Sources of Highway Runoff Fine Suspended
Particulates in Stormwater and Streams of the
Tahoe Basin
Alan C. Heyvaert1
James M. Thomas1
John E. Reuter2
Tim Minor1
Charles Morton1
September 2012
Prepared by
1
Division of Hydrologic Sciences, Desert Research Institute
2
Tahoe Environmental Research Center, University of
California, Davis
Prepared for
USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station
This research was supported through a grant from the USDA Forest Service Pacific
Southwest Research Station using funds provided by the Bureau of Land Management
through the sale of public lands as authorized by the Southern Nevada Public Land
Management Act.
http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/partnerships/tahoescience/
The views in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the
USDA Forest Service Pacific Southwest Research Station or the USDI Bureau of Land
Management.
Sources of Highway Runoff Fine Sediment – September 2012
ii
ABSTRACT
Lake Tahoe is one of the largest and clearest of all subalpine lakes in the world. This
remarkable transparency has been in decline for several decades, however, and fine sediment
particle loading from urban sources has been implicated as a primary factor in that decline.
While fine particles can derive from a number of urban sources, much of the particle loading
is conveyed with runoff from roads in the Tahoe Basin. Whether fine particles derive from
the roads themselves or are delivered to road and highway surfaces from other sources is
unclear. The purpose of this project was to investigate the use of particle fingerprinting
techniques for determining source contributions of fine suspended sediment particles in
stormwater runoff from highway areas around the Lake Tahoe Basin. The major and trace
element composition of fine particle fractions were measured on samples to evaluate whether
chemical fingerprints would provide a useful method for evaluating the relative contribution of
total particle loads to the lake from highway sources, including road surface abrasion, winter
traction material, road shoulder and ditch erosion, and soil erosion.
One hundred sites were randomly selected on highways in the Tahoe Basin by mapping
algorithms in a graphical information system (GIS). Storm runoff samples were collected
from about one-third of these sites over the course of the project. Snow bank samples were
also collected at each sampling site, as well as parent soil material, road aggregate samples,
road shoulder and road surface dirt. Winter traction abrasives were obtained from available
sources around the Tahoe Basin. These samples were sieved to fine fractions that were acid
digested and then analyzed for element composition by inductively coupled plasma mass
spectrometry and x-ray fluorescence. Data were normalized to lanthanum concentrations and
then evaluated by statistical ordination and discriminant function analysis to evaluate
compositional differences between source materials and their relative contributions in runoff
samples and the lake.
A baseline GIS evaluation of highway and roadside characteristics was conducted to
evaluate risk levels for fine particle loading along different highways sections. Factors that
were considered relevant to the generation and movement of fine particles in roadway areas
included: average annual daily traffic, elevation, solar radiation, vegetation, impervious
cover, geology, soil erodibility, runoff potential, land use and precipitation. These factors
were weighted in various GIS scenarios to reduce the correlations and identify key factors.
Sources of Highway Runoff Fine Sediment – September 2012
iii
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Sources of Highway Runoff Fine Sediment – September 2012
iv
CONTENTS
ABSTRACT............................................................................................................................. iii
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................ vii
LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................. viii
LIST OF ACRONYMS ......................................................................................................... viii
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 1
TECHNICAL APPROACH ..................................................................................................... 2
METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................... 3
Site Selection and Runoff Sampling ..................................................................................... 3
Runoff Sample Processing .................................................................................................... 5
Source Sample Collection and Processing ............................................................................ 6
Snow Sample Collection ....................................................................................................... 9
Lake Tahoe Sample Collection ............................................................................................. 9
Sample Digestions and Analyses .......................................................................................... 9
GIS Mapping Analysis........................................................................................................ 11
Traffic ............................................................................................................................. 12
Elevation Data ................................................................................................................. 13
Solar Radiation................................................................................................................ 13
Vegetation ....................................................................................................................... 13
Impervious Cover............................................................................................................ 13
Geology ........................................................................................................................... 14
Soils ................................................................................................................................ 14
Land Use ......................................................................................................................... 14
Precipitation .................................................................................................................... 15
Particle Fingerprinting ........................................................................................................ 15
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ............................................................................................. 15
Microscopic Assessment of Particles.................................................................................. 15
Analytic Data ...................................................................................................................... 29
Risk Parameter Mapping..................................................................................................... 41
Fingerprinting Analysis ...................................................................................................... 43
CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................................... 44
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................................................................................................... 45
REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................... 46
Sources of Highway Runoff Fine Sediment – September 2012
v
APPENDIX A. Random Selection of GIS Mapped Roadway Sites (with coordinates shown
in Figure 1, using the NAD-83 datum). .................................................................................. 48
APPENDIX B. Sources of GIS Data Used in Roadway FSP Risk Parameter Mapping. ....... 51
APPENDIX C1. Semi-quantitative XRD analysis of sample composition (approximate %).
See text for description of sample types. ................................................................................ 52
APPENDIX C2. Semi-quantitative XRD analysis of sample composition (approximate %).
CSLT is City of South Lake Tahoe, Caltrans is California Department of Transportation
(north and south Lake Tahoe yards), IVGID is Incline Village General Improvement District,
NDOT is Nevada Department of Transportation, Eldo DG WOS is Eldorado County
Department of Transportation (decomposed granite without salt, instead of their usual
cinders).................................................................................................................................... 53
APPENDIX D. Element concentrations in samples analyzed by ICP-MS and XRF. ........... 54
Sources of Highway Runoff Fine Sediment – September 2012
vi
LIST OF FIGURES
1.
Lake Tahoe Basin distribution of highways and primary roads, with randomized
site selections shown for 100 points. . ............................................................................. 4
2.
Distribution of storm runoff and source sites where samples were collected for
analysis, based on the original 100 locations randomly selected in GIS. ....................... 7
3.
Representative particle size distributions of source material collected during the
project. ............................................................................................................................. 8
4.
Lake nearshore samples collected for analysis as part of the PARASOL cruise
(UCD-TERC, August 8-13, 2011). ............................................................................... 10
5.
Example of upslope buffered regions along a roadway in the Lake Tahoe Basin. ....... 12
6.
Two field emission SEM images of a road runoff sample collected from site FPS26 near Stateline, NV, on Kingsbury Grade (SR-207) on 3/31/2012. .......................... 16
7 (a). Road sample from FPS-07, collected near Echo Summit on SR 50 (4/27/10).............. 17
7 (b). Road sample from FPS-48, collected near Kings Beach on SR 28 (9/11/11). .............. 18
7 (c). Road sample from FPS-52, collected near Dollar Point on SR 28 (4/06/10). ............... 19
7 (d). Road sample from FPS-60, collected near Kings Beach on SR 28 (6/6/11). ................ 20
7 (e). Road sample from FPS-81, collected near the South Lake Tahoe Y on SR 89
(6/6/11). ......................................................................................................................... 21
7 (f). SEM image of Lake Tahoe nearshore sample taken during the PARSOL cruise on
transect 1 near Tahoe City, at the 5 m contour and 2 m depth (T-01-5.2 (F1)). ........... 22
7 (g). Second SEM image of Lake Tahoe nearshore sample taken during the PARSOL
cruise on transect 1 near Tahoe City, at the 5 m contour and 2 m depth (T-01-5.2
(F2)), from duplicate filter. ........................................................................................... 23
7 (h). SEM image of Lake Tahoe nearshore sample taken during the PARSOL cruise
on transect 1 near Incline Village, at the 5 m contour and 2 m depth (T-03-5.2
(F2)). .............................................................................................................................. 24
7 (i). SEM image of Lake Tahoe nearshore sample taken during the PARSOL cruise on
transect 13 near Homewood, at the 5 m contour and 2 m depth (T-13-5.2 (F2)). ........ 25
7 (j). SEM image of Lake Tahoe midlake sample taken during the PARSOL cruise on
transect A near the MLTP site at 2 m depth (MLTP-2 (F1)). ....................................... 26
7 (k). SEM image of Lake Tahoe midlake sample taken during the PARSOL cruise on
transect A near the MLTP site at 50 m depth (MLTP-50 (F1)). ................................... 27
8.
Mean particle size distributions in road runoff samples. Split samples were
analyzed for both raw (<1000 µm) and pre-screened (<20 µm) cumulative size
distribution. ................................................................................................................... 29
9.
Cluster analysis of soil samples analyzed for element composition. Entries
reference the sample ID numbers (Appendix D). ......................................................... 30
10. Cluster analysis of abrasive samples analyzed for element composition. Entries
reference the sample ID numbers (Appendix D). ......................................................... 31
11. Relative concentrations of acid-extractable elements in source material types. ........... 32
12. Means comparison between different source samples. ................................................ 39
Sources of Highway Runoff Fine Sediment – September 2012
vii
13.
14.
Estimated fine sediment transport risk levels for major roadways in the Lake
Tahoe Basin, Scenario 2. ............................................................................................... 42
Discriminant analysis by element composition of different source materials. ............. 43
LIST OF TABLES
1.
2.
3.
Site descriptions of locations identified during this project where samples were
taken for stormwater runoff, source materials, and from roadside snow banks.............. 5
Relative elemental composition of SEM filter samples determined by energy
dispersive x-ray emission, displaying weight % of each element, taken as the
average of all images for each filter. ............................................................................. 28
Summary of the four scenarios for weighting key risk parameters............................... 41
LIST OF ACRONYMS
DEM
DI
DRI
FSP
GIS
ICP-MS
LDPE
LOI
NRCS
PSD
REE
SSURGO
TMDL
TSS
USDA
UTM
XRD
XRF
digital elevation model
deionized (water)
Desert Research Institute
fine sediment particles
graphic information system
inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry
low density polyethylene
loss on ignition
Natural Resources Conservation Service
particle size distribution
rare earth elements
Soil Survey Geographic (database)
Total Maximum Daily Load
total suspended solids
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Universal Transverse Mercator (coordinate system)
X-ray diffraction
X-ray fluorescence
Sources of Highway Runoff Fine Sediment – September 2012
viii
INTRODUCTION
Lake Tahoe is the largest and deepest lake in the Sierra Nevada mountain range. It is
world-renowned for its clear, blue waters, but has lost more than a third of its remarkable
transparency over the past 40 years (Jassby et al., 1999). While it has long been recognized
that enhanced nutrient loadings cause more algae growth and diminished clarity in the lake
(Goldman, 1974; 1988; 1994), it has recently recognized more recently that increasing
amounts of fine sediment particles (FSP <16 microns) in suspension are also causing
significant clarity loss (Jassby et al., 1999; Swift, 2004; Swift et al., 2006), with runoff from
roads and highways and roads identified as a major source of FSP (Heyvaert et al., 2006;
Roberts and Reuter 2007).
Summarizing dominant sources of pollutant loadings into Lake Tahoe, the Total
Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Technical Report determined that urban areas are responsible
for about 70% of fine sediment particle loading, as well as ~40% of phosphorus loading, and
~15% of the nitrogen loading (Lahontan and NDEP, 2010a). Significant reductions in
nutrients and fine sediment particles (FSP) will be needed to achieve the Lake Tahoe clarity
targets, with basin-wide loading reductions of 32% FSP, 14% phosphorus and 4% nitrogen
required to meet an interim challenge of 24 meters, and reductions over the long-term of 65%
FSP, 35% phosphorus and 10% nitrogen for a clarity target of 30 meters (Lahontan and
NDEP, 2010a).
Identifying the sources of fine sediment in streams and stormwater runoff entering the
lake will help land managers, regulators, and agencies target both the locations and types of
land use that are major contributors of fine sediment. While primary and secondary roads in
the Basin comprise only ~1.5% of the total drainage area, the Tahoe TMDL program has
identified roadway runoff as a key source and has considered road discharge implementation
projects as significant pollutant reduction opportunities in urban areas of the Tahoe basin
(Roberts and Reuter 2007; Lahontan and NDEP, 2007).
Studies in the Tahoe basin have evaluated selected treatment practices for removal of
nutrients and fine sediment from highway runoff (Caltrans 2001, 2003; Mihevc et al., 2004;
Jones et al., 2005), so some information is available on the effectiveness of best management
practices (BMPs), but identification of relative contributions from different highway sources
is still needed. The sources of fine sediment associated with highway and roadway runoff can
be diverse and include anthropogenic sources, such as sand applied for vehicle snow traction
and from vehicle generated fine sediment, as well as FSP from natural sources, such as
sediments from roadway shoulders, exposed banks along road cuts, and runoff from lands
adjacent to roads and highways.
The goal of this study was to determine whether chemical analyses of suspended fine
sediments in road and highway runoff at Lake Tahoe could produce relative signatures of
FSP source type. An approach for fingerprinting highway sediment sources was successfully
Sources of Highway Runoff Fine Sediment – September 2012
1
applied in Japan (Adachi and Tainosho, 2005) and similar approaches have been used in
other studies (Shi et al., 1997; USGS, 2000; Robertson et al., 2003; Pekey et al., 2004;
Polyakov and Nearing, 2004; Kimoto et al., 2006). Therefore, this study examined the
element composition of particles from various sources and locations in the Tahoe Basin to
assess the potential for FSP source fingerprinting.
TECHNICAL APPROACH
The general approach for this project was to sample fine sediment source material and
fine sediment in runoff from highways and roadways to fingerprint sources and determine at
what relative proportions they are getting into Lake Tahoe. The fine sediment sources and
fine sediment in highway and roadway runoff were fingerprinted using a full suite of major
ions and trace elements, including the rare earth elements (REEs) and lead isotopes.
Roadway runoff varies considerably around the Tahoe Basin in terms of flow
characteristics and constituent concentrations. Given the natural site variability and
differences in runoff characteristics it was considered important to develop a randomized
design in terms of sampling locations. Therefore, a mapping layer was produced in ArcGIS
to represent the subset of Tahoe highways and primary roads. On this map a randomized
selection of 100 sites were located along the road segments. Not all sites are amenable to
sample collection. Therefore, in the first year of active runoff sampling, sites were randomly
chosen from these 100 pre-selected locations and visited during storm events to assess runoff
conditions and collect a sample, where feasible, or to proceed to the next random site until a
sample could be collected. Over the course of that year, a total of 33 sites yielded runoff
samples suitable for analysis. In the subsequent year these same sites were revisited for
collection of source samples, consisting of parent soil material and road material.
Additionally, samples of traction abrasives and road sweepings were collected from state and
county road maintenance yards around the Tahoe Basin. Runoff samples and abrasives were
also collected at these same sites in subsequent years, when feasible. Lake Tahoe water
samples were collected at nearshore sites around the Basin in 2011.
Samples from highway and road runoff were processed in the laboratory to yield <20
µm fractions of suspended particulates (Heyvaert et al., 2011). These were acid digested and
then analyzed at the Desert Research Institute ICP-MS Laboratory, an ultra-clean facility for
trace element analysis. Undigested aliquots were analyzed by XRF for major elements, with
some additional aliquots analyzed by XRD for mineralogical composition. Source samples of
soils and abrasives were sieved at 63 µm and then digested and analyzed by equivalent
methods. Lake Tahoe water samples were analyzed directly by ICP-MS.
A GIS analysis was performed to help identify the distribution of highway runoff fine
sediment loading around the Tahoe Basin. This was based on the USGS 10-meter digital
elevation model (DEM) for the Tahoe basin and the Natural Resource Conservation Service
(NRCS) soils database for the Tahoe basin (SSURGO). These data were integrated with
Sources of Highway Runoff Fine Sediment – September 2012
2
additional existing data to develop a derivative metric categorizing highways in the Lake
Tahoe basin as having high, medium, or low potential for fine sediment loads in highway
runoff.
Finally, the source proportions of fine sediment from anthropogenic highway runoff
sources and natural sediment sources in highway runoff were evaluated, based on statistical
discriminant analysis of relative element composition in samples collected during this study.
These results are discussed in terms of the relative suspended sediment concentrations and
particle size distributions measured in runoff samples from these sites.
METHODOLOGY
Site Selection and Runoff Sampling
A site-mapping layer was produced in ArcGIS 9 to represent the Tahoe Basin
highways and primary connector roads. All GIS data were clipped to the Lake Tahoe Basin
boundary, with the following road segments included within this boundary:
•
NV State Route 207
•
CA State Route 267
•
CA State Route 28
•
NV State Route 28
•
NV State Route 431
•
US Highway 50
•
US Highway 88
•
US Highway 89
•
Pioneer Trail (South Lake Tahoe)
•
Country Club Drive (Incline Village)
•
Lakeshore Blvd (Incline Village)
One hundred sampling points were pre-selected in ArcGIS randomly located at least
one kilometer apart along these major roadways in the Lake Tahoe Basin. The map of
potential sites (Figure 1) and a table of latitude/longitude and UTM coordinates (Appendix
A) were provided to field sampling personnel. These sites were visited during storm events in
2009 to assess runoff conditions and to collect a sample where feasible. Not all sites were
amenable to runoff sample collection. For example, safe roadside parking may not be
available, road runoff may occur only as sheet-flow, or the runoff may represent a mix of
sources with the highway contribution only a minor component. Therefore, a 200-meter
buffer was permitted within the point sampling frame in both directions of the road. Prior to
Sources of Highway Runoff Fine Sediment – September 2012
3
100 Sample Locations
1km Minimum Distance
Generated 02/22/2010
.
!
.
!
95
.
!
.
!
.
!
.
!
.
!
.
!
.
!
.
!
.
!
.
!
.
!
.
!
.
!
49
.
!
83
.
!
48
.
!
50
.
!
92
.
!
94
89
. 86
.!
!
.
!
.
85 !
98
96
.
!
97
87
90
.
!
93!
.
.
!
91
47
46
.
!
45
52
.
!
53
44
54
.
!
43
55
.
!
56
.
!
57
58
42
41
.
!
40
59
60
.
!
.
!
51 !
.
.
88!
84
.
!
99
.
!
.
!
100
.
!
39
61
.
!
38
62
.
!
.
!
37
63
.
!
64
.
!
65
.
!
.
!
66
.
!
67
.
!
!
.
68
.
!
.
!
35
34
.
!
69
.
!
36
.
!
33
32
70
.
!
31
.
!
30
.
!
.
!
.
!
.
!
29
71
.
!
72
.
!
73
.
!
74
.
!
.
!
27
.
!
28
25
24
75
.
!
26
.
!
76
.
!
77
.
!
78
.
!
.
!
79
.
!
.
!
22
80
.
!
81
.
!
82
.
!
.
!
.
!
21
20
.
!
.
!
.
!
.
!
Text
17
16
15
14
19
.
!
.
!
.
!
. 18
!!
.
23
13
12
11
10
.
!
.
!
8
9
.
!
Legend
.
!
7
Sample Locations
Major Roads
.
!
0
Figure 1.
2.5
5
7.5
Kilometers
10
.
!
6
5
.
!
4
.
!
3
.
!
2
.
!
1
Lake Tahoe Watershed
County Boundary
Lake Tahoe Basin distribution of highways and primary roads, with randomized site
selections shown for 100 points. From among these locations, a subset of sites were
randomly selected during storm events for collection of runoff samples, where feasible.
Sources of Highway Runoff Fine Sediment – September 2012
4
each event a handful of sampling sites were randomly chosen from among the 100 preselected locations, and then a grab sample was collected within the sampling frame of that
site during the event. If a sample could not be collected, then field personnel proceeded to the
next random site until a sample could be collected, and then continued to visit sites as long as
event runoff remained robust. This same procedure was followed during subsequent storm
events, with any randomly selected duplicate sites revisited. A total of 33 sites yielded runoff
samples during 2009 (Table 1). These same sites were revisited for event sample collection
in subsequent years. Samples were collected directly and without screening into either an
acid-cleaned four-liter cubitainer or into 2 one-liter acid-cleaned low-density polyethylene
(LDPE) bottles and transported on-ice in coolers within 24 hours to the laboratory for
processing.
Table 1.
Site descriptions of locations identified during this project where samples were taken for
stormwater runoff, source materials, and from roadside snow banks.
Site
North
West
(ID) (NAD-83) (NAD-83) Site Description
2
38.797
-119.967 Ditch on side of road
7
38.813 -120.015 Near intersection of Grass Lake Rd and Hwy 89
8
38.824 -120.018 NE corner of Santa Claus and Hwy 89
10
38.833 -120.036 Upstream of CDM site on Echo Summit
12
38.858 -120.012 NW corner of Arapahoe and Hwy 50
14
38.879
-119.989 Corner of Washoan and Pioneer
20
38.906 -120.000 In front of Hotel near D Street
22
38.936
-119.977 In front of LT middle school entrance
23
38.946
-119.963 In front of Heidi's restaurant on Hwy 50
26
38.968
-119.925 Kingsbury Grade in front of Exxon gas station
41
39.152
-119.928 NDOT basin inflow on east side of SR-28
45
39.221
-119.928 Turnout for Hidden Beach on east side of SR-28
46
39.232
-119.932 Intersection of Lakeshore and NE side of SR-28
47
39.240
-119.930 From DI in front of Incline Storage on SR-28
48
39.240 -120.048 DI on south of SR-28 at Tahoe Vista boat launch
49
39.237 -120.064 Outfall pipe at end of Stag Street
50
39.230 -120.070 Culvert east of Sahara Drive on north side of SR-28
52
39.203 -120.096 At DI on north Lake Blvd
53
39.194 -120.101 East side of Dollar Hill just above large DI
56
39.168 -120.145 Discharge from east of Hwy 89, north side of bridge
57
39.154 -120.146 From from highway at Catholic Church driveway
58
39.146 -120.150 Culvert at transverse drains across Sequoia Ave
59
39.135 -120.156 Sunnyside outfall
60
39.127 -120.162 At DI on south corner of Sugar Pine and Hwy 89
62
39.099 -120.164 Flow along Hwy across Grimsel Pass Rd
63
39.080 -120.157 Swale on south side of Obexer's property
68
39.035 -120.120 Flow along Hwy across from Alpaca Pete's
69
39.021 -120.123 DI outfall south of retention pond on Mountain Dr.
70
39.014 -120.121 Flow from DI at culvert south of Scenic Drive
75
38.951 -120.085 Culvert on second hairpin turn south of Emerald Bay
77
38.934 -120.073 At culvert north of Spring Creek Rd
81
38.922 -120.023 Edge of town near USFS sign
83
39.253 -120.038 Detention basin inflow west of Hwy below Stuart Way
84
39.259 -120.069 First DI west side of Hwy 267 south of summit
88
39.265
-119.945 DI at intersection of Country Club Dr and Miners Ridge
92
39.235 -120.020 In front of Log Cabin Restaurant
Event
Runoff
Samples
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Parent
Soil
Sample
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Road
Shoulder
Sample
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Road
Surface
Sample
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
-x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Road
Aggregate
Sample
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Snow
Bank
Sample
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
-x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
--x
x
Runoff Sample Processing
Laboratory sample processing consisted of filtration and standard analyses for
turbidity, total suspended solids (TSS), loss on ignition (LOI), and particle size distribution
(PSD). Several different approaches were attempted in the first year for sample splitting,
filtration, and analysis before obtaining successful results. As a consequence, the samples
Sources of Highway Runoff Fine Sediment – September 2012
5
collected during 2009 were sacrificed for method development and those results are not
represented in the data compilation. Ultimately, the adopted procedure consisted of pouring
the entire runoff sample directly through a clean 20 µm stainless-steel sieve into a single
acid-cleaned LDPE bottle of the appropriate size to contain the complete sample (including
any replicate 1-liter bottles). This screened sample was then split into separate aliquots for
filtration by shaking vigorously and then immediately pouring off into an acid-cleaned filter
tower assembly with the appropriate acid-cleaned filters. Aliquot volumes were measured by
weight and used to calculate the suspended sediment fraction for each filter. Stainless steel
sieves were cleaned between samples by sonication in a deionized (DI) water bath followed
by multiple rinses with ultra-pure DI water.
Sample aliquots were collected on acid-cleaned and pre-weighed hydrophilic 0.45 µm
Durapore membrane filters. These filters were dried overnight at 50°C to constant weight,
recorded at the nearest 0.1 mg. Separate filters were created from the runoff samples for
analysis by ICP-MS, XRF and XRD. Laboratory blanks were generated by passing ultra-pure
DI water through the same series of processing steps.
Source Sample Collection and Processing
The 33 site locations used for storm runoff sampling were revisited for collection of
source samples in November 2010, when road surfaces and soils were dry and unfrozen
(Figure 2). Samples consisted of parent soil material, road surface dirt, road shoulder dirt,
and road aggregate material. Parent soil material and road aggregate were the focus of
subsequent sample processing and analyses to represent compositional end members, with
some additional samples collected from other locations.
To the extent practical, parent soil material was collected at relatively undisturbed open
locations at least 50 meters distant from the roadside but generally within a radius of less
than approximately 300 meters from each runoff sampling point. All overlying organic
material was removed, including any overlying duff and organic rich soil layers, until an
obvious mineral horizon was reached. This material was collected by plastic scoop into
labeled gallon ziplock bags and stored at the lab until processing. Roadside material was
collected from a ditch or gutter immediately adjacent to road, and labeled accordingly. Road
surface material was collected by brushing all visible dirt and dust from multiple sections of
the road surface onto a clean, plastic dustpan and then transferring the contents into labeled
ziplock bags. Small pieces of 1-3 inch diameter intact road aggregate were collected at each
site. Generally, pieces were found that had been dislodged from the road by mechanical
damage, or had broken out from the road edge and along potholes in the road surface. These
were placed in individual ziplock bags for transport to the laboratory.
Sources of Highway Runoff Fine Sediment – September 2012
6
Figure 2.
Distribution of storm runoff and source sites where samples were collected for analysis,
based on the original 100 locations randomly selected in GIS.
Sources of Highway Runoff Fine Sediment – September 2012
7
Dirt and dust source samples were dried in separate stainless steel drying pans within a
convection oven at 50°C to constant weight, then sieved on a mechanical sieve shaker
through stacked stainless steel sieves at full phi units from 2000 µm to 63 µm. Smaller mesh
sizes were attempted, but the amount of material passing was often too little for subsequent
analyses. The weights of each fraction were recorded and plotted to represent sand particle
size distributions (Figure 3). The <63 µm particle fraction of each sample was retained for
analyses. Stainless steel sieves and pans were cleaned between samples by sonication in a
deionized (DI) water bath followed by multiple rinses with ultra-pure DI water.
Road aggregate samples were placed between thin acid-cleaned sheets of LDPE and
crushed in a hydraulic press to yield small fragments that were selected for grinding to
powder by acid-cleaned mortar and pestle. After grinding to a fine powder there was no
attempt to separate this material into size fractions.
Parent Soil
Road Shoulder
Road Surface
Abrasive
1500
2000
100%
90%
Cumulative Mass
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0
500
1000
Particle Size (µm)
Figure 3.
Representative particle size distributions of source material collected during the project.
Mean size values of all samples collected are shown for each source type, by percent
mass of dry material (<63, <125, <250, <500, <1000, <2000 µm). The <63 µm fractions
were retained for chemical analyses.
Sources of Highway Runoff Fine Sediment – September 2012
8
Finally, winter traction road abrasive sands and cinders were collected from state and
county department of transportation maintenance yards in the Tahoe Basin during winter of
2009, 2010 and 2011. Samples were obtained by digging with a stainless steel scoop at
several points around each existing storage pile and compositing. Sample processing was
equivalent to procedures described for soils and road dust. The <63 µm particle fraction of
each sample was retained for analyses.
Snow Sample Collection
Storm runoff events were relatively infrequent during late 2010 and 2011, so sample
numbers were low. As an alternative, roadside snow bank samples were collected at each of
the sampling sites during spring of 2011. The particulate matter in these samples should be
representative of the mixed material scoured from highway and road surfaces during runoff
events, with minimal influence from adjacent landscape erosion. Samples were collected on
the upslope side at each location with stainless steel scoops used to fill LDPE lined 5-gallon
buckets. These were transported to the laboratory, allowed to melt, and then processed using
the same procedures described previously for runoff samples.
Lake Tahoe Sample Collection
Lake Tahoe water samples were collected as part of the UCD-TERC lake monitoring
program, including samples collected from nearshore transects (Figure 4) during summer of
2011. Samples were collected from depths above and below the thermocline. These were
stored in acid-cleaned 1-liter LDPE bottles and kept in the dark at 4°C until sampling
splitting at the laboratory and analysis. The Lake Tahoe water samples were not filtered or
sieved, due to extremely low concentrations of particulate matter in the water. However,
samples for subsequent ICP-MS analysis were acidified to 1% with ultra-trace grade HNO3.
Sample Digestions and Analyses
Filters, source materials, and sediments were acid digested with a heated block
manifold following DRI’s Environmental Analysis Facility method for total recoverable
analytes, based on EPA Method 200.8. Samples were weighed to the nearest 1 mg in
digestion vessels on a tared balance. These digestions were conducted in acid-cleaned
polypropylene vessels at 95°C for 1.5 hours. Samples were then diluted with ultra-pure DI
water to yield final HNO3 and HCL concentrations suitable for ICP-MS analysis (1% HNO3
and 0.2% HCL).
The digestions and analytical methods were validated using National Institute for
Standards and Technology (NIST) standard reference materials. For this project, the Peruvian
Soil (1640) and Buffalo River Sediment (8704) were used to evaluate the performance of the
analytical procedure. As part of initial performance evaluation, the method detection limits
(MDL, EPA 200.8 definition) were estimated from procedural blanks.
Sources of Highway Runoff Fine Sediment – September 2012
9
Figure 4.
Lake nearshore samples collected for analysis as part of the PARASOL cruise (UCDTERC, August 8-13, 2011). Samples analyzed included those taken on each transect at a
depth of 2 m, and 50 m on the 100 m contour. Transect A included samples taken at the
long-term lake monitoring sites (LTP and MLTP).
Sources of Highway Runoff Fine Sediment – September 2012
10
Elemental concentrations were determined using DRI’s High Resolution Inductively
Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry (HR-ICPMS). The HR-ICPMS analysis standard
operating procedure (SOP) is based on EPA 200.8 (Rev 5.4) method and determines the
concentrations of analytes based on an external linear calibration, constructed from a series
of standards. To correct for drift in the instruments response during the course of an analysis
the analyte responses were normalized to a suitable internal standard (indium). Isobaric
interferences arising from molecular species and multiply charged cations were eliminated by
analyzing an interference free isotope (assuming the same isotopic abundance as the
standards) or by selecting a medium or high mass resolution. For example the interference of
40Ar16O on 56Fe is eliminated by performing the analysis at a high enough mass resolution
to resolve the species.
Samples were also analyzed using the x-ray fluorescence (XRF) system, which is
capable of high sensitivity detection of elements ranging from sodium to uranium. The XRF
analysis provides elemental data for approximately 28 elements, of which approximately 18
elements were well quantified by calibrating with a comprehensive set of 40 single(Micromatter, Inc.) and multi-element National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST) traceable standards. An inter-laboratory comparison between Desert Research
Institute and UC Davis showed no significant bias for major elements (i.e. those significantly
above minimum detectable limit). Selected samples also were analyzed by x-ray diffraction
(XRD) at DRI to examine the mineralogical domain of particulates.
The particle size distribution in runoff samples and snow samples was determined by
laser diffraction method, using a Beckman Coulter LS-13320 operating with a 750-nm laser.
A well-mixed sample introduced to the laser particle size analysis instrument is diluted with
particle-free water to achieve optimal obscuration and then cycled through an optical cell for
laser illumination and photovoltaic detection of light scattering by particles in solution.
Detector data is processed based on the principles of Fraunhofer diffraction and Mie
scattering that mathematically deconvolute the resulting signal by inversion matrix
algorithms. Particle sizes are reported in terms of equivalent spherical diameters. Details of
this analysis method for Tahoe samples have been described in Heyvaert et al. (2011).
Aliquots from selected samples were visually examined by scanning electron
microscopy (SEM) using a tabletop Hitachi TM-1000 connected to an Oxford Instruments
Swift energy dispersive x-ray spectrometer (EDS) for elemental analysis. An acceleration
voltage of 15kV was used with an acquisition time of 120 s. Polycarbonate filters were
mounted on clean aluminum stubs with carbon tape. Multiple images were captured of each
filter. The SEM-EDS results from each image were averaged to yield percent composition for
major elements.
GIS Mapping Analysis
GIS data was collected for many of the parameters that could contribute to fine
sediment transport into the lake (Appendix B). Using these spatial data layers in a geographic
Sources of Highway Runoff Fine Sediment – September 2012
11
information systems (GIS) framework, erosion potential along roadways was identified using
a subjective erosion potential rating system. The spatial parameters were highly correlated
with each other, so several knowledgeable experts were interviewed to consider each of the
parameters and help determine the key risk factors. Risk levels for all of the major roadways
in the Lake Tahoe Basin were then estimated using four different weightings of the key risk
factors.
Data for each segment of the road network (~3800 segments) was individually
calculated. The road segments were ~50 m in length. For some data types (such as elevation),
the midpoint of the segment was used. For others, a region offset from the road was created
and used. An offset region was used because the characteristics of the area next to the road
were more important than the road itself, with the percent vegetation cover being a good
example. The area upslope of the road but outside of the road right-of-way was the primary
focus. This region was created by extending from the midpoint of each road segment with a
50-meter radius buffer. A separate single 20-meter buffer along the road was also created.
The overlapping regions of the two buffers were removed so that only the area outside the
road right-of-way remained. Figure 5 shows an example of the resulting regions.
The region upslope from the road is more critical, so the average elevation was
calculated for each pair of regions and the one with the higher average elevation was
retained. Some regions immediately adjacent to intersections were removed.
Figure 5.
Example of upslope buffered regions along a roadway in the Lake Tahoe Basin.
Traffic
The Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) counts for 1998-2008 for most of the
major roadways in the basin were downloaded from the Caltrans and NDOT websites.
Traffic counts were not available for the portions of the Mount Rose Highway (NV 431)
Sources of Highway Runoff Fine Sediment – September 2012
12
above Incline Village, NV. Counts for the Pioneer Trail Road in South Lake Tahoe, CA,
were collected separately by El Dorado County and may not correspond to the Caltrans
counts because they were collected only between 2003 and 2008 and at different times of the
year. It was assumed that roads with higher traffic counts would have a higher fine sediment
risk level.
Elevation Data
A 10m Digital Elevation Model (DEM) acquired from the USGS National Elevation
Dataset was used to calculate the elevation of each road segment. The elevation data was also
used to calculate the percent slope of the upslope contributing area as well as the percent
slope along the roadway. Because the percent slope along the roadway is based on the DEM,
it may not match the actual grade of the road. It was assumed that roads at higher elevations
would have a higher fine sediment risk level because of increased precipitation and snow
melt. Roads with steeper grades and steeper adjacent upslope areas would also have a higher
fine sediment risk level.
Solar Radiation
The DEM was used to calculate the Global Radiation and Solar Duration using the
Solar Radiations tools within the ArcGIS software extension Spatial Analyst. They were
calculated for a single day with a sun position corresponding to the winter solstice
(December 21st, 2009) at 39º latitude. The solar duration was measured in hours while the
global radiation was measured in W-H/m2. The solar radiation and duration data is affected
by the topography but does not consider reductions due to vegetation or buildings. It was
assumed that areas with less solar radiation would need to be salted/sanded more which
would increase the fine sediment risk level.
Vegetation
The vegetation layer was obtained from the Tahoe Basin Existing Vegetation Map v4.1
(Greenberg et al., 2006). The layer was developed from IKONOS satellite imagery using a
combination of pixel based and automated image segmentation. The original raster was
converted to a polygon layer. The average tree and vegetation cover was calculated using an
area weighted method for each upslope region. Tree and vegetation cover were considered
separately because tree cover may contribute more to roadway shading which would increase
fine sediment risk while increased vegetation cover may reduce the runoff potential.
Impervious Cover
The impervious cover layer was developed by Tim Minor and Mary Cablk of DRI
using IKONOS satellite imagery and GIS spatial analysis techniques (Minor and Cablk,
2004). The area of impervious cover divided by the total area of each upslope region was
used to calculate the percent impervious cover for each upslope region. It was assumed that
areas with more impervious cover would have a higher fine sediment risk level.
Sources of Highway Runoff Fine Sediment – September 2012
13
Geology
The geology layer was derived from “GIS Data for the Geologic Map of the Lake
Tahoe Basin, California and Nevada v1” (Saucedo, 2008). The risk levels for the major
hydro-geology groups were estimated by Todd Mihevc of DRI based on the groups’ fine
sediment potential. The volcanic rocks were assumed to have the highest fine sediment risk
level while the younger alluvium and intrusive igneous rocks were assumed to have the
lowest risk levels. The following major hydro geology groups were present within the Lake
Tahoe watershed:
•
Construction Fill
•
Older Alluvium (not present within upslope regions)
•
Intrusive Igneous Rocks
•
Younger Alluvium
•
Glacial Till
•
Glacial Outwash Deposits
•
Metamorphic Rocks
•
Volcanic Rocks
Soils
The soils data was extracted from the NRCS SSURGO database. The largest soil
component by percentage was used for areas with multiple soil components. To account for
the complex relationship between fine sediment transport and soil type, depth, slope and
vegetation cover, three soil properties were considered. The runoff potential, hydrologic soil
group and soil erodibility (K-factor) values were then selected for each point. The runoff
potential is calculated from a variety of variables, including the hydrologic soil group, Kfactor, and soil type. The A soil group was assumed to have the lowest fine sediment risk
level while the C and D soil groups had the highest risk level. Higher soil K-factors and
runoff potential were assumed to have higher fine sediment risk levels
Land Use
The land use data was developed by the Tahoe Research Group (Luck et al., 2002) and
updated by Tetra Tech (2007). The land use with the greatest area in the upslope region was
considered to be the dominant land use type. The original land use layer contained 4 levels of
land use classification, with the second coarsest level being used. Land use data was not
available for the portions of US Highway 89 following the Truckee River north out of Tahoe
City, CA. The populated and developed land uses were assumed to have higher fine sediment
risk levels. The following land use classifications that were present within the upslope
regions are listed below:
Sources of Highway Runoff Fine Sediment – September 2012
14
•
Residential
•
Non-residential Developed
•
Mixed Urban
•
Vegetated
•
Forest
•
Herbaceous
Precipitation
Average annual precipitation at each point was estimated for 2000-2008 using PRISM
data. It was assumed that areas with more precipitation would have a higher fine sediment
risk level due to increased runoff and increased sanding/salting.
Particle Fingerprinting
Fingerprinting of fine sediment sources and their relative contribution to fine sediment
in highway runoff was investigated by several statistical methods, including hierarchical
cluster analysis, principal component analysis (PCA), and stepwise discriminant function
analysis. The goal of this approach was to extract a parsimonious set of patterns from a large
number of possible combinations. Discriminant analysis and PCA were used to reduce initial
dimensionality in the multivariate dataset. Then various forms of multivariate mixing models
were applied in an attempt to estimate the relative contributions of fine particle fractions
from various sources in highway runoff samples.
Ultimately, the results from these analyses will be evaluated for correlation to risk
factor distributions from the GIS mapping analysis. A road assessment mapping tool based
on these factors could then be developed to guide future fine sediment sampling and
monitoring efforts in the Lake Tahoe Basin. This would help refine predictive tools that
identify high FSP target areas along roadways in the Tahoe Basin.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Microscopic Assessment of Particles
An examination of selected samples by SEM reveals a range of particle sizes and
characteristics. A unique example is shown in Figure 6, taken with a JEOL JSM-6700F field
emission scanning electron microscope (FESEM), which unfortunately was not available
during the primary project period. However, the quality of magnification with this
instrument, up to 10,000X, serves to illustrate the typical character of road runoff particles.
In contrast, optimal magnification for samples with the Hitachi tabletop SEM routinely
used during the project was about 1500X, which provided a relatively large field of view and
sufficient detail to discern particle characteristics Figure 7. The transect lines present in some
images were added during image post-processing to aid in orientation and sizing.
Sources of Highway Runoff Fine Sediment – September 2012
15
Figure 6.
Two field emission SEM images of a road runoff sample collected from site FPS-26 near
Stateline, NV, on Kingsbury Grade (SR-207) on 3/31/2012.
Sources of Highway Runoff Fine Sediment – September 2012
16
Figure 7 (a). Road sample from FPS-07, collected near Echo Summit on SR 50 (4/27/10).
Sources of Highway Runoff Fine Sediment – September 2012
17
Figure 7 (b). Road sample from FPS-48, collected near Kings Beach on SR 28 (9/11/11).
Sources of Highway Runoff Fine Sediment – September 2012
18
Figure 7 (c). Road sample from FPS-52, collected near Dollar Point on SR 28 (4/06/10).
Sources of Highway Runoff Fine Sediment – September 2012
19
Figure 7 (d). Road sample from FPS-60, collected near Kings Beach on SR 28 (6/6/11).
Sources of Highway Runoff Fine Sediment – September 2012
20
Figure 7 (e). Road sample from FPS-81, collected near the South Lake Tahoe Y on SR 89 (6/6/11).
Sources of Highway Runoff Fine Sediment – September 2012
21
Figure 7 (f). SEM image of Lake Tahoe nearshore sample taken during the PARSOL cruise on
transect 1 near Tahoe City, at the 5 m contour and 2 m depth (T-01-5.2 (F1)).
Sources of Highway Runoff Fine Sediment – September 2012
22
Figure 7 (g). Second SEM image of Lake Tahoe nearshore sample taken during the PARSOL cruise
on transect 1 near Tahoe City, at the 5 m contour and 2 m depth (T-01-5.2 (F2)), from
duplicate filter.
Sources of Highway Runoff Fine Sediment – September 2012
23
Figure 7 (h). SEM image of Lake Tahoe nearshore sample taken during the PARSOL cruise on
transect 1 near Incline Village, at the 5 m contour and 2 m depth (T-03-5.2 (F2)).
Sources of Highway Runoff Fine Sediment – September 2012
24
Figure 7 (i). SEM image of Lake Tahoe nearshore sample taken during the PARSOL cruise on
transect 13 near Homewood, at the 5 m contour and 2 m depth (T-13-5.2 (F2)).
Sources of Highway Runoff Fine Sediment – September 2012
25
Figure 7 (j). SEM image of Lake Tahoe midlake sample taken during the PARSOL cruise on transect
A near the MLTP site at 2 m depth (MLTP-2 (F1)).
Sources of Highway Runoff Fine Sediment – September 2012
26
Figure 7 (k). SEM image of Lake Tahoe midlake sample taken during the PARSOL cruise on transect
A near the MLTP site at 50 m depth (MLTP-50 (F1)).
Sources of Highway Runoff Fine Sediment – September 2012
27
The road samples generally consisted of numerous clay particles, small rock fragments
and weathered mineral grains. Infrequently, amorphous aggregate pieces were evident,
perhaps from road wear.
Inspection of lake nearshore samples collected during the PARASOL cruise show
infrequent occurrence of small mineral particles, mixed with a considerable number of
diatoms. The most prevalent diatoms consist of small circular silica frustules (five microns or
less), with occasional larger pennate forms visible. The very high number of diatom frustules
compared to mineral particles is likely due to minimal watershed runoff into the lake during
summer. This is reflected in the element composition of lake samples compared to the road
runoff samples analyzed by the SEM-EDS (Table 2). While the lake samples consisted
mostly of silica (average >90%) with some zinc, aluminum and copper, the road runoff
samples contained much less silica (average 50-65%) with a greater percentage in aluminum
(15-25%) and other major elements characteristic of crustal material (Mg, K, Ca, Fe).
Table 2.
Relative elemental composition of SEM filter samples determined by energy dispersive
x-ray emission, displaying weight % of each element, taken as the average of all images
for each filter.
Name
Na
Mg
Al
Si
K
Ca
Ti
Fe
Cu
Zn
FPS-07 F2
2.2
2.1
22.1
54.5
4.5
4.3
8.1
0.2
2.0
FPS-48-F2
1.7
0.8
18.7
56.9
3.9
5.4
9.2
0.3
3.2
FPS-52-F1
3.4
2.7
17.2
55.8
3.8
7.5
0.2
8.1
0.3
1.1
FPS-60-F2
0.7
23.3
60.2
2.1
9.3
0.6
3.6
FPS-81-F1
1.5
15.1
64.4
3.4
7.1
8.5
T-01-5.2-F1
1.1
93.0
2.4
3.4
T-01-5.2-F2
1.0
93.7
1.5
3.9
T-03-5.2-F2
5.2
90.9
0.7
3.2
T-13-5.2-F2
1.3
93.6
5.1
MLTP-2-F1
6.3
92.3
1.5
MLTP-50-F1
95.8
0.7
3.5
The microscopic evaluation of selected samples shows that particle sizes are small,
generally <10 µm in the road samples and <5 µm in the lake samples. Indeed, analysis of
particle size distribution in runoff samples collected during this period demonstrated an
average d90 of 18 µm in the pre-screened (<20 µm) fractions and 48 µm in the raw (<1000
µm) fraction (Figure 8). The average median diameter (d50) of samples in both fractions
ranged from 5-8 µm (Appendix C). The concentration of suspended solids averaged 261
mg/L and 317 mg/L in the pre-screened and raw fractions, respectively. Average turbidity
was 312 for the pre-screened fraction and 328 NTU for the raw samples. Turbidity and size
distributions were typical of road runoff samples for the Lake Tahoe basin (Heyvaert et al.,
2011). Organic content based on loss-on-ignition averaged around 25% for both fractions. It
is likely that this organic content represents asphalt and tire-wear material, since biological
fragments were rarely observed in the SEM images of road runoff.
Sources of Highway Runoff Fine Sediment – September 2012
28
120!
Screened <20 µm!
Cumulative particle volume (%)!
100!
Raw sample!
80!
60!
40!
20!
0!
0.1!
Figure 8.
1!
10!
Particle size (µm)!
100!
1000!
Mean particle size distributions in road runoff samples. Split samples were analyzed for
both raw (<1000 µm) and pre-screened (<20 µm) cumulative size distribution.
Analytic Data
Hierarchical cluster analysis was used to reduce the dimension of the analytic data
matrix. An example is shown in Figure 9 for the soil samples, using standardized data with
Ward’s error sum classification and no pre-selection of analytes. All reported analytes were
included for the classification with concentrations represented in mg/kg (ppm). No clear
reason was apparent for these two groups as the sites represented by these samples are
distributed and intermixed around the Tahoe Basin. However, this broad classification into
two different soil groups should potentially improve sample source assignment in the
subsequent multivariate analyses. Road cut samples were not included in the cluster analysis
because they are likely to represent a variable mixture of both road and soil materials.
Sources of Highway Runoff Fine Sediment – September 2012
29
Figure 9.
Cluster analysis of soil samples analyzed for element composition. Entries reference the
sample ID numbers (Appendix D).
A similar approach was used to classify the abrasives into two groups (Figure 10).
Group 1 represents the volcanic cinder composition of road abrasives used by both the City
of South Lake Tahoe and Eldorado County Department of Transportation. Group 2 abrasives
represent of all other samples representing the typical sanding materials (granite-derived)
used by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), the Nevada Department of
Transportation (NDOT), Placer County, Washoe County, Kingsbury General Improvement
District (Kingsbury GID) and the Incline General Improvement District (IVGID).
Sources of Highway Runoff Fine Sediment – September 2012
30
Figure 10. Cluster analysis of abrasive samples analyzed for element composition. Entries reference
the sample ID numbers (Appendix D).
A preliminary screening of all analyzed elements was conducted on source samples to
evaluate which were likely to show relative differences in concentration between sources.
These results are represented for many of the important elements in Figure 11. It can be seen
that there are apparent significant differences in many cases between the source materials,
although no particular element distinguishes between all source materials.
Certain elements have unexpected distributions. For example, Na concentrations are
very high in abrasives compared to the other source materials. This is certainly because of
de-icing salts blended into the abrasive mixtures (see XRD results in Appendix C). It is likely
that these salts were not prevalent in the road runoff samples analyzed, however, since they
are naturally diluted during runoff and the salt ions in solution pass through filters during
sample processing. However, any residual traces ultimately could have consequences for the
interpretation of results.
It is important to note that these concentrations represent the acid-extractable element
concentrations, and not total concentrations. For some elements (e.g. Pb, Mn, Ni) the percent
recovery was relatively good (100%±20), based on comparison to simultaneous digestion and
analysis of standard reference materials (SRMs), while for other elements (e.g. Na, Al, Ti)
the recovery was quite low (<20%). Usually, however the precision was good (RSD <15%),
even if when digestions and concentration recoveries were not complete. Therefore, results
are considered reliable for comparing the relative element distributions between sources.
Sources of Highway Runoff Fine Sediment – September 2012
31
120,000
Na (mg/kg)
100,000
Na (mg/kg)
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
0
2
il
So
So
il
1
e
pi
d
R
G
ra
oa
no
An
di
de
or
ec
ite
te
si
2
ve
si
ra
Ab
Ab
ra
si
ve
1
-20,000
14,000
Mg (mg/kg)
12,000
Mg (mg/kg)
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
2
So
il
1
il
So
e
d
R
G
ra
oa
no
An
di
pi
ec
or
ite
te
de
si
2
ve
si
ra
Ab
Ab
ra
si
ve
1
0
60,000
Al (mg/kg)
50,000
Al (mg/kg)
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
2
il
So
1
il
R
oa
d
So
e
pi
or
no
di
de
G
ra
An
ec
ite
te
si
2
ve
si
ra
Ab
Ab
ra
si
ve
1
0
Figure 11. Relative concentrations of acid-extractable elements in source material types.
Sources of Highway Runoff Fine Sediment – September 2012
32
5,000
P (mg/kg)
P (mg/kg)
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
2
So
il
1
il
So
e
pi
d
R
G
ra
oa
no
An
di
de
or
ec
ite
te
si
2
ve
si
ra
Ab
Ab
ra
si
ve
1
0
25,000
S (mg/kg)
20,000
S (mg/kg)
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
2
il
So
So
il
1
e
R
G
ra
oa
no
d
di
pi
ec
or
ite
te
An
de
si
2
ve
si
ra
Ab
Ab
ra
si
ve
1
-5,000
6,000
K (mg/kg)
5,000
K (mg/kg)
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
2
il
So
1
il
R
oa
d
So
e
pi
or
G
ra
no
di
de
An
ec
ite
te
si
2
ve
si
ra
Ab
Ab
ra
si
ve
1
0
Figure 11 (continued). Relative concentrations of acid-extractable elements in source material types.
Sources of Highway Runoff Fine Sediment – September 2012
33
35,000
Ca (mg/kg)
30,000
Ca (mg/kg)
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
2
il
So
1
il
R
G
ra
oa
no
d
So
e
pi
or
di
de
An
ec
ite
te
si
2
ve
si
ra
Ab
Ab
ra
si
ve
1
0
4,000
Ti (mg/kg)
3,500
Ti (mg/kg)
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
2
il
So
1
il
So
e
R
G
ra
oa
no
d
di
pi
ec
or
ite
te
An
de
si
2
ve
si
ra
Ab
Ab
ra
si
ve
1
500
200
V (mg/kg)
V (mg/kg)
150
100
2
il
So
1
il
R
oa
d
So
e
pi
or
G
ra
no
di
de
An
ec
ite
te
si
2
ve
si
ra
Ab
Ab
ra
si
ve
1
50
Figure 11 (continued). Relative concentrations of acid-extractable elements in source material types.
Sources of Highway Runoff Fine Sediment – September 2012
34
Cr (mg/kg)
200
Cr (mg/kg)
150
100
50
2
il
So
So
il
1
e
pi
d
R
G
ra
oa
no
An
di
de
or
ec
ite
te
si
2
ve
si
ra
Ab
Ab
ra
si
ve
1
0
3,000
Mn (mg/kg)
2,500
Mn (mg/kg)
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
2
So
il
1
il
So
e
pi
d
R
G
ra
oa
no
An
di
de
ec
or
ite
te
si
2
ve
si
ra
Ab
Ab
ra
si
ve
1
0
50,000
Fe (mg/kg)
45,000
Fe (mg/kg)
40,000
35,000
30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
2
il
So
1
il
R
oa
d
So
e
pi
or
G
ra
no
di
de
An
ec
ite
te
si
2
ve
si
ra
Ab
Ab
ra
si
ve
1
10,000
Figure 11 (continued). Relative concentrations of acid-extractable elements in source material types.
Sources of Highway Runoff Fine Sediment – September 2012
35
60
Co (mg/kg)
50
Co (mg/kg)
40
30
20
10
2
So
il
1
il
So
e
pi
d
R
G
ra
oa
no
An
di
de
or
ec
ite
te
si
2
ve
si
ra
Ab
Ab
ra
si
ve
1
0
120
Ni (mg/kg)
100
Ni (mg/kg)
80
60
40
20
0
2
il
So
So
il
1
e
R
G
ra
oa
no
d
di
pi
ec
or
ite
te
An
de
si
2
ve
si
ra
Ab
Ab
ra
si
ve
1
-20
120
Cu (mg/kg)
100
Cu (mg/kg)
80
60
40
20
2
il
So
1
il
d
R
oa
no
G
ra
So
e
pi
or
di
de
An
ec
ite
te
si
2
ve
si
ra
Ab
Ab
ra
si
ve
1
0
Figure 11 (continued). Relative concentrations of acid-extractable elements in source material types.
Sources of Highway Runoff Fine Sediment – September 2012
36
250
Zn (mg/kg)
Zn (mg/kg)
200
150
100
50
2
il
So
1
il
So
e
pi
d
R
G
ra
oa
no
An
di
de
or
ec
ite
te
si
2
ve
si
ra
Ab
Ab
ra
si
ve
1
0
20
As (mg/kg)
As (mg/kg)
15
10
5
2
il
So
1
il
So
e
R
G
ra
oa
no
d
di
pi
ec
or
ite
te
An
de
si
2
ve
si
ra
Ab
Ab
ra
si
ve
1
0
6
Mo (mg/kg)
5
Mo (mg/kg)
4
3
2
1
2
il
So
1
il
R
oa
no
d
So
e
pi
or
di
de
G
ra
An
ec
ite
te
si
2
ve
si
ra
Ab
Ab
ra
si
ve
1
0
Figure 11 (continued). Relative concentrations of acid-extractable elements in source material types.
Sources of Highway Runoff Fine Sediment – September 2012
37
400
Sr (mg/kg)
350
Sr (mg/kg)
300
250
200
150
100
50
2
il
So
R
G
ra
oa
no
d
So
il
1
e
pi
or
di
de
An
ec
ite
te
si
2
ve
si
ra
Ab
Ab
ra
si
ve
1
0
250
Pb (mg/kg)
Pb (mg/kg)
200
150
100
50
2
il
So
1
il
So
e
oa
R
G
ra
no
d
di
pi
ec
or
ite
te
An
de
si
2
ve
si
ra
Ab
Ab
ra
si
ve
1
0
Figure 11 (continued). Relative concentrations of acid-extractable elements in source material types.
The sample results were then normalized to internal lanthanum concentrations and
means were compared across different source materials by the Tukey-Kramer HSD test for
groups with different sample sizes. In some cases, the difference between source materials is
clearly significant, as shown in the comparison circles of Figure 12 for strontium, barium and
the rare earth element hafnium. In other cases, the difference is insignificant, as shown in
Figure 5b for phosphorus, magnesium and cadmium. Generally, the road abrasives and road
aggregate materials were more similar to each other than either of these sources were to the
soil parent materials.
Sources of Highway Runoff Fine Sediment – September 2012
38
30
25
Sr
20
15
10
5
0
Abrasive
Parent
Source
Road
All Pairs
Tukey-Kramer
0.05
Abrasive
Parent
Source
Road
All Pairs
Tukey-Kramer
0.05
35
30
Ba
25
20
15
10
5
0
0.1
0.09
Hf
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
-0.01
Abrasive
Parent
Source
Road
All Pairs
Tukey-Kramer
0.05
Figure 12. Means comparison between different source samples. Element composition is normalized
to sample lanthanum concentrations. Diamonds represent group mean statistics, with 95%
confidence intervals between the vertical endpoints, and group mean at the middle line.
Comparison circles are shown from the Tukey-Kramer HSD test, where significant
differences exist when the circles do not intersect or intersect only slightly.
Sources of Highway Runoff Fine Sediment – September 2012
39
200
P
150
100
50
0
Abrasive
Parent
Source
Road
All Pairs
Tukey-Kramer
0.05
Parent
Source
Road
All Pairs
Tukey-Kramer
0.05
Road
All Pairs
Tukey-Kramer
0.05
2000
Mg
1500
1000
500
0
Abrasive
0.035
0.03
0.025
Cd
0.02
0.015
0.01
0.005
0
-0.005
Abrasive
Parent
Source
Figure 12 (continued). Means comparison between different source samples. Element composition
is normalized to sample lanthanum concentrations. Diamonds represent group mean
statistics, with 95% confidence intervals between the vertical endpoints, and group mean
at the middle line. Comparison circles are shown from the Tukey-Kramer HSD test,
where significant differences exist when the circles do not intersect or intersect only
slightly.
Sources of Highway Runoff Fine Sediment – September 2012
40
Elements that were indistinguishable between the different sources were excluded in
subsequent multivariate analyses. Somewhat surprisingly these included several of the
common anthropogenic metals, such as cadmium and magnesium shown in Figure 12. The
remaining elements were then evaluated for characteristics of distribution and correlation,
before conducing a stepwise discriminant function analysis to identify the optimum
fingerprinting suite of elements for distinguishing between source types.
Risk Parameter Mapping
There was considerable correlation between the different risk parameters. To reduce
the number of parameters and identify the key factors, three experts were asked to weight
each of the parameters. Based on their experience and assessment, the following risk factors
were considered to be the most important to fine sediment generation and transport into Lake
Tahoe: precipitation, soil type, traffic volume, and impervious cover percentage. William
Loftis at the NRCS South Lake Tahoe Field Office suggested using both runoff potential and
K-factor instead of soil type. The runoff potential accounts for likelihood of surface flow and
the K-factor accounts for likelihood of the particle being detached and transported. The Kfactor does account for permeability/infiltration, so there is some overlap with the runoff
potential.
Maps showing the distribution of each parameter along the roadways of the basin were
developed and presented to the experts. Based on their experience and knowledge of the
Lake Tahoe Basin, four scenarios were developed based on different weights of the key risk
parameters (Table 3). General risk levels were developed for each of the scenarios and maps
were developed showing the risk levels, with scenario two considered most representative of
fine sediment risk levels along Tahoe Basin highways. Figure 13 shows the resultant risk
levels for Lake Tahoe Basin highways based on that analysis.
Table 3.
Summary of the four scenarios for weighting key risk parameters.
Impervious
Scenario Traffic Precipitation K-factor Runoff Potential
Cover
1
30%
30%
20%
10%
2
40%
40%
10%
10%
3
30%
30%
10%
10%
20%
4
40%
40%
5%
5%
10%
Sources of Highway Runoff Fine Sediment – September 2012
41
Figure 13. Estimated fine sediment transport risk levels for major roadways in the Lake Tahoe
Basin, Scenario 2.
Sources of Highway Runoff Fine Sediment – September 2012
42
Fingerprinting Analysis
Results from statistical analysis show that source types are clearly distinguished by
their element composition (Figure 14). Although these initial results were promising, a
multivariate mixing model has not been able to clearly estimate the relative contribution of
sediment sources in the runoff samples or in the lake. Part of the problem is that while the
discriminant function can separate source materials in terms of composition, the runoff
samples have a wider variation in composition that overlaps with multiple sources. This is
not surprising given the overall similarity between source materials, which makes them close
statistical neighbors. For example, the abrasives are mainly quarried from regional sources
that reflect the same composition as the soils in the Tahoe Basin. Furthermore, the filler used
in local asphalt road construction and resurfacing are generally the same source materials
also, consisting of sands and decomposed granites from regional quarries with similar
geology. Furthermore, the high silica concentrations in the mix of silica-rich diatoms and
alumina-silicate soil and mineral particles in the lake water samples make it difficult to
differentiate between particles based solely on major and minor element composition (Table
2). Water samples do not match the composition of particulate samples, but it proved to be
very difficult to filter a sufficient quantity of particles from the lake water for accurate
estimation of element mass after digestions. The low concentrations of trace elements pose
problems with contamination in the sample handling, processing, filtration, digestion and
subsequent analysis. These issues are under investigation and will be addressed in continuing
statistical analysis to elucidate normalizing functions that may enhance the discriminatory
power of the existing data set. These results will be included in an update to this report as
those analyses are completed.
32
Er
Road
Ca
Mn
28
Ba
26
Axis 2
Ge
Sc
Ag107
Zr
Ho
Sr
S
Hf
Co
Mo
Ni
24
Parent
30
Te
AsSe
20
Sm
18
Tl
Abrasive
22
Rb
16
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
Axis 1
Figure 14. Discriminant analysis by element composition of different source materials.
Sources of Highway Runoff Fine Sediment – September 2012
43
CONCLUSIONS
Stormwater runoff samples were successfully collected over a multi-year period from a
randomly selected set of highway sites distributed around the Lake Tahoe Basin. The runoff
samples represented a variety of storm events, from winter storms and spring snowmelt to the
occasional summer thunderstorm. Samples were also collected from snow berms, from
mineral soil at some distance from roadway influence, as well as fragments of road material
and a few rock samples of granodiorite and andesite, the dominant geological material of the
Tahoe Basin. These samples were processed and screened to obtain the fine particle portions,
which were digested in a strong mixture of nitric and hydrochloric acid to yield the acidextractable fractions for analysis of major, minor and trace elements.
Distinct chemical differences were evident between source samples, so hierarchical
cluster analysis was used to further separate the source samples into a few distinct selfsimilar groups. Based on this analysis two broad groups of abrasives could be distinguished,
one representing the volcanic cinder origin of materials used by both Eldorado County and
the City of South Lake Tahoe, while the other group was composed primarily of granitic
sands common to the area. Similarly, the soils were clustered into two broad groups,
although the underlying cause of this distinction is not immediately evident since the samples
from both soil groups are interspersed around the Tahoe Basin without any apparent pattern.
The rock samples were generally different from the other source materials, including
regionally derived abrasives. The winter traction abrasives are typically blended with
differing amounts of salt to facilitate roadway deicing, and this may be in part the source of
observed differences between road sands and the parent geologic material of the Lake Tahoe
Basin. Road salts were evident in XRD analysis of size-screened abrasive samples, and to
some extent in the chemical composition of abrasive samples, showing up as ions of sodium
and perhaps magnesium.
Analysis of selected samples by scanning electron microscopy showed considerable
numbers of very small (<8 µm) mineral particles generally dominating the runoff sample
particle size distribution. This confirms the results of particle size analysis on these samples
by laser backscattering analysis. Clay mineral particles and solid micron-sized mineral
fragments were the most common particles observed in SEM images, with occasional dark
aggregates of amorphous material that may represent asphalt particles. The overall
composition of runoff samples was about 25% organic, with very minimal evidence of any
biological material in the SEM images. Thus road and tire wear may be contributing up to
about one-quarter of the total fine particle mass in runoff samples.
The spatial distribution of fine sediment generation and transport risk in highway
runoff was estimated by GIS analysis. Multiple potential factors were considered, but
ultimately the amount of traffic, precipitation, soil hydraulic conductivity and impervious
adjacent areas were selected as being most influential. Runoff samples collected at preselected random highway sites included all risk levels from very low to very high.
Sources of Highway Runoff Fine Sediment – September 2012
44
The discriminant analysis between source materials performed well, using a mix of
elements statistically selected as representing significantly different compositions across
sources. However, the relative assignment of road runoff samples to different source
categories has not performed as expected. The reasons for this remain under investigation,
and the authors believe that further statistical analysis will reveal an approach that provides
the type of source attribution desired as an objective of this project. It has proven much more
difficult to achieve the separation expected because the element compositions of the source
samples are so similar. Despite a robust statistical separation by discriminant analysis, the
source samples are quite similar and the discrimination is based upon very small differences
in relative element composition. This fact, in conjunction with a broader range of element
concentrations naturally represented in the highway runoff samples, means that there is too
much overlap inherent to the test samples in their source sample attributions. Element
compositions were normalized to lanthanum, a step designed to remove noise in the data set
for elements at very low concentrations, but this may obscure important relationships
between other elements. In the Lake Tahoe samples, for example, which were not filtered to
remove and analyze only the particulate fraction, lanthanum and many other elements are at
very high concentrations compared to the source materials and runoff. Recycling and
regeneration in the water column of rare earth elements, like lanthanum, and other elements
make the assignment of source for particles from lake particularly difficult, since sufficient
mass for analysis is very difficult to obtain and it is then mixed with a large portion
representing the diatom elemental composition, which is distinctly different from runoff
particles delivered to the lake. Alternative normalization schemes are being evaluated for the
purpose of reducing noise in the data set and to improve the results of mixing models applied
for resolving relative source attributions. The authors are confident that progress in this area
will soon yield reliable data on relative contributions from the main sources evaluated in this
study, despite very similar compositions resulting from a common geologic origin. Results
and further interpretations will be included in updates to this report as those analyses are
completed.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This project was made possible by funding from the Southern Nevada Public Land
Management Act (SNPLMA) through a grant administered by the USDA Forest Service
Pacific Southwest Research Station. We would like to thank Larry Layman, Ed Hackett and
Sophie Baker from DRI for their assistance with XRD, XRF and ICP-MS analyses. We also
recognize and appreciate the efforts of our field and laboratory technicians that have worked
to collect, process and analyze the samples that informed this study. In particular we would
like to acknowledge Sam Pincock at DRI, Collin Strasenburgh, Raph Townsend, and Andrea
Buxton at the UCD Tahoe Environmental Research Center. Geoff Schladow and colleagues
graciously provided us with an opportunity to collect lake samples during the UCD-TERC
PARASOL cruise in 2011.
Sources of Highway Runoff Fine Sediment – September 2012
45
REFERENCES
Adachi, K. and Y. Tainosho, 2005, Single particle characterization of size-fractionated road
sediments. Applied Geochemistry, 20(5): 849-859.
Caltrans, 2001, Caltrans Tahoe basin stormwater monitoring program, Monitoring season
2000-2001. California Department of Transportation, Report CTSW-RT-01-038.
Caltrans, 2003, Caltrans Tahoe highway runoff characterization and sand trap effectiveness
studies – 2000-03 monitoring report. California Department of Transportation, Report
CTSW-RT-03-054.36.02.
Goldman, C.R. 1974. Eutrophication of Lake Tahoe, Emphasizing Water Quality. NTIS,
EPA Report EPA-660/3-74-034. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. 408 p.
Goldman, C.R. 1988. Primary productivity, nutrients, and transparency during the early onset
of eutrophication in ultra-oligotrophic Lake Tahoe, California-Nevada. Limnol. Oceanogr.
33(6, part 1):1321-1333.
Goldman, C.R. 1994. Lake Tahoe: A microcosm for the study of the impact of urbanization
on fragile ecosystems, p. 93-105. In R.H. Platt et al. (eds.), The Ecological City. University
of Massachusetts Press, Amherst.
Greenberg, J.A., S.Z. Dobrowski, C.M.Ramirez, J.L. Tull, & S.L. Ustin, 2006. A Bottom-up
Approach to Vegetation Mapping of the Lake Tahoe Basin Using Hyperspatial Image
Analysis. Photogrammetric Engineering & Remote Sensing 72 (5): 581-589.
Heyvaert, A., D. Nover, T. Caldwell, W. Trowbridge, G. Schladow, and J. Reuter. 2011.
Assessment of Particle Size Analysis in the Lake Tahoe Basin. Desert Research Institute,
Reno, NV, and University of California, Davis, CA.
Heyvaert, A., J. Thomas, R. Edwards, C. Stasenburgh, J. Reuter, and C. Goldman, 2006,
Preliminary results from a watershed source apportionment study of fine sediment loadings
into Lake Tahoe. Nevada Water Resources Association Lake Tahoe Science Plan Workshop
October 18-20, 2006 Abstracts, p. 63.
Jassby, A.D., C.R. Goldman, J.E. Reuter and R.C. Richards, 1999, Origins and scaledependence of temporal variability in the transparency of Lake Tahoe, California-Nevada
(USA). Limnology and Oceanography, 44(2): 282-294.
Jones, T., J. Thomas, T. Mihevc and M. Gunter, 2005, Evaluation of effectiveness of three
types of highway alignment BMPs for sediment and nutrient control. Desert Research
Institute Publication no. 41209, 118 p.
Kimoto, A., et al., 2006, Multi-year tracking of sediment sources in a small agricultural
watershed using rare earth elements, Earth Surf Proc Land, 31(14), 1763-1774.
Lahontan and NDEP, 2007, Lake Tahoe TMDL Pollutant Reduction Opportunity Report.
Lahontan Water Bd., South Lake Tahoe, CA. 266 p.
Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board (Lahontan) and Nevada Division of
Environmental Protection (NDEP). 2010a. Lake Tahoe Total Maximum Daily Load
Technical Report. California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Lahontan Region,
South Lake Tahoe, CA, and Nevada Division of Environmental Protection, Carson City, NV.
Sources of Highway Runoff Fine Sediment – September 2012
46
Luck, M., Heyvaert, A.C., Reuter, J.E. 2002. Lake Tahoe Basin Land Cover and Land Use
GIS Layer. University of California at Davis, Tahoe Research Group. Produced for the
Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board, South Lake Tahoe, CA. July 31, 2002.
Mihevc, T., J. Thomas and M.Gunter, 2004, Evaluation of urban runoff BMP effectiveness
through assessment of mechanical treatment technologies and wetland systems employed at
the Stateline Stormwater Project. Desert Research Institute Publication no. 41204, 60 p.
Minor, T.B., and Cablk, M.E., 2004. Estimation of Hard Impervious Cover in the Lake
Tahoe Basin Using Remote Sensing and Geographic Information Systems Data
Integration. Journal of the Nevada Water Resources Association, Vol. 1, No. 1, 58-75.
Pekey, H., D. Karakas and M. Bakoglu, 2004, Source apportionment of trace metals in
surface waters of a polluted stream using multivariate statistical analyses. Mar. Pollut. Bull.
49 (9-10): 809-818.
Polyakov, V. O., and M. A. Nearing, 2004, Rare earth element oxides for tracing sediment
movement, Catena, 55(3), 255-276.
Roberts, D.M. and J.E. Reuter, 2007, Lake Tahoe Total Maximum Daily Load Technical
Report – California and Nevada. California – Lahontan Water Board and Nevada Division of
Environmental Protection. 321 p.
Robertson, D.J., K.G.Taylor, S.R. Hoon, 2003, Geochemical and mineral magnetic
characterisation of urban sediment particulates, Manchester, UK. Appl. Geochem. 18 (2):
269-282.
Shi, H., et al., 1997, A study on sediment sources in a small watershed by using REE tracer
method, Sci China Ser E, 40(1), 12-20.
Saucedo, G.J., compiler, 2005, Geologic map of the Lake Tahoe Basin, California and
Nevada, scale 1:100,000. California Geological Survey, Regional Geological Map Series,
Map No. 4.
Swift, T.J. 2004. The aquatic optics of Lake Tahoe, CA-NV. Ph.D. Dissertation, University
of California, Davis, 212 pp.
Swift, T. J., J. Perez-Losada, S.G. Schladow, J. E. Reuter, A.D. Jassby and C.R. Goldman.
2006. Water Quality Modeling in Lake Tahoe: linking suspended matter characteristics to
Secchi depth. Aquatic Sciences, 68:1-15.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), 2000, A Synopsis of Technical Issues of Concern for
Monitoring Trace Elements in Highway and Urban Runoff. Open File Report 00-422.
Sources of Highway Runoff Fine Sediment – September 2012
47
APPENDIX A. Random Selection of GIS Mapped Roadway Sites (with coordinates
shown in Figure 1, using the NAD-83 datum).
SITE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
LATITUDE
38.7934310349609
38.79685792086
38.7966626798188
38.7921384359041
38.7919299530304
38.80155691034
38.8127367217938
38.8238832952512
38.814493436467
38.8328779450721
38.8433476127764
38.8584957502116
38.866739733409
38.8794624082038
38.9022247413593
38.9249123095383
38.9416640804693
38.9518537107248
38.8724243973118
38.9064977262582
38.9196431792373
38.9360069408044
38.9464370624098
38.9511101223063
38.9586436820087
38.9675506052554
38.9711532952392
38.9739707472561
38.9791354783833
38.9937280510307
39.00112223996
39.0164793429821
39.0297253350648
39.0388030653522
39.055261860639
39.0644938649975
39.0841746905663
39.1110401715256
39.1208367178412
39.1425712707716
39.1524666346836
39.1685016067946
LONGITUDE
-119.955058127162
-119.966643027335
-119.982393770335
-119.997852208645
-120.01078563869
-120.008870381177
-120.015058774913
-120.018165210964
-120.028182014717
-120.035654320637
-120.035264706475
-120.012028798824
-119.996579480195
-119.989464204884
-119.969719514291
-119.955022878441
-119.95178428938
-119.947116097815
-120.005890415592
-120.000475198714
-119.994697039041
-119.97732955313
-119.963150317572
-119.951753627656
-119.942328636801
-119.924595049448
-119.912784640243
-119.90171282709
-119.936988955416
-119.948367433478
-119.955923137971
-119.947371642663
-119.946306387163
-119.948558903301
-119.943159720946
-119.942885785753
-119.931139770459
-119.922500770607
-119.927886543504
-119.925862344681
-119.928357596295
-119.926338416993
Sources of Highway Runoff Fine Sediment – September 2012
48
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
39.1798049761321
39.1931804879748
39.221367658733
39.2322955835669
39.2404155510022
39.2395502051055
39.2370083205966
39.2299755580384
39.2268687426887
39.2030478362269
39.1944541620129
39.1868498579961
39.1782900913031
39.1679350427711
39.1541778981455
39.1464774513322
39.135131820091
39.1266891464704
39.1148557731115
39.0990517079088
39.0802494538621
39.0732891878905
39.0684346087364
39.0616764958098
39.0412304965143
39.0350906222305
39.0212580137996
39.0143336438235
38.9740685198253
38.9604241411718
38.9523983864965
38.946167375373
38.9509505930784
38.9446262159928
38.9336658649379
38.9334641396472
38.9341838946732
38.9301615814486
38.9220818591571
38.9178508059548
39.2529616125543
39.2587443349286
39.2494590436963
39.2510520553023
39.2529780850982
39.265186017593
-119.925340039703
-119.926788828623
-119.927922936727
-119.932063718438
-119.930211273339
-120.047509174263
-120.063611391999
-120.07005439743
-120.079357494447
-120.096005017059
-120.101373731792
-120.119840565781
-120.131310164282
-120.144941637779
-120.146035713541
-120.150247152792
-120.155683493466
-120.162385909028
-120.158281699538
-120.163773274394
-120.157402903042
-120.144547504786
-120.131730260552
-120.122553583839
-120.122204901829
-120.120489056716
-120.12301725359
-120.120733807413
-120.099398645207
-120.103119421351
-120.112176683777
-120.098210437435
-120.084875822442
-120.078346239391
-120.073058465239
-120.059144978138
-120.045516754162
-120.030838887285
-120.022797714656
-120.010898696284
-120.038493065882
-120.068928828159
-119.948694136223
-119.970551431732
-119.939077604357
-119.944850921122
Sources of Highway Runoff Fine Sediment – September 2012
49
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
39.2488702997249
39.2411069532815
39.2288122304437
39.2352449278833
39.2380314895731
39.2511272847546
39.270889859429
39.2689964299036
39.2646386056151
39.2754474749204
39.2855854345866
39.2974289872866
-119.994326152914
-120.000560504855
-120.003617531565
-120.020004140445
-119.938540417314
-119.975226547937
-119.951017550525
-119.936677690608
-119.929622212479
-119.933613356654
-119.933017127051
-119.921657593112
Sources of Highway Runoff Fine Sediment – September 2012
50
APPENDIX B. Sources of GIS Data Used in Roadway FSP Risk Parameter Mapping.
California Department of Transportation, Traffic Counts, http://traffic-counts.dot.ca.gov
El Dorado County, California, Department of Transportation, Traffic Counts Annual
Summary, http://edcapps.edcgov.us/dot/trafficcounts.asp
National Resources Conservation Service, Soil Survey Geographic Database,
http://soils.usda.gov/survey/geography/ssurgo/
Nevada Department of Transportation, Annual Traffic Reports,
http://www.nevadadot.com/reports_pubs/Traffic_Report/
PRISM Climate Group, Oregon State University, http://www.prism.oregonstate.edu/
Tahoe Basin Existing Vegetation Map, http://casil.ucdavis.edu/projects/tbevm
United States Geological Survey, National Elevation Dataset, http://seamless.usgs.gov/
Sources of Highway Runoff Fine Sediment – September 2012
51
snow berm
snow berm
snow berm
soil
road dust
runoff
runoff
runoff
runoff
snow berm
snow berm
snow berm
snow berm
snow berm
snow berm
soil
road piece
soil
road piece
soil
road piece
soil
road piece
soil
road piece
soil
road piece
Sources of Highway Runoff Fine Sediment – September 2012
19
7
15
18
32
34
28
7
14
4
14
5
31
11
16
16
40
15
38
35
34
31
13
18
28
15
32
23
26
17
81
9
27
17
62
82
43
42
42
47
13
9
19
9
15
72
72
85
20
68
42
54
29
57
60
70
43
62
16
69
19
75
Thenardite
Halite
Muscovite
Dolomite
Horneblende
Kaolinite
Sample date
10/5/11
10/5/11
6/6/11
6/6/11
6/6/11
4/12/11
4/15/11
4/6/11
10/30/10
10/30/10
10/5/11
10/5/11
10/5/11
10/5/11
3/30/11
4/12/11
4/15/11
4/6/11
4/6/11
4/15/11
10/30/10
10/30/10
10/30/10
10/30/10
10/30/10
10/30/10
10/30/10
10/30/10
10/30/10
10/30/10
10/30/10
10/30/10
Montmorillonite
Type
runoff
runoff
runoff
runoff
runoff
Plagioclase
Location
FPS-49
FPS-20
FPS-20
FPS-59
FPS-49
FPS-49
FPS-20
FPS-59
FPS-59
FPS-59
FPS-23
FPS-48
FPS-66
FPS-92
FPS-23
FPS-48
FPS-58
FPS-60
FPS-81
FPS-92
FPS-23
FPS-23
FPS-48
FPS-48
FPS-49
FPS-49
FPS-59
FPS-59
FPS-66
FPS-66
FPS-92
FPS-92
Quartz
APPENDIX C1. Semi-quantitative XRD analysis of sample composition (approximate
%). See text for description of sample types.
84
74
83
24
2
30
26
22
46
32
33
38
44
5
9
42
13
30
11
7
11
25
10
20
12
23
8
11
7
2
42
12
29
43
9
5
5
4
8
14
4
5
4
30
23
46
5
9
18
17
20
8
52
Sources of Highway Runoff Fine Sediment – September 2012
13
9
24
11
3
6
10
9
61
16
9
49
44
Thenardite
Halite
Muscovite
Dolomite
37
7
38
21
48
40
67
Horneblende
2
77
40
9
2
26
13
Kaolinite
Sample date
3/18/11
5/25/11
3/21/11
1/12/09
8/18/11
4/27/11
5/3/11
Montmorillonite
Type
abrasive
abrasive
abrasive
abrasive
abrasive
abrasive
abrasive
Plagioclase
Location
CSLT
Caltrans-N
Caltrans-S
IVGID
NDOT
Eldo DG WOS
Placer
Quartz
APPENDIX C2. Semi-quantitative XRD analysis of sample composition (approximate
%). CSLT is City of South Lake Tahoe, Caltrans is California Department of
Transportation (north and south Lake Tahoe yards), IVGID is Incline Village General
Improvement District, NDOT is Nevada Department of Transportation, Eldo DG WOS
is Eldorado County Department of Transportation (decomposed granite without salt,
instead of their usual cinders).
9
53
APPENDIX D. Results reported from ICP-MS and XRF analyses, with analyte concentrations given in ppm.
Sample
ID
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
Site Name
CSLT
Caltrans-N
Caltrans-S
IVGID
NDOT
Eldorado
Placer
Caltrans-S
Caltrans-N
Kingsbury
Eldorado
IVGID
CSLT
Caltrans-S
IVGID
Placer
FPS-7
FPS-12
FPS-14
FPS-20
FPS-23
FPS-23
FPS-41
FPS-47
FPS-52
FPS-45
FPS-69
FPS-75
FPS-88
FPS-23
FPS-49
FPS-58
Sample Description
CSLT Abrasive <20
Caltrans North <20
Caltrans South <20
Washoe IVGID - A <20
NDOT Abrasive 1 <20
ELDO <20 DG w/o salt
Placer Abrasive 1<20
Caltrans Meyers <20
Caltrans Tahoe City <20
Kingsbury GID <20
Eldo Cty Cinders (1) <20
DOT Incline Washoe Cty <20
Dept Public Works SLT <20
Caltrans Echo Summit <20
DOT Incline Washoe Cty <20
Placer Abrasive (I) <20
Road Dust <20
Road Dust <20
Road Dust <20
Road Dust <20
Road Dust <20
Road Dust <63
Road Dust <63
Road Dust <20
Road Dust <63
Road Dust <20
Road Dust <20
Road Dust <20
Road Dust <63
FPS-23 Road
FPS-49 Road
FPS-58 Road
Sources of Highway Runoff Fine Sediment – September 2012
Sample
Date
3/18/11
5/25/11
3/21/11
1/12/09
1/12/09
4/27/11
5/3/11
7/1/05
7/1/05
4/12/09
5/25/11
1/12/09
1/12/09
7/1/05
1/12/19
5/3/11
9/9/11
11/18/10
11/18/10
11/18/10
11/18/10
11/18/10
11/18/10
11/18/10
11/18/10
11/18/10
11/18/10
1/11/12
11/18/10
11/18/10
11/18/10
11/18/10
QC
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
Sample
Type
abrasive
abrasive
abrasive
abrasive
abrasive
abrasive
abrasive
abrasive
abrasive
abrasive
abrasive
abrasive
abrasive
abrasive
abrasive
abrasive
dust
dust
dust
dust
dust
dust
dust
dust
dust
dust
dust
dust
dust
road
road
road
Be
26.1
24.7
24.1
24.3
29.4
52.8
48.5
32.6
24.4
33.2
14.2
43.3
12.9
43.2
11.3
47.3
35.2
24.3
17.8
17.9
15.1
28.2
9.2
19.3
15.5
15.3
22.8
32.4
7.5
24.5
14.7
18.7
54
Na
5,668,562.3
2,194,094.0
809,135.3
4,739,024.8
3,877,854.7
42,350.5
107,435.0
120,320.5
928,086.6
3,731,620.8
5,780,179.0
4,464,908.1
3,625,260.5
137,864.1
3,339,706.9
133,512.4
139,721.5
182,037.2
100,450.1
186,554.5
121,633.0
183,093.3
220,028.7
105,578.0
179,461.2
166,749.5
132,036.6
162,916.4
76,990.6
155,365.6
161,577.4
172,881.1
Al
676,865.7
639,485.7
694,605.6
783,760.2
851,399.6
1,350,681.3
1,742,828.1
1,055,779.7
988,620.0
1,113,175.9
689,166.1
1,554,547.5
655,159.3
1,379,238.5
536,298.6
2,288,574.4
1,392,758.4
996,798.3
849,110.6
874,776.9
913,449.1
1,482,027.9
1,278,425.0
1,262,366.5
922,726.0
1,266,839.2
1,191,904.5
1,454,923.0
897,461.4
658,001.9
1,215,551.5
1,350,921.8
Sample
ID
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
Site Name
FPS-59
FPS-60
FPS-66
FPS-92
FPS-26
FPS-75
FPS-48
Andesite
Granite
Granite
Andesite
Granite
FPS-81
FPS-92
FPS-52
FPS-75
FPS-81
WLA-250
FPS-19
FPS-47
FPS-92
FPS-81
FPS-20
FPS-59
FPS-49
FPS-12
FPS-7
FPS-14
FPS-60
FPS-92
FPS-10
FPS-2
FPS-20
FPS-23
FPS-48
Sample Description
FPS-59 Road
FPS-60 Road
FPS-66 Road
FPS-92 Road
Road Piece
Road Piece
FPS-48 Road
LTB-98-1 (andesite)
LTB-98-2 (granodiorite)
LTB-98-3 (granodiorite)
LTB-98-4 (andesite)
LTB-98-2 (granodiorite)
FPS-81
FPS-92 Event
Event Runoff
Event Runoff
Event Runoff
WLA-250-5
FPS-19 <10 µm
FPS-47 Event
FPS-92 Event
FPS-81 Event
FPS-20 Event
FPS-59 Event
FPS-49 Event
FPS-12 Event
FPS-7 Event
FPS-14 Event
FPS-60 Event
FPS-92 Event
FPS-10 Event
FPS-2 Event
FPS-20 Event
FPS-23 Event
FPS-48 Event
Sources of Highway Runoff Fine Sediment – September 2012
Sample
Date
11/18/10
11/18/10
9/30/11
11/18/10
11/18/10
11/18/10
11/18/10
-----6/6/11
10/5/11
1/20/12
4/1/12
3/15/12
4/22/10
5/3/09
6/6/11
6/6/11
6/6/11
6/6/11
6/6/11
6/6/11
6/6/11
6/6/11
6/6/11
6/6/11
6/6/11
6/6/11
6/6/11
10/5/11
10/5/11
10/5/11
QC
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
lab dup
lab dup
lab duplicate
lab duplicate
lab duplicate
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
Sample
Type
road
road
road
road
road
road
road
rock
rock
rock
rock
rock
runoff
runoff
runoff
runoff
runoff
runoff
runoff
runoff
runoff
runoff
runoff
runoff
runoff
runoff
runoff
runoff
runoff
runoff
runoff
runoff
runoff
runoff
runoff
Be
22.0
31.5
20.5
24.3
16.1
8.1
53.4
10.0
10.7
11.7
5.7
2.3
3.5
2.5
4.2
14.7
0.6
6.7
1.4
10.2
9.3
4.0
3.7
1.3
12.9
9.8
7.2
5.0
1.9
6.0
7.6
1.0
22.5
12.3
7.9
55
Na
296,339.3
172,885.2
181,419.4
253,667.4
192,643.7
67,607.0
327,536.2
380,684.0
173,566.0
205,905.2
289,220.8
94,704.1
14,664.3
15,757.3
61,543.0
187,105.5
40,621.2
340,039.6
12,604.7
24,520.3
44,863.8
16,910.8
15,593.1
5,852.4
75,939.2
65,859.8
67,182.7
16,267.9
8,329.3
35,350.9
53,506.8
4,438.8
24,082.1
14,570.4
14,245.5
Al
1,678,428.5
1,347,425.2
1,102,406.2
1,922,890.9
1,027,250.8
848,432.5
2,678,237.1
1,802,996.6
1,095,987.4
1,674,043.9
1,292,328.8
516,679.3
122,173.0
98,996.4
419,895.3
716,368.2
182,576.7
297,719.8
112,347.0
427,420.7
558,194.6
133,528.6
110,108.2
49,360.8
817,511.6
453,753.6
320,888.9
212,698.5
90,994.4
406,590.3
312,240.6
31,941.5
114,945.6
66,153.5
118,377.3
Sample
ID
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
Site Name
FPS-49
FPS-58
FPS-59
FPS-60
FPS-66
FPS-66
FPS-92
FPS-7
FPS-12
FPS-14
FPS-23
FPS-23
FPS-34
FPS-34
FPS-41
FPS-41
FPS-47
FPS-47
FPS-49
FPS-52
FPS-52
FPS-58
FPS-66
FPS-26
FPS-26
FPS-45
FPS-45
FPS-48
FPS-69
FPS-75
FPS-75
FPS-75
FPS-88
FPS-69
FPS-52
Sample Description
FPS-49 Event
FPS-58 Event
FPS-59 Event
FPS-60 Event
FPS-66 Event
FPS-66 Event
FPS-92 Event
Event Runoff
Event Runoff
Event Runoff
Event Runoff
Event Runoff
Event Runoff
Event Runoff
Event Runoff
Event Runoff
Event Runoff
Event Runoff
Event Runoff
Event Runoff
Event Runoff
Event Runoff
Event Runoff
Event Runoff
Event Runoff
Event Runoff
Event Runoff
Event Runoff
Event Runoff
Event Runoff
Event Runoff
Event Runoff
Event Runoff
Event Runoff
FPS-52 (dup)
Sources of Highway Runoff Fine Sediment – September 2012
Sample
Date
10/5/11
10/5/11
10/5/11
10/5/11
6/6/11
10/5/11
10/5/11
3/15/12
3/15/12
3/14/12
3/31/12
1/20/12
4/1/12
1/20/12
1/20/12
4/6/10
1/20/12
4/6/10
3/3/12
1/20/12
4/6/10
3/12/12
1/20/12
3/31/12
1/20/12
1/20/12
3/29/10
3/16/12
1/20/12
4/1/12
1/20/12
4/27/10
3/3/12
4/27/10
4/12/11
QC
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
lab dup
Sample
Type
runoff
runoff
runoff
runoff
runoff
runoff
runoff
runoff
runoff
runoff
runoff
runoff
runoff
runoff
runoff
runoff
runoff
runoff
runoff
runoff
runoff
runoff
runoff
runoff
runoff
runoff
runoff
runoff
runoff
runoff
runoff
runoff
runoff
runoff
snow berm
56
Be
6.9
3.9
1.7
1.4
1.2
2.2
2.5
9.3
11.6
13.8
1.8
11.0
1.0
4.8
5.0
1.3
20.2
-0.5
11.9
6.0
0.3
-0.4
5.3
3.9
17.5
4.2
-0.4
3.1
1.9
22.8
12.5
3.5
-0.6
0.1
73.3
Na
14,925.0
11,939.7
8,061.9
3,056.8
6,458.3
9,068.1
11,057.7
64,664.0
53,789.0
77,112.0
37,853.3
68,332.0
30,910.5
40,461.9
98,457.1
89,566.5
35,117.8
11,273.7
121,594.0
69,128.7
40,212.9
28,551.4
53,156.6
78,922.9
123,131.7
44,254.5
97,213.1
52,550.6
57,769.1
220,163.4
101,167.2
37,437.9
47,416.9
44,011.1
390,715.7
Al
114,992.2
57,060.5
31,599.3
11,772.7
16,495.9
76,064.8
62,836.3
262,550.1
417,629.8
587,519.1
193,178.0
710,629.9
178,778.9
300,545.2
629,620.3
268,406.6
1,097,841.3
150,129.9
756,396.0
493,211.2
269,933.2
151,210.5
454,017.9
312,350.2
850,749.9
428,923.3
178,022.7
350,019.1
342,513.0
941,626.3
662,250.4
269,965.1
171,975.8
241,174.3
2,842,898.2
Sample
ID
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
Site Name
FPS-56
FPS-41
FPS-52
FPS-56
FPS-47
FPS-92
FPS-81
FPS-20
FPS-59
FPS-49
FPS-12
FPS-7
FPS-14
FPS-60
FPS-52
FPS-10
FPS-23
FPS-48
FPS-58
FPS-41
FPS-26
FPS-69
FPS-75
FPS-88
FPS-2
FPS-75
FPS-47
FPS-92
FPS-81
FPS-20
FPS-59
FPS-49
FPS-12
FPS-7
FPS-14
Sample Description
FPS-56 (dup)
Snow Berm
FPS-52
FPS-56
FPS-47 Snow
FPS-92 Snow
FPS-81 Snow
FPS-20 Snow
FPS-59 Snow
FPS-49 Snow
FPS-12 Snow
FPS-7 Snow
FPS-14 Snow
FPS-60 Snow
FPS-52 Snow
FPS-10 Snow
FPS-23 Snow
FPS-48 Snow
FPS-58 Snow
Snow Berm
Snow Berm
Snow Berm
Snow Berm
Snow Berm
FPS-2 Snow
Parent Soil <20
FPS-47 Source <63 µm
FPS-92 Source <63 µm
FPS-81 Source <63 µm
FPS-20 Source <20 µm
FPS-59 Source <63 µm
FPS-49 Source <63 µm
FPS-12 Source <63 µm
FPS-7 Source <63 µm
FPS-14 Source <63 µm
Sources of Highway Runoff Fine Sediment – September 2012
Sample
Date
4/12/11
4/12/11
4/12/11
4/12/11
5/11/11
5/15/11
5/6/11
5/15/11
5/6/11
5/12/11
5/15/11
5/15/11
5/15/11
5/6/11
5/12/11
5/15/11
3/30/11
4/12/11
4/15/11
4/12/11
3/30/11
4/6/11
4/6/11
4/15/11
5/15/11
1/11/12
11/18/10
11/18/10
11/18/10
11/18/10
11/18/10
11/18/10
11/18/10
11/18/10
11/18/10
QC
lab dup
lab duplicate
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
lab duplicate
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
Sample
Type
snow berm
snow berm
snow berm
snow berm
snow berm
snow berm
snow berm
snow berm
snow berm
snow berm
snow berm
snow berm
snow berm
snow berm
snow berm
snow berm
snow berm
snow berm
snow berm
snow berm
snow berm
snow berm
snow berm
snow berm
snow berm
soil
soil
soil
soil
soil
soil
soil
soil
soil
soil
57
Be
68.9
27.6
45.5
25.5
26.0
34.6
56.2
25.1
58.1
124.2
4.9
14.3
48.8
23.3
54.1
71.0
34.2
38.7
73.7
24.8
54.8
5.6
9.2
0.0
32.6
42.7
21.6
71.6
54.7
80.9
47.5
28.4
47.9
35.0
82.2
Na
510,334.1
388,717.4
289,699.0
274,643.7
295,851.5
439,388.8
264,338.0
161,722.6
472,749.0
1,461,079.6
48,917.6
93,173.1
328,945.7
186,220.5
423,517.1
263,626.4
105,531.4
261,734.5
448,498.3
345,078.9
315,154.7
114,376.6
75,586.4
45,651.4
122,951.0
27,808.6
18,632.6
8,470.8
8,849.2
11,877.4
19,785.8
67,376.4
12,466.1
14,615.7
9,516.6
Al
3,936,162.9
2,762,989.8
2,027,602.7
1,475,503.5
2,433,256.7
3,136,513.9
3,042,333.7
1,292,135.4
3,786,363.0
10,961,250.6
258,317.3
821,037.6
2,719,674.9
1,451,336.1
2,893,872.2
3,297,401.2
1,008,410.4
1,822,269.0
3,435,555.3
2,411,911.8
2,677,515.7
660,183.5
705,107.1
271,994.4
1,171,986.4
3,345,241.2
1,020,336.6
3,737,664.4
1,883,478.8
2,987,349.6
2,909,155.1
1,486,625.1
2,476,914.2
1,664,447.7
2,921,942.2
Sample
ID
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
Site Name
FPS-60
FPS-52
FPS-10
FPS-2
FPS-20
FPS-48
FPS-49
FPS-58
FPS-59
FPS-60
FPS-66
FPS-92
RC-25
RC-28
RC-32
FPS-41
FPS-26
FPS-41
FPS-45
FPS-45
FPS-75
FPS-88
FPS-88
FPS-69
FPS-23
13
13
13
13
A
A
A
A
A
A
Sample Description
FPS-60 Source <63 µm
FPS-52 Source <63 µm
FPS-10 Source <63 µm
FPS-2 Source <63 µm
FPS-20 Parent <32
FPS-48 Parent <20
FPS-49 Parent <63
FPS-58 Parent <63
FPS-59 Parent <63
FPS-60 Parent < 63
FPS-66 Parent <20
FPS-92 Parent <63
Road Cut #25 <20
Road Cut #28 <20
Road Cut #32 <20
Parent Soil <63
Parent Soil <20
Parent Soil <63
Parent Soil <20
Parent Soil <63
Parent Soil <20
Parent Soil <20
Parent Soil <63
Parent Soil <63
FPS-23 Parent <63
T13-5-2
T13-20-2
T13-100-2
T13-100-50
TA-MLTP-2
TA-MLTP-2-FD
TA-MLTP-2-LD
TA-MLTP-50
TA-LTP-2
TA-LTP-50
Sources of Highway Runoff Fine Sediment – September 2012
Sample
Date
11/18/10
11/18/10
11/18/10
11/18/10
11/18/10
9/30/11
11/18/10
11/18/10
11/18/10
11/18/10
9/30/11
11/18/10
7/28/09
7/28/09
7/28/09
11/18/10
11/18/10
11/18/10
11/18/10
11/18/10
1/11/12
11/18/10
11/18/10
11/18/10
11/18/10
Day 1
Day 1
Day 1
Day 1
Day 1
Day 1
Day 1
Day 1
Day 1
Day 1
QC
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
field duplicate
lab duplicate
sample
sample
sample
Sample
Type
soil
soil
soil
soil
soil
soil
soil
soil
soil
soil
soil
soil
soil
soil
soil
soil
soil
soil
soil
soil
soil
soil
soil
soil
soil
lake
lake
lake
lake
lake
lake
lake
lake
lake
lake
Be
72.7
52.4
19.6
55.5
85.2
92.2
39.8
59.5
52.2
50.7
77.7
69.1
25.5
28.4
88.6
9.8
31.5
9.5
34.8
24.1
38.8
50.6
85.2
39.2
37.6
3.0
0.5
2.8
3.7
1.8
0.7
0.0
0.3
0.9
5.9
58
Na
32,363.2
57,713.0
13,503.4
12,798.1
11,743.3
21,678.4
65,810.6
15,708.2
24,442.2
16,147.9
14,698.6
8,545.5
68,025.9
17,900.9
129,718.3
22,306.0
14,702.0
23,458.8
14,976.6
12,527.0
26,791.0
18,603.6
31,270.8
8,909.0
20,470.0
5,867,971.8
5,295,744.7
5,673,067.9
5,867,876.6
6,032,906.2
5,545,372.0
5,755,278.6
5,754,381.4
5,536,099.6
5,949,169.2
Al
4,297,479.0
2,586,714.7
1,801,196.1
2,812,904.2
1,736,751.8
3,213,251.0
1,369,629.8
2,696,863.0
2,743,209.1
2,052,972.2
2,986,788.0
2,536,743.6
1,396,695.9
1,542,456.6
4,576,213.2
720,667.3
1,604,889.6
775,859.3
1,298,196.5
1,150,229.2
3,073,521.1
2,661,975.6
4,949,455.5
1,731,893.0
972,360.5
1,948.9
1,461.0
1,668.9
591.0
1,371.8
1,079.0
1,408.8
282.5
1,354.9
676.2
Sample
ID
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
Site Name
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
5
5
5
5
8
8
8
8
9
9
9
9
B
B
B
B
B
B
10.1
10.1
10.1
Sample Description
T3-5-2
T3-20-2
T3-100-2
T3-100-50
T1-5-2
T1-20-2
T1-100-2
T1-100-50
T2-5-2
T2-20-2
T2-100-2
T2-100-2-FD
T2-100-2-LD
T2-100-50
T5-5-2
T5-20-2
T5-100-2
T5-100-50
T8-5-2
T8-20-2
T8-100-2
T8-100-50
T9-5-2
T9-20-2
T9-100-2
T9-100-50
TB-begin-2
TB-begin-2-FD
TB-begin-2-LD
TB-1/3-2
TB-2/3-2
TB-2/3-50
T10.1-Begin-2
T10.1-Begin-50
T10.1-Intersect-10.4-2
Sources of Highway Runoff Fine Sediment – September 2012
Sample
Date
Day 1
Day 1
Day 1
Day 1
Day 2
Day 2
Day 2
Day 2
Day 2
Day 2
Day 2
Day 2
Day 2
Day 2
Day 2
Day 2
Day 2
Day 2
Day 3
Day 3
Day 3
Day 3
Day 3
Day 3
Day 3
Day 3
Day 3
Day 3
Day 3
Day 3
Day 3
Day 3
Day 4
Day 4
Day 4
QC
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
field duplicate
lab duplicate
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
field duplicate
lab duplicate
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
Sample
Type
lake
lake
lake
lake
lake
lake
lake
lake
lake
lake
lake
lake
lake
lake
lake
lake
lake
lake
lake
lake
lake
lake
lake
lake
lake
lake
lake
lake
lake
lake
lake
lake
lake
lake
lake
Be
2.6
1.7
2.6
2.0
0.4
0.2
1.4
0.9
0.9
1.6
1.2
1.8
1.6
1.9
0.1
1.7
1.5
-0.1
0.5
1.2
1.0
0.4
1.5
1.0
1.0
0.6
2.2
0.9
0.8
0.3
2.2
0.3
1.1
0.2
0.2
59
Na
5,944,817.1
5,743,385.5
5,624,030.2
5,879,215.8
5,289,410.4
5,441,803.2
5,458,194.3
5,594,211.4
5,618,908.6
5,645,391.8
5,634,575.3
5,701,732.7
5,481,989.3
5,337,697.0
5,231,326.6
5,766,788.5
5,690,489.0
5,584,661.6
5,203,416.0
5,467,361.5
5,887,315.6
5,370,774.8
5,596,287.0
5,643,017.4
5,371,466.1
5,568,770.1
5,831,730.1
5,695,840.5
5,506,273.3
5,580,607.3
5,589,507.4
5,420,045.8
5,404,388.9
5,580,653.7
3,624,831.3
Al
3,213.6
1,928.0
1,584.2
715.6
1,982.1
1,191.1
1,408.0
244.5
1,374.5
1,308.3
1,298.8
1,313.0
1,161.1
269.3
1,460.0
1,506.6
1,448.6
346.0
4,424.6
2,672.3
2,082.3
281.2
2,117.4
1,850.8
1,578.1
265.8
1,888.0
1,658.2
1,818.8
1,699.8
1,735.1
243.3
1,336.6
674.7
11,591.8
Sample
ID
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
Site Name
10.1
12
12
12
12
12
12
UWC
UWC
LWC
LWC
LWC
LGC
LGC
LGC
UUTR
UUTR
LUTR
LUTR
LUTR
UTC
UTC
LTC
LTC
LHC
LHC
UIC
UIC
LIC
LIC
U3C
U3C
L3C
L3C
GB
Sample Description
T10.1-Intersect-10.5-2
T12-5-2
T12-20-2
T12-100-2
T12-100-2-FD
T12-100-2-LD
T12-100-50
Upper Ward Creek <0.45
Upper Ward Creek <10
Lower Ward Creek <0.45
Lower Ward Creek <10
Lower Ward Creek <10 (2)
Lower General Creek <0.45
Lower General Creek <0.45 (2)
Lower General Creek <10
Upper UTR <0.45
Upper UTR <10
Lower UTR <0.45
Lower UTR <10
Lower UTR <10 (2)
Upper Trout Creek <0.45
Upper Trout Creek <10
Lower Trout Creek <0.45
Lower Trout Creek <10
Logan House Creek <0.45
Logan House Creek <10
Upper Incline Creek <0.45
Upper Incline Creek <10
Lower Incline Creek <0.45
Lower Incline Creek <10
Upper Third Creek <0.45
Upper Third Creek <10
Lower Third Creek <0.45
Lower Third Creek <10
Glenbrook #5
Sources of Highway Runoff Fine Sediment – September 2012
Sample
Date
Day 4
Day 4
Day 4
Day 4
Day 4
Day 4
Day 4
6/1/06
6/1/06
6/1/06
6/1/06
6/1/06
6/1/06
6/1/06
6/1/06
6/1/06
6/1/06
6/1/06
6/1/06
6/1/06
6/2/06
6/2/06
6/2/06
6/2/06
6/2/06
6/2/06
6/2/06
6/2/06
6/2/06
6/2/06
6/2/06
6/2/06
6/2/06
6/2/06
4/19/12
QC
sample
sample
sample
sample
field duplicate
lab duplicate
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
field duplicate
sample
field duplicate
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
field duplicate
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
sample
Sample
Type
lake
lake
lake
lake
lake
lake
lake
creek
creek
creek
creek
creek
creek
creek
creek
creek
creek
creek
creek
creek
creek
creek
creek
creek
creek
creek
creek
creek
creek
creek
creek
creek
creek
creek
lake
Be
1.9
2.4
2.3
2.3
0.5
3.1
0.4
-1.9
-1.8
-2.1
-0.9
-1.6
-0.8
0.2
1.8
-0.4
1.0
-0.2
0.6
1.4
-0.1
0.6
-0.2
1.0
-2.4
-2.0
-0.8
0.9
-0.6
0.2
-1.4
-2.7
0.0
-2.2
-3.1
60
Na
3,585,416.4
5,252,769.6
5,660,710.5
5,646,304.8
5,484,551.6
5,637,547.3
5,368,112.0
1,308,428.5
1,489,270.5
1,401,389.2
1,422,587.4
1,434,319.6
779,668.2
857,278.7
924,008.0
717,700.3
721,608.4
2,227,862.5
1,890,741.7
1,965,693.4
2,118,536.8
1,900,387.3
2,098,443.2
2,126,801.6
5,505,855.0
5,441,613.7
2,052,177.8
2,120,571.9
2,962,157.4
3,015,887.9
1,651,869.1
2,063,336.7
2,232,638.2
1,840,432.2
5,650,926.8
Al
12,820.5
1,505.0
1,515.1
1,545.0
1,366.2
1,423.3
372.4
18,976.6
36,466.9
13,771.2
42,889.3
42,754.1
64,422.9
61,621.8
107,230.0
29,331.6
118,499.9
28,868.0
109,474.8
118,329.5
41,141.4
89,284.7
35,921.4
111,257.9
16,813.0
26,531.5
29,005.6
91,757.0
28,597.9
123,092.5
84,514.8
24,466.4
160,899.2
17,947.3
2.5
Sample
ID
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
Site Name
TC
IV
SLT
UWC
LWC
LGC
UUTR
LUTR
UTC
LTC
LHC
UIC
LIC
U3C
L3C
Sample
ID
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Rb
238.5
255.9
554.8
697.3
472.4
2,617.2
883.4
1,284.7
475.2
1,668.3
317.6
1,024.9
412.0
1,700.7
528.9
1,169.6
Sample
Date
4/20/12
4/19/12
4/20/12
6/1/06
6/1/06
6/1/06
6/1/06
6/1/06
6/2/06
6/2/06
6/2/06
6/2/06
6/2/06
6/2/06
6/2/06
Sample Description
Tahoe City #1
Incline #3
South Lake #8
Upper Ward Creek
Lower Ward Creek
Lower General Creek
Upper UTR
Lower UTR
Upper Trout Creek
Lower Trout Creek
Logan House Creek
Upper Incline Creek
Lower Incline Creek
Upper Third Creek
Lower Third Creek
Sr
8,727.8
9,550.8
6,858.7
15,623.4
8,912.3
8,801.5
10,677.6
8,904.8
9,450.1
11,400.0
8,899.7
33,283.1
9,466.6
11,301.8
11,845.8
14,154.2
Y
243.9
666.7
384.8
551.4
1,008.2
623.7
783.0
597.9
935.8
583.5
322.0
1,597.0
309.2
858.1
422.4
954.3
Zr
1,376.9
718.8
1,126.0
917.0
3,571.9
399.9
2,866.0
1,890.7
3,257.1
2,338.6
1,281.7
5,189.3
1,291.5
2,677.7
572.8
3,099.4
Sources of Highway Runoff Fine Sediment – September 2012
Nb
114.2
23.9
44.1
24.0
80.8
27.1
61.1
46.3
65.8
47.7
122.0
65.6
100.5
53.6
24.7
70.8
Mo
68.6
112.9
76.6
83.4
76.5
432.5
83.6
311.3
66.8
69.1
87.1
137.2
110.5
260.1
60.3
112.3
Sample
Type
lake
lake
lake
creek
creek
creek
creek
creek
creek
creek
creek
creek
creek
creek
creek
QC
sample
sample
sample
diff sample
diff sample
diff sample
diff sample
diff sample
diff sample
diff sample
diff sample
diff sample
diff sample
diff sample
diff sample
Cd
5.1
9.5
5.4
14.1
8.1
39.1
10.3
8.8
6.7
7.1
5.6
12.0
4.4
9.8
9.7
11.6
Sb
10.5
28.5
50.5
47.1
18.8
270.8
20.9
54.2
10.6
53.1
8.8
23.9
10.6
71.3
41.4
28.4
Te
28.4
23.2
20.9
26.6
22.5
24.4
27.1
3.2
1.6
7.0
2.9
5.1
2.7
5.7
3.5
9.5
Be
-3.2
-3.6
-3.0
0.1
1.1
1.6
1.4
0.8
0.7
1.2
0.4
1.8
0.8
-1.2
-2.2
Cs
21.6
34.9
125.2
100.0
53.7
440.1
171.3
382.5
49.9
447.9
26.8
134.8
37.1
467.0
75.4
216.5
61
Ba
9,782.5
16,040.2
19,388.2
24,053.5
31,044.0
20,116.3
20,899.4
32,067.8
33,294.5
26,301.8
11,200.1
57,909.7
9,741.7
33,691.3
17,588.4
25,195.3
Na
5,548,959.6
5,626,947.6
5,610,265.8
180,841.9
21,198.2
66,729.3
3,908.1
-337,120.8
-218,149.5
28,358.4
-64,241.3
68,394.1
53,730.5
411,467.6
-392,206.0
La
308.0
516.9
817.0
815.5
1,338.3
4,392.0
1,583.7
1,269.1
1,161.8
1,204.5
372.1
1,825.8
348.9
1,758.6
579.9
1,801.6
Al
86.9
953.4
1,272.5
17,490.3
29,118.1
45,608.2
89,168.3
80,606.8
48,143.3
75,336.5
9,718.5
62,751.4
94,494.6
-60,048.4
-142,951.9
Ce
741.6
1,725.9
1,785.3
1,815.6
2,759.5
6,557.8
3,979.2
3,231.7
2,710.5
3,030.9
961.4
4,356.0
852.5
4,477.3
1,294.7
4,727.8
Sample
ID
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
Rb
1,235.8
857.1
722.4
687.7
774.0
1,356.1
540.1
1,128.8
357.7
913.8
628.3
1,692.4
2,692.9
315.2
205.1
414.0
380.4
641.9
582.6
658.9
669.4
1,033.8
902.4
149.9
4,400.2
6,269.6
85.4
1,888.8
104.5
56.9
167.4
786.2
199.6
182.4
142.2
Sr
10,483.2
7,754.5
13,316.6
6,641.6
6,304.2
10,182.6
13,574.8
8,928.0
12,361.0
12,108.3
8,977.1
8,224.8
5,564.8
5,772.5
13,953.3
10,481.7
14,856.1
13,120.5
10,587.2
13,793.8
13,831.7
4,290.8
20,310.0
15,763.0
5,520.0
4,777.7
11,722.0
2,811.2
624.1
638.6
3,443.3
3,575.4
700.1
2,085.3
482.2
Y
887.3
640.4
438.4
543.5
432.4
768.3
481.3
560.6
515.8
680.3
728.7
868.9
508.6
319.7
434.7
515.9
509.0
815.4
488.5
768.8
780.1
344.6
1,256.7
394.6
359.3
543.9
220.9
175.4
53.9
31.0
171.9
376.5
78.0
110.5
29.0
Zr
692.8
900.9
1,003.4
548.4
495.2
642.6
334.2
720.3
1,263.5
410.0
1,146.9
1,173.4
595.7
595.2
402.0
987.0
1,857.5
1,987.2
1,358.6
1,312.9
810.3
191.0
3,072.9
885.7
302.4
245.3
293.9
85.9
128.6
89.4
423.4
1,038.4
295.8
379.7
45.4
Sources of Highway Runoff Fine Sediment – September 2012
Nb
103.2
63.8
84.1
53.0
61.8
89.1
17.2
56.9
54.0
26.8
100.8
63.1
52.9
26.9
8.5
30.3
38.6
68.6
66.8
32.6
30.4
33.8
88.9
33.1
82.6
110.8
16.4
61.0
6.9
4.5
27.5
35.5
11.3
10.0
9.0
Mo
259.4
157.5
165.2
143.1
157.1
292.5
49.5
139.0
140.9
92.2
156.0
126.8
214.9
55.3
28.8
42.6
59.4
69.9
44.3
51.2
49.9
143.1
167.5
32.3
28.1
93.2
10.1
14.8
12.3
24.9
29.2
55.0
23.3
32.0
17.0
Cd
21.2
21.6
22.3
20.9
25.8
38.7
8.1
34.1
10.1
15.4
57.1
18.5
18.3
10.8
5.2
4.6
7.8
8.3
6.6
6.4
6.6
14.8
14.2
4.5
2.5
3.4
2.0
0.7
1.7
5.1
2.9
6.2
4.5
6.6
7.9
Sb
123.3
165.9
182.1
178.5
261.7
322.4
49.3
138.3
48.8
100.6
106.7
92.0
262.5
111.8
8.6
10.5
24.2
21.4
10.5
13.5
54.8
20.0
25.6
3.7
21.5
54.5
0.8
10.3
12.9
29.4
23.1
40.1
29.1
40.7
22.5
Te
4.0
3.5
3.4
2.8
4.2
4.4
2.5
2.7
2.6
1.6
3.6
4.4
2.9
25.8
26.3
20.7
22.4
25.6
22.8
13.7
2.9
2.7
27.6
5.6
1.5
1.7
0.9
0.7
10.4
13.9
0.8
2.2
-0.1
128.8
49.3
Cs
175.7
132.7
95.1
105.3
95.8
159.9
124.4
187.4
49.3
281.7
68.9
288.9
208.3
32.5
56.0
41.8
69.5
66.2
60.3
69.0
116.7
53.7
101.2
15.2
381.6
622.0
5.0
165.3
11.2
8.0
20.3
123.5
25.2
80.8
12.6
62
Ba
11,587.4
13,763.9
11,082.8
8,749.9
11,998.6
20,837.5
5,262.7
14,598.0
9,401.3
8,483.7
10,239.5
14,504.5
11,180.4
6,975.1
3,431.1
7,625.5
11,346.7
18,282.6
10,668.8
11,315.9
9,881.8
10,231.9
23,139.1
7,732.3
29,712.5
28,922.2
5,075.2
13,176.1
1,102.8
810.0
3,296.7
6,950.4
1,699.5
2,920.3
997.2
La
1,719.8
1,097.3
846.5
864.9
725.6
1,401.2
810.5
980.0
965.6
1,111.3
1,500.8
1,585.1
959.3
507.6
793.7
937.6
913.3
2,008.8
1,179.3
1,315.4
1,441.1
562.0
2,646.7
504.3
907.9
1,194.1
294.0
449.5
79.6
49.4
318.1
556.5
106.2
171.1
56.1
Ce
3,834.6
2,461.2
1,909.7
1,984.7
1,628.3
2,910.7
1,890.5
2,121.0
2,225.6
2,522.2
3,442.8
3,703.4
1,940.2
1,019.6
1,852.1
1,909.4
1,916.8
4,242.8
2,501.1
2,886.9
3,254.2
1,113.7
5,869.0
1,280.3
1,799.5
2,677.4
682.9
901.6
172.6
106.5
731.6
1,314.9
234.8
373.3
119.3
Sample
ID
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
Rb
364.1
392.1
115.1
83.5
21.5
320.2
411.1
171.9
229.3
32.2
289.4
322.8
29.0
116.6
77.0
71.6
42.5
33.6
19.0
8.7
10.6
53.3
40.7
145.5
380.6
683.8
195.0
812.7
195.8
389.4
198.7
134.1
1,260.3
101.5
308.8
Sr
1,768.4
2,931.3
674.1
557.8
324.0
5,652.1
5,429.6
3,657.0
791.1
533.7
2,254.9
1,274.7
149.1
533.1
301.6
782.9
672.0
464.4
231.2
169.6
128.2
494.2
430.5
1,756.1
1,479.6
4,272.2
870.1
4,727.9
772.1
1,447.1
6,292.0
2,222.8
3,348.0
531.5
6,635.5
Y
109.6
179.3
57.3
47.3
14.1
296.3
200.1
130.3
66.4
23.7
134.9
136.4
9.8
45.3
17.8
33.9
28.6
19.1
12.1
4.9
5.1
24.3
20.4
81.2
149.1
261.1
61.6
239.8
62.5
122.2
381.1
149.0
334.1
32.1
335.5
Zr
381.9
391.2
199.9
160.1
139.3
826.1
507.5
520.1
159.2
197.4
233.9
616.1
138.0
102.4
181.8
181.8
139.2
210.2
46.3
45.7
101.3
61.8
160.3
269.2
396.0
498.0
156.8
331.0
214.3
229.6
367.9
190.2
741.4
105.2
1,008.6
Sources of Highway Runoff Fine Sediment – September 2012
Nb
18.4
17.1
8.9
6.0
5.2
21.5
25.5
8.1
15.1
7.6
12.9
23.7
3.4
7.7
5.2
8.5
7.2
5.3
2.3
1.2
2.3
4.9
3.0
6.6
20.7
29.4
15.1
44.7
12.1
17.2
9.6
8.8
42.0
7.4
46.4
Mo
30.9
56.5
18.2
16.1
10.2
33.2
45.2
21.1
23.2
5.6
37.8
37.4
6.8
33.5
20.2
34.1
15.2
14.4
5.7
2.1
8.8
7.5
15.9
18.5
35.0
74.4
30.3
143.8
13.5
22.4
31.8
16.1
49.0
7.2
65.4
Cd
11.7
14.4
2.4
4.1
1.0
7.1
7.6
3.2
2.9
2.9
10.5
4.6
0.6
6.0
2.5
4.8
1.4
1.7
1.2
1.2
0.0
1.0
3.7
4.3
9.9
12.8
7.0
28.7
3.6
5.7
6.5
2.5
21.1
3.2
7.7
Sb
45.7
62.3
11.4
18.7
5.1
36.2
68.6
52.0
16.1
4.6
46.4
35.1
2.1
51.2
37.2
33.6
15.6
17.5
4.3
17.4
1.6
7.4
19.0
22.8
66.2
105.5
83.6
333.9
15.0
34.3
52.7
17.5
50.8
9.9
69.5
Te
16.2
13.2
12.5
8.5
10.2
8.4
8.9
9.0
10.0
6.7
8.0
6.3
7.6
29.8
22.7
20.6
16.7
16.5
18.8
14.9
15.6
16.2
17.3
1.3
1.5
2.7
0.8
2.3
0.6
0.8
1.3
0.7
1.9
0.4
1.7
Cs
53.1
50.5
11.5
9.6
1.5
39.1
53.2
61.1
19.8
2.6
36.0
44.3
4.4
12.4
7.8
8.2
11.4
2.9
2.1
0.7
1.7
3.5
7.1
69.4
71.0
96.8
19.8
73.5
31.2
54.9
96.6
40.5
182.5
14.7
40.8
63
Ba
3,167.5
3,522.7
1,197.0
1,008.9
393.0
5,498.2
4,211.0
2,077.0
1,629.8
895.4
2,639.6
3,144.2
282.4
1,681.1
829.8
1,508.2
824.4
611.4
320.6
176.0
141.1
603.8
524.7
1,531.5
4,019.2
6,525.6
2,191.7
9,617.7
1,489.3
2,644.9
3,204.6
1,429.2
10,307.3
1,066.8
6,852.2
La
198.3
292.5
84.9
73.1
25.5
539.6
347.0
212.7
137.7
46.7
217.6
241.0
19.6
75.4
35.3
60.9
62.1
38.2
19.2
8.4
9.9
45.1
32.2
116.3
261.4
541.9
97.8
378.2
102.6
192.2
625.0
240.6
523.7
53.2
633.4
Ce
434.0
661.0
187.8
149.5
61.1
1,282.8
748.6
498.5
325.1
120.4
493.0
538.1
44.8
155.4
69.1
125.1
141.0
80.9
41.2
17.4
20.8
95.5
68.9
285.2
610.8
1,162.0
202.4
812.0
233.2
424.2
1,556.5
561.8
1,197.6
134.8
1,359.2
Sample
ID
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
Rb
199.6
71.5
64.5
284.4
292.6
789.6
364.6
93.5
156.4
155.7
1,040.0
712.5
325.6
241.8
99.7
844.9
1,162.0
561.9
613.5
462.8
1,586.7
574.0
2,484.4
932.7
1,134.2
2,008.3
163.2
966.4
2,382.5
394.8
727.0
3,157.6
1,111.4
422.6
1,146.1
Sr
4,058.2
2,341.5
1,239.2
3,456.3
1,818.4
6,171.9
2,386.2
1,226.5
2,499.4
2,833.6
5,004.6
4,090.0
1,649.4
890.3
2,025.1
27,982.7
34,854.2
31,964.7
19,955.3
13,754.4
21,721.3
33,165.4
16,401.3
9,245.5
33,546.1
118,996.1
1,992.9
6,499.2
21,052.4
12,133.3
29,490.3
19,452.0
4,523.0
17,945.6
29,627.4
Y
203.5
111.8
57.6
158.4
127.9
404.7
163.2
61.9
152.7
137.8
531.7
345.6
111.2
61.6
111.1
2,060.0
2,135.2
1,826.1
1,421.3
770.8
971.8
1,331.1
1,366.5
597.4
1,718.5
5,105.4
83.2
344.5
1,231.1
618.0
1,786.8
1,505.6
389.9
877.8
2,073.0
Zr
427.3
187.9
313.9
108.1
477.1
794.1
248.6
126.9
682.1
557.8
1,150.0
772.5
293.3
146.7
247.8
7,117.3
5,618.6
1,752.9
6,943.0
3,590.6
904.2
2,118.4
1,590.6
984.1
3,502.7
8,017.4
212.4
721.4
1,993.8
1,901.5
5,591.7
2,986.4
528.3
2,038.8
4,778.6
Sources of Highway Runoff Fine Sediment – September 2012
Nb
30.8
8.3
12.1
24.2
16.5
35.2
12.9
5.5
28.3
24.6
35.1
45.0
21.2
11.1
19.4
172.9
186.9
39.0
350.9
186.3
65.5
52.3
164.0
85.4
205.2
150.5
15.0
37.0
165.2
74.7
113.0
147.2
60.9
93.8
153.5
Mo
33.8
12.8
10.0
27.3
45.5
139.0
23.5
10.7
43.6
25.0
75.7
71.5
19.3
22.3
13.0
310.4
609.9
178.1
213.7
242.1
295.1
183.5
403.0
164.3
376.8
726.6
26.2
62.4
425.2
82.6
208.9
403.4
146.2
148.4
321.4
Cd
4.4
2.3
1.5
5.6
13.3
41.4
6.2
2.0
4.3
2.6
8.5
9.5
3.2
3.1
2.2
22.8
36.8
14.0
17.8
15.4
25.0
22.1
36.1
21.7
30.3
68.7
2.4
5.4
30.6
8.6
18.7
34.8
24.2
13.6
26.8
Sb
31.2
10.6
7.1
28.5
135.1
400.3
33.1
11.9
49.9
37.3
56.5
80.9
19.8
63.5
13.0
194.6
496.1
140.6
144.4
207.9
116.2
282.2
226.1
209.7
238.6
327.0
27.6
52.5
372.2
84.0
135.5
248.0
198.2
66.7
274.2
Te
0.8
0.3
0.5
0.7
1.6
2.0
0.9
0.5
1.1
0.9
2.5
2.2
1.1
0.3
0.6
38.6
53.0
3.7
61.2
39.2
13.8
17.5
22.6
12.8
18.4
35.0
11.3
12.0
15.4
12.1
11.2
19.8
30.2
24.7
23.2
Cs
23.8
16.3
6.0
27.7
46.0
123.2
84.3
41.6
21.0
14.8
170.1
101.7
59.6
28.8
10.4
102.4
179.4
236.1
77.4
73.9
168.9
97.5
313.9
98.6
142.5
364.6
14.9
222.6
272.2
43.9
80.3
441.7
100.2
50.6
132.1
64
Ba
3,798.3
1,348.5
1,248.1
3,267.5
3,924.2
12,267.0
2,617.4
962.3
3,888.5
2,784.1
9,337.5
6,940.6
2,774.6
1,603.0
2,045.4
25,223.4
33,760.4
12,789.1
17,200.7
12,734.0
13,570.8
15,823.3
26,607.5
11,640.5
36,837.6
56,267.7
1,959.9
5,973.9
24,924.2
10,750.2
24,023.5
32,356.1
9,738.9
13,245.9
29,382.6
La
371.2
177.5
103.6
293.8
221.5
715.9
283.3
93.0
297.9
280.0
778.4
555.7
203.3
83.3
205.0
4,094.4
4,490.7
3,048.4
2,721.2
1,629.3
1,778.3
2,386.8
2,577.6
1,042.2
3,688.1
9,590.1
152.9
668.8
2,624.8
1,280.8
3,475.8
3,015.6
689.9
2,003.9
4,459.3
Ce
866.2
431.3
237.1
668.6
488.0
1,564.9
677.6
233.5
646.3
612.1
1,828.3
1,301.3
464.1
180.5
445.9
8,686.1
9,457.8
7,393.8
5,870.8
3,553.6
4,054.5
5,673.6
5,679.0
2,243.8
8,096.8
22,101.6
322.3
1,529.7
5,671.5
2,813.2
7,519.0
6,529.8
1,407.4
4,299.7
9,204.6
Sample
ID
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
Rb
496.9
2,135.1
178.7
581.0
527.8
1,465.1
2,192.5
2,374.8
1,912.4
3,302.2
2,861.8
1,425.5
969.3
3,515.5
2,994.5
6,472.9
1,739.9
3,122.5
3,927.2
3,121.4
2,374.8
2,227.7
1,008.5
860.2
1,335.6
839.6
2,859.4
1,410.1
3,104.0
4,021.1
3,828.5
2,400.1
2,822.0
2,596.0
2,182.0
Sr
27,313.5
20,024.0
6,974.7
4,336.6
1,570.6
7,240.8
9,248.3
3,444.3
4,428.2
2,141.0
2,732.3
4,120.9
6,792.9
1,971.4
3,405.0
3,089.2
8,434.8
9,828.0
3,353.2
8,025.7
1,865.2
7,677.8
6,219.1
4,141.0
3,656.5
3,804.1
6,417.1
3,301.9
4,682.2
2,708.2
9,055.9
3,841.8
8,435.9
4,348.9
20,818.5
Y
1,578.0
1,680.0
260.0
311.9
103.2
600.4
444.0
176.2
1,463.6
944.4
1,418.5
651.0
517.9
679.0
400.7
1,540.4
771.5
647.2
165.5
543.0
1,087.7
1,253.0
561.0
752.9
604.7
373.2
608.2
1,124.2
340.8
986.8
1,294.8
122.2
301.5
143.8
255.4
Zr
1,501.0
3,321.3
675.3
601.2
136.4
2,136.8
245.0
115.6
957.0
439.8
134.2
581.8
1,128.0
250.7
238.5
426.3
2,622.2
770.7
179.8
212.1
120.2
652.8
1,086.1
556.5
566.4
1,181.9
223.3
679.7
375.6
200.8
1,117.8
85.2
224.2
86.8
95.2
Sources of Highway Runoff Fine Sediment – September 2012
Nb
35.1
104.9
48.3
68.0
19.6
100.6
97.7
37.8
95.8
100.8
144.4
99.0
41.5
114.1
83.6
126.7
241.2
175.4
58.2
116.5
90.3
109.4
40.1
76.7
98.7
120.6
110.5
67.8
44.0
55.5
180.2
27.8
50.9
34.0
43.2
Mo
151.8
287.8
42.6
88.9
78.5
130.0
60.2
29.5
102.4
107.2
250.1
54.4
43.2
214.2
185.3
146.0
156.7
59.7
35.5
106.3
79.1
138.9
49.2
49.7
58.8
86.1
51.1
86.4
55.2
69.8
95.0
24.1
99.3
38.4
28.6
Cd
11.3
48.3
3.6
6.7
1.8
10.5
26.7
14.1
13.8
19.7
25.4
15.8
19.5
12.8
18.8
14.4
16.4
16.8
8.2
24.6
19.6
25.0
22.3
14.4
15.5
10.0
13.4
10.7
7.8
8.8
13.9
9.1
16.6
10.7
13.8
Sb
123.9
381.2
22.7
39.7
65.0
85.4
24.1
18.4
24.7
39.8
50.2
21.4
76.7
30.4
19.9
35.8
16.4
21.4
23.1
44.8
33.7
24.3
67.8
15.1
16.3
10.2
50.2
22.0
41.7
173.3
47.6
20.6
31.2
22.0
20.9
Te
3.2
6.9
1.3
2.8
0.6
8.6
3.0
13.4
17.4
14.3
16.7
12.3
12.6
11.0
9.2
14.2
14.3
13.0
8.4
11.9
11.7
18.4
21.7
17.5
21.0
15.9
21.6
14.0
3.0
3.6
7.2
1.5
1.2
2.1
3.0
Cs
204.1
298.8
19.0
62.8
41.9
215.8
194.4
302.8
238.4
312.4
225.3
117.3
102.1
329.3
309.0
627.2
137.6
411.1
501.7
320.9
174.6
340.3
107.2
105.1
114.4
68.4
132.7
176.9
509.6
651.3
283.8
345.3
301.6
371.6
305.7
65
Ba
11,170.8
34,842.5
4,531.2
6,003.4
2,135.2
11,470.5
30,738.8
14,072.7
37,286.1
12,086.5
21,146.8
19,861.7
12,899.2
12,475.9
15,974.8
22,760.2
39,129.2
33,849.9
13,465.9
19,634.2
14,284.5
21,735.6
13,833.6
26,376.9
19,127.2
19,252.3
16,286.9
29,275.0
12,174.3
8,033.1
32,962.8
13,318.8
19,326.4
14,608.8
23,203.5
La
2,627.3
2,705.1
543.7
562.8
170.5
1,286.9
1,379.5
447.7
2,092.9
2,166.8
2,998.8
1,211.8
1,357.0
1,794.1
1,272.6
4,010.1
1,774.3
1,819.1
496.7
1,246.4
2,230.4
2,322.0
1,546.9
1,510.3
1,172.1
883.7
1,599.7
1,682.4
802.5
1,360.1
2,870.8
421.7
822.2
547.3
844.4
Ce
6,588.6
6,077.8
1,200.4
1,281.5
373.0
2,886.7
2,955.2
682.3
3,087.0
3,278.5
5,959.2
2,827.9
3,098.4
3,266.8
2,241.2
5,914.0
4,161.2
3,988.3
1,128.2
2,806.9
3,921.6
4,153.6
3,403.6
2,725.8
2,659.1
1,988.5
3,149.5
2,384.4
1,520.0
2,856.3
10,816.7
670.8
1,438.2
804.9
1,361.3
Sample
ID
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
Rb
2,788.1
1,964.0
2,756.9
6,836.1
2,631.6
2,370.9
2,159.2
1,984.1
2,130.8
2,103.0
2,256.2
2,120.3
2,211.6
2,191.2
2,079.2
2,167.6
2,172.2
2,151.2
2,095.0
2,119.5
2,063.5
2,051.0
2,049.3
2,086.9
2,150.0
2,086.2
2,128.1
2,139.5
2,072.5
2,037.7
2,030.4
2,109.5
2,129.6
2,119.1
2,070.3
Sr
13,660.4
8,479.6
6,252.5
11,145.4
3,189.1
2,361.8
94,169.1
87,138.1
94,594.3
94,073.9
98,870.6
93,416.8
97,162.5
97,407.6
91,262.2
96,312.6
97,247.7
94,070.7
91,144.0
93,070.8
90,052.1
90,867.2
89,267.1
93,792.3
94,025.6
93,050.1
93,255.0
93,773.0
89,999.8
89,789.1
89,007.9
93,914.2
93,013.4
93,979.7
86,844.7
Y
180.6
399.9
910.3
1,581.9
394.2
301.9
4.0
3.4
3.7
2.0
3.5
3.1
3.3
1.5
3.5
1.9
4.5
3.4
3.2
1.9
4.2
3.2
3.2
1.6
3.3
3.2
3.2
3.2
3.2
1.6
3.2
3.5
3.8
2.0
8.3
Zr
56.3
236.5
1,391.6
2,317.0
82.1
111.3
6.2
2.3
2.5
3.1
3.6
4.1
1.9
1.6
2.5
11.7
5.3
3.7
2.7
6.9
3.5
2.1
2.2
1.4
22.1
2.8
2.9
3.5
3.3
2.0
2.0
4.3
3.5
1.8
5.6
Sources of Highway Runoff Fine Sediment – September 2012
Nb
37.5
85.2
78.4
123.8
114.2
49.6
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.4
Mo
24.2
55.0
79.5
136.3
21.8
156.9
3,311.7
3,065.9
3,219.5
3,235.9
3,558.8
3,297.1
3,439.4
3,436.7
3,234.1
3,340.7
3,325.0
3,335.7
3,085.9
3,283.1
3,212.6
3,095.5
3,142.0
3,292.3
3,338.8
3,212.7
3,299.0
3,337.7
3,191.8
3,074.3
3,065.0
3,378.3
3,320.5
3,234.5
3,334.4
Cd
9.0
24.4
11.5
18.9
19.6
20.0
18.2
14.8
15.4
15.1
14.3
13.0
14.0
13.4
12.6
11.4
13.2
13.4
12.8
13.7
12.3
12.4
12.6
13.3
13.3
13.6
14.3
13.3
11.8
13.0
11.8
12.0
12.6
12.9
12.8
Sb
17.3
20.3
30.3
51.7
16.3
20.7
29.4
26.9
28.9
29.0
31.2
28.2
30.2
28.0
27.6
28.5
29.6
28.3
26.9
26.5
27.5
28.1
26.4
26.7
29.1
27.9
31.1
28.7
29.5
28.0
27.9
36.1
28.8
28.1
27.0
Te
1.3
3.2
1.9
3.5
1.8
21.6
5.5
3.3
4.2
4.9
5.6
4.3
4.6
4.0
3.3
6.8
6.0
7.0
3.6
8.1
4.2
4.1
4.0
3.8
4.5
4.4
4.2
4.3
4.8
2.9
4.1
5.9
5.6
3.4
4.0
Cs
375.6
174.9
388.4
907.4
193.7
185.0
22.1
20.8
22.9
20.6
22.9
22.7
23.9
22.0
21.6
21.2
23.0
22.2
22.0
20.5
22.3
22.1
21.5
20.8
27.6
25.5
23.1
22.7
22.5
20.4
22.1
22.6
22.2
21.0
27.4
66
Ba
16,605.0
28,000.5
26,375.9
47,831.3
16,838.5
6,828.6
12,743.7
11,988.9
13,033.5
12,766.4
13,389.0
12,956.8
13,450.9
13,405.2
12,555.1
13,045.2
13,411.7
12,587.1
12,477.8
12,341.6
12,730.1
12,732.2
12,262.7
12,930.5
13,040.7
12,673.2
12,823.5
12,619.9
12,310.7
12,453.3
12,349.8
12,832.5
12,502.8
12,951.7
12,114.0
La
610.9
1,245.3
1,461.8
2,670.5
2,354.4
895.9
3.4
2.9
3.7
1.2
2.5
2.3
2.6
1.0
2.8
1.0
3.7
2.5
2.3
1.1
4.1
2.6
2.5
1.0
2.5
2.6
2.2
2.4
2.3
1.1
2.8
2.8
3.1
1.5
12.7
Ce
1,023.9
2,708.4
2,916.3
5,088.4
4,995.5
1,474.6
4.9
4.1
5.3
1.5
3.0
3.2
3.4
0.9
4.0
1.0
5.4
3.2
3.1
1.0
7.1
3.8
3.6
0.9
3.6
3.6
3.0
3.1
3.1
1.1
4.2
4.0
4.6
1.6
22.7
Sample
ID
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
Rb
2,111.5
2,255.1
2,048.1
2,125.5
2,107.9
2,017.0
2,107.6
2,158.1
2,157.4
2,096.3
2,132.8
2,087.9
2,040.5
2,036.5
2,128.5
1,413.8
1,373.0
2,015.3
2,129.9
2,165.2
2,110.3
2,117.8
2,059.5
1,031.8
1,134.2
1,270.2
1,276.3
1,279.9
349.7
341.4
445.1
1,502.2
1,551.6
1,578.6
1,430.0
Sr
90,543.9
100,049.7
90,915.2
92,215.0
92,488.1
87,701.4
93,123.9
93,636.7
93,881.6
91,017.9
92,678.9
90,282.6
89,712.0
88,450.2
93,634.4
60,206.4
58,015.7
87,766.2
93,021.9
94,882.5
92,871.3
92,718.5
91,248.0
40,701.5
44,524.7
44,349.5
45,090.0
44,902.3
14,658.3
14,348.3
17,425.3
23,189.4
23,741.5
33,295.0
29,162.0
Y
5.1
4.4
1.8
4.2
3.6
3.2
1.6
4.0
3.9
3.5
4.0
4.2
1.7
3.1
2.0
6.7
6.9
3.5
3.5
3.7
3.5
3.8
2.0
71.7
83.1
69.2
78.1
77.9
93.0
91.3
118.3
58.5
75.1
78.7
87.9
Zr
3.6
2.5
1.4
2.9
2.1
2.2
1.4
5.4
2.7
3.7
3.3
4.7
1.5
2.3
2.7
3.9
4.9
2.6
3.7
2.4
2.5
4.8
1.5
105.8
119.5
94.4
119.8
116.7
62.6
60.6
77.3
81.9
153.1
77.0
114.9
Sources of Highway Runoff Fine Sediment – September 2012
Nb
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.4
1.3
0.5
1.4
1.5
1.3
1.4
3.6
0.7
3.6
1.1
4.7
Mo
3,247.7
3,572.0
3,187.6
3,242.9
3,265.9
3,060.6
3,317.9
3,340.4
3,377.2
3,146.5
3,303.5
3,218.8
3,154.3
3,044.3
3,338.2
1,957.2
1,958.9
3,136.6
3,167.3
3,244.6
3,282.9
3,159.9
3,234.4
49.0
57.5
53.5
52.1
52.8
27.7
27.2
33.0
66.1
67.4
232.2
206.5
Cd
12.2
12.7
13.2
13.1
12.2
12.1
13.5
13.8
14.2
12.1
12.6
12.3
11.6
12.3
13.7
8.8
8.9
12.5
13.3
12.8
13.3
12.7
12.2
2.5
3.6
2.7
2.6
124.9
1.4
1.1
1.3
1.5
1.7
1.9
2.0
Sb
28.1
37.2
26.7
28.5
27.4
26.8
26.3
29.5
28.6
28.7
28.4
28.0
26.1
27.6
27.9
22.2
22.2
26.6
28.5
30.4
27.9
27.3
27.3
14.9
15.0
15.9
14.3
15.5
11.9
11.6
10.7
31.7
9.7
25.0
15.9
Te
3.8
4.6
3.9
5.7
3.4
4.0
3.2
6.2
4.2
4.7
3.5
5.4
3.2
4.6
3.8
2.6
3.7
4.1
4.4
3.7
4.5
4.7
3.9
0.7
0.2
0.8
1.0
0.7
0.8
0.6
0.7
0.2
0.7
1.0
0.4
Cs
23.9
24.9
20.8
22.5
22.2
21.1
20.5
22.3
22.9
22.3
23.0
22.4
20.2
21.2
21.5
12.8
12.4
21.0
22.4
22.8
22.2
22.2
20.4
4.9
6.1
6.0
7.1
6.9
0.4
0.4
2.3
99.1
108.0
60.8
64.2
67
Ba
12,331.6
13,563.5
12,516.9
12,813.7
12,566.9
12,009.7
12,742.3
12,495.7
12,940.1
12,404.9
12,634.9
12,041.0
12,429.1
12,170.1
13,044.2
9,089.4
8,703.1
12,298.7
12,826.8
13,043.4
12,787.6
12,614.3
12,533.4
5,333.7
6,033.0
5,535.3
5,895.1
5,865.8
3,993.1
3,882.5
5,201.6
4,925.7
6,022.1
6,409.1
6,443.5
La
6.2
4.9
1.3
4.4
3.3
2.6
1.1
4.0
3.6
3.4
3.8
4.1
1.2
2.4
1.7
10.7
11.5
3.1
2.9
3.0
2.7
2.9
1.5
38.2
47.2
36.7
46.7
45.9
159.2
158.2
203.4
70.5
102.8
99.9
130.4
Ce
9.9
7.8
1.4
6.9
5.1
3.8
1.2
6.0
5.4
5.6
5.9
6.6
1.5
3.5
2.3
13.9
15.1
4.9
4.5
4.2
4.0
4.4
1.8
25.9
43.1
27.0
48.3
48.5
216.1
211.4
282.8
98.3
178.2
155.2
224.9
Sample
ID
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
Rb
1,467.1
1,112.1
1,047.0
1,279.2
1,334.1
804.8
802.3
510.3
587.6
639.7
723.6
951.8
1,122.1
1,192.5
920.1
2,014.2
2,098.1
2,091.7
2,087.7
102.3
6.1
103.6
49.4
-148.6
-65.1
54.8
-2.4
77.3
83.9
170.3
-272.5
Sr
29,744.9
41,273.6
37,721.6
37,953.3
37,284.6
118,375.8
117,154.0
49,043.8
50,921.8
79,318.6
79,185.2
39,075.5
47,766.3
50,960.5
41,974.1
87,019.4
90,449.3
92,906.7
88,401.1
3,823.2
740.5
3,077.0
552.1
-4,133.0
-3,552.0
-668.7
-1,221.8
1,878.0
-133.4
8,690.8
-8,986.4
Y
90.9
65.4
65.2
59.9
72.2
55.2
55.0
19.4
24.7
24.8
32.7
34.7
29.8
46.4
22.7
1.0
1.1
1.3
1.8
11.4
8.9
27.0
16.6
9.2
-0.2
12.4
-0.2
5.2
7.8
-4.9
-23.7
Zr
117.1
58.7
59.1
52.1
64.8
36.6
38.1
27.8
32.5
32.1
38.7
82.1
52.8
117.0
45.5
26.4
6.8
0.7
3.5
13.7
25.4
16.8
71.2
37.9
0.3
12.7
1.5
4.7
6.6
-29.3
-71.5
Sources of Highway Runoff Fine Sediment – September 2012
Nb
4.7
1.1
2.9
1.3
4.0
1.0
1.2
0.7
2.1
0.8
2.9
2.8
0.9
4.7
0.6
0.7
0.5
0.3
0.5
0.9
1.0
2.2
2.9
3.6
1.7
2.7
0.2
1.5
2.1
-1.8
-4.1
Mo
212.9
586.1
534.1
2,621.9
2,614.6
558.0
532.9
62.8
62.1
85.5
84.9
167.8
205.6
240.8
204.2
3,371.2
3,500.3
3,401.8
3,339.9
8.5
-1.3
5.8
1.3
-25.7
-52.0
-7.3
-25.1
-0.8
-0.6
37.8
-36.6
Cd
1.9
3.8
3.2
10.4
9.3
3.1
3.3
1.5
1.8
2.2
2.6
2.2
2.4
10.6
12.1
16.5
13.7
14.6
13.8
1.1
-0.1
0.2
0.3
0.1
-0.5
-1.2
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.3
1.5
Sb
16.8
22.9
15.3
26.3
18.8
124.1
112.6
33.3
14.5
26.1
16.2
13.2
20.7
33.6
33.7
40.9
31.3
29.3
29.8
0.1
-1.6
-0.9
-22.0
-9.1
-7.6
-7.5
-11.5
-18.8
-9.9
7.5
0.1
Te
0.9
0.6
1.2
1.2
1.4
2.1
1.3
1.0
0.8
0.8
0.4
0.5
0.5
1.0
0.3
0.7
1.3
2.1
1.4
-0.5
0.2
0.1
0.5
-0.6
0.6
0.2
-0.7
-0.2
-0.4
0.0
-0.8
Cs
66.1
26.7
31.0
27.6
39.1
15.7
17.7
4.5
13.0
5.2
16.8
11.6
5.4
19.4
5.1
18.7
19.2
18.5
21.9
1.2
1.1
1.9
8.8
3.4
4.3
11.6
1.9
8.5
11.6
-6.2
-14.4
Ba
6,699.6
6,215.7
6,070.6
5,539.8
6,161.3
6,685.2
6,589.9
7,267.5
8,288.9
11,656.8
12,481.2
7,489.4
8,401.8
10,598.7
7,490.7
11,640.4
12,007.6
12,271.8
11,812.8
699.3
359.8
1,319.1
1,096.4
34.4
-145.1
621.5
-95.3
1,021.5
824.4
912.4
-3,108.0
68
La
133.5
85.5
94.2
86.1
118.2
36.4
39.6
32.7
45.7
32.1
50.3
34.0
23.2
52.4
17.4
0.3
0.3
0.4
1.5
9.0
10.1
45.3
32.3
30.6
8.7
32.1
3.2
13.1
18.2
-10.8
-35.0
Ce
231.5
142.6
159.7
146.4
210.4
47.6
53.0
39.3
63.3
41.2
76.9
66.4
33.7
106.5
27.0
0.2
0.1
0.2
1.9
17.2
21.3
71.4
79.9
69.7
17.1
64.0
5.3
24.0
35.7
-32.7
-79.6
Sample
ID
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
Pr
86.7
161.6
219.3
235.4
392.3
584.2
450.6
357.8
365.9
338.2
109.9
567.0
102.9
493.3
163.9
543.6
464.2
323.5
222.7
251.0
207.4
372.4
241.3
263.0
290.3
322.5
423.1
426.3
220.5
143.0
241.3
266.8
258.5
554.0
327.6
Nd
331.2
659.1
816.0
908.8
1,533.7
1,882.2
1,668.2
1,281.5
1,384.5
1,219.9
419.3
2,150.5
383.9
1,794.9
630.1
1,968.2
1,664.9
1,156.6
799.6
911.8
744.5
1,332.0
892.2
964.5
1,057.4
1,206.2
1,494.0
1,518.8
815.5
545.4
928.9
1,006.0
977.8
2,045.0
1,201.5
Sm
67.1
147.9
147.9
173.7
301.1
295.2
295.6
238.5
275.4
231.6
86.4
436.7
80.7
336.4
125.1
360.3
314.5
216.4
149.7
175.2
145.4
251.1
169.8
182.8
190.1
229.9
264.2
291.4
154.5
103.9
167.1
184.0
178.3
341.6
198.3
Eu
7.7
16.8
11.5
13.8
21.3
30.2
22.0
15.0
16.1
13.8
7.1
26.2
6.5
19.0
7.9
18.9
13.2
10.5
8.1
8.2
8.0
13.6
6.5
10.3
8.4
8.9
11.0
14.1
9.0
7.3
8.1
9.2
12.2
21.0
13.1
Sources of Highway Runoff Fine Sediment – September 2012
Gd
66.0
159.1
141.4
171.6
297.4
299.8
285.8
234.3
281.2
230.7
87.4
441.4
83.1
331.7
123.7
354.2
303.1
213.0
152.9
178.7
147.0
260.9
170.6
185.1
194.1
224.6
259.9
269.5
157.5
96.4
157.6
174.8
171.4
328.9
194.5
Tb
10.4
26.3
19.1
24.6
44.5
34.3
38.9
31.9
41.2
31.2
13.6
65.8
12.8
44.1
18.1
47.6
41.9
30.0
20.8
24.5
20.8
36.2
23.7
25.7
25.8
31.1
35.7
39.4
21.9
13.8
21.5
24.2
24.5
42.5
25.3
Dy
50.4
145.2
84.3
115.8
213.2
133.1
174.1
125.2
182.9
124.9
62.9
297.0
58.9
176.5
80.2
197.2
179.0
131.3
89.9
107.2
90.1
157.5
99.0
109.6
104.6
136.9
143.4
167.6
95.8
64.1
93.8
110.1
110.1
178.1
104.4
Ho
9.9
28.5
15.7
22.1
40.8
23.4
32.1
23.3
35.6
22.9
12.5
57.1
11.6
32.3
15.7
37.2
34.0
24.3
16.9
20.2
16.7
29.4
17.9
20.5
19.7
26.3
26.5
31.3
19.0
12.0
17.2
20.3
20.9
32.2
19.5
Er
29.6
82.7
46.9
65.8
120.4
75.9
97.8
72.2
108.4
71.7
38.1
175.0
35.8
101.0
47.7
116.7
103.2
75.5
53.1
62.9
51.4
89.9
56.6
63.2
60.7
80.2
82.5
96.2
58.4
35.6
51.1
60.9
62.5
97.4
59.3
Tm
3.9
11.3
5.8
8.3
15.4
9.1
12.0
8.4
13.4
8.4
5.1
21.8
4.7
11.5
5.9
13.5
12.3
9.4
6.5
7.4
6.3
10.8
6.6
7.5
6.9
9.5
9.5
11.6
7.3
4.5
5.9
7.3
7.8
11.2
6.9
Yb
27.3
74.6
38.2
56.0
102.1
63.1
80.0
56.0
84.8
55.6
32.7
139.6
31.6
75.7
37.8
86.3
78.2
57.5
40.3
48.1
39.6
70.2
42.2
49.5
44.5
60.4
60.7
74.4
46.6
30.0
38.8
48.0
53.5
71.5
44.6
69
Lu
4.4
11.0
5.6
8.4
15.4
10.1
12.0
8.2
13.1
8.4
5.2
21.1
4.9
11.2
5.7
13.3
12.0
8.9
6.3
7.2
6.0
10.4
6.4
7.3
6.6
9.4
8.9
11.3
7.3
4.6
5.8
7.2
7.9
10.7
6.7
Hf
28.5
22.9
33.7
29.3
95.1
20.5
72.2
50.5
75.3
59.0
27.5
109.6
25.0
69.3
19.2
74.6
16.6
26.6
24.2
13.2
14.4
17.4
12.1
18.6
33.2
14.5
25.8
33.2
17.4
20.0
15.3
31.6
55.7
56.9
39.4
Ta
0.1
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.5
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.1
0.6
0.2
0.4
0.2
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.4
0.2
W
109.6
250.1
1,675.4
128.2
113.5
94.3
13.7
153.9
61.9
135.2
104.6
207.6
209.5
362.8
98.1
23.9
674.3
1,171.4
411.4
673.4
1,523.9
2,914.4
129.2
260.4
580.3
437.3
2,864.0
1,671.1
177.3
24.7
6.6
54.6
60.6
32.1
43.1
Sample
ID
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
Pr
381.7
436.0
144.1
754.6
165.1
202.4
301.6
87.2
98.1
21.6
13.8
92.4
163.1
30.0
49.3
13.5
52.1
83.9
23.4
19.8
7.0
155.9
92.4
62.0
33.9
12.7
62.6
64.6
4.8
18.8
8.0
16.3
16.1
10.3
4.9
Nd
1,453.1
1,584.9
499.9
2,826.9
637.7
708.2
1,063.6
331.6
342.7
83.7
53.9
333.2
597.1
107.8
183.1
48.5
200.4
326.4
89.9
78.9
26.7
589.1
351.8
235.9
122.3
47.1
242.4
245.0
18.3
68.6
29.4
62.7
59.5
38.5
18.9
Sm
267.6
283.4
97.7
493.5
130.2
136.6
199.6
65.8
65.4
15.1
9.9
60.3
117.5
21.1
36.9
9.1
35.7
58.3
16.7
14.6
4.7
105.1
62.4
44.8
21.5
8.4
43.6
44.1
3.5
12.4
5.4
10.3
10.3
6.8
3.6
Eu
13.9
10.5
5.9
29.3
5.6
12.8
15.4
4.1
5.9
1.0
0.8
3.1
5.5
1.2
2.2
0.7
2.7
3.5
1.1
0.9
0.3
5.7
4.0
2.3
1.6
0.7
2.6
3.1
0.2
1.2
0.5
1.0
0.8
0.5
0.3
Sources of Highway Runoff Fine Sediment – September 2012
Gd
259.8
286.6
99.6
461.6
130.9
140.7
200.0
66.5
64.8
15.1
9.2
62.8
115.0
20.8
33.8
8.2
35.1
57.8
16.9
13.5
4.4
99.2
62.9
42.0
21.6
7.6
41.3
43.9
3.2
13.0
5.1
10.5
10.3
6.3
3.2
Tb
36.7
37.0
14.6
61.2
18.3
18.2
28.0
9.9
8.8
2.3
1.4
8.2
17.0
3.3
5.3
1.4
5.1
8.3
2.6
2.1
0.7
14.2
9.3
6.3
3.1
1.2
6.2
6.6
0.5
1.8
0.7
1.4
1.3
0.9
0.5
Dy
167.7
144.4
64.3
263.3
80.3
72.7
117.0
41.6
34.6
10.8
6.4
33.6
75.1
14.6
24.1
6.2
22.4
37.0
11.5
9.1
2.7
61.2
40.6
26.6
13.7
4.9
26.6
28.4
2.0
8.0
3.4
6.6
6.4
3.9
2.3
Ho
31.2
26.8
12.2
47.9
15.1
13.2
21.0
7.8
6.2
2.1
1.2
6.3
14.6
2.7
4.8
1.1
4.2
7.1
2.3
1.8
0.6
11.2
7.8
5.1
2.6
0.9
5.3
5.5
0.4
1.6
0.7
1.2
1.1
0.7
0.4
Er
93.0
83.8
37.0
143.3
45.6
42.5
63.8
23.4
19.4
6.2
3.7
20.0
44.3
8.7
13.7
3.6
13.2
21.1
7.1
5.6
1.7
34.5
23.8
15.6
8.0
2.8
15.9
17.1
1.2
4.7
1.9
4.0
3.5
2.1
1.4
Tm
11.4
9.5
4.5
16.9
5.0
5.0
7.3
2.7
2.4
0.8
0.5
2.2
5.4
1.1
1.8
0.5
1.7
2.6
0.9
0.8
0.2
4.0
2.9
2.0
1.0
0.3
1.9
2.0
0.1
0.6
0.3
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
Yb
73.9
60.1
27.2
109.1
31.7
33.6
51.1
16.4
16.5
5.8
3.8
14.7
35.1
7.1
12.1
4.0
11.1
17.7
6.4
5.1
2.0
26.5
19.7
13.1
7.0
2.8
12.5
14.1
1.5
4.3
2.0
3.8
3.4
2.2
1.5
70
Lu
11.1
9.0
4.1
16.1
4.6
5.2
8.0
2.4
2.5
1.0
0.7
2.1
5.3
1.1
2.2
0.8
1.7
2.7
1.0
0.8
0.4
4.1
3.1
2.1
1.1
0.5
1.9
2.1
0.3
0.8
0.5
0.7
0.7
0.4
0.4
Hf
44.2
27.4
6.8
80.7
25.6
13.0
19.1
8.6
4.2
3.9
2.2
9.7
31.8
7.5
11.2
1.0
14.5
10.6
5.8
5.3
2.5
20.8
14.7
16.9
3.4
3.4
5.4
16.7
2.2
2.7
4.3
3.7
3.9
4.1
1.1
Ta
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.0
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
-0.1
-0.1
0.1
-0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
W
15.9
39.2
79.6
39.2
14.2
17.7
131.5
1.5
39.0
157.9
12.2
385.0
2,034.2
295.4
276.1
40.4
108.3
59.8
546.2
109.8
28.5
88.3
839.8
169.6
23.1
11.2
40.0
1,598.8
79.0
92.0
70.5
18.4
34.0
117.0
16.9
Sample
ID
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
Pr
2.2
2.5
11.5
8.9
36.3
72.3
149.0
26.6
101.2
29.0
55.3
200.0
75.8
142.1
14.9
182.0
113.0
57.2
31.5
80.8
64.9
206.2
82.7
31.1
84.0
78.0
226.2
161.0
57.7
23.8
58.9
1,158.5
1,240.5
949.5
758.6
Nd
8.5
9.5
42.1
34.1
134.6
261.8
541.8
97.6
372.1
104.1
203.0
744.1
287.9
523.5
54.2
656.9
407.3
211.8
113.2
293.1
239.5
752.0
308.4
109.1
291.7
278.0
835.6
593.0
206.6
87.4
212.8
4,152.0
4,428.2
3,498.5
2,806.4
Sm
1.5
1.5
7.8
6.1
25.9
48.8
100.4
18.5
73.8
21.0
40.5
142.0
52.8
102.4
10.7
119.6
73.8
40.4
20.1
54.1
43.8
141.3
58.3
21.6
51.3
50.1
164.4
115.3
38.6
17.4
38.1
753.8
796.8
648.3
511.2
Eu
0.2
0.2
0.7
0.6
1.3
2.7
5.1
1.2
4.9
1.1
2.1
4.4
1.8
7.2
0.7
5.7
3.6
1.6
1.1
2.9
2.4
7.5
2.5
1.0
2.8
2.4
7.6
5.6
2.0
1.1
1.9
35.7
39.4
19.4
24.7
Sources of Highway Runoff Fine Sediment – September 2012
Gd
1.2
1.2
7.4
5.8
25.9
50.2
98.4
19.1
73.6
20.2
40.0
139.9
55.0
105.9
10.4
123.8
75.0
38.7
21.4
57.6
44.9
139.4
56.3
20.5
52.8
49.1
157.9
111.2
37.7
16.7
38.1
709.0
768.4
665.5
478.3
Tb
0.2
0.2
1.1
0.8
3.8
6.9
13.5
2.8
11.0
2.9
5.6
19.0
7.3
14.7
1.4
16.0
9.9
5.4
2.8
7.5
6.2
19.1
7.8
2.9
7.2
6.5
23.5
16.2
5.2
2.6
5.5
101.0
108.9
89.2
69.8
Dy
0.9
0.9
4.7
4.0
16.8
30.0
54.2
12.1
48.3
13.2
24.4
80.0
31.3
64.9
6.7
65.0
40.4
22.3
11.7
31.3
25.6
78.7
33.9
13.2
29.2
26.3
106.2
69.3
22.7
11.9
21.5
434.8
450.7
369.6
292.2
Ho
0.2
0.2
0.9
0.8
3.2
5.8
10.2
2.4
9.2
2.4
4.6
14.6
5.8
12.6
1.2
12.3
7.6
4.2
2.1
5.9
4.6
14.6
6.3
2.4
5.4
4.9
20.0
13.2
4.2
2.2
4.1
79.0
82.9
68.3
53.6
Er
0.5
0.6
2.8
2.3
10.1
17.6
31.1
7.4
28.3
7.7
14.1
45.7
18.2
39.1
4.1
38.4
23.2
13.0
6.6
18.1
14.2
44.6
19.6
7.4
17.1
15.5
60.9
40.2
12.5
6.8
12.5
245.9
253.4
209.9
168.6
Tm
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.3
1.2
2.2
3.6
0.9
3.4
0.9
1.8
5.3
2.1
4.9
0.5
4.3
2.8
1.5
0.8
2.2
1.7
5.3
2.3
0.9
2.0
1.8
7.8
4.9
1.6
0.9
1.4
29.1
28.7
24.0
19.3
Yb
1.1
1.0
2.8
2.7
8.5
14.0
23.4
5.8
22.8
6.2
11.5
33.7
13.5
31.8
2.9
27.9
16.3
9.8
4.6
13.9
10.8
33.3
14.7
5.6
12.4
11.0
49.2
31.0
9.7
6.0
9.4
185.0
184.3
150.4
123.8
71
Lu
0.2
0.3
0.5
0.5
1.3
2.2
3.5
0.9
3.3
0.9
1.7
4.9
2.0
4.9
0.4
4.2
2.6
1.4
0.7
2.0
1.7
5.1
2.2
0.9
1.9
1.7
7.5
4.7
1.5
0.9
1.4
28.0
27.9
22.1
18.6
Hf
0.7
2.1
1.4
3.5
11.5
11.8
16.8
4.9
8.7
6.5
7.5
13.3
6.0
17.6
2.5
27.9
9.5
5.6
5.8
1.8
11.1
20.8
8.6
3.9
17.2
10.9
37.9
20.9
8.0
4.5
5.4
162.8
123.5
53.7
175.6
Ta
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.1
1.1
1.6
0.7
4.5
W
2.7
4.3
22.5
8.0
143.8
423.9
343.9
330.6
844.4
161.7
112.6
129.1
253.2
75.5
111.9
747.7
442.0
94.0
116.4
255.6
233.6
486.7
152.0
115.3
235.3
671.6
2,613.6
1,622.9
469.6
122.3
489.1
7,473.6
8,722.0
1,202.7
7,195.8
Sample
ID
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
Pr
461.3
496.7
701.9
681.0
281.7
1,018.8
2,808.7
41.4
178.5
668.9
361.2
966.0
789.6
172.2
546.6
1,220.1
840.5
787.6
157.6
161.5
45.1
335.9
285.2
82.0
507.0
439.6
672.2
312.6
368.4
380.6
240.8
777.3
454.8
439.5
90.4
Nd
1,646.3
1,917.6
2,717.8
2,561.6
1,079.3
3,857.4
10,701.4
155.4
672.7
2,486.4
1,356.7
3,652.4
2,977.3
627.7
2,018.9
4,541.7
3,105.9
2,912.7
555.4
581.1
165.2
1,238.0
948.5
296.3
1,913.0
1,478.4
2,316.7
1,164.1
1,340.0
1,319.4
809.0
2,623.1
1,645.8
1,557.5
303.8
Sm
296.8
343.7
481.6
469.8
195.5
663.2
1,840.5
28.7
121.2
427.8
229.4
629.8
541.8
116.9
343.9
782.7
573.6
555.4
100.3
111.0
32.2
218.2
170.5
54.1
359.2
255.9
403.2
205.2
208.4
222.8
129.8
440.3
288.8
256.9
51.5
Eu
14.9
19.9
23.1
27.5
12.3
39.2
87.1
1.9
7.0
26.6
13.3
32.9
33.6
8.9
21.2
47.6
17.0
27.1
4.7
5.4
2.0
12.4
15.5
6.2
35.6
19.5
28.2
18.3
12.4
16.9
10.6
32.2
26.8
20.2
5.6
Sources of Highway Runoff Fine Sediment – September 2012
Gd
278.1
335.6
460.2
459.1
192.8
645.7
1,783.5
26.9
117.6
428.2
223.1
615.6
525.9
111.2
327.9
752.3
570.3
558.3
98.0
107.6
31.6
211.1
181.6
54.3
368.5
275.1
421.9
209.8
205.7
228.5
140.4
473.2
285.2
252.2
56.9
Tb
39.9
47.2
64.7
66.1
28.4
89.5
246.1
3.7
17.0
59.9
31.1
86.6
75.9
15.8
42.5
101.2
78.4
76.9
13.3
15.4
4.6
29.8
24.4
7.9
58.3
40.6
61.4
30.5
27.0
32.5
19.3
67.0
42.1
34.4
7.8
Dy
168.1
206.5
276.6
289.1
126.9
371.9
1,030.4
16.7
72.5
254.2
130.6
369.4
328.9
73.4
182.1
439.9
325.8
324.6
52.8
66.0
20.5
123.0
96.9
36.3
276.5
180.7
277.5
136.7
108.9
138.6
80.7
295.1
186.7
141.2
33.9
Ho
30.8
38.8
51.7
53.9
24.2
68.7
191.6
3.1
13.6
47.3
24.4
69.3
61.5
14.0
33.2
81.3
59.6
60.7
9.7
12.1
3.8
23.2
16.8
6.8
54.3
33.0
53.0
26.2
20.1
26.0
15.2
56.0
34.6
25.6
6.4
Er
92.9
119.9
155.9
165.0
73.4
210.1
587.2
9.5
41.8
147.1
74.7
211.9
186.9
41.4
100.2
242.1
185.1
187.6
29.9
36.2
11.7
72.9
49.0
20.6
160.6
95.6
162.3
79.8
64.8
80.1
45.7
165.2
103.1
78.5
19.5
Tm
10.5
14.0
17.7
19.4
9.0
23.9
66.0
1.1
5.0
17.2
8.6
24.3
22.5
5.2
11.7
28.7
21.0
21.6
3.3
4.3
1.5
8.4
5.4
2.5
20.6
11.1
20.1
9.6
7.5
9.3
5.5
19.5
12.7
8.9
2.3
Yb
68.8
92.3
114.0
130.1
60.5
157.1
428.1
8.2
33.9
113.7
56.8
159.1
144.9
34.8
75.6
187.4
130.7
138.5
21.7
27.2
9.4
57.3
32.4
17.0
132.0
70.4
132.9
64.4
51.4
60.9
36.3
128.4
84.1
59.3
16.0
72
Lu
10.4
13.5
16.6
18.5
8.7
22.3
61.4
1.2
5.0
16.9
8.4
23.4
20.6
5.1
10.9
27.2
19.6
20.6
3.2
4.2
1.4
8.4
4.8
2.6
19.9
9.3
19.2
9.5
7.7
9.1
5.5
17.8
11.9
8.2
2.6
Hf
96.8
36.1
65.1
42.6
30.9
95.3
217.7
5.9
21.4
57.6
49.7
144.0
93.4
14.9
53.3
114.6
48.4
91.2
18.2
18.3
4.8
55.5
8.0
29.1
27.1
10.7
6.1
12.5
35.5
6.0
6.5
14.3
50.8
15.5
3.3
Ta
6.4
0.6
0.7
3.3
0.2
1.2
3.0
0.0
0.1
0.5
0.3
1.0
2.9
0.2
0.3
1.2
0.5
0.9
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.5
0.3
0.5
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.4
0.4
0.6
0.4
0.1
W
4,542.7
3,899.5
479.4
33,345.4
1,444.8
1,835.6
783.6
348.5
460.8
755.5
1,493.1
4,885.7
25,331.4
1,408.7
329.0
6,524.4
1,071.2
2,937.2
1,902.1
5,320.8
103.0
3,684.3
74.4
15.9
26.4
20.4
149.4
53.8
61.5
115.8
108.0
54.4
12.3
81.1
46.5
Sample
ID
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
Pr
247.8
482.3
538.7
414.3
364.7
298.4
226.1
307.7
405.5
168.1
341.9
762.5
68.5
148.1
83.0
126.6
98.7
258.0
366.2
629.2
441.8
175.0
0.7
0.7
0.8
0.3
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.1
0.6
0.2
0.8
0.6
0.5
Nd
875.3
1,623.3
1,927.9
1,487.6
1,326.7
1,083.7
803.7
1,025.0
1,494.3
599.5
1,180.9
2,508.8
236.0
493.7
284.6
421.8
332.4
870.0
1,326.5
2,299.8
1,283.6
591.0
3.0
2.7
2.8
1.2
2.1
2.4
2.3
0.8
2.5
0.8
3.8
2.1
2.4
Sm
155.5
285.9
349.3
237.7
238.9
198.1
147.3
179.8
285.2
117.0
233.3
440.8
42.8
90.9
51.5
81.1
62.6
157.9
264.4
458.1
175.6
98.6
0.8
0.7
0.8
0.5
0.8
0.8
0.5
0.3
0.7
0.7
0.9
0.8
0.7
Eu
14.4
23.1
36.4
15.8
24.2
20.3
15.2
18.5
33.6
7.4
13.4
22.1
4.5
8.2
5.3
9.1
6.9
14.1
20.1
35.3
8.7
8.4
1.9
1.7
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.8
2.0
1.9
1.9
1.8
1.9
1.8
1.8
Sources of Highway Runoff Fine Sediment – September 2012
Gd
166.6
285.7
348.6
230.3
237.7
197.0
139.0
190.5
300.2
118.7
255.3
474.1
46.6
102.4
55.2
85.6
66.1
164.5
260.3
454.4
211.9
100.5
0.9
0.5
0.6
2.2
0.8
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.9
0.5
1.9
1.1
0.9
Tb
24.4
41.3
50.4
28.5
33.3
27.9
20.0
26.4
44.5
16.2
38.2
64.0
6.1
13.7
7.3
11.7
8.9
22.1
39.3
67.0
23.1
13.6
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
Dy
107.0
191.1
239.4
122.5
157.7
130.1
92.0
125.5
218.8
69.5
185.7
267.3
25.2
59.5
29.5
49.1
37.8
88.3
179.0
302.8
78.9
61.0
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.2
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.4
0.2
0.7
0.4
0.4
Ho
20.1
35.9
45.1
22.2
28.4
24.5
16.7
24.0
42.3
13.1
37.0
50.0
4.7
11.0
5.6
9.0
6.7
15.1
34.4
58.7
14.1
11.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
Er
59.6
108.3
134.6
68.8
84.6
72.4
49.8
71.4
124.4
40.2
115.6
158.3
14.5
32.8
16.8
28.7
20.4
44.3
104.4
180.1
46.4
33.6
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.1
0.4
0.2
0.4
0.3
0.3
Tm
7.1
13.7
17.2
8.5
10.5
9.3
6.2
9.0
16.0
4.9
15.2
19.3
1.6
3.9
2.0
3.5
2.5
4.8
13.2
22.8
4.8
4.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
Yb
46.8
88.9
116.4
56.0
69.3
60.8
41.9
60.4
104.5
31.6
100.5
125.7
11.0
24.7
12.6
21.7
16.0
29.5
85.2
147.3
29.3
28.1
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.4
0.2
0.6
0.4
0.4
73
Lu
6.9
13.1
17.2
8.4
9.9
9.0
5.9
8.7
15.4
4.8
16.4
18.5
1.6
3.9
2.0
3.2
2.5
4.1
13.4
22.9
4.3
4.3
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
Hf
5.0
5.4
13.8
31.1
11.7
11.0
21.3
5.7
16.3
9.9
8.6
26.2
3.1
5.2
2.9
3.7
2.2
7.4
30.5
45.7
2.7
3.4
2.0
0.3
0.2
0.7
0.8
0.2
0.0
0.1
0.3
5.1
0.4
0.9
0.5
Ta
0.5
0.4
0.6
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.7
0.4
0.1
0.4
0.7
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.3
0.4
0.6
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
W
181.3
42.3
180.1
85.5
52.3
71.6
38.2
41.6
52.9
364.9
102.7
481.6
59.6
177.6
73.5
75.5
60.9
76.2
144.5
241.6
34.0
180.5
1,137.0
1,113.0
1,210.6
1,207.4
1,207.1
1,216.4
1,277.3
1,275.4
1,163.4
1,062.2
1,171.7
1,126.5
1,133.0
Sample
ID
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
Pr
0.2
1.0
0.6
0.5
0.2
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.2
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.3
2.9
1.4
1.2
0.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.2
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.8
1.0
0.2
0.6
0.4
2.3
2.4
0.8
0.6
Nd
0.9
4.0
2.4
2.4
0.8
2.4
2.5
2.1
1.9
2.1
1.0
2.2
2.4
2.9
1.2
10.5
5.2
4.2
1.0
3.8
2.8
2.4
0.9
3.5
3.3
2.9
3.5
3.7
1.1
2.5
1.3
8.3
8.8
3.1
2.7
Sm
0.4
1.2
0.7
0.6
0.4
0.6
0.7
0.5
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.4
2.1
1.3
0.9
0.5
1.0
0.7
0.7
0.4
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.9
1.0
0.4
0.8
0.3
1.3
1.9
0.7
0.8
Eu
1.7
1.9
1.8
1.7
1.9
1.9
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.8
2.0
1.8
1.9
1.8
1.7
1.9
1.7
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.7
1.8
1.8
1.9
1.5
1.3
1.7
1.9
Sources of Highway Runoff Fine Sediment – September 2012
Gd
0.4
0.9
0.5
0.9
0.3
0.4
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.6
0.1
0.5
0.9
1.0
0.2
1.8
1.3
0.6
0.1
1.6
0.9
0.9
0.1
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.9
0.1
0.9
0.2
1.3
2.2
0.4
0.7
Tb
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
Dy
0.3
0.7
0.5
0.4
0.1
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.3
0.2
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.3
1.5
0.7
0.6
0.2
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.2
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.2
0.4
0.2
1.1
0.9
0.4
0.5
Ho
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.2
0.3
0.1
0.1
Er
0.2
0.5
0.3
0.3
0.1
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.9
0.6
0.5
0.2
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.1
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.1
0.3
0.2
0.8
0.7
0.4
0.4
Tm
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.1
Yb
0.2
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.2
0.9
0.6
0.5
0.2
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.2
0.3
0.1
0.8
0.8
0.4
0.4
74
Lu
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
Hf
2.7
0.1
0.3
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.7
0.8
0.6
0.0
0.0
1.2
1.0
0.0
0.3
0.6
0.2
0.1
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.2
1.7
0.4
0.8
0.2
1.3
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.4
0.2
0.4
Ta
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
W
1,096.1
1,189.3
1,165.6
1,133.1
1,222.5
1,238.6
1,195.9
1,178.9
1,151.8
1,125.2
1,169.7
1,149.9
1,119.8
1,129.6
1,217.0
1,090.5
1,097.8
1,288.0
1,187.6
1,181.0
1,202.0
1,116.0
1,193.7
1,108.6
1,207.8
1,120.2
1,186.7
1,050.2
1,176.4
1,124.2
1,250.8
706.7
668.6
1,154.1
1,173.1
Sample
ID
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
Pr
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.3
14.0
17.4
13.8
16.8
16.5
40.6
40.1
52.7
19.1
28.4
25.8
33.1
34.0
21.3
22.5
19.9
27.0
9.4
10.0
5.6
8.1
5.8
9.6
9.8
6.6
14.4
5.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3
Nd
2.7
2.8
2.7
1.5
59.2
74.0
58.0
69.5
69.6
137.7
133.7
175.9
70.7
102.3
95.3
117.1
121.2
75.1
81.5
71.4
92.5
35.8
38.3
22.3
29.4
23.1
35.6
37.5
27.9
54.8
22.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
1.5
Sm
0.8
0.6
0.8
0.5
13.1
16.7
13.0
15.4
14.7
25.4
26.4
30.7
18.5
22.8
19.4
22.2
23.7
16.3
16.1
14.1
17.9
9.9
8.9
9.4
6.9
5.1
7.8
7.8
7.1
15.3
10.8
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.3
Eu
2.0
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.6
1.9
1.6
1.8
1.8
1.6
1.5
2.0
1.5
2.0
1.8
2.0
2.1
1.8
1.8
1.6
1.8
1.6
1.7
1.5
1.8
2.2
2.4
1.6
1.6
2.3
1.4
1.7
1.7
1.8
1.7
Sources of Highway Runoff Fine Sediment – September 2012
Gd
0.6
0.4
0.8
0.1
12.8
15.5
12.3
14.1
14.6
24.9
24.3
31.1
14.0
20.3
18.8
22.3
23.0
16.0
16.4
14.1
18.4
9.0
9.5
4.6
6.2
4.5
7.5
7.7
5.9
10.9
4.2
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.4
Tb
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
2.1
2.5
2.1
2.3
2.4
3.4
3.3
4.3
2.1
2.9
2.8
3.2
3.3
2.4
2.3
2.0
2.6
1.5
1.7
0.7
1.0
0.8
1.1
1.2
0.9
1.7
0.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Dy
0.5
0.4
0.8
0.3
11.3
13.2
10.7
12.1
12.2
15.4
15.3
19.6
9.8
13.3
13.3
15.6
15.8
11.4
11.3
10.0
13.0
8.4
8.7
3.3
4.5
3.8
5.5
6.1
4.9
8.6
3.8
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.2
Ho
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
2.5
2.8
2.5
2.8
2.8
3.4
3.2
4.2
2.1
2.9
2.9
3.2
3.4
2.6
2.4
2.3
2.7
1.9
1.8
0.7
0.9
0.9
1.3
1.3
1.0
1.8
0.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Er
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.2
8.8
9.7
7.9
9.2
9.0
10.8
11.2
14.1
7.2
9.4
9.7
10.8
11.0
8.1
8.5
7.4
8.9
6.2
5.9
2.3
3.0
3.2
3.9
4.2
4.0
5.5
3.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
Tm
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
1.3
1.4
1.2
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.8
1.0
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.5
1.1
1.2
1.1
1.3
0.9
0.9
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.8
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Yb
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.2
9.2
10.6
8.8
9.6
10.0
10.1
9.1
12.1
6.9
8.7
9.8
10.2
11.0
8.1
8.4
7.7
8.8
5.9
6.2
2.4
2.6
4.0
4.7
4.1
3.9
5.8
3.0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.2
75
Lu
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
1.7
2.0
1.7
1.8
1.7
1.7
1.7
2.0
1.2
1.6
1.8
1.9
1.8
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.6
1.0
1.0
0.4
0.6
0.9
1.0
0.7
0.7
1.0
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Hf
0.1
0.2
1.1
0.1
2.7
3.3
2.3
3.4
3.2
2.2
2.4
2.7
2.8
4.4
2.5
3.5
4.0
2.2
2.1
2.0
2.2
1.3
1.3
1.0
1.1
1.4
1.2
2.4
1.7
3.5
1.4
0.6
0.3
0.1
0.1
Ta
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
W
1,205.6
1,208.9
1,118.3
1,193.6
0.1
2.4
1.9
1.6
0.3
17.4
10.5
16.6
1.3
8.9
74.8
83.0
79.4
134.1
125.4
236.7
252.8
15.2
17.4
19.4
25.4
40.7
46.2
107.3
131.7
161.1
127.7
1,234.4
1,229.5
1,193.5
1,170.4
Sample
ID
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
Sample
ID
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Pr
3.4
2.9
12.7
9.3
7.4
1.2
7.1
0.6
2.6
3.8
-3.2
-9.3
Tl
0.1
6.6
5.9
4.8
2.6
21.4
19.1
13.7
5.4
12.6
2.4
8.2
1.8
16.9
4.3
20.8
10.0
8.0
5.9
Nd
14.7
11.5
42.1
31.6
21.8
6.4
21.2
2.6
7.1
12.5
-9.6
-32.4
Pb
320.1
776.5
632.4
951.7
804.6
1,753.6
1,141.0
589.1
411.5
730.5
200.9
746.1
259.5
755.6
431.4
662.0
1,421.9
1,633.0
1,563.2
Sm
3.5
2.4
4.3
4.2
2.8
-0.2
3.8
-1.0
-2.5
2.7
-0.7
-4.5
Bi
2.6
4.0
13.5
9.0
4.6
129.3
10.9
11.5
2.8
13.5
1.3
5.5
1.6
15.0
4.9
9.6
16.5
14.3
11.8
Eu
0.3
0.2
0.5
0.5
0.2
0.0
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.1
-0.9
Th
48.2
136.2
633.6
264.2
135.1
2,550.3
385.3
602.0
143.7
578.2
58.8
233.7
94.1
1,135.5
243.4
388.3
1,202.2
569.6
694.7
Gd
2.7
1.8
6.8
6.3
3.5
0.3
4.3
0.5
1.5
3.1
-1.9
-6.7
U
20.2
41.9
101.5
115.4
41.2
1,062.9
97.6
155.5
34.1
154.2
22.5
116.2
33.1
227.1
76.3
95.1
362.9
142.2
176.4
Sources of Highway Runoff Fine Sediment – September 2012
Tb
0.4
0.2
1.0
0.8
0.5
-0.1
0.6
0.2
0.3
0.3
-0.3
-0.9
Mg
569,942.3
204,407.1
221,866.5
327,344.4
307,736.0
574,212.3
414,866.8
280,525.1
311,298.7
328,331.7
748,120.9
617,255.6
721,320.4
400,012.3
257,743.6
518,601.8
439,066.8
309,304.2
399,584.7
Dy
1.9
1.4
4.3
3.6
2.2
-0.1
3.0
0.3
1.2
1.7
-1.2
-4.7
Ho
0.3
0.3
1.0
0.7
0.3
-0.1
0.3
-0.1
0.2
0.3
-0.3
-1.0
P
39,009.6
45,666.7
66,284.6
85,557.7
114,820.4
198,663.3
104,161.5
88,126.8
96,032.8
80,505.3
43,670.5
175,342.5
41,841.6
126,089.2
59,756.5
124,551.5
160,712.2
84,447.2
66,323.0
Er
0.9
1.3
3.0
2.1
1.2
0.4
1.4
-0.3
0.7
0.8
-0.2
-2.6
Tm
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.4
0.1
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.1
0.1
-0.1
-0.4
S
85,517.7
31,244.9
34,031.2
1,616,417.5
67,207.3
8,520.9
10,768.6
18,659.4
57,558.7
559,591.5
77,782.9
1,964,850.1
267,008.8
18,471.6
1,133,361.3
11,393.4
75,793.6
45,395.0
44,656.2
Yb
1.3
0.8
3.0
1.8
0.5
0.3
1.2
0.3
0.2
0.7
-0.2
-2.8
Lu
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.4
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.0
-0.4
Ca
506,662.3
482,505.1
419,212.2
1,135,348.9
728,348.5
784,544.5
504,263.5
452,286.2
643,936.9
1,057,737.1
542,495.6
3,127,135.2
636,229.8
635,584.3
874,040.2
641,409.3
926,315.1
535,524.0
972,208.9
76
Hf
0.6
1.1
0.3
1.6
1.1
-0.1
0.2
0.0
0.0
-0.1
-0.7
-2.2
Sc
203.5
450.2
187.0
292.8
384.8
500.7
392.2
361.0
367.0
376.0
269.5
695.8
252.6
510.0
230.2
514.3
338.3
272.4
213.4
Ta
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
W
2.3
-0.3
6.1
7.6
8.2
-8.7
16.1
2.2
6.0
5.6
24.4
-33.4
Ti
91,395.8
60,241.0
75,107.2
70,207.3
174,055.4
66,732.5
129,491.9
111,018.9
154,900.6
102,279.0
128,512.8
253,277.5
113,205.3
154,063.4
63,129.3
176,760.5
166,933.1
112,647.8
99,449.2
Sample
ID
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
Tl
6.7
6.8
11.2
3.8
9.2
5.1
6.7
7.3
14.6
13.4
1.5
0.8
3.3
4.4
6.7
5.2
8.1
4.2
8.1
8.5
2.5
24.9
30.4
1.8
10.3
0.8
-0.7
1.8
5.5
1.8
8.1
2.8
3.5
4.4
1.3
Pb
1,571.4
1,185.8
1,756.3
453.4
1,114.6
593.3
1,383.8
1,113.0
2,793.1
565.6
628.3
548.5
689.5
1,200.5
707.5
795.9
1,082.8
387.6
341.6
751.7
292.2
192.4
236.9
77.8
80.8
125.2
542.0
267.4
352.8
174.7
197.9
271.9
279.9
1,073.1
141.4
Bi
16.2
19.5
23.1
6.1
12.7
4.9
16.4
16.1
16.0
30.8
9.4
3.1
4.9
4.9
8.4
5.3
4.0
10.9
5.3
10.4
0.9
7.5
11.8
0.2
3.7
1.2
3.1
2.1
5.5
2.0
2.8
3.7
4.1
5.6
2.0
Th
501.0
435.4
1,121.8
145.5
699.8
130.5
525.4
337.2
802.4
677.0
112.5
92.6
129.4
234.6
255.8
158.6
298.3
306.3
240.9
343.3
68.6
920.3
1,679.3
28.1
384.9
33.9
11.3
43.7
187.6
40.1
56.2
22.8
148.2
93.9
64.1
Sources of Highway Runoff Fine Sediment – September 2012
U
100.8
106.9
187.4
37.0
140.2
51.3
114.6
88.6
151.6
126.7
25.8
18.1
30.7
55.9
44.8
31.0
72.0
68.6
41.6
70.5
13.9
138.4
366.5
5.3
63.5
7.4
3.7
9.4
43.7
13.8
17.1
13.2
35.2
25.3
8.2
Mg
262,849.0
304,316.2
586,123.3
233,174.6
450,230.9
644,071.4
251,211.2
596,704.0
476,882.0
565,758.6
163,435.4
213,214.1
187,802.4
280,590.0
980,652.5
620,193.8
226,526.3
435,545.8
325,214.4
1,209,118.9
189,454.5
625,435.7
1,088,623.4
197,701.7
286,538.7
40,724.2
25,332.4
83,031.9
262,721.0
74,751.9
101,585.7
50,923.3
96,224.0
111,463.1
41,624.3
P
74,154.7
62,070.5
118,173.9
92,024.7
113,374.2
87,288.5
110,147.2
120,289.2
115,087.2
208,130.1
58,455.4
79,492.5
77,964.3
90,884.1
157,869.4
92,905.6
106,088.7
119,622.6
37,150.2
229,514.5
58,830.1
90,107.4
120,770.9
38,897.3
41,608.4
6,170.7
20,675.5
24,484.2
35,032.1
9,609.1
15,613.5
6,994.2
14,774.1
34,770.1
6,335.0
S
39,019.1
57,478.0
109,517.9
33,248.6
39,267.4
58,321.3
51,132.8
66,029.4
35,783.5
51,619.1
33,333.0
36,820.7
20,838.7
30,978.9
79,366.2
22,381.6
24,849.5
38,033.2
120,133.4
127,891.8
1,241.6
2,055.7
2,267.8
835.4
752.5
13,376.9
18,028.2
19,921.4
24,896.2
15,739.4
38,096.9
12,848.1
19,009.2
39,389.3
15,661.6
Ca
453,013.5
544,920.0
974,903.8
952,918.2
809,623.6
1,294,995.6
919,708.9
698,983.0
627,445.9
875,522.9
869,641.6
1,276,052.2
793,991.8
1,011,672.2
853,691.4
657,778.6
1,107,256.7
1,217,620.9
369,270.7
1,919,892.0
1,061,673.6
517,264.5
750,123.4
854,855.3
257,354.4
52,225.7
87,484.8
211,623.7
295,470.5
73,216.9
197,181.6
64,424.7
121,888.1
237,002.6
54,693.9
77
Sc
245.4
222.1
361.1
242.7
288.1
197.6
358.8
276.8
380.9
248.8
178.0
190.0
219.2
289.9
273.1
181.5
288.2
258.4
123.9
654.7
131.7
179.6
254.6
97.4
80.0
50.5
28.8
84.1
287.4
81.9
182.2
20.5
94.0
157.0
58.1
Ti
83,669.1
84,681.5
152,899.2
71,771.2
131,718.5
101,314.5
75,695.8
138,140.9
161,817.2
124,260.3
53,978.8
58,784.5
98,014.7
124,622.2
126,179.0
97,471.7
124,797.5
109,486.4
48,022.2
222,527.3
148,553.8
217,775.1
358,608.1
109,404.5
99,550.6
5,849.8
3,261.0
19,648.9
40,183.2
8,346.2
9,283.2
6,450.8
19,190.3
21,509.9
6,057.1
Sample
ID
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
Tl
0.8
0.4
3.5
3.8
1.3
2.1
0.5
2.9
3.3
0.3
0.3
-0.5
-0.1
-0.8
-0.7
-1.2
-1.2
-1.2
-0.8
-0.8
1.2
3.6
5.4
1.7
6.2
1.4
2.5
1.5
0.9
10.0
1.2
3.2
2.3
0.6
0.8
Pb
125.1
51.9
823.7
553.6
164.8
504.4
66.9
768.9
295.8
35.9
260.4
294.4
361.9
427.7
387.4
511.8
402.4
378.4
410.3
669.5
465.8
757.7
691.9
281.0
818.1
215.3
398.3
266.8
178.5
841.1
109.3
279.9
321.5
145.0
91.4
Bi
2.1
1.0
3.8
6.9
2.7
2.5
0.6
3.8
5.1
0.7
4.5
4.4
3.8
2.0
2.7
1.5
1.1
1.8
1.6
2.5
1.5
5.5
10.3
3.8
17.3
1.8
3.6
3.4
1.5
6.8
1.2
4.5
2.7
1.0
0.9
Th
55.9
16.3
114.9
204.3
86.9
115.6
17.6
61.7
162.0
29.2
29.0
20.4
13.3
14.3
8.9
3.2
1.5
4.9
13.5
10.5
30.2
105.3
201.5
44.5
161.5
50.8
78.5
75.7
32.8
218.3
26.6
89.6
48.9
19.3
15.1
Sources of Highway Runoff Fine Sediment – September 2012
U
7.4
1.9
21.9
46.2
18.2
22.5
2.2
18.4
24.0
3.2
8.8
6.3
3.9
3.9
1.5
1.1
0.5
0.9
3.4
2.4
6.6
43.5
73.9
15.1
56.9
19.6
29.0
15.3
13.8
102.6
11.0
18.2
11.4
4.2
3.0
Mg
38,260.6
9,212.3
133,531.6
149,540.3
92,617.1
46,399.7
12,837.2
84,843.0
117,367.7
8,199.3
33,273.8
21,866.3
26,483.3
20,460.0
11,753.1
6,984.3
3,505.2
3,417.7
14,567.5
15,931.5
82,098.8
155,381.1
229,335.3
74,816.8
294,817.3
59,536.2
123,032.2
109,370.6
57,398.9
238,745.4
28,612.5
188,391.3
101,466.5
63,207.5
30,372.9
P
5,200.8
2,344.1
41,713.0
22,814.8
15,744.3
7,635.1
4,641.4
27,078.8
15,186.1
1,024.4
16,519.3
15,532.0
14,858.0
8,532.8
18,985.4
18,309.0
8,825.9
7,492.6
23,229.6
13,208.7
11,213.9
15,016.6
31,164.0
8,650.8
33,353.1
7,556.4
25,220.5
58,453.2
22,223.6
34,546.1
6,135.7
44,338.4
28,454.6
17,254.7
10,935.7
S
17,015.4
9,747.5
20,010.3
30,319.2
24,528.9
14,122.9
13,617.4
20,784.9
23,201.6
12,325.6
20,211.3
19,062.7
36,078.5
13,824.9
12,091.2
10,778.5
6,347.0
8,049.9
10,475.7
12,585.2
18,516.3
19,021.6
44,203.5
16,244.5
66,853.2
8,792.8
20,898.3
23,448.8
14,445.0
19,372.4
7,016.0
40,096.4
21,548.0
9,466.7
7,794.9
Ca
46,790.3
20,356.5
393,985.5
185,363.9
173,578.8
58,113.9
33,323.8
191,737.7
118,252.8
12,512.7
56,901.4
34,470.3
77,003.9
48,582.4
35,179.6
25,714.4
17,716.0
15,459.8
37,825.9
44,892.5
130,063.7
134,332.2
292,256.3
81,545.7
331,093.6
60,514.6
131,316.1
525,926.2
154,493.6
267,715.3
44,123.3
382,434.1
246,013.3
174,114.5
71,231.4
78
Sc
53.5
13.4
217.5
158.9
207.3
46.3
19.6
118.1
118.9
12.6
29.8
13.2
27.3
17.9
9.7
6.2
2.3
3.9
11.8
17.6
153.6
150.5
168.9
47.7
159.3
60.0
93.9
226.7
92.2
261.2
28.0
160.7
97.2
75.4
27.0
Ti
5,279.0
2,162.2
35,748.5
29,795.1
9,841.5
11,557.9
4,690.8
16,728.4
20,774.1
1,255.8
5,547.4
3,265.0
4,234.4
4,571.8
1,982.1
1,031.2
481.1
690.7
2,788.3
1,952.6
6,627.7
17,395.6
32,639.5
10,728.7
43,782.7
8,774.8
15,739.0
21,648.6
9,996.3
59,269.5
5,685.9
34,160.2
23,059.1
11,116.2
7,273.1
Sample
ID
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
Tl
2.5
2.1
5.6
2.6
0.6
1.8
2.5
7.3
6.0
2.8
1.5
1.1
13.1
16.4
5.0
11.2
7.8
9.8
6.2
22.5
7.7
12.9
22.3
1.8
8.3
18.1
5.5
8.9
27.0
6.7
4.7
13.7
4.3
15.1
2.0
Pb
300.4
297.5
852.9
629.1
142.3
149.6
163.4
477.7
556.3
160.2
106.8
111.9
1,071.1
1,819.0
935.5
750.0
679.1
975.0
4,900.7
1,867.6
2,730.1
1,359.4
4,985.2
191.2
527.3
1,905.8
494.8
921.8
2,051.7
1,766.7
813.3
1,888.6
850.4
1,804.2
224.0
Bi
3.9
8.3
21.9
4.4
1.3
3.2
2.7
7.3
8.6
2.7
3.1
1.2
18.2
37.8
12.2
13.3
19.7
17.8
22.9
45.6
18.3
53.7
47.7
3.3
9.1
40.7
8.6
15.0
45.7
20.9
19.8
32.8
11.5
40.7
2.9
Th
49.1
59.3
196.3
119.2
22.1
48.2
43.8
254.5
196.1
76.4
48.3
23.9
556.5
661.3
305.3
378.0
253.7
1,028.4
406.5
1,663.6
673.0
786.5
1,461.2
98.0
400.6
1,853.1
229.9
524.3
2,132.4
348.6
254.9
562.9
249.1
745.4
69.8
Sources of Highway Runoff Fine Sediment – September 2012
U
20.1
22.6
58.2
30.2
7.7
9.2
11.1
58.1
41.9
20.8
11.5
5.9
90.6
113.7
60.2
58.3
39.0
107.7
51.3
215.6
125.5
100.5
192.2
15.4
93.0
389.0
37.1
70.7
268.1
97.5
49.2
116.1
52.4
163.2
15.1
Mg
91,009.1
142,349.6
359,370.4
85,290.8
35,272.1
88,991.2
69,456.1
365,365.8
265,142.9
95,155.7
66,586.9
50,174.2
1,418,713.2
1,473,811.9
349,126.9
919,691.7
517,671.6
796,851.2
563,925.5
1,198,503.7
409,630.9
1,363,110.8
2,495,725.9
54,921.5
212,740.8
927,110.6
384,082.4
1,097,573.4
1,377,835.7
330,581.7
614,563.1
1,169,629.2
300,400.5
1,190,129.8
205,053.1
P
34,214.0
15,755.1
50,968.6
29,179.8
11,365.2
20,908.0
20,017.2
50,523.3
40,979.4
12,784.7
7,781.8
16,139.7
349,550.3
376,519.8
281,790.3
236,634.8
136,217.8
184,345.7
206,737.3
200,090.6
81,437.9
292,710.7
821,265.1
9,065.4
51,135.0
174,307.0
90,951.8
275,299.3
238,361.2
63,963.0
168,329.7
352,409.4
244,827.9
220,922.7
44,033.5
S
22,591.1
18,749.9
43,759.8
15,970.1
12,749.4
24,725.6
14,230.6
34,331.2
39,110.5
13,966.5
15,067.3
8,127.8
145,351.9
154,187.5
63,012.7
87,400.4
50,039.7
87,001.0
57,410.6
227,323.4
66,664.8
231,503.7
217,084.1
20,003.5
32,018.0
167,045.2
45,269.8
117,671.2
200,214.2
120,373.2
62,566.6
157,920.7
55,646.2
134,294.5
26,494.7
Ca
179,754.0
159,656.9
563,533.5
193,369.3
86,686.7
165,728.5
166,021.9
418,521.8
321,558.5
95,846.2
70,538.0
124,939.6
2,162,571.7
2,735,535.9
2,127,171.8
1,470,969.5
1,019,110.8
1,683,095.8
2,160,779.4
1,823,877.7
652,984.4
2,316,433.3
8,559,987.0
114,096.7
408,397.7
1,407,141.4
719,717.6
1,960,697.3
1,774,251.5
432,374.2
1,156,240.3
1,938,848.0
1,848,322.6
1,820,165.4
434,902.4
79
Sc
79.1
104.3
267.7
112.4
74.3
81.2
55.5
405.8
208.9
85.4
50.6
44.7
802.2
923.1
649.8
539.0
328.0
535.2
638.7
870.1
345.9
780.4
2,462.0
51.0
228.6
698.4
276.3
749.5
1,043.5
214.4
296.1
696.5
567.0
814.4
99.9
Ti
18,600.5
15,815.9
48,263.7
15,788.3
4,845.0
16,475.1
15,353.3
56,392.9
48,444.4
13,802.2
12,567.5
11,882.5
371,938.5
338,121.0
145,447.5
224,652.6
108,154.7
205,997.2
188,238.6
251,840.4
108,335.2
263,735.1
809,368.5
14,648.7
55,700.0
236,423.4
94,894.1
304,391.5
278,998.1
66,332.0
140,650.3
260,843.6
119,054.2
253,285.4
49,087.4
Sample
ID
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
Tl
5.1
2.4
11.9
12.6
12.9
18.9
21.1
23.0
14.5
7.9
23.5
18.0
42.6
15.3
36.0
22.0
38.1
16.2
11.1
7.5
14.7
14.4
7.0
20.8
14.7
18.7
23.3
33.9
15.5
17.4
17.2
11.9
14.1
11.3
17.3
Pb
389.8
146.1
1,022.7
2,053.0
782.7
967.8
2,057.9
2,556.9
1,004.4
15,200.4
3,613.1
587.0
1,423.5
2,014.3
3,209.1
751.4
1,712.8
2,076.6
1,761.4
17,726.7
1,255.1
1,412.3
1,606.0
3,558.7
1,495.2
1,621.0
709.6
2,220.9
3,581.0
2,026.0
4,046.3
1,358.5
1,319.3
1,858.9
1,879.6
Bi
6.8
5.3
17.7
9.9
14.3
9.8
13.1
20.6
8.1
5.6
14.1
10.6
30.2
11.6
11.6
12.1
30.2
10.6
71.5
7.3
8.1
8.6
7.4
19.1
9.9
14.3
13.0
19.4
9.1
13.2
13.0
17.7
17.0
8.7
14.8
Th
276.7
150.2
1,027.5
528.8
2,435.1
477.5
898.5
1,286.7
196.2
283.6
1,089.6
690.3
1,684.5
509.7
574.2
729.6
732.6
678.6
390.2
319.8
155.3
160.1
150.4
703.8
659.1
1,566.7
1,992.4
2,368.1
1,298.6
1,009.6
2,477.3
877.7
1,411.8
480.1
1,008.1
Sources of Highway Runoff Fine Sediment – September 2012
U
45.9
23.0
206.2
141.4
199.3
116.4
157.5
390.2
62.2
74.6
444.1
916.5
366.9
91.3
92.4
108.2
456.8
221.7
218.1
90.8
63.4
65.1
48.7
149.8
138.8
336.7
514.6
334.7
139.2
673.8
208.2
231.2
231.7
132.0
355.6
Mg
234,214.6
119,414.3
420,900.3
390,386.7
235,303.7
231,357.2
224,048.3
281,593.8
190,931.8
203,320.0
439,752.7
293,920.8
607,856.0
218,407.7
319,541.2
656,900.3
416,084.3
202,335.2
183,802.4
195,575.7
167,863.1
175,620.7
101,148.2
306,040.3
155,537.3
366,718.4
336,541.4
667,567.7
255,929.3
344,294.0
276,553.8
278,560.1
299,442.6
359,619.1
408,564.0
P
42,842.5
18,394.8
80,763.1
337,090.8
79,816.9
59,774.4
74,659.1
166,383.7
100,903.3
86,725.1
91,861.0
95,724.3
56,354.6
325,777.6
123,993.8
97,375.9
205,403.7
111,371.5
183,987.5
97,667.9
94,732.4
111,763.2
181,599.1
173,644.0
53,063.4
76,263.7
54,321.5
146,180.6
96,706.8
234,374.0
115,839.1
153,260.6
115,265.9
311,978.9
113,258.4
S
48,127.4
23,832.6
68,324.7
36,263.3
25,210.1
16,159.6
19,810.0
36,838.0
17,968.0
10,311.7
30,507.7
26,020.7
13,969.0
16,888.8
21,153.5
11,817.0
48,597.3
25,222.2
27,785.0
12,660.4
10,763.4
20,734.3
10,506.2
17,523.0
11,037.7
20,494.9
5,183.6
27,512.8
30,708.9
19,154.1
34,630.3
30,913.0
24,560.8
33,070.4
9,236.6
Ca
377,880.3
124,058.7
518,396.3
614,295.2
289,590.5
305,214.1
187,692.9
266,159.1
315,443.2
373,579.4
159,790.9
294,383.5
247,514.3
482,858.2
585,047.9
301,976.1
970,699.4
200,498.9
479,442.9
344,327.2
311,399.9
290,883.0
228,680.7
382,797.1
230,381.6
361,073.3
277,506.1
551,033.4
354,283.4
771,518.7
408,574.3
1,080,187.2
765,823.6
568,373.3
358,012.9
80
Sc
161.5
60.8
355.8
203.8
168.8
1,014.6
300.3
420.9
491.6
336.0
430.6
170.2
500.4
869.2
496.4
234.3
234.7
251.9
935.5
281.1
451.6
419.0
370.0
262.7
645.6
216.7
446.8
483.0
96.2
210.4
119.5
129.8
109.4
186.2
570.1
Ti
66,727.4
29,423.6
118,357.8
116,584.4
74,674.2
158,960.2
83,652.2
114,185.1
125,503.4
92,397.2
139,183.1
88,474.4
190,494.9
274,627.0
167,898.7
161,945.4
113,572.1
72,791.1
150,293.5
83,987.1
100,858.2
118,477.3
133,261.4
94,207.8
110,907.7
106,984.0
118,144.9
215,194.5
53,755.6
87,375.4
60,619.8
63,033.5
66,306.3
104,727.4
185,368.5
Sample
ID
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
Tl
38.1
16.7
11.5
0.9
0.8
0.9
1.0
0.9
0.7
0.9
0.7
0.9
0.7
1.0
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.8
0.8
0.9
0.8
0.8
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.8
0.8
0.9
0.7
1.2
1.0
1.0
0.7
Pb
3,061.7
1,952.5
3,316.5
111.6
33.6
192.1
164.5
34.2
16.0
42.3
23.1
12.8
5.6
48.5
22.4
17.5
9.5
47.3
92.4
83.8
16.8
53.1
487.5
93.8
29.6
92.1
12.1
33.6
192.8
46.2
25.1
52.6
32.4
303.4
7.9
Bi
24.9
11.8
13.6
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.1
Th
2,166.9
1,350.2
732.8
1.1
1.0
1.1
0.7
0.9
0.8
0.9
0.4
0.9
0.8
2.1
1.0
1.1
0.5
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.3
0.8
0.8
0.9
0.8
0.9
0.5
1.0
1.0
1.5
0.5
6.7
2.8
2.3
0.5
U
605.0
228.7
302.3
892.7
902.6
998.5
939.1
925.8
983.7
1,031.6
987.5
926.7
798.9
998.9
874.9
943.4
819.6
964.4
964.2
909.4
933.2
981.6
943.9
925.7
901.9
885.3
920.5
958.8
866.0
883.8
967.6
977.1
920.2
1,071.0
920.8
Sources of Highway Runoff Fine Sediment – September 2012
Mg
913,493.6
318,020.9
239,913.7
2,424,253.6
2,212,031.7
2,261,804.3
2,313,001.6
2,371,360.1
2,238,930.6
2,236,494.0
2,311,641.2
2,228,216.7
2,583,541.3
2,336,225.7
2,393,276.6
2,380,462.2
2,350,960.0
2,242,775.6
2,170,568.8
2,175,459.6
2,229,199.9
2,267,663.3
2,307,037.4
2,310,634.7
2,373,389.2
2,219,253.8
2,273,957.9
2,183,928.5
2,452,547.8
2,367,424.2
2,271,372.0
2,207,585.3
2,221,602.7
2,241,222.3
2,312,506.3
P
225,858.4
68,021.4
64,825.8
1,468.5
1,053.0
1,248.3
1,464.0
949.0
968.3
872.6
1,249.9
1,332.0
1,855.5
1,674.1
1,173.5
1,059.5
1,291.1
1,221.4
987.4
1,120.5
1,263.4
976.1
1,123.7
1,099.4
1,095.7
977.6
1,273.2
1,181.1
1,162.4
1,084.3
1,292.2
3,808.4
1,579.1
1,363.0
1,237.9
S
17,896.3
18,094.9
31,777.8
669,988.4
606,424.2
614,969.8
623,951.6
638,404.2
595,968.3
611,385.6
636,234.2
612,771.8
703,809.3
622,907.0
651,782.2
635,163.0
644,129.1
595,806.2
588,378.3
585,285.2
615,372.4
604,299.6
612,057.3
636,155.5
641,111.8
624,285.1
621,777.8
584,489.0
660,323.1
648,199.7
628,648.8
591,297.8
612,649.1
614,824.4
617,465.2
Ca
714,169.8
216,708.3
178,293.1
9,956,272.9
9,026,823.6
9,190,577.5
9,547,242.5
9,725,998.6
9,198,361.8
9,043,629.4
9,406,299.4
9,043,442.8
10,649,071.3
9,529,193.1
9,865,205.1
9,582,157.9
9,657,194.5
9,025,790.9
9,099,527.5
8,955,868.5
9,364,902.7
8,948,978.6
9,166,992.6
9,721,318.2
9,517,869.1
9,389,038.4
9,344,558.2
8,860,346.2
9,900,069.8
9,734,585.0
9,389,730.5
8,844,758.6
9,127,594.8
9,343,356.9
9,540,408.8
81
Sc
949.9
180.1
171.2
1.6
0.9
0.9
0.9
1.0
1.1
0.8
0.5
0.9
1.2
1.2
1.1
0.9
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.8
1.1
1.0
0.8
1.0
0.9
1.2
0.9
1.5
1.4
1.1
0.7
Ti
354,300.9
104,443.3
67,116.2
57.4
40.4
87.5
12.5
31.9
63.0
62.0
8.5
27.8
17.8
75.1
28.7
28.3
29.5
153.9
23.8
25.2
12.7
30.2
31.3
29.9
21.1
22.9
13.4
27.5
33.7
28.4
172.9
174.6
85.2
51.0
92.0
Sample
ID
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
Tl
1.1
0.9
0.9
0.7
0.9
0.9
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.7
0.8
0.7
1.4
1.4
1.0
0.8
0.7
0.9
0.8
0.8
1.7
2.0
1.9
2.2
2.1
2.4
2.5
3.1
1.9
2.2
3.2
3.3
3.2
3.2
3.3
Pb
65.3
21.6
29.8
16.6
43.2
66.9
45.0
51.1
37.5
9.8
71.1
13.0
24.9
113.1
23.6
24.5
60.3
12.9
13.0
20.8
-6.5
-2.0
-6.9
-1.0
1.0
-0.5
0.0
6.3
-3.4
17.7
3.0
26.8
28.4
3.4
16.8
Bi
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.3
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.1
1.4
0.1
0.1
0.5
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.5
0.5
0.9
1.8
Th
1.8
1.3
1.1
0.3
1.6
3.7
1.6
1.8
1.7
0.5
1.0
0.5
7.3
7.2
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.2
1.4
0.4
2.9
3.0
2.4
2.9
2.7
47.0
47.0
58.6
17.9
19.4
39.1
43.9
46.2
93.6
80.8
U
955.7
957.0
902.1
924.2
881.2
1,001.9
914.0
962.8
844.4
914.0
921.9
977.9
629.8
575.0
944.0
973.2
1,015.4
980.6
909.4
926.5
5.7
6.8
7.0
7.6
7.9
137.0
134.5
167.6
228.5
254.0
373.3
358.4
374.9
1,513.7
1,447.2
Sources of Highway Runoff Fine Sediment – September 2012
Mg
2,368,659.4
2,305,708.8
2,238,340.1
2,229,963.3
2,351,118.7
2,126,736.1
2,317,912.9
2,172,079.4
2,314,798.0
2,249,818.6
2,364,916.2
2,354,378.9
1,427,647.8
1,406,207.8
2,192,322.6
2,167,299.8
2,157,559.5
2,346,995.7
2,226,125.5
2,166,602.6
735,907.6
816,635.8
860,584.5
798,976.3
809,793.5
152,450.8
147,864.2
181,147.3
448,999.8
456,313.1
604,510.9
533,868.3
545,850.0
489,664.4
441,054.6
P
1,574.6
1,136.6
1,066.9
3,205.1
2,549.3
1,276.2
1,446.6
1,129.2
1,777.2
1,151.5
1,172.4
1,524.9
1,462.7
1,316.6
1,266.4
1,211.5
1,240.0
1,142.5
1,095.4
1,352.2
6,056.9
6,588.3
6,481.6
6,947.4
6,982.4
4,188.3
4,771.1
5,805.3
8,041.9
10,733.2
8,331.7
9,966.1
10,853.3
11,598.9
11,728.0
S
632,918.5
629,045.6
609,006.8
609,531.9
649,842.2
586,315.3
626,787.5
588,473.2
627,445.2
608,448.5
642,491.7
637,942.0
409,864.9
398,044.1
594,414.9
577,183.0
592,094.2
617,852.0
609,008.1
596,611.3
180,455.9
196,485.8
191,925.9
186,991.5
187,566.5
77,864.5
73,460.0
92,555.5
63,930.8
64,196.1
126,851.7
106,588.7
118,979.9
113,127.1
100,080.1
Ca
9,593,451.0
9,507,847.7
9,275,251.3
9,221,470.6
9,684,332.6
8,907,991.1
9,296,499.9
8,833,765.2
9,524,936.6
9,159,012.0
9,898,938.7
9,684,955.2
5,896,194.4
5,692,033.9
8,934,009.8
8,929,829.5
8,971,033.9
9,466,495.5
9,100,807.3
9,034,158.5
3,315,320.4
3,698,541.2
3,547,667.1
3,443,201.3
3,500,810.2
1,307,003.2
1,253,656.5
1,513,423.9
1,529,716.3
1,588,633.7
2,465,570.2
2,147,538.8
2,173,862.3
2,850,075.7
2,558,469.3
82
Sc
0.9
0.9
1.0
0.7
1.4
1.0
1.2
1.0
1.4
0.9
0.9
0.7
1.2
1.3
1.1
0.6
0.9
1.0
1.1
0.5
23.2
30.8
23.0
25.2
26.8
18.9
18.1
25.2
15.5
29.6
20.7
31.0
30.6
19.8
19.9
Ti
62.3
75.4
33.8
14.0
51.3
94.6
56.1
45.7
63.1
16.4
25.5
40.6
66.4
68.2
41.4
28.6
185.6
30.6
37.7
11.0
261.8
576.2
184.0
728.6
748.2
265.4
897.9
1,454.6
295.5
2,526.3
474.1
3,196.1
3,387.2
592.0
2,117.9
Sample
ID
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
Tl
3.6
4.1
1.5
1.7
1.8
2.2
1.9
2.4
1.6
1.6
2.1
1.4
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.2
0.3
0.7
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.5
0.2
0.4
0.5
0.0
-0.7
Pb
6.3
37.4
-4.0
-2.6
0.8
24.1
1.3
37.6
16.0
1.4
70.5
16.0
-3.6
-5.0
-7.1
-6.8
4.5
5.9
6.2
21.1
23.8
13.4
31.1
1.5
23.3
36.3
-14.6
-54.5
Bi
1.3
3.0
0.6
0.2
0.4
1.2
0.3
1.2
0.4
0.2
0.8
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.4
0.1
0.3
0.9
1.7
-0.4
0.9
0.9
-0.2
-0.6
Th
87.5
88.7
54.9
45.6
47.6
43.5
49.5
46.7
23.0
22.3
33.1
19.0
-0.5
-1.0
-0.7
0.1
0.1
0.5
11.6
1.5
4.9
-12.8
1.1
-9.3
-4.2
-2.8
-0.7
-14.1
U
1,894.9
2,104.5
2,920.8
2,928.2
220.5
261.3
306.3
338.1
200.7
215.4
291.9
203.3
373.3
1,091.1
856.7
852.3
1.1
0.6
33.1
25.5
-14.9
-66.5
209.6
7.4
40.8
31.8
14.7
-88.6
Sources of Highway Runoff Fine Sediment – September 2012
Mg
466,041.9
461,346.9
3,180,619.8
3,230,860.8
372,811.7
399,244.0
1,030,080.8
980,241.7
740,807.7
853,341.5
972,477.3
774,916.4
2,168,005.4
2,187,317.0
2,220,654.9
2,192,419.5
80,728.2
-61,608.2
33,283.1
7,313.3
-70,642.6
-48,609.8
-4,695.0
50,241.1
26,432.3
-49,839.2
112,533.9
-197,560.9
P
13,364.3
17,388.5
5,573.9
5,412.8
16,985.8
18,920.2
13,302.1
16,554.7
10,822.6
9,512.7
15,369.1
9,658.2
926.6
603.7
754.2
749.7
531.4
465.8
1,034.1
2,691.3
1,634.5
129.1
4,024.2
-161.1
1,934.4
3,252.6
-1,309.9
-5,710.9
S
147,579.0
145,904.4
501,245.8
502,860.1
68,223.4
74,294.8
90,522.1
88,114.8
64,210.8
75,174.6
99,993.8
80,894.8
782,930.8
730,963.1
735,202.1
709,642.7
16,029.9
-4,934.4
19,095.4
265.3
-20,263.0
-13,047.0
-1,674.5
1,614.2
6,071.4
-2,407.3
10,963.8
-19,099.0
Ca
2,688,720.6
2,682,942.4
12,877,907.7
13,324,765.8
2,353,971.8
2,516,809.1
4,460,729.2
4,240,818.8
2,839,675.4
3,292,277.6
3,758,783.4
3,065,125.3
8,830,282.8
9,001,298.7
9,293,024.1
8,867,485.1
383,220.7
-104,465.8
259,767.4
58,917.4
-318,031.4
-291,606.5
-5,778.2
446,858.1
162,837.2
-219,910.4
452,602.2
-693,658.1
83
Sc
16.9
21.7
13.1
13.2
11.2
14.2
10.8
16.7
16.5
10.2
24.7
8.6
-0.2
0.3
-0.4
0.2
7.6
2.2
7.0
14.1
10.3
0.2
4.8
0.1
2.9
6.0
-6.3
-16.2
Ti
666.8
3,007.7
425.1
734.8
332.3
2,072.6
336.6
2,652.5
2,313.4
346.2
4,322.8
342.2
0.1
18.9
14.5
9.1
314.4
544.6
556.7
2,230.9
2,722.0
1,525.9
2,340.9
309.7
1,740.4
2,315.9
-1,967.2
-3,980.7
Sample
ID
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
V
2,277.4
6,524.1
5,035.7
5,141.8
7,506.2
5,460.8
6,466.0
6,110.0
6,520.5
5,181.6
2,968.3
10,909.3
2,744.3
8,900.0
4,039.6
8,401.3
12,180.0
7,791.5
6,998.4
5,811.3
5,715.9
11,373.1
6,453.3
9,910.8
7,163.4
7,499.5
8,982.6
9,410.5
13,525.3
3,707.1
6,299.3
7,524.3
8,424.2
8,383.5
Cr
2,144.3
5,863.6
1,752.9
1,426.6
2,374.3
1,164.1
1,723.0
1,485.4
1,474.0
1,582.5
1,583.1
3,002.2
1,705.2
2,214.4
1,135.8
2,240.0
4,187.5
2,392.4
2,981.6
2,411.3
2,715.9
6,372.9
1,098.3
2,108.9
2,429.9
1,345.8
3,450.7
2,550.8
4,751.3
689.6
821.2
1,023.1
2,377.3
2,052.5
Mn)
23,150.9
42,309.1
20,216.5
30,778.7
33,718.6
98,963.2
37,342.8
47,075.5
32,925.3
43,128.3
32,467.4
67,021.3
29,915.6
64,851.1
24,331.8
48,924.7
45,312.9
29,426.7
40,711.4
19,519.6
22,203.2
40,720.4
25,401.4
44,902.4
30,189.4
33,512.0
35,840.9
45,532.6
48,241.7
12,416.9
25,263.9
17,160.3
22,289.2
40,062.9
Fe
1,220,824.3
2,252,934.8
1,353,713.6
1,484,597.6
1,926,352.2
2,387,062.7
2,041,977.7
1,808,128.9
1,820,944.2
1,713,098.1
1,676,540.3
3,101,923.8
1,551,406.4
2,649,311.4
1,193,959.7
2,682,441.9
3,614,500.1
2,138,640.0
2,554,460.1
1,697,944.1
1,712,254.0
3,546,495.5
1,735,160.7
2,586,820.2
1,954,403.4
2,148,093.7
2,617,209.0
2,702,028.2
4,202,821.2
895,049.5
1,461,370.9
1,496,970.3
1,939,227.6
2,358,711.9
Sources of Highway Runoff Fine Sediment – September 2012
Co
629.4
2,665.2
681.0
603.3
791.6
791.0
1,108.5
861.6
780.9
823.3
831.2
1,426.6
773.4
1,219.7
488.9
1,423.8
1,096.3
891.1
735.7
603.8
739.4
1,463.7
646.0
951.3
1,249.3
772.2
1,213.4
1,257.3
1,197.0
304.9
621.8
537.6
679.0
1,215.7
Ni
1,498.4
5,029.3
1,193.8
825.2
1,394.2
767.5
1,652.4
1,023.2
1,132.7
1,149.9
1,276.2
1,973.3
1,356.4
1,418.9
620.1
2,138.2
2,655.5
1,477.1
2,638.0
1,313.8
1,818.0
3,483.7
935.5
1,701.0
3,236.9
1,097.8
2,910.9
1,780.5
2,801.6
620.4
1,145.4
923.6
1,633.3
4,518.3
Cu
2,254.4
2,862.0
1,585.6
1,657.9
1,776.5
2,949.6
2,078.0
1,614.2
1,539.8
1,776.5
2,668.2
2,905.8
2,684.2
2,186.4
1,264.5
2,682.0
4,035.6
3,208.5
3,493.3
2,959.8
4,024.0
7,766.5
2,104.9
2,980.5
2,975.4
2,849.3
3,232.5
3,462.6
10,105.3
961.5
1,483.9
1,413.0
2,494.8
2,214.1
Zn
3,369.2
8,618.3
5,594.1
4,566.6
4,536.8
12,971.2
4,962.2
5,795.7
4,038.3
4,004.9
2,879.8
6,115.0
2,786.6
7,332.0
2,919.1
5,006.3
15,417.0
13,417.2
17,068.4
13,127.0
13,703.4
21,836.8
8,339.9
17,859.2
8,035.8
13,026.6
11,610.1
13,949.8
12,971.1
6,004.5
4,208.0
4,054.3
6,150.5
5,615.4
84
Ga
144.6
219.5
229.0
247.7
231.6
783.4
417.3
366.4
267.7
360.5
171.7
425.9
169.4
501.2
214.9
594.1
507.2
358.6
310.8
296.6
286.4
504.1
347.6
436.5
266.2
398.2
365.8
517.0
498.2
189.4
294.7
318.5
412.2
344.9
Ag
169.0
130.7
124.1
144.6
327.2
173.9
264.9
25.2
35.5
28.5
20.3
60.7
21.2
36.5
9.5
81.4
42.0
20.9
22.5
18.6
17.6
26.9
10.8
23.9
20.1
10.0
17.4
23.8
9.6
109.3
87.5
106.1
184.1
199.5
K
102,233.1
46,062.7
57,676.0
105,955.8
68,113.2
217,628.9
86,390.7
87,135.6
71,967.3
132,511.8
133,248.0
204,436.4
210,588.6
117,235.8
86,622.2
119,111.3
127,798.1
90,282.2
86,823.4
86,072.8
101,450.5
171,867.3
65,768.9
149,605.2
64,814.8
118,270.6
83,658.5
160,959.6
410,853.0
66,414.3
36,437.0
63,388.8
81,906.9
104,632.1
Sample
ID
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
V
5,513.5
10,820.6
7,998.2
3,880.1
17,187.8
8,561.7
7,519.1
13,767.8
6,689.0
3,386.5
494.5
305.0
1,037.9
2,279.9
680.5
1,232.7
423.8
1,001.3
1,400.6
511.7
327.6
103.7
2,192.3
1,800.3
1,158.5
555.8
181.7
1,092.0
1,316.2
58.6
325.0
214.7
341.8
261.6
107.7
Cr
1,380.7
1,908.3
1,839.9
1,934.0
4,224.6
1,366.5
446.8
866.9
1,136.1
206.0
282.6
166.7
363.2
1,117.1
342.8
281.6
221.6
401.5
764.5
300.0
228.4
139.9
706.6
843.9
389.2
313.4
141.5
623.4
882.0
108.6
294.3
238.5
347.2
400.1
117.3
Mn)
21,499.2
28,143.8
37,042.6
14,453.9
58,139.0
13,388.7
37,803.5
59,693.7
9,985.9
16,718.2
3,375.1
1,264.4
5,920.9
17,767.5
4,242.2
5,638.0
2,448.0
8,443.0
9,411.2
3,338.9
1,920.8
1,361.5
12,792.0
10,889.3
7,146.5
4,215.1
5,439.1
7,336.6
7,347.0
551.6
2,150.4
1,048.9
2,114.8
1,126.8
853.3
Fe
1,440,422.2
2,047,048.8
2,039,346.3
1,150,087.3
3,941,932.8
1,530,733.1
2,479,432.8
4,318,689.8
1,138,327.2
1,108,656.3
200,581.0
114,018.7
355,259.5
1,065,237.2
306,879.2
592,075.6
148,219.8
372,463.3
535,342.6
208,720.2
165,096.8
38,606.6
750,352.9
643,478.0
544,628.9
217,293.8
67,084.3
417,980.3
502,192.6
32,264.0
150,836.3
81,138.5
143,422.8
82,833.2
43,569.2
Sources of Highway Runoff Fine Sediment – September 2012
Co
745.9
710.0
808.8
482.4
1,711.4
507.4
794.8
1,498.4
413.8
337.3
102.3
45.4
222.3
871.8
187.7
213.0
54.5
182.7
242.6
103.7
64.4
26.9
406.2
380.4
247.8
86.4
50.8
192.1
357.8
17.7
61.5
37.8
46.9
70.9
24.4
Ni
2,552.9
1,198.3
2,031.3
2,045.0
5,383.5
870.1
360.4
806.0
871.9
153.4
202.5
134.2
416.6
1,044.6
317.2
435.0
147.0
269.9
586.3
212.9
143.1
70.4
603.0
619.5
437.0
204.6
112.3
452.8
677.8
54.2
199.2
169.3
217.1
361.4
75.4
Cu
1,482.7
2,026.6
2,732.2
1,866.7
4,176.6
1,201.0
1,512.6
2,645.0
748.0
687.2
433.9
516.6
685.3
1,761.2
701.4
963.4
318.1
651.7
1,434.2
473.8
425.0
181.3
1,236.8
1,465.2
924.7
372.7
192.3
1,112.2
1,104.8
125.1
402.7
463.1
615.7
1,019.3
140.9
Zn
3,990.8
4,719.6
5,339.3
3,676.8
10,701.2
2,762.1
6,114.3
8,415.2
1,790.1
2,605.6
1,226.1
3,559.9
2,398.2
6,574.1
3,611.0
11,059.0
5,462.4
3,544.1
5,683.8
1,351.3
2,345.5
618.9
4,761.9
5,548.7
2,877.3
1,868.7
865.7
4,258.8
4,329.5
372.9
2,810.2
2,409.4
4,495.1
2,530.5
1,359.4
85
Ga
265.0
444.6
346.0
227.9
680.8
426.3
577.8
905.8
313.0
264.4
37.5
23.8
97.6
205.0
55.5
84.4
37.1
115.7
140.2
38.6
29.9
12.2
199.7
137.4
85.1
63.3
21.0
105.0
93.7
8.4
31.9
18.5
29.0
26.0
13.1
Ag
157.4
149.2
14.8
6.0
309.7
16.9
9.9
6.0
3.3
1.4
13.0
31.4
8.7
11.8
3.5
21.4
4.7
25.1
39.0
17.4
9.9
7.3
47.6
30.5
23.5
10.9
7.8
28.6
22.5
2.6
55.9
47.8
50.7
148.5
34.0
K
105,107.6
97,086.9
96,922.6
185,536.7
170,245.2
88,715.1
656,191.4
884,447.8
57,033.5
280,517.7
12,758.8
14,677.4
26,800.8
85,528.1
24,077.4
33,026.5
22,322.1
40,009.3
49,184.1
13,658.1
12,890.7
3,327.8
37,192.1
51,869.1
20,525.9
25,024.6
5,741.9
38,578.0
42,712.0
3,940.1
18,882.9
15,797.1
14,117.6
9,138.1
13,609.4
Sample
ID
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
V
54.5
24.7
31.4
155.0
193.9
974.6
1,313.7
2,639.1
786.6
3,280.1
518.1
953.6
2,153.3
944.4
2,732.6
303.7
1,836.9
1,240.8
823.7
337.0
988.4
976.2
3,025.3
976.9
772.7
869.4
703.6
3,187.8
2,853.8
861.3
704.3
508.9
20,587.3
21,748.7
13,314.1
Cr
57.2
49.0
240.8
90.5
108.2
291.3
558.3
1,027.2
486.2
1,965.9
202.6
273.0
422.8
259.3
719.9
129.9
670.7
410.5
254.2
172.8
397.8
750.5
1,722.8
323.5
170.5
362.9
295.7
1,533.6
1,393.4
466.4
361.4
269.7
5,258.8
5,970.6
2,626.5
Mn)
691.7
366.8
364.6
1,356.3
838.5
6,436.0
10,518.6
16,929.3
3,914.2
14,929.8
4,013.8
5,618.1
11,849.6
4,458.5
26,427.1
2,604.1
10,219.0
7,022.9
3,850.2
1,841.6
6,314.0
7,617.9
22,480.9
8,757.5
2,075.4
4,674.5
3,772.2
25,813.1
17,387.8
5,607.9
3,812.7
2,754.4
74,980.3
82,708.4
33,936.5
Fe
21,798.0
8,720.5
14,128.0
66,950.4
68,386.8
472,178.5
524,159.0
896,181.3
255,458.9
999,181.0
207,005.6
375,152.2
841,361.9
351,546.5
1,008,862.8
116,349.0
641,852.2
409,788.0
323,993.2
125,728.4
381,021.3
429,850.1
1,187,527.4
420,845.7
245,664.0
314,207.9
279,413.6
1,531,827.1
1,068,108.1
364,047.7
242,679.7
201,285.1
5,684,250.2
6,047,554.1
3,898,595.1
Sources of Highway Runoff Fine Sediment – September 2012
Co
25.7
8.0
12.9
25.3
23.1
242.1
368.4
386.4
150.9
468.0
103.1
156.7
344.7
155.3
490.0
66.2
414.9
249.7
147.9
60.7
174.3
237.3
610.8
202.4
118.3
173.4
177.7
1,247.9
641.5
195.3
107.7
142.1
2,936.2
3,839.0
1,379.0
Ni
45.5
27.5
113.2
67.3
82.2
434.0
692.3
1,312.5
483.8
1,725.8
163.6
281.8
475.1
250.5
637.4
95.2
783.5
489.7
239.9
138.1
399.8
545.6
1,479.1
281.7
148.8
401.9
346.5
1,502.2
1,237.3
353.1
342.3
213.9
5,786.1
6,967.1
1,778.8
Cu
177.1
112.2
104.1
363.4
295.8
802.1
1,372.5
1,685.6
851.5
3,307.0
475.9
809.2
1,227.7
597.4
1,962.1
259.5
1,726.3
804.4
578.4
249.3
739.5
1,581.5
4,018.5
670.6
372.9
892.6
583.9
2,512.4
1,909.3
579.5
898.3
366.7
6,475.9
11,904.3
5,161.7
Zn
2,131.8
940.5
1,925.4
2,449.7
1,973.9
3,630.8
6,641.9
10,307.5
4,749.4
18,744.0
3,728.0
5,983.1
6,286.5
3,369.8
10,369.8
1,087.7
6,442.0
2,864.8
2,227.4
1,204.6
8,406.7
9,509.5
25,725.2
3,684.3
1,889.6
5,333.4
3,421.9
9,479.1
10,861.6
4,256.4
2,152.8
1,821.2
18,737.5
36,208.9
18,746.4
86
Ga
6.5
2.8
4.3
17.0
14.8
75.9
131.2
201.4
56.1
205.4
48.5
91.9
165.6
70.4
338.0
39.8
174.7
111.5
69.3
34.8
113.1
95.0
256.5
122.5
50.0
87.9
80.5
290.5
208.0
81.6
55.2
58.3
774.3
994.4
708.1
Ag
12.1
11.9
16.4
24.2
29.2
8.6
12.3
17.6
6.1
11.4
7.6
10.0
9.0
6.7
16.3
5.1
17.1
8.9
6.9
5.1
5.9
8.7
15.7
4.7
4.3
7.0
3.5
14.7
10.3
3.2
1.8
3.2
144.0
159.9
30.9
K
9,031.2
3,837.1
2,195.7
14,881.7
9,230.2
17,891.8
40,697.4
71,831.5
26,899.4
115,196.7
24,468.9
55,678.2
28,750.2
20,482.7
116,727.9
12,871.8
61,661.6
31,705.8
13,979.2
13,694.0
47,289.0
43,428.5
107,110.0
39,370.1
14,317.0
29,653.4
28,351.5
116,590.0
80,173.7
32,278.9
35,119.6
18,782.6
158,636.7
228,328.4
100,513.6
Sample
ID
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
V
12,577.2
6,809.3
15,761.2
15,671.6
18,078.7
6,512.1
18,846.6
72,424.1
888.8
3,416.3
15,878.2
5,235.6
17,398.0
19,320.9
5,013.5
9,921.6
15,155.5
10,820.9
14,539.4
2,680.5
3,853.8
1,404.8
6,460.9
4,699.1
4,524.1
12,290.8
5,009.1
5,814.5
7,051.7
6,181.3
6,414.6
4,997.2
7,647.5
8,660.3
7,121.4
Cr
3,137.4
1,959.8
5,567.7
4,160.9
10,419.4
2,755.1
5,975.8
14,146.6
570.7
1,172.0
6,358.0
1,543.8
4,785.5
10,700.8
2,276.2
3,145.8
4,283.9
2,223.8
5,573.6
991.6
2,742.4
860.4
2,842.0
1,398.1
959.9
3,360.8
1,396.8
14,078.6
1,674.8
1,460.2
1,681.7
1,557.1
1,399.8
2,704.1
2,318.5
Mn)
47,847.9
28,982.2
51,953.7
45,654.9
68,598.4
24,188.0
68,460.3
212,235.2
2,896.6
16,184.5
60,225.2
20,881.6
60,745.5
80,894.0
20,439.6
30,852.2
59,179.7
28,772.4
81,958.5
9,011.7
12,413.3
6,714.2
28,134.2
53,992.6
62,046.7
97,450.4
74,010.2
90,597.4
74,820.4
25,645.2
49,915.1
46,108.6
139,381.5
97,967.2
164,631.2
Fe
3,552,039.4
2,034,424.5
4,127,172.9
4,275,985.8
5,919,772.4
2,054,549.5
5,780,307.1
17,828,388.7
276,395.2
1,106,292.5
5,078,252.6
1,493,041.5
4,656,141.6
6,475,953.3
1,427,122.4
2,496,184.5
4,403,308.2
3,212,433.6
4,673,800.9
770,871.9
1,110,745.8
445,528.0
1,948,346.2
1,869,470.9
1,432,043.1
3,600,868.9
1,754,739.8
2,280,605.4
1,998,241.7
1,740,592.8
2,344,824.5
1,842,419.4
3,256,372.0
2,366,818.6
2,158,239.9
Sources of Highway Runoff Fine Sediment – September 2012
Co
1,938.4
1,366.6
1,992.5
1,650.5
4,345.6
748.1
2,381.8
6,961.4
103.1
428.6
1,631.4
763.8
2,422.9
4,264.8
607.9
1,049.7
2,384.8
1,116.0
2,793.3
434.6
654.7
174.4
975.0
812.8
520.2
1,739.8
553.9
779.7
854.5
710.8
814.2
530.7
1,109.2
1,099.8
1,014.2
Ni
3,753.1
2,378.0
2,952.8
2,814.5
7,572.9
1,682.4
8,008.3
12,781.8
301.4
788.7
4,664.2
1,752.4
4,655.9
7,603.4
1,818.2
2,895.4
5,311.6
1,511.2
5,348.4
921.5
1,733.7
501.6
2,232.3
1,080.3
533.3
1,958.6
783.6
8,184.9
1,166.3
952.8
877.0
798.9
1,029.4
2,729.6
1,758.3
Cu
4,330.2
4,348.1
5,773.3
6,153.8
11,401.2
3,560.2
8,312.8
20,238.4
461.8
1,665.9
7,974.5
2,373.8
5,376.1
10,910.9
3,065.7
3,380.3
6,866.3
4,360.2
8,262.4
976.3
1,813.8
1,336.1
2,881.7
6,395.4
1,271.6
2,043.1
1,266.4
8,171.2
1,688.5
1,956.0
1,913.4
1,537.7
2,012.5
1,863.9
1,844.8
Zn
12,550.1
13,464.7
20,522.0
19,732.9
23,848.4
11,027.5
25,760.9
63,800.4
1,519.8
4,310.9
23,801.5
5,930.1
14,813.2
36,871.6
11,060.5
11,819.5
19,898.1
16,455.2
33,989.4
2,606.1
3,897.7
2,091.4
7,265.6
6,494.6
6,441.7
10,195.7
6,621.4
12,799.0
9,599.2
6,365.0
7,019.0
3,965.9
10,346.8
9,097.3
11,421.3
87
Ga
532.3
381.3
757.5
750.7
905.4
366.0
934.2
2,887.3
62.5
239.0
823.4
337.9
729.2
1,055.7
275.2
422.9
767.5
611.8
824.4
166.2
210.8
103.1
370.4
852.3
392.1
1,106.6
555.4
853.1
746.3
449.3
783.1
490.8
1,018.5
1,141.6
710.1
Ag
170.6
143.6
72.0
107.1
166.3
71.9
251.2
343.5
14.7
41.2
115.1
70.1
196.1
187.4
193.7
238.7
590.2
26.2
58.2
7.5
8.3
2.5
92.2
19.6
27.6
44.4
19.5
42.1
33.7
52.6
32.6
22.6
44.0
82.8
47.0
K
117,957.6
82,939.1
232,508.5
112,382.0
291,332.4
118,658.1
237,993.3
378,404.6
24,366.3
99,220.6
278,251.5
67,667.9
140,080.0
357,044.3
120,638.5
68,684.0
180,587.2
88,077.6
265,274.7
38,413.5
74,188.7
75,385.9
122,025.6
146,374.9
118,552.9
131,098.5
110,101.1
177,315.1
91,778.5
94,589.0
188,678.3
188,693.4
252,289.3
142,138.8
161,545.0
Sample
ID
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
V
5,290.1
6,898.6
3,256.1
11,568.9
5,964.3
5,830.8
6,636.3
4,008.6
3,975.1
8,679.7
5,096.1
5,112.6
9,358.4
2,357.8
2,957.9
3,096.6
2,049.7
2,355.6
4,155.1
8,366.4
15,776.7
3,046.9
3,901.4
685.9
604.4
622.0
604.1
661.5
605.5
612.3
618.2
613.8
679.0
681.3
673.4
Cr
1,394.8
1,467.4
1,711.9
2,855.5
1,273.9
1,375.0
1,493.4
1,243.2
2,105.2
2,314.3
1,074.9
787.1
2,336.0
647.9
971.6
855.7
517.5
442.4
1,234.2
1,420.5
2,589.8
787.1
1,141.3
32.5
30.8
30.6
29.8
31.1
31.1
30.6
28.0
31.8
32.7
35.6
32.6
Mn)
37,055.4
105,560.7
59,626.6
53,112.4
24,233.3
127,181.1
67,002.5
46,123.6
74,254.2
69,506.9
35,232.9
38,477.6
49,228.7
61,298.0
100,332.1
66,179.6
57,174.1
45,611.1
49,334.0
68,835.1
123,970.6
106,164.7
23,263.2
518.4
433.7
501.0
80.4
325.2
302.4
315.7
59.3
409.4
74.4
1,097.5
491.4
Fe
2,077,051.4
2,533,851.2
1,247,954.1
2,868,273.8
1,601,761.2
1,643,584.2
1,816,768.1
1,088,801.3
1,380,394.3
2,508,026.9
1,518,851.9
1,750,907.8
3,117,965.1
915,604.7
1,481,959.4
1,173,733.5
891,198.6
1,002,454.7
1,681,623.7
2,715,032.6
5,086,553.1
1,380,023.9
1,274,685.4
3,618.6
3,096.2
3,299.9
478.7
1,747.4
1,569.6
1,758.4
288.0
2,220.5
374.1
18,062.9
3,843.8
Sources of Highway Runoff Fine Sediment – September 2012
Co
964.9
830.4
393.2
1,143.8
666.7
687.1
789.8
504.4
536.2
1,220.8
710.0
870.8
1,157.1
353.6
616.7
402.4
478.8
442.3
743.1
1,129.9
2,227.9
454.3
431.0
4.3
3.9
2.8
3.1
3.1
2.4
2.2
1.6
3.7
1.9
6.0
4.0
Ni
1,017.5
1,212.7
1,027.4
1,370.9
860.4
1,040.4
1,084.7
1,237.6
969.9
1,241.7
723.7
653.4
1,764.7
391.4
812.8
499.0
433.6
353.6
1,020.4
911.0
1,714.0
456.4
501.3
48.7
23.7
20.2
38.5
23.6
23.4
16.7
46.6
15.9
20.9
30.6
27.0
Cu
2,567.9
2,521.4
1,586.5
2,988.8
1,882.2
1,276.9
1,515.3
862.5
3,011.9
1,361.4
1,970.7
4,183.7
2,037.8
1,074.9
2,843.9
1,182.1
1,608.9
1,270.3
5,812.4
2,377.4
4,171.4
738.5
1,287.9
357.7
108.1
90.9
80.9
112.3
88.2
111.7
112.8
84.2
80.2
113.0
114.7
Zn
6,196.3
7,928.6
5,944.7
11,967.9
6,975.7
10,246.1
9,985.1
5,756.1
12,639.4
8,696.1
7,487.4
3,823.1
10,170.3
7,035.5
8,785.4
7,478.4
4,110.7
4,325.5
5,951.2
7,511.2
14,777.0
3,804.8
5,669.7
3,887.4
1,708.9
7,718.7
489.9
402.0
214.8
351.4
389.0
309.6
354.1
291.4
320.7
88
Ga
597.0
790.4
515.3
812.4
403.4
659.7
714.3
542.9
692.1
784.5
552.2
439.5
1,214.1
318.5
575.1
347.6
457.4
428.2
776.7
892.7
1,644.2
620.1
347.0
2.3
1.7
1.8
1.3
1.9
1.4
1.6
1.3
1.5
1.3
2.9
2.2
Ag
42.6
74.1
91.6
153.4
160.9
78.6
101.0
143.2
390.5
97.8
19.9
21.3
29.3
11.9
11.1
6.2
6.8
4.9
18.2
19.3
30.3
5.1
72.5
10.4
5.4
8.2
56.2
5.8
5.1
1.4
3.1
13.0
9.6
38.4
4.5
K
217,278.6
189,922.0
126,258.7
81,670.9
89,654.3
73,309.4
77,836.0
64,790.0
120,279.6
82,827.8
197,617.1
311,325.3
296,729.4
181,930.4
196,438.5
198,840.1
137,367.5
157,869.4
132,545.6
211,881.9
509,258.5
163,990.9
121,645.2
1,986,967.0
1,799,939.3
1,924,906.9
2,011,791.2
2,032,246.8
1,862,561.4
1,831,068.3
1,839,845.6
1,865,930.3
2,183,481.7
1,874,622.2
1,956,577.6
Sample
ID
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
V
652.9
626.0
623.9
615.5
603.6
611.1
612.0
624.8
636.9
654.3
632.6
601.9
602.3
668.3
662.9
613.1
710.1
659.6
664.2
627.2
635.4
638.1
619.5
605.3
659.9
613.4
638.3
626.4
653.0
606.3
648.9
624.5
471.3
462.5
619.7
Cr
30.7
28.8
30.6
29.4
27.1
30.1
32.6
31.8
30.2
29.7
29.7
27.7
31.8
32.6
31.2
27.2
36.9
34.2
33.2
29.5
31.3
34.3
30.0
29.5
33.5
30.0
29.1
30.3
33.2
26.5
30.8
28.8
28.9
30.8
31.0
Mn)
483.0
68.4
632.8
353.3
367.4
64.2
355.0
354.7
368.4
369.9
369.3
67.6
451.4
416.0
464.0
83.5
2,266.5
1,074.5
853.7
75.1
550.8
468.2
400.0
68.4
622.6
558.8
607.7
562.4
672.0
70.1
387.5
86.6
591.6
620.1
477.4
Sources of Highway Runoff Fine Sediment – September 2012
Fe
3,234.6
526.2
2,998.0
2,279.3
2,580.4
279.5
2,143.7
1,998.7
2,204.7
2,106.8
2,164.2
422.1
4,027.7
3,280.0
3,799.0
593.6
50,597.3
18,342.1
9,939.0
568.1
6,461.6
4,945.1
3,643.5
442.8
4,589.2
4,042.8
4,459.8
7,562.1
9,566.1
575.4
2,573.0
1,009.5
12,142.7
13,016.5
2,701.7
Co
3.4
2.1
4.2
3.3
3.4
1.1
3.5
3.9
3.1
3.0
2.7
1.5
3.9
3.3
3.6
1.5
7.5
4.5
4.5
1.4
4.4
3.4
2.9
1.4
3.6
2.6
3.6
3.8
4.1
1.6
3.4
2.3
7.5
10.2
4.6
Ni
27.6
29.5
22.0
15.9
18.9
18.4
208.3
18.0
26.1
33.7
19.4
21.7
31.1
45.4
161.2
22.3
21.7
24.1
18.7
15.3
27.1
24.6
21.5
16.3
32.8
20.6
17.2
58.8
22.8
15.5
27.7
34.6
20.1
43.2
57.1
Cu
88.5
61.9
132.7
96.6
108.7
65.9
122.5
88.9
127.2
79.6
89.6
82.3
667.8
99.3
105.2
70.3
157.4
435.7
263.9
60.3
117.0
106.7
80.0
54.9
111.4
83.1
109.6
116.2
95.0
57.8
120.0
87.1
146.2
159.3
108.1
Zn
361.7
342.3
711.6
429.8
240.9
483.1
724.4
493.4
336.6
287.2
235.6
247.5
327.9
294.5
548.9
169.6
379.1
241.0
621.3
166.4
202.6
397.9
205.4
218.3
460.2
251.9
451.9
351.4
328.8
176.2
323.5
390.0
265.7
654.4
367.9
89
Ga
1.8
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.6
0.7
2.1
1.9
1.8
2.3
1.7
1.1
1.9
1.7
1.8
1.1
3.6
2.3
2.3
1.2
1.8
1.7
1.7
1.3
2.2
1.7
1.9
2.1
1.7
1.0
1.7
1.3
2.2
2.2
1.9
Ag
13.9
6.7
2.1
0.5
9.8
3.1
5.6
3.1
4.4
7.2
9.3
-0.7
4.7
8.8
6.7
4.1
4.7
4.1
-0.1
4.2
21.8
13.9
8.3
8.4
4.4
6.6
4.4
8.1
8.1
5.9
9.9
0.2
4.3
26.5
1.4
K
1,928,155.8
1,918,454.6
1,864,936.2
1,832,182.5
1,768,358.9
1,872,774.2
1,837,771.8
1,910,796.9
1,902,343.3
1,845,852.4
1,863,022.7
1,824,028.8
1,769,333.6
1,924,815.1
1,973,860.0
1,929,534.6
1,771,125.1
1,846,887.5
1,843,455.2
1,913,061.4
1,881,021.3
1,919,152.5
1,878,579.5
1,961,678.5
2,011,202.1
1,881,197.8
1,834,262.1
1,845,590.3
1,883,116.7
1,869,626.0
2,023,409.0
1,869,023.0
1,231,072.9
1,230,064.3
1,844,683.7
Sample
ID
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
V
601.2
605.5
639.7
628.0
597.9
702.4
803.4
792.8
809.3
841.4
349.4
343.3
465.5
410.3
564.4
787.5
900.7
922.4
894.9
936.6
1,126.7
1,378.7
1,765.2
1,815.7
573.0
748.3
748.7
908.2
655.3
605.5
913.7
543.5
649.3
643.4
652.2
Cr
28.2
28.4
31.1
31.5
26.5
59.1
83.4
60.9
69.6
67.1
47.2
47.5
65.2
52.2
88.7
85.9
121.9
126.3
90.9
84.3
82.9
103.6
89.2
97.8
39.2
46.6
44.2
61.0
42.8
41.3
74.1
36.2
28.5
29.2
28.8
Mn)
404.3
414.8
420.7
427.7
82.2
537.4
823.6
859.4
1,072.2
1,095.2
1,277.0
1,253.8
1,823.3
3,188.2
4,389.0
4,116.7
4,494.1
4,675.3
4,216.9
4,436.2
4,365.9
4,922.3
2,840.4
2,978.3
1,573.5
2,426.1
8,494.5
9,213.5
5,364.7
4,787.8
9,614.0
6,064.1
20.3
9.2
20.7
Sources of Highway Runoff Fine Sediment – September 2012
Fe
2,829.0
2,847.6
2,820.9
2,990.0
848.2
5,302.0
17,117.4
6,779.6
20,789.6
21,179.3
14,337.3
14,138.7
32,739.7
26,666.6
86,328.9
56,073.8
123,469.2
129,023.1
75,194.6
116,064.5
100,150.7
186,325.2
50,521.8
62,074.7
44,065.7
105,500.5
91,493.0
183,688.4
130,120.7
65,475.2
217,469.9
72,415.0
144.6
91.4
2,001.3
Co
2.9
2.7
3.5
3.7
2.0
17.1
20.5
51.2
21.9
21.9
28.8
29.6
29.9
168.2
50.7
134.9
59.9
55.6
60.5
49.2
150.6
55.1
81.2
47.6
73.1
42.1
59.1
63.5
40.9
136.0
84.8
53.1
7.4
1.1
0.8
Ni
53.6
19.1
14.8
33.9
12.1
40.7
55.0
56.4
51.5
57.4
24.8
27.7
39.3
80.1
81.1
87.4
91.3
89.0
55.2
53.0
81.1
72.1
70.3
64.0
79.6
30.6
36.7
42.8
34.6
50.0
305.6
237.0
104.3
12.5
5.1
Cu
155.2
96.5
79.9
150.6
66.1
262.8
196.4
170.8
166.4
185.9
386.8
658.3
240.4
486.4
306.8
278.4
240.3
242.6
510.5
289.7
559.0
614.9
838.9
577.9
534.3
284.9
231.1
262.7
195.0
228.5
908.6
1,400.4
176.2
143.4
38.2
Zn
486.8
251.6
197.7
241.2
174.1
347.3
240.0
167.8
152.4
1,673.7
58.1
85.6
190.8
172.2
218.6
269.0
285.0
280.5
203.8
178.7
425.5
485.5
338.2
325.7
330.4
192.3
1,179.3
1,381.9
271.1
270.1
2,113.2
1,304.3
811.2
243.5
173.1
90
Ga
1.5
1.6
2.3
1.7
1.3
4.0
8.8
4.3
9.5
10.2
2.9
2.8
10.5
3.5
27.1
6.6
27.4
31.2
9.3
23.4
10.8
36.9
4.6
7.3
4.9
22.0
5.9
30.5
21.9
5.0
41.8
6.0
0.8
1.4
2.0
Ag
5.1
4.5
-0.3
0.5
3.0
0.5
0.4
0.7
0.5
0.8
0.0
-0.3
0.1
-0.2
1.0
1.3
1.6
0.6
1.3
1.3
2.6
3.9
0.9
0.5
0.8
0.8
0.1
0.7
0.3
-0.5
19.5
14.9
15.7
-0.8
-0.2
K
1,942,567.9
1,724,147.9
1,838,092.0
1,998,475.3
1,801,207.7
511,089.2
557,810.7
584,106.2
578,522.3
585,502.7
321,969.8
315,509.2
386,252.8
515,893.4
545,117.1
773,569.0
668,410.7
685,712.7
742,959.1
659,369.4
719,887.9
729,568.3
2,153,855.2
2,194,990.4
515,369.4
543,521.6
797,977.9
802,841.1
833,723.8
991,322.7
1,077,867.3
887,199.0
1,887,297.0
1,868,775.2
1,870,093.9
Sample
ID
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
V
661.9
101.0
16.6
122.2
154.1
113.2
41.7
252.0
50.5
175.3
159.5
-49.8
-370.2
Sample
ID
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Ge
1,010.9
2,089.4
1,345.9
1,390.8
1,838.3
2,168.9
2,167.0
2,662.8
2,745.8
2,393.3
2,217.6
3,619.0
1,972.4
3,719.4
1,642.7
3,677.0
3,931.7
2,479.6
Cr
30.6
24.3
8.7
17.7
36.5
35.9
-6.6
20.7
8.5
7.4
16.8
-1.5
-37.9
As
181.1
351.1
596.7
645.3
332.1
1,376.0
1,068.8
952.8
245.6
1,075.0
205.9
867.5
376.9
1,330.6
441.3
1,226.9
700.9
548.5
Mn)
31.2
286.2
212.7
569.5
1,200.8
377.4
219.3
556.4
137.8
852.6
719.0
-576.8
-3,549.9
Fe
4,246.8
11,815.5
14,009.9
18,601.0
59,662.3
67,395.4
40,869.9
86,174.6
11,552.9
61,434.7
92,195.4
-64,645.5
-145,054.9
Co
1.2
3.3
-29.3
0.3
-117.5
-75.0
-11.3
-95.5
-33.6
-31.0
4.4
95.1
-31.6
Ni
7.7
14.4
-4.8
11.6
1.0
4.0
-2.1
-9.1
-6.3
-49.0
6.1
15.4
-68.6
Cu
54.4
-66.4
-4.4
-417.9
-179.7
-38.1
-220.8
55.9
-261.0
-249.4
31.7
33.6
491.9
Zn
144.3
-107.3
-15.4
105.3
46.4
16.0
-25.1
60.0
-12.5
-138.1
202.6
-1.1
-808.9
Se
3,982.1
3,417.2
5,189.5
10,894.1
6,099.1
4,534.9
3,925.6
244.9
89.9
282.0
325.5
299.4
113.0
160.4
32.8
115.1
73.4
77.8
Sources of Highway Runoff Fine Sediment – September 2012
91
Ga
1.4
4.8
5.2
7.8
23.6
20.8
14.1
26.2
2.7
17.1
24.6
-17.0
-35.8
Ag
-1.6
-0.1
-0.2
0.3
1.2
0.4
0.0
1.3
-0.3
0.0
0.7
-0.8
-4.5
K
1,857,516.3
46,721.5
-5,583.8
70,743.6
29,223.7
-105,158.3
-83,589.7
9,680.4
41,135.2
28,152.2
4,863.2
157,598.9
-190,668.3
Sample
ID
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
Ge
3,067.2
2,354.1
2,261.6
4,690.1
2,489.8
3,650.0
2,714.2
3,118.5
3,476.2
3,769.1
5,410.2
794.9
1,641.3
1,590.9
2,038.4
2,205.2
1,722.2
2,217.7
2,810.3
1,622.9
3,469.4
2,317.7
3,549.8
5,124.1
1,621.5
1,557.9
-137.7
424.7
474.5
1,454.3
450.3
623.4
226.4
-106.6
73.2
As
349.1
427.3
475.4
864.6
247.5
432.9
222.9
461.4
348.9
985.5
1,048.1
423.8
131.6
141.2
284.3
253.0
206.0
151.9
1,697.2
295.4
435.4
30.6
102.7
232.7
3.2
61.6
57.5
17.8
52.7
343.0
71.9
138.8
47.7
92.8
85.4
Se
198.8
65.8
47.3
212.1
328.7
41.1
118.0
611.0
50.1
378.6
86.4
3,424.4
5,360.4
2,691.1
4,057.1
3,338.9
4,587.7
5,339.3
124.3
82.1
6,877.3
38.2
33.4
289.2
160.3
319.3
41.8
893.0
16.5
88.8
43.2
138.5
442.7
54.1
75.6
Sources of Highway Runoff Fine Sediment – September 2012
92
Sample
ID
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
Ge
-43.6
-158.2
-108.1
369.0
381.4
294.6
65.4
-1.4
159.5
417.2
84.1
30.9
95.5
625.7
450.5
385.1
290.4
181.9
417.2
282.6
434.8
513.3
581.7
1,064.1
346.3
1,357.3
328.0
441.9
1,157.6
447.7
1,393.4
177.9
986.0
558.4
454.6
As
62.2
40.2
9.9
109.1
215.7
94.4
49.0
13.1
63.5
199.8
12.7
47.4
16.8
35.1
22.8
23.8
38.5
12.6
15.3
96.7
21.9
66.4
171.3
232.7
75.4
272.0
66.6
102.7
148.5
114.6
234.8
27.2
126.3
63.0
37.2
Se
28.5
75.6
75.7
187.8
515.6
26.2
56.4
53.8
82.6
203.7
792.7
3,139.8
3,922.5
5,639.0
5,186.5
4,557.9
7,055.5
3,524.1
2,515.1
9,088.6
5,065.7
83.4
228.3
109.5
331.2
13.8
92.0
89.9
49.4
16.8
96.1
177.6
11.5
141.9
492.5
Sources of Highway Runoff Fine Sediment – September 2012
93
Sample
ID
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
Ge
179.6
538.9
600.4
1,718.6
629.2
325.2
446.0
397.9
2,123.6
1,447.3
474.6
348.3
263.8
2,156.9
2,444.3
4,988.4
1,840.8
965.5
1,547.9
1,855.7
2,342.2
882.9
2,426.0
6,405.1
127.5
688.2
2,105.0
724.0
2,073.3
2,809.1
1,285.4
2,393.7
3,744.2
4,493.8
5,805.4
As
28.2
84.5
132.0
337.2
85.1
54.9
58.3
51.8
480.3
350.1
177.5
70.8
39.4
612.6
1,001.7
775.3
457.4
354.7
459.0
341.3
2,309.8
523.1
941.8
1,441.4
73.1
370.8
994.4
207.6
476.2
2,201.5
475.0
307.0
749.5
608.3
1,074.0
Se
264.8
18.2
69.0
8.5
10.1
58.8
203.6
27.9
25.3
47.8
69.7
240.8
40.5
567.9
1,636.1
354.6
479.2
147.6
86.9
115.4
259.5
88.7
209.7
297.4
55.6
98.9
111.3
161.2
107.7
167.9
4,860.9
6,030.8
4,874.5
60.7
335.2
Sources of Highway Runoff Fine Sediment – September 2012
94
Sample
ID
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
Ge
1,159.6
1,630.1
567.1
904.2
3,023.1
272.1
1,542.2
715.4
876.8
825.5
699.9
1,161.9
1,031.5
1,416.7
1,075.8
1,071.0
838.0
1,283.9
872.2
2,414.9
1,815.4
1,632.5
2,026.3
1,204.8
1,713.0
2,375.4
2,033.7
2,514.6
4,686.6
1,378.7
2,184.9
1,660.2
1,398.7
1,612.3
2,669.5
As
96.6
321.9
70.2
537.4
362.4
156.1
381.0
589.3
426.5
178.8
251.4
314.7
312.3
400.0
159.9
211.6
237.7
758.7
256.1
829.4
287.7
191.8
183.3
108.7
609.9
334.8
375.1
610.1
549.2
159.8
196.4
180.1
193.7
153.4
370.6
Se
3.1
61.4
17.3
57.9
56.0
49.9
446.3
104.1
99.2
153.1
73.2
161.4
72.9
184.0
79.5
185.5
203.7
156.1
5,117.8
2,667.3
8,415.8
6,133.0
2,845.2
4,626.0
2,616.4
2,518.6
103.9
94.7
63.7
52.4
138.6
274.2
204.5
44.3
84.2
Sources of Highway Runoff Fine Sediment – September 2012
95
Sample
ID
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
Ge
4,026.9
7,711.2
2,112.4
1,032.0
307.1
-0.2
-50.1
30.5
355.6
9.5
-48.6
-16.6
-33.3
316.3
45.5
362.1
5.5
268.9
-48.4
-36.4
22.1
-34.2
-34.5
4.6
315.1
291.0
277.2
-19.7
-96.1
303.1
282.5
-59.2
47.7
301.1
6.6
As
232.7
442.1
187.1
134.7
1,421.5
1,246.0
1,275.0
1,437.6
1,394.0
1,350.1
1,315.7
1,270.9
1,318.6
1,604.3
1,193.8
1,347.3
1,214.2
1,314.3
1,341.9
1,250.4
1,173.3
1,379.9
1,280.8
1,300.4
1,463.1
1,350.2
1,341.3
1,309.2
1,268.1
1,395.4
1,394.3
1,406.0
1,269.1
1,302.5
1,276.8
Se
28.1
163.2
59.5
1,621.1
100.2
74.4
34.7
95.0
117.6
116.0
53.5
47.6
59.5
60.7
33.0
99.4
50.0
67.7
53.9
113.3
77.3
50.4
79.4
57.9
77.6
101.3
57.7
32.7
48.9
114.8
122.1
62.6
99.8
82.2
61.8
Sources of Highway Runoff Fine Sediment – September 2012
96
Sample
ID
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
Ge
13.9
86.8
28.0
63.0
45.6
303.9
95.0
270.7
11.7
310.3
-4.1
107.4
-63.2
-68.8
79.6
-32.7
6.3
-46.3
-38.3
318.4
-82.9
-9.0
-4.2
-29.6
7.0
-2.4
-20.4
-3.7
6.4
-1.3
67.3
27.4
97.7
64.6
44.1
As
1,361.6
1,292.2
1,330.3
1,256.5
1,394.3
1,436.6
1,204.0
1,277.0
1,262.1
1,307.2
1,320.8
1,372.2
1,388.8
804.0
778.5
1,226.3
1,239.3
1,217.4
1,310.4
1,300.8
1,241.9
69.6
72.0
63.6
64.6
77.6
94.9
100.4
129.8
105.0
113.3
301.5
272.2
289.7
70.4
Se
52.1
66.7
80.4
67.5
74.4
101.9
101.0
65.4
46.6
85.5
70.4
77.6
87.9
70.8
56.4
90.5
26.0
35.7
77.9
57.0
49.2
12.8
32.4
7.2
24.1
37.8
27.3
40.3
30.4
-6.4
12.0
15.1
26.2
47.5
19.7
Sources of Highway Runoff Fine Sediment – September 2012
97
Sample
ID
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
Ge
89.1
86.6
177.3
29.3
43.9
7.7
85.9
75.7
151.5
99.2
45.9
240.3
48.9
-32.2
-4.2
-16.0
-31.1
4.8
36.6
10.1
68.6
70.3
44.9
90.7
14.6
78.2
75.8
-53.4
-191.4
As
68.1
106.3
118.2
2,123.4
2,147.0
40.4
51.4
62.3
66.7
58.8
71.7
91.9
60.7
1,501.0
1,541.5
1,387.2
1,379.4
2.5
1.0
29.4
8.3
-29.2
-2.4
11.8
23.5
10.9
4.4
13.0
-31.2
Se
34.6
36.5
48.6
51.4
42.5
11.0
37.5
41.9
15.7
23.1
15.0
2.4
25.7
25.6
38.7
34.0
16.8
19.6
16.8
-9.9
18.5
11.1
14.8
12.1
-8.9
26.4
-26.2
-8.1
23.3
Sources of Highway Runoff Fine Sediment – September 2012
98