.J '5 .
”‘35:?

 

.l. .193. ,
, . 1 . .
. {Fafltdrau I a. {M
.. 5 u. . db
.2 1.nt£€.; .
; i. . . . e
. . . . .
tsu- . Vim... \ .
... ghsmmmnmffl ..
.3 1.? at. 02

.4 n!
Vi .,

:er
«a...

35mm:

9

:

V 5
. 5.1.. i.
:5. L 5259?.
:5 4....

4. E 3
.u i :1.
. tinnbf

n1 gum,» Jn.

 

ha?

'

 

‘M ms

Effects of

Date

MIMI!“WNWWWW“\WlUllHllllUHfl

3 1293 017876

LIBRARY

Mlchigan State
' Unlverslty

 

 

 

 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

roadside salt on nearby soils in NW lower Michigan

presented by

Marcia Lynn Talicska

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Master degree in Science

 

 

Major professor

u/23/99

 

0-7639

MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

PLACE IN REI‘URN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINE": return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

rm ammo-mu

EFFECTS OF ROADSIDE SALT ON NEARBY SOILS IN NW LOWER
MICHIGAN

By

Marcia Lynn Talicska

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTERS OF SCIENCE

DEPARTMENT OF GEOLOGY

1 999

ABSTRACT

EFFECTS OF ROADSIDE SALT ON NEARBY SOILS IN NW LOWER
MICHIGAN

By
MARCIA LYNN TALICSKA

Widespread use of sodium chloride as a deicing agent on roads poses a
potential threat to nearby soils. Sodium cations in meltwater infiltrate into soils
adjacent to roads and may adsorb onto clay minerals. The purpose of this study
is to measure sodium using sodium adsorption ratios (SAR), a measure of the
extent of sodium saturation, in sandy soils near roads in a temperate, snowy
climate. The concentrations of three major cations, Na, Ca, and Mg, were also
measured to calculate SAR.

SAR data for soils in Grand Traverse County, Michigan were assessed by
sampling at four locations which have different salting application rates but
similar soil characteristics. Sampling occurred over one winter season in
September 1996, December 1996, and March 1997.

SAR values increased markedly from September to December at each
site, indicating deicing operations are the probable source of sodium cations to
the soils. At some sites a significant decrease in SAR occurred in March due to
rapid melting of surface snow, decreased salting operations, and early spring
rains. Only rarely was a correlation between SAR and distance from the road or
depth in the soils found for any given time period. The data indicate that soil
texture is more significant in determining the adsorption of sodium than salt
application rate. Low SAR values in soils throughout the sampling period indicate
that sodium is at present not accumulating in roadside soils at the four sampling

sites.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank Dr. Randall Schaetzl, Dr. Grame Larson, Dr. Alan Arborgast,
and Dr. Michael Velbel for their time, patience, and guidance. In addition, I would
like to thank Harold Shappar, Fredrick Williams, and Mike Slater for providing me
with reliable and pertinent information. I would also like to thank the Geology and
Geography Department office staff for guiding me through the university rhetoric.
I would like to give a sincere and appreciative thanks to Dr. Sharon Anderson for
helping me understand and calibrate the AA machine, for the use of her
laboratory, and sharing with me a small portion of her vast knowledge of soil
chemistry. A special thanks to Dr. Long, for the use of his laboratory and giving
me reasons to second guess my objectives. I would gratefully like to thank Bill
Rasmussen for helping me take "dirt" samples in sub-zero weather, use of his
computer for word processing, and listening to me babble about soil chemistry. I
would like to thank my fellow graduate students for their support and motivation.
Lastly, I would like to thank my family and friends for their unwavering confidence

in me.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables ................................................................................................ v i
List of Figures ............................................................................................... v iii
Introduction ................................................................................................... p 1
Background .................................................................................................. p 4
SAR ........................................................................................ p 5
Cation exchange process ....................................................... p 6
Salt-affected soils ................................................................... p 8
Salt in arid and semi-arid soils ................................................. p 10
Salts in temperate climate soils .............................................. p 12
Economic cost of salt to the environment ............................... p 15
Problem statement ................................................................. p 16
Study Area ................................................................................................... .p 17
Location .................................................................................. p 17
Geomorphology ...................................................................... p 17
Quaternary geology ................................................................. p 20
Soil series ............................................................................... p 20
Vegetation .............................................................................. p 28
Climate ................................................................................... p 28
Methods ....................................................................................................... p 30
Site characteristics ................................................................. p 30
Field Methods ......................................................................... p 32
Laboratory methods ............................................................... p 33
Results ......................................................................................................... p 35
Climate data ........................................................................... p 35
SAR and sodium values at the various
sampling sites ............................................................... p 37
Comparison of the two high deicing application
sites with different soil textures ..................................... p 41
Comparison of the medium and low deicing
application sites ........................................................... p 42
Comparison of SAR values at the high
salt application rate sites ............................................. p 42
SAR values with depth ........................................................... p 44
Seasonal distribution in SAR .................................................. p 49
Distribution of SAR with distance from the road .................... p 50
Control data ............................................................................ p 59

Sodic problems in Grand Traverse County ........................... p 60

Conclusions ................................................................................................. p 61
References .................................................................................................. p 65
Appendices .................................................................................................. p 69
Appendix I .............................................................................. p 69
Appendix II ............................................................................. p 82
Appendix III ............................................................................ p 95

List of Tables

Table 2.1. Analysis of saturated extracts of soils from two roadside

sites, October 1969 ....................................................................................... p 13
Table 3.1. Study locations and soil series ..................................................... p 17
Table 3.2. Mancelona soil series. ................................................................ p 23
Table 3.3. Montcalm soil series. ................................................................... p 25
Table 3.4. Kalkaska soil series. .................................................................... p 26
Table 3.5. Rubicon soil series. ...................................................................... p 27

~ Table 3.6. Average normal temperature and precipitation for

Grand Traverse County. .............................................................................. p 29
Table 4.1. Sampling sites in Grand Traverse County. ................................. p 30
Table 5.1. Climatic data for 1996-1997 for Traverse City, MI. ...................... p 36
Table 5.2. Average SAR values (mmol/L) for sampling sites,

arranged by their deicing rates. ................................................................... p 39
Table 5.3. Sodium values (mmol/L) for sampling sites. ................................ p 40

Table 5.4. CEC values and textures of the two sites, M37 and US31,
that have the highest salt application rates. .................................................. p 43

Table 5.5. Average mean concentrations of Ca, Mg, and Na
in mmol/L. ..................................................................................................... p 43

Table 5.6. Correlation between SAR and depth, in borings within
a transect in September ................................................................................ p 46

Table 5.7. Correlation between SAR and depth, in borings within
a transect in December ................................................................................. p 47

Table 5.8. Correlation between SAR and depth, in borings within
a transect in March. ..................................................................................... p 48

Table 5.9. Seasonal distribution of SAR in mmol/L. ..................................... p 49

vi

Table 5.10. Seasonal distribution of sodium in mmol/L. ............................... p 50

Table 5.11. Correlation between SAR and distance from the road
within a given transect. ................................................................................. p 52

Table 5.12. Difference between SAR values as distance from the
roadway increases. ....................................................................................... p 57
Table 5.13. Control soil sample SARs and sodium concentrations

taken in March. ............................................................................................ p 59

Table 5.14. Sites with SAR values that exceeded 13 mmol/L. ..................... p 60

vii

 

"7'

List of Figures

Figure 2.1. How salt works on the roadway surface. .................................... p 4
Figure 2.2. How deicing salt contaminates the environment ......................... p 5
Figure 2.3. Cation exchange on the soil colloidal surface. ............................ p 7

Figure 2.4. The adsorption of monovalent (+1) and divalent (+2)
cations on the negatively charged colloidal surface ...................................... p 8

Figure 2.5. Transects extending from the edge of a tollway into
Morton Arboretum near Chicago verified the airborne spread of

salt to distances of 378 meters. Samples of white pine needles taken
at 61 meter intervals in April were used to obtain salt concentrations

in foliage. ...................................................................................................... p 10
Figure 2.6. Sodium concentrations along a major highway in

Minneapolis/ St. Paul, WI ............................................................................. p 14
Figure 2.7. Actual long-term cost of NaCl. ................................................... p 15
Figure 3.1. County map of Michigan with Grand Traverse County

located in the northwestern lower corner. ..................................................... p 18

Figure 3.2. Map of Grand Traverse County identifying morainc

systems, outwash plains, and other features produced during the

Greatlakean glacial advance ........................................................................ p 19
Figure 3.3. Map of Grand Traverse County identifying morainic

systems and outwash plains in relation to sampling sites: (1) US31;

(2) M37; (3) Silver Lake; and (4) Rusch Road ............................................. p 21
Figure 3.4. General soil map of Grand Traverse County .............................. p 22

Figure 4.1. General highway map of part of Grand Traverse County,
showing study area locations. ....................................................................... p 31

Figure 4.2. Spatial distribution of auguring points for the collection
of soil samples. ............................................................................................ p 32

Figure 5.1. Precipitation and snow data for March 1997 .............................. p 38

viii

INTRODUCTION

Heavy snowfall and icy road conditions often necessitate the use of
chemical deicers to sustain vehicular traffic. Several possible chemical deicers
are available: sodium chloride, calcium chloride (Hutchinson, 1970), and calcium
magnesium acetate (Frazio, 1994). Sodium chloride (NaCl) is most widely used
in Michigan (McDonnell and Lewis, 1972). In Grand Traverse County, trucks
release tons of sodium chloride on roadways each winter (Harold Shappar,
personal communication, 1996) which are then plowed, along with the snow,
onto soils adjacent to the roadway. Upon melting, the sodium and chloride ions
infiltrate or run off, possibly interacting with the soil and nearby environment
(Scott and Wylie, 1980). '

Upon dissolution in water, NaCl dissociates into Na+ and Cl' ions that can
be readily adsorbed by clay and organic colloids in the soil. The Grand Traverse
County area has large acreages of sandy and sandy loam soils with very low
cation exchange capacities (Williams, personal correspondence, 1997). Hence,
there are a small number of exchange sites available to hold the Na+ cations
(McBride, 1994). In addition to the general lack of clay and organic colloids,
sandy soils have high permeabilities and high porosities, which may cause
cations to bypass available exchange sites during rapid, vigorous snowmelt,
rainfall infiltration episodes. All these factors suggest that Na+ ions, even though
heavily applied, may not accumulate in the sandy soils of Grand Traverse
County.

Conversely, additions of large amounts of sodium cations, from deicing
salts, increases the normal ionic composition of the soil solution, favoring the

adsorption of sodium cations and may even reduce the number of "nutrient"

 

cations adsorbed (Hassett and Banwart, 1992). Sodium cations are then
preferentially adsorbed on the surfaces of clays and organic colloids (Hassett
and Banwart, 1992). Thus, the conflicting possibilities of the fate of Na+ ions in
the soils of Grand Traverse County justified this study.

Sodium cations are highly mobile in soils and can alter their physical
characteristics and their ability to support healthy plants. Dry, cracked soils
found adjacent to roadways may be caused by the dispersion of clay colloids due
to high amounts of sodium, which reduce the porosity and permeability of the soil
(Hassett and Banwart, 1992). Excessive sodium can restrict the availability of
macronutrients, like Ca2+ and Mgz”, that are necessary for photosynthesis,
thus, impeding plant growth. In addition, sodium may aid in the transport of
trace metals in the subsurface, possibly contaminating groundwater (Amrheir et
aL,1993)

Heavy use of NaCl to remove snow and ice may therefore pose a long-
terrn threat to the environment. Soil solutions that are concentrated with sodium
cations deprive root systems of water, proper drainage, and vital macronutrients.
If the sodium from deicing is not accumulating in the soils, it is probably being T
flushed through the soil profile and may be entering the groundwater. Several
major aquifers in Massachusetts, for example, contain water that has been 5

categorized as saline and unusable for drinking and irrigation due to Iong-tenn

 

deicing practices (McConnell and Lewis, 1972).

The sodium adsorption ratio (SAR) is used in this study to ascertain the
exchangeable sodium percentage within a soil, equilibrated with a given solution
(Hassett and Banwart, 1992). The purpose of this study is to measure the
amount of sodium saturation, using SAR and sodium concentrations per se, in
sandy roadside soils in Grand Traverse County, Michigan. The SAR date will be

used to answer the following questions:

1) Do sites near roads with high salt application rates have SAR values above
10mmol/L relative to sites far from the roads?

2) As the distance from the roadway increases is there any trend in SAR values?
3) As depth increases at each sampling site is there any trend in SAR values?
4) Are there seasonal trends in SAR values?

5) Is sodium being concentrated in the soils adjacent to any of the four roadway
sues?

Four roadside locations in Grand Traverse County were sampled three
times over the course of a year to determine if the seasonal application of NaCl
to roadways affects soils continually or only seasonally. Sampling locations were
chosen based on salt application rates, soil series, and special characteristics
(absence of ditch, hills, or curves in or along the roadway). To assess the
variability in cation exchange three sites with similar soil series but different salt
application rates (high, medium, and low) were sampled. The fourth research
site is located on a sandy soil, and was established to compare sodium
adsorption between soil types of differing texture, both of which have high salt

application rates.

BACKGROUND

The use of sand on roads to provide traction during winter storms has
gradually been replaced by the use of chemical deicing agents (Scott and Wylie,
1980). Deicing salts applied to snowy road surfaces dissolve in water, lowering
the freezing point of the water and salt (or snow) mixture below that of pure
water, allowing snow and ice to melt (Figure2.1; Scott and Wylie, 1980). Two

salts, sodium chloride (NaCl) and calcium chloride (CaCl2), are the most widely

1) Salt is 2) Salt melts 3) Remaining 4) Vehicular traffic breaks
spread through snow/ snow/ice floats through the surface,
on surface ice, forming on brine, reducing the snow/ice
brine breaking bond to plowable slush that
with road surface is moved to the sides
of the road
1 2 3 4

 

N
N
\
N
N
N
\
\
N
N

 

Figure 2.1. How salt works on the roadway surface (after The Salt Institute.
1990)

used agents for deicing (McDonnell and Lewis, 1972). Chemical agents are less
likely to be blown off the road than is sand, they need less application time, work
quickly, and require no clean-up in the spring (Scott and Wylie, 1980). After salt
is applied to the roadway it can enter the environment through several avenues
(Figure 2.2)(Frazoi, 1994). The two predominant mechanisms of salt transfer are:
runoff of salt-laden meltwater from the road surface onto the right-of-way, and
piling up of salt-contaminated snow and ice onto the road right-of-way where it

melts, possibly infiltrating into the soil (Frazoi, 1994).

How Deicing Salt Contaminants the Environment

    
  

Wot my and dried,
windbome NaCl I: carried ,/‘
onto trees and shrubs '
Runofl to ,
ponds. ti
marshes. 7
creeks.

river!

I!
. 1’
(s
V
'3)!“ \
' 'I 1

 

~ 1‘ 4:”:“”r
‘ ' -..: I"!
Realism Drainagolrnonoh Seflcout-mlmtodmwlcols
(N10!) “cmmmhm www.mwdmm
soil and finds its way to tree roots
Chloride Ions (-) Sodium Ions (+)
”WMZWSOIISIIIW mm;mmnnnwm m“ m.
:idpuuthrwghsoiltommulato A - -—-—- mum m—x—a W

 

Figure 2.2. How deicing salt contaminates the environment (after Frazoi, 1992).

SAR

The sodium adsorption ratio (SAR) is the ratio between soluble sodium
and some soluble divalent cations. It can be used to predict the exchangeable
sodium percentage of soil equilibrated with a given solution (Hassett and
Banwart, 1992). SAR is defined as:

SAR: {NA}

/{C0} + {Mg}
2

where {} is the analytical concentration of the ions in the saturation extract

 

expressed in mmol/liter (Jurinak et al., 1984). SAR is used to determine the
potential sodium hazard in soils and irrigation water (Szabolcs, 1989).

The amount of soil exchange sites occupied by Na” is a function of the
relative concentrations of Na“ and the other competing cations (e.g., Ca”, Mg”,
AF”, and K+)(McBride, 1994). Since hydrogen is not a major nutrient cation it is
not considered. Exchangeable Al3+ can be disregarded, because it is not usually
associated with soils containing significant amounts of exchangeable Na+
(McBride, 1994). The potassium ion rarely occupies a significant amount of
exchangeable sites, and thence, K+ concentrations are disregarded in the SAR
equation. The SAR equation combines Ca2+ and Mgz“ to account for the ion
valence (2+) which is more important than ion size when predicting ion exchange

relations (Bresler, et al., 1982).

Cation Exchange Processes

Cation exchange is the reversible process of interchanging a cation(s) in
solution for a cation(s) on the negatively charged surface of a clay or organic
colloid (Figure 2.3)(Hassett and Banwart, 1992). In order for adsorption to occur,
the attractive forces between the solid soil surface and the cation must overcome
both the attractive forces between the solution component (solute) and the soil
solution (solvent), and any repulsive forces between the soil surface and the

adsorbing species (Hassett and Banwart, 1992).

 

(a) Cation in solution randomly moves into the
hemisphere of motion of an exchangable ca'
n e atlvel 0‘ when the cation is removed from the surface
g V exchange occurs.
charged

colloid (b) Cation in solution ramdomly moves into the
hemisphere of motion of an exchangable ca'
when the cation is close to the surface
exchange does not occur.

 

Figure 2.3. Cation exchange on the soil colloidal surface (after Hassett and
Banwart, 1992).

The exchangeability of cations in solution depends on the valences of the
adsorbed cations, the hydrated size of the cation, the concentration of the
cations in the soil solution, and the density of the negative charges on the
colloidal surface (Szabolcs, 1989). In non—saline soils the exchangeability of
cations usually increases with increasing valence (Mg>Ca>Na) resulting in Mg2+
and Ca2+ cations occupying the interlayer regions of swelling clays (Szabolcs,
1989). When salt dissolves at the soil surface the soil solution may become
saturated with Na+ cations. As Na“ cation concentrations increase the probability
that Na+ cations will be adsorbed increases because the ratio of {Na+} : {Mgz“}
and {Ca2+} increases (Hassett and Banwart, 1989). As the concentration of Na+
cations in the soil solution increases, low valence cations can and do get
adsorbed preferentially over high valence cations (Na>Ca>Mg)(Brester, McNeal,
and Carter, 1982).

The hydrated size of a cation determines how close the cation can
approach the negatively charged colloidal surface (Hassett and Banwart, 1989).
Calcium and magnesium cations can get strongly hydrated, while sodium is more
weakly hydrated (Hassett and Banwart, 1989). The valence (+2) and hydration
energies of Ca2+ and Mg2+ does (do) not allow close contact with the external,

negatively charged colloidal surface (McBride, 1994). Generally, sodium does

not have direct contact with the negatively charged colloidal surface because of

its low valence (+1) and hydration energy (Figure 2.4)(McBride, 1994).

wwas?'—:-::::=:=:'~:::r:2tr:‘-=.:,-:;rr:‘-:::3rs.:2'-3:35":”r; .2, w»; .. :«r. . 9.. :> v‘;i‘.i:§'ft':'~!v‘.§7f‘,73‘."".1"“.“5"..~.:5;?’5$:';:7.’5-"->'¥};23>“?Ix‘vfitficf
. . . .
I , W . W W ‘
t‘ 3
. 6‘
r
.
.

 

 

 

Figure 2.4. The adsorption of monovalent (+1) and divalent (+2) cations on the
negatively charged colloidal surface (after McBride, 1994).

Therefore, in conclusion, sodium will readily exchange with adsorbed
Ca” and Mg” cations when the soil solution becomes saturated with Na“
cations. In addition, once adsorbed, Na" may create more stable electronic
bonds on the colloidal surface than do calcium and magnesium (McBride, 1994).
Of course, if the soil solution again becomes saturated with Ca”, Mg” or
another cation, the ionic concentration will change, resulting in the desorption of

Na+ from clay and organic colloids.

Salt-afiected soils

Saline, saline-sodic, and sodic are the three basic types of salt— affected
soils (Hassett and Banwart, 1992). Saline soils have greater than 15%
exchangeable sodium (SAR>10) and pHs less than 8.5 (Hassett and Banwart,
1992). Saline soils have high concentrations of accumulated soluble salts which
increases the osmotic pressure of the soil solution (Tomlin, 1997). Generally,
saline soils form when dissolved salts are transported to the surface via

groundwater; therefore, the water table must be within 2 m of the soil surface

(Henry et al., 1987). Due to the high levels of dissolved salts, the soil colloids are
not dispersed but remain flocculated, maintaining good soil permeability.

Saline-sodic soils have greater than 15% exchangeable sodium
(SAR>10), but still with pHs less than 8.5 (Hassett and Banwart, 1992). In
addition, saline-sodic soils have high electrical conductivities of the saturation
extract and high sodium content (Bucholz, 1983). Saline and saline-sodic soils
both contain high enough levels of soluble salts, however, to affect the growth of
salt-sensitive plants (Schut, 1976).

Sodic soils have greater than 15% exchangeable sodium (SAR>13) and
pljsgreateflhanfifi (Hassett and Banwart, 1992). In these soils, pedogenic
structure is destroyed when two monovalent cations replace one divalent cation
on the basal plane of soils (Cooper, 1996). When two monovalent sodium
cations replace one divalent cation on the basal plane of swelling clays, the
separation distance between soil particles expands, thus weakening the Van der
Waals bonds that flocculate the clay double layers (Hassett and Banwart, 1992).
The clays become dispersed and soil structure is eventually destroyed. Sodium
occupation of exchangeable sites, therefore, results in decreased soil porosity
and permeability (Hassett and Banwart, 1992).

Fertility is reduced in sodic soils through chloride poisoning, nutrient loss,
and osmosis (Frazoi, 1994). Chloride poisoning occurs when NaCI dissolves,
allowing free Cl' ions to be taken up by roots and carried through the sap stream
to leaves, where they may accumulate to toxic levels (Frazoi, 1994). Excessive
sodium in the soil also restricts plants' uptake of essential macronutrients like
Ca”, Mg”, and K+ (Frazoi, 1994). When soluble salt levels become high, water
in the root cells moves out by osmosis, into the soil, causing the plant to wilt, or

in extreme cases, die (Tucker, Messick, and McBride, 1996). Trees and shrubs

in the Morton Arboretum in Chicago, for example, have salt damage caused by

salt spray up to 378 meters from passing freeways (Frazoi, 1994)(Figure 2.5).

Salts in arid and semi-arid soils

Soils in arid and semi-arid climates have notable salinity problems where
shallow water tables and high evaporation rates move salty soil water to the
surface (Brester, McNeal, and Carter, 1982). Insufficient annual rainfall cannot
flush out salts in the surface zone; instead they remain at high concentrations in
soils, throughout the year (Brester, McNeal, and Carter, 1982).

Rainfall, mineral weathering, fossil salts, and eolian deposition are the
main sources of salt to soils in arid and semi-arid climates (Brester, McNeal, and

Carter, 1982). Rainwater is saline because ocean water droplets evaporate in

Foliage sodium concentrations in pines
4000«

30004-
2000*

1000*

 

 

100 ft 300 it 500 ft 700 ft 900 ll
Distance from Tollway

- Na (mg/g)

Figure 2.5. Transects extending from the edge of a tollway into Morton
Arboretum near Chicago verified the airborne spread of salt to distances of 378
meters. Samples of white pine needles taken at 61 meter intervals in April were
used to obtain salt concentrations in foliage (after Frazoi, 1994).

10

the air, leaving a salt particle behind. The salt particle may eventually act as a
condensation nucleus for water during cloud formation (Brester, McNeal, and
Carter, 1982). In arid and semi-arid climates mineral weathering rates are low
due to low annual rainfall amounts; therefore, unweathered minerals act as a
renewable source of salinity (Brester, McNeal, and Carter, 1982). Prior salt
deposits or connate (entrapped) solutions present in former marine sediments
are termed fossil salts, and contribute the highest amounts of salt to the soil
(Brester, McNeal, and Carter, 1982). Fossil salts can be released when an
impervious cap that overlays highly saline groundwater weathers, allowing saline
water to saturate the soil and rock strata above (Brester,_McNeal, and Carter,
1982). Human activities can release fossil salts by: (1) using saline water for
irrigation, (2) producing saline drainage waters from newly developed land, and
(3) building canals and reservoirs through highly saline strata (Brester, McNeal,
and Carter, 1982). Although, arid and semi-arid climates contain several types of
soluble salts, NaCI is dominant in the strongly saline soils (Szaboks, 1989).

The source of salt in arid and semi-arid climates differs from the source of
salt present in temperate climates, resulting in unique seasonal distribution,
climatic variances, and spatial distribution both with depth and distance. Sodium
chloride concentrations in arid and semi-arid climates are extremely high and
persist throughout the year because the source of salt is an integral part of the
landscape (Szaboks, 1989). The source of salt in arid and semi-arid climates
does not change drastically because the seasons, at least with respect to rainfall,
are not dramatic. In temperate climates the seasons are highly variable; causing
leaching of salts in the spring and the possible accumulation of salts in the drier
winter in Michigan. Deicing salt on roadways in winter is the main source of salt

in some temperate climates.

11

Salts in temperate climate soils

In comparison to arid and semi-arid climates, salt-affected soils in
temperate climates have not been studied extensively. For health and safety
reasons, studies involving salt and temperate climates traditionally focus on the
infiltration of deicing salts through the soil column to the water table (Howard et
al., 1993; Huling and Hollocher, 1972; Hutchinson, 1970; Locat and Gelinas,
1989)

When deicing salts melt, in contact with snow or ice, the bond between
the sodium and chloride ions is broken, allowing each to move freely in solution
(Frazoi, 1994). Sodium cations may then be adsorbed onto clay minerals
(Hutchinson, 1970). Sodium adsorption may then cause the displacement of
significant nutrient cations ("bases"), such as Mg”, Ca”, and K+ (Hutchinson,
1970). Davison (1970) sampled several roadside soils where deicing occurred
and found that sodium had displaced Mg”and Ca” cations 10 cm to 2 m from
the roadway (Table 2.1 ). Sodium adsorption in temperate climates is complicated
where it is then scattered by vehicles onto the soil.
by seasonal climate changes, and the fact that the salt source occurs on roads,

Three parameters must be considered when evaluating SAR variability in
roadside soils in temperate climates. First, NaCI may not be distributed equally
with depth. When NaCI dissolves in water the Na+ ions are very mobile and
easily migrate downward in wet soils or toward the surface when dry (Scott and
Wylie, 1980). In dry soils, salt and water move upward more frequently, with salt
accumulating near the surface where water evaporates (Scott and Wylie, 1980).
The rate of salt and water movement depends on the permeability of the soil and
the moisture gradients within (Scott and Wylie, 1980). More salt movement
occurs in soils with high permeability than in those with low permeability (Scott

and Wylie, 1980). Second, as the distance from the roadway (or the distance

12

 

from the source of the salt) increases, Na+ levels decrease. The distance salts
move away from the road are influenced by: a) soil properties, e.g., slope,
permeability, texture, structure, moisture content, and cation exchange capacity
b) climate, e.g., amount and pattern of precipitation, runoff, snowfall and melt,
and temperature c) highway deicing practices, e.g., salt used, time and number
of applications, and snow removal procedures, and d) snow cover, e.g.,

insulation of soils, and amount of salt present in snow (Scott and Wylie, 1980).

Table 2.1. Analysis of saturated extracts of soils from two roadside sites, October
1969 ( ionic concentrations in m-equiv./l of extract; E.S.P. in the exchangeable
sodium percentagefiafter Davidson, 1970).

Site name/ Depth Na Ca 8 Mg Cl ESP
Distance of (ionic concentrations in m-equiv per liter of extract)
from road sample

 

(cm)
Dentonl 0-5 066.24 4.38 4.38 43
10 cm 5-10 090.55 1.50 - 62
10-15 067.26 0.73 32.6 62
Dentonl 0-5 033.59 3.90 15.1 25
2 m 5-10 043.70 4.28 26.0 30
10-15 032.20 4.07 22.3 23
Ovington/ 0-5 093.24 6.63 43.9 43
10 cm 5-10 082.76 9.81 63.7 35
10-15 153.76 9.23 63.8 52
Ovington/ 0-5 028.80 4.98 21 .3 20
2 m 5-10 031.66 7.15 23.6 29
10-15 074.37 5.98 36.8 39

 

Biesboer and Jacobson (1994) measured the distribution of NaCl as
distance from the roadway increased. Their study spanned one year, along
several highways in Minneapolis/ St. Paul. Figure 2.6 shows that the highest
concentrations of NaCl occurred in the winter and spring months (December and
May)(Biesboer and Jacobson, 1994). The lowest concentrations of NaCl

occurred in summer. NaCI levels were highest in the samples taken nearest the

13

 

roadway. Sodium chloride levels decrease with distance from the roadway
because salt tends to move vertically in most sandy soils, and not
laterally. In addition, the amount of salt-laden snow and brine also decreases as

the distance from the roadway increases.

 

Sodium v Time

4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000

    

1500
1000
500

0 I I I I I I I I I I I

I
February April June August October December
Time (Months)

I 1Meter I 3Meter D 10 Meter

3c-aom

 

 

 

 

Figure 2.6. Sodium concentrations along a major highway in Minneapolis/ St.
Paul, WI. Samples were taken at 1, 3, and 10 meter intervals from the roadway
each month for one year (after Biesboer and Jacobson, 1994).

When deicing salt is the main source of sodium, it reduces the amount of
sodium loading because salting only occurs in the winter. In addition, the
distribution of salt is more spatially limited to soils adjacent to roadways. The
spatial distribution of salts differs in each climate due to temperature and source.
Because salts move in the soil column with moisture and temperature, climate
(especially precipitation) is a significant factor in the movement and
concentrations of salts. In temperate climates the source of salt is usually very
localized, and the salts are dispersed from this point. In arid and semi-arid
climates the salts are not localized because there are several contributing

sources (Szaboks, 1989).

14

Economic costs of salt to the environment

In spite of the environmental impacts of deicing salt, community officials
continue to use NaCI as a deicing agent instead of environmentally friendly
alternatives like calcium magnesium acetate (CMA)(CaM9202H302)(Frazoi,
1994) for economic reasons. Sodium chloride is inexpensive because it is easy
to mine and abundant; CMA must be manufactured in a laboratory, increasing
the cost considerably (Frazoi, 1994). However, CMA has no long-term effects on
the environment, and NaCl often does (Frazoi, 1994). A study conducted in New
York State (Figure. 2.7) concluded that repairs from deicing salt to highways and
bridges, and costs of vehicular damage, contamination of water, and corrosion of
utility equipment raises the actual cost of salt from $25 per ton to $1450 per ton

(Frazoi, 1994).

 

Cost of Sodium Chloride

33" Water supplies
, Utilities/ corrosion

   

Highway corrosion

Vehicle corrosion

 

 

 

Figure 2.7. Actual long-term cost of NaCl (after Frazoi, 1994).

Problem statement

Grand Traverse County, located in northwestern lower Michigan, uses
sodium chloride to melt snow and ice on the roadways during winter months
(Harold Shappar, personal correspondence, 1996). The Grand Traverse Road
Commission has three rates of deicing application: state trunk lines receive 204
kg/km of pure salt, county primary roads receive 204 kg/km of a 1:1 saltzsand
mixture, and county minor roads receive 204 kg/km of a 1:5 saltzsand mixture
(Harold Shappar, personal correspondence, 1996). The Road Commission does
not monitor the extent of sodium saturation caused by deicing salt infiltrating
roadside soils or the accumulation of salt in groundwater or surface waters.

Because excess sodium can potentially alter the soil, possibly lowering
soil fertility, excessive use of deicing salt is becoming a topic of concern in this
predominately farming area. The main objective of this study is to measure the
degree to which salt, as indicated by sodium adsorption ratios (SAR) and sodium
concentrations, is accumulating in soils located adjacent to some roadways in
Grand Traverse County. Results of the analyses will determine if sodium cations
are present in roadside soils, if the soils are sodic, and if the extent of saturation 'f‘
varies with depth in the soil and as a function of the salt application rate,

distance from road, and time of year.

 

‘ FT

16

STU DY AREA

Locafion

The study area is centered on Grand Traverse County, in northwestern

lower Michigan (Figure 3.1 ). Four sampling sites were delineated within the
county, each of which had one or more of the following soil series: Kalkaska,

Mancelona, Montcalm, and Rubicon sands and sandy loams (Table 3.1).

Table 3.1. Study locations and soil series

 

 

 

Site# *Soil series Site location

1 Rubicon SW 1/4 of NW 1/4 Sec. 17,T.25N.,R.11W
2 Montcalm-Kalkaska SE 1/4 of NW 1/4 Sec. 17,T.26N.,R11W
3 Montcalm-Mancelona SW 1/4 of SW 1/4 Sec 32, T.27N.,R.11W
4 Mancelona NE 1/4 of NE 1/4 Sec. 1, T.25N.,R.11W

 

 

*Soil series identified by auguring.

Geomorphology

The maximum advance of the Late Wisconsin ice sheet completely

covered Michigan (Farrand and Eschman, 1974), and significantly shaped the

landscape in Grand Traverse County (Figure 3.2). Retreat of the ice sheet

began in pulses, recorded by morainic ridges, some 18,000 years ago (Eschman
et al., 1973). The Port Huron moraine, ascending west to east through southern

Grand Traverse County, is a remnant of a re-advance of the ice sheet (Eschman

et al., 1973). The Port Huron moraine is characterized by steepsided knobs,

capped with a moderate thickness of till over sands and fine gravels with

undrained depressions associated with stagnant ice margins (Eschman et al.,

1973). During the last (Greatlakean) advance of the ice sheet, approximately

11,850 years ago, only the northern third of Grand Traverse County was

probably covered with ice (Weber et al., 1990). Recession of the ice sheet left

17

 

l
Ir

 

 

 

Figure 3.1. Map of Michigan with Grand Traverse County outlined in the
northwestern lower corner (Grand Traverse County Road Commission, 1997).

18

 

1w

  
   
  

Ground moraine

Outwash and Glacial channels

 

7 // Lake beds.including dunes

A

10 Miles

 

Figure 3.2. Map of Grand Traverse County identifying morainic systems, outwash
plains, and other features produced during the Greatlakean glacial advance
(Eschman et. al., 1973).

one or more end moraines, trending northwest to northeast through the county
(Weber et al., 1990). In Grand Traverse County, the Mancelona Plain is an
outwash plain and glacial spillway that lies to the south of the end moraine of
Port Huron age. In addition, two large ground moraines with numerous drumlins
are located north of the city of Acme (Weber et al., 1990). Benches that were
once the bottoms of glacial lakes Algonquin and Nipissing are located along and

near Grand Traverse Bay (Weber et al., 1990).

Guatemary geology

Three of the four sites, U831, M37, and Silver Lake Road, are located on
outwash plains; the Rusch Road site is located on an end moraine (Eschman et
al., 1973)(Figure 3.3). The sites at U831 and Silver Lake are both located on the
southern end of the Mancelona Plain (Eschman et al., 1973). M37 is located on
another, unnamed outwash plain south of the Port Huron moraine (Eschman et
al., 1973). All of these sites contain predominantly fine to coarse sands that are
pale brown (10YR 3/1 to 10YR 4/2) to pale reddish brown (10YR 4/4 to 10YR
6/4) in color with occasional layers of gravel and cobbles.

The Rusch Road site is located on a southern ridge of an end moraine
composed of sandy glacial drift (Eschman et al., 1973)(Figure 3.3). Sediments in
this area are sandy clay loam, sandy loam, or loamy sand in texture, and gray to

grayish brown or reddish brown in color (Farrand and Bell, 1982).

Soil series
Field verification of each soil series at each site was performed by Dr.
Randall Schaetzl by making one or two borings at each site, but does not

account for natural soil variability at each site.

20

Moraine

  
  
   
     

Ground moraine

Outwash and Glacial channels

KB! Lake beds, including dunes
U831 - 1

M37 - 2

Silver Lake - 3

Rusch Rd - 4

 

  

‘ Grand
Traverse

Figure 3.3. Map of Grand Traverse County identifying morainic systems and

outwash plains in relation to the four sampling sites: (1) U831, (2) M37, (3) Silver

Lake, and (4) Rusch Road (Eschman et. al., 1973).

21

General Soil Map
Grand Traverse County, MI

Soil Associations:
i Emmet-Leelanau ,
X X
McBride-Montcalm
Coventry-Karlin

Kalkaska-Mancelona x i

 

Rubicon-Grayling X

Lupton-Roscommon

 

 

Lakes

 

 

Figure 3.4. General soil map of Grand Traverse County (Weber et al., 1990).

22

.82 .._m .8 .82....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.8sz
0.59.0 :. Bo.
ESPEUOE
3023.3 aim... Ee> 633.: Ee> 3:5
3:69... 509:.»
iii... ”Sign >225 53.0 >225 .820 ”Ease Emucaom
3.3... 5.8....
deco. 3.35:3 3.3533 300. .2355
”5:3 e.m:.m .3: ice? 6:... £33.59... o_m:.m 6:: £33 9.30:3»...
33:2.
223:...
.055 E... pcm acme 5.? E8.
oecaoo pep—=83 >20 Econ acme >Emo. acme. acme .253. 23x0...
.Eo. once.
it-.. 3.2. 8.2. @mN «Tm £65.62...
e:..9..m
it... 22.8 .850: 53.3.: E352: 3.2.2
2o «>3 in mi» 2v m>m N? m>m 2m «>3 3.00.
+3 F- ..m 3.3 3.3 2...... 2.... canon
:o~..o... UN conic: am canto: mm canto... m :onto: < canto...

 

mono.» gouge 2 .e>e. 63.23.95 ”metem ..om 323:2... .N.» 03a...

23

The four soil series examined in this study comprise approximately 51% of
the total soil acreage in Grand Traverse County (Weber et al., 1990)(Figure 3.4).
Mancelona soils (Table 3.2) cover 3.6% of the land area in Grand Traverse
County (Weber et al., 1990). The A horizon is 5-13 cm thick and has a loamy
sand texture that is dark-brown in color and contains moderately low amounts of
organic matter (Weber et al., 1990). The Bs horizon is composed of yellowish-
red loamy sand due to an accumulation of iron, and is very friable (Weber et al.,
1990). The Bt horizon is a dark reddish-brown sandy clay loam with numerous
limestone pebbles and some illuvial clay (Weber et al., 1990). The 20 horizon is
yellowish-brown in color and composed of stratified, coarse, calcareous sand
and fine gravel (Weber et al., 1990).

Montcalm soils (Table 3.3) cover 5.6 percent of the land area in Grand
Traverse County (Weber et al., 1990). The A horizon is 15-23 cm thick and
composed of a very dark grayish-brown (loamy sand) that is very friable (Weber
et al., 1990). The Bs horizon is dark yellowish-brown loamy sand with an
accumulation of iron (Weber et al., 1990). The lower B horizon contains illuvial
clay lamellae (Weber et al., 1990). The C horizon begins at approximately 91 cm
and grades to calcareous sand with depth (Weber et al., 1990).

Kalkaska soils (Table 3.4) cover 13.6 percent of the land area in Grand
Traverse County (Weber et al., 1990). The A horizon is dark grayish-brown
(loamy sand) with a moderately low organic matter content (Weber et al., 1990).
The E horizon is grayish-brown sand (Weber et al., 1990). The upper B horizon
(Bh) is dark reddish-brown (loamy sand) due to an accumulation of organic
matter (Weber et al., 1990). The Bs horizon below is dark-brown to brown sand
with an accumulation of iron (Weber et al., 1990). The BC horizon is a dark
yellowish-brown sand that extends to approximately 61 cm (Weber et al., 1990).

The C horizon is a pale-brown sand and in some places contain lenses of

24

.82 .._m .0 58>...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5...... £3 0.8.3 ..< .3
03003230 0033000 rm .0
3 023.6 003: E0 2.-m.~ 23.... >3> 23.... 30> 350
3:60... 500:.0
ill... >33 .320 .320 303.53 Empcaom
>202:
.2029 3.353230 >202: 3.33.0
3:53:30 E202... 3:33:30 23.00:.
.02. .303 .30.... 0:: .303 .303 0.3.03.5
:32
>030 :3
.030 E32 030 E32 030 E32 :30 E32 0.33...
3.0. 0G3.
......... 3.3 5.2" 3.2. 0005.02...
2.9.0
3 E202: 8200:. 22.3.: 2.2.0 b.20<
Sn «>0 3
".0 «>2. «.0 «>2. Ev «>2. NB «>2. .200.
32.3 3.8 3.3 8... 5.8—
:o~..o... o 32.5.. «mm :outo; 0m :onto: 2 canto...

 

02.20 0030 2 .0>2 60:33.33 "0230 :00 E30222 .0.» 2.3...

25

88. :0 .6 .225.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.0503.
0.390 c. .50.
2:0... >.0> 203.000.... .050
>>0.s 3.30.0... 3.39.0... 3.3m0... 5003.0
...... ..... 203005 20300.0 203005 30350 30350 >.00:30m.
>202:
0000. 0000. .0.3m:0:30 0000.
0000. .:.0.m .:.0.m 00.300 :.0.m .0_3:0.m
.:.0.m 0.m:.0 0520 0550 .2003 0.m:.0 0:... .2003 0.3.03.5.
.0>0.m
0800 0:0 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 >E00. 0:00 0:00 >032 0.308...
:30. 0.03.
.--...-... 00-3 020.. 00.3 cméd 3.2 000:20.:...
20:0 20:0 E2006
2 3.3.00... 0. “0:050 m:050 m:0.~0 83.00:. 3 2.9.0 b.0.0<
.05. «>3 0.
20 «>3 30 «>3 2». «>0.» NE «>m NB «>3 En «>2. .200
+ 5 3. 5 e0. 3. 3.3 8.3 2.0 5000
:00..0: o .:0~..0: om :00..0: 0m :0N..0... :m :0N..0: m. :00..0: a< :00..0_..

 

 

0000.0 000.0 0. .0>0. .00:.0.0...0.s "00.30 :00 02002.02 .06 23>

26

8%: .._m .6 .825

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

550
22.32.: 5:62: >>m>> >>m>>
...- ..... ”.2595 ”.3695 .520 Juana Emu—Som—
wmoo_ $00. $00. $00. $00.
.Eflm .595 .595 .595 .EEm
m_m:_m 065m BmEm . 055m o_m:_m 9.32:5.
ccmm ucmw ucmm ucmm ucmm 23x8.
AEov wmcfi
.---..-...- 91mm mmén c _..m.~ o de 33:02...
£359: E359: E359: E359: Em=m >=Eo<
So mi: EV mi: Se m>mN «B mi: EN «>3 3.00
+3 Tow 3-9. 312 2..» m6 5an
canto: U canto: mm canto: mm canto: m canto: < canto:

 

 

932m awmam 2 _w>m_ flog—2333 “motow __om c3531 .m.m Sam...

27

reddish-brown sand or loamy sand one to five cm in thickness (Weber et al.,
1990)

Rubicon soils (Table 3.5) comprise the largest percent of the land surface
of Grand Traverse County, 28.3%, (Weber et al., 1990). The A horizon is dark
brown with a thickness of 2-10 cm (Weber et al., 1990). The E horizon is grayish-
brown sand with loose soil structure (Weber et al., 1990). The Bs horizon is dark-
brown and yellowish-brown sand, whereas the C horizon is light yellowish-brown

(Weber et al., 1990).

Vegetation .

Vegetation at the sites currently consists of short grasses and alfalfa,
except at M37 and Rusch Road sites. The M37 site was partially tilled but had
not been in crop production in several years. The Rusch Road site is located
along the grassy edge of a fruit farm where rows of apple trees are planted,

beginning about 25 m from the roadway.

Climate

Weather systems moving over Lake Michigan dramatically affect on the
climate of Grand Traverse County (Table 3.6). Large amounts of lake-effect
precipitation in the form of rain, snow, and ice fall on the county each year
(Eichenlaub, 1970; Muller, 1966). The average annual precipitation is 76 cm with
226 cm of snowfall (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
1951-80 averages). In addition, Lake Michigan moderates temperatures in the
summer and the winter resulting in average minimum temperature of -6.8°C in

January and an average maximum temperature of 20.700 in July.

28

Table 3.6. Average monthly temperatures and monthly precipitation totals for
Grand Traverse County.

 

 

 

 

Month Temperature (C) Precipitation (cm) Snow (cm)
Ave rage Average Ave rage
January -6.8 5.1 66
February -6.8 3.6 43
March -1 .4 4.4 28
April 5.8 5.8 8
May 12.1 5.9 0
June 17.5 8.3 0
July 20.7 6.6 0
August 19.5 7.4 0
September 15.3 10.2 0
October 9.3 6.9 3
November 2.9 6.1 20
December -3.7 5.3 58
Totals 76.0 226

 

(Climatic data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NCAA), 1951 -80 averages).

29

 

METHODS

Site characteristics

Four research sites, all located in Grand Traverse County in northwestern
lower Michigan, were sampled during the course of this research (Figure 4.1 ).
Factors used in the selection of possible sites included vehicular traffic volume,
salting application rate, slope, absence of a ditch, and characteristics of soils in
and near the right-of-way. Sampling sites included two roadways with high
vehicular traffic that have high salt application rates, one roadway with medium
vehicular traffic that has an intermediate salt application rate, and one with low
vehicular traffic volume and a low salt application rate (Harold Shappar, personal
correspondence, 1996). All four sites have roadside soils that are within sandy

textural families, which, in general, typify Grand Traverse County area (see

Table 4.1. Sampling sites in Grand Traverse County

 

 

 

 

 

Site # Road Site location
1 U831 south SW 1/4 of NW 1/4 Sec. 17,T.25N.,R.11W.
2 M37 south SE 1/4 of NW 1/4 Sec. 17,T.26N.,R11W.
3 E. Silver Lake Rd. SW 1/4 of SW 1/4 Sec 32, T.27N.,R.11W.
4 Rusch Rd. NE 1/4 of NE 1/4 Sec. 1, T.25N.,R.11W.
Site # *Soil series adjacent Soil series
to road identified by
augunng
1 Rubicon Rubicon
2 Montcalm-Kalkaska Montcalm-Kalkaska
3 Mancelona Montcalm-Mancelona
4 Kalkaska Mancelona
Site # **Salt and sand application rates (kg/km)
1 204 kg/km pure salt
2 204 kg/km pure salt
3 204 kg/km 1:1 saltzsand mix
4 204 kg/km 1:5 saltzsand mix

 

*(Weber et. al., 1990)
"(Harold Shappar, personal correspondence. 1996)

30

 

Til

 

 
 
  

  

East
Grand

Traverse
Bay

 
   
   

 

1M72

 

 

u531 '

 

 

 

U531

IM37

 

M113

 

 

 

Figure 4.1. General highway map of part of Grand Traverse County, showing
study area locations: (1) M37, (2) U831, (3) Silver Lake Road, and (4) Rusch
Road (Grand Traverse Road Commission, 1997).

31

Figure 3.4) (Table 4.1). Positive identification of the soil series adjacent to the
roadway was determined by preliminary soil auguring. All four sites are relatively

flat, have no ditches, and not located near an intersection or hill.

Field methods

At each site, soils were sampled with a bucket auger, with the depth and
position of each sample not measurably exact within each horizon in each boring
but an estimate. Samples were taken along three transects, 6 m apart, located
perpendicular to the roadway. Five borings were made at intervals of 2 m starting
from where the backfill meets the native soil (Hutchinson, 1970). The three,
each 10 m in length, yielded fifteen pedon sample sites at each of the four
roadside sites (Figure 4.2). At each 2 m boring, three soil samples were taken,

using the auger, at approximately 8 cm, 60 cm, and 100 cm depths, to examine

* 'k *

 

Transects * * *
10m
in length * * *
* * *Borings
.. .. . 2m
Rows oporf
om
oprorf
Roodwoy

 

Figure 4.2. Spatial distribution of auguring sites for the collection of soil samples.

any translocation of sodium cations and to locate possible sodium accumulation

zones in the subsurface. In effect, a sample was taken from each of the A, B,

32

and C horizons. Approximately 250 g of soil was removed placed in a plastic bag
and labeled with the month,

location, transect number, boring number, and soil horizon type. Sampling
occurred at three dates: in early September 1996, in early December 1996, and
in early March 1997. A measuring wheel was used to determine the exact
location of each site, in reference to a fixed structure, in order to precisely locate
the sampling area when snowbanks were present. Each sample bore hole could
not be located precisely, therefore subsequent borings were close to the original

bore hole.

Laboratory methods

All soil samples were allowed to air-dry on aluminum foil. After air-drying
the samples were crushed with a wooden pestle and screened through a 2 mm
(10 mesh) sieve (Hesse, 1971 ). Coarse fragments (> 2mm diameter) were
discarded.

Standard procedures approved by the Council on Soil Testing and Plant
Analysis (1992) were used to analyze the samples for contents of Na+, Ca2+,
and Mg2+ cations. The extractant was made by mixing 77.1 g of ammonium
acetate (NH4C2H3OZ) with 900 ml of distilled water. Five grams of dried soil
were then placed in a 50 ml glass extraction bottle along with 25 ml of extractant
reagent. The soil and extractant mixture were then shaken for five minutes on a
reciprocating shaker at approximately 180 oscillations per minute. After shaking,
the samples were allowed to settle for approximately 24 hours. The filtrate was
carefully removed using a pipette and placed in 25 ml plastic containers.

Before cation concentrations could be measured from the soil extract,

standard solutions for sodium, calcium and magnesium were made to calibrate

the atomic adsorption spectrometer (AA). Standard solutions for calcium ranged

33

from 10 ppm to 140 ppm in intervals of 20 ppm. Magnesium standards ranged
from 2 ppm to 30 ppm in intervals of 4 ppm. Sodium standard solutions ranged
from 2 ppm to 30 ppm in intervals of 2 ppm. In order to limit the burn-off of the
major cations present in the filtrate during atomization, 5% KCl was added to
each sample prior to analysis (Sharon Anderson, personal communication,
1996). The concentrations of the individual cations were measured in ppm (or
mglL) from the soil extract using a flame AA. The extract was drawn in the AA
and atomized, emitting a specific color, while a wave length of a specified length
passed through the flame measuring the concentration of a particular cation.
Standards that exceeded the maximum standard when analyzed on the AA were
diluted 10 times with distilled water. Concentrations were converted to mmol/L

using the following conversion:

(mg) x (1 g) x (1me (J_O_O_O_mmol)
(L) (1000 mg) (gfw*) (1 mol)
* gram formula weight of ion

Sodium absorption ratios (SARs) for each sample were then calculated using the
concentrations of Na+, Ca2+, and M92+ cations in mmol/L with the following

formula (McBride, 1994):

{NO}
SAR =

/ {CO}+{M9}
2

Sodium, magnesium, and calcium concentrations for each boring, in each

 

horizon, at each site, for each sample period were then entered into an Excel
spread sheet to calculate SAR. SAR values were entered in the Statistical
Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) for Windows in order to statistically

manipulate the data.

34

 

RESULTS

Climate data

During the sample period, April 1996 - March 1997, precipitation in the
study area often exceeded the 30 year (1951-1980) normals (National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)(Table 5.1). The normal annual
precipitation, recorded at Traverse City, is 76 cm, but during the sample period
161 cm of precipitation was received. In a normal year the total snowfall is 226
cm (Table 3.6 in Study Area), but during the sample period, total snowfall was
511 cm (Table 5.1), a difference of 285 cm. Total monthly precipitation was
above normal for 11 of the 12 months during the sampling period. With the
exception of four months, April, May, July, and November, temperatures were
also above normal during the sampling period.

April 1996 was an extremely wet month (total monthly precipitation 12.3
cm above normal), but with cool temperatures (monthly mean temperature 18°C
below normal). June, July, and August received abundant precipitation (monthly
precipitation 12.9 cm, 7.2 cm, and 0.3 cm above normal, respectively). Monthly
mean temperatures in June and August were above normal (1 .5°C and 15°C,
respectively) but temperatures in July were 1.7°C below normal. In September
and October, monthly precipitation (12.2 cm and 9.9 cm) and mean
temperatures (1 .6°C and 10°C) were both above normal (precipitation 2.0 cm
and 3.0 cm; temperatures 0.7°C and 07°C, respectively)(TabIe 5.1; NOAA,
April-March, 1997). Thus, the soils were wetter than normal during the sampling
penod.

Heavy precipitation (8.9 cm in the first 10 days) combined with colder than
normal November temperatures (1 .9°C below normal for the month) produced a

maximum snowpack of 50.8 cm on November 10. In early December

35

temperatures were 1.800 above normal, melting nearly half of the snowpack that

had accumulated in late November. December was marked by periodic freezing

Table 5.1. Selected climatic data for 1996-1997 for Traverse City, MI (NOAA,
April 1996-March 1997).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Year Mean Mean Monthly 1996-1997
Maximum Minimum Mean (C) Departure from
Temp. (C) Temp. (C) normal* (1951-80)
1996 April 9 -2 4 -1.8
May 18 5 1 1 -1.1
June 24 13 19 +1.5
July 26 13 19 -1 .7
August 27 14 21 +1.5
Sept. 21 1 1 16 +0.7
Oct. 15 5 10 +0.7
Nov. 4 -1 1 -1.9
Dec. 0 -4 -2 +1.7
1997 Jan. -3 -9 -6 +0.8
Feb. 0 -8 -4 +2.8
March 3 -5 -1 +0.4
Year Precipitation Departure Total Monthly
(cm) from normal Snowfall Maximum
(cm)*(1951-80) (cm) Snowpack
(cm)
1996 April 18.1 +12.3 22.1 7.6
May 3.6 -2.3 5.1 0
June 21 .2 +129 0 0
July 13.8 +7.2 0 0
August 7.7 +0.3 0 0
Sept. 12.2 +2.0 0 0
Oct. 9.9 +3.0 0 0
Nov. 14.2 +8.1 74.4 50.8
Dec. 17.7 +12.4 90.9 20.3
1997 Jan. 27.1 +22.0 210.3 68.6
Feb. 6.4 + 2.0 42.9 25.4
Totals 161.0 511.0 213.4

 

* A (+) sign denotes above normal and a (-) sign denotes below normal.

rain and snow episodes. Often, however, the snow and ice that had accumulated

at night would melt by mid-afternoon of the following day. During December 1-

36

 

 

15, there was a total of 28.7 cm of snowfall, with an average snowpack of 7 cm.
From December 16-31, however, 62.2 cm of snow fell, resulting in an average
snowpack of 14 cm. Snowfall in January totaled 210.3 cm, resulting in a
maximum monthly snowpack of 68.6 cm on January 21. In February, total
monthly snowfall was 64.3 cm with a 48.3 cm (maximum) snowpack on February
5 (NOAA, November-February, 1997).

In early March the accumulation and melt of snowpack occurred in pulses;
vigorous melting (2-4 cm) of the snowpack began on March 1-3 (Figure 5.1).
Significant melting of the snowpack ceased until March 6-8 when 5.7 cm of new
snow fell, adding 3 cm to the snowpack. The snowpack again began to melt
(average of 2.5 cm per day) between March 10-13. Accumulations of snow on
March 13-16 (average of 5.3 cm per day) increased the snowpack by 12.7 cm.
Mild temperatures on March 17-31 (average daily temperature 15°C) rapidly
melted the snowpack (average of 3.2 cm per day) such that by March 25 it was
essentially gone (NOAA, March 1997).

In summary, the sample period was wet with above normal temperatures
during the winter months (December - March). Precipitation, snowfall and rain, 3-
was extremely abundant throughout the year, with the exception of May. Wet
and above normal temperatures in the sampling period created favorable

conditions for heavy snow during the winter and rapid melting in late March.

 

SAR and sodium values at the various sampling sites

Application rates of salt differed for three of the four sampling sites. These
rates have been practiced in Grand Traverse County for approximately 32 years
(Harold Shappar, personal correspondence, 1996). Several studies conclude
that long-term salting of the roadways can lead to the accumulation of sodium in

roadside soils (Davison, 1970; Scott and Wylie, 1980).

37

 

 

0E

U):03-m——

or

mw

ON

mm

om

Pm

 

AEov xomasocw In: AES =mtsocw 11 A83 cozmzeooi D
32 news. .582 as so >8
mm mm mm 9. 3 9 or n v F

  

 

06

_..o

Nd

md

v.0

md

od

50

wd

md

09

0E

0.5030--O.

 

 

.39 5055. .8 San 26cm new cozngooun. fim 2:9...

38

At the four sites in Grand Traverse County the highest mean SAR values
coincide with sites that receive that most deicing salt (Table 5.2). The sites near
M37 and US31 both received heavy amounts of deicing salt, 204 kg/km of pure
salt, and have the highest grand mean SARs when data from all samples from
all transects are combined and averaged. Rusch Road received the lowest
amount of deicing salt, 40 kg/km of pure salt, and had an intermediate grand
mean SAR. Although Silver Lake received a medium amount of deicing salt, 102

kg/km of pure salt, it had the lowest grand mean SAR.

Table 5.2. Average SAR values (mmol/L) for sampling sites, arranged by their

deicing rates*

 

 

 

 

Month M37 US31 Silver Lake Rusch Road
Salt Application Rate
high high medium low
September 1.2 0.4 0.2 0.7
December 2.7 2.2 0.6 0.7
March 3.1 0.3 0.2 1.3
Grand Mean 2.3 1.0 0.3 0.9

 

 

 

*Data were derived by finding the mean SAR of each site (including all transects
and horizons) during the appropriate sampling period. The grand mean is a total
average of the mean SARs (including September, December, and March) for
each sampling site over the entire sampling period.

The M37 site had the highest sodium concentrations throughout the entire
sampling period (September, 1.17 mmol/L; December, 3.23 mmol/L; and March,
3.57 mmoI/L)(Table 5.3). This increase in the early winter (December) at the M37
site (over 2.5 times the concentrations in September) suggests that sodium was
accumulating in the soils due to early winter deicing application operations.
Similarly, at the U831 site in December, sodium concentrations (2.45 mmol/L)
increased to over six times the concentration in September (0.40 mmol/L).

Sodium concentrations at the Silver Lake and Rusch Road sites increased, but

39

 

only slightly, from September (0.19 mmol/L and 0.60 mmol/L) to December (0.6
mmol/L and 0.66 mmol/L). Based on these data, it appears that sodium

accumulated in the soils due to early winter deicing operations. Sodium

Table 5.3. Average sodium values (mmol/L) for each samplirLg site*.

 

 

 

 

 

Month M37 U831 Silver Lake Rusch Road
Salt Application Rate
high high medium low
September 1.17 0.40 0.19 0.60
December 3.23 2.45 0.70 0.66
March 3.57 0.22 0.23 0.66

 

 

* Average sodium concentrations were derived by summing the sodium values in
mmol/L, at each site from each transect in the given sampling period and dividing
by the number of samples (45).

concentrations continued to increase from December (3.23 mmol/L) to March
(3.57 mmol/L) at the M37 site, although the increase was small; other sites saw
no change or a decrease in sodium concentrations from December to March.
The U831 site had the largest decrease (11 times) in sodium concentrations
from December (2.45 mmol/L) to March (0.22 mmol/L). Sodium concentrations at
the Silver Lake site decreased slightly from December (0.77 mmol/L) to March
(0.23 mmol/L) but did not change at the Rusch Road site. An increase in SARs
at the M37 site in March may have been caused by a large influx of sodium from
the melting of salt-laden snow, increasing the availability of sodium cations. In
addition, large amounts of salt-free melt water at the surface may have infiltrated
through the soils, carrying in excess sodium to deep subsurface layers, and

thereby reduced SAR values at the remaining three sites.

40

Comparison of the two high deicing application sites with different soil
textures

Sites that received more deicing salt did not always have the highest
SARs and sodium concentrations, possibly due to soil texture and CEC
differences. Loamy sand soils (see Study Area) found at the M37, Silver Lake,
and Rusch Road sites contain more clay and organic matter which are capable
of adsorbing sodium cations, than U831 (Rubicon series). Sand soils, found at
the U831 site, are highly permeable with less clay and organic matter. The lower
CEC values make the Rubicon soils here less capable of adsorbing sodium
cations, suggesting that salts may flush through these soils and not be
concentrated in the soil solution where they may be adsorbed.

Higher SAR values and sodium concentrations at the M37 site are,
therefore, probably due to a combination of a high salt application rate and the
sandy loam (as opposed to sand) texture for the 1996-1997 time period. Sodium
was readily adsorbed in December and March, when deicing salt is either being
applied to the roadway or salt is coming out of melting snow. SAR and sodium
concentrations are maximal in December at the (sandier) U831 site but decrease
markedly by March. The low values in March could be due to the fact that
sodium is quickly flushed through the sandy soil profile by rain and snow melt.
The effect of different soil textures is apparent when comparing the SAR values
and sodium concentrations of the U831 site in September (0.40 mmol/L) and
March (0.22 mmol/L) with the Rusch Road site (0.60 mmol/L and 0.66 mmol/L,
respectively). Although the Rusch Road site received the lowest amount of
deicing salt, its SAR values and sodium concentrations are higher than at the
(very sandy) U831 site. These data suggest that texture and CEC are more

important than application rate in determining the amount of Na+ adsorption.

41

Comparison of the medium and low deicing application sites

It has already been noted that the sites with medium and low salt
application rates have lower grand mean SAR values and sodium concentrations
than the sites with high salt application rates. Rusch Road had the lowest salt
application rate, 40 kg/km of pure salt, but had an intermediate SAR value (0.8
mmol/L) and higher sodium concentrations in September (0.60 mmol/L) and
March (0.66 mmol/L), than the Silver Lake site. Although both sites have similar
soil textures (see Study Area) the soil at the Rusch Road site is better
developed than the soil at the Silver Lake site. The soils at the Silver Lake site
have coarse textures, marked by numerous unsorted rocks and pebbles that
increase permeability and flowpath channels. In addition, the soils at the Rusch
Road site have sandy clay lenses in the Bt horizon that may better retain sodium
caflons.

In conclusion, sites in Grand Traverse County that received high rates of
deicing salt often, but not always, had the highest SAR values or the highest
sodium concentrations. The adsorption and retention of sodium appears to also
be dependent on the soil texture (which influences both CEC and permeability)
as much as deicing salt application rate. Sandy soil profiles adsorb and retain
little sodium while profiles of sandy loam or clay loam textures adsorb and retain

more sodium throughout the year.

Comparison of SAR values at the high salt application rate sites

Of the two sites that receive the highest amount of deicing salt, the M37
site had the highest grand mean SARs (Table 5.2). The M37 site has Montcalm-
Kalkaska soils which have a slightly higher CEC (Table 5.4) than the U831 site,
which has Rubicon soils. In addition, Rubicon soils are very sandy with slightly

higher permeabilities, reducing the contact time between sodium and the few

42

available negatively-charged, adsorption sites, when compared to the sandy
loams or loamy sands at the Montcalm-Kalkaska site.
Comparing the concentrations of Ca”, Mg”, and Na“ cations at the

U831 and M37 sites indicates that there was little change in the concentrations

Table 5.4. CEC values and textures of the two sites, M37 and U831, that have

 

 

the hi hest salt application rates.

ISite Soil Series Average CEC* Texture
|M37 Montcalm-Kalkaska 1-15 mmol/100 g loamy sand
U831 Rubicon 1-6 mmol/100 g sand

 

*William Bowman, personal communication (11/05/97)

of Ca2+ and Mg2+ cations over the sampling period (Table 5.5). The Montcalm-
Kalkaska soils at the M37 site had a large increase in Na concentrations in
December (3.23 mmol/L) and March (3.57 mmol/L) over that of September. This
large influx of sodium was from deicing salts applied to the roadway. In late
March rain and rapid snowmelt dissolved sodium chloride crystals in snow,

releasing sodium cations to the soils. A large increase in sodium

Table 5.5. Average mean concentrations of Ca, Mg, and Na in mmol/L*

 

 

 

Site/date Ca (mmol/L) Mg (mmoI/L) Total Ca + Mg Na (mmol/L)
M37/Sept 2.22 0.20 2.42 1.17
M37/Dec 2.08 0.45 2.53 3.23
M37/March 2.05 0.11 2.16 3.57
US31/Sept 2.04 0.13 2.17 0.40
US31/Dec 1.88 0.18 2.06 2.45
US31/March 1.88 0.06 1.94 0.22

 

 

 

concentrations is evident at U831 in December (2.45 mmol/L) compared to
concentrations in September (0.40 mmol/L) and March (0.22 mmol/L). Spring
and summer rains probably flushed any existing sodium ions through the sandy

soils, resulting in low SARs in September and March.

43

Although both sites had high salt application rates, the Montcalm-
Kalkaska (M37) soils adsorbed more sodium that the Rubicon (U831) soils
throughout the sampling period. This trend may be due to the greater availability
of negatively-charged adsorption sites at the M37 site, as well as their slower

penneabmfies.

SAR values with depth

In order to examine trends in SAR with depth, bar graphs depicting the
SAR values of all the horizons, at each boring, were made for the individual
(transects. Comparing the SARs of each horizon within a single boring might
suggest a relationship between SAR and depth in a single pedon. If four of the
five borings in a transect depict SAR decreasing from the A horizon to the C
horizon, I concluded that a depth trend in SAR existed for the soils in that
transect. In addition, the opposite trend, SAR increasing with depth, was also
evaluated. If four of the five borings depict SAR increasing with depth from the A
to the C horizon, an inverse depth trend was assumed to have existed for that
transect. If two or more of the borings in a given transect did not show such a
depth relationship, I assumed that a depth or inverse depth trend did not exist.

In September, none of twelve transects from the four sites show a depth
or inverse depth trend in SAR (Table 5.6). Rather, the data generally indicate
that sodium is comparatively most concentrated in the B horizon with the lowest
SAR values in the A horizon. Normally, during the summer growing season Ca2+
and Mg” are depleted from the upper soil horizons. Excess Na+ may have been
eluviated from the A and E horizons eventually accumulating in the B horizon.
Any accumulation of sodium cations probably occurred in the clayey Bt horizon

due to the abundance of adsorption sites. In addition, Na“ remained fairly

44

concentrated in the C horizon, which is not normally affected during the growing
season, reducing the likelihood of Na+ flux out of that horizon.

In December, none of the twelve transects showed a relationship in SAR
and depth (Table 5.7). Generally, SARs in the C horizon were higher than those
in the A horizon, indicating Na+ was not concentrating at the surface. Periodic
snow fall, deicing applications, melting episodes, and rain may have quickly
flushed Na+ from the A horizon to the horizons below. Some of the December
bar graphs have large peaks in SAR for different horizons, separated by
extremely low SAR values, which indicates some preferential vertical movement
of water through the soil profile (Appendix II).

In March, one of twelve transects taken from the four sites show SAR
values, decreasing with depth (Table 5.8). None of the transects showed an
inverse relationship between depth and SAR. At M37 in transect three sodium is
comparatively concentrated in the A horizon, then the B horizon, followed by the
C horizon, compared to calcium and magnesium. The accumulation of sodium in
the A horizon may be explained by large amounts of sodium being released at
the surface due to rapid melting of heavy salt-laden snow in March (see Study
area). However, the majority of transects depict SAR being the lowest in the A
horizon compared to the B or C horizons. Rapid melting of surface snow and
increased rainfall in March may have carried Na+ to the lower horizons at these
sites.

The absence of depth trends in SAR may be due to preferential flowpaths
present in the soils. Preferential flowpaths are present throughout the year
because soils in temperate climates that receive early winter lake-effect
snowpacks do not freeze (lsard and Schaetzl, 1994). The vertical movement of
water through soils is dependent on periodic rain, snow, and melting events that

wash sodium through the soils, to various depths, depending on site-specific

45

Eva .8 Eu .38 9: 5 £36 53 m<m g Ems m 8538

_ cm5 55% 53> mo:_m> m<m :_ co=m_otoo Em o>mc 8: 23 8:38 623 05 3o .58 3. .uflflxm 55% 53> m<w E 355

m noEammm _ 55 55% 53> mo:_m> m<m E con—20:8 oEmm o5 um: 63cm: 95 E amazon o>3 o5 ho .52 “: .6355
.523 m E .3330: 0 new .m .< 05 ho m.m<w 55 355893 3 85.52% mm; 583 can m<m 5358 5:39:00 on... F

 

 

z (mmAOF .OM<Am-F N F m 63cm: comsm
z OAmM<-F v N 83:5 58:1
2 (AOMmF F F F F F .8965 :83.
z Oumu<-F
mM<Ao-F .OM<Am-F F F m 63cm: 52%
z <AOMmN N F N 63cm: 52%
z 0M<Am-F
<Aon-F .0893 N F 63:93 525
z N N F m Hoomcmh Rs.
2 OAmA<-F N N N 83:93 .55.
z <AOMm-F N F F 60955 392
z Oumu<-F .<MmAO-F F F F m Cowman: meD
2 <AmMO-F F m N 63:95 mea
z onA<-F F F F F F Commcmb mea
.mnEofiow
23%
53> 0:68.05

.0 533 53> m<w E mA<AO OA<Am <AOAm <AmAO

m<w 96883 3:25 55% 30 2935 99.3 9sz 95:2,

”9 F9930 $9: on? 5505 63.85 .55 83cm: .8 “com—55 Ema 83:9: .05
83:85 300 53> macros 3 macros 3 amazon 3 3:38 3 35.09 3 9635.52

 

335953 5 6355 m £53> mmctoa c_ 5&3 3cm m<m c3253 cozflmtoo .m.m flaw...

46

 

.338 6.. Eu 2:8 as 5 £85 £3, m<m s 22 m 8538

_ cm5 533 53> mm:_m> m<w :_ cozmfitoo Em o>mz 8: 23 3:38 023 m5 ho So.— 3. .3958 55% 53> m<m E 3.55

m 8533 _ $5 59% 53> mo:_m> m<w c_ cozmfitoo 9:3 55 um; “oomcmb 98 5 3:38 o>3 o5 30 58 n= .8355
:96 m E .9650: 0 35m .m .< 55 .6 m.m<m 05 9:55.33 3 85.55% mm; 5503 cam m<m coofion cozmfitoo of. F

 

 

z mAOA<-F F F N m Cowman: 58:1
2 OMmA<-F F m N 862m: :83.
2 F N N F 83cm: :83.
z OAmA<..F N F F m Cowman: 525
z oAmA<-m F F N “coma—w: $25
2 mAOA<-F F N F F 83.65 .m>__m
z oAmA<-F F m m .0355 .32
z N N F N 6355 RE
2 F N N F 63:93 5.2
2 onA<-F N F m 63cm: me3
z 0va<-N F N N 8355 meD
2 OMmA<-F .oAmA<-N N F 80255 me3
85.580
25%
53> mEmmEoE
Lo 55% 53> m<m c_ mA<Ao 0A<Am <83 4?on
«26 968.83 355 55% .6 923 99.3 29.; 223
no. F5230 69: 83 558m 802m: .8 83:55 .8 83:9: .3 63cm: .8
83cm: moon. 5_>> 3:38 3 3:33 3 amazon 3 macros 3 3:38 3 235:2).

 

.EonEmooo 5 63:93 a £535 mwncton :_ .5563 cam m<w c0923 cozmfitoo Nm 2%...

47

 

.333 a: 53 3:8 95 c. £58 5.; m3 5 235 m 85:33
. :35 5333 53> 35.3> m<w :_ 853.358 >:3 3>3: 5: 3.3 33:32. 35 35 3o 58 3. 335.38 :53 53> m<m :_ 3:35

3 333533 _ :35 5333 53> 35.3> m<m :. 553.358 353 35 33: 53:35 3:0 :_ 33:38 35 35 5 5o.— 5. 53:35
:35 3 :_ 3:03.50: 0 3:3 .m .< 35 5 w.m<w 35 3:53:35 3 33.35353 33 5333 3:3 m<m :33253 553.358 9:. F

 

 

z OAmA<-F F N F m 53:35 :33.
z onA<-F .<AOMm-N N F N 53:35 :33.
z mM<Ao-F
.<MOAm-F .<AOMm..N F F 53:35 :33.
z oAmM<F .mAOM<-F
.<AOMm-F .0umn<-N m 53:35 525
z Unmu<-F
.mAOA<-F .<AOMm-N F N 53:35 .525
z mM<Ao-F .<moAm-F
.mAOM<-F .OAmA<-N F 53:35 526
> 03533 F m 53:35 55.
z oAmM<-F 635.: N F N 53:35 333.
z 0A<mm-F .0323 F F 53:35 33.2
2 <AOMm-F .<mon-F F F F m 53:35 mea
z <AmAO-N
.oAmM<.F .<mon-F F N 53:35 men
z (mon-F .<AOMm-F F N F 53:35 Fawn
F535.
23%
53> 35335:.
5 :53 53> m<m :. 39.3 09.3 .333 <Aon
m<m 3:53:33 3:35 533 5 35:3 35:3 35:3 35:?
5:335 53:. 33 553:3 53:35 :3 53:35 .3 53:35 :3 53:35 :3
53:35 300 53> 33:38 3 33:38 3 33:38 3 33:32. 3 33:33 3 25355.2

 

 

.5533. :_ 53:35 3 :.53> wagon :_ .5333 3:3 m<m 33.233 553.3500 .33 3.33...

48

factors such as slope, aeration, vegetation, and preferential flowpaths. In
addition, soil samples taken within each horizon may not reflect the same soil
composition due variability of sample depth associated with bucket auger

sampling.

Seasonal distribution in SAR

Deicing salt is only applied to roadways during the winter season, allowing
time for sodium cations to be released (desorbed) from soils during the late
spring, summer, and early fall. Total mean SAR values calculated from the
average SAR values during each sampling period support this hypothesis. When
salting begins, in December, the total mean SAR of roadside soils is higher (1.6
mmol/L) than in September (0.6 mmol/L)(Table 5.9). In March salting ends, but
melting of salt-laden snow and rainfall occurs, resulting in a reduction of the total

mean SAR (1.2 mmol/L) from December.

Table 5.9. Seasonal distribution of SAR (mmol/L*)

 

 

 

 

Site September December March
M37 1.2 2.7 3.1

U831 0.4 2.2 0.3
Silver Lake 0.2 0.6 0.2
Rusch Road 0.7 0.7 1.3
Total Mean 0.6 1.6 1.2

 

*Data were derived by finding the mean SAR of each site (including all transects
and horizons) during the appropriate sampling period. The grand mean is a total
average of the mean SARs (including September, December, and March) for
each sampling site over the entire sampling period.

At all the sites, the highest average SAR values were either in December
or March, never in September. Spring and summer rains probably washed most
of the sodium from the soil profile thus reducing the grand mean SAR by

September. Sodium becomes readily available in December when deicing salt

49

 

commenced thus markedly increasing SAR values. An increase in temperature
caused heavy infiltration of soil by water from the snow and ice melt and early
spring rains which reduced SAR at the sandy soil sites but increased SAR at the
loamy sand site.

Average sodium concentrations were also highest in either December or
March (Table 5.10). Seasonally, sodium concentrations coincide with average
SAR values, except at the Rusch Road site. Sodium concentrations do not
change from December (0.66 mmol/L) to March (0.66 mmol/L) but the average

SAR value doubles from December (0.6 mmol/L) to March (1.2 mmol/L).

Table 5.10. Seasonal distribution of sodium (mmol/L*)

 

 

 

Site September December March
M37 1.70 3.23 2.45
U831 0.40 2.45 0.22
Silver Lake 0.19 0.70 0.23
Rusch Road 0.60 0.66 0.66

 

*Average sodium concentrations were derived by adding the sodium in mmol/L
at each site from each transect in the given sampling period and dividing by the
number of samples taken at each site (45).

In conclusion, when deicing salt is being applied to the roadways, in
December, the SAR values increase. As salting decreases and melting of snow
and rain occur, in March, the total mean SAR decreases. Spring and summer
rains flush sodium through the soils reducing the total mean SAR, such that late-

summer (September) values are low.

Distribution of SAR with distance from the road
Salt spray, the pile-up of salt-laden snow adjacent to the roadway, and
roadway run-off move sodium-rich snow and water laterally away from the road

(McConnell and Lewis, 1972). At the four sampling locations, and in northern

50

 

Michigan in general, soils do not freeze (lsard and Schaetzl, 1995) eliminating
freeze/thaw layers which may complicate the movement of soil water in the
subsurface. Ideally, the input of salt should produce distance-decrease SAR
trends, defined as, when distance from the roadway increases, SAR values
decrease within a given transect.

In order to determine if a trend existed in SAR as distance from the
roadway increased, the soils at each site were evaluated by transect and by
horizon. To do this, SAR values for each horizon in each transect of a particular
site were examined statistically. I used SPSS for Windows to find the upper and
lower bound of the 95% confidence interval for the best-fit linear regression line
for SAR data (Table 5.11). If the resulting confidence interval included "zero" in
its range, then the slope of the regression line could, statistically, be zero,
indicating that SAR cannot be said to be increasing or decreasing in that horizon
along the given transect. If the confidence interval did not include zero with in its
range, then a significant (at 95%) slope in SAR did exist, indicating SAR is either
increasing or decreasing in that horizon along the given transect. lf the slope of
the (significant) regression line is positive, then SAR is presumably increasing as
distance from the roadway increases. If the slope of the (significant) regression
line is negative than SAR is presumably decreasing as distance from the
roadway increases. The rate at which SAR increased or decreased was
indicated by the slope of the regression line. The larger the slope the greater the
change in SAR with distance.

Statistical analysis confirm that, for all time periods, 100 out of 108
transects do not have SAR values that significantly decreased or increased, with
distance from the road, indicating that no trend in SAR exists. Only 8 of 108

transects have SAR values that significantly decrease, as distance from the road

51

 

 

2 3B. 39.. 335333.323
z 33.F 33.7 3.5835323
z 333. 33F.- 35:33:32.3
2 E3. 33.- 5353335323
2 3.3. 3.3.- 335333.323
z . 333. 333.- 55:33:32.3
z 333. 3.? 33533.35.
2 333. 33.. 3.533.335.
z 33F. 33.. 35:33.33...
2 333. 333.. 335333.35.
333. 83.3-33.3; > 33.. 333.- 3.353335...
33. 33333-333!» > 37 33.- 35333.35.
2 33F. 3:... $3533.33...
2 F33. ~3- $3533.35.
33F. 33 F 3-33. Fu. > 3 5.- 333.. <. 5333.335.
2 33.F 33.7 33533.33:
2 333. 333.- 33533.33:
2 FF F. 333.- 35333.33:
2 33F. 33m.- 33533.33:
2 333. .3? 3.533.333
z 33F. 39.. 35333.33:
2 333. 32.. $3533.33:
2 333. 33.3. $5333.33:
2 333. 333.. $533.33:
33.3 :053333 30.3 :053333
3323 5.33.33. 5.33.33:
5:335:93 E 3 3533: 5333.3 .2 .3335. .8 .3235. :oN..o....
:053333 .5 35.303 8.3-:05 .553 0333 5 5:8 0333 5 53:3...
Nm 5.3-335$. 5:335:35 3:303 .333: 3:33 326.. 3530355

 

 

53:35 :3>.m 3 :.5.>> 330.. 35 £05 33:35.3 3:3 m<w :332533 553.3500 .FF.m 3.33...

52

 

 

- z 3N. F FN.N- 33.330535.
- z 3N3. 33.N- <.N.330..-3.>.
- z 335. 33N- $2330.59...
- z to. 00 F .- 0.3.330. F333
- 2 ..F F. R F .- o.N.330. .333
- z 330. 0NF.- 0:530:33:
- z 33.N 30.3- 3.3.330. F33...
- z 33. F 35. F- m..N.330. F333
333.0 33F - 3.FF u > - > 30F.- 3v.N- 3:530:33:
005.0 330.0 - 33.0 n > - > 300.- mNF.- $3530.33:
- z 05. 33.3- <.N.o30.meD
- z 33. F No.3- <. F530. F333
- z 3N5 03. F- 935033.531
- z 53¢. 53.. o.N533w.F.3:m
- 2 F33. anr 0.5333533.
- z 330. 300.- 3.3533533.
- z 333. 3.3.- 3.533.583
- z 333. 33. F- 3. (533.533..
- z 330. 33 F. 335333.533.
+ z 33F. 33F.- 535333.583
- z 00 F. mnNr <. 2533.533.
+ z 33F. 33 F .- 335333.323
+ 2 EN. 0 F0.- o.N533w..3>_.m
+ z 03F. 00 F .- 0. 2533.325
30.3 553333 35.3 55333
300.3 5.33.03. 5.33.03.
539-593 E 3 35303: 330.3 .8 .3235. .8 .3235. 5.3.5...
553333 E 35.33 5.3-:05 .58 $30 5 .503 $33 5 .5353...
My. 5.33.03. 3020 5335593 3:33.. .3303 3:333 3.53 5.30.8.0

 

33:8. .53 3.33

53

 

 

 

- 2 3mm. 03. F- 0.3.330.:33:m
+ z 330. 330.- 0.3.330.:333m
- 2 F F0. 50.. o.F.330.:33:w. .
- z 33F FvN- 33.330.53.33
- z 35. 33.. 353302333. _
- z 330. v 5.. m. F.330.:33:m
3.33.0 3330.0-3F3.0n> - > 35.. 330.- <.3.330.F.333m.
+ z 3.0. 330.. 33.330.53.33.
- z 300. 030 .- <. F.330.:33:m
+ z 03 F. 30 F .- 0.3.330..3>_..w
+ z 30 F. 300.- 0.3.330..3>__w
- z 0.3. 33. F- o. F.330..3>..w
- z .30. .0 F .- m..3.330..3>..w
+ z 330. 330.- 3.3.330..3>..w
- z .33. 33. F- m. F.330..3>._m
- z 330. 330.- <.3.330..3>..w
333.0 333300-330; - > 30.- 50.. <.N.330..3>._w
- z 33 F. 333.- <. F.330..3>._w
- 2 F03 0.1... 0.3.330R3s.
- z 333 33..»- 0.3.80.3...
- z .33. 30.3- 0. 2330.335.
- z 030. 33 F .- 3.3.330R3s.
- z :0. F F .3- 3.3.80.5...
- z 33. F FN.N- 3. (330.33....
333.3 533.63 333.3 5.3333
333.3 :3.333.33. :3_333.33.
.:33_.._:3.3 E 3 32.333: 3333.3 .3. .3>.3.:_ .3. .3225 :3N..3I
:3..3:33 3 32.333 .3.3N-:3:v ..:33 $33 .3 ..:33 $33 .3 .8323...
33. 8.33.333 333.3 .:33.._:3.w 3:333 .3333 3:333 .333 .3.30.3..w

 

25:8. .33 3.an

54

 

 

 

- z 30F. 333.- 3.3..32..3>._3
- z 333. 333.- m.F..3.>...3>..m
- z 3.3. 333.- <.3..3.>...3>__3
- z 3F3. 333.- <.3..3.>...3>_.3
- z 333. 3.3.- <. F..3.>...3>..w
+ z 333. 30 F.- 0.3..3S..33$.
+ z 033. 0 F3 - 0.3..3.>..33.>.
- z 333. 333.- o. F..3.>..33..,.
+ z 333. 3 F3 - 33:32.33...
- z 333. 333.- m..3..3.>..33.>.
+ 2 F33. F3v.- m..F..3.>..33.>.
+ z 333. 333.- <.3..3.>..33s.
- z 303. 3 F. F- <.3..3.2.33s.
- z 30. F 33. F- <. F..3.>..33.>.
- z 303. 30. F- 0.3..3.>.. F333
- z 303. 30. F- 0.3..35..F330
- z 300. 330.- 0.3..32. F33...
- z 300. 330.- o.F..3s..F3mD
333. 330.0 - F3.0 u 3 - > 330.- 30F.- 3.3..3§.F333
- z 333. FF. F- 3.3..35..F330
- z 333. 33. F- m.F..3..,..F333
- z 3.0. 333.- <.3..3s.. F333
- 2 3S. 3vF.- <.3..3.>..F333
- z 35. 330.- <.F..3..,..F333
333.3 :3..3:33 333.3 :3..3:33
$33.3 :3.333.33. 8.33-3.33.
.:33_._:3.3 E 3 32.333: 3333.3 .3. .3295 .3. .3>.3.:. :3N_.3.-.
:3_.3:33 A+v 3>.._333 .3.3N-:3:v ..:33 Ax33 .3 ..:33 nx33 .3 0333:30-
Vm. 8.333.333. 333.3 .:33_..:3_3 3:333 .3333 3:333 .326. 330.25

 

3.28. :3 3.an

55

 

[-55 5 flaunt-MI -

.mmwmmhur:

33.5333. 3:. E3.. 33:3.3.3 33 3:.333.333 .3 3:.333.3:. .3:..3 3. «2.3 3:..33.3:. .3.3.X3 333.3 3.3N-:3: .:33_-..:3.3

3 :3:. 3.3N 33.23:. .3: 3.3 .3>.3.:. 33:33:33 3:... .33333.3:. 33.5333. 3:. E9. 33:3.3.3 33 3...: 3:.3:3:3 3. 32.3
3:..33.3:. .3338 333.3 .:33_-..:3.3:3: 3 :3:. .3.3N 33323:. .3>.3.:. 33:33:33 3:... .33:.E.3.33 33.5 333.3 3:. .3 .3>.3.:.
33:33:33 3:. .3 33:33.. .353. 3:3 .333: 3:. ..333:3.. :323 3 .3. :3N..o: :333 :. 3m<w 3:. .3. :3.333.33. .33:.. 3:.30.

 

- 2 33.3 3.33- 0.3..3.>..:3333.
- z 333. 333.- 0.3.3.2.:333.
- z 330. 330.- 0.F..3.>..:33:m.
- 2 33.3 33.3- 3.3.3.2233”.
- z 3 F0. 330.- 3.3..35..:33:m
+ z 3.0. 330.- m. F..3.>..:33:m.
- z 330. 33 F .- <.3..3.>..:33:m.
+ z 33 F. 30 F .- <.3..3.>..:33:m.
- z 35. 330.- <. F..3.>..:33:m
- z 03F. 033.- 0.3..32..3>..w
- z 330. 3 F F .- 0.3..35...32.3
- z 3 F0. 33.. 0. F..3.>...32.m
- 2 00.0 00.0 93:32:32.3
333.3 :3..3:33 333.3 :3..3:.33
$33.3 :3.333.33. :3.333.33.
.:33_-..:3.3 ..V 3 32.333: 3333.3 .3. .3>.3.:. .3. .3>.3.:. :3N..3.-.
:3..3:33 At 3>...333 .3.3N-:3:. ..:33 n$33 .3 ..:33 03.33 .3 ..333:3..r
My. 3.333.333. 333.3 .:33_-..:3.m 3:333 .3330 3:33: .3.53-. .3.30.3..m

 

 

3.83 :3 3333

56

increases (Table 5.11). None of the transects had a significant increase in SAR
with distance.

In September, a significant negative slope existed for 3 of the 36 transects
(Table 5.11). All of the transects were located at the M37 site in either the A or B
horizon (Table 5.12). The decrease in SAR values as distance from the roadway
increases in the A horizon (M37/Sept/1 ) were (1.3 mmol/L - 0.2 mmol/L)
comparable to the reduction in B horizon (M37/Sept/1 and M37/Sept/2) SAR
values (2.5 mmol/L - 0.4 mmol/L and 2.3 mmol/L - 0.8 mmol/L).

Table 5.12. Difference between SAR values as distance from the roadway
increases.

 

 

 

 

 

SAR value* (mmol/L) Difference in
at the first and last SAR
boring in a given between the
transect. first boring
Site/transect/ and the last
Month horizon Distance from road boring.“
2 m 10 m
September M37/1/A T 1.3 0.2 1.1
M37/1/B 2.5 0.4 2.1
M37/2/B 2.3 0.8 1.5
December US31/3/A 0.6 0.2 0.4
Silver/1/A 3.2 0.1 3.1
Rusch/3/A 0.5 0.1 0.4
US31/1/B 10.6 0.1 10.5
March U831/3/B 0.6 0.1 0.5

 

 

 

* SAR values were calculated using Na, Ca, and Mg concentration in mmol/L.
** The difference between borings were derived by subtracting the SAR value at
the 10 m boring from the SAR value at the 2 m boring.

In December, a significant negative slope existed for 4 of the 36 transects

(Table 5.11). Three (US31/3, Silver/1, and Rusch/3)(Table 5.12) of the four

transects are from A horizon data. The fourth transect (U831/1) is from the B

57

horizon data, and shows a large decrease (10.6 mmol/L - 0.10 mmol/L) in SAR
as distance from the road increases.

In March, only one of the 36 transects had a significant negative slope
Table 5.11). The transect is from U831 B horizon data (Table 5.12). The change
in SAR as distance from the roadway increases (0.6 mmol/L - 0.1 mmol/L) at the
site (U831/Mar/3) is small.

There may be correlation in the location (A, B, and C horizons) where the
trends in SAR were found (Table 5.12). Five of the eight transects that show
SAR decreasing as the distance from the roadway increases are within the A
horizon. The A horizon is the upper portion of the soil, making it more susceptible
to events occurring at the surface. Melting snow and salt spray from passing
vehicles contribute sodium to the soil solution, which infiltrates vertically through
the A horizon. Because the source of sodium is the roadway, SAR values should
be high near the road and decrease as the distance from the road increases.
The remaining four transects were for the B horizon, and could be due to the
eluviation of sodium from the upper A horizon. The lack of significant negative
slopes for C horizon data may be due to preferential vertical flowpaths and high
soil permeabilities that allow dissolved salt in water to move quickly to the lower
honzons.

Although only 8 of 108 SAR values in a given transect had significant
negative slopes, most of the best-fit regression lines also have negative slopes.
These data indicate that SAR is slightly higher near the roadway and decreases
as distance increases, but that the change is usually not dramatic.

The pile-up of snow adjacent to the roadway, roadway run-off, and salt
spray from passing vehicles moves salt laterally for great distances from the road
(Frazio, 1994). Based on the lack of strong trends in SAR with distance from the

roadway, the dispersion of sodium is not even and continuous but dependent on

58

preferential vertical flow paths within the soil profile that may redirect salt-laden
melt water and rain. In addition, the soil sample composition may not be the
same in each sample, due to bucket auger sampling, which may lead to greater
variability in SARs values within a given transect. Better trends in SAR values
with distance may have been apparent if the length of the transects had been
3 extended from 10 m to 20-25 m from the road.
Control data

In March, extra samples were taken at each site to ensure sodium
measured in the soils during the study originated from sodium chloride crystals
used to de-ice the roadway rather than from mineral weathering. Soil samples
were taken from the A, B, and C horizons approximately 35 m from the road at
each site. SARs and sodium concentrations were extremely low, 0.0 ppm to 0.2
ppm, at each site in each horizon (Table 5.13) which strongly supports deicing

salt is the source of sodium in these roadside soils.

Table 5.13. Control soil sample SARs (mmol/L) and sodium concentrations
mmollL) taken in March

 

 

Site/horizon sodium* SAR*
M37/A 0.0 0.0
M37/B 0.0 0.0
M37/C 0.0 0.1
U831/A 0.0 0.0
US31/B 0.0 0.0
US31/C 0.0 0.0
Silver Lake/A 0.0 0.0
Silver Lake/B 0.1 0.0
Silver Lake/C 0.1 0.1
Rusch/A 0.0 0.1
Rusch/B 0.1 0.2
Rusch/C 0.1 0.2

 

 

 

*Sodium concentrations of the soil filtrate were measured by an atomic
absorption spectrometer (AA) in mg/L and converted to mmol/L. Sodium
concentrations (Table 5.9) were extremely low at all of the sampling locations,
therefore, deicing salt is the apparent source of sodium in the soils.

59

Sodic problems in Grand Traverse County

Regardless of the location, salt application rate, or time of year, SAR and
sodium concentrations were low in soils sampled in Grand Traverse County.
Sodium becomes problematic in soils when the SAR values exceed 13 mmol/L
(Szaboks, 1989). At the M37 site in December two samples exceeded 13 mmoI/L
Na+ (Table 5.14). At the Rusch Road site in March, one sample exceeded 13
mmoI/L Na“. All of the above samples were from the C horizon, indicating
sodium may be moving through the soils but is not accumulating in the upper
horizons. Although, no soil, vegetative, or cracking was visible at each of the

three sites.

Table 5.14. Sites with SAR values that exceeded 13 mmol/L*

 

 

 

Site/date/transect/boring/horizon SAR
M37/Dec/2/3/C 17.2
M37/Dec/3/1/C 16.0
Rusch/Mar/3/2/C 22.7

 

* SAR values were calculated using the concentrations of Na, Ca, and Mg.

60

 

Conclusions

Abundant snow and ice during winter months forces the Grand Traverse
Road Commission to apply heavy amounts of sodium chloride to roadways. Cold
air passing over the warm waters of Lake Michigan may drop several feet of
lake-effect snow on the county in one short winter storm. The County Road
Commission has used NaCl to remove snow and ice from the roadways for
approximately 32 years. Long-term use of NaCl as a deicing agent, if it
accumulates in soils, has potential negative effects, such as altering soil
structure by deflocculating clay particles, reducing porosity and permeability, and
depleting soils of macronutrients. Clayey and organic-rich soils can adsorb more
sodium cations than sandy or sandy loam soils, due to the plate-like structure
and high number of adsorption sites located on the surfaces of clay and organic
colloids.

The sampling period was marked by heavy amounts of precipitation, both
rain and snow, combined with above normal temperatures. In early winter,
intermittent snow, ice, and rain resulted in periodic melting and freezing
episodes. Total winter snowfall was 285 cm above normal, which quickly melted
in late March.

Three of the four sampling sites used in this study had different salt
application rates. Sites undergoing high rates of salt application also had high
SAR values and sodium concentrations in December. U831 and M37 received
high rates of deicing salt and had the highest SAR values and sodium
concentrations in December. The U831 site is composed of sand textured soils
that have little or no organic matter, higher permeabilities, and lower CECs than
do those with sandy loam textures which compose the M37 site. Differing soil

textures may explain why SAR values and sodium concentrations are low in

61

September and March at the U831 site but remain high at the M37 site
throughout the sampling period.

Sites that received medium and low amounts of sodium did have
intermediate SAR values and sodium concentrations in December but not in
September or March. The Rusch Road site received the lowest amount of
sodium but had higher SAR values and sodium concentrations than U831 and
Silver Lake in September and March. The Silver Lake site received medium
amounts of salt but had the lowest SAR values and sodium concentrations in
September and March. The Silver Lake site is composed of sandy soils where
sodium cations remain in the soil solution due to the sparse number of negatively ,
charged adsorption sites, resulting in a low SAR. Sandy loam soils, compose the
Rusch Road site, have clay lenses with more organic matter, lower
permeabilities, and higher CECs than do sand soils. Therefore, I conclude that
sandy loam soils at the sites in this study are more likely to adsorb sodium
cations, increasing SAR.

Evaluation of the soil chemistry of the A, B, and C horizons of each boring
in a given transect indicates that Na“ is not being concentrated in the A horizon.
In September and December none of the transects show any clear trends in
SAR with depth. In September and December, sodium was comparatively
concentrated in the B horizon possibly due to eluviation of Na” from overlying A
and E horizons. In December, large spikes or increases in SAR from one boring
to the next on the bar graphs depict preferential vertical movement of water and
Na+ through the horizons and possible variability in soil sample composition at
each site. In March, the third transect at the M37 site depicted SAR values
decreasing with depth from the A horizon to the C horizon (A>B>C). Sodium may
have been temporarily concentrated in the A horizon due to the recent melting of

salt-laden snow at the surface. The remaining transects in March depict low

62

sodium concentrations in the A horizon and higher Na“ values in the B and C
horizons. This trend may have been caused by rapid melting of snow and rainfall
that probably flushed Na+ to the lower horizons.

When initial wintertime salting occurred, in December, the total mean SAR
values and sodium concentrations of roadside soils rises. Thus, December SAR
values were higher than they are for September, indicating the adsorption of Na“
cations is dependent on the season. SAR values at M37 increased in March
while the sodium concentration decreased, indicating Ca2+ and Mg2+ cations are
being flushed by rain and meltwater, from the soils, more easily than Na“
cations. A marked reduction in total mean SAR values from December to March
at U831, Silver Lake, and Rusch Road sites may be caused by rain and rapid
melting of salt-laden snow that can flush sodium quickly through sandy soils.
Eventually, spring and summer rains flush most of the sodium through the soils
reducing SAR values and sodium concentrations, resulting in low late-summer
values.

SAR values of each horizon in a given transect do not support any trends
in SAR with distance from the road, possibly due to the short length of the
sampling transects and lack of conformity between soil sample depth and
location at each site. Only 8 transects depict trends whereby SAR decreases
with distance from the road, while the remaining 100 transects did not show any
statistically significant trends in SAR with distance. Five of the eighth transects
represent the A horizon data and show a decrease in SAR with distance from the
road. The A horizon represents the upper portion of the soil which makes it
susceptible to the application of deicing salt along the roadway, the dispersion of
salt to the adjacent soils, and the infiltration of sodium through the soils. The
source of salt is the roadway, therefore SAR values should be high near the road

and decrease as the distance from the road increases.

63

The lack of strong trends in SAR with distance from the road indicates that
sodium is not dispersed continuously, but dependent on preferential flowpaths
within the soil profile that may redirect salt-laden melt water and rain. A lack of
consistant sampling depth and locations within each horizon may result in
differing soil compositions, altering SAR calculations. Strong trends in SAR with
distance from the road may have been observed if the length of the transects
had been extended several more meters.

Sodium concentrations in soils some 35 m from the road did not exceed
0.2 ppm, indicating mineral weathering or other sources were not the source of
sodium at the remaining sample sites.

Overall, SAR values at the four sampling sites are not currently high
enough to cause serious damage to the soils in Grand Traverse County. SAR
values must exceed 13 mmol/L, to be considered hazardous to soil structure. In
December, three samples, two at M37 and one at Rusch Road, had SAR values
greater than 13 mmol/L but were probably a result of intense salting during icy
conditions. Because high amounts of sodium are not accumulating in the soils, it
is likely that Na” is migrating to the groundwater, potentially causing a long-term

threat to this resource.

64

REFERENCES

65

REFERENCES

Anderson, Sharon. 1996. Personal Interview. December 20

Biesboer, DD, and R. Jacobson. 1994. Screening and selection of salt
tolerance in native warm season grasses. United States: Minnesota Department
of Transportation. 23 pp.

Brester, E., B.L. McNeal, and D.L. Carter 1982. Saline and Sodic Soils. New
York: Springer—Verlag-Berlin-Heidelberg, 227 pp.

Bucholz, G. D. 1983. Sodium and Salinity Hazards in Irrigation Water. MU
Agronomy Technical Report 1 :1-14.

WWW
Cooper, T. 1996. Calcareous, Saline & Sodic Soils. [Online] Available
http://www.soils.agri.umn.edu/academics/classes/ soil3125/doc/80hap3.htm.

Council on Soil Testing and Plant Analysis. 1992. Handbook of Reference
Methods for Soil and Plant Analysis. Georgia: Soil and Plant Analysis Council
Inc., 201 pp.

Davidson, AW. 1970. The effects of de-icing salt on roadside verges. J. Applied
Ecology 82555-560.

Eichenlaub, V.L. 1970. Lake effect snowfall to the lee of the Great Lakes: it's role
in Michigan. Bull. Am. Metr. Soc. 51:403-412.

Eschman, W.R, Farrand, W.R., and EB. Evenson. 1973. Pleistocene Geology of
the Northwestern Quarter Southern Peninsula, Ml. Geology and the Environment
Annual Field Conference Michigan: Michigan Geologic Society. pp. 14.

Farrand, W.R., and D.L. Bell. 1982. Quaternary Geology (map) of Southern
Michigan with surface water drainage divides. 1:500,000 scale. Department of
Geologic Sciences, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Frazoi, J.R. (ed). 1994. Let‘s stop salt damage. Tree City USA Bulletin No. 32.

Fredrick, William. 1996. Assistant State Soil Scientist, USDA-NRCS Personal
Interview. Oct. 23.

Hassett, J .J., and W.L. Banwart. 1992. Soils and their Environment. New Jersey:
Englewood Cliffs, Inc., 424 pp.

66

Henry, L., Harron, B., and Flaten, D. 1987. The nature and management of salt-
affected land in Saskatchewan. Saskatchewan Agriculture 518223 pp.

Hesse, PR. 1971. Textbook of Soil Chemical Analysis. Great Britain: William
Clowes 8- Sons, Inc., 519 pp.

Howard, K.W.F., J.I. Boyce, S.J. Livingstone, and S.L. Salvatri. 1993. Road salt
impacts on ground-water quality. Groundwater 31 :318-320.

Huling, E.E., and T.C. Hollocher. 1972. Groundwater contamination by road salt:
steady-state concentrations in east central Massachusetts. Science 176: 288—
290.

Hutchinson, F.E. 1970. Environmental pollution from highway deicing
compounds. J. Soil Water Conservation 25: 144-146.

lsard, AS, and R.J. Schaetzl. 1994. Estimating soil temperatures and frost in
the lake effect snowbelt region, Michigan, USA. Cold Regions Science and
Technology 25: 317-332.

Jurinak, J.J., C. Amrhein, and R.J. Wagenet. 1984. Sodic hazard: The effect of
SAR and salinity in soils and overburden materials. Soil Science 137: 152-159.

Locat, J., and P. Gelinas. 1989. Infiltration of de-icing road salts in aquifers: the
Trois-Rivieres-Ouest case, Quebec, Canada. Can. J. Earth Science 26: 2186-
2193.

McBride, MB. 1994. Environmental Chemistry of Soils. New York: Oxford
University Press, 406 pp.

McDonnell, H.H., and J. Lewis. 1972. ...Add salt to taste. Environment 14: 38-44.
Muller, RA. 1966. Snowbelts of the Great Lakes. Weatherwise 14: 248-255.
Norton, DC. and SJ. Bolsenga. 1993. Spatiotemporal trends in lake effect and
continental snowfall in the Laurentian Great Lakes, 1951-1980. J. Climate 6:

1943-1956.

Scott, W8, and NP. Wylie. 1980. The environmental effects of snow dumping:
A literature review. J. Environmental Management 10: 219-240.

Shappar, Harold. 1996. Assistant Grand Traverse County Road Commissioner.
Personal Interview. June 12.

Schut, P. 1976. Sodic Soil, Glossary of Terms in Soil Science. Ottawa: Canada
Department of Agriculature Research Branch, 44 pp.

67

Szaboks, I. 1989. Salt-affected soils. Florida: CRC Press, Inc., 274 pp.

The Salt Institute 1990. Deicing Salt and Our Environment. The Salt Institute,
location. 25 pp.

Tucker, R... J.K. Messick, and T. McBride. 1996. Management of soluble salts in
container-growth plants. Media Notes 29: 1-6.

Weber, H.L., R. Hall, N.R. Benson, and G. VanWinter. 1990. Soil Survey of
Grand Traverse County. United States: US. Department of Agriculture. 327 pp.

68

Appendix I
Cation concentrations (Ca, Mg, and Na) and SAR values
for each boring at each site in September, December, and March

69

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

September
[M37 calcium calcium magnesium ma nesium odium lsodium SAR
[sample mg/L mmol/L mg/L mmol/L mg/L mmol/L mmoI/L
11A 123.8 3.1 4.6 0.2 38.4 1.7 1.3
11B 81.7 2 4.3 0.2 60.8 2.6 2.5
11C 25.8 0.6 1.7 0.1 49.6 2.2 3.6
12A 149.3 3.7 8.8 0.4 18.8 0.8 0.6
12B 81.1 2 3.8 0.2 44.8 1.9 1.9
12C 83.1 2.1 4.4 0.2 18.9 0.8 0.8
13A 184.9 4.6 8.2 0.3 16.8 0.7 0.5
13B 90.4 2.3 4.5 0.2 44.8 1.9 1.8
130 63.3 1.6 3.1 0.1 15.7 0.7 0.7
14A 155.8 3.9 11.1 0.5 12.8 0.6 0.4
14B 62.7 1.6 4.5 0.2 17.9 0.8 0.8
140 28.1 0.7 2.1 0.1 10.4 0.5 0.7
15A 158.8 4 16 0.7 8.6 0.4 0.2
15B 29 0.7 2.8 0.1 6.4 0.3 0.4
150 27 0.7 2.3 0.1 5.1 0.2 0.4
21A 163.3 4.1 6.4 0.3 134.4 5.8 4
21B 38.7 1 1.7 0.1 38.4 1.7 2.3
21C 30.5 0.8 2.1 0.1 27.2 1.2 1.8
22A 196.2 4.9 8.7 0.4 10 0.4 0.3
22B 81.3 2 4 0.2 38 1.7 1.6
22C 34.6 0.9 1.8 0.1 10 0.4 0.6
23A 129.1 3.2 7.3 0.3 25.6 1.1 0.8
23B 88.4 2.2 4.5 0.2 41.6 1.8 1.7
23C 41 1 2.1 0.1 13.1 0.6 0.8
4A 164.7 4.1 12.1 0.5 5.8 0.3 0.2
4B 49.3 1.2 2.7 0.1 12.2 0.5 0.6
24C 25.4 0.6 1.4 0.1 5.3 0.2 0.4
25A 163 4.1 13.5 0.6 14.8 0.6 0.4
25B 51.3 1.3 5 0.2 15.7 0.7 0.8
25C 136.7 3.4 1 0 9.2 0.4 0.3
31A 161.3 4 6.3 0.3 62.4 2.7 1.9
31B 62.8 1.6 2.6 0.1 46.4 2 2.2
31C 34.2 0.9 2 0.1 28.8 1.3 1.8
32A 191.8 4.8 5.5 0.2 3 0.1 0.1
32B 67.6 1.7 4.5 0.2 67.2 2.9 3
32C 38.7 1 2 0.1 59.2 2.6 3.6
33A 158.9 4 9.4 0.4 28.8 1.3 0.8
338 82.9 2.1 3.7 0.2 40 1.7 1.7
33C 52.2 1.3 2 0.1 24 1 1.3
34A 113.6 2.8 7.1 0.3 15.6 0.7 0.5
34B 74.9 1.9 4.5 0.2 27.2 1.2 1.2
C 23.7 0.6 0.2 0 4.6 0.2 0.4
35A 104.4 2.6 8.9 0.4 3.6 0.2 0.1
35B 61.3 1.5 6.1 0.3 24 1 1.1
350 35 0.9 2.9 0.1 3.3 0.1 0.2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix H. Calcium, magnesium, and sodium concentrations in mg/L
measured by atomic absorption then converted to mmol/L.

7O

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

September

U831 calcium calcium magnesium magnesium lsodium lsodium SAR
IsamplelD mg/L mmol/L mg/L mmol/L mglL mmol/L mmol/L
11A 102.7 2.6 3.8 0.2 30.4 1.3 1.1
11B 71.1 1.8 2.9 0.1 4.8 0.2 0.2
110 19.4 0.5 1.0 0.0 12.3 0.5 1.0
12A 107.6 2.7 4.0 0.2 8.6 0.4 0.3
12B 61.7 1.5 2.3 0.1 17.0 0.7 0.8
12C 29.7 0.7 1.1 0.0 13.3 0.6 0.9
13A 132.2 3.3 9.4 0.4 9.3 0.4 0.3
13B 79.3 2.0 3.7 0.2 12.7 0.6 0.5
13C 38.4 1.0 1.8 0.1 6.6 0.3 0.4
14A 113.6 2.8 10.4 0.4 1.6 0.1 0.1
14B 59.9 1.5 3.5 0.1 10.5 0.5 0.5
14C 17.5 0.4 1.6 0.1 2.7 0.1 0.2
15A 110.5 2.8 8.3 0.3 0.8 0.0 0.0
15B 61.2 1.5 3.6 0.1 1.3 0.1 0.1
15C 9.8 0.2 0.5 0.0 6.8 0.3 0.8
21A 80.7 2.0 2.8 0.1 35.2 1.5 1.5
21B 81.2 2.0 2.5 0.1 44.8 1.9 1.9
21C 52.3 1.3 1.6 0.1 52.8 2.3 2.8
22A 62.4 1.6 3.2 0.1 3.1 0.1 0.1
22B 82.2 2.1 2.9 0.1 17.6 0.8 0.7
22C 27.4 0.7 1.3 0.1 8.9 0.4 0.6
23A 85.3 2.1 3.4 0.1 1.9 0.1 0.1
238 89.4 2.2 3.3 0.1 9.3 0.4 0.4
230 25.7 0.6 0.9 0.0 7.6 0.3 0.6
24A 90.2 2.3 3.6 0.1 0.8 0.0 0.0
24B 55.3 1.4 1.2 0.0 2.7 0.1 0.1
24C 23.0 0.6 0.6 0.0 1.6 0.1 0.1
25A 299.5 7.5 5.1 0.2 0.7 0.0 0.0
25B 193.0 4.8 3.0 0.1 2.5 0.1 0.1
25C 16.9 0.4 0.3 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.1
31A 250.0 6.2 3.9 0.2 3.4 0.1 0.1
31B 132.7 3.3 1.2 0.0 3.3 0.1 0.1
310 100.7 2.5 3.7 0.2 3.2 0.1 0.1
32A 96.9 2.4 4.4 0.2 9.4 0.4 0.4
32B 113.4 2.8 2.9 0.1 32.0 1.4 1.1
32C 23.3 0.6 0.7 0.0 8.5 0.4 0.7
33A 100.9 2.5 4.6 0.2 1.6 0.1 0.1
3B 87.6 2.2 3.3 0.1 2.8 0.1 0.1
33C 27.1 0.7 1.3 0.1 5.8 0.3 0.4
34A 87.2 2.2 3.5 0.1 1.0 0.0 0.0
34B 107.9 2.7 3.9 0.2 3.7 0.2 0.1
34C 18.4 0.5 0.9 0.0 2.1 0.1 0.2
35A 113.0 2.8 5.0 0.2 1.9 0.1 0.1
358 97.1 2.4 3.2 0.1 1.7 0.1 0.1
35C 43.2 1.1 1.2 0.0 4.5 0.2 0.3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix I.2. Calcium, magnesium, and sodium concentrations in mg/L
measured by atomic absorption then converted to mmol/L.

71

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

September I I
Silver Lake calcium calcium magnesium magnesium lsodium lsodium SAR
ample lD mg/L mmol/L nLq/L mmol/L mg/L mmol/L mmoIIL
11A 226.0 5.6 8.2 0.3 1.9 0.1 0.0
118 129.7 3.2 4.6 0.2 4.1 0.2 0.1
11C 36.6 0.9 1.4 0.1 1.5 0.1 0.1
12A 226.0 5.6 9.0 0.4 5.6 0.2 0.1
128 60.3 1.5 2.6 0.1 9.6 0.4 0.5
12C 25.6 0.6 1.5 0.1 3.7 0.2 0.3
13A 107.8 2.7 9.4 0.4 1.1 0.0 0.0
138 38.6 1.0 2.6 0.1 16.0 0.7 1.0
13C 15.3 0.4 1.2 0.0 6.3 0.3 0.6
14A 111.4 2.8 13.1 0.5 4.6 0.2 0.2
148 200.7 5.0 14.8 0.6 3.9 0.2 0.1
14C 128.1 3.2 3.4 0.1 0.8 0.0 0.0
15A 131.7 3.3 15.2 0.6 1.8 0.1 0.1
158 43.6 1.1 4.6 0.2 8.3 0.4 0.5
15C 36.0 0.9 3.7 0.2 0.9 0.0 0.1
1A 287.8 7.2 8.3 0.3 0.9 0.0 0.0
218 47.8 1.2 3.0 0.1 1.2 0.1 0.1
21C 36.5 0.9 1.3 0.1 0.9 0.0 0.1
22A 162.4 4.1 7.8 0.3 3.6 0.2 0.1
228 63.7 1.6 2.8 0.1 6.8 0.3 0.3
22C 126.0 3.1 3.6 0.1 6.9 0.3 0.2
23A 112.1 2.8 16.4 0.7 5.3 0.2 0.2
238 33.3 0.8 2.9 0.1 10.1 0.4 0.6
23C 141.7 3.5 8.1 0.3 12.0 0.5 0.4
24A 129.0 3.2 14.5 0.6 3.3 0.1 0.1
248 51.0 1.3 5.4 0.2 6.5 0.3 0.3
24C 39.8 1.0 3.8 0.2 11.3 0.5 0.6
25A 108.6 2.7 12.7 0.5 1.2 0.1 0.0
258 46.5 1.2 2.3 0.1 2.3 0.1 0.1
25C 19.8 0.5 1.9 0.1 0.7 0.0 0.1
31A 397.7 9.9 11.7 0.5 2.9 0.1 0.1
318 65.2 1.6 2.6 0.1 1.8 0.1 0.1
31C 24.6 0.6 1.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.1
32A 128.4 3.2 6.0 0.2 5.5 0.2 0.2
328 100.6 2.5 7.8 0.3 13.1 0.6 0.5
32C 38.2 1.0 3.2 0.1 2.6 0.1 0.2
33A 129.9 3.2 14.8 0.6 0.6 0.0 0.0
33B 60.4 1.5 3.8 0.2 5.9 0.3 0.3
33C 41.1 1.0 4.2 0.2 1.6 0.1 0.1
34A 125.7 3.1 16.1 0.7 4.3 0.2 0.1
348 81.1 2.0 7.3 0.3 3.8 0.2 0.2
34C 21.9 0.5 2.1 0.1 0.8 0.0 0.1
35A 92.1 2.3 10.4 0.4 1.6 0.1 0.1
358 45.4 1.1 3.3 0.1 1.5 0.1 0.1
35C 15.1 0.4 1.2 0.0 10.4 0.5 1.0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix l.3. Calcium, magnesium, and sodium concentrations in mg/L
measured by atomic absorption then converted to mmol/L.

72

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

September ]

Rusch calcium calcium magnesium magnesium lsodium sodium SAR
rsample ID mg/L mmol/L mg/L mmol/L mg/L mmol/L mmoI/L
11A 146.20 3.60 6.50 0.30 15.50 0.70 0.50
11B 62.50 1.60 3.10 0.10 6.00 0.30 0.30
11C 25.00 0.60 1.70 0.10 8.30 0.40 0.60
12A 182.20 4.50 10.60 0.40 41.60 1.80 1.10
12B 39.10 1.00 1.90 0.10 25.60 1.10 1.50
12C 17.50 0.40 1.00 0.00 9.80 0.40 0.90
13A 275.60 6.90 13.90 0.60 5.00 0.20 0.10
13B 76.90 1.90 3.80 0.20 38.40 1.70 1.60
13C 30.10 0.80 1.60 0.10 28.80 1.30 2.00
14A 146.30 3.70 10.50 0.40 7.50 0.30 0.20
14B 49.00 1.20 0.60 0.00 8.00 0.30 0.40
140 21.90 0.50 2.00 0.10 4.10 0.20 0.30
15A 107.70 2.70 7.80 0.30 3.30 0.10 0.10
15B 54.90 1.40 8.30 0.30 3.70 0.20 0.20
15C 45.50 1.10 9.00 0.40 3.20 0.10 0.20
1A 517.70 12.90 19.20 0.80 3.40 0.10 0.10
21B 138.30 3.50 2.50 0.10 42.60 1.90 1.40
21C 25.00 0.60 1.50 0.10 2.60 0.10 0.20
22A 256.70 6.40 10.90 0.40 1.90 0.10 0.00
22B 77.70 1.90 3.00 0.10 28.80 1.30 1.20
220 34.50 0.90 1.30 0.10 10.10 0.40 0.60
23A 142.30 3.60 9.80 0.40 24.00 1.00 0.70
23B 36.80 0.90 1.60 0.10 36.80 1.60 2.30
230 22.70 0.60 1.90 0.10 27.20 1.20 2.10
24A 98.50 2.50 9.20 0.40 2.60 0.10 0.10
24B 60.20 1.50 5.80 0.20 13.30 0.60 0.60
240 90.30 2.30 18.60 0.80 4.40 0.20 0.20
25A 310.20 7.70 18.80 0.80 3.10 0.10 0.10
25B 140.30 3.50 27.70 1.10 4.70 0.20 0.10
25C 79.50 2.00 8.40 0.30 6.80 0.30 0.30
31A 353.90 8.80 14.00 0.60 2.80 0.10 0.10
31B 51.00 1.30 1.80 0.10 81.60 3.50 4.30
1C 24.50 0.60 1.00 0.00 20.80 0.90 1.60
32A 311.30 7.80 13.20 0.50 28.80 1.30 0.60
32B 41.10 1.00 2.20 0.10 22.40 1.00 1.30
ZC 27.10 0.70 1.70 0.10 9.00 0.40 0.60
33A 189.10 4.70 11.20 0.50 3.60 0.20 0.10
33B 70.90 1.80 4.60 0.20 13.60 0.60 0.60
330 36.10 0.90 2.00 0.10 15.80 0.70 1.00
34A 134.40 3.40 9.50 0.40 1.80 0.10 0.10
34B 65.20 1.60 5.10 0.20 2.60 0.10 0.10
34C 38.60 1.00 3.30 0.10 3.90 0.20 0.20
35A 100.60 2.50 10.70 0.40 1.30 0.10 0.00
35B 64.00 1.60 7.60 0.30 3.40 0.10 0.20
35C 18.60 0.50 2.50 0.10 0.90 0.00 0.10

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix l.4. Calcium, magnesium, and sodium concentrations in mg/L
measured by atomic absorption then converted to mmol/L.

73

 

 

[December

I

l

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

W37 calcium calcium magnesium magnesium lsodium lsodium SAR

[sample ID mg/L mmol/L rn IL mmoI/L mg/L mmol/L mmol/L
11A 102.80 2.60 9.50 0.40 256.60 11.50 9.50
118 146.20 3.60 11.90 0.50 14.50 0.60 0.40
11C 48.00 1.20 7.80 0.30 224.00 9.70 11.20
12A 64.40 1.60 8.80 0.40 5.20 0.20 0.20
128 121.70 3.00 13.70 0.60 241.60 10.50 7.80
120 59.70 1.50 4.40 0.20 13.50 0.60 0.60
13A 52.00 1.30 15.00 0.60 5.00 0.20 0.20
138 101.20 2.50 4.60 0.20 10.40 0.50 0.40
130 42.50 1.10 2.30 0.10 5.00 0.20 0.30
14A 69.70 1.70 14.80 0.60 1.00 0.00 0.00
148 85.80 2.10 8.10 0.30 7.60 0.30 0.30
140 30.10 0.80 2.80 0.10 4.30 0.20 0.30
15A 74.00 1.80 18.70 0.80 0.80 0.00 0.00
158 73.40 1.80 10.70 0.40 1.80 0.10 0.10
15C 45.30 1.10 5.40 0.20 3.20 0.10 0.20
21A 132.40 3.30 7.90 0.30 211.20 9.20 6.80
218 100.10 2.50 21.80 0.90 299.20 13.00 10.00
21C 30.20 0.80 2.20 0.10 15.50 0.70 1.00
22A 98.80 2.50 21.00 0.90 16.70 0.70 0.60
228 38.00 0.90 12.00 0.50 209.60 9.10 10.70
2C 80.40 2.00 5.10 0.20 4.80 0.20 0.20
23A 100.40 2.50 16.90 0.70 203.20 8.80 7.00
238 106.30 2.70 5.90 0.20 15.80 0.70 0.60
23C 69.20 1.70 3.90 0.20 384.00 16.70 17.20
24A 62.00 1.50 13.80 0.60 2.90 0.10 0.10
248 126.10 3.10 9.50 0.40 2.90 0.10 0.10
24C 57.30 1.40 5.20 0.20 15.70 0.70 0.80
25A 70.40 1.80 17.10 0.70 1.00 0.00 0.00
258 78.50 2.00 8.30 0.30 2.40 0.10 0.10
25C 77.10 1.90 10.10 0.40 4.80 0.20 0.20
31A 90.80 2.30 7.30 0.30 27.00 1.20 1.00
318 63.10 1.60 5.70 0.20 16.50 0.70 0.80
310 48.60 1.20 14.40 0.60 348.80 15.20 16.00
32A 123.60 3.10 21.60 0.90 249.60 10.90 7.70
328 100.40 2.50 9.40 0.40 2.20 0.10 0.10
320 59.90 1.50 3.30 0.10 0.90 0.00 0.00
33A 112.40 2.80 27.40 1.10 4.70 0.20 0.10
338 80.40 2.00 10.80 0.40 10.30 0.40 0.40
330 109.50 2.70 6.90 0.30 254.40 11.10 9.00
34A 127.70 3.20 .11.70 0.50 1.00 0.00 0.00
348 124.40 3.10 12.30 0.50 3.30 0.10 0.10
34C 108.60 2.70 9.50 0.40 220.80 9.60 7.70
35A 110.10 2.70 26.60 1.10 1.90 0.10 0.10
358 97.90 2.40 16.60 0.70 3.30 0.10 0.10
35C 55.30 1.40 7.60 0.30 3.20 0.10 0.20

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix l.5. Calcium, magnesium, and sodium concentrations in mg/L
measured by atomic absorption then converted to mmoI/L.

74

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

December I I
U831 calcium calcium magnesiumlmmggesiumlsodium Isodium SAR
lsample lD m /L mmol/L m IL mmol/L mg/L mmoI/L mmoI/L
11A 33.60 0.80 17.60 0.70 211.20 9.20 10.40
118 82.40 2.10 5.30 0.20 260.80 11.30 10.60
11C 52.10 1.30 1.90 0.10 6.50 0.30 0.30
12A 99.60 2.50 3.60 0.10 17.40 0.80 0.70
128 117.90 2.90 3.60 0.10 176.00 7.70 6.20
120 75.20 1.90 2.20 0.10 5.40 0.20 0.20
13A 114.30 2.90 5.50 0.20 155.20 6.70 5.40
138 83.30 2.10 4.80 0.20 14.80 0.60 0.60
13C 26.60 0.70 1.20 0.00 7.80 0.30 0.60
14A 89.90 2.20 5.40 0.20 224.00 9.70 8.80
148 60.00 1.50 3.80 0.20 9.50 0.40 0.50
14C 60.50 1.50 1.70 0.10 3.90 0.20 0.20
15A 105.20 2.60 5.80 0.20 11.60 0.50 0.40
158 108.70 2.70 5.40 0.20 2.90 0.10 0.10
15C 49.20 1.20 2.40 0.10 1.90 0.10 0.10
21A 132.80 3.30 7.70 0.30 379.20 16.50 12.20
218 158.00 3.90 16.40 0.70 182.40 7.90 5.20
1C 35.00 0.90 1.40 0.10 4.10 0.20 0.30
22A 79.80 2.00 3.10 0.10 11.10 0.50 0.50
28 61.80 1.50 2.90 0.10 4.50 0.20 0.20
22C 40.50 1.00 1.60 0.10 13.10 0.60 0.80
23A 80.90 2.00 2.90 0.10 6.60 0.30 0.30
238 100.70 2.50 4.30 0.20 99.20 4.30 3.70
23C 41 .60 1.00 1.90 0.10 6.30 0.30 0.40
24A 74.40 1.90 4.10 0.20 1.20 0.10 0.10
248 103.70 2.60 5.10 0.20 164.80 7.20 6.10
24C 56.90 1.40 2.40 0.10 11.20 0.50 0.60
25A 100.10 2.50 7.00 0.30 6.80 0.30 0.30
258 56.50 1.40 3.20 0.10 3.10 0.10 0.20
5C 30.70 0.80 1.50 0.10 1.80 0.10 0.10
31A 129.60 3.20 6.10 0.30 18.00 0.80 0.60
318 121.60 3.00 4.30 0.20 11.30 0.50 0.40
31C 63.10 1.60 1.50 0.10 8.70 0.40 0.40
2A 42.00 1.00 3.90 0.20 7.20 0.30 0.40
328 57.50 1.40 2.10 0.10 217.60 9.50 10.80
32C 35.30 0.90 3.10 0.10 0.60 0.00 0.00
33A 82.40 2.10 5.50 0.20 13.10 0.60 0.50
338 86.00 2.10 3.00 0.10 13.80 0.60 0.60
33C 30.50 0.80 1.00 0.00 5.90 0.30 0.40
34A 105.40 2.60 5.90 0.20 3.50 0.20 0.10
348 110.50 2.80 4.50 0.20 214.00 9.30 7.70
34C 29.10 0.70 1.00 0.00 3.60 0.20 0.30
35A 108.60 2.70 10.20 0.40 4.50 0.20 0.20
358 56.30 1.40 3.80 0.20 5.70 0.20 0.30
35C 31.40 0.80 1.90 0.10 2.30 0.10 0.20

 

 

Appendix I.6. Calcium, magnesium, and sodium concentrations in mg/L
measured by atomic absorption then converted to mmol/L.

75

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

December I I
Silver Lake calcium calcium mawesium magnesium lsodium [sodium SAR
Isample lD mg/L mmol/L mLL mmollL rag/L mmollL mmollL
11A 132.00 3.30 10.60 0.40 100.80 4.40 3.20
118 79.20 2.00 4.40 0.20 166.40 7.20 7.00
11C 98.70 2.50 10.20 0.40 200.00 8.70 7.20
12A 101.60 2.50 12.00 0.50 8.80 0.40 0.30
128 142.30 3.60 7.20 0.30 8.50 0.40 0.30
12C 111.60 2.80 6.20 0.30 10.60 0.50 0.40
13A 42.00 1.00 17.80 0.70 4.50 0.20 0.20
138 87.20 2.20 7.60 0.30 9.50 0.40 0.40
13C 100.40 2.50 6.00 0.20 6.20 0.30 0.20
14A 112.80 2.80 22.00 0.90 7.80 0.30 0.20
148 100.60 2.50 7.60 0.30 4.20 0.20 0.20
14C 162.40 4.10 16.70 0.70 8.20 0.40 0.20
15A 112.80 2.80 35.30 1.50 1.80 0.10 0.10
158 24.40 0.60 29.20 1.20 5.60 0.20 0.30
15C 109.20 2.70 37.50 1.50 8.30 0.40 0.20
21A 128.40 3.20 28.40 1.20 10.40 0.50 0.30
218 80.40 2.00 15.60 0.60 6.00 0.30 0.20
21C 42.70 1.10 4.80 0.20 2.60 0.10 0.10
22A 60.20 1.50 21.00 0.90 8.20 0.40 0.30
228 32.40 0.80 18.00 0.70 3.40 0.10 0.20
22C 21 .80 0.50 5.60 0.20 1.60 0.10 0.10
23A 144.00 3.60 30.00 1.20 8.60 0.40 0.20
238 47.20 1.20 3.10 0.10 4.20 0.20 0.20
230 65.30 1.60 4.90 0.20 1.60 0.10 0.10
24A 97.20 2.40 22.30 0.90 1.50 0.10 0.10
248 58.00 1.40 4.20 0.20 9.80 0.40 0.50
24C 75.20 1.90 4.70 0.20 7.00 0.30 0.30
25A 48.00 1.20 32.60 1.30 1.20 0.10 0.00
258 128.10 3.20 7.80 0.30 3.10 0.10 0.10

5C 26.20 0.70 39.20 1.60 13.20 0.60 0.50
31A 142.30 3.60 41.80 1.70 14.80 0.60 0.40
318 80.60 2.00 10.30 0.40 9.80 0.40 0.40
31C 21 .00 0.50 9.70 0.40 7.30 0.30 0.50
32A 114.70 2.90 33.20 1.40 7.10 0.30 0.20
328 98.20 2.50 16.20 0.70 3.20 0.10 0.10
32C 50.60 1.30 8.30 0.30 1.20 0.10 0.10
33A 139.20 3.50 17.80 0.70 2.10 0.10 0.10
338 62.50 1.60 5.00 0.20 1.60 0.10 0.10
33C 69.20 1.70 4.00 0.20 6.80 0.30 0.30
34A 132.80 3.30 34.30 1.40 3.50 0.20 0.10
348 61.00 1.50 4.20 0.20 6.10 0.30 0.30
34C 72.80 1.80 6.60 0.30 3.90 0.20 0.20
35A 148.00 3.70 40.00 1.60 9.50 0.40 0.30
358 105.60 2.60 12.60 0.50 1.70 0.10 0.10
35C 40.00 1.00 40.40 1.70 14.10 0.60 0.50

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix I.7. Calcium, magnesium, and sodium concentrations in mg/L
measured by atomic absorption then converted to mmol/L.

76

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

December I

Rusch calcium calcium magnesium magnesium Isodium Isodium SAR
ample ID m IL mmol/L mfl. mmol/L mg/L mmol/L mmoI/L
11A 124.00 3.10 7.30 0.30 3.50 0.20 0.10
118 77.60 1.90 4.80 0.20 2.60 0.10 0.10
110 55.90 1.40 5.10 0.20 4.70 0.20 0.20
12A 99.30 2.50 6.60 0.30 1.10 0.00 0.00
128 49.10 1.20 2.90 0.10 1.50 0.10 0.10
12C 32.40 0.80 10.20 0.40 5.70 0.20 0.30
13A 71.50 1.80 6.00 0.20 1.90 0.10 0.10
138 96.10 2.40 9.20 0.40 3.30 0.10 0.10
13C 40.70 1.00 3.60 0.10 2.00 0.10 0.10
14A 89.10 2.20 7.80 0.30 0.90 0.00 0.00
148 63.50 1.60 5.90 0.20 1.40 0.10 0.10
140 35.70 0.90 6.10 0.30 1.70 0.10 0.10
15A 91.50 2.30 6.80 0.30 0.80 0.00 0.00
158 53.90 1.30 6.00 0.20 1.00 0.00 0.00
150 32.30 0.80 4.20 0.20 0.80 0.00 0.00
21A 58.80 1.50 9.90 0.40 1.30 0.10 0.10
21 B 89.30 2.20 6.00 0.20 4.80 0.20 0.20
21C 37.80 0.90 2.40

 

Appendix l.8. Calcium, magnesium, and sodium concentrations in mg/L
measured by atomic absorption then converted to mmol/L.

77

 

 

[ December

I

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

IM37 calcium calcium magnesium nEgnesium [sodium Isodium SAR
Isamjle ID mg/L mmollL mg/L mmol/L mg/L mmoI/L mmol/L
11A 102.80 2.60 9.50 0.40 256.60 11.50 9.50
118 146.20 3.60 11.90 0.50 14.50 0.60 0.40
11C 48.00 1.20 7.80 0.30 224.00 9.70 11.20
12A 64.40 1.60 8.80 0.40 5.20 0.20 0.20
128 121.70 3.00 13.70 0.60 241 .60 10.50 7.80
12C 59.70 1.50 4.40 0.20 13.50 0.60 0.60
13A 52.00 1.30 15.00 0.60 5.00 0.20 0.20
138 101.20 2.50 4.60 0.20 10.40 0.50 0.40
13C 42.50 1.10 2.30 0.10 5.00 0.20 0.30
14A 69.70 1.70 14.80 0.60 1.00 0.00 0.00
148 85.80 2.10 8.10 0.30 7.60 0.30 0.30
14C 30.10 0.80 2.80 0.10 4.30 0.20 0.30
15A 74.00 1.80 18.70 0.80 0.80 0.00 0.00
158 73.40 1.80 10.70 0.40 1.80 0.10 0.10
15C 45.30 1.10 5.40 0.20 3.20 0.10 0.20
21A 132.40 3.30 7.90 0.30 211.20 9.20 6.80
218 100.10 2.50 21 .80 0.90 299.20 13.00 10.00
21C 30.20 0.80 2.20 0.10 15.50 0.70 1.00
22A 98.80 2.50 21 .00 0.90 16.70 0.70 0.60
228 38.00 0.90 12.00 0.50 209.60 9.10 10.70
22C 80.40 2.00 5.10 0.20 4.80 0.20 0.20
23A 100.40 2.50 16.90 0.70 203.20 8.80 7.00
238 106.30 2.70 5.90 0.20 15.80 0.70 0.60
23C 69.20 1.70 3.90 0.20 384.00 16.70 17.20
24A 62.00 1.50 13.80 0.60 2.90 0.10 0.10
248 126.10 3.10 9.50 0.40 2.90 0.10 0.10
24C 57.30 1.40 5.20 0.20 15.70 0.70 0.80
25A 70.40 1.80 17.10 0.70 1.00 0.00 0.00
258 78.50 2.00 8.30 0.30 2.40 0.10 0.10
25C 77.10 1.90 10.10 0.40 4.80 0.20 0.20
31A 90.80 2.30 7.30 0.30 27.00 1.20 1.00
318 63.10 1.60 5.70 0.20 16.50 0.70 0.80
31C 48.60 1.20 14.40 0.60 348.80 15.20 16.00
32A 123.60 3.10 21.60 0.90 249.60 10.90 7.70
328 100.40 2.50 9.40 0.40 2.20 0.10 0.10
32C 59.90 1.50 3.30 0.10 0.90 0.00 0.00
33A 112.40 2.80 27.40 1.10 4.70 0.20 0.10
338 80.40 2.00 10.80 0.40 10.30 0.40 0.40
330 109.50 2.70 6.90 0.30 254.40 11.10 9.00
34A 127.70 3.20 11.70 0.50 1.00 0.00 0.00
348 124.40 3.10 12.30 0.50 3.30 0.10 0.10
34C 108.60 2.70 9.50 0.40 220.80 9.60 7.70
35A 110.10 2.70 26.60 1.10 1.90 0.10 0.10
358 97.90 2.40 16.60 0.70 3.30 0.10 0.10
35C 55.30 1.40 7.60 0.30 3.20 0.10 0.20

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix I.9. Calcium, magnesium, and sodium concentrations in mg/L
measured in atomic absorption then converted to mmol/L.

78

 

 

 

 

March

I

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

U831 calcium calcium mggnesium magnesium lsodium Isodium SAR
Isample lD mg/L mmollL rqu/L mmoI/L mg/L mmollL mmollL
11A 154.00 3.80 3.20 0.10 7.80 0.30 0.20
118 50.60 1.30 3.60 0.10 19.40 0.80 1.00
11C 21.60 0.50 0.40 0.00 8.00 0.30 0.70
12A 88.00 2.20 1.20 0.00 6.60 0.30 0.30
128 68.80 1.70 0.80 0.00 7.60 0.30 0.40
12C 12.20 0.30 0.40 0.00 3.80 0.20 0.40
13A 76.20 1.90 1.20 0.00 4.00 0.20 0.20
138 36.40 0.90 0.80 0.00 5.00 0.20 0.30
130 6.20 0.20 0.40 0.00 2.60 0.10 0.40
14A 135.60 3.40 2.80 0.10 3.40 0.10 0.10
148 6.80 0.20 0.80 0.00 1.80 0.10 0.20
14C 2.20 0.10 0.40 0.00 1.20 0.10 0.30
15A 62.20 1.60 2.00 0.10 1.20 0.10 0.10
158 9.00 0.20 0.40 0.00 0.60 0.00 0.10
15C 1.40 0.00 0.40 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.30
21A 92.80 2.30 0.80 0.00 15.40 0.70 0.60
21 B 143.00 3.60 1.60 0.10 18.60 0.80 0.60
21C 8.80 0.20 0.40 0.00 2.00 0.10 0.30
22A 76.00 1.90 2.00 0.10 3.80 0.20 0.20
228 63.40 1.60 1.20 0.00 8.00 0.30 0.40
220 11.40 0.30 0.40 0.00 3.60 0.20 0.40
23A 287.00 7.20 2.00 0.10 1.40 0.10 0.00
238 153.20 3.80 0.80 0.00 5.20 0.20 0.20
3C 8.40 0.20 0.40 0.00 2.20 0.10 0.30
4A 123.00 3.10 3.20 0.10 1.80 0.10 0.10
48 127.20 3.20 1.60 0.10 2.80 0.10 0.10
4C 13.40 0.30 1.60 0.10 1.60 0.10 0.20
25A 116.00 2.90 0.80 0.00 1.20 0.10 0.00
258 68.60 1.70 1.20 0.00 1.40 0.10 0.10
25C 20.20 0.50 0.80 0.00 1.20 0.10 0.10
31A 75.00 1.90 2.40 0.10 16.20 0.70 0.70
31 B 178.60 4.50 1.20 0.00 19.60 0.90 0.60
31 C 11.60 0.30 0.40 0.00 10.40 0.50 1.20
32A 77.00 1.90 2.40 0.10 1.40 0.10 0.10
328 57.60 1.40 0.80 0.00 9.00 0.40 0.50
320 9.60 0.20 0.40 0.00 3.40 0.10 0.40
33A 293.80 7.30 2.40 0.10 2.60 0.10 0.10
338 225.00 5.60 1.20 0.00 7.60 0.30 0.20
33C 9.00 0.20 0.40 0.00 1.80 0.10 0.20
34A 104.50 2.60 2.40 0.10 3.60 0.20 0.10
348 146.40 3.70 2.40 0.10 5.20 0.20 0.20
340 6.80 0.20 0.40 0.00 1.80 0.10 0.30
35A 101.60 2.50 2.80 0.10 2.00 0.10 0.10
358 50.20 1.30 1.60 0.10 2.00 0.10 0.10
5C 4.80 0.10 0.80 0.00 1.20 0.10 0.20

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix l.10. Calcium, magnesium, and sodium concentrations in mg/L
measured by atomic absorption then converted to mmol/L.

79

 

 

[March

I

l

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Silver Lake calcium calcium magflsium mggnesium sodium lsodium SAR
rsample ID m /L mmoI/L mfl. mmol/L mg/L mmol/L mmoI/L
11A 63.80 1.60 2.40 2.60 25.60 1.10 0.80
118 42.80 1.10 0.80 1.80 20.40 0.90 0.70
11C 280.00 7.00 1.60 11.50 15.00 0.70 0.20
12A 9020 2.30 4.00 3.70 13.80 0.60 0.30
128 146.80 3.70 2.00 6.00 7.80 0.30 0.20
12C 200.20 5.00 3.20 8.20 5.20 0.20 0.10
13A 267.00 6.70 4.40 11.00 4.60 0.20 0.10
138 54.60 1.40 1.60 2.20 1.40 0.10 0.00
130 129.80 3.20 4.00 5.30 2.40 0.10 0.10
14A 73.90 1.80 3.20 3.00 1.40 0.10 0.00
148 25.20 0.60 1.20 1.00 1.40 0.10 0.10
14C 136.40 3.40 1.40 5.60 1.00 0.00 0.00
15A 146.80 3.70 3.60 6.00 1.00 0.00 0.00
158 25.20 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00
15C 5.40 0.10 0.40 0.20 0.80 0.00 0.10
21A 90.20 2.30 2.00 3.70 27.20 1.20 0.70
218 17.80 0.40 0.80 0.70 7.60 0.30 0.40
. 21C 14.80 0.40 0.80 0.60 8.80 0.40 0.50
22A 59.40 1.50 3.60 2.40 7.00 0.30 0.20
28 175.80 4.40 2.40 7.20 5.80 0.30 0.10
22C 13.40 0.30 1.20 0.60 4.20 0.20 0.30
23A 223.60 5.60 4.40 9.20 4.20 0.20 0.10
238 17.00 0.40 0.80 0.70 1.20 0.10 0.10
23C 49.60 1.20 2.80 2.00 1.60 0.10 0.10
24A 105.00 2.60 4.40 4.30 1.80 0.10 0.00
248 12.40 0.30 0.80 0.50 1.00 0.00 0.10
24C 10.40 0.30 0.80 0.40 1.20 0.10 0.10
25A 126.00 3.10 4.40 5.20 1.40 0.10 0.00
258 18.60 0.50 0.80 0.80 1.60 0.10 0.10
25C 4.60 0.10 0.40 0.20 0.60 0.00 0.10
31A 143.00 3.60 3.60 5.90 8.20 0.40 0.20
318 105.20 2.60 0.80 4.30 5.80 0.30 0.10
310 164.20 4.10 2.00 6.80 10.80 0.50 0.20
32A 312.80 7.80 3.20 12.90 7.20 0.30 0.10
328 366.00 9.10 3.20 15.10 7.40 0.30 0.10
320 134.80 3.40 3.60 5.50 4.80 0.20 0.10
33A 88.00 2.20 3.60 3.60 2.20 0.10 0.10
338 20.60 0.50 1.20 0.80 2.20 0.10 0.10
33C 7.20 0.20 1.20 0.30 1.20 0.10 0.10
34A 89.00 2.20 3.60 3.70 1.80 0.10 0.00
348 5.80 0.10 0.80 0.20 1.00 0.00 0.10
34C 6.80 0.20 0.80 0.30 1.20 0.10 0.10
35A 227.60 5.70 4.00 9.40 4.20 0.20 0.10
358 18.20 0.50 1.20 0.70 1.00 0.00 0.10
35C 100.60 2.50 4.00 4.10 1.60 0.10 0.00

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix l.11. Calcium, magnesium, and sodium concentrations in mg/L
measured by atomic absorption then converted to mmollL.

80

 

 

[March

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rusch balcium calcium magesium magnesium Isodium lsodium SAR
ample ID mgg/L mmoI/L mg/L mmol/L mg/L mmoI/L mmol/L
11A 106.40 2.70 0.60 0.00 3.50 0.20 0.10
118 79.80 2.00 0.80 0.00 2.60 0.10 0.10
11C 23.60 0.60 0.40 0.00 4.70 0.20 0.40
12A 74.80 1.90 0.80 0.00 1.10 0.00 0.00
128 38.60 1.00 0.60 0.00 1.50 0.10 0.10
12C 9.60 0.20 0.20 0.00 5.70 0.20 0.70
13A 69.40 1.70 1.20 0.00 1.90 0.10 0.10
138 51 .60 1.30 0.80 0.00 3.30 0.10 0.20
13C 31.00 0.80 0.80 0.00 2.00 0.10 0.10
14A 82.40 2.10 1.20 0.00 0.90 0.00 0.00
148 46.60 1.20 1.80 0.10 1.40 0.10 0.10
14C 52.80 1.30 1.40 0.10 1.70 0.10 0.10
15A 89.40 2.20 1.80 0.10 0.80 0.00 0.00
158 29.00 0.70 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.10
150 10.20 0.30 0.60 0.00 0.80 0.00 0.10
1A 86.20 2.20 0.60 0.00 1.30 0.10 0.10
21 B 36.20 0.90 0.40 0.00 4.80 0.20 0.30
210 17.00 0.40 0.20 0.00 3.00 0.10 0.30
22A 61.40 1.50 1.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00
228 24.20 0.60 0.40 0.00 0.80 0.00 0.10
22C 6.60 0.20 0.20 0.00 1.70 0.10 0.30
23A 64.20 1.60 1.40 0.10 0.90 0.00 0.00
238 53.20 1.30 0.80 0.00 3.50 0.20 0.20
23C 15.00 0.40 0.40 0.00 1.80 0.10 0.20
24A 46.80 1.20 1.40 0.10 8.30 0.40 0.50
248 68.40 1.70 1.20 0.00 2.10 0.10 0.10
4C 11.40 0.30 0.60 0.00 1.60 0.10 0.00
5A 49.00 1.20 1.00 0.00 0.80 0.00 0.00
258 55.60 1.40 1.40 0.10 1.30 0.10 0.10
5C 27.60 0.70 0.80 0.00 6.20 0.30 0.40
31A 96.80 2.40 1.80 0.10 13.10 0.60 0.50
31 B 57.40 1.40 0.60 0.00 1.10 0.00 0.10
310 51.60 1.30 0.80 0.00 1.60 0.10 0.10
32A 126.60 3.20 1.60 0.10 10.20 0.40 0.30
328 31.60 0.80 0.40 0.00 190.40 8.30 13.00
32C 9.60 0.20 0.20 0.00 184.00 8.00 22.70
33A 104.60 2.60 1.80 0.10 8.60 0.40 0.30
338 40.80 1.00 1.60 0.10 179.20 7.80 10.60
33C 19.60 0.50 0.60 0.00 5.90 0.30 0.50
34A 83.60 2.10 1.00 0.00 1.30 0.10 0.10
348 68.20 1.70 1.20 0.00 2.90 0.10 0.10
340 8.00 0.20 0.40 0.00 10.40 0.50 1.40
35A 41 .60 1.00 0.80 0.00 2.80 0.10 0.20
358 20.40 0.50 0.60 0.00 0.90 0.00 0.10
35C 7.80 0.20 0.40 0.00 2.40 0.10 0.30

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix I.12. Calcium, magnesium, and sodium concentrations in mg/L
measured by atomic absorption then converted to mmol/L.

81

 

Appendix II
Bar graphs depicting SAR values in each horizon for
each boring at each site in September, December, and March
in order to evaluate any trends in SAR with depth

82

September M37 A Horizon

 

4m 6m 8m 10m
Distance from Road
- Transect 1 Transect 2 [:3 Transect 3
September M37 B Horizon

 

S
A
R
Distance from Road
- Transect 1 Transect 2 C] Transect 3
September M37 C Horizon
S
A
R

 

2m 4m 6m 8m 10m
Distance from Road
I Transect 1 Transect 2 1:] Transect 3

Appendix ”.1. Bar graphs depicting SAR values with depth in the A, B, and C soil
horizons.

83

September U831 A Horizon

 

 

 

 

 

S
A
R
III
1 I... I...— _ .-:-
4m 6m 8m 10m
Distance from Road
- Transect1 m Transect2 [.7 Transect 3
September U831 B Horizon
2.0-

» W

I if

15 . .
S
A
R

:3 . L-_:I . —"__;1
10m
Distance from Road
- Transect1 m Transect2 :3 Transect 3
September U831 C Horizon

S
A
R

   

Distance from Road
- Transect1 rm Transect 2 [j Transect 3

Appendix ".2. Bar graphs depicting SAR values with depth in the A, B, and C soil
hofizons.

84

September, Silver Lake, transect 1

   

 

 

1.0
0.8
S .
A I .
R I
6m ‘ 8m 10m
Distance from Road
- A horizon B horizon C] C horizon
September, Silver Lake, transect 2
S
A
R
I A horizon C horizon
September, Silver Lake, transect 3
S
A
R

 
   

r"
I
-
m

6m 8m

   

Distance from Road
- A horizon B horizon [:1 C horizon

Appendix ".3. Bar graphs depicting SAR values with depth in the A, B, and C soil
horizons.

85

September, Rusch Rd, A Horizon

*1 -l “7' .J] , IND -. .Ell
4m 6m 8m
Distance from Road

10m
I Transect1 m Transect2 C. Transect 3

1.2

”>03

   

2m

September, Rusch Rd, 8 Horizon

 

 

10m
Distance from Road
- Transect1 Transect2 :1 Transect 3
September, Rusch Rd, C Horizon
2.5
S
A
R
.m.-...
8m 10m
Distance from Road
I Transect1 Transect2 1:: Transect3

Appendix ".4. Bar graphs depicting SAR values with depth in the A, B, and C soil
honzons.

86

December M37 A Horizon

33>(D

2m '8 4m 1 6m I 8m 9 10m
Distance from Road

Transect 2 1:] Transect 3

 

 

- Transect 1

December M37 8 Horizon
12I

 

 

 

2m 4m 6m I 8m 10m
Distance from Road
- Transect 1 Transect 2 1:] Transect 3

 

December M37 C Horizon
ZOI

 

 

2m 1 4m 6m 8m Y 10m
Distance from Road

[:1 Transect 3

 

- Transect 1

Appendix ".5. Bar graphs depicting SAR values with depth in the A, B, and C soil
honzons.

87

December U831 A Horizon

  

 

   

 

14-
12
1 .
s g;
A 6‘»
R
4.
0‘ 331— -—-lll: .. .. .-—-—b—-.
2m 4m 6m 8m 10m
Distance from Road
- Transect1 Transect 2 E Transect 3
December U831 B Horizon
12
1
S
A
R
2m 4m 6m 8m 10m
Distance from Road
- Transect1 Transect2 E] Transect3
December U831 C Horizon
0.8
0.6
S
A 0.4
R
0.2
0.0
2m 4m 6m 8m 10m
Distance from Road
- Transect1 Transect2 [:1 Transect3

Appendix ”.6. Bar graphs depicting SAR values with depth in the A, B, and C soil
horizons.

December, Silver Lake, A Horizon

 

 

 

4.
3.
S I
A 2‘
R .
1 I
0.- .-mmj-—nm..-—._:- —_.:L.
2m 4m 6m 8m 10m
Distance from Road
- Transect1 m Transect2 [:1 Transect3
December, Silver Lake, B Horizon
7.
5;
5:
4-
3i
2-
1.
0L - L m , _
2m 4m 6m 8m 10m
- Transect1 Transect2 U Transect3
December, Silver Lake, C Horizon
8i
61
S l
A 4.
R l ,
21 I
OI- - — ._—= -m.
2m 4m 6m 8m 10m
Distance from Road
- Transect1 m Transect2 E] Transect3

Appendix ”.7. Bar graphs depicting SAR values with depth in the A, B, and C soil
horizons.

89

December, Rusch Rd, A Horizon

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0.5" I’T’T‘I
0.4i~ ...—
S 03..
A
R 0.2‘L
0.0. -
2m 4m
I Transect1
December, Rusch Rd, B Horizon
8"
S
A 4~
R
2..
o — - —— - - _ . —— —
2m 4m 6m 8m 10m
Distance from Road
I Transect1 Transect 2 Transect 3
December, Rusch Rd, C Horizon
12» h
10» .
A. 5.
R 4..
2..
o . — . . __,_____,..
2m 4m 6m 8m 10m
Distance from Road
I Transect1 Transect2 Transect 3

 

Appendix ".8. Bar graphs depicting SAR values with depth in the A, B, and C soil
honzons.

90

March M37 A Horizon

  
  

 

7i
6
5
S 4
A
R 3
2
1 l
0 .1 ' ..
2m 4m 6m 8m 10m
Distance from Road
I Transect1 Transect2 Eli Transect 3

March M37 B Horizon

21>U)

   

2m . ‘ 4m 6m W N 8m 1 10m
Distance from Road

I Transect 1 M Transect 2 E3 Transect 3
March M37 C Horizon

IU>UJ

 

2m 4m 6m 8m 10m H
Distance from Road

I Transect1 I Transect2 [:1 Transect3

Appendix ”.9. Bar graphs depicting SAR values with depth in the A, B, and C soil
horizons.

91

March US31 transect 1

 

 

 

 

S
A
R
2m 4m 6m 8m 10m
Distance from Road
- A horizon - B horizon C horizon
March U631 transect 2
S
A
R
2m 4m 6m 8m 10m
Distance from Road
- A horizon - B horizon [:1 C horizon
March U831 transect 3
S
A
R

 

 

2m 4m 6m 8m 10m

Distance from Road
- A horizon m B horizon C horizon

Appendix ”.10. Bar graphs depicting SAR values with depth in the A, B, and C
soil horizons.

92

March, Silver Lake Rd, A Horizon

 

 

 

S
A
R
7
r1
__,,_Jr . ‘ ' . - . g4 .
2m 4m 6m 8m 10m
Distance from Road
- Transect 1 m Transect 2 L: Transect 3
March, Silver Lake Rd, B Horizon
S
A
R

 

 

   

2m
Distance from Road

I Transect 1 m Transect 2 L; Transect 3
March, Silver Lake Rd, C Horizon

 

 

 

 

   

Distance from Road
m Transect 2 [:3 Transect 3

 

- Transect 1

Appendix ”.11. Bar graphs depicting SAR values with depth in the A, B, and C
soil horizons.

93

March, Rusch Rd, A Horizon

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

0.5 r”?
0.4; l l .'
S 0.3- , , . 5;
A l l l .
R I l ,
l J l L
9 9 94m 99 6m if "
Distance from Road
- Transect1 m Transect 2 DJ Transect 3
March, Rusch Rd, B Horizon
14' fi
12:
10’ l7 7
A ‘ ' l
R 6' l E ‘1.
4‘ l l a
2; = l I
2m 4m 6m 8m 10m
Distance from Road
- Transect1 m Transect 2 .1 Transect 3
March, Rusch Rd, C Horizon
25
20
S 15'
A
R 10«
5f
0. _,_ . ._____- .
2m 4m 6m 8m 10m
DistmcefrcmRoad
I Trmsect1 Transect2 - Transect3

 

Appendix “.12. Bar graphs depicting SAR values with depth in the A, B, and C
soil horizons.

94

Appendix III
Bar graphs depicting SAR values in each horizon for
each transect at each site in September, December, and March
in order to evaluate any trends in SAR with distance from the road

95

September M37 transect 1

 

 

2m 9 4m 6m 9 8m 10m

Distance from Road
- A hroizon E B horizon E] C horizon
September M37 transect 2

 

 

2m 4m 6m 8 8m 10m

Distance from Road
I A horizon - B horizon C horizon
September M37 transect 3

 

 

2m 4m 6m 8m 10m
Distance from Road
- A horizon I B horizon U C horizon

Appendix "H. Bar graphs depicting SAR values with distance from the roadway
for each transect.

96

September US31 transect 1

   

 

 

1.2
1.0
0.8
S
A 0.6
R
0.4
0.2
0.0
2m 4m 6m 8m 10m
Distance from Road
- A horizon I B horizon C horizon
September US31 transect 2
S
A
R
Distance from Road
- A horizon - B horizon E] C horizon
September US31 transect 3
1.2
1.0
0.8
S
A 0.6
R
0.4
0.2
0.0
2m 4m 6m 8m 10m
Distance from Road
- A horizon M B horizon C horizon

Appendix ||l.2. Bar graphs depicting SAR values with distance from the roadway
for each transect.

September, Silver Lake, transect 1

 

 

 

 

 

 

S
A
R
2m 4m ‘1 6m 8m 10m
Distance from Road
- A horizon B horizon Cl C horizon
September, Silver Lake, transect 2
S
A
R
2m 4m 6m 8m 10m
Distance from Road
- A horizon - B horizon E C horizon
September, Silver Lake, transect 3
1.0-r
0.8«r
S
A
R

 

 

 

 

2m V 4m 9 . .. 10m
Distance from Road

I A horizon m B horizon 5:3 C horizon
Appendix lll.3. Bar graphs depicting SAR values with distance from the roadway
for each transect.

98

September, Rusch Rd, A Horizon

ZIP(0

 

 

2m 4m 6m 8m 10m
Distance from Road
- Transect 1 - Transect 2 [I Transect 3

September, Rusch Rd, B Horizon

 

 

 

 

S
A
R
2m 4m 6m ' 8m 10m ' 9
Distance from Road
- Transect1 I Transect2 Transect3

September, Rusch Rd, C Horizon
25.

I
A
fl

21>(D

 

 

2m 4m 6m 8m 10m
Distance from Road
- Transect1 - Transect2 Transect3

Appendix |l|.4. Bar graphs depicting SAR values with distance from the roadway
for each transect.

99

December M37 transect 1

lot

8;

4‘.

2r

0H . .7 ,._—=,,,,
2m 4m 6m

Distance from Road

JU>UJ
m

 

 

8m 10m

- A horizon

 

B horizon [:1 C horizon

December M37 transect 2

 

 

20.

l

15l

S l

A 10+

R l

5;

O H . ,i—LZL, _. .
2m 4m 8m 10m
Distance from Road
- A horizon - B horizon C horizon
December M37 transect 3
16
14
12
s 10
A 8
R 6
4
2
0
2m 4m 6m 8m 10m
Distance from Road
- A horizon B horizon E? C horizon

Appendix |l|.5. Bar graphs depicting SAR values with distance from the roadway
for each transect.

100

December U331 transect 1

”>03

   

2m 4m 6m 8m 10m
Distance from Road
- A horizon ' B horizon C horizon

 

December US31 transect 2

 

 

 

 

 

S
A
R L
,, —_i::L - 1: a 7,
2m 4m 6m 8m 10m
Distance from Road
- A horizon - B horizon C horizon
December US31 transect 3
12
10
S 8
A 6
R 4
2
o f , .
2m 4m 6m 8m 10m
Distance from Road
- A horizon B horizon [:2] C horizon

Appendix lll.6. Bar graphs depicting SAR values with distance from the roadway
for each transect.

101

December, Silver Lake, transect 1

 

 

   

S
A
R
4m 6m . 8m 10m -
Distance from Road
- A horizon B horizon [j C horizon
December, Silver Lake, transect 2
S
A
R
2m 4m 6m 8m 10m
Distance from Road
- A horizon - B horizon C horizon
December, Silver Lake, transect 3

O.

0.

O.

0.2

0.

0.

 

- Ahorizon - Bhorizon U Chorizon

Appendix |||.7. Bar graphs depicting SAR values with distance from the roadway
for each transect.

102

December, Rusch Road, transect 1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

S
A
R
. Ol .e
0 0 2m 4m 6m 8m 10m
Distance from Road
I A horizon I B horizon c horizon
December, Rusch Rd, transect 2
S
A
R
.001
0 2m 4m 6m 8m 10m
Distance from Road
- A horizon - B horizon C horizon
December, Rusch Rd, transect 3
121
10‘-
s 8“
A 6
R 4‘,
2..
or .
2m 4m 6m 8m 10m
Distance from Road
- A horizon - B horizon C horizon

Appendix |l|.8. Bar graphs depicting SAR values with distance from the roadway
for each transect.

103

March M37 transect 1

 

   

 

S
A
R
Distance from Road
- A horizon - B horizon C horizon
March M37 transect 2
S
A
R
2m 9 4m I
Distance from Road
- A horizon - B horizon C horizon
March M37 transect 3
7
6
5
S 4‘
A
R 3
2
1
O , r .. ‘ r . _
2m 4m 6m 8m 10m
Distance from Road
- A horizon - B horizon C horizon

Appendix |l|.9. Bar graphs depicting SAR values with distance from the roadway
for each transect.

104

March US31 transect 1

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.0~-
0.8r
S 0.6w
A
R 0.44
0.24
0.0
2m 4m 6m 8m 10m
Distance from Road
- A horizon n B horizon [:3 C horizon
March U831 transect 2
S
A
R
2m 4m 6m 8m 10m
Distance from Road
- A horizon I B horizon C horizon
March U831 transect 3
S
A
R
2m 4m 6m 8m 10m
Distance from Road
I A horizon I B horizon C horizon

Appendix ||l.10. Bar graphs depicting SAR values with distance from the
roadway for each transect.

105

March, Silver Lake, transect 1

     

     

S
A
R
, 1-, , W
2m 6m 10m
Distance from Road
- A horizon B horizon [:1 C horizon
March, Silver Lake, transect 2
0.7
S
A
R
2m 4m 6m 8m 10m
Distance from Road
- A horizon n B horizon C horizon
March, Silver Lake, transect 3
S
A
R

   

Distance from Road
- A horizon - B horizon [:1 C horizon

Appendix lll.11. Bar graphs depicting SAR values with distance from the
roadway for each transect.

106

March, Rusch Rd, transect 1

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

0.7T r—1
S
A
R

2m 4m - 6m ?
Distance from Road
- A horizon B horizon 1:} C horizon
March, Rusch Rd, transect 2
S
A
R
2m 4m 6m: 8m 10m
Distance from Road
- A horizon m B horizon C horizon
March, Rusch Rd, transect 3
25~r
20 ‘r

S 15»
A
R 10»

54.

o . .

2m 4m 6m 8m 10m
Distance from Road
- A horizon m B horizon C horizon

Appendix |l|.12. Bar graphs depicting SAR values with distance from the
roadway for each transect.

107

"‘llllilllllillllllES