the relationship between wetland water level andewpeter/theses/maxwellthesis.pdf · 2015-11-20 ·...

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN WETLAND WATER LEVEL AND

GROUNDWATER FLOW PATTERNS: A CASE STUDY IN MCLEAN COUNTY, IL,

USING TEMPERATURE MODELING

EILEEN L. MAXWELL

94 Pages May 2016

Agriculture represents approximately 75% of the total land use in the state of

Illinois (Illinois Department of Agricultural, 2014). Tile drains built under the farm lands

move large amounts of excess nutrient-rich waters from the fields to open water sources.

Wetlands serves as a natural solution to reduce nutrients and maintain farmland yields.

The importance of this study lies in the understanding of the geology and groundwater

and surface water interactions of a fluctuating wetland. Head values alone prove

insufficient regarding estimating complex groundwater pathways, but temperature (a

natural tracer) delineates water movement.

This study notes the effects of wetland water level fluctuations on local

groundwater using hydraulic head and groundwater temperature. The project compares

regional flow models to local flow models, chemical tracer tests to natural tracer tests,

and other hydrogeological variables influencing groundwater and wetland patterns. Both

spatial groundwater and temperature patterns indicate differences associated with a

presence and absence of water in the wetland. The presence of water within the wetland

alters the local groundwater flow direction. The underlying groundwater flow direction

does not change, but the presence of water within the wetland creates an area of recharge

from which water appears to radiate in all directions.

The comparison of surface water temperatures to groundwater temperatures

follows the continuous temperature logging and field recorded data. The wetland

temperatures reflected both seasonal and daily signatures whereas groundwater

temperatures reflected only a seasonal signature. Groundwater temperature displayed

higher than the stable mean annual air temperature, which describes groundwater as

shallow temperature mimicking land surface temperatures. Understanding the physical

characteristics of wetland water level patterns and groundwater patterns using

temperature tracers will improve the hydrological conceptual framework of the

groundwater-wetland system.




EILEEN L. MAXWELL

A Thesis Submitted in Partial

Fulfillment of the Requirements

for the Degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

Department of Geography-Geology

ILLINOIS STATE UNIVERSITY

2015




EILEEN L. MAXWELL

COMMITTEE MEMBERS:

Eric W. Peterson, Chair

Catherine O’Reilly

David H. Malone

i

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank my biggest fans, my husband and family, for their

encouragement and belief in me. I especially want to thank my husband, Andrew

Maxwell, who continues to motivate and support his million dollar investment!

I want to thank my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, for providing me with

opportunities, friends, and family along the short two year process. “I can do all things

through Christ which strengtheneth me.”- Philippians 4:13 KJV

Durbin Family, thank you for allowing myself and other colleagues on the

premises to conduct research on the wetland. I would like to thank The Nature

Conservancy for providing the study location along with their interest in sound scientific

research. To the Graduate School, Geological Society of America- On to the Future, and

Geography- Geology Department thank you for funding.

I would like to thank my committee members from the Geography- Geology

Department for their continued help and encouragement. A special thank for all whom

helped with this project specifically my field partners; Alicia O’Hare, Audra Hanks,

Crystal Williams, Emma Singh-Baghel, Jessica Ludwikowski, Paula Pryor, and Zachary

Kisfalusi. Lastly I would also like to include those whom additionally helped me in the

field during Hydrogeology field camp in 2014; Ericka Hines, Nick Green, and Kathryn

Schroeder.

E.L.M

ii

CONTENTS

Page

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS i

CONTENTS ii

TABLES v

FIGURES vi

CHAPTER

1. INTRODUCTION 1

Background 2

Wetland Hydrologic Cycle 2

Groundwater Interaction 3

Temperature as a Groundwater Tracer 4

Temporal Fluctuations in Temperature 5

Spatial Temperature Distribution 6

Temperature Variables 6

Significance 7

Questions 8

2. SITE DESCRIPTION 9

Site Description 10

Regional Hydrogeology 13

Local Hydrogeology 14

Climate 15

3. METHODOLOGY 17

GFLOW 18

Data Collection 20

Tracer Dilution Test 20

Field Data 21

4. RESULTS 23

GFLOW 24

Tracer Dilution Result 25

Field Results 28

Water Stage and Groundwater Head 28

iii

Temperature 29

Spatial and Temporal Groundwater Patterns 33

Spatial and Temporal Temperature Patterns 33

5. DISCUSSION 40

6. CONCLUSION 47

REFERENCES 50

APPENDIX A: HYDROCHEMISTY OF TRACER TEST 54

APPENDIX B: FIELD DATA 75

APPENDIX C: NITRATE ANALYSIS 89

APPENDIX D: SURFICIAL GEOLOGY OF THE COLFAX 7.5 MINUTE 93

QUADRANGLE, ILLINOIS

iv

TABLES

Table Page

2.1: Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) 12

3.1: Boundary Properties for GLOW 20

v

FIGURES

Figure Page

1.1: Schematic of water budget in hydrologic cycle for wetland 3

2.1: Elevation map of wetland 11

2.2: Map shows geological boundaries in McLean County 13

2.3: Stratigraphic column of geologic material 15

3.1: Elements and line-sinks used in GFLOW 19

4.1: Regional flow simulated in GFLOW 24

4.2: Observed bromide breakthrough curve 25

4.3: Spatial bromide concentration for study site 27

4.4: Graph of elevation over duration of study period 29

4.5: Thermal time series for study site 31

4.6: Graph field recorded temperatures during study period 32

4.7: Fall (dry) water table map and isotherm from SURFER 8 35

4.8: Spring water table map and isotherm from SURFER 8 36

4.9: Early summer water table map and isotherm from SURFER 8 37

4.10: Late summer water table map and isotherm from SURFER 8 38

4.11: Fall (wet) water table map and isotherm from SURFER 8 39

5.1: Conceptual Model of groundwater-wetland system 43

1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

2

Identifying groundwater flow paths adjacent to a groundwater-wetland system is

important in wetland dynamics because wetlands play a significant role in the

hydrological cycle (Bullock and Acreman, 2003). Other studies have focused on surface

water and groundwater interaction for streams (Anibas, et al. 2012; Poole and Berman,

2001; Constantz, 1998), but not much is known about the impact a wetland has on

groundwater. A wetland refers to a surface water body with a fixed area and is saturated

most of the year (Van der Kamp and Hayashi, 2009). Research on wetland dynamics

include spatial and temporal variability in a wetland-stream interaction (Lowry et al.

2007), groundwater’s role in removing nutrients from a wetland (Ackerman et al., 2015),

and modeling groundwater- wetland interactions using traditional chemical field test

(Huang and Yeh, 2012; Kjellin et al. 2006), but no studies have examined the changing

water levels within a wetland impact on groundwater flow patterns.

Background

Wetland Hydrologic Cycle

Wetlands are surface water bodies that are natural filtration systems that move

water in (sink) or out (source), therefore wetlands provide a buffer system for pollutants

into adjacent surface water bodies (Beutel, 2012). During wet conditions, wetlands store

water and provide water during dry conditions (Ackerman et al. 2015; Rosenberry and

Winter, 1997). The water budgets of a wetland behaves the same as any other hydrologic

3

system, where difference between total inputs and total outputs results in a change in the

volume stored within the system. The major hydrologic cycle components are

precipitation, run- off, groundwater flow (i.e. infiltration or groundwater discharge), and

evaporation from water and vegetation (i.e. evapotranspiration) (Figure 1.1).

Specifically, evaporation and precipitation play a major role in water levels in a wetland

(Van der Kamp and Hayashi, 2009; Ackerman et al 2015). However determining water

budgets can be difficult because variation in annual weather patterns (Carter, 2015).

Figure 1.1: Schematic of hydrologic cycle for wetland and surrounding area.

Groundwater Interaction

The term connectivity means interaction of water, solutes, and energy between

two systems. During dry periods, when precipitation is low and evaporation is high,

groundwater is the base level for surface water bodies and water table. Groundwater is

essential in sustaining base level in a system and will effect volume of water, chemical

4

composition and temperature (Hayashi and Rosenberry, 2002). The water table, the

surface between unsaturated and saturated groundwater zones, will mimic the landscape

where elevations are high near uplands and slopes into lower surface water bodies.

Furthermore, wetlands connectivity influences the water table and creates either recharge

or discharge zones in response to hydrologic conditions (Rosenberry and Winter, 1997;

Macrae et.al, 2010; Wilcox et al. 2011).

However on a local scale, the groundwater connectivity is highly variable

because of heterogeneity in geological materials (Hayashi and Rosenbery, 2002; Van der

Kamp and Hayashi, 2009). Specifically, low porosity (voids and fractures) and

permeability (the fluid potential to flow through the material) in glacial till deposits will

restrict groundwater flow at depth slowing regional groundwater flow and causing

localized shallow groundwater systems to dominate (Van der Kamp and Hayashi, 2009).

Glacial tills (comprising of unsorted gravels, sands, and clays) make groundwater flow

difficult to constrain.

Temperature as a Groundwater Tracer

A method to estimate groundwater-wetland flow pattern is to combine

groundwater head measurements and temperature measurements in mapping the spatial

and temporal changes. The temperature is used as a natural tracer, where heat naturally

transfers from water, solute, or sediment to delineate flow patterns (Anderson, 2005;

5

Conant, 2004). In addition, temperature measurements are cost effective and easy to

record in the field. Groundwater temperatures have been used as tracers in a wide array of

geological settings, including: using seasonal temperature to understand biodiversity

(Schabhuttle et al. 2013; Becerra-Jurado et al. 2012), using temperature theory to

differentiate groundwater zones (Briggs et al. 2012; Keshari and Koo, 2007), and

quantifying groundwater discharge and flow patterns using heat as a tracer (Conant,

2003; Burow et al. 2005; Gleeson et al. 2009). Commonly temperature measurements are

recorded at multiple depths at a single location. Groundwater flux, velocity, and

residence time is calculated using analytical solutions (Keery et al. 2007), numeric

modeling (Burow et al. 2005; Anibas et al. 2012; Lapham, 1989), and heat transport

modelling (Bravo and Jiang, 2002).

Temporal Fluctuations in Temperature

Temperature fluctuations occur in daily and seasonal cycles. Temporal changes in

temperature are expressed as a sine wave. The daily temperature signals are shorter-

wavelength cycles caused by warm days and cool nights; whereas, seasonal temperatures

produce longer-wavelength cycles (Briggs et al. 2014). Water temperatures change

seasonally as the land is effected by the heat of summer and the cold of winter and heat is

transferred through the subsurface (Anibas et al. 2012). Groundwater temperatures are

cooler than surface water during the summer with the opposite situation during the winter

expressing a sinuous seasonal lag (Anibas et al. 2012; Arrigoni, et.al, 2008; Becker et al.

6

2004). Groundwater at greater depths (>0.5m) from surface will have dampening

seasonal trend whereas shallow depths (<0.5m) will demonstrate daily land surface

temperature changes (Bense and Kooi, 2004).

Spatial Temperature Distribution

Heat transferring in the subsurface is driven by conduction or advection.

Conduction is the process involving direct contact with heat and the movement of heat

directly relates to the sediments and bedrock geology (Beach and Peterson, 2013;

Stonestrom and Constantz, 2003). On the other hand, advection is the heat movement by

a fluid observed by hydraulic gradients of groundwater discharge (Anderson, 2005;

Becker et al. 2004). If conduction dominates, temperatures would change uniformly and

radiate away from a source. Otherwise if advection dominates, temperatures mimic

regional groundwater flow (Peterson and Sickbert, 2008; Briggs et al. 2014).

In addition, advection is used to constrain groundwater discharge and upwelling

patterns (Gleeson et al. 2009; Briggs et al. 2012; Briggs et al. 2014). According to Lowry

et al. (2007), temperatures in a discharging zone should fluctuate less than upwelling

zones. An upwelling zone will thermally be cooler than surrounding groundwater

temperatures (Briggs et al. 2014). The abrupt temperature variances are anomalies that

correspond to differences in heat signatures compared to temperature data.

7

Temperature Variables

Groundwater temperatures remain thermally stable, 2-3 degree variance in the

mean annual air temperature (9-12°C for central Illinois, USA) at shallow depths

(Schmidt et al. 2006; Beach and Peterson, 2013; Peterson and Sickbert, 2008), but there

are factors that affect groundwater temperatures. According to Constantz (1998), water

temperatures are impacted by solar radiation, air temperatures, water inflows, and

precipitation. Other factors affecting groundwater temperatures include vegetation uptake

(Tencer et al. 2009; Van der Kamp and Hayashi, 2009; Huang and Yeh, 2012; Fisher and

Acreman, 2004; Kung, 1990) and vegetation cover (shading) creating a cooling effect

(Hayashi and Rosenberry, 2002). A wetland water level are influenced by inflows,

precipitation, climate, and geological materials which can create natural variances to

stable groundwater temperatures.

The purpose of this research is to determine groundwater flow paths in a

groundwater-wetland system. Most importantly this research will use temperature, a

natural, cost effective, and easy field parameter to delineate groundwater flow paths. This

study focuses on changes in water level (the presence and absence of water) in a wetland

and discuss the groundwater flow paths both spatially and temporally through mapping.

8

Significance

In Illinois, 27 million acres, approximately 75% of total land use is agriculture

(Illinois Department of Agricultural, 2014). Underneath farm lands are tile drains built to

move large amounts of excess nutrient-rich waters from the fields to open water sources.

Illinois is considered a large nitrogen polluter from tile drainage and the effects can be

seen in the waters of Mississippi River and the Gulf of Mexico (David et al. 2006).

Groundwater flow dictates how much nutrient- rich waters move into or away from a

wetland (Denver et al. 2014). Thus, flow direction is important for limiting contaminates

and protecting surrounding lakes and rivers ecosystems (Gleeson et al. 2009). Wetlands

remediate the nutrients by adsorption to sediments, biota uptake, and denitrification

(Fisher and Acreman, 2004).

Questions

1. Is there a change in groundwater flow paths with an absence or presence of water

in the wetland?

2. Is there a thermal signature difference when water levels change from an absence

or presence of water in the wetland?

9

CHAPTER 2

SITE DESCRIPTION

10

Site Description

Field investigation focused on a wetland located upstream of the Mackinaw watershed,

the watershed flows into the larger Illinois River watershed. The wetland is located about 10 km

south of Colfax, Illinois on Durbin Farm in McLean County, Illinois (40°30’26.8 N and

40°30’20.6”N to 88°36’18.7” W and 88°36’24.6W). The site consists of a wetland (Figure 2.1)

built for sub-irrigation and to limit excess nutrients (i.e. nitrate from tile- drain waters of the

surrounding farmlands), an overflow directly north of the wetland, and a stream to the west.

Farm fields that cultivate corn and soybeans border the north, east, and south sides of the

wetland, creating the groundwater- wetland system.

The dimensions of the wetland are 76.2 m by 45.7 m by 2m in depth. The inlet pipe,

measuring 10-cm in diameter, supplies the wetland with nutrient-rich tile drain water and located

inside the northeast corner of the wetland (Figure 2.1).The site has 12 PVC observation wells,

perforated at 3 m from bottom and installed by hand auguring then capped and placed around the

wetland (except well 7 located below the center of wetland) (Figure 2.1). The west side of the

wetland contains wells 1, 2, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12, the north side contains wells 5 and 6 (installed

to monitor overflow wetland), the east side contains well 4, and south side contains well 3. Wells

1, 2, 5, and 6 occupy the berm surrounding the wetland. Well 8 (containing vegetation cover)

occupies the northern border of study site and well 10 and 12 (containing vegetation cover)

occupy the southern border of study site. All wells have a 2.5cm diameter, with the exception of

wells 11 and 12, which have a 5-cm diameter. The wells locations were recorded using a Trimble

GPS (Table 2.1).

11

Figure 2.1: Elevation map of wetland. The wells are the black dots and inlet pipe is a blue dot.

Insert with respect to state of Illinois where study site is located in eastern part of McLean

County.

Wetland

Inlet

40°30’26.8”N, 88°36’24.6”W 40°30’26.8”N, 88°36’18.7”W

40°30’20.6”N, 88°36’24.6”W 40°30’20.6”N, 88°36’18.7”W

12

Table 2.1: Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) easting and northing for each well and stream

at the Durbin wetland. The stream represent the point of data collection.

UTM Coordinates

Well ID Easting Northing

(m) (m)

1 363893.08 4484991.11

2 363895.43 4484961.56

3 363924.85 4484918.80

4 363970.39 4484986.82

5 363944.63 4485022.66

6 363909.36 4485024.84

7 363924.06 4484981.17

8 363878.58 4485029.75

9 363880.44 4484990.23

10 363886.49 4484951.64

11 363880.00 4485010.00

12 363882.00 4484937.00

Stream 363868.55 4484979.84

13

Regional Geology

The regional geology for the Durbin wetland is dominated by glacial deposits from the

Late Wisconsin Episode, about 25,000 years ago, covering most of central Illinois (Weibel and

Nelson, 2009). Multiple sub- glacial lobes from the larger Lake Michigan lobe (18,500 to 15,500

years ago) created recessional high and low-relief terrain known as narrow sub-parallel moraines

(El Paso, Minonk, and Fletchers moraines) (Figure 2.2) (Hansel and Johnson, 1996; Hansel and

McKay, 2010). Mackinaw watershed (influenced by glacial features) flows west into the Illinois

River watershed continuing southwest into the Mississippi watershed (Figure 2.2).

Figure 2.2: Map shows geological boundaries (i.e. moraines, formation members, and Mackinaw

watershed) in McLean County. The dark blue is Mackinaw River, yellow outline is Mackinaw

watershed (Weibel and Nelson, 2009), brown outline is the individual moraines, light blue

dashed line is the extent of Yorkville Member, and the solid green line the extent of Batestown

Till Member. The black dot represents the study site location.

14

Local Hydrogeology

The Durbin Farm wetland lies within the narrow moraine (Fletcher) composing the

Lemont Formation (part of the Wedron Group) with thickness upwards of 25 meters (Hansel and

Johnson, 1996) (Figure 2.2, 2.3). The Lemont Formation is described as a fine to coarse textured,

gray diamicton unit, low permeability till (Hansel and Johnson, 1996). The study site lies within

the lowest member of the Lemont Formation the Batestown Till (Plate 1).

Figure 2.3: Schematic of the stratigraphic column associated with the study area modified from

Hansel and Johnson, 1996.

15

Batestown Till is characterized as a medium texture, dark gray to gray silt loam to loam

which oxides to a brown color. Permeability below a depth of 1.02 meters is categorized as

moderately slow (NRCS & USDA, 2004). According to Van der Kamp and Hayashi (2009), the

higher clay content creates numerous and small aquitards at local site, creating system

heterogeneity. In this region, hydraulic conductivity (K), the ability of fluid transportation

through a medium, is approximately 1.0 X 10-8 m/s (Hansel and Miller, 1991). Therefore, the

Batestown Till serves as a confining layer for the wetland to retain water and prevent seepage

into the surrounding system.

The wetland sits within alluvium deposits overlying the Batestown Till. The wetland was

built by excavating the upper alluvium to the depth of the Wedron Group, acting as a confining

layer. The berm was formed from back fill of alluvium deposits. The wetland was built with an

inlet, which supplies the wetland with tile drained nutrient rich water.

The stream along the west of wetland is a second order perennial stream flowing north

toward the Mackinaw River. The streambed consists of alluvial floodplain deposits from the

Cahokia Formation that overlies the Lemont Formation. The Cahokia Formation is silt and clay

with minor sand and gravel alluvium.

Climate

Central Illinois has a temperate climate with cold, snowy winters and hot, wet summers

(Peterson and Sickbert, 2008). The average annual precipitation is 99 cm, in which summer

accounts for 60% of the total precipitation for the year (NCRS & USDA, 2004). Average air

temperatures range from 4.5°C in winter and a high of 18°C in summer during 1981 to 2010

(Beach and Peterson, 2013; Peterson and Sickbert, 2008). The annual mean air temperature is

16

approximately 11.2°C (Peterson and Sickbert, 2006). Based on a 2-3 degree variance in the air

temperature (Schmidt et al. 2006; Beach and Peterson, 2013; Peterson and Sickbert, 2008),

groundwater temperatures will be stable between 8.2-14.2 °C.

17

CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY

18

GFLOW

GFLOW (Haitjema, 2007), a computer software, was used to simulate the regional

groundwater flow for the Durbin wetland (Figure 3.1). The regional flow patterns demonstrate

spatial comparison to a fluctuating wetland. Binary base maps (BBM) construct line sinks for

regional groundwater flow. BBMs include Fairbury 40088-E1 quadrangle 6 (15’X15’) of

Cooksville and Colfax 7.5- minute quadrangle and Champaign 40088-A1 quadrangle 2

(15’X15’) of Arrowsmith and Saybrook 7.5- minute quadrangle (epa.gov). The line-sink strings

are head elevations of surface water bodies based on topography of the land surface (Table 3.1).

The line-sinks are separated into near-field elements (streams and rivers near the study site) and

far-field elements (tributaries and streams surrounding and constraining flow around the study

site). Both near-field (NF) and far-field (FF) elements represent constant head (Dirichlet)

conditions. The near-field elements include: Henline Creek, Mackinaw River, the second order

perennial streams (NF-T1 and NF-T2), and the eastern streams (NF-S1 and NF-S2) (Figure 3.1).

Far-field elements include: west tributaries (FF-T1), (FF-T2), (FF-T3) to constrain regional flow

west of the Durbin wetland (Figure 3.1). The aquifer properties include the hydraulic

conductivity (K) value (1.0X10-8m/s) obtained from previous studies and porosity of 20%

(Ackerman et al. 2015; Peterson and Sickbert, 2008). The base elevation was 213.26 m, system

was considered homogeneous and isotropic, and model was run under steady state conditions.

19

Figure 3.1: Elements and line-sinks used in GFLOW. The blue color represents near-field

elements and the green color represent far-field elements. The red dot represents the location of

wetland. SR-9 and SR-165 are the state route numbers for roads.

Henline Creek

Mackinaw River

NF-S1

NF-S2 NF-T1

NF-T2

FF-T2

FF- T3 FF- T1

20

Table 3.1: Boundary properties for each parameter are shown.

BOUNDARY Starting Head (m) Ending head (m) Depth (m) Width (m)

Henline Creek 231.65 224.03 0.610 6.10

Mackinaw River 234.70 222.50 0.914 15.24

NF-S1 234.84 228.60 0.610 3.05

NF-S2 234.84 231.65 0.610 3.05

NF-T1 240.79 227.08 0.610 4.57

NF-T2 237.74 225.55 0.610 3.05

FF- T1 237.74 225.55 NA NA

FF- T2 240.79 225.55 NA NA

FF- T3 240.79 225.55 NA NA

*NA is far field elements

Data Collection

Tracer Dilution Test

A bromide tracer test determines the ability of the wetland to retain water and the

wetland’s connection to groundwater. On May 14, 2013, 400 gallons of water mixed with 48 kg

of sodium bromide (NaBr) were mixed into the wetland. Water samples were collected from

May 14, 2013 to May 29, 2013 from the wetland and wells. Water sampling includes: nine wells

(except well 3 did not yield water and wells 11 and 12 had not been installed), the wetland,

overflow wetland, and two locations (upstream near well 12 and downstream near well 8

combined to represent the singular stream GPS point) were monitored throughout the test. Water

21

samples were collected for background before the initiation of the test. Thereafter for the first

two days every three hours, and once a day every evening. Samples were collected in acid

washed bottles and filtered in the field with 0.45µm glass fiber filter (Pall A/E). The water

samples were refrigerated at 6°C until analyzed on the Dionex ICS 1100 ion chromatograph

(I.C.) in the Department of Geography-Geology (F-, Br-, Cl-, NO3-, PO4

3-, and SO42-). Additional

analysis was completed in Excel and SURFER 8 (Golden Software, 2002) for evaluation of the

groundwater- wetland system.

Field Data

Hydrologic data collection preformed from September 2013 to October 2014. Water

temperatures and head values were recorded. The head measurement used a water level meter

(In- Situ Inc. 100m, 5166) and the temperature measurement used an YSI-85 salinity-

conductivity meter. From August 2013 to June 2014, three Solinst Levelogger model 3001 were

placed in wells 3, 6, 9, and wetland to measure and record continuous temperature (resolution:

0.1⁰C) and water level (accuracy: 0.1%). In addition, a Solinst Barologger model 3001 was

placed in well 9 to measure and record absolute pressure (resolution: 0.002m) for the daily

changes in atmosphere pressure. From August 2014 to October 2014 additional temperature

loggers (HOBO Pendant® Temperature/Light 8K Data Logger with an accuracy ±0.53°C and a

resolution of 0.14°C at 25°C) were deployed in all wells (except wells 6 and 12), the stream, and

the northwest corner of the wetland. Temperature and water level observations prove important

in capturing changes and drying out in the wetland, making continued recordings (all at 15

minute intervals) from the loggers critical. In October, 2014 all loggers were removed,

downloaded, and plotted in Excel for further comparison and analysis.

22

The recorded field data of head values, temperatures, and bromide concentrations were

plotted in SURFER 8 (Golden Software, 2002). The wetland was treated as one entity and head

values were based off of the stage located on the northeast corner near the inlet of the wetland.

The stream along the western edge reflects a given 0.65 meter gradient based on the topology.

The natural neighbor method interpolates the water table (head values) and the thermal gradient

(temperatures) within the study area because the method is ideal for sparse data sets and for

capturing the spatial difference between two known points.

23

CHAPTER 4

RESULTS

24

GFLOW

A water table contour map simulated in GFLOW illustrates regional groundwater flow in

a northwest direction toward the wetland (Figure 4.1). Flow direction follows perpendicularly to

the equipotential lines. On the west side of the wetland, flow moves northward into the adjacent

stream. Therefore, wells down gradient of the wetland are 8, 9, and 11, and up gradient wells are

wells 3 (located south of the wetland) and 4 (located east of the wetland) (Figure 2.1). Wells 10

and 12 flow west to northwest down gradient from the farmlands and not directly down gradient

from the wetland.

Figure 4.1: Regional flow simulated using GFLOW. Inset a larger scale of study site. Solid black

rectangle is study site. Black arrows are the flow direction.

25

Tracer Dilution Results

During the test, the average concentrations of bromide within the wetland measured

12.95 mg/L +/- 3.95 mg/L (standard deviation of the mean) and fluctuated from the second day

to the sixteenth day upon completion of the field testing. Traces of bromide were detected within

the first six hours following the initiation of the test in wells 4, 5, 8, and 9. However after the

initial detection in wells 4, 5, 8, and 9, bromide was not observed again until 53 hours (third day)

for wells 5 and 8 and the 127 hours (sixth day) for wells 4 and 9 (Figure 4.2).

Figure 4.2: Observed bromide concentration over time for the study site. The solid red line

indicates the concentrations measured in the wetland (Appendix A).

The concentration of bromide was seen in the down gradient wells after 53 hours (three

days) from the initial start of test. The graph indicates the wetland waters infiltrate into the

0

5

10

15

20

25

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

Br

-C

on

cen

trat

ion

s (m

g/L)

Time (Decimal Hours)

Well 1 Well 2Well 4 Well 5Well 6 Well 8Well 9 Well 10Wetland

26

subsurface and travels toward the stream through the down gradient wells (Figure 4.2). Waters

within well 10 recorded a high concentration of bromide (17.88 mg/L) within 29 hours (one day)

(Figure 4.2), however the other down gradient wells recorded a value less than 5mg/L. The spike

in well 10 and (again in well 2) after 29 hours (one day) and 200 hours (eight days) respectively,

represent possible instrumental errors. The similar concentrations between the water in the wells

and in the wetland suggest there is limited dilution by groundwater.

In well 4 along the east side of wetland (Figure 4.2) contains traces of bromide compared

to well 5 (closest to well 4 and north of wetland). Well 5 demonstrates the bromide concentration

increasing through sampled duration. Well 4 (designed for observation of groundwater flow into

wetland) observed low bromide concentrations indicating groundwater flows toward the east

(opposite to regional groundwater flow). The bromide tracer test prove inconclusive based on

EPA standards for the groundwater tracer test because water samples were not taken until

concentrations returned to background level (Davis et al. 1985).

Bromide concentrations were plotted on an x-y Cartesian using Natural Neighbor to

display groundwater-wetland interactions (Figure 4.3). As bromide mixes into the wetland, it

traces outward toward down gradient wells and begins decreasing after 300 hours (twelve days)

from initial test. During the 200 hour (eight days) time, down gradient wells displayed a lower

concentration than the wetland before the bromide moved through the system. Also during 300

hours (twelve days), the contours became gradual and evenly spaced and down gradient wells

begin mimicking the wetland concentrations.

27

Figure 4.3: Spatial bromide concentrations for study site A) 100 hours, B) 200 hours, and C) 300 hours. Wetland is denoted by black

box.

A B C

mg/L

Nort

hin

g (

m)

Easting (m)

mg/L

28

Field Results

From August 2013 to October 2014, a total of 19 observation events were recorded, but

only 15 observations (9/12/2013, 10/20/2013, 10/29/2013, 4/1/2014, 4/10/2014, 5/16/2014,

6/5/2014, 6/9/2014, 7/11/2014, 7/16/2014, 7/30/2014, 8/8/2014, 8/12/2014, 9/11/2014, and

10/08/2014) were used for analysis because of the instrument error and sparse data in fall 2013.

Exclusions of data from 9/22/2013 and 10/1/2013 occurred because the majority of the wells

were dry lacking head values for evaluation. On 7/25/2014 the YSI-85 stopped working in the

field, and on 8/29/2014 the water level meter stopped working in the field resulting in exclusion

of spatial mapping. The wetland became dry from September to end of October, 2013, however

the wetland contains water from April to October, 2014. The SUFER 8 analyzed data under goes

separation into five groups with similar seasonal trends and water levels; 1) fall 2013 (no water

in the wetland), 2) spring (water present in the wetland), 3) early summer (water present in the

wetland), 4) late summer (water present in the wetland), 5) and fall 2014 (water present in the

wetland).

Wetland Stage and Groundwater Head

The wetland water elevation displayed abrupt variance throughout the duration of the

field study (the lowest elevation occurring from July to August followed by a rising elevation

from September to October) (Figure 4.4). Groundwater elevations follow the wetland patterns

throughout study. The down gradient (wells 2, 8, and 10) generally demonstrate water levels

lower than the wetland water elevation whereas the up gradient wells demonstrate water levels

near or above that of the wetland. Well 4 confirms groundwater moving into the wetland from an

29

easterly direction. Well 10 appears dry when the wetland is dry, proving impossible to measure

until the water returns to the wetland in spring 2014.

Figure 4.4: A graph of elevation over duration of study period. Wetland and groundwater (well 2,

4, 6, 8, 10, and 12) elevation data from field observation during September, 2013 to October,

2014. The gray shadow represents period of no data collection (Appendix B).

Temperature

The wetland temperature variation during dry periods (August, 2013 to October, 2013)

show abrupt temperature variation attributed to daily and seasonal air temperatures (Figure 4.5a).

With the detection of water in the wetland, the temperature signature dampens. As expected, the

wetland shows a seasonal sinusoidal cycle with higher temperatures in the summer and lower

96

96.5

97

97.5

98

98.5

99

99.5

100

Ele

vati

on

(m

)

Wetland Well 2Well 4 Well 6Well 8 Well 10Well 12

30

temperatures in the winter (Figure 4.5a). Recording the wetlands water temperature requires the

presence of water in the wetland therefore winter months resulted in a lack of data and an

incomplete sinuous pattern. The average field recorded wetland temperatures measured 19.4 °C

with a low occurring in April, 2014 (7.3 °C) and a high in mid- June, 2014 (27.6 °C) (Figure 4.4

and Appendix B). On a two month time scale, groundwater temperatures differed greatly

compared to the seasonal and daily oscillations of the wetland water temperatures (Figure 4.5b).

The temperatures increased gradually at the beginning of the first month (August) followed by a

decrease in the second month (September). Note the individual well temperature signatures

indicated up gradient wells (i.e. wells 3, 4, and 5) exhibited lower temperatures than the down

gradient wells (i.e. 2, 8, and 10) (Figure 4.5b). Also note the groundwater temperatures sustained

a temperature 4-9°C higher than the 2-3 degree variance from 11.2°C (Schmidt et al. 2006;

Beach and Peterson, 2013; Peterson and Sickbert, 2008). Groundwater temperature during wet

conditions (wetland filled with water) averaged 16.5 °C and during dry conditions (absence of

water in wetland) averaged 17.3° C. The average fall 2014 groundwater temperatures exhibited

1.3°C warmer than temperatures for the same period in 2013 (Figure 4.4).

31

Figure 4.5: Thermal time series for study site. A) Temperature loggers in the wetland from

August 2013 to October 2014. Dashed line is the Mean Annual Air Temperature (MAAT). Gray

shadow represents no data recorded. B) An inset from A) in the light blue insert of August-

September 2014.

Tem

pera

ture

(°C

)

-25

-15

-5

5

15

25

35

45

55

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45 Wetland Well 2Well 3 Well 4Well 5 Well 8Well 10

Tem

pera

ture

(°C

)

A

B

(MAAT)

32

With the presence of water, the temperature of the wetland exceeds the groundwater

temperature with one exception (in the spring wetland water temperatures measured near or at

groundwater temperatures) (Figure 4.6). In general (compared to all groundwater wells) well 2

displayed warmer groundwater temperatures and well 12 displayed cooler groundwater

temperatures. Up gradient wells (i.e. well 4) prove cooler than down gradient wells. Looking

closely, down gradient wells 8 and 10 closely resemble the groundwater temperatures in well 4

Figure 4.6: Field recorded temperature during study period (Appendix B). Mean Annual Air

Temperature (MAAT) is in dashed black line (Schmidt et al. 2006; Beach and Peterson, 2013;

Peterson and Sickbert, 2008). Gray shadow represents period of no data collection.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Tem

pe

ratu

re (

Ce

lsiu

s)

Well 2

Well 4

Well 6

Wetland

Well 8

Well 10

Well 12

Stream

(MAAT)

Water PresentWater Absent

33

Spatial and Temporal Groundwater Patterns

Figures 4.7- 4.11A-C, shows results of SURFER 8 natural neighbor interpolation using

field data. Groundwater flows to the northwest (Figures 4.7A-C), similar to the regional flow

simulated by GFLOW (Figure 4.1). Whereas during the same period in 2014, groundwater flows

away from central water level high in the wetland. The difference is not the temporal factor but

the wetland water fluctuation. Once the wetland contains water, the groundwater gradually

moves away from wetland down gradient (Figures 4.8-4.11A-C). During late summer and fall

2014, a pronounce feature near well 10 develops and serves a water table high (Figure 4.10-

4.11A-C). Also in fall 2014, water elevation begins to decrease in the wetland, and groundwater

movement does not resume the regional groundwater trend, but wells closer to wetland move

water back into wetland (Figure 4.11C).

Spatial and Temporal Temperature Patterns

Seasonal temperature sinuous signatures followed a specific pattern: cooler in fall 2013,

warming in spring 2014, at peak in summer 2014, and cool in fall 2014. Generally the water

temperature remains warmer in the wetland and cooler toward the stream. During fall 2013, the

thermal gradient radiated gradually away from wells 1 and 2 (Figure 4.7D-F). By comparison, in

fall 2014 (with water present in the wetland) the thermal distribution exhibits a steeper gradient

around the wetland and a higher heat signature (Figure 4.11D-F).

Wells 1 and 2 (located on a berm along the down gradient western edge) display higher

heat temperatures during summer and fall and colder temperatures in spring (Figure 4.7D-F;

4.8D-E; 4.9D; 4.10D-F). The berm creates a pattern change producing a thermal source/sink in

34

both seasonal warm and cooler temperatures. The thermal source loses prominence during early

and late summer, but reappears in late fall 2014 (Figure 4.11F).

When the thermal mound around wells one and two disappeared, cooler temperatures

dominated around wells 10 and 12. Well 12 demonstrated much cooler temperatures than well 10

(Figure 4.9E-F; 4.10D-F; 4.11E-F). During the 200 hour (eight days) time frame, the bromide

tracer test also displayed similar patterns for wells 10 and 12, however well 12 had not been

installed until after the bromide testing (Figure 4.3). During the summer, wetland water

temperatures remain considerably higher than in well 12 (normally dominated by cooler

temperatures) (Figure 4.9F; 4.10F). The same high heat signature occurring in wells 1, 2, 10,

and 12, also appears in well 11 from early summer to fall 2014 (Figure 4.9-4.11D-F).

35

Figure 4.7: Fall 2013 (no presence of water in the wetland): Water table map and isotherm created from SURFER

8. (A-C) is elevation and (D-F) is temperature. Color scales enhance transition. Black box is wetland and black

arrow is flow direction.

B A C

D E F

36

Figure 4.8: Spring (water present in the wetland): Water table map and isotherm created from SURFER 8. (A-C) is

elevation and (D-F) is temperature. Color scales enhance transition. Black box is wetland and black arrow is flow

direction.

A

D E

B C

F

37

Figure 4.9: Early summer (water present in the wetland): Water table map and isotherm created from

SURFER 8. (A-C) is elevation and (D-F) is temperature. Color scales enhance transition. Black box is

wetland and black arrow is flow direction.

A B C

D E F

38

Figure 4.10: Late Summer (water present in the wetland): Water table map and isotherm created from

SURFER 8. (A-C) is elevation and (D-F) is temperature. Color scales enhance transition. Black box is

A B C

D E F

39

Figure 4.11: Fall 2014 (water present in the wetland): Water table map and isotherm created from SURFER 8. (A-C) is

elevation and (D-F) is temperature. Color scales enhance transition. Black box is wetland and black arrow is flow direction.

A B C

F E D

40

CHAPTER 5

DISCUSSION

41

GFLOW provided a general groundwater pattern to compare and determine the wells

down gradient and up gradient from the wetland (Figure 4.1). Groundwater flows regionally in a

northwesterly direction (Figure 4.1). The bromide tracer test confirms the down gradient wells

from GFLOW by observing similar concentrations west of the wetland (Figure 4.2 and 4.3).

During the bromide test, groundwater samples from well 10 reached similar wetland

concentrations within hours of initial test, suggesting a strong preferential direction toward well

10 (Figure 4.3). However, well 8 and well 10 bromide concentrations decreased and remained

lower for the duration of the test (Figure 4.2) and well 8 and 10 did not demonstrate similar

concentration to down gradient wells (wells 1, 2, and 9). The lower concentrations from wells 8

and 10 are contributed to vegetation uptake of the bromide (up to a 53% loss) described as

heavily vegetated area within wetland site (Kung, 1990). During presence of water in the

wetland, a lobe feature resulted in preferential water movement toward well 10 (Figure 4.8A,

4.10B-C, 4.12A-B). In addition, well 10 recorded no water when the wetland is dry (Figure 4.4),

reflecting the wetland’s connectivity to well 10. The similar concentration found in the wells

compared to the wetland show a strong connection to groundwater (Figure 4.2). Thus the water

is seeping out of the wetland to groundwater which could be creating water level fluctuations in a

short time.

The underlying purpose is determining spatially the role of a fluctuating wetland on

local groundwater flow. The wetland was found to alter local groundwater by using SURFER

water table plots. Water level during dry conditions reflects local groundwater based on the

regional flow model in GFLOW (Figure 4.1). Hayashi and Rosenberry (2002) found

groundwater becomes base flow in a wetland during dry periods; however, the absence of water

in the wetland had no groundwater base level the wetland (Figure 4.4). The direction

42

groundwater flows reflected regional flow (Figure 4.7A-C; Figure 4.1). During wet conditions,

the wetland diverts water away and acts as a water table mound which influences the water table

(Figures 4.8-4.11A-C) (Ackerman et al. 2015). Hydrologically, the wetland becomes

groundwater recharge (source). Spatial direction of groundwater flow are the same but the

gradients from the wetland to down gradient wells are different. When water is absent the

gradient is gradual whereas during presence of water the gradient is steep around the wetland

(Figures 4.7A-C and 4.11A-C). The wetland temporally changes direction of groundwater when

water is present at this site.

A conceptual model of water level fluctuation demonstrates the presence and absence of

water in the wetland (Figure 5.1). Wet conditions produced a high water table compared to dry

conditions which produce a lower water table (Figure 5.1). In the presence of water, the

predicted groundwater flow moved through the wetland from inlet tile drain, through berm, and

into stream. Most of the input of water in the wetland comes from the tile drain. On the other

hand, flow during absence of water in the wetland predicts movement underneath the wetland.

Thus the wetland only connects with the water table during the presence of water stage.

43

Figure 5.1: Conceptual model of groundwater-wetland system based on A) June 2014- wet

conditions and B) September 2013- dry conditions relative to water levels in wetland.

In addition to water level fluctuations altering groundwater flow paths the presence and

absence of water in the wetland changes the thermal patterns as well. In the presence of water the

wetland temperatures dampened thermal signature and reflected both daily and seasonal trends

A. June 2014- Wet Conditions

B. September 2013- Dry Conditions

44

(Figure 4.5B). However, during the absence of water the thermal signature proves a highly

variant air temperature (Figure 4.5A).

Normally groundwater remains thermally stable, however the temperature loggers

recorded groundwater temperatures above the annual mean air temperature (Peterson and

Sickbert, 2008; Schmidt et al. 2006; Beach and Peterson, 2013) (Figure 4.5). The higher

temperatures resulted from shallow groundwater (Van der Kamp and Hayashi, 2009). Shallow

groundwater patterns should reflect daily fluctuations of day and night temperatures (Bense and

Kooi, 2004), however patterns indicated stable groundwater temperatures (Figure 4.5B). The

variable wetland and groundwater temperature measurements displayed a lag seasonal pattern

evident in the wetland and groundwater interaction (Anibas et al. 2012; Arrigoni, et.al, 2008;

Becker et al. 2004). Figure 4.6 compared to Figure 4.5 shared similarity in sinuous patterns

however the groundwater remained cooler than the wetland surface temperatures. The

temperature recordings occurred at specific times, reflecting seasonal and not daily temperature

signatures.

Spatially, temperature signatures changed with respect to water level in the wetland.

Generally, groundwater temperature fluctuated less displaying thermal cooling from the west

berm toward the stream (Figure 4.7-4.11 D-F) an expectation for groundwater discharge into the

stream (Lowry et al. 2007; Anderson, 2005; Becker et al. 2004). During dry conditions,

temperatures are gradually cooled away from wells 1 and 2 and not from the wetland (Figure

4.7). However, in wet conditions steeper gradients surrounded the wetland and heat decreased

out from the thermal high radiating away from the wetland (Figure 4.8-4.11D-F). In Figures

4.3B, 4.8E, and 4.9D similar patterns emerged from the same period in 2014 compared to 2013.

45

Confirmation of water temperatures reflect groundwater flow patterns compared to costly and

time consuming traditional chemical tracer tests.

Thermal patterns during dry conditions indicated gradual and uniform distribution not

reflecting groundwater flow (Figure 4.7D-E and 4.7A-C). Changes in thermal patterns possibly

reflected solar radiation or demonstrated conduction as active heat process (Beach and Peterson,

2013; Constantz and Stonestrom, 2003). Whereas during wet conditions, steeper gradients

around the wetland and mimic groundwater patterns (Figure 4.8-4.11A-E). The active heat

mechanism resembles advection and not conduction (Peterson and Sickbert, 2008 and Beach and

Peterson, 2013).

In Figure 4.7-4.11D-F, a thermal anomaly occurred around wells 1 and 2. The thermal

variant signature possibly resembles a heat source of solar radiation (Constantz, 1998). The

extreme temperature differences are compared between the western berm (wells 1 and 2) and the

eastern berm (well 4) (Figure 4.7D-F, 4.8D-E, 4.11E-F). The berm is slightly elevated on the

west compared to the east (Figure 2.1) and groundwater temperature reflected heating and

cooling of the land (Figures 4.5 and 4.6). Thus the location of the berm acted as a thermal source

and temperature gradient radiated away from the berm in fall during dry conditions.

Another temperature signature displayed the discovery of an upwelling zone near well

12, involving movement of deeper groundwater toward the land surface. According to Briggs et

al. (2014), specifically in summer, cooler groundwater temperatures compared to the surface

water temperatures creates an upwelling feature. With the presence of the upwelling feature, the

berm’s thermal source disappears just as the upwelling feature disappears in a presence of a

dominate berm’s thermal source (Figure 4.9D-F, 4.9E, and 4.10D-F). Field data occurred at a

46

single depth and time and lack understanding of water zones (i.e. discharge, recharge, and

upwelling). The impact of solar radiation and upwelling feature could explain the steeper

gradients along the western portion of the map.

The groundwater-wetland system consists of variables associated with abrupt

temperature variations based on inflows into the wetland, climate, precipitation, and evaporation.

The amount of water the tile drain discharges into the wetland provided a heat signature different

to groundwater (Figure 4.6). Heat signatures reflect a warmer temperature in the wetland and a

cooler temperature away from the wetland. Central Illinois experiences a temperate climate with

cold, snowy winters and hot, wet summers (Peterson and Sickbert, 2008). The summer weather

creates high evaporation rates in which little precipitation negatively influences on the surface

water levels. Whereas precipitation averaging 99 cm for the year, positively influences wetland

stage levels (NCRS & USDA, 2004). Figure 4.4 demonstrates higher water levels in summer

2014, compared to the fall 2013. The data during the winter months lacked recording, giving an

incomplete seasonal pattern. Also some variables (i.e. evaporation and run off) prove difficult to

measure and influences the system greatly.

47

CHAPTER 6

CONCLUSION

48

The main goal of the study determined changes in groundwater flow paths associated

with a wetland in which the stage fluctuated by looking at spatial and temporal patterns of

groundwater and wetland system. The combination of head values and temperature data in

conjunction with SURFER plots identified additional characteristics associated with the local

hydrology.

Spatial and temporal understanding of a fluctuating wetland and the role of a wetland on

local groundwater is important to wetland dynamics. Wetlands naturally filtrate water in and out

of the hydrologic cycle. Water budget, connection to surrounding systems, and geologic setting

impacts a wetlands dynamics. Many measurements and methods (i.e. hydraulic gradients,

regional modeling, and chemical and natural tracer test) can determine a wetlands role on

groundwater. Head values alone prove insufficient in estimating complex groundwater pathways,

temperature, a natural tracer delineate water movement.

Temperature (a natural parameter) acts in a similar manner as a chemical tracer test. Heat

energy transfers from molecule to molecule by advection or conduction to evaluate the

hydrogeological system. The wetland temperatures reflected both a seasonal and daily signatures

whereas groundwater temperatures reflected a seasonal signature only. Groundwater temperature

displayed higher than the stable mean air temperature, which describes groundwater as shallow

temperature mimicking land surface temperatures. Both spatial groundwater and temperature

patterns indicated changes associated with a presence and absence of water in the wetland.

SURFER and time series plots revealed water level in the wetland affected the local groundwater

movement.

49

Identification of distinct differences surfaced when comparing water table maps from fall

2013 and fall 2014. The presence of water within the wetland alters the local groundwater flow

direction. While the underlying groundwater flow direction does not change, the presence of

water within the wetland creates an area of recharge zone from which water appears to radiate in

all directions. The groundwater changed from regional flow to a localized recharge zone moving

water away from the wetland.

For future work, creating a 3-D model in SEAWAT software (Langevin, 2010)

present advantages in calculating groundwater flux, velocity, and residence time for the

groundwater-wetland system. SEAWAT combines MODFLOW and MT3DMS to determine

groundwater flow patterns (Langevin et al. 2010). The program uses temperature as a single

species within the program MT3DMS (Langevin et al. 2008). Since wetlands serve as buffers for

pollutants, the understanding of residence time (the duration of a particle in the system) and

velocity of the particle in a 3-D model would give a complete picture to the wetlands dynamics.

The more time a particle remains in the wetland, the lower the impact on a stream.

50

REFERENCES

Ackerman, J.R, Peterson,E.W., Van der Hoven, S., and Perry, W.L.,. 2015, Quantifying

nutrient removal from groundwater seepage out of constructed wetlands receiving

treated wastewater effluent: Environmental Earth Science, v. 74, no. 3, p. 1-13, doi:

10.1007/s12665-015-1467-3.

Anderson, M.P., 2005, Heat as a Ground Water Tracer: Ground Water, v.43, no. 6, p.

951-968, doi:10.1111/j.1745-6584.2005.00052.x.

Anibas, C., Verbeiren, B., Buis, K., Chromanski, J., De Doncker, L., Okruszko, T., Meire, P.,

and Batelaan, O., 2012, A hierarchical approach on groundwater- surface water

interaction in Wetlands along the upper Biebrza River, Poland: Hydrology and

Earth System Sciences, v.16, p. 2329-2346, dio:10.5194/hess-16-2329-2012.

Arrigoni, A.S., Poole, G.C., Mertes, L.A.K., O’Daniel, S. J., Woessner, W.W., and

Thomas, S.A., 2008, Buffered, lagged, or cooled? Disentangling hyporheic

influences on temperature cycles in stream channels: Water Resources Research,

v. 44, p. W09418:1-13, doi:10.1029/2007WR006480.

Beach, V. and Peterson, E.W., 2013, Variation of Hyporheic Temperature Profiles in a

Low Gradient Third-Order Agricultural Stream-A Statistical Approach: Open

Journal of Modern Hydrology, v.3, p.55-66. doi:10.4236/jmh.2013.32008.

Becerra-Jurado, G., Harrington, H., and Kelly-Quinn, M., 2012, A review of the potential

of surface flow constructed wetlands to enhance macroinvertebrate diversity in

agricultural landscapes with particular references to Integrated Constructed

Wetlands (I CWs): Hydrobiologia, v. 692, p.121-130.

doi:10.1007/s10750-011-0866-2.

Becker, M.W., Georgian, T., Ambrose, H., Siniscalchi, J., and Fredrick, K., 2004,

Estimating flow and flux of ground water discharge using water temperature and

velocity: Journal of Hydrology, v. 296, p.221-233,

doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2004.03.025.

Bense, V.F. and Kooi, H., 2004, Temporal and spatial variation of shallow subsurface

temperature as a record of lateral variation in groundwater flow: Journal of Geophysical

Research, v.109, p. B04103 1-13, doi:10.1029/2003JB002782.

Beutel, M., 2012, Water quality in a surface- flow constructed treatment wetland

polishing tertiary effluent from a municipal wastewater treatment plant: Water

Science & Technology 66, no. 9: 1977-1983.doi.10.2166/wst.2012.351.

Bravo, H.R., and Jiang, F., 2002, Using groundwater temperature data to constrain parameter

estimation in a groundwater flow model of a wetland system: Water Resources Research,

v. 38, no. 8, p. 28-14. doi:10.1029/2000WR000172.

Briggs, M.A., Lautz, L.K., Buckley, S.F., Lane, J.W., 2014, Practical limitations on the use

of diurnal temperature signals to quantify groundwater upwelling; Journal of

Hydrology, v.519; p.1739-1751, doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2014.09.030.

Briggs, M.A, Lautz, L.K., McKenzie, J.M., Gordon, R.P., and Hare, D.K., 2012, Using

high- resolution distributed temperature sensing to quantify spatial and temporal

variability in vertical hyporheic flux: Water Resources Research, v. 48, no.

W02527, p. 1-16, doi:10.1029/2011WR011227.

Bullock, A. and Acreman, M., 2003, The role of wetlands in the hydrological cycle: Hydrology

51

and Earth System Sciences, v.7, no. 3, p.358-389. doi:00188007700009.

Burow, K., Constantz, J., and Fujii, R., 2005, Heat as a Tracer to Estimate Dissolved

Organic Carbon Flux from a Restored Wetland: Ground Water, v. 43, no. 4; 545-

556. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-6584.2005.0055.x.

Carter, V.,1997, Technical Aspects of Wetlands Wetland Hydrology, Water Quality, and

Associated Functions: History of Wetlands in the Conterminous United States: https://water.usgs.gov/nwsum/WSP2425/hydrology.html (accessed September 2015).

Conant Jr. B., 2004, Delineating and Quantifying Ground Water Discharge Zones Using

Streambed Temperatures: Ground Water, v.42, no. 2, p. 243-257.

doi: 10.1111/j.1745-6584.2004.tb02671.x.

Constantz, J., 1998, Interaction between stream temperature, streamflow, and

groundwater exchanges in alpine streams: Water Resources Research, v.34, no.7,

p.1609-1615, doi:98WR00998.

David, M.B., Wall, L.G., Rover, T.V., and Tank, J.L., 2006, Denitrification and the

Nitrogen Budget of a Reservoir in an Agricultural Landscape: Ecological

Applications, v.16, no.6, p.2177-21920. doi:10.1890/1051-0761(2006)016[2177.

Davis, SN, Campbell, DJ, Bently, HW, Flynn, TJ (1985) An Introduction to Ground- Water

Tracers. USEPA/600/S2-85/022. 201pp.

Denver, J.M., Altor, S.W., Lang, M.W., Fisher, T.R., Gustafson, A.B., Fox, R., Clune,

J.W., and McCarty, G.W., 2014, Nitrate fate and transport through current and

former depressional wetlands in an agricultural landscape, Choptank Watershed,

Maryland, United States: Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, v. 69, no.1, p.1-

16, doi:10.2489/jswc.69.1.1.

Fisher, J. and Acreman, M.C., 2004, Wetland nutrient removal: a review of evidence:

Hydrology and Earth System Science, v. 8, no.4, p. 673-685.

doi:10.5194/hess-8-673-2004.

Gleeson, T., Novakowski, K., Cook, P., and Kyser, T., 2009, Constraining groundwater

discharge in a large watershed: Integrated isotropic, hydraulic, and thermal data

from the Canadian shield: Water Resources Research, v. 45, no. W08402; 1-16,

doi:10.1029/2008WR007622.

Haitjema HM, 2000. GFLOW2000: Groundwater Flow Modeling System:

www.haitjema.com (accessed July 2014).

Hansel, A.K. and Johnson, W.H. 1996, Wedron and Mason Groups: Lithostratigraphic

Reclassification of Deposits of the Wisconsin Episode, Lake Michigan Lobe Area;

Bulletin: Illinois Geological Survey, v. 104,p. 1-116.

Hansel, A.K. and McKay, E.D., 2010, Quaternary Period: Geology of Illinois: Illinois,

University of Illinois Board of Trustees, 216p.

Hayashi, M. and Rosenberry, D.O., 2002, Effects of Ground Water Exchange on the Hydrology

and Ecology of Surface Water: Ground Water Review Paper, v.40, no. 3, p. 309-316.

doi:10.1111/j.1745-6584.2002.tb02659.x

Hensel, B.R., and Miller, M.V.,1991, Effects of wetlands creation on groundwater flow: Journal

of Hydrology. v. 126, p. 293-313. doi:10.1016/0022-1694(91)90161-A.

Huang, G. and Yeh, G., 2012, Integrated Modeling of Groundwater and Surface Water

Interactions in a Manmade Wetland: Terrain, Atmosphere, Ocean Science, v. 23, no. 5,

501-511. doi:103319/TAO.2012.04.1702(WHM).

Illinois Department of Agricultural, 2014, Facts About Illinois Agricultural.

52

https://www.agr.state.il.us/facts-about-illinois-agriculture/.(1 October, 2015).

Kerry, J., Binley, A., Crook, N., and Smith, J.W.N., 2007, Temporal and spatial variability

of groundwater-surface wter fluxes: Development and application of an analytical

method using temperature time series: Journal of hydrology, v. 336, p. 1-16.

Doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2006.12.003.

Keshari, A. and Koo, M., 2007, A numerical model for estimating groundwater flux from

subsurface temperature profiles: Hydrological Processes, v.21, p. 3440-3448,

doi:10.1002/hyp.6577.

Kjellin, J., Woerman, A., Johansson, H., and Lindahl, A., 2007, Controlling factors for water

Residence time and flow patterns in Ekeby treatment wetland, Sweden: Advances in

Water Resources, v. 30, p. 838-850. doi: 10.1016/j.advwatres.2006.07.002.

Kung, K.J.,1990, Influence of Plant Uptake on the Performance of Bromide Tracer: Soil Science

Society of American Journal. v.54, no.4, p. 975-979.

doi:10.2136/sssaj1990.03615995005400040006x.

Langevin, C., Thorne, D.T., Duasman, A.M., Sukop, M.C., and Guo, W.,2008, SEAWAT

Version 4: A Computer Program for Simulation of Multi-Species Solute and Heat

Transport: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques and Methods Book 6, Chapter A22,p. 39.

Langevin, C., Thorne, D.T., Duasman, A.M., Sukop, M.C.,2010, Solute and Heat Transport

Model of the Henery and Hilleke Laboratory Experiment: Ground Water, v.48, no. 5, p.

757-770, doi:10.1111/j.1745-6584.2009.00596.x.

Lapham, W.W., 1989, Use of temperature profiles beneath streams to determine rates of

vertical ground-water flow and vertical hydraulic conductivity: U.S. Geological

Survey Water-Supply Paper 2337.

Lowery, C.S., Walker, J. F., Hunt, R.J., and Anderson, M. P., 2007,Identifying spatial variability

of Groundwater discharge in a wetland stream using distributed temperature sensors:

Water Resources Research, v.43, p.W10408-1-9, doi:10.1029/2007/WR006145.

Macrae, M.L., English, M. C., Schiff, S.L., Stone, M., 2010. Influence of antecedent

hydrologic conditions on patterns of hydrochemical export from first-order

agricultural watershed in Southern Ontario, Canada: hydrology and Earth System

Sciences, v. 389, p.101-110, doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2010.05.034.

NRCS & USDA, 2013, Soil Survey of McLean County, Illinois (10 March, 2015:

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_MANUSCRIPTS/illinois/IL113/0/McLea

n_IL.pdf).

Peterson, E.W. and Sickbert, T.B., 2006, Stream bypass through a meander neck,

laterally Extending the hyporheic zone: Hydrogeology Journal, v. 14,n. 8, p.

1443-1451, doi:10.1007/s10040-006-0050-3.

Poole, G. and Berman, C., 2001, An Ecological Perspective on In- Stream Temperature:

Natural Heat Dynamics and Mechanisms of Human- Caused Thermal

Degradation: Environmental Management 27, no. 6; 787-802,

doi:10.1007/s002670010188.

Rosenberry, D.O. and Winter, T. C., 1997, Dynamics of water-table fluctuations in an

upland between two pairie-pothole wetlands in North Dakota: Journal of

Hydrology, v. 191, no. 1-4, p. 266-289. doi: 10.1016/S0022-1649(96)03050-8.

Schabhuttl, S., Hingsamer, P., Weigelhofer, G., Hein, T., Weigert, A., and Striebel, M.,

2013, Temperature and species richness effects in phytoplankton communities:

Oecologia, v. 171, p. 527-536, doi: 10.1007/s00442-012-2419-4.

53

Schmidt, C., Bayer-Raich, M., and Schirmer, M., 2006, Characterization of spatial

heterogeneity of groundwater-stream water interactions using multiple depth

streambed temperature measurements at the reach scale: Hydrology and Earth

System Sciences, v. 10, p. 849-859, doi:10.5194/hess-10-849-2006.

Stonestrom, D.A. and Constantz, J., 2003, Chapter 1 Heat as a Tool for Studying the

Movement of GroundWater Near Streams in Stonestrom, D.A., and Constantz, J.,

eds., Heat as a tool for studying the movement of ground water near streams,

Volume US Geological Survey Circular1260: Denver, CO, U.S. Geological

Survey, p/1-6.

Tencer, Y., Idan,G., Strom, M., Nusinow, U., Banet, D., Cohen, E., Schröder, P., Shelef, O.,

Rachmilevitch, S., Soares, I., Gross, A., and Golan-Goldhirsh, A., 2009, Establish of a

constructed wetland in extreme dryland: Environmental Science Pollution

Research 16; 862-875, doi:10.1007/s11356-009-0232-3.

Van der Kamp, G. and Hayashi, M., 2009, Groundwater-wetland ecosystem interaction in

the semiarid glaciated plains of North America: Hydrogeology Journal, v. 17, p.

203-214, doi: 10.1007/s10040-008-0367-1.

Weibel, C.P., and Nelson, R.S., 2009, Geology of the Mackinaw River Watershed,

McLean, Woodford, and Tazewell Counties, Illinois: Geological Science Field

Trip Guidebook 2009A, 48 p.

Wilcox, B.P., Dean, D.D., Jacob, J.S. and Sipocz, A., 2011, Evidence of Surface

Connectivity for Texas Gulf Coast Depressional Wetlands: Wetlands, v. 31,

p.451-458, doi:10.1007/s13157-011-0163-x.

54

APPENDIX A:

TRACER DILUTION TEST

HYDROCHEMISTRY

55

BACKGROUND: 5/13/2013

ANIONS

Sample Fluoride Chloride Bromide Nitrate Phosphate Sulfate Time

Locations mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L hours

Well 1 0.2513 NA 0.7291 14.205 NA 14.8191 NA

Well 2 0.3161 NA 0.6352 16.841 NA 14.4133 NA

Well 4 0.1608 NA NA 1.908 NA 21.0376 NA

Well 5 0.2321 NA NA 14.732 NA 14.5545 NA

Well 6 0.1852 NA NA 13.116 NA 14.7145 NA

Well 7 0.2513 NA NA 19.219 NA 14.3444 NA

Well 8 0.3512 NA NA 16.567 NA 16.3634 NA

Well 9 0.199 NA NA 12.949 NA 16.0144 NA

Well 10 0.2491 NA 2.6233 11.951 NA 15.8061 NA

Upstream NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Wetland 0.1617 NA 1.4001 20.023 NA 14.1156 NA

Downstream NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Overflow NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

*Start time: 11:00AM (beginning of Bromide Tracer Dilution Test)

*NA implies below detection limits

56

5/14/2013

ANIONS

Fluoride Chloride Bromide Nitrate Phosphate Sulfate Time

Sample

Location mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L hours

Well 1 0.3808 19.8629 NA 15.075 NA 2.9601 13:40

Well 2 0.3305 20.2131 NA 18.307 NA 2.7797 13:57

Well 4 0.3109 12.2336 NA 1.332 NA 4.4292 14:00

Well 5 0.3321 19.7961 NA 15.651 NA 2.8093 13:46

Well 6 0.3688 19.9801 0.38 14.254 NA 2.8547 13:37

Well 7 0.2988 20.5207 2.1379 21.273 NA 2.7314 14:28

Well 8 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Well 9 0.3895 19.8478 0.5605 13.992 NA 3.995 13:50

Well 10 0.4408 21.099 NA 9.684 NA 8.5522 14:07

Upstream 0.3092 27.9364 NA 17.237 NA 4.8958 14:35

Wetland 0.3053 20.8466 4.2762 21.881 NA 2.7187 14:19

Downstream 0.5141 28.8457 NA 17.386 NA 4.993 14:21



57

5/14/2013

ANIONS


Sample


Well 1 0.2625 20.1267 0.1164 15.123 NA 2.7678 17:40

Well 2 0.2516 20.5784 0.0808 17.794 NA 2.7928 17:30

Well 4 0.3057 11.7694 0.0112 0.846 NA 4.1304 17:55

Well 5 0.3381 19.9088 0.1222 16.045 NA 2.8104 17:46

Well 6 0.3684 20.2815 NA 14.147 NA 2.8813 17:30

Well 7 0.3159 21.1994 5.4502 21.374 NA 2.7377 17:48

Well 8 0.3022 18.9319 0.026 17.67 NA 3.1455 17:35

Well 9 0.5478 21.4944 0.2913 13.942 NA 2.9161 17:35

Well 10 0.3415 20.5521 0.2625 12.391 NA 3.0257 17:15

Upstream 0.3057 28.0574 NA 17.241 NA 4.9235 17:15

Wetland 0.3048 20.6053 4.8273 21.481 NA 2.7386 17:16

Downstream 0.3214 27.6179 NA 16.981 NA 4.8429 17:22



58

5/15/2013

ANIONS


Sample


Well 1 0.4018 19.9629 NA 15.743 NA 2.7781 17:25

Well 2 0.3671 20.4943 0.6349 18.351 NA 2.7877 17:03

Well 4 0.3513 12.1983 NA 0.894 NA 4.1766 17:10

Well 5 0.3363 20.0412 NA 15.93 NA 2.7709 17:04

Well 6 0.386 20.3003 NA 14.551 NA 2.8919 16:56

Well 7 0.2923 20.6562 16.9176 21.5 NA 2.7244 17:14

Well 8 0.3302 19.4515 NA 18.173 NA 3.1285 16:49

Well 9 0.378 20.574 NA 10.525 NA 6.1561 17:31

Well 10 0.3058 21.241 17.8818 21.538 NA 2.8274 16:53

Upstream NA 27.2705 NA 16.44 NA 4.8801 17:04

Wetland 0.3609 27.2645 NA 16.713 NA 4.8956 16:36

Downstream 5.6215 29.7672 9.7477 14.74 NA 10.0237 16:41



59

5/15/2013

ANIONS


Sample


Well 1 0.0803 2.3246 1.7217 15.987 28.9985 3.0774 17:25

Well 2 0.0914 2.374 1.7464 18.444 NA 3.0345 17:03

Well 4 0.0119 1.8273 NA 1.198 NA 4.5112 17:10

Well 5 NA 2.3303 NA 15.343 NA 2.8769 17:04

Well 6 0.0268 2.3328 NA 14.376 NA 2.8302 16:56

Well 7 NA 2.3932 13.7837 22.311 NA 2.9651 17:18

Well 8 NA 2.2807 NA 18.004 NA 3.3114 16:49

Well 9 0.0327 2.2944 NA 13.774 NA 2.9895 17:31

Well 10 0.0638 2.3443 NA 10.001 NA 6.4618 16:53

Upstream 0.0188 2.853 NA 17.042 NA 5.1418 17:04

Wetland NA 2.3839 13.8552 22.505 NA 2.8679 16:36

Downstream NA 2.8677 NA 16.84 NA 5.1498 16:41



60

5/15/2013

ANIONS


Sample


Well 1 NA 2.3245 NA 15.572 NA 2.8994 19:15

Well 2 0.066 2.3754 NA 18.261 NA 2.9052 19:05

Well 4 NA 1.7581 NA 0.967 NA 4.4275 18:59

Well 5 0.0837 2.3401 NA 15.912 NA 2.8998 19:10

Well 6 NA 2.3402 NA 14.62 NA 3.0413 19:18

Well 7 NA 2.3526 11.2116 21.533 NA 2.8211 19:25

Well 8 NA 2.2899 NA 18.327 7.4123 3.4637 19:23

Well 9 0.0209 2.3054 NA 14.171 NA 3.0211 19:35

Well 10 0.0167 2.3102 NA 11.991 NA 3.1487 19:45

Upstream NA 2.8833 NA 16.627 NA 5.1549 19:36

Wetland NA 2.3639 10.3502 22.831 NA 2.8853 19:07


Overflow 0.0892 2.2061 NA NA NA 1.621 19:43


61

5/16/2013

ANIONS


Sample


Well 1 0.1924 2.0138 1.0447 15.149 NA 2.6069 16:52

Well 2 0.1993 2.0833 3.4583 17.392 NA 2.6455 16:26

Well 4 NA 1.3967 NA 0.978 NA 4.1457 16:43

Well 5 0.193 2.0102 0.7559 15.206 NA 2.6318 16:36

Well 6 0.208 1.9994 0.9303 13.696 NA 2.6285 16:30

Well 7 NA 2.0366 9.9714 20.535 NA 2.6001 16:44

Well 8 0.163 1.957 0.6058 16.936 NA 2.9633 16:22

Well 9 0.1742 1.9793 NA 13.201 NA 2.693 16:58

Well 10 NA 1.9605 NA 11.485 NA 3.6243 16:20

Upstream NA 4.9572 NA 15.471 NA 4.636 16:16

Wetland 0.1629 2.0569 10.0675 21.011 NA 2.5842 16:11




62

5/17/2013

ANIONS


Sample


Well 1 0.0924 2.354 2.7898 16.007 NA 3.0179 18:15

Well 2 0.109 2.3016 7.2851 17.491 NA 2.9035 17:53

Well 4 0.0738 1.7843 NA 0.847 NA 4.4528 17:33

Well 5 0.1001 2.3679 NA 15.673 NA 2.9167 17:41

Well 6 0.0744 2.3613 2.1623 13.962 NA 3.0351 17:49

Well 7 NA 2.4153 11.2022 22.392 NA 2.8173 18:28

Well 8 NA 2.3011 NA 17.556 4.2809 3.4604 18:28

Well 9 0.0731 2.3153 NA 14.142 NA 3.0334 18:06

Well 10 0.0375 2.3138 NA 11.607 NA 3.2561 17:46

Upstream NA 2.8907 NA 16.961 NA 5.252 17:49

Wetland NA 2.3717 12.6088 21.69 NA 2.8483 17:56


Overflow NA 2.6636 NA NA NA 0.1103 18:04


63

5/18/2013

ANIONS


Sample


Well 1 0.0909 2.3173 4.1445 15.508 NA 2.8714 19:25

Well 2 0.2966 13.8865 12.4234 17.804 NA 4.2763 18:06

Well 4 NA 1.9491 NA 1.013 NA 4.5899 18:47

Well 5 0.0727 2.3678 1.0063 15.35 NA 2.8825 18:56

Well 6 0.0999 2.3248 2.0997 12.447 NA 2.9053 19:06


Well 8 0.0359 2.2959 NA 17.061 NA 3.2623 19:12

Well 9 0.0574 2.3197 NA 14.185 NA 3.026 19:34

Well 10 0.0057 2.3592 NA 10.756 NA 4.0453 18:59

Upstream NA 2.8832 NA 16.887 NA 5.2825 18:59

Wetland NA 2.4139 13.609 21.536 NA 2.9898 19:06


Overflow 0.013 2.451 2.7212 NA NA 0.4853 19:15


64

5/19/2013

ANIONS


Sample


Well 1 0.0658 23.1901 6.5688 15.363 NA 13.7855 17:57

Well 2 0.0655 22.731 12.5228 16.03 NA 13.9448 17:48

Well 4 NA 13.6673 0.2563 2.279 NA 20.9836 17:40

Well 5 0.062 21.5661 1.0299 14.785 NA 14.0672 17:48

Well 6 0.0576 21.1053 3.1579 12.507 NA 13.8575 18:00


Well 8 0.098 20.5043 1.448 16.428 NA 15.0522 18:15

Well 9 NA 21.4466 0.4345 14.702 NA 14.3255 18:06

Well 10 0.0642 22.5055 0.9092 13.21 NA 15.3387 17:40

Upstream NA 28.7643 NA 16.594 NA 24.8106 17:37

Wetland 0.0054 23.2187 16.8963 19.903 NA 14.3283 18:18

Downstream NA 27.6778 1.4652 15.88 NA 24.5134 18:11



65

5/20/2013

ANIONS


Sample


Well 1 0.2065 2.0093 5.5862 13.785 NA 2.6193 16:54

Well 2 0.208 2.106 8.6997 15.256 NA 2.7571 16:51

Well 4 NA 1.4564 NA 1.217 NA 4.4824 16:41

Well 5 0.2367 2.0438 1.5985 12.795 NA 2.6593 16:51

Well 6 NA 1.9042 3.5036 9.921 NA NA 17:03


Well 8 0.2012 1.9487 NA 15.408 NA 0.1221 17:06

Well 9 0.5535 2.0772 2.2951 14.273 NA 2.891 17:00

Well 10 NA 2.0007 0.9944 10.607 NA 2.9203 16:48

Upstream NA 2.5396 NA 15.324 NA 4.6657 16:53

Wetland 0.177 2.0597 10.1199 19.562 NA 2.6203 17:02




66

5/21/2013

ANIONS


Sample


Well 1 0.0693 22.1378 10.7471 14.069 NA 13.9782 17:54

Well 2 0.2138 2.0758 9.2482 14.97 NA 2.6876 17:42

Well 4 NA 1.44 NA 0.818 NA 4.3536 17:59

Well 5 0.2338 2.0507 3.8866 13.309 NA 2.7425 18:13

Well 6 NA 1.8992 4.6156 9.858 NA 2.6355 18:13

Well 7 NA 2.0587 9.7987 18.512 NA 2.6128 18:20

Well 8 0.1727 1.9618 NA 15.494 NA 2.8932 18:06

Well 9 0.23 1.9621 1.7428 13.103 NA 2.6985 18:00

Well 10 NA 1.9735 1.7247 9.984 NA 2.8758 17:48

Upstream NA 28.6812 NA 14.353 NA 23.3256 17:57

Wetland NA 2.0348 9.786 18.567 NA 2.6021 18:20


Overflow NA 2.2699 NA NA NA 3.7835 18:11


67

5/22/2013

ANIONS


Sample


Well 1 0.0684 22.1856 11.7494 13.319 NA 14.1766 17:35

Well 2 0.0237 22.2774 14.9028 14.037 NA 13.5598 17:39

Well 4 NA 14.4201 0.2391 2.017 NA 21.793 17:12

Well 5 0.0677 22.0042 3.5247 13.437 NA 14.0314 17:19

Well 6 0.1011 21.7593 8.705 10.346 NA 13.7923 17:23

Well 7 0.0133 23.0284 15.4652 18.54 NA 14.0241 17:25

Well 8 NA 20.6958 1.3571 15.88 NA 15.1373 17:28

Well 9 0.0497 21.8347 2.92 14.403 NA 14.4516 17:36

Well 10 0.125 22.1361 3.8509 12.124 NA 15.8761 17:43

Upstream NA 28.7913 1.5579 15.818 NA 24.6528 17:18

Wetland NA 22.5878 15.2386 18.562 NA 14.0986 17:15

Downstream NA 29.1445 2.3086 15.413 NA 24.8734 17:25



68

5/23/2013

ANIONS


Sample


Well 1 0.2552 20.5588 12.9729 12.275 NA NA 18:21

Well 2 0.0477 23.6969 14.5538 13.972 NA 15.4028 18:07

Well 4 0.2077 13.0548 0.9057 2.166 NA NA 18:45

Well 5 0.2529 20.5533 6.8186 12.818 NA NA 18:57

Well 6 0.2918 20.6705 10.0817 9.15 NA NA 18:38


Well 8 0.2793 19.9459 NA 15.371 NA NA 18:33

Well 9 0.2596 19.828 5.0441 13.846 NA NA 18:26

Well 10 0.268 20.994 5.3659 11.053 NA NA 18:14

Upstream 0.2386 26.2754 NA 15.929 NA NA 18:23

Wetland 0.1846 20.8955 15.4005 17.875 NA NA 18:34

Downstream 0.2357 26.235 NA 15.897 NA NA 18:16



69

5/24/2013

ANIONS


Sample


Well 1 0.2932 20.0079 12.6561 11.692 0.8884 12.7784 16:15

Well 2 NA 19.6263 22.0004 13.962 NA 13.6068 15:55

Well 4 0.2265 13.6408 1.332 2.198 3.1096 21.0146 15:41

Well 5 0.3018 20.447 7.3112 11.936 1.0065 13.1804 15:51

Well 6 0.2954 20.0718 10.8569 8.115 NA 12.6928 15:58


Well 8 0.22 18.9115 0.8129 14.951 1.0742 13.9299 16:09

Well 9 0.2317 19.6702 6.2049 13.151 0.955 13.0291 16:15

Well 10 0.2505 20.439 6.1564 10.71 1.7032 14.6226 16:00

Upstream 0.2375 26.8409 3.177 15.771 2.8106 22.7865 16:06

Wetland 0.1948 20.7777 14.4037 17.563 0.2457 12.3289 15:55

Downstream 0.2161 27.0618 0.5274 15.357 1.2495 22.9654 15:44



70

5/25/2013

ANIONS


Sample


Well 1 0.0948 22.6837 14.0084 12.193 NA 14.1499 17:20

Well 2 0.0145 22.6372 15.0784 13.62 NA 13.9191 17:30

Well 4 NA 15.6995 0.2935 2.605 NA 24.8767 16:40

Well 5 0.0994 22.8252 8.6804 11.811 NA 15.7661 16:30

Well 6 0.0689 22.0884 12.0494 8.203 NA 14.3439 16:54


Well 8 0.0424 21.7157 0.4451 15.432 NA 15.5248 17:02

Well 9 0.0532 22.3379 8.0457 13.697 NA 14.5283 17:10

Well 10 0.0727 23.2161 8.8757 11.766 NA 16.0196 17:40

Upstream NA 27.9072 1.7863 15.942 NA 24.5651 17:35

Wetland NA 23.0543 14.5089 17.908 NA 14.4689 17:25




71

5/26/2013

ANIONS


Sample


Well 1 0.0641 22.9389 14.3232 12.11 NA 13.9681 16:58

Well 2 0.0144 22.7884 15.0032 13.902 NA 13.7581 16:55

Well 4 NA 15.1064 0.303 2.235 NA 20.8676 17:05

Well 5 NA 22.7528 9.5118 11.039 NA 14.207 17:15

Well 6 0.0138 22.9116 12.6893 8.04 NA 13.6806 16:15


Well 8 0.0114 21.8462 0.5862 15.309 NA 15.2223 16:25

Well 9 NA 21.8757 9.2457 12.758 NA 13.7916 16:40

Well 10 NA 22.4201 9.7939 11.14 NA 15.5026 16:50

Upstream NA 29.3921 0.4322 15.614 NA 23.5215 16:54

Wetland 0.0335 22.8959 14.1922 17.451 NA 14.2431 16:55

Downstream 0.0136 30.1991 0.49 16.165 NA 24.5454 16:25



72

5/27/2013

ANIONS


Sample


Well 1 NA 29.3889 NA 15.197 NA 23.5198 19:11

Well 2 0.0221 22.8077 14.8653 13.883 NA 13.6871 19:07

Well 4 0.0289 21.2055 13.5698 11.322 NA 12.852 18:20

Well 5 0.0569 20.7409 10.1015 9.736 NA 13.8117 18:30

Well 6 NA 21.1186 12.677 6.87 NA 12.5044 18:37


Well 8 NA 19.4494 0.8746 14.058 NA 14.0294 18:45

Well 9 0.026 16.9112 8.3472 9.722 NA 10.6605 18:52

Well 10 0.0231 19.8135 9.7367 9.199 0.3021 12.1768 19:02

Upstream NA 30.1057 NA 15.499 NA 20.8481 18:59

Wetland 0.0148 20.719 13.3832 16.624 NA 13.0448 19:17




73

5/28/2013

ANIONS


Sample


Well 1 NA 21.4058 13.6939 11.477 NA 13.4172 19:34

Well 2 0.0283 23.1945 14.4577 14.333 NA 13.9017 19:27

Well 4 NA 14.7508 0.36 2.326 NA 22.6667 18:40

Well 5 NA 20.9458 10.3805 9.355 NA 13.8738 18:51

Well 6 NA 20.725 12.7294 6.688 NA 13.3383 18:56


Well 8 NA 20.2729 1.1359 14.059 NA 14.6182 19:06

Well 9 NA 21.2182 10.6612 12.175 NA 13.8092 19:14

Well 10 NA 21.6475 11.2681 10.125 NA 14.9006 19:22

Upstream NA 28.509 NA 15.975 NA 21.1555 19:19

Wetland NA 21.2179 11.8662 17.67 NA 13.342 19:31

Downstream NA 29.1528 6.8302 15.859 NA 20.9623 19:04

Overflow NA 10.0858 NA 0.344 NA 6.2425 18:47


74

5/29/2013

ANIONS


Sample


Well 1 NA 21.5902 14.0723 11.889 NA 13.6586 18:42

Well 2 0.2423 22.7726 13.8264 14.232 NA 13.8687 18:38

Well 4 NA 14.9293 NA 1.843 NA 21.4997 17:54

Well 5 NA 21.7319 11.3179 8.639 NA 14.0892 18:04

Well 6 NA 21.4886 13.3881 7.017 NA 13.4454 18:11


Well 8 NA 20.327 1.5204 14.158 NA 14.8182 18:18

Well 9 NA 21.0356 11.124 11.178 NA 13.5207 18:25

Well 10 NA 18.963 10.2604 8.517 0.4939 13.4424 18:32

Upstream NA 30.0332 NA 18.76 NA 21.665 18:28

Wetland NA 21.2806 10.9768 18.839 NA 13.5768 18:39


Overflow NA 9.3003 NA 0.382 NA 4.1597 18:01


75

APPENDIX B:

FIELD DATA

76

WELL 1

Water Dissolved Temperature Dissolved Conductivity Specific Salinity

Level Oxygen Oxygen Conductivity

Date (ft.) (%) (°C) (mg/L) (µs) (µs) (ppt)

9/12/2013 13.41 32.1 20.8 2.86 597 648 0.3

9/22/2013 NA 19.6 19.5 1.76 655 732 0.4

10/1/2013 NA NA 20 NA 660 729 0.4

10/20/2013 13.69 28 18 3.4 640 739 0.4

10/29/2013 13.68 NA 17.9 NA 633 735 0.4

4/1/2014 8.73 69 4.9 8.3 218.9 355 0.2

4/10/2014 6.41 143.4 5.1 15.47 272.5 436.3 0.2

5/16/2014 5.35 270 11.3 OVER 122.6 165.8 0.1

6/5/2014 7.71 124.8 17.3 10.97 406.7 476.7 0.2

6/9/2014 6.75 133.3 17.2 12.07 431.4 507 0.2

7/11/2014 8.18 69.7 22.8 5.97 440 459.4 0.2

7/16/2014 6.48 109.8 22.5 9.44 441.5 463.8 0.2

7/25/2014* 8.44 NA NA NA NA NA NA

7/30/2014** 9.02 34.8 22.3 3 411.8 434.7 0.2

8/8/2014 9.96 43.5 22.7 3.75 369.14 387.5 0.2

8/12/2014 10.3 37.6 21.8 3.23 366 390.3 0.2

8/29/2014*** NA 26.2 22.4 2.26 361.1 379.7 0.2

9/11/2014 10.52 25.1 20.8 2.23 409.2 445.4 0.2

10/8/2014 7.47 45 17.4 4.05 467 507 0.2

NOTE: * YSI-85 stopped working (batteries) Disregard YSI data

** 8/1/14: logger 10548410

*** Water level meter (blue) did not work- no water height

NA implies not available (well was dry or otherwise noted)

77

WELL 2




9/12/2013 12.21 40.3 21 3.43 526 569 0.3

9/22/2013 NA 18.5 20.1 1.78 633 699 0.3

10/1/2013 NA NA 20.3 NA 626 688 0.3

10/20/2013 12.68 21.1 18.8 1.91 662 752 0.4

10/29/2013 12.82 NA 18.1 NA LOW LOW 0

4/1/2014 7.32 80.3 4 9.66 196.4 326.7 0.2

4/10/2014 5.8 104.6 5.6 12.08 216.2 340.8 0.2

5/16/2014 1.94 220.8 13.7 OVER 284.7 489.6 0.2

6/5/2014 7.81 85.6 20 7.81 438.5 484 0.2

6/9/2014 6.89 110.6 20.2 9.54 440.4 484.7 0.2

7/11/2014 8.34 129.2 23.8 10.89 463.7 474.7 0.2

7/16/2014 6.55 85.8 23.8 7.24 454.1 465 0.2

7/25/2014* 8.5 NA NA NA NA NA NA

7/30/2014** 9 35.2 23.6 2.92 433.9 445.6 0.2

8/8/2014 9.61 70.5 22.9 6.06 386.2 403.1 0.2

8/12/2014 9.77 47 22.7 3.88 363.8 380.5 0.2

8/29/2014*** NA 29.1 23.1 2.42 327.3 339.3 0.2

9/11/2014 9.96 24.9 21.7 2.16 381.3 404.3 0.2

10/8/2014 7.27 32.9 18.3 4.59 423.3 484.1 0.2


** 8/1/14- logger 10548413



78

WELL 3




9/12/2013 7.7 29.1 16.6 2.67 641 764 0.4

9/22/2013 NA 25.5 17 2.35 675 794 0.4

10/1/2013 NA NA 17.5 NA 668 778 0.4

10/20/2013 8.43 NA 16.4 NA 635 759 0.4

10/29/2013 8.57 NA 15.2 NA 610 752 0.4

4/1/2014 5.93 50.3 6.2 50.41 417.5 648 0.3

4/10/2014 5.1 104.3 10.9 10.81 358.1 485.6 0.2

5/16/2014 3.52 190.8 14 OVER 6.3 7.9 0.2

6/5/2014 5.93 51.6 15.9 5.07 553 672 0.3

6/9/2014 * 5.81 70.5 18.3 6.23 568 653 0.3

7/11/2014 5.94 81.2 24.7 6.08 520 525 0.3

7/16/2014 3.78 106.1 21.4 9.21 448.6 481.9 0.2

7/25/2014** 5.93 40.3 21.1 3.42 518 561 0.3

7/30/2014 5.96 28 19.3 2.36 592 666 0.3

8/8/2012 5.97 30.3 20 2.52 514 570 0.3

8/12/2014 6.03 35.8 18.1 3.28 521 599 0.3

8/29/2014*** NA 26.3 19.7 2.3 587 657 0.3

9/11/2014 5.86 56.1 17.1 4.94 591 692 0.3

10/8/2014 4.6 67.7 16.3 6.68 423.2 508 0.2

NOTE: * Solinst Barologger: 11015198; Solinst Levelogger: 21015313

** YSI-85 stopped working (batteries) Disregard YSI data



79

WELL 4




9/12/2013 11.11 44.3 15.4 4.38 562 690 0.3

9/22/2013 NA 13.3 15.1 1.29 561 692 0.3

10/1/2013 NA NA 17.1 NA 576 680 0.3

10/20/2013 12.15 NA 14.7 NA 556 692 0.3

10/29/2013 12.41 NA 14 NA 541 686 0.3

4/1/2014 6.85 NA 4.6 NA 255.6 427.3 0.2

4/10/2014 5.56 56.4 7.4 7.35 233 354.4 0.2

5/16/2014 5.04 233 12.2 OVER 323.3 427.6 0.2

6/5/2014 6.63 61.2 12.3 6.28 355.6 463.1 0.2

6/9/2014 5.61 59.3 17.3 5.76 421.8 494.9 0.2

7/11/2014 6.86 93.1 19.7 8.46 408 453.5 0.2

7/16/2014 5.42 45.3 17 4.12 416.7 490.6 0.2

7/25/2014* 6.98 53.1 17.2 5 428.2 503 0.2

7/30/2014** 7.42 37.9 17.9 3.58 426.3 493.7 0.2

8/8/2014 8.26 30.9 17.6 2.89 426.4 496.5 0.2

8/12/2014 8.54 34 16.3 3.2 419.7 503 0.2

8/29/2014*** NA 30.9 17.9 2.84 466 538 0.3

9/11/2014 5.97 37.5 17.1 3.44 507 598 0.3

10/8/2014 5.85 71.5 15.7 6.41 488 594 0.3


** 8/1/14- logger: 10548414



80

WELL 5




9/12/2013 8.19 34.8 18 3.36 282.9 326.1 0.2

9/22/2013 NA 23.1 16.9 2.21 583 689 0.3

10/1/2013 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

10/20/2013 9.68 44.6 15.5 4.36 LOW LOW 0.0


4/1/2014 3.41 12.5 4.9 1.64 263.3 426.1 0.2

4/10/2014 2.45 155.3 8.2 15.11 293.2 431.9 0.2

5/16/2014 1.18 191.6 12.9 19.6 380 494.2 0.2

6/5/2014 3.11 150.5 19.8 11.53 430.7 472.5 0.2

6/9/2014 2.56 86.2 19.7 7.62 420.9 467.5 0.2

7/11/2014 3.35 78.8 23.1 6.43 500 518 0.3

7/16/2014 2.32 52.1 21.6 4.53 477 510 0.2

7/25/2014* 3.36 71.7 20.5 6.23 457 500 0.2

7/30/2014** 3.8 53.5 21.4 4.67 470 505 0.2

8/8/2014 4.91 39.1 21.4 3.38 448.7 481.2 0.2

8/12/2014 5.15 34.9 20.1 3.04 446.2 492 0.2

8/29/2014*** NA 34.2 20.5 2.99 564 615 0.3

9/11/2014 3.81 42.5 18.6 4.18 561 642 0.3

10/8/2014 2.61 46.8 16.1 4.31 474 568 0.3


** 8/1/14- logger: 10548409



81

WELL 6




9/12/2013 13.43 30.9 19.2 2.83 643 723 0.4

9/22/2013 NA 13.9 19 1.23 771 872 0.4


10/20/2013 14.24 32.4 17.2 3.08 LOW LOW 0

10/29/2013 13.92 NA 14 NA 7.6 9.6 0

4/1/2014 7.59 70.9 3.8 9.07 234.1 392.3 0.2

4/10/2014 10.2 34.1 7.1 4.04 88.2 134.5 0.1

5/16/2014 6.24 164.4 13.2 16.6 194 250.5 0.1

6/5/2014 7.43 56.1 19.4 5.01 430.4 480.1 0.2

6/9/2014 7.07 75.8 20.3 6.52 449.7 490.8 0.2

7/11/2014 7.6 53.6 23.7 4.49 482 495 0.2

7/16/2014 6.81 68.3 22.7 5.91 475 497 0.2

7/25/2014* 7.71 42.3 21.2 3.67 439 473.4 0.2

7/30/2014* 8.42 27.6 22.3 2.39 434.1 458.3 0.2

8/8/2014 9.7 35.1 22.6 2.92 410.2 419.2 0.2

8/12/2014 9.95 31.4 22 2.75 375.2 398.2 0.2

8/29/2014** NA 32.6 21.8 2.79 367.5 390.6 0.2

9/11/2014 8.84 28.8 19.4 2.55 326.8 365.7 0.2

10/8/2014 9.07 43.4 16.8 3.78 437.7 520 0.3


** Water level meter (blue) did not work- no water height


82

WETLAND









4/1/2014 4.85 101.1 7.3 12.01 266.9 403.7 0.2

4/10/2014 6.00 127 12 13 370 495.5 0.2

5/16/2014* 6.64 275.9 12.7 OVER 267.3 479.2 0.2

6/5/2014 3.90 195.7 22.3 17.2 424.6 450.7 0.2

6/9/2014 4.75 218.6 20.2 19.52 434.5 478.7 0.2

7/11/2014 4.80 247.1 27.6 19.48 432.7 412.5 0.2

7/16/2014 5.20 173.1 21.1 14.8 471 509 0.2

7/25/2014** 3.95 NA NA NA NA NA NA

7/30/2014*** 3.15 111.5 23.5 9.43 351.2 362.3 0.2

8/8/2014 **** 3.10 133.3 25 11.03 319.7 318.5 0.2

8/12/2014 2.86 95.7 22.1 8.16 293.2 309.7 0.1

8/29/2014 2.18 71.5 24.9 5.71 283.6 284.1 0.1

9/11/2014 2.91 42.5 17.9 3.9 303.4 350.4 0.2

10/8/2014 5.40 86.4 15 8.52 438.5 541 0.3

NOTE: * Above the stage marker


*** 8/1/14- logger: 10548412

**** Water level decreasing


83

WELL 8




9/12/2013 8.14 39.1 17.1 3.8 480 565 0.3

9/22/2013 NA 12.3 16.1 1.19 498 599 0.3

10/1/2013 NA NA 17.8 NA 515 596 0.3

10/20/2013 8.79 27.6 16.1 2.68 524 631 0.3

10/29/2013 8.85 NA 14 NA 494 625 0.3

4/1/2014 5.81 65.1 6.2 7.7 312.6 487.2 0.2

4/10/2014 5.2 28.5 7.8 3.36 322.3 479.4 0.2

5/16/2014 4.02 258.6 11 OVER 374.3 512 0.2

6/5/2014 4.7 138.6 14.7 11.56 429 530 0.3

6/9/2014 4.3 111.4 15.1 10.94 429.9 528 0.3

7/11/2014 4.56 76 19.3 6.67 152.7 170.5 0.1

7/16/2014 3.96 104.7 19.6 9.58 123.7 137.9 0.1

7/25/2014* 4.72 56.1 18.1 5.29 150.3 173 0.1

7/30/2014** 5.11 28.6 19.2 2.56 436.6 490.9 0.2

8/8/2014 5.72 36.1 20.3 3.16 445.6 490.3 0.2

8/12/2014 5.93 28.6 18.5 2.66 424.6 485.1 0.2

8/29/2014*** NA 35.3 19.1 3.21 411.4 462.3 0.2

9/11/2014 5.84 28.4 18.6 2.63 385.9 439.9 0.2

10/8/2014 4.66 48.9 17.1 4.38 470 555 0.3


** 8/1/14- logger: 10548416



84

WELL 9




9/12/2013 8.81 37.4 18.1 3.43 680 782 0.4

9/22/2013 NA 14.4 18 1.26 695 803 0.4

10/1/2013 NA NA 19.5 NA 733 819 0.4

10/20/2013 9.26 31.2 15.3 3.1 695 833 0.4

10/29/2013 9.44 NA 14.8 NA 681 846 0.4

4/1/2014 5.71 72 6.4 8.58 292.7 454.3 0.2

4/10/2014 4.05 150.3 8.5 15.97 318.1 464.1 0.2

5/16/2014 3.92 397 12 OVER 217 289 0.1

6/5/2014 4.31 78.7 14.1 7.65 305.8 385.5 0.2

6/9/2014 3.78 102.1 14.6 10.05 407.7 507 0.2

7/11/2014 4.52 76.5 20.1 6.63 411.1 453.5 0.2

7/16/2014 3.56 110.4 19.8 10.06 111.8 124.2 0.1

7/25/2014* 4.69 44.6 20 3.9 172 189.9 0.1

7/30/2014 5.06 35.2 20.5 3.02 429.1 470.6 0.2

8/8/2014 5.71 35.1 20.8 3.07 424.1 460.8 0.2

8/12/2014 5.92 36.7 20.5 3.18 400.8 439.3 0.2

8/29/2014** NA 30.1 20.6 2.59 382.3 417 0.2

9/11/2014 6.31 26.1 19.2 2.31 569 643 0.3

10/8/2014 4.54 45 17.4 4.05 467 507 0.2




85

WELL 10




9/12/2013 9.68 66.2 18.6 5.97 1012 1147 0.6

9/22/2013 NA 89.3 18.4 8.33 6.7 7.8 0




4/1/2014 7.08 50.9 5.3 6.15 298.6 477.6 0.2

4/10/2014 6.8 55.4 6.5 6.6 324.3 497.4 0.2

5/16/2014 6.25 193 10.3 OVER 377.1 521 0.3

6/5/2014 6.81 109.4 12.5 11.14 597 778 0.2

6/9/2014 6.68 129 15.2 12.07 458 560 0.3

7/11/2014 6.78 114.8 19.1 10.45 479 539 0.3

7/16/2014 6.38 62.1 16.9 5.95 780 921 0.5

7/25/2014* 6.69 NA NA NA NA NA NA

7/30/2014** 6.8 32.3 19.9 2.88 478 530 0.3

8/8/2014 6.93 71.5 18.7 6.62 789 895 0.4

8/12/2014 6.98 37.7 19.4 3.36 543 609 0.3

8/29/2014*** NA 24.6 20.6 2.2 523 570 0.3

9/11/2014 6.93 19.1 25.4 2.27 817 921 0.5

10/8/2014 6.61 30.8 17.3 2.88 470 555 0.3


** 8/1/14- logger: 10548417



86

WELL 11




10/20/2013 8.88 18.7 15.7 1.84 624 758 0.4

10/29/2013 8.96 NA 14.9 NA 630 781 0.4

4/1/2014 5.11 69.3 7 8.22 462 703 0.3

4/10/2014 3.53 128.3 8.2 13.54 467 683 0.3

5/16/2014 2.61 302.3 11.9 OVER 497 656 0.3

6/5/2014 3.99 70.9 15 6.41 535 655 0.3

6/9/2014 3.95 127.9 14.5 12.27 535 667 0.3

7/11/2014 4.11 94.6 20 7.68 600 658 0.3

7/16/2014 3.1 90.3 19.9 8.17 583 646 0.3

7/25/2014** 4.3 40.4 19.5 3.95 580 649 0.3

7/30/2014 4.77 36.2 20.5 3.22 592 647 0.3

8/8/2014 5.48 32.9 20.7 2.91 594 647 0.3

8/12/2014 5.69 33.1 18.8 2.95 577 653 0.3

8/29/2014*** NA 34.3 18.3 3.08 728 834 0.4

9/11/2014 5.91 44.3 19.7 3.21 598 668 0.3

10/8/2014 4.18 41.9 18.3 3.8 572 655 0.3

NOTE: * Levelogger: 3001 LTF30/M10 SN39971




87

WELL 12






4/1/2014 8.25 47.1 6.8 5.58 422.7 649 0.3

4/10/2014 7.6 66.1 7.6 7.38 421.9 629 0.3

5/16/2014 6.69 260.9 9.2 OVER 380.4 550 0.3

6/5/2014 8.08 135.3 13.1 13.02 327.2 419.2 0.2

6/9/2014 7.76 147.2 12.9 14.28 328.9 429.9 0.2

7/11/2014 8.13 83.5 12.2 7.75 479 629 0.3

7/16/2014 7.16 59.1 15.5 5.85 343.8 421.4 0.2

7/25/2014* 8.12 NA NA NA NA NA NA

7/30/2014 8.41 30.5 15.7 3 388.6 474 0.2

8/8/2014 8.8 64.6 13.9 6.53 510 644 0.3

8/12/2014 9.1 39.7 16.1 3.76 317.9 383.4 0.2

8/29/2014** NA 52.5 15.4 4.58 522 639 0.3

9/11/2014 8.58 39.2 15.9 3.05 483 580 0.3

10/8/2014 7.53 33.7 15.6 3.22 411.8 538 0.3




88

STREAM




9/22/2013 NA 48.2 16.8 4.7 636 753 0.4

10/1/2013 NA NA 19.1 NA 685 772 0.4

10/20/2013 NA 31 11.6 30.9 576 771 0.4

10/29/2013 NA NA 9.3 NA 534 766 0.4

4/1/2014 NA 103.3 5.8 12.55 396.6 625 0.3

4/10/2014 NA 141 10.3 15.91 435.8 607 0.3

5/16/2014* NA 372 10.4 OVER 428.8 595 0.3

6/5/2014 NA 148 15.2 15.06 540 665 0.3

6/9/2014 NA 190.6 15.3 19.18 528 647 0.3

7/11/2014 NA 150.7 23.2 13.34 649 673 0.3

7/16/2014** NA 178 16.9 17.25 553 656 0.3

7/25/2014*** NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

7/30/2014**** NA 86.3 18.3 8.07 604 694 0.3

8/8/2014 NA 92.9 22 8.09 646 685 0.3

8/12/2014 NA 86.1 19.9 7.62 618 684 0.3

8/29/2014 NA 85.2 22.7 7.35 677 708 0.3

9/11/2014 NA 78.4 17.1 7.61 460 542 0.3

10/8/2014 NA 88.1 15.6 8.5 558 680 0.3

NOTE: * High Flowing

** High flowing, storm on Monday, cloudy


*** 8/1/14- logger: 10548408


89

APPENDIX C:

NITRATE ANALYSIS

90

To fully understand the nutrient sink of a groundwater-wetland system, I did a

comparison of nitrate concentrations in the wetland to those found in the groundwater

downgradient of the wetland. Sixty water samples were collected from May 14th to May 22nd,

2013, filtered with a 0.45 glass fiber micron filter, and analyzed for nitrate on a Dionex 1100 ICS

Ion Chromatograph (Appendix A). After determining down gradient wells from the wetland in

GFLOW, an analysis of variance (ANOVA) statistical analysis was used to compare nitrate

concentrations from waters collected in the wetland, the berm, and down gradient wells from the

wetland. The goal of this project was to understand the difference in nitrate concentration at

various locations down-gradient and the relationship between distance and nitrate concentrations.

Nitrate Analysis

A distinct difference in nitrate concentrations was seen when comparing down-

gradient wells to the wetland. The ANOVA test analyzed and compared the wetland surface

water concentrations to waters from the groundwater wells along the berm (wells 1 and 2) and

down-gradient (wells 9 and 10). The (ANOVA) identified significant differences among nitrate

concentrations (F (69) = 57.215, p < 0.001). A post hoc Tukey test showed that waters from the

wetland, berm, and down gradient wells were significantly different from each other. Nitrate

concentrations decreased away from the wetland in the down gradient direction (Figure 1). A

second analysis examining the relationship between the nitrate concentration in a well to distance

from the center of the wetland to the given well, specifically wells 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, and 10 revealed a

significant relationship (F (148) = 234.7, r2=0.6133, p < 0.001). The relationship suggest that

along a travel distance of 1 meter, nitrate concentrations will decrease 0.16 mg/L (Figure 2).

91

Figure 1: Bar graph of nitrate concentrations (mg/L) compared to locations in the groundwater-

wetland system. A, B, C show significance difference and standard error bars are present.

Figure 2: Linear regression of nitrate concentrations compared to distance. From left to right:

wetland, well 1, well 2, well 9, well 5, well 6, and well 10

0

5

10

15

20

25

Wetland Berm Down Gradient

Nit

rate

Co

nce

ntr

atio

ns

(mg/

L)A

B

C

92

Significantly, location had an effect on the wetland where nitrate concentrations

decreased down gradient from the wetland. This is important for limiting nutrients from entering

into surface water bodies, such as the stream adjacent to the wetland. Also, travel distance had an

observable effect on the nitrate loss where distance increased away from wetland showed

significant decrease in nitrate concentrations. Overall, the wetland appears to provide a natural

reduction in nitrate-rich tile drain waters.

93

APPENDIX D:

SURFICIAL GEOLOGY OF THE COLFAX 7.5 MINUTE

QUADRANGLE, ILLINOIS

94

PLATE 1

(SEE BACK COVER)

the relationship between wetland water level andewpeter/theses/maxwellthesis.pdf · 2015-11-20 ·...

Documents