4.3 Article

Impacts of a Rural Subdivision on Groundwater Quality: Results of Long-Term Monitoring

期刊

GROUNDWATER
卷 57, 期 2, 页码 279-291

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/gwat.12666

关键词

-

资金

  1. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources through the Groundwater Joint Solicitation Program
  2. Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey, University of Wisconsin-Extension

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A rural subdivision in south central Wisconsin was instrumented with monitoring wells and lysimeters before, during, and after its construction to examine the impacts of the unsewered subdivision on groundwater quality and quantity. Prior to construction, the 78-acre (32 ha) site was farmland. Sixteen homes were constructed beginning in 2003. Initial monitoring from 2002 to 2005 showed that groundwater beneath the site had been impacted by previous agricultural use, with nitrate-N values as high as 30 mg/L and some detections of the herbicide atrazine. Our 12-year study shows that the transition from agricultural to residential land use has changed groundwater quality in both negative and positive ways. Although groundwater elevations showed typical seasonal fluctuations each year, there were no measurable changes in groundwater levels or general flow directions during the 12-year study period. Chloride values increased in many wells, possibly as a result of road salting or water softener discharge. Nitrate concentrations varied spatially and temporally over the study period, with some initial concentrations substantially above the drinking water standard. In some wells, nitrate and atrazine levels have declined substantially since agriculture ceased. However, atrazine was still present at trace concentrations throughout the site in 2014. Wastewater tracers show there are small but detectable impacts from septic effluent on groundwater quality. Particle traces based on a groundwater flow model are consistent with the hypothesis that septic leachate has impacted groundwater quality.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据