U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Scientific Investigations Report 2010–5121

Environmental Baseline Study of the Huron River Watershed, 

Baraga and Marquette Counties, Michigan
Environmental Baseline Study of the Huron 

River Watershed, Baraga and Marquette 

Counties, Michigan

By Laurel G. Woodruff, Thomas L. Weaver, and William F. Cannon

Scientific Investigations Report 2010–5121

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
U.S. Department of the Interior

KEN SALAZAR, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

Marcia K. McNutt, Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2010

For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, 

natural hazards, and the environment, visit http://www.usgs.gov or call 1–888–ASK–USGS

For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, 

visit http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod.

To order this and other USGS information products, visit http://store.usgs.gov.

Suggested citation:

Woodruff, L.G., Weaver, T.L., and Cannon, W.F., 2010, Environmental baseline study of the Huron River Watershed, 

Baraga and Marquette Counties, Michigan: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2010–5121, 67 p., 

available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2010/5121/.

Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the 

U.S. Government.

Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to 

reproduce any copyrighted materials contained within this report.

On the cover. Photograph looking upstream at East Branch Huron River downstream of East Branch 

Falls. Photograph by T.L. Weaver, U.S. Geological Survey.
iii

Contents

Abstract...........................................................................................................................................................1

Introduction.....................................................................................................................................................1

Description of the Huron River Watershed ......................................................................................3

Climate...........................................................................................................................................3

Physiography................................................................................................................................3

Bedrock Geology..........................................................................................................................5

Glacial Geology ............................................................................................................................5

Soils................................................................................................................................................5

Previous Studies in the Huron River Watershed.............................................................................8

Methods of Data Collection and Analysis .................................................................................................8

Streamflow Measurement and Water-Quality Sampling...............................................................8

Streamflow Measurement .........................................................................................................8

Water-Quality Sampling..............................................................................................................8

Water-Quality Reporting Levels and Analysis ........................................................................9

Quality Assurance........................................................................................................................9

Soils and Stream Sediments...............................................................................................................9

Soil Sampling................................................................................................................................9

Streambed Sediment Sampling.................................................................................................9

Chemical Analyses ....................................................................................................................10

Quality Assurance and Quality Control for Soils and Streambed Sediments..................10

Statistical Methods for Soil and Streambed Sediment Data..............................................10

Ecological Assessment......................................................................................................................11

Streamflow...........................................................................................................................................11

East Branch Huron River, Downstream of East Branch Falls ............................................12

Tributary to East Branch Huron River.....................................................................................12

West Branch Huron River.........................................................................................................12

Robarge Creek............................................................................................................................13

Black Creek.................................................................................................................................13

Huron River at Big Eric’s Bridge..............................................................................................14

Results and Discussion...............................................................................................................................14

Water Quality of Streams in the Huron River Watershed ............................................................14

Field Water-Quality Parameters, Major Ions, and Alkalinity ..............................................15

Nutrients......................................................................................................................................15

Manganese, Nickel, Zinc, and Copper...................................................................................15

Mercury.......................................................................................................................................16

Soils and Streambed Sediments ......................................................................................................17

Total Digestion for Soils ............................................................................................................17

Vertical Variability among Soil Horizons.......................................................................17

Lateral Variability for Soils ..............................................................................................17

Total Digestion of Streambed Sediments...............................................................................21

Partial Digestion of Soils and Streambed Sediments..........................................................23

Ecological Assessment......................................................................................................................24
iv

Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) Study Results..........................24

Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) Study Results...............................25

Future Baseline Studies in the Lake Superior Basin .............................................................................25

Water-Quality Sampling.....................................................................................................................25

Soil and Streambed Sediment Sampling ........................................................................................26

Acknowledgments.......................................................................................................................................27

References Cited..........................................................................................................................................27

Appendix 1. List of Abbreviations ..........................................................................................................30

Appendix 2. Physical Properties and Concentrations of Major Elements, Solids, 

Nutrients, Metals, and Suspended Solids, Baraga County, Michigan......................31

Appendix 3. Mineral Soils (A,E, B, and C Horizons), Huron River Watershed, Michigan.............43

Appendix 4. Organic Soils (O Horizon), Huron River Watershed, Michigan...................................61

Appendix 5. Concentrations of 42 Elements From the Total Digestion of Samples and 

Partial Extraction Data for Streambed Sediments, Huron River Watershed, 

Michigan..............................................................................................................................65

Figures

1. Map showing the Huron River Watershed study area and vicinity, Marquette 

and Baraga Counties, Michigan.................................................................................................2

2. Map showing generalized geology of the west-central Upper Peninsula of 

Michigan, including geographic features, location of the Huron River 

Watershed, two known mineral deposits, and a small uranium prospect in the 

watershed ......................................................................................................................................3

3. Map showing distributions of water-quality, soil, streambed, and ecological 

assessment sample sites within the Huron River Watershed study area, 

Marquette and Baraga Counties, Michigan.............................................................................4

4. Map showing bedrock geology of the Huron River Watershed study area and 

vicinity, Marquette and Baraga Counties, Michigan..............................................................6

5. Map showing glacial geology of the Huron River Watershed study area and 

vicinity, Marquette and Baraga Counties, Michigan..............................................................7

6. A soil pit showing typical horizon development. Horizons are distinguished by 

color variations .............................................................................................................................8

7. Looking upstream at East Branch Huron River downstream of East Branch Falls .........12

8. Looking upstream at tributary to East Branch Huron River.................................................12

9. Looking A, upstream and B, downstream at West Branch Huron River...........................13

10. Looking downstream at Robarge Creek..................................................................................13

11. Looking upstream at Black Creek............................................................................................14

12. Looking A, upstream and B, downstream at Huron River at Big Eric’s Bridge.................14

13. Box plots showing the distribution of major and minor elements in soils by horizon 

for the Huron River Watershed, Marquette and Baraga Counties, Michigan..................18

14. Scatterplot matrix showing element correlation matrices for carbon, mercury, 

sulfur, and selenium in A-horizon soils for the Huron River Watershed, Marquette 

and Baraga Counties, Michigan.....................................................................................23
v

Tables

1. U.S. Geological Survey site number, station name, latitude, longitude, drainage 

area, and wetland area for water-quality sampling and streamflow-measurement 

sites in the Huron River Watershed, Marquette and Baraga Counties, Michigan..........11

2. U.S. Geological Survey National Water-Quality Laboratory schedules, and 

respective analytes used for sampling in the Huron River Watershed, Baraga 

and Marquette Counties, Michigan.........................................................................................15

3. Sensitivity of surface-water bodies to acid rain using alkalinity standards for 

Wisconsin ....................................................................................................................................15

4. Concentrations of total mercury and methylmercury in unfiltered water samples 

from the Huron River Watershed, Baraga and Marquette Counties, Michigan ..............16

5. Median values for concentrations of 41 elements in O-, A-, E-, B-, and C-horizon 

soils and from streambed sediments from the Huron River Watershed, Marquette 

and Baraga Counties, Michigan...............................................................................................22

6. Median values for concentrations of seven elements [arsenic (As), cadmium (Cd), 

copper (Cu), lead (Pb), molybdenum (Mo), silver (Ag), and zinc (Zn)] from partial 

extractions of O-, A-, E-, B-, and C-horizon soils and from streambed sediments 

from the Huron River Watershed, Marquette and Baraga Counties, Michigan ..............24

7. Spearman nonparametic correlation coefficients for total digestion and partial 

digestion analyses for six elements [arsenic (As), cadmium (Cd), copper (Cu), 

lead (Pb), molybdenum (Mo), and zinc (Zn)] common to soils and streambed 

sediments collected Huron River Watershed, Marquette and Baraga Counties, 

Michigan ......................................................................................................................................24
vi

Conversion Factors

Multiply By To obtain

Length

inch (in.) 25,400 micrometer (μ)

inch (in.) 25.4 micrometer (μ)

millimeter (mm) 0.03937 inch (in.)

inch (in.) 2.54 centimeter (cm)

centimeter (cm) 0.3937 inch (in.)

foot (ft) 0.3048 meter (m)

meter (m) 3.281 foot (ft)

mile (mi) 1.609 kilometer (km)

Area

acre 0.4047 hectare (ha)

square mile (mi2

) 2.590 square kilometer (km2)

Flow rate

cubic foot per second (ft3

/s) 0.02832 cubic meter per second (m3/s)

cubic foot per second per square mile 

[(ft3

/s)/mi2]

0.01093 cubic meter per second per square kilometer 

[(m3/s)/km2]

inch per year (in/yr) 25.40 millimeter per year (mm/yr)

Temperature in degrees Celsius (°C) may be converted to degrees Fahrenheit (°F) as follows:

°F=(1.8×°C)+32.

Temperature in degrees Fahrenheit (°F) may be converted to degrees Celsius (°C) as follows:

°C=(°F-32)/1.8.

In this report, altitude or elevation refers to vertical distance above the National Geodetic 

Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD 29)—a geodetic datum derived from a general adjustment of the 

first-order level nets of the United States and Canada, formerly called sea level Datum of 1929.

Runoff is the quantity of water that is discharged, or “runs off” from a drainage basin during a 

given time period. Runoff data in this study are reported as mean discharge per unit of drainage 

area in cubic feet per second per square mile [(ft3/s)/mi2

].

Specific conductance is given in microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius (μS/cm at 

25°C).

Concentrations of chemical constituents in water are given in milligrams per liter (mg/L), 

micrograms per liter (μg/L), nanograms per liter (ng/L), micrograms per gram (μg/g), or 

micrograms per kilogram (μg/kg). For concentrations less than 7,000 mg/L, the numerical value 

is the same as for concentrations in parts per million (ppm).

Concentrations of chemical constituents in soil and streambed sediment are given in weight 

percent (wt. %) and in parts per million (ppm).
Environmental Baseline Study of the Huron River 

Watershed, Baraga and Marquette Counties, Michigan

By Laurel G. Woodruff, Thomas L. Weaver, and William F. Cannon

Abstract

This report summarizes results of a study to establish 

water-quality and geochemical baseline conditions within a 

small watershed in the Lake Superior region. In 2008, the U.S. 

Geological Survey (USGS) completed a survey of water-quality 

parameters and soil and streambed sediment geochemistry of 

the 83 mi2 Huron River Watershed in the Upper Peninsula of 

Michigan. Streamflow was measured and water-quality samples 

collected at a range of flow conditions from six sites on the 

major tributaries of the Huron River. All water samples were 

analyzed for a suite of common ions, nutrients, and trace metals. In addition, water samples from each site were analyzed 

for unfiltered total and methylmercury once during summer 

low-flow conditions. Soil samples were collected from 31 sites, 

with up to 4 separate samples collected at each site, delineated 

by soil horizon. Streambed sediments were collected from 11 

sites selected to cover most of the area drained by the Huron 

River system. USGS data were supplemented with ecological 

assessments completed in 2006 by the Michigan Department of 

Environmental Quality using a modified version of their Great 

Lakes Environmental Assessment Section procedure 51, and 

again during 2008 using volunteers under supervision of the 

Michigan Department of Natural Resources.

Results from this study define a hydrological, geological, 

and environmental baseline for the Huron River Watershed 

prior to any significant mineral exploration or development. 

Results from the project also serve to refine the design of 

future regional environmental baseline studies in the Lake 

Superior Basin. 

Introduction

The Lake Superior watershed contains a diverse set of 

environmental conditions ranging from nearly pristine to 

highly developed and locally urbanized. Human impact on the 

watershed and lake has occurred for well over a century. Major 

industrial activity has been, and will likely continue to be, 

related to the timber and mining industries. Growing concern 

over the ecological health of the lake and watershed and their 

restoration suggests that surveying and monitoring humaninduced changes will be critical. Effective monitoring of 

future changes requires a well-established baseline of current 

conditions. The importance of such baselines was eloquently 

stated by Mary Lou Zoback in her 2000 presidential address to 

the Geological Society of America (Zoback, 2001):

“Our long-term goal for environmental science 

should be to understand natural and perturbed 

systems well enough to predict outcomes, consequences, and impacts.... Documenting and understanding natural variability is a vexing topic in 

almost every environmental problem: How do we 

recognize and understand changes in natural systems 

if we don’t understand the range of baseline levels?”

In that spirit, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) completed a detailed investigation of the Huron River Watershed 

in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan that mapped the current 

baseline chemistry of surface waters, soils, and stream sediments. A further goal of the study was to test and possibly refine 

the field protocols and analytical techniques used in this survey 

to maximize both the efficiency and effectiveness of any future, 

similar baseline determinations in the Lake Superior region.

The western Lake Superior region has long been a major 

area of mining for iron and copper. There also is potential for 

mining magmatic sulfides containing nickel, copper, cobalt, 

and platinum-group elements. Concentrations of these elements 

are known to occur extensively in both the Upper Peninsula of 

Michigan and northeastern Minnesota, all within the western 

part of the Lake Superior Watershed. In Michigan, owners of 

one magmatic sulfide deposit are currently in the permitting 

process required for mining and will likely move toward production in the near future. A number of other mineral prospects 

are also being explored. In Minnesota, roughly three billion tons 

of mineralized rock in several large deposits has been proven 

by diamond drilling, and at least one or two deposits may be in 

production within the decade. If other mineral deposits in the 

region currently undergoing evaluation move to mine development, there will be a need for environmental protection. 

The Huron River is composed of several major branches 

and numerous smaller tributaries that drain about 83 square 

miles (mi2

) in northwestern Marquette and northeastern Baraga 

Counties in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan (fig. 1). The 

Huron River Watershed is sparsely populated with scattered 

permanent residences and recreational camps. There is little 

agriculture; however, extensive timber harvesting has taken 
2 Environmental Baseline Study of the Huron River Watershed, Baraga and Marquette Counties, Michigan

place for many decades. There are small areas of mineralization 

and small prospects, but no major mineral deposits are known 

in the watershed. However, there is considerable current interest 

in mineral exploration regionally. In the western Upper Peninsula, several significant mineral deposits have been discovered 

in recent years. Permits to mine a deposit about 12 miles east 

of the watershed (Eagle) are currently under consideration; 

another deposit about 20 miles west of the watershed (BIC) has 

been significantly explored (fig. 2). Although the environmental permitting process for a proposed mine generally requires 

establishment of detailed environmental baselines for the area 

proximal to mineralization, a more general regional baseline 

is also important to place these spatially restricted studies into 

a broader regional context to monitor potential future impacts. 

With current interest in Great Lakes restoration, and with the 

probability of continued, if not increased, utilization of forest 

and mineral resources in the region, it seems timely to develop 

regional information on current baseline conditions. 

To provide such baseline data for the Huron River Watershed, the following elements were completed: (1) sampled 

water-quality parameters and measured streamflow at six sites 

at a range of flow conditions, (2) established a baseline surface 

water-quality database, (3) collected and analyzed soil samples 

from 31 sites, and (4) collected and analyzed streambed sediment 

Figure 1. Map showing the 

Huron River Watershed study 

area and vicinity, Marquette 

and Baraga Counties, 

Michigan.
Introduction 3

samples from 11 sites (fig. 3A–C). An essential component of 

any baseline watershed study is an assessment of ecological 

conditions. For this study in the Huron River Watershed, the 

ecological assessment component utilized data collected in 2006 

by the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) 

and in 2008 by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources 

(MDNR) (fig. 3D). These data can be compiled into an established baseline geochemical database for the Huron River 

Watershed. Experiences in the field and an evaluation of the data 

suggest that similar studies might be made in other watersheds.

Description of the Huron River Watershed

Climate

Temperature, precipitation, and snowfall data were measured by a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

(NOAA) cooperative climate observer at Big Bay, Michigan 

(located about 15 mi east of the study area; fig. 2). All climatic 

data for 2008 were accessed at the National Climate Data Center 

by David Pearson (NOAA Hydrologist, written commun., 2009).

The climate of the Huron River Watershed is typical of 

the northern Great Lakes Basin. Seasonal variability of climate 

in the watershed is appreciable, with cooler temperatures and 

greater precipitation occurring inland and in higher elevation 

areas of the watershed. Monthly precipitation measured as rain 

and rain equivalent snowfall at the NOAA station at Big Bay 

in 2008 ranged from 0.82 inches to 3.52 inches, with annual 

precipitation of 26.6 inches. Mean-monthly temperatures 

ranged from 15.5°F to 64.9°F and the mean-annual temperature is 41.0°F. The freeze-free period ranges from 100 to 140 

days, averaging about 120 days.

Physiography

The Huron River Watershed is within the Superior Upland 

Province of the Laurentian Upland (Fenneman, 1928). The 

area is a glacial landscape characterized by mainly bedrockcontrolled moraines and smaller areas of glaciofluvial deposits 

BIC deposit Eagle deposit

x

Uranium 

prospect

L’Anse

Big Bay

Skanee

Marquette

Mount

Arvon

46°45'

88°00' 87°30'

Lake Superior

Mesoproterozoic rocks Archean rocks

Jacobsville Formation Michigamme Formation

Sandstone Slate

Quartzite

Granitic gneiss

EXPLANATION

Bedrock geology from Michigan Center for Geographic Information, 1987, 1:63,360

Paleoproterozoic rocks

Volcanics and sedimentary rocks

Huron River Watershed outline

LAKE SUPERIOR

Area of figure 2

0 5 10 15 20 MILES

0 5 10 15 20 KILOMETERS

Figure 2. Map showing generalized geology of the west-central Upper Peninsula of Michigan, including geographic features, location of 

the Huron River Watershed, two known mineral deposits, and a small uranium prospect in the watershed.
4 Environmental Baseline Study of the Huron River Watershed, Baraga and Marquette Counties, Michigan

82

56

84

83

19

BARAGA COUNTY

MARQUETTE COUNTY

LAKE SUPERIOR

88°10' 88°00'

46°45'

46°50'

D N

0 1 2 3 4 MILES

0 1 2 3 4 KILOMETERS

LAKE SUPERIOR

"

"

" "

""

""

"

"

"

9

4 8 7

3

6

5

2

11

10

1

88°10' 88°00'

46°45'

46°50'

C

BARAGA COUNTY

MARQUETTE COUNTY

N

0 1 2 3 4 MILES

0 1 2 3 4 KILOMETERS

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

! !

20 21

22 23

24

11

31

05

12

30

29

13 28

19

18

17

02

27

25

04

16

10 14

09

07

08

03

15 26

06

01

! Road

dust

LAKE SUPERIOR

88°10' 88°00'

46°45'

46°50'

B

BARAGA COUNTY

MARQUETTE COUNTY

N

0 1 2 3 4 MILES

0 1 2 3 4 KILOMETERS

04043200

04043198

04043194

04043190

04043183

04043182

LAKE SUPERIOR

88°10' 88°00'

46°45'

46°50'

A N

BARAGA COUNTY

MARQUETTE COUNTY

0 1 2 3 4 MILES

0 1 2 3 4 KILOMETERS
Introduction 5

dissected by numerous streams and rivers. The highest bedrock 

peak in Michigan, Mount Arvon (1,979 feet above sea level), 

is adjacent to the southwestern part the Huron River Watershed 

(fig. 2). Uplands support stands of mixed northern hardwoods 

and pine; sugar maple, oak, white ash, yellow birch, cedar, 

white pine, jack pine, and red pine are the dominant tree species.

Bedrock Geology

The bedrock geology of the Huron River Watershed 

consists of three principal units of varying age and character (Cannon, 1977). As shown on figure 4, granitic gneiss of 

Archean age (approximately 2.7 billion years old) underlies 

the southern part of the watershed and a small area of the 

northeastern part. The majority of the watershed is underlain 

by weakly metamorphosed sedimentary rocks of the Paleoproterozoic Michigamme Formation (approximately 1.8 billion 

years old). The Michigamme Formation in this area consists 

of a thin basal quartzite overlain by a thick sequence of shale 

and slate. Much of the slate is dark gray to black and contains 

appreciable amounts of organic carbon (C) as well as sulfide 

minerals, including pyrite and pyrrhotite. The youngest rocks 

in the watershed are sandstones of the Jacobsville Formation, which underlies the northern and northeastern part of the 

watershed. The age of the Jacobsville Formation is not well 

constrained but is currently interpreted as being approximately 

1.0 billion years old (Roy and Robertson, 1978).

Currently, mineral exploration in the Huron River Watershed is focused on magmatic sulfides in mafic and ultramafic 

rocks of the 1.1 billion year old Midcontinent rift (Rossell, 

2008). Other known mineralization within the watershed 

includes a small, undeveloped uranium prospect with unique 

mineralogy, including cadmium (Cd), copper (Cu), lead (Pb), 

nickel (Ni), silver (Ag), vanadium (V), yttrium (Y), and zinc 

(Zn) minerals, that crops out in a small waterfall in the East 

Branch Huron River (Carlson and others, 2007). Bedrock outcrops with somewhat anomalous geochemistry, such as high 

uranium in phosphatic materials in the northern part of the 

watershed, and traces of sulfides in crosscutting quartz veins 

have also been documented (Kalliokoski and Lynott, 1987).

Glacial Geology

Glacial deposits in the Huron River Watershed consist 

largely of lodgement till of various types (Peterson, 1984) 

(fig. 5). Based on the lithology of pebbles, most of the tills are 

derived from local bedrock with a smaller component derived 

from more far-transported material. Thus, in large part the 

glacial deposits reflect the character of the localized underlying bedrock. All of the glacial materials were deposited during 

the late Pleistocene between 10,000 and 13,000 years ago by 

several different ice lobes that occupied the Lake Superior Basin 

at that time (Peterson, 1984). Parts of the modern Lake Superior 

shoreline, including the mouth of the Huron River, are covered 

by Holocene windblown sands and beach deposits (fig. 5).

Soils

The soils of the Huron River Watershed have been mapped 

in detail by the National Resource Conservation Service (Berndt, 1988; Schwenner, 2007). The soil samples collected in this 

study are all upland soils classified in the order Spodosols and 

suborder Orthods. Spodosols are a group of soils that are characterized by the presence of a spodic horizon in which active 

amorphous organic matter and aluminum have accumulated. 

This spodic horizon is the B horizon as designated by horizon 

sampling. Orthods are a subdivision of Spodosols in which the 

organic carbon content of the spodic horizon is relatively low 

(<6 percent organic carbon). In the Huron River Watershed, 

soils developed on Pleistocene till are generally sandy and 

cobbly. The majority of the soil sample sites in this study are 

in moderately to well-drained soils, and a few sites near Lake 

Superior are in excessively drained soils. Soils were collected by 

horizon rather than by fixed depths. Sampled horizons include a 

surficial organic mat (O horizon), an underlying mineral soil rich 

in organic material (A horizon), a gray sandy leached mineral 

soil developed at some but not all sites (E horizon), the reddish 

Figure 3 (facing page and above). A, Map showing distribution 

of water-quality sample sites within the Huron River Watershed 

study area, Marquette and Baraga Counties, Michigan. B, Map 

showing distribution of soil sample sites within the Huron River 

Watershed study area, Marquette and Baraga Counties, Michigan. 

C, Map showing distribution of streambed-sediment sample 

sites within the Huron River Watershed study area, Marquette 

and Baraga Counties, Michigan. D, Map showing distribution of 

ecological assessment sites within the Huron River Watershed 

study area, Marquette and Baraga Counties, Michigan.

MICHIGAN

Huron River 

Watershed

study area

L

Lake Erie

ake Michigan

Lake Superior

Lake Huron
6 Environmental Baseline Study of the Huron River Watershed, Baraga and Marquette Counties, Michigan

Figure 4. Map showing 

bedrock geology of the Huron 

River Watershed study area 

and vicinity, Marquette and 

Baraga Counties, Michigan.

Mesoproterozoic rocks Archean rocks

Jacobsville Formation Michigamme Formation

Sandstone Slate

Quartzite

Granitic gneiss

EXPLANATION

!

"

Soil sample site

Streambed-sediment sample site

Waterquality sample site

Huron River Watershed outline

Hydrologic features, roads, and locations from Michigan Center for Geographic Information, 2006, 1:24,000

Bedrock geology from Cannon, 1977, 1: 62,500

Paleoproterozoic rocks

Amphibolite

0 1 2 3 4 MILES

0 1 2 3 4 KILOMETERS

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

"

"

" "

""

""

"

"

"

88°10' 88°00'

46°45'

46°50'

LAKE SUPERIOR

N
Introduction 7

0 1 2 3 4 MILES

0 1 2 3 4 KILOMETERS

EXPLANATION

Red sandy to very sandy till composed largely of material from the Jacobsville

 Formation. Deposited by Keweenaw Bay ice lobe

Stony, sandy gray and brown till, gravel, and sand. Deposited by Langlade, 

 Keweenaw Bay, and Michigamme ice lobes

Gravel, sand, and gray and brown till as thin, discontinuous veneer over bedrock.

 Deposited by Keweenaw Bay and Michigamme ice lobes

Lake Superior

!

"

Soil sample site

Streambed-sediment sample site

Hydrologic features, roads, and locations from Michigan Center for Geographic Information, 2006, 1:24,000

Glacial geology from Peterson, 1984, 1: 250,000

Holocene windblown sand and beach deposits

Water-quality sample site

Huron River Watershed outline

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

LAKE SUPERIOR

"

"

" "

""

""

"

"

"

88°10' 88°00'

46°45'

46°50'

N

Figure 5. Map showing 

glacial geology of the Huron 

River Watershed study area 

and vicinity, Marquette and 

Baraga Counties, Michigan.
8 Environmental Baseline Study of the Huron River Watershed, Baraga and Marquette Counties, Michigan

spodic horizon (B horizon), and the parent material (C horizon). 

Not all horizons were present at all sites. A soil pit showing typical soil horizon development is shown in figure 6.

Previous Studies in the Huron River Watershed

The USGS has measured stream discharge periodically at 

site 04043200 on the Huron River (fig. 3A)—three times from 

1964 to 1976 to document baseflow conditions, and six times 

in 2008 to establish a stage-discharge rating appropriate for 

clear-channel conditions. Streamflow data are available at the 

USGS National Water Information System (NWIS) Web site 

accessible at http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/sw.

Few geochemical studies of the Huron River Watershed are known. The National Uranium Resource Evaluation 

(NURE) Hydrogeochemical and Stream Sediment Reconnaissance Program of the 1970s collected stream sediments 

and samples from groundwater wells in the Upper Peninsula 

of Michigan, as well as in surrounding States, primarily to 

document the presence of uranium (Smith, 1997). Geochemical data are available for water samples collected from two 

sites within the Huron River Watershed as part of the NURE 

Program (USGS, 2006).

The USGS has also been involved with several studies of 

water resources of nearby areas. These include a report for a 

cooperative project between the USGS and the Michigan Geological Survey on Baraga County groundwater and geology 

(Doonan and Byerlay, 1973); a USGS study of streams within 

the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community reservation (Sweat 

and Rheaume, 1998); and a USGS study on the Silver River 

Watershed by Weaver and others (2010).

Methods of Data Collection and Analysis

Streamflow Measurement and Water-Quality 

Sampling

Streamflow Measurement

Streamflow was measured at six sites distributed across 

the watershed (fig. 3A) using standard USGS techniques 

(Carter and Davidian, 1968; Rantz, 1982), typically with a 

vertical axis current meter and wading rod, although a boatmounted acoustic Doppler current profiler was also used at 

one site during high-flow conditions when the stream was not 

wadeable. Each streamflow measurement made by USGS is 

rated by the hydrographer, ranging from poor to excellent, and 

intended to convey the accuracy of a measurement. A number 

of factors are considered when rating a discharge measurement, including but not limited to characteristics of the measurement cross section, spacing and number of observation 

verticals, distribution of flow in the cross section, variability 

of velocity during the timed interval, and extent of change in 

stream elevation during the discharge measurement.

Although there are no streamflow-monitoring stations 

located within the Huron River Watershed, there are three 

continuous-record streamflow-monitoring stations located 10 

to 20 mi away in the adjacent Silver River Watershed. Historic 

and current stage and streamflow data from the Huron River 

and Silver River sites are available at several USGS Web sites, 

including http://mi.water.usgs.gov and http://waterdata.usgs.

gov/nwis/sw.

Water-Quality Sampling

Water-quality data were collected at the same six sites 

where streamflow was measured (fig. 3A) using standard 

techniques and methods described in the USGS National 

Field Manual for the Collection of Water-Quality Data (USGS 

NFM) (available at http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A). All 

water-quality samples were analyzed at the USGS National 

Water Quality Laboratory (NWQL) following their Quality 

Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) plan, except unfiltered 

total and methylmercury samples, which were analyzed by the 

USGS Wisconsin Mercury Research Laboratory.

Spring sampling began shortly after ice out (when ice was 

fully melted on the streams) and was undertaken as soon as 

sites became accessible to vehicular travel and when streamflow was low enough to wade safely and not damage sampling 

equipment. Spring sampling was completed prior to active 

terrestrial vegetation growth. Summer (or low-flow) sampling 

was accomplished after the streams reached baseflow conditions 

and while vegetation was still in the growth stage (before any 

killing frosts). Field water-quality parameters were measured 

(pH, specific conductance, dissolved oxygen concentration, 

and water temperature) using a multiparameter meter calibrated 

O horizon

decayed organic matter

A horizon

mineral soil mixed with

organic matter

E horizon

leached zone

B horizon

accumulation zone

C horizon

weathering parent material

Figure 6. A soil pit showing typical horizon development. Horizons 

are distinguished by color variations. The ruler is 1 foot in length.
Methods of Data Collection and Analysis 9

daily following the procedure outlined in the USGS National 

Field Manual for the Collection of Water-Quality Data (NFM) 

(USGS, variously dated). Samples were collected using a protocleaned sampler suitable to the particular streamflow conditions at each site. In narrow, shallow streams, this was typically 

accomplished by means of a handheld sample bottle; the bottle 

is simply held by hand below the top of the water surface and 

moved from side to side in the channel to assure the sample is 

representative of the entire cross section. At wadeable sites with 

greater depth and higher velocity streamflows, a DH81 sampler 

and equal-width-increment protocol were used. The equal-width 

increment protocol, which is described in chapter A4 of the 

USGS NFM, consists of sampling the stream at a number of 

equally spaced verticals at a constant transit rate. The combination of the same constant transit rate and the isokinetic property 

of the sampler results in a discharge-weighted sample that is 

proportional to streamflow. Several liters of water were collected at each site and composited in a churn splitter to ensure 

homogeneity prior to any samples being drawn off.

Water-Quality Reporting Levels and Analysis 

The USGS NWQL has established reporting levels for various analytical procedures (Childress and others, 1999), and this 

section largely is excerpted from that report. In the following sections of this report, tabulated data are reported as “uncensored,” 

“censored,” or “estimated.” Uncensored data are data reported as 

an unqualified numerical value. Censored data are reported as less 

than a particular reporting level [for example, <0.12 milligrams 

per liter (mg/L)]. Censored data result either from the analyte 

not being present or, if seemingly present, from an inability to 

conclusively identify it. Estimated data are reported as qualified 

numerical values with an “E” before the number (for example, 

E0.057). Estimated values can be less than, at, or greater than the 

analytical reporting level. An estimated value less than the reporting level means that the analyte can be identified and measured, 

but with less than 99-percent confidence that it is present. Estimated values at or above the analytical reporting level can result 

from a poor-performance record of the analyte with the analytical 

method, matrix interference, or small sample volume.

Reporting levels and detection limits used by the USGS 

NWQL include the minimum reporting level (MRL), method 

detection limit (MDL), long-term method detection limit 

(LT–MDL), and laboratory reporting level (LRL). The MRL 

is the lowest measured concentration of an analyte that can be 

reliably reported. The MDL is the minimum concentration that 

can be measured and reported with a 99-percent confidence 

that the analyte is present. The LT–MDL is derived from the 

standard deviation of a minimum of 24 MDL spike samples 

over an extended period. The LRL generally is equal to twice 

the LT–MDL. The probability of reporting an analyte as nondetected when it is present is less than 1 percent at the LRL. 

The LRL is used when the USGS NWQL determines that an 

MRL is no longer appropriate to a specific analyte or analytical method. A concentration measured between the LRL and 

LT–MDL is reported as estimated.

Quality Assurance

An unpublished Quality-Assurance Program Plan 

(QAPP), prepared by the USGS Michigan Water Science 

Center and Keweenaw Bay Indian Community (KBIC) environmental staff for a 4-year study (2005–08) of the adjacent 

Silver River Watershed by Weaver and others, was also followed for the streamflow measurement and water-quality sampling parts of this study. The water-quality sampling processes 

outlined in the KBIC Silver River QAPP followed USGS 

standard practices and were approved by the USGS NWQL 

and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) region 5 

prior to that study. 

Soils and Stream Sediments

Soil Sampling

Soils were collected at 31 sites distributed across the watershed (fig. 3B). Samples were collected from hand-dug or augered 

excavations. Soil horizons were identified by physical characteristics observable in the field with assistance of pedon descriptions developed by the Natural Resources Conservation Service. 

Where possible, samples of the O, A, E, B, and C horizons were 

collected (fig. 6). In some cases two or more subhorizons of the 

B horizon were collected, based on color differences. A sample 

of road dust was collected from Black Creek Road (figs. 1, 3B). 

The sample was a composite of fine material gathered within a 

10-meter radius in the center of the road on a dry day.

Samples were dried at room temperature and sieved 

through 2-millimeter (mm) screens. The O horizon was collected from a known area and weighed after air drying to 

allow later calculations of the amount of various chemical 

components per unit surface area. A-horizon soils were collected from a determined volume and also weighed after air 

drying to determine soil density, which can be used to determine the quantity of an element per unit area. The <2-mm-size 

fraction was submitted for chemical analyses.

Streambed Sediment Sampling

Streambed sediment samples were collected at 11 sites, 

chosen to sample streams draining the majority of the Huron 

River Watershed (fig. 3C). Samples were hand collected in 

September, 2008, during low flow to maximize access to 

depositional area. Samples were taken from depositional areas 

within an approximately 50-meter reach using a stainless steel 

scoop. Within each sampling area, between 500 and 1,000 

grams of material were composited and placed into acid-rinsed 

polyethylene jars. In the laboratory, samples were air-dried, 

gently disaggregated, and dry sieved through a 150-micrometer (μm) Teflon® screen. The <150 μm fraction, comprising 

very fine sand, silt, and clay, was submitted for chemical 

analyses.
10 Environmental Baseline Study of the Huron River Watershed, Baraga and Marquette Counties, Michigan

Chemical Analyses

The analytical techniques used for mineral soils and 

streambed sediments are similar to those employed in many 

recent USGS soil geochemical studies. The following description of techniques is slightly modified from that provided by 

Smith and others (2009) for a North American-scale survey 

currently underway. The prepared samples were sent to a commercial geochemical laboratory for major and trace element 

analysis. The analytical methods used are similar to those used 

by the laboratories of the USGS Mineral Resources Program, 

described in Taggart (2002).

For a near-total digestion analysis for the concentrations 

of a suite of major and trace elements, 0.25 grams of soil was 

decomposed using a mixture of hydrochloric acid (HCl), nitric 

acid (HNO3), perchloric acid (HClO4), and hydrofluoric acid 

(HF) at low temperature. The use of these four acids results in 

an almost total dissolution for most mineral constituents of soil. 

However, it does not fully dissolve some of the more refractory 

or resistant minerals. Examples of such incomplete dissolution 

include barium in barite, chromium in chromite, titanium in 

rutile, tin in cassiterite, aluminum in corundum, and rare-earth 

elements in monazite (Briggs, 2002). An aliquot of the digested 

sample was aspirated into an inductively coupled plasma mass 

spectrometer (ICP–MS) and an inductively coupled plasma 

atomic emission spectrometer (ICP–AES) and the concentrations of the optimal elements were determined. ICP–AES is best 

for the major elements, sulfur, and elements with relatively high 

concentrations not requiring a low detection limit. ICP–MS is 

optimal for trace elements requiring lower limits of determination near or below their crustal abundance, and elements not 

determined by inductively coupled plasma mass spectroscopy 

(ICP–AES). The 42 elements determined by this ICP–MS/

AES method were aluminum (Al), antimony (Sb), arsenic (As), 

barium (Ba), beryllium (Be), bismuth (Bi), cadmium (Cd), 

calcium (Ca), cerium (Ce), cesium (Cs), chromium (Cr), cobalt 

(Co), copper (Cu), gallium (Ga), indium (In), iron (Fe), lanthanum (La), lead (Pb), lithium (Li), magnesium (Mg), manganese 

(Mn), molybdenum (Mo), nickel (Ni), niobium (Nb), phosphorus (P), potassium (K), rubidium (Rb), scandium (Sc), silver 

(Ag), sodium (Na), strontium (Sr), sulfur (S), tellurium (Te), 

thorium (Th), thallium (Tl), titanium (Ti), tin (Sn), tungsten 

(W), uranium (U), vanadium (V), yttrium (Y), and zinc (Zn) 

(Briggs and Meier, 2002). Mercury (Hg) analysis was done on 

a separate split of the sample by cold vapor-atomic absorption 

spectroscopy. Selenium (Se) analysis was done on a separate 

split of the sample by hydride generation-atomic absorption 

spectroscopy. A separate split of the sample was analyzed for 

total carbon using an automated carbon analyzer.

In addition to the near-total digestion technique described 

above, all mineral soils and bed sediments were also analyzed 

using a partial extraction method. A widely used extraction technique [Aliquot/methyl isobutyl ketone (MIBK)] was employed 

with ICP–AES (Taggart, 2002). A hydrochloric acid-hydrogen 

peroxide solution solubilizes metals not tightly bound in the 

silicate lattice of soil minerals. The metals are extracted by a 

10 percent Aliquot 336-diisobutylketone (DIBK) solution as 

organic halides. The separated organic phase is pneumatically 

aspirated into a multichannel ICP instrument where the concentrations of the extracted metals [Ag, As, Bi, Cd, Cu, gold 

(Au), Mo, Pb, Sb, and Zn] are determined simultaneously. It is 

important to note that this procedure is a partial digestion and 

depending on an element’s availability, results may be biased 

low when compared to other methods of analyses.

O-horizon soils were milled and split, with one portion 

set aside and the remainder of the sample ashed at 500°C for 

13 hours at the USGS analytical laboratory in Denver, Colo. 

The unashed split was analyzed for mercury and selenium 

and the ashed portion was analyzed for the 42 elements listed 

above. Analysis of O-horizon soils utilized the same analytical 

methods as described above for mineral soils. 

Quality Assurance and Quality Control for Soils 

and Streambed Sediments

The quality assurance (QA) focus is mainly in the domain 

of the analytical laboratory. Under the QA umbrella, the 

components of standard operating procedures, instrument logs, 

training records, data acceptance/rejection criteria and laboratory audits are included. Unlike the unquantifiable QA element, 

the quality control (QC) element measures the accuracy and 

precision of the data produced by an analytical method. The 

accuracy and precision are established through the analysis of 

reference materials and sample replicates, respectively. The 

samples taken through the analytical process for inorganic 

constituents received QC checks on three separate levels. The 

first level of quality assurance involved QC assessment by the 

USGS contract laboratory. In the next level, QC was assessed 

by the USGS Mineral Resource Team QC officer, followed by 

the third-level assessment by the USGS principal investigator. 

The USGS contract laboratory is accredited to the International 

Organization for Standardization Information Centre (ISO/IEC) 

17025 standard, which includes both QA and QC protocols. 

QC is monitored by analyzing a reference material with every 

batch of 48 samples. The reference material most often used is 

a syenite rock standard developed by the Canadian Centre for 

Mineral and Energy Technology (Govindaraju, 1989). Shewhart 

Control Charts (Taylor, 1987) are generated for the reference 

material analyses and reviewed with every report as part of the 

internal quality audits. The accuracy of elements determined by 

the ICP–MS and ICP–AES methods was considered acceptable 

if recovery was within the range of 85 to 115 percent at 5 times 

the lower limit of detection (LLD). The accuracy for mercury 

and selenium was considered acceptable if recovery was within 

80 to 120 percent at 5 times the LLD.

Statistical Methods for Soil and Streambed 

Sediment Data

Variations in soil geochemistry and streambed sediment geochemistry were evaluated using the Kruskal-Wallis 
Methods of Data Collection and Analysis 11

one-way analysis of variance for multiple groups and the 

Mann-Whitney U-test to compare two groups (Systat 11.0 

statistical software package; Sokal and Rohlf, 1981). These 

nonparametric tests evaluate the null hypothesis, which stated 

that there are no chemical differences among soils collected 

in glacial units derived from different bedrock units. Rejection of the null hypothesis at the 95-percent confidence level 

is denoted by a p value less than or equal to 0.05, and was 

taken as evidence that there existed a significant difference in 

the concentrations of some elements. For statistical analysis, 

a value of half the lower limit of detection was substituted for 

censored values for individual elements. 

Ecological Assessment

Typically, a thorough ecological assessment is conducted 

in late summer or early fall for the purposes of identifying fish 

and aquatic macroinvertebrate populations present in a stream 

as well as the generalized stream-channel geometry. An ecological assessment provides an excellent “snapshot” of the general 

health of the sampled stream reach, and is particularly useful for 

documenting long-term changes in stream health when repeated 

regularly over a period of years. Ecological assessments of sites 

on the Huron River Watershed have been completed recently by 

the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) 

and the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). 

The study team chose to use those data rather than duplicate 

State of Michigan efforts for this study.

The MDEQ completed an ecological investigation of 

five Huron River sites in 2006. The MDEQ investigation was 

completed using a modified version of the MDEQ Great Lakes 

Environmental Assessment Section (GLEAS) procedure 51 

(MDEQ, 2008), which is a qualitative biological and habitat 

survey protocol for wadeable streams that has been extensively employed in Michigan for several years. The GLEAS 51 

protocol consists of separate qualitative evaluations of the fish 

community, macroinvertebrate community, and habitat quality, 

completed in that order to minimize disruption of the sampled 

communities. The USGS uses a similar, but more intensive and 

complex, protocol when evaluating the ecological health of 

streams that investigates algae, invertebrate, and fish communities (Moulton and others, 2002). In the GLEAS 51 procedure, 

each survey station is described by up to three numbers or 

metrics; one each for the fish, macroinvertebrates, and habitat. 

An excellent-quality stream for the ecoregion would have the 

most metrics performing as an excellent site, while the metrics 

from a poor-quality stream would be substantially different than 

those of an excellent site. Use of metrics creates a uniform and 

systematic evaluation for each site, with the result expressed as 

a single numerical value that is easily compared to other sites.

Fishes.—Much of the Huron River Watershed is primarily a coldwater fishery, with numbers of salmonids present at 

several of the sampling sites. Salmonids are members of the 

fish family Salmonidae, which includes salmon, trout, and 

whitefish. The GLEAS 51 protocol for coldwater fisheries is 

much simpler than for warm-water fisheries. Target streams 

are evaluated for the presence of at least 50 fish, and for the 

relative abundance of anomalies and salmonids collected 

(MDEQ, 2007). A fish community component of the GLEAS 

51 procedure was not completed by the MDEQ in 2006 or by 

the MDNR in 2008 because previous MDNR fisheries surveys 

conducted in the watershed over the past 60 years have confirmed that brook trout (Salvenius fontinalis) is the primary 

salmonid that resides in the watershed year round. There are 

numerous other species of fish in the watershed as well.

Streamflow

Streamflow was measured at six sites concurrent with 

water-quality sampling (fig. 3A) and results are included in 

appendix 2. Geographic location information and drainage and 

wetland areas for the six sites are included in table 1.

Table 1. U.S. Geological Survey site number, station name, latitude, longitude, drainage area, and wetland area for water-quality 

sampling and streamflow-measurement sites in the Huron River Watershed, Marquette and Baraga Counties, Michigan.

[Numerical values in the table are rounded to the nearest hundredth, except drainage areas and percentages, which are rounded to the nearest tenth; all areas in 

square miles; NA, not applicable]

U.S. Geological 

Survey station 

number 

U.S. Geological Survey

station name Latitude Longitude Drainage 

area

Wetland 

area

Percentage of 

basin comprising 

wetlands

04043182 EAST BRANCH HURON RIVER downstream of East 

Branch Falls, near McComb Corner

46o51’02” 88o03’52” 26.4 2.66 10.1

04043183 TRIBUTARY TO EAST BRANCH HURON RIVER, near 

McComb Corner

46o51’06” 88o03’45” 6.6 0.42 6.3

04043190 WEST BRANCH HURON RIVER, near McComb Corner 46o48’23” 88o05’15” 10.8 0.55 5.1

04043194 ROBARGE CREEK, near McComb Corner 46o48’49” 88o03’03” 5.9 0.25 4.3

04043198 BLACK CREEK, near McComb Corner 46o51’13” 88o06’32” 9.6 0.14 1.5

04043200 HURON RIVER AT BIG ERIC’S BRIDGE, near Skanee 46o51’54” 88o04’57” 73.2 4.47 6.1

Study area total NA NA 83.1
12 Environmental Baseline Study of the Huron River Watershed, Baraga and Marquette Counties, Michigan

moderate gradient and is composed of numerous riffles of rocks, 

boulders, exposed bedrock, and debris jams (fig. 8). Although 

the site is easily measured and sampled in the spring, finding 

adequate sections during periods of low streamflow can be difficult. Near-shore vegetation is somewhat brushier than along the 

East Branch Huron River. Measured streamflow ranged from 

1.12 to 12.4 ft3/s.

West Branch Huron River

USGS station 04043190 on the West Branch Huron River 

is located where the river is crossed by a bridge for Black 

Creek Road, about 5 mi from Skanee Road (fig. 1). A drainage area of about 10.8 mi2

 (fig. 3A) is measured at station 

04043190. The stream channel is moderate-to-high gradient 

upstream and downstream at the station site. Numerous rock 

riffles are present upstream (fig. 9A) and a bedrock controlled 

waterfall is located about 35 ft downstream of the bridge and 

additional rock riffles are present downstream of that (fig. 9B). 

Water-quality sampling and streamflow measurements both 

are easily made at the site. The near-shore vegetation consists 

primarily of hardwoods, cedar, and pine in the area of the sampling site. Measured streamflow ranged from 2.79 to 34.8 ft3

/s.

East Branch Huron River, Downstream of East 

Branch Falls 

The East Branch Huron River USGS station 04043182, 

downstream of East Branch Falls, is located about 0.5 miles 

from Big Bay Road (fig. 1). The drainage basin at station 

04043182 includes an area of about 26.4 mi2 (fig. 3A). The 

stream channel has a moderate to high gradient from East 

Branch Falls, located about a mile upstream of the sampling 

site, through the sampling site. The channel is composed of 

coarse gravel, rocks, cobbles, and boulders at the sampling 

site that grades into bedrock upstream closer to the falls. 

The small uranium prospect described by Carlson and others 

(2007) crops out near the falls upstream of this site. Several 

large gravel-cobble bars are located upstream and downstream 

of the sampling site as well, indicative of the energy present 

during periods of high streamflow. Hardwoods, pine, and some 

tag alders and other bushes dominate the near-shore vegetation (fig. 7). Water-quality sampling and streamflow measurements are easily made at the site, although the site is difficult 

to access and may be unwadeable during spring high flows. 

Measured streamflow ranged from 4.37 to 74.9 ft3

/s.

Tributary to East Branch Huron River

The unnamed tributary to East Branch Huron River (USGS 

station 04043183) is known locally as Chink’s Creek. The tributary is located about 0.4 miles from Big Bay Road (fig. 1). The 

drainage basin at station 04043183 includes an area of about 6.6 

mi2

 (fig. 3A). The sampling site is located along a trail to station 

04043182 and the tributary must be crossed to access station 

04043182. The confluence of the East Branch Huron River 

with this tributary is located several hundred yards downstream 

of stations 04043182 and 04043183. The sampled reach has a 

Figure 7. Looking upstream at East Branch Huron River 

downstream of East Branch Falls. [U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 

site 04043182, April 29, 2008. Photograph by T.L. Weaver (USGS).]

Figure 8. Looking upstream at tributary to East Branch Huron 

River. [U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) site 04043183, April 29, 2008. 

Photograph by T.L. Weaver (USGS).]
Methods of Data Collection and Analysis 13

Robarge Creek

Robarge Creek (USGS station 04043194) is located 

near the end of a two-track road about 0.5 mi from station 

04043190 and about 0.25 mi upstream of its confluence with 

the West Branch Huron River (fig. 1). The drainage area at 

station 04043194 is about 5.9 mi2 (fig. 3A). At this location the 

stream channel has a moderate gradient, and the streambed is 

composed of gravel, rocks, and cobbles, and numerous gravel 

bars (fig. 10). There are many sections suitable for water-quality sampling and streamflow measuring during wetter periods 

but finding suitable sections during low-flow periods can be 

difficult. Near-shore vegetation is mostly hardwoods and pines 

in the area of the sampling site. Measured streamflow ranged 

from 0.05 to 13.1 ft3/s.

Black Creek

Black Creek (USGS station 04043198) is located about 

1 mi from Skanee Road where Black Creek Road crosses the 

creek (fig. 1). The drainage basin at station 04043198 includes 

an area of about 9.6 mi2 (fig. 3A). The stream channel has a 

low gradient, flowing through wetlands upstream and downstream at this location and crosses under the road through a 

corrugated culvert. The channel is composed of silt, sand, and 

gravel at the road crossing. Hardwoods, cedar, pine, and tag 

alders and other bushes dominate the near-shore vegetation 

(fig. 11). Water-quality sampling and streamflow measurements are easily made at the downstream side of the culvert 

during spring sampling but lack of perceptible flow precludes 

use of that location in the summer. An alternate site in a channelized area several hundred feet downstream of the wetland 

was used during the August sampling and is a better yearround site for any future monitoring. However, this alternate 

Figure 9. Looking A, upstream and B, downstream at West 

Branch Huron River. [U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) site 

04043190, April 28, 2008. Photograph by T.L. Weaver (USGS).]

Figure 10. Looking downstream at Robarge Creek. [U.S. 

Geological Survey (USGS) site 04043194, April 28, 2008. 

Photograph by T.L. Weaver (USGS).]
14 Environmental Baseline Study of the Huron River Watershed, Baraga and Marquette Counties, Michigan

site is located on private property, requiring permission to 

access. The stream channel at the alternate site was composed 

of silt, sand, and gravel. Measured streamflow ranged from 

0.36 to 21.6 ft3/s.

Huron River at Big Eric’s Bridge

Huron River at Big Eric’s Bridge (USGS station 

04043200) includes an area of 73.2 mi2 (figs. 1 and 3A). The 

channel upstream of the bridge has a low-to-moderate gradient and is straight for about 100–125 ft before splitting into 

the East and West Branches of the Huron River (fig. 12A). 

In figure 12a, the East Branch enters from the left and West 

Branch enters from the right, at the confluence. The upstream 

channel is composed of sand, rocks, cobbles, and a few boulders. The channel becomes primarily exposed bedrock about 

50 ft upstream of the bridge and becomes a series of bedrock 

controlled falls and riffles for hundreds of feet downstream 

of the bridge, where the channel cuts through several different rock types, including quartzite and granite (fig. 12B). 

Conditions for water-quality sampling and streamflow measurements are usually good, but during high-flow conditions 

it can become turbulent. Streamflow was measured at this 

site previously for low-flow quantification (most recently in 

August 1976, when 4.74 ft3

/s was measured) but high flows 

do not appear to have been measured previously. High flows 

were measured using a boat-mounted acoustic Doppler current profiler three times from April 17–25, 2008, for purposes of defining the upper part of a stage-streamflow rating 

curve (measured streamflow during that period ranged from 

582 to 1,150 ft3/s). Measured streamflow in 2008 ranged 

from 7.50 to1,150 ft3/s.

Results and Discussion

Water Quality of Streams in the Huron River 

Watershed

Factors that affect the water quality of a stream are 

complex and interrelated. Geological and geomorphic characteristics of a watershed, as well as hydrological and biological 

components of its ecosystem, all affect water chemistry. The 

Huron River and its tributaries drain a geomorphically diverse 

watershed comprised of Paleoproterozoic to Archean bedrock, 

Pleistocene glacial deposits, Holocene beach deposits, and 

soils developed on varied surficial materials (figs. 4 and 5). 

Water-quality samples were collected three times at six sites 

during the period from late April to late August 2008. Samples 

collected in August 2008 were also analyzed for total and 

methylmercury at the USGS Mercury Research Laboratory.

A summary of sampling periods and USGS NWQL lab 

codes and schedules used for this study are provided in table 

2. Streamflow, field water-quality parameters, major ions, 

Figure 11. Looking upstream at Black Creek. [U.S. Geological 

Survey (USGS) site 04043198, April 29, 2008. Photograph by T.L. 

Weaver (USGS).]

Figure 12. Looking A, upstream and B, downstream at Huron 

River at Big Eric’s Bridge. [U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) site 

04043200, August 13, 2008. Photograph by T.L. Weaver (USGS).]
Results and Discussion 15

nutrients, metals, mercury, and suspended sediments are summarized in appendix 2; mercury is also summarized in table 4 in 

the text.

Field Water-Quality Parameters, Major Ions, and 

Alkalinity

Water samples from streams in the Huron River Watershed ranged in pH from 6.7 to 8.4 and 32 to 186 microsiemens 

per centimeter (μs/cm) for specific conductance. The lowest 

pH and conductance were measured during spring sampling, 

except at station 04043198 (fig. 3A), which was lower on June 

2008. Concentrations of chloride ranged from 0.19 to 3.56 

milligrams per liter (mg/L), indicating little effect from septic 

systems or road-deicing salt. Water samples can be classified 

as soft to moderately hard (Hem, 1985, p. 159), with concentrations of hardness reported as calcium carbonate ranging 

from 14 to 94 mg/L. The average hardness of the samples 

taken at each site during the three sampling visits ranges from 

33 to 66 mg/L. Alkalinity, which is a measure of the capacity of a solution to react with and to neutralize acid (Hem, 

1985), enables scientists to predict how easily acid rain can 

affect water quality of a water body. Alkalinity, in most natural 

waters, is related to higher levels of dissolved carbonate and 

bicarbonate species, with alkalinity data typically expressed 

in equivalent calcium carbonate units. Water samples from the 

Huron River Watershed range in alkalinity from 9 to 90 mg/L 

equivalent calcium carbonate units. The Huron River sites 

are considered moderate to nonsensitive to acid rain when 

compared to the State of Wisconsin’s alkalinity standards for 

surface-water bodies (table 3), as the State of Michigan does 

not have a standard for alkalinity of surface-water bodies. 

The Huron River Watershed appears to be most susceptible 

to effects from acid rain during snowmelt and spring runoff, 

when alkalinity is lowest.

Nutrients

One indicator of the water quality of a stream is its 

biological productivity. Biological productivity may be altered 

from a stream’s natural state when human activities cause 

an increase in nutrients. Levels of nutrients above a natural 

“baseline” most commonly result from the effects of septic 

systems or sewers and agricultural and domestic application of 

fertilizers. Sewage effluent is the largest single source of phosphorus in natural waters (Hem, 1985); however, the Huron 

River Watershed is sparsely populated with only a few homes 

or camps close enough to the streams to impact nutrient levels. 

There also is an established State of Michigan campground at 

Big Eric’s Bridge (fig. 1) that has several outhouses. However, 

it is reasonable to assume that nutrient levels measured during 

this study are representative of nonperturbed or natural “baseline” conditions.

Laboratory analyses showed ranges from an estimated 

0.12 to 0.83 mg/L, declining from April to August at all sites 

except Black Creek (site 04043198; fig. 3A), where concentrations of ammonia plus organic nitrogen in unfiltered water 

approximately doubled over the same period. Concentrations 

of nitrate plus nitrite in filtered water ranged from 0.02 to 0.21 

mg/L. Concentrations of total phosphorus in unfiltered water 

ranged from an estimated value of 0.006 to 0.023 mg/L. Concentrations of nutrients in the nearby Silver River Watershed 

are also low. These data indicate little, if any, septic-system, 

outhouse, or agricultural waste impacts to water quality in the 

Huron River Watershed.

Manganese, Nickel, Zinc, and Copper

Concentrations of manganese ranged from 2 to 663 

micrograms per liter (μg/L). Samples from all sites had 

concentrations of manganese below 11 μg/L, except for Black 

Creek (04043198; figs. 1 and 3A), which had concentrations 

of 4.6, 114, and 663 μg/L in April, June, and August, respectively. Concentrations of iron in samples from Black Creek 

also increased an order of magnitude between April and June 

to August (160, 923, and 1,540 μg/L, respectively). Concentrations of nickel ranged from 0.35 to 1.6 μg/L, with the 

Table 2. U.S. Geological Survey National Water-Quality 

Laboratory schedules, and respective analytes used for sampling 

in the Huron River Watershed, Baraga and Marquette Counties, 

Michigan.

[NA, not applicable]

Sampling period Schedule Analyte

2008 Schedule 2701 Major inorganics

2008 Schedule 2702 Low-level nutrients

2008 Schedule 2044 Trace elements

2008 NA Suspended sediment

August 2008 NA Total mercury, 

unfiltered

August 2008 NA Methylmercury, 

unfiltered

Table 3. Sensitivity of surface-water bodies to acid rain using 

alkalinity standards for Wisconsin (Wisconsin Department of 

Natural Resources, 2004).

[Alkalinity is in units of milligrams per liter as equivalent calcium carbonate; 

>, greater than]

Sensitivity Alkalinity

High 0–2

Moderate >2–10

Low >10–25

Nonsensitive >25
16 Environmental Baseline Study of the Huron River Watershed, Baraga and Marquette Counties, Michigan

highest concentrations found in June and August samples from 

Robarge Creek and Black Creek (04043194 and 04043198, 

respectively; figs. 1 and 3A). Concentrations of zinc ranged 

from 1.5 to 15.8 μg/L, and increased at all sites from April to 

June. Concentrations of copper ranged from 0.56 to 2 μg/L; 

concentrations in samples from all sites decreased from April 

to August. No samples had concentrations of copper that 

exceeded the MDEQ Rule 57 water-quality standard aquaticmaximum value of 7.6 μg/L (MDEQ, 2008).

Mercury

Some streams and lakes in Baraga and Marquette Counties are known to have elevated concentrations of mercury in 

game fish, but the source of the mercury is unknown. Outside 

of the Huron River Watershed, sulfide-bearing black shale of 

the Michigamme Formation can be locally enriched in mercury 

with values as high as 1.6 parts per million (ppm). Within the 

Huron River Watershed, a very minor occurrence of cinnabar in 

the small uranium deposit exposed along the East Branch Huron 

River is described by Carlson and others (2007). However, these 

potential bedrock sources are small and isolated, so it is proposed that atmospheric deposition of mercury is the dominant 

source of mercury to the Huron River Watershed. 

Mercury cycling pathways in aquatic environments are 

very complex. The various forms of mercury can be converted 

from one to the next; most important is the conversion to 

methylmercury, which is the most toxic form of mercury to 

human and aquatic life. An important basin-scale factor that 

influences production of methylmercury is the abundance of 

wetlands (Krabbenhoft and others, 1999). Investigations initiated in the late 1980s in the northern-tier states of the United 

States, Canada, and Nordic countries found that fish, mainly 

from nutrient-poor lakes and often in very remote areas, commonly have high levels of methylmercury. More recent fishsampling surveys in other regions of the United States have 

shown widespread mercury contamination in streams, wetlands, reservoirs, and lakes. As of 1995, 33 States have issued 

fish-consumption advisories because of mercury contamination (Krabbenhoft and Rickert, 1995).

The August 2008 samples were analyzed for unfiltered 

total mercury and methylmercury at the USGS Mercury 

Research Laboratory using established protocols and laboratory methods. Those results and measured pH are summarized 

in table 4. Unfiltered samples contain both dissolved and 

particulate forms of mercury.

The lowest concentration of total mercury was sampled 

at Robarge Creek (station 04043194; figs. 1 and 3A), and 

the highest concentration was sampled at Black Creek (station 04043198; figs. 1 and 3A). The lowest concentration of 

methylmercury was sampled at the unnamed tributary to East 

Branch Huron River (station 04043183; figs. 1 and 3A), and 

the highest concentration was sampled at Black Creek. The 

highest ratio of methylmercury to total mercury was at West 

Branch Huron River (station 04043190; figs 1 and 3A) and 

Black Creek. The ratio of methylmercury to total mercury at 

sites other than West Branch Huron River and Black Creek 

is similar to the 5 to 10 percent found in most natural waters 

(M.E. Brigham, U.S. Geological Survey, written commun., 

2009). The ratio of methylmercury to total mercury at Black 

Creek is 0.27, quite high compared to other sites. This is not 

surprising given the proximity of the Black Creek sampling 

site to a large wetland area (fig. 11), although Black Creek 

has the smallest percentage of wetlands of any of the six sites 

(table 1). The ratio of methylmercury to total mercury is also 

high at West Branch Huron River (0.22), although the reason for such a high ratio is not obvious. The small uranium 

prospect reported to contain very minor cinnabar (Carlson 

and others, 2007; fig. 2) is upstream of the East Branch Huron 

River sampling site (station 04043182; fig. 3A). This site has 

the third highest value for total mercury (table 4), but it is 

unknown if this bedrock source contributes mercury to the 

river or if other factors are important.

There is a Great Lakes Basin water-quality standard for 

total mercury in water of 1.8 nanaograms per liter (ng/L) to 

protect human health from consumption of aquatic organisms 

Table 4. Concentrations of total mercury and methylmercury in unfiltered water samples from the Huron River Watershed, Baraga 

and Marquette Counties, Michigan.

[USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; SW, surface water; QC, quality-control sample, NA, not applicable; < less than]

USGS station 

number Parameter

Concentration of 

unfiltered total mercury, 

in ng/L

Concentration of unfiltered 

methylmercury, in ng/L pH, in standard units Ratio of methylmercury to total mercury

04043182 SW 1.83 0.15 7.9 0.08

04043182 QC <0.04 <0.04 NA NA

04043183 SW 0.93 0.09 8.2 0.10

04043190 SW 1.03 0.23 8.3 0.22

04043194 SW 0.92 0.13 8.4 0.14

04043198 SW 4.50 1.22 7.8 0.27

04043200 SW 2.03 0.27 7.8 0.13
Results and Discussion 17

(U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1995a) and 1.3 ng/L 

to protect wildlife health (U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1995b). Several samples from this study exceed both 

standards; however, it should be noted that these are singlepoint samples collected during a period of late-summer low 

streamflows, when streams were very clear, carrying little 

to no suspended load. Additional samples over the range 

of streamflow and conditions would need to be collected to 

confirm the persistence of mercury or the need for a health or 

fishing advisory.

Soils and Streambed Sediments

A complete dataset for mineral soils (A, E, B, and C horizons) is given in appendix 3. Data are also given for a sample 

of road dust collected from Black Creek Road, one of the many 

gravel roads in the Huron River Watershed (fig. 2). Data for 

organic soils (O horizon) are given in appendix 4. Appendix 5 

contains the concentrations of 42 elements from the total digestion and partial extraction data for streambed sediments. Table 

5 provides median values for concentrations of 41 elements 

according to soil horizon and for streambed sediments. Because 

many elements, particularly trace elements, exhibit distributions 

that vary significantly from normal distributions and commonly 

approach log-normal distributions, the median is a more valid 

indicator of central tendency than an arithmetic mean.

Total Digestion for Soils

Table 5 presents the median compositions of Huron 

River soils and average upper crustal abundances. Results for 

mineral soil horizons show no remarkably high concentrations 

compared to calculated upper crustal composition (Wedepohl, 

1995) or published analyses of comparable composite samples, such as the North American Shale Composite (Gromet 

and others, 1984) and a worldwide greywacke composite 

(Wedepohl, 1995). Data in table 5 show that only arsenic, 

antimony, and total carbon concentrations in Huron River area 

soils are greater than average upper crustal concentrations, and 

all other elements occur at concentrations significantly lower 

than average upper crustal rocks. This reflects a relatively high 

content of quartz in these soils. Quartz is a combination of 

silicon and oxygen with very limited substitution of other elements, and while silicon is not one of the elements quantified 

by the techniques of this study, visual examination of the soils 

indicates that quartz is the most abundant mineral component. Because the quartz content of the soils is higher than 

that found in average upper crustal rocks, this quartz-dilution 

effect results in relatively low values of most other elements 

that occur in minerals other than quartz.

Vertical Variability among Soil Horizons

The five soil horizons show statistically significant chemical 

differences from each other for many elements as indicated by 

analysis of variance calculations. Figure 13 illustrates graphically 

the interhorizon variability as box plots. B and C horizons are 

the most similar to each other and most elements do not differ between the two with a significant probability as indicated 

by nonparametric Kruskal-Wallis analysis. Only the elements 

carbon, mercury, and selenium, all elevated in the B horizon relative to C horizon, have probabilities (p) <0.005 of being a single 

population. Other horizons have a distinctive composition for 

many elements indicative of various soil-forming processes. The 

E horizon, a zone of strong leaching, is significantly depleted in 

many elements compared to the underlying B horizon as shown 

in table 5 and figure 13. Nearly all elements have lower concentrations in the E horizon than in the underlying B horizon and 19 

elements show a highly significant difference (p<0.005). The E 

horizon also differs significantly from the overlying A horizon. 

Fifteen elements have concentrations in the E horizon lower 

than in the A horizon with p<0.005. The A horizon, by definition, 

contains substantial organic compounds, which impart some 

distinctive trends on its chemical composition. For instance, 

carbon, mercury, selenium, and sulfur are not only significantly 

more concentrated in the A horizon relative to all underlying 

horizons, but all four show high mutual correlations (fig. 14). 

This indicates that mercury, selenium, and sulfur occur mostly 

bound to or adsorbed onto organic compounds. The O horizon, 

composed principally of variably decomposed plant matter, is the 

most chemically distinctive horizon. The dominance of organic 

matter over mineral components results in a very different set of 

elemental abundances and correlations compared to underlying 

mineral soils (table 5 and fig. 13). In particular, cadmium, mercury, phosphorus, sulfur, and zinc are enriched in the O horizon 

compared to all other horizons. Bismuth, lead, and selenium are 

also unusually concentrated in the O horizon but at concentrations comparable to the underlying A horizon.

The high concentrations of Bi, Cd, Hg, P, Pb, S, Se, and 

Zn in surface soils (O and A horizons) reflect the affinity of 

these elements for organic C, and probably multiple sources. 

Cadmium is commonly mobilized from deeper soils by plants 

and accumulates in the O and A horizons by plant decay 

(Gough and others, 2008). In contrast, the bulk of the mercury in surface soils in the Lake Superior region has probably 

atmospherically deposited from long-distance, global sources 

(Wiener and others, 2006). It is possible that other elements, 

such as bismuth, selenium, sulfur, and zinc, may have a local 

geologic source, and could have been deposited onto surface soils as dust. If the chemistry of the road dust sample 

(appendix 2) is somewhat typical of the finer material that can 

become airborne and transported as particulates when conditions are right, there is potential for loading of metals to forest 

soils along unpaved roadways in parts of the Huron River 

Watershed. Most soil samples were collected a minimum of 50 

feet from unpaved roads, but it is impossible to estimate any 

impact from road dust without a more detailed study.

Lateral Variability for Soils

Soils within the watershed developed on three principal 

types of parent glacial deposits (fig. 5) that are derived largely 
18 Environmental Baseline Study of the Huron River Watershed, Baraga and Marquette Counties, Michigan

from the three principal types of underlying bedrock (fig. 4). 

Examination of pebble lithologies of the glacial deposits indicates that they are composed largely of local bedrock and that 

the makeup of the deposits should be dominated by the type of 

underlying bedrock.

The lateral variability of the various soil horizons, both in 

map form and statistically, were tested for significant changes 

that could be related to the geochemistry of local bedrock. 

Kruskal-Wallis statistical analyses were completed that used 

the type of underlying bedrock as a categorical variable. 

Results indicated a low probability that observed distributions of elements were a single population for most elements 

in several soil horizons. B-horizon soils show the strongest 

trend toward multiple populations that could be related to 

HORIZON HORIZON HORIZON

O

A

E

B

C

0 10 20 30 40

COPPER, IN PPM

O

A

E

B

C

0 5 10 15 20

GALLIUM, IN PPM

O

A

E

B

C

0 20 40 60 80

CHROMIUM, IN PPM

O

A

E

B

C

0 20 40 60 80 100

O

A

E

B

C

0 10 20 30 40

CERIUM, IN PPM COBALT, IN PPM

O

A

E

B

C

0 1 2 3

CADMIUM, IN PPM

O

A

E

B

C

0 1 2 3

BERYLLIUM, IN PPM

O

A

E

B

C

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4

BISMUTH, IN PPM

O

A

E

B

C

100 300 500 700

BARIUM, IN PPM

O

A

E

B

C

HORIZON

0 10 20 30

ARSENIC, IN PPM

O

A

E

B

C

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2

ANTIMONY, IN PPM

Minor Trace Elements

EXPLANATION

90th percentile

10th percentile

25th percentile

75th percentile

Median

Outlier

Extreme outlier

Figure 13. Box plots showing 

the distribution of major and 

minor elements in soils by 

horizon for the Huron River 

Watershed, Marquette and 

Baraga Counties, Michigan.
Results and Discussion 19

differing bedrock sources. The elements in the B horizon that 

likely have multiple populations [and their probabilities (p) of 

being a single population; that is, p< 0.05)] are: Al (p<0.014), 

Cr (p<0.019), Li (p<0.020), Mo (p<0.003), Ni (p<0.013), 

Pb (p<0.084), Sc (p<0.017), Se (p<0.035), Sr (p<0.013), Tl 

(p<0.042), V (p<0.038), and Zn (p<0.021). The C horizon 

has fewer elements with multiple population trends; however, 

Al (p<0.054), Ca (p<0.017), Cr (p<0.066), Li (p<0.035), Na 

(p<0.029), Ni (p<0.050), and Sr (p<0.030) all appear to record 

at least two populations. The A horizon is more uniform, with 

only cobalt, niobium, and strontium showing a tendency of 

multiple populations.

Kruskal-Wallis analysis does not identify the source 

of significant variability (such as, slate of the Michigamme 

Figure 13—Continued. Box 

plots showing the distribution 

of major and minor elements in 

soils by horizon for the Huron 

River Watershed, Marquette 

and Baraga Counties, Michigan.

HORIZON

O

A

E

B

C

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

NIOBIUM, IN PPM

O

A

E

B

C

0 500 1000 1500 2000

O

A

E

B

C

HORIZON

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

RUBIDIUM, IN PPM

O

A

E

B

C

0 5 10 15

SCANDIUM, IN PPM

O

A

E

B

C

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5

SELENIUM, IN PPM

HORIZON

PHOSPHORUS, IN PPM

HORIZON

O

A

E

B

C

0 20 40 60 80

NICKEL, IN PPM

O

A

E

B

C

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

MOLYBDENUM, IN PPM

O

A

E

B

C

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3

MERCURY, IN PPM

O

A

E

B

C

0 2000 4000 6000

MANGANESE, IN PPM

O

A

E

B

C

0 10 20 30 40 50

LITHIUM, IN PPM

O

A

E

B

C

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

LEAD, IN PPM

O

A

E

0 10 20 30 40

LANTHINUM, IN PPM

B

C

Minor Trace Elements
20 Environmental Baseline Study of the Huron River Watershed, Baraga and Marquette Counties, Michigan

Formation versus Archean granitic gneiss), and only tests for 

the probability that the observed element concentrations are 

from a single statistical population. Other types of analysisof-variance tests are hampered by the relatively small number 

of soil samples collected in some categories. For instance, 

only five sample sites are over the Jacobsville Formation 

and six sites are over Archean granitic gneiss. Therefore, the 

distributions of elements in map form compared to both the 

bedrock geology and glacial geology were examined. Two 

trends are evident: (1) many elements are low at sites over the 

Jacobsville Formation compared to sites over the other bedrock types. This probably reflects soils that formed from very 

sandy parent materials derived largely from the Jacobsville 

Formation. The sand is composed mostly of quartz and 

feldspar. The relative scarcity of finer grained mineral phases, 

such as clays or mafic minerals that are most likely to include 

many trace elements, is the probable cause of the observed 

low values; (2) most sites over the Michigamme Formation 

have relatively high concentrations of a number of elements, 

compared to soils developed over the Jacobsville Formation. 

Bedrock of the Michigamme Formation is the most chemically 

and mineralogically diverse of the bedrock types, and soils 

formed over it have significant enrichments of Al, Cr, Li, Mo, 

Ni, Pb, Sc, Se, Sr, Tl, V, and Zn. These elements are typically 

elevated in fine-grained clastic rocks; thus, it can be concluded 

that local bedrock has a significant influence on the concentrations of many elements for soils within the study area. From 

these two observations, it is apparent that local bedrock has a 

significant influence on the concentrations of many elements 

in soil geochemistry within the watershed.

A- and C-horizon soils from sites 02, 04, and 18 (fig. 3B) 

have relatively elevated concentrations, compared to other 

soils, of a small group of elements, including Fe, As, Be, Ce, 

Co, Cr, La, Li, Ni, P, Sc, Th, Tl, V, Y, and Z. For example, the 

A horizon at site 02 has 1.2 ppm cadmium, 9.6 ppm thorium, 

3.1 ppm uranium, 98 ppm vanadium, and 20.3 ppm yttrium. 

Figure 13—Continued. Box 

plots showing the distribution 

of major and minor elements in 

soils by horizon for the Huron 

River Watershed, Marquette 

and Baraga Counties, Michigan.

O

A

E

B

C

0 2 4 6 8 10

THORIUM, IN PPM

O

A

E

B

C

HORIZON

0 1 2 3 4

URANIUM, IN PPM

O

A

E

B

C

0 20 40 60 80 100

VANADIUM, IN PPM

O

A

E

B

C

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

TUNGSTEN, IN PPM

O

A

E

B

C

0 5 10 15 20 25

YTTERBIUM, IN PPM

O

A

E

B

C

HORIZON

0 100 200 300

ZINC, IN PPM

O

A

E

B

C

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

TIN, IN PPM

O

A

E

B

C

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

THALLIUM, IN PPM

HORIZON

O

A

E

B

C

0 50 100 150 200

STRONTIUM, IN PPM

Minor Trace Elements
Results and Discussion 21

Soil from the C horizon for site 04 has 9.2 ppm thorium, 1.9 

ppm uranium, and 20.8 ppm yttrium. These values are relatively elevated compared to the median values given in table 

5. Both sites are down ice (in the direction of glacial transport 

from ice movement) from the small uranium prospect exposed 

in the East Branch of the Huron River described by Carlson 

and others (2007; fig. 2). This small prospect has unusual 

geochemistry that includes a suite of cadmium-uraniumvanadium-bearing minerals. It is possible that the relatively 

enriched values for metals and other elements in these two soil 

samples reflect contributions from mineralized rock incorporated during glaciation. Site 18 was very stony, with abundant 

rocks derived from the Michigamme Formation. Soils from 

the A and B horizons are relatively enriched in scandium, 

vanadium, and zinc, along with high iron and manganese concentrations, compared to other soils from the study area. This 

grouping of elements suggests enrichment of metals adsorbed 

to iron and manganese oxyhydroxides in the soils.

Total Digestion of Streambed Sediments

Streambed sediments represent an integration of both 

space and time within a stream. Streambed sediments are a 

product of the weathering and transport of minerals from rocks 

and soils and the interaction of these minerals with stream 

waters. Because of their typical fine-grain size, streambed 

sediments often are a sink for trace metals and contaminants 

and can, under changing environmental conditions, become 

suspended sediment, potentially influencing water quality. 

Thus, streambed sediments are an essential component to any 

baseline study that includes water quality and soil chemistry.

The 11 sites for this study were selected near the confluences of tributaries to integrate contributions from the majority 

of the watershed (fig. 3C). Median values for 39 elements in 

streambed sediments are given in table 5. Streambed sediments were not analyzed for carbon contents and most samples 

were below the lower limit of detection for selenium (<0.2 

Figure 13—Continued. Box 

plots showing the distribution 

of major and minor elements in 

soils by horizon for the Huron 

River Watershed, Marquette 

and Baraga Counties, Michigan.

O

A

E

B

C

HORIZON

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

ALUMINUM, IN WT. %

O

A

E

B

C

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

O

A

E

B

C

0 1 2 3 4

O

A

E

C

0 1 2 3 4

POTASSIUM, IN WT. %

CALCIUM, IN WT. % IRON, IN WT. %

O

A

E

B

C

HORIZON

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

MAGNESIUM, IN WT. %

O

A

E

B

C

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5

O

A

E

B

C

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20

SULFUR, IN WT. %

O

A

E

B

C

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3

TITANIUM, IN WT. %

B

SODIUM, IN WT. %

O

A

E

B

C

HORIZON

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

CARBON, IN WT. %

Major Trace Elements
22 Environmental Baseline Study of the Huron River Watershed, Baraga and Marquette Counties, Michigan

Table 5. Median values for concentrations of 41 elements in O-, A-, E-, B-, and C-horizon soils and from streambed sediments from 

the Huron River Watershed, Marquette and Baraga Counties, Michigan.

[NA, not analyzed; wt. %, weight percent; ppm, parts per million]

Element Median O Median A Median E Median B Median C Upper crust C horizon/ 

upper crust

Streambed 

sediments

Al wt. % 0.81 1.98 2.21 3.67 3.17 7.7 0.41 3.96

Ca wt. % 0.66 0.28 0.15 0.30 0.31 2.9 0.11 0.74

Fe wt. % 0.41 0.86 0.85 1.74 1.22 3.1 0.39 2.41

K wt. % 0.42 1.14 1.55 1.99 2.00 2.9 0.69 2.60

Mg wt. % 0.10 0.10 0.06 0.29 0.28 1.35 0.21 0.36

Na wt. % 0.12 0.31 0.37 0.52 0.54 2.6 0.21 0.79

S wt. % 0.13 0.06 <0.01 0.01 0.01 0.1 0.05 0.02

Ti wt. % 0.03 0.12 0.13 0.16 0.11 0.3 0.35 0.30

As ppm 1.60 3.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 2 0.50 3.96

Ba ppm 228.30 361.00 417.00 467.00 472.00 668 0.71 608

Be ppm 0.20 0.50 0.50 0.90 0.80 3 0.27 0.80

Bi ppm 0.10 0.17 0.08 0.09 0.08 0.1 0.80 0.11

Cd ppm 0.80 0.45 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 N.A. 0.20

Ce ppm 6.80 16.00 16.40 30.70 33.15 65 0.51 41.2

Co ppm 1.10 1.80 1.00 4.40 4.45 11 0.40 6.40

Cr ppm 5.90 23.00 12.00 27.00 19.50 35 0.56 34

Cu ppm 17.20 16.10 5.30 9.40 7.60 14 0.54 11.8

Ga ppm 2.30 5.20 5.87 9.00 8.05 14 0.57 9.08

Hg ppm 0.16 0.09 <0.01 0.02 0.01 0.06 0.17 0.03

La ppm 3.70 8.10 8.60 14.10 14.55 32 0.45 20.2

Li ppm 2.30 5.00 4.00 11.00 8.00 22 0.36 10

Mn ppm 407.00 121.00 85.00 149.00 175.00 572 0.31 489

Mo ppm 0.60 0.57 0.35 0.34 0.27 1.4 0.19 0.53

Nb ppm 1.00 3.30 2.90 3.60 2.90 26 0.11 5.20

Ni ppm 3.60 4.00 1.70 9.60 9.10 19 0.48 14.7

P ppm 1041.00 480.00 85.00 290.00 210.00 665 0.32 340

Pb ppm 28.00 30.30 10.20 11.70 10.60 17 0.62 14.80

Rb ppm 15.50 40.70 54.60 69.30 65.50 110 0.60 82.6

Sb ppm 0.50 0.48 0.36 0.39 0.42 0.3 1.38 0.59

Sc ppm 1.00 2.60 2.00 4.40 3.70 7 0.53 5.90

Se ppm 0.50 0.50 <0.02 0.30 <0.2 0.1 N.A.. <0.2

Sn ppm 0.90 1.10 0.60 0.80 0.70 2.5 0.28 1.00

Sr ppm 48.60 62.20 63.50 79.30 79.55 316 0.25 122.00

Th ppm 1.10 3.00 3.20 4.40 4.10 10 0.41 6.60

Tl ppm 0.20 0.30 0.30 0.40 0.40 0.75 0.53 0.50

U ppm 0.30 1.00 1.00 1.20 1.05 2.5 0.42 1.60

V ppm 11.50 26.00 26.00 38.00 31.00 53 0.58 64

W ppm 0.20 0.30 0.20 0.30 0.30 1.4 0.21 0.30

Y ppm 1.90 5.50 6.30 9.70 9.05 20 0.45 12.9

Zn ppm 58.50 40.00 12.00 36.00 24.50 52 0.47 47

C wt. % 75.70 16.30 1.50 1.70 0.50 0.3 1.67 NA
Results and Discussion 23

ppm). Median values for all other elements are consistently 

higher than comparable median values for C-horizon soils 

(table 5). This is likely a result of the different size fractions 

of the two media, <2 mm for soils and <150 μm for streambed 

sediments. Geochemical differences between the two size fractions are the result of mineralogic partitioning, with concentration of minerals such as quartz in a coarser fraction and clay 

minerals in a finer fraction (Klassen, 1998). Thus, in this study 

the coarser grained soil fraction would have higher quartz concentrations compared to the finer grained stream sediments. 

The quartz-dilution effect (discussed above) would, therefore, 

suppress the concentrations of all elements other than silicon 

(Si) in soils compared to streambed sediments.

The geochemistry of the streambed sediments (table 5) 

reflects the natural variability that would be expected in a 

heterogeneous terrane, and there is little indication of trace 

metal contamination. The streambed sediment sample from 

the East Branch Huron River, collected just upstream from 

the confluence with the West Branch Huron River to form the 

Huron River (sample 7; fig. 3C), has values for Fe, Ce, Hg, 

La, Th, U, V, and Y that are notably higher than values for the 

other samples. This sample was collected downstream from 

the small uranium prospect with similarly unusual geochemistry that crops out in the East Branch Huron River (fig.2). 

The somewhat anomalous geochemistry of this sample might 

reflect this prospect. Streambed sediment sample 3 (fig. 3C), 

which was collected just downstream from the prospect, has a 

mercury concentration of 0.05 ppm, somewhat higher than the 

median value of 0.03 ppm, but is not anomalously rich in the 

other elements typical of the uranium prospect. Other streambed sediments have occasional metal values somewhat greater 

than the median, such as 24 ppm niobium for the streambed 

sediment sample 5 collected at the mouth of Robarge Creek 

(fig. 3C) and 11 ppm arsenic for the bed-sediment sample 11 

collected along the upper reaches of the East Branch Huron 

River (fig. 3C). These somewhat enriched metal values are 

interpreted to reflect a natural geochemical variability in the 

watershed rather than point sources for metals.

Partial Digestion of Soils and Streambed 

Sediments

Complete data for the partial extraction (Aliquot/MIBK) 

technique applied to A-, E-, B-, and C-horizon soils are 

included with the total digestion data in appendixes 3 and 5. 

This relatively weak extraction mobilizes elements loosely 

bound to iron and manganese oxyhydroxides grain coatings 

and to soil organic material. Thus, a partial extraction method 

provides concentrations of elements that might be easily 

CARBON, IN WT. % SULFUR, IN PPM SELENIUM, IN PPM

MERCURY, IN PPM SULFUR, IN PPM SELENIUM, IN PPM

0.892

0.638

0.935

0.840 0.826

MERCURY, IN PPM

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

CARBON, IN WT. %

0.835

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0 10 20 30 40 50 0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20

Figure 14. Scatterplot matrix 

showing element correlation 

matrices for carbon, mercury, 

sulfur, and selenium in 

A-horizon soils for the Huron 

River Watershed, Marquette 

and Baraga Counties, Michigan.
24 Environmental Baseline Study of the Huron River Watershed, Baraga and Marquette Counties, Michigan

mobilized into groundwater or surface water, and potentially 

relatively available for biological uptake. This is in contrast to 

the relatively immobile behavior of those same elements when 

they are part of the crystal structure of minerals. Partial extraction provides concentrations of 10 elements, 7 of which (Ag, 

As, Cd, Cu, Mo, Pb, Zn) were present in quantifiable amounts. 

Median values for those 7 elements in soils and streambed 

sediments are shown in table 6. Three elements (antimony, 

bismuth, and gold) were not detected in any of the samples.

Comparing the concentrations of six elements that are 

common to both the partial extraction analyses and the neartotal digestion method shows a very strong correlation with 

each other for all elements. Nonparametric Spearman correlation coefficients for the six elements are shown in table 

7. Silver is not included in this correlation because it rarely is 

detected in soil samples. This near identity of concentrations 

between the two techniques indicates that these six elements 

occur in a form that is relatively easily mobilized and, under 

suitable circumstances, could be mobilized into solution in 

natural waters. In the original bedrock and soil parent material, these metals would most likely have occurred in sulfide 

minerals, which would not react and release the metals to a 

weak extraction technique. Based on the correlation in table 

7, apparently nearly all sulfide minerals in all soil horizons 

and stream sediments have broken down chemically during 

weathering and these six elements have been incorporated into 

new, readily soluble compounds.

Median partial extraction values for the streambed sediments also are higher than median values for C-horizon soils 

(table 6). Partial extraction values for arsenic, copper, lead, 

and zinc all correlate well with total extraction data, while 

the correlations for cobalt and molybdenum are somewhat 

weaker (table 7). There is no obvious pattern to these weaker 

correlations.

Ecological Assessment

Michigan Department of Environmental Quality 

(MDEQ) Study Results

During summer 2006, MDEQ Water Bureau biologists 

assessed biological, chemical, and habitat conditions from a 

number of watersheds in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, 

including the Huron River Watershed. The following information is largely excerpted from an MDEQ Staff Report 

Table 6. Median values for concentrations of seven elements [arsenic (As), cadmium (Cd), copper (Cu), lead (Pb), molybdenum (Mo), 

silver (Ag), and zinc (Zn)] from partial extractions of O-, A-, E-, B-, and C-horizon soils and from streambed sediments from the Huron 

River Watershed, Marquette and Baraga Counties, Michigan.

[ppm, parts per million]

Element A Horizon E Horizon B Horizon C Horizon Streambed sediments

Ag ppm 0.65 0.51 0.60 0.42 0.80

As ppm 3.00 1.50 3.00 2.50 3.50

Cd ppm 0.45 0.13 0.16 0.12 0.36

Cu ppm 15.35 4.31 10.40 6.15 11.95

Mo ppm 0.70 0.40 0.50 0.30 0.45

Pb ppm 26.50 11.00 12.00 11.00 14.50

Zn ppm 40.25 13.45 37.30 25.35 46.75

Table 7. Spearman nonparametic correlation coefficients for total digestion and partial digestion analyses for six elements [arsenic 

(As), cadmium (Cd), copper (Cu), lead (Pb), molybdenum (Mo), and zinc (Zn)] common to soils and streambed sediments collected 

Huron River Watershed, Marquette and Baraga Counties, Michigan. 

[Correlation coefficient determination for Cd is not possible because of insufficient data for cadmium concentrations in soils; --, no data]

Element A Horizon E Horizon B Horizon C Horizon Streambed sediments

As 0.987 0.906 0.991 0.892 0.888

Cd 0.983 0.831 0.899 -- 0.655

Cu 0.991 1.000 0.965 1.000 0.957

Mo 0.988 0.864 0.871 0.801 0.570

Pb 0.989 0.976 0.893 0.982 0.744

Zn 0.999 0.993 0.997 0.998 0.983
Future Baseline Studies in the Lake Superior Basin 25

summarizing those activities (MI/DEQ/WB-07/080). Due to 

concerns about sedimentation from logging and other activities within the watershed, the MDEQ targeted the 6-mile 

reach of the Huron River from Big Eric’s Bridge (USGS site 

04043200; figs. 1 and 3A) downstream to the river’s mouth 

(fig. 1). Locations of the 2006 MDEQ stations are shown in 

figure 3D and USGS sites are shown in figure 3A. To evaluate 

the current status of the stream, a modified GLEAS 51 procedure consisting of macroinvertebrate and habitat assessment 

was completed at one site within this reach (station 56) and 

also at a nonimpacted control or probabilistic site (station 19) 

located on the East Branch Huron River about 6 road miles 

upstream of USGS site 04043183. MDEQ also conducted 

habitat-only assessments at three additional sites: downstream 

of station 56 (station 82), on the West Branch Huron River 

about 0.5 miles upstream of its confluence with Black Creek 

(station 84), and at USGS station 04043190 (station 83). The 

three additional sites were assessed to evaluate sediment deposition in the upstream parts of the watershed. 

Macroinvertebrate communities rated excellent at stations 

19 and 56, with a total of 31 and 34 taxa, respectively. More 

than half of the individuals collected were taxa comprising 

Ephemeroptera (mayflies), Plecoptera (stoneflies), and Trichoptera (caddisflies). Habitat was rated excellent at the three 

stations upstream of Big Eric’s Bridge, and good at the two 

downstream stations. Stations 19 and 83, which are located furthest upstream, had stable gravel banks, little sediment deposition, and a substrate dominated by cobble, gravel, and boulders. 

The epifaunal substrate and available cover at these sites also 

scored excellent. Stations 82 and 56, located downstream of Big 

Eric’s Bridge, had moderate sediment deposition and several 

areas of bank erosion. The epifaunal substrate and available 

cover at these sites scored marginal. The substrate at station 56 

was dominated by cobble and gravel, but was covered with silt 

while the substrate at station 82 was dominated by sand.

Michigan Department of Natural Resources 

(MDNR) Study Results

The MDNR subdivided the Huron River Watershed 

into five “valley segments.” Valley segments are portions of 

the river that are similar in character with respect to gradient, streamflow, fish communities, and instream and riparian 

habitat. Within the 5 valley segments, MDNR selected 24 

survey stations that would be representative of the watershed. 

Volunteers recorded instream and riparian physical landscape 

features and took digital images of specific habitat features 

at selected stations. Data were entered into a GIS. Survey 

parameters for each station included measurements of channel 

width and depth, substrate composition, riparian bank slope 

and vegetation, streamflow and velocity, and macroinvertebrate composition. Aquatic macroinvertebrates were sampled 

using two procedures. The first procedure comprised a general 

sampling of aquatic macroinvertebrates in an area and was 

accomplished with two people scrubbing instream woody 

debris, rocks, detritus, and soft vegetation for 15 minutes, after 

which a general assessment of abundance and types of macroinvertebrate was determined. The second procedure followed 

the Michigan Clean Water Corps (Mi Corps) protocols for 

documenting stream-habitat parameters and benthic macroinvertebrates (MDEQ, 2003). 

Using the Mi Corps protocols, 11 sites within the 

watershed were chosen to represent the benthic character 

of the watershed in the study conducted in July and August 

2008. The MDNR trained the volunteers prior to sampling to 

ensure that all volunteers were using the same terminology, 

methodology, and protocols. Volunteers completed a visual 

assessment of stream conditions and watershed characteristics 

on approximately 300 linear feet of stream at each sampling 

site. Macroinvertebrates were collected, identified to the order 

level, and tallied to determine diversity in the benthic community. Five sites had a stream-quality score of fair, one site 

scored good, and one site scored excellent. The two highest 

quality sites are both located in the upper part of the East 

Branch Huron River subwatershed. Macroinvertebrate data 

for 7 of 11 sites sampled in 2008 were provided by MDNR 

(George Madison, MDNR, written commun., 2009); however, 

the quality of macroinvertebrate data from 2008 study was 

inconsistent and was not reported here.

No fish survey was conducted concurrent with either 

the MDEQ or MDNR investigations, but fisheries surveys 

conducted in the Huron River Watershed over the past 60 

years have confirmed that brook trout (Salvenius fontinalis) is 

the primary salmonid that resides in the watershed year round. 

Other MDNR fisheries surveys indicate numerous other species of fish in the watershed as well.

Future Baseline Studies in the Lake 

Superior Basin

As with any study of this type, the scope of the study 

is constrained not only by the purpose of the study, but also 

by the timeframe and budget. This study in the Huron River 

Watershed was designed to fit within a single sampling season 

and with a modest field and laboratory budget. The lessons 

learned from this experience suggest several possibilities for 

water-quality, soil, and bed-sediment sampling for a baseline 

study. The utility of this study was enhanced by the use of 

ancillary ecological data collected by other agencies, such as 

the MDEQ and the MDNR.

Water-Quality Sampling

In this study of the Huron River Watershed, five waterquality sampling sites were chosen that account for much, 

but not all, of the streamflow in the watershed upstream of 

the confluence of the East and West Branches of the Huron 

River; a sixth site at Big Eric’s Bridge is downstream of nearly 
26 Environmental Baseline Study of the Huron River Watershed, Baraga and Marquette Counties, Michigan

all major tributaries, but upstream of the low-gradient part 

of the stream near the mouth. In the Huron River Watershed, 

measured field water-quality parameters and analysis of major 

inorganics, nutrients, and a suite of trace metals defined a 

watershed that primarily has good water quality. The major 

inorganics were typical of Upper Peninsula streams; nutrient 

concentrations were very low, indicating little to no human 

impact, and concentrations of most metals were quite low as 

well. Previous studies of the fishery and the ecology of the 

watershed also defined a good- to excellent-quality stream.

The objective of sampling for surface-water baseline data 

is to obtain analyses of all constituents impacting a watershed 

at as many locations as possible (or necessary to adequately 

define conditions within the watershed), within the constraints 

of the scope and budget of the project. The six sites selected 

for this study were chosen because they comprise the bulk 

of the water flowing through the Huron River system and 

were accessible by seasonal roads. An understanding of the 

water chemistry of the watershed may have been improved 

by including additional sampling sites, particularly for several 

small tributaries to the East Branch Huron River, but several 

factors had to be considered during sample design. A primary 

factor for this study was the budget constraint for both field 

time and for analytical costs. While much of the watershed is 

crisscrossed by railroad grades and logging roads of various 

ages, vehicular access to large sections of the Huron River 

Watershed is limited and difficult to impassable in the spring 

when the roads are still covered with snow or excessively 

muddy. Selection of sites far from usable roads would have 

imposed sampling constraints for both equipment and field 

time. Prior understanding of the accessibility to prospective 

sampling sites is crucial to success of a baseline water-quality 

study. In addition, some tributaries in the Huron River Watershed have little or no flow during the summer months. Therefore, care must be exercised when selecting sites to ensure that 

they are not ephemeral and that a complete sampling cycle can 

be completed.

As noted previously, determining what sampling schedules and procedures would best define baseline water quality 

in a watershed is critical to the success of a study. For the 

Huron River study, samples were collected three times from 

April through August to capture a range of flow conditions, 

with major inorganics, nutrients, and trace elements analyzed 

for each sampling. Mercury was analyzed only from the 

August low-flow samples. Three sites—East Branch Huron 

River, Black Creek, and the Huron River—all had concentrations of total mercury exceeding USEPA standards. The 

sampling schedules for major inorganics, nutrients, and trace 

metals used in this study are probably adequate for future 

baseline monitoring of most streams in the Great Lakes 

Basin. However, collecting mercury samples over a range of 

streamflow conditions would provide a better understanding 

of the distribution of this element of environmental concern. 

If mercury is analyzed as part of future water-quality sampling, dissolved organic carbon would be a useful inclusion 

in the analytical package because much can be learned about 

mercury in water from the mutual concentrations of these two 

constituents.

Soil and Streambed Sediment Sampling

A major part of this study within the Huron River Watershed was to determine baseline soil geochemical data. For 

this study area, the relatively uniform climate of the limited 

geographic region meant that underlying surficial geology 

was the probable critical factor controlling soil geochemistry. 

This was confirmed by examining the lateral geochemistry of 

the soils across the differing geologic units that showed local 

bedrock has a significant influence on the concentrations of 

many elements in overlying glacial deposits, and, therefore, on 

soil geochemistry within the watershed. 

Determining baseline soil geochemistry, which represents a snapshot in time of the distribution of various elements, requires an understanding of the vertical distribution 

of elements within a soil profile. The vertical geochemistry of 

the different soil horizons in Huron River Watershed showed 

considerable geochemical variability among the different horizons, which emphasizes the need to collect multiple samples 

at a single site. Not all sites may have an O horizon present, 

and so there may not be good spatial distribution of O-horizon 

geochemistry. Soils from an E horizon are typically leached of 

many elements, and thus provide little information of parent 

material chemistry or soil processes. The geochemistry of 

B-horizon soils provides valuable information on soil-forming 

processes, but data from the B horizon are not necessarily 

appropriate for soil background determination. The high-metal 

content of the road dust sample provides a lesson that collecting samples a sufficient distance from roads avoids any 

contamination from airborne particles. 

The 11 streambed-sediment sites selected provided 

adequate coverage for the watershed. Increased sampling density could provide additional data, but results may not extend 

the range of background data. Results from the streambed 

sediment sampling point to the potential value of a followup 

study, with increased sampling density both upstream and 

downstream of the small uranium prospect on the East Branch 

Huron River. The somewhat elevated mercury values for the 

two samples downstream from the prospect suggest there 

could be some contribution of metals to bed sediments from 

these mineralized rocks, and potentially to water, but the 

extent of any potential contribution cannot be determined from 

the current set of samples.

The results from this study suggest the following for 

future soil and streambed geochemical baseline studies in the 

region: (1) Stratifying sample site selection on surficial geology rather than randomly selected or selected on a grid will 

help to ensure that diverse soil geochemistry across multiple 

soil parents is captured and adequate samples in different 

categories are available for statistical analysis. (2) Collecting 

soils by horizon rather by depth eliminates the geochemical variability that might result from the possible mixing of 
References Cited 27

chemically diverse soil horizons in random percentages that 

can result from depth sampling. (3) Element concentrations 

in C-horizon soils might more closely reflect the ”natural” 

background concentration of an element, while the geochemistry of an A horizon might also capture the influence of human 

activities, as well as short- and long-distance transport and 

atmospheric deposition of some trace metals. Collecting, at 

a minimum, A- and C-horizon soils from each site would 

help ensure that both parameters are taken into account. (4) 

Streambed sediments are best collected during low flow 

when deposition sites are best accessed, and the finer fraction 

analyzed. (5) For streambed sediments and especially for soils, 

partial-digestion data for most elements correlated well with 

element concentrations from the total digestion, confirming 

that most elements are in a readily soluble form. It is suggested that the results from the total digestion of both samples 

is adequate to estimate the readily leachable fraction of this 

suite of metals, making an added expense for partial-digestion 

analysis unnecessary.

Acknowledgments

Special thanks are extended to Dave and Marcy Cella 

who provided guidance and sustenance throughout the sampling phase of the project. George Madison of the Michigan 

Department of Natural Resources Fisheries Division provided 

documentation summarizing an ecological assessment of 

several sites within the watershed in 2008. Jim Ellis, from the 

USGS Michigan Water Science Center, Escanaba Field Office, 

supervised and planned the water-quality sampling part of the 

study. Matt Holmio, Steve Horton, John Knudsen, and Dan 

Wydra, from the Escanaba Field Office, collected data used 

for the study. Rick Jodoin and Cyndi Rachol, USGS Michigan 

Water Science Center, assisted with figure preparation. The 

manuscript was greatly improved by careful reviews from 

James Stark, USGS Minnesota Water Science Center, and 

Larry Gough, USGS, Eastern Mineral Resources.

References Cited

Berndt, L.W., 1988, Soil survey of Baraga County area, Michigan: U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation 

Service, 306 p.

Briggs, P.H., 2002, The determination of forty elements 

in geological and botanical samples by inductively 

coupled plasma-atomic emission spectrometry, chap. G 

of Taggart, J.E., Jr., ed., Analytical methods for chemical analysis of geologic and other materials: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 02–223, 20 p. (Also 

available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2002/ofr-02-0223/

G01fortyelementICP–AESsolid_M.pdf.)

Briggs, P.H., and Meier, A.L., 2002, The determination of 

forty-two elements in geological by inductively coupled 

plasma-mass spectrometry, chap. I of Taggart, J.E., Jr., ed., 

Analytical methods for chemical analysis of geologic and 

other materials: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 

02–223, 20 p. (Also available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/

of/2002/ofr-02-0223/I20NAWQAPlus_M.pdf.)

Cannon, W.F., 1977, Map showing Precambrian geology in 

parts of the Baraga, Dead River, and Clark Creek Basins, 

Marquette and Baraga Counties, Michigan: U.S. Geological 

Survey Open-File Report 77–467, 1 map.

Carlson S.M., Robinson, G. W., Elder, M.J., Jaszczak, J.A., 

and Bornhorst, T.J., 2007, Greenockite and associated 

uranium-vanadium minerals from the Huron River uranium 

prospect, Baraga County, Michigan: Rocks and Minerals, 

v. 82, p. 298–308.

Carter, R.W., and Davidian, Jacob, 1968, General procedure 

for gaging streams: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of 

Water-Resources Investigations, book 3, chap. A6, 13 p. 

(Also available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/twri/twri3-A6/.)

Doonan, C.J., and Byerlay, J.R., 1973, Ground water and 

geology of Baraga County, Michigan: State of Michigan 

Geological Survey Water Investigation 11, 26 p.

Fenneman, N.M., 1928, Physiographic division of the United 

States: Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 

v. 18, p. 261–353.

Gough, L.P., Crock, J.G., Wang, Bronwen, Day, W.C., Eberl, 

D.D., Sanzolone, R.F., and Lamothe, P.J., 2008, Substrate 

geochemistry and soil development in boreal forest and 

tundra ecosystems in the Yukon-Tanana Upland and Seward 

Peninsula, Alaska: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific 

Investigations Report 2008–5010, 18 p. (Also available at 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2008/5010/.)

Govindaraju. K., ed., 1989, Compilation of working values 

and sample descriptions for 272 geostandards: Geostandard 

Newsletter, v. 13.

Gromet, L.P., Dymek, R.F., Haskin, L.A., and Korotev, R.L., 

1984, The “North American shale composite”—Its compilation, major and trace elements characteristics: Geochimica 

et Cosmochimica Acta, v. 48, p. 2469–2482.

Hem, J.D., 1985, Study and interpretation of the chemical 

characteristics of natural water (3d ed.): U.S. Geological 

Survey Water-Supply Paper 2254, 264 p. (Also available at 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/wsp/wsp2254/.)

Kalliokoski, J., and Lynott, J.S., 1987, Huron River: Precambrian unconformities and alteration at and near Big 

Eric’s Crossing, Michigan: Geological Society of American 

Centennial Field Guide – North-Central Section, 1987, 

p. 273–276.
28 Environmental Baseline Study of the Huron River Watershed, Baraga and Marquette Counties, Michigan

Klassen, R.A., 1998, Geological factors affecting the distribution of trace metals in glacial sediments of central Newfoundland: Environmental Geology, v. 33, p. 154–169.

Krabbenhoft, D.P., and Rickert, D., 1995, Mercury contamination of aquatic ecosystems: U.S. Geological Survey Fact 

Sheet 216–95, 4 p. (Also available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/

fs/1995/fs216-95/.)

Krabbenhoft, D.P., Wiener, J.G., Brumbaugh, W.G., Olson, 

M.L., DeWild, J.F., and Sabin, T.J. , 1999, A national pilot 

study of mercury contamination of aquatic ecosystems 

along multiple gradients, in Morganwalp, D.W., and Buxton, H.T., eds., U.S. Geological Survey toxic substances 

hydrology program—Proceedings of the technical meeting, Charleston, South Carolina, March 8–12, 1999: U.S. 

Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 

99–4018B, p. 147–160. (Also available at http://toxics.usgs.

gov/pubs/wri99-4018/Volume2/sectionB/2301_Krabbenhoft/

pdf/2301_Krabbenhoft.pdf.)

Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, 2003, The 

design of a biological community trend monitoring program 

for Michigan wadeable streams: Michigan Department of 

Environmental Quality Draft Report MI/DEQ/WB–03/086, 

92 p. with attachments.

Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, Water 

Bureau, 2007, A biological survey of Lake Superior 

tributaries from the Keweenaw Peninsula to the Carp 

River—Baraga, Houghton, Iron, Marquette, and Ontonagon 

Counties, Michigan: Michigan Department of Environmental Quality Staff Report MI/DEQ/WB–07/080, 19 p. with 

attachments.

Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, 2007, Qualitative biological and habitat survey protocols for wadeable 

streams and rivers, Great Lakes Environmental Assessment Section procedure #51, revised May 2007: Michigan 

Department of Environmental Quality, 51 p.

Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, 2008, 

Rule 57 water quality values, 2008: Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, accessed July 9, 2008, 

at http://www.michigan.gov/documents/deq/wb-swasrule57_210455_7.xls.

Michigan Department of Natural Resources, 2008, Huron 

River watershed assessment, Michigan’s Baraga and 

Marquette Counties: Michigan Department of Natural 

Resources, 26 p.

Moulton, S.R., II, Kennen, J.G., Goldstein, R.M., and Hambrook, J.A., 2002, Revised protocols for sampling algal, 

invertebrate, and fish communities as part of the National 

Water-Quality Assessment Program: U.S. Geological 

Survey Open-File Report 02–150, 75 p. (Also available at 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2002/ofr-02-150/.)

Oblinger Childress, C.J., Foreman, W.T., Connor, B.F., and 

Maloney, T.J., 1999, New reporting procedures based on 

long-term method detection levels and some considerations 

for interpretations of water-quality data provided by the 

U.S. Geological Survey National Water-Quality Laboratory: 

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 99–193, 19 p. 

(Also available at http://water.usgs.gov/owq/OFR_99-193/

ofr99_193.pdf.)

Peterson, W.L., 1984, Surficial geologic map of the Iron River 

1 degree by 2 degree quadrangle, Michigan and Wisconsin: 

U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Investigations Map 

I–1360–C, 1 sheet. (Also available at http://pubs.er.usgs.

gov/usgspubs/i/i1360C.) 

Rantz, S.E., 1982, Measurement and computation of streamflow: Measurement of stage and discharge v.1: U.S. 

Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2175, 284 p. 

(Also available at http://water.usgs.gov/owq/OFR_99-193/

ofr99_193.pdf.)

Rossell, Dean, 2008, Geology of the Keweenawan BIC Intrusion, in Bornhorst, T.J., and Klasner, J.S., eds., Proceedings 

of the 54th Institute on Lake Superior Geology, Part 2—

Field Trip Guidebook, May 6–10, 2008: Marquette, Mich., 

Institute on Lake Superior Geology, p. 181–199.

Roy, J.L. and Robertson, W.A., 1978, Paleomagnetism of the 

Jacobsville Formation and the apparent polar path for the 

interval -1100 to -670 m.y. for North America: Journal of 

Geophysical Research, v. 83, p. 1289–1304.

Schwenner, Charles, 2007, Soil survey of Marquette County, 

Michigan: U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural 

Resources Conservation Service, 1323 p.

Smith, D.B., Woodruff, L.G., O’Leary, R.M., Cannon, W.F., 

Garrett, R.G., Kilburn, J.E., and Goldhaber, M.B., 2009, 

Pilot studies for the North American Soil Geochemical 

Landscapes Project—Site selection, sampling protocols, 

analytical methods, and quality control protocols: Applied 

Geochemistry, v. 24, p. 1357–1368.

Smith, S.M., 1997, Geochemistry of Wisconsin and Michigan 

National Uranium Resource Evaluation hydrogeochemical 

and stream sediment reconnaissance program: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 97–492 [reformatted in 

2006], accessed March 15, 2010, at http://pubs.usgs.gov/

of/1997/492/index.html.

Sokal, R.R., and Rohlf, F.J., 1981, Biometry—The principles 

and practices of statistics in biological research (2d ed.): 

New York, W.H. Freeman and Company, 859 p.

Sweat, M.J., and Rheaume, S.J., 1998, Water resources of the 

Keweenaw Bay Indian Community: U.S. Geological Survey 

Water-Resources Investigations Report 98–4060, 33 p.
References Cited 29

Taggart, J.E., Jr., ed., 2002, Analytical methods for chemical analysis of geologic and other materials: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 02–223, 20 p. (Also 

available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2002/ofr-02-0223/

G01fortyelementICP–AESsolid_M.pdf.)

Taylor, J.K., 1987, Quality assurance of chemical measurements: Chelsea, Mich., Lewis Publishers, 328 p.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1995a, Great Lakes 

water quality initiative technical support document for wildlife criteria: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency EPA 

820–B95–009, 49 p.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1995b, Great Lakes 

water quality initiative technical support document for 

human health criteria and values: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency EPA 820–B95–007, 109 p. plus appendixes.

U.S. Geological Survey, 2006, Geochemistry of water 

samples in the US from the NURE database: U.S. Geological Survey database, accessed March 15, 2010, at 

http://tin.er.usgs.gov/nure/water/select.php.

U.S. Geological Survey, [variously dated], National field 

manual for the collection of water-quality data: U.S. 

Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources 

Investigations, book 9, chaps. A1–A9. (Also available at 

http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A.)

Weaver, T.L., Sullivan, D.J., Rachol, C.M., and Ellis, J.M., 

2010, Water quality and hydrology of the Silver River Watershed, Baraga County, Michigan, 2005–08: U.S. Geological 

Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2010–5050, 66 p. 

Wedepohl, K.H., 1995, The composition of the continental crust: Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, v. 59, 

p. 1217–1232.

Wiener, J.G., Knights, B.C., Sandheinrich, M.B., Jeremiason, 

J.D., Brigham, M.E., Engstrom, D.R., Woodruff, L.G., Cannon, W.F., and Balogh, S.J., 2006, Mercury in soils, lakes, 

and fish in Voyageurs National Park (Minnesota)—Importance of atmospheric deposition and ecosystem factors: Environmental Science and Technology, v. 40, p. 6261–6268.

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, 2004, Surfacewater-quality standards and policy, Table 9, Sensitivity of lakes to acid rain, accessed March 18, 2010, at 

http://learningstore.uwex.edu/assets/pdfs/G3582.pdf.

Zoback, M.L, 2001, Grand challenges in earth and environmental sciences: science, stewardship, and service for the 

21st century: GSA Today, v. 11, p. 41–46.
30 Environmental Baseline Study of the Huron River Watershed, Baraga and Marquette Counties, Michigan

Appendix 1. List of Abbreviations

GLEAS Great Lakes Environmental Assessment Section

KBIC Keweenaw Bay Indian Community

LLD lower limit of detection

LRL laboratory reporting level

LT–MDL long-term method detection limit

MDEQ Michigan Department of Environmental Quality

MDNR Michigan Department of Natural Resources

MDL method detection limit

MRL minimum reporting level

NFM national field manual

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NWIS National Water Information System

NWQL National Water Quality Laboratory

PPM parts per million

QA quality assurance

QC quality control

QAPP Quality-Assurance Program Plan

QA/QC quality assurance/quality control

USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

wt. % weight percent
Appendix 2 31

Appendix 2. Physical Properties and Concentrations of Major Elements, Solids, 

Nutrients, Metals, and Suspended Solids, East Branch Huron River Downstream 

of East Branch Falls Near McComb Corner, Baraga County, Michigan

Appendix 2A. Physical properties and concentrations of major elements, solids, nutrients, metals, and suspended solids, East 

Branch Huron River downstream of East Branch Falls near McComb Corner, Baraga County, Michigan.—Continued

[°C, degrees Celsius; mm/Hg, millimeters of mercury; ft3/s, cubic foot per second; μs/cm, microseimens per centimeter; unfil, unfiltered; mg/L, milligrams per 

liter; std units, standard units; E, estimated value; <, less than; fil, filtered; N, nitrogen; P, phosphorous; CaCO3, calcium carbonate; μg/L, micrograms per liter; 

ng/L, nanograms per liter; --, no data; tons/day, tons per day; tons/acre-ft, tons per acre-foot; mm, millimeter]”

USGS site Parameter code Reporting units Sampling date

4/29/2008 6/25/2009 8/13/2009

4043182 00010 Water temperature °C 2.5 17.5 16

00025 Barometric pressure mm/Hg 745 742 739

00061 Streamflow, instantaneous ft3

/s 75 7.2 4.4

00095 Specific conductance μS/cm @ 25°C 32 83 104

00300 Dissolved oxygen, water, unfil mg/l 13.4 9 9.2

00400 pH, unfil std units 7 7.8 7.9

00453 Bicarbonate, water, fil, incremental titration mg/l 11 41 58

00600 Total nitrogen, water, unfil mg/l 0.37 E.28 E.2

00602 Total nitrogen, water, fil mg/l 0.38 E.36 E.26

00608 Ammonia, water, fil mg/l as N <.02 <.02 <.02

00613 Nitrite, water, fil mg/l as N <.002 <.002 E.001

00618 Nitrate, water, fil mg/l as N -- -- E.02

00623 Ammonia plus organic nitrogen, water, fil mg/l as N 0.32 0.33 0.24

00625 Ammonia plus organic nitrogen, water, unfil mg/l as N 0.32 0.25 0.18

00631 Nitrate plus nitrite, water, fil mg/l as N 0.05 E.04 E.02

00660 Orthophosphate, water, fil mg/l -- -- E.014

00665 Phosphorus, water, unfil mg/l 0.009 E.007 E.004

00666 Phosphorus, water, fil mg/l E.005 E.005 <.006

00671 Orthophosphate, water, fil mg/l as P <.006 <.006 E.004

00900 Hardness, water mg/l CaCO3 14 40 52

00904 Noncarbonate hardness, water, fil mg/l CaCO3 5 6 4

00915 Calcium, water, fil mg/l 3.9 11.7 15.3

00925 Magnesium, water, fil mg/l 0.946 2.53 3.25

00930 Sodium, water, fil mg/l 0.58 1.11 1.36

00932 Sodium fraction of cations, water percent 8 6 5

00935 Potassium, water, fil mg/l 0.41 0.55 0.63

00940 Chloride,water, fil mg/l 0.19 0.38 0.46

00945 Sulfate, water, fil mg/l 2.65 3.18 3.81

00950 Fluoride,water, fil mg/l <.12 <.12 <.12

00955 Silica, water, fil mg/l SiO2 4.92 6.48 7.57

01000 Arsenic, water, fil μg/l 0.28 0.65 0.59

01005 Barium, water, fil μg/l 5 9 11

01010 Beryllium, water, fil μg/l <.01 E.01 <.01

01025 Cadmium, water, fil μg/l E.03 E.03 E.03
32 Environmental Baseline Study of the Huron River Watershed, Baraga and Marquette Counties, Michigan

Appendix 2A. Physical properties and concentrations of major elements, solids, nutrients, metals, and suspended solids, East 

Branch Huron River downstream of East Branch Falls near McComb Corner, Baraga County, Michigan.—Continued

[°C, degrees Celsius; mm/Hg, millimeters of mercury; ft3/s, cubic foot per second; μs/cm, microseimens per centimeter; unfil, unfiltered; mg/L, milligrams per 

liter; std units, standard units; E, estimated value; <, less than; fil, filtered; N, nitrogen; P, phosphorous; CaCO3, calcium carbonate; μg/L, micrograms per liter; 

ng/L, nanograms per liter; --, no data; tons/day, tons per day; tons/acre-ft, tons per acre-foot; mm, millimeter]”

USGS site Parameter code Reporting units Sampling date

4/29/2008 6/25/2009 8/13/2009

01030 Chromium,water, fil μg/l 0.24 0.18 0.14

01035 Cobalt, water, fil μg/l 0.04 0.05 0.04

01040 Copper, water, fil μg/l 1.4 1.4 E.65

01046 Iron, water, fil μg/l 136 130 84

01049 Lead, water, fil μg/l 0.1 E.06 <.08

01056 Manganese, water, fil μg/l 3.8 2.5 2

01060 Molybdenum, water, fil μg/l <.2 E.2 0.3

01065 Nickel, water, fil μg/l 0.48 0.64 0.52

01075 Silver, water, fil μg/l <.1 <.1 <.1

01090 Zinc, water, fil μg/l 3.2 4.3 4.2

01095 Antimony,water, fil μg/l <.14 <.14 <.14

01106 Aluminum,water, fil μg/l 100 25.9 13.6

01145 Selenium,water, fil μg/l 0.06 0.1 0.08

22703 Uranium (natural), water, fil μg/l 0.02 0.06 0.07

39086 Alkalinity, water, fil, inflection-point titration mg/l CaCO3 9 34 48

50284 Methylmercury, water, unfil, recoverable ng/l -- -- 0.15

50286 Mercury, water, unfil ng/l -- -- 1.83

70300 Residue on evaporation, dried at 180°C mg/l 40 59 80

70301 Residue, water, fil, sum of constituents mg/l E20 E46 E61

70302 Residue, water, dissolved tons/day 8.02 1.14 0.94

70303 Residue, water, fil tons/acre-ft 0.05 0.08 0.11

70331 Suspended sediment, sieve diameter percent <0.063 mm 67 55 71

71851 Nitrate, water, fil mg/l -- -- E.083

71856 Nitrite, water, fil mg/l -- -- E.004

71890 Mercury, water, fil μg/l <.01 <.01 --

80154 Suspended sediment concentration mg/l 1 3 2

80155 Suspended sediment discharge tons/day 0.2 0.06 0.02
Appendix 2 33

Appendix 2B. Physical properties and concentrations of major elements, solids, nutrients, metals, and suspended solids, Tributary to 

East Branch Huron River near McComb Corner, Baraga County, Michigan.—Continued

[°C, degrees Celsius; mm/Hg, millimeters of mercury; ft3/s, cubic foot per second; μs/cm, microseimens per centimeter; unfil, unfiltered; mg/L, milligrams per 

liter; std units, standard units; E, estimated value; <, less than; fil, filtered; N, nitrogen; P, phosphorous; CaCO3, calcium carbonate; μg/L, micrograms per liter; 

ng/L, nanograms per liter; --, no data; tons/day, tons per day; tons/acre-ft, tons per acre-foot; mm, millimeter]

USGS site Parameter code Reporting units Sampling date

4/29/2008 6/25/2009 8/13/2009

04043183 00010 Water temperature °C 4.5 14 13

00025 Barometric pressure mm/Hg 745 742 739

00061 Streamflow, instantaneous ft3

/s 12 1.6 1.1

00095 Specific conductance, water, unfil μS/cm @ 25°C 53 158 186

00300 Dissolved oxygen, water, unfil mg/l 12.3 9.6 10.1

00400 pH, unfil std units 7.3 8 8.2

00453 Bicarbonate, water, fil, inflection-point titration mg/l 24 90 108

00600 Total nitrogen, water, unfil mg/l 0.46 0.35 E.29

00602 Total nitrogen, water, fil mg/l 0.47 0.45 0.4

00608 Ammonia, water, fil mg/l as N <.020 <.020 <.020

00613 Nitrite, water, fil mg/l as N <.002 E.001 E.002

00618 Nitrate, water, fil mg/l as N -- E.21 E.20

00623 Ammonia plus organic nitrogen, water, fil mg/l as N 0.33 0.24 0.2

00625 Ammonia plus organic nitrogen, water, unfil mg/l as N 0.33 0.15 E.08

00631 Nitrate plus nitrite, water, fil mg/l as N 0.14 0.21 0.2

00660 Orthophosphate, water, fil mg/l E.012 E.015 0.03

00665 Phosphorus, water, unfil mg/l 0.012 0.008 E.008

00666 Phosphorus, water, fil mg/l 0.007 0.006 0.006

00671 Orthophosphate, water, fil mg/l as P E.004 E.005 0.01

00900 Hardness, water mg/l CaCO3 24 79 94

00904 Noncarbonate hardness, water, fil mg/l CaCO3 4 5 6

00915 Calcium, water, fil mg/l 7.16 24.7 29.5

00925 Magnesium, water, fil mg/l 1.5 4.29 4.98

00930 Sodium, water, fil mg/l 0.89 1.7 1.87

00932 Sodium fraction of cations, water percent 7 4 4

00935 Potassium, water, fil mg/l 0.65 0.96 0.97

00940 Chloride,water, fil mg/l 0.41 0.85 0.94

00945 Sulfate, water, fil mg/l 2.79 4.42 5.17

00950 Fluoride,water, fil mg/l <.12 E.10 <.12

00955 Silica, water, fil mg/l SiO2 5.96 10.5 12

01000 Arsenic, water, fil μg/l 0.36 0.68 0.79

01005 Barium, water, fil μg/l 10 22 24

01010 Beryllium, water, fil μg/l 0.02 <.01 <.01

01025 Cadmium, water, fil μg/l E.02 <.04 <.04

01030 Chromium, water, fil μg/l 0.32 0.24 0.28

01035 Cobalt, water, fil μg/l 0.05 0.04 0.04

01040 Copper, water, fil μg/l 1.6 E.80 E.56

01046 Iron, water, fil μg/l 104 49 25

01049 Lead, water, fil μg/l E.07 <.08 E.04
34 Environmental Baseline Study of the Huron River Watershed, Baraga and Marquette Counties, Michigan

Appendix 2B. Physical properties and concentrations of major elements, solids, nutrients, metals, and suspended solids, Tributary to 

East Branch Huron River near McComb Corner, Baraga County, Michigan.—Continued

[°C, degrees Celsius; mm/Hg, millimeters of mercury; ft3/s, cubic foot per second; μs/cm, microseimens per centimeter; unfil, unfiltered; mg/L, milligrams per 

liter; std units, standard units; E, estimated value; <, less than; fil, filtered; N, nitrogen; P, phosphorous; CaCO3, calcium carbonate; μg/L, micrograms per liter; 

ng/L, nanograms per liter; --, no data; tons/day, tons per day; tons/acre-ft, tons per acre-foot; mm, millimeter]

USGS site Parameter code Reporting units Sampling date

4/29/2008 6/25/2009 8/13/2009

01056 Manganese, water, fil μg/l 4.5 3.9 3.2

01060 Molybdenum, water, fil μg/l <.2 0.2 0.3

01065 Nickel, water, fil μg/l 0.48 0.35 0.4

01075 Silver, water, fil μg/l <.1 <.1 <.1

01090 Zinc, water, fil μg/l E1.5 2.2 3.7

01095 Antimony,water, fil μg/l <.14 <.14 <.14

01106 Aluminum,water, fil μg/l 112 18.4 10.5

01145 Selenium,water, fil μg/l 0.12 0.14 0.18

22703 Uranium (natural), water, fil μg/l 0.11 0.32 0.39

39086 Alkalinity, water, fil, inflection-point titration mg/l CaCO3 20 75 90

50284 Methylmercury, water, unfil, recoverable ng/l -- -- 0.09

50286 Mercury, water, unfil ng/l -- -- 0.93

70300 Residue on evaporation, dried at 180°C mg/l 59 104 111

80154 Suspended sediment concentration mg/l 1 3 2

70301 Residue, water, fil, sum of constituents mg/l E.32 E.93 E.110

70302 Residue, water, dissolved tons/day 1.9 0.45 0.33

70303 Residue, water, fil tons/acre-ft 0.08 0.14 0.15

70331 Suspended sediment, sieve diameter percent <0.063 mm 80 67 83

71851 Nitrate, water, fil mg/l E.906 E.887

71856 Nitrite, water, fil mg/l E.004 E.005

71890 Mercury, water, fil μg/l <.010 <.010 --
Appendix 2 35

Appendix 2C. Physical properties and concentrations of major elements, solids, nutrients, metals, and suspended solids, West 

Branch Huron River near McComb Corner, Baraga County, Michigan.—Continued

[°C, degrees Celsius; mm/Hg, millimeters of mercury; ft3/s, cubic foot per second; μs/cm, microseimens per centimeter; unfil, unfiltered; mg/L, milligrams per 

liter; std units, standard units; E, estimated value; <, less than; fil, filtered; N, nitrogen; P, phosphorous; CaCO3, calcium carbonate; μg/L, micrograms per liter; 

ng/L, nanograms per liter; --, no data; tons/day, tons per day; tons/acre-ft, tons per acre-foot; mm, millimeter]

USGS 

site Parameter code Reporting units Sampling date

4/28/2008 6/24/2009 8/12/2009

4043190 00010 Water temperature °C 4.5 17 16.5

00025 Barometric pressure mm/Hg 736 737 731

00061 Streamflow instantaneous ft3

/s 35 3.9 2.8

00095 Specific conductance, water, unfil μS/cm @ 25°C 42 117 131

00300 Dissolved oxygen, water, unfil mg/l 11.9 8.9 12.5

00400 pH, unfil std units 7.6 8.1 8.3

00453 Bicarbonate, water, fil, inflection-point titration mg/l 17 65 74

00600 Total nitrogen, water, unfil mg/l 0.39 E.21 E.20

00602 Total nitrogen, water, fil mg/l 0.34 0.26 E.21

00608 Ammonia, water, fil mg/l as N <.020 <.020 <.020

00613 Nitrite, water, fil mg/l as N <.002 <.002 <.002

00623 Ammonia plus organic nitrogen, water, fil mg/l as N 0.19 0.17 E.12

00625 Ammonia plus organic nitrogen, water, unfil mg/l as N 0.24 E.12 E.11

00631 Nitrate plus nitrite, water, fil mg/l as N 0.15 0.09 0.09

00660 Orthophosphate, water, fil mg/l E.009 -- E.018

00665 Phosphorus, water, unfil mg/l 0.011 <.008 <.008

00666 Phosphorus, water, fil mg/l E.004 <.006 <.006

00671 Orthophosphate, water, fil mg/l as P E.003 <.006 E.006

00900 Hardness, water mg/l CaCO3 18 57 66

00904 Noncarbonate hardness, water, fil mg/l CaCO3 4 4 5

00915 Calcium, water, fil mg/l 5.09 16.8 19.3

00925 Magnesium, water, fil mg/l 1.23 3.78 4.24

00930 Sodium, water, fil mg/l 0.65 1.34 1.48

00932 Sodium fraction of cations, water percent 7 5 5

00935 Potassium, water, fil mg/l 0.45 0.59 0.61

00940 Chloride,water, fil mg/l 0.33 0.27 0.34

00945 Sulfate, water, fil mg/l 2.92 4.7 5.11

00950 Fluoride,water, fil mg/l <.12 <.12 <.12

00955 Silica, water, fil mg/l SiO2 5.49 8.45 9.63

01000 Arsenic, water, fil μg/l 0.28 0.62 0.68

01005 Barium, water, fil μg/l 5 9 9

01010 Beryllium, water, fil μg/l -- <.01 <.01

01025 Cadmium, water, fil μg/l E.03 <.04 <.04

01030 Chromium,water, fil μg/l 0.22 E.11 E.11

01035 Cobalt, water, fil μg/l 0.05 0.04 0.03

01040 Copper, water, fil μg/l 1.1 1 <1.0

01046 Iron, water, fil μg/l 71 41 49

01049 Lead, water, fil μg/l 0.09 <.08 E.07

01056 Manganese, water, fil μg/l 5.1 1.9 1.3
36 Environmental Baseline Study of the Huron River Watershed, Baraga and Marquette Counties, Michigan

Appendix 2C. Physical properties and concentrations of major elements, solids, nutrients, metals, and suspended solids, West 

Branch Huron River near McComb Corner, Baraga County, Michigan.—Continued

[°C, degrees Celsius; mm/Hg, millimeters of mercury; ft3/s, cubic foot per second; μs/cm, microseimens per centimeter; unfil, unfiltered; mg/L, milligrams per 

liter; std units, standard units; E, estimated value; <, less than; fil, filtered; N, nitrogen; P, phosphorous; CaCO3, calcium carbonate; μg/L, micrograms per liter; 

ng/L, nanograms per liter; --, no data; tons/day, tons per day; tons/acre-ft, tons per acre-foot; mm, millimeter]

USGS 

site Parameter code Reporting units Sampling date

4/28/2008 6/24/2009 8/12/2009

01060 Molybdenum, water, fil μg/l E.1 0.3 0.4

01065 Nickel, water, fil μg/l 0.47 0.47 0.38

01075 Silver, water, fil μg/l <.1 <.1 <.1

01090 Zinc, water, fil μg/l 2.3 2.2 3.4

01095 Antimony,water, fil μg/l <.14 <.14 <.14

01106 Aluminum,water, fil μg/l 79.9 15.6 12.9

01145 Selenium,water, fil μg/l 0.06 0.05 0.05

22703 Uranium (natural), water, fil μg/l 0.03 0.08 0.09

39086 Alkalinity, water, fil, inflection-point titration mg/l CaCO3 14 54 62

50284 Methylmercury, water, unfil, recoverable ng/l -- -- 0.23

50286 Mercury, water, unfil ng/l -- -- 1.03

70300 Residue on evaporation, dried at 180°C mg/l 39 79 86

70301 Residue, water, fil, sum of constituents mg/l E25 E68 E78

70302 Residue, water, dissolved tons/day 3.73 0.83 0.65

70303 Residue, water, fil tons/acre-ft 0.05 0.11 0.12

70331 Suspended sediment, sieve diameter percent 36 8 33

71890 Mercury, water, fil μg/l <.010 <.010 --

80154 Suspended sediment concentration mg/l 8 3 1

80155 Suspended sediment discharge tons/day 0.76 0.03 0.01
Appendix 2 37

Appendix 2D. Physical properties and concentrations of major elements, solids, nutrients, metals, and suspended solids, Robarge 

Creek near McComb Corner, Baraga County, Michigan.—Continued

[°C, degrees Celsius; mm/Hg, millimeters of mercury; ft3/s, cubic foot per second; μs/cm, microseimens per centimeter; unfil, unfiltered; mg/L, milligrams per 

liter; std units, standard units; E, estimated value; <, less than; fil, filtered; N, nitrogen; P, phosphorous; CaCO3, calcium carbonate; μg/L, micrograms per liter; 

ng/L, nanograms per liter; --, no data; tons/day, tons per day; tons/acre-ft, tons per acre-foot; mm, millimeter]

USGS 

site Parameter code Reporting units Sampling date

4/28/2008 6/24/2008 8/12/2008

4043194 00010 Water temperature °C 5.5 17.5 15.5

00025 Barometric pressure mm/Hg 730 735 731

00061 Streamflow, instantaneous ft3

/s 13 .43 E.05

00095 Specific conductance, water, unfil μS/cm @ 25°C 34 79 126

00300 Dissolved oxygen, water, unfil mg/l 11.3 7.9 7.2

00400 pH, unfil std units 7.6 7.6 8.4

00453 Bicarbonate, water, fil, inflection-point titration mg/l 12 44 69

00600 Total nitrogen, water, unfil mg/l E.26 .29 E.25

00602 Total nitrogen, water, fil mg/l E.23 .33 E.29

00608 Ammonia, water, fil mg/l as N <.020 <.020 <.020

00613 Nitrite, water, fil mg/l as N <.002 <.002 <.002

00623 Ammonia plus organic nitrogen, water, fil mg/l as N .21 .20 E.14

00625 Ammonia plus organic nitrogen, water, unfil mg/l as N .23 .16 E.10

00631 Nitrate plus nitrite, water, fil mg/l as N E.02 .13 .16

00660 Orthophosphate, water, fil mg/l -- -- .020

00665 Phosphorus, water, unfil mg/l E.007 <.008 E.005

00666 Phosphorus, water, fil mg/l E.004 E.004 E.003

00671 Orthophosphate, water, fil mg/l as P <.006 <.006 .007

00900 Hardness, water mg/l CaCO3 14 36 62

00904 Noncarbonate hardness, water, fil, field mg/l CaCO3 5 -- 5

00915 Calcium, water, fil mg/l 4.11 10.5 18.2

00925 Magnesium, water, fil mg/l 1.01 2.37 3.94

00930 Sodium, water, fil mg/l .73 1.27 1.80

00932 Sodium fraction of cations, water percent 10 7 6

00935 Potassium, water, fil mg/l .44 .68 .84

00940 Chloride,water, fil mg/l .35 .32 .67

00945 Sulfate, water, fil mg/l 2.72 2.77 5.02

00950 Fluoride,water, fil mg/l <.12 <.12 <.12

00955 Silica, water, fil mg/L SiO2 5.71 6.80 9.68

01000 Arsenic, water, fil μg/l .27 .48 .41

01005 Barium, water, fil μg/l 4 9 13

01010 Beryllium, water, fil μg/l <.01 <.01 <.01

01025 Cadmium, water, fil μg/l E.03 E.02 E.03

01030 Chromium,water, fil μg/l .28 E.10 .13

01035 Cobalt, water, fil μg/l .04 .05 .03

01040 Copper, water, fil μg/l 1.1 1.1 E.61

01046 Iron, water, fil μg/l 64 37 16

01049 Lead, water, fil μg/l .13 E.06 .12

01056 Manganese, water, fil μg/l 2.7 3.0 3.6
38 Environmental Baseline Study of the Huron River Watershed, Baraga and Marquette Counties, Michigan

Appendix 2D. Physical properties and concentrations of major elements, solids, nutrients, metals, and suspended solids, Robarge 

Creek near McComb Corner, Baraga County, Michigan.—Continued

[°C, degrees Celsius; mm/Hg, millimeters of mercury; ft3/s, cubic foot per second; μs/cm, microseimens per centimeter; unfil, unfiltered; mg/L, milligrams per 

liter; std units, standard units; E, estimated value; <, less than; fil, filtered; N, nitrogen; P, phosphorous; CaCO3, calcium carbonate; μg/L, micrograms per liter; 

ng/L, nanograms per liter; --, no data; tons/day, tons per day; tons/acre-ft, tons per acre-foot; mm, millimeter]

USGS 

site Parameter code Reporting units Sampling date

4/28/2008 6/24/2008 8/12/2008

01060 Molybdenum, water, fil μg/l <.2 .2 .3

01065 Nickel, water, fil μg/l .59 .84 .75

01075 Silver, water, fil μg/l <.1 <.1 <.1

01090 Zinc, water, fil μg/l 3.4 11.7 3.5

01095 Antimony,water, fil μg/l <.14 <.14 <.14

01106 Aluminum,water, fil μg/l 75.4 15.3 5.4

01145 Selenium,water, fil μg/l .06 .06 E.04

22703 Uranium (natural), water, fil μg/l .03 .02 .03

39086 Alkalinity, water, fil, inflection-point titration mg/l CaCO3 10 36 57

50284 Methylmercury, water, unfil, recoverable ng/l -- -- .13

50286 Mercury, water, unfil ng/l -- -- .92

70300 Residue on evaporation, dried at 180°C mg/l 40 54 77

70301 Residue, water, fil, sum of constituents mg/l E21 E47 E75

70302 Residue, water, dissolved tons/day 1.42 .06 E.01

70303 Residue, water, fil tons/acre-ft .06 .07 .11

70331 Suspended sediment, sieve diameter percent <0.063 mm 13 50 67

71890 Mercury, water, fil μg/l <.010 <.010 --

80154 Suspended sediment concentration mg/l 2 1 2

80155 Suspended sediment discharge tons/day .07 .00 E.00
Appendix 2 39

Appendix 2E. Physical properties and concentrations of major elements, solids, nutrients, metals, and suspended solids, Black Creek 

near McComb Corner, Baraga County, Michigan.—Continued

[°C, degrees Celsius; mm/Hg, millimeters of mercury; ft3/s, cubic foot per second; μs/cm, microseimens per centimeter; unfil, unfiltered; mg/L, milligrams per 

liter; std units, standard units; E, estimated value; <, less than; fil, filtered; N, nitrogen; P, phosphorous; CaCO3, calcium carbonate; μg/L, micrograms per liter; 

ng/L, nanograms per liter; --, no data; tons/day, tons per day; tons/acre-ft, tons per acre-foot; mm, millimeter]

USGS site Parameter code Reporting units Sampling date

4/29/2008 6/24/2008 8/13/2008

04043198 00010 Water temperature °C 3.5 18.5 15.5

00025 Barometric pressure mm/Hg 747 745 739

00061 Streamflow, instantaneous ft3

/s 22 1.1 .36

00095 Specific conductance, water, unfil μS/cm @ 25°C 32 75 102

00300 Dissolved oxygen, water, unfil mg/l 9.4 6.7 3.2

00400 pH, unfil std units 6.8 6.7 7.8

00453 Bicarbonate, water, fil, inflection-point titration mg/l 12 38 49

00600 Total nitrogen, water, unfil mg/l -- E.74 --

00602 Total nitrogen, water, fil mg/l -- E.74 --

00605 Organic nitrogen, water, unfil mg/l -- E.72 .72

00607 Organic nitrogen, water, fil mg/l -- E.72 .79

00608 Ammonia, water, fil mg/l as N <.020 E.014 .043

00613 Nitrite, water, fil mg/l as N <.002 E.002 .002

00618 Nitrate, water, fil mg/l as N -- E.02 --

00623 Ammonia plus organic nitrogen, water, fil mg/l as N .42 .72 .83

00625 Ammonia plus organic nitrogen, water, unfil mg/l as N .42 .72 .76

00631 Nitrate plus nitrite, water, fil mg/l as N <.04 E.02 <.04

00660 Orthophosphate, water, fil mg/l -- -- E.018

00665 Phosphorus, water, unfil mg/l .009 .020 .023

00666 Phosphorus, water, fil mg/l .007 .013 .014

00671 Orthophosphate, water, fil mg/l as P <.006 <.006 E.006

00900 Hardness, water mg/l CaCO3 14 36 50

00904 Noncarbonate hardness, water, fil, field mg/l CaCO3 5 5 10

00915 Calcium, water, fil mg/l 4.20 11.1 15.4

00925 Magnesium, water, fil mg/l .962 2.15 2.77

00930 Sodium, water, fil mg/l .85 1.61 2.30

00932 Sodium fraction of cations, water percent 11 9 9

00935 Potassium, water, fil mg/l .62 .62 .66

00940 Chloride,water, fil mg/l .51 1.77 3.56

00945 Sulfate, water, fil mg/l 2.86 .37 .40

00950 Fluoride,water, fil mg/l <.12 <.12 E.06

00955 Silica, water, fil mg/l as SiO2 3.93 3.80 8.95

01000 Arsenic, water, fil μg/l .29 .93 1.3

01005 Barium, water, fil μg/l 9 21 31

01010 Beryllium, water, fil μg/l .02 .02 .01

01025 Cadmium, water, fil μg/l E.04 .05 E.03

01030 Chromium,water, fil μg/l .36 .38 .29

01035 Cobalt, water, fil μg/l .06 .30 .71

01040 Copper, water, fil μg/l 2.0 1.5 <1.0
40 Environmental Baseline Study of the Huron River Watershed, Baraga and Marquette Counties, Michigan

Appendix 2E. Physical properties and concentrations of major elements, solids, nutrients, metals, and suspended solids, Black Creek 

near McComb Corner, Baraga County, Michigan.—Continued

[°C, degrees Celsius; mm/Hg, millimeters of mercury; ft3/s, cubic foot per second; μs/cm, microseimens per centimeter; unfil, unfiltered; mg/L, milligrams per 

liter; std units, standard units; E, estimated value; <, less than; fil, filtered; N, nitrogen; P, phosphorous; CaCO3, calcium carbonate; μg/L, micrograms per liter; 

ng/L, nanograms per liter; --, no data; tons/day, tons per day; tons/acre-ft, tons per acre-foot; mm, millimeter]

USGS site Parameter code Reporting units Sampling date

4/29/2008 6/24/2008 8/13/2008

01046 Iron, water, fil μg/l 160 923 1540

01049 Lead, water, fil μg/l .09 .16 .09

01056 Manganese, water, fil μg/l 4.6 114 663

01060 Molybdenum, water, fil μg/l <.2 E.2 E.1

01065 Nickel, water, fil μg/l .89 1.6 1.5

01075 Silver, water, fil μg/l <.1 <.1 <.1

01090 Zinc, water, fil μg/l 4.2 15.8 4.3

01095 Antimony,water, fil μg/l <.14 <.14 <.14

01106 Aluminum,water, fil μg/l <1.6 74.5 56.3

01145 Selenium,water, fil μg/l .10 .15 .15

22703 Uranium (natural), water, fil μg/l .06 .08 .05

39086 Alkalinity, water, fil, inflection-point titration mg/l CaCO3 10 32 40

50284 Methylmercury, water, unfil, recoverable ng/l -- -- 1.22

50286 Mercury, water, unfil ng/l -- -- 4.50

70300 Residue on evaporation, dried at 180°C mg/l 46 84 102

70301 Residue, water, fil, sum of constituents mg/l E20 E41 E61

70302 Residue, water, dissolved tons/day 2.76 .25 .10

70303 Residue, water, fil tons/acre-ft .06 .11 .14

70331 Suspended sediment, sieve diameter percent <0.063 mm 86 75 81

71846 Ammonia, water, fil mg/l NH4 -- E.02 .06

71851 Nitrate, water, fil mg/l -- E.082 --

71856 Nitrite, water, fil mg/l -- E.005 .008

71890 Mercury, water, fil μg/l <.010 E.005 --

80154 Suspended sediment concentration mg/l 2 2 8

80155 Suspended sediment discharge tons/day .12 .01 .01
Appendix 2 41

Appendix 2F. Physical properties and concentrations of major elements, solids, nutrients, metals, and suspended solids, Huron 

River at Big Eric’s Bridge near Skanee, Baraga County, Michigan.—Continued

[°C, degrees Celsius; mm/Hg, millimeters of mercury; ft3/s, cubic foot per second; μs/cm, microseimens per centimeter; unfil, unfiltered; mg/L, milligrams 

per liter; std units, standard units; E, estimated value; <, less than; fil, filtered; N, nitrogen; P, phosphorous; CaCO3, calcium carbonate; μg/L, micrograms per 

liter; ng/L, nanograms per liter; --, no data; tons/day, tons per day; tons/acre-ft, tons per acre-foot; mm, millimeter]

USGS site Parameter code Reporting units Sampling date

4/29/2008 6/25/2008 8/13/2008

04043200 00010 Water temperature °C 6.0 19.5 21.0

00025 Barometric pressure mm/Hg 743 743 740

00061 Streamflow, instantaneous ft3

/s 173 17 7.5

00095 Specific conductance, water, unfil μS/cm @ 25°C 36 97 119

00300 Dissolved oxygen, water, unfil mg/l 12.3 8.7 8.4

00400 pH, unfil std units 7.0 8.3 7.8

00453 Bicarbonate, water, fil, inflection-point titration mg/l 15 53 66

00600 Total nitrogen, water, unfil mg/l .39 .29 E.23

00602 Total nitrogen, water, fil mg/l .34 .41 E.31

00608 Ammonia, water, fil mg/l as N <.020 <.020 <.020

00613 Nitrite, water, fil mg/l as N <.002 <.002 E.001

00618 Nitrate, water, fil mg/l as N -- -- E.04

00623 Ammonia plus organic nitrogen, water, fil mg/l as N .28 .35 .27

00625 Ammonia plus organic nitrogen, water, unfil mg/l as N .33 .22 .19

00631 Nitrate plus nitrite, water, fil mg/l as N .06 .06 E.04

00660 Orthophosphate, water, fil mg/l -- -- E.014

00665 Phosphorus, water, unfil mg/l .009 E.006 E.006

00666 Phosphorus, water, fil mg/l E.005 E.004 <.006

00671 Orthophosphate, water, fil mg/l as P <.006 <.006 E.005

00900 Hardness, water mg/l CaCO3 17 46 58

00904 Noncarbonate hardness, water, fil, field mg/l CaCO3 4 3 4

00915 Calcium, water, fil mg/l 4.84 13.7 17.3

00925 Magnesium, water, fil mg/l 1.13 2.89 3.55

00930 Sodium, water, fil mg/l .71 1.30 1.58

00932 Sodium fraction of cations, water percent 8 6 6

00935 Potassium, water, fil mg/l .50 .72 .76

00940 Chloride,water, fil mg/l .34 .74 .94

00945 Sulfate, water, fil mg/l 2.82 3.54 4.02

00950 Fluoride,water, fil mg/l <.12 <.12 <.12

00955 Silica, water, fil mg/l SiO2 5.32 7.20 7.99

01000 Arsenic, water, fil μg/l .31 .61 .59

01005 Barium, water, fil μg/l 6 13 16

01010 Beryllium, water, fil μg/l <.01 <.01 <.01

01025 Cadmium, water, fil μg/l E.03 E.03 E.03

01030 Chromium,water, fil μg/l .26 .18 .14

01035 Cobalt, water, fil μg/l .05 .06 .06

01040 Copper, water, fil μg/l 1.2 1.2 E.93

01046 Iron, water, fil μg/l 118 142 144

01049 Lead, water, fil μg/l .09 E.06 E.05
42 Environmental Baseline Study of the Huron River Watershed, Baraga and Marquette Counties, Michigan

Appendix 2F. Physical properties and concentrations of major elements, solids, nutrients, metals, and suspended solids, Huron 

River at Big Eric’s Bridge near Skanee, Baraga County, Michigan.—Continued

[°C, degrees Celsius; mm/Hg, millimeters of mercury; ft3/s, cubic foot per second; μs/cm, microseimens per centimeter; unfil, unfiltered; mg/L, milligrams 

per liter; std units, standard units; E, estimated value; <, less than; fil, filtered; N, nitrogen; P, phosphorous; CaCO3, calcium carbonate; μg/L, micrograms per 

liter; ng/L, nanograms per liter; --, no data; tons/day, tons per day; tons/acre-ft, tons per acre-foot; mm, millimeter]

USGS site Parameter code Reporting units Sampling date

4/29/2008 6/25/2008 8/13/2008

01056 Manganese, water, fil μg/l 5.0 7.4 10.8

01060 Molybdenum, water, fil μg/l <.2 .2 .3

01065 Nickel, water, fil μg/l .56 .67 .67

01075 Silver, water, fil μg/l <.1 <.1 <.1

01090 Zinc, water, fil μg/l 4.4 4.9 9.6

01095 Antimony,water, fil μg/l <.14 <.14 <.14

01106 Aluminum,water, fil μg/l 105 21.9 16.1

01145 Selenium,water, fil μg/l .07 .09 .09

22703 Uranium (natural), water, fil μg/l .05 .10 .12

39086 Alkalinity, water, fil, inflection-point titration mg/l CaCO3 12 44 54

50284 Methylmercury, water, unfil, recoverable ng/l -- -- .27

50286 Mercury, water, unfil ng/l -- -- 2.03

70300 Residue on evaporation, dried at 180°C mg/l 44 76 76

70301 Residue, water, fil, sum of constituents mg/l E24 E57 E69

70302 Residue, water, dissolved tons/day 20.5 3.47 1.53

70303 Residue, water, fil tons/acre-ft .06 .10 .10

70331 Suspended sediment, sieve diameter percent <0.063 mm 67 40 80

71851 Nitrate, water, fil mg/l -- -- E.153

71856 Nitrite, water, fil mg/l -- -- E.005

71890 Mercury, water, fil μg/l <.010 <.010 --

80154 Suspended sediment concentration mg/l 2 1 1

80155 Suspended sediment discharge tons/day .93 .05 .02
Appendix 3 43

Appendix 3. Mineral Soils (A, E, B, and C Horizons), Huron River Watershed, 

Michigan

Appendix 3. Mineral soils (A, E, B, and C horizons), Huron River Watershed, Michigan.—Continued

Ag

(ppm)

As

(ppm)

Au

(ppm)

Bi

(ppm)

Cd

(ppm)

Cu

(ppm)

Mo

(ppm)

Pb

(ppm)

Sb

(ppm)

Zn

(ppm)

HR–SL–01 A 46.78747 -88.06271 A 7.5 to 8 0.99 4 <0.1 <1 0.88 25.4 0.9 14 <1 61.6

HR–SL–02 A 46.77742 -88.04971 A 0 to 15 1.04 17 <0.1 <1 1.26 37.8 2.2 27 <1 236.0HR–SL–03 A 46.76509 -88.03342 A 0.5 to 5 0.87 2 <0.1 <1 0.61 21.9 0.7 32 <1 46.2

HR–SL–04 A 46.80586 -88.06500 A 0 to 4.5 0.69 3 <0.1 <1 0.51 12.2 0.6 23 <1 35.6

HR–SL–05 A 46.83572 -88.10330 A 1 to 3 0.64 3 <0.1 <1 0.40 15.1 0.6 26 <1 39.3

HR–SL–06 A 46.70800 -88.07032 A 2 to 4 0.63 2 <0.1 <1 0.44 12.8 0.7 36 <1 64.4

HR–SL–07 A 46.72973 -88.05520 A 2 to 4.5 0.78 2 <0.1 <1 0.52 17.3 1.0 29 <1 39.3

HR–SL–08 A 46.74261 -88.04839 A 0 to 3 0.74 2 <0.1 <1 0.66 13.3 0.7 22 <1 48.5

HR–SL–08 A dup 46.74261 -88.04839 A 0 to 3 0.87 2 <0.1 <1 0.43 11.8 0.8 19 <1 45.0

HR–SL–09 A 46.74865 -88.08341 A 2 to 5 0.85 2 <0.1 <1 0.41 11.8 0.7 19 <1 43.5

HR–SL–10 A 46.76124 -88.10713 A 3.5 to 4.5 0.70 3 <0.1 <1 0.56 15.6 0.7 26 <1 35.6

HR–SL–11 A 46.86267 -88.11263 A 0 to 12 0.62 3 <0.1 <1 0.27 8.8 0.6 15 <1 29.8HR–SL–12 A 46.85126 -88.08941 A 5 to 6 0.39 8 <0.1 <1 0.43 17.8 1.3 38 <1 40.9

HR–SL–13 A 46.81975 -88.10149 A 4 to 5 0.53 4 <0.1 <1 0.57 19.3 0.7 38 <1 50.3

HR–SL–14 A 46.76476 -88.07135 A 2.5 to 5 0.89 3 <0.1 <1 0.45 24.2 1.3 34 <1 35.1

HR–SL–15 A 46.74901 -88.05780 A 1.5 to 3 0.84 3 <0.1 <1 1.28 27.0 0.7 41 <1 68.4

HR–SL–16 A 46.77925 -88.09563 A 0 to 2 0.80 2 <0.1 <1 0.57 16.5 0.7 20 <1 68.3

HR–SL–17 A 46.79581 -88.09223 A 0 to 3 0.52 1 <0.1 <1 0.27 8.8 0.5 13 <1 24.6

HR–SL–17 A dup 46.79581 -88.09223 A 0 to 3 0.51 1 <0.1 <1 0.26 8.2 0.4 13 <1 24.2

HR–SL–18 A 46.80113 -88.11597 A 0 to 5 0.85 8 <0.1 <1 0.56 35.2 1.7 23 1 127.0

HR–SL–19 A 46.81204 -88.13567 A 5 to 8 0.37 5 <0.1 <1 0.95 31.4 0.8 48 <1 82.4

HR–SL–20 A 46.91087 -88.06673 A 2 to 3 0.41 3 <0.1 <1 0.16 11.7 0.4 33 <1 19.1

HR–SL–21 A 46.89659 -88.08732 A 4 to 6 0.59 3 <0.1 <1 0.20 14.2 0.6 23 <1 28.0

HR–SL–22 A 46.88639 -88.04665 A 0.5 to 1.5 0.55 3 <0.1 <1 0.57 12.7 0.8 52 <1 47.8

HR–SL–23 A 46.87526 -88.05947 A 2 to 3 0.53 5 <0.1 <1 1.27 20.9 1.4 64 <1 64.1

HR–SL–24 A 46.86947 -88.08019 A 3 to 5.5 0.54 2 <0.1 <1 0.23 10.3 0.6 19 <1 19.3

HR–SL–24 A dup 46.86947 -88.08019 A 3 to 5.5 0.56 2 <0.1 <1 0.24 11.5 0.6 20 <1 20.8

HR–SL–25 A 46.79618 -88.00632 A 2 to 3 0.74 3 <0.1 <1 0.55 20.8 1.1 47 <1 61.4

HR–SL–26 A 46.75230 -87.98873 A 0 to 2 0.70 2 <0.1 <1 0.29 11.1 0.8 30 <1 29.6

HR–SL–27 A 46.81535 -88.01702 A 1 to 5 0.94 4 <0.1 <1 0.59 17.6 1.0 31 1 48.9

HR–SL–28 A 46.82391 -88.04588 A 0.5 to 1.75 0.65 2 <0.1 <1 0.38 14.5 0.7 30 <1 39.6HR–SL–29 A 46.83004 -88.06466 A 3.6 to 4.6 0.43 2 <0.1 <1 0.14 8.5 0.4 21 <1 19.6

HR–SL–30 A 46.85067 -88.03606 A 6 to 7 0.46 7 <0.1 <1 0.44 17.6 1.4 42 <1 28.7

HR–SL–31 A 46.85381 -88.12520 A 4 to 5 0.27 4 <0.1 <1 0.29 15.7 0.7 25 <1 33.9

HR–SL–01 E 46.78747 -88.06271 E 8 to 20 0.61 3 <0.1 <1 0.21 6.87 0.8 12 <1 27.1

Field no. Latitude Longitude Horizon Depth

(cm)

Partial extraction
44 Environmental Baseline Study of the Huron River Watershed, Baraga and Marquette Counties, Michigan

Appendix 3. Mineral soils (A, E, B, and C horizons), Huron River Watershed, Michigan.—Continued

HR–SL–01 A 46.78747 -88.06271 A 7.5 to 8 

HR–SL–02 A 46.77742 -88.04971 A 0 to 15HR–SL–03 A 46.76509 -88.03342 A 0.5 to 5 

HR–SL–04 A 46.80586 -88.06500 A 0 to 4.5 

HR–SL–05 A 46.83572 -88.10330 A 1 to 3 

HR–SL–06 A 46.70800 -88.07032 A 2 to 4 

HR–SL–07 A 46.72973 -88.05520 A 2 to 4.5 

HR–SL–08 A 46.74261 -88.04839 A 0 to 3 

HR–SL–08 A dup 46.74261 -88.04839 A 0 to 3 

HR–SL–09 A 46.74865 -88.08341 A 2 to 5 

HR–SL–10 A 46.76124 -88.10713 A 3.5 to 4.5 

HR–SL–11 A 46.86267 -88.11263 A 0 to 12 HR–SL–12 A 46.85126 -88.08941 A 5 to 6 

HR–SL–13 A 46.81975 -88.10149 A 4 to 5 

HR–SL–14 A 46.76476 -88.07135 A 2.5 to 5 

HR–SL–15 A 46.74901 -88.05780 A 1.5 to 3 

HR–SL–16 A 46.77925 -88.09563 A 0 to 2 

HR–SL–17 A 46.79581 -88.09223 A 0 to 3 

HR–SL–17 A dup 46.79581 -88.09223 A 0 to 3 

HR–SL–18 A 46.80113 -88.11597 A 0 to 5 

HR–SL–19 A 46.81204 -88.13567 A 5 to 8 

HR–SL–20 A 46.91087 -88.06673 A 2 to 3 

HR–SL–21 A 46.89659 -88.08732 A 4 to 6 

HR–SL–22 A 46.88639 -88.04665 A 0.5 to 1.5 

HR–SL–23 A 46.87526 -88.05947 A 2 to 3 

HR–SL–24 A 46.86947 -88.08019 A 3 to 5.5 

HR–SL–24 A dup 46.86947 -88.08019 A 3 to 5.5 

HR–SL–25 A 46.79618 -88.00632 A 2 to 3 

HR–SL–26 A 46.75230 -87.98873 A 0 to 2 

HR–SL–27 A 46.81535 -88.01702 A 1 to 5 

HR–SL–28 A 46.82391 -88.04588 A 0.5 to 1.75 HR–SL–29 A 46.83004 -88.06466 A 3.6 to 4.6 

HR–SL–30 A 46.85067 -88.03606 A 6 to 7 

HR–SL–31 A 46.85381 -88.12520 A 4 to 5 

HR–SL–01 E 46.78747 -88.06271 E 8 to 20 

Field no. Latitude Longitude Horizon Depth

(cm) Al

(wt. %)

Ca

(wt. %)

Fe

(wt. %)

K

(wt. %)

Mg

(wt. %)

Na

(wt. %)

S

(wt. %)

Ti

(wt. %)

Ag

(ppm)

As

(ppm)

Ba

(ppm)

1.89 0.62 1.30 0.80 0.34 0.31 0.09 0.17 <1 4 298

6.27 0.63 3.88 1.66 0.76 0.63 0.09 0.24 <1 17 497

2.05 0.40 0.82 1.02 0.11 0.43 0.06 0.11 <1 3 361

2.68 0.36 0.90 1.76 0.11 0.51 0.04 0.12 <1 2 465

1.74 0.44 0.79 1.15 0.10 0.29 0.08 0.11 <1 3 351

2.20 0.26 1.01 1.14 0.13 0.47 0.08 0.13 <1 2 327

1.94 0.38 0.83 1.06 0.09 0.34 0.10 0.14 <1 2 353

2.20 0.50 1.06 1.13 0.14 0.49 0.07 0.16 <1 2 369

2.33 0.30 0.65 1.31 0.09 0.46 0.06 0.12 <1 1 413

2.31 0.29 0.61 1.35 0.09 0.46 0.06 0.11 <1 2 409

1.47 0.20 0.55 1.01 0.05 0.22 0.06 0.08 <1 2 351

2.83 0.19 1.13 2.02 0.16 0.40 0.02 0.14 <1 2 486

1.52 0.37 1.73 0.44 0.10 0.17 0.13 0.06 <1 8 216

1.85 0.44 0.83 1.00 0.11 0.27 0.08 0.09 <1 4 341

2.00 0.27 0.76 0.82 0.12 0.28 0.14 0.07 <1 3 292

2.23 0.26 1.04 1.15 0.10 0.38 0.06 0.15 <1 3 402

2.76 0.43 0.90 1.52 0.15 0.49 0.06 0.16 <1 3 455

1.81 0.23 0.88 1.28 0.07 0.29 0.03 0.11 <1 1 378

1.78 0.22 0.84 1.30 0.07 0.29 0.03 0.10 <1 1 375

3.72 0.24 2.59 1.64 0.38 0.44 0.05 0.15 <1 8 420

1.02 0.65 0.53 0.47 0.11 0.14 0.16 0.04 <1 5 234

1.95 0.08 0.50 1.53 0.07 0.25 0.02 0.05 <1 3 348

1.52 0.16 0.64 1.06 0.06 0.21 0.06 0.08 <1 3 298

1.98 0.27 0.96 1.26 0.10 0.30 0.06 0.12 <1 3 406

2.16 0.28 1.09 1.23 0.12 0.37 0.06 0.13 <1 4 628

1.64 0.18 0.64 1.09 0.05 0.25 0.04 0.11 <1 2 362

1.64 0.18 0.61 1.14 0.05 0.26 0.04 0.10 <1 1 355

2.15 0.33 1.00 1.08 0.13 0.32 0.09 0.13 <1 3 333

2.42 0.26 0.86 1.65 0.09 0.40 0.04 0.14 <1 2 466

2.86 0.20 1.24 1.39 0.17 0.39 0.05 0.16 <1 4 401

1.77 0.26 0.75 1.09 0.08 0.27 0.05 0.13 <1 2 337

1.68 0.16 0.56 1.26 0.06 0.26 0.03 0.08 <1 2 361

1.30 0.48 0.59 0.42 0.10 0.16 0.16 0.05 <1 8 199

1.20 0.37 0.45 0.68 0.05 0.17 0.09 0.07 <1 4 258

2.84 0.24 1.33 1.75 0.19 0.41 <0.01 0.19 <1 2 447

Total extraction
Appendix 3

45

Appendix 3. Mineral soils (A, E, B, and C horizons), Huron River Watershed, Michigan.—Continued

HR–SL–01 A 46.78747 -88.06271 A 7.5 to 8 

HR–SL–02 A 46.77742 -88.04971 A 0 to 15HR–SL–03 A 46.76509 -88.03342 A 0.5 to 5 

HR–SL–04 A 46.80586 -88.06500 A 0 to 4.5 

HR–SL–05 A 46.83572 -88.10330 A 1 to 3 

HR–SL–06 A 46.70800 -88.07032 A 2 to 4 

HR–SL–07 A 46.72973 -88.05520 A 2 to 4.5 

HR–SL–08 A 46.74261 -88.04839 A 0 to 3 

HR–SL–08 A dup 46.74261 -88.04839 A 0 to 3 

HR–SL–09 A 46.74865 -88.08341 A 2 to 5 

HR–SL–10 A 46.76124 -88.10713 A 3.5 to 4.5 

HR–SL–11 A 46.86267 -88.11263 A 0 to 12 HR–SL–12 A 46.85126 -88.08941 A 5 to 6 

HR–SL–13 A 46.81975 -88.10149 A 4 to 5 

HR–SL–14 A 46.76476 -88.07135 A 2.5 to 5 

HR–SL–15 A 46.74901 -88.05780 A 1.5 to 3 

HR–SL–16 A 46.77925 -88.09563 A 0 to 2 

HR–SL–17 A 46.79581 -88.09223 A 0 to 3 

HR–SL–17 A dup 46.79581 -88.09223 A 0 to 3 

HR–SL–18 A 46.80113 -88.11597 A 0 to 5 

HR–SL–19 A 46.81204 -88.13567 A 5 to 8 

HR–SL–20 A 46.91087 -88.06673 A 2 to 3 

HR–SL–21 A 46.89659 -88.08732 A 4 to 6 

HR–SL–22 A 46.88639 -88.04665 A 0.5 to 1.5 

HR–SL–23 A 46.87526 -88.05947 A 2 to 3 

HR–SL–24 A 46.86947 -88.08019 A 3 to 5.5 

HR–SL–24 A dup 46.86947 -88.08019 A 3 to 5.5 

HR–SL–25 A 46.79618 -88.00632 A 2 to 3 

HR–SL–26 A 46.75230 -87.98873 A 0 to 2 

HR–SL–27 A 46.81535 -88.01702 A 1 to 5 

HR–SL–28 A 46.82391 -88.04588 A 0.5 to 1.75 HR–SL–29 A 46.83004 -88.06466 A 3.6 to 4.6 

HR–SL–30 A 46.85067 -88.03606 A 6 to 7 

HR–SL–31 A 46.85381 -88.12520 A 4 to 5 

HR–SL–01 E 46.78747 -88.06271 E 8 to 20 

Field no. Latitude Longitude Horizon Depth (cm) Be (ppm) Bi (ppm) Cd (ppm) Ce (ppm) Co (ppm) Cr (ppm) Cs (ppm) Cu (ppm) Ga (ppm) Hg (ppm) In (ppm) La (ppm)

0.5 0.11 1.0 16.0 5.6 37 <5 26.2 5.5 0.11 0.03 8.0

2.3 0.28 1.2 96.0 19.5 79 <5 37.4 14.1 0.13 0.06 27.2

0.5 0.20 0.6 14.7 1.8 25 <5 23.5 5.4 0.08 0.02 7.4

0.7 0.13 0.4 21.3 2.4 25 <5 10.6 6.6 0.04 <0.02 11.1

0.5 0.13 0.3 13.6 1.4 22 <5 14.1 4.0 0.11 <0.02 7.1

0.5 0.18 0.4 13.8 2.1 26 <5 13.1 5.5 0.10 <0.02 7.1

0.6 0.19 0.5 16.6 1.4 24 <5 17.0 5.0 0.13 <0.02 8.3

0.6 0.14 0.6 17.4 1.9 25 <5 12.0 5.6 0.07 <0.02 8.6

0.6 0.11 0.4 17.9 1.4 24 <5 13.7 5.5 0.07 <0.02 9.3

0.6 0.11 0.3 17.3 1.4 23 <5 10.8 5.5 0.07 <0.02 8.8

0.4 0.15 0.5 12.9 0.8 19 <5 15.4 3.5 0.08 <0.02 6.6

0.8 0.10 0.2 21.4 7.3 22 <5 8.7 6.8 0.04 <0.02 10.0

0.6 0.30 0.4 15.3 2.4 22 <5 19.5 4.1 0.26 0.03 7.7

0.5 0.22 0.6 15.2 1.6 25 <5 19.9 5.1 0.12 0.02 7.7

1.0 0.19 0.4 24.6 5.0 23 <5 25.5 4.8 0.20 0.02 14.2

0.6 0.22 1.3 19.6 1.9 28 <5 28.3 5.9 0.08 0.02 10.0

0.7 0.13 0.5 25.0 2.8 28 <5 16.1 6.4 0.07 <0.02 12.7

0.4 0.07 0.2 13.8 1.1 23 <5 8.3 4.9 0.03 <0.02 7.40.4 0.07 0.2 14.3 1.0 17 <5 7.6 5.0 0.03 <0.02 7.41.1 0.21 0.5 40.0 34.5 53 <5 34.8 10.0 0.07 0.03 23.1

0.4 0.27 1.0 9.2 1.4 19 <5 34.2 2.5 0.22 0.03 4.90.5 0.17 0.1 15.6 0.8 16 <5 12.0 5.0 0.05 <0.02 8.1

0.5 0.13 0.2 12.2 0.9 19 <5 13.5 3.6 0.09 <0.02 6.3

0.5 0.23 0.5 17.5 2.3 22 <5 11.7 5.2 0.11 <0.02 9.0

0.5 0.31 1.2 20.2 3.1 25 <5 20.1 6.4 0.11 0.03 10.5

0.4 0.12 0.2 13.4 0.9 19 <5 9.7 3.7 0.07 <0.02 7.10.4 0.12 0.2 14.1 0.8 20 <5 10.2 3.8 0.07 <0.02 7.4

0.6 0.24 0.5 19.5 2.3 27 <5 19.2 5.9 0.11 0.03 10.0

0.6 0.15 0.2 21.7 1.8 23 <5 9.7 6.1 0.04 <0.02 10.70.7 0.19 0.4 29.8 2.5 35 <5 16.1 8.2 0.07 0.03 14.3

0.4 0.16 0.3 15.7 1.5 22 <5 14.5 4.6 0.09 <0.02 7.6

0.4 0.11 <0.1 12.3 0.9 19 <5 8.4 4.0 0.05 <0.02 6.30.4 0.27 0.5 10.7 1.5 21 <5 18.8 3.2 0.29 0.03 5.8

0.4 0.13 0.3 10.9 0.8 19 <5 17.2 2.7 0.17 <0.02 5.6

0.7 0.1 0.1 18.5 2.6 31 <5 7.9 9.3 <0.01 0.02 9.6

Total extraction—Continued
46 Environmental Baseline Study of the Huron River Watershed, Baraga and Marquette Counties, Michigan

Appendix 3. Mineral soils (A, E, B, and C horizons), Huron River Watershed, Michigan.—Continued

HR–SL–01 A 46.78747 -88.06271 A 7.5 to 8 

HR–SL–02 A 46.77742 -88.04971 A 0 to 15HR–SL–03 A 46.76509 -88.03342 A 0.5 to 5 

HR–SL–04 A 46.80586 -88.06500 A 0 to 4.5 

HR–SL–05 A 46.83572 -88.10330 A 1 to 3 

HR–SL–06 A 46.70800 -88.07032 A 2 to 4 

HR–SL–07 A 46.72973 -88.05520 A 2 to 4.5 

HR–SL–08 A 46.74261 -88.04839 A 0 to 3 

HR–SL–08 A dup 46.74261 -88.04839 A 0 to 3 

HR–SL–09 A 46.74865 -88.08341 A 2 to 5 

HR–SL–10 A 46.76124 -88.10713 A 3.5 to 4.5 

HR–SL–11 A 46.86267 -88.11263 A 0 to 12 HR–SL–12 A 46.85126 -88.08941 A 5 to 6 

HR–SL–13 A 46.81975 -88.10149 A 4 to 5 

HR–SL–14 A 46.76476 -88.07135 A 2.5 to 5 

HR–SL–15 A 46.74901 -88.05780 A 1.5 to 3 

HR–SL–16 A 46.77925 -88.09563 A 0 to 2 

HR–SL–17 A 46.79581 -88.09223 A 0 to 3 

HR–SL–17 A dup 46.79581 -88.09223 A 0 to 3 

HR–SL–18 A 46.80113 -88.11597 A 0 to 5 

HR–SL–19 A 46.81204 -88.13567 A 5 to 8 

HR–SL–20 A 46.91087 -88.06673 A 2 to 3 

HR–SL–21 A 46.89659 -88.08732 A 4 to 6 

HR–SL–22 A 46.88639 -88.04665 A 0.5 to 1.5 

HR–SL–23 A 46.87526 -88.05947 A 2 to 3 

HR–SL–24 A 46.86947 -88.08019 A 3 to 5.5 

HR–SL–24 A dup 46.86947 -88.08019 A 3 to 5.5 

HR–SL–25 A 46.79618 -88.00632 A 2 to 3 

HR–SL–26 A 46.75230 -87.98873 A 0 to 2 

HR–SL–27 A 46.81535 -88.01702 A 1 to 5 

HR–SL–28 A 46.82391 -88.04588 A 0.5 to 1.75 HR–SL–29 A 46.83004 -88.06466 A 3.6 to 4.6 

HR–SL–30 A 46.85067 -88.03606 A 6 to 7 

HR–SL–31 A 46.85381 -88.12520 A 4 to 5 

HR–SL–01 E 46.78747 -88.06271 E 8 to 20 

Field no. Latitude Longitude Horizon Depth

(cm) Li

(ppm)

Mn

(ppm)

Mo

(ppm)

Nb

(ppm)

Ni

(ppm)

P

(ppm)

Pb

(ppm)

Rb

(ppm)

Sb

(ppm)

Sc

(ppm)

Se

(ppm)

Sn

(ppm)

5 143 0.73 3.8 14.7 370 15.9 29.7 0.37 4.8 0.7 1.1

48 750 1.81 6.6 72.9 1670 28.2 79.1 0.70 13.4 1.0 1.7

4 91 0.56 3.3 5.8 440 37.7 36.0 0.47 2.7 0.5 1.1

5 388 0.45 3.6 3.4 310 24.6 63.6 0.40 2.9 0.3 1.04 115 0.48 2.6 3.4 560 26.3 39.3 0.42 1.9 0.5 0.95 103 0.57 3.0 5.4 460 35.5 41.7 0.47 2.7 0.4 1.45 373 0.81 4.6 4.2 650 34.0 40.7 0.59 2.6 0.6 1.65 196 0.60 4.3 4.0 420 24.9 40.3 0.42 2.7 0.5 1.15 155 0.56 3.7 3.2 470 19.4 47.9 0.37 2.3 0.4 0.95 153 0.59 3.5 3.1 460 19.0 47.5 0.38 2.5 0.3 0.93 63 0.55 2.7 2.6 330 25.6 35.4 0.49 1.6 0.4 0.9

6 1120 0.39 2.9 3.6 380 14.8 68.8 0.37 2.6 0.4 0.8

4 111 1.11 2.1 4.4 930 43.4 17.9 0.63 2.5 1.0 1.35 165 0.59 3.2 3.9 620 43.2 36.6 0.85 2.9 0.6 1.65 87 0.96 2.3 6.9 1040 36.1 32.1 0.56 3.3 0.7 1.2

5 116 0.57 3.9 6.9 440 44.7 43.0 0.55 3.2 0.5 1.37 255 0.55 4.7 5.3 510 20.9 54.5 0.37 3.5 0.3 1.14 108 0.32 2.6 2.4 220 13.0 47.5 0.34 2.0 <0.2 0.63 113 0.35 2.7 2.5 200 14.2 47.8 0.32 2.0 <0.2 1.3

21 487 1.29 3.6 36.9 560 24.6 80.6 1.05 7.3 0.5 1.2

3 78 0.62 1.3 5.2 850 53.6 17.6 0.66 1.5 0.9 0.9

3 52 0.27 1.9 1.8 150 36.6 54.4 0.51 1.6 0.3 1.0

3 88 0.45 2.5 2.7 340 24.5 37.6 0.48 1.6 0.5 1.1

5 1260 0.59 3.5 3.2 590 58.7 46.6 0.59 2.3 0.6 1.6

5 5250 1.02 3.4 4.5 550 65.9 45.1 0.70 2.4 <0.2 1.7

3 90 0.40 2.8 1.9 290 17.5 40.0 0.39 1.6 0.4 0.8

3 61 0.40 2.7 2.0 300 18.6 40.3 0.40 1.5 0.4 0.7

6 141 0.92 3.9 5.0 730 48.8 40.6 0.70 3.5 0.7 1.84 411 0.51 4.0 2.9 370 33.8 57.1 0.40 2.8 0.2 1.08 121 0.71 4.5 5.5 540 30.3 52.0 0.58 5.1 0.5 1.34 236 0.47 3.5 3.1 530 31.3 38.4 0.47 2.0 0.4 1.23 58 0.29 2.2 2.3 200 21.4 43.1 0.37 1.4 0.3 0.7

4 43 1.12 1.7 4.9 790 43.6 15.7 0.59 2.3 1.2 1.2

3 45 0.56 2.3 2.4 480 29.5 23.8 0.42 1.4 0.6 0.7

8 117 0.55 3.3 5.3 90 9.4 67.3 0.44 6.5 <0.2 0.9

Total extraction—Continued
Appendix 3

47

Appendix 3. Mineral soils (A, E, B, and C horizons), Huron River Watershed, Michigan.—Continued

HR–SL–01 A 46.78747 -88.06271 A 7.5 to 8 

HR–SL–02 A 46.77742 -88.04971 A 0 to 15HR–SL–03 A 46.76509 -88.03342 A 0.5 to 5 

HR–SL–04 A 46.80586 -88.06500 A 0 to 4.5 

HR–SL–05 A 46.83572 -88.10330 A 1 to 3 

HR–SL–06 A 46.70800 -88.07032 A 2 to 4 

HR–SL–07 A 46.72973 -88.05520 A 2 to 4.5 

HR–SL–08 A 46.74261 -88.04839 A 0 to 3 

HR–SL–08 A dup 46.74261 -88.04839 A 0 to 3 

HR–SL–09 A 46.74865 -88.08341 A 2 to 5 

HR–SL–10 A 46.76124 -88.10713 A 3.5 to 4.5 

HR–SL–11 A 46.86267 -88.11263 A 0 to 12 HR–SL–12 A 46.85126 -88.08941 A 5 to 6 

HR–SL–13 A 46.81975 -88.10149 A 4 to 5 

HR–SL–14 A 46.76476 -88.07135 A 2.5 to 5 

HR–SL–15 A 46.74901 -88.05780 A 1.5 to 3 

HR–SL–16 A 46.77925 -88.09563 A 0 to 2 

HR–SL–17 A 46.79581 -88.09223 A 0 to 3 

HR–SL–17 A dup 46.79581 -88.09223 A 0 to 3 

HR–SL–18 A 46.80113 -88.11597 A 0 to 5 

HR–SL–19 A 46.81204 -88.13567 A 5 to 8 

HR–SL–20 A 46.91087 -88.06673 A 2 to 3 

HR–SL–21 A 46.89659 -88.08732 A 4 to 6 

HR–SL–22 A 46.88639 -88.04665 A 0.5 to 1.5 

HR–SL–23 A 46.87526 -88.05947 A 2 to 3 

HR–SL–24 A 46.86947 -88.08019 A 3 to 5.5 

HR–SL–24 A dup 46.86947 -88.08019 A 3 to 5.5 

HR–SL–25 A 46.79618 -88.00632 A 2 to 3 

HR–SL–26 A 46.75230 -87.98873 A 0 to 2 

HR–SL–27 A 46.81535 -88.01702 A 1 to 5 

HR–SL–28 A 46.82391 -88.04588 A 0.5 to 1.75 HR–SL–29 A 46.83004 -88.06466 A 3.6 to 4.6 

HR–SL–30 A 46.85067 -88.03606 A 6 to 7 

HR–SL–31 A 46.85381 -88.12520 A 4 to 5 

HR–SL–01 E 46.78747 -88.06271 E 8 to 20 

Field no. Latitude Longitude Horizon Depth (cm) Sr (ppm) Te (ppm) Th (ppm) Tl (ppm) U (ppm) V (ppm) W(ppm) Y (ppm) Zn (ppm) C (wt. %)

63.1 <0.1 3.1 0.2 1.1 51 0.3 7.3 60 28.10

97.9 <0.1 9.6 0.7 3.1 98 0.7 20.3 235 7.2080.3 <0.1 2.7 0.3 0.9 29 0.3 4.9 42 28.70

91.9 <0.1 3.3 0.4 1.1 28 0.3 7.0 31 5.9061.7 <0.1 2.4 0.3 0.8 22 0.3 4.6 35 17.00

73.0 <0.1 2.6 0.3 0.9 32 0.3 4.6 61 24.70

70.3 <0.1 3.0 0.3 1.1 25 0.4 5.1 36 23.70

91.8 <0.1 3.1 0.3 1.1 34 0.4 5.6 44 16.30

83.6 <0.1 3.5 0.3 1.1 23 0.3 5.1 43 N.A.83.3 <0.1 3.2 0.3 1.1 22 0.3 4.9 41 15.90

51.9 <0.1 2.5 0.3 0.9 17 0.3 4.6 32 18.70

67.6 <0.1 3.5 0.4 1.1 29 0.3 7.6 26 4.0039.1 <0.1 3.6 0.2 0.7 52 0.3 3.8 40 36.90

58.8 <0.1 2.6 0.3 1.0 26 0.3 5.5 49 23.80

55.4 <0.1 1.9 0.3 1.0 24 0.3 8.5 32 27.80

69.2 <0.1 3.3 0.4 1.1 36 0.3 6.0 64 21.00

98.4 <0.1 4.0 0.4 1.2 31 0.4 6.7 64 16.30

58.4 <0.1 2.7 0.3 1.0 27 0.2 5.6 24 10.20

58.0 <0.1 2.7 0.3 1.0 25 0.2 5.6 21 N.A.67.1 <0.1 4.6 0.6 2.1 67 0.4 13.1 125 7.2045.2 <0.1 1.4 0.2 0.5 14 0.2 2.6 86 39.00

36.0 <0.1 2.4 0.4 0.9 10 0.2 7.7 18 11.80

42.3 <0.1 2.9 0.3 0.8 18 0.2 4.1 26 15.20

56.8 <0.1 3.6 0.4 1.1 26 0.3 6.2 45 12.10

62.2 <0.1 3.5 0.5 1.0 31 0.6 6.6 60 15.00

52.4 <0.1 2.6 0.2 0.9 18 0.2 4.9 18 13.10

53.5 <0.1 2.6 0.3 0.9 18 0.2 4.7 18 N.A.

62.6 <0.1 3.4 0.4 1.1 33 0.4 5.3 57 22.10

73.8 <0.1 3.6 0.4 1.1 26 0.3 7.6 26 8.7071.4 <0.1 4.3 0.4 1.4 44 0.3 7.5 44 11.10

56.3 <0.1 2.7 0.3 0.9 22 0.3 4.8 35 11.00

51.3 <0.1 2.1 0.3 0.8 15 0.2 5.0 18 10.90

38.2 <0.1 1.8 0.2 0.7 17 0.2 2.6 28 40.50

39.2 <0.1 1.8 0.2 0.7 13 0.3 3.7 32 38.10

68.3 <0.1 3.5 0.5 1.2 63 0.2 7.4 24 0.10

Total extraction—Continued
48 Environmental Baseline Study of the Huron River Watershed, Baraga and Marquette Counties, Michigan

Appendix 3. Mineral soils (A, E, B, and C horizons), Huron River Watershed, Michigan.—Continued

Ag

(ppm)

As

(ppm)

Au

(ppm)

Bi

(ppm)

Cd

(ppm)

Cu

(ppm)

Mo

(ppm)

Pb

(ppm)

Sb

(ppm)

Zn

(ppm)

Field no. Latitude Longitude Horizon Depth

(cm)

Partial extraction

HR–SL–03 E 46.76509 -88.03342 E 5 to 8 0.63 1 <0.1 <1 0.19 5.67 0.6 11 <1 16.4HR–SL–05 E 46.83572 -88.10330 E 4 to 18 0.50 1 <0.1 <1 0.10 3.54 0.3 10 <1 8.2HR–SL–07 E 46.72973 -88.05520 E 4 to 20 0.61 1 <0.1 <1 0.13 4.33 0.5 13 <1 11.2HR–SL–08 E 46.74261 -88.04839 E 4 to 10 0.53 2 <0.1 <1 0.12 3.90 0.5 12 <1 15.7HR–SL–10 E 46.76124 -88.10713 E 5 to 23 0.44 <1 <0.1 <1 0.09 2.73 0.3 10 <1 5.9HR–SL–13 E 46.81975 -88.10149 E 6 to 25 0.33 1 <0.1 <1 0.07 3.33 0.3 8 <1 6.0

HR–SL–15 E 46.74901 -88.05780 E 4 to 18 0.58 2 <0.1 <1 0.21 4.66 0.4 10 <1 17.7HR–SL–17 E 46.79581 -88.09223 E 8 to 13 0.49 2 <0.1 <1 0.18 5.12 0.7 14 <1 14.8HR–SL–17 E dup 46.79581 -88.09223 E 8 to 13 0.44 2 <0.1 <1 0.18 6.16 0.5 15 <1 16.1

HR–SL–19 E 46.81204 -88.13567 E 8 to 38 0.47 1 <0.1 <1 0.13 4.29 0.4 11 <1 12.1HR–SL–21 E 46.89659 -88.08732 E 6 to 13 0.36 1 <0.1 <1 0.07 2.87 0.2 9 <1 6.4

HR–SL–23 E 46.87526 -88.05947 E 4 to 13 0.51 2 <0.1 <1 0.10 3.16 0.4 11 <1 9.7HR–SL–25 E 46.79618 -88.00632 E 4 to 10 0.54 2 <0.1 <1 0.17 5.76 0.4 11 <1 23.7HR–SL–26 E 46.75230 -87.98873 E 1 to 8 0.65 5 <0.1 <1 0.27 5.72 0.7 21 <1 32.6HR–SL–27 E 46.81535 -88.01702 E 5 to 18 0.76 3 <0.1 <1 0.19 7.37 0.5 13 <1 28.2HR–SL–29 E 46.83004 -88.06466 E 5 to 10 0.38 1 <0.1 <1 0.06 3.08 0.3 11 <1 8.3HR–SL–31 E 46.85381 -88.12520 E 4 to 36 0.33 <1 <0.1 <1 <0.05 2.33 0.2 8 <1 5.6

HR–SL–01 B 46.78747 -88.06271 B 20 to 66 0.61 5 <0.1 <1 0.26 13.2 0.9 13 <1 63.7

HR–SL–02 B 46.77742 -88.04971 B 46 to 61 0.63 7 <0.1 <1 0.26 22.7 0.5 15 <1 59.0HR–SL–02 B dup 46.77742 -88.04971 B 46 to 61 0.56 7 <0.1 <1 0.26 21.6 0.5 14 <1 54.1HR–SL–03 B1 46.76509 -88.03342 B 8 to 38 0.72 3 <0.1 <1 0.18 10.7 0.8 14 <1 45.6HR–SL–03 B2 46.76509 -88.03342 B 38 to 119 0.62 6 <0.1 <1 0.13 25.7 0.6 16 <1 40.1HR–SL–03 B3 46.76509 -88.03342 B 119 to 135 0.50 2 <0.1 <1 0.09 10.2 0.3 11 <1 23.8HR–SL–04 B1 46.80586 -88.06500 B 15 to 33 0.53 2 <0.1 <1 0.19 8.1 0.4 13 <1 49.2HR–SL–04 B2 46.80586 -88.06500 B 33 to 102 0.73 3 <0.1 <1 0.18 19.0 0.5 14 <1 40.0HR–SL–05 B1 46.83572 -88.10330 B 18 to 61 0.56 3 <0.1 <1 0.13 6.1 0.4 12 <1 42.9HR–SL–05 B1 dup 46.83572 -88.10330 B 18 to 61 0.50 3 <0.1 <1 0.14 6.7 0.3 11 <1 39.1

HR–SL–05 B2 46.83572 -88.10330 B 61 to 76 0.63 2 <0.1 <1 0.13 13.5 0.4 12 <1 32.3HR–SL–06 B 46.70800 -88.07032 B 18 to 46 0.61 3 <0.1 <1 0.16 9.3 0.8 12 <1 39.8HR–SL–07 B 46.72973 -88.05520 B 20 to 41 0.57 3 <0.1 <1 0.15 6.4 0.6 13 <1 38.4HR–SL–08 B 46.74261 -88.04839 B 10 to 46 0.62 2 <0.1 <1 0.13 6.9 0.6 14 <1 33.3HR–SL–09 B 46.74865 -88.08341 B 18 to 53 0.75 3 <0.1 <1 0.28 6.6 0.8 14 <1 53.5HR–SL–10 B 46.76124 -88.10713 B 23 to 31 0.68 24 <0.1 <1 0.19 10.4 0.4 12 1 24.9HR–SL–11 B 46.86267 -88.11263 B 15 to 51 0.65 4 <0.1 <1 0.14 10.4 0.4 13 <1 31.5HR–SL–12 B 46.85126 -88.08941 B 25 to 56 0.42 2 <0.1 <1 0.08 5.6 0.2 9 <1 14.3
Appendix 3

49

Appendix 3. Mineral soils (A, E, B, and C horizons), Huron River Watershed, Michigan.—Continued

Field no. Latitude Longitude Horizon Depth (cm)

HR–SL–03 E 46.76509 -88.03342 E 5 to 8 HR–SL–05 E 46.83572 -88.10330 E 4 to 18 HR–SL–07 E 46.72973 -88.05520 E 4 to 20 HR–SL–08 E 46.74261 -88.04839 E 4 to 10 HR–SL–10 E 46.76124 -88.10713 E 5 to 23 HR–SL–13 E 46.81975 -88.10149 E 6 to 25 HR–SL–15 E 46.74901 -88.05780 E 4 to 18 HR–SL–17 E 46.79581 -88.09223 E 8 to 13 HR–SL–17 E dup 46.79581 -88.09223 E 8 to 13 HR–SL–19 E 46.81204 -88.13567 E 8 to 38 HR–SL–21 E 46.89659 -88.08732 E 6 to 13 HR–SL–23 E 46.87526 -88.05947 E 4 to 13 HR–SL–25 E 46.79618 -88.00632 E 4 to 10 HR–SL–26 E 46.75230 -87.98873 E 1 to 8 HR–SL–27 E 46.81535 -88.01702 E 5 to 18 HR–SL–29 E 46.83004 -88.06466 E 5 to 10 HR–SL–31 E 46.85381 -88.12520 E 4 to 36 HR–SL–01 B 46.78747 -88.06271 B 20 to 66 HR–SL–02 B 46.77742 -88.04971 B 46 to 61 HR–SL–02 B dup 46.77742 -88.04971 B 46 to 61 HR–SL–03 B1 46.76509 -88.03342 B 8 to 38 HR–SL–03 B2 46.76509 -88.03342 B 38 to 119 HR–SL–03 B3 46.76509 -88.03342 B 119 to 135 HR–SL–04 B1 46.80586 -88.06500 B 15 to 33 HR–SL–04 B2 46.80586 -88.06500 B 33 to 102 HR–SL–05 B1 46.83572 -88.10330 B 18 to 61 HR–SL–05 B1 dup 46.83572 -88.10330 B 18 to 61 HR–SL–05 B2 46.83572 -88.10330 B 61 to 76 HR–SL–06 B 46.70800 -88.07032 B 18 to 46 HR–SL–07 B 46.72973 -88.05520 B 20 to 41 HR–SL–08 B 46.74261 -88.04839 B 10 to 46 HR–SL–09 B 46.74865 -88.08341 B 18 to 53 HR–SL–10 B 46.76124 -88.10713 B 23 to 31 HR–SL–11 B 46.86267 -88.11263 B 15 to 51 HR–SL–12 B 46.85126 -88.08941 B 25 to 56 

Al

(wt. %)

Ca

(wt. %)

Fe

(wt. %)

K

(wt. %)

Mg

(wt. %)

Na

(wt. %)

S

(wt. %)

Ti

(wt. %)

Ag

(ppm)

As

(ppm)

Ba

(ppm)

Total extraction

2.98 0.3 0.99 1.73 0.1 0.68 <0.01 0.15 <1 <1 4862.02 0.13 0.81 1.43 0.05 0.34 <0.01 0.12 <1 <1 386

2.54 0.13 0.72 1.75 0.06 0.42 <0.01 0.14 <1 1 467

2.84 0.25 0.79 1.53 0.11 0.58 <0.01 0.13 <1 1 455

1.91 0.1 0.85 1.55 0.04 0.29 <0.01 0.11 <1 1 393

1.5 0.07 0.59 1.1 0.03 0.19 <0.01 0.07 <1 <1 287

2.7 0.2 1 1.89 0.1 0.48 <0.01 0.14 <1 <1 451

2 0.14 0.91 1.31 0.06 0.33 0.01 0.1 <1 1 352

1.89 0.13 0.92 1.26 0.06 0.31 0.01 0.11 <1 2 333

2.21 0.15 0.8 1.47 0.06 0.37 <0.01 0.11 <1 <1 378

1.81 0.08 0.69 1.53 0.04 0.25 <0.01 0.09 <1 <1 345

2.11 0.15 1.02 1.43 0.07 0.37 <0.01 0.16 <1 1 361

2.74 0.2 1.01 1.42 0.13 0.4 0.01 0.13 <1 1 424

3.11 0.27 1.28 1.69 0.17 0.53 0.02 0.16 <1 3 507

3.59 0.21 1.3 1.9 0.21 0.49 <0.01 0.19 <1 2 492

2.09 0.11 0.63 1.75 0.06 0.32 <0.01 0.07 <1 <1 417

1.73 0.06 0.43 1.71 0.02 0.23 <0.01 0.06 <1 <1 377

4.12 0.26 2.76 2.05 0.44 0.47 0.01 0.16 <1 5 476

4.53 0.54 2.53 2.18 0.61 0.82 <0.01 0.16 <1 6 517

4.51 0.56 2.57 2.32 0.59 0.80 <0.01 0.17 <1 7 527

4.96 0.56 2.41 1.88 0.43 1.00 0.02 0.19 <1 3 507

5.56 0.73 2.57 2.07 0.61 1.22 <0.01 0.18 <1 5 558

3.10 0.29 1.17 2.06 0.26 0.54 <0.01 0.10 <1 2 466

3.55 0.32 1.30 2.13 0.24 0.59 <0.01 0.10 <1 2 489

5.09 0.58 2.08 2.61 0.55 0.85 <0.01 0.22 <1 3 589

3.75 0.30 1.69 2.13 0.24 0.53 <0.01 0.15 <1 2 475

3.72 0.29 1.59 1.84 0.24 0.52 <0.01 0.14 <1 2 428

3.59 0.37 1.35 2.27 0.25 0.68 <0.01 0.15 <1 2 503

3.90 0.52 2.04 1.78 0.40 0.76 0.02 0.17 <1 3 456

3.60 0.32 1.87 2.18 0.24 0.58 0.01 0.15 <1 2 508

3.88 0.42 1.52 2.03 0.26 0.83 0.01 0.13 <1 2 505

4.16 0.50 2.31 1.79 0.28 0.79 0.02 0.20 <1 3 461

3.04 0.25 1.16 2.10 0.16 0.51 <0.01 0.09 <1 23 463

3.77 0.23 1.37 2.50 0.38 0.39 <0.01 0.17 <1 4 522

2.48 0.21 0.76 1.82 0.16 0.43 <0.01 0.12 <1 2 406
50 Environmental Baseline Study of the Huron River Watershed, Baraga and Marquette Counties, Michigan

Appendix 3. Mineral soils (A, E, B, and C horizons), Huron River Watershed, Michigan.—Continued

Field no. Latitude Longitude Horizon Depth

(cm)

HR–SL–03 E 46.76509 -88.03342 E 5 to 8 HR–SL–05 E 46.83572 -88.10330 E 4 to 18 HR–SL–07 E 46.72973 -88.05520 E 4 to 20 HR–SL–08 E 46.74261 -88.04839 E 4 to 10 HR–SL–10 E 46.76124 -88.10713 E 5 to 23 HR–SL–13 E 46.81975 -88.10149 E 6 to 25 HR–SL–15 E 46.74901 -88.05780 E 4 to 18 HR–SL–17 E 46.79581 -88.09223 E 8 to 13 HR–SL–17 E dup 46.79581 -88.09223 E 8 to 13 HR–SL–19 E 46.81204 -88.13567 E 8 to 38 HR–SL–21 E 46.89659 -88.08732 E 6 to 13 HR–SL–23 E 46.87526 -88.05947 E 4 to 13 HR–SL–25 E 46.79618 -88.00632 E 4 to 10 HR–SL–26 E 46.75230 -87.98873 E 1 to 8 HR–SL–27 E 46.81535 -88.01702 E 5 to 18 HR–SL–29 E 46.83004 -88.06466 E 5 to 10 HR–SL–31 E 46.85381 -88.12520 E 4 to 36 HR–SL–01 B 46.78747 -88.06271 B 20 to 66 HR–SL–02 B 46.77742 -88.04971 B 46 to 61 HR–SL–02 B dup 46.77742 -88.04971 B 46 to 61 HR–SL–03 B1 46.76509 -88.03342 B 8 to 38 HR–SL–03 B2 46.76509 -88.03342 B 38 to 119 HR–SL–03 B3 46.76509 -88.03342 B 119 to 135 HR–SL–04 B1 46.80586 -88.06500 B 15 to 33 HR–SL–04 B2 46.80586 -88.06500 B 33 to 102 HR–SL–05 B1 46.83572 -88.10330 B 18 to 61 HR–SL–05 B1 dup 46.83572 -88.10330 B 18 to 61 HR–SL–05 B2 46.83572 -88.10330 B 61 to 76 HR–SL–06 B 46.70800 -88.07032 B 18 to 46 HR–SL–07 B 46.72973 -88.05520 B 20 to 41 HR–SL–08 B 46.74261 -88.04839 B 10 to 46 HR–SL–09 B 46.74865 -88.08341 B 18 to 53 HR–SL–10 B 46.76124 -88.10713 B 23 to 31 HR–SL–11 B 46.86267 -88.11263 B 15 to 51 HR–SL–12 B 46.85126 -88.08941 B 25 to 56 

Be

(ppm)

Bi

(ppm)

Cd

(ppm)

Ce

(ppm)

Co

(ppm)

Cr

(ppm)

Cs

(ppm)

Cu

(ppm)

Ga

(ppm)

Hg

(ppm)

In

(ppm)

La

(ppm)

Total extraction—Continued

0.7 0.09 0.1 17.6 1.5 17 <5 6.7 8.33 <0.01 <0.02 9.30.4 0.06 <0.1 14.5 1 9 <5 4.5 5.4 <0.01 <0.02 7.7

0.6 0.08 <0.1 17 0.9 14 <5 5.3 6.75 <0.01 <0.02 8.60.6 0.08 <0.1 18 1.4 14 <5 4.9 8.17 <0.01 <0.02 9.50.5 0.06 <0.1 14.7 0.8 11 <5 3.7 5.23 <0.01 <0.02 7.60.3 <0.04 <0.1 8.66 0.5 9 <5 4.3 4.01 <0.01 <0.02 4.8

0.6 0.08 0.1 16.4 1.4 20 <5 5.7 7.41 <0.01 <0.02 8.80.5 0.08 0.1 10.8 1 12 <5 6.1 5.15 0.02 <0.02 60.5 0.09 0.1 13.3 1.1 16 <5 7.2 5.44 0.02 <0.02 7.80.5 0.06 <0.1 12.4 0.9 8 <5 5.3 5.55 0.01 <0.02 6.9

0.4 0.07 <0.1 13.1 0.8 9 <5 3.9 4.76 <0.01 <0.02 7

0.4 0.06 <0.1 18.1 1.2 10 <5 4.2 5.87 <0.01 <0.02 9.5

0.6 0.08 0.1 19 1.7 20 <5 6.8 7.8 0.01 <0.02 100.7 0.15 0.2 26.1 3.4 20 <5 6.7 9.47 0.03 <0.02 12.90.9 0.12 <0.1 28.8 2.5 22 <5 8.4 11 0.01 <0.02 14.50.4 0.06 <0.1 12.7 1 9 <5 4.1 5.48 0.01 <0.02 7.2

0.3 0.04 <0.1 8.63 0.4 7 <5 3.3 4.31 <0.01 <0.02 4.5

1.2 0.13 0.2 34.3 5.4 52 <5 14.6 11.8 0.03 0.03 15.91.4 0.11 0.2 41.3 9.2 53 <5 21.7 10.4 0.03 0.03 18.21.3 0.13 0.2 45.8 9.2 47 <5 22.6 11.8 0.02 0.03 20.31.0 0.11 0.1 36.2 5.5 47 <5 10.4 12.1 0.04 0.03 15.51.5 0.11 <0.1 35.5 9.3 57 <5 24.9 11.8 0.07 0.03 20.30.9 0.06 <0.1 33.5 3.7 28 <5 11.0 6.8 0.02 <0.02 15.2

1.0 0.07 0.1 32.1 3.6 29 <5 7.9 8.5 0.02 <0.02 14.31.8 0.09 <0.1 49.0 8.0 40 <5 18.8 11.3 0.02 0.03 23.50.9 0.15 <0.1 31.5 4.3 17 <5 6.4 7.7 0.02 <0.02 13.81.0 0.07 <0.1 32.6 4.8 19 <5 7.7 9.1 0.02 0.02 14.10.9 0.04 <0.1 27.8 4.3 25 <5 6.6 7.3 <0.01 <0.02 12.30.9 0.09 0.1 25.5 5.8 36 <5 10.2 8.5 0.03 0.02 11.9

0.8 0.09 <0.1 26.0 3.6 28 <5 5.4 9.7 0.03 <0.02 12.20.9 0.08 <0.1 22.9 3.5 18 <5 6.3 9.3 0.02 <0.02 11.21.0 0.12 0.2 30.7 4.1 29 <5 6.4 9.7 0.05 0.02 14.60.7 0.18 0.1 22.5 2.7 18 <5 9.4 6.3 0.01 0.31 10.41.3 0.25 <0.1 30.0 4.4 18 <5 9.4 9.0 0.02 0.02 14.0

0.6 0.12 <0.1 23.7 2.5 14 <5 5.1 5.5 <0.01 <0.02 12.0
Appendix 3

51

Appendix 3. Mineral soils (A, E, B, and C horizons), Huron River Watershed, Michigan.—Continued

Field no. Latitude Longitude Horizon Depth (cm)

HR–SL–03 E 46.76509 -88.03342 E 5 to 8 HR–SL–05 E 46.83572 -88.10330 E 4 to 18 HR–SL–07 E 46.72973 -88.05520 E 4 to 20 HR–SL–08 E 46.74261 -88.04839 E 4 to 10 HR–SL–10 E 46.76124 -88.10713 E 5 to 23 HR–SL–13 E 46.81975 -88.10149 E 6 to 25 HR–SL–15 E 46.74901 -88.05780 E 4 to 18 HR–SL–17 E 46.79581 -88.09223 E 8 to 13 HR–SL–17 E dup 46.79581 -88.09223 E 8 to 13 HR–SL–19 E 46.81204 -88.13567 E 8 to 38 HR–SL–21 E 46.89659 -88.08732 E 6 to 13 HR–SL–23 E 46.87526 -88.05947 E 4 to 13 HR–SL–25 E 46.79618 -88.00632 E 4 to 10 HR–SL–26 E 46.75230 -87.98873 E 1 to 8 HR–SL–27 E 46.81535 -88.01702 E 5 to 18 HR–SL–29 E 46.83004 -88.06466 E 5 to 10 HR–SL–31 E 46.85381 -88.12520 E 4 to 36 HR–SL–01 B 46.78747 -88.06271 B 20 to 66 HR–SL–02 B 46.77742 -88.04971 B 46 to 61 HR–SL–02 B dup 46.77742 -88.04971 B 46 to 61 HR–SL–03 B1 46.76509 -88.03342 B 8 to 38 HR–SL–03 B2 46.76509 -88.03342 B 38 to 119 HR–SL–03 B3 46.76509 -88.03342 B 119 to 135 HR–SL–04 B1 46.80586 -88.06500 B 15 to 33 HR–SL–04 B2 46.80586 -88.06500 B 33 to 102 HR–SL–05 B1 46.83572 -88.10330 B 18 to 61 HR–SL–05 B1 dup 46.83572 -88.10330 B 18 to 61 HR–SL–05 B2 46.83572 -88.10330 B 61 to 76 HR–SL–06 B 46.70800 -88.07032 B 18 to 46 HR–SL–07 B 46.72973 -88.05520 B 20 to 41 HR–SL–08 B 46.74261 -88.04839 B 10 to 46 HR–SL–09 B 46.74865 -88.08341 B 18 to 53 HR–SL–10 B 46.76124 -88.10713 B 23 to 31 HR–SL–11 B 46.86267 -88.11263 B 15 to 51 HR–SL–12 B 46.85126 -88.08941 B 25 to 56 

Li

(ppm)

Mn

(ppm)

Mo

(ppm)

Nb

(ppm)

Ni

(ppm)

P

(ppm)

Pb

(ppm)

Rb

(ppm)

Sb

(ppm)

Sc

(ppm)

Se

(ppm)

Sn

(ppm)

Total extraction—Continued

5 99 0.52 3.6 3.3 90 10.2 64.7 0.33 3.3 <0.2 0.6

3 84 0.23 2.8 1.2 50 10.3 48.4 0.34 1.7 <0.2 0.5

4 80 0.39 3.4 1.7 80 12.5 63.9 0.34 2.6 <0.2 0.7

5 83 0.47 3.3 2.7 120 11.2 59.1 0.36 3 <0.2 0.7

3 86 0.3 2.3 1.2 <50 9.7 52.2 0.35 2 <0.2 0.5

3 45 0.23 1.6 0.7 <50 7.3 38.7 0.33 1.7 <0.2 0.3

6 95 0.35 2.9 2.7 80 9.8 73.7 0.38 3.6 <0.2 0.7

4 78 0.35 2.3 1.8 110 13.6 45.2 0.36 1.9 <0.2 0.5

4 87 0.45 2.9 1.9 110 14.1 45.1 0.4 2.4 <0.2 0.6

3 81 0.28 2.9 1.4 80 10 49.3 0.38 1.7 <0.2 0.5

3 81 0.26 2.1 1 60 8.3 51.1 0.32 1.4 <0.2 0.5

3 124 0.3 3.5 1.7 70 10.9 49.4 0.44 2 <0.2 0.7

6 96 0.39 3.1 3.6 160 10.1 54.6 0.42 3.8 <0.2 0.6

7 723 0.59 4.1 4.2 300 21.6 66.3 0.41 4 0.3 18 155 0.4 4.7 4.8 160 12.7 77.5 0.43 4.7 <0.2 1.1

3 80 0.25 1.7 1.6 60 11.1 56.4 0.29 1.7 <0.2 0.4

2 47 0.17 1.5 0.5 <50 8.2 53.9 0.34 1.1 <0.2 0.4

22 149 0.67 4.2 16.8 250 14.1 82.4 0.45 7.5 <0.2 1.020 318 0.31 3.6 24.1 350 14.1 79.6 0.49 8.6 <0.2 0.819 323 0.38 4.1 23.6 360 14.3 77.5 0.58 8.4 <0.2 1.019 178 0.55 5.0 15.2 220 15.1 63.8 0.28 5.6 0.4 0.919 211 0.33 4.9 24.6 250 14.6 73.1 0.30 8.2 0.3 0.9

9 125 0.15 2.3 10.4 180 10.6 70.9 0.34 4.0 <0.2 0.6

11 117 0.21 2.9 9.6 410 11.7 73.1 0.28 3.8 <0.2 0.716 276 0.29 6.1 16.1 390 13.3 85.1 0.43 7.9 <0.2 1.311 140 0.22 3.3 9.0 620 11.4 69.5 0.35 3.3 <0.2 0.811 135 0.27 3.5 9.6 610 11.8 60.5 0.43 3.7 <0.2 0.8

8 149 0.19 3.3 8.3 240 10.4 75.5 0.32 3.3 <0.2 0.6

11 187 0.35 3.6 14.4 300 11.5 62.3 0.39 5.0 0.4 0.710 149 0.38 3.7 7.7 320 14.2 76.4 0.35 3.7 0.4 0.7

9 128 0.37 3.3 8.1 210 12.5 65.9 0.27 3.6 0.2 0.7

13 180 0.60 4.5 8.6 330 13.6 59.3 0.31 4.6 0.4 0.9

7 110 0.28 2.4 6.9 180 11.3 69.2 1.07 2.4 0.3 10.5

11 239 0.24 4.0 7.3 290 12.8 88.3 0.51 4.0 <0.2 1.1

6 119 0.14 2.9 5.1 120 9.7 61.2 0.34 2.5 <0.2 0.7
52 Environmental Baseline Study of the Huron River Watershed, Baraga and Marquette Counties, Michigan

Appendix 3. Mineral soils (A, E, B, and C horizons), Huron River Watershed, Michigan.—Continued

Field no. Latitude Longitude Horizon Depth

(cm)

HR–SL–03 E 46.76509 -88.03342 E 5 to 8 HR–SL–05 E 46.83572 -88.10330 E 4 to 18 HR–SL–07 E 46.72973 -88.05520 E 4 to 20 HR–SL–08 E 46.74261 -88.04839 E 4 to 10 HR–SL–10 E 46.76124 -88.10713 E 5 to 23 HR–SL–13 E 46.81975 -88.10149 E 6 to 25 HR–SL–15 E 46.74901 -88.05780 E 4 to 18 HR–SL–17 E 46.79581 -88.09223 E 8 to 13 HR–SL–17 E dup 46.79581 -88.09223 E 8 to 13 HR–SL–19 E 46.81204 -88.13567 E 8 to 38 HR–SL–21 E 46.89659 -88.08732 E 6 to 13 HR–SL–23 E 46.87526 -88.05947 E 4 to 13 HR–SL–25 E 46.79618 -88.00632 E 4 to 10 HR–SL–26 E 46.75230 -87.98873 E 1 to 8 HR–SL–27 E 46.81535 -88.01702 E 5 to 18 HR–SL–29 E 46.83004 -88.06466 E 5 to 10 HR–SL–31 E 46.85381 -88.12520 E 4 to 36 HR–SL–01 B 46.78747 -88.06271 B 20 to 66 HR–SL–02 B 46.77742 -88.04971 B 46 to 61 HR–SL–02 B dup 46.77742 -88.04971 B 46 to 61 HR–SL–03 B1 46.76509 -88.03342 B 8 to 38 HR–SL–03 B2 46.76509 -88.03342 B 38 to 119 HR–SL–03 B3 46.76509 -88.03342 B 119 to 135 HR–SL–04 B1 46.80586 -88.06500 B 15 to 33 HR–SL–04 B2 46.80586 -88.06500 B 33 to 102 HR–SL–05 B1 46.83572 -88.10330 B 18 to 61 HR–SL–05 B1 dup 46.83572 -88.10330 B 18 to 61 HR–SL–05 B2 46.83572 -88.10330 B 61 to 76 HR–SL–06 B 46.70800 -88.07032 B 18 to 46 HR–SL–07 B 46.72973 -88.05520 B 20 to 41 HR–SL–08 B 46.74261 -88.04839 B 10 to 46 HR–SL–09 B 46.74865 -88.08341 B 18 to 53 HR–SL–10 B 46.76124 -88.10713 B 23 to 31 HR–SL–11 B 46.86267 -88.11263 B 15 to 51 HR–SL–12 B 46.85126 -88.08941 B 25 to 56 

Sr

(ppm)

Te

(ppm)

Th

(ppm)

Tl

(ppm)

U

(ppm)

V

(ppm)

W

(ppm)

Y

(ppm)

Zn

(ppm)

C

(wt. %)

Total extraction—Continued

109.0 <0.1 3.7 0.4 1 36 0.2 5.8 14 2.20

60.3 <0.1 3.1 0.3 0.9 20 0.2 6.4 8 1.40

70.6 <0.1 3.9 0.4 1.1 25 0.2 7.2 12 0.9095.0 <0.1 3.2 0.4 1.1 29 0.2 6.3 17 1.7056.4 <0.1 3 0.3 0.9 25 0.1 6.2 7 0.80

39.5 <0.1 2 0.2 0.7 14 0.1 4.9 6 1.30

77.4 <0.1 3.8 0.4 1.1 41 0.2 6.4 18 1.6061.6 <0.1 2.4 0.3 0.9 27 0.2 5.1 14 3.2058.8 <0.1 2.7 0.3 0.9 28 0.2 6.2 14 N.A.63.5 <0.1 2.9 0.3 0.9 18 0.2 6.2 12 2.5047.9 <0.1 2.5 0.3 0.7 18 0.2 5.9 7 0.80

60.1 <0.1 3.4 0.3 1 26 0.2 8 9 1.10

70.1 <0.1 3.4 0.3 1 34 0.2 6.8 22 2.2090.1 <0.1 4.4 0.5 1.2 38 0.3 7.9 31 3.00

86.0 <0.1 4.7 0.4 1.4 41 0.2 9.7 27 2.1057.8 <0.1 2.5 0.3 0.8 16 0.1 6 8 0.90

47.7 <0.1 1.9 0.3 0.7 10 0.1 5.6 5 n.a.

72.4 <0.1 4.6 0.6 1.6 64 0.3 10.1 60 2.10

119.0 <0.1 5.4 0.5 1.5 59 0.3 11.3 54 0.20

118.0 <0.1 6.1 0.5 1.4 59 0.3 11.9 54 n.a.

153.0 <0.1 4.8 0.4 1.2 53 0.3 8.2 43 2.70

184.0 <0.1 6.7 0.5 1.1 53 0.4 10.3 37 0.60

81.5 <0.1 4.1 0.4 1.1 27 0.2 10.1 20 0.5097.9 <0.1 4.1 0.4 1.3 27 0.2 9.1 47 1.30

136.0 <0.1 6.8 0.5 1.7 48 0.4 15.1 36 0.60

79.3 <0.1 4.1 0.4 1.2 36 0.3 9.8 39 1.6077.3 <0.1 4.4 0.4 1.2 34 0.4 10.3 38 N.A.

106.0 <0.1 3.5 0.4 1.1 30 0.2 9.0 25 1.10

105.0 <0.1 3.5 0.4 1.1 51 0.3 8.2 37 2.80

89.2 <0.1 3.8 0.4 1.2 38 0.3 8.8 34 1.40

129.0 <0.1 3.5 0.4 1.1 31 0.2 7.3 30 2.30

129.0 <0.1 5.0 0.4 1.2 49 0.4 8.2 50 3.70

80.7 <0.1 3.2 0.4 1.0 24 0.2 8.1 23 1.2067.5 <0.1 4.8 0.5 1.4 30 0.5 12.3 28 0.8066.5 <0.1 3.6 0.4 1.0 20 0.4 9.1 12 0.50
Appendix 3

53

Appendix 3. Mineral soils (A, E, B, and C horizons), Huron River Watershed, Michigan.—Continued

Ag

(ppm)

As

(ppm)

Au

(ppm)

Bi

(ppm)

Cd

(ppm)

Cu

(ppm)

Mo

(ppm)

Pb

(ppm)

Sb

(ppm)

Zn

(ppm)

Field no. Latitude Longitude Horizon Depth (cm) Partial extraction

HR–SL–13 B 46.81975 -88.10149 B 31 to 69 0.48 5 <0.1 <1 0.11 10.1 0.5 10 <1 34.0HR–SL–14 B 46.76476 -88.07135 B 13 to 25 0.56 4 <0.1 <1 0.12 11.3 0.5 12 <1 33.0HR–SL–15 B1 46.74901 -88.05780 B 18 to 33 0.71 5 <0.1 <1 0.24 12.9 0.8 13 <1 62.0HR–SL–15 B2 46.74901 -88.05780 B 33 to 51 0.62 5 <0.1 <1 0.21 14.7 0.7 12 <1 66.8HR–SL–16 B1 46.77925 -88.09563 B 13 to 61 0.73 5 <0.1 <1 0.21 15.7 1.8 14 <1 63.5HR–SL–16 B2 46.77925 -88.09563 B 61 to 66 0.64 5 <0.1 <1 0.17 15.4 0.8 13 <1 59.9HR–SL–17 B 46.79581 -88.09223 B 13 to 66 0.43 3 <0.1 <1 0.16 7.8 0.5 10 <1 36.2HR–SL–18 B 46.80113 -88.11597 B 10 to 25 0.73 10 <0.1 <1 0.39 37.4 2.0 16 1 146.0HR–SL–19 B 46.81204 -88.13567 B 38 to 56 0.65 4 <0.1 <1 0.19 11.4 0.6 14 <1 45.0HR–SL–20 B 46.91087 -88.06673 B 18 to 61 0.47 4 <0.1 <1 0.09 6.6 0.3 10 <1 23.6HR–SL–21 B1 46.89659 -88.08732 B 13 to 25 0.50 2 <0.1 <1 0.12 7.3 0.4 11 <1 27.1HR–SL–21 B2 46.89659 -88.08732 B 25 to 51 0.48 2 <0.1 <1 0.11 6.5 0.3 11 <1 31.1HR–SL–22 B 46.88639 -88.04665 B 31 to 46 0.54 2 <0.1 <1 0.14 7.2 0.4 11 <1 27.7HR–SL–23 B1 46.87526 -88.05947 B 13 to 33 0.54 3 <0.1 <1 0.13 12.6 0.5 11 <1 35.7HR–SL–23 B2 46.87526 -88.05947 B 33 to 43 0.49 3 <0.1 <1 0.12 12.0 0.5 10 <1 33.5HR–SL–23 B2 dup 46.87526 -88.05947 B 33 to 43 0.47 3 <0.1 <1 0.12 12.2 0.5 10 <1 32.7HR–SL–24 B 46.86947 -88.08019 B 13 to 33 0.60 2 <0.1 <1 0.14 8.2 0.5 12 <1 21.0HR–SL–25 B1 46.79618 -88.00632 B 10 to 31 0.72 2 <0.1 <1 0.16 11.3 0.6 11 <1 43.1HR–SL–25 B2 46.79618 -88.00632 B 46 to 56 0.54 3 <0.1 <1 0.14 12.1 0.5 10 <1 40.4HR–SL–26 B 46.75230 -87.98873 B 8 to 38 0.76 3 <0.1 <1 0.22 11.3 0.6 13 <1 51.2HR–SL–27 B 46.81535 -88.01702 B 18 to 38 0.90 3 <0.1 <1 0.18 8.8 0.5 13 <1 43.3HR–SL–28 B 46.82391 -88.04588 B 8 to 51 0.69 4 <0.1 <1 0.22 15.5 0.7 12 <1 56.4HR–SL–29 B1 46.83004 -88.06466 B 10 to 53 0.58 3 <0.1 <1 0.16 14.7 0.4 13 <1 23.6HR–SL–29 B1 dup 46.83004 -88.06466 B 10 to 53 0.60 3 <0.1 <1 0.16 8.2 0.4 13 <1 24.4HR–SL–29 B2 46.83004 -88.06466 B 53 to 69 0.61 3 <0.1 <1 0.17 8.4 0.3 12 <1 22.8HR–SL–30 B 46.85067 -88.03606 B 20 to 43 0.55 3 <0.1 <1 0.13 7.4 0.4 11 <1 28.0HR–SL–31 B1 46.85381 -88.12520 B 36 to 51 0.41 3 <0.1 <1 0.10 3.6 0.3 11 <1 13.3

HR–SL–31 B2 46.85381 -88.12520 B 51 to 147 0.41 2 <0.1 <1 0.08 4.8 0.2 9 <1 13.8

HR–SL–01 C 46.78747 -88.06271 C 66 to 71 0.57 5 <0.1 <1 0.26 16.5 0.8 13 <1 61.20HR–SL–04 C 46.80586 -88.06500 C 102 to 122 0.74 4 <0.1 <1 0.24 20.6 0.7 14 <1 46.00HR–SL–06 C 46.70800 -88.07032 C 76 to 86 0.44 3 <0.1 <1 0.15 17.2 0.3 11 <1 29.30HR–SL–07 C 46.72973 -88.05520 C 41 to 56 0.44 3 <0.1 <1 0.13 6.2 0.4 12 <1 42.30HR–SL–07 C dup 46.72973 -88.05520 C 41 to 56 0.40 3 <0.1 <1 0.12 5.1 0.3 12 <1 40.00HR–SL–08 C 46.74261 -88.04839 C 46 to 61 0.49 2 <0.1 <1 0.12 7.0 0.4 12 <1 26.50HR–SL–09 C 46.74865 -88.08341 C 53 to 71 0.46 3 <0.1 <1 0.15 8.5 0.3 11 <1 29.30
54 Environmental Baseline Study of the Huron River Watershed, Baraga and Marquette Counties, Michigan

Appendix 3. Mineral soils (A, E, B, and C horizons), Huron River Watershed, Michigan.—Continued

Field no. Latitude Longitude Horizon Depth

(cm)

HR–SL–13 B 46.81975 -88.10149 B 31 to 69 HR–SL–14 B 46.76476 -88.07135 B 13 to 25 HR–SL–15 B1 46.74901 -88.05780 B 18 to 33 HR–SL–15 B2 46.74901 -88.05780 B 33 to 51 HR–SL–16 B1 46.77925 -88.09563 B 13 to 61 HR–SL–16 B2 46.77925 -88.09563 B 61 to 66 HR–SL–17 B 46.79581 -88.09223 B 13 to 66 HR–SL–18 B 46.80113 -88.11597 B 10 to 25 HR–SL–19 B 46.81204 -88.13567 B 38 to 56 HR–SL–20 B 46.91087 -88.06673 B 18 to 61 HR–SL–21 B1 46.89659 -88.08732 B 13 to 25 HR–SL–21 B2 46.89659 -88.08732 B 25 to 51 HR–SL–22 B 46.88639 -88.04665 B 31 to 46 HR–SL–23 B1 46.87526 -88.05947 B 13 to 33 HR–SL–23 B2 46.87526 -88.05947 B 33 to 43 HR–SL–23 B2 dup 46.87526 -88.05947 B 33 to 43 HR–SL–24 B 46.86947 -88.08019 B 13 to 33 HR–SL–25 B1 46.79618 -88.00632 B 10 to 31 HR–SL–25 B2 46.79618 -88.00632 B 46 to 56 HR–SL–26 B 46.75230 -87.98873 B 8 to 38 HR–SL–27 B 46.81535 -88.01702 B 18 to 38 HR–SL–28 B 46.82391 -88.04588 B 8 to 51 HR–SL–29 B1 46.83004 -88.06466 B 10 to 53 HR–SL–29 B1 dup 46.83004 -88.06466 B 10 to 53 HR–SL–29 B2 46.83004 -88.06466 B 53 to 69 HR–SL–30 B 46.85067 -88.03606 B 20 to 43 HR–SL–31 B1 46.85381 -88.12520 B 36 to 51 HR–SL–31 B2 46.85381 -88.12520 B 51 to 147 HR–SL–01 C 46.78747 -88.06271 C 66 to 71 HR–SL–04 C 46.80586 -88.06500 C 102 to 122 HR–SL–06 C 46.70800 -88.07032 C 76 to 86 HR–SL–07 C 46.72973 -88.05520 C 41 to 56 HR–SL–07 C dup 46.72973 -88.05520 C 41 to 56 HR–SL–08 C 46.74261 -88.04839 C 46 to 61 HR–SL–09 C 46.74865 -88.08341 C 53 to 71 

Al

(wt. %)

Ca

(wt. %)

Fe

(wt. %)

K

(wt. %)

Mg

(wt. %)

Na

(wt. %)

S

(wt. %)

Ti

(wt. %)

Ag

(ppm)

As

(ppm)

Ba

(ppm)

Total extraction

3.18 0.19 1.56 1.84 0.26 0.39 <0.01 0.11 <1 5 390

3.04 0.25 1.32 1.91 0.26 0.50 <0.01 0.12 <1 3 426

3.93 0.31 2.59 1.83 0.36 0.52 0.02 0.17 <1 5 430

3.91 0.31 2.20 1.97 0.42 0.54 0.01 0.17 <1 5 447

4.47 0.35 2.51 2.12 0.52 0.63 0.02 0.22 <1 5 507

4.16 0.34 2.27 2.12 0.54 0.57 0.01 0.19 <1 5 484

3.04 0.27 1.45 1.95 0.20 0.54 <0.01 0.10 <1 3 447

4.38 0.17 3.64 1.79 0.56 0.42 0.03 0.16 <1 9 399

4.51 0.37 2.18 2.24 0.46 0.66 0.02 0.20 <1 3 508

2.77 0.07 0.94 2.28 0.15 0.33 <0.01 0.06 <1 4 453

2.93 0.18 1.49 2.02 0.15 0.38 <0.01 0.13 <1 3 444

2.87 0.18 1.11 1.91 0.14 0.38 <0.01 0.10 <1 2 437

3.16 0.17 1.30 2.14 0.15 0.40 0.01 0.14 <1 2 473

3.44 0.37 2.24 1.65 0.32 0.48 0.01 0.20 <1 3 391

3.26 0.39 2.01 1.61 0.33 0.51 0.01 0.18 <1 3 381

3.45 0.39 2.13 1.61 0.33 0.51 0.01 0.19 <1 3 361

3.13 0.23 1.45 1.96 0.16 0.46 0.01 0.16 <1 2 477

3.53 0.27 2.18 1.91 0.33 0.45 0.01 0.17 <1 2 468

3.49 0.29 1.83 1.75 0.36 0.47 <0.01 0.14 <1 2 430

4.11 0.36 2.16 1.88 0.39 0.65 0.02 0.18 <1 3 495

4.10 0.25 1.79 2.00 0.34 0.48 0.01 0.21 <1 3 523

3.73 0.21 2.55 1.75 0.31 0.38 0.02 0.17 <1 4 428

3.88 0.30 1.44 1.89 0.23 0.61 <0.01 0.13 <1 3 476

4.03 0.31 1.47 2.08 0.23 0.63 <0.01 0.14 <1 2 502

3.85 0.37 1.35 2.15 0.29 0.73 <0.01 0.14 <1 2 547

2.86 0.25 1.28 1.50 0.23 0.43 0.01 0.15 <1 2 389

3.00 0.14 1.03 1.72 0.11 0.38 0.01 0.09 <1 2 441

2.88 0.21 0.88 2.02 0.19 0.45 <0.01 0.09 <1 2 426

4.35 0.30 2.57 1.89 0.52 0.53 0.01 0.16 <1 6 457

6.12 0.84 2.56 3.16 0.83 0.97 <0.01 0.27 <1 4 663

3.86 0.64 1.86 1.92 0.48 0.92 <0.01 0.16 <1 3 472

3.95 0.54 1.52 1.84 0.32 0.84 <0.01 0.13 <1 3 482

3.85 0.53 1.44 1.86 0.33 0.82 <0.01 0.12 <1 3 481

3.74 0.51 1.51 1.87 0.30 0.84 <0.01 0.14 <1 3 478

3.35 0.33 1.33 1.98 0.30 0.54 <0.01 0.11 <1 3 472
Appendix 3

55

Appendix 3. Mineral soils (A, E, B, and C horizons), Huron River Watershed, Michigan.—Continued

Field no. Latitude Longitude Horizon Depth (cm)

HR–SL–13 B 46.81975 -88.10149 B 31 to 69 HR–SL–14 B 46.76476 -88.07135 B 13 to 25 HR–SL–15 B1 46.74901 -88.05780 B 18 to 33 HR–SL–15 B2 46.74901 -88.05780 B 33 to 51 HR–SL–16 B1 46.77925 -88.09563 B 13 to 61 HR–SL–16 B2 46.77925 -88.09563 B 61 to 66 HR–SL–17 B 46.79581 -88.09223 B 13 to 66 HR–SL–18 B 46.80113 -88.11597 B 10 to 25 HR–SL–19 B 46.81204 -88.13567 B 38 to 56 HR–SL–20 B 46.91087 -88.06673 B 18 to 61 HR–SL–21 B1 46.89659 -88.08732 B 13 to 25 HR–SL–21 B2 46.89659 -88.08732 B 25 to 51 HR–SL–22 B 46.88639 -88.04665 B 31 to 46 HR–SL–23 B1 46.87526 -88.05947 B 13 to 33 HR–SL–23 B2 46.87526 -88.05947 B 33 to 43 HR–SL–23 B2 dup 46.87526 -88.05947 B 33 to 43 HR–SL–24 B 46.86947 -88.08019 B 13 to 33 HR–SL–25 B1 46.79618 -88.00632 B 10 to 31 HR–SL–25 B2 46.79618 -88.00632 B 46 to 56 HR–SL–26 B 46.75230 -87.98873 B 8 to 38 HR–SL–27 B 46.81535 -88.01702 B 18 to 38 HR–SL–28 B 46.82391 -88.04588 B 8 to 51 HR–SL–29 B1 46.83004 -88.06466 B 10 to 53 HR–SL–29 B1 dup 46.83004 -88.06466 B 10 to 53 HR–SL–29 B2 46.83004 -88.06466 B 53 to 69 HR–SL–30 B 46.85067 -88.03606 B 20 to 43 HR–SL–31 B1 46.85381 -88.12520 B 36 to 51 HR–SL–31 B2 46.85381 -88.12520 B 51 to 147 HR–SL–01 C 46.78747 -88.06271 C 66 to 71 HR–SL–04 C 46.80586 -88.06500 C 102 to 122 HR–SL–06 C 46.70800 -88.07032 C 76 to 86 HR–SL–07 C 46.72973 -88.05520 C 41 to 56 HR–SL–07 C dup 46.72973 -88.05520 C 41 to 56 HR–SL–08 C 46.74261 -88.04839 C 46 to 61 HR–SL–09 C 46.74865 -88.08341 C 53 to 71 

Be

(ppm)

Bi

(ppm)

Cd

(ppm)

Ce

(ppm)

Co

(ppm)

Cr

(ppm)

Cs

(ppm)

Cu

(ppm)

Ga

(ppm)

Hg

(ppm)

In

(ppm)

La

(ppm)

Total extraction—Continued

0.9 0.09 <0.1 31.7 5.1 21 <5 10.0 7.6 0.01 0.04 14.3

0.8 0.09 <0.1 25.1 3.2 18 <5 8.6 6.8 0.04 <0.02 12.91.0 0.12 0.2 28.3 5.1 43 <5 11.0 10.1 0.05 0.04 13.81.0 0.10 0.1 27.6 6.1 40 <5 16.2 8.2 0.03 0.02 13.8

1.3 0.12 0.1 35.4 7.3 40 <5 12.3 10.9 0.04 0.03 17.21.0 0.10 <0.1 32.8 6.5 41 <5 12.9 9.7 0.03 0.03 16.1

0.8 0.07 0.1 27.6 3.2 23 <5 5.1 7.3 0.01 <0.02 12.71.4 0.18 0.3 42.3 21.4 50 5 37.7 11.5 0.05 0.04 25.6

1.4 0.10 0.1 34.8 5.3 22 <5 9.1 12.4 0.02 0.03 15.90.8 0.05 <0.1 28.4 1.9 10 <5 6.8 6.1 <0.01 0.02 13.10.7 0.07 <0.1 25.4 2.1 22 <5 5.9 7.7 0.03 <0.02 12.60.8 0.06 <0.1 24.8 2.3 20 <5 5.2 6.1 0.02 <0.02 12.4

0.8 0.06 <0.1 29.9 2.9 15 <5 6.5 6.8 0.02 <0.02 13.31.0 0.09 <0.1 45.8 5.0 27 <5 10.8 9.7 0.03 0.03 16.1

0.9 0.07 <0.1 31.0 5.0 20 <5 10.4 8.6 0.02 0.02 14.6

0.9 0.08 <0.1 29.2 5.3 24 <5 13.2 9.4 0.03 0.02 14.9

0.7 0.08 <0.1 23.6 2.4 16 <5 6.3 8.3 0.03 <0.02 11.90.8 0.09 <0.1 26.8 4.4 27 <5 9.2 9.2 0.02 0.02 13.40.9 0.09 <0.1 31.2 4.7 31 <5 11.1 9.3 0.02 0.02 14.7

1.1 0.14 0.1 33.6 6.3 32 <5 12.3 11.4 0.04 0.03 15.91.0 0.12 <0.1 30.8 4.0 27 <5 9.8 13.0 0.02 0.02 15.21.0 0.13 0.1 32.1 4.4 28 <5 16.5 11.8 0.05 0.03 15.11.0 0.09 <0.1 29.6 4.3 22 <5 15.7 9.3 0.05 0.02 14.1

1.0 0.08 <0.1 30.6 4.2 24 <5 9.2 9.6 0.04 0.02 14.51.0 0.08 <0.1 32.8 5.4 22 <5 9.4 8.8 0.02 <0.02 14.80.6 0.10 <0.1 20.9 3.6 22 <5 8.4 8.1 0.02 <0.02 11.20.7 0.06 <0.1 21.9 1.6 11 <5 4.5 8.1 0.02 <0.02 10.80.7 0.05 <0.1 26.8 2.7 13 <5 5.8 6.6 <0.01 <0.02 12.91.2 0.12 0.2 36.50 7.7 47 <5 17.5 11.9 0.02 0.03 16.92.2 0.12 0.2 71.70 11.0 44 <5 21.6 15.9 0.01 0.04 34.80.8 0.11 <0.1 33.10 7.7 32 <5 18.2 8.9 0.01 <0.02 13.1

1.1 0.11 <0.1 32.00 6.0 26 <5 7.2 9.6 0.01 <0.02 14.70.9 0.09 <0.1 29.20 6.3 27 <5 6.1 8.9 0.01 <0.02 13.40.9 0.08 <0.1 28.00 4.4 25 <5 8.0 9.0 0.01 <0.02 14.1

0.8 0.10 <0.1 34.80 5.6 24 <5 9.5 8.0 <0.01 <0.02 14.4
56 Environmental Baseline Study of the Huron River Watershed, Baraga and Marquette Counties, Michigan

Appendix 3. Mineral soils (A, E, B, and C horizons), Huron River Watershed, Michigan.—Continued

Field no. Latitude Longitude Horizon Depth

(cm)

HR–SL–13 B 46.81975 -88.10149 B 31 to 69 HR–SL–14 B 46.76476 -88.07135 B 13 to 25 HR–SL–15 B1 46.74901 -88.05780 B 18 to 33 HR–SL–15 B2 46.74901 -88.05780 B 33 to 51 HR–SL–16 B1 46.77925 -88.09563 B 13 to 61 HR–SL–16 B2 46.77925 -88.09563 B 61 to 66 HR–SL–17 B 46.79581 -88.09223 B 13 to 66 HR–SL–18 B 46.80113 -88.11597 B 10 to 25 HR–SL–19 B 46.81204 -88.13567 B 38 to 56 HR–SL–20 B 46.91087 -88.06673 B 18 to 61 HR–SL–21 B1 46.89659 -88.08732 B 13 to 25 HR–SL–21 B2 46.89659 -88.08732 B 25 to 51 HR–SL–22 B 46.88639 -88.04665 B 31 to 46 HR–SL–23 B1 46.87526 -88.05947 B 13 to 33 HR–SL–23 B2 46.87526 -88.05947 B 33 to 43 HR–SL–23 B2 dup 46.87526 -88.05947 B 33 to 43 HR–SL–24 B 46.86947 -88.08019 B 13 to 33 HR–SL–25 B1 46.79618 -88.00632 B 10 to 31 HR–SL–25 B2 46.79618 -88.00632 B 46 to 56 HR–SL–26 B 46.75230 -87.98873 B 8 to 38 HR–SL–27 B 46.81535 -88.01702 B 18 to 38 HR–SL–28 B 46.82391 -88.04588 B 8 to 51 HR–SL–29 B1 46.83004 -88.06466 B 10 to 53 HR–SL–29 B1 dup 46.83004 -88.06466 B 10 to 53 HR–SL–29 B2 46.83004 -88.06466 B 53 to 69 HR–SL–30 B 46.85067 -88.03606 B 20 to 43 HR–SL–31 B1 46.85381 -88.12520 B 36 to 51 HR–SL–31 B2 46.85381 -88.12520 B 51 to 147 HR–SL–01 C 46.78747 -88.06271 C 66 to 71 HR–SL–04 C 46.80586 -88.06500 C 102 to 122 HR–SL–06 C 46.70800 -88.07032 C 76 to 86 HR–SL–07 C 46.72973 -88.05520 C 41 to 56 HR–SL–07 C dup 46.72973 -88.05520 C 41 to 56 HR–SL–08 C 46.74261 -88.04839 C 46 to 61 HR–SL–09 C 46.74865 -88.08341 C 53 to 71 

Li

(ppm)

Mn

(ppm)

Mo

(ppm)

Nb

(ppm)

Ni

(ppm)

P

(ppm)

Pb

(ppm)

Rb

(ppm)

Sb

(ppm)

Sc

(ppm)

Se

(ppm)

Sn

(ppm)

Total extraction—Continued

14 116 0.26 2.8 13.5 180 9.4 68.2 0.45 4.6 <0.2 1.810 118 0.35 3.1 8.8 210 10.6 65.3 0.34 3.8 0.2 0.618 176 0.61 4.1 11.9 420 13.4 69.4 0.53 6.2 0.4 1.217 189 0.49 3.6 16.5 330 11.8 72.6 0.52 5.9 0.3 0.821 210 0.61 5.0 20.1 380 14.0 82.2 0.45 7.8 0.4 1.320 199 0.47 3.6 20.8 300 12.0 79.5 0.41 7.4 0.2 1.2

9 127 0.26 2.9 7.3 220 11.3 63.9 0.36 3.1 <0.2 0.5

30 266 1.39 3.6 40.7 440 14.6 81.8 1.11 9.5 0.5 1.316 194 0.36 5.1 10.4 400 13.6 80.8 0.45 5.1 0.2 1.2

6 132 0.18 2.2 3.2 300 10.5 76.4 0.56 2.0 <0.2 1.07 128 0.27 3.4 4.2 250 11.5 67.2 0.36 2.4 0.3 0.77 111 0.19 2.6 4.9 290 10.2 65.6 0.35 2.3 <0.2 0.68 111 0.20 3.3 5.3 220 10.8 70.6 0.36 2.4 <0.2 0.7

11 202 0.36 4.2 8.8 500 11.5 60.5 0.39 4.7 0.3 1.011 188 0.30 4.0 9.7 420 10.6 56.4 0.34 4.4 <0.2 0.912 206 0.40 4.4 10.0 440 9.9 52.1 0.43 4.9 0.3 0.9

7 109 0.30 3.7 5.1 290 12.0 67.4 0.24 2.6 0.3 0.8

15 148 0.34 3.9 10.8 330 10.8 71.7 0.35 5.0 0.2 0.914 158 0.34 3.4 12.4 260 10.5 61.4 0.42 5.2 0.2 0.816 408 0.52 4.7 12.0 550 12.9 68.6 0.52 5.9 0.3 1.012 199 0.44 5.7 8.2 230 12.2 82.0 0.49 5.6 0.2 1.216 155 0.60 4.5 11.1 570 11.7 63.9 0.51 4.8 0.4 1.012 125 0.35 3.7 8.9 250 13.1 61.7 0.41 4.0 0.3 0.813 130 0.33 3.9 9.8 270 12.8 63.8 0.42 4.0 0.3 0.7

9 148 0.27 3.8 10.4 180 11.4 70.3 0.40 3.9 <0.2 0.79 126 0.36 3.3 7.8 110 10.6 53.7 0.38 3.8 <0.2 0.76 81 0.31 2.6 3.0 120 11.0 55.7 0.38 2.3 0.3 0.6

7 112 0.22 2.5 5.2 120 9.2 59.6 0.35 2.7 <0.2 0.7

23 171 0.68 4.1 23.9 270 13.3 68.7 0.59 8.1 0.2 0.921 569 0.57 7.3 21.6 590 14.3 86.7 0.49 10.2 <0.2 1.610 230 0.34 3.4 17.6 250 10.3 57.0 0.44 5.8 <0.2 0.610 186 0.33 3.6 15.1 400 12.5 58.4 0.36 4.6 <0.2 0.710 175 0.29 3.2 15.2 370 11.7 59.3 0.33 4.5 0.2 0.6

8 179 0.31 3.6 10.3 220 11.6 58.4 0.35 4.3 <0.2 0.7

9 180 0.25 3.0 12.4 230 11.1 64.1 0.40 4.1 <0.2 0.7
Appendix 3

57

Appendix 3. Mineral soils (A, E, B, and C horizons), Huron River Watershed, Michigan.—Continued

Field no. Latitude Longitude Horizon Depth (cm)

HR–SL–13 B 46.81975 -88.10149 B 31 to 69 HR–SL–14 B 46.76476 -88.07135 B 13 to 25 HR–SL–15 B1 46.74901 -88.05780 B 18 to 33 HR–SL–15 B2 46.74901 -88.05780 B 33 to 51 HR–SL–16 B1 46.77925 -88.09563 B 13 to 61 HR–SL–16 B2 46.77925 -88.09563 B 61 to 66 HR–SL–17 B 46.79581 -88.09223 B 13 to 66 HR–SL–18 B 46.80113 -88.11597 B 10 to 25 HR–SL–19 B 46.81204 -88.13567 B 38 to 56 HR–SL–20 B 46.91087 -88.06673 B 18 to 61 HR–SL–21 B1 46.89659 -88.08732 B 13 to 25 HR–SL–21 B2 46.89659 -88.08732 B 25 to 51 HR–SL–22 B 46.88639 -88.04665 B 31 to 46 HR–SL–23 B1 46.87526 -88.05947 B 13 to 33 HR–SL–23 B2 46.87526 -88.05947 B 33 to 43 HR–SL–23 B2 dup 46.87526 -88.05947 B 33 to 43 HR–SL–24 B 46.86947 -88.08019 B 13 to 33 HR–SL–25 B1 46.79618 -88.00632 B 10 to 31 HR–SL–25 B2 46.79618 -88.00632 B 46 to 56 HR–SL–26 B 46.75230 -87.98873 B 8 to 38 HR–SL–27 B 46.81535 -88.01702 B 18 to 38 HR–SL–28 B 46.82391 -88.04588 B 8 to 51 HR–SL–29 B1 46.83004 -88.06466 B 10 to 53 HR–SL–29 B1 dup 46.83004 -88.06466 B 10 to 53 HR–SL–29 B2 46.83004 -88.06466 B 53 to 69 HR–SL–30 B 46.85067 -88.03606 B 20 to 43 HR–SL–31 B1 46.85381 -88.12520 B 36 to 51 HR–SL–31 B2 46.85381 -88.12520 B 51 to 147 HR–SL–01 C 46.78747 -88.06271 C 66 to 71 HR–SL–04 C 46.80586 -88.06500 C 102 to 122 HR–SL–06 C 46.70800 -88.07032 C 76 to 86 HR–SL–07 C 46.72973 -88.05520 C 41 to 56 HR–SL–07 C dup 46.72973 -88.05520 C 41 to 56 HR–SL–08 C 46.74261 -88.04839 C 46 to 61 HR–SL–09 C 46.74865 -88.08341 C 53 to 71 

Sr

(ppm)

Te

(ppm)

Th

(ppm)

Tl

(ppm)

U

(ppm)

V

(ppm)

W

(ppm)

Y

(ppm)

Zn

(ppm)

C

(wt. %)

Total extraction—Continued

60.0 <0.1 3.8 0.4 1.3 36 0.2 11.0 32 1.2076.9 <0.1 3.8 0.3 1.3 34 0.2 9.2 30 1.2076.6 <0.1 4.4 0.5 1.5 61 0.3 9.0 60 4.0077.6 <0.1 4.5 0.5 1.5 59 0.3 10.2 65 2.2094.4 <0.1 5.8 0.5 1.7 69 0.3 10.7 62 2.9082.1 <0.1 4.6 0.5 1.6 65 0.3 10.8 56 1.8086.9 <0.1 3.5 0.4 1.1 30 0.2 8.3 35 1.2059.8 <0.1 4.9 0.7 2.5 78 0.4 16.5 140 2.8096.0 <0.1 4.9 0.4 1.5 40 0.3 12.9 41 2.5040.7 <0.1 4.1 0.4 1.2 16 0.2 11.3 23 0.5063.1 <0.1 4.3 0.4 1.1 31 0.2 8.9 25 1.7061.0 <0.1 3.8 0.3 1.1 24 0.2 8.7 29 1.1063.6 <0.1 4.1 0.4 1.3 28 0.4 9.8 26 1.2075.0 <0.1 5.6 0.3 1.4 57 0.3 11.6 34 2.00

78.0 <0.1 4.6 0.3 1.3 51 0.3 12.4 30 1.7079.4 <0.1 5.5 0.3 1.1 52 0.3 11.0 31 N.A.78.1 <0.1 3.7 0.4 1.1 31 0.2 8.2 18 3.6075.6 <0.1 4.1 0.5 1.2 48 0.3 9.4 40 2.8073.5 <0.1 4.9 0.4 1.2 43 0.3 9.0 41 1.80

100.0 <0.1 4.8 0.4 1.4 46 0.4 10.0 50 2.00

86.2 <0.1 4.8 0.5 1.5 46 0.3 10.8 39 2.2060.5 <0.1 5.1 0.4 1.4 55 0.4 9.9 55 2.9093.7 <0.1 4.6 0.4 1.1 33 0.3 9.1 26 0.6098.4 <0.1 4.7 0.4 1.2 35 0.3 9.4 22 N.A.

111.0 <0.1 4.5 0.4 1.1 32 0.4 9.1 21 0.30

68.3 <0.1 4.0 0.3 1.1 38 0.2 8.0 26 2.1061.8 <0.1 3.5 0.4 0.9 21 0.2 7.8 12 2.20

68.6 <0.1 3.7 0.3 0.9 21 0.2 9.7 13 N.A.77.7 <0.1 5.4 0.5 1.5 61 0.5 9.5 65 1.30

153.0 <0.1 9.2 0.6 1.9 59 0.6 20.8 47 0.50

124.0 <0.1 3.7 0.4 0.9 50 0.3 8.6 30 0.70

129.0 <0.1 3.7 0.3 0.9 38 0.3 8.2 42 1.10

128.0 <0.1 3.7 0.4 0.9 37 0.3 8.0 42 N.A.

131.0 <0.1 4.1 0.4 1.0 37 0.3 8.9 26 0.80

84.4 <0.1 4.4 0.4 1.1 33 0.2 9.2 28 0.60
58 Environmental Baseline Study of the Huron River Watershed, Baraga and Marquette Counties, Michigan

Appendix 3. Mineral soils (A, E, B, and C horizons), Huron River Watershed, Michigan.—Continued

Ag

(ppm)

As

(ppm)

Au

(ppm)

Bi

(ppm)

Cd

(ppm)

Cu

(ppm)

Mo

(ppm)

Pb

(ppm)

Sb

(ppm)

Zn

(ppm)

Field no. Latitude Longitude Horizon Depth

(cm)

Partial extraction

HR–SL–10 C 46.76124 -88.10713 C 31 to 117 0.36 2 <0.1 <1 0.11 7.6 0.3 11 <1 15.80HR–SL–11 C 46.86267 -88.11263 C 51 to 53 0.56 2 <0.1 <1 0.14 6.1 0.4 13 <1 24.20HR–SL–12 C 46.85126 -88.08941 C 56 to 152 0.33 2 <0.1 <1 0.05 4.1 0.2 10 <1 10.50HR–SL–14 C 46.76476 -88.07135 C 25 to 76 0.37 5 <0.1 <1 0.13 14.4 0.5 10 <1 39.30HR–SL–20 C 46.91087 -88.06673 C 61 to 94 0.41 3 <0.1 <1 0.08 4.0 0.2 9 <1 13.80

HR–SL–21 C 46.89659 -88.08732 C 51 to 122 0.31 2 <0.1 <1 0.08 4.4 0.2 9 <1 15.90

HR–SL–21 C dup 46.89659 -88.08732 C 51 to 122 0.32 2 <0.1 <1 0.08 5.1 0.3 9 <1 16.50

HR–SL–22 C 46.88639 -88.04665 C 46 to 66 0.42 2 <0.1 <1 0.09 4.4 0.2 11 <1 19.70HR–SL–24 C 46.86947 -88.08019 C 99 to 114 0.34 2 <0.1 <1 0.07 4.1 0.2 9 <1 10.10

HR–SL–26 C 46.75230 -87.98873 C 38 to 91 0.74 4 <0.1 <1 0.15 18.3 0.4 15 <1 45.50HR–SL–31 C 46.85381 -88.12520 C 147 to 167 0.32 2 <0.1 <1 0.06 3.6 0.6 8 <1 9.20

HR Road Dust 46.81786 -88.09723 surface 0.74 10.0 <0.1 <1 0.43 48.1 3.5 14 <1 98.10

Appendix 3. Mineral soils (A, E, B, and C horizons), Huron River Watershed, Michigan.—Continued

Field no. Latitude Longitude Horizon Depth

(cm)

HR–SL–10 C 46.76124 -88.10713 C 31 to 117 HR–SL–11 C 46.86267 -88.11263 C 51 to 53 HR–SL–12 C 46.85126 -88.08941 C 56 to 152 HR–SL–14 C 46.76476 -88.07135 C 25 to 76 HR–SL–20 C 46.91087 -88.06673 C 61 to 94 HR–SL–21 C 46.89659 -88.08732 C 51 to 122 HR–SL–21 C dup 46.89659 -88.08732 C 51 to 122 HR–SL–22 C 46.88639 -88.04665 C 46 to 66 HR–SL–24 C 46.86947 -88.08019 C 99 to 114 HR–SL–26 C 46.75230 -87.98873 C 38 to 91 HR–SL–31 C 46.85381 -88.12520 C 147 to 167 HR Road Dust 46.81786 -88.09723 surface

Al

(wt. %)

Ca

(wt. %)

Fe

(wt. %)

K

(wt. %)

Mg

(wt. %)

Na

(wt. %)

S

(wt. %)

Ti

(wt. %)

Ag

(ppm)

As

(ppm)

Ba

(ppm)

Total extraction

3.07 0.31 0.81 2.18 0.16 0.58 <0.01 0.07 <1 1 509

3.26 0.20 1.10 1.96 0.26 0.39 0.01 0.16 <1 2 472

2.67 0.21 0.48 2.23 0.13 0.47 <0.01 0.06 <1 2 494

3.05 0.36 1.57 1.61 0.43 0.56 <0.01 0.09 <1 5 372

2.55 0.09 0.85 2.41 0.15 0.33 <0.01 0.06 <1 2 448

2.53 0.17 0.64 2.15 0.14 0.40 <0.01 0.06 <1 <1 468

2.57 0.18 0.61 2.24 0.13 0.41 <0.01 0.04 <1 1 476

2.96 0.19 0.99 2.25 0.15 0.42 <0.01 0.10 <1 1 501

2.27 0.16 1.04 2.01 0.11 0.33 <0.01 0.09 <1 1 430

5.17 0.53 2.21 2.56 0.61 0.87 <0.01 0.19 <1 3 604

2.23 0.14 0.54 1.92 0.12 0.34 <0.01 0.05 <1 <1 397

4.11 0.29 2.63 1.91 0.68 0.49 0.02 0.14 10 435
Appendix 3

59

Appendix 3. Mineral soils (A, E, B, and C horizons), Huron River Watershed, Michigan.—Continued

Field no. Latitude Longitude Horizon Depth (cm)

HR–SL–10 C 46.76124 -88.10713 C 31 to 117 HR–SL–11 C 46.86267 -88.11263 C 51 to 53 HR–SL–12 C 46.85126 -88.08941 C 56 to 152 HR–SL–14 C 46.76476 -88.07135 C 25 to 76 HR–SL–20 C 46.91087 -88.06673 C 61 to 94 HR–SL–21 C 46.89659 -88.08732 C 51 to 122 HR–SL–21 C dup 46.89659 -88.08732 C 51 to 122 HR–SL–22 C 46.88639 -88.04665 C 46 to 66 HR–SL–24 C 46.86947 -88.08019 C 99 to 114 HR–SL–26 C 46.75230 -87.98873 C 38 to 91 HR–SL–31 C 46.85381 -88.12520 C 147 to 167 HR Road Dust 46.81786 -88.09723 surface

Be

(ppm)

Bi

(ppm)

Cd

(ppm)

Ce

(ppm)

Co

(ppm)

Cr

(ppm)

Cs

(ppm)

Cu

(ppm)

Ga

(ppm)

Hg

(ppm)

In

(ppm)

La

(ppm)

Total extraction—Continued

0.8 0.04 <0.1 31.30 3.3 14 <5 8.6 7.0 <0.01 <0.02 12.21.0 0.10 <0.1 33.20 4.3 15 <5 7.1 8.7 0.03 <0.02 14.90.7 0.05 <0.1 24.70 1.7 11 <5 5.1 6.5 <0.01 <0.02 12.20.8 0.08 <0.1 33.40 5.6 32 <5 15.4 8.1 0.03 0.02 14.8

0.8 0.05 <0.1 32.30 1.9 9 <5 5.0 6.3 <0.01 <0.02 14.7

0.6 <0.04 <0.1 32.20 2.5 11 <5 5.4 5.8 <0.01 <0.02 13.60.6 <0.04 <0.1 32.30 1.7 11 <5 6.1 6.0 <0.01 <0.02 12.30.8 0.06 <0.1 37.80 2.9 12 <5 5.4 7.1 0.01 <0.02 14.80.7 0.07 <0.1 33.50 4.5 12 <5 5.1 5.7 <0.01 <0.02 12.81.6 0.12 <0.1 46.10 7.9 42 <5 19.3 12.6 0.02 0.03 21.90.6 0.05 <0.1 25.10 1.7 11 <5 4.6 5.4 <0.01 <0.02 11.91.3 0.19 0.3 34.20 7.3 51 <5 49.1 10.8 0.08 <0.02 16.7

Appendix 3. Mineral soils (A, E, B, and C horizons), Huron River Watershed, Michigan.—Continued

Field no. Latitude Longitude Horizon Depth (cm)

HR–SL–10 C 46.76124 -88.10713 C 31 to 117 HR–SL–11 C 46.86267 -88.11263 C 51 to 53 HR–SL–12 C 46.85126 -88.08941 C 56 to 152 HR–SL–14 C 46.76476 -88.07135 C 25 to 76 HR–SL–20 C 46.91087 -88.06673 C 61 to 94 HR–SL–21 C 46.89659 -88.08732 C 51 to 122 HR–SL–21 C dup 46.89659 -88.08732 C 51 to 122 HR–SL–22 C 46.88639 -88.04665 C 46 to 66 HR–SL–24 C 46.86947 -88.08019 C 99 to 114 HR–SL–26 C 46.75230 -87.98873 C 38 to 91 HR–SL–31 C 46.85381 -88.12520 C 147 to 167 HR Road Dust 46.81786 -88.09723 surface

Li

(ppm)

Mn

(ppm)

Mo

(ppm)

Nb

(ppm)

Ni

(ppm)

P

(ppm)

Pb

(ppm)

Rb

(ppm)

Sb

(ppm)

Sc

(ppm)

Se

(ppm)

Sn

(ppm)

Total extraction—Continued

6 118 0.18 2.1 7.9 170 10.7 66.8 0.41 2.7 <0.2 0.58 292 0.37 3.9 5.2 290 12.8 70.8 0.49 3.3 0.3 1.05 70 0.13 1.8 4.2 150 10.3 66.0 0.32 2.0 <0.2 0.5

13 181 0.47 2.3 16.1 200 10.0 53.8 0.50 5.6 <0.2 0.6

5 116 0.14 2.1 3.1 150 9.2 73.9 0.58 2.2 <0.2 0.75 89 0.15 1.8 4.7 120 8.7 65.0 0.33 2.0 <0.2 0.6

5 82 0.12 1.5 4.4 120 8.7 67.4 0.32 2.0 <0.2 0.4

5 110 0.21 2.8 4.8 150 10.5 69.5 0.42 2.6 <0.2 0.74 121 0.17 2.1 3.5 140 9.3 58.9 0.33 2.0 <0.2 0.5

18 265 0.28 4.7 18.4 370 14.4 80.8 0.49 8.2 <0.2 1.2

5 69 0.13 1.6 3.6 100 8.1 58.3 0.32 2.1 <0.2 0.5

25 385 3.54 2.9 26.5 290 13.3 71.7 1.58 8.5 0.4 1.1
60 Environmental Baseline Study of the Huron River Watershed, Baraga and Marquette Counties, Michigan

Appendix 3. Mineral soils (A, E, B, and C horizons), Huron River Watershed, Michigan.—Continued

Field no. Latitude Longitude Horizon Depth

(cm)

HR–SL–10 C 46.76124 -88.10713 C 31 to 117 HR–SL–11 C 46.86267 -88.11263 C 51 to 53 HR–SL–12 C 46.85126 -88.08941 C 56 to 152 HR–SL–14 C 46.76476 -88.07135 C 25 to 76 HR–SL–20 C 46.91087 -88.06673 C 61 to 94 HR–SL–21 C 46.89659 -88.08732 C 51 to 122 HR–SL–21 C dup 46.89659 -88.08732 C 51 to 122 HR–SL–22 C 46.88639 -88.04665 C 46 to 66 HR–SL–24 C 46.86947 -88.08019 C 99 to 114 HR–SL–26 C 46.75230 -87.98873 C 38 to 91 HR–SL–31 C 46.85381 -88.12520 C 147 to 167 HR Road Dust 46.81786 -88.09723 surface

Sr

(ppm)

Te

(ppm)

Th

(ppm)

Tl

(ppm)

U

(ppm)

V

(ppm)

W

(ppm)

Y

(ppm)

Zn

(ppm)

C

(wt. %)

Total extraction—Continued

93.4 <0.1 3.4 0.4 0.9 19 0.2 8.2 16 0.5065.5 <0.1 5.2 0.4 1.3 29 0.4 11.1 23 1.5074.3 <0.1 3.1 0.4 0.8 12 0.2 7.9 10 0.4081.4 <0.1 4.5 0.4 1.5 44 0.2 10.1 40 0.5041.7 <0.1 4.1 0.4 1.1 14 0.3 11.5 14 0.3064.7 <0.1 3.6 0.3 0.9 15 0.3 8.2 16 0.2064.9 <0.1 3.8 0.4 0.9 13 0.1 8.2 16 N.A.67.8 <0.1 4.2 0.4 1.1 22 0.2 9.3 20 0.7056.9 <0.1 3.5 0.3 0.9 25 0.8 8.8 9 0.50

132.0 <0.1 7.1 0.5 1.5 53 0.3 13.5 45 0.30

53.0 <0.1 3.6 0.3 0.9 12 0.2 8.7 9 0.10

65.3 <0.1 5.6 0.7 3.0 86 0.9 12.7 100 N.A.
Appendix 4 61

Appendix 4. Organic Soils (O Horizon), Huron River Watershed, Michigan

Appendix 4. Organic soils (O horizon), Huron River Watershed, Michigan.—Continued

Field no. Latitude Longitude Thickness

(cm)

Ash

(%)

LOI

(%)

Al

(wt. %)

Ca

(wt. %)

Fe

(wt. %)

K

(wt. %)

Mg

(wt. %)

Na

(wt. %)

S

(wt. %)

Ti

(wt. %)

As

(ppm)

Ba

(ppm)

HR–SL–01 O 46.78747 -88.06271 7.5 14.8 85.2 0.72 0.66 0.38 0.27 0.08 0.09 0.14 0.03 3.26 164.28

HR–SL–01 O dup 46.78747 -88.06271 7.5 15.2 84.8 0.81 0.74 0.42 0.31 0.10 0.10 0.16 0.03 3.34 179.36

HR–SL–03 O 46.76509 -88.03342 0.5 19.7 80.3 0.62 0.83 0.31 0.35 0.09 0.13 0.13 0.03 0.79 157.40

HR–SL–05 O 46.83572 -88.10330 1.0 34.4 65.6 0.95 1.15 0.48 0.62 0.12 0.15 0.15 0.06 1.38 263.85

HR–SL–06 O 46.70800 -88.07032 2.0 24.3 75.7 0.83 0.27 0.45 0.43 0.08 0.16 0.08 0.04 0.97 180.31

HR–SL–07 O 46.72973 -88.05520 2.0 39.3 60.7 1.25 0.74 0.58 0.70 0.11 0.26 0.15 0.07 1.57 320.69

HR–SL–09 O 46.74865 -88.08341 2.0 23.4 76.6 0.79 1.91 0.38 0.42 0.13 0.15 0.19 0.04 1.17 416.52

HR–SL–10 O 46.76124 -88.10713 3.5 21.0 79.0 0.64 0.43 0.32 0.34 0.05 0.09 0.09 0.03 1.68 228.90

HR–SL–12 O 46.85126 -88.08941 5.0 17.5 82.5 0.97 0.56 0.64 0.28 0.08 0.11 0.13 0.04 3.33 208.25

HR–SL–13 O 46.81975 -88.10149 4.0 22.6 77.4 0.73 0.93 0.38 0.41 0.12 0.09 0.14 0.03 1.58 228.26

HR–SL–14 O 46.76476 -88.07135 2.5 25.0 75.0 1.02 0.51 0.41 0.48 0.11 0.12 0.13 0.04 1.25 252.50

HR–SL–15 O 46.74901 -88.05780 1.5 26.0 74.0 1.14 0.87 0.71 0.49 0.12 0.23 0.16 0.07 1.56 314.60

HR–SL–19 O 46.81204 -88.13567 5.0 18.3 81.7 0.61 0.96 0.34 0.33 0.11 0.09 0.16 0.03 1.46 212.28

HR–SL–20 O 46.91087 -88.06673 2.0 40.6 59.4 1.05 0.14 0.36 0.77 0.06 0.12 0.04 0.02 2.03 205.03

HR–SL–21 O 46.89659 -88.08732 4.0 31.9 68.1 0.76 0.50 0.40 0.51 0.08 0.11 0.13 0.04 1.28 223.30

HR–SL–22 O 46.88639 -88.04665 0.5 24.7 75.3 0.80 0.60 0.42 0.44 0.08 0.11 0.09 0.04 1.24 247.00

HR–SL–23 O 46.87526 -88.05947 2.5 29.6 70.4 0.95 1.06 0.52 0.52 0.13 0.15 0.17 0.04 2.07 491.36

HR–SL–24 O 46.86947 -88.08019 3.0 24.3 75.7 0.90 0.72 0.48 0.41 0.10 0.13 0.15 0.04 2.67 236.20

HR–SL–25 O 46.79618 -88.00632 2.0 33.0 67.0 1.08 0.65 0.52 0.60 0.10 0.17 0.10 0.06 1.32 239.91

HR–SL–27 O 46.81535 -88.01702 1.0 43.6 56.4 1.89 0.43 0.92 0.89 0.15 0.24 0.10 0.09 3.05 317.41

HR–SL–28 O 46.82391 -88.04588 0.5 40.9 59.1 1.08 0.78 0.49 0.73 0.09 0.16 0.10 0.08 1.23 287.12

HR–SL–29 O 46.83004 -88.06466 3.6 22.6 77.4 0.55 0.36 0.27 0.35 0.06 0.07 0.07 0.03 0.90 117.29

HR–SL–30 O 46.85067 -88.03606 6.0 14.4 85.6 0.62 0.86 0.32 0.29 0.11 0.08 0.15 0.03 2.16 133.63

HR–SL–31 O 46.85381 -88.12520 4.0 16.3 83.7 0.68 0.66 0.37 0.28 0.07 0.08 0.12 0.03 3.10 143.44

HR–SL–31 O dup 46.85381 -88.12520 4.0 16.9 83.1 0.66 0.60 0.35 0.27 0.06 0.08 0.11 0.03 2.87 132.33
62 Environmental Baseline Study of the Huron River Watershed, Baraga and Marquette Counties, Michigan

Appendix 4. Organic soils (O horizon), Huron River Watershed, Michigan.—Continued

Field no. Latitude Longitude Thickness

(cm)

HR–SL–01 O 46.78747 -88.06271 7.5HR–SL–01 O dup 46.78747 -88.06271 7.5HR–SL–03 O 46.76509 -88.03342 0.5HR–SL–05 O 46.83572 -88.10330 1.0HR–SL–06 O 46.70800 -88.07032 2.0HR–SL–07 O 46.72973 -88.05520 2.0HR–SL–09 O 46.74865 -88.08341 2.0HR–SL–10 O 46.76124 -88.10713 3.5HR–SL–12 O 46.85126 -88.08941 5.0HR–SL–13 O 46.81975 -88.10149 4.0HR–SL–14 O 46.76476 -88.07135 2.5HR–SL–15 O 46.74901 -88.05780 1.5HR–SL–19 O 46.81204 -88.13567 5.0HR–SL–20 O 46.91087 -88.06673 2.0HR–SL–21 O 46.89659 -88.08732 4.0HR–SL–22 O 46.88639 -88.04665 0.5HR–SL–23 O 46.87526 -88.05947 2.5HR–SL–24 O 46.86947 -88.08019 3.0HR–SL–25 O 46.79618 -88.00632 2.0HR–SL–27 O 46.81535 -88.01702 1.0HR–SL–28 O 46.82391 -88.04588 0.5HR–SL–29 O 46.83004 -88.06466 3.6HR–SL–30 O 46.85067 -88.03606 6.0HR–SL–31 O 46.85381 -88.12520 4.0HR–SL–31 O dup 46.85381 -88.12520 4.0

Be

(ppm)

Bi

(ppm)

Cd

(ppm)

Ce

(ppm)

Co

(ppm)

Cr

(ppm)

Cu

(ppm)

Ga

(ppm)

Hg

(ppm)

In

(ppm)

La

(ppm)

0.22 0.24 1.58 6.75 1.36 7.10 22.50 2.09 0.20 0.03 3.69

0.23 0.24 1.69 7.68 1.46 4.71 25.23 2.16 0.19 0.03 4.03

0.16 0.09 0.81 5.20 0.73 5.52 13.59 1.68 0.13 0.01 2.84

0.24 0.11 0.76 7.36 1.07 5.50 17.23 2.55 0.16 0.01 4.06

0.22 0.12 0.78 4.37 1.02 5.59 10.06 2.26 0.15 0.01 2.33

0.28 0.15 0.71 9.00 1.06 9.04 16.98 3.23 0.14 0.02 4.95

0.21 0.10 2.60 6.01 0.96 4.21 23.10 2.13 0.12 0.01 3.37

0.21 0.15 0.76 4.81 0.65 5.25 17.43 1.77 0.13 0.01 2.67

0.35 0.25 0.60 15.05 2.01 7.35 18.03 2.40 0.26 0.02 7.72

0.20 0.14 1.45 5.74 1.11 6.78 16.88 2.07 0.16 0.01 3.12

0.70 0.11 0.98 23.88 6.10 7.25 27.75 2.55 0.14 0.02 14.08

0.26 0.17 1.87 8.76 1.61 7.02 24.91 3.04 0.19 0.02 4.76

0.16 0.14 1.37 5.16 0.90 5.67 25.99 1.67 0.18 0.01 2.95

0.24 0.15 0.28 8.97 0.69 4.06 10.27 2.84 0.11 0.01 4.75

0.19 0.11 0.41 5.90 0.77 6.38 25.42 2.09 0.18 0.01 3.41

0.20 0.13 0.86 6.84 1.31 4.45 12.20 2.39 0.22 0.01 3.68

0.24 0.20 2.19 10.00 1.39 5.03 23.32 2.88 0.16 0.02 6.04

0.24 0.22 0.44 7.41 1.02 8.02 22.77 2.55 0.17 0.02 4.01

0.26 0.13 0.69 8.75 1.22 9.24 14.98 3.01 0.16 0.01 4.95

0.48 0.22 0.87 13.91 2.18 18.75 17.44 5.23 0.19 0.02 7.50

0.25 0.10 0.78 9.94 1.35 7.36 12.39 3.29 0.14 0.01 5.19

0.14 0.11 0.38 3.89 0.77 4.07 7.14 1.43 0.15 0.01 2.19

0.16 0.16 1.02 5.46 0.86 5.90 13.54 1.64 0.26 0.01 3.01

0.20 0.21 0.49 5.74 0.83 6.03 16.79 1.86 0.29 0.02 3.13

0.19 0.19 0.46 6.13 0.74 3.89 15.24 1.71 0.29 0.02 3.36
Appendix 4

63

Appendix 4. Organic soils (O horizon), Huron River Watershed, Michigan.—Continued

Field no. Latitude Longitude Thickness (cm)

HR–SL–01 O 46.78747 -88.06271 7.5HR–SL–01 O dup 46.78747 -88.06271 7.5HR–SL–03 O 46.76509 -88.03342 0.5HR–SL–05 O 46.83572 -88.10330 1.0HR–SL–06 O 46.70800 -88.07032 2.0HR–SL–07 O 46.72973 -88.05520 2.0HR–SL–09 O 46.74865 -88.08341 2.0HR–SL–10 O 46.76124 -88.10713 3.5HR–SL–12 O 46.85126 -88.08941 5.0HR–SL–13 O 46.81975 -88.10149 4.0HR–SL–14 O 46.76476 -88.07135 2.5HR–SL–15 O 46.74901 -88.05780 1.5HR–SL–19 O 46.81204 -88.13567 5.0HR–SL–20 O 46.91087 -88.06673 2.0HR–SL–21 O 46.89659 -88.08732 4.0HR–SL–22 O 46.88639 -88.04665 0.5HR–SL–23 O 46.87526 -88.05947 2.5HR–SL–24 O 46.86947 -88.08019 3.0HR–SL–25 O 46.79618 -88.00632 2.0HR–SL–27 O 46.81535 -88.01702 1.0HR–SL–28 O 46.82391 -88.04588 0.5HR–SL–29 O 46.83004 -88.06466 3.6HR–SL–30 O 46.85067 -88.03606 6.0HR–SL–31 O 46.85381 -88.12520 4.0HR–SL–31 O dup 46.85381 -88.12520 4.0

Li

(ppm)

Mn

(ppm)

Mo

(ppm)

Nb

(ppm)

Ni

(ppm)

P

(ppm)

Pb

(ppm)

Rb

(ppm)

Sb

(ppm)

Sc

(ppm)

Sn

(ppm)

2.07 49.73 0.72 0.96 4.84 834.72 43.81 9.80 0.69 1.15 1.082.43 60.19 0.70 0.88 5.20 969.76 45.75 10.53 0.70 1.23 1.141.77 451.13 0.53 0.89 2.68 1,140.63 13.12 11.41 0.29 0.85 0.712.41 626.08 0.51 1.20 3.13 1,083.60 17.03 21.16 0.39 1.03 0.721.94 123.93 0.45 1.07 3.62 848.07 23.86 16.45 0.34 1.04 0.663.54 1,253.67 0.78 1.57 4.17 1,057.17 20.91 25.23 0.52 1.45 1.142.34 1,619.28 0.62 0.70 3.74 1,251.90 18.77 15.47 0.26 0.98 0.661.68 123.69 0.62 0.84 2.86 655.20 31.71 12.41 0.74 0.84 0.882.63 121.45 0.67 1.23 4.71 1,041.25 35.70 10.69 0.84 1.58 1.472.49 646.36 0.49 0.88 3.57 1,179.72 28.02 14.67 0.38 1.13 0.862.75 407.50 0.90 0.98 7.88 1,367.50 31.50 17.88 0.53 1.85 0.583.12 829.40 0.73 1.56 5.28 1,362.40 27.56 17.78 0.51 1.40 1.071.83 488.61 0.65 0.71 3.20 1,050.42 20.50 11.09 0.40 0.86 0.88

2.03 68.21 0.39 0.81 2.64 422.24 28.87 30.33 0.40 1.02 0.772.23 414.70 0.63 0.99 3.64 902.77 15.38 19.20 0.42 0.93 0.732.22 2,445.30 0.48 1.19 2.64 886.73 29.15 15.46 0.45 0.96 0.962.96 3,640.80 0.88 1.30 4.41 1,613.20 42.92 16.75 0.53 1.21 1.122.67 255.15 0.69 1.02 4.08 1,229.58 37.67 14.65 0.71 1.36 1.412.97 739.20 0.77 1.29 3.86 1,036.20 22.24 20.10 0.45 1.42 0.995.67 372.78 0.87 1.96 6.89 1,246.96 39.41 30.83 0.61 2.79 1.442.45 2,568.52 0.54 1.64 4.13 1,051.13 16.52 25.11 0.37 1.23 0.741.36 126.11 0.31 0.68 2.53 571.78 18.58 11.71 0.30 0.63 0.571.87 384.48 0.60 0.71 2.97 983.52 24.34 9.00 0.34 0.92 0.792.12 141.00 0.60 0.96 2.89 792.18 37.16 10.79 0.66 1.04 1.042.03 108.16 0.52 0.68 2.65 696.28 33.63 10.16 0.55 0.95 0.93
64 Environmental Baseline Study of the Huron River Watershed, Baraga and Marquette Counties, Michigan

Appendix 4. Organic soils (O horizon), Huron River Watershed, Michigan.—Continued

Field no. Latitude Longitude Thickness

(cm)

HR–SL–01 O 46.78747 -88.06271 7.5HR–SL–01 O dup 46.78747 -88.06271 7.5HR–SL–03 O 46.76509 -88.03342 0.5HR–SL–05 O 46.83572 -88.10330 1.0HR–SL–06 O 46.70800 -88.07032 2.0HR–SL–07 O 46.72973 -88.05520 2.0HR–SL–09 O 46.74865 -88.08341 2.0HR–SL–10 O 46.76124 -88.10713 3.5HR–SL–12 O 46.85126 -88.08941 5.0HR–SL–13 O 46.81975 -88.10149 4.0HR–SL–14 O 46.76476 -88.07135 2.5HR–SL–15 O 46.74901 -88.05780 1.5HR–SL–19 O 46.81204 -88.13567 5.0HR–SL–20 O 46.91087 -88.06673 2.0HR–SL–21 O 46.89659 -88.08732 4.0HR–SL–22 O 46.88639 -88.04665 0.5HR–SL–23 O 46.87526 -88.05947 2.5HR–SL–24 O 46.86947 -88.08019 3.0HR–SL–25 O 46.79618 -88.00632 2.0HR–SL–27 O 46.81535 -88.01702 1.0HR–SL–28 O 46.82391 -88.04588 0.5HR–SL–29 O 46.83004 -88.06466 3.6HR–SL–30 O 46.85067 -88.03606 6.0HR–SL–31 O 46.85381 -88.12520 4.0HR–SL–31 O dup 46.85381 -88.12520 4.0

Sr

(ppm)

Th

(ppm)

Tl

(ppm)

U

(ppm)

V

(ppm)

W

(ppm)

Y

(ppm)

Zn

(ppm)

Se

(ppm)

46.47 0.95 0.12 0.31 10.95 0.19 1.88 115.00 0.751.22 1.05 0.14 0.32 12.31 0.15 1.88 129.50 0.752.21 0.81 0.10 0.24 8.87 0.14 1.30 58.71 0.4

61.92 1.27 0.17 0.38 13.76 0.17 2.61 53.32 0.443.01 0.80 0.15 0.29 11.91 0.15 1.65 92.34 0.575.06 1.65 0.20 0.51 16.90 0.24 2.59 60.52 0.5

131.74 2.50 0.14 0.33 11.47 0.16 1.92 143.68 0.3

40.74 0.80 0.13 0.25 9.66 0.13 1.60 59.43 0.5

38.50 1.19 0.16 0.39 14.18 0.21 3.29 42.00 0.848.59 0.88 0.16 0.29 10.85 0.16 1.79 90.40 0.453.50 0.98 0.20 0.50 12.00 0.15 8.75 48.75 0.468.12 1.35 0.18 0.44 20.80 0.23 2.29 128.96 0.546.85 0.81 0.13 0.26 8.60 0.15 1.41 104.31 0.5

21.88 1.22 0.20 0.45 8.12 0.12 3.74 28.83 0.3

34.77 1.08 0.13 0.38 10.21 0.16 2.14 44.98 0.4

41.74 1.11 0.22 0.32 11.36 0.17 1.85 51.38 0.560.09 1.21 0.21 0.36 13.62 0.21 2.43 132.61 0.456.38 1.19 0.15 0.39 13.61 0.19 2.09 46.17 0.655.44 1.42 0.20 0.43 15.51 0.20 2.24 58.08 0.579.35 2.49 0.26 0.70 27.90 0.26 3.75 80.66 0.662.58 1.72 0.25 0.45 15.13 0.20 3.07 46.22 0.125.31 0.61 0.11 0.23 6.10 0.11 1.33 35.03 0.6

29.09 0.89 0.12 0.27 8.93 0.14 1.37 58.46 0.6

27.38 0.90 0.20 0.33 10.27 0.18 1.73 41.57 0.726.03 0.90 0.17 0.30 9.63 0.15 1.67 38.53 0.7
Appendix 5 65

Appendix 5. Concentrations of 42 Elements, From the Total Digestion of 

Samples and Partial Extraction Data for Streambed Sediments, Huron River 

Watershed, Michigan

Appendix 5. Concentrations of 42 elements from the total digestion of samples and partial extraction data for streambed sediments, Huron River

Watershed, Michigan.—Continued

Ag

(ppm)

As

(ppm)

Au

(ppm)

Bi

(ppm)

Cd

(ppm)

Cu

(ppm)

Mo

(ppm)

Pb

(ppm)

Sb

(ppm)

Zn

(ppm)

HR–SS–1 46.74199 -88.03472 East Branch Huron River 1.21 3 <0.1 <1 0.50 12.1 1.1 13 <1 38.9HR–SS–2 46.76058 -88.10914 West Branch Huron River 0.67 4 <0.1 <1 0.30 10.6 0.3 13 <1 32.0HR–SS–3 46.85461 -88.06356 East Branch Huron River 0.82 4 <0.1 <1 0.31 19.4 0.8 17 <1 46.2HR–SS–4 46.85709 -88.10164 Black Creek 0.81 1 <0.1 <1 0.25 5.6 0.4 13 <1 26.7HR–SS–5 46.81690 -88.08544 Robarge Creek 0.83 6 <0.1 <1 0.53 15.6 0.9 16 <1 75.9HR–SS–6 46.81645 -88.08615 East Branch Huron River 0.51 3 <0.1 <1 0.28 13.3 0.6 13 <1 40.1HR–SS–7 46.86382 -88.08189 East Branch Huron River 1.15 3 <0.1 <1 0.49 13.8 0.4 18 <1 54.5HR–SS–8 46.86406 -88.08249 West Branch Huron River 0.79 4 <0.1 <1 0.37 11.8 0.3 14 <1 53.7HR–SS–8 dup 46.86406 -88.08249 West Branch Huron River 0.71 3 <0.1 <1 0.34 10.8 0.5 14 <1 51.0HR–SS–9 46.90888 -88.03614 Huron River 0.52 2 <0.1 <1 0.24 12.7 0.4 18 <1 42.8

HR–SS–10 46.77843 -88.03296 unnamed tributary to East Branch Huron River 0.98 4 <0.1 <1 0.39 6.2 0.3 15 <1 47.3HR–SS–11 46.77769 -88.03296 East Branch Huron River 0.60 11 <0.1 <1 0.49 10.4 0.5 15 <1 58.5

Field no. Latitude Longitude Stream

Partial extraction

Appendix 5. Concentrations of 42 elements from the total digestion of samples and partial extraction data for streambed sediments, Huron River

Watershed, Michigan.—Continued

HR–SS–1 46.74199 -88.03472 East Branch Huron RiverHR–SS–2 46.76058 -88.10914 West Branch Huron RiverHR–SS–3 46.85461 -88.06356 East Branch Huron RiverHR–SS–4 46.85709 -88.10164 Black CreekHR–SS–5 46.81690 -88.08544 Robarge CreekHR–SS–6 46.81645 -88.08615 East Branch Huron RiverHR–SS–7 46.86382 -88.08189 East Branch Huron RiverHR–SS–8 46.86406 -88.08249 West Branch Huron RiverHR–SS–8 dup 46.86406 -88.08249 West Branch Huron RiverHR–SS–9 46.90888 -88.03614 Huron RiverHR–SS–10 46.77843 -88.03296 unnamed tributary to East Branch Huron RiverHR–SS–11 46.77769 -88.03296 East Branch Huron River

Field no. Latitude Longitude Stream

Al

(wt. %)

Ca

(wt. %)

Fe

(wt. %)

K

(wt. %)

Mg

(wt. %)

Na

(wt. %)

S

(wt. %)

3.30 0.79 2.65 2.08 0.36 0.69 0.01

3.79 0.66 1.78 2.60 0.26 0.80 0.02

3.96 0.63 2.04 2.74 0.32 0.69 0.02

4.06 0.59 0.84 2.86 0.22 0.86 <0.01

4.58 0.83 3.47 2.47 0.59 0.80 0.02

3.71 0.60 1.59 2.63 0.32 0.72 0.02

3.84 0.71 6.06 2.51 0.42 0.66 0.01

4.44 0.74 2.23 2.68 0.46 0.83 0.01

4.53 0.73 2.30 2.80 0.45 0.85 0.01

3.99 0.74 3.15 2.80 0.51 0.71 <0.01

3.91 0.80 2.41 2.58 0.36 0.79 0.02

4.18 0.78 2.92 2.46 0.46 0.79 0.04

Total extraction
66 Environmental Baseline Study of the Huron River Watershed, Baraga and Marquette Counties, Michigan

Appendix 5. Concentrations of 42 elements from the total digestion of samples and partial extraction data for streambed sediments, Huron River

Watershed, Michigan.—Continued

HR–SS–1 46.74199 -88.03472 East Branch Huron RiverHR–SS–2 46.76058 -88.10914 West Branch Huron RiverHR–SS–3 46.85461 -88.06356 East Branch Huron RiverHR–SS–4 46.85709 -88.10164 Black CreekHR–SS–5 46.81690 -88.08544 Robarge CreekHR–SS–6 46.81645 -88.08615 East Branch Huron RiverHR–SS–7 46.86382 -88.08189 East Branch Huron RiverHR–SS–8 46.86406 -88.08249 West Branch Huron RiverHR–SS–8 dup 46.86406 -88.08249 West Branch Huron RiverHR–SS–9 46.90888 -88.03614 Huron RiverHR–SS–10 46.77843 -88.03296 unnamed tributary to East Branch Huron RiverHR–SS–11 46.77769 -88.03296 East Branch Huron River

Field no. Latitude Longitude Stream Cr

(ppm)

Cs

(ppm)

Cu

(ppm)

Ga

(ppm)

Hg

(ppm)

In

(ppm)

La

(ppm)

Li

(ppm)

Mn

(ppm)

Mo

(ppm)

39 <5 13.6 7.83 0.02 0.03 27.2 7 1180 0.54

24 <5 9.6 8.42 0.02 <0.02 17.8 7 419 0.35

26 <5 18.2 9.08 0.05 0.02 18.4 10 489 0.76

16 <5 6.1 8.37 0.01 <0.02 15.6 7 244 0.18

53 <5 15.0 10.80 0.03 0.03 24.8 18 561 0.7623 <5 13.5 8.56 0.02 <0.02 14.1 8 270 0.44

61 <5 13.7 10.70 0.07 0.04 50.2 11 740 0.7134 <5 11.6 10.10 0.03 0.02 21.3 14 310 0.4740 <5 11.0 9.84 0.02 0.02 21.5 13 330 0.49

30 <5 11.8 9.70 <0.01 0.03 20.2 11 440 0.40

34 <5 5.9 8.52 0.02 0.02 23.6 9 928 0.53

41 <5 10.0 9.41 0.03 0.02 17.1 13 769 0.70

Total extraction—Continued

Appendix 5. Concentrations of 42 elements from the total digestion of samples and partial extraction data for streambed sediments, Huron River

Watershed, Michigan.—Continued

HR–SS–1 46.74199 -88.03472 East Branch Huron RiverHR–SS–2 46.76058 -88.10914 West Branch Huron RiverHR–SS–3 46.85461 -88.06356 East Branch Huron RiverHR–SS–4 46.85709 -88.10164 Black CreekHR–SS–5 46.81690 -88.08544 Robarge CreekHR–SS–6 46.81645 -88.08615 East Branch Huron RiverHR–SS–7 46.86382 -88.08189 East Branch Huron RiverHR–SS–8 46.86406 -88.08249 West Branch Huron RiverHR–SS–8 dup 46.86406 -88.08249 West Branch Huron RiverHR–SS–9 46.90888 -88.03614 Huron RiverHR–SS–10 46.77843 -88.03296 unnamed tributary to East Branch Huron RiverHR–SS–11 46.77769 -88.03296 East Branch Huron River

Field no. Latitude Longitude Stream Ti

(wt. %)

Ag

(ppm)

As

(ppm)

Ba

(ppm)

Be

(ppm)

Bi

(ppm)

Cd

(ppm)

Ce

(ppm)

Co

(ppm)

0.75 <1 3 503 0.7 0.10 0.2 52.9 9.0

0.26 <1 4 608 0.7 0.10 0.2 34.0 5.4

0.30 <1 4 650 0.8 0.11 0.2 34.9 5.3

0.26 <1 <1 670 0.7 0.09 0.1 30.3 2.9

0.47 <1 7 596 1.0 0.15 0.4 49.8 9.5

0.23 <1 3 616 0.7 0.09 0.2 27.0 5.2

0.82 <1 4 584 1.0 0.23 0.3 95.3 9.0

0.29 <1 4 637 0.9 0.10 0.2 42.1 6.4

0.30 <1 4 647 0.7 0.09 0.2 43.9 6.1

0.53 <1 3 599 0.8 0.11 0.2 41.2 7.1

0.59 <1 5 631 0.7 0.13 0.2 48.5 6.0

0.30 <1 11 591 0.8 0.12 0.4 34.6 10.0

Total extraction—Continued
Appendix 5

67

Appendix 5. Concentrations of 42 elements from the total digestion of samples and partial extraction data for streambed sediments, Huron River

Watershed, Michigan.—Continued

HR–SS–1 46.74199 -88.03472 East Branch Huron RiverHR–SS–2 46.76058 -88.10914 West Branch Huron RiverHR–SS–3 46.85461 -88.06356 East Branch Huron RiverHR–SS–4 46.85709 -88.10164 Black CreekHR–SS–5 46.81690 -88.08544 Robarge CreekHR–SS–6 46.81645 -88.08615 East Branch Huron RiverHR–SS–7 46.86382 -88.08189 East Branch Huron RiverHR–SS–8 46.86406 -88.08249 West Branch Huron RiverHR–SS–8 dup 46.86406 -88.08249 West Branch Huron RiverHR–SS–9 46.90888 -88.03614 Huron RiverHR–SS–10 46.77843 -88.03296 unnamed tributary to East Branch Huron RiverHR–SS–11 46.77769 -88.03296 East Branch Huron River

Field no. Latitude Longitude Stream Nb

(ppm)

Ni

(ppm)

P

(ppm)

Pb

(ppm)

Rb

(ppm)

Sb

(ppm)

Sc

(ppm)

Se

(ppm)

Sn

(ppm)

9.7 11.8 220 15.2 65.3 0.4 6.5 <0.2 1.2

4.1 8.4 340 13.6 82.3 0.5 3.9 <0.2 0.8

5.0 12.2 320 15.9 89.0 0.6 4.4 <0.2 1.0

3.8 6.2 100 12.2 85.0 0.3 3.5 <0.2 0.7

6.6 24.4 500 16.1 82.6 0.7 7.8 <0.2 1.2

3.9 14.7 250 13.6 88.6 0.6 4.3 <0.2 0.8

10.1 17.6 520 21.4 79.5 0.9 7.1 <0.2 1.9

5.2 16.6 430 13.5 87.4 0.6 6.0 <0.2 0.9

4.7 16.5 400 15.1 90.4 0.6 5.7 <0.2 0.9

6.3 14.9 470 16.9 88.0 0.7 6.5 <0.2 1.5

7.6 10.7 330 14.8 76.7 0.4 5.4 <0.2 1.3

5.0 17.6 450 14.5 79.1 0.6 5.9 0.2 0.9

Total extraction—Continued

Appendix 5. Concentrations of 42 elements from the total digestion of samples and partial extraction data for streambed sediments, Huron River

Watershed, Michigan.—Continued

HR–SS–1 46.74199 -88.03472 East Branch Huron RiverHR–SS–2 46.76058 -88.10914 West Branch Huron RiverHR–SS–3 46.85461 -88.06356 East Branch Huron RiverHR–SS–4 46.85709 -88.10164 Black CreekHR–SS–5 46.81690 -88.08544 Robarge CreekHR–SS–6 46.81645 -88.08615 East Branch Huron RiverHR–SS–7 46.86382 -88.08189 East Branch Huron RiverHR–SS–8 46.86406 -88.08249 West Branch Huron RiverHR–SS–8 dup 46.86406 -88.08249 West Branch Huron RiverHR–SS–9 46.90888 -88.03614 Huron RiverHR–SS–10 46.77843 -88.03296 unnamed tributary to East Branch Huron RiverHR–SS–11 46.77769 -88.03296 East Branch Huron River

Field no. Latitude Longitude Stream Sr

(ppm)

Te

(ppm)

Th

(ppm)

Tl

(ppm)

U

(ppm)

V

(ppm)

W

(ppm)

Y

(ppm)

Zn

(ppm)

120 <0.1 10.3 0.4 1.7 70 0.6 15.9 37

127 <0.1 4.7 0.4 1.3 48 0.4 12.1 33111 <0.1 6.2 0.5 2.3 58 0.3 12.4 45137 <0.1 5.9 0.5 1.2 24 0.2 11.0 26128 <0.1 6.8 0.5 2.1 100 0.4 15.1 82112 <0.1 3.7 0.5 1.2 45 0.3 9.5 41109 <0.1 17.2 0.4 3.4 176 0.4 23.7 64

128 <0.1 6.6 0.5 1.8 64 0.3 12.9 55128 <0.1 7.9 0.5 1.8 63 0.3 13.6 54105 <0.1 6.9 0.5 1.6 94 0.4 17.8 52131 <0.1 6.7 0.4 1.5 64 0.3 14.0 47122 <0.1 4.7 0.5 1.6 68 0.3 11.9 62

Total extraction—Continued
Woodruff and others—Environmental Baseline Study of the Huron River Watershed, Baraga and Marquette Counties, Michigan—Scientific Investigations Report 2010–5121

Printed on recycled paper