Goose Pond Metals Amber Adamczyk

1
Goose Pond MetalsAmber Adamczyk
2
Overview

• History
• Study Proposal
• Soil Properties
• Field Sampling
• Sample Preparations
• Results
• Conclusions

3
Goose Pond

• WRP project of 7,200 acres
• Glacial wetland basin
• Since 1900, 95 has been drained for croplands
• Part of Ohio River ecosystem
• Major stopover site for migrating birds

4
Restoration Plans

• Open water, emergent veg., grass prairie,
  hardwood forest, and oak savanna
• Will increase state wetlands acreage by 1

5
Study Proposal

• No data currently exists for the metal content of
  soils at GP and BH
• These areas are surrounded by both under- and
  aboveground coal mines.
• Restoration and flooding could release damaging
  metals from the soils
• Hypothesis Metal content of soils will reflect
  agricultural use and coal mining, and will vary
  spatially with terrain.

6
(No Transcript)
7
Soil Properties
-Booker Clay -Zipp Silty Clay - Bonnie Silt Loam
8
-Booker Mucky Clay -Peoga Silt Loam -Patton Silty
Clay Loam
9
Soil Properties

• GP Soils BH Soils share similar properties
• Hydrologic groups of B (along the creek), C (most
  soils), and D (Booker clay, Main pool).
• Drainage class of poorly to very poorly drained
• Mostly no flooding potential, but frequent
  ponding (more than once in two years).

10
Field Sampling

• Thirteen samples from various conditions forest,
  prairie, farmed land, constructed berms, and
  flooded areas.
• Collected 10 5- 06
• Three small surface samples homogenized and
  Ziploc-bagged.

11
Field Sampling
12
(No Transcript)
13
Sample Preparation

• Air-dried for 3 days
• Ground with mortar and pestle
• Sieved through 500 um filter, retaining the lt500
  um fraction.
• Dehydrated in incubator at 105C for 24hrs
• LOI in muffle furnace at 550C for 2.5 hrs

14
Further Sample Prep.

• Sample transferred to 50ml centrifuge tubes
• Digested by strong acids with dilutions of 17,
  140, and 1200
• Analyzed by ICP-AES (Thanks, Rosalice!) for the
  metals Pb, Cd, Ba, Ni, Zn, Cu, Mn, Fe, Ca, and Mg

15
Sample Controls

• SRM 1646
• Sample replicates two tubes of same sample
• Instrumental replicates sample tube run through
  twice
• Blanks

16
Moisture and OC data
17
Element Concentrations
18
Element Concentrations
19
Element Concentrations
For Ca, aa6 was unusually high, probably due to
error. aa12b was bdl.
20
Interesting Sample Signatures
21
Metals of BH vs. GP
22
Conclusions

• GP has wetland soil types
• Metals content is around average for the USGS
  data on Greene county
• Pb, Cd, Ni, Cu, and Zn show similar spatial
  distribution
• Ba, Mg, Mn, Fe, and Ca show weaker spatial
  similiarities
• In general, restored areas and GS forest show
  lower metal concentrations, while the newly
  exposed soils and berm soils show higher
  concentrations.

23
Map and Photo Credits

• USGS http//tin.er.usgs.gov/geochem/county.php?pl
  acef18055elCurfeast-central
• GP Maps and Photos http//www.in.gov/dnr/fishwild
  /goosepond/
• Web Soil Survey http//websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.go
  v/app/
• CEES http//www.cees.iupui.edu/Info/Press/Water_R
  esources/2005/index.htm

24
(No Transcript)