Soils with low infiltration capacity

This site is currently undergoing revision. For more information, open this link.
This site is under construction. Anticipated completion date is June, 2015.

Statewide map of soil suborders. While soil infiltration rates vary widely within a suborder, infiltration rates tend to be lower on mollisols, histisols and vertisols compared to entisols, inceptisols, spodosols, and alfisols. Source: [1]

File:Minnesota soil survey status 2.png

Statewide map illustrating the availability of digital soil surveys. Source: [2]

Soils with low infiltration capacity are defined as soils with steady-state infiltration rates equal to or less than 0.06 inches per hour. County soil surveys are useful for initial screening to identify soils that may have low infiltration rates. Most county soil surveys are available digitally from the NRCS (National Resources Conservation Service). These surveys are not accurate enough to determine site-specific characteristics suitable for infiltration systems, so a detailed site analysis should be performed for all proposed infiltration BMPs (Susilo, 2009). Additional information on soils can be found here.

Stormwater management limitations in areas with tight soils generally preclude large-scale infiltration and ground water recharge (infiltration that passes into the ground water system). These soils will typically be categorized under Hydrologic Soil Group (HSG) D. The table below provides a general summary of infiltration rates for different soils. These are conservative estimates of long-term, sustainable infiltration rates that have been documented in Minnesota. They are based on in-situ measurement within existing infiltration practices in Minnesota, rather than national numbers or rates based on laboratory columns.

The Construction general Permit (CGP) prohibits infiltration when an infiltration system will be constructed in areas of predominately Hydrologic Soil Group D (clay) soils unless allowed by a local unit of government with a current MS4 permit.

Caution: The table for design infiltration rates has been modified. Field testing is recommended for gravelly soils (HSG A; GW and GP soils; gravel and sandy gravel soils). If field-measured soil infiltration rates exceed 8.3 inches per hour, the Construction Stormwater permit requires the soils be amended. Guidance on amending these soils can be found here.

Design infiltration rates, in inches per hour, for A, B, C, and D soil groups. Corresponding USDA soil classification and Unified soil Classifications are included. Note that A and B soils have two infiltration rates that are a function of soil texture.*
The values shown in this table are for uncompacted soils. This table can be used as a guide to determine if a soil is compacted. For information on alleviating compacted soils, link here. If a soil is compacted, reduce the soil infiltration rate by one level (e.g. for a compacted B(SM) use the infiltration rate for a B(MH) soil).
Link to this table

Hydrologic soil group	Infiltration rate (inches/hour)	Infiltration rate (centimeters/hour)	Soil textures	Corresponding Unified Soil ClassificationSuperscript text
A	Although a value of 1.63 inches per hour (4.14 centimeters per hour) may be used, it is Highly recommended that you conduct field infiltration tests or amend soils.b See Guidance for amending soils with rapid or high infiltration rates and Determining soil infiltration rates.		gravel sandy gravel	GW - Well-graded gravels, fine to coarse gravel GP - Poorly graded gravel
	1.63a	4.14	silty gravels gravelly sands sand	GM - Silty gravel SW - Well-graded sand, fine to coarse sand
	0.8	2.03	sand loamy sand sandy loam	SP - Poorly graded sand
B	0.45	1.14	silty sands	SM - Silty sand
	0.3	0.76	loam, silt loam	MH - Elastic silt
C	0.2	0.51	Sandy clay loam, silts	ML - Silt
D	0.06	0.15	clay loam silty clay loam sandy clay silty clay clay	GC - Clayey gravel SC - Clayey sand CL - Lean clay OL - Organic silt CH - Fat clay OH - Organic clay, organic silt

¹For Unified Soil Classification, we show the basic text for each soil type. For more detailed descriptions, see the following links: The Unified Soil Classification System, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (CALTRANS) UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM

• NOTE that this table has been updated from Version 2.X of the Minnesota Stormwater Manual. The higher infiltration rate for B soils was decreased from 0.6 inches per hour to 0.45 inches per hour and a value of 0.06 is used for D soils (instead of < 0.2 in/hr).
  

Source: Thirty guidance manuals and many other stormwater references were reviewed to compile recommended infiltration rates. All of these sources use the following studies as the basis for their recommended infiltration rates: (1) Rawls, Brakensiek and Saxton (1982); (2) Rawls, Gimenez and Grossman (1998); (3) Bouwer and Rice (1984); and (4) Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds (NRCS). SWWD, 2005, provides field documented data that supports the proposed infiltration rates. (view reference list)
^aThis rate is consistent with the infiltration rate provided for the lower end of the Hydrologic Soil Group A soils in the Stormwater post-construction technical standards, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Conservation Practice Standards.
^bThe infiltration rates in this table are recommended values for sizing stormwater practices based on information collected from soil borings or pits. A group of technical experts developed the table for the original Minnesota Stormwater Manual in 2005. Additional technical review resulted in an update to the table in 2011. Over the past 5 to 7 years, several government agencies revised or developed guidance for designing infiltration practices. Several states now require or strongly recommend field infiltration tests. Examples include North Carolina, New York, Georgia, and the City of Philadelphia. The states of Washington and Maine strongly recommend field testing for infiltration rates, but both states allow grain size analyses in the determination of infiltration rates. The Minnesota Stormwater Manual strongly recommends field testing for infiltration rate, but allows information from soil borings or pits to be used in determining infiltration rate. A literature review suggests the values in the design infiltration rate table are not appropriate for soils with very high infiltration rates. This includes gravels, sandy gravels, and uniformly graded sands. Infiltration rates for these geologic materials are higher than indicated in the table.
References: Clapp, R. B., and George M. Hornberger. 1978. Empirical equations for some soil hydraulic properties. Water Resources Research. 14:4:601–604; Moynihan, K., and Vasconcelos, J. 2014. SWMM Modeling of a Rural Watershed in the Lower Coastal Plains of the United States. Journal of Water Management Modeling. C372; Rawls, W.J., D. Gimenez, and R. Grossman. 1998. Use of soil texture, bulk density and slope of the water retention curve to predict saturated hydraulic conductivity Transactions of the ASAE. VOL. 41(4): 983-988; Saxton, K.E., and W. J. Rawls. 2005. Soil Water Characteristic Estimates by Texture and Organic Matter for Hydrologic Solutions. Soil Science Society of America Journal. 70:5:1569-1578.

Why are soils with a low infiltration capacity a concern

Sites with low infiltration capacity soils may limit the type, location, number and/or sizing of infiltration BMPs that can be used for stormwater management. Low infiltration rates result in extended surface ponding of water, which may damage vegetation, lead to mosquito breeding, damage soil structure, and reduce pollutant treatment by the BMP. Certain watershed organizations in Minnesota do not allow the use, or strongly discourage the use, of infiltration BMPs where soil infiltration capacity is low. This does not mean, however, that these soils do not have any infiltration and recharge capabilities. It may be possible for sites to partially or fully meet infiltration objectives as long as appropriate design modifications have been incorporated, such as amending the soil with compost or sand, or incorporating an underdrain into the practice.

The following table provides an overview of low infiltration capacity soil related design considerations for several structural practice groups.

Modified sand filter design

Bioretention system with infiltration gallery.

This table shows structural BMP use in soil with low infiltration capacity
Link to this table

BMP	Low infiltration capacity soil considerations
Bioretention, dry swale, permeable pavement, tree trench/box	Should be constructed with an underdrain. Recharge criteria, if applicable, can be met by modifying the design to include an infiltration gallery below the underdrain, so long as it is appropriately sized.
Media filter	Recommended practice in tight soils. Some design variants can be modified to incorporate an infiltration gallery that can help meet recharge criteria, if properly sized.
Infiltration trench or basin	Not recommended as a practice Soils analysis should be conducted to confirm limiting aspects of soil profile
Stormwater ponds	Acceptable practice with tight soils. Soils should help maintain permanent pool.
Constructed wetlands	Acceptable practice with tight soils. Soils should help maintain permanent pool if practice is not tied into groundwater table. Compost amendments may be necessary to establish suitable planting beds

How to Investigate Soils with Low Infiltration Capacity

Soil tests to determine infiltration capacity of soil should be performed at all proposed stormwater facilities that plan to have a recharge or infiltration component to their design. The purpose of the testing is to identify and confirm the soil characteristics and determine suitability, if any, for infiltration BMPs. Guidelines for investigating all potential physical constraints to infiltration on a site are presented in the table at the bottom of this page. These guidelines should not be interpreted as all-inclusive. The size and complexity of the project will drive the extent of any subsurface investigation.

Subsurface material investigation

Soil testing is recommended for all proposed stormwater facilities that plan to have a recharge or infiltration component to their design. Testing can be less rigorous than that for karst areas or sites with shallow bedrock and groundwater. The investigation is designed to identify and confirm the soil characteristics and determine their suitability, if any, for infiltration practices.

Location of soil borings

Borings should be located in order to provide representative area coverage of the proposed BMP facilities. The location of borings should be:

• Within each distinct major soil type present, as mapped by the Minnesota (MGS) and U.S. Geological Surveys (USGS) and local county records.
• Near the edges and center of the proposed practice and spaced at equal distances from one another.
• Near any areas identified as anomalies from any existing geophysical studies.

Number of soil borings

The number of recommended borings is described below.

• Infiltration trenches, bioretention, and filters - a minimum of 2 per practice.
• Ponds/wetlands - a minimum of 3 per practice, or 3 per acre, whichever is greater.
• Additional borings – as needed to define lateral extent of limiting horizons, or site specific conditions, where applicable.

Depth of soil borings

Borings should be extended to a minimum depth of 5 feet below the lowest proposed grade within the practice unless auger/backhoe refusal is encountered.

Identification of material

All material penetrated by the boring should be identified, as follows:

• Provide descriptions, logging, and sampling for the entire depth of the boring.
• Note any stains, odors, or other indications of environmental degradation.
• Perform a laboratory analysis of a minimum of 2 soil samples, representative of the material penetrated including potential limiting horizons, with the results compared to the field descriptions.
• Identify soil characteristic including, at a minimum: color; mineral composition; grain size, shape, and sorting; and saturation.
• Log any indications of water saturation to include both perched and ground water table levels, and descriptions of soils that are mottled or gleyed (sticky clay soils typically found in waterlogged soils).
• Measure water levels in all borings at the time of completion and again 24 hours after completion. The boring should remain fully open to total depth of these measurements.

Infiltration rate testing

Soil permeability should be determined in the field using the following procedure (MDE, 2000), or an accepted alternative method.

• Install casing (solid 6-inch diameter) to 36 inches below proposed BMP bottom.
• Remove any smeared soiled surfaces and provide a natural soil interface into which water may percolate. Remove all loose material from the casing. Upon the tester’s discretion, a 2 inch layer of coarse sand or fine gravel may be placed to protect the bottom from scouring. Fill casing with clean water to a depth of 36 inches and allow to pre-soak for up to 24 hours.
• Refill casing with another 36 inches of clean water and monitor water level (measured drop from the top of the casing) for 1 hour. Repeat this procedure (filling the casing each time) 3 additional times, for a total of 4 observations. Upon the tester’s discretion, the final field rate may either be the average of the 4 observations, or the value of the last observation. The final rate should be reported in inches per hour.
• May be done through a boring or open excavation that is protected from access by the public.
• The location of the test should correspond to the BMP location.

Upon completion of the testing, the casings should be immediately pulled, and the test pit should be back-filled.

What are General Stormwater Management Guidelines for Sites with Low Infiltration Capacity Soils?

• Local soil surveys should be used for preliminary determination of infiltration capacity of the soils on site; If the soil survey suggests soils with very low infiltration capacities, then alternative BMPs such as swales, filters, etc. should be considered. If the survey suggests the potential for infiltration, the on-site soil testing should be done to accurately characterize site soils. The testing should be conducted in the most restrictive layer of soil that is found within 5-feet below the bottom of the proposed BMP.
• Soil compost amendments should be considered for lawns and other pervious surfaces to increase pervious area storage and/or decrease pervious surface runoff. Designers should also consider disconnection of impervious surfaces, by draining rooftops and other impervious surface runoff to compost amended pervious surfaces before collection and discharge into a structural BMP.
• Where volume reduction is a primary objective for a site (e.g., required by permit, potentially a receiving water-based goal due to channel erosion, nuisance flooding, or inadequate infrastructure capacity), emphasis should be placed on practices that promote runoff reuse and evapotranspiration such as cisterns, rain barrels, green roofs, evaporative systems, and biofiltration in order to maximize volume reduction.
• A mounding analysis should be conducted to ensure that any groundwater mound that develops under a BMP will not extend into the BMP. This mounding analysis is especially important for soils with low permeability since such soils cannot efficiently dissipate groundwater through the soil column.

Procedures for investigating sites with potential constraints on stormwater infiltration.
Link to this table

Investigation	Shallow groundwater	Shallow bedrock	Soils with low infiltration capacity	Karst
Preliminary site investigation	NA	NA	NA	The level of detail required will depend on the likelihood that karst is present and any local regulations. The preliminary site investigation should include, but not be limited to (Pennsylvania BMP, 2009): A review of aerial photographs, geological literature, sinkhole maps, previous soil borings, existing well data, and municipal wellhead or aquifer protection plans. A site reconnaissance, including a thorough field examination for features such as limestone pinnacles, sinkholes, closed depressions, fracture traces, faults, springs, and seeps. The site should be observed under varying weather conditions, especially during heavy rains and in different seasons to identify and map any natural drainageways.
Subsurface material investigation	The investigation is designed to determine the depth to seasonally saturated soils. Subsurface data for depth to seasonally saturated soil may be acquired by soil boring or studying existing wells on the site, if present. These field data should be supplemented by geophysical investigation techniques deemed appropriate by a qualified professional, which will show the location of the saturated soil formations under the surface. The data listed below should be acquired under the direct supervision of a qualified geologist, geotechnical engineer, or soil scientist who is experienced in conducting such studies. Pertinent site information should include the following: Known groundwater (water depth) depth Soil characteristics (type, thickness, mapped unit) Bedrock outcrop areas	The investigation is designed to determine the nature and thickness of subsurface materials, including depth to bedrock. Subsurface data for depth to bedrock may be acquired by soil boring or backhoe investigation. These field data should be supplemented by geophysical investigation techniques deemed appropriate by a qualified professional, which will show the location of the bedrock formations under the surface. The data listed below should be acquired under the direct supervision of a qualified geologist, geotechnical engineer, or soil scientist who is experienced in conducting such studies. Pertinent site information should include the following: Known bedrock characteristics (type, geologic contacts, faults, geologic structure, rock surface configuration) Soil characteristics (type, thickness, mapped unit) Bedrock outcrop areas	Soil testing is recommended for all proposed stormwater facilities that plan to have a recharge or infiltration component to their design. Testing can be less rigorous than that for karst areas or sites with shallow bedrock and groundwater. The investigation is designed to identify and confirm the soil characteristics and determine their suitability, if any, for infiltration practices.	The investigation should determine the nature and thickness of subsurface materials, including depth to bedrock and the water table. Subsurface data may be acquired by backhoe excavation and/or soil boring. These field data should be supplemented by geophysical investigation techniques deemed appropriate by a qualified professional, which will show the location of karst formations under the surface. This is an iterative process that might need to be repeated until the desired detailed knowledge of the site is obtained and fully understood. The data listed below should be acquired under the direct supervision of a qualified and experienced karst scientist. Pertinent site information to collect includes the following: Bedrock characteristics (ex. type, geologic contacts, faults, geologic structure, rock surface configuration) Depth to the water table and depth to bedrock Type and percent of coarse fragements Soil characteristics (ex. color, type, thickness, mapped unit, geologic source/history) Photo-geologic fracture trace map Bedrock outcrop areas Sinkholes and/or other closed depressions Perennial and/or intermittent streams, and their flow behavior (ex. a stream in a karst area that loses volume could be a good indication of sinkhole infiltration)
Location of soil borings	Borings should be located in order to provide representative area coverage of the proposed BMP facilities. The location of borings should be: Within each distinct major soil type present, as mapped by the Minnesota (MGS) and U.S. Geological Surveys (USGS) and local county records. Next to bedrock outcrop areas and/or in areas with known shallow groundwater if present. Near the edges and center of the proposed practice and spaced at equal distances from one another. Near any areas identified as anomalies from any existing geophysical studies.	Borings should be located in order to provide representative area coverage of the proposed BMP facilities. The location of borings should be: Within each distinct major soil type present, as mapped by the Minnesota (MGS) and U.S. Geological Surveys (USGS) and local county records. Next to bedrock outcrop areas and/or in areas with known shallow groundwater if present. Near the edges and center of the proposed practice and spaced at equal distances from one another. Near any areas identified as anomalies from any existing geophysical studies.	Borings should be located in order to provide representative area coverage of the proposed BMP facilities. The location of borings should be: Within each distinct major soil type present, as mapped by the Minnesota (MGS) and U.S. Geological Surveys (USGS) and local county records. Near the edges and center of the proposed practice and spaced at equal distances from one another. Near any areas identified as anomalies from any existing geophysical studies.	The local variability typical of karst areas could mean that a very different subsurface could exist close by, perhaps as little as 6 inches away. To accommodate this variability, the number and type of borings must be carefully assessed. If the goal is to locate a boring down the center of a sinkhole, the previous geophysical tests or excavation results can show the likely single location to achieve that goal. If the goal is to “characterize” the entire site, then an evaluation needs to occur to determine the number and depth needed to adequately represent the site. Again, the analyst must acknowledge the extreme variability and recognize that details can easily be missed. Some general guidance for locating borings include: Getting at least 1 boring in each distinct major soil type present, as mapped by the MGS and USGS and local county records. Placing an adequate number as determined by a site investigation near on-site geologic or geomorphic indications of the presence of sinkholes or related karst features. Locating along photo-geologic fracture traces. Locating adjacent to bedrock outcrop areas. Locating a sufficient number to adequately represent the area under any proposed stormwater facility. Documenting any areas identified as anomalies from any existing geophysical or other subsurface studies.
Number of soil borings	The number of recommended borings is described below. Infiltration trenches, bioretention, and filters - a minimum of 2 per practice. Ponds/wetlands - a minimum of 3 per practice, or 3 per acre, whichever is greater. Additional borings – as needed to define lateral extent of limiting horizons, or site specific conditions, where applicable.	The number of recommended borings is described below. Infiltration trenches, bioretention, and filters - a minimum of 2 per practice. Ponds/wetlands - a minimum of 3 per practice, or 3 per acre, whichever is greater. Additional borings – as needed to define lateral extent of limiting horizons, or site specific conditions, where applicable.	The number of recommended borings is described below. Infiltration trenches, bioretention, and filters - a minimum of 2 per practice. Ponds/wetlands - a minimum of 3 per practice, or 3 per acre, whichever is greater. Additional borings – as needed to define lateral extent of limiting horizons, or site specific conditions, where applicable.	The number and depth of borings will depend entirely upon the results of the subsurface evaluation obtained from the observational, geophysical, and excavation studies, as well as other borings. There are no prescriptive guidelines to determine the number and depth of borings. These will have to be determined by the qualified staff conducting the BMP management evaluation and will be based upon the data needs of the installation. The borings must extend well below the bottom elevation of the designed BMP, however, to make sure that there are no karst features that will be encountered or impacted as a result of the installation.
Depth of soil borings	Borings should be extended to a minimum depth of 5 feet below the lowest proposed grade within the practice unless auger/backhoe refusal is encountered.	Borings should be extended to a minimum depth of 5 feet below the lowest proposed grade within the practice unless auger/backhoe refusal is encountered.	Borings should be extended to a minimum depth of 5 feet below the lowest proposed grade within the practice unless auger/backhoe refusal is encountered.	The number and depth of borings will depend entirely upon the results of the subsurface evaluation obtained from the observational, geophysical, and excavation studies, as well as other borings. There are no prescriptive guidelines to determine the number and depth of borings. These will have to be determined by the qualified staff conducting the BMP management evaluation and will be based upon the data needs of the installation. The borings must extend well below the bottom elevation of the designed BMP, however, to make sure that there are no karst features that will be encountered or impacted as a result of the installation. At least 1 subsurface cross section should be provided for the BMP installation, showing confining layers, depth to bedrock, and water table (if encountered). It should extend through a central portion of the proposed installation, using the actual geophysical and boring data. A sketch map or formal construction plan indicating the location and dimension of the proposed practice and line of cross section should be included for reference, or as a base map for presentation of subsurface data.
Identification of material	All material penetrated by the boring should be identified, as follows: Provide descriptions, logging, and sampling for the entire depth of the boring. Note any stains, odors, or other indications of environmental degradation. Perform a laboratory analysis of a minimum of 2 soil samples, representative of the material penetrated including potential limiting horizons, with the results compared to the field descriptions. Identify soil characteristic including, at a minimum: color; mineral composition; grain size, shape, and sorting; and saturation. Log any indications of water saturation to include both perched and ground water table levels, and descriptions of soils that are mottled or gleyed (sticky clay soils typically found in waterlogged soils). Measure water levels in all borings at the time of completion and again 24 hours after completion. The boring should remain fully open to total depth of these measurements. Estimate soil engineering characteristics, including “N” or estimated unconfined compressive strength, when conducting a standard penetration test (SPT).	All material penetrated by the boring should be identified, as follows: Provide descriptions, logging, and sampling for the entire depth of the boring. Note any stains, odors, or other indications of environmental degradation. Perform a laboratory analysis of a minimum of 2 soil samples, representative of the material penetrated including potential limiting horizons, with the results compared to the field descriptions. Identify soil characteristic including, at a minimum: color; mineral composition; grain size, shape, and sorting; and saturation. Log any indications of water saturation to include both perched and ground water table levels, and descriptions of soils that are mottled or gleyed (sticky clay soils typically found in waterlogged soils). Measure water levels in all borings at the time of completion and again 24 hours after completion. The boring should remain fully open to total depth of these measurements. Estimate soil engineering characteristics, including “N” or estimated unconfined compressive strength, when conducting a standard penetration test (SPT).	All material penetrated by the boring should be identified, as follows: Provide descriptions, logging, and sampling for the entire depth of the boring. Note any stains, odors, or other indications of environmental degradation. Perform a laboratory analysis of a minimum of 2 soil samples, representative of the material penetrated including potential limiting horizons, with the results compared to the field descriptions. Identify soil characteristic including, at a minimum: color; mineral composition; grain size, shape, and sorting; and saturation. Log any indications of water saturation to include both perched and ground water table levels, and descriptions of soils that are mottled or gleyed (sticky clay soils typically found in waterlogged soils). Measure water levels in all borings at the time of completion and again 24 hours after completion. The boring should remain fully open to total depth of these measurements.	All material identified by the excavation and geophysical studies and penetrated by the boring should be identified, as follows: Provide descriptions, logging, and sampling for the entire depth of the boring. Note any stains, odors, or other indications of environmental degradation. Perform laboratory analysis on a of 2 soil samples, representative of the material penetrated including potential limiting horizons, with the results compared to the field descriptions. Identify soil characteristics including, as a minimum: color; mineral composition; grain size, shape, sorting and degree of saturation. Log any indications of water saturation to include both perched and ground water table levels, and descriptions of soils that are mottled or gleyed should be provided. Be aware that ground water levels in karst can change dramatically in short periods of time and will not necessarily leave mottled or gleyed evidence. Record water levels in all borings over a time-period reflective of anticipated water level fluctuation. That is, water levels in karst geology can vary dramatically and rapidly. The boring should remain fully open to a total depth reflective of these variations and over a time that will accurately show the variation. Be advised that to get a complete picture, this could be a long-term period. Measurements could of course be collected during a period of operation of a BMP, which could be adjusted based on the findings of the data collection. Report an estimation of soil engineering characteristics including “N” or estimated unconfined compressive strength, when conducting a SPT
Evaluation of findings	At least 1 figure showing the subsurface soil profile cross section through the proposed practice should be provided, showing confining layers, depth to bedrock, and water table (if encountered). It should extend through a central portion of the proposed practice, using the actual or projected boring data. A sketch map or formal construction plan indicating the location and dimension of the proposed practice and line of cross section should be included for reference, or as a base map for presentation of subsurface data.	At least 1 figure showing the subsurface soil profile cross section through the proposed practice should be provided, showing confining layers, depth to bedrock, and water table (if encountered). It should extend through a central portion of the proposed practice, using the actual or projected boring data. A sketch map or formal construction plan indicating the location and dimension of the proposed practice and line of cross section should be included for reference, or as a base map for presentation of subsurface data.	NA	At least 1 figure showing the subsurface soil profile cross section through the proposed practice should be provided, showing confining layers, depth to bedrock, and water table (if encountered). It should extend through a central portion of the proposed practice, using the actual or projected boring data. A sketch map or formal construction plan indicating the location and dimension of the proposed practice and line of cross section should be included for reference, or as a base map for presentation of subsurface data.
Infiltration rate testing	NA	NA	Soil permeability should be determined in the field using the following procedure (MDE, 2000), or an accepted alternative method. Install casing (solid 6-inch diameter) to 36 inches below proposed BMP bottom. Remove any smeared soiled surfaces and provide a natural soil interface into which water may percolate. Remove all loose material from the casing. Upon the tester’s discretion, a 2 inch layer of coarse sand or fine gravel may be placed to protect the bottom from scouring. Fill casing with clean water to a depth of 36 inches and allow to pre-soak for up to 24 hours. Refill casing with another 36 inches of clean water and monitor water level (measured drop from the top of the casing) for 1 hour. Repeat this procedure (filling the casing each time) 3 additional times, for a total of 4 observations. Upon the tester’s discretion, the final field rate may either be the average of the 4 observations, or the value of the last observation. The final rate should be reported in inches per hour. May be done through a boring or open excavation that is protected from access by the public. The location of the test should correspond to the BMP location. Upon completion of the testing, the casings should be immediately pulled, and the test pit should be back-filled.	NA
Geophysical and dye techniques	NA	NA	NA	Stormwater managers in need of subsurface geophysical surveys are encouraged to obtain the services of a qualified geophysicist experienced in karst geology. Some of the geophysical techniques available for use in karst terrain include: seismic refraction, ground-penetrating radar, and electric resistivity. The surest way to determine the flow path of water in karst geology is to inject dye into the karst feature (sinkhole or fracture) and watch to see where it emerges, usually from a spring. The emergence of a known dye from a spring grants certainty to a suspicion that ground water moves in a particular pattern. Dye tracing can vary substantially in cost depending upon the local karst complexity, but it can be a reasonably priced alternative, especially when the certainty is needed.