FEAT_TYPE
(
type: esriFieldTypeString, alias: Feature Type, length: 25
, Coded Values:
[Lake or Pond: Lake or Pond]
, [Marsh or Wetland: Marsh or Wetland]
, [River or Stream: River or Stream]
, ...1 more...
)
FEAT_MOD
(
type: esriFieldTypeString, alias: Feature Modifier, length: 25
, Coded Values:
[Dry: Dry water feature]
, [Fish Hatchery or Farm: Fish Hatchery or Farm]
, [Gravel Pit or Quarry: Gravel Pit or Quarry]
, ...7 more...
)
Description: <DIV STYLE="text-align:Left;"><DIV><DIV><P><SPAN>The DRASTIC model was developed by the US EPA as a way of quantifying an aquifer’s susceptibility to surface contamination events. In 1997, the then NDDoH (now NDDEQ) applied this system to North Dakota’s shallow aquifers as part of the North Dakota Geographic Targeting System for Groundwater Monitoring (GTS). In 2015, it was decided to update the GTS to reflect changes in aquifer boundaries, water use, and land use on a regular basis. The most recent report is available online</SPAN><SPAN>. (URL </SPAN><A href="https://deq.nd.gov/publications/wq/1_GW/GeoTargetSys/2018_GTS/2019_GTS_Report_October2019.pdf"><SPAN>https://deq.nd.gov/publications/wq/1_GW/GeoTargetSys/2018_GTS/2019_GTS_Report_October2019.pdf</SPAN></A><SPAN>). The DRASTIC model was reapplied to all known shallow groundwater resources within North Dakota in order to obtain the vulnerability rating shown in Attachment 3 of the report.</SPAN></P><P><SPAN><SPAN>The DRASTIC model consists of seven weighted factors:</SPAN></SPAN></P><P><SPAN><SPAN>1. Depth to Water (feet below ground surface)</SPAN></SPAN></P><P><SPAN><SPAN>2. Net Recharge (inches per year)</SPAN></SPAN></P><P><SPAN><SPAN>3. Aquifer Media (sand and gravel, clay, silt, etc.)</SPAN></SPAN></P><P><SPAN><SPAN>4. Soil Media (Loam, Silty Loam, Sand, etc.)</SPAN></SPAN></P><P><SPAN><SPAN>5. Topography (Percent Slope)</SPAN></SPAN></P><P><SPAN><SPAN>6. Impact of the Vadose Zone (Silt/Clay, Confining Layer, etc.)</SPAN></SPAN></P><P><SPAN><SPAN>7. Hydraulic Conductivity (cubic feet per year)</SPAN></SPAN></P><P><SPAN><SPAN>Each factor has two associated fields. These fields represent the actual unit value of the factor, and the second field represents the score* assigned to the factor. A score is a rating based on a scale of values, used along with a weighting factor to generate a final DRASTIC score.</SPAN></SPAN></P><P><SPAN>The final two fields, DRASTIC and P_DRASTIC represent two methods of rating aquifers. The DRASTIC value is a general assessment of contamination susceptibility, while the P_DRASTIC represents a score adjusted to better represent susceptibility to pesticide use contamination. This is generally referred to as a “Rating” in the DRASTIC methodology but has been changed here to remain consistent with the GTS methods of differentiating between values, scores, and ratings. See North Dakota Geographic Targeting System for Groundwater Monitoring for additional information.</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>In December of 2018, an additional assessment was conducted on the water levels of confined aquifers to account for hydrostatic pressure, primarily addressing the Spiritwood Aquifer System. These changes are reflected in the December, 2018 updated GTS report.</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>In January 2021, 68 new aquifers were added to the layer that were included in the "2021 Addendum to the 2019 North Dakota Geographic Targeting System For Groundwater Monitoring". Four aquifer names were also updated and all aquifer boundaries were updated to match North Dakota State Water Commission aquifer delineations and names as of January 2021. The 2021 addendum report can be found online at </SPAN><A href="https://deq.nd.gov/WQ/Publications.aspx"><SPAN>https://deq.nd.gov/WQ/publications.aspx </SPAN></A><SPAN>under "Groundwater Protection Program."</SPAN></P></DIV></DIV></DIV>
Copyright Text: Aller, Linda, Truman Bennett, Jay H. Lehr, and Rebecca J. Petty. DRASTIC: A Standardized System for Evaluating Ground Water Pollution Potential Using Hydrogeologic Settings. Chicago: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1985. Print.
North Dakota State Water Commission.
Radig, Scott. North Dakota Geographic Targeting System for Groundwater Monitoring.Bismarck: U.S. North Dakota Department of Health, 1997. Print.
Authors: Nick Budde, Derek Kannenberg, Casey Gleich, Andrew Peterson, North Dakota Department of Environmental Quality - Division of Water Quality, Groundwater Protection Program.
Description: <DIV STYLE="text-align:Left;"><DIV><DIV><P><SPAN>The North Dakota Geographic Targeting System for Groundwater Monitoring (GTS) was first conducted in 1997 as a method of assigning monitoring priority to shallow aquifers. The decision to update the monitoring priority was made in 2015 in response to changing aquifer boundaries, land use, and groundwater appropriation. The analysis was complete and first published in 2018. Additional update to address water levels in confined aquifers was published in October 2019. </SPAN><SPAN>In January 2021, 68 new aquifers were added to the layer that were included in the "2021 Addendum to the 2019 North Dakota Geographic Targeting System For Groundwater Monitoring". Four aquifer names were also updated and all aquifer boundaries were updated to match North Dakota State Water Commission aquifer delineations and names as of January 2021. The January 2021 addendum report is available online at </SPAN><A href="https://deq.nd.gov/publications/wq/1_GW/GeoTargetSys/2021_GTS_Addendum.pdf"><SPAN>https://deq.nd.gov/publications/wq/1_GW/GeoTargetSys/2021_GTS_Addendum.pdf</SPAN></A><SPAN>; The completed 2019 report is available online at </SPAN><A href="https://deq.nd.gov/publications/wq/1_GW/GeoTargetSys/2018_GTS/2019_GTS_Report_October2019.pdf"><SPAN>https://deq.nd.gov/publications/wq/1_GW/GeoTargetSys/2018_GTS/2019_GTS_Report_October2019.pdf</SPAN></A></P><P><SPAN>The GTS consists of three components: Vulnerability, Sensitivity, and Risk. Each component is given three values: a Value, a Score, and a Rating. The Value is the numeric representation of each component. The Score is a number ranging from 1 to 3, and is assigned based on the Value range. A Rating can be LOW, MODERATE, or HIGH, and correlates to a Score rating of 1, 2, or 3 respectively. </SPAN></P><P><SPAN><SPAN>The score of each component is added together to achieve a total monitoring score ranging from 3 - 9. The Total Monitoring Rating is then assigned based on this score: 3-4 (LOW), 5-7 (MODERATE), 8-9 (HIGH). </SPAN></SPAN></P><P><SPAN><SPAN>This dataset has value, score, and rating fields for each component, total monitoring score, total monitoring rating, and DRASTIC and Pesticide DRASTIC value fields. </SPAN></SPAN></P><P><SPAN><SPAN>COMPONENT RATINGS</SPAN></SPAN></P><P><SPAN><SPAN>Vulnerability</SPAN></SPAN></P><P><SPAN><SPAN>Pesticide DRASTIC Value - Score - Rating</SPAN></SPAN></P><P><SPAN><SPAN>0-129 - 1 - LOW</SPAN></SPAN></P><P><SPAN>130-159 - 2 - MODERATE</SPAN></P><P><SPAN><SPAN>160+ - 3 - HIGH</SPAN></SPAN></P><P><SPAN><SPAN>Sensitivity</SPAN></SPAN></P><P><SPAN><SPAN>Production (in dollars per farmed acre) Value - Score - Rating</SPAN></SPAN></P><P><SPAN><SPAN>0-202.14 - 1 - LOW</SPAN></SPAN></P><P><SPAN><SPAN>202.15 - 356.91 - 2 - MODERATE</SPAN></SPAN></P><P><SPAN><SPAN>356.92+ - 3 - HIGH</SPAN></SPAN></P><P><SPAN><SPAN>Risk</SPAN></SPAN></P><P><SPAN><SPAN>Appropriated acre-feet per square mile - Score - Rating</SPAN></SPAN></P><P><SPAN><SPAN>0-1.243 - 1 - LOW</SPAN></SPAN></P><P><SPAN>1.244-33.51 - 2 - MODERATE</SPAN></P><P><SPAN><SPAN>33.52+ - 3 - HIGH</SPAN></SPAN></P><P><SPAN><SPAN>Total Monitoring Score</SPAN></SPAN></P><P><SPAN><SPAN>Vulnerability Score + Sensitivity Score + Risk Score = Monitoring Score (Monitoring Rating)</SPAN></SPAN></P><P><SPAN><SPAN>3-4 (LOW)</SPAN></SPAN></P><P><SPAN><SPAN>5-7 (MODERATE)</SPAN></SPAN></P><P><SPAN><SPAN>8-9 (HIGH)</SPAN></SPAN></P><P><SPAN>Dataset Finalized: January 2021</SPAN></P></DIV></DIV></DIV>
Copyright Text: 2012 Census of Agriculture/ U.S. Department of Agriculture. USDA Census of Agriculture. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 June 2016.
Linda Aller, Truman Bennett, Jay H. Lehr, and Rebecca J. Petty. DRASTIC: A Standardized System for Evaluating Ground Water Pollution Potential Using Hydrogeologic Settings. Chicago: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1985. Print.
North Dakota State Water Commission
Scott Radig. North Dakota Geographic Targeting System for Groundwater Monitoring.Bismarck: U.S. North Dakota Department of Health, 1997. Print. Authors: Budde, Nick; Kannenberg, Derek; Peterson, Andrew; Gleich, Casey; North Dakota Department of Environmental Quality - Division of Water Quality, Groundwater Protection Program.
Description: <DIV STYLE="text-align:Left;"><DIV><DIV><P><SPAN>NDAC 33-25-01 states that a sensitive groundwater area (SGWA) is defined as glacial drift aquifers with a DRASTIC score greater than or equal to 100 or as alluvial/aeolian deposit identified in Clayton's 1980 Geologic Map of North Dakota. The DRASTIC score surficial aquifers were updated in 2019, and again in 2021, necessitating an update to the SGWA dataset. This dataset includes all aqufiers identified with a general DRASTIC score greater than or equal to 100 and alluvial/aeolian sand and gravel deposits designated Qcs, Qod, QTou or QTu. Geologic units were dissolved into single units based on lithologic terra abbreviation. </SPAN></P><P><SPAN>For a complete description of DRASTIC methodology, refer to the separate DRASTIC layer and associated documentation, </SPAN><A href="https://deq.nd.gov/publications/wq/1_GW/GeoTargetSys/2018_GTS/2019_GTS_Report_October2019.pdf"><SPAN>North Dakota Geographic Targeting System for Groundwater Monitoring</SPAN></A><SPAN>(2019) for additional information.</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>This layer was updated in January 2021 to include 33 new sensitive aquifers that were scored in the "2021 Addendum to the 2019 North Dakota Geographic Targeting System For Groundwater Monitoring" (January 2021) and to match North Dakota State Water Commission aquifer delineations and names as of January 2021. The 2021 addendum report can be found online at </SPAN><A href="https://deq.nd.gov/publications/wq/1_GW/GeoTargetSys/2021_GTS_Addendum.pdf"><SPAN>https://deq.nd.gov/publications/wq/1_GW/GeoTargetSys/2021_GTS_Addendum.pdf</SPAN></A><SPAN>(or navigate to the report by going to https://deq.nd.gov/WQ/Publications.aspx, select Groundwater Protection Program, Geographic Targeting System, 2019 Geographic Targeting System). </SPAN></P></DIV></DIV></DIV>
Copyright Text: Aller, Linda, Truman Bennett, Jay H. Lehr, and Rebecca J. Petty. DRASTIC: A Standardized System for Evaluating Ground Water Pollution Potential Using Hydrogeologic Settings. Chicago: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1985. Print.
Budde, Nick. 2021. 2021 Addendum to the 2019 North Dakota Geographic Targeting System For Groundwater Monitoring.
Kannenberg, Derek, Andrew Peterson, Casey Gleich. 2019 Geographic Targeting System for North Dakota Ground Water Monitoring.
North Dakota State Water Commission.
Radig, Scott. North Dakota Geographic Targeting System for Groundwater Monitoring.Bismarck: U.S. North Dakota Department of Health, 1997. Print.
Nick Budde, Derek Kannenberg, Casey Gleich, Andrew Peterson, North Dakota Department of Environmental Quality - Division of Water Quality, Groundwater Protection Program.
Copyright Text: Funding and support for the Watershed Boundary Dataset (WBD) were provided by the Natural Resources Conservation Service, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the United States Geological Survey. Representatives from the U.S. Geological Survey and Environmental Protection Agency contributed a substantial amount of time and salary towards quality review and updating of the dataset in order to meet the Federal Standards for Delineation of Hydrologic Unit Boundaries.
Copyright Text: Funding and support for the Watershed Boundary Dataset (WBD) were provided by the Natural Resources Conservation Service, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the United States Geological Survey. Representatives from the U.S. Geological Survey and Environmental Protection Agency contributed a substantial amount of time and salary towards quality review and updating of the dataset in order to meet the Federal Standards for Delineation of Hydrologic Unit Boundaries.
Copyright Text: Funding and support for the Watershed Boundary Dataset (WBD) were provided by the Natural Resources Conservation Service, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the United States Geological Survey. Representatives from the U.S. Geological Survey and Environmental Protection Agency contributed a substantial amount of time and salary towards quality review and updating of the dataset in order to meet the Federal Standards for Delineation of Hydrologic Unit Boundaries.
Copyright Text: Funding and support for the Watershed Boundary Dataset (WBD) were provided by the Natural Resources Conservation Service, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the United States Geological Survey. Representatives from the U.S. Geological Survey and Environmental Protection Agency contributed a substantial amount of time and salary towards quality review and updating of the dataset in order to meet the Federal Standards for Delineation of Hydrologic Unit Boundaries.
Copyright Text: Funding and support for the Watershed Boundary Dataset (WBD) were provided by the Natural Resources Conservation Service, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the United States Geological Survey. Representatives from the U.S. Geological Survey and Environmental Protection Agency contributed a substantial amount of time and salary towards quality review and updating of the dataset in order to meet the Federal Standards for Delineation of Hydrologic Unit Boundaries.
Color: [78, 78, 78, 255] Background Color: N/A Outline Color: N/A Vertical Alignment: bottom Horizontal Alignment: center Right to Left: false Angle: 0 XOffset: 0 YOffset: 0 Size: 10 Font Family: Arial Font Style: normal Font Weight: normal Font Decoration: none
Copyright Text: Funding and support for the Watershed Boundary Dataset (WBD) were provided by the Natural Resources Conservation Service, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the United States Geological Survey. Representatives from the U.S. Geological Survey and Environmental Protection Agency contributed a substantial amount of time and salary towards quality review and updating of the dataset in order to meet the Federal Standards for Delineation of Hydrologic Unit Boundaries.
Copyright Text: Funding and support for the Watershed Boundary Dataset (WBD) were provided by the Natural Resources Conservation Service, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the United States Geological Survey. Representatives from the U.S. Geological Survey and Environmental Protection Agency contributed a substantial amount of time and salary towards quality review and updating of the dataset in order to meet the Federal Standards for Delineation of Hydrologic Unit Boundaries.