PB-238 764
CHEMICAL IMPACT OF SNOW DUMPING
PRACTICES
Prepared for-:
December 1974
DISTRIBUTED BY:
National Technical lnfoimation Service
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(i'ffasr rrjJ Inn/ut'tiutti en r'rr mmr frvjorc rom/ticf""'
V 3£P0HT NO. ?.
EPA-670/2-74-086
FPB 238 764
4. TITLE and SUBTITLE
Chemical Impact of Snow Dumping Practices
5. RCPOHT OATK
December 1974; Issuing Dace
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOHIV.)
Philip J. O'Brien, Philip L. Levins, Clifford H.
Summers
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING 0 F C- \NIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Arthur D. Little, Inc.
Acorn Park
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02140
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT MO.
1BB034/ROAP 2lATB/Task 036
11. CONTRACT/Jf
68-03-0154
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
National Environmental Research Center
Office of Research and Development;
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 4 5268
13. TYPE Of REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final - 7/72 to 6/74
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
15. SUPPLLMENTARV NOTES
,6- atoc report contains the results of a study conducted for the U.S. Environmental I
Protection Agency to evaluate the chemical effects of dumping of snow collected from
the municipal streets into watercourses or waterbodies in three selected areas: a large
river (Mohawk at Schenectady,N.Y.),a smaller river (Concord at Lowell, Mass.),and a
small pond (Horn at Woburn. Mass.).
Unusually low snowfall during the winters of 197 2-73 and 1973-74 together with a
nationwide gasoline shortage (which limited or curtailed snow dumping operations) re-
sulted in insufficient data. The following conclusions are, therefore, based on limit-
ed observations and tests:
1. Little effect of snow dumping was observed in the downstream concentration of
any species examined.
2. Increased chemical concentrations observed during the late summer low-flew
period were as great as any effect related to salt use examined in this study.
3. The maximum possible increase in concentration of chloride was calculated to
be no more than 0.04 mg/1 in the waterbody of lowest dilution volume (Horn Pondi.
This concentration is less than the precision of the assay technique used.
17. KEY wo.nos AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
J. DESCRIPTORS
Lv iokntifiers/open ended terms
c. COSATI l ickt/liroup
Calcium chlorides
Do i cers
*Ice
Water supply
*Snow
Snow removal
Snowmelt
*Riiroff
*Sa 11
Highway deicing chemicals
Snow management
"Water quality control
Surface groundwater
relationship
13B
13M
13. DljTR:H JTiO.M statement
Release to Public
1
19. StCURITY CLASS /This Krport)
Unclassified
21 NO. OF PAGES
48
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page/
Unclassified
22. PRICfc
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-731
-------
EPA-670/2-74-035
December 1974
CHEMICAL IMPACT
OF
SNOW Dl'MI'ING PRACTICES
By
Philip J. 0'Bricn
Project Director
Philip L. Levins
Clifford H. Summers
Arthur D. Little, Inc.
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02140
Contract No. 68-03-0154
Program Element No. 1EB034
Project Officer
Hugh E. Masters
Storm and Combined Sewer Section (Edison, N.J.)
Advanced Waste Treatment Research Laboratory
National Environmental Research Center
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARC!! CENTER
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI, OHIO 4526B
\i'
-------
REVIEW NOTICE
The National Environmental Research Center —
Cincinnati has reviewed this report and approved
Its publication. f\pproval doe.s not signify that
the contents necessarily reflect the views and
policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, nor does mention of trade names or com-
mercial products constitute endorsement or recom-
mendation fcr use.
ii
-------
FOREWORD
Man and his environment must be protected from the adverse
effects of pesticides, radiation, noise and other forms of pollution,
and the unwise management of solid waste. Efforts to protect the
environment require a focus that recognizes the interplay between
the components of our physical environment — air, water, and land.
The National Environmental Research Centers provide this multi-
disciplinary focus through programs engaged in
• studies on the effects of environmental
contaminants on man and the biosphere, and
• a search for ways to prevent contamination
and to recycle valuable resources.
The study described here was undertaken to determine the pollutional
magnitude of continued practices of removing and dumping quantities of
snow fron streets and highways into nearby water bodies or onto wattr
supply uaterrheds.
A.W. Breidenbach, Ph.D.
Director
National Environmental
Resellch Center, Cincinnati
iil
-------
ABSTRACT
This report contains the results of a study conducted for the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency to evaluate the chemical effects of
dumping of snow collected from the municipal streets into watercourses
or waterbodies in three selected areas: large river (Mohawk at
Schenectady, N.Y.), a smaller river (Concord at Lowell, Mass.), and a
small pond (Horn in Vloburn, Mass.).
Unusually .low snowfall dv.ring the winters of 1972-73 and 1973-74 together
with a nationwide gasoline shortage (which limited or curtailed snow
dumping operations) resulted in insufficient data. The following conclusions
are, therefore, based on limited observations and tesis:
1. Little effect of snow dumping 'Ms observed in the downstream
concentration of any species examined.
2. Increased chemical concontrs' ions observed during the late
summer low-flow oerioj were as great as any- effect related
to salt use examine-i in this study.
3. The maximum possible increase in concentration of chloride was
calculated to be no more than 0.04 m^/1 in the vaterbedy of
lowest dilution volume (Horn Pond). This concentration is
less than th-_- precision of the assay technique used.
This report was submitted in partial fulfillment of Program Element
1P.B034, Contract No. 68-03-0154 by Arthur D. Little, Inc., under the
sponsorship of the Environmental Protection Agency. Work was completed
in June 1974.
lv
-------
CONTENTS
Page
Review Notice ii
Foreword iii
Abstract iv
List of Figures vi
List o.c Tables vii
Acknowledgements viii
CONCLUSION'S 1
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS 2
SAMPLING PROGRAM 5
Site Selection 5
CHEMICAL ANALYSES 10
Species Analyzed 10
Samples Base/Methods 12
DATA ANALYSIS 14
REFERENCES 27
APPENDIX A - CHEMICAL ANALYSIS DATA SHEETS 28
v
-------
N<
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
ajge
6
7
8
9
16
17
1?
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
FIGURES
Location of Representative Snow Dumping Sites
Sampling Locations - Mohawk River, Schenectady,
New York
Sampling Locations - Concord River, Lowell, Massachusetts
Sampling Locations - Horn Pond, Woburn, Massachusetts
Chloride Concentration Levels
Nitrate Concentration Levels
Phosphate Concentration Levels
Chromium Concentration Levels
Lead Concentration Levels
Iron Concentration Levels
Total Solids Concentrations
Total Dissolved Solids Concentration Levels
Comparison of Woburn Chloride, Nitrate and Lead
Lead Values
Comparison of Lowell Chloride, Nitrate and Lead
Values
Comparison of Schenectady Chloride, Nitrate and Lead
Values ,
vi
-------
TABI.r.S
No. Page
L Chemical Species, Analytical Metliod and Detection 11
Limit
2 Sampling Frequency 13
A-l Summary of Sampling Analysis - Chloride, Cyanide 29
A-2 Summary of Sampling Analysis - Nitrate Nitrogen, 30
Total Phosphorous
A-3 Summary of Sampling Analysis - Ammonia Nitrogen, 31
Total Kjeldnhl Nitrogen
A-U Summary of Sampling Analysis - Chromium, Cr+^ 32
A-5 Summary of Sampling Analysis - Copper, Lead 33
A-6 Summary of Sampling Analysis - Iron, Zinc 34
A-7 Surmary of Sampling Analysis - Sodium, Calcium 35
A-8 Summarv of Sampling Analysis - Mercury, Nitrite 36
N:trogen
A-9 Summary of Sampling Analysis - Total Solids. 37
Pissolved Solids
A-10 Summaxy of Sampling Analysis - Oil and Crease, COD 38
A-ll Summary of S&mpling Analysis - Loss' on Ignition 39
vii
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work was conducted in partial fulfillment of Contract No. 68-03-0154
under the direction of Hugh Masters, Project Officer, and Richard Field
of the Storm and Combined Sewer Section, Advanced Waste Treatment Research
Laboratory, National Environmental Research Center - Cincinnati, Edison,
New Jersey 08817.
Anthony Samsel and Richard Pride of Arthur D. Little, Inc., were responsible
for gathering samples, and Celeste Babineau, Jane Morris, and Lawrence
Damokosh analyzed them.
viii
-------
CONCLUSIONS
The following conclusions have been reachej as a result of a snov: sampling
ani analysis program conducted in New York and Massachusetts during th^
two winter seasons 1972-73 and 1973-74. The conclusions specifically
and exclusively refer to the chemical effects of the dumping of snow
collected from municipal streets into watercourses and vaterbodies.
• Little effect of snow dumping is observed in the downstream
concentration of any of tho chemical species analyzed.
• Increased chemical concentrations observed during the late
summer low-flow periods are as great as any effect related
to salt use as examined in ttiis study.
These conclusions are based on limited observations and tests due to
unusual low snowfall during the study period, together with a nationwide
gasoline shortage (which limited or curtailed snow dumping operations
in the study areas).
1
-------
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
SUMMARY
The United States annually applies approximately 9 million tons of salt
or other deicing chemicals to its highways to improve. winter driving
conditions. In some locations, these deicing salts have had an adverse
effect on roadside vegetation and on surface water . id groundwater supplies.
Sal*, enters these systems by one or a combination of thre "> possible pathways:
1. Salt dissolves in the melting snow and runs off directly;
2. Traffic splashes the salt or salt solution onto the roadside
environment where it percolates into the soil entering the
water table or is deposited on the roadside vegetation;
3. Salt-laden ice and snow is picked up and hauled away for
disposal in waterbodies or on land.
Many highway departments dispose of snow in nearby waterbodies (lakes,
ponds, rivers, and streams). This practice is most common in urban
areas with large snowfalls where the area available for storage of
collected snow is limited. Along with the deicing agent, primarily
sodium chloride, other substances that become mixed with the snow
arc suspended solids, organics, phosphates, lead, oil, trash, soot.,
and soil. All of these substances may have an adverse impact on the
ecology o,': the receiving waterbody.
The effect of snow dumping upon the receiving waterbody is dependent
upon a number of variables:
• size of the waterbody (amount of diluting water receiving
runoff or snow disposal),
• rate of water flow,
• amount of snow disposed,
• nature of disposal site (ice or open water),
• amount of deicing substance,
• presence of ether substances,
• amount of deicing agent from runoff, and
• other sources of pollution.
2
-------
A study in the State of Washington by Sylvester and Dewalle states that
dumping of large quantities of snow and ice containing deicing chemicals
and other roadside contaminants into bodies of water may concentrate the
adverse effects of highway runoff at the dumping site. Impacts associated
with highway runoff and storm sewer inflow and the presence of deicing
salts in particular include: a salty taste of water caused by salt; small
amounts of toxic cyanides and ch:romates, which hana aquatic biota and are
cause for rejection of public water supply use; and phosphates, which may
stimulate undesirable growth of .iquatic plants. The Washington State
Highway Department does not presently dispose of snow in waterbodies.l
Desmaris studied snow disposal in Ottawa, Canada, including the impacts
of snow disposal by dumping either on ice or in fast-flowing open water.
These two methods of snow disposal have subsequently been abandoned upon
recommendations of the Ministry of the Environment of Ontario. In the
Ottawa area, snow disposal on ice was in shallow water with a low-velocity
flow rate. Chloride from road salt in this snow was not found to be a
major concern because it steadily leached out of the dumped snow during
the winter and the remaining chloride was greatly diluted when the ice
breakup occurred during spring runoff. The principal problem associated
with snow disposal on ice is the blanketing effect of the sediment, which
is mixed with the snow, on riverbed vegetation. During spring thaw the
ice melts and the sediment sinks to the bottom leading to increased
concentration of lead in river bottom sediments.
For example, at one point on the Rideau River when 9now was dumped on
ice, the concentration of lead in sediment was found to be 1,344 mg/kg.
The Rideau River has a mean lead concentration in the bottom sediment of
42 mg/kg. In 1972, the lead concentration in the former snow disposal
site was 183 mg/kg, a reduction indicating that physical scour was taking
place.
In order co determine the impact of the direct disposal of snow into
rivers, z controlled experiment was performed on March 3, 1973. About
520 tons of snow per hour were dumped into the Ottawa River from two
sites in the City of Ottawa. The samples contained an average of from
2,410 mg/kg to 3,965 mg/kg of salt in the snow. The chloride value
upstream in the Ottawa River was 4.2 tng/1. The surface water at the
monitoring site downstream yielded a measured chloride content of 3.7 mg/1,
with 3 mg/1 measured at 5-, 10-, ar.d 15-foot depths. Monitoring at a
site somewhat further downstream for three days (March 3-5) revealed p.
chloride content of 4.0, 5.0, and 3.0 ng/1, respectively. These data
suggest that dumping snow at the test rate of 520 tons per hour had
little or no effect on the chloride readings in the Ottawa River, even
with snow containing as much salt as 3,965 mg/kg.
The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of direct dumping of
salt-contaminated snow into watercourses and watorbodies in the process
of municipal snow removal. Specifically, we:
3
-------
» Identified the areas and specific locations where the snow
was being disposed of,
• Determined quantitatively the chemical characteristics of the
snow being disposed of in three selected locations, and
• Monitored the depository before and after dumping to determine
time-related chemical concentrations during the period fvom
December, 1972 to February, 1974, a period that had unusually
low snowfall for the study area and tha*. was affected by a
nationwide gasoline shortage which limited or curtailed
snow-dumping operations.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Areas that require snow disposal operations must have prearranged plans
for dump sites. Material mass balances should be estimated, and every
effort should be rcade to minimize the effect of discharge of waste
materials i'rom snow disposal areas into the aquatic 'invironment.
4
-------
SAMPLING PROGRAM
SITE SELECTION
The three sites selected for sampling and analysis (Figure 1) are
located at and near:
Mohawk River - Schenectady, New York;
v-uncord River - Lowell, Massachusetts; and
Horn Pond - Woburn, Massachusetts.
These sites were selected because they represent a range of conditions;
a large river, a relatively slowly flowing river, and a small pond. In
addition, the sites were accessible during the winter and within 200 miles
of Cambridge, Massachusetts, so that constraints could be met for sample
retention time (such as for cyanide, which had to be analyzed within 24
hours of sample collection).
Mohawk River - Schenectady, New York
The City of Schenectady is on the banks of the Mohawk River west of that
river's confluence with the Hudson. Contractors haul and dump snow from
the downtown shopping area into the Mohawk River (Figure 2). Within the
last two years, the New York State Water Resources Commission has re-
classified the stretch of the river includ. .ig the dump area from "B" to
"A". The best usage of Class "B" waters is for bathing and any other
usages except as a source of water supply for drinking, culinary, or
food processing purposes. The best usage of Class "A" voters is as a
source of water supply for drinking, culinary, or food processing
purposes and any other usage. Downstream from the dump site, the Town
of Niskayuna has a groundwater, induced infiltration well-field water
supply. As a result, the quality of the river water is of fundamental
importance to the quality of the water produced by Niskayuna wells.
Concord River - Lowell, Massachusetts
The Lowell Department of Public Works collects snow and dumps it directly
into the Concord River just upstream of that river's confluence with the
Merrimack River (Figure 3). Lowell utilizes 25 city trucks, as well as
28 vehicles from private contractors during snow removal operations.
Horn Pond •- Woburn. Massachusetts
The Town of Woburn, Massachusetts, is located about 10 miles northwest
of Boston ir. the Mystic River Watershed. Snow cleared from downtown
Woburn streets was dumped directly into Horn Pond (Figure 4) when the study
was initiated but the practice was subsequently discontinued. From the
pond the water flows southeastward via Horn Pond Brook to the Aberjona
River and thence into the Mystic Lakes. Chloride levels Jn the Mystic
Lakes have increased significantly in recent years. Samples taken in
Horn Pond by Massachusetts Department of Public Health officials show
an increase in chlorides from 97 mg/1 to 180 mg/1 in the period 1970-71.
5
-------
maim: /
VT.
Concord
Mohawk
Albany
MASS.
Boston
Springfield
• r Hartford
CONN.
25
50
Scale in Miles
FIGURE 1 LOCATION OF REPRESENTATIVE SNOW DUMPING SITES
-------
SAMPLING LOCATIONS
L Frcemens Bndgc
M Lock 8
N Railroad Bridge
P Schenectady Srow Dumped near L
Q Schenectady Snow Control
Scale in Feet
FIGURE 2 SAMPLING LOCATIONS - MOHAWK RIVER, SCHENECTADY, NEW YORK
-------
Church Si
SAMPLING LOCATIONS
G Upstream of Snow rJump
H Downstream of Dump
J Lowell Snow Dumped at Dump Site
K Lowell Snow Control
Lowell \
Cem. »
%
0 1000 ?000
1 1 1
Scale In Feet
FIGURE 3 SAMPLING LOCATIONS - CONCORD RIVER, LOWELL, MASSACHUSETTS
8
-------
Supporting analyses were made by Massachusetts Department of Public Works
personnel.
A recent study-* Indicated th^t chloride levels at or near study sites A and
D (Figure 4) exceeded 200 mg/1 (CJ.~). The authors concluded that the
source of the chloride was not related to snow dumping practices since
five samples taken during October and November 1973 from a small stream
entering the Pond contained an average chloride content of more than
225 rng/1.
Le*innton Si
Horn
Pond
Dump Sitc Iui water)
Wobum Snow Dumped at A
-------
CHEMTCAL ANALYSES
SPECIES ANALYZED
A large number of chemical species or groups was selected for regular
analysis on the basis of several criteria. Species such as chloride,
chromium, and cyanide were measured as representatives of the direct
impact of snow-dumping practices. Species such as lead, iron and oil
and grease were selected to show the indirect effect of dumping caused
by cars. Still other sppcits such as mercury were analyzed in order
to Study the secondary effects of dumping on water quality - e.g., the
possible chloride release of mercury from sediments. Other species
and categories such as chemical oxygen demand (COD), phosphate, and nitrate
were measured as normal indicators of water quality. The total list of
species analyzed is given in Table 1, along with the analytical method
used and the normal detection limits.
Analysis for mercury was performed by a flameless atomic-absorption -method
slightly modified to utilize the oxidizing potential of bromine. Nitrate
nitrogen and ammonia nitrogen analyses were performed by use of ion-
specific electrodes manufactured by Orion Research Corporation of
Cambridge, Massachusetts. Analysis for cyanide was initially done by
the method as described in the EPA Methods book, but was later modified
to incorporate improvements suggested by EPA as indicated in ASTM
Method D 2037-72. Analysis for oil and grease was done by moans of the
Freon 113 modification given in EPA AQC Newsletter //15, October, 1972
which allows cold extraction with the above solvent. Samples for
optical emission spectroscopy were prepared by evaporation in the presence
of Specpure lithium nitrate (Johnson Matthey Chemicals, London).
10
-------
Table 1. CHEMICAL SPECIES, ANALYTICAL METHOD, ANT) DETECTION LIMIT
Species
Cl"
Ctf
NO ~/N
NHj/N
TKN
NO ~/N
Total P
COD
Solids — Total
Dissolved,
Volatile
Oil and Grease
Na, Ca, Fe, Pb,
Cr, Cu, Zn
Hg
Method
Mercuric nitrate titration
Colorimetric^
Ion specific electrode
Ion specific electrode
Colorinetric ^
(a)
Coloricietric
Coloriraetric
(b)
(b)
xs C^O^ titration
(b)
Gravimetric
(b)
Cr
+6
( c)
Gravimetric
Optical emission spectrometry
Flameless atomic absorptioi.
Colorinetric ^
Detection Limit
0.5 mg/1
0.01 mg/1
0.1 =ig/l
0.5 ir.g/1
0.05 mg/1
2 yg/1
0.01 rag/1
10 mg/1
1 mg/1
0.5 mg/1
2-5 ug/element
2 Ug/1
5 ug/1
(a) Standard Methods for the Examination of Water & Waste-
water, 13th Edition.
(b) Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water & Wastes, 1971, EPA.
(c) Same as given in (a) with the Freon 113 modification (EPA
AQC Newsletter ''15, October 1972).
11
-------
SAMPLE BASE/METHODS
Samples were collected from each site to be as representive as possible
of
• The water at the dumping location,
• An upstream reference wat<;r saraple,
• A water sample downstream from the dump site,
• The dumped snow, and
• A reference control snow sample from a nearby area.
The sampling frequency was either biweekly or monthly as shown in Table 2
and as show specifically by date and location in Appendix A.
Collection of samples was carried out under a variety of field conditions
and required only one piece of special equipment, a Van Dorn water sampler.
The Van Dorn Sampler is a PVC cylinder with stoppers on each end connected
internally by a piece of surgical tubing. These stoppers are hooked open,
and the sampler is lowered on a nylon rope until it is 1 or 2 ft under
the surface of the water. A triggering mechanism is then released (which
unhooks the stoppers), the elastic surgical tube snaps the stoppers
closed, and the sampler is hauled out. Then the cocks are opened and
approximately 6 liters is poured into plastic bottles, coded, and recorded.
This sampling method was used in Schenectady a; the Freeman Street bridge
(Figure 2, Location L), the railroad bridge (Figure 2, Location N) and
at Lock 8 (Figure 2, Location M). It was also used in Lowell at the
upstream and downstream sample locations (Figure 3, Locations G and H,
respectively).
At Horn Pond samples were taken from the water's edge. The sample bottle
was submerged by hand with the cap screwed on loosely. Once the bottle
had been submerged, the cap was removed and the bottle filled. After
removal from the water the bottle was coded.
At the snow control sites, the sampler walked into a field of virgin
snow approximately thirty feet from the road, brushed the top layer of
snow aside, and filled a barrel containing a plastic liner. The container
was then coded and returned to the laboratory.
At the actual dump sites, the dump trucks would stop long enough for the
sampler to remove from the load one or two shovelsful of snow, which were
placed in a plastic-lined barrel. The procedure was repeated for three or
four trucks which approximately filled the bag. The bag was then coded and
returned to the laboratory.
12
-------
All samples were returned to the ADL Laboratory on the day they were taken
and stored at 40°F. All analyses were performed In the laboratory,
Table 2. SAMPLING FREQUENCY
t'pccles
Na, Ca, Fe, Pb,
Cr, Cu, Zn, Hg
ci", no3", po4
-3
Samples to be Analyzed
downstream water and
snow
all samples
Solids: total,
dissolved
nh3, TKN
all samples
all sampler;
Oil and Grease
snow and downstream
samples
COD
all camples
CN all samples
Hg sediments
Cr+^ all samples
(a) depending on season
(a)
Frequency
monthly
biweekly or
monthly
biweekly or
monthly
biweekly or
monthly
biweekly or
monthly
biweekly or
monthly
biweekly or
monthly
several samples
monthly
13
-------
DATA ANALYSIS
All of the analytical results obtained on the various samples are grouped
according to the species analyzed and are tabulated in the Appendix. In
order to facilitate analysis, some of the results have been presented
graphically in Figures 5-15 at che end of this section. These figures
present upstream (solid line) and downstream (dash line) results for
chloride, nitrate, phosphate, total chromium, lead, iron, total solids
and total dissolved solids. The arrows along the calendar axis of the
graph indicate the dates on which snow was dumped at the site and snow
samples were collected. As the figures indicate, there was limited or
no dumping (Woburn after February 1973) at the sites due to the unusually
low snowfall and to a reduction in snow loading and hauling occasioned
by the fuel shortage during the 1973-74 winter season. Most agencies used
their fuel allocation for plowing operations. Therefore, interpretation
of these data must be made with this in mind.
Under the minimal conditions observed, snow dumping had little direct
impact on the downstream concentration of any species (compare dashed
and solid lines). Little effect was noticeable particularly at Horn
Pond where the effect should have been most readily observed since flow
conditions in the Pond are the lowest of the three sites that were studied.
The data for chloride {Figure 5) suggests a general impact of salting on
chloride levels, but this in-jst be the result of indirect runoff effects
since both upstream and downstream levels are the same. It is interesting
to note that the summer concentration due to low flow and reduced dilution
volume is as great as that during the winter when salt is being used.
Other interesting changes are observed, such as the nitrate peak during
May and June (Figure 6), but once again, this change appears not to be
attributable to the practice of snow removal and dumping since levels
upstream and downstream are the same.
Of the variations observed in phosphate levels (Figure 7), none seem to
be associated with the periods of heavy salt usage. The total chromium
levels (Figure 8) do appear to be higher during the winter. Similar trends
were not observed for lead (Figure 9) and iron (Figure 10).
The relatively toxic cyanide species, which could be released from the
anti-caking agents in r.hc salt, is only observed in che dump snow samples—
none could be detected in any of the water samples.
The concentrations of total solids (Figure 11) and total dissolved solids
(Figure 12) both varied similarly to the variation observed for chloride.
These levels would indicate that the concentrations are attributable to
normal flow variation in the three sampling areas.
-------
In Figures 13-15, the levels of chloride, nitrate, and lead are compared
as measures oC three different water quality contributors for tlie down-
stream values at each of three sites. There is no apparent correlation
between these different measures of water quality and the chloride levels
either as a measure of total salting practice or as a measure of snow
dumping.
The results of this study are in agreement wirl: those of the Ottawa study"
previously discussed. For all of the species analyzed, there was no
significant difference between upstream and .townstream concentration
leveis that could be attributable to dumping of snow. These results are
not at all surprising when one considers the large dilution volume into
which a relatively snail amount of snow is dumped at any one time.
As a worst case example, calculations were made of the impact of dumping
Into Horn Pond in Ucburn from a single storm. It was assumed that the
snow is only diluted by the holding volume of pond. The pond has an area
of about 5 x .JO"' square meters and an average depth of 6 meters for a
volume 3 x 10 cu meters. During the February 1, 1973 storm, the measured
average chloride concentration was 680 mg/1 in the snow dumped into the
pond. About 100 truck loads of snow were dumped, each with an average
load of 1800 kg (2 tons), resulting in about 120 kg of chloride dumped
with the snow. (Normal seasonal snowfall would result in significant in-
creases in total amo-.r.its dumped.) If this ;:!iluride was thoroughly mixed
with the total volun.e in the Pond, it woul-i result in a concentration of
only Q.C4 mg/1, or li:ss than the precision (0.5 mg/1) of the assay tech-
nique fur chloride. The direct impact of such dompin; in the high flow
river sites would have been even less.
15
-------
Chloride. MG.X
SITE A
SITE E
Wobufn
j r m
<~ 4
1973
1974
SITEO
Lo*v«ll
1974
SITEM
SJTE H
-
Schenectady
A
// ^
c*>»
-
\
//
//
//
vx
^x>.
_¦ _
V
I
i *
1
1
1 I
III!
1 1
i i
24
20
16
72
B
4
J f M A M J J A S O N D J F
** ~ ~
1973 1974
Arrows ore snow dump dates.
FIGURE 5 CHLORIDE CONCENTRATION LEVELS
16
-------
NOj'asN, MG/L SITE A SITE E
2.8
2.4
2.0
Wo hum
0.8
0.4
F
O
N
O
J
F
S
J
M
A
M
J
J
A
M I 1974
1973
SITE G — SITE H
2.4
0.8
0.4
J
F
O
N
O
J
F
M
J
S
M
A
J
A
19741 k
1973
SITE M SITE N
Schenectady
2.4
2.0
0.8
0.4
o
N
F
F
M
M
J
A
S
o
J
A
J
44 4 4
1973 1974
Arrows are snow dump dates.
FIGURE 6 NITRATE CONCENTRATION LEVELS
17
-------
P04 as p. MG/L
SITE A
SITE E
Woburn
SITE G
SITE H
Lowell
1974
SITE M
SITE N
-
Schenectady
-
/V
Mil
¦o
~\\
^ /_N,
i^i^l T i i^r
/ \
// \ s*
i
i
0.28
0.24
0.20
0.16
C 12
0,08
0.04
J F M A M J J AS ON D J F
H i
1973
Arrows arc snow dump dates.
1974
FIGURE 7 PHOSPHATE CONCENTRATION LEVELS
13
-------
Total Chromium, /iCi/L
SITE E
Woburn
50
F
F
A
S
o
o
M
M
J
J
A
N
1973
SITE H
Lowell
50
20
J
F
F
M
A
S
o
N
D
J
J
J
A
4 I { 197. 4 4
1973
SITE N
90
70
60
j
F
M
A
M
S
o
F
J
J
A
N
D
J
1973
Arrows ore $now dump dales.
FIGURE 8 CHROMIUM CONCENTIO.TION LEVELS
19
-------
Pb, pG/L
SITE E
Woburn
1973
1974
SITE H
Lowell
SITE N
Schenectady
Arrows arc $now dump dates.
FIGURE 9
LEAD CONCENTRATION LEVELS
20
-------
Iron. MG/L
SITE E
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
i7
Wohurn
;/1
1 1
I >
JFMAMJJ ASONOJF
1974
H I
1973
SITE K
Lowell
1973
1974
SITE N
Schoneciady
1973
Arrows ore snow dump dates.
1974
FIGURE 10 IRON CONCENTRATION LEVELS
21
-------
125
400
375
350
325
300
275
250
225
200
175
225
200
175
150
125
100
75
300
275
250
225
200
175
ISO
125
100
Total Solids, MG.'L
SITE A
Wohurn
J fmamjj a&o
44 4
1073
D J F
1974
SITE G
SITE H
Lowell
JFMAMJ J AS ON D J F
M 4 H
1973 1974
SITE M SITE N
N/>
JFMAMJ J AS ON O J F
44 4 4
1973 1974
Arrows ore Snow dump dates.
FIGURE 11 TOTAL SOLIDS CONCENTRATIONS
22
-------
Touil OisiDlvnct Solnls. MG;L
SITE A SITE E
J ill | | L
j.fmamjj asonoj f
1t t
1973 1974
SITE C SITE H
Lowell
JTMAMJJ ASONOJ P
11 t
1973
1974
SITE M
. ITE N
22b
200
175
ISO
1?0
100
75
Sohenoctady
1973 1974
Arrows art* snow dump doles.
FIGURE 12 TOTAL DISSOLVEO SOLIDS CONCENTRATION LEVELS
23
-------
Chloride. MG/L
WOBURN
SITE A
SITE E
Nitrate as N. MG/L
SITE A
SITE E --
Lead. JJG/L
SITE E
Aucvss *.'e snow dump dittos.
FIGURE 13 COMPARISON OF WOBURN CHLORIDE. NITRATE AND LEAD VALUES
24
-------
LOWELL
Chloride, MG/L
SITE G
SITE H
-
— 1 \
— n /x"
till
V //
X//
iii i i i : i
t^w
1 *
J F M A
M J J A S O N O
J F
tt t
~ 4
1973
1974
Nit rate as N, MG/L
SITE C SITE H
—
-------
SCHENECTAOY
Ch'or\ie, MC/L
SITE to
SHE N
1973
1974
Nitrate as N. MG.'L
SITE M
SITE U
SITE N
Lead, fjOfl
J
Arrows ait? snow dump dales.
FIGURE 15 COMPARISON OF SCHENECTADY CHLORIDE, NITRATE AND LEAD VALUES
26
-------
REFERENCES
1. Sylvester, K.O., Dewalle, F., Character and Significance of Hlfrhvny
Runoff t'aters; A Preliminary Appraisal. Washington State Highway
Commission, Department of Highways/Federal Hifhvay Administration
(NTIS/PB-220 083), 1972, 97 p.
2. Desmaris, J.N., Pollutiona] Aspects of Snow Disposal, Road and
Transportation Association of Canada, First National Snow Conference,
Ottawa, April 16-18, 197J, 32 p.
3. Habitat, Inc., Horn Pond Water Quality Survey, The Habitat School
of Environment, Belmont, Ma. 02178, 1973.
27
-------
APPENDIX A
CHEMICAL ANALYSIS DATA SHEETS
Table
Chloride
A-l
Cyanide
A-l
Nitrate Nitrogen
A-2
Total Phosphorus
A-2
Ammonia Nitrogen
A-3
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
A-3
Chromium
A-4
Cr+6
A-4
Copper
A-5
Lead
A-5
Iron
A-6
Zinc
A-6
Sodium
A-7
Calcium
A-7
Mercury
A-8
Nitrite nitrogen
A-8
Total Solids
A-9
Dissolved Solids
A-9
Oil and grease
A-10
COD
A-10
Loss on ignition
A-ll
28
-------
TABLE A—1 SUMMARY OF SAMPLING ANALYSES
fNr ~ i |- n—
I V - » , ¦ ; i : i ;¦ <'J ¦:*. r/1 1/1 t/f 7/x {'r~t ,''i. »/r y') M/{r J/T i
7' -.7 7J 90.51
<¦ .
.?/ •¦' . - /3 <¦') w .y> n -.i -» ^ n >.?
La- ¦' ••• " "¦ •< *¦¦ I " ¦¦¦' -• ' *¦¦ t-f SI. \!
ti -l 1 • ;f ;f ;¦< ^
l
JAMPl ISO
VU
< ! ' I
- - ¦ -ii > .1 ir. f.': : "-1 r.i Vi V.7 1 V;
• | q j
.~ {' ;'///«• f , 1
• • ' • • -4 •) > a.T.
— v-' 1 1 1
... j • j
.1:-:- L.L
j « 1
i v
.-r/j /
29
-------
TABLE A-2 SUMMARY OF SAMPLING ANALYSES
it.\»H I ; I »)f Ut
J-LXf.'' Jtl 'iLZ2:.LL
t ?ro »f r y, u 'MV1
,f:.ZiP\l. ntr.l"J}eT
,_J
' ) 9 »' 5 (V f 1/ ^ pi" f O fl I
>J t K >i •! 'f. cJ f n
1_.
/< o J!'a j; a v/ j n ft
jnv
O fi (i CI |
<1 Oflno) JO.I .1 m
t-of. (it'.*!?**.
30
-------
TABLE A—3 SUMMARY OF SAMPLING ANALYSES
%am»ii*.c rv^
|c«.
o. v. .*.* i ! J I I I ! i 1,1,1 i 1 1
¦•¦"¦ if -i, !'¦ :i- tfi nth.-: '« •/no'* «/> «A Mfc.tfr'iA }/n
~rr
A' hv- VI 1
1 -1
3
(t
i i * ' ¦ i ¦ ¦ ¦ ; [ |" ' " - ' i i ' :—
. • ,
. i ! . ; ' : : . J • i . ! :. ...
: I ; I i :
f -
1
1 i f 'c j ui' ;!i 'o J 01101,01; '.of 1 1 . ' 1 1
1 o«- .V«
(.
i ' -.ennr.'vn1 ! 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1
*
1 1 / V * .0 }¦ 0 f 'o J ¦> i : n'/^ufc f*>. /Y*<^ 1 ojo?o>el'- j)
i . ! :
.. • »S ,
>
1 i ' . 1 1 1 'el' ;
. .J .: ; ; I
o • ' « •
I . i t 1 : ! 1 I j I 1 i i : . 1 i i . i.. Li.
J 1 i .1 J
< »-«1, S>
t>
i -!¦ ! i 1 ! ! i 1 ! i ! ! i | I. I- i -j J
• .. •. ,••
: ' i 1 : j ; l ' 1 ! ! 1 1 1
[) ...f ... V- ¦
o7a:\.»'o:"i9i ; , ] I ; i :o v. 011
: T"! ! i : i i ! i .P i .i i : : i -
I ''
' 1 ' t i 1 ! I 1 ;
„ o.oifA'na*trj fee of m#jt*
rtO etCZ'tecC sJ\£ »*• u/»j
c
iAV'l'NG rs.
f
«/l V^J 'In 3'if ^rf' ^
j j |";nn ~\~
rT'H'l
1,111 | C.*t
Vil '0,1.- tiff Hi! 71 1
Ao^f* ^4
1 I ! 1 •
*
1 i 1 j
¦ 1 'il
! - J : J
v. •
s
: I
t
; : : -!¦ i ;¦ r r r
!_ I
1 «• »¦ ¦-»
,
1 /j'tff/ o * of I
. ! !. 1. i ,-i.i
, ! •\ \
j.
to...II ».'*
•v.
i ' ¦ i 1 • :
,0:.
1 1 • •
>0 0 v '"'i 'J Of to' , ,1 *.~
0
«<
•4
1
O •
J
t~ •
• " ' • {ff *7 ;
'
r • . 1
, 1 of •
1 . •
^ s»
1 ; 1 1 . 1 • : 1 i S « * 1
. • -1 V ! «
¦¦
O S '-t r>C •
'
t f
I
¦-
.
1 » ¦ ¦¦ »i * A,
r,-< C*C'»^'5 u,'*•
c ,-c* 4.-I -.-j;
jl?'
31
-------
TABLE A—4 SUMMARY OF SAMPLING ANALYSES
ISC
11111
I i i"irT^r"rTi";;"T'"1'Trrr"
J L
-i-J.
tt l I' HI V) *T i~ /!> I C, ¦ 3. <2 10 ¦g , 10 ' Q¦ io
U?.\-J.12-1k l_JV.?-!.;<• 3'
JO,
7 1
C - v. ¦
I
-J L_
:r"!"3"~r
i .7 o jo .it
i : ,
_L-
! I
r ¦ r N i 7 iivr\-;t, >
L ;ZIZIj±l±3
i I I I 1 I
' ! I
J I ! I
"T—I 1 1 I I
2 . 1.1<" > . *¦ , f :/a.««
. : .. . I. ,J ;
531; J ¦ iio&t I I
! "T-TTf l"l~
."«i (*>%:•** ifir-'f'tTer
mw»v«sC
s.rti
c—•>
v' 1 »r./«i ' 1 ' ' 1 ! i ! i 1 ! !
i ? : * I 5" : I :
. . . f : / . ; . r. ) , i I r
. . I
I I
; ; f. <¦ : a . f '.'Of f
I '; ». > t ¦> iv!'«; 3 ! : "•»_
7 ' f _7i?: y : ;M ° •
> rV.'">r- J_1 . - * 7 ? f .'V I
jiiLie.
J L
ZJ
1 I> ¦ f " ¦'* ¦ v ¦ ¦' 1
&
n
<"" jy" '5
7-* y
y * >•< " &
32
-------
TABLE A-5 SUMMARY OF SAMPLING ANALYSES
EI
Yam»UNG "TS^Ow.
le-Ss.
w^va* 1 i !"T i'' ":"i rn~n r
•i/* -it' ¦ '>.> ¦':> *'* >'* t/:i s,m »/*.'•/.«'*/i ;?/; 'f/ji 1/7 Ww >\'.i i.'rfK'f-str 1
n .b~>« wa
i
i ¦ 1 , i
I' • «» i
X
1 ; - ! ¦ f
—
(.
»
:: | ;}-> 1 ! ¦ ' 1 1 , j
•.f 1 • %; )?•> j;a r.'j ?7t> v;;> ra if •*"> /v •?' 70 f/'5/,tv // ; i 1 1 !
lv.II MA
C.
w,i : j t ! i ' ' ' • 1 ) 1 !
P -
• \0 "T.? 5"V5 yr> 4 ff 3? 62 ijo .-fo /'0 >T // 1 7r ' 1 1
»s ».• v» i
J
i i • i i ! rrrrv t <-r !~r H
L ••
'
S •>»-,».-.1. N»
• ¦ 1 ¦)('-¦ ¦ . , i ; i . i i ; : j ! j j. | t |
r.» .•
C -\ .» v.m
V
»
i ... 1 , J J-.L ]_:—f—!—)
iv i-«*? :«• :v, '2c 10 iianf ir,w >i ?r ;s .ki 1 . j
' : : . ¦ • • i , i i i i~l
¦ % «.»
1
1 ..f. !(• iMto.." f-f orrtCi. if ell to f-CTA /
UM'LlNC
lit it
Cms
X
j;; i/* < ^ t;t 1 >'jj
r;'n i;»- •',« --VM -'Ai 3 -fc V' i T;t
>'» *h iff 7Of V'7
'1 1
r/f fl'r7'/,1- i/C
i
! !
i I
MA j
' 1 ' » J 1 1 1
C- -
A
.. ... : .
; ;
-I -!
v» •
fa
. f
.!..! !.-
I I
!. i
c
: .
i i '
¦ ¦ '
! i i ¦
I I
p
: i c..r
! I
[1 ...
i
i i¦,['jf.w.ro
,(>0[ to , , (0 ,.'50
II /* >!¦ , M
o _
I I
lo«". VA
-
,?"0; 1 ' 1 1 !
i • :
it'!
| I
1 1
••
« •/ -ij'/tofoi
<6f 10 tl /fld 1 H)
" '''¦ (2 /0 '
/f
! 1
; *.« « w.'i
j
.
1
' • . V. -
' i ' i i I ! 1
l ' i
• I ! '
; ! I I I
**
I \
iii'
*•. • ••
r.
««.} n ?-o 9V v f*
::o /r ;*j i ^ r
'0 t! I 7 '.-J
¦
[ 1
• i*-i V • v. i
V
i :
I ! '
• !
' '
i • —
0
'
i i
I
f>r"
j j fi~.itert:*r
33
-------
TABLE A-6 SUMMARY OF SAMPLING ANALYSES
1AV»IIVG 1X0.1.
»'"» |c»\
.oW-i i ! w!»rn~rn
1 n
i/!V/rW
>•*
y —, "• %•»>• W* 1
*
t •
¦ 1 ( » : '1 II
" " ' i 1 "i j_ : ! "! " ; '
H-!—
' '
I • • V. »
c
1 1
; t 1
i ¦ 1 I'll i •
t
; 0 ) ff Ilo
¦> M'c !f>; 0 T' 1 0 0 1* 'ff 1 / 2 iir> i? 5;» iiot;o> aJh r 1 , ) 1
I®..'- MA
I
f-
YiT~ ¦ ' ' 1 ¦ i ' , . 1 • ' 1 i i M M | | 1 |
l -
-
VI 2 {. io\ >?i 0 <•; « >y / *.•» « 37 / /0 • ;f a., « mV ;<5 »• * fi>*7 1 1 1 ! 1
t.. • -1 •>« v»-»
1
! 1 ' ' 1 • I • ~ I
• : ' . , < ! 1 i . . * 1 : 1 • 1 1 1 • 1 1 ! 1
1. -w. ¦, «, »,*
1
t ' 1 1 1 1 : ; . 1 i | 1 ¦ 1 1
: ! 1 1 1 1 1 !
•. ...o r..
M
iff 1 , ' . 1 1 ¦ ' 1
1 1 :
'ill
S
1 r a ' ? O 3 :<• . *¦> ' ol f df 0 <3 Oil ) O " 11 6 VJ t 7-» 12: ¦' ;T 07 f
1 ! ' 1
P. • M«i-
~
! ' ' t ' 1 !
1 1
C ••- , -
0
. ! 1 ¦ ' ! : 1 ! ' III!
: 1
......... - ;- f^
J4vri.il C
SITU
I . >;:<• '/I '/" ' 1 ' 1 ' 1 I ! 1 1
C""' ¦'.! - 1 J '¦¦¦¦ ^' •!! V, 1*7 •.!; ,/- I'.-f h~
!
' ' ' • ,' ¦ ' ! 1 1 1 t 1
ft
c
0
1
: i :.i : ; v; ;; r ! ; : :
: 1 ! • i ' . , : i 1 J 1 I
5 C'l <,a <16 'S«> 00 <;jA <>J .-- v.-
J
; ' ! •
| i
' • . . ~
'
' I
1
i<-. . ..1, \»-
I ' I t !
' ' 1 ' ' ' '
1 1
—-Hr'rr
V
Ofj . I
< '•/, <*/» 'lo « ''t ¦ . > 'v-.& 'Kr, (to
-------
TABLE A—7 SUMMARY OF SAMPLING ANALYSES
Ic-
! i >V ! | i ! n ] 1 1 ! I |
M*
U - .»»¦ «,•*>. Vf't
laxH.V*
e
c
Cl
1
, p p j _ i j [ : j....} ._] f j
i . . ¦*' ! i. i . . t 1 ' : ! i " 1 I-.!. I.-!.
H:. ! Ir". lyl I ><\"! .>..*! 1 '« ! '7M3l If \ It W? !P V I 1/1' 1 .1. J
I
EE
O ^ V-T
'-I-* N*
G
K
i/v'i i ;} S i: i t j
; j'l 1/4 • if ; [ to \ to to 1 1 ; <• i i ft /*" \ it 1 i2 ,10 [ V
. 1 l... 1 1 i i .! L .1 .1. i .! . 1 J. .1 •-
„!Jv-
_Lb.t
0 -,-iVw* Vrct
C- -i.
M
*
n
! ; i M il ! ! rHi+-rhH-
—
—
,_.f I :y.,i¦> :«>;r ,i ,io\t Jt I
-...{ ;. ! I t : , .! . ] j- : -T-| -
—
I
--
-
-i~i
\ ...M • -.11 • Ofirirf ^ "f ft* »'"r i omtAi. iAiH/sO }f£Zrrtti-:TAy
EI
iAwusG rss*p*"
«.i. ¦'1 ! I ! ! , I ' 'III!
•w'-- : 11 «,'¦* i:*': J jSt it* 1 ?, t-'c ?/. fit v»» r'1 ^5 Ufa- »'«f *'f ri)*
I
•h t*." V*
e
c
0
1
¦' ' ' ' ¦ ' '
t
Z
1. »•
I#..-: v«
: : :.l : : "!. i i:i i'i:.! iurjidT1"!--!-
.. . ! . : : i - ! ¦ ¦: J ! _{_ LJ_.
it.. 1 j 3f. : Jf. '3: '<.'"! 9 . ' ;,J.. * 1- L-. 1- I
r.
L M •
L - ,••»«<•»
t - ^ - V.
L
I
:/«-! 1 i : ¦ I i ! !. !- i !-t -
.3? 1 u | t 'in /Y ;o /J if so 1,5* 1 11 ' 1 I 8 I // 1 n 1 i
1. i i M .! i' ;J
j.
. L. i -
J. -.<-1%...- W»r
I
%.•
t-
f.
J 1 , ! !: i i i !-
1 ¦ 1 1 1 • ' ; 1 ! i | 1 1
™ vi c* |W ^ Ji w jt 3^ ¦' t* 7 // fj /v ;f, /r | ]
;i i Ml j I
! .
.1
1
:
—
/.<«•»»« oA'/c^t srxrfttuT/y
35
-------
TABLE A-8 SUMMARY OF SAMPLING ANALYSES
I ! V.*
"I | | f"]~ I" r n r i i |
T K 'fit V,7 ;A I 1
•.i.-.J .< '.j.-j!«.*>.j :«,• j
i 1 . i < i i : i ! i ; ~ i !" " 1 _ "J
i i , i !. ! i ! : i . i I i ! j ! ; i j I . LU iZCOZI Z)
a f ; yc. -1 .<3 • i <„?
• i/jri/T-r! r/J /- '
^ : ¦ : T i ; .'i ! T'jrrnTj-:
71 ' I /.i f
I I .
. v. J
B
"i i I
* : 7 . 7 \ : V
^ «; ;< 3 '<: ; <2
• *o fj
i : .*¦ <. ,i..; ,.l_i_
!¦ 1-
M l !
?. " i'
-------
TABLE A-9 SUMMARY OF SAMPLING ANALYSES
(dWFlfM.
HI I
IS.
;s.
.> *
i
i
¦ i ! i ¦ ' 1
.*'¦* ¦>/<• - W*
i
r -•
*
'
i« ; •«
;;S;;;;
i>; ;i? .v?
'^o1
t
-
—
1 - i-' S--
*v»
B
. _.i .
» •• s*»-
C
i L
..L...
1.
ir
i .
> j :•!
j . ¦
ji* j.f rU [ wi
iv iv
^J: J',3 ::T
.. i
: -
1
'
* " J 4 J.* ' 5 (J '¦
>.k J f
jm7 J.v ;ck,>Jo
^¦3; .
l .-.O V*
-
'-i - il) !l~)
*7} i ;J ' >> "1''»7
JJ}\'b7.
/jT /a?
JJ
..:.
.
.
(1. «• !',»»•
Ml |
1
f.'j
.;.n
: '
S >.« .-.1, S*
: . C
I . . .
¦ j ; : *r
7 i l_ .
L. L 1,
_
l
il ii.t
Of '77
r-> >
Dt t'C /*i
;v? JO/ ,f7, ! *ia
!<~?! _
—
'' ""
'/vf
1/} .'-J ' f\
fV, J\1
/1 3
/vj /t2 .V '*1 /a>
K- /*.'
j'o v-
1 ".71
-1—1-
-
f. —M
Vi >
r>
"4*"
. ,n>
* > V
*: !
? . !
/«/7
id /*$ ft
^ t
i ! »»
>: Jt 1
i i -
:: \~r
:
1 rs't
//'/? f-'*\ e*e.iJ «•*?.*«,
/f 7;
rrrr"
WVl'V, pv^
\c*~
D...
' '
,•:•
±.A-
1><
1 ' 1 ' I 1 !
» r ¦ ,
* • ' '7 *'~' '¦ ? *;?'>•-* i'-f A .1
. ,
J/'
1
>^27
i
'
A
•»
:
/ r) t' IJ
_ .j
- .—1 ',*»«» V.-
1
i
' "t 1
i .
" :
H-[t"
~ I
, ...-
t)
;
'} HO
i" ;-r
"' i'f} ?- 'ff -?1 ¦>• 3 * ,i.
/-•r 'A&
I1?
t.!
1
; .
'
}•»?
;; 5
/U 1/ -i
»r
f-J ,
lo»»' **h
1,
•L ¦
i-7
.'¦V V.
<;
"/ /a/ 5'.' :}'¦> .
tc /?:
fed
"!
Mil
!
U *¦
II
to:
/ ' -
r»|
it
>.-y "# S: 5K
t?
;
1. • ..-1 •.•» •» M««
»
,,74.
•
,* > .
'
1 1 1 i ' . ;
*V f
¦JJJ
i
' , I
; !J-.i:
i
l
' /i; /±t
¦ if. /,v i£»
'.V
'•P
/»' Tw . v? *" '>• v
s;.
!
| ! I.)
-
«.•
V
r>*
> f *
/>i
"5 T
/*:
-f ,S . V .•<
».• :• i
-i '
¦f • :u i',:
./o
?)
/;y /; \ ».» /« .••»,•!'...5 -•
\: v
i
¦ ¦ i 1
11
¦I*
;
III:
n
ft
1
•J
i ¦ ¦
{
- ».'1
.,, .••..¦ t , -~\M /'. < /-f.
»/. >
'L.
*jre< u/*i:x J
37
-------
TABLE A—10 SUMMARY OF SAMPLING ANALYSES
l«v»i iog
Hi *1
t -v
fi *>. i
' ' \wrr ! r ; ' i !" ["'Tl
»/r ?/;. ;S fj/7 ; f yy.'i?.
'¦>».* tf.i yry/sj-
r-t,
f
'.Aft,.-'' y,->f Miti?
- I.'i r• . ' <7' C\, . flYC.'i, Mv» . /'lv»a.
r., :/f ;; 'f.cfv i i
r'e a Vn.t"'
'•s-r.'y.a ?: - r.iJVcr,I
n t
L
; i
Mi;:
. I. :. i_
¦ ~T" ^ ' ~* I A I
i : : i
r" ; ! i ! .! _! J. I..I
' £ > / ^( 3 v> fl / fc f J I I __ 1
; i i ifn ; Ji j. J'.'I
i I i so-l i . LJ
: .? 3,/ f/5 v *t . !
p.:?
it ¦ r r.
.. . . .
: i !
. I
r~
* nf *> ¦> (¦<» f
-I-!
r
0.5,
L*J-rtTCic
„J/„, i-i >«>
f\-i .. ,
V5»" k/' '
u;.; ,.i'A v-i'j-iti-iULtiLViutxzit
-¦ ** j _ I ^
J M %» .T
i
C.'
•7 ) 7 [ O, 7
/
.<¦
» rV -
L^»"FX • fa #j-
:V/7 *M Vf
'SOr.
/*? /J", o
/> -?'/ <3
/-J f"
'7 _ H
t -J _
. ,
•I :T
i.. 1-
t t
V/~*»
38
-------
TABLE A-11 SUMMARY OF SAMPLING ANALYSES
1AMPUN0 \T|,ri
,MS Cr\
1 1 ' : , I i i i
..i'.i ./i !>
I ! ! ! | ! I ! |
>it y.v.w -ir iyi .i*> •hr-xt'iAr
!
MA
. i i
P S'»
l«.." V*
e
c
c>
«
: i : ,A-y. r-.V-. to. 1 .>3 ;A7|»
1- j-! ! : ! ! i !..
J *."i i I~j" ! i' "i
yi ; •* 1 vj. t it }<, | J
cr ¦?.-» no o £? 2\1 -fiV: i
i ' 1 i i ' : i '
: ! 1 :'"rH::H3r
11 ,lZ 7o;toisf\ _\1t, .
cH-g
2 • .« Vim
N*
0
: i ! : /• t;i , n; ;i i ;o «?' ??\ /o\rc.foO*': S&. to<\ j j tap*;!. ] j J !. _
¦ I 1//' ' y 5;>: y. vo.) ,-r; hi .'3ifpri7ji;v . i 1 | 1
i ; 1 i 1 ' *//'> l?oi 1 1 . i I
"T j~.;~ri: Lu..r:! :r !:.u«i.:i: ' Lin i~
Di"i '.*•<«» v»n
t
u
s
~
0
¦ i ' . w• „•» /«¦ i<•/1 ji "? 1 .//» Itv UJI 1 ! i
i ' i ! i* i Vj ,t j, » « n in *y. 17; ?y//4; ' J 1
"i'-tbs'.iu*\i}!;im• oj# j ! ! !
— ¦ : | : ¦ 1 ; , ^ ^ J j j ( J
f!=
i.nt/t 'nnxobi fee. **etrsts
of uf.fn'e Avt ujAim ' /1?/
39
-------
------- |