URBAN IMPACTS ON GROUND WATER QUALITY AND FLOW
CHARACTERISTICS IN SCHMEECKLE RESERVE
by
PAUL MARK SZEWCZYKOWSKI
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the
requlrements for the degree
MASTER OF SCIENCE
College of Natural Resources
UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN
Stevens Point, Wisconsin
August 1988
APPROVED BY THE GRADUATE COMMITTEE OF
Dr~ N. Earl
pangenberg
Assoclate Professor of Forestry and of Water SClence
/
/.
.
Dr. £larence
Milfred
Professor of Soil Science and of Geography and Geology
ABSTRACT
Schmeeckle Reserve is a 190 acre natural area
in the Central Sands Region of Wisconsin.
dominantly
wetland
The area is pre­
with sandy loam soil and
ground water of flve feet or less.
located
a
depth
to
The Reserve is bordered
to the north and west by expanding commercial and urban de­
velopment.
Runoff from thlS development and
from
major
roadways is diverted into the Reserve which functions as
catchment basin.
a
In addition, ground water recharge occur­
ring on these areas flows under the Reserve.
ThlS
study was inltlated to evaluate the
lmpacts
of
urban storm water runoff on the ground water quality ln the
Reserve.
local
Slngle-depth and nested wells were used
ground water flow and to sample
for
to
map
contamlnatlon.
Land surface contours were mapped to determine storm
water
runoff drainage patterns.
The
study concentrated on chloride and sodlum
concen­
trations related to road salt, benzene, toluene, and xylene
concentrations related to gasoline and oil, and lead, zinc,
iii
and
copper concentrations
gasoline.
Nitrogen,
related to motor
vehicles
and
phosphorus and basic water chemistry
parameters were also analyzed to document any water chemis­
try changes.
Sampling began in the fall of 1985 and
con­
tinued through July of 1987.
Mean
chloride concentrations ranged from 1 mg/l at
control well to 2054 mg/l at a well nearest to storm
drainage.
components,
2
Of the volatile petroleum
only benzene was detected
at
concentrations
at
one
The mean benzene concentration at the well was
6.7
1.0
well.
water
Corresponding mean sodium concentrations were
mg/l and 655 mg/l respectively.
above
a
ug/l within the Reserve and then
ug/l
and
does not appear to be
This
contamination may be attributable to
only
attributable
an
to
runoff.
underground
petroleum storage tank or to improper disposal of petroleum
products.
Mean dissolved and total concentrations of lead,
Zlnc, and copper ln ground water dld not suggest contamlna­
tion was occurring.
A secondary objective was to evaluate atmospheric con­
tributions of metals to the Reserve.
Lead accumulatlons ln
moss ranged from 16.86 mg/kg at a control site outside
Reserve
to 140.90 mg/kg within the Reserve.
Zinc
ranged
from 57.58 mg/kg at the control to 747.72 mg/kg within
Reserve.
the
the
These data suggest that atmospheric contributions
iv
of lead and zinc to the Reserve are signiflcant.
v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like express my sincere gratitude to Dr. Byron
H.
Shaw,
my graduate advisor, for his guidance,
and friendship.
the
support,
Also I would like to recognize and
other members of my graduate commlttee,
Spangenberg and Dr. Clarence J. Milfred,
Dr.
thank
N.
Earl
for thelr support
and critlcal evaluatlons of this work.
thank
I
mapping,
Dr.
Keith Rice for his instructlon
in
computer
Frank Bowers for his ldentlflcatlon of
moss
samples, D1Ck Stephens, Jim Licari and Gene Tubbs for thelr
analytical work and advlce,
tance
Marc Hershfleld for hlS aSS1S­
with field work and mapping.
Mike Buettner for
hlS
asslstance with analyses and data interpretatlon. and Randy
Hetzel for his help in collecting and identifying
vegeta­
tion.
I
L.
would also like to extend my gratitude to Dr.
David
Conine of Abbott Laboratories who employed me on a tem­
porary basis and provided me with access to a computer.
was often a source of encouragement, cheer and hope.
vi
He
Also
special thanks is extended to Dr. Jack Heaton
a
source
of
encouragement
and
support
who has been
throughout
my
academic career.
Finally,
I must acknowledge the support and
of my wife Beth.
Thank you, Beth,
sacrifice
for tolerating the bur­
den of this project during our first year of marriage.
v1i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF TABLES
ix
LIST OF FIGURES
xi
LIST OF APPENDIX TABLES
X1V
INTRODUCTION
1
Descriptlon of Study Area
1
Objectives
7
LITERATURE REVIEW
8
MATERIALS AND METHODS
16
Study Deslgn
16
Sampling
21
Analyses
23
RESUL TS AND DISCUSSION
27
Storm Water Dralnage and Ground Water Flow
27
Storm Water Impacts on Ground Water Quality
35
Petroleum VOC's
35
Metals in Ground Water
39
Road Salt and Other Inorganics
51
Other Indicators of Urban Impacts on the Reserve
62
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
73
APPENDIX 1
81
REFERENCES
99
vii i
LIST OF TABLES
Pa~
1) Summary of mean concentrations of dissolved lead,
iron,
copper,
and
chromium at
individual
Zlnc,
wells
Schmeeck 1e Reserve
2) Summary
iron,
of
42
mean concentrations of
copper,
total
lead,
Zlnc.
and chromium at four wells in Schmeeckle
Reserve
3) Total
14,
43
metals ln surface water samples
collected
March
1987 in Schmeeckle Reserve
46
lron, cop­
4) Summary of mean concentrations of lead, Zlnc,
per,
in
and
chromium
in sediments
from
Schmeeckle
serve
Re­
48
5) Partlcle
size composition of sediments from
Schmeeckle
Reserve
49
6) Summary of mean values for pH, conductivity, alkallnlty,
and
total hardness in ground water from Schmeeckle
serve
7) Summary
Re­
52
of mean values for calcium
hardness,
reactive
phosphorus, ammonia nitrogen, and nitrite + nitrate nl­
trogen in ground water from Schmeeckle Reserve
53
8) Summary of mean values for chloride, sodium,
and potas­
sium in ground water from Schmeeckle Reserve
54
ix
9) Inorganic
chemical data of surface water
lected March 14,
samples
1987 during a low volume snowmelt run­
off event
63
10) Heavy metals in moss samples collected in June of
from Schmeeckle Reserve and Jordan Park
11) Summary of mean lead,
woody
col­ zinc,
iron,
and copper in
species European Buckthorn from Schmeeckle
serve
1987
64
the
Re­
69
x
LIST OF FIGURES
Pa~
1)
Location
of Schmeeckle Reserve withln the
Sand
Plain
Province, central Wisconsin
1
2)
Vegetatlon survey of Schmeeckle Reserve
3
3)
So i
4
4)
StUdy area map
5)
Surface
1
Su rvey of Schmeeck 1 e Rese rve
6,
44, 56
contour map of Schmeeckle Reserve and the
med i ate watershed
6a) Ground
26
water contour map of Schmeeckle Reserve
ated
from
July
lm­
1987
water
gener­
elevatlon
table
data
29
6b) Study area watershed map
~,
7a) Monthly
ln
water table fluctuations at wells 32 and 4
Schmeeckle Reserve
7b) Seasonal
~2
water table fluctuations of wells in
areas of Schmeeck 1e Rese rve
7c) Seasonal
34
water table fluctuations of wells
areas of Schmeeckle Reserve
7d) Seasonal
water table fluctuations
water table fluctuations
gradients in wells 12S and 12N
Xl
ln
upland
34
depicting
gradients in wells 10E and 10W
7e) Seasonal
wetland
vertlcal
36
depicting
vertlcal
36
8)
Mean toluene and benzene concentrations ln wells 16 and
36
9)
38
Mean
dissolved
ground
and
total
metals
concentrations
in
water of Schmeeckle Reserve
41
10) Mean metal concentrations in sediments from
Schmeeckle
Reserve
50
11) Mean chloride and sodium concentrations in ground water
of Schmeeck 1 e Rese rve
55
12) Three dimensional representation of mean chlorlde
centrations in ground water of Schmeeckle
13) Chlorlde
in
con­
Reserve ... 59
concentratlon fluctuations in wells 32 and
Schmeeck 1 e Rese rve
4
60
14) Mean total hardness and calcium hardness concentratlons
in ground water of Schmeeckle Reserve
61
15) Mean sodlum vs. mean calclum hardness concentratlons at
wells 32.
16.
6E. 6W. 5N. 34. 3.
Reserve
16) Heavy
and
and 4 ln Schmeeckle
'
metals in moss samples from
6::1
Schmeeckle
Reserve
Jordan Park
65
17) Mean metal concentrations in the woody species European
Buckthorn from Schmeeckle Reserve
18a) Mean
lead
concentrations in European
70
Buckthorn
vs.
mean lead concentrations in moss from similar sampllng
locations in Schmeeckle Reserve
18b) Mean
mean
zinc
concentrations in European
71
Buckthorn
zinc concentrations in moss from similar sam­
xii
vs.
pling
locations in Schmeeckle
18c) Mean
i~on
concent~ations
in
mean
i~on
concent~ations
in moss
locations in Schmeeckle
Eu~opean Bucktho~n
Rese~ve
xii i
71
Rese~ve
f~om simila~
vs.
sampling
72
LIST OF APPENDIX TABLES
~@
1)
Summary
of ground water chemical data for the
date November 22, 1985 in Schmeeckle Reserve
2) Summary
of ground water chemlcal data for the
date February 6, 1986 in Schmeeckle Reserve
3) Summary
of ground water chemical data for the
date March 11, 1986 in Schmeeckle Reserve
4) Summary
of ground water chemlcal data for the
date April 8, 1986 in Schmeeckle Reserve
5) Summary
of ground water chemlcal data for the
date May 6, 1986 ln Schmeeckle Reserve
6) Summary
of ground water chemlcal data for the
date July 22, 1986 in Schmeeckle Reserve
7) Summary
of ground water chemlcal data for the
date January 14, 1987 in Schmeeckle Reserve
8) Summary
of ground water chemical data for the
date February 13, 1987 in Schmeeckle Reserve
9)
Summary
of ground water chemical data for the
sampling
82
sampllng
83
sampllng
84
sampllng
85
sampllng
86
sampilng
~7
sampllng
88
sampllng
89
sampllng
date March 14, 1987 in Schmeeckle Reserve
90
10) Summary of ground water chemlcal data for the sampllng
date April 24, 1987 in Schmeeckle Reserve
11)
Monthly water table elevations at individual wells ln
xiv
91
Schmeeckle Reserve
92
12) Summary of volatlle petroleum components in ground
ter from Schmeeckle Reserve
wa­
93
13) Summary of dissolved metal concentrations in ground wa­
ter from Schmeeckle Reserve
14) Summary
of total metal concentrations in ground
from Schmeeckle Reserve
95
water
96
15) Heavy metal concentrations in sediments from Schmeeckle
Reserve
16) Heavy
pean
97
metal concentrations in the woody speCles
Buckthorn from Schmeeckle Reserve
xv
Euro­
98
INTRODUCTION
Schmeeck1e
Reserve is located in Portage
county,
in
central Wisconsin, within the Sand Plain Province (Fig. 1).
The Reserve consists of approximately 190 acres of
natural
area
Reserve
which 1S predominantly wetland.
Within the
there are fourteen different nat1ve plant communit1es (Fig.
2) Wh1Ch include two coniferous and ten deciduous tree spe­
cies, 25 shrub species and over 100 ground cover plant spe­
C1es (UWCA, 1977).
The
31.6
average
1nches.
northwest
in
annual precipitation for the
W1nds are predominantly from the
w1nter and from the south in
county
west
summer
1S
and
(USDA,
1978).
Depth to ground water in the Reserve is less than
feet
and
soil types are predominantly
Point
Sandy
f1ve
Loam
(UWCA, 1977; USDA, 1978) and Newton Loamy Sand (UWCA, 1977)
or Roscommon Muck (USDA, 1978)(Fig.
is
3).
Point Sandy Loam
characterized by moderately rapid permeability
in
the
surface layer and upper subsoil (sandy loam) and moderately
slow below (heavy loam) with depth to bedrock of four to 20
N
Figure 1.
Portage County
Location of Schmeeckle Reserve within the Sand Plain
Province, central Wisconsin (modified from Saffigna, 1976).
2
u
"
a
I
..
I
w
" . PI •
I.
I. ,
,.
•
I.•• '''1''''''
ot- .
","lin- III •• , ....
..
S. " ..
~""
f. aH !'to,I.
III''''''''''' ",
!Ie.".,..."".
,lItt
I . . ., ....
I. I'IInI
II. ~II , .....
II. "" II 111''-1.
I:. III ,
II .... aJ
II. 'tr J~'"
II.
It.
I'.
II.
\r
..
ofSl-
.I.e'
If. "'Hd ' ..../111..........
lS.
PI..
"""',..... , ...
"' .,
,
111'''-/'
". -"..... """".
".
If.
"'lte
'b,~_hl7" Aid..
". "'tI,.
"iaN ,.. ,.."'olU.I
...... 'iM
II.
: •. 1.llJr
".
:1.
:!.
:1
w.... ~. ,,"',
;
rJ •."J-.oaJ.
,
,lIM
PiN'''''''.
, .....
Figure 2.
11111",,-11""0""
JO.
JI.
J:.
lI~h
""'Joll..
H.
J7 • 11111...
51. IlUH _ , .
fO.
fl.
-"ron
n. ,
11111"""1""0"" MI..h
'''"e PIne "-I.
SI.
SI.
U.
Jt. /br.el)·
"..e,oln,- MI..h
.10<' " .... _ .
A'.....
~__
-,-
• r"
­
' ...... ,'.... (_ ~,
""c ..
.I.,'
! I I _ (E.,. 00"
Sn_ lEt"•
.I... , .......... MI,...............,..". '1M
,. """It ,....
"".e
,., A'' ' /111''. '''~ll
•• .caLi
"..eJ'I"'.'SH~~'. Sf.
.. 01". ·AI.....
U.
"~h
PI..
SI.
... ,
''''p!ll
Sf. lib... 'IM,A•. ­
U.
".e.
III"'M"
.\..prft/lIIII ..."
Sf. At.....,.II I..." •• "'der'
U.
...
IS. At,.....,.III ...
U.
~"b.
..• .I....
q.m ....
MI ....
•
fl. .1lI"."..,,'e
SO. 11111...
0..
.. AI..,
SI.
'1M
Vegetation survey of Schrneeckle Reserve
VEGETATIO"
(From UWeA, 1977).
",
//
/
/
/
,
"
/
".
I". ..:'l~~ '..,::,1
..
II.'WtlJI UWII' SNIl
PUI\'FIEID 1n\'1I' So\.'1D
~"" !il1BSm1 n.M
•• '•.'''
I.
J.
:..
II
.;
NEIlDSA InIMl' 50\.'1)
NJlDOO J LWIr SNIl
110 ItALI
Figure
.... '
1
L~f~l
NI\,. S\'!II' ....1\. .
SOIL SURVEY
Soil survey of Schmeeckle Reserve (From UWCA, 1977).
5
feet.
Roscommon
drainage-ways
Muck
soils
on sand plains.
are
found
They are
ln
major
characterized
by
rapid permeability with a surface layer of muck, SUbSOll of
medium sand and sUbstratum of sand.
Bedrock is at a depth
of more than five feet.
The
serves
Reserve
is surrounded by urban
development
and
as a storm water catchment basin.
Located at
the
northern limits of the city of Stevens Point (T24N R8E Sec.
29),
are
the northern and southern boundaries of
Reserve
outlined by North Point Drive and Maria Drive
tively.
home
the
Adjacent to North Point Drlve lles the
offlce of Sentry Insurance,
proximately
buildlng
Along
Inc.,
corporate
which claims
500 acres of land on WhlCh lS located a
complex,
landscaped
turf, and
Marla Drive are the Universlty of
a
and athletlc fields.
golf
large
course.
parklng lots,
Prlvate resldences and
privately owned undeveloped lands border on the east.
west boundary of the Reserve is outlined by BUSlness
way
51
or Division Street and is an
business development.
area
of
High­
Storm water runoff from the highway
eter storm sewer and is discharged untreated onto
university property directly adjacent to the
(Fig. 4).
The
increasing
and from business parking lots collects in a 42 inch
oped
ap­
WlsconSln-Stevens
POlnt resldence halls, maintenance facillty,
power plant,
respec­
diam­
undevel­
Reserve
-
SENTRY
INSURANCE
(,EGEND
SURFACE WATER SAHrl.F. S I'n:
• GIlOurlO WATER WEI.I,
• III" I. /) It'"
A-G •
•
D
en
37
c
+6
POND
"" •
STREAM
V • VEGETATION SfIIWI.E SITE
(WOODY)
u
400
[J
~
.A1H
"IS
o
o
.2
• 5"
65
c:=J
~B
G
l~
13
.
34
06E8W
m
.~vm ~
+'
luI.
~
.21
Vm
1
I
~
100
V
Ij
.32
:.
d
O-uwsr
.16
•
20.
HI
I 122 m
IS+
3
o
C) •
m • HOSS SA"l'I.E SITE
.35
.'0
o
->ok • ,,,ETl.I\t/D
m
~
DMAIHf.
BlDG.
Figure
4.
Study area map.
FIGURE BY P. SZEWCZYKOWSKI
7
The
impacts
this storm water discharge
has
on
the
ground water quality in the Reserve are of primary
concern
in this study.
an ini­
In order to define these impacts,
tial survey of the ground water and surface water flow pat­
terns was conducted.
Secondly, the ground water quality in
the Reserve was quantified and described.
The speciflc ob­
jectives of this research were to:
1. Determine and map the surface and ground water flow
patterns in Schmeeckle Reserve and its immedlate watershed.
2. Quantify the chemical characteristlcs of the ground
water ln the Reserve.
3. Evaluate the storm water impact on the ground water
quallty in the Reserve speciflcally addresslng road
salts.
volatlle petroleum residues, and heavy metals.
4.
Evaluate the atmospherlc contrlbution of metals to
the Reserve.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Highway Runoff
Urban roadway surface contaminants originate from many
sources
including industrial and land use actlvitles,
roadway
usage.
Contaminants may include metals
lead and chromlum,
and
a
taminants
and
salts
and
roadway
con­
are transported into the nearby drainage
then carried lnto recelving baslns or
as
gasoline
During perlods of storm water runoff,
011.
such
inorganic compounds such as road
variety of organic chemicals such as
and
surface
system
waters
where they can constitute a pollution problem.
Although
contamlnant concentrations in runoff may
be
low, many of these compounds can accumulate to high concen­
trations and persist in the envlronment.
one study
bottom
1000
For el(ample,
pollutants from urban runoff accumulated ln
sediments of a river to concentratlons
of
centrate.
1980).
n
the
between
to 2000 times greater than the concentrations in
flowing water (Baumann,
1
the
As these contamlnants con­
they can become a threat to biological
communl­
ties as well as a hazard to public health.
In
a
nationwide
study
of
urban
runoff
(NURP) ,
seventy-seven pollutants lncluding 14 inorganlc and 63 or­
8
9
ganics
were detected in runoff samples (EPA,
1983).
The
heavy metals were the most prevalent pollutant constltuents
in runoff.
Organic pollutants were less prevalent in run­
off with the plasticizer bis(2-ethylhexy1)phthalate and the
pesticide
the
alpha-hexa-chloro-cylcohexane (a1pha-BHe)
two most commonly detected.
Coliform
being
bacteria
were
present at high levels and nutrient concentrations were not
considered
high
charges.
in comparison with other
potential
Mean annual nutrient runoff loads were
dis­
reported
to be around one order of magnitude less than those from
wastewater treatment plant (median concentrations TP
mg/1,
= 0.12
SP
mg/l).
mg/l,
TKN
= 1.5
mg/1,
Oxygen demanding substances
oxygen
produced
concentratlons
= 0.33
= 0.68
biochemical
demands (BOD's) approximately equal to
secondary treatment plant discharges.
lds
N02 + N03-N
a
those
from
Total suspended sol­
were varlab1e and at t1mes
were
very
high.
Shaheen
deposited
than
five
hicles
(1975) reported that the majority
S011ds
on roadways are vehicle dependent but that
percent of the solids originated from
themselves
mechanisms.
which function primarily
as
the
ve­
transport
lead
fuels and tire fillers, zinc from tire fillers
motor oil,
less
However, the solid pollutants originating from
vehicles are among the most toxic and include:
leaded
of
from
and
and copper from wear of brake linings and other
moving parts.
Other vehicle related pollutants include pe­
10
troleum compounds from lUbricants, antifreeze,
and hydrau­
lic fluids.
Concern
developed
the
over the topic of highway runoff has
due to the potential toxicity of
runoff.
most
components
Heavy metals have been considered to be
prevalent
1983;
largely
toxicants present ln highway
Shaheen 1975).
the
runoff
Many heavy metals are known
in
(EPA
to
toxic to aquatic life and anlmals (Wllber and Hunter
be
1977)
and are potentially hazardous to human health especlally lf
lngested.
commonly
water
For example,
lead lngestlon by humans lS
from food constituents with lesser
and alr.
amounts
from
Lead poisonlng can result in adverse
fects on the nervous system and kidneys in humans.
levels of exposure,
a major concern lS the subtle
on
and growth
neurobehavioral
chlldren.
most
parameters
At low
effects
especially
Lead lS mutagenic (lnduces mutatlons),
ef­
ln
carcino­
genic (induces cancer), and teratogenic (causes developmen­
tal
malformations)
in some animal systems
(WDHSS
1985).
Lead has been demonstrated to bioaccumulate in aquatic
or­
ganisms (WDHSS,
in­
1985) and has toxic effects on algae,
vertebrates,
fish, wildlife, and plants to varying degrees
(Environment
Canada,
1980).
The state of Wisconsin
has
adopted the EPA maximum contaminant level (MeL) for lead of
0.050
mg/l
(50
(Wisconsin-DNR,
ppb)
1985).
as
the
ground
water
standard
EPA is in the process of reduclng
this standard to 0.020 mg/l.
1 1
Sources of metals ln highway runoff were summarlzed by
Harper
(1985) which include gasollne (Pb),
sions (Pb,
Ni),
(Cd,
bearing wear (Cu, Pb),
In),
oils and grease (Pb, Ni,
and design (Al,
exhaust
Zn),
emlS­
tire wear
coatings for protection
Cd, Cu, In, Ni, Fe),
brake wear (Cu,
Cr,
Ni),
engine part wear (Fe, Mn, Cr, Co), and asphalt paving
wear
(Ni,V).
runoff,
Of the toxic heavy metals found in
Pb,
Zn,
(Harper 1985,
EPA 1983).
that comblned,
of
and Cu are typically the
most
highway
abundant
Wllber and Hunter (1977) found
these three metals accounted for 90 to
the total metals ln storm water
98%
ln New Jersey with
Pb
and Zn comprising as much as 89 percent.
Due
salts
to wlnter snowfali and ice formatlon
on
tarmac.
are used to depress the freezing pOlnt of water
de-lee roadways.
ana
Ultimately, these road salts also become
potentially tOX1C components in highway runoff and may
sult
ln contamlnatlon and damage to ground water,
water,
the
roadside vegetation, and soils.
most
widely used road de-icer ln
re­
surface
Sodium chloride is
Wlsconsin
although
some calcium chloride is also used (Greub et al., 1979).
Salinlty (total soluable salts), sodlum ions and chlo­
ride ions reduce soil fertility and structure, decrease wa­
ter uptake by plants, and are toxic to plants above certaln
concentrations.
ticles and
Sodium ions are adsorbed onto
can replace calclum ions
soil
par­
on the soil grains
12
resulting in soil that is less fertile and less
High
permeable.
sodium levels deteriorate soil structure and
in poor dralnage properties.
uptake
results
Sodium can interfere with the
of the essential plant nutrient potassium.
Sodlum
toxicity causes leaf and twig burning and browning in trees
and plants.
Chloride does not adversely affect soil structure
does add to salinlty.
ride
ions
adsorbed.
in
Possessing a negative charge,
flow through the soil substrate
but
chlo­
without
being
For th1S reason, chlorides appear as pollutants
ground water.
Chloride toxlcity
inltially
resembles
drought lnjury and later stages may include premature
abscission,
19af
and
tW1g
burning
and
leaf
brownlng,
and
chloros1S.
Calcium 1S an essent1al nutr1ent for plant growth
excessive amounts can cause h1gh sa11nlty and may be
cut
tOX1C
to certain plants.
Salinity can interfere with a plants ability to absorb
soil
plants
motic
water.
Water in the soil becomes less ava11ab1e
with increasing salt as a result of increasing
potential in the soil solution.
The flow of
to
os­
water
through the plant root is in the direction of greater
salt
concentration
and therefore,
soil
decreases the
water taken up by
hlgher sallnity 1n the
the plant.
Grasses are
13
more
tolerant
1979).
Salt
of salt stress than
woody
plants
contamination can have dramatic
plant communities.
(Greub.
effects
For example, Wilcox (1986) found
on
that
nearly all endemic plant species were absent from a section
of a bog experiencing high salt concentrations in the water
from road salt contamination.
Elevated chloride levels in ground water used for
man
consumpt1on are not considered toxic to
but
can
cause a salty taste 1f over 250
Peterson 1986).
human
mg/l
hu­
health
(Shaw
and
There 1S no ground water quai1ty standard
set for sod1um or calc1um, however.
elevated sod1um levels
in dr1nk1ng water are undes1rab1e.
Although food 1S gener­
ally the major source of sod1um 1n the human diet. consump­
t10n
of water h1gh 1n sod1um has been attr1buted w1th
fant
brain
adu 1ts •
damage and 1nfant deaths
eX.cess 1ve
sod 1urn 1ntake
(Craun.
may
cause
1n­
1984).
In
hype rtens 1on
(Craun. 1984).
Some of the most common organ1c pollutants on
surfaces are petroleum products related to motor
Although
roadwaj
vehicies.
common on roadways, petroleum components such
the monocyclic aromatics,
benzene,
toluene,
and
as
xylenes
(BTX) were reported as rarely detected in runoff samples in
the NURP study due to sampl1ng and/or analytical contam1na­
tion
problems
encountered.
The
potent1al
for
these
volatile organic compounds (VOC's) to be carr1ed in highway
14
runoff
by
exists and contamination of ground water
this runoff is possible.
cussed
Lewis and Penzo
recharged
dlS­
(1984)
how petroleum based VOC's (8TX) can be retained
in
the unsaturated zone from petroleum leaks and spills.
Wa­
ter
can
infiltration through petroleum contaminated
cause
soil
the transport of significant concentrations of
solved
organic
ground water,
chemicals
to the aquifer.
Once
dis­
in
the
these dissolved organics can migrate through
the aquifer at a much more accelerated rate than the lmmlS­
cible petroleum phase.
The environmental impacts that BTX compounds have
net well documented in the llterature.
freshwater
life
Acute toxiClty
occurs at 5300 ug/1 for
benzene
and
are
to
at
17500 ug/l for toluene.
Benzene, toluene, and xylenes are all hazardous to hu­
man
health.
taminated
Health risk informatlon
derived
from
con­
drinking water does not exist for the most
part
but general human health risks can be surmised from occupa­
tional exposure and animal study data.
benzene
Human exposure
occurs most commonly via inhalation and
sorption.
teratogenic.
Benzene
Chronic
is
skin
mutagenic,
carcinogenic,
exposure causes
mye10cytlc
to
ab­
and
anemia
(condition in which bone marrow is lacking red blood cells.
hemoglobin,
or blood volume), thrombocytopenia (perslstent
decrease in number of blood platelets), leukopenia (condi­
1 5
tion in which the number of white blood cells in the
blood
is low), and leukemia (disease characterized by an abnormal
increase in the number of white blood cells) (WDHSS, 1985).
Toluene
and
xy1enes
have
not
been
mutagenic, teratogenic, or carcinogenic.
found
to
be
Most of the human
exposure to xy1enes and toluene comes through inhalation of
air.
Human health effects from xylene include central ner­
vous
system
causes
disturbances and
liver
adverse mental changes such as
unconSClousness
and
also causes
liver and kidney dysfunction.
disorders.
Toluene
disorientation
cardlac
arrhythmla
and
and
METHODS
Study Design
Monitoring Wells
Twenty
stalled
six
ground water monitoring
wells
were
In­
throughout the Reserve in the fall of 1985 and
additional seven wells were added between October 1986
February
1987.
The well shafts were either dug
an
and
by
hand
with a soil auger or drilled with a rotary hydraullc drl11­
lng rig using four inch augers.
outside
One and one-quarter
diameter PVC pipe was used for the
well
lnch
caslngs.
One foot long screens with 0.01 lnch slots were attached tc
the
bottom
of the casings.
Screens were glued
onto
orlginal twenty six wells and were threaded onto the
seven
Glue
wells.
was
Well caps were slipped on or
avoided in the later wells to
sand
other
threaded
prevent
compo­
Well shafts were backfilled with clean
around the screens,
topped with the natural
subsoil
materials and sealed with powdered bentonite clay from
proximately one foot below ground level to prevent
water infiltration.
oped
along
by
Once completed, each well was
bailing and pumping.
with an
on.
posslble
contamination of well samples with volatile organic
nents in the glue.
the
additional three
16
These thirty
wells
three
ap­
surface
devel­
wells
were utilized to
17
sample
ground
water and to measure water table
this study (Fig. 4).
wells
which
Center
ln
The three additional wells were older
consisted of the Schmeeckle
well
depth
Reserve
an abandoned steel cased
(#39),
Visitor
house
well
(#37), and a steel cased city monitoring well (#11).
After all thirty six wells were installed, well casing
elevations
were determined by leveling with a Dumpy
and Philadelphia rod.
level
Caslng elevatl0ns in feet above sea
level were derived utilizing bench marks of known elevatl0n
around the Reserve from previous Clty engineering projects.
Utilizing
aerial
photographs,
well
locations
were
plotted out wlth a protractor after initlal pacing measure­
ments
and
Paces
bearings were taken with
a
Brunton
compass.
were standardized for each terrain type (i .e.,
est, wetland) by measuring out a 100 foot distance ln
terrain and pacing three times.
for­
each
The average value was then
used to give number of feet per pace.
Ground Water Flow
After leveling,
to
calculate
level.
corded
water
Monthly
the well casing elevations were
table elevations in
feet
above
water table depth measurements
from August 1986 through July 1987 to
were
used
sea
re­
the
nearest
0.01 foot with a popper attached to a tape measure
dropped
down the wells.
Water table contours of the Reserve were
18
developed from the July 1987 water elevation data (Appendix
I, Table 11).
The area to be contoured was digitized on an
Altek electromagnetic digitizing table.
rived
using
the
Contours were de­
Surface II Graphics
system
with
final
elevations determined by previous city
engl­
mOdifications made by hand.
Sldrface
Surface
Contoldr~
neering projects were used to develop a surface contour map
of the Reserve and bordering lands.
S t9Irr:LW~ t_~_r . ar:tcLU r l:2an~rrma_g_t_§
From November 1985 through July 1986,
wells
the original 26
in the Reserve were sampled and the
water
analyzed
for the water chemistry parameters outlined ln Appendlx
Tables 1-6 which excluded heavy metals and trace
Between
January 1987 and April 1987,
collected
water
organlCS.
samples
each month from among all thirty six
I,
were
wells
and
analyzed for heavy metals and trace organlcs concentratlons
in
addition
Tables
month
western
to
7-10.
the parameters outlined
However,
during 1987.
border
in
Appendix
not all wells were sampled
In January, all the wells
I,
every
along
of the Reserve were sampled along
the
with
a
control well since the focus of the research was on the im­
pacts of storm water runoff from Business Highway 51.
Each
month
were
several
other
wells throughout
the
Reserve
sampled along with the wells on the west border.
In Apr,l,
19
all the wells were sampled.
In
addition,
samples
were
woody vegetation,
moss,
collected from throughout
analyzed for metals content.
and
the
sediment
Reserve
and
These results were needed to
help distinguish between metal contamination contributed by
storm water and that deposited from the atmosphere.
vegetation
collected
samples consisted of young twigs
from
(Bhar:n-liJd§ f
the
ranguJ~)
.
shrubby
species
European
ln
branches
Buchthorn
Th is thorn 1ess spec i es was Chosen due
to its availability throughout the Reserve.
tratlons
and
Woody
Metals concen­
Buckthorn were consldered indicators
of
the
concentrations present in soil.
Moss samples consisted of the entire plant body of the
genus
~r:actJZlb_ecl_u_m.
indlcators
1981;
Mosses are cons i dered to be
of alrborne pollution (Rao,
Goodman,
1971).
1982;
usefu 1
Richardson,
Members of the division Bryophyta,
mosses lack a vascular system and obtain many of their
trients
from substances in the ambient
atmosphere.
They
have evolved efficient mechanisms for taking up metals
other nutrients from the environment.
metals
content
in mosses is
loadings
and
The majority of the
accumulated
extracellularly
over their entire surface via particulate trapping and
exchange.
nu­
ion
Therefore, moss samples served to indlcate metal
from
were collected
the atmosphere onto the
from throughout
Reserve.
Samples
the Reserve and at Jordan
20
Park,
a
control site located
approximately
eight
mlles
northeast of the Reserve.
Sediments
within
from
surface
water
basins
and
channels
the study area were analyzed for metals content
order
to
ascertain metal
contamination
storm water discharge and retention.
associated
with
Sediment samples were
(B,D,
collected from the storm water channel (A) the ponds
and
F),
(G)
(Fig. 4).
a stream (C), University Lake
(E),
and Moses Creek
Stream C was used in this study as a control for
off
and sediment comparlsons wlth the storm water
(A).
This stream originates from the property
Insurance and potentially receives some roof,
and lawn runoff.
run­
channel
of
Sentry
parklng lot,
This runoff may contain chemicals and nu­
trients since the property is hlghly manicured.
flow
in
from the stream enters the Reserve.
Only
low
High flows
are
diverted via a storm sewer to the perforated storm sewer ln
place
along Michigan Avenue or on to Moses Creek.
There­
fore, stream C is not an ideal control.
Lake
sediment
1ake,
sediments
comparison
with
data from the several ponds in the Reserve.
The
however,
were
utilized
for
is more recent in origin having been
structed by man between 1975 and 1976.
data should be viewed with this in mind.
con­
Therefore, the lake
21
Sampling
Dissolved Metals in Water
Preparation for sampling water for metals consisted of
cleaning clear plastic 125 milliliter (ml) containers
with
first
with
soap
distilled
then 1+1 nitric acid and triple
water.
Samples were collected
rinsing
with
a
teflon
bailer, refrigerated during transport, and filtered through
a 0.45 micron filter in the lab.
ferred
to
Samples were then trans­
a 125 ml container and preserved
trated nitric acid to a pH of 2 or less.
was
concen­
Fleld flltratlon
not always feasible due to equipment restrictions
the hlgh turbidity of most samples.
only
with
Fleld flltration
done during sampling in April and laboratory
tion was used ln January, February,
and
was
filtra­
and March 1987.
Time
between collection and lab filtration was usually less than
45 mlnutes.
After aCldlficatlon, samples were stored in a
refrigerator at approximately 4 C until analysis.
blank
and water blank that were filtered,
refrigerated at
the same
A field
aCldifled,
time as the samples
were
and
also
analyzed.
Initially,
duplicate
samples
were
filtered
and
acidified in the field in order to compare the results with
samples
that were filtered and acidified in the
lab.
No
slgnificant difference in results for metals concentrations
were
found.
Values varied by 0.01 milligrams
(mgjl) or less for copper, zinc, iron, and
per
chromlum
liter
and
22
there was no variation in lead.
Total Metals in Water
Sampling
in
preparation and collection for total
water was identical to that used for
metals
dissolved
metals
except samples were not filtered and were acidified immedi­
ately after collection in the field.
Total Metals in Vegetation and Sediment
Vegetation
were
and sediment samples for
collected
ln
plastic resealable
metals
bags
and
Sediments were collected from within the top five
ters
analyses
frozen.
centime­
of the sediment layer of the surface water sltes.
piece
of
into
the
two inch inside diameter PVC pipe
was
sediment layer to remove a core type
A
inserted
sample
of
which only the top 2.5 cm was utilized as the sample.
Young
June 1987.
twigs and branches were collected in March
from woody vegetation.
and
The entire plant bodies
of mosses were collected in June 1987.
'LOC's
Sampling
scribed
in
procedures for VOC's were followed
EPA
Method 602 for
purgeable
Method 601 for purgeable halocarbons.
ume
as
pre­
aromatics
and
Twenty-five ml vol­
glass vials with teflon septum screw caps were
deter­
gent washed, rinsed with tap and distllled water and drled
23
at 105 C before use.
Water samples were collected using a
teflon bailer filling the vials to zero head space followed
by refrlgeratlon.
Ground water samples received no preser­
vatives.
Water:
Water
samples
Ch~rnj~ta
were collected using a
teflon
baller
filling 500 ml precleaned clear plastic sample bottles fol­
lowed by refrigeratlon.
Procedures were followed as
pre­
scribed in APHA 1981, 15th edition.
Analyses
t1~ta ls.
Ground water samples that were filtered and
acidifled
were analyzed directly to quantify dlssolved metal
tratlons.
Prior to the analysls of sedlments,
concen­
vegetatlon,
and ground water that was not filtered, a dlgestion process
was
carried out ln order to quantify total metals
trations.
concen­
Samples were digested using concentrated nitric
acid and refluxing untll all organic material had been bro­
ken down.
Complete digestion was checked by the
addition
of a drop or two of H202 which caused the elution of yellow
gas if any organic compounds were still present.
The
malning solutions were filtered through a 0.45 mlcron
re­
fil­
ter and refrigerated prior to analysis.
For dlgestion of vegetation, between one and two grams
24
of
sample was used.
Woody twigs and branches were
first
washed for five minutes with a continuous flow of distllled
water.
parts
from
Moss samples were not washed and consisted of only
of the plant body that could be carefully
the dense plant matt which entrapped
and debris.
soil
cut
away
particles
The vegetation was then dried for 48 hours at
105 F after which a subsample was removed and digested.
Sediments were oven dried for 48 hours at 105 C
after
which the sample was homogenized and approximately one gram
was weighed out and digested.
Spikes,
pared
for
duplicates,
each substrate and for
preparation procedure.
to
and procedural blanks were
dlgestion.
each
dlfferent
pre­
sample
Digested samples were spiked prior
Dissolved metal samples were splked
after
filtration and at the same time the samples were aCldifled.
The
Varian
Model 475 atomic
absorption
tometer was used for metals analyses.
attachment
The graphite furnace
was used for the analysis of lead.
sorption was used for zinc,
Calibration standards,
copper,
spectropho­
iron,
and
Flame
ab­
chromium.
spikes, duplicates, and blanks were
also analyzed.
Textural analysis of sediments was conducted for
parison with results of metals content.
com­
Subsamples were
25
dried
to
at 110 C for 24 hours and sieved through a
obtain the coarse fractions (>2mm
2mm-mesh
diameter).
Organic
matter content was determined by loss on ignition at 600
in a muffle furnace (Wilde et al.
silt,
I
1972).
and clay particle size analysis,
removed
Prior
acid (pH 5) adjusted medium (Kunze, 1965).
(Day,
1965)
was
employed
to sand,
organic matter was
from subsamples by the addition of H202
method
C
for
into
and
The hydrometer
particulate
size
analysis.
~~~
The
Purge
lnstruments used for VOC analyses were
a
Tekmar
Trap Concentrator LSC-3 connected to
a
Tracor
and
Model 560 gas chromatograph (GC).
a
Model
The GC was equlpped wlth
700A Hall Electrolytic Conductivity
Model 703 Photolonization Detector,
SP1000 packing.
per
minute.
Detector,
and a column with a 1%
The methanol flow rate settlng was 0.6 mls
Calibration standards,
spikes,
duplicates,
field blanks and reagent water blanks were analyzed in
dltion
a
to the samples.
Chlorobenzene was added
to
ad­
each
calibration standard and every sample to function as an In­
ternal standard.
used
A Response Factor (RF) was calculated and
to determine concentrations of analytes as
in EPA Methods 601 and 602.
described
The internal standard did not
interfere with the detection of analytes.
A flve ml portion of each water sample was transferred
26
via
calibrated
glass syringe with a
teflon
plunger
valve from the sampling vials to the purging chamber.
and
The
sample was then purged and analyzed on the GC.
Water
Chemis~
All ground water samples were analyzed for the follow­
ing parameters:
pH
APHA. 1981
423
Conductivity
APHA
205
Alkalinity
APHA
403
Total Hardness
APHA
3148
Calcium Hardness
APHA
311 C
Reactive
Phosphorus
EPA, 1974
p. 249
Ammonia
Technicon
Autoanalyzer
329-74 W/B
Nitrite +
Nitrate
Technicon
Autoanalyzer
158-71 'f,'/A
Chloride
Chloride Electrode
Potassium
APHA
3228
Sodium
APHA
3258
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Storm Water Drainage and Ground Water Flow
Surface
topography contours of the Reserve and
cent lands (Fig.
adja­
5) indicate that storm water runoff
urban development drains toward the Reserve from the
and west.
north
Surface elevatlons are hlghest (1120 ft.) along
the northwest margin of the Reserve and gradually
decrease
in a southeast direction moving across the Reserve.
lacklng
from
a
steep gradient within the Reserve
proXlmate the location of wetlands (Flg. 4).
Areas
closely
ap­
The topogra­
phy of the local watershed indicates that the Reserve lS
natural
dralnage basln.
The approXlmate
dralnage
a
basin
boundaries of the Reserve are depicted in Flgure 6a.
As displayed on Figure 6a, the Reserve has a very llm­
ited ground water recharge area.
velopment
creases
along
the
substantial
serve.
area
The current expanding de­
the western border of Reserve
covered
with
pavement,
WhlCh
can
have
impact on the ground water quality ln the
in­
a
Re­
Runoff from these areas makes up a large percentage
of the water recharge to the west and especlally
parts of the Reserve.
27
southwest
LEGEND
=.
o .
S'P~EET
BUILDING
Cj. POND
"\. STREAH
x • SURFACE ELEVATION
CONTOUR INTERVAL 5 FEET
N
C»
677 I",
I 203 me'ers
I
SCALE
l;
Figure
5.
XI083.~
1
N
Surface contour map of Schmeeckle Reserve and the immediate
wa ter:;hed (feet ;J hnvc :;ca 1 eve 1 ) •
C'''IIRE pv D SZl:wr:ZYlC nw f5KI
N
CD
Figure 6A.
FIGURE BY P. SZEWCZYKOWSKI
30
Urban
storm
water runoff draining into
the
Reserve
from the north and west, which infiltrates into the
ground
water,
direc­
will move within the aquifer in a southeast
tion
as shown by the water table contour map,
This
figure also indicates that runoff
Figure
6b.
infiltrating
from
North Point Drive and Sentry Insurance's property will move
towards University lake.
pact
This runoff can potentially
the ground water quality throughout much of
lm­
the
serve and may impact the water quality of the lake.
Re­
Storm
water runoff from Business Highway 51 and commerclal devel­
opment adjacent to the hlghway, is discharged into the
serve
Vla
ditches.
a storm sewer or from direct lnflow
from
road
Discharge from the storm sewer outlet (A, Flg. 4)
will move into the Reserve ln both northeast and
directions.
ground
Re­
This
discharge can
potentlally
water quality ln ponds Band D,
southeast
lmpact
the
and wells 32,
16,
34, 6E and 6W before being carried out of the Reserve.
Ground
water contours were developed from
water table data.
July
The direction of ground water flow
vary throughout the year due to seasonal water table
tuations.
tion
However,
Therefore.
may
fluc­
monthly changes in water table eleva­
are similar at varl0US locations throughout
serve.
1987
the overall yearly ground
the
water
Re­
flow
directlon is likely very simllar to that depicted in Figure
6b.
Figure
tuations
7a displays the seasonal
at two wells
within
water
the Reserve.
table
The
fluc­
water
-
...... .......
,
LEGEND
\
\
o .
\
I
C? •
oil
..
•
'""" •
x
w
~
=?'
'--. - -'-III
1]
STREAM
SURFACE ELEVATION
•
•
NOTE: DASHED CONTOURS INDICATE
APPROXIMAfE ElEVATIONS.
X1113.0
CONTOUR INTERVAL 5
FEET
SOOI
D
.
, 152 "'_",.
_lJ-­
•
•
0
,_o~~
/.v
CJ
o
.......
s
STREET
BUILDING
POND
GROUND WATER WELL
•
,
-..._-_/
\
o
o
I
Figu~e
68.
/
Univorlily
\
I
I
i
N
/
o
I
SCALE
J
C3
la~e
SEWER
I
OUTlET I
/~o
Ground water contou~ map of Schmeeckle Rese~ve generated
July 1987 water labl~ ddta (feet above sea level).
f~om
FIGURE 8Y P. SZEWCZYKOWSKI
32
table attained a maX1mum height in the fall months followed
by a second peak in the spring.
The water table then
de­
creased to its lowest levels during the summer grow1ng sea­
son when plants are transpiring large volumes of water.
1102
1'01
v
C1l
1101
I..L.
.E
c::
1100
.Q
"0
>
C1l
W
1100
1099
1099
Oct.
Jon.
Feb.
Mar.
April
May
June
JUly
Months Duri ng 1986-1987
DWell #32
•
Well
#4
F1gure 7a.
Monthly water table fluctuat10ns at we11s
and 4 in Schmeeckle Reserve.
As
displayed 1n Figure 7a, well 32 maintained a
constant level throughout the year than well 4.
located
acterized
more
Well 32 1S
in a wetland area where there is a continuous
charge or baseflow.
32
re­
Wetland areas in the Reserve are char­
by high permeability soils (sands) which
in a more rapid ground water flow and thus a smoother
dient (Figs.
4 and 6b).
the Reserve,
such as well 4, are located 1n uplands.
result
gra­
Wells in the northwest reg10n of
land areas have steep ground water gradients.
Up­
These steep
33
gradients depict that ground water is moving slowly
llkely
due to the presence of fine textured soil materlals (clays)
which are associated with the residuum layer directly above
the bedrock.
Depth to bedrock in the northwest uplands of
the Reserve is very shallow (around 4 feet).
Seasonal water table fluctuatlons in the wells reflect
the
soil
maintaln
characteristics.
Wells in wetlands
(Flg.
a more constant water table level than
the uplands (Fig.
7c).
7b)
wells
ln
In the uplands, the flner sOll ma­
terials hold water tightly.
As a result.
after the sprlng
recharge around April water is released very slowly so that
by
June there lS a large decline ln water table
these
wells.
Contaminants wlthin the ground
move very slowly.
level
water
ln
wlll
Sandler sOlls ln the wetlands allow wa­
ter to move faster and there is a more continuous baseflow.
As
a
result,
throughout
the water table level remalns
more
the year and contaminants will spread and
stable
move
more rapidly in these areas.
Several
of the monitoring wells in the
Reserve
nested we 11 s (10' s, 12' s, l' s, 6' s, 5' s, 33' s. 17' s,
were
18' s.
and 19's) ; two wells installed side by side with one belng
deeper than the other.
Water table fluctuatlons in nested
wells indicate when upwelling or recharging vertical gradi­
ents
are present at a well locatlon.
When the deeper
the nested wells has a higher water table elevatlon than
of
34
1102
1
1100
-­
1098
~
v
v
u..
1094
-
--
E
1092
c
-
.2
~
0
v>
W
-I---­ -
-­
1096
1---­
f-­
1090
1088
1086
-
1084
1082
I-­
I-­
I-­
I-­
I-­
I-­
f-­
1:=
I-­
1­
i=
~
f-­
f-­
f-­
~
f-
.f-­
f-­
f-­
~
II
Jon
Oct
-­
1=
~
~
--
1=
t-­
~
;:=
t=
-
-
~
r-­
.
~-
--­
f-­
f-­
f-­
Em
-----
e-
f-­
f-­
1­
-
-
f-­
F-=
~
~
f-­
f-­
f-­
f-­
f-­
f-­
-
~
~
t=
t=
II 1= II
I-­
I­
I-­
Feb
f-
t=:
Mar
April
II
=
,­
i­
-
f­
F=
1=
i­
;:=
P-:
1=
i-
I-­
I-­
1=
1=
t=
~
t=
t-­
1=
f­
f-­
+-­
+-­ I
t-­
+-­ 1\
II
May
June
July
Months During 1986-1987
IHJ
Well
#32 B
Well
#16
[] Well
#18S
Figure 7b. Seasonal fluctuatlons of wells in wetland areas
of the Reserve.
II\
;;:: h n l - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ­
1114
v
v
u..
E
c
:2o
>
Q)
w
I-­
-
1112 1110 1108 -
1f----11 If------11 11---11 If-------11 11---11 I f------1III---I1
I---
­
--
1106 1104
'---~I---f---I----
1 1 02 f--
:
- -
---f--­
f-­
f--
I---
f---
I---
I---
f-­
­
1--­
f---
I---
11-11111---11 I---
f---
I­
-
-
~:: -+'~_"_. LU. .J.JU. U.,r§,. . . .UJ . ~.Ll UJrEY_.lLJ.l ~. .J U.J.,I.L-.lJ-J.lJ,. .u . lI EY_.lLJ.l .-uJ.L. .,~
-J.lJ,. ~.Ll UJt- ,. F'- L . E. .LIoL-I "_r~
.........
Oct.
-
Jon.
Feb.
Mar.
April
May
1
....
............uJ-a......."
June
July
Months During 1986-1987
B
Well #4
[] Well #8
Ell
Well #3
~m Well #2
Figure 7c. Seasonal fluctuations of wells in upland areas
of the Reserve.
35
the shallower well, then upwell1ng 1S occurring and surface
water will not be infiltrating.
When the opposite happens,
ground water recharge is occurring and surface runoff along
with
potential contaminants can infiltrate into the
fer.
Figure 7d depicts vertical gradients in wells 10E and
10W.
the
Upwelling occurred during January
other
upwelling
months.
occurred
At
1n
January through July.
are
wells
October
125
and
and
and
aqui­
infiltration
12N
(Fig.
1nfiltration
The presence of vert1cal
eV1dence of the complex hydrogeolog1cal
7e),
dur1ng
grad1ents
system
Wh1Ch
operates in the Reserve.
Another factor which adds to the complex1ty of the hy­
drological system in the Reserve,
is the presence of a per­
forated storm sewer line which runs along M1chigan
Due to the perforat10n,
Avenue.
th1S sewer line can at t1mes
con­
tr1bute raw storm water runoff directly to the ground water
in the eastern half of the Reserve.
Dur1ng t1mes when the
water table 1S high, this sewer may drain the aquifer.
The
impacts of th1S perforated sewer on the hydrological system
in the Reserve are not fully understood and require further
investigation.
Storm Water Impacts on Ground Water Quality
e~tLQl eurrLygC'
Volatile
were
not found
s
petroleum compounds from storm water
to
be contam1nating the
ground
runoff
water
36
1096
1095
C;
v
1094
l.J..
.s
c:
1093
0
:;;
0
l
>
Q)
W
1092
1091
1090
Oct
Jon.
Feb
Mar.
April
May
June
July
Months During 1986-1987
[ ] Well #lOE
Deep
El
Well #10W
Shallow
Flgure 7d.
Seasonal water table fluctuatlons depictlng
vertical gradients in wells 10E-deep and 10W-shallow.
1090
1090
1089
C;
Cll
l.J..
1089
1089
oS
c:
1088
0
1088
~
>
Cll
I.LJ
1088
1088
1087
lilim
1087
Aug.
Oct.
Jon.
Feb.
Mar.
April
May
June
July
Months During 1986-1987
[J]
Well #12S-Shallow
IBJ
Well #12N-Deep
Flgure 7e.
Seasonal water table fluctuations deplctlng
vertical gradients in wells 12N and 12S.
37
within
and
the Reserve.
Concentrations of benzene,
toluene.
=
xylenes (BTX) were below detect10n limits (DL's
ug/l Band T,
2.0 ug/l X) in most of the monitoring
during the months sampled (Append. I,
ceptions were wells 16 and 36.
concentration
1n
well
months sampled.
wells
Two ex­
Well 16 had a mean
of 6.7 ug/l and well 36 had a
concentrat1on of 14.6 ug/l (Fig.
tration
Table 12).
8).
16 remained consistent
0.5
benzene
mean
toluene
The benzene concen­
during
the
four
This concentration is 10 times higher than
the W1sconS1n ground water standard of 0.67 ug/l and there­
fore
represents a potential health hazard if ut1lized
for
human consumpt10n and violates Wisconsin ground water stan­
dards.
Due
to the southeast direction
movement in the Reserve,
of
ground
the benzene contam1nat10n 1S
tent1ally attributable to the infiltration of
discharge.
discharge
However,
water
storm
po­
sewer
other wells d1rectly impacted by the
(32 and 34) were not contaminated w1th
benzene.
An add1tional temporary VOC sampling well was 1nstalled be­
tween wells 16 and 32 to help determine the pathway of ben­
zene
contamination.
From this evidence,
tion
in
charge.
Here also, no benzene was
detected.
it appears that the benzene contamina­
well 16 is not attributable to storm
water
dis­
The most likely source of this contamination is an
underground petroleum storage tank which is located
beh1nd
the University Maintenance Building near well 16.
The mean concentration of toluene in well 36 of 14.6
,
"­
......
,
\
LEGEND
,
,
o
~
\
;­ \::,\\0..
"l
I
'" .
,/'
"
//
\
\
./
.. STREET
z BUILDING
.. POND
• GROUND WATER WELL
STREAM
x
'I
SURFACE ELEVATION
NOTE: OA~HEO CONlQURS 'NOICAU
~PPROXIMAU Elf VAJlON~.
)J-n 1"",
CONTOUR INTERVAL 5 fEET
500 I...
"
1) \ \
U
..
l _11--
• •
..... - _ II I
Cot)
C»
c
:1
O_-L-J "'"
I
I
•
)
"""
I
I
I
IS'.'''''',''
KAlf
1
N
/
'14.6 ppb toluene
0
~
S~
2
1
oII
0
figure
O.
__M"
•.
11
8.
0
..6.7 ppl.> benzene
Univer1i'y
lake
~
Cl
Mean toluene in well 36 and mean henzene in well
Reserve (u<j/l).
16 in Schmeeckle
"'''''IRE ov
I)
S"7r:: Yl CZY .... nYlSKI
39
ug/l was below the Wisconsin ground water enforcement stan­
dard of 343 ug/l and therefore does not pose a human health
hazard
or violate the state standards.
natural constituent of ground water,
Toluene is not
however,
and is at­
tributable to an urban or direct human impact.
four months sampled,
decreased
This
During the
the toluene concentration in well
from 39.2 ug/l in January to 1.6 ug/l ln
substantial concentration decrease may
tt,at
lnstallation.
Sand used to backfill around the well screen may have
contaminated.
include
36
April.
suggest
the well was inadvertently contaminated upon
a
been
Other potentlal sources of the contamlnatlon
storm water runoff from adjacent commercial
bUS1­
ness parking lots or local household or business actlvltles
such
as
ground water disposal of
products.
solvents
The existing data, however,
or
petroleum
is lnsufflcient to
determine the source of the contaminatlon.
Well 36 lS lo­
cated between two bUSlness parking lots ln an area that was
fllled with imported sOll material.
r1e tal s _~Gro u n Q_~_~~J:'_~ r
Dissolved and total metals concentrations at
ing
wells
ground
throughout
the Reserve did
not
indicate
water quality was being impacted from
discharge
or runoff.
monitor­
storm
water
Monthly dissolved and total
results are presented in Appendix I,
Tables
mean
1
values are summarized in Tables
13
and 2.
and
the
metals
14
Mean
and
dlS­
solved lead (Pb), zinc (Zn), copper (Cu) and chromlum (Cr)
40
concentrations at all wells sampled were
~
mg/l,
0.03 mg/l,
and
~
0.02 mg/l
~
<
3 ug/l,
0.23
respectively.
These
values are significantly less than the Wisconsin ground wa­
ter standards of 50 ug-Pb/l, 5 mg-Zn/l,
1 mg-Cu/l,
and 50
ug-Cr/l.
The wells impacted most directly from storm water dis­
charge did not have Pb, Zn,
nificantly
Mean
elevated
d1ssolved
Cu,
or Cr concentrations sig­
over those of
and total metals
less
impacted
concentrations
wells in the Reserve are displayed in Figure 9.
and
wells.
at
four
Wells
32 are located nearest to the storm sewer
outlet
are impacted most directly by storm water runoff.
16
and
However,
concentrations of Pb, Zn and Cu were similar to and 1n some
cases
less than those of wells 3 and 37.
which
are
Slg­
nificantly less 1mpacted by storm water runoff.
The data does not suggest storm water as the source of
elevated
iron
(Fe) concentrations 1n ground
water.
mean dissolved Fe concentrations ranged from 0.02 to
The
63.08
mg/l with several wells having concentrations far exceeding
the 0.3 mg/l standard.
The highest Fe concentrations were
present in the deepest monitoring wells.
These high
con­
centrations are most likely a reflection of the natural ge­
ology of the area and the anoxic cond1tions present deep 1n
the aquifer.
The high concentrations of Fe do not present
a health risk but more a nuisance to potential users of the
.............
LEGEND
",
• STREET
BUILDING
POND
. . .. GROUND WATER WELL
"" .. STREAM
\
o .
G? ..
\
..,I
./' "
/"'0 ..... "
\
.... ,
./
L>'
(,
~
•
SURFACE ELEVATION
0.00)/<0"";"01
0.07/1.73
;::0.01/1.27
~ 2.45/98.01
NOTE: DASHED CONTOURS INDICATE
APPROXIMATE ElEVATIONS.
CONTOUR INTERVAL 5 fEET
fl-/-
a
_lJ----
CD
Cl
I
~
r-""-
~i/~:~~~;:~~
0.003/0.02
o
o
i
I
I
I
.
~
..
><
.
Oullel
l0
<.001/0.01
0.06/2.43
0.23/2,"
0.01/0.91
•
54 /67
__ • 2 6
O.()y<.Ol.
figu~e
9.
/
()
1
N
1/
0.001/0.01
p.02/1.21
~
SCAlE
....00,0
o
0
~~.
~'2
o
. \
4.60/67.48
<.01/<.01
I
-
jOOh.,
B2.4m'I."
} __ LS
o
.......
x
I
x1113.0
.......... - I l l
.....
,
I
'-<:--...
:<:.::::O~I~/~<=O~I--,·
c..../
.
/
40.84/136 24/
,;
Universily
lole
\
ca
\
I
~~_
'
I I
I
C
Mean dissolved and total Pb, Zn, Cu, fe, and C~ concent~ations
in wells 3,32,37&16 in Schmeeckle Rese~ve (mg/l).
FIGURE BY P. SZEWCZYKOWSKI
42
resource.
Table 1.
Summary of mean concentrations of dlssolved lead.
zinc,
iron, copper, and chromium at individual wells in
Schmeeckle Reserve.
SITE
Mean
Mean
Mean
Mean
3-13-87
Pb
Zn
Fe
Cu
Cr
---------------------mg/l-----------------------­
IN
lS
< 0.001
2
3
<
4
5N
55
6E
6W
7
8
9
10E
lOW
0.003
< 0.001
< 0.001
*
17W
18N
185
19E
19W
20
21
32
33N
335
34
35
36
37
39
0.13*
0.07
0.04
0.06
O. 1 1
0.001
<, 0.001
<, 0.001
< 0.001
0.06
0.05
0.08
0.15
*
<
0.001
*
0.04
< 0.001
0.06
11
12N
125
13
15
16
17E
0.001*
0.18
<
<
*
0.02
4.60
*
7.06
0.12
23.14
0.02
11 .00
*
0.001
*
0.06
*
*
*
*
2.82*
0.001
0.0e.
0.80
*
*
*
0.001
*
0.06
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
0.001
*
*
*
*
*
*
0.06
0.001
*
*
0.001
< 0.001
< 0.001
0.003
< 0.001
*
0.23
0.04
0.04
0.06
0.02
0.05
0.07
0.21
0.01
*
0.01*
0.02
( 0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.02
*
0.01
*
*
0.01
<
< 0.01
*
*
*
0.01
*
40.84*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
6.68
1 .54
*
*
*
*
63.08
*
<
*
*
*
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.01
0.01
< 0.01
0.01
*
*
*
< O. C' 1
*
*
*
*
*
*
'"
*
*
*
*
*
*
'"
*
<.0.(11
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
<0.01
0.02
*
*
*
*
*
2.45
*
0.01
*
---------------------------------------------------------* Parameter not analyzed
43
Table 2. Summary of mean concentrations of total lead.
zinc and copper at four wells in Schmeeckle Reserve.
SITE
Mean
Mean
Mean
Mean
3-13-87
Pb
Zn
Fe
Cu
Cr
-------------------- mg/l-----------------------­
0.024
<0.010
0.008
< 0.010
3
16
32
37
3.28
2.43
2.88
1 .73
< 0.01
< 0.01
< 0.01
3.64
0.91
1 .27
0.61
67.48
136.24
67.26
98.01
*
* Parameter not analyzed
Note: Chromium was analyzed on only one sampllng date.
The signlficant dlfferences between dlssolved and
~o-
tal metals concentrations in these results may be cause for
concern
over experlmental error.
Slnce samples
solved metals analyses collected in January,
March were not field filtered,
iron
for
dlS­
February
it is posslble that oxidlzed
may have precipitated out of
Solutlon
significantly
and may have further resulted ln co-preclpltatlon of
metals causlng low dissolved metals values.
likely,
however,
and
since inltlally,
other
This seems un­
dupllcate samples were
field filtered and only differences of < 0.01 ug/l for
Cu,
Zn and Fe were detected when compared with samples filtered
in
the lab.
Ap r 1 1
samples
No variation was detected for Pb.
were all field flltered and
Further,
acidifled
dissolved metals values were comparable to those of
and
previ­
ous months (Append. I, Table 13).
One
reason for elevated total metals values
presence of fine
sediments in many
of the
upland
was
the
well
iJ ~rJ{1 s5 .i·~
I-,J l.j). /1./ hf
I
;'
b'
6
Ie
s
-
G
SENIRY
INSURANCE
l
' .'-,
JU
1c..J
J--I ,~
"
I! V
Ii)
/ /'q
LEGE"D
33
Y
I
I
'
A-G • SURFACE WATER SAHPa.r. S ITt:
. . • GROmm WATER WEI. I.
a
• mn I.IU fiG
.J.:. •
<:::> •
l.,iTI.MID
POND
'"'" • STREAM
m • tlOSS SAt·lrl.E SITE
v • VEGETATION SA,..PI.E SITE
(WOODY)
3
1 400 HI
112 m
1
lei'
13.
15+
20 •
1
Vm
• 21
UIlI.,."lIr Lak.
E
o
-.I
~
~
I
nt6m~l\lc
Figure 4.
Study area map.
1l:'1~I'RE av
Q
S;?c .. ~t;ZY''''\IA'SKI
45
samples.
but
These wells were extensively developed and bailed
complete purging of the fine residuum materials,
that
are characteristic of these low yielding wells, was not re­
alized.
These
materials undoubtedly contributed
to
el­
evated total metals values in upland wells.
In light of these facts, my findlngs still are similar
to
those
of other researchers.
Harper
(1985)
analyzed
ground water recharged by storm water retentlon ponds.
filtered samples through a Whatman GF/C glass fiber
prior to dissolved metals analyses.
solved
fllter
He reported that dlS­
metals fractlons for most metals made up about
of the total metals.
storm
He
BourCler and Hindin (1979)
water runoff samples.
metals
fractions
They prepared
the
ported
that less than 5 % of each metal in runoff
the dlssolved-colloidal form.
filtered
analy~ed
dissolved
by centrifuglng 50 mls of sample
minutes at 681 g and analyzed the centrifugate.
25%
for
They
was
Samples In thlS study
through 0.45 micron filter prior to analysls
5
re­
In
were
and
the dissolved metals represented between 1-30% of the total
metals with most metals being < 12.5%.
This evidence glves
credibility to my metals results and to those of other
au­
thors.
Although the ground water in the Reserve does not
pear to be contamlnated wlth metals from runoff,
ap­
storm wa­
ter and sediment data indicate that runoff does contribute
J
46
significant
loadings
For
of metals to the Reserve.
lead emitted from automobile exhaust is reported to
ample,
exist in a predominantly insoluble particulate form
et al., 1982).
tions
(Wang
In runoff, therefore, total lead concentra­
would be representative of roadway
total
(Laxen
1977) greater than 20 microns in size
and Harrison,
The
ex­
deposited
Pb concentration in a storm sewer
lead.
sample
col­
lected during a low-discharge period was 117 ug/l, compared
to
< 1 ug/l of Pb in runoff from control stream
3).
Lead concentrations ln the storm sewer discharge would
likely
These
(Table
C
be even greater during heavy precipitation
data demonstrate that storm water runoff
events.
does
con­
tribute slgnificant loadings of lead to the Reserve.
Table 3.
Total metals ln surface water samples
March 14, 1987.
collected
SITE
Pb
Zn
Cu
Fe
Cr
---------------- mg/l -----------------­
Culvert A
Stream C
0.117
<0.001
3.37
0.06
0.84
<0.01
22.05
1 .09
0.01
<0.01
Similarly, the data in Table 3 is eVldence that runoff
does contribute significant amounts of Zn,
Fe and possibly
Cu to the Reserve, although they do not clearly have an lm­
pact on ground water quality at this time.
Sediment
metals concentrations also demonstrate
that
storm water discharge has contributed slgnlficant amounts
47
of
metals to the Reserve.
sented in Appendix I,
4.
Mean Pb,
Zn,
Sediment metals data
are
pre­
Table 15 and are summarized in Table
Cu and Fe concentrations ln
the
storm
sewer outlet (culvert A) and ponds Band D were notably el­
evated
over background levels (Fig. 10).
Ponds Band
sediments contain a higher percentage of fine textured
terials
F).
(silt,
Similarly,
overall
clay and organics) than the control
D
ma­
(pond
the culvert sedlments were finer textured
than those in control stream C (Table
5).
These
fine materials have large surface areas per unit volume and
act as metal adsorbants (Strieg1,
sediments
metals
have
an lncreased abi11ty to
Therefore these
adsorb
aval1abie
and this in part accounts for the increased
content.
The
1987).
metals
More slgniflcant though is the source of metals.
culvert carries only runoff water and
sediments
most
likely directly reflect the metals concentratlons in
water.
Culvert sediments were approximately 3, 4, 2 and 2
times higher ln Pb, Zn, Cu and Fe, respectively,
trol stream C.
which
than con­
Stream C is a natural intermittent
receives ground water drainage and runoff
Sentry Insurance property.
runoff
storm
stream
from
The stream also receives
from North Point Drive but much less than the
the
some
cul­
vert.
Ponds
with
Band D have the potential to
become
flooded
storm sewer discharge from overland flow durlng
volume runoff events due to the
relatively
flat
high
surface
48
topography (Fig.
Ponds Band D sediments were on the
5).
average approximately 52,
4,
3 and 4 times higher in
Zn, Cu and Fe, respectively, than the control pond F.
F is relatively isolated in the Reserve and has no
Pb,
Pond
obvious
impacts.
Concentrations
from
in
ponds Band D may
reflect
storm water drainage as well as atmospheric
metals
sources.
Both of these ponds are located in close proximity to auto­
mobile and smokestack emissions.
of
Exactly what
the metals in the sediments are linked
to
percentage
atmospheric
sources cannot be quantified from the avallable data.
Table 4. Summary of mean concentrations of lead, zinc,
iron, coppper, and chromium ln sediments from Schmeeckle
Reserve.
SITE
3/87
Mean
Mean
Cr
Fe
Cu
-------------- mg/kg dry wt. -----------­
------------------------------------------------------ ----Culvert ( A) 0 FT~ 21 .24
36.21
6,762.77
12.48 0.70
Culvert ( A) 5 FT 14.70
32.67
7,488.97
9.80
*
Culvert (A) 15 FT 19.31
45.06
3,625.15
15.56
*
Pond (B)
44.79
34.03
4,296.63
13.37 0.60
Stream (C)
5.61
10. 14
4,174.92
5.74 <0.01
Pond ( D)
22.86
48.02
7,280.53
5.61
*
Lake ( E)
2.20
306.06
3,290.28
4.40
*
Pond ( F )
< 0.65
11 . 74
1,211.69
3.26
*
Stream (G)
38.52
6,310.82
7. 57
6.88
*
Mean
Pb
Mean
Zn
A
A
-----------------------------------------------------------
*
A
Parameter not analyzed
Distance in feet from outfall
49
Table 5. Particle size composition of sediments from sur­
face water sources in Schmeeckle Reserve.
----------------------------------------------------------SITE
~ Organic
~ > 2mm
~ < 2mm
% Clay
~ Sand ~ S i 1t
----------------------------------------------------------1
Culvert (A) 0 FT.
7
0
0
93
Culvert (A) 5 FT.
10
3
4
8
82
Culvert (A) 15 FT. 71
4
3
96
0
11
Pond (B)
5
83
6
2
Stream (C)
1
0
4
96
0
Pond ( D)
3
7
9
83
8
1
Lake ( E )
12
1
96
3
Pond ( F )
1
1
92
4
4
Stream (G)
30
92
6
3
2
Note:
Samples were collected and analyzed in July, 1987.
The
sediments near the storm sewer outlet
were
prisingly lower in some metals than ponds Band D.
possibly
charges
sur­
ThlS is
due to the scouring action of hlgh veloclty
during
storm events which may
dlS­
effectively
carry
metals ln suspension some dlstance away from the outlet and
into the Reserve.
This is supported by the fact that
the
outlet sedlments contained less fine textured materlals and
organic
matter
overall
than the
ponds,
thus
reduclng
metal absorption ability (Table 5).
The
outlet sediments were notably elevated in
concentrations
in comparison to stream C,
less impacted stream,
a
metals
natural
and
but were similar in concentration to
metals in sediments from stream site G.
Site G is on Moses
Creek, a channelized stream which drains wetlands northeast
of
the Reserve and receives storm water runoff from
Highway 51.
State
Metals impacts on sediments in Moses Creek may
...
,
LEGEND
" ,,
o
~
\
I
on
'"
'"
•
•
'"' =
STREET
BUILDING
POND
GROUND WATER WELL
STREAM
x • SURFACE ELEVATION
SAMPLING LOCATION
+
~/n ~'''''
CIt
0
NOU: DASHED CONIOURS INDICATE
,,""ROXIMATE ElEVAIIONS.
CONTOUR INTERVAL 5 fEET
" ro 1\ }y;
"'-111
c
o
•
~OO'''I
•
-
II ~_-'-I
I
I
'-----
0
t:
I~
I
@
o II
,-
~
0
18.42
]7.98
12.61
5959
figure 10.
CJ
I
1
•
N
~~:~~
44.79
~ ~~.~'
~c1
IS'.''''.'.''
SCALE
r~
2~.86
48.02
6.88
]8.52
7. 57
6311
5.61
57]6
Mean Pb, Zn, Cu, and fe concentrations in sediments from surface
water sources in Schmeeckle ~eserve (mg/kg dry weight).
F,t:IlDE BY
D
SZE"'I"7YKC'wC::1(1
51
be similar to those in the storm sewer outlet.
University Lake sediments were low in Pb,
Cu,
and Fe
but
had a Zn concentration around eight times higher
the
mean value of the storm sewer outlet
than
sediments.
though there are no obvious sources to which these high
concentrations could be attributed,
Zn
Al­
Zn
it is likely that this
is not naturally occurring and may be
attributable
to
the lake construction process or to atmospheric deposltlon.
The lake was constructed between 1975 and 1976 and elevated
Zn concentrations may be due to abandoned materials or
ported
soils.
source.
Atmopheric deposition is another
lm­
possible
These potential sources will be discussed in more
detail in the following sections.
Chemical
characteristics of the ground water
in
the
Reserve were quantified for individual monitoring wells and
compiled
as a data base with which to compare
continued
research.
piled
Appendix I,
in
future
Monthly analytical results are
Tables 1-10 and are
summarized
and
com­
ln
Tables 6-8.
Road salt contamination was most prevalent in monitor­
ing wells nearest to the storm sewer dlscharge and ln wells
close to roadways and intersections (Fig.
which
is directly impacted by the storm
had mean chloride and
11 ) .
sewer
sodium concentrations
We 11
-'- ,
')')
discharge,
of 2054 mg/l
hbl.6. SUUiry 01 Inn '/ilUIS lor pH, conductiVIty, ilk.llnlty, ind totil hirdnrss In ground wit.r frol
Res.rv••
5c~lIrck1r
------------------------------------------------------------------------._---­
DEPTH
SITE
(It.)
or
pH
L/HIt
CONDo
(ulh~sj
L/HIt
ALK.
UHIt
TOTAl HARD.
L/HIt
SCREE~
------------- 1,/1 --_.-----------­
-------------------------_.... --..---------------.---- ------ _..-----------------_...- ------------._----_.._........ __e. ____..._..__
I •
IS
2
3
4
5 II
5S
6E
6W
7
8
9
10 E
10 W
11
12 ~
12 S
13
15
16
17 E
17 W
18 N
18 S
19E
I' W
20
21
32
33 II
33 S
34
35
36
37
39
4.78
6.63
3.87
3.79
5.44
9.20
3.70
10.55
4.61
2.54
6.38
6.53
20.36
3.18
4.27
17.56
7.85
3.28
6.04
7.44
16. 'JO
6.60
5.30
15.40
15.40
6.38
4.95
6.56
3.23
4.77
3.69
J.61
6.88
9.53
134.00
6.03
6.39
5.40
6.00
5.41
6.:7
6.51
5.37
5.10
6. ~7
5.B5
5.59
6.45
6.55
5.85
7.07
7.03
6.09
5.80
6.10
6.84
6.74
6.:9
U8
6.13
6.10
6.14
6.99
6.83
5.95
5.76
5.91
6.54
6.37
6.62
7.28
(5.5:17 .04/8)
16.1417.04/31
(5.:1/6.30/91
(~. :617.80/101
14. ~017. 40/91
16.08/6.44/91
16.1517.25/51
(5.65/6.50/101
(4.10/6.30/101
(6.3117.26/6)
(5. &9/6.11121
(4.80/6.96171
(6. 35/6.801'J1
(6.3217.20/8)
(5.63/6.38171
(6.8017.48/81
(6. 'J017. 30/81
(5. '1/6.64/61
(5.46/6.60/6)
(5. n/6.671101
16.5117.72171
(6.4317.10171
(6.10/6.80m
(5.88/6.85171
(~. ·}1I6. 84171
(5.75/6.60171
(5.85/6.70171
(6.7317.51/61
(6.:017.72/101
(~. 77/6.26/21
(5.76/5.76/11
(5.35/5. 'J'/21
(6.28/6.97/31
(6.:9/6.52/41
(6.47/6.85121
(7.2317.34/31
147
201
183
364
106
106
142
622
426
1238
566
101
376
270
186
222
390
48
46
1927
172
51
231
1:6
154
174
84
186
5013
96
93
88
91
470
104
380
(811242/81
mOI22I/31
(\611:22191
(303/4161101
(44/415/91
1'J7I138/91
(84/:95151
(579/686/101
(149/1I'J6/IOI
(91611624/6)
(552/579/21
192/108171
(311/433/91
(216/338/81
(153/257171
(2061260/81
(:251466/8 )
(43/56/6)
(44/48/61
(103212720/10I
lISl/194171
129172171
(89/304171
(116/132171
(134/166171
(23/288171
(77187/7l
(161/253/61
(84216780/10)
(95/98/21
(93/93/11
(73/103121
(80/98/3)
(450/495/4 )
(103/106121
(370/389/31
16
32
5
107
16
20
23
32
II
140
16
10
l3'J
56
24
71
168
8
8
97
51
II
93
23
29
39
10
93
228
15
16
25
17
166
32
125
(6/~2/81
(20/52/31
14/10191
110/1521101
18/58/91
112124/91
(14/48/51
(20/44/101
(nd/17/IOI
(1181180/61
(16/16/21
(2/18171
(100/168/91
(381111/8)
(14/54171
(64m/81
(881204/81
(6/10/61
(4/12/61
(421156/101
(46/66171
(4/22171
(30/130171
(16146171
(18/38171
(18/80171
(8120/7)
(66/132/51
(86/352/10)
114/16121
(16/16/1 I
(22128/21
(14120/31
<152/179/4 I
(30/34121
C124/12fl/31
48
68
51
14:
30
34
45
98
58
318
145
33
170
'5
49
104
19'
19
19
430
81
24
III
48
53
50
26
108
287
39
32
41
31
171
~
171
--------------------------------_..------------­
!loh: L • lowest nlul, H• highest nlu., •
= nub.r of Ulpl.s
52
(14172/81
160173/31
(44158/91
(18/1841101
(121118/91
<22/44/91
(34/60/51
('0/108/101
(18/232/101
(2521396/51
(144/146/21
(28/40/b)
(l29/204/91
(661140171
(32176/61
(94/116/8)
(106/244171
(14/32/51
(12128/51
(250/614/101
(66/90171
(12/32/71
(381144171
144160171
(44/60171
(30/90/61
(22128/61
(74/196/6)
(241904/101
(36/42121
(32132/1l
(38/4412)
(28/26/31
C1571186/41
(34/36/21
(166/176/31
Table 7. 5ulluy of lean Vilues for cdciul hardness, reactive phosphorus, allonia nitrogen, and nitrite +
nitrate nitrogen in ground ~ater frol 5chleectle Reserve.
------_ .... _------------------------ .. _-- ... _-----------------------------------------------------------------­
SITE
Caft
H~RD.
L/HIt
Reactive P
L/HIt
IIH4-11
LlHIt
1102 + 1103
L/HIt
---------------------------------------------- Ig/I ----------------------------------------­
---- ...... --_ ... ---- ... -_ ...... -- ---- ...... --- -- --- ---- ... --- - ... - ---- ---- -_ .. ---_ ..... -_ ... -- -- -- -- -- ------_ ... -_ .................. --_ ... ----­
I II
29
(l0/5217J
0.004 (nd/.012l5)
(nd/.13/8)
0.03
(nd/.12/8)
0.03
I5
41
(36/52/3)
0.005 (nd/.012l3)
(nd/.34/3)
0.12
(nd/.04/3)
0.02
m/44/8)
2
33
0.002 (nd/.005/6)
(nd/.43/9)
0.07
(nd/.10/9)
0.04
3
([0/126/9)
72
0.009 (nd/.OSSI7J
(nd/.60/10)
0.12
(nd/.24/10)
0.05
4
(8/66/8)
18
0.007 (nd/.035/61
(nd/.47/9)
0.07
(nd /. 43/9)
0.19
5N
24
(16/44/8)
0.004 (nd/.010/6)
(nd/.39/9)
0.09
0.07
end/.50/9)
5S
(18/46/4)
26
0.009 (nd/.024/3)
(nd/.16/S)
0.07
(nd/.28/5)
0.12
6E
(52170/9)
62
0.003 (nd/.008/8)
0.34
1.20/.74110)
(nd/.04/10)
0.01
6W
(10/146/9)
30
0.003 (nd/.015m
(nd/.75/10)
0.13
(nd/.50/10)
0.08
7
(l32/240/S)
183
0.010 (nd/.040/4)
0.21
(, 021. 59/61
0.10
(nd/.50/61
8
(96/208/2)
152
(nd/nd/2)
nd
(, 06/.09/2)
0.08
I. 51
(1.50/1.51/2)
9
17
(14/20/61
0.007 (nd/.025/4)
0.02
(nd/.08I7J
3.47
(I. 5S/5. 05/7)
10 E
109
(76/156/8)
0.002 (nd/.005/6)
(nd/.3719)
0.09
(nd/.02l9)
0.01
10 W
59
(24/92I7J
0.003 (nd/.010/5)
(, 04/2.80/8)
I. 23
(nd/.60/8)
0.19
11
(18/60/6 )
32
0.002 (nd/.005/4)
(nd/.IOI7J
0.03
(nd/.08m
0.02
12 II
(58/9417l
69
0.005 (nd/.015/5)
(nd/.20/8)
0.09
0.03
Ind/.16/8)
12 5
(64/220I7J
139
0.001 (nd/.002l5)
(nd/.12I8)
0.07
(nd/.02l8)
0.01
13
(8/12/5)
10
0.002 (nd/.005/3)
(nd/.08/61
0.03
0.03
(nd/.06/61
IS
(10/14/5)
12
0.003 (nd/.008/4)
(nd/.04/6)
0.02
0.02
(nd/.06/61
16
282
(152/400/9)
0.001 (nd/.002I7J
(.58/1.70/10)
1.33
(nd/.22110)
0.05
17 E
(38172/6)
49
0.001 (nd/.002/4)
0.03
(nd/.0817l
(nd/.0317l
0.01
17 W
17
(10/24/6)
0.007 (nd/.022/4)
0.03
(nd/.12I7J
0.41
(nd/1.24I7J
18 II
(24/112/6)
65
0.003 (nd/.010/4)
0.43
(.04/.7617l
"(nd/.Olm
0.01
18 S
(24/32/6)
27
0.003 Ind/.010/4)
0.08
(,04/.1217l
(nd/.1417l
0.03
IH
(26/30/6)
29
0.001 (nd/.002l4)
0.05
Ind/.1217l
(nd/.1417l
0.03
19 W
45
(28/86/6)
0.002 Ind/.005/41
0.02
(nd/.06I7J
0.83
(nd/1.6217l
20
19
(16/22/6)
0.002 (nd/.005/4)
0.02
(nd/.06I7J
0.02
(nd/.04m
21
(461%/5)
66
0.004 Ind/.015/4)
0.08
(.03/.14/6)
(nd/.07/6)
0.02
32
(18/610/9)
216
0.029 (nd/.188/8)
(.64/2.52110)
1.72
(nd/.18/10)
0.03
33 II
(18/2212)
20
(nd/nd/2)
nd
(, 06/.1112)
0.08
(nd/.03/2)
0.02
33 5
(20/20/1)
20
nd
(nd/nd/Il
(, 08/. 08/1)
0.08
(nd/nd/Il
nd
34
17
(14/20/2>
(nd/nd/2)
nd
(,11/.29/2)
0.20
nd
(nd/nd/2)
35
(14/24/3)
19
(nd/nd/31
nd
(nd/.SI/3)
0.18
(nd/.17/3)
0.08
36
(94/120/4)
108
(nd/nd/4)
nd
0.61
(.42/.98/4)
(nd/.26/4)
0.07
37
(24/26/2)
25
(nd/nd/2)
nd
(nd/.02/2)
0.01
(nd/nd/2)
nd
39
103
(100/106/3)
(nd/nd/3)
nd
(,01/.05/3)
0.03
3.57
(3.40/3.82/3)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------.
lIoh: L = lo~est vdue, H = highest vdue, , = nUlber of salples
-_
--
-_
53
Tablr 8. SUllary of Iran valurs for chlorldr, sodiuI, and poti5siul In ground
vatrr frol Schlrrdlr Rrsrrvr.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------SITE
CL·
UH/.
Na+
UH/I
K+
UH/I
----------------------------- Ig/l -----------------------------------------­
---- -------- -- _............. ---- ... -_ ..... ----- -- -_ ....... -- ... - ................... ---_ .. --- ----_ ........ --- -_
1N
I S
2
3
4
5N
5S
6E
6W
7
8
9
10 E
10 W
.............
--_ .......
(1I69m
(3.2/8.9/3)
6.0
(2.0/2.7/3)
2.2
(26137/2)
(6.0/9.0/3)
8.0
4.0
(2.017.4/3)
(27153/9)
(9.0/15.0/4)
13.0
ind/1.8/4)
0.6
(1/35/9)
(14.0115.7/5)
15.1
(. 4/2. 4/5)
1.0
(nd/35/9)
(2.3/4.0/4)
3.0
0.4
(nd/l. 3/4)
(1/27/9)
(4.018.6/4)
5.2
(.4/1.9/4)
0.9
(4/67/5)
(3.4/30.0/2)
16.7
(,5/1.0/2)
0.9
(79/250/10) 74.2
(70.0/77.0/5)
2.0
(I. 0/4. 7/5)
(49/357/10) 69.3
(40.01152.0/5)
(.6/3.01Sl
l.6
(l68/58l/6) 116.3
(94.0/l49.0/3)
1.8
(I. 0/3. 213)
(1601206/2) 39.2
(38.0/40.3/2)
3.4
(3.213.5/2)
(7/14/7)
II
(5.4/5.8/2)
5.6
0.7
C. 4/1. 0/2)
(23144/9)
31
14.4
(II. 8/15. 6/4)
1.3
(.7/2.714)
(18/57/8)
37
(7,3117.6/3)
11.2
4.2
(1.9/8.2/3)
(18/53/7)
11
27
10.4
(10.4/10.4/2)
0.1
Cnd/.1I2)
12 N
(511218)
7
(4.0/6.6/3)
5.0
(,6/1.0/3)
0.7
12 S
(111718)
12
(3.713.9/3)
3.8
0.4
(nd/.6/3)
13
(213/6)
2
2.8
(2.8/2.9/2)
nd
(nd/nd/2)
15
(nd/2/6)
1
2.4
(2.4/2.4/2)
0.2
ind/.3/2)
16
543
(2851917/10) 99.1
(24.0/250.0/5)
(2.5/10.7/5)
5.2
(5/16/7)
17 E
9
(3.0/3.112)
3.1
0.2
(nd/.4/2)
17 W
(nd/5/7)
(.8/1.412)
2
1.1
0.2
(nd/.4/2)
18 N
(1112/7)
3.6
(2.9/4.2/2)
6
(.5/1.0/2)
0.8
18 S
(5/19/7)
10
(3.8/5.3/2)
4.6
(.811. 012)
0.9
19 E
( 13/23/7)
18
9.0
(8.9/9.012l
0.6
(nd/1.112)
(3115/7)
19 W
10
(18.1123.0/2)
20.6
(nd/.2/2)
0.1
(4/ 15/7)
20
8
4.6
(3.8/5.3/2)
(nd/.312)
0.2
(11316)
21
2
2.0
(I. 8/2. 2/3)
(nd/.5/3)
0.2
32
2054
(81/5000/9) 655.2
(132.011190.0/5 ) 14.7
(5.0137.115)
33 N
(2/312l
2
(3.8/12.3/2)
8.1
0.9
(.8/1.0/2)
(212/1)
33 S
(3.7/3.711)
2
3.7
U/.7/1)
0.7
(11312)
34
(3.5/4.7/2)
4.1
1.0
(.211.8/2)
(819/2)
35
9
5.4
(5.0/6.113)
(.612.2/3)
1.1
(25/4814)
36
34
(13.5114.9/4)
14.1
5.1
(3.0110.7/4)
37
(13117/2)
15
(6.0/6.2/2)
6.1
(.6/.6/2)
0.6
39
(3213413)
33
9.7
(9.2/10.0/3)
0.9
(nd/l. 4/3)
----------------------_ ... ------------------------------------------------------Motr: L = !ovrst valur, H = highrst valur, • = nUlber of salples
33
32
35
28
8
7
17
167
114
369
183
54
.........
......
",
LEGEND
\
,
o
~
\
Oil
/
/' "0',, \
",I'
.....
UI
UI
..... ,
'" .
x
,
I
~
SURFACE ELEVATION
I
NOff: DASHED CON fOURS INDICATE
,A.PPROXIMAJE ElEVAflONS.
l}'
I
STREET
• BUILDING
• POND
• GROUND WATER WELL
STREAM
CONTOUR INTERVAL 5 fEET
+813
~OOI"1
\J
'32.4""",. t
"' ' - - I I I
37/11
•
31/14
°
.213
9
,0
c
,
•
34/14
..........
_--"
(
(J_­
I
o
""71'
I
•
.17/17
o
I
/
o
o
2 4
o III
~ 11
lK
o
~c1
1-
o
.-r-::.
20~4i655
><:
/
(j7 4,1
1.l..4/69
•
17
\
.543/99
\
/
0/
"l
27/1~
/
•
1/2 ,-'_ - "
~
1
.2/2/
7/5
12/4
N
I
J
/
C\1IOf\i\
~
Universily
lole
10/21
18/9
6/4
10/5
I
~
I I
CJ
SCALE
J:
2/1
~.:....n
_
Figurel1. Mean chloride and sodium concentrations at ground water wells
in Schmeeckle Reserve (mg/l).
FIGURE BY P. SZEWCZYKOWSKI
-
SENTRY
INSURANCE
A-G
U1
IC')
t7
C
J.:.
.4
.35
0
I .lr
0
• 2
0
o
c
•
I
. I
.39
37
•
"" •
m •
V •
~
.9
1=
LEGEND
SURFACE WATER SAMPI.F. S1ff:··
GROmm WATER WEI. I.
nlJJI,I>T NG
\'1f.TJ.AND
POHO
STREAM
MOSS SAMPLE SITE
VEGETATION SAMPLE SITE
(WOODY)
I
,1.:.k
J.::
I
.11
~
J:.
.SN
55
~
B06E6W
34'
m
~Vm ~
G1S
-32 ....
•
~
IGo
122 m
15.
20 •.
1
Vm
.21
Ul1lvorally Lake
.:.k
E
Vm
.... 16
r:j
- uwsp
400 ttl
acal.
13.
3
o
..
Cl
..J.,.. •
.8
D
c
~
~
~
MAIl'll.
BlDG.
Figure
4.
Study area map.
"",.. .. RE
,"v
n
S7"u'~zYr"''''''SKI
57
and 655 mg/l respectively.
These values represent a
nificant degree of contamination.
sig­
Background mean chlorlde
and sodium concentrations in the Reserve ground water
around
mg/l and 2-5 mg/l respectively.
1-8
Other wells in
the
ground water flow path from the storm sewer
6W)
also
had significantly elevated sodium
concentrations.
not
(16,
and
6E,
chloride
Wells located around University Lake were
significantly elevated in salt concentration.
fore,
were
There­
it appears ground water contaminat10n from the storm
sewer discharge does not 1mpact the lake but rather 1S car­
ried out of the Reserve before reaching the lake,
as
pre­
dicted by the ground water contours.
As
ground water moves in a southeast direct1on,
concentrat10ns
tamination
(369
at wells
mg/l Cl-,
runoff.
become diluted in the Reserve.
8
(183
mg/l Cl-,
Salt
39 mg/l Na+)
116 mg/l Na+) are attr1butable to
The direction of ground water
impact University Lake.
the
suggests
poten­
sodium
chloride concentrations in wells surrounding the lake
not highly elevated.
near
but
located there do not reflect
contamination.
and
were
Similari1y, contamination originating
well 8 could impact areas directly to
wells
7
roadway
movement
However,
con­
and
that salt contam1nation originating near well 7 can
tially
salt
the
southeast
substantial
salt
These data suggest that salt concentratlons
become diluted in the aquifer by ground water recharge
oc­
curring in the Reserve and/or by moving to greater depths
58
in the aquifer.
ing
to
aquifer
In addition, ground water may be discharg­
the surface (upwelling) before recharging
thus reducing salt contamination in
the
to
the
aquifer.
Several more nested wells would need to be installed in or­
der
to assess the vertical hydraulic gradients
relation
and
their
to contamiant transport in areas downgradient
of
wells 7 and 8.
Figure 12 displays how the highest chloride concentra­
tions are present in wells nearest to the storm sewer
charge and roadway intersections.
carried
dlS­
The chloride plumes
are
within the aquifer and concentrations diminish
as
the ground water moves in a southeast flow direction.
Chloride
sonal changes.
winter
concentration fluctuations follow
13).
control.
warmer
Chloride concentrations in well 32 re­
flect those in concentrated storm water runoff.
directly
sea­
Concentrations are highest during the peak
road salting months and decrease during the
months (Fig.
not
the
Well 4 is
impacted by roadway runoff and serves
as
a
2054 mg/I
UI
co
.
~
Figure 12. Three dimensional representation of mean chloride
concentrations in the ground water of Schmeeckle
Reserve (mg/l).
FIGURE BY P. SZEWCZYKOWSKI
60
~,()U()
5000
4500
'JUU
4000
3571
.3~)00
-
.3000
f--
2500
f---
g
2000
-
u
1500 - - - - - - -
-
~
(1'
E
E
Ol
~u
.;:
.r:
.. ,
--
1--
f-
500 - - - - 2 Hl .~5
0 ~ln1
"--
--
20
14
March
April
lono
Feb.
Nov.
- 1 ~ 111\
,-­
--Z7T-~
--'-J I1Jl,2
July
1\1 JI il
,Jllll.
Mon lhs Duri ny 1g85 -1 ge I
•
Well #4
[ ] Well #32
--_._----------------~---~-----~~-
Figure 13. Chloride concentration fluctuations in con­
taminated well 32 and control well 4 in Schmeeckle Reser\·e.
Storm
water
contamination may also
concentratlons ln ground water.
affect
hardness
Total and calclum hardness
concentrations were elevated in many of the same monitoring
wells
which
were most impacted by road
The total hardness concentrations,
calcium and magnesium,
salt
(Fig.
which are a measure
of
appear to be primarily a reflection
of calcium concentrations in the Reserve aquifer.
wells,
14 ) •
At many
the mean calcium hardness accounts for the majority
of the mean total hardness values.
Therefore, the question
is whether or not the calcium concentrations are
occurring
or
if they represent a contaminant
storm water runoff.
The
naturally
related
to
coefficlent of linear correlation
(r) between Cl- and Ca++ concentrations in elght wells im­
-- " , ,
LEGEND
\
,
STREET
BUILDING
G? • POND
. . • GROUND WATER WELL
"'"' ~ STREAM
x ~ SURFACE ELEVATION
o "
I
-0
/' ,'0.. . ,
/"
./
/'-..
\
,
\
I
",,-<,,---
31~/183 - . 3 5 / 2 5
-----
a»
....
•
L}'
'
.......
'O~'
~
Y
\oq~
- -1\1
..
CONTOUR INTERVAL 5 fEET
I
1~10
39/2
32/20
o
.......
•
34/24
• 45/26
I
I
/
n
171/108
........
_-_/'
o
~
~«
o
I. 2
o
Figure
4l1I
Pulle'
•
i.10
~OOI"1
I
U2.4""""
SCAlf
19/12.
1
N
58/30
98/62
Univer,ily
lake
287.216
~
•
~'"
Cl
0_­
NOlf: DASHfD CONrouRS INDICAIE
APPROXIMAIf flfVAIIONS.
/10
ca
50/45
53/29
111/65
48/2 7
d'O/"
<
,I
C
,24/17
81/4~
14.
Mean total hardness and calcium hardness concentrations at ground
water wells in Schmeeckle Reserve (mg/l).
FIGURE BY P. SZEWCZYKOWSKI
62
pacted by road salt (32, 16, 6E, 6W, 5N,
0.70.
ter
34,
3 and 4) was
This suggests that Ca++ concentrations in ground wa­
are likely related to storm water contamination.
evated calcium concentrations in ground water could
El­
result
due to the replacement of Ca++ ions in the soil by Na+ ions
from runoff.
This process would free Ca++ ions into solu­
tion and therefore concentrations in ground water would in­
crease.
Na+
15).
No strong linear relationship is evident
and Ca++ concentrations in ground water (r=O.60,
Fig.
These data suggest that elevated Ca++ concentratlons
in ground water are likely related to runoff.
much
between
However, how
of the Ca++ is directly from the runoff and how
much
is a result of Na+ substitution in the soil is not clear.
Calcium hardness concentrations in storm sewer runoff,
during a light snowfall runoff event, were 2.5 times higher
than
concentrations at control stream C (Table 9).
elevated calcium concentrations in runoff may be
These
orlginat­
ing from the weathering of road surface concrete.
Other Indicators of Urban Impacts on Schmeeckle Reserve
Sediments
contents
that
ground levels.
this
and
throughout the Reserve had elevated
can be considered contaminated
What is not clear however,
contamination is attributable to storm
over
sources.
water
In an effort to evaluate
atmospheric metals impacts
back­
is how much of
how much is attributable to other sources,
atmospheric
metals
runoff
especially
potential
on the Reserve, mosses,
WhlCh
63
.300
99.1 0,
.~62 .00
270
240
.
655.~O,
(f)
(f)
ili
210
c
180
0
150
~
I
+
+
216.00
120
0
u
90
15.10,
.
60
.30
0
•
7~.00
74.~O,
~.~O, ~~~Z6)0.
6~.00
)0.00
.00, 1 .00
4.10, 17.00
0
150
75
225
300
375
No+
Co++ & No+
450
In
525
600
675
750
mg/I
Figure 15.
Mean sodlum vs. mean calclum hardness concen­
trations at wells 32,
16, 6E, 6W, 5N, 34, 3, and 4 ln
Schmeeckle Reserve.
Table 9.
Inorganic chemistry of surface water samples col­
lected March 14, 1987 during a low volume snowmelt runoff
event.
------------------------------------------------------ ----SITE
pH
Cond. A1 k . Total
Ca++ Cl­
Na+ 1<+
Hard.
Hard.
--------------- mg/l------------­
Culvert A
Stream C
are
6.68
6.69
2030
543
42
28
84
38
60
24
an index of atmospheric loadings,
metals composition.
667
153
were
380
84
analyzed
27
1
for
Due to the uncertainty of such factors
as age of each moss plant sampled,
susceptibility of
each
moss plant to atmospheric contaminants, and accumulatlon of
metals from growth
substrates, these
results
should
be
64
viewed only as indicators of atmospheric conditions
rather
than quantitative measures.
Concentrations of Pb,
Zn and Cu in moss samples
col­
lected from within the Reserve were all higher than in moss
collected
eight
from Jordan Park,
a control site located
miles northeast of the Reserve (Table
about
Jordan
10).
Park was chosen as a control site due to its relative
iso­
lation
com­
from
smokestacks and heavy urban trafflc
parison to the Reserve.
in
Iron concentrations were also much
higher in the Reserve moss samples excepting for moss
lected near well 15,
col­
a Reserve sampling site which is far­
ther removed from urban impacts than other sites (Fig. 16).
Table 10. Heavy metals in moss samples collected in June
of 1987 from Schmeeckle Reserve and Jordan Park.
SITE
Zn
Cu
Fe
Pb
------------ mg/kg dry weight--------------­
15
16
32
North Pt.
Pond B
Jordan Park
21 .48
44.56
49.69
140.90
27.74
16.86
Lead
199.86
747.72
191.16
153.36
269.21
57.58
31 .52
21 .63
43.81
25.10
16.52
11 .58
concentrations in moss samples from the
ranged from 21.48 to 140.90 mg/kg.
the
Reserve
These values were
tween 1.3 to 8.4 times higher than the control.
centrations
600.64
, 6 , 271 .00
1,869.14
5,546.22
1,279.63
1,117.94
were highest in samples collected
urbanized margins of the Reserve.
be­
Lead con­
nearest
Moss sampled
to
from
more isolated and forested areas in the Reserve were lower
-....
.......
LEGEND
",,
,
I
'"
;'
/"'0'"\
\
,,/
",
I
I
,,~
en
CII
=>'
" £D
--Ill
•
•
STREET
• BUILDING
a
POND
GROUND WATER WELL
STREAM
'"+x'""'
SURFACE ELEVATION
SAMPLING LOCATION
NOTE: DASHED CONJOURS INDICATE
APPROXIMATE ElEVAflONS.
CONTOUR INTERVAL 5 fEET
•
o
.... .1J.-..­
f
500',,,
t
\oq~
•
o
•
..
~
n;inerator:
~"
o
~Q
'"
.
46.69
191.16
43.81
1869
d
UWSP Power Plant
o
figure 16.
27.74
269.21
16.52
1280
21.4t
('
i
199.86
31".52
601
•
1S2.'me"f.
SCAlE
1
•
t
/.v
N
/
.0 •
,"b ~Oullel
0
.~~/
Cl
o
o
~
X1113.0
.... -..._--",.., ."
Jordan Park
(8 miles NE of Schmeecklcl
•
16.86
57.58
11.58
1118
I
0
44.56
747.72
21.63
16271
I
\
\
I
I
/
university
loke
~
•
Pb, Zn, Cu, and fe concentrations in moss samples collected in
June of 1987 from Schmeeckle Reserve and Jordan Park (mg/kg dry wt. I.
FIGURE BY P. SZEWCZYKOWSKI
66
in
Pb content.
This pattern of Pb accumulation
suggests
that the atmosphere is an important source of Pb to the Re­
serve.
Concentrations
samples
collected
though iron is
constituent,
lated
of
Fe
in moss were
also
near the margins of the
an abundant
natural
higher
in
Reserve.
Al­
geological and
soil
the majority of metals are reportedly accumu­
extracellularly by mosses.
This suggests that
lron
is deposited from the atmosphere onto the Reserve.
Copper
times
moss
higher
Overall,
in
concentrations were between 1.4
the Reserve than at
concentrations
were less
sites than for other metals.
the
control
variable
Therefore,
to
2.8
site.
between
all
even if Cu is an
atmospheric contaminant, it appears to be less of a problem
than other metals.
Zinc
concentrations ln the Reserve were
and 13.0 times greater than the control.
tions
were
margin
Zinc
highest in mosses sampled from
the
of the Reserve followed by moss sampled
north of the lake.
and
between
lake
sediments
2.7
concentra­
southwest
from
just
A similar pattern was evident in
pond
(Fig. 10).
Zinc
concentrations
sediments were elevated in the southwest region of the
serve but were highest in the lake.
in
Re­
The lake sediments had
a Zn concentration 26 times (306 mg/kg) higher than ln the
67
control pond F.
viously,
The lake contamination,
as mentioned pre­
is potentially attributable to the lake construc­
tion activities.
counted,
the
samples
However,
pattern
of Zn
is still evident.
even if the lake data is
contamination
in
dis­
the
moss
These data suggest that Zn
is
deposited from the atmosphere onto the Reserve.
The University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point power
disperses
Also,
the
emlssions out over and adjacent to the
Reserve.
an incineration smokestack disperses emissions
burning of wastes from IGA over the
Reserve.
along with automobiles and household furnaces,
tlal
plant
arc
sources of alrborne metals in the Reserve
from
These,
poten­
(Flg.
16)
since the prevailing wlnd directions are from the west
and
northwest
The
in
winter and from the south
heating plant burns coal and fuel oil.
in
summer.
Lead concentrations
ln coal are between 1 and 85 mg/kg and combustion of fOSSll
fuels
is one of the main sources of Pb to the
atmosphere.
Zinc 1S present in motor oils and automobl1e tlres and coal
contains
primary
4 to 60 mg/kg.
anthropogenic
Air emissions are considered
sources of Zn to
the
environment.
Copper can be contributed to the atmosphere by fossil
and waste incineration.
the
fuel
Copper emissions from coal burning
were reported as 0.002 to 0.015 kg-Cu/tonne (Environ. Can.,
1980).
Iron
15
also potentially emitted from coal burnlng.
Metals concentrations in European Buckthorn were quan­
tified for comparison with metals concentrations in
moss
68
(Append.
I, Table 16) and data are summarized in Table 11.
Correlations between the two species were calculated in or­
der to detect relationships, however,
larger sample
sizes
would be needed to demonstrate more sound statistical rela­
tionships.
Similar
nearest
17).
to mosses,
Buckthorn samples collected
to roadways had higher concentrations of Pb
(Fig.
The Pb accumulation in Buckthorn may be a result
extracellular
Samples
depositlons
from
automobile
this technique was not evaluated.
and
of
emissions.
were washed for five minutes with distilled
to remove extracellular metals, however,
moss
from
water
the efficlency of
Lead concentrations
Buckthorn from similar sampling
sites
did
in
not
appear linearly related (r=O.40, Fig. 18a),
therefore both
species may reflect different lead sources.
The high lev­
els of Pb found in the moss in the Reserve are most
a result of atmospheric deposition.
most
deposition
does
be
The Pb in Buckthorn is
likely a reflection of soil concentrations
vascular
roots.
This evidence suggests that
of Pb is significant,
likely
however,
near
atmospheric
the Pb
either
not become efficiently incorporated into the soil
available to plant roots or Buckthorn
avoid or limit its Pb uptake.
can
ltS
to
selectlvely
69
Table 11. Summary of mean lead, Zlnc, iron, and copper in
the woody species European Buckthorn from Schmeeckle
Reserve.
SITE
Mean
Mean
Mean
Mean
Pb
Zn
Fe
Cu
----------- mg/kg dry weight----------­
15
32
16
North Pt. Dr.
Zinc
O. 11
0.75
0.62
0.59
28.81
29.82
31 .41
26.17
3.50
3.86
7.38
3.00
29.92
56. 18
179.00
30.11
and iron concentrations between the two
speCles
were more hlghly correlated (r=0.76, Fig. 18b; r=O.93. Flg.
18c) .
These data suggest that either both species reflect
atmospherlC
or
Zn and Fe via uptake through different
moss uptakes these metals sUbstantlally from
strate.
Glven the premlse that mosses
the
accumulate
predominantly through particulate entrapment,
routes
sub­
metals
then I
con­
clude
that both species reflect atmospherlc deposltlon
zinc
and
iron
on
the
Reserve
via
dlfferent
mechanisms (partlculate entrapment vs. root uptake).
lmplies
that Zn and Fe fallout from the
atmosphere
of
uptake
ThlS
effl­
ciently becomes incorporated into the soil and is available
for root uptake.
No
strong linear relationship existed between
Cu
ln
Buckthorn and moss from similar sampling sites (r=O.46) and
concentrations do not clearly indicate the sources of Cu.
-... " ,
"
LEGEND
\
o
\
I
~
otl
,,/
,/
,,'
"
/"'0',
'"
\\
x
+
\
I
'-c"--....
1
<
•
Qi' •
STREET
BUILDING
a
POND
• GROUND WATER WELL
a
STREAM
.. SURFACE ELEVATION
= SA MPLI NG WCA TI ON
a
.~-'-I-----------
NOTE: DASHED CONTOURS INDICATE
"PPROXIMAIE ElEVAIIONS.
x1113.0
....,
o
/
".... - -1]
III
CONTOUR INTERVAL S FEET
o
_..D--'"
•
~~/~
C]
o
......
•
------.""
•
0_­
I
I
I
o.
o
li.
o
~
,­
~C)
o
"
.~utlel
0.75 •
29.82
3.86
56.18
Figure 1~
Cl
I)
f
"l
~
•
I
'00''''
1S2.4",..."
I
SCALE
-0.11~.
.28.81
3.50
29.92
~
/'"
t
N
/
/
10
(
\
~0.62
31. 41
7.38
179.00
\
University
lake
C3
/
I
/
Mean Pb, Zn, Cu, and Fe concentrations in European Ouckthorll in
Schmeeckle Heserve (mg/kg dry weighl).
FIGURE BY P. SZEWCZYKOWSKI
7 1
Flgure 1Sa. Mean lead concentrations in European Buckthorn
vs. mean lead concentratlons in moss from similar sampllng
locations in Schmeeckle Reserve.
-l
35
34
I
33
32
2
74772,31 4 2
o
er::
31
I­
30
19116,2982
29
199.86,28.81
0
I
:.:
u
::>
m
o
o
28
27
153,36,26.17
o
26
25
0
150
300
450
600
750
900
MOSS
-
2inc in mg/kg
Figure 1Sb. Mean zinc concentrations in European Buckthorn
vs. mean zinc concentrations in moss from simllar sampling
locations in Schmeeckle Reserve.
72
220
200
16,179
180
0
160
z
0::
0
J:
140
.....
120
:::>
100
::.::
u
CD
80
2,56.18
60
40
0
, '2992
6,30.11
0
0
20
-2
0
2
6
4
8
10
12
14
16
18
in thousands
MOSS
-
Iron in mg/kg
Figure 18c. Mean iron concentrations in European Buckthorn
vs. mean iron concentrations in moss from similar sampllng
locations in Schmeeckle Reserve.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Storm
water runoff from urban
development
bordering
the Reserve does impact the ground water quality of the Re­
serve.
Perhaps the most evident impact is that from
salt
contamination.
chloride
higher
Contaminated ground water
concentrations
than
background
of up to 456
had
road
mean
times
(2054
mg/ 1 )
and
eight
tlmes
concentrations
higher than the Wisconsln ground water enforcement standard
~f
mg/l.
250
Mean sodium concentrations were up
times
(655
These
data are alarmlng and are cause for
elevated
mg/l) higher than
chloride
and
background
sodlum
illness,
187
concentratlons.
concern.
concentratl0ns
documented to cause plant stress,
to
are
Both
well
and mortallty.
Contlnued salt contamination of the ground water in the Re­
serve may have serious
chroni~
deleterious implications for
the natural floral communities present.
Continued monltor­
ing of chloride and sodium contamination of ground water
In
the
on
Reserve and further research into the salt impacts
vegetation is recommended.
Volatile
tribute to
petroleum components of runoff do
ground
water contamination in
73
the
not
con­
Reserve.
74
These
volatile
biodegraded,
compounds (BTX)
are
either
or photodegraded before they
into the ground water.
In this study,
can
infiltrate
volatile components
in storm water runoff were not quantified.
of
volatilized,
Quantification
petroleum components in runoff during all stages
runoff
event is recommended in order to provide a
understanding
of
the processes which are
of
a
clearer
limiting
to
a
ground water impact.
Benzene
contamination of well 16 may be
attr1butable
to the University's underground gasoline storage tank or
localized gas spill.
Since the contamination concentration
remained fairly consistent over the months sampled,
possible that the storage tank ;s leaking.
centration
h1gfler
of
it
The mean
benzene in the ground water was
ten
t1mes
;s
and the ground water adjacent to the tank
benzene
a
consumption.
storage tank should be more intensively monitored
leaking
is
con­
than the Wiscons1n ground water standard and
potential health hazard if utilized for human
The
a
be
quantified more thoroughly for
If
conclusive evidence displays that the tank is
for
should
contamination.
leaking,
then the tank should be removed.
The source of toluene contamination 1n well 36 is
evident.
may
not
Decreasing concentrations over the months sampled
suggest that the well was
upon installation.
Continued
1nadvertently
monitoring of
contaminated
this well
1S
75
suggested to determine if the contamination is
persistent.
If so, more comprehensive well installations and monitoring
would
be necessary to assess the extent and source of
the
contamination.
Other storm water research (EPA,
that
1983) has
indicated
the organic compound bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate is
a
highly prevalent pollutant ln runoff WhlCh may be very per­
sistent in the environment.
Analyses of both storm
water
runoff and ground water in the Reserve for this and related
compounds
lS recommended in order to assess all
potential
chemical threats to the resource.
There
were no clear lmpacts on ground
from metals assoclated with storm water.
water
quality
Storm water does
ccntrlbute signlficant amounts of metals to the Reserve but
these metals appear to be efficiently adsorbed and bound lrl
the sedlments and surface soils.
the
soils and sediments can hold before they are
lnto
the ground water lS not known and needs
search.
storm
metals
released
further
More extensive quantification of total metals
water during all stages of runoff events
mended.
ity
How much of these
in
recom­
These data along with soil cation exchange capac­
determlnations are necessary in order to
prevent
is
re­
the
potential
for metals
predict
contamination
of
and
the
ground water.
The atmosphere appears to be an important
source
of
76
lead and zinc contamination to the Reserve.
Lead
concen­
trations in moss in the Reserve ranged from 21.48 to 140.90
mg/kg.
These
lead values were up to eight
than the control.
samples
collected near roadways and in sediments
elevated
sediments.
the
However,
impacted
lead concentrations
above background levels in
were
Universlty
Lake
These data suggest that lead contaminatlon
Reserve
sions.
higher
Lead concentrations were highest in moss
by storm water runoff.
not
times
is most attributable to motor
vehlcle
ln
emls­
If smokestacks had been important sources of lead,
concentrations ln moss and sediments throughout the Reserve
would
likely
stack
emissions would be carried over larger areas due
the
stack
be more uniform since
h€ight.
contaminants
Also, smokestack emltted
ln
lead
the
would
liKely be reflected by elevated concentrations in the
sediments.
to
The lake which has a large surface area,
lake
func­
tions as a trap for airborne contaminants which are carrled
long distances.
Elevated lead concentrations in sedlments
impacted from storm water,
from
are likely due to lead
fallout
vehicle exhaust being washed off roadway surfaces
by
runoff.
Zinc concentrations in vegetation and sediments in the
Reserve
tion.
appear to be attributable to
atmospheric
deposl­
Concentrations in moss ranged from 153.36 to 747.72
mg/kg and were up to 13 times higher than the control.
The
concentration in a University Lake sediment sample was
25
77
times (306 mg/kg) higher than in a control pond in the
serve.
Re­
Due to the uniform elevated concentrations in moss
throughout the Reserve and an elevated concentration in the
lake,
zinc contamination appears to originate from
stack
emissions.
sediment
The
pattern
of
values
in
smoke­
moss
mimics that of the wind movement from the
and
incin­
erator and power plant stacks since the prevailing wind di­
rection
is from the west and northwest in winter and
the south in summer.
from
Zinc values in moss and sediments are
hlghest in areas directly east and north of the stacks
values decrease moving to the northeast.
in the northwest region of the Reserve.
and
Values are lowest
Elevated Zlnc con­
centrations in the storm sewer outlet and in ponds Band
suggest
that storm water runoff also contributes
zinc
D
to
the Reserve.
The pattern of iron values in vegetation and sediments
in the Reserve suggests that iron may be contributed to the
Reserve from the atmosphere and highway runoff.
tions
were
highest in sediments impacted by
Concentra­
storm
water
runoff and are potentially related to automobile deteriora­
tion.
The relationship of iron accumulation in
moss
and
Buckthorn suggests a common atmospheric source, although no
one
definitive source is obvious based on
the
prevaillng
wind direction.
More
extensive analysis
of moss and
soils on
a
78
transect basis is necessary in order to clearly define
the
specific sources of atmospheric lead, iron and zinc to
the
Reserve.
In addition,
precipitation and smokestack emis­
sions analyses would also aid in defining atmospheric loads
of metals.
Re­
Lead accumulations in vegetation and soils in the
serve may be harmful to children and wildlife.
concentrations
lead
Wlth
in moss approaching 141 mg/kg and 45
mg!~g
in sediments, it is recommended to quantify lead concentra­
tions in surface soils and forage plant tissues
throughout
the
lead
con­
of
soil
Reserve.
tained
in
exceeding
children.
soil
Animals and children may ingest
and plant
tissues.
Ingestion
500 mg-Pb/kg can strongly increase
Greater than 150 mg-Pb/kg can
excessive
exposed
chl1dren.
levels in sensitive or highly
Research
indicates that blood-Pb levels in
= 0.1
In
cause
blood-Pb
not exceed 15 ug/dl (1 dl
blood-Pb
chl1dren
must
liter) to avoid deleterlous
effects (Chaney and Mielke, 1986).
The toxicity of Pb in animals is dependent on a
ety of factors including species, age,
rate
of lead ingestion,
vari­
reproductive state,
and the animal's overall
health.
Lead poisoning can lead to death and is preceded by impalr­
ment of the central nervous system,
and muscular system.
gastrointestlnal tract
Less severe symptoms include excite­
ment, depression, anorexia, colic, diarrhea, and bllndness
79
(NAS,
Lead levels
1972).
weight
are
5 and
regarded as toxic in most
transmitted
thinning.
of between
10 mg/kg body
species.
to the eggs of ducks and results
in
7
mg/kg
Horses
per day of lead
ingesting
chronic
lead
2.4
poisoning
caused
mg/kg per day
is
eggshell
Ducks dosed with 8 to 12 mg/kg body weight
day had an average survival of 25 to 28 days.
to
Lead
per
In cattle, 6
poisoning
symptoms.
from
died
resulted from
hay
the
and
ingestion
of
spring water containing 0.5 to 1.0 mg-Pb/1 and grasses con­
taining
5
to 20 mg/kg of Pb (dry basis)
(Environ.
Can.,
1980).
Zinc concentrations found in vegetation do not
appear
to present a health hazard to wi1d11fe or humans.
Zinc lS
an
consld­
essential element in the human diet and lS not
ered
tOX1C unless ln concentrations exceedlng around
mg/1 in drinking water.
been
Oral doses of 150 mg-Zn/day
admlnistered with no adverse effects (Environ.
1980).
Wildlife
Muskrats
also
1000
have a high
tolerance
have
Can.,
for
zinc.
living in an area where aquatic vegetatlon had
a
mean zinc concentration of 4887.9 mg-Zn/kg (dry weight) ac­
cumulated more zinc in their liver and bones,
suffer any detrimental effects.
lng
16.7
to 628 mg/kg caused no
In cattle,
observable
but did
not
diets contain­
effects.
A
value of 1000 mg-Zn/kg of diet is estimated as being poten­
tially harmful to anlma1s (Environ. Can., 1980).
Quantifl­
cation of zinc concentrations in various forage vegetatlon
80
species
throughout the Reserve is recommended in order
to
assess if a potential threat to wildlife exists.
The
high
concentration of zinc
in
University
sediment (306 ppm) may be cause for concern.
threat
potential
to aquatic life in the lake may exist if zinc
centrations in the water are also high.
rlon
A
Lake
to
con­
The federal crite­
protect freshwater aquatic life is 47
24-hour average for chronic exposure (EPA,
ppb
1986).
as
a
There­
fore, Quantification of zinc concentrations in the lake wa­
ter is recommended in order to assess if a potential threat
to aquatic life exists.
Although
iron concentrations in the Reserve
high in some areas,
in
appeared
iron is a universally abundant element
the environment and is not considered an
environmental
or health threat.
In summary, the most apparent urban impacts on the Re­
serve
are:
ground
salt
1) chloride and sodium
contamination
of
water throughout the Reserve attributable
to
in storm water runoff, 2) local benzene ground
contamination
potentially attributable to
an
the
road
water
underground
petroleum storage tank and 3) lead and zinc depositions
the Reserve attributable to atmospheric sources.
research
on
Continued
in these areas is recommended in order to
and protect the Quality of this nature conservancy.
assess
APPENDIX I
81
hili' I. SUIIlf, of gfOtl/ld Vlt'f ChHicd dill fOf th, supling dlt, lIo"IO'f 22, 1985 in SC~.lIckl' R'lIn,.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------CL~
Kt
lilt C.O.D.
COIID. (uilos) AU.
pH
TOTAl HARD. Cltt HARD. REACT. P litHII) 1Ill2tllll3
SITE
----.-••--••----.---••----.--•••-------.. ICJ II .-•••••••-••----••••••----••••--••- ••••••• _~
-------------------------_ _-------------­
....
\ II
I 5
..
I
10
24
IS
<'002
<'01
0.01
14
2.0
3.2
5.2&
5.1&
4.50
&.08
&.20
170
304
54
138
&
52
12
20
20
50
100
22
40
&0
30
&4
12
2&
4&
<'002
(.002
<'002
(.002
<'002
<'0\
<'01
<. 01
<'01
0.08
0.01
(.01
0.42
0.02
<'01
28
35
2
16
67
( I
1.0
( I
1.0
1.0
9.0
\4.0
4.0
8.6
30.0
&.18
&.32
119&
8
180
232
252
14&
140
(.002
<.002
0.25
0.02
0.03
<'0\
3S7
1&9
3.0
1.0
152.0
94.0
94
18
150
44
22
90
118
10
10
42
48
22
128
22
34
80
8
118
338
28
112
82
32
1&
108
7&
22
94
162
12
14
394
38
24
7&
28
30
86
1&
9&
192
(.002
<'002
0.004
<'002
0.015
<'002
<.002
(.002
0.002
<.002
(.002
<.002
<.002
<.002
<.002
(,002
<.002
<.002
<'01
0.04
0.04
0.03
<'01
0.04
<. 01
<. 01
I. 24
<.01
0.03
0.48
0.04
0.01
<.01
<'01
0.04
1.08
1.55
(.0\
UO
0.08
0.1&
<.01
0.03
0.02
0.22
<.01
1.24
0.01
0.01
0.02
1.&2
<.01
<.01
0.04
25
2&
23
12
II
2
2
858
&
5
&
5
18
&
7
2
81
1.0
1.0
2.5
( I
1.0
<I
<I
<I
&.0
<I
<:
1.0
1.0
<I
<I
<I
<I
5.0
5.4
11.8
7.2
10.4
6.&
3.9
2.8
2.4
250.0
3.0
1.4
4.2
3.8
9.0
23.0
3.8
2.2
132.0
m
II
m
II
&.25
&.42
6.32
5.68
7.42
7.01
5.91
5.4&
&.08
6.&1
&.90
&.29
5.88
5.91
&.14
&.03
7.51
7.14
II
12 II
12 5
13
15
1&
17 E
17 W
18 N
18 5
ICJE
19 W
20
21
32
3311
335
34
3S
3&
37
3'
82
II
~
3
4
5 II
55
&E
6W
7
8
9
10 E
10 W
5.18
m
224
153
2&0
385
45
48
2720
151
70
291
125
157
288
n
253
842
m
19&
20
24
614
"
32
m
44
52
90
28
12&
212
II
II
II
II
It
II
tt
PIUllt'f not lulyud
Supln vln not colltctld this IOnth
II
82
,
h~I':.
Su..." 01 ,round
v~l,r ch"IC~1 d~l~
for the UI,II"'
d~t, r,~ru."
~, 198~
In xhll"kl, Reserv,.
----_._.----------------- ... ----- ... ---- ... -----------------------------------------------------------------------------­
pH
COIID. (lIIIIol) AU.
ClKt
Mit
TOTAL lIARD. CI" HARD. REACT. P IlH4-(1l1 II02tlO3
C.D.J.
SITE
----­
I II
6.10
I 5
2
J
4
5
5
6
6
7
8
200
8
56
28
t
----­
0.04
0.02
50
t
t
171
303
54
104
'4
583
409
5
10
58
24
14
42
6
44
18
1\8
44
36
100
40
38
10
&Ii
22
22
52
20
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
0.02
<. 01
<'01
<. 01
<'01
0.28
0.01
0.06
0.:4
0.02
<. 01
0.:7
0.01
<.01
28
I
35
3
4
130
105
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
14
1\2
50
18
58
140
8
10
256
48
12
112
32
28
52
20
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
0.08
0.04
0.J8
0.04
0.12
0.08
0.04
0.03
1.15
0.02
0.02
0.42
0.06
0.07
0.03
0.06
3.10
<.01
0.1\
<. 01
<.01
<.01
0.04
0.04
<.01
<.01
0.30
<.01
0.14
<'01
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
O. "
0.02
8
34
57
18
5
13
3
2
740
\I
2
7
5
16
6
6
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
610
4.00
<.01
4300
It
5.30
6.60
6.70
6.40
7.10
6.50
6.30
II
5
E
II
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
It
,
It
10 E
10 II
1\
12 II
12 5
13
15
16
17£
1711
18
18
19
19
20
21
32
II
5
E
II
6.1'
6.80
6.41
5. '3
7.40
7.07
6.07
5.68
6.20
6.80
6.80
6.30
6.10
6.10
5. 'I
5.85
304
167
220
444
56
47
2460
183
56
304
123
161
23
87
204
6
4
108
52
8
130
46
38
38
10
22
178
1\4
38
104
232
14
12
540
90
24
144
60
60
60
24
6.~0
12200
86
904
'2
m
4
148
38
22
DB
t
t
t
t
It
33"
It
33 S
34
It
It
~
tt
36
37
39
It
t
------------------------------- 19/1 ----------------------------­
H
It
PlUMt,r not in.lyz.tI
Supl" lItf. not coll.dld thil IOlIth
It
83
•
t
t
t
hbl. 3. Suauy of ground v.ttr ch••ICi! d.h for th. ulllling d.te "mh, 11 1986 in Scllileckh i.Sfrve.
--_._---._---------------------._.--------------------.. _--------_ ....--.---------_..-----------_ ....-----.- ...--­
SITE
pH
--IN
1S
2
3
4
B
B
6E
6Y
7
8
'1
to E
10 \I
1~
16
17 E
17 II
18N
18 S
1'JE
1'1 II
20
21
32
.
.
..
..
If
34
35
36
37
3'1
If
t
TOTM. HMO. C.++ HMO.
IlEACT. P
1lH4-01l
1112+1103
Cl-
(+
••+ C.O. n•
---------------------------------------- 19/ 1 -----------------------------------­
6.30
242
6.30
7.80
7.40
6.80
------------------------------------------.
-------­
6
72
44
<'002
<.02
<.2
161
3S6
121
101
4
122
8
20
46
160
20
34
28
76
10
18
<.002
<.002
<'002
0.008
<'02
0.02
<.02
0.04
<.2
<'2
0.2
<.2
6.30
4.20
m
44
<2
90
'16
~8
<'002
<.002
0.26
<'02
4.80
6.60
7.20
6.00
7.40
7.30
107
3'15
338
2
158
44
22
28
182
114
46
94
230
16
122
58
24
"
146
<'002
<'002
<'002
<.002
<.002
<.002
30
26
10
2'12
72
10
60
26
30
28
22
338
242
416
18
"
31
31
20
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
I
I
<'2
<'2
126
10'
I
I
I
I
I
I
<'02
0.04
2.80
<'02
0.04
0.04
2.B
<'2
<.2
<.2
<'2
<.2
14
2'1
t
~4
I
I
21
t
I
t
~
t
t
I
11
t
I
I
<.002
<'002
<'002
<.002
<.002
<.002
<'002
<.002
<.002
<'02
0.58
<'02
<'02
0.52
0.08
<'02
<'02
<'02
<'2
<.2
<.2
<.2
<.2
<.2
<.2
<.2
<.2
1
494
12
<1
4
14
14
13
6
t
t
t
I
(,002
2.52
<'2
3571
It
33M
33S
tt
AU.
II
11
12M
12 S
13
ClIlID. (lIIIlos)
17~
207
418
"
4~
8
82
6.20
6.20
7.20
7.10
6.80
6.40
6.40
6.60
6.70
2140
1'4
38
253
131
14'
132
87
7.30
122'10
204
"
6
116
20
32
22
12
164
12
470
86
12
130
46
~2
tt
tt
tt
tt
tt
P.ullt.r Dot ....1yred
511111. 1I0t collleted this IOIlth
84
I
I
t
I
I
I
t
I
t
I
t
t
t
I
t
t
t
t
I
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------pH
CllIID.
Kt
1Ii+
TOTAl lIARD. Ci++ HARD. REACT. P IIIHI) 1MI2+N03
ClC.O.D.
SITE
(1111101)
-------11
1S
2
3
4
51
5S
, E
&II
7
8
,
.
l'
17 E
17 II
18 "
18 5
l'
.
.
.
••
••
3'37 ••••
3'
8
42
~.3'
173
380
'2
110
144
&00
337
1211
4
11&
~2
,. "
'.5'
'.35
'.5'
~.'3
1~
E
1911
20
21
32
33.
335
34
35
10'
,.,~
10 E
10 II
11
12M
12 S
13
----------------------------------- 19/ 1 ---------------------------------­
~.77
'.'8
'.27
7.25
'.07
5.'7
••
AU.
'.87
'.'8
'.07
5.7'
5.n
7.72
'.78
'.20
5. "
'.07
'.17
'.17
7.03
7.72
108
433
2'3
166
220
3"
~1
45
2320
181
29
2'4
131
134
240
7'
170
3630
l'
20
48
32
12
132
12
1'8
44
l'
'4
180
8
12
48
48
4
"l'
28
44
8
72
~2.00
1~'
14
3'
'0
'0
28
328
38
204
'6
44
102
214
l'
14
492
84
12
128
48
52
"
28
19'
76.00
--------0.04
o.m
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
O.OO~
O.O~~
0.035
0.010
0.024
0.008
0.015
0.040
0.025
O.OO~
0.010
o.m
0.005
0.002
0.005
0.008
(.002
0.002
0.022
0.010
0.010
0.002
0.005
0.005
0.015
0.188
(0.2
25
0.04
0.28
0.08
0.08
0.1'
0.30
0.12
0.24
(0.2
(0.2
(0.2
30
28
14
4
5
0.04
0.08
2.5'
0.10
0.12
0.20
0.08
0.04
1.50
0.08
0.02
0.7&
0.12
0.12
0.0'
0.02
0.12
0.88
5.0
(0.2
(0.2
(0.2
(0.2
(0.2
(0.2
(0.2
(0.2
(0.2
(0.2
(0.2
(0.2
(0.2
0.8
(0.2
(0.2
(0.2
--------------
• Pu..etlr Vii not uilyzed
H Silllie Vii not CollKtld thil IORth
85
0.5
(0.2
(0.2
0.5
0.5
m
108
m
14
30
42
32
7
l'
2
( I
m
l'
l'
( 1
12
20
14
8
2
1333
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
-----_....
•
• '.2
•
• •
• •
• •
• •
• 3.1•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
71.0
•
•
•
•
63.50
hbh 5. 5u. .ry of ground ".ter chtlidry d.t. for the u.pling d.tt ".y £I, 198£1 In SchlllCkl. burn.
...-----------------------------------_ ... _----_... -----------------------_ ... -._--------------._--- ...
51TE
pH
COO.
(II1II01)
AU.
TOTAL lIARD. C••• HARD. REACT. P
IIHHII)
1IlI2C
Cl·
K+
11.+
C.O. J.
----------------------------.-.------ 19/1 -_._-------------_.---_•••_._.-_••••__•
------------------I II
6.30
I 5
2
3
4
B
42
6.10
6.71
6.37
6.15
6.07
5.83
6.'4
171
388
44
104
92
£155
378
1382
4
112
6
12
14
20
8
118
50
144
30
22
36
'2
42
£1.8£1
£1.35
6.82
5.75
6.95
7.20
104
418
246
18£1
224
466
10
1£10
50
14
&8
200
40
202
68
44
5.84
5.92
6.67
6.£14
6.17
5.99
6.08
6.21
6.13
6.96
7.40
44
2290
186
36
206
132
155
197
87
185
2180
6
56
46
6
76
18
24
34
8
76
214
21
484
90
32
106
46
44
42
22
5.&0
It
----------------20
0.13
26
<:0
10
22
20
DO
16
218
•
20
15£1
56
22
84
220
116
244
331
335
It
34
It
14
400
50
14
80
2£1
26
38
20
80
18
82
24
It
35
It
36
It
37
It
H
• '.r...t.r no' ••Iyzld
Supl.
collletld 'his IOIlth
If
10'
86
•
I
•
•
•
0.008
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
I
I
•
•
•
I
•
0.018
------_._­
0.02
21
(.01
0.04
(,01
<.01
(, 01
0.2£1
(,01
0.12
0.0£1
0.02
0.20
(,01
0.02
<.01
(, 01
<.01
~
31
I
27
5
7'
101
452
(, 01
0.0£1
1.81
<. 01
0.07
0.05
5.05
0.01
0.12
(,01
0.03
<.01
7
23
31
18
5
I
(, 01
1.27
<.01
<.01
0.38
0.07
0.02
(.01
0.02
0.03
0.64
0.02
<.01
<.01
0.58
0.01
0.02
0.14
0.74
0.04
0.07
0.06
<I
402
9
( I
6
8
13
3
4
I
I
It
32
:n
14
H
55
&E
£I II
7
8
9
10 E
10 II
11
1211
12 5
13
15
16
17 E
17 II
1811
18 5
IH
1911
20
21
118
I
I
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
I
I
•
I
•
•
•
•
•
•
I
•
•
I
I
I
•
I
•
•
•
•
•
I
I
Tul. &. SlIMuy of ground utlr chHicil dlh for the 518plin9 dltl Jllly ::, 1'86 in SChlHCtl. RI5Irv••
---_..----------------------_._---------------------------------------------------------------------------­
SITE
pH
COIlD. 1II1II01)
AU.
TDTAl lIARD. Cltt HARD. Il£ACT. P 1lH4-11I)
1lO2+1lD3
eL-
1(+
1Ii+
C.O.D.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ..,I -------------------------------­
---------------------I II
5.&2
44
14
10
8
IS
2
3
4
5 II
II
55
It
liE
6W
7
8
,
10 E
lOW
II
12 II
12 S
13
15
16
17 E
17 w
IU
18 S
1H
IU
20
21
32
33 II
335
34
35
36
37
3'
5.33
&.71
6.3li
&.08
1&5
324
50
'7
4
'2
8
1&
48
136
12
34
6.01
5.52
7.27
m
402
1084
28
10
136
100
38
288
56
22
132
10
142
30
180
64
76
'8
18
112
24
44
58
144
10
28
&8
8
16
I
•
•
I
0.12
0.02
0.08
<'01
0.08
0.04
0.18
0.43
0.01
27
I
3
I
146
10'
168
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0.33
I
<. 01
I
0.08
0.01
0.02
0.04
I
0.02
0.08
1.34
0.05
0.11
0.12
0.02
3.65
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
10
Z'
18
53
6
17
2
0.02
0.02
0.40
0.01
0.01
0.01
1.12
0.04
0.02
0.02
li9I
6
2
7
I
•
I
I
•
•
•
It
6.57
6.43
6.3'
5.'4
6.90
6."
6.02
"
363
216
257
206
m
47
lili
16
lili
204
10
222
64
542
78
32
'4
48
14
I
•
I
•
I
It
5.86
li.li4
6.43
6.10
5."
6.06
5.~
6.18
6.85
7.06
2370
163
72
212
116
153
181
86
161
1306
46
18
72
20
18
18
2020
132
232
302
44
20
40
24
28
32
18
52
172
60
38
28
80
248
It
It
It
It
It
It
It
------H
I
<'01
P,ullt.r not ill.1 yz.d
51.,.1. not cDII.cted tllil IDlItll
87
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
•
1.48
0.08
0.12
0.44
0.10
0.06
0.02
0.02
0.04
1.&6
,
20
15
15
3
271
•
•
•
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
•
•
•
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
•
•
I
I
I
I
•
I
I
•
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
•
•
TMII 7. 5111ury of ,rouo wltlr elliliul dltl for till ullllint dltl JlnuArY 14, 1"7 in SclllHCkll RUlfYl.
-------------------------------------_
.._----------1114-(111
pH
SITE
ClIIlD. (.....011
---­
I II
15
2
3
4
SIl
55
H
6 1/
7
8
9
10 E
10 II
11
12 II
12 5
13
15
I'
I7E
1711
18 II
18 5
IU
1911
20
21
32
3311
335
34
35
3&
37
3CJ
I
It
AU.
TOTAl HARD. Cltt IWID.
REACT. P
I12tllll3
-----... -----------------­
It
lilt C.O.D.
el-
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - IgI1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ­
-----------­
II
105
126
11
24
3'
3&
126
12
24
<'002
<'002
<.002
<.002
<.002
0.34
0.43
0.60
0.47
0.3'
0.02
0.05
0.01
0.11
<.01
53
35
1
2
'4'
249
1213
22
17
129
10'
24
328
70
12
184
<.002
<'002
<.002
0.74
0.75
G.59
<'01
<.01
0.02
6.50
361
320
113
III
148
140
104
58
<'002
<'002
0.37
0.73
'.11
1407
124
32'
210
<.002
6.83
6370
250
330
226
5. "
103
44
30
'.29
495
22
14
17'
20
14
112
'5.88
.23
It
,
73
54
167
18
24
'.14
5.12
'.2'
5.6S
5.58
'.31
221
210
373
m
24
5&
7.4
1.8
9.0
1.3
1.9
14.0
15.0
3.0
4.3
220
64
445
4.7
2.4
3.2
77.0
40.0
106.0
<'01
0.05
4-4
38
2.7
8.2
15.'
8.7
I
1.4-4
0.02
320
10.7
128.0
I
<.002
2.10
<'01
5000
37.1
1190.0
I
<.002
<.002
<.002
0.2'1
G.51
0.98
<. 01
I
0.08
<.01
8
32
1.8
2.2
10.7
4.7
5.0
14.0
t
t
2.4
t
t
t
t
t
I
II
It
'.38
It
It
It
II
It
II
It
It
II
It
II
II
It
II
It
'.28
80
180
It
It
PluMt., lOt 1111 yZId
511p1l ut eoll.dld tllil IOlltb
88
I
fibl. B. 5u...ry of ,rQUAd vlt" ell'I"11 dlh for til. ulllting dlt. rlllruiry 13, 1987 iD ScllillCtl. R.Slrv••
-----------------------------------------------------------_
... ..C.O.-_...D.
CDIID.
TOTAL lIARD. Ci•• lIARD. REACT. P -.t4-(M) 1112.1113
AU.
Cl-
SITE
pH
1(.
(IIMOI)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - II/I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ­
I M
I5
2
3
4
~ M
H
6E
6 II
7
8
9
10 E
10 II
11
12 M
12 5
13
I~
16
17 E
17Y
18 M
18 5
I'JE
19 II
20
21
32
33M
335
34
6.40
6.40
••
••
.
6.44
38~
~.97
48
94
20
20
8
140
12
20
686
260
36
16
108
18
64
10
<'002
<'002
0.34
0.03
<'2
<.2
200
49
1.2
0.6
76.0
40.1
~.6'J
m
16
144
96
<.002
0.06
I.~
160
3.2
40.3
6.39
321
100
128
76
<,002
0.07
<.2
33
0.7
I~.O
6.31
1032
1~6
~O
1~2
<'002
1.70
<.2
28~
2.~
82.0
6.46
6780
~20
~.77
~
~.76
93
73
98
326
18
20
14
24
2.35
O.ll
0.08
O.ll
0.02
0.44
<.2
<.2
<.2
<.2
<.2
<.2
2300
2
2
3
9
~
14.0
0.8
0.7
0.2
0.6
3.2
1110.0
12.3
3.7
,..
<.002
<.002
<.002
<.002
<.002
<.002
176
100
<.002
0.01
3.4
32
1.2
6.1~
~.~
~."
176
14
34
36
36
44
80
12
22
<'002
<.002
<.002
<.002
<'002
<.002
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.05
0.04
0.14
<.2
<.2
<.2
<.2
<.2
<.2
27
<I
I
O.~
1~.4
0.3
0.4
2.3
4.0
60
60
~8
37
37
4~
2.7
2.7
0.2
8.9
8.9
1M
•
•
•
"
It
...
..••••
••
H
.f
••
.t••
••
6.62
'.41
4~8
144
16
16
28
20
172
7.211
38CJ
124
~.~
3~
36
37
39
~.33
ICJO
ICJO
222
42
32
38
36
162
H
-------------------------------------Parutter Dot .11 yzll!
f
.. S.1Il1. Dot eoll.dld tllil IOIItli
89
•
•
•
•
M
•
•
10.0
•
----------
3.~
13.~
libl.,. SuM." of ,rOlllld vahr chHicl1 dlta lor the uepling dlt. "arch 14, 1'87 in SchMlCkl. Rn.rv••
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SITE
pM
All.
CIIIID. lIIIIloII
TOTAl IIAlID. Cat. HARD.
REACT. ,
1114-1111
IIJ2t1103
. ----.-----------.---­
el-
1+
lIa·
C.O.D.
----------------------------- 19/ 1 ------------------------------_.
1 II
15
2
3
4
51
55
6E
6 II
7
8
9
10 E
10 II
11
121
12 5
13
15
16
17£
1711
18 II
18 5
lH
19 II
20
21
32
33.
335
34
35
36
37
39
t
II
It
It
It
6.15
416
146
178
102
(.002
0.08
(.2
31
0.4
15.7
5.81
5.4'
631
317
38
14
100
38
64
14
(.002
0.002
0.20
0.04
(.2
<.2
184
67
1.6
1.2
72.0
4'.5
6.80
6.90
220
~5
74
148
100
178
62
100
(.002
(.002
0.10
0.08
(.2
<'2
8
16
0.6
G.6
4.0
3.'
6.18
1287
144
280
(.002
1.62
(.2
348
3.5
24.0
6.73
7.22
187
2890
74
286
74
58
52
<'002
0.020
0.14
0.72
<'2
<'2
3
1073
0.1
'.4
m.o
6.30
6.47
7.23
476
103
381
152
30
124
157
34
170
104
24
106
(.002
<'002
(.002
0.42
0.02
0.04
(.2
(.2
M
32
17
34
3.0
0.6
1.4
13.8
6.2
10.0
It
It
It
I
I
It
It
It
It
H
II
It
It
It
It
II
It
It
H
It
sa
1.8
I
I
H
It
It
It
'1'lIIter lOt Inllyztd
Salllh lot coli let" this
----------­ -----­ -----­ --­
IOIIth
90
I
I
I
-----­ -----­ --­
T.~lt
10. Sulluy of ground v.ttr eh.lled d.lI for lh. ,"pl1ng d.tt April 14, 1987 In Sc:hl.tckl.
pH
SITE
CQIID. (lIII1o,)
AU.
------------------C.tt WD. REACT. P 1IH4-(1I)
TOTAl
KA~D.
Jll2t1lO3
~.urv ••
Cl-
llt
~t
C.O.D.
----------- IlJ/I
---------------------------------._----------------------------------------------.. --------------------------------------------­
I II
I 5
2
3
4
5 II
55
&E
6W
7
B
,
10 E
10 W
II
12 II
12 5
13
15
16
17£
In
IBN
18 5
IH
19 W
20
21
32
3311
33 5
34
~
3i
37
39
••
7.04
7.04
5.95
7.00
&.&1
&.44
7.0B
6.11
&.08
&.&2
&.11
&.77
&.52
&.7&
&.38
7.48
&.94
&.&4
&.&0
&.&7
7.0&
&.85
&.55
6.85
&.84
&.57
&.37
7.28
7.70
&.2&
191
191
20&
412
48
"
B4
657
294
1&24
m
101
32&
251
198
217
225
43
4&
1243
14&
5&
89
122
m
154
84
1&1
1&40
98
52
52
10
152
10
22
IB
32
14
142
1&
12
112
50
54
74
8B
&
B
144
48
14
30
22
30
40
1&
72
72
58
184
18
34
34
100
22
m
14&
34
140
134
52
100
10&
14
18
m
,.
74
.4
210
14
38
44
54
3&
26
74
144
3&
18
1&0
34
12&
28
186
3&
1&&
"
(,01
(,01
0.05
0.09
(,01
O. il'
0.11
0.33
0.05
0.20
0.09
(,01
(,01
0.15
(,01
0.09
(,01
<.01
(,01
1.31
(, 01
(, 01
0.04
0.07
0.07
(, 01
(,01
0.08
1.25
0.0&
0.04
0.04
0.10
0.07
0.32
0.0&
0.28
0.04
0.17
0.03
1.51
3.15
0.02
0.&0
0.05
0.02
0.02
0.0&
0.0&
0.17
0.03
0.34
<.01
0.03
0.05
0.55
(,01
0.03
0.18
0.03
2&
2&
43
32
I
3
&
250
&9
581
20&
12
33
33
2&
8
II
2
I
22
0.012
0.012
(,002
<.002
<.002
(,002
0.002
(,002
(,002
(,002
<.002
<.002
<.002
<.002
<.002
<.002
<.002
(,002
<.002
<.002
<.002
0.005
<.002
<.002
(,002
<.002
(,002
<.002
<.002
<.002
18
120
2&
102
<.002
<.002
<.002
<.002
<.01
0.61
(, 01
0.05
0.17
0.2&
(,01
3.82
9
48
13
33
52
52
3&
108
12
44
IB
&4
12
240
20B
20
80
92
60
58
&4
8
12
252
42
20
24
24
30
32
IB
4&
110
m
5
<I
I
10
23
14
7
2
558
3
2.0
2.0
0.3
0.&
0.1
0.4
0.5
1.5
1.0
1.3
3.5
0.4
O.B
1.9
0.1
0.&
0.4
<.1
0.3
4.0
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.8
1.1
0.2
0.2
0.5
8.0
1.0
&.0
&.0
13. ,
15.2
2.&
4.1
3.4
70.0
&5.0
149.0
3B.0
5.8
15.2
17.6
10.4
4.4
3.7
2.9
2.4
11.&
3.1
0.8
2. ,
5.3
8.9
18.1
5.3
2.0
249.0
3.8
•
12
41
•
•
•
28
•
41
IE.
85
•
•
•
44
It
&.97
&.52
&.115
7.34
"
450
10&
370
• Pu...hr not u.alyztd
H S..pl. not (oll.ettd this IOnth
------
91
0.&
3.5
0.&
<.1
&.1
14.9
&.0
9.2
•
•
•
34
!aci. 11.
IIOnt~!';
ut!r
:a~le
!I!vuions
it
individual .ells in
Se~leeekle ~eserve.
............................................ -.......................................................................................
SITE DEPTH (ft.)
OF SCAm
AUGUST
1916
!lATER
TAILE
OCTOIER
1916
!lATER
TA8LE
JAMUARY
1987
IlATER
TA8LE
FEBRUARY
1987
!lATER
TA8LE
IIARCH
1987
IMTER
TABLE
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• flit allovi
Sl!
MY
1987
MATER
TABLE
APRIL
1987
MATER
TAILE
JUNE
1917
MATEA
TAILE
JULY
1987
MATER
TABLE
Ilvll ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
................. ................. _._ ................. -... -................................................................................................. -....................
15
6.63
6.03
3.87
2
3
3.79
(
5.44
9.20
5"
55
3.70
6E
lo.s5
6M
4061
7
2.54
6,38
8
9
6.53
10E 20.36
10M 3,98
11
4027
12" 17.56
125 7.85
3,28
13
6.04
15
7.44
16
I7E 16.90
17. 6.60
18" 5030
18S 15.40
19M 6,38
19E 15,40
20
4.95
21
6.56
3,23
32
335 3.69
33" 4.77
34
3.61
35
6.88
36
9.53
37
134.00
lakl (E)
Pond (8)
Strlal (C)
at Ut.Dr.
Strlal IC)
at Alsirvi Patll
1,111.63
1M
I
1,112.81
1,109.18
1,102.31
1, 10Q.60
1,093.02
1,093.22
1,092.15
1,092.19
1,097.65
1,116.12
1,094.61
1,095.~6
I
1, 093 .13
1,095.13
1,091.56
1,089.67
1,087.63
1,089 .44
1,087.94
1,093.73
1,084.90
1,085.03
1,084,59
1,084.53
1,084.62
1,083.55
1,087.25
1,090.33
1,10l.41
1,093.30
1,093.03
1,095.86
1,107.26
1,10Q.32
1,099.25
1,091.70
1,091.80
1,09l.36
1,09l.41
1,097.16
1,090.18
1,088.59
1,088.59
1,086.90
I
1,093.48
1,083. H
1,083.64
1,083.53
1,083.42
1,083.23
1,083.21
I
1,088.42
I
I
I
I
1,108.41
1,101.10
1,099.98
1,092.19
1,111.27
1,111.26
1,107.90
1,100.84
1,099.88
1,091.22
I
I
1,091. 79
1,091.84
1,096.57
1,115.12
1,095,38
1,092.16
1.091. 02
1,090.83
1,018.62
1,088.67
1,091.25
I
1,114034
I
1,091.13
1,091.25
1,090.04
1,088.05
1,088.07
1,112.15
1,112.14
1,101.76
1,101.83
1,099.98
1,092,46
1,091.83
1,091.96
1,091.92
1.097. 77
1,114.90
1,095.27
1,092,49
I
1,091.52
1,089.25
1,089.30
I
I
I
1,088.52
1,093.47
1,083.48
1,083.64
1,083.69
1,083.66
1,083,25
1,083.24
1,087.88
1,093.95
1,083,20
1,083.35
1, 083 ~2
1,084.16
1,083.06
1,083.09
1,093.83
1,083.50
1,083.80
1,083.69
1,083.64
1,083.40
1,083.42
I
1,112.75
1,112.71
1,109.12
1,102.20
1.100.20
1,092.80
1,093.03
1,091. 96
1, 091.90
1,097.61
1,115 .69
1,095.07
1,092.92
1,094068
1,091.47
1,089.44
1,089,45
1,089.06
1,088.75
1,093.63
1.083.88
l,l1UO
l,l1U3
1,107.23
1,100.83
1,099.64
1,091.26
1,091.57
1,091.08
1,091. 00
1,096.76
1,114.06
1,094028
1,091.67
1,092.91
1,09U3
1,087.99
1,088.01
1,088.69
1,087.83
1,093.51
1,083.l9
I
I
1,083,95
1,083.12
1,083.70
1,083.71
1,087.12
1,090.16
1,101.21
1,092.71
1,092. H
1,095.74
1,116041
1, 110.78
I
I
I
I
1,089.07
1,101.20
1,091.81
1,091.85
1,095,48
1,115.02
1,109.15
1,090.06
1,101.11
1,092.25
1,092.29
I
1,088.46
1,101.11
1,09l.31
1,091.36
1,095.25
1,114047
1,108.61
1,097.01
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1,106.14
1,099.47
1,098.55
1,090.26
1,09Q.49
1,090.27
1,090.20
1,096. H
1,113,33
1,093,26
1,090. H
1,091.75
1,089.19
1.087.14
1,087.22
1,087.19
1,086.60
1,093.19
1,082.58
1, 081.62
1, 082.39
1,082.89
1,082.36
1,081.39
1,084.06
1,087.22
1,100.83
1,090.37
1,09Q.Z9
1,093,26
1.114.09
1,108.84
1, 096.74
1,083.48
1, 083.43
1,083.02
1,083.03
1,086.00
1,088.39
1,101.03
1,091.12
1,091.16
1,094,57
1,115.07
1,109.53
1,097.39
1,115.05
1,109.83
1,097.44
1,110.23
1,105.92
1,09U6
1,09s.:'4
1,090.25
1,090.44
1,090.88
1,090.79
1,096.97
1,113.64
1,093.79
1, 091.98
I,094.~O
1,090.52
1,081.3;
1,087.40
1,087.06
1,086.22
1,093,57
1,082.62
I
1,082.99
1,082.96
1, 082.55
1,082.55
1,084.50
1,087.07
1, 100. 97
1,090.37
1,090.34
1,093.05
1,113.61
1,108.47
1,096.79
1,083.00
1,091.91
1,111.61
1,099.19
..............................__ ...............................................................................................
loti: I.tlt tallli 111ntions Itrl eoUleted in tile liddll of tile lontll on salPling dates.
I Dati lIOt coll1ctld.
92
Tibll 12. 511••r1 of 'olltill ,Itrolllli cOIPonenh in ground v.tlr frOI Sch.lckll Rtstr".
---------------------..._-----------------------------------------------.._------­
1-14-B7
4-24-B7
2-13-B7
3-I4-B7
SITE
IHzenl Toluenl l11enll
lenzenl Tollllnl l11en ts
8enzlnl Toluenl l1 len"
BenZIn. Tolu.n. l11en ts
- - - - - - - ugll ------­
--------_.
__.------------------------------_.-------------------------------.---_.------------­
I•
•nd nd• •nd
• nd• nd•
•
• • •
•
I 5
nd
•
•
2
nd
nd
( 1.0
lid
nd
nd
nd
lid
nd
• lid ad•
lid
lid
3
lid
lid
lid
nd
lid
4
ad
lid
nd
ad
lid
nd
•
lid
51
nd
nd
nd
lid
lid
•
B
lid
nd
lid
•
•
•
•
•nd ( •1.0 nd
nd
lid
nd
nd
6E
nd
lid
nd
nd
nd
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
6 II
7
B
,
10 E
10 II
11
12 •
12 5
13
15
16
17 E
17 II
181
18 5
IH
1911
20
21
32
3311
335
34
( 1.0
nd
•
nd
nd
I
I
I
nd
lid
nd
nd
I
I
I
I
•
•
I
10.4
I
lid
lid
•
•nd
nd
•
•
( 1.0
nd
I
lid
•
I
I
nd
nd
•
lid
I
I
I
I
I
•
I
I
I
I
I
I
•
ad
I
•
•
I
lid
lid
nd
1.0
I
I
lid
nd
nd
•
I
I
I
•
lid
•
•
•
•
I
nd
nd
I
I
lid
lid
lid
nd
t
t
I
t
t
nd
nd
6.0
nd
nd
I
t
I
t
I
t
I
I
t
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
lid
I
I
t
5. ,
I
I
I
•
I
I
I
t
t
nd
nd
nd
nd
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
t
I
I
t
I
t
I
I
I
t
I
t
t
I
t
t
t
t
t
I
I
t
I
t
I
t
I
I
I
t
t
ad
ad
I
I
t
nd
I
I
t
t
t
t
I
t
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
( 1.0
•
4.6
•
t
I
t
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
nd
( 1.0
nd
( 1.0
I
t
lid
ad
( 1.0
( 1.0
I
I
I
t
I
t
t
t
lid
lid
lid
nd
( 1.0
lid
39.2
lid
lid
lid
16.1
nd
•
ad
ad
lid
nd
35
36
nd
lid
nd
37
39
t
t
t
t
t
t
f
f
f
lid
nd
ad
I
lid
I
•
•
•
•
I
lid
I
lid
I
I
lid
•nd
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
lid
lid
ad
t
I
•
t
•
lid
t
1.0
1.7
t
DetICtiOll Lili tI:
I
lid
I
t
1.6
( 1.0
lid
lid
IIlI
t
f
I
II~
Id
f
t
t
1.6
lenzen. 0.5 (U91ll, Toluen. 0.5 (1l1ll, l1len" 2.0 (u91ll
93
I
lid
( 1.0
ad
'.ullhr not ....11zed
IIot.: Del • lOt d.tlCtld
nd
I
nd
lible 12.--continued
-----------------------------_ ...-------------------------------------------------------­
SITE
L/HII
"un Benzene
"un Toluene
LlHII
"ein Iylenes
LlHII
------------------------------------- ug/I --------------.------------------------­
--_ .. ----._ ..... ---... --- -- .. ----- ----- ............. ---------- ..
.... - .... _........ -----­
-- ------- -I N
I S
2
3
4
5N
5S
6E
6W
7
8
9
10 E
10 W
--
_---_
--------_
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
( 1.0
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
(nd/ndl2)
(nd/nd/31
(nd/nd/3)
(nd/nd/2)
(nd/nd/2)
(nd/nd/Il
(nd/nd/41
(ndl< I. 0/4)
Ind/nd/2)
(nd/nd/Il
(nd/ndll 1
Ind/nd/2)
(nd/ndll 1
nd
( I. 0
nd
nd
nd
nd
( I. 0
nd
O.B
nd
nd
nd
nd
(nd/nd/2)
(nd/( 1.013l
(nd/nd/3)
(nd/nd/2)
(nd/nd/2)
(nd/nd/Il
(nd/( 1.0/4)
(nd/nd/41
(nd/1.0/2)
(nd/ndlll
(nd/nd/Il
(nd/ndl2l
(nd/nd/l)
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
(nd/nd/2)
(nd/nd/31
(nd/nd/3)
lnd/ndI2)
(nd/nd/2l
(nd/ndlll
(nd/ndI4)
lnd/nd/4)
(nd/na/2)
(nd/nd/Il
(nd/nd/Il
(nd/nd/2)
(nd/nd/Il
nd
nd
tnd/nd/l)
(nd/ndlll
nd
nd
(nd/nd/Il
(nd/nd/Il
nd
nd
(nd/ndlll
(nd/nd/Il
6.7
(4.6/10.4/4)
nd
(nd/nd/4)
nd
(nd/nd/4 l
nd
( 1.0
(nd/nd/Il
(nd/( 1.0/4)
nd
( 1.0
(nd/nd/Il
(nd/I.0/4)
nd
nd
(nd/ndlll
(nd/nd/41
nd
0.9
nd
14.6
( 1.0
nd
(nd/nd/Il
(nd/1.7/3)
(nd/nd/2)
(1.6/39.214)
« 1.0/( I.OIll
(nd/nd/2)
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
(nd/nd/I)
(nd/nd/3)
(nd/ndl2l
(nd/nd/4)
(nd/ndlll
(nd/ndl2l
11
12 N
12 S
13
15
16
17 E
17 W
18 N
18 S
lH
19 II
20
21
32
33 N
33 S
34
3S
36
37
39
nd
nd
nd
nd
( 1.0
nd
«
(nd/nd/Il
(nd/nd/3)
(nd/nd/2)
(nd/nd/4)
1.01< I.OIll
(nd/nd/2)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------Note: nd = not detected Detection Lilih:
94
Benzene 0.5 (ug/I), Toluene 0.5 (uglll, Iylenes 2.0 (ugll)
hbl' 13. SUUiry ~f dlSsol v'd .,til conCtntritions In ground Wit,r fro. Sch."ctl, Res,rv,•
_
.... _---_ .. _-----------_ .. _--------_ ... ..----------------- .. --------.----._-------_ .. _----------------------------------------.. -­
SITE
PII
1-13-87 2-13-87 3-14-87
In
1-13-87 2-13-87 3-13-87 4-24-87
F,
3-13-87 4-24-87
Cu
Cr
2-13-87 3-13-87 4-24-87 3-13-87
- - - - ­ 19 /1 - - - - ­
------------------------------------------------------_
..----------------------------------------------------------­
( 0.001 ( 0.001
1 II
15
2
3
4
5 II
5S
&E
6 II
7
8
,
•
( 0.001
•
( 0.001
( 0.001 ( 0.001
( 0.001 ( 0.001
( 0.001 ( 0.001
•
•
•
•
0.001
•
•
•
0.002
( 0.001 ( 0.001
( 0.001 ( 0.001 ( 0.001
( 0.001
( 0.001
•
•
( 0.001
10 E
10 II ( 0.001
11
12 II
12 S
13
15
( 0.001
16
17 E
17 II
18 II
18 S
19E
19 II
20
21
( 0.001
32
3311
33 S
34
0.001
( 0.001
35
( 0.001
36
37
3'
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
( 0.001
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
( 0.001
•
•
•
•
•
•
0.001
( 0.001
•
•
( 0.001
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
0.001
0.001
•
•
•
•
( 0.001
0.003
( 0.001
0.15
0.22
• •
•0.31 0.03
• • •0.04
• 0.06
0.03
0.11
0.0'
0.03
0.06
• •
0.05
0.07
• 0.07
0.11
• 0.06
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.03
0.05
•
•0.03
0.06
•
•
•
•
•
0.07
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•0.:6
•
•
0.05
0.02
0.03
•
•
0.04
•
•0.04
•
•
•
•
•
•
0.05
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•0.31
0.15
0.07
•
•
•
•
•
•
0.06
0.08
•
•
0.07
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
0.06
0.23
0.04
0.04
0.07
0.03
0.03
•
•
•
•0.06
0.10
0.07
0.31
• Pu lilt" Rot 11111 yztd
95
0.06
0.12
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
0.06
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
0.11
•
•
•
•0.07
• •
•
• 0.02
•4.&9 4.50
•
•7.06
•
0.12
• 21.50
24.78
0.03
•
•
•
•
•
•2.82
0.80
•
•
48. '3
•
•
•
•
•
•
•6.68
1.23
•
•
•
•
55.65
2.45
0.01
0.02
11.00
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
32.75
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•1.86
•
•
•
•
70.50
•
•
•
•0.01 -.
•
0.04
0.01
( 0.01
•
0.01
•
•
0.01 ( 0.01
0.01
( 0.01
( 0.01
•0.02 •
•
•
0.01
•
• •
•
• ( 0.01
• ( 0.01
•
• •
•0.01 ( 0.01
•
• •
• •
• •
• •
• •
• •
• ( 0.01
•
•
( 0.01
0.01
0.02
•
0.02
•
0.03
•
0.01
•
• ( 0.01
( 0.01 ( 0.01
0.01
( 0.01
•
•
( 0.01
0.01
•
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
0.02
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
0.03
•
•
•
•0.02
•
•
•
•
•
( 0.01
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
( 0.01
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
( 0.01
0.02
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
TIIIII U. SUlNry of totll IItli collt,ntrltians in ;raund .atlr frOI 5chleeckle Resirvi .
.........................................-_
sm
Pb
3-13-87 7-Z2-87
IIl1n
_-
Zn
3-13-&7 7-ZZ-&7
"lin
---
FI
3- 13-&7 7-ZZ-&7
"'an
3- 13-&7
7-~Z-&7
_---
Cr
Cu
"lin
3-13-87
...... -_ ......................... --.- .- ........ _........... Iq/I .... _........... - ............. _......-- ... _.- ........ - ..........................
...... _.- ...... _.... _- .. -... _.............................. --.- .---.- ...... -.- .... _......... _......... _...... _.............................................
3
16
n
37
0.043 < 0.010
0.OZ4
<0.010 < 0.010 <0.010
0.011 < 0.010
0.008
< 0.010 < 0.010
•
3,63
1.3&
1.63
2.9Z
U8
U4
1.73
U&
Z.43
2.&8
1.73
• 'araeeter not analyzed
96
61.3Z
96,39
13.02
73.U
176.0&
121.51
98.01
6U&
136.24
67.26
9&.01
7.00
1.64
1.96
0.Z7
0.18
0.5&
0.61
3.U
0.91
1.27
0.61
< 0.01
< 0.01
< 0.01
Table 15. Heavy letal concentrations in sedilents frOI Schleeckle Reserve.
SITE
Pb
3/87
Fe
In
6/87
3/87
6/87
3/87
Cu
6/87
3/87
6/87
Cr
3/87
•••••••••••.•••••••.••••..•••.•••••.••• Ig/kg dry .eight •••••••••••••••.••••.•••.••••••.•
-_ ......... -_ ....... - ..................................................................... --_ .. _.............. - .....................................
.......... _.................. _.............. _..........................
Culvert (A) 0 fT.
Culvert (AJ 5 FT.
Culvert (A) 15 fT.
Pond (8)
Strm (C)
Pond (0)
Lake (E)
Pond (F)
Strm (6)
25.60
•
•
25.30
3.80
16.88
14.10
48.70
lUI
64,28
7.42
22.86
2.20
( 0.65
6.88
23.80
8.90
• Paraleter not analyzed
97
23.72
32.67
45.06
4U6
11.38
48.02
306.06
11.74
38.52
8,140.00
•
•
4,317.00
4,836.00
•
•
•
•
5,385.54
7,488.97
3,625.15
4,941.32
3,513.83
7,280.53
3,290.28
1,211.69
6,310.82
21.50
•
•
8.10
UO
•
•
3.46
9.80
15.56
18.64
7.28
5.61
4040
3.26
7.57
0.70
0.60
<0.01
•
hbl. 16. Huvy Hhl concentrations in th, woody speci,s Europun Buckthorn frol 5ch,eeckh Reserve.
r,
In
51TE
3/87
3/87
6187
llean
3/87
6/87
"un
3/87
l4J/tg dry w,ight ----.----------------------.--------------­
15
32
16
IIorth Pt.
(
(
(
(
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.21
1.47
1.21
1.15
0.11
0.75
0.'2
0.59
14.00
24.80
28.20
26.30
43.62
34.84
34.62
26.04
2B.BI
2').82
31.41
26.17
37.50
71.80
302.30
25.20
22.33
40.57
55.69
35.02
29.92
5£.18
179.00
30.11
3.50
1.50
7.20
2.50
3.50
6.23
7.55
3.51
3.50
3.8,
7.38
3.00
---------------------------------------------.-----------.---------_ ..------- .. ---.--------------------------------­
98
REFERENCES
American Public Health Association.
1981. Standard Methods
for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 15th edl­
tion. APHA, Washington, D.C.
Atlas, R.M. 1981. Microbial degradation of petroleum hydro­
carbons: an environmental perspective. Microblology Re­
Vlew. v.45, pp.180-209.
Baumann, J., A. Doman i k and J. Konrad.
1980.
Nonpoi nt
source pollution in urban areas.
In: Seminar on Water
Quality Trade-offs; Point Sources vs. Diffuse Source
Pollution, September 16-17, 1980, Chicago, Illinois.
Bernstein, L. 1964. Salt tolerance of plants. U.S. Dept. of
Agriculture Information Bulletln No.283. U.S. Government
Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
Bitton, G. and C.P. Gerba (Eds.). 1984.
Groundwater Pollu­
tion Microbiology. John Wiley and Sons, New York.
Bourcier, D.R. and E. Hindin.
1979.
Lead,
iron, chro­
mium,
and zinc in road runoff at Pullman, Washington.
Science of the Total Environment. v.12, pp.205-215.
Brown, D.H. 1982. Mineral nutrition. In:
Bryophyte Ecology.
Chapman and
pp.383-444.
A.J.E. Smith (Ed.),
Hall,
New
York,
Browne, F.X., J.B. Orr, T. Grizzard, and B.L. Weand.
1982.
Non-point sources.
Journal of the Water Pollution Con­
trol Federation. v.54, No.6, pp.755-763.
1980. Water pollution--nonpoint sources.
Browne, F.X.
nal of the Water Pollution Control Federation.
pp.1506-1510.
No.6,
Jour­
v.52,
Chaney, R. and H. Mielke. 1986. Standards for soi 1 lead
1 imitations
in the United States. In: D. Hemphi 11
. 99
100
(Ed.), Trace Substances in Environmental Health-XX, Pro­
ceedings of the University of Missouri's 20th Annual
Conference on Trace Substances in Environmental Health.
University
of Missouri, Columbia,
Missouri,
pp.
357-377.
Christensen, E.R. and V.P. Guin. 1979. Zinc from automobile
tires in urban runoff. Journal of the Environmental
Engineering Division-ASCE. v.105, pp.165-168.
Coleman, W.E., J.W. Munch, R.P. Streicher, H.P. Ringhand, and
F.C. Kopfler.
1984. Identification and measurement of
components in gaso 1i ne, ke rosene, and No. 2 fue 1 011
that partition into the aqueous phase after mixlng.
Archives of Environmental Contaminatlon and Toxicology.
v.13, No.2, pp.171-178.
Corapcioglu, M.Y. and A. Baehr. 1985. Immiscible contamlnant
transport ln soils and groundwater wlth an emphasis on
petroleum hydrocarbons:
system of differential equa­
tions vs. single cell model. Water Science and Technol­
ogy. v.17, no.9, pp. 23-37.
Council on Environmental Quality.
1981. Contaminatlon of
ground water by toxic organic chemicals. U.S. Government
Printing Offlce, Washington, D.C.
Craun, G.F.
1984. Health aspects of groundwater pollution.
In: G. Bitton and C.P. Gerba (Eds.), Groundwater Pollu­
tion Microbiology. John Wiley and Sons, New York,
pp.
135-179.
Davies, B.E. and B.G. Wixson.
1986. Lead ln soil-how clean
is clean? In: D. Hemphil1(Ed.), Trace Substances ln En­
vironmental Health-XX, Proceedings of the Unlversity of
Missouri's 20th Annual Conference on Trace Substances in
Environmental Health. University of Missouri, Columbia,
Missouri, pp. 233-241.
Day,
P.R. 1965. Particle fractionation and particle-size
analysis.
In:
C.A. Black (Ed.), Methods of Soi 1
Analysis. Part 1: physical and mineralogical properties,
including statistics of measurement and sampling.
Se­
ries:
Agronomy, No.9. American Society of Agronomy,
Inc., Madison, Wisconsin, pp.562-567.
Donohue and Assoc i ates , Inc. 1980.
North Side
Water Study City of Stevens Point, Wisco nsln.
and Associates, Stevens Point, Wisconsin.
Surface
Donohue
Donohue and Associates, Inc.
1979.
North Side
Water Study City of Stevens Point, Wisco nsin.
and Associates, Stevens Point, WisconSln.
Surface
Donohue
101
Drever, J.I.
1982. The Geochemistry of Natural
Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
Waters.
Dupuis, T.V. and B.N. Lord. 1983. Field instrumentation for
monitoring water-quality effects of storm-water runoff
from highways. Transportation Research Record. No.896,
pp.55-60.
Environment Canada. 1980. Guidelines for Surface water Qual­
ity, Volume I, Inorganic Chemical Substances. Inland
Waters Directorate, Ottawa, Canada.
Fetter, C.W. Jr. 1980. Applied Hydrogeology. Charles Merrill
Publishing Company, Columbus, Ohio.
Forstner, V. and G.T.W. Wittman. 1979.
Metal Pollution in
the Aquatic Environment.
Springer-Verlag Publishers,
New York.
Francois, L.E. 1980. Salt injury to ornamental shrubs and
ground covers.
U.S. Dept. of Agriculture Bulletin
No.231. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington,
D.C.
Freeze, R.A. and J.A. Cherry. 1979. Groundwater.
Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
Prentice
Gjessing, E., E. Lygren, S. Anderson, L. Berglind, G.
Carlberg, H. Efraimsen, T. Kallqvist, and K. Martinsen.
1984.
Acute toxicity and chemical characteristics of
moderately polluted runoff from highways.
Science of
the Total Environment. v.33, pp.225-232.
Gleason, H.A. and A. Cronquist. 1963. Manual of Vascular
Plants of the Northeastern United States and Adjacent
Canada. D. Van Nostrand Company, New York.
Goodman, G.T. and T.M. Roberts. 1971. Plants and soils as
indicators of metals in the air.
Nature.
v.231,
pp.27-292
Greub, L.J., P.N. Drolsom, and D.A. Rohweder.
1979.
tolerance of selected grass species and cultivars.
versity of Wisconsin, Madison.
Salt
Uni­
Gupta, M.H., R.W. Agnew, D. Gruber, and W. Kreutzberger.
1981. Constituents of highway runoff from operating
highways. Report No. FHWA/RD-81/045.
U.S. Government
Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
Hahne, H.C. and W. Kroontze. 1973. Significance of pH and
chloride concentration on behavior of heavy metal pol­
lutants: mercury (II), cadmium (II), zinc (II), and lead
102
(II).
Journal
444-450.
of
Environmental
Quality.
v.2,
pp.
Harper, H. 1985. Fate of heavy metals from highway runoff in
stormwater management systems. PhD. Thesis. University
of Central Florida, Orlando.
Hasselkus, E.R. and R.B. Rideout. 1979. Salt injury to land­
scape plants. Cooperative Extension Bulletin
A2970.
University of Wisconsin-Extension, Madison, Wisconsin.
Hem,
J.D. 1972. Chemistry and occurrence of cadmium and zinc
in surface water and groundwater.
Water Resources
Research. v.8, pp. 661-679.
Hickok, E.A., M.C. Hannaman, and N.C. Wenck.
1977.
Urban
Runoff Treatment Methods Volume I-Nonstructura1 Wetland
Treatment. U.S. EPA, Cincinnati, Ohio.
EPA-600/2-77­
217.
Jackson, M.L. 1956. Soil Chemical Analysis--Advanced Course.
University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI. pp.35-36 &
296.
Johnson,
R.
1980.
Elementary Statistics-Third
Wadsworth, Inc., Belmont, California.
Edltlon.
Kaushik, O.K. 1963. The influence of salinity on the growth
and reproduction of marsh plants. PhD. thesis.
Utah
State University, Logan.
Kunze, G.W.
1965. Pretreatment for mineralogical analysis.
In: C.A. Black (Ed.), Methods of Soil Analysls. Part 1:
physical and mineralogical properties,
includlng
sta­
tistics of measurement and sampling. Series:
Agronomy,
No.9.
American Society of Agronomy, Inc.,
Madison,
Wisconsin. pp.572-575.
Laxen, D. and R. Harrison. 1977. The highway as a source of
water pollution: an appraisal with the heavy metal lead.
Water Research. v. 11.
Lewis, R.W. and M.A. Penzo. 1984. Evaluation of ground water
contamination by dissolved hydrocarbons in a variety of
hydrogeologic settings.
In: The Fourth National Sym­
posium and Exposition on Aquifer Restoration and Ground
Water Monitoring, May 23-25, The Fawcett Center, Colum­
bus Ohio. pp.291-299.
Lumis, G.P., G. Hofstra, and R. Hall. 1976.
Roadside woody
plant susceptibility to sodium and chloride accumulatl0n
during winter and spring. Canadian Journal of Plant
Science. v.56, pp.853-859.
103
Lund,
L.J., A.L. Page, and C.O. Nelson.
1976. Movement of
heavy metals below sewage disposal ponds. Journal of En­
vironmental Quality. v.5, pp. 330-334.
1981 .
McCarty.
P.L..
M. Reinhard, and B.E. Rittman.
Environmental Science
Trace organics in groundwater.
and Technology. v.15, pp. 40-47.
National Academy of Sciences. 1972.
Biological Effects of
Atmospheric Pollutants. Lead. Airborne Lead in Perspec­
tive. Committee on Biological Effects of Atmosphere Pol­
lutants. National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C.
Nelson, W.E.
1972.
Fate of trace metals (impurities) in
subsoils as related to the quality of ground water.
Publication NO.W73-07802, Office of water Resources Re­
search, Washington. D.C.
Newson, J.M.
1985. Transport of organic compounds dissolved
in ground water.
Ground Water Monitoring Review. v.5,
No.2, pp.28-36.
Nightingale, H.I.
1975. Lead. zinc, and copper in soils of
urban storm-runoff retention basins. Journal of the
American Water Works Assoclation. v.67, pp. 443-447.
Nightingale,
H.!., D. Harrison, and J.E. Salo.
1985.
Evaluation technique for ground water quality beneath
urban runoff retention and percolation basins.
Ground
Water Monitoring Review. v.S, No.1, pp.43-S0.
Pye,
V.!.
States.
PA.
Rao,
1983. Groundwater Contamination ln the Unlted
University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphla,
D. N.
1982.
Responses of bryophytes to air po 11 ut; on.
In: A.J.E. Smith (Ed.). Bryophyte Ecology. Chapman and
Hall, New York, pp.445-471.
Richardson, D. 1981. The Biology of Mosses. Blackwell
entific Publications. Boston. Massachusetts.
SC1­
Saffigna, P.G.
1976. Irrigation and nitrogen management of
potatoes to minimize nitrogen leaching losses in Plain­
field loamy sand. Ph.D. Thesis. University of Wiscon­
sin. Madison.
Salol J.E .• D. Harrison. and E.M. Archibald. 1986.
Removing
contaminants by groundwater recharge basins. Journal of
the American Water Works Association. v.78,
No.9.
pp.76-81.
Schwarzenbach, R.P .• W. Giger. E. Hoehn. and J.K. Schneider.
104
1983. Behavior of organic compounds during infiltration
of river water to groundwater. Environmental Science and
Technology. v.17, pp. 472-479.
Shaheen, D.G.
1975. Contributions of urban roadway usage to
water pollution. U.S. EPA, Washington, D.C. EPA-600/2­
75-004.
Striegl, R.
1987.
Suspended sediment and metals removal
from urban runoff by a small lake. Water Resources Bul­
letin. v.23, No.6, pp. 985-996.
Sucoff, E.
1975.
Effects of Deicing Salts on Woody Plants
Along Minnesota Roads. Minnesota Highway Department
Investigation No.636.
Thrasher, M.H. 1984. Highway impacts on wetlands:
ment, mitigation, and enhancement measures.
tation Research Record. v.948, pp.17-20.
assess­
Transpor-
U.S.
Department of Agriculture-Soil Conservation
Ser\ice.
1978.
50,1 Survey of Portage County, Wisconsin.
Unl­
versity of Wisconsin, Madison.
u.s.
Env i ronmenta 1 Protect i on Agency (EPA).
1986. Quality
Ohio.
Criteria for Water.
U.S. EPA,
Cincinnati,
EPA-440/5-86-001.
U. S.
Env i ronmenta 1 Protect i on Agency.
1983. Resu 1 ts of
the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program, Volume I-Final Re­
port. Water Planning Division, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1982. Methods for Or­
ganic Chemical Analysis of Municipal and Industrial
Wastewater.
U.S. EPA, Cincinnati, Ohio. EPA-600!4-82­
057.
u.s.
Environmental Protection Agency. 1974.
Methods for
Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes. U.S. EPA, Cin­
cinnati, Ohio. EPA-600/4-79-020.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1971. Impact of highway
deicing. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington,
D.C.
University
of
Schmeeckle
University
Wisconsin.
Wisconsin Central
Administration.
1977.
Reserve, Environmental Assessment 650.1.3.
of Wisconsin-Stevens Point, Stevens POl nt,
Updike,
L., T. Wilda, and D. Greuel. 1975. Land Use Plan
Neighborhood Study Area #4. Prepared for University of
Wisconsin-Stevens Point Environmental Council. Univer­
105
sity of Wisconsin-Stevens Point, Stevens Point,
sin.
Wang,
Wiscon­
T., D. Spyridakis, B. Mar, and R. Horner.
1982.
Transport Deposition and Control of Heavy Metals in
Highway Runoff.
Report No.
10 to Washington State De­
partment of Transportation by Department of Civil Engi­
neering, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.
Ward, C.H., W. Giger, and P.L. McCarty (Eds.). 1985.
Ground
Water Quality. John Wiley and Sons, New York, New York.
Wilber, W.G. and J.V. Hunter. 1977. Aquatic transport of
heavy metals in the urban environment. Water Resources
Bulletin. v.13, pp. 721-734.
Wilcox, D.A. 1986. The effects of deicing salts on vegetation
in Pinhook Bog, Indiana. Canadian Journal of Botany.
v.64, pp. 865-874.
Wilde, S.A., G.K. Voigt, and J.G. Iyer. 1972. Soil and Plant
Analysis for Tree Culture. Oxford & IBH Publishing Co.,
New De 1 hi.
Wisconsin Department of Health and Social Services (WDHSS).
1985. Public Health Related Groundwater Standards. Wis­
consin Division of Health, Madison, Wisconsin.
Wisconsin D epartment of Natural Resources (DNR).
1985.
consin Administrative Code-NR 140. DNR, Madison,
consin.
'vI 1 s­
Wi s­