Staff and Commissioner contacts
 About the CARPC USA info publications Links home
GIS main pageGIS servicesmap gallerygis archive

Dane County Relative Infiltration Maps
Summary
A key modern stormwater management strategy for addressing the impacts of development is to infiltrate as much rainfall and snowmelt into the ground as possible, thereby reducing overland runoff and replenishing groundwater supplies. In collaboration with Dane County, DNR, and UW-Madison, relative infiltration maps have been developed for Dane County. The maps are meant to be used as a screening tool early on in the planning/design/development process to identify relatively high infiltration areas, as well as areas that might be enhanced through engineering techniques (e.g., replacement with engineered soils). While the maps do not replace the need for site specific analysis, they do provide a useful planning and decision-making tool for infiltration and stormwater management. They also help promote discussion of innovative methods and design techniques to enhance infiltration, and identify potential retrofit opportunities in previously developed areas.

If you would like to provide feedback about this project, or have additional questions, Please contact Mike Kakuska at 608-266-9111 or email MikeK@CapitalAreaRPC.org

Map 1 shows relative infiltration as it occurs naturally. Map 2 presents enhanced infiltration that could result from engineering practices tapping into deeper sand and gravel deposits. Map 3 shows areas where the potential for engineered infiltration practices may be the greatest. These areas show the greatest improvement in infiltration capacity between the natural and engineered states.

Map 1. Relative Natural Infiltration
Shows relative infiltration as it occurs naturally.
Click on Township areas for detailed maps
Click here to download the complete set of Relative Natural Infiltration maps (19 meg. WinZip Archive).

York Relative Natural Infiltration Bristol Relative Natural Infiltration Dane Relative Natural Infiltration Sun Prairie Relative Natural Infiltration Medina Relative Natural Infiltration Vienna Relative Natural Infiltration Windsor Relative Natural Infiltration Berry Relative Natural Infiltration Burke Relative Natural Infiltration Springfield Relative Natural Infiltration Westport Relative Natural Infiltration Black Earth Relative Natural Infiltration Middleton Relative Natural Infiltration Blooming Grove Relative Natural Infiltration Deerfield Relative Natural Infiltration Christiana Relative Natural Infiltration Pleasant Springs Relative Natural Infiltration Dunn Relative Natural Infiltration C. of Fitchburg Relative Natural Infiltration Verona Relative Natural Infiltration Springdale Relative Natural Infiltration Vermont Relative Natural Infiltration Blue Mounds Relative Natural Infiltration Cross Plains Relative Natural Infiltration Madison Relative Natural Infiltration Cottage Grove Relative Natural Infiltration Mazomanie Relative Natural Infiltration Roxbury Relative Natural Infiltration Dunkirk Relative Natural Infiltration Albion Relative Natural Infiltration Rutland Relative Natural Infiltration Oregon Relative Natural Infiltration Montrose Relative Natural Infiltration Primrose Relative Natural Infiltration Perry Relative Natural Infiltration

The maps promote various opportunities and strategies that can be used to help minimize the impacts of future development and possibly retrofit previously developed areas. Areas with naturally high infiltration should be used to recharge the groundwater to the greatest extent possible. They may also be prime locations for regional stormwater facilities that could be used to infiltrate stormwater generated in other parts of the watershed. Other areas, such as clay soils with low permeability, are less suitable for infiltration. Stormwater generated in these areas could be reduced on site to some extent, such as through rain gardens, but the majority will likely need to be routed to facilities down-gradient. These facilities would need to be adequately sized to accommodate the rates and volumes of stormwater generated by the proposed development. In some areas, primarily where shallow bedrock exists, permeability is so highly variable that more detailed investigation is needed.

Overall, the greatest infiltration opportunities seem to lie primarily in the glaciated eastern two-thirds of the county. It is interesting to point out that for nearly every large-scale development that might be proposed in the area there is an infiltration area located nearby that could be used to great advantage. The overall purpose of these maps, therefore, is to highlight these areas early on as important elements of site design, so that they may be more fully utilized for water quality protection and groundwater recharge. While the maps do not replace the need for more in-depth analysis for a particular site, they do provide a useful planning tool to encourage the incorporation of innovative stormwater management practices into urban design.

Map 2. Relative Engineered Infiltration
Presents enhanced infiltration that could result from engineering practices tapping into deeper sand and gravel deposits.
Click on individual Townships for detailed maps.
Click here to download the complete set of Relative Engineered Infiltration maps (16 meg. WinZip Archive).

York Relative Engineered Infiltration Bristol Relative Engineered Infiltration Dane Relative Engineered Infiltration Sun Prairie Relative Engineered Infiltration Medina Relative Engineered Infiltration Vienna Relative Engineered Infiltration Windsor Relative Engineered Infiltration Berry Relative Engineered Infiltration Burke Relative Engineered Infiltration Springfield Relative Engineered Infiltration Westport Relative Engineered Infiltration Black Earth Relative Engineered Infiltration Middleton Relative Engineered Infiltration Blooming Grove Relative Engineered Infiltration Deerfield Relative Engineered Infiltration Christiana Relative Engineered Infiltration Pleasant Springs Relative Engineered Infiltration Dunn Relative Engineered Infiltration C. of Fitchburg Relative Engineered Infiltration Verona Relative Engineered Infiltration Springdale Relative Engineered Infiltration Vermont Relative Engineered Infiltration Blue Mounds Relative Engineered Infiltration Cross Plains Relative Engineered Infiltration Madison Relative Engineered Infiltration Dunkirk Relative Engineered Infiltration Albion Relative Engineered Infiltration Rutland Relative Engineered Infiltration Oregon Relative Engineered Infiltration Montrose Relative Engineered Infiltration Perry Relative Engineered Infiltration Primrose Relative Engineered Infiltration Cottage Grove Relative Engineered Infiltration Mazomanie Relative Engineered Infiltration Roxbury Relative Engineered Infiltration

Methodology
The maps were derived from NRCS soil information using relative cumulative scores based on soil permeability, depth to water table, depth to bedrock, and slope (Table 1). Depth to bedrock and slope were considered less important and weighted accordingly. Map 1 represents relative infiltration as it occurs naturally. Permeability is scored based on the most limiting soil layer in the soil column, measured to a depth of five feet. Map 2 represents enhanced infiltration that could result from engineering practices. Permeability is scored based on the permeability of the soil layer below the depth of five feet. This assumes aggressive practices to replace shallower, less permeable soils layers with more permeable (i.e., engineered) soils to a depth of five feet.

Map 3 indicates areas where infiltration enhancement potential may be the greatest. These areas show the greatest difference in scores between the natural and engineered states, highlighting opportunities where more permeable soils (e.g., sand and gravel deposits) may be found deeper in the soil column. The wetland/floodplain areas include soils with shallow depth to groundwater or potential for flooding, and are generally not conducive to infiltration practices.

Table 2 contains soil permeability data and relative scoring used in the analysis. The data was obtained from the Natural Resource Conservation Service SSURGO tabular soils data for Dane County (downloaded 1/23/06) and scored according to the criteria in Table 1. Natural scores were based on the most limiting soil layer in the soil column (to a depth of five feet). Engineered scores were based on the permeability of the soil layer below a depth of five feet. This assumes aggressive practices to replace less permeable soils in shallower layers. Enhanced scores were calculated as the difference between Natural and Engineered scores. Notice that soils with highly variable permeability were given an arbitrary score of 13 to separate them out as a single group. Because their permeability was so highly variable, these soils could not be rated. In most cases this group possesses shallow depth to bedrock with permeability values ranging across two or more criterion groups and, very often, across the full criterion spectrum. These areas will require special consideration and site-specific investigation. As presented here, they suggest added caution is needed – infiltration may be either limiting, as in the case of solid bedrock; or excessive, as in the case of solution cavities, cracks, and other karst features.

Table 3 contains the criterion scores (using Table 1) and cumulative totals for each soil unit presented in the maps. Notice that the total scores in Table 2 do not include slope. Slope was calculated internally by the computer, creating many individual polygons using the 2000 digital elevation model (obtained from the Dane County Land Information Office, two-foot resolution) and then mapped. Primrose

Map 3. Relative Enhanced Infiltration Potential
Shows areas where the potential for engineered infiltration practices may be the greatest. These areas show the greatest improvement in infiltration capacity between the natural and engineered states.
Click on individual Townships for detailed maps.
Click here to download the complete set of Relative Enhanced Infiltration Potential maps (10 meg. WinZip Archive).

Dunkirk Relative Enhanced Infiltration Potential Albion Relative Enhanced Infiltration Potential Rutland Relative Enhanced Infiltration Potential Oregon Relative Enhanced Infiltration Potential Montrose Relative Enhanced Infiltration Potential Primrose Relative Enhanced Infiltration Potential Perry Relative Enhanced Infiltration Potential York Relative Enhanced Infiltration Potential Bristol Relative Enhanced Infiltration Potential Dane Relative Enhanced Infiltration Potential Sun Prairie Relative Enhanced Infiltration Potential Vienna Relative Enhanced Infiltration Potential Windsor Relative Enhanced Infiltration Potential Berry Relative Enhanced Infiltration Potential Burke Relative Enhanced Infiltration Potential Springfield Relative Enhanced Infiltration Potential Westport Relative Enhanced Infiltration Potential Black Earth Relative Enhanced Infiltration Potential Middleton Relative Enhanced Infiltration Potential Blooming Grove Relative Enhanced Infiltration Potential Deerfield Relative Enhanced Infiltration Potential Christiana Relative Enhanced Infiltration Potential Pleasant Springs Relative Enhanced Infiltration Potential Dunn Relative Enhanced Infiltration Potential C. of Fitchburg Relative Enhanced Infiltration Potential Verona Relative Enhanced Infiltration Potential Springdale Relative Enhanced Infiltration Potential Vermont Relative Enhanced Infiltration Potential Blue Mounds Relative Enhanced Infiltration Potential Cross Plains Relative Enhanced Infiltration Potential Madison Relative Enhanced Infiltration Potential Cottage Grove Relative Enhanced Infiltration Potential Mazomanie Relative Enhanced Infiltration Potential Roxbury Relative Enhanced Infiltration Potential

Download Acrobat Reader

Primrose