v>EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Great Lakes National
Program Office
536 South Clark Street
Chicago, Illinois 60605
EPA-905/4-79-029-G
Volume 7
The IJC Menomonee
River Watershed Study
Groundwater Hydrology
Menomonee River
-------
FOREWORD
The Environmental Protection Agency was established to coordinate adminis-
tration of the major Federal programs designed to protect the quality of our
environment.
An important part of the Agency's effort involves the search for information
about environmental problems, management techniques, and new technologies
through which optimum use of the nation's land and water resources can be
assured and the threat pollution poses to the welfare of the American people
can be minimized.
The Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO) of the U.S. EPA, was
established in Region V, Chicago to provide a specific focus on the water
quality concerns of the Great Lakes. GLNPO also provides funding and
personnel support to the International Joint Commission activities under
the U.S.- Canada Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.
Several land use water quality studies have been funded to support the
pollution from Land Use Activities Reference Group (PLUARG) under the
Agreement to address specific objectives related to land use pollution to
the Great Lakes. This report describes some of the work supported by this
Office to carry out PLUARG study objectives.
We hope that the information and data contained herein will help planners
and managers of pollution control agencies make better decisions for
carrying forward their pollution control responsibilities.
Madonna F. McGrath
Director
Great Lakes National Program Office
-------
EPA-905/4-79-029-G
December 1979
Groundwater Hydrology
Volume 7
by
John G. Konrad
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Gordon Chesters
Wisconsin Water Resources Center
and
Kurt W. Bauer
Southeastern Wisconsin Regional
Planning Commission
for
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Chicago, Illinois
Grant Number R005142
Grant Officer
Ralph G. Christensen
This study funded by a Great Lakes Program grant from the U.S. EPA,
was conducted as part of the TASK C-Pilot Watershed Program for the
International Joint Commission's Reference Group on Pollution from
Land Use Activities.
Great Lakes National Program Office
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region V
536 South Clark Street, Room 932
Chicago, Illinois 60605
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Great Lakes National Program Office
of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region V Chicago, and approved
for publication. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not
constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
This report is a pre-print of a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Technical Report. The EPA publication is to receive preferential citation.
ii
-------
PREFACE
This report describing the groundwater impacts on the water quality in the
Menomonee River is divided into three parts to address project goals. In
Part I, the groundwater loading rates to the Menomonee River System are
quantified and the major contaminants carried to the river in groundwater are
identified as chlorides and sulfates. In Part II, the sources of groundwater
contamination in the Menomonee River Watershed are identified and the potential
hazard that each represents is assessed. Suggestions are given for identifying
the importance of these sources in other urban watersheds. In Part III, a
predictive tool in the form of a groundwater quality model is described and
tested using data from the Menomonee River watershed. The model is used to
gain insight into the probable response of a groundwater system to changes in
land use or management practices.
iii
-------
CONTENTS
Title Page i
Disclaimer ii
Preface ±±±
Contents iv
Acknowledgment v
*Part I - Field Data Quantifying Groundwater-Surface Water Interaction . I-i
*Part II - Potential Impacts from Land Use Activities Il-i
*Part III - Modeling and Extrapolation to Other Watersheds Ill-i
*Detailed contents are presented at the beginning of each part.
iv
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors wish to acknowledge the assistance of the personnel of the
Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission (SEWRPC), the Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS).
We would also like to thank J. Delfino and R. Schuknecht of the Wisconsin
State Laboratory of Hygiene, M. Vogt, Director of Public Works, Village of
Menomonee Falls, I. Heipel, Landscape Architect for the Milwaukee County Parks
Commission, G. Giuliani of the Village of Elm Grove, R. Maslowski of the Village
of Butler and L. Wolfgang of Mequon, for their help and cooperation.
v
-------
PART I
FIELD DATA QUANTIFYING GROUNDWATER
SURFACE WATER INTERACTION
by
C, E, EISEN
M. P, ANDERSON
I-i
-------
ABSTRACT
The research was a comprehensive study of the quantity and quality of
groundwater discharged into the Menomonee River System, southeastern Wisconsin.
The Menomonee River Watershed comprises three aquifer systems: the deep
artesian sandstone, the Niagara dolomite and the glacial aquifers. Groundwater
discharge into the river system is supplied mainly by the shallow glacial
aquifer, with only a minor component of discharge supplied by the dolomite
aquifer. During the 1 year study, groundwater was found to account for 45 to
65% of the non-event flow in the Menomonee River. Discharges from sewage
treatment plants and of industrial waste waters supplied the remainder of the
non-event flow.
Urbanization is speculated to have caused a significant change in the
hydrochemistry of the glacial aquifer as compared to the regional average for
eastern Wisconsin. Chloride and sulfate are the dominant ions in solution,
while the regional water quality is dominated by carbonates. Dissolved solids
increased as much as 100% with chloride and sulfate increasing by as much as
900% and 200% respectively, over regional averages. It was estimated that
groundwater accounts for 51 to 82% of the total chloride concentration found in
the base flow of the Menomonee River.
Inorganic nitrogen was found in concentrations of < 1 mg/L of N.
Relatively high concentrations of nitrate generally were found in the agricul-
tural portions of the watershed while ammonia was found in the urbanized
portion. Groundwater was estimated to supply from 12 to 24% of the base flow
loadings of inorganic nitrogen while the remainder was discharged from sewage
treatment plants. Phosphate was found in low concentrations in the ground-
water.
Heavy pumpage of the Niagara dolomite and glacial aquifers from wells near
the Menomonee River has caused certain reaches of the river to lose water to
the shallow aquifer. Approximately 2840 m3/d (0.75 mgd)* of stream flow is
lost to the groundwater system. Bacterial analyses of the groundwater in these
areas indicated severe fecal contamination. Dye tracer studies showed that
some—if not all—bacteria in the groundwater may be derived from leaky sewer
lines.
Although metals and other toxic chemicals were not found in significant
concentrations in the groundwater, the change in hydrochemistry from carbonate
to chloride/sulfate dominated waters indicates a deterioration in groundwater
quality. Chloride found in the shallow groundwater system is probably
^Millions of U.S. gallons/day.
I-ii
-------
produced from road salt runoff. Sulfate may arise from oxidation of
industrially-produced sulfides or from landfills bordering stream channels.
To date few base line data have been compiled for urban watersheds and the
data suggest the need for additional investigations.
I-iii
-------
CONTENTS - PART I
Title Page I-i
Abstract I-ii
Contents I-iv
Figures I-v
Tables I-vii
1-1. Introduction 1-1
1-2. Conclusions 1-3
1-3. Methods and Procedures 1-4
Hydrostratigraphy of the Glacial Aquifer System .... 1-4
Vertical variability map 1-4
Sand and gravel map 1-8
Stratigraphy near the Menomonee River 1-10
Hydraulic conductivities I-lO
Summary of hydrostratigraphic units 1-12
Procedures for Site Selection and Data Collection . . . 1-14
Observation wells 1-14
Monitoring schedule 1-16
Sample collection and preparation 1-16
Parameters 1-16
1-4. Results and Discussion 1-18
Groundwater-Surface Water Relationships 1-18
Groundwater flow patterns 1-18
Groundwater discharge to Menomonee River 1-24
Methods 1-24
Results 1-26
Losing reaches of the Menomonee River 1-32
Groundwater Quality and Loading Rates 1-35
Regional water quality 1-35
Water quality of glacial aquifer in the Menomonee
River Basin 1-37
Major anions and cations 1-37
Nutrients 1-47
Bacteriology of the groundwater 1-48
Metals 1-50
Groundwater loading rates to Menomonee River .... 1-50
Summary of groundwater quality 1-52
References 1-54
Bibliography 1-57
Appendices
I-A. Well Sites 1-58
I-B. Water Quality Data 1-61
I-iv
-------
FIGURES
Number
1-1
1-2
1-3
1-4
1-5
1-6
1-7
1-8
1-9
I- 10
1-11
1-12
1-13
1-14
1-15
1-16
1-17
Vertical variability map for the Menomonee River Basin ....
Sand and gravel percentage map of the Menomonee River Basin .
Theoretical flow patterns for local, intermediate and
Water table map of glacial aquifer - Winter 1976-1977 ....
Water table map of glacial aquifer — Spring 1976
Cross section of the southern portion of Basin showing
generalized groundwater flow patterns for the local flow
Comparison of groundwater discharge to Menomonee River System
with non-event flow of the River - Fall 1976
Comparison of groundwater discharge to Menomonee River System
with non-event flow of the River - Winter 1976-1977 ....
Comparison of groundwater discharge to Menomonee River System
with non-event flow of the River — Spring 1977
Comparison of groundwater discharge to Menomonee River System
Comparison of water quality of the glacial aquifer of the
Menomonee River Basin with the regional quality for the
Page
1-6
1-7
1-9
1-11
1-13
1-15
1-19
1-21
1-22
1-23
1-25
1-27
1-28
1-29
1-30
1-33
1-38
I-v
-------
Number Page
1-18 Observed versus predicted values for total dissolved solids
(TDS) 1-41
1-19 Trilinear plot of anion/cation ratios for local and regional
water quality 1-42
1-20 Map of seasonal ranges of chloride concentrations (mg/L) for
selected sites in Menomonee River Basin 1-44
1-21 Map of seasonal ranges of sulfate concentrations (mg/L) for
selected sites in Menomonee River Basin 1-45
1-22 Map of seasonal ranges of total dissolved solids (mg/L) for
selected sites in Menomonee River Basin 1-46
I-vi
-------
TABLES
Number Page
1-1 Water quality parameters 1-17
1-2 Summary of calculations of groundwater discharge to the
Menomonee River System (m /d) 1-31
1-3 Natural versus artificial sources of various chemical
constituents found in groundwater wells 1-36
1-4 Correlation coefficients for water quality data 1-40
1-5 Bacterial composition of water from selected test wells in
the Butler-Menomonee Falls area 1-49
1-6 Groundwater loadings 1-51
1-7 Comparison of groundwater (GW) loadings to base flow (SW)
loadings in the Menomonee River 1-53
I-A-1 Street locations of well sites 1-58
I-A-2 Location of wells, well construction and depth 1-59
I-A-3 Well logs 1-60
I-B-1 Groundwater quality data 1-61
I-B-2 Metal content of groundwater 1-66
I-B-3 Cation/anion percentages 1-67
I-B-4 Groundwater (GW) and surface water (SW) quality 1-68
I-vii
-------
1-1. INTRODUCTION
The goal of the International Joint Commission (IJC)-Pollution From Land
Use Activities Reference Group is to establish quantifiable relationships
between land use activities and pollutant loadings to the Great Lakes. To
accomplish this goal all aspects of pollutant transport must be analyzed in-
cluding direct effluent discharge, precipitation, surface runoff and ground-
water discharge.
The purpose of this portion of the study is to determine the amounts of
pollutants delivered to the Menomonee River by groundwater discharge. A
discussion of the effects of stream water infiltration into the shallow
groundwater system also is included.
The Menomonee River Watershed is part of the Milwaukee-Waukesha metropol-
itan area. It contains six major industrial districts and—in 1975—the>
population was about 337,000. More than 54% of the Watershed is devoted to
urban uses (1, pp. 30-39), while the northern portion of the Watershed is
primarily agricultural. In this area there are 49 animal operations, primarily
dairy cattle farms (1, p. 39).
The north-south and east-west interstate highway system passes through the
center of the watershed and the large network of arterial highways has
influenced the location of urban development in the basin. Ease of movement
and a < 30 minute travel time from outlying areas to downtown Milwaukee, has
promoted recent urban development. Land use forecasts predict a 12% increase
in urban land use by the year 2000 (1, p. 39).
The effects of urban and agricultural development on the water resources
of the watershed are significant. The potentiometric surface in the deep
sandstone aquifer, which provides the largest subsurface water supply for the
area, has experienced a 107m (350 ft) decline since 1880 (2). The USGS has
developed a digital computer model for the sandstone aquifer in southeastern
Wisconsin (3, p. 37). Values for the potentiometric surface in the confined
sandstone aquifer predicted by the model show that the aquifer will reach stable
water table conditions in Milwaukee by the year 2000. The water quality of the
aquifer has become increasingly saline in some areas (1, p. 303; 4).
The overlying Niagara dolomite aquifer also has been developed extensively.
Large cones of depression exist around wells pumping from the dolomite aquifer.
These cones of depression alter normal groundwater flow and subsequently
restrict groundwater discharge into the Menomonee River (1, p. 120; 2).
Pollution of the Niagara dolomite has become a major problem in southeastern
Wisconsin. Landfill leachate, septic tank effluent, and agricultural and
industrial discharges have been mentioned as pollution sources (1, p. 300; 2;
5).
1-1
-------
The shallow sand and gravel aquifer overlying the Niagara dolomite, is
most susceptible to contamination. After contaminants have entered the shallow
groundwater system they may move into the deeper bedrock aquifer or continue to
move within the shallow aquifer. To date, little analysis has been done on the
water quality of the shallow groundwater system.
The surface water quality of the watershed has been most affected by
human development. The Menomonee River contains high amounts of nutrients,
fecal coliform bacteria, zinc and lead (1, pp. 257-262; 6). Very low dissolved
oxygen levels have been recorded throughout the watershed and are indicative
of organic pollution of the surface waters (1, p. 258).
1-2
-------
1-2. CONCLUSIONS
a. In general, the local groundwater flow system is thought to be confin-
ed to the shallow glacial aquifer. Therefore, the quality of the groundwater
discharged into the Menomonee River System is controlled by the quality of
water in the glacial aquifer with little impact exerted from the underlying
Niagara dolomite. The fine-grained material comprising the glacial aquifer
combined with low recharge rates produces slow movement of groundwater, i.e.,
velocities of < 4 m/day.
b. Groundwater discharge to the Menomonee River System accounted for 45
to 65% of the non-event flow. Discharges from the three sewage treatment
plants and industrial waste waters supply the remainder of the non-event flow.
Most of the groundwater discharge to the river occurs along the lower Menomonee
River, in the heavily urbanized portion of the Watershed.
c. About 4.8 km (3 miles) of the Menomonee River was losing water to
the groundwater system at a rate of 2840 m3/d (0.75 mgd). These losing reaches
also receive discharges from sewage treatment plants causing degradation of
surface water quality. Furthermore, little groundwater discharge occurs to
dilute these nutrient-rich waters. Although water quality data indicated that
the infiltrating surface water was not polluting groundwater, high numbers of
fecal bacteria were- found in the groundwater. Dye studies showed that leaky
sewer lines could supply some bacteria to the groundwater.
d. The shallow groundwater system possesses low concentrations of nutri-
ents and toxic metals, but high concentrations of chloride and sulfate. The
concentrations of chloride and sulfate in the groundwater increased up to 900
and 200% respectively, above regional averages; causes likely are related to
urban and industrial land use practices.
e. Groundwater discharge supplied 51 to 82% of the chloride and 12 to 24%
of the inorganic nitrogen found during base flow conditions. A high probabil-
ity exists that groundwater in other urban watersheds also discharges large
amounts of chloride into streams in the Lake Michigan Basin and the combined
effect may cause deterioration of the Lake's water quality.
Discharges from sewage treatment plants were found to supply most of the
nutrients to non-event flow. The relatively small input of nutrients from
groundwater is probably related to the small number of nutrient sources within
the basin.
1-3
-------
1-3. METHODS AND PROCEDURES
Hydro stratigraphy of the Glacial Aquifer System
The glacial and alluvial deposits in the watershed are discontinuous in
lateral and vertical extent. Therefore, measurement of the elevation of the
potentiometric surface and hydraulic characteristics at the 14 well sites in
the watershed, offers only a general insight into the nature of the shallow
groundwater flow system. Information obtained from well borings at these
sites, (Appendix I-A-1), was inadequate to characterize the aquifer for the
purpose of this study and several other methods were used to describe the
hydro stratigraphy of the Basin:
a. Construction of a vertical variability map of the glacial deposits
in the basin.
b. Construction of a sand and gravel percentage map for the watershed.
c. Determination of the stratigraphy near the Menomonee River and below
its stream bed through the use of additional well logs and drill
borings at sites along the Menomonee River.
d. Laboratory and field determination of the hydraulic characteristics
of the glacial deposits and stream bed material at selected sites.
Vertical variability map
Vertical variability maps give the areal distribution of sand and gravel
units and an indication of the depth of sand and gravel units in the subsurface.
The mapping procedure involves the calculation of the weighted mean depth of
sand and gravel deposits in a vertical stratigraphic section and the distribu-
tion of these units about the mean. Knowledge of the vertical location and
density of sand and gravel deposits in the Watershed is important because:
a. The hydraulic conductivity of sand and gravel is 10 to 100 times
greater than clay or till deposits (7, p. 53). Therefore, those
regions where thick layers of sand and gravel exist can provide
significant groundwater discharge to the river.
b. The minerals comprising sand and gravel deposits (CaCOs and SiOa) are
relatively inert, and have poor adsorptive capabilities for such
pollutants as phosphate or metals.
1-4
-------
c. Pollutants can readily enter permeable deposits located close to
the ground surface.
The method of mapping vertical variability in sediments was first
developed by Krumbein and Libby (8) and was used successfully in mapping
unconsolidated materials in Nevada (9) and Illinois (10). The method entails
calculation of the statistical moments of the position of permeable units
within a vertical section. The first moment is the center of gravity, or the
weighted mean position of sand and gravel deposits calculated from the thick-
ness and vertical location of these units. The second moment is the standard
deviation which describes the distribution of the deposits around the center
of gravity. The results of this analysis indicate the extent of permeable
material in a section of the subsurface and show whether the material is
distributed widely in the section or clustered about its mean depth. For
example, a low center of gravity indicates that the sand and gravel is located
at the bottom of the section and a low standard deviation indicates that the
material is clustered about the center of gravity.
Stratigraphic information needed in the construction of a vertical
variability map for the Menomonee River Basin was taken from well logs obtain-
ed during installation of observation wells, highway bridge logs obtained from
the Wisconsin Department of Transportation and drillers schedules obtained
from the U.S. Geological Survey. Over 200 logs were used in the compilation.
Dominico and Stephenson (9) and Stephenson (10) analyzed vertical sections of
30 m (100 ft) relative to sea level. This method was not used in the present
study because the glacial deposits slope steeply downward to the river and are
often < 30 m thick. Thus, a 23 m (75 ft) vertical section was analyzed from
the water table downward.
The method used for the calculation of the center of gravity and standard
deviation is shown in Fig. 1-1. Sand and gravel deposits located within the
23 m section under study were classified as having low, medium or high centers
of gravity, corresponding to depths of 7.6, 15.2, or 22.9 m (25, 50 or 75 ft)
below the surface. The standard deviation was characterized as low or high
and should be interpreted as representing a distribution of < or > 7.6 m
(25 ft) about the center of gravity. The compilation and extrapolation of
these data were facilitated by the use of the computer program—Geographical
Resource Analysis Software Package (GRASP). Well data were inputted to GRASP
and located in 0.65 km2 (0.25 mi ) cell sizes. These data were then error
checked and weighted before final compilation. Vertical sections which
contained no sand and gravel were so identified while localities where depth
to bedrock was < 15.2 m (50 ft) were designated as areas with shallow bedrock.
In most of these sections bedrock is found from 3 to 6 m (10 to 20 ft) beneath
the surface. The few areas in which bedrock is found from 15.2 to 22.9 m
(50 to 75 ft) have no sand and gravel in the lower section and are described
as having high or medium centers of gravity.
The results of the analysis are shown in Fig. 1-2. The vertical vari-
ability map shows that shallow bedrock exists throughout the northern part
of the Watershed. Thick clay and/or clay till deposits are found east of the
Menomonee River and cover most of the area of the Watershed located in
Milwaukee County. Sand and gravel deposits located in northeastern Waukesha
County and in northwestern Milwaukee County are generally located from
1-5
-------
1.2
0.3
1.2
1.8
1.8
4.3
SfXtft
iaSK!
JS*?.«3
*««
oo
tfl
W
O
(U
4J
OJ
o
h = Distance from top of column to the middle
of any sand unit
t = thickness of sand unit in terms of the
distance h
Center of gravity B/A
335
31.6
POP
Relative center of gravity = ~"ITJ — ~ x 100 =
100 x
= 73.5%
C - (B2/A)
Approximate variance = - - - - = 100.1
Xl
Approximate standard deviation = /a. v. = 10
Relative standard deviation =
ap. std. dev.
tot. thickness
12
43
= x 10Q = 23%
Fig. 1-1. Calculation by the vertical variability method.
Stephenson (10) after Krumbein and Libby (8).
Taken from
1-6
-------
Fig. 1-2. Vertical variability map
for the Menomonee River Basin.
1-7
-------
percentages are highest in the Elm Grove area, but thin to < 20% along the
Menomonee River.
Stratigraphy near the Menomonee River
Examination of well logs along the Menomonee River (12) indicates that—
in the headwater area—the river flows on or near bedrock. In the middle
section the river flows mainly on clay and clayey till deposits and bedrock
is found up to 22.9 m (75 ft) below the riverbed. The lower section indicates
that the flow of the river is again on bedrock for a few kilometers after
which the riverbed is situated on shallow sand and gravel deposits.
It is important to note that the unconsolidated aquifer is fairly thin
along most of the river profile. Bedrock exists at or near the surface along
29 km (18 mi) of the 45 km (28 mi) of the river that is shown in the cross
section. This thinning of unconsolidated material along the river has a
marked effect on the groundwater flow patterns in the sand and gravel aquifer.
The effect is to produce a wedge-shaped sand and gravel aquifer where the
upland recharge areas have substantially thicker glacial deposits than the
discharge areas along the river.
Most of the segments along the river where bedrock is not close to the
surface are underlain by lacustrine clay and clayey till and the materials are
of low permeability. Therefore, the hydraulic connection between surface and
groundwater along these reaches of the stream is poor.
Hydraulic conductivities
Hydraulic conductivities of the glacial material in the Basin were
determined from slug tests and grain size analyses. Augered samples from 14
borings at 10 well sites and seven hand augered samples from streambed material
were used in the determination of hydraulic conductivity from grain size. Slug
test determinations of hydraulic conductivity were completed at seven well
sites.
The procedure used to determine hydraulic conductivity from grain size
analysis was developed by Masch and Denny (13). The method involved determina-
tion of the ranges, medians and standard deviations of grain sizes in a sample.
The distribution about the median grain size has a major effect on the data.
Samples which contain a wide range of particle sizes have a significantly
smaller hydraulic conductivity than samples with a similar median grain size,
but lower standard deviation and range.
The results obtained from the study are shown in Fig. 1-4. Most of the
samples were poorly sorted explaining the low hydraulic conductivities. The
highest hydraulic conductivities were for streambed materials ranging from
1.6 to 57.0 m/d (40 to 1400 gpd/ft2) with the average being 6.6 m/d (160
gpd/ft2). The streambed material is fairly well sorted explaining the
relatively high permeability values.
1-10
-------
10 11 59 1 7 2
•
10
0
• •• • • I » ••
SB 1 9 SB 5 5 12 62
1 1 1
12 4
Meters /Day
• •
3 SB
1
8
• • 140O— '
SB 13 SB
1
20
-"•v*.
1
40
Fig. 1-4. Hydraulic conductivities of the glacial deposits where SB is streambed material
and numbers represent well sites.
-------
Hydraulic conductivity estimates obtained from the sand and gravel
deposits in the Basin ranged from 3.5 to 13.5 m/d (85 to 330 gpd/ft2) with an
average of 4.5 m/d (110 gpd/ft2). Poor sorting of the deposits probably was
responsible for the low values. Thick gravel units that are denoted in high
capacity well logs for Waukesha County are situated deeper than the samples
used in this analysis. These deep gravel layers may have much higher hydraulic
conductivities, 40 to 410 m/d (103 to lO4 gpd/ft2) and substantially add to the
overall permeability and water resources of Waukesha County.
The hydraulic conductivities of glacial till and clay were found to range
from 0.4 to 2.7 m/d (10 to 65 gpd/ft2) with an average value of 1.6 m/d
(40 gpd/ft2) which falls into the range expected for materials of this type
(7, p. 53).
Slug tests were performed on a number of observation wells and data were
analyzed by the technique of Bower and Rice (14). A slug test involves the
rapid withdrawal of a slug of water and measurement of the rate of water level
rise back to equilibrium. The method of analysis given by Bower and Rice (14)
is designed for wells which partially penetrate the aquifer, as did all of the
test wells. Water levels in wells situated in sand units rose too rapidly for
measurement.
The results of the slug test analyses are shown in Fig. 1-4. Values range
from 0.4 to 2.7 m/d (9 to 65 gpd/ft2). Most results correlate well with
results obtained from grain size analysis.
Summary of hydrostratigraphic units
For the purposes of this study, the Watershed was divided into five sec-
tions of similar hydrostratigraphy, i.e., in each section the shallow aquifer
is of similar thickness and hydraulic conductivity (Fig. 1-5).
The far northwestern part of the Watershed, centered around the Menomonee
River north of W6 at Pilgrim Road, is an area of shallow bedrock covered by a
thin veneer of glacial till. The Menomonee River flows almost exclusively on
bedrock. The sand and gravel aquifer in this area is virtually nonexistent and
groundwater seepage rates are controlled by the hydraulic properties of the
bedrock. Because of the shallow bedrock in this area it was impossible to
install observation wells and few water table data were taken.
The Little Menomonee River watershed contains few sand and gravel deposits.
Most of the area is overlain by clay and clayey till deposits. Shallow bedrock
occurs in the headwaters and near the mouth of the Little Menomonee River. The
average hydraulic conductivity for the area is about 1.6 m/d (40 gpd/ft2).
Surrounding the next reach of the Menomonee River, from W6 at Pilgrim Road
to Wl at 124th Street in Butler, the glacial aquifer consists of material of
relatively low hydraulic conductivity with somewhat extensive sand and gravel
lenses buried beneath the river for approximately two-thirds of the reach. The
glacial aquifer is substantially thicker along the river, but lacustrian clays
and clayey tills which overlie the sand deposits result in poor hydraulic
1-12
-------
K= I.Om/d
K = 0.8m/d
K=l.6m/d
K = l.2m/d
K=4.5m/d
K=2.4m/d
I i I
4 KM
Fig. 1-15. Hydraulic conductivity (K) of glacial aquifer except
for the northernmost portion of the Watershed where K is
controlled by bedrock characteristics.
1-13
-------
connection between groundwater and surface flow. The average hydraulic conduc-
tivity of the materials in this area is 2.5 m/d (60 gpd/ft2).
The glacial aquifer in the Lower Menomonee River Basin downstream of
Butler can be separated into two areas, with the Menomonee River as the divid-
ing line. The sand and gravel deposits which exist on the west side of the
river have an average hydraulic conductivity of 4.5 m/d (110 gpd/ft2). The
eastern portion of the Basin contains thick clay and clayey till deposits with
no sand and/or gravel deposits. Average hydraulic conductivities for this
area are 1.2 m/d (30 gpd/ft2).
Procedures for Site Selection and Data Collection
Observation wells
In July of 1976, permission was obtained to install observation wells at
16 sites in the Watershed. Since much of the Watershed is residential and/or
industrial, most of the sites were located in village or county parks. Wher-
ever possible, well sites were located near U.S. Geological Survey-Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources surface water monitoring stations to allow
comparison of the quality of surface and groundwater. In August 1976, 38
observation wells were drilled at 14 sites. Two of the proposed sites were
abandoned because of shallow bedrock. Fig. 1-6 shows the general location of
well sites and the number of wells at each site. Appendix I-A-1 contains the
street locations of the well sites.
Thirteen of the well sites were located in recharge (upland) areas or
along tributary streams and were selected for the study of groundwater flow
patterns in the Basin and for the study of water quality of the upland areas.
Twenty-five of the wells were located along the main reaches of the Menomonee
and Little Menomonee Rivers and were used to study the groundwater quality
from recharge to discharge areas. Wherever possible, piezometer nests were
installed on each side of the river and in upland areas.
Four of the well sites were located in areas where it was suspected that
surface water was infiltrating into the groundwater as identified by cones of
depression near the river. These sites (Wl, W6, W8 and W13) were used to
identify the nature of surface contaminants moving into the groundwater and
to measure rates of induced infiltration. Two of the sites (Wl and W6) were
equipped with Leopold and Stevens water-level recorders and Peabody and Ryan
thermographs. The continuous monitoring instruments were installed to record
short term changes in water levels and temperatures to estimate rates of
induced infiltration.
The observation wells used were 3.18 cm (1.25 in) in diameter and finish-
ed with plastic well points 30 cm (1 ft) in length. Approximately half of the
wells were constructed of polyvinyl chloride plastic pipe and the remainder
were constructed of galvanized pipe. Shallow wells were located approximately
2 m (6.5 ft) beneath the water table and varied from 2.8 to 9.5 m (9 to 31 ft)
in length; deep wells were up to 16 m (52 ft) in length. Appendix I-A lists
the location and depth of the wells, the well logs, and the general land use
surrounding each site.
1-14
-------
N
W9
1 WELL
W10
1 WELL
W5
4 WELLS
Wll
2 WELLS
Wl
4 WELLS
W13'
4 WELLS
Scale
I I I I
0 Km 3
Fig. 1-6. Location of observation wells.
1-15
-------
Monitoring schedule
Due to time and other constraints it was considered optimum for ground-
water levels and water quality samples to be obtained monthly for 13 months,
from September 1976 to September 1977. Because of uncontrollable scheduling
problems water quality samples were analyzed for only 10 monthly periods.
The 13 month period of time was considered the minimum length that could
reasonably be used to assess the seasonal variation in quality of the shallow
groundwater and to analyze the interactions of groundwater and surface water.
It should be recognized that the 1 year study only offers the opportunity for
a relatively short term analysis of the shallow groundwater system and may
result in biases due to short term changes in climate and current land use
practices.
Sample collection and preparation
Water samples obtained from the observation wells were removed by bailing
or by lowering tygon tubing into the well and applying a vacuum. The vacuum
supplied for the system was produced by a bicycle pump with an inverted
diaphragm. Although the method does not allow water to be pumped at the rate
of a conventional pump, it does enable the collection of water samples that
are relatively undisturbed in the sense that they are not exposed to oxygen.
Contact with the atmosphere also may cause a change in concentration of such
dissolved gases as ammonia or carbon dioxide. Thus, this vacuum system offer-
ed the best method of obtaining a sample exhibiting the true properties of the
groundwater.
Samples were kept chilled at all times and were filtered within 24 hr
after sampling. Because of the large amount of sediment in the samples, the
water was filtered with Whatman 42 filter paper, rather than Millipore filters.
Water samples for toxic metal analysis were acidified to pH 1 with nitric acid>
and stored in acid washed plastic bottles. Analyses of the nutrients and
alkalinity were completed within 48 hr after sampling and analysis of the
major cations was performed for two sampling periods.
Parameters
The physical, chemical and biological parameters measured are listed in
Table 1-1. The major cations and anions were analyzed to characterize the
general groundwater quality in the Basin. Nutrients were analyzed to identify
the effects of fertilizer application and septic tank effluent on groundwater
quality. Toxic metal concentrations were measured to detect any deterioration
of groundwater quality caused by industrial discharges or automobile exhausts.
Bacterial analyses were performed to identify any biological contamination in
the shallow groundwater system.
1-16
-------
Table 1-1. Water quality parameters*
Parameters
Chemical
Specific conductance (11)** Total dissolved solids (8) pH (11)
Calcium (2) Magnesium (2) Sodium (2) Potassium (2) Chloride (9)
Sulfate (9) Nitrate (9) Ammonia (9) Total dissolved phosphate (9)
Alkalinity (9) Lead (2) Copper (2) Zinc (2) Cadmium (2)
Physical
Temperature (12)* Water level (12)*
Biological
Total coliforms (2) Fecal coliform (1) Fecal streptococci (1)
*Numbers in parentheses indicate number of months for which data
are available.
**Signifies on-site measurements.
1-17
-------
1-4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Groundwater-Surface Water Relationships
Groundwater flow patterns
According to Toth (15), groundwater flow systems can be divided ideally
into three types: local, intermediate and regional. A local flow system has
its recharge area in a topographic high and its discharge area in an adjacent
topographic low. The intermediate flow system is viewed as having recharge
and discharge areas that are not in adjacent topographic highs and lows. The
discharge area for an intermediate flow system may be in a topographic low
which is several sub-basins down gradient from its principal recharge area.
A groundwater system which is considered regional has its recharge area in
the regional topographic high, while its discharge area occupies the topograph-
ic low for the basin. Fig. 1-7 shows theoretical local, intermediate and
regional flow systems.
Toth (15) viewed these flow systems as having well-defined boundaries that
theoretically identify changes in flow patterns, water quality and relative
rate of groundwater movement. In a basin with only one aquifer medium, a
local flow system would have a higher recharge rate than the regional flow
system. The flow paths of the groundwater in a local flow system also would
be shorter and steeper than in a regional system. Ideally this would produce
faster movement of groundwater in a local flow system, with water quality that
is quite different from that in the regional system. In regional flow systems
groundwater moves slower and over a longer path length. Thus, groundwater mov-
ing through a regional flow system typically has higher concentrations of
dissolved ions (16), than groundwater moving through a local flow system.
The depths at which the boundaries between flow systems develop are
dependent upon a number of geomorphological factors. The computer simulations
of Toth (15) indicate the development, in intensity and depth of local flow
systems to be related directly to increased local topographic relief and
related inversely to increased regional slope. Strong regional flow systems
developed where local relief was negligible and where the ratio of total
aquifer thickness to local relief was high. A weak local flow system will
have only a portion of the total aquifer contributing discharge to that sub-
basin. Moreover, a strong local flow system has most or all of the aquifer
discharging into that sub-basin.
The Toth (15) hypothesis of flow systems can be used to describe the
groundwater flow patterns for southeastern Wisconsin. The regional groundwater
1-18
-------
Relief Direction of flow Local flow system
ocal flow system
Local flow
Intermediate flow system
Regional flow system
6,100 m
Fig. 1-7. Theoretical patterns for local, intermediate and regional flow systems. Adapted from Toth (15)
-------
system is comprised of the Wisconsin-Lake Michigan Basin (17). The major
shallow aquifer system in this basin is the Niagara dolomite. The general
groundwater flow is eastward. The region is composed of three sub-basins:
Fox, Menomonee and Milwaukee Watersheds. As mentioned previously, the
topography of these Basins reflects the effects of recent glaciation, which
produced upland areas comprised mostly of morainal deposits. The regional
topographic slope, from the Niagara escarpment to Lake Michigan averages 6%
(17). The average slope of the morainal deposits in the Menomonee River
Basin is < 5% (1).
As the Toth (15) model predicted, a basin with subdued local relief produc-
ed a strong regional flow system. The potentiometric surface in the Niagara
dolomite shows that the regional flow is to the east with almost no inflection
of groundwater movement towards the Menomonee River. This pattern differs from
that of the local flow system.
Seasonal water table maps of the glacial aquifer are shown in Figs. 1-8
to 1-10. The maps were constructed from water table elevations measured in
the observation wells and other water table information obtained from the U.S.
Geological Survey. One major difference in the groundwater flow patterns in
the glacial aquifer system is the westward movement of the groundwater in the
eastern half of the Basin. In the recharge area in the eastern part of the
Menomonee River Basin, water table elevations are 8 to 12 m (26 to 40 ft)
higher than elevations measured in the Niagara aquifer. Another difference is
the strong southern inflection of groundwater movement near the Menomonee
River in the lower half of the Basin. The inflection is caused by the slope of
the river channel averaging 6% while the Basin's flanks slope at approximately
5%, therefore adding a third dimension to the movement of the groundwater.
While water table information in the Basin indicates the development of a
local flow system, further investigation indicates that the system is confined
largely to the glacial aquifer and does not involve much interaction with the
Niagara dolomite.
Negligible vertical gradients were measured in nested piezometers along
discharge reaches near the Menomonee River. Groundwater temperatures in these
wells were 3° to 5° C warmer in summer months and 2° to 3° C colder in winter
months than groundwater temperatures in the Niagara as indicated on U.S.
Geological Survey well longs. Thus, no major upwelling of water from the
underlying Niagara dolomite occurs and most of the groundwater flows horizon-
tally into the river.
Observation wells (sites 3 and 13) located in the glacial aquifer of up-
land areas and near large cones of depression in the Niagara dolomite were
found to have water level elevations of 9 to 12 m (30 to 40 ft) higher than in
the dolomite. Measurements of heads in nested piezometers at these sites
indicated that the cones of depression had only a minor effect on the local
flow system, indicating that a rather poor hydraulic connection exists between
the two aquifers.
The local flow system in the Menomonee River Basin is viewed as being
semi-wedge shaped. The maximum height of the wedge is taken to be the vertical
thickness of the saturated aquifer at the basin boundaries down to the river
1-20
-------
t
N
Scale
l I I I
0 3
Km
Fig. 1-8. Watertable of glacial aquifer —Fall 1976.
represent losing reaches of Menomonee River System.
Shaded areas
1-21
-------
1
N
Scale
I I
Km
Fig. 1-9. Watertable map of glacial aquifer —Winter 1976-77.
Shaded areas represent losing reaches of Menomonee River System.
1-22
-------
t
N
Scale
I I I I
0 3
Km
Fig. 1-10. Watertable map of glacial aquifer — Spring 1977.
Shaded areas represent losing reaches of Menomonee River System.
1-23
-------
elevation. The effect is most pronounced in the southern half of the water-
shed, as shown in Fig. 1-11, where glacial deposits are thickest in the upland
areas and thin rapidly towards the river. This flow pattern agrees with the
findings of Freeze and Witherspoon (18) for a two aquifer system.
The northern portion of the Watershed has less relief and generally
shallower bedrock. Therefore, the groundwater flow pattern generally follows
that of the regional flow system and the groundwater discharge into the river
is decreased.
Groundwater discharge to Menomonee River
Methods
Groundwater discharge into the Menomonee River System was calculated in
two ways. The first method involved the subtraction of all major wastewater
discharge from stream discharges during non-event periods. The second method
used Darcy's Law:
Q = K(AH/Al)A
where Q is defined as the discharge of water occurring across a
cross-section of aquifer (A), in gallons per day (gpd), or
cubic meters per day (m3/d), K is hydraulic conductivity in
units of gpd/ft2 or m/d; Ah/Al is the hydraulic gradient,
A is the cross-sectional area of the aquifer, perpendicular
to the flow through which Q is measured.
Surface water discharges were obtained from the U.S. Geological Survey.
The reaches of the Menomonee River for which surface flows were measured are:
a. Germantown (Hwy F) to Menomonee Falls (Pilgrim Road); b. Menomonee Falls
to Butler (124th Street); c. Butler to Wauwatosa (70th Street). Flow measure-
ments were also obtained for one reach of the Little Menomonee River, from
Donges Bay Road to Appleton Avenue. Wastewater discharge rates were obtained
from the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources and the Municipalities of
Germantown, Menomonee Falls and Butler. The subtraction of wastewater dis-
charges from non-event surface flow allows an estimation of true base flow, or
the groundwater input into the river. This technique offers the most accurate
way to estimate the groundwater component of stream flow. Stage-discharge
relationships for some reaches of the Menomonee River System have been develop-
ed for over 10 years and non-event discharges are measured accurately.
The estimation of the groundwater component of stream flow using Darcy's
Law is less accurate because of the general lack of homogeneity of the aquifer
and the relatively short time period for which the groundwater-surface water
relationships were investigated. While the technique is less quantitative it
provides a better understanding of the groundwater flow paths and relationships
between land use and quality of groundwater discharged into the river system.
Test wells in a specified locality give a better indication of groundwater
quality than adjacent surface waters, since industrial and municipal discharges
alter quality of the true baseflow.
1-24
-------
Dolomite
Glacial
deposits
180
6
Km
10
11
Fig. I-11. Cross section of the southern portion of Basin showing generalized
groundwater flow patterns for the local flow system.
-------
Using Darcy's Law, the groundwater discharge to the Menomonee River
System was estimated for the same reaches as the first method. The hydraulic
gradients (Ah/Al) were estimated from the slope of the water table between the
selected reaches of the Menomonee River as shown in Figs. 1-8 to 1-10. The
hydraulic conductivity (K) of the glacial aquifer was determined from slug
tests and grain-size analyses. Extrapolation of permeability for surrounding
areas was facilitated through the use of the Sand and Gravel Percentage and
Vertical Variability Maps for the Basin (Figs. 1-2 and 1-3). The cross-
sectional area (A) of aquifer contributing to stream discharge was determined
by computing the average thickness of the saturated glacial aquifer wedge
between the respective reaches of the stream multiplied by the length of the
reach receiving groundwater discharge.
All discharges to the river were considered to arise from lateral move-
ment of the groundwater; underflow was assumed to be negligible. Rates of
surface water movement to groundwater for losing reaches of the river system
were estimated using other methods which are discussed later.
Results
Seasonal estimates of groundwater discharge to the river system are shown
in Figs. 1-12 to 1-15. The figures compare groundwater input to average
seasonal non-event flow for the Menomonee River. The figures also show
relative increases of groundwater and non-event surface water discharges for
selected reaches of the Menomonee and Little Menomonee Rivers. The groundwater
discharge rates are averages of two methods. In most cases the two methods
produced variability of < 20%. Calculated results for each analysis are shown
in Table 1-2. Because of the inability to obtain groundwater data for the
Menomonee River below 70th St., no estimates of groundwater discharges were
obtained for this area.
Groundwater discharge to the Menomonee River System accounted for 50% of
the non-event flow for the fall of 1976, 65% of the non-event flow during the
winter of 1976-1977, 45% of the non-event flow for the spring of 1977 and 55%
of the non-event flow for the summer of 1977. While spring groundwater
discharges comprise the lowest percentage of stream base flow, the rate of
groundwater discharge for spring of 1977, was almost twice as high as any
other season. The daily discharge rate was 26,000 m3/d (6.9 mgd) during the
fall of 1976, 16,250 m3/d (4.3 mgd) for the winter of 1976-1977, 53,000 m3/d
(14.0 mgd) for the spring of 1977 and 41,600 m3/d (11.0 mgd) for the summer
of 1977.
The largest groundwater input to the river system occurs along the Lower
Menomonee River. The reach from the confluence of the Menomonee and Little
Menomonee River to 70th St. accounted for 50 to 65% of the total groundwater
contribution to the river. This region of the Watershed was found to have the
steepest water table gradients and the most permeable aquifer material explain-
ing the large increase in groundwater discharge shown on Figs. 1-12 to 1-15.
The smallest input rate occurred along the reach of the Menomonee River
between Pilgrim Road and Butler. Approximately 5 km of this 8.9 km reach of
river was losing water to the groundwater system. This reach of stream
receives discharges from two municipal wastewater treatment plants accounting
1-26
-------
§
56 _
48 -
40 _
32 H
24 _
16 -
8 -
•M
o
Surface flow
combined
Groundwater
combined
Groundwater Menomonee River
* Surface and groundwater
L. Menomonee
River
I I I I T I I I I
4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36
Kilometers downstream from headwaters
Fig. 1-12. Comparison of groundwater discharge to Menomonee River System with non-event
flow of the River - Fall 1976.
-------
V
OO
CO
O
§
44-
40-
32-
24-
16'
8-H
Surface flow
combined
Groundwater
combined
TGroundwater Menomonee River
Surface and groundwater L. Menomonee River
T I I I
12 16 20 24 28
Kilometers downstream from headwaters
r
32
I
36
Fig. 1-13. Comparison of groundwater discharge to Menomonee River System with non-event
flow of the River - Winter 1976-77.
-------
NJ
VO
100-
80-
°£> 60
oo
a
40
20-
1/1
combined
. Surface flow
Menomonee River
flow
Groundwater
combined
Groundwater Menomonee River
Surface and groundwater L. Menomonee
River
I
12 16 20 24 28
Kilometers downstream from headwaters
32
36
Fig. 1-14. Comparison of groundwater discharge to Menomonee River System to non-event
flow of the River - Spring 1977.
-------
I
OJ
o
ioo-
80
m
O
CO
S
§
60-
40-
20-
urface flow
combined
Groundwater
combined
Surface flow Menomonee River
' Surface and groundwater L. Menomonee
River
12 16 20 24
Kilometers downstream from headwaters
Fig. 1-15. Comparison of groundwater discharge to Menomonee River System to non-event
flow of the River - Summer 1977.
-------
Table 1-2. Summary of calculations of groundwater discharge to the
Menomonee River System (m3/d)
Fall 1976 Winter 1976/77 Spring 1977 Summer 1977
Reach A B A B A A B
Germantown
to Pilgrim Rd. 4,660 4,660 4,430 4,430 10,200 8,000 8,000
Pilgrim Rd. to
Butler 1,400 480 800 340 5,800 630 520
Donges Bay to
Appleton Ave. 1,800 2,400 1,780 1,850 8,200 5,000 7,500
Butler to
70th St. 15,500 17,500 8,640 9,960 29,400 26,700 23,360
Total 23,360 25,040 15,650 16,580 53,600 40,300 39,380
Average 24,000 16,200 53,600 39,840
A is use of groundwater data.
B is use of surface water data.
1-31
-------
for > 80% of the increase in surface flow. The small amount of groundwater
discharge to the river along this reach provides little dilution capability
to the sewage treatment plant effluent.
Losing reaches of the Menomonee River
Heavy pumpage of groundwater from wells located near the stream has
created conditions where surface water elevations are higher than groundwater
elevations causing a reversal of the natural flow direction leading to surface
water recharge of the groundwater system. The infiltration of surface water
to the groundwater system was investigated a. to quantify the rate of
infiltration to be used to compute a water budget for the Basin and b. to
investigate the possibility that surface water contaminants were moving into
the groundwater system. This portion of the report deals only with the rate
of surface water infiltration and not contaminant movement.
The potentiometric map of the Niagara dolomite (1), was used first to
identify possible losing reaches of the Menomonee River System by locating
areas where heads in the dolomite were lower than stream channel levels.
The stream was gauged along these reaches but produced inconclusive data.
Measurements of water levels in observation wells indicated that the water
table at sites 1, 6, 8 and 13 was lower than the surface water level. A
portable piezometer, constructed of a 1.3 m (4 ft) length of stainless steel
tubing, was used in the spring and fall of 1977 to define the losing reaches
more accurately. These reaches are shown in the shaded areas of Figs. 1-8 to
1-10.
Groundwater levels at well sites 1 and 6 were found to be several meters
lower than the river level, indicating that the groundwater may be separated
from the surface water along these reaches. As mentioned previously, the
river channel in these areas is underlain by lacustrine clay which, because
of its low permeability, could effectively seal off surface flow from ground-
water.
Groundwater temperature data shown in Fig. 1-16, indicate that interaction
between surface water and groundwater does occur. Groundwater temperatures at
sites 1 and 6 fluctuated more than groundwater temperatures along discharge
reaches of the stream (site 9). This greater fluctuation is thought to be
caused by surface water movement into the groundwater. Infiltrating surface
water will retain much of its original heat and warm the groundwater in summer
causing higher than normal groundwater temperatures; the opposite occurs in
winter.
The time lag between the occurrence of temperature maximums and minimums
in the surface water and groundwater were used to estimate surface water
recharge rates. The period of time in which a slug of warm or cold water takes
to move from the surface down to a specified depth in the groundwater, divided
by the vertical distance gives an estimate of the vertical velocity of the
infiltrating water. The increased time lag in winter months is caused by
increased viscosity of colder water producing slower movement.
1-32
-------
LO
LO
20 -
U 1 S
o J-J
0)
M
n)
!-J
QJ
§ 10
H
Surface Water
5 -
SEPT
OCT
NOV
DEC
JAN
Date
FEE
MAR
APR
MAY
Fig. 1-16. Plot of groundwater-surface water temperatures.
River, W9 near gaining reach of the Little Menomonee River.
W6 and Wl near losing reaches of the Menomonee
-------
From the analysis of temperature it was estimated that the vertical
velocity of infiltrating water at site 6 (Pilgrim Road) varies from 0.09 to
0.18 m/d (0.3 to 0.6 ft/d) with an average velocity of 0.14 m/d (0.46 ft/d).
Infiltrating water at site 1 (124th St.) was estimated to have a vertical
velocity ranging from 0.06 to 0.09 m/d (0.20 to 0.30 ft/d) with an average
velocity of 0.07 m/d (0.23 ft/d).
The velocity of water multiplied by the area of pore space in the cross-
sectional area of the stream bed allows determination of quantity of surface
water lost to groundwater. Based on this calculation, the losing reach of the
Menomonee River at Menomonee Falls was estimated to recharge the groundwater
at a rate of 1970 m3/d (0.52 mgd). The losing reach at Butler was estimated
to recharge the groundwater at a rate of 870 m3/d (0.23 mgd).
Infiltration rates vary greatly along the total reach of a losing stream.
Rahn (19) found that in the Fenton River, Connecticut, the highest infiltra-
tion rate occurred along the sides of the stream channel because of the low
permeability of the stream bed material in contrast to the horizontal perme-
ability of the material along the sides of the channel. In areas where large
head differences between surface water and groundwater elevations occur, e.g.,
sites 1 and 6, movement of surface water is essentially vertical. These
estimates of infiltration rates are viewed as being minimum amounts of surface
flow lost to groundwater. Infiltration rates are probably higher farther away
from the pumping wells, where the separation between surface water and ground-
water is not so great and surface water may flow horizontally through the
sides of the channel to the groundwater system. Where a hydraulic separation
of the groundwater-surface water does occur, the infiltration rate of surface
water is governed by the permeability of the least permeable material in the
streambed. Moore and Jenkins (20) suggest a maximum rate of 0.8 m/d (20
gpd/ft2) as a reasonable first approximation. This value overestimates
minimum infiltration rate for these reaches of the Menomonee River since the
streambed is underlain with very fine lacustrine clay. Using the infiltra-
tion rates calculated above it is estimated that the vertical permeability of
this clay is less than 0.08 m/d (2 gpd/ft2).
Seepage collectors also were used to measure infiltration rates along the
losing reach of the river in Menomonee Falls. The seepage collectors were
constructed from 190-liter drums that were cut about 30 cm from the top. A
hole was drilled into the lid of the drum and a plastic bag was attached. The
collector was placed into the streambed. The measurement of water moving in
or out of the seepage collector gives a direct estimate of groundwater dis-
charge or surface water infiltration.
The data obtained from the seepage collectors were less than ideal.
Duplicate tests gave different results, with the first measurement generally
being much larger than the second. Streambed disturbance occurring during
installation of the collectors may have caused the initial results to be
artifically high. Seepage collectors probably need to be placed into the
streambed and allowed to sit for a number of days before accurate measurements
can be obtained.
Using the second set of measurements, the infiltration rates were
estimated to be 720 m3/d (0.19 mgd). This is approximately a factor of about
1-34
-------
two times less than the estimates obtained from temperature data. While it
was expected that seepage rates away from the high capacity well would be
larger, seepage collectors measured smaller rates. The results are viewed as
estimates.
The average non-event flow of the Menomonee River at Butler is about
15,000 m3/d (4 mgd). The combined volume of surface water lost to groundwater
is approximately 2840 m3/d (0.75 mgd) or about 19% of total flow. Since > 80%
of the increase in river flow between Menomonee Falls and Butler is attributed
to treated waste discharge, it is likely that much of the surface water lost
to groundwater is recycled wastewater. Curtailment of these discharges might
reduce greatly the flow of the Upper Menomonee River.
Groundwater Quality and Loading Rates
The nature and concentrations of dissolved constituents in natural ground-
water are dependent on the composition of the aquifer through which the ground-
water flows. Back (16), Garrels and Mackenzie (21) and Maclay and Winter (22)
found significant correlations between groundwater quality and aquifer compo-
sition. Water in calcareous sediments tends to be dominated by calcium,
magnesium and bicarbonate ions. Water in marine-clay sediments tends to have
higher proportions of sodium and chloride with lower concentrations of calcium
and bicarbonate. Sulfate which is normally associated with evaporites is
commonly found in low concentrations in waters from all types of marine sedi-
ments.
The main factors that affect dissolution are temperature, pressure, the
area of the interface between soluble minerals, the volume of water and the
time of contact. It is generally accepted that as the length of the ground-
water flow path increases the groundwater tends to have higher concentrations
of dissolved solids. Mineralization also increases with decreased permeabi-
lity of the aquifer because of the larger surface area in contact with the
groundwater and the slower movement of groundwater through the medium.
Changes in the chemical composition of groundwater can occur as a result
of various types of land use practices. For example, increased chloride
concentrations in groundwater can be caused by evapotranspiration of irrigation
waters (7), roadsalt runoff (23) and seepage of landfill leachates (24).
Nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus) might be supplied to the groundwater
through fertilizer application, feedlot runoff and septic tank effluent (25).
Table 1-3 shows comparisonsof natural sources for various constituents in
groundwater to those introduced by man.
Regional water quality
Groundwater in the Wisconsin-Lake Michigan Basin is generally of good
quality. The major ions in solution are calcium and bicarbonate. Concentra-
tions of total dissolved solids in the glacial and Niagara aquifers average
200 to 400 mg/L and some increase in mineralization occurs in the southern
1-35
-------
Table 1-3. Natural versus artificial sources of various chemical constituents
found in groundwater wells
Parameters
Sources in Natural
Groundwater
Artificial Sources
Calcium
Magnesium
Sodium
Potassium
Chlorides
Carbonate/
b icarbonate
Sulfates
Nitrogen
Phosphorus
Lead, cadmium,
zinc, copper,
chromium,
nickel
Dissolution of carbonates,
evaporites and weathering
of igneous rocks (anorthite).
Dissolution of carbonates,
weathering of ferro-magnesium
minerals in igneous rocks.
Dissolution of evaporites,
weathering of igneous rocks
(albite), cation exchange in
clays.
Weathering of igneous rocks
(orthoclase), cation exchange
in clays.
Dissolution of evaporites,
anion exchange in clays.
Dissolution of carbonates,
precipitation, oxidation
of organic material.
Dissolution of evaporites,
oxidation of organic material,
oxidation of sulfides
(pyrite).
Oxidation of organic material.
Oxidation of organic material.
Concentrations in natural
waters usually low—sources
are sulfide deposits and .
mineral veins.
Road salt, evaporation of
irrigation water.
Road salt, evaporation of
irrigation water.
Potash-fertilizer
application.
Road salt, evaporation of
irrigation water, septic
tank effluent, seepage of
landfill leachates.
Oxidation of industrially
produced sulfides, seepage
from landfills.
Fertilizer application,
barnyard runoff, septic
tank effluent.
Fertilizer application,
barnyard runoff, septic
tank effluent.
Industrial discharges,
automobile exhaust,
seepage from landfill
leachates.
1-36
-------
portion of the Basin (17).
The regional groundwater system has nitrate concentrations averaging
> 0.5 mg/L of nitrogen. Concentrations as high as 20.5 mg/L of nitrogen have
been measured in some wells. Phosphate is generally not found in the Niagara
and glacial aquifers (17).
Water quality of glacial aquifer in the Menomonee River Basin
The groundwater of the shallow aquifer system in the Menomonee River
Basin is generally of good quality but often contains high concentrations of
total dissolved solids, chloride ,and sulfate. Nitrate concentrations are
usually low but ammonia concentrations as high as 1.5 mg/L of nitrogen were
found in some areas.
Major anions and cations
Fig. 1-17 shows the averages and ranges in concentration of the major
anions and cations found in the glacial and Niagara aquifers in the Menomonee
River Basin compared to regional concentrations found in the aquifers through-
out the Wisconsin-Lake Michigan Basin; regional averages were taken from (17).
Groundwater from the glacial aquifer sampled during this study contained
concentrations of total dissolved solids which averaged over 100% higher than
the regional averages and the average for the Niagara aquifer. Average
chloride concentrations in the Basin were found to be as much as 900% higher.
Sulfate concentrations vary from 60 to 200% higher and associated cations also
are found in higher concentrations.
Data for the glacial aquifer in the Menomonee River Basin, presented by
(1) differ from data obtained during this investigation. The difference is
related to the number of analyses obtained and the well locations. The SEWRPC
reported groundwater analyses of samples from 5 private wells taken during one
sampling period. The wells selected were located in rural areas which have
relatively thick deposits of permeable material that yield an adequate supply
of relatively good quality water for domestic use.
The averages reported from the present study are for several groundwater
samples obtained during a 12 month period and include seasonal changes in
water quality. Many of the groundwater samples were obtained from urban areas
and tend to characterize the glacial aquifer in terms of urban effects on
water quality rather than the more natural conditions found in rural areas.
Moreover, many of the well sites were located in areas covered by till deposits
where groundwater would have somewhat higher concentrations of dissolved solids
compared to groundwater in sand and gravel deposits (22).
Multiple linear regression analysis was used as a statistical tool to
identify the physical and chemical parameters which best identify the occurrence
of a certain water quality. The list of parameters used in the analysis and the
1-37
-------
Dissolved
solids, mg/L Cl, mg/L
Total
hardness
SO e/L Total alka. Na and K as CaC03,
**' B as CaC03,mg/L as Na,mg/L mg/L
Ca:Mg*
1000 2000 0 300 600 9
I I
00 0
1
0
400 800 0 200 400 0 200 400 0 500 1000
|
0
I [
0 5
10
Sand and
gravel
2275
Menomonee River Watershed Study
1165
560
1300
H
T
OJ
00
Sand and
gravel \~" 1
Niagara j. ,*.. 1
Sand and
gravel r~*H
H
SEWRPC - USGS (Menomonee River - SEWRPC (1)
H
H
H H
1100
E-Wisconsin Water Quality (Skinner and Borman (17))
•\
w-> h. 1
I H A ' I
470
1200
M
H
Fig. 1-17. Comparison of water quality of the glacial aquifer of the Menomonee River Basin to the
regional quality for the Wisconsin-Lake Michigan Basin.
*Based on equivalent values.
-------
correlation coefficients are shown in Table 1-4. The regression analysis was
run at a 95% confidence level with F limits set at 4.0. Detailed analytical
data on ground and surface water quality are given in Appendix B.
Variations in the chemical composition of groundwater were not dependent
upon physio-geologic parameters such as depth within the aquifer, location
within the flow system, aquifer composition, or temperature. Changes in hydro-
chemical composition may however be related to specific land use practices not
included in the regression analysis.
The analysis indicated that the concentration of total dissolved solids
(TDS) is best predicted by measuring concentrations of sulfate and chloride in
groundwater samples. The regression equation TDS [mg/L] = (260.3 +_ 17) +
1.662 + 0.17 [SO.+ mg/L] + 1.982 + 0.19 [Cl mg/L] gave an r2 value of 0.966 and a
standard deviation of 90.4. The plot of observed TDS versus predicted TDS is
shown in Fig. 1-18. The addition of specific conductance—which had the best
individual correlation with TDS (0.903)—to the regression equation added only
1.2% to the explained variation (r2). The addition of alkalinity (as CaC03)
added only 0.7% to the explained variation.
Bicarbonate and calcium are the dominant ions in solution for most of the
Wisconsin-Lake Michigan Basin (17). Therefore, variation in calcium carbonate
content in general should correlate with changes in TDS. However, the hydro-
chemical variation in the Menomonee River Basin is better described by the
analysis of chloride and sulfate concentrations. The average calcium carbonate
concentration (alkalinity as CaC03) was measured at 260 + 37 mg/L (5.4 4^ 0.7
meq/L). The average concentration found for chloride was 180 + 130 mg/L (5.1 4^
3.7 meq/L), while the average sulfate concentration is 188 + 95 mg/L (4.0 +
2 meq/L). The sum of chloride and sulfate milliequivalents in solution are
almost twice the milliequivalents of bicarbonate. The ranges of chloride and
sulfate in solution also are much higher than the ranges of bicarbonate. Thus,
the regression equation of TDS versus chloride and sulfate can best describe the
variation of mineralization in the groundwater. Chloride and sulfate are the
dominant ions in solution but vary greatly in amount throughout the Basin.
Bicarbonate ions are found in about the same concentrations as in groundwater in
the Wisconsin-Lake Michigan Basin (Fig. 1-16), but are no longer the most
abundant ions in solution.
These changes in the hydrochemistry of the glacial aquifer system are
also shown by the use of trilinear plots of the anion/cation ratios in solution.
Trilinear plots have been used successfully by (22) to develop relationships
between water quality, aquifer composition, and groundwater flow patterns. A
similar analysis was attempted but water quality variations were too random to
be separated categorically on the basis of flow patterns or aquifer material.
Instead, the trilinear plots show a change in water quality from rural to urban
areas. The upper diagram in Fig. 1-19 shows Ca-Mg-HC03 groundwater in the far
left portion, with increasing percentages of sulfate towards the top of the
diagram and increasing percentages of Na-Cl towards the right. Notice that
the regional average compositions of groundwater from the Niagara dolomite and
the glacial aquifers have high percentages of Ca, Mg and HC03 ions in solution.
The groundwater from the Niagara dolomite in the Menomonee River Basin has only
slightly more sulfate and chloride and its composition is shifted a little
upwards and to the right.
1-39
-------
Table 1-4. Correlation coefficients for water quality data
Conductivity
H
O
Conductivity
Total dissolved
solids
Sulfate
Chloride
Alkalinity
Phosphate
Nitrate
Ammonia
Temperature
Well depth
Recharge-
discharge
PH
Aquifer medium
1.
0.
0.
0.
0.
-0.
-0.
0.
0.
-0.
0.
-0.
0.
000
903
683
602
563
002
035
234
094
159
188
379
113
Total dissolved
solids Sulfate
1.
0.
0.
0.
-0.
-0.
0.
0.
-0.
0.
-0.
0.
000
742
666
556
024
012
249
032
113
225
427
226
1.000
0.028
0.528
-0.119
-0.056
0.092
-0.001
-0.050
0.218
-0.236
0.413
Chloride
1.000
0.093
0.102
0.003
0.320
0.003
-0.155
0.237
-0.330
-0.140
Alkalinity
1.000
-0.057
0.018
0.039
0.061
-0.068
-0.139
-0.433
-0.221
Recharge- Aquifa:
Phosphate Nitrate Ammonia Temperature Well depth discharge pH medium
1.
-0.
0.
0.
-0.
0.
-0.
0.
000
051
348
062
139
062
132
065
1.000
-0.116 1.000
-0.045 -0.154 1.000
0.190 -0.264 0.198 1.000
-0.126 0.031 -0.073 -0.192 1.000
-0.091 -0.097 -0.088 0.209 -0.196 1.000
-0.217 0.065 -0.036 -0.089 -0.213 * 1.000
*pH vs aquifer medium correlation not computed.
-------
2500 ~
2000 -
% 1500 ~
to
p
H
13
0)
jjj 1000 -
eo
g
500 -
0 -
•
• ••
* • ••
*!
2
• • • 2
• 2.
3 • 3
3 22 •
• 222
• 552*
233
1 1 1 1 1 1
0 500 1000 1500 2000 25C
Predicted IDS, mg/L
Fig. 1-18. Observed versus predicted values for total dissolved solids (TDS);
numbers represent multiple data points.
1-41
-------
• Well site Menomonee River Watershed Study
o Glacial aquifer - SEWRPC
• Dolomite aquifer - SEWRPC
X Average regional glacial aquifer
a Average regional dolomite aquifer
Fig. 1-19. Trilinear plot of anion/cation ratios (% of total meq/L)
for local and regional groundwater quality. Shaded arrow points
toward deviation from regional water quality.
1-42
-------
The groundwater from well sites 9 and 13—located in low density residen-
tial areas and the average composition of the glacial aquifer as reported by
SEWRPC—have compositions comparable to the quality of regional water. The
groundwater from sites 7 and 11 show about a 15% increase in chloride concen-
tration relative to other ions in solution with no increase in sulfates.
The greatest deviation from regional hydrochemistry is found at sites 1,
2, 3 and 5 all of which are located in the high density residential or indus-
trial portion of the watershed. In these groundwaters, < 40% of the anions
in solution are bicarbonate. Both sulfate and chloride percentages increase
about 40 to 60% over regional averages, relative to other ions in solution.
While calcium and magnesium ions still comprise the majority of cations in
solution, the sodium plus potassium concentration increased from 10 to 20%
over that found for regional water quality.
The increasesin chloride and sulfate in the shallow groundwater suggest a
deterioration of the groundwater quality in certain areas of the Menomonee
River Watershed. Mineralization is undesirable in waters used for most
industrial purposes and high sodium concentrations in drinking water can be a
health hazard to people with cardio-vascular problems (7).
Similar data were found in the Chicago area (23). A comparison of water
from the dolomite aquifer in northeastern Illinois from the 1930Ts to 1973
indicated that the concentrations of all ions in solution increased. The
largest increases were 840% for Cl, 140% for SO^ and 90% for Na.
The source of increased chloride found in the groundwater is probably from
deicing salt. For years, road salts have been used in increasingly larger
amounts. Fig. 1-20 shows the areal distribution and seasonal variation of
chloride concentrations found in the Menomonee River Basin. Notice the high
concentrations of chloride in the middle and southern portions of the Basin
where wells were located near highways (sites 2, 3, 5, 7). Highest concen-
trations occurred during winter and spring which coincides with times when
largest amounts of road salt are used.
Spatial and seasonal variations of sulfate concentrations are shown in
Fig. 1-21. The highest concentrations of sulfate were measured in spring.
Most of the sulfate salts are less soluble than corresponding chloride salts
and may cause an accumulation of sulfate salts on the ground surface during
the year, with dissolution and movement into the groundwater occurring only in
the spring when maximum runoff occurs.
The increase in sulfate may be due to SOi, ions in rainfall resulting from
the oxidation of industrially-produced sulfide. Hem (25) reports that up to
10 mg/L SOij may be found in rain water around urban areas. Evapotranspiration
may concentrate the sulfate, resulting in a surface residue which can be
redissolved only during ground saturated conditions in the spring. Another
possible source of sulfate is from landfills. Many low lying areas of the
Menomonee River floodplain have been filled during the construction of parks.
Old building materials such as wall board have probably been used in these old
landfills and may have a localized effect on the shallow groundwater quality.
In some wells, high sulfate contents may be caused by upwelling of mineralized
water from bedrock aquifers. Ranges of total dissolved solids are shown in
Fig. 1-22.
1-43
-------
W9
150
100
210
275
170
65
L I I I
0123
Meters
1
N
Fig. 1-20. Map of ranges and mean concentrations(mg/L) of chloride for
Fall, Winter, Spring and Summer at selected sites in the Menomonee
River Basin.
1-44
-------
Fig. 1-21. Map of ranges and mean concentrations (iag/L) of sulfate
for Fall, Winter, Spring and Summer at selected sites in the
Menomonee River Basin.
1-45
-------
W9
I ,
N
0123
Meters
Fig. 1-22. Map of ranges and mean concentrations(mg/L) of total dissolved
solids for Fall, Winter, Spring and Summer at selected sites in the
Menomonee River Basin.
1-46
-------
Nutrients
Nutrient concentrations in groundwater have become of increasing interest
in recent years (26). Groundwater seepage into inland lakes and streams may
contribute a substantial amount of nutrients, especially during dry periods.
Sources of nutrients in groundwater include the infiltration of nitrogen and
phosphorous compounds from fertilizers and barnyard manure and seepage from
septic tanks.
Nitrogen concentrations in groundwater in the Menomonee River Basin
occasionally exceeded the critical concentrations of nitrogen needed for algal
growth which is 0.3 mg/L of nitrogen, according to Sawyer (27). Nitrate
concentrations of 1.0 mg/L of nitrogen or more were found in a survey of the
groundwater in the northern agricultural portion of the Watershed. The
lower two-thirds of the Watershed had low concentrations of nitrate. Only a
few groundwater samples from this portion of the watershed contained nitrate
above the analytical detection limit of 0.02 mg/L of nitrogen.
The groundwater in the lower portion of the watershed was found to have
relatively high concentrations of ammonia, especially in low lying areas
adjacent to the Menomonee River. Well sites 1, 5 and 7 showed the highest
concentrations of ammonia, with some groundwater samples exceeding 1.0 mg/L
of nitrogen. Nitrogen compounds in the groundwater usually exist in the
oxidized nitrate form (25) and the identification of the sources of the
ammonia in the groundwater at these sites is very difficult. The presence of
ammonia in the groundwater may be caused by the low permeability of the
aquifer and the bog-like reducing conditions in these low lying areas.
At well site 1 in Butler, the Menomonee River is known to be influent,
that is, losing water. High ammonia concentrations have been found in the
Menomonee River (1); therefore, the river may supply ammonia to the ground-
water. This site is also near sewage lines that cross the river. Use of
rhodamine dye as a tracer indicated that leakage from these lines was
occurring. Therefore, leaky sewage lines may be another possible source of
ammonia.
Well site 7 is adjacent to an effluent (gaining) reach of the Menomonee
River, but it is also near sewage lines that were found to leak. This area
also has many faulty septic systems which could supply nitrogen compounds to
the groundwater (Vogt, personal communcation, 1977).
Phosphate levels in the groundwater were found to be very low. Few
analyses were above the critical concentration considered to be necessary
for algal blooms which is 0.015 mg/L of phosphorus according to Sawyer (27).
Since most of the soil material in the basin consists of clay- and silt-sized
particles and contains large amounts of CaC03, it is expected that phosphate
compounds would be tightly bound in the soil column and would not be mobile
in the groundwater system.
1-47
-------
Bacteriology of the groundwater
The presence of fecal coliforms in a water sample is used widely as an
indicator of pathogenic bacteria in that water. Fecal coliform bacteria are
harmless organisms which exist in the intestinal tracts of all warm-blooded
animals. The presence of fecal coliform bacteria in water samples suggests
the possible existence of disease producing organisms. The presence of
coliform bacteria may or may not be an indicator of fecal contamination
inasmuch as coliform bacteria inhabit soil.
Although the presence of fecal coliform bacteria can be measured
accurately, studies indicate that analyses for fecal streptococci ("fecal
strep") may be a better indicator of sewage contamination (28, 29). "Fecal
streps" do not multiply in surface waters and rarely occur in soil. "Fecal
streps" have been reported to survive longer than Eschevich'ia ooli, and can
be regarded as delayed indicators when fecal coliform are not found or measur-
ed in low concentrations.
Standards established by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
limit the total coliform concentrations for treated drinking water to 1
colony/100 ml of water. Water for recreational purposes should not exceed
400 colonies/100 ml for more than 10% of the samples during any month.
Standards have not been set for "fecal strep" concentrations (1).
Bacterial analyses of groundwater in the Menomonee River Basin were
initiated by the observation that some test wells produced waters which
contained offensive odors similar to sewer gas. Generally these wells were
located close to sewage lines and it was speculated that leakage of sewage
from these pipes might be occurring.
Groundwater samples for bacterial analyses were obtained by bailing.
The bailer was submerged in alcohol and ignited between samples to prevent
contamination of other samples.
Bacterial analyses were performed initially by the Village of Menomonee
Falls Hydraulics Laboratory for groundwater samples from 12 test wells
located in and around the Menomonee Falls-Butler area. Water samples were
tested using the Multiple Tube Fermentation Technique (30). Both presumptive
and confirmed tests resulted in positive identification of coliform bacteria
for all wells.
Since coliform bacteria can live in soil systems, an additional analysis
was needed to determine whether the bacteria were of fecal origin. Using the
Membrane Filter Technique (30), total coliform, fecal coliform, and fecal
streptococci analyses were performed on a second set of groundwater samples
from these wells. The tests performed at the Water Chemistry Unit of the
Environmental Sciences Section of the Wisconsin State Laboratory of Hygiene,
indicate substantial fecal bacterial contamination of the groundwater. None
of the samples was suitable for drinking water and only about 50% have
bacterial concentrations considered suitable for recreational use (Table 1-5).
The results of these analyses are surprising because several groundwater
1-48
-------
Table 1-5. Bacterial composition of water from selected test wells in the Butler-Menomonee Falls Area
H
I
-P-
Well No.
1-1* (10 m**)
1-2* (10 m**)
1-4*
6-1* (30 m**)
6-2* (30 m**)
6-4* (30 m**)
7-1* (10 m)
7-2* (10 m)
7-3* (15 m)
7-5* (20 m)
8-2*
9-1
Total number of
coliform colonies/100 ml
150
Plate overgrown with
noncoliform bacteria
40
460
730
360
570
450
240
Plate overgrown with
noncoliform bacteria
40
16
Number of fecal
coliform colonies/100 ml
80
16
4
44
300
240
96
170
104
2
30
10
Number of fecal
streptococci colonies/100 ml
26
26
30
220
200
130
780
520
800
110
20
6
*Located in losing reach of Menomonee River.
**Approximate distance from sewage line.
-------
studies have indicated that movement of bacteria is usually attenuated within
the first few feet of travel through unsaturated soil (25, 28). Although
studies in Europe have shown lower bacterial attentuation capabilities in
saturated soils (31) none of the investigations surveyed reported movement
through silt-clay materials over a distance as great as those found in this
study.
The possibility exists that some infiltration occurred along the sides
of the well casing. However, all wells were clay packed, and mounded above
the ground surface and were protected against surface contamination. It is
not known how bacteria are transported through clayey till. Desiccation
cracks formed during low groundwater periods may be present, providing a
conduit for transport. Land disturbance during road or building construction
in the area also may have caused cracks large enough for bacterial transport.
Dye tracer studies have confirmed that leakage from sewage lines was occur-
ring to some of the test wells. Because high bacteria concentrations also
are found along losing reaches of the river, some bacteria may result from
surface water infiltration.
Metals
High concentrations of lead, zinc, copper and occasionally cadmium have
been measured in surface waters in the Menomonee River Watershed (6). The
sources of the metals in surface waters are thought to be from automobile
exhausts and industrial discharges. Possible sources of the metals in
groundwater are atmospheric fallout, landfill leachate and infiltration of
stream waters.
Analyses for the metals in the groundwater samples for two sampling
periods indicated that no metal tranport occurred in the shallow groundwater
system. Most analyses showed concentrations of the metals at or below
detection limits (I-B-2).
The low concentrations of metals in the groundwater is not surprising.
Field and column studies conducted by the Illinois State Geological Survey
(32) showed that the metals are adsorbed readily by clays, and precipitate
as oxides, sulfates or hydroxides at pH 7 or above. Because the Menomonee
River Basin is covered mainly by clayey tills, and the groundwater is semi-
alkaline with high sulfate contents, metal cations are not mobile in the
groundwater.
Groundwater loading rates to Menomonee River
Estimates of the seasonal groundwater loading rates for three reaches
of the Menomonee River System are shown in Table 1-6. The loadings were
estimated from the amount of groundwater discharge along these reaches and
from the concentrations of ions in solution measured from wells adjacent to
the river. Variations in the seasonal loadings result from changes in rates
of groundwater discharge and variations in ion concentrations.
1-50
-------
Table 1-6. Groundwater loadings
M
Ul
M
Reach
Germantown to Butler
(Menomonee River)
Donges Bay Rd. to Appleton Ave.
(Little Menomonee River)
Butler to 70th St.
(Menomonee River)
Total
Germantown to Butler
(Menomonee River)
Donges Bay Rd. to Appleton Ave.
(Little Menomonee River)
Butler to 70th St.
(Menomonee River)
Total
Germantown to Butler
(Menomonee River)
Donges Bay Rd. to Appleton Ave.
(Little Menomonee River)
Butler to 70th St.
(Menomonee River)
Total
Discharge rate,
m3/day
5
2
16
23
5
1
9
16
16
8
29
53
,000
,100
,500
,600
,000
,800
,400
,200
,000
,200
,400
,600
IDS,
kg/ day
4,460
2,610
28,800
35,870
4,070
1,400
12,100
17,570
10,900
8,100
38,100
57,100
Sulfate, Chloride,
kg/day kg/day
Fall 1976
659 1
420
5,040 5
6,119 7
Winter 1976-77
500 1
243
2,092 3
2,835 4
Spring 1977
1,700 2
500 2
8,000 8
10,200 12
,250
452
,544
,246
,131
287
,429
,847
,500
,000
,500
,000
CaCo3l Dissolved phosphate-P,
kg/ day kg/day
1,963
956
6,840
9,764
1,573
399
3,088
5,060
4,600
2,000
9,800
16,400
0.
0
1.
1.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0
0
0.
2
2
4
1
2
2
5
1
1
Total nitrogen,
kg /day
1.
0.
7.
9.
4.
0.
3.
8.
11.
3.
10.
24.
8
9
1
8
5
7
7
9
8
1
0
9
-------
For purposes of the IJC-Menomonee River Pilot Watershed Study, only two
parameters are of major interest, namely, chloride and total nitrogen.
While phosphate concentrations are high in the surface water, they were
seldom found in groundwater. Sulfate was measured in high concentrations in
groundwater, but few sulfate analyses have been conducted on surface waters.
Comparisons of the groundwater loadings to base flow loadings for
chlorides and total nitrogen are shown in Table 1-7. Because of time
constraints and lack of base flow water quality data no comparisons can be
shown for the summer of 1977. Estimates of surface flow loadings were
supplied by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources in cooperation
with the IJC-Menomonee River Pilot Watershed Study.
From the fall of 1976 to the spring of 1977, groundwater supplied 51 to
82% of the chloride found in surface waters. During the winter of 1976-77
chloride was found in the highest concentrations in groundwater, but result-
ed in the smallest seasonal percentage of surface water loadings (51%) due
possibly to the high concentrations of salts moving directly into the river
from street drainage. Notice that in the fall of 1976, the groundwater
supplied only 50% of the base flow (Fig. 1-12) while the groundwater loadings
of chloride was 82% of base flow.
The groundwater loadings of inorganic nitrogen comprised a smaller
percentage of base flow loadings than found for chlorides. The groundwater
accounted for 12 to 24% of the base flow nitrogen levels, with the greatest
loading occurring in the spring. This increased discharge of nitrogen
compounds in the spring was caused by increased groundwater discharge into
the river, rather than higher concentrations of nitrogen compounds.
The high concentrations of inorganic nitrogen in the river water are
caused by discharges from sewage treatment plants. Notice the large river
loadings which occur from Germantown to Butler. The loss of nitrogen in
the surface waters from Butler to 70th St. may result from biological
uptake, adsorption by stream bed sediments, or diffusion of ammonia into
the atmosphere. No major increase of nitrogen compounds were found in the
groundwater along losing reaches of the river, indicating that the high
concentrations of dissolved ammonia in the surface waters are being adsorbed
or atmospherically lost before entering the groundwater system.
Summary of groundwater quality
Groundwater samples collected did not have significant concentrations
of metals, phosphate or nitrogen compounds. Groundwater in localized areas
had high concentrations of fecal bacteria, but it is doubtful that this
shallow groundwater would be used for domestic water supplies. It is not
known how deep in the groundwater system bacterial contamination occurs.
Although no encroachment of toxicants into the shallow groundwater
system has occurred, it has become increasingly saline from the input of
chlorides and sulfates. These ions have changed significantly the general
hydrochemistry of the aquifer and may show a long term detrimental effect
on the water resources of the basin.
1-52
-------
Table 1-7. Comparison of groundwater (GU) loadings to base flow (SW) loadings in the Menomonee River
Ul
Chlorides, kg/day Inorganic nitrogen*, kg/day
—— — ^ — — — — ^^^ Ratio of chlorides _— ^— . — — _____ — — __— _ Ratio of nitrogen
Reach GW SW GW:SW GW SW GW:SW
Gennantown to Butler 1,249 3,713
(Menomonee River)
Donges Bay Rd. to Appleton Ave. 452 363
(Little Menomonee River)
Butler to 70th St. 5,544 4,939
(Menomonee River)
TOTAL 7,245 8,815
Germantown to Butler 1,131 4,500
(Menomonee River)
Donges Bay Rd. to Appleton Ave. 287 903
(Little Menomonee River)
Butler to 70th St. 3,429 3,884
(Menomonee River)
TOTAL 4,847 9,461
Germantown to Butler 2,500 9,457
(Menomonee River)
Donges Bay Rd. to Appleton Ave. 2,000 2,633
(Little Menomonee River)
Butler to 70th St. 8,500 6,958
(Menomonee River)
TOTAL 12,000 19,048
Fall 1976
0.34 1.8 87.0 0.02
1.24 0.9 0.3 3.00
1.12 7.1 -8.2
0.82
Winter 1976-77
0.25
0.31
0.88
0.51
Spring 1977
0.26
0.76
1.22
0.63
*Ammonia and nitrite-nitrate nitrogen.
-------
REFERENCES - I
1. Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission (SEWRPC). A
Comprehensive Plan for the Menomonee River Watershed. Vol. 1, 1976a.
479 pp.
2. Green, J. H. and R. D. Hutchinson. Groundwater Pumpage and Water-Level
Changes in the Milwaukee-Waukesha Area, Wisconsin, 1950-1961. USGS
Water Supply Paper 1809-1, 1965. 19 pp.
3. Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission (SEWRPC). Digital
Computer Model of the Sandstone Aquifer in Southeastern Wisconsin.
Technical Report 16, 1976b. 64 pp.
4. Foley, F. C., W. C. Walton and W. J. Drescher. Groundwater Conditions
in the Milwaukee-Waukesha Area, Wisconsin. USGS Water Supply Paper
1229, 1953. 96 pp.
5. Gonthier, J. B. Groundwater Resources of Waukesha County, Wisconsin.
Wisconsin Geol. and Nat. Hist. Surv. Information Cir. No. 29, 1975.
6. Konrad, J. G., G. Chesters and K. Bauer. Menomonee River Pilot
Watershed Study: Semi-Annual Report. IJC-Pollution from Land Use
Activities Reference Group. Sponsored by U.S. EPA. Jan. 1977. 80 pp.
7. Todd, D. K. Groundwater Hydrology. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New
York, 1959. 336 pp.
8. Krumbein, W. C. and W. G. Libby. Application of Moments to Vertical
Variability Maps of Stratigraphic Units. Am. Assoc. Petrol. Geol. Bull.
41(2):197-211, 1957.
9. Domenico, P. A. and D. A. Stephenson. Application of Quantitative
Mapping Techniques. Am. Assoc. Petrol. Geol. Bull. 44(1):83-100, 1964.
10. Stephenson, D. A. Hydrogeology of Glacial Deposits of the Mahomet
Bedrock Valley in East Central Illinois. Illinois Geol. Surv. Cir. 409,
1967. 51 pp.
11. Alden, W. C. Quaternary Geology of Southeastern Wisconsin, with a
chapter on older rock formations. USGS Prof. Paper 106, 1918. 356 pp.
12. Eisen, C. E. The Groundwater/Surface Water Interaction in the Menomonee
River Watershed, Southeastern Wisconsin. M.S. Thesis, University of
Wisconsin-Madison, 1977. 169 pp.
1-54
-------
13. Masch, F. D. and K. L. Denney. Grain Size Distribution and Its Effect
on the Permeability of Unconsolidated Sands. Water Resources Res. 2(4):
665-677, 1966.
14. Bower, H. and R. C. Rice. A Slug Test for Determining Hydraulic
Conductivity with Complete or Partially Penetrating Wells. Water
Resources Res. 12(3):423-428, 1976.
15. Toth, J. A Theoretical Analysis of Groundwater Flow in Small Drainage
Basins. J. Geophys. Res. 68(16):4795-4812, 1963.
16. Back, W. Hydrochemical Facies and Groundwater Flow Patterns in the
Northern Part of the Atlantic Coastal Plain. USGS Prof. Paper 498-A,
1966.
17. Skinner, E. L. and R. G. Borman. Water Resources of the Wisconsin-Lake
Michigan Basin. USGS Hydrologic Investigations Atlas Ha-432, 1973.
18. Freeze, A. and P. Witherspoon. Theoretical Analysis of Regional
Groundwater Flow, 2) Effects of Watertable Configurations and Subsurface
Permeability Variations. Water Resources Res. 2:641-647, 1966.
19. Rahn, P. H. The Hydrogeology of an Induced Streambed Infiltration Area.
Ground Water 6(3):21-32, 1968.
20. Moore, J. E. and C. T. Jenkins. An Evaluation of the Effect of
Groundwater Pumpage on the Infiltration of a Semipervious Streambed.
Water Resources Res. 2(4):691-696, 1966.
21. Garrels, R. M. and F. T. Mackenzie. Origin of the Chemical Compositions
of Some Springs and Lakes. In: Equilibrium Concepts in Natural Water
Systems, W. Stumm, ed. Am. Chem. Soc., Washington, B.C., Adv. Chem.
Ser. Vol. 67, 1967, pp. 222-242.
22. Maclay, R. W. and T. C. Winter. Geochemistry and Groundwater Movement
in Northwestern Minnesota. Ground Water 5(1):11-19, 1967.
23. Long, D. T. and Z. A. Saleem. Hydrogeochemistry of Carbonate Groundwaters
of an Urban Area. Water Resources Res. 10(6):1220-1238, 1974.
24. Kunkle, G. R. and J. W. Shade. Monitoring Ground Water Quality Near A
Sanitary Landfill. Ground Water 14(1):11-20, 1976.
25. Hem, J. D. Study and Interpretation of the Chemical Characteristics of
Natural Water. USGS Water Supply Paper 1473 (2nd ed.), 1970.
26. Born, S. M., S. A. Smith and D. A. Stephenson. The Hydrogeologic Regime
of Glacial Terrain Lakes with Management and Planning Applications.
Upper Great Lakes Regional Economic Development Commission, 1974.
27. Sawyer, C. W. Fertilization of Lakes by Agricultural and Urban
Drainage. New England Water Works Assoc. J. 61:109-127, 1947.
1-55
-------
28. McKee, J. E. and H. W. Wolf. Water Quality Criteria. California
State Water Resources Control Board, Pasadena, California, 1963.
1036 pp.
29. Leininger, V. H. and C. S. McCleskay. Bacterial Indicators of Pollution
in Surface Waters. Appl. Microbiol. 1:119-124, 1953.
30. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Waste Water. 13th ed.,
American Public Health Assoc., New York, 1971. 893 pp.
31. Romero, J. C. The Movement of Bacteria and Viruses Through Porous
Media. In: Water Quality in a Stressed Environment, W. A. Pettyjohn
ed., Burgess Publ. Co., Minneapolis, Minn., 1972. pp. 200-223.
32. Griffen, R. A., R. R. Frost, A. K. Au, G. D. Robinson and N. F. Shimp.
Attenuation of Pollutants in Municipal Land Fill Leachate by Clay
Minerals, Part 2: Heavy Metal Adsorption. Illinois State Geol. Surv.,
Environ. Geol. Notes 79.
1-56
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY - I
Black, R. F., N. K. Bleuer, F. D. Hole, N. P. Lasca and L. J. Maher, Jr.
1970. Pleistocene Geology of Southern Wisconsin. Wisconsin Geol.
and Natural History Surv. Information Cir. 15. 38 pp.
Holt, J. R., K. B. Young and W. H. Cartwright. 1964. Water Resources of
Madison, Wisconsin. State of Wisconsin Blue Book. pp. 178-198.
Lasca, N. P. 1970. Pleistocene Geology from Milwaukee to the Kettle
Interlobate Moraine. Wisconsin Geol. and Natural History Surv.
Information Cir. 15. 14 pp.
Linsley, R. K. Jr., M. A. Kohler and J. L. H. Panlhus. 1975. Hydrology
for Engineers. 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill Co., New York. 482 pp.
Martin, L. 1932. The Physical Geography of Wisconsin. 3rd ed., Univ. of
Wisconsin Press, Madison. 608 pp.
Mickelson, D. M. and E. B. Evenson. 1975. Pre-Twocreekan Age of the Type
Valders Till, Wisconsin. Geol. 3(10):587-590.
Mickelson, D. M., L. Acomb, N. Brouwer, T. Edil, C. Fricke, B. Haas,
D. Hadley, C. Hess, R. Klauk, N. Lasca and A. F. Schneider. 1977.
Shoreline Erosion and Bluff Stability Along Lake Michigan and Lake
Superior Shorelines of Wisconsin. Office of Coastal Zone Management,
U.S. Department of Commerce, Shore Erosion Study Technical Report,
Washington, B.C.
Olmstead, R. 1973. Surficial Materials of Waukesha County, Wisconsin.
Wisconsin Geol. and Natural History Surv., Open File Map 1:62,500.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1975. National Interim Primary
Drinking Regulations, Part LV. Federal Register 40(248).
Whittecar, G. R. Jr. 1976. The Glacial Geology of the Waukesha Drumlin
Field, Waukesha County, Wisconsin. M.S. Thesis, University of
Wisconsin-Madison. 110 pp.
Willman, H. B. and J. C. Frye. 1970. Pleistocene Stratigraphy of Illinois.
Illinois State Geol. Surv. Bulletin. 190 pp.
1-57
-------
APPENDIX I-A. WELL SITES
Table I-A-1. Street locations of well sites
Site number Location
Wl Menomonee River at 124th St., Butler
W2 Menomonee River at 70th St., Wauwatosa
W3 Honey Creek, west of West Honey Creek Pkwy., Milwaukee
W4 Menomonee River in Currie Park, Milwaukee
W5 Little Menomonee River at Appleton Ave., Milwaukee
W6 Menomonee River at Pilgrim Rd., Menomonee Falls
W7 Menomonee River near Fond du Lac Ave. at Milwaukee-
Waukesha County line
W8 Menomonee River at Lilly Rd., Menomonee Falls
W9 Little Menomonee River at Donges Bay Rd., Mequon
W10 South of Good Hope Rd. in Noyes Park, Milwaukee
Wll South of Concordia Pkwy. in Concordia Park, Milwaukee
W12 Underwood Creek above Hwy. 45 off North Ave.,
Milwaukee
W13 Underwood Creek at Municipal Grounds, Elm Grove
W14 West Milwaukee Park, West Milwaukee
1-58
-------
Table I-A-2. Location of wells, well construction and depth*
Site: WI
Wl-1
Wl-2
Wl-3
Wl-4
W3-1
W3-2
Site: W5
Land Use:
U5-1
W5-2
W5-3
W5-4
Site: W7
Land Use:
W7-2
W7-4
W7-5
Site: W9
Land Use:
W9-1
Site: Wll
Wll-1
Wll-2
Site- W13
Land Use-
W13-1
W13-2
W13-3
U13-4
Depth,
124th St. in Butler
3 m north of Menomonee River 7.8 Polyvinyl chloride
Next to Wl-1 5.2 PVC
22.5 m north of M.R., 9 m 5.9 Galvanized Steel
west of 124th St.
9 m south of M.R., south 8.9 PVC
of Wl-1 and Wl-2
180 m west of 84th St., 6.0 PVC
12 m north of Honey Creek
Parkway
Next to W3-1 9.3 Galvanized Steel
1.5 m west of USGS monitoring 5.7 PVC
station on Dike 3m south of
river
30 m southwest of River 5 7 PVC
9 m north of River, 30 m 4.0 PVC
southwest of Appleton Ave.
Next to W5-3 6.6 Galvanized Steel
Menomonee River near Fond du Lac Ave.
Agriculture, low density residential
county line
Next to W7-1 5.0 PVC
east of county line
Next to W7-3 2.6 PVC
105 m north of M.R., 30 m east 3.5 PVC
of county line
Little Menomonee River (L.M.R.) at Donges Bay Rd.
Agriculture
4.5 m west of L.M.R., 9 m 2.9 PVC
north Donges Bay Rd.
Concordia Park
9 m south of Townsend Rd., 30 rn 12.6 Galvanized Steel
Next to Wll-1 6.1 PVC
Underwood Creek at Municipal Grounds
Low density residential
3 m east of Underwood Cr., 8.4 Galvanized Steel
grounds entrance road
Next to W13-1 2.9 PVC
21 m west of Underwood Cr., 89 Galvanized Steel
69 m west of entrance road
Next to W13-3 2. 9 PVC
Site- W2 Menomonee River at 124th St.
W2-1 57 m south of M.R., 9 m 7.8 PVC
W2-2 9 m south of M.R., 9 m 4.4 PVC
north of Honey Creek
Parkway
W2-3 45m north of M.R., 39 m 6.5 Galvanized
west of 70th St. Steel
W2-4** Next to W2-3 3.3 PVC
Site. W4 Menomonee River in Currie Par
W4-1 45 m northwest of M.R., 4 8 PVC
150 m south of Capitol
Dr.
Site: W6 Menomonee River at Pilgrim Rd.
W6-1 12 m south of M.R., next to 15.9 Galvanized
USGS station Steel
W6-2 Next to W6-1 9.6 PVC
W6-3 6 m north of M.R., 45 m 7.0 PVC
west of Pilgrim Rd.
W6-4 Next to W6-3 10 2 Galvanized
Steel
Site: W8 Menomonee River at Lily Rd.
north of M.R.
W8-2 22.5 m east of Lily Rd . , 3.5 PVC
3 n south of M.R.
Site W10 Good Hope Rd., in Noyes Park
Land Use Park and medium density residential
W10-1 30 m south Good Hope Rd., 12.9 Galvanized
15 m west of park entrance Steel
road
Site W12 Underwood Creek above Hwy. 45 off North Ave
W12-l+ 10.5 m south of Underwood 8.4 Galvanized
Cr., adjacent to USGS Steel
monitoring station
W12-2+ Next to W12-1 2.8 PVC
Site: W14 West of Milwaukee Park
Land Use: Medium density residential
W14-1 6 m south of Mitchell St., 8.9 PVC
9 ra east of park
entrance road
W14-2** Next to W14-1 5.0 PVC
*See Fig. 1-4, page 1-11.
**Data collection interrupted after 1 month because of vandalism.
+Data collection interrupted after 2 months because of vandalism.
1-59
-------
Table T-A-3. Well logs
Well No. Depth, m Description Well No Depth, m
Wl-1 0 to 0 9 Light brown sandy soil, some gravel W2-1 0 to 3.0
bouldery with gravel
coheslve
8.7 Bedrock 12 9
D
Light brown
rounded,
medium gr
Gray sandy
cohesive
Gray silty
well-sort
Bedrock
.,crlptl=n
silty sand, sand w«ll
dolomitic , fine to
silt, some clay,
sand, fine grained,
ed
gravel
rounded dolomitic pebbles, sand
fine grained semi-round
Brown sandy fill with gravel,
sonie silt, fine to coarse
Gray clay till, bouldery
Bedrock
0 to 0.9
0 9 to 4 5
4 5 to 5 4
5.4 to 7 2
7.2
0 to 1.5
1 5 to 3,0
3.0 to 7.2
11.4 to 12.9
0 to 0.9
0 9 to 2.4
2.4 to 5.4
Sand and gravel fill
Poorly sorted, semi-angular sand
and gravel
gravel
Gray clay till with gravel and
boulders
Bedrock
Light brown sand and gravel, poorly-
sorted with some silt
Gray clay till with angular gravel
Gray sandy silt, sand is fine to
medium grained and subanqular
Gray clay till with sand, gravel
and boulders, subangular, some
cla
till, little
Dark brown organic soil
Brown sandy till, some clav and
Bouldery gray clay till, some
Bedrock
Sand and gravel poorly sorted,
some silt
Dark brown silt, some clay,
little sand
Dark gray clay, cohesive, no
sand or gravel
Light brown silty sand, fine
to medium grained, well
rounded, dolomitic
Tan, medium grained sand, some
silt, poorly-sorted
Light brown fine grained silty
sand, cohesive
Gray clay till with sand and
angular gravel
Br
Light brown silty sand, fine
grained, well sorted,
Light brown gravel with some
sand and silt, poorly sorted,
subangular
9.0 to 9.9
9 9 to 12.9
Light brown clay,some fine sand
Light brown clay till, some sand and
gravel, subangular
Light brown fine to coarse silty
sand, dolomitic, subrounded, poorly
borted
Gravelly silty sand
Gray clay and layers of fine sand
Black, silty organic soil
Gray sandy silt, very fine grained,
well rounded
Medium sand, well sorted, some si It,
sub rounded, dolomitic
Gray coarse sand, some silt,
subangular
Brown sand and grt
Black siltv muck
Cray silty sand, fine grained,
Light brown fine to coarse
sand, some silt, poorly
Gray muddy gravel, poorly
sorted, angular
Light brown fine tu coarse
band, subrounded, dolomitic
Silty sand, fine to medium
grained, subrounded, dolomitic
1-60
-------
APPENDIX I-B. WATER QUALITY DATA
Table I-B-1. Groundwater quality data
Well
Wl-1
3
4
1
2
3
1
2
It
1
2
4
2
3
2
3
1
2
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
4
W2-1
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
1
2
3
2
3
Date
9/76
9/76
9/76
10/76
10/76
10/76
12/76
12/76
12/76
2/77
2/77
2/77
3/77
3/77
4/77
4/77
5/77
5/77
5/77
bin
6/77
6/77
6/77
7/77
7/77
7/77
9/76
9/76
10/76
10/76
10/76
12/76
12/76
12/76
2/77
2/77
2/77
3/77
3/77
3/77
4/77
4/77
4/77
5/77
5/77
6/77
6/77
bin
7/77
7/77
Depth*, m
7.9A
6.1A
9. IB
7.9A
5.5A
6.1A
7.9A
5.5A
9. IB
7.9A
5.5A
9. IB
5.3A
5.9A
5.3A
5.9A
7.9B
6.7B
7.9B
4.6B
6.7B
7.9B
4.6B
6.7B
7.9B
4.6B
6. IB
7.9B
4.4B
6.6B
7.9B
4.4B
6.6B
pH c
7.9
7.6
7.9
8.1
7.9
7.9
7.7
8.0
8.1
8.4
7.6
7.5
8.0
8.5
7.8
8.0
7.8
8.0
7.6
7.8
7.8
8.0
7.8
7.6
8.2
7.6
7.5
8 4
7.7
7.6
8.5
8.1
7.5
7.6
7.6
8.5
7.6
8.1
Specific
:ond. at 25°C
1875
1875
680
1395
1335
1430
1585
1535
455
1450
1790
560
1740
1350
1525
1610
1260
1100
1050
1250
1350
1010
510
1130
1100
500
1650
1835
2130
2120
1000
1485
1520
540
2725
2750
1305
2570
2420
1230
2485
1680
1160
2670
2400
1650
1950
1100
1980
1040
Total
dissolved
solids, mg/I
Well
690
1190
425
940
780
910
1095
995
395
1150
845
975
1060
955
890
880
915
925
790
350
860
800
325
Well
1645
765
1960
1620
585
1920
1590
700
2135
1715
745
2115
1630
780
1960
1800
1330
1560
815
1450
830
SO,,,
mg/L
Site No. Wl
105
60
95
70
75
175
71
81
72
87
110
82
145
140
68
215
133
130
78
54
93
150
67
78
92
60
Site No. W2
395
175
950
400
130
575
440
130
920
370
225
1030
375
165
1060
400
180
540
520
680
395
165
405
150
Cl,
mg/L
120
390
42
200
310
150
620
420
72
275
230
34
275
110
315
180
230
195
65
300
250
105
31
300
195
26
300
140
60
350
130
160
680
260
60
370
130
65
370
140
65
370
135
215
340
40
365
135
365
135
Alkalinity,
mg/L
315
280
180
430
275
385
270
390
175
390
425
260
400
270
270
320
235
310
285
180
225
395
185
335
205
310
380
235
550
460
200
560
460
230
445
345
250
360
320
240
325
245
420
235
POn-P,
ug/L
6
170
5
18
210
0
210
24
12
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
8
7
5
9
19
16
5
8
14
3
4
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
6
N03-N,
yg/L
0
0
240
0
0
20
30
0
20
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
140
110
0
0
0
0
20
30
20
0
0
0
0
0
0
40
30
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
0
0
0
0
NHj-N,
Ug/L
900
280
30
560
210
220
450
510
190
240
460
280
430
170
510
180
880
830
130
660
450
270
570
680
610
510
240
230
240
210
240
500
330
90
360
200
80
240
180
90
170
170
150
60
230
450
230
120
240
190
Temp,
°C
13.2
12.9
12.5
13.0
13.9
12.1
12.0
13.0
10.0
12.1
12.1
10.1
10.9
10.5
10.4
9.5
11.2
14.2
10. 1
12.9
11.1
11.1
11.0
12.5
12.8
11.0
11.2
14. 8
11.0
12.2
12.0
10.9
10.0
9.9
11.0
10. 1
7.8
11.0
9. 5
9.6
10.0
9.1
7.8
13.0
11.0
11.0
10.0
12.0
11.5
14.0
*A is recharge and B is discharge.
1-61
-------
Table I-B-1. Cont.
Well
W3-2
2
1
2
2
2
W5-1
2
3
1
2
3
1
3
4
1
2
4
2
3
1
2
1
2
4
1
2
3
Date
10/76
12/76
2/77
2/77
5/77
6/77
10/76
10/76
10/76
12/76
12/76
12/76
2/77
2/77
2/77
3/77
3/77
3/77
4/77
4/77
5/77
5/77
6/77
6/77
6/77
7/77
7/77
7/77
Depth*, m
9.5A
9.5A
6.4A
9.2A
5.8B
4.3B
4. OB
5.8B
4.3B
4.3B
5.8B
4.3B
6.7B
6.7B
4. IB
6.7B
5.8B
4. IB
pH
8.1
8.1
7.7
8.2
8.2
8.0
7.9
8.1
7.8
7.7
7.8
8.1
7.8
7.8
8.2
7.8
7.8
8.0
8.0
8.0
Specific
cond. at 25°C
1165
510
2070
1285
1950
2000
420
2120
870
300
1335
965
495
1720
980
500
1650
2435
1625
2640
1200
1640
430
1950
2000
500
1670
1850
Total
dissolved
solids, mg/L
Well
805
1610
1180
1640
1655
Well
190
1445
765
385
1200
1390
310
1010
2275
1270
1950
950
1335
325
1480
1465
295
1725
1335
mg/L
Site No.
180
195
215
280
320
230
Site No.
40
115
120
75
115
140
75
170
180
75
110
150
170
325
130
220
80
195
260
75
220
200
Cl,
mg/L
W3
100
240
340
180
550
480
W5
3
475
150
14
700
380
34
430
430
4
300
950
400
610
230
430
7
490
440
10
675
415
Alkalinity ,
mg/L
340
430
390
325
310
105
250
230
180
75
295
160
340
225
240
230
220
320
160
245
220
160
305
315
P04-P,
yg/L
19
3
0
0
0
0
11
5
4
4
8
3
114
4
0
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
16
7
6
N03-N,
yg/L
0
30
0
0
0
30
0
0
20
400
0
0
60
0
0
150
0
0
0
0
130
90
160
20
0
160
0
0
NH3-N,
Ug/L
300
340
330
290
110
180
290
110
380
60
80
880
290
410
1300
80
70
1200
40
1200
450
820
190
90
800
120
80
590
Temp,
°C
8.0
9.9
11.0
10.0
12.0
12.9
10.8
14.1
14.1
10.1
10.5
10.0
9.0
7.5
8.0
5.4
7.9
7.6
8.0
11.0
9.8
10.1
9.0
11.5
9.3
11.0
14.0
13.5
1-62
-------
Table I-B-1. Cent.
Well
W6-3
4
1
2
2
3
4
1
2
2
4
2
4
1
2
3
4
2
4
W7-1
2
3
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
1
2
4
5
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
5
2
4
Date
9/76
9/76
10/76
10/76
12/76
12/76
12/76
2/77
2/77
3/77
3/77
5/77
5/77
6/77
bin
6/77
6/77
7/77
7/77
9/76
9/76
9/76
12/76
12/76
12/76
12/76
12/76
2/77
2/77
3/77
3/77
3/77
3/77
4/77
kin
4/77
4/77
5/77
5/77
5/77
bin
bin
6/77
6/77
bin
Tin
Tin
Depth*, m
7.3A
10. 4A
16. 2A
9.8A
9.8A
7.3A
10. 4A
16. 2A
9.8A
9.8A
10. 4A
9.1A
5.2A
7.3B
9.5A
5.2A
7.3B
2.7B
3.7B
9.5A
5.2A
9.3B
5. OB
2.6B
3.6B
9.3B
5. OB
7.2B
2.6B
PH
7.3
8.1
8.1
7.8
8.0
8.6
8.2
8.0
8.4
8.6
8.4
8.3
8.0
8.2
8.2
8.2
8.2
8.3
8.0
8.5
7.8
7.8
7.7
8.5
8.0
7.5
8.2
8.0
7.6
7.9
8.3
7.9
7.9
8.4
7.9
8.0
7.6
Specific
cond. at 25°C
820
800
1300
1300
610
500
525
980
1120
1350
750
830
860
720
690
1000
750
1050
790
775
605
800
475
450
530
1050
475
660
1250
750
780
1405
970
915
805
625
1060
825
710
660
710
625
630
805
600
650
650
Total
dissolved
solids, mg/L
Well Site
915
550
590
595
625
930
940
490
645
740
565
735
705
580
825
630
Well Site
530
355
520
420
745
495
535
990
625
530
490
385
625
630
505
465
500
445
475
655
435
405
440
SO.,,
mg/L
No. W6
88
95
130
80
93
85
105
125
135
145
105
120
88
95
130
135
105
185
145
No. W7
85
100
105
80
130
110
69
71
74
105
93
73
145
83
96
90
90
130
41
60
75
90
85
115
130
62
105
170
Cl,
mg/L
180
68
65
90
220
140
135
70
170
185
70
105
92
55
100
93
125
98
130
38
14
60
68
700
240
110
130
50
175
100
54
270
135
120
46
46
115
95
53
50
98
37
120
80
40
40
105
Alkalinity ,
mg/L
370
275
275
300
270
310
315
180
290
295
275
270
250
190
270
170
330
165
240
210
335
190
340
315
300
185
280
120
270
265
245
230
190
260
48
280
220
330
56
P04-P,
Mg/L
16
5
0
13
3
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
4
8
0
16
8
38
17
23
8
0
6
0
0
180
0
0
0
0
19
0
0
0
0
0
0
54
0
7
4
N03-N,
Ug/L
30
0
20
20
3
0
0
0
2300
2200
30
880
260
60
470
40
60
100
30
0
40
40
0
80
20
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
410
0
0
0
0
20
0
0
0
0
20
30
700
20
0
NH3-N,
Mg/L
340
140
100
70
60
150
310
230
90
60
200
200
110
360
150
840
360
60
780
220
240
180
0
590
340
330
90
60
2700
160
270
2600
40
280
270
280
980
910
420
850
540
300
430
880
100
350
310
Temp,
°C
11.0
13.0
9.1
10.1
11.0
11.0
11.0
10.2
9.8
8.0
1.8
10.2
8.0
9.8
14.4
10.9
10.9
15.0
8.5
13.0
11.9
16.9
9.5
9.8
8.9
9.0
9.0
6.2
6.3
8.5
8.0
6.8
7.0
11.0
12.0
7.0
8.0
13.0
13.0
10.9
12.9
14.9
11.0
11.0
10.5
17.5
13.0
1-63
-------
Table I-B-1. Cont.
Well
W8-2
2
2
2
W9-1
1
1
1
1
1
W10-1
1
1
Wll-2
1
2
2
1
W12-1
2
Date Depth*, m pH
2/77 3.1A 8.2
3/77 3.5A 8.1
5/77 7.9
6/77 8.2
1C/76 3. IB
12/76 3. IB
2/77 3. IB 8.1
3/77 2.9B 8.0
4/77 2.9B 8.2
6/77 8.0
10/76 13. 1A
2/77 13. 1A 8.8
6/77 8.6
10/76 6.4A
12/76 13. 4A
12/76 6.4A
3/77 6.2A 8.2
6/77 8.5
9/76 8.5A 8.0
9.76 3.1A 7.9
Specific
cond. at 25°C
750
690
830
450
1045
560
870
890
875
800
965
740
620
845
515
1120
1770
650
1165
890
Total
dissolved
solids, mg/L
Well
500
430
655
320
Well
565
645
615
645
630
Well
630
545
475
Well
845
805
445
Well
1035
350
S0»,
mg/L
Site No.
76
60
37
29
Site No.
145
135
160
190
230
220
Site No.
105
145
62
Site No.
95
125
100
120
78
Site No.
215
70
Cl,
mg/L
W8
32
19
165
8
W9
40
80
32
38
32
24
W10
7
14
0
Wll
150
110
300
205
54
W12
110
5
Alkalinity,
mg/L
300
315
288
245
225
290
270
220
215
490
115
345
400
415
215
430
175
POi-P,
5
0
0
0
4
41
7
0
0
0
0
4
0
16
0
10
7
0
13
8
NO 3- N,
Ug/L
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
40
240
20
20
0
20
0
30
NH3- N,
Ug/L
300
200
690
100
160
260
260
210
220
240
250
610
410
70
460
20
190
330
430
210
Temp,
°C
4,
6,
10
21.
9
5
2
5
13
21
9.
9.
11.
10
.0
,2
.1
.0
.8
.0
.7
.1
.0
.0
8
5
.2
.8
10.8
6.0
12
10
12.
14.
.0
.9
3
3
1-64
-------
Table I-B-1.
Well
W13-1
2
3
4
1
2
1
2
3
4
2
4
1
4
1
3
4
1
2
W14-1
1
1
1
1
W1-A»*
Wl-B **
W2-A**
W2-B **
W2-C**
W2-D**
*A is r
<*Tempor
Date
9/76
9/76
9/76
9/76
2/77
2/77
3/77
3/77
3/77
3/77
4/77
4/77
5/77
5/77
6/77
6/77
6/77
7/77
7/77
10/76
12/76
2/77
3/77
6/77
7/77
7/77
7/77
7/77
7/77
7/77
echarge a
ary wells
nee River
Depth*, m
8.5A
3.1A
8.5A
3.1A
8.5A
3.1A
8.5A
2.9A
8.3A
2.9A
2.9A
2.9A
2 9A
9.2A
9 2A
9.2A
9.0A
nd B is discha
in the northe
pH cond. at 25 C
7.8
8.1
8.5
8.0
7.8
8.2
7.8
8.0
8.4
7.6
8.5
8.1
8.1
8 2
8 4
8.5
7.7
8 1
8.0
8.2
8.1
8.5
7.9
7. 7
8.0
8 6
8 2
8.1
rge.
rn portion
875
760
805
630
1090
1160
960
1105
735
1110
1035
2800
1080
980
900
680
1350
1040
980
400
300
800
845
730
900
790
700
640
750
1050
of the Water;
Total
solids, mg/L
Well
725
760
520
510
790
895
680
730
510
755
705
2115
800
780
675
540
1070
800
740
Well
320
510
515
555
Well
740
Well
590
Well
495
Well
415
Well
515
Well
810
shed in agricu
mg/L
Site No.
150
185
110
120
165
200
125
180
120
180
165
1080
150
200
115
105
370
165
130
Site No.
63
85
130
145
155
Site No.
290
Site No.
100
Site No.
96
Site No.
54
Site No.
95
Site No
205
Itural a
mg/L
W13
70
90
44
60
80
105
80
100
39
70
100
83
100
60
75
48
82
105
80
W14
14
48
8
8
9
Wl-A
19
Wl-B
39
W2-A
34
W2-B
54
W2-C
54
W2-D
115
reas . 'A'
mg/L
340
300
260
140
340
300
340
285
260
390
270
340
255
245
330
250
315
265
330
184
270
275
280
205
360
275
255
270
375
wells were loc;
Mg/L
8
12
8
8
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
22
16
8
0
0
35
0
38
13
26
10
ited along
Ug/L
0
0
20
0
0
0
0
0
0
100
0
70
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
20
20
160
1300
1100
1620
160
830
the main
Pg/L
30
280
0
560
100
200
70
230
90
820
280
1040
330
410
130
80
1400
210
0
50
0
100
100
90
150
290
200
40
30
570
branch of
°C
13 5
14.8
13.0
15.1
10.0
6.0
4.0
5.0
6.2
5.2
6.1
6 0
8 5
10.0
13.0
14.0
15.5
10.0
14 5
11.5
10.1
10 6
10.0
11.0
10 7
10.7
11 2
11 0
10.9
10.8
the
portion of the Watershed
1-65
-------
Table I-B-2. Metal content of groundwater
yg/L
Well No.
W2-3*
W6-4
W7-1*
W7-2
W7-3
W12-2*
W13-1*
W13-3*
W13-4
Wl-1
Wl-3*
W2-2
W2-3*
W3-2*
W5-1
W5-2
W6-1*
W6-2
W10-1*
W14-1
Date Cd
10-2-76
ii
ii
ii
ii
"
M
ii
ii
10-31-76 <0.2
<0.2
<0.2
" <0.2
0.9
<0.2
<0.2
2.3
1.5
" <0.2
<0.2
Cu
4
<3
3
13
3
5
<3
<3
16
5
<3
<3
7
9
<3
<3
70
59
6
4
Pb
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
3
<3
3
Zn
2000
50
2200
110
20
1400
5900
2400
110
<20
4700
100
1260
1230
<20
<20
8440
1660
370
<20
^Galvanized pipe. Zinc values elevated due to zinc
contamination from pipe.
1-66
-------
Table I-B-3. Cation/anion percentages
SO," Ca"
Well No.
2-3
5-1
5-3
8-2
9-1
10-1
14-1
1-3
2-3
6-4
7-4
7-5
11-2
13-3
13-4
1-1
1-2
1-4
2-1
2-2
3-2
5-4
6-1
6-2
7-1
7-2
13-1
13-2
mg/L
225
75
170
76
160
145
130
140
165
105
143
83
120
120
178
87
110
82
920
370
280
180
125
135
74
105
165
200
me/L
4.68
1.56
3.54
1.58
3.33
3.02
2.70
2.91
3.43
2.18
2.98
1.73
2.50
2.50
3.7
1.8
2.3
1.7
19.2
7.7
5.8
3 8
2.6
2.8
1.5
2.2
3.4
4.2
mg/L
95
58
59
228
153
97
154
254
154
85
193
175
169
140
189
67
106
42
336
195
113
133
69
121
47
90
99
110
me/L
4.74
2.90
2.97
6.35
7.64
4.84
7.65
12.43
7.68
4.23
9.63
8.73
8.41
7.01
9.4
3.4
5.2
2.0
16.0
9.8
5.6
6.6
3.',
6.1
2.4
4.4
5.0
5.4
*~
mg/L
79
55
39
59
66
32
42
69
39
49
35
35
93
39
88
56
59
29
135
75
95
62
47
46
24
40
56
53
me/L
6.50
4.56
3.20
4.82
5.43
2.61
3.44
5.65
3.21
4.05
2.91
2.84
7.65
2.95
7.3
4.6
4.8
2.4
11.2
6.2
7.8
5.2
3.8
3.8
2.0
3.2
4.6
4.4
HC03~
mg/L
200
180
74
300
290
116
270
425
230
180
315
300
415
260
390
162
234
105
330
275
233
176
163
187
125
202
205
181
tCOa" Na+ + K+ Cl-
me/L
6.56
5.90
2.43
9.84
9.51
3.80
8.85
13.93
7.54
5.90
10.33
9.84
13.60
8.52
12.8
5.4
7.8
3.5
11.0
9.2
7.8
5.8
5.4
6.2
4.2
6.8
6.8
6.0
mg/L
82
20
239
21
30
11
7
87
68
38
176
92
130
41
59
222
157
89
38
230
34
212
36
75
53
142
80
93
me/L
3.55
.85
10.43
.90
1.30
.50
.31
3.80
2.95
1.67
7.65
4.03
5.69
1.80
2. 3
9.8
6.8
4.7
1.5
9.8
1.4
9.2
1.5
3.2
2.3
6.1
3.4
3.9
mg/L
130
34
430
32
32
14
8
110
140
70
270
135
205
39
70
275
230
34
58
370
180
430
70
170
50
175
80
105
me/L
3.66
.96
12.12
.90
.90
.39
.22
3.10
3.95
1.98
7.61
3.81
5.78
1.10
2.0
7.8
6.5
1.0
1.6
10.4
5.1
12.1
2.0
4.8
1.4
4.9
2.3
3.0
%Ca
32
35
18
53
53
61
67
57
55
43
48
56
37
60
50
19
31
22
57
38
38
31
39
46
36
32
38
39
Cation/anion percentages
ZMg
44
55
19
40
38
33
30
26
23
41
14
18
35
25
38
26
29
26
38
24
53
25
44
29
30
23
35
32
ZNa
24
10
63
7
9
6
3
17
27
17
38
26
26
15
12
55
40
52
5
38
9
43
17
24
34
45
26
29
ZSOt
31
19
20
13
27
42
23
15
23
22
14
11
11
21
21
12
14
27
60
28
31
18
26
20
21
16
27
32
%HC03
44
70
13
80
70
53
75
70
51
59
49
64
62
70
69
36
47
57
35
34
41
27
54
45
59
49
54
45
ZC1
25
11
67
7
7
5
2
15
26
19
36
25
26
9
11
52
39
16
5
38
27
56
20
35
20
35
18
23
TDS
700
385
1200
500
645
545
510
845
745
490
990
625
805
510
755
1095
995
395
1920
1590
1180
1380
625
930
420
745
790
895
*me/L is rnilliequivalent per litre.
1-67
-------
Table I-B-4. Groundwater (GW) and surface water (SW) quality
Donges Bay
Parameters SW GW
Specific cond. 599
Mmhos/cm +40
Total
dissolved 583
solids, mg/L +92
Alkalinity 285
mg CaCOs/L +12
Chloride, 38
mg/L +2 4
N03-N, .91
mg/L +.24 <'°"
NHs-N, .43
-mg/L +.18
Dissolved reduc- .02
tive phosphorus, +.01
mg/L
Total phosphorus
mg/L
Stage 221.76 221.88
(elevation) +.03 +.06
meters
Appleton Ave.
SW
538
+65
493
+121
202
+43
59
+15
.05
+ .04
.07
+ .05
.01
+ .00
.06+
.02
213.18
+ .03
GW
1395
+653
887
±510
181*
92
257
+220
<,02
.22
+ .11
.008
+ .003
-
213.06
+ .02
Pilgrim Rd.
SW
753
+85
598
±20
255
±21
116
+ 11
.41
±.67
.06
+ .04
.07
+ .06
.12
±.06
230.49
+ .02
GW
September
855
+243
660
±177
285
±10
86
±44
.01
±.01
.11
+ .07
.009
±.004
-
226.00
±.27
124th St.
SW
1976 to No
1162
+246
971
±72
258
±13
211
+ 60
3.5
±.6
1.60
+ .83
.84
±.25
1.05
+ .27
214.30
±.05
GW
vember 1976
1701
+496
900
±85
344
+ 60
220
+ 103
•c.02
.45
+ .27
.170
+ .27
-
212.91
+ .77
70th St.
SW
918
+ 167
766
±56
232
±19
171
±9
1.2
+ .6
.32
+ .50
.19
+ .13
.31
+ .16
192.61
+ .01
GW
1923
±233
1825
+ 247
330
±30
216
±189
<.02
.22
±.02
.013
+ .009
-
192.62
±.54
Underwood
SW
960
±162
800
±100
212
±21
150
±41
--
.07
±.10
.01
+ .01
.09
+ .06
GW
830
+ 65
580
±171
260
±82
66
±19
<.02
.04
±.03
.01
±.00
-
Honey
SW
676
±120
574
±89
194
±15
84
±49
.15
±.13
.09
+ .08
.04
i.02
.10
+ .03
GW
900
800
350
100
<.02
.3
. 02
--
December 1976 to February 1977
Cond 505 ggn
pmhos/cm ±35
Total
dissolved 613
solids, mg/L ±82
AIK 282
CaC03, mg/L ±65
Chlor, 38
»8/L +2 15
NOs-N, 1.90 <
mg/L +.16
NHs-N, .14 -
mg/L ±.08
DPJ>-P, .015
mg/L +.050 '°26
TP-P, .085
mg/L ±.015
Stage 221.95 221.89
(elevation) ±.23 ±.09
meters
1495
±360
1558
±279
322
±58
502
±315
.22
+ .22
.100
+ .064
.025
±.035
.03
±.04
212.58
+ .55
1162
+ 612
950
±250
166
±88
365
±225
.22
+ .46
.31
+ .23
.20
±.38
212.57
+ .50
753
±40
713
±62
315
±23
143
±21
2.05
±.47
.91
+ .94
.043
+ .049
.133
±.045
231.14
811
±306
815
+ 163
300
+ 20
153
±53
1.34
±1.23
.17
±.11
.02
±.03
226.31
+ .53
1150
±50
1123
±99
328
±34
330
+ 29
2.33
±1.81
8.45
±2.90
1.02
±.25
1.25
+ .21
214.38
1407
±398
1092
±138
360
±42
377
±108
< Q2
.37
±.11
.01
±.01
213.93
+ .27
1060
J204
1165
±163
271
±30
377
±128
.72
± 57
2.43
±1.96
.36
± 17
.57
±.19
192.74
2120
±715
1750
±353
435
±21
325
±260
.01
±.02
.26
±.16
006
±.005
192.76
±.17
S50
±57
947
+ 52
265
±33
208
+ 4
.32
±.11
.31
±.04
.015
! 007
.16
±.13
—
981
±530
775
±25
325
±26
103
+ 32
< 02
.15
±.05
.01
±.00
—
2030
±530
2063
±646
1025
+ 170
174
+ 40
.27
± 18
.52
+ 67
.03
+ .01
28
±.21
—
1064
±780
1360
±343
400
±20
255
±80
01
± 02
.33
± OJ
0+0
—
1-68
-------
PART II
POTENTIAL IMPACTS FROM LAND USE ACTIVITIES
by
R. N. HOFFER
M. P. ANDERSON
ll-i
-------
ABSTRACT
A wide range of land uses in the Menomonee River Watershed have been
examined for their potential to degrade surface water quality through ground-
water discharge. Excessive amounts of dissolved chloride derived from road
runoff is believed to have caused the most dramatic change in groundwater
quality over pre-urbanized conditions. Fertilizer and pesticide applications
on cropland, effluent from septic tanks and sewer line leakage are suspected
as possible source; of contaminants on some portions of the Watershed.
Solid waste disp '' .areas probably represent a comparatively local rather
than regional hazaii. Seepage from barnyards, salt storage areas, industrial
wastewater disposal sites, municipal sewage sludge spreading areas and air
pollutant fallout are believed to have minor impacts.
A series of 17 maps has been prepared evaluating the relative contaminant
potential for different areas in 9 major land use categories. This approach
optimizes the interpretation of water quality data and provides guidance for
locating future study sites. Investigations at other watersheds can proceed
more efficiently if the experiences and recommendations of this research in
the Menomonee River Watershed are considered.
Il-ii
-------
CONTENTS-PART II
Title Page Il-i
Abstract Il-ii
Contents II-iii
Figures Il-iv
Tables Il-vi
II-l. Introduction II-l
II-2. Conclusions 11-19
II-3. Recommendations 11-21
II-4. Methods and Procedures 11-24
II-5. Results and Discussion 11-26
Solid Waste Disposal Areas 11-26
Salt Storage 11-27
Metal Storage 11-27
Liquid Waste Management 11-28
Runoff from Roads 11-30
Oil and Gas Facilities 11-31
Septic Tanks 11-31
Barnyards 11-32
Cropland 11-33
Residential Lawns 11-34
Fallout of Air Pollutants 11-34
Other Land Uses 11-35
References 11-36
Appendices
II-A. Preparations of Surficial Materials Map 11-38
II-B. Soil-Permeability-Water Table Groupings 11-42
II-C. Comments on Selected Land Use Activities 11-43
II-iii
-------
FIGURES
Number
II-l Impact of solid waste disposal areas on the surface water
quality of the upper portion of the Menomonee River Basin . . . II-2
II-2 Impact of solid waste disposal areas on the surface water
quality of the lower portion of the Menomonee River Basin . . . II-3
II-3 Impact of salt and metal storage areas on the surface
water quality of the upper portion of the Menomonee II-4
River Basin
II-4 Impact of salt and metal storage areas on the surface
water quality of the lower portion of the Menomonee
River Basin II-5
II-5 Impact of liquid waste management on the surface water
quality of the upper portion of the Menomonee River Basin • • • II-6
II-6 Impact of liquid waste management on the surface water
quality of the lower portion of the Menomonee River Basin • • • II-7
II-7 Impact of runoff from roads on the surface water quality
of the upper portion of the Menomonee River Basin II-8
II-8 Impact of runoff from roads on the surface water quality
of the lower portion of the Menomonee River Basin II-9
II-9 Impact of major oil and gas facilities on the surface
water quality of the Menomonee River Basin 11-10
11-10 Impact of septic tanks on the surface water quality on the
upper portion of the Menomonee River Basin 11-11
11-11 Impact of septic tanks on the surface water quality on the
lower portion of the Menomonee River Basin 11-12
11-12 Impact of septic tanks on the surface water quality on the
upper portion of the Menomonee River Basin predicted for the
year 2000 11-13
11-13 Impact of barnyards on the surface water quality of the
Menomonee River Basin 11-14
Il-iv
-------
Number Page
11-14 Impact of cropland on the surface water quality of
the Menomonee River Basin 11-15
11-15 Impact of cropland on the surface water quality of
the Menomonee River Basin predicted for the Year
2000 II-16
11-16 Impact of residential lawns on the surface water
quality of the upper portion of the Menomonee
River Basin 11-17
11-17 Impact of residential lawns on the surface water
quality of the lower portion of the Menomonee River
Basin 11-18
II-v
-------
TABLES
Number Page
II-l Groundwater contributions to surface water quality
for the Menomonee River Basin: Potential impacts
from land use activities 11-20
II-2 Composition of soil extracts 11-22
II-A-1 Composition of surficial material in the Menomonee River
Basin 11-40
II-A-2 Classification of soils and surficial materials 11-41
II-B-1 Soil-permeability-water table groupings 11-42
IT-C-1 Comments on solid waste disposal areas shown as Figs. II-l
and II-2 11-43
II-C-2 Comments on road salt storage sites shown in Figs. II-3
and II-4 11-44
Il-vi
-------
II-l. INTRODUCTION
One of the goals of the Menomonee River Pilot Watershed study was to
investigate some of the complex relationships between land use and surface
water quality. While the largest source of contaminants to the river system
originates from direct point and non-point surface discharge, significant
pollutant loadings potentially could be discharged to the river in ground-
water. Specifying in detail the importance of contaminants transported to
the river in groundwater is necessary to obtain a reasonable understanding
of the Watershed under present and probable future levels of development.
This portion of the project was directed toward obtaining data which are use-
ful in identifying those areas of the Watershed where land use activities
could have an impact on groundwater which discharges to the Menomonee River
System. Subtasks incorporated in this section of the project include:
a. Identifying those land uses which potentially could affect ground-
water quality;
b. identifying which of those activities are currently being practiced
in the Watershed and where they are located;
c. relating operational history to geological and hydrological factors
for the use areas;
d. developing a methodology to rank the potential for contaminants
to be transported to surface waters by subsurface flow;
e. using the methodology to prepare maps showing contaminant potentials
for various land use activities in the watershed;
f. relating this comparative analysis to in-field water quality data;
and
g. developing recommendations for additional study in the basin and for
future investigations in other watersheds.
The contaminant potential maps included as Figs. II-l to 11-17, represent
the principal final product of the analysis. As a supplement to these are
sections on methods of study, data analysis and interpretation for each land
use category, final recommendations, conclusions and supportive appendices.
II-l
-------
o
A
D
LEGEND
RELATIVE SIGNIFICANCE — WASTE TYPE
insignificant slight slight—moderate
O
A
CD
c
k
kk
^^ demolition, wood
• other materials
closed
closed after 1967
closed before 1967
scale
one kilometer
one mile
data base. )977
Fig. II-l. Impact of solid waste disposal areas on the surface water quality
of the upper portion of the Menomonee River Basin.
II-2
-------
31 A
39cOD40k
LEGEND
RELATIVE SIGNIFICANCE - WASTE TYPE
insignificant slight slight—moderate
o
A
D
O
A
0
c
k
kk
9 mixed refuse
A demolition, wood
B other materials
closed
closed after 1967
closed before 1967
scale
one kilometer
one mile
data base: 1977
Fig. II-2. Impact of solid waste disposal areas on the surface water quality
of the lower portion of the Menomonee River Basin.
II-3
-------
LEGEND
RELATIVE SIGNIFICANCE
insignificant slight slight-moderate
A A ^ SALT
D ID • METAL
scale
one kilometer
one mile
data base. 1977
Fig. II-3. Impact of salt and metal storage areas on the surface water quality
of the upper portion of the Menomonee River Basin.
II-4
-------
LEGEND
RELATIVE SIGNIFICANCE
insignificant slight slight—moderate
A & A SALT
D CD • METAL
scale
one kilometer
one mile
data base: 1977
Fig. II-4. Impact of salt and metal storage areas on the surface water quality
of the lower portion of the Menomonee River Basin.
II-5
-------
rr
LU
crS
•••• Sections most likely to affect surface
water if leakage occurs
• •.^Sections which may feed groundwater
under losing stream segments
—• Sections less likely to affect surface
water
^ Municipal sewage sludge
spreading site
A Industrial liquid waste
disposal site
scale
(
>
\
V J
>> .*
\ /
i^Hl one kilometer
^•••^•1 one mile
data base- 1975
Fig. II-5. Impact of liquid waste management on the surface water quality
of the upper portion of the Menomonee River Basin.
II-6
-------
LEGEND
tn
£ ••*• Sections most likely to affect surface
rr $ water if leakage occurs
Otu
3(n
x —••—Sections which may feed groundwate
~~ under losing stream segments
•— Sections less likely to affect surface
water
^ Municipal sewage sludge
spreading site
A Industrial liquid waste
disposal site
ID
tr
scale
one kilometer
one mile
data base 1975
Fig. II-6. Impact of liquid waste management on the surface water quality
of the lower portion of the Menomonee River Basin.
II-7
-------
LEGEND
RELATIVE SIGNIFICANCE
• •••••• HIGH
------ MODERATE
i—_ LOW
scale
one kilometer
one mile
not specified
river system
data base: 1977
Fig. II-7. Impact of runoff from roads on the surface water quality of the
upper portion of the Menomonee River Basin.
II-8
-------
LEGEND
RELATIVE SIGNIFICANCE
.....•• HIGH
______ MODERATE
__^__ LOW
scale
not specified
river system
data base- 1977
Fig. II-8. Impact of runoff from roads on the surface water quality of the
lower portion of the Menomonee River Basin.
II-9
-------
LEGEND
Major oil pipeline
Maior natural gas pipeline
Pipeline sections most likely to
affect surface water if leakage
would occur
Maior oil storage facility
(pipeline locations approximate)
scale
one kilometer
one mile
data base 1977
Fig. II-9. Impact of major oil and gas facilities on the surface water quality
of the Menomonee River Basin.
11-10
-------
LEGEND
RELATIVE
SIGNIFICANCE
high moderate low
PROBABLE
CONTAMINANT
scale
one kilometer
one mile
data base: 1970
nitrate
Fig. 11-10. Impact of septic tanks on the surface water quality on the
upper portion of the Menomonee River Basin. (See text, page 11-31 for
explanation of relative significance.)
11-11
-------
LEGEND
RELATIVE PROBABLE
SIGNIFICANCE CONTAMINANT
high moderate low
nitrate
scale
one kilometer
one mile
data base 1970
Fig. 11-11. Impact of septic tanks on the surface water quality on the lower
portion of the Menomonee River Basin.
11-12
-------
LEGEND
RELATIVE PROBABLE
SIGNIFICANCE CONTAMINANT
high moderate low
nitrate
scale
one kilometer
one mile
Fig. 11-12. Impact of septic tanks on the surface water quality on the
upper portion of the Menomonee River Basin predicted for the year 2000.
11-13
-------
LEGEND
RELATIVE PROBABLE 1
SIGNIFICANCE CONTAMINANT \
high moderate low V
1
A A O ammonia / A A
0 O nitrate ^^^ .
1 /
' /
scale ••^•M one kilometer ^
data base: 1976
Fig. 11-13. Impact of barnyards on the surface water quality of the
Menomonee River Basin.
11-14
-------
LEGEND
RELATIVE SIGNIFICANCE
:::: HIGH
MODERATE
LOW
scale
one kilometer
one mile
data base 1976
Fig. 11-14. Impact of cropland on the surface water quality of the
Menomonee River Basin.
11-15
-------
LEGEND
RELATIVE SIGNIFICANCE
MODERATE
LOW
scale
one kilometer
one mile
Fig. 11-15. Impact of cropland on the surface water quality of the
Menomonee River Basin predicted for the year 2000.
11-16
-------
LEGEND
RELATIVE SIGNIFICANCE
:::: HIGH
MODERATE
LOW
scale
one kilometer
one mile
data base 1976
Fig. 11-16. Impact of residential lawns on the surface water quality of
the upper portion of the Menomonee River Basin.
11-17
-------
LEGEND
RELATIVE SIGNIFICANCE
:::: HIGH
MODERATE
LOW
data base 1976
Fig. 11-17. Impact of residential lawns on the surface water quality of the
lower portion of the Menomonee River Basin.
11-18
-------
II-2. CONCLUSIONS
The overall quality of groundwater derived from unconsolidated materials
discharging to the Menomonee River has been evaluated by Eisen (1) based on
in-field monitoring data. Perhaps the most significant control on ground-
water quality is the weathering of geologic materials. The goal of this
phase of the groundwater study was to assess the potential impact of various
land uses on groundwater which discharges to the Menomonee River System.
However, certain trends can be related to the presence of specific land use
categories in the Watershed. The application of road salts, with consequent
runoff and aquifer recharge, is believed to be the cause of major, wide-
spread modification of groundwater quality. Land uses suspected as factors
in causing more subtle changes include fertilizer and pesticide applications
on cropland, regional septic tank use, sewer line leakage and solid waste
disposal practices. It should be stressed that the analyses presented in
Figs. II-l to 11-17 represent a qualitative evaluation of land use and
geologic settings rather than, the outcome of comprehensive monitoring. The
assessments are directed at understanding the role of contaminant transfer
to surface waters by subsurface flow. It is likely that the relative
importance of specific land uses in the immediate area of the use sites will
be different from the syntheses presented here.
Despite the limitations inherent in this approach, the research has
produced significant information relating land use and groundwater quality
to surface water quality. The series of contaminant potential maps (Figs.
II-l to 11-17) represents one of the first comprehensive attempts at under-
standing the variety of urban and rural land uses which can affect surface
water quality through groundwater flow paths. A summary of what is believed
to constitute the relative significance of various sources is included in
Table II-l. There is considerable merit in following this approach in
water resource management analyses. Assessments of other watersheds should
be expedited by considering the recommendations outlined in this report.
11-19
-------
Table II-l. Groundwater contributions to surface water quality for the Menomonee River Basin: potential impacts from land use activities
Rank
1
2
3
A
5
6
H
M
10 7
O
8
9
10
11
7
7
Probable significance Areal impact
category Assessment Major Inter. Minor Local Regional
Weathering of Impact
geologic assured X X
materials
Road runoff " X X
Fertilizer Impact X X
and pesticide inter-
applications preted
on croplands
Septic tanks "X X
Sewer line " X XX
leakage
Solid waste " XXX
disposal
areas
Barnyards " XX
Salt storage " XX
areas
Industrial " XX
wastewater
disposal
Sewage sludge " XX
spreading
Air pollutant " XX
fallout
Metal storage Impact X X
areas unknown
Oil and gas " XX
facilities
Residential " XX X
lawns
Principal pollutants
Harmful Hazardous
Cl SOi, Metals Nitrogen POi, bacteria organics Hydrocarbons
X X
XXX XXX X X
XX X
X XX
X XXX
XXXX X
X X
X
XX X
X XXX
X X
XXX X
XX X
XX X
? Other users
-------
II-3. RECOMMENDATIONS
The Menomonee River Watershed was selected for study because it has
exhibited a rapidly changing pattern of urbanization in a relatively small,
definable area. Continued research in the Watershed is warranted. From a
groundwater perspective, several different approaches can be taken. Three
examples are:
a. To continue the thrust of the IJC goals, accelerated programs of
in-field groundwater monitoring could be carried out at various land use
sites. The relative ranking list provided as Table II-2 would be useful in
developing priorities. Those uses whose impacts are unknown should also be
examined. It is important that stations at major study sites be maintained
over a period of several years because changes in the hydrogeologic regime
occur at a comparatively slow rate.
b. Groundwater monitoring could be conducted as part of an overall pro-
gram to control a specific pollutant problem in the river system. Assuming
wastewater discharges are eliminated in the future, attention might be placed,
for example, on reducing nutrient loadings in surface waters. This aim will
necessitate monitoring some areas (i.e., septic tanks or croplands) while
omitting others (i.e., salt and metal storage).
c. Interest might be raised in protecting portions of the bedrock
aquifer most susceptible to groundwater contamination from the overlying
unconsolidated materials. This need would warrant considering many land uses
as to their local impacts on groundwater rather than, as was done in this
program, on the eventual impact to surface waters.
The question remains as to how relationships between land use and ground-
water discharge, which control surface water quality, can be optimally examin-
ed in other watersheds in the Great Lakes Basin. Although the various kinds
of land use activities which can contribute to groundwater contamination have
been identified for the Menomonee River Watershed, the relative importance of
these activities may be considerably different in other watersheds undergoing
development. These differences could be due to differences in geology, ground-
water use or areal distribution of land uses. Thus, based on our experience in
this project a typical sequence of steps which might be useful in evaluating
sources of contamination in other watersheds include:
a. Compile the available land use and hydrogeologic data for the area.
b. Identify the aquifers which are hydraulically connected, with surface
waters.
11-21
-------
Table II-2. Composition of soil extracts
Location
Sampling location
Within 6 m of salt
storage pile
Within 6 m of salt
storage pile
In drainage ditch below
salt storage pile
In front of discharge
Figure No.
II-4
1 1-4
II-4
II-6
Site No.
H
Q
Q
2
Parameter, mg/L
Cl SO i» N Hardness
6200 80 — 720
3000 200 — 1200
2400 120 — 1680
40 <10 1.4
from oil/water
separator
15 m down gradient of
discharge from
oil/water separator
Automobile salvage yard
Control-outwash sand
II-6
II-4
11
50 <10 17.8
<10 120 0.8
30 50 0.8 280
11-22
-------
c. Interpret existing data, most importantly, an assessment of base
flow (the groundwater component) and surface water quality for all seasons is
needed. If data are lacking, use inexpensive field monitoring devices (i.e.,
shallow, hand driven wells, spring samples, selected domestic wells, etc.)
or collect base flow samples from several sites in the watershed.
d. Identify the locations of land use activities which can have an
effect on surface water through groundwater flow.
e. Develop a broad network of groundwater monitoring well sites based
on major land use activity regions, proximity to other monitoring stations,
changes in nearby river morphology and proximity to areas where degraded
water quality is noted.
f. Develop overlay map techniques or other data management tools.
Information should be accumulated on the specific geologic setting and
operational history at the different use areas.
g. Develop and apply a ranking system to determine which use areas and
categories pose the greatest relative potential for contaminant input.
h. As needed, extend in-field monitoring to critical river reaches
or higher potential contaminant areas. Include data monitoring for lower
potential contaminant areas to serve as control sites and to test the
validity of the ranking approach.
i. After final evaluations are made, continue long term monitoring of
an abbreviated, optimized well network.
Additional suggestions concerning extrapolation to other watersheds are
given by Anderson (2).
11-23
-------
II-4. METHODS AND PROCEDURES
Basic data were obtained from the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Plan-
ning Commission (SEWRPC), the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR),
the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the Wisconsin Public Services Commission
(WPSC), the U.S. Soil Conservation Service (SCS), private trade associations,
municipal governments and a variety of other sources. As shown in later
sections, overlay map techniques were employed as an interpretive tool in many
cases. This approach has been accepted by many workers in the regional
planning and natural resources management fields. It is more fully discussed
by McHarg (3). The SEWRPC's Land Data Management System proved invaluable for
data handling and display purposes. Aside from the system's ability to
reproduce accurate land use information, the computer program storing detailed
soils data was modified by request to SEWRPC. This resulted in several useful
maps:
a- A characterization of the soils by their underlying geological
(surficial) materials. The map was helpful in showing the areal geology
around specific disposal sites, storage areas, pipe lines and sewer lines. A
discussion of the methodology and limitations of the approach is included in
Appendix II-A. The map was unsuitable to the reproduction methods used in
this report. The original is available by contacting the Project Leader. The
soils grouped within each surficial materials category are also listed in
Appendices II-A-1 and II-A-2.
b. Maps characterizing the soils based on the properties of permeability
and depth to the water table. Separate sheets were prepared for B and C
horizons. The C horizon maps were used more frequently, especially in those
cases where overlying soil horizons are likely not important (as in septic
tank drain fields) or have probably been disturbed (as in some residential
developments). The maps were used in several evaluations of areal use
impact. For dealing with site specific uses, such as barnyard investigations,
some modification is needed. Better results were sought in this case, by
studying the somewhat more accurate, SCS county soils maps (4,5,6). The
computer interpreted maps, based on dominant soil type (and hence, physical
characteristics) in each hectare are believed to be of more than acceptable
accuracy for the other interpretations. Soil groupings for each permeability/
water table class are listed in Appendix II-B.
A method aimed at assessing available contaminants in soils beneath
selected land use sites was tested. McWhorter et al. (7) found that by
saturating a small amount of mine spoils with an equivalent weight of water,
an extract was obtained whose quality was very similar to the groundwater
found underneath the sampled spoil pile. For the Menomonee project, a series
of cores was taken from the upper foot of soil. The soil was slowly dried.
11-24
-------
That portion which passed through a No. 10 (medium sand) sieve was saved. A
representative 25 g sample was placed with 250 ml of deionized water in a
comparatively inert plastic bottle for 16 hr. The amounts used should yield
roughly a 10 to 1 dilution as compared to cited procedures. The mixture was
shaken several times during the test period. Table II-2 displays the results
of chemical analyses of the filtered extract, corrected for the dilution
factor. Research should continue on the merits of such rudimentary though
potentially useful laboratory tests.
Final evaluations as presented on the maps fall into two major categories:
consideration of the overall input from an areally distributed land use (i.e.,
concentrations of septic tanks or croplands) or from distinct use sites (i.e.,
salt storage or solid waste disposal areas). In the former case, ranking the
potential for contaminants to be released from an area, through soils inter-
pretations, appeared to be the most logical approach in preliminary evaluation.
Owing to the current lack of information on groundwater flow in the separate
subwatersheds, it was not possible to go beyond this first step. Assessing
the contaminant potential from site specific uses, necessitates comparing the
relative probabilities for pollutants to be released from those areas and
transmitted to surface waters. This involved an interpretive evaluation of
the operational history of the site, its position within the geologic framework
and in-field, reconnaissance analysis.
It is important to remember that the evaluations do not represent detail-
ed collection and analysis of groundwater quality information at the specific
sites or within the distributed use areas. Such an approach was impossible to
initiate given the constraints imposed on this phase of the project. The maps
do, however, serve as useful aids in evaluating observed surface and ground-
water quality trends in the basin. Of equal importance, they identify those
areas where future monitoring would be most critical. Except where specifi-
cally noted, the maps represent an accurate reduction of draft plates, drawn
at a scale of 1:48,000.
11-25
-------
II-5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Solid Waste Disposal Areas
The impact of solid waste disposal practices on groundwater quality has
received considerable attention in the last 10 years. These facilities re-
present—in some cases—a hazard to drinking water supplies or receiving sur-
face water bodies. The locations of the 41 waste disposal sites in the
Menomonee River Watershed are shown in Figs. II-l and II-2. These represent
sites which have been used by the private and public sectors within the last
25 years and which were identified in the files of the WDNR and by interviews
with municipal officials and area residents. While the number may seem large,
it is likely that there have been others. All sites were visited on a
reconnaissance basis. This information was combined with interpretations on
the surrounding geology and hydrology to develop the final maps. Specific
comments on many of the sites are included in Appendix II-C.
Though eight sites have been given the highest rating, this only reveals
an assessment of "slight to moderate" relative significance. No sites were
deemed to represent an obvious, serious hazard to quality in the main river
system. This does not imply that they are not important in a more local water
quality scheme. As for the four currently operating sites of the highest
rating, two are being monitored through the efforts of WDNR (sites 5 and 6).
The other two are restricted to waste products which do not contain refuse,
garbage or hazardous wastes. A fifth site, number 9, has caused some local
surface water problems though remedial measures are being implemented. Of the
three remaining "slight to moderate" all but one have been closed for over 10
years. As reported in Ruedisili (8), the Wisconsin Department of Health and
Social Services suspected that site number 19 may have been a prime cause for
contamination of neighboring domestic wells in the 1950's. Additional
monitoring of these three sites might be advisable.
Monitoring wells installed for the study are not in locations which
appear to be affected by the disposal sites noted on the maps. Well site 7
shows unusually high sulfates, a pollutant frequently associated with waste
disposal. Although well site 2 appears to be located hydrologically upgradient
from disposal site 25, groundwater "mounding" within the fill may have caused
a reversal of groundwater gradients, or the waste deposits may extend beyond
mapped boundaries.
Current waste disposal trends in the region appear encouraging from a
water quality standpoint. Specifically, these trends are:
a. The movement towards concentrating waste disposal in sites with
natural or artificial, low permeable liners combined with systems of leachate
11-26
-------
collection and outside treatment.
b. The emphasis on incorporating resources recovery schemes, thereby
reducing waste quantities.
c. The strong environmental protection programs directed from Federal
and State governments.
Barring unforeseen development, it is probable that solid waste disposal will
present a decreasing future hazard to surface water quality in the basin.
Salt Storage
All known municipal and two major private road salt storage areas were
examined. Field visits were conducted in the summer of 1977 and survey data
collected by SEWRPC were studied. The salt represents a concentrated, highly
soluble source for dissolved ion pickup in percolating rainwaters. Chloride
is the main pollutant of concern. Some smaller quantities of toxic pollutants,
such as ferrocyanate anti-caking compounds may also be present. For economic
reasons municipalities outside urban areas use salt and sand mixtures rather
than pure salt. Urban communities are concerned that sand will clog sewer
lines. When considering storage sites as pollutant inputs to groundwater, the
area exposed to rainfall either directly in the storage pile or indirectly,
if washed off and held in the soil profile, is an important control on total
quantities of contaminated percolate. A highly concentrated, steep mound of
salt exposes less surface area than a pile which has been eroded to yield a
significantly higher effective salt recharge area. Results of extraction
analyses of soils at two salt storage sites in the watershed are shown in
Table II-l. The potential for recharging high concentrations of chloride is
apparent.
In salt storage areas, operating procedures are critical to overall
environmental impact. At some sites large quantities of salt were kept in the
open, without cover, upon broken asphalt or permeable soil surfaces. More
satisfactory protection was noted at other sites, some showing excellent,
semi-closed sheds, up to one completely closed and specially designed
"beehive" shelter. Comments on individual facilities are included in Appendix
II-C-2. The rating put equal weight on operational procedures as well as site
setting.
Those sites with the highest relative potential (Figs. II-3 and II-4)
are located along the lowermost reaches of the Menomonee River, just west of
the estuary. It is uncertain whether the river is gaining groundwater from
the immediate surroundings or whether groundwater from beneath the sites
discharges farther east and into the estuary. The sites represent potentially
significiant non-point sources of contaminants if not properly managed.
Metal Storage
Automobile salvage yards and metal scrap yards often constitute
significant visual pollution. The surface runoff from the sites, frequently
11-27
-------
high in dissolved salts, metals, suspended sediments, oils and grease, is
another obvious problem. Whether dissolved contaminants transported to the
groundwater system constitute a similar hazard is uncertain. The relative
potential impact from these sites in the Watershed was evaluated on a pre-
liminary basis, as shown in Figs. II-3 and II-4. The analysis relied on
similar criteria to those used in evaluating salt storage areas. Any
approach at field reconnaissance, beyond the most superficial, was met with
disfavor by many yard managers.
There are two significiant concentrations of metal storage areas in the
Watershed. The first, near the junction of the Menomonee and Little Menomonee
Rivers, is believed to be underlain by a poorly permeable clay-rich layer in
the unconsolidated sediments. Segments of the surface waters in this region
are not supported by groundwater discharge. These factors would tend to
lessen overall impact. The second group of sites is in the lowermost reaches
of the watershed and contains the largest facilities. Again, it is uncertain
where groundwater from this area discharges. These two storage site concen-
trations are areas where continued study may be warranted. Extraction analyses
at one salvage yard in the Watershed showed the potential for some increase in
sulfate concentrations in percolating rainwater (Table II-l).
Liquid Waste Management
Three sources of liquid waste were identified as potential contributors
to groundwater contamination. They are: a. sewer line leakage; b. indus-
trial waste water; c. sewage sludge.
Infiltration of groundwater into sewer pipes is well known to sanitary
engineers. Infiltration of groundwater may occur through weak zones at pipe
joints or breaks or when pressures within the pipe are lower than the surround-
ing groundwater pressures. Auld (9) cited average values of infiltration of
18,700 L/day/ha of tributary Watershed or 70,500 L/day/km of major trunk sewer.
Though this represents a large amount of extra fluid which must be handled by
the sewage treatment plant, similar quantities of liquid waste can exfiltrate
from the pipe any time fluid pressures within the pipe are greater than those
in the surrounding medium. This most easily occurs when the pipe is placed
above the water table. The ability of the contaminants—principally nutrients,
chlorides and microorganisms—to flow with the groundwater to surface waters is
largely a function of surrounding geology.
Figs. II-5 and II-6 show the relative potential for groundwater contam-
ination of major trunk sewers in the Basin. The rating considered the thick-
ness and texture of the unconsolidated host sediments, the distance from the
pipes to the surface water and the overall direction of groundwater movement.
Three separate categories were designated as follows:
a. Sections most likely to affect surface waters if leakage occurs.
These include sewers which are bedded in relatively permeable deposits,
upgradient and near to receiving surface waters. Information on actual depths
to the water table would provide additional help in evaluating the potential
for groundwater contamination.
11-28
-------
b. Sections in which surface waters are recharging the groundwater
system. In these settings, the water table is usually deeper than in
Category a. Leakage from sewer lines is then quite possible. Though the
contaminated groundwater would not discharge in the immediate vicinity, it
might flow to a gaining stream segment downgradient.
c. Sections less likely to affect surface waters by groundwater flow
paths.
The ranking system appears to be a viable approach for the Menomonee
River Watershed and is supported by field groundwater quality data. Data
from two well sites show elevated levels of fecal coliform indicator organisms
(1). The sites are close to sewer lines and overflow devices. Based on the
independent analysis outlined above, both locations were noted to be susceptible
to sewer line impacts. Many more smaller sewer lines are present in the basin
and may be sources of pollutants. Separate storm sewers are frequently
installed with less than adequate sealing. They are as yet an unevaluated
problem.
Though the Menomonee River Watershed is highly industrialized, only two
facilities are reported to use wastewater disposal systems which discharge to
groundwaters. This is a much smaller number than originally expected and is
probably a result of:
a. The industrial wastes generated in the area are less amenable to
such treatment;
b. The lack of soils well suited to on-site process water disposal (10);
and
c. The presence of a dense network of municipal sewer lines and of many
surface water segments, both of which could receive such effluents.
Information on these two sites contained in the files of the Industrial
Wastewater section of the WDNR was obtained and both sites were visited in
the field. It is likely that the effluents have a minor effect on surface
waters. The first site, noted in Fig. 11-5, is a concrete block manufacturing
plant. It yields an average flow of 75,900 L/day to a long dry ditch infiltra-
tion area. The WDNR believes the quality of the effluent to be generally
good. The second site, noted in Fig. II-6, is an oil storage and distribution
area. The surface runoff from loading and unloading is directed to an oil-water
separator. The clarified liquid is discharged into a diked area surrounding
the oil storage tanks. The average daily flow is listed in their State permit
application as less than 3,790 L/day. Wastewater quantities and qualities are
not deemed to be hazardous by the WDNR. The soil extraction analyses presented
in Table II-l lend some additional support to this belief.
Creosote contamination of the Little Menomonee River south of Brown Deer
Road has been reported (11). The waste is believed to have originated from a
surface water discharge. Test borings on the property of the suspected dis-
charger have revealed some creosote in underlying soils. While the density
and relative insolubility of creosote would tend to discourage movement
through groundwater, the importance of this mechanism has not been defined
11-29
-------
completely at the subject site.
In some areas of the country, aquifers are used to supply cooling water
for air conditioning systems and to receive heated water in return. It was
expected that some industries in the area would be using this method. Non-
contact cooling water is not regulated by the WDNR. Based on a telephone
survey of air conditioning contractors and engineering consultants, it does
not appear that this method is practiced in the Watershed. Some factors
which control this situation include:
a. Wisconsin's general prohibition of "injection wells" regardless of
the character of the water used for recharge;
b. The belief among industry that private wells represent a less
reliable source of supply (because of generally falling groundwater levels)
than municipal sources; and
c. The generally successful use of continuous pumping recirculation
systems (closed loop) in most plants.
Based on this analysis, non-contact cooling water disposal is not
perceived as a current impact on groundwater in the basin. It is possible
that with the increasing recognition of groundwater reservoirs as possible
temperature storage units, more attention will have to be devoted to such
resource quality protection in the future.
The four municipal sewage sludge disposal sites in current use in the
Basin, are shown in Fig. II-5. The waste is normally mixed into the upper-
most soil layers during the spring and fall. While these seasons do repre-
sent significant recharge periods to groundwater, the sites are not likely
to constitute an important impact on the river system. The sites are closely
monitored by WDNR. Application rates and techniques follow best management
practice guidelines developed through the University of Wisconsin-Extension
and by several State agencies (12).
Runoff from Roads
Surface runoff from highways and residential streets has been shown to
contain high levels of dissolved and suspended contaminants of variable
composition (13;14). Excessive concentrations of dissolved chloride are
considered to be the most significant contributor to groundwater contamina-
tion. Field data collected during the IJC project suggest that this is
the most significant modification of groundwater quality attributable to
urbanization. Assessing its full magnitude would involve an additional,
major research effort. Figs. II-7 and II-8 were prepared as preliminary
aids for grappling with this problem. The maps display the textures of
soils bordering major U.S. and county highways in the watershed. Decreases
in soil permeability, fostering lower fluid recharge rates, also foster
lower chloride transmission. The majority of roads categorized are bounded
by soils of moderate permeability; therefore of moderate hazard. This
analysis is, of course, preliminary in nature and does not consider the
11-30
-------
location and discharge point of storm sewers. The maps are a first approach
at studying this problem. As for comparison to field data, well site 5 had
the highest levels of chloride found in the unconsolidated materials (1).
The site adjoins roads which, based on these maps, appear to be bounded by
the most permeable soils. The soils in the metropolitan Milwaukee area have
not been mapped by SCS, so the roads could not be rated in that area.
Oil and Gas Facilities
Leaking oil and natural gas pipelines in some settings, can contribute
dissolved hydrocarbons to surrounding groundwaters. Advances in cathodic
protection of pipelines has cut dramatically the instances of leakage through
rusted, weakened zones. Periodic flow monitoring devices are also used to
check for breaks along the lines. According to engineers at Wisconsin's
Public Services Commission (personal communication, 1977), no instances of
groundwater contamination from pipelines have been reported during the last
few years. If leakage does occur, large quantities of contaminants could
conceivably be transmitted to groundwaters before corrective actions are
implemented. With this possibility in mind, Fig. II-9 was prepared. Major
oil and natural gas pipelines are shown in their approximate locations. The
orientation and position of these lines were taken from regional maps and
should be considered only approximate. Those sections which appear to pass
through permeable deposits closest to the river, are denoted as having a
higher potential for contamination if leakage occurs. Only major gas lines
are shown; many kilometers of smaller lines which branch off the major lines
are not shown.
Three principal oil storage facilities in the basin have been identified
and are shown on Fig. II-9. The largest by far, is the most northerly
concentration of tanks. Again, no history of groundwater contamination has
been reported. What remains as a more critical potential problem are the
large numbers of fuel storage tanks at unknown locations in industrial
facilities and gas stations. Regulatory control of these units is sketchy at
best. Many factories have tanks with capacities of thousands of m3. Gas
stations typically retain about 100 m3 in storage. Their overall impact on
local water quality is an important, yet unassessed factor in urban watersheds.
Septic Tanks
Maps showing land use and population density (11) were overlain with maps
showing sewer service areas to determine major concentrations of septic tank
use. No appreciable regions of medium density (18.2 to 57 persons/net
residential hectare) or high density (> 57 persons) concentrations of develop-
ment were found which used septic tanks. Significant groupings of low
density residential (1.2 to 18 persons) areas are shown in Figs. 11-10 and
11-11. Small, more isolated housing tracts would not be identified on the
general land use map upon which the analyses were made. Considering an
average daily discharge of 375 L/day/person (15), this represents a small
amount per hectare, but a more considerable amount in concentrations of use
11-31
-------
areas. Total discharge to groundwater can easily average 510 m3/day/km2 in low
density residential areas.
The method used to evaluate septic tank contamination potential has been
modified from an approach presented by Miller (16). He found that areas of
Delaware with more permeable soils and deeper water tables (> 1.5 m from the
ground surface), corresponded to regions with elevated nitrate levels in
groundwater. Similarly, regions with high water tables and more slowly
permeable soils favored overland runoff of septic tank effluent and bacterial
contamination of wells. By extending his findings, those more reducing
environments would tend to prevent the oxidation of ammonia in the effluent
to nitrate forms. From a groundwater standpoint, bacterial contamination
represents a very local hazard, while ammonia concentrations can remain for
longer subsurface flow paths. Unlike nitrate however, ammonia can be removed
to some degree through adsorption during travel through the aquifer. Nitri-
fication can occur with eventual discharge to surface waters.
Soils in the watershed were classified according to depth to water
table and permeability characteristics (Appendix II-B). Examining the C
horizon in this case is especially important since drain fields will most
often be placed primarily above this soil horizon. The breakoff point for
permeability classes are similar to those used by the SCS (17). They were
modified slightly to incorporate field data gathered by University of
Wisconsin-Extension (-18). The actual acreage of the Watershed affected by
this change is < 1%.
The dominant class in the basin is denoted as "moderate-ammonia." Few
regions favoring the more serious "high-nitrate" forms were shown. Only one
IJC well site is placed clearly downgradient from a concentration of septic
tanks (shown largely as "moderate-ammonia"). The well shows the highest
concentration of ammonia found in the unconsolidated aquifer (1). This value
(mean = 0.86 mg/L) is still relatively low from the standpoint of an aquatic
ecosystem hazard. While other factors may be involved (i.e., sewer line
leakage), it does lend supportive evidence for continuing research on this
problem. The prevalence of "moderate ammonia" ratings reflects the general
high water table conditions and poor septic tank suitability setting for
most residential areas in the Basin.
Current land use plans for the Menomonee River Basin (11) favor the
extension of the metropolitan Milwaukee sewage treatment system to a greatly
increased service area. Fig. 11-12 shows septic tank ratings determined for
future planned low density residential areas, outside those expected to be
sewered. Assuming the overall trend is eventually followed, the potential
problem from septic tanks will decrease while that derived from sewer line
leakage will become of greater concern.
Barnyards
There are over 40 barnyards in the Watershed. They mostly confine beef
cattle and are small, usually holding 20 to 100 animals (11). Assessment of
potential for groundwater contamination from barnyards (Fig. 11-13) was based
11-32
-------
on soil interpretations similar to those performed for septic tanks. Because
of the size of the yards, the more generalized computer maps used in septic
tank studies were not sufficiently precise for this phase. The steps that
were followed included:
a. Barnyard locations identified by SEWRPC on recent, detailed air
photographs were consulted.
b. From the photographs, sites were accurately located on USGS
topographic maps and SCS county soils maps (4;5;6).
c. The orientation of overland runoff from each yard was measured on
the topographic maps.
d. The orientation was plotted on the soil sheets and 150 m typical
flow path was drawn.
e. The soils beneath this flow path were classified according to
permeability and depth to water table for B and C horizons.
f. A summary rating was determined based on dominant physical
characteristics.
Most research on groundwater impacts from barnyards has been concerned
with highly concentrated (several thousand animals) feedlot operations (19).
Smaller yards in similar settings do pose smaller threats. Based on this
preliminary assessment, only four barnyards in the Watershed appear to be
located in largely permeable soils. Isolated barnyards are undoubtedly less
significant on a regional scale than areal concentrations of barnyards, which
occur, for example, in the headwaters of the Little Menomonee River. Whether
nitrification of ammonia from feedlots is a factor in the elevated nitrate
levels found in the upper Watershed is uncertain. According to the U.S.
Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service in Washington County
(Simpson, personal communication, 1977), daily removal and spreading of manure
is practiced by many farmers in the area. The need for such cleanliness is
especially important in dairy operations. These factors tend to reduce the
overall impact from barnyards in the basin.
Cropland
Fertilizer and pesticide inputs to groundwater can have a deleterious
regional effect on surface water quality (20). Agriculture in the Menomonee
River Watershed is concentrated primarily in Washington and Ozaukee Counties.
Field data on low surface water flows and some information on spring water
quality, shows an increase in dissolved nutrients over background levels.
Nitrates are conservative ions and may be transmitted readily in groundwater.
While nitrate is usually below 0.5 mg/L of nitrogen in uncontaminated ground-
water, analyses for the upper Watershed indicate that at times nitrates can
be as high as 2 or 3 mg/L of nitrogen. While still below the drinking water
standard of 10 mg/L of nitrogen, these levels can enhance the growth of
nuisance organisms in some parts of the river system. Fig. 11-14 ranks the
11-33
-------
relative potential for groundwater contamination from different cropland
areas. Soils are ranked solely by permeability class, with higher values
allowing greater influx of contaminants. Differentiating between inputs of
nitrate or ammonia is not deemed possible based on available data. Crop
type was not considered in this preliminary analysis but should be included
in any later work. Heavily fertilized corn or hay fields spread with manure
would likely contribute higher loadings than nitrogen fixing, lower nitrate
releasing soybean fields. Crop rotation from fertilized to non-fertilized
conditions should also be considered in a detailed assessment. Areas of
probable cropland for the year 2000 (11), are rated in Fig. 11-15. Examining
both maps, the more permeable fields near the little Menomonee River stand
out. Future monitoring should be directed to at least these areas.
Residential Lawns
Figs. 11-16 and 11-17 rank soils for those areas noted in current
residential use, as to their potential for contaminant transport. The rating
follows the breakdown developed for croplands. A major part of Milwaukee
County could not be evaluated due to a lack of soils information. In the
computer printout upon which the maps were based, those areas devoted to
impervious surfaces such as structures and pavements could not be differen-
tiated from those areas covered by lawns. The amount of contaminants
transmitted to groundwater from lawns that have received fertilizers, pesti-
cides and supplemental watering has attracted little attention in the
literature. Although each lawn undoubtedly has little impact, because
substantial portions of the watershed are involved in such use, some concern
should be raised. Though field evidence from this study (1) indicates that
nutrient loadings to groundwater were low in suburban areas, the fate of
contaminants from lawns to eventual surface water discharge is poorly under-
stood. The ratings (Figs. 11-15 and 11-16) developed in this phase of the
project should help in designing a useful future study.
Fallout of Air Pollutants
Data on the quality of rainwater and air pollutant fallout were collect-
ed and analyzed as part of the UC study on the Menomonee River Watershed.
Analyses of inputs to four monitoring stations in the Milwaukee area were
conducted from August, 1975 through December, 1976 (Emmling, University of
Wisconsin-Madison, Water Resources Center, personal communication, 1977).
The major contaminants of interest relevant to groundwater quality are
chloride and sulfate. Chloride values during periods when road salting
did not occur were at a maximum of several tenths of a mg/L of rainwater.
During salting periods, values increased to 7 or 8 mg/L, still an insignifi-
cant concentration as compared to surface runoff. Sulfates were deemed to
be good indicators of urbanization. Values in more rural settings were
typically between 2 and 4 mg/L. Urban areas were higher, but still largely
under 10 mg/L. One station was placed immediately downwind of two large
pollutant sources, a foundry and a coke plant. Maximum values were still
under 15 mg/L. Unless some unusual concentration mechanism is effective once
H-34
-------
infiltration occurs, significant groundwater contamination from air pollutant
fallout is unlikely.
Other Land Uses
The land uses examined in this study do not represent all possible sources
of contaminants. Those studied are believed to be the most significant at
this time. The presence of other chemical or industrial storage practices
which could impact groundwater is certainly possible. One likely contaminant
source involves the three railroad storage yards in the watershed. These
yards frequently contain liquid waste or petroleum product spills. Filling of
low, wet areas with demolition or other solid waste has been reported from
other regions. These yards should also be included in future groundwater
analysis.
The problem of hazardous waste disposal is being addressed by government
regulatory agencies. Presently there are no legal receivers of these waste
products in the Menomonee River Watershed. However, because increased future
reliance on land disposal of sludges and chemical wastes is likely, this
contaminant source must be addressed in future work on surface and groundwater
quality relationships in the Menomonee River Watershed.
11-35
-------
REFERENCES - II
1. Eisen, C. E. and M. P. Anderson. Groundwater Contributions to Surface
Water Quality in the Menomonee River Watershed. Part I: Field Data
Quantifying Groundwater—Surface Water Interaction. Final Report of
the Menomonee River Pilot Watershed Study, Vol. 5, U.S. EPA, 1978.
2. Anderson, M. P. Groundwater Contributions to Surface Water Quality in
the Menomonee River Watershed. Part III: Modeling and Extrapolation
to Other Watersheds. Final Report of the Menomonee River Pilot
Watershed Study, Vol. 5, U.S. EPA, 1978.
3. McHarg, I. L. Design with Nature. Doubleday/Natural History Press,
Garden City, New York, 1969. 198 pp.
4. U.S. Soil Conservation Service. Soil Survey, Ozaukee County,
Wisconsin, 1970.
5. U.S. Soil Conservation Service. Soil Survey, Washington County,
Wisconsin, 1971.
6. U.S. Soil Conservation Service. Soil Survey, Milwaukee and Waukesha
Counties, Wisconsin, 1971.
7. McWhorter, D. B., R. K. Skogerbee and G. W. Skogerbee. Water Quality in
Mine Spoils, Upper Colorado River Basin. U.S. EPA Report No. 670/2-75-
048, 1975. 100 pp.
8. Ruedisili, L. C. Ground Water in Wisconsin, Quantity and Quality
Protection, Legal Controls and Management. University of Wisconsin
Water Resources Center, Madison- Wis., 1972.
9. Auld, D. V- Waste Water in the City. In: Handbook of Water Resources
and Pollution Control, H. W, Gehm and J. I. Bregman, eds., Van Nostrand
Reinhold Co., New York, 1976. pp. 429-480.
10. Ketelle, M. J. Hydrogeologic Considerations in Liquid Waste Disposal,
with a Case Study in Southeastern Wisconsin. SEWRPC Technical Record,
Vol. 3, No. 3, 1971. 39 pp.
11. Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission. A Comprehensive
Plan for the Menomonee River Watershed. Planning Report No. 26, 2
volumes, 1976.
11-36
-------
12. Keeney, D. R., K. W. Lee and L. M. Walsh. Guidelines for the
Application of Waste Water Sludge to Agricultural Land in Wisconsin.
Wisconsin DNR Technical Bulletin, No. 88, 1975. 36 pp.
13. Pitt, R. E. and G. Amy. Toxic Materials Analysis of Street Surface
Contaminants. U.S. EPA Report No. R2-73-283, 1973. 143 pp.
14. Sartor, J. D. and G. B. Boyd. Water Pollution Aspects of Street
Surface Contaminants. U.S. EPA Report No. R2-72-08, 1972. 242 pp.
15. Kammerer, J. C. Water Quantity Requirements for Public Supplies and
Other Uses. In: Handbook of Water Resources and Pollution Control,
H. W. Gehm and J. I. Bregman, eds., Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., New York,
1976. pp. 44-83.
16. Miller, J. C. Nitrate Contamination of the Water-Table Aquifer in
Delaware. Delaware Geol. Surv., Report of Investigations, No. 20,
1972.
17. U.S. Soil Conservation Service. Soil Survey Manual. Agricultural
Handbook No. 18, 1962. 503 pp.
18. Bouma, J., W. A. Ziebell, W. G. Walker, P. G. Olcott, E. McCoy and
F. D. Hole. Soil Adsorption of Septic Tank Effluent. University of
Wisconsin-Extension, Information Cir. No. 20, 1972. 235 pp.
19. Miller, W. D. Infiltration Rates and Groundwater Quality Beneath
Cattle Feedlots, Texas High Plains. U.S. EPA Report, EPA-WQP-16060-
EGS-01/71, 1971. 66 pp.
20. Garrett, D., F. P. Maxey and H. Katz. The Impact of Intensive
Application of Pesticides and Fertilizers on Underground Water Recharge
Areas Which May Contribute to Drinking Water Supplies: A Preliminary
Review. U.S. EPA Report No. 560/3-75-006, 1975. 107 pp.
21. Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission. Soils of
Southeastern Wisconsin. SEWRPC Planning Report No. 8, 1966.
22. McCartney, M. C. Statistical Reliability of Surficial Materials Maps in
a Portion of Dane County, Wisconsin. University of Wisconsin-Madison,
M.S. Thesis, 1976.
11-37
-------
APPENDIX II-A. PREPARATION OF SURFICIAL MATERIALS MAP
The surficial materials map was used routinely in the identification of
geologic settings around potential sources of groundwater pollutants and in
the interpretation of local and regional groundwater flow systems. The
Land Data Management System of SEWRPC was used to prepare the surficial
materials map. The System has the capability of printing computer maps dis-
playing soils information for several size areal units. Soil data, catalogu-
ed by SCS field number, for each "cell" (1 hectare) can be quickly displayed
on either of two scales (1:24,000; 1:48,000).
Soil descriptions were examined (21), for each of the approximately two
hundred soil types in the Basin. The soils were first catalogued into six
materials categories based on descriptions of the substratum for each soil.
The units were: till, glacial fluvial sediments, alluvium, thick organic
deposits, glacial lake sediments and thin unconsolidated cover over bedrock.
Descriptions of each type are given in Table II-A-1. While most soil types
could easily be categorized, there were several cases which warranted refer-
ence to additional soil survey information.
After preliminary designations, an attempt was made to divide the till
bodies into the two major types present in the Basin. Till believed to
correlate stratigraphically with the Haegar Till is generally sandy and buff
colored. The grey, silt and clay rich till is probably correlative with the
Wadsworth Till. The distinctive difference in texture of the tills in an
important control on groundwater conditions and pollutant movement.
Laboratory tests of the lowermost ("C") soil horizon in each till soil
type was examined, using data available from SEWRPC (21). These were used
as the basis for the breakdown if it was apparent that the C horizon samples
were also representative of the substratum. Where these two did not match,
the decision was made from published field descriptions of substratum texture
and color.
Several soils were categorized by one dominant type overlain by up to
0.6 m of distinctively different material. This condition usually involved
thin organic rich layers over till or thin sand and gravel layers over lake
beds. In these cases, the lower unit was used in classification.
Table II-A-2 shows the final breakdown of soil numbers by material type.
Five additional, non-geologic units were added to the seven previously
discussed groups. This list was forwarded to SEWRPC for final map printing.
A simple check was conducted to verify the accuracy of the computer
system for cataloging and printing soils data. Twenty five points were
11-38
-------
chosen at random on the computer maps. The dominant soil listed for each of
those cells was noted. The original soil survey sheets were consulted and
interpretations made on surficial materials and permeability—water table
class for both soil horizons (see Appendix II-B). Only one of the 25 points
did not agree. The one error was deemed unimportant since the interpreta-
tion of dominant soil type was difficult for the chosen cell.
Limitations of surficial materials maps
While the methodology for producing surficial materials computer maps
results in a useful product, there are several limitations which are inherent
in the method, including:
a. Overall accuracy. The map information shown does not represent
actual in-field identification. It is instead, office interpretation of
soils information collected for purposes other than classification by
surficial materials. This discrepancy represents the first, basic source of
error.
The accuracy of surficial materials maps has been investigated recently
by McCartney (22). Statistical tests comparing actual field checks with
generalized surficial materials maps (Wisconsin Geological and Natural
History Survey) for a portion of Dane County pointed to an overall minimum
accuracy of approximately 63 to 72%.
b. The lack of landform information frequently available on surficial
geology maps. The latter normally show such significant bodies as end
moraines, ice contact deposits, etc. These geologic features serve as
important controls over surface and groundwater flow systems.
c. The two dimensional nature of the maps. Since the original soil
data are almost always based on shallow subsurface exploration, variability
in the third dimension cannot be assessed. This of course, is an inherent
problem with most other types of geologically-related maps. Fortunately
many water well logs are available in the Basin. These can be compared with
surface information to determine stratigraphic relations with depth in the
unconsolidated sediments.
d. Boundary errors. Since the data are presented on the basis of
dominant material in each cell, material boundaries will always be shown at
the contact between cells rather than within them. This often conflicts
with actual field conditions, where boundaries can occur at any location.
Since the cells are physically small units in the final map and materials
boundaries are most often diffuse in nature, this limitation is not believed
to be critical to the aims of the groundwater study.
e. Integrating nature of the cell method. As the procedure prints the
dominant material type in each cell rather than all types, some smaller units
may be missed and others overemphasized. Again, the small size of the cell
and the overall aims of this project allow acceptance of the method within
these confines.
11-39
-------
Table II-A-1. Composition of surficial materials in the Menomonee River
Basin.
Glacial Till
Till is dominantly an unsorted, unstratified sediment deposited directly
from glacial ice without significant modification by fluvial activity. The
generally silty to clayey tills in the Basin are believed to correlate with
the Wadsworth Till, identified in other portions of the Great Lakes Region.
The largely sand rich tills in the Basin are believed to correlate with the
Haegar Till.
Glacial Fluvial Sediments
Deposits principally of sands and gravels, they were formed either against
glacial ice (ice contact) or from meltwater sedimentation beyond active ice
bodies (outwash). Small bodies of till or glacial lake sediments are frequently
incorporated in them but may be too small to map.
Thick Organic Deposits
These result from sedimentation of organic rich deposits in modern
marshes and swamps.
Glacial Lake Sediments
Formed in temporary glacial lakes, they are composed largely of fine
sands, silts and clays and are frequently stratified (varved).
Alluvium
The deposits of the modern stream and floodplain system, consisting
primarily of sands and gravels with lesser amounts of silt and clay.
OTHER FEATURES
Thin Unconsolidated Cover Over Bedrock - bedrock encountered within 1.5 m of
the ground surface.
Open Water - lakes and ponds.
Made Land - cut and fill areas from human activities.
Gravel Pits and Quarries
Dumps
Unknown - largely, areas unmapped during original soil survey work.
11-40
-------
Table II-A-2. Solls-surficial materials classification
Units
No. 3
Sandy till
No. 4
Clayey till
No. 7
Glacial fluvial
sediments
No. 11
Alluvium
No. 12
Thick organic
deposits
No. 14
Glacial lake
sediment
No. 15
Thin drift over
bedrock
No. 20
Water
No. 30
"Manmade land"
No. 40
Gravel pits and
quarries
No. 50
Waste disposal
sites
No. 60
Unknown
63
278
364
297
40X
78
172
233
7
4
18
42Y
266
38R
Lake
MLC
GP
Dump
82 113 160
343 344 345
365 366 394
298 299 300
42X 70 72
80 84 86
173 173Y 174
233V 233Y 233Z
11 11W 23
327 450 451
21 24 26
47 48 51
268 272 340
43 76R 125
pond water
MLY MLZ
Quarr Quarr
Soil numbers*
161 178 212 213 215 231 243 260
355 357 360 360X 361 362 362X 363
397X 454 455 455V
325 338 397 397Y 398 399
73 73V 75 76 76V 76Y 76Z
87 106 109 119 123 126 126Y 126Z
176 181 182 182V 182Z 203 203Y 212X
282 288 324 326 332 335 387 391 392
238 328
452 458 460 461
27 28 29 36 38 40 40Y 42
53 173V 213V 217 218 218Y 251 263
369 456 457
161R 204 206 208 212R 213R 262A 266R
Other categories
"soil numbers"
Unknown
*Soil number from SEWRPC Planning Report No. 8
11-41
-------
APPENDIX II-B. SOIL-PERMEABILITY-WATER TABLE GROUPINGS
Table II-B-1. Soil-perroeability-water table groupings
Group
Soil numbers*
B Horizon
Rapid; high
Rapid; low
Moderate; high
Moderate; low
Slow; high
251
75
7
38
76Y
126Z
212X
243
332
18
160
266R
262R
4
454
262R
288
7W
38R
76Z
174
213
263
335
40X
161
268
362X
40
435
387
355
11
42X
78
176
213R
278
340
40Y
161R
282
365
42
455V
11W
42Y
80
178
213V
297
344
43
172
304
366
217
456
21
47
82
181
215
299
345
70
173
308
391
218
457
23
48
86
182
218Y
300
363
72
173V
343
392
298
458
24
51
87
182V
231
303
363R
73
173Y
357
394
327
460
26
53
109
182Z
233
306
364
73V
204
360
397X
338
461
27
63
113
203
233V
324
369
84
206
360R
398
28
76
123
203Y
233Y
325
397
106
208
360X
450
29
76R
126
212
233Z
326
397Y
119
260
361
451
36
76V
126Y
212R
238
328
399
125
266
362
452
C Horizons
Rapid; high
Rapid; low
Moderate; high
Moderate; low
Slow; high
42X
182
454
38R**
125
288
392
7
47
213
299
18
360
21
298
460
76
203
455
40X
161R
303**
397X
7W
48
213V
325
40Y
361
24
300
461
78
212X
455V
43
172
304
11
63
215
328
73V
362
40
327
80
233
70
173
306**
11W
76V
218Y
344
160
365
42
338
86
251
204
308
23
76Y
231
363
161
366
51
340
87
324
72
206
355
26
82
233V
364
173V
394
93
369
109
326
73
208
360R
27
113
233Y
397
173Y
762
398
123
332
126
335
174
345
176
387
181
452
75 76R** 84 106 119
212R** 213R** 262R** 266R 282
360X 362R 362X 363R** 391
28 29
126Y 178
238 243
397Y 399
36 38 42Y
182V 203Y 212
263 278 297
260
126Z
450
266
182Z
451
268
217
456
343
218
457
357
233Z
458
Note:
"High" water table — within 1.5 m of the ground surface during a significant portion of the year,
"Low" water table — > 1.5 m from the ground surface during a significant portion of the year.
Rapid permeability — > 1 cm/hr.
Moderate permeability — between 0.1 to 1 cm/hr.
Low permeability — < 0.1 cm/hr.
*Soil numbers from SEWRPC Report No. 8.
**May be more appropriately placed in the "Rapid; high" group.
11-42
-------
APPENDIX II-C. COMMENTS ON SELECTED LAND USE ACTIVITIES
Table II-C-1. Comments on solid waste disposal areas shown in Figs. II-l and II-2
Category: Mixed Refuse - Active Category: Demolition; Wood - Closed
Map No. 1 - small, well operated site Map No- 3 - tires and brush in an abandoned quarry
- outside the surface watershed
8 - brush and diseased trees mostly burned
5 - principal waste disposal site for the region
- substantial water quality monitoring data available 11 - waste derived mostly from construction of 1-94
- some impact to local surface waters - covered and used for an industrial park
- leachate collection system currently being expanded
- licensed receiver of industrial wastes 12 - principally used for brush burning
21 - outside the surface watershed 18 - small contractors site for brush
- waste disposal near the water table
- movement of pollutants in deeper flow paths towards 24 - closed well
the Menomonee River is possible - some small leachate flowage
- leachate collection system to be implemented in the
future 25 - concrete and demolition fill in quarry
- food store and parking lot new on surface
Category: Mixed Refuse - Closed since 1967 (approximate date)
Category: Other Materials - Active
9 - considerable ponding of leachate from groundwater
discharge ^ ~ manure from packing plants
- leachate spills have caused local surface water - some local, documented surface and groundwater
problems contamination problems
- remedial measures under implementation
23 - manure and hay bedding from municipal zoo
14 - closure has been inadequate; state of enforcement - surface runoff to storm sewer
orders are pending
27 - foundry sand and scrubber sludge
16 - closure has been inadequate - very deep waste fill abuts main channel of the
river
17 - mixed wastes from a brewing company
- a filled wetland 33 - foundry sand
- closed fairly well
- final rating represents a collective appraisal of 39 - foundry sand, fly ash and slag
sites 13, 14, 16 and 17 - outside the surface watershed
32 - filled gravel pit; waste deposits within ground- Category: Other Materials - Closed
- well graded and fairly adequate cover soil; 2 - small fly ash disposal site from coal fired power
currently in parkland plant
34 - site of current waste transfer station 10 - metal sludges
- inadequately closed
Category: Mixed Refuse - Closed before 1967 (approximate date) - surface drainage feeds an intermittent stream
19 - well graded and covered 28 - sma11 flY ash disposal site
- currently in use as portion of golf course (not
irrigated) 30 ~ cyanide waste disposal pits
- waste had been deposited in old quarry - potential pollution problem had been previously
immediately abutting river examined
- contaminated soil believed to have been excavated
26 - very deep fill bordering the main channel of the and removed within last 5 years
- leachate springs noted at the base 35 - foundry sand, demolition and wood waste
- may be converted to city park in the future
37 - industrial ash
29 - old fill in deep quarry - now owned bY Milwaukee County, possibly for freewa>
- covered with asphalt and concrete, used for extension site
parking area for county stadium
38 - very large, shallow fill in old wetland
- currently supports storage tanks and a
waste transfer station
Category: Demolition; Wood - Active
15 - due for closure next year
20 - accepts only noncombustlble waste
- below the water table; seepage from rock walls
collected and removed
22 - well operated fill in old gravel pit
- some small leachate flowage to Underwood Creek
34 - portion of site used for waste transfer area
11-43
-------
Table II-C-2. Comments on road salt storage sites shown in Figs. II-3 and II-4
Winter storage
Map letter (tonne) Comments
A 180 - completely enclosed shed on pad; both in good condition
- would serve as good control in any future monitoring work
B 135 - three walled shed
- broken pavement and unlined drainage way can allow
infiltration
C 18 to 27 - outside pile on broken pavement
- runoff through discontinuous ditches and storm sewers
D 1,800 - completely enclosed "beehive" shelter
E 20 - inside garage
- runoff across parking lot in good condition; to storm
sewer
F 680 - inside garage
- runoff across short concrete surface to storm drain
G 545 - mostly inside garage; some outside pile
H 270 - salt pile on concrete pad
- runoff across unlined ditch
I 1,100 to 1,350 - two sheds on cracked pavement
J 680 - inside three-walled shed with tarpaulin across open
front
- short runoff path across well maintained pavement
K 54,500 - open piles at time of field visit; operator reports
tarpaulin used during maximum storage period
- immediately adjacent to main channel of the river
L 135 - kept in bags; inside garage
M 34,500 - open piles on crushed rock pad at time of field visit;
operator reports tarpaulin used during maximum
storage period
- immediately adjacent to main channel of the river
N 680 - three-walled shed
- short runoff path across well maintained pavement
0 45 - inside garage
p 450 - inside garage; some piles outside during winter
Q 90 - open piles on asphalt
- highly broken pavement
- storage site to be moved soon
11-44
-------
PART III
MODELING AND EXTRAPOLATION TO OTHER WATERSHEDS
by
M. P. ANDERSON
Hl-i
-------
ABSTRACT
A groundwater quality model was identified to aid in the task of extra-
polating the findings of the IJC-Menomonee River Pilot Watershed Study to other
watersheds in the Great Lakes Basin. The model was applied to the Menomonee
River Watershed and calibrated using field data reported by Eisen and Anderson
(1). For modeling purposes the Watershed was divided into eight areas with
similar land use and hydrogeology. Because chlorides from road salt runoff was
determined to be the major contaminant transported to the river in groundwater,
the response of the aquifer to application of road salt was simulated in each
of the modeling areas.
In 1977-78, the light urban area on the west side of the river between
Butler and 70th St. contributed the most chlorides to the river. This area
also had the highest groundwater discharge rate although chloride concentra-
tions in groundwater were not especially high. The results of the model
suggest that in most areas of the Watershed, average chloride concentrations
will increase for several years if application of road salt remains at least
as high as during 1968, the year for which chloride loading rates were
estimated for use in the model. In the future, loading rates from suburban
areas could surpass the loading rate for light urban land use. Because of the
high percentage of paved surfaces in the heavy urban areas in the lower water-
shed and the resulting low groundwater recharge rates, groundwater loading
rates from these areas were relatively low.
In other watersheds, the nature and amount of contaminants transported to
the river in groundwater will depend upon the types and distribution of land
use and the hydrogeology, especially the groundwater recharge rate. However,
in most developing watersheds, it is expected that chlorides from road salt
runoff will be a major source of contamination. In addition to groundwater
discharging to streams entering the Great Lakes, direct discharge of ground-
water to the Lakes should be considered. In a recent study, Cartwright et al.
(2) demonstrated that groundwater discharge in the nearshore area of south-
western Lake Michigan may be significant in terms of quantity and quality. The
model tested during the present study can be used as a tool in estimating the
average concentration of a contaminant in groundwater discharging to a stream.
Groundwater loading rates may be calculated and probable changes in groundwater
quality caused by changes in land use can be predicted.
Ill-ii
-------
CONTENTS - PART III
Title Page .............................
Abstract .............................. III-ii
Contents .............................. Ill-ill
Figures .............................. Ill-iv
Tables ............................... III-v
III-l. Introduction ...................... III-l
III-2. Conclusion ....................... III-2
III-3. Recommendations ..................... III-3
III-4. Methods ......................... III-4
Model Selection ................... III-4
Gelhar-Wilson Model ................. III-5
III-5. Procedures ....................... III-9
Definition of Areas for Modeling ........... III-9
Input Data ...................... III-9
III-6. Results and Discussion ................. 111-16
Application of Model to Menomonee River Basin .... 111-16
Extrapolation to Other Watersheds .......... 111-20
Nature of Contamination .............. 111-20
Use of Model .................... 111-22
References ............................. 111-24
Appendix III-A Computer Program .................. 111-25
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
IH-1 Physical basis for the Gelhar-Wilson Model III-7
III-2 Hydrogeologic regions in the Menomonee River Basin 111-10
III-3 Modeling areas III-ll
III-4 Responses of the aquifer in each of the modeling areas 111-19
III-5 Responses of the aquifer in areas LU-1, SU-1 and SU-2 to a
decrease in the rate of application of road salt 111-21
Ill-iv
-------
TABLES
Number Pa
III-l Summary of field data 111-12
III-2 Aquifer parameters 111-13
III-3 Simulated chloride concentrations compared to field data . . 111-17
III-A-1 List of parameters 111-25
III-A-2 Computer listing 111-26
III-v
-------
III-l. INTRODUCTION
Groundwater-surface water interactions in the Menomonee River Watershed
were examined and potential sources of contamination which could contribute
pollutant loads to the Menomonee River System through groundwater discharge
were identified (1;3). The third goal of the IJC project was to develop the
predictive capability necessary to facilitate extension of the findings from
the Menomonee River Watershed study to other urban settings. The purpose of
the third phase of the groundwater subproject was to identify and test a model
to aid in the extrapolation process.
III-l
-------
III-2. CONCLUSIONS
a. The Gelhar-Wilson groundwater quality model can be used In extrapolating
the results of the IJC-Menomonee River Pilot Watershed study to other
watersheds in the Great Lakes Basin.
b. The nature and degree of groundwater contamination can be expected to vary
depending on the distribution of land use and the hydrogeology of the
watershed. However, in urbanizing watersheds similar to the Menomonee
River Watershed, chlorides from road salt runoff are likely to be a major
source of groundwater contamination.
c. In the Menomonee River Watershed data from the model suggest that in most
areas of the watershed, average chloride concentrations in groundwater will
increase for several years if application of road salt remains at least as
high as during 1968.
d. The Gelhar-Wilson model can be used as a tool in estimating the average
concentration of a contaminant in groundwater discharging to a stream.
Groundwater loading rates may be calculated and probable changes in
groundwater quality caused by changes in land use can be predicted.
III-2
-------
III-3. RECOMMENDATIONS
Ideally, a record of several years documenting groundwater quality
changes is needed to calibrate and establish confidence in the model. Gelhar
and Wilson (4) demonstrated that the model simulated changes in chloride
concentration for an area in Massachusetts where such a record was available.
For the Menomonee River Watershed, it was assumed that the model would approx-
imately predict the transient response of the system and the model was cali-
brated using only one average yearly concentration.
In areas for which no groundwater quality data are available, the model
could be used to gain insight into the relative response of the system to
changes in land use. However, the validity of the actual concentrations
calculated by the model will depend upon the accuracy of the input parameters.
It is recommended that where possible, an historical record be used to cali-
brate the model. When this is not possible, the model is best used to gain
insight into the relative response of the system to land use changes or changes
in management practices.
III-3
-------
III-4. METHODS
Model Selection
Although it is desirable to represent the complex processes operative in
groundwater systems as completely as is theoretically possible, it is often
impractical to use complex models in managing a watershed. Typically, very
little information is available on groundwater quality or quantity. There-
fore, in general, detailed modeling is not possible. An ideal model would be
one which generates results useful for regional planning yet requires few
input data.
In this study, two models were tested — a distributed parameter model and
a lumped parameter model. A distributed parameter model is one in which the
variables are determined at several discrete points or nodes in the system,
while in a lumped parameter model the groundwater system is treated as a point
in space and only spatially averaged values of the variables are calculated.
Because it was hoped that it would be possible to consider spatial variation
in groundwater quality as well as temporal changes, the initial modeling
attempt centered on development of a distributed parameter model. The scanty
field data did not justify use of a two-dimensional model, therefore, a one-
dimensional groundwater flow model was coupled to a one-dimensional contami-
nant transport model which included the effects of dispersion. The differen-
tial equations which represent groundwater flow and mass transport for this
modeling scheme are:
- s - w
where
h head (length)
K hydraulic conductivity (length/time)
S storage coefficient
W recharge rate (length/time)
x space coordinate (length)
t time
and
III-4
-------
where
3
c concentration (mass/length )
c' concentration of source fluid (mass/length )
D effective coefficient of dispersion for the entire thickness
of the aquifer (length3/time)
n porosity
and
„,, 9h
q is - Kh -r—
ox
Eqs. (1) and (2) were written in finite difference form and solved numerically
using a computer.
After several attempts to apply the model to the Menomonee River
Watershed, it was concluded that it was not possible to represent the distri-
bution of various land uses in sufficient detail to warrant the use of this
type of model. Furthermore, when what was considered to be a representative
distribution of land uses was selected, it was not always possible to obtain
simulated concentrations which were representative of field conditions.
A lumped parameter model developed by Gelhar and Wilson (4) proved to be
better suited for application to the Menomonee River Watershed.
Gelhar-Wilson Model
Because the aquifer is treated as a point in space, only average values
of aquifer parameters are needed as input. Likewise, the model computes
spatially averaged values for the elevation of the water table and concentra-
tion. As pointed out by Gelhar and Wilson (4), the justification for using
a lumped parameter model is that when long-term basin wide changes in ground-
water quality are desired, spatial variation becomes less important than
temporal variation. The fluctuation of the water table is simulated mathema-
tically by the following equation:
n|i= -q + £ + qr - qp Eq. (3)
where
h average thickness of the saturated zone
n average effective porosity
e natural recharge rate
q natural outflow from the aquifer
q artificial recharge/unit area
q pumping rate/unit area
t time
III-5
-------
It can be demonstrated that q = a(h - h ) where h is the elevation of the
river and a = 3T/L2 where
T = h K transmissivity
o
K hydraulic conductivity
L length of the aquifer
The change in concentration is represented by an equation of the form:
dc
where
+ (e + q + otnh)c = EC + q c Eq. (4)
ClC IT ±j IT IT
c concentration
c concentration of the natural recharge
L
c concentration of the artificial recharge
a a first order rate constant which accounts for degradation of
the contaminant
Dispersion is assumed to be negligible which is a reasonable assumption if
only regional average concentrations are sought.
The hydraulic response time and the solute response time are measures of
the lag observed in the response of the system to a given input. Hydraulic
response time (t, ) is defined as follows:
h
t, = n/a where a = 3T/L2 Eq. (5)
h
and solute response time (t ) is defined as:
t = nh /£ Eq. (6)
c o o
where e is the initial recharge rate. In general t is time dependent but
can be estimated from Eq. (6).
Gelhar and Wilson (4) based their model on the concept of a well-mixed
linear reservoir. They postulate that aquifer response to a given input will
be similar to the response of a well-mixed linear reservoir (Fig. III-l) .
They show that the concentration of water leaving the aquifer is representa-
tive of the average concentration within the aquifer. Therefore, such a
model is ideally suited for determining the quality of groundwater discharging
to surface waters. The model is solved by writing Eqs. (3) and (4) in finite
difference form:
+ h. T E.+q.-q.
-l, f + 1 n" ^ E,. (7)
n
III-6
-------
(a)
STREAM
e,cL
I I I t I
RESERVOIR
I 1 I 1 I
h(x)
AQUIFER
/
/
/
/
/
/
DIVIDE
(b)
X=0
/
x = L
Fig. III-l. Physical basis for the Gelhar-Wilson model.
III-7
-------
n - i ri 2 iLi ri ri
Eq. (8)
In this way, h , £. , q , q . , c , c . are allowed to vary with time. A
o i ri pi Li ri
computer program written in Fortran was developed to solve Eqs. (7) and (8)
with q . = q . = 0. The program and documentation are included in
Appendix III-A.
III-?
-------
III-5. PROCEDURES
Field data (1) suggested that chlorides are the major contaminant
carried to the river system in groundwater. Eisen and Anderson (1) reported
that the amount of chloride discharged to the river in groundwater is a
significant percentage of the total chloride in surface water during base-
flow conditions. Because chloride concentrations increased markedly during
winter months and were especially elevated near highways, it was concluded
that road salt runoff is the source of most of the chlorides (1;3). Because
of its relative importance compared to other ions, chloride is the only ion
considered in the application of the model to the Menomonee River Watershed.
The model can be used for other ions. However, in most modeling
applications to date, attention has been restricted to consideration of
conservative ions like chloride and nitrate because of the difficulties in-
volved in quantifying the rate at which chemical reactions occur when non-
conservative ions are involved.
Definition of Areas for Modeling
For the purposes of the modeling effort, the Watershed was divided into
eight areas with similar land use and hydrogeology. Fig. III-2 shows the
hydrogeologic regions based on similar hydraulic conductivity. Fig. III-3
shows the modeling areas which include three heavy urban areas (HU-1, HU-2,
HU-3), one light urban area (LU-1), two suburban areas (SU-1, SU-2) and two
rural areas (R-l and R-2). Locations of observation well sites are also
shown in Fig. III-3 while chloride concentrations observed in the field at
each of these well sites are summarized in Table III-l. Data were taken from
Eisen and Anderson (1). It is evident that there is considerable variation
within a given area and even among wells within a single well site.
Input Data
Aquifer parameters for each of the areas are given in Table III-2. SU-1
West and SU-1 East refer to the areas west and east of the river in area SU-1.
Each subarea of SU-1 is characterized by a different aquifer length. The
aquifer length is the average distance from the river to the boundary of the
area. In the formulation of the model one boundary of the aquifer was
taken to be the river while the other boundary was assumed to be located at a
groundwater divide (Fig. III-l). In southeastern Wisconsin the shallow
aquifer system consists of the glacial aquifer and the Niagara dolomite. The
III-9
-------
K = 1.0 m/d
K = 4.5 m/d
K = 0.8 m/d
K = 1.6 m/d
K = 1.2 m/d
1 i I » 1
o 2 i* KM
Fig. III-2. Hydrogeologic regions in the Menomonee River Basin.
III-IO
-------
J
4 KM
Fig. III-3. Modeling areas.
III-ll
-------
Table III-l. Summary of field data
Well Site
2-a West
2-b West
3-a
3-b
1A
2-a East
11-a
11-b
12-a
12-b
13-a
13-b
13-c
13-d
Depth, m
7.8
4.4
6.0
9.0
8.9
6.5
13.1
6.2
8.4
2.9
8.4
2.9
8.2
2.9
Distance
from river, m
48
16
3,200
3,200
24,000
4.8
2,240
2,240
960
960
3,480
4,480
4,480
4,480
"Fall
Area
35
320
100
100
13
Area
142
Area
_
150
Area
110
5
65
73
40
58
Average
Winter
HU-1
100
550
340
212
43
HU-2
195
HU-3
110
290
LU-1
_
-
80
105
-
33
Cl, mg/L
Spring
65
365
-
-
13
120
205
_
-
89
99
35
85
Summer
60
385
480
_
9
132
62
165
-
80
95
49
82
Average annual
Cl, mg/L
65
405
307
156
20
147
86
203
110
5
79
93
41
64
Area SU-1 West
1-a
6-a
6-b
7-a
7-b
7-c
8.9
16.2
9.6
7.1
2.6
3.5
13.5
10.5
10.8
6.0
6.3
105.0
40
62
90
12
-
-
49
70
198
280
114
132
-
185
108
178
118
28
75
99
110
96
70
39
69
143
128
129
107
Area SU-1 East
1-a
1-b
1-c
6-a
6-b
7-a
7-b
8
5-a
5-b
5-c
5-d
10
9
7.7
5.3
5.9
7.1
10.2
9.2
5.0
4.1
5.7
4.1
4.1
6.6
130.0
2.9
3.0
3.6
28.5
3.9
3.9
5.4
5.4
4.5
2.7
39.0
3.6
3.9
1,500.0
4.5
150
320
230
165
42
40
9
-
Area
6
440
153
130
6
Area
45
398
360
400
140
134
65
495
32
SU-2
33
590
408
420
9
R-2
58
_
297
160
-
73
112
55
19
35
350
612
780
12
23
299
228
120
90
122
100
42
8
10
583
416
-
10
9
282
301
228
132
93
79
150
20
21
491
397
443
9
34
111-12
-------
Table III-2. Aquifer parameters
M
M
E
to
Area
HU-1
HU-2
HU-3
LU-1
SU-1 West
SU-1 East
SU-2
R-l
R-2
Hydraulic response
time, years
191
29
75
146
67
74
25
284
50
Solute response
time', years
1000
1000
1000
23
100
100
100
100
100
Aquifer
length, m
6100
2400
2700
7300
3600
1200
1800
4800
1800
Hydraulic
conductivity,
m/day
2.4
2.4
1.2
4.5
2.4
2.4
1.6
3.0
0.8
Winter loading
rate of chloride,
g/m2/month
57
57
35-57
12
3.5-5
3.5-5
7.7
1.4
1.4
-------
regional groundwater divide for the shallow aquifer is located several
kilometers west of the boundary of the Menomonee River Watershed and the
regional groundwater flow is basically eastward to Lake Michigan. However,
Eisen and Anderson (1) verified that local systems exist in the eastern half
of the Menomonee River Watershed and that water flows from the Watershed
boundary west to the Menomonee River system and east to the Milwaukee River.
It is likely that local flow systems also exist in the upper glacial aquifer
in the western portion of the Watershed and that water flows from the bound-
ary of the Watershed east to the Menomonee River system and west to the Fox
and Root Rivers. Therefore, the Watershed boundaries were assumed to
represent groundwater divides in the shallow aquifer system. In each of the
areas the elevation, of the water level at the river (h ) was taken to be
15 m and the initial chloride concentration was estimated to be 10 mg/L.
Effective porosity was estimated to be 20%.
Groundwater recharge is low because of the relatively impermeable soils
which cover most of the Watershed. Based on data reported by Eisen and
Anderson (1), it was estimated that groundwater recharge throughout most of
the Watershed was 4% of average yearly precipitation. Average annual
precipitation is 74 cm (5). Therefore, groundwater discharge is about 3 cm
in an average year. In area LU-1, which has more permeable soils than the
rest of the Watershed, it was suggested that groundwater recharge was about
18% of average yearly precipitation or 13 cm (1).
In the heavy urban areas where there is a greater percentage of paved
surfaces and a greater potential for surface runoff, it was assumed that
groundwater recharge was only 10% of the values computed for suburban and
rural areas. Estimates of average monthly recharge were computed and used in
the model. However, for the Menomonee River Watershed the groundwater
recharge is relatively uniform throughout the year.
Chloride loading rates were estimated from road salt use during the
winter of 1968 (6). It was assumed that road salt was applied at this rate
continuously begining in 1950, the year which marked a nationwide increase in
the use of salts for ice control on highways. Road salt is generally applied
from December through March. A lag time of 1 month was allowed for the tran-
sit of salts through the unsaturated zone so that recharge of salt-laden water
occurred during January through April.
During the period May through December the loading rate was taken to be
zero in the heavy urban areas. In the rest of the Watershed it was assumed
that there were contributions of chloride from septic tank systems or
agricultural land during May through December. However, these loading rates
were relatively small in comparison to contributions from road salt runoff.
Surface runoff is significant in the Menomonee River Watershed because
of the high percentage of paved surfaces and the relatively impermeable soils.
Therefore, it was estimated that only 10% of the road salt reached the water
table in the heavy urban areas, 75% in the light urban and suburban areas,
and 100% in the rural areas. The fraction of salt reaching the water table
is represented in the model by the parameter CF (Table III-A-1). In general,
CF will be difficult to determine. In the present study and in Gelhar and
Wilson (4), CF was estimated for each land use. In the present study, the
111-14
-------
model was calibrated using only one yearly average chloride concentration for
each land use area. An historical record of chloride concentrations such as
that used by Gelhar and Wilson (4) is needed to be certain that the model
does simulate the observed concentrations. However, in the present study,
CF was the only parameter adjusted during the calibration of the model. All
the other parameters could be estimated from field data. Therefore, it is
believed that the model simulates the probable response of the system.
II1-15
-------
III-6. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Application of Model to Menomonee River Basin
The simulated chloride concentrations at the end of 28 years of contin-
uous application of road salt and the average concentrations observed in the
field during 1977-78 (1) are presented in Table III-3. Chloride concentra-
tions at well sites near the river are representative of the quality of
groundwater outflow from the aquifer at that point. If, as assumed in the
formulation of the model, the highways are uniformly distributed in each of
the modeling areas, the groundwater at discharge points should be representa-
tive of average water quality in the aquifer. However, at several places in
the Menomonee River Watershed, major highways are located adjacent to the
river. Therefore, it is likely that where highways are located close to the
river,concentrations at the discharge point will be higher than the average
concentration in the aquifer as a whole. This would explain the discrepancy
between the simulated concentration for area SU-2 and concentrations observed
at well site 5 which is located at a point where a highway crosses the river
(Fig. II-7, p. II-8). It is also noteworthy that concentrations at well
site 10, an upland well site, are much lower than those measured at site 5.
There are no other major highways located near the river in SU-2 and it is
likely that the concentration at well site 5 is not representative of the
average quality of groundwater discharge into the river in area SU-2.
In area SU-1 major highways parallel both sides of the river (Fig. II-7,
p. II-8). The chloride loading rate for area SU-1 was estimated to be 3.5
g/m2/month, and this produced simulated concentrations of 64 mg/L for SU-1
West and 90 mg/L for SU-1 East. However, field data suggested that the
concentrations should be around 89 g/L and 130 mg/L,respectively. When the
loading rate was increased to 5 g/m /month, the simulated concentrations
increased to 89 mg/L and 125 mg/L, respectively. Thus, a higher loading rate
can be used to compensate for non-uniform distribution of the contaminant.
No data were available on road salt use in area HU-3. Two estimates for
loading rate together with simulated chloride concentrations are given in
Table III-3. The average concentration for HU-2 was simulated to be 214 mg/L.
The only well site in this area is site W~2 with an average concentration of
147 mg/L. Because this site is located near the northern boundary of area
HU-2, W-2 may be more representative of conditions in area HU-3.
Because most of the river well sites were also located near highways,
the average chloride concentrations for all the well sites in an area may be
more representative of the average concentration in each area than the
concentrations of chloride in groundwater adjacent to the river. Therefore,
111-16
-------
Table III-3. Simulated chloride concentrations compared to field data*
Area
HU-1
HU-2
HU-3
LU-1
SU-1 West
SU-1 East
SU-2
R-l
R-2
(1)
Yearly average
Cl concentrations
at upland well sites,
mg/L
Site W3 Site W14
246 20
Site Wll
145
Site W13
71
_
«._ —
Site W10
9
(2)
Yearly average
Cl concentrations
at well sites near
the river,
mg/L
Site W2 West
235
Site W2 East
147
Site W12
58
Site: Wl W6 W7
39 106 121
Site: Wl W6 W7
270 113 115
Site W5
338
Site W9
34
(3)
Average for
the area,
mg/L
167
64
89
W8 130
20
174
(4)
Chloride
loading rate,
g/m2 /month
57
57
57
35
12
3.5
5.0
3.5
5.0
7.7
1.4
1.4
(5)
Simulated Cl
concentrations,
mg/L
187
214
205
150
52
64
88
90
125
165
23
42
"Compare columns 2 and 3 with column 5.
-------
area averages are also given in Table III-3. It should also be noted that
the model does not reproduce the marked seasonal fluctuations observed in the
field. Seasonal fluctuations would be expected to be most pronouned close
to the source of contamination. Therefore, well sites near highways probably
exhibit more seasonal fluctuation than is average for the aquifer as a whole.
Moreover, because of the long response times of the aquifer (Table III-2),
the seasonal fluctuation in loading rates is damped as the solute is trans-
ported through the aquifer.
Although there are discrepancies between simulated concentrations and
field values, which in most cases were probably caused by proximity of the
well sites to highways, the model simulates the situation well enough to
provide some insights into the probable response of the system to land use
changes or changes in loading rates. The responses of the systems to applica-
tion of road salt at the 1968 rates for the period 1950 to 2060 are shown in
Fig. III-4. The results of the model suggest that except for area R-l
concentrations observed in 1978 are not steady-state values and can be
expected to increase steadily for several years if the application rate of
salt remains at least as high as during 1968.
Groundwater discharge rates (q*) can be computed from the following
formula:
q* = eU Eq. (9)
where & is the length of the river receiving groundwater discharge. Ground-
water discharge rates computed using Eq. (9) agreed with the discharge rates
computed from field data (1).
Loading rates for each area can be calculated from:
L.R. = q* c Eq. (10)
where c is average concentration in the groundwater discharge. Loading rates
calculated using the average concentrations generated by the model were lower
than those computed by Eisen and Anderson (1). In calculating loading rates,
concentration data was used from the well which exhibited the highest
chloride concentration for the site rather than the average value for all the
wells in a site (1). Thus, the estimates are conservative in that they
represent maximum possible loading rates. Loading rates for area HU-1 or
HU-2 were not computed because of a lack of field data (1).
In the present study and in the Eisen and Anderson (1) study, the highest
loading rates for 1978 were generated from area LU-1 which also had the
highest groundwater discharge rate although the average chloride concentration
was not particularly high. Fig. III-4 shows that concentrations will increase
at a greater rate in suburban areas than in area LU-1 if salting continues at
the present rate. In future years, loading rates from areas SU-1 and SU-2
could be expected to surpass LU-1 assuming that q* remains constant.
Some of the communities in areas LU-1 and SU-1 West currently rely on
groundwater for municipal water supply and according to Cherkauer and Bacon
(7) could continue to utilize groundwater in the future. In two areas of
SU-1 where there is heavy pumpage for municipal use, the water table is
111-18
-------
VO
7001-
600 -
5OO -
400 -
HU-2
HU-1
•H
M
O
•d 300 -
200 -
100 -
I960 1980 2000 2020 2O40 2O60
Fig. III-4. Responses of the aquifer in each of the modeling areas,
-------
located below the stream bed (1). Pumping rates could increase to the point
where the aquifer no longer contributes groundwater to the stream anywhere
within area SU-1, that is, q* would be zero. However, reduction of salt
usage might still be a concern in order to protect the quality of groundwater
for municipal use. Communities in area LU-1 and SU-1 West currently utilize
deep wells which yield water with concentrations of chloride lower than those
reported here for the shallow aquifer. However, water in the shallow aquifer
potentially could contaminate deeper groundwater supplies. If in 1980, salt
use were reduced in areas SU-1 West, SU-2 and LU-1 to the application rate
used in rural areas (1.4 g/m2/month), the systems would respond as shown in
Fig. III-5.
Extrapolation to Other Watersheds
Nature of contamination
Hoffer and Anderson (3) suggested a methodology for identifying the
importance of potential sources of groundwater contamination in other water-
sheds in the Great Lakes Basin. The nature and degree of groundwater
contamination can be expected to vary depending on the distribution of land
use and the hydrogeology of the Watershed, especially the permeability and
thickness of the shallow aquifer and the recharge rate.
The contaminants which are most likely to be transported through the
groundwater system to surface waters are nitrate and chloride. However, at
least two studies on urban hydrogeology have found increased concentrations
of sulfate in groundwater after urbanization. In the Menomonee River
Watershed, the average sulfate concentration was 188 mg/L (1) while the
regional average for southeastern Wisconsin is around 63 mg/L (8). In the
Chicago area, Long and Saleem (9) reported that the average concentration of
sulfate in groundwater increased from 130 mg/L in the 1930's to 320 mg/L in
1973. In the Menomonee River Watershed, the highest concentrations of sulfate
occurred in the heavily urbanized portions of the Watershed. Concentrations
were highest during the spring when higher rates of precipitation may have
facilitated percolation of industrially-produced sulfate residues to the
water table. However, it is likely that there are other sources such as
leachate from landfills which contribute to the increases in sulfate after
urbanization.
Concentrations of nitrate in groundwater in the Menomonee River
Watershed were usually below 0.4 mg N/L. However, in other watersheds with
more permeable soils and a greater density of residential area relying on
septic tank systems or a greater percentage of irrigated agricultural land,
contamination by nitrates may be a cause of concern.
In addition to road salt runoff, another source of chloride contamina-
tion is water used to regenerate water-softening units. According to
Cherkauer and Bacon (7), an average home in southeastern Wisconsin uses
around 350 kg of salt/year for water softening. This amounts to about 200 kg
of chloride in waste water. In the Menomonee River Watershed, most of
111-20
-------
TZ-III
fD pj i-rj
t-i T3 H-
fD "O TO
(U j-i •
H-
O H
P> H
n- H
H- I
O t_n
3 •
O
H, pd
0>
4 CO
O T3
P> O
G- 3
Cfi
en (D
fu cn
l—'
rt o
M &
3 ft)
I—' ft)
00 C
O H-
" t-h
ft)
ft) i-i
T)
"T3 H.
M 3
H-
O EU
ft) l-i
rt fD
H* ft)
O cn
P) I
n- i—'
ft) »
co d
I
0. M
fD
D p
i-j 3
0) P-
cn co
fD d
a i
IS3
rt
O rt
O
cw a>
-\ n
a M
N>fD
g
3
O
3 H-
rt 3
3"
rt
H- 3"
3 rt>
fD (-!
ID ft)
O ri-
ff fD
O
Hi
O
r\>
o
Chloride, mg/L
o
o
00
o
ro
ro
o
(D
00
O
ro
O
O
O
ro
O
ro
o
ro
o
ro
o
0)
o
-------
this effluent would be diverted directly to sewage treatment plants rather
than recharged to the shallow aquifer. However, in watersheds where there is
a more widespread reliance on septic tank systems, significant amounts of
chloride may be introduced into the groundwater system from water softening
units.
Although the contaminant sources mentioned above and others cited by
Hoffer and Anderson (3), may be important in other watersheds, it is expected
that in most developing watersheds in the Great Lakes Basin, chlorides from
road salt runoff will be a major source of contamination.
The present three-part study of groundwater contributions to surface
water quality considered only the groundwater which discharges to the
Menomonee River System. However, Cartwright et al. (2) demonstrated that a
significant volume of groundwater discharges directly to Lake Michigan in
the shoreline area between Waukegan, Illinois and Kenosha, Wisconsin. They
estimated that groundwater discharges to Lake Michigan at a rate of 19 cm/yr
in the nearshore sandy sediments and at a rate of 0.5 cm/yr in the deep lake
clays. Moreover, they found that the chemistry of the lake water was
distinctly different from the groundwater chemistry and suggested that certain
ions present in the upper sediment may have been in solution in groundwater
and precipitated out at the groundwater-lake boundary. Most notably zinc,
boron and manganese were present in the groundwater but were below detection
limits in the lake water. The results of their study suggest that direct
groundwater discharge to the Great Lakes should not be automatically disre-
garded.
Use of model
The Gelhar-Wilson model (4) is suited ideally to estimate the concentra-
tions of contaminants in groundwater discharging to a stream and to study the
effects of land use change on average groundwater quality. The major input
parameters to the model are:
a. Average hydraulic conductivity (K) - may be available from previous
regional studies or can be estimated from information on the lithology of the
aquifer.
b. Groundwater recharge rate (e) - can be estimated from data on
precipitation or baseflow.
c. Aquifer length (L) - the length of the aquifer from the river to a
groundwater divide.
d. Loading rate (c ) - can be estimated from data on the amount of the
contaminant generated by a particular land use.
e. Percent of contaminant reaching the water table (CF) - will depend on
part on the importance of overland flow in the watershed; estimates can be
made for each land use.
Ill-22
-------
Other parameters are given in the Appendix III-A.
The model solves for the average elevation of the water table and the
average concentration of the contaminant within each area modeled. Loading
rates for each land use area can be estimated from Eq. (10); where (q*) is
the groundwater discharge rate and (c) is the average concentration computed
by the model. Thus, the model can be used as a management tool to estimate
which area in a particular watershed presently discharges the greatest volume
of the contaminant to a stream and to predict which area is likely to dis-
charge the greatest volume in the future.
111-23
-------
REFERENCES - III
1. Eisen, C. E. and M. P. Anderson. Groundwater Contributions to Surface
Water Quality in the Menomonee River Watershed. Part I: Field Data
Quantifying Groundwater—Surface Water Interaction. Final Report of
the Menomonee River Pilot Watershed Study, Vol. 5, U.S. EPA, 1978.
2. Cartwright, K., C. S. Hunt, G. M. Hughes and R. D. Brower. Hydraulic
Potential in Lake Michigan Bottom Sediments, Illinois State Geol. Surv.,
1978. In preparation.
3. Hoffer, R. N. and M. P. Anderson. Groundwater Contributions to Surface
Water Quality in the Menomonee River Watershed. Part II: Potential
Impacts from Land Use Activities. Final Report of the Menomonee
River Pilot Watershed Study, Vol. 7, U.S. EPA, 1979.
4. Gelhar, L. W. and J. L. Wilson. Ground-Water Quality Modeling. Ground
Water 12(6):399-408, 1974.
5. Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission (SEWRPC). A
Comprehensive Plan for the Menomonee River Watershed: Vol. I. Inventory
Findings and Forecasts. Planning Report No. 26, SEWRPC, Waukesha,
Wisconsin, 1976. 479 pp.
6. Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission (SEWRPC). State of
the Art of Water Pollution Control in Southeastern Wisconsin: Vol. 3.
Urban Storm Water Runoff. Technical Report No. 18, SEWRPC, Waukesha,
Wisconsin, 1977. 63 pp.
7. Cherkauer, D. S. and V. W. Bacon. Is There a Ground Water Shortage in
Southeastern Wisconsin? Proc. 2nd Annual Meeting Amer. Water Resources
Assoc.-Wisconsin Chap., Water Resources Center, Univ. of Wisconsin-
Madison, 1978. pp. 45-63.
8. Skinner, E. L. and R. G. Borman. Water Resources of the Wisconsin-Lake
Michigan Basin. USGS Hydrologic Investigations Atlas Ha-432, 1973.
9. Long, D. T. and Z. A. Saleem. Hydrogeochemistry of Carbonate Ground-
waters of an Urban Area. Water Resources Res., 10(6):1220-1238, 1974.
111-24
-------
APPENDIX III-A. COMPUTER PROGRAM
Table III-A-1. List of parameters
NEND Number of cycles consisting of NYT years each
NYT Number of years in a cycle up to 20
NMO Number of months in a cycle up to 240
PK Average hydraulic conductivity (length/day)
POROS Average porosity
L Aquifer length
T Average transmissivity (Iength2/month)
HO(I) Elevation of the water level in the river
HI Default value for HO(I)*
H(I) Average elevation of the water table for the time step
Q(I) Groundwater recharge rate (length/month)
P(I) Annual precipitation
PP Default value for P(I)
RCOEF Percent of annual precipitation reaching the water table
RF(I) Percent of annual groundwater recharge occurring in a given month
CI Initial concentration
C(I) Concetration for the time step
WINLD Winter loading rate (mass/length2/month)
BKGD Loading rate for the rest of the year (mass/length2/month)
CLOAD(I) Loading rate for the time step (mass/lengthz/month)
CF Percent of contaminant reaching the water table
TH Hydraulic response time in months
CRT Estimate of solute response time in months
DELT Time step in months
HOLD Elevation of the water table at the end of a cycle
CHOLD Concentration at the end of a cycle
*In Fortran notation when a ( ) follows a variable name it refers to an
array of values.
Ill-25
-------
Table III-A-2. Computer listing
REAL L
DIMENSION C(240), 0(240), H(240) ,
1,P(20), RF(12), CLOAD(12)
10 FORMAT (315)
20 FORMAT (3F10.4)
30 FORMAT (1X,12F10.5)
40 FORMAT (F10.5)
50 FORMAT (1X.12E10.5)
60 FORMAT (' ')
READ (5,10) NEND,NMO,NYT
READ (5,20) L,POROS,PK
READ (5,20) HI,CI,DELT
READ (5,20) CF,WINLD,BKGD
READ (5,40) RCOEF
READ (5,40) PP
DO 2 M0=l,12
READ (5,40) RF(MO)
2 CONTINUE
DO 1 1=1, NYT
P(I)=PP
1 CONTINUE
DO 4 M0=l,4
CLOAD(MO)=WINLD
4 CONTINUE
DO 5 M0=5,12
CLOAD(MO)=BKGD
5 CONTINUE
C(1)=CI
DO 6 1=1, NMO
HO(I)=HI
6 CONTINUE
T=PK*HO(1)*30.
Q(1)=RCOEF*P(1)/12.
A=3,*T/(L*L)
TH=POROS/A
CRT=HI*POROS/Q(1)
K=l
WRITE (6,30) (P (!),(=!, NYT)
WRITE (6,30) (RF(MO), M0=l,12)
WRITE (6,60)
WRITE (6,30) RCOEF, CF,WINLD,BKGD
WRITE (6,30) L,POROS,PK,DELT
WRITE (6,30) H(1),Q(1),HI,CI
WRITE (6,50) TH,CRT,T
Q(240), H0(240)
DO 100 NSTEP=1,NEND
NYR=1
M0=l
HOLD=H(K)
CHOLD=C(K)
DO 3 1=1,NMO
Q(I)=P(NYR) *RF(MO)*RCOEF
CO(I)=CLOAD(MO)*CF/Q(I)
IF(MO.GT-4) CO(I)=BKGD
A= (HO(I)-(HOLD/2.))/TH
B=Q(I)/POROS
H(I)=(DELT*(A+B))
A=1.+(DELT/(2.*TH))
H(I)=(H(I)+HOLD)/A
C(I)=Q(I)*(CO(l)-(CHOLD/2.))
A=H(I)+HOLD
C(I)=C(I)*((2.*DELT)/(POROS*A))
A=l.+(DELT*Q(I)/(POROS*A))
C(I)=(C(I)+CHOLD)/A
MO=MO+1
IF(MO.EQ.13) NYR=NYR+1
IF(MO.EQ.13) M0=l
HOLD=H(I)
CHOLD=C(I)
3 CONTINUE
K=NMO
WRITE (6,60)
WRITE (6,30) (C(I),I=1,NMO)
WRITE (6,60)
IF (NSTEP.NE.NEND) GO TO 100
WRITE (6,30) (H(I),I=1,NMO)
WRITE (6,60)
WRITE (6,30) (Q(I),I=1,12)
WRITE (6,50) (CO(I),1=1,12)
WRITE (6,60)
WRITE (6,60)
100 CONTINUE
STOP
END
111-26
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
REPORT NO.
EPA-905/4-79-029-G
2.
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO.
TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Groundwater Contributions to Surface Water Quality
in the Menomonee River Watershed-Volume 7
i. REPORT DATE
December 1979
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
AUTHOR(S)
I. PERFORMING ORGANIZATIOI
M. P. Anderson, C. C. Eisen and R. N. Hoffer
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Wisconsin Water Resources Center
University of Wisconsin
1975 Willow Drive
Madison, Wisconsin $3706
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
A42B2A
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO!
R005142
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Great Lakes National Program Office
536 South Clark Street, Room 932
Chicago, Illinois 60605
13 TYPE Of flEPCF'T AMD PERIOD COVERED
Final Report 1974-1978
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
U.S. EPA- GLNPO
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
Department of Geology and Geophysics and the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional
Planning Commission assisted.
16. ABSTRACT
The research was a comprehensive study of the quantity and quality of
groundwater discharged into the Menomonee River System, southeastern Wisconsin.
The Menomonee River Watershed comprises three aquifer systems: the deep
artesian sandstone, the Niagara dolomite and the glacial aquifers. Groundwater
discharge into the river system is supplied mainly by the shallow glacial
aquifer, with only a minor component of discharge supplied by the dolomite
aquifer. During the 1 year, study, groundwater was found to account for 45 to
65% of the non-event flow in the Menomonee River. Discharges from sewage
treatment plants and of industrial waste waters supplied the remainder of the
non-event flow.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
a.
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COS AT I Field/Group
Groundwater
Watersheds
Toxic chemicals
Wastewater
Water quality
Hydraulic
Gravel deposits
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Document is available to the public through i
the National Technical Information Service
Springfield, VA. 22161
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
21. NO. OF PAGES
166
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page}
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
U S Government Printing Oifice 1981 750-806
------- |