-------
      o
      o.
       *
      (M
      O
      ID
   n

   Q_ c\J.
ho
    O
    CO
      o

      00.
      o

       •
      o
      o
      o
                                            68.9 cm Hydraulic Loading
                                                                                  KEY
                                                                          D  1981


                                                                          O  1983
0.00
Figure  81
O.OH
0.07
                                                                   0.22
                                         0.11        0. Ill        0.18

                                      TOTflL PHOSPHORUS  (MG/G)

                  Total Phosphorus  in Hancock Soils Receiving 68.9 cm Hydraulic Loading
0.25
0.29

-------
land.   Competing reactions by clay minerals, amorphous hydrous oxide and
calcite probably  limited the available phosphate to crops.  At depths  from
61 cm  to  183  cm  phosphorus most likely was  incorporated  in  relatively
insoluble  calcium forms (i.e., tricalcium phosphate and  hydroxyapatite).
Phosphorus  existing in these forms is not available to crops.   Phosphorus
may have also  existed as dicalcium phosphate (Labile P)  which will readily
dissolve,  should the solution P decrease, and  become available  to the
crop.
            TABLE 34.  PHOSPHORUS MASS BALANCE, HANCOCK FARM

Hydraulic
Loading
(cm)
42.2
52.2
68.9
Applied
P04-P
(kg/ha)
1982 1983
10.2 12.6
12.3 15.8
12.6 23.7
Applied P
(kg/ha)
1982 1983
13.7 16.4
16.7 20.6
17.1 30.8
Crop
Uptake
(kg/ha)
1982 1983
32.5 10.6
41.0 10.7
47.3 27-7
Soil
Profile
(kg/ha)
1982 1983
5235 4036
5687 4518
6272 4501
Unaccounted
Mass
(kg/ha)
-1186
-1155
-1744

Minerals—
     Salts contained  in the irrigation stream (approximately  1200  ppm) were
considered  a potential problem to crop germination  and  establishment, and
soil permeability.  The leaching requirement to reduce salinity  toxicity to
crops can be determined  by  the following expression (Texas Department of
Health 1981)
                              (ET - IR)
L =
      Ce
(5)
     Where
     Cm - Ce
L  = Amount  of water  required for leaching (cm),
Ce = Electrical conductivity of effluent (dS/m),
Cm = Maximum allowed  electrical conductivity of soil
     solution (dS/m),
IR = Infiltrated rainfall (cm), and
ET = Crop evapotranspiration (cm).
                                 218

-------
     The electrical conductivity  (Ec) of the effluent applied to the soil
was approximately  2  dS/m.   Maximum  EC of the soil solution  for cotton  and
alfalfa  ranges  from four  to  eight  dS/m at 25°C (Texas Department of Health
1981).   The  calculated  ET  for  cotton in the Lubbock area was 133.2 cm (Ram-
sey 1985).   In  1982, annual  precipitation recorded at the Hancock farm was'
70.24 cm.  Based on  water  balance calculations for the Hancock farm,  about
65 percent  of the rainfall  infiltrated the soil; therefore the value of IR
would have  been  about 45.6 cm.   Substituting these values into Equation (5)
produces a  leaching  requirement  of  approximately 29 cm (11.5 in).
     The estimated total water needs to satisfy the crop requirements  (ET)
and leaching  requirements (L),  were 162.3 cm.  the amount of irrigation to
achieve this water requirement was  the difference between 162.3 cm and  the
45.6 cm of  infiltrated  rainfall  for a total irrigation requirement of 116.4
cm (45.8 in).  During 1982,  however, less than 29 cm of  water was applied
to the  farm.   Similarly, from  January through October 1983, 46 cm of pre-
cipitation  was  recorded  which would  have yielded  a  computed leaching
requirement of  approximately  34 cm and a resultant total water need of 167
cm.  Therefore,  an estimated  138 cm (54 in) of irrigation  would have  been
required to satisfy the  crop ET and leaching demands.  Less than 51 cm of
water,  however,  was  applied  to the  land.  Consequently, salts were expected
to accumulate  within the soil  profile during both irrigation seasons.
     Tables E.8  to E.10 show  the  variation  of   total  dissolved   solids
through the  soil profile.   In  general salts accumulated in the upper 122 cm
of the  profile.   In  the double cropped areas  (68.9 cm hydraulic loading)
TDS levels  increased at the  152  cm  and 183 cm depths (Figure 82),whereas no
increase at  these  depths was  detected in soils irrigated with less amounts
of water (Figure 83).  Assuming  negligible crop uptake of salts, a mass
balances of  the  TDS  in  the soil  profile, indicated the majority of applied
salts  were  retained within  the  183 cm (Table 35) soil zone.  The amount of
TDS unaccounted  for  averaged  five to nine mg TDS/kg of soil, which was well
within  the  variability  of  the  data.
     Sodium salts composed  most of the salt load to the Hancock farm.  An
increase of  Na  was  measured   in the top 30 cm of the soil  (Figures 84 and
                                   219

-------
                                           60.9  cm Hydraulic Loading
     o
     o.
                                                                                 KEY
     o
     CO
  IT0
  Q_ CM.
ro IT
t-o O
o
     o

     00.
    o
    o
    o
                                                                               D  1981


                                                                               O  1983
                           —,           ,	,	.	,	j


                            0.19       0.29       0.39       O.H8       0.58

                                   TOT  DISSOLV SOLIDS  (MG/G)
0.00
           0.10       0.19       0.29       0.39        0.48        0.58       0.68






Figure  82.  Total  Dissolved Solids in Hancock Soils Receiving 68.9 cm  Hydraulic Loading
0.78

-------
   Q-CW.
   LU •
   O
                                    ^2.2 cm Hydraulic Loading
                                                                  KEY
                                                                  D  1981

                                                                  O  1983
          	1	1	1	1	1	;	1—
      "0.00      0.10      0.19      0.29      0.39      0.48      0.58
                               TOT  DISSOLV SOLIDS  (MG/G)
                                                                  0.68      0.78
   i—o
   Q_ CM
   UJ  •
     "
                                   52.2 cm Hydraulic Loading
    	1	1	1	1	1	
0.00      0.10      0.19      0.29      0.39      0.18
                         TOT OISSOLV  SOLIDS  (MG/G)
                                                                     KEY
                                                                    D 1981

                                                                    O 1983
                                                             0.58
Figure  83.   Total  Dissolved  Solids  in  Hancock Soils

                                       221
                                                                       0.68
                                                                                0.78

-------
     TABLE  35.   MASS  TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS MEASURED IN HANCOCK SOILS
Hydraulic
Loadings
(cm)
42.2
52.2
68.9
Mass TDS in Soils TDS Applied Unaccounted
(kg/ha) (kg/ha) for Mass
1981 1983 — 1982 1983 Total (kg/ha)
9,515 12,885 +3,370 1,944 3,120 5,064 -1 694 (
10,923 15,787 +4,864 2,520 3,912 6,264 -1400 (
8,917 15,488 +6,571 2,412 5,856 8,268 -1697 (
m)
Q%]
10%)

85).   As  the  total hydraulic loading increased  in the double cropped areas
(68.9 cm),  Na accumulated within the upper 61 cm.  As previously mentioned,
if there  is  buildup of Na in the soil profile, it may create sodic condi-
tions in  the  soil.  Assuming 60 percent of the  total Na  was exchangeable
(George  et al  1985) the exchangeable Na percentage (ESP)  was approximately
two in the  upper  30 cm in 1981 and was increased to a maximum of six in  the
double cropped areas.  Sodic soils have been arbitrarily defined as soils
having an ESP of  more than 15 percent exchangeable Na (Hausenbuiller 1972).
Future use of SeWRP's effluent without proper management of sodium in  the
soil   profile  may  produce  sodic  soil (ESP > 15) in the  upper 30 cm in
approximately six to seven years of system operation.
     Data variability (CV from 15 to 52) limited the usefulness of comput-
ing  a sodium mass balance.   Nonetheless,  a Na  mass balance  (Table  36)
indicated that  Na was retained in the soil profile.  The  unaccounted  for
mass  was  well within the variability of the data.
             TABLE 36.   SODIUM MASS  BALANCE ON  HANCOCK SOILS

Hydraulic
Loading
(cm)
42.2
52.2
68.9
Sodium Applied
(kg/ha)
1982 1983
502
607
623
791
999
1484
Sodium
1981
7386
6792
6891
in Soil Profile
(kg/ha)
1983
6630 -756
73'04 +512
8414 +1523
Mass
Unaccounted
(kg/ha)(error)
-2049 (24%)
-1084 (13%)
584 (6%)
                                  222

-------
CL. CN
                                    42.2 cm Hydraulic Loading.
                                                                      KEY
                                                                    D 1981

                                                                    O 1983
   0.00
             59.80     119.60
                                 179.HO     239.20     299.00
                                  SODIUM -  Nfl (MG/G)
                                                               358.80    418.60
Q_ CM
UJ  •"
O "
D
      w
       0.00
                  1
                                    52.2 cm Hydraulic Loading
                            1
                59 80     119.60
                                  1 - 1 - 1
                                 179.40    239.20    299.00
                                 SODIUM  - Nfl  (MG/G)
                                                                      KEY
                                                                     D 1981

                                                                     O 1983
	\	1	1
 358.80     418.60     478.40
Figure 84.
            Sodium  in  Hancock  Soils

                                        223

-------
                                            68.9 cm Hydraulic Loading
                                                                                   KEY
      o
      o
      o
      (O
   Q_ r*J
   LU  •'
   Q
M
-O
   V)
      o
      00.
     o
     3V
     O
     O.
D  1981


O  1983
       0.00
  i           r           i            i           i           i         ~
59.80      119.60      179.40     239.20     299.00     358.80      118.60
                        SODIUM -  Nfl  (MG/G)
               478.HO
     Figure 85.  Sodium in Hancock Soils Receiving 68.9 cm Hydraulic  Loading

-------
      Potassium  (K)  is  a  vital  element  in  plant  growth  and  is  removed  from
 the soil more than any other  element except nitrogen.  Wastewater K/N ratio
 of 0.9 or  greater  will  satisfy  the  K  nutrient  requirement  of forage  crops
 (Palazzo  and  Jenkins 1979).   The  average  K/N  ratio  in the wastewater ranged
 from CL.71  (pipeline)  to 2.43 (reservoir).   Consequently,  the majority of
 the  K applied,  if available  to  the  crop,  should  be  assimilated by  the  crop.
 The  potassium uptake for  the various crops produced  on  the  Hancock farm is
 provided  in Table F.4.   In calcareous soils,  however, calcium  competes  with
 K for entrance  into the  plant  (Potash  Institute of America, 1973).  Conse-
 quently,  calcareous  soils may require higher  available K levels.   Tables
 E.11  to  E.13 present the variation of  K  within  the soil profile.  Through-
 out  the  farm  K appeared to decrease within the soil profile-   A mass  bal-
 ance (Table  37) indicated  that  the  crops utilized more K  than provided in
 the  irrigation, water-  Since cotton plants are defoliated prior to harvest,
 leaf tissue  from cotton plants  were not  analyzed; consequently, the meas-
 ured  K content in cotton  was low  (Table F.4).  Analysis  of  remaining  crops
 include  leaf  tissue.
	TABLE 37.   POTASSIUM MASS  BALANCE,  HANCOCK  FARM	
Hydraulic     Applied  K    Weighted  Average    Soil Profile    Unnacounted
 Loading       (kg/ha)     Crop Uptake  (kg/ha)       (kg/ha)       for Mass
  (cm)      1982"   1983       1982    1983*      1982   1983      (kg/ha)

  42.2      31.6    50.7     107.0    44.8    111,782   69,265   -42,447  (38%)
  52.2      38.2    63.6     124.1    34.4    118,089   85,018    -3,304  (28%)
  68.9      39.2   95.2     159.2   262.5    105,173  67,934   -36,951   (35%)

*Cotton Leaf Tissue not  Analyzed
      Major  aions  associated  with  the  salts applied  to the soil were  Cl and
 804.  In general,  both  these  ions appeared  to  accumulate within the upper
 122  cm (Tables E.8 to E.10).  Chloride  ion concentrations measured  in' soil
 normally range  from 50 to 500  ppm  (Hausenbuiller 1972).  Average Cl levels
 ranged from 12 to 70 ppm  in  soil  samples  collected in  1981 and 38  to 162
 ppm  in soils  obtained in  the  fall of  1983  and winter  of  1984.   The majority
                                   225

-------
of soils  analyzed  contained chloride levels at the lower end of the normal
range.  Chloride  ions may be a substitute of fluoride in apatite.   A  lense
of Cl  was  detected between 91  cm  and  122 cm in the double cropped areas
receiving  the  greatest  amount of irrigation (Figure 86).  Both sulfates and
chlorides  increased throughout the  entire soil core at average hydraulic
loading of 68.9 cm.  Analysis of soils data obtained from areas receiving  a
total  irrigation during  the  project  of about  52  cm and 69 cm,  showed  a
lense  of  SO^  ion present at 152 cm and 183 cm.  With the existence of the
indurated  caliche  layer,  this SQ(± lense may be  associated  with gypsum
(CaS04).
Trace Metals —
     Due to the  low levels of metals in the wastewater, trace metals were
not considered to pose  a problem to crops or public health.   Tables  E. 11
to E.13~present the  average concentration of metals in the 183 cm soil pro-
file.  A mass  balance computed on the trace metals (Table 38) indicated the
change in  metal   levels from 1981 to 1983 was not attributed to irrigation.
Arsenic is  contained in defoliants applied to cotton; however, the mass of
As sprayed on the  crop was normally less than one to two kg/ha.  Therefore,
the mass accumulations  of As observed in the soils were probably  not total-
ly the result  of  application of defoliants.  The large coefficient  of vari-
ability obtained  for As, Ba, Cd, Co, Pb and other metals made it  difficult
to develop  scenarios explaining increases or decreases in specific  metals.
Priority Organics—
     The majority  of  samples analyzed  for  priority organics in  1981  and
1983 contained organic  compounds at levels below  detection  levels of  the
analytical  procedure (Tables E.14 to E.16).  Atrazine, common in  herbicides
used on the farms,  was  measured in some soil samples in 1981  but was  less
than  detection levels  in 1983.  Both 2,3-dichloroaniline and 3,4-dichloro-
aniline were detected in a few samples in the upper 30 cm  of soil.   These
organic compounds  were probably degradation products of the trifluralin
herbicide  which was  commonly used  on  the farm.   Benzene  and chloroform
within  the profile in 1981 and 1983 was most likely used as a solvent for
herbicides  sprayed  on the land.  The upper 61 cm of soil  contained higher
                                 226

-------
                                            60.9 cm Hydraulic Loading
      o
      o.

      CNI
      o
      ID
    31


    Q_ CM
                                                                               KEY
ho
|SJ
O
CO
      o
      CO
      o
      3"
      O
      O.
       *
      o
       0.00
                                                                              D  1981

                                                                              O  1983
               0.02
—!	1	1	]—
 O.OU       0.06       0.08       0.10
           CHLORIDES -  CL  (MG/G)
0.13
0.15
0.17
      Figure 86.  Chlorides in  Hancock Soils  Receiving 68.9  cm Hydraulic Loading

-------
Table 38.   Metals Mass Balance for Hancock Farm
	 	 	 . 	 	 	
Metal

42.2 cm
A3
Ba
Cd
Co
Cr
Cu
Tl
Pb
Ni
Se
Zn
52.2 cm
As
8a
Cd
Co
Cr
Cu
Tl
Pb
Ni
Se
Zn
68.9 cm
As
Ba
Cd
Co
Cr
Cu
Tl
Pb
Ni
Se
Zn
Total Mass
Applied
(kg/ha)
a

0.026
0.165
0.009
0.138
0.032
0.055
0.021
0.091
0.06
0.021
0.474

0.32
0.203
0.012
0.026
0.045
0.068
0.026
0.111
0.073
0.026
0.585

0.041
0.257
0.012
0.034
0.054
0.087
0.034
0.117
0.073
0.026
0.585
Soil Profile Mass
( kg/ha)
1981 1983
b

108.0

1.79
56.32
317.9
147.1
24.7
64.1
288.89
4.694


152.55
6815
1.750
62.26
377.65
140.95
22.62
71.77
184.8

1181.0

122.30
9532.9
1.37
56.37
218.35
143.08

4B.09
184.8

1181.0
c

170.4

2.13
91.87
206.3
93.9
22.6
81.3
172.82
6.4


124.30
1284
2.688
93.84
158.14
75.53
12.80
72.41
137.8

957.9

337.83
1566.1
2.65
118.37
200.00
81.29

124.43
137.8

957.9
i in Profile
(kg/ha)
deb

+62.4

+0.34
+35.55
-111.6
-53.2
-2.1
+ 17.2
-110.07
+1.706


-28.25
-5531
+0.938
+31.58
-219.51
-65.42
-9.82
+0.64
-47.0

-223.1

+215.53
-7966.8
+1.28
+62
-18.35
-61.79

+76.34
-47.0

-223.1
Unaccounted
Mass
(kq/ha)
e d a

+58.8

+0.331
+35.41
-111.6
-53.3
-2.1
+ 17.1
-110.13
+1.685


-2B.57
-5531
+0.926
31.55
-219.55
-65.49
-9.84
+0.53
-47.

-224

+215.49
-7967.1
+ 1.27
+62
-1B.40
-61.88

+76.22
-47.

-224
Percent Error
7--— 	 	 r- X 100
fb + a)

54

18
63
35
36
8
27
38
36


19
81
53
51
58 -
86
43
0.7
25

19

176
84
92
110
a
43

158
25

19
                  228

-------
levels of  benzene than  deeper soil zones analyzed.   In addition, benzene
levels  were  less  in 1983  than measured in 1981.   This decrease  may have
been due to biological  degradation of these compounds during  the growing
season.   Herbicides were  applied in the late winter or early spring.   Sam-
ples collected  in  1981 were obtained in March through  May after  application
of_herbicides.   Soil  sample collection in 1983  occurred  in  November 1983
through  February 1984.   Another solvent,  tetrachlomethylene and  carbon
tetrachloride,  was measured above detection limits in  1983.   Organic com-
pounds used as insecticides (i.e.,  acenaphthylene,  m-dichloroben-zene,
p-dichlorobenzene, and o-dichlorobenzene) were also isolated  in the  upper
30 cm of  soil  in  1981 .  Dichlorobenzene m and o were detected  to a depth of
61 and  91 cm,  respectively, in 1983.  Phthalates were  measured  throughout
the  soil  in 1981.   Several organic  compounds  (i.e., 4-t-butylphenol,
2-chlorophenol,  ethylbenzene , methylheptadecanoate , methy Ihex adeconoate ,
and  octadecane) were isolated during 1981  but were below their respective
detection limits  in 1983.
     The  mass  of  each organic compound applied to the farm  is presented in
Table E.33.   The mass of  each organic in the  irrigation stream  contributed
very little to  the mass detected in the soil profile.
Bacteriological  Data—
     Factors which affect the retention and survival  of pathogens in soils
include temperature,  soil moisture, pH, organic matter, biological  activ-
ity, cation exchange capacity, particle size, and clay content.  Bacteria
are removed in  soils  primarily by filtration.  Bacterial  indicator  organ-
isms existing  in the soil profile in 1981  and 1983 are presented in Table
E.17 to E.  19.   In the top 30 cm total coliform bacteria existed at  levels
greater than detection limits in 1983.  Irrigation with effluent apparently
did increase the concentration of coliform bacteria in the  upper  30  to 61
cm of the soil  profile.   Similarly, fecal streptococcus was  detected  in the
upper 91  cm at  levels greater than analytical limits in 1983 in  soils col-
lected  from areas  receiving 52.2 cm and 68.9 cm.
     Actinomycetes are ubiquitous throughout soils.  In alkaline,  dry soils
over 50  percent of  the  microbial population may consist of actinomycetes
                                   229

-------
(Alexander  1967).  Average  actinomycetes  levels  within  the  soil  profile
ranged  from  109 to 1012  counts per gram of soil.   During the irrigation-
period,  actinomycetes within the upper 91  cm  experienced a  one-to-two log
increase  in  concentration.   Since an increase  in actinomycetes normally
follows  increased  bacterial and mold  growth, the  rise in actinomycetes
indicated  a  general increase in biological activity  in  the  upper 91  cm.
     Fungi levels  were relatively constant in the  1981  baseline soil  sam-
ples  (5 x 1Q.3 to 2.4 x 10.4  counts/g) .   Irrigation  produced no apparent
effect on  fungi  concentrations.
Gray Farm
     Table E.20  presents the physical characteristics of the soils included
in the Gray  farm.  Unlike the Hancock  soils, the Gray soils  contained  a
higher  percentage of coarse  material throughout  the upper 122 cm of the
profile.  The predominate soil texture within the  upper 30  cm  of  the  pro-
file  was  sandy  loam.  Sandy clay loams existed  from a  depth of 30 cm to 91
cm.  As  with  the Hancock soils, the coarser material referred  to earlier
could be the  result of salts interfering with the  hydrometer texture analy-
sis.  Coagulation  by the salts can shift  the percent  sand up  by a small
amount  (Black 1965).  Soil  texture  at  depths greater than 122 cm varied
primarily  from clay to clay loams.   Similar to the soils obtained  from  the
Hancock  farm,  an  indurated caliche soil  was observed  at depths from 40 to
183 cm.  This indurated zone made the ability to obtain discrete 30  cm  soil
sections  to  a depth of 183 cm extremely  difficult.  Consequently, the  data
shows a  high  frequency of composite  samples  collected at  depths greater
than 91  cm.
Nitrogen—
     Average  nitrogen  levels measured in the  soil  profile beneath center
pivot machines are presented in Table E.21 and E.22.  This area  was  pre-
dominantly  cotton in 1981 and produced alfalfa in  1982 and 1983.   Nitrate
nitrogen concentrations were fairly uniform throughout the entire  183 cm
soil  depth  in  1981.  Analysis of  soils in 1983,  however,  indicated  a
decrease in  nitrate levels in the upper 91 cm (Figure 87),  which  resulted
from  greater N  uptake by  alfalfa.   Ammonia nitrogen  existed  primarily in
                                 230

-------
      8.
Gray - Sprinkler Irrigated


       KEY

    D  1981

    O  1983
                 I	1	1	1	1	1	\	
       0.00      0.03      0.06      0.09      0.12      0.15      0.18      0.21
                                NITRITE+NITRflTE  (MG-N/G) Mid'1
                                             0.24
      §_
    a:
    Q_r5_
    a'
     8
                                     Gray  Flood Irrigated
                                           KEY
                                          D 1981

                                          O 1983
           	1	1	1	1	1
      0.00       0.03      0.06      0.09      0.12      0.15
                                NITRITE+NITRflTE (MG-N/G)

Figure  87.    Nitrite  + Nitrate  in  Gray Soils

                                      231
                          0.18      0.21
                                             0.24

-------
the top 30  cm of soil.  No appreciable  change  in ammonia concentrations was
observed in  NH3  levels between  soil samples collected in 1981 and 1983.
The bulk of the soil nitrogen was  incorporated in organic matter.  Organic
nitrogen decreased almost  linearly  to  a depth of 91 cm to 183 cm (Figure
88).  A reduction of organic nitrogen from 1981  levels  was measured in
1983.   Carbon  to  nitrogen  ratios  varied from 9 to 17, which indicated no
mineralization of organic nitrogen should have occurred  in the soil  pro-
file.   A nitrogen  balance  was conducted on the soil profile.  At a pH of
7.9, two to three percent of the total  ammonia could have been lost through
volatilization  as  the water  was sprayed  from the center pivot machines.
Volatilization of ammonia within the soil matrix could have been about  five
percent.   Due  to  the soil  texture (i.e.,  sandy clay loam and clay  loam),
however, ammonia escaping the profile  may have been reduced by sorption of
ammonia to  the soil.
     Nitrogen losses  resulting  from the  denitrification  process  were
assumed to  be 30 percent of the total  inorganic  nitrogen  pool.  Nitrogen
uptake  by  alfalfa  in 1982  and 1983  was approximately 250 kg/ha and 260
kg/ha,  respectively.   Cotton harvested  in  1981  removed  about 50 kg/ha.
Increased  soil  moisture  levels  resulting from  frequent irrigation  most
likely  increased the  biological  activity  in the soil  and consequently
resulted in  greater mineralization of  organic nitrogen.  The annual  min-
eralization rate of organic nitrogen was  assumed to have  been two percent
which  was  in the  range   of one  to three  percent observed in other  soils
(Bremner 1967).  The values of parameters contained in  equation (2) are
presented in  Table 39.  Figure  89  presents the results of the nitrogen  mass
balance for the sprinkler irrigated  areas.   The mass balance indicates  that
nitrogen uptake by crops was the major mechanisms governing nitrogen
losses.  Deep percolation of inorganic  nitrogen  beneath  the center pivot
machines was probably not  a  major mechanism of nitrogen loss in 1982 or
1983.
     In the flood  or  row irrigated wheat areas which encompassed an  esti-
mated 100 ha, nitrogen losses due  to denitrification of inorganic nitrogen
was  assumed  to  be  30 percent  of  the  inorganic pool.  The annual hydraulic
loading to  the wheat area varied  from  approximately 230 cm  in 1982 to 207
                                 232

-------
Q_ CM
UJ  •'
a "
                                      Gray  Sprinkler

                                          KEY
                                         D 1981

                                         O 1983
  _           I         I          I         I          I
   0.00      0.09      0.19      0.28      0.37      0.4.7
                            ORGPNIC N  (MG-N/G)
                                                             0.56
                                                                      0.65
                                                                                0.7H
 Q- CM
 UJ  •'
 a •"*
   §
                                       Flood Irrigated
                                        KEY


                                       O1983
    „           I         I          I         I         I          I
     0.00      0.09       0.19      0.28       0.37      0.17       0.56
                              ORGflNIC N  CMG-N/G]


Figure  88.    Organic  Nitrogen  in  Gray Soils


                                      233
                                                                      0.65
                                                                               0.74

-------
            TABLE 39.  INPUT PARAMETERS AND COEFFICIENTS EOR N MASS BALANCE MODEL
              Parameter
Symbol
                 Value
Center Pivot Irrigation Areas
    1981 inorganic nitrogen mass in 183 cm soil profile
    1981 organic nitrogen mass in 183 cm soil profile
    Annual hydraulic loading in 1981, 1982, and 1983
    Nitrogen concentration in irrigation water
    Amount of precipitation in 1982 and 1983
    Nitrogen concentration in precipitation
    Fraction of nitrogen applied by irrigation
    Runoff coefficient
    Mineralization rate constant
    Denitrification coefficient
Row Water or Flood Irrigated Areas
    1981 inorganic nitrogen mass in 183 cm soil profile
    1981 organic nitrogen mass in 183 cm soil profile
   Annual hydraulic loading in 1981, 1982, 1983
   Nitrogen concentration in irrigation water
   Amount of precipitation in 1982 and 1983
   Nitrogen concentration in precipitation
   Fraction of nitrogen applied by irrigation
   Runoff coefficient
   Mineralization rate constant
   Denitrification coefficient
Niorlt-1
Niorlt-1
Qir

Qp
Cp
e
a
km3
C

 Niorlt-'
 Nor|t-1

 Cir
 Qp
 Cp
 e
 a
 km3
 C
                398.6 kg-N/ha
                10,359 kg-N/ha
                65 cm, 55 cm, 55 cm
                27.93 mg-N/l
                •60.5  and 48.4 cm
                1.2 mg-N/l
                0.97
                0.35
                0.02  yr~1
                0.30

               330.8  kg-N/ha
               9741.9 kg-N/ha
               465,230,207 cm
               27,93  mg/1
               60.5 and 48.4 cm
               1.2 mg-N/l
               0.97
               0.35
               0.03 yr-1
               0.30

-------
   500
   400
N in Root Zone in  19U1
N from Organic N in Root Zone
N Applied in Effluent
Removed by Crop
Denitrification
Measured level in  Profile 1983
Difference between Measured and

300
.c
\200
5
C
0)
§>100
±S


0
c
(0
O)

O
_c
100


200

300




















'



! !i
| g I
1 § •
^ 3 '
t^ Hk I
1 Si
f

1








1981 ' ' 1982
Predicted
I
I
3 ;
I i
I *<
g ^
Ik ^
i I
ii ^
3 I
i
Sa ^
• «
1
•


j
j
j
1
1
1
i
> ' ' 1983
11 > 1 1_- a >j ij j. v^ u aii<_i
1
1
t-
^
r
(•
f-
f-
j.
fr
t
t
t
(-
t
.
t
t
t
t
t












Figure 89.   Inorganic Nitrogen in 183 cm  Profile Cotton/Alfalfa
             Gray Farm
                               235

-------
cm in  1983.   The parameter values used in the nitrogen mass balance equa-
tion (2)   are  presented  in Table  39.   The results of the  nitrogen mass
balance  for  the irrigated  areas are presented in Figure 90.  Deep perco-
lation of nitrates to  the ground water remained a significant process for
the loss  of nitrogen from the soil profile in the flood or row water areas.
The ground-water  quality data also substantiate this conclusion.
Phosphorus—
     Similar  to  the Hancock farm, an indurated caliche soil  existed within
the soil  profile  at depths ranging from 41 cm to 183 cm.  Therefore, phos-
phate  calcite reactions  were probably an important mechanism for the
removal of phosphorus  from the soil solution.   Both TP and  organic phos-
phorus exhibited  a gradual decrease in concentration with  increasing depth.
     A total  phosphorus mass balance (Table 40)  showed annual  phosphorus
removal  by crops in  1981,  1982 and 1983  was less  than the mass  applied
through irrigation.  Only 33 percent of the TP was consumed by crops.  The
remainder was probably fixed  into the soil matrix.   As  noted  with cotton
produced  on the  Hancock farm, phosphorus uptake was less.than normal values
of 15  to  34  kg/ha/yr.  The unaccounted mass of 1026  kg/ha was  equal to an
average concentration  of about 0.04 mg-P/kg and within the variability of
the data.
     The  row  water  or flood irrigated  areas appeared to  have exhibited an
increase  in TP in the  soils (Tables E.23 and E.24).  Soil  sampling  method
may have  caused  an apparent increase in  TP (coefficient of variation ranged
from 17 to 139 percent).  The phosphorus uptake  by wheat (Table 40)  was
only 12 percent  of the estimated 1072 kg/ha applied from 1981  through 1983.
Fixation  of phosphorus may have been the major   mechanism which .governed
phosphorus removal from  the soil  solution.   Some  TP  removal was also
attributable  to  deep percolation of phosphorus.
Minerals—
     Total dissolved  solids in  the soil matrix beneath the center pivot
machines  increased gradually with  depth in 1981  (Table  E.25).   Whereas,
frequent  leaching of salts in the wheat areas produced a more  uniform TDS
concentration   throughout the entire soil profile  (Table 26).  A TDS mass

                                  236

-------
•••— N in Root Zone in 19U1

1200




1000



800




600


03
"0*400
C
200
'•z.

u
c
03
S>
o
c
200

400
600
ifSIOf! N from Organic N in Root Zone



















! K
^
-i
\\
• m
\\
IN Applied in Lr fluent
••••• Removed -by Crop
^"^^" Denitrification
^^^^ Measured level in Profile 1983
»» Difference
Predicted
between Measured and
- Potential Leaching
*
^
f
r
$
*
*
*
#
•)
t
*
•s
It
*
*
^
e
*
i
i
-
-)
-j
^
^ i :
1 | ^
'
i $
« ^
S i
j • •
i i
i i

i i
j j


(•
f.
r
t
t
I
i-














1 1981 ' ' 1982 ' ' 1 983 '
Figure 90.   Inorganic Nitrogen in 183 cm Profile Wheat Area Gray Farm



                               237

-------
TABLE 40.   TOTAL PHOSPHORUS MASS BALANCE ON GRAY SOILS


Irrigation
Mode

Spray

Flood or
Row Water
Total Phosphorus
Applied
( kg/ha. yr)
1981 1982 1983
93.8 50.5 50.5
I
671.0 211.1 190.0

Crop Uptake of
Phosphorus
( kg/ha. yr)
1981 1982
9. 26.

24. 54.

Total Phosphorus
in Soil Profile
(kg/ha. yr)
1983 1981
30. 6,059

Unaccounted
Mass
(kg/ha)
1983
5,163 -1,026

54. 6,101 10,368 +3,327



N>
CD



TABLE 41. MASS BALANCE


ON TDS IN SOILS


PROFILE ON GRAY FARM




Irrigation
Mode


Spray
Flood or
Row Water
TDS
Applied
( kg/ha. yr)
'1981 1982 1983
7,345. 6,215. 6,215.
52,545. 17,707. 13,391.

TDS in Soils Change in
(kg/ha)

1981
18,091 .
25,990.

Profile
(kg/ha)
1983
22,613. +4,522
23,391. -2,599

Unaccounted
Mass
(kg/ha)

-15,253
-86,632

-------
balance  indicated  flood and row irrigation and precipitation  leached salts
below a depth  of  183 cm during the  period from  spring 1981  through 1983
(Table  41).   The salts applied to cotton and alfalfa areas,  however, were
primarily retained  in  the soil profile.  A comparison of TDS levels  within
the  profile  in 1981  and  1983 showed  a  TDS concentration  increase  in the
soil from 91 cm to  183 cm beneath the alfalfa crops (Figure  91).   The pro-
file  TDS levels  shows little variation in TDS levels within the upper 91
cm.  Once percolate  reached the  indurated layer,  the vertical  hydraulic
conductivity  may have been  reduced.   Therefore,  more  soil moisture was
available for  alfalfa  consumption, and more salts were retained in the pro-
file.   Furthermore,  with  extended drying periods (about a month) between
irrigation periods,  capillary  action may have  transported  salts  into  the
upper  183 cm  of soil; thereby causing an increase in salt concentration.
In addition, some salts may have been leached to deeper soil depths.
     Increases in  TDS levels measured in 1983 did not appear  to be associ-
ated with increases  in Na ion  (Tables E.27 and E.28).  A slight increase in
the  average  Na concentration was measured at depths of  61 and 91 cm in
1981.  Based on a CEC  in the upper 30 cm of 22 meq/100 g,  an ESP of approx-
imately seven was  computed for Na in the top 30 cm beneath  the spray irri-
gated area.   Therefore,  Na levels  were maintained sufficiently  low by
leaching to prevent  sodic conditions (ESP <15) in the soil.  Similarly,  the
ESP value for  1981  and 1983 in the upper 30 cm  of  the flood  or  row  water
areas  was seven.   In 1983,  Na levels  within  the  soil  profile at depths
greater than 61 cm  were greater than average values measured in 1981  (Fig-
ure  92).  Table 42 presents  a mass balance on Na in the  183  cm soil core.
The variability in  data can explain a large portion of the unaccounted  for
mass  in the  cores extracted'  from the spray irrigated areas.  Deep percola-
tion apparently transported Na into the soil profile to depths greater than
183 cm.
     The  average K  to N ratio in the wastewater pumped to the Gray farm in
1982 and 1983  was 1.21.  Therefore, K would not inhibit the crop  utiliza-
tion  of the  N contained  in  the wastewater stream. Contrary  to Na levels,
(Table 42), K  mass  was more unaccounted for  in  soils collected  from  the
spray  irrigated  land than the wheat areas.  Some of this loss of K can be
                                 239

-------
   s_
 Q. rg
 UJ _;
Gray - Sprinkler Irrigated



     KEY
   0.00
              I
             0.15
                      0.30      O.H5      0.60      0.75
                            TOT  DISSOLV  SOLIDS  (MG/G)
                                                           0.90
                                                                     1.05
                                                                              1.20
Q_ CM
UJ •'
o
                                Gray   Flood Irrigated

                                       KEY

                                     D 1981

                                     O 1983
  _           I         I         I          I         1         I          I         I
   0.00      -0.15      0.30      0.145      0.60      0.75      0.90      1.05      1.20
                            TOT DISSOLV SOLIDS  (MG/G)


Figure  91.   Total Dissolved  Solids  in  Gray  Soils


                                  240

-------
 O

 to .
                                       Gray   Sprinkler


                                          KEY


                                          D 1981


                                          O 1983
    0.00
              82.00
                        1 Ell. 00
                                  216.00    328.00    410.00

                                     SODIUM  (MG/KG)
                                                                T

                                                               492.00
                                                                         574.00
                                                                                   656.00
 a. PJ
 LU
 o'
   3
    0.00
                                    Cray - Flood Irrigated


                                           KEY
              82.00
164.00     246.00     328.00    "ilO.OO

             SODIUM  (MG/KG)
                                                               492.00
                                                                         S74.00     656.00
Figure 92.   Sodium  in  Gray  Soils



                                       241

-------
                  TABLE  42.   SODIUM  AND  POTASSIUM  MASS  BALANCE  ON  GRAY  SOILS




N>
-P-
ho

Irrigation
Mode
SODIUM
Spray
Flood or
Row Water
POTASSIUM
Spray
Flood or

Mass Applied
(kg/ha. yr)
1981 1982 1983


2,460 1,458 1,458
17,596 6,095 5,486

139 90 90
990 375 337

Crop Uptake
( kg/ha. yr)
1981 1982 1983


000
000

30 170 90
305 262 262


Mass in
Soil Profile
(kg/ha)
1981 1983


9,809
8,862

84,902
69,547


10,402
12,813

66,620
71,595

Change in
Profile
(kg/ha)

+593 .
+3,951

-18,282
+2,048

Unaccount-
ed Mass
(kg/ha)

-4,783
-25,226

-18,210
+1 ,175
Row Water

-------
attributable to the spacial variation (coefficient  of variation of about 80
percent)  in the data obtained at depths of 121  cm  and greater.  Potassium
may have  been  leached deeper into the profile.
     Cotton grown beneath center pivots consumed  less  K than applied in
1981. Alfalfa,  however,  due  to its higher  N  requirement, utilized more K
than was  applied.  Wheat had ample K provided in  the  irrigation water  and
apparently removed it  from  the soil  solution.  Very  little K was unac-
counted  for in the mass balance conducted on  soil  samples obtained from the
flood irrigated areas.
     As  previously  stated, the major anions associated with the salts
applied  to the soils were chloride and sulfate.   Higher levels of chloride
ions were found  at depths  from 61 cm  to 183 cm than  in the upper 61 cm
(Figure  93).   Soil cores obtained in the late fall  of 1983 from the  flood
and  row  irrigated areas  contained less  Cl than  the baseline soil cores.
Chlorides may  have been increased in the profile  of soils collected  at  121
to  183 cm beneath the center pivot machines.  The  variability of the data,
however,  made  interpretation of the data very difficult.
     Sulfates ions  increased through the first  61 to 91  cm of the pro-file
and were  relatively constant at depths from  91  cm  to 183 cm (Figure  94).
With greater  quantities  of  irrigation on the wheat, larger quantities of
SO^  were leached past  the  183 cm depth.  Consequently,  a more uniform 50^
profile  was observed beneath the flood irrigated  areas.   In addition,  soil
samples  collected from  the  wheat  area in  1983 contained  less SO^ than
baseline  samples  (Figure 94).
     Mass balances  on Cl and  SO^  ions present  in the  183 cm profile are
provided  in Table 43.  The results support the  deep percolation of  anions
past the 183  cm  depth in the flood irrigated  areas during the period from
1981 through 1983.
Trace Metals—
     Table E.27  shows the variation of trace  metals within the top 183 cm
of the  soil profile in wheat areas.  Table 44 presents  the total  average
mass of  specific trace metals applied by flood and row irrigation.  Over a
three year period from 1981 through  1983, input  of  trace metals  through
                                 243

-------
   Q_ CM.
   UJ •
   o •"
                                         Gray - Sprinklar

                                            KEY

                                            Q19B1

                                            O 1983
      0.00
                0.01
                         0.08
                                   0.12      0.16       0.20
                                     CHLORIDES (MG/G)
                                                               0.24
                                                                         0.28
                                                                                  0.32
  Q_ <
  UJ
  a
  o
  CO ,
                                   Gray - Flood Irrigated


                                         KEY
    °°-00      0-01      0.08      0.12      0.16      020
                                   CHLORIDES  (MG/G)


Figure 93.    Chlorides  in  Gray Soils



                                   244
0.24
          0.28
                   0.32

-------
      S
                                          Gray - Sprinkler
                                              KEY

                                             O 1981

                                             O 1983
       0.00       0.03
                          0.07
                                    0.10      0.14      0.17
                                      SULFHTES  (MG/G)
                                                                0.21       0.2<4
                                                                                   0.28
       0.00      0.03
                                     Gray   Flood Irrigated

                                            KEY
                                           D 1981

                                           O19B3
                          0.07
0.10       0.11      0.17
   SULFflTES (MG/G)
Figure 94.    Sulfates  in  Gray Soils

                                      245
                                                                0.21
                                                                           I         I
                                                                          0.2U      0.28

-------
TABLE 43.   CHLORIDE AND 5ULFATE MASS BALANCE ON GRAY SOILS

Irrigation
Mode
CHLORIDE
Spray
Flood and
Row Water
SULFATE
Spray
Flood and
Row Water




Mass in
Mass Applied Crop Uptake Soil Profile
(kg/ha. yr)- (kg/ha. yr) (kg/ha)
1981 1982 1983 1981 1982 1983 1981 1983

3,029 1,
21,762 6,


2,048
14,648 4,


667 1,667
969 6,272 98


979 979
094 3,685 99


71
98


81
99


81 3,648 4,416
98 3,192 1,660


93 4,552 4,190
99 2,901 1,890


Unac-
counted
Mass
(kg/ha)

-5,443
-36,241


-4,194
-23,141



TABLE 44.
TRACE METALS MASS
BALANCE
ON SOILS COLLECTED

FROM FLOOD AND ROW IRRIGATION AREA

Trace
Metal
As
Ba
Cd
Co
Cr
Cu
Pb
Ni
Mass Applied
(kg/ha)
1 .887
26.96
0.276
0.358
4.820
5.167
2.962
4.235
Mass in Soil Profile
(kg/ha)
1981 1983
85.1
2351.
2.56
36.8
593.7
202.2
34.4
175.0
26.9
1267.
4.40
90.1
189.4
83.3
101.4
118.6
Change in Unaccounted
Soil Profile Mass
(kg/ha) (kg/ha)
-58.1
-1084.
+1.84
+53.3
-404.3
-118.9
+67.0
-56.4
-60.0
-1111
+1.56
+52.9
-409.1
-124.1
+64.3
-60.6
                             246

-------
irrigation  to the soil was low.  Compared to  the  concentration of metals in
the soils,  the concentration of metals in the crop  tissue was negligible.
Anionic metals  such as As and Cr (VI)  probably  were transported by perco-
late to depths greater than 91 cm within the  alkaline  soils. In addition,
Ba, Cu, and  Ni  possibly  leached beyond  the 91 cm soil  depth.  Possible
accumulation  of  Cd,  Co and Pb occurred in the upper 91  cm of soil  in  the
flood  irrigated areas.   Special variability had the most impact on the
unaccounted for  trace metal mass measure in 1981  and 1983.
Priority Organics—
     The majority  of soil samples  analyzed for specific priority organic
compounds,  contained  levels below their  respective  detection limits (Tables
E.29 and E.30).  Furthermore, the frequency at which the concentration of an
organic compound at  each depth interval  exceeded its  detection limit  was
generally  low  in  1981 and  1983.  Basically, the same organic compounds
which were  prevalent  within the soil profile  at the Hancock farm predomi-
nated the  soils  collected  from the Gray  farm.
     In both  the spray and fl.ood irrigated areas, solvents such as benzene
and chloroform  existed throughout the 183 cm soil  profile in 1981.  Benzene
levels decreased to  levels barely exceeding detection  limits in 1983.  In
1983,  however,  chloroform levels appeared to have increased from baseline
levels. Furthermore, the  chloroform concentration  increased with depth.
     Similar to the finding  present in the  discussion of Hancock soils,
carbon tetrachloride  and tetrachloroethylene  were not  measured .at concen-
trations  above  detection limits  in 1981,  but were  detected at  levels
exceeding  analytical  limits in practically all samples  collected from flood
and spray  irrigated areas  in 1983.   Carbon tetrachloride concentrations
were relatively  constant  within  the  entire soil  profile and in samples
collected  throughout the farm.  These  finding may reflect sample contami-
nation during soil  collection, handling, and  analysis.
     Chlorinated aniline compounds  such as  2,3-dichloroaniline and 3,4-
dichloroaniline may  have  been derivative of herbicides or fungicides.
Trifluraline, which  was commonly used would not have been applied to either
the wheat  or  alfalfa  areas.   Unless  pulses of  fungicides used  for  seed

                                  247

-------
treatment  were discharged into the wastewater stream and were undetected,
sufficient  information was not available to delineate the source of chlori-
nated anilines  in  the Gray soils.  In general, 2,3-dichloroaniline was more
prevalent at  soil  depths  from 91  cm to 183  cm  beneath  the  center pivot
machines in  1983  than in 1981.  Furthermore, less chlorinate  anilines were
detected in the flood irrigated soils.
     Acenaphthylene and the various dichlorobenzene forms in  the soils may
have been derived  from application  of insecticides.  These  organic com-
pounds  existed primarily  in  the upper 61 cm of the soil profile.   Except
for acenaphthylene and m-dichlorobenzene levels  in the top 30 cm of soil
beneath  center pivots in  1983, acenaphthylene  and the dichlorobenzenes
decreased in  1983  to approximately the detection  limits  for  the specific
organic.
    • Phthalates are  fairly ubiquitous in  the  environment,  consequently
scenarios describing the sources of  these compounds- in  the  soil samples
were difficult to develop.   Dibutylphthalate  and  diethylphthalate were
detected at various depths  within  the 183 cm profile in 1981  and 1983.
Higher  concentrations o'f dibutylphthalate were measured in soils  which were
subjected to  flood irrigation (27 to 135 ppb) than spray irrigation (28  to
42 ppb).
     Within the flood irrigated area, 20 of 36 organics measured  were below
detection limits throughout the entire core in 1983; whereas,  in  1981 only
five compounds were not detected above analytical limits.  Only 12  and 15
organic  compounds  of a total of 36 assayed were not measured  above detec-
tion limits within the entire profile beneath center pivot machines  in 1981
and 1983, respectively.   Therefore,  greater  soil water moisture in  the
flood irrigated areas may  have enhanced biological degradation of these
organic  compounds.
     The presence of  trace organics in the soil profile in  1981  and 1983
may have been directly related to  the mass loadings of  specific organic
compounds through  flood irrigation land growing wheat (Table 45). Decreased
organic  mass  loadings by spray irrigation of land producing alfalfa, how-
ever,  reduced  the potential  of residual levels   of priority   organic com-
pounds  in 1983  derived solely from irrigation.

                                 248

-------
TABLE 45.  MASS OF PRIORITY ORGANICS APPLIED TO GRAY FARM

Flood Irrigat
Priority Detection
Organic Limits Mass Applied
Compound Concentration ( g/ha) in
(ppb)
Acenaphthylene <20
Anthracene <20
Atrazine <100
Benzene <1
4-t-butylphenol <10
Carbontetrachloride <1
4-chloroanil ine <100
Chlorobenzene- <1
Chloroform <1
2-chlorophenol <10
l-chlorotetradecane <2D
Dibutylphathalate <20
2,3-dichloroaniline <20
3,4-dichloroaniline - <20
Dichlorabenzene M <10
P <10
0 <10
2 ,4-d ichlorophenol
Diethylphthalate/ <20
Hex ad ecane
Ethylbenzene <1
Heptadecane <10
Methylheptadecanoate <20
Methylhexadecanoate <20
1-methylnaphthalene <10
2-methylphenol <10
4-methyl phenol <20
Naphthalene <10
Octadecane <20
Phenol <10
Propazine <100
a-terpineol <10
Tetrachloethylene <1
Toluene <1
Trichloroethane <1
Trichloroethylene <1
1981
227.9
283.6
506.2
51.2
237.2
372.
1348.5
51.2
46.5
395.2
227.8
1339.2
395.2
269.7
265.0
297.6
539.4
358.0
302.2
60.4
348.8
390.6
585.9
316.2
283.6
404.6
144.2
200.0
488.2
930.
376.6
223.2
88.4
316.2
55.8
1982
57.5
92.
906.2
253.
117.3
73.6
303.6
23.
89.7
218.5
170.2
2911.8
112.7
165.6
179.4
85.1
269.1
158.7
372.6
43.7
158.7
103.5
94.3
59.8
59.8
165.6
471.5
195.5
193.2
476.1
432.4
52.9
25.3
115.
23.
1983
51.8
82.8
815.6
227.7
105.6
66.2.
273.2
20.7
80.7
196.6
153.2
2620.
101.4
149.0
161.5
76.6
242.2
142.8
335.3
39.3
142.8
93.2
84.9
53.8
53.8
149.0
424.4
176.0
173;9
428.5
389.2
47.6
22.8
103.5
20.7
ion
Calculated
Concentration
30 cm of Soil
(ppb)
79.0
107.4
552.3
124.6
107.8
119.9
451.2
22.2
50.8
189.9
129.2
1610.3
142.8
136.9
142.0
107.6
246.2
154.6
236.7
33.6
152.4
137.6
179.3
100.7
93.1
168.5
243.7
133.9
200.4
429.9
280.8
75.9
32.0
125.3
23.3
Spray Irrigation
Calculated
Mass Applied Concentration
(g/ha) in 30 cm of Soil
1981
31.8
39.6
70.8
7.2
32.2
52.0
1B8.5
7.2
6.5
55.2
31.8
187.2
55.2
37.7
37.0
41.6
75.4
50.0
42.2
8.4
48.4
54.6
81 .9
44.2
39.6
56.6
20.2
28.0
68.2
130.0
52.6
31 .2
12.4
44.2
7.8
1982
13.8
22.
216.7
.60.5
28.0
17.6
72.6
5.5
21.4
52.2
40.7
696.3
27.0
39.6
42.9
20.4
64.4
38.0
89.1
10.4
38.0
24.8
22.6
14.3
14.3
39.6
112.8
46.8
46.2
113.8
103.4
12.6
6.0
27.5
5.5
1983
13.8
22.
216.7
60.5
28.0
17.6
72. 6
5.5
21.4
52.2
40.7
696.3
27.0
39.6
42.9
20.4
64.4
38.0
89.1
10.4
38.0
24.8
22.6
14.3
14.3
39.6
112.8
46.8
46.2
113.8
103.4
12.6
6.0
27.5
5.5
(ppb)
13.9
19.6
118.2
30.0
20.9
20.4
7B.2
4.3
11.6
37.4
26.5
370.2
25.6
27.4
28.8
19.3
47.9
32.0
51. 6
6.8
29.2
24.4
29.8
17.1
16.0
31.8
57.6
28.5
37.6
83.8
60.8
10.9
5.7
23.2
18.8
                        249

-------
Bacteriological  Data—
     The average  concentration of bacterial indicator organisms, actinomy-
cetes, and  fungi present  in  the soil profile in 1981  and  1983 on the  Gray
farm  are presented  in   Tables E.31 and E.32.  Total coliform (TC), fecal
coliform (FC)  and  fecal streptococcus (FS) were primarily retained  in  the
top -30  cm  of  soil.  Soil  core 23132  in the flood  irrigated area had the
highest concentration of  indicator organisms  in  the  upper 30 cm of soil.
In 1983, core 23132 also  was the  only core containing  TC, FC, and FS to
depths of 122  cm.   The location from which this core  was  extracted  was  in
close  proximity to riser pipes fitted with alfalfa control valves used for
flood irrigation  on  this particular  portion  of land.   Consequently, a
deeper  portion  of the upper profile  was saturated due to the increased
hydrostatic pressure  experienced at the riser's discharge.  Therefore,  high
bacterial  counts  in this soil possibly were associated with deep percola-
tion resulting from poor  flow distribution with the irrigation system.
     Fecal  streptococcus was  detected  at  greater  concentrations in the
spray irrigated  areas in  1983 than in 1981.  Certain  soil  samples obtained
from the flood irrigated  area contained concentrations of  TC and FS exceed-
ing detection  limits  at depths of 183 cm.
     Fungi  and  actinomycetes  concentrations within the soil profile  were
relatively  constant throughout the farm and the monitoring period (Tables
E.31  and E.32).   Changes in hydraulic loading or cropping patterns did not
appear to affect  the number of actinomycetes  or fungi present  throughout
the entire  183 cm  soil core.
CROPS
Hancock Farm
Crop Yields—
     Comparisons  of  crop analysis were difficult because of the inconsist-
ency in agricultural  practices employed at the Hancock  farm (Figures  G.1,
G.5 and G.6).  In 1982  the Hancock farm was planted in three crops:  sun-
flowers,  soybeans  and milo.  For late planted crops,  sunflower yields  were
in the  normal range  recorded for the High Plains, 1124 to 2247 kg/ha (1000

                                  250

-------
to 2000  Ibs/ac).   Pivot 7 was replanted due to poor germination  and  yielded
1612 kg/ha (1435  Ib/ac).   The best  sunflower  seed yield was  2647 kg/ha
(2356 Ib/ac)  from the land irrigated  by Pivot  17.   Soybean production
ranged from 2036  kg/ha  (30.2 bu/ac)  under Pivot 19 up to 2697  kg/ha (40
bu/ac) on Pivot 2 which was  within the High Plains soybean  range of  1685 to
2697 kg/ha (25  to 40  bu/ac)  cited by Texas A & M Extension Service.  Milo
yields  were less than expected.   Primarily, this was due  to  lateness of
planting and also possible delay in  flowering from watering at   early boot
stage.   In addition, some  herbicide damage, due to treating the land with
Trifluralin (Treflan®) in expectation of growing cotton, may have  lowered
yields.   Milo  yields  ranged  from 3307 kg/ha (2943 Ib/ac)  beneath Pivot 9 to
6691 kg/ha (5955  Ib/ac)  under Pivot 19.  Texas A & M Extension  Service
reported milo  yields  for the High Plains of 3933 to 5618 kg/ha.
     1980, 1981 and 1983  cotton yields obtained from the Hancock  farm are
presented in  Table  46.   A  definite  improvement  on  crop  production was
experienced in  1983.  Regardless of  irrigation, an increase  in  production
was  anticipated   since 1983 was the only year during the study  when  a nat-
ural disaster  did not affect crop planting and establishment.  In  general,
cotton  production in 1983  exceeded average yields obtained  from irrigated
land in Lubbock County.  Average crop yield  per  center pivot machine,  as
determined from   four one-meter square samples, is presented  in Table 46.
Differences between values recorded  by farmers and researchers were  due  to
sampling procedure and the fact that every boll was picked  from  plants once
the sample was  brought to the laboratory.  Consequently higher  yields were.
projected for  crops  grown beneath each pivot than actually recorded  at the
cotton gin.  1983 crop yields may have been limited due to  nutrient  short-
ages, boll worm   infestation,  and  cooler weather in  September, which may
have limited cotton fiber production.
Crop Quality—
     Comparisons were  conducted  on 1981 and 1983 cotton  stalk and seed
quality data and  1982 and 1983 milo  data. Defoliants were applied  to the
cotton  crop prior to stripping the cotton;  consequently,  leaf  tissue from
cotton plants  was not available for  analysis.  Milo plants were  sectioned
                                  251

-------
                                          TABLE 46.   COTTON YIELDS,  HANCOCK  FARM
N>

Tenant
Farmer A
Farmer B
Farmer C
Farmer E
Farmer F
Farmer G
Farmer H
Farmer I
Ha.
56.7
87.8
120.2
171.2
100.8
82.2
116.1
87.4
1980*
Ac . kg/ha
140
217
297
423
249
203
287
216
Lubbock County***
70
137
234
100
85
417
393
109
156*
Ib/ac
62
122
208
89
76
371
350
97

Ha . Ac . .
56.7 140
143.3 354
172.0 425
213.7 528
100.8 249
82.2 203
116.1 287
87.4 216

1981*
Kg/ha
222
118
178
131
274
316
196
246
373*
Ib/ac
198
105
158
117
244
281
174
219

Ha.
56.7
142.5
65.6
207.2
50.6
82.2
116.1
29.9

Ac.
140
352
162
512
125
203
287
74

Lubbock County***
1983**
Kg/ha
615
579
676
560
740
572
353
597
(312)*
395**
Ib/ac
547
515
602
498
659
509
314
531



          * Dryland
         ** Irrigated land
        *** Texas A & M Extension Service, Lubbock, Texas

-------
into stalk  (including  leaf),  whole head  samples  in  1982, and pure grain
samples  in 1983.
     Cotton — Table  47 presents the concentration  ranges of elements found
in cotton stalk and  seed.  Elements such as Ca, K,  Na, Fe, Ba, Cr, and Pb
apparently accumulated more in the stalk than in  the  fruit; whereas,  N,  P,
Cd existed  at  higher levels in the seed.   The elemental analysis of the
cotton  plants is  provided  in Table F.5.
    TABLE 47..  RANGES  OF SPECIFIC ELEMENTS PRESENTED  IN THE CROP TISSUE
                       OBTAINED FROM HANCOCK FARM

Element
Ca
K
Na
Fe
Ba
Cr
Pb
N
P
Cd
Stalk (mg/g)
5,000-95,000
5,000-30,000
200-11 ,000
33-800
3-30
<.5-3
<.2-5
2,000-18,000
700-3,000
<.05-.7
Seed (mg/g)
1 ,000-16,000
3,000-13,000
<3-5,000
<. 5-150
3-17
<.5-1.5
<.2-2
8,000-47,000
5,000-12,000
<.05-2.5

     Previous work  (Giordano &  Mays 1977)  showed  Cd to be higher in leaf
tissue than  in stalk or seed tissue.  Arsenic was  never  at  concentrations
in the detectable range  in either seed or  stalk and Cu proved to be very
dynamic.   In  1981  eleven crops were analyzed  where Cu concentration  in  the
seed  was  lower  than levels measured in the stalk.  Only four plants con-
tained higher Cu concentrations  in  the seed than  measured in the  stalk
tissue.   This trend was reversed in 1983 with 10  out of 11 samples showing
an apparent accumulation of Cu in the seed.  It  should  be  noted also  that
the overall  concentration  of Cu in the stalks dropped in the range of 80
percent while, at  the same time,  Cu concentration in  the  seed stayed  the
                                  253

-------
same  or  possibly  even increased.   This would indicate that when Cu became
depleted in the soil, any available Cu was transported to the seed.
     Through comparison of concentrations of specific elements from year  to
year for the  same  crop  parts,  any accumulation  in crops  may denote  an
increased availability from effluent irrigation.   Conversely, depletions  of
certain elements in the crop tissue may indicate  a limitation of available
macro or micro nutrients in the  soil solution. A summary of depletions and
accumulations of nutrients and metals  are compiled in Table 48.
          TABLE 48.  ELEMENTAL SHIFTS  IN COTTON TISSUES OBTAINED
                      FROM HANCOCK  FARM 1981  vs.  1983

Concentration
1981 > 1982
TKN
°TP
Ca
Ca
K
Na
Na
Cd
Cd
Cu
Pb
Pb
Stalk
Stalk
Stalk
Seed
Stalk
Stalk
Seed
Stalk
Seed
Stalk
Stalk
Seed
Concentration Concentrations
1981 1983 1981 < 1983
TKN
TP
K
Fe
-Fe
Ba
Cr
Cu
Cu



Seed
Seed
Seed
Stalk
Seed
Seed
Stalk*
Seed*
Seed**




 *0verall the same  but  one  or  two  sharp  rises  or  drops  show  inconsistency
  in trend
**Pivots 3 and 11 show  substantial drops but overall  trend is  same  or a
  little increase.
     Comparison  of the 1981 and 1983  cotton crop tissue  analysis indicated
that a majority of  the  elements  assayed  remained  relatively  constant  in the
seed  tissue.  Corresponding  stalk parts  showed decreases  in element con-

                                 254

-------
centration  levels  from  1981 to 1983.  The availability of certain elements
in the  soil  solution may have been reduced in 1983 compared  to 1981.  For
example,  the  P  levels  for  seed and stalk for 1981 to 1983 are presented  in
Table F.5.  A  64 percent decrease in phosphorus concentration can cause  a
reduction in  yield (A  & L Labs Soil and Tissue Analysis Handbook).   Phos-
phorus  levels  in the  cotton stalks  decreased  by 6 to  70  percent, or  an
average  of  51 percent.   This magnitude of phosphorus reduction in the  crop
may cause limitations  in growth, flowering and yield. Phosphorus is import-
ant  to the  plant in many ways:  photosynthesis, hastening maturity,  stimu-
lating  blooming  and seed formation,  and stimulating early root growth.
Inhibition  of early root development produces a cyclic effect:  the  less  P
available to the crop,  the  less root growth; the less root growth,  the  less
P picke'd  up by   the roots, etc. (Inter-American Labs 1978).   If the  seed  P
levels  are compared (Table  F.5), there was almost no drop in their concen-
tration  (less than three  percent) from 1981 to 1983.  If the P levels was
low enough to  reduce  flowering and seed formation, the phosphorus available
would  have  been translocated to the seed and the concentration would  have
stayed  practically the  same.  Consequently,  the mass of P (Concentration  x
Yield) removed  by the  crop would have been  reduced.  As stated previously,
P uptake  by  cotton in  1983  was less than anticipated.
     Grain  Sorghum (Milo)—Table 49 presents concentration  ranges of  spe-
cific  elements   measured in sorghum  tissue.   Elemental analysis of  milo
stalk and seed samples  obtained from the Hancock farm are provided in Table
F.6.   Arsenic levels  in collected stalk samples were less than 0.5 mg/g  in
1983 compared  to values  ranging from <0.5 to 1.12 mg/g  in 1982.  More  Cd
existed  in  the  stalk  and leaf tissue (0.14  to 0.46 mg/g) than was detected
in the  seed  «0.05 to  0.3 mg/g).  This phenomenum agreed with results pre-
sented by Giordano and Mays (1977).  Furthermore, Cd levels in the stalk
were lower (0.06 to 0.16 mg/g) in 1983 than  in 1981.
     In summary, no  accumulation of trace metals appeared to have resulted
from land application  of the City  of Lubbock's wastewater.  The overall
decrease  of nitrogen  and  phosphorus in tissues from 1981 to 1983 was  par-
tially  due to  the failure of the irrigation  stream to meet  crop nutrient
                                 255

-------
requirements.   Originally, irrigation  was expected  to provide  sufficient
N and P to  satisfy crop need; however, due to odor problems, the  effluent
was  transported through  the reservoirs before  application to the soil.
Nitrogen concentrations in the irrigation water were reduced from 42 ppm to
approximately  12  ppm by passing the effluent through the reservoirs.  The N
reduction,  in  conjunction with a 50 percent reduction in the total  hydrau-
lic loading resulted in a N deficiency in many of the fields.  Since N is a
translocatable nutrient, it will be taken from older tissue in a plant  and
put  into the  newer tissues.  This was consistent with N accumulation in the
seed as shown  in  Tables F.5 and F.6.
          TABLE  49.  CONCENTRATION RANGES OF SPECIFIC ELEMENTS IN
            GRAIN  SORGHUM TISSUE COLLECTED FROM HANCOCK FARM

Element
Ca
K
Na
Fe
As
Ba
Cd
Cr
N
P
Stalk
(mg/g)
4,500-7,500
12,000-28,000
175-1 ,100
200-600
<.5-1 .1
7.5-17.0
0.06-0.46
0.8-2.4
2,500-12,000
650-1,200
Seed
(mg/g)
170-1,200
2,000-6,000
50-200
4-115
<. 5-1.0
2.0-3.0
<.05-0.3
<.5-1.3
11,000-17,000
2,400-2,900

Gray Farm
Yields-
     Crop analysis  and comparison for the Gray farm was complicated by a
change in ownership  and management which caused a complete change  in  crop-
ping  pattern in 1982  and  1983.  Cotton yields  prior to 1982 equaled or
exceeded irrigated Lubbock County  yield averages of 434  to 457  kg/ha in
                                  256

-------
1980 and  1981,  respectively.   A  summary  of  yields  from the Gray farm (1982
and 1983)  are  presented  in  Table  50.
      TABLE 50.   CROP YIELDS  OBTAINED  FROM  GRAY  FARM  IN 1982 AND 1983
                                  (KG/HA)

1982
Location***
1
2
3
4
5
6
10
11





Crop
Soybeans
Soybeans
Soybeans
Alfalfa**
Al f al fa
Alfalfa
Alfalfa
Alfalfa





Yield
3387
2325
2512
1312
1912
1575
1837
1688





1983
Location***
1
15
16
5
8E
13
14
7E
11W
4
12
10W
10E
Crop
Wheat*
Wheat
Wheat
Alfalfa**
Alfalfa
Alfalfa
Alfalfa
Alfalfa
Alfalfa
Alfalfa
Alfalfa
Alfalfa
Alfalfa
Yield
1884
1786
737
1790
2005
1290
2140
1965
1765
2040
2064
1430
1779

  * Fall sampling of vegetative  growth  —  wheat  used only for grazing
    (no grain harvested)
 ** This was one cutting  of alfalfa —  in  1982 there were two cuttings and
    in 1983, three to four cuttings.
*** Locations correspond  to cropping areas delineated  in Figure 35.
    Alfalfa yieldsin1982 (establishment year) ranged  from  1.8 to  2.7  met-
ric tons/ha (2 to 3.0 tons/ac)  which was  relatively low compared  to a nor-
mal range of 5.4 to 7.0 metric tons/ha.  The  yield  reduction was  partially
due to  1)  delays  in watering,  thereby  delaying regrowth; 2) poor stand
establishment; and 3) weed competition.  Weed competition also affected the
quality  of the hay  harvested;  thus lowering the crop's marketability.  In
addition, some fields were left  with excessive growth  in the fall to.pro-
                                  257

-------
vide pasture  for cattle.  This practice produced two detrimental effects:
1) a loss of one cutting of alfalfa, and 2)  grazed areas could not be
watered  because of high probability of crown damage to  the alfalfa plants
resulting from  cattle mashing the crowns into wet soils.   In the winter of
1982, the farm  grazed approximately 3,000 head of mixed breed calves weigh-
ing from 159 to 318  kg  (350 to 700 Ib) .
     Soybeans  were  planted  three  rows per  bed with a  Tye® grain drill.
Variations in stand  may have  been due to salts or planting when field con-
ditions  were  less  than  optimal.  Soybean yields averaged 2494 kg/ha  (37
bu/ac).   Wheat  yields from the Gray farm were difficult to determine since
no grain  harvest was  planned and forage harvest was accomplished by graz-
ing .
     1983 alfalfa  yields on the Gray farm were again reduced by delays in
watering which  reduced  the number of cuttings (see discussion on Farm Oper-
ations).   Normally, five  to seven cutting of alfalfa are expected in  the
Lubbock  area (Texas  A & M Extension Service).  The Gray farm produced three
to four  cuttings.   Alfalfa yields were slightly improved  over 1982 values;
however, this was due  to  1982 being  the seeding  and crop  establishment
year.
Crop Quality—
     Crop analysis  for 1981 was  almost all  cotton with one milo and  one
wheat sample collected.   In 1983 three wheat and eight, alfalfa samples were
obtained from the farm  for analysis.  The results of the  elemental analysis
of crop  samples are  presented in Tables F.7 and F.8.  The  data was for only
a single  year; therefore  any  comparisons over  time could not be accom-
plished.  Comparisons were made between specific  elements  in crop tissue
obtained  from  the Gray farm  to normal concentration values cited in liter-
ature and levels measured in  crop tissue from  similar crops grown on the
Hancock  farm.
     Cotton—In 1981  cotton tissue,  the K, Na, Ca and Ba accumulated more
in the  stalk  than  in  the  seed and N, P,  and Cd were at  higher concentra-
tions in the seed.   This  trend was similar to the distribution of elements
in cotton tissue collected  from the  Hancock farm.  Certain trace metals
                                  258

-------
(Cr, As  and  Pb)  were  below detection limits (less than 0.5 mg/g).  In cot-
ton produced  on  the  Gray  farm more  Cu was measured in the seed than in  the
stalk.   Large differences existed in Na and Ca concentrations in the crop
obtained  from the Gray and Hancock  farms.  Higher Na uptake by crops at  the
Hancock farm  may have  resulted  from a reduction in soil water availability.
As soil moisture decreases, the concentrations  of salts  in soil solution
increase  and  more salts are transported  into the plant.  With irrigation,  a
higher percent available  water  may  be present in the soil profile and  salts
in the soil  .solution  are diluted.  Soil analysis of the Gray farm shows it
to be higher  in  salts.  Salt data,  however,  was computed  on a dry weight
basis; therefore did not  show  the effect of higher or lower water avail-
ability on soil  solution  concentration.  A comparison of data to  some nor-
mal  values outlined  in A & L  Labs Soil and Tissue Handbook indicated  the
only elements not within  a range of 50 percent of the average values to  the
average  levels  cited  in  the A  & L  Handbook were Ca at the Gray farm and Na
in the Hancock cotton.
     Milo, Wheat, and Alfalfa—When the single milo and wheat samples were
compared to  normal  levels (as  specified by the A & L Handbook) the only
major difference was the-high  concentrations of Ca in the  crop tissue.  In
1983,  alfalfa  tissue contained Na at higher levels  than normal  cited
values.  Despite higher concentrations  of  Na  and Ca  in  the crop  tissue,
potential toxic   trace  metals   did not  appear  to accumulate  in the crop
tissue.

ECONOMICS
     The  economics attributable to the  Hancock farm portion of the Lubbock
Land Treatment System can be divided  into construction  costs, operational
costs and revenues.   An economic analysis was conducted to determine the
costs and revenues accrued by  the City,  landowner, and tenant farmers.
Construction Costs
     The Hancock farm portion  of the  Lubbock Land Treatment  System was con-
structed, excluding land acquisition  cost,  with monies  from EPA (88 per-

                                   259

-------
cent),  the  City  of Lubbock (10 percent),  and the Lubbock  Christian  College
Investment  Corporation (LCCIC)(two percent).  The Hancock farm  system was
built  on private farm land (1478 ha)  leased to  the  LCCIC.  Table  G.2 gives
the  construction costs including  engineering fees  and  construction
contracts.   The land acquisition cost was the  actual 1978  purchase price
of the  land.   The  construction  cost was  $6,421,071.78  and  the  land
purchase price  $1,460,000.00 ($988/ha  or $400/ac)  for  a system total of
$7,881,071.78.   The main categories of money expenditure  (>$400,000)  were
engine-ering  design ($405,607), pump station  and  force  main construction
($2,658,554),  reservoir construction  including  pumps  ($1,691,209),  and
farm distribution system  including  pivots and distribution  pipeline
($1,433,801).
    Two possible  scenarios  will be  presented in  this portion  of  the
report.  Scenario. 1 will consider the system  construction costs being
borne by the  municipality and land cost will be  paid  by a private institu-
tion.  The  second scenario will assume the municipality paid  for construc-
tion and land costs.  Construction and land cost were amortized over  a 20
year period  at an interest rate of 10  percent.   The  situation' proposed  in
scenario 1  would  result  in  the annual  cost  to the City for  system  con-
struction of  $754,219.08/yr-  With scenario 2  the  annual capital cost
would increase by $925,710.68/yr.
    The Hancock  farm received 4,128,213 m3 (11 x 108  gal) of effluent  from
February through  December  1982 and  3,744,393 m3  (10  x 108 gal)  from
January  through October 1983.   Assuming that  the   City could have main-
tained  those   flows for a  12 month period,  the 1982 flow would have  been
4,503,505  m3/yr (12 x  108 gal/yr)  and  the 1983  flow  would have been
4,493,271 m3/yr (12 x 108 gal/yr).   Based on scenario 1  the  1982 and  1983
amortized cost for system construction per 1,000 units of effluent  pumped
to the  Hancock  farm would have been  $167/1000 m3/yr  ($0.63/1000 gal).   If
the City did  purchase the land, then  the  amortized construction  cost  per
1000 units  of effluent pumped would  have  been $205/1000  m3/yr  ($0.78/1000
gal)/yr). Federal cost sharing is 85  percent for innovative  and  alterna-
tive technology.   Therefore,  1983  amortized  construction costs to the
municipality in scenario  1  would have  been  $25/1000  m3/yr  ($0.10/1000

                                 260

-------
gal/yr).   With  cost  sharing, annual construction and  land  cost  would have
been about  $31/1000  m3/yr ($0.12/1000 gal/yr).  Land  acquisition affected
the amortized  capital cost by approximately 24 percent.
Operational  Costs
    The City's operational cost were associated with providing electricity
to pump motors,  maintenance of pump station and force  main,  and  treatment
of wastewater transported  to the Hancock farm.  LCCIC  was financially
responsible  for  maintenance  of the reservoirs,  reservoir  pump  stations,
distribution  lines  and  building site modifications.  The  tenant  farmers
paid for maintenance  of the pivots, electricity for the pivots  including
booster  pumps,  electricity for the reservoir pumps and  farming  costs such
as tractor maintenance, fuel, seed, hired labor,  and  equipment  expendi-
tures.   In  addition,  the tenant farmers paid Standefer and Gray, Inc. a
service charge of  $51.87/ha/yr  ($21/ac/yr)  for  land  irrigated  with the
City's  effluent water.   The farmers'  rent to LCCIC was  one-third of their
gross crop yield.
    The  1982  and  1983 operational costs expended by  the City and  associ-
ated with the  farm are  in  Table G.3.  Table G.4 gives  the farm operational
cost  for the  baseline period (1980 through 1981) during  which no waste-
water was pumped to the Hancock farm.
    The  1982  and  1983 Hancock system operational costs were $641,945.03
and $625,268.90, respectively.  Based upon the farm receiving 4,128,213 m3
(10.9  x  108  gal)  in 1982 and 4,493,272 m3  (11.9 x 108) in  1983,  the
system's operation  and  maintenance  (0 &  M)  cost  was   $156/1000 m-5
($0.59/1000 gal)   in 1982 and $139/1000 m3 ($0.53/1000  gal) in  1983.  The
City's  portion of the  0 & M cost was $71/1000 m3 ($0.27/1000 gal)  in 1982
and $58/1000 m3 ($0.22/1000 gal) in 1983.  The farm's  portion of the 0 & M
cost  in  1982  was  $84/1000 m3 ($0.32/1000 gal) and $81/1000  m3 ($0.31/1000
gal) in 1983.   Table  51 indicates  that the  0  &  M costs for the  Hancock
system  were in the  range normally  experienced  by  slow  rate  systems of
comparable size (EPA  1980).  The  City's expenses showed an increase in
operations cost of $31,846.19 in 1983 while the farmers  had  an operational
cost increase  of $15,170.06.  The farmers operational  cost  increase  from
1982  to  1983  was  due  to .an $18,548 increase  in seed, fertilizer and
                                 261

-------
        TABLE 51.  0 & M COSTS OF LAND  TREATMENT  SITES (EPA, 1982)
                     Preapplication
                    Treatment 0 & M
                          Costs*
                    Landtreatment
                     0  &  M  Costs*
Total Treatment
  0 & M Costs*
16 Sites

Cost/1000 m3
Mean
Standard Deviation
Cost/1000 gal
Mean
Standard Deviation

$13-361
132
85

$0.05-1 .37
0.50
0.32

$0.6-165
22
24

$0.002-0.62
0.08
0.09

$67-525
157
125

$0.25-1.99
0.59
0.47
Above costs based on:
Flow m-Vs
  Mean
Standard Deviation
0.0022-0.3505
    0.056
    0.09
Flow MGD   .           0.05-8.0
   Mean                  1.28
Standard Deviation       2.05
bCost reflects fourth quarter 1983 dollars
                                   262

-------
chemicals  and a  $37,505 increase  in  irrigation expenses, primarily
electricity.   The irrigation expense  increase was  offset by $45,053
decrease  in  farm  improvements.  Improvement  costs occurred from materials
or labor  put  into  the  operation and  improvement of  the  Hancock system
other than  routine farm operating expenditures.  The 1982 match included
terracing the fields  for runoff  control,  existing  roads improvement,
installation of roads  to the pivot control  boxes at the center  of the
pivots,  removal  of abandoned farm houses to  enable pivots  to make a  full
circle,  repair  of pivots after two consecutive  tornadoes,  installation of
sprinkler drags, conversion of automatic end  gun  valves to.manual valves,
repositioning of pivot  flow meters,  replacement of inline screens  at the
pivot inlets,  and  removal of abandoned  wells.   The 1983  match included
field terracing,  maintenance of reservoir dikes, abandoned farm  house
removal,  screen  replacement, and installation of  thrust blocks under  each
pivot booster pump.  The 1980 and 1981  farm operational cost (Table G.4)
were within  $14,000 of each other, with the  average being $221 ,336 .62/yr .
Comparison  of the average baseline system operational cost (Table  G.4)  to
the post baseline  system, operational cost (Table  G.3) shows an increase in
system  operational cost  of $420,608.41  for  1982  and $403,932.28 for  1983.
Since the operational  cost categories reflecting routine  farming (i.e.,
interest,  depreciation, repairs, tires,  oil, gas,  seed,  fertilizer,
chemicals and labor) were approximately the  same  from  1980 through  1983,
the  increase was primarily  due to initiation  of wastewater flow  to the
Hancock  farm.
    The  farming  expenses  are shown in  detail  in  Tables G.5 and G.6  for the
baseline period  and irrigation period,  respectively.   There was a  great
deal of  variability between  farmers  in the  expenses reported and  total
farming  expense  per acre.  Part of the variability was due to the farmers
having  different ages  of equipment  and thus  operational costs; planting
various  quantities of  crops which differed in production costs; uniqueness
of individual  farmers  in  their effort  at farming; farmers farming the same
crop in  different  manners; method by which the  farmers  kept their finan-
cial records;  and  one  portion of the farm receiving natural disasters that
the rest of  the  farm did  not.  The expense data is not  reported in  finer
detail  (i.e,  repairs,  gas,  oil, seed,  chemicals, labor, depreciation,
                                 263

-------
electricity,  etc.) because of the high degree of variability in which this
data was received.   Most of this information was taken from checkbooks and
income  tax  records; therefore, the record keeping systems for each farm
operator  were inherently different.   For  this  reason, many  of  the
financial  categories requested from the farmers were combined (Figure 15).
Even with  these larger accumulations of the data base, (Tables  G.5  to G.6)
comparisons  should  only be made from year to year,  or baseline to  irriga-
tion, for  a  specific farmer and  not  between  farmers.  Nonetheless,  the
tables  substantiate the increase in farm operational  cost  (Table G.6)  due
to initiation of  irrigation.   Of  the over $400,000 increase in  system
operation,  approximately $107,190 (26 percent)  of the  increase was born
solely by  the tenant farmers;  $28,859 (seven percent)  by  the landowner  and
LCCIC; and $276,221  (67 percent)  by the City.  As previously mentioned,  the
City's operational expenses were accrued from the maintenance of the pump
station at  the  city and  pipeline to  the Hancock  farm; treatment of the
sewerage prior to its being pumped to the farm;  and cost  of electricity
for  the pumps at the pump station.  Of the City's $276,221 (67 percent)
average 1982-1983 increase in system operation, $266,098  (64 percent)  was
for treatment of  the sewerage; and $9,758 (three percent) was for mainten-
ance and electricity.
    During 1982 the  City paid  $291,778.00 (45  percent)  of the new system's
operational  expenses and $259,931.81  (42 percent)  in 1983.   Based upon  the
farm  receiving  4,128,213 m3 (10.9 x  108 gal) of effluent  in 1982  and
4,493,272 m3 (11.9 x 108 gal) in 1983, the City's  portion of  operational
cost for the  Land Application  System expansion was $71/1000 m3  ($0.27/1000
gal)  and  $58/1000  m3 ($0.22/1000 gal)  in 1982 and  1983,  respectively.
Negating the  treatment  of the sewerage going  to the Hancock farm,  the
City's  increase  in operational expenses, due to  initiating  the  Hancock
system, was  approximately $2/1000 m3/yr ($0.01/1000 gal/yr)  of effluent
pumped to  the farm.   If  the  Hancock system  was owned by  the City  and
operated  under  a tenant  farmer arrangement, the City's operational cost
would  have  increased  by approximately  $28,145/yr  ($6/1000  m3/yr  or
$0.02/1000 gal/yr)  for an average total of $304,000/yr ($68/1000 m3/yr or
$0.26/1000 gal/yr).  The  increase  in  City operational cost due  to  farm
ownership  possibly may have been offset by farm revenues.
                                 264

-------
Farming  Revenues
     Revenue is  the money obtained through the sale of crops  or  government
 farm programs.   Government  farm programs are programs in which the  farmer
 is paid  for  not growing  a crop (i.e.,  payment in kind,  PIK) , a support
 price for his  yield if  the  market value falls below the guaranteed  price,
 and  partial  payment  for lost yield due to disaster (i.e.,  flooding, hail,
 early freeze, and drought).   For  a privately  owned and operated land
 treatment  system, farm  revenues  must offset  annual construction  and
 operational costs.  Table 52 gives the 1980-1983  revenues for the  Hancock
 farm and the  distribution of those  revenues  between the  landowner and
 tenant  farmer.   A  common farm rental rate paid to land owners for a  south-
 west Texas farm is  one-third of the  gross yield,  including  government
 programs.  The land owner pays  land  payments  and  taxes out of his one-
 third  and  the tenant  farmer pays  all  farming costs,  except  major land
 improvement programs.  Gross revenue data  (Table 52) shows a definite
 increase in  crop revenue  and government support for the farm through the
 project period 1980-1983.   From 1980 through 1983  the gross  farm  revenue
 ranged  from. $367,605  to $815,672 with government  support  ranging from 27
 percent of the total  in 1980 to 34 percent in 1982.  The 1981 gross farm
 revenue  ($440,521)  was nearly the  same as the  1982 gross farm revenue
 ($453,322).  The Hancock farm was a dryland farm  with little  or  no  ground
 water for irrigation  prior  to 1982.  In 1980 cotton and grain sorghum were
 raised  utilizing rainfall and any available irrigation water.  In 1981  all
 of the  irrigation  wells were pulled as part of the  construction  effort and
 there was a drought causing the farm to be designated part  of the disaster
 area.   Effluent water was not available for  irrigation until February
 1982; but torrential  rains  and hail in late spring  made it impossible to
 raise  a  cotton  crop and  alternative crops were replanted.  The farm was
 again stipulated as part of the disaster area.  Finally, 1983 was  a good
 year with  the arrival of  irrigation water, no natural disasters, and the
 existence of  the PIK  program.  Consequently, the  steady increase in  gross
 farm revenue  was due  to  a combination of economic variability among the
 tenant  farmers,  inflation,  disaster payments, government support, alterna-
 tive cropping  and  a good year in 1983.  Obviously,  crop market price has a
 major affect  on  revenue.  Cotton prices were $1.51/kg ($0.685/lb) in 1980,
                                 265

-------
$1.02/kg  ($0.465/lb) in 1981, $1.13/kg ($0.513/lb)  in  1982,  and $1.31/kg
($0.593/lb)  in  1983.
                    TABLE 52.  HANCOCK FARM REVENUES

Year
1980
1981
1982
1983
Revenues
Crop Government
Revenue Support
$268,307 $ 99,298 (27%
293,065 147,456 (33?^
299,258 154,064 (34?o
583,342 234,330 (28%
Total
Revenue
)* $367,605
) 440,521
) 453,322
) 815,672
Revenue Distribution
Owner Tenant
1/3 2/3
$122
146
151
271
,535
,841
,107
,891
$245
293
302
543
,070
,681
,215
,781

*Government  Support to Farmers as Percent  of  Total  Revenue
     Table  53  is a summary of the gross income of  the individual  tenant
farmers 'by  year-   Table G.7  gives a more  detailed examination of the
tenant farmers' gross income by delineating  sources of revenue.   The  data
show  that  not only the farm as a whole,  but  also each tenant  farmer had a
definite  increase in  gross  income  throughout the project (1980-1983).
Again, the  high  variability  in gross  income between farmers exists for
many of the  same reasons as the variability in operational  cost  of the
individual  farmers, such as variation  in crops, uniqueness of individuals
in farming  effort, variation in amounts of applied  water,  fertilizer,
rainfall,  hail,  pests,  inflation, and  means by which records were kept.
Records on  farm revenue are usually  more accurate than  records  on  farm
operational  costs because the cotton gins and grain elevators  keep records
of how much  each farmer produced and how  much he was paid for  his  produc-
tion.  Government support accounted for  approximately 26 to 40 percent of
the farmers' total farm revenue  in  1980, 1981, and 1982.   From  1982 to
1983 the  crop  revenue more than doubled ($199,505.40 to $543,781.55) while
government  support (PIK) decreased by half ($102,709.56  to $49,239.65).
The federal payments (PIK)  in 1983  represented  only 8.5 percent of the
farm's total gross income. The gross cotton  revenue from the Hancock  farm
is compared to  the gross  cotton revenue for Lubbock County  in Table 54.
                                 266

-------
                 TABLE 53.   SUMMARY OF GROSS INCOME OE TENANTS

Earmer A
Earmer 3
Earmer C
•Farmer D
Farmer E
Earmer F
Earmer G
Farmer H
Earmer I
Earmer 3
Earmer K

1980
$110.97
69.67
64.39
68.41
57.61
49.71
67.17
98.10
43.40
151 .07
63.47
Total Gross
1981
$123.80
98.16
86.07
96.20
94.91
80.92
'97.70
107.03
79.83
Left
Left
per Acre
1982
$154.94
125.47
109.29
Left
116.57
102.37
130.00
143.01
146.22
Left
Left

1983
$207.57
188.97
196.60
Left
216.92
302.33
213.38
158.97
254.27
Left
Left

*Total/acre x 2.47  = Total/hectare
 Left = Farmer no longer farmed on Hancock farm
    TABLE 54.   LUBBOCK COUNTY,  TEXAS GROSS COTTON REVENUE vs. HANCOCK FARM

                              Lubbock County             Hancock Farm

1980 Dryland              $206.96/ha ($83.79/ac)       $207.58/ha ($84.04/ac)
1981 Dryland              $335.44/ha ($135.85/ac)     $224.05/ha ($90.70/ac)
1982 Irrigated            $249.77/ha ($101.12/ac)           No Cotton
1983 Irrigated            $453.13/ha ($183.69/ac)     $571 .77/ha ($231.48/ac)
*Lubbock County data from personal communication with Jackie Smith,
 Texas A & M Extension Service, Lubbock, Texas.
                                   267

-------
1983 was  the only year  in which  the farmers  were not hailed out. This
factor,  in conjunction  with  availability of-effluent  water  for  irrigation,
produced  more revenue  per hectare  from the Hancock  farm ($571.77/ha or
$231 .49/ac)  than  the  Lubbock  County average ($453.13/ha or .$183.69/ac).
Net Costs
    A positive cost  benefit  relationship should exist between  the cost of
construction and  operation  of the land treatment system and the benefit to
the owner or operator of  the land treatment site.   The financial balance
sheet for  the Hancock farm  portion of  the Lubbock Land Treatment  System
and the  Hancock farm  as a separate entity is shown -in Table 55.  The table
shows that the Hancock  system had a negative net balance of $702,661.81  to
$1,103,687.57 each  year of  the project.  The system net cost per 1000 m3
of effluent pumped  to  the Hancock  farm was $267.35/1000 m3 ($1.00/1000
gal) in 1982 and $161.28/1000 m3 ($0.61/1000 gal) in 1983.  The reduction
in system  cost in 1983  was  primarily due to the increase in revenues.
    In  the Lubbock land treatment situation, the Hancock farm was private-
ly owned utilizing tenant farmers.  The balance sheet for the Hancock farm
(Table  55) shows  the  farm had  a -$10,751.88, +$48,603.64, -$60,644.59, and
+$286,535.24 balance  in years 1980-1983, respectively.  The tenant farmers
as a group  and  the  land owner should have made a net profit in 1981 and
1983, but  by comparing  the gross farm  revenue distribution (Table  52)  to.
the  farm  operational cost  (Tables G.3 and G.4), it appeared that the farm
owner could  not make  land payment by $41,265.  in 1980,  $16,959 in  1981,
and $45,063 in 1982; but gained $84,171 in 1983. Therefore, the landowner
has experienced a four  year  net loss of $19,116.  Using the same tables as
for the owners  net  income, it is evident that  the tenant farmers as a
group netted $30,514  in 1980,  $65,564  in 1981, and $202,364 in 1933;  but
lost $15,584 in  1982.   The farmer's operational  cost did  not include
living  expenses;  consequently, the four year average  farm net was $70,715.
If each of  nine  tenants received an equal share of the profit (which does
not occur),  then  each tenant  would  have received $7,857/year for  their
families to  live  on.
    A comparison of the shift  in  tenant farmers income between pre- and
post- irrigation  periods  is  given in Table 56.  The table shows in general
that the  years the farmers  had irrigation water (1982 and 1983) they made
                                   268

-------
                                              Table 55

                                           Balance  Sheet
 Total Hancock System
ON
MD
(c)
(d)

(a)
(b)

)
\
D
1980
Cost/yr Construction $751,265.00
Land Acquisition 163,800.00
Cost Operational - City -0-
Cost Operational - Farm 214,555.88
Total Cost 1,129,620.90
Revenues 367,604.91
Balance $(-)762 ,01 5.97
Net Cost/1000 gal Treated
1981 1982
$751,265.00 $751,265.00
163,800.00 163,800.00
-0- 291,778.00
228,117.36 350,167.03
1,143,182.40 1,587,010.03
440,521.55' 453,322.44
$(-)702,660.81 $(-)l03,687.59
$1 .00
1983
$751 ,265.00
163,800.00
259,932.81
365,337.09
1,540,334.90
815,672.33
$(-)724,662.57
$0.61
Hancock Farm
Land Acquisition
Operational - Farm
Total
Revenue

$163,800.00
214,555.88
378,355.88
367,604.00

$163,800.00
228,117.36
391 ,917.36
440,521 .00

$163,800.00
350,167.03
513,967.03
453,322.44

$163,800.00
365,337.09
529,137.09
815,672.33
       Balance
$(-) 10,751.88    $(+)  48,603.64   $(-)  60,644.59   $(+)286,535.24

-------
                                 Table 56

                   Comparisons of Shift in Farmers' Income
                       Pre-effluent to Post-effluent

Farmer A
Farmer B
Farmer C
Farmer D
Farmer E
Farmer F
Farmer G
Farmer H
Farmer I
1980 + 1981
Net Average
$ Income/ acre*
-5.22
+2.82
-0.59
-9.83
-0.96
-9.01
+15-. 72
+42.30
+25.58
1982 + 1983
Net Average
$ Income/ acre*
+ 66.58
+ 56.57
+ 0.32
	
+ 21 .40
+105.20
+ 15.34
- 44.79
+ 89.05
Pre to Post
Irrigation
$ Net/ acre/ yr*
+ 71.37
+ 59.39
+ 1.22
	
+ 22.36
+114.21
+ 9.63
+ 2.49
+ 63.48
*$/acre x 2.17 = $/hectare
                                270

-------
more net  income  per hectare than the baseline period (1980  and  1981)  when
there was  no  effluent  water applied.  All of  the  farmers had  a positive
four year  average net  income primarily due to the  income received  in  1983.
The tenant farmer's net  income  is given in further detail in Table G.8.
    Scenarios  for city  funding the Hancock extension of the Lubbock Land
Treatment  System  are given  in Table 57.  Option 4, where'the City  paid  for
approximately 15 percent of  the  construction  cost,  and  pays  for  the
treatment  and pumping  of the wastewater to a private farm was  in  reality
the  case  of  the  Hancock site.  Under this situation the City  would have
had costs of $112,690, $112,690,  $404,468  and  $372,623  in  1980-1984,
respectively. The City's cost per 1000 ITK pumped to the Hancock  site  would
have been $98 ($0.361/1000 gal)  and $83 ($0.31/1000 gal)  for 1982  and
1983,  respectively.   The only  scenario  in  which the  City  would have
covered its cost  and made money was Option  2  where the  City  would have
constructed the facilities  on land bought by the City under  a construction
grants program (15 percent  City match) and operated the s'ystem  using City
personnel.  Under this  situation, they would have netted $15,789  in  1980,
$75,144 in 1981,  and $2,541 in  1983.  Only in 1982 would  they  have had a
deficit ($492,551).  An  option  not shown is where  an individual  construct-
ed the land treatment   system on privately  owned  land and  the  City paid
for  treatment and pumping cost  of the wastewater to the site.   Under such
a situation,  the  deficits to the private  individual would  be  similar to
those  of  the City in Option  1.  This option would not be  feasible  for a
large system  such as Lubbock's  because the economic deficit  ($750,000/yr)
would be prohibitive for the first 20 years.
                                  271

-------
                                          Table 57
                          City's Net  Cost  in  Variations in Funding
                     Hancock  Extension  of  Lubbock Land Treatment System

Option 1

Option 2

Option 3

Option 4


$/yr
$/1000 m3
$/yr
$/1000 m3
$/yr
$71000 m3
$/yr
S/1000 m3
1980
-762,016

+ 15,789

- 15,950

-112,690

1981
- 702,661

+ 75,144

+ 8,112

-112,690

1982
-1,103,688
-267(1 .00)*
-492,551
-119(0.45)
-279,441
-67(0.25)
-404,468
-98(0.36)
1983
4724,662.5]
-161($0.60)»
+2,541
+0-56(0.00)
-128,021
-28(0.11)
-372,623
-83(0.31)
*(    )   = $71000 gal

Option 1 = City constructs .and operates Hancock site, "no  matching fund

Option 2 = City constructs Hancock site with matching  funds (15%) and operates
           system

Option 3 = City constructs Hancock site with matching  funds (15%) on City owned
           land farmed by tenant farmers

Option 4 = City constructs Hancock site with matching  funds (15%) on privately
           owned land operated by landowner or tenant  farmers
                                    272

-------
                                REFERENCES

     Alexander,  M.   Introduction to  Soil  Microbiology.
     Sons,  Inc.,  New York.   472  pp.
John Wiley and
     Anderson,  M.R.   A  case  study  of soil  phosphorus  and  heavy metals  due
     to  extended  effluent  irritation. In:  State of Knowledge in Land Treat-
     ment  of  Wastewater, Vol.  2.   U.S.  Army  Corps of  Engineers, CRREL
     Hanover,  New Hampshire.   1978.   pp.  301.

     Bausum,  T.T.,  Schaub,  5.A., and Kenyon,  K.F. Viral  and  bacterial  aero-
     sols  at  a wastewater  spray  irrigation site.   Technical  Report  7804.
     L).  S.  Army Medical  Bioengineering  Research Laboratory,  Fort  Deterck,
      Federick, Maryland.   1976.

     Bell,  A.E.,  and  Morrison,  S.   Analytical  Study of the Ogallala Aquifer
     in  Lynn  and  Garza  Counties, Texas.   Report 223.   Texas  Department  of
     Water  Resources.   Austin,  Texas.  1978.

     Black, C.A.  (ed).   Methods  of Soil  Analysis.  American  Society of
     Agronomy,  Inc.,  Publisher.  Madison,  Wisconsin.   1965.

     Bole,  3.B.,  Carefoot,  J.M., Chang,  C.,  and Oosterveld,  M.  Effect  of
     Wastewater Irrigation  and  Leaching  Percentage on Soil and Ground-water
     chemistry.   In;  3.  Environ. Quality.   Vol. 10, No.  2.   1981.   pp.
     pp. 177.

     Bouwer,  Herman,  Groundwater Hydrology,  McGraw-Hill  Book Company,  New
     York.  1978.   p.^^K
 8.   Brakensiek,  D.L.,  Osborn,  H.B.,  and  Rawls,  W.3.,  Field  Manual  for
     Research  in  Agricultural  Hydrology,  Agriculture  Handbook  No. 224.
     USDA.   1977.   p.459.

 9.   Bremner,  J.M.   Nitrogenous Compounds.   In:   LcLaren,  A.D.  and  G.H.
     Peterson,  eds.  Soil  Biochemistry.   Marcel  Dekker,  Inc.,  New York.
     1967.   pp. 19-66.

10.   Brown,  K.W., The  fate  of  sewage  effluent  heavy metals  in  land  treat-
     ment disposal  sites.   In:   State of  Knowledge  in  Land  Treatment  of
     Wastewater,  Vol.  2.   U.S.  Army Corps of Engineers,  CRREL,  Hanover,  New
     Hampshire.   1978.   pp.  301.

11.   Campbell,  C.A.  Soil  organic  carbon, nitrogen  and fertility.   In:
     M.  Schnitzer and  S.U.  Khan.   Organic Matter.   Elsevier  Scientific
      Publ.  Co.,  New York.   1978.  pp. 173.

12.   Chang,  A.C.  and Page  A.L.   Toxic Chemicals  Associated  with Land  Treat-
     ment of Wastewater-   International Symposium,  State of  Knowledge in
     Land Treatment  of Wastewater.  Vol.  1.  U.S.  Army Corp  of Engineers,
     Cold Regions Research  and  Engineering Laboratory, Hanover, New Hamp-
     shire.  1978.   pp. 47.

                                  273

-------
13.  Chow, V.T.  An Introduction to Systems Analysis of Hydrological
     Problems.  In:  Systems Analysis of Hydrologic Problems.   Proceedings
     of the Second International Seminar for Hydrology Professors.  Utah
     Water Research Laboratory.  Logan, Utah.  1970.

14.  Christensen,  M.H. and Harremoes, P-  Nitrification and denitrification
     in wastewater treatment.  In:  Water Pollution Microbiology.  Vol. 2.
     Wiley-Interscience, New York.  R. Mitchell (ed.).  1978.   pp. 391.

15.  Christman, R.F., Driver, C.H., Hrutfiord, Spyridakin, D.E., Welch,
     E.B., and Wooldridge, D.O.  Assessment of the Effectiveness and
     Effects of Land Disposal Methodologies of Wastewater Management.
     Dept. of the  Army,  Corps of Engineers, DACW73-73-C-0041 , 42, and 43.
     1972.

16.  Davidson, J.M., Rao,  P.S.C., Ou, L.T., Wheeler, W.B., and  Rothwell,
     D.R..  Adsorption,  Movement, and Biological Degradation of Large
     Concentrations of Selected Pesticides in Soils.  EPA-600/2-80-124.
      MERL, Cincinnati,  Ohio.  1980.

17.  Deemer, D.D.   Land  application methods of wastewater treatment.
     Proceedings of a Symposium on Land Treatment of Waste Effluents,
     University of Maryland.  1978.  p. 141.

18.  Doorenbos, J. and Pruitt,  W.O.  Guidelines for predicting  crop water
     requirements.  Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
     Rome.  1977-

19.  Dunlop, S.G.   Survival of Pathogens and Related Disease Hazards.  Pro-
     ceedings of the Symposium on Municipal Sewage.  Effluent for Irriga-
     tion.  Louisiana Polytechnic Institution.  1968.

20.  Enfield, C.G. and Ellis, R., Jr.  The Movement of Phosphorus in  Soil.
     Chemical Mobility and Reactivity in Soil Systems.  SSSA, Madison,
     Wisconsin.  1983.  pp. 93.

21 .  EPA.   Process Design  Manual for Land Treatment of Municipal Waste-
     water.  EPA 625/1-81-013,  U.S. EPA Center for Environmental Research
     Information,  Cincinnati, Ohio.  1981.

22.  EPA.   Operation and Maintenance Considerations for Land Treatment
     Systems.  EPA 600/2-82-039, U.S. EPA Center for Environmental Research
     Information,  Cincinnati, Ohio.  1982.

23.  Feiler, H.  Fate of priority pollutants in publicly owned  treatment
     works.  EPA 440/1-79-300,   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
     Washington, D.C.  1979.

24.  Ferrara, R.A. and AVci, C.B.  Nitrogen dynamics in waste stabilizations.
     J. Water Pollution  Control Federation. Vol. 54, No. 4.  1982.' pp. 361.

                                  274

-------
25.   Ferrara,  R.A.  and Harleman, D.R.F.  "A Dynamic Nutrient Cycle Model
     for Waste Stabilization Ponds."  Tech.  Report No. 237, R.M. Parsons
     Laboratory for Water Resources and Hydrodynamics, Massachusetts
     Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts.  1978.

26.   Gerba,  C.P., Wallis, C., and Melnick, J.L.  Fate of Wastewater Bac-
     teria and Viruses in Soil.  Journal of the Irrigation and Drainage
     Division, ASCE 101(IR3) : 157-174.  1975.

27.   Ground  Water and Wells.  Published by Johnson Division, VOP, Inc.
     Saint Paul, Minnesota.  1966.   210 pp.

28.   Hausenbuiller, R.L.  Soil Science - Principal and Practices.  Wm. C.
     Brown Co., Publishers.  Dubuque, Iowa.  1972.  504 pp.

29.   Hinsely,  T.D., Thomas, R.E., and Stevens, R.G.  Environmental Changes
     from Long-term Land Application of Municipal Effluents.  U.S. EPA
     MCD-26, Washington, D.C.  1978.  p. 32.

30.   Holford,  I.C.R. and Mattingly, G.E.  The high- and low- energy
     phosphate adsorbing surfaces in calcareous soils.  J. Soil Sc.,
     26:407-417,  1975.

31.   Hook, J.E. and Kardos, L.T.  Nitrate leaching during long-term spray
     irrigation of secondary sewage effluent on woodland sites.  J. Env.
     Qual.,  7:30-34.  1978.

32.   Hook, J.E., Kardos, L.T., and Sopper, W.E.  "Effect of Land Disposal
     of Wastewaters on Soil Phosphorus Relations".  In:  Recycling Treated
     Municipal Wastewater and Sludge through Forest and Cropland.  The
     Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park, Pennsylvania.
     1973.

33.   Hunt, P.G., Peters, R.E., Sturgis, T.C. and Lee, C.R.  Reliability
     problems with indicator organisms for monitoring overland flow treated
     wastewater effluent.  J. of Environ. Qual., Vol. 8.  1979.  pp. 301.

34.   Inter-American Labs.  Scientific Services for Agriculture.  1976.

35.   Iskandar, I.K., and Wright, E.A.  Land Treatment Research and Develop-
     ment Program;  Synthesis of Research Results.  CRREL Report 83-20.
     1983.

36.   Johnson,  D.E., Camann, D.E., Register, J.W., Thomas, R.E., Sorber,
     C.A., Guentzel, M.N., Taylor, J.M., and Harding, H.J.  The evaluation
     of microbiological aerosols associated with the application of waste-
     water to  land, Pleasanton, California.  Final Report, U.S. Army Medi-
     cal R & D.  Command and Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati,
      Ohio.   1978,  1979.  p. 482.
                                   275

-------
37.
38.
39.
Kowal, N.E.  An Overview of Public Health Effects.   In:   Utilization
of Municipal Wastewater and Sludge on Land.  University  of  California,
Riverside, California.  1983.  329 pp.
Loehr, R.C.
Approaches.
Agricultural Waste Management; Problems,  Processes,  and
Academic Press, New York and London.  1974.
Loehr, R.C., Jewell, W.J., Novak, J.D., Clarkson, W.W.,  Friedman, G.S.
Land Applications of Wastes.  Vols. 1 and 2-.  Van Nostrand  Reinhold,
New York.  1979.
40.  Lubbock Christian College Institute of Water Research.  Lubbock Land
     Treatment Research and Demonstration Project Environmental Assessment.
     Prepared by Sheaffer and Roland, Inc. and Engineering Enterprises,
     Inc.  1979.

41.  Majeti, V.A.  and Clark,  C.S.  Health Risks of Organics and Land Appli-
     cation.  In:   Journal of Environmental Engineering Division, Proceed-
     ings of the American Society of Civil Engineers, ASCE, Vol. 107, No.
     EE2.  1981.

42.  McNabb, J.F.., Dunlap, W.J.  and Keeley, J.W.  Nutrient, Bacterial and
     Virus Control as Related to Ground-water Contamination.  U.S. Environ-
     mental Protection Agency Report.  EPA 600/77-010.  1977.

43.  Mehran, J., Tanji, K.K.  and Iskandar, I.K.  Compartmental Modeling for
     Prediction of Nitrate Leaching Losses. Modeling Wastewater Renovation;
     Land Treatment.  Edited  by  I.K. Iskandar.  John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
     New York.  1981 .  444 pp.

44.  Metcalf, L. and Eddy, H.P.   Wastewater Engineering: Treatment, Dis-
     posal, Reuse.  2nd Ed.  George Tchabanoglous, ed.  McGraw-Hill, New
     York.  1979.   p. 920.

45.  Oldham, W.K.   Water Pollution Potential of Spray Irrigation by Using
     Secondary Effluent.  Environmental Protection Service, Economics and
     Technical Review Report  EPS 3-PR-76-1.  Ontario, Canada.  1975.

46.  Overcash, M.R.  Land Treatment of Municipal Effluent and Sludge:
     Specific Organic Compounds.  In:  Utilization of Municipal Waste-
     water and Sludge on Land.  University of California, Riverside,
     California.  199 pp.

47.  Page, A.L., Chang, A.C., Sposito,  and Mattigod, S.  Trace Element in
     Wastewater:  Their effects  on plant growth and composition and their
     behavior.in soils.  In:   Modeling Wastewater Renovation:  Land Treat-
     ment.  Edited by I. K. Iskandar.  John Wiley & Sons, Inc.  New York.
     182 pp.
                                  276

-------
47.  Page,  A.L., Chang, A.C., Sposito, and Mattigod, S.  Trace Element in
     Wastewater:  Their effects on plant growth and composition and- their
     behavior in soils.  In:  Modeling Wastewater Renovation:  Land Treat-
     ment.   Edited by I. K. Iskandar.  John Wiley & Sons, Inc.  New York.
     182 pp.

48.  Palazzo, A.J. and Jenkins, T.E.  Land application of Wastewater:
     Effect on Soil and Plant Potassium.  In:  J. Environ. Qual. Vol. 8,
     No. 3.  1979.

49.  Pano,  A. and Middlebrooks, E.J.  Ammonia nitrogen removal in facul-
     tative wastewater stabilization ponds.  J. Water Pollution Control
     Federation.  Vol. 54, No. 4.  1982.  344 pp.

50.  Pettygrove, G.S. and Asano, T. (ed).  Irrigation with Reclaimed
     Municipal Wastewater - A Guidance Manual.  Report No. 84-1 wr,
     California State Water Resources Control Board,  Sacramento.  1984.

51.  Potash Institute of America.  Plant food utilization.  PIA, Atlanta,
     Georgia.  1973.

52.  Pound, C.E., Griffes, D.A. and Crites, R.W.  Utilization of Municipal
     Wastewater and Sludge on Land.  University of California, Riverside.
     1983.   53 pp.

53.  Pratt, P.P., Biggar, J.W., Broadbent, F.E., Focht, D.D., Lund, L.J.
     and Tanji, K.K.  Nitrate in Effluents from Irrigated Lands.  Univer-
     sity of California.  Technical Report NSF-RA-770308.  National Techni-
     cal Information Service.  U.S. Department of Commerce.  Springfield,
     Virginia.  1977.

54.  Ruttner, E.  Fundamentals of Limnology.  3rd ed. University of Toronto
     Press, Toronto.  1963.  p. 295.

55.  Ryczak, R.S.  "A Review of Phosphorus Removal Technology."  Tech.
     Report No. 7706.  U.S. Army Medical Bioengineering Research and
     Development Laboratory, Fort Detrick.  Fredrick, Maryland.  1977-

56.  Ryden, J.C.  Gaseous Nitrogen Losses.  In:  Modeling Wastewater Reno-
     vation; Land Treatment.  Edited by I. K. Iskandar.  John Wiley &
     Sons,  Inc.  New York.  1981.  277 pp.

57.  Sawyer, C.N. and McCarty, P.L.  Chemistry for Environmental Engineer-
     ing.  Third Ed.  McGraw-Hill Book Co.  New York.  1978.

58.  Scarseth, G.D.  Man and His Earth.  Iowa State University Press.
     Ames,  Iowa.  1962.  p. 143.                 —

59.  Shukla, S.S., Syers, J.K., Williams, J.D.H., Armstrong, D.E., and
     Harris, R.F.  Sorption of Inorganic Phosphate by Lake Sediments.
     Soil Science Soc. Amer. Proc.  35:244-249.  1971.

                                   277

-------
60.  Stecher,  P.G., ed.   The Merck Index.  Eighth Edition.  Merck &  Co.,
     Inc.  Rahway,  New Jersey.   1968.

61.  Stone, R.W.,  et al.,  "Upgrading Lagoon Effluent for Best Practicable
     Treatment."  Jour.  Water Poll.  Control Fed., 47, 8, 2-Q19.  1975.

62.  Stromberg,  L.K. and Tisdale,  S.L.  "Treating Irrigated Arid- Land
     Soils with  Acid- Forming Sulphur  Compounds."  Tech, Report No.  24, The
     Sulphur Institute,  Washington,  D.C.  1979.

63.  Stumm, W.  and  Leckie,  J.O.   Phosphate exchange with sediments;  its
     role in the productivity of surface waters.  Proc.  Fifth Inter.
     Water Pollution Research Conf., Pergamon Press.  1970.

64.  Thomas, R.E.   Federal  Incentives  and Requirements Influencing Waste-
     water Reuse.   Water Reuse.   Edited by E. J. Middlebrooks.  Ann Arbor
     Science Publishers, Inc.  Ann Arbor, Michigan.  75 pp.

65.  Torpy, M.F.,  Gearhear,  R.A.,  Spendlove,  J.C., and Spendlove, R.S.
     Field technique measuring  virus decay and potential aerosol hazard
     from wastewater sprinkler  irrigation.  PRWG139-2, Utah Water Research
     Laboratory, College of Engineering, Utah State University, Logan,
     Utah.  1975.

66.  Walker, J.M.  and Demirjian,  Y.A.   Muskeogon County, Michigan's Own
     Land Wastewater Treatment  System.  International Symposium, State of
     Knowledge  in  Land Treatment  of  Wastewater.  Vol. 1.  U.S. Army Corps
     of Engineers.   CRREL.   Hanover, New Hampshire.  1978.  417 pp.

67.  Webber, L.R.  and Leyshon,  A.J.   Soil changes due to effluent irriga-
     tion.  In:   Spray irrigation  of treated  municipal wastewater.  Papers
     presented  at  Harrison  Hot  Springs, B.C.  and Kelowna, B.C.  Environ-
     mental Protection Service,  Department of Fisheries and the Environ-
     ment, Ottawa,  Ontario,  Canada.   1975.

68.  Wetzel, R.G.   Primary  productivity.  In:  B.A. Whitton (Ed.) River
     Ecology.   Univ. Calif.  Press.  Berkeley, California.  1975.

69.  Williams,  R.B.  Wastewater  Reuse  - An Assessment of the Potential
     and Technology.  Water  Reuse.  Edited by E.G. Middlebrooks.  Ann Arbor
     Science Publ., Inc.  Ann Arbor, Michigan.  87 pp.
                                   278

-------
                                 APPENDIX A
          Sample  Preservation and  Analytical  Methods
                                     Table A.1
                     Water  Sample  Preservation Methods
Parameter Container
Physical Properties
Conductance
PH
Total Dissolved Solids P1
Metals
Dissolved P
Total P
Mercury Dissolved P
Inorganic, Non-metallics
Alkalinity P
Chloride P
Ammonia-Nitrogen P
Total Kjeldahl Nitroqen P
Nitrate plus Nitrite Nitrogen P
Dissolved, Ortho-phosphate P
phosphorus
Preservative Maximun Holding Time

Cool, 4°C 24 hrs
Determine immediately
upon arrival at lab
Cool, 4°C 24 hrs
Filter in lab 6 months
HN03 to pH <2
HNOj to pH <2 6 months
Filter in lab 6 months
HN0.3 to pH <2
Cool, 4°C 24 hrs
Non required 7 days
Cool, 4°C 24 hrs
2 ml ^50^ per liter
to pH <2
Cool, 4°C 5 days
2 ml H2S04 per liter
to pH <2
Cool, 4°C 4 weeks
2 ml H2SOi, per liter
to pH <2
Filter in Lab 24 hrs
Cool, 4°C
(Ref)

EPA




EPA
EPA
EPA

LCCIWR

Hydrololyzable
Total Phosphorus
Sulfate
Cool, 4°C                 5 days
2 ml H2S04 per liter
to pH <2

Cool, 4°C                 5 days
2 ml ^SOt, per liter
to pH <2

Cool, 4°C                 24 hours
                                                                                       ri'A
TOC
Priority Orqanics Pollutants   G2
2 ml  H2SQ;, per liter
to pH <2

2 ml  H2S04 per liter
to oH <2

Extract Base/Neutrals and
Acids within 48 hours.
Freeze extract.  Volatiles
are stored immediately in
airtight glass vial with
Teflon lined rubber suptum.
Cool, 4°C.
                                                                  5 days
                                                                  5 days
Fed . Reg .
Vol. 44,
No. 233
  Plastic
  Glass
                                         279

-------
                                    Table A.2

               LCCIWR  Analytical Procedures for Water  Analysis
Parameter
    pH
Conductivity
Total Dissolved Solids
Alkalinity
Chloride
Sulfate
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
Ammonia
Nitrates/Nitrites
           Method  of Analysis Reference

EPA.  1979.   Methods for Chemical Analysis of Wat8i
and Wastes.   EPA  600/4-79-020.  Method 150.1.
pp. 150.1-3 to  150.1-3.
EPA.  1979.
and Wastes.
pp. 120.1-1.
Methods  for  Chemical  Analysis of
EPA-600/4-79-020.   Method  120.1.
EPA.  1979.   Methods for Chemical Analysis of Watei
and Wastes.   EPA 600/4-79-020.  Method 160.1.
pp. 160.1-1 to  160.1-2.

EPA.  1979.   Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water
and Wastes.   EPA 600/4-79-020.  Method 310.1-1.
pp. 310.1-1 to  310.1-3.

EPA.  1979.   Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water
and Wastes.   EPA 600/4-79-020.  Method 325.3.
pp. 325.3-1 to  325.3-3.

EPA.  1979.   Methods for Chemical Analysis of Watei
and Wastes.   EPA 600/4-79-020.  Method 375.4.
pp. 375.2-1 to  375.2-5.
EPA.  1979-  Methods for Chemical Analysis of
and Wastes.  EPA 600/79-79-020.  Method 351,2.
pp. 351.2-1 to  351.2-5.
EPA.  1979.   Methods for Chemical Analysis of Watei
and Wastes.   Method  350.1  (Colorimetric,  Automated
Phenate)  pp.  350.1-1  to 350.1-6.

Technicon AutoAnalyzer Methodology — non-referenM
procedure for  preparation  of Alkaline Phenol solu-
tion .

EPA.  1979.   Methods for Chemical Analysis of Watei
and Wastewater.   EPA 600/4-79-020.  USEPA, Environ-
mental • Monitoring  and  Support Laboratory, Cincin-
nati, Ohio.

Technicon AutoAnalyzer II.  1973.  Nitrate and
Nitrite-Nitrogen  water and wastewater.  Industrial
Method 100-70W.   Technicon Industrial Systems,
Tarrytown,  New York.
         280

-------
Table A.2,   continued

     Parameter
            Method of  Analysis  Reference
                          EPA.  1979.  Methods for Chemical Anlysis of Water
                          and Wastewater.  EPA 600/4-79-020.  USEPA, Environ-
                          mental Monitoring and Support Laboratory, Cincin-
                          nati, Ohio.
Total Phosphorus
Orthophosphorus
Organic Phosphorus
Total Organic Carbon
Chemical Oxygen Demand
Total Coliform  Bacteria
Fecal  Coliform  Bacteria
Fecal  Streptococci
Salmonella
EPA.  1979.  Methods  for  Chemical  Analysis of Water
and Wastes.  EPA  600/4-79-020.   Method  365.1.
pp. 365.1-1.to 365.1-7-

EPA.  1979.  Methods  for  Chemical  Analysis of Water
and Wastes.  EPA  600/4-79-020. Method 365.1.
pp 365.1-1 to 365.1-7-
EPA.  1979.
and Wastes.
365.1-7.
Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water
EPA 600/4-79-020.  pp. 365.1-1 to
Beckman Model 9158 Total Organic Carbon Analyzer
Operation Manual  (1980).

EPA.  1979.  Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water
and Wastes.  EPA-600/4-79-020.  Method 415.1.
pp. 415.1-1 to 415.1-3.

QIC.  Standard Ampule Method  for Chemical Oxygen
Demand Test.  Oceanography International Corpora-
tion, 512 West Loop, College  Station, Texas.

EPA.  1978.  Microbiological Methods for Monitoring
the Environment.  EPA 600/8-78-017.  pp. 108-123.

EPA.  1979.  Microbiological Methods for Monitoring
the Environment.  EPA 600/8-78-017.  pp. 124-128.

EPA.  1978.  Microbiological Methods for Monitoring
the Environment.  EPA 600/8-78-017.  pp. 135-138.

Kaper, 3.B., G.S. Sayler, M.M. Bablini, and R.R.Col-
well.  1977. Ambient-Temperature Primary Nonselec-
tive Enrichment for Isolation of Salmonella spp.
from an Estaurine Environment.  Applied and Envir-
                          onmental Microbiology.
                          April  1977.
                        Vol. 33, No. 4, pp. 829-835.
                                  281

-------
Table A.2,   continued

     Parameter                        Method of Analysis  Reference


Metals                    EPA.  1979.  Methods for Chemical  Analysis  of Water
                          and Wastes.  EPA 600/4-79-020.   Section 200.

                          Perkin-Elmer.  1976.  Analytical Methods  for Atomic
                          Absorption Spectrophotometry.   303-0152.  Perkin-
                          Elmer Corporation, Norwalk, Connecticut.

                          Perkin-Elmer-  1980.  Analytical Methods  for Furnace
                          Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy -  B010-0108.  Perkin-
                          Elmer Corporation, Norwalk, Connecticut.

                          Perkin-Elmer -  1982. Analytical  Methods for Atomic
                          Absorption Spectrophotometry. •  Perkin-Elmer Corpora-
                          tion, Norwalk, Connecticut.

Priority  Organics         Federal Register.  Base/Neutrals,  Acids,  and Pesti-
                          cides. Vol. 44.  No. 233.  pp 69540-68547.
                          Monday, December 3, 1979.
                                 282

-------
                                   Table A.3

                 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SOIL SAMPLE PRESERVATION
Parameter
Priority
Organic
Pollutants
Pretreatment Container
Glass jars with
none Teflon faced
screw caps
Temperature
freezing
0°C
Holding
Time
35 days
Indicator
Bacteria
    none
Sterile, wide
mouth autoclavable
polyethylene bottle
with screw cap
                                             Cool
                                              4°C
                30 days
                for 24?o
                moisture
                 soils
                14 days
                for  5%
                moisture
                 soils
Nitrates
                   none
                Plastic  bag
                             Cool
                           4°C
                12 hours
Nitrate
Extract
Place known
weight of
soil in 1 N
Capped glass
Erlenmeyer flask
  Cool
7 days
Metals,
Physicals
All other
Organics
and
Inorganics
Dried and
ground to
pass 2 mm
sieve
Plastic bag
Room temp,
   21 °C
                                                           Indefinite
                                       283

-------
                                    Table A.4

                  LCCIWR  Analytical  Procedures  for  Soil  Analysis
   Parameter

Sample Preservation by
Drying and Grinding

Soil Extraction by
Water
Percent Moisture
Jackson, M.L.
pp. 30-36.
     Method Reference

Soil Chemical Analysis (1958.
USDA "Soil Survey Laboratory Methods and Proce-
dures for Collecting Soil Sample", Soil Service
Investigations Report No. 1 (April 1972) pp. 7-8.
U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Ser-
vice, Washington, D.C.

USDA "Diagnosis and Improvement of Saline and
Alkali Soils", (August 1950).  Agriculture Hand-
book No. 60.  pp. 85, 88.

Meyer, R.E. and A.F. Sears.  "Soil Science Labor-
atory Manual" (1978).  Exercise IV-Soil Moisture,
Dept. of Agronomy, Texas Tech University,
Lubbock, Texas.

USDA "Diagnosis and Improvement of Saline and
Alkaline Soils" (1954).  Agriculture Handbook No.
60, p. 107.  U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Soil Con-
servation Service, Washington, D.C.

USEPA.   1979.  Methods for Chemical Analysis of
Water and Wastes.  EPA 600/4- 79-020.   Method
160.1.  pp. 160.1-1 to 160.1-2.

USDA.  "Soil Survey Laboratory Methods  and Pro-
cedures  for Collecting Soil Samples" (1972).
Soil Survey Investigations Report No.  1, pp. 57-
60.  U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Soil Conservation
Service, Washington, D.C.

USDA.  "Diagnosis and  Improvement of Saline  and
Alkaline Soils"  (1954).  Agriculture Handbook
No. 60.  p. 102.  U.S. Dept. of Agriculture,
Washington, D.C.

Jackson, M.L. Soil Chemical Analysis (1958).
pp. 41-56.

Black, C.A., et  al., Methods of Soil Analysis
(1965).  pp. 914-926.

USEPA.   1979.  Methods for Chemical  Analysis of
Water and  Wastes.   EPA 600/4-79-020.   Method
150.1.   pp.  150.1-1  to 150.1-3.
      284

-------
Table A.4  ,  continued
Texture
Alkalinity
Carbonate


Sulfur


Sulfate
Chloride
Black, C.A., et al.  Methods of Soil Analysis
(1965).  pp. 299-309, 371-373, and 374-383.

USDA.  "Soil Survey Laboratory Methods and Proce-
dures for Collecting Soil Samples" (April 1972).
pp. 14-16.-  U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Soil Conser-
vation Service, Washington, D.C.

Meyer, R.E. and A.F. Sears.  "Soil Science Labora-
tory Manual" (1970).  Exercise III — Mechanical
Analysis.  Dept. of Agronomy, Texas Tech Univer-
sity, Lubbock, Texas.

Black, C.A., et al., Methods of Soil Analysis
(1965) .  pp.. 545-567.

Black, C.A., et al., Methods of Soil Analysis
(1965) .  pp. 945-947.

USEPA.  1979.  Methods for Chemical Analysis of
Waters and Wastes.  Method 310.1.  pp. 310.1-1
to 310.1-3.

LCCIWR Methods Manual, Vol. 1, Water and Waste-
water Analysis (1983).Lubbock Christian Col-
lege Institute of Water Research.  Lubbock, Texas.

Black, C.A., et al., Methods of Soil Analysis
(1965).  pp. 1387-138F:

Jackson, M.L.  So il Chem ic al An alys i s (1958).
pp. 322-324.

Jackson, M.L.  Soil Chemical Analysis (1958).
pp. 263-266.

Technicon Corporation.  "Sulfate in Water and
Wastewater" (1972).  Industrial method #226-72W.
72W.  Technicon Industrial Systems, Tarrytown,
New York.

Black, C.A., et al., Methods of Soil Analysis
(1965).  pp. 947-948.

Jackson, M.L.  Soil Chemical Analysis (1958).
pp. 261-263.

USEPA.  1979.  Methods for Chemical Analysis of
Water _and Wastes.  EPA-600/4-79-020.  Method 325.3,

-------
Table A.4,   continued
Conductivity
Total Dissolved Solids
Cation Exchange Capacity
Color
Particle Density
Percent Porosity
Bulk Density
Jackson, M.L.
pp. 234-251.
Soil Chemical Analysis (1958)
Chapman, H.D. and P.P. Pratt.  Methods of
Analysis for Soil, Plants and Waters (1961) .
pp. 17-19.  Div .  of Agricultural Sciences,
University of California.

EPA.  1979-  Methods of Chemical Analysis of
Water and Wastes.  EPA 600/4-79-020.  Method
120.1.  p. 120.1-1 .

Jackson, M.L.  Soil  Chemical Analysis (1958).
p. 256.

Chapman, H.P- and P.F. Pratt.  Methods of
Analysis for Soil, Plants and Waters (1961).
pp. 234-239.  Div- of Agricultural Sciences,
University of California.

USEPA.  1979.  Methods of Chemical Analysis of
Water and Wastes.  EPA 600/4-79-020.  Method
160.1 .  pp. 160.1-1  to 160.1-2.

USDA.  Diagnosis  and Improvement of Saline and
Alkali Soils (1954TAgriculture Handbook No.
60, pp. 100-101.   U.S. Dept. of Agriculture Soil
Conservation Service, Washington, -D.C.

Black, C.A., et al.   Methods of Soil Analysis
(1965).  pp. 899-900.

Meyer, R.E. and A.F. Sears.  "Soil Science Labo-
atory Manual" (1970).  Exercise I — Soil Color,
Texture, Structure and Consistency.  Dept. of
Agronomy, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas.

Munsell Soil Color Charts (1975 ed) .  Munsell
Color, Macbeth Div.  of Kollmorgen Corp.,
Baltimore, Maryland.

Meyer, R.E. and A.F. Sears.  "Soil Science Labora-
tory Manual" (1970).  Exercise II -- Soil Density
Relationships.  Dept. of Agronomy, Texas Tech
University, Lubbock, Texas.

USDA.  Diagnosis  and Improvement of Saline and
Alkali Soils (1954)~Agriculture Handbook No.
60, p. 122.  U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Soil
Conservation Service, Washington, D.C.

       286

-------
Table  A.4,    continued
Total  Kjeldahl  Nitrogen
Exchangeable Nitrate
and Nitrite Nitrogen
Organic' Nitrogen
Exchangeable Nitrogen
Total Phosphorus
LCCIWR Methods Manual, Vol. 1, Water and Waste-
water Analysis.  1983.  Lubbock Christian College
Institute of Water Research, Lubbock, Texas.

Black, C.A., et. al., Methods of Soil Analysis
(1965) .  pp. 1149-1178.

Jackson, M.L.  Soil Chemical Analysis (1958).
pp. 183-184.

USEPA.  Methods for Chemical Analysis of Waters
and Wastes (1979) .  EPA 600/4-79-020.  pp. 351.2-1
to 351.2-5.

Black,.C.A., et al., Methods of Soil Analysis
(1965).  pp

USEPA.  Methods for Chemical Analysis of Waters
and Wastes (1979).EPA 600/6-79-020.pp. 353.2-1
to 352.2-1/

Determinations of  Exchangeable Ammonium Urea,
Nitrate and Nitrite in a Single Soil Extract",
Agronomy Journal,  Vol. 69, January-February
1977.

Technicon Corporation.  "Nitrate and Nitrite
Nitrogen in Water  and Wastewater" (1973).
Industrial Method #100-70W.  Technicon Indus-
trial Systems, Tarrytown, New York.

Black, C.A. et al., Methods of Soil Analysis
(1965).  pp. 1179-1191 .

USEPA.  Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water
and Wastes (1979) .  EPA 600/4-79-020.
pp. 350.1-1 to 350.1-6.

Onken, A.B. and H.D. Sunderman.  "Colormetric
Determination of Exchangeable Ammonium, Urea,
Nitrate and Nitrite in a Single Soil Extract",
Agronomy 3ournal,  Vol. 69, January-February
1977.

Jackson, M.L.  Soil Chemical Analysis (1958).
pp. 169-172.

USEPA.  Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water
and Wastes (1979).EPA 600/4-79-020.pp. 365.1-1
to 365.1-7.
       287

-------
Table  A.4,   continued
Ortho Phosphorus
Organic Phosphorus
Total Coliform Bacteria
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
Fecal Streptococci
Actinomycetes
Fungi
Metals
Black, C.A. et al., Methods of Soil Analysis
(1965).  pp. 1043-1044.

USEPA.  Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water
and Wastes (1979).EPA 600/4-79-020.pp. 365.1-1
to 365.1-7.

Black, C.A. et al., Methods of Soil Analysis
(1965).  pp. 1467-1472.

USEPA.  Microbiological Methods for Monitoring
the Environment (1978THEPA 600/8-78-017-

Black, C.A. et al., Methods of Soil Analysis
(1965).  pp. 1467-1472.

USEPA.  Microbiological Methods for Monitoring
the Environment (19787^EPA 600/8-78-017.

Black, C.A. et al., Methods of Soil Analysis
(1965).  pp. 1467-1472.

USEPA.  Microbiological Methods for Monitoring
the Environment (19"78~T  EPA/8-78-017.

Black, C.A. et al., Methods of Soil Analysis
(1965) .  pp. 1498-1501.

USEPA.  Microbiological Methods for Monitoring
the Environment (1978) .  EPA 600/8-78-017.

Black, C.A. et al., Methods of Soil Analysis
(1965).  pp. 1502-1505.

Black, C.A. et al., Methods of Soil Analysis
(1965).  pp. 1019-1021.

USEPA.  Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water
and Wastes (1979)EPA 600/4-79-020.
p. METALS-6, Section 4.1.

Perkin-Elmer Corporation.  Analytical Methods
for Atomic Absorption  Spectrophotometry (1976).
Part No. 303-0152.  p. AY-5.1-2.  Perkin-Elmer
Corporation, Norwalk,  Connecticut.

USEPA.  Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water
and Wastes (1979) .  EPA 600/4-79-020.  Section

200'    288

-------
Table  A.4, ,  continued
Organic Carbon
Humus
Organic Matter
Priority Organics
Perkin-Elmer.  Analytical Methods for Furnace
Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy (1980).B010-
0108.  Perkin-Elmer Corporation, Norwalk, CT.

Perkin-Elmer-  Analytical Methods for Atomic
Absorption Spectrophotometry (1982).Perkin-
Elmer Corporation, Norwalk, Connecticut.

Black, C.A. et al., Methods of Soil Analysis
(1965).  pp. 1372-1376.

3ackson, M.L. Soil Chemical Analysis (1958).
pp. 214-219.

U.S. Federal Government.  Federal Register^
(1979).  "Base Neutrals, Acids and Pesticides",
Vol. 44, No. 233, pp. 69540-69547.  December 3,
1979-

Perkin-Elmer Corporation.  "Instruction Manual
for Sigma  Series  GC Console" .  Perkin-Elmer Cor-
poration Data Handling Systems Dept., Norwalk, CT,

Perkin-Elmer Corporation.  "HS6 Head Space  Samp-
ler for the Sigma Series and F22 Gas Chromato-
graphs —  Operator's Manual.  Perkin-Elmer  Cor-
poration,  Norwalk, Connecticut.
                                    289

-------
                                  Table A.5
                           Crops Analysis Methods
     Parameter
Crop Sample Preparation
                                                     Method Reference
Percent Moisture
Cotton Seed Delinting
Total Kjeldahl
Nitrogen, Ammonia and
Protein
Total Chloride

Total Sulfur

Oil

Total Phosphorus
Total Coliform,
Fecal Coliform and
Fecal Streptococcus
                                  Physical
    Horwitz, W., ed.  1970.  Official methods
    of analysis of the association of official
    analytical chemists.  Association of Offi-
    cial Analytical Chemists, Washington, D.C.
    Methods 3.076 and 7.053

    Chapman, H.D. and P.F. Pratt.  1961.
    Methods of analysis for soils, plants, and
    waters. Division of Agr- Sci., Univ. of
    California, Riverside, California.
    Method 2-3.

    Hopper, N.  1981.  Unpublished.  Dept. of
    Plant and Soil Sciences, Texas Tech Uni-
    versity, Lubbock, Texas.

    Issac, R.A. and W.C. Johnson.  1976.
    Determination of total nitrogen in plant
    tissue using a block digester.  3. of the
    Association of Official Analytical Chem-
    ists 59:98-100.

    Walker, R.O., ed.  1980.  Official and
    tentative methods of the American Oil
    Chemists'  Society. American Oil Chemists'
    Society, Champaign, IL.  Methods Aa 5-38.

    Chapman.  1961.  Method 8-2.

    Horwitz.  1980.  Method 3.063.

    Walker.   1980.  Method A.4-38.

   Horwitz.  1980.  Method 3.066.

Microbiological

    J. of Food Protection 41:336-340.  1978.

    Applied and Environmental Microbiology,
    36:831-838.  1978.

    Applied Microbiology,  32:63-69.  1964.
                                   Water  Pollution G.   25:605-609.  1953.
                                     290

-------
Table A.5, continued


                                   Metals

Total  Metals                        Perkin-Elmer.   Perkin-Elmer  Manual  of
                                   Analytical Methods  for  Atomic  Absorp-
                                   tion Spectrophotometry".   pp.  AY5-1  and  2
                                     291

-------
    Pivot
                             Week of
                                                                                        19
N>
Date:


Time:


FM*


GTD+
   Comments:
                                PIVOT LOCATION AND IRRIGATION RECORD

                          (Please record position of end tower each day)
                                                                                                    13
                                                                                                    O
                                                                                                    o
                                                                                                    O
                                                                                                    Q>
                                                                                                    T
                                                                                                    n>
                                                                                                    o
                                                                                                    o
                                                                                                    o
                                                                                                    -5
                                                         -a
                                                         •a
                                                         a
                                                         i—i
                                                         x

                                                         CD
   * Flow Meter Reading

   + Gallons to Date
Signature:
 Figure  B.1.   Pivot Location and Irrigation Record Form

-------
   Pivot
           -^05-
                                                                          of 3-v3/1983
                           PIVOT  LOCATION AND IRRIGATION  RECORD
                     (Please record  position of end tower each day)

                    -/Sto      -Vo       -3/0
hO
MD
Oate:  3/3//fo    V/2^3    V/3yfc,    V/V/fe    V/£/fo    V/7/63


                                                                 3-,
   Time:


   FK*


   GTD+
                   33/77
    Comments:
e
* Flow Meter Reading

- Gallons to Date
. _ A
                                                                      9/3O
                                                                                ex
                                             Signature:
     Figure B.2.  Example of  Properly Prepared  Irrigation Record

-------
                                                                         Week of-;
                             PIVOT LOCATION AND IRRIGATION RECORD
                       (Please record position of end tower each day)
 Date:
 Time:

 FM*

 GTD+
 Comments:
 *  Flow Meter Reading
 +  Gallons to Date
Signature-ly
Figure B.3.  Example of Inadequately Prepared Irrigation Record

-------
MONTH  / / /O-^	VR 83
                                         EXPENSES PAID BY CASH AND CHECK
                      ITCM DCSCWIPTIOM
                      SHOW IBS BU TON
                       NUMBt* 1TC
                                                      SAL ABIES
                                                             SOCIAL
                                                            sccu*'1™
                                                            WITMMLLO
CHCMICALS
POISON A
SPRAYING
            ^
                                                                     99
                                                                      "i.1?
                                                                             Us.
                     Tv
                         i^.
                                                                           _3&.QQ.
                                                                           _aooQ
X/X^SL
K)
VO
VJ1
^35.
                                                                                -3020
                                                                            n
         y**$
         tUcL
                     •_&d
                      O l
                                                                                      13
      sM.
    y/5? A/^;
         Jojkt
                                                                    Ho&(*
                                                                                                      a?
                                                                                                              5o
Figure B.4.   Original Sheet with 10  Columns for Expenditure Cat-ries. (Filled  out daily by  check
               number)

-------

•
J
4
•
•
7
a
o
10
it
NO
vO Ia
ON
13
14
19
t«
17
!•
19
ao
at
as
as
24
29
MONTH . ^.JtiA.irh — J 	 _^=Wi 	 .1 R 	 U_w> / CLX"^v^ ^\
s


























PCMCON ON
COMPANY
neccivco FROM


























ITCH DESCRIPTION
• HOW UB3 BU TONS
NUMBER, ETC

























TOTALS
1
TOTAL CASH
RECEIVED
7/fi2fl



















































1




















































3
cattle




















































f*ON FARM




















































3
COTTON
VJ399

























^7

























A
7C^

























Op

























7
3%?

























CO

























WHEAT AND
BARLEY
Sow

























00

























OAI TAX




















































^pmoSIjA-I1
12*11

























10



















-

OEblTOKQir
Figure B.5.  Original Sheet with Nine Areas of Income  (Done as a yearly lump sum)

-------
        JNTHijQ-^. I ~
                                              EXPENSES PAID BY CASH AND CHECK
MD
MUNTMWtAarti 1 	 ^feri

























a
1 AXES
20&J

























on

























6
ANO
6,RL,t

























nn

























7
CAS OIL
a CREASE
tUCEPT IN
PERSONAL.
AUTO
iJlJ~J'

























no

























e
IRRIGATION
EXPENSE
rutL. REPAIR
OIL.
/9 ^09

























oo

























• CCD
ANO
if^Va-

























W)

























IO
CHEMICALS
POISON a
SPRAYING


























CO

























IVP.'
SO/3

























on

























       Figure B.6.  Some  Categories Changed to Pit Personal  Records (Yearly Lump Sum)

-------
        MONTH_<3-yy.'
                                                   EXPENSES PAID BY CASH AND CHICK
                                                                                       /-<=.,-/


^

Fe

AAcx

Ap

MX

A.-





















CLU

;l


j
_
















PAID TO











^u.

^A V-*JQ u^vt"
o
Se9-L.

OdtoUcx-

.*A)ooe.t*«.tjftr

^eceu~Jt>a*-




IT€M Of SCHIPTION
SHOW LBS BU TON
NUMBCn ETC

























TOTALS
*OTAL CASH
EXPENDITURE
19 .IV

,33O(»

/753

2532^

4931

6,593
•4.2/0

•yzis
'
12,388

754,0

383

^vD3&



358W
43

^

93

^3

^

34
94.

^V

^

TO

R3

72



22
2

/6.2>

70

?

/3o














259?



-297i
n?

R7

pO

//














78



V3
3
L'BOB
,Tfln



P5P

V^V

^VJ

1771
frffi

37J

,T?/





/8^7



(flail
9o



00

V9

?•>'

^
J5

Oft

03





?-v



50
4
WITHHELD
?

/33;

/s

9




Si

,1



V^







(WV5
Vft

/o

ffl

//




O(n

6>f



OR







02
A
TIMES *ND
TO
MACHINERY
AND
FA«M AUTOS
yV9

/35"

83

a&5

/73

3.^1*
A-Jft

-470

-5AA

' 73

/(OO

/9«r



26^0
3P.

Vfr

•^P,

rP 1

?3

0?
DO

83

35"

75

ff?

7o



95"
T
CAS OIL
« CRCASE
EXCEPT N
FEWSONAL
97

ffl

p/fe

&

611

584
Ptf

/»/

Ba3

/?o

iV

,5ft?



•Vo89
0|

5"P

^»5

35

67

a.'y
^

(oR

?c|

//

Ofc

2fl



03
e
IHNlCATION
EKPENSE
rucL «tp*m
loll



•30

25/p

30U

/L3a
n&

(etc?>

ll^oS

^loS,

1(07

fi-73



3273.1
K



TO

B,5

93

0^
H

4>3

07

5<«

PR

/o



80
•
• •CD
AND
LnTILIZEM








mi

^063
/020

^553











58*








50

5?
oo

3*T











/8
10
CHEMICALS
POISON A
SPRAYING




^tfi

/3W

,2k!


Urt













^9ov




^

pp

90


2^













oo
1 1
HOEING
AKIO
HCMICAL
ONTilOL.










3tfc


Hal



/7fi

<^3

ISO



9/8










o


r?(0



,50

oc

Oo



to
CO
     Figure  B.7.   Expenditures  on a  Monthly  Basis

-------
                                                             Table C.1

                                          Simple  Statistical Values  of  the  Quality  of
                                          Effluent Applied  to Land Treatment Sites
                                                              AHITIMETIC;  .TiANS
                                                                   AND
                                                            STANDARD DEVIATIONS
K)
Source* ALKALINITY
COHOUCTIVITT
IDS
SG CAC03A BG/L
10000 AT" 337. 2216. 1695.




10004



90000




90001





SD
S
DO

AT
SD
S
no
AT
SD
S
no

»T
SD
S
no


( 34.)
<-0.07>
342.

342.
( 54.)
< 1.1 9>
343.
283.
( 31.)
< 0.22>
285.

299.
( 30.)
<-0.09>
303.

TOTAL P
tource- BG P/L
»»•««»•»*»•»*••»•«*•»*•«•
( 290.)
< 0.18>
2130.

1969.
( 160.)
<- 1 . 45>
1975.
1818.
( 155.)
<-0. 13>
1825.

2093.
( 341.)
< 2.53>
2085.

ORTHO P
BG P/L
( 537.)
< 3.00>
1635.

1190.
( 107.)
< 0.76>
1180.
1130.
( 66.)
<-1. 17>
1146.

1241.
( 56.)

1246.

OBG. P
1G P/L
PH

7.54
(0.21)
<-1.05>
7.57

7.76
(0.36)
< 1.43>
7.70
7.88
(0.21)
< 0.09>
7.86

3.30
(0.52)
<-0.01>
8.30

COD
BG/L
CL
S04
1G/L BG/L
468. 315.
( 55.)
<-1 . 62>
470.

139.
( 71.)
< 1.83>
328.
303.
( 25.)
<-0.82>
306.

360.
( 18.)
< 0. 10>
359.

TOC
MG/L
( 43.)
<-0. 1 7>
311.

208.
( 46.)
<-0.05>
208.
178.
( 29.)
<-0.65>
179.

200.
( 52.)
<-2.66>
215.



TOTAL N
BG N/L
33.59
(15.23)
< 1.40>
35.42

41.70
(19.99)
< 0.75>
33.49
24.43
( 6.97)
<-0. 15>
25.78

11.74
( 8.20)
< 0.70>
12.38



NU2/N03
NH3

HG N/L MG H/L
0.29 25.95
( 0.30)
< 1.03>
0. 16

0.71
( 1.66)
< 3.57>
0.07
3.45
( 2.65)
< 0.41>
3.08

0.66
( 1.27)
< 2.95>
0.27



( 6.69)
< 0.42>
25.42

25-80
(10.70)
< 0.80>
25. 59
16.72
< 6. 10)
<-0. 25>
18. 54

8.24
( 6.41)
<-0. 04>
8. 38



Cu
c-t-
rc
-5
-0
c
fa
_J.

"<
o
^
OJ
Cu
13
Q.

^
CQ
C
rt>
CO

                                                                                                                                          "O
                                                                                                                                          -a
       10000  AT    14.43          A.36         5.15         302.4         117.7
              SD   ( 4.27)        ( 2.03)       ( 4.20)        (135.6)        (45.1)
              S    < 1.47>       < 0.60>      < 0.56>       < 0.32>      <  0.69>
              HO    14.16          8.32         4.73         284.0         114.3
       10004
       90000
       90001
AT    11.82
SD   (  3.63)
S    <  0.63>
(ID    11.13

IT     9.18
SD   (  1.36)
S    <  1.02>
HD     8.77
              AT
              SD
              S
              no
       6.31
     (  2.32)
     <  0.41>
       5.92
  8.43
( 1-71)
< 0.23>
  8.29

  7.28
( 1-13)
< 0.59>
  7.22

  4.85
( 2-20)
<-0.17>
  5.37
  1.60
( 2.20)
< 1.58>
  0.49

  0.55
( 0.58)
< t.19>
  0.43

  0.61
( 1. 19)
< 2.47>
  0. 19
 325.6
(290.2)
< 1.84>
 237.5

 175.0
( 71.8)
< 1.25>
 160.5

  75.1
( 29.0)
< 0.09>
  61.3
  64. 1
(37.3)
 0.88>
  51.9

  52.6
(29.5)
 1.44>
  44.3

  20. 8
(  6.4)
-0.32>
  20. fl

-------
          Table  C.1,  continued
            Source           TOTAL TOLIFCRMS
             ******•**•*•••**#••**•#*•*#*•***«
             10000  »V           27326016.
                    SO        (   16447465.)
                    S         <        0.45>
                    HD           27000000.
             10004   AV
                    SO
                    S
                    HO

             90000   IV
                    SO
                    S
                    BD

             90001   IV
                    SD
                    S
                    no
                         ?ECAL COLIPOBIIS
                 »**•**•*•****•** •*»**•***•
                             8852272.
                         {   5933719.)
                         <        1.19>
                             6600000.
   22639168.
(  13669506.)
<       1.38>
   23000000.

   26UOOOOO.
(  17608080.)
<       1.76>
   21000000.

    1054713.
(   3457580.)
<       4. 12>
     200000.
3576744.
3632128.)
    2.24>
3000000.

5010000.
4542747.)
    0.81>
2600000.

 109211.
 433929.)
    4.23>
   5000.
   PECAL STBEP.
*******•**********•***•**•***#*••
       281659.
    (   592418.)
    <      3.78>
       125500.

       243003.
    (   208804.)
    <      1.15>
       210000.

       295000.
    (   293115.)
    <      1.44>
       250000.

       151788.
    (   670406.)
    <      4. 13>
         1000.
o
o

-------
 Table  C.1,  continued
  flETlLS.  nrSSOL»ED(NG/L)




Sourc**
»•••**•
10000



10004



90000



90001



Source
10000



10004



90000



90001



****
IV
SD
S
HD
IV
SD
S
HD
IV
SD
S
HD
tv
SD
S
RD
•
IV
SD
S
HD
IV
SD
S
HD
IV
SD
S
HD
IV
SD
S
HD
<**********i
1.277
( 1.298)
< 1.56>
0.640
0.824
( 0.532)
< 0. 17>
0.631
1.026
( 1.409)
< 0.00>
1.026
0.844
( 1.113)
< 1.30>
0.279
Ha
34.8
( 7.6)
< 0.32>
35.0
24.3
(1.9)
< 0.73>
24.5
24.9
( 0.8)
< 0.0 >
24.9
27.4
( 1.4)
<-0. 17>
27.2
0.009
(0.006)
< 1.62> <
0.005
0.006
(0.002)
< 3.48> <
0.005
0.005
(0.0 )
< 0.0 > <
0.005
0.006
(0.003)
< 2.27>
0.005
nw
0.056
(0.025)
<-0.38>
0.060
0.057
(0.029)
< 0.34>
0.048
0.030
(0.028)
< 0.00>
0.030
0.057
(0.044)
< 1. 26>
0.045
0. 198
(0.130)
: i.32>
0.201
0.078
(0.067)
C 0.17>
0.084
0.037
(0.039)
: o.oo>
0.037
0.032
(0.062)
C 2.27>
0.010
HG
0.000
(0.000)
< 0.61>
0.000
0.000
(0.000)
< 1.00>
0.000
0.000
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
*****
0.000
(0.0 )
< 0.0 3
0.000
1.278
(1.494)
< 2. 33>
0.78 1
0.220
(0.270)
< 1.77>
0.100
0. 100
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
0.100
0. 186
(0.244)
< 2.27>
0.100
no
0.007
(0.004)
< 1.26>
0.006
0.003
(0.000)
< 1.00>
0.003
0.003
(0.0 )
< o.o •>
*****
0.003
(0.000)
< 1.00>
0.003
54.7
( 13.4)

53.
58.4
( 7.0)
< 0. 76>
57.
59.6
( 1-9)
< 0.0 >
60.
65.2
( 3.2)
< 0.99>
64.
HI
0.062
(0.065)
< 2. 19>
0.056
0.048
(0.056)
< 1.04>
0.006
0.010
(0.0071
< 0.0 >
0.01J
0.0 08
(0.009)
< 2. 27>
0.005
0.002
(0.002)
< 2.25>
0.000
0.012
(0.046)
< 3.88>
0.000
0.002
(0.002)
< 0.00>
0.002
0.000
(0.000)
< 1.00>
0.000
K
21.3
( 7.3)
< 0.52>
19.2
19.5
( 7.5)
< 1.74>
18.1
16.3
( 0.5)
< 0.00>
16.3
19.5
( 4.1)
< 1. 51>
19.3
0.006
(0.002)
< 4.05>
0.005
0.005
(0.000)

0.005
0.006
(0.002)
< 0.00>
0.006
0.005
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
0.005
SE
0.015
(0.018)
< 2.58>
0.005
0.005
(0.000)
< 1.00>
0.005
0.005
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
0.005
0.005
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
0.005
0.059
(0.035)
< 0.0 9>
0.052
0.030
(0.030)
< 0.66>
0.009
0.005
(0.000)
< 0.0 >
0.005
0.005
(0.000)
< 2.27>
0.005
1C
C.006
(0.003)
< 2.95>
0.005
0.005
(0.001)
<-3.88>
0.005
0.005
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
0,005
0.005
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
0.005
0.081
(0.064)
< 1.36>
0.072
0.024
(0.026)
< 1.32>
0.010
0.006
(0.001)
< 0.0 >
0.006
0.011
(0.017)
< 2.27>
0.005
Hi
378.4
(131.7)
< 1. 13>
358.0
318.6
1 50.9)
< 0.08>
317.5
265.0
( 1-4)
< 0.0 >
265.0
304. 1
( 43.9)
<-0.49>
308.0
0.731
(0.510)
< 0.89>
0.643
1. 187
(0.698)
< 0.84>
1.241
1. 185
(1. 196)
< 0.00>
1. 185
1.097
(1.064)
< 0.93>
0.615
TL
0.005
(0.001)
< 4.01>
0.005
0.005
(0.000)
< 1.00>
0.005
O.OOS
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
*****
0.005
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
0.005
»*•»•***
0.018
(0.023)
< 2.89>
0.011
0. 130
(0.468)
< 3.87>
0.015
0.007
(0.0071
< 0.00>
0.007
0.002
(0.001)
< 2.27>
0.002
ZN
>$ fc # $^^>
0.104
(0.100)
< 1.34>
0.076
0.169
(0.087)
< 0.86>
0. 163
0.172
(0.170)
< 0.00>
0.172
0.102
(0.058)
< 0.59>
0.081

-------
Table  C.1,  continued
NETALS. TOTAL (NG/L)
Source *
                                 DA
                                                    CA
                                                              CD
                                                                       CO
                                                                                 CD
                                                                                           CU
                                                                                                     FE
                                                                                                               PB
10000 AT
SD
S
(ID
10004 AT
SD
S
no
90000 AT
SD
S
HD
90001 AT
SD
<^J S
S
Source*
10000 AT
SD
S
1000* AT
SD
S
BD
90000 AT
SD
S
no
90001 AT
SD
S
HD
0.650
( 0.0 )
< 0.0 >
*****
0.091
( 0.070)
< 1.03>
0.086
0.139
( 0. 129)
< 0.92>
0.084
0.136
( 0.136)
< 1.76>
0.09*
HG
45.0
( 0.0)
< 0.0 >
*****
27.0
( 9.1)
29.3
28.2
( 2.8)
< 0.26>
27. «
28.4
( 5.1)
30.2
0.034
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
*****
0.006
(0.002)
< 0.83>
0.005
0.007
(0.003)
< 1.25>
0.006
0.006
(0.002)
< 0.75>
0.005
nw
• £4 ##4 frt44
0.045
(0.0 )
< 0.0 5
*****
0.025
(0.012)
< 0.06>
0.02*
0.035
(0.009)
<-0.09>
0.035
0.040
(0.019)
< 0. 72>
0.038
0.216
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
*****
0.192
(0.082)
<-0.78>
0.197
0.387
(0.197)
< 0.58>
0.394
0.133
(0.090)
<-0.20>
0. 157
HG
kt •$• 4 #•# *#<
o.o
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
0.0
0.000
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
*****
0.0
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
0.0
0.000
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
0.000
0.822
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
*****
0.034
(0.028)
< 1.36>
0.027
0.024
(0.015)
< 0.38>
0.018
0.053
(0.041)
< 0. 18>
0.038
.10
X* • • V •••#••
0.070
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
• •*•*
0.003
(0.002)
< 1.57>
0.003
0.003
(0.000)
< 1.00>
0.003
0.003
(0.000)
< 1.00>
0.003
67.0
< 0.0)
< 0.0 >
****
47.5
( 16.81
si.
50.7
( 7.0)
< 0.1 4>
48.
54.3
( 10.5)
<-0.54>
54.
HI
49ttf*4ttfrt
0.061
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
*****
0.062
(0.058)
< 1.1 5>
0.065
0.032
(0.047)
< 1.1 1>
0.006
0.018
(0.020)
0.007
0.005
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
*****
0.001
(0.002)
< 1.76>
0.000
0.001
(0.000)
< 2.04>
0.000
0.000-
(0.000)
< 1.00>
0.000
K
## * » * tt ••#44
22.0
( 0.0)
< 0.0 >
*»»*
29.7
(10.7)
<-2.38>
32.4
33.9
( 5.3)
< 1.59>
32.9
30.2
{ 7.8)
34.0
0.003
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
*****
0.004
(0.002)
0.005
0.005
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
0.005
0.005
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
0.005
SE
0.031
(0.0 )
< 0.0 )
*****
0.005
(0.0 )
< o.o •>
0.005
0.005
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
0.005
0.005
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
0.005
G.036
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
*****
0.067
(0.035)
< 0.31>
0.060
0.072
(C.048)
0.053
0.006
(0.001)
< 0.61>
0.006
AC
0.005
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
*****
0.004
(0.00 Ml
< 0.62>
0.003
0.032
(0.002)
0.001
0.004
(0.001)
0.005
0.035
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
*****
0.057
(0.051)
0.047
0.081
(0.044)
< 0.89>
0.064
0.051
(0.057)
< 1.45>
0.033
HA
384.0
( 0.0)
< 0.0 >
*****
225.3
< 81.5)
<-2.00>
235.0
238.9
I 33.0)
<-0.46>
252.0
255.7
( 55.5)
279.0
0.423
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
*****
0.821
(0.470)
<-0.02>
0.770
0.627
(0.555)
< 1.25>
0.380
0.774
(0.773)
< 0.93>
0.360
TL
0.005
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
*****
0.005
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
0.005
0.005
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
0.005
0.005
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
o.oos
0.049
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
* ****
0.036
(0.029)
< 0. 50>
0.032
0.046
(0.014)
< 0. 16>
0.044
0.008
(0.008)
< 0.94>
0.005
ZK
** • * tt W
0.050
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
*****
0.301
(0.527)
< 2.67>
0. 133
0.135
(0. 104)
< 0.48>
0.083
0.093
(0.108)
< 2.01>
0.066

-------
   Table  C.1, continued
    ORGMICS (PPB)
Source     ACKHAPHTBTLEHE  AHTHTtACENE/PHEHATHB EKE    ATBAZINE  DEHZENE/TRICHLOBOET UYL ENE
 »•***»••••»•«*••*«**«»»*•***»*«•*••«•••••••»•
 10000  AT         4.9               .  6.1
        SD      (  1.6)               (  7.5)
        S       < 1.51>             < 2.44>
        RD        5.00                2.00
                                                                                             BENZSKEACETIC ACID  tt-T- B UT VLPH ENOL
   1000*   AT
          SD
          S
          HO

   90000   AT
          SD
          S
          no
  90001
          AT
          SD
          S
          HD
                   4.9
                   6.0)

                  4! 55

                   2.5
                   1.1)
                  1.58>
                  2.00

                   3.2
                   1.5)
                  0.37>
                  2.00
              8.4
           (  12.8)
           <  2.79>
             3.20

              4.0
           (   2.6)
           <  0.86>
             2.95

              5.5
           {   6.9)
           <  1.73>
             2.00
Sojjrc^ CABBOI TETBACHLOBIDE   4-CHLOHOA!iiLi»E
   10000  AT
          SD
          S
          no

   1000*  AT
          SD
          S
          HD

   90000  AT
          SD
          S
          BD

   90001  AT
          SD
          S
          HD
                  8.0
               (  9.3)
               < 3.72>
                 5.00

                  4.7
               (  4.6)
               < 2.89>
                 4.70

                  3.2
               (  2.5)
               < 1.99>
                 2.00

                  3. 1
               (  1.6)
               < 0.28>
                 2.00
•**•*•*•****•*
            29.0
          ( 36.7)
          < 1.98>
           10.00

            17.1
          ( 38.9)
          < 5.10>
           10.00

            13.2
          ( 24.4)
          < 2.53>
            6.90

            42.4
          (140.7)
          < 4.10>
           10.00
10.9
( 17.4)
< 3. 18>
5.10
32.5
( 36.9)
< 2.09>
18.25
39.4
( 31.0)
< 0.61>
23.25
10.9
< 7.9)
< 0.70>
10.00
CHL010SZNZEHE
1. 1
( 0.3)
< >4.01>
1.00
1.3
( 1-9)
< 5.20>
1.00
1.0
( 0.0)
< 0.0 >
1.00
1.0
( 0.0)
< 0.0 >
1.00
1. 1
( 0.4)
< 2.80>
1.00
1.9
( 1-5)
< 1.83>
1.00
11.0
( 23.6)
< 2.47>
2.40
2.2
( 2.4)
< 2. 14>
1.00
CHLOBOFORd
1.0
( 0.1)
< U.25>
1.00
5.3
( 6-3)
< 1. 71>
2.70
3.9
( 3.6)
< 0.89>
2.65
1.9
( 2.3)
< 3.34>
1.00
16.6
( 0.0)
< 0.0 )
• *»••*
3.7
( 2.6)
< 0.00>
3.75
0.0
( 0.0)
< 0.0 >
0.0
0.0
< 0.0)
.< 0.0 >
0.0
2-CBtOBJ PHENOL
8.5
( 6.9)
< 0. 51>
6.55
7.3
( 16.6)
< 4.35>
2.00
9.5
( 15.0)
< 1. 41>
1.15
3.5
( 7.8)
< 3.95>
1.30
5. 1
( 8.0)
< 2.75>
2.00
19.6
( 69.3)
< 4.96>
2.45
5. 1
( 4.2)
< 0.52>
4.05
3.4
I 3.21
< 2.69>
2. 10
1-CHLOHOTETBADECA US
4.9
( 4.4)
< 1.49>
2.00
10.5
( 9. 1)
< 1.56>
8.65
7.4
( 4.5)
< 0.67>
6.20
6.5
( 11.11
< 3.63>
2.60

-------
 Table  C.1, continued
  8ourc«*OIBOTripH1TniL1TE  2.3-iici!LOB
         HO      8.80

  1000*
  90000
  90001
*V
SD
S
HO
AT
SD
S
3D
»»
SD
S
NO
103.9
(149.2)
< 1.62>
23.40
126.6
(114. 4J
< 0.45>
122.10
36.8
( 44.2)
< 2.44>
29.55
8.5
( 6. 1)
< 1.37>
6.15
13.3
( 19.3)
< 2.59>
5.00
4.9
( ».9)
< 2. 17>
3.30
3.5
( 1-5)

3.70
5.8
( 7.2)
< 2.28>
2.00
8.2
( 16.0)
< 4.46>
3.B5
7.2
( 5.8)
< 1.06>
6.15
3.2
( 1-9)
< 1.77>
2.35
5.7
( 6.9)
< 2.59>
2.60
11.2
( 29.6)
< 5.02>
4.70
7.8
( 5.3)
< 0.40>
7.25
4.2
( 4.1)
< 2.34>
2.75
6.4
( 7.0)
< 2.15>
3.60
7.3
( 15.0)
< 4.72>
3.30
3. 7
1 2.7)
< 0.99>
3.10
3.3
I 3.6)
< 3.14>
2.00
11.6
( 12.0)
< 1.58>
7.20
14.0
< 14.3)
< 1.56>
8.60
11.7
( 13.1)
< 1.26>
4.70
4.9
( 4.0)
< 1. 15>
4.10
Source*     DICHLOBOBETHIRE  2,4-Dicui.oBOpusHoi.  DIETHTLPHTHALITE   DIISOOCTYLPHTIUI.UE  DIOCTTLPHTHILATE  OODECANOIC icio
  it******************************************** •********'*********»*************•*•***«****•**»»**•**•****»»****•**•»*«***•**••*••*
  10000   »T        72.2                7.7                6.5                63.1                 7.3              0.0
         SD      (   0.0)             (   8.1)             (   9.3)             (111.8)              (  9.2)           (   0.0)
         S       <  0.0 )             <  1.23>             <  3.03>             < 2.78>             < 1.32>          <  0.0 >
         BO      *••***               4.1Q               2.50               18.40                2.00             0.0
1000*



90000



90001



ir
so
S
HD
IV
SD
S
ND
IT
SD
S
(ID
0.0
{ 0.0)
< 0.0 >
0.0
0.0
( 0.0)
< 0.0 >
0.0
5.5
( 0.0)
< 0.0 >
******
  11.7

< 2.78>
  7.45

   6.9
(  5.1)
< 0.88>
  4.80

   6.7
( 10.9)
< 2.65>
  3.00
                                                         39.1
                                                       (  69-3)
                                                       <  4.55>
                                                       28.40

                                                         16.2
                                                       (  10.5)
                                                       <  0.95>
                                                       15.35

                                                         15.9
                                                        13.00
  43.3
(144.2)
< 3.57>
  2.00
   2.0
   0.0)
  0.0 >
******

   2.0
(  0-0)
< 0.0 >
  2.00
  11.0
( 37.1)
< 3.75>
  2.00

   2.0
(  0.0)
< 0.0 >
******

   2.0
I  0.0)
< 0.0 >
  2.00
   0.0
(  0.0)
< 0.0 3
  0.0

   0.0
(  0.0)
< 0.0 )
  0.0

   0.0
(  0.0)
< 0.0 >
  0.0

-------
Table C.1, continued
Source*    ETUTL BENZENE       HEPTADECANE         HEIADECANS     HEXAPECANOIC ACID  USTHYLHEPTADECANOATE  IETHH.HEXADECANOATK
****•*•
10000



10004



90000



90001



Source
4 444 44 1
10000



10004



90000



90001



!»•*>
AT
SD
S
no
AT
SD
S
HD
AT
SD
S
HD
AT
SD
S
RD

N44 4
AT
SD
S
HD
AT
SD
S
HD
AT
SD
S
BD
AT
SD
S
no
«»•**«»««»*««•»•»•* ***<
1.3
( 1-0)
< 3.30>
1.00
1.7
( 1.5)
< 4.37>
1.00
1.9
( 0.3)
<-2.67>
2.00
1.8
( 1-5)
< 3.35>
2.00
1-HETHYLRAPHTHALEHE
6.8
( 15.1)
< 3.64>
2.00
6.4
( 8.9)
< 3.79>
2.90
2.6
( 1-6)
< 0.92>
2.15
3.2
( 3.3)
< 2.86>
2.00
7.5
{ 7.7)
< 1.66>
3.90
14.3
( 14.8)
< 1.95>
10.95
6.9
( 4.0)
< 0.96>
5.85
3.6
( 3.5)
< 1.55>
2.00
2-flBTBTLPHENOL
6.1
( 6.3)
< 1.74>
2.25
5.3
( 5.4)
< 1.91>
3.30
2.6
( 1-8)
< 1.07>
2.20
1.9
( 1-5)
< 3. 21>
2.00
7.5
( 8.3)
< 1.46>
3.20
2.0
( 0.0)
< 0.0 >
2.00
2.0
( 0.0)
< o.o •>
******
2.0
( 0.0)
< 0.0 >
2.00
4-1ETHTLPHE00L
8.7
{ 14.7)
< 3.90>
5.00
16.1
( 43.3)
< 4.71>
5.00
7.2
( 12.0)
< 2.38>
2.50
3.4
( 1-8)
< 0.71>
2.25
59. «
( 33.0)
< 0.69>
42.50
0.0
( 0.0)
< 0.0 >
0.0
0.0
( 0.0)
< 0.0 >
0.0
13.9
( 18.2)
< 0.0 >
13.90
NAPHTHALENE
3.1
( 1.9)
< 1.66>
2.00
14.2
( 22.2)
< 3.01>
7.85
20.5
( 32.9)
< 2.21>
8.75
5.3
< 5.5)
< 2.38>
2.50
8.4
( 11.D
< 1.66>
2.00
142.7
(690.0)
< 5. 19>
2.60
4.5
< 5.4)
< 2.35>
2.00
10.5
( 17.9)
< 2.44>
2.00
4-NONTL?HBNOL
0.0
( 0.0)
< 0. 0 >
0.0
12.1
{ 0.0)
< 0. 0 >
******
0.0
< 0.0)
< 0. 0 >
0.0
26.1
( 0.0)
< 0. 0 )
******
12.6
{ 24.2)
< 3. 18>
2.85
38.7
( 84.4)
< 3.65>
6.15
4.1
( 4.4)
< 2.30>
2. 15
16.9
( 22.1)
< 2.09>
7. 15
OCTADECANE
4.3
( 3.4)
< 1.24>
2.00
18.6
( 55.9)
< 4.95>
5.80
8.5
( 4.6)
< 0.71>
7.90
7.8
( 8.6)
< 1.67>
2.85

-------
Table C.1, continued
Source*
10000 IT
SO
S •
no
10004 IT
so
S •
BO
90000 AT
SO
S •
no
90001 IT
so
S «
no


10.5 20.0 8.1 4.8 1.9 6.8
( 8.4) ( 54.0) ( 16.2) ( 12.6) ( 2.4) ( 8.1)
< 1.71> < 4.03> < 3.10> < 3.24> < 2.66> < 4. 25>
10.00 5.10 2.00 1.00 1.00 5.00
9.7
( 11.5)
C 3.93>
8.20
8.4
( 7.3)
C 1.06>
6.75
8.3
( 7.2)
* 9^80


35.0
( 61.9)
< 2.71>
11.00
20.7
{ 24.1)
< 1.67>
10.00
11.7
( 13.9)
< 2.58>
10.00


16.8
( 27.4)
< 1.89>
2.00
18.8
( 30.2)
< 2. 10>
5.75
32.7
(113.3)
2.' 00
Source*
10000
10004
90000
90001
1.8
( 1-9)
< 3.59>
1.00
2.3
{ 1-4)
< 0.54>
2.00
2.1
( 1.8)
< 1.54>
1.00

1.6
( 2.1)
< 3.72>
1.00
1. 1
( 0.2)
< 1.67>
1.00
1. 1
( 0.5)
< 4. 13>
1.00

5. 1
( 1.D
< 1.75>
5.00
5.0
( 0.0)
< 0.0 >
******
4.9
( 0.3)
sloo

1.2
( 0.8)
< 4.01>
1.00
1. 1
( 0.3)
< 3.06>
1.00
1.0
( 0.0)
< 0.0 >
1.00
1.1
( 0.3)
< 2.39>
1.00

= Plant#2 Effluent June 1980 to February 1982
= Discharge From Force Main February 1982 to November 1983
= Effluent To Gray Farm June 1982 to November 1983
= Discharge From Hancock Reservoir//1 February 1982 to November 1983
                         ** AV = Arithmetic Average
                            SD = Standard Deviation
                             S = Skewness
                            MD = Median Value

-------
        TABLE  C.2.   RECOMMENDED MAXIMUM CONCENTRATIONS OF TRACE ELEMENTS
       	IN  IRRIGATION WATERS (Pettygrove & Asano 1984)
Element
Recommended
  maximum
Concentration3
   (mg/1)
                     Remarks
Al
(aluminum)
As
(arsenic)
Be
(beryllium)
Cd
(cadmium)
      5.0
Co
(chromium)
Cu
(copper)

F
(fluoride)

Fe
(iron)
      0.10
      0.10
      0.01
      0.1
      0.2


      1.0


      5.0
Can cause non-productivity in acid soils
(pH <5.5), but more alkaline soils at pH
<5.5 will precipitate the ion and elimi-
ate any toxicity.

Toxicity to plants varies widely, ranging
from 12 mg/1 for Sudan grass to <0.05 mg/1
for rice.

Toxicity to plants varies widely, ranging
from 5 mg/1 for kale to 0.5 mg/1 for bush
beans.

Toxic to beans, beets, and turnips at con-
centrations as low as 0.1 mg/1 in nutrient
solutions.  Conservative limits recommended
because of  its potential for accumulation
in plants and soils to concentrations that
may be harmful to humans.

Not generally recognized as an essential
growth element.  Conservative limits rec-
omended because of lack of knowledge on
toxicity to plants.

Toxic to a number of plants at 0.1 to 1.0
mg/1 in nutrient solutions.

Inactivated by neutral and alkaline soils.
Not toxic to plants in aerated soils, but
can contribute to soil acidification and
loss of reduced availability of essential
phosphorus and molybdenum.  Overhead sprink-
ling may result in unsightly deposits on
plants, equipment, and buildings.
                                                                     (continued)
                                    307

-------
Table C.2, continued
Element
Recommended
  maximum
Concentration^
   (mg/1)
                                                      Remarks
Li
(lithium)
Mn
(manganese)
Mo
(molybdenum)
Ni
(nickel)
Pb
(lead)

Se
(selenium)
Sn
(tin)

Ti
(titanium)

W
(tungsten)

V
(vanadium)
      2.5
      0.2
      0.01
      0.2
      5.0
      0.02
      0.1
Tolerated by most crops up to 5 mg/1;
mobile in soil.  Toxic to citrus  and  low
levels (>0.075 mg/1).  Acts similar to
boron.

Toxic to a number of crops at a few tenths
mg to a few mg/1, but usually only in acid
soils.

Not toxic to plants at normal concentra-
tions in soil and water.  Can be  toxic to
livestock if forage is grown in soils with
high levels of available molybdenum.

Toxic to a number of plants at 0.5 to 1.0
mg/1; reduced toxicity at neutral or  alka-
line pH.

Can inhibit plant cell growth at  very high
concentrations.

Toxic to plants at concentrations as  low as
0.025 mg/1 and toxic to livestock if  forage
is grown in soils with relatively high levels
of added selenium.  An essential  element for
animals but in very low concentrations.

Effectively excluded by plants; specific
tolerance unknown.

(See remark for tin)
                  (See remark for tin)
Toxic to many plants at relatively low con-
centrations.

    "(continued)
                                    308

-------
Table  C.2,  continued
Element
Recommended
  maximum
Concentration3
   (mg/1)
Remarks
Zn
(zinc)
2.0 Toxic to many plants at widely varying
centrations; reduced toxicity at pH >6
in fine textured or organic soils.
con-
.0 and
a The maximum concentration is based on a water application rate that is
    consistent with good agricultural practices 1.22 ha.m/ha.yr (4 ac-ft/
    ac.yr) the water application rate exceeds this, the maximum concentra-
    tion should be adjusted downward accordingly.  No adjustment should be
    made for application rates of less than 4 acre-ft per year per acre.
    The values given are for waters used on a continuous basis at one site
    for the irrigation supply water.
                                    309

-------
TABLE C.3.   RANGES  OF  CONCENTRATIONS  OF  ORGANIC  COMPOUNDS  IN
       MUNICIPAL  WASTEWATER  TREATMENT  PLANT  EFFLUENTS
      IN MICROGRAM5 PER  LITER  (Majeti  and  Clark  1981)

Compound
Chloroform
Trichloroethylene
Benzidine
Vinyl Chloride
Benzene
PCBs
End r in
Toxaphene
Methanol
Ethanol
Acetone
2,3-Dithiabutane
Carbon Disulfide
1 ,1 ,1-Trichloroethane
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
Xylene
Acrolein
Acetaldehyde
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chi o rod ibromome thane
Dichlorobromomethane
Bromoform
1 ,3-Dichloroethane
Methylene Chloride
Dayton, Ohio
Unchlo- Chlori-
nated nated
0.3-1.4 0.4-12
0.2-1.7 0.1-10
<01
<1
0.2-40
.1
.1
.1
150-510
150-3000
50_300
	 *
	 *
1-15
1-20
1-10
1 -1 5
20-200
90-1,350
3
0.1
0.1 0.1-0.4
* 0.1-4.6
1.4 0.1-4.6
2-50
Cincinnati, Ohio
Unchlo- Chlori-
nated nated
0.1-0.7 0.5-12
0.6-0.7
<01
<1
0.3-3.8
	 	
	 	
	 	
	 	
	 	
	 	
1
2-8
	 *
0.3-3
1
10
10-150
100-560
	 *
0,4-4.6
0.1-0.3 0.1-8
* 0.2-0.3
•* *•
1-10

 ^indicates none  detected;  	  indicates no data available
                            310

-------
TABLE C.4.   TRACE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (ng/1) IN SECONDARY EFFLUENTS
    ORANGE  COUNTY WATER DISTRICT (Pettygrove and Asano 1984)

Compound
Trihalomethane
Chloroform
Bromod ichlorom ethane
Dibromochloromethane
Bromoform
Other volatile organics
Carbon tetrachloride
Methylene chloride
1 ,1 ,1-Trichloroethane
T rich lor oethylene
Tetrachloroethylene
Chlorobenzenes
Chlorobenzene
1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene
1 , 3-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,4-D.ichlorobenzene
1 ,3,4-Trichlorobenzene
Aromatic hydrocarbons
Ethylbenzene
m-Xylene
p-Xylene
Naphthalene
1 -Methylnaphthalene
2-Me thy 1 naphthalene

Jan.
No. of
Samples

52
42
35
24

	
41
50
46
39

14
15
15
15
15

13
—
—
16
11
10

1976

- Sept.
Range

0.2
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1

	
1.7
<0.3
<0.1
<0.1

0.2
0.3
0.2
0.8
<0.02

0.2
	
	
0.1
0.1
0.4

- 3.9
- 1.1
- 10
- 3


- 74
- 38
- 12
- 15

- 9.4
- 8.9
- 1.7
- 9.2
- 4.1

- 8.7


- 4.1
- 3.9
- 2.6

1976a
Geometric
mean

1.6
0.09
0.15
0.12

	
17.0
4.7
0.9
0.6

2.5
2.4
0.68
2.1
0.46

1.4
—
—
0.57
0.86
1.0

Mar .
No. of
Samples

28
27
28
23

28
--
28
—
28

27
27
26
26
27

25
24
24
27
27
27

1978 -
Range

0.8 -
0.2 -
0.2 -
0.1 -

<0.1 -
	
0.2 -
	
0.2 -

<0.02 -
0.07 -
<0.02 -
0.07 -
<0.02 -

<0.02 -
<0.02 -
<0.02 -
<0.02 -
<0.02 -
<0.02 -

Oct.


17
3.2
1.8
6.4

0.1

15

9.5

1.1
13
5.4
15
3.1

0.5
0.2
0.04
0.54
0.89
0.18

1978
Geometr ic
Mean

2.9
0.6
0.71
0.37

<0.1
—
2.9
—
1 .5

0.11
0.63
0.17
1.9
0.18

0.039
0.027
0.016
0.065
0.004
0.018
                                                                     (cont inuedT

-------
    Table C.4, continued


Compound
Solvent extractablesb
Dimethylph thai ate
Diethylphthalate
Oi-n-butylph thai ate
Di-isobutylph thai ate
Bis-[2-ethylhexyl]phthalate
PCB (as Aroclor 1242)
Lindane
Jan.
No. of
Samples

3
11
3
11
11
11
10
1976

- Sept .

Range

14.7
<2
0.5
<0.3
15
2
<0.1

- 18.7

- 0.5
- 16
- 65
- 7.6
- 0.6
1976a
Geometric
mean

0.6
<2.0
<0.5
2.9
28.0
3.3
0.19
Mar .
No. of
Samples

25
25
24
25
25
25
25
1978 -

Range

0.8 -
<0.3 -
<0.5 -
<1
<4
<0.3 -
0.09 -
Oct.



14
12
3.4
10
62
1.3
0.
. 1978
Geometric
Mean

5.4
<0.3
0.75
4.4
9.3
0.47
19 0.15

N3
    a.   Period  from Oct.  1976  to  Mar.  1978  trickling  filter  effluent,  period  from  Mar.  1978 to  Oct.  1978
        activated  sludge  treatment  with segregation of wastewaters  to  reduce  industrial inputs.

    b.   One  liter  of sample  extracted  with  2  x  15  ml  of hexane,  dried  with  sodium  sulfate, concentrated to
        2 ml, and  cleaned on a Florisil column  before analysis.

-------
TABLE C.5.   HANCOCK WELL WATER SAMPLES WHICH EQUALLED OR EXCEEDED DRINKING WATER STANDARDS

Parameter
N03-N
Baseline*
Well #
21234
10211
20112
21141
20842
10842
30312
i 40331
' 21323










Freq*
2/6
1/6
2/6
2/6
2/5
1/7
1/6
1/6
1/5











Se
Irrigationt Baseline* Irrigat
Well # Freq* Well #




20842 3/5 20842
10842
30312
40331
21323 1/4
21152 4/7
10112 1/5
10731 4/7
10931 2/5 10931
10821 1/5 10821
10932 1/11
40311
40421

20243 1/6
Freq* Well #


20112
21141
1/5
1/7
1/6
1/6 40331




2/5
2/6
10932
2/5 40311
2/5 40421
20721

Cd
iont Baseline* Irrigationt
Freq* Well # Freq* Code Freq*


1/5
2/4



1/5






2/11
2/4
1/5
2/4 20721 1/6

                                                                                      (cont inued)

-------
Table C.5,  continued
Parameter Pb Cl
Baseline* Irrigationt Baseline* Irrigationt Basel
Well # Frecf Well # Freq» Well // Freq» Well # Freq» Well #
21234 21234
10211
20112
21141
20842
10842
30312 2/5 30312
40331
21323
21152
10112
10731
10931
10821 1/6 10821
10932
40311
40421 1/5 40421
20721
10521 1/5 10521
10542
20243
10232
10721 2/5 10721
11032
20711
40231
10541
Fe
ine*
Freq*
1/6
1/6
2/6
2/6
2/5
2/7
2/6
2/6
2/5
1/1
1/6
1/1
2/5
2/6
1/1
2/5
2/5
3/6
3/5
2/5
3/6
2/5
2/5
1/5
2/5
3/6
2/5

Irr igat
Well #
21234
10211
20112
21141
20842
10842
30312
40331
21323
21152
10112
10731
10931
10821
10932
40311
40421
20721
10521
10542
20243
10232
10721
11032
20711
40231
10541

iont
Freq*
4/5
3/4
3/5
3/4
3/5
3/4
4/5
3/5
4/4
4/7
3/5
4/7
4/5
2/5
4/11
4/4
V5
2/4
3/5
3/4
3/4
3/5
3/5
4/5
4/4
3/4
4/4
                                                                                                       (continued)

-------
TABLE C.5, continued
Parameter


Mn S0{±
Baseline*
Well #
21234
10211
20112
21141

30312
40331
21323
21152
10112
10731
10931

10932

40421
20721
10521
10542
20243
10232
10721
11032
20711
40231
10541
Freq*
2/6
2/6
2/6
3/6

4/6
5/6
3/5
1/1
2/6
1/1
2/5

1/1

1/5
5/6
4/5
3/5
4/6
1/5
2/5
3/5
4/5
5/6
1/5

TDS
Irrigationt Baseline* Irrigation+ Baseline* Irrigation+
Well #
21234


21141
20842
30312
40331
21323
21152

10731
10931
10821
10932
40311


10521
10542
20243

10721
11032
20711
40231
10541
Freq* Well # Freq* Well # Freq» Well #
3/5


2/4
2/5
4/5 30312
1/5
3/4
2/7

2/7 10731 1/7
2/5 10931 2/5
2/5 10821 1/6 10821 1/5 10821
2/11
1/4


3/5
3/4
1/5

3/5 10721 2/5
1/5
4/4
4/4
3/4
Freq* Code Freq*





2/6 30312 2/5




10731 1/7

1/6 10821 1/5


40421 1/5











*Baseline Period = June 1980 to February 1982
tlrrigation Period = February 1982 through October 1983
^Frequency = Number of sampling periods the well water exceeded drinking water standards  for  a  specific  parameter/
             number of sampling periods for that well

-------
                          TABLE C.6.   HANCOCK FARM,
SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES BETWEEN BASELINE AND POST-BASELINE  WELL  WATER  QUALITY

Parameter Alk Cond IDS Ph Cl SO, TKN NO, NH, TP OP OKP COD TOC
Well No.
10112 *_
10211 *+ *_
10521 *+
10542 *-+
10931 * +
20112 * + *_ *_
20243 *_ *_
20743
20721 *--
21141 *_ *_
40331 * +
10232 ^._
10721 •*+ *+ * +
10821 *- *+ #- *-
10842
11032
20711
20842
21323
30312 ^+ #_ >+ ^_ ^+
40231 #_
40421
21234 ^_ ^_
40311
10541 _ ^-_
21152 * +
10731 *+ ^-i- -a--)- -X-J-

TC FC FS Al
* denotes stat ibtiual ly
significant Ui rfel'ciicuii
*+ *+ yreater than baseline
well water quality
parameter
- denotes post-baseline
less than baseline well
water quality parameter

-------
 Table   C.6  ,  continued




Parameter	As     Ba     B     Ca     Cd     Co     Cr    Cu     Fe     Pb     Mg     l-ln     Hg     Mo    Hi     K     Se     Ag

Well No.

10112

10211

10521                *-

10542                                                *+

10931                                                               * +                              *-

20112

20243                *-

20721                «_
                                                                                                           -*-
21141

40331                *-

10232

10721                             *+                               *+           *+    *+                              *+

10821                                                       -X—                  -X—

10842

11032

20711                                                               *+

20B42

21323

30312                                                               *+           *~    *+

40231

40421                                                       *+

21234                                                               *+

40311

10541

21152                *-          *-                       *-                  *-    *-

10731                -X--          *-                                            *+    *-

10932                                                *-    *-                                                        *~   *+

-------
        Table  c.6,      continued
                                                                                     Jcu  .-t   a,              -it   c   o   f*                             --»
                                                                                     .*j   CD  -iJ               u   a   c   £                             x
                                                                                     to  .c   CD               cc   u   a   .C  <-i  <-«                      .c



Well
Nuntier
£
1 £
.C O
U
c x

< .
4-*

J

O
(D
(H
41
»—
8
t;
(C

.H «
3 £
§ £
l< -ft
i-t U
O «-(
1 £


o
Ik
1*
t-\
j;

o
1
&

V

(C
*J
o
u

1

(D
•C
a
•4-1
•H
C
S
o
tH
i
O
•a


S t £
O N N
L. C C
*"^ ,
•1-1 -l-l -fcj
Q ° ^

u
0
o
j:
CD
t-
OJ


0>
fc
^-)
o

&
£
o
u
o
_c
(J
•H
1-4

>,
i
4-J
0
M
o
r
o
u.

 10112         *+        %+                                                         * +



 10211                                                                               * +



 10521                * +




 10542



 10931                   * +




 20112




 20243



 20721                                                                                                              * +



 21141




 40331



 10232




10721



10821



10842                                                                              * +




11032



11032                         *+ *~



20711




20842



21323                                                     *+                      * +




30312                                                *+  *+                      * +



40231                                                *~                                                            *~




40421



21234                                                                                                               *+                             * +



40311                                                    '^ +



10541         *+                                          *+                                                                                * +




i]j52                *-      *-- *-                *-  *~         *~                                     *-    *~             *~



 10731                                  .*+       *+                                                                * +


 10932

-------
                                                       Table C.7
    Simple Statistical Values of Groundwater Inorganics,  Physical and  Organic Parameters  Present  in Ground
      Water Beneath Hancock  Farm During the Baseline Monitoring  Period (June  1980  to February 1982)
VO
         •BLL      iLKllIBITY      COBDOCTIYITT
                  K CIC03/L
        •••»*••**••••••«»»•«**•*«***»»»*»•»•«»•«
        10112  IT'    295.            694.
              SO    ( 29.)           {  55.)
              S    <-0.75>           < 0.23>
              (ID    302.            690.
  769.
(  53.)
<-0.13>
  774.

  739.
( 189.)
<-1.07>
  819.

  969.
( 462.)
< 0.84>
  842.

 1067.
( 299.)
<-0.31>
 1080.

  872.
( 113.)
<-0.90>
  914.

  787.
                                     818.

                                     991.
                                   (  168.)
                                   <  0.55>
                                     962.

                                    1151.
                                   (  196.)
                                   <-0.85>
                                    1205.

                                    1021.
                                   (  172.)
                                   <-0.44>
                                    1060.
10211



10521



10542



10931



20112



20243



20721



21141



40331



IT
SD
S
HD
IT
SD
S
HD
IT
SD
S
HD
IT
SD
S
BD
IT
SD
S
HD
IT
SD
S
no
IT
SD
S
no
IT
SD
S
HD
IT
SD
S
HD
310.
( 6.)
< 0.05>
310.
260.
( 45.)
<-0.90>
296.
321.
( 16.)
< 1.09>
315.
297.
( 9.)
<-0.00>
296.
311.
( 18.)
<- 1.1 2>
319.
306.
( 11.)
< 0.31>
304.
299.
( 15.)
< 1.05>
293.
278.
( 10.)
< 0.98>
268.
278.
( 26.)
< 0.82>
271.
TDS
.10/1
465.
( 47.)
< 1. 11>
443.
503.
( 14.)
< 0.32>
501.
462.
( 115.)
<-1 . 01>
508.
628.
( 223.)
< 1.07>
534.
749.
( 169.)
<-0. 18>
785.
605.
( 32.)
< 0.27>
601.
501.
( 26.)
<-0.92>
510.
670.
( 106.)
< 1 . 01>
631.
765.
( 122.)
<- 1. 06>
816.
690.
( 80.)
<-0. 58>
713.
PR

7.68
(0.28)
< 0.84>
7.59
7.61
(0.31)
< 0.16>
7.59
7.61
(0.23)
< 0.70>
7.54
8.14
(0.10)
< 0.85>
8.11
7.69
(0.21)
< 0.62>
7.60
7.64
(0.33)
< 0.17>
7.62
7.61
(0.16)
< 0.48>
7.57
7.67
(0.27)
< 0.40>
7.63
7.64
(0.31)
< 0.57>
7.S6
7.82
(0.18)
<-0.07>
7.B3
CL
BG/L
17.
( 8.)
< 0.52>
16.
21.
( 2.)
<-0.69>
22.
28.
( 8.)
<-0.81>
31.
94.
( 89.)
< 0.94>
60.
27.
( 12.)
<-0.05>
29.
40.
( 35.)
< 1.15>
24.
34.
( 5.)
< 1.05>
33.
96.
( 57.)
< 1.06>
72.
119.
( 46.)
<- 1.01>
137.
86.
( 39.)
<-0.78>
97.
S04
HG/L
66.
( 33.)
< 0.08>
65.
67.
( 2.)
< 0.0 >
67.
76.
< 11.)
< 0.0 >
76.
72.
( 11.)
< 1.1 4>
67.
208.
(124.)
<-0.26>
230.
104.
( 18.)
<-1.03>
112.
78.
( 6.)
<-0.73>
79.
93.
( 7.)
< 0.1 8>
92.
147.
( 68.)
<-0. 12>
150.
158.
( 40.)
<-0.97>
174.
TOT1L 1
HG HA
0.49
( 0.42)
< 0. 12>
0.45
0.59
( 0.36)
<-0. 05 >
0.60
0.28
( 0. 14)
<-0. 17>
0. 28
0.49
( 0.40)
< 1. 14>
0.30
0. 3»
( 0.11)
< 0. 46 >
0.3)
0.38
( 0. 37)
< 0. 71 >
0.26
0.42
( 0.28)
< 0. 81>
0.33
0.29
( 0.25)
< 1.02>
0.20
0.4)
( 0.31)
< 0.27>
0.47
0.32
I 0.13)
< 0. 35 >
0. 30
»02/B03
BG «/l
5.57
( 3.89)
< 1.00>
4.86
2.62
( 1.99)
<-0.20>
2.89
0.52
( 0.55)
< 1.15>
0.39
1.54
( 1-47)
< 0.07>
1.48
9.25
< 2.35)
<-0. 11>
9.62
4.21
( 2.86)
<-0.30>
5.00
1.39
( 0.61)
< 0.26>
1.27
2.42
< 2.29)
< 0.52>
1.91
3.44
( 3.76)
< 0.44>
2.61
2.70
'( 2.18)
<-0.27>
3.59
NH3
HG M/L
0.03
( 0.02)
< 0.43>
0.02
0.03
( 0.03)
< 0.82>
0.02
0.07
( 0.07)
< 0.44>
0.06
0.06
( 0.03)
< 0.13>
0.06
0.03
< 0.03)
< 1. 43>
0.01
0.05
( 0.04)
< 0. 87>
0.03
0.04
( 0.03)
< 0. 37>
0.03
0.07
( 0.08)
< 0.57>
0.05
0.25
( 0.38)
< 1. 13>
0.08
0. 10
( 0.06)
< 0.00>
0.10

-------
     Table  C.7,  continued
N3
O
 10232  AV
        SD
        S
        (ID

 10721  AT
        SD
        S
        no

 10821  AT
        SD
        S
        ND

 10842  AT
        SD
        S
        no

 11032  AT
        SD
        S
        ND

20711   AT
        SD
        S
        HO

20842   AT
        SD
        S
        HO

21323   AT
        SD
        S
        (ID

30312   AT
        SO
        S
        no

40231   AT
        SD
       -S
        HO

40421   AT
        SD
        S
        (ID
         21234
                AT
                SD
                S
                HD
   280.
  (   9.)
 :  0.44>
   277.

   319.
  (  15.)

   315.

   258.
  (  12.)

   263.

   282.
  301.

  211.
  ( 18. )
  0.36>
  278.

  245.
  ( 35.)
  1.84>
  231.

  319.
  {  6.)
  0.75>
  319.

  268.
  269.

  231.
 (  6.)
< 0.54>
  231.

  283.
 ( 29.)
< 0.63>
  271.

  243.
 ( 12. »
<-0.27>
  247.

  272.
 ( 17.)
<-0.19>
  275.
                                           7flO.
                                           790.

                                           846.
                                         (   65.)
                                         <  0.35>
                                           R20.

                                          1225.
                                         t  213.)
                                         <  0.82>
                                          1180.

                                           732.
  760.

  796.
( 129.)
<-0.fiO>
  810.

 1038.
(  93.)
<-0.52>
 1090.

  630.
{  57.)
<-0.25>
  640.

 1130.
(  98.)
< 0.27>
 1990.

 1287.
( 115.)
<-0.72>
 1325.

 1022.
( 164.)
< 0.08>
 1030.

 1076.
( 166.)
<-1.01>
 1100.

  762.
< 128.1
< 0.60>
  750.
6J3.
( JO.)
< 0.31>
632.
604.
( 74.)
<-0.58>
651.
902.
f 96.)
< 0.57>
B64.
570.
( 25.)
< 0.67>
570.
6U1.
( 62.)
<-0.25>
661.
732.
( 18.)
<-0.4B>
736.
511.
( 23.)
<-1.32>
517.
843.
( 37.)
< 0.83>
830.
989.
( 42.)
< 0.49>
974.
774.
( 64.)
< 0.98>
761.
759.
( 98.)
< 0.12>
745.
601.
( 1«8.)
< 1.60>
547.
7.59
(0. 14)
< 0.57>
7.57
7. MO
(0.08)
<-1.04>
7.H2
7.48
(0.17)
< 0.51>
7.42
7.83
(0.18)
<-O.OU>
7.79
7.43
(O.OB)
< 0.37>
7.41
7.66
(0.13)
< 0.61>
7.62
7.52
(0.17)
< 0.09>
7.48
7.46
(0.09)
<-0.73>
7.49
7.48
(0.17)
< 1.36>
7.43
7.43
(0.08)
<-1. 17>
7.46
7.32
(0.15)
<-0.30>
7.40
7.63
<0.27)
< 1.
7.53
89.
(13.)
<• 0.77>
87.
125.
( 72.)
< 0.34>
116.
201.
(127.)
< 0.62>
161.
57.
( 11.)
< 0.22>
60.
123.
( 67.)
< 1.01>
1T6.
224.
( 27.)
< 0.48>
226.
41.
( 33.)
< 1.46>
27.
192.
( '•)
< 0.11>
194.
215.
( 85.)
<-1.65>
254.
147.
( 38.)
<-0.47>
150.
246.
(115.)
< 0.94>
192.
56.
( 15.)
< 0.32>
53.
   92.
 ( 10.)
<-0.59>
   94.

   83.
 ( 17.)
<-0.34>
   91.

  243.
 ( 57.)
< 0.50>
  227.

   71.
 (  7.)
< 1.17>
   70.

   87.
 ( 33.)
<-0.57>
  103.

   75.
 ( 31.)
<-0.36>
   77.

   69.
 ( 67.)
< 1.44>
   43.

  131.
 ( 22.)
< 0.42>
  129.

  175.
 ( 73.)
<-1.21>
  211.

  113.
 ( 39.)
<-0.09>
  111.

  108.
 ( 13.)
< 0.35>
  101.

   93.
 ( 15.J
<-0.86>
   98.
                                                                                                          0.9)
                                                                                                        (  0.96)
                                                                                                        <  1. 26>
                                                                                                          0. 60
  1. 19
( 1.79)

  0.35

  0.54
( 0.47)
< 1. 40>
  0.39

  0.79
( 1.14)

  0.32

  0.67
( 0.68)
< 0.93>'
  0.62
  4.21
( 5.011
< 0. 56 >
  2.85

  1.42
( 1.20)
<-0. 14>
  1.53

  0.41
( 0.34)
< 0.37>
  0.21

  0.85
( 0.62)
< 0. 83 >
  0.61

  3.66
( 4.501
< 1. 36>
  1.82

  0.39
( 0.61)
< 1.44>
  0. 15

  0.71
( 0.87)
< 0.77>
  0.21
  2.80
(  2.25)
<  0.30>
  2.10

  2.52
(  1.66)
<-0.55>
  3.05

  2.14
(  1.72)
<  0.99>
  1.67

  4.10
(  5.41)
<  1.46>
  2.01

  2.06
(  1.68)
< O.i27>
  1.74

  2.90
(  1-77)
<-0.05>
  3.21

  8.37
( 4.03)

  9^61

  7.92
( 5.15)
< 0.70>
  6.91

  5.94
( 3.22)
<-0.42>
  6.20

  2.52
( 1.87)
< 0.41>
  2.24

  4.57
( 2.30)
K-1.23>
  5.33

  6.54
(  5.50)
<  0.21>
  6.05
  0.08
( 0.06)
< 0.13>
  0.07

  0.20
( 0.35)
< 1. 41>
  0.01

  0.03
I 0.03)
< 0.73>
  0.01

  0.06
( 0.06)
< 0.32>
  0.04

  0.19
( 0.18)
< 0. 28>
  0.12

  0.37
( 0.60)
< 1.07>
  0.11

  0.05
( 0.07)
< 1.14>
  0.02

  0.08
( 0.05)
< 1.50>
  0.06

  0.08
 ( 0.06)
< 0. 21>
  0.08

  1.36
 ( 1.10)
< 0. 36>
  1.25

  0.03
 ( 0.02)
< 0.04>
  0.03

  0. 26
( 0.49)
< 1.74>
  0.07

-------
        Table C.7, continued
         0031 1
         10541
         21152
         10731
         10932
AT
SO
S
HD

AT
3D
S
HD
  257.
 (  17.)
< 0.81>
  248.

  290.
 (   6.)
<-0.05>
  290.
               AT     284.
               3D    (  0.)
               S    < 0.0 >
               no     ••*•
                      330.

                      0.0 >
AT
SO
S    <
no
                AT     349.
                SO    (  0.)
                S    < 0.0  >
                RD     ****
                                      1016.
                                     (  134.)
                                     <-1. 11>
                                      1050.
  660.
   49.)
  0.50>
  640.

  550.
    0.)
  0.0 >
 *****
  530.
(    0.)
<  0.0  >
 *****

  750.
(    0.)
<  0.0  >
 *****
791.
( 39.)
<-0. 3fl>
790.
541.
( 15.)
< 0.23>
536.
509.
( 0.)
< 0.0 >
*****
514.
( 0.)
< 0.0 5
*****
598.
( 0.)
< 0. 0 >
*****
7.M
(0.26)
< 1.27>
7.41
7.46
(0.13)
< 1.18>
7.40
7.59
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
****
7.92
(0.0 (
< 0.0 >
**•*
7. '37
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
****
175.
( 28.)
< 0.06>
176.
58.
( 12-)
< O.U1>
50.
63.
( 0-)
< 0.0 >
****
41.
( 0.)
< 0.0 >
****
88.
( 0.)
< 0.0 >
»***
147.
( 1«.)
< 0.00>
147.
72.
( 17.)
<-1.25>
77.
98.
( 0.)
< 0.0 >
****
32.
( o->
< 0.0 >
****
82.
( o.)
< 0.0 >
****
0. JO
( 0.11)
< 0.0} >
0.30
0.36
( 0.30)
< 0. 54>
0.23
1.80
( 0.0 )
< 0. 0 >
*****
0.49
( 0.0 )
< 0. 0 >
**»»>
0. 10
< 0. 0 )
< 0. 0 )
****•
4.44
( 2.44)
<-0.60>
5.70
1.03
( 0.92)
< 1.07>
0.50
1.57
( 0.0 )
< 0.0 >
*****
0.79
( 0.0 )
< 0.0 >
*****
0.83
( 0.0 )
< 0.0 >
*****
0.0 J
( O.J3)
< l.23>
0.01
0.04
( 0.05)
< 1.26>
0.03
0.16
( 0.0 )
< 0.0 >
*****
0.22
( 0.0 )
< 0.0 >
*****
0.05
( 0.0 )
< 0.0 3
*****
hO
           * AV  = Arithmetic Average
             SD  = Standard  Deviation
               S  = Skewness
             MD  = Median  Value

-------
                                                       Table  C.8

    Simple  Statistical  Values  of Groundwater  Inorganics, Physical  and  Organic  Parameters  Present in  the
Ground Water Beneath the Hancock  Farm After  the Baseline Monitoring Period  (February 1982 to  October 1983)
      •ILL      »LK»LI»ITT
                HG CtCOl/L
      ••••*»««•««•»••••«•*•*•••
      10112  »T'    295.
            SD    ( 29.)
            S    <-0.75>
            ND    302.
      10211
      10521
      105*2
      10931
     20112
AT
3D
S
no
            IT
            SD
            S
            HD

     202*3  IT
            SD
            S
            HD

     20721  IT
            SD
            S
            no

     211*1  AT
            SD
            S
            no

     10331  AT
            SD
            S
            no
                  310.
                  (  6.)
                  0.05>
                  310.
AT     280.
SO    ( 45.)
S    <-0.90>
HD     296.

AT     321.
SD    ( 16.)
S    <  1.09>
HD     315.

IT     297.
SD    ( 9.)
S    <-0.00>
HD     296.
      311.
      ( 18.)
     <-1.12>
      319.

      306.
      ( 11.)
     < 0.31>
      304.

      299.
      ( 15.)
     < 1.05>
      293.

      278.
      ( 30.)
     < 0.98>
      268.

      278.
      ( 26.)
     < 0.82>
      271.
COUDDCTITITT

694.
( 55.)
< 0.23>
690.
769.
( 53.)
<-0. 1 3>
774.
739.
( 189.)
<- 1.07>
819.
969.
( 462.)
< 0.84>
842.
1067.
( 299.)
<-0.31>
1080.
872.
( 113.)
<-0.90>
914.
787.
( 78.)

818.
991.
( 168.)
< 0.55>
962.
1151.
( 196.)
<-0.85>
1205.
1021.
( 172.)
<-0.44>
1060.
TDS
.1G/L
465.
( 47.)
< 1.1 1>
443.
503.
( 14.)
< 0.32>
501.
462.
( 115.)
<-1 . 01>
508.
628.
( 223.)
< 1 . 07>
534.
749.
( 169.)
<-0. 1B>
785.
605.
( 32.)
< 0.27>
603.
501.
( 26.)
<-0.92>
510.
670.
( 106.)
< 1 . 01>
631.
765.
( 122.)
<- 1 . 06>
816.
690.
( 80.)
<-0.58>
713.
PH

7.68,
(0.28)
< 0.84>
7.59
7.61
(0.31)
< 0.16>
7.59
7.61
(0.23)
< 0.70>
7.54
8.14
(0.10)
< 0.85>
8.11
7.69
(0.21)
< 0.62>
7.60
7.6*
(0.33)
< 0.17>
7.62
7.61
(0.16)
< 0.48>
7.57
7.67
(0.27)
< 0.40>
7.63
7.64
(0.31)
< 0.57>
7.56
7.82
(0.18)
<-0.07>
7.83
CL
HG/L
#**## $»*#$#<
17.
( 8.)
< 0.52>
16.
21.
( 2.)
<-0.69>
22.
28.
( 8.)
<-0.81>
31.
94.
( 89.)
< 0.94>
60.
27.
( 12.)
<-0.05>
29.
40.
( 35.)
< 1.15>
24.
34.
( 5-)
< 1.05>
33.
96.
( 57.)
< 1.06>
72.
119.
( 46.)
<-1.01>
137.
86.
( 39.)
<-0.78>
97.
S04
HG/L
'•••••4t+t#Vt
66.
( 33.)
< 0.08>
65.
67.
( 2.)
< 0.0 >
67.
76.
( ID
< 0.0 >
76.
72.
( 11.)
< 1.1 4>
67.
208.
(124.)
<-0.26>
230.
10*.
( 18.)
<-1.03>
112.
78.
( 6.)
<-0.73>
79.
93.
( 7.)
< 0.1 8>
92.
147.
( 68.)
<-0. 12>
150.
158.
( 40.)
<-0.97>
174.
TOTAL 1
(IG HA
0.49
( 0.42)
< 0. 12>
0.45
0.59
( 0-36)
<-0. 05 >
0.60
0.28
( 0. 14)
<-0. 17>
0.23
0.49
( 0.40)
< 1. 14>
0.30
0.34
( 0.11)
< 0. 46 >
0.31
0.38
( 0.37)
< 0. 71 >
0.26
0.42
( 0.23)
< 0. 81>
0.33
0.29
i 0.25)
< 1.02>
0.20
0.41
( 0.31)
< 0. 27>
0.47
0.32
( 0. 131
< 0. 35 >
0.30
H02/H03
HG i/L
5.57
( 3.89)
< 1.00>
4.86
2.62
( 1-99)
<-0.20>
2.89
0.52
( 0.55)
< 1.15>
0.39
1.54
{ 1.47)
< 0.07>
1.48
9.25
< 2.35)

9^62
4.21
( 2.86)
<-0.30>
5.00
1.39
( 0.61)
< 0.26>
1.27
2.42
( 2.29)
< 0.52>
1.91
3.44
( 3.76)
< 0.44>
2.61
2.70
( 2.18)
<-0.27>
3.59
                                                                                                       NB3
                                                                                                      HG  H/L
  0.03
( 0.02)
< 0. 43>
  0.02

  0.03
< 0.03)
< 0. 82>
  0.02

  0.07
( 0.07)
< 0.44>
  0.06

  0.06
( 0.03)
< 0. 13>
  0.06

  0.03
( 0.03)
< 1. 43>
  0.01

  0.05
 ( 0.04)
< 0. 87>
  0.03

  0.04
 ( 0.03)
< 0.37>
  0.03

  0.07
 I 0.08)
< 0.57>
  0.05

  0.25
 ( 0.38)
< 1.1 3>
  0.08

  0. 10
 ( 0.06)
<• o.oo>
  0. 10

-------
      Table  C.8,  continued
        10232
10721
CO
       AT
       SD
       S
       no

       if
       SD
       S
       HD
10821  if
       SD
       S
       no

10842  if
       SD
       S
       RD

11032  if
       SD
       S
       HD

20711  if
       SD
       S
       HD

20842  if
       SD
       S
       no

21323  if
       SD
       S
       no

30312  if
       SD
       S
       HD

40231  if
       SD
       S
       HD

40421  if
       SD
       S
       no

21234  if
       SD
       S
       HD
  276.
 ( 12.)

  281.

  282.
 ( 99.)
< 0.24>
  211.

  285.

<-0.80>
  309.

  319.
 (  3.)

  320.

  272.

< 1.10>
  270.

  289.
 ( 38.)
< 0.77>
  280.

  292.
 (  6.)

  293.

  273.

< 0.28>
  272.

  382.
 (116.)
< 0.41>
  357.

  284.
 ( 21.)
< 0.06>
  283.

  238.
 (  7.)
< 0.57>
  237.

  274.
  ( 15.)
< 0.55>
  270.
  920.
 (  56.)
<-0.32>
  930.

 1933.
 (1103.)
< 0.66>
 1550.

  951.
 ( 175.)
< 1.20>
  890.

  879.
 (  63.)
<-0.72>
  894.

  974.
 ( 162.)
<-0.01>
  975.

 1085.
 ( 281.)
<-0.67>
 1170.

  968.
 ( 119.)
 <-0.77>
 1000.

 1368.
 ( 127.)
 <-1.06>
 1416.

 1632.
 ( 194.)
 <-0.77>
 1690.

 1258.
 ( 364.)
 <-0.71>
 1346.

 1445.
 ( 179.)
 <-0.00>
 1445.

  763.
 (  76.)
 < 0.47>
  730.
716.
( 271.)
< 1.«8>
611.
1250.
( 6B2.)
< 0.56>
1021.
674.
( 256.)
< 1.146*
575.
592.
( 54.)
< 0-i»8>
584.
644.
( 17.)
<-1.03>
650.
663.
( 114.)
<-1.04>
706.
631.
( »7.J
<-0.38>
639.
867.
{ 44.)
<-0.64>
881.
975.
( 145.)
< 0.17>
964.
848.
( 107.)
< 0.06>
846.
953.
( 110.)
< O.W>
934.
<182.
( 71.)
< 0.38>
««2.
7.76
(0.38)
< 0.05>
7.76
7.56
(0.25)
<-0.11>
7.59
7.83
(0.24)
< 0.98>
7.78
7.96
(0.15)
< 0.30>
7.95
7.54
(0.07)
<-0.»7>
7.55
7.77
(0.15)
<-0.20>
7.79
7.46
(0.13)
<-0.26>
7.47
7.69
(0.25)
< 0.61>
7.61
7.73
(0.24)
< 0.00>
7.73
7.65
(0.25)
< 0.68>
7.58
7.33
(0.14)
< 0.01>
7.33
7.73
(0.28)
< 0.«3>
7.73
76.
( 23.)
<-1. 14>
87.
345.
(270.)
< 0.66>
277.
86.
(113.)
< 1.50>
37.
65.
( 18.)
<-0.07>
65.
129.
( 7.)
< 0.72>
127.
183.
( 62.)
<-1.01>
207.
55.
I 5.)
< 1.05>
53.
200.
( 22.)
< O.I2>
198.
295.
( 59.)
<-0.12>
298.
205.
( 73.)
< 0.06>
204.
269.
( 9.)
< 0.57>
267.
1)6.
( 15.)
<-0.40>
45.
                                                                                              98.
                                                                                             ( 38.)
                                                                                           <  1.10>
                                                                                              82.

                                                                                              271.
                                                                                             (250.)
                                                                                           <  0.77>
                                                                                              183.

                                                                                              147.
                                                                                             ( 98.)
                                                                                           <  1.47>
                                                                                              105.

                                                                                              68.
                                                                                             (  6.)
                                                                                           <  0.13>
                                                                                              68.
                                                                                    (  6.)
                                                                                   < 0.76>
                                                                                      86.

                                                                                      48.
                                                                                    ( 18.)
                                                                                   <-0.62>
                                                                                      53.

                                                                                      98.
                                                                                    ( 30.)
                                                                                   <-0.59>
                                                                                     104.

                                                                                     132.
                                                                                    ( 35.)
                                                                                   < 0.14>
                                                                                     130.

                                                                                      96.
                                                                                    ( 75.)
                                                                                   < 0.24>
                                                                                      87.

                                                                                     114.
                                                                                    ( 20.)
                                                                                   <-0.81>
                                                                                     121.

                                                                                     104.
                                                                                    < 23.)
                                                                                   < 0.00>
                                                                                     104.

                                                                                      83.
                                                                                    (  27.)
                                                                                   < 0.10>
                                                                                      84.
   0. 27
 (  0. 34)
 <  1. 15>
   0. 10

   2.97
 (  3.52)
 <  1.21>
   1.42

   0.27
 (  0.27)
 <  1. 31>
   0.12

   0.59
 {  0.31)
 <  0. 15>
   0.56

   0.74
 (  0.13)
 <  0. 76>
   0.73

   4.03
 <  3.55)
 <  0. 69>
   3.09

   0.82
 (  0.90)
 <  0. 62>
   0.56

   0.32
 (  0.12)
 <  0. 50 >
   0.30

 24.89
 (21.27)
<  0. 32>
 21.26

   2.37
 (  1.86)
<  0. 18>
   2.15

  0. 35
 ( 0.26)
< 0. 74>
  0.28

  0.54
 ( 0.451
< 0. 98 >
  0. U4
   3.IS
 ( 4-30)
 < 1.10>
   1.58

   2.59
 ( 2.50)
 < 0.21>
   2.73

   3.82
 ( 8.11)
 < 1.50>
   0.26

   2.21
 ( 1.61)
 < 0.37>
   1.94

   2.48
 ( 1-31)
 <-0.07>
   2.63

   0.30
 (  0.22)
 <-0.42>
   0.32

  10.07
 (  2.20)
 <-0.25>
  10.70

   8.39
 I  2.48)
 <-0.66>
   8.91

   0.10
 (  0.11)
<  0.97>
   0.06

   2.69
 (  1-77)
<-0.42>
  2.91

  4.47
 (  3.76)
< 0.30>
  5.00

  0.87
 ( 0.85)
< 0.53>
  0.68
   0. 16
 ( 0.29)
 < 1.«6>
   0.04

   2.54
 ( 3.65)
 < 1.29>
   0.92

   0.05
 ( 0.04)
 <-0. 26>
   0.06

   0.05
 ( 0.06)
 < 1.08>
   0.02

   0.15
 (  0.08)
 <-0.37>
   0. 16

   3.07
 (  2.49)
 <  0.63>
   2.41

   0.44
 (  0.64)
 <  1.15>
   0.12

   O.It
 (  0.08)
 <  0. 36>
   0.10

 15.15
 (  9.43)
 <-0.05>
 15.50

   0.58
 (  0.60)
<  0.56>
   0.46

   0.03
 (  0.02)
<-0. 12>
   0.03

   0. 18
 (  0.11)
<  0.99>
  0. 16

-------
Table  C.8,  continued
  40311
 21152
 10731
 10932
        SD
        S
        HD
»T
SD
S
ND
       2*7.
      (  5.)
       0.07>
       2«6.
IT     289.
SD    ( 18.)
S    <-0.70>
RD     293.

»T     285.
SD    ( 21.)
S    < 0.93>
HD     280.
               297.
              ( 43.)
               1.3H>
               277.
        »T     375.
        SD    ( 43.)
        S    < 0.04>
        HD     377.
 1353.
 ( 125.)
<-0.67>
 1380.

  874.
 (  91.)
<-0.50>
  887.

  875.
 ( 231.)
<-0.22>
  960.

 1276.
 ( «03.)
<-1.33>
 1390.

  809.
 ( 354.)
< 0.91>
  795.
904.
( 36.)
<-0.24>
906.
547.
( 23.)
<-0. 91>
554.
645.
( 215.)
< 0.78>
637.
804.
( 217.)
<-0. 74>
798.
478.
( 90.)
<-1 . 06>
500.
7.-51
(0.13)
< 0.67>
7.48
7.60
(0-1M
< 1.0<4>
7.56
7.65
(0.24)
< O.f)2>
7.55
7.89
(0.41)
<-0.38>
8.07
7.88
(0.41)
< 0.28>
7.82
194.
( 13.)
< 0.16>
193.
69.
( 17.)
< 0.22>
67.
93.
( 92.)
< 0.63>
88.
143.
( 66.)
<-1 . 28>
160.
98.
(236.)
< 2.04>
8.
 168.
( 27.)
-0.10>
 170.

  72.
(  a.)
 0.70>
  70.

  56.
( 14.)
 0.21>
  59.

 161.
(102.)
 0.65>
 128.

  44.
( 16.)
 0.37>
  44.
  0. 11
( 0.04)
<-0. 51>
  0. 11

  0.30
( 0.20)
< 0. 00>
  O.JO

  0. 3S
( 0.13)
<-0. 15>
  0.35

  0.53
( 0.25)
<-0.35>
  0.61

  0.73
( 0.79)
< 0.65>
  0.38
  6.65
I 1-65)
< 0.21>
  6.49

  0.84
( 0.46)
< 0.12>
  0.79

 14.99
( 9.87)
< 0.48>
 11.42

 11.70
( 7.50)
< 0.25>
 12.57

  6.33
( 3.31)
< 0.45>
  5.53
  0.04
( 0.06)
< 1.14>
  0.01

  0.04
( 0.04)
< 0.27>
  0.03

  0.06
( 0.04)
< 0.47>
  0.06

  0.04
( 0.03)
< 1.00>
  0.02
                                                                                                                0.05
                                                                                                                0.05)
                                                                                                                0.99>
                                                                                                                0.05
         AV  = Arithmetic Average
         SD  = Standard  Deviation
          S  = Skewness
         MD  = Median Value

-------
        Table  C.9
 Hancock Wells Baseline
Phosphorus and Organics
• ELL
10112



10211



10521



10542



10931



20112



20243



20721



211*1


40331


10232

10721
10821
10842

AT*
SD
S
no
AT
SD
S
HD
AT
SD
S
no
AT
SD
S
HD
AT
SD
S
BO
AT
SD
S
HD
AT
SD
S
no
AT
SD
S
no
AT
SD
S
no
AT
SD
S
HD
AT
SD
S
HD
AT
SD
S
HD
AT
SD
S
no
AT
SD
S
no
TOTAL P
«G P/l
0.3*
( 0.34|
< 0.96>
0.25
0.58
( 0.94)
< 1.70>
0.28
0.31
( 0.21)
< 1.0*>
0.27
0.55
( 0.29)
< 1.30>
0.45
0.25
( 0.22)
< 0. 15>
0.30
0.47
( 0. 38)
< 0.03>
0.44
0.29
( 0.25)
< 0.86>
0.20
0.29
( 0.23)
< 0.58>
0.29
0.38
( 0.21)
<-0.05>
0.39
0.44
( 0.40)
< 1.00>
0.37
0.26
( 0.19)
<-0.00>
0.30 s
0.23
( 0.17)
<-0.04>
0.18
0.19
( 0.16)
< 0.00>
0.18
0.27
( 0.27)
< 0.36>
0.12
OBTHO P
BG P/L
0.05
( 0.06)
< 1.05>
0.02
0.0*
( 0.04)
< 0.78>
0.03
0.14
( 0.13)
< 0.57>
0.15
0.05
( 0.04)
< 0.37>
0.04
0.01
( 0.00)
< 1.50>
0.01
0.22
( 0.34)
< 1.68>
0.09
0.11
( 0.14)
< 1.40>
0.07
0.15
( 0.11)
< 0.31>
0.17
0. 10
( 0.13)

olo5
O.OB
( 0.05)
< 0.38>
0.07
0.03
( 0.02)
< 0.35>
0.03
0.05
( 0.05)
< 0.15>
0.05
0.02
( 0.02)
< 0.97>
0.01
0.03
( 0.03)
< 1.07>
0.01
OK3. P
HG P/L
0.26
( 0.35)
< 1. 30>
0.13
0.50
( 0.92)
< 1.69>
0.15
0. 11
( 0.12)
< 0.85>
0. 11
0.43
( 0.32)
< 1.42>
0.32
0.22
( 0.21)
< 0.31>
0.25
0.24
( 0.31)
< 0.41>
0.01
0.13
( 0.14)
< 0.39>
0.10
0.13
( 0.19)
< 1.22>
0.07
0.24
( 0.11)
< 0.92>
0.20
0.34
( 0.39)
< 1.09>
0.28
0.22
( 0. 17)
< 0.07>
0.22
0. 16
( 0.12)
flllS
0.15
( 0.15)
< 0. 15>
0.12
0.24
( 0.24)
< 0.37>
0.10
COD
BG/L
73.4
( 62.5)
<-0. 12>
94.0
56.2
{ 79.8)
< 0.89>
5.0
12.3
( 4.4)
< 0.07>
12.0
11.3
( 16-5)
< 1. 13>
4. 1
17.3
( 10.9)
< 0.90>
14. 1
•)7.6
( 87.4)
< 1.42>
17.0
116.7
(135.2)
< 0.96>
67.6
47.4
( 59.7)
< 0.94>
12.0
63.5
( 83.4)
< 1.47>
30.0
40.5
{ 38.0)
< 1.34>
26.7
31.5
( 11-8)
36.0
25.1
( 19.2)
<-0.25>
27.0
57.9
( »3.2)
< 1.05>
35.0
38.7
( 25.2)
< 0.62>
37.4
TOC
HG/L
40.5
(32.2)
< 0.07>
36.8
31.2
(21.4)
< 0.42>
21.0
22.4
(14.7)
< 0.22>
20.8
19.8
( 8.8)
<-0.04>
20.2
18. 8
(15.2)
< 0.99>
13.0
30.0
(21.4)
< 0.61>
24.6
38.9
(37.8)
< 0.73>
22.9
33. 1
(23.0)
<— 0. 1 9>
43.0
29.1
(21.9)
<-0. 19>
38. 7
29.1
(19.1)
<*0. 17>
34.0
27.5
(18.6)
< 0.10>
26. S
22.9
(12.6)
< 0.87>
19.3
22.*
(19.5)
< 0.52>
18.9
29.8
(21.4)
< 0.79>
18.0
            325

-------
Table  C.9, continued


     11032  AT     0.26           0.03         0.20          21.5          21.7
            SO   (  0.19)        (  0.04)       (  0.21)        (  16.«)        (17.0)
            S    <  0.30>        <  1.50>       <  0.60>        <  0.0  >       <  0.56>
            SD     0.29           0.01         0.11          21.5          18.8

     20711  AT     0.25           0.10         0.1H          «5.7          21.5
            SD   (  0.21)        (  0.1«)       (  0.11)        (  21.7)        (  5.5)
            S    <  0.52>        <  1.09>       <  0.22>        <  0.12>       <  0.20>
            «D     0.23           0.01         0.11           «3.3           20.9

     208«2  AT     0.29           0.03         0.26           6.6           15.3
            SD   (0.20)        (0.02)       (0.191        (  6.7)       (10.0)
            S    <  1.25>        <  0.68>       <  1.1»>       <  0.37>      < 0 39>
            BD     0.21           0.01          0.20           5.3           12.0

     21323   AT     O.«1           0.02          0.37           «6.8           19.9
            SD   (  0.33)         (  0.01)       (  0.32)       ( U2.7)       (15.3)
            S     <  O.«1>       <  0.00>       <  0.5fl>       <  1.06>      < 0.89>
            (ID     O.M           0.02          0.39          30.5           15.3

     30312   AT      0.21           0.03         0.18          H1.5          27.8
           SD    <  0-2D        (  0.01)       ( 0.23)       ( 32.2)       (15.7)
           s    <  1-»0>       <  1.69>      <  1.52>       < 0.27>      < 0.22>
           "D     0.16          0.01         0.12          28.0          23.8


    «0231  AT     0.«5          0.1J         0.26         105.9          53.3
           SO   ( 0.»6)        ( 0.15)       ( O.»3|        ( 6H.S)        (  7.2)
           S    < 0.73>        < 0.7«>      < 1.59>       < 0.72>      < 0.28>
           no     0.27          0.01         0.06          91.7          51.2

    • 0»21  AT     0.22          0.03         0.19          36.6          17.6
           SD   ( 0.15)        ( 0.03)       ( 0.13)        ( 2H.7)        (11.7)
           S    < O.»0>        <  0.«9>      <-0.11>       < O.»1>      < 0.97>
           BO     0.20          0.02         0.19          31.5          11.7

    2123*  AT     0.30          0.05         0.25          30.9          28.7
           SD   ( O.»1)        (  O.Oaj       ( O.«0)        ( 37.0)        (18.7)
           S    < 1.33>        <  0.09>      < 1.52>       <  1.00>      < 0.67>
           (ID     0.15          0.05         0.09          1».0           17.2

    H0311  AT     0.23          0.01         0.22          16.2           20.0
           SD   ( 0.20)        (  0.01)       ( 0.21)        (  17.8)        (17.0)
           S    < 0.12>        <  1.50>      < 0.09>       < 0.79>       < 0.27>
           "0     0.25          0.01         0.25          11.0           18.0

    105«1  AT     0.29          0.01         0.22          13.«           26.6
           SD   ( 0.23)        (  0.01)       ( 0. t«|        (  16.0)        (2H.O)
           S    < 0.29>        <  1.50>      <-0.51>       <  O.B9>      < 0.72>
           BD     0.28          0.01         0.26          16.0           10.8

    21152  AT     0.3*          0.06         0.07           0.0            7.6
           SD   ( o.o  )        (  o.o  )       ( o.o  )        (   o.o)        (  o.o)
           S    < 0.0  >        <  0.0  >      < 0.0  >       < 0.0  >       < 0.0 >
           no    •••**          *•»••
                                            •*•••           o.o         •••••
    10731   IT     0.08           0.01          0.01           0.0           7  1
           1°    ( 0.0 )        (  0.0 )       (  0.0 |        {  0.0)        ( 0.0)
           s     < o-o >        <  o.o >       <  o.o >        < o.o >      < o.o  >
           80    «**••         ***••        *..,.           0>0         ••«»»

    10932   "    , 9-*1           0.29          0.06           0.0          16.0
           "    ' "'? I        (  °-° )       (  0-0 )        (  0.0)        ( 0.0)
           HO    .2:2.*        <  0.0 >       <  0.0 >        < 0.0 >      < 0.0  >
           ID    ••»..         .....        .....           0>8         .,„.


AV =  Arithmetic  Average
SD =  Standard  Deviation
 S -  Skewness
MD =  Median
                                   326

-------
     Table C.10

Hancock Wells After Baseline
   Phosphorus and Organics
IBtL
• ••• ••• 4
10112



10211



10521



105*2



10931



20112



202*3



20721



211*1



00331



10232



10721



10821



108*2




fc« • •'
IT*
SD
S
SD
IT
SD
S
NO
IT
SD
S
BD
IT
SO
S
SD
IT
SD
S
NO
IT
SD
S
no
AT
SD
S
no
»v
so
3
no
IT
SD
S
BD
IT
SD
3
BD
IT
SO
S
no
AT
SD
S
BD
IT
3D
S
BO
IT
3D
S
BD

TOTIL 9
HG PA
••*•••*• •^•••44
0.07
( 0.11)
< 1.15>
0.01
1.02
( 2.02)
< 1.15>
0.01
0.23
( 0.36)
< 1.1»>
0.06
0.15
( 0.11)
< 0.76>
0.12
0.10
< 0.16)
< 1.46>
0.0*
0.1*
< 0.19)
< 0.83>
0.07
0.06
( 0.09)
< 1.15>
0.01
0.13
( 0.19)
< 1.06>
0.0*
0.20
( 0.27)
< 1.13>
0.08
0.1*
( 0.25)
< 1.15>
0.01
0.08
( 0.10)
< 0.89>
0.02
0.13
( 0.1*)
< 0.6*>
0.06
0.05
( 0.07)
< 1.31>
0.01
0.10
{ 0.17)
< 1.15>
0.01

ORTHO P
BG PA
0.05
( 0.08)
< 1.15>
0.01
0.85
{ 1.68)
< 1.1 5>
0.01
0.05
( 0.07)
< 1.15>
0.01
0.01
( 0.00)
< 1.15>
0.01
0.05
( 0.07)
< 1.39>
0.02
0.05
( 0.08)
< 1.1";>
0.01
0.06
( O.OH)
< 1.11>
O.CP
O.Ofi
( 0.09)
< 1.1»>
0.01
0.07
( 0.08)
< 0."M>
0.0*
0.05
( 0.06)
< 1. 13>
0.02
0.0*
( 0.06)
< 1.»3>
0.01
0.06
( 0.07)
< 1.31>
0.03
0.03
{ 0.03)
< 1.39>
0.02
0.07
{ 0.11)
< 1.13>
0.02
327
OiG. P
NO PA
0.02
( 0.02)
< 1. 15>
0.01
0.01
( 0.0 )
< 0.0 >
0.01
0.03
( 0.03)
< 0. «9>
0.02
0.07
( 0.08)
< 1.02>
0.0*
0.05
( 0.09)
< 1.«9>
0.01
0.03
( 0.0»)
< 1.15>
0.01
0.01
( 0.0 )
< 0.0 >
0.01
0.02
( 0.01)
< 1.15>
0.01
0.06
( 0.11)
< 1.15>
0.01
0.01
( 0.0 )
< 0.0 >
0.01
0.01
( 0.00)
< 1.15>
0.01
0.02
( 0.03)
< 1.50>
0.01
0.02
( 0.02)
< 1.50>
0.01
0.01
( 0.0 |
< 0.0 >
0.01

COD
SG/L
7.7
( 5.8)
<-0.»9>
8.8
35.8
( »1.9)
< 0.80>
23.3
32.9
( 33.7)
< 0.86>
22.0
11.2
( 5.9)
< 1.1 2>
8.6
11.0
( 1.8)
<-0.«1>
11.3
17.0
{ 26.6)
< 1.01>
6.0
17. 1
( 21-3)
< 1.1 »>
6.6
1».9
( 13.1)
< 0.29>
13.8
15.3
( 17.8)
< 0.08>
13.5
16.2
( 15.*)
< 0.51>
13.8
6.0
( «-3)
< 0.68>
5.0
31.8
( 16.8)
< 0.08>
31.*
9.6
( 6.9)
<-0.62>
11.1
6.1
( 7.7)
< 0.82>
3.8

TOC
BOA
1.*
( 0.3)
< 1.08>
1.3
1.2
( 0.9)
<-0.33>
1.3
«.5
( 5.2)
< 1.1*>
2.1
3.2
( 2.5)
< 1.13>
2. 1
3.9
( 0.6)
< O.»1>
3.9
3.0
( 2.2)
<-0.»1>
3.3
1.7
( 0.7)
<-0.51>
1.9
2.*
{ 1-6)
< 0.37>
2.2
6.7
( 7.7)
< 1.06>
3.6
». 1
( 1-9)
< 0.33>
3.8
1.5
( 0.7)
<-0.58>
1.7
*.S
( 1-7)
<-0.72>
5.0
2.7
( 2.*|
< 0.51>
1.7
10.6
(18.0)
< 1.1»>
2.*

-------
 Table C.10,  continued
      11032
      20711
      20842
      21323
      30312
AT
SD
S
BO
                    0.06
                  (  0.02)
                  <  0.00>
                    0.06
IT     0.26
SO   ( 0.22)
S    < 0.89>
BO     0.19

IT     0.0*
SD   ( 0.05)
S    < 1. 15>
NO     0.01

IT     0.13
SD   ( 0.23)
S    < 1.15>
no     0.02

IT     0.41
SD   ( 0.10)
S    <-0.63>
80     0.43
                0.02
              ( 0.01)
              < 0.00>
                0.02

                0.08
              ( 0.06)
              < 0.25>
                0.07

                0.03
              < 0.03)
              < 1.09>
                0.01

                0.03
              ( 0.0«)
              < 1.15>
                0.01

                0.13
              ( 0.08)
              <-1.02>
                0.16
               0.01
             ( 0.0 )
             < 0.0 >
               0.01

               0.04
             < 0.05)
             < 0.92>
               0.02

               0.01
             ( 0.0 )
             < 0.0 >
               0.01

               0.08
             ( 0.13)
             < 1, 15>
               0.01

               0.04
             ( 0.06)
             < 1.07>
               0.02
                35.1
              ( 27.2)
              < 0.85>
                27.6

                26.3
              (  5.7)
              <-0.82>
                27.9

                 7.6
              (  4.9)
              <-0.52>
                 8.4

                18.2
              (  9.8)
              <-0.66>
                20.9

                33.4
              ( ".4)
              < 0.93>
                27.5
    C.4
  i  2-«)
< 0.06>
    6.3

    5.3
  (  2.5)
< 0.06>
    5.3

    9.7
  (12.7)
< 1.13>
    3.8

    5.7
  (  2.3)
<-0.39>
    6.0

    9.3
 <  3.9)
< 0.85>
    8.2
40231



40421



21234



40311



AT
SD
3
no
AT
SD
S
no
AT
SD
3
no
AT
SD
S
8D
0.18
( 0.15)
< 0.25>
0.16
0.04
( 0.03)
< 0.19>
0.03
0.12
< 0.18)
< 1.36>
0.04
0.04
( 0.07)
< t, 15>
0.01
      10541  AT
             SO
             S
             HD
      21152
      10731
AT
SO
S
(ID

AT
SD
S
no
      10932  AT
             SD
             S
             SD
  0.02
{ 0.02)
< 1.15>
  0.01

  0.10
( 0.11)
< 0.91>
  0.05

  0.10
{ 0.11)
< 1.20>
  O.OB

  0.19
< 0.22)
< o.ao>
  0.05
  0.09
( 0.12)
< 0.99>
  0.04

  0.03
( 0.03)
< 1.07>
  0.01

  0.06
( 0.07)
< 1.31>
  0.0]

  0.01
( 0.03)
< 1.1S>
  0.01

  0.03
( 0.04)
< 1.12>
  0.01

  0.04
( 0.08)
< 1.50>
  0.01

  0.05
(0.07)
< 1.38>
  0.03

  0.10
i 0.12)
< 0.81>
  0.03
  0.05
 { 0.05)
< 0.02>
  0.05

  0.01
 ( 0.0 )
< 0.0 >
  0.01

  0.05
 ( 0.09(
< 1.»9>
  0.01

  0.01
 ( 0.0 )
< 0.0 >
  0.01

  0.01
 ( 0.0 )
< 0.0 >
  0.01

  0.03
 ( 0.04)
< 1.50>
  0.01

  0.02
 ( 0.01|
< 0.91>
  0.02

  0.03
 ( 0.03)
< 0.97>
  0.01
                                                            84.3
                                                          ( 31.0)

                                                            88.0

                                                            19.0
                                                          (  9.5)
                                                          < 0.65>
                                                            16.6

                                                            29.0
  10.1

  22.5
( 25.0)
< 0.30>
  18.1

   5.8
(  4.6)

   6.1

  11.0
( 11-5)
< 1.02>
   7.0

  15.2

< 0.02>
  16.0

  27.3

< 0.43>
   4.1
   15.4
  M2.S)
< 0.53>
   13.3

    4.3
  ( 3.6)
< 0.93>
    3.2

    3.3
  ( 2.1)
< 1.11>
    2.7

    6.7
  ( B.9)
< 0.96>
    3.5

    0.9
  ( 0.5)
<-o.as>
    1.0

    3.2
  ( 1.6)
<-0.26>
    3.6

    3.4
  ( 1-3)
< 0.27>
    3.3

    6.3
  C 9-6)
< t.71>
    2.3
* AV =  Arithmetic  Average
  SD =  Standard Deviation
    S =  Skewness
  MD =  Median  Value
                                       328

-------
                                                Table  C.11
                        Hancock Wells Baseline  -  Ground  Water Metal  Concentrations
     Metals,  Dissolved (mg/1)
M3
HELL
10112



10211



10521



105*2



10931



20112



202*3



20721



211*1



40331



10232




AT*
SD
S
ID
AT
SD
S
RD
AT
SD
S
FID
AT
SD
3
BD
AT
SD
S
RD
AT
SD
S
RD
AT
SD
S
ID
AT
SD
S
FID
AT
SD
S
HD
AT
SD
S
HD
AT
SD
S
HD
AL
0.494
(0.484)
< 1.70>
0.284
1.420
(2.849)
< 1.78>
0.290
0.799
(1.350)
< 1.46>
0.169
1.216
(1. 194)
< 0.20>
0.929
0.616
(0.710)
< 0. B5>
0.555
1.100
(0.829)
< 0.69>
0.756
1.389
(1.988)
< 1.37>
0.726
2.629
(3.993)
< 1.45>
0.623
2.316
(2.096)
< 1.39>
1.881
2.808
(5.074)
< 1.72>
0.634
0.5*5
(0.410)
<-0.23>
0.650
AS
0.007
(0.003)
< 0.88>
0.005
0.007
(0.004)
< 1.30>
0.005
0.006
(0.001)
< 1.50>
0.005
0.007
(0.004)
< 1.36>
0.005
0.013
(0.013)
< 1.37>
0.007
0.006
(0.002)
< 1.57>
0.005
0.006
(0.002)
< 1.36>
0.005
0.007
(0.005)
< 1.50>
0.005
0.005
(0.001)
< 1.79>
0.005
0.006
(0.002)
< 1.57>
0.005
0.006
(0.002)
< 1.50>
0.005
BA
0.102
(0.057)
< 0.38>
0.089
0.108
(0.057)
< 0.45>
0. 101
0.207
(0.077)
< 0.42>
0.168
0. 103
(0.051)
< 0. 14>
0.096
0.093
(0.059)
< 1.00>
0.075
0.091
(0.048)
< 0.1 5>
0.086
0.179
(0.117)
< 0.69>
0. 164
0.168
(0.050)
< 0.33>
0.157
0.13*
(0.085)
< 0.53>
0.117
0.275
(0.242)
< 1.49>
0.201
0.068
(0.021)
<-0.57>
0.066
B
0.756
(0.670)
< 0.07>
0.729
0.565
(0.404)
<-0.70>
0.775
0.818
(1.055)
< 0.67>
0.325
0.717
(0.562)
<-0. 4 1>
0.850
0.241
(0.244)
< 0.71>
0.100
0.61*
(0.796)
< 0.69>
0.211
0.458
(0.334)
<-0.29>
0.511
1. 186
(1.605)
< 0.67>
0.429
1.108
(1.506)
< 0.68>
0.385
0.673
(0.810)
< 0.65>
0.319
0.347
(0.336)
< 0.62>
0.211
CA
40.0
( 1"»-7)
< 0.31>
39.
38.8
( 20.4)

33.
36.4
( 17.9)

29.
28.6
( 17.3)
< 1.02>
19.
24.0
( 9.4)

26.
51.3
( 24.7)
< 0.32>
44.
62.2
( 60.8)
< 1.49>
37.
46.2
( 40.9)
< 1.47>
33.
53.7
( 20.1)
< 0. 1 2>
54.
49.7
( 23.6)
< 1. 10>
4U.
33.0
( 1J.O)
< 0.0 >
33.
CD
0.001
(0.001)
< 1.79>
0.000
0.001
(0.002)
< 1 . 71>
0.001
0.000
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
0.000
0.001
(0.001)
< 1. 15>
0.000
0.001
(0.001) •
< 1. 15>
0.000
0.001
(0.001)
< 1.43>
0.000
0.004
(0.009)
< 1.79>
0.001
0.00*
(0.006)
< 1.46>
0.001
0.001
(0.001)
< t.25>
0.000
0.001
(0.001)
< o.sa>
0.001
0.001
(0.002)
< 1.50>
0.000
CO
0.005
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
0.005
0.005
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
0.005
0.005
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
0.005
0.006~
(0.003)
< 1.50>
0.005
0.005
(0.0 )
< o.o •>
0.005
0.006
(0.002)
< 1.79>
0.005
0.005
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
0.005
0.006
(0.002)
< 1.79>
0.005
0.016
(0.028)
< 1.79>
0.005
0.011
(0.015)
< 1.79>
0.005
0.005
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
0.005
Cl
I* # *> t • ** •• #•
0.005
(0.0 •
< 0.0 >
0.005
0.007
(0.00» •
< 1.79>
0.005
0.005
(0.0 I
< 0.0 >
0.005
0.018
(0.017.-
< 1.08>
0.009
0.005
(0.000)
< 1.50>
0.005
0.005
(0.0 n
< 0.0 >
0.005
0.007
(0.003)
< 0.7>
0.005
0.008
(0.001.
< 0.1 6>
0.008
0.006
(0.001-
< 1.79>
0.005
0.009
(0.00% <
< 0.98>
0.007
0.005
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
0.005
CO
0.007
(0.004)
< 1.79>
0.005
0.008
(0.004)
< 0.79>
0.006
0.011
(0.009)
< 0.57>
0.005
0.015
(0.014)
< 1. 15>
0.012
0.007
(0.003)
< 0.41>
0.005
0.014
(0.022)
< 1.79>
0.005
0.031
(0.043)
< 1 . 0 1>
0.006
0.010
(0.007)
< 0.66>
0.006
0.008
(0.005)
< 1.43>
0.006
0.012
(0.008)
< 0.96>
0.008
0.009
(0.003)
<-0.5 1>
0.011
re
0. 175
(0.116)
< 3.62>
0.140
0.170
(0.130)
<-o.oa>
0.183
0.444
(0.461)
< 1.38>
0.306
1.053
(1.385)
< 0.84>
0.243
1. 118
(1.924)
< 1.44>
0.257
0.42*
(0.448)
< 1.60>
0.282
1.108
(1.228)
< 0.65>
0.528
1.205
(1.778)
< 1.49>
0.308
0.422
(0.392)
< 1.52>
0.275
0.425
(0.522)
< l.66>
0.226
0.624
(0.669)
< 0.45>
0.189
PB
0.002
(0.001)
< 1. 12>
0.002
0.003
(0.001)
< 0. 23>
0.003
0.007
(0.007)
< 0.97>
0.003
0.006
(0.006)
< 0.84>
0.002
0.003
(0.001)
< 0.91>
0.003
0.005
(0.005)
< 1.04>
0.002
0.008
(0.009)
< 1. 53>
0.003
0.009
(0.010)
< 1.4 1>
0.006
0.006
(0.005)
< 0.88>
0.004
0.005
(0.004)
< 1. 16>
0.003
0.006
(0.009)
< 1.49>
0.002

-------
   Table C.11, continued
O
      10721
      10821
      10842
      11032
     20711
     20842
     21323
     30312
     40231
     40421
     2123*
AV
SO
S
no
AT
SD
S
(ID
A?
SD
S
HD
AT
SD
S
ND
AT
SD
S
HD
AT
SD
S
ND
AT
SD
S
HD
AT
SD
S
HD
AT
SD
S
no
AT
SD
S
no
AT
SD
S
HD
1.059
(1.746)
< 1.45>
0.340
0.190
(0. 199)
< 1.21>
0.129
0.124
(0.15fi|
< 1.29>
0.023
0.635
(0.743|
< 1.27>
0.380
2.208
(2.917)
< 0.44>
0.112
0.328
(0.302)
< 0. 58>
0.364
0.774
(0.956)
< 1.27>
0.450
0.611
(0.773)
< 0.95>
0.324
0.476
(0.486)
< 1.1 4>
0.392
0.172
(0.216)
< 1.07>
0.088
0.251
(0.213)
< 0.27>
0.226
0.006
(0.001)
< 1.50>
0.005
0.007
(0.004)
< 1.61>
0.005
0.009
(0.006)
< 0.97>
0.005
0.006
(0.003)
< 1.50>
0.005
0.008
(0.007)
< 1.49>
0.005
0.005
(0.0 )
< 0.0 3
0.005
0.006
(0.002)
< 1.50>
0.005
0.006
(0.002)
< 1.43>
0.005
0.013
(0.007)
<-0.04>
0.013
0.006
(0.002)
< 1.36>
0.005
0.018
(0.029)
< 1.50>
0.005
0.096
(0.057)
< 1.1 8>
0.081
0.092
(0.044)
<-0.46>
0.102
0.089
(0.028)
<-0.82>
0.09R
0.077
(0.037)
< 0.92>
0.072
0.165
(0.059)
< 0.22>
0.180
0.112
(0.054)
< 1.03>
0.099
0.095
(0.038)
< 0.58>
0.087
0.067
(0.011)
<-0.09>
0.066
0.114
(0.048)
<-0.51>
0.125
0.065
(0.016)
<-0.14>
0.068
0.096
(0.048)
< 1.04>
0.084
0.335
(0.396)
< 0.71>
0. 113
0.356
(0.199)
< 1.00>
0. 192
0.202
(0.138)
< 1.06>
0. 160
0. 188
(0.093)
( 0. 18>
0.179
0.433
(0.456)
< 0.63>
0.246
0.805
(0.493)
< 0.02>
0.800
1.099
(1.228)
< 0.50>
0.728
0.711
(0.770)
< 0.44>
0.523
0.440
(0.343)
< 0.04>
0.433
0.476
(0.493)
< 0.59>
0.294
0.217
(0.156)
< 0.63>
0.170
47. a
( If.O)
<-0.35>
57.
5S.8
( 21-9)
< 0.17>
S6.
27.7
( 11.1)
< 0.27>
29.
40.8
( 19.6)
<-0. 13>
44.
51.6
( 15.5)
< 0. 33>
«9.
34.7
( 13.2)
< 0.48>
29.
45.9
( 7.9)
<-0.40>
48.
66.8
( 24.8)
< 0.47>
66.
49.8
( 15.5)
<-0. 27>
54.
42.6
( 15.8)
<-0.08>
39.
41.4
( 25.3)
<-0.52>
47.
0.001
(0.001)
< 1.50>
0.000
0.001
(0.001)
< 1.64>
0.000
0.001
(0.001)
< 2.04>
0.000
0.001
(0.001)
< 1.50>
0.000
0.001
(0.002)
< 1.43>
0.000
0.001
(0.002)
< 1.50>
0.000
0.001
(0.001)
< 1.50>
0.000
0.001
(0.001)
< 0.88>
0.001
0.001
(0.000)
< 1.79>
0.000
0.000
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
0.000
0.001
(0.000)
< 0.41>
0.000
0.005
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
0.005
0.005
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
0.005
0.005
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
0.005
0.005
(0.0 )
' < 0.0 >
0.005
0.006
(0.002)
< 1.50>
0.005
0.005
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
0.005
0.005
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
0.005
0.005
(0.0 )
< o.o •>
0.005
0.005
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
0.005
0.005
(0.0 )
< 0.0 )
0.005
0.005
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
o.oos
0.005
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
0.005
0.005
(0.001)
< 1.79>
0.005
0.005
(0.0 I
< 0.0 )
0.005
0.005
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
0.005
0.011
(0.013 •
< 1.50>
0.005
0.007
(0.005)
< 1.50>
0.005
0.005
(0.0 I
< 0.0 >
0.005
0.005
(0.0 I
< 0.0 )
0.005
0.005
(0.0 ••
< 0.0 >
0.005
0.005
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
0.005
o.ooa
(0.009)
< 1.79>
O.OOS
J.UU6
(0.003)
< 1.50>
0.005
0.029
(0.033)
< 0.70>
0.011
0.005
(0.001)
< 1.36>
0.005
0.007
(0.004)
< 1.50>
0.005
0.009
(0.007)
< 1.39>
0.005
0.008
(0.005)
< 1.25>
0.005
0.007
(0.004)
< 1.50>
0.005
0.012
(0.007)
< 0.59>
0.009
0.015
(0.026)
< 1.79>
0.005
0.031
(0.023)
<-0.23>
0.041
0.046
(0.075)
< 1.43>
0.005
o.ysi
(1.685)
< 1.40>
0.242
0.915
(1.658)
< 1.66>
0. 165
0. 179
(0.213)
< 0.85>
0.037
1.288
(2.652)
< 1.50>
0. 144
2.332
(3.047)
< 0.45>
0.245
0.397
(0.530)
< 1.19>
0.267
0.712
(1.1261
< 1.44>
0.289
0.626
(0.849)
< 0.75>
0.098
1.223
(1.742)
< 1.28>
0.318
0.64*
(0.738)
< 0.54>
0.261
0.319
(0.541)
< 1.69>
0. 1 10
0.0^12
(0.001)
< 0.41>
0.002
0.002
(O.OUO)
< 1.79>
0.002
0.002
(0.000)
< 1.00>
0.002
0.003
(0.001)
<-0.41>
0.003
0.006
(0.005)
< 0. 85>
0.003
0.002
(0.000)
< 1.00>
0.002
0.007
(0.010)
< 1.47>
0.003
0.003
(0.002)
< 0.67>
0.002
0.002
(0.000)
< 1.00>
0.002
0.004
(0.001)
<-0.87>
0.004
0.087
(0.209)
< 1.79>
0.002

-------
Table C.11, continued
20112 AT
SD
S
no
20243 AT
SD
S
(ID
20721 AT
SD
S
no
21141 AT
SD
S
NO
40331 AT
SD
S
no
10232 AT
SD
S
no
10721 AT
3D
S
no
10821 AT
SD
S
no
10842 AT
SD
S
no
11032 AT
SD
S
(ID
20711 AT
SD
S
no
46.8
( 2.8)
<-0.72>
47.0
34.5
( 9.0)
< 0.72>
33.0
28. S
( 3.8)
< 0.42>
27.5
45.8
( 8.9)
49.5
49.0
(6.1)
51.5
41. «
(10.4)
38.0
54.2
(14.7)
< 0. 84 >
51.0
66.2
( 9.2)
64. 1
35.9
( 5.0)
<-0.75>
36.0
52.4
(11.5)
50.0
65.8
(10.8)
< 0.35>
66.0
0.049
(0.070)
< 1.09>
0.010
0.093
(0.076)
< 0.54>
0.091
0.174
(0.209)
< 1.49>
0.107
0.053
(0.042)
< 0.17>
0.046
0.086
(0.053)
<-0.02>
0.083
0.045
(0.026)
0.035
0.124
(0.164)
< 0.41>
0.008
0.016
(0.016)
< 0.69>
0.012
0.006
(0.006)
< 0.99>
0.004
0.048
(0.021)
<-0.04>
0.052
0.341
(0.364)
< 0.38>
0.111
0.000
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
*****
0.000
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
*****
0.000
(0.000)
< 0.00>
0.000
0.000
(0.0 )
< 0. 0 >
0.000
0.000
(0.000)
< 0.00>
0.000
0.0
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
0.0
0.0
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
0.0
0.000
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
*****
0.001
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
0.001
0.000
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
*****
0.000
(0.000)
< 0.00>
0.000
o.oos
(0.002)
< 0. 12>
0.005
0.014
(0.013)
< 1.40>
0.011
0.039
(0.015)
<-0.90>
0.042
0.011
(0.004)
<-0.05>
0.011
O.OIfl
(0.019)
< 1.49>
0.009
0.009
(0.004)
<-0.92>
0.010
0.013
(0.006)
<-0.49>
0.012
0.015
(0.004)
< 0.42>
0.014
0.013
(0.006)
< 0.73>
0.013
0.011
(0.007)
< 1.33>
0.008
0.009
(0.007)
< 0. 15>
0.008
0.006
(0.003)
< 1.79>
0.005
0.015
(0.024)
< 1.79>
0.005
0.010
(0.010)
< 1 . 7 0>
0.005
0.005
(0.001)
< 1.79>
0.005
0.006
(0.0021
< t.12>
0.005
0.005
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
0.005
0.005
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
0.005
0.028
(0.036)
< 0.78>
0.005
0.044
(0.038)
<-0.07>
0.055
0.005
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
0.005
0.006
(0.03 1)
< 0.41>
0.005
8.1
( 0.9)
8.2
8.7
( 1.6)
9.0
8.5
( 2.7)
< 1.58>
7.6
10.9
( 2.8)
< 1.29>
10.2
10.2
( 1.6)
< 1.22>
9.8
8.7
( 1-8)
<-0.74>
9.6
10.4
( 2.9)
< 0.40>
9.5
11.6
( 2.4)
< 0.61>
11.0
** **
(*..*)
< 2.04>
11.0
11.0
( 1-3)
< 0. 97>
11.0
12.2
( 1-0)
< 0.05>
12.0
O.OOS
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
o.oos
0.005
(0.000)
< 1.79>
0.005
0.006
(0.001)
< 0.88>
0.005
0.005
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
0.005
0.008
(0.008)
< 1.75>
0.005
0.005
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
0.005
0.005
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
o.oos
0.009
(0.006)
< 0.74>
0.005
0.006
(0.002)
< 2.04>
0.005
0.005
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
0.005
0.005
(0.0 )
< 0.0 J
0.005
O.OOS
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
o.oos
0.005
(0.0 1
< 0.0 >
o.oos
0.005
(0.0 )•
C 0.0 >
o.oos
o.oos
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
o.oos
0.005
(0.0 1
< 0.0 >
0.005
0.005
(0.0 I
< 0.0 >
0.005
0.005
(0.0 1
< 0.0 >
o.oos
0.005
(0.0 ••
< 0.0 )
o.oos
0.005
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
0.005
0.005
(0.0 »
< 0.0 >
0.005
0.005
(0.0 1
< 0.0 )
0.005
9*. 8
( 31.4)
< o.os>
93.5
138.2
( 96.3)
< 1.68>
103.0
99.0
( 12.6)
< 0. 18>
99.0
119.8
(101.3)
< 1.65>
86.5
148.3
( 64.6)
124.0
120.2
( 44.1)
< 0.36>
94.0
94.8
( 39.2)
< 0. 16>
87.0
147.0
( 74.6)
< 1.06>
131.5
124.3
( 70.3)
102."o
94.8
( 56.0)
< 1.28>
77.0
70.8
( 9.0)
< 0.15>
68.0
0.007
(0.004)
< 1.79>
O.OOS
O.OOS
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
o.oos
0.007
(0.005)
< 1.79>
0.005
0.007
(0.006)
< 1.79>
0.005
0.007
(0.005)
< 1.79>
0.005
O.OOS
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
0.005
0.005
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
o.oos
c.oos
(0.0 )
< O.D >
0.005
0.005
(0.0 |
< 0.0 >
o.oos
0.005
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
0.005
0.005
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
0.005
O.OS8
(0.059)
< 1. 57>
0.036
0.247
(0.348)
< 1.66>
0.095
0.111
(0.094)
< 0.61>
0.096
0.046
(0.035)
< 1. 20>
0.033
0.072
(0.050)
0.090
0.030
(0.012)
< 0.73>
0.025
0.097
(0.078)
< 0.74>
0.081
0.131
(0.145)
< 1.55>
0.075
0.034
(0.015)
< 0. 25>
0.028
0.028
(0.010)
< 0.75>
0.022
0.096
(0.081)
< 0. 41>
0.053

-------
      Table C.11, continued
40311


10541


i1152



10731




10932



AT
SD
S
3D
AT
50
5
xn
AV
SD
S
•ID
AT
SD
S
no

AT
SD
S
no
0.218
(0.141)
<-0.26>
0.209
0.206
(0.151)
< 0.51>
n. iB4
J.BOO
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
*****
9.180
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
• ••*•

6.060
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
»••••
0.007
(0.004)
< 1.50>
0.005
0.006
(0.003)
< 1.50>
0.005
O.OOS
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
*****
0.005
(0.0 1
< 0.0 >
*****

0.007
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
*****
0.042
(0.019)
<-0.37>
0.043
0.067
(0.033)
< 0.53>
0.05X
0. J5«
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
*****
0.369
(0.0 »
< 0.0 )
*****

0.121
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
*****
0.538
(0.683)
< 0.69>
0.188
0.488
(0.513)
< 0.71>
n. 1911
0.0
(0.0 )
< o.o >
0.0
0.0
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
0.0

0.0
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
0.0
38.9
1 12.7)
< 0.26>
41.
25.5
I 7.1)
21.
150.3
( 0.0)
< 0.0 >
• «*»
138.0
I 0.0)
< 0.0 )
• ***
I
63.0
( 0.0)
< 0.0 >
****
0.000
(0.0 )
< 0.0 )
0.000
0.001
(0.000)
< 1.50>
o.ooo
U.001
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
*****
0.001
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
*****

0.000
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
*****
0.005
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
0.005
0.005
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
0. 005
O.U06
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
*****
0.006
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
*****

0.005
(0.0 )
< 0.0 )
*****
0.005
(0.0 1
< 0.0 >
0.005
0.005
(0.0 >•
< 0.0 >
0.005
0.005
(0.0 1
< 0.0 >
*****
0.006
(0.0 1
< 0.0 >
*****

0.031
(0.0 )•
< 0.0 >
*****
0.047
(0.086)
< 1.48>
0.006
0.009
(0.006)
< 0.51>
0 005
0.090
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
*****
0.027
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
*****

0.032
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
*****
0.518
(0.635)
< 0.75>
0. 141
0.775
(0.908)
< 0.39>
Q. 190
2.227
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
*****
4.688
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
*••«•

3.258
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
*****
0.002
(0.001)
< 1.50>
0.002
0.002
(0.000)
< 1.00>
o.ooi
o.ol I
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
*****
0.011
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
*****

0.003
(0.0 )
< 0.0 •>
*****
N)
HELL
• 1 1 • •$
10112



10211



10521



10542



10931




> *• • <
AT
SD
S
no
AT
SD
S
SD
AT
SD
S
HO
AT
SD
S
SD
AT
SD
S
SD
!IG
>4|t9Atfrt49£4
39.7
(11.2)
< 1.07>
36.5
36.3
(10.4)
< 0.71>
33.0
21.4
( 7.4)
<-0.03>
22.0
27.8
( 6.5)

29.0
37.3
(11.2)
< 0.99>
35.0
nil
i^####*$##fc*
0.052
(0.040)
< 0.49>
0.038
0.002
(0.049)
< 0.71>
0.012
0.192
(0.179)
< 0.28>
0.121
0.322
(0.414)
< 1.00>
0.102
0.074
(0.096)
< 0.97>
0.035
RG
0.000
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
0.000
0.000
(0.0 )
< 0.0 5
0.000
0.000
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
*****
0.0
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
0.0
0.0
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
0.0
no
0.007
(0.003)
< 0.33>
0.006
0.006
(0.003)
< 0.59>
0.006
0.011
(0.007)
<-0. 34>
0.015
0.014
(0.006)
< 0.82>
0.013
0.058
(0.011)
<-0.08>
0.060
HI
0.005
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
0.005
0.005
(0.000)
< 1.79>
0.005
0.005
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
0.005
0.162
(0.214)
< 1.08>
0.090
0.009
(0.008)
< 1.50>
0.005
K
7.9
( 1.3)
< 0.61>
7.5
7.8
( 1-2)
<-0. 14>
7.9
7.0
( 2.2)
< 0.36>
7.0
8.6
( 1-5)
<-0.54>
8.5
10.4
( 1-8)
<-0.26>
11.0
SE
0.005
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
0.005
0.005
(0.0 )
< 0.0 )
0.005
0.005
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
0.005
0.005
(0.001)
< 1.50>
0.005
0.007
(0.003)
< 0.41>
0.005
AG
• • t 4 • t# *# • fc (
0.005
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
0.005
0.005
(0.0 >•
< 0.0 >
0.005
0.005
(0.0 i>
< 0.0 >
0.005
0.005
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
0.005
0.005
(0.000)
< 1.50>
0.005
• A
72.0
( 6.9)
<-0.73>
72.5
87.0
( 15.9)
< 0.63>
87.0
47.4
I «1.5)
< 0.04>
44.0
120.2
( 36.0)
< 0.39>
99.0
103.0
( 13.5)
< 0.24>
102.0
Tt
0.007
(0.006)
< 1.79>
O.OOS
0.005
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
O.OOS
0.008
(0.006)
< 1.50>
O.OOS
0.005
(0.0 >
< 0.0 >
O.OOS
0.005
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
O.OOS
ZN
0.043
(0.026)
< 0.60>
0.034
0.097
(0.092)
< 0.62>
0.055
0.084
(0.116)
< 1.45>
0.037
0.176
(0.317)
< 1. 48>
0.022
0.196
(0.130)
< 0. 08>
0. 193

-------
Table C.11, continued
20842



21323



30312



40231



40421



21234



40311



10S41



21152



10731



10932



AT
SD
S
no
AT
SD
S
no
AT
SD
S
SD
AT
SD
S
no
AT
SD
S
no
AT
SD
S
HD
AT
SD
S
no
AT
SD
S
no
AT
SD
S
HD
AT
SD
S
HD
AT
SD
S
HD
41.1

< 1.46>
39.0
63.5
(15.9)
< 0.27>
62.0
70.1
(17.0)
< 0.20>
67.0
59.5
(12.8)
< 0.44>
56.0
55.0
(12.9)
< 0.1 0>
57. 0
51.3
(10.9)
< 1.20>
49.0
50.8
(17.1)
< 0.43>
49.0
33.1
( 5.4)
<-1.09>
35.0
62.0
( 0.0)
< 0.0 >
*****
38.0
( 0.0)
< 0.0 )
*****
33.0
( 0.0)
< 0.0 5
*****
0.012
(0.014)
< 0. 55>
0.004
0.059
(0.040)
<-0.04>
0.061
0.063
(0.047)
< 0.47>
0.061
0.190
(0.174)
< O.R9>
0.098
0.036
(0.022)
< 1.21>
0.032
u.038
(0.042)
< 0.66>
0.019
0.019
(0.009)
<-0.36>
0.021
0.028
(0.022)
< 0. 17>
0.024
0.465
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
*****
0.650
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
*****
0.231
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
*****
0.0
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
0.0
0.000
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
*****
0.002
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
*****
0.000
(0.000)
< 0.0 >
0.000
0.0
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
0.0
0.001
(0.000)
< 0.00>
0.001
0.0
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
0.0
0.0
(0.0 )
< 0. 0 >
0.0
0.0
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
0.0
0.0
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
0.0
0.0
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
0.0
0.031
(0.050)
< 1.49>
0.010
0.007
(0.003)
< 0.12>
0.007
0.005
(0.003)
< 0.42>
0.004
0.012
(0.008)
<-0.23>
0.013
0.009
(0.007)
< 0.91>
0.007
0.012
(0.007)
< 0.23>
0.012
0.008
(0.004)
<-0.33>
0.010
0.010
(0.005)
< 0.40>
0.009
0.006
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
*****
0.004
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
*****
0.009
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
*****
0.020
(0.034)
< 1.50>
0.005
0.005
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
0.005
0.029
(0.060)
< 1.79>
0.005
0.005
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
0.005
0.034
(0.065)
< 1.50>
0.005
0.001
(0.0 I
< 0.0 >
0.005
0.005
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
0.005
0.016
(0.024)
< 1.50>
0.005
0.005
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
*****
0.005
(0.0 |
< 0.0 >
*****
0.005
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
*****
9.1
( 2.1)
<-0. 54 >
10.3
13.1
( 3,0)
<-0.48>
13.0
12.8
( 3.7)
< 0.17>
13.0
13.3
( 2.5)
<-0.96>
13.5
10.6
( 2.5)
<-0. 41 >
12.0
10.6
( 2.5)
<-0.64>
11.8
10.7
( 1.7)
<-0.24>
10.8
9.8
( 2.1)
<-0. 14>
10.1
13.5
( 0.0)
< 0.0 >
**»*
10.5
( 0.0)
< 0.0 >
****
19.1
( 0.0)
< 0.0 )
• **•
0.008
(0.006)
< 1.50>
0.005
0.005
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
0.005
0.008
(0.004)
< 0.92>
0.006
0.006
(0.002)
< 1 . 12>
0.005
0.009
(0.006)
< 0.42>
0.005
0.005
(0.000)
< 1.50>
0.005
0.011
(0.011)
< 1.36>
0.005
0.005
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
0.005
0.005
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
*****
0.006
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
*****
0.005
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
*****
0.005
(0.0 1
< 0.0 >
0.005
0.005
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
0.005
0.005
(0.0 I
< 0.0 >
0.005
0.005
(0.0 l<
< 0.0 >
0.005
0.005
(0.0 n
< 0.0 >
0.005
0.005
(0.0 1
< 0.0 >
0.005
0.005
(0.0 I
< 0.0 >
0.005
0.005
(0.0 i>
< 0.0 >
0.005
0.0
(0.0 I
< 0.0 )
0.0
0.0
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
0.0
0.005
(0.0 |
< 0.0 >
*****
81.4
( 36.0)
< 0.37>
69.0
145.6
( 80.5)
< 1.37>
122.0
105.5
( 24.3)
< 0.60>
105.5
96.0
( 34.8)
< 1.45>
84.0
123.0
( 43.5)
< 0.49>
110.0
54.0
( 36.6)
< 1.72>
39.0
145.2
( 55.2)
< 0.67>
124.0
113.4
( 34.6)
< 0.34>
98.0
56.0
I 0.0)
< 0.0 )
*****
30.0
( 0.0)
< 0.0 >
*****
75.0
( 0.0)
< 0.0 >
*****
0.005
(0.0 I
< 0.0 >
0.005
0.005
(0.0 I
< 0.0 >
0.005
0.005
(0.0 1
< 0.0 >
0.005
0.005
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
0.005
0.005
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
0.005
0.005
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
0.005
0.005
(0.0 )
< 0.0 )
o.oos
0.005
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
0.005
0.005
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
*****
0.005
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
*****
0.005
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
*****
0.037
(0.008)
<-0. 69>
0.037
0.036
(0.015)
<-0.32>
0.043
0.145
(0.161)
< 1.42>
0.076
0.14J
(0.242)
< 1.73>
0.051
0.078
(0.081)
< 1.35>
0.045
0.035
(0.019)
< 0.67>
0.026
0.070
(0.081)
< 1. 27>
0.027
0.037
(0.019)
< 0. 67>
0.038
0.109
(0.0 )
< 0. 0 >
*****
0.07 1
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
*****
0.041
(0.0 )
< 0. 0 >
*****
 * AV = Arithmetic Average;  SD = Standard Deviation;  S = Skewness;  MD =  Median