&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Robert S Kerr Environmental Research EPA 600 2 79 047
Laboratory February 1979
Ada OK 74820
Research and Development
Long-Term
Effects of Land
Application of
Domestic
Wastewater
Roswell,
New Mexico, Slow
Rate Irrigation Site
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U S. Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into nine series. These nine broad cate-
gories were established to facilitate further development and application of en-
vironmental technology Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields
The nine series are:
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3 Ecological Research
4 Environmental Monitoring
5 Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
6. Scientific and Technical Assessment Reports (STAR)
7 Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development
8. "Special" Reports
9 Miscellaneous Reports
This report has been assigned to the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION TECH-
NOLOGY series This series describes research performed to develop and dem-
onstrate instrumentation, equipment, and methodology to repair or prevent en-
vironmental degradation from point and non-point sources of pollution. This work
provides the new or improved technology required for the control and treatment
of pollution sources to meet environmental quality standards.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161
-------
EPA-600/2-79-047
February 1979
LONG-TERM EFFECTS OF LAND APPLICATION OF DOMESTIC WASTEWATER
Roswell, New Mexico, Slow Rate Irrigation Site
by
Ernest L. Koerner
Benham-Blair & Affiliates, Inc.
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73120
and
D. Alan Haws
Engineering Enterprises, Inc.
Norman, Oklahoma 73069
Contract No. 68-02-2363
Project Officer
Richard E. Thomas
Office of Water Program Operations
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
ROBERT S. KERR ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ADA, OKLAHOMA 74820
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Robert S. Kerr Environmental Re-
search Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and approved for
publication. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect
the views and policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, nor does
mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or rec-
ommendation for use.
-------
FOREWORD
The Environmental Protection Agency was established to coordinate the
administration of major Federal programs designed to protect the quality of
our environment.
An important part of the agency's effort involves the search for
information about environmental problems, management techniques, and new
technologies through which optimum use of the nation's land and water
resources can be assured and the threat pollution poses to the welfare of
the American people can be minimized.
EPA's Office of Research and Development conducts this search through
a nationwide network of research facilities. As one of these facilities,
the Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory is responsible for the
management of programs including the development and demonstration of soil
and other natural systems for the treatment and management of municipal
wastewaters.
Although land application of municipal wastewaters has been practiced
for years, there has been a growing and widespread interest in this practice
in recent years. The use of land application received major impetus with
the passage of the 1972 amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act. The 1977 amendments to the Act gave further encouragement to the use
of land application and provided certain incentives for the funding of
these systems through the construction grants program. With the widespread
implementation of land application systems, there is an urgent need for
answers to several major questions. One of these questions regards the
long-term effects of land application on the soil, crops, groundwater, and
other environmental components. This report is one in a series of ten
which documents the effects of long-term wastewater application at selected
irrigation and rapid infiltration study sites. These case studies should
provide new insight into the long-term effects of land application of
municipal wastewaters.
This report contributes to the knowledge which is essential for the
EPA to meet the requirements of environmental laws and enforce pollution
control standards which are reasonable, cost effective, and provide adequate
protection for the American public.
William C. Galegar
Director
Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory
iii
-------
ABSTRACT
This report presents the findings of a study on the long-term effects
of applying treated domestic wastewater to farmland at Roswell, New Mexico.
On the test site, a slow rate irrigation method was used for 33 years.
Water, soil, and crop samples from this test site were compared with similar
samples from nearby control sites irrigated with well water. Samples were
also taken to detect viruses and coliform bacteria.
Data on a number of parameters were evaluated against information
about the natural features of the Roswell physiographic region. Methods
used in the field and laboratory analyses are described in sufficient
detail to provide a basis for comparison of these results to other studies.
An essential aspect of evaluating water analyses is understanding the
hydrogeology of the area. Knowledge of depth and movement of groundwater
and location and thickness of aquifers was essential in interpreting data
from wells strategically placed on both test and control sites.
Differences in eight mean concentrations out of thirty-nine parameters
analyzed statistically were found to be significant for the effluent at the
test site as compared to the irrigation water at the control site. Seven
of the eight parameters were greater for the effluent at the test site,
and one was greater for the irrigation water at the control site. For the
comparison of the groundwaters, seven parameters were found to be signifi-
cantly different. Alkalinity and nitrate were the only parameters found to
be significantly greater at the test site. Only one parameter, phosphorus,
was significantly greater in the effluent, the upper soil profile, and the
plant leaves of the test site compared to the control site.
Soil analyses from six depths at different seasons indicated a rapid
renovation of the wastewater. In most cases, the upper layers of the soil
(0-30 cm) adequately trapped chemicals, such as ammonium nitrogen and
phosphorus, which had higher concentrations in wastewater than well water.
No viruses were detected in wells or plant samples, and coliform bacte-
ria occurred only sporadically in early sampling results, possibly as a re-
sult of contamination during collection and processing. The report con-
cludes with a projection for 100 or more years of useful life for the site,
without undesirable effects from heavy metals, viruses, or excess nitrates
in the groundwater. In addition, the site benefits from the extra plant nu-
trients contained in the wastewater that are not present in the well water.
This report was submitted in partial fulfillment of Contract No. 68-
-------
02-2363 by Benham-Blair & Affiliates, Inc., as the principal contractor;
Engineering Enterprises, Inc., as subcontractor; with three cooperating
companies: Sheaffer and Roland, Inc.; D.E. Matschke Company; and W.J. Bauer
Consulting Engineers, Inc.; under the sponsorship of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. This report covers the period from January, 1976, to
November, 1977; work was completed as of June, 1978.
-------
CONTENTS
Foreword iii
Abstract iv
Figures ix
Tables xi
List of Abbreviations and Symbols xiii
Acknowledgments xv
1. Introduction 1
2. Conclusions 3
3. Site-Selection Process 5
General Criteria 5
New Mexico Sites 7
4. Description of Site 9
General 9
Topography 9
Test Site 11
Control Sites 11
Groundwater Hydrology and Geology 13
Soils 22
Climate 23
Land Use 25
5. Plant Operation and Costs 27
Wastewater Treatment 27
Wastewater Constituents 27
Irrigation With Wastewater 27
Capital and Operating Costs 29
6. Research Methods 30
Well Construction and Locations 30
Sampling 35
Chemical and Biological Analyses 38
Data Evaluation Plan 51
7. Results and Discussion 52
Water 52
Soils 92
Plants 100
Health Aspects 102
Interactions of Water, Soils, and Plants 104
Projected Useful Life of Site for Wastewater Irrigation . . 107
References 109
vn
-------
CONTENTS (Continued)
Appendices
A. Well Logs for Control and Test Sites 112
B. Data Tables for All Water, Soil, and Plant Samples 125
C. Nitrogen Relationships in the Roswell, New Mexico,
Land Application System 157
Glossary 178
viii
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
1 Ridge and furrow flood irrigation 2
2 General location map 10
3 Irrigation control sites 12
4 Generalized geologic map and cross section of
Roswell, N.M., area 14
5 Test site groundwater contours 19
6 Test site hydrologic cycle 21
7 Location of wastewater irrigated farm land 28
8 Typical well completion 31
9 Wastewater irrigation test site 33
10 Cross section A-A1 34
11 Lysimeter installation 36
12 Irrigation study site 58
13 Means of selected parameters for which seasonal changes shown
were significant at the 0.05 level 78
14 Test site groundwater constituents—ammonium nitrogen 79
15 Test site groundwater constituents—organic nitrogen 80
16 Test site groundwater constituents—nitrate nitrogen 81
17 Change in nitrate nitrogen across the test site 82
18 Seasonal change in nitrate nitrogen at the test site 82
19 Test site groundwater constituents—chemical oxygen demand 84
20 Seasonal and depth variations in COD at the test site 85
ix
-------
FIGURES (Continued)
Number Page
21 Test site groundwater constituents—selected parameters 86
22 Test site groundwater constituents—heavy metals 89
23 Test site groundwater constituents—lindane 90
24 Test site groundwater constituents—2,4-D 91
25 Test site groundwater constituents—2,4,5 TP silvex 93
26 Total chemical element concentration levels for surface soils
(0-10 cm) in control site, test site, and normal agriculture
soils 95
27 Extractable or exchangeable chemical element concentration levels
for surface soils (0-10 cm) in control site, test site, and
normal agriculture soils 96
28 Test site groundwater constituents—total coliform 105
29 Test site groundwater constituents—fecal col i form 106
-------
TABLES
Number Page
1 Comparison of Sites Located in New Mexico 8
2 Summary of Test Site and Control Site B Characteristics 13
3 Well Summary Sheet 17
4 Recent Meteorological Data for Roswell, New Mexico 20
5 Monthly Temperatures and Precipitation, Roswell, New Mexico, Chaves
County, for Period of Record 1894-1960, Except as Noted 24
6 Monthly Average Wastewater Characteristics 29
7 Summary of Field Methods 39
8 Summary of Constituents Defining Differences in Applied Waters. . . 53
9 Water Quality of Surface Runoff 55
10 Typical Yearly Average Quality Parameters for Irrigation Groundwater. 59
11 Mean Concentrations of Parameters for Irrigation Waters Used on
Test (Effluent) and Control (Shallow Aquifer) Sites 60
12 Mean Concentrations of Parameters in Test and Control Site
Groundwaters (Depth Less Than 30 Meters) 62
13 Mean Concentrations of Parameters in Test and Control Site
Groundwaters Sampled June, 1976 (Depth Less Than 30 Meters) .... 63
14 Mean Concentrations of Parameters in Test and Control Site
Groundwaters Sampled October, 1976 (Depth Less Than 30 Meters). . . 64
15 Mean Concentrations of Parameters in Test and Control Site
Groundwaters Sampled January, 1977 (Depth Less Than 30 Meters). . . 65
16 Mean Concentrations of Parameters in Test and Control Site
Groundwaters Sampled April, 1977 (Depth Less Than 30 Meters). ... 66
XI
-------
TABLES (Continued)
Number Pa9e
17 Mean Concentrations of Parameters in Test and Control Site
Groundwaters (Depth Greater Than 6 Meters) 68
18 Mean Concentrations of Parameters in Test and Control Site
Groundwaters Sampled June, 1976 (Depth Greater Than 6 Meters) ... 69
19 Mean Concentrations of Parameters in Test and Control Site
Groundwaters Sampled October, 1976 (Depth Greater Than 6 Meters). . 70
20 Mean Concentrations of Parameters in Test and Control Site
Groundwaters Sampled January, 1977 (Depth Greater Than 6 Meters). . 71
21 Mean Concentrations of Parameters in Test and Control Site
Groundwaters Sampled April, 1977 (Depth Greater Than 6 Meters). . . 72
22 Analysis Summary 73
23 Mean Concentrations of Parameters in Test Site Groundwaters 75
24 Seasonal Variation of Mean Concentrations of Various Parameters
in Groundwater at the Test Site, Roswell, New Mexico 76
25 Soil Means From the Test and Control Sites 94
26 Accumulation of Total Phosphorus (P) in the Soil 97
27 Mean Concentrations of Parameters in Plant Leaves From Test
and Control Sites 100
28 Mean Concentrations of Parameters in Corn Grain
From Test Site and Normal Values 101
29 Virus Identification From Sewage Treatment Plant Effluent 102
30 Virus Isolation 103
xn
-------
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS
ABBREVIATIONS
acre-ft
BOD
BOD,
cm 5
cm/hr
COD
DO
exch
extr
fecal coll
9
gal
GL
gpd
gpd/ft
gpm
ha
hr
in
in/hr
kg
kg/ha
kg/ha/yr
km
L
L/s
L/d/m
Ib
Ib/acre
Ib/acre/hr
MCL
mg/g
mg/L
Mgal/d
Mgal/d/ft
mi
mL
mm
mo
acre-foot
biochemical oxygen demand
5-day biochemical oxygen demand
centimeters
centimeters per hour
chemical oxygen demand
dissolved oxygen
exchangeable
extractable
fecal coliform
grams
gal Ions
ground level
gallons per day
gallons per day per foot
gal Ions per minute
hectares
hours
inches
inches per hour
kilograms
kilograms per hectare
kilograms per hectare per year
kilometers
1iters
liters per second
liters per day per meter
pounds
pounds per acre
pounds per acre per hour
meters
cubic meters
maximum contaminant level
milligrams per gram
milligrams per liter
million gallons per day
million gallons per day per foot
miles
mi 11 i1iters
millimeters
month
xm
-------
ng/g
ng/L
nm
sq ft
SR
SS
SWL
IDS
TOC
total coli
umhos/cm
#/100 ml
SYMBOLS
Al
As
B
Ca
Cd
Cl
Co
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg
Mg
Mn
N
nanograms per gram
nanograms per liter
nanometer
square feet
slow rate irrigation
suspended solids
static water level
total dissolved solids
top of casing
total coliform
year
micrograms per gram
micrograms per liter
micromhos per centimeter
number of coliform per 100
aluminum
arsenic
boron
calcium
cadmium
chlorine
cobalt
chromium
copper
iron
mercury
sulfuric acid
potassium
magnesium
manganese
nitrogen
mini liters of sample
Na
Ni
NO,
NO-
P '
Pb
S
Se
S°<
Zn
>
<
sodium
ammonia
ammonium
nickel
nitrite
nitrate
phosphorus
lead
sulfur
selenium
sulfate
zinc
greater than
less than
micron
xiv
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The large number of participants in this team project precludes mention
of all those who have made substantial contributions. Continual interest and
encouragement have been provided by Richard E. Thomas, Project Officer for
the EPA. His experience in land treatment projects, technical/scientific
expertise in soils, and administrative guidance were essential for the suc-
cessful completion of the study.
Each of the participating companies had a primary leader or coordinator
who took major responsibility for bringing the project to completion. They
were Ernest L. Koerner for Benham-Blair and Affiliates, Inc.; D. Alan Haws
for Engineering Enterprises, Inc.; Raymond H. Brand for Sheaffer and Roland,
Inc.; and Donald E. Matschke for D.E. Matschke Company. Messrs. William J.
Bauer, Keith E. Bennett, R. LeRoy Carpenter, Paul K. Law, Geoffrey W. Leeper,
Dennis G. Lund, Lelan K. Martin, Harold E. Namminga, W. Russell Street,
Herbert M. Schornick, and John R. Sheaffer also made substantial contribu-
tions to the project.
In addition, the cooperation of the landowners and personnel from the
City of Roswell and the New Mexico Environmental Improvement Agency was ap-
preciated.
xv
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
Land application of domestic wastewater is not a new concept although
it has only been in recent years that land treatment has received renewed
attention. This attention has been focused in two general areas: 1) eco-
nomical wastewater renovation including increasing crop yields on agricul-
tural soils; and 2) potential soil and groundwater pollution including po-
tential health hazards. Decisions regarding wastewater management must
consider these areas.
Proper design, operation, and monitoring of land application systems
require data concerning the long-term effects of applying wastewater on land
under a variety of operating conditions. There is a need for these data from
areas where wastewater has been applied for at least 10 years.
For 33 years treated domestic wastewater from Roswell, New Mexico, has
been used for irrigation. The particular application method used is slow
rate irrigation (SR) in which effluent flowing through a concrete-lined ditch
is channeled to run down furrows in the fields (Figure 1).
In this research study conducted over a one-year period, test and con-
trol plots were selected for comparison of certain parameters. Samples were
collected of the sewage effluent, groundwater, surface water runoff, soils,
and plants grown on the test plots. Field laboratory analyses of some
samples at the site and later, complete chemical laboratory analyses provid-
ed the data presented in this report.
The objective of the study was to investigate the long-term effects of
applying wastewater effluent to the land. Possible health hazards of heavy
metal accumulation in plants; potential contamination of groundwater supplies
with bacteria, viruses, or excessive nitrates; and undesirable changes in the
chemistry of the soil for maintaining high crop yields were key issues to be
addressed in the study. The scope of the study consisted of one year of
field investigation and focused attention on heavy metals, pathogens, ni-
trogen, and phosphorus.
-------
XX
Per eolation
Figure I. Ridge and furrow flood irrigation.
-------
SECTION 2
CONCLUSIONS
An analysis of the waters, soils, and plants at the Roswell site has
indicated that the use of wastewater for irrigation resulted in several long-
term beneficial effects. The specific major findings showed that:
1. Indicator viruses or total and fecal coliform bacteria have not
penetrated the soils and reached the underlying groundwater as a
result of 33 years of irrigation with effluent from the Roswell,
New Mexico, wastewater treatment plant. No viruses were detected
in the groundwater.
2. No trace of indicator viruses was found either on the surface or
inside the tissue of the leaf and grain portions of the corn grown
on the effluent-irrigated land.
3. Metals such as zinc, copper, and chromium that were measured in
small concentration in the irrigation effluent were removed and
sufficiently immobilized by the soil and, after 33 years, are not
being assimilated by crops at any greater rate than for comparable
crops at groundwater-irrigated locations with comparable soils.
4. More toxic metals such as cadmium, lead, and mercury have been
demonstrably absent in the irrigation effluent, the underlying
groundwater, and the irrigated corn crop.
5. Arsenic and selenium concentrations in the effluent-irrigated soil
were low and comparable to concentrations in soils that have not
received effluent irrigation.
6. Extractable metals in the effluent-irrigated soil, such as boron,
were adequate for crop nutrition, below toxic levels, and com-
parable with extractable concentrations in groundwater-irrigated
soils.
7. The plant nutrients nitrogen and phosphorus have increased in the
effluent-irrigated soil by approximately 50 percent as contrasted
with groundwater-irrigated soils.
8. No harmful concentrations of the herbicides and pesticides endrin,
lindane, methoxychlor, toxaphene, 2,4-D, and 2,4,5 TP silvex were
present in the irrigation effluent or groundwater. Lindane was
-------
present at measurably higher concentrations in the groundwater at
the effluent-irrigated site as contrasted with the groundwater-
irrigated site but at concentrations well below the current National
Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulation.maximum contaminant
level.
9. Nitrate nitrogen at an average concentration in the range of 5 to
7 mg/L and 3 to 4 percent of the applied nitrogen is exiting in the
effluent-irrigated site by way of the underlying groundwater.
10. Nitrogen loss to volatilization and denitrification is projected to
be in the range of 3 to 30 percent at the effluent-irrigated site.
11. Phosphorus uptake by the effluent-irrigated soils has penetrated to
the upper 30 cm (12 in) of the soil profile after 33 years of
effluent application and phosphorus removal to an average 0.04 mg/L
soluble phosphorus. The projected life for continued phosphorus
removal for the irrigation effluent on these soils is in excess of
100 additional years.
12. All parameters observed for the groundwater, soils, and plants
support the continued use and longevity for the 33-year effluent-
irrigated site for continued effluent irrigation, crop benefits,
and wastewater reclamation.
-------
SECTION 3
SITE-SELECTION PROCESS
GENERAL CRITERIA
Earlier Approaches
An earlier report (Bauer, 1976) defined a number of working approaches
for the site-selection process. These were initially used to provide direc-
tion in the data-gathering phases. The earlier approaches included the
following:
Soil Chemistry--
The chemical reaction of the soil with the chemicals in the applied
wastewater takes place first in the upper layers of the soil. After these
upper or plow layers have become saturated, reactions take place at progres-
sively lower elevations. The distribution of accumulated chemicals resulting
from the application of wastewater is studied from the point of view of this
simple model of the process.
Biological--
Some of the materials applied to the land in the wastewater are removed
in the form of crops. To calculate an overall materials balance, an estimate
of the total quantity of materials removed by crops must be made.
Hydrological--
Water moves through the earth in two major forms: (1) as soil water
through the unsaturated zone, where the two fluid properties of fluid weight
and surface tension dominate the movements, and (2) as groundwater through
the saturated zone, where the two fluid properties of fluid weight and viscos-
ity dominate the movements. Both of these movements are subject to the laws
of fluid mechanics, permitting mathematical models to be set up for a particu-
lar site. Such models are useful in guiding the exploratory and sampling
programs and in interpreting the results of such programs. The models enable
one to define a "plume" of water that originates in the wastewater applica-
tion site. This plume is the only part of the soil and groundwater that is
affected by the application of the wastewater. All other water outside this
plume remains unaffected. This is an extremely important concept in guiding
the program of sampling and in interpreting the results.
-------
Applications to Sites
The foregoing approaches aid in defining parameters that help to distin-
guish one site from another. Several of these parameters are as follows:
Uniform Permeability of Soil--
Each test site and control site should have the same type of soil with
the same general, reasonably uniform permeability. The soil should not con-
tain any well-defined channels through which the applied water could escape
contact with the chemicals in the soil mass.
Same Site--
The.same site should have been used for a long time. If wastewater liad
been applied to first one and then another site over the period of operation,
the concept of the long-term effect would not be applicable.
Depth to Groundwater--
The depth to the groundwater should be sufficient to permit good crop
production, yet shallow enough to allow economical sampling of the water.
The thickness of the aquifer should be adequate to permit a large body of
soil to react with the applied wastewater.
Accounting for Chemical Elements--
Sufficient data should be available to estimate the total mass o'f chem-
ical elements applied with the wastewater, the amount percolated through the
soil, the amount taken off in the crops, and the amount that has remained in
the soil.
Constant Quality--
No substantial change should have occurred in the chemical quality, of
the applied wastewater over the period being studied.
Extraneous Sources--
If chemicals other than those in the wastewater have been applied on or
near the study sites, such an application can introduce uncertainties into
the operation that would make the analyses difficult. Other factors being
equal, sites at which other sources of chemicals have been applied should be
avoided.
General Criteria Supplied by. EPA
The EPA also specified certain other general criteria for the
selection of sites. These criteria are as follows:
1. Flow rates should be at least 4.38 L/s (0.1 Mgal/d).
2. Historical records should be available for at least 10 years.
3. The applied wastewater should be effluent from either primary
or secondary treatment.
-------
4. A good control site should be within a reasonable distance and
have the same general type of soil and hydrogeological condi-
tions.
NEW MEXICO SITES
Preliminary Evaluations
Sixteen sites which practiced some degree of irrigation with wastewater
were listed initially, using the STORE! data supplied by the EPA. Table 1
lists the 16 New Mexico sites. By a process of evaluation that relied upon
written and telephone information, the list of 16 was reduced to 3 sites,
each of which was visited. Reasons for elimination are given in Table 1.
Site Visits
Three sites were visited: Roswell, Tularosa, and Alamogordo. As indi-
cated in Table 1, only Roswell satisfactorily met the criteria that had been
established. The records at the other two sites were too incomplete to cal-
culate the total quantity of wastewater that had been applied. No further
consideration was given to the Tularosa or Alamogordo sites.
The process of site selection for the study of the use of wastewater to
irrigate crops in New Mexico was remarkably direct. The Roswell site was
unmistakably the proper choice, having none of the drawbacks of the other
potential sites.
The process of selection deliberately avoided golf-course irrigation
sites. It was felt that more significant information could be obtained from
the study of cropland irrigation.
-------
TABLE 1. COMPARISON OF SITES LOCATED IN NEW MEXICO9
Location
Roswell b
Tularosac
Alamogordo
Uniform
Permeability
+1*
+1
+1
Same
Site
+1
+1
+1
Groundwater
Depth
+1
+1
+1
Aquifer
Thickness
+1
+1
+1
Mass
Balance
+1
-1
-1
Wastewater
Quality
+1
0
0
Extraneous
Sources
+1
-1
0
Total
7
2
3
* +1 = Parameter Favorable; -1 = Parameter Unfavorable; 0 = Neutral
Notes:
CO
Thirteen sites investigated were rejected for the following reasons:
A. Only golf course irrigation practiced: Gallup, Santa Fe, Los Alamos, Silver City.
B. Incomplete records, mixed water, or similar doubt about input: Eunice, Dexter.
C. Unknown operation - Some contamination already: Hobbs, Jal, Levington, Clovis, Deming.
D. Extraneous source - Leaking lagoon next to irrigation site: Portales.
E. Too small and too new: Clayton.
Roswell is obviously the first choice of the New Mexico sites, as the wastewater applied to the
study site is not mixed with other sources of water. One can therefore evaluate the total quantity
of applied chemicals with relative precision. All of the other conditions were also good at
Roswell.
The figures listed for the soil and groundwater conditions at Tularosa and Alamogordo were arbi-
trarily assigned at +1 to give them the benefit of the doubt, as the flow and water quality records
were so incomplete as to eliminate these two sites from further consideration. The soil conditions
were not investigated to the same extent as were those at Roswell.
-------
SECTION 4
DESCRIPTION OF SITE
GENERAL
Roswell is located at map coordinates latitude 33 18'N longitude 104
32'W in Chaves County in southeastern New Mexico (Figure 2). The city had a
population of 43,000 in 1975 and has two facilities of higher learning, the
New Mexico Military Institute and Eastern New Mexico University (ENMU). Until
1974, an air base located approximately 13 km (8 mi) south of Roswell provided
a major source of income for the city. This air base was abandoned in 1975.
The economic base is presently farming, feedlots, tourism, and light industry.
The only major industry is the Glover packing plant.
TOPOGRAPHY
Except for small areas in the extreme southwestern part and on the High
Plains along the eastern boundary of the county, essentially all surface
runoff from this county enters the Pecos River drainage system. The Pecos
River flows generally in a north-to-south direction through the central part
of the county. Numerous tributary streams enter the Pecos River from the west
and a few relatively small ones from the east. The larger and more extensive
drainage and arroyos on the west, which originate in the Capitan, Sierra
Blanca, and Sacramento mountains to the west, include Salt Creek, Arroyo Del
Macho, Berrendo Creek, Rio Hondo, Rio Felix, and the upper part of the Rio
Penasco. Although a few of these large streams are perennial in their upper
reaches, they are generally intermittent in the county or flow only following
periods of heavy rainfall. The streams entering the Pecos River from the east
drain relatively small areas and are all intermittent.
A number of different and varied types of topography occur within the
county. In the part of the county extending from just north of Roswell to the
south county boundary, a broad, nearly level to gently sloping alluvial plain
and terrace area extends eastward from the western uplands to the Pecos River.
This plains area is commonly interspersed with undulating to gently rolling
ridges and uplands in the western part, where it joins the limestone uplands.
Nearly level to very gently sloping floodplains border many of the prin-
cipal drainages. These occur mainly in the valley bottoms of Salt Creek, Ber-
rendo Creek, Rio Hondo, Rio Felix, Arroyo Del Macho, and the Pecos River as
well as in valleys adjacent to a number of other small intermittent drainages.
The elevation at Roswell is about 1,097 m (3,600 ft) (New Mexico State Univer-
sity, 1971).
-------
R23E R24E
FOR_DEJA!k_!M- AREA SEE FIGURE 3
R?4E R25E
noio
2S5-355\
WELL NUMBER
SCREEN DEf'THlfl.)
R23E R24E
3 Kilometer;
Figure 2. General location map.
-------
TEST SITE
The test site consists of about 6.5 ha (16 acres) and is located about •
0.6 km (3/8 mi) east of the sewage treatment plant. Wastewater-irrigated
farmland is located on three sides, with the Rio Hondo on the southern side.'
The 8.1 ha (20 acres) between the test site and the sewage treatment plant
has been irrigated with wastewater for more than 30 years, and sludge has
been applied for the last 2 or 3 years. The land to the north and east of
the test site has been irrigated with mixed wastewater and groundwater-.
About 9.3 ha (23 acres) of adjacent land to the north and east drains onto
the test site.
The test site slopes gently toward the Rio Hondo and is flood-irrigated
(ridge and furrow) from a concrete-lined ditch located on the northern edge
of the site.
CONTROL SITES
Two control sites (A and B) were selected for the Roswell study (Figure
3). Site A is located about 2.4 km (1.5 mi) west of the test site and was
used to test the groundwater quality upstream of the test site. This site is
flood-irrigated with well water from the artesian aquifer. A sample of the
irrigation water was collected on the first sampling trip. Monitoring well
11030 was screened in the water table aquifer and was sampled on all four
sampling trips. The soils were different from those on the test site.
Control site B is located about 6.4 km (4 mi) east of the test site.
The soils are the same as those on the test site. Corn was grown on both
sites during the study period. This control site consists of more than 16 ha
(40 acres) that are flood-irrigated with well water from the artesian aquifer.
The irrigation water was sampled on the first and fourth sampling visits.
Monitoring wells 11050 and 11060 were screened in the water table aquifer and
were sampled on all four sampling trips. The crops and soils were sampled
for comparison with those on the test site.
Summary of Test Site and Control Site B
The Roswell site was an especially appropriate setting for both test and
control sites. A summary of characteristics of the two sites is given in
Table 2.
The two sites were comparable, the only difference being the use of sew-
age effluent rather than well water for irrigation. Thus, an excellent com-
parison of the two sites can be made.
11
-------
North
11040 .„
20-24.3 <*)"
R 24 E
CONTROL SITE A
T
10
S
IOOO 2000 3000
Scolt in fa»t
Seal* in M«l«r»
CONTROL SITE B
CONTROL SITE A
CONTROL SITE B
LOCATION MAP
I
Scali In mill*
Kilometers
Kigure 3. Irrigation control sites.
-------
TABLE 2. SUMMARY OF TEST SITE AND CONTROL SITE B CHARACTERISTICS
Characteristic
Test Site
Control Site B
Size of site, ha
Method of irrigation
Depth of irrigation, m/yr.
Thickness of underlying
aquifer, m
Depth to groundwater, m
Direction of groundwater
flow
Type of soil (loam)
Source of water
Duration of irrigation
8.1
Ridge & furrow
0.8
10-12
2-4
East
Balmorhea
Sewage effluent
33 years
16.0
Ridge & furrow
0.8
10-12
2-4
East
Balmorhea
Well water
30 years
GROUNDWATER HYDROLOGY AND GEOLOGY
General
The Roswell groundwater basin in southeastern New Mexico is a unique and
complex system of aquifers. Several studies dealing with the basin have been
made. The most complete was in 1933 (Fiedler and Nye, 1933), and one of the
most recent was published in 1968 (Kinney, 1968). Figure 4 is a generalized
geologic map for the Roswell area.
Physiography and Drainage
The Roswell Basin is bounded by the Capitan, Sacramento, and Guadalupe
mountains about 125 km (78 mi) west of Roswell, the Seven Rivers Hills about
96 km (60 mi) south of Roswell, and the east bank of the Pecos River to the
east. The northern boundary of the basin is indefinite but probably is about
125 km (78 mi) north of Roswell.
The surface-water boundaries of the Roswell Basin coincide with its
physiographic boundaries. The majority of the streams that flow across the
Roswell Basin originate in the mountains to the west and flow eastward to the
Pecos River.
Surface-water runoff from within this area contributes to the aquifer
through influent seepage as the streams cross the basin. The area from which
precipitation percolates directly to the aquifer does not extend as far to
the west and is probably limited to about 77 km (48 mi) from Roswell.
The Artesian Aquifer
Although several aquifers are present, the principal formation of the
13
-------
_• Pot "-/•'• Tr.-.
S»f /Artesia. iTriassid
Andres rm.
Qal
\Alluvium
/~\">
ROSWELL^
Figure 4. Generalized geologic map and cross section
of Roswell, N. M. area.
14
-------
artesian reservoir is the San Andres Limestone. Water occurs in an uncon-
fined condition in the San Andres Limestone about 19 to 24 km (12 to 15 mi)
west of Roswell (R.21E.) and becomes effectively confined (or artesian) by
the overlying Grayburg and Queen Formations at the western edge of Roswell
(R.23E.). An elongated confined aquifer from 19 to 32 km (12 to 20 mi) wide
parallels the Pecos River for about 145 km (90 mi). Within a smaller area 11
to 19 km (7 to 12 mi) wide and 105 km (65 mi) long many early flowing wells
were drilled. Development within the basin began prior to 1900. By 1905
there were approximately 485 artesian wells, and this had increased to 1,400
wells by 1927. These wells initially flowed from 12 to 380 L/s (200 to 6,000
gpm), but at most wells, the artesian flow had decreased considerably by
1927. Fiedler and Nye did note two 30.5 cm (12 in) wells drilled in 1926 and
1927 that initially flowed 380 and 360 L/s (6,000 and 5,700 gpmj, respec-
tively (Fiedler and Nye, 1933). These wells were located 11 km (7 mi) south-
east and 9.6 km (6 mi) southwest of the test area.
Fiedler and Nye's 1926 listing included 10 wells in Section 26 (test
area), 32 wells in Section 27, 63 wells in the remaining 7 adjoining sec-
tions, and 126 wells directly west in Sections 32 and 33. Initial flow of
these wells ranged from 6 to 145 L/s (100 to 2,300 gpm) but more commonly was
32 to 63 L/s (500 to 1,000 gpm).
By 1926 most of the wells in Section 32 and the western half of Section
33 had ceased to flow and were either abandoned or used as domestic supply,
while those to the east continued to flow at reduced rates of 20 to 45 L/s
(300 to 700 gpm) and were used for irrigation.
Although it is interesting to note the magnitude of early development,
it is pertinent to the study only as an illustration of the potential for
leakage within the area from the artesian aquifer to the overlying shallow
aquifer through abandoned wells.
Earlier studies (Fiedler and Nye, 1933, and Hantush, 1955) estimated
that the natural upward leakage contributed significantly to the recharge of
the shallow aquifer of 100,000,000 m /yr (80,200 acre-ft per year). However,
the Roswell Geological Society publication discounted the natural upward
leakage as being significant in most areas of the basin (Kinney, 1968).
Regardless of natural leakage, the potential for man-made leakage within the
test area is high.
The Shallow Aquifer
The San Andres Formation is overlain and confined by the Grayburg-Queen
Formation. Although considered to be an aquitard, the formation is utilized
as an aquifer near Roswell and is artesian in places. The Grayburg-Queen
Formation is overlain by the Seven Rivers Formation, which consists of thin-
bedded shales, siltstones, and sandstones.
The base of the shallow aquifer that underlies the test site extends
downward to the approximate top of the Queen Formation and includes part of
the Seven Rivers Formation to which it is hydraulically connected.
15
-------
The shallow aquifer within the Roswell area consists of 61 m (200 ft) of
valley fill that was deposited by the Pecos River as it migrated eastward.
This fill consists of sands of the Queen Formation and Seven Rivers Formation
intermixed with more recent sediments deposited by the Pecos River and the
alluvium along the Pecos River and its tributaries. Fiedler and Nye named
the resulting terraces in order of decreasing age from west to east: the
Blackdown terrace, which developed on outcrops of the Queen Formation; the
Orchard Park terrace, which developed in outcrops of the Seven Rivers Forma-
tion; and the Lakewood Terrace, consisting of sediments deposited by the
Pecos River and its tributaries (Fiedler and Nye, 1933). These terraces are
generally considered to be interconnected and are referred to as the shallow
watertable aquifers.
Test Site
On the test site, however, the upper alluvium (Lakewood Terrace) is not
as directly connected to the shallow aquifer as indicated above, and the
shallow aquifer cannot be considered unconfined. This is evidenced by
water-level fluctuations of 7.6 m (25 ft) in deep well 12070 during the
irrigation season (Table 3). During this period the alluvium wells fluc-
tuated less than 1 m (3 ft). Fiedler and Nye noted one well in the NE 1/4 of
NE'i/4 Sec. 35, T. 10 S., R. 24 E., within 400 m (0.25 mi) of the test site
that initially flowed at a rate of 43 L/s (680 gpm) and was only 30 m (98 ft)
deep (Fiedler and Nye, 1933).
Stratigraphy—
The stratigraphy of the site is: alluvium to 10 m (35 ft), semi-confined
valley fill (shallow aquifer) from 10 m (35 ft) to approximately 60 m (200
ft), then 15 to 45 m (50 to 150 ft) of Grayburg-Queen Formation with the San
Andres Limestone occurring between 76 and 107 m (250 and 350 ft) below the
surface. Fiedler and Nye (1933) indicate that the top of the San Andres
occurs at about this depth, based on several well logs within the area, and
that artesian water was sometimes encountered above what they classified as
the San Andres Formation.
Aquifer Character!'stics--
The coefficient of transmissibility of the San Andres Formation varies
from 1,240,000 L/d/m (0.1 Mgal/d/ft) at the northern and southern limits to
more than 23,600,000 L/d/m (1.9 Mgal/d/ft) in the Roswell area. Near the
test area, the coefficient of transmissibility is estimated to be on the
order of 12,400,000 L/d/m (1 Mgal/d/ft), and the piezometric surface on the
artesian aquifer was about 1,075 m (3,527 ft) in 1968 or about 5.2 m (17 ft)
above ground level.
The coefficient of transmissibility of the shallow aquifer within the
test area is about 1,240,000 L/d/m (0.1 Mgal/d/ft), and water elevations
fluctuated in response to the irrigation demands from 8 m (26 ft) below the
surface during the summer to 0.1 m (0.4 ft) below the surface elevation of
1,069 m (3,507 ft) in January, 1977. Groundwater flow in the shallow aquifer
is generally to the east towards the Pecos River with a piezometric gradient
of 0.0021.
16
-------
TABLE 3 WELL SUMMARY SHEET
Roswell Test Site Wells:
12030
29
22-27
25
0.5
3508.2 3499.7
7.61
7.78
12041'
32
11-13
0.2
0.6
3508.4
3500.4
7.5
7.79
12042*
32
20-22
0.5
3508.3
3499.7
7.56
7.71
12043'
32
27-29
15
0.4
3508.1
3499.7
7.4
7.56
12050
23
12-17
0.6
3509.1
3499.7
9.4
7.57
7.5
9.08
12060
14
6-11
0.6
3508.8
3500.9
7.9
7.05
7.05
8.11
12070
115
.00-105
0.9
3508.5
26.73
4.17
1.36
26.11
Artesian well
120SQ
31
19-29
0.3
3508.0
3499.7
7.6
3.1
water Lever
Recorder Well
12090
23
16-18
0.5
3509.4
3501.5
6.92
7.0
7.9
12100
33
23-33
0.6
3508.4
3499.7
9.1
8.72
12110
30
21-31
0.3
3508.1
3499.7
3.4
12120
28
18-28
0.5
3508.3
3499.7
9.05
12130
13
3-10
1.5
3509.7
3500.1
9.6
9.3
10.25
10.02
12140
20
18-20
5.5
0.4
3508.4
3498.8
3.4
7.65
12150
10
7-10
0.7
3509.8
3501.4
8.4
12160
21
18-21
0.4
3508.3
3500.4
7.9
6.E
7.82
12170
10
7-9
0.7
3511.4
3502.1 9.3
3.72
9.95
dry
12201'
35
10-12
20
0.6
3509.3
3500.3
9.0
7.05
7.55
9.5
12202'
35
20-22
20
0.7
3509.4
3500.2
9.2
7.14
7.65
9.57
12203'
35
30-33
3509.51 3500.5
9.0
7.3
7.9
9.7
12210
12
9.5-
7.5
0.5
3509.8
3501.7
8.1
7.35
7.5
12220
28
13-19
0.5
3520.2
3509.0
11.2
14.84
15.89
15.16
12230
28
23.5-
26
37.5
1.1
3524.9
3513.9
11.0
10.41
11.28
12240
28 21-24
1.9
3526.5
3512.5
14.0
13.26
13.86
Roswell Control Site Wells:
11010
35
25.5-
35.5
0.80
3590.6
3563.7
26.9
11030
21
19.5
3.5
3547.0:
3537.0
10.0
11.12
10.£
10/21/76
Elevation chanoe--0.21
11040
25
20-
24.5
0.3
3547.2
3532.2
15.0
11050
70
60-70
22
0.87
3463.3
10.07
8.45
12.7
11060
45
40-45
1.04
3463.5
9.38 7.34 13.28
*Three wells installed in one hole with bentonite seal between well screens.
17
-------
Pumping tests conducted in the alluvium on the test site during the
construction phase of the project indicated a coefficient of transmissibility
of 248,000 L/d/m (20,000 gpd/ft). Average water level contours (see Figure
5) indicated general groundwater movement toward the east, with a piezometric
gradient of 0.0022 or about the same direction and rate as water in the
underlying shallow aquifer. However, the water table in the alluvium varied
from 2.1 to 2.7 m (7 to 9 ft) below the land surface and had an average
elevation of 1,068 m (3,501 ft).
Hydrogeology at the Test Site
For this study, the alluvium aquifer is the most significant. Once it
was established that there was probably an effective aquitard between the
alluvium and underlying shallow aquifer, well 12070 was constructed to verify
that there was no effective movement of irrigation water into the lower
aquifer at the test site. Water table fluctuations and water quality analy-
ses confirmed the existence of an aquitard between the alluvium aquifer and
the shallow aquifer. This does not preclude slow, vertical leakage between
the two aquifers in response to the changing head conditions.
Recharge to the alluvium and shallow aquifers is derived primarily from
irrigation return flow and vertical leakage from the underlying artesian
aquifer. Only about three percent of the annual recharge is estimated to
come from precipitation. Considering the rainfall during 1976 and 1977 as
shown in Table 4, the recharge from precipitation for that period was prob-
ably negligible. The data in Table 3 show that by late April the water level
in the underlying aquifer (well 12070) has dropped to 8 m (26 ft) below the
top of the casing. Following the irrigation season this water level recov-
ered to 1 m (4 ft) by the middle of October and continued to recover through
January.
The test site hydrologic cycle which illustrates rainfall, irrigation,
and water-level fluctuations is shown in Figure 6. It is difficult to
identify a pattern of water-level fluctuations from only one year's records.
The graph obtained from the on-site water-level recorder that was installed
in the alluvium aqu.ifer probably reflects an initial decline at the beginning
of the irrigation season in response to heavy pumping from the underlying
aquifer. This initial decline could reflect slow downward leakage as the
underlying aquifer is drawn down. It is followed by a slow recharge as a
result of irrigation, reaching an overfull situation in August. This prob-
ably- results in recharge to the Rio Hondo as the aquifer moves back toward
equilibrium between discharge and the slow upward leakage from the recovering
piezometric head of the underlying aquifer (see well 12070, Table 3). The
delay between the time of irrigation and an indication of recharge of one or
two months may correspond to the time required for the irrigation water to
move through the unsaturated zone to the water table.
If a storage coefficient of 0.10 is assumed for that part of the aquifer
in which the water table is fluctuating, then the 0.4 m (1.2 ft) of fluctua-
tion would indicate leakage downward of 3.7 cm (1.4 in) per month. Recharge
from irrigation return could be 19 cm (7.5 in) per year or 4.8 cm (1.9 in)
18
-------
36
WELL NUMBER _
/ WATER LEVEL ELEVATION ( ft. )
® RECORDER #ELL
• -YSIMETER CLUSTER Q
^3500.0-^ WATER LEVEL CONTOUR ELEVATION (ft.)
DIRECTION OF GROUNDWATER MOVEMENT
'00 200 300 400 Feet
Figure 5. Test site groundwater contours.
100 Meters
19
-------
TABLE 4. RECENT METEOROLOGICAL DATA FOR ROSHELL, NEW MEXICO
rv>
o
Station: ROSWELL, NEW MEXICO--ROSWELL INDUSTRIAL AIR CENTER
t 23009
Standard time used: MOUNTAIN Latitude: 33C
Month
Jan, 1976
Feb. 1976
Mar, 1976
Apr, 1976
May, 1976
Jun, 1976
Jul, 1976
Aug, 1976
Sep. 1976
Oct, 1976
Nov, 1976
Dec, 1976
1976
Jan, 1977
Feb, 1977
Mar, 1977
Apr, 1977
May, 1977
Total, Jan-
May, 1977
18' N Longitude: 104° 32' W
Elevation (ground): 3649 feet
Tenipe
Averages
>, I
^ X
to fO
a z:
56.0
69.8
69.7
77.9
82.4
93.4
90.1
93.1
82.9
70.3
56.5
56.1
74.9
52.5
63.0
68.2
76.7
87.5
69.6
E
rj
>, Ej
^ a
£'£
24.7
36.7
38.5
49.4
54.9
65.2
67.1
67.4
59.4
42.1
28.9
22.5
46.4
24.7
33.4
35.9
47.9
59.1
40.2
Monthly
40.4
53.3
54.1
63.7
68.7
79.3
78.6
80.3
71.2
56.2
42.7
39.3
60.7
38.5
48.2
52.1
62.3
73.3
54.9
rature °F
i/)
OJ
.c
en
31
70
81
86
89
94
104
96
100
93
86
76
72
104
69
82
83
87
101
101
Extre
Ol
+J
•TJ
Q
15
29
25
26
29
21
3
6
4
11
6
27
Jun 21
26
21
13
27
30
May 30
mes
4J
L/1
c
4->
fO
0>
in
755
334
334
90
36
0
0
0
18
275
663
789
3294
811
463
393
109
0
1776
C7>
C
O
3
0
0
7
57
159
436
429
478
211
9
0
0
1786
0
0
0
34
269
303
Precipitation in inches
Water Equivalent
'(0
4->
O
t—
0.12
0.22
0.24
0.79
0.82
1.55
2.44
1.98
2.29
0.69
0.41
0.00
11.55
0.07
0.36
0.27
1.25
2.43
4,38
c
-*-» 1/1
t/> t-
Ol -C
-(->
10 **•
tU CVJ
t.
to
0.12
0.19
0.24
0.49
0.77
0.76
0.89
1.54
1,01
0.51
0.35
0.00
1.54
0.04
0.20
0.18
1.01
1.52
1.52
3
a
25-26
11-12
30
29-30
4
3
14
1
9
27-28
12-13
Aug 1
8-9
10
26-27
13-14
31
May 31
Snow, Ice Pellets
m
4->
o
t-
1.2
0.0
2.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.2
4.1
0.0
11.9
0.4
0.4
0.9
0
0
1.7
c=
4^ l»
W U
£-=
(O^J-
O)CM
t-
CD
1.2
0.0
2.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.1
3.5
0.0
3.5
0.4
0.4
0.9
0
0
0.9
-------
6
UJ
5
? 3
0
7.0
s7-6
u.
8.0
8.5
1976
I
JUN JUL AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC
j
^
'
NOTE
L
Sampling Dates
1 f
/
/
1 m
\
^
1977
JAN FEB MAR APR
H
APPLIED WASTEWATER
PRECIPITATION
/^l
f
--^
\
^
/
^
DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER
r
^^
ft
MAY
1
J
\
\
\
-»»
\
W^
15.2 ^
01
UJ
UJ
7.6 p
z
o
0
2.14
V)
(£.
2.29 H
UJ
2.44
2.60
! Approximately 80cm (3lin.) of wastewater was applied annually from March through July.
Depth to groundwater measured at well 12080.
Figure 6. Test site hydrologic cycle.
-------
per month. The excess of recharge over leakage of 1.1 cm (0.4 in) per month
would raise the water table 45 cm (1.5 ft), which corresponded to the record-
er chart. Because of the difference in water quality indicated by total dis-
solved solids (IDS) between the shallow aquifer and the alluvium aquifer, a
higher IDS would be expected in deep well 12070 in June, as a result of the
poorer quality water moving down during the irrigation season, and an im-
provement in the water quality of the lower wells in the alluvium during the
winter. Unfortunately, deep well 12070 was not sampled in June. However,
all of the wells screened near the bottom of the alluvium did reflect a
decrease in IDS and sulfates during January (see water quality data for wells
12043, 12030, and 12203 in Appendix B).
The average water level contours (Figure 5) showed that the groundwater
flow across the site was generally to the east; however, it divided the
southern part, with some water flowing toward the Rio Hondo while the re-
mainder moved toward the northeast. Flow across the northern part of the
site moved east-southeast. The groundwater flow at any point was perpen-
dicular to the contour lines.
From the coefficient of transmissibility and slope, it was calculated
that the average groundwater flow across the site was 2.1 L/s (48,000 gpd),
and the average velocity in the saturated zone was 0.3 m (1 ft) per day. On
an average daily basis (assuming 7.5 in/yr) about 19 percent of the ground-
water flow could be considered recharge from irrigation on the site.
SOILS
The soils at the Roswell site are alluvial deposits in the bottomlands
of the Rio Hondo valley characterized as nearly level, silty clay loams with
moderately slow permeability.
A-profile description typical of both control site B and the test site
follows:
Ap-0-32 cm (0-12.6 in); dark grayish brown (10YR4/2) dry silty clay
loam, very dark grayish brown (10YR3/2) moist; weak medium and coarse
subangular bl'ocky structure; hard dry, very friable moist, sticky and
plastic wet; common micro and few very fine and fine pores; many very
fine and fine roots; strongly calcareous; permeability is moderately
slow at 0.5 to 1.5 cm/hr (0.2 to 0.6 in/hr); abrupt smooth boundary.
A12-32-47 cm (12.6-18.5 in); grayish brown (10YR5/2) dry silty clay
loam, very dark grayish brown (10YR3/2) moist; weak medium and coarse
subangular blocky structure; hard dry, very friable moist, sticky and
plastic wet; many micro, very fine, and few fine pores; many very fine
and fine roots; strongly calcareous; permeability is moderately slow 0.5
to 1.5 cm/hr (0.2 to 0.6 in/hr); abrupt smooth boundary.
Cl-47-62 cm (18.5-24.4 in); dark grayish brown (10YR4/2) dry clay loam,
very dark brown (10YR2/2) moist; weak fine subangular blocky structure;
hard dry, very friable moist, sticky and plastic wet; many micro, very
fine, and few fine pores; many very fine and few fine roots; few gypsum
22
-------
crystals; strongly calcareous; permeability is moderate 1.5 to 5.0 cm/hr
(0.6 to 2.0 in/hr); abrupt smooth boundary.
C2-62-118 cm (24.4-46.5 in); dark grayish brown (10YR4/2) dry silty clay
loam, very dark grayish brown (10YR3/2) moist; moderate fine subangular
blocky structure; hard dry, very friable moist, sticky and plastic wet;
many micro, very fine, and few fine pores; common very fine and few fine
roots; pockets of fine sandy loam and clay loam; strongly calcareous;
permeability is moderately slow 0.5 to 1.5 cm/hr (0.2 to 0.6 in/hr);
wavy gradual boundary.
C3-118-158 cm (46.5-62.2 in); very dark gray (10YR3/1) dry clay, black
(10YR2/1) moist; strong very fine subangular blocky structure; very hard
dry, friable moist, very sticky and very plastic wet; common micro, very
fine, and few fine pores; common very fine roots; slightly calcareous;
permeability is very slow less than 1.5 cm/hr (0.6 in/hr); wavy and
clear boundary.
C4-158-205 cm (62.2-80.7 in); very dark gray (10YR3/1) dry clay, black
(10YR2/1) moist; massive; very hard dry, friable moist, very sticky and
very plastic wet; common micro and very fine pores; few very fine
roots; few iron mottles; slightly calcareous.
CLIMATE
Roswell has a semi-arid continental climate characterized by distinct
seasons, a wide range of diurnal and annual temperatures, moderately low
rainfall, and plentiful sunshine.
Climatic data for the period of the study are shown in Table 4. The
annual pattern of precipitation and temperature at Roswell for a 66-year
period of record is shown in Table 5.
Average annual precipitation is about 30.5 cm (12 in). The main source
of moist air is the general southeasterly circulation from over the Gulf of
Mexico. Nearly three-fourths of the annual precipitation falls during the
growing season, May through October, mainly from brief but often intense
thunderstorms. Annual precipitation totals may vary greatly, as shown by
83.6 cm (32.9 in) at Roswell in 1941, and only 11.0 cm (4.35 in) in 1956.
The snowfall season is November through April, with an annual average of
25.4 cm (10 in). Usually, snow only falls to a depth of 2 to 5 cm (1 to 2
in) in a day and does not stay on the ground long, but 38.8 cm (15.3 in) fell
at Roswell in 24 hours on December 8 and 9, 1960.
Temperatures of 32° C (90° F) or higher occur on most days from mid-May
through mid-September, but nighttime temperatures are generally 17° C (30° F)
cooler. Extreme temperatures have been 44° C (112° F) at Bitter Lakes Wild-
life Refuge on July 14, 1958, and -34° C (-29° F) at Roswell on February 13,
1905. Temperatures drop to freezing during most nights from mid-November
through mid-March, but rarely does the temperature fail to reach freezing or
23
-------
TABLE 5. MONTHLY TEMPERATURES AND PRECIPITATION, ROSWELL, NEW MEXICO,
CHAVES COUNTY, FOR PERIOD OF RECORD 1894-1960, EXCEPT AS NOTED
IX)
Item
Temperatures (F°)
Average daily
maximum
Average daily
minimum
Daily mean
Extreme maximum
Extreme minimum
Precipitation
Average (inches)
Average days 0. 10
inch or more (no.
Average snowfall
(inches)
Jan
55
25
40
88
-19
0.42
2
)*
2.6
Feb
60
28
44
88
-29
0.48
1
2.3
Mar
67
35
51
95
-5
0.54
1
1.0
Apr
76
43
59
97
17
0.80
2
1.0
May
83
52
68
103
28
1.18
2
T
Jun
92
61
76
110
45
1.36
2
0
July
92
65
79
110
53
2.00
4
0
Aug Sept
91 85
64 57
78 71
105 103
48 33
1.72 1.84
3 3
0 0
Oct
75
45
69
94
19
1.17
2
0.1
Nov
64
32
48
87
-6
0.59
1
1.1
Dec
55
25
40
84
-10
0.53
1
2.8
*Period of record 1931-1960.
T = Trace, less than 0.05 inch.
Source: National Climatic Center, Asheville, North Carolina.
-------
above during the day, and seldom does the temperature drop to -18° C (0° F).
The average freeze-free season is six months, from late April to late October
Relative humidity in most of the county is similar to that at Roswell,
averaging about 50 percent, and ranges from 70 percent in the early morning
to 30 percent in the late afternoon. Lowest humidities occur in the spring.
Evaporation measured by a Class A pan at Bitter Lake Wildlife Refuge
averaged 244 cm (96 in), two-thirds of which occurred during May through
October.
Average annual wind speed at Roswell Airport is 16 km (10 mi) per hour.
The wind blows from the southeast quadrant 40 percent of the time, and it is
strongest in spring. Strongest winds, those above 39 km (24 mi) per hour,
occur with greatest annual frequency from the west quadrant. The general
north-south orientation of the Pecos River Valley probably increases the
frequency of winds from those directions at Roswell.
LAND USE
Irrigated farming in this artesian basin began on an extensive basis
about 1900 and is an important land use. Most of the water used for irriga-
tion is obtained by pumping from the underground artesian aquifer. The
irrigated area comprises approximately 40,900 ha (101,000 acres). Although
this is a relatively small percentage of the total land area, it contributes
significantly to the economy of the county. Alfalfa and cotton are the most
extensive crops, but grain sorghums, small grains, corn, and pecans are also
produced. Sugar beets and vegetable crops have also been grown to a very
limited extent with satisfactory results.
Prior to organization of Chaves County and the expansion of irrigation,
the lands comprising this county were used principally for grazing. Ranching
is still an important agricultural enterprise, and in 1968 most of the
county's 157,000 cattle and 149,000 sheep were supported by rangeland.
Another important land use is for wildlife and recreation. The range-
land areas of the county provide suitable habitat for many species of wild-
life. The limestone hills in the western part of the county, in particular,
provide good habitat for big game animals (New Mexico Council, 1975).
Agricultural Practices and Productivity
Both control and test sites are irrigated by the ridge-and-furrow
method from an irrigation supply ditch, using siphon tubes. The control site
irrigation water supply is from wells in the alluvium. The test site water
supply is municipal wastewater from a trickling filter treatment plant that
includes an oxidation ditch and chlorination.
The hydraulic loading from irrigation is approximately 80 cm (31.5 in)
per year. The irrigation season is generally from March through July for
crops such as corn and grain sorghum and March through September for alfalfa.
The seasonal precipitation is shown in the climatological section of this
25
-------
report (Tables 4 and 5).
Cropping and cultural history for both sites is:
1976 - Corn
1972-1975 - Alfalfa
1966-1972 - Corn or grain sorghum
Crop yields for both sites were:
Corn - 40 metric tons/ha (18 tons/acre) as 70 percent moisture
silage/yr
Grain sorghum - 50 quintal/ha (4,461 Ib/acre) as grain/yr
Alfalfa - 14 metric tons/ha (6.2 tons/acre) as hay/yr
Fertilizer history for both sites is:
Grain sorghum and corn: nitrogen - 78 kg/ha/yr (68 Ib/acre/yr)
Alfalfa: phosphorus - 38 kg/ha/yr (33 Ib/acre/yr)
Pesticides which have been applied are parathion, dicamba, oxydisul
foton, and prometryn. The rates of application are not known.
26
-------
SECTION 5
PLANT OPERATION AND COSTS
WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Secondary treatment (trickling filter) has been used since 1944. The
plant capacity was expanded in 1961 and again in 1974. In 1974 an oxidation
ditch and chlorination were added to the trickling filter process. The pres-
ent process consists of the following: pre-aeration, primary settling,
trickling filter, oxidation ditch, final settling, and chlorination. The
effluent is discharged through a 5.6-km (3.5-mi) pipeline by gravity-flow.
Irrigation water is removed from the pipeline as required by the farmers.
That part not used is discharged primarily to the Bitter Lakes (a Wildlife
Refuge) or occasionally to the Rio Hondo.
In 1975, the air base plant was abandoned and the flow diverted to the
Roswell Wastewater Treatment Plant. No known problems exist regarding toxic
industrial wastes. However, the Glover packing plant discharges pretreated
wastes to the system.
The present waste flow is about 175 L/s (4 Mgal/d). The sludge is
spread on drying beds located at the plant. The dried sludge is then stock-
piled at the plant for use by local farmers. The system is owned and oper-
ated by the City of Roswell.
WASTEWATER CONSTITUENTS
The wastewater characteristics are typical of domestic waste (Table 6).
IRRIGATION WITH WASTEWATER
Much of the effluent has been used for irrigation during the irrigation
season at least since 1944. The City has several meters installed to measure
the amount of effluent withdrawn and sells the water on a contract basis.
Wastewater is also pumped to the Roswell Country Club, where it is used to
irrigate a golf course. Several of the farmers mix the wastewater with
groundwater prior to irrigation. The extent of irrigation with wastewater is
shown in Figure 7. The water from the Rio Hondo is also used for irrigation,
and it occasionally contains effluent.
27
-------
00
* Woslewaler Dischoro
Woslewaler and wostewaler mined with well water
hove been historically applied
* ^ In addition lo wastewoter, sludge has been applied
General direction of groundwoter movement
Figure 7. Location of wastewater irrigated farm land.
-------
TABLE 6. MONTHLY AVERAGE UASTEUATER CHARACTERISTICS*
BOD (mq/L) Suspended Solids (mg/L)
n r. n nr- ,
Raw Final Raw Final
Jan. '74
March
May
July
Sept.
Nov.
Jan. '75
136
148
202
154
128
132
184
32
35
45
23
25
37
19
251
227
300
342
295
270
234
54
29
48
27
41
34
24
* From Sewage Treatment Plant Logs.
CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS
The initial cost of the Roswell Sewage Treatment Plant was about
$1,500,000 in 1944. The 1961 modification cost an estimated $250,000 and was
financed by a grant using the sewage treatment plant revenues as the City's
share. The 1974 modification of the sewage treatment plant cost $998,000.
It was financed by a 50 percent EPA grant, 25 percent state grant, and 25
percent sewage treatment plant revenues. As of April, 1977, Step 1 of the
201 program was in progress for enlarging the sewage treatment plant.
The operations and maintenance (0 & M) costs from the City's 1976-77
operating budget were as follows:
Labor (wages, salaries, taxes, FICA overhead, $105,676
and some benefits. Some additional, undefined
benefits were not included.)
Utilities 24,000
Repairs, Replacement, Maintenance 7,700
Telephone 600
Materials and Supplies 18,000
Vehicle Maintenance 1,000
Total Annual 0 & M $156,976
In addition to revenues from sewage-use charges, the City also3charged
for metered effluent used by the farmers. An estimated 2,775^,000 m (2,250
acre-ft) was sold during 1977 at a cost of $5.00 per 1,233 m (1 acre-ft),
providing approximately $11,250 of income to the City.
29
-------
SECTION 6
RESEARCH METHODS
the
WELL CONSTRUCTION AND LOCATIONS
Well Construction
All sampling wells were drilled with either a mud-rotary or cable-tool
rig. In order to keep contamination of the aquifer material to a minimum,
only clean Roswell city water was used for drilling. If it was necessary to
use bentonite mud in the drilling fluid to keep the hole from caving, the
hole was flushed out with city water just before reaching the depth where
screen was to be placed. The drilling was then continued with city water
until the proper depth was reached, and the screen and casing were imme-
diately set. A sand pack material was placed around the screen and several
feet above the top of the screen. The gravel pack was clean, washed silica
sand from Arkansas. The hole was sealed above the gravel pack from downward
moving water by grouting with bentonite pellets. The remainder of the hole
was backfilled with native material.
All polyvinyl chloride (PVC) screens and PVC casings were schedule 40
and 5 cm (2 in) in diameter except for the recorder well, which was 15 cm (6
in) in diameter. The screens were factory-slotted with a slot opening of
0.076 cm (0.030 in).
The PVC casing was cut at about 15 cm (6 in) above the ground surface,
and a threaded PVC cap was placed on top of the casing. The area around the
casing was filled with either bentonite pellets or powder for a radius of
about 30 cm (12 in) and about 13 cm (5 in) deep, and the bentonite was cov-
ered with tamped soil. In order to protect the above-ground portion of the
casing, a steel pipe, 0.6 m (2 ft) in length and about 25 cm (10 in) in
diameter, fitted with a hinged, lockable top, was centered over the top of
the casing and pushed about 0.3 m (1 ft) deep into the ground. A typical
well completion is shown in Figure 8.
The following procedure was used to decontaminate the wells. After
completing each sampling well, 76 liters (20 gallons) of 1 percent of calcium
hypochlorite solution was poured into the wells. The well was then surged,
and the chlorinated water was recirculated by a centrifugal pump to thor-
oughly wash down the side of the PVC casing. Prior to sampling, the well was
pumped and water discarded until the pumped water showed no residual chlorine
by the ortho-tolidine test.
30
-------
|- 19-Ground li
A Q U I PER
» • a,
6 ' •
' • o
o « .
« a
0
t
ft.
6 '
Bentonite plug
Steel protective cosing
Locking hasp
Threaded PVC cap
line
Native backfill
Bentonite plug
Gravel pack
Screen
Figure 8. Typical well completion.
31
-------
Well Locations
The regional 1969 water-level contours for the shallow alluvial aquifer
indicate an easterly to southeastern movement of the groundwater toward the
Pecos River. These water levels show seasonal fluctuations but are generally
1.5 to 4.6 m (5 to 15 ft) below the ground surface.
Six wells were located above the test site, and three of these, wells
11030, 12220, and 12230, were sampled to provide upstream and background
water quality data. Well 11030 was located in an area irrigated with arte-
sian aquifer water. However, it was subsequently determined that well 12220
was located downhill from an area that was irrigated with a mixture of waste-
water and groundwater. Well 12230 was located in a nonirrigated pasture.
The map location of wells is shown in Figures 5, 7, and 9.
Two wells, 11050 and 11060, were located in an artesian irrigated field
near the Pecos River.
All on-site sampling wells except well 12070 were located to provide
information on the upper and lower portions of the shallow groundwater aqui-
fer as the groundwater moved across the site. The on-site groundwater-level
contours are shown in Figure 5.
Wells were not located immediately downstream from the test site because
the Rio Hondo is on the southern side, and the land to the east was irrigated
with a mixture of wastewater and groundwater. The wells located on the
eastern boundary of the site provided information on water quality as the
groundwater moves off the site.
Well 12070--
Well 12070 was constructed using a mud-rotary rig and was screened at a
depth of 30 to 32 m (100 to 105 ft). Because of the difference in water-
level elevations from the shallower wells (all other on-site wells were
screened at less than 10 m (33 ft)), well 12070 appeared to be in an artesian
aquifer that was not connected with the upper shallow groundwater aquifer.
The fluctuations in water-level elevations are shown in Table 3, and it can
be seen that the water level rose significantly during the nonirrigation
season.
Wells 12041, 12042, 12043, 12201, 12202, 12203, and 12090--
These wells were constructed using a cable-tool rig. Well 12090 was
completed in the typical manner, while wells 12041, 12042, 12043, 12201,
12202, and 12203 were multiple completions. Because using the cable-tool rig
resulted in a large diameter drill hole, it was possible to install three 5
cm (2 in) diameter wells in two holes. As an example, the deepest screen,
well 12043, was installed first in the typical manner, with gravel pack and a
bentonite seal above. Then the screen and casing for well 12042 was in-
stalled in the same hole with gravel pack and a bentonite seal. Finally, the
screen and casing for well 12041, the shallowest well of this multiple com-
pletion, was installed, and the well was completed in the typical manner.
Wells 12201 - 12203 were installed similarly. Figure 10 provides a cross-
sectional view of the test site wells.
32
-------
12090
/I6-I8
I T
Sub-area ffl
100-105
i . « I * 1 \ \ 6-" V t <"^X^ ^^ l
\ \'K'QM. f ? 1 1 \ \ 1 lo^^f M f n t t
• 3.3-11.0 ~I2Q43
27-
12060 ' Sub-area I
\ \ 6-'' v ^ >^iT7^
IZJ40
WELL NUMBER
/SCREEN DEPTH (in feet)
® RECORDER WELL
• LYSIMETER CLUSTER
|}J] SUB-AREAS FOR SOIL 3 CROP SAMPLES
CO 200 3OO 4OOF«t
Figure 9. Wastewater irrigation test site.
33
-------
3510
JiiOO
- 54iiO
. 5480
A
I I222U
Wuler luhlo
^- t levat ion ft ubov«
tea level
L Li
SjWAGE.JHEATMEWr ,12220 \
PLANT /^^l^U
TEST |51TE
12201
I20SO
12070
% °
«
£JZ*.
jjsti:Aa- —
ib
\*&
R24 E
12201
12202
I20b0
12041
12070 12043 12030
I OCA I ION OK CHOSS bHCTION A-A1
ROSWELL N & BITTER LAKE N , f 1/2'
QUADRANGLE, N M
NOR FH
1/4 1/2
Seals in Miles
jg L...J LAKE WOOD TtHRACE
_J;.J ORCHARD PARK TERRACE
O bOO IOOO
Scale in Milert
Hio Hondo
Aitesiun well
tXPI ANAIION
( J Clay
[H] Silt
(_ J Sand
[••"J Grov.l
Vtrlical Seal*: l" s 10'
Horijonlal Seals, l" - 500'
Alluvium
&
Teiroc*
DEPTH =3440 EL
F D = 115'- EL = 3392 6
Figure 10. Cross section A-A'.
-------
Lysimeter Installation
The lysimeter cluster was located on the eastern edge of the test site
(Figure 9). A 10 cm (4 in) diameter hole for each of the three lysimeters
was drilled (Figure 11).
Prior to installation, each porous lysimeter cup was pretreated by the
following procedure: A 300 ml volume of 10 percent Calgon (sodium hexameta-
phosphate) solution was pulled through each lysimeter cup using a negative
pressure of 12.7 cm (5 in) of mercury. This solution was blown out of the
lysimeter using a positive pressure. The procedure was repeated once using a
10 percent hydrochloric acid solution and again using distilled water. The
pretreated lysimeters were then ready for installation.
A silica flour (crushed silica sand 140 mesh) and distilled water slurry
was mixed, and a small portion was poured into the lysimeter hole to keep the
base of the cup from contact with the native sediment. The lysimeter as-
sembly was lowered into the hole, and additional silica slurry was poured
around the lysimeter to cover the ceramic cup and about' 10 cm (4 in) of the
teflon body. Material dug from the hole and approximately from the same
depth was replaced and lightly tamped. This backfill material was followed
by a bentonite plug composed of a very viscous slurry of powdered bentonite
and distilled water. The bentonite plug was covered with backfill until the
hole was filled.
Surface completion was similar to that of the water sample wells, except
a steel box was used to house the lysimeter vacuum bottles.
SAMPLING
Soil Sampling
An area of approximately 3 ha (5 acres) each at control site B and at
the test site that typically and homogeneously represented the soil type and
the crop being grown was selected for sampling. This selection was coordi-
nated between the agronomist, the groundwater geologist, and the engineer to
ensure that the soil, plant, and water samples would be from the same area.
The selected area was subdivided into three approximately equal-sized
sub-areas, and each sub-area was used as a sample unit for soil and plant
sampling and analysis. Since the area was selected for its homogeneity of
soil type and crop condition, the sub-areas were assumed to be representative
of conditions for the area as a whole.
Composite soil samples were collected from each sub-area by combining
all sub-samples of the same depth. Location of individual sample points
within the sub-area followed a random, zigzag pattern. Sample cores were
taken from the following depths: 0 to 2 cm (0 to 0.8 in); 2 to 4 cm (0.8 to
1.6 in); 9 to 11 cm (3.5 to 4.3 in); 29 to 31 cm (11 to 12 in); 95 to 105 cm
(37 to 41 in); and 205 to 305 cm (81 to 120 in). This sampling regime was
followed twice during the study period, once during the warm season (July 2,
1976) and once during the cool season (January 6, 1977). Composite soil
35
-------
0.76m(2.5ft.)
Location of
Cross section B-B1
Figure
Bentonite
Native backfill
200 mesh silica slurry
Lysimeter installation.
36
-------
samples were stored in sealed plastic bags and transported on wet ice to the
laboratory.
Plant Sampling
Composite plant samples were collected in a similar manner as for soil
samples.
Corn crop samples were taken when the plant was between tassel ing and
silk initiation. During the vegetation stage, the entire leaf at the ear
node was sampled. Corn grain samples were taken at maturity on the test site
only.
Virus Sampling
Water--
Water was collected at the sampling wells and at the effluent discharge
of the treatment plant by pumping into polyethylene-lined 208 L (55 gal)
drums and transported to the field laboratory by truck. The wells, pump,
hoses, and drums were sterilized with calcium hypochlorite solution and then
rinsed until no residual chlorine was detected by the ortho-tolidine test
prior to taking samples.
At the field laboratory viruses were concentrated by using a virus
concentrator as illustrated in the 14th edition of Standard Methods, Section
913 A. The concentrator utilizes the general principle of acidification of
the sample, adsorption of the viruses onto a filter, and subsequent readjust-
ment of the pH allowing elution of the viruses into the concentrated sample.
The final concentrate was air-shipped to the assay lab on dry ice.
Crops--
The corn ears were hand-collected at the dough stage of growth develop-
ment, left in the shuck, bagged in plastic, placed on ice, and air-shipped to
the assay lab.
Virus Assaying Procedures
Water--
In the laboratory the water samples were assayed for viruses, and neu-
tralization tests were performed to identify the viruses by using buffalo
green monkey kidney (BGMK) cell monolayers and human embryonic lung (HEL)
cells for cytopathic effect (Lenette, 1969).
Samples exhibiting cytotoxicity were retested after centrifugation at
3,000 rpm for ten minutes, by filtration through a 0.45 ym filter, and two
hours of adsorption at 37 C (99° F) during continual rotation.
If plaques became visible, they were counted, plucked, and grown for
identification in either BGMK or HEL cells, depending on the cell line in
which they were first isolated.
37
-------
Crops--
Corn samples were processed according to the following procedures:
Control site samples—The surface of 24 ears of corn was washed with 10
liters of pH 10.5 glycine. The wash was neutralized with pH 2 glycine. Two
liters of neutralized wash were adjusted to 0.003 M aluminum chloride and
neutralized with 1 M sodium carbonate. Then 30 ml of floe was collected by
centrifugation. The floe was mixed with 30 ml of fetal calf serum (PCS) + 1
M glycine, pH 11.5. The sample was centrifuged, and the supernatant was
neutralized with 1 M, pH 2 glycine. The neutralized supernatant was reduced
in volume to 10 ml by hydroextraction and was dialyzed against phosphate-
buffered saline (0.01 M sodium phosphate) and assayed.
To analyze for viruses in the crop tissue, four liters of kernels were
obtained. Two liters were blended with two liters of pH 11.5 glycine. The
final pH of the sample was 10.0. The mixture was clarified by passing through
gauze, neutralized, made isotonic, and assayed. Attempts were made to
concentrate aliquots of this extract by membrane filtration and flocculation,
but they proved unsuccessful.
Test site samples—The surface of 24 ears of corn was washed in two
liters of pH 10.5 glycine. The wash was neutralized with pH 2 glycine, and
final volume was 2,800 ml. The sample was adjusted to 0.003 M with aluminum
chloride and neutralized with 1 M sodium carbonate. Then 30 ml of floe was
collected, mixed with 30 ml of PCS + 1 M glycine, and centrifuged. The
supernatant was neutralized with I M glycine, reduced in volume to 10 ml by
hydroextraction, and dialyzed against buffered saline.
To analyze for viruses in the crop tissue, the kernels from 12 ears of
corn were mixed with two liters of pH 10.5 glycine, blended, and clarified
through gauze. The clarified sample was neutralized, made isotonic, and
assayed.
Both control and test samples were assayed on buffalo green monkey (BGM)
cells by the agar overlay method. The ratio of volume to area of cell mono-
layer_used for assay was 0.1 ml of sample per 7.5 cm of cell monolayer.
Additionally, 100 ml of crop tissue extract from control and from test sam-
ples were assayed by allowing the samples to adsorb to 375 cm of monolayer
cells.
CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL ANALYSES
Samples collected in the field at the control and test sites were either
analyzed at the field laboratory or returned to the laboratory in Oklahoma
City, Oklahoma, for analyses. The time-critical parameters were analyzed in
the field as soon as the samples were collected. For those samples desig-
nated for later laboratory analyses the standard methods for preservation
relevant to the parameter to be analyzed were employed. In the following
sections the methods used in the analyses of water, soil, and plant samples
are presented in sequence. Field methods are discussed prior to laboratory
methods._ A summary is given in Table 7 of the field method changes that were
made during the sampling program to overcome equipment and methodology
38
-------
TABLE 7. SUMMARY OF FIELD METHODS
Analysis
Alkalinity
(Total)
Ammonia
BOD
Chloride
Col i form
(Total)
Col i form
(Fecal)
Conductance
D.O.
Nitrate
Ni trogen
(Kjeldahl)
Orthophosphate
(Soluble)
PH
Phosphorus
(Soluble)
Phosphorus
(Total)
Sulfide
Sulfate
Sampling Trip
Roswell I
Potentioinetric
Ti tration
Probe
Probe
Probe
Membrane Filter
Membrane Filter
Speci fie Conduc-
tance Meter
Winkler
Probe
Digestion &
Probe
Single Reagent
pH Electrode
Filtration, Diges-
tion & Single
Reagent
Digestion &
Single Reagent
probe no
Preservative
Probe
Roswell II
Potentioinetric
Ti tration
Probe
Probe
Probe
Membrane Filter
Membrane Filter
Specific Conduc-
tance Meter
Winkler
Probe
Digestion 5
Probe
Single Reagent
pH Electrode
Filtration, Diges-
tion ft Single
Reagent
Digestion &
Single Reagent
Probe no
Preservative
Turbidimetric
Roswell III
Potentiometric
Ti tration
Probe
Probe
Titration
Membrane Filter
Membrane Filter
Specific Conduc-
tance Meter
Winkler
Cadmium Reduction
Digestion &
Probe
Single Reagent
pH Electrode
Filtration, Diges-
tion & Single
Reagent
Digestion ft
Single Reagent
Probe no
Preservative
Turbidimetric
Roswell IV
Potentiometric
Titration
Probe
Probe
Titration
Membrane Filter
Membrane Filter
Specific Conduc-
tance Meter
Winkler
Cadmium Reduction
Digestion &
Probe (Modified)
Single Reagent
pH Electrode
Filtration Diges-
tion •& Single
Reagent
Digestion X
Single Reagent
Probe with
Preservative
Turbidimetric
-------
problems.
Methods for Analyses of Water
Field Analyses—
Alkalinity (total)—Mater samples were titrated with a 0.02 N sulfuric
acid solution to an end point of pH 4.5. An exactly prepared 0.02 N solution
of sodium carbonate was used to standardize the sulfuric acid and was used in
spiking water samples (APHA, 1976).
Ammonia--Ammonia analyses were performed with the use of an ammonia
electrode. A standard curve was constructed from 1000, 100, 10, 1, and 0.1
mg/L solutions of stock ammonium chloride. The samples and standards were
treated identically. The electrode was immersed into the sample, and 10 N
sodium hydroxide was added to raise the pH. The millivolt reading was re-
corded, and the ammonia concentration was determined directly from the cali-
bration curve (Orion IM, 1975a, and Bremner, 1972).
Biochemical oxygen demand—Dissolved oxygen (DO) in water samples was
determined with a DO meter prior to setting up biochemical oxygen demands
(BODc). The meter was air-calibrated with an aneroid barometer according to
manufacturer's instructions. Air calibrations were periodically checked
against the Winkler method. The samples were diluted with aerated dilution
water according to the results obtained from initial experimentation. In
some samples no dilutions were required. The initial DO was measured directly
in the BOD bottle. The bottles were then carefully glass-stoppered and
plastic caps placed over the mouths of the bottles to prevent loss of water
from the water seal. The samples were prepared in duplicate and incubated at
20 'C in the dark for five days. The final DO was also measured with the
probe. Samples containing chlorine were treated with sodium thiosulfate to
eliminate the chlorine and then seeded with 24-hour-old domestic wastewater.
Glu'cose-glutamic acid checks were performed to observe the efficiency of the
BOD procedures (APHA, 1976).
Coliform (total)--Fie1d samples were collected in sterile glass bottles.
Samples were thoroughly mixed, and 1 mL was taken with a sterile pipette and
passed through"a 0.45 urn Gelman filter. Beginning with sampling rounds three
and four, one 50 ml sample was also run. All equipment was sterilized by
immersion in boiling water. The filter was aseptically placed on a filter
pad containing 2 ml Endo Broth in a 50 x 12 mm plastic petri dish. The
dishes were placed into a whirlpac plastic bag, inverted, and incubated at
35 C for 24 hours in a bacteriological incubator. The typical coliform
colon'ies counted had a pink to dark red color with metallic surface sheen
(APHA, 1976).
Coliform (fecal)--The procedure was identical to that for total coliforms
with the exception of medium. The medium used was mFC, and plates were not
inverted. Plates were incubated at 44.5 C for 24 hours. Typical coliform
colonies were small and blue (APHA, 1976).
Conductivity--Determination of specific conductance was performed using
a conductivity meter. Using a potassium chloride solution of known conduct-
40
-------
ance, the meter was calibrated prior to running analyses. Specific conduct-
ance values were corrected to 25 C by using multiplication factors (APHA,
1971).
Dissolved oxyqen--At the well site, immediately after pumping the well,
dissolved oxygen was measured by the azide modification of the Winkler method.
One Hach powder pillow each of manganous sulfate, alkaline-iodide-azide, and
sulfamic acid was added to the water sample. The sample was then brought to
the field laboratory and titrated with phenylarsine oxide (PAD) using a
starch indicator (APHA, 1976).
Nitrate nitrogen—Samples from rounds one and two were analyzed for
nitrate with the use of the nitrate electrode. The probe was immersed in the
sample, and the final millivolt reading was recorded. Nitrate concentrations
were determined from a standard curve prepared from standards serially diluted
from a potassium nitrate stock solution.
Due to the inability to recover spikes and uncontrolled drift in mil-
livolt readings in certain samples, the nitrate probe was replaced with the
cadmium reduction column method for sampling rounds three and four. The
samples were flocculated and/or filtered through a 0.45 pm Gelman filter
prior to analyses. An aliquot of sample was passed through a column con-
taining granulated copper-cadmium to reduce nitrate to nitrite. Columns were
reactivated between field trips and at other times when efficiency dropped.
The nitrite (that originally present plus reduced nitrate) was reacted with
the color reagent to form a highly colored azo dye, which was measured spec-
trophotometrically at 420 nanometers (nm). The nitrite was then determined
in the sample and subtracted from the initial value to obtain nitrate (USEPA,
1974; Orion IM, 1975b; and Orion IM, 1976c).
Nitrogen (total and soluble organic)--A micro-Kjeldahl digester and an
ammonia electrode were used for analyses. Procedural changes were made
throughout the field trips in an attempt to correct the problem of not obtain-
ing total nitrogen recovery. A 50 ml aliquot of sample (filtered for soluble,
not filtered for total) was boiled in the presence of concentrated sulfuric
acid, potassium sulfate, and mercuric sulfate, and evaporated one-half hour
past the disappearance of sulfurous acid fumes. Rounds one, two, and three
samples were analyzed by adding 10 N sodium hydroxide to the sample and
recording the millivolt reading from the ammonia probe. For the first three
rounds, the mercury interference in the digestion reagent was not identified
before testing for ammonia. This resulted in an ammonia-mercury complex
formation and low nitrogen results. Experiments in the laboratory showed
that addition of 2 N sodium iodide with the 10 N sodium hydroxide did not
effectively eliminate the mercury interference. Beginning with round four,
two major changes were made: 1) Hengar crystals, which are selenium coated,
replaced mercury as the catalyst and 2) samples were partially neutralized
with sodium hydroxide and allowed to cool in an ice bath prior to ammonia
analyses to compensate for heat gained from addition of the sodium hydroxide
to acid. Excellent results were obtained, using the final revised procedures
(Orion IM, 1975a, and Bremner, 1972).
Orthophosphate (soluble)--Orthophosphate phosphorus was determined by
41
-------
the single reagent method. Samples were filtered through a 0.45 ym Gelman
filter. The pH of the sample was adjusted to 7.0 ± 0.2 with sodium hydroxide,
Ammonium molybdate, antimony potassium tartrate, and ascorbic acid color
reagent were added to the sample and read in the manner described for total
phosphorus (USEPA, 1974).
£H_--Hydrogen ion concentration (pH) was determined by use of a glass
combination pH electrode. The meter was calibrated for pH determinations by
using buffers of pH 4, 7, and 10 (APHA, 1976).
Phosphorus (total)--Phosphorus was determined by the single reagent
method. Sulfuric acid (11 N) and ammonium persulfate were added to the
samples. Samples were boiled gently followed by pH adjustment to pH 7.0 +_
0.2 with sodium hydroxide. Ammonium molybdate, antimony potassium tartrate,
and ascorbic acid color reagent were added to the samples. The blue color
formed was read at 640 nm using a spectrophotometer. The phosphorus concen-
tration was determined from a standard curve that was prepared from serial
dilutions made from a stock phosphorus solution (USEPA, 1974).
Sulfide sulfur—Analyses for sulfide were made with a sulfide electrode.
Procedural changes involving sulfide anti-oxidant buffer (SAOB) and standards
were a result of additional research by Orion (Orion IM, 1976a).
Rounds one, two, and three samples were brought to the field laboratory,
where an aliquot of sample was added to an equal volume of 50 percent SAOB.
The SAOB contained sodium hydroxide, sodium salicylate, and ascorbic acid.
The calibration curve was prepared from a standard consisting of sodium sul-
fide, sodium hydroxide, sodium salicylate, and ascorbic acid. The standard
was titrated against a 0.1 M lead perchlorate solution to obtain the exact
normality. Standards and samples were treated identically except standards
were prepared by diluting in 25 percent SAOB. The electrodes were immersed
in the sample, and the millivolt reading was recorded after it stabilized.
The exact concentration of sulfide was determined from the standard curve
(Orion IM, 1975c).
Round four samples were added directly to plastic bottles half filled
with 50 percent SAOB in the field. The SAOB contained sodium hydroxide,
disodium ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA), and ascorbic acid. The
calibration curve was prepared from a standard consisting of sodium sulfide
and SAOB. The standard was titrated against 0.1 M lead perchlorate to find
the exact normality of the standard. This solution was then serially diluted
to prepare a standard curve. The samples and standards were treated identi-
cally. The electrodes were immersed in the sample, and millivolt readings
were recorded. The exact concentration of sulfide was determined from the
standard curve (Orion IM, 1976a).
Laboratory Analyses--
Boron--Boron was analyzed by the curcumin method. Samples were added to
evaporating dishes made of boron-free glass. Curcumin reagent was added, and
the dishes were placed in a water bath set at 55 +_ 2° c and evaporated to
dryness. The contents of each dish were redissolved in 95 percent ethyl
alcohol, filtered through Whatman 30 filter paper, and read at 540 nm on a
42
-------
spectrophotometer. The boron concentration was determined from a standard
curve, which was prepared from standards serially diluted from a 100 mg/L
boron stock solution (APHA, 1976).
Chemical oxygen demand—Samples were collected in plastic bottles con-
taining sulfuric acid as a preservative and kept on ice until the analyses
were completed. The dichromate reflux method was used for chemical oxygen
demand (COD) determinations. The alternate procedure for dilute samples in
which the potassium dichromate and ferrous ammonium sulfate are more dilute
was used for low level COD samples (USEPA, 1974).
Chloride—Analyses for chlorides for the first two rounds were performed
with a chloride electrode. During round two, a combination electrode was
replaced with a chloride electrode and a double junction reference electrode.
Due to problems with these electrodes, sample analyses of rounds three and
four were completed by the mercuric nitrate titration method. Hach powder
pillows (prepared indicator-acidifier reagent) were used as the indicator for
round three, but the indicator-acidifier reagent was used for round four
(APHA, 1971).
Prior to running analyses with a chloride electrode, standard curves
were prepared from serially diluted standards of a 100 mg/L sodium chloride
stock solution. Standards and samples were treated identically. The elec-
trodes were immersed in samples with ionic strength adjuster (ISA) added.
Samples were mixed at a constant rate on a magnetic stirrer until stable
millivolt readings were observed. Using millivolt readings, unknown concen-
trations were determined from the calibration curve (Orion IM, 1976b).
Samples for titration were adjusted to a pH of 2.5 with nitric acid, and
indicator-acidifier reagent was added to the sample, which was then titrated
with 0.0141 N mercuric nitrate. If high chlorides were present, 0.141 N
mercuric nitrate was used as the titrant. The samples were titrated to a
light purple end point. Iron, which acts as an interference, was removed
from the sample through flocculation with zinc sulfate solution and sodium
hydroxide. The floe was allowed to settle and was filtered through a 0.45
micron filter. Analyses were performed on the filtrate (APHA, 1976).
Herbicides—Field samples were collected in hexane-rinsed, glass-stop-
pered bottles. Chlorinated phenoxy acid herbicides were extracted from the
acidified water sample with diethyl ether. The ether layer was filtered
through anhydrous sodium sulfate into hexane-rinsed bottles, 37 percent
potassium hydroxide was added, and the sample was returned to the laboratory
for analyses. Water was added to the sample and the ether removed by evapo-
ration. Extraneous organic matter was removed by extracting the basic aqueous
phase with diethyl ether. The aqueous phase was acidified to hydrolyze the
esters to acids and the acids extracted with diethyl ether. Benzene was
added and the solution evaporated to 0.5 ml in Kuderna-Danish evaporators.
The acids were esterified to methyl esters with 0.5 ml boron trifluoride
in methanol. The benzene layer was shaken with neutral 5 percent sodium
sulfate solution. The benzene extracts were further purified by passing
through Florisil columns. Identification and quantification of the esters
43
-------
were made by gas-liquid chromatography and were corroborated through the use
of two or more unlike columns (USEPA, 1974).
Metals (total)—Metal analyses were performed by atomic absorption
spectrophotometry. Field samples were collected in plastic bottles and
preserved with nitric acid to a pH 2. Two bottles were preserved for each
sample. Round four samples were filtered at the well site through a 1 vim
filter. All metals except for arsenic, selenium, and mercury were prepared
by cautiously digesting with nitric acid and evaporating to dryness. Samples
were refluxed with nitric acid and brought back to volume, then subjected to
the standard conditions and instrumental parameters for the corresponding
metals (USEPA, 1974; Martin, 1975; and Atomic Absorption Methods Manual,
1975).
Mercury was analyzed by the cold vapor technique. Concentrated sulfuric
acid, concentrated nitric acid, 5 percent potassium permanganate, and potas-
sium persulfate were added, and samples were heated 2 hours at 95 C in a
water bath. Sodium chloride and hydroxylamine hydrochloride were added to
samples. The mt -cury was vaporized by adding stannous sulfate (USEPA, 1974).
Arsenic and selenium were determined by atomic absorption, using a
heated graphite atomizer and electrodeless discharge lamps. The samples were
digested with nitric acid and hydrogen peroxide. Nickel nitrate was added to
the digested samples prior to analysis (Martin, 1975).
Organic carbon (total and solub1e)--So1ub!e organic carbon samples were
filtered through a 0.45 micron Gel man filter and kept iced until prepared for
analyses. Total organic carbon samples were not filtered. Purging and
sealing of the ampules were done in the field. Ten ml glass ampules were
prepared by adding 0.2 g potassium persulfate to 5 ml of sample and 0.5 ml of
3 percent phosphoric acid. Samples were then purged with oxygen. Phosphoric
acid was prepared daily and added to the ampules just prior to sealing.
Samples were prepared in triplicate. Carbon dioxide-free water was used for
the blanks. Tests were performed in the laboratory to determine optimum
length of time for purging and combusting the. samples. The organic matter in
the ampules was oxidized in a pressure vessel that was placed in an oven
heated to 175 C for 16 hours.
After oxidation, the samples were analyzed with a carbon analyzer
(USEPA, 1974, and Oceanography International IM, 1971).
Pesticides—Field samples were collected in hexane-rinsed, glass-stop-
pered bottles. Organochlorine pesticides were extracted from the water with
an 85:15, hexane: methylene chloride solvent mixture in the field. The
organic layer was filtered through anhydrous sodium sulfate into hexane-
rinsed bottles and returned to the laboratory for analysis. The organo-
chlorine pesticides analyzed were endrin, lindane, methoxychlor, and tox-
aphene. Extracted samples were concentrated in Kuderna-Danish evaporators in
a hot water bath. The concentrated samples were purified, if necessary, by
passing through Florisil columns. Identification and quantification of
pesticides were made by gas-liquid chromatography and were corroborated
through the use of two or more unlike columns (USEPA, 1971).
44
-------
Solids (dlssolved)--Samp1es were brought to room temperature, and well-
mixed aliquots were passed through Reeve Angel, type 934 AH filters with
gentle suction. One hundred ml was transferred quantitatively to pre-weighed
evaporating dishes. Samples were evaporated to dryness at 100° C in a water
bath and placed in an oven at 180° C for 1% to 2 hours. Evaporating dishes
were weighed again after cooling in a desiccator (USEPA, 1974).
Solids (suspended)--Samples were brought to room temperature and mixed
thoroughly. Using gentle suction, 50 ml of sample was filtered through Reeve
Angel, type 934 AH filters in 25 ml tared Gooch crucibles. The filtered
samples were dried in an oven at 104° C for one to two hours. Crucibles and
filters were desiccated until cool and reweighed (USEPA, 1974).
Solids (total)--Data for total solids were obtained by summing the
dissolved and suspended solids values.
Solids (volatile suspended)--The solids retained on the filter from the
suspended solids analysis were ignited at 550 C In a muffle furnace to
determine volatile suspended solids (USEPA, 1974).
Sulfate su!fur--Round one was analyzed for sulfate with a lead specific
ion electrode. Samples were diluted 1:1 with methanol. These were titrated
with lead perchlorate until the millivolt readings fell within a range estab-
lished by a blank curve. The exact sulfate concentration was extrapolated
from a standard curve plotted on Grans plotting paper (Orion IM, 1975d).
Due to the inability to duplicate sulfate results using other methods,
the remaining rounds of sulfates were analyzed turbidimetrically by the
barium sulfate method. While the solution was being stirred, conditioning
reagent and barium chloride crystals were added. After exactly one minute,
the barium sulfate turbidity was read at 420 nm on a spectrophotometer, and
the sulfate concentration was calculated from a standard curve prepared from
serially diluted standards of a 1,000 mg/L sodium sulfate stock solution
(APHA, 1976).
Methods for Analyses of Soils and Plants
Laboratory Analyses--
Si nee methods were similar for many of the parameters analyzed in soil
and plant samples, these are discussed together in this section. In some
instances, the method is only described for either soil or plants (such as pH
of soil) or, if different, for each (such as pesticides in soil and in
plants).
Cation exchange capacity--Air-dried soil samples (<2 mm particle size)
and 1 N ammonium acetate were shaken for several minutes and allowed to stand
overnight. Sample extracts were filtered through perforated Coors crucibles
containing Reeve Angel glass fiber filters using gentle suction. Soil leach-
ing was done with 1 N ammonium acetate, adding small amounts at a time so
that leaching took no less than one hour. This was followed by leaching with
95 percent ethanol in small amounts until the leachate gave a negative test
for ammonia with Nessler's reagent. The soil was air-dried and weighed.
45
-------
Water was added, and ammonia was measured with an ammonia electrode by immers-
ing into the sample and adding 10 N sodium hydroxide to raise the pH. Ammonia
concentration was determined from a standard curve prepared from serially
diluted standards of 1,000 mg/L ammonium chloride stock solution. No modifi-
cations were made for calcareous soils (Orion IM, 1975a; Busenberg, 1973;
and Black, 1965).
Bororn-Air-dried soil samples were refluxed with distilled water for 30
minutes. The soil-water suspension was separated by adding 1 N calcium chlo-
ride and centrifuging at 2,000 rpm for 10 minutes. The boron concentration
of the supernatant was determined by the curcumin method. Plant samples were
dry-ashed at 500 C for one hour in platinum crucibles, and the ash was
dissolved in hydrochloric acid and water. Boron concentration was determined
by the curcumin method (APHA, 1976, and Black, 1965).
Coliform in plants (total and fecal)--P1ant samples were shaken by hand
for 10 minutes in a sterile glass bottle containing sterile water and glass
beads. Samples were then analyzed in triplicate, using 1 mL samples, by the
same procedure used for analysis of total and fecal coliforms in water (Black,
1965).
Herbicides (plants)--Plant samples were mixed with 10 percent ethanolic
sulfuric acid solution, petroleum ether, and ethyl ether. After centrif-
ugation the extract was passed through anhydrous sodium sulfate. Sodium
hydroxide (2 N) was added, followed by centrifugation. The ether fraction
contained the esters and was cleaned with Florisil columns. The acids were
liberated from the remaining aqueous solution by shaking with chloroform
after acidification with sulfuric acid. After passing the chloroform through
filter paper, it was evaporated to near dryness. Ether was added, and the
remaining traces of chloroform were removed by evaporation. The extract was
concentrated and transferred to a micro-KD evaporator. Benzene was added,
and the extract was evaporated to 0.5 mL. Esterification was carried out
with boron triflouride in methanol as described for herbicides in water. The
benzene layer was passed through a micro-column of Florisil. Extracts were
analyzed by gas chromatography (Yip, 1964).
Herbicides (soil)--Air-dried soil samples were mixed with water, sul-
furic acid, and diethyl ether. After shaking for four hours, the extracts
were filtered through anhydrous sodium sulfate. An aliquot of the ether
extract was transferred to a separatory funnel and shaken with sodium hydrox-
ide. The aqueous phase was transferred to another separatory funnel, the pH
adjusted to 3, and extracted with ether. Mineral oil in hexane was added to
the extract "and evaporated carefully to 5 mL, employing a 50° C water bath
and a Snyder column. The extract was further evaporated to 0.1 mL. The
phenoxy acids were esterified using boron trifluoride in methanol, as de-
scribed for.herbicides in water (Woodham, 1971).
Metals (exchangeable and extractable)--Air-dried soil was pulverized by
mortar and pestle to pass a 2 mm screen.
Aluminum was extracted with 1 N potassium chloride. The suspension was
filtered immediately, and the solids were washed with 1 N potassium chloride
46
-------
(Ellis, 1975). Aluminum was analyzed by atomic absorption.
The ions K, Mg, and Na were exchanged with 1 N ammonium acetate by
shaking for five minutes. Extracts were filtered through Whatman No. 40
filter paper and analyzed by atomic absorption (Ellis, 1975).
The metals Fe, Zn, Mn, Cu, Ni, Pb, Cr, and Co were extracted from soils
by shaking for two hours with triethanolamine, calcium chloride, and carboxy-
methylimino bis-ethylenenitrilo-tetraacetic acid (DTPA) (10 ml per 4 g soil),
followed by filtering through Whatman No. 42 filter paper (Ellis, 1975). The
metals were analyzed by atomic absorption.
Metals (total)--Samp1es were prepared by digesting soil in teflon
beakers with hydrofluoric acid and evaporating the liquid to dryness. This
was followed by digesting with a 3:1 hydrochloric: nitric acid mixture (aqua
regia) for five minutes and then redissolving any residue in 1:1 hydrochloric
acid. Samples were filtered and analyzed by atomic absorption spectrophotom-
etry.
Total mercury analyses were prepared by digesting soils with aqua regia
for two minutes in a 95 C water bath, followed by a 5 percent potassium
permanganate digestion for 30 minutes. Sodium chloride, hydroxylamine hydro-
chloride, and distilled water were mixed with the sample and stannous sulfate
was added to vaporize the mercury through the absorption cell. Plant samples
were also analyzed by this procedure (USEPA, 1974).
Total arsenic and selenium analyses were prepared by refluxing the soil
samples two times with nitric acid, followed by digestion with hydrogen
peroxide and nitric acid. Nickel nitrate was added to the digested samples
prior to analyses by atomic absorption, using the heated graphite atomizer
and electrodeless discharge lamps. Plant samples were prepared in a similar
manner.
Nitrogen (inorganic)--Because ammonia, nitrate, and nitrite nitrogen
readily change form in soil, these parameters were summed to obtain inorganic
nitrogen values. Ammonia, nitrate, and nitrite nitrogen were determined by
the following methods:
Ammonia nitrogen was determined after extracting air-dried soil with 2 N
potassium chloride by shaking on a rotary shaker for two hours. Samples were
allowed to sit for 30 minutes before being analyzed for ammonia with an
ammonia electrode. The probe was immersed in the sample, followed by the
addition of sodium hydroxide to raise the pH. Ammonia concentration was
determined from a standard curve prepared from serially diluted standards of
a 1,000 mg/L ammonium chloride stock solution. A 1-gram plant sample was
analyzed for ammonia nitrogen following this same procedure (Orion, IM,
1975a, and Black, 1965).
For the nitrate and nitrite nitrogen determination, potassium chloride
(2 N) was used to extract the ammonia, nitrate, and nitrite from the air-
dried soil by shaking together for one hour. The suspension was filtered
through Whatman No. 4 filter paper. The pH was adjusted between 11 and 14
47
-------
with 10 N sodium hydroxide. At least half the volume of the filtrate was
evaporated by boiling, to drive off all ammonia nitrogen. After cooling and
adjusting the filtrate to the original volume, concentrated sulfuric acid and
Devarda's alloy were added. Samples were placed in a 70 C water bath for
two hours for reduction of nitrate and nitrite to ammonia. Ammonia concen-
trations of the solutions were measured with an ammonia electrode after
addition of sodium hydroxide. Ammonia concentration was determined from a
standard curve prepared from serially diluted standards of a 1,000 mg/L
ammonium chloride stock solution. Plant samples were analyzed for nitrate-
nitrite nitrogen following this same procedure (Orion IM, 1975b; Orion IM,
1976c; and Black, 1965).
Nitrogen (organic)--Air-dried soil was digested with concentrated sul-
furic acid, potassium sulfate, cupric sulfate, and selenium. The solutions
were evaporated for 30 minutes past the disappearance of sulfurous acid
fumes. Samples were diluted, neutralized with sodium hydroxide, and analyzed
with an ammonia electrode. Ammonia concentration was determined from a
standard curve prepared from serially diluted standards of a 1,000 mg/L
ammonium chloride stock solution. Plant samples were digested in the pres-
ence of concentrated sulfuric acid and analyzed for total organic nitrogen
following this same procedure (Orion IM, 1975a; Bremner, 1972; and Black,
1965).
Pesticides (plants)--Plant samples mixed with Celite were extracted with
acetonitrile and filtered with vacuum. An aliquot of filtrate was shaken
with petroleum ether. Water saturated with sodium chloride was mixed with
the ether. The aqueous phase was discarded, and the ether phase was washed
twice with water. The ether phase was dried with anhydrous sodium sulfate.
Samples were analyzed by gas chromatography (Mills, 1963).
Pesticides (soil)--Soil samples were air-dried, mixed with Celite, and
Soxhlet extracted for 12 hours with hexane: acetone (41:59 v/v). The extracts
were then shaken in a separatory funnel with a saturated sodium chloride
solution and extracted with hexane. The extracts were washed twice with a
saturated sodium chloride solution. The hexane phase was dried with anhy-
drous sodium sulfate. Unless further purification was necessary, the samples
were ready for gas chromatographic analyses (Williams, 1968).
jDH—The soil was air-dried and pulverized by mortar and pestle before
samples were analyzed. Twenty-five ml of distilled water per gram of soil
was added and the mixture stirred. The hydrogen ion concentration (pH) was
measured while the sample was mixing (Black, 1965).
Phosphorus (available)--Samples of air-dried soil were extracted with
0.03 N ammonium fluoride and 0.025 N hydrochloric acid by shaking for one
minute. The extract was filtered through Whatman No. 42 filter paper and the
pH adjusted to 7.0 +_ 0.2 with sodium hydroxide. Color reagent (mixture of
antimony potassium tartrate, ammonium molybdate, and ascorbic acid) was
added, and the absorbance was read at 640 nm with a spectrophotometer (APHA,
1976, and Black, 1965).
Phosphorus (total)--Air-dried soil samples were digested with 6 percent
48
-------
perchloric acid in a flask. Samples were boiled until the dark color due to
organic matter disappeared. An aliquot was adjusted to pH 7.0 +_ 0.2 with
sodium hydroxide, followed by the addition of color reagent. After color
development, absorbance was measured on a spectrophotometer at 640 nm. Plant
samples were digested in the presence of concentrated sulfuric acid and
analyzed for total phosphorus following this same procedure (APHA, 1976, and
Black, 1965).
Sulfur (total)--The presence of large amounts of sulfur in Roswell soils
made it very difficult to separate sulfate sulfur and organic sulfur; thus
the two were combined to obtain total sulfur values.
For the determination of sulfate sulfur, monobasic calcium phosphate was
added to air-dried soil samples and shaken for 12 hours, followed by filtering
through a Gooch crucible fitted with a glass fiber filter. An aliquot of
filtrate, gum acacia solution, and hydrochloric acid was mixed with barium
chloride crystals. Absorbance was measured at 420 nm on a spectrophotometer.
The concentration of sulfur in the samples was determined from a standard
curve prepared from serially diluted standards of a stock sulfate solution.
This procedure was also used to analyze sulfate sulfur in plant samples
(Black, 1965).
The residue in the Gooch crucible from the sulfate sulfur determination
was used for organic sulfur analyses. After drying at 103 C, sodium bicar-
bonate was mixed with the soil and added uniformly as a surface layer. After
ignition at 500 C for three hours the sample was extracted and analyzed as
described for sulfate sulfur (Black, 1965).
Methodology Problems and Modifications
As indicated previously, certain difficulties in analyses were experi-
enced in using the standard methods. The following sections discuss the
problems encountered in the water, soil, and plant analyses and indicate the
modifications that were employed in an attempt to obtain measurements of the
parameters involved in the study. Table 7 summarized the modifications for
field methods for each of the sampling rounds during the study.
The problems and modifications are mentioned for two reasons. First,
for time-critical parameters, it may be the explanation for missing data for
certain samples. If the method was known to be faulty, the data were deleted
from the data tabulation shown in Appendix B. Second, certain analytical
procedures were modified to obtain accurate results for the types of samples
encountered in this study. These modifications are reported for the benefit
of future investigators for similar type studies. Also, it was deemed valu-
able to report those cases when certain new analytical tools did not conform
to the manufacturer's claims.
Water Analyses--
Ca1cium--Initial review of calcium data indicated low values were being
generated. Spiked samples indicated low recoveries. Therefore, all samples
were repeated and were run. by the method of standard addition. Excellent
recoveries were obtained; therefore, all calcium data are valid.
49
-------
Chemical oxygen demand—Results from some of the early field samples
stimulated questions concerning the procedure being used. Extensive spiking
and duplication of samples showed no methodology problems and no reason for
the anomalous data.
Chloride—The initial problem was a faulty electrode. Later problems
involved matrix interferences. The probe method was replaced by mercuric
nitrate titrations as listed in the EPA methods manual (USEPA, 1974).
petals—Data from several metals appeared anomalous at some time during
the analyses. A malfunctioning atomic absorption (AA) was initially a prob-
lem. Failures included several faulty hollow cathode lamps, a faulty printed
circuit board in the photomultiplier, an out-of-tolerance nebulizer, and
numerous graphite rods (cuvettes) that had been manufactured without meeting
specifications. Analyses in question were repeated, using an operational
instrument. All metal analyses reported are considered valid data.
Nitrate nitrogen—The nitrate probe was used according to the manufac-
turer's directions with success for some samples, but problems were encoun-
tered with other samples. Discussions with the manufacturer resulted in new
filling solutions for the probe and different ionic strength adjuster solu-
tions to aid in reducing interferences. Some faulty probes were also discov-
ered during the analyses. Although the probe method was abandoned during
round two sampling, nitrate values obtained by the probe were comparable to
Cd reduction method values, and data were thus considered valid.
Organic nitrogen—The EPA method was modified initially by using the
ammonia probe instead of distilling the ammonia and titrating. It was dis-
covered later that the temperature of the solutions measured with the elec-
trode varied markedly, depending on the amount of acid in the solutions.
This temperature variation affected the probe adversely; thus, it was found
necessary to partially neutralize samples to about pH 5, cool to room tem-
perature, then add the remainder of the base and measure the ammonia with the
probe. Several items concealed this problem initially. Three electrode
failures were experienced, and thus questionable data were attributed to
this. It was also discovered that mercuric ions in the digesting reagent
were not releasing the ammonium during analyses.
Sulfate sulfur—The sulfate (lead) probe was used according to the
manufacturer's directions with little success at the sampling sites, although
initial tests proved the method satisfactory. Discussions with the manufac-
turer resulted in numerous changes in the solutions used during analyses.
The probe was later found to be faulty as well. The probe was abandoned, and
only turbidimetric measurements were used for remaining samples.
Soil and Plant Analyses—
Inorganic nitrogen—Nitrate + nitrite nitrogen was determined initially
according to the ASOA method, with the exception that steam distillation of
ammonia was replaced by the use of the ammonia probe. Spiked samples indi-
cated that reduction of nitrate and nitrite was limited and that the method
was underestimating the concentrations of nitrate and nitrite nitrogen.
After much experimentation, it was discovered that the Devarda alloy would
50
-------
not reduce N(L and N02 to NH4 without the addition of a proton donor. Satis-
factory results were obtained by adding small amounts (<1 mL) of concentrated
H2S04.
Organic nitrogen (total)--The method as described by Bremner and Tabata-
bai (1972) was followed initially. The temperature interference described
for the organic nitrogen procedure for water samples was initially a problem
for soil and plant samples. Partial neutralization followed by cooling
solved the difficulty of obtaining accurate results.
DATA EVALUATION PLAN
General background data about the site including geology, hydrogeology,
soils, climate, and other relevant information have previously been pres-
ented.
Data collected at the field site from wells, effluent samples, soils,
and crops were transmitted to the laboratory for collation and computer
tabulation. Additional analytical procedures at the laboratory provided data
on many parameters, which were integrated with field data. Appendix B pro-
vides complete data tables for all parameters that had reliable, internally
consistent results. In some instances columns of data were combined, such as
ammonium and nitrate-nitrite nitrogen, if analytical procedures indicated
that individual parameters might overlap.
In the Results and Discussion section the critical resource values of
water, soils, and crops are compared for the test and control sites.
The evaluation of the results of water analyses is presented in three
parts: effluent, surface runoff, and groundwater. In each part the results
are discussed in relation to such site characteristics as hydrology, renova-
tion performance of the soil, or quality of the groundwater. In addition,
some projections are attempted for long-term loadings of critical parameters
contained in the wastewater. The groundwater data that differentiated between
control and test sites were.essentially the following: COD, Cl, NO--N, TDS,
B, K, Na, S04, P, heavy metals, and pesticides.
For soils the results that merited discussion include P, N, and selected
heavy metals. Although values were obtained for many other parameters, the
differences between control and test sites were generally within the range of
variability expected for any one soil site. The soil data that differentiated
between control and test sites as a function of depth below surface were the
following: Cr, Cu, Zn, organic N, and total P. For the corn crop the param-
eters for which the data differentiated the control and test sites were the
following: organic N, P, Mg, Na, and Zn.
Finally, the possible adverse health effects associated with viruses and
fecal and total coliform bacteria were investigated in water and crop samples.
Discussion of the methods used and the results obtained for these health-
effects parameters follow in the sections on water and crops.
51
-------
SECTION 7
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Samples collected in the field were identified by a code number that was
used on all data tables and graphs as well as in the narrative sections where
individual sample results are discussed. Water samples had a six-digit
number and were coded as follows: The first digit (1) referred to the Ros-
well site; the second digit indicated whether sample was from a control (1)
or test (2) site; the third and fourth digits indicated the sample number—01
to 40 were taken from wells, 41 to 43 were taken from lysimeters, 45 were
surface runoff samples which were collected twice after 2.5 cm (1.0 in) of
rainfall on September 9, 1976, and April 14, 1977, 46 and 47 were irrigation
and effluent water samples. The fifth digit indicated a single or multiple
completion well. A zero indicated a single well; and for multiple wells 1
was for shallow, 2 for mid-depth, and 3 for deep wells. The sixth digit
indicated the sampling round: 1, first; 2, second; 3, third; and 4, fourth.
Dates for sampling rounds are given in the tables.
Soil samples were similarly coded except that only five digits were
used. The first and second digits were the same as for water samples. The
third digit indicated the sub-area of the control or test site (Figure 9).
The fourth digit indicated the sampling round. The fifth digit indicated the
relative sample depth: 1 was 0 to 2 cm, 2 was 2 to 4 cm, 3 was 9 to 11 cm, 4
was 29 to 31 cm, 5 was 95 to 105 cm, and 6 was 295 to 305 cm.
Plant samples were identified with four-digit numbers and followed the
same format as soils except that the fifth digit was not used.
WATER
Effluent Constituents
The Roswell Wastewater Treatment Plant produced an effluent for ir-
rigation that is typical of a secondary effluent insofar as a majority of the
chemical constituents is concerned. Laboratory analyses of the effluent were
run in June and October of 1976 and in January and April of 1977, repre-
senting the four seasons of the year. The results are summarized in Table 8
for effluent sample numbers 124601 through 124604 (sample numbers 124605 and
124606 are effluent samples taken during the fourth sampling trip for partial
analysis) and irrigation well sample numbers 114601, 114604, and 114701.
Five-day biochemical oxygen demand (BODJ was typically in the range of
10 to 20 mg/L with suspended solids (SS) of 20 to 30 mg/L. The October,
52
-------
TABLE 8. SUMMARY OF CONSTITUENTS DEFINING DIFFERENCES IN APPLIED WATERS
Applied Waters
en
CO
Test Site
(Final Effluent)
Control Site
(Irrigation Wells)
Constituent (mg/L, unless noted)
Dissolved Oxygen
Alkalinity as CaC03
Dissolved Solids
Suspended Solids
Total Solids
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
Chemical Oxygen Demand
Dissolved Organic Carbon
Soluble Organic Nitrogen
Ammonium Nitrogen
Nitrate Nitrogen
Total Phosphorus
Soluble Phosphorus
Soluble Orthophosphate Phosphorus
Sulfate Sulfur
Chloride
Boron
Calcium
Iron
Magnesium
Potassium
Sodium
Zinc
Lindane, ng/L
2,4-D, ng/L
2,4,5 TP Silvex, ng/L
Range
<0. 1-6.1
316-336
2008-2504
18-743
2041-2522
6-1223
135-206
13.9-57.9
<0.1-36
16.8-25.6
0.10-3.7
5.2-9.5
4.8-8.0
3.8-7.8
518-917
545-820
0.133-0.208
124-262
<0.2-1.8
59-86
13.7-16.8
350-559
0.01-0.09
49.2-1250
<1.2-64
<0.2-70.4
Mean
2.0
323
2195
41.7
2237
42
172
28
11
23.0
1.6
8.0
6.8
6.5
660
681
0.337
192
0.64
67
14.7
466
0.05
588
29
28.1
Range
7.3-7.7
168-196
2374-3027
28K
2727b
= 1-2
19-44
8.4B
0.5-1.6
<0. 1-0.1
0.5-2.3
0.01°
°-01h
0-Olh
713b
710-933
0.235-0.455
122-344
<0.2-0.6
53-92
2.1-6.2
380-424
<0. 01-0. 07
1.3-72
0.6-18.4
0.2-5.8
Mean
7.5
183
2700
28K
2727°
1
28
8.45
1.0
<0.1
1.6
0.01°
o.oi?
°-01h
713°
844
0.179
226
0.43
74
4.8
398
0.03
26
7.6
2.0
a Treatment plant overloaded during second sampling round.
Results from one sample only.
-------
1976, effluent sample contained high BOD,, and SS concentrations of 122 and 74
mg/L, respectively. The treatment plant\as overloaded hydraulically during
this sampling round.
The chemical oxygen demand (COD) concentration of the effluent was
uniformly high throughout the testing period. Concentrations ranged from 135
to 206 mg/L, which is two to three times the normal COD concentration of
secondary effluent. The relatively normal BOD5 concentrations contrasted
with the relatively high COD concentrations suggested the presence of 50 to
100 mg/L of COD concentration attributable to slowly biodegradable organic
materials. A possible source of these materials could be the packing plant
wastewater. Although the packing plant wastewater was reportedly pretreated,
this type of wastewater typically contains relatively high concentrations of
proteinaceous organics that are slow to biodegrade.
The ammonium nitrogen concentration was in the normal secondary effluent
range of 15 to 25 mg/L. Nitrate nitrogen concentrations reflected the par-
tial nitrifying condition that existed during the warmer summer and fall
periods in Roswell. Organic nitrogen would generally be at a minimal concen-
tration in such an effluent, but the analyses showed high soluble organic
nitrogen concentrations of 15 to 36 mg/L. This was consistent with the
observations made earlier concerning the presence of packing plant wastewater
and the possible contributions of relatively high concentrations of nitrogen
and proteinaceous organics.
Phosphorus concentrations, which were in the range of 5 to 10 mg/L, were
typical of secondary effluents. The high sulfate sulfur concentrations
reflected the natural geochemistry of the water supply aquifer that has
common anhydrite deposits. The dissolved solids concentration of the ef-
fluent was consistent with the relatively high dissolved solids concentration
of the Roswell potable water supply. The metallic ions, with the exception
of the geochemical contributions of very soluble sodium and mildly soluble
calcium and magnesium, were present in expectedly low concentrations. The
chlorinated hydrocarbon lindane was discernible in the effluent at concen-
trations higher than were found in other water samples including the potable
water supply and area groundwater supplies.
Overall observations that can be made concerning the Roswell Wastewater
Treatment Plant effluent are: (1) most parameters were reasonably typical of
secondary effluent except for the COD and soluble organic nitrogen concen-
trations, which were unusually high, possibly reflecting wastewater input
from a packing house; (2) high sulfate sulfur concentrations reflected the
naturally occurring anhydrite deposits that exist in the hydrogeologic system
from which Roswell derives potable water; and (3) lindane, an insecticide
that has an applicable National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulation
maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 4,000 ng/L, was identified at above back-
ground levels and at a maximum measured concentration of 1,250 ng/L.
Surface Runoff
Surface runoff samples were collected at the southeast corner of the
test site in September, 1976, and April, 1977, and are designated in Appendix
54
-------
B as sample numbers 124501 and 124502, respectively. A control site surface
runoff sample was collected near monitoring wells 11050 and 11060 on control
site B and is designated 114502 in Table 9.
TABLE 9. UATER QUALITY OF SURFACE RUNOFF
Concentration in mq/L
Control Test
Parameter 114502 124501 124502
Chemical Oxygen Demand
Total Nitrogen
Dissolved Solids
Suspended Solids
79 246
6.9
129
2223
73
9.5
357
595
The occurrence of natural precipitation events plus the schedule for
irrigation application, agricultural events, and time of sampling are de-
picted in Figure 6. The surface runoff from which the samples were taken was
induced by natural precipitation. Samples were collected and preserved by a
representative of the New Mexico Environmental Improvement Agency and shipped
to the contractor's laboratory for analysis.
Ammonia, nitrate, and organic nitrogen analyses were available for the
April, 1977, runoff sampling at both the control and test sites. Total
nitrogen was 6.9 mg/L from the control site and 9.5 mg/L from the test site.
Although these concentrations were fairly comparable and only this sparse
data existed, there was a suggestion that the test site runoff reflected the
improved nitrogen nutrient status of the test site soil. Further information
about the control and test site soils is discussed in a subsequent section of
this report. The nitrogen concentrations observed in the runoff samples were
within the normal range for runoff from agricultural or other productive
soils.
Phosphorus data existed for only the April, 1977, test site runoff
sample. The soluble orthophosphate phosphorus concentration of 2.7 mg/L was
consistent with runoff from reasonably productive soils. The presence of
suspended solids in the runoff sample could account for a total phosphorus
concentration higher than the soluble orthophosphate phosphorus concentra-
tion. Soil or suspended solids transport during precipitation events is a
primary mechanism for phosphorus runoff from agricultural land.
55
-------
The dissolved solids concentration in the April, 1977, control site
runoff was 129 mg/L, which is less than the 357 mg/L occurring in the test
site runoff. This likely reflected the higher concentration of dissolved
solids associated with the topsoil at the test site as a result of the ir-
rigation practices and the ensuing evapotranspiration processes. The dis-
solved solids concentrations in both runoff samples were far less, however,
than those of any groundwater or effluent source near Roswell. These data
substantiated that the runoff samples were from recent precipitation.
The suspended solids concentrations of the April, 1977, runoff samples
for both control and test sites are also presented in Appendix B. These
relatively large concentrations confirm that topsoil transport was occurring,
with the control site producing more sediment at 2,223 mg/L than the test
site at 595 mg/L.
Overall observations from the surface runoff monitoring are: (1) sedi-
ment content in all runoff samples tended to control the results from many of
the analyses; (2) soluble nitrogen concentrations were within a normal range
for agricultural runoff, with the test site possibly indicating its enhanced
soil nitrogen concentration; and (3) phosphorus concentrations were within
the normal range for agricultural runoff when soil transport is involved.
The metal concentrations in the runoff samples were total metals; that
is, the samples were not filtered and were acid digested before analyses.
Groundwater
It is necessary to review here some of the factors affecting ground-
water quality around and on the test site before individual groundwater
parameters can be meaningfully discussed. Groundwater in the alluvium
aquifer, which potentially extends from the ground surface to a depth of
approximately 9 m (30 ft), moved in a southeast, east, or northeast direction
across the test site. Average rate of movement was 1.8 to 2.4 m (6 to 8 ft)
per day. Figure 5 shows the groundwater contours and direction of ground-
water movement observed on the test site. -Depth from ground surface to the
top of the saturated zone was generally 2 to 3 m (7 to 10 ft) (Table 3).
Recharge to the alluvium aquifer has been analyzed as almost completely
supplied from irrigation practices both on and around the test site. Esti-
mated average yearly recharge to the alluvium aquifer was estimated at 20 cm
(7.9 in) per year from a total yearly irrigation application of 80 cm (32 in)
per year. While irrigation on the test site was uniformly practiced with
effluent from the Roswell Wastewater Treatment Plant, the practices on the
surrounding lands were more varied. Figure 7 illustrates the overall efflu-
ent and sludge application area immediately west and extending somewhat north
of the test site.
A general location map of the Roswell area and an enlarged map show the
control site locations (Figures 2 and 3). Note that the westernmost control
site, Site A, was well removed from the effluent irrigation areas.
In addition to irrigation with effluent, irrigation with groundwater
from the shallow aquifer underlying the alluvium was practiced throughout the
56
-------
Roswell area. The open areas on Figure 7 between effluent irrigation areas
were locations where irrigation with groundwater was practiced.
Groundwater monitoring wells plus a lysimeter were installed on the test
site at locations shown on Figure 12. Additional groundwater monitoring
wells were installed on the control sites as shown on Figure 3. Groundwater
samples were taken from these wells at four times during the year, June and
October of 1976 and January and April of 1977. The groundwater samples were
analyzed for a number of quality parameters, which are recorded in Appendix
B. In addition to the groundwater monitoring samples and effluent and sur-
face runoff samples discussed previously, sample numbers 116002 to 116004
were potable water samples taken from the Roswell municipal supply, and
sample numbers 114701, 114601, and 114604 were composite groundwater irriga-
tion well samples from two upstream and eight downstream wells, respectively.
Roswell potable water is primarily obtained from the artesian San Andres
formation. Although the water quality from this aquifer is highly variable
at different locations, lower dissolved solids, chloride, and sulfate concen-
trations are available locally from the San Andres formation than from either
of the alluvial aquifers.
Groundwater irrigation wells tap the shallow aquifer. The dissolved
solids, chloride, and sulfate concentrations in this aquifer are intermediate
to respective concentrations in the artesian and the irrigated alluvium aq-
uifers as illustrated in the following comparison.
Concentrations in mg/L
Aquifer Dissolved Solids Chloride Sulfate
San Andres, artesian 1400 300 500
Shallow 2500 800 700
Irrigated alluvium 6000 2400 1800
All alluvium well samples in the test and control site areas were
affected by tributary irrigation. The concentrations of dissolved solids,
chloride, and sulfate in the alluvium water samples were independent of the
source of the irrigation water. The irrigation well water, the source of
which is the shallow aquifer, and the irrigation treatment plant effluent
have comparable respective concentrations of dissolved solids, chloride, and
sulfate. Other typical quality parameters observed in the groundwater irri-
gation water from samples 114701, 114601, and 114604 are listed in Table 10.
Table 11 depicts sample mean concentrations of various parameters
measured in the water used for irrigation on the test site (effluent) and
control site (shallow aquifer). A statistical analysis of the sample data
using the method of pooled variances was utilized to evaluate whether a
significant difference at the 0.05 level existed between the means of the
57
-------
I2I30/
8-10
7-9
l_ I22Q2 ..
20-22
30-33
12050
12-f7 V
F Sub-area IT
i I 1 } M * M * * *
\ 1
t I
2090
/K75T- ( ( » » « « \ f 5
• Sub-area HI ;Sub-orea I
\
1 I \
. .'8?'Q c i * 1 1 > ? > *
i 9.5-11.5 -T ~ - 12043 ~
27-29
L
».» \
WELL NUMBER
/SCREEN DEPTH (in feet)
® RECORDER WELL
• ^YSIMETER CLUSTER
j] SUB-AREAS FOR SOIL 8 CROP SAMPLES
0 100 200 3OO 400Feet
50
100 Meters
Figure 12. Irrigation study site.
58
-------
TABLE 10. TYPICAL YEARLY AVERAGE QUALITY PARAMETERS
FOR IRRIGATION GROUNDWATER
Concentration, Units of mg/L Unless Otherwise Noted
Parameter 114701, 6/76
Dissolved Solids
Chemical Oxygen Demand
Chloride
Soluble Organic Nitrogen
Nitrate Nitrogen
Ammonium Nitrogen
Soluble Phosphorus
Soluble Orthophosphate Phosphorus
Sulfate
Boron, yg/L
Potassium
Sodium
Iron
Manganese
Selenium, yg/L
Zinc, yg/L
Lindane, ng/L
2374
44
710
1.0
2.3
<0.1
1.90
0.02
--
208
2.1
380
0.6
0.02
--
70
4.1
114601, 6/76
3027
24
889
1.6
1.9
-0.1
0.24
0.10
--
195
6.2
424
0.6
<0.01
--
-10
72
114604, 4/77
2699
19
933
0.5
0.5
0.1
0.01
0.01
713
133
6.0
391
<0.2
^0.05
-10
<20
1.3
59
-------
TABLE 11 MEAN CONCENTRATIONS OF PARAMETERS FOR IRRIGATION WATERS USED ON
TEST (EFFLUENT) AND CONTROL (SHALLOW AQUIFER) SITES
Means (mq/L unless noted)
Parameter
Dissolved Oxygen
PH
r
Conductivity
Total Alkalinity
Dissolved Solids
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
Chemical Oxygen Demand
Chloride
Sulfide-S
Total Coliform
Fecal Coliform
Total Organic C
Dissolved Organic C
Total Organic N
Soluble Organic N
Ammonium-N
Nitrate-N
Total Phosphorus
Soluble Phosphorus
Soluble Orthophosphate
Sulfate
Aluminum
Arsenic (yg/L)
Boron (yg/L)
Cadmium (yg/L)
Cal cium
Cobalt (yg/L)
Chromium (yg/L)
Copper (yg/L)
Iron
Lead (yg/L)
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury (yg/L)
Nickel (yg/L)
Potassium
Sodium
Zinc (yg/L)
Selenium (yg/L)
Control
7.7
7.5
3599
176
2863
1.3
22
911 h
O.lb
4359
3
--
8.4
--
1.1
0.1
1.2
0.01
0.12
0.05
713
0.5
20b
164,
20b
279,
50b
10
50
0,35
100b
84
0.05b
0,50b
505
6.1
408U
50b
10b
Test
2.1
7f
.6
3170
323a
2194^
43
172a
681
0.3
TNTCC
TNTC
60.5
27.9
41.3
11.0
23. 3a
1.6
7.95a
6.85a
6.47a
659
0.5
20b
338.
20b
192
50b
22
71
0,64
100b
67
0.05b
0.62
50B
14. 7a
466
10b
Test and control sites are si
gnificantly different at
the 0.05 level .
Concentrations below detection limit indicated.
At least one sample analyzed
too numerous to count.
60
-------
test site irrigation water and the control site irrigation water. The re-
sults of the statistical analysis reveal that at the 0.05 level of signifi-
cance, higher mean values for total alkalinity, chemical oxygen demand,
ammonia, total phosphorus, soluble phosphorus, soluble orthophosphate, and
potassium existed in the irrigation effluent at the test site than in the
irrigation water at the control site. Mean dissolved solids concentration
was the only parameter identified as being significantly higher in the con-
trol site irrigation water than in the test site irrigation water. For
parameters with mean concentrations at or below detection limits, and for
coliform data with samples yielding too numerous to count (TNTC), no analysis
could be performed. For the remaining parameters, there was no significant
difference at the 0.05 level.
The same statistical method was used to make various comparisons between
constituent concentrations in the groundwater at the control site and the
test site. The first analysis was a comparison between the mean concentra-
tion of various parameters for groundwater in the control site wells (11060
and 11050) versus all test site wells. The deep well (12070) on the test
site was excluded from the analysis. Table 12 contains the sample mean
concentrations calculated for all rounds and the statistical analysis re-
sults. Total alkalinity and nitrate were the only parameters found to have
greater mean concentrations in the groundwater at the test site than in the
groundwater at the control site at the 0.05 level of significance. In con-
trast, pH, chloride, ammonia, sodium, and selenium are parameters where a
significant difference at the 0.05 level existed with the sample mean concen-
trations greater at the control site than at the test site. For each of the
remaining variables shown in Table 12, no significant difference at the 0.05
level was found to exist between the control and test site groundwaters.
Tables 13 through 16 present the same comparison for the groundwaters on an
individual sample round basis. For round one (June, 1976), Table 13 shows
only pH to vary significantly at the 0.05 level between the control site and
the test site, with the control site yielding the largest value. For all
other parameters in Table 13, no significant difference existed for round
one. Table 14 shows aluminum was the only parameter during round two (Octo-
ber, 1976) with a significant difference at the 0.05 level, and the concen-
tration was greatest for the control site. For round three (January, 1977),
Table 15 shows alkalinity, with concentrations greater on the test site, to
be the only parameter with a significant difference at the 0.05 level.
Finally, for round four (April, 1977), selenium and pH showed significant
differences with greater concentrations existing in the groundwater at the
control site (Table 16).
It is important to reiterate that for those parameters with sample means
at or below detection limits and for coliform data yielding TNTC values, a
statistical comparison is not possible. However, some general trends can be
observed. With few exceptions, when a parameter mean concentration was below
detection limits for the control site, it was also at or below detection
limits for the test site. The only exception to the overall comparison
(Table 12) was for arsenic, with the control site wells yielding an average
concentration of 25.8 yg/L compared to the test site wells with an average
concentration below the detection limit of 20 ug/L.
61
-------
TABLE 12. MEAN CONCENTRATIONS OF PARAMETERS IN TEST AND CONTROL SITE
GROUNDWATERS (DEPTH LESS THAN 30 METERS)
Means (mg/L unless noted)
Parameter
Dissolved Oxygen
pH
Conductivity
Total Alkalinity
Dissolved Solids
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
Chemical Oxygen Demand
Chloride
Sulfide-S
Total Col i form
Fecal Col i form
Total Organic C
Dissolved Organic C
Total Organic N
Soluble Organic N
Ammonium-N
Nitrate-N
Total Phosphorus
Soluble Phosphorus
Soluble Orthophosphate
Sulfate
Aluminum
Arsenic (yg/L)
Boron (yg/L)
Cadmium (yg/L)
Calcium
Cobalt (yg/L)
Chromium (yg/L)
Copper (yg/L)
Iron
Lead (yg/L)
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury (yg/L)
Nickel (yg/L)
Potassium
Sodium
Zinc (yg/L)
Selenium (yg/L)
Control
1.6
7.3
9260
220
6392
1D
45
2514
0.1°
TNTCC
2
--
11.6
--
0.8
0.4
1.0
--
0.55
0.11
1979
1.1
26
245.
20b
437.
50b
20b
53
7*5
100B
150
0.15
0.5b
63
11.9
1653
86
52
Test
2'°a
7.1a
7806
325a
6096
lb
51
17869 b
0.1°
TNTC
30
--
14.0
--
0.7
o.2a
9.8a
—
0.38
0.14
1871
1*2
20b
375.
20b
525.
50b
20b
63
51,
100b
166
0.11
0.5b
65
9.7
1097a
127
30a
a
Test and control sites are significantly different at the 0.05 level.
Concentrations below detection limit indicated.
c
At least one sample analyzed too numerous to count.
62
-------
TABLE 13. MEAN CONCENTRATIONS OF PARAMETERS IN TEST AND CONTROL SITE
GROUNDWATERS SAMPLED JUNE, 1976 (DEPTH LESS THAN 30 METERS)
Means (mg/L unless noted)
Parameter " Control Test
Dissolved Oxygen
PH
Conductivity
Total Alkalinity
Dissolved Solids
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
Chemical Oxygen Demand
Chloride
Sulfide-S
Total Col i form
Fecal Co li form
Total Organic C
Dissolved Organic C
Total Organic N
Soluble Organic N
Ammo ni urn- N
Nitrate-N
Total Phosphorus
Soluble Phosphorus
Soluble Orthophosphate
Sulfate
Aluminum
Arsenic (yg/L)
Boron (yg/L)
Cadmium (yg/L)
Calcium
Cobalt (yg/L)
Chromium (yg/L)
Copper (yg/L)
Iron
Lead (yg/L)
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury (yg/L)
Nickel (yg/L)
Potassium
Sodium
Zinc (yg/L)
Selenium (yg/L)
1.1
7.2
7910
246
6073,
lb
36
2070
_ _
TNTCC
0
--
--
--
1. 7
O.lb
1.5
--
2.05
0.34
--
1.6
--
230
20b
288.
50
20b
170
2. 0
100D
115
0.05b
°'5b
50. 0D
8.2
1443,
50b
--
2.1
6.9a
7508
369
6335,
lb
79
1717
_ _
TNTC
114
--
19.3
--
L5h
O.lb
13.3
--
1.44
0.49
--
2.2
--
215
20b
423,
50
20b
205
V
100B
89
O.ljj
°'5b
50.0°
6.7
967
141
—
a Test and control sites are significantly different at the 0.05 level.
k
Concentrations below detection limit indicated.
c At least one sample analyzed too numerous to count.
63
-------
TABLE 14 MEAN CONCENTRATIONS OF PARAMETERS IN TEST AND CONTROL SITE
GROUNDWATERS SAMPLED OCTOBER. 1976 (DEPTH LESS THAN 30 METERS)
Parameter
Dissolved Oxygen
pH
Conductivity
Total Alkalinity
Dissolved Sol ids
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
Chemical Oxygen Demand
Chloride
Sulfide-S
Total Col i form
Fecal Col i form
Total Organic C
Dissolved Organic C
Total Organic N
Soluble Organic N
Ammonium-N
Nitrate-N
Total Phosphorus
Soluble Phosphorus
Soluble Orthophosphate
Sulfate
Al uminum
Arsenic (ug/L)
Boron (ug/L)
Cadmium (ug/L)
Calcium
Cobalt (ug/L)
Chromium (ug/L)
Copper (ug/L)
Iron
Lead (ug/L)
Magnesi urn
Manganese
Mercury (ug/L)
Nickel (ug/L)
Potassium
Sodium
Zinc (ug/L)
Selenium (ug/L)
Means (mg/L
Control
1.9
7.4
10,535
200
6788,
1
70
2452
--
0
0
--
7.7
--
0.2
0.5
2.5
--
0.04
0.04
2016
1.8
37
293,
20b
505,
50b
24.
20b
27,
100b
158
0.22
0.56
179
14.4
1665
70
49
unless noted)
Test
1.6
7.1
8494
327
6003,
1D
60
1632
--
13
0
--
4.9
--
0.2
O.I5
13.3
—
0.04
0.04
2035
0.6a
20b
624k
20b
646,
50b
20b
22
187,
100b
188
0.11
0.5*
177
12.8
1133
177
31
Test and control sites are significantly different at the 0.05 level.
Concentrations below detection limit indicated.
64
-------
TABLE 15. MEAN CONCENTRATIONS OF PARAMETERS IN TEST AND CONTROL SITE
GROUNDWATERS SAMPLED JANUARY, 1977 (DEPTH LESS THAN 30 METERS)
Parameter
Dissolved Oxygen
pH
Conductivity
Total Alkalinity
Dissolved Solids
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
Chemical Oxygen Demand
Chloride
Sulfide-S
Total Col i form
Fecal Col i form
Total Organic C
Dissolved Organic C
Total Organic N
Soluble Organic N
Ammo ni urn- N
Nitrate-N
Total Phosphorus
Soluble Phosphorus
Soluble Orthophosphate
Sulfate
Aluminum
Arsenic (yg/L)
Boron (ug/L)
Cadmium (yg/L)
Calcium
Cobalt (yg/L)
Chromium (yg/L)
Copper (yg/L)
Iron
Lead (yg/L)
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury (yg/L)
Nickel (yg/L)
Potassium
Sodium
Zinc (yg/L)
Selenium (yg/L)
Means (mg/L
Control
1.2
7.3
9405
204
3718.
lb
59
2957
—
19
0
_-
--
--
0.5
0.2
0.1
--
0.04
0.04
2272
0.6
26
215
20b
343,
50b
39b
20 b
0.5b
100b
175
0.12
0 5B
50b
8.5
1756,
50b
36
unless noted)
Test
2.4
7.3
7943a
294a
5949,
lb
42
2000
58
6
__
7.7
—
0.6
0.1
5.3
--
0.05
0.04
1749
V
20b
270
20b
368,
50b
27b
20b
1.5
100°
216
0.08
0.5°
50b
7.1
1183
76
28
a Test and control sites are significantly different at the 0.05 level.
Concentrations below detection limit indicated.
65
-------
TABLE 16. MEAN CONCENTRATIONS OF PARAMETERS IN TEST AND CONTROL SITE
GROUNDWATERS SAMPLED APRIL. 1977 (DEPTH LESS THAN 30 METERS)
Parameter
Dissolved Oxygen
PH
Conductivity
Total Alkalinity
Dissolved Solids
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
Chemical Oxygen Demand
Chloride
Sulfide-S
Total Col i form
Fecal Coliform
Total Organic C
Dissolved Organic C
Total Organic N
Soluble Organic N
Ammonium-N
Nitrate-N
Total Phosphorus
Soluble Phosphorus
Soluble Orthophosphate
Sulfate
Al uminum
Arsenic (ug/L)
Boron (ug/L)
Cadmium (pg/L)
Calcium
Cobalt (ug/L)
Chromium (pg/L)
Copper (pg/L)
Iron
Lead (pg/L)
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury (pg/L)
Nickel (pg/L)
Potassi urn
Sodi urn
Zinc (pg/L)
Selenium (pg/L)
Means (mg/L
Control
2.4
7.5
9192
229
7654,
lb
14
2577 ,
O.lb
TNTCC
7
--
13.6
--
1.0
L1b
o.r
--
0.06
0.02
1796 ,
0.3b
20b
244,
20b
611
~~ "" t
20b
20b
0.8
153
0.25
50b
16.6
1750
186
71
unless noted)
Test
1.9
7.1a
7222
311
6103L
lb
25
1810 .
O.lb
890
1
--
13.4
--
0.6
0.5
7.0
—
0.03
0.02
1811 ,
0.3b
20b
371,
20b
642
20b
20 K
0.5b
170
0.09
50b
11.9
1102
111
31a
Test and control sites are significantly different at the 0.05 level.
Concentrations below detection limit indicated.
At least one sample analyzed too numerous to count.
66
-------
In the next analysis, only the test wells with depths approximately
greater than 20 feet were compared to the control site wells. This provided
a comparison of wells with similar average depths by excluding the shallow
test site wells included in the previous analysis. Table 17 contains the
results for the composite means for all rounds and shows that total alkalin-
ity and nitrate were the only parameters found to be in significantly greater
concentration at the test site than at the control site at the 0.05 level of
significance. These are the same parameters identified by the previous
analysis. Also, Table 17 shows the means for pH, chlorides, sodium, and
selenium were significantly greater at the 0.05 level in the groundwater at
the control site than in the deeper test site wells. All other parameters
showed no significant difference between the control and test sites at the
0.05 level. It is further emphasized that mean concentrations for all metals
at the test site were either at or below the detection limit or showed no
significant difference at the 0.05 level with the exception of selenium,
which was significantly greater in the groundwater found below the control
site. As before, the wells were compared on an individual round basis; the
results are presented in Tables 18 through 21. For round one (Table 18), pH
was found to be significantly greater at the control site than at the test
site. All other parameters show no significant difference. Table 19 shows
calcium to be the only parameter in round two with a significant difference
in the means with the greater concentration (703 mg/L vs. 505 mg/L) in the
groundwater at the test site. For round three no significant difference
existed for any parameter at the 0.05 level (Table 20). Table 21 shows
soluble phosphorus and selenium at significantly greater concentrations at
the control site than at the test site in round four with no significant
difference for the remaining parameters. In summary, for this analysis,
nitrate and alkalinity were the only parameters identified to be in sig-
nificantly greater concentrations at the 0.05 level in the groundwater at
the test site than in the groundwater at the control site.
A summary of the parameters with significant differences in the means
between the test site and control site at the 0.05 level is shown in Table
22. The alkalinity of the effluent water used for irrigation at the test
site was significantly greater than the alkalinity of the irrigation water at
the control site. This difference was also observed in the groundwaters
between the sites.
It is interesting to note that although the ammonia concentration in
the irrigation effluent at the test site was significantly higher than in the
irrigation water at the control site, the difference was not significant in
the groundwater. In contrast, the nitrate concentration in the irrigation
water was not significantly different from test site to control site but was
significantly different in the groundwater in both well comparisons. A
possible explanation is that nitrification in the upper soil layers changed
the ammonia to nitrate with the excess nitrate leaching to the groundwater.
Another trend observed was evident in the phosphate, potassium, and COD
data. The analysis showed that total phosphate, soluble phosphate, soluble
orthophosphate, COD, and potassium concentrations were significantly greater
in the irrigation effluent at the test site compared to the irrigation water
at the control site. However, these differences were not significant in the
67
-------
TABLE 17. MEAN CONCENTRATIONS OF PARAMETERS IN TEST AND CONTROL SITE
GROUNDWATERS (DEPTH GREATER THAN 6 METERS)
Means (mq/L unless noted)
Parameter
Dissolved Oxygen
pH
i
Conductivity
Total Alkalinity
Dissolved Solids
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
Chemical Oxygen Demand
Chloride
Sulfide-S
Total Coli form
Fecal Coli form
Total Organic C
Dissolved Organic C
Total Organic N
Soluble Organic N
Ammonium-N
Nitrate-N
Total Phosphorus
Soluble Phosphorus
Soluble Orthophosphate
Sulfate
Al uminum
Arsenic (yg/L)
Boron (yg/L)
Cadmium (yg/L)
Calcium
Cobalt (yg/L)
Chromium (yg/L)
Copper (yg/L)
Iron
Lead (yg/L)
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury (yg/L)
Nickel (yg/L)
Potassium
Sodium
Zinc (yg/L)
Selenium (yg/L)
Control
1.6
7.3
9260
220
6392U
_ n
lu
45
2514
O.lb_
TNTCC
2
--
11.6
--
0.8
0.4
1.0
--
0.55
0.11
1979
1.1
26
245
20b
436,
50b
20b
53
7,5
100D
150
0.15
0.5°
63
11.9
1653
86
52
Test
1.9
_ . a
7.1a
8197
328a
6396U
i h
iu
58
a
1904 K
0.1°
TNTC
6
--
15.0
—
0.8
0.2
6.5a
--
0.38
0.21
1905
09
205
353,
20b
550U
50b
20b
65
34
100D
173
0.11
0.5*
68
9,4
1122a
117
30a
Test and control sites are significantly different at the 0.05 level.
Concentrations below detection limit indicated.
At least one sample analyzed too numerous to count.
68
-------
TABLE 18. MEAN CONCENTRATIONS OF PARAMETERS IN TEST AND CONTROL SITE
GROUNDUATERS SAMPLED JUNE. 1976 (DEPTH GREATER THAN 6 METERS)
Means (mg/L unless noted)
Parameter Control Test
Dissolved Oxygen 1.1 2.0
PH 7.2 6.8a
Conductivity 7910 8083
Total Alkalinity 246 389
Dissolved Solids 6073, 6750,
Biochemical Oxygen Demand 1 1
Chemical Oxygen Demand 36 97
Chloride 2070 1863
Sulfide-S
Total Coliform TNTCC TNTC
Fecal Coliform 0 11
Total Organic C
Dissolved Organic C -- 21.5
Total Organic N
Soluble Organic N 1.7, 1.4,
Ammonium-N 0.1 0.1
Nitrate-N 1.5 8.7
Total Phosphorus
Soluble Phosphorus 2.05 1.38
Soluble Orthophosphate 0.34 0.72
Sulfate
Aluminum 1.6 1.9
Arsenic (yg/L)
Boron (yg/L) 230, 211,
Cadmium (yg/L) 20D 20D
Calcium 288 441,
Cobalt (yg/L) 50° 50°
Chromium (yg/L) 20° 20°
Copper (yg/L) 170 202
Iron 2,0 1.8
Lead (yg/L) 100D 100°
Magnesium 115 , 87 ,
Manganese 0.05 0.05
Mercury (yg/L) 05° 0.5D
Nickel (yg/L) 50° 50°
Potassium 8.2 6.7
Sodium 1443 948
Zinc (yg/L) 50° 133
Selenium (yg/L)
a Test and control sites are significantly different at the 0.05 level.
Concentrations below detection limit indicated.
c At least one sample analyzed too numerous to count.
69
-------
TABLE 19. MEAN CONCENTRATIONS OF PARAMETERS IN TEST AND CONTROL SITE
GROUNDWATERS SAMPLED OCTOBER, 1976 (DEPTH GREATER THAN 6 METERS)
Parameter
Means (mg/L unless noted)
Control Test
Dissolved Oxygen
PH
Conductivity
Total Alkalinity
Dissolved Solids
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
Chemical Oxygen Demand
Chloride
Sulfide-S
Total Col i form
Fecal Coliform
Total Organic C
Dissolved Organic C
Total Organic N
Soluble Organic N
Ammonium-N
Nitrate-N
Total Phosphorus
Soluble Phosphorus
Soluble Orthophosphate
Sulfate
Al uminum
Arsenic (-g/L)
Boron (~g/L)
Cadmium (ug/L)
Cal cium
Cobalt (ug/L)
Chromium (ug/L)
Copper (_g/L)
Iron
Lead (-jg/L)
Magnesi urn
Manganese
Mercury (-jg/L)
Nickel Ug/L)
Potassium
Sodium
Zinc (ug/L)
Selenium (;.g/L)
1.9
7.4
10,535
200
6788.
1°
70
2452
--
0
0
--
7.7
--
0.2
0.5
2.5
--
0.04
0.04
2016
1.8
37
293k
20b
505k
50b
24,
20b
27K
100b
158
0.22
0.5b
179
14.4
1665
70
49
1.3
7.1
9184
364
6429
1D
70
1837
--
0
0
--
--
--
0.4
O.lb
8.0
—
0.06
0.05
2211
0.5
20b
645U
20b
703u
50b
20b
24
10,
100°
214
0.11
0.56
199
12.8
1275
186
32
Test and control sites are significantly different at the 0.05 level
Concentrations below detection limit indicated.
70
-------
TABLE 20. MEAN CONCENTRATIONS OF PARAMETERS IN TEST AND CONTROL SITE
GROUNDWATERS SAMPLED JANUARY, 1977 (DEPTH GREATER THAN 6 METERS)
Parameter
Dissolved Oxygen
pH
Conductivity
Total Alkalinity
Dissolved Solids
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
Chemical Oxygen Demand
Chloride
Sulfide-S
Total Col i form
Fecal Col i form
Total Organic C
Dissolved Organic C
Total Organic N
Soluble Organic N
Ammonium-N
Nitrate-N
Total Phosphorus
Soluble Phosphorus
Soluble Orthophosphate
Sulfate
Al uminum
Arsenic (yg/L)
Boron (yg/L)
Cadmium (yg/L)
Calcium
Cobalt (yg/L)
Chromium (yg/L)
Copper (yg/L)
Iron
Lead (yg/L)
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury (yg/L)
Nickel (yg/L)
Potassium
Sodium
Zinc (yg/L)
Selenium (yg/L)
Means (mg/L
Control
1.2
7.3
9405
204
3718,
lb
59
2957
—
19
0
--
--
--
0.5
0.2,
K
0.1D
--
0.04
0.04
2272
0.6
26
215
20b
343,
50b
39b
20 b
0 5D
100b
175
0.12
0 5D
50D
8.5
1756,
50b
36
unless noted)
Test
2.2
7.3
7839
271
5936,
lb
42
1912
—
43
11
--
--
--
0.9
0.2
2.7
--
0.06
0.04
1617
V
20b
224
20b
362,
50b
26b
20b
1h°
100b
206
0.08
0 5D
50b
5.6
1112.
50b
26
Concentrations below detection limit indicated.
71
-------
TABLE 21. MEAN CONCENTRATIONS OF PARAMETERS IN TEST AND CONTROL SITE
GROUNDWATERS SAMPLED APRIL, 1977 (DEPTH GREATER THAN 6 METERS)
Parameter
Dissolved Oxygen
PH
Conductivity
Total Alkalinity
Dissolved Solids
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
Chemical Oxygen Demand
Chloride
Sulfide-S
Total Col i form
Fecal Col i form
Total Organic C
Dissolved Organic C
Total Organic N
Soluble Organic N
Ammonium-N
Nitrate-N
Total Phosphorus
Soluble Phosphorus
Soluble Orthophosphate
Sulfate
Aluminum
Arsenic (pg/L)
Boron (pg/L)
Cadmium (pg/L)
Calcium
Cobalt (pg/L)
Chromium (pg/L)
Copper (pg/L)
Iron
Lead (pg/L)
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury (pg/L)
Nickel (pg/L)
Potassium
Sodium
Zinc (pg/L)
Selenium (pg/L)
Test and control sites are signi
Concentrations below detection 1
p
At least one sample analyzed too
Means (mg/L
Control
2.4
7.5
9192
229
7654k
lb
14
2577 .
O.lb
TNTCC
7
--
13.6
--
1.0
1. 1
O.lb
--
0.06
0.02
1796 ,
0 3
20b
244.
20b
611
"~ ~* U.
20b
20b
0.8
153
0.25
50b
16.6
1750
186
71
ficantly different at
imit indicated.
numerous to count.
72
unless noted)
Test
2.5
7.2
7682
288
6471
lb
23
2007 u
O.lb
57
1
--
10.6
--
0.3
0.4
6.5
—
0.033
0.01
1883 .
0,3b
20b
332.
20b
664
20b
20 K
0.5b
184
0.10
50b
12.4
1152
94
33a
the 0.05 level .
-------
TABLE 22. ANALYSIS SUMMARY
Test Site Test Site
Test Site Groundwater Groundwater
Irrigation Water All Wells, Deep Wells,
vs. All Rounds vs. All Rounds vs.
Control Site Control Site Control Site
Irrigation Water Groundwater Groundwater
Parameter (Table 11) (Table 12) (Table 17)
Dissolved Oxygen
pH Ca C
Conductivity
Total Alkalinity r T T
Dissolved Solids C
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
Chemical Oxygen Demand T
Chloride C C
Sulfide-S
Total Coliform
Fecal Coliform
Dissolved Organic C
Soluble Organic N
Ammonium-N T C
Nitrate-N T T
Total Phosphorus T
Soluble Phosphorus T
Soluble Orthophosphate T
Sulfate
Aluminum
Arsenic
Boron
Cadmium
Calcium
Cobalt
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium T
Sodium C C
Zinc
Selenium C C
a C - Significant difference at the 0.05 level with the concentration higher
at the control site.
T - Significant difference at the 0.05 level with the concentration higher
at the test site.
73
-------
groundwater comparisons, indicating that the phosphorus, potassium, and
organics were adsorbed in the soil, microbially reduced, or utilized by the
plants before the percolate reached the groundwater.
In addition, the blank spaces in Table 22 shown for the remaining param-
eters indicated that either no significant difference existed between irriga-
tion effluent at the test site and irrigation water at the control site or
the concentration in the control site irrigation water was greater than the
test site irrigation water. The same was true for the comparisons between
groundwaters at the test and control sites.
A statistical comparison of the means of the water quality parameters
for wells at varying depths at the test site was made. Wells at the test
site were arbitrarily grouped as those having a screened depth greater than
6 m (20 ft) and less than 6 m (20 ft). Sample means calculated for the two
groups appear in Table 23. As in the previous analyses, the method of
pooled variances was used to compare the various means of the two groups for
significant differences at the 0.05 level. Table 23 shows nitrate to be the
only parameter found to be significantly different at the 0.05 level for the
two groups with a sample mean concentration of 13 mg/L for wells less than 6
m (20 ft) deep and a sample mean concentration of 6.5 mg/L for wells greater
than 6 m (20 ft) deep. All other parameters show no significant change with
depth in the groundwater at the test site.
The final statistical comparison was the evaluation of the significance
of changes in various parameter concentrations as a function of season for
groundwater at the test site. The test site wells were grouped as in the
previous analysis. For each group an analysis was performed to determine if
differences in mean parameter concentrations were significant at the 0.05
level from round one to round two, round two to round three, and round three
to round four. The results of the analysis are shown in Table 24.
For the shallower wells (<6 m), 9 out of 35 parameters showed a signifi-
cant difference in mean values for at least one of the three comparisons
made, and only 1 of 37 (calcium) showed significant differences for all three
comparisons. For the deeper wells, 12 of 35 parameters showed significant
differences at the 0.05 level for at least one of the three comparisons with
no parameter having significant differences for all three comparisons.
Overall, 15 of 35 parameters were found to have significant differences
seasonally for at least one comparison.
These results serve to emphasize the necessity for an effective moni-
toring program to include sampling during all seasons of the year, as sig-
nificant changes in quality were found to occur for a number of parameters.
The seasonal changes occur as a result of a number of interactions including
groundwater movement below the site, fluctuations in groundwater level in and
out of the capillary zone, changes in quantity and quality characteristics of
percolating irrigation water, and rainfall recharge. For example, the in-
crease in chloride concentration and simultaneous decrease in nitrate concen-
tration observed from round two to round three could possibly reflect dilution
with water from another origin with higher chloride concentrations and/or
changes in quality of percolating water coinciding with the end of the irriga-
74
-------
TABLE 23. MEAN CONCENTRATIONS OF PARAMETERS IN TEST SITE GROUNDWATERS
Parameter
Dissolved Oxygen
pH
Conductivity
Total Alkalinity
Dissolved Solids
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
Chemical Oxygen Demand
Chloride
Sulfide-S
Total Col i form
Fecal Col i form
Total Organic C
Dissolved Organic C
Total Organic N
Soluble Organic N
Ammonium-N
Nitrate-N
Total Phosphorus
Soluble Phosphorus
Soluble Orthophosphate
Sulfate
Aluminum
Arsenic (yg/L)
Boron (yg/L)
Cadmium (yg/L)
Calcium
Cobalt (yg/L)
Chromium (yg/L)
Copper (yg/L)
Iron
Lead (yg/L)
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury (yg/L)
Nickel (yg/L)
Potassium
Sodium
Zinc (yg/L)
Selenium (yg/L)
Means (mcj/L
<6 Meters
2.1
7.1
7431
323
5807,
lb
46
1673 .
O.lb
TNTCC
52
--
13.2
--
0.7
0.2
13.0
--
0.39
0.08
1842
V
20b
397.
20b
503
50b
20b
61
9'5 8
100D
160
o-1!
0.5°
62
10.0
1073
137
29
unless noted)
>6 Meters
1.9
7.1
8197
328
6396,
lb
58
1904 .
O.lb
TNTC
6
--
15.0
—
0.8
0.2
6.5a
--
0.38
0.21
1905
°F>9
20b
353
20b
550
5°b
20°
65
3b4
100°
173
0.1J
0.5°
68
9.4
1122
117
30
a Significant difference at the 0.05 level.
Concentrations below detection limit indicated.
c At least one sample analyzed too numerous to count.
75
-------
TABLE 24 SEASONAL VARIATION OF MEAN CONCENTRATIONS OF VARIOUS PARAMETERS
IN GROUNDWATER AT THE TEST SITE. ROSWELL, NEW MEXICO
Round 1 vs.
Round 2
Wei
Parameter <6 m
Dissolved Oxygen
PH
Conductivity
Total Alkalinity
Dissolved Solids
Biochemical Oxygen
Demand
Chemical Oxygen
Demand
Chloride
a
Total Col i form TNTCC
Fecal Col i form
Dissolved Organic C
Soluble Organic N
Ammonium-N
Nitrate-N
Soluble Phosphorus
Soluble Ortho-
phosphate
Sulfate
Aluminum
Arsenic
Boron
Cadmium
Calcium
Cobalt
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Sodium
Zinc
Selenium
D
a
D
D
-
a
I
a
I
a
a
a
a
I
a
a
I
-
1 Depth
>6 m
I
a
TNTC
-
D
a
D
-
D
a
I
a
I
a
a
D
I
a
I
a
a
I
-
Round 2 vs
Round 3
Well Depth
<6 m >6
a
I
a
D
a
D
a
D
a
a
a
a
I
a
a
D
•
m
a
D
a
a
D
a
D
a
a
a
a
a
a
D
Round 3 vs
Round 4
Well Depth
<6 m >6
a
a
D
a
a
a
I
a
a
a
a
a
D
a
a
m
a
I
a
a
a
a
I
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
I
Significant difference
Mean concentrations be!
Significant difference
at
ow
at
T
0.05 level
detection
0.05 level
with increase in
limits.
with decrease in
mean
mean
concentration.
concentration.
76
-------
tion season. The effects of the interactions are further exemplified in
Figure 13, where means for selected parameters from Table 24 found to have
significant seasonal changes are depicted.
The salient groundwater quality parameters that were differentiate
between the test and control sites are discussed in more detail in the
following paragraphs. In all cases, these parameters were present in the
irrigation effluent at concentrations markedly greater than occurred in
incident precipitation. The complete list and data for groundwater quality
parameters, including those for which no significant differences were ob-
served between the test and control sites, are tabulated in Appendix B.
Nitrogen--
Ammonium nitrogen concentrations ranged from less than 0.1 to 2.1 mg/L
at the control sites and from less than 0.1 to 0.8 mg/L at the test site
(Figure 14). The higher concentrations were generally and unexplainably
observed in the April, 1977, samples at both the test and control sites.
There was no correlation of concentrations with depth. The average of 12
analyses at the control site was <0.35 mg/L and <0.21 mg/L for 51 analyses at
the test site. Thus, ammonium nitrogen was not present in higher concentra-
tions in this test site groundwater as a result of effluent irrigation.
Soluble organic nitrogen concentrations ranged from less than 0.1 to 2.0
mg/L at the control sites and from less than 0.1 to 4.2 mg/L at the test site
(Figure 15). A trend with sampling period was generally observed at both the
control and test sites with maximum concentrations being observed for the
June, 1976, and April, 1977, periods and minimum concentrations usually
corresponding with the October, 1976, sampling. A seasonal correlation is
possible but is not readily explainable. There was no correlation between
concentrations and depth. The average of 12 analyses at the control site was
less than 0.84 mg/L and 51 analyses at the test site was less than 0.75 mg/L.
Thus, soluble organic nitrogen was not present in higher concentrations in
the test site groundwater as a result of effluent irrigation.
The observations regarding nitrate nitrogen, however, were more complex.
Although the analytical method for measuring nitrate nitrogen was changed on
the third sampling round, all data were considered valid. The possibility
does exist that the higher values for nitrate nitrogen on the first two
rounds were due to analytical problems.
Test site well numbers 12150, 12210, 12090, 12170, 12201, 12202, 12203,
and 12130 (Figures 12 and 16) all showed relatively high nitrate nitrogen in
the general range of 5 to 30 mg/L with an average concentration of less than
13.6 mg/L. These wells were located on the west and north perimeter of the
test site.
Alternatively, test site well numbers 12160, 12050, 12043, 12030, and
12140 showed relatively lower nitrate nitrogen concentrations in the range of
0 to 8 mg/L. These wells were located in the south, east, and central
region of the test site. The existence of a decided nitrate nitrogen gradient
indicated a source of nitrate nitrogen to groundwater at the west and north
boundaries of the test site (Figure 17). It is possible that the combined
77
-------
2200-
~ ieoO'
< .
— 1600'
1400
650
550-
450-
350>
V
18-
1?
C71
E 14-1
if)
O
z
10-
6-
CA
ROUND NO. I
JUNE 1976
CL
CA
N03
ROUND NO. 2
OCT. 1976
CL
CA
ROUND NO. 3
JAN.1977
CA
ROUND N0.4
APR. 1977
Figure 13 Means of selected parameters for which seasonal changes
shown were significant at the 0.05 level.
78
-------
JUNE,1976
Up>trtoia Control
fQ. I "
'i6-i9.s
^40-45
JAN., 1977
APRIL, 1977
40 - 45
Upstr«OHi Control
0.2
9 I 6 - I 9.5
Dewmfrtam Controlt
<-0. 1 2.1
60-70
40-45
SOOftet
volua of poromater . mq/L
J Scr««n d«pth (in f««t)
N A-Not Avoilobl*
Diractkxi of groundwoter flow
200 meters
(Control Sit** Data Mot To Seal*)
Figure 14. Test site groundwater constituents-Ammonium Nitrogen.
79
-------
JUNE,1976
Up»trto» Control
^16-19.5
Downitrcom Control*
, 2-Q
eo-ro
/I6-I9
.9
JAN.. 1977
APRIL. 1977
80Ofe«t
200 meters
volue of porometer. mg/L
depth (in feet)
N A-Not Avoilable
Direction of groundwater flow
i Control Sites Data Not To Scale)
Rgure 15. Test site groundwater constituents-Organic Nitrogen.
80
-------
JUNE,1976
Upttrtom Control
2. 9
'14-19.5
OCT., 1976
T\ 23.8
40-45
JAN., 1977
APRIL, 1977
Up»tr«om Control
16-19.5
Dowrntrton Control*
*0.l
Upatrtoi* Control
1.4
j' 16-19.5
Down>tr«o» Control!
•^a i <:o. i
• 60-70 • 40-45
8OO f««t
_ volue of poromet«r , mg/L
J Scre«n depth ( in f««t )
N A - Not Availobl«
Direction of ground water flow
200 meter*
(Control Sites Data Not To Scal«)
RgurelS.Test site groundwater constituents- Nitrate Nitrogen.
81
-------
-f*. DIRECTION OF SROUNDWATER FLOW
I 20
a ~
c
a
O
a
-
2
n
n
Well No. 12170 12202 12043 12090 12050 12030 12150 12160 12140
Figure 17 Change m Nitrate Nitrogen across the test site.
C
O
o
c
c»
o
z ""
z
z
0
•o
•
"a
£
o
ft
a
a
—
f^-
lO
*
••
U3
I
O r-
M
4
; P
10
r*.
i
O
^»
M
7
IB
.^
^
1
^
™
Well Na 12050 '2030 12043 12210
Figure 18. Seasonal change m Nitrate Nitrogen at the test Site.
82
-------
sludge plus effluent application site to the west and north of the test site
was responsible for this nitrate nitrogen.
The lower nitrate nitrogen concentrations in the monitoring wells in the
downgradient area of the test site led to the conclusion that the irrigation
recharge occurring on the test site was sufficiently stripped of nitrate
nitrogen so that this recharge acted as a diluent for the upstream nitrate
nitrogen flows. Thus, nitrate nitrogen removal performance as a by-product
of effluent irrigation on the test site appeared to be satisfactory with an
average residual nitrate nitrogen concentration of less than 4.4 mg/L being
achieved. This was in the general range of the concentrations observed at
the control wells 11030, 11050, and 11060, which had an average nitrate
nitrogen concentration of less than 1.3 mg/L and a concentration range of
<0.1 to 3.3 mg/L. The average total nitrogen concentration in the irrigation
effluent was 42.2 mg/L and in the irrigation well water was 2.7 mg/L.
The nitrate nitrogen data demonstrated other noteworthy characteristics.
At a given well location and at different sampling times, it appeared that
nitrification activity can be correlated with the season of the year. For
example, in wells 12050, 12030, 12043, and 12210, the nitrate nitrogen con-
centration was at a minimum in January, 1977, which suggested minimum winter
nitrification activity (Figure 18).
Denitrification possibilities from travel through the saturated zone
were examined. Sufficient organic constituents were present, as evidenced by
the relatively high COD concentrations, to potentially serve as the carbon
source for denitrification. While the nitrate nitrogen concentration of the
groundwater decreased across the site as previously indicated, there was not
a corresponding decrease in organic constituents, as evidenced by a relative-
ly constant COD concentration. It was therefore concluded that denitrifica-
tion was not occurring to any marked extent in the saturated zone.
A final complicating evapotranspiration phenomenon should be mentioned
for nitrate nitrogen as it was applicable to all groundwater parameters ca-
pable of downward migration. Given the 25 percent recharge that was pro-
jected to be occurring as a result of irrigation (i.e., 0.20 m (8 in) of net
recharge from 0.80 m (32 in) of irrigation), the actual treatment performance
of the Roswell effluent irrigation system was equivalent to removing nitrate
nitrogen to a residual that is less than 25 percent of an average 4.4 mg/L or
to less than an average 1.1 mg/L of nitrate nitrogen for the original 0.80 m
(32 in) effluent application.
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)--
The COD concentrations of the irrigation effluent have been identified
earlier as abnormally high at 135 to 206 mg/L for a secondary effluent. A
packing plant wastewater contribution to the Roswell municipal system has
been identified as a possible source of organic constituents that are rela-
tively slow to biodegrade.
The COD concentration of all test site groundwater samples averaged 52
mg/L and had a range from 12 to 169 mg/L (Figure 19). The COD concentration
of all control site groundwater samples averaged 47 mg/L with a range of 12
83
-------
JUNE,1976
Upurtom Control | Dov»n»tr«o»i Control*
'16-19.5 I S 60-70 ^-40-45
- 45
JAM, 1977
APRIL, 1977
Up«tr
-------
to 111 mg/L. The average COD concentration for the irrigation effluent was
172 mg/L and for the irrigation groundwater was 29.0 mg/L. Thus, the average
COD concentration in the control site groundwater was within 10 percent of
the test site average groundwater concentration.
COD concentrations at the test site were highest for the June, 1976,
sampling and tended to diminish in concentration for subsequent sampling
dates (Figure 20). This correlated reasonably well with the March through
July effluent irrigation schedule.
a.
E
o
o
a
10 0_
50_
0
ID
ID
M
r-
i
M
£
,
^
n
12202
(O
f^.
' f^_
1
o
r-
h-
i
f-
r-
•
-------
Dissolved Solids
Up«trtB« Control
I Down*tr«am Control!
J, 9800—5
| /60-TO .X40-
Chlorides
Sodium
Sulfate
Upitrtom Confrol
337
16-19.5
Do»n«tr«o» CortroU
!305 1002
60-70
I5Z9
• 40^45
800 feet
Mean value of poromettr . mq/L
V^ Screen depth (in feet)
N A - Not Available
Direction of groondwater flow
200m«ter»
(Control Sites Data Not To Scale)
RgurcZl.Test site groundwater constituents -Selected Parameters.
86
-------
times, or from 400 to 600-2,400 mg/L and from 700 to 1,050-2,800 mg/L,
respectively.
Possible conclusions from these results could be that (1) dissolved
solids and sulfate concentrations were primarily determined by soil geochetn-
ical interactions and were relatively independent of current irrigation
practice; (2) the increased sodium and chloride concentrations observed in
the test and control site groundwaters were manifestations of evapotranspira-
tion from the irrigation practices known to be occurring; and (3) given the
groundwater conditions and irrigation practices that existed in the Roswell
area, the increases in concentrations would occur in the groundwater as a
result of the use of either effluent or conventional irrigation water.
Sodium and chloride pass through the soil column of a land treatment
system relatively unchanged and could be termed conservative parameters.
Sulfates and dissolved solids interact with the mineralized soils of the
Roswell area and can be increased or decreased in concentration by passage
through the soil column.
Phosphorus--
The phosphorus concentrations in the test site and control site wells
and lysimeter were generally near minimum detectable levels compared with an
average irrigation effluent concentration of total phosphorus of 8.0 mg/L.
Thus, accumulation in the body of the soil could be anticipated. Detailed
discussion of this interaction is presented in the subsequent section on the
soil results. The lysimeter data for phosphorus samples 124104, 124202
through 124204, and 124302 through 124304 qualitatively indicated that
phosphorus removal was still taking place over the upper 2 meters of soil
horizon. The results were not quantitative because evaporative effects were
not taken into account in the lysimeters.
Soluble phosphorus concentrations in groundwater ranged from 0.01 to 2.6
mg/L at the control sites and from <0.01 to 4.2 mg/L at the test site.
Soluble orthophosphate phosphorus ranged from <0.01 to 0.37 mg/L at the
control site and from <0.01 to 2.4 mg/L at the test site. The average
soluble phosphorus concentrations were 0.55 mg/L (8 samples) at the control
site and 0.38 mg/L (49 samples) at the test site. The average of 8 soluble
orthophosphate phosphorus analyses at the control site was 0.11 mg/L and of
49 samples at the test site was 0.14 mg/L. For both parameters a statistical
analysis (Table 12) showed no significant difference at the 0.05 level
between the test and control sites.
Metals--
Groundwater was examined for the presence of the following metals--
arsenic, cadmium, cobalt, chromium, copper, iron, lead, manganese, mercury,
nickel, selenium, and zinc. Except for iron, manganese, selenium, and zinc,
which were low and comparable for the test and control sites, concentrations
of metals were generally at or below minimum detectable levels.
Iron concentrations ranged from 0.3 to 1.6, manganese from <0.05 to
0.48, selenium from <0.010 to 0.083, and zinc from 0.05 to 0.20 mg/L at the
control sites; iron concentrations ranged from <0.2 to 0.8, manganese from
87
-------
<0.05 to 0.28, selenium from <0.010 to 0.062, and zinc from 0.020 to 0.35
mg/L at the test sites (Figure 22).
The averages of three iron, manganese, selenium, and zinc analyses at
the control sites were 1.0, 0.26, 0.047, and 0.14 mg/L, respectively, and of
12 analyses at the test site were 0.38, 0.11, 0.031, and 0.11 mg/L, respec-
tively.
There was no significant trend of metals concentrations between control
and test sites with depth in groundwater or with location on the test site.
The concentrations of iron, manganese, selenium, and zinc in the irrigation
groundwater from the shallow aquifer were observed at <0.2, <0.05, <0.01, and
<0.02 mg/L, respectively.
This determination was based on fourth round data. During the first
three rounds, the groundwater samples for metals analysis were filtered only
if the samples were turbid. Normally, the groundwater samples were clear
with no solids visually present. However, due to the significant variance in
metals data for the first three rounds, it was determined to filter all
samples regardless of clarity during the fourth round.
Pesticides and Herbicides--
The chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides and herbicides examined included
endrin, lindane, methoxychlor, toxaphene, 2,4-D, and 2,4,5 TP silvex.
Endrin, methoxychlor, and toxaphene were not observed at their respective
detectable limits of 0.03, 0.01, and 0.1 ng/L at any time during this inves-
tigation.
The insecticide lindane occurred at a concentration in the range of <0.1
to 49 ng/L at the control sites and from <0.1 to 850 ng/L at the test site
(Figure 23). The average of 12 analyses at the control sites was 10.5 ng/L
and of 51 analyses at the test site was 74.3 ng/L. The irrigation effluent
had a concentration range of 49 to 1,250 ng/L and an average concentration of
560 ng/L. Irrigation groundwater from the shallow aquifer had a concentra-
tion range of 1.3 to 72 ng/L and an average concentration of 26 ng/L. The
high, sustained application rate associated with ridge-and-furrow irrigation
together with the extremely slow rates of biodegradation for some chlorinated
hydrocarbons may account for the apparent leakage of small amounts of lindane
at the test site. However, the test site lindane concentration was well
below the maximum contaminant level of 4,000 ng/L allowed by the current
National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations.
The herbicide 2,4-D occurred at a concentration in the range of 0.4 to
46.4 ng/L at the control sites and from <0.4 to 88.5 ng/L at the test site
(Figure 24). The average of 12 analyses at the control sites was 13.1 ng/L
and of 48 analyses at the test site was 10.4 ng/L. The irrigation effluent
had a concentration range of 0.6 to 64 ng/L and an average concentration of
29 ng/L. Irrigation groundwater from the shallow aquifer had a concentration
range of 0.6 to 18.4 ng/L and an average concentration of 7.6 ng/L. No
significant difference was thus observed between the test and control sites.
Current National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations specify a maximum
contaminant level for 2,4-D of 100,000 ng/L.
-------
Iron
.rrjal^-'-T
conci
f\ MA
; 7-9 ^0.
Uptlr«o» Control I Do-»n«tr«
j.s J, , a, a
Mor-ggnese
Selenium
Zinc
Up>tfioii> Control
0 051
«r 16-191
Control!
0 18
60-TO
0.20
• 40-45
80O feet
200 meters
Mepn volm of porometer , rng/L
/ Screen depth (in feet)
N A - No« Avoiioble
" ;> Direction of grrxindwoter flow
(Control Sites Doto Not To Scole! "
Rgure22.Test site groundwater constituents-Heavy Metals.
-------
Ue«trtm» Control
'is-u.s
Downstream Control*
III
40-43
r\350
JAN., 1977
APRIL, 1977
8OO feet
200 meter*
value of parameter ng/L
/ Screen depth (in feet)
N A - Not Available
[~~2 J> Direction of groundwater flow
(Control Sites Data Not To Scale)
Rgure 23.Test site groundwater constituents- Lindane
90
-------
JUNE,1976
JAN., 1977
APRIL, 1977
Up«trtom Control
13.2
Down»tr»o» Controls
39.8 46.4
IS. 2
•^16-19.8
8OOfe«t
volua of porametar . nq/L
/ Screen depth (in f««t)
NA -Not Available
Direction of groundwater flow
200 m«t*rs
(Control Sites Doto Not To Scale)
Rgure 24 Test site groundwater constituents- 2,4-D
91
-------
The herbicide 2,4,5 TP si 1 vex occurred at a concentration in the range
of <0.2 to 105 ng/L at the control sites and from <0.2 to 81.8 ng/L at the
test site (Figure 25). The average of 12 analyses at the control sites was
21.7 ng/L and of 48 analyses at the test site was 25.8 ng/L. The irrigation
effluent had a concentration range of <0.2 to 70.4 ng/L and an average
concentration of 28 ng/L. Irrigation groundwater from the shallow aquifer
had a concentration range of <0.2 to 5.8 ng/L and an average concentration of
2.1 ng/L. The difference between concentrations observed at the test and
control sites is not significant, given the availability and variation in
data. The maximum contaminant level allowed for 2,4,5 TP silvex in the
current National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations is 10,000 ng/L.
There was no trend of pesticide or herbicide concentrations with depth
of groundwater or location at the test site. There appeared to be some
seasonal trend in concentration for lindane and a different seasonal trend
for 2,4,5 TP silvex. Lindane concentrations were generally maximum for the
June, 1976, sampling, while 2,4,5 TP silvex was generally at maximum concen-
tration in the January, 1977, sampling. The significance of these trends is
not apparent and is not readily explainable.
SOILS
General
For many of the parameters investigated in the soil, the difference
between the control and test sites was not significant at the 0.05 level,
particularly at depths greater than 10 cm. Mean values and statistical
analysis are presented in Table 25. The method of pooled variances was
utilized to compare the means for the test site with those of the control
site at the 0.05 level of significance. The upper three sampling depths (0-
10 cm) were combined for analysis because of tillage during the study period.
Relative comparisons of total and extractable concentrations of elements
between control and test sites and the normal expected ranges of the various
elements in soils are shown in Figures 26 and 27.
Of the 38 soil parameters studied, 17 were significantly different at
the 0.05 level (Table 25) for the 0-10 cm depth, while only 5 were signifi-
cantly different for the 0-10 cm and 30 cm depths. For the 0-10 cm, 30 cm,
and 100 cm depths, only two parameters were significantly different, and none
were significantly different for all depths including 300 cm.
Phosphorus is the only parameter that can be correlated throughout the
system as being significantly greater at the test site in irrigation water,
upper soil profile, and plant leaves.
Since the past fertilizer and cropping history was the same for the test
and control sites, these effects were not considered in the evaluation.
Phosphorus--
Tota1--The total phosphorus concentration of test and control sites was
compared at six depths in order to estimate the phosphorus load as a result
of irrigation with effluent (Table 26).
92
-------
Up»tr«o»i Control
P^_
16-19.5
Downitr«e»i CentroU
60-70
^40-45
JAN., 1977
APRIL, )977
Upttrtom Confrol
15.8
16-19.5
Down»tr»oa Control!
70.6 105
Up3tr«o» Control I Oo»»«tf»o» c
•r 16-19.5 I • 60-70
ontrola
6.9
« 40-45
BOOfeet
200 meter*
volut of porameter . ng/L
/ Screen depth (in i«at)
N A-Nrt Available
Direction of grmindwater flow
(Control Sites Dote Not To Scole)
Rgure 25.Tcst site groundwater constituents-2,4,5 TP S1LVEX
93
-------
TABLE 25. SOIL MEANS FROM THE TEST AND CONTROL SITES
Inorganic Ni trogen
Total Organic Nitrogen
Total Phosphorus
Available Phosphorus
Total Sulfur
Cation Exchange Capacity (meq/100 g)
Extractable Aluminum
Extractable Boron
Extractable Cadmium
Extractable Cobalt
Extractable Chromium
Extractable Copper
Extractable Iron
Extractable Lead
Exchangeable Magnesium (mg/g)
Extractable Manganese
Extractable Nickel
Exchangeable Potassium (mg/g)
Exchangeable Sodium (mg/g)
[xtractable Zinc
Total Aluminum (mg/y)
Total Cadmium
Total Calcium (mg/g)
Total Cobalt
Total Chromium
lotal Copper
Total Iron (mg/g)
Total Lead
Total Magnesium (mg/g)
Total Manganese
Total Mercury
Total Nickel
Total Potassium (mq/q)
Total Sodiun (mg/g)
Total Zinc
Total Arsenic
ToLdl Selenium
Means (pg/g except where noted)
Depth
Test
: 0-10 cm
Control
Depth:
Test
30 cm
Control
Depth:
Test
100 cm
Control
Depth:
Test
300 cm
Control
8.2
56, 5a
1777a
163ba
56a
1930
ieq/100 g) 31
3.0b
1.15a
0.05b
0.12b
0.10b
1 6
14a
? fi
9) Li'
53 _,
0.5a
g) l.la
1.5 a
2.20
22fa
29
10
3,a
19
? 7
10b
5,4
355a ,
0.5b
11.0
11.3
5 5
703
2!
0
8.1
32.5
1220
1103
18
3935
23.0b
0.65,
0.05b
0.12b
0.10D
1.0
9
1.7
0.9
21
0.2
0.6
1.2
0.93
25b
31
9
28
18
24
iob
6.1
410 h
0.5b
11.7
12.9
6.6
60
lb
8.1
56.0
859
1174a
12
4100
30 K
3.0b
1.14,
0.05b
0.12b
o.igb
2,33
11
1.6
1.1
39
0.4d
1.1
1.4
1.61
j
32
9
32
19
7 S
10°
5.4
346
0.5°
11.7
11.1
S.n
69
22
1
7.9
32.9
764
855
9
8317
23 Ob
0.75h
0.05b
0.12
0.10
1.0
7
1.5
0.9
17
0.2
0.7
1.2
0.98
""
38
7
28
19
?7
iob
7.1
428
0.5°
12.3
11.4
6.8
62
lb
7.8
27.2
350
655
5
14607
32 h
3.0b
0.92h
0.05b
0.12b
0.10b
27
20
2.6
1.22
57 ,
0.4a
0.8
2.0
0.88
2lb
37
8
30
17
T 1
5
56
266 h
0.5b
12.9
11.1
4.5
64
24a
1
7.6
23.7
502
795
9
21059
26 K
3.0b
0.68,
0.05b
0.12b
0.10b
1.9
7
1.0
1.23
15
0.2
0.5
1.7
1.08
^
44
8
26
20
??
5b
6.3
441 ,
0.5b
16.5
12.2
6.0
61
11,
lb
0.1
30.5
260
748
6
3252
26
3.0b
0.89.
0.05b
0.12b
0.10b
2.2
20
3.3
1.07
19
0.5
0.7
2.3
1.10
^
27a
12
31
20
17
5
4.0
340 .
0.5b
12.7
11.2
5.4
66
26
1
7.3
29.4
287
665
1
15050
27 H,
3.0b
0.68.
0.05b
0.12b
o.iob
1.9
14
1.5
1.35
11
0.2
0.7
2.5
0.73
:ib
51
10
24
18
-Ij-v
5b
5.6
517 h
0.5b
13.5
9.4
5.7
46
25
lb
d lest and control sites significantly different at the 0.05 level.
b Concentration;, below detection limit indicated.
-------
I05
IOJ
IOOC
•000
CT i
** 1
1
c
r/
J
N
T
^
£7
1
u
0
0 0
As
C
ff
y
%
{
^
j
N
N
i c T
|g - T
Pn p»
LJ uj tu
N_asL L
n
I
V
ft
!
j
i
j
I
i
i
yAlA —
dDT c,d
Cu
Co
C T
"in
I
\
sis!
i ! •;
-d H q
>J
C
v
c
a
T
n
V
N
-
_
Pb
N
T
17
_
~"
Mn
c
T
c T 17 m N c T
5 ? 12 |l
lp U °F8
Al
N
N
C T
@sa
n
Zn
C
3
-
V
if
X
\
C T
|
/;
'j.
i
1
i
1
1
h
H
M
L
—
1
^
^
o
V
J
-
c
77
I
7~
T
?
'/
JL
K
N
-
a
\
-
T
@
8
Na
fj
r
/
^
T
3
^
N
Ca
2
en
O
oH£
| ^
u H_,
,0 ^i
o o
Q- bJ 2
K ^r-
± One f] H N
Standard in „ /
Deviation w / < _>'
^
^
ELEMENT
Al
J J ^J
0.
001
Se
lean
or
I05
10"
1000
00
Typical Value
Figure 26. Total chemical element concentration levels for surface soils (0-IOcm)
in control site, test site, and normal agriculture soils.
95
-------
1 0 000
1
1000
100
10
V
o
a.
LO
O.I
0.01
C
!
i
N
T
?l
r^
i
\
6
T
T:
C X
n
N
if
/i
go
§ °
1
o
ti~
N
Cd
N
^
5
T
_
/
U
fi
A
^
N
£
c
_
6
T
Jp
JF.
N n
T
„
ci
T
c P-
7 r^
V
10.000
T
n T t\7,
i r« r>n
si nf
00 d ^
E3 M '/
>*> ft ^
\ '/ U
y A 1000
7, 2
u
100
T
r
n r/ N
If
i?
N /^
£,
z
"
T
U
Cu
Co Cr
N
Mn f
T N
y
c ^
1 i
P
*/
1 Zn
/
'/,
%
J 6
Pb fr
Ni
10
en
_*
8
UJ
tt
=>
t:
10 o
EC
.H<
h- CO^
^ K S
_j zo:
z
m
Mean or Typic
V
J
a01 ELEMENT
fi 1
Figure 27. Extractable or exchangeable chemical element concentration levels for
surface soils (0-10cm) in control site, test site, and normal agriculture soils.
96
-------
TABLE 26. ACCUMULATION OF TOTAL PHOSPHORUS (P) IN THE SOIL
Depth
Sample
No.
Control
11111
11211
11311
11131
11231
11331
X
= 1 cm
P (ng/g)
Site
1524
1007
1039
1215
1145
1284
= 1202
Depth
Sample
No.
11112
11212
11312
11132
11232
11332
X
= 3 cm
F (ng/g)
1092
985
953
1106
1141
1084
= 1060
Depth =
Sample F
No.
11113
11213
11313
11133
11233
11333
x =
10 cm
(i'9/g)
1114
1201
1093
955
928
981
1045
Depth
Sample
No.
11114
11214
11314
11134
11234
11334
= 30 cm
P (uq/g)
856
813
899
916
894
752
x = 855
Depth
Sample
No.
11115
11215
11315
11135
11235
11335
x
= 100 cm
P (ug/g)
737
877
1028
779
726
620
= 795
Depth =
Sample P
No.
11116
11216
11316
11136
11236
11336
x =
300 cm
(ug/g)
791
823
597
882
866
528
748
Test Site
12111
12211
12311
12131
12231
12331
X
1115
1632
1632
2051
1514
1828
= 1629
12112
12212
12312
12132
12232
12332
X
1266
1708
1481
1976
1492
1962
= 1648
12113
12213
12313
12133
12233
12333
x =
1546
1438
1675
1817
1580
1723
1630
12114
12214
12314
12134
12234
12334
x
1115
1028
1007
1410
1508
978
= 1174
12115
12215
12315
12135
12235
12335
x
446
759
662
869
671
523
= 655
12116
12216
12316
12136
12236
12336
x =
769
705
974
733
566
741
748
x = Means.
-------
The accumulation of phosphorus due to effluent irrigation was restricted
to the upper 30 cm (12 in) of the soil profile.
The phosphorus content of the effluent was in the range of 5.2 to 9.5
mg/L with a mean value of 8 mg/L. At an application rate of 0.80 meter per
year for 33 years, the total phosphorus applied to the test site was 2,110
kg/ha (1,880 Ib/acre).
The analyses of the soil indicated an excess of total phosphorus at the
test site over the control site in a range of 187 to 527 yg/g with a mean of
493 ug/g at depths of 0 to 10 cm (0 to 4 in) and a range of 226 to 616 yg/g
with a mean of 452 yg/g at depths of 10 to 30 cm (4 to 12 in). At a bulk
density of 1.3 and 1.5 for the 0 to 10 cm (0 to 4 in) depth and 10 to 30 cm
(4 to 12 in) depth, respectively, calculations indicated a total excess of
phosphorus in the upper 30 cm (12 in) of the test site soil of 1,997 kg/ha
(1,780 Ib/acre).
The variance between the calculation based on effluent analysis and that
based on soil analysis is less than the variance in the data. Therefore, for
practical purposes, the assumption was made that all the phosphorus added
through irrigation with effluent can be accounted for by accumulation in the
soil, since both sites had been fertilized equally.
Avai1able--Avai1able phosphorus, the more soluble form of phosphorus,
was not significantly different below the 10-cm depth. The water-soluble
orthophosphate, contained in the effluent at a mean value of 6.5 mg/L, is
rendered insoluble as the effluent infiltrates the soil.
Exchangeable Potassium--
The exchangeable potassium in the test site soil is significantly great-
er than that in the control site soil at the 0-10 cm depth only. This
correlates with the irrigation water analysis, since the potassium content of
the effluent is significantly greater than that of the well water.
The mean potassium content of the corn leaves is the same. Since the
total potassium content of the soil at both sites is practically the same,
the assumption is made that luxury consumption of potassium occurred in the
corn and masked the effect of the potassium in the wastewater.
Nitrogen--
The data for inorganic nitrogen and organic nitrogen for the soils are
tabulated in Tables C-l and C-2, Appendix C. The first step in the analysis
was to compute various means to facilitate observation of trends. The
following trends were observed:
Observation 1: Organic nitrogen concentration at the test site was
greater than that at the control site for depths less than 10 cm. For
depths greater than 10 cm, no difference was observed.
Observation 2: There was a consistent decrease of organic nitrogen with
increased depth at the control and the test sites.
98
-------
Observation 3: Inorganic nitrogen concentration at the test site was
greater than that at the control site for depths less than 30 cm. For
depths greater than 30 cm, no difference was observed.
Observation 4: There was a seasonal decrease in inorganic nitrogen from
June, 1976, to January, 1977.
An analysis using statistical and regression techniques was applied to
the data to validate the accuracy of the observations made above. The
analysis is summarized in Appendix C.
Cation Exchange Capacity--
Although the values for cation exchange capacity were lower than ex-
pected for this soil type, there was a significant difference in the 0-10 cm
depth. This correlates with the increased organic matter content based on
the organic nitrogen content at that depth. Although no significant differ-
ence was apparent at the 30 cm depth, there was a significant difference in
cation exchange capacity at the 100 cm depth, but this did not correlate with
organic matter. This is considered an anomaly, since it is unlikely that
organic matter has infiltrated to this depth in this soil type.
Other Significantly Different Soil Parameters--
Extractable boron, extractable lead, extractable zinc, exchangeable
magnesium, total chromium, total selenium, and total zinc were significantly
greater in the test site soil for the 0-10 cm depth only.
Extractable copper was significantly greater in the test site soil than
in the control site soil at both the 0-10 cm depth and the 30 cm depth.
Extractable iron and nickel were significantly greater in the test site
soil than in the control site soil at all depths down to and including 100
cm.
Although these parameters were not significantly different in the
irrigation water, their means were greater in the effluent than in the well
water. Considering the vast amount of irrigation water applied over the past
33 years, it is assumed that a real difference exists in minimal quantities
that cannot be substantiated statistically with only one year's data.
The difference in iron content is assumed to be due to a natural differ-
ence in the two soils; this could possibly be true for copper and nickel as
well, since they are not normally expected to leach to these depths if they
are contained in effluent irrigation water.
Sodium and Manganese--
The total sodium and manganese content of the soil at the control site
was significantly greater than that of the test site. This is assumed to be
a natural occurrence since no difference exists between irrigation water.
All Other Parameters--
Those parameters not significantly different are considered to be equal
at the same level of confidence.
99
-------
PLANTS
The 21 parameters.studied in the ear leaf of the corn plants at the test
and control sites are shown in Table 27 with the differences computed at the
0.05 level of significance.
TABLE 27. MEAN CONCENTRATIONS OF PARAMETERS IN PLANT LEAVES FROM
TEST AND CONTROL SITES
Means (yg/g unless noted)
rest
Control
Normal Range0
Ammonium-N
Total Organic-N (mg/g)
Nitrite plus Nitrate-N
Total Phosphorus (mg/g)
Total Sulfur
Arsenic
Boron
Cadmium
Calcium (mg/g)
Cobalt
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Magnesium (mg/g)
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium (mg/g)
Sodium
Zinc
Selenium
647
19.5
700
3.4
552
1
28,0
2b
6 96
5D
7
19b
10b
4.7
77b
3h
5b
0.5
108
64
0.5b
335
14.2
915
2.3a
844
1D
32.6
2b
9,09
5
7
12b
10b
1.2
49b
3b
5b
0.5
75
57
0.5b
27-35
—
2-4
1000-3000
1-10
10-100
0.01-1
4-10
1-50
1-100
2-100
0.1-10
2-4
5-500
0.01-1
1-100
17-25
100-500
10-300
0.1-10
a Significantly different at the
Concentration below detection 1
c Bear, 1964, and Walsh, 1973.
0.05 level.
imits indicated.
The phosphorus content of the test site corn leaves was significantly
greater than that of the control site. It would appear that the crop nutri-
ent quality was increased by the effluent irrigation.
The corn leaf's calcium content was significantly greater at the control
site than at the test site with values at the high normal range. Although
there was no significant difference in calcium values in the soil and water
samples between the test and control site, the sample means for the control
10U
-------
site calcium were slightly higher in all cases. This could account for the
higher calcium of the control site plants.
All other parameters investigated in corn leaves are considered equal
and are within normal ranges.
The 21 parameters analyzed in the corn grain from the test site are com-
pared with normal values in Table 28. Data from the control site were not
available due to a variation in harvesting methods that made it impossible to
obtain a grain sample.
TABLE 28. MEAN CONCENTRATIONS OF PARAMETERS IN CORN GRAIN
FROM TEST SITE AND NORMAL VALUES
Means (yg/g unless noted)
Test Normal Value
Ammoni um-N
Total Organic-N (mg/g)
Nitrite plus Nitrate-N
Total Phosphorus (mg/g)
Total Sulfur
Arsenic
Boron
Cadmium
Calcium (mg/g)
Cobalt
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Magnesium (mg/g)
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium (mg/g)
Sodium
Zinc
Selenium
51
10.1
781.5
3.5
369.5
<1
10.5
2
0.1
<5
4
11
<10
0.4
<10
<3
<5
0.5
53.6
26.3
<0.5
__
10
--
1.7
1500
__
4.7
<0.5
1.8
0.1
0.8
5
0.8
1.2
6
--
<0.5
4
26.2
10
0.4
The values for sulfur and calcium in the analyses of the corn grain were
lower than are normally found. This was unexplainable since there were no
control samples for comparison.
The data in Tables 27 and 28 indicate that no detrimental elements are
entering the food chain due to wastewater irrigation of the corn crop.
101
-------
HEALTH ASPECTS
Viruses
The sewage treatment plant effluent tested positive for viruses. Polio-
virus types I, II, and III were found on all three testing dates, and Echo-
virus type 7 was present in the October, 1976, and April, 1977, runs but not
in January, 1977 (Table 29).
TABLE 29. VIRUS IDENTIFICATION FROM SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT EFFLUENT
Source
Sample No.
Date
Sampled
Infectious
Virus Units
Per 100 L Sample
Virus Identified3
STP Effluent
124602
STP Effluent
124603
STP Effluent
124604
10/23/76
125
1/8/77
4/27/77
96
507
Poliovirus I
Poliovirus II
Echovirus 7
Poliovirus II
Echovirus 7
Poliovirus III
A limited number of infectious virus units were selected at random for
identification. No attempt to quantify the viral types was made.
No attempt was made to differentiate wild or vaccine strains.
Cytotoxicity in the October 23, 1976, sample of sewage treatment plant
effluent required retesting after centrifugation and filtration in the lab-
oratory. Viruses were found in this sample after retesting.
All samples from the test and upstream control wells tested negative for
viruses (Table 30). The experience in this study confirmed that of other in-
vestigations in that recovery of viruses is rare from groundwater even near
the surface or at sites of wastewater application and wherever the soil con-
tains sufficient clay particles and the application is intermittent.
No attempt was made to further type the poliovirus isolates as to wild
or vaccine strains. However, contacts with the New Mexico State Health
Department and the National Center for Disease Control revealed no reports
of polio cases in New Mexico during the study period.
102
-------
TABLE 30. VIRUS ISOLATION
o
CO
-
Source Depth
Sample No. Screened
(m)
Upstream Wei 1
110302 4.9-6.1
110303
110304
Upstream Wei 1
122302 7.0-7.9
122303
122304
STP Effluent
124602 N/A
124603
124604
Test Site Well
122012 3-3.7
122013
122014
Test Site Well
121402 5.5-6.1
121403
121404
Test Site Well
120432 8.2-8.8
120433
120434
Test Site Well
122032 9.1-10.1
122033
122034
Test Site Well
120702 30.5-32
120703
Date
Sampled
(Mo/Day/Yr)
10/21/76
1/7/77
4/2S-/77
10/22/76
1/7/77
4/25/77
10/23/76
1/8/77
4/27/77
10/22/76
1/7/77
4/25/77
10/23/76
1/8/77
4/26/77
10/20/77
1/8/77
4/26/77
10/21/76
1/7/77
4/25/77
10/20/76
1/8/77
Original
Volume
of Sample
(D
310
11-4
151
330
170
167
80
57
76
333
151
133
288
159
167
352
170
167
344
159
132
291
159
Volume15
of
Concentrate
(nl)
66
55
31
55
24
35
176
55
220
66
33
33
88
34
44
55
20
42
55
50
28
121
25
Infectious
per 100 mL
of concentrate
0
0
0
0
0
0
57
100
175
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Virus Units
per 100 I
of sample
0
0
0
0
0
0
125
96
507
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
For location of wells see Figures 5, 7 and 9.
Volume of concentrate includes 10%, fetal calf serum.
-------
Additionally, there were no reported cases or epidemics of exanthems
aseptic meningitides or respiratory disease coinciding with the isolation of
Echovirus type 7 from the sewage treatment plant effluent.
It was significant that neither the tissue nor the surface of the corn
grown on the study site was found to be contaminated with viruses. These
results corroborated previous observations that crops rarely incorporate
human viruses into their tissues and if allowed to be exposed to drying and
sunlight, rarely exhibit viruses on their surface.
Coliform Bacteria
Most samples that showed high total and fecal coliform counts were
collected during first round sampling (Figures 28 and 29). Although initial-
ly chlorination of wells was used after construction, it was later decided
that the drill hole and gravel pack material should be chlorinated during
well construction. The elimination of high total and fecal coliform counts
on almost all later round samples validated this procedure.
A few wells (11060, 12030, 12090, 12150, 12160, and 12210) had positive
total and, in some cases, fecal coliform tests after first round sampling.
The source of the total and fecal coliform bacteria was unknown, although it
seemed reasonable to assume that some field or laboratory contamination was
possible despite the precautions taken to avpid such an occurrence. Perhaps
of more significance was the high number of samples that showed no positive
total or fecal coliform bacteria counts, indicating the satisfactory perform-
ance level of the land treatment system. Further, the statistical analysis
(Tables 12-21) presented earlier demonstrated there was no significant differ-
ence at the 0.05 level between the means for fecal coliform in the ground-
water at the test site and those at the control site.
INTERACTIONS OF WATER, SOILS, AND PLANTS
Necessarily, each of the parameters in this study had to be isolated for
data analysis and later interpretation. However, in addition to the signifi-
cance attributable to individual components of an ecosystem, the interactions
of the various components are also significant. The physical components of
the system (i.e., geology, hydrology, topography, etc.) comprise the struc-
tural framework for the development of the soil and the later biological
components (i.e., bacteria, plants, soil organisms, and other animals).
The application of wastewater to the land with inherent constituents of
the water may be regarded as an energy input to the ecosystem, resulting not
only in enhanced plant growth, but adding a potential for diversity in spe-
cies composition of the biota. The resulting enriched and improved environ-
ment is often overlooked by those whose primary focus is the potential health
hazards often associated with use of sewage effluent.
Chemicals in the wastewater interact with one another and with soil
particles at the air-soil interface. Several processes may occur here
simultaneously such as oxidation, nitrification, denitrification, evapora-
tion, and adsorption. As the water percolates through the soil, the physical
104
-------
JUNE,1976
itreom Control I Downitrtom Controls
TNTC L TNTC ~TNTC
•^16-19.3 I /60- 70 ^/40-45
OCT., 1976
/I6-I9.
45
JAN.. 1977
APRIL, 1977
>
TNTC
«40-45
8OO feet
200 meters
volua of porometer , */IOO mL
/ Screen depth (in feet)
N A - Not Availobla
\_~~~_ ^> Direction of groundwater flow
^i^^
(Control Sites Data Not To Scale) TNTC-TOO Numtrout TO coun,
Rgure 28 Test site groundwater constituents-Total Coliform
10!
-------
JUNE,1976
OCT., 1976
J AN. , 1977
APRIL, 1977
_ volue of poromtter .
J Screen depth ( in f««t )
N A - Not Available
Directicxi of groundvwater flow
(Control Sites Oota Not To Scale)
Rgure 29 Test site groundwater constituents - Fecal Coliform
106
-------
and chemical characteristics of the soil determine the fate of each element
in its downward migration. Available surface area of soil particles and the
chelating property of resident molecules combine to produce the distribution
and abundance of the chemical species in the soil profile.
In a natural as well as an agricultural system, the results of the above
interactions of soil and water influence the growth and development of plants.
Major nutrients required for plant growth, such as nitrogen and phosphorus,
as well as such trace elements as manganese or zinc are included as constit-
uents in wastewater. For the proper design management of wastewater irrigat-
ed land, it is essential that these various interactions be taken into
consideration. Mismanagement can result in a breakdown of natural processes
and barriers that lead to crop failures, lower crop yields, or, more impor-
tantly, the appearance of toxic elements, viruses, or coliform organisms in
groundwater. As indicated in several sections of this report, the land
treatment system at Roswell has not experienced such negative occurrences.
PROJECTED USEFUL LIFE OF SITE FOR WASTEWATER IRRIGATION
The original intent of this study was to provide answers to a number of
questions related to the long-term viability of land treatment systems. Two
such questions discussed in the following paragraphs are:
1. For how long a period can a land treatment system be expected
to provide satisfactory renovation treatment for wastewater?
2, What effect does continuing long-term application of organic,
nitrogenous, and heavy metal constituents have on the soil and
crop system?
If a projection of 100 years is considered, the additional load of
phosphorus each year is 64 kg/ha (57 Ib/acre) minus the harvest of 42 kg/ha
(37 Ib/acre) or 22 kg/ha (20 Ib/acre); so the total prospective load is
another 2,200 kg/ha (2,000 Ib/acre). If all the phosphorus is eventually
held as the stable hydroxyapatite, this will require 4,760 kg/ha (4,250
Ib/acre) calcium or 11,900 kg/ha (10,625 Ib/acre) calcium carbonate. If only
half of the total calcium shown in the Roswell profile is calcium carbonate
(a very conservative assumption), the reserve in the top 100 cm (39 in) of an
acre is between 227,000 and 272,400 kg (500,000 and 600,000 lb), which is
many times the required amount. The fact that no firm indication exists of
any accumulation of phosphorus below 30 cm (12 in) is also reassuring; this
plowed layer alone has proved to be a sufficient trap for the added phos-
phorus over 33 years.
The organic and inorganic nitrogen concentrations of the test site soils
and the control site soils were compared to establish the respective addi-
tional loadings on the test site soils as a result of effluent irrigation.
The additional organic nitrogen loading was calculated to be 1,400 kg/ha
(1,200 Ib/acre) down to a soil depth of 30 cm (12 in). The additional inor-
ganic nitrogen loading was calculated to be 150 kg/ha (130 Ib/acre) down to a
soil depth of 300 cm (120 in). The 33-year projected application of nitrogen
due to effluent application was in the range of 7,800 to 11,200 kg/ha (7,000
107
-------
to 10,000 Ib/acre) and due to synthetic fertilizer was 1,800 kg/ha (1,600
Ib/acre). Cropping accounts for 7,400 kg/ha (6,600 Ib/acre) and nitrate
nitrogen recharge of the groundwater exiting the test site accounts for 400
kg/ha (360 Ib/acre). Total nitrogen input was 9,600 to 13,000 kg/ha (8,600 to
11,600 lb/acre). Total nitrogen either at the test site or that has left the
test site was 9,350 kg/ha (8,330 Ib/acre). Unaccountable nitrogen, and
therefore presumed to be expended to volatilization and denitrification, was
250 to 3,650 kg/ha (270 to 3,270 lb/acre). Comparisons between the zinc,
copper, and chromium concentrations on the test site soils with those of the
control site soils could not be reconciled with the effluent and groundwater
concentrations of the respective metals.
108
-------
REFERENCES
American Public Health Association. 1971. Standard Methods for the Exami-
nation of Water and Wastewater. 13th ed. New York, N.Y. 874 pp.
American Public Health Association. 1976. Standard Methods for the Exami-
nation of Water and Wastewater. 14th ed. New York, N.Y. 1,119 pp.
Bauer, William J. 1976. Long Term Effects of Applying Wastewater to Land;
Site Selection Report (unpublished). Submitted to U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
Bear, Farman D. 1964. Chemistry of the Soil. ACS Monograph 160.
Black, C. A. (ed.). 1965. Methods of Soil Analysis, Parts 1 and 2. American
Society of Agronomy Series No. 9. 1,572 pp.
Bremner, J. M., and M. A. Tabatabai. 1972. Use of an Ammonia Electrode for
the Determination of Ammonium in Kjeldahl. Comm. Soil Science and Plant
Analysis, 3(2):159-165.
Busenberg, E., and C. V. Clemency. 1973. Determination of the Cation Ex-
change Capacity of Clays and Soils Using an Ammonia Electrode. Clays
and Clay Minerals, 21:213-217.
Crites, Ronald. 1977. Process Design Manual for Land Treatment of Municipal
Wastewater. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. 252
pp.
Ellis, Roscoe, Jr., John J. Hanway, George Holmgrem, Dennis R. Kenney, and 0.
W. Bidwell. 1975. Sampling and Analysis of Soils, Plants, Wastewaters
and Sludge. Agricultural Experiment Station Research Publication 170
and North Central Regional Publication 230, Kansas State University,
Manhattan, Kansas. 20 pp.
Fiedler, A. G., and S. S. Nye. 1933. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply
Paper No. 639, Geology and Ground-Water Resources of the Roswell Artesian
Basin, New Mexico. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
322 pp.
Hantush, M. S. 1955. Preliminary Quantitative Study of the Roswell Ground-
Water Reservoir, New Mexico. New Mexico Inst. Mining and Tech. 118 pp.
109
-------
Instrumentation Laboratory Inc. 1975. Atomic Absorption Methods Manual.
Wilmington, Mass.
Kinney, E. E., et al. 1968. The Roswell Artesian Basin. Roswell Geological
Society. 32 pp.
Lennette, Edwin H. (ed.). 1969. Diagnostic Procedures for Viral and Rickett-
sial Infections. 4th ed. American Public Health Association, New York,
N.Y. 602 pp.
Martin, Theodore D., J. F. Kopp, and Richard D. Ediger. 1975. Determining
Selenium in Water, Wastewater, Sediment, and Sludge by Flameless Atomic
Absorption Spectroscopy. Atomic Absorption Newsletter, 14(5).
Mills, P. A., J. H. Onley, and R. A. Gaither. 1963. Gas Chromatographic
Analysis of Pesticides. Varian Instruction Manual. Abstracted from
Journal of the Association of Official Agricultural Chemists. 46:186.
New Mexico Resource Conservation and Development Council. 1975. Sureste
Resource Conservation and Development Project—Program of Action. U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Albuquerque, New Mexico. 118 pp.
New Mexico State University Agricultural Experiment Station. 1971. Report
192, Soil Associations and Land Classifications for Irrigation. Chaves
County, Las Cruces, New Mexico. 48 pp.
Oceanography International Inc. 1971. Instruction Manual. College Station,
Texas, pp. 1-1 to 12-5.
Orion Research Inc. 1975a. Ammonia Instruction Manual, Electrode Model 95-
10. Cambridge, Mass. 27 pp.
Orion Research Inc. 1975b. Nitrate Instruction Manual, Electrode Model 93-
07. Cambridge, Mass. 24 pp.
Orion Research Inc. 1975c. Sulfide Instruction Manual, Electrode Model 94-
16A. Cambridge, Mass. 34 pp.
Orion Research Inc. 1975d. Lead Instruction Manual, Electrode Model 94-
82. Cambridge, Mass. 22 pp.
Orion Research Inc. 1976a. Sulfide Instruction Manual, Electrode Model 94-
16A. Cambridge, Mass. 34 pp.
Orion Research Inc. 1976b. Chloride Instruction Manual, Electrode Model 94-
17A. Cambridge, Mass. 28 pp.
Orion Research Inc. 1976c. Nitrate Instruction Manual, Electrode Model 93-
07. Cambridge, Mass. 24 pp.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1971. Methods for Organic Pesticides
110
-------
in Water and Wastewater. National Environmental Research Center, Cincin
nati, Ohio. 58 pp.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1974. Methods for Chemical Analysis
of Water and Wastes. EPA 625-16-74-003. Washington, D.C. 298 pp.
Walsh, Leo M. 1973. Soil Science of America, Soil Testing and Plant
Analysis.
Williams, I. H. 1968. Gas Chromatographic Analysis of Pesticides. Varian
Instruction Manual. Abstracted from Journal of the Association of
Official Analytical Chemists. 51:715.
Woodham, D. W., W. G. Mitchell, C. D. Loffis, and C. W. Collier. 1971. Gas
Chromatographic Analysis of Pesticides. Varian Instruction Manual.
Abstracted from Journal of Agricultural Food Chemistry. 19:186.
Yip, G. 1964. Gas Chromatographic Analysis of Pesticides. Varian Instruc-
tion Manual. Abstracted from Journal of the Association of Official
Agricultural Chemists. 47:343.
Ill
-------
APPENDIX A
WELL LOGS FOR CONTROL AND TEST SITES
112
-------
TABLE A-l. WELL LOG FOR CONTROL SITE
Hole 11010
Date: 6-21-76 Type Rig: Rotary
Casing: 2 in. plastic to 25.5 ft.
Screen: 2 in. slotted (0.030 in.) plastic 25.5 to 35.5 ft.
Remarks: Drilled with clear water, no sand pack, hole sealed with
bentonite. Hole located at southwest end of abandoned
airport, northwestern section of Roswell.
Log: Depth in Feet
0-2 Soil, silty, sandy, rocky
2-11 Sand, fine, silty and clayey
11-12 Limestone, hard, top of bedrock
12-14 Shale, dry
14-25.5 Dolomitic limestone, pink to light gray, hard
25.5-35 Sandstone, fine, silty and clayey
35-38 Dolomite, hard
Hole 11020
Date: 6-21-76 Type Rig: Rotary
Casing: None
Screen: None
Remarks: Hole located in creek bottom at southwest end of abandoned
airport, hole backfilled and sealed with bentonite.
Log: Depth in Feet
0-1
1-6
6-17
17-29
29-30
30-32
32-35
Hole 11030
Sand and gravel
Caliche and caliche cemented gravel
Dolomitic limestone, thin, interbedded with silty shale
Shale, silty, white
Dolomitic limestone
Shale, silty
Dolomite, red to pink, hard
Date: 6-21-76 Type Rig: Rotary
Casing: 2 in. plastic to 16 ft.
Screen: 2 in. slotted (0.030 in.) plastic 16 to 19.5 ft.
Remarks: Drilled with clear water, no sand pack, sealed with
bentonite. Upstream from study site.
113
-------
Table A-l. Continued
Log: Depth in Feet
0-2 Soil
2-15 Clay, silty, tan to brown, darker near base
15-16 Sand, silty
16-21 Gravel and sand
Hole 11040
Date: 6-21-76 Type Rig: Rotary
Casing: 2 in. plastic to 20 ft.
Screen: 2 in. slotted (0.030 in.) plastic 20 to 24.5 ft.
Remarks: Drilled with clear water, no sand pack, sealed with
bentonite. Upstream from study site.
Log: Depth in Feet
0-3 Soil, clayey
3-13 Clay, silty, sandy, brown
13-20 Sand, fine, silty
20-25 Gravel, sand, dirty, silty
Hole 11050
Date: 6-23-76 Type Rig: Rotary
Casing: 2 in. plastic to 60 ft.
Screen: 2 in. slotted (0.030 in.) plastic 60 to 70 ft.
Remarks: Drilled with clear water, no sand pack, sealed with
bentonite. Downstream from study site, near Pecos River
Log: Depth in Feet
0-2
2-6
6-10
10-13
13-16
16-19
19-29
29-35
35-37
37-43
43-48
48-70
70
Soil
Clay
Sand
Clay
Sand
Sand
Sand
Clay
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
sand
Clay
, silty and sandy
, gray, silty
, silty
, silty
, fine, silty
, silty, with black organic mud streaks
, fine, silty
, white, soft
, with green clayey sand streaks
, fine to medium, reddish, several gravel
, with soft red clay lenses
, medium to coarse, with red clay lenses,
at 65 ft.
, gray
streaks
yellow
114
-------
Table A-l. Continued
Hole 11060
Date: 6-23-76 Type Rig: Rotary
Casing: 2 in. plastic to 40 ft.
Screen: 2 in. slotted (0.030 in.) plastic 40 to 45 ft.
Remarks: Drilled with clear water, no sand pack, sealed with
bentonite. Downstream from study site, near Pecos River
Log: Depth in Feet
0-1
1-6
6-12
12-25
Sand, fine
Sand, clayey, reddish brown
Sand, silty, fine^
Sand, fine, gray, with lenses of soft clayey sand,
lenses of black clay near base
Sand, very fine
I Cl I3CO U I U I Q^ N
25-35 Sand, very fine
35-39 Clay, white
39-45 Gravel and sand
45 Clay, gray
115
-------
TABLE A-2. WELL LOG FOR TEST SITE
Hole 12010
Type Rig: Rotary
Date: 6-11-76
Casing: None
Screen: None
Remarks: Started drilling with clear water, lost circulation and
stuck at 10 ft. Mixed 100 Ibs. bentonite. Hole backfilled
and sealed with bentonite.
Log: Depth in Feet
0-7
7-11
11-21
Hole 12020
Soil, dark, clayey
Gravel, coarse, well rounded, with coarse sand
Sand, fine to medium with gravel
Type Rig: Rotary
Date: 6-11-76
Casing: None
Screen: None
Remarks: Started drilling with clear water, drilled to 25 feet put
in 25 feet of 6 in. plastic casing to hold hole open and
continued drilling with 3 3/4 in. bit. Lost circulation
at 27 feet mixed 100 Ibs. bentonite and one sack bran.
Hole backfilled and sealed with bentonite.
Log: Depth in Feet
0-12 Soil, silty, clayey, black to dark gray
12-16 Sand, fine, silty, with caliche fragments
16-30 Sand and gravel, 1/2 to 3/4 in. gravel
30-43 Sand, fine, with caliche cemented layers
Hole 12020a
Type Rig: Rotary
Date: 6-12-76
Casing: None
Screen: None
Remarks: Drilled with bentonite mud
and sealed with bentonite.
Log: Depth in feet
(200 Ibs.), hole backfilled
0-14
14-20
20-28
28-30
30-31
31-39
Soil, silty with fine sand, dark and clayey
Sand, fine to medium, caliche grains
Gravel, with fine to medium sand, and red-brown clay
lenses
Clay, brown
Gravel lenses and yellow clay layers
and white clay layers
116
Gravel lenses
-------
Table A-2.Continued
39-49 Clay, reddish, with white clay lenses, and hard silty
sand layers
49-60 Clay, red
60-68 Clay, gray to white
68-69 Gravel
69-85 Clay, and clayey sand,
85-106 Sand, very fine, silty
106-108 Clay, red
108-131 Sand, very fine, silty
131-150 Gravel, silty and clayey
150-164 Sand and gravel
Hole 12030
red
and easy drill ing
Date: 6-13-76 Type Rig: Rotary
Casing: 2 in. plastic to 22 ft.
Screen: 2 in. slotted (0.030 in.) plastic 22
Remarks: Drilled with clear water, sand pack
sealed with granular bentonite.
Log: Depth in Feet
to
20
27
to
ft.
29 ft.
hole
0-13
13-25
25-29
Hole 12040
Soil, clayey, silty, dark gray to gray, light gray at base
Sand, fine, silty, with clay lenses
Gravel, sand, red clay lenses at top
Date:
6-13-76
6-17-76
Type Rig:
Rotary
Cable Tool
2
2
2
2
2
2
in.
in.
in.
in.
in.
in.
Pi
Pi
Pi
si
si
si
astic
as tic
astic
otted
otted
otted
to
to
to
(o.
(0.
(0.
11 ft.
20 ft.
29 ft.
030
030
030
in.)
in.)
in.)
Pi
Pi
pl
astic
astic
astic
11 to
20-22
27-29
13
ft.
ft.
ft
Casing: Multiple completion in 10 in. cable tool hole
Screen:
Remarks: Drilled rotary hole with clear water, redrilled with cable
tool for multiple completion, sand pack 25 to 29 ft.,
granular bentonite 24 to 25 ft., sand pack 17 to 24 ft.,
bentonite 16 to 17 ft., sand pack 9 to 16 ft., top sealed
with bentonite.
Log: Depth in Feet
0-19 Soil and silty sand, dark gray, light gray at base
19-25 Sand, fine, silty, with clay lenses
25-32 Gravel and sand, with clayey streaks
32 Clay
117
-------
Table A-2.Continued
Hole 12050
Date: 6-13-76 Type Rig: Rotary
Casing: 2 in. plastic to 12 ft.
Screen: 2 in. slotted (0.030 in.) plastic 12 to 17 ft.
Remarks: Drilled with clear water, sand pack 11 to 17 ft., sealed
with bentonite.
Log: Depth in Feet
0-6 Soil, dark gray, light gray at base
6-10 Sand, fine, silty, tan
10-13 Gravel, sand, coarse, silty, yellow color
13-23 Sand, fine, yellow
Hole 12060
Date: 6-13-76 Type Rig: Rotary
Casing: 2 in. plastic to 6 ft.
Screen: 2 in. slotted (0.030 in.) plastic 6 to 11 ft.
Remarks: Drilled with clear water, sand pack 5 to 11 ft., sealed
with bentonite.
Log: Depth in Feet
0-5 Soil, dark, silty, clayey
5-14 Sand and gravel, clayey, silty, sand, fine to medium
Hole 12070
Date: 6-14&15-76 Type Rig: Rotary
Casing: 2 in. plastic to 100 ft.
Screen: 2 in. slotted (0.030 in.) plastic 100 to 105 ft.
Remarks: Drilled with heavy bentonite mud (550 Ibs.) to get
through shallow gravel zone, flushed hole, drilled with
clear water below 95 ft., sand pack 95 to 105 ft., sealed
with bentonite.
Log: Depth in Feet
base
0-15
15-24
24-30
30-40
40-47
47-68
68-75
75-90
90-115
Soil, clayey, silty, dark gray, light
Sand, fine, yellow, lot of fossil hash
Gravel , sand , sil ty
Sand, fine, silty, brown
Sand, fine, clayey, reddish
Sand, very fine, clayey, gray to reddi
Clay, red, silty
Sand, fine, silty, lenses of clay
Sand, fine to medium
gray at
sh brown
118
-------
Table A-2. Continued
Hole 12080
Date: 6-15-76 Type Rig: Rotary
Casing: 6 in. plastic to 19 ft.
Screen: 6 in. slotted (0.030 in.) plastic 19 to
Remarks: Drilled with clear water, no sand pack
well, sealed with bentonite.
Log: Depth in Feet
29 ft.
water-1evel
recorder
0-6
6-20
20-23
23-31
Hole 12090
Soil , clayey, dark gray
Sand, fine, silty and clayey
Gravel , sand , silty
Sand, fine to medium, silty at
base
Date: 6-15-76
Casing: 2 in.
Screen: 2 in. slotted
Remarks : Trouble with
23 ft. , hole
Type Rig: Cable Tool
plastic to 16 ft.
(0.030 in.) plastic 16 to 18
caving even with cable tool,
sealed with bentonite.
ft.
sand
pack 14 to
Log: Depth in Feet
0-10
10-18
18-27
Hole 12100
Soil, clayey
Gravel , sand
Clay, with scattered gravel
and sand
Date: 6-15-76 Type Rig: Rotary
Casing: 2 in. plastic to 23 ft.
Screen: 2 in. slotted (0.030 in
Remarks: Drilled with bentonite
bentoni te.
) plastic 23 to 33
mud, no sand pack,
ft.
sealed with
Log: Depth in Feet
0-5
5-19
19-21
21-27
27-33
u a i r\ y i a y
ilty and clayey
Soil, clayey, dark gray
Sand, fine, silty and
Sand, fine to medium
Gravel and sand
Sand, fine to medium
119
-------
Table A-2. Continued
Hole 12111
Date: 6-16-76 Type Rig: Rotary
Casing: 2 in. plastic to 21 ft.
Screen: 2 in. slotted (0.030 in.) plastic 21 to 31 ft.
Remarks: Drilled with bentonite mud, no sand pack, sealed with
bentonite.
Log: Depth in Feet
0-5 Soil , clayey, dark
5-22 Sand, fine, silty and clayey
22-26 Gravel, sand, fine to medium, silty
26-31 Sand, fine to medium
Hole 12120
Date: 6-16-76 Type Rig: Rotary
Casing: 2 in. plastic to 18 ft.
Screen: 2 in. slotted (0.030 in.) plastic 18 to 28 ft.
Remarks: Drilled with bentonite mud, no sand pack, sealed with
bentoni te.
Log: Depth in Feet
0-5 Soil, clayey, dark
5-16 Sand, fine, silty and clayey
16-20 Gravel, sand, fine to coarse, sand yellow
20-21 Clay, yellow, sandy
21-25 Sand, fine to coarse
25-26 Gravel, sandy
26-27 Sand, fine
27-28 Clay, red
Hole 12130
Date: 6-16-76 Type Rig: Rotary
Casing: 2 in. plastic to 8 ft.
Screen: 2 in. slotted (0.030 in.) plastic 8 to 10 ft.
Remarks: Drilled with clear water, no sand pack, sealed with
bentonite.
Log: Depth in Feet
0-5 Soil, clayey and silty, dark
5-13 Gravel and sand, fine to medium
120
-------
Table A-2.Continued
Hole 12140
Date: 6-16-76 Type Rig: Rotary
Casing: 2 in. plastic to 18 ft.
Screen: 2 in. slotted (0.030 in.) plastic 18
Remarks: Drilled with clear water, sand pack
with bentonite.
to 20 ft.
17 to 20 ft., sealed
Log: Depth in Feet
0-14
14-20
20
Hole 12150
Soil, clayey,
Sand, fine to
Gravel
silty with sand, dark
medium, caliche grains
Date: 6-16-76 Type Rig: Rotary
Casing: 2 in. plastic to 8 ft.
Screen: 2 in. slotted (0.030 in.) plastic 8 to
Remarks: Drilled with clear water, sand pack 7
with bentonite.
10 ft.
to 10 ft., sealed
Log: Depth in Feet
0-6
6-7
7-10
Hole 12160
Soil, clayey,
Clay, yellow
Sand, medium,
dark
silty, with gravel
Date: 6-16-76 Type Rig: Rotary
Casing: 2 in. plastic to 18 ft.
Screen: 2 in. slotted (0.030 in.) plastic 18 to
Remarks: Drilled with clear water, sand pack 17
with bentonite.
Log: Depth in Feet
21 ft.
to 21 ft., sealed
0-13
13-16
16-21
Hole 12170
Soil, clayey, dark
Clay, black, organic,
Gravel, sand, medium
soft, with scattered gravel
Date: 6-18-76 Type Rig: Rotary
Casing: 2 in. plastic to 7 ft.
Screen: 2 in. slotted (0.030 in.) plastic 7 to
Remarks: Drilled with clear water, sand pack 6
with bentonite.
9 ft.
to 9 ft., sealed
121
-------
Table A-2. Continued
Log: Depth in Feet
0-5 Soil, clayey, light brown, carbonate in clay
5-7 Sand, fine to medium
7-12 Gravel and sand
Hole 12180
Date: 6-17-76 Type Rig: Rotary
Casing: None
Screen: None
Remarks: Drilled with bentonite mud, 10 ft. north of No. 1209,
hole caved badly and finally backfilled and sealed with
bentonite.
Log: Depth in Feet
0-4 Soil, clayey, dark
4-9 Sand, fine, silty, clayey
9-13 Gravel, sand, medium
Hole 12190
Date: 6-18-76 Type Rig: Rotary
Casing: None
Screen: None
Remarks: Drilled with bentonite mud, 30 ft. south of No. 1209,
abandoned, backfilled and sealed with bentonite.
Log: Depth in Feet
0-7 Soil, clayey, dark
7-10 Gravel and sand
10-11 Clay, sandy, soft, pink
11-19 Gravel and sand
19-44 Sand, fine, silty and clayey
Hole 12200
Date: 6-18-76 Type Rig: Cable Tool
Casing: Multiple completion in 10 in. cable tool hole
2 in. plastic to 10 ft.
2 in. plastic to 20 ft.
2 in. plastic to 30 ft.
Screen: 2 in. slotted (0.030 in.) plastic 10 to 12 ft.
2 in. slotted (0.030 in.) plastic 20 to 22 ft.
2 in. slotted (0.030 in.) plastic 30 to 33 ft.
122
-------
Table A-2. Continued
Remarks: Cable tool hole, sand pack 26 to 33 ft., bentonite seal
25 to 26 ft., sand pack 15 to 25 ft., bentonite seal 14
to 15 ft., sand pack 7 to 14 ft., bentonite seal at top
of hole.
Log: Depth in Feet
0-9
9-20
20-35
Hole 12210
Soil, clayey, dark
Sand, coarse with gravel
Sand, medium to coarse, silty
Date: 6-18-76 Type Rig: Rotary
Casing: 2 in. plastic to 9.5 ft.
Screen: 2 in. slotted (0.030 in.) plastic 9.5 to 11.5 ft.
Remarks: Drilled with clear water, no sand pack, sealed with
bentonite.
Log: Depth in Feet
0-7
7-11.5
Hole 12220
Soil, silty and clayey, dark
Gravel, sand, medium to coarse
Date: 6-18-76 Type Rig: Rotary
Casing: 2 in. plastic to 13 ft.
Screen: 2 in. slotted (0.030 in.) plastic 13
Remarks: Drilled with clear water, sand pack
with bentonite.
Log: Depth in Feet
to 19 ft.
12 to 19 ft., sealed
0-2
2-9
9-14
14-15
15-20
20-28
Hole 12230
Soil, rocky and sandy
Sand, silty
Clay, sandy, silty, brown to tan
Gravel lense, sandy
Sand, fine to medium
Gravel and sand
Date: 6-19-76 Type Rig: Rotary
Casing: 2 in. plastic to 23.5 ft.
Screen: 2 in. slotted (0.030 in.) plastic 23.5 to 26 ft.
Remarks: Drilled with clear water, sand pack 23 to 26 ft.
with bentonite.
sealed
123
-------
Table A-2.Continued
Log:
0-3
3-5
5-23
23-26
26-28
Depth in Feet
Soil, silty and sandy
Sand, fine
Sand, clayey, silty
Gravel and sand
Sand, fine
Hole 12240
Date: 6-19-76 Type Rig: Rotary
Casing: 2 in. plastic to 21 ft.
Screen: 2 in. slotted (0.030 in.) plasti; 21
Remarks: Drilled with clear water, sand pack
with bentonite.
Log: Depth in Feet
0-2 Soil, silty and sandy
2-5 Sand, fine
5-15 Clay, sandy, silty, yellow-brown
15-21 Sand, fine
21-25 Gravel and sand
25-28 Sand, fine
to 24 ft.
20 to 24 ft., sealed
124
-------
APPENDIX B
DATA TABLES FOR ALL WATER, SOIL, AND PLANT SAMPLES
LEGEND
Sample code numbers are explained in Section 7, "Results
and Discussion."
99.9 means too numerous to count.
Negative sign (-) means less than.
Values in -g/g x 10 = percentage.
125
-------
TABLE B-l. WATER DATA
VOLATILE
SAMPLE
NUMBER
1 1 6OO2
1 16OO3
116004
I 14502
\ 146O1
1 146O4
1147O1
1103O1
110302
1103O3
I 1O304
110601
11O6O2
110603
I1O604
110501
1 105O2
110503
1105O4
1246O1
124602
1246O3
1246O4
122011
122012
COLLECTION DEPTH TEMP
DATE M DEC C
1O/21/76
I/ 5/77
4/27/77
4/14/77
6/24/76
4/28/77
6/24/76
6/26/76 4 9 18 5
1O/21/76 4. 9
I/ 5/77 4. 9
4/28/77 4. 9 19 O
6/26/76 12. 2 19. O
1O/22/76 12. 2
I/ 5/77 12.2
4/28/77 12. 2 19. O
6/26/76 18.3 19. O
1O/22/76 18. 3
I/ 5/77 IB. 3
4/20/77 IB 3 IB. 0
6/23/76 24. 5
10/21/76
I/ 6/77
4/28/77
6/23/76 3. O 15. O
1O/19/76 3. O
DISSOLVED
OXYGEN
MG/L PH
6.
6.
1
7.
7.
7.
1.
O.
1
O.
1.
1.
O.
2.
1.
1.
1.
2.
1.
O.
6.
-O.
1.
1.
O
3
9
7
6
3
2
B
9
9
0
e
7
6
2
9
7
1
6
5
1
1
2
5
7
7
7
7.
7
7.
7.
7.
7.
7.
7.
7.
7.
7.
7.
7.
7.
7.
7.
7.
7.
7.
6
6.
5
6
O
3
7
4
0
2
3
2
4
5
3
5
0
3
3
4
6
6
5
6
8
9
CONDUC-
TIVITY
UMHOS/CM
226O
2320
1958
36OO
3597
260O
410O
4B72
4900
418O
462O
63BO
547O
B393
11200
1469O
1334O
9990
27OO
3690
343O
296O
B300
9020
TOTAL DISSOLVED SUSPENDED TOTAL
ALKALINITY SOLIDS SOLIDS SOLIDS
MG/L CAC03 MG/L MG/L MG/L
168
16B
172
184
168
196
356
26O
272
3OO
22O
184
184
242
272
216
224
216
324
316
316
336
372
3O4
146O
1483
13B6 233 1619
129 2223 2352
3O27
2699 28 2727
2374
4250
3729
3838
4045
3868
3733
3718
6729
8278
9843
B57B
25O4 IB 2522
2O74 74 2146
2193
2OOB 3'J> 204 1
6749
6222
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS BOD
MG/L MG/L
2
-1
2 -1
-1
5 2
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
1
-1
-1
-1
1
19
122
1O 6
26 23
-1
1
COD
MG/l
4
6
11
79
24
19
44
64
2O
88
41
12
28
3O
14
60
111
87
14
176
206
135
171
1OO
BB
CL
MG/L
261
324
282
889
933
71O
71O
62O
673
716
13OO
117O
151O
2528
2B4O
3733
4404
2625
781
577
820
545
2O59
1931
-------
TABLE B-l. Continued
VOLATILE
SAMPLE
NUMBER
122013
122014
122021
122022
122023
122O24
122031
122O32
122033
122O34
,_, 12O5O1
(VI
--J 12O5O2
12O503
120304
12O3O1
120302
12O3O3
12O304
12O431
120432
12O433
12O434
1221O1
1221O2
1221O3
COLLECTION
DATE
I/ 4/77
4/27/77
6/23/76
1O/ 19/76
I/ 4/77
4/27/77
6/23/76
1O/19/76
I/ 4/77
4/27/77
6/23/76
10/19/76
I/ 6/77
4/27/77
6/23/76
1O/19/76
I/ 6/77
4/26/77
6/24/76
1O/2O/76
I/ 4/77
4/26/77
6/24/76
10/21/76
I/ 5/77
DISSOLVED
DEPTH TEMP OXYGEN
M DEC C MC/L PH
3.
3.
6.
6.
6.
6.
9.
9.
9.
9.
3.
3.
3.
3.
6.
6.
6.
6.
B.
8.
8.
8.
2.
2.
2.
0
O 13. 5
1 14. 5
1
1
1 14. O
1
1
1
1 15. 0
7 IB. 0
7
7
7 19. O
7 17. O
7
7
7 16. O
2 16. 5
2
2
2 15. 0
7 17. 5
7
7
3.
2.
1.
2.
3.
3.
4.
1
2.
1.
1.
3.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
3.
1.
1.
1.
2.
1.
1.
2.
8
2
4
5
0
9
6
2
5
4
4
2
?
9
2
3
O
O
5
6
2
7
7
4
2
7.
7.
6.
6.
6.
6
6.
7.
7.
7.
7.
6.
7.
7.
6.
7.
7.
7.
6.
7.
7.
7.
6.
6.
7.
9
0
8
8
8
9
9
0
9
O
O
9
0
2
7
3
1
2
7
O
1
O
8
9
1
CONDUC-
TIVITY
UMHOS/CM
923O
9S2O
B2OO
826O
8132
O85O
76OO
8249
798O
8496
1OOOO
1O5O2
944O
1O388
9OOO
1O44O
905O
8618
97OO
1O62O
866O
8624
63OO
6B2O
7 ISO
TOTAL DISSOLVED SUSPENDED TOTAL SUSPENDED
ALKALINITY SOLIDS SOLIDS SOLIDS SOLIDS BOD
MG/L CACO3 MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L
324
324
372
28O
288
308
372
3O4
288
312
472
356
356
46O
324
3O4
268
318
348
3OO
292
332
332
316
348
6517
79O4
6728
5564
5819
7341
6457
5536
4244
724O
8218
7128
6883
9230
7425
75(39
6816
7397
79O7
7617
6546
7475
5230
4778
5439
-1
3
-1
1
-1
1
-1
-1
-1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
-1
-1
-1
-1
2
-1
1
-1
COD
MG/L
6O
24
64
72
54
20
76
68
4?
17
76
88
24
20
153
76
30
36
97
76
54
16
48
16
27
CL
MG/I.
214 D
2736
?O59
1652
216O
243O
1846
1666
1O32
2392
21 3O
1999
257O
2625
2O9O
2339
2P23
2167
2130
3118
2134
?17O
1349
1 119
1715
-------
TABLE B-l. Continued
VOLATILE
00
SAMPLE
NUMBER
1221O4
12O9O1
12O9O2
12O9O3
12O9O4
121702
121601
1216O2
1216O3
1216O4
1214OI
1214O2
1214O3
1214O4
121301
1213O2
121303
1213O4
121501
121 5O2
121503
121504
122201
122202
122204
COLLECTION
DATE
4/26/77
6/24/76
1O/21/76
I/ 5/77
4/26/77
1O/21/76
6/24/76
10/19/76
I/ 6/77
4/27/77
6/25/76
1O/20/76
I/ 4/77
4/26/77
6/25/76
1O/2O/76
I/ 4/77
4/26/77
6/24/76
1O/2O/76
I/ 5/77
4/26/77
6/24/76
1O/22/76
4/27/77
DISSOLVED
DEPTH TEMP OXYGFN
M DEC C MG/L PH
2
4
4.
4.
4.
2.
5.
5.
5.
5.
5
5.
5.
5.
2.
2.
2.
2.
3.
2.
2.
2.
4.
4
4.
7 140
9 17. 5
9
9
9 15. O
1
5 17. 5
5
5
5 19 O
5 17. O
5
5
9 18. 0
4 17. 0
4
4
4 15. 0
1 18. 0
1
1
1 14. 5
0 18. 5
0
0 IB. 5
O.
3.
O.
1.
O.
2.
2.
1
4.
1.
1.
O.
1.
2.
3
1.
5.
3.
2.
2.
2.
1.
8.
4.
8.
7
3
9
5
5
5
3
O
O
1
O
2
2
1
4
5
0
6
4
2
O
1
O
7
5
7.
7
7.
7.
7.
7.
6.
7.
7.
7.
6.
7.
7.
7.
6.
7.
7.
7.
6.
6.
7.
7
6.
7.
7.
1
1
2
1
2
8
9
0
0
4
•?
6
7
5
8
4
8
0
8
8
1
2
9
O
O
CONDUC-
TIVITY
UMHOS/CM
5O74
42OO
61 02
736O
4329
748O
71OO
8496
8150
7O2O
69OO
904O
506O
448O
66OO
791O
726O
672O
62OO
74HO
7820
4543
61OO
990O
666O
TOTAL DISSOLVED SUSPENDED TOTAL SUSPENDED
ALKALINITY SOLIDS SOLIDS SOLIDS SOLIDS BOD
MG/L CACO3 MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L
352
324
3O4
32O
324
28O
312
368
3O4
272
604
626
188
184
32O
256
288
272
28O
248
260
272
3O4
26O
276
4 383
4517
4032
542O
3537
5OB1
5570
5983
6O64
5843
641O
6283
6126
3527
5587
5777
5724
5452
5224
6424
5795
39O4
5941
660O
5517
1
*
1
-1
-1
3
— 1
-1
1
1
1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
1
-1
-1
-1
1
1
*
-1
2
COD
MG/L
2O
52
12
4O
?1
6O
169
54
30
2O
20
72
39
31
24
60
66
28
68
44
37
41
60
64
49
CL
T1C/L
1O2O
1136
986
1852
841
133O
1525
1691
2354
1426
1525
1555
1566
1454
1400
1555
2027
I486
1349
1271
1920
971
1775
21 O6
1698
-------
TABLE B-l. Continued
DISSOLVED
CONDUC-
TOTAL
VOLATILE
DISSOLVED SUSPENDED TOTAL SUSPENDED
NUMBER DATE
122301 6/23/76
1223O2 10/22/76
1223O3 I/ 6/77
1223O4 4/28/77
1207O2 1O/2O/76 33. 3
120703 I/ 4/77 33. 3
1241O4 4/26/77
1242O2 1O/2O/76
1242O4 4/27/77
1243O2 1O/20/76
124303 I/ 6/77
1243O4 4/28/77
1245O1 9/ 9/76
1245O2 4/14/77
IEPTH TEMP
M DEO C
7.
7.
7.
7.
13.
13.
O.
1.
1.
2
2.
2.
0 17. 0
0
0
0 16. 3
3
3
6
2
2
2
2
2
OXYGEN
MO/L
4. 5 6
3. 6 6
3. 2 7
4. 3 7
5. 1 7
1.3 7
8
7
7
PH
. 8
. 9
. O
. 8
. 4
. 3
. 0
. 5
. 8
TIVITV
UMHOS/CM
B1OO
8814
8100
77OO
7OBO
684C
7. O
7
7
. 7
. 3
76OO. O
ALKALINITY
MG/L CACO3
276
220
296
22O
148
176
132
404
296
452
492
38O
SOLIDS
MG/L
6671
3837
5740
6200
3976
4394
6736. O
7568. O
7068. 0
337 0
SOLIDS SOLIDS SOLIDS BOD COD
MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L
-1 1O1
-1 73
1 42
1 23
-1 6O
-1 37
22
82
26
60
93
12
246
595 952 73
CL
MG/L
3O9O
1801
2183
2094
1833
2O3O
1757
1909
16OB
2134
167O
-------
TABLE B-l. Continued
TOTAL DISSOLVED TOTAL SOLUBLE SOLUBLE
SULFIDE- TOTAL FECAL ORGANIC ORGANIC ORGANIC ORGANIC TOTAL SOLUBLE ORTHO-
SAMPLE SULFUR
NUMBER MG/L-S
1 1 6OO2
1 1 6OO3
116OO4 -O. 1
1145O2
1I16O1
1146O4 -O. 1
114701
110301
1 103O2
110303
t_l 1103O4 -O. 1
OJ
O 11O6O1
110602
1 1 O6O3
110604 -0. 1
11O5O1
110502
110503
110504 -0. 1
124601
124602
124603
124604 0. 3
124605
1246O6
COLIFORM
It/lOOML
O
O
O
7167
1550
99. 9
99. 9
0
O
O
99. 9
0
35
99. 9
99
O
3
O
100
0
2
99. 9
COLIFORM CARBON CARBON
«/lOOML MG/L-C MG/L-C
O
O
O -O. 5
O
6 B. 4
0
O
0
0
O 14. 6
0
0 7. 7
0
14 14. 3
O
0
0
0 12. 8
O 53. 3
O 9B. 0 57. 9
1 32. 2 19. 3
99. 9 2B. 5
53. 4 17. 7
6O. 4 13. 9
NITROGEN NITROGEN
MG/L-N MG/L-N
0
O.
O.
3.
1
O
1.
1.
0.
0.
O.
1.
-O.
O
1.
2.
O.
0.
0.
04. 0 36.
-0.
16. 9 14.
33. 9 2.
30.5 1.
4
3
6
9
6
5
0
1
2
3
a
4
1
6
4
0
3
4
6
0
1
9
7
5
NH4
MG/L-N
-0.
-O.
O.
2.
-O.
O.
-O.
-O.
-0.
-0.
O.
-O.
O.
O.
2.
-0.
0.
-0.
-0.
\b
23.
25.
25.
23.
25.
1
1
1
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
7
3
1
1
2
1
1
8
0
2
6
7
5
N03 PHOSPHORUS
MG/L-N MG/L-P
1.
-O.
1.
O.
1.
O.
2
2.
3.
-0.
1.
1
1.
-0.
-0.
1
3
-0.
-O.
3.
3.
O.
O.
O.
O.
6
1
5
6
9
5 O. Ol
3
9
0
1
4
1
7
1
1
9
3
1
1
7 5. 20
7 9 50
O 9. OO
1 8. 1O
4
2
PHOSPHORUS
MG/L-P
O.
-0
O.
O
O.
1.
O.
O.
O.
O.
2.
O.
0.
0.
1.
0.
O.
0.
4.
7.
3.
7.
O2
01
O3
24
Ol
9O
O4
01
02
O6
60
O4
O4
O6
50
04
03
07
80
00
00
60
PHOSPHATI
MG/L-P
-0. Ol
-O. Ol
O. Ol
O. 1O
O. 01
O. 02
O. 02
-O. 01
0. 02
O. 01
0. 37
O. O4
O. O4
O. O4
0. 32
O. 04
0. O3
O. Ol
3. 80
7. BO
7. 10
7. 20
-------
TABLE 8-1. Continued
TOTAL DISSOLVED TOTAL SOLUBLE SOLUBLE
SULFIDE- TOTAL FECAL ORGANIC ORGANIC ORGANIC ORGANIC TOTAL SOLUBLE ORTHO-
SAMPLE SULFUR
NUMBER MG/L-S
122011
122012
132013
122014 -0 1
122021
122022
122023
122024 -0 1
122031
122032
122033
122034 -0 1
1205O1
1205O2
12O003
120504 -0. 1
1203O1
120302
120303
120304 -0. 1
120431
120432
12O433
120434 -0 1
1221O1
COLIFORM COLIFORM CARBON CARBON NITROGEN NITROGEN NH4
•/1OOML K/10OML MG/L-C MG/L-C MG/L-N MG/L-N MG/L-N
1367
0
1
14
967
O
2
0
3267
0
0
O
900
0
352
0
1333
0
74
0
133
0
0
0
367
0
0
O
O
O
O
0
0
0
O
O
0
0
0
0
O
33
0
68
O
0
0
0
0
367
I
-o
O
23 7 0
1O O 1
0
0
82 0
13 3 1
-0
4
94 0
34 O 3
0
113 0
IB 8 0
1
0
-0
96 -0
53 0 1
0
0
15 5 1
10 0 0
0
1
2
7
1
4
1
2
1
1
2
1
2
4
2
s
B
4
1
1
~)
6
4
0
Q
0
-0
-O
0
0
-0
- 0
0
-0
-0
-0
0
-0
-0
O
-O
-0
-0
0
O
-0
-0
-0
0
-0
2
1
1
4
1
1
1
4
1
1
1
7
1
1
C
1
1
1
4
s
1
1
1
3
1
N03 PHOSPHORUS PHOSPHORUS PHOSPHATl
MI5/L-N hG/L-P MG/l.-P MG/L-P
-i
12
4
8
a
14
6
1 1
8
15
8
1 1
~i
5
-0
3
7
7
1
5
21
o
-0
4
24
0
2
~
9
4
2
0
3
9
0
9
3
7
0
1
4
2
5
3
2
5
3
1
E;
4
0
0
0
0
3
-0
0
0
2
C
0
0
2
O
0
0
0
0
O
0
0
0
0
0
1
so
04
03
03
OO
Ol
O4
03
BO
07
C3
02
40
04
06
01
80
02
08
02
03
04
07'
03
20
0 3O
0 02
0 03
0 03
2 40
-O 01
0 01
0 01
1 90
0 07
0 03
0 01
O 54
0 04
O 06
0 01
-0 01
0 01
0 O6
0 01
0 02
0 04
0 06
0 01
0 5O
-------
TABLE B-l. Continued
SULFIDE
SAMPLE SULFUR
NUMBER MG/L-S
1221 O2
1221O3
122104 -0. 1
12O9O1
12O9O2
12O9O3
12O9O4 -O 1
121702
1216O1
121 6O2
1216O3
121604 -0. 1
121401
1214O2
121403
121404 -0 1
121301
121302
1213O3
121 3O4 -0. 1
121501
1215O2
121503
1215O4 -O. 1
1222O1
TOTAL DISSOLVED TOTAL SOLUBLE
TOTAL FECAL ORGANIC ORGANIC ORGANIC ORGANIC
COLIFORM COLIFORM CARBON CARBON NITROGEN NITROGEN
#/lOOML #/10OML MG/L-C MG/L-C MG/L-N MG/L-N
167
2
610O
99. 9
O
O
320O
O
99. 9
O
137
341
93OO
O
42
O
99. 9
O
89
20
410O
O
1
100O
100
O
O
O
800
O
O
10
O
33
0
0
6
O
0
0
O
0
O
O
0
133
0
O
0
0
6. 4
4 1
8. 6
3. 4
19 8
14. 6
9. 8
6. 1
4. 4
16. 8
9. 3
O. 0
-O.
O.
1.
1.
O.
0.
3.
0.
2.
O.
O.
0.
O.
O.
0.
0.
1.
-0.
0.
0
1.
-0
0.
0.
1.
1
2
1
5
1
6
3
2
0
3
3
5
9
5
4
1
2
1
4
4
2
1
2
7
5
NH4
MG/L-N
O. 2
-0. 1
0. 6
-0. 1
O. 2
-O I
0 B
-O 1
-O. 1
-0. 1
0 2
-O. 1
-0. 1
-O. 1
0 2
0. 7
-0. 1
-0. 1
-O 1
O. 3
-O. 1
-O. 1
-0. 1
O. B
-O. 1
TOTAL SOLUBLE
N03 PHOSPHORUS PHOSPHORUS
[1G/L-N MG/L-P MG/L-P
15
6
12.
30.
19.
6.
-0.
23.
4.
3.
-O.
6.
1
1
-O.
-O.
18.
22
18.
5.
19.
25.
11.
15
1
6
6
6
6
7
4
1
8
3
1
1
5
9
e
1
1
2
7
1
5
7
8
8
2
5
O.
0.
0.
O.
0.
0
O.
-0.
0.
0.
O.
O.
1
O
0.
O.
0.
0
0.
0.
4.
0.
O.
0.
0.
02
03
08
22
05
03
O4
01
05
O2
01
Ol
6O
19
13
O5
2O
04
O4
03
20
04
O4
04
1O
SOLUBLE
ORTHO-
PHOSPHATE
MG/L-P
0. 02
O O3
0 03
O. 02
O O4
0 O3
O. 02
-0. 01
O. O2
O. Ol
-O Ol
0. 01
-O Ol
0. 17
0. 10
0. 03
0. O2
0. 04
0. 03
O 01
O. 15
O. 02
O. 04
O. 02
O. O6
-------
TABLE B-l. Continued
TOTAL DISSOLVED TOTAL SOLUBLE SHLUDLE
SULFIDE- TOTAL FECAL ORGANIC ORGANIC ORGANIC ORGANIC TOTAL SOLUBLE ORTHO-
SAMPLE SULFUR COLIFORM COLIFORM CARBON CARBON NITROGEN NITROGEN NH1 NO3 PHOSPHORUS PHOSPHORUS PHOSPHATE
NUMBER MG/L-S */10OML K/10OML MG/L-C
122202 0
122204 -O. 1 0
122301 2200
1223O2 O
1223O3
1223O4 -0. 1 O
12O7O2 O
1207O3 0
1241O4 0.3
1242O2
1242O4 -O 1
124302
1243O3
1243O4 -0. 1
124501
124502
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
22. 3
CO
14 1
IG/L-C MG/L-N MG/L-N
IB 4
13 1
22. 3
14. 1
O.
O.
1.
0.
-O
2.
O.
1.
1
-0
1
-0
0
1
4
5
3
1
1
O
8
O
5
1
8
1
4
2
MG/L-N
0
-0
-O.
0.
0
-O
-O.
-0.
O
-O
0
-O
O
0.
1
1
1
4
6
1
1
1
3
1
5
1
3
4
MG/L-N MG/L-P
12
14
9.
9.
-O.
B.
2.
-O
44
14
26
10
-0
36
6
O
0
2
1
2
7
1
9
1 0 14
9
9 O O9
1
4
MG/L-P MG/L-P
0. O5 O.
0. O2 0.
O. O4 0
-0. 01 -O.
O. 02 -0.
0. 08 0.
O. O2 -O.
-O Ol -O
O.
0
0.
0
0.
02
Ol
02
01
01
Ol
01
01
25
09
09
06
03
3. 6
48 43 O 4 5 OO 2. 7O
-------
TABLE B-l. Continued
SAMPLE
NUMBER
1 1 6OO2
116003
1160O4
114502
1146O1
1146O4
1147O1
1103O1
110302
1 1 03O3
110304
11O6O1
1106O2
1106O3
1106O4
11O501
110502
11O503
110504
1246O1
1246O2
1246O3
1246O4
122011
122O12
SO4
MG/L-S04
7O5
427
454
45
713
1738
1556
1621
1448
16OB
2583
2272
1783
717
544
518
2111
AL
MG/L-AL
-0. 3
0. 5
-0. 3
78. O
O. 8
-0. 3
O. 6
7. 4
12. 1
O 7
1. O
1. 0
O. 7
0. B
O. 4
2. 2
2. 6
0. 4
-0. 3
1. O
-0. 3
0. 5
-0. 3
0. 7
0. 5
AS
UG/L-AS
-20
-2O
-2O
-2O
-2O
-2O
-2O
-2O
-2O
-2O
64
41
20
-2O
-20
-20
22
B
UC/L-B
78
93
97
175
133
2OB
230
347
227
263
24O
445
2O 4
207
220
14O
226
278
235
367
3O8
435
164
657
CD
UG/L-CD
-2O
-20
-20
-2O
-1O
-2O
-10
-10
-20
-20
-20
-1O
-2O
-20.
-2O
4O
-20
-20
-20
-10
-20
-2O
-2O
-1O
-20
CA
MG/L-CA
1B4
77
178
216
20B
347
122
247
6OO
653
1B6
405
158
617
370
605
527
605
124
1B6
262
176
320
67O
CO
UG/L-CO
-50
-SO
-5O
-SO
-5O
-50
-SO
-5O
-50
-50
-5O
-50
76
-SO
-50
-5O
-50
-5O
-SO
CR
UG/L-CR
-2O
-2O
-20
51
1O
-?O
-1O
20
55
22
-20
-10
IB
25
-20
1O
27
52
-2O
3O
-2O
25
23
1O
-20
CU
UG/L-CU
-20
-20
-20
41
70
-2O
too
330
144
-20
-20
SO
-2O
-20
-20
29O
24
-20
20
20O
37
-20
38
12O
37
FF
MG/L-FE
0. S
-O. 5
-0. 3
40. 0
0. 6
-O. 2
O. 6
7 6
15. 4
0. B
1. 6
O. 7
11.7
-O. 5
1. 2
3. 1
42 4
-O 5
O. 3
0. 4
1. 8
-O. 5
-0 2
1 0
9. 2
PB
UG/L-PB
-1OO
-1OO
-2OO
3O
2O
-1O
-1OO
-1OO
3O
-1OO
-1OO
1O
-10O
-too
-1O
-1OO
-1OO
-10
-100
MG
MG/L-MG
58
57
57
26
76
92
S3
82
192
192
ISO
65
86
97
139
164
227
253
166
65
57
86
59
77
177
MN
MG/L-MN
-O. 05
-0. OS
O OS
1. 05
-O. Ol
-O O5
O. O2
O 4O
O 46
O. 24
O ?6
O. Ol
O. 34
O. 22
O. 48
O. 02
O. 1O
-O. OS
-O. O5
O. O2
-O O5
-0 05
-0 O5
O. O6
O. 09
-------
TABLE 8-1. Continued
SAMPLE
NUMBER
122013
123011
1 22O2 1
122O22
122023
122024
122O31
122032
122O33
122O34
,_. 120501
CO
<•" 120502
12O5O3
12O5O4
12O3O1
1203O2
12O3O3
12O3O4
120431
12O432
120433
120434
1221O1
122102
122103
SO4
MG/L-S04
2234
1974
1846
1642
1983
1726
1661
2111
1929
3OO8
2836
2038
2328
2164
1862
2405
1514
1795
AL
MG/L-AL
1. 0
-0. 3
0. 7
0. 3
0 8
-0. 3
1. 6
1 8
0. 3
-0. 3
7. 3
1. 1
2. 2
-0 3
1 4
-O. 3
1. O
-O. 3
1 4
-0. 3
2. 6
-0. 3
1. 7
0. 4
6. 5
AS
UC/L-AS
-20
21
-20
-2O
-20
2O
-2O
-2O
26
-20
-20
-20
-20
-2O
-20
-20
-2O
-2O
B
UC/L-B
250
31O
235
651
268
335
100
659
306
337
260
633
243
568
248
536
256
359
270
924
153
4O4
22O
969
389
CD
UG/L-CD
-2O
-20
-10
-2O
-2O
-2O
-10
-2O
-2O
-20
30
-20
-2O
-2O
-1O
-2O
-2O
-2O
-10
-2O
-2O
-2O
-1O
-20
-2O
CA
HG/L-CA
431
828
278
761
328
778
54O
7O9
473
821
429
641
382
823
247
761
336
663
684
774
717
339
344
498
CO
UG/L-CO
-5O
-50
-30
-5O
-50
-5O
-5O
-50
-50
-SO
-5O
6O
-5O
-5O
62
-50
-50
-50
-50
CR
UC/L-CR
38
26
-1O
-20
32
-20
20
-20
32
-20
?O
35
38
2c.
20
-2O
27
-2O
to
23
-20
-2O
1O
-20
32
CU
UG/L-CU
-20
20
70
37
-2O
24
16O
22
-20
2O
28O
26
-20
24
33O
22
-20
-20
27O
3O
-20
23O
-2O
-20
FE
MG/L-FE
-O. 5
-O ?
O 4
10. 5
-0 5
-0. 2
2. 0
28 0
-0. 5
-0 2
4. 1
23
6 3
0 5
1 4
3 O
-O 5
O 3
1 9
4 O
O 7
O. 3
1 1
6 4
4 0
PB
UG/L-PB
-100
-10
-1OO
-1OO
-10
-1OO
-10O
2O
-1OO
-too
-10
-1OO
-100
-10
-1OO
-100
-10
-100
-100
MG
MG/L-MG
260
2OB
101
188
24O
199
92
193
243
193
60
219
293
255
7 "
233
23O
209
254
132
216
too
144
198
MN
MG/L-MN
-0 05
-0. 05
0. 02
0. 05
-0. 05
-0 05
O. 18
-O. O5
-O. O3
-O. O5
0 6?
O. 11
O 17
O 23
O 28
O O5
-O. O5
0. 13
O 2O
O OB
O OB
0 09
-0. 01
0 08
0 14
-------
TABLE B-l. Continued
SAMPLE
NUMBER
1221O4
12O9O1
120902
12O9O3
12O904
121702
1216O1
121602
1216O3
1216O4
,_, 121401
GO
Oi 1214O2
1214O3
121404
121301
121302
121303
1213O4
121501
121502
121503
1215O4
122201
122202
1222O4
SO4
MO/L-SO4
1466
1894
1661
1139
1636
2118
1948
2130
2555
548
569
2164
1766
166O
1766
1905
126O
1726
1535
AL
MC/L-AL
-0. 3
1. 3
O. 9
2. 7
0. 8
-O. 3
4. 2
0. 3
0 7
-0. 3
1. 9
-0. 3
0. 7
-0. 3
1. 8
1. 7
0. 7
-0. 3
1. 9
-0. 3
1. 4
-0. 3
1. 2
-0. 3
-0. 3
AS
UG/L-AS
-90
-20
-2O
-20
20
-20
-20
-2O
-20
-20
-20
-20
-20
-20
-20
-20
34
-20
B
UG/L-B
413
2OO
558
438
436
695
195
924
248
413
218
154
112
141
235
249
298
353
235
489
281
379
222
304
306
CD
UG/L-CD
-20
-1O
-2O
-20
-2O
-20
-1O
-20
-20
-20
-10
-2O
-20
-20
-10
-20
-2O
-20
-1O
-20
-2O
-20
-10
-20
20
CA
MG/L-CA
481
235
556
261
445
6O8
646
657
4O9
614
252
554
261
391
664
581
296
6OO
245
559
351
542
31O
721
631
CO
UG/L-CO
-SO
-50
-5O
-50
-50
52
-50
-50
50
-5O
-50
-50
-50
-50
-5O
-50
-50
50
CR
UG/L-CR
-20
10
-20
-2O
-2O
-2O
20
4O
38
-20
2O
-20
-20
-20
2O
31
-20
2O L
23
32
-2O
2O
-20
-SO
CU
UG/L-CU
-20
19O
-2O
-2O
-20
-20
36O
25
-20
-2O
20
-20
-2O
-2O
360
21
-20
-20
7O
20
-20
-2O
140
26
-20
FE
MG/L-FE
-O. 2
0. 9
1O. 9
O. 8
0. 8
16. 8
3. 1
7. 8
3. 7
O. 3
1. 9
10. 4
0. 7
0. 7
1. 3
25. 0
-O 5
0. 2
O 8
3. 6
1. O
0. 4
O. 8
5 1
1. O
PB
UG/L-PB
-10
-1OO
-1OO
-1OO
3O
-1OO
-1OO
20
-100
-1OO
-1O
-10O
-100
10
-100
-100
-10
-100
110
MG/L-MO
12O
92
14O
191
96
166
76
237
274
183
too
178
114
103
101
17O
2O2
142
93
149
213
111
1OO
169
129
MN
MG/L-MN
O. OB
O. 24
O. 14
O. 13
O. 08
0. 17
O. 24
0. 1O
0. 13
O. 07
O. 02
0 36
0. 22
O. 28
0. 01
O. 06
-O. O5
-0. 05
-0. 01
0. O6
-O. O5
-O O5
-O. Ol
-0. 05
-0. OS
-------
TABLE B-l. Continued
SAMPLE SO4 AL AS B CD CA CO CR CU FF. PB MG UN
NUMBER MG/L-SO4 MG/L-AU UO/L-AS UG/L-B UG/L-CD MG/L-CA UG/L-CO UG/L-CR UG/L-CU MG/L-FE UG/L-PB MG/L-MG MG/L-MN
GO
122301
122303
122303
1223O4
120702
12O7O3
124104
124202
1242O4
1243O2
124303
124304
1245O1
124502
1670
1518
1639
8O9
601
1561
297O
3045
2827
2628
69
1. 9
-0. 3
5. 9
-0. 3
-0. 3
4. 5
-0. 3
O. 7
1. 9
141. 0
198
-20 462
-20 221
-2O 226
-2O 616
-20 124
383
640
828
955
474
587
2O8
-1O
-20
-20
-20
-2O
-20
-20
-20
-10
-20
416
726
69O
852
446
473
517
694
56O
371
-50
54
-50
-50
-5O
-50
-50
-5O
-5O
20
-20
32
-20
-2O
-20
-20
38
20
165
190
22
-2O
-20
102
-2O
33
36
39O
12O
1 0
2. 6
5. O
3. 1
3. 5
3. 5
1. 6
-O. 5
13. O
65. O
-10
-10O
-too
-100
-10O
-1OO
-1OO
-1O
-2OO
98
178
198
153
127
145
195. O
263. 0
97. O
82. O
O. Ol
-O. O5
0. 16
-O. O5
-O. O5
0. 10
O. 05
-O. OS
1. 53
2 94
-------
TABLE B-l. Continued
SAMPLE
NUMBER
116OO2
116OO3
1 16O04
114502
114601
1146O4
1147O1
11O3O1
110302
110303
1 1 O304
11O6O1
1 1 O6O2
1 1 O6O3
1106O4
110501
11O5O2
1 1 O5O3
11O5O4
1246O1
124602
124603
124604
122O11
1?2012
HO
UG/L-HC
-3. 0
-0. 3
-O. 3
-O.5
-0. 5
-2. 0
O. 6
-0. 3
-2.0
-O. 3
-O. 5
-2. 0
-0. 5
-0. 5
-2.0
0. 6
-0. 5
-2. 0
HI
UC/L-NI
94
-3O
-5O
-50
-50
-5O
-JO
-5O
207
-50
-5O
-5O
94
-3O
-5O
-50
263
-50
-50
-5O
66
-50
-50
-5O
193
K
MC/L-K
3 9
2. 1
3. 6
20. 0
6. 2
6. 0
2. 1
3. B
1O. O
2. 4
5. 4
5. 3
10. 8
4. 9
13. 1
110
17. 9
12. O
2O. O
14.2
16.8
14. 0
13. 7
7. 2
12 0
NA
HG/L-NA
198
73
186
-3
424
391
380
346
396
336
269
758
863
968
1417
2128
2463
2543
2083
449
339
506
35O
1236
1227
ZN
UG/L-ZN
1O6
-50
1OO
207
-10
-2O
70
BO
197
31
51
4O
64
-SO
196
30
75
59
175
1OO
90
51
64
7O
43O
SE
UG/L-SE
1O
-1O
-1O
-1O
12
-IO
-1O
22
13
58
76
59
83
15
-10
-10
4O
ENORIN
NO/L
-0. 03
-O. O3
-O. O3
O. OO
-O. O3
-O O3
-0. 03
-O. O3
-O. O3
-O. O3
-0. 03
-0 03
-O. O3
-0. 03
-0. 03
-0. 03
-O. 03
-O. 03
-O. O3
-O. O3
-O. 03
-0. 03
-O. O3
--O. 03
-O..O3
L.INUANE
NtVL
4O. OO
8. 7O
1. OO
O. OO
72. 00
1 3O
4 10
-O. 1O
16 30
3. 2O
3.30
48 8O
-5. OO
4. 4O
2. OO
3. 50
29. OO
5. 80
-0. 4O
551. OO
1250. 00
380. 00
49. 2O
123. OO
4O. OO
HETHOXV-
CHLOT
NO/L
-O. Ol
-0. Ol
-0. Ol
O. OO
-O. Ol
-0. Ol
-O. Ol
-O. Ol
-0. 01
-0 01
-0. Ol
-O. Ol
-0. OJ
-O. 01
-O Ol
-O Ol
-0. 01
-0 01
-0. Ol
-0. 01
-O. Ol
-O. Ol
-O. 01
-O Ot
-O. Ol
PHENE
NC/L
-0 1
-0. 1
-0 1
O. O
-0 1
-0 1
-0. 1
-O. 1
-0. 1
-0. 1
-01
-0 1
-0. 1
-0. 1
-O 1
-O 1
-0 1
-0 1
-0. 1
0 1
-0. 1
-0. 1
-O 1
-O 1
-0 1
2. 4-D
NO/L
-1.2
-2. O
33.3
O. O
3 B
18. 4
0. 6
0. 9
-1. 2
18. 3
13 2
1. B
-1. S
46. 4
17. 7
O. 4
-1. 2
39.8
12. 7
O. 6
-1 2
50 2
64. O
O. 5
-1. 2
Z. A. 3 TP
S1LVEX
NG/L
15. O
61. B
16. O
O. O
-O. 2
5. B
-O. 2
-O 2
12 3
15. B
7. 7
-O. 2
18. O
1O5. O
6 9
-0 2
16.0
70 6
6 7
-O. 2
2O. O
70. 4
21. 9
-O. 2
21. O
-------
TABLE B-l. Continued
SAMPLE
NUMBER
122013
122O14
1 22O2 1
122O22
122O23
122024
122031
122032
122033
122O34
1205O1
120502
12O5O3
12O5O4
12O3O1
12O3O2
12O3O3
12O3O4
12O431
12O432
12O433
12O434
1221O1
1221O2
1221O3
HG
UG/L-HG
-O. 5
-0. 5
-2. 0
-O. 5
-0. 5
-2 0
O. 6
-O. 5
-2. 0
O 6
-O. 5
-2. O
O. 6
-O. 5
-2 O
-O. 5
-O. 5
-2. O
0. 6
NI
UG/L-NI
-50
-5O
-50
151
-5O
-5O
-50
179
-50
-5O
-5O
179
-50
-50
-50
2O7
-5O
-5O
-5O
235
-SO
-50
-5O
122
-50
K
MG/L-K
7. 7
14 8
5. 4
114
6. 6
13. B
3. 3
11.4
7. 3
12. 9
5. 4
13. 3
9. 8
16. O
7. 3
13 6
6. 4
16. 9
6. 0
14. 4
2. 7
14 1
6. 8
114
B. 6
NA
MG/L-NA
1419
1479
817
1111
1 194
1302
118
995
757
1292
1645
1498
1590
1896
1333
1498
1515
1333
1462
1575
1399
1333
785
856
11 18
ZN
UG/L-ZN
-5O
2O
5O
349
-50
2O
7O
304
-50
175
66O
367
284
351
350
93
-5O
87
60
227
-50
51
4O
23
-50
BE
UG/L-SE
24
52
3O
3O
38
29
27
21
38
33
52
38
29
62
4O
40
20
21
ENDRIN
NG/L
-O. O3
-0. 03
-O O3
-0. O3
~O. O3
-O. O3
O. O3
-0. O3
-O O3
-O. O3
-O. O3
-O O3
-0 03
-0. O3
-O. 03
-0. 03
-O. O3
-O. O3
-0. O3
-O. 03
-O. 03
-O O3
-O. 03
--O. 03
-0. 03
LINDANE
NG/L
3. BO
2. 2O
151. OO
15. OO
6. 50
2. 40
124. OO
27 OO
9. 4O
1. 4O
6O. 50
183 OO
1. 6O
1. BO
252 00
-5. OO
1. BO
1. 6O
-O 10
-5. OO
4. 20
0. 4O
14 80
16 OO
3. 6O
METHOXY-
CHLOR
NG/L
-O, Ol
-O. 01
-O. Ol
-O Ol
-0. Ot
-O. Ol
-0. Ol
-O. Ol
-0. 01
-O. Ol
0. Ol
-O. 01
-O Ol
-O. Ol
-O 01
-O Ol
-O 01
-O Ol
-0. 01
-O Ol
-O. Ol
-0 Ol
-0. 01
-0 Ot
-O 01
TOXA-
PHENE
NG/L
-0. 1
-0. 1
-0 1
-0. 1
-O 1
-O 1
-0. t
-0 1
-0. 1
-0. 1
-0 1
-0 1
-0. 1
-0 1
-0 1
-O 1
-0 1
-0 1
-O 1
-O 1
-0 1
-0 1
-0 1
0 1
0 1
3, 4-D
NG/L
-2. O
88. 5
O. B
-1. 2
43. 8
-O. 4
O. 6
-1. 2
3O. 4
12. 6
1. 0
-1. 2
14. 4
52. 8
1. 7
-1. 2
53. 0
49 ?
23O O
-1. 2
-2 O
-O 4
1. 5
-1 2
2, 4, 5 TP
SILVEX
NG/L
81. B
10. B
-O 2
39. O
4O. 6
12 8
-O. 2
15 O
53. 5
16. O
-0. 2
54 O
128. O
9. 1
-O. 2
19. O
67. 7
16 4
-0. 2
60. 0
35 2
3. 7
-O. 2
31 5
-------
TABLE B-l. Continued
o
SAMPLE
NUMBER
1221O4
120901
120902
12O9O3
12O9O4
121702
1216O1
1216O2
1216O3
121604
1214O1
1214O2
121403
121404
121301
1213O2
121303
121304
121 5O1
121502
121503
121504
1222O1
122202
122204
HG
UG/L-HG
-O 5
-2. 0
-0 5
-2. O
-0 5
-2. 0
0. 7
-0. 5
-2. O
-0. 5
-O. 5
-2. 0
-0. 5
-0. 5
-2. 0
-0. 5
-0. 5
-2. O
NI
UG/L-NI
-50
-50
151
-50
-50
(51
-50
2OO
-50
-50
-50
221
-50
-50
-50
172
-50
-50
-50
136
-50
-50
-50
179
-50
K
MG/L-K
B. 9
7. 0
13. 0
5. 9
0. 0
10. 6
B. 0
1O. 4
5. 6
9. 2
B 1
15 3
4 B
7. 7
4 5
13 1
7. 3
10. 2
9. 4
17. 6
12. 0
10. 0
7. O
1O. 6
9. 5
NA
MG/L-NA
776
559
685
1058
531
92O
946
1O14
! 169
!OOO
SO1O
1459
637
653
9O3
1052
1219
97O
795
847
1118
653
11)8
1265
9BO
ZN
UG/L-ZN
113
30
83
107
B2
!46
1OO
78
212
!44
17O
62
-50
92
9O
91
103
56
-10
50
-50
144
60
SO
165
SE
UG/L-BE
15
25
-1O
2B
29
22
22
32
1O
14
28
22
22
32
47
26
52
23
ENDRIN
NG/L
-0. 03
-0. 03
-O. O3
-0. 03
-0. 03
-O. O3
-0 03
-O. O3
-O. O3
-O. 03
-0 03
-O O3
-o. 03
-0. 03
-0. 03
-0. 03
-O O3
-O. 03
-O. 03
-0. 03
-0. O3
-O 03
-0. 03
-O O3
-0. 03
LINDANE
NG/L
0. 80
5. 00
-5. 00
4. 70
-O. 4O
B5O OO
6. 4O
32. 20
B. 9O
4 SO
200 00
BIO OO
13. 30
3 50
12. 20
68. OO
6. 40
-O. 40
53. 70
23. 00
2. 40
5 70
-0. 10
26. OO
1 1O
P1ETHOXY-
CHLOR
NG/L
-O Ol
-O Ol
-0 01
-O. Ol
-O Ol
-0. 01
-O Ol
-O Ol
-0. 01
-O. Ol
-0. 01
-0 01
-0. 01
-o. 01
-0. Ol
-O Ol
-0. Ol
-0. 01
-0. 01
-O. Ol
-0. 01
-O 01
-0 Ol
-0. 01
-O 01
TOXA-
PHENE
NG/L
-O 1
-0. 1
-0. 1
-O 1
-0 1
-0 1
-O. 1
-0. 1
-O 1
-0 1
- O 1
-O. 1
-0. 1
-0. 1
-0. 1
-0 1
-0 1
-O. 1
-O 1
-0 1
-O. 1
-0 1
-0 1
-0. 1
-0 1
2, 4-D
NG/L
-0 4
-0. 4
-1. 3
-2. O
IB. O
-1. 2
1. 6
-1. 2
-2. 0
52. 7
4 2
-1.2
-2. 0
6. 6
1. 6
-1. 2
-2 0
-O. 4
1. 0
-I. 2
0. 7
-1 2
-O. 4
2. 4, 5 TP
SILVEX
NG/L
1O 1
-0. 2
17. O
4?. 4
1 1 1
12. 7
-0 2
46. 5
90 6
11.6
-O ?.
19 0
74. 7
0 O
-0. 2
25. O
59 2
19. 5
-0. 2
-12. 5
7. 3
-0. 2
-12. 5
18. 4
-------
TABLE B-l. Continued
SAMPLE
NUMBER
122301
1223O2
1223O3
1223O4
12O702
12O703
1241O4
1242O2
124204
124302
1243O3
1243O4
124501
1245O2
HG NI
UG/L-HG UG/L-NI
-0. 5 -50
-2. O 193
0. 7 -SO
-5O
-2. O 122
-O. 5 -50
35. O 2O7
-5O
-0. 5 230
-5O
K
MG/L-K
5.
9.
6.
9.
10.
6.
13
9.
1O.
41.
9
3
5
8
3
9
"7
O
2
0
NA
MC/L-NA
1053
956
1149
933
847
978
1769
416
1526
71
ZN BE ENDRIN
UG/L-ZN UG/L-SE NG/L
31O -0. 03
16O 38 -0. 03
-5O 23 -0. O3
82 37 -O. 03
67 39 -O. O3
22O 23 -O. O3
179
30O -O. O3
5O
6O1
METHOXY- TDXA- 2, 4, 5 TP
LINDANE CHLOR PHENE 2, 4-D SILVEX
NG/L NG/L NG/L NG/L NG/L
4. 1O -O 01 -0. 1 O. 9 -O. 2
19. OO -O. 01 -0.1 -1.2 15.0
27. 4O -O. 01 -0.1 44.0 210.0
1. 50 -O. 01 -0. 1 54. 0 6. 2
68.0O -O. 01 -O.I -1.2 19. O
11. BO -O 01 -O. 1 9. 6 41.0
-0. 01 -O. 1
-------
TABU B-2. SOIL DATA
SAMPLE
NUMBER
11111
11 131
11112
11132
11113
11133
11114
11134
11115
11135
11116
11136
11211
11231
11212
11232
11213
11233
11214
11234
11215
11235
11216
11236
11311
COLLECTION
DATE
7/
I/
7/
1 /
7/
I/
7/
I/
7/
I/
7/
I/
7/
I/
7/
I/
7/
I/
7/
I/
7/
I/
7/
I/
7/
2/76
6/77
2/76
6/77
2/76
6/77
2/76
6/77
2/76
6/77
2/76
6/77
2/76
6/77
2/76
6/77
2/76
6/77
2/76
6/77
2/76
6/77
2/76
6/77
2/76
DEPTH
M
0
O.
O.
O.
O.
O.
O.
O.
1.
1
3
3.
O.
0.
O.
O.
0.
0.
O.
0.
1.
1.
3.
3
O
01
01
03
03
1O
1O
3O
3O
OO
00
OO
OO
Ol
Ol
O3
O3
1O
1O
3O
3O
OO
OO
00
OO
Ol
INORGANIC
NITROGEN
PH UG/Gtl-N
8.
8.
7.
B.
7.
8.
7.
B.
7.
7.
7.
7.
7.
8.
7.
8.
7.
B.
7.
8.
7.
7.
7.
B.
7
O
6
7
6
8
5
6
4
7
8
8
9
7
O
B
1
7
0
6
0
6
9
9
1
8
14.
11.
45.
19.
68.
1O.
63.
17.
49.
7.
90.
20.
39.
20.
72.
16.
14.
21.
12.
43.
14.
24.
4
4
7
3
4
3
6
7
2
O
O
4
5
8
5
6
O
4
3
7
7
1
TOTAL
ORGANIC
NITROGEN
UG/'CM-N
1O94
1992
935
1395
763
1O96
842
697
550
29O
299
297
862
2497
1376
1296
1147
596
9OO
397
288
394
165
296
991
TOT AL
PHOSPHORUS
UG/GM-P
1524
1215
1093
11O6
1114
955
856
916
737
779
791
382
1O07
1145
985
1141
12O1
928
813
894
877
726
823
866
1O39
AVAILADLE TOTAL
PHOSPHORUS SULFUR
UG/GI1-P UG/CM-S
10
41
6
3O
5
28
3
23
20
8
2
-1
IB
27
13
29
17
IS
1O
3
10
1O
2
-1
3
649
1O66
29O5
979
1O2AO
1775
16940
2368O
14080
H5GB
5813
9848
6297
8814
14O1O
9643
5O29
4100
4464
I860
-------
TABLE R-2. Continued
to
SAMPLE
NUMBER
11331
11312
11332
11313
11333
11314
11334
11315
11335
11316
11336
12111
12131
12112
12132
12113
12133
12114
12134
12115
12135
12116
12136
12211
12231
COLLECTION
DATE
I/
7/
I/
7/
I/
7/
I/
7/
I/
7/
\r
7/
I/
7/
I/
7/
I/
7/
I/
7/
I/
7/
I/
7/
I/
6/77
2/76
6/77
2/76
6/77
2/76
6/77
2/76
6/77
2/76
6/77
2/76
5/77
2^76
5/77
2/76
5/77
2/76
5/77
2/76
5/77
2/76
5/77
2/76
5/77
DEPTH
M
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
O.
O.
1.
1
3.
3.
O.
0.
O.
0.
0.
0.
O.
O.
1.
1.
3.
3.
0.
O.
Ol
03
O3
1O
10
30
30
00
00
OO
OO
01
01
03
03
10
10
30
30
OO
OO
OO
OO
01
01
INORGANIC
NITROGEN
PH UG/GM-N
8.
7.
8.
8.
8.
7.
8.
7.
7.
8.
7.
8.
B.
7.
8.
7.
8.
7.
7.
7.
7.
7.
8.
7.
B.
1
6
2
1
1
5
2
8
8
O
9
O
4
9
2
9
1
8
9
7
8
7
1
8
5
13.
42.
13.
61.
15.
57.
14.
11.
15.
4O.
21.
28.
60.
43.
62.
86.
23.
18.
14.
34.
11.
47.
0
9
2
4
5
5
3
1
8
4
3
1
7
9
7
5
e
5
O
O
2
1
TOTAL
ORGANIC TOTAL
NITROGEN PHOSPHORUS
UG/GM-N UG/GM-P
1396
1569
1196
1O43
696
95O
795
999
493
47O
197
13O1
2895
1296
1396
1668
996
720
592
392
494
-168
196
2959
2394
1284
953
1O84
1O93
981
89 9
752
1O28
62O
597
52B
1115
2O51
1266
1976
1546
1817
1115
141O
446
869
769
733
1632
1514
AVAILABLE TOTAL
PHOSPHORUS SULFUI
UG/GM-P UG/GM
19
5
22
14
23
8
7
1
5
2
-1
17
45
39
53
58
33
2
7
1
2
2
-1
73
18
2176
402O
2175
I67O
2167
10B27
3389
2396O
38310
2561
4142O
2326
1O32
711O
1644
767
2162
7612
B579
1794O
13595
433O
1611
989
-------
TABLE B-2. Continued
SAMPLE
NUMBER
12212
12232
12213
12233
12214
12234
12215
12235
12216
12236
12311
12331
12312
12332
12313
12333
12314
12334
12315
12335
12316
12336
COLLECT ION
DATE
7/
I/
7/
I/
7/
I/
7/
I/
7/
I/
7/
I/
7/
I/
7/
I/
7/
I/
71
I/
7/
I/
2/76
5/77
2/76
5/77
2/76
5/77
2/76
5/77
2/76
5/77
2/76
5/77
2/76
5/77
2/76
5/77
2/76
5/77
2/76
S/77
2/76
5/77
DEPTH
M
0
O
O.
0
O
O
1
1
3
3.
O
O
O
O.
0
O.
0.
O.
1
1.
3.
3
03
03
10
1O
30
30
OO
OO
00
OO
Ol
Ol
03
03
1O
10
3O
3O
OO
OO
OO
OO
INORGANIC
NITROGEN
PM UG/GM-N
8.
8.
7
8
7
8.
7.
8.
8.
8.
8
8.
8
8
B.
8
8
7.
7
7
8
O
4
9
4
8
2
7
1
4
4
4
2
5
O
5
2
7
5
7
9
1
61
95.
58
61
27.
45.
16
46
22
34
56.
BO.
47
114
22.
48.
20
45.
?3
9
5
8
2
6
9
2
1
7
6
4
6
2
2
6
1
7
6
1
TOTAL
ORGANIC
NITROGEN
UG/GM-N
2195
1996
1417
1296
78
989
16O
294
150
184
1749
1991
1895
1686
1760
1095
9O1
1O92
264
493
363
49O
TOTAL
PHOSPHORUS
UG/GM-P
17OB
1492
1438
158O
1028
15O8
759
671
705
566
1632
1828
1481
1962
1675
1723
1007
978
662
523
974
741
AVAILABLE TOTAL
PHOSPHORUS SULFUR
UG/GM-P UG/GM-S
38
21
41
68
4
44
2
4
4
4
67
126
67
90
62
94
3
1O
9
14
18
5
22O9
1167
1077
3977
14OI
1394O
594O
1661
2594
630
688
52O4
713
2192
839
16O70
20159
2401
6912
-------
TABLE B-2. Continued
CATION EXTR. EXTR. EXTR. EXTR. EXTR. EXTR. EXTR. EXTR. EXCH. EXTR.
SAMPLE EX-CAP AL B CD CO CR CU FE PB MG MN
NUMBER MEQ/1OOO UO/GM UG/GM UO/CM UG/GM UG/6M UG/GM UC/GM UO/GM MG/GM UO/GM
11111 31 O. 07 -O. 12 -1. 20 1. 6 11 1.7 23
11131 24 -3.0 0.62 -O. O5 -O. 12 -0. 1O O. & 8 O. 7O 16
11112 29 0. O9 -0.12 -1.2O 1.7 13 2.2 1.10 3O
11132 25 -3. O O. 72 -0. O3 -0.12 -O. 10 O. 3 7 O. 8O 13
11113 26 0.08 0.12 -1.20 1.7 17 2.2 1.1O 34
11133 24 -3.0 0.29 -O. O5 -O. 12 -O. 1O O. 3 6 080 13
11114 27 O. 85 O. O3 -0. 12 -1.2O 1.3 12 1.6 1.20 28
11134 22 -3.0 0.29 -O. O3 -O. 12 -O. 1O O. 5 5 0. 7O 12
11115 22 2. O O. 81 0. O3 -O. 12 -1. 2O 1.3 1O 1.4 1. BO 19
11135 24 -3.0 0. IS -O. O5 -O. 12 -O. 1O 4. 1 5 O. 7O 9
11116 32 6.0 1.02 0.02 -0.12 -1. 2O 1.3 14 2.0 1.7O 14
4i 11136 24 -3.0 0.10 -0.05 -O. 12 -0. 1O O. 9 7 O. 80 8
cn
11211 27 0.07 -0.12 -1.20 1.2 9 1.7 l.OO 23
11231 27 -3.0 1.23 -O. OS -O. 12 -0. 1O 0.6 8 O. 70 13
11212 3O O. OS -0.12 -1.2O 1.1 9 1.5 l.OO 27
11232 26 -3. O O. 57 *-0. O5 -O. 12 -O. 10 O. 7 8 0. 7O 13
11213 27 0.04 -0.12 -1.2O O. 9 7 1.4 O. 9O 23
11233 28 -3.0 0.78 -OO5 -O. 12 -O. 10 0.6 7 O. BO 19
11214 31 1.63 0.03 -O. 12 -1.2O l.O 7 1.00 2O
11234 26 -3.0 0.54 -O. O5 -0.12 -O. 1O O. 6 3 0. 7O 8
11215 25 13.0 0.72 -O. O2 -0.12 -1.2O 1.1 6 O. 8 1.20 16
11235 32 -3. O O. 48 -O. OS -O. 12 -O. 1O 2.7 1O 1.30 14
11216 29 3.0 1.28 O. 05 -0.12 -1.20 1.6 21 1.3 1.60
11236 26 -3.0 O. 32 -O. OS -O. 12 -O. 1O 3.8 13 1. 2O 15
11311 19 O. O6 -0.12 -1.20 1.1 8 1.4 l.OO 26
-------
CT>
TABLE B-2. Continued
CATION EXTR. EX1R EXTR. EXTR. EX1H. EXTR. EX1R, EXTR. EXCH EXTR.
SAMPLE EX-CAP AL B CP CO CR CU FE PB MG MN
NUMBER MEO/1OOG UG/GM UG/GM UG/GM UG/GM UG/GM UG/GM UG/GM UG/GM MG/GM UG/GM
11331
11312
11332
11313
1KJ33
1 1314
1 1 334
11315
11335
11316
11336
121 11
12131
121 12
12132
12113
12133
12114
12134
12115
12135
13116
12136
12211
12231
29
20
28
26
28
22
26
20
31
1O
33
22
18
19
34
31
34
!9
3O
32
31
24
25
26
30
-3. O
-3. O
-3. O
2. O
-3. O
-3. O
-3. 0
-3. O
-3. 0
-3. 0
-3. 0
?-.. 0
-3. 0
2 O
-3. 0
-3. 0
O.
O.
1.
0.
o.
o.
1.
0.
0.
0.
1.
o.
o.
o.
1.
o.
1.
o.
0.
1.
34
54
12
26
85
36
O6
84
54
85
50
95
70
69
52
71
27
97
95
2O
-O.
O.
-O.
O.
-O.
O.
-O.
-O
-O.
-O.
-O.
0.
0.
O.
0.
O.
O.
O.
-0.
-0.
-0.
O.
-o.
o.
-o
O5
OB
OS
OS
05
OS
O5
O2
05
O2
O5
38
07
1O
O6
09
05
05
OS
O2
05
15
O5
10
O5
-O.
-O.
-O.
O.
-0.
-O.
-0.
-0.
-O.
-0.
-0.
-O.
-0.
o.
-o.
0.
-0.
-o.
-o.
o.
-0.
-o.
-o.
o.
-o.
12
12
12
15
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
25
12
3O
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
15
1?
-O.
-1.
-O.
-I.
-O.
-1.
-O.
-1.
-o.
-1
-o.
-1
-o.
-1
-o.
-1.
-0.
-1.
-0.
-1.
-o.
-i.
-o.
-i.
-o.
10
20
10
20
1O
20
10
2O
1O
2O
1O
20
1O
2O
1O
2O
1O
2O
10
20
10
20
10
20
1O
O.
1.
1.
O.
o.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
2-
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
I.
3.
1
3.
2.
I.
2.
1.
8
3
0
9
8
O
3
2
I
7
1
6
6
7
3
8
6
4
1
4
9
9
4
1
4
8
1O
9
7
10
7
5
7
8
21
B
13
17
16
1O
2O
9
9
9
IS
2O
31
13
15
13
O.
1.8 1.
1.
1 3 0.
1.
1.3 O.
O.
O. 9 1.
1.
1. 1 1.
1.
2. 3 I.
O
25 1.
O.
2. B 1.
O
1. 4 1.
O.
1. 0 1.
O
4. 8 1
1.
2. 7 1.
O
80
OO
OO
9O
OO
BO
9O
2O
2O
60
20
1O
8O
00
90
10
9O
OO
7O
1O
9O
70
OO
1O
90
14
31
20
29
13
21
12
IB
12
7
23
?5
38
14
52
16
25
17
3OO
13
70
11
24
12
-------
TABLE B-2. Continued
CATION EXTR. EXTR. EXTR. EXTR. EXTR. EXTR. EXTR. EXTR. EXCH. EXTR
SAMPLE EX-CAP AL B CD CO CR CU FE PB MG MN
NUMBER MEQ/1OOO UG/QM UG/CM UO/GM UG/GM UG/GM UG/CM UG/GM UG/CM MG/GM UG/GM
12212
12232
12213
12233
12214
12234
12215
12235
12216
12236
12311
12331
12312
12332
12313
12333
12314
12334
12315
12335
12316
12336
34
3O
39
32
34
36
30
4O
26
34
28
29
27
33
51
32
33
3O
26
32
21
27
-3.
-3.
2.
-3.
2.
-3.
2.
-3.
-3.
-3.
-3.
2.
-3.
3.
-3.
1.
-3.
0
0
0
0
0
O
0
O
O
0
0
0
0
0
O
0
O
1. 12
O. 93
0. 66
O. 87
0. 62
0. 31
0. 54
O. 79
1. 40
1. 4O
1. 11
1. 77
1. 32
1. 3O
1. 1O
1..AO
O. SO
0. 11
-0. 05
0. 10
-O. OS
0. 06
O. O5
-O. O2
-0. O5
-O. O2
-O. O5
0. 09
-O. O5
0 12
-0. O5
0. 1O
-O. O5
O. O4
-O. O5
-O. O2
-0. 05
-O. O2
-O. O5
t).
-0
O.
-O.
-O.
-O.
O.
-O.
O.
-O.
O.
-0.
-0.
-0.
-O.
-O.
O.
-O.
O.
-0.
-O.
-O.
52
12
25
12
12
12
IS
12
25
12
17
12
12
12
12
12
43
12
14
12
12
12
-1
-O.
-1.
-0.
-1.
-O.
-1.
-O.
-1.
-O.
-1.
-O.
-1.
-O.
-1
-O.
-1.
-O.
-I.
-O.
-1.
-O.
20
10
20
10
2O
1O
20
10
20
10
20
1O
20
10
20
1O
20
1O
2O
1O
2O
1O
2.
1.
1
1.
1.
4.
1.
4.
2.
3.
1.
1
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
2.
1.
3.
1.
I.
2
3
7
5
5
O
9
O
5
3
8
4
6
2
7
3
8
2
5
4
2
9
18
12
13
14
12
11
18
2O
21
18
12
17
13
14
14
15
16
8
17
30
11
37
3. 1 1.
1
2. 6 1
0. O 0.
1.7 1
0.
2. 5 1
1
O
1.
24 2.
1.
a. 3 i.
i
2. 4 1
0.
1
1.
42 1.
O O 1
1.7 1
0.
1O
OO
00
90
3O
90
5O
20
90
00
OO
OO
20
00
30
90
60
1O
60
00
10
7O
56O
13
78
18
14O
14
8
7
13
6
24
13
22
10
28
13
26
8
8
B
6
7
-------
TABLE B-2. Continued
oo
SAMPLE
NUMBER
11111
11 131
11112
1 1 132
11113
11) 33
11114
11134
11115
11135
11116
11136
1121 1
11231
11212
11232
11213
11233
11214
11234
11215
11235
11216
11236
11311
EXTR
Nl
UG/GM
0.
-O.
0.
O
O.
-O.
0.
-0.
O.
-0
0.
-0.
O
-O.
O
-O.
O.
-O.
O.
-O.
O.
-O.
O.
0.
O
4
1
4
1
5
1
3
1
2
1
2
1
3
1
2
1
3
1
3
1
1
1
4
1
2
EXCH.
K
MC/GM
O.
1.
O.
1.
O.
1
O.
O.
O.
O.
o.
O.
o.
1.
o
1.
o.
I.
0.
o.
o.
1.
o.
o.
3
o
3
1
3
2
2
8
2
9
3
8
3
O
3
O
3
O
3
6
3
2
3
8
EXCH
NA
MG/GM
O.
I.
O.
1.
2.
1.
3.
O.
3.
O.
2.
O.
1.
O.
1.
O.
1.
o.
2.
1.
3.
2.
1.
2
7
5
5
0
0
5
7
5
t
5
5
6
6
6
6
5
6
0
1
4
1
9
EXTR
ZN ENDRIN LINDANE METHOXYCHLOR
UG/GM NG/GM NG/GM NG/GM
1
1
1.
O.
0.
0.
O
1.
0.
3.
0.
O.
O.
O.
1
1.
O
0.
0.
o.
1.
o
1.
0.
29 46 16. OO -0. 01
OO -15. 2 9. 84 -0 Ol
65 4. 3 0. 3O -O. Ol
80 -15. 2 3. 58 -0. Ol
96 8 7 3. 4O -0 Ol
BO -15.2 47.38 -O. 01
98
OO
42
30
34
6O
69 5. 7 16. 3O -0. 01
6O -15. 2 19. 27 -O. Ol
O3 8. 4 3. 90 -O. Ol
00 -15. 2 2. 58 -0 01
81 16. 0 0. 9O -O. Ol
BO -15. 2 2. 66 -O. Ol
40
45
20
76
3O
99 14.6 1.2O -0.01
TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL
TOXAPHENE 2, 4-D SILVEX AL CD CA
NG/GM NG/GM NG/GM MG/GM UG/GM 'MG/GM
-0. 6 0 20 -O O3 16
-7 6 2. 81 13 55 16
-O. 6 O. 1O -0. 03 23
-7. 6 5. 43 28 61 35
-O. 6 0. 10 -0 03 19
-7. 6 2. 53 13. 25 32
31
26
14
17
13
17
-O. 6 O 4O -O O3 20
-7. 6 1. 85 12. 3B 19
-0. 6 O. 2O -0. O3 16
-7.6 1.72 33.00 14
-O. 6 O. 1O O. O3 25
-7. 6 1. 77 13 31 21
17
19
12
19
28
20
-O. 6 O. 1O -O O3 16
-5
1
-5
1
-5
2
-5
1
-5
1
-5
-1
-5
2
-5
-1
-5
1
-5
-1
-5
1
-5
1
-5
25
21
29
26
25
3O
5O
28
35
61
53
56
34
38
34
28
68
33
44
30
40
50
51
47
24
-------
TABLE B-2. Continued
SAMPLE
NUM13ER
1 1331
11312
11332
11313
11333
11314
11334
11315
11335
11316
1 1336
12111
12131
12112
12132
121 13
12133
12114
12134
12115
12135
121 16
12136
12211
12231
EXTR.
NI
UG/GM
O.
0.
0
0.
0.
0.
0.
O.
-0.
0.
-0
O.
0.
0.
0.
O.
O.
O.
O.
0.
O.
1.
-O.
O
O.
2
6
3
3
2
4
2
a
1
3
1
7
4
6
3
7
3
4
3
2
3
0
1
7
4
EXCH.
K
MG/GM
O.
O.
0.
0
0
O
0.
0.
O.
1
0
1
0.
1.
0.
1.
0.
1
0.
O
0.
1.
0.
1
0.
4
B
6
9
4
9
3
6
3
2
2
5
5
2
5
6
5
6
4
9
5
5
3
6
6
EXCH
NA
MG/GM
0.
1.
1.
1
1.
O.
1
1.
3.
1.
1.
1.
0.
1.
O.
1.
O.
2.
3.
O.
3
O.
9
4
2
4
5
6
9
2
B
6
9
8
7
6
7
6
6
0
3
6
1
6
EXTR TOTAL TOTAL TO!
7N ENDRIN LINDANC METHGXYCHLOR TOXAPHENE 2. 4-D SILVFX AL CD Cf
UG/GM NG/GM NG/GM NG/GM NG/GM NG/GM MG/GM MG/Gr, UG/GM M(i
0.
1.
O.
O.
O.
0.
1.
0
0
0.
0
2
2.
2
0.
2
2.
1
2
0
0
2
0
2
1
BO -152 9. 75 -0 01
21 15. 2 2. 50 -0. 01
70 -152 7. 07 -0 01
90 15. 2 1. 00 -0. 01
8O -15. 2 IB. 30 -O 0!
90
6O
70
4O
87
50
Ol 16 0 0 4O -O Ol
10 -152 -0. 38 -O. Ol
13 7. O O SO -O. Ol
70 -15 2 -0. 3B -0 01
75 118 0 50 -0 01
00 -152 -0 3B -0. 01
32
00
30
BO
18
90
88 13 2 O 30 -O. Ol
6O -152 -O 3B -O. Ol
-7. 6 O 98 1 5 67 3O
-O. 6 0 02 -0. 03 IB
-7 6 2. 34 7. 07 26
-O. 6 O. OS -0 03 18
-7. 6 2 O3 3 28 15
12
29
\O
16
7
16
-O 6 O 1O -O. O3 14
-7. 6 3. 91 1 1 58 34
-0. 6 0. 02 -0 03 15
~7. 6 5. 36 B 99 3O
-O. 6 O. 1O -0 O3 1O
-7. 6 3 38 15 O4 25
17
19
16
16
3O
21
-0 6 -0 02 -0 03 16
-7 6 -0 34 0 40 26
1 32
-5 ?1
2 34
-5 24
-1 23
-5 40
1 36
-5 38
-1 4O
-5 47
-1 5O
-5 26
2 39
-5 28
2 27
-5 26
1 33
-5 37
1 34
-5 72
1 4O
-5 9
1 59
-5 35
) 41
-------
TABLE B-2. Continued
FXTR.
SAMPLE
NUMBER
12212
12232
12213
12233
12214
12234
12215
12235
12216
12236
12311
>— 12331
cn
° 12312
12332
12313
12333
12314
12334
12315
12335
12316
12336
NI
UG/GM
O.
O.
O
0.
O.
O
O.
O.
O.
-O.
0.
O.
O.
O.
O.
0.
O.
O.
O.
0.
O.
O.
7
4
6
3
5
3
5
3
7
1
5
3
8
3
6
3
6
3
6
3
-)
2
EXCH.
H
MG/GM
1.
0.
1
O.
1.
0
1
O.
O.
O.
1.
0.
1.
0.
1.
O.
1.
O.
1.
O.
0.
O.
8
6
7
6
B
5
4
4
8
3
7
5
7
5
7
5
6
5
O
4
9
1
EXCH.
Nf\
MG/CM
1.
1.
2.
1.
2.
O.
3.
1.
3.
1.
2.
O.
1.
1.
1.
O.
2.
1.
2.
1.
2.
8
O
1
4
O
9
O
6
8
3
1
4
9
3
9
8
2
0
5
O
4
EXTR.
ZN ENDRIN LINDANE METHOXYCHLOR
UG/GM NC/GM NG/GM NG/GM
2.
2.
1.
2.
O.
3.
0
1.
O.
1.
2.
1.
2.
1.
3.
3.
1.
1.
O.
2.
0.
1.
88 11. 1 O. 5O -O. Ol
4O -13. 2 '-0. 38 -O. Ol
93 11. B 0. 3O -O. 01
90 -15.2 -0.38 -0.01
69
2O
31
2O
55
OO
46 12. 5 O. 5O -0. Ol
6O -15.2 -O. 38 -O. Ol
17 12. 5 0. 50 -O. Ol
7O -15. 2 -O. 38 -0. Ol
12 12. 8 O. 8O -0. Ol
20 -15.2 -0.38 -0.01
O6
40
67
OO
46
50
TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL
TOXAPHENE 2. 4-D SILVEX AL CD CA
NG/GM NG/GM NG/GM MG/GM UO/GM MG/GM
-O. 6 -O. O2 -O. OS IB
-7. 6 4. 86 6. 32 27
-O. 6 0. 1O -O. O3 16
-7.6 1.28 4.21 22
2O
30
17
23
31
24
-0. 6 0. 02 -O. 03 17
-7.6 1.25 6. O3 29
-O. 6 O. O4 -0. O3 21
-7.6 4.44 12.00 31
-O. 6 -0. O2 -O. O3 27
-7. 6 3. 24 6. 77 21
19
37
17
28
17
24
-9
2
-5
2
-3
2
-5
1
-5
1
-5
5
-5
2
-5
-1
-5
-1
-5
8
-5
-1
26
4O
26
35
26
37
37
27
39
26
20
29
22
31
21
13
21
38
18
26
16
13
-------
cn
TABLE B-2. Continued
TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL
SAMPLE CO CR CU FE PB MO MM HG NI K NA ZN AS SE
NUMBER UG/GM UG/GM UG/GM MG/CM US/CM MG/CM UG/GM UG/CM UG/GM MG/GM MG/GM UG/GM UG/GM UG/GM
11111
11131
11112
11132
11113
11133
11114
11134
11115
1 1 135
11116
11136
11211
11231
11212
11232
II2J3
11233
11214
1 1 234
11215
11235
1 1216
11236
1 131 1
1O
14
-10
9
1O
7
-1O
10
10
9
-IO
14
-10
9
1O
9
-10
12
-1O
7
-10
14
1O
9
12
32
29
31
22
32
29
36
26
28
2O
2O
24
32
31
32
24
24
18
3O
24
24
33
34
22
3A
22
19
19
2O
19
20
20
20
19
33
14
18
19
18
20
14
15
14
19
14
17
30
22
21
IB
33
18
38
21
33
23
46
2O
32
17
33
24
31
1-9
3O
13
2O
20
33
15
22
19
4O
3O
27
-5
-10
-5
-1O
-5
-1O
-5
-1O
-5
-1O
-5
~IO
-5
-1O
-5
-1O
-5
-IO
-5
-1O
-5
-1O
-5
-to
-5
6. 6
3. 7
7. 4
7. 3
6, 2
9. 2
11. 0
7. 4
4 2
12. 0
5 0
4. 2
fl. 5
7. B
4 7
4. 5
14. O
4. 6
B. 7
4. B
5. 2
7. 3
12. 0
3: 7
3. 6
405
397
334
531
411
56O
465
5O2
452
292
271
O
378
520
338
388
370
488
411
407
545
621
636
814
3B6
-0. 5
-0. 5
-0. 5
-0. 5
-1. O
-O. 5
-0. 5
-O. 5
-O. 5
-0. 5
-I. Q
-O. 5
-I. 0
-O. 5
-1. O
-O. 5
16. O
18. 0
17. O
3. 3
19. O
B. 9
19. 0
6. O
18. 0
33. 0
9. 7
7. 0
16. 0
7. O
17. 0
9. C
12. 0
-O. 1
16. O
14. O
12. O
13. 0
IB. O
2O. O
t7. 0
15. 0
14 0
13. 0
6 0
15. 0
7.0
14. 0
6. 9
17. O
14. 0
9. 3
5. 2
15. O
17. 0
15. 0
18. O
13. 0
7. 0
12. 0
19. O
14. O
6. B
14. O
6. 1
15. 0
7. 2
6. 1
6. 2
B 0
6. 9
8. 4
7. 5
7. 3
5. B
7. 5
6. 1
5. 6
7. 4
7. 5
6.*
6. 5
7. 5
6. 9
6. 5
6. 5
6 9
5. 3
7. 2
6. O
6_B
61
54
60
64
62
63
75
61
64
64
50
56
59
66
52
57
7B
61
70
55
53
7O
6
55
74
2O
19
3
19
5
21
4
14
5
24
27
T
21
4
19
19
21
8
19
26
42
19
-1
-1
-1
-I
2
-1
-t
-1
-1
-1
1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-I
-1
-1
-1
1
-I
-I
-------
TABLE B-2. Continued
TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL
5AMPI E CO CR CU FE PB MG MN HG NI K NA ZN AS SE
NUMBtR UG/GM UG/CM UG/GM MC/GM UC/GM MG/GM UG/GM UG/GM UG/GM MC/GM MG/GM UC/GM UC/GM UC/GM
U3DI
11312
11332
1 1313
1 1 333
11311
I I 334
11315
1KI33
11316
1 1 336
131 1 1
| •
ro 12131
12) 12
12132
12113
12133
121 14
12134
12115
12135
12116
12136
12211
12r'31
7
-10
9
1O
9
-10
9
-10
-5
15
8
1O
12
)O
9
1U
12
12
7
12
9
10
14
10
9
24
32
22
32
27
26
26
27
24
28
18
32
33
34
31
36
29
32
IB
29
28
4O
29
34
25
17
19
16
18
16
19
19
16
15
21
14
2O
19
21
IB
33
19
27
15
20
17
45
15
21
16
33
24
22
29
15
26
22
20
19
37
17
25
26
27
24
33
?3
28
20
53
18
60
27
32
2?
-1O
-5
-1O
-5
-10
-5
-10
-5
-1O
-5
-10
-5
-10
-5
-1O
-5
-10
-5
-10
-5
-1O
-5
-10
-5
-1O
5
6.
1
3.
3.
5.
4.
4.
4
5.
3.
6.
5
5.
6.
5.
4.
t-
3.
7.
4.
5.
1.
8.
4.
6
0
4
9
3
9
6
7
2
0
5
0
5
3
2
0
2
1
5
B
1
5
4
3
6
493
348
339
36O
335
364
416
36O
376
34 B
3BO
455
418
447
357
473
551
378
43O
157
733
370
359
-O.
-o.
-O.
-1.
-O.
-1
-o.
-o.
-o
-0.
-0
-1.
-o.
-1.
-o
-1
-0.
-o.
5
5
5
O
5
0
5
5
5
5
5
O
5
O
5
0
5
5
11.
17.
-O.
14
8.
15.
7
12.
11
23.
3.
16.
8.
16
-O
18.
3
19.
-O.
16
1.
16
13
14
3
O
0
1
O
9
O
O
0
o
o
2
O
9
O
1
O
3
O
1
O
4
O
O
O
3
9 6
12 0
3. 1
15. O
20 0
11 O
3 5
15. 0
6 3
12. O
1O O
14 O
6. 3
16 O
7 O
8. O
7 1
17. 0
6 2
11. O
13 O
8 O
6 3
16 0
6 3
5. 9
6. 5
3. 6
6. 5
4. 8
6 2
6 B
7. 1
3 1
3 2
4 2
6. O
6 5
6 0
6. 0
3 5
5 6
6. 1
5. 5
5. 3
4 2
4 4
4. 4
7. 5
5. 3
61
53
54
53
54
56
56
31
62
58
48
66
74
72
73
64
78
80
39
54
63
92
61
75
74
25
19
19
2O
18
23
14
9
32
20
24
19
21
26
19
26
9
27
27
20
-1
-1
-1
-1
2
-1
-1
-1
1
1
3
1
2
1
2
1
1
2
2
1
-------
TABLE B-2. Continued
TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL
SAMPLE CO CR CU FE PB MG MN HG NI K NA ZN AS SE
NUMBER UG/GM UG/OM US/CM MG/GM UG/GM MG/GM UG/GM UC/GM UC/GM MG/GM MG/GM UG/GM UG/GM UG/GM
12212
12232
12?13
12233
12214
12234
12215
12235
12216
12236
12311
cn 12331
CO
12312
12332
12313
12333
12314
12334
12315
12335
12316
12336
10
14
-1O
7
-10
12
-1O
9
15
12
-10
12
1O
1O
12
9
1O
9
-1O
9
1O
11
36
28
34
26
35
29
32
24
36
2O
4O
29
38
28
37
29
44
32
38
29
34
28
23
16
21
15
22
19
22
14
22
1O
23
15
22
12
22
9
22
7
21
9
18
7
34
24
34
21
24
25
32
21
36
22
32
21
29
24
29
21
27
25
32
3O
41
34
-5
-10
-5
-10
-5
-1O
-5
-10
5
-10
-5
-1O
-5
-1O
-5
-1O
^5
-1O
-5
-1O
-5
-10
5.
3.
6.
2.
8.
4.
8
3.
7.
0.
5.
5.
6.
6.
7.
3.
6.
8.
5.
4.
5.
3.
5
7
2
8
4
2
4
2
7
5
3
a
0
4
o
7
3
6
6
2
O
6
357
342
351
304
318
320
217
269
364
318
249
402
268
386
286
187
173
336
16O
253
274
192
-O.
-O.
-1.
-O.
-1.
-O.
-1.
-O.
-O.
-o.
-o.
-1.
-o.
-1.
-0.
-1.
-0.
5
5
O
5
O
5
O
5
5
5
5
O
5
O
5
O
5
15.
7.
15.
3.
15.
7.
17.
11.
14.
5.
15.
3.
16.
12.
19.
13.
18.
11.
19.
13.
15.
11.
0
O
o
2
c
o
o
o
o
1
o
3
O
O
O
O
O
o
o
o
o
o
17.
5.
12.
5
14
7.
17.
6.
14.
5.
16
6.
17.
6.
17.
19.
16.
6.
13.
6.
IB.
16.
O
5
O
9
O
1
O
O
0
0
o
4
O
4
O
0
O
3
O
8
0
0
4. 5
5. 9
5. 1
4. 3
5. 3
4. 3
4. 5
4. 3
5 8
4. 7
4. 0
4. 8
4. 1
5. 2
4. 7
7. 3
2. 9
6. O
4. 0
4. 4
6. 2
6. 7
74
73
72
67
69
76
74
65
59
53
66
67
7O
68
7O
60
60
71
56
69
74
55
21
25
27
18
30
30
30
25
23
1O
24
2O
24
22
19
1
2
-1
3
-1
3
-1
1
2
1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-------
TABLE B-3. PLANT DATA
01
SAMPLE
NUMPER
1111
1121
1131
1211
1221
1231
1212
1222
1232
COLLECTION
DATE
O8/1O/76
08/1O/76
OS/ 10/76
08/1O/76
O8/10/76
OB/iO/76
O8/1O/76
OB/1O/76
08/10/76
PLANT
PART
LFAF
LEAF
LEAF
LEAF
LEAF
LEAF
GRAIN
GRAIN
GRAIN
NII1
UG/GM-N
322
2O2
4B3
446
576
92O
6O
47
46
TOTAL
ORGN. -N
MG/GM-N
12. 6
14. 7
15. 4
18. 8
16. 4
23.2
1O. 8
10. 3
9. 1
N02+NO3
UC/GM-N
477
678
1590
665
656
780
— ^
7
-5
- 5
-5
-5
-------
Table B-3. Continued
SAMPLE CR CU PB MG MN HG NI K NA ZN SE ENDRIN LINDANE
NUMBER UG/GM UG/GM UG/GM MG/GM UG/GM UG/GM UG/GM MG/GM UG/GM UG/GM UG/MG NG/GM NG/GM
cn
CJ1
1111
1121
1131
1211
1221
1231
1212
1222
7
5
8
6
7
7
3
7
12
12
17
23
18
12
12
-10
-10
-10
-10
-1O
-10
-10
-10
1. 4
1. 3
0. 9
0. 9
6. 4
6. 9
0. 6
0. 3
38
47
61
96
57
77
-10
-1O
-3
-3
-3
-3
-3
-3
-3
-3
-5
-5
-5
-5
-3
-3
-5
6
. 5
. 5
. 5
. 5
. 6
. 5
. 5
. 5
78
8O
66
123
71
129
74
54
44
63
65
57
72
63
30
22
0. 5
-0. 5
-O. 5
O. 6
-O. 5
-O. 5
-0 5
-O. 5
-. 025
-. 025
-. O25
- O25
- O25
- 025
-. 025
-. O25
0. 07
1. 13
O. O2
O. 26
1. 68
0. 22
O. 46
O. 36
1232 2 8 -1O O. 2 -1O -3 -5 5 33 27 -O. 5 -. O23 O. 53
-------
Table B-3. Continued
SAMPLE METHOXYCHLOR TOXAPHENE 2. 4-D SILVEX
NUMBER NG/GM NG/GM NG/GM NG/GM
1111 -.02
1121 -.02
1131 -,O2
1211 -.02
1221 -.02
1231 - O2
-. 02
-. 02 -
- O2 -
-. 02
-. O2
-. 02
26. 7
0. 12
0. 12
3. 74
1O7
10. 9
2. 67
24. O
6. 06
0. 66
33. 6
5. 02
-------
APPENDIX C
NITROGEN RELATIONSHIPS IN THE ROSWELL, NEW MEXICO,
LAND APPLICATION SYSTEM
157
-------
The data for inorganic nitrogen and organic nitrogen for the soils are
tabulated in Table C-l and Table C-2. The unit KG/CM-HA is consistently used
in the tabulation and following analysis. The first step in the analysis was
to compute various means (see Table C-3) to facilitate observation of trends.
The following trends were observed:
Observation 1: Organic nitrogen concentration at the test site was
greater than the organic nitrogen at the control site for depths less
than 10 cm. For depths greater than 10 cm, no difference was observed.
Observation 2: There was a consistent decrease of organic nitrogen with
increased depth at the control and the test site.
Observation 3: Inorganic nitrogen concentration at the test site is
greater than the inorganic nitrogen concentration at the control site
for depths less than 30 cm. For depths greater than 30 cm, no dif-
ference is observed.
Observation 4: There was a seasonal decrease in inorganic nitrogen from
June, 1976, to January, 1977.
An analysis using statistical and regression techniques was applied to
the data to validate the accuracy of the observations made above. The ana-
lysis is summarized in the following narrative.
Observation 1: Organic nitrogen concentration at the test site was
greater than the organic nitrogen at the control site for depths less
than 10 cm. For depths greater than 10 cm, no difference was observed.
A statistical analysis of the data was performed to establish the
validity of this observation. The approach was to hypothesize that the means
for the test and control sites were equal and then test the hypothesis at the
5% significance level (95% confidence limit) by forming a random variable
which has Student's t-distribution. The data used in the analysis are pre-
sented in Table C-4.
x, = Sample mean organic nitrogen value for the soil at the test site
at a specified time and for a specified depth range.
n, = Number of sample values used to compute x,.
2
s, = Sample variance.
j<2 = Sample mean organic nitrogen value for the soil at the control site
at a specified time and for a specified depth range.
^2 = Number of sample values used to compute x~.
2
Sp = Sample variance.
u, = Actual mean organic nitrogen value for the soil at the test site at
a specified time and for a specified depth range.
158
-------
TABLE C-l. INORGANIC AND ORGANIC NITROGEN DftTA FOR THE CONTROL SITE (KG/CM-JIfl)
Sample
5/76
" 1/77
Sample
11111
11112
11113
11114
11211
11212
11213
11214
11311
11312
11313
11314
11115
11116
11215
11216
11315
11316
11131
11132
11133
11134
11231
11232
11233
11234
11331
11332
11333
11334
11135
11136
11235
11236
11335
11336
Depth Depth Depth Depth Depth Depth
(0-2 cm) (2-4 cm) (9-11 cm) (29-31 cm) (95-105 cm) (295-305 cm)
IN-N TON-N IN-N TOII-N IN-N TON-N IN-N TON-N IN-N TON-N IN-N TON-N
237.1
303
9.9 165
14.8 183
19.5 191
15.7 248
195
5.2 215
9.3 340
13.3 226
12.5 206
13.8 119
10.7 65
4.6 62
9.5 36
2.4 216
8.7 102
3.1 432
2.5 302
4.2 237.5
2.2 151
4.4 541
4.5 281
3.6 129
3.0 86
2.8 302
2.9 259
3.4 151
3.1 172
3.8 63
1.5 64
2.7 85
3.2 64
3.4 107
4.6 43
-------
TABLE C-2. INORGANIC AND ORGANIC NITROGEN DATA FOR THE TEST SITE (KG/CM-HA)
c , Depth Depth
n'"?pe faodee (°-2 «») -£-4 cn-iL
Ddte C°dC IN-N TON-N IN-N TON-N
6/76 12111 281.9
12112 280.8
12113
12114
12211 641.2
12212 475 1
12213
12214
12311 ' ~ 379.0
12312 410.6
12313
12314
12115
12116
12215
i-1 12216
g - 12315
12316
T/77" 1'2131 6.1 627.3
12132 13.1 301.8
12133
12134
12231 10.2 518.5
12232 13.4 432.5
12233
12234
12331 7.5 431.4
12332 12.2 365.3
12333
12334
12135
12136
12235
12236
12335
Depth Depth Depth Depth
(9-11 cm) (29-31 on) (95-105 cm) (295-305 cm)
IN-N TON-N IN-N TON-N IN-N TON-N IN-N TON-N
9.5 361.4
18.7 155.5
20.7 307.1
13.3
17.5 381.4
24.7 195.2
4.0 84.9
7.4 36.4
9.9 34.7
10.0 34.2
10.4 57.2
9.9 78.7
13.6 215.8
5.2 128.2
12.7 280.8
6.0 214.3
10.2 237.3
4.9 236.6
3.0 107.0
2.4 42.5
3.5 63.7
4.9 39.9
4.5 106.8
-------
TABLE C-3. MEANS FOR DATA IN TABLE C-l AMD TABLE C-2 (KG/CM-HA)
Ol
Sample
Date and
Location
6/76
Control
1/77
Control
6/76
Test
1/77
Test
Depth
(0-2) cm
IN ORG
12.4 214
3.4 425
434
7.9 525
Depth
(2-4) cm
IN
9.3
3.3
12.9
ORG
322
281
389
366
Depth
_L9-11) cm
IN
13.0
3.7
15.9
12.2
ORG
213
173
350
245
Depth
(29-31)
IN
13.6
2.8
18.9
5.3
cm
ORG
194
136
175
193
Depth
(95-105)
IN
6.9
3.3
8.1
3.7
cm
ORG
132
85
59
93
(
9
3
9
3
Depth
295-305) cm
IN ORG
.6 68
.1 57
.1 50
.7 41
-------
TABLE C-4. SUMMARY OF ORGANIC NITROGEN DATA FOR THE SOILS AT THE TEST SITE AND CONTROL SITE (KG/CH-HA)
cr>
Sample
Location
Test
Control
Date
6/76
1/77
6/76
1/77
0-2
282
641
379
627
518
431
237
191
215
432
541
302
2-4
281
475
411
302
432
365
303
340
302
281
259
Depth (cm)
9-11
361
307
381
215
281
237
165
248
226
237
157
129
29-31"
155
195
128
214
237
182
195
206
86
172
95-105
85
35
57
107
64
107
119
62
216
63
85
107
295-305
36
34
79
42
40
65
36
102
64
64
43
151
-------
iu = Actual mean organic nitrogen value for the soil at the control site
at a specified time and for a specified depth range.
Restatement of hypothesis:
H: u, = Up at the 5% significance level (versus u, / u2).
In general, the assumptions underlying the analysis are additivity,
linearity, normality, independence, and homogeneous variances.
The ratio ** " *2 has a Student's t-distribution with n, + n2 -2
xl " X2
degrees of freedom.
Where
Xl " X2 Vnl "2
O f
o (HI - 1) s-i + (NO ~ 1) So
S = — n + n . 2
The procedure is to calculate
and to reject H: u, = u2 if
U^~U/i cl\/ i „. o\
- u - •2~Mn1 + n2 - 2)
or
*- t (1 - fMnj + n2 - 2)
±*n L\( + ?) rePresents a value for a random variable with a
Student's distribution, with n, + n2 - 2 degrees of freedom where
l-|-=Prt£t/, a_*, 2)1 ' the va^ues are obtained from
standard statistical tables.
For the analysis a 5% level of significance was chosen so that a = 0.05.
A. Sample data for 6/76, depths 0-10 cm from Table C-4:
163
-------
Xj = 391 n1 =9 SJ2 = 11,348.5
x2 = 241 n2 =8 S22 = 2,861
Then
s2 = 7,387
S- - = 41.8
xl " X2
t = 3.59
Now
- 2) = t(0.975)(15) = 2'131
Thus
t = 3.59 > 2.131 = t
(0.975)(15)
The hypothesis H: u, = u2 is thus rejected, and we accept Uj f u2 at the
5% significance level.
In summary, at the 5% level there is a significant difference in the mean
values of organic nitrogen for the soils at the test site and control site in
the depth range 0-10 cm during 6/76. The same analysis above establishes
a 95% confidence interval for u, - u2- This interval is as follows:
60.9 KG/CM-HA <_ iij - U2 <_ 239 KG/CM-HA
To supplement the above analysis, it is of interest to establish 95%
confidence interval estimates for Uj and u2, respectively. This is also ac-
complished with a t-test since the variable (x. - u. )~VN/S. has a Student's
t-distribution. Using the data in Table C-4, the following 95% confidence
intervals are obtained:
309.1 KG/CM-HA <_ U]_ £472.9 KG/CM-HA
and
HA
196.3 KG/CM-HA <_ u2 <_ 285.7 KG/CM-
That is, we are 95% confident u-, and u2 lie in the above intervals.
B. Sample data for 1/77, depths 0-10 cm from Table C-4:
xx = 379 nl = 9 sl2 = 16>570
x2 = 293 n2 = 9 s22 = 16,553
164
-------
s2 = 16,562
S- - = 60.7
Xl X2
t = 1.42
t(0.975)(16)= 2>12°
Nowt= L42< t(0<975)(16) =2.120
Thus, we accept H: u, - u?
In summary, at the 5% level of significance there is no significant
difference between the mean value of organic nitrogen in the soil at the test
site and the control site for the depth range 0-10 cm during 1/77.
The 95% confidence intervals for u, and iu are respectively (same
procedure as in A):
280 KG/CM-HA <_ u1 <_ 478 KG/CM-HA
194 KG/CM-HA <_ u2 <_ 392 KG/CM-HA
C. All sample data (6/76 and 1/77), depth 0-10 cm:
x1 = 385 r\l = 18 s^ - 13,996.4
x2 - 268 n2 = 17 $22 = 10,425
x, - Xp = 117
s2 = 12,265
Sx - x = 37"5
xl X2
t = 3.12
t=3'12> t(0.975)(34)= 2'030
Thus, we reject H: u, = u2 and accept H: Uj ^ u2
In summary, at the 5% level of significance for the 0-10 cm depth
(6/76 - 1/77), the mean values of organic nitrogen at the test site and the
control site are not equal.
As in part A above, the 95% confidence interval for this difference is:
41 KG/CM-HA 1 u1 - u2 5 193 KG/CM-HA
The 95% confidence intervals for u, and u2, respectively are:
326 KG/CM-HA <_ i^ <_ 444 KG/CM-HA
165
-------
216 KG/CM-HA <_ ^ <_ 321 KG/CM-HA
D. All sample data (6/76 and 1/77), depths 29-305 cm:
x. = 100.9 n1 = 16 Sj2 = 4,258
x2 - 112.2 n2 = 18 S22 = 3,561
x2 Xj = 11.3
s2 = 3,888
Sx - x = 21'4
xl X2
t = 0.527
'(0.975 x 32) = 2'042
Thus
t(0.975)(32)
, accept: H: u, = u
At the 5% level of significance, there is no difference between the
organic nitrogen in the soil at the test and control sites at depths greater
than 10 cm.
The 95% confidence intervals for u, and u^, respectively, are:
66.2 KG/CM-HA < Uj <_ 136 KG/CM-HA
82.5 KG/CM-HA < u2 < 142 KG/CM-HA
In summary, it can be said with some confidence that there is a
significant difference in the organic nitrogen in the soils at the test and
control site (part A) in the 0-10 cm depth range coinciding with the time
effluent is being applied to the test site (6/76). This difference is no
longer apparent by January, 1977 (part B). The excess organic nitrogen
evidently has been transformed to the inorganic forms in this period of time
and taken up by the crop, leached, etc. Part C shows how one could reach the
conclusion that there is an overall difference in the nitrogen values, but
consideration of part A and B shows this conclusion is probably not valid.
Finally, from part D it can be said with some confidence that there is
no difference in the organic nitrogen at the control and test sites for depths
greater than 10 cm.
O.t?_ser^ation 2: There was a consistent decrease of organic nitrogen
with increased depth at the control and test site. Regression
analysis was used to evaluate this observation.
A linear relationship is observed by plotting the data in Table C-3 on
166
-------
log-log paper as shown in Figure C-l. On the basis of this observation, a
regression analysis was performed on the data using the following variables:
x = log1QD
D = depth of sample (cm)
y = iog10c
C = concentration of organic nitrogen at depth D (KG/CM-HA)
1000
S
o
i
^
^V^>*
^\
x
• ••* '
x;
*--
* *• • 1
"•-^
•••
""'
^*"
•••
"•^
•«*»
;~
•
•^
k
•^
-
'X
-^
V
X
^
»'^
<,
%
s
*•
•
^
V
^
*s
^ t " .
•
rCn
rCo
CTe
ntrol 6/76
ntrol 1/77
st site 6/76
Test site 1/77
3 10 30 100 300
Figure C-l. Plot of data used in regression analysis.
The method of least squares was employed to obtain the best fit. Cor-
relation coefficients (R) were computed in each case to evaluate the degree
of correlation. The data and regression analysis results are presented in
Table C-5. The following equations were obtained:
167
-------
TABLE C-5. SUMMARY OF REGRESSION ANALYSIS
1— '
en
oo
Sample
Date and
Location
1
6/76
Control
1/77
Control
6/76
Test
1/77
Test
*logc = Iog1{)
Mean Sample Depth (cm)
1
lOQp 0
2.33*
2.70
2.64
2.72
(concentration
3
0.477
2.43
2.45
2.59
2.56
of organic
10
1.0
2.33
2.22
2.54
2.39
nitrogen
30
1.477
2.29
2.11
2.24
2.29
KG/ CM- HA
100
2.0
2.12
1.93
1.77
1.97
from Table
Sample Statistical
Parameter Values
300 Mean s s2
2.477 1.24 0.93 0.72
1.83 2.22 0.22 0.039
1.76 2.19 0.34 0.098
1.70 2.25 0.42 0.15
1.61 2.26 0.41 0.14
C-3)
Regression Analysis Results
Y M R
intercept slope Corr. Coef.
2.47 -0.199 -0.856
2.65 -0.365 -0.993
2.78 -0.428 -0.949
2.78 -0.426 -0.976
-------
1. Control Site, 6/76:
y = -0.199 x + 2.47 R - -0.856
2. Control Site, 1/77:
y = -0.365 x + 2.65 R = -0.9935
3. Test Site, 6/76:
y = -0.428 x + 2.78 R - -0.949
4. Test Site, 1/77:
y = -0.426 x + 2.78 R = -0.976
In summary, the regression analysis indicates that a good correlation
between concentration of organic nitrogen and depth exists at both the
control site and the test site. This relationship persists for irrigation
periods (6/76) as well as non-irrigation periods (1/77).
Observation 3: Inorganic nitrogen concentration at the test site
is greater than the inorganic nitrogen concentration at the control site
for depths less than 30 cm. For depths greater than 30 cm no difference
is observed.
The objective of the analysis is to establish with some confidence
statistically that a significant difference in the inorganic nitrogen
for the soils at the test site compared to the control site exists for depths
less than 30 cm. Also, for depths greater than 30 cm it will be established
that no significant difference exists at the two sites. The approach
will be identical to that used in the analysis for Observation 1. A 5i'
level of significance will be used for the analysis. The data used in the
analysis is summarized in Table C-6.
x, = Sample mean inorganic nitrogen value for the soil at the test
site at a specified time and for a specified depth range.
n, = Number of sample values used to compute x^.
s, = Sample variance.
x2 = Sample mean inorganic nitrogen value for the soil at the control
site at a specified time and for a specified depth range.
n = Number of sample values used to compute x?.
169
-------
TAOLE C-6. SAMPLE DATA USED FOR I MORGAN]C NITROGEN ANALYSIS
Sample
Pate and
LocaMon
1/77
lest
i/77
Control
6/76
Test
6/76
Control
Depth
(0-2) cm
6.1
10.2
7.5
3.1
4.4
2.8
Denth Depth
(2-4) cm (9-31) cm
13.1 13.6
13.4 12.7
12.2 10.2
2.5 4.2
4.5 2.2
2.9 3.6
9.5
20.7
17.5
9.9
15.7
13.3
Depth
(29-31) cm
5.2
4.9
3.0
3.1
3.4
18.7
13.3
24.7
14.8
12.5
Depth
(95-105) cm
3.0
3.5
4.5
3.8
2.7
3.4
4.0
9.9
10.4
13.8
4.6
2.4
Depth
(295-305) oil
2.4
4.9
1.5
3.2
4.6
7.4
10.0
9.9
10.7
9.5
8.7
-------
2
s2 = Sample variance.
t^ = Actual mean inorganic nitrogen concentration for the soil at the
test site at a specified time and for a specified depth range.
u2 = Actual mean inorganic nitrogen concentration for the soil at the
control site at a specified time and for a specified depth range.
Restatement of Hypothesis:
H: u1 = u2 at the 5% significance level (versus u1 1 u2). The assump-
tions are the same as for Observation 1.
A. Sample data for time period 1/77, depths 0-31 cm:
X = 9.598 n = 12 s = 11.024
then
x2 = 3.308 n2 = 12 s2 = 0.4985
s2 = 5.761
S- - = 0.9799
1 " X2
t = 6.42
Now
t(0.975)(22)= 2'074
Thus t = 6.42 > 2.074= t(0>g75)(22)
The hypothesis H: u, = u? is rejected and u, t u? is accepted at the 5%
level of significance. That fs, at the 5% level we can be confident the
means of the inorganic nitrogen for the soils at the control site and test
site are not equal for the time period 1/77 and at depths less than 30 cm.
The same analysis above also establishes a 95% confidence interval for
u, - iu. This interval is as follows:
4.257 KG/CM-HA < Ul - u0 < 8.322 KG/CM-HA
— 1 c. —
171
-------
To supplement the above analysis, it is of interest to establish 95%
of confidence interval estimates of u, and iu, respectively. This is also
accomplished with a t-test, since the variable (x. - u.)Vn/s has a
Student t-distribution.
Using the data, the following 95% confidence intervals are obtained:
7.489 KG/CM-HA <_ i^ £ 11.706 KG/CM-HA
2.859 KG/CM-HA £ u2 <_ 3.767 KG/CM-HA
That is, we are 95% confident u, and u2 lie in the above intervals.
A. Sample data for 6/76, depth 9-30 cm: (Note - no data available at
test site for depths 0-9 cm on 6/76.)
Xj = 17.4 r\l = 6 Sj2 - 24.18
x0 = 13.2 n0 = 5 S02 = 4.04
Then
s2 = 15.2
Sx - x = 2'36
xl X2
t = 1.78
t(0.975)(9) = 2'26
Now
t = 1.78 < 2.26 = t,
0.975)(9)
The hypothesis H: u = u2 is accepted at the 5% level of significance.
That is, at the 5% level there is no significant difference in the mean
values of inorganic nitrogen for the soils at the test site and control site
in the depth range 9 to 30 cm during 6/76.
B. Sample data for 1/77, depths >30 cm:
*! = 3.67 rij = 5 s^ = 0.84
*2 = 3.21 n2 = 6 S22 = 0.93
s2 = 0.89
172
-------
H: u, =
S; ; = 0.568
xl ' X2
t = 0.809
t(0.975)(9) = 2'26
t = 0.809 < 2.26= t((J>g75)(9)
Thus at the 5% level of significance we accept the hypothesis
The 95% confidence limits for u, and u2 are:
2.54 KG/CM-HA £ i^ £ 4.81 KG/CM-HA
2.20 KG/CM-HA £ u2 £ 4.22 KG/CM-HA
C. Sample data for 6/76, depths >30 cm:
xl = 8.62 n]> = 6 Sj2 = 5.08
x = 8.28 n = 6 S2 = 14.35
s2 = 9.71
Ul =
S- - = 1.80
xl X2
t = 0.19
t(0.975)(10) = 2'228
t'- 0.19 < 2.228 = t(0>975)(1(J)
Thus we accept, at the 5% level of significance, the hypothesis that
The 95% confidence limits for u, and u2 are:
6.26 KG/CM-HA <_ u^ £ 10.98 KG/CM-HA
4.3 KG/CM-HA <_ u? <_ 12.26 KG/CM-HA
To summarize, it can thus be stated with some confidence (5% level of
significance),that there is a significant difference in the inorganic nitrogen
for the soils at the test site and control site for depths less than 30 cm
(part A) coinciding with the time somewhat after effluent application has
ceased (1/77). This is in direct contrast to the organic nitrogen value
results, which were observed (Observation 1) to have no significant difference
in this period (1/77) at the two sites.
173
-------
Also, there is no significant difference in the inorganic nitrogen values
at the control site and the test site for depths less than 30 cm during the
period effluent is being applied (6/76). Again, this is in contrast to the
observation (Observation 1) that a significant difference in the organic
nitrogen at the control site and the test site exists during this period
(6/76).
The above can be e;olained by noting that the effluent is high in organic
nitrogen and thus one would expect an excess to accumulate during the irriga-
tion period at the control site. Then as irrigation ceases, nitrification and
other transformations change the excess organic nitrogen into the inorganic
forms. Some of the transformed nitrogen can be used by the plants, given off
as gas through denitrification, etc. Further, if there is an excess of
inorganic nitrogen produced and not utilized in these processes, then one
would expect there to be a residual of inorganic nitrogen present at a time
somewhat after irrigation ceases. The statistical analysis shows that indeed
this is what occurs at the test site in Roswell, New Mexico.
In addition, it can be stated with some confidence that there is no
significant difference in the inorganic nitrogen at the test site and the
control site for any period of the year for depths greater than 30 cm.
Observation 4: There was a seasonal decrease in organic nitrogen
from June, 1976, to January, 1977.
A statistical analysis identical to that used in Observation 1 and
Observation 3 is utilized to test the above hypothesis. Table C-7 summarizes
the data used in the analysis.
TABLE C-7. SUMMARY OF INORGANIC NITROGEN DATA USED IN
ANALYSIS OF OBSERVATION 4 (KG/CM-HA)
Relative Depth of Sample
Sample
Date and
Location
6/76
Test
1/77
Test
6/76
Control
1/77
Control
0-30
2
x n s
17.4 6 24.18
9.6 12 11.024
13.2 5 4.04
3.3 12 0.4985
X
8.62
3.67
8.28
3.21
(cm)
30-305
n
6
5
6
6
2
S^
5.08
0.84
14.35
0.93
174
-------
Let u = actual mean of the inorganic nitrogen at the test (or control) site
for 6/76 for a specified depth.
Up = actual mean of the inorganic nitrogen at the test (or control) site
for 1/77 for a specified depth.
The hypothesis to test can thus be restated: H: u.. = u2 versus u, ^ Up.
A. Sample data for the test site at depth 0-30 cm:
Xj = 17.4 (6/76) n]_ = 6 Sj2 = 24.18
X2 = 9.6 (1/77) n2 = 12 $22 = 11.024
s2 = 15.13
Sx - x = L94
Xl X2
t = 4.01
t(0.975)(16) = 2'12
Now t= 4.01 > 2.12 = t(0>975)(16)
Thus, we reject the hypothesis H: u. = u? and accept u, t u?. That is,
at the 5% level there is a significant difference in the mean values of
the inorganic nitrogen at the test site for the period 6/76 compared to
1/77 for the depth 0-30 cm.
The 95% confidence interval for u.. - u~ is:
1
37 KG/CM-HA <_ iij - U2 <_ 11.9 KG/CM-HA
Note that in previous observations, 95% confidence intervals for u and u
have been computed.
B. Sample data for the test site at depth >30 cm:
Xj = 8.62 (6/76) nl = 6 s^ = 5.08
x2 = 3.67 (1/77) n2 =5 s22 = 0.84
s2 =3.20
S- - = 1.08
xl " X2
t = 4.57
t(0.975)(9) = 2'262
Now t = 4.57 ^2.26 = t(0>975)(g)
175
-------
Thus at the 5% level there is a significant difference in the mean values
of the inorganic nitrogen at the test site for the period 6/76 versus 1/77 for
depths greater than 30 cm.
The 95% confidence interval for u, - u2 is:
2.51 KG/CM-HA <_ iij - u£ £ 7.39 KG/CM-HA
C. Sample data for the control site at depths 0-30 cm:
xl = 13.2 (6/76) rij = 5 s^ = 4.04
x2 = 3.3 (1/77) n2 = 12 S22 = 0.4985
s2 = 1.44
S- - = 0.639
xl " X2
t = 15.5
t(0.975)(15) = 2'131
Nowt= 15.5 > 2.13 = t((J<975)(15)
Thus at the 5% level there is a significant difference in the mean values
of the inorganic nitrogen at the control site for the period 6/76 versus 1/77
for depths less than 30 cm.
The 95% confidence interval for u, - u2 is:
8.5 KG/CM-HA <_ Uj - u2 <_ 11.3 KG/CM-HA
D. Sample data for the control site at depths >30 cm:
x1 = 8.28 (6/76) rij = 6 s2 = 14.35
x, = 3.21 (1/77) n2 =6 s22 = °'93
s2 = 7.64
S- _ - = 1.60
xl X2
t = 3.18
t(0.975)(10) = 2'23
Now t= 3.18 > 2.23 -t(0>975)(10)
Thus at the 5% level there is a significant difference in the mean values
of the inorganic nitrogen at the control site for the period 6/76 versus 1/77
176
-------
for depths greater than 30 cm.
The 95% confidence interval for u, - LU is:
1.50 KG/CM-HA <. Uj - u2 <. 8.64 KG/CM-HA
In summary, significant decrease in inorganic nitrogen occurs from 6/76
to 1/77 at both the control site and test sites. This is characteristic for
depths less than 30 cm as well as depths greater than 30 cm. The decrease in
inorganic nitrogen coincides with the decrease in crop uptake, soil nitrifica-
tion, and irrigation.
REFERENCE FOR APPENDIX C
Ostle, B. 1969. Statistics in Research. Iowa State University Press,
Ames, Iowa.
177
-------
GLOSSARY
Adsorption: A process in which soluble substances are attracted to and held
at the surface of soil particles.
Advanced wastewater treatment: Additional treatment designed to reduce
concentrations of selected constituents present in wastewater after
secondary treatment.
Alkali soil: A soil with a high degree of alkalinity (pH of 8.5 or higher)
or with a high exchangeable sodium content (15 percent or more of the
exchange capacity) or both.
Aquiclude: A geologic formation which is porous and capable of absorbing
water but will not transmit it rapidly enough to supply a well or spring.
Aquifer: A geologic formation or strata that contains water and transmits it
from one point to another in quantities sufficient to permit economic
development.
Consumptive use: Synonymous with evapotranspiration.
Conventional wastewater treatment: Reduction of pollutant concentrations in
wastewater by physical, chemical, or biological means.
Drainabi1ity: Ability of the soil system to accept and transmit water by
infiltration and percolation.
Effective precipitation: Precipitation that enters the soil and is useful
for plant growth.
Evapotranspiration: The unit amount of water lost from a given area by
transpiration, building of plant tissue, and evaporation from the soil
surface, snow, or intercepted precipitation in a specified period of
t i me.
Fixation: A combination of physical and chemical mechanisms in the soil that
act to retain wastewater constituents within the soil, including adsorp-
tion, chemical precipitation, and ion exchange.
Groundwater: The body of water that is retained in the saturated zone that
tends to move by hydraulic gradient to lower levels.
Groundwater table: The free surface elevation of the groundwater; this level
will rise and fall with additions or withdrawals.
178
-------
Infiltration: The entrance of applied water into the soil through the soil-
water interface.
Infiltration-percolation: An approach to land application in which large vol-
umes of wastewater are applied to the land, infiltrate the surface, and
percolate through the soil pores.
Irrigation: Application of water to the land to meet the growth needs of
plants.
Land application: The discharge of wastewater onto the soil for treatment
or reuse.
Loading rates: The average amount of liquid or solids applied to the land
over a fixed time period, taking into account periodic resting.
Lysimeter: A device for measuring percolation and leaching losses from a
column of soil; also a device for collecting soil water in the field.
Micronutrient: A chemical element necessary for plant growth in amounts be-
low 1 mg/L.
Mineralization: The conversion of an element from an organic form to an in-
organic form as a result of microbial decomposition.
Overland flow: Wastewater treatment by spray-runoff (also known as "grass
filtration") in which wastewater is sprayed onto gently sloping, rela-
tively impermeable soil that has been planted to vegetation. Biologi-
cal oxidation occurs as the wastewater flows over the ground and con-
tacts the biota in the vegetative litter.
Pathogenic organisms: Microorganisms that can transmit diseases.
Percolation: The movement of water through the soil pores once it has passed
the soil-water interface.
Phytotoxic: Toxic to plants.
Primary effluent: Wastewater that has been treated by screening and sedi-
mentation.
Refractory organics: Organic materials not removed in secondary treatment.
Ridge-and-furrow method: The surface application of water to the land through
formed furrows; wastewater flows down the furrows, and plants may be
grown on the ridge.
Saline soil: A nonalkali soil containing sufficient soluble salts to impair
its productivity.
Secondary treatment: Treatment of wastewater by physical, chemical, or bio-
logical means such as trickling filters, activated sludge, or chemical
179
-------
precipitation and filtration.
Sewage farming: Originally involved the transporting of sewage to rural
areas for land disposal. Later practice includes reusing the water for
irrigation and fertilization of crops.
Soil texture: The relative proportions of the various soil separates — sand,
silt, and clay.
Soil water: That water present in the soil pores in an unsaturated zone
above the groundwater table.
Spraying: Application of water to the land by means of stationary or moving
sprinklers.
Spray-runoff: See overland flow.
Tilth: The physical condition of a soil as related to its ease of culti-
vation.
Transpiration: The net quantity of water absorbed through plant roots and
transpired plus that used directly in building plant tissue.
Viruses: Submicroscopic biological structures containing all the genetic
information necessary for their own reproduction but dependent for
reproduction upon living cells.
180
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-600/2-79-0^7
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO.
' ^ITJr! AND SUBTITLE
LONG-TERM EFFECTS OF LAND APPLICATION OF DOMESTIC
WASTEWATER, Roswell, New Mexico, Slow Rate Irrigation
Site
5. REPORT DATE
February 1979 issuing date
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
. AUTHOR(S)~
Ernest L. Koerner, Benham-Blair & Affiliates, Inc.
D. Alan Haws, Engineering Enterprises, Inc.
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Benham-Blair & Affiliates, Inc.
P. 0. Box 20400
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73120
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
1BC611
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
Contract No. 68-02-2363
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Lab-Ada, OK
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Ada, Oklahoma 74820
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/15
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT ~ ' ~~ —
This report presents the findings of a study on the long-term effects of applying
treated domestic wastewater to farmland at Roswell, New Mexico. On the test site,
a slow rate irrigation method was used for 33 years. Water, soi!9 and crop samples
from this test site were compared with similar samples from nearby control sites
irrigated with well water. Samples were also taken to detect viruses and coliform
bacteria.
Alkalinity and nitrate were the only parameters found to be significantly greater at
the test site. Only one parameter, phosphorus, was significantly greater in the
effluent, the upper soil profile, and the plant leaves of the test site compared to
the control site.
Soil analyses from six depths at different seasons indicated a rapid renovation of
the wastewater. No viruses were detected in wells or plant samples, and coliform
bacteria occurred only sporadically in early sampling results, possibly as a result
of contamination during collection and processing. The report concludes with a
projection for 100 or more years of useful life for the site, without undesirable
effects from heavy metals, viruses, or excess nitrates in the groundwater. In
addition, the site benefits from the extra plant nutrients contained in the wastewater
that are not present in the well water.
7.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COS AT I Field/Group
Groundwater recharge
Soil properties
Trace elements
Water chemistry
Bacteria
Viruses
Slow rate irrigation
Primary pre-treatment
(wastewater)
Land application
Municipal wastes
Wastewater treatment
43F
91A
8. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
RELEASE TO PUBLIC
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
UNCLASSIFIED
21. NO. OF PAGES
197
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
UNCLASSIFIED
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
181
------- |