‘,- :5 ‘ ‘ gram 3‘ ’3' ' 3?? Eva... 5 : '3?" . ‘a . a», _ . V‘ :‘l . '5.’ ‘f‘. ’TW’T" ‘, x": 1:. _ 1‘3.“ 61%" ’3 v _ rm_ F333,?" I w» ‘ ‘3. . _‘ .. 1“ h ‘ 3,, . .é. 1‘ M L v _ 7L .' 3 a -. ”x 'u ' um. i 'h. . 3411...»: M; P ' , L ’5’“ “33% "“3142"? 9% ““' ,4 . Vail" ‘ :‘ta' .. «a, -.+ 3- A »2 ,. “Ki-Ir j" ~3le- ~ 3 7" 1m: «‘3;ng . 25v,- 4 J 3:1: ., "A? 3'- ‘5 \. “Um ' ' 5'3 'w" 9: 15325” #1” wig}. 3:...“ $3" _ . ‘ lg“ 1 3‘ n 31. 29.22- . Wars". :2: he): ‘ M‘ ‘ . A . 1 . _-.\~ '- Pu! . .w .7 l' I -~.. ‘ . . If a. ‘ "imma- . r’ . w.“ u M . $71.13 ‘ n guy. 30:. ”339.12. . . =15”? ‘, 1‘ “ ' 1" Iifir é‘ftfith 3“" :2" ”SM? ‘ ‘6“ "5.3;“ {fiegfl 5h I 531 r #1“ ‘ ‘ _ . , . . g“, : ‘ vafi - . xv: ‘ . ~ - 1 =~ .«s‘? ‘ 34333 x ‘ 3" J 5; ; 4.3. . 1‘ \‘1 . :. 3:13“; ”(-14‘4‘2'5- ‘ ,y. . 3 a 1!: K ‘ r u A 'EE’N' fur . . i h‘v‘n‘ «- . . .‘ ._..1. .5. 4. “arm. 31:: ‘ .w- a! . w.‘ ‘ . 1' 3.3%; w ".Y‘I’J. -. , 1' IM‘ ‘ 14‘- 1 74a yl‘f‘I .E'JAps-v ,‘r :3 wk?“ ”‘3'; 4! {.3‘ \ o "n -.‘ { 'Vt 'V' ".4 fl. "ig'vdg‘fi' 1-4" ' “if, 23‘3fl .. .2.- 3 n" , .3. 4;“ w- I ‘ {$4.32 “h ”an R .5 . {.45 § “A KI I 1’.’ "ix" ~ 4. '1! ’hifl-‘ix h ‘ r g, . I“ :3: ._ h..- T ~14 u. u um; .v‘_ w N 3 . :J.""l " . “ -§v?{-Z"§'}3' s v. "4'.“ ‘ . zu'll 31'!“ u -n 5:. {.149 “I \- ~51! , . w “’1va379.0. P ) LIBRAR mlhjllljflljl‘fllflmifilmHamill 790 5783 r V‘ LIBRARY niobium: State University This is to certify that the thesis entitled EVALUATION OF A PERCOLATION BASIN TO REMOVE HEAVY METALS AND PARTICULATE FROM HIGHWAY RUNOFF presented by David Raymond Buck has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Masters degreein Agricultural Engineering / ajor professor Date {1164, j]. /?j§ 0-7639 MS U 1': an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record. TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due. firfi! MSU Is An Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity institution cmms-pd EVALUATION OF A PERCOLATION BASIN TO REMOVE HEAVY METALS AND PARTICULATE FROM HIGHWAY RUNOFF BY David Raymond Buck A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Agricultural Engineering 1990 ABSTRACT EVALUATION OF A PERCOLATION BASIN TO REMOVE HEAVY METALS AND PARTICULATE FROM HIGHWAY RUNOFF BY David Raymond Buck An attempt was made to evaluate a percolation basin method to remove heavy metal pollutants from highway runoff. An initial basin, designed and constructed by the Michigan Department of Transportation, failed. An analysis of the cause of failure was performed by MSU’s Department of Agricultural Engineering in an effort to produce a design that would remove the heavy metal pollutants. The failure resulted from the dispersing effects of deicing salts on the clay colloids present in the runoff and in the soil of the basin. The dispersed clay fraction in the runoff collected on the surface of the basin. Clay also migrated through the soil of the basin and collected on the fabric mat which separated the soil from the sand in which collection drains were placed. Clay percentages averaging 66 and 25% respectively, at the locations indicated reduced the permeability of the basin and caused the failure. The results of the analysis showed that Zn, Pb, Cr, and Cd were present in the runoff waters. However, the pollutants were not in suspension, but were attached to the colloidal particulate present in the runoff. Laboratory work using columns showed that the pollutants attached to particulates could be removed by filtering the runoff water through sand. Approved by Major Professor Approved by Department Chairman ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First, I would like to thank my wonderfully supportive and loving wife for allowing me the time and energy to earn this degree. Her sacrifice and understanding made the attainment of this degree a far less difficult endeavor. Second, I would like to thank Dr. George Merva for giving me the opportunity to conduct the research on this project and for encouraging me and giving me advice throughout the course of both my graduate and undergraduate careers. Last, I would like to show special appreciation to my father- in-law, Dale Koons, who retired from his real job, just in time to be a friend, assistant, and sounding board, while providing many helpful ideas and suggestions. As always, GO STATE! iv TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Tables .............................................. ix List of Figures ............................................. xi 1 Introduction .............................................. 1 1 .1 Project Evolution ....................................... 2 1 .2 MDNR role ........................ , ....................... 3 1 .2.1 Input to designated trout stream ...................... 3 1 .2. 2 Heavy metal vs. sport fish ............................ 4 1 . 3 MDOT involvement ........................................ 4 1 .3.1 Original plan ......... I ................................ 4 1 . 3 . 2 MDOT responsibility ................................... S 1 . 3 . 2 .1 Location selection .................................. 5 1.3.2.2 Basin design. ....................................... 5 1 . 3 . 2 . 3 Basin construction .................................. 9 1 .4 MSU responsibility ...................................... 9 1 .4 .1 Research design ....................................... 9 1 . 4 . 2 Procurement of instrumentation ........................ 9 1 .4 .3 Data collection ...................................... 1O 1 . 5 Problem areas .......................................... 1O 1 . 5.1 Design difficulties .................................. 1O 2 OBJECTIVES ............................................... 13 2 .1 Determine why the basin had clogged .................... 1 3 vi 2.2 Determine where the heavy metals are located in the highway runoff .............................................. 1 3 2.3 Decide how to remove the heavy metals .................. 13 2.4 Redesign the basin to effect removal of heavy metals. . .13 2.5 Quantify the effectiveness of the heavy metal removal process ..................................................... 13 I3 LITERATURfiiREVIEW’ ........................................ 14 3 .1 Retention/detention/ filtration basins .................. 14 3 . 2 Urban hydrology ........................................ 1 5 3 .2.1 ’First flush’ effects .......... ' ...................... 17 3 . 3 Pollutants in urban runoff ............................. 19 3.3.1 Heavy metals ......................................... 20 3 .3 .1 .1 Determination of origins of heavy metals ........... 21 3 . 3 .1 . 2 Other heavy metal identifying studies .............. 25 3 . 3 . 2 Salinity in runoff ................................... 26 3 . 3 . 3 Particulate in runoff ................................ 27 3 .4 Water quality criteria ................................. 28 3 . 5 Effect of pollutants ................................... 3O 3 . 5 .1 Toxicity of heavy metals ............................. 31 3.5.1.1 Lead ............................................... 34 3.5.1.2 Zinc ............................................... 36 3.5.1.3 Cadmium ............................................ 37 3.5.1.4 Chromium ........................................... 38 3.5.2 Salinity ............................................. 38 3.5.2.1 Salinity in water .................................. 39 3. 5.2.2 Salinity in soil ................................... 4O 3 . 5 . 3 Suspended solids ..................................... 4O vii 3 . 6 Importance of heavy metal removal ...................... 41 3 . 6 .1 Removal and reduction techniques ..................... 42 3.7 Efforts ........................................... , ..... 46 4 METHODOLOGY .............................................. 49 4 .1 Basin evaluation ....................................... 49 4 .1 .1 Particle size determination .......................... 49 4 .1 . 2 Hydraulic conductivity determination ................. 49 4 .1 . 3 Filter material inspection ........................... 49 4 . 2 Heavy metal determinations ............................. 50 4 . 2.1 Obtaining runoff samples ............................. 50 4 . 2 . 2 Infiltration experiment .............................. 52 4 . 3 Analysis of infiltration data .......................... 55 4.3.1 Heavy metals ......................................... 55 4 . 3 . 2 Other analyses ....................................... 55 5 RESULTS ..... . ............................................. 56 5.1 Particle size analysis ................................. 56 5.2 Heavy metals in soil extractions ....................... 58 5.3 Heavy metals in column filtrate ........................ 6O 5 . 4 Heavy metal removal .................................... 62 5.5 Salinity ............................................... 62 5 . 6 Permeability tests ..................................... 63 5.7 Infiltration columns ................................... 64 5 . 7 . 1 Infiltration rate measurements ....................... 64 5.7.1.1 Sand columns ....................................... 65 5 . 7 .1 . 2 Sandy loam columns ................................. 65 5 . 7 .1 . 3 Topsoil mix-filter cloth-sand columns .............. 68 viii 5 .7 .1 .4 Sand-peat-sand columns ............................. 71 5 . 7 . 1 . 5 Sand-muck-sand columns ............................. 71 5 .8 Flume calibration ...................................... 74 6 DISCUSSION ............................................... 75 6 .1 Nature of runoff ....................................... 75 6.2 Relationships .......................................... 75 6 . 3 Redesign of basin ...................................... 79 6 . 4 Performance of new design .............................. 82 7 CONCLUSIONS ........................ . ...................... 84 8 RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................... 86 9 LIST OF REFERENCES ....................................... 88 1O APPENDIXIX .............................................. 96 11 APPENDIXHB.................................; ........... 113 LIST OF TABLES Table 1 . Analysis of "pure" materials ....................... 23 Table 2. Summary of selected highway runoff quality data. . . .25 Table 3. Summary of water quality criteria for selected constituents of highway runoff .............................. 29 Table 4. Maximum concentrations of heavy metals for drinking water standards and values that have been shown to have effects on aquatic organisms ................................ 31 Table 5. EPA water quality criteria for metals for the protection of freshwater aquatic life ....................... 33 Table 6. Public water quality standards for salt content. . . .39 Table 7. Metal loading from road surface runoff compared to normal sanitary sewage flow ................................. 41 Table 8. Average particle size analyses for samples collected at various locations throughout the basin and laboratory experiments ................................................. 57 Table 9. Average concentrations of heavy metals in extractions of soil material collected from various locations throughout the basin and from laboratory experiments ................... 59 Table 10. Average concentrations of heavy metals in column leachate .................................................... 61 Table 11. Average heavy metal concentrations in the filtration experiment water samples .................................... 62 Table 12. Table of average sodium concentrations in collected runoff samples .............................................. 63 Table 13. Average permeability for various locations throughout the basin ........................................ 64 ix APPENDIX A Table 14. Heavy metal concentrations from infiltration column samples ..................................................... 96 Table 15. Other heavy metal concentrations associated with infiltration column tests .................................. 102 Table 16. Concentrations of heavy metals in various soil extractions ................................................ 103 Table 17. Particle size analysis of various samples ........ 105 Table 18. Salinity of collected runoff samples ............. 107 Table 19. Results of in situ permeability measurements ..... 110 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Boundaries of the percolation basin research project ...................................................... 6 Figure 2. Original basin cross section ....................... 7 Figure 3. Contour map of the Lake Orion M-24 percolation basin.......................... .............................. 8 Figure 4 . Bubbler system layout ....... '. ..................... 51 Figure 5. Experimental infiltration column design ........... 53 Figure 6. Sand columns ...................................... 66 Figure 7 . Sandy loam columns ................................ 67 Figure 8. Sandy loam columns. Tested with collected runoff with 3000 ppm Na added trial ................................ 69 Figure 9. Topsoil mix-filter cloth-sand columns ............. 70 Figure 10. Sand-peat-sand columns ........................... 72 Figure 11 . Sand-muck-sand columns ........................... 73 Figure 12. Redesigned basin cross section ................... 81 Appendix B Figure 13. Calibration curve, Flume 1 ...................... 113 Figure 14. Calibration curve, Flume 2 ...................... 114 xi 1 INTRODUCTION The State of Michigan is in the center of the Great Lakes region, and it includes within its boundaries 3,250 miles of freshwater shoreline, 39,000 squareemiles of four Great Lakes, 36,000 river and stream miles, and 11,000 inland lakes of 10 acres or more. These vast and abundant resources provide recreation.and.navigation, they serve as a water supply to the State’s residents, and as an important base for the State’s economic development. by supporting' industry' and tourism. (Skoog and Pitz, 1985) I Many of these waters are slowly degrading due to the increase in point and nonpoint pollution sources. Point sources are those which can be attributed to easily definable locations such as sewage treatment discharges and industrial waste discharges. Nonpoint sources are those which do not have a distinct origin and are not easily' quantified as point sources. The Natural Resources Defense Council identifies nonpoint source pollution. by what they feel is a more realistic and descriptive term, poison runoff. They describe poison runoff as excess surface flowage which has been contaminated as the result of intensified human develOpment. (Thompson, 1989) In an effort to preserve the quality of the waters of the State of Michigan, it was necessary to address the area of nonpoint pollutant sources to determine what could be done to reduce the inputs from these sources. With moneys available 1 2 from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) in conjunction with the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR), put forward and received approval on a project to study the effectiveness of using a percolation/retention basin to remove heavy metals from highway runoff. 1.1 Project-evolution Water pollution is the result of human activity and has increased at.a steady rate since the advent of the industrial era. In the United States, the Federal Water Pollution Control .Act (or iClean.‘Water .Act) of 1972 (P.L. 92-500) initiated guidelines for the maintenance and improvement of current water quality objectives. In Michigan, the Water Resources Commission Act (P.A. 245, 1929) and its subsequent amendments have steadily addressed water quality issues in Michigan streams and lakes, creating significant improvements in many areas. (Skoog and Pitz, 1985) In 1983, Governor James Blanchard established the Cabinet Council on Environmental Protection, and assigned to it the responsibility of developing a comprehensive statewide nonpoint source water pollution control strategy. As part of this comprehensive proposal, the governor charged the Departments of Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Transpor- tation with the task of developing pollution control plans addressing urban, rural, and transportation-related sources. (Skoog and Pitz, 1985) 3 From the Governor’s Cabinet Council, the Transportation Nonpoint Source Pollution Subcommittee was formed. MDOT was chosen by the governor to be the lead agency in the cooper- ative MDOT and MDNR research effort. During the course of their research” a highway widening was proposed in the village of Lake Orion, Michigan by MDOT and the proposal was offered to MDNR for consideration and evaluation. 1.2 MDNR role The Michigan Department of Natural Resources, concerned that the proposed widening might have an adverse affect on Paint Creek, a designated trout stream which drains Lake Orion; suggested that a percolation/retention basin be constructed to minimize the effect of increased surface runoff in the area. The basin would be designed to remove the heavy metals found in highway runoff before they entered the creek and affected the quality of the water. It was also proposed that the basin might provide temporary storage for the stormwater runoff and reduce the peak of the flood hydrograph of the creek by slowing the input of the impermeable surface runoffs. 1.2.1 Input to designated trout stream The primary concern of MDNR is the preservation of designated trout streams for use by the state’s residents. 'The reduction of the flood hydrograph is an important part of this preservation process. Fraser (1972) stated in a review Of streamflow characteristics that flow velocity was the most dominant physical factor affecting stream life. Stream flow 4 velocity will influence fish food and habitat availability through its impact on invertebrate life, resuspension of bottom sediments, stream turbidity, bottom channel erosion, and sedimentation. (Darnell, 1976) Most stream dwelling organisms are adapted to a particular flow velocity and any major change in velocity may alter habitat availability. (Skoog and Pitz, 1985) 1.2.2 Heavy metal vs. sport fish Heavy metals, while toxic to humans at certain concentration levels, are even more dangerous as far as fish and other aquatic organisms are concerned. Three magnitudes of con- centration difference exist between tolerable levels of zinc for human consumption and that used by fish. (Freeze and Cherry, 1979) 1.3 MDOT involvement The highway is a nonpoint source of heavy metal contamination and also a source of increased runoff flowrates due to larger impermeable surface areas and resulting increased traffic volumes. (Gupta et al., 1981a) The Michigan Department of Transportation» responsible for the construction. and maintenance of the project, also accepted responsibility for the development of a design and the testing of the basin’s effectiveness. 1.3.1 Original plan The original plan, which was part of the proposed widening of a curb and guttered, 2400 meter stretch.of M-24 in Lake Orion, 5 included the purchase of the necessary right-of—way to. construct the basin as well as the procurement of money for construction, maintenance, and evaluation costs. 1.3.2 MDOT responsibility Since the highway project itself was the sole responsibility of MDOT, the addition of the basin to the highway project fell naturally on MDOT also. They were charged with finding a proper location, determining an adequate design, choosing a method of evaluation, and conducting the necessary testing to demonstrate the project’s effectiveness. 1.3.2.1 Location selection A small tract of property adjacent to both M—24 and Paint Creek.was determined to be the optimum location for the basin. A right-of-way was purchased behind and adjacent to the Lake Orion Lumber Company; .Access to the site for construction and subsequent research could be easily obtained from a parking lot connected to M-24. A locational map of the basin area is included as Figure 1. 1.3.2.2 Basin design The design of the basin was left to the engineering section of MDOT. Without proven percolation basin designs to use as background, the engineers put together'aidesign based.on their experiences in related areas and the recommendations of those associated with the project. They developed a construction plan which they felt would best serve the purpose and still provide the least expensive alternative. Lake Orion Lumber Co. LAKE CRIB“ H-24 PERCULATIDN BASIN TDPO MAP - APRIL 19. 1990 swim-Antwan!” “PM . I Figure 1. Boundaries of the percolation basin research project. The basin lies to the east of the junction of M-24 and Broadway Ave. in the village of Lake Orion. It is bordered by Paint Creek to the north and.the Lake Orion Lumber Co. property on the south. The original design of the basin consisted of a 0.4 ha clay lined.basin 0.75 m deep. It had two inlets at the western end of the basin. The clay layer was overlain with 100 mm, filter wrapped, corrugated plastic perforated tile nested in a 150rmn layer of washed sand. The tiles drained into two common 300 mm mains under the side of the basin and outletted into the 7 creek. The sand layer was overlain by an Amoco 4545® cloth filter liner. This was used to maintain the integrity of the sand underlayer. Above the liner was a 300 mm thick layer of organic topsoil with a specified hydraulic conductivity of twenty millimeters per hour. Figure 2 is a cross section of the original basin design. \ T0080" MIX 300 mm filter ClOth / sand 150 mm O O O ciey \ 100 mm iilter wrapped plastic tile Figure 2. The original basin cross section. The design consisted of 300 mm of 8% organic topsoil overlaying a 150 mm sand layer which contained 100 mm perforated pipes at 1.25 m spacing. The layers were separated by a filter cloth liner. The basin was planted in grass to help slow the water movement through the basin and to trap sediment particles. It was 8 designed to hold an average two year storm, so an emergency spillway was included at the low end of the basin to provide an access for excess water to the creek. Figure 3 shows the ’contour layout of the basin. LAKE URIUN M-84 PERCDLATIUN BASIN CONTOUR MAP - APRH.19,1990 D. Buck. J. Jenomcz - Agr-i Engineermg Dept. MSU enummtxus g C l I C I . (ll-I) - Shh-“ll. Figure 3. Contour map of the Lake Orion M-24 percolation basin. This shows the new design with the earthen weir and the settling and percolation sections up- and downstream respectively. 1.3.2.3 Basin construction The basin was constructed by the company which was completing the rest of the highway project in November 1988. A landscaping company participated in the completion of the surface grading, seeding, and stabilization of the basin. 1.4 MSU responsibility In an effort to evaluate the basin, MDOT requested the Michigan State University Department of Agricultural Engi- neering to study the design of thebasin and evaluate its performance by collecting data to study its effectiveness. A proposal was written which included a research plan, timetable, and budget. It was accepted and approved by contract with MSU and MDOT in December of 1988. 1.4.1 Research design Due to the success of other water quality studies being conducted in the department, the use of a similar water quality sampling system, and equipment was selected and installed to conduct the data collection” 'The research design included a bubbler system of flow depth measurement and then the calculation of flow rate which was used to trigger the automatic sampling units. 1.4.2 Procurement of instrumentation The equipment was purchased under the terms of the contract with MDOT. Titles to the research equipment were vested with MDOT to facilitate the continuation of the study or for 10 evaluation of other application areas after MSU had completed its portion of the initial basin study. 1.4.3 Data collection Data collection was to follow a format which consisted of recording the flow into and out of the basin and sampling the water on a periodic flow sequential basis. 1.5 Problem areas In the spring of 1989, preparations were made to install the data. collection. instrumentation. that had. been. purchased. During construction of shelters to house the data collection equipment, it was determined that the basin was not operating as planned. Areas of difficulty included insufficient vegetative cover on the surface of the basin, runoff from the neighboring lumberyard draining into the basin which eroded the sides of the basin and brought in undefinable contaminants, and finally the danger of having an open, unsupervised, unprotected body of water. 1.5.1 Design difficulties As previously mentioned, the lack of engineering data in designing the basin affected the ability of the engineering section of MDOT to anticipate all the possible difficulties which were encountered in the implementation of the project. To address the problem. of unmeasurable inputs from the lumberyard, an interceptor drain, sometimes referred to as a french drain, was installed to capture the runoff from the 11 lumberyard property and route it to an outlet in a highly vegetated location away from the basin. Runoff form.spring rainfall filled.the basin before vegetation had become established. The basin was pumped after it was determined.that it was not percolating water and was therefore inoperable. The inlets to the basin were plugged and the basin was given an opportunity to dry and the vegetation was allowed to grow. But even after this period, the vegetation never became firmly established. A seven foot hurricane fence was installed to protect the basin from vandalism and to protect children and others from falling into the basin and drowning. Unfortunately, the fence was installed without a gate between the basin and the outlets. This posed a real difficulty for conducting research which required attending to the outlets as well as the basin itself. A request was made for a gate between the basin and the outlets and was installed shortly thereafter and chained with the standard MDOT lock. When it was determined that the basin was not operating as intended, questions were raised as to what the problems were and how they could be rectified. The most obvious problem encountered was the collection of sediment on the surface of the basin. The sediment appeared to be washing off the surface of the highway and settling on the surface of the basin as the water stood in the basin. The sediment eventually collected to such an extent as to create a film on the surface which 12 appeared to be nearly impermeable. The surface of the basin was scarified to degrade the sealed surface and to once again allow vegetative cover an opportunity to become established, but inflOW' sediment quickly sealed. the surface impeding vegetation growth. A second source of sediment was from the erosion of the sidewalls of the basin. The water that was flowing off the lumberyard was moving at such a high rate that it washed out the soil under the sod placed on the sides of the basin. The last determinable source of sediment was from the particulate matter which was being ‘washed off the surfaces in the lumberyard. Both of these problems were eventually rectified by the installation of the french drain. In addition to sedimentation, another operational problem was detected during the preliminary evaluation of the basin. In many locations on the surface liner, a layer of clay was discovered, this was attributed to the effects of sodium deposited in the runoff as a result of winter deicing operations. The sodium disperses the soil particles and allows the finer particles to move through the soil pores and eventually deposit on the liner where it formed up to four millimeter thick impermeable clay layer. (Frenkel et al., 1978) 2 OBJECTIVES Due to the problems encountered, the objectives of the study had to be redefined in an attempt to make the basin functional. The redefined objectives included: 2.1 Determine why the basin had clogged. Was it the result of surface sedimentation and/or was it due to the effects of sodium dispersion of clay particles forming an impermeable clay layer on the filter liner? 2.2 Determine where the heavy metals are located in the highway runoff. Are the heavy metals located in soluble form in the runoff water or are they adsorbed to the surface of the particulate matter that collected on the surface of the highway and was transported to the surface of the basin? 2.3 Decide how to remove the heavy metals. If the heavy metals are attached to particulate matter will a simple sediment basin.with an outlet be.most effective or does some sort of chemical removal process need to be looked at? 2.4 Redesign the basin to effect the removal of heavy metals. How can the design of the basin be altered to most effectively solve the problems which have been encountered thus far? 2.5 Quantify the effectiveness of the heavy metal removal process. This is one of the original objectives and one which will be addressed later but not in the detail which the original objectives had desired. 13 3 LITERATURE REVIEW Shaheen (1975), stated that although there is a great deal of information existing on the subject of urban runoff, the information does not form.a coherent whole or provide a clear picture of the full extent or complete nature of the problem. As a result, this literature review is very extensive, and a cross section.of the representative research.will be reviewed. 3.1 Retention/detention/filtration basins Wanielista et al. (1981) designed and tested filtration systems and found results which have indicated increased removal of both the suspended and dissolved fraction of the different water quality species. All filter media tested were effective in reducing concentrations of suspended solids by 80-95%. Infiltration systems can provide effective management of highway runoff pollution, provided that certain requirements are met. (Maestri and Lord, 1987) An effective infiltration system requires: * Soils/subsoils that are moderately to highly permeable. * Groundwater table a minimum of 10 ft. below the bottom of the infiltration point. * Runoff inflow relatively free of suspended solids. * Sufficient storage for the design runoff event during the infiltration period. Whipple (1979) concluded that the removal of particulate pollution through dual-purpose detention basins may provide a means for satisfying local criteria for flood mitigation while 14 15 at the same time contributing both to broader flood- control objectives and to the improvement of water quality. The Nationwide Urban Runoff Program (EPA, 1983) found that detention basins are capable of providing very effective removal of pollutants in urban runoff. Both the design concept and the size of the basin in relation to the urban area served have a critical influence on performance capa- bility. (Harrison and Laxen, 1981) In theory, the ground can provide storage capacity equal to any storm which could be anticipated. (Stephenson, 1981) 3.2 Urban hydrology Control of contaminated urban runoff involves more than a system of pipes and channels to collect and transport flood waters so that they can.be deposited.in the nearest convenient waterbody. (Thompson, 1989) Rain falling on an urban area results in both benefits and problems. The benefits range from watering vegetation to area cleansing. Many of the problems are associated with urban runoff, that portion of rainfall which drains from the urban surfaces and flows via natural or man-made drainage system into receiving waters. (EPA, 1983) The historical concern with urban runoff has been focused primarily on flooding. Urban development has the general effect of reducing pervious land surface area and increasing the impervious area (such as roof tops, streets, and side- walks) through which water cannot infiltrate. In comparison 16 with an undeveloped area (for a given storm event), an urban area.will yield more runoff and do so:more quickly. Increases in the rate of flow and total volume often have a decided effect on erosion rates and flooding. It is not surprising, therefore, that at the local level the quantity aspect continues to be a principal concern. (EPA, 1983) Stormwater runoff has three important characteristics which must be taken into account when considering control measures. (1) It is an intermittent phenomenon, which produces shock loadings on any treatment facility if unregulated; (2) It is often characterized by a ’first flush’ effect, during which extremely high concentrations occur; (3) For historical reasons, it is sometimes routed by way of combined sewers to sewage treatment plants, where overflow facilities are often inadequate, resulting in the direct discharge of untreated excess flows into a river. (Harrison and Laxen, 1981) Lygren.et al. (1984), Stotz (1987), Harrison.and Laxen (1981), Ellis et al. (1987), Shaheen (1975), Gupta et al. (1981a), Van Hassel et al. (1980) and Wilber and Hunter (1977) all stated that heavy metals are transported by stormwater runoff flows from the surfaces of urban pavements. Each found different yet significant pollutant loadings associated.with stormwater runoff. Interactions of the highway system with the United States’ water resources are: continuous and far-reaching. Daily, every mile of highway affects adjacent watersheds. Each stage of the highway process (construction, operation, 17 and maintenance) may have an impact on water resources by providing a wide variety of pollutants to surrounding surface and subsurface waters through natural runoff. (Lord, 1987) Fraser (1972), in a review of stream flow, considered flow velocity to be the dominant physical factor affecting stream life. Stream flow velocity will influence fish food and habitat availability through its impact on invertebrate life, resuspension of bottom sediments, stream turbidity, bottom channel erosion, and sedimentation. (Darnell et al., 1976) Most stream dwelling organisms are adapted to a.perticular flow velocity and any major change in velocity may alter habitat availability. (Skoog and Pitz, 1985) 3.2.1 'First flush' effects Peak concentrations of heavy metals were generally observed shortly after the initiation of runoff, usually within the first thirty minutes, thus giving a 'first flush’ effect. The EPA (1971) indicated that a storm depth of 12.5 mm would remove 90% of road surface particles. They use an exponential decay rate to determine pollutant washoff for their Storm Water Management Model. In storm sewers there may be a tendency for solids to settle out during the latter stages of a storm as the flow tapers off. These solids which settle out undoubtedly contribute to this ’first flush’ effect during the subsequent storm. Lead peak concentrations were an exception, generally only extending over a short period of time, usually ten to twenty minutes. (Wilber and Hunter, 1977) 18 Shaheen (1975), in his analysis, described the ’first flush’ effect of stormwater runoff on the removal of heavy metals from the roadway surface. Gupta et al. (1981a), in his highway runoff study stated that inspection of the data reveals a. marked ’first flush’ phenomenon in which the concentration of lead and zinc are initially high and then fall off to lower, but still significant levels. The ’first flush’ effect concentrates pollutant loads in the first part of the runoff waters; this creates some interesting control measure implications. (Whipple et al., 1983) Yousef et al. (1985) found generally that 50% of the total mass of heavy metals were transported during the first quarter of a storm event, with 25% found in the second quarter and the last 25% found in the second half of the storm. Harrison and Wilson (1985), DeFilippi and Shih (1971), Bellinger et al. (1982), Wanielista et al. (1977) and Wanielista (1978) found evidence that the commonly reported ’first-flush’ effect does appear to be a frequently observed phenomenon, but it is not a constant feature of all storms. They concluded that it is affected primarily by the pattern of rainfall on the catchment area. Griffin et al. (1980) cited their graphical analysis as indicating that suspended (insoluble) pollutants generally' exhibit a ’first flush’ removal characteristic, while soluble» pollutants do :not. Lager and Smith (1974) found that the suspended solids found in the ’first flush! were between three and four times greater 19 than those found during extended overflows from a combined sewer in Milwaukee. 3.3 Pollutants in urban runoff Pollution from urban runoff is recognized as such a significant source of‘water quality degradation.that.it is now virtually impossible to protect water quality without adequate stormwater controls. (Thompson, 1989) Stormwater runoff is a significant source of metals found in wastewater influent. (Klein et al., 1974) By 1964, the U.S. Public Health Service began to be concerned about identified pollutants in urban runoff and concluded that there may be significant water quality problems associated with stormwater runoff. (EPA, 1983) In 1969, the American Public Works Association (APWA) pub- lished the first study detailing the amounts of pollutants which could be found in urban runoff. The most significant result of the APWA.report was the identification of biological oxygen demand (BOD) as an important measure of pollution potential. The findings of the APWA study gave the first clue that urban.pollution loadings were a function.of motor vehicle traffic levels. The pollutants contained in highway runoff may cause water quality impacts on receiving waters through two mechanisms; (i) their shock or acute loadings and (ii) their long term accumulation within the waterbody as well as associated sediments. Both mechanisms may result in levels of water quality impairment outside the limits of general water 20 quality criteria for aquatic life, water supply, and recreational uses of receiving water. (Gupta et al., 1981a) 3.3.1 Heavy metals Wilber and.Hunter (1977) stated that the major heavy metals in stormwater were lead, zinc, and copper. Together, these accounted for approximately 90 to 98 percent of the total metals observed" Of this, lead. and zinc, account for approximately 89 percent. Chromium was also usually found in considerably smaller yet significant quantities. Yousef et al. (1985b) found that highway stormwater runoff contains significantly higher concentrations of trace metals, particularly lead, zinc, iron, cadmium, chromium, nickel, and copper than the adjacent water environment. Heavy metal concentrations in stormwater runoff were also found to vary significantly throughout runoff events and from storm to storm. (Wilber and Hunter, 1977, Wanielista et al., 1977, and Lygren et al., 1984) End-of-pipe concentrations of heavy metals exceeded EPA ambient water quality criteria.and drinking water standards in many instances. Some of the metals are present often enough and in high enough concentrations to be potential threats to beneficial uses. (EPA, 1983) In the study, titled.Water Pollution.Aspects of Street Surface Contaminants (Sartor and Boyd, 1972), therRS Research.Company studied the sources of contaminants which.were contributing to 21 urban runoff pollution. They found heavy metals to be a significant source of pollutants. 3.3.1.1 Determination of origins of heavy metals Identifying the actual sources of heavy metal contamination to urban runoff was not one of the objectives of the first URS publication, but was addressed in a second report. Sartor and Boyd (1972), writers of the first URS report, speculated that zinc resulted from.its being an additive in the formulation of rubber tire compounds. They indicated that lead probably found its way to the street surface as a byproduct of vehicular emission and that chromium was the result of the wear of trim and bumper parts which are plated with chromium. The study listed a number of other sources associated with motor vehicles which.could.also produce the heavy metals being found in urban runoff. These included: * leakage of fuel, lubricants, hydraulic fluids, and coolants * fine particles worn off tires and clutch and brake linings * particulate exhaust emissions * dirt, rust, and decomposing coatings which drop off fender linings and undercarriages * vehicle components broken and worn by vibration, impact, and/or road salt (glass, plastic, metals, etc.) Newton et al. (1974) calculated.the theoretical average amount of lead that can be contributed by auto exhaust to street runoff and compared this to actual values obtained by analyzing samples of snow, ice, and.water near several heavily 22 traveled streets and highways. They concluded that the theoretical average lead concentration of 0.23 mg/l was lower than the actually observed average of 5.5 mg/l. However, both of these concentrations were large enough to indicate that street runoff can be a significant nonpoint source of lead contamination of surface water. Shaheen (1975) and Bourcier and Hindin (1979) stated that the heavy metal contribution from highway runoff is a direct result of traffic and would not be present if it were not for the passage of motor vehicles. The heavy metal pollutants which originate directly from motor vehicles constitute less than five percent by weight of the traffic related deposits; they are, however, among the.most important by virtue of their potential toxicity. Those of primary concern include the following. * Traffic-related lead is deposited principally through the use of leaded fuels; however, some results from the wear of tires in which lead oxide is used as filler material. * Zinc is also used as a filler in tires and at high concentrations in motor oil as a stabilizing additive. * Chromium is a wear metal from.metal plating, bearings, bushings, and other moving parts within the engine. Shaheen (1975) also noted that lead and zinc concentrations were found.to be considerably higher during warm seasons while the other heavy metals were deposited at relatively uniform rates throughout the year. This is probably attributable to a greater rate of tire wear at the higher ambient temperatures . 23 As part of Shaheen’s study, an analysis of a large number of vehicular related "pure" materials was conducted for the quantity of heavy metals which made up each material. Table 1 shows the results of this analysis. Table 1. Analysis of "pure" materials. Metal Content (pg/g) Material Lead Chromium Copper Zinc Gasoline 663 15 4 10 Lubricating Grease 0 0 I 0 164 Motor Oil 9 0 3 1060 Transmission Fluid 8 0 0 244 Antifreeze 6 0 76 14 Undercoating 116 0 0 108 Asphalt Pavement 102 357 51 164 Concrete 450 93 99 417 Rubber 1110 182 247 617 Diesel fuel 12 15 8 12 Brake Linings 1050 2200 30600 124 Brake Fluid 7 19 5 15 Cigarettes 492 71 716 560 Salt 2 2 2 1 Cinders 0 3 7 Area Soil 0 36 23 27 Detection Limit 2 __ 2 1 0.01 (Shaheen, 1975) Besides the "pure" materials analysis provided by Shaheen, he much. of the lead also comments that, as stated before, deposited on urban roadways resulted from.combustion of leaded 24 gasoline although some isideposited.with leaking motor oil and transmission fluidi Combustion of leaded gasoline introduces considerable quantities of lead into engine oil and transmission fluid and motor oil becomes contaminated with wear metals, including lead from babbitt metal bearings. Other engine wear metals include chromium from wear of metal plating, rocker arms, crankshafts, and.rings, and zinc, an oil additive. High concentrations of organozinc compounds are used as stabilizing additives in motor oils. Zinc, lead, and other metallic oxides are used as fillers in the manufacture of rubber tires and are deposited on roadways as tires are abraded. Chromium abraded from roadway surface materials and from the corrosion of plated motor vehicle parts also contributes to the heavy metal load of street surface contaminants. Chromium is also a wear metal found in motor oils and.is present in brake lining materials. .Lagerwerff and Specht (1970) had found many of the same results prior to Shaheen (1975) when searching for the origins of heavy metals in roadside soils. Shaheen also cited some of the previously mentioned studies as a basis for his work and used them to support his conclusions. Smith (1976), Laxen and Harrison (1977), and Lagerwerff and Specht (1970) stated that the primary source of lead in the roadside environment is the result of vehicles combusting gasoline containing lead alkyls which release approximately 80 mg lead/km driven. 25 Gupta.et al. (1981d) averaged the pollutant concentrations and gave the range for all data which he collected from 159 storm events at six sites. A summary of pertinent data follows: Table 2. Summary of selected highway runoff quality data. Pollutant concentration (mg/1) Element Average Range Pb 0.96 0.02-13.1 Zn ' 0.41 0.01-3.4 Cd 0.04 ' 0.01-0.4 Cr 0.04 0.01-0.14 (Gupta, 1981d) Few field studies have shown high concentrations throughout the water column. The high association of metals with partic- ulates and frequently demonstrated sediment enrichments of metals implies a rapid removal by sedimentation. Ini most cases, it is difficult to compare receiving water concentra- tions with recent EPA recommended criteria due to the lack of hardness data. (Dupuis et al., 1984b) 3.3.1.2 Other heavy metal identifying studies A 1974 study on the quality of urban freeway stormwater in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, found lead concentrations to be in the range of 0.6 to 1.1 mg/l in freeway runoff (J. Jodie, 1974. Quality of urban freeway stormwater. M.S. Thesis, University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee.). Other studies conducted in Oklahoma City (Newton et al., 1974) and Durham (Bryan, 1974) also found large amounts of lead in street runoff and urban 26 stormwater. Newton et al. (1974) stated that the amounts found as a result of the study were even higher than origi- nally expected from calculations involving emissions contri- butions. Concentrations of lead found in the two studies were from 3.6 to 8.5 mg/l (Newton et al., 1974) and 0.1 to 12.6 mg/l (Bryan, 1974). Oliver et al. (1974) found a wide range of lead concentrations in snow and snow melt as a function of sampling locations associated with an urban setting. 3.3.2 Salinity in runoff Deicing chemicals, principally sodium chloride, have been used in the United States for snow and ice control on pavements since early in this century. Salt consumption in the United States has increased to a level of approximately 10 million. tons per year. Calcium chloride is also used in de-icing operations. (Field et al., 1974) Much of the salt spread on roads eventually enters a receiving watercourse. Chloride values as high as 10,250 mg/l have been recorded during winters in Chippewa Falls, Wisconsin. (Schraufnagel, 1967) Oliver et al. (1974) also found a wide range of chloride levels in roadside snow and snow melt. Highway salts can cause injury and damage across a wide environmental spectrum, and these effects although not yet evident in certain areas of the country, may well appear in the future. (Field at al., 1974) 27 3.3.3 Particulate in runoff Pitt and Amy (1973) determined that most of the heavy metal associated with urban runoff was found in the particulate fraction of the runoff. They stated that the concentrations of heavy metals soluble in the receiving water environment were less than ten percent of their total mass. Farris et al. (1973) and Morrison et al. (1984) also found that the major portion of the heavy metals was found to be adsorbed to the particulate (undissolved) solids. One-fourth to one-half of the heavy metals found on street surfaces are associated with the finer size classes of particulate materials. (Skoog and Pitz, 1985) Gupta et al. (1981c) found that a sizable percentage of the pollution.potential of street debris was contained in the very fine silt-like fraction (<43um). They concluded that more than half of the heavy metal fraction was associated with the particulate matter in highway runoff. Although this material accounted for only 5.9% by weight of the total solids on the street surface, it accounted for more than half of the heavy metals found in highway runoff. This is of particular importance Ibecause street sweeping' operations are rather ineffective in removing the very fine material. Dissolved metal fractions were extremely small and generally were near or below detection limits. Metal concentrations in sediments receiving highway runoff have been shown to be as much as an order of magnitude higher 28 than those in the control-station sediments. (Dupuis et al., 1984a) Control-station sediments are those which have not been exposed to highway runoff. Lester et al. (1987a) found removal efficiencies for cadmium, chromium, lead, and zinc in primary sedimentation of 70% or greater. Alabaster and Lloyd (1982) stated five ways in which an excessive concentration of finely divided matter might be harmful to a fishery in a river or lake. These are: a) By acting directly on the fish swimming in water in which solids are suspended, and either killing them or reducing their growth rate, resistance to disease, etc. b) By preventing the successful development of fish eggs and larvae. c) By modifying natural.movements and.migrations of fish. d) By reducing the abundance of food available to the fish. e) By affecting the efficiency of methods for catching fish. 3.4 Water quality criteria A list of water quality criteria has been developed by the Environmental Protection Agency. (EPA, 1980) and are included in Table 3 as follows. mao>ma umzoa um pompouum on pasoo mumnuo .mEmficmouo :«muumo u0u pousmmme seen we: >uaoax0u Evans up Ho>ea umozou as 29 Esaoamu mo and :3 ensures amorous: « Aommp .mmm. uppo one mumps H\os m mafia owumpvm umumszmmum pmeoxo Ou Doc .no._._.o.o:ou-g.:~_n..o.mw oanmuo>ooou Homo» ounum>m an em “H\oa 5v axon osfin assume sass: H\o; om pmooxo o» ue>e= .p..o-....oceuag.=a_-...mw eonue>o u: vm panmue>ooeu Homo» mu: escrow neuozrmoum .z..-::..§£::§.:w :01 peed erode shame: amass msmwcmouo pounceacucoo mo :Oaumeoca H\OE mmv.m mamacmouo pmumcascucoo one means up codummoca axoe on. :auaoex0u pacouro H\om vv uc0~m>euu peeoxo o» ue>oc eaamue>oomu demo» on: "Judson umuosrmmum :12. ..:.e.z:.:3. :0 5.55056 guano: noes: H\om om poooxe cu ue>es “H\o: —~ aceam>mxon panoue>ooeu Hmu0u muaa penance nouoznmoum oomue>o u: vm “H\o: a~.o asaeouru oomuo>m u: vm .36-. Sentencing—mo. :0 pmmoxo Cu uo>oc manmuo>oomu Heap» on: paumsgm umumsrmeum .2.n-_...:€.£.§_3.:0 :01 .55.:me maumuauo Ham mammm Ho>m~ Hooauauo mo coduaauomop accruuumcou .uuocsu >m3zo«: mo wucmsuaumcoo pouomamm u0u mauouauo auuamsg ueumz up aunEEsm .m enaea 30 3.5 Effect of pollutants Gupta et al. (1981a) stated that the pollutants contained in highway runoff may cause water quality impacts on receiving waters through two mechanisms; (i) their shock or acute loadings and (ii) their long term accumulation within the waterbody as well as associated sediments. Both mechanisms may result in levels of water quality impairment outside the limits of general water quality criteria for aquatic life, water supply and recreational uses of receiving water. However, receiving water impacts are often very site specific and the extent of the problems will depend heavily upon the conditions which create these problems. He also notes that there is very little information documented in available literature pertaining to impacts on receiving waters from highway runoff. (Gupta et al., 1981c) Colston (1974) reported that the relative impact of urban land runoff on water quality is dependent on the physical, chemical, and biological characteristics associated with the particular aqueous system receiving the waste. Dupuis et al. (1984a) noted that many impacts associated with metals may be of a public health nature if levels exceed those acceptable for water supplies. .Also, metals may accumulate in organisms such as fish, making them unsuitable for consumption. 31 3.5.1 Toxicity of heavy metals Sartor and.Boyd (1972), writers of the URS report, stated.that heavy metals are a concern because of their high potential toxicity to various biological forms. Lester (1987a) concurred with this conclusion. The tests that URS ran for their analysis turned up significant quantities of zinc, copper, lead, nickel, mercury, and chromium in their collected samples. Cadmium and arsenic were also looked for but were not found in significant quantities and were subsequently dropped from the analytical procedure. Table 4 shows the results of simulated tests and collected data for various concentration effects. Table 4. Maximum concentrations of heavy metals for drinking water standards and values that have been shown to have effects on aquatic organisms.’ Heavy Metal Concentration Notes Cadmium 0.03 + 0.15 mg/l Zn Mortal to salmon fry. 0.01 USPHS drinking water standard. Lead & 0.05 USPHS drinking Chromium water standard. Zinc 0.1-1.0 Toxic to aquatic organisms in soft water. 5.0 USPHS drinking water standard. * Impact of Various Metals on the Aguatic Environment, EPA, Water Quality Office, Technical Report No. 2, 1971. Building on the foundation that Sartor and Boyd laid, Pitt and Amy (1973) completed the URS contract with EPA by publishing 32 a follow up report. In the report, Pitt and Amy discuss the relative toxicity associated with the maximum heavy metal concentrations found in their simulated receiving water test. The study showed that the heavy metals, by percentage, were evenly distributed throughout the particle size ranges which were analyzed. Cadmium was the only exception in that it showed an overwhelming percentage of attachment to the fine particulate. One of the major findings of the National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) (EPA, 1983) was that the adverse impacts of urban runoff discharges of heavy' metals on aquatic life were directly related to the natural hardness of the receiving streams. Those heavy metals found in soluble form are the ones which are affected by the hardness of the stream. Zinc, cadmium, and lead were found to be sufficiently soluble to cause toxic effects to certain aquatic organisms under selected conditions. Another finding of the NURP study was that EPA ambient water quality criteria for metal concentrations were exceeded regularly in end-of-pipe samples of urban runoff samples. Freshwater acute criteria were exceeded by lead in 23% of the samples. Freshwater chronic exceedances were common for lead (94%), zinc (77%), and cadmium (48%). Regarding human toxicity, the most significant pollutants were lead and nickel. Lead concentrations violated drinking water criteria in 73% of the samples. (EPA, 1983) 33 Table 5 includes EPA water quality acute and chronic criteria for metals for the protection of freshwater aquatic life. (EPA, 1983) Table 5. EPA water quality criteria for metals for the protection of freshwater aquatic life. Criteria EPA Acute Criteria (maximum), at Metal Issuance water hardness (mg/l as CaCO3) of: (mo/1) (date) 50 100 200 Pb 1984 0.025 . 0.064 0.160 Zn 1980 0.18 0.32 0.57 Cr' 1984 0.87 1.50 2.7 Cd 1984 0.002 0.0045 0.010 EPA Chronic Criteria (30 day Metal Criteria averaging period), at water (mg/l) Issuance hardness (mg/l as CaCO3) of: (date) 50 100 200 Pb 1984 0.001 0.0025 0.064 Zn 1980 0.047’ 0.047+ 0.047+ Cr' 1984 0.042 0.074 0.130 Cd 1984 0.002 0.0045 0.010 “Mmmfi fEPA, 1983 (values are for projected release dates)) Trivalent chromium * 24 hr. averaging period A fundamental factor which heightens the concern over the presence of potentially toxic heavy metals in the environment is their nonbiodegradability and consequent persistence. (Lester, 1987a) Numerous studies have been conducted to identify the toxicity of heavy metals to freshwater fish. Sauter et al. (1976) 34 studied the toxicity of copper, cadmium, chromium, and lead to eggs and fry of seven fish species. They looked at the response of fish eggs and fry to varying acute and chronic exposures to heavy metals. A comprehensive listing of their results is included in their final report. Van Hassel et al. (1980) looked at the concentrations of heavy metals in the bodies of freshwater fish in contaminated streams. A comprehensive assessment of the effects of these impacts could not be estimated because the relationships between heavy metal burden and the toxic effect of these metals is still poorly understood. Other pertinent studies of the toxicity of heavy metals to fish include: Holcombe and Andrew (1978), Eaton (1974), Benoit et al. (1976), Holcombe et al. (1979), Chapman and Stevens (1978), Chapman (1978), and a thesis (Jude, D.J. 1973. PhD. Thesis. Sublethal effects of ammonia and cadmium on growth of green sunfish, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI). A comprehensive summary of water quality criteria and its effects on freshwater fish was compiled by Alabaster and Lloyd (1982). 3.5.1.1 Lead Harrison and Laxen (1981) found that elevated levels of lead in water arise principally from highway runoff. The quantity of lead in drinking water was established in 1972 by the World Health Organization (WHO) at 3 mg of lead per person per week. This value has come under close scrutiny since children and 35 infants, fetuses, and pregnant women are probably the groups most sensitive to environmental lead exposure. Therefore, safety factors should be incorporated to protect these particular groups when formulating guidelines for drinking water quality: On the basis of these and.other considerations and allowing for some margin of safety, the WHO endorses a guideline value of 0.05 mg of lead per liter of water. (WHO, 1984) The effects of lead are quite varied, but the accumulation of lead concentrated in the bones of vertebrate animals can be poisonous. (Sartor and Boyd, 1972) The mobile lead concentration in the bloodstream is the primary cause of the adverse effects of lead. (Harrison and Laxen, 1981) Lead is a cumulative poison. (Dupuis et al., 1984 and Moore and Ramamoorthy, 1980) Spinal deformities (scoliosis), blackening of the skin, and muscle tremors are symptoms of lead toxicity in fish. Sauter et al. (1976) found that rainbow trout eggs exposed to high concentrations of lead showed significantly lower hatching rates when.compared.to the control. In.humans, lead resembles calciunlin.deposition and transport, accounting for the high concentrations of lead in the skeletal compartment. (Moore and Ramamoorthy, 1980) Acute or classical lead poisoning in human adults is manifested by anemia, alimentary' symptoms, wrist and foot drop, renal damage, and sometimes encephalopathy. Symptoms in children 36 include irritability, loss of appetite, occasional vomiting, intermittent abdominal pain, and constipation. If the poisoning is unchecked, vomiting becomes persistent, muscle coordination.is.affectedq and.coma may result. (Lester, 1987a) 3.5.1.2 Zinc Zinc is an essential element in human nutrition. The daily requirements are 4-10 mg depending on age and sex. Food provides the most important source of zinc. The guideline value of zinc in drinking water is, therefore, aesthetically based. On the basis of taste considerations, the WHO endorses a guideline value of 5.0 mg/l. (WHO, 1984) Aquatic organisms are far more sensitive than humans to zinc, with concentrations as low as 0.1 to 1.0 ppm having been determined lethal to fish and other aquatic animals. (Sartor and Boyd, 1972) Susceptibility of fish to zinc is largely species dependent with some species showing a fair amount of tolerance while others are susceptible at low levels. (Moore and Ramamoorthy, 1980) In acutely toxic concentrations zinc may kill fish by destroying gill epithelial tissue. There may also be chronic effects on various organs and enzyme systems. (Alabaster and Lloyd, 1982) Symptoms of zinc toxicity in humans are vomiting, dehydration, electrolyte imbalance, stomach pain, nausea, lethargy; dizziness, and inuscular' uncoordination. (Lester, 1987a) 37 3.5.1.3 Cadmium Soluble cadmium is a cumulative poison and toxic at extremely low concentrations. It accumulates in the liver and.kidney of fish and humans. Because of this fact, the organs of contaminated fish are unfit for human consumption. (Moore and Ramamoorthy, 1980) It has been shown to produce adverse effects in both man and experimental animals (i.e. pulmonary emphysema and renal tubular damage). (EPA, 1980a) Normally, exposure to cadmium from food, water, and air does not exceed the weekly intake of 0.4-0.5 mg per individual established in 1972 by the World Health Organization. Excessive exposure to cadmium has resulted in severe health effects, both in industrial contamination and when rice crops have been polluted by cadmium. There is no evidence that the normal levels in drinking water cause health problems in man. The recommended level of 0.005 mg/l is currently endorsed by the WHO. (WHO, 1984a) Symptoms of exposure to low concentrations include vomiting, diarrhea, and colitis, while continuous exposure causes hypertension, heart enlargement, and death. Cadmium poisoning was the cause of Itai-itai (ouch-ouch) disease in Japan in 1955. Cadmium, a lead and zinc mining byproduct, found its way into a regional irrigation water supply and contaminated the rice in that area which.was eaten by the farmers who lived there. It resulted in decalcification and the resulting pain from tender and often easily fractured bones. (Lester, 1987a) 38 There do not seem to be published records of pollution situations in which cadmium acting alone is responsible for toxicity to freshwater fish. Other concerns would consider the contribution of cadmium to the toxicity of mixtures of pollutants, its toxicity to other groups of organisms, or its accumulation in food chains with effects on the consumers. (Sprague, 1987) 3.5.1.4 Chromium Since chromium (VI) appears to be much more toxic than chromium (III), it is necessary to take account of the situations where this is the main form to which man is exposed. Data on human health effects that can be used to determine meaningful guideline limits are scarce. The 1970 value of 50 ug/l of total chromium has not been challenged by new findings and continues to be endorsed by the WHO. (WHO, 1984a) Chromium is also an essential element used in forming the glucose tolerance factor in humans. (Lester, 1987a) Chromium.does not normally accumulate in fish.and its toxicity is therefore generally low, and even though chromium is not acutely toxic to humans, it is toxic in one of its chemical forms (Cr'é) . (Moore and Ramamoorthy, 1980) Unfortunately, the physiological effects on humans and aquatic organisms have not yet been thoroughly quantified. (Sartor and Boyd, 1972) 3.5.2 Salinity Highway salts can cause injury and damage across a wide environmental spectrum and these effects, although not yet 39 evident in certain areas of the country, may appear in the future. (Field et al., 1974) All living organisms must survive in a precarious balance between too little, just the right amount, and too much salt, each in accordance with its genetic limitations and special adaptions. 3.5.2.1 Salinity in water Salt concentrations greater than 1% (1 g/100 g of water) endanger health, reproduction, and longevity in all species adapted to fresh water environments including man. (Adams, 1973) High salt concentrations in drinking water pose a possible threat to persons with heart disease. (Field et al., 1973) Public water quality guidelines for salt were established by the WHO (1984b). They recommend a guideline value of 250 mg/l of water. The U.S. has established their recommended guidelines along the following classification scheme. They are recorded in Table 6 as follows: Table 6. Public water quality standards for salt content. Acceptable < 125 mg/l Doubtful 125 - 250 mg/l Unacceptable > 250 mg/l (Highway Research Board, 1967) Water quality standards for aquatic organisms vary widely with the size and type of organism. 40 3.5.2.2. Salinity effects in soil The effects of saline water on the soil also poses a difficulty when using the water for irrigation purposes or percolating it to replenish groundwater resources. It has been well documented and reported that use of electrolyte (salt) solutions of different concentrations will induce the dispersion, flocculation, and migration of clay particles through the soil profile. (Arora and.Coleman, 1979, Frenkel et al., 1978, Rowell et al., 1969, and Velasco-Molina et al., 1971) The dispersion, flocculation, and movement of clay particles results in the partial or total clogging of soil pores. This lowers the permeability of the soil, decreasing its value as a groundwater filter or as irrigated farmland. (Pupisky and Shainberg, 1979, and Arora and Coleman, 1979) 3.5.3 Suspended solids The suspended solids in urban runoff can also exert delete- rious physical effects by sedimenting over egg deposition sites, smothering juveniles, and altering benthic communities. (EPA, 1983) Field and Lager (1975) found the suspended solid concentrations in storm runoff are three times the loading of raw sewage. Harrison and Wilson (1985a & b) and Bourcier and Hindin (1979) found that lead was primarily adsorbed to the particulate fractions, and its movement could be characterized primarily by the suspended sediment behavior. They also found that a large part of lead discharged into surface waters is rapidly 41 incorporated into suspended and bottom sediments, and that most of this lead will ultimately be found in marine sediments. This poses potentially serious hazards to marine organisms and others in their biocycle. 3.6 Importance of heavy metal removal Pitt and Amy (1973) compared the particulate association of the heavy metals with the heavy metal loading of sanitary sewage outflow. The results of this comparison are tabulated below. Table 7. Metal loading from road surface runoff compared to normal sanitary sewage flow. Metal Road Runoff Sanitary Sewage Runoff/Sewage (mg/l) (mg/l) Ratio Pb 6.2 0.03 210 Cd 0.012 0.00075 16 Zn 1.4 0.2 7 Cr 0.8 2.8 0.3 (Pitt and Amy, 1973) Pitt and Amy (1973) found that during the peak discharge period, runoff contributes a substantially greater portion of metals to a receiving' water body than a normal sewage treatment plant. Shaheen (1975) stated that traffic-related heavy metals constitute the most serious contaminant from urban runoff when compared with sewage discharge. He states that less than 5% by weight of the traffic-related deposits originate directly from motor vehicles in the form of worn metal parts and 42 leaking automotive fluids. However, these pollutants are among the most important by virtue of their potential toxic- ity. 3.6.1 Removal and reduction techniques Shaheen (1975) recommended that the recently initiated nationwide program for the reduction and eventual elimination of leaded emissions be accelerated. This was accomplished by legislation in the early 1970’s promoting the sale of lead free fuels followed by further legislation.against the sale of new vehicles which burn leaded gasoline and the reduction of the sale of leaded fuels themselves. (EPA, 1972) Zinc is used as a tire filler and lubricant and it was recommended by Shaheen that substitutes be developed in these areas as well. He also suggested that a long term study of the effects of heavy metal laden roadway runoff upon receiving waters be initiated. Nightingale (1975) studied the buildup of heavy metals in urban stormwater retention basins in Fresno, California and reported that the majority of the lead.was concentrated in the top five centimeters of the soil. He also noted that the dual use of a retention area for recreation could become an environmental health.hazard.as heavy metals accumulated on the soil surface. Another drawback might be the required mechanical removal of the contaminated soil after extensive accumulation. 43 Wigington et al. (1983) found that the metals lead and zinc accumulated.in the surface soils of theidetention.basins which they studied. They determined that this was the result of urban stormwater runoff, storage, and infiltration. In less than seven years of operation, the surface soils of all the detention. basins 'under investigation. had significant accumulations of lead and zinc and that two of them also exhibited significant copper and cadmium accumulations as well. The accumulation of trace metals in the surface soils of detention basins was not uniform. Zones of maximum accumulation included depressions, basin outlets, and basin inlets (areas that experienced the greatest periods of standing water). The accumulation of trace metals in the soils of stormwater management facilities was restricted to the surface layers. There was very little downward movement, even for relatively soluble metals such as zinc. Laxen and.Harrison (1977) found that lead could.be immobilized in the surface soils of highway right-of—ways, reducing its effect on water pollution to an insignificant amount. The EPA (1972) established.what it believed to be a reasonable set of regulations to govern the emissions of lead from automobile exhausts. These views were the results of a comprehensive study' of the scientific and economic data available. The cost-benefit analysis of such a policy was also conducted and also supported the original findings. A 44 general plan for the phasing in of lead emission standards and the reduction of lead contents in fuels was established. Bell and Wanielista (1978) looked at the use of overland flow for the removal of heavy metals from highway runoff. They referenced a 1957 New Jersey study of fields adjacent to highways which reported high concentrations of lead in the soils. They were able to determine that the overland flow of polluted stormwater runoff could effectively remove a large percentage of the heavy metals found in these waters. Whipple and Hunter (1981) reported that the mean settlement percentage of lead in a retention basin was close to that of the total suspended solids in the same runoff. The settlement values for lead were around 60%, while the values for zinc varied between 17 and 36%. Randall et al. (1982) found in their laboratory study of the efficacy of sedimentation for the removal of pollutants that lead could be reduced an average of 86%. They feel that the association of the pollutants in urban runoff with the suspended solids suggests that the reduction of pollution by sedimentation is a feasible means of improving or controlling water quality. They also found in their study that chromium and cadmium concentrations were always less than the 20 ug/l detection limit of their equipment. Removal efficiencies for zinc averaged 44% in the range from 12 to 72%. For lead, a range from 78 to 94% was obtained with an average of 86%. 45 Scherger and Davis (1982) used an in-line wet retention basin and a natural wetland to obtain removal efficiencies of lead from mixed land use runoff. The in-line wet retention basin removed total lead in the range between 12 and 90% while the natural wetland removed total lead in the range of 34 to 87%. They also noted that although the removal percentages may seem low, a large quantity of pollutants are being retained. For the seven events monitored during this study, over 36,000 pounds of suspended materials were retained in the retention basin. Lester (1987b) agreed that lead was tied closely to the suspended solids and behaved the same. A New Jersey study described by Whipple et al. (1983) found that grass strips or swales drainage showed potential for use in urban runoff pollution. They also stated that the associ- ation of many of the pollutants in urban runoff with the suspended solids makes the reduction of pollution by sedi- mentation a feasible means of water quality control. Because detention basins are a primary method of controlling flood flows and.already exist in.many areas, the conversion of these basins from single to dual purpose basins (to include the removal and storage of particulate pollutants) presents a readily available, economical, and potentially effective solution to urban runoff pollution problems. Clearly, it is important to understand the potential effectiveness of this approach, and this requires knowledge of the settleability of the suspended solids and other pollutants in urban runoff. 46 Yousef et al. (1985a) found that most of the heavy metals in highway runoff that are discharged into detention/retention ponds are concentrated in the upper layer of the bottom sediments. They may be adsorbed on clay particles or remain in solution. Particulate fractions will settle to the bottom sediments. It was also found that swales used to convey stormwater and permit infiltration/percolation (utilized to control stormwater quantity), could effectively remove pollu- tants and improve stormwater quality as well. (Yousef et al., 1985b) The National Urban Runoff Program (EPA, 1983) looked at the various types of controls being used in the field to manage stormwater quantity and quality. They discussed detention devices, retention devices, housekeeping practices, and other control devices. Detention devices proved to be one of the most popular approaches to urban runoff quality control selected at the local level. In general, they provided a highly effective approach to control of urban runoff quality, although the design concept has a significant bearing on performance characteristics. 3.7 Efforts In 1983, the U.S. EPA published Results of the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program. The objective of the program was to build upon pertinent prior work and to provide practical information and insights to guide the planning process of policy and program development and implementation in the area 47 of urban runoff. In their final report they summarized many of the finding which.have been reached.in.many of the previous citings. They also concluded that there was much work to be done. Some of the topic areas where they concluded that adequate knowledge was lacking and which they wanted to address were: * Sources - Not enough was known about where pollutants originate. A better understanding of source contributions could enhance control opportunities. * Washoff/ transport mechanisms .- Not enough was known about how pollutants get from the sources to the re- ceiving waters. * Impacts - It was difficult to go beyond speculation in assigning urban.runoff its proper shareeof responsibility in cases where several pollutant sources contribute to the problenu In cases where other sources create obvious problems, it was difficult to determine the appropriate degree to which urban runoff should be controlled. They found that much of the past work, reported by EPA and published in professional journals, tended to focus on determining (a) the type and amount of pollutants involved and/or (b) methods to reduce the loads. However, such reports and articles did not consider either the level of improvement attainable or the need to improve quality of the receiving water body associated with the study. A conclusion common to all such reports was that not enough was known about stormwater to adequately understand cause and effect relationships. Also common to such reports were recommendations for further study and more data. A tangible result of the lack of belief and uncertain attitude in this area is the fact that stormwater controls for water quality 48 have been implemented in so few places throughout the nation. Thus, there has been a critical need to objectively examine the situation. (EPA, 1983) 4 METHODOLOGY 4.1 Basin evaluation The retention basin used in this study was constructed before research on the project began, therefore particle size determinations as well as other analyses were conducted from samples gathered at the site. 4.1.1 Particle size determination Samples were taken of the topsoil and underlaid sand material and were analyzed to determine particle size distributions. Particle size was determined in the laboratory using standard methods. (Soil Survey Staff, 1982) 4.1.2 Hydraulic conductivity determination Hydraulic conductivity measurements were made at random locations throughout the basin and at different depths throughout the soil profile. The measurements were taken using the Tresco Velocity Permeameter. (Tresco Inc., 17261 W. Van‘Wagoner Rd., Spring Lake, MI 49456) (Rose and Merva, 1990) 4.1.3 Filter material inspection The Propex 4545® filter cloth (Amoco Fabrics and Fibers Co., P.O. Box 836, Hazelhurst, GA 31539) used to maintain the integrity of the sand underlayer was inspected at random locations throughout the basin. This was done by carefully removing the soil above the liner and visually inspecting the material. Where visual inspection did not appear to be sufficient to determine the porosity or condition of the cloth, a section was removed and further inspected by peeling 49 50 off embedded material from the upper and lower surface of the cloth and submitting the material to the laboratory for heavy metal and particle size analysis. 4.2 Heavy metal determinations Concentrations of zinc, cadmium, calcium and lead were determined from samples of soil in the basin as well as from samples of runoff water which entered the basin as follows: 4.2.1 Obtaining runoff samples Runoff samples of water entering the basin were taken by both grab and automatic sampler methods. Samples were taken.during both wet weather and dry weather flows. Samples taken by automatic sampler were taken at 12 hour intervals by an ISCO 2900 Compact Wastewater Sampler. (ISCO, Inc., Environmental Div., P.O. Box 82531, Lincoln, NE 68501-2531) A flow-based sampling schedule is planned for successful sampling of the in- and outflows of the basin upon successful completion of necessary repairs. Flow measurements will be determined using a sharp-crested weir (Clemens et al., 1984) in the inlet pipe and calibrated HS flumes (Holtan et al., 1962) at the outlets in combination with a bubbler system, pressure transducer (Microswitch 140PC, Microswitch, a Honeywell div., Freeport, IL 61032), datalogger (Starbuck 8232, Starbuck Data Co., 9 Smith St., Wellesley, MA 02181), and personal computer (Tandy 102, Radio Shack, div. of Tandy Corp., Fort Worth, TX 76102). (See calibration curves: Appendix B, Figures 13 and 14) The bubbler system. was 51 developed at Michigan State University. (Goebel et al. 1985. Bubbler System for Flow Measurement. ASAE Paper #85—1000.) in-iine valve pressure transducer F... S p ............. datalogger COMputer bubbler l’UDO concrete Culvert water Ievei ! ! ! | i 1 I ! Figure 4. Bubbler system layout. The system uses a pressure transducer to measure the pressure in the bubbler tube. This pressure is converted by the datalogger to a value of depth and a flowrate can then.be calculated.by the computer. (Goebel et al., 1985) For the infiltration experiment, runoff water was pumped out of the manhole at the head of the basin during a rainstorm and collected in 208 liter drums and transported to MSU for use in the experiment. Suspension of material in the water was maintained by constantly stirring it with a motor mounted mixer before and during the experiment. 52 4.2.2 Infiltration experiment Soil columns were designed, constructed, and used to evaluate the ability of different soils to filter and remove the heavy metals which could be found in runoff water. Soil infiltration columns were constructed of 75 mm diameter polyvinylchloride (PVC) pipe cut in 0.6 m lengths. One end of the column was covered with a double layer of cheese cloth held in place by'a piece of screen.wrapped over the end of the column and attached with duct tape and a pdpe clamp. The columns rested in a rack on a 10 mm thick spacer of 75 mm diameter PVC pipe placed on top of a No. 1, 90 mm filter paper in the bottom of Buchner funnels. Each funnel rested in a cutout in the wood rack and drained into a 250 ml Erlenmeyer flask standing below it. (See Figure 5) The columns were loaded.by placing 50 mm of sand in the bottom of the column to act as the bottom filter to prevent excess material from.being washed out of the end of the column and to keep the interface between the soil and the tmmtom filter clear. The soils were then loaded 75 mm at a time into the columns and were uniformly packed by vibrating them for one minute on a soil tamping machine each time it was loaded. Peat, muck, sandy loam, loamy sand, and sand textures were selected for use in the columns. The loamy sand was selected to be mixed with muck to eight percent organic matter, the condition which was installed in the basin. The other soils were selected based on their availability in Michigan and 53 75 mm PVC soil A ceiumn stand I l ) BUChneriunnei send spacer? 260 ml Erlenmeyer flask (J x Figure 5. Experimental infiltration column design. Soil filled columns were placed in a Buchner funnel and were used to leach collected runoff water through to determine rate of infiltration and heavy metal and particulate removal rates. their perceived ability to act as a filter material in varying degrees. 'The soils were collected.in Southeastern Michigan at various locations, and were dried and screened through a two millimeter sieve. The chosen configurations for the soil columns were as follows: (1) 450 mm of pure coarse sand 54 (2) 450 mm of sandy loam high in organic matter (3) representative columns with 300 mm of topsoil (8 percent organic matter) placed on 150 mm of sand with a circular swatch of Propex 454 5(3) fabric placed between the two to maintain the integrity of the sand as in the original design. (4) 150 mm of peat sandwiched between two 150 mm layers ofsmm (5) 150 mm of muck sandwiched between two 150 mm layers of sand Four columns of each soil configuration.were used in the first series of experiments. 'Ehe first column from each replication was tested with deionized water to act as the control, while the rest were tested with runoff water. Each of the columns received 250 ml of input to begin the experiment and additional 250 ml inputs were added as the water level in the column filtered through to within one cm of the soil surface. The leachate from each column was collected in 250 ml flasks. The flasks were counted and a 30 ml sample was collected and labeled from each flask. The time of collection and sampling of each 250 ml flask was recorded and evaluated for infiltration rate determination. The samples were then stored under refrigeration until they could be transported to the laboratory for analysis. To test the soil column response to salinity in the runoff, an average value of 3000 mg/l salt concentration was selected from the literature for the analysis. (Schraufnagel, 1967) Table salt was mixed into the collected runoff to achieve the desired concentration and then run through a series of sandy 55 loam columns in the second set of experiments. After the infiltration experiments were completed, the film which formed on the surface of most of the columns was collected and ana- lyzed for particle size and/or heavy metal content. 4.3 Analysis of infiltration data Analyses were performed on both soil and water samples. Soil samples were taken of the infiltration experiment soil and also from random locations throughout the basin. Water samples were drawn from the runoff inflow into the basin as well as leachate samples from the infiltration experiment. 4.3.1 Heavy metals The heavy metal analysis conducted was performed using a directly coupled plasma emission spectrophotometer (dcp) (Spectrospan VB, Fisions Instruments/ARL, P.O.Box 149, 15300 Rotunda Dr., Suite 301, Dearborn, MI 48120) to measure the amount of zinc, cadmium, chromium, and lead present in both the soil and water samples. The soils were extracted for analysis using a 0.1 M HCl extraction. (Whitney, 1980) The water samples were analyzed as collected. 4.3.2 Other analyses The particle size analysis was performed in laboratory using standard methods, (Soil Survey Staff, 1982) while the salinity of water and soil samples was determined using the dcp (directly coupled plasma emission spectrophotometer). 5 RESULTS The results reported in this section are reported to the correct number of significant digits according to their relationship to the linear range and detection limits of the equipment used for analysis. 5.1 Particle size analysis Particle size analysis was conducted on soil samples from many different segments of the project. Determinations were made of a variety of collected samples including films removed from the surfaces of the infiltration columns. These results are exhibited as averages in the following table. Eleven samples were collected of the topsoil in the basin. Seven of them were collected in the upper half of the topsoil layer and four in the lower half. All of the samples averaged clay contents of 15% with only a slight difference between the two. Six samples were collected of clay layers found in different locations on the surface of the filter cloth. The average clay content was 25%. This is much higher than the clay contents of the overlying topsoil from which the clay layers developed. 56 57 Table 8. Average particle size analyses for samples collected at various locations throughout the basin and laboratory experiments. SAMPLES % SAND % SILT % CLAY DESCRIPTION Roadside 96 2 2 along curb Weir 88 2 10 behind the weir Film 5 29 66 on basin surface Top half 69 16 15 topsoil Bottom 72 15 13 topsoil Clay 44 31 25 layers on mat Sand 87 4 9 ' underlayer Sand 97 1 2 washed Sand 92 3 5 for column experiment Sandy loam 79 6 15 for column experiment Topsoil 79 10 9 for column experiment Sand 96 3 1 column film Sandy loam 87 7 6 " Topsoil mix 76 17 7 " Sand/peat 97 2 1 " Sand/muck 97 2 1 " . Samples of the sand underlayer had relatively high clay and silt contents when compared against the washed sand used in the original construction. Observations indicate that traffic patterns (up to 700 gravel trucks per day) could deposit large quantities of particulate on the road surface. The particulates, their location, and size distribution are found in the material deposited on the surface of the basin, on the 58 roadside, and behind the weir. The film which settled on the surface of the basin had a 66% clay content and a 29% silt content. The high.content of colloidal material is the normal result of the heavier sand particles settling out of suspension on the road surface and behind the weir in the inlet pipe. The soils used in the infiltration columns exhibited the textural properties which were desired when setting up the experiment. Unfortunately, the particle size analysis of the column films did not indicate the difference in particulate accumulation which was visibly evident on the soil surface. 5.2 Heavy metals in soil extractions Soil extractions were made of many of the soil samples collected" ‘Extractions were also made of the films which.were collected from the surface of the infiltration columns. A table of the averages for each sample group is included as Table 9 . Table 9. 59 Average concentrations of heavy metals (Zn, Cd, Cr, and.Pb) in.extractions of soil material collected from various locations throughout basin and laboratory experiments. (ug/g) Description ZN CD PB CR Material behind weir 10.66 0.22 4.2 0.45 Clay layers on mat 1.11 0.09 4.0 0.49 Top half (topsoil) 1.62 0.12 3.8 0.43 Bottom half (topsoil) 2.19 0.15 3.7 0.46 Column films Sand/runoff' 12.47 0.30 3.6 0.42 Representative/runoff 46.69 0.58 5.1 0.69 Representative/Na+ 43.91 0.47 4.4 0.62 Sand-peat/runoff 11.79 0.20 3.6 0.42 Sand-muck/runoff 14.09 0.27 3.7 0.43 Sandy loam/runoff 51.73 0.62 7.1 0.74 Sandy loam/runoff & Na 157.96 1.31 18.9 0.80 Sandy loam/Na 73.75 0.70 3.7 0.41 Sandy loam/runoff & 31.62 0.49 7.4 0.36 diwe Sandy loam/diw 2.64 0.10 2. 0.10 Film on basin surface 0.22 0.06 4. 0.42 Filtration experiment 39 69 __ 1.01 3.6 0.39 Deionized water Collected runoff water from M-24 Sodium 3000 ppm added to collected runoff water The topsoil samples collected from the basin did show some quantity of each heavy metal. complete list for each sample. Table 16 in Appendix A has the The clay layers removed from the surface of the filter cloth and the film on the basin surface also demonstrated small quantities of each heavy 60 metal. The films collected from the surface of the infiltration columns did show appreciable quantities of lead (2.8 - 41.7 ppm, 8.2 ppm ave.) and zinc (2.62 - 199.01 ppm, 62.95 ppm. ave.). Detectable quantities of cadmium and chromium were also present in considerably lower but significant concentrations (0.10 - 1.09 ppm, 0.58 ppm ave.). The low value in each test was obtained from the deionized water control and the high values were from the trials using collected runoff with 3,000 ppm salt added. Other samples taken from behind the weir and at the roadside showed appreciable quantities of lead and zinc. The soil used for the infiltration column tests did have background concentrations of each metal. A filtration was conducted of the collected runoff water to determine the concentrations of metals in the colloidal materials which.could.be filtered.out. 'Fhe filtrant contained 39.69 ppm zinc, 3.5 ppm lead, 1.01 ppm cadmium and 0.39 ppm chromium. 5.3 Heavy metals in column filtrate Of all samples of input and output from the infiltration columns, the quantities of heavy metals in solution varied from nondetectable to exceeding EPA standards. Zinc was the only exception. The table of average concentrations is included here with the complete raw data included as Table 14 in Appendix A. 61 Table 10. Average concentrations of heavy metals (Zn, Cd, Cr, (ppm) and Pb) in column leachate. COLUMN/TRIAL 2N Runoff input Sand/runoff 0.04 0.02 0.0 0.00 Sand/diw' 0.16 0.01 0.0 0.01 Sandy loam/runoff 0.11 0.01 0.1 0.01 Sandy loam/diw 0.13 0.004 0.3 0.01 Sandy loam/runoff & Na 0.14 0.01 0.6 0.02 Sandy loam/Na 0.21 0;00 0.4 0.01 Sandy loam/runoff & diw 0.12 0.01 0.1 0.0 Representative/runoff 0.06 0.01 0.1 0.01 Representative/diw 0.10 0.003 0.3 0.03 Representative/Na 0.15 0.00 1.4 0.06 Sand-peat/runoff 0.03 0.01 0.0 0.0 Sand-peat/diw 0.03 0.004 0.1 0.01 Sand-muck/runoff 0.05 0.01 0.1 0.01 Sand-muck/diw 0.07 0.01 0.1 0.01 '-Deionized water Quantities for each metal were: lead, ND - 0.4 ppm, 0.3 ppm ave.; zinc, ND - 0.43 ppm, 0.10 ppm ave.; cadmium, ND - 0.03 ppm, 0.01 ppm ave.; and chromium, ND - .14 ppm, 0.01 ppm ave. The EPA water quality standards are 0.05 ppm for lead and chromium, 5 ppm for zinc, and 0.01 ppm for cadmium. The average load concentration for lead.well exceeds the EPA.water quality standards. Cadmium and chromium, on the other hand, exceed the EPA quality standards at their maximum values, but are generally within acceptable ranges. It appears in Table 62 10 that the sodium in runoff may replace zinc, lead and chromium in the soil matrix forcing these heavy metals into solution. 5.4 Heavy metal removal The quantities of heavy metals in the soil samples show that the heavy metals are located in the colloidal material rather than dissolved in the water solution. The extraction of collected runoff input and output do not show a noticeable removal rate for heavy metals held in solution. The heavy metal concentrations are in the particulate fraction as indicated by the difference of three magnitudes between the recorded concentration in the collected runoff input and the filtrate output, versus the filtrant collected and analyzed.in Table 9. Table 11. .Average heavy metal concentrations (Zn, Cd, Cr, and Pb) in the filtration experiment water samples. (ppm) =========================== ======== Description Zinc Cadmium Lead Chromium Runoff input 0.07 0.004 0.2 0.01 Filtrate ND 0.004 ND 0.001 diw input control. 0 . 09 =l=ND ND 0 . 004 ' ND indicates nondetectable concentration levels 5.5 Salinity Tests of runoff samples collected from.events caused.by winter rainfall, snowfall and thaw events indicated quantities of sodium in solution from 76 ppm to approximately 9000 ppm. These values are similar to those found in the literature. (Schraufnagel, 1967) The highest value is approximately 10 63 times greater than the other higher than normal values, this indicates an extreme salt concentration. (Table 12) Table 12. Table of average sodium concentrations in collected runoff samples. Salinity of collected runoff samples (ppm) average baseline sodium 200 concentration average sodium concentrations of 1000 values significantly higher than baseline extreme concentration - 9000 m 1 5.6 Permeability tests During the initial stages of the project, percolation rates appeared to be lower than the design value. A velocity permeameter was used to determine in situ permeabilities. Thirty-seven tests were run at five locations in the bottom of the basin with many tests being repeated to insure accuracy. The averages for each location are recorded in Table 13. The complete data are recorded in Appendix A, Table 6. One sand pocket was found in the topsoil layer and resulted in a 60 mm/hr average permeability. A sandy textured pocket measured 20 mm/hr. The sand underlayer averaged 50 mm/hr. All other tests, 29 in all, averaged 3 mm/hr. This was far below the 20 m/hr which was required by the design to allow rapid drainage of the basin. 64 Table 13. Average permeability for various locations throughout the basin. Permeability Depth Comments mm/hr mm 50 . 230 sand underlayer 20 100 sandy pocket 60 95 sand pocket 40 SAND AVERAGE 3 BASIN TOPSOIL AVERAGE 5.7 Infiltration columns Experimental infiltration.columns were built.in fivem ppm memes mmocsu pmuomaaoo sue: pmummu mums mcEpHoo mouse .pcmm omumoo mo BE omv sues DHHDQ mums mCESHOO omega .mcE:Hoo pcmm .o ousofim 093 DNA Se .2: 00v n¥N ZE4H5.A#:ZQult 0‘ "1...“... l mu .3 l W/‘F‘ elation 9.5.8 to? $65....— mm 8-31m .8 23m mzzzuoo chm 66 .umumz pmuecoflmp sue: cobweb mm: :Epaoo Houucoo ecu. .poomuo>m ppm umumz mwocpu pmuooHHOo nuH3_p0ummu mumz massaoo onez >Ucmm m mo SE omv zuez DHHSQ mum: mcszaoo omose .mcesaoo EmoH >pcmm .Hflom EmoH .h musowm oQfi Se 9:. 8m own 8". Sm o _ _ a q o 1 m .. 2 .1 .2 om 2.5.8 .83.... £38 Abs”. 35E... _ mm 8-3m ozc SA to 5m mzzzuoo Econ wozcm W/l‘“ '3188 1014 67 68 columns No. 41-46 were run with collected runoff water with 3000 ppm sodium added while No. 47 and 48 were run with deionized water. The columns prerun with collected runoff water and then run with runoff water with 3000 ppm sodium added declined in throughput by an average 37%. Column No. 44, the soil control, was not prerun with collected runoff water but was run with collected runoff water with 3000 ppm sodium added. It declined by 73% of its original rate. Column No. 47, prerun with collected runoff water but run in this trial as the water control with deionized water, only decreased by 12% during the run with deionized water. Column No. 48, the soil and water control, was not prerun with collected runoff water and run in this trial with deionized water declined by 12% as well. There was, however, a 4.5 ml/min difference in flowrate between the two at the end of the experiment. The soil and water control operating at 19.2 ml/min and the water control at 14.7 ml/min. (Figure 8) 5.7.1.3 Topsoil mix-filter cloth-sand columns Columns No. 13-18 were representative of the design which was installed in the basin. They were built with 300 mm of a loamy sand soil mixed to contain 8% organic muck situated over a circular swatch of filter cloth resting on 150 mm of sand. Columns No. 13-15, listed.as averaged.runoff columns in.Figure 9, were tested.with collected runoff water and No. 16 was used as a control and was tested with deionized water. Columns No. 17 and 18 were columns run with collected runoff Ame .BMMZM Sufl3 Umummu ANV .330 rues pound» Ave pcm .Zep :mnu ppm Buo cue: cobweb .Azum2mv umum3 mmocsu poppm mz Edd ooom sues pmummumu Use Azuov umum3 «wocsu OODOOHHOO cue: Omummu Ase .mCEsHOO EMOH >©cmm .m 0&30wm .Cde.uzz. 092 mam CNN omr n¥N o . s 4 s o 1 m m— W/‘i" ‘3193 m1.) .9560 6F: 9: 48m... .6578 48ml. mzbdo .tQSm Bambi/mix 162236 c317 Bohr tozam 2208 En. Bow 1:: mm..m..m to tozzm mZZDJOQ ZEOJ wozcm 69 .3Ho use: cmummu Amy Hebe: mmocsu emcee mz and 000m run: pmbmmu ANS been; wmocou pmuooaaoo nuflz Guano» AFC .pcmm mo 58 omp co abode umuHHm m um>o HaomQOD mo as com sue: uaflpn mum3 mcESHOO .mcesaoo pcmminuoHo Heuaflwixfle HHOmQOB .m OHSme .Cdcsuzz. ODN— Dom CNN 00v DvN D _ _ s q o l m .. m - 0— mm . — W. m w. u lON .6fijDO.H#FZQulT m2fi150,?BZd&DH$#EZmlT AHHUI_RdQHwrCLAHHH.QH¥EMZu$T mN BEE 558 2.... Doom ozc tozam 826:8 mZZDJOQ QZCmIIHOJQ muHJEIxHZ Damage. 70 71 water with 3000 ppm sodium added. They were run to simulate the field.conditions of road salt contaminated highway runoff. The columns run with collected runoff water experienced an average 27% decline in throughput rate. The average decline of the columns run with collected runoff with 3000 ppm sodium added was 55% while the control only declined by 4%. (Figure 9) 5.7.1.4 Sand-peat-sand columns Columns No. 19-22 were built of a 15 cm layer of peat sand- wiched between two 15 cm layers of sand. No. 19-21 were run with collected runoff water and No. 22 was used as a control and was run with deionized water. The columns run with collected runoff water experienced a rapid decline and rebound in flowrate before stabilizing after approximately four hours. This was followed.by an average decline of 48% in infiltration throughput. The control column took over five hours to reach the same equilibrium point where it maintained its flowrate without loss, but rather, a 30% increase. (Figure 10) 5.7.1.5 Sand-muck-sand columns Columns No. 25-28 were built of a 15 cm layer of organic muck sandwiched between two 15 cm layers of sand. No. 25-27, listed as averaged runoff columns in Figure 11, were run with collected runoff water and the control, No. 28, was run with deionized water. The columns run with the collected runoff water demonstrated an average loss of 15% of throughput rate. .u0um3 pouacoflmp sue: cobweb no: cesaoo aouucoo mnu use Home: wmocou pmuooaaoo EDHB Cobweb mums mceoaoo «mouse pmomuo>m one .mcesaoo cadmiummdipcmm .o— Guzman .5... at: 8.2 8m 8m 84 Sm _ q a a o .. m -1 r i u. a .. m -- - - . 2 m m. .m/u om 2.38 .968... 938 hose get _ mm Storm 5 22m mzzsuoo chmihcmmuozmm 72 .umumz pmwflcoflop nuez cobweb mm; CEDHOO Houucoo map can umumz wwocsu emuooaaoo sues cobweb mums mcEsHoo mmocou poomuo>m one .mcesaoo pcmmixosEIUcmm .pp unseen Se .95 8m 8m own 8,. Sm _ a s s o m J m e m 9 m w. u om 338 £28.... 25.8 tag §>¢+L mm mméme .5 23m mzzzuoo ozchXQDZIchm 73 74 This was the only configuration in which the collected runoff columns performed better than the control which declined by 21% and finished with.a lower throughput rate than that of the collected runoff columns. (Figure 11) 5.8 Flume calibration The calibration.of the flumes used for flow'measurement at the outlets showed good correlation to values given in tables for HS flumes in the Agricultural Research Handbook. (Henry, 1956) The calibration curves are included as Figures 13 and 14 in Appendix B. 6 DISCUSSION 6.1 Nature of runoff Runoff water studied here was a mixture of precipitation, atmospheric washout, and.highway and right-of-way pollutants. The contribution of heavy metals from the highway and its right-of-way is the basis for the research conducted for this project. The runoff from highways and their right-of-ways is contaminated by particulate matter which leaks from and/or wears off of vehicles. Previous research has proven that many different heavy metals are left behind by motorized vehicles. The heavy metals of greatest concern are those which can have the most detrimental effect on man and aquatic organisms. Lead, zinc, cadmium, and chromium can, in relatively small concentrations, have deleterious effects on both aquatic organisms man. It is important therefore to remove these heavy metals before they reach a concentration level above which adverse effects are felt by those organisms habitating the area. To do so, the heavy metals must be removed before they reach a location in the environment beyond which reasonable control is unattainable. 6.2 Relationships The relationship between the location and types of heavy metals in the environment plays a key role in determining the ease, effort, and cost associated with attempting to remove them. As reported in the results, the location of the heavy 75 76 metals is in the particulate fraction of highway runoff. The extraction of heavy metals from the filtrant clearly show two to three magnitudes of difference in concentration levels for zinc, cadmium and. chromium and. a one to two magnitude difference for lead in nearly all of the samples analyzed. The fractions of heavy metal in the particulate fraction are evident when comparing the filtrant particulate with the filtrate. The three magnitudes of difference shown in this comparison.demonstrate that almost all of the heavy metals are adsorbed on the particulate fraction. (Tables 9 and 11) The lOW’ concentrations of heavy' metals reported in the filtrate indicate that the heavy metal concentrations are not held in solution. (Table 10) The location of heavy metals in runoff has been.determined.in this experiment to be associated with the particulate fraction of the runoff. The association of the heavy metal with the suspended solids fraction is due to the adhesion of the heavy metal ions to the negatively charged clay particles. The literature states that suspended solids are responsible for carrying a large portion of the heavy metals associated with highway runoff waters. (Farris et al., 1973 and Morrison et al., 1984) The large quantities of heavy metals found in the soil extractions as compared to the filtrate provide convincing evidence that the heavy metals are predominantly attached to the suspended solids rather than being soluble in solution. 77 This provides approaches for removal while creating other problems. JFirst the association of heavy metals and suspended solids is beneficial because the particulate fraction can be removed more easily. The removal of the heavy metals from runoff in this situation is simplified sincerajphysical system can be used to remove the particulate, avoiding the expense and maintenance of using a mechanical or chemical system to remove the heavy metal from the solution. Second, with most of the heavy metal now located in the soil environment, the water itself can be considered safe and handled as such when further diluted.by stream*water as it exits the basin“ Third, the heavy metals are more strongly held by the colloidal material. This is advantageous because the heavy metals are not nearly as toxic in the soil environment as they are in the water environment. Many plants can adapt to somewhat higher than normal heavy metal concentrations without being adversely affected. Some of the most pertinent questions which arise are: (1) Is a percolation. basin even. necessary' or will a settling/ retention basin be sufficient? The results of this experiment do not provide convincing evidence either way, but it appears that further research would prove that a retention basin/percolation basin two-part structure would be the most effective method for maximum heavy metal removal. This also brings up the problem of permeability. (2) Can a percolation basin, which requires high permeabilities, perform under the 78 heavy particulate load? The permeability (Appendix A, Table 5) and the particle size analysis data (Appendix A, Table 3), when evaluated for the film removed from the surface of the basin and the clay layer which developed on the filter cloth liner, demonstrate that these soils with 29 and 30% silt and 66 and 25% clay, respectively, are impermeable. Unfortunately, the basin.was designed to filter water through in 72 hours so mosquitos would not have an opportunity to reproduce. This means that the original design, could not possibly function adequately once the particulate had collected on the basin surface or after the effects of the sodium tainted water were felt. Therefore, the question of whether or not a settling/ retention basin can provide a workable solution must be asked. Can it drain quickly enough to thwart mosquitoes? What type of percolation material will be effective while avoiding the earlier difficulties resulting from filter cloth and surface-sealing particulate films? The sand obviously has the natural permeability necessary if it will avoid the difficulties associated with the colloidal films. (Table 12) Although heavy metals are less toxic in the soil environment, they are still toxic and can not be forgotten. (3) How can the heavy metal laden.particulate accumulation.be managed? ZIt contains large quantities of toxic heavy metals which potentially could adversely affect any environment into which it is released. Further study with respect to using chemical 79 processes to immobilize the heavy metals or to reclaim them through a recycling process is required. (4) The last question which arises is with regards to the problem of salinity as a result of winter deicing operations. (Appendix A, Table 18) Will the salts collect in the retention basin as a flocculating and dispersing agent or will they reach some maximum.concentration above which they remain in solution and find their way into the stream or other water environment? This is also a very important consideration.due to the effects of salt on humans and aquatic organisms. This will also require further research or an extensive evaluation of the work that has already been done to determine what is and is not safe. 6.3 Redesign of basin The original design of the basin, 300 mm of 8% organic loamy sand topsoil placed over a 150 mm layer of sand separated by a filter cloth did not function as designed. (Figure 2) It was designed to allow water to percolate through the loamy sand topsoil removing the heavy metals by (1) sedimentation of metal ions already adsorbed to particulate matter and (2) adsorbtion of soluble ions to the soil particles. As stated before, the basin failed due to the collection of colloidal material on.both the surface of the basin and the accumulation of clay onto the surface of the filter cloth. The colloidal material on the surface of the basin was the result of colloidals being washed in from the surface of the highway due 80 to the heavy gravel hauling traffic between.Oxford (north) and Detroit (south). In excess of 700 trips are made on this stretch of highway by gravel trucks during a typical summer day. Other colloidals washed into the basin during the early stages of the project from the unfinished sides of the basin and construction activities associated with the widening of M- 24. The colloidal material on the surface of the filter cloth is the result of clay migration through the soil caused by the dispersion effects of sodium tainted runoff water. This occurs as a result of winter salting operations during periods of ice and snow. The salt concentrations found during the project can easily induce this sort of behavior among the soil particles. In an effort to address these difficulties in the original design a new design was proposed to use some different physical and chemical properties to achieve the removal rates desired of the basin. An earthen weir was installed in the basin at approximately one-third of its length. The top portion of the basin then became a sediment basin to allow the colloidal material an opportunity to settle out of the runoff before it entered the percolation section of the basin. A 100 mm plastic drain pipe was installed in the bottom of the weir to facilitate its drainage after each storm event. The percolation section of the basin consisted of coarse sand overlying the subsurface drains. The sand was used to remove 81 opportunity for the colloidal material to be trapped before entering the tiles which carry the filtrate into the stream. In addition to this, a limestone filter was positioned on the downstream side of the weir in an effort to help remove the sodium from the highway runoff solution. The CaCO3 (limestone) can exchange sodium and pull it out of solution. (Richards, 1954) (Figure 12) \ Inlet pipe weir \/ limestone \\ _._._. ”’Jnanme Topsoil mix 300 mm sand /iiter cloth 1) .— send 150 mm O O O clay \ 100 mm filter wrapped plastic tile Figure 12. The redesigned basin cross section. The new design included a sedimentation basin created by the addition of an earthen weir, a limestone filter on the downstream side of the weir and also a sand only filtration section. 82 6.4 Performance of new design As stated before, the original basin design never functioned as expected. The failure of the first design can be at- tributed to unforeseen engineering difficulties such as the excessive particulate washing in from the highway and the effects of salinity on the soil. It may also be due in part to the low'quality workmanship used.in constructing the basin. Such unexpected difficulties may be encountered in any project. Managing those areas addressed by the engineering staff is of utmost importance in finding a workable solution to each individual problem. In this case a redesign was suggested to address the problems which. had. been encountered in the original design. A sedimentation basin was installed in the top portion of the existing basin to give the particulate matter an opportunity to settle out of the flow as it moved through the basin. This change, if effective, will add a maintenance requirement to the basin for the removal of collected sediments. Separating the settling basin from the second section of the new design is an earthen weir. The weir, besides creating the settling basin, should provide an even, reduced velocity flow through the limestone filter into the infiltration/percolation section. Unfortunately, due to poor installation, the weir has washed.out twice, requiring costly, time consuming repairs to the weir and to the percolation section whose efficiency 83 was hampered by the colloidal material which washed.out of the defective weir. The percolation section of the basin used the original underlayer design of the basin with the filter cloth and topsoil removed. Sand was used because it could adsorb some of the soluble heavy metals while still allowing a maximum permeability rate and.minimal maintenance. The final section of the basin.was left in its original condition with a section of pipe opened up and backfilled with pearock. This would allow unrestricted outflow of excess water which might bypass the percolation section of the basin. 7 CONCLUSIONS 7.1 The basin initially failed.as the result of two processes which operated simultaneously. The basin was clogged by colloidal material which washed off of the street and settled onto the surface of the basin. Proper functioning was also impeded by the dispersion of clay particles onto the filter cloth liner due to the effects of sodium on the topsoil material. 7.2 The heavy metals are located primarily in the particulate fraction of the highway runoff. This is evidenced.by the soil extraction data which shows concentrations which were 10 to 100 times greater than those of filtrate samples. 7.3 Sedimentation and subsequent removal of the particulate fraction will control nearly all of the heavy metal from highway runoff water. Since the majority of the heavy metals are attached to the particulate fraction of the runoff water, a simple sedimentation/filtration.process, designed properly, should be as effective in particulate removal as any mechanical or chemical process. It will also be more cost effective since operation and maintenance costs are lower. 7.4 The redesign of the basin, implemented but never tested due to time lost when the weir washed out, shows potential in laboratory analysis to effectively perform the task for which it was built. 7.5 The removal process will only be quantified when the basin is working properly. If 100% of the sediment could be 84 85 removed, it would appear likely that you could remove nearly 100% of the heavy metals found.in highway runoff. This should be relatively easy to quantify when the basin is fully functional. 8 RECOMMENDATIONS 8.1 Continue to work with the redesigned basin to determine if it will in fact work. Further experiments in the laboratory and evaluation.of theibasinq when.operational, will help to determine the effect of the changes made up to this point. This should also include close monitoring of work done on or in the basin to see that correct construction practices are followed. 8.2 If possible, obtain funding to study another basin in a somewhat less unique location. The amount of colloidal material which resulted from the gravel truck traffic far exceeded the expectations of the design engineers and had the most detrimental effect on the success of this project. 8.3 If funding is lacking for a large project, a series of long term, in-laboratory, infiltration and salinity tests could be run to attempt to better understand the actual workings of constructed soil profile in the natural environment. 8.4 Be patient, if the construction on the project was finished yesterday, give it until tomorrow before you use it. Nature has a way of needing time to acclimate itself to the workings of man. 8.5 A comprehensive compilation of heavy metals from highway runoff data would be very beneficial to evaluate the total bank of knowledge to date. 86 87 8.6 Based on the aforementioned compilation, a research program should be established to accurately evaluate the effects of heavy metals from highway runoff on the aquatic system. 8.7 Comprehensive research and literature reviews would be a valuable asset in determining and prioritizing research needs. The one area in this study which could easily be the subject of many such reviews is the toxicity of each heavy metal and sodium in the soil and aquatic environment. 9 LIST OF REFERENCES Adams, F.S. 1973. Highway salt: Social and environmental concerns. Highway Res Rec. 425:13-16. Alabaster, J.S. and.R. Lloyd. 1982. Water Quality Criteria for Freshwater Fish. 2nd ed. London: Butterworths. American Public Works Association (APWA). 1969. Water Pollution Aspects of Urban Runoff. U.S. Department of the Interior. WP-20-15. Washington, D.C.: FWPCA. Arora, H.S. and N.T. Coleman. 1979. The influence of electrolyte concentration on flocculation of clay suspensions. Soil Sci. 127(3):134-139. Bell, J.H. and M.P. Wanielista. 1978. Use of overland flow in stormwater management on interstate highways. ASCE. Bellinger, E.G., A.D. Jones and.J.‘Tinker. 1982. The character and dispersal of motorway run-off water. Wat Pollut Control. 81(3):372-390. Benoit, D.A,, E.N. Leonard, G.M; Christensen, and.J.T. Fiandt. 1976. Toxic effects of cadmium on three generations of brook trout. Trans Am Fish Soc. 105(4):550-560. Bourcier, D.R. and E. Hindin. 1979. Lead, iron, chromium and zinc in road runoff at Pullman, Washington. Sci Total Envi- ron. 12(3):205-215. Bryan, E.H. 1974. Concentrations of lead in urban stormwater. JWPCF 46(10):2419-2421. Chapman, G.A. and.D.G. Stevens. 1978. Acutely lethal levels of cadmium, copper, and zinc to adult male coho salmon and steelhead. Trans Am Fish Soc. 107(6):837-840. Chapman, G.A. 1978. Toxicities of cadmium, copper, and zinc to four juvenile stages of chinook salmon and steelhead. Trans Am Fish Soc. 107(6):841-847. Clemens, A.J., M.G. B05, and J.A. Replogle. 1984. RBC broad- crested weirs for circular sewers and pipes. J of Hydrology, 68:349-368. Colston, N.V.Jr. 1974. Characterization and treatment of urban land runoff. EPA-670/2-74-096. Cincinnati: EPA ORD. Darnell, R.M., W.E. Pequegnat, B.M. James, F.J. Benson, and R.A. Defenbaugh. 1976. Impacts of construction activities 88 89 in wetlands in the United States. EPA-600/3-76-045. Washington, D.C.: EPA ORD. DeFilippi, J.A. and. C.S. Shih. 1971. Characteristics of separated storm and combined sewer flows. JWPCF. 43(10):2033-2058. Dupuis, T.Vt, N.P. Kobriger,‘W.K. Kreutzberger, and V.‘Trippi. 1984a. Effects of highway runoff on receiving waters: Vol. III Resource document for environmental assessments. FHWA/RD-84/064. Washington, D.C.: FHWA. Dupuis, T.V., W.K. Kreutzberger, J. Kaster, and T. Harris. 1984b. Effects of highway runoff on receiving waters: Vol. V Guidelines for conducting field studies. FHWA/RD-84/066. Washington, D.C.: FHWA. Eaton, J.G. 1974. Chronic cadmium toxicity to the bluegill. Trans Am Fish Soc. 103(4):729-735. Ellis, J.B., D.M. Revitt, D.O. Harrop, and P.R. Beckwith. 1987. The contributions of highway surfaces to urban storm- water sediments and metal loadings. Sci Total Environ. 59:339-349. EPA. 1971. Storm water management model. Vol. I Final report. EPA 11024. Washington, D.C.: EPA. EPA. 1972. Regulation of fuels and fuel additives. In Fed Regist. 37(36):3882-3884. Washington, D.C. EPA. 1980a. Ambient water quality criteria for cadmium. EPA 440/5-80-025. Washington, D.C.: EPA. EPA. 1980b. Ambient water quality criteria for chromium. EPA 440/5-80-035. Washington, D.C.: EPA. EPA. 1980c. Ambient water quality criteria for lead. EPA 440/5-80-057. Washington, D.C.: EPA. EPA. 1980d. Ambient water quality criteria for zinc. EPA 440/5-80-079. Washington, D.C.: EPA. EPA. 1980s. Water quality'criteria.documents; Availability. In Fed Regist. 45(231):79318-79357. Washington, D.C. EPA. 1983. Results of the nationwide urban runoff program. Water Planning Division. NTIS Access No. PB84-185545. Wash- ington, D.C.: EPA. 9O Farris. G., R. Dalseg, and P. Machno. 1973. Freeway runoff from the I-90 corridor. Municipality of Metropolitan Seat- tle, Y1519. Seattle, Washington. Field, R., E.J. Struzeski, Jr., H.E. Masters, and A.N. Tafuri. 1974. Water pollution and associated effects from street salting. J Environ Eng Div. ASCE. 100:459-477. Field, R. and J.A. Lager. 1975. Urban runoff pollution control: State-of-the-art. J Environ Eng Div. ASCE. 101:107-125. Fraser, J.C. 1972. Regulated discharge and the stream environment. In River Ecology and Man, ed. Oglesby, R.T., C.A. Carlson and J.A. McCann, 263-285. New York: Academic Press. Freeze, R.A. and JgA. Cherry. 1979. Groundwater. Englewood Cliffs, NJ.: Prentice-Hall,Inc. Frenkel, H., J.O. Goertzen, and.J.D. Rhoades. 1978. Effects of clay type and content, exchangeable sodium percentage, and electrolyte concentration on clay dispersion and soil hydraulic conductivity. Soil Sci Soc Am J. 42(1):32-39. Griffin, D.M., Jr., T.J. Grizzard, C.W. Randall, D.R. Helsel, and J.P. Hartigan. 1980. Analysis of non-point pollution export from small catchments. JWPCF. 52(4):780-790. Gupta, M.K., R.W; Agnew'and N.P. Kobriger. 1981a. Constituents of highway runoff: Vol. I State of the art report. FHWA/RD- 81-042. Washington, D.C.: FHWA ORD. Gupta, M.K., R.W. Agnew, and T.L. Meinholz. 1981b. Constituents of highway runoff: Vol. II Procedural manual for monitoring of highway runoff. FHWA/RD-81-043. Washington, D.C.: FHWA ORD. Gupta, M.K., R.W. Agnew, D. Gruber, and W. Kreutzberger. 1981c. Constituents of highway runoff: Vol IV Characteristics of.runoff from.operating highways, research report. FHWA/RD-81-045. Washington, D.C.: FHWA ORD. Gupta, M.K., R.W. Agnew, and NxP. Kobriger. 1981d. Constituents of highway runoff: Vol. VI Executive summary. FHWA/RD-81-047. Washington, D.C.: FHWA ORD. Harrison, R.M. and D.P.H. Laxen. 1981. Lead pollution: Causes and control. New York: Chapman and Hall. 91 Harrison, R.M. and S.J. Wilson. 1985a. The Chemical composition of highway drainage waters: I. Major ions and selected trace metals. Sci Total Environ. 43:63-77. Harrison, R.M. and S.J. Wilson. 1985b. The Chemical composition of highway drainage waters: II. Chemical associations of metals in the suspended sediment. Sci Total Environ. 43:79-87. Highway Research Board. 1967. Effect of de-icing salts on water quality and. biota. National Research Council Special Report# 91. Holcombe, G.W. and R.W. Andrew. 1978. The acute toxicity of zinc to rainbow and brook trout. EPA-600/3-78-094. Duluth, MN: EPA ORD. Holcombe, G.W., D.A. Benoit, and.E.N; Leonard. 1979. Long-term effects of zinc exposures on brook trout. Trans Am Fish Soc. 108:76-87. Holtan, H.N., N.E. Minshall, and L.L. Harrold. 1962. Field manual for research in agricultural hydrology. USDA Hand- book No. 224. Washington, D.C.: USDA-ARS. Klein, L.A., M. Lang, N. Nash, and S.L. Kirschner. 1974. Sources of metals in New York City wastewater. JWPCF. 46(12):2653-2662. Lager, J.A. and.W.G. Smith. 1974. Urban stormwater management and technology: An assessment. EPA-670/2-74-040. Cin- cinnati, OH.: EPA ORD. Lagerwerff, J.V. and A.W. Specht. 1970. Contamination of roadside soil and vegetation with cadmium, nickel, lead.and zinc. Envir Sci & Tech. 4(7):583-586. Laxen, D.P.H. and.R.M; Harrison. 1977. The Highway as a source of water pollution: An appraisal with the heavy metal lead. Water Res. 11(1):1-11. Lester, J.N. ed. 1987a. Heavy Metals in Wastewater and Sludge Treatment Processes: Vol.I Sources, analysis, and legisla- tion. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, Inc. Lester, J.N. ed. 1987b. Heavy Metals in Wastewater and Sludge Treatment Processes: Vol.II Treatment and disposal. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, Inc. Lord, B.N. 1987. Nonpoint source pollution from highway stormwater runoff. Sci Total Environ. 59:437-446. 92 Lygren, E., E. Gjessing, and L. Berglind. 1984. Pollution transport from a highway. Sci Total Environ. 33:147-159. Maestri, B. and B.N. Lord. 1987. Guide for mitigation of highway stormwater runoff pollution. Sci Total Environ. 59:467-476. Moore, J.W. and S. Ramamoorthy. 1980. Heavy Metals in Natural Waters. New York: Springer-Verlag. Morrison, G.M.P., D.M. Revitt, J.B. Ellis, P. Balmer, and G. Svensson. 1984. Heavy metal partitioning between the dis- solved.and suspended.solid.phases of stormwater runoff from a residential area. Sci Total Environ. 33:287. Newton, C.D., W.W. Shephard, and M.S. Coleman. 1974. Street runoff as a source of lead.pollution. JWPCF 46(5):999-1000. Nightingale, H.I. 1975. Lead, zinc, and copper in soils of urban storm runoff retention basins. J Am Water Works Assoc. 67(8):443-446. Oliver, E.G., J.B. Milne, and N. LaBarre. 1974. Chloride and lead in urban snow. JWPCF. 46(4):766-771. Pitt, R.E. and G. Amy. 1973. Toxic materials analysis of street surface: contaminants. EPA-R2-73-283. Washington, D.C.: EPA ORD. Pupisky, H. and I. Shainberg. 1979. Salt effects on the hydraulic conductivity of a sandy soil. Soil Sci Soc Am J. 43(3):429-433. Randall, C.W., K. Ellis, T.J. Grizzard, and.W.R. Knocke. 1982. Urban runoff pollutant removal by sedimentation, In Stormwater Detention Facilities, ed. W. DeGroot. 205-219. New York: ASCE. Richards, L.A. 1954. Diagnosis and Improvement of Saline and Alkali Soils. USDA Agriculture Handbook 60. Washington, D.C.: USGPO. Rose, K.R. and.G.E. Merva. 1990. Investigating septic disposal sites using a velocity permeameter. J Env Qual. In Press. Rowell, D.L., D. Payne, and N. Ahmed. 1969. The effect of the concentration and.movement of solutions on the swelling, dispersion, and movement of clay in saline and alkali soils. J Soil Sci. 20(1):176-188. 93 Sartor, J.D. and G.B. Boyd. 1972. Water pollution aspects of street surface: contaminants. EPA-R2-72-081. Washington, D.C.: EPA ORM. Sauter, S., K.S. Buxton, K.J. Macek, and S.R. Petrocelli. 1976. Effects of exposure to heavy metals on selected freshwater fish. EPA-600/3-76-105. Duluth, MN: EPA ORD. Scherger, D.A. and.J.A. Davis, Jr. 1982. Control of stormwater runoff pollutant loads by a wetland and retention basin. In Proc. International symposium. on urban hydrology, hydraulics and sediment control, ed. H. Sterling, 109-123. Lexington, KY, 27-29 July. Schraufnagel, E.H. 1967. Pollution aspects associated with chemical deicing. Highway Res Rec. 193:22-33. Shaheen, D.G. 1975. Contributions of urban roadway usage to water pollution. EPA-600/2-75-004. Washington, D.C.: EPA ORD. Skoog, R.O. and J.A. Pitz. 1985. A strategy for the reduction of nonpoint source pollution from transportation-related activities in Michigan. Lansing, Michigan. Smith, W.H. 1976. Lead contamination of the roadside ecosystem. JAPCA. 26(8):753-766. Soil Survey Staff. 1982. Procedures for collecting soil samples and methods of analysis for soil survey: Soil survey investigation report #1. Washington, D.C.: USDA-SOS. Sprague, J.B. 1987. Effects of cadmium on freshwater fish. In Advances in Environmental Science and Technology. ed. J.O. Nriagu. 139-169. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Stephenson, D. 1981. Stormwater Hydrology and Drainage, New York: Elsevier Scientific Pub. Co. Stotz, G. 1987. Investigations of the properties of the surface water run-off from federal highways in the FRG. Sci Total Environ. 59:329-337. Thompson, P. 1989. Poison Runoff. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. Van Hassel, J.H., J.J. Ney, and D.L. Garling, Jr. 1980. Heavy metals in a stream ecosystem at sites near highways. Trans Am Fish Soc. 109:636-643. Velasco-Molina, H.A., A.R. Swoboda, and C.L. Godfrey. 1971. Dispersion of soils of different mineralogy in relation 94 to sodium adsorbtion ratio and electrolytic concentration. Soil Sci. 111:282-287. Wanielista, M.P., Y.A, Yousef, and.‘W.M; McLellon. 1977. Nonpoint source effects onmwater quality. JWPCF. 49(3):441- 451. Wanielista, M.P. 1978. Stormwater Management: Quantity and Quality, Ann Arbor, MI: Ann Arbor Science. Wanielista, M.P., Y.A. Yousef, H.H. Harper III, and C.L. Cassagnol. 1981. Detention with effluent filtration for stormwater management. In Urban Stormwater Quality, Manage- ment and Planning, ed. B.C. Yen. 314-321. Urbana, IL, 15-19 June. Whipple, W., Jr. 1979. Dual-purpose detention basins. J Water Resour Plann and Manage Div. ASCE. 105:403-412. Whipple, W. and J.V. Hunter. 1981. Settleability of urban runoff pollution. JWPCF. 53(12):1726-1731. Whipple, W., C.W. Randall, N.S. Grigg, R.P. Shubinski, T. Grizzard, and L.S. Tucker. 1983. Stormwater Management in Urbanizing Areas. Englewood.Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc. Whitney, D.A, 1980. Micronutrient.soil tests--zinc, manganese, and copper. In Recommended chemical soil test procedures for the North Central region. N. Dakota Agr Exp Sta. NDSU, Fargo, ND. N. Central Reg Publ. 221:18-21. WHO. 1984a. Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality: Vol. I Recommendations. Geneva: WHO. WHO. 1984b. Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality: Vol. II Health Criteria and Other Supporting Information. Geneva: WHO. Wigington, P.J.Jr., C.W. Randall, and T.J. Grizzard. 1983. Accumulation of selected trace metals in soils of urban runoff detention basins. Water Resour Bull. 19(5):709-718. Wilber, W.G. and.J.V; Hunter. 1977. Aquatic transport of heavy metals in the urban environment. Water Resour Bull. 13(4):721-734. Yousef, Y.A., H.H. Harper, L.P. Wiseman, and J.M. Bateman. 1985a. Consequential species of heavy metals in highway runoff. TRRE. 1017:56-62. 95 Yousef, Y.A., M.P. Wanielista, and.H.H. Harper. 1985b. Removal of highway contaminant by roadway swales. TRRE. 1017:62-88. Yousef, Y.A., M.P. Wanielista, H.H. Harper, and T. Hvitred- Jacobsen. 1986. Best.management practices: Effectiveness of retention/detention ponds for control of contaminants in highway runoff. FL-ER-34-86. Orlando, FL: Florida Department of Transportation. ' APPENDIX A 10 APPENDIX A Table 14. Heavy metal concentrations from infiltration colunm samples. (ppm) (negative values indicate nondetectable levels) ZN CD PB CR SAND COLUMNS 0 -0.001 -0.169 -0.006 1 -0.048 0.003 -0.412 -0.031 0.075 -0.001 -0.318 -0.029 0.142 0.003 -0.284 -0.015 -0.032 -0.002 -0.224 -0.018 0.031 -0.001 -0.003 -0.001 2 0.026 0.009 -0.067 -0.013 0.026 -0.005 -0.002 -0.002 0.017 0.028 -0.06 -0.011 0.031 0.026 0.001 -0.006 0.042 0.026 0.019 0.001 3 0.029 0.003 -0.061 -0.009 0.029 0.03 -0.009 -0.005 -0.003 -0.021 -0.009 -0.006 0.012 -0.001 0.012 -0.003 0.037 -0.004 -0.271 -0.01 4 0.047 -0.009 -0.091 -0.008 0.114 0.002 0.018 -0.001 0.315 0.007 0.051 0.005 0.287 -0.003 -0.074 -0.005 ZN CD PB CR SANDY LOAM COLUMNS 0.023 0.004 0.05 0.004 7 0.023 0.013 0.014 -0.004 0.029 0.004 0.034 0.003 0.022 0.007 0.019 -0.003 96 97 Table 14 (cont’d.). 0.03 0.01 0.017 -0.003 0.072 0.015 0.063 0.001 8 0.032 0.009 0.044 0.008 0.028 0.016 0.012 0.008 0.009 0.016 0.018 0.005 0.009 0.033 0.007 0.005 0.21 0 -0.149 -0.005 9 0.432 -0.002 -0.07 -0.006 0.249 0 -0.065 -0.008 0.315 -0.001 -0.143 -0.003 0.258 0.002 -0.131 -0.005 10 0.113 0.001 -0.082 -0.004 -0.016 -0.001 -0.165 -0.008 -0.049 0.006 -0.116 -0.007 0.056 -0.001 -0.203 -0.02 -0.186 0.008 0.121 0.01 31 -0.071 0.005 -0.141 -0.004 0.054 -0.002 -0.068 -0.01 0.035 0.005 -0.034 0.002 -0.06 0.003 -0.287 -0.02 0.1 0.006 -0.12 -0.008 32 0.121 0.003 -0.14 -0.007 -0.176 -0.001 -0.23 -0.01 0.031 0 -0.236 -0.009 -0.009 -0.01 -0.11 -0.001 -0.09 0.002 0.075 0.011 33 -0.063 -0.007 0.013 0.012 -0.184 0.002 0.158 0.011 -0.111 -0.007 0.088 0.007 98 Table 14 (cont’d.). -0.018 -0.003 0.099 0.01 0.08 0.003 -0.368 -0.017 34 -0.011 0.001 -0.467 -0.035 -0.151 0.006 -0.389 -0.03 -0.105 -0.003 -0.292 -0.025 -0.052 0 -0.344 -0.02 -0.048 -0.003 -0.228 -0.009 35 -0.102 -0.005 -0.178 -0.01 -0.09 0.001 -0.005 -0.003 -0.069 0.004 -0.128 -0.006 0.157 0.014 -0.153 -0.014 0.164 0.007 -0.178 -0.018 36 0.157 0.01 0.126 0.001 0.137 0.014 -0.01 0.001 0.13 0.016 0.082 -0.007 0.258 0.006 0.068 -0.008 -0.108 0.005 0.083 0.001 41 -0.107 -0.02 0.106 -0.012 0.115 0.015 0.117 0.001 42 0.213 -0.026 -0.164 -0.01 0.204 -0.026 -0.38 -0.027 0.25 -0.026 -0.623 -0.045 0.124 -0.031 -0.519 -0.02 0.306 -0.009 -0.222 -0.003 43 0.217 -0.022 0.151 -0.001 0.146 -0.03 -0.486 -0.033 0.02 -0.034 -0.477 -0.024 0.182 -0.026 -1.079 -0.063 0.278 -0.006 0.558 0.036 44 99 Table 14 (cont’d.). 0.253 -0.023 -0.645 -0.045 0.281 -0.015 0.423 0.001 0.055 -0.012 0.206 -0.001 0.19 -0.017 0.304 0.002 0.256 0.013 1.552 0.061 45 0.149 -0.005 0.691 0.005 0.136 -0.002 0.399 0.003 0.076 -0.011 0.534 0.004 0.04 -0.013 0.388 0 0.018 0.005 1.943 0.069 46 -0.027 -0.005 0.668 0.01 0.034 -0.013 0.586 0.005 0.052 -0.006 0.559 0.01 0.064 -0.012 0.208 -0.007 0.105 0.011 -0.038 0 47 0.146 -0.003 0.136 -0.001 0.074 -0.002 -0.176 -0.006 0.072 0.006 0.118 0.006 0.188 0.009 0.1 0.002 0.068 0.011 0.403 0.013 48 0.159 0.003 0.297 0.013 0.027 -0.005 0.147 0.003 0.192 0 0.248 0.008 0.16 -0.002 0.205 0.009 ZN CD PB CR REPRESENTATIVE COLUMNS 0.09 0 -0.182 -0.004 13 -0.083 0.003 -0.37 -0.027 0.068 0.002 -0.425 -0.032 0.043 0.01 -0.428 -0.026 100 Table 14 (cont’d.). 0.139 -0.003 -0.202 -0.002 0.073 0.018 0.143 0.016 14 0.023 0.015 -0.032 -0.002 0.032 0.025 0.002 0.002 0.039 0.011 -0.025 -0.003 0.017 0.014 0.052 0.006 0.029 -0.003 0.326 0.046 15 -0.012 0 -0.046 0.001 0.054 —0.002 0.04 0.002 0.088 0.003 0.196 0.023 0.066 0.004 0.082 0.018 0.059 -0.002 0.375 0.043 16 0.139 0.004 0.298 0.023 -0.04 -0.006 -0.204 -0.002 -0.078 -0.001 -0.245 -0.023 -0.101 0.002 -0.14 -0.005 0.138 -0.003 4.307 0.141 17 -0.005 -0.018 0.956 0.004 0.025 -0.008 0.648 0.017 -0.075 -0.018 0.034 -0.006 0.433 -0.001 4.268 0.144 18 -0.043 -0.013 0.777 0.005 0.066 -0.022 0.278 -0.006 '0.133 -0.02 0.018 -0.014 0.074 -0.023 -0.013 -0.011 ZN 00 pa CR PEAT COLUMNS 0.025 -0.007 0.019 -0.008 19 ' 0.014 0.011 0.003 -0.003 0.011 -0.006 0.002 -0.009 101 Table 14 (cont’d.). 0.017 0.006 0.013 -0.003 0.024 -0.013 0.003 -0.008 -0.034 -0.009 -0.532 —0.037 20 0.094 -0.011 -0.478 -0.032 -0.052 -0.006 -0.537 -0.03 —0.135 -0.002 -0.534 -0.033 -0.095 -0.002 -0.397 -0.026 -0.038 0.007 -0.005 0.001 21 -0.11 0.008 -0.316 -0.016 0.006 -0.001 -0.248 -0.003 0.034 0.011 0.031 0.005 22 -0.127 0.003 -0.017 0 -0.121 0.003 0.108 0.01 -0.01 -0.003 0.043 0.005 -0.206 0 -0.141 -0.009 ZN co pa cs MUCK COLUMNS -0.123 -0.001 -0.106 0.003 25 -0.149 0.007 -0.206 -0.007 -0.145 0 -0.256 -0.015 0.001 0.001 -0.31 -0.013 -0.104 0.001 -0.099 -0.003 0.043 -0.01 0.129 0.005 26 0.032 -0.005 0.014 0.003 ' 0.016 -0.005 -0.024 0.003 0.037 -0.009 -0.043 -0.005 0.037 -0.009 -0.017 -0.002 -0.132 0.004 0.118 0.019 27 0.115 0.012 -0.272 -0.003 0.033 0.015 -0.229 -0.012 102 Table 14 (cont’d.). 0.093 0.012 -0.192 -0.007 -0.005 0.013 -0.151 -0.015 0.016 0.011 0.021 0.011 28 0.109 0.017 -0.071 0.005 0.042 0.016 0.159 0.016 0.193 0.008 -0.119 -0.007 0.012 0.008 0.054 0.006 Table 15. Other heavy metal concentrations associated with infiltration column tests and the filtration experiment. (ppm) (negative values indicate nondetectable levels) ZN 3- CD PB CR DESCRIPTION 0.053 -0.013 -0.059 -0.007 RUNOFF 8/20A 0.073 ”0.016 -0.071 -0.006 RUNOFF 8/20B 0.131 -0.006 -0.059 -0.006 RUNOFF 8/20C 0.031 -0.007 -0.016 0.004 DEIONIZED WATER 0.146 -0.003 -0.257 -0.022 DEIONIZED WATER 0.052 -0.021 -0.315 -0.016 RUNOFF 9/20 0.014 0.003 0.235 0.008 RUNOFF 10/26 -0.05 0.004 -0.118 0.007 RUNOFF 10/30 0.033 0.005 -0.083 0 FILTRATION INPUT -0.01 0.001 -0.3 -0.007 FILTRATE -0.14 0.003 -0.202 0.001 FILTRATE -0.03 0.222== -0.118 0.001 =FILTRATE 103 Table 16. Concentrations of heavy metals (Zn, Pb, Cd, and Cr) in the extractions of soils from various locations throughout the basin and from laboratory experiments. (ppm) SAMPLE ZN CD PB CR Description BLANK 0.213 0.003 0 0 8-15 WEIR 12.24 0.34 4.384 0.416 8-4 WEIR 11.236 0.164 4.312 0.436 BASIN 103 1.516 0.088 4.056 0.384 Topsoil in Basin BASIN 104 2.46 0.12 4.076 0.396 " 8-4 FILM ; 0.224 0.06 4.18 0.42 on basin ‘ surface 8-4 HIGH 1.8 0.088 4.212 0.448 topsoil (upper half) 8-4 LOW 2.376 0.156 4.288 0.444 topsoil (lower half) 8-4 CLAY 0.908 0.024 4.388 0.432 on filter cloth SC3A 15.06 0.432 4.056 0.42 sand SC9A 31.876 0.376 5.612 0.584 sandy loam SC15A 48.472 0.564 5.876 0.736 topsoil mix SC21A 14.22 0.216 4.1 0.424 sand/peat SC27A 17.532 0.32 4.204 0.44 sand/muck FILTRANT 39.69 1.01 3.58 0.39 from filtration test HIGH STD 50.666 4.969 4.916 4.999 ZN CD PB CR BLANK 2 0.085 0.001 0.027 0.005 105 2.416 0.04 3.352 0.464 sand 106 5.188 0.144 3.648 0.18 sandy loam 107 12.348 0.168 4.296 0.412 topsoil mix 108 2.176 0.084 3.32 0.432 ROADSIDE 22.544 0.284 3.912 0.504 104 Table 16 (cont’d.). 10-26WEIR 8.512 0.14 3.784 0.488 4T 1.508 0.096 3.208 0.408 topsoil (upper half) 5T 1.46 0.132 3.68 0.456 " 6T 1.584 0.176 3.656 0.448 " 6.94T 0.988 0.12 3.776 0.476 " 4B 2.404 0.14 3.632 0.476 topsoil (lower half) 5B 3.788 0.16 3.58 0.44 " 6B 1.44 0.176 3.516, 0.448 " 6.94B 0.964 0.12 3.6 0.476 " CL-1 1.392 0.088 3.792 0.496 clay on filter cloth CL-2 0.856 0.092 3.948 0.516 " CL-3 1.28 0.148 3.844 0.504 " CL-4 1.128 0.072 3.956 0.512 " SC1A 9.872 0.172 3.076 0.424 sand SC7A 71.592 0.86 8.644 0.9 sandy loam SC13A 44.9 0.588 4.352 0.648 topsoil mix SC19A 9.364 0.18 3.084 0.42 sand/peat SC25A 10.656 0.228 3.176 0.428 sand/muck SC17A 36.612 0.484 4.3 0.548 topsoil mix (Na added) SC18A 51.212 0.46 4.5 0.684 ” SC41A 104.952 1.08 25.908 0.592 sandy loam (Na added) SC42A 167.388 1.592 41.648 0.704 " SC43A 151.156 1.552 5.508 0.768 ” SC44A 73.748 0.7 3.744 0.408 " SC45A 167.3 1.2 6.392 0.848 " SC46A 199.008 1.12 15 1.092 " 105 Table 16 (cont’d.). SC47A 31.616 0.492 7.388 0.36 sandy loam (diw) SC48A 2.636 0.1 2.828 0.104 " l _—= Table 17. Particle size analysis of samples collected from various locations throughout the basin and from laboratory experiments. SAMPLE # % SAND % SILT % CLAY DESCRIPTION 101 88 2 10 SAND UNDERLAYER 102 77 3 20 WEIR 8/15 103 65 13 22 TOPSOIL IN BASIN 104 68 10 22 " 1 45 20 35 CLAY ON MAT 2 51 21 28 " FILM 5 29 66 on basin surface WEIR 90 2 8 LOW 72 11 17 TOPSOIL IN BASIN HIGH 70 12 18 " 105 92 3 5 SAND 106 79 6 15 SANDY LOAM 107 78 10 9 TOPSOIL MIX SC2-A 94.5 3.4 2.1 SAND SC4-A 97.5 2.5 0 " SC8-A 89 5.9 5.1 SANDY LOAM SC10-A 85.8 8.1 6.1 " SC14-A 76.3 16.6 7 TOPSOIL MIX SC16-A 76.9 17.1 6 " SCZO-A 96 3 1 PEAT SC22-A 98.9 1 0.1 " SC26-A 96.1 2.5 1 4 MUCK 106 Table 17 (cont’d.). SC28-A 98.7 1.3 0 MUCK 19 67 20 13 TOPSOIL 6/9 20 74 15 11 Topsoil (upper half) 21 68 19 13 " 22 64 22 14 " 13 75 14 11 " 24 74 15 11 Topsoil (lower half) 25 70 17 13 " 26 67 19 14. " 27 75 14 11 " 28 96 2 2 ROADSIDE 29 98 1 1 WEIR 10/26 30 25 50 25 CL1 clay on liner 31 56 25 19 CL2 clay on liner 32 53 29 18 CL3 clay on liner 33 36 38 26 CL4 clay on liner SU1 8 5 6 9 SAND UNDERLAYER SU2 87 5 8 " 9 7 WASHED SAND ll 107 Table 18. Salinity of collected runoff samples. Range of dcp = 0 < Na < 1000 ppm * values above range - dilute and rerun. Na 10X dilution true value 100x dilution (ppm) 1170 * 72 722 true value 1230 * 77 772 357 174 162 117 120 125 132 232 185 303 87 91 82 77 195 94 82 85 82 84 1292 * 84 837 76 130 108 Table 18 (cont’d.). 1315 * 89 886 %12466 * 1287 12872 92 9250 1655 * 111 1105 238 99 137 128 87 112 164 168 127 737 285 189 159 152 139 138 104 307 282 1300 * 89 888 357 595 400 292 200 222 109 Table 18 (Cont’d.). 85 83 80 78 243 145 130 108 149 454 208 193 126 1702 * 113 1129 519 417 751 920 395 500 422 222 2658 * 174 1742 runoff with Na added 33 runoff 10/21 14 runoff 10/26 '1 110 Table 19. Results of in-situ permeability measurements. May 11, Velocity-Head Permeameter - Soil Percolation Tests Site #1 Core Length Core (mm) Permeability Depth Comments Run# Size mm/hr mm 1 S 70 3.6 50 50 mm below surface layer 2 S 70 3.0 repeat 1 35 16.3 100 sandy texture (top 125 mm removed) May 17, 1989 Site #1 Core Length Core (mm) Permeability Depth Comments Run# Size mm/hr mm 1 S 56 1.8 37.5 removed top 37.5 mm 2 S 56 2.3 repeat 3 56 1.5 repeat 1 S 31 89.7 95 removed top 95 mm 2 S 31 67.8 (sand pocket) 3 S 31 55.9 repeat 4 S 31 42.7 repeat 5 S 31 62.5 repeat 1 S 38 3.6 133 removed top 133 mm 2 S 38 2.0 (under sand pocket) 3 38 3.3 repeat 4 38 3.0 repeat 1 44 2.5 190 removed top 190 mm Table 19 (cont’d.). 2 S 44 . repeat 3 S 44 . repeat 4 S 44 . repeat 1 S 47 . 230 removed top 230 mm this test was run 2.5 cm above the Enkamat liner Site #2 Core Length . Core (mm) Permeability Depth Comments Run# Size mm/hr mm 1 S 25 25.9 57 removed top 57 mm 2 25 9.4 repeat 3 25 24.6 repeat 1 25 2.8 190 removed top 190 mm 2 M 25 2.3 repeat 3 M 25 2.3 repeat 1 M 50 47.5 230 removed 230 mm and Enkamat 2 M 50 52.8 repeat (sand underlayer) Site #3 Core Length Core (mm) Permeability Depth Comments Run# Size mm/hr mm 1 S 25 0 230 ran core through Enkamat 2 S 50 0 90 removed top 90 mm 3 S 28 0 70 removed top 70 mm 4 S 25 0 114 removed top 114 mm 112 Table 19 (cont’d.). Site #4 Core Length Core (mm) Permeability Depth Comments Run# Size mm/hr mm 1 S 19 1.3 90 removed top 90 mm . 2 S 19 3.3 repeat 3 S 19 2.3 repeat 4 S 19 2.3 repeat 1 S 25 0 114 removed top 114 mm =m : APPENDIX B .Fm OEDHm mm .m>u:0 coflumunflamu .m. ensues 08— .5... .6: to £63 8_ O v—t Q llllllil llLLll l l 9H: \k L\ llLLll L l 98. n8 gdtml m>Loo COJDOLDJQOO 2.5595300 0&3... Seahorse Locomwom (3/1'“) 9108 0°13 113 .me @6535 m: .m>uso ceshmubwsmo .ep ensues .EE. )OJL CO .LDQOD 89 8L 2 e i l \\ .. 8. B O A \\ - 8 1 O A... \ U .. u\ m M \ 1 08. 8” \\ lllllll l ll Nu 5C1? 98L m>L30 COJDOLDJQOO CODDOLDJQOO OEJLL DOOWOLQ LOLOmem 114