&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Robert S Kerr Environmental Research
Laboratory
Ada OK 74820
EPA-600/2-79-144
August 1979
Research and Development
Long-Term
Effects of Land
Application of
Domestic
Wastewater
Dickinson,
North Dakota, 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-600/2-79-144
August 1979
LONG-TERM EFFECTS OF LAND APPLICATION OF DOMESTIC WASTEWATER:
Dickinson, North Dakota, Slow Rate Irrigation Site
by
Benham-Blair & Affiliates, Inc.
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73120
and
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
Research 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 recommendation 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 munici-
pal 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 incen-
tives 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
Til
-------
ABSTRACT
This report presents the findings of a study on the long-term effects
of applying treated domestic wastewater to farmland at Dickinson, North
Dakota. On the test site, slow rate irrigation, using the border-strip
method, has been practiced since 1959. Water, soil, and crop samples
from this test site were compared with similar samples from a nearby control
site irrigated with well water. Samples were also taken to detect coliform
bacteria.
Data on a number of parameters were evaluated against information
about the natural features of the Dickinson 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.
Key parameters that differ between control and test sites, such as
nitrogen, phosphorus, and zinc, aid in assessing long-term effects of waste-
water irrigation. An essential aspect of correctly evaluating water analyses
is understanding the hydrogeology of the area. Knowledge of depth and move-
ment of groundwater and location and thickness of aquifers was essential in
interpreting data from wells strategically placed on both test and control
sites.
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 centimeters (cm)] adequately trapped chemicals such as phosphorus,
which had higher concentrations in the wastewater than in the river water
used for irrigation on the control site. Similarly, zinc, which serves as an
indicator for other heavy metals, was effectively retained in the soil.
Thirteen parameters were found to be present at significantly greater
concentrations in the effluent used to irrigate the test site than in the
river water used to irrigate the control site. Mean concentrations for five
of the 13 parameters were found to be significantly greater statistically in
the shallow alluvium aquifer beneath the test site than in the alluvium
aquifer beneath the control site. These five parameters were chemical oxygen
demand, chloride, nitrogen, potassium, and selenium. Except for selenium,
the same parameters were also present at significantly greater concentrations
in the deeper Sentinel Butte aquifer beneath the test site than in the
Sentinel Butte aquifer beneath the control site.
Total coliforms were occasionally found in both control and test site
wells. However, no fecal coliforms were detected. The report concludes with
a projection for 100 or more years of useful life for the site without un-
desirable effects from heavy metals, coliform bacteria, or excess nitrates
in the groundwater. In addition, the site benefits from the extra plant
iv
-------
nutrients contained in the wastewater that are not present in the river
irrigation water.
This report was submitted in partial fulfillment of Contract No. 68-02-
2363 by Benham-Blair & Affiliates, Inc., as the principal contractor; Engi-
neering Enterprises, Inc., as subcontractor; with three cooperating companies:
Sheaffer and Roland, Inc.; D. E. Matschke Company; and M. 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 July, 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
Northern High Plains Sites 7
4. Description of Site 9
General 9
Topography 9
Test Site 9
Control Site 13
Groundwater Hydrology and Geology 13
Soils 24
Climate 25
Land Use 25
5. Plant Operation and Costs 28
Wastewater Treatment 28
Wastewater Constituents 28
Capital and Operating Costs 30
6. Research Methods 31
Well Construction and Locations 31
Sampling 35
Chemical and Biological Analyses 37
Data Evaluation Plan 50
7- Results and Discussion 51
Water 51
Soils 92
Plants 100
Coliform Bacteria 103
Interaction of Water, Soils, and Plants 104
Projected Useful Life of Site for Wastewater Irrigation . 104
References 107
vn
-------
Appendices
A. Well Logs for Control and Test Sites 110
B. Data Tables for All Water, Soil, and Plant Samples 124
Glossary 159
vm
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
1 Border-strip flood irrigation ... 2
2 Location of Stark County 10
3 General location map, Dickinson, N.D 11
4 Wastewater irrigation test site 12
5 Irrigation control site 14
6 Test site groundwater level contours 16
7 Test site hydro!ogic cycle 17
8 Cross section A-A1 of lagoons and test site 19
9 Seasonal test site groundwater level contours 21
10 Control site groundwater level contours 22
11 Seasonal control site groundwater level contours 23
12 Sewage treatment facilities, Dickinson, N.D. .... 29
13 Typical well completion 33
14 Lysimeter installation 36
15 Comparison of the test site and control site 59
16 Control site groundwater constituents - ammonium nitrogen 74
17 Test site groundwater constituents - ammonium nitrogen 75
18 Control site groundwater constituents - soluble organic nitrogen. . 77
19 Test site groundwater constituents - soluble organic nitrogen ... 78
20 Control site groundwater constituents - nitrate nitrogen 79
ix
-------
Number Page
21 Test site groundwater constituents - nitrate nitrogen 80
22 Control site groundwater constituents - chemical oxygen demand . . 82
23 Test site groundwater constituents - chemical oxygen demand .... 83
24 Control site groundwater constituents - potassium 85
25 Test site groundwater constituents - potassium 86
26 Control site groundwater constituents - chloride 87
27 Test site groundwater constituents - chloride 88
28 Test site groundwater constituents - selected parameters 89
29 Control site groundwater constituents - selected parameters .... 90
30 Extractable or exchangeable chemical element concentration levels
for surface soils (0-10 cm) in control site, treatment site, and
normal agriculture soils 94
31 Total chemical element concentration levels for surface soils
(0-10 cm) in control site, treatment site, and normal agriculture
soils 95
-------
TABLES
Number Page
1 Potential Irrigation Sites and Reasons for Rejection 8
2 Mean Monthly Temperatures and Precipitation, Dickinson
Experiment Station, North Dakota 18
3 Recent Climatological Data Recorded at Dickinson
Experiment Station ...._. 26
4 Wastewater Characteristics 30
5 Well Summary 32
6 Summary of Field Methods 38
7 Summary of Constituents Defining Differences in Applied Waters ... 52
8 Mean Concentrations of Parameters in Test and Control Site
Groundwaters (Wells in Alluvium Aquifer) . 60
9 Mean Concentrations of Parameters in Test and Control Site
Groundwaters (Wells in Sentinel Butte Aquifer) 62
10 Mean Concentrations of Parameters in Test and Control Site
Groundwaters (All Wells) 63
11 Mean Concentrations of Parameters in Test and Control Site
Groundwaters Sampled July, 1976 64
12 Mean Concentrations of Parameters in Test and Control Site
Groundwaters Sampled November, 1976 65
13 Mean Concentrations of Parameters in Test and Control Site
Groundwaters Sampled April, 1977 66
14 Mean Concentrations of Parameters in Test and Control Site
Groundwaters Sampled June, 1977 67
15 Mean Concentrations of Parameters in Test Site Groundwater
(Wells in Alluvium Aquifer) _ 68
-------
Number Page
16 Mean Concentrations of Parameters in Test Site Groundwater
(Wells in Sentinel Butte Aquifer) 69
17 Mean Concentrations of Parameters of Wells in the Alluvium
Aquifer Not Affected by Irrigation in the Test Site 71
18 Mean Concentrations of Parameters of Wells in the Sentinel
Butte Aquifer Not Affected by Irrigation in the Test Site 72
19 Seasonal Variation of Mean Concentrations of Parameters in
Groundwater at the Test and Control Sites 73
20 Range of Concentrations of Selected Metals in the Effluent and
Alluvium Aquifer Groundwaters 92
21 Soil Means From the Test and Control Sites 93
22 Accumulation of Total Phosphorus in the Soil 97
23 Accumulation of Manganese in the Soil 99
24 Accumulation of Zinc in the Soil 101
25 Mean Concentrations of Parameters in Test and Control Site
Plant Leaves 102
xn
-------
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS
ABBREVIATIONS
acre-ft
BOD
BOD5
cm
cm/hr
COD
DO
exch
extr
fecal coin
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
ITU
mj
MCL
mg/g
mg/L
Mgal/d
Mgal/d/ft
mi
mL
mm
acre-foot
biochemical oxygen demand
5-day biochemical oxygen demand
centimeters
centimeters per hour
chemical oxygen demand
dissolved oxygen
exchangeable
extractable
fecal coliform
grams
gallons
ground level
gallons per day
gallons per day per foot
gallons per minute
hectares
hours
inches
inches per hour
kilograms
kilograms per hectare
kilograms per hectare per year
kilometers
1i ters
liters per
liters per
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
milliliters
millimeters
second
day per meter
xi n
-------
mo
ng/g
ng/L
nm
sq ft
SR
SS
SWL
IDS
TOC
total coli
yr
yg/g
ymhos/cm
#/100 ml
SYMBOLS
month
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
milliliters of sample
Al
As
B
Ca
Cd
Cl
Co
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg
H S0
1C
Mg
Mn
N
aluminum
arsenic
boron
calcium
cadmium
chlorine
cobalt
chromium
copper
iron
mercury
sulfuric acid
potassium
magnesium
manganese
nitrogen
Na
NH,
NHJ
P %
Pb
S
Se
SOZ
Zn
>
<
y
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, William H. Bellis, Keith E. Bennett, 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 Dickinson was appreciated.
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 atten-
tion. This attention has been focused in two general areas: (1) economical
wastewater renovation including increasing crop yields on agricultural soils;
and (2) potential soil and groundwater pollution including potential health
hazards. Decisions regarding wastewater management must consider these areas.
Proper design, operation, and monitoring of land application systems re-
quire data concerning the long-term effects of applying wastewater on land
under a variety of conditions. There is a need for these data from areas
where wastewater has been applied for at least 10 years.
For 17 years treated domestic wastewater from Dickinson, North Dakota,
has been used for irrigation. The particular application method used is slow
rate irrigation (SR) involving border strip flooding. This method is a con-
trolled flooding process in which the irrigated area is divided into strips or
channels by constructing border dikes or levees (Figure 1). The channels be-
tween the border dikes are wide and shallow, allowing irrigation water to flow
from the head ditch in thin elongating sheets as it moistens the soil (Hagen
et al., 1967).
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, soils, groundwater, lagoon and river water,
and plants. Field laboratory analyses of some samples at the site and later,
complete chemical laboratory analyses provided 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 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 investi-
gation and focused attention on heavy metals, bacteria, nitrogen, and phos-
phorus.
-------
PERCOLATION
Rgure I. Border-strip flood irrigation.
-------
SECTION 2
CONCLUSIONS
An analysis of the waters, soils, and plants at the Dickinson site has
indicated that the use of wastewater for irrigation resulted in several long-
term beneficial effects. The specific major findings showed that:
1. Although total coliform bacteria were found at both the control and
test sites, no fecal coliform bacteria were found in any wells.
There is no direct evidence of total or fecal coliform bacteria
penetration of soils after 17 years of irrigation with effluent
from the Dickinson, North Dakota, wastewater treatment plant.
2. There is no evidence that coliform bacteria contamination of the
grass crop is occurring as a result of irrigation with effluent.
Total and fecal coliform bacteria found at the control and test sites
nere attributed to cattle that are pastured at both sites.
3. Metals such as zinc, copper, and chromium that were measured in
small concentrations in the effluent were removed and continue to
be sufficiently immobilized by the soil after 17 years of irriga-
tion. Sodium, zinc, and manganese concentrations have shown some
increase in the effluent-irrigated crop contrasted with the Heart
River water-irrigated crop at the control site but were well within
the normal range for grass crops.
4. Toxic metals such as cadmium, lead, and mercury have been demon-
strably absent in the effluent, the groundwater, and the irrigated
grass crop.
5. After irrigation for 17 years, the small effluent concentration of
copper, arsenic, zinc, and manganese has not greatly contributed to
the soil concentration of these metals. The Heart River water used
for irrigation at the control site has comparable concentrations of
these metals. The slightly greater concentrations of copper, arse-
nic, zinc, and manganese that were observed in the test site soils
were attributed to natural soil conditions.
6. Extractable metals in the test site soils, such as boron, were ade-
quate for crop nutrition, below toxic levels, and comparable with
extractable concentrations generally found in agricultural soils.
7. 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 effluent or groundwater. The average ranges of con-
centrations in the control and test sites groundwater were compara-
ble to each other.
8. Chemical oxygen demand concentrations of groundwater exiting the
test site and discharging to the Heart River were consistent with
the concentrations observed in the Heart River water upstream of
the site and with concentrations in the Dickinson water supply.
9. The plant nutrients nitrogen and phosphorus have both appeared to
increase in the test site soils when compared with the control site
soils.
10. Nitrate plus soluble organic nitrogen are exiting the test site
in the underlying groundwater at an average concentration of
3.0 milligrams/liter (mg/L). This compares to the average concen-
tration of 1.1 mg/L for.nitrate plus soluble organic nitrogen in the
:ontrol site groundwater. The 1.9 mg/L difference represents about
17 percent of the nitrogen applied by the effluent.
11. Nitrogen loss to volatilization and denitrification is projected
to be in the range of 22 percent at the test site.
12. Phosphorus uptake by the test site soils has been contained in
the upper 40 cm [16 inches (in)] of the soil profile after 17 years
of effluent application and phosphorus is reduced to an average 0.06
mg/L soluble phosphorus in the underlying groundwater. The projected
life for continued phosphorus removal for the test site soil is in
excess of 100 additional years.
13. All parameters observed for the groundwater, soils, and plants
support the continued use and longevity for the test site, for con-
tinued effluent irrigation crop benefits, and for continued waste-
water 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 used initially to provide direc-
tion in the data-gathering phases. The earlier approaches included the fol-
lowing:
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 vis-
cosity dominate the movements. Both of these movements are subject to the
laws of fluid mechanics, permitting mathematical models to be set up for a
particular site.
Such models are useful in guiding the exploratory and sampling program
and in interpreting the results of such programs. The models enable one to
define a "plume" of water that originates in the wastewater application site.
This plume is then the only part of the soil and groundwater that is affected
by the application of the wastewater. All other water outside this plume re-
mains unaffected. This is ajn extremely important concept in guiding the pro-
gram of sampling and in interpreting the results.
-------
Application 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 Soils--
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
without contact with the chemicals in the soil mass.'
Same Site--
The same site should have been used for a long time. If wastewater had
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 of chemi-
cal 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 the
study.;sites., such an application can introduce uncertainties into the opera-
tion 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 liters/second (L/s) [0.1 million
gallons/day (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 available within a reasonable
6
-------
distance and have the same general type of soil and hydrogeological
conditions.
NORTHERN HIGH PLAINS SITES
Preliminary Evaluations
The geographical area involved was the High Plains portion of the states
of Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, and
Kansas. STORET data supplied by the EPA were examined for information about
potential sites in each of these states. A survey was conducted to obtain
further information about these sites and any others that might be candidates
for study. Golf course sites were arbitrarily eliminated. Also eliminated
were sites in which the wastewater was mixed with other water prior to irri-
gation. Because this was a common practice throughout the region, few sites
were available for further study.
The Dickinson site was the only site in the Northern Plains states that
warranted further investigation. Other potential sites were eliminated on the
basis of information obtained from the survey and literature review for the
reasons listed in Table 1.
Site Visit
Only the Dickinson site was visited. Both the test site and the control
site were located in the section that contains the lagoon treatment system of
the city of Dickinson. The control site is irrigated with river water, while
the test site irrigation water is effluent from a lagoon.
-------
TABLE 1. POTENTIAL IRRIGATION SITES AND REASONS FOR REJECTION
Sites
Reasons for Rejection
00
Scott City, Kansas
Shelby, Nebraska
Cheyenne, Wyoming
Gillette, Wyoming
Rawlins, Wyoming
Air Force Academy, Colorado
Colorado Springs, Colorado
Fitzsimmons, Colorado
Grand Forks, North Dakota
Mi not, North Dakota
Wray, Colorado
Fort Carson, Colorado
Inverness Sanitary District,
Denver, Colorado
Sublett, Kansas
Wastewater mixed with other water sources
Golf course or landscape irrigation only
System discontinued
System too new
South Dakota
No irrigation with municipal effluent
-------
SECTION 4
DESCRIPTION OF SITE
GENERAL
Dickinson is located at map coordinates latitude 46°47'N, longitude 102°
49'W in Stark County in southwestern North Dakota (Figure 2). The city had a
population of 13,400 in 1975 and has one institution of higher education,
Dickinson State College. Dickinson is primarily a service business center
for the agriculture and ranching needs of the area. It has one of the larg-
est cattle auctions in the upper Great Plains. The lack of an adequate water
supply precludes the development of any major water-using industries.
TOPOGRAPHY
The county consists of gently sloping to steep upland prairie that is
bordered on the west by the Badlands (Theodore Roosevelt National Memorial
Park - South Unit). The rolling plateau has been dissected by the channels
of the main streams and by many intermittent waterways. Scattered buttes,
capped by resistant sandstone or limestone, are remnants of sedimentary
strata that once covered the area more extensively. Antelope Creek, the
Heart River, and the Green River are the principal natural streams. There
are no other significant natural bodies of water, but many artificial im-
poundments have been constructed since 1940 to provide water for livestock
and recreational purposes. The major impoundment is the E. W. Patterson Lake
on the Heart River near the southwestern limit of Dickinson. This reservoir
is capable of storing 850,000,000 cubic meters (m3) [6,900 acre-feet (ft)] and
provides water for municipal use and irrigation. The flow of the Heart River
is intermittent, with a maximum of 197,390 L/s [6,970 cubic ft per second (ft3/s)],
Dickinson is at an elevation of 732 m (2,400 ft) above mean sea level,
and the local relief varies across the city by about 50 m (164 ft). The area
within the city slopes in a south-southeasterly direction to the Heart River.
TEST SITE
The test site consists of about 5.7 hectares (ha) (14 acres) and is locat-
ed to the south of the wastewater lagoons (Figures 3 and 4). It lies ad-
jacent to the Heart River and is bordered on the east by a diked dirt road
and the channel of the Heart River. The channel is about 5.5 m (18 ft) deep.
It is bordered on the west and south by a steep hill approximately 7 m (2
ft) high. Between the second cell of the wastewater lagoons and the test
-------
DAKOTA
J
•- v I
Control a test v I
sites
'STAR K
10 20Miles
20
40Kilometers
Figure 2. Location of Stark County
10
-------
Fiqure3. General location map, Dickinson, N.D
-------
WASTEWATE R
*V22I30 .
R 49-55
N 2212
32-37
020
18-22
0
45-50
4J.Q
0.5
2242Q
-»~ ^ ,.^ -'«>• -
Sub-area 1
I 19-24
LT rL-ir-
68-74
_22Q70
200 300 Feet
i
50 100 Maters
WELL NUMBER
SCREEN DEPTH (ft.)
SAMPLE WELL
LYSIMETER CLUSTER
WELL NOT SAMPLED
RECORDER WELL
TEST HOLE
SUB-AREAS IFOR SOIL a GRASS SAMPLES
Figure 4. Wostewoter irrigation test site.
12
-------
site is a small holding lagoon. The land to the west and above the test site
has been sprinkler-irrigated with wastewater since 1966. The test site has
been flood-irrigated with wastewater from the holding lagoon since 1959. The
field was leveled in 1971 and is now flood-irrigated by the border-strip
method.
CONTROL SITE
The control site is located about 1.3 kilometers (km) [0.8 miles (mi)]
west and upstream of the test site (Figures 3 and 5). It is bordered on two
sides by the Heart River and slopes gently to the east. The land has been
flood-irrigated by the border-strip method since the 1940s with water pumped
from the Heart River. On the southwest side of the control site is a 4.5 ha
(11 acre) plot that is also flood-irrigated with water from the Heart River,
as is the farmland located to the northwest of the control site. About 1.2 km
(0.75 mi) north of the control site are several cattle auction barns with
holding pens having surface drainage to the southeast, downstream of the con-
trol site. Stormwater drainage from the town is discharged at various points
into the Heart River. There is little municipal or industrial wastewater dis-
charge upstream of the control site.
GROUNDWATER HYDROLOGY AND GEOLOGY
The Heart River heads in the western part of Stark County and cuts a me-
andering channel in an east-southeasterly direction across the county. Both
test and control sites are in the unglaciated portion of the Great Plains
physiographic province. The land immediately surrounding both sites is a
highly dissected rolling plateau with several hundred feet of relief over
horizontal distances of about a mile.
According to a recent publication, both sites are on the southeast limb
of a northeast-southwest trending synclinal structure (Trapp and Croft,
1975). Thus, the surface rock beneath and surrounding the test and control
sites dips gently to the northwest.
Test Site
All of the test site is underlain by alluvial deposits of the Heart
River. This alluvium consists of clays, silts, very fine to fine sands, and
occasional lenses of coarse sand and gravel. Fragments of coal and lignite
are common throughout the alluvial sediments.
Beneath the alluvium is the Sentinel Butte Formation, which is the upper
stratigraphic unit of the Fort Union Group and is Upper Paleocene in age.
The Sentinel Butte crops out in the hills surrounding the site, and on the
higher ridges it is overlain by the Golden Valley Formation of Eocene age.
Sediments that make up the Sentinel Butte consist of interbedded fine-grained
sandstones and siltstones, and claystones with thin partings of lignite.
Sandstones and siltstones of the Sentinel Butte Formation are generally dark
blue, and the claystones are gray to white. The claystones in the Sentinel
Butte are reported to be bentonitic (Trapp and Croft, 1975), and it seems
reasonable to assume that the alluvial clays are predominantly bentonitic.
13
-------
• <*"'
VI09Q* ,., •'"
17-25 _-
'
•\2I070
\ 21-27
\2I080
13-18
WELL NUMBER
SCREEN DEPTH (ft.)
A TEST HOLE
rj SUB-AREAS FOR SOIL 8 GRASS SAMPLES
200 300
Scale in Feet
50 100
•••
Scale in Meters
Figure 5. Irrigation control site.
14
-------
No sharp distinction exists at all locations between the alluvium and
the underlying Sentinel Butte. Sediments of the Sentinel Butte are semicon-
solidated, and the poorly cemented to noncemented sandstones and siltstones
have a drilling penetration rate about the same as that for the alluvial sedi-
ments. For this study the alluvial-bedrock contact was picked at a color
change, a cemented sandstone, or a claystone.
The Sentinel Butte can be 137 m (450 ft) thick, with this maximum thick-
ness occurring south of Dickinson (Trapp and Croft, 1975). The test drilling
penetrated only a part of the Sentinel Butte. Monitoring well 22030, on the
northern end of the test site, was drilled 11 m (36 ft) into the Sentinel
Butte. At the south end of the test site, monitoring well 22080 was drilled
18 m (59 ft) into the Sentinel Butte, the deepest penetration of this strati-
graphic unit (Figure 4).
The groundwater aquifer system beneath the test site can be characterized
as alluvial and bedrock. The alluvial aquifer consists of predominantly fine-
grained elastics with only thin, scattered accumulation of gravel and medium
to coarse sand. The summer water-level contours for the alluvial aquifer
(Figure 6) are from the July, 1976, data. These data suggest mounding of
groundwater beneath the lagoon area. Water-level measurements were made dur-
ing the irrigation season when the irrigation holding lagoon was full of
wastewater. There is a noticeable bulge of the mound toward the southeast,
indicating movement across the test site toward the Heart River. Some of this
mounding is due to leakage of the irrigation holding lagoon because the
ground adjacent to the perimeter of the holding lagoon dike was saturated and
marshy. Very little rain fell during this period and the mounding must be
due to wastewater irrigation and lagoon leakage (Figure 7). The irrigation
holding lagoon was dry during and before these measurements. Therefore, re-
sidual mounding is probably due to minor leakage of the wastewater lagoon
cells because very little rainfall is recorded in the Dickinson area during
the fall, winter, and early spring months (Table 2). The hydrograph for well
22140 generally supports this observation, although the rise in the alluvial
water level in April does not fit the irrigation or rainfall data. However,
there were several inches of snowfall on the ground during the winter months
and as late as the first part of April. The melting of the snow and release
of frozen ground moisture following the spring thaw probably account for the
rise in alluvial water shown for April, 1977 (Figure 7).
An alluvial aquifer pump test was conducted at the north end of the test
site. Well 22020 was the pumping well, and wells 22140 and 22180 were obser-
vation wells (Figure 4). The principal groundwater movement probably occur-
red in the thin sand and gravel zone that overlies the Sentinel Butte For-
mation (Figure 8). The distance-drawdown data from a six-hour test suggested
a coefficient of transmissibility of about 24,800 liters per day per meter
(L/d/m) (2,000 gpd/ft). The calculated storage coefficient is approximately
0.1, which is reasonable for a watertable aquifer. Calculation of the field
coefficient of permeability from the above data and the alluvial saturated
thickness gives a value of approximately 6,100 L/d/m2 (150 gpd/ft2). If the
effective porosity of the alluvium is assumed to be 20 percent, the ground-
water velocity across the test site ranges from <0.8 to 1.5 m (<3 to 5 ft) per
day. The contour lines (Figure 4) indicate that the slope of the water table
and the flow across the site are akout twice as great at the north end as at
the south end. ,
-------
202QJ
2367
22030...
2360
WELL NUMBER
WATER LEVEL ELEVATION (ft.)
MEASURED 27 July 1976
m LYSIMETER CLUSTER
O WELL NOT SAMPLED
® RECORDER WELL
A TEST HOLE
~ ~ =DSRECTION OF SROUNOWATER MOVEMENT
,— 2360-J WATER LEVEL CONTOUR ELEVATION (ft.)
Figure 6. Test site groundwoter ievei contours.
\
16
-------
I
o
5 3
8.0
fc 9.0
ui
10.0
11.0
1976
I
1977
JUL AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN
PRECIPITATION
DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER
152
7.6
UJ
Z
llJ
2.44
2.75
3.05
3.36
to
a:
ui
NOTE! Approximately 80cm (31 in) of wastewater was applied annually from May through August.
Depth to ground water measured at well 22140.
Figure 7. Test site hydrologic cycle.
-------
CO
•TABLE 2. MEAN MONTHLY TEMPERATURES AND PRECIPITATION, DICKINSON EXPERIMENT STATION, NORTH DAKOTA
r-
4-)
c
o
E:
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Temperature °F
Means
E
>> E
to to
o s:
22.6
24.9
36.4
54.9
66.3
74.6
83.8
82.4
71.3
58.1
40.1
27.9
E
>> E
rO •«—
Q s:
0.7
1.9
14.1
28.4
39.2
48.9
54.1
51.5
41.0
30.5
17.6
6.3
>^
j^
c
o
s:
11.0
13.4
25.3
41.7
52.8
61.8
69.0
67.0
56.2
44.3
28.9
17.1
Extremes
t *
"O I/I
S- 11
O -C
o o>
o: £
59
67
85
92
106
109
114
110
104
93
78
68
"O -M
i- VI
O Ol
u s
0) O
o: _j
-44
-47
-33
-19
11
28
29
24
12
-15
-23
-37
V}
O
Ol
0) U.
s-
DO
>
c r—
•I— 4-1
X C
to O
s: E:
18.2
12.9
19.4
17.0
12.8
4.0
0.0
0.0
6.0
26.9
28.0
15.8
in
01
•i-1 >>
Q) ^
s- ra
O Q
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
10.0
4.0
0.0
0.0
5.0
10.0
14.0
6.0
1-1
10
o c
O (U
O •!-> O
60 years.
-------
_2380
.2370
-2360
-2350
-234O
_2330
-2320
_23IO
Second lagoon
Smalt holding, lagoon
22010
22020
22030
~~ -- f
\
!
C-.
;-
^
"-
'-4:
1 0 "
I. ••»-
^(
i. ~i-
'.''.•
* * •
V.-
• * •
'• < X.
•^ ^y
-^
t Pleio
Sentinel
"sE^fT
/-Water Table
iezometric surface
22110
Clay
Alluvium J fcv] Silt
) GD Sand
\ UH1 Gravel
I »*i I Sandttone
ft
Terrace
Location of Screen
Elevation It above
tea level
lift* .305m)
FOR LOCATION OF CROSS SECTION, SEE FIGURE 6.
Figure 8. Cross section A-A1 of lagoons and test site.
Heart River
-------
Groundwater in the northern portion of the test site that moves across
the site is, during the summer, a mixture of lagoon water (from leakage),
applied wastewater (percolated through the soil,), and groundwater from the
upper Sentinel Butte (upstream from the test site). Groundwater moving
across the test site in the southern half of the site is a mixture of
irrigation-applied wastewater and groundwater inflow from the upper Sentinel
Butte south and southeast of the site.
The underlying Sentinel Butte Formation is hydraulically separated from
the overlying alluvium. This is shown on cross section A-A1 (Figure 8) near
the lagoon area, where the piezometric surface of the Sentinel Butte is sev-
eral feet below the alluvial water table. This distinction decreases away
from the lagoon, and the two surfaces are nearly the same over the remainder
of the site. The fine-grained character and well-cemented sands of the Sen-
tinel Butte limit the permeability, of this bedrock unit. Although no pump
test was conducted for this part of the Sentinel Butte, the pump rates noted
during the water sampling phase indicated water-yielding capabilities gener-
ally equivalent to those of the alluvium. Transmissibility values have been
reported as ranging from 37,000 to 74,000 L/d/m (3,000 to 6,000 gpd/ft) and
storage coefficient values between 0.0007 and 0.0008 (Trapp and Croft, 1975).
Contours of the piezometric surface for the Sentinel Butte measured in July,
1976, are shown in Figure 8, and there was essentially no change in these
data for the April, 1977, measurements. The groundwater contours for the
alluvium and Sentinel Butte Formation are shown for both summer and winter in
Figure 9.
Control Site ,
The hydrogeology at the control site is very similar to that of the test
site. However, at the control site there seems to be a hydraulic connection
between the alluvium and the underlying Sentinel Butte Formation. The allu-
vial sediments are thin, 2.5 to 3.4 m (8 to 11 ft) at well locations 21060,
21070, and 21080, and there is not a significant impermeable layer between
the two aquifers. In fact, the alluvial sands and gravels are resting di-
rectly on the Sentinel Butte sandstone. Therefore, the two-aquifer system
that is present at the test site is a very leaky aquifer system at the con-
trol site. Figure 10 suggests mounding of the alluvial groundwater due to
irrigation and a flow pattern in all directions from the site. The winter
measurements showed the mound had flattened approximately 1.8 to 2.5 m (6 to
8 ft).
The summer water level for the Sentinel Butte Formation is lower than
that'for the alluvium (Figure 11). In the winter the Sentinel Butte water
level drops 1.2 to 1.8 m (4 to 6 ft) in response to alluvial leakage and as-
sumes a level similar to that of the alluvial groundwater (Figure 11). These
water-level data support the concept of the interaction of the two aquifers.
Because the control site is located in the meander loop, there is prob-
ably only minor groundwater inflow from the Sentinel Butte Formation at high-
er elevations to the north of the site. The chief source of groundwater in
-20
-------
Summer -Alluvium
Winter-Alluvium
Sumrrwr-Sentinel Butte
Winter-Sentinel Butte
660
1320 Feet
«—
4OO Meters
• Sampling weil
* Test hole
— 2360~ Water level contour elevation (ft.)
^— — 3 Direction of groundwater flow
Figure 9. Seasonal test site groundwater level contours.
21
-------
WELL NUMBER
/WATER LEVEL ELEVATION (ft.)
Measured 27 July 1976
A TEST HOLE
— WATER LEVEL CONTOUR ELEVATION ( ft.)
--DIRECTION OFGROUNOWATER MOVEMENT
Scale in meter*
Figure 10. Control site groundwater level contours.
22
-------
Summer -Alluvium
Winter-Alluvium
Summer - Sanlinel Butte
Winter-Sentinel Butt*
660
1320 Feet
4OOMeters
o Sompling well
A Test note
— 2360— Water level contour elevation (ft.)
^--3 Direction of groundwater flow
Figure II. Seasonal control site groundwater level contours.
23
-------
the Sentinel Butte at the control site is downward movement of the alluvial
water. The source of most of the alluvial groundwater can be attributed to
the irrigation water pumped from the Heart River.
SOILS
The soils at the Dickinson sites are deep, sandy, alluvial deposits in
the bottomlands of the Heart River Valley. Originally these lands were
gently undulating and required some leveling for flood irrigation.
A profile description, typical of both the control site and the test
site before leveling occurred, follows:
Al-0-13 cm (0-5.1 in); dark grayish brown (2.5Y4/2) fine sandy loam,
very dark grayish brown (2.5Y3/2) when moist; weak, fine, angular
blocky structure or single grain; soft when dry, very friable when
moist, nonsticky and nonplastic when wet; noncalcareous; clear, smooth
boundary.
Cl-13-28 cm (5.1-11.0 in); grayish brown (2.5Y5/2) loamy fine sand, very
dark grayish brown (2.5Y3/2) when moist; weak, coarse, prismatic to mod-
erate, angular blocky structure; soft when dry, loose when moist, non-
sticky and nonplastic when wet; slightly calcareous; gradual wavy
boundary.
C2-28-40 cm (11.0-15.7 in); grayish brown (2.5Y5/2) loamy fine sand,
dark grayish brown (2.5Y4/2) when moist; single grain; loose both
when dry and moist, nonsticky and nonplastic when wet; noncalcareous;
clear wavy boundary.
C3-40-53 cm (15.7-20.9 in) grayish brown (2.5Y5/2) fine sandy loam,
dark grayish brown (2.5Y4/2) when moist; moderate, fine and coarse,
angular blocky structure; slightly hard when dry, very friable when
moist, nonsticky and nonplastic when wet; calcareous; clear wavy
boundary.
C4-53-65 cm (20.9-25.6 in) grayish brown (2.5Y5/2) fine sandy loam,
dark grayish brown (2.5Y4/2) when moist; weak, medium and coarse,
angular blocky structure; soft when dry, very friable when moist, non-
sticky and nonplastic when wet; calcareous; clear wavy boundary.
C5-65-89 cm (25.6-35.0 in) (auger sample); grayish brown (2.5Y5/2)
very fine sandy loam, dark grayish brown (2.5Y4/2) when moist;
soft when dry, very friable when moist, nonsticky and nonplastic when
wet; calcareous; clear wavy boundary.
C6-89-130 cm (35.0-51.2 in) (auger sample); light brownish gray
(2.5Y6/2) loamy fine sand, dark grayish brown (2.5Y4/2) when moist;
soft when dry, loose when moist, nonsticky and nonplastic when wet;
slightly calcareous.
24
-------
CLIMATE
Located in the northern High Plains, Dickinson has a semi arid, continen-
tal climate. Winters are cold and snowy, while the summers have warm, sunny
days and cool nights. These factors produce cold and somewhat snowy winters
in which cold waves and blizzards may be expected. Hot, humid conditions are
very rare.
The annual precipitation at Dickinson is 39.4 cm (15.5 in). Precipita-
tion has ranged from less than 17.8 cm (7 in) to more than 78.7 cm (31 in).
There are a number of months in the record of no measurable precipitation;
these occurred in the period from November to February. More than 75 percent
of the annual precipitation falls in the growing season, April through Sep-
tember, while the months of November through February account for just 12
percent of the annual amount.
The annual snowfall has varied from 30.5 cm (12 in) to 188 cm (74 in).
Between 68 and 69 cm (27 in) of snow is the greatest monthly total on record.
The greatest snowfall for a single day was 35.6 cm (14 in). The snowfall
season is October through April.
The winters in Dickinson are moderately cold, with a mean temperature
for the winter months, December through February, of -10.1 C (13.8 F).
Minimum temperatures drop to -17.8 C (0 F) on an average of 46 times each
year.
The average temperature for the three summer months, June through
August, is 18.7° C (65.7° F). Temperatures of 32.2° C (90° F) or higher
occur on an average of about 22 days per year.
Annual pan evaporation, as measured in a standard Weather Service pan of
1.2 m (4 ft) diameter at the Dickinson Experiment Station, averages 87.7 cm
(34.5 in) during the growing season of April through September (USDA, 1968).
The annual pattern of precipitation and temperature at the Dickinson Ex-
periment Station (a benchmark weather station) is shown in Table 2, and re-
cent climatological data are given in Table 3.
LAND USE
Soils in Stark County are well suited to irrigation because they have
good percolation, are deep, and have favorable relief. However, there is
only a limited supply of water suitable for irrigation. There are no known
underground sources to warrant irrigation from deep wells.
By 1963, approximately 81 ha (200 acres) had been leveled for gravity-
type irrigation along the Heart and Green Rivers. Controlled releases of
water from E. W. Patterson Lake provide a dependable supply of water for the
areas along the Heart River.
Corn, wheat, barley, oats, and hay are the main crops grown in Stark
County. Hard red spring wheat is grown on the largest acreage. During years
25
-------
TABLE 3. RECENT CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA RECORDED AT
DICKINSON EXPERIMENT STATION
Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jim
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
, 1976
, 1976
, 1976
, 1976
, 1976
, 1976
, 1976
, 1976
, 1976
, 1976
, 1976
, 1976
Total, 1976
, 1977
, 1977
, 1977
, 1977
, 1977
, 1977
Total , Jan-
Jun, 1977
Average
Temp. F
14.6
28.2
26.6
45.0
54.0
63.8
70.5
70.5
59.7
40.4
25.3
17.4
43.0
1.4
25.4
33.6
47.5
61.7
65.2
39.1
Precipitation
in Inches
0.66
0.07
0.30
2.11
1.42
3.74
0.75
0.40
1.77
0.65
0.14
0.67
12.68
0.44
0.36
1.31
0.13
2.60
5.38
10.22
Evaporation
in Inches
8.83
8.58
12.13
12.00
8.30
49.84
3.69
9.74
8.39
21.82
Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Climatological Data
Monthly Summaries.
26
-------
of normal or above-normal rainfall, two cuttings of hay are harvested. Na-
tive grass is usually cut only once every two years unless the areas where it
grows receive additional moisture from runoff, a high water table, or water
spreading. In areas having sufficient moisture to facilitate crop growth,
the hay is cut once each year.
Cattle are raised on most farms in the county and are grazed from seven
to nine months each year. Several large dairy farms are located near Dickin-
son.
Some parts of the county are underlain by minerals of economic value.
Valuable minerals that lie near the surface are clay shale, used in the manu-
facture of tile, and lignite coal. It has been estimated that more than
18,100 million metric tons (20,000 million short tons) of lignite coal under-
lie the county. Some areas have been explored to see whether certain strata
of the Golden Valley Formation can be used as a source of alumina, an alumi-
num oxide mineral.
Agricultural Practices and Productivity
Both sites are irrigated by the strip and border method. The control
site irrigation water supply is from the Heart River. The test site water
supply is municipal wastewater from a series lagoon treatment system.
The hydraulic loading from irrigation is approximately 80 cm (31.5 in)
per year on the control site and about 140 cm (55 in) on the test site. The
irrigation season is generally from May through August. The seasonal pre-
cipitation is shown in the climatological section of this report (Tables 2
and 3).
Available information about cropping history for both sites for the past
.10 years is:
1. Entire period in permanent pasture of Bromegrass
2. Crop yields were 39.2 quintal/ha (3,500 Ib/acre) of air dry
forage/year
3. Fertilizer history is 4.5 metric tons/ha (2.0 tons/acre) of barn-
yard manure/year
4. Fertilizer equivalent is:
nitrogen - 16 kg/ha/yr pounds per acre per year (Ib/acre/yr)
phosphorus - 2 kg/ha/yr (1.8 Ib/acre/yr)
potassium - 9 kg/ha/yr (8 Ib/acre/yr)
5. Pesticides have not been used
27
-------
SECTION 5
PLANT OPERATION AND COSTS
WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Prior to 1939, a septic tank was used for sewage treatment. In 1939, a
secondary treatment system consisting of a sludge digester and high-rate
trickling filter with chlorination of the final effluent was constructed.
Both were located at the southeast corner of Dickinson, and the outfalls were
into the Heart River about 3/4 mile upstream from the control site. The con-
ventional secondary treatment system became overloaded and, rather than ex-
pand it, the two-cell series lagoon system was constructed in 1957 along with
a one-mile outfall line from the secondary treatment plant east to the la-
goons.
The test site was intermittently irrigated with Heart River water from
the 1940s to 1959 when arrangements were made to irrigate with effluent from
the lagoon system.
In 1972, two 7.46 kilowatt (kW) [10 horsepower (hp)] floating aerators
were added to each of the cells. The system was expanded in 1977 by adding a
mechanical bar screen to the grit chamber, two new 0.5-ha (1.2-acre) aeration
cells, with 45 kH (60 hp) turbine-type, surface aerators in series in front of
the lagoons, and a third lagoon cell with a net liquid area of 23,5 {58 acres).
In June, 1977, during the last sampling trip, the third lagoon was being
filled, however, the aeration cells were not in use (Figure 12).
The present, waste flow is about 43.8 L/s (1 Mgal/d). Much of the treat-
ment plant effluent has been used for irrigation since 1957, with occasional
discharges to the Heart River. Proposed irrigation requirements for zero
discharge through 1980 are 30.4 ha (75 acres) adjacent to and including the
test site and 45.8 ha (113 acres) on the east side of the Heart River across
from the test site. The irrigation water is furnished under a contract to
the user at no charge.
The net percolation loss for the two original cells has been estimated
at 0.32 cm (0.13 in) per day. The system is owned and operated by the City
of Dickinson (Cuskelly, 1974).
WASTEWATER CONSTITUENTS
Historical characteristics of influent and effluent as reported by the
city of Dickinson are shown in Table 4.
28
-------
T* *f°' .llfc-
CITY OF DICKINSON
CONTROL SITE
M EXIS. GRIT CHAMBER
EXIS. GRAVITY LINE
AERATION CELL
PUMP STATION
HEART RIVE
Figure 12. Sewage treatment facilities, Dickinson,N.D.
-------
TABLE 4. WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS*
Influent
Effluent
BOD
mg/t
260
46
Suspended
Solids
mg/L
180
18
Fecal
Col i form
#/100 mL
9,100
Total
Phosphorus
mg/L
10
PH
7.6
*From City of Dickinson records.
CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS
The initial cost of the Dickinson sewage treatment lagoons was about
$270,000 in 1957. The 1977 modification cost an estimated $702,000, of which
75 percent was financed by an EPA grant and 25 percent by the City of Dickin-
son.
The operations and maintenance (0 & M) costs for the 1977 fiscal year
were:
Maintenance man-hours, including benefits $ 6,589
Supervisory man-hours, including benefits 1,583
Utilities (including energy cost to operate 5,112
the irrigation system, bar screens,
and lift station)
Purchased materials 4,929
Total annual 0 & M $18,213
This is equivalent to an 0 & M cost of $0.05/1000 gal.
30
-------
SECTION 6
RESEARCH METHODS
WELL CONSTRUCTION AND LOCATIONS
Hell Construction
The majority of the sampling wells were drilled with a conventional
rotary drill rig using Dickinson city water without any bentonite (mud) addi-
tive. This was done in order to minimize the introduction of foreign materi-
als to the aquifer zone of interest. The circulation of clear water in the
drilling process developed a natural mud, and in the Dickinson area, this
natural mud was probably bentonitic. Air rotary drilling was used for 3.6 m
(12 ft) of well 22010 (Appendix A), but the hole was completed with water.
Wells were drilled using a large rotary rig with a 10-cm (4-in) bit and
then reamed with a 20-cm (8-in) bit. Plastic screens 10 cm (4 in) in di-
ameter and factory slotted with 0.04-cm (0.016-in) slots were placed in the
hole with 10-cm (4-in) plastic casing. A cleaned, washed, and screened
silica sand from Colorado was placed around and above the screened section.
Granular bentonite was slowly poured into the annulus to seal the hole above
the screen, and the remainder of the hole was backfilled with native material.
The top 15 to 30 cm (6 to 12 in) of the hole was filled with granular
bentonite. A summary of well data is given in Table 5.
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 diam-
eter, 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 13.
The water-level recorder well, 22140, was completed using 15-cm (6-in)
plastic casing and screen. The completion techniques were similar to those
already described, except that a large steel box was mounted over the well
to protect the well and automatic recorder.
One well was drilled with a small, hand-portable, tripod rotary rig with
water as the drilling fluid. A 5-cm (2-in) plastic casing and screen with
0.05-cm (0.020-in) slots was jetted to the desired position with clear water.
Several other wells were augered using the tripod rig, and the 5-cm (2-in)
31
-------
TABLE 5. WELL SUMMARY
TEST SITE
:2010
37-43
0.1
1.1
'376.042361.6!
14.35
10.75
13
12.63
Sentinel Butte
2020
23
18-22
15
0.9
2375.06 2367.6<
8.4
10.9
12.16
11.13
Alluvium
22030
60
45-50
0.4
0.95
2375.952359.5:
16.42
15.25
15.46
15.38
Sentinel 3utte
2040
30
19-24
0.5
1.0
2373.192357.2'
15.95
16.39
17.09
Sentinel Butte
22050
17
13-17
1.1
2373.13
2357.2f
15.37
16.45
17.08
17.1
Alluvium
22060
55
49-55
0.6
2372.9
2362.9
10
10.25
10.35
10.1
Sentinel Butte
22070
30
11.5-
16.5.
0.5
2373.1
2362.9:
10.17
11.4
12.9
Alluvium
22080
75
68-74
0.33
2373.172363.01
10.09
10.3
10.45
9.91
Sentinel Butte
22090
30
13-18
0.82
2375.972362.4]
11.56
15.0
16.23
15.82
Alluvium
22100
20
10-14
10
1.07
2375.552370
5.55
7.57
10.34
8.97
Alluvium
22110
26
19-24
0.8
2374.442357.2'
17.2
17.65! 19.04
13.56
Alluvium
22120
40
32-37
0.6
2384.322362.8!
21.44
21.66
22.44
22.48
Alluvium
22130
56
49-55
0.2
"384.332354.8;
29.51
29.39
29.25
Sentinel Butte
22140
23
15-20
30
0.7
2375.512367.1:
3.38
9.65
10.67
Recorder Well Alluvium
22170
12
7-11
1.0
2360.922355.59
5.33
4.57
3.92
Alluvium
22180
23
18-23
30
0.9
2375.972367.4!
10.35
12.13
11.1
Al luvium
22190
18.5
16.5-
18:5
1.0
2374.092363.2'
10.85
11.45
12.59
12.59
Alluvium
22200
2.5
1.0
2356.96 2354.2f
2.7
2.7
3.14
3.07
Spring Well Alluvium
2:210
11.5-
15.1
2374.00
dry
Alluvium
22220 20
13.5
Z373.84J2356.7g| 17.05
Alluvium
CONTROL SITE
21010
60
54-60
0.65
2376.572366.05
10.92
13.15
14.7
Sentinel Sutte
21020
34
29.5-
33.5
0.6
0.83
2377
2366.29
10.71
13.05
14.78
Sentinel Butte
21030
20
8-18
25
1.0
2376.6
2363.14i
11.72
14.27
7.39
Alluvium
21040
45
34-44
1.4
0.83
2377.612367.06
10.55
13.32
14.98
Sentinel Butte
21050
25
15-20
0.6
2377.432370.1
7.33
12.59
14.99
10.90
Alluvium
21060
45
39-14
10
0.83
2377.22 2355.261
11.96
13.35
15.92
11.63
Sentinel Butte
21070
27
21-27
2377.232365.42'
11.81
13.33
15.91
11.53
Sentinel Butte
21080
20
13-18
0.7
0.83
2377.162365.38
11.3
13.52
15.37
Sentinel Butte
21090
25
17-25
2.5
2375.332367.081
8.3
12.55
.00
Sentinel Butte
21150
21160
30
21-29
6-12
1.5
0.35
Sentinel Sutte
14.96
Alluvium
32
-------
PER
a 4 •
o • ,
a »
t •'.
• • »
6 i
Steel protective casing
Locking hasp
Threaded PVC cap
|- i.9- Ground line
j »m » in L?rr
Bentonite plug
jutive backfill
B»ntonite plug
Gravel pack
Screen
Figure 13. Typical well completion,
33
-------
screen and pipe assembly were jetted into place. The surface completion for
the 5-cm (2-in) wells was similar to that described above for the 10-cm (4-
in) wells.
Well 22200 was constructed at the base of the bluff along the east side
of the test site and within an existing spring. Although the well was only
0.8 m (2.5 ft) deep, it sampled water from the gravel layer just at the base
of the alluvium. Well 22200 is comparable to well 22220, which could not be
sampled, as can be seen by comparing elevations of the top of casing and
water levels in Table 5.
All water used for drilling and jetting was treated with Clorox or cal-
cium hypochlorite to contain approximately 350 mg/L chlorine.
The following procedure was used to decontaminate the wells. After com-
pleting 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 thoroughly
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.
Lysimeter Installation
The lysimeter cluster was located on the northern edge of the test site
(Figure 4). A hole 10 cm (4 in) in diameter for each of the three lysimeters
was drilled with a portable power auger. Prior to installation, each porous
lysimeter cup was pretreated by the following procedure: A 300 mL volume of
10 percent Calgon (sodium hexametaphosphate) 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 pro-
cedure was repeated once using a 10 percent hydrochloric acid solution and
again using distilled water. The pretreated lysimeters were then ready for
installation.
Each lysimeter cup was fitted with a specially constructed teflon
plastic pipe 30 cm (12 in) in length with a sealed lid capable of holding
more than 46 cm (18 in) of negative pressure. Two teflon tubes 0.64 cm (0.25
in) in diameter extended through the lid. One tube connected with the base
of the lysimeter and was used to bring the water to the surface. The other
tube connected with the top of the lysimeter and was used to apply both neg-
ative and positive pressure to blow the water sample out through the lower
tube.
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
34
-------
and distilled water. The bentonite plug was covered with backfill until the
hole was filled. In the case of the two deeper lysimeters, the grass plug
was replaced (Figure 14).
Following the installation of the lysimeter assemblies, a negative pres-
sure of 46 cm (18 in) of mercury was placed on each lysimeter. The pasture
surrounding the lysimeters was flooded. Samples were blown from the lysim-
eters three times a day for two and one-half days. The pH was monitored to
determine when the system had been purged of the acid treatment. When the pH
had stabilized near 7, the lysimeter samples were collected for analysis.
Prior to collection of the July, 1976, lysimeter samples, the test site
pasture was flood-irrigated with wastewater, and about 5 cm (2 in) of waste-
water covered the lysimeter installation.
SAMPLING
Water Sampling
Water sampling procedures were the same throughout the study. At each
sampling point a field recording form was completed to show well number, sam-
ple number, ttme of sample collection, method of sampling, time of well pump-
ing, and pertinent field conditions.
The samples were coded in the following manner for later identification
and analyses:
(a) A 24-hour composite of the sewage lagoon effluent was collected and
identified as 22460.
(b) A grab sample from the Heart River was collected at the irrigation
site and identified as 21460.
(c) Groundwater from the test site was identified as 22010 through
22200, and groundwater from the control site was identified as
21010 through 21150.
(d) Lysimeter samples were identified as 22410, 22420, and 22430.
Wells were sampled by adding approximately 19 L (5 gal) of chlorinated
water to the well. The water was circulated through the well and pump for
several minutes. Then the well was pumped and the well casing flushed until
no residual chlorine was detected by the ortho-tolidine test.
Lysimeters were sampled by blowing each lysimeter clear and applying a
vacuum to collect the sample. This procedure was repeated until an adequate
volume was collected.
Soil Sampling
An area of approximately 3 ha (5 acres) each at the control and test
sites that typically and homogeneously represented the soil type and the crop
35
-------
Location of
Cross section B-B
NO. 22430
EXPLANATION
Bentonite
Native backfill
200 mesh silica slurry
Figure 14. Lysimeter installation.
36
-------
being grown was selected for sampling. This selection was coordinated be-
tween 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 (August,
1976) and once during the cool season (November, 1976). Composite soil
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. The entire above-ground portion of the grass plants was taken for
the composite-sample. Care was taken to sample only the grass plant, exclud-
ing other plants and foreign material.
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 6 of the field method changes that were
made during the sampling program to overcome equipment and methodology
problems.
Methods for Analyses of Water
Field Analyses--
Alkalinity (total)--Water 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
37
-------
TABLE 6. SUMMARY OF FIELD METHODS
CO
CO
Sampling Trip
Analysis
Alkal inity
(Total)
Ammonia
BOD
Chloride
Col iform
(Total)
Col iform
(Fecal)
Conductance
D.O.
Nitrate
Nitrogen
(Kjeldahl)
Orthophosphate
(Soluble)
PH
Phosphorus
(Soluble)
Phosphorus
(Total)
Sulfide
Sulfate
Dickinson I
Potentiometric
Titration
Probe
Probe
Probe
Membrane Filter
Membrane Filter
Meter
Winkler
Probe
Digestion &
Probe
Single Reagent
pH Electrode
Filtration, Diges-
tion, & Single
Reagent
Digestion &
Single Reagent
Probe, No
Preservative
Probe
Dickinson II
Potentiometric
Titration
Probe
Probe
Probe
Membrane Filter
Membrane Filter
Meter
Winkler
Probe
Digestion &
Probe
Single Reagent
pH Electrode
Filtration, Diges-
tion, & Single
Reagent
Digestion &
Single Reagent
Probe, No
Preservative
Turbidimetric
Dickinson III
Potentiometric
Titration
Probe
Probe
Titration
Membrane Filter
Membrane Filter
Meter
Winkler
Cadmium Reduction
Digestion &
Probe
Single Reagent
pH Electrode
Filtration, Diges-
tion, & Single
Reagent
Digestion &
Single Reagent
Probe, No
Preservative
Turbidimetric
Dickinson IV
Potentiometric
Titration
Probe
Probe
Titration
Membrane Filter
Membrane Filter
Meter
Winkler
Cadmium Reduction
Digestion &
Probe (Modified)
Single Reagent
pH Electrode
Filtration, Diges-
tion, & Single
Reagent
Digestion &
Single Reagent
Probe With
Preservative
Turbidimetric
-------
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
(BOD,-). 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 di-
rectly 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 incu-
bated 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 thio-
sulfate to eliminate the chlorine and then seeded with 24-hour-old domestic
wastewater. Glucose-glutamic acid checks were performed to observe the
efficiency of the BOD procedures (APHA, 1976).
Coliform (total)--Field samples were collected in sterile glass bottles.
Samples were thoroughly mixed, and 1 milliliter (ml) was taken with a sterile
pipette and passed through a 0.45 micrometer (ym) 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 of Endo Broth in a 50 x 12
millimeter (mm) plastic petro 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 colonies counted had a pink to: dark red color
with metallic surface sheen (APHA, 1976).
Coliform (fecal)--The procedure was identical to that for total coli-
forms 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 coli-
form 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 con-
ductance, the meter was calibrated prior to running analyses. Specific con-
ductance values were corrected to 25 C by using multiplication factors
(APHA, 1971).
Dissolved oxygen—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
39
-------
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 ym 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
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).
pH--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
40
-------
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 tttrated 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
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
41
-------
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
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
spect.rophotometry. 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 ym
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),
42
-------
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 mercury 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 so1ub1e)--So1ub1e organic carbon samples were
filtered through a 0.45 micron Gelman 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).
Solids (dissolved)--Samples 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 quantitativelyQto 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).
43
-------
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 sulfur—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.
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. Ami
monia concentration was determined from a standard curve prepared from seri-
ally diluted standards of 1,000 mg/L ammonium chloride stock solution. No
modifications were made for calcareous soils (Orion IM, 1975a; Busenberg,
1973; and Black, 1965).
Boron—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
44
-------
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)—Plant 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
(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.
45
-------
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
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).
46
-------
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 ex-
tracts 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
anhydrous sodium sulfate. Unless further purification was necessary, the
samples were ready for gas chromatographic analyses (Williams, 1968).
£H--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
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 Dickinson
soils made it very difficult to separate sulfate sulfur and organic sulfur;
thus the two were combined to obtain total sulfur values.
47
-------
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 6 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—
Calcium—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.
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).
48
-------
Meta1s--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 su1fur--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
not reduce NCL and NCL to NH. 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.
49
-------
DATA EVALUATION PLAN
General background data about the site including geology, hydrogeology,
soils, climate, and other relevant information have previously been pre-
sented.
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 be-
tween control and test sites were essentially the following: COD, Cl, solu-
able organic nitrogen, Mg, K, Na, SO*, Ca, and heavy metals.
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 differenti-
ated between control and test sites as a function of depth below surface were
the following: Cr, Cu, Zn, Mn, and total P. For the grass crop the parame-
ters for which the data differentiated the control and test sites were the
following: Cr, Mn, Na, and Zn.
Finally, the possible adverse health effects associated with fecal and
total coliform bacteria were investigated in water and crop samples. Dis-
cussion of the methods used and the results obtained for these health-
effects parameters follow in the sections on water and crops.
50
-------
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 (2) referred to the Dick-
inson 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, 46 was
irrigation water, and 60 was Dickinson potable water from Patterson Lake.
The fifth digit indicated a single or multiple completion well. A zero indi-
cated 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 on"!y 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 (Figures 4 and
5). The fourth digit indicated the sampling round. The fifth digit indi-
cated 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
The mean concentrations for the various parameters analyzed in the ef-
fluent and river irrigation waters are shown in Table 7. The mean values for
the test site represent values from five effluent samples taken during the
study. The values for the control site were from only one sample of river
water taken during the study.
For purposes of the evaluation, analytical data determined below the
limit of detection were arbitrarily input at one-half the detection limit
to obtain a mean value. Detection limits for some parameters also changed
between rounds and the higher limits are shown in Table 7.
A valid statistical comparison between the mean concentrations for the
various parameters at the test and control sites was not possible, since only
one sample of the control site irrigation water was available. However, the
mean values in Table 7 formed the basis for further analysis, assuming that
51
-------
TABLE 7. SUMMARY OF CONSTITUENTS DEFINING DIFFERENCES IN APPLIED WATERS
en
Parameter (mg/L
unless noted)
Dissolved Oxygen
pH (units)
Conductivity (ymhos/cm)
Total Alkalinity
Dissolved Solids
Suspended Solids
Total Solids
Volatile Suspended
Solids
Biochemical Oxygen
Demand
Chemical Oxygen Demand
Chloride
Sulfide-S
Total Col i form (#/100mL)
Fecal Coliform (#/100mL)
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)
Test
(Lagoon
Range
<0.1-14.6
7.6-9.6
585-2448
112-404
392-1726
19-247
411-1825
4-135
24-74
105-405
28-107
—
767-TNTCC
0-TNTC
22-167
3.5-101.6
<0.1-9.4
<0.1-11.4
1.3-13.9
<0.1-3.6
3.0-10.2
0.5-8.5
0.3-7.5
116-853
0.3Dr0.8
5b-ll
160-2724,
10b
Site
Effluent)
Mean
9.2
8.7
1687
257
1202
110
1312
49
42
248
83
—
TNTC
TNTC
93
38.2
3.4
3.7
6.9
1.5
6.90
4.8
3.8
359
0.5
6.5
921
10b
Control Site
(Heart River Water-
one sample)
8.3
8.8
1680
348
1119
23
1142
--
7 -
60
20
--
533
33
23
18.0
1.3
0.1
0.1
4.0
0.05
0.03
o.or
~~h
0.3°
5b
250
10D
Dicki
Potabl
Range
4.2
8.1-9.5
1522-1533
136-160
1022-1081
h
1D
44-59
15-23
11.7
0.3-0.8
<0.1-0.2
0.4-1.0
0.4
0.2
580-606.
8-3
5D-12
346-527,
10b
nson
e Water
Mean
4.2
8.8
1528
148
1052
h
1D
52
19
11.7
0.6
0.1
0.7
0.4
0.2
593 ,
_ ~n
0.3
8
437
10°
(Continued)
-------
TABLE 7. Continued
en
CO
Parameter (mg/L
Test Site
(Lagoon Effluent)
Control Site
(Heart River Water-
Dickinson
Potable Water
unless noted)
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)
Endrin (ng/L)
Lindane (ng/L)
Methoxychlor (ng/L)
Toxaphene (ng/L)
2,4-D (ng/L)
2,4,5 TP Silvex (ng/L)
Range
8-123,
20b
20b
20b
0.2-1.1,
100b
3-22
0.05-0.09
1 .-.D
50b-64
2.5-4.1
56-491
17-125
<10-13
0.03D
8.3-1690,
0.01b
bo.ib
1.4D-80
0.2-354
Mean
55,
20b
20b
20b
0 7
ioob
15 b
°-°B
v\
50b
24
306,
50b
7 h
0.03°
397 ,
o.or
O.I6
17
93
one sample)
55,
20b
20b
20 b
n i
ioob
30
0.23
i,.o
50°
12.4
309,
50b
5
0.03b
2 b
0.01°
O.I6
2-7b
0.2b
Range
39-50
20h
20b
20 b
o.r
100b
7-11
0.05°
iboB
50-97
8.5-9.8
309-314
<20-39
7-10
0 03D
1.5D-3,,8
0.01°
b0'1
8.4-10.4
31.4-86.3
Mean
45,
20b
20b
20 b
0.1D
100b
9 b
i!ob
74
9.2
312
30
8 b
0.03°
2'7b
o.or
O.I6
9.4
58.9
Concentrations below detection limit indicated.
At least one sample analyzed too numerous to
-------
the control site sample values were representative of the actual means. With
this assumption, 12 parameters were present in significantly higher concen-
trations in the effluent used for irrigation of the test site than in the
river water used for irrigation of the control site: BOD, COD, chloride,
total coliform, fecal coliform, total organic nitrogen, soluble organic
nitrogen, ammonia, total phosphorus, soluble phosphorus, soluble orthophos-
phate, and pottassium. Three parameters—nitrate, magnesium, and manganese--
were present in higher concentrations in the river water than in the effluent
irrigation water.
Table 7 also shows mean concentrations of the chemical and biological
parameters in the Dickinson potable water.
Effluent Constituents
Throughout the monitoring period of this study and for the previous 20
years the Dickinson Sewage Treatment Plant operated primarily as a faculta-
tive lagoon system. Little aeration was introduced by the new, supplemental
aerated lagoons until the summer of 1977, following the last sampling for
this study. The resulting effluent was highly variable in the parameters
that measure the quality of a wastewater effluent. This was not unusual,
considering that the processes existing in a lagoon treatment system are
difficult to control. The primary contributors to varying treatment per-
formance are accumulating and decomposing settled solids, climatic cycles,
and varying algae and aquatic plant growth and die-off.
Effluent samples 224601 through 224605 were taken from the second lagoon
in July and November, 1976, and in April and June, 1977. Five-day biochemi-
cal oxygen demand (BOD5) concentrations ranged from 53 to 74 mg/L in July and
June and from 24 to 28 mg/L during November and April. Suspended solids (SS)
concentrations ranged from 172 to 247 mg/L in June and July and from 19 to 46
mg/L in April and November. The seasonal differences were attributed to the
higher algae populations present in the summer. This was supported by the
high dissolved oxygen concentrations, which accompany the daytime behavior of
algal blooms, observed during the summer months.
The chemical oxygen demand (COD) concentration varied from 405 mg/L in
July, 1976, to 105 mg/L in April, 1977. The high ratio of COD to BOD concen-
trations of 8 or 9 to 1 for July and November, 1976, decreased to the more
normal 4 to 1 for April and June, 1977. This variation was attributed to the
changing algal populations plus a relatively warm and anaerobically decaying
benthic layer in July and November, 1976. Apparently the decaying benthic
layer contributed to lagoon COD through addition of constituents which were
resistent to biodegradation as measured by the BOD test.
COD generation was retarded in the benthic layer during the periods of
April and June, 1977, allowing the aerobic lagoon processes to metabolize re-
sidual COD constituents and to reduce the COD to BOD ratio to the more con-
ventional range of 4 to 1. It is likely that this cycle has been repeated
each year of the existence of the facultative lagoon system.
The ammonium nitrogen concentration varied between the extremes of 1.3
54
-------
mg/L in July, 1976, to 14.0 mg/L in November, 1976. The low concentration in
July was attributed to a period of greater nitrification activity in the la-
goons corresponding to higher water temperatures. The nitrate nitrogen con-
centrations ranged from <0.1 to 3.6 mg/L, with the highest concentration cor-
responding to the July period of higher nitrification activity. Soluble and
total organic nitrogen concentrations were variable, with total organic
nitrogen ranging from <0.1 mg/L to 9.4 mg/L. The highest concentration of
9.4 mg/L was observed in June, 1977, and may have been caused by an algal
bloom. Total nitrogen concentration in the lagoon effluent varied between
5.6 mg/L and 18.6 mg/L. This variation in total nitrogen could not be attri-
buted to seasonal variations alone but likely also included sedimentation of
dead algal cells to the lagoon benthic layer plus the varying effects of
denitrification tha-t were probably occurring at the edge of and within the
anaerobic zone of the lagoons.
Total phosphorus concentrations ranged from 3.0 to 10.2 mg/L. The low-
est concentration was observed during July, 1976, at a time when spring and
summer algal growth would have had its maximum phosphorus uptake. The solu-
ble phosphorus level was also lowest at this time at 0.5 mg/L, contrasted
with concentrations in the range of 4.3 to 8.5 mg/L observed for the other
sampling periods.
The sulfate concentrations of 116 to 853 mg/L reflected the natural
anhydrite deposits of the area soils. The low concentrations were attributed
to dilution by sustained periods of natural precipitation. Snowmelt, for ex-
ample, was a contributing, cause of the low sulfate concentration of 116 mg/L
in the lagoons in April, 1977. Dissolved solids concentrations paralleled
sulfate concentrations for the same reason.
The chlorinated hydrocarbons lindane, 2,4-D, and 2,4,5 TP silvex were
found in April, 1977, at concentrations higher than were found in other
groundwater and irrigation water samples.
Overall observations that could be made concerning the Dickinson Sewage
Treatment Plant effluent were: (1) BOD, SS, COD, and nitrogen concentrations
were extremely variable with the time of year. BOD and SS were in the range
of normal to high, COD was in the high range, and nitrogen was in the low to
normal range when compared to the concentrations in a typical secondary
effluent. (2) Phosphorus concentrations varied with the time of year but
were in a range typical of secondary effluents. (3) Sulfate and dissolved
solids concentrations reflected the natural geochemistry associated with the
Dickinson surface-water potable supply. (4) Lindane, 2,4-D, and 2,4,5 TP
silvex, which were identified in one of the five effluent samplings at above
background levels, were well below National Interim Primary Drinking Water
Regulation maximum contaminant level (MCL) concentrations of 4,000 ng/L,
100,000 ng/L, and 10,000 ng/L, respectively.
Irrigation and Potable Hater
Dickinson Dam is located at the southwest corner of Dickinson on the
Heart River. Patterson Lake, located above the dam, is the source of regu-
lated water flow to the Heart River east and south of Dickinson. Water from
55
-------
Patterson Lake is used as the raw potable supply for Dickinson, and the Heart
River water below the dam is used by farmers for irrigation, including the
farming operation at the control site for this study.
A sample of Heart River water was taken in July, 1976, near the irriga-
tion pumping station for the control site. At the time of sampling, no water
was being released to the river at the dam. Since there were no industrial
or municipal sewage outfalls into the river upstream of the point where the
control site water was obtained, the water in the river was from leakage at
the dam plus groundwater recharge to the riverbed.
The BOD and SS concentrations of 7 and 23 mg/L, respectively, were
representative of suspended solid-bearing streams containing natural organics
that increased the BOD concentration from a normal 1-3 mg/L to 7 mg/L.
The COD concentration of 60 mg/L was not typical of natural water, which
usually contains 6 to 10 mg/L. The high concentration suggested that the
suspended solids were organic and contributed to the elevated COD concentra-
tion.
The ammonium and soluble organic nitrogen concentrations were low, with
both being measured at 0.1 mg/L. Total organic and nitrate nitrogen were
1.3 and 4.0 mg/L, respectively, somewhat above typical concentrations.
Concentrations of all forms of phosphorus were low, with total phospho-
rus at 0.05 mg/L and soluble phosphorus at 0.03 mg/L. The low phosphorus
concentrations suggested that stormwater runoff was a negligible contributing
factor to the quality of Heart River water at the time of this sampling.
The dissolved solids concentration of 1,119 mg/L was reasonable for the
area geochemistry and was comparable to the dissolved solids concentration
in the Dickinson wastewater effluent.
Dickinson potable water samples were taken at taps in November, 1976,
and April, 1977, and designated as samples 216002 and 216003. All parameters
were in the same range as the Heart River irrigation water, which is consis-
tent with their common origin.
A complete listing of parameters measured in irrigation and potable
water is presented in Appendix B.
Groundwater
It will be helpful to review some of the factors affecting groundwater
quality at the test and control sites before individual groundwater pa-
rameters are discussed. Both the test and control sites are underlain in
sequence by an alluvial aquifer and a bedrock aquifer in the Sentinel Butte
Formation. At the control site, a hydraulic connection was found to exist
between the two aquifers. At the test site, the two aquifers appeared to be
without such a connection. As shown in Table 5, depth from ground surface to
the top of the saturated zone at the control site ranged from 2 to 4 m (7 to
13 ft), and at the test site it ranged from 1 to 7 m (3 to 23 ft) for the
56
-------
alluvial aquifer and from 3 to 9 m (10 to 30 ft) for the Sentinel Butte
aquifer.
The test site has been irrigated with effluent from the Dickinson Sewage
Treatment Plant lagoons since 1959. Prior to 1974 there were some approved
discharges of lagoon effluent directly to the Heart River. Since 1974 all
effluent has been discharged on 46 ha (113 acres) of irrigation land. Though
the actual amount of effluent applied to the test site was unknown, an esti-
mate was obtained from the following calculations:
1) 3.8 x 10 L (1 Mgal) per day of sewage influent to the Dickinson
lagoon treatment system was equivalent to 1,387 x 10 m /yr
(1,124 acre-ft/yr) of potential effluent for discharge, i.e.,
3.8 x 106 L/d x 365 d/.yr = ^ x 1Q3
10J L/nT
2) Precipitation contributed to the 34.8-ha (86-acre) area lagoon, at
a mean precipitation rate of 39.4 cm3(lS.5 in) per year, was
equivalent to an additional 137 x 10 m (111 acre-ft) of liquid
per year, i.e.,
39.4 cm/yr x 34.8 ha x 104 m2/ha = ul x 1Q3 m3/yr
10 cm/m
3) Evapotranspiration loss from the 34.8-ha area lagoon, at an evapo-
transpiration rate of 127 cm (50 in) per year fKonu!976 Dickinson
area data, was equivalent to a loss of 442 x 10 m (360 acre-ft)
per year, i.e.,
34.8 ha x 127 cm/yr x 104 m2/ha = 442 x 1Q3 m3/yp
102 cm/m
4) Leakage loss through lagoon berm, at a rate of 0.33 cm (0.13 in)
per day, according to a local Dickinson engineering firm, was
equivalent to 419 x 10 m (340 acre-ft) per year, i.e.,
0.33 cm/d x 365 d/yr x 34.8 ha x 104 m2/ha = 419 x 103 m3/yr
102 cm/m
5) Balance of sewage influent and precipitation remaining for irriga-
tion on the 45.7 ha (113 acre) test site was 663 x 10 m
(233 x 105 fr), i.e.,
1,387 103 m3 + 137 x 103 m3 - 442 x 103 m3 - 419 x 103 m3
= 663 x 103 m3
Thus, 663 x 103 m3 (233 x 105 ft3) of effluent was estimated to have
been applied to the test site each year. Additional irrigation acreage was
57
-------
introduced recently, bringing the total land available for irrigation to 76
ha (188 acres).
The control site was located adjacent to land to the southwest and
northwest that was also irrigated with Heart River water. Groundwater at the
control site was isolated from surrounding groundwater because of the lo-
cation of the control site on a meander of the Heart River. Groundwater flow
at the control site was comprised primarily of irrigation water and incident
precipitation and proceeded in all directions from the mound accumulated
under the irrigated land (Figure 10).
The land adjoining the test site to the west was irrigated with efflu-
ent. This affected the quality of groundwater entering the test site from
the west. Other effluent-irrigated land was located to the east, on the
opposite bank of the Heart River. Groundwater flow at the test site was com-
prised of leakage from the sewage and irrigation storage lagoons, from in-
coming groundwater flows, and from irrigation effluent. In the northern sec-
tion of the test site, the primary component of groundwater flow was lagoon
leakage water. Alluvium wells 22170, 22130, 22120, 22090, 22100, 22010,
22020, 22030, and lysimeter sampling points 22410, 22420, and 22430 appeared
to be affected by this lagoon leakage. The rate of lagoon leakage was about
0.3 cm (0.1 in) per day, which was equivalent to 30 percent of the daily in-
flow to the lagoons. In the central and southern sections of the test site,
the primary component of groundwater flow was irrigation effluent.
Comparisons of the mean concentrations of various parameters sampled in
the groundwater below the test site and control site were made using statis-
tical techniques. These techniques consisted of defining the regions of in-
terest, computing sample parameter means for the regions at the test and con-
trol sites, and testing for the existence of significant differences in the
means at the 0.05 level using the method of pooled variances. The parts of
each site compared are shown schematically in Figure 15.
Table 8 compares the mean concentrations of the various parameters sam-
pled from the alluvium wells beneath the test and control sites. The mean
concentrations for COD, chloride, dissolved organic carbon, soluble organic
nitrogen, sulfate, calcium, magnesium, potassium, sodium, selenium, total
alkalinity, and dissolved solids, as well as conductivity, were found to be
significantly greater at the 0.05 level for the test site alluvium wells than
for the control site alluvium wells. Of the above-mentioned parameters, COD,
chloride, soluble organic/nitrogen, and potassium were previously noted to
occur in greater concentration in the effluent used on the test site. The
presence of these parameters in the alluvium well water suggested the leach-
ing of these constituents. In contrast, coliform and phosphorus showed no
significant difference at the 0.05 level in the alluvium wells, thus indicat-
ing complete removal of these parameters by the land application system.
A comparison (to be discussed later in this section) of the sulfate,
calcium, sodium, alkalinity, and dissolved solids concentrations and the con-
ductivity in the test site alluvium wells and the irrigation water suggested
that in the alluvium wells the significant differences found for these param-
eters resulted from natural differences in groundwater quality. It was also
58
-------
Irrigation
Effluent
Irrigation
River water
en
4
-------
TABLE 8. MEAN CONCENTRATIONS OF PARAMETERS IN TEST AND CONTROL SITE
GROUNDVJATERS (WELLS IN ALLUVIUM AQUIFER)
Parameter
Dissolved Oxygen
pH (units)
Conductivity (ymhos/cm)
Total Alkalinity
Dissolved Solids
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
Chemical Oxygen Demand
Chloride
Sulfide-S
Total Col i form (#/100 ml)
Fecal Col i form (#/100 mL)
Dissolved Organic C
Soluble Organic N
Ammo ni urn- N
Nitrate-N
Soluble Phosphorus
Soluble Orthophosphate
Sulfate
Al umi num
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)
Endrin (ng/L)
Lindane (ng/L)
Methoxychlor (ng/L)
Toxaphene (ng/L)
2,4-D (ng/L)
2,4,5 TP Silvex (ng/L)
Test and control sites are
b + 4. •
Means (mg/L
Control
3.9
7.6
1725
361
1214b
r
19
32
--
1
0
10.8
0.6
0.3
1.0
0.04
0.02
590 .
0.3b
7
380,
10b
224.
20b
20b
20b
0.5
100B
30
0.2,
Ohlb
50b
6.9
258,
50b
6 h
0.03°
13.1 ,
0.01b
O.I6
6.1
35.9
unless noted)
Test
2'6a
7 2a
4378,
558a
4750?
ll
68a
103a
--
12
o a
34.4?,
1.3a
0.3
2.3
0.05
0,03
2663a
0.4
14
863 .
10b
477*
20b
27
23
2,0
100°
58a
1-lk
0,lb
50 «
12.5a
516a
137a
22a .
0.03b
8.3 .
o.ojr
O.I6
9.0
34.1
significantly different at the 0.05 level.
_ . . ... .
60
-------
noted that for all remaining parameters, including all metals, the mean con-
centrations showed no significant difference at the 0.05 level.
Comparison of test and control wells in the Sentinel Butte aquifer i.s
shown in Table 9. The analyses indicated significantly greater mean concen-
trations in the test site well water for ammonia, nitrate, arsenic, manganese,
and zinc in addition to the same 13 parameters previously noted for the al-
luvium wells, except for soluble organic nitrogen and sulfate compare Table
8 with Table 9).
Table 10 summarizes a comparison of the mean parameter concentrations
for all test site wells to all control site wells. The results were the same
as in the previous Sentinel Butte comparison. The data in Tables 11 through
14 present the same comparison as that of Table 10 on an individual round
basis. The results show conductivity, dissolved solids, COD, and potassium
to be the only parameters with differences significantly greater for the test
site wells than for the control site wells at the 0.05 level for each sample
round.
The next series of analyses evaluated changes in parameter concen-
trations across the test site areas. The analyses showed the effect of la-
goon leakage 'on water quality at the test site.
The first analysis compared parameter mean concentrations in groundwater
for the wells screened in the alluvium on the north side of the test site,
toward the lagoon, to means for the alluvium wells on the south side of the
test site. The results are shown in Table 15. Conductivity; dissolved
solids, COD, sulfate, calcium, and iron were significantly greater in ground-
water from the south test site alluvium wells than from the north test site
alluvium wells. With the exception of COD, none of the above parameters were
found to be appreciably greater in the irrigation effluent than in the con-
trol site irrigation water (Table 7). Also, with the exception of iron, all
of the above parameters occurred in significantly greater concentrations in
the test site alluvium wells than in the control site alluvium wells (Table
8). From these observations, it appeared that the increase in parameter con-
centrations at the south side resulted from mixing of the natural water with
irrigation percolate and lagoon leakage. In contrast, the concentration of
manganese increased from south to north in the test site alluvium wells
(Table 15).
The preceding analysis was repeated for the test site wells screened in
the Sentinel Butte aquifer (Table 16). Significant differences in mean con-
centrations were found to exist for nine parameters at the 0.05 level. Five
parameters—conductivity, dissolved solids, soluble orthophosphate, sodium,
and selenium—decreased in concentration from south to north, indicating
dilution for these parameters. In contrast, chloride, ammonium, manganese,
and zinc increased in concentration from south to north. Chloride and am-
monium were identified as parameters likely to be leaching into the ground-
water from effluent irrigation and probably from the lagoon.
In a comparison of two alluvium test site wells (22120 and 22170), close
to the lagoons and outside the irrigated area, with the alluvium wells on the
61
-------
TABLE 9. MEAN CONCENTRATIONS OF PARAMETERS IN TEST AND CONTROL SITE
GROUNDHATERS (HELLS IN SENTINEL BUTTE AQUIFER)
Parameter
Dissolved Oxygen
pH (units)
Conductivity (ymhos/cm)
Total Alkalinity
Dissolved Solids
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
Chemical Oxygen Demand
Chloride
Sulfide-S
Total Coliform (#/100 ml)
Fecal Coliform (#/100 ml)
Dissolved Organic C
Soluble Organic N
Ammo ni urn- N
Nitrate-N
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)
Endrin (ng/L)
Lindane (ng/L)
Methoxychlor (ng/L)
Toxaphene (ng/L)
2,4-D (ng/L)
2,4,5 TP Silvex (ng/L)
Means (mg/L
Control
2.8
8.1
2062
543
1376b
r
19
18 b
o.r
665
0
10.7
0.7
0.3
0.2
0.08
0.06
515
2.6
4
660.
10b
42,
20b
20b
20b
2*8
ioob
12
0.1,
V
50b
5.2
482
68
7 .
0.03b
68.3 .
0.01b
o.ib
6.2
51.1
unless noted)^
Test
2'9a
7.8a
3739,
700a
3302a
2a
44a
54 b
o.r
140
o a
21. 7a
a-0a
0.5a
0.9a
0.09
0.04
1684
0.9
13
485,
10b
186,
20b
25
52
U5
100,
38a a
0.8a
O/
50 »
9,9a
733a
294a
20a ,
0.03b
12. Oa.
0.01b
o.ib
8.1
33.1
Test and control sites are significantly different at the 0.05 level
Concentrations below detection limit indicated.
62
-------
TABLE 10. MEAN CONCENTRATIONS OF PARAMETERS IN TEST AND CONTROL SITE
GROUNDHATERS (ALL WELLS)
Parameter
Dissolved Oxygen
pH (units)
Conductivity (ymhos/cm)
Total Alkalinity
Dissolved Solids
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
Chemical Oxygen Demand
Chloride
Sulfide-S
Total Coliform (#/100 ml)
Fecal Coliform (#/100 ml)
Dissolved Organic C
Soluble Organic N
Ammonium-N
Nitrate-N
Soluble Phosphorus
Soluble Orthophosphate
Sulfate
Aluminum
Arsenic (yg/L)
Boron (yg/L)
Cadmium (yg/L)
Calcium
Cobalt (yg/L)
Chromium (yg/L)
Cbpper (yg/L)
Iron
Lead (yg/L)
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury (yg/L)
Nickel (yg/L)
Potassium
Sodium
Zinc (yg/L)
Selenium (yg/L)
Endrin (ng/L)
Lindane (ng/L)
Methoxychlor (ng/L)
Toxaphene (ng/L)
2,4-D (ng/L)
2,4,5 TP Silvex (ng/L)
Means (mg/L
Control
3.1
8.0
1972
496
1334,
lb
19
22 b
o.r
511
0
10.7
0.7
0.3
0.4
0.07
0.05
539
2.0
5
586,
10b
94b
20b
20b
20b
2b2
100D
17
0.2b
V
50D
5.6
422
61
6 b
0.03°
53.6 b
°-°D
0.1
6.2
47.1
unless noted)
Test
2-\
7,4a
4137,
611*
4207a
1,
59a
85 b
0.1D
59
0 ,
30. 6a
1.2a
0.4
1.8a
0.06
0 03
2301a a
0,6a
14a
715,
10a
371a
20b
20D
34
Ib8
100^
51 a
1.0a
0 lb
50 a
11 6a
593a
195a
21 b
0.03
9'7 b
°-°l
0.1
8.7
33.7
3 Test and control sites are significantly different at the 0.05 level.
Concentrations below detection limit indicated.
63
-------
TABLE 11. MEAN CONCENTRATIONS OF PARAMETERS IN TEST AND CONTROL SITE
GROUNDWATERS SAMPLED JULY. 1976
Parameter
Dissolved Oxygen
pH (units)
Conductivity (ymhos/cm)
Total Alkalinity
Dissolved Solids
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
Chemical Oxygen Demand
Chloride
Sulfide-S
Total Coliform (#/100 mL)
Fecal Coliform (#/100 mL)
Dissolved Organic C
Soluble Organic N
Ammonium-N
Nitrate-N
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)
Endrin (ng/L)
Lindane (ng/L)
Methoxychlor (ng/L)
Toxaphene (ng/L)
2,4-D (ng/L)
2,4,5 TP Silvex (ng/L)
Means (mg/L
Control
3.3
8.0
1987
535
1312
r
20
18
--
0
0
8.8
0.5
0.3
0.6 ,
0.01°
0.01D
474
3.4
6
176.
10b
61.
20b
20b
20b
2K7
ioob
14
0.1,
O.lb
50B
6.9
441.
50b
5
0.02
98.5 ,
0.01b
0.1°
1.0b
0.2b
unless noted)
Test
3.3
7 a3
4022a
612
4275
1
57a
78a
--
87
a
19. 6a
0.7
0.3a
2.1a
0.03
0.02
2329
1*4
20a
185,
10b
362a
20b
20b
25
2*4
100b
60a
0.7,
0,lb
50 a
12. 9a
624,
50b
28
0.02
15.0 ,
0.0] b
0.1*
1.0b
0.2b
Test and control sites are significantly different at the 0.05 level
Concentrations below detection limit indicated.
64
-------
TABLE 12. MEAN CONCENTRATIONS OF PARAMETERS IN TEST AND CONTROL SITE
GROUNDWATERS SAMPLED NOVEMBER, 1976
Parameter
Dissolved Oxygen
pH (units)
Conductivity (ymhos/cm)
Total Alkalinity
Dissolved Solids
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
Chemical Oxygen Demand
Chloride
Sulfide-S
Total Col i form (#/100 ml)
Fecal Coliform (#/100 ml)
Dissolved Organic C
Soluble Organic N
Ammonium-N
Nitrate-N
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)
Endrin (ng/L)
Lindane (ng/L)
Methoxychlor (ng/L)
Toxaphene (ng/L)
2,4-D (ng/L)
2,4,5 TP Silvex (ng/L)
Means (mg/L
Control
2.5
7.9
2094
465
1397,
lb
18
14
—
330
0 b
O.lb
1.0
0.3
0.4
0.11
0.07
536
2.1
4
997,
20b
61b
20b
20b
20b
3,0
100C
22
0.2b
V
50°
6.0
456
88
8 b
°-°g
2-° b
O-Oft
?-ib
1.0
118
unless noted)
Test
2-4=,
7.5a
4349a
603a
4153a
l*
65a
77a
—
94
0
67.7
1.7
0.4a
2.2a
0.11
0.03
2560 ,
0A3D
9a
1483b
20b
412a
20b
20b
25
1B7
100D
38
i.ob
o.r
61 a
11. 8a
577
194a
_ Q
_ _ h
2-28
2-° b
S'?D
0.1
4.2
80.5
aTest and control sites are significantly different at the 0.05 level
Concentrations below detection limit indicated.
65
-------
TABLE 13. MEAN CONCENTRATIONS OF PARAMETERS IN TEST AND CONTROL SITE
GROUNDHATERS SAMPLED APRIL. 1977
Parameter
Dissolved Oxygen
pH (units)
Conductivity (ymhos/cm)
Total Alkalinity
Dissolved Solids
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
Chemical Oxygen Demand
Chloride
Sulfide-S
Total Coliform (#/100 ml)
Fecal Coliform (#/100 ml)
Dissolved Organic C
Soluble Organic N
Ammonium-N
Nitrate-N
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)
Endrin (ng/L)
Lindane (ng/L)
Methoxychlor (ng/L)
Toxaphene (ng/L)
2,4-D (ng/L)
2,4,5 TP Silvex (ng/L)
Means (mg/L
Control
3.3
8.1
1879
520
1318
2
23
20 b
O.lb
5000
0
14.5
0.6
0.2
0.2
0.08
0.06
526
0.5
3
641.
20b
203.
20b
20b
20b
0K8
100b
16
0.2.
V
50D
3.8
404
53
6 b
0.03b
72.4 .
0.01b
0.1B
16.4
32.5
unless noted)
Test
2.5
7 4a
4061a
598
4330a
2a
64
80 b
0 lb
36a
0
26.1
0.7
0.5
1.9
0.05
0 05
2340a
0.5
12
719b
20b
396.
20b
20b
40
2hO
100b
49a
1.2.
0.1°
50 a
8,4a
601?
432a
14 b
0.03°
11.1 b
0. 1
23.8
37.0
Test and control sites are significantly different at the 0.05 level
Concentrations below detection limit indicated.
66
-------
TABLE 14. MEAN CONCENTRATIONS OF PARAMETERS IN TEST AND CONTROL SITE
GROUNDWATERS SAMPLED JUNE. 1977
Parameter
Dissolved Oxygen
pH (units)
Conductivity (ymhos/cm)
Total Alkalinity
Dissolved Solids
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
Chemical Oxygen Demand
Chloride
Sulfide-S
Total Col i form (#/100 ml)
Fecal Col i form ({/100 ml)
Dissolved Organic C
Soluble Organic N
Ammonium-N
Nitrate-N
Soluble Phosphorus
Soluble Orthophosphate
Sulfate
Aluminum
Arsenic (yg/L)
Boron (ug/L)
Cadmium (ug/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)
Endrin (ng/L)
Lindane (ng/L)
Methoxychlor (ng/L)
Toxaphene (ng/L)
2,4-D (ng/L)
2,4,5 TP Silvex (ng/L)
Means (mg/L
Control
3.6
8.0
1768
429
1265.
lb
16
57
__
0
0
12.8
0.7
0.3
0.4
0.10
0.08
600 b
0.3D
10
496
20b
83.
20b
20b
20 b
V
100D
19 b
°'°§
V
50D
4.4
318
34
5 b
0.03°
43.3 b
o.or
0.1
8.3
8.4
unless noted)
Test
2.4
7,6
4065a
637a
4042a
£
47a
108
__
8
0 .
36. 7a
1.9a
0.5
0.6
0.06
0,04
1887a ,
0.3D
16
632b
20b
294,
20b
20b
48
ibo
100°
57
i.ob
V
50a
14a
563
101
_ _ h
0.03°
11.8 b
°-°i
0.1
4.7
9.9
a Test and control sites are significantly different at the 0.05 level.
b Concentrations below detection limit indicated.
67
-------
TABLE 15. MEAN CONCENTRATIONS OF PARAMETERS IN TEST SITE GROUNDWATER
(WELLS IN ALLUVIUM AQUIFER)
Parameter
Dissolved Oxygen
pH (units)
Conductivity (ymhos/cm)
Total Alkalinity
Dissolved Solids
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
Chemical Oxygen Demand
Chloride
Sulfide-S
Total Col i form (#/100 ml)
Fecal Coliform (#/100 ml)
Dissolved Organic C
Soluble Organic N
Ammonium-N
Nitrate-N
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)
Endrin (ng/L)
Lindane (ng/L)
Methoxychlor (ng/L)
Toxaphene (ng/L)
254-D (ng/L)
2,4,5 TP Silvex (ng/L)
Means (mg/L
North Side of
Test Site
2.4
7.3
3344
568
3345
r
54
107 ,
O.lb
1
0
24.1
1.3
0.4
1.5
0.04
0.03
1685 ,
0.3b
11
1226.
20b
246,
20b
20b
17
1 0
ioob
60
1.8,
ibob
50b
12
497
74
18 ,
0.03°
5.0 ,
0.01b
0. 1
4^7
28.3
unless noted)
South Side of
Test Site
2.6
7a2
, 4953a
552a
5506?
1
75a
101 .
O.lb
19
0
39.8
1.4
0.3
2.8
0.06
0,03
3260a
0.5
17
66L
20b
624a
23h
20b
27
2 7
ioob
57
0.7,
i n
50b
13
528
177
25
0.03D
10.3 ,
0.01b
O.I6
11.7
37.9
Test and control sites are significantly different at the 0.05 level.
Concentrations below detection limit indicated.
68
-------
TABLE 16. MEAN CONCENTRATIONS OF PARAMETERS IN TEST SITE GROUNDWATER
(WELLS IN SENTINEL BUTTE AQUIFER)
Parameter
Dissolved Oxygen
pH (units)
Conductivity (ymhos/cm)
Total Alkalinity
Dissolved Solids
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
Chemical Oxygen Demand
Chloride
Sulfide-S
Total Col i form (#/100 ml)
Fecal Coliform (#/100 ml)
Dissolved Organic C
Soluble Organic N
Ammonium-N
Nitrate-N
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)
Endrin (ng/L)
Lindane (ng/L)
Methoxychlor (ng/L)
Toxaphene (ng/L)
2,4-D (ng/L)
2,4,5 TP Silvex (ng/L)
Means (mg/L
North Side of
Test Site
3.1
7.6
3178
633
2590
3
53
81 h
O.lb
53
0
23.6
1.2
0.7
0.6
0.06b
0.01°
1234
1.4
8
491,
20b
187.
20b
20b
83
V
100°
51
1.8b
V
50°
10
593
574
14 b
0.03°
9'4b
°-°i
o.r
4.5
43.0
unless noted)
South Side of
Test Site
2.7
7a9
4131a
743,
3756a
1
38
37 b
O.lb
196
0
20.1
°'9a
0.4a
1.1
0.11
0.07a
1999
0.6
16
482,
20b
186.
20b
20b
32
V
100D
28
0.2a
V
50°
V
831*
116a
23 b
0.03°
13.3
o.or
_ _ fi
0.1°
10.3
26.8
a Test and control sites are significantly different at the 0.05 level.
Concentrations below detection limit indicated.
69
-------
north side of the test site (Table 17), significant differences were observed
for 11 parameters. Conductivity, dissolved solids, soluble phosphorus, sul-
fate, calcium, sodium, and selenium decreased from the north alluvium wells
to the wells close to the lagoon, implying a dilution effect by the lagoon
leakage. Total alkalinity, ammonium, iron, and,manganese increased in concen-
tration from the north alluvium wells to the wells close to the lagoon. This
suggested that ammonium was being added to the alluvium while iron and manga-
nese were being leached from the soils as a result of the lagoon leakage.
Table 18 shows a similar analysis for one well in the Sentinel Butte
aquifer. This was the only screened well (22130) not affected by irrigation
in the test site. Only sulfate showed a significant difference at the 0.05
level, indicating dilution by the lagoon water.
The final statistical analysis was an evaluation of the significance of
changes in various concentrations of parameters in the groundwater below the
test and control sites as a function of season. The wells at each site were
grouped according to aquifer. The method of pooled variances was used in de-
termining whether or not a significant change at the 0.05 level occurred be-
tween the various rounds. For each well grouping, an analysis was performed
to reveal changes occurring from sampling round one to round two (July, 1976,
to November, 1976), round two to round three (November, 1976, to April, 1977),
round three to round four (April, 1977, to June, 1977), and round one to
round three (July, 1976, to April, 1977). The results of the analyses are
summarized in Table 19.
At the test site wells 16 of 49 parameters showed a significant differ-
ence in mean values for at least one round-to-round comparison. At the con-
trol site wells 19 of 49 parameters were found to have a significant differ-
ence at the 0.05 level for at least one round-to-round comparison. The re-
sults emphasized the importance of monitoring the wells during all seasons of
the year in order to obtain more representative measurements of water quality.
From Table 19, it can also be observed that nitrogen, boron, potassium,
lindane, 2,4-D, and 2,4,5 TP silvex varied significantly at the test and con-
trol sites. Furthermore, the analysis suggested a direction of a change (in-
crease or decrease)- that was consistent and independent of whether the well
was at the test site or control site or whether the well was screened in the
alluvium aquifer or the Sentinel Butte aquifer. For example, when a signifi-
cant change in boron concentration did occur, it was in the same direction
and independent of aquifer and site.
Nitrogen--
Ammonium nitrogen concentrations ranged from <0.1 to 0.5 mg/L (Figure 16)
and <0.1 to 2.8 mg/L (Figure 17) at the control and test sites, respectively
Ammonium nitrogen was noticeably higher in concentration in the northerly
wells 22100, 22010, 22020, 22030, 22090, 22120, 22130, 22170, and at lysi-
meter sampling points 22410, 22420, and 22430. All of the above monitoring
stations were believed to be within the groundwater area affected by lagoon
leakage.
An examination of the rema-ining wells in the middle to southern area of
70
-------
TABLE 17. MEAN CONCENTRATIONS OF PARAMETERS OF WELLS IN THE
ALLUVIUM AQUIFER NOT AFFECTED BY IRRIGATION IN THE TEST SITE
Means (mg/L unless noted)
Parameter
Dissolved Oxygen
pH (units)
Conductivity (ymhos/cm)
Total Alkalinity
Dissolved Solids
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
Chemical Oxygen Demand
Chloride
Sulfide-S
Total Col i form (#/100 ml)
Fecal Col i form (#/100 ml)
Dissolved Organic C
Soluble Organic N
Ammonium-N
Nitrate-N
Soluble Phosphorus
Soluble Orthophosphate
Sulfate
Al umi num
Arsenic (yg/L)
Boron (yg/L)
Cadmium (yg/L)
Calcium
Cobalt (yg/L)
Chromium (yg/L)
C6pper (yg/L)
Iron
Lead (yg/L)
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury (yg/L)
Nickel (yg/L)
Potassium
Sodium
Zinc (yg/L)
Selenium (yg/L)
Endrin (ng/L)
Lindane (ng/L)
Methoxychlor (ng/L)
Toxaphene (ng/L)
2,4-D (ng/L)
2,4,5 TP Silvex (ng/L)
Wells Not Affected
by Irrigation
1.9
7.3
2260
634
1671.
lb
47
101 .
O.lb
0
0
28.0
1.7
1.0
1.1
0.02
0.02
604
1.0
21
344.
20b
170b
20b
20b
14
V
100D
42
3.0b
V
50D
7.7
362
49
6 b
0.03°
5.5 b
°-°4
o.r
2.9
47.1
North Side of
Test Site
2.2
7*3
3632a
569a
37l8h
lb
54
110 .
O.lb
1
0
24.6
1.2
0.4a
1.5 a
0.04a
0,03
1836a ,
0.3b
15
1118
20b
301b
2Qb
20D
16 a
V
100D
57 a
1.5a
ibob
50D
11 6
514a
69a
18 b
0.03°
6.2 b
2'°i
0.1
4.6
28.6
a Test and control sites are significantly different at the 0.05 level.
Concentrations below detection limit indicated.
71
-------
TABLE 18. MEAN CONCENTRATIONS OF PARAMETERS OF WELLS IN THE
SENTINEL BUTTE AQUIFER NOT AFFECTED BY IRRIGATION IN THE TEST SITE
Means (mg/L unless noted)
Parameter
Dissolved Oxygen
pH (units)
Conductivity (ymhos/cm)
Total Alkalinity
Dissolved Solids
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
Chemical Oxygen Demand
Chloride
Sulfide-S
Total Col i form (#/100 ml)
Fecal Col i form (#/100 ml)
Dissolved Organic C
Soluble Organic N
Ammo ni urn- N
Nitrate-N
Soluble Phosphorus
Soluble Orthophosphate
Sulfate
Al umi num
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)
Endrin (ng/L)
Lindane (ng/L)
Methoxychlor (ng/L)
Toxaphene (ng/L)
2,4-D (ng/L)
2,4,5 TP Silvex (ng/L)
Test and control sites are
b - 4. 4. •
Wells Not Affected
by Irrigation
3.6
7.9
2925
708
2185
2
49
43 .
O.lb
0
0
17.2
1.5
1.5
1.3
0.07
0.03
765
1.7
32
405,
20b
78h
20u
20b
61
2hl
1005
23
1.5.
lh°
50b
7.7
673
326
14 K
0.03b
30 .
0.01b
O.I6
1.7
40
significantly different at the
• n
North Side of
Test Site
3.1
7.6
3178
633
2590
3
53
81 h
O.lb
53
0
23.6
1.2
0.8
0.6
0.06.
0A01D
1234a
1.4
8
491.
20b
187,
20b
20b
83
2*1
1005
51
1.8,
l,0b
50b
10.1
593
574
14 ,
0.03
9.4 .
0.01°
O.I6
4.5
43
0.05 level.
72
-------
TABLE 19.
co
SEASONAL VARIATION OF MEAN CONCENTRATIONS OF PARAMETERS IN GROUNDWATER
AT THE TEST AND CONTROL SITES
Control Site
Alluvium
Parameter
R 1
vs.
R 2
R 2
vs.
R 3
R 3
vs.
R 4
R 1
vs.
R 3
Sentinel Butte
R 1
vs.
R 2
R 2
vs.
R 3
R 3
VS.
R 4
R 1
vs.
R 3
R 1
vs.
R 2
Test
Alluvium
R 2
vs.
R 3
R 3
VS.
R 4
R 1
VS.
R 3
Site
Sentinel
R 1
vs.
R 2
R 2
vs.
R 3
Butte
R 3
vs.
R 4
R 1
vs.
R 3
Dissolved Oxygen
pH (units)
Conductivity (Mmhos/cm)
Total Alkalinity
Dissolved Solids
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
Chemical Oxygen Demand
Chloride
Sult"ide-S
Total Coliform (#/100 mL)
Fecal Coliform (#/100 mL)
Dissolved Organic C
Soluble Organic N
Ammonium-N
Nitrate-N
Soluble Phosphorus
Soluble Orthophosphate
Sulfate
Aluminum
Arsenic (wg/L) I D ID
Boron (ug/L) ID I D I I I
Cadmium (iig/L)
Calcium I
Cobalt (vq/L)
Chromium (pg/L)
Copper (ug/L)
Iron I
Lead (,,g/L)
Magnesium III D
Manganese
Mercury (pg/L)
Nickel (Mg/L)
Potassium ODD I
Sodium
Zinc (ug/L) I I
Selenium (gg/L) I
Endrin (ng/L)
Lindane (ng/L) D I D I
Methoxychlor (ng/L)
Toxaphene (ng/L)
2,4-D (ng/L) I I I I I D I
2,4,5 TP Silvex (ng/L) I D I I I I I
D
D
I
I D
I
D D
I
D I
I - Significant difference at the 0.05 level with an Increase In mean concentration.
D - Significant difference at the 0.05 level with decrease in mean concentration.
-------
JULY,1976
NOVEMBER. 1976
APRIL, 1977
JUNE, 1977
660
1320 FEET
40O METERS
Volm of »orom«ter (mg/U
J Sera** «J«pth (ft.)
O Alluvium • S«nt!n«l Butt*
a Lysim«tv NA Not availabi*
Figure 16. Control site groundwater constituents-
ammonium nitrogen.
74
-------
NOVEMBER, 1976
49-55
APRIL, 1977
JUNE, 1977
4»-55
48-65
66O
1320 FEET
400 METERS
-H
Value of parameter (mg/L)
Screen depth (ft.)
Alluvium • Sentinel Buttt
Lysimeter NA Not available
Figure 17. Test site groundwater constituents-
ammonium nitrogen.
75
-------
the test site yielded an average concentration of <0.43 mg/L ammonium nitro-
gen for 30 analyses as compared with an average concentration of <0.28 mg/L
for 28 analyses at the control site.
The April, 1977, sampling produced generally the lowest concentrations
for the wells not influenced by lagoon leakage and the highest concentrations
for wells affected by leakage.
Concentrations at the western edge of the test site in the area not in-
fluenced by leakage were generally greater than those observed at the eastern
edge. This indicated that ammonium nitrogen was decreasing along the direc-
tion of groundwater flow. The average of 15 analyses from the eastern edge
was <0.23 mg/L. This compared favorably with the control site results.
Therefore, since the discharge point for treated groundwater was the Heart
River at the eastern edge of the test site, the Dickinson land treatment sys-
tem appeared to satisfactorily reduce ammonium nitrogen to observed back-
ground levels. No correlations in concentrations were observed with depth or
between the alluvium and Sentinel Butte aquifers.
Soluble organic nitrogen concentrations ranged from 0.2 to 1.9 mg/L at
the control site (Figure 18) and from <0.1 to 3.8 mg/L at the test site (Fig-
ure 19). Again, the wells with groundwater influenced by lagoon leakage ac-
counted for the concentrations in the higher range.
The wells unaffected by leakage in the test site area yielded an average
concentration of <1.2 mg/L of soluble orgainic nitrogen for 30 analyses as
compared to an average concentration of <0.56 mg/L for 28 analyses at the
control site. Thus, small amounts of organic nitrogen from the effluent
appeared to be passing through the soil column at the test site.
The range of concentration of soluble organic nitrogen in the lagoon
effluent was <0.1 to 11.4 mg/L. It was likely that the high instantaneous
rates of application associated with the border-strip irrigation method, as
practiced at this location, did not provide sufficient time for the organic
nitrogen to adsorb and biologically decompose on the soil absorption sites.
No regular gradient with depth or with direction of groundwater flow could be
detected in the alluvium or Sentinel Butte aquifers.
The June, 1977, sampling produced concentrations of 15.7 and 6.4 mg/L
at the 0.15 m (0.5 ft) and 1.5 m (5 ft) depth lysimeters, respectively. The
lysimeter results can only be informative when viewed against other compara-
ble lysimeter results.
Nitrate nitrogen concentrations in the wells ranged from <0.1 to 1.9
mg/L at the control site (Figure 20) and from <0.1 to 20.0 mg/L at the test
site (Figure 21). At the control site, concentrations averaged <0.41 mg/L
for 28 analyses, while at the test site concentrations averaged 1.78 mg/L for
61 analyses. Results showed concentrations at both sites to be generally
higher in July and November, 1976, than in April and June, 1977. This corre-
sponded to somewhat greater soil temperatures in late summer and fall and to
increased nitrification activity. Nitrate concentrations in the alluvium
water at the control site were greater than those of the Sentinel Butte.
76
-------
JULY,1976
NOVEMBER, 1976
APRIL, 1977
JUNE, 1977
Volu« of parameter (mg/l)
0 6(
i I i
0
1 I — 1
50 1320 FEET
400 METERS
1 1
j/ Scree* depth (ft.)
O Alluvium • Sentinel Buttu
Q Lysimeter
NA Not available
Figure 18. Control site groundwoter constituents-
soluble organic nitrogen.
77
-------
•49-49
NOVEMBER, 1976
1.2
APRIL, 1977
JUNE, 1977
66O
1320 FEET
400 METERS
Volu« of porometer (mq/U
,/Screen depth (ft.)
O Alluvium • Sentinel Butt*
• LysirMtor NA Not avoilotrft
Figure 19. Test site groundwater constituents-
soluble organic nitrogen.
78
-------
JULY, 1976
NOVEMBER, 1976
APRIL, 1977
JUNE, 1977
660
1320 FEET
400 METERS
Volu« of poromettf (mg/U
^ ScrMit depth (ft.)
O Alluvium • Santin*! Butt*
a LysinMtw NA Not ovoiloW*
Figure 20. Control site groundwoter constituents-
nitrate nitrogen.
79
-------
JULY, 1976
4»-S9
NOVEMBER, 1976
JUNE, 1977
4t-06
4»-59
660
1320 FEET
4OO METERS
Volu« of poromater (mq/U
Screen depth (ft.)
Alluvium • Sentin*! Butt*
LysiRMtor NA Not ovoilobU
Figure 21 . Test site ground water constituents-
nitrate nitrogen.
80
-------
However, no other gradient with depth or with direction of groundwater flow
in the alluvium was observed.
Lysimeter samples 224101, 224201, and 224301 taken in July, 1976, had
nitrate nitrogen concentrations of 75, 73, and 76 mg/L, respectively. These
concentrations probably reflect the intense nitrifying activity in the
shallow root zones of the pasture prior to complete crop uptake and denitri-
fication processes and a concentrating effect due to recovery of samples
under vacuum from the unsaturated zone. All other concentrations were well
within the bounds of expectation and did not approach the maximum acceptable
drinking water standard of 10 mg/L.
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)--
COD concentrations ranged from 14 to 27 mg/L and from 4 to 32 mg/L in
the alluvium and Sentinel Butte control site aquifers, respectively (Figure
22). However, a concentration of 36 mg/L was observed at well 21150 outside
the control site.
In an area of the test site alluvium aquifer not affected by lagoon
leakage, COD concentrations ranged from 52 to 109 mg/L, while the Sentinel
Butte aquifer concentrations ranged from 11 to 83 mg/L (Figure 23).
In the northern test site area affected by lagoon leakage, concen-
trations ranged from 28 to 82 mg/L in the alluvium aquifer and from 32 to 78
mg/L in the Sentinel Butte aquifer. Although lagoon leakage might be expect-
ed to diminish COD treatment capability and the minimum COD concentration was
lower in the Sentinel Butte aquifer, the treatment performance was not mark-
edly different at the test site, regardless of location or aquifer.
Further examination of test site samples indicated a regularly occurring
gradient in COD concentrations along the direction of groundwater flow. Well
pairs 22070 and 22050, 22190 and 22200, 22100 and 22110, and 22020 and 22090
show an average concentration of 79 mg/L at the west side of the test site
and 56 mg/L at the east side. This reduction of 23 mg/L was generally along
the direction of groundwater flow. Almost all the high individual COD con-
centrations were observed along the west side of the test site. The ex-
istence of this gradient suggests several possibilities: (1) there was higher
effluent application along the west side of the test site; (2) the ground-
water entering the site had higher COD concentration than either the test or
control site groundwater; or (3) the saturated alluvium was capable of
further reducing COD.
The COD concentrations of the alluvium wells at the eastern boundary of
the test site ranged from 28 to 113 mg/L and averaged 56 mg/L, which was con-
sistent with the COD concentrations measured in the Dickinson potable and
irrigation water supply from Patterson Lake of 52 to 60 mg/L, respectively.
This suggested that the organics introduced from Dickinson domestic sewage
could be removed before the groundwater flowed from the test site to the
Heart River. The more refractory COD constituents present in the original
potable supply might be more readily removed through application on the con-
trol site than on the test site, as was shown by the quality of the ground-
water within the control site. A possible explanation is the competition of
81
-------
JULY, 1976
NOVEMBER, 1976
APRIL, 1977
JUNE , I9T7
660
1320 FEET
4OO METERS
Volu« of poromater (mq/U
-------
4»-99
NOVEMBER, 1976
66
49-55
APRIL, 1977
JUNE, 1977
40-99
4»-55
66O
1320 FEET
400 METERS
Volue of porometer (mg/U
Screen depth (ft.)
Alluvium • Sentinel Buttt
Ly sirrwtar NA Not availotdt
Figure 23. Test site groundwater constituents-
chemical oxygen demand.
83
-------
organic compounds for the adsorptive sites within the soil. Adsorption sites
in the test site area soils were more readily occupied by the greater number
of treatable organic compounds, thus allowing the more refractory compounds
to percolate through the soil. In the control area the competition for sites
was greatly reduced, therefore allowing for more adsorption of refractory
organic compounds.
In the alluvium the average COD concentration at the control site was
19 mg/L, while the average test site concentration prior to discharge into
the Heart River was 56 mg/L (Table 8). This difference could be explained by
a higher concentration of refractory organics introduced through the potable
water supply, which required more contact with irrigation soils for treatment
to the residual level observed at the control site. Another possibility was
that higher COD concentrations were entering the test site alluvium from the
west and dilution from irrigated wastewater was occurring across the site.
Potassium--
In the water sampled, concentrations of potassium ranged from 1.8 to 8.7
mg/L at the control site (Figure 24) and from 4 to 24 mg/L at the test site
(Figure 25). Lysimeter sample concentrations ranged from 11 to 34 mg/L at
the test site. The average concentration observed at the control site was
5.6 mg/L based on 30 analyses and at the test site was 11.6 mg/L based on
analyses. The effluent potassium concentration averaged 24 mg/L.
There was no correlation of potassium concentration with direction of
groundwater flow, depth, alluvium or Sentinel Butte aquifer, or round of sam-
pling.
Chloride--
Both the range and the average chloride concentrations in the shallow to
mid-depth test site wells exceeded those in the control site wells. Typical
concentrations found in control and test site wells were 25 mg/L and 100
mg/L, respectively (Figures 26 and 27). Chloride concentrations averaged 30
mg/L in the deeper Sentinel Butte test site wells, such as 22130, 22060, and
22080, as opposed to an average 103 mg/L for alluvium wells, thus indicating
a major separation of the deeper portions of the aquifer from the shallower
groundwater flows affected by wastewater irrigation. The effluent chloride
concentration was 83 mg/L. Since chloride is a refractory ion that passes
through a column of soil relatively unaffected, the presence of chloride in
the groundwater serves as a good indicator that some form of wastewater
irrigation has been applied to the land.
Sodium, Calcium, Magnesium, Sulfate, and Dissolved Solids--
Typical test site concentrations for sodium, calcium, magnesium, sul-
fate, and dissolved solids were 600, 600, 330, 3,200, and 5,800 mg/L, re-
spectively, (Figure 28 and Appendix B) for an area unaffected by lagoon leak-
age. Control site concentrations for the same parameters were 300, 100, 30,
600, and 1,200 mg/L (Figure 29). The wide differences between the test and
control site concentrations can be attributed to the more mineralized soils
in the test site as opposed to the control site. The complete soil data are
presented in Appendix B.
84
-------
JULY, 1976
APRIL, 1977
NOVEMBER, 1976
JUNE, 1977
66O
I32OFEET
400 METERS
Value of parameter (mg/U
,/ Screen depth (ft.)
O Alluvium • Sentinel Butte
a Lysimeter NA Not available
Figure 24. Control site groundwater constituents-
potassium.
85
-------
JULY, 1976
49-59
NOVEMBER, 1976
.. 6.0
49-55
APRIL, 1977
JUNE, 1977
49-45
49-85
0
E
o
660
1320 FEET
400 METERS
Value of parameter (mg/L)
j/ Scre«n depth (ft.)
O Alluvium • Sentinel Butte
• Lysinveter NA Not available
Figure 25. Test site groundwater constituents-
potassium.
86
-------
JULY, 1976
NOVEMBER, 1976
APRIL, 1977
JUNE, 1977
660
I32OFEET
4OO METERS
Volu« gf poromater (mq/U
-------
4»-S9
NOVEMBER, 1976
9Z
APRIL, 1977
JUNE, 1977
4»-6«
660
1320 FEET
400 METERS
Volu» of pgrometer (mg/L)
-------
SODIUM
4»-86
CALCIUM
49-SS
SULFATE
DISSOLVED SOLIDS
I6B6
0 66
1 1 '
0
1 1 -
0 1320 FEET
i j
4OO METERS
Volue of poromater (mg/U)
,/ Screen depth (ft.)
O Alluvium • Sentinel Butte
• Lysimeter NA Not available
Rgure 28. Test site groundwater constituents-
selected parameters.
89
-------
SODIUM
CALCIUM
SULFATE
DISSOLVED SOLIDS
660
1320 FEET
400 METERS
Volu« of pofotnatar (mg/U
J Scr««n dapth (ft.)
O Alluvium • S«ntin«l Butt*
a LysiftMtw NA Not availaM*
Figure 29. Control site groundwater constituents-
selected parameters.
90
-------
The average sodium, calcium, magnesium, sulfate, and dissolved solids
concentrations of the lagoon effluent were 306, 55, 15, 359, and 1,202 mg/L,
respectively. Results also showed that the concentrations of these parameters
were lower in the Sentinel Butte aquifer than in the alluvium aquifer for the
test site areas unaffected by lagoon leakage. In the area of the test site
affected by lagoon leakage, concentrations of these parameters decreased and
approached those for the lagoon effluent. Apparently the large amount of
water leaking from the lagoon over the years has leached the bulk of the
mineralized fractions from the soils.
Phosphorus--
The dissolved phosphorus concentrations in the test site and control
site alluvium wells were generally just above or at minimum detectable levels
by the analytical methods employed. The soluble phosphorus average concen-
trations at the test site and control site were 0.06 mg/L and,0.07 mg/L, re-
spectively. Soluble orthophosphate phosphorus average concentrations were
0.03 and 0.05 mg/L at the test and control sites, respectively. Since the
initial phosphorus of the irrigation effluent was from 3.0 to 10.2 mg/L, it
appeared that the soil column provided a very effective means of phosphorus
removal. This was supported by lysimeter data for phosphorus samples 224101,
224201, and 224301, which indicated that phosphorus removal was taking place
over the upper soil horizon. However, the results were not quantitative due
to evaporative effects in the lysimeter. It then became apparent that
phosphorus had accumulated in the soil, a result to be discussed in more de-
tail in the soil section.
Metals—
Groundwater was analyzed for the presence of arsenic, boron, cadmium,
cobalt, chromium, copper, iron, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, selenium,
and zinc. The concentrations of cadmium, cobalt, chromium, lead, mercury,
and nickel were generally at or below minimum detectable levels. Boron was
highly variable over the range of 0.1 to 1.4 mg/L for both sites (Appendix B)!
Arsenic, copper, iron, manganese, selenium, and zinc had higher ranges
and a'verage concentrations at the test site than at the control site. The
ranges of concentrations for these parameters in the effluent and in the al-
luvium wells at the control and test sites are given in Table 20. Variations
in these parameters in the Sentinel Butte were generally in the same ranges
as in the alluvium. The effluent concentrations were generally lower than
those of the test site for each parameter. Effluent concentrations were
either lower or in the same range of concentrations as in the control site.
Despite the high variability of metal parameters in the groundwater
samples, the difference in concentrations, could be attributed to varied soil
characteristics. The test site soils were higher in total arsenic, copper,
manganese, and zinc concentrations than the control site soils. Selenium
concentrations in both sites were below minimum detectable ranges.
Pesticides and Herbicides--
The concentrations for lindane, 2,4-D, and 2,4,5 TP silvex in the con-
trol site wells ranged from <0.4 to 392 ng/L, <0.5 to 52.4 ng/L, and <0.2 to
272 ng/L, respectively. The concentrations for the same parameters at the
91
-------
TABLE 20. RANGE OF CONCENTRATIONS OF SELECTED METALS IN THE
EFFLUENT AND ALLUVIUM AQUIFER GROUNDWATERS (yg/L)
Effluent
Arsenic
Copper
Iron
Manganese
Selenium
Zinc
<5 -
<20 -
200 -
<50 -
<10 -
17 -
11
50
1,100
90
13
125
Alluvium
<5 -
<20 -
<200 -
<50 -
<10
32 -
Control
12
50
1,000
1,000
96
Alluvium Test
<5 -
<20 -
200 -
<50 -
<10 -
36 -
62
76
6,600
1,900
78
1,055
test site wells ranged from <0.4 to 82 ng/L, <0.5 to 76 ng/L, and <0.2 to 184
ng/L (Appendix B),
The average concentrations for lindane, 2,4-D, and 2,4,5 TP silvex at
the control site were 53.6, 6.2, and 47.1 ng/L, respectively. The test site
averaged 9.7, 8.7, and 33.7 ng/L, respectively (Table 10). Thus, there was
no leakage of these indicator pesticides and herbicides through the soil
column. The average effluent concentrations for lindane, 2,4-D, and 2,4,5 TP
silvex were 397, 44, and 93 ng/L, respectively (Table 7). No trend in con-
centrations for any of these parameters was observed.
In analyses for pesticides at the test and control sites, endrin,
methoxychlor, and toxaphene were below detectable limits.
SOILS
General
For many of the parameters investigated in the soil, the differences be-
tween the control and test sites were not significant at the 0.05 level, par-
^Ifrly at depths greater than 10 cm. Mean values and statistical analysis
are presented in Table 21. The method of pooled variances was utilized to
compare the means for the test site with those of the control site at the
comhinPd I sTlflCannei' The upper three sampling depths (0-10 cm) were
t?at ™ n?^p Yt1SA ,Relatlve comparisons of total and extractable concen-
trations of elements between control and treatment sites and the normal ex-
pected ranges of the various elements in soils are shown in Figures 30 and
h n 3? !0il Parameters studied, 14 were significantly different at
fffp* °Vevel for 0-10 cm depth (Table 21), while only 5 were significantly
ifferent, for the 0-10 cm and 30 cm depths. For the 0-10 cm, 30 cm and 100
cm depths, only one parameter was significantly different, and none were
sigmficatnly different for all depths, including 300 cm.
92
-------
TABLE 21. SOIL MEANS FROM THE TEST AND CONTROL SITES
CO
Means (wg/g except where noted)
pH
Inorganic N
Total Organic N
Total Phosphorus
Available Phosphorus
Total Sulfur
Cation Exchange Capacity (meq/lOOg)
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)
Extractable Zinc
Total Aluminum (mg/g)
Total Cadmium
Total Calcium (mg/g)
Total Cobalt
Total Chromium
Total Copper
Total Iron (mg/g)
Total Lead
Total Magnesium (mg/g)
Total Manganese
Total Mercury
Total Nickel
Total Potassium (mg/g)
Total Sodium (mg/g)
Total Zinc
Total Arsenic
Total Selenium
Depth:
Test
7.7
41.3
2987
778
90
355
22
18
1.91
0.04
0.22,
0.02°
4.2
50 ,
1.2b
0.82
29
1.1
0.6
0.72
5.17
43b
2b
3.0
4.9
35
16.8
10.2
10°
6.0
301
0.05b
15.1
5.5
10.3
83
7.
lb
0-10 cm
Control
7.3a
37.7
1726
622a
87
292
12a
35
1.45
0.03
0.36.
0.02°
1.5a
44 .
1.2b
0.65a
31
0.9 ,
0.30a
0.30a
5.69
31b
2b
3.2
3,7
27 a
8.5a
85
10°
5.2
209 b
0.05b
8.8a
6'4a
11. 8a
68
4a
lb
Depth:
Test
8.5
24.3
768
574
30
264
16
4
1.02,
0.20°
0.16.
0.02°
1.9
28 ,
1.2b
0.76
20
0.7
0.3
0.57
0.20
48.
2b
5.3
4.7
32
14.0
8.9
10B
6.0
248 .
0.05b
15.3
5.5
11.0
67
6.
lb
30 cm
Control «
7.3a
28.0
545
529
46
200
10a
57 ,
0.87a
0.02°
0.16,
0.02°
1.1
36 ,
1.2b
0.55
20
0.9
°-3 a
0.25a
1.94a
38
2b
3.1
3.1
31
8.6a
8.3
10B
4.6
203 ,
0.05b
12.0
6.2
11.6
59,
5a
lb
Depth:
Test
8.6
29.4
395
554
14
243
13
4
0.94,
0.02°
0.18,
0.02D
3.3
33 .
1.2b
0.90
20
0.7
0.2
0.56
1.25
48,
2b
6.3
5.5
34
16.3
9.6
10B
6.3
277 h
0.05b
14.3
5.5
10.5
74
6u
lb
100 cm
Control
8.6
18.3
359
565
18
176
9
24 ,
0.69a
0.03
0.19.
0.02°
1.7
27 .
1.2b
0.54a
19
0.9
°-2 *
0.29a
0.47
39h
2b
4.9
5.0
32
12.0
9.1
10°
5.2
254 h
0.05b
12.7
6.2
12.0
63
5u
lb
Depth :
Test
8.6
20.4
222
450
6
171
10
3
0.67,
0.02°
0.17,
0.02b
3.4
36 ,
1.2b
0.66
19
0.6
0.2
0.39
1.25
44h
2b
7.0
4.4
31
13.0
9.5
10°
5.5
238 ,
0.05b
14.3
5.2
11.6
66
6,
lb
300 cm
Control
8.4
18.6
274
459
11
156
10
17
0.63
0.03,
0.12b
0.02°
3.1
29 •
1.2
0.61
18
1.0
0.1
0.33
0.87
35.
2b
5.9
3.8
30
12.7
8.3
10°
5.1
213 ,
0.05b
12.1
5.6
11.2
60
6,
lb
Test and control sites significantly different at the 0.05 level.
Concentrations below detection limit indicated.
-------
1000
100
10
1.0
O.I
0.01
Mg
No
C T
F*
£T
N LJ
Mil
Co
C T
'Cu
C T
Zn
<-> Nl
Pb
C-CONTROL SITE
T- TREATMENT SITE
N - NORMAL ASRI. 50ILS-
OEAR.I964)
OR TYPICAL VALUE
-RANGC
BELOW DETECTION LIMITS
(ELEMENT)
Cd Cr
Rgure 30. Extractabl* or exchangeable chemical element concentration levels for surface
soils (0-10cm) in control site, treatment sit*, and normal agriculture soils.
94
-------
uu
Co
Mfl
C- Control Stt
On
Srondort
Deviation
N- Narmoi Aqn. Soils ( Btar, 1964)
"" Mxm »Tn«al VOAM
Olttetion Limln
Figure 31 iTctal chemical element concentration levels for surface soils ( 0-10 cm ) in
control site .treatment site, and normal agriculture soils.
95
-------
Metals (Extractable and Exchangeable)—
For many of the extractable and exchangeable metals in the soil, there
were either no differences between the control and test site samples, or
quantities were below detectable limits. Magnesium showed a generally con-
sistent reduction of 0.2 to 0.3 mg/g on both control and test sites between
August, 1976, and November, 1976. The uptake of this metal by plants with
roots that penetrated all but the deepest samples may have been one of the
factors accounting for this difference. This same pattern also holds for to-
tal magnesium samples from both sites. Sodium and potassium generally
followed similar patterns at both sites and had values within normal ranges
expected for soils of this type.
The statistical analyses (Table 21) indicated that mean concentrations
for extractable copper and for exchangeable potassium, sodium, and magnesium
were significantly greater for the 0-10 cm depth in the soil of the test site
than in that of the control site. The analyses also showed mean concentra-
tions for extractable boron and exchangeable sodium to be significantly
greater while extractable zinc was significantly less at the 0.05 level for
test site soils than for the soils to the 30-cm depth in the control site.
For the 100 cm depth, mean values for extractable boron and exchangeable
magnesium and sodium were significantly greater in the test site than in the
control site. At the 300 cm depth no significant differences were found for
any exchangeable or extractable metals.
Metals (Total)--
Copper in the test site soils had an average difference of 5.5 yg/g over
that found in the control site soils across the entire soil profile. Signif-
icant differences were found for total copper in the 0-10 cm and 30 cm depth
ranges (Table 21).
Total arsenic found in the test site had a consistent difference of ap-
proximately 1.7 yg/g over that in the control site. Significant differences
for arsenic occurred in the 0-10 cm and 30 cm depth ranges.
For manganese and zinc, large consistent differences were found at
various depths. A more detailed analysis is presented in following sections.
The mean concentrations for total chromium and nickel in the 0-10 cm depth
were found to be significantly greater at the test site than at the control
site. Potassium and sodium concentrations in the 0-10 cm depth were found
to be significantly greater at the the control site than at the test site.
However, differences were not significant at the 30, 100, and 300 cm depths.
Phosphorus--
Soil analyses showed test site soils to contain significantly greater
concentration of total phosphorus than control site soils at the 3 and 10 cm
depths (Table 22). In surface soils and at depths >_ 30 cm, there were no
statistically significant differences in total phosphorus concentration be-
tween the control and test sites. This indicated that the soil was an
effective trap for phosphorus. Using the statistically significant differ-
ences, the excess amount of total phosphorus that had accumulated at the test
96
-------
TABLE 22. ACCUMULATION OF TOTAL PHOSPHORUS (P) IN THE SOIL (pg/g)
vo
•vl
Depth
Sample
No.
Control
21111
21131
21211
21231
21311
21331
X
= 0 cm
P
Site
563
908
608
664
590
757
= 682
Test Site
22111 841
22131
22211
22231
22311
22331
X
1108
806
768
705
826
= 34?
Depth
Sample
No.
21112
21132
21212
21232
21312
21332
X
22112
22132
22212
22232
22312
22332
X
= 3 cma
P
561
540
597
667
513
713
= 599
719
999
683
699
665
819
= 764
Depth
Sample
No.
21113
21133
21213
21233
21313
21333
X
22113
22133
22213
22233
22313
22333
X
= 10 cma
P
548
485
575
682
462
767
= 587
680
675
669
783
723
832
= 727
Depth
Sample
No.
21114
21134
21214
21234
21314
21334
X
21114
21134
22214
22234
22314
22334
X
= 30 cm
P
530
601
489
445
574
536
= 529
508
604
594
541
539
659
= 57*
Depth =
Sample
No.
21115
21135
21215
21235
21315
21335
X =
22115
22135
22215
22235
22315
22335
x «
100 cm
P
554
545
518
481
513
776
357
447
513
604
555
607
600
554
Depth =
Sample
No.
21116
21136
21216
21236
21316
21336
x =
22116
22136
22216
22236
22316
22336
x =
300 on
P
403
452
605
421
483
387
459
450
515
403
371
459
499
450
Mean differences at these depths statistically significant with a 0.05 level of confidence.
x = means.
-------
site over the control site, at the 3 and 10 cm depths, was calculated to be
408 kg/ha (363 Ib/acre).
The phosphorus concentration of the groundwater leaving both sites was
low and similar to that of the control site irrigation water, but could ac-
count for approximately 12 kg/ha (10.7 Ib/acre) during the 17 year period of
operation. During the same period approximately 34 kg/ha (31 Ib/acre) of
phosphorus in the form of barnyard manure was applied while 180 kg/ha (161
Ib/acre) was removed by the crops at each site.
The average phosphorus concentration of the waterwater was 6.9 mg/L as
compared to only 0.05 mg/L in the control site irrigation water. The
phosphorus applied at an irrigation rate of 140 cm (55 ini) per year for 17
years was 1631 kg/ha (1451 Ib/acre) at the test site as compared to only 11.8
kg/ha (10.5 Ib/acre) at the control site.
An attempted phosphorus balance for the test site is shown.
Applied Removed Cropping Excess
Wastewater and Ground water Retained Unaccounted
& Fertilizer in Soils For
1665 kg/ha - 192 kg/ha - 408 kg/ha = 1065 kg/ha
Although 1065 kg/ha remain unaccounted for, the exercise does show that ex-
cess phosphorus has been applied to and accumulated in the test site surface
soils, and that there is presently no apparent phosphorus movement below
•^approximately 40 cm.
Manganese--
Comparison of the total manganese soil sample means for test and control
sites showed statistically significant differences at the upper soil depths
(0, 3, and 10 cm) but not at depths >30 cm (Table 23). As previously shown
for other elements, the soil served as an effective trap for this metal down
to the 10 cm depth. At this depth, the test site had an average of 92 yg/g
(122 kg/ha or 109 Ib/acre) of manganese over the control site.
Values for five lagoon effluent samples were highly variable for manga-
nese. Assuming a 0.05 mg/L average for manganese applied to the land through
wastewater irrigation, the total manganese applied was calculated to be ap-
proximately 11.9 kg/ha (10.6 Ib/acre).
Assuming 78 pg/g of manganese in the test site plants and an average
annual crop yield of 3920 kg/ha, approximately 5.2 kg/ha has been removed
from the test site by cropping over the past 17 years.
The one analysis of the control site irrigation water showed 0.23 mg/L
manganese which calculated to 54.7 kg/ha of total manganese applied while
3.5 kg/ha was removed by cropping. This indicates that the excess manganese
found in the test site soils did not come from the wastewater.
98
-------
TABLE 23. ACCUMULATION OF MANGANESE IN*THE SOIL (pg/g)
10
10
Depth = 0 cma
Sample
No.
Control Site
21111
21211
21311
21131
21231
21331
x =
Test Site
22111
22211
22311
22131
22231
22331
x =
a Significant
Hn
234
153
202
228
178
210
201
321
308
299
159
343
300
288
difference
A' ft
Depth =
Sample
No.
21112
21212
21312
21132
21232
21332
x
22112
22212
22312
22132
22232
22332
x
with a 0.
3 cmb
Hn
248
169
198
228
218
271
= 222
320
290
318
324
282
255
= 298
,02 level
nl la»al
Depth -
Sample
No.
21113
21213
21313
21133
21233
21333
x
22113
22213
22313
22133
22233
22333
x
of confidence.
t tu
10 cma
Hn
221
198
202
260
170
170
=• 204
338
364
355
425
239
175
= 316
Depth = 30
Sample
No.
21114
21214
21314
21134
21234
21334
_•
x =
22114
22214
22314
22134
22234
22334
x =
cm
Hn
226
179
238
212
194
167
203
280
271
304
283
180
167
248
Depth =
Sample
No.
21115
21215
21315
21135
21235
21335
x =
22115
22215
22315
22135
22235
22335
x
100 cm
Mn
273
243
224
281
194
308
254
221
386
320
255
194
287
= 277
Depth
Sample
No.
21116
21216
21316
21136
21236
21336
22116
22216
22316
22136
22236
22336
= 300 cm
Mn
228
276
221
251
156
148
x = 213
221
243
205
301
131
328
x = 238
-------
Zinc--
The amount of zinc applied to the test site in the effluent averaged
0.05 mg/L for five samples collected from the storage lagoon during the
course of the study. Based on this effluent average value, 11.9 kg/ha
(10.6 Ib/acre) had been applied to the test site over the past 17 years. Be-
cause of changing detection limits between rounds, the one sample of control
site irrigation water was measured at less than a detectable limit of
0.05 mg/L. It is probable that some zinc was also added to the control site
and that 11.9 kg/ha is more than the actual additional load to the test site.
An attempt was made to account for this zinc by comparing test and control
site soil samples taken at various depths. Results are shown in Table 24.
With the possible exception of -surface samples, the test site showed more
zinc than the control site at all depths. However, only the 31 yg/g differ-
ence found at 3 cm (1.2 in) was statistically significant. If the zinc
trapped at the 3 cm depths were spread evenly over the 0-10 cm depths, a con-
servative estimate of 15 yg/g/cm could be obtained for use in the calculation
used to balance the amount of zinc applied with the wastewater. Using this
figure, a value of 18.8 kg/ha (16.7 Ib/acre) was reached, which was slightly
more than the amount of zinc (11.9 kg/ha or 10.6 Ib/acre) applied with the
wastewater. Assuming 37 and 22 yg/g of zinc as found in the test and control
site plants and an average annual crop yield of 3,920 kg/ha (3,500 Ib/acre),
approximately 2.5 kg/ha has been removed from the test site in crop harvests
over the past 17 years while 1.5 kg/ha has been removed from the control
site soils. The excess zinc may not all be attributable to wastewater
irrigation.
Organic Nitrogen--
Although it appeared from sample results that at most depths there was
more total organic nitrogen at the test site than at the control site, this
conclusion could not be supported by statistical analysis. No significant
differences occurred at any depth, even though the differences in sample
means were quite large. Apparently, the high variability between subsamples
at the control site as well as the test site precludes obtaining a statisti-
cally significant difference.
The observed increase in nitrogen concentration of the test site soils
has been used to calculate the nitrogen balance for the 17-year irrigation
system. This will be presented in a later section of this report.
PLANTS
The grass crop was sampled during the study at both the control and test
sites in June and again in November of 1976.
The 27 parameters studied in the brome grass crop at the test and con-
trol sites are shown in Table 25 together with the normal range of concentra-
tions for these parameters in grass crops.
From the limited data available, the following observations can be made
regarding the relative performance of the control and test site grass crops.
Though phosphorus concentrations were similar at both sites, mean con-
100
-------
TABLE 24. ACCUMULATION OF ZINC IN THE SOIL (ug/g)
Depth = 0
Sample
No.
Control Site
21111
21131
21211
21231
21311
21331
x =
Test Site
22111
22131
22211
22231
22311
22331
x =
cm
Zn
92
151
113
55
39
47
83
118
40
99
79
88
62
81
Depth
Sample
No.
21112
21132
21212
21232
21312
21332
22112
22132
22212
22232
22312
22332
= 3 cma
Zn
58
59
55
58
52
58
x = 57
108
61
108
57
128
62
x = 87
Depth =
Sample
No.
21113
21133
21213
21233
21313
21333
x
22113
22133
22213
22233
22313
22333
x
10 cm
Zn
60
.
77
45
91
43
= "63
92
64
106
57
133
39
= "87
Depth
Sample
No.
21114
21134
21214
21234
21314
21334
22114
22134
22214
22234
22314
22334
= 30 cm
Zn
62
63
53
43
93
42
x = 59
82
58
87
36
100
37
x = 67
Depth =
Sample
No.
21115
21135
21215
21235
21315
21335
x
22115
22135
22215
22235
22315
22335
x
100 cm
Zn
76
54
88
43
81
38
= "63
73
54
98
46
121
52
= "74
Depth
Sample
No.
21116
21136
21216
21236
21316
21336
22116
22136
22216
22236
22316
22336
= 300 cm
Zn
70
74
72
34
75
32
x = 60
82
58
87
36
78
53
x = 66
Mean difference at this depth statistically significant with a 0.05 level of confidence.
x = means.
-------
TABLE 25. MEAN CONCENTRATIONS OF PARAMETERS IN TEST AND CONTROL
SITE PLANT LEAVES
Parameter
Ammo ni urn -N
Total Organic N (mg/g)
Nitrite + Nitrate-N
Total Phosphorus (mg/g)
Total Sulfur
Total Arsenic
Total Boron
Total Cadmium
Total Calcium (mg/g)
Total Cobalt
Total Chromium
Total Copper
Total Lead
Total Magnesium (mg/g)
Total Manganes'e
Total Mercury
Total Nickel
Total Potassium (mg/g)
Total Sodium (mg/g)
Total Zinc
Total Selenium
Endrin (ng/g)
Lindane (ng/g)
Methoxychlor (ng/g)
Toxaphene (ng/g)
2,4-D (ng/g)
2,4,5 TP Silvex (ng/g)
Control
221
19
649
2.7
1213
r
14bl
5D
3B3
r
2
V
5D
1.3
53 b
0.05°
0.5D
5.1
1.2
22.
1 K
0.03°
0.5 .
0.01b
0.1B
10.4
6.6
Means (yg/g unless
Test
380
15
1014
2.7
1074b
r
19 6
5D
3b6
!«
5a
68
5D
V
78 b
0.05°
0.5°
4.3
3 la
A
37h
1 h
0.03°
0.9 ,
o.or
0.1B
15.4
7.0
noted)
Normal Range0
—
27-35
__
2-4
1000-3000
--
10-100
0.01-1.0
4-10
1-50
1-100
2-100
0.1-10
2-4
5-500
0.01-1.0
1-100
17-25
100-500
10-300
_ _
—
—
—
—
—
--
Test and control sites significantly different at the 0.05 level.
Concentrations below detection limit indicated.
C Bear, 1964, and Walsh, 1973.
102
-------
centrations for chromium, manganese, sodium, and zinc were found to be sig-
nificantly greater at the 0.05 level for the test site than for the control
site. The increased plant concentrations of chromium, manganese, and zinc
may be related to the higher concentrations of these parameters found in the
test site soils. However, sodium was found at higher concentrations in the
control site soils. Of these parameters, only zinc occurred at higher con-
centrations in the wastewater than in the control site irrigation water. No
significant difference was observed for the remaining parameters (Table 25).
Although many of the crop parameters had highly variable analytical re-
sults, mean values for all parameters were well within the normal range for
grass crops.
The complete crop analytical results are presented in Appendix B.
COLIFORM BACTERIA
As anticipated, the river water and lagoon effluent samples gave posi-
tive results for the presence of coliform bacteria and, in most cases, fecal
col'iform bacteria. Two samples of the municipal water supply resulted in one
positive coliform count.
Of the wells at the control site, one showed positive coliform bacteria
twice, seven showed positive once, and one was never positive.
Of the wells at the test site, positive coliform bacteria counts were
obtained once from seven wells, twice from three wells, and four times from
well 22080. All negative counts were obtained from five wells and three
lysimeters.
There was no pattern with respect to depth or well location at either
the test or control site that would suggest coliform had actually reached the
groundwater aquifer. Of the positive counts obtained, 7 of the 9 on the
control site and 6 of the 17 on the test site occurred on the second sampling
round.
Although all wells were disinfected during construction and prior to
sampling (see Section 6), one would assume that well 22080 was contaminated
in some way, perhaps during construction. The well was located at the south
end of the test site and completed in the Sentinel Butte Formation at a depth
of 23 m (75 ft).
It was significant that no wells showed positive fecal coliform counts
and that most wells at various depths and on various rounds of data collec-
tion were also negative for coliform bacteria.
Plant samples from all sub-areas on both control and test sites showed
positive coliform bacteria on either the first or second round of data col-
lection. Fecal coliform bacteria were also present on both control and test
site plants. Since both sites are used for pasture by cattle, this result is
not surprising, even though plant samples were washed prior to analysis.
103
-------
INTERACTIONS OF WATER, SOILS, AND PLANTS
Necessarily, each of the parameters in this study had to be isolated for
data analysis and interpretation. However, in addition to the significance
attributable to individual components of an ecosystem, the interactions of
the various parameters are also significant. The physical components of the
system (i.e., geology, hydrology, topography, etc.), comprise the structural
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 with inherent constituents to the land may
be regarded as an energy input to the ecosystem, resulting not only in en-
hanced plant growth, but adding a potential for diversity in species composi-
tion of the biota. The resulting enriched and improved environment 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 par-
ticles at the air-soil interface. Several processes may occur here simul-
taneously, such as oxidation, nitrification, denitrification, evaporation,
and adsorption. As the water percolates through the soil, the physical and
chemical characteristics of the soil determine the fate of each element in
its downward migration. Available surface area of soil particles along with
the chelating property of resident molecules combine to assist the distri-
bution 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 constituents in wastewater. For the proper design and management of
wastewater irrigated land, it is essential that these various interactions be
taken into consideration. Mismanagement could result in a breakdown of
natural processes and barriers that lead to crop failures, lower crop yields,
or, more importantly, the appearance of toxic elements, viruses, or coliform
organisms in groundwater. As indicated in several sections of this report,
the land treatment system at Dickinson has experienced few such negative
occurrences.
PROJECTED USEFUL LIFE OF SITE FOR WASTEWATER IRRIGATION
The intent of this study was to provide answers to a number of questions
relating to the long-term viability of land application as a treatment
system. Two such questions discussed in the following paragraphs are:
1. For how long a period can a land application system be expected to
provide satisfactory treatment for wastewater?
2. What effect does continued long-term application of organic, nitro-
genous, and heavy metal constituents have on the soil and crop
system?
104
-------
For a projection of 100 years useful life, the phosphorus applied to
the test site each year is 98 kg/ha (87 Ib/acre) minus the harvest of 10.6
kg/ha (9.5 Ib/acre) or 86 kg/ha (77 Ib/acre), thus making the total pro-
spective load 8,600 kg/ha/100 yr (7,700 Ib/acre). If all the phosphorus was
eventually held as the stable hydroxyapatite, this would require 16,350 kg/ha
(14,600 Ib/acre) of calcium or 40,880 kg/ha (36,500 Ib/acre) of calcium
carbonate. If only half the total calcium shown in the Dickinson profile was
calcium carbonate (a very conservative assumption), the reserve in the top
100 cm (39 in) of an acre would be 25,500 kg (56,000 Ib) of calcium carbon-
ate, which would provide approximately twice the required amount. The fact
that no firm indication existed for an accumulation of phosphorus below 40 cm
(16 in) was also reassuring. This layer alone has proved to be a sufficient
trap for the added phosphorus over a period of 17 years.
Using the mean differences, as opposed to the statistically significant
differences used earlier, the excess accumulation of nitrogen, phosphorus,
and zinc in the test site soils compared to the control site soils was cal-
culated. This was compared to the additional loading resulting from waste-
water irrigation.
The additional organic nitrogen loading was calculated to be 4,100 kg/ha
(3,670 Ib/acre) for soil 0 to 40 cm (16 in) in depth. The additional inor-
ganic nitrogen loading was calculated to be nonexistent. The 17-year pro-
jected application of nitrogen due to effluent was approximately 2,780 kg/ha
(2,480 Ib/acre) and due to synthetic fertilizer was 270 kg/ha (240 Ib/acre).
Cropping accounts for 1,200 kg/ha (1,070 Ib/acre), and nitrogen exiting the
test site accounts for 220 kg/ha (200 Ib/acre). Total nitrogen input,was
approximately 3,050 kg/ha (2,720 Ib/acre). Total nitrogen either at the test
site or that which has left the test site was 4,320 kg/ha (3870 Ib/acre).
The excess accumulation is unaccounted for.
The excess phosphorus in the test site soils was 520 kg/ha (460 Ib/acre)
versus 1,619 kg/ha (1,631-11.8) applied in the effluent over 17 years. The
excess zinc measured in the test site soils was 71 kg/ha (63 Ib/acre) versus
less than 11.9 kg/ha (10.6 Ib/acre) applied in the effluent over 17 years.
The excess manganese measured in the test site soils was 320 kg/ha (290 Ib/
acre) versus 11.9 kg/ha (10.6 Ib/acre) applied in the effluent over 17 years.
This compares to 54 kg/ha (48 Ib/acre) applied to the control site.
It can thus be concluded that an accurate accounting of the mass
balances for the amounts of these parameters added in the effluent is not
possible due to unknown variations in the quantities for each parameter over
the 17-year period of effluent irrigation. In addition, the soils at the
test and. control sites may have native differences in amounts of the pa-
rameters, and calculations of amounts added in the effluent could never ex-
plain these differences.
Suggested mass application rates for low capacity soils are given in
the Environmental Protection Agency's Process Design Manual for Land Treat-
ment of Municipal Wastewater. Corresponding parameter concentrations that
would allow 100-year loading of 140 cm/yr (4.58 ft/yr) and the mean concen-
trations of Dickinson's effluent are shown in Table 26.
105
-------
Dickinson soils would have greater capacities to retain trace elements;
however, Table 26 shows that for an effluent concentration of 0.921 mg/L,
only boron at 1,139 Ib/acre would exceed the recommended loading after 100
years of operation.
TABLE 26. SUGGESTED MAXIMUM APPLICATIONS OF TRACE ELEMENTS
TO SOILS WITHOUT FURTHER INVESTIGATION
Mass application. Typical Effluent
Element to soil, Ib/acre concentration, mg/L concentration, mg/L
Aluminum
Arsenic
Boron
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
4080
82
610
8
82
41
164
4080
4080
164
164
16
1640
3.5
0.7d
0.5°
0.007
0.7
0.035
0.14
3.5
3.5
0.14
0.14
0.014
1.4
0.5
0.006
0.92
0.01e
0.02®
0.02e
0.02e
0.7
O.le
0.05*
0.05e
0.007
0.056
a Values were developed for sensitive crops on soils with low capacities to
, retain elements in available forms.
: USEPA, 1977.
Based on reaching maximum mass application in 100 years at an annual appli-
d cation rate of 140 cm/yr (4.58 ft/yr).
Boron exhibits toxicity to sensitive plants at values of 0.75 to 1.0 mg/L.
Concentrations below detection limit indicated.
106
-------
REFERENCES
American Public Health Association. 1971. Standard Methods for the
Examination of Water and Wastewater. 13th ed. New York, N.Y. 874
pp.
American Public Health Association. 1976. Standard Methods for the
Examination 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. 21 pp.
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
Exchange 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.
Cuskelly, Don F. 1974. Report on Dickinson Wastewater Lagoon Expansion
(unpublished). City of Dickinson, North Dakota. 18 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.
Hagen, Robert M., H. R. Haise, and T. W. Edminister. 1967. Irrigation
of Agricultural Lands. American Society of Agronomy, Madison,
Wisconsin. 1,180 pp.
107
-------
Instrumentation Laboratory Inc. 1975. Atomic Absorption Methods Manual.
Wilmington, Mass.
Leeper, G. W. 1978. Managing the Heavy Metals on the Land. Marcel Dekker,
Inc., New York, New York. 121 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.
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.
Sanks, R. L., and Takashi Asano. 1976. Land Treatment and Dispoal of Munici-
pal and Industrial Wastewater. Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Inc., Ann
Arbor, Mich. 310 pp.
Trapp, Henry, Jr., and M. G. Croft. 1975. Geology and Groundwater
Resources of Hettinger and Stark Counties, North Dakota. U.S.
Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. 51 pp.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1968. Soil
Survey, Stark County, North Dakota. U.S. Government Printing
Office, Washington, D.C. 116 pp.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1971. Methods for Organic Pesticides
in Water and Wastewater. National Environmental Research Center,
108
-------
Cincinnati, 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
Instruction Manual. Abstracted from Journal of the Association of
Official Agricultural Chemists. 47:343.
109
-------
APPENDIX A
WELL LOGS FOR CONTROL AND TEST SITES
DICKINSON, NORTH DAKOTA
Drill Hole Logs
Control Site
Hole T.H.-l
Date: 6-28-76 Type Rig: Rotary
Casing: 1 1/4 in. plastic to 14 ft.
Screen: 1 1/4 in. saw-cut plastic 14 to 19 ft.
Remarks: Drilled with air, sand pack 0-39 ft.
Log: Depth in Feet
0-2
2-5
5-8
8-10
10-37
37-39
Soil
Sand, fine, brown
Silt, gray-brown
Sand, fine to medium, clean, wet, brown.
gravel
Sand, fine to medium, silty, gray-brown.
with some small
soft
Sand, fine, cemented and hard, Sentinel Butte Fm.
Hole T.H.-2
Date: 6-28-76 Type Rig: Rotary
Casing: 1 1/4 in. plastic to 14 ft.
Screen: 1 1/4 in. saw-cut plastic 14 to 19 ft.
Remarks: Drilled with air, sand pack bridged and then fill-in
screened section probably not sand packed.
Log: Depth in Feet
0-1
1-5
5-6
6-8
8-9
9-12
Soil
Sand
Silt
Sand.
Sand,
very fine, silty
sandy
medium
Sand, medium
Sand, yellow-brown, cemented, Sentinel Butte Fm.
Sand, yellow brown, hard
110
-------
12-25
25-29
29-60
Hole 21010
Sand, fine, gray, soft, clean
Sand, fine, hard, blowing water
Sand, fine, soft, gray
Date: 7-22-76 Type Rig: Rotary
Casing: 4 in. plastic to 54 ft.
Screen: 4 in. slotted (.016 in.) plastic 54 to 60 ft.
Remarks: Drilled with clear water, sand pack 52 to 60 ft., hole
sealed with granular bentonite.
Log: Depth in Feet
0-10
10-11
11-15
15-18
18-20
20-25
25-36
36-38
38-52
52-54
54-60
Hole 21020
Sand,
Sand,
Sand,
Clay,
Sand,
Clay,
Sand,
Sand,
Sand,
Sand,
Sand,
, few small
at base
gravel
fine
medium to coarse.
fine with gravel
silty, gray
fine
silty and sandy
very fine, gray
silty with clay lenses, tight, Sentinel Butte Fm.
fine, dark gray to blue
very fine to fine, moderately cemented, white
very fine to fine, dark gray
Date: 7-22-76
Casing:
Screen:
Remarks
Type Rig: Rotary
4 in. plastic to 29.5 ft.
4 in. slotted (.016 in.) plastic 29.5
Drilled with clear water, sand pack
hole sealed with granular bentonite,
for 25 min.
to
28
33.5 ft,
to 34.5
ft.
screen air developed
Log: Depth in Feet
0-2.5
2.5-11
11-13
13-20
20-29
30-34
34
Hole 21030
Soil
Sand, fine, brown, with coal fragments
Gravel and medium sand
Sand, blue, with scattered gravel
Clay, silty, with very fine sand lenses
Sand, very fine, blue, Sentinel Butte Fm.
Sand, well cemented, hard
Date: 7-22-76
Casing: 4 in.
Screen: 4 in.
Type Rig:
plastic to 8 ft.
slotted (v.016 in.
Rotary
) plastic 8 to 18 ft.
Ill
-------
Remarks: Drilled with clear water, sand pack 6 to 18 ft., hole
sealed with granular bentonite, screen air developed for
15 min.
Log: Depth in Feet
0-3 Soil
3-11 Sand, fine, brown, with coal and lignite fragments
11-19 Sand, fine to medium, with scattered gravel
19-20 Clay, silty, sandy, gray
Hole 21040
Date: 7-22-76 Type Ri^: Rotary
Casing: 4 in. plastic to 34 ft.
Screen: 4 in. slotted (.016 in.) plastic 34 to 44 ft.
Remarks: Drilled with cleV water, sand pack 31 to 44 ft., hole
sealed with granular bentonite, screen air developed for
10 min.
Log: Depth in Feet
0-3 Soil
3-9 Sand, fine, brown
9-13 Sand, medium to coarse, scattered gravel
13-22 Sand, very fine, blue, with clay streaks, and some gravel
at base
22-24 Clay, sandy, silty
24-45 Sand, very fine to fine, silty and clay lenses, blue-gray,
Sentinel Butte Fm.
Hole 21050
Date: 7-23-76 Type Rig: Rotary
Casing: 4 in. plastic to 15 ft.
Screen: 4 in. slotted (.016 in.) plastic 15 to 20 ft.
Remarks: Drilled with clear water, sand pack 12 to 25 ft., hole
sealed with granular bentonite, screen air developed for
15 min.
Log: Depth in Feet
0-2 Soil
2-10 Sand, fine, with coal fragments and clay stringers
10-19 Sand, medium to coarse, with small gravel, gravel
more common at base
19-23 Sand, fine, soft
23-25 Clay, silty and sandy
112
-------
Hole 21060
Date: 7-23-76 Type Rig: Rotary
Casing: 4 in. plastic to 39 ft.
Screen: 4 in. slotted (.016 in.) plastic 39 to 44 ft.
Remarks: Drilled with clear water, sand pack 35 to 45 ft., hole
sealed with granular bentonite, screen air developed for
10 min.
Log: Depth in Feet
0-3
3-8
8-11
11-14
14-15
15-26
26-28
28-45
Hole 21070
Soil
Sand, fine, with clay, medium sand near base
Sand, fine, yellow to brown, moderate cement, Sentinel
Butte Fm.
Sand, fine, silty, blue-gray
Sand, clayey and silty, blue-gray
Sand, fine, blue-gray
Clay, silty, gray
Sand, very fine, soft, gray, with cemented lenses near base
hole sealed
Date: 7-23-76 Type Rig: Rotary
Casing: 4 in. plastic to 21 ft.
Screen: 4 in. slotted (.016 in.) plastic 21 to 27 ft.
Remarks: Drilled with clear water, sand pack 20 to 27 ft.
with bentonite, screen air developed for 20 min.
Log: Depth in Feet
0-2 Soil
2-9 Sand, medium to coarse, with small gravel, clay pods and coal
fragments
9-12 Sand, fine, yellow-brown, moderate cement, Sentinel Butte Fm.
12-27 Sand, fine, blue-gray, clay stringers at top and cemented
stringers at base
Hole 21080
Date: 7-23-76 Type Rig: Rotary
Casing: 4 in. plastic to 13 ft.
Screen: 4 in. slotted (.016 in.) plastic 13 to 18 ft.
Remarks: Drilled with clear water, sand pack 12 to 20 ft., hole
sealed with granular bentonite, screen air developed 20 min.
113
-------
Log: Depth in Feet
0-2 Soil
2-11 Sand, fine, becomes medium to coarse with small gravel at
base
11-12 Sand, fine, yellow-brown, moderate cement, Sentinel Butte Fm,
12-20 Sand, fine, blue-gray
114
-------
Hole 21090
Date: 7-23-76 Type Rig: Rotary
Casing: 4 in. plastic to 17 ft.
Screen: 4 in. slotted (.016 in.) plastic 17 to 25 ft.
Remarks: Drilled with clear water, sand pack 15 to 25 ft., hole
sealed with granular bentonite, screen air developed for
15 min.
Log: Depth in Feet
0-3
3-12
12-14
14-25
Hole 21150
Soil
Sand, very fine, soft, becomes medium sand with gravel
near base
Sand, fine, yellow-brown, moderate cement, Sentinel Butte Fm.
Sand, fine, blue-gray, with silty streaks
Date: 7-26-76 Type Rig: Rotary
Casing: 4 in. plastic to 21.5 ft.
Screen: 4 in. slotted (.016 in.) plastic 21.5 to 29.5 ft.
Remarks: Drilled with clear water, sand pack 16 to 29.5 ft., sealed
with granular bentonite, screen air developed for 15 min.
Hole location downstream and across river from control
irrigation site.
Log: Depth in Feet
0-2
2-12
12-22
22-30
Hole 21160
Soil
Sand, fine, soft, with small to very small gravel, sand
becomes medium to coarse with gravel at base
Clay, silty and sandy, gray, Sentinel Butte Fm.
Sand, fine, blue, cemented lense at top
Date: 7-26-76 Type Rig: Rotary
Casing: 4 in. plastic to 6 ft.
Screen: 4 in. slotted (.016) plastic 6 to 12 ft.
Remarks: Drilled with clear water, sand pack 5 to 17 ft., hole
sealed with granular bentonite, screen air developed for
15 min. Hole downstream and across river from control
irrigation site.
115
-------
Log: Depth in Feet
0-5 Soil
5-12 Sand, fine, medium to coarse toward base, with fine to
medium gravel
12-17 Clay, sandy, silty, gray, Sentinel Butte Fm.
Test Sites
Hole T.H.-l
Date: 6-28-76
Casing: 1 1/4 in. plastic to 14 ft.
Screen: 1 1/4 in. saw-cut plastic 14 to 19 ft.
Remarks: Drilled with air, sand pack 0 to 20 ft.
Log: Depth in Feet
0-2 Soil
2-18 Sand, fine to medium, some silt, gray-brown, dry to 10 ft.,
moist below 10 ft.
18-20 Clay, gray, hard, dry. Sentinel Butte Fm.
Hole T.H.-2
Date: 6-28-76
Casing: 1 1/4 in. plastic to 29 ft.
Screen: 1 1/4 in. saw-cut plastic 29 to 39 ft.
Remarks: Drilled with air, sand pack 0 to 60 ft.
Log: Depth in Feet
0-1 Soil
1-3 Silt, with very fine sand
3-9 Sand fine to medium
9-12 Silt
12-17 Sand, fine to medium, wet
17-19 Sand, cemented, Sentinel Butte Fm.
19-54 Sand, very fine, silty, soft, blowing water at 45 ft.,
hard streaks beginning at 50 ft.
54-60 Sand, cemented, hard, blowing 5 gpm
Hole 22010
Date: 7-19-76 Type Rig: Rotary
Casing: 4 in. plastic to 37 ft.
Screen: 4 in. slotted (.016 in.) plastic 37 to 43 ft.
Remarks: Drilled with air to 12 ft., drilled remainder of hole with
clear water, sand pack 36 to 45 ft., hole sealed with
granular bentonite.
116
-------
Log: Depth in Feet
0-2
2-20
20-22
22-45
Soil
Sand, fine, gray-brown, seep water at 8 ft., gravel at base
Clay, gray-white, sticky, Sentinel Butte Fm.
Sand, fine, soft, with coal fragments, cemented zone
35-36 ft.
Hole 22020
Date: 7-19-76 Type Rig: Rotary
Casing: 4 in. plastic to 18 ft.
Screen: 4 in. slotted (.016 in.) plastic 18 to 22 ft.
Remarks: Drilled with clear water, sand pack 16 to 23 ft., hole
sealed with granular bentonite, used as pumping well in
pump test.
Depth in Feet
Log:
0-2
2-23
23
Soil
Sand, fine, silty, becomes fine to medium at base with gravel
Clay, gray-white, sticky, Sentinel Butte Fm.
Hole 22030
Date: 7-19-76 Type Rig: Rotary
Casing: 4 in. plastic to 45 ft.
Screen: 4 in. slotted (.016 in.) plastic 45 to 50 ft.
Remarks: Drilled with clear water, sand pack 39 to 60 ft., hole sealed
with granular bentonite.
Log: Depth in Feet
0-1
1-15
15-17
17-24
24-37
37-39
39-45
45-52
52-54
54-60
Soil
Sand, fine, silty
Gravel, sand, fine to medium, dirty
Sand, fine, silty
Clay, gray-white, Sentinel Butte Fm.
Sand, very very fine, dark gray, cemented
Sand, clayey, very fine, soft
Sand, very fine, dark blue-gray, cemented yellow sand at
50 ft., hard
50 ft..
Clay, silty
Clay, gray,
sticky
Hole 22040
Date: 7-20-76 Type Rig: Rotary
Casing: 4 in. plastic to 19 ft.
Screen: 4 in. slotted (.016 in.) plastic 19 to 24 ft.
Remarks: Drilled with clear water, sand pack 18 to 30 ft., hole
sealed with granular bentonite
117
-------
Log: Depth in Feet
0-2
2-13
13-15
15-18
18-24
24-30
Hole 22050
Soil
Sand, fine, silty
Clay and gravel
Clay, silty
Sand, soft with cemented lenses, Sentinel Butte Fm.
Clay, sandy
Date: 7-20-76 Type Rig: Rotary
Casing: 4 in. plastic to 13 ft.
Screen: 4 in. slotted (.016 in.) plastic 13 to 17 ft.
Remarks: Drilled with clear water, sand pack 12 to 17 ft., hole
sealed with granular bentonite.
Log: Depth in Feet
0-2
2-11
11-16
16-17
Hole 22060
Soil
Sand, fine
Sand, medium to coarse, gravel
Clay, sandy
Date: 7-20-76 Type Rig: Rotary
Casing: 4 in. plastic to 49 ft.
Screen: 4 in. slotted (.016 in.) plastic 49 to 55 ft.
Remarks: Drilled with clear water, sand pack 47 to 55 ft., hole
sealed with bentonite.
Log: Depth in Feet
0-2.5
2.5-15
15-16
16-29
29-34
34-41
41-42
42-49
49-55
Hole 22070
Soil
Sand,
Clay,
Clay,
Clay,
very fine to fine, with gravel at base
sand and gravel, silty
Sentinel Butte Fm.
sandy
Clay, silty, hard, white at top, green at base
Sand, very fine, dark gray, cemented, hard
Clay, silty, white to gray
Sand, very fine, dark blue-gray
Date: 7-21-76 Type Rig: Rotary
Casing: 4 in. plastic to 11.5 ft.
Screen: 4 in. slotted (0.16 in.) plastic 11.5 to 16.5 ft.
Remarks: Drilled with clear water, sand pack 10 to 28 ft., hole
sealed with granular bentonite.
118
-------
Log: Depth in Feet
0-2
2-5
5-11
11-16
16-30
Soil
Sand,
Clay,
Sand.
Clay,
base.
fine
sandy
fine, with coal fragments at base
gray, sandy at top with coal stringers, sandy at
Sentinel Butte Fm.
Hole 22080
Date: 7-20-76 Type Rig: Rotary
Casing: 4 in. plastic to 68 ft.
Screen: 4 in. slotted (.016 in.) plastic 68 to 74 ft.
Remarks: Drilled with clear water, sand pack 65 to 75 ft., hole
sealed with granular bentonite.
Log: Depth in Feet
0-2 Soil
2-14 Sand, fine, with clay stringers
14-16 Sand, medium to coarse, gravel
16-19 Clay, coal lense at base, Sentinel Butte Fm.
20-27 Clay, sandy, gray-white
27"31 Sand, very fine, cemented, hard
31-49 Sand, clayey
49-75 Sand, very fine, cemented lenses alternate with soft layers
Hole 22090
Date: 7-21-77 Type Rig: Rotary
Casing: 4 in. plastic to 13 ft.
Screen: 4 in. slotted (.016 in.) plastic 13 to 18 ft.
Remarks: Drilled with clear water, sand pack 12 to 29 ft., hole
sealed with granular bentonite, used as observation well
in pump test.
Log: Depth in Feet
0-2
2-18
18-20
20-30
Hole 22100
Soil
Sand,
Sand,
Clay,
fine
medium to coarse,
silty and sandy,
with gravel
gray, Sentinel
Butte Fm.
Date: 7-21-76 Type Rig: Rotary
Casing: 4 in. plastic to 10 ft.
Screen: 4 in. slotted (.016 in.) plastic 10 to
Remarks: Drilled with clear water, sand pack 9
sealed with granular bentonite.
14
to
ft.
18 ft.
hole
119
-------
Log: Depth in Feet
0-3
3-11
11-14
14-20
Hole 22110
Soil
Sand, fine
Sand, medium to coarse, gravel, red-brown to yellow color
Clay, gray, Sentinel Butte Fm.
Date: 7-21-76 Type Rig: Rotary
Casing: 4 in. plastic to 19 ft.
Screen: 4 in. slotted (.016 in.) plastic 19 to 24 ft.
Remarks: Drilled with clear water, sand pack 18 to 26 ft., hole
sealed with granular bentonite.
Log: Depth in Feet
0-3
3-12
12-13
13-23
23-24
24-26
Hole 22120
Soil
Sand, fine, brown
Sand, gravel
Sand, gray
Sand, gravel
Clay, gray, Sentinel Butte Fm.
Date: 7-21-76 Type Rig: Rotary
Casing: 4 in. plastic to 32 ft.
Screen: 4 in. slotted (.016 in.) plastic 32 to 37 ft.
Remarks: Drilled with clear water, sand pack 27 to 40 ft., hole
sealed with granular bentonite.
Log: Depth in Feet
0-11
11-35
35-37
37-40
Hole 22130
Dike fill material
Sand, fine, gray-brown, with coal fragments
Sand, medium to coarse, gravel
Clay, gray, Sentinel Butte Fm.
Date: 7-21-76 Type Rig: Rotary
Casing: 4 in. plastic to 49 ft.
Screen: 4 in. slotted (.016 in.) plastic 49 to 55 ft.
Remarks: Drilled with clear water, sand pack 46 to 56 ft., hole
sealed with granular bentonite.
120
-------
Log: Depth in Feet
0-11
11-35
35-37
37-51
51-56
Hole 22140
Dike fill material
Sand, fine, clay streaks at top, gray-brown
Sand, gravel
Clay, sandy, silty, Sentinel Butte Fm.
Sand, very very fine, blue-gray
Date: 7-24-76 Type Rig: Rotary
Casing: 6 in. plastic to 15 ft.
Screen: 6 in. slotted (.016 in.) plastic 15 to 20 ft.
Remarks: Drilled with clear water, sand pack 10 to 23 ft., hole
sealed with granular bentonite, screen air developed for
15 min., automatic water-level recorder well, and used
as observation well in pump test.
Log: Depth in Feet
0-5
5-15
15-20
20-23
Hole 22170
Soil
Sand, fine, with gravel lense at 8 ft.
Sand, medium to coarse, with gravel
Clay, gray, Sentinel Butte Fm.
Date: 7-21-76 Type Rig: Tripod rotary
Casing: 2 in. plastic to 7 ft.
Screen: 2 in. saw-cut plastic 7 to 11 ft.
Remarks: Drilled with clear water, sand pack 6 to 12 ft., hole
sealed with bentonite, split spoon sample taken 10.5 to
12 ft.
Log: Depth in Feet
0-0.5
0.5-10.5
10.5-12
12
Hole 22180
Soil
Sand, silty
Sand, medium to coarse, gravel and coal
Clay, gray, Sentinel Butte Fm.
Date: 7-23-76 Type Rig: Portable auger
Casing: 2 in. plastic to 18 ft.
Screen: 2 in. slotted (.020 in.) plastic 18 to 23 ft.
Remarks: Hole augered and screen jetted into place, used as obser-
vation well in pump test, hole sealed with granular bentonite
121
-------
) plastic 16.5 to 18.5 ft.
screen jetted into position,
hole
Log: Depth in Feet
No log for this hole
Hole 22190
Date: 7-20-76 Type Rig: Portable auger
Casing: 2 in. plastic 16.5 ft.
Screen: 2 in. slotted (.020 in.
Remarks: Hole augered and then
sealed with bentonite.
Log: Depth in Feet
0-4 Soil
4-17 Sand, fine, silty
17-18 Sand, medium to coarse, gravel and coal
18-18.5 Clay, gray. Sentinel Butte Fm.
Hole 22200
Date: 7- -76 Type Rig: Sharpshooter
Casing: 2 in. plastic to 1.5 ft.
Screen: 2 in. slotted (.020 in.)
Remarks: Hole dug with sharpshooter, screen attached to casing at
right angles in shape of "tee," hole located at site of a
seep in the alluvial bank.
Log: Depth in Feet
0-1
1-1.5
1.5
Hole 22210
Soil
Gravel and sand
Clay
Date: 7-19-76 Type Rig: Tripod rotary
Casing: 2 in. plastic to 13 ft.
Screen: 2 in. slotted (.020 in.) plastic 11.5 to 15.5 ft.
Remarks: Drilled with clear water to 15 ft., took split spoon sample
to 17 ft., sealed hole with granular bentonite.
Log: Depth in Feet
0-5
5-15
15-17
Soil
Sand,
Sand,
fine, silty
medium to coarse, gravel
122
-------
Hole 22220
Date: 7-19-76 Type Rig: Portable auger
Casing: 2 in. plastic to 10.5 ft.
Screen: 2 in. slotted (.020 in.) plastic 13.5 to 18.5 ft.
Remarks: Hole augered to 20 ft., jetted screen to 18.5 ft.,
screened, hole sealed with granular bentonite.
Log: Depth in Feet
0-5 Soil
5-15 Sand, fine, silty
15-17 Sand, medium to coarse, gravel
17-20 Clay, sandy, Sentinel Butte Fm.
123
-------
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.
-4
Values in yg/g x 20 = percentage.
124
-------
TABLE B-l. MATFR QUALITY DATA
VOLATILE
SAMPLE
NUMBER
216002
216003
2146O1
21O801
210802
210701
210702
210703
210704
210601
21O602
210603
21O604
2103O1
21O3O2
21O3O3
210304
210201
210201
210202
210203
210101
21O1O2
210103
2105O1
COLLECTION
DATE
11/10/76
3/31/77
7/29/76
7/29/76
11/11/76
7/29/76
11/11/76
3/31/77
6/16/77
7/29/76
11/11/76
3/31/77
6/16/77
7/29/76
11/11/76
4/ 3/77
6/16/77
7/29/76
7/29/76
11/11/76
4/ 3/77
7/29/76
11/10/76
4/ 3/77
7/29/76
DISSOLVED
DEPTH TEMP OXYCEN
M DEO C MG/L PH
4.
4.
6.
6.
6.
6.
11.
11.
11.
11.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
8.
8.
8.
16.
16.
16.
4.
0 10. O
0
4 10.0
4
4
4 10. O
9 10.O
9
9
9 10. O
4
4
4 13. 5
4 10. 3
8 10. 0
8 1O. O
B
8 13. O
5
3
5 10. S
6
4. 2
8. 3
6. 8
6. O
1. 0
4. 3
2. 7
2. 2
O. 7
1. 7
2. 3
2. 0
6. 1
1. 0
2. 0
6. 6
3. O
3. 0
3. 1
6. 5
3. 4
2. 4
3. 3
5. 9
B. 1
9. 3
8. 8
7. 9
7. 8
B. 3
8. 2
8. 1
8. 2
8. 3
8. 4
8. 3
8 6
7. 6
7. 3
7. 8
7.6
8. 1
8. 1
8. 1
8. 1
8. 1
8. 2
8. 6
7. 3
CONDUC-
TIVITY
UMHOS/CM
1322.
1533.
1680.
2O16.
1860.
2080.
2O41.
263O.
1984.
1820
1B37.
1636.
1800.
1377.
1843.
1644.
1652.
1746.
1746.
174O.
1386.
2400.
2O79.
2139.
1512.
TOTAL DISSOLVED SUSPENDED TOTAL SUSPENDED
ALKALINITY SOLIDS SOLIDS SOLIDS SOLIDS BOD
MO/L CACO3 MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MO/L
136.
160.
348.
516.
416.
456.
454.
472.
466.
472.
328.
496.
318.
384.
404
412.
385.
660.
66O.
5O2.
604.
EBO.
636.
792.
288.
1022.
1081.
1119. 23. 1142.
1394.
1329.
1038.
1375.
1391.
1389.
1182.
1248.
1169.
1258.
998.
1323.
1319.
1208.
1147.
1147.
1093.
11 SO.
1633.
1430.
1601.
1101.
-1.
7.
1.
-1.
1.
-1.
2.
-1.
-1.
-1.
2.
-1.
1.
-I.
1.
-1.
1.
1.
-1.
1.
-1.
1.
2.
-1.
COD
MG/L
59.
44.
6O.
28.
28.
20.
8.
28.
16.
1O.
4.
32.
IS.
2O.
20.
27.
16.
24
24.
24.
IB.
16.
16.
13.
20.
CL
MG/L
23.
15.
2O.
25.
16.
17.
15.
15.
73.
20.
12.
19.
38.
25.
19.
37,
68.
17.
17.
12.
17.
B
6.
8.
20.
-------
TABLE B-l. Continued
VOLATILE
SAMPLE
NUMBER
21O3O2
210503
210504
210401
2104O2
210901
21O9O2
211501
211502
2246O1
_, 2246O2
ro
CT1 224603
224604
224605
22O201
220203
220203
220204
2201O1
22O102
2201O3
220301
2203O2
22O3O3
220304
COLLECTION DEPTH TEMP
DATE M DEC C
11/11/76
4/ 3/77
6/16/77
7/29/76
11/11/76
7/29/76
11/11/76
7/28/76
11/11/76
7/29/76
ll/ 9/76
4/ 1/77
6/15/77
6/17/77
7/2B/76
ll/ 9/76
4/ 2/77
6/13/77
7/28/76
11/11/76
4/ 2/77
7/28/76
11/11/76
4/ 2/77
6/17/77
4.
4.
4
10.
10.
3.
5.
6.
6.
5.
5.
3.
3.
11.
11.
11.
13.
13.
13.
13.
6
6 10. 0
6 10. 5
4
4
2
2
2
2
25. 3
5
5
3 1O. 0
5 B.S
3
3
3 12. O
7
7
7 5.0
7 10. O
DISSOLVED
OXYOEN
MC/L PH
3. 7
2. 6
3. 6
2. 4
1. 3
1. 8
1. 2
2. 8
0. B
14. 6
10.2
-0. 1
14.3
7. 0
1.2
3. 3
1. 7
0. 1
5. 3
1. 7
2.6
6. 6
2. 8
1. 0
1 3
7. 3
7. 7
7. 3
8 0
S. 1
7. 4
7. 2
B. 3
8. 3
9. 5
8 1
7. 6
9. 6
O. O
7.0
7. 3
7. 1
7. 4
7. 9
7. 3
7.3
8. 0
7.3
7. 6
7. 6
CONDUC-
TIVITY
UMHOS/CM
2340.
1396.
1637.
16OO.
2037.
1890.
2916.
3690.
2203.
244Q.
383.
1617.
1581.
2340.
37BO.
3030.
3121.
3723.
3720.
3150.
2808.
3073.
2600.
3168.
TOTAL DISSOLVED SUSPENDED TOTAL SUSPENDED
ALKALINITY SOLIDS SOLIDS SOLIDS SOLIDS BOD
MO/L CACO3 MO/L MG/L HO/L MO/L MQ/L
328.
344.
343.
364.
380.
404.
424.
60O.
380.
404.
356.
112.
188.
226.
484.
540.
354.
610.
392.
348.
360.
936.
384.
340.
648.
1281.
1277.
12O6.
931.
1011.
1512.
1374.
2326.
2504.
1578. 247. 1825.
1726. 46. 1772.
392. 19. 411.
1 184. 172. 1356.
1132. 66. 1198.
2414.
3237.
2796.
273O.
2378.
3151.
2883.
2199.
2313.
2251.
2753
-1.
1.
-1.
1.
-1.
-1.
-1.
1.
2.
33.
4. 24.
10. 28.
135. 74.
46. 29.
1.
1.
1.
-1.
3
-1.
10.
-1.
-t.
1.
8.
COD
MG/L
14.
2O.
15.
a.
24.
26.
B.
2O.
36.
405.
227.
103.
320.
181.
44.
66:
48.
40.
48.
44.
78.
40.
44.
34.
66.
CL
MG/L
14
23.
49.
14.
18.
25.
21.
7.
3.
107.
1O3
28.
99.
85.
86
91.
138.
89.
89.
94.
28.
67.
94.
108.
-------
TABLE B-l. Continued
VOLATILE
SAMPLE
NUMBER
221101
221 1O2
231103
221104
220301
22O5O2
22O303
22O304
22O4O1
22O4O2
22O4O3
2212O1
221202
2212O3
2212O4
221301
221302
2213O3
2217O1
221702
221703
2217O4
221OO1
2210O2
221OO3
COLLECTION
DATE
7/2B/76
lit 9/76
3/31/77
6/13/77
7/28/76
ll/ 9/76
3/31/77
6/16/77
7/28/76
U/1O/76
3/31/77
7/29/76
11/10/76
4/ 2/77
6/16/77
7/29/76
11/1O/76
4/ 2/77
7/28/76
ll/ 9/76
4/ 2/77
6/13/77 ;
7/28/76
ll/ 9/76
4/ 2/77
DEPTH TEMP
M DEG C
S.
3.
3.
3.
4.
4.
4.
4.
3.
3.
3.
9.
9.
9.
9.
14.
14.
14.
2.
2.
2-
2-'
3.
3.
3.
B • 11. O
8
8 1O. O
8 8. O
O
O
O
0 19. 0
8
8
8 11.3
8
8
8
8 12. O
9 1O. O
9
9 11. O
1
1
1 3. 0
1 77. 7
O 11. O
O
O 7. 3
DISSOLVED
OXYOEN
MO/L PH
1.
2.
1.
O.
3.
1.
2.
1.
6.
1.
1.
O.
O.
-O.
2.
6.
4.
-O.
1.
1.
3.
3.
2.
1.
2.
3
4
9
3
3
O
2
3
2
6
3
3
3
1
4
3
4
1
3
2
1
9
5
O
4
6.
7.
7.
7.
7.
7.
7.
8.
7.
7.
7.
7.
7.
7.
7.
8.
7.
7.
7.
7.
7.
7.
7,
7.
7.
1
3
3
6
2
6
3
2
2
2
3
1
3
2
4
3
9
4
1
4
2
4
1
S
2
CONDUC-
TIVITY
UMHOB/CM
4«23.
4197.
4283.
4300.
6OOO.
343O.
39OO.
3800.
3330.
4826.
22OO.
2386.
2168.
2218.
3332.
3174.
2268.
2294.
2473.
21OO.
2233.
3443.
4334.
TOTAL DISSOLVED SUSPENDED TOTAL SUSPENDED
ALKALINITY SOLIDS SOLIDS BOLIDB SOLIDS BOD
MO/L CAC03 MO/L MO/L MG/L MO/L MO/L
316.
376.
6OB.
389.
6O4.
64O.
6O8.
629.
336.
624.
644.
336.
618.
622.
643.
716.
744.
664.
788.
6OO.
396.
648.
336.
604.
384.
4333.
3924.
4716.
4698.
6143.
3843.
6397.
6373.
6491.
3693.
3408.
1328.
168O.
1713.
17O4.
243O.
2333.
1769.
1394.
173O.
1721.
1699.
3792.
3432.
5393.
1.
-1.
3.
-1.
1.
-I.
1.
1.
-1.
1.
2.
1.
1.
1.
1.
-1.
1.
3.
1.
1.
1.
-1.
1.
1.
1.
COD
MG/L
32.
31.
7O.
41.
32.
62.
72.
63.
83.
37.
66.
48.
36.
43.
43.
32.
39.
75.
28.
66.
39.
49.
79.
82.
73.
CL
MG/L
113.
116.
114.
133.
113.
92.
1O3.
136.
1O6.
94
96.
95.
97.
1OO.
112.
2O.
6.
102.
95.
92.
99.
115
93.
92.
104.
-------
TABLE B-l. Continued
VOLATILE
CXI
SAMPLE
NUMBER
221O04
221901
221902
2219O3
221904
220701
220702
220703
22O6O1
22O602
22O603
22O604
22OSO1
22O8O2
22O8O3
220B04
220901
220902
22O904
2220O1
222OO2
222003
2220O4
224101
224104
COLLECTION DEPTH
DATE M
6/13/77
7/28/76
11/10/76
4/ 1/77
6/17/77
7/28/76
11/10/76
4/ 1/77
7/29/76
11/10/76
4/ 1/77
6/17/77
7/29/76
11/1O/76
4/ 1/77
6/17/77
7/28/76
ll/ 9/76
6/13/77
7/28/76
ll/ 9/76
4/ 1/77
6/16/77
7/30/76
6/13/77
3. 0
4. 9
4. 9
4. 9
4. 9
3. 4
3. 4
3. 4
1-4. 9
14. 9
14. 9
14. 9
"2O. 7
2O. 7
2O. 7
20. 7
4. 0
4. O
4. O
0. 9
0. 9
O. 9
0.9
DISSOLVED
TEMP OXYGEN
DEO C MO/L PH
8. 3
1O. 0
12.0
8. O
19. O
14. 3
9. O
9. 0
9.0
7. 3
7. 5
to. o
12. 0
11. 0
4.
1.
1.
1.
O.
4.
2.
6.
1.
1.
2.
3.
1.
3.
1.
3.
4.
2.
3.
3.
3.
4.
3.
8
0
3
2
3
0
7
8
1
3
3
6
2
4
9
3
1
3
0
O
6
4
4
7.
6.
7.
6.
6.
7.
7.
7.
8.
8.
8.
8.
8.
8.
a.
8.
7.
7.
7.
7.
7.
7.
7.
8.
6
4
3
3
7
2
2
7
1
O
O
2
2
2
0
2
O
4
4
2
3
1
3
2
CONDUC-
TIVITY
UMHOS/CH
4779.
4620.
31O8.
4373.
4738.
620O.
6044.
4343.
3932.
3894.
3660.
3703.
4158.
4O84.
3748.
3933.
1998.
Z029.
2346.
4384.
384O.
4563.
3366.
TOTAL DISSOLVED SUSPENDED TOTAL SUSPENDED
ALKALINITY SOLIDS SOLIDS SOLIDS SOLIDS BOD
MO/L CAC03 MO/L MO/L MO/L MO/L MO/L
727.
392.
412.
404.
437.
636.
564.
672.
768.
806.
696.
B02.
836.
812.
804.
827.
476.
562.
573.
604.
368.
504.
524.
596.
4996.
. 3392.
3698.
9622.
3639.
74O2.
6843.
3311.
29O4.
2706.
2903.
2959.
3161.
3O63.
3113.
2707.
1783.
1434.
1863.
4784.
4629.
4963.
3281.
-1.
1.
-1.
1.
-1.
2.
1.
-1.
1.
2.
-1.
-1.
4.
1.
-1.
-1.
1.
1.
-1.
-1.
-1.
-1.
-1.
COD
MO/L
33.
107.
109.
1O3.
93.
97.
94.
BO.
36.
31.
23.
10.
2O.
47.
26.
11.
28.
45.
34.
32.
113.
69.
54.
97.
CL.
MO/L
187.
92.
97.
93.
103.
92.
97.
60.
7.
-I.
8.
35.
8
-1.
8.
36.
92.
BO.
122.
92.
96.
9O.
83.
144.
-------
TABLE B-l. Continued
VOLATILE
DISSOLVED CONDUC- TOTAL DISSOLVED SUSPENDED TOTAL SUSPENDED
SAMPLE COLLECTION DEPTH TEMP OXYGEN TIVITY ALKALINITY SOLIDS SOLIDS SOLIDS SOLIDS BOD COD CL
—• NUMBER DATE M DEO C MG/L PH UMHO8/CM MO/L CACO3 MO/L MO/L HO/L MO/L MO/L HC/L MO/L
ro
^° 224201 7/3O/76 8. 3 TO8. 166. 163.
224301 7/3O/76 7. 3 676. 3541. 69. 93.
2243O4 6/19/77 1O6.
-------
TABLE B-l. Continued
TOTAL DISSOLVED TOTAL SOLUBLE SOLUBLE
BUI FIDE- TOTAL FECAL ORGANIC ORGANIC ORGANIC ORGANIC TOTAL SOLUBLE ORTHO-
SAMPLE SULFUR COLIFORM COLIFDRM CARBON CARBON NITROGEN NITROGEN NH4 NO3 PHOSPHORUS PHOSPHORUS PHOSPHATE
NUMBER MG/L-S #/lOOML #/lOOML HG/L-C HG/L-C MG/L-N MG/L-N MG/L-N MG/L-N MG/L-P MG/L-P MG/L-P
1. 3
216O03
2160O3 -O 1
214601
21O8O1
31O80?
21O7O1
21070?
210703 -0. 1
210701
21O6O1
_, 21O6O?
CO
O 2106O3 -O. 1
2106O4
210301
210303
210303 -0. 1
21O3O4
210201
21020?
2102O3 -0. 1
21O101
210102
210103 -0. 1
210501
21O507
O.
1.
533,
0.
4.
O.
134
100.
O.
O.
O.
99.9
O.
0.
4.
O.
O.
O.
1367.
O.
0.
88.
0.
O.
O.
O.
0.
33. 22 6
0.
O.
0.
O.
O.
0.
O.
0.
O.
0.
O.
O.
O.
0.
0.
0.
0.
O.
0.
03.
0.
0.
11. 7
18. 4
11. 4
11. 2
7. 0
15. 9
12. B
8. 5
15. 7
10. 6
19. 4
, 4. 7
5. 7
O.
.0.
O.
C-:
O.
O.
0.
1.
0.
0.
0.
0
0.
0
0.
O.
b.
0.
0.
0.
1.
0.
0.
0.
I
8
3
1
•4-
4
2
7
3
7
2
6
6
5
5
9
2
8
S
4
5
9
7
3
4
0
-O.
O.
0.
1
2
1
O. 4
O.
0.
O.
-0.
0.
O.
0.
O.
0.
O.
O.
0.
0.
O.
O.
0
0.
O.
O.
0.
O.
2
3
3
1
3
3
2
1
4
2
4
3
2
3
4
3
5
5
2
3
2
1.
O.
4.
O.
O.
0
O.
-0.
-0.
-O.
0
-O.
-O.
1.
t.
0.
O.
-O.
0.
-0.
-O.
O.
-0.
1.
1
O
4
O O. O3
3
2
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
3
2
4
6
1
1
1
1
2
1
9
1
O.
0.
-O.
O.
0.
O.
0
0.
O.
O.
0.
O.
-0.
O.
O.
0.
0.
0.
O.
-0.
O.
O.
-0.
O.
36
03
Ol
13
02
04
O8
19
O2
07
13
12
01
13
O3
07
O2
19
O9
01
24
14
01
03 '
O.
-0.
-O.
-O.
0.
0.
0.
0.
-O.
O.
0.
O.
-O.
O.
0.
0.
0.
O.
O.
-0.
O.
O,
-O.
0.
18
01
01
01
01
04
06
15
Ol
07
1O
09
01
01
02
06
01
09
O9
01
22
11
01
OP
-------
TABLE B-l. Continued
co
BULF IDE-
SAMPLE SULFUR
NUMBER MC/L-S
210903 -0. 1
21O904
2IO4O1
21O4O2
210901
21O902
211901
211902
224601
2246O2
2246O3 O. 2
2246O4
224609
2202O1
2202O2
2202O3 -O. 1
2202O4
220101
220102
22O103 -0. 1
22O3O1
220302
2203O3 -O. 1
2203O4
221101
TOTAL
COLIFORM
• /100ML
0.
O.
O.
467.
0.
6.
0.
1229.
767.
99.9
99.9
99. V
99.9
O.
6.
0.
O.
367.
O.
0.
O.
4.
0.
0.
0.
TOTAL
FECAL ORGANIC
COLIFORM CARBON
•/100ML MO/L-C
O.
O.
0.
0.
O.
O.
0.
O.
O. 99. 6
71OO. 19. 3
O. 21. 9
199O. 66. 7
99, 67.3
O.
O.
O.
O.
O.
0.
O.
O.
O.
0.
O.
O.
DISSOLVED
ORGANIC
CARBON
MO/L-C
19. 9
6. e
1O. 7
9. O
3. 9
1. 6
17. 4
36. 7
32. O
19. 0
19. 4
40. 7
16. 6
20. 7
10. 8
2B. 9
41.2
2O. 5
TOTAL BOLUPLE
ORGANIC ORGANIC
NITROGEN NITROGEN
HO/L-N MO/L-N
O. 3
0.6
0. 4
0. 9
O. 2
2. B
-O. 1
1.9
O. 9 -O. 1
-O. 1 -O. 1
9. 4 3. 2
11.4
o. e
2. 7
0. B
2. 6
O. 9
2. 3
2. O
-0. 1
0. 6
0. 4
2. 2
1. 0
NH4
MC/L-N
0. 1
0. 3
0.3
O. 2
0. 2
0. 2
0. 3
O. 9
1. 3
13. 9
9.6
8.2
9. 7
-O. 1
O. 9
O. 9
O. 6
0. 3
O. 6
1. 4
o. a
O. 4
0. 9
O. 6
0. 1
NO3
MO/L-N
0. 4
O. 7
O. 4
0. 3
O. 9
0. 9
0. 9
O. 1
3. 6
2. 1
-0. 1
1.0
0.8
0. B
1.2
-0. 1
-O. 1
0. 9
0. 7
-0. 1
1 3
0. 4
-0. 1
0. 0
2 9
TOTAL SOLUBLE
PHOSPHORUS PHOSPHORUS
MO/L-P MO/L-P
0. Ol
O. 04
0. O2
O. 14
-O. Ol
-O. Ol
O. O3
0. 13
3. OO 0. 90
10. 20 8. 9O
4. 60 4. 30
1O. OO 9. 20
6. 80 9. 6O
0. 09
O. O4
0. Ol
O. O2
0. 04
0. 13
O. Ol
0. O2
0. 17
-0. Ol
0. O9
O. O4
SOLUBLE
ORTHO-
PHOSPHATE
MO/L-P
O. Ol
O. 03
O. O2
0. 12
-O. Ol
-O. 01
0. O2
0. 12
0.32
7. 9O
t. 10
9. OO
9. 2O
O. O3
0. O2
O. Ol
O. 02
-O. 01
O. 02
O. Ol
-O. Ol
O. Ol
-O. 01
O. 02
O. 03
-------
TABLIT B-l. Continued
TOTAL DISSOLVED TOTAL SOLUBLE SOLUBLE
SULFIDE- TOTAL FECAL ORGANIC ORGANIC ORGANIC ORGANIC TOTAL SOLUBLE ORTHO-
SAMPLE SULFUR COLIFORM COLIFORM CARBON CARBON NITROGEN NITROGEN NH4 NO3 PHOSPHORUS PHOSPHORUS PHOSPHATE
NUMBER MG/L-S #/lOOML »/100ML MG/L-C MG/L-C MG/L-N MC/L-N MG/L-N MG/L-N MG/L-P MG/L-P MO/L-P
221 1O2
2211O3 -0. 1
221104
220S01
22O5O2
22O5O3 -O. 1
220304
22O4O1
220402
32O403 -O. 1
Co 221201
ro
221 2O2
221203 -0. 1
221204
221301
221302
221303 -O. 1
221701
221702
221703 -O. I
221 7O4
221001
221002
221OO3 -O. 1
221004
0.
2.
0.
0.
O.
0.
0
0.
2O.
83.
0.
O.
O.
O.
O.
0.
0.
0.
O.
O.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
0.
o.
o.
o.
0.
0.
o.
o.
0.
0.
o.
o.
o.
o.
0.
0.
0.
o.
o.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
o.
18. 1
37. 8
23.9
34 6
29. 2
23.9
49. 1
18.8
28. 2
47. 8
13. 2
21. 2
22. 9
24. 1
25. 9
25. 8
2O. 2
43. 4
1.
o.
1.
1.
2.
O.
1.
O.
0.
o.
o.
2.
3.
O.
0.
1.
2.
O.
1.
1.
2.
O.
O.
I.
2.
7
9
3
1
7
4
1
3
9
V
3
6
3
7
2
4
8
6
2
9
8
3
5
1
1
O
-0.
O.
-o.
0.
-o.
o.
-0.
0.
-0.
0.
o.
1.
1.
0.
1.
2.
o.
0.
1.
1.
o.
o.
1.
0.
4
1
3
1
3
I
4
1
4
1
&
6
6
0
4
2
B
9
9
2
2
2
3
2
2
3.
-0.
O.
2.
2.
O.
O.
0.
0.
o.
2.
1.
-0.
-0.
2.
O.
O.
1.
2.
-0.
-0.
2.
2.
1.
O.
7
1
1
1
9
3
2
4
8
3
S
3
1
1
8
9
1
8
8
1
1
3
8
3
3
-O.
0.
0.
o.
o.
0.
o.
0.
0
o.
-o.
o.
0.
o.
o.
o.
0.
-o.
o.
0
0.
o.
0.
o.
0.
01
O7
03
04
12
09
O6
03
02
O3
01
02
02
04
O4
16
01
Ol
02
01
02
03
07
02
O7
-0.
0.
0.
0.
O.
0.
0.
O.
0.
O.
-O.
0.
O.
O.
-O.
O.
O.
-O.
0.
-0.
0.
o.
o.
-0.
o.
01
06
02
O2
02
O8
02
03
02
03
01
O2
02
O3
Ol
O9
Ol
01
O2
01
02
03
04
01
03
-------
TABLE B-l. Continued
TOTAL DISSOLVED TOTAL SOLUBLE SOLUBLE
BULFIDE- TOTAL FECAL ORGANIC ORGANIC ORGANIC ORGANIC TOTAL SOLUBLE ORTHO-
BAMPI E SULFUR COLIFORM COLIFORM CARBON CARBON NITROGEN NITROGEN NH4 NO3 PHOSPHORUS PHOSPHORUS PHOSPHATE
NUMBER MO/L-S
321901
2219O3
2219O3 -0. 1
221704
22O701
22O7O2
220703 -O. 1
22O6O1
22O60?
__, 220603 -O. 1
co
CO 22O601
220BO1
220SO2
220B03 -O. 1
220804
2209O1
220702
220903 -O. 1
220901
222OO 1
2220O2
2220O3 -O. 1
23P004
2241O1
2241O4
«/lOOML
O.
256.
1.
0.
100.
2.
O.
O.
O.
283.
O.
667.
733.
94.
75.
O.
O.
O.
O.
0.
O.
5.
0.
O.
O.
tt/lOOML MG/L-C MQ/L-C MG/L-N MC/L-N
O.
0.
0.
0.
0
O.
O.
O.
O.
0.
O.
0.
O.
O.
0.
0.
0.
O.
0.
O.
O.
0.
0.
0.
0
31.
81.
27.
44.
34.
BS.
23.
6.
17
8.
13
13.
22
15.
24.
BO
38
38
63
6
8
1
3
1
9
a
3
2
4
8
8
7
2
8
2
9
0
2
O
3
0
1.
1
0
O
O.
O
O
2.
1.
1.
O.
1.
O.
1.
O.
2
0.
3.
O
1.
-0
15
8
4
3
6
2
8
6
9
9
3
1
O
O
6
3
1
1
5
5
6
8
9
8
1
7
MQ/L-N
O. 1
0. 3
O. 2
0 8
0. 8
0. 3
O. 3
O. 4
0. 3
O. 4
O. 3
O. 6
O. 6
O. 3
0. 3
0. 2
O. 3
O. 1
0. 3
0. 3
0. 2
0. 1
0. 3
0. 8
0. 7
MO/L-N MG/L-P
1
2
O
0
1
2
1
4
O
-O
-O.
4.
O.
-O.
-O.
O.
3.
-O.
2.
2.
6.
20
1.
75.
O.
5
0
8
9
V
1
0
8
3
1
1
8
3
1
1
8
3
1
0
5
1
0
t>
O 0. 20
?.
MO/L-P
O. 04
O. 05
O. O7
O. O6
-0. 01
0. 22
0. O4
O. 03
O. 24
O. 11
O. 13
O. O2
O. 33
O. 12
O. 10
O. 03
O O2
O. O6
O. O4
-0. 01
O. O2
0. OS
0. 05
MO/L-P
0. 02
-0. Ol
0. 04
0. O2
-O. 01
O. 02
O. O4
0. 02
0. 12
0. 1O
0. 12
O. Ol
0 07
0. 11
O. O9
0. O3
0. 02
0. 03
0. 02
-O. Ol
O. O2
0. 05
O. 02
-------
CO
TABLE B-l. Continued
TOTAL DISSOLVED TOTAL SOLUBLE SOLUBLE
SULFIPE- TOTAL FECAL ORGANIC ORGANIC ORSANIC ORGANIC TOTAL SOLUBLE ORTHO-
SAMPLE Sl'LFUR COLIFORM COLIFORM CARBON CARBON NITROGEN NITROGEN NH4 NO3 PHOSPHORUS PHOSPHORUS PHOSPHATE
NUMBER MG/L-S 3/100ML #/lOOML MG/L-C MG/L-C MG/L-N MG/L-N MG/L-N MG/L-N MG/L-P MG/L-P MG/L-P
2242O1
224301
224304
0.
O.
0.
o.
0.
0
4O. 4
33. 4
56. 7
O. 3
-0. 1
6. 4
0. 8
0. 9
0. 3
73.0
76. 0
0. 8
0. 0
-------
TABLE B-l. Continued
SAMPLE SO4 AL AS 13 CD CA CO CR CU FE PB MO MN
NUMBER MG/L-SO4 MG/L-AL UG/L-AS UG/L-B UG/L-CD MG/L-CA UG/L-CO UG/L-CR UG/L-CU MQ/L-FE UG/L-PB MS/L-MG MG/L-tlN
21600?
216003
214601
2108O1
21080?
210701
2107O?
21070^1
210704
21O601
—" ' 21O6O?
OJ 1
01 | 210603
210604
2103O1
21O30?
21O3O3
21O304
210?01
21O?0?
21020T
21O1OI
210JO2
21O103
21O5O1
21O50?
5BO
606.
467.
549.
608.
D5O.
353.
376.
374.
6O4
574.
501.
626
613.
315
398.
393.
519.
554
-0. 3
-1 0
O. ?
3. 4
-0. 3
0. 7
-O. 3
-1. 0
-0. 3
3. 8
16. 9
-1. O
-O. 3
-O. 3
0. 4
-1. 0
-0. 3
16. 0
1. 0
-1.0
3. 4
-O. 3
-1. 0
o. y
-0. 3
12.
-5.
-10.
-10.
7.
-5.
-5.
8.
-10.
-5.
-3.
9.
-10
-5.
-5.
12.
11.
-5.
5.
-5.
-5.
-1O
14.
527.
346.
250
17O.
858.
13O.
75O.
760.
664
120.
1032.
720.
600.
120.
588
375.
363.
18O.
1082.
6'03.
250.
1192
8^7
T60.
654
-20.
-20
-10.
44.
-20.
-10.
-20.
-20.
-1O.
-20.
-20.
-10.
-20.
-20.
-10.
-2O.
-20.
-10.
-3O.
-30.
-10.
»?0
30.
37.
53.
71.
1O7.
27.
12.
7.
27.
27.
15.
4.
BO.
107.
110.
HO.
23.
5.
13.
23.
89.
13.
112.
94.
-50.
-50
-2O.
-SO.
-50.
-30.
-50.
-30.
-20.
-50.
-30.
-20.
-50.
-5O.
-2O
-50.
-50.
-20.
-SO.
-50.
-20
-5O.
-50.
-50.
-20.
-20.
-50.
-2O.
-50.
-50.
-1OO.
-20.
-50.
-30.
-1OO.
-20.
-30.
-5O.
-100.
-20.
-50.
-50.
-20.
-5O.
-5O.
-20.
-50.
-20.
-20.
-10.
10.
-20.
13.
-2O.
-20.
-30.
10.
-20.
-20.
-30.
1O.
-20.
-20.
-3O.
40.
-20.
-20.
10.
-2O.
-2O.
-10.
-20.
-0. 1
-0. 3
-0. 2
2. 6
1. O
-0. 2
0. 1
-0. 3
3. 5
17. 7
-0. 3
-0. 2
-O. 2
1. 3
1. 0
-0. 2
10. 8
1. 2
-0. 3
3. 8
O. 3
2 4
-0 3
1. Q
-1OO.
-200.
-100.
-1OO.
-1OO.
-100.
-1OO.
-2OO.
-100.
-100.
-20O.
-1OO.
-100.
-200.
-100.
-1OO.
-200.
-100.
-1OO.
-2OO.
-100.
-100.
11. 0
7. 1
30. O
22. 0
33. 0
3. 0
12. 0
4. 3
S. 5
13. O
1. 3
1. O
20. 0
38. 0
35. 0
28. 0
7. 3
2. 3
8. 2
10. 0
8. 6
11.0
24. 0
35. 0
-0. 05
-O. 1O
0. 23
0. 11
-0. 05
-O. O5
-0. 05
-O. 10
-0. 05
0. 13
O. 48
-0. 10
-0. O5
O. 05
0. 07
-O. 10
-0. 05
0. 17
O. O5
-0. 10
O. 12
O. 28
-0. 10
O. 16
0. O5
-------
TABLE 8-1. Continued
SAMPLE
NUMBER
21O5O3
210504
210401
2104O2
21O9O1
21O9O2
211501
2115O2
224601
224602
224603
224604
224609
220201
2202O2
2202O3
22O204
220101
220102
2201O3
22O3O1
22O3O2
220303
220304
221101
804
MO/L-S04
613.
631.
31O.
374.
1318.
333.
833.
116.
135.
1719.
1442.
1230.
1176.
1497.
1451.
1372.
988.
1053.
1167.
AL
MC/L-AL
-1. 0
2. 1
0. 7
0. 7
0. 9
3. 1
-0. 3
0. 7
-0. 3
-1. O
-0.3
O. 8
-0. 3
-0. 3
-1. 0
-0. 3
4. 0
1. 3
-1. O
3. 3
-0. 3
-1. 0
-0. 3
-O. 3
AS
US/L-AS
-3.
11.
-10.
-5.
-3.
-3.
-5.
10.
11.
-10.
14.
-3.
1O.
18.
-3.
-3.
17.
-3.
-3.
12.
23.
B
US/L-B
292.
338.
16O.
1310
160.
1138.
210.
1118
160.
2724.
183.
617.
140.
336.
413.
13O.
798.
544.
12O.
B3O.
369.
444.
18O.
CO
UO/L-CD
-20.
-1O.
-2O.
-10.
-20.
-10.
-20.
-1O.
-20.
-2O.
-10.
-20.
-20.
-10.
-20.
-20.
-1O.
-20.
-20.
-1O.
CA
MO/L-CA
1O70.
no.
38.
179.
113.
8.
6.
61.
123.
8.
43.
33.
149.
322.
240.
288
117.
318.
260.
23.
126.
186.
274.
498.
CO
UO/L-CO
-30,
-20.
-3O.
-20.
-SO.
-20.
-30.
-20.
-50.
-3O.
-20.
-50.
-50.
-2O.
-50.
-50.
-20.
-3O.
-3O.
-20.
CR
UO/L-CR
-30.
-1OO.
-20.
-30.
-2O.
-30.
-20.
-3O.
-20.
-30.
-30.
-10O.
-1OO.
-2O.
-3O.
-30.
-100.
-20.
-30.
-30.
-20.
-5O.
-3O.
-1OO.
-20.
CO
UG/L-CU
-20.
-30.
11.
-20.
-10.
-20.
1O.
-20.
20.
-20.
-2O.
-30.
-30.
1O.
-20.
-20.
-30.
4O.
188.
62.
30.
28.
-20.
203.
10.
FE
MO/L-FE
-0. 3
0. 2
2. 9
1.2
0. 7
3. 3
2. 8
0. 8
1. 1
O. 9
0. 4
0. 2
0.9
-0. 2
1. 7
2.8
2.3
3. 7
3 2
-0 3
3.3
0. 1
1.8
-O. 2
4. 7
PB
UC/L-PB
-2OO.
-1OO.
-100.
-1OO.
-1OO.
-1OO.
-10O.
-100
-too.
-2OO.
-10O.
-10O.
-200.
-10O.
-100.
-2OO.
-1OO.
-10O.
-200.
-10O.
no
MC/L-HG
33. O
27. 0
2.3
12. O
37. O
44. 0
6. 4
13.0
20. 0
22. 0
2. 9
13. O
14. O
44. 0
98. 0
87. 0
48. O
4. 0
93. O
16. O
44. 0
70.0
82. 0
82. 0
MN
MG/L-MN
1. 00
-0. 03
O. O6
O. 11
O. 34
O. 63
0. 08
O. O7
0 06
0. 09
-O. 1O
-0. 03
-0. 03
3. 20
4. 60
3.80
3. 40
0. 74
3. 00
3. OO
0. 12
0. 13
2. 6O
2. 9O
O. 47
-------
TABLE B-l. Continued
to
SAMPLE
NUMBER
221102
221103
221104
2205O1
220302
220503
22O504
220401
220402
220403
221201
221202
221203
221204
2213O1
221302
221303
221701
221702
221703
221704
221001
221002
221003
221O04
S04
MO/L-S04
2193.
2677.
2293.
3136.
4076.
3876.
3528.
3214.
3918.
3236.
745.
692.
573
943.
586.
470.
595.
611.
542.
2960.
3459.
3236.
2538.
AL
MC/L-AL
-0. 3
-1. 0
-0. 3
-0. 3
-0. 3
-1. 0
-0. 3
-0. 3
-0. 3
-1. 0
3. 3
-0. 3
-1. O
-0. 3
4. 4
-0. 3
-1. 0
2. B
0. 5
-1. 0
-0. 3
1. 3
-0. 3
-1. O
-0. 3
A3
UC/L-AS
-3.
62.
20.
34.
15.
18.
21.
35.
7.
20.
12.
-5.
71.
11.
16.
12.
68.
12.
26.
16.
14.
23.
7.
e.
21.
B
UC/L-B
14O9.
970.
828
160.
1248.
772.
735
260.
733.
917.
12O.
332.
343.
285.
200.
342.
474.
120.
499.
490.
260.
7225.
1171.
1210.
CD
UG/L-CD
-20.
-2O.
-10.
-20.
-2O.
-10.
-20.
-20.
-10.
-20.
-20.
-10.
-20.
-20.
-10.
-20.
-20.
-1O.
-20.
-2O.
CA
KO/L-CA
40O.
563.
399.
764.
849.
833
323.
664.
63O.
432.
164.
217.
176.
182.
31.
3O.
133.
143.
172.
163.
148.
293.
435.
397.
233.
CO
UO/L-CO
-50.
-50.
-20.
-30.
69.
-20.
-50.
-30.
-20.
-30.
-50.
-2O.
-30.
-50.
-20.
-30.
-30.
-2O.
-50.
-5O.
CR
UO/L-CR
-30.
-30.
-100.
-20.
-30.
-3O.
-1OO.
-20.
-30.
-3O.
-20.
-30.
-3O.
-1OO.
-2O.
-30.
-30.
-20.
-50.
-3O.
-1OO.
-20.
-50.
-30.
-too.
CU
UO/L-CU
-20.
-20.
-50.
40.
-20.
34.
73.
4O.
-20.
180.
10.
-20.
-20.
-3O.
30.
142.
-20.
10.
-20.
-20.
-30.
20.
-20.
41.
-50.
FE
MO/L-FE
1.2
3. 6
4. 2
0. 2
2. 1
6. 6
1. 2
-0. 2
O. 3
1. 8
14. 0
10.3
11. 4
11. 4
3. 8
O. 6
2. 0
3. 3
3. 6
1. 6
1. O
1. 7
0. 6
0. 5
O. 2
KB
UO/L-FB
-1OO.
-2OO.
-1OO.
-100.
-200.
-10O.
-10O.
-2OO.
-100.
-1OO.
-20O.
-100.
-100.
-20O.
-100.
-10O.
-200.
-1OO.
-100.
-2OO.
MO
MS/U-MO
17. 0
16. 0
80. 0
86. 0
88. 0
44. O
89. 0
82.0
33. O
94. O
43. 0
44. 0
49. O
42. 0
16. 0
17.0
36. 0
37. O
38. 0
49. O
36. 0
64.0
94.0
24. 0
87. 0
MN
M8/L-MN
0.21
0. 60
0. 31
-0. O5
0. 13
0. 2O
-0. 05
0. 33
0. 32
0. 70
3. 40
1. 3O
1. OO
0. 94
0. 16
0. 76
3. 60
3. 00
4. 40
4. 20
3.86
0. IB
0. 14
-O. 1O
-0. 05
-------
TABLE B-l. Continued
CD
SAMPLE S04
NUMBER MO/L-SO4
2219O1
221902
231703
2219O4
220701
220702
220703
220601
220602
220603
22O6O4
22O801
22O8O2
220803
220804
22O901
220902
22O903
220904
222OO1
222OO2
2220O3
222OO4
2241O1
224104
2626.
4282.
3687.
3133.
4253.
4610.
3326.
784.
1402.
1478.
1348.
1624.
1541.
1448.
510.
519.
541.
384.
3254.
3064.
2876.
1798.
1568.
AL
MG/L-AL
-0. 3
0. 4
-1. O
-0. 3
4. 4
-O. 3
-1. 0
2. 9
-0. 3
-1. 0
-0.3
1. 3
-0. 3
-1. 0
-0. 3
-0. 3
-0. 3
-1. 0
-0. 3
-0. 3
O. 5
-1.6
-0.3
-0. 3
AS
UC/U-AS
-10.
9.
10.
9.
31.
6.
-5.
14.
22.
-5.
21.
22.
7.
-5.
19.
-fo.
9.
10.
9.
15.
11.
13.
B
UG/L-B
190.
663.
661.
674.
240.
1O27.
908.
260.
458.
511.
506.
2OO
436.
514.
507.
17O.
637.
498.
100.
631.
498.
140.
CD
UG/L-CD
-10.
-2O.
30.
-10.
-20.
-20.
-10.
-20.
-2O.
-10.
-20.
-20.
-10.
-20.
-20.
-10.
-20.
-2O.
-10.
CA
MG/L-CA
649.
388.
741.
376.
626.
816.
452.
27.
46.
39.
26.
12.
88.
19.
26.
179.
1OO.
141.
176.
709.
620.
820.
417.
68.
77
CO CR
UG/L-CO UG/L-CR
-20.
-50.
-50.
-2O.
-5O.
-30.
-20.
-50.
-50.
-20.
-5O.
-30.
-2O.
-3O.
-30.
-2O.
-30.
-SO.
-20.
-20.
-50.
-50.
-10O.
-20.
-30.
-30.
-2O.
-SO.
-30.
-100.
-20.
-30.
-50.
-too.
-80.
-50.
-30.
-10O.
-20.
-30.
-30.
-1OO.
-2O.
CU
UO/L-CU
2O.
-20
-2O.
-30.
4O.
-2O.
76.
20.
-20.
-20.
-3O.
10.
-20.
-20.
-3O.
1O.
-20.
-20.
-30.
10.
-20.
62.
-SO.
20.
F£
MG/L-FE
-0.2
0. 3
1.6
0.2
8. 4
7.8
3.9
3. 9
1.2
0. 7
O. 3
2. 9
-O. 1
0. 3
-0.2
-0.3
O. 2
0. 9
0. 4
-0. 2
3.0
1. 2
0.8
0. 2
PB
UG/L-PB
-10O.
-200.
-100.
-10O.
-200.
-100.
-too.
-200.
-10O.
-1OO.
-200.
-100.
-100.
-20O.
-100.
-1OO.
-20O.
-100.
MO
MG/L-MG
9O. O
14. O
57. O
39. O
86. O
23- O
9. 2
12.0
11. O
13. O
3. 1
13. 0
10.0
43.0
39. O
30.0
52. 0
95. 0
26. O
58. O
9.0
47.0
FIN
MG/L-MN
0. 54
0. 93
1.20
0.86
2. 10
2. 60
1. 90
O. 13
O. 05
-O. 10
-O. O3
0. 07
-0. 09
-0. 10
-0.03
1. 3O
1. 10
1.8O
1. 80
-0. 05
0. 50
-O. 1O
-0. OS
0. 12
-------
TABLE B-l. Continued
SAMPLE S04 AL AS B CD CA CO CH CU FE PB MS MN
NUMBER MO/L-S04 MQ/L-AL UO/L-AS UO/L-B UO/L-CD MO/L-CA UO/L-CO UB/L-CR UG/L-CU MG/L-FE UQ/L-PB MO/L-MO MG/L-MN
W 2242O1 163B. -0. 3
to
224301 H76. -0.3
2243O4
110.
140.
343.
-1O.
-10.
77.
164.
77.
-20.
-20.
-20.
-2O.
20.
4O.
-O. 2
-0. 2
-1OO
-1OO.
B7. 0
68. 0
-0. 05
-0. 03
-------
TABLE B-l. Continued
SAMPLE
NUMBER
216002
216003
214601
210801
2108O2
21O701
210702
210703
21O704
2106O1
210602
210603
210604
21O3O1
210302
210303
21O3O4
210201
210202
210203
210101
210102
210103
210301
210502
HG
UG/L-HQ
-1. O
-1.0
-1. O
-1. O
-1. 0
-1. 0
-l.O
-1. 0
1-1. 0
-1.6
-l.O
-1. 0
-1. 0
-1.0
-l.O
-1.0
-1. 0
-1. 0
-1.0
-l.O
NI
UG/L-NI
-SO.
97.
-30.
-50.
-30.
-3O.
-30.
-30.
-100.
-3O.
64.
-30.
-100.
-SO.
-SO.
-SO.
-too.
-30.
-30.
-3O.
-30.
-SO.
-90.
-SO.
-50.
K
HG/L-K
9. 8
8. 3
12. 4
7.3
6.2
4. 8
6. 7
2. 3
3. 1
4. 7
6. 0
1. 8
2. 7
8. 3
8. 7
6. 1
6.2
7.8
4. 3
2. 5
7. 2
S. 3
4.3
8. 0
6. S
NA
MC/L-NA
3O9.
314.
309.
373.
387.
466.
309.
483.
413.
346.
474.
434.
413.
229.
307.
297.
227.
4O6.
339.
362.
381.
583.
531.
257.
283.
ZN
UG/L-ZN
-20.
39.
-50.
101.
187.
58.
34.
-20.
37.
113.
414.
-20.
-20.
-50.
32.
39.
36.
-50.
41.
139.
-SO.
-20.
23.
74.
-20.
8E
UC/L-SE
7.
-10.
-10.
-10.
9.
9.
-1O.
-1O.
-1O.
7.
-10.
-1O.
-10.
7.
-1O.
-to.
-1O.
7.
10.
9.
-10.
-1O.
7.
ENDRIN
NG/L
-0. 03
-O. O3
-0. O3
-0. 03
-O. O3
-0. 03
-0. O3
-0.03
-0.03
-0. 03
-0. 03
-0. O3
-O. O3
-O. 03
-0. 03
-O. O3
-O. 03
-0. O3
-0. 03
-0. O3
-O. 03
-O. OS
-0. 03
-0. 03
-0. 03
LINDANE
NG/L
-1. 5
3. 8
-2. 0
13. 6
-1. 3
108.
-1. 3
26. 4
36. 3
392.
-1. 3
273.
1O6.
-2. 0
-1. 3
-O. 4
5.3
117.
-1. 3
32. 6
73.8
-1. 3
1O2.
91. 6
-1. 3
METHOXY-
CHLOR
NG/L
-0.01
-O. Ol
-O. Ol
-0. Ol
-O. 01
-0.01
-O. 01
-O. Ol
-O. Ol
-O. Ol
-0. 01
-O. Ol
-O. 01
-O. Ol
-0.01
-0. Ol
-0.01
-O. 01
-o. ot
-0. Ol
-O. Ol
-0. Ol
-0. 01
-0.01
-O. 01
TOXA-
PHENE
NG/L
-O. 1
-0. 1
-O. 1
-0. 1
-0. 1
-0. 1
-0. I
-0. 1
-0. 1
-O. 1
-0. 1
-O. 1
-O. 1
-0. 1
-0. 1
-O. 1
-0. 1
-O. 1
-0. 1
-O. 1
-0. 1
-0. 1
-O. 1
-O. 1
-0. 1
2.4-0
NG/L
-8.4
10. 4
2.7
-1. 2
-8. 4
-1.2
-8.4
14.0
9.2
1. 4
-8. 4
16.2
-1. 4
-1. 2
-8. 4
13. 1
12.8
1. 4
-8. 4
-0. 3
-1.2
-8. 4
32. 4
1.6
-8. 4
2. 4. 3 TP
SILVEX
N6/L
86. 2
31. 4
-0.2
-O. 2
77.6
-O. 2
96. 1
21. 9
6.7
-0. 2
76. 3
23. 6
-O. 4
-O. 2
132.
10.3
18.0
-O. 2
93. 6
70. 6
-0.2
38. 3
60.3
-0. 2
110.
-------
TABLE B-l. Continued
SAMPLE
NUMBER
210503
210504
210401
2104O2
21O901
210902
211501
211502
224601
224602
224603
224604
224603
220201
220202
220203
220204
2201O1
220102
220 1O3
220301
2203O2
220303
220304
221101
HO
UC/L-HO
-1. 0
-1. 0
-1. 0
-1. 0
-1. 0
-1. O
-1. 0
-1. O
-1.0
-1. 0
-1. 0
-1. 0
-1. O
-1. 0
-1. O
-1. O
-1. O
-1. 0
-1. O
NI
UO/L-NI
-30.
-100.
-50.
-50.
-30.
31.
-50.
31.
-50.
64.
-50.
-1OO.
-100.
-30.
64.
-5O.
-100.
-50.
-50.
-3O.
-SO.
92.
-30.
-100.
-30.
K
MG/L-K
5. 3
3. 6
3. 1
3. 3
7. 8
6. 7
7. 8
6. 2
41. O
30. 8
2. 5
24. 0
21. 7
9. 4
9. 2
7. 6
11. 5
14. 1
11. 5
8. 5
11. O
7. 5
6. 8
11.6
13. 0
NA
MO/L-NA
234.
213.
404.
413.
293.
344.
851.
923.
434.
491.
56.
28O.
267.
357.
496.
351.
392.
778.
587.
300
871.
5O9.
462.
446.
381.
ZN
UO/L-ZN
96.
32.
-50.
36.
-30.
35.
-SO.
82.
38.
123.
17.
22.
29.
-30.
74.
96.
43.
-30.
1454.
1098.
-5O.
454.
582.
378.
-30.
5E
UO/L-SE
-10.
-1O.
-10.
8.
8.
13.
-10.
-10.
-1O.
12.
13.
-1O.
-10.
21.
16.
-1O.
19.
22.
-10.
11.
24.
ENDRIN
NO/L
-O. 03
-0. 03
-0. 03
-0. 03
-0. 03
-O. 03
-0. 03
-0. 03
-0. 03
-0. 03
-0. 03
-0. 03
-0. 03
-0. O3
-0. 03
-O. 03
-0. C3
-0. 03
-0. 03
-0. 03
-0. 03
-0. 03
-0. 03
-0. 03
-0. 03
LINDANE
NO/L
-0
3.
84.
-1.
41.
7.
62.
1.
82.
152.
1690.
8.
54.
3.
3.
1.
10.
31.
-1.
2.
11.
3.
7.
17.
4
4
O
3
0
3
7
8
0
3
0
2
3
7
9
2
3
O
7
4
3
8
METHOXY- TOXA-
CHLOR PHENE
NO/L NO/L
-0.01
-0. 01
-0. 01
-0. 01
-0. 01
-0. 01
-0. Ol
-O. Ol
-0. 01
-0. Ol
-0. 01
-0. 01
-0. 01
-0. Ol
-0. 01
-O. 01
-0. 01
-0. 01
-0. 01
-0. 01
-O. Ol
-O. 01
-0. 01
-0. 01
-0. 01
-0. 1
-0. 1
-0. 1
-0. 1
-0. 1
-0. 1
-0. 1
-0. 1
-0. 1
-O. 1
-0. 1
-0. 1
-0. 1
-0. 1
-0. 1
-0. 1
-0. 1
-0. 1
-0. 1
-0. 1
-0. 1
-0. 1
-0. 1
-0. 1
-0. 1
2. 4-D
NO/L
-0. 3
10. 4
2. 1
-8. 4
1. 8
-8. 4
-1.2
-8. 4
2. 3
-8. 4
80. 0
-1. 4
-1. 4
1. 6
-8. 4
13. 0
-1. 4
-1. 2
-8. 4
13.8
-1. 2
-8. 4
-0. 3
6. 0
1. 3
2, 4, 3 TP
SILVEX
NO/L
8. 1
8. 7
-0.2
141.
-O. 2
123.
-O. 2
272.
-0. 2
72. 8
354.
17. 2
20. 2
-0. 2
112.
21. 6
7. 4
-0. 2
181.
9. 9
-0. 2
92. 3
14. 0
3. 7
-0. 2
-------
TABLE B-l. Continued
SAMPLE
NUMBER
221102
221 1O3
221104
220301
220902
220503
220304
2204O1
2204O2
22O403
2212O1
— • 221202
l>0 221203
221204
2213O1
2213O2
221303
221701
221702
2217O3
221704
221001
221002
221OO3
221O04
HO
UG/L-HG
-I.
-1,
-1.
-1
-1.
-1.
-1.
-1.
-1.
-t.
-1.
-1.
-I.
-1.
-1.
-1.
-I.
-I.
-1.
-1.
O
.O
O
. 0
. O
0
0
0
.0
O
O
O
0
0
O
0
O
O
O
0
NI
UO/L-NI
38.
-SO.
-1OO.
-30.
92.
-30.
-1OO.
-30.
73.
-SO.
-W.
-SO.
-so.
-100.
-90.
91.
-30.
-SO.
64.
-30.
-1OO.
-3O.
71.
-SO.
-too.
K
MG/L-K
9. S
9. 4
14. 0
17. 1
17.7
13. O
18. &
19. 7
16.0
1O. 0
10. 1
9. 9
6.7
10. 1
11.3
9.2
6. 7
s. a
6.0
4.0
10.3
24.0
20.0
13. O
19.3
NA
MG/L-NA
330.
619.
938.
992.
617.
6O2.
967.
SS7.
646.
633.
390.
361.
331.
3O7.
796.
730.
492.
393.
404.
398.
334.
697.
772.
663.
702.
ZN
UG/L-ZN
48.
96.
36.
-3O.
209.
1099.
186.
72.
27.
994.
-SO.
39.
110.
93.
-30.
441.
911.
-SO.
-20.
93.
36.
-9O.
48.
368.
72.
SE
UG/L-SE
17.
18.
11.
29.
22.
19.
78.
30.
23.
12.
-10.
to.
-10.
-10.
18.
20.
-10.
-10.
11.
-10.
-10.
90.
41.
22.
31.
ENDRIN
NO/L
-0. 03
-0. 03
-0.03
-O. 03
-0.03
-O. O3
-O. 03
-0.03
-0.03
-O. O3
-O. O3
-O. O3
-0. O3
-0.03
-0. 03
-O. 03
-0.03
-O. O3
-O. 03
-0. 03
-O. 03
-O. 03
-0.03
-0.03
-0.03
LINDANE
NO/I.
-1. 9
11.0
8.4
8.8
2.6
23.6
44.6
4. 9
2.7
42.9
12.2
2. 7
-0. 4
4.9
6.6
-1. 9
82.2
6.7
-I. 9
2. 7
14. O
3. 1
-1. 9
6. 7
METHOXY-
CHLOR
NO/L
-0.01
-0. 01
-0.01
-O. 01
-0.01
-0.01
-0.01
-O. 01
-0.01
-O. 01
-O. 01
-O. 01
-0.01
-0.01
-O. 01
-0.01
-0. 01
-0.01
-0.01
-O. Ol
-O. 01
-0.01
-O. 01
-0.01
-0. 01
TOXA-
PHENE
NO/L
-0. 1
-O. 1
-0. 1
-0. 1
-0. 1
-O. 1
-O. 1
-O. 1
-0. 1
-0. 1
-0. 1
-0. 1
-O. 1
-O. 1
-O. 1
-0. 1
-O. 1
-0. 1
-0. I
-0. 1
-O. 1
-0. 1
-0. 1
-0. 1
-0. 1
2. 4-D
NG/L
-8.4
1O. 0
-1.4
l.B
-8.4
13.0
-1.4
1.6
-8.4
33.8
2.0
-8. 4
9.7
-1.4
-1.2
-8. 4
-0.9
1. 9
-8.4
-O. 9
4.4
-1.2
-8.4
26.0
-1. 4
2, 4i 9 TP
6ILVEX
NG/L
77.8
11.2
-0.2
44. 3
9.8
9. O
-0.2
77.2
19.3
-O. 2
87.0
10.3
23.9
-0.2
41. 4
77.4
-0.2
74.9
166.
14.8
-0.2
49. 1
11. 9
23.7
-------
TABLE B-l. Continued
co
SAMPLE
NUMBER
221901
221902
221903
221904
220701
220702
220703
22O601
220602
220603
220604
220801
22O802
2208O3
2208O4
2209O1
22O902
220903
220904
222001
222002
222O03
222004
224101
224104
HO
UG/L-HO
-1.
-1.
-1.
-1.
-1.
-1.
-1.
-1.
-1.
-1.
-1.
-1.
-1.
-1.
-1.
-I.
-1.
-1.
0
o
0
0
0
o
0
0
o
0
o
0
0
0
o
o
0
o
Nt
UO/L-NI
-30.
92.
-50.
-1OO.
-SO.
78.
-SO.
-SO.
-SO.
-SO.
-10O.
-SO.
-SO.
-SO.
-100.
-so.
-so.
-so.
-too.
-50.
71.
-5O.
-100.
-SO.
-100.
K
MG/L-K
14.2
18. 7
8. 3
14. 6
8.2
14. 9
9. 1
10 2
7. O
3. 8
9. 6
4. 3
3. 3
12. 3
8. 3
6. 7
4. 6
6. 2
13. 4
9.8
7. 3
15.8
34. 0
NA
MG/L-NA
314.
4O3.
339.
286.
941.
7O4.
771.
697.
904.
932.
1010.
973.
962.
980.
352.
33S.
331.
313.
396.
413.
432.
392.
730.
ZN
UG/L-ZN
-30.
61.
161.
64.
-3O.
34.
904.
-SO.
-2O.
239.
43.
38.
21.
16O.
68.
-SO.
23.
68.
22.
-SO.
35.
232.
100.
-50.
BE
UQ/L-SE
10.
9.
-1O.
11.
64.
36.
29.
29.
20.
19.
23.
36.
19.
20.
23.
10.
9.
-10.
11.
28.
20.
ENOR IN
NG/L
-0.
-O.
-O.
-0.
-O.
-O.
-0.
-0.
-O.
-0.
-0.
-0.
-0.
-0.
-0.
-O.
-0.
-0.
-0.
-O.
-0.
-0.
-0.
-0.
O3
03
03
03
03
O3
03
03
03
O3
03
03
O3
O3
03
03
O3
03
03
03
03
03
03
O3
LINDANE
NG/L
12. 3
-1. 3
7. 3
1. 5
23. 4
-1. 3
3. 4
12. 2
-1. 3
3. 4
11.9
37. 2
-1. 3
6. 1
2. 3
4. 0
-1. 3
3. 7
13.3
3. 3
2. 1
17. 4
3.6
HETHOXY- TOXA-
CHLOR PHENE
NO/L NO/L
-O. Ol
-O. 01
-0. Ol
-O. Ol
-O. 01
-O. Ol
-0. Ol
-0. 01
-0. 01
-O. Ol
-0. 01
-0.01
-0. Ot
-O. Ol
-0. 01
-O. 01
-O. 01
-O. Ol
-0. Ol
-0. 01
-0. 01
-0. 01
-0. 01
-0. 01
-0. 1
-0. 1
-0. 1
-0. 1
-O. 1
-0. 1
-0. 1
-0. 1
-O. 1
-O. 1
-0. 1
-O. 1
-0. 1
-0. 1
-0. 1
-0. 1
-0. 1
-0. 1
-O. 1
-0. 1
-0. 1
-0. 1
-0. 1
-0. 1
2, 4-D
NO/L
1. 3
-8. 4
73. 9
-1. 4
-1. 2
-B. 4
26. 6
1. 7
-8. 4
13. 7
26. 6
-1. 2
-8. 4
11. 1
9. 6
-1. 3
-B. 4
-0. 3
-1. 4
-1. 2
-8. 4
67. 9
-1. 4
2. 4. 3 TP
BILVEX
NG/L
-0.2
70. 1
184. O
2. 4
O. 2
59. 9
17.7
-0.2
69. 0
9. 8
22. 8
-0.2
7O. 6
19. O
7.2
-0. 2
84. 9
27. 1
-0. 3
-O. 2
57.8
126. O
11. 1
-------
TABLE B-l. Continued
METHOXY- TOXA- 2, 4, 3 TP
SAMPLE HO NI K NA ZN SE ENDRIK LINDANE CHLOR PHENE 2. 4-D SILVEX
NUMBER UO/L-HO UO/L-NI MO/L-K MO/L-NA UQ/U-ZN UO/L-SE N6/L NG/L NO/L NO/L NO/L NG/L
224301
224301
224304
-SO. 11.0 730. 80.
-SO. 23.0 581. -SO.
-100. -o. oa
-0. 01 -0. 1
-------
TABLE B-3. SOIL DATA
SAMPLE
NUMBER
21111
21131
21112
21132
21113
21133
21114
21134
21115
21133
21116
21136
21211
21231
21212
21232
21213
21233
21214
21234
21215
21235
P1216
21236
21311
COLLECTION
DATE
8/ 2/76
11/20/76
B/ 2/76
1 1 /2O/76
8/ 2/76
11/2O/76
B/ 2/76
11/20/76
B/ 2/76
1 1 /20/76
B/ 2/76
11/2O/76
B/ 2/76
11/20/76
8/ 2/76
11/2O/76
B/ 2/76
11/20/76
B/ 2/76
1 1 /SO/76
B/ 2/76
11/2O/76
8/ 2/76
11/20/76
B/ 2/76
DEPTH
M
0. 01
0. 01
0. 03
0. 03
0. 10
0. 10
0. 30
0. 30
1. OO
1. OO
3. 00
3. OO
0. 01
0. 01
0. O3
0. 03
0. 10
0. 10
0. 3O
0. 3O
1. OO
1. 00
3. OO
3. 00
O. 01
INORGANIC
NITROGEN
PH UG/GM-N
7. 7
7. 3
7. 7
6. 8
8. 0
6. 9
7. 9
7. 0
8.8
7. 9
8. 2
8,1
7. 4
7. 1
7. 3
6. 8
7. 5
6. 8
7. 6
6. 8
8. 4
8. 3
8. 3
8. 8
7. 8
92. 9
17.2
86. 6
9. 3
82. 2
13. 3
47. 7
3. 5
33. 9
6. 3
33. 0
3. 5
43. 7
8. 1
63. 0
5. 8
54. 4
7. 9
45. 9
6.0
23 9
3. 7
32 5
4. 2
50. 7
TOTAL
ORGANIC
NITROGEN
UG/GM-N
9033.
19OO.
3427.
734.
1429.
575.
861.
802.
470.
438.
368.
197.
1873.
899.
1147.
1396.
852.
1042.
259.
322.
478.
242.
473.
223.
1O63.
TOTAL AVAILABLE TOTAL
PHOSPHORUS PHOSPHORUS SULFUR
UO/OM-P U8/GM-P UO/OM-B
363.
90S.
361.
340.
348.
485.
530.
601.
554.
543.
403.
432.
60S.
664.
397.
667.
373.
682.
489.
443.
518.
481.
60S.
421.
390.
68.
144.
78.
73.
48.
61.
0.
SO.
22.
4
15.
12.
3.
96.
63.
69.
102.
67.
111.
28.
47.
16.
18.
7.
13.
80.
453.
416.
233.
218.
271.
202.
171.
180.
166.
168.
143.
146.
31O.
198.
216.
3OB.
2OO
369.
160
211.
154.
128.
206.
122.
206.
-------
TABLE B-2. Continued
CTi
SAMPLE
NUMBER
31331
21312
21332
21313
21333
21314
21334
21315
21335
21316
21336
22111
22131
22112
22132
22113
22133
22114
22134
22115
22135
22116
22136
22211
22231
COLLECTION
DATE
1 1 /20/76
8/ 2/76
11/20/76
B/ 2/76
1 1 /2O/76
8/ 2/76
11/20/76
8/ 2/76
11/20/76
B/ 2/76
11/2O/76
B/ 2/76
11/20/76
B/ 2/76
1I/2O/76
8/ 2/76
11/20/76
8/ 2/76
11/2O/76
B/ 2/76
11/2O/76
B/ 2/76
11/20/76
8/ 2/76
11/30/76
DEPTH
M
O. OI
0. 03
0. O3
0. 10
0. 1O
0. 3O
0. 30
1. OO
1. OO
3. 00
3. 00
0. Ol
0. 01
0. 03
0. 03
0. 10
0. 10
O. 3O
0. 30
1. 00
1. 00
3. 00
3. OO
0. 01
O. Ol
INORGANIC
NITROGEN
PH UG/GM-N
7. 0
7. 4
7. 3
7. 4
7. 0
7. 6
7. 1
8. 9
9. O
8. 7
B. 3
7. 9
7. 8
7. B
7. 4
8. 0
7. 6
9. 2
8. 2
8. B
8. 6
B. 8
B. 7
7. 9
7. B
4. 8
65. 1
5. B
60.0
4. 9
54. O
8. 6
37. 0
5. 1
31. 0
5. 5
54. 8
16. 5
34. 3
11. 5
45. 6
12. 0
43. 7
8. 3
35. 4
7. 3
36.3
11. 4
50. 2
11.6
TOTAL
ORGANIC
NITROGEN
UG/GM-N
1955,
665.
1450.
359.
1251.
462.
564.
267.
258.
272.
112.
9963.
4427.
6771.
1856.
2258.
1808.
86O.
924.
369.
249.
268.
239.
2863.
5O28.
TOTAL
PHOSPHORUS
UG/OM-P
757.
513.
713.
462.
767.
574.
336.
513.
776.
483.
387.
841.
11O8.
719.
999.
680.
675.
508.
604.
447.
513.
45O.
515.
BO6.
768.
AVAILABLE TOTAL
PHOSPHORUS SULFUR
UG/GM-P UG/GM-S
140.
46.
118
35.
154.
36.
68.
15.
24.
6.
21.
84.
184.
81.
138.
69.
72.
20.
37.
12.
12.
4.
5.
85.
i20.
443.
137.
468.
228.
361.
242.
238.
223.
219.
149.
171.
411.
466.
207.
418.
265.
311.
240.
280.
185.
174.
149.
165.
43O.
429.
-------
TABLE B-2. Continued
SAMPLE
NUMBER
22212
22232
22213
22233
22214
22234
22215
22235
22216
22236
22311
22331
22312
22332
22313
22333
22314
22334
22315
22335
22316
22336
COLLECTION
DATE
B/ 2/76
11/20/76
B/ 3/76
11/20/76
8/ 2/76
11/20/76
B/ 2/76
11/20/76
B/ 2/76
11/20/76
8/ 2/76
1 1 /20/76
B/ 2/76
1 1 /2O/76
B/ 2/76
11/20/76
8/ 2/76
1 1 /2O/76
B/ 2/76
11/20/76
8/ 2/76
U/20/76
DEPTH
M
0. O3
0. O3
0. 10
0. 10
0. 30
0. 30
1. OO
1. OO
3. 00
3. 00
0. 01
0. 01
0. 03
0. 03
O. 10
0. 10
0. 30
0. 30
1. OO
1. OO
3. OO
3. 00
INORGANIC
NITROGEN
PH UG/GM-N
7. 3
7. 7
7. 6
7. 7
9. 0
8. 1
8. 8
8. 7
8. 8
8. 3
7. 4
7. 7
7. 8
7. 2
7. 7
7. 6
8. O
8. 2
8. 3
8. 4
8. 6
8. 5
133. ->
46. 2
83. 1
15.9
30.8
4. 9
79. 7
5. 2
38.2
7. 8
7O. 9
14. 1
53. 2
21. 5
55. O
13. 3
33. 1
24. 7
33. 9
14. 6
18. 9
9. 5
TOTAL
ORGANIC
NITROGEN
UG/GM-N
1753.
2193.
2254.
1822.
575.
487.
529.
402.
169.
172.
1947.
2966.
1761.
897.
1955.
1248.
974.
789.
374.
449.
283.
201.
TOTAL AVAILABLE TOTAL
PHOSPHORUS PHOSPHORUS SULFUR
UG/GM-P UG/GM-P UG/GM-S
683.
699.
669.
783.
S94.
541.
604.
553.
4O3.
371.
705.
826.
665.
819.
723.
832.
339.
659.
607.
600.
459.
499.
78.
111.
60.
95.
25.
37.
21.
12.
9.
3.
69.
110.
65.
45.
53.
99.
16.
49.
13.
9.
196.
411.
294.
417.
206.
212.
221.
202.
151.
164.
289.
490.
238.
416.
326.
384.
372.
272.
411.
264.
183.
216.
-------
TABLE B-2. Continued
CATION EXTR. EXTR. EXTR. EXTR. EXTR. EXTR. EXTR. EXTR. EXCH. EXTR.
SAMPLE EX-CAP AL D CD CO CR CU FE PD MG MN
NUMBER MEQ/10OQ UO/GM UG/GM UC/Ctl UG/CM UG/GM UG/GM UG/GM UG/GM MG/CM UC/GM
21111
21131
21112
21132
21113
21133
21114
21134
21115
21135
21116
21136
21211
21231
21212
21232
21213
21233
21214
21234
21215
21235
21216
21236
21311
9.
23.
5.
12.
4.
8.
8.
12.
6.
12.
8.
15.
8.
11.
7.
17.
7.
IB.
5.
14.
6.
12.
11.
8.
17.
-3.
19.
-3.
39.
-3.
98.
-3.
1O7.
-3.
84
-3.
-10.
-3.
78.
-3.
1O4.
3.
130.
-3.
98.
-3.
52.
-3.
32.
-3.
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
1.34
2. 19
1. 42
1. 19
O. 93
1.05
0. 99
O. 79
O. 63
O. 70
0. 54
O. 69
1. 26
1. 96
1. 14
1. 48
1. 54
1. 39
0. 78
0. 91
O. 77
O. 9O
0. 67
0. 70
1.41
0. O5
-0. 02
0. 08
-O. 02
O. O3
-O. 02
O. 06
-0. 02
O. 06
-0. 02
O. 06
-O. 02
0. O2
-O. O2
0. O6
-0. O2
0. 04
-0. O2
-0. 02
-0. 02
0. 04
-O. O2
0. 06
-0. 02
0. 06
0. 45
0. 8O
O. 48
0. 6O
0. 36
-0. 12
O. 40
-0. 12
0. 33
-0. 12
0. 17
-O. 12
0.20
O. 55
O. 17
O. 55
0. 27
-0. 12
O. 30
-O. 12
0. 48
-0. 12
0. 30
-O. 12
0.24
-0.
-0.
O.
-0.
0.
-O.
-0.
-0.
-O.
-O.
-O.
-0.
-O.
-O.
-0.
-0.
-0.
-O.
-O.
-O.
-0.
-0.
-0.
-o.
-o.
02
13
O3
13
06
13
02
13
O2
13
02
13
O2
13
02
13
02
13
02
13
O2
13
OS
13
02
3. O
O. 5
1. 4
2. 2
0. 7
1. 9
1. 6
3. 7
1. 4
2. 1
8. 8
2.2
O. 7
3. 7
0. 7
3. O
O. 5
0. 9
0. 9
2. 5
1. 0
4. 4
1. 7
1. 4
37.
28.
39.
54.
40.
20.
41.
26.
30.
35.
53.
22.
61.
42.
64.
43.
66.
38.
28.
35.
47.
18.
45.
15.
41.
2. 3 0.
O.
-1.2 0.
O.
-1.2 0.
0.
-1.2 O.
O.
-1.2 0.
O.
-1.2 0.
0.
-1.2 0.
0.
1. 6 O.
O.
-1.2 0.
0.
1. 6 0.
0.
-1.2 0.
O.
2. 0 0.
0,
-1.2 0.
81
62
74
50
68
43
67
4O
69
48
62
43
83
54
78
65
73
46
62
40
64
36
77
48
79
41.
34.
41.
36.
34.
11.
34.
14.
25.
25.
27.
14.
37.
37.
26.
40.
22.
22.
19.
15.
31.
11.
29.
14.
27.
-------
TABLE B-2. Continued
CATION EXTR. EXTR. EXTR. EXTR. EXTR. EXTR. EXTR. EXTR. EXCH. EXTR.
SAMPLE EX-CAP AL D CD CO CR CU FE PB MS HN
NUMBER MEQ/100G UC/GM UG/OM UQ/GM UG/GM UC/GM UG/GM UG/CM UG/GM MG/GM UC/GM
21331 13. 32. O 2. O9 -O. O2 O. 69 -O. 13 O. 8 43. 0. 39 49.
21312 9. -3.0 0.97 O. 05 0.25 -0.02 1.8 48. -1.2 O. 72 28.
21332 23. 69.0 2.18 -0.02 O. 26 -0.13 0.6 40. 0.57 36.
21313 9. -3.0 1.09 O. 03 0.14 -0.02 1.3 42. -1.2 0.68 12.
21333 11. 42. O 1.43 -O. O2 0.31 -O. 13 1.2 49. O. 58 23.
21314 11. -3. O O. 79 O. O3 -O. 12 -O. 02 O. 4 32. -1.2 0.72 11.
21334 10. 133. O 0.96 -O. O2 -O. 12 -O. 13 1.1 52. O. 5O 27.
21315 10. -3.0 O. 36 O. 03 0.17 -0. O2 0.9 17. -1.2 O. 65 15.
21335 7. -10. O O. 75 -0. O2 -0. 12 -O. 13 0. 4 12. O. 44 7.
21316 9. -3.0 O. 80 O. O4 -O. 12 -O. O2 O. 9 21. - -1. 2 1. OO 11.
21336 7. 98.0 0.41 -O. O2 -O. 12 -O. 13 O. 6 16. O. 34 11.
22111 31. -3.0 1.95 0.06 0. 3O -O. 02 11. O 76. 2.4 1.30 43.
22131 26. 26. 0 4. 89 -O. 02 -O. 12 -O. 13 3. 6 46. O. 71 38.
22112 39. -3.0 1.60 O. O8 0.13 -O. 02 9.9 54. 1.2O 33.
22132 23. 65. 0 2. 21 O. 03 0. 70 -O. 13 2. 9 66. 0. 68
22113 17. -3.0 1.29 O. 1O -O. 12 -O. O2 9.3 41. -1.2 1. OO 22.
22133 23. 12O. 0 1.92 -O. O2 -O. 12 -0.13 3.9 32. O. 70 32.
22114 16. -3.0 1.12 O. 02 0.24 -O. O2 1.7 14. -1.2 1 3O 22.
22134 21. -10.0 1.23 -O. 02 -O. 12 -0.13 1.5 18. O. 96 27.
22115 7. 3.0 O. 96 0.02 -0.12 -0. O2 2.1 27. -1.2 0.74 7.
22135 10. -10.0 1.08 -O. 02 -0.12 -O. 13 1.9 12. 0.58 9.
22116 4. -3.0 0.81 -O. O2 0.17 -0. O2 24 32. -1.2 0.73 12.
22136 12. -10. 0 0. 94 -O. 02 -0. 12 -O. 13 5. 8 10. 0. O 0. 72 14.
22211 17. -3.0 1.57 O. 05 0.24 -0. O2 2.2 56. -1.2 1. OO 24.
22231 30. 19.0 2.95 -002 0.41 -O. 13 5.5 40. O. 78 48.
-------
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 MO UN
NUMBER MEQ/10OG UG/GM UG/CM UG/GM UG/GM UG/GM OG/GM UG/GM UG/GM MG/GM UG/GM
22212 21. -3.0 1.29 O. OS O. 16 -O. O2 3. O 59. 1.2 O. 90 36.
22232 23. -10.0 1.56 -0. O2 -0.12 -O. 13 1.1 24. O. 69 14.
22213 24. 3.0 1.S4 O. 13 0.67 -0.02 2.0 56. -1.2 0. 5S 35.
22233 26. 19.0 1.66 -0. O2 -0.12 -O. 13 2.5 32. O. 65 19.
22214 8. 3.9 0.97 1.12 0.17 -O. 02 2.6 44. -1.2 O. 9O 27.
22234 18. -10.0 0.96 -O. O2 -0.12 -0.13 0.9 18. O. 60 11.
22215 17. -3.0 0.91 0. O3 O. 45 -O. O2 4. O 42. -1.2 1. 4O 37.
22235 10. -1O. 0 1.10 -O. O2 -O. 12 -0.13 1.1 11. O. 79 8.
22216 8. -3.0 0.68 0. O7 O. 61 -O. O2 58. -1.2 O. 43 35.
22236 7. -10. O O. 34 -0. O2 -O. 12 -0.13 1.7 25. O. 46 8.
22311 6. -3.0 O. 80 0. OS 0.27 -O. O2 75. -1.2 0.96 42.
22331 27. 39. O 4. 2O -O. O2 -O. 12 -0. 13 2. 5 46. O. 73 24.
22312 7. -3.0 O. 54 O. O4 O. 21 -O. 02 5.4 54. -1.2 O. 92 2O.
22332 24. -10. 0 2. 09 -O. 02 -0. 12 -O. 13 1-. 1 39. 0. 58 19.
22313 11. -3.0 0.74 O. 05 0.33 0.02 74. -1.2 0.83 24.
22333 22. -10. O 1. 59 -0. 02 -0. 12 -0. 13 1. 5 35. 0. 59 16.
22314 11. 3.0 O. 86 0. O2 O. 39 -0.02 3.8 61. -12 0.63 28.
22334 21. -10.0 1.01 -0.02 -O. 12 -0.13 O. 7 12. 0.60 7.
22315 11. -3.0 0.79 0.04 0.39 0.05 79. -1.2 1. 1O 35.
22335 21. -10.0 0.83 -O. 02 -O. 12 -0.13 8.0 27. 0. 8O 26.
22316 8. -3.0 0.47 0. O3 -0.12 -0.02 2.0 60. -1.2 0.87 19.
2*2336 2O. -1O. 0 0. 79 -0. O2 -O. 12 -O. 13 5. O 33. O. 76 28.
-------
cn
TABLE B-2. Continued
EXTR. EXCH. EXCH. EXTR. TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL
SAMPLE NI K NA ZN ENDRIN LINDANE METHOXYCHLOR TOXAPHENE 2.4-D BILVEX AL CD CA
NUMBER
21111
21131
21112
21132
21113
21133
21114
21134
21115
21133
21116
21136
21211
21231
21212
21232
21213
21233
21214
21234
21215
21235
21216
21236
21311
UG/OM
0. 8
0. 6
0. 8
2, 6
0. 9
0. 9
1. 0
0. 9
0. 8
1. 4
1. 6
1. 0
0. 4
1. 1
0. 6
1. 1
0. 6
0. B
0. 4
1. 0
0. 8
0. 7
1. 1
0. 8
0. 8
MQ/GM
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
O.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
O.
0.
O.
O.
O.
0.
O.
O.
0.
O.
0.
0.
O.
2
6
3
4
2
4
3
5
3
3
2
1
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
2
3
MO/GM
0.
0.
0.
O.
0.
0.
0.
O.
0.
0.
O.
O.
O.
O.
O.
0.
0.
q.
0.
0.
0.
O.
O.
O.
0.
28
32
24
33
33
47
23
32
28
36
23
32
29
27
26
42
23
31
13
27
28
27
30
36
26
UG/GM NQ/GM NO/GM NO/GM
9.
3.
6.
3.
8.
0.
4.
1.
1.
O.
O.
1.
8.
2.
13.
4.
7.
2.
0.
0.
-O.
-0.
2.
-0.
6.
00 -O. 6 38. 82 -O. Ol
77 -O. 6 0. 99 -0. Ol
50 -O. 6 13. 2O -0. 01
33 -0. 6 O. 13 -O. 01
50 -0. 6 29. 93 -0 Ol
85 -O. 6 77. 7O -0. Ol
80
27
00
48
30
61
2O -0. b 9. 79 -0. 01
39 -0.6 1 24 -0.01.
00 -0. 6 7. 12 -0. 01
33 -0.6 1.04 -0.01
00 -0. 6 3. 79 -0. 01
93 -0. 6 0. 80 -0. 01
80
33
50
12
70
12
20 -0. 6 3. 84 -0. 01
NQ/GH NO/GM NG/GM MG/CM UO/CM
-0. 6 0. 49 2. 03 33. 0
,-O. 6 0. 33 3. 43 33
-0.6 0.34 1.23 33
-0. 6 1. 18 4. 33 18
-0. 6 0 39 1. 12 33
-0. 6 2. 43 4. 32 23
37
24.
38.
32.
32.
30.
-0. 6 1. 50 1. 12 49.
-0.6 1.83 4 01 13.
-O. 6 O. 86 0. 92 47.
-0.6 0 99 5.26 13
-0. 6 O. 58 O. 75 49.
-0. 6 1. 63 3. 41 8.
44.
20.
SO.
19.
47.
1O.
-O. 6 3. O9 1.28 43.
. O
.0
. O
. 0
0
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
0
O
O
O
6
O
O
O
O
0
O
O
-2.0
-3. 0
-2. 0
-3. 0
-2.0
-3. 0
-2. 0
-3. O
-2. 0
-3. 0
-2. 0
-3. 0
-2. O
-5. 0
-2. 0
-3. 0
-2. 0
-5. 0
-2. 0
-3. 0
-2. 0
-3. 0
-2. 0
-5. O
-2.0
UG/OM
3.2
4.2
4. 1
2. 1
3. 9
3. 1
3. 9
3. 1
3. 8
3. 4
3. 5
7. 1
4. 2
1. 6
4. 1
0. 3
4. 3
1. 3
4. 4
2. 3
6. 4
2. 3
8. 4
2. 2
4. 9
-------
TABLE B-2. Continued
SAMPLE
NUMBER
21331
21312
21332
21313
21333
21314
21334
21315
21335
21316
21336
22111
22131
22112
22132
22113
22133
22114
22134
22115
22135
22116
22136
22211
22231
EXTR.
NI
UO/GM
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
0.
1,
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
-1.
1.
1.
1.
I.
0.
1.
0.
0.
-0.
0.
0.
1.
8
7
9
5
0
5
6
7
7
9
6
1
1
O
4
0
3
4
4
4
5
2
6
9
2
EXCH.
K
MG/GM
O.
0.
O.
0.
0.
O.
0.
0.
0.
O.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
O.
0.
0.
O.
0.
O.
0.
O.
O.
0.
2
2
1
3
2
3
2
2
2
1
2
6
9
3
6
5
5
3
3
2
1
1
1
6
9
EXCH.
NA
MG/GM
O. 3O
O. 23
0. 32
0. 22
0.38
O. 23
O. 32
0. 27
0.27
0. 51
O. 25
O. 53
O. 87
O. 61
O. 89
0. 75
O. 62
O. 75
0. 58
0. 31
O. 35
O. 43
O. 37
0. 74
O. 82
EXTR.
ZN ENDRIN LINDANE METHOXVCHLOR
UG/GM NG/GM NG/GM NG/GM
5.
5.
3.
5.
4.
3.
1.
1.
-0.
-O.
-0.
12.
9.
5.
4.
1.
3.
-0.
-0.
-0.
-0.
-0.
0.
2.
77 -O. 6 3. 26 -O. 01
1O -O. 6 12. 96 -O. Ol
77 -0. 6 -0. 13 -0. 01
50 -0. 6 59. 02 -0. Ol
03-0.6 1.98 -0.01
20
23
OO
12
50
12
OO -0. b 2O. 76 -0. Ol
63 -0. 6 -0. 13 -0. 01
OO -O. 6 3. 90 -O. 01
48 -0. 6 O. 44 -0. 01
50 -0. 6 4. 01 -0. 01
80 -0. 6 0. 19 -0. Ol
50
12
30
12
50
54
80 -0. 6 17. 14 -0. Ol
-0. 6 1. 43 -0. Ol
TOTAL
TOXAPHENE 3, 4-D SILVEX AL
NG/GM NG/GM NG/GM MG/GM
-0. 6 0. 84 8. 97 9.
-0.6 4.92 1.31 46.
-0. 6 12. 40 12. 40 7.
-0. 6 O. 97 0. 94 43.
-0.6 1.40 3.34 3.
74.
6.
63.
9.
66.
3.
-0.6 2.93 1.23 74.
-0. 6 6. 11 6. 23 3.
-0.6 1.98 1.33 61.
-0. 6 7. 10 12. 80 9.
-0. 6 2. 49 1. 16 92.
-0. 6 3. 69 3. 08 12.
71.
22.
64.
19.
70.
26.
-0.6 2.81 1.90 72.
-O. 6 1O. OO 9. 68 17.
3
0
7
0
1
O
0
0
3
O
6
O
1
0
3
O
O
0
O
O
O
O
0
0
0
TOTAL
CD
UG/GM
-3.0
-2. 0
-3. 0
-2. 0
-5.0
-2.0
-3. O
-2. 0
-3. O
-2. O
-3. 0
-2.0
-3. O
-2.0
-3.0
-S. 0
-3. O
-2. 0
-5. O
-2. O
-3. 0
-2. O
-3. 0
-2.0
-5. 0
TOTAL
CA
UG/GM
O. 9
5. 1
1.6
5. 4
O. 7
4. 6
0. 3
7. 9
1.3
11. 0
1. 4
4. 3
0. 5
4. O
O. 7
4. 5
0. 7
6. 7
3. 5
6. 3
4. 4
11.0
7. 6
3.2
1.2 .
-------
TABLE B-2. Continued
SAMPLE
NUMBER
22212
22232
22213
22233
22214
22234
22215
22233
22216
22236
22311
22331
22312
22332
22313
22333
22314
22334
223 IS
22333
22316
22336
EXTR.
NI
UO/CM
o.
1.
o.
1.
0.
o.
0.
o.
o.
o.
1.
1
o.
1.
0.
1.
o.
o.
o.
1.
o.
o.
a
o
9
0
6
a
6
7
9
6
4
2
6
1
9
2
4
7
9
2
6
9
EXCH.
K
MO/OM
O.
O.
0.
O.
O.
O.
0.
0.
O.
O.
O.
O.
0.
O.
O.
O.
O.
o.
o.
o.
o.
3
7
3
a
3
4
4
1
2
7
7
6
3
3
3
4
4
3
2
1
2
EXCH.
NA
MO/OM
O.
O.
O.
O
0.
O.
O.
O.
O.
O
O.
O.
O.
O.
O.
O.
O.
O.
O.
O.
O.
0.
39
73
64
64
32
43
62
43
33
23
74
9O
63
70
80
7O
49
66
74
7O
39
34
EXTR. TOTAL
IN ENDRIN LINDANE METHOXYCHLOR TOXAPHENE 2, 4-D B1LVEX AL
UO/OM NO/OM NO/GM NO/OM NO/OM NG/OM NG/QM MO/OM
4.
1.
9.
4.
-0.
-0.
-O.
-O.
2.
-o,
10.
3
3.
1.
4.
1.
O.
-0.
6.
0
4.
O.
3O -O. 6 41. 47 -0. Ol
38 -O. 6 O. 47 -O. Ol
9O -O. 6 7. 32 -O. Ol
O3 -O. 6 -O 13 -O. 01
30
12
30
12
SO
12
OO -O. 6 6. 4O -O. Ol
O9 -O. 6 O. 88 -0. Ol
4O -O. 6 3. 17 -O. Ol
SO -O. 6 -O. 13 -O. Ol
70 -0. 6 9 12 -0. 01
33 -0. 6 77. 70 -0. Ol
30
12
OO
91
OO
17
-0. 6 1. 33 1. 82 83. 0
-0. 6 3. OB 13. 3O 23. O
-O. 6 1.44 1.01 33. O
-0. 6 0. 92 6. 48 B. 6
79. 0
11. O
90. 0
11. O
72. O
9. 0
-O. 6 2.39 1.72 64. O
-0. 6 1. 63 3. S3 18. 0
-O. 6 3. 17 1. 67 9O. O
-O. 6 O. 74 7. 21 13. O
-0. 6 1. 30 1. 38 71. 0
-O. 6 O. O8 13. 8O 10. 0
93. 0
9. 3
83. 0
21. O
63. O
22. O
TOTAL
CD
UO/GM
-2. 0
-3. 0
-2. 0
-3. 0
-2. O
-3. 0
-a. o
-3 O
-2. 0
-3. 0
-2. 0
-3. O
-2. O
-3. 0
-2. 0
-3. O
-2. 0
-3. 0
-2. 0
-3. 0
-2. 0
-3. O
TOTAL
CA
UO/OM
6. 3
1. 9
4. 3
1. 2
4. 6
2. 1
3. 3
3. 4
6. 4
1. 8
4. 3
2. O
4. 7
2. 0
3. 2
1. 3
12. 0
2. 9
11. 0
7. O
7. B
7. 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 «G MM HC NI K HA ZN AS SE
NUMBER UG/GM UC/GM UG/GM MG/GM UC/GM MG/GM UG/CM UG/OM OC/OM MG/GM MG/GM UG/GM UO/GM UG/GM
21111
21131
21112
21132
21113
21133
21114
21134
21113
21135
21116
21136
21211
21231
21212
21232
21213
21233
21214
21234
21215
21235
21216
21236
21311
-5. 0
-2. 0
6. 0
6. 0
6. 0
6. O
7. 0
-20
5. 0
6. 0
-5. 0
4. 0
-S. 0
6. 0
-5.0
6. 0
5. 0
-2. 0
-5.0
-2. 0
6. 0
6. 0
8. 0
-2. O
-5. 0
22.
34.
23.
32.
21.
40.
27.
46.
36.
47.
27.
46.
17.
33.
21.
30.
21.
30.
20.
31.
26.
29.
27.
26.
16.
7. B
10. 0
7. 2
11. 0
6. B
11. 0
8.6
9.3
11. 0
13. 0
1O. O
IB. 0
-2. 0
B. 0
6.3
9. 3
7. 3
11. 0
3. 8
6. 7
15.0
12. O
19. 0
12. O
10. O
4. 9
12. 0
4. 9
13. 0
4. 8
13. 0
4. 5
13. 0
3. 0
16. 0
4. 8
15. O
4. 3
11. O
4. 4
12. O
4. 7
11. 0
4. 7
13. 0
4.9
12. 0
5. 0
10. O
4. 7
-1O.
-10.
-1O.
-10.
-1O.
-1O.
-10
-10.
-1O.
-10.
-1O.
-10.
-10.
-10.
-1O.
-10.
-10.
-10.
-10.
-10.
-1O.
-10.
-10.
-10.
-10.
0
0
O
0
0
0
O
O
0
0
O
0
0
O
O
O
O
0
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
11. 0
4. 4
4. 5
4. 4
4. 3
4. 4
5. 6
4. 7
6. 4
5. 9
3. B
3. 3
3. 6
4. 0
4. 5
4. 3
4. 9
3. 8
5. O
3. 3
6. 8
2. 7
7. 9
2. 7
5. 7
234.
228.
248.
228.
221.
260.
226.
212.
273.
281.
228.
251.
153.
178.
169.
218.
198.
170.
179.
194.
243.
194.
276.
156.
202.
-3. 00
-O. 05
-3. OO
-0. 05
-3. OO
-O. 03
-3. OO
-0. O3
-3. 00
-0. O5
-3. 00
-0. 05
-3.00
-0. 05.
-3. 00
-0. O5
-3. OO
-0. 05
-3. OO
-0. 03
-3. OO
-0. 05
-3. 00
-0. 05
-3. OO
13.
-10.
16.
-1O.
13.
12.
17.
12.
13.
16.
16.
-10.
6.
-10.
6.
-10.
8.
-10.
1O.
-1O.
14.
-10
20.
-10.
13.
00
00
OO
00
00
00
00
OO
OO
OO
00
OO
70
OO
60
00
20
OO
OO
00
00
OO
00
00
00
3. 1
9. 0
3. 3
9. 0
3. 1
9. 0
3. 2
9. 0
3. 4
1O. O
4. 9
9. 0
5. O
8. 0
4. 8
7. 0
5. O
6 O
4. 6
7. 0
4. 8
6. 0
4. 8
6.0
4. 9
15. O
9. O
14. 0
11.0
13.0
9. 8
14. 0
11. O
14. O
1O. 0
13. O
11. 0
14. 0
11.0
13. 0
11. 0
14. 0
8. 7
14. 0
9. 5
IS. O
10. 0
12. 0
1O. 0
12. 0
92.
151.
58.
59.
60.
62.
63.
76.
54.
70.
74.
113.
55.
55.
58.
77.
45.
53.
43.
88.
43.
72.
34.
39.
4.
3.
3.
3.
3.
4.
3.
3.
9.
6.
4.
7.
6.
4.
9.
3.
4.
4.
4.
3
5.
6.
7.
5.
5.
-1.0
-1.0
-l.O
-1. 0
-1. 0
-1. 0
-I. 0
-l.O
-1. 0
-1. O
-l.O
-l.O
-l.O
-1.0
-1.0
-1. 0
-1.0
-1.0
-1. 0
-1. 0
-l.O
-1. O
-l.O
-1. 0
-1. 0
-------
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 MN HO NI K NA ZN AS SE
NUMBER UG/GM UG/GM UG/GM MG/GM UG/GM MG/GM UG/GM UG/GM UG/GM MG/GM MG/GM UG/GM UO/GM UO/GM
21331
21312
21332
21313
21333
21314
21334
21315
21333
21316
21336
22111
22131
22112
22132
22113
22133
22114
22134
22115
22135
22116
22136
22211
22231
-2. 0
6. 0
-2. 0
5. 0
-2. 0
6. 0
-2. 0
6. 0
-2. 0
6. 0
-2. 0
6. 0
-2. 0
7. 0
-2. 0
6. 0
6. 0
8. 0
6. 0
7. 0
6. 0
6. 0
4. 0
5. 0
6. 0
26.
27.
40.
26.
28.
32.
29.
26.
28.
29.
26.
37.
27.
4O.
34.
3B.
36.
32.
33.
22.
35.
29.
34.
26.
44.
7. 4
8. 2
13. 0
9. 0
8. 0
12. O
9. 3
11. 0
10. 0
11.0
6. 1
15. O
15. 0
15. 0
2O. 0
16. 0
21. 0
14. 0
13. 0
8. 7
16.0
7. 7
19. O
13. 0
27. 0
11. O
4. 7
15. O
4. 8
11. 0
4. 8
10. O
4. 8
12. O
4. 9
1O. O
5. 4
1O. 0
5. 2
15. 0
5. 4
19. 0
5. 5
13. 0
5. O
14. O
4. 8
16. 0
5. O
20. 0
-10.
-10.
-10.
-10
-10.
-1O.
-10.
-10.
-10.
-10.
-10.
-10.
-10.
-10.
-10.
-10.
-10.
-10.
-10.
-10.
-10.
-10.
-10.
-10.
-10.
O
0
0
0
0
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
0
0
0
O
O
0
0
O
O
0
0
0
0
3. 6
11. 0
5. B
5. 2
2. 7
6. O
2. 7
6. 5
2. 7
6. 3
2. 5
7. 5
4. O
7. 2
4.0
7. 7
4. 9
8.3
2. 0
7. 2
1. 0
6.3
4. 0
6. 9
3. 3
210.
198.
271.
2O2.
170.
238.
167.
224.
3O8.
221.
148.
321.
159.
32O.
324.
338.
425.
28O.
283.
221.
253.
221.
3O1.
3O8.
343.
-0.
-3.
-0.
-3.
-0.
-3.
-O.
-3.
-0.
-3.
-O.
-3.
-0.
-3.
-0.
-3.
-0.
-3.
-0.
-3.
-0.
-3.
-0.
-3.
-0.
03
OO
03
OO
OS
00
05
00
O3
OO
05
00
05
OO
03
00
03
OC
05
00
03
00
03
00
05
-10.
9.
-10.
13.
13.
16.
12.
14.
14.
13.
14.
16.
14
16.
19.
16.
-1O.
16.
14.
14.
14
11.
14.
17-
14.
00
70
00
00
OO
00
00
00
OO
OO
00
00
00
00
OO
00
00
00
00
00
OO
00
00
OO
00
6. 0
5.2
8. 0
4. 9
7. 0
5. 4
6. 0
3. 0
6. 0
4. 9
4. O
5. 5
3. 0
4. 7
6. 0
5. 6
6. 0
4. 9
7. 0
3. 9
6. 0
5. 1
6. O
5. 2
7. 0
10. 0
14. 0
7. 7
13. O
11. 0
12. O
8. 9
12. 0
14. 0
12. O
9. 2
12. 0
3. 8
12. 0
9. 4
11. O
8. 5
11. 0
12. 0
13. O
12. O
13. 0
11. O
12. 0
9. 2
47.
52.
58.
91.
43.
93.
42.
81.
38.
73.
32.
118.
40.
108.
61.
92.
64.
93.
50.
73.
34.
82.
58.
99.
79.
4.
3.
6.
3.
4.
3.
4.
3.
3.
6.
5.
3.
6.
6.
7.
6.
9.
3.
7.
3.
6.
3.
7.
6.
7.
-l.O
-1. 0
-1. 0
-1. 0
-1. 0
-1. 0
-1. 0
-1. 0
-1.0
-1. O
-1. 0
-1. 0
-1. O
-1. 0
-1. 0
-1. 0
-1. 0
-1. 0
-1. O
-1. 0
-I/O
-1. O
-1 O
-1. 0
-1. O
-------
01
TABLE B-2. Continued
TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL
SAMPLE CO CR CO FE PB MO UN HO NI K MA IN AS SE
NUMBER UQ/GM UG/GM UO/OM MG/OM UG/GM MG/OM UG/GM US/CM UQ/GM KG/OH MO/OH UG/6M UG/GM UG/OM
22212
22232
22213
22233
22214
22234
22215
22235
22216
22236
22311
22331
22312
22332
22313
22333
22314
22334
22335
22315
22316
22336
3. 0
6. 0
9. 0
6. 0
6. 0
-2. 0
8. O
-2. 0
6. O
4. O
6. O
4. O
6. O
-2. 0
3. 0
-2. 0
6. 0
-2. 0
6. 0
5. 0
-5. 0
4. O
33.
33.
35.
34.
37.
25.
35.
37.
30
30.
37.
34.
29.
38.
39.
33.
33.
32.
39.
35.
26.
38.
12. 0
16. O
17. 0
15. 0
13. 0
17.0
17. 0
14. 0
12.0
10. 0
16. 0
20. 0
17. O
16. 0
IB. 0
13. O
14. 0
13. O
25. 0
17. 0
10. 0
19. O
4. 7
16. 0
3. 3
13. 0
5. 1
12. 0
5. 6
14. 0
4. 9
12. 0
5. 0
16. 0
4. 9
14. 0
3. 3
12. 0
5. 0
11. 0
14. 0
3. 1
3. 1
14. 0
-10.
-10.
-1O.
-10.
-1O.
-10.
-10.
-10.
-1O.
-10.
-10.
-1O.
-1O.
-1O.
-10.
-10.
-10.
-10.
-1O.
-10.
-10.
-10.
0
0
0
O
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6.8
4. 7
6. 4
4. 7
7. 6
4. 7
9.2
4.0
7. 6
2. 3
8. 1
4. O
10. 0
3. 6
9. 4
4. 4
8. 7
4. 4
3. &
11. 0
8. 0
4. 6
29O.
282.
364.
239.
271.
180.
386.
194.
243.
131.
299.
3OO.
318.
255.
353.
173.
304.
167.
287.
320.
2O3.
328.
-3.
-0.
-3.
-0.
-3.
OO
03
OO
03
00
-0. 05
-3.
OO
-0. 05
-3.
-0.
-3.
-0.
-3.
-O.
-3.
-0.
-3.
-0.
-0.
-3.
-3.
-0.
00
05
00
05
00
03
OO
05
00
05
05
00
00
13
14.
21.
14.
19.
00
00
00
OO
16. 00
12.
17.
-10.
14.
14.
17.
14.
17.
-10.
20.
14.
13.
19.
19
17.
14.
19.
00
00
OO
00
00
OO
00
OO
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
OO
3. 4
6. 0
3. 2
6. O
3.2
6. 0
3. 3
6. 0
4. 6
3. 0
3.0
6. 0
4. 7
6. 0
4. 8
6. O
4. 9
3. O
7. 0
4. 6
4. 7
6. O
12. 0
11. O
11. 0
7. 8
13.0
9.3
11. O
9. 3
13. O
11. 0
11. 0
9. 3
12.0
8. 9
1O. 0
13. 0
11. O
9. 9
9. 1
8. 3
12.0
9. 6
108.
37.
106.
37.
77.
42.
98.
46.
87.
36.
88.
62.
128.
62.
133.
39.
100.
37.
52.
121.
78.
53.
7.
8.
7.
8.
6.
6.
6.
6.
6.
3.
7.
8.
8.
9.
6.
6.
7.
9.
7.
6.
3.
-1. O
-1. 0
-I. 0
-1. 0
-1.0
-1. 0
-1. 0
-1. 0
-1.0
-1.0
-1. O
-1. 0
-1.0
-l.O
-1. 0
-1.0
-1. 0
-l.O
-1. 0
-1. 0
-1. 0
-------
TABLE B-3. PLANT DATA
TOTAL.
SAMPLE COLLECTION NH4 ORGN. -N NO2+NO3
NUMBER DATE UG/GM-N MG/GM-N UG/GM-N
2111 6/ 7/76 1OO.
2113 11/20/76 302.
2121 6/ 7/76 236.
2123 11/2O/76 266.
2131 6/ 7/76 23O
2133 11/20/76 193.
2211 6/ 7/76 012.
2213 11/2O/76 343.
2221 6/ 7/76 135.
2223 11/20/76 415.
2231 6/ 7/76 124.
2233 11/20/76 249.
TABLE B-3. Continued
SAMPLE CR CU PB
NUMBER UG/GM UG/GM UG/GM
2111 5. 10. -5.
2113 4. 6. -10.
2121 3. 7. -5.
21?3 4. 8. -10.
2131 3. 9. -5
2133 4. 4. -10.
2211 5. 11. -5.
2213 5. 8. -1O.
22?1 4. 11. -5.
2223 8. 3. -1O.
2231 3. 12. -5.
2233 4. 5. -10.
7 8
33. 1
4. 1
37 O
3. 3
24. 6
15. 6
32. 2
3. 5
13. 6
4. 1
18. 9
MG
MG/GM
1.
2.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
2.
1.
1.
1.
676.
BUI.
34B.
676.
543.
609.
1101.
794.
541.
181O.
735.
1O86.
MM
UG/GM
48.
72.
43.
60.
42.
53.
69.
SO.
BO.
82.
67.
91.
TOTAL
P
MG/GM
3 1
3. 9
2. 1
3. 1
1. 6
2. 4
2. 4
2. 6
3. 1
2. 3
3. 3
2. 4
HG
UG/GM
-3. OO
-O. O5
-3. 00
-O. 05
-3. OO
-O. O5
-3. OO
-O. O3
-3. OO
-O. 05
-3. 00
-0. 05
TOTAL
S
UG/GM
929.
1594.
1209.
1730.
959.
859.
1029.
1381.
1101.
1107.
812.
816.
NI
UG/GM
3.
6.
3.
-5.
4.
-5
8.
-5.
6.
-5.
6.
6.
TOTAL
COL I
*/GM
43.
100.
7.
10O.
O.
too.
3.
too.
O.
100.
57.
100.
K
MG/GM
3.
7.
3.
8.
3.
6.
4.
7.
4.
4.
4.
4.
FECAL
COL I.
#/GM
2O.
100.
O.
O.
O.
O.
0.
0.
O.
1OO.
30.
0.
NA
MG/GM
1. 2
0. B
1. 2
0. 8
1. 0
2. 2
3. 3
3. 2
2. 2
3. 4
2. 9
3. 9
AS
UG/QM
-1.
-1.
-1.
-1.
-1.
-1.
-1.
-1.
-1,
-1.
-1.
-1.
ZN
UG/GM
19.
22.
18.
32.
21.
21.
37.
49.
38.
25.
48.
28.
a
UG/GM
12 1
9. 8
19. 6
23. 5
17. 7
17 5
SE
UG/GM
-1.
-1.
-1.
-1.
-1.
-1.
-1.
-1.
-1.
-1.
-1.
-1.
CD
UG/GM
-3.
-3.
-3.
-3.
-5.
-5.
-3.
-3.
-3.
-3.
-3.
-5.
ENDRIN
NG/GM
-O. O3
-0. 03
-0. 03
-O. 03
-O. O3
-O. O3
-O. O3
-O. O3
-O. O3
-O. 03
-0. 03
-O. 03
CA CO
MG/GM UG/GM
2. 47
3. 33
3 10
4. O2
2. 84
4. 1O
3. 73
3. 38
2. 79
3. 32
4. 32
3. 38
LINDANE
NG/GM
1. 4O
0. 06
O. 4O
0. OB
O. 80
0. 26
1. OO
0. 07
2. 9O
1. 00
O. 4O
0. 14
-1.
-S.
-1.
-2.
-1.
-2.
-1
-2.
-1.
-2.
-1.
-2.
-------
TABLE B-3. Continued
00
SAMPLE
NUMBER
2111
2113
2121
2133
2131
2133
2211
2213
2221
2223
2231
2233
HETHOXYCHLOft
NG/Ctl
-O.
-0.
-O.
-O.
-O.
-0.
-O.
-O.
-O.
-0.
-O.
-O.
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
ot
01
01
01
01
TOXAPHENE
NB/GM
-O. 1
-O. 1
-0. 1
-0. 1
-0. 1
-O. 1
-0. 1
-0. 1
-0. 1
-0. 1
-O. 1
-0. 1
2. 4-D
NC/GM
-0.
1.
-0.
6O.
O.
-O.
O.
27.
O.
-O.
0
63.
20
75
20
00
5O
12
20
40
60
12
40
SO
SILVEX
NG/CM
-O.
4.
-O.
14.
-0.
2O.
O.
7.
O.
6.
O.
26.
10
28
10
80
10
60
20
29
30
90
10
4O
-------
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.
Drainability: 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
time.
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.
159
-------
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 Reaching 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.
_j
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
160
-------
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.
161
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA .
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-600/2-79-144
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
OF LAND APPLICATION OF DOMESTIC
WASTEWATER: Dickinson, North Dakota, Slow Rate
Irrigation Site
5. REPORT DATE
August 1979_ i ssin nc[_date_
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZ/
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Benham-Blair & Affiliates, Inc.
Oklahoma City, OK 73120
Engineering Enterprises, Inc.
Norman, OK 73069
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
1BC822
11. CONTRACT/GRANT 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 Dickinson, North Dakota. On the test site,
slow rate irrigation, using the border-strip method, has been practiced since 1959.
Water, soil, and crop samples from this test site were compared with similar samples
from a nearby control site irrigated with weir water. Samples were also taken to
detect coliform bacteria.
t Thirteen parameters were found to be present at significantly greater concen-
trations in the effluent used to irrigate the test site than in the river water used
to irrigate the control site. Mean concentrations for five of the 13 parameters were
found to be significantly greater statistically in the shallow alluvium aquifer
beneath the test site than in the alluvium aquifer beneath the control site. These
five parameters were chemical oxygen demand, chloride, nitrogen, potassium, and
selenium. Except for selenium, the same parameters were also present at significantly
greater concentrations in the deeper Sentinel Butte aquifer beneath the test site than
in the Sentinel Butte beneath the control site. Total coliforms were occasionally
found in control and test site wells.
7.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS C. COS AT I Field/Group
Land use
Sewage treatment
Trace elements
Water chemistry
Microorganism control
Dickinson, North Dakota
Slow rate systems
Municipal wastewater
Land application
Environmental health
68D
91A
43F
8. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
RELEASE TO PUBLIC
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
21. NO. OF PAGES
UNCLASSIFIED
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
UNCLASSIFIED
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
162
------- |