groundwater sustainability. Data

derived from stormwater basin modeling could ultimately be used to determine the

appropriate number and location of stormwater structures in the CMP, allowing for the

increased runoff from urban development to be captured on the property.

2. LONG TERM GROUNDWATER DATA AND ANALYSIS

Groundwater data in this report are supplementary to the “Groundwater Monitoring Report”

submitted to UMore Park in September 2009 (Anger et. al, 2009). The data are intended to aid in

the development of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for UMore Mining Area (UMA)

and supplement previous groundwater investigations on the property.

2.1 Monitoring Locations and Data Collection

Based on historical monitoring locations and current site assessments, a suite of monitoring

locations were selected at UMore Park in April 2009. Figures 1 and 2 depict the monitoring

locations, which include eight monitoring wells and two groundwater seeps near the Vermillion

River. For the purposes of this analysis, only the eight monitoring wells will be considered.

Each of the eight monitoring wells were monitored continuously from June 2009 to March 2010.


Rosemount, MN - 8 -

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________



2.1.1 Monitoring Wells

Monitoring well locations were selected to characterize variability in groundwater temperature,

elevation, and specific conductivity in both the Q and PDC aquifers at UMore Park. Table 1

delineates specifications for each monitoring well, including well construction details,

the aquifer being monitored, and the specific parameters being investigated. Well location and

identification is consistent with the established on-site grid system (Barr Engineering, 2009).

Figure 3 depicts the grid system used to identify wells on the UMore Park site. Details on the

monitoring well classification system can be referenced in Table 3.

Six of the groundwater wells were monitored specifically for temperature using UA-001 HOBO

Pendant temperature loggers. Two additional groundwater wells were monitored for

temperature, groundwater elevation, and specific conductivity using LTC Solinst Levelogger’s.

Groundwater elevation readings were compensated for barometric pressure changes using a

Baralogger Gold apparatus. Point measurements of groundwater elevation, temperature, and

specific conductivity were collected during four site visits with a Solinst Model 107 TLC

(Temperature, Level, and Conductivity) meter to ensure that data loggers were working within

their designated accuracy and resolution. Placement locations for each data logger, along with

device specifications, including accuracy and resolution, are listed in Tables 1 and 4, respectively.

2.1.2 Climate Data

To provide a context for aquifer responses to precipitation, daily rainfall and temperature data

from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the Twin Cities

National Weather Service Forecast Office were collected from the Rosemount Agricultural

Experiment Station (#217107). These data were analyzed with reference to groundwater

variability across the site to determine the effect of local recharge on the system (Figures 5-12).

2.2 Groundwater Elevation Variability

Groundwater elevation variability at UMore Park can be characterized by analyzing data

collected throughout 2009 and documenting historical trends (Anger et al, 2009, Barr

Engineering, 2009). Figure 4 represents groundwater elevations to date at the designated

monitoring wells in Figures 1 and 2, along with previous data collected by Barr Engineering.


Rosemount, MN - 9 -

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________



Based on the data collected, it appears that groundwater elevations vary from near 889 ft above

Mean Sea Level (MSL) to 857 ft above MSL when progressing from the southwest to north and

east across the site. Data reported by Barr Engineering and from our monitoring efforts indicate

that groundwater elevations generally vary between 0.1 and 1.1 ft over an annual period, with the

exception of MW-PDC-C5-T00006, where the groundwater elevation changed by 4.21 ft between

July and December 2009.

The relatively stable behavior of groundwater levels at UMore Park throughout the year provides

important insight into the response of the Q and PDC aquifers to recharge. Due to the

unconsolidated nature of the Q deposits, recharge is rapidly diffused into the unsaturated zone.

The lack of surface hydrology at UMore Park and high hydraulic conductivity of the Q deposits

(Table 6) allows a significant amount of the precipitation that falls on-site to infiltrate into the

unconfined aquifer. Stability in Q groundwater levels across the property suggests that recharge

is balanced by other components in the local hydrologic cycle throughout the year, such as evapo-

transpiration, surface runoff, groundwater inflow, and groundwater outflow, preventing large

changes in groundwater storage at UMore Park.

Groundwater levels in the PDC aquifer are less stable than those in the Q aquifer. This may be

attributed to the triple permeability nature of the geologic unit, where groundwater can travel

through the bedrock matrix, fractures, and larger conduits. The decrease in groundwater

elevation observed in MW-PDC-C5-T00019 may be a function of the variability in groundwater

flow caused by these triple permeability characteristics.

2.3 Temperature

2.3.1 Thermal Groundwater Patterns Groundwater temperature was continuously monitored at all well locations in Figures 1 and 2.

Figures 5-8, 10, and 12 represent the temperature data collected at MW-C2-002, MW-E2-009,

MW-E2-209, MW-E2-305, PDC-C7-T00019, and Q-698456, respectively. Additionally, Figures

9 and 11 depict temperature, specific conductivity, and groundwater elevation data at MW-D3

007 and PDC-C5-T00006. At each well location, point scale temperature measurements were

collected at the monitoring depth.


Rosemount, MN - 10 -

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________



Results from temperature monitoring indicate the following:

1. Groundwater temperature in four shallow wells (MW-C2-002, MW-D3-007, MW-E2-

009, and MW-E2-305), where groundwater temperature is tracked near the water table,

show little variability with respect to precipitation events (Figures 5, 6, 8, and 9).

Temperatures generally range from 8.9 – 9.3 °C. The shallow monitoring wells all

display a slight cooling trend in groundwater temperatures from June to December, 2009.

The small, but constant decrease in temperature in the shallow wells may be attributed to

seasonal temperature fluctuations at the surface. In general, shallow groundwater

approximates that of the mean annual temperature of the atmosphere at the earths surface

(Karanth, 1987). Depending on the interaction between surficial and groundwater

processes at specific locations, groundwater temperatures may display a dampened,

sinusoidal signature that is in phase with surface temperatures (Figures 5, 6, 8, and 9).

In general, the shallow wells do not respond to event-scale recharge, affirming that

diffuse infiltration processes dominate in the region. Continuous monitoring of

temperature during spring snowmelt periods will be necessary to determine how

groundwater temperature will change over an annual period at UMore Park.

2. MW-Q-698456, located south of the UMore Park property, displays distinct responses to

seasonal temperature changes at the ground surface (Figure 12). The shallow well is

screened at 19 feet below the ground surface, allowing significant changes in temperature

to occur in the groundwater. Figure 12 illustrates the range of temperatures recorded at

MW-Q-698456. A steady warming trend is observed in the well from July to November,

2009, followed by a plateau and steady decrease in temperatures in late November and

December, 2009. This trend indicates that the temperature of groundwater reaching the

well is approximately four months out of phase from surface temperatures. The phase

shift in temperature may be caused by a long groundwater residence time near the

monitoring location, or an influx of surface water from a drainage canal 25 ft from the

well. Soil boring records for MW-Q-698456 indicate that the soil profile near the well is

characterized by dense organic to sandy clay, reducing the groundwater velocity near the

well (MDH, 2010).



________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________



The range in temperature, from approximately 7.75 to 10.75°C, is not representative of

groundwater in the region, suggesting that water from the drainage canal is slowing

flowing towards the monitoring well.

3. Temperature monitoring of deep wells (MW-E2-209, PDC-C5-T00006, and PDC-C7-

T00019), where groundwater temperature is tracked between 27 and 73 ft below the

water table, indicate that groundwater temperatures in the lower Q and PDC show little

variability from June 2009 to March 2010. Temperatures in the lower Q (MW-E2-209)

and upper PDC (PDC-C7-T00019 and PDC-C5-T00006) generally range between 8.9

and 9.3 °C.

2.4 Specific Conductivity

The Q and PDC aquifers were monitored for specific conductivity, or conductivity at 25 °C, at

MW-D3-007 and PDC-C5-T00006, respectively (Figure 1). Figures 9 and 11 depict trends of

background specific conductivity in the Q and upper PDC.

Results from monitoring specific conductivity indicate the following:

1. Baseline specific conductivity values for the Quaternary (MW-D3-007) and PDC (PDC-

C5-T00006) do not appear to vary as a function of precipitation or recharge events during

the monitoring period. This is, as with temperature, likely related to diffuse recharge

through the overlying soil and unconsolidated Q deposits.

2. Specific conductivity in MW-D3-007 equilibrated to an average of 552 µS/cm over the

sampling period.

3. Specific conductivity in PDC-C5-T00006 equilibrated to an average of 1380 µS/cm over

the sampling period. The abrupt increase in specific conductivity on August 8, 2009

resulted from pumping of the monitoring well to collect water samples. The increase in

specific conductivity was maintained throughout the remainder of the monitoring period.

This may indicate that water in the well was stagnant prior to pumping, preventing

representative aquifer water from being monitored.



________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________



4. Based on data collected, the PDC aquifer appears to have a higher average of specific

conductivity than the Q aquifer. This differential may be attributed to active carbonate

dissolution processes occurring in the PDC, where partial pressures of CO2 and water

form carbonic acid (H2CO3) and decay the limestone matrix.

2.5 Groundwater Geochemistry

Geochemical data have been collected at UMore Park during recent groundwater monitoring

campaigns. Table 5 provides a comprehensive geochemical database for data collected from

monitoring wells in 2009. Barr Engineering (2009) collected two groundwater samples from 13

different monitoring wells during February and April, 2009. Subsequent sampling occurred at 8

monitoring wells during the current monitoring project in August, November, and December,

2009.

Geochemical data from UMore Park suggest the following:

1. Groundwater across UMore Park is characterized by calcium-magnesium-bicarbonate

type waters. MW-E2-009 is an exception to this characterization, where sodium and

potassium are the dominant cations (Figure 13). Decreases in sodium and potassium are

observed at MW-E2-009 in November and December, 2009 (Figure 14). This may

suggest that increased recharge rates in mid to late fall extracted the excess sodium and

potassium from the system, replacing the dominant cations with calcium and magnesium

from surrounding waters.

2. The magnitude and mode of recharge can be delineated at different locations by

investigating site-specific chloride concentrations, along with chloride (Cl) to bromide

(Br) ratios. Data in Table 5 indicate that Cl concentrations range from 50 ppm in MW-

C2-002 to 1.3 ppm in MW-E2-209 during the five sampling periods. Higher Cl

concentrations are generally found in the shallow wells across the site, screened in the

middle to upper portions of the Q deposits. Low Cl concentrations observed in MW-E2-

209 may be attributed to the well being screened below diamicton deposits, resulting in

limited recharge potential. In general, Cl concentrations greater than 3 ppm indicate

upland dominated recharge (Alexander, 2005).



________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________



Figure 15 represents Cl concentrations as a function of time across UMore Park in the 8

monitored wells (Figures 1 and 2). The highest concentrations appear to occur in mid-

spring to late summer, when potassium chloride (KCl) based fertilizers are readily being

applied to agricultural fields and have had sufficient time to reach the groundwater table.

Cl concentrations in most of the wells slowly decrease or remain constant throughout the

summer as crops grow, evapo-transpiration increases, and recharge rates are reduced to

the underlying aquifers. MW-C2-002 is an exception to this trend, where Cl

concentrations steadily increase into late summer and then decrease in the late fall and

winter.

Investigation of Cl:Br ratios provides important information on the origin of recharge

waters (Mullaney et al, 2009). Br data are only available for the 8 wells sampled in

August, November, and December, 2009, but provide a unique view of recharge

characteristics. In general, high Cl:Br ratios indicate that recharge waters have interacted

with upland sources effected by wastewater, manure, and fertilizers (Alexander, 2005).

Low Cl:Br ratios imply that recharge waters are geochemically similar to atmospheric

precipitation. Recharge waters with the latter Cl:Br ratio have had little interaction with

agricultural land-use practices.

Figures 16 and 17 illustrate the relationship between Cl and Br for wells highlighted in

Table 5 over time and space, respectively. Temporal trends demonstrate that Cl:Br ratios

decrease from summer to fall. Spatially, Cl:Br ratios help elucidate the mode, source,

and extent of recharge at each well. Figure 17 illustrates that deep wells, such as MW-

E2-209, generally do not receive significant Cl or concentrations from recharge,

indicating that the water reaching the wells is not directly derived from the agricultural

fields overlying the Q aquifer. In contrast, shallow wells such as MW-C2-002, receive a

significant amount of recharge from the UMore Park property. This elevates the Cl in the

groundwater and confirms a wastewater, manure, or fertilizer based sourcewater from

UMore Park.

3. Nitrate plus nitrogen (NO3 – N) concentrations provide an indicator of groundwater

quality in the Q and PDC aquifers at UMore Park. Figure 18 illustrates that NO3-N

concentrations vary significantly at each well and throughout the year.



________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________



Shallow monitoring wells, in particular, display very different changes in NO3-N

concentrations over the sampling period. Three of the shallow wells are above the

drinking water standard of 10 ppm for NO3-N at any given time during the year. Deep

wells, including MW-E2-209, MW-PDC-C7-T00019, and MW-PDC-C5-T00006, tend

to have lower NO3-N concentrations that decrease from summer to winter.

2.6 Groundwater Monitoring Summary

Monitoring of physiochemical groundwater characteristics at UMore Park has provided important

background information on the role of the property in the regional hydrologic cycle.

Groundwater temperature, elevation, specific conductance, and geochemistry data collectively

describe the dominant processes affecting the current characteristics of the Q and PDC aquifers.

Quaternary Aquifer (Q)

1. Temperatures in the Q aquifer generally range from 8.9-9.3 °C during the sampling

period and display a dampened sinusoidal trend that correlates with surface temperatures.

2. Specific conductivity and groundwater elevation tend to be stable in the shallow aquifer

and do not respond to event-scale recharge on the surface. Stability in groundwater

elevations suggest that the regional aquifer is balanced with respect to recharge, evapo-

transpiration, groundwater inflow, and groundwater outflow rates.

3. Geochemical trends indicate that recharge is spatially heterogeneous across the site and is

predominantly derived from upland sources. Due to the highly permeable nature of the

glacial outwash deposits at UMore Park and relatively flat terrain, little runoff occurs on

the property.

Cl:Br ratios attest that recharge waters in the shallow Q aquifer are influenced by the

overlying property, where land-use practices produce a manure to fertilizer based

recharge chemistry. Deep wells, including those below diamicton deposits and in the

PDC, tend to have lower concentrations of Cl. The lower Cl concentrations suggest that

recharge for the lower Q and PDC aquifers is not greatly influenced by land-use practices

at UMore Park.



________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________



4. Water quality in the Q aquifer is variable throughout the year. NO3-N concentrations

tend to be elevated in shallow wells during the spring and summer, when fertilizers are

added and have sufficient time to infiltrate to the groundwater. At least 3 monitoring

wells have NO3-N concentrations greater than the national drinking water standard of 10

ppm.

Prairie du Chien Aquifer (PDC)

1. Temperatures in the PDC range between 9.2 and 9.3 °C during the sampling period. The

lack of variability may be due to the depth of the geologic unit and lateral extent of

source water for the aquifer. The absence of surface karst features in the region reduces

the potential for allogenic recharge and large changes in temperature in the PDC.

2. As with the Q aquifer, specific conductivity tends to be relatively stable in the PDC. A

significant increase in specific conductivity is observed at MW-PDC-C5-T00006 on

August 8, 2009, but is attributed to stagnant water being replaced by fresh aquifer water

during a period of pumping.

3. Geochemical samples collected from the PDC wells indicate that the source water to the

aquifer resembles that of Minnesota rainfall. This affirms that much of the water in the

PDC is primarily derived from a larger region of recharge and not exclusively from

UMore Park.

3. PRELIMINARY THERMAL MODELING

3.1 Motivation for Thermal Modeling

Thermal modeling at UMore Park has the potential to provide valuable information for predicting

the effects of land-use change on the property. Removal of aggregate deposits below the water

table and the creation of artificial water bodies will induce temperature changes in the regional

aquifers. Understanding the extent and magnitude of these temperature changes will be crucial in

a variety of applications at the site, including:

1. Predicting the impact of heat transport on the surrounding aquifer.

2. Monitoring geochemical and biological reactions that are temperature sensitive near

developed water bodies.



________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________



3. Assessing the extent of surface and groundwater interaction after the water bodies are

developed, including modifications in recharge induced by changes in land-use and

topography

4. Applying appropriate and effective remediation techniques for possible future

contamination in and around the regional surface and groundwater.

Data reported in this preliminary thermal model provide a general context for understanding how

the temperatures of a man-made lake would impact the Q aquifer over time. The results are by no

means comprehensive, but supply adequate information to predict how portions of the property

may be impacted after the man-made lakes are created. Additional modeling may be useful in

providing a more comprehensive, 3D assessment of thermal impacts on the groundwater from

land-use change at UMore Park.

3.2 Model Parameters

3.2.1 Geological Site Assessment

To assess the potential impacts of a man-made lake on groundwater temperature, a location

northeast of a proposed artificial water body was selected for thermal modeling. Figure 19

illustrates the location of the model on the UMore Park property, where a 1D, 100 m transect of

the Q aquifer was selected for analysis. Figure 20 illustrates the placement of this transect in

cross-sectional view. Once selected, the site geology was analyzed along the transect by

investigating regional soil borings from the Minnesota County Well Index (MDH, 2010) and

geological interpretations developed by Barr Engineering (Barr Engineering, 2009). Based on

the model location, the transect incorporates geologic characteristics of the glacial outwash and

diamiction at UMore Park (Figure 20).

Hydrogeologic parameters, such as the average aquifer hydraulic conductivity (Kave) and regional

hydraulic gradient (I), were investigated to determine the groundwater flow velocity in the region

of interest (Barr Engineering, 2009). The geologic and hydrogeologic data were incorporated

into the groundwater model to provide reasonable estimations of heat transport down gradient

from the man-made lake (Table 8). Average groundwater velocity for the glacial outwash has

been estimated to be on the order of 1.07 m/day (Barr Engineering, 2009).



________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________



Groundwater flow through the diamicton has not been physically measured, but can be estimated

by HYDRUS 4.0 (sec 3.2.2) with the appropriate input geology and hydraulic gradient in the

region. With the diamicton characterized as a lean to sandy clay, the average groundwater

velocity is expected to be on the order of 0.02 m/day (Simunek et al, 2008).

3.2.2 Heat Transport Code

Heat transport at UMore Park was investigated using HYDRUS 4.0, a computer code that

numerically solves the Richards equation for variably-saturated water flow and advection-

dispersion type equations for heat and solute transport in porous media (Simunek et al, 2008). For

this investigation, a 1D version of the code was selected to provide a first approximation of how

heat may influence the groundwater at the site delineated in Figures 19 and 20. The code is

particularly useful for this model, as it allows for discretization of geologic properties at multiple

scales along the model transect. This allows for the documented hydrogeology to be manually

included in the model, providing an accurate representation of thermal transport through the

geologic media. Figure 21 illustrates the discretization of the 100 m transect using the data

collected in the geologic assessment (sec 3.2.1).

3.2.2.1 Governing Heat Transport Equations and Variables

1D heat transport in porous media can be described with a convection-dispersion equation.

Equation 1 (1) provides the general 1D form of the Richards equation for heat transport in

variably saturated flow.

STCx

qTC

x

T

xt

TCww

p−

∂

∂−

∂

∂

∂

∂=

∂

∂)(

)(θλ

θ (1)

where λ(θ) is the coefficient of thermal conductivity of the soil as a function of water content

[MLT-3

C-1

], T is temperature [C], q is the Darcian fluid velocity [LT-1

], S is a heat sink term in the

flow equation [C-1

], and Cp(θ) and Cw are volumetric heat capacities of the porous medium and

liquid phase, respectively [ML-1

T-2

C-1

].



________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________



For the purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that θ represents the saturated water content of the

porous medium, Cp(θ) is constant in time, q is constant in space, and that the sink term S is

incorporated into a heat flux boundary condition. Equation 2 is derived from these assumptions

and is the general equation for simulating heat transport under saturated flow conditions.

x

TqC

x

T

xt

TC wp

∂

∂−

∂

∂

∂

∂=

∂

∂)()( θλθ (2)

The first term on the right hand side of (2) represents heat flow due to conduction through the

saturated porous media. The second term represents heat flow due to convection by groundwater

flow. Together the components describe 1D heat transport over time as a function of spatial

temperature change within the aquifer.

Modeling heat transport with (2) requires that Cp(θ), Cw, q, and λ(θ) be estimated from previous

literature on soil properties or data collected at UMore Park (Anderson, 2005; Smoltzcyk, 2003).

Table 8 delineates the appropriate range of values for each variable and their respective sources.

Values for λ(θ) and Cw are derived from the literature, q is estimated from Kave and I at UMore

Park, and Cp(θ) is estimated from the following relationship (de Vries, 1963)

610 )18.451.292.1()( θθθθθθθ ++≈++= onwoonnp CCCC (J m-3

C-1

) (3)

where C represents the volumetric heat capacity of a particular phase [ML-1

T-2

C-1

], θ is the

volumetric fraction of a particular phase [L3L

-3], and n, o, and w, represent the solid, organic, and

liquid phase, respectively. The approximation denoted in (3) is derived from empirical studies on

phase heat capacities and their relation to volumetric phase contents (de Vries, 1963).



________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________



3.2.2.2 Model Assumptions

The following assumptions are included into deriving (2) and implementing the heat transport

model using HYDRUS 4.0.

1. The aquifer is unconfined, incompressible, and saturated over space and time.

2. Each geologic classification has a unique and homogenous porosity.

3. Laminar flow dominates fluid flux in the porous media (low Reynolds numbers).

4. Conservation of mass, energy, and momentum in fluid and heat transport.

5. q is constant in space, Cp(θ) is constant with time.

The assumption that each geologic unit has a unique and homogenous porosity simplifies the

derivation of (2), but puts limitations on the heat transport model. In reality, the unconsolidated

media in the Q aquifer would exhibit characteristics of a dual -porosity system, where a fraction

of the fluid would be stagnant between sediment grains. This fraction of fluid would be

considered immobile and would impact the rate at which heat is transported by convection in the

aquifer. For this reason, effective porosity (Φe) was used for each geological classification, rather

than standard porosity (Φ) (Domenico and Schwartz, 1990). This helps minimize the over-

prediction of thermal penetration into the Q aquifer. It is also important to recognize that all

aquifers are spatially heterogeneous. To effectively incorporate multi-axial heterogeneity into

simulating heat transport, a 3D model would be required.

3.2.2.3 Model Boundary Conditions

Calibrated boundary conditions are required for HYDRUS 4.0 to effectively model heat transport.

The following categories of boundaries conditions are used in the UMore Park model:

Groundwater Flow

1. Constant Hydraulic Head

Heat Flow

2. Constant Temperature

3. Heat Flux



________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________



Groundwater Flow

1. Constant Hydraulic Head

Groundwater elevation data collected from recent monitoring at UMore Park provide calibration

targets for the hydraulic gradient used in the HYDRUS 4.0 model. The relatively stable

groundwater elevations in the Q aquifer allow for constant hydraulic head boundary conditions to

be applied at 0 m and 100 m in the model domain (Figure 22). The average groundwater gradient

can then be calculated and used to validate q in (2) (Table 8).

Heat Flow

2. Constant Temperature

A constant temperature boundary condition is applied to the HYDRUS model at 0 m, where

model intersects the surface water body at 4 m below the lake surface (Figures 20 and 23).

The constant temperature condition represents the average temperature of the lake over an annual

period. Data for the boundary condition are estimated by analyzing temperature fluctuations in

Lake Calhoun, a regional lake that is found in geologic terrain similar to that of UMore Park. At

a depth of 4 m, it is estimated that lake temperatures will range from 4-26 °C, with an average of

15 °C over an annual period (Hondzo et al, 1993).

Mathematically, the temperature at 0 m in the model is described by a Dirichlet type boundary

condition, where a temperature is delineated as a function of space and time (4). For the

HYDRUS model, the initial temperature is assumed to be a constant at x = 0 (5).

)(),( tTtxT o= at x = 0 (4) CTtTo15),0( 0 == (5)

3. Heat Flux

A heat flux boundary condition is applied to the HYDRUS model at 100 m (Figure 23). Heat

flux is described by a Cauchy boundary condition, where solutions in (2) are taken from the

normal derivative of the partial differential equations in (6).

owow qCTqTCx

T=+

∂

∂− λ → [ ]qTCqCT

λx

Twowo −−=

∂

∂ 1 at x = 100 (6)

The solution for (6) is represented as a heat flux [ML2T

-3] across the boundary at x = 100.



________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________



3.3 Preliminary Model Results

3.3.1 Heat Transport in Saturated Flow

To characterize heat transport from a man-made lake at UMore Park, HYDRUS 4.0 was executed

using the data from Table 8 and appropriate model setup in Figures 19-23. Data was extracted at

two year time intervals for a period of ten years, providing five different thermal penetration

signatures from the model. Figure 24 illustrates the result of the model. Data in Figure 24 depict

the decay rate of temperature from the constant temperature boundary condition. Over time, the

temperature decay expands into the aquifer and eventually intersects the diamicton deposits.

Due to the decrease in thermal conductivity of the diamicton, there is a visible inflection in the

thermal decay rate.

With a constant temperature boundary condition set at 15°C at depth of 4 m, it is clear that

thermal penetration from the man-made lake increases over time. Over a 10 year period, the

groundwater is impacted up to 60 m from the water body under the given geologic and hydraulic

conditions, assuming a unique porosity for the glacial outwash and diamicton along the transect

in Figure 22. As time progresses, the thermal impact will be lessened by the decreased thermal

conductivity of the diamicton and the influx of regional groundwater at the ambient temperature

of 9°C. Variability in lake stratification over the 10 year period may also influence the thermal

penetration in the aquifer (Hondzo, 1993).

To supplement the model constructed in Figures 19-23, three hypothetical models were produced

using the same model parameters, with the exception of the geologic discretization of the transect.

This was conducted to determine the potential thermal impacts of other man-made lakes on the

property in different geologic conditions. Figures 25, 26, and 27 illustrate the results of these

three models, where the entire transect is modeled with the following geologic characteristics:

Figure 25: 100% Sand and Gravel (Outwash Only)

Figure 26: 70% Sand and Gravel, 30% Fines (Silt and Clay)

Figure 27: 60% Fines (Silt and Clay), 40% Sand and Gravel (Diamicton Only)



________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________



Based on the model results, it is clear that the greatest thermal impact over a 10 year period

would be in an environment with 100% sand and gravel, with a maximum thermal penetration of

80 meters from the man-made water body. In contrast, Figures 26 and 27 illustrate the impact of

fines on thermal penetration. Heat transport through diamicton, in particular, does not change

significantly with time, indicating that the thermal properties of the material do not adequately

transfer heat over large spatial and temporal scales.

3.4 Model Implications

The purpose of the 1D model is to illustrate how thermal penetration will occur under varying

geologic conditions near a man-made lake at UMore Park. Results in Figures 24-27 clearly

illustrate that different media display different decay rates over a 10 year period. Understanding

the extent of temperature change in the aquifer will help determine and monitor geochemical,

biological, and physical processes that are modified due to varying thermal conditions.

To completely understand how thermal penetration will impact the Q aquifer, a 3D model will

need to be assessed. A 3D model may help determine where the greatest thermal penetration will

occur around a man-made lake on the property and the extent at which regional groundwater flux

and seasonal changes in lake temperature will impact thermal anomalies. The multi-dimensional

model, coupled with dual-porosity capabilities, would provide greater resolution on the effects of

heat transport and its impact on the surrounding aquifer.

4. CURRENT AND FUTURE MONITORING NEEDS

4.1 Continued Monitoring of Groundwater Characteristics

Groundwater monitoring data collected at UMore Park in 2009 provide an excellent resource for

assessing the impacts of aggregate mining and future site development. Monitoring prior to site

disturbance provides a unique opportunity to determine the ambient conditions of the Q and PDC

aquifers and develop a comprehensive monitoring record for UMore Park. Although the

monitoring data collected on the property provide the necessary framework for understanding

regional groundwater characteristics, continued monitoring is recommended to assess the impacts

of site development.



________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________



Basic monitoring of groundwater temperature and specific conductivity, coupled with periodic

geochemical analyses in select Q and PDC wells, is a low cost and minimal maintenance

monitoring option. Data collected in the future will provide physical evidence of changes

occurring in the aquifer and supply crucial information in calibrating local groundwater models

after site modification has occurred.

The following items denote the most important groundwater monitoring needs for UMore Park.

1. Spring Snowmelt and Groundwater Recharge

Continuous groundwater monitoring has occurred at UMore Park from June 2009 to

March, 2010. This monitoring period overlaps with spring snowmelt, which often

provides a significant percentage of annual recharge to shallow aquifers in the Upper

Midwest (Delleur, 2007). Recent data indicate that recharge waters are just beginning to

reach the shallow aquifer (Figure 9). Continued monitoring of temperature, specific

conductivity, and geochemistry over the coming months will be important to assess the

impact of recharge from snowmelt on the aquifer. Resulting data will be particularly

useful when developing UMore Park and editing the Concept Master Plan (CMP) to

ensure that groundwater is sustainable on the property.

2. Groundwater Monitoring – Aggregate Extraction and Site Development

After a complete and continuous data set has been collected for both the Q and PDC

aquifers, a basic monitoring network should be maintained on the property to characterize

the effects of land-use change on the regional groundwater. Although it is not anticipated

that changes in site topography will drastically impact sensitive water bodies in the

region, it will be important to have physical data to support this conclusion. Data

collected during the development process will provide evidence for changes that are

occurring to groundwater and will allow for informed decisions to be made on any

modifications that need to occur in the CMP. Basic groundwater monitoring , in effect,

may reduce project costs over the duration of site development by ensuring that designs

accommodate sustainable groundwater at UMore Park.



________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________



4.2 Sustainable Groundwater at UMore Park

Sustaining groundwater quantity and quality at UMore Park will require a detailed assessment of

the site after aggregate extraction is complete. Surveying of the new topography, soil profiles, and

runoff patterns will be important in determining how recharge and the groundwater system will

be impacted. Design Workshop, 2009 has qualitatively assessed how the CMP would

accommodate runoff on the property by creating a conceptual model of stormwater management

methods (Figure 28). The assessment focuses on meeting a series of stormwater metrics for the

property, including:

1. Meeting all regulatory requirements for stormwater management, as mandated by local

jurisdictions.

2. Ensuring that infiltration is equivalent or greater than pre-development infiltration rates.

3. Ensuring that runoff does not exceed pre-development runoff volumes.

4. Satisfaction of stormwater standards established by the Vermillion River Watershed Joint

Powers Organization and the University of Minnesota.

5. Maintenance of annual runoff hydrographs at pre-development conditions in the

surrounding watersheds.

Maintaining the provisions established in the metrics, including pre-development levels of

groundwater recharge, will require a quantitative assessment of the conceptual model presented

by the planning consultant. This assessment will demand an estimate to urban runoff produced

by developed areas on the property and the amount of infiltration that will occur in vegetated

areas, wetlands, and infiltration ponds.

4.2.1 Potential Hydrological and Recharge Modeling

Runoff and recharge models will be essential in determining construction parameters for

vegetated swales, raingardens, wetlands, and engineered infiltration ponds delineated in the CMP.

To fully characterize the relationship between runoff and recharge in the regional hydrologic

cycle, watershed, recharge, and groundwater models must be fully integrated and collectively

calibrated with available field data. When developing such a model, it is important to note that

estimates for recharge and runoff are dependent on other factors of the hydrologic cycle.



________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________



Evapo-transpiration, in particular, is often poorly understood and can often lead to error in the

regional water mass balance. For this reason, models that are developed will need to estimate

evapo-transpiration based on vegetation type, density, root depth, soil cover, and variability in the

regional climate. This may require the CMP to be flexible during the development process to

accommodate potential error in hydrologic models developed for the property.

To understand the extent of the stormwater framework needed for the UMore Park property, two

hydrological components will need to be examined:

1. Surface Runoff

Urban runoff will be of primary concern on the UMore Park property. Based on the land-

use allocation illustrated in the CMP, reasonable estimates of runoff during short or long

duration precipitation events could be made. These estimates would incorporate any

construction provisions that reduce runoff, including green roofs and raingardens.

Stormwater modeling codes, such as the Stormwater Management Model (SWMM)

developed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), would provide the necessary

tools to model runoff through an underground stormwater system developed under

urbanized property (EPA, 2009). Volumetric flux could be modeled through outflow

structures directed towards areas of vegetation, wetlands, and infiltration ponds under a

variety of runoff conditions.

2. Infiltration Through Variably-Saturated Soils

The amount of infiltration and runoff that will occur outside the urban region will be a

function of many variables, including:

1. Variability in regional climate

2. Type of vegetation in swales, root uptake, and evapo-transpiration

3. Soil texture and water content

4. Size, number, and distribution of wetlands

5. Size, number, distribution, and construction specifications of infiltration ponds



________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________



To effectively design each component of the stormwater management system on the

property, variability in runoff and infiltration must be adequately modeled under a wide

range of soil moisture conditions and root densities across the site. This would provide a

finite range of runoff from the property and would allow structures, such as infiltration

ponds and wetlands, to be designed to accommodate overland flow from high intensity

rainfall events.

Modeling of runoff and infiltration under variably saturated soil conditions could be

instituted in HYDRUS 3D (Simunek et al, 2007), the multi-dimensional version of

HYDRUS used in modeling temperature influences from a man-made lake on the

property. For this application, the 3D model would be coupled with the SWMM to

simulate variability in recharge across the property as a function of runoff, land-use, soil

texture, and soil water content. Uptake of water by plant roots would be integrated as a

sink for soil moisture in the simulation. Data derived from the model would aid in

defining the amount of infiltration that will occur across the property and allow for

appropriate design of stormwater management structures to prevent significant runoff

from UMore Park.

5. PROJECT SUMMARY

Understanding background groundwater characteristics and forecasting future hydrologic changes

are integral parts of effectively managing the aquifers at UMore Park. This report assesses the

following:

1. Defining physical and chemical groundwater variability in the Q and PDC aquifers

2. Assessing the potential thermal impacts of man-made water bodies developed from

aggregate extraction.

3. Surveying future monitoring and modeling needs for the property, including stormwater

designs for the CMP.

Project results suggest that modifications to land-use at UMore Park will impact the groundwater

resource. Characterizing the extent of the impact will rely heavily on the monitoring data

collected and continued monitoring during site modification.



________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________



Results from thermal modeling will provide important background data in characterizing the

effects of temperature change on the groundwater, including potential geochemical, biological,

and hydraulic modifications that occur around the man-made water bodies. Finally, modeling of

stormwater impacts from urban areas of the CMP will allow for appropriate design of stormwater

management structures on the property. This, coupled with a comprehensive groundwater

monitoring database, will contribute to maintaining a sustainable groundwater resource and

community at UMore Park.



________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________



REFERENCES

Alexander, S.C. et. al., 2005. Non-Contaminant Chemistry of Natural Waters, Minnesota.

Geochemistry for Site Specific Investigations. Ground Water Association Meeting, 2005.

Anderson, M.P., 2005, Heat as a ground water tracer, Ground Water, 43(6), 1– 18.

Anger, C.T. and E.C. Alexander, Jr., 2009, Monitoring Hydrogeologic Response to Aggregate

Mining – Data Assessment and Groundwater Evaluation, Prepared for the University of

Minnesota, September 16, 2009.

Barr Engineering Company. 2009. Groundwater Assessment Report

Resource Document for Environmental Impact Statement - UMore Mining Area

Dakota County, Minnesota. Prepared for University of Minnesota. June 30, 2009.

Dakota County, 2009, ArcGIS file access. County Well Inventory.

Delleur, J.W, 2007, The Handbook of Groundwater Engineering, 2nd

Edition, pp.492, CRP Press.

Boca Raton, FL.

Design Workshop, 2009, UMore Park Concept Master Plan. Prepared for the University of

Minnesota, January 2009.

de Vries, D. A., 1963, The thermal properties of soils: Physics of Plant Environment, Edited by

R.W. van Wijk, pp. 210-235, North Holland, Amsterdam, 1963.

Domenico, P.A., and Schwartz, F.W., 1990, Physical and Chemical Hydrogeology, New

York, NY, John Wiley and Sons, 824 p.

Hondzo, M., Stefan, H.G., 1993, Regional Water Temperature Characteristics of Lakes Subject to

Climate Change, Climate Change, 24(1), 187-211.

Minnesota Department of Health (MDH), 2010. Minnesota County Well Index, March 26, 2009.

Mullaney, J.R., Lorenz, D.L., Arntson, A.D., 2009, Chloride in groundwater and surface water in

areas underlain by the glacial aquifer system, northern United States, U.S. Geological

Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2009–5086, 41 p.

Simunek, J., M. Sejna, H. Saito, M. Sakai, and M. Th. van Genuchten, 2007, The HYDRUS

Software Package for Simulating the Two- and Three-Dimensional Movement

of Water, Heat, and Multiple Solutes in Variably-Saturated Media, Department of

Environmental Sciences, University of California Riverside, Riverside, California.

Version 1.0.

Simunek, J., M. Sejna, H. Saito, M. Sakai, and M. Th. van Genuchten, 2008, HYDRUS 1-D

Software Package for Simulating the One-Dimensional Movement of Water, Heat and

Multiples Solutes in Variably-Saturated Media, Department of Environmental Sciences,

University of California Riverside, Riverside, California. Version 4.0.



________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________



Smoltczyk, U. et al, 2003, Geotechnical Engineering Handbook: Volume 2, Procedures,

521 pp., Ernst and Sohn, Germany.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2009, Storm Water Management Model

(SWMM), Version 5.0. National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Office of

Research and Development, July 2009.

Westenbroek, S.M., Kelson, V.A., Dripps, W.R., Hunt, R.J., and Bradbury,K.R., 2008,

SWB–A modified Thornthwaite-Mather Soil Water Balance code for estimating ground-

water recharge: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques and Methods (in press).



________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________



APPENDIX I: VARIABLES

Cn volumetric heat capacity of the solid phase [ML-1

T-2

C-1

]

Co volumetric heat capacity of the organic matter [ML-1

T-2

C-1

]

Cw volumetric heat capacity of the liquid phase [ML-1

T-2

C-1

]

Cp(θ) volumetric heat capacity of the porous medium as a function of θ [ML-1

T-2

C-1

]

I average hydraulic gradient [LL-1

]

Kave average hydraulic conductivity of saturated porous media [LT-1

]

q specific discharge (Darcian fluid velocity) [LT-1

]

qo water flux boundary condition at the heat flux boundary [LT-1

]

S sink term in flow equation [C-1

]

T temperature [C]

To prescribed temperature boundary condition [C]

t time [T]

x spatial coordinate (positive x to the right) [L]

λ apparent thermal conductivity of the soil [MLT-3

C-1

]

λ(θ) apparent thermal conductivity of the soil as a function of θ [MLT-3

C-1

]

θ volumetric water content [L3L

-3]

θn volumetric solid phase fraction [L3L

-3]

θo volumetric organic phase fraction [L3L

-3]

Φ porosity of porous medium [L3L

-3]

Φe effective porosity of porous medium [L3L

-3]



________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________



APPENDIX II

FIGURES



________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________





________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________





________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________





________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________



850

855

860

865

870

875

880

885

890

1/16/092/16/093/16/094/16/095/16/096/16/097/16/098/16/099/16/09

10/16/0911/16/0912/16/091/16/102/16/103/16/10

MW

-C2

-00

2

MW

-D3

-00

7

MW

-E2

-00

9

MW

-E2

-20

9

MW

-E2

-30

5

MW

-C5

-T0

00

06

MW

-C7

-T0

00

19

MW

-Q-6

98

45

6

Fig

ure 4

Reg

ion

al G

rou

nd

wa

ter Elev

atio

ns

UM

ore P

ark H

ydro

geo

log

ic Mo

nito

ring

and

Assessm

ent

Dak

ota C

ou

nty

, MN



________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________



Fig

ure 5

MW

-C2-0

02

Un

ique W

ell ID: 7

69

49

3

Gro

un

dw

ater Tem

peratu

re

Av

erage D

aily T

emp

erature an

d R

egio

nal P

recipitatio

n

UM

ore P

ark H

ydro

geo

log

ic Mo

nito

ring

and

Assessm

ent

Dak

ota C

ou

nty

, MN



________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________



F

igu

re 6

MW

-E2

-009

Un

iqu

e Well ID

: 76

94

88

G

rou

nd

water T

emp

erature

Av

erage D

aily T

emp

erature an

d R

egio

nal P

recipitatio

n

UM

ore P

ark H

ydro

geo

log

ic Mo

nito

ring

and

Assessm

ent

Dak

ota C

ou

nty

, MN



________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________



Fig

ure 7

MW

-E2

-209

Un

ique W

ell ID: 7

69

48

3

Gro

un

dw

ater Tem

peratu

re

Av

erage D

aily T

emp

erature an

d R

egio

nal P

recipitatio

n

UM

ore P

ark H

ydro

geo

log

ic Mo

nito

ring

and

Assessm

ent

Dak

ota C

ou

nty

, MN



________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________



Fig

ure 8

MW

-E2-3

05

Un

iqu

e Well ID

: 76

94

29

Gro

und

water T

emp

erature

Av

erage D

aily T

emp

erature an

d R

egio

nal P

recipitatio

n

UM

ore P

ark H

ydro

geo

log

ic Mo

nito

ring

and

Assessm

ent

Dak

ota C

ou

nty

, MN



________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________



Fig

ure 9

MW

-D3-0

07

Un

iqu

e Well ID

: 76

94

90

G

rou

nd

water T

emp

erature, S

pecific C

on

du

ctance an

d E

levatio

n

Av

erage D

aily T

emp

erature, an

d R

egio

nal P

recipitatio

n

UM

ore P

ark H

ydro

geo

log

ic Mo

nito

ring

and

Assessm

ent

Dak

ota C

ou

nty

, MN



________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________



Fig

ure 1

0

MW

-PD

C-C

7-T

000

19

Un

ique W

ell ID: 2

70

24

4

Gro

un

dw

ater Tem

peratu

re

Av

erage D

aily T

emp

erature an

d R

egio

nal P

recipitatio

n

UM

ore P

ark H

ydro

geo

log

ic Mo

nito

ring

and

Assessm

ent

Dak

ota C

ou

nty

, MN



________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________



Fig

ure 1

1

MW

-PD

C-C

5-T

00

00

6

Un

iqu

e Well ID

: NA

G

rou

nd

water T

emp

erature, S

pecific C

on

du

ctance an

d E

levatio

n

Av

erage D

aily T

emp

erature an

d R

egio

nal P

recipitatio

n

UM

ore P

ark H

ydro

geo

log

ic Mo

nito

ring

and

Assessm

ent

Dak

ota C

ou

nty

, MN



________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________



Fig

ure 1

2

MW

-Q-6

98

45

6

Un

iqu

e Well ID

: 69

84

56

G

rou

nd

water T

emp

erature

Av

erage D

aily T

emp

erature an

d R

egio

nal P

recipitatio

n

UM

ore P

ark H

ydro

geo

log

ic Mo

nito

ring

and

Assessm

ent

Dak

ota C

ou

nty

, MN



________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________



MW

-C2-0

02

MW

-E2

-009

MW

-E2

-209

MW

-E2

-305

MW

-D3

-00

7

Ca

Meq

/L

Meq

/L

Meq

/L

Na +

K

Mg

HC

O3

Cl +

NO

3

SO

4

10

18

26

10

18

26

10

18

26

Fig

ure 1

3

Gro

un

dw

ater G

eoch

emistry

– P

iper D

iag

ram

1 –

Feb

rua

ry a

nd

Ap

ril, 20

09

U

Mo

re Park

Hy

dro

geo

log

ic Mo

nito

ring

and

Assessm

ent

Dak

ota C

ou

nty

, MN



________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________



MW

-C2

-00

2

MW

-E2

-00

9

MW

-E2

-20

9

MW

-E2

-30

5

MW

-D3-0

07

MW

-Q-6

98

45

6

MW

-PD

C-C

7-T

00

01

9

MW

-PD

C-C

5-T

00

00

6

Ca

Meq

/L

Meq

/L

Meq

/L

Na

+ K

Mg

HC

O3

Cl +

NO

3

SO

4

10

18

26

10

18

26

10

18

26

Fig

ure 1

4

Gro

un

dw

ater G

eoch

emistry

– P

iper D

iag

ram

2 –

Au

gu

st, No

vem

ber, a

nd

Decem

ber, 2

00

9

UM

ore P

ark H

ydro

geo

log

ic Mo

nito

ring

and

Assessm

ent

Dak

ota C

ou

nty

, MN



________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________



0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1/27/2009

3/18/2009

5/7/2009

6/26/2009

8/15/2009

10/4/2009

11/23/2009

1/12/2010

Chloride

(ppm)

MW

-C2-0

02

MW

-E2-0

09

MW

-E2-2

09

MW

-E2-3

05

MW

-D3-0

07

MW

-PD

C-C

7-T

00019

MW

-PD

C-C

5-T

00006

Fig

ure 1

5

Mo

nito

ring

Well C

hlo

ride (C

l) Co

ncen

tratio

ns

UM

ore P

ark H

ydro

geo

log

ic Mo

nito

ring

and

Assessm

ent

Dak

ota C

ou

nty

, MN



________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________



0

0.0

1

0.0

2

0.0

3

0.0

4

0.0

5

0.0

6

0.0

7

0.0

8

0.0

9

0.1

05

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

Chlo

ride (p

pm

)

Bromide (ppm)

8/2

5/2

009

11/1

2/2

009

12/2

2/2

009

Fertiliz

ers

10

,00

0:1

Waste

wate

r/M

an

ure

50

0 -1

,00

0:1

Seaw

ate

r

Min

nesota

Rain

Manure

Waste

wate

r

KC

l fertiliz

er

Road/W

ate

r Softn

er S

alt

300:1

200-2

50:1

500-1

,000:1

1,0

00-2

,000:1

10,0

00:1

>20,0

00:1

En

viro

nm

en

tal C

hlo

ride

/Bro

mid

e R

atio

s

Min

nesota

Rain

20

0-2

50

:1

Fig

ure 1

6

Mo

nito

ring

Well C

hlo

ride to

Bro

mid

e Ra

tios –

Tem

po

ral V

aria

tion

U

Mo

re Park

Hy

dro

geo

log

ic Mo

nito

ring

and

Assessm

ent

Dak

ota C

ou

nty

, MN



________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________



Fig

ure 1

7

Mo

nito

ring

Well C

hlo

ride to

Bro

mid

e Ra

tios –

Sp

atia

l Va

riatio

n

UM

ore P

ark H

ydro

geo

log

ic Mo

nito

ring

and

Assessm

ent

Dak

ota C

ou

nty

, MN

0

0.0

1

0.0

2

0.0

3

0.0

4

0.0

5

0.0

6

0.0

7

0.0

8

0.0

9

0.1

05

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

Chlo

ride

(ppm

)

Bromide (ppm)

MW

-C2-0

02

MW

-E2

-00

9

MW

-E2

-20

9

MW

-E2

-30

5

MW

-D3-0

07

MW

-Q-6

984

56

MW

-PD

C-C

7-T

00

019

MW

-PD

C-C

5-T

00

00

6

Fertiliz

ers

10

,00

0:1

Waste

wate

r/M

an

ure

50

0 -1

,00

0:1

Sea

wate

r

Min

ne

sota

Ra

in

Manu

re

Waste

wate

r

KC

l fertiliz

er

Roa

d/W

ate

r Softn

er S

alt

300:1

200-2

50:1

500-1

,000:1

1,0

00-2

,000:1

10,0

00

:1

>20,0

00:1

En

viro

nm

en

tal C

hlo

ride

/Bro

mid

e R

atio

s

Min

nesota

Rain

20

0-2

50

:1



________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________



0 2 4 6 8

10

12

14

16

18

1/27/2009

3/18/2009

5/7/2009

6/26/2009

8/15/2009

10/4/2009

11/23/2009

1/12/2010

NO3 - N (Nitrate)

(ppm)

MW

-C2-0

02

MW

-E2-0

09

MW

-E2-2

09

MW

-E2-3

05

MW

-D3-0

07

MW

-Q-6

98456

MW

-PD

C-C

7-T

00019

MW

-PD

C-C

5-T

00006

Fig

ure 1

8

Mo

nito

ring

Well N

itrate (N

O3 -N

) Co

ncen

tratio

ns

UM

ore P

ark H

ydro

geo

log

ic Mo

nito

ring

and

Assessm

ent

Dak

ota C

ou

nty

, MN



________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________





________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________





________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________





________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________





________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________





________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________



Figure 24

100 m Transect – 10 Year Temperature Model UMore Park Hydrogeologic Monitoring and Assessment

Dakota County, MN

Figure 25

Hypothetical 10 Year Temperature Model – Outwash Only (100% Sand and Gravel)

UMore Park Hydrogeologic Monitoring and Assessment

Dakota County, MN



________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________



Figure 26

Hypothetical 10 Year Temperature Mode – Outwash w/Fines (70% Sand, 30% Fines)


Dakota County, MN

Figure 27

Hypothetical 10 Year Temperature Model - Diamicton Only – (60% Fines, 40% Sand)


Dakota County, MN



________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________



Figure 28

Stormwater Concept Plan – UMore Park (Design Workshop, 2009)


Dakota County, MN



________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________



APPENDIX III

TABLES



________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________



Uniq

ue

IDM

onito

ring E

quip

ment

Unit ID

Monito

ring D

epth

Monito

ring E

levatio

nD

epth

Belo

w W

ate

rS

am

plin

g In

terv

al

Stra

tigra

phic

inte

rval

Num

be

r(fe

et)

(feet M

SL)

(feet)

(min

s)

On-site

MW

-C2-0

02

769

493

Hobo P

en

dant (te

mp o

nly

)2339456

70.0

0881

.17

4.0

25

Q

MW

-D3-0

07

769

490

Level-lo

gger (te

mp, s

tage, c

ond

uctiv

ity), B

aro

mete

r38 +

Baro

mete

r66.9

9878.5

5.6

95

Q

MW

-E2-0

09

769

488

Hobo P

en

dant (te

mp o

nly

)2339458

67.8

0881

.57

4.5

35

Q

MW

-E2-2

09

769

483

Hobo P

en

dant (te

mp o

nly

)2339459

122.0

0826

.85

59.1

65

Q

MW

-E2-3

05

769

429

Hobo P

en

dant (te

mp o

nly

)2339460

69.0

0871

.73

14.4

55

Q

PD

C-C

5-T

0000

6N

ALev

el-lo

gger (te

mp, sta

ge, c

onductiv

ity)

44

98.0

0834.1

27.4

05

PD

C

PD

C-C

7-T

0001

9270

244

Hobo P

en

dant (te

mp o

nly

)2339461

147.0

0785

.12

73.0

05

PD

C

Off-s

ite

Q-6

98456

698

456

Hobo P

en

dant (te

mp o

nly

)2339457

15.0

0874

.37

7.6

15

Q

Mo

nito

ring

Deta

ilsW

ell

ID

Num

ber

Ta

ble 1

Mo

nito

ring

Well S

pecifica

tion

s U

Mo

re Park

Hy

dro

geo

log

ic Mo

nito

ring

and

Assessm

ent

Dak

ota C

ou

nty

, MN

bgs =

belo

w g

round s

urfa

ce

belo

w g

round s

urfa

ce

MS

L =

m

ean s

ea le

vel

PD

C =

P

rairie

du C

hie

n

Q =

Q

uate

rnary

* Geogra

phic

Coord

inate

s = D

akota

County

, U.S

. Feet

* Horiz

onta

l Datu

m =

NA

D 1

983 (1

996).

Key

Uniq

ue

Gro

und

To

p o

f Rise

rR

iser

Rise

rG

rou

ndw

ate

r

IDT

ota

l De

pth

North

ing

Ea

sting

Ele

vatio

nE

levatio

nD

iam

ete

rS

ticku

pT

op

Botto

mT

op

Botto

mE

levatio

n

Num

ber

(feet b

gs)

(fee

t)(fe

et)

(feet M

SL)

(fee

t MS

L)

(inches)

(feet)

(feet)

(feet)

(feet M

SL)

(feet M

SL)

6/1

5/2

00

9

On

-site

MW

-C2

-002

7694

93

75

18

995

2.6

3555

403

.49

49.6

95

1.1

72

1.6

65

75

886.2

876

.28

85.2

MW

-D3

-007

7694

90

70

1869

70.6

559

064

.69

43.6

94

5.4

92

1.9

60

70

885.5

875

.58

84.2

MW

-E2

-00

97

694

88

71

18

693

3.7

8555

370

.99

47.8

94

9.3

72

1.6

57.7

67.7

888.4

878

.48

86.1

MW

-E2

-20

97

694

83

12

61

869

32.9

555

352

.69

47.2

94

8.8

52

1.6

11

612

68

32.9

822

.98

86.0

MW

-E2

-30

57

694

29

75

1843

88.3

557

403

.79

39.0

94

0.7

32

1.7

64

74

875.7

865

.78

86.2

PD

C-C

5-T

000

06

NA

143.2

1921

44.9

564

445

.89

31.2

932.2

41.0

127.3

14

28

03.7

789

.08

57.6

PD

C-C

7-T

000

19

2702

44

160.4

1917

55.2

568

088

.89

30.6

93

2.1

24

1.5

13

516

17

96.9

770

.98

58.0

Off-site

Q-6

9845

66

984

56

Em

pire

MW

-1a

19

1790

37.6

556

519

.08

86.5

88

9.3

72

2.9

8.5

18.5

878.0

868

.08

82.0

Num

be

r

We

ll

Alte

rnate

We

ll Nam

e

200

9 - 2

01

0 U

Mo

re P

ark

Hy

dro

ge

olo

gic

Mo

nito

ring

an

d A

ss

ess

me

nt

Well L

oca

tion

s an

d S

pe

cific

atio

ns

Ope

n H

ole

/Scre

en

Ele

va

tion

ID

Lo

catio

nO

pen

Hole

/Scre

en In

terv

al



________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________



Ta

ble 2

Mo

nito

ring

Well G

rou

nd

wa

ter Elev

atio

ns

UM

ore P

ark H

yd

rog

eolo

gic M

on

itorin

g an

d A

ssessmen

t D

ako

ta Co

un

ty, M

N

Uniq

ue

Measure

ment P

oin

tG

roundw

ate

r G

roundw

ate

r G

roundw

ate

r G

roundw

ate

r G

roundw

ate

rG

roundw

ate

rG

roundw

ate

rG

roundw

ate

rG

roundw

ate

rG

roundw

ate

rG

roundw

ate

rG

roundw

ate

rG

roundw

ate

r

IDE

levatio

nE

levatio

nE

levatio

nE

levatio

nE

levatio

nE

levatio

nE

levatio

nE

levatio

nE

levatio

nE

levatio

nE

levatio

nE

levatio

nE

levatio

nE

levatio

n

Num

ber

(feet M

SL)

6/2

9/2

009

7/7

/2009

7/9

/2009

7/1

5/2

009

8/3

/2009

8/6

/2009

9/1

/2009

9/8

/2009

10/2

7/2

009

11/2

1/2

009

11/2

7/2

009

12/2

2/2

009

3/2

2/2

010

On-s

ite

MW

-C2-0

02

769493

951.1

7885.1

9885.1

5885.0

7885.0

5884.9

4884.8

2884.7

NM

884.3

4884.2

6N

M884.1

78

84

.15

MW

-D3-0

07

769490

945.4

9884.1

9883.8

8883.6

7883.5

8883.6

9883.8

3883.6

9883.7

3883.8

9883.9

4N

M883.8

98

84

.19

MW

-E2-0

09

769488

949.3

7886.0

7886.0

5886.0

8885.9

5885.8

8885.7

5885.5

8N

M885.2

1885.5

7N

M884.8

68

84

.87

MW

-E2-2

09

769483

948.8

5886.1

7886.0

1886.6

3885.8

6885.7

5885.7

4886.1

1N

M885.2

885.1

NM

884.8

68

84

.94

MW

-E2-3

05

769429

940.7

3887.0

1886.1

8888.6

2886.5

1886.1

7885.8

3885.7

2885.5

2885.8

5885.9

7N

M882.4

48

87

.09

PD

C-C

5-T

00006

932.2

862.3

862.1

0862.1

861.6

9860.7

9860.7

2860.5

6860.8

7860.2

NM

NM

859.8

48

59

.23

PD

C-C

7-T

00019

270244

932.1

2858.0

2857.6

3857.8

9857.5

6857.2

2857.4

857.8

9858.2

856.8

8N

MN

M856.5

856

.01

Off-s

ite

Q-6

98456

698456

889.3

7N

MN

M881.9

8N

MN

M881.1

2N

MN

MN

MN

M881.6

9N

MN

M

Key

MS

L =

Mean S

ea L

evel

NM

= N

ot M

easure

d

All D

epth

s a

nd E

levatio

ns a

re in

feet

North

ing a

nd E

astin

g m

easure

d re

lativ

e to

Dakota

County

Coord

inate

s in

U.S

. Feet (h

oriz

onta

l datu

m N

AD

83(1

996)).

Ele

vatio

ns m

easure

d re

lativ

e to

NA

VD

88

2009 - 2

010 U

Mo

re P

ark

Hyd

rog

eo

log

ic M

on

itorin

g a

nd

Assessm

en

t

Gro

undw

ate

r Ele

vatio

ns

Well

ID

Num

ber



________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________



Ta

ble 3

Ba

rr En

gin

eering

Well Id

entifica

tion

Co

de

UM

ore P

ark H

ydro

geo

log

ic Mo

nito

ring

and

Assessm

ent

Dak

ota C

ou

nty

, MN

20

09

- 201

0 U

Mo

re Park

Hyd

rogeo

logic M

on

itorin

g a

nd

Assessm

ent

Barr E

ngin

eering W

ell Iden

tificatio

n C

ode

1. B

arr E

ngin

eering M

on

itorin

g W

ells: (iden

tified w

ith 3

part co

de)

Exam

ple: M

W-C

2-0

02

Part 1

– T

ype o

f Well

• M

W =

Mo

nito

ring W

ell

Part 2

– S

ite Grid

Lo

catio

n

• C

2 =

Sectio

n C

2 (F

igure 3

)

Part 3

A –

Well D

epth

Interva

l (dig

it 1)

• “0

” = w

ell screened

at the w

ater table ,“3

” = w

ell screened

in b

edro

ck, “2

” = a w

ell screened

at dep

th in

glacial d

epo

sits.

Part 3

B –

Well L

ocatio

n (d

igits 2

and

3)

• 0

2 =

Lo

cation n

um

ber (w

ells in a n

est hav

e the sam

e locatio

n n

um

ber b

ut h

ave d

ifferent d

epth

interv

als).

Pre-E

xistin

g M

on

itorin

g W

ells (On

-Site): (id

entified

with

a 3

part co

de)

Exam

ple: P

DC

-C7-T

000

19

Part 1

– A

quife

r where

well is sc

reen

ed

• P

DC

= S

creened

in th

e Prairie d

u C

hien

Aquifer (Q

= Q

uatern

ary g

lacial dep

osits, S

TP

= S

t. Peter S

and

stone, JD

N =

Jord

an S

and

stone)

Part 2

– S

ite Grid

Lo

catio

n

• C

7 =

Sectio

n C

7 (F

igure 3

)

Part 3

– L

and

Ow

ner ID

or U

niq

ue W

ell N

um

ber (U

WI)

• T

00

019

= P

revio

us lan

d o

wner id

entificatio

n

Pre-E

xistin

g M

on

itorin

g W

ells (Off-S

ite): (iden

tified w

ith a

2 p

art co

de)

Exam

ple: Q

-698

456

Part 1

– A

quife

r where

well is sc

reen

ed

• Q

= S

creened

in th

e Quatern

ary/g

lacial dep

osits

Part 2

- Lan

d O

wn

er ID o

r Un

iqu

e Well N

um

ber (U

WI)

• 6

98

456

= U

niq

ue W

ell Iden

tification N

um

ber



________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________



Key

FS

= F

ull S

cale of D

ata Log

ger

Ta

ble 4

Da

talo

gg

er Sp

ecificatio

ns

UM

ore P

ark H

ydro

geo

log

ic Mo

nito

ring

and

Assessm

ent

Dak

ota C

ou

nty

, MN

Tem

peratu

re (°C)

Gro

un

dw

ater Elev

ation

(ft)C

on

ductiv

ity (µ

S/cm

)T

emperatu

re (°C)

Gro

un

dw

ater Elev

atio

n (ft)

Con

ductiv

ity (µS

/cm)

38

44

233

945

6

233

945

7

233

945

8

233

945

9

233

946

0

233

946

1

233

946

2

233

946

3

Data

Logger

Un

it ID

Solin

st LT

C L

evelo

gger J

un

ior

Solin

st Ba

rolo

gg

er Gold

11

± 0

.1°C

0.1

% F

S (F

S =

100 ft)

2%

of rea

din

g o

r 20 µ

S/cm

Accu

racy

± 0

.003 ft

Reso

lutio

n

0.1

°C0

.02 ft

1 µ

S/cm

0.0

02%

FS

(FS

= 1

00 ft)

Solin

st TL

C H

an

d P

rob

e±

0.1

°C±

0.0

03 ft

2%

of rea

din

g o

r 20 µ

S/cm

0.1

°C0

.02 ft

1 µ

S/cm

2009 - 2

01

0 U

Mo

re H

yd

rog

eo

log

ic M

on

itorin

g a

nd

Assess

men

t

Data

Logger S

pecific

atio

ns

0.1

°C a

t 25

°CU

A 0

01 H

OB

O P

en

dan

t0.4

7°C

at 25°C



________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________



Ta

ble 5

An

aly

tical G

rou

nd

wa

ter Geo

chem

istry

UM

ore P

ark H

ydro

geo

log

ic Mo

nito

ring

and

Assessm

ent

Dak

ota C

ou

nty

, MN

Locatio

nM

W-C

2-0

02

MW

-C2-0

02

MW

-C2-0

02

MW

-C2-0

02

MW

-C2-0

02

MW

-E2-0

09

MW

-E2-0

09

MW

-E2-0

09

MW

-E2-0

09

MW

-E2-0

09

Date

2/9

/2009

4/1

0/2

009

8/2

5/2

009

11/1

2/2

009

12/2

2/2

009

2/1

0/2

009

4/1

3/2

009

8/2

5/2

009

11/1

2/2

009

12/2

2/2

009

Data

Sourc

e(B

E)

(BE

)(C

TA

)C

TA

CT

A(B

E)

(BE

)(C

TA

)C

TA

CT

A

Gen

era

l Para

mete

rs (m

g/L

) or (p

pm

)

Alk

alin

ity (b

icarb

on

ate a

s Ca

CO

3 )2

70

29

028

02

80

27

02

50

38

03

20

24

02

50

Ch

lorid

e2

4.0

04

55

03

83

56

8.8

8.1

11

8.4

Alu

min

um

<0

.020

<0

.02

00

.01

10

.01

60

.011

<0

.02

00

.17

0.0

07

80

.01

60

.00

9

Ca

lcium

73

.00

94

.00

94

92

91

39

62

52

61

57

Iron

<0

.050

<0

.05

00

.01

60

.22

0.0

26

<0

.05

00

.64

0.1

10

.03

70

.02

6

Ma

gn

esium

26

.00

35

.00

39

38

38

13

19

19

21

21

Ma

ng

an

ese0

.39

0.2

50

.07

60

.01

0.0

22

0.2

40

.94

0.2

10.1

0.1

5

Pota

ssium

3.0

02

.00

1.8

21

.73.5

3.4

3.4

2.4

2.7

Sod

ium

54

.00

24

.00

20

17

13

97

14

08

62

63

6

Ba

rium

ND

ND

0.0

75

0.2

30

.13

ND

ND

0.0

62

0.1

40

.22

Lith

ium

ND

ND

<0

.00

00

50

.00

71

0.0

04

6N

DN

D <

0.0

00

05

0.0

08

50

.00

36

Ph

osp

horu

sN

DN

D0

.03

0.0

21

0.0

36

ND

ND

0.0

74

0.0

55

0.0

76

Silico

nN

DN

D7

.37

.37

.2N

DN

D6

.16.5

6.3

Stro

ntiu

mN

DN

D0

.12

0.1

40

.11

ND

ND

0.1

90

.17

0.2

4

Flu

orid

e<

0.5

0<

0.5

00

.12

0.1

30

.12

<0

.50

<0

.50

0.1

30

.15

0.1

5

NO

2 - N

<0

.19

<0

.19

0.1

10

.01

40

.053

<0

.19

<0.1

90.0

69

0.0

66

0.1

4

Bro

mid

eN

DN

D0

.03

40

.04

40

.038

ND

ND

0.0

26

0.0

28

0.0

27

NO

3 - N (N

itrate)

8.6

71

2.1

12

15

16

4.3

85

.15

2.1

65

.5

SO

4 (S

ulfa

te)6

62

62

42

62

44

11

91

7

PO

4 -P (P

hosp

ha

te)<

2.1

<2

.10

.01

40

.02

50

.001

<2

.1<

2.1

0.0

26

0.0

46

0.0

2

An

aly

tical C

ha

rge B

ala

nce

2.5

71.3

31.5

12.2

40.2

11.7

8

Key

BE

= B

arr En

gin

eering

CT

A =

Cale T

. An

ger (U

of M

Research

Assistan

t)

ND

= N

o D

ata

2009 - 2

010 U

Mo

re P

ark

Hyd

rog

eo

log

ic M

on

itorin

g a

nd

Assessm

en

t U

More

Well G

eochem

istry



________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________



Ta

ble 5

(con

tinu

ed)

An

aly

tical G

rou

nd

wa

ter Geo

chem

istry

UM

ore P

ark H

ydro

geo

log

ic Mo

nito

ring

and

Assessm

ent

Dak

ota C

ou

nty

, MN

Locatio

nM

W-E

2-2

09

MW

-E2-2

09

MW

-E2-2

09

MW

-E2-2

09

MW

-E2-2

09

MW

-E2-3

05

MW

-E2-3

05

MW

-E2-3

05

MW

-E2

-305

MW

-E2-3

05

Date

2/1

0/2

009

4/1

3/2

009

8/2

5/2

009

11/1

2/2

009

12/2

2/2

009

2/1

0/2

009

4/1

3/2

009

8/2

5/2

009

11/1

2/2

009

12/2

2/2

009

Data

So

urc

e(B

E)

(BE

)(C

TA

)(C

TA

)(C

TA

)(B

E)

(BE

)(C

TA

)(C

TA

)(C

TA

)

Gen

era

l Para

mete

rs (m

g/L

) or (p

pm

)

Alk

alin

ity (b

icarb

on

ate

as C

aC

O3 )

250

28

02

70

270

270

260

260

26

02

10

23

0

Ch

lorid

e2.6

1.6

2.8

1.3

1.4

20

22

20

17

18

Alu

min

um

<0.0

20

<0

.020

0.0

04

20.0

12

0.0

073

<0

.020

<0.0

20

0.0

04

0.0

082

0.0

075

Calciu

m7

058

63

66

69

85

70

72

58

64

Iron

0.4

10.9

10.0

14

0.0

19

0.0

20.5

60.2

90.0

083

0.0

22

0.0

07

Magn

esiu

m2

320

22

22

23

24

20

24

24

25

Man

ga

nese

0.2

0.1

60.1

30.1

30

.11

0.3

50.1

90.1

70.0

87

0.0

69

Pota

ssium

1.9

1.4

1.7

1.6

1.4

32

.53.1

3.4

3.4

Sod

ium

9.5

32

17

12

7.5

36

43

35

23

22

Bariu

mN

DN

D0

.10.1

50

.27

ND

ND

0.1

10

.19

0.1

8

Lith

ium

ND

ND

<0.0

0005

0.0

01

70.0

082

ND

ND

<0

.0000

50.0

04

0.0

036

Ph

osp

horu

sN

DN

D0.0

14

0.0

11

0.0

16

ND

ND

0.0

14

0.0

36

0.0

41

Silic

on

ND

ND

6.4

6.8

7.3

ND

ND

5.4

5.5

5.7

Stro

ntiu

mN

DN

D0.1

10.1

10

.12

ND

ND

0.1

40

.12

0.1

1

Flu

orid

e<

0.5

0<

0.5

00.1

90

.20.2

<0

.50

<0.5

00

.096

0.0

72

0.0

69

NO

2 - N

<0

.19

<0.1

9<

0.0

02

<0

.002

<0.0

02

<0.1

9<

0.1

90

.074

0.0

47

0.5

5

Bro

mid

eN

DN

D0.0

11

0.0

07

0.0

085

ND

ND

0.0

38

0.0

30

.034

NO

3 - N (N

itrate

)0.9

0.1

0.0

07

0.1

20.0

16

12

.210.9

11

8.6

9.1

SO

4 (S

ulfa

te)1

28

.27.8

27

23

23

PO

4 -P (P

hosp

hate

)<

2.1

<2.1

<0.0

2<

0.0

2<

0.0

2<

2.1

<2

.1<

0.0

2<

0.0

20

.019

An

aly

tical C

harge B

ala

nce

0.0

50

.43

0.8

50.3

91.5

80.1

8

Key

BE

= B

arr En

gin

eering

CT

A =

Cale T

. An

ger (U

of M

Resea

rch A

ssistant)

ND

= N

o D

ata

UM

ore

Well G

eochem

istry

2009 - 2

010 U

Mo

re P

ark

Hyd

rog

eo

log

ic M

on

itorin

g a

nd

Assessm

en

t



________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________



T

ab

le 5 (co

ntin

ued

)

An

aly

tical G

rou

nd

wa

ter Geo

chem

istry

UM

ore P

ark H

ydro

geo

log

ic Mo

nito

ring

and

Assessm

ent

Dak

ota C

ou

nty

, MN

Lo

ca

tion

MW

-D3

-007

MW

-D3-0

07

MW

-D3-0

07

MW

-D3-0

07

MW

-Q-6

98

45

6M

W-Q

-698

45

6M

W-P

DC

-C7-T

00

01

9M

W-P

DC

-C7

-T0

00

19

MW

-PD

C-C

5_T

000

06

MW

-PD

C-C

5_

T00

00

6

Date

2/1

2/2

009

4/1

4/2

009

8/2

5/2

00

911

/12/2

009

8/2

5/2

00

911

/12/2

00

98

/25/2

00

91

2/2

2/2

009

8/2

5/2

00

912

/22/2

009

Data

Sou

rce

(BE

)(B

E)

(CT

A)

(CT

A)

(CT

A)

(CT

A)

(CT

A)

(CT

A)

(CT

A)

(CT

A)

Gen

era

l Para

me

ters

(mg

/L) o

r (pp

m)

Alk

alin

ity (b

icarb

on

ate

as C

aC

O3 )

240

260

250

260

440

450

310

300

290

270

Ch

lorid

e20

20

18

18

6.5

6.1

14

14

6.1

5.7

Alu

min

um

<0.0

20

<0.0

20

0.0

19

0.0

14

0.0

54

0.0

11

0.0

34

0.0

084

0.0

065

0.0

084

Calc

ium

88

83

80

82

120

120

96

89

84

73

Iron

<0.0

50

0.0

66

0.0

083

0.0

45

0.0

086

0.6

80.0

14

0.0

027

0.0

096

0.0

004

Magn

esiu

m29

29

30

33

35

34

33

34

30

30

Man

ga

nese

0.0

80.0

84

0.1

90.0

57

1.2

1.1

0.0

10

.10.0

008

0.0

015

Pota

ssium

2.4

1.9

2.2

2.6

2.1

2.4

2.3

2.5

1.7

1.5

Sod

ium

13

15

13

911

11

5.4

5.8

4.8

4.6

Bariu

mN

DN

D0.0

90.2

0.1

90.2

40.0

93

0.0

33

0.1

20.0

96

Lith

ium

ND

ND

<0

.00005

0.0

071

<0.0

0005

0.0

034

<0.0

0005

<0.0

0005

0.0

037

0.0

072

Ph

osp

horu

sN

DN

D0.0

05

0.0

28

0.0

13

0.0

091

0.0

21

0.0

11

0.0

22

0.0

14

Silic

on

ND

ND

6.4

6.9

66

7.3

4.9

7.4

6.6

Str

on

tium

ND

ND

0.1

40.1

60.2

50.2

60.1

10

.097

0.1

10.1

Flu

orid

e<

0.5

0<

0.5

00.1

10.1

0.1

30.2

10.0

75

0.0

65

0.1

30.1

5

NO

2 - N

<0.1

9<

0.1

90.7

60.0

1<

0.0

02

<0.0

02

0.2

20

.031

<0.0

02

0.0

04

Bro

mid

eN

DN

D0.0

36

0.0

31

0.0

32

0.1

10.0

31

0.0

34

0.0

21

0.0

02

NO

3 - N (N

itrate

)11.5

12.9

11

14

0.0

17

0.1

59.4

1.6

4.5

2.5

SO

4 (S

ulfa

te)

28

25

3.8

4.6

22

38

22

24

PO

4 -P (P

hosp

hate)

<2.1

<2.1

<0.0

20.0

17

<0.0

20.0

45

<0.0

2<

0.0

20.0

12

0.0

06

An

aly

tical C

harg

e B

ala

nce

1.1

00.2

91

.86

0.2

60.4

11

.72

1.1

90.8

8

Key

BE

= B

arr En

gin

eering

CT

A =

Cale T

. An

ger (U

of M

Research

Assista

nt)

ND

= N

o D

ata

200

9 - 2

010

UM

ore

Pa

rk H

yd

rog

eo

log

ic M

on

itorin

g a

nd

As

se

ss

men

t

UM

ore

We

ll Geo

che

mistry



________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________



Ta

ble 6

Ho

rizon

tal a

nd

Vertica

l Aq

uifer H

yd

rau

lic Co

nd

uctiv

ity (B

arr E

ng

ineerin

g, 2

00

9)

UM

ore P

ark H

ydro

geo

log

ic Mo

nito

ring

and

Assessm

ent

Dak

ota C

ou

nty

, MN



________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________



Ta

ble 7

Vertica

l Aq

uifer H

yd

rau

lic Gra

dien

ts (Barr E

ng

ineerin

g, 2

00

9)

UM

ore P

ark H

ydro

geo

log

ic Mo

nito

ring

and

Assessm

ent

Dak

ota C

ou

nty

, MN



________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________



Ta

ble 8

H

YD

RU

S 4

.0 1

D M

od

el - Geo

log

ic an

d H

yd

rog

eolo

gic In

pu

t Da

ta

UM

ore P

ark H

ydro

geo

log

ic Mo

nito

ring

and

Assessm

ent

Dak

ota C

ou

nty

, MN

Soil T

ype

Satu

rated T

otal P

oro

sity (Φ)

Satu

rated E

ffective P

oro

sity (Φe )

Data S

ource

[dim

ensio

nless]

[dim

ensio

nless]

100

% S

and an

d G

ravel

0.3

10.2

3(D

om

enico

and S

chw

artz, 199

0)

95%

San

d an

d G

ravel, 5

% (C

lay an

d S

ilt)0

.32

0.2

2(D

om

enico

and S

chw

artz, 199

0)

70%

San

d an

d G

ravel, 3

0%

Fin

es (Clay an

d S

ilt)0

.37

0.1

9(D

om

enico

and S

chw

artz, 199

0)

60%

Fin

es (Clay a

nd S

ilt), 40%

San

d an

d G

ravel

0.4

10.1

7(D

om

enico

and S

chw

artz, 199

0)

Soil T

ype

Data S

ource

100

% S

and an

d G

ravel

(An

derso

n, 2

005

; Sm

oltzcyk

, 2003

)

95%

San

d an

d G

ravel, 5

% (C

lay an

d S

ilt)(A

nd

erson

, 20

05

; Sm

oltzcyk

, 2003

)

70%

San

d an

d G

ravel, 3

0%

Fin

es (Clay an

d S

ilt)(A

nd

erson

, 20

05

; Sm

oltzcyk

, 2003

)

60%

Fin

es (Clay a

nd S

ilt), 40%

San

d an

d G

ravel

(An

derso

n, 2

005

; Sm

oltzcyk

, 2003

)

Volu

metric H

eat Cap

acity o

f Water (C

w )(A

nd

erson

, 20

05

; Sm

oltzcyk

, 2003

)

Con

stant H

ydra

ulic G

radien

t (I)

Data S

ource

[dim

ensio

nless]

0.0

03

(Barr E

ng

ineerin

g, 2

009

)

(Sim

un

ek, 2

008

)

Con

stant T

empera

ture B

oun

dary C

on

ditio

n (x

=0)

Data S

ource

[C]

(Sim

un

ek, 2

008

)

* D

irichlet B

ou

ndary C

on

ditio

n

Un

it Key

J =

joule

s [M

L2T

-2]

m =

mete

rs [L]

d =

days [T

]

20

09 - 2

01

0 U

Mo

re Pa

rk H

yd

rog

eolo

gic

Mo

nito

ring

an

d A

ssessmen

tH

YD

RU

S 4

.0 1

D G

eolo

gical an

d H

ydro

geo

logica

l Inp

ut D

ata - UM

ore P

ark

2.1

2

1.7

6

1.3

3

418

7

Th

ermal C

on

ductiv

ity (λ)

* C

auch

y Bou

ndary C

on

ditio

n

Poro

sity (Φ)

Satu

rated T

herm

al C

on

du

ctivity

λ(θs )

[Js-1m

-1C-1]

2.2

1

Heat T

ransp

ort B

oun

dary C

on

ditio

ns

Gro

un

dw

ater Flo

w B

oun

dary C

on

ditio

ns

[md

-1]

0.0

2

[kJm

-3C-1]

[C/L

]

Heat F

lux B

oun

dary C

on

ditio

n (x

=1

00)

Sp

ecific Disch

arg

e (Darcy F

lux

) - Glacial O

utw

ash (q

)

[md

-1]

1.0

7

Sp

ecific Disch

arg

e (Darcy F

lux

) - Diam

icton

(q)

ow

ow

qC

Tq

TC

x T=

+∂ ∂

−λ

)(

),

(t

Tt

xT

o=

CT

tT

o1

5)

,0(

0=

=[

]qT

Cq

CT

λx T

wo

wo

−−

=∂ ∂

1

Documents

MONITORING HYDROGEOLOGIC RESPONSE TO ...pub/@ssrd/...MONITORING HYDROGEOLOGIC RESPONSE TO REGIONAL AGGREGATE MINING AND SITE DEVELOPMENT DATA ASSESSMENT AND GROUNDWATER EVALUATION