DOCSLIB.ORG

Assessing the Effect of Salinity on Relative Crop Yield Through the Use of Irrigation

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Assessing the Effect of Salinity on Relative Crop Yield Through the Use of Irrigation Assessing the effect of salinity on relative crop yield through the use of irrigation and drainage model CSUID Victor Obando Civil and Geomatics Engineering, California State University, Fresno WRPI USDA Internship April 2016 – May 2017 Advisor: Dr. Fayzul K. Pasha Associate Professor, Civil and Geomatics Engineering Lyles College of Engineering California State University, Fresno Submitted: May 31, 2017 i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to express my sincere gratitude to the California State University, Fresno for allowing me to fulfill my dream of being a Civil Engineering student here. I would also like to thank Water Resources Policy Initiatives (WRPI) and Civil Engineering Department for providing the necessary resources to complete my internship. To all my friends and family for helping me to keep my stress level low. Most of all, I am fully indebted to Dr. Fayzul Pasha, my internship supervisor and student advisor, for his understanding, patience, and encouragement for pushing me to do better and providing me the opportunity for this internship. i TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ i Table of Contents .......................................................................................................................... ii Abbreviations ............................................................................................................................... iii List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ iv List of Figures .................................................................................................................................v Introduction ....................................................................................................................................1 Background ..........................................................................................................................1 Motivation ............................................................................................................................1 Objective ..............................................................................................................................2 Literature Review ..........................................................................................................................3 Effect of Salinity on Crop Yield ..........................................................................................3 Olive Field Plant Physiology ...............................................................................................9 Study Area ....................................................................................................................................23 Application of CSUID to Olive ...................................................................................................27 CSUID Model Description ................................................................................................27 Model Development for Olive Field ..................................................................................27 Model Runs ........................................................................................................................29 Impacts of Salinity .............................................................................................................31 Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................39 Reference ......................................................................................................................................40 ii ABBREVIATIONS CSUF California State University Fresno CSUID Colorado State University Irrigation & Drainage EC Electrical Conductivity ET Evapotranspiration LF Leaching Fraction USDA United States Department of Agriculture WRPI Water Resources and Policy Initiatives UAL University Agricultural Lab iii LIST OF TABLES Table 1: List of Combinations ..................................................................................................................... 30 Table 2: Relative Crop Yields at Different Combinations of Salinity Levels ................................................ 37 iv LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Fresno State University Agricultural Laboratory (Source: Google Earth) .................................... 23 Figure 2: Study Area - Olive Fields (Source: Google Earth) ......................................................................... 23 Figure 3: Olive Field Close-Up (Source: Google Earth) ............................................................................... 24 Figure 4: Irrigation Pump at Olive Field ...................................................................................................... 25 Figure 5: Single Olive Tree at the Olive Field .............................................................................................. 25 Figure 6: Olive Trees in a Row..................................................................................................................... 26 Figure 7: CSUID Main Window .................................................................................................................... 28 Figure 8: Soil Parameters (Quinn 2015) ...................................................................................................... 29 Figure 9: Model using 0.2 dS/m .................................................................................................................. 31 Figure 10: Model using 5 dS/m ................................................................................................................... 31 Figure 11: Model Using 0.3 dS/m ............................................................................................................... 32 Figure 12: Model Using 0.4 dS/m ............................................................................................................... 32 Figure 13: Model Using 0.5 dS/m ............................................................................................................... 33 Figure 14: Model Using 1.0 dS/m ............................................................................................................... 33 Figure 15: Model Using 1.5 dS/m ............................................................................................................... 34 Figure 16: Model Using 2.0 dS/m ............................................................................................................... 34 Figure 17: Model Using 2.5 dS/m ............................................................................................................... 35 Figure 18: Model Using 3.0 dS/m ............................................................................................................... 35 Figure 19: Model Using 3.5 dS/m ............................................................................................................... 36 Figure 20: Model Using 4.0 dS/m ............................................................................................................... 36 Figure 21: Model Using 4.5 dS/m ............................................................................................................... 37 Figure 22: Impact of Irrigation Salinity on Relative Crop Yield vs Salinity for Set 1.................................... 38 Figure 23: Impact of Irrigation Salinity on Relative Crop Yield vs Salinity for Set 2.................................... 38 v INTRODUCTION Background Since the San Joaquin River is the main source of water used for irrigation in the Central Valley of California it is important for farmers to understand how the change of salt concentration in the water can influence their crop production. Due to the unique geological conditions in the San Joaquin Valley, the salinity level in the groundwater has risen higher making it difficult to reuse the groundwater without desalination. When farmers use the water from San Joaquin River to irrigate their crop fields, they need to be aware of the high concentration of salt that the water may contain. The high concentration of salt can reduce the crop yield of specific crops that are not able to tolerate the level of salt concentration in the water. With this in mind, the farmers need to either manage which crops have higher tolerance so that they can use this water to irrigate the crops without effecting the crop yield. Motivation Salt management is an alternative to the expensive desalination of the irrigation. Salt management requires identifying the levels of salt tolerance in the crops. This would put crops in categories that would go from crops that are highly sensitive or in other words, has a lower tolerance to salt concentration and others that have higher tolerance to it. This would require studying the tolerance of each crop and how the crop yield would be affected due to each level of salt concentration. This can be done by observing the plant physiology of a crop. The Colorado State University Irrigation & Drainage (CSUID) model provides a way to calculate the relative crop yield at different salinity level. The CSUID can be used to graph the change in the crop yield due to the change in salinity concentration. This model can be used on different crops to view which ones have the highest salt
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Salinity Management for Sustainable Irrigation Integratingscience, Environment, and Economics Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized
    ENVIRONMENTALLY AND SOCIALLY SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 1~~U) Rural Development Work in progresS 20842 for public discussion August 2000 Public Disclosure Authorized Salinity Management for Sustainable Irrigation IntegratingScience, Environment, and Economics Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized f~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~i:2 Public Disclosure Authorized Daniel Hillel wit/ an appendix by E. Feinerman ENVIRONMENTALLY AND SOCIALLY SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT Rural Development Salinity Management for Sustainable Irrigation IntegratingScience, Enzvronment, and Economics DanielHillel withan appendixby E. Feinerman The WorldBank Washington,D.C. Copyright (©2000 The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/THE WORLD BANK 1818 H Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20433, U.S.A. All rights reserved Manufactured in the United States of America First printing August 2000 12340403020100 This report has been prepared by the staff of the World Bank. The judgments expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of the Board of Executive Directors or of the govermnents they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this publication and accepts no responsibility for any consequence of their use. The boundaries, colors, denominations, and other in- formation shown on any map in this volume do not imply on the part of the World Bank Group any judg- ment on the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. The material in this publication is copyrighted. The World Bank encourages dissemination of its work and will normally grant permission promptly. Permission to photocopy items for internal or personal use, for the internal or personal use of specific clients, or for educational classroom use, is granted by the World Bank, provided that the appropriate fee is paid directly to Copyright Clearance Center, Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, U.S.A., telephone 978-750-8400, fax 978-750-4470.
    [Show full text]
  • Review of Available Software for PFAS Modeling Within the Vadose Zone
    Review of Available Software for PFAS Modeling Within the Vadose Zone Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE) July 16, 2020 Review of Available Software for PFAS Michigan Department of Environment, Great Modeling Within the Vadose Zone Lakes, and Energy (EGLE) Prepared for: Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE) Mrs. Stephanie Kammer Lansing District Supervisor EGLE-Water Resources Division Constitution Hall, 1st South West 525 W. Allegan PO Box 30242 Lansing, MI 48909 Prepared by: AECOM 3950 Sparks Drive Southeast Grand Rapids, MI 49546 aecom.com Prepared for: Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE) AECOM Review of Available Software for PFAS Michigan Department of Environment, Great Modeling Within the Vadose Zone Lakes, and Energy (EGLE) Table of Contents 1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 1 2. Project Understanding and Background ........................................................................... 1 3. Objectives ......................................................................................................................... 2 4. Physical and Chemical Properties .................................................................................... 2 5. A Critical Review of Existing Vadose Zone Models (VZMs) .............................................. 3 5.1 CTRAN/W with SEEP/W ......................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Application of HYDRUS-1D Model for Simulating Water and Nitrate Leaching
    Agricultural Water Management 113 (2012) 19–29 Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect Agricultural Water Management j ournal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/agwat Application of HYDRUS-1D model for simulating water and nitrate leaching from continuous and alternate furrow irrigated rapeseed and maize fields ∗ Arash Tafteh, Ali Reza Sepaskhah Irrigation Department, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Islamic Republic of Iran a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t Article history: Different simulation models were used to evaluate drainage and nitrogen fertilizer movement to ground- Received 16 February 2012 water. The objectives of this study were to evaluate the HYDRUS-1D model for simulation of water and Accepted 17 June 2012 nitrate leaching in different nitrogen fertilization rates (as urea) and variable and fixed alternate furrow Available online 7 July 2012 irrigation (VAFI, FAFI) and continuous furrow irrigation (CFI) of rapeseed and maize planted in 36 field lysimeters. Results indicated that seasonal drainage in rapeseed field was reduced 39% and 72% under Keywords: VAFI and FAFI, respectively compared with CFI. These reductions for maize were 40% and 57%, respec- Alternate furrow irrigation tively. For rapeseed, NO3–N leaching was reduced 40% and 69% under FAFI and VAFI compared with that Partial root drying irrigation −1 obtained under CFI, and it was increased up to 55% by increasing N application rate to 200–300 kg ha Nitrate leaching compared to 0 N application rates. For maize, NO3–N leaching was reduced similarly under VAFI and FAFI Deep percolation −1 Nitrogen uptake (56%) compared with CFI, and it was increased up to 67% by increasing N application rate to 300 kg ha HYDRUS-1D compared to 0 N application rates.
    [Show full text]
  • Prediction of Nitrogen and Phosphorus Leaching To
    Prediction of Nitrogen and Phosphorus leaching to groundwater and surface waters Financed by the Dutch Ministry of Agriculture, Nature Conservation and Fisheries, research programme, Toetsing, monitoring en evaluatie van het Mest- en Mineralen- beleid (Mest- en Mineralenprogramma 398-III). Prediction of Nitrogen and Phosphorus leaching to ground- water and surface waters Process descriptions of the animo4.0 model P. Groenendijk, L.V. Renaud and J. Roelsma Alterra–Report 983 Alterra, Wageningen, 2005 ABSTRACT P. Groenendijk, L.V. Renaud and J. Roelsma, 2005. Prediction of Nitrogen and Phosphorus leaching to groundwater and surface waters; Process descriptions of the animo4.0 model. Wageningen, Alterra–Report 983. 114 pp. 25 fig.; 15 tab.; 110 ref. The fertilization reduction policy intended to pursue environmental objects and regional water management strategies to meet Water Framework Directive objectives justify a thor- ough evaluation of the effectiveness of measures and reconnaissance of adverse impacts. The model aims at the evaluation and prediction of nutrient leaching to groundwater and surface water systems under the influence of fertilization, land use and land management, water management and soil properties. Since the release of animo version 3.5 some new model formulations have been implemented regarding the influence of soil moisture content on mineralization and denitrification. Also the input of daily nutrient uptake rates as sim- ulation results of external crop models is facilitated. A concise description is presented of the process descriptions as have been implemented in version 4.0 of the animo model. Keywords: eutrophication, fertilization, nitrate leaching, nutrient management, simulation model, soil processes, surface water pollution, water management ISSN 1566–7197 This report can be ordered by paying Euro 15,– into bank account number 36 70 54 612 in the name of Alterra, Wageningen, the Netherlands, with reference to Alterra–Report 983.
    [Show full text]
  • Controlled Drainage
    Controlled drainage In controlled drainage, the groundwater is not immediately discharged but (partly) retained in the soil. By varying the level of the drainage basins, the draining intensity can be regulated. 1. INTRODUCTION 2. RELATED TOPICS AND DELTA FACTS 3. STRATEGY: HOLD, STORE, SUPPLY 4. SCHEMATIC 5. PERFORMANCE 6. COSTS AND BENEFITS 7. TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS 8. GOVERNANCE 9. FIELD EXPERIENCE (NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL) 10. CURRENTLY ACTIVE PROJECTS AND RESEARCH 11. KNOWLEDGE GAPS AND DEVELOPMENT 12. REFERENCES & LINKS 13. FARMER EXPERIENCE 14. OVERVIEW OF CURRENT RESEARCH 15. OVERVIEW OF COMPLETED RESEARCH 16. DISCLAIMER 1. Introduction Traditionally, Dutch water management for agriculture has always been directed at rapid drainage and discharge. Conventional drainage reduces the probability of water damage to roots and in some cases it even increases crop production. Disadvantages of conventional drainage could be downstream inundation due to the drainage velocity of precipitation surpluses in periods with abundant rainfall and damage to agricultural crops due to drought in periods with insufficient precipitation. Besides, the conventional drainage of arable land can be detrimental to nature conservation areas nearby. In controlled drainage, the groundwater is not immediately discharged but (partly) retained in the soil. By varying the level of the drainage basins, the draining intensity can be regulated. Controlled drainage then becomes a tool for taking more effective advantage of specific (expected) weather conditions and maximizing the advantageous effects of drainage while minimizing the (possible) disadvantageous effects where possible. Controlled drainage is a very promising measure for uniting agriculture and areal spatial development. There are two methods for accomplishing controlled drainage. In its most simple form, surface water (runoff) is drained into open ditches and flashboards are used to regulate the water levels in the open ditches.
    [Show full text]
  • On the Use of Unsaturated Flow and Transport Models in Nutrient and Pesticide Management
    11 On the use of unsaturated flow and transport models in nutrient and pesticide management Vanclooster M.1, J. Boesten2, A. Tiktak3, N. Jarvis4, J.G. Kroes2, R. Muñoz-Carpena5, B.E. Clothier6 and S.R. Green6 Abstract Nutrient and pesticide emissions from agricultural land significantly impact surface and groundwater resources all over the world. These emissions should therefore be controlled by an appropriate management of agricultural practices. Effective agricultural management builds on a thorough understanding of the fate and behavior of nutrients and pesticides in the soil–crop system. Unsaturated flow and transport models may therefore be used as tools to predict fate and behavior of chemicals in soil, supporting decision making in the area of nutrient and pesticide management. In this paper, we show how flow and transport models are introduced in the nutrient and pesticide management decision-making process. Examples are given of the use of flow and transport models in (i) field-scale nutrient and pesticide management; (ii) the identification and evaluation of fertilization and pesticide application practices supporting the implementation of regional-scale environmental management plans; and (iii) the registration of plant-protection products. Examples are selected across different eco-regions elucidating the generality of the presented approaches. Particular emphasis is put on (i) the limitations of the current modeling approaches for management applications, (ii) the handling of uncertainty in the data flow, (iii) the problems associated with the estimation of the required modeling data and parameters, and (iv) the transfer of scientific know-how into operational decision- making tools. Opportunities are presented for improving the process descriptions, the data generation methods, and the modeling practice.
    [Show full text]
  • 1455189355674.Pdf
    THE STORYTeller’S THESAURUS FANTASY, HISTORY, AND HORROR JAMES M. WARD AND ANNE K. BROWN Cover by: Peter Bradley LEGAL PAGE: Every effort has been made not to make use of proprietary or copyrighted materi- al. Any mention of actual commercial products in this book does not constitute an endorsement. www.trolllord.com www.chenaultandgraypublishing.com Email:[email protected] Printed in U.S.A © 2013 Chenault & Gray Publishing, LLC. All Rights Reserved. Storyteller’s Thesaurus Trademark of Cheanult & Gray Publishing. All Rights Reserved. Chenault & Gray Publishing, Troll Lord Games logos are Trademark of Chenault & Gray Publishing. All Rights Reserved. TABLE OF CONTENTS THE STORYTeller’S THESAURUS 1 FANTASY, HISTORY, AND HORROR 1 JAMES M. WARD AND ANNE K. BROWN 1 INTRODUCTION 8 WHAT MAKES THIS BOOK DIFFERENT 8 THE STORYTeller’s RESPONSIBILITY: RESEARCH 9 WHAT THIS BOOK DOES NOT CONTAIN 9 A WHISPER OF ENCOURAGEMENT 10 CHAPTER 1: CHARACTER BUILDING 11 GENDER 11 AGE 11 PHYSICAL AttRIBUTES 11 SIZE AND BODY TYPE 11 FACIAL FEATURES 12 HAIR 13 SPECIES 13 PERSONALITY 14 PHOBIAS 15 OCCUPATIONS 17 ADVENTURERS 17 CIVILIANS 18 ORGANIZATIONS 21 CHAPTER 2: CLOTHING 22 STYLES OF DRESS 22 CLOTHING PIECES 22 CLOTHING CONSTRUCTION 24 CHAPTER 3: ARCHITECTURE AND PROPERTY 25 ARCHITECTURAL STYLES AND ELEMENTS 25 BUILDING MATERIALS 26 PROPERTY TYPES 26 SPECIALTY ANATOMY 29 CHAPTER 4: FURNISHINGS 30 CHAPTER 5: EQUIPMENT AND TOOLS 31 ADVENTurer’S GEAR 31 GENERAL EQUIPMENT AND TOOLS 31 2 THE STORYTeller’s Thesaurus KITCHEN EQUIPMENT 35 LINENS 36 MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS
    [Show full text]
  • Potassium Leaching from a Sandy Loam Soil Johnston, A.E., Goulding, K
    Publisher: International Potash Institute, P.O. Box 1609 - CH4001 BASEL (Switzerland), Phone (41) 61 26129 22/24 - Telefax (41) 61 261 29 25 Subject 12 No. 4/1993 * Miscellaneous 14th suite Potassium leaching from a sandy loam soil Johnston, A.E., Goulding, K. W. and Mercer, E. Soil Science Dept., AFRC Institute of Arable Crops Research, Rothamsted Experimental Station, Harpenden, Herts A15 21Q, Great Britain Summary The risk of potassium (K), applied as KCI, K2SO4, or in farmyard manure (FYM) and animal slurry, leaching from an uncropped sandy loam soil was tested in uncropped lysimeters and field plots. Even in the absence of applied K, some K was leached from lysimeters. No additional fertilizer K was lost even after heavy rain augmented by irrigation, and most K was absorbed in the top 10 cm of soil; none moved below 23 cm. Within these limits, K in FYM and slurry was somewhat more mobile than K from KCI and K 2 S0 4. An existing potassium leaching model predicted the distribution in the soil of the applied K quite well. Results from this study were used to modify and improve the model. Introduction There is a very low Maximum Admissible Concentration (MAC) of 12 mg 1-1 for K in potable water imposed by the EC Drinking Water Directive (80/778/EEC), and a marginally lower guide limit of 10 mg 1-1 K. This presents a possible threat to the agricultural use of potassium if it can be shown or even implied that water supplies in breach of the admissible levels have been polluted by the excessive use of K in fertilizer or manures.
    [Show full text]
  • VLEACH: a One-Dimensional Finite Difference Vadose Zone Leaching
    VLEACH A One-Dimensional Finite Difference Vadose Zone Leaching Model Version 2.2 - 1997 rface M su od b e u li S n g r o S f u r r p e t p n o e r t t C U SE OK PA a, RSKERL-Ad Developed for: The United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory Center for Subsurface Modeling Support P.O. Box 1198 Ada, Oklahoma 74820 By: Varadhan Ravi and Jeffrey A. Johnson Dynamac Corporation Based on the original VLEACH (Version 1.0) developed by CH2M Hill, Redding, California for USEPA Region IX Version 2.2a Differences Between version 2.2 and version 2.2a VLEACH version 2.2a is identical to version 2.2 except for a small correction on how the model calculates the mass (g/yr) in the “Total Groundwater Impact” section printed at the end of the main output file (*.OUT). The mass rate (g/yr) is now the sum of all the columns (i.e., polygons) and not just the mass from the last column calculated. Version 2.2 Differences between version 2.1 and version 2.2 VLEACH version 2.2 has two differences from the earlier release of the model. First, when using multiple columns in a simulation, the cumulative mass portion of the “Total Groundwater Impact” printed at the end of the *.OUT file was incorrect. The cumulative mass now reflects the sum of the mass simulated from all columns instead of printing only the mass from the last column calculated.
    [Show full text]
  • Attachment a Further Evaluation of Soil Leaching to Groundwater
    Attachment A Further Evaluation of Soil Leaching to Groundwater 1.0 Introduction The Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP) developed Basic Comparison Levels (BCLs) for use at the BMI Complex and Common Areas in Henderson Nevada (NDEP, 2009). The BCLs were generated as a technical screening tool to assist users in risk assessment components such as the evaluation of data usability, determination of extent of contamination, identifying chemicals of potential concern, and identifying preliminary remediation goals (NDEP, 2009). The User’s Guide and Background Technical Document (NDEP, 2009) provides leaching-based BCLs (LBCLs) for organic and inorganic chemicals and eight radionuclides. These LBCLs are developed specifically for the soil leaching to groundwater migration pathway, and for certain constituents, are lower than BCLs for other potential exposure pathways (e.g., direct contact via inhalation, dermal contact, or ingestion of soil). The LBCLs in NDEP, 2009 were calculated based on the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) Soil Screening Guidance (U.S. EPA, 1996a) default values for soil physical properties. Also consistent with U.S. EPA (U.S. EPA, 1996a), LBCL values were presented in the NDEP, 2009 guidance for dilution attenuation factor (DAF) values of 1 and 20. The purpose for this guidance is to provide a rationale and methodology for further evaluation of the soil leaching to groundwater pathway using the soil-water partition (SWP) equation with site- specific parameters, unsaturated zone fate-and-transport models, and the synthetic precipitation leaching procedure (SPLP) (U.S. EPA, 1994). Proper use of these methods with adequate site- specific data result in site-specific estimates of soil concentrations (leaching-based site-specific levels [LSSLs] considered to be protective of the leaching-to-groundwater pathway for the site under evaluation.
    [Show full text]
  • Vadose Zone Modeling in RCRA Closure
    Vadose Zone Modeling in RCRA Closure " This Policy Does Not Have the Force of Law" January 7, 2005 Division of Hazardous Waste Management Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction ................................................................... 12 1.1 Applicable Uses of Models for RCRA Closure ................................... 13 2.0 Tier I: Leaching Factors Screening Process ......................................... 20 2.1 Organic Constituents: Leaching Factors ........................................ 20 2.2 Applicability/Limitations .................................................... 22 2.3 Tier I: Evaluation of Organic Constituents Leaching to Ground Water ................. 25 2.3.1 The Tier I Process for Organic Constituents ............................. 25 2.3.2 Step 1. Determine a Chemical-Specific LFgw .............................. 26 2.3.3 Step 2: Determine the Vadose Zone Material and its Thickness. .............. 27 2.3.4 Step 3: Ensure that the Measured Soil Chemical Concentrations Do Not Indicate the Presence of NAPL. .............................................. 27 2.3.5 Step 4: Compare Chemical-Specific Leaching Factor with Critical Leaching Factor 28 2.3.6 Tier I Process Summary ............................................. 30 2.4 Tier I: Evaluation of Inorganic Constituents Leaching To Ground Water ............... 31 2.4.1 Introduction ....................................................... 31 2.4.2 Discussion ........................................................ 31 2.4.3 Application/Limitations
    [Show full text]
  • Faqs for Evaluating the Soil-To-Groundwater Pathway
    LAND PROTECTION BRANCH Hazardous Waste Corrective Action Program Hazardous Waste Management Program Response and Remediation Program 2 Martin Luther King, Jr. Dr. SE Suite 1054 East Tower Atlanta, Georgia 30334 Frequently Asked Questions for Evaluating the Soil-to- Groundwater Migration Pathway October 18, 2019 Technical Guidance Document FAQs for Evaluating the Soil-to-Groundwater Migration Pathway October 18, 2019 Acknowledgement The following staff of the EPD Land Protection Branch participated in the development of this document: • Heather Clark (Hazardous Waste Management, DoD Unit) • Jill Clark (Risk Assessment Program) • Gary Davis, P.G. (Response & Remediation, Brownfield Unit) • David Hayes (Response & Remediation, Voluntary Remediation Unit) • Allan Nix, P.G. (Response & Remediation, Response Development Unit 1) • Allison Keefer, P.G. (Hazardous Waste Corrective Action, Remedial Sites 1 Unit) Additional EPD staff and management provided technical review of this document. Page ii FAQs for Evaluating the Soil-to-Groundwater Migration Pathway October 18, 2019 Guidelines for Applicability and Use of this Guidance Document This document provides technical guidance for evaluating the soil-to-groundwater migration pathway when such an evaluation is required under the applicable Georgia statutes and regulations administered by the following programs of the Land Protection Branch: • Hazardous Waste Corrective Action Program • Hazardous Waste Management Program • Response and Remediation Program This guidance document is intended for use by environmental professionals who have experience in the investigation and remediation of subsurface contamination. The guidance provided within this document includes methods and recommendations that can be used to meet the pathway evaluation requirements of statutes and regulations; however, this document is not a statute or a regulation.
    [Show full text]