Subsequent to publication of U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 96-4292, "Effects of land use and geohydrology on the quality of shallow ground water in two agricultural areas in the western Lake Michigan drainages, Wisconsin," the following errors were found in the report.

Pages affected: 13, 14, 16, 17, 18

We apologize for any inconvenience these errors may have caused.

---

 

Page 13 - Table 1 "Location and characteristics of land-use study wells and springs." CFC-based recharge dates for the following wells were incorrect as originally published in Table 1. Correct values are shown to the right of the incorrect values.

Table 1.
Well Number	CFC-based ground-water recharge date (corrected for lag time)4		CFC-based ground-water recharge date (corrected for lag time)4
	Published Value		Corrected Value
Well 2-6	1983		1988
Well 2-7	1987		1989
Well 2-9	1993		1987.5
Well 2-10	1991		1986
Well 2-11	<1981.5		<1979

Page 14 - Table 1 "Location and characteristics of land-use study wells and springs." CFC-based recharge dates for the following wells were incorrect as originally published in Table 1. Correct values are shown to the right of the incorrect values.

Table 1.
Well Number	CFC-based ground-water recharge date (corrected for lag time)4		CFC-based ground-water recharge date (corrected for lag time)4
	Published Value		Corrected Value
Well 2-12	1979.5		1991
Well 2-14	1972		1973.5
Well 2-19	1986		1981.5
Well 2-21	1982.5		1983.5

Page 16 - Table 2 "Concentrations of dissolved CFC-11, CFC-12, and CFC-113 in ground-water samples, uncorrected recharge dates, and lag times of sampled wells in land-use study areas 1 and 2." CFC-based lag times for the following wells were incorrect as originally published in Table 2.  Correct values are shown to the right of the incorrect values.

Table 2.
Well Number	Lag time3		Lag time3
	Published Value		Corrected Value
Well 2-6	0		4.8
Well 2-7	0		1.9

Page 17 - Table 2 "Concentrations of dissolved CFC-11, CFC-12, and CFC-113 in ground-water samples, uncorrected recharge dates, and lag times of sampled wells in land-use study areas 1 and 2." CFC-based lag times for the following wells were incorrect as originally published in Table 2.  Correct values are shown to the right of the incorrect values.

Table 2.
Well Number	Lag time3		Lag time3
	Published Value		Corrected Value
Well 2-9	8.8		3.3
Well 2-10	4.8		0
Well 2-11	2.6		0
Well 2-12	0		11.5
Well 2-14	4.5		5.8
Well 2-19	4.3		0

 

Page 18 - Table 2 "Concentrations of dissolved CFC-11, CFC-12, and CFC-113 in ground-water samples, uncorrected recharge dates, and lag times of sampled wells in land-use study areas 1 and 2." CFC-based lag times for the following wells were incorrect as originally published in Table 2.  Correct values are shown to the right of the incorrect values.

Table 2.
Well Number	Lag time3		Lag time3
	Published Value		Corrected Value
Well 2-21	2.6		3.6

 

Errata Sheet (pdf format)

Posted January 2009