&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research
Laboratory
Ada OK 74820
EPA-600/2-80-061
April 1980
Research and Development
Long-Term Effects of
Land Application of
Domestic Wastewater
Mesa, Arizona:
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-
nories 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-600/2-80-061
April 1980
LONG-TERM EFFECTS OF LAND APPLICATION
OF DOMESTIC WASTEWATER
MESA, ARIZONA: IRRIGATION SITE
by
Ralph Stone
James; Rowlands
Ralph Stone and Company, Inc.
Los Angeles, California 90025
Contract No. 68-03-2362
Project Officer
William R. Duffer
Wastewater Management Branch
RobertS. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory
Ada, Oklahoma 74820
ROBERTS. 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
?or pub icat?on. 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.
ii
-------
FOREWORD
11^1 Protection Agency was established to coordinate the
of our envronmentmaj°r eral Pr°9rams designed to protect the quality
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 incentives for the funding of
these systems through the construction grants program. With the widespread
implementation of land application systems, there is an urgent need for \
answers to several major questions. One of these questions regards the
long-term effects of land application on the soil, crops, groundwater, and
other environmental components. This report is one in a series of ten
which documents the effects of long-term wastewater application at selected
irrigation and rapid infiltration study sites. These case studies should
provide new insight into the long-term effects of land application of
municipal wastewaters.
This report contributes to the knowledge which is essential for the
EPA to meet the requirements of'environmental laws and enforce pollution
control standards which are reasonable, cost effective, and provide adequate
protection for the American public.
William C. Galegar
Director
Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory
in
-------
ABSTRACT
This report presents the results of an assessment of the long-term Impacts on crops,
soils, and groundwater resulting from irrigation with secondary-treated municipal
effluent. The concentrations of pathogens, nutrients, heavy metals and salts in soils,
groundwater, and crops irrigated with secondary-treated wastewater were compared to
the concentrations in soils, groundwater, and crops irrigated with conventional water
supplies. Test and control sites at Mesa, Arizona, were selected as case studies for
comparisons. Both sites produced ensilage or other crops not used for human consumption.
The control site was furrow irrigated and the test site was flood and furrow irrigated.
The test site had been irrigated with effluent for over ten years. The control site had
never received wastewater but had been irrigated for at least ten vearsj"^ c°nven-
tional water. Lysimeters were placed at various depths in the soil o *th Sltes
to test for the constituents in the leachate. Sampling wells were drilled at the test and
control sites to determine the upper groundwater quality affected by the leachate.
This report was submitted in fulfillment of Contract No. 68-03-2362 by Ralph
Stone and Company, Inc., under the sponsorship of the United States Environmental
Protection Agency. This report covers the period from January 2, 1976 to February 28,
1978, and work was completed as of May 3, 1978.
IV
-------
CONTENTS
Foreword
Abstract '. '. \ iv
Figures !!!!!! vi
Tables ?x
List of Special Abbreviations xv
Acknowledgments ! ! ! ! ! Xvl
1. Introduction j
2. Conclusions . 4
3. Recommendations g
4. Site Selection JQ
5. Sampling and Monitoring Program 15
6. Wastewater Irrigation Evaluation 35
References 01
Bibliography !!!!!! 94
Appendices
A. Site Description ]()6
B. Sample Collection and Analytical Methods 128
C. Well Log and Schematic Design of Test Wells 145
D. Analytical Data 1 5Q
E. Statistical Table \ \ 175
F. Graphic Evaluation of the Water Analyses 184
G. Agricultural Balance Tables 209
H. Contracts with Farmers 234
Glossary 246
-------
FIGURES
Page
Number
1 Site locations: Arizona ........................ 1 '
2 Study area - test and control farm sites .............. • • '^
3 Sterile leachate sampler systems schematic .............. 21
4 Leachate collection probe (lysi meter) schematic ........... 22
5 Lysimeter probe leachate collection and moisture release curves ... 23
6 Falling vacuum lysimeter, vacuum dissipation with time ....... 25
7 Idealized soil moisture profile as a function of time after an
application of surface water ...................... 2°
8 Control site lysimeter locations .................... 27
9 Test site lysimeter locations ...................... 28
np,
10 Field sampling .............................
11 Irrigation sampling locations ..................... 31
12 Mesa, Arizona idealized cross-section showing wells and
groundwater levels ........................... ^4
13 Soil organic content ..................... 38
14 Soil moisture content ..................... 39
A-l Study area - test and control farm sites ............. 107
A-2 Idealized cross-section of project areas ............. 112
A-3 Site soil map ....................... 126
C-l Well log and schematic design of test well 1
vi
-------
FIGURES (continued)
Number
Page
C-2 Well log and schematic design of test well 2
C-3 Well log and schematic design of test well 3 147
C-4 Well log and schematic design of control well 1 148
C-5 Well log and schematic design of control well 2 149
F-l Test and control site total coliform analyses in irrigation, leach-
ate, and well water , ft.
F-2 Test and control site fecal coliform analyses in irrigation , leach-
ate, and well water ICK
F-3 Test and control site total dissolved solids analyses in irrigation,
leachate, and well water ]gg
F-4 Test and control site boron analyses in irrigation, leachate, and
well water 107
F-5 Test and control site chloride analyses in irrigation, leachate,
and well water 188
F-6 Test and control site fluoride analyses in irrigation, leachate,
and well water 189
F-7 Test and control site nitrate- nitrogen analyses in irrigation,
leachate, and well water -|90
F-8 Test and control site total nitrogen analyses in irrigation,
leachate, and well water 191"
F-9 Test and control site total organic carbon analyses in irrigation,
leachate, and well water ig2
F-10 Test and control site phosphate-phosphorus analyses in irrigation,
leachate, and well water ^ 93
F-l 1 Test and control site sulfate analyses in irrigation, leachate,
and well water
vii
-------
FIGURES (continued)
Number
F-12
F-13
F-U
F-15
F-16
F-17
F-18
F-19
F-20
F-21
F-22
F-23
F-24
F-25
Test and control site potassium analyses in irrigation , leachate,
Test and control site sodium analyses in irrigation, leachate,
and well water
Test and control site calcium analyses in irrigation, leachate,
and well water
Test and control site magnesium analyses in irrigation, leachate,
Test and control site barium analyses in Irrigation, leachate,
Test and control site cadmium analyses in irrigation, leachate,
Test and control site chromium analyses in irrigation, leachate,
Test and control site copper analyses in irrigation, leachate,
Test and control site lead analyses in irrigation, leachate,
Test and control site molybdenum analyses in irrigation,
leachate, and well water
Test and control site nickel analyses in irrigation, leachate,
Test and control site zinc analyses in Irrigation, leachate,
Test and control site arsenic analyses in irrigation, leachate,
Test and control site selenium analyses in irrigation, leachate,
Page
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
viii
-------
TABLES
Number „
- Page
1 Site Selection Criteria ................... 12
2 Data from Site Selection Visits to Mesa and Alternative Location,
Arizona ....................... jo
3 Test and Control Sites - Revised Site Sampling and Analysis Program 1 6
4 Monitoring Well Depths .................. 33
5 Soil Physical Characteristics ................ 37
6 Statistical Summary of Irrigation Water ............ 40
7 Statistical Summary of 50-cm Lysimeter ...... . ..... 42
8 Statistical Summary of 100-cm Lysimeter ........... 43
9 Comparison of Mean Values of Irrigation Water and Leachate
According to Depth .................... 44
1 0 Statistical Summary of On-Site (#2) and On-Site (#1 ) Control
Well Tops
1 1 Statistical Summary of On-Site (#2) and On-Site (#1 ) Control
Well Bottoms ....................... 47
12 Statistical Summary of Upstream (#1 ) and Downstream (#3) Test
Well Tops ................... ..... 48
13 Statistical Summary of Upstream (#1 ) and Downstream (#3) Test
Well Bottom. ....................... 49
14 Statistical Summary of Upstream (#2) and Downstream (#3) Test
Well Tops
15 Statistical Summary of Upstream (#2) and Downstream (#3) Test
Well Bottoms ....................... 52
ix
-------
TABLES (continued)
,
Number
16 Initial Soil Chemical Analysis (October 1976) .......... 53
17 Statistical Summary of Initial Soil Chemical Analyses (October ,1976) 56
18 Final Soil Chemical Analyses (December 1977) ......... 58
1 9 Statistical Summary of Final Soi I Chemical Analyses
(December 1977) ...................... ffl
20 Statistical Summary of Initial and Final Test Site Soil Chemical
Analyses ..........................
21 Statistical Summary of Initial and Final Control Site Soil
Chemical Analyses ..................... °^
22 Initial Soil Biological Organism Analyses (October 1976) ..... 68
23 Final Soil Biological Organism Analyses (December 1977) ..... 69
24 Statistical Summary of Biological Organism Analyses of the Initial
and Final Soil Samples .................... 70
25 Comparison of the Irrigation Water Analyses with the Water
Quality Criteria for Municipal and Irrigation Water Supplies ... 71
26 Comparison of the Leachate Analyses with the Water Quality
Criteria for Municipal and Irrigation Water Supplies ....... 72
27 Comparison of the Groundwater Analyses with the Water Quality
Criteria for Municipal and Irrigation Water Supplies ....... 73
28 Test Site Agricultural History ........... * ..... 76
29 Control Site Agricultural History ............... 77
30 Crop Tissue Analyses ..................... 79
-------
TABLES (continued)
Number „
- Page
31 Expected Range of Elements in Healthy Crop Tissue ....... 81
32 Water Balance -Yearly Average for Period 1965-1 977 ..... 82
33 Test and Control Sites Pesticide Applications, 1965-75 ..... 83
34 Summary Nutrient Balance (1965 -77) ............ 34
35 Summary of Crop Yield and Nutrient Uptake .......... 86
36 Value of Wastewater Nutrients (1965-77) ........... 87
37 Test and Control Sites, Crop Costs, and Sales Comparison ($Aa) . 88
A-l Temperature and Precipitation, 1 928-67), M< sa Experiment Farm
(Elevation 375 m) ..................... 1 0Q
A-2 Probabilities of Freezing Temperatures on Specific Dates, Mesa
Experiment Farm, 1963-65
A-3 Maricopa County, Arizona, Characteristics of Water Use by Crops 114
A-4 Predicted Average Yields Per Hectare of Principal Crops Under
High-level Management ........... . ]
A-5 Phoenix, Arizona, Mean Monthly Temperatures and Consumptive-
Use Factor and Transpiration Use for Navel Orange and Grapefruit
Trees, June 1931 to May 1934, Inclusive (6) ......... 116
A-6 Mean Monthly Temperatures Consumptive-Use Factors, Transpira-
tion Use and Precipitation for Cotton 1 935-36 ......... 117
A-7 Mean Monthly Temperatures Percent of Daytime Hours Consumptive
Use, and Consumptive Use Coefficient for Alfalfa, Average 1945-46 118
A-8 Mean Monthly Temperatures Percent of Daytime Hours, Consump-
tive-Use Coefficient for Flax, 1935-36 ......... ... 119
xi
-------
TABLES (continued)
Page
Tempe, Arizona, Mean Montly Temperatures, Consumptive Use
Factor and Transpiration Use for Dates 1931-1932 120
A-10 Maricopa County, Arizona, Computed Daily Rates of Water Use
by Crop 1Z1
A-l 1 Water Reclamation Plant Yearly Average of Effluent Water Quality
(1966-1975) 123
A-12 Total Flows Through Water Reclamation Plant 124
B-l Field Activities log 13°
B-2 Field Sample Report 132
B-3 Field Activities bg 135
B-4 Soil Tests 137
B-5 Field Activities log 138
B-6 Soil and Crop Preparatory Methods 14°
B-7 Analytical Methods 141
D-l Analytical Results: Test Effluent . . . 151
D-2 Analytical Results: Control Irrigation 152
D-3 Analytical Results: Test Lysimeter, 50-cm 153
D-4 Analytical Results: Test Lysimeter, 100-cm 153
D-5 Analytical Results: Control Lysimeter, 50-cm 154
D-6 Analytical Results: Control Lysimeter, 100-cm 154
xii
-------
TABLES (continued)
Number
Page
D-7 Analytical Results: Test Well, Upstream #1,Top 155
D-8 Analytical Results: Control Well, On-S?te, #1, Top 1 56
D-9 Analytical Results: Test Well, Upstream #1, Bottom 157
D-10 Analytical Results: Control Well, On-Site#l, Bottom i 58
D-ll Analytical Results: Test Well, Upstream #2, Top 159
D-12 Analytical Results: Control Well, On-Site #2, Top 160
D-13 Analytical Results: Test Well, Upstream #2, Bottom i61
D-14 Analytical Results: Control Well, On-Site #2, Bottom 162
D-15 Analytical Results, Test Well, Downstream #3,Top i63
D-16 Analytical Results: Test Well, Downstream #3,Bottom 164
D-17 Individual Soil Analyses, Initial Sampling (October 1976) ... 165
D-18 Individual Soil Analyses Final Sampling (December 1977) .... i 71
E-l Statistical Comparison Between Test Effluent and Control Irrigation
Water 175
E-2 Statistical Comparison Between Test and Control Leachate at 50 cm 176
E-3 Statistical Comparison Between Test and Control Leachate at 100 cm 177
E-4 Statistical Comparison Between Top Levels of Control Wells 1 and 2 1 78
E-5 Statistical Comparison Between Bottom Levels of Control Wells 1
and2 179
xiii
-------
TABLES (continued)
Number
E-6 Statistical Comparison Between Top Levels of Test Wells 1 and 3 . . 180
E-7 Statistical Comparison Between Bottom Levels of Test Wells 1 and 2 181
E-8 Statistical Comparison Between Top Levels of Test Wells 1 and 2 .. 182
E-9 Statistical Comparison Between Bottom Levels of Test Wells 2 and 3 183
G-l Test Site Water Balance, 1965-1978 209
G-2 Control Site Water Balance, 1965-1978 210
G-3 Test Site Estimated Annual Total Water Used and Nutrient Supplied
in the Irrigation Water 1965-1978 211
G-4 Control Site Estimated Annual Total Water Used and Nutrient
Supplied in Irrigation Water 1965-1978 212
G-5 Test Site Nutrient Balance and Value, 1965-77 213
G-6 Control Site, Nutrient Balance and Value, 1965-77 221
G-7 Test Site Crop Yield and Nutrient Uptake, 1965-77 231
G-8 Control Site Crop Yield and Nutrient Uptake, 1965-77 233
xiv
-------
LIST OF SPECIAL ABBREVIATIONS0
ABBREVIATIONS
AE — acid extractive
C — composited sample (i.e., the sample was composited with another
sample)
CcC — cation exchange capacity
EX — exchangeable
Fa — fall
— fecal coliform
— not available
~ not enough sample
Org — organic
Sp — spring
Su ~ summer
T — total digestible
TC — total coliform
TDS — total dissolved solids
TO^ — total organic carbon
W — winter
WE — water extractive
Conventional biological and chemical symbols and abbreviations are not included in the
above listing.
xv
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We gratefully acknowledge the helpful support and direction provided by
Dr. William R. Duffer, Project Officer; and Mr. Richard E. Thomas, Research Soil
Scientist, Wastewater Management Branch of the Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research
Laboratory, Ada, Oklahoma; and Mr. Albert W. Ahlquist, Contracting Officer,
Cincinnati, Ohio.
The excellent cooperation and assistance of the following individuals, agencies and
companies enabled the successful performance of this work.
CITY OF MESA
Mr. Dean Sloan, Public Works Director
Mr. Harry Kent, Assistant City Engineer
Mr. Al Tessendorf, Wastewater Treatment Plant Foreman
Mr. Elmer D. Parker, Utility Operations, Field Supervisor
Ms. Dolores S. Spaulding, Property Agent Planning Department
Mr. Darrell Truitt, Project Engineer
INDIVIDUALS AND COMPANIES
Mr. Gary Feezor, Test Site Farmer
Mr. Robert C. Woods, First Control Site Farmer
Mr. Timothy Bunn, Second Control Site Farmer
Mr. Wayne Thornton, Second Control Site Farmer
Mr. Raymond Dooley, American Impound Service
Mr. David Tobey, General Manager, Century Paving Materials
Mr. Paul D. Ulses, Manager, Geotechnical Exploration, Engineers Testing
Laboratories, Inc.
Mr. E. M. Lines, Prior Test Site Fa/mer
Messrs. George and Robert Birchett, Prior Control Site Farmers
CITY OF TEMPE
Mr. Donald Pierson, Jr., City Engineer
MARICOPA COUNTY
Health Department
xvi
-------
UTILITIES
Arizona Public Service Company, Ocotillo Power Plant
SALT RIVER PROJECT
Mr. R. I. Juetten, Manager
Water Resource Operations
STATE OF ARIZONA
University of Arizona, Mesa Research Sfation
Dr. Joseph P. Gentry, P. E.
Agricultural Engineer
Sfate Land Department
Mr. Brian Kirby, Wafer Rights Division
Department of Health Services
Mr. James W. Scanlon, P. E.
Assistant Chief, Facilities
Bureau of Water Quality Control
Arizona State University, Tempo Campus
Dr. Troy L. Pewe, Chairman
Professor of Geology
Agricultural Extension Service
Mr. Charles Farr, Field Crops Specialist
FEDERAL AGENCIES
United States Department of Agriculture
Dr. Lee A. Christensen
Agricultural Economist
U. S. D. A. Soil Conservation Service
United States Geological Survey, Tucson
Mr. H. M. Babcock, District Chief, Water Resources Division
xvii
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
The widespread application of treated wastewater for irrigation is limited primarily by
certain economic, technical and public health uncertainties about the impacts of such
use. In addition to costs, there is concern that the quality of our foodstuffs, land re-
sources, and groundwater resources may be partially impaired due to residual contamin-
ants present in the treated effluent. For instance, high total salt concentration (salinity)
of irrigation water can greatly reduce the total crop yield. Concentrated dissolved
solids can severely deter plant growth. The salt content of the soil moisture strorqly
affects the osmotic relationships within plants since high salinity interferes with the
plants' ability to take up water. Furthermore, saline irrigation water may create an un-
favorable nutrient balance in the soil. Undesirable concentrations of toxic heavy metals
or salts in treated effluent may originate from the discharge of noxious chemicals by
manufacturing plants, commercial or even domestic sources having, for example, photo-
graphic dark rooms or zeolite water softeners.
Salinity may also adversely affect the structure of the soil by changing the chemical
and physical properties of clays and other minerals. For instance, when calcium is the
predominant cation, the soil usually has a granular structure which is easily worked and
readily permeable. As the calcium is replaced by sodium, however, the clay becomes
dispersed and the soil becomes less workable and more impermeable.
Trace heavy metals and other toxic constituents in the irrigation water may be
dangerous for two reasons. Many trace metals are phytotoxic. Aluminum, boron, copper,
manganese, selenium, and silver are some of the more notable examples. Phytotoxins
may kill a plant outright, but more often they inhibit and weaken its growth, reduce
yield, or produce a food product of inferior quality. Another potential problem lies in
biomagnification- the tendency for many plants to absorb and concentrate some toxic
substances. This tendency is pronounced in the case of the absorption of mercury by
aquatic algae and fish in the food chain, but similar problems may occur in terrestrial
plants, albeit to a lesser extent. Some of the toxic substances which are subject to bio-
magnification are cadmium, molybdenum, selenium, and fluoride. In food crops, this
could present a hazard to human health. The significance of long-term application of
heavy metals to agricultural soils from wastewater irrigation will depend on whether these
metals are ultimately absorbed by plants, they assume inert chemical forms in the soil
that cannot be absorbed by plants, or they are leached into the groundwater.
-------
Pathogens can also be a problem when irrigating with sewage effluent. This is of
particular concern when the crop is to be consumed raw by humans. Pathogenic protozoa,
bacteria, viruses and other organisms can enter plant tissues in a variety of ways and may
even be found in the edible portion of the plant. One solution to this problem is to
irrigate only grasses or pasture land with reclaimed water; however, there is still concern
about possible bacterial or other infection of grazing livestock. Some pathogens present
in raw sewage may also represent a hazard to the plants. Certain fungi/bacteria, proto-
zoa, and nematodes can attack vegetation,damaging the growing plant and severely
affecting the yield.
Dissolved salts, heavy metals, and pathogens also pose a potential danger to the
usable groundwater supplies. Usually, the nature of the soil is such that insoluble solids,
some ions, heavy metals, and pathogens are effectively removed by adsorption, precipita-
tion, or exchange within the first few feet of fine-grained soil. However, a bypass of
raw sewage, such as through an uncapped well or bedrock fissure directly into potable
groundwater aquifers, may cause an epidemic or other contaminative outbreak. Never-
theless, land disposal in general, has been found to be a superior biological filter,
greatly reducing health hazards and other adverse environmental impacts when contrasted"
with water disposal.
Before irrigation with sewage effluent can be significantly expanded, a detailed
assessment of its long-term effects is required. The purpose of this study was to evaluate
the long-term environmental and cost impacts resulting from irrigating farmland with
secondary treated municipal effluent. The major areas of concern were: Impact of the
wastewater on groundwater, soils and crop quality; changes in the crop yield and uptake
of minerals; costs of crop production using wastewater; and the environmental health
hazards. Specifically, the objectives were to:
o Sample soils (at the beginning and the end of the monitoring program), harvested
crops, and water (irrigation water, leachate, and upper groundwater).
o Contrast the effluent-treated test site biological (including pathogens), physical
and chemical characteristics of the soils, crops, irrigation water, percolating
water and groundwater with similar data obtained at the control site.
o Contrast the agricultural costs and crop yields.
o Evaluate other environmental and health effects.
The first step in implementing the study was to select a separate effluent irrigation
site and a paired normal irrigation site.This was done by reviewing a computerized list of
existing effluent irrigation sites supplied by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
as well as by reviewing current literature. A group of 5 candidate sites in Arizona were
selected for intensive technical evaluation based on the preselection criteria. Of these,
-------
two locations were chosen for visitation and final review. Mesa, Arizona, classified as
having an arid climate, was ultimately selected for the assessment of the long-term en-
vironmental impact of irrigating with sewage effluent. Separate test and control sites
were obtained.
Site specific but uniform monitoring programs for both the test and control sites at
Mesa were developed. Soil samples, collected from several depths at the beginning and
at the end of the monitoring program, were examined for biological organisms and phys-
ical properties/and analyzed for chemical constituents (including nutrients, heavy metals
and salts).
The tissues of harvested crops were tested for pathogens and chemical constituents.
Chemical and biological analyses were made twice each month on the irrigation waters
(treated effluent from the test site and municipal water supply from the control site),
percolating water, and upper groundwater. The data collection, laboratory analyses,
and office studies were conducted over a 24-month period, including 18 months of field
sampling from August ^976 to January ,1978.
-------
SECTION 2
CONCLUSIONS
The long-term effects from crop Irrigation of municipal secondary treated wastewater
were evaluated by comparing a Jest site irrigated for over 10 years with secondary
treated effluent, with a similar control site irrigated with normal potable water. Gen-
eral conclusions on land disposal by crop irrigation include those related to overall site
and effluent impacts and requirements.
Due to a combination of variable crop irrigation schedules and the total irrigation
volume being less than the effluent volume, facilities for effluent storage and bypass info
a stream bed were needed at Mesa. Where sufficient cropland is available to utilize all
of the effluent from a wastewater plant for crop irrigation, storage facilities would still
be needed due to the variable crop irrigation schedules.
Irrigation water was applied by furrow irrigation at the test and control sites when
the crops had grown above ground. Avoidance of spray irrigation reduced the potential
public exposure to the wind-blown effluent. No flies or sewage odors were detected on
the effluent irrigated test site. After over 16 years of continuous land disposal of effluent
at Mesa, no adverse health effects were reported on farm workers, consumers, or waste-
treafment plant personnel. Available information on the incidence of illness of farm and
treatment plant workers indicated no difference from other local farm or industrial
workers. A well oxidized, clear, odor-free disinfected effluent is desirable to avoid
potential dangers and nuisances that may be associated with effluent land disposal.
Farmers and their advisors were neither knowledgeable about nor saw great benefits
in using reclaimed wastewater effluent for crop irrigation. Education and information
programs for farmers on the availability and cost benefits of using effluent for crop irri-
gation would enable farmers to more realistically assess effluent irrigation for their crops.
Although use of treated wastewater for land irrigation requires a separate set of
water pumping and distribution lines, the irrigation costs were lower when compared with
conventional water supplies because of the lower cost of effluent.
The areas of concern in using treated effluent for irrigation water included: hazards
to farm workers' health, contamination of the soils, crops, or the groundwater underlying
the effluent irrigated site, changes in the crop yield, uptake of minerals and nutrients,
-------
costs, and nuisances. Specific conclusions concerning these latter impacts are presented
below:
BIOLOGICAL AND CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF WATER AND SOILS
1. The wastewater effluent applied to the test site had significantly higher total
dissolved solids (about 27 percent) than the irrigation water applied to the control site;
in particular, chlorides (4Q percent) and sodium (43 percent). The effluent applied to
to test site was 600 percent greater in total nitrogen, 180 percent greater in potassium,
and 1,740 percent greater in phosphates than that applied to the control site. Boron,fluo-
ride and total organic carbon were also significantly greater by 130, 182, and 200percent,
respectively, in the effluent applied to the test site. The heavy metals, total and fecal
colifbrm were not significantly different between the test and control irrigation waters.
2. Highly reliable statistical analysis of the leachate was not possible because the
number of samples was limited. The analytical data, however, indicate that no con-
stituent in the test site leachate was found to be significantly different from the control
site leachate at the 50-cm subsurface depths, and total coliform, magnesium and nickel
were significantly lower for the 100-cm test site leachate.
3. The percolating water increased in total dissolved solids including chlorides and
sodium, by as much as 50 percent from zero surface soil depth to 50-cm depth. At the
test site, the total dissolved solids increased at the 100-cm depth whereas at the control
site the total dissolved solids in the leachate decreased almost to the irrigation water
level at the 100-cm depth. Nitrates at both sites increased with depth: by 3,200 percent
in the test site leachate, and 580 percent in the control site leachate. The waste treat-
ment process was effective in reducing the coliform count in the effluent. The total and
fecal coliform counts decreased with depth by more than 99.5 percent at the 100-cm
depth in both the test and control site leachate. The metals in the leachate samples did
not significantly change with increased subsurface depths.
4. Total dissolved solids increased in the leachate entering the upper groundwater
at both the test and control sites. Chlorides, which increased by 35percent, sulfatesby
20 percent, and sodium by 60 percent, were significantly greater in concentration in the
downstream than the upstream control well. There were no significant differences ob-
served in the other analyzed constituents between the upstream and the downstream con-
trol wells.
5. The most significant difference noted between the test site upstream test wells
and the downstream test well was an increase of about 55 percent or more in total dis-
solved solids, chlorides, sodium, calcium, and magnesium content.
6. The organic content in the effluent as indicated by the total organic carbon and
total and fecal coliform were effectively attenuated by percolation through the soil.
Nitrates and boron in effluent percolated through the soil with little change and entered
-------
into the groundwater.
7. In general, the test and control soils did not differ significantly in their biologi-
cal and chemical characteristics. There were no significant changes in the biological
characteristics between initial and final samplings. There was however, a decrease in
concentration over time for approximately 50 percent of the analyzed chemical consti-
tuents.
GROUNDWATER QUAUTY COMPARISON
The groundwater samples' analytical results for the study period were compared with
the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency 1975 interim primary drinking water regula-
tions and the wafer quality criteria for municipal water supplies. The percent of analyses
which exceeded these standards were calculated for both the test site groundwater and the
control site groundwater samples. The percent of time that the test site groundwater
samples exceeded the aforementioned water standards was compared with the results found
for the control site groundwater, as follows:
1. The groundwater samples at the test site exceeded the aforementioned water
quality standards more often than the control site groundwater for total coliform (30+7
versus 18 + 4 percent of the time, respectively), fluorides (8+8 versus 0 percent), "and
arsenic (8~+ 12 versus 0 percent). "~
2. The test site groundwater exceeded the aforementioned water quality standards
less often than the control site groundwater for chloride (47 + 38 versus 98+5 percent,
respectively), and chromium (18+2 versus 25+9 percent).
3. The groundwater at the test and control sites exceeded the aforementioned water
quality standards by similar percentages of time for fecal coliform (1 + 3 versus 4 + 5
percent, respectively), total dissolved solids (98 + 4 versus 100 percent), nitrates
22 +24 versus 24 + 26 percent), cadmium (43 +"3 versus 42+7 percent), and lead
69 "+ 14 versus 65"~+ 22 percent). ~ ~
4. The following constituents did not exceed water quality standards in any of the
well depths at either site: boron, sulfate, barium, copper, nickel, zinc, and selenium.
5. No significant trends were identified in any constituent between the two upstream,
and one downstream test well and the two on-site control wells, nor between the two
depths in any well.
CROP TISSUE ANALYSES
1. Test site corn leaves were lower than the expected* ranges in boron, phosphorus,
and magnesium.
-------
2. Barley leaves at the test site were above the expected range for cadmium (2 ver-
sus 0 to 1 mg/kg) and lead (14 versus 0 to 10
3. Cotton leaves and petioles grown on the control site exceeded expected ranges
in mg/kg for cadmium (4.7 versus 0 to 3), chromium (1.7 versus 0 to 1), molybdenum (33
versus 0 to 10), nickel (9.3 versus 0 +2), and lead (100 versus 0 to 10).
SOIL NUTRIENTS
1. The test site soils evidenced a net depletion of nitrogen (904 kg/ha/yr) over a
13-year period. The control site soils were also depleted in nitrogen (53 kg/ha/yr),
phosphorus (37 kg/ha/yr), and potassium (42 kg/ha/yr)• Potassium (216 kg/ha/yr) and
phosphorus (245 kg/ha/yr) accumulated in the test site soils.
CROP YIELDS
1. Crop yields for barley, sorghum, and wheat were similar over a 13-year period
on the test and control sites. Since no commercial fertilizer was used on the test site,
the nutrients in the effluent were sufficient to provide a normal crop yield.
CROP ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
1. The value of the nutrients (nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium) provided by the
effluent at the test site over a 13-year period was $4,460 Aa or $343/ha/yr.
2. The total cost of crops on the effluent test site was less than the crops costs on the
control site due to the use of effluent at no cost in place of purchasing potable water and
fertilizer.
-------
SECTION 3
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Special studies on viruses present in effluent applied to and present in edible
crops should be conducted. The studies would provide a meaningful data comparison for
existing effluent and conventional water irrigation crop sites. Analyses should be con-
ducted for selected viruses such as polio and influenza in the treated wastewater, soils,
crops, leachate and groundwater.
2. Toxic elements found in the wastewater may enter crops. Standard bio-assay
tests are recommended to assess the toxicity of the effluent, crops, soils, leachates, and
groundwater at land disposal sites. Bio-assay methods should include bacterial tests, fish
exposure, or other techniques. Biochemical oxygen demand or bacterial respiration tests
should also be used as an indicator.
3. Plant and animal disease studies are desirable to assess the potential effects of
effluent. The work should include field and controlled laboratory scale tesfs to define
quantitative effluent parameters.
4. Epidemiological studies should be conducted on the health of the populations
surrounding the effluent irrigation sites.
5. Public agency personnel, farmers, farm workers, and farm advisors associated
with reclamation and conventional water supply sites should be surveyed for attitudes to-
ward the effectiveness of wastewater land disposal irrigation.
6. Industrial wasfewater pretreatment programs on plant effluent quality and land
disposal should be investigated.
7. A demonstration and an educational program should be developed to acquaint
fanners wifh the availability, usefulness and cost-effectiveness of effluent for crop Irri-
gation.
8. Vertical type studies of the quality and marketability of effluent-irrigated crops
starting wifh the farmer, processor and distributors through to the consumer should be
performed.
8
-------
9. Pilot tests and field demonstrations to optimize crop yields and define realistic
effluent irrigation rates should be conducted.
10. The nutritional value of food or other crops grown with wastewater irrigation
should be compared to food or other crops grown with conventional water.
11. Studies to assess the fufvre viability of the land disposal alternative in areas
where communities are rapidly growing should be performed. The survey should assess the
availability of existing farm land for effluent irrigation, and the encroachment of various
types of development on existing effluent irrigation programs.
-------
SECTION 4
SITE SELECTION
PRELIMINARY SCREENING
The search for an appropriate test site began with a list provided by the United
States Environmental Protection Agency indicating waste water treatment plants in Cali-
fornia, Nevada, and Arizona employing effluents for irrigation. This was supplemented
by additional information obtained during a literature survey. From over 100 candidate
sites, five Arizona sites were chosen for closer study. These 5 community sites, shown
on Figure 1, were then evaluated by the criteria shown in Table 1. Based on these cri-
teria, two Arizona sites were selected for final screening; they are also shown on Figure
1. Telephone calls and confirmatory letters were sent to the concerned authorities at the
two selected sites to explain the project and to request their cooperation for field visits.
FINAL SELECTION
Two Arizona sites were ultimately selected as being potentially the best in fulfilling
the general criteria. The summary data for Mesa and the alternate site are presented in
Table 2. They were visited once again during February,1976, this time in Hie company
of Dr. William R. Duffer, Project Officer. The review visits developed further informa-
tion supplementing that previously gathered.
Initially, the Mesa site was not considered qualified because the reported annual
rate of effluent application exceeded fhe criteria. However, there was no assurance
that the alternate site would be cultivated after December,1976 when the farmer's lease
expired. Accordingly, the search was renewed for additional Arizona sites; but of seven
possible locations identified, none were considered completely satisfactory.
The Project Officer was then informed that the list of Arizona sites had been ex-
hausted without locating a site fully meeting the selection criteria. Sites in California
and Nevada falling into the same climatological Zone B (hot, semi-arid) were also
analyzed. After considering all the factors, the Mesa site was selected in April 1976
and approved in May ,1976. A detailed description of the project site Is included as
Appendix A,"Site Description." A map showing the Mesa study area is shown on
Figure 2.
10
-------
Legend
O Initially Reviewed Sites
• Field Visited Sites (final screening)
• Test Location
50 100
Scale (km)
200
Figure 1 .Site locations: Arizona.
11
-------
TABLE 1. SITE SELECTION CRITERIA
Parameter Criteria
Provision for secondary treated effluent
Continuous irrigation with effluent £ 10 years
Average daily effluent flow - 365 kilo liters
Average annual effluent application 1.83 metere
Availability of records on local groundwater quality
Future continued use of the site for irrigation
Availability of the test site of a comparable control area
unaffected by the effluent irrigation operation and
receiving normal irrigation water within 1.6 km
Cooperation of local authorities and farmers
A variety of major crops grown on effluent-irrigated land
Proximity of land receiving the effluent to the treatment plant
Sites located in arid and semi-arid regions
12
-------
TABLE 2. DATA FROM SITE SELECTION VISITS TO MESA
_AND ALTERNATE LOCATION, ARIZONA
Criterion
Type of wastewater treatment
Years irrigated
Application rate (m/yr)
Distance to proposed test site (km)
Available existing wells
Crops
Fertilizers
Pesticides
Depth of wells (m)
Sludge application to land
Irrigated area (ha)
Local municipal cooperation
Local farmer cooperation
Alternate Location
Secondary
22a
1.2-1.5
6.5-8.1
1
Cotton
Grain
None
Unknown
76.2
None
141.7-161.9
Good
Limited
Mesa
Secondary
16
6.1-9. lb
0.4
Several
Grain
Com
Barley
None
None
19. 8C
None to test site
40.5
Excellent
Excellent
I Interrupted 5 years ago for 2 years.
Further information indicates that this is not the true rate since it includes recharge
c basins, and the true rate is only about 25 percent of the total.
Subsequent to site selection visit, the drawdown level was measured at 33.5 m.
13
-------
Scale in km
Source: 1
Figure 2. Study area - test and control farm sites.
14
-------
SECTION 5
SAMPLING AND MONITORING PROGRAM
OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE
Following the site selection process outlined in Section 4, the general objectives
described in Section 1 were implemented by developing a tentative sampling and analy-
tical program. After submission to the Project Officer in June, 1976, the program was
revised in September, 1976 to render it more site specific. The final field sampling and
laboratory test program used for Mesa is presented in Table 3. Sampling procedures and
analytical methods used are referenced in Appendix B.
TEST AND CONTROL SITE MONITORING
The comparison of critical parameters between an effluent-irrigated test site and a
conventionally-irrigated control site is basic to the assessment of long-term effluent
application effects. Monitoring and sampling activities on test and control sites at each
location were identical and closely coordinated by timing to minimize external factors.
Coordination of monitoring and sampling involved the following practices:
o Using uniform field sampling methods and equipment.
o Sampling test and control sites on the same day.
o Using identical sample storage, handling, and analytical procedures.
o Using the same personnel for sampling/analysis at both sites.
Where individual farm procedures or factors differed between the test and control sites,
these differences were evaluated and described.
Descriptive information was obtained from each site for the following:
o Historical farming practices.
o Fertilizer and pesticide application rates.
15
-------
Soil
Soil
en
Irrigation
water
TABLE 3. TEST AND CONTROL SUES - REVISED SITE SAMPLING
AND ANALYSIS PROGRAM (September, 1976)
Sample
Type
Sampling
Location Frequency
Number
of Samples
Consfiruents for Analysis
Number of Analyses
per Site
Test Control Total
2 samples per site.
Depths of 0-2, 2-4,
9-11,29-31,95-105
(10 sub-samples com-
posited per sample),
195-205,and 295-305
cm.
2 samples per site.
Depths of 0-2,2-4,
9-11,29-31,95-105
(10 sub-samp I os com-
posted per sample),
195-205 and 295-305
cm.
14
28
1st mo. and
after 1 crop
is harvested
Treatment plant or 2 x/month
main irrigation pipe- 13 months
line
26
Moisture and organic content,
hydraulic conductivity, par-
ticle density,bulk density,
particle size distribution.
Soil pH (7)
CEC,extractable Soluble Salts
(Ca,Mg,K,Na),P (as POJ,N
(as NO and KjN), B, cf,F,
Cu, Ag,Hg,Pb' , Cr,Cd,As,Ba,
Mn,Mo,organic P,exrractable
P, Se,Zn; exchangeable cations
(Ca, Mg, Na, K); exfractab! e
metals (Mg,As,Cu,Ag,Hg,Pb,
Cr,Cd,Mn,Ni,Se,Zn);PCB,
total and fecal col if orm, proto-
zoa, and nematodes (46)
Total soils
TDS,coIiform, fecal and
total (3)
98 98 196
1,288 1,288 2,576
1,386 1,386
78 78
(continued)
-------
TABLE 3 (continued)
Sample
Typo Location
Irrigation
water (Cont.)
Groundwater 3 wells per site, each
Sampling Number Number ^Analyses
Freqpency of Samples Constituents for Analysis Per -*'tfl
Test Control Total
Monthly 13
composites
of 2vmonth
samples, 13
times
2x/month at 192
P(as PO.),N
-------
TABLES '(continued)
oo
Sample
Type Location
Control 3 sets of 5 composited
budan plant samples of seeds
grass and grain of 3 crops
Sorghum
or wheat
Sorghum
or other
small grain
Test 3 -sets of 5 composited
Sorqhum plant samPles of S««n
fodder or small grain
Sorghum of 4 crops
or wheat
Sorghum
and milo
Sampling Number
Freqyency of Samples Constituents for Analysis
1 each 9 Coliform, total and fecal (2)
NO3, Ca, P, K, Na, Mg,
Mo, Pb, Cr, Cd, Cu, B, Fe,
As, Ba, Cl, S, Mn, Se, Zn
/O/>\
(20)
1 each 12 Coliform, total and fecal (2)
NO3, Ca, P, K, Na, Mg,
Mor Pb, Cr, Cd, Cu, B, Fe,
As, Ba, Cl, S, Mn, Se, Zn
(20)
Total Crops
Total Analyses
Number of Analyses
per Site
Test Control Total
13 10
180 180
24 - 24
240 - 240
264 198 462
5,640 5,574 11,214
-------
o Irrigation water source, quality, quantity, and frequency.
o Climatic data (wind, temperature, precipitation, etc.).
o Hydrogeology.
o Soil characteristics.
o Crop type, rotation, planting and harvesting dates, and yield.
o Farm worker health data.
o Crop market factors.
These data are presented in Appendix A, "Site Description."
SOIL SAMPLE COLLECTION
In accordance with the final program, soil samples were obtained prior to the first
crop planting at the beginning of the monitoring, and after ftie last crop was harvested at
the end of the monitoring. Soil samples were taken at seven depths (V, 3; 10; 30; 100/
200-and 300-cm) and analyzed for the physical, chemical, and biological parameters
indicated in Table 3. Ten sampling points were distributed uniformly throughout the area
of each site for the shallow sampling (up to 100-cm). Deep samples (200-and 300-cm) were
taken at two locations at each site where the drill rig and backhoe had access. Appropri-
ate soil collection procedures were followed for biological, physical and chemical
analyses as detailed below.
Biological and Chemical Sample Collection
Obtaining uncontaminated soil specimens for biological analysis proved to be a com-
plex sampling procedure. Several methods were used to collect "clean" samples from
seven depths at each location. Taking soil samples with a 15-cm diameter auger drill was
found to be unacceptable due to the difficulty of preventing soils of different depths from
intermixing during the collecting operation. Soil samples taken with a stainless steel,
manually-operated probe were also subject to contamination during extraction. Trenching
with a backhoe was found to be an effective means of obtaining good, clean samples at
the test and control sites. Hence, 3-meter deep trenches were excavated at the desired
locations and the selected depths were measured down the side wall of each trench.
Approximately 2-cm of the exposed trench side wall was scraped away, using a disposable
sterile spatula, to uncover the undisturbed soil. Next, the uncontaminated soil was trans-
ferred from inside each side wall location into a sterilized sample container using a second
sterile spatula. During the sampling, it was determined that an undisturbed sample could
also be easily obtained by removing a bucket of soil from the desired depth with a mech-
anical backhoe, and then taking the undisturbed biological soil specimen from the center
19
-------
of an unbroken clod of soil excavated at the desired depth. This technique was used to
obtain the 200-and 300-cm soil samples because the unstable, sandy gravel subsoil made
manual descent into a 3-meter deep trench hazardous.
Because unstable chemical compounds were also subject to time constraints, soil
specimens for chemical analysis were ordinarily collected at the same time and in the
same manner as the biological samples.
Once taken, samples were stored immediately in an ice chest and were refrigerated
at 4° to 8° C until they were analyzed. Generally, all samples were composited
in the laboratory and analyzed in accordance with recommended methods referenced in
Appendix B. Biological examination was started within 24 hours after sample collection.
Physical Samples
Soil samples were also collected and physically analyzed for their density, moisture
content, organic content, hydraulic permeability and particle size distribution. Shallow
samples, 30-cm or less, were collected with hand tools. Deeper sampling employed a
15 cm diameter powered auger drill. Use of the drill, and standard methods for determin-
ing physical properties are further described in Appendix B.
LYSIMETER SAMPLES
The leachate sampling program was designed to provide percolated water data at
specific depths to allow comparison of chemical and biological balances and changes at
both the test and control farm sites. The leachate was analyzed for the constituents
itemized in Table 3. Figure 3 shows a schematic of the leachafe sampling system.
Lysimeter Design
The lysimeters installed at the study sites were constructed using 60-cm sections of
PVC, Class 125-psi, 5-cm O. D. pipe as shown In Figure 4. A 7 cm long by 4.7-cm
diameter ceramic porous cup was attached to one end of the lysimeter probe pipe. The
cups had a wall thickness of 0.23-cm with pore openings in the 1-2 /j. range. The other
end of the lysimeter probe pipe was fitted with a number 10 rubber stopper through which
two 0.6-cm O. D. polyethylene tubes were extended. One polyethylene tube extended
the length of the lysimeter probe and was used to remove collected leachate samples.
The other tube terminated 1-cm below the rubber stopper and was used as a vacuum inlet
for the lysimeter. Both tubes were fitted with gas-tight valves which controlled the
internal vacuum and leachate sample flow.
Field Development
A serfes of field development tests were first carried out to determine the optimum vac-
uum conditions for the lysimeters. Figure5 shows the amount of vacuum suction that
was needed to extract leachafe from the Mesa soils as a function of their percentage of
20
-------
Valves
Vacuum Line
200-Mesh
Sand
Sterilized
Connector
Tubing
No Scale
fl
Vacuum Pump
V ^
Sterilized
(Sample
/ \ Bottle
F \^
' ^- Ground Surface
Valves and tubing are normally burled and covered with a metal plate for pro-
tection from farm equipment damage.
Lysi meter
Probe
Figure 3 .Sterile leachate sampler system schematic.
-------
Vacuum Line-
r 1 1
I I i
-n —
1 ^vJ
r
L
'.
"'
60 cm
7 cm
No Scale
Valves
Sample Line
Rubber Stopper
Class 125 psi PVC
Pipe
Epoxy Seal
Porous Cup (pore size 1-2
U— 5cm —>j
Figure 4« l,eachahe collecfion probe (I/simeter) schemaHc.
22
-------
107000
1,000
100
10
VI
o
-Q
E
u
0.1
0.01
0,001
10
20 30 40
Percent Moisture (dry weight)
50
Figure 3. Lysimeter probe leachate collection and moisture release curves.
23
-------
soil moisture. The soil moisture percentages in the agricultural topsoil were high enough
for leachafe collection, using a vacuum lysimeter, only immediately following irrigation
or rainfall. The use of falling vacuum lysimeters avoided the expense of providing a con-
tinuously operating vacuum pump. This, however, necessitated embedding the porous cup
in a slurry of 200-mesh sand. The sand slurry encasement served two purposes:
o It transported moisture by capillary action into the lysimeter cup.
o It helped prolong the vacuum duration.
It was determined that an applied vacuum of over 630-mm of mercury (0.838 bars)
would remain at a useful level for 36 hours. The lysimeter vacuum loss curve is illustrated
in Figure 6. The soil moisture profile changed as a function of time between water
applications as illustrated in Figure 7. Thus, by applying a 36-hour vacuum to the
lysimeters within one to three days after irrigation or precipitation, the peak soil
moisture could be sampled at the different depths.
Installation
Lysimeters were installed at soil depths of 50; TOO; and 300-cm at three locations
within each field. The locations of the lysimeter probes are illustrated in Figures 8 and
9 for the Mesa test and control sites.
For the 300-cm deep lysimeter probe, a hole was excavated with a heavy duty mech-
anical auger drill rig or backhoe, and the hole bottom was filled to a depth of 20-cm
with 200-mesh sand slurry. Then the probe was inserted, ceramic cup downwards, into
the center of the slurry bed. After placing the lysimeter probe, the hole was backfilled
and compacted with layers of the excavated soil to 60-cm below the ground surface. The
sampling and vacuum lines were then coiled and placed beneath a protective metal plate
at the 60-cm depth to protect against farm equipment damage, and the hole was then
completely backfilled with native soil. Finally, the top soil was also compacted to
prevent water from bypassing or channeling down into the lysimeter and causing an
unrepresentative short-circuited leachate sample. Care was taken to minimize the alter-
ation of the physical, chemical, and biological characteristics during the backfilling
and to avoid interference in the farm operations.
The shallow lysimeters (50-and 100-cm depths) were installed somewhat differently.
A trench approximately 90-cm long was excavated by hand shovel at the selected loca-
tion to a depth of 100-cm. The lysimeter was then installed in this hole following the
backfill procedure for the 300-cm depth probes described above. A second lysimeter,
with its porous cup pointed downward and towards the 100-cm lysimeter probe, was then
installed at an angle of 10 with respect to the horizontal in the original trench. The
sample and vacuum lines were run back to the other end of the french and covered with
a metal plate. Next, the trench was completely backfilled. Lysimeters were evacuated
after their initial installation. The initially collected water, which was introduced with
the 200-mesh sand slurry, was extracted and disposed.
24
-------
to
Oi
400 -
0
0
12 15
27
30
33 36
39
18 21 24
Time (hrs)
Figure 6, Falling vacuum lysimeter, vacuum dissipation with time.
42 45
-------
Surface
to
a.
a>
a
'6
to
D)
i/>
o
(D
U
c
SchemaHc
(not to scale)
Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4
Increasing Soil Moisture, Percentage Dry Weight
Increasing Time (days) ^_
Figure 7 .Idealized soil moisture profile as a function of'time after an application of surface water.
-------
0
Scale: 1 mm = 50 m
2500
a
o
o
•
o
a
Legend
O Lysimeters placed at 50-and 100-cm depths
• Lysimeter at ISO-cm depth
D Lysimeter at 300-cm depth
Figure 8. Control site lysimeter locations.
27
-------
D
D
O
a
2500
O
O
Scale: 1 mm = 50 m
Legend
O Lysimeters placed at 50-and 100-cm depths
V Lysimeter at 150-cm depth
D Lysimeter at 300-cm depth
Figure 9. Test site lysimeter locations.
28
-------
Sampling Procedure
Initially, the lysimeter probes were evacuated following each field irrigation or
natural precipitation to maximize the amount of leachate collected. Within two days of
evacuation, the lysimeters were then sampled to remove all the collected leachate. To
avoid non-representative reactions from occurring and to prevent readsorption of the
sample by the soil as the vacuum dissipated and the 200-mesh sand encasement dried, the
leachate sample was allowed to remain in the probe no longer than two days. Sterile
collection procedures were used for all the samples. The leachate removal apparatus was
sterilized each time before use to prevent contamination of bacteriological samples.
Leachate samples were then removed via the lysimeter sampling probe using a hand-oper-
ated vacuum pump, as depicted in Figure 3. After sampling, the rubber stopper on the
sample bottle was replaced with a sterile lid, each probe was re-evacuated, and the
sample lines were reburied to protect against damage by farm equipment. Leachate
samples were refrigerated at 4 - 8 °C in transit until time for the laboratory analyses.
Bacteriological tests were started within 24 hours after the samples were collected. As
the study progressed, the lysimeters were sampled and evacuated at two-week intervals.
Occasionally, the shallow lysimeters were damaged during field plowing and required
replacement. Figure 10 illustrates the field sampling.
Other investigators have reported erroneous nitrate and phosphate concentrations
from analysis of leachate collected with porous ceramic cup lysimeters (2). Apparently
NO3 and PO4 ions can be adsorbed onto the ceramic cup walls as they pass through.
This effect was avoided by pretreating lysimeters in nitrate and phosphate solutions to
reduce possible adsorption need. At the test and control sites, a number of lysimeters
were installed which proved unproductive, probably because high soil porosity provided
little retained moisture. The amount of leachate collected from these lysimeters was
increased by using a much larger volume of 200-mesh sand bedding than used in the
original lysimeters. The 3 standards and volume were increased approximately threefold to
about 14 cubic decimeters for each ceramic lysimeter cgp.
IRRIGATION WATER
Undesirable constituents may be introduced into the soil and groundwater via the
application of irrigation water. Analyses of this water provided significant baseline data
from which to quantitatively determine the important constituents. The analyzed constit-
uents are listed in Table 3. The sampling location is shown on Figure 11.
Effluent samples from the Mesa wastewater treatment plant were collected and com-
posited daily by cooperating treatment plant personnel at the Mesa treatment plant,grab
samples were taken daily from the irrigation effluent leaving the holding pond. The con-
ventional irrigation water samples at the Mesa control site were obtained weekly from the
Tempo Canal.
29
-------
a. Metal detector to locate buried lysi-
meter.
b. Sterile well water sampler.
c. Sterile lysimeter sampler.
d. Lysimeter leachate discharge.
Figure 10. Field sampling.
30
-------
rrT> \!jl| ,
-ssa^uLa^-H—^^=rr
Source: 1
Scale in km
Legend
Irrigation water sampling
point
Figure IK Irrigation sampling locations
31
-------
Three bi-weekly samples for each location were composited and maintained at 4 to
8° C by refrigeration. One sample was taken and stored under sterile conditions for
bacteriological analyses; the other two samples were acidified and preserved in accord-
ance with EPA recommended practices.
CROP SAMPLING
One of the most important parameters affecting land application of wastewater is the
possible uptake of undesirable constituents by crops. Quantitative chemical and bacter-
iological analyses performed on crop samples are listed on Table 3.
For each crop, five sampling points were selected. The sampling points were at
least 7.5 m from the edge of the field and were uniformly spaced throughout. Individual
plants were sampled only if they appeared to be representative of the field as a whole.
Large, small, malformed, discolored or other unusual plants were not sampled. The
procedure used for the collection of test plant tissue samples varied depending on plant
types and intended analyses. Tissue specimens for bacteriological analyses were taken,
stored, and transported under sterile conditions. Grain crops were sampled at harvesting
time. At each of the five sampling locations in each field, samples of five leaves and
five stalks were collected for chemical analysis, and one leaf and one stalk for bacter-
iological^analysis. Ten blades were sampled for all grass crops. Fiber crops (cotton)
were sampled once before harvesting. The procedure used to obtain samples was identi-
cal to that used for vegetable crops. These samples were maintained at 4 to 8 C until
analysis, which commenced within 24 hours after tissue collection. Samples taken for
chemical analysis were composited for digestion (see Appendix B for a description of the
plant tissue analysis method).
GROUNDWATER WELL SAMPLING
Three groundwater monitoring wells were drilled at the test site, and two monitoring
wells were drilled at the control site. The objective was to assess any change in the
groundwater introduced by the infiltrating leachate. Table 3 lists the constituents for
which chemical analyses were performed.
The criteria which governed ffie installation of the groundwater monitoring wells were:
to place the wells upstream and downstream of the groundwater aquifer for each test or
control site, where possible; to drill through sfratigraphically identifiable formations
and obtain samples, and to avoid faults where drainage water could short-circuit directly
to the monitoring well; to minimize the impact of field well installation procedures on
farming; and fo construct sampling wells which were not to exceed 30.5 m in total'depth
with the lower 3 to 6 m placed in the uppermost aquifer yielding at least 15 Ipm.
Data was obtained on soils and groundwater during the well drilling. In the test and
control sites, a sandy topsoil layer was underlain by coarse alluvial material with some
thin, clay interbeds (see Appendix A ). Table 4 lists the depths to the water-bearing
strata. Figure 12 shows wells and groundwater levels.
32
-------
TABLE 4» MONITORING WELL DEPTHS
CO
CO
Depths (m)
Site
Mesa
° 2/24/77.
b 2/28/77.
c 4/8/77.
d 5/9/77.
Water-bearing Strata
MT-la
MT-2b
MT-3C
MC-1?
MC-2b
32-36
30-36
31-36
30-36
41
Perforated Casing
30-
30-
30-
30-
28-
36
36
36
36
41
Static Water Level
26 d
27
30
28d
32
Water Elevation,. M.S.L.
333d
333
329
333d
331
-------
I Confrol site
| Test site
N
Test 3
Control 2
(projected)
Test 1
/Test 2 and'
I Control 1
\ projected
1
-365
Approximately 6
percent slope toward
south.
Scale in meters
Legend
• -1-- Groundwater surface
Figure 12.
34
-------
SECTION 6
WASTEWATER IRRIGATION EVALUATION
After the field sampling and analytical planning schedule (described in Section 5)
was established, attention was directed toward full-scale implementation. The first soil
and crop samples were collected during October and November, 1976. Lysimef-ers were
installed for collection of leachate samples at all sites by December,1976. The ground-
water monitoring wells were completed in March,1977.
The comprehensive irrigation water, soil, crop, leachate, and groundwater test program
was performed from March,1977 through February,1978. The final set of soil samples was
taken between October and December, 1977. Plant samples were collected whenever
the crops were harvested. The analytical result? and the evaluation of the soil, plant,
and water studies are presented in this section.
Statistical comparisons were made of the test and control site analyses to fest for any
significant differences between conditions at the two locations. Three basic data condi-
tions existed between the test and control sites: (1) the data were significantly different,
(2) the data were similar, and (3) the data were below the analytical method detection
limits, inconsistent or insufficient for determining any statistically significant difference
or similarity. The following three statistical tests were employed to analyze the data:
difference of means by the H-test (hypothesis test) or the student 1-test, and the differ-
ence in variability by the chi-square distribution test. Detailed explanation of these
statistical tests may be found in any statistics textbook. The difference of means was
generally the main criteria used for determining if significant differences existed between
the test and control sites. The r-test was used as the criteria for significance in the
difference of means whenever the number of samples were small (usually less than 10 per-
cent. The chi-square test was used to check the difference in variability between the
test and control sites. The statistical tests were applied to complete the following data
comparisons between the test and control sites:
o Control site irrigation water versus test site wastewater effluent.
o Leachate - comparison between test and control sites by depth.
o Groundwater - up to 30-meters depth below the ground surface; upstream, on-*ite,
and downstream shallow groundwater samples were compared statistically for test
and control sites separately.
35
-------
o Soils - test versus control sites for initial and final samples; initial versus final
test, and initial versus final control site samples.
The statistical analyses are presented in two data tabulations. The sample means,
standard deviations, and statistical confidence levels (in percent) are given on one
tabulation in Appendix E. The mean values and percentage difference in mean values
between the test and control sites are summarized by confidence level categories in this
section for each type of sample and/or sample location.
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF SOILS
The physical soil baseline characteristics were determined from the set of samples
taken in October,! 976; the results are shown in Table 5. The amount of organics present
(see Figure 13, also) was greater in the control site samples (4.73 to 8.9 percent dry wt.)
than in the test site samples (0.33 to 3.53 percent dry wt.) at all depths. This is
believed to be due to the following reasons: the control site was harvested and the crop
was plowed under Just prior to sampling; the control site farmer applied manure, whereas
the test site farmer did not; and the composition of the control site soils was somewhat
finer, containing a more silty material, when compared to the more sandy soils of the
test site. The moisture content, illustrated by depth in the curves in Figure 14 for both
the test and control site soils, generally increased with depth.
BIOLOGICAL AND CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF WATER AND SOILS
Irrigation Water Analyses
The irrigation and wastewater statistical results are given in Table 6. The results
shown in Table 6 compare the mean and the percentage difference of the mean of the
irrigation waters. The test effluent was significantly higher (96 to 99 percent confidence
levels) in total dissolved solids. The major contribution to the dissolved solids were
chlorides, which were 40 percent higher in the test effluent, and sodium, which was
higher by 43 percent. Other ions, generally considered as dissolved solids, such as
magnesium and calcium, were not significantly different between the test and control
irrigation waters. Potassium, another component of the dissolved solids, but also a
nutrient, was higher in the test effluent by 180 percent at a 96 to 99 percent significance
level. Other nutrients also significantly higher at the 96 to 99 percent level in the test
effluent were: total nitrogen, by 600 percent, and phosphates by more than 1,700 per-
cent. Thus, the test effluent provided substantial fertilization to the crops grown on the
test site. No significant difference was found in the frace metals between the test and
control irrigation waters. Based on these results, metal contamination of the test site
soils or crops should not occur. Even though differences, significant at the 96 to 99 per-
cent level, were not statistically identified for total and fecal coliform between the test
and control sites' irrigation water, the test site coliform populations were on the order of
five thousand times higher in the test site effluent.
36
-------
CO
—I
Horizon
(cm)
Test
1
3
10
30
100
200
300
Control
1
3
10
30
100
200
300
US DA
Classification"5
Sandy loam.
sandy clay loam
Same as above
Same as above
Same as above
Sand, sandy clay
loam
Same as above
Same as above
Clay loam, silty
clay loam
Same as above
Same as above
Clay loam, silty
loam, silty clay
Silty clay loam,
TABLE 5
Particle Density
(g/cc)
2.51
2.53
2.34
2.54
2.38
2.64
2.17
2.38
2.41
2.57
2.59
loam
2.54
sandy clay loam
Silty clay loam 2.60
Sandy clay loam, 2.28
silty loam
. SOIL PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
Dry Bulk Density
(g/ee)
1.59
1.45
1.49
1.54
1.53
1.68
c
1.36
1.41
1.42
1.48
1.48
1.51
1.54
Hydraulic
Conductivity
(cm/sec x TO"4)
4.30
5.77
5.17
4.90
7.73
32.7
0.12
0.23
1.59
1.03
0.36
0.39
12.5
Moisture
Content
(% dry wt.)
1.73
7.36
11.97
10.90
11.60
13.05
5.53
4.85
5.87
8.41
10.23
12.83
19.65
23.45
Organic
Content
(% dry wt.)
3.30
3.53
3.30
1.97
3.35
0.93
0.33
8.07
8.90
8.13
7.63
6.47
4.73
4.73
f As averages of different boreholes.
Varying soil rypes are for different boreholes.
Not determined.
-------
10
e
a.
a
a
- 30
o
100
200
300
Legend
Control site
Test site
I
I
46
Organic Content (%)
Figure 13. Soil organic content
8
10
38
-------
10
_G
fr
Q
*O
CO
30
100
200
300
legend
Control site
Test site
10 15 20
Moisture Content (% dry wt)
Figure 14, Soil moisture content,
39
-------
TABLE 6 . STATISTICAL SUMMARY OF IRRIGATION WATER
Constituent
96 - 99%
Mean Values'5 % c
Control Test Diff.
Significance Level, Percent
90 - 95% Less than 90% Questionable Results0
Mean Values. % Mean Values % Mean Value %
Control Test ' Diff. Control Test Diff. Control Test Diff.
TC
FC
TDS
B
Cl
F
NO, -N
TN"*
TOC
PO -P
soj
K 4
Na
Ca
Mg
Ba
Cd
Cr
Cu
Mo
Ni
Pb
Zn
As
Se
818
0.19
254
0.50
3.5
19.9
0.5
54
6.4
150
1044
0.44
356
1.41
24.9
58.9
9.0
67
18.1
215
+27
+130
+40
+182
+600
+200
+1740
+24
+181
+43
2.7
42.5
37.4
0.13
0.01
0.03
0.08
0.10
0.05
0.01
0.01
1.8
46.8
41.8
0.16
0.02
0.04
0.08
0.10
0.07
0.02
0.01
11,300 3j09xlO* 27,000
1,030 IjOSxlO5 10,000
-38
+10
+12
+23
+100
+33
0
0
+40
C.06 0.06
+100
0
P Indeterminate because values were less than detection limit.0 The percent the test result increased (designated by a "+"
D The average value, in mg/kg/ of results from seven depths. jignj or decreased (designated by a - sign) over the con-
trol I
-------
Leachate Analyses
Comparisons were statistically made between the test and control site lysimeter leach-
ate samples at 50-and 100-cm depths. The data is presented in Tables 7 and 8. The
statistical analyses were based on the student t-test rather than the H-test, because the
number of samples varied from zero to two at the control site, and three to seven at the
test site. The results indicated that the differences between test and control site lysi-
meter samples at 50-cm depth were not significant (below the 90 percent level). At the
100-cm depth, only the total coliform was significantly lower (95 to 99 percent confi-
dence level) at the test site, and the test and control site lysimeters showed that the test
site was probably (90 to 95 percent level) lower for magnesium and nickel. Several
samples showed questionable differences as a result of having no values for the control
site leachate because of insufficient sample volumes. The low significance levels were
attributed, in part, to the small number of samples. Highly reliable statistical results
were thus not possible between the test and control leachates because of the low number
of samples. Few samples were collected because of lysimeter damage by farming.
To further evaluate the difference between the two sites, the mean values for each
irrigation water and wastewater leachate constituent were listed according to depth, in
Table 9, with the irrigation waters designated as zero depths. For both sites, the total
and fecal coliform counts found in the irrigation waters were reduced by more than 99.5
percent by percolation to the 100-cm depth. Thus, land treatment of the treated effluent
appeared to be effective in reducing potential pathogenic organisms to near the detect-
able limits after percolation through a 100-cm soil depth. The total solids increased with
depth at both sites, but at different rates. During the first 50 cm, the control site leach-
ate increased 50 percent in total dissolved solids, and then decreased almost to the irri-
gation water level at the 100-cm depth. The test site leachate also increased and then
decreased in total dissolved solids with depth, but not as greatly as the control site
leachate. The decrease in total dissolved solids from the 50-to 100-cm depth may have
been due to the change in the type (classification) of soil (see Table 5).
The major components of the total dissolved solids, sodiums, and chlorides increased
in concentration between zero-and 50-cm depth and, except for sodium at the test site,
decreased at the 100-cm depth (see Table 9). Nitrates increased with depth at the
control site by about 570 to 590 percent. The test site nitrates increased at the 50-cm
depth by about 3200 percent. The potassium content at the control site increased while
the test leachate concentration remained relatively unchanged. The increase at the con-
trol site was most likely related to the increase in total dissolved solids, but definitely
not to the added fertilizer which contained only nitrogen and phosphorus. The phosphate
content increase at the control site was attributed to fertilizer added during the monitor-
ing program. The test effluent, which contained nearly 2,000 percent more phosphate
than the control irrigation water, was the only supplier of nutrients to the test site. Con-
sequently, a decrease in phosphate at the test site was expected due to soil fixation and
crop uptake. Most of the metal concentrations remained nearly the same during the
percolation; the only major exception was zinc which increase by 600 percent (0.06 at
41
-------
Significance Level, Percent
Constituent/ Less than 90% Questionable Results0
Form Mean Values % Mean Value %
Control Test Diff. Control Tests Diff.
TC
FC
TDS
B
Cl
F
NO3-N
TN
TOC
P04-P
so4
K
Na
Ca
Mg
Ba
Cd
Cr
Cu
Mo
Ni
Pb
Zn
As
Se
20d
<2
1,242d
0.43d
486d
1.0d
144d
285d
i
0.01d
0.03d
0.09d
0.12d
0.32d
0.01d
0.01d
<2 -90
<2 0
1,507 +21
0.34 -24
380 -22
__
—
__
5.0 400
110 -24
__
222 -22
—
--
MM
0.01 0
0.02 -33
--
__
0.05 -44
0.07 -42
0.19 -41
0.01 0
0.01 0
0.85 —
54.7
8.3
15.0 —
70.8 —
51.0 ~
0.22 —
0.06 —
0.10 —
Indeterminate because values were less than detection limit.
b The average value in mg/kg of results from seven depths.
The percent the test result increased (designated by a "+" sign) or decreased
(designated by a "-" sign) over the control.
Difference of mean shows 95 to 99 percent confidence level that the difference be-
tween the means is significant; whereas the T-test shows that the difference is in-
significant . (See Appendix D for actual data.)
42
-------
TABLE 8. STATISTICAL SUMMARY OF 100-CM LYSIMETER
CO
Constituent/ 96 - 99%
Form Mean Values'3 %c
Control Test Diff.
TC 60 9 -85
FC
TDS
B
Cl
F
NO--N
Tn
TOC
PO -P
S07
K
Na
Ca
Mg
Ba
Cd
Cr
Cu
Mo
Ni
Pb
Zn 0.37 0.16 -57
As
Se
Significance Level, Percent
90 - 95% Less than 90%
Mean Values % Mean Values %
Control Test Diff. Control Test Diff.
25
0.22
354
1.06
3.6
15.6
211
61.1 39.7 -36
0.18
0.01
0.05
0.16
0.10
0.31 0.10-68
0.09
0.01
0.01
9 -64
0.48 +118
316 -11
1.10 +4
4.2 +17
15.6 0
306 +45
0.16 -11
0.02 +100
0.05 0
0 .06 -63
0.10 0
0.06 -33
0.01 0
0.01 0
Questionable Results
Mean Value %
Control Test Diff.
888 1,342 +51
18.5 50.5 +173
19.3 46.4 +140
16.1 —
84 176 +110
23.0 102 +343
i Indeterminate because values were less than detection limit. The percent the test result increased (designated by a
The average value in mg/kg of results from seven depths. »+» sign) o, decreased (designated by a "-" sign) ovei
it slg
the cor
ntrol.
-------
TABLE 9. COMPARISON OF IRRIGATION WATER AND LEACHATE ACCORDING
TO DEPTH0
Depth Total Colif.b Fecal Colif.
(cm) Cont. Test Cont. Test
,b TDS
Cont . Test
0 l.lxl043Dx!06l/)xl03ljOxl05 818
50 20 <2 <2 <2 1,242
100 60 9 25 9 888
Level of 99 99 <
Confidence - %
(correlation coefficient)
Depth
(cm)
Depth
(cm)
TOC
Cont. Test
19.9 58.9
8.3
16.1
^**
Cd
Cont. Test
0.01 0.02
0.01 0.01
0.01 0.02
P04-P
Cont . Test
0.5 9.0
1.0 5.0
3.6 4.2
<80
Cr
Cont . Test
0.03 0.04
0.03 0.02
0.05 0.05
SO
Cont.
54
144
84
< 80
B
Cont . Test
1,044 0.19 0.44
1,507 0.45 0.34
1,342 0.22 0.48
80
4
Test
110
176
Cu
Cont . Test
0.08
0.16
0.08
0.06
0.06
<80
K
Cont . Test
6.4 18.1
15.0
15.6 15.6
^"~
Mo
Cont. Test
0.10 0.10
— 0.10
0.10 0.10
Cl
Cont . Test
254
486
354
^80
Na
Cont.
150
285
211
<80
Ni
Cont.
0.05
0.09
0.31
356
380
316
Test
215
222
306
Test
0.07
0.05
0.10
F
Cont. Test
0.5
1.1
1.4
0.85
1.1
••»
Ca
Cont . Test
42.5
23
__
Pb
Cont.
0.05
0.12
0.09
46.8
70.8
102
Test
0.08
0.07
0.06
NO3-N TN
Cont. Test Cont. Test
2.7 1.8 3.5
18.0 59.4 —
18.5 50.5 19.3
85
24.9
54.7
46.4
"•
Mg Ba
Cont. Test Cont. Test
37.4 41.8 0.13
-- 51.0 -
61.1 39.4 0.18
— —
Zn Asc
Cont . Test Cont .
0.06 0.06 0.01
0.32 0.19 0.01
0.37 0.16 0.01
0.16
0.22
0.16
— -
Test
0.02
0.01
0.01
.Values reported as mg/l, unless otherwise noted.
Values reported as MPN/100 ml.
All values for selenium are the same as arsenic values except that the test at zero depth was 0.01 mg/l Se.
-------
zero cm to .37 mg/1 at 100 cm) at the control site and by nearly 200 percent
(0.06 at zero depth to 0.16 mg/1 at 100 cm, at the test site.
Groundwater Analyses
The samples from upstream, on-site, and downstream wells at the test and control
sites were statistically compared to evaluate changes in groundwater quality from waste-
water Irrigation. The statistical analyses are summarized in Tables 10 to 15.
Control well 1 was located on the upstream edge of the site; therefore, this well was
considered free of any potential contaminants resulting from the irrigation water. The
statistical comparisons between control wells 1 and 2 are given in Tables 10 and 11 for
the upper and lower well levels, respectively. Increases, at the 96 to 99 percent confi-
dence level, were found in control well 2, at both depths, for total dissolved solids
(increases of 36 and 29 percent for upper and lower sampling, respectively), chlorides
(34 and 37 percen^, sulfate (77 and 66 percent), and sodium (63 and 59 percent). There
were no significant differences in the other constituents between the upper levels of the
control wells 1 and 2, The lower level of control well 2 showed a probable significant
(90 to 95 percent confidence level) decrease in barium by 18 percent and an 80 percent
increase in nitrate concentration. Based on the student t-test, the difference in the
nitrate was not significant. No significant differences were found in total or fecal
coliform between control site wells 1 and 2 at the upper and lower level. The major
significant difference in well water quality detected downstream of the control site was
the salt content. This was expected since the irrigation water was high in dissolved salts,
and the leachate picked up salt during percolation through tfie soils.
The upstream test well 1 and downstream test well 3 are compared in Tables 12 and
13. Significant increases, at the 96 to 99 percent confidence level, were found at both
the top and bottom test well 3 groundwater samples for total dissolved solids, by 56 and
63 percent; chlorides, by 45 percent; sodium, by 44 percent and 37 percent; calcium by
94 and 90 percent; and magnesium, by 118 and 110 percent. The total dissolved solids
increase in the downstream test well 3 was attributed to high levels of sodium chloride
in the test site effluent plus leaching of salts from the soil. Calcium and magnesium
increased significantly, also as a result of leaching from the soil. Boron increased
significantly by 88 and 110 percent at the upper and lower levels, respectively.
Probable significant increases at the 90 to 95 percent confidence level were found for
nitrates (by 74 and 71 percent) and total nitrogen (by 67 percent) at both well levels,
and sulfate (by 27 percent) at the top level. Thus, the nitrate, a nutrient source,
effectively passed through the soil. Total coliform was significantly lower1, at the 96
percent level in the upper level, downstream from test well 1, which emphasizes the
fact that coliform are effectively removed by the soil. The remaining constituents,
including all the heavy metals, did not differ significantly between the upstream and
downstream well 3; therefore, heavy metals were not a problem and did not confaminate
the groundwater. Also, significant quantities of organic content, measured by the total
organic carbon, did not leach through the soil to contaminate the groundwater. Hence,
45
-------
en
TABLE 10 STATISTICAL SUMMARY OF CONTROL WELL TOP SAMPLES; ON-SITE (1) VS. ON-SITE( 2)
Constituent/ 96 - 99%
Form Mearj..Yqluesb %c
Diff.
Significance Level, Percent
90 - 9o% Less than 90%
Mean.. Values % Mean... Values %
Indeterminable Results0
Mean... Value %
TC
FC
IDS 1,016 1,380 +36
P
Cl 298 398 +34
F
NO.-N
TN
TOC
PO-P
SO] 66 117+77
K *
NC 177 288 +63
Ca
Mg
Ba
Cd
Cr
Co
Mo
Ni
Pb
Zn
As
47
0.47
0.46
4.5
6.0
30.6
1.5
9.4
63
73
0.20
0.01
0.03
0.04
0.10
0.05
0.32
0.31
0.02
76 +62
< 2 < 2
0.41 -13
0.68 +48
5.7 +27
7.5 +25
33.9 +11
0.5 -67
10.0 +6
58 -8
91 +25
0.17 -15
0.01 0
0.03 0
0.06 +50
0.11 +60
0.05 0
0.15 -52
0.18 -42
0.01 -50
Indeterminate because values were less than detection limit.
. .••^^•v.iiiiiiiuio UDV.UU30 vuivcb were less man aerecnon in
0 The average value in mg/kg of results from seven depths.
: The percent the test result increased (designated by a "+"
sign) or decreased (designated by a "-"sign) over the con-
-------
TABLE 11. STATISTICAL SUMMARY OF CONTROL WELL BOTTOM SAMPLES: ON-SITE(l) VS. ON-SITE (2)
Constituent/ 96 - 99%
Form Mean Valued %=
(1) We% Diff.
TC
FC
TDS 1,055 1,360 +29
B
Cl 308 423 +37
F
NO,-N
TN3
TOC
PO.-P
SO* 68 113 +66
K 4
Na 165 262 +59
Ca
Mg
Ba
Cd
Cr
Cu
Mo
N?
Pb
Zn
As
Se
Significance Level, Percent
90-95% Less than 90% Questionable Results0
Mean Values % Mean.,. Values % Mean... Value %
(1) Welfe 0!*. (1) Welfe) Diff. (l)Wel\2) Diff.
6
0.49 0.40 -18
0.52
4.6 8.3 +80
6.6
21.7
0.7
9.5
60
74
0.22
0.01
0.03
0.06
0.11
0.05
0.13
0.26
0.01
0.01
4
0.64
10.2
24.9
0.4
11.0
76
96
0.16
0.01
0.03
0.08
0.10
0.06
0.09
0.18
0.02
0.01
1,880 44 -98
-33
+23
+55
+15
-43
+16
+27
+30
-27
0
0
+33
-9
-20
-31
-31
+100
0
, Indeterminate because values were less than detection limit. The percent the test result increased (desjgnated by a "+"
° The average value in mg/kg of results from seven depths. sign; or decreased (designated by a "-"sign) over the •
control.
-------
-p.
00
TABLE 12. STATISTICAL SUMMARY OF TEST WELL TOP SAMPLES: UPSTREAM (1) VS. DOWNSTREAM (3)
Significance Level, Percent
Constituent/ 96-99% 90-95% Less than 90% Questionable Results0
TC
FC
TDS
B
Cl
F
NO.-N
TN J
TOC
PO -P
so]
K 4
Na
Ca
Mg
Ba
Cd
Cr
Cu
Mo
Ni
Pb
Zn
As
Se
145 46 -68
728 1,135 +56
0.32 0.6 +88
234 340 +45
0.43
6.9 12.0 +74
9.1 15.2 +67
18.9
1.0
66 84 +27
7.6
158 228 +44
31 60 +94
36 78 +118
0.15
0.01
0.02
0.08
0.12
0.05
0.19
0.18
0.02
0.01
0.42
26.1
1.7
9.0
0.24
0.01
0.03
0.07
0.12
0.05
0.14
0.22
0.02
0.01
2 1.33 Indet.
-2
+38
+70
+18
+60
0
+50
-13
0
0
-26
+22
0
•0
, Indeterminate because values were less than detection limit. The percent the test result increased (designated by a"+
The average value in ma/kg of results from seven depths. sign) or decreased (designated by a "-"sign) over thecoi
trol •
-------
TABLE 13. STATISTICAL SUMMARY TEST WELL BOTTOM SAMPLES: UPSTREAM (1) VS. DOWNSTREAM (3)
10
Significance Level, Percent
Constituent/ 96-99% 90-95% Less than 90%
Form Mean..Vgluesb %c Mean Values % Mean 'Values %
Questionable Results
Mean Value %
TC
FC
TDS
B
Cl
p
NO_-N
TN3
TOC
po4-p
S°4
Na
Ca
Ma
Ba
Cd
Cr
Cu
Mo
Ni
Pb
Zn
As
Se
° l^otAtl
3 <2
734 1,193 +63
0.29 0.61 +110
247 35? *5 0.340.79
5.8 9.9 +71
7'" "•» *7 31.3 3,.,
1.2 2.1
72 78
8.4 11.7
158 217 +37
31 59 +90
40 » +"° o.MO.19
0.01 0.01
0.03 0.03
0.08 0.07
0.11 0.10
0.05 0.05
0.13 0.19
0.32 0.26
0.03 0.02
O.Q1 0.01
874 94 -89
>-33
-132
-1
+75
+8
+39
+19
0
0
-13
-9
0
+46
-19
-33
-U-. h_ vol.,, »=™ h. -Kan de,ec,U,n IM>. >o oarcen,
-------
the soil acted as a tertiary treatment for removing organic and bacterial content.
The upstream test well 1, located closer to the test site than the upstream test well 1,
was also statistically compared with the downstream, test well 3. The statistical summary
is presented in Tables 14 and 15. The following constituents were significantly (at the 96
to 99 percent confidence level) greater downstream from test well 2; total dissolved sol-
ids (by 63 and 60 percent at the top level and at the bottom level, respectively), chlor-
ides (by 52 and 55 percent), sodium (by 44 and 39 percent), calcium (by 71 and 104 per-
cent), and magnesium(by 78 and 99 percent). Thus, the increased salt content from the
test effluent and the salts extracted from ffie soil contaminated the groundwater. The
total and fecal coliform were generally higher downstream but, again, the higher counts
were not significantly different statistically from the upstream coliform count. The results
for heavy metals also indicated no significant difference, indicating that the metals in the
test effluent did not contribute to the groundwater contamination. Boron at both levels
(by 65 and 79 percent), and fluoride at the lower well column level (by 25 percent) were
found to be significantly higher (confidence level between 96 and 99 percent) down-
stream. Potassium showed a probable increase (90 and 95 percent confidence level) down-
stream at the upper well column level. Both total nitrogen (by 145 and 125 percent) and
nitrates (by 145 and 136 percent) were significantly greater downstream from test well 2.
Thus, the nutrients from the test effluent, excluding phosphate, tended to leach through
to the groundwater. Phosphate was not found to be significantly different between the
upstream and downstream wells.
Soil Analyses
The statistical results comparing the test and control site soil analyses are given in
Tables 16 to 21. Seven soil samples were taken at each location from both sites at the
beginning and end of the monitoring period. The H-test was the criteria used to decide
which constituents were significantly different. Results for the initial soil samples are
presented in Table 16 and the statistical summary is presented in Table 17. The final soil
results are shown in Tables 18 and 19. The following constituents were different at the
90 percent or higher confidence level for both initial and final samples: fluoride,
nitrates, phosphates,potassium,sodium, chromium, copper, manganese, nickel, and zinc.
The final test and control site samples differed at the 90 percent significance level.
The only constituents that did not differ at the 90 percent level were silver, total cad-
mium, molybdenum, mercury and selenium. The actual values for these five metals were
below the range of the detection level limits of the atomic absorption method of analysis,
which accounted for the indeterminate results.
An evaluation of changes occurring between the initial and final soil samples at the test
and control sites was performed to assess changes over time. The results are given on
Table 20 and 21. The results indicate that the initial and final soil samples differed at
the 96 to 99 percent significance level for both the test and control sites. More than 50
percent of the constituents analyzed decreased in concentration over time at both sites.
50
-------
TABLE 14. STATISTICAL SUMMARY OF T£ST WELL TOP SAMPLES: UPSTREAM (2) VS. DOWNSTREAM (3)
Significance Level, Percent
Constituent/ 96-99% 90-95% Less than 90% Questionable Results0
Form Mean Values^ %c Mean Values % Mean Values % Mean Value %
£)Wells(3) Diff. (2)Wellfa) Diff. (2)Vells(3) Diff. (2)Well5(3) Diff.
TC
FC
TDS
B
CI
F
NO--N
TN3
TOC
PO--P
SO~T
K
Na
Ca
Mg
Ba
Cd
Cr
Cu
Mo
Ni
Pb
Zn
As
695 1,135 +63
0.3 0.6 +100
224 340 +52
0.53
4.9 12.0 +145
6.4 15.2 +138
25.2
0.6
82
7.2 9.0 +25
158 228 +44
35 60 +71
44 78.5 +78
0.21
0.01
0.04
0.07
0.10
0.03
0.13
0.33
0.02
0.01
0.42
26.1
1.7
84
0.24
0.01
0.03
0.07
0.12
0.05
0.14
0.22
0.02
58 1,180 1,900
< 2 100 4,900
-21
+4
+183
+2
+14
0
-25
0
+20
+67
8
-33
0
i Indeterminate because values were less than detection limit. cThe percent the test result increased (designated by q "+"
The average value in mg/kg of results from seven depths. sign) or decreased (designated by a "-" sign) over the con-
trol.
-------
TABLE 15. STATISTICAL SUMMARY OF TEST WELL BOTTOM SAMPLES; UPSTREAM (2) VS. DOWNSTREAM (3)
en
ro
Constituent/
Form
TC
FC
TDS
B
Cl
F
NCvN
TN3
TOC
PO.-P
S°4
K
No
Co
Ma
Ba
Cd
Cr
Cu
Mo
Ni
Pb
Zn
As
Se
.. 96~99°/0, .. 90-95% Less than 90% Questionable Results0
Welt rvt0 Mea^el^C'UeS % Maav/ ||VaIues % Mean Value %
(2) (3) Diff. (2) (3) Diff. (2)Wells (3) Diff. (2) Wells,^ Diff.
744
0.34
230
0.63
4.2
5.3
156
28.9
42.1
1,193
0.61
357
0.79
9.9
11.9
217
58.9
83.8
+60
+79
+55
+25
+136
+125
+39
+104
+99
k Indeterminate because values were less than detection limit.
The average value in mg/kg. of results from seven depths.
21.4
0.62
65
6.8
0.16
0.01
0.02
0.06
0.11
0.03
0.20
0.19
0.02
ft fti
826 94 -89
3 2-50
31 .1 +45
2.5 +303
78. +20
1 1 .7 +72
0.19 +19
0.01 0
0.03 +50
0.07 +17
0.10 -9
0.05 +67
0.19 -5
0.26 +37
0.02 0
r\ m A
The percent the test result increased (designated by a "+"
sign; or decreased (designated by a "-sign) overlhe
-------
on
CO
TABLE 16
Site
Test
Mean
Std. Dev.
Control
Mean
Std. Dev.
Depth
(cm)
1
3
10
30
100
200
300
1
3
10
30
100
200
300
3
WEC
4.7
4.0
2.8
2.3
3.4
3.9
2.8
3.4
0.8
4.0
3.6
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.9
3.3
3.5
0.2
C!
V/E
138
39
39
29
39
<10
78
53
42
78
78
98
78
59
256
177
117
72
. INITIAL SOI L CHEMICAL ANALYSES (OCTOBER 1 976), (m<
F
WE
6
2
8
5
3
1
1
3.7
2.6
12
10
5
7
10
4
5
7.5
3.1
NCL-N Nb
3
WE
58
43
26
9.9
29
<1.0
<1.0
23
21
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
—
1
Td
1,460
884
694
409
223
92
42
543
509
771
466
384
152
316
128
104
331
237
PO
4
WE
15.4
25.5
21.5
18
16
5.0
11.5
16.1
6.6
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
•"••
P
P
Organic
AEe
1,260
1,540
1,277
960
660
340
330
908
478
910
840
870
880
670
720
590
782
127
T
265
250
<20
35
45
95
40
105
106
135
85
75
80
55
35
45
72.85
33.15
WE
57
62
63
70
62
72
80
66
7.8
76
116
120
130
121
140
94
113
21
K
c
Exf
3,490
3,230
3,000
3,190
2,620
3,160
3,200
3,127
266
1,760
1,980
2,300
1,840
1,780
2,270
1,170
1,871
380
Na
WE
138
114
127
136
118
114
96
120
14
146
188
196
210
276
281
290
226
55
g/kg unless noted)
Ca
AE WE
13,600 34
16,000 22
15,000 32
15,800 21
14,200 17
14,600 12
13,000 16
14,600 22
1,101 8
8,600119
9,900115
9,600109
9,600 92
10,400 58
11,800 76
10,400 54
10,043 89
986 26
Ex
2,650
5,170
4,200
3,070
6,890
3,150
1,780
3,844
1,728
1 0,400
11,500
11,600
9,760
11,000
12,400
13,900
11,508
1,358
(continued)
-------
TABLE 16. (continued).(ma/ka unless noted)
tn
Site Dept
(cm)
Test 1
3
10
30
100
200
300
Mean
Std. Dev.
Control 1
3
10
30
100
200
300
Mean
Std. Dev.
T
T
14,300
19,200
15,300
13,800
15,200
11,800
7,000
13,943
3,667
16,000
15,900
18,100
15,600
20,400
17,200
11,200
16,342
2,816
M
AE
2,860
2,440
2,820
2,170
2,120
1,580
2,090
2,297
450
,600
,500
,650
,480
,570
1,350
1,570
1,531
98
3
WE
33
32
31
28
21
21
22
26
5.4
40
39
26
32
26
23
18
29
5.4
Ex
6/2
704
472
644
591
458
520
580
98
597
705
625
537
604
508
615
598
63
CEC
27.3
32.5
24.8
19.7
11.4
10.9
12.7
19.9
8.6
20.6
19.1
19.6
13.3
12.9
9.6
11.7
15.2
4.4
g
T
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
--
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
——
Ag
AE
<1.0
<1 .p
<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
—
Ba
T
690
530
500
530
470
550
800
550
70
530
540
510
500
480
510
610
525
41
C
T
8.0
6.0
7.0
5.0
7.0
7.0
5.0
6.1
1.6
<5.0
<5.0
<5.0
<5.0
<5.0
<5.0
<5.0
<5.0
— —
d
AE
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.57
0.17
0.9
1.2
1.0
1.0
1.2
0.7
0.7
0.96
OJ21
C
T
563
538
541
529
472
519
446
515
41
598
538
544
587
617
599
551
576
31
r
AE
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.11
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.05
C
T
299
282
292
242
248
232
217
258
31
161
155
164
155
142
141
119
148
15
u
AE
0.4
0.3
0.5
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.35
0.09
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.4
1.1
0.4
0.2
0.51
0.29
M
T
288
178
183
241
183
210
178
208
41
473
447
401
305
491
485
475
439
66
n
AE
78
82
70
60
60
49
49
64
13
39
33
23
30
26
20
22
27
6.,8
(continued)
-------
TABLE 16 . (continued), (mg/kg unless noted )
Oi
Ol
Site
Test
Mean
Std. Dev
Control
Mean
Std. Dev
Depth
(cm)
1 <
3 <
10 <
30 <
100 <
200 <
300 <
<
•
1 <
3 <
10 <
30 <
100 <
200 <
300 <
<
•
Mo
T
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
—
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
—
T
89
112
97
91
101
83
75
92
12
97
95
87
103
85
160
185
116
39
Ni
AE
1.4
1.7
1.7
2.1
2.0
2.6
1.5
1.8
0.4
0.7
1.1
0.9
1.0
0.9
1.2
1.6
1.0
0.2
T
78
49
53
37
34
37
39
46
15
45
53
51
35
46
50
35
45
7
Pb
AE
1.5
1.2
1.9
1.4
2.1
2.0
1.2
1 .6
0.3
3.0
2.1
1.9
2.4
1.5
1.5
1.6
2.0
0.5
Zn
Th AE
5.4
5.2
6.3
2.9
2.4
1.3
1.5
3.5
2.0
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.9
0.6
1.2
0.8
0.1
As
T
2.4
2.5
3.2
4.0
2.8
3.4
2.9
3.1
0.5
5.0
6.5
6.7
7.8
5.0
4.8
4.3
5.7
1.2
Hg Se PH
AE T AE T AE
0.2 <0.5 <0.05< 2.0<0.10 7.6
0.2 <0.5 <0.05< 2.0<0.10 7.8
0.2 <0.5 <0.05< 2.0 < 0.10 8.0
0.2 <0.5 <0.05< 2.0 < 0.10 8.4
0.1 <0.5 <0.05< 2.0<0.10 8.4
0.1 <0.5 <0.05< 2.0<0.10 8.7
0.1 <0.5 <0.05< 2.0<0.10 8.3
O.I6<0.5 <0.05< 2.0<0.10 8.1
0.05 — — — — 0.3
0.2 <0.5<0.05< 2.0<0.10 7.6
0.2 <0.5 <0.05< 2.0
-------
TABLE 17. STATISTICAL SUMMARY OF INITIAL SOIL CHEMICAL ANALYSES
(OCTOBER 1976)
01
01
Constituent/
Form
B
Cl
F
NO--N
N 3
PO.-P
P 4
Poig
K
Na
Ca
Mg
CECh
Ag
Ba
Cd
Cr
Cu
WEd
WE
WE
WE
T e
WE
AEf
T
WE
EX9
WE
AE
WE
EX
T
AE
WE
EX
T
AE
T
T
AE
T
AE
T
Significance Level, Percent
96 - 99% 90 - 95% Less than 90% Indeterminable Results
Mean Valuesb %c Mean Values % Mean Values % Maan Value %
Control Test Diff. Control Test Diff. Control Test Diff. Control Test Diff.
7'.6
<1 .0
<1 .0
114
1,870
227
10,000
89
11,500
1,530
<5
1
576
148
3.7
23.8
16
67
3,130
120
14,600
22
3,840
2,300
.0 6.1
.0 0.6
515
259
118
-51
+2,386
+1 ,610
-42
+67
-47
+46
-75
-67
+50
>+22
""-40
-11
+75
3.6
53 -55
332
783
73
16,300
29
599
15.3
525
0.3
3.4
543
909
106
13,900
27
580
19.9
550
0.3
-4
+64
+16
+45
-15
-7
-3
+30
< 20 < 20 Indet.
<1.0 <1.0 Indet.
+5
0
(continued)
-------
TABLE 17 (continued)
en
Constituent/
Form
Mn
Mo
Ni
Pb
Zn
As
Hg
Se
PH
AE
T
AE
T
T
AE
T
AE
T
AE
T
AE
T
AE
T
AE
96
Mean
Control
440
28
1.1
0.8
5.7
- 99%
Valuesb
Test
209
64
%c
Diff.
-53
+129
Significance Level, Percent
90 - 95% Less
Mean Values % Mean
Control Test Diff. Control
0.5
116
than 90%
Values %
Test Diff.
n.4
93
-20
-20
Indeterminable.
Mean Value
Control Test
20
20
Results0
Diff.
Indet.
1.9 +75
3.6
3.1
+334
-46
45
2.0
0.2
47
1.6
0.2
+4
-20
0
< 0.5
<0.5
Indet .
< 0.05<0.05 Indet.
8.2
8.2
0
< 2.0
< 0.1
<2.0
< 0.1
Indet.
Indet .
L Indeterminate because values were less than detection limit.
The average value, in mg/kg, of results from seven depths.
. The percent the test result increased (designated by a "+" sign) or decreased (designated by a "-" sign) over the control,
WE=water extractive.
® T = total digestible.
AE =acid extractible.
L EX = exchangeable.
Value reported as meq/100 gm.
-------
en
oo
Site Depth
(cm)
Test 1
3
10
30
100
200
300
Mean
Std. Dev.
Control 1
3
10
30
100
200
300
Mean
Std. Dev.
B
WE
2.6
2.2
1.5
1.0
0.8
0.7
0.9
1.39
0.75
1.4
1.3
0.7
0.7
0.6
2.7
2.0
1.34
0.78
Cl
WE
307
193
80
100
87
37
10
116.29
101.88
424
174
125
100
100
87
325
190.71
131.83
h
WE
2
5
3
1
2
1
1
2.14
M6
1
5
5
2
5
13
10
5.86
4.26
NCL-N
<3
WE
54
36
22
26
17
6.7
4.4
23.73
17.24
187
37
17
9.5
6.3
36
29
42.35
59.56
Nb PO4-P
Td WE
233 25
377 13
172 21
79 14
101 14
17 12
14 6.0
141 £6 15. 00
130/13 6.22
818 1.2
573 6.8
626 3.9
252 3.3
243 3.9
131 15
120 11
394.71 6.44
274.73 4.92
P P
Organic
AE T
110 200
90 190
41 160
26 105
31 60
77 125
125 140
5671140
35.16 48.90
34 120
23 115
24 140
26 55
16 70
6.5 <20
15 30
20.64 77.14
8.94 49.15
K
WE
123
162
103
74
71
65
45
9156
40.18
92
212
105
93
170
291
250
173.29
80.59
Exf
1,210
1,110
1,180
1,050
989
838
821
1,02829
154.87
1,480
1,150
1,150
1,040
1,190
440
379
Na Ca
WE AE WE
423 15,500
545 15200
362 1 7,300
299 1 7,600
266 1 6,300
185 13,800 1
161 14,100
320.14 1 5,685
135.31 1,471.3
511 14,300
366 13,900 1
331 1 3,900
306 16,900
443 1 7,000
836 1 5,900
879 15,100
989.86524.5115,286
41425
237.9? 1,339
7.4
0.5
6.8
5.7
6.5
1.1
6.8
6.40
3.13
«M
1.1
8.5
7.5
5.2
2.9
3.1
6.38
3.23
Ex
2,240
1,900
1,960
1,960
1,620
1,620
1,460
1,822.9
268.19
2,680
2,150
3,740
2,330
2,080
1,530
1,560
2,295.71
756.11
(continued)
-------
TABLE 18 (continued), (mg/kg unless noted)
en
Site
Test
Mean
Depth
(cm) T
1 4,950
3 6,800
10 7,500
30 420
100 7,000
200 5,730
300 6,700<
6,585.71
.Std. Dev. 928.29
Control
Mean
1 9,500
3 10,500
10 17,100
30 11,100
100 17,000
200 10,500
300 9,630
Ma
AE
6,250
5,500
4,700
5,000
4,950
3,250
4,830
4, -925. 7
909.01
3,770
3,630
4,770
2,130
3,070
3,050
2,470
12,190 3270. 00
Std. Dev. 3,364.87
881.06
WE Ex
14.0 405
17.1 353
10.3 435
8.8 393
7.9 270
10.7 150
7.6 169
10.91 31071
3.48 115.81
55.3 890
16.1 757
12.7 962
9.9 864
11.8 720
30.3 950
17.4 553
21.93813.
16.18146.
CEC9 Ag
T AE
11.8 <20 <1;0
11.9<20 <1.0
16.8 <20 <1.0
14.3 <20 <1.0
10.3 <20 <1.0
7.1 <20 <1.0
7.2 <20 <1.0
11.34<20 **1.0
3.54 ~
29.0 <20 <1.0
25.3 < 20 < 1.0
24.3 < 20 < 1 .0
19.9 <20 <1.01
24.0 < 20 < 1.01
14.0 <20<1.0
13.9 < 20 < 1.0
71 21 .49<20< 1 .0
56 5.79 — —
Ba Cd
T
529
438
448
467
413
391
411
442
45
800
753
892
,057
,023
586
709
831.
170.
T
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
.43<5.0
.91 —
<=5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
43<5.0
10 —
AE T
0.3 239
0.2 206
0.2 234
0.2 233
0.3 213
0.2 267
0.3 297
Cr
AE
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.24 241.29 0.21
0.05 31
0.3 372
0.3 278
0.2 467
0.3 401
0.3 407
0.3 402
0.2 484
0.27401.
Cu
T AE
33 0.7
31 0.6
34 0.6
35 0.5
23 0.5
19 1.7
42 0.7
31.00 0.76
.460.04 7.720.42
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.2
570.24
0.05 67.39 0.08
51 0.7
48 0.6
61 0.6 1
56 0.5 1
63 0.6 1
43 0.5
Mn
T
626
598
600
623
608
731
736
646
60.72
864
827
,070
,040
,120
950
48 0.5 1,180
5Z 86 0.57
7.380.08
007.29
131.56
AE
56
48
28
27
32
39
43
39.00
10.80
24
17
21
14
13
21
26
19.43
4.93
(continued)
-------
TABLE 18 (continued^ (mg/kg unless noted)
De
(<
Test
Mean
Std. De
Control
Mean
Std. De
pth
:m)
1 <
3<
10 <
30<
100 <
200 <
300 <
<
V.
1 <
3<
10 <
30 <
100 <
200 <
300 <
V.
Mo
T
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
MM
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
—
Ni
T
55
54
52
59
56
61
57
56.29
3.04
94
91
134
124
125
105
129
114.57
17.58
AE
1.6
1.2
1.2
1.1
1.4
1.5
2.0
1.43
0.31
1.5
1.3
1.5
1.3
1.2
1.3
1.5
1.37
0.13
Pb
T
137
132
167
118
142
145
117
136.86
17.20
174
170
235
196
259
165
218
202.43
36.07
AE
7.9
8.2
8.1
8.7
7.8
8.7
8.5
8.27
0.37
9.7
9.5
9.9
9.7
8.9
8.7
8.7
9.30
0.52
Zn
T
6.1
5.0
5.4
6.5
4.4
4.9
5.5
5.40
0.72
7.3
8.2
9.3
8.7
8.9
8.3
9.1
8.54
0.68
AE
1.5
1.2
0.7
0.7
0.7
2.8
2.0
1.37
0.80
0.4
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.56
0.10
As
T
2.7
2.5
2.4
4.9
<2.0
2.1
<2.0
2.51
1.19
3.4
3.3
5.2
5.6
<2.0
4.4
3.2
3.73
1.53
Hg Se
AE T AE T /
0.2 <0.5 <0.05 2.0 <0.
0.2 <0.5 <0.05 2.9 <0.
0.2 <0.5 <0.05 5.0 <0.
0.2 <0.5 <0.05<2.0 <0.
0.1 <0. 5 < 0.0514 <0.1
0.3 <0. 5 < 0.0513 <0.
0.2 <0.5 <0.05 5.2 <0.
0.20 <0.5< 0.05 6.01<0.-
0.06 ~ — 5.39 -
0.4 <0.5 <0.05 22 <0.
0.3 <0.5<0.05 8.8<0.
0.4 <0.5 <0.05 17 <0.
0.4 <0.5 <0.05 17 <0.
0.2 <0.5 <0.05 8.9<0.
0.2 <0.5 <0.05 10 <0.
0.2 <0.5 <0.05 12 <0.
0.30 <0.5 <0.05 13.24<0.
0.10 — — 4.87 -
\E
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
, Averages of two sub-composited samples.
Total nitrogen = nitrates plus kjeldahl nitrogen.
, WE = water extractible.
T = total digestible.
AE = acid extractible.
Ex — exchangeable.
Reported at meq/100 gm.
-------
TABLE 19. STATISTICAL SUMMARY OF FINAL SOIL CHEMICAL ANALYSES ^DECEMBER 1977)
CT>
Constituent/
Form
B WEd
Cl WE
F WE
NO- WE
N J Te
PO.-f WE
P 4 AE*
Porg T
K WE
EX9
No WE
AE
Co WE
EX
Mg T 12
AE 3
WE
.EX
CEC"
Ag T
AE
Ba T
Cd T
Cr T
AE
96 - 99%
Mean Values^
Control Test
6 2
395 142
6.4 15
21 57
77 170
173 92
,200 6,600
,300 4,900
813.7 310.7
21.5 11.3
831 442
402 241
%c
Diff.
-67
-64
+134
-175
+120
-47
-46
+51
-62
-47
-47
-40
Significance Level, Percent
90 - 95% Less
Mean Values % Mean
Control Test Diff. Control
1.3
191
42
940 1
525 320 -39
15,300 15
6.4
2,300 1
21.9 10.9-50
0.3
than 90% Indeterminable Results0
Values % Mean Value %
Test Diff. Control Test Diff.
1.4 +4
116 -39
24 -44
,030 +4
,700 +3
6.4 0
,820 -21
u
<20 <20 Indet, b
< 1 .0 < 1 .0 Indet .
< 5.0 < 5.0 Indet.
0.2 -33
(continued;
-------
TABLE 19 (continued)
1X3
Constituent/ 96
Form Mean
Control
Cu
Mn
Mo
Ni
Pb
Zn
As
Hg
Se
T
AE
T
AE
T
T
AE
T
AE
T
AE
T
AE
T
AE
T
AE
53
1,010
19
115
1.4
202
9.3
8.5
0.6
0.3
13
Significance Level, Percent
- 99%, 90 - 95% Less then 90% Indeterminable Restilts
Values0 %c Mean Values % Mean Values % Mean Value %
Test Diff. Control Test Diff. Control Test Diff. Control Test Diff.
31
650
39
56
1.4
137
8.3
5.4
1.4
0.2
6.0
-42 0.2 0.2 -0
-36 0.6 0.8 +33
+105
<20 < 20 Indet .
-51
+4
-32
-11
-36
+133
3.7 2.5 -33
-33
-0.5 0.5 Indet.
0.05 0.05 Indet.
-54
0.1 0.1 Indet.
k Indeterminable because values were less than detection limit.
c The average value,in mgAg, of results from seven depths.
. The percent the test result increased (designated by a "+" sign) or decreased (designated by a "-" sign) over the control
WE=water extractive.
f T = total digestible.
AE =acid extractible.
? EX = exchangeable.
Value reported as mg/100 gm.
-------
TABLE 20 . STATISTICAL SUMMARY OF INITIAL AND FINAL TEST SITE SOIL CHEMICAL ANALYSES
01
co
Significance Level, Percent a
Constituent/ 96 - 99% 90 - 95% Less than 90% Indeterminable Results
Form Mean Values1* %c Mean Values % Mean Values % Mean Value %
Initial Final Diff. InitiaJ Final Diff. Initial Final Diff. Initial Final Diff.
B
Cl
F
NO^N
N 3
PO.-P
P 4
P org
K
Na
Ca
Mg
CECh
JL
An
"9
Ba
Cd
Cr
WEd 3.4
WE
WE
WE
T« 543
WE 16
AEf 909
T 106
WE 67
EX93,130
WE 120
AE
WE 22
EX 3,840
T 13,900
AE 2,300
WE 27
EX 580
20
AE
T 550
T 6.1
AE 0.6
T 515
AE 03
1.4
142
15
57
170
92
1,030
320
6.4
1,820
6,590
4,930
11
311
11
442
< 5.0
0.2
241
0 2
-59
53 116 +119
3.7 2.1 -42
24 24 0
-74
-7
-94
+60
+38
-67
+167
14,600 15,700 +8
-71
-53
-53
-114
-59
-46
-45
< 20 < 20 Indet.
< 1.0 < 1.0 Indet.
-20
->17
~58
-53
-32
(continued;
-------
en
TABLE 20 .(continued)
Constituent/ 96-99%
Form
Cu
Mn
Mo
Ni
Pb
Zn
As
Se
T
AE
T
AE
T
T
AE
T
AE
T
AE
T
AE
T
Mean
Initial
259
0.4
209
64
93
19
47
1.6
80.3
3.6
<2
Significance Level, Percent
90 - 95% Less than 90% Indeterminable Results0
Valuesb % c Mean Values % Mean Values % Mean Value %
Final
31
0.8
646
39
56
1.4
137
8.3
5.4
1.4
6.0
Diff. Initial Final Diff. Initial Final Diff. Initial Final Diff.
-88
+117
+209
-39
«*20 <20 Indet.
-39
-26
+191
+414
-93
-62
3.1 2.5 -19
0.2 0.2 0 <0.5 <0.5 Indet.
+>200 <0.5 < 0.5 Indet.
<0.1 < 0.1 Indet.
? Indeterminable because values were less than detection limit.
cThe average value, in mg/kg, of results from seven depths.
dThe percent the test result increased (designated by a "+" sign) or decreased (designated by a "*•" sign) over the control.
WE: water eXtracible.
f T = total digestible.
AE =acid extractible.
L EX = exchangeable.
Value reported as mg/100 gm.
-------
TABLE 21. STATISTICAL SUMMARY OF INITIAL AND FINAL CONTROL SITE SOIL CHEMICAL ANALYSES
Significance Level, Percent
Constituent/ 96 - 99% 90 - 95% Less than 90% Indeterminable Results*1
Form Mean Values'3 %c Mean Values % Mean Values % Mean Value %
Initial Final Diff. Initial Final Diff. Initial Final Diff. Initial Final Diff.
B
Cl
F
NO,-N
N3
PO,-P
P4
Porg
K
Na
Ca
Mg
CECn
Ag
*~»y
Ba
Cd
Cr
W£d 3.6
WE
WE
WE <1 .0
ye
WE <1 .0
AEf 783
T
WE
EX9 1,870
WE 227
AE 10,000
WE 89
EX 11,500
T 16,300
AE 1,530
WE
EX 599
15.3
T
AE
T 525
T
AE 1
T 576
AE 0.3
1.3
42
6.4
21
999
525
15,300
640
2,300
12,200
3,270
814
215
831
0.3
402
0.2
-62
117.7 190.7 +62
7.57 5.86 -23
>14,000
332 395 +19
+644
-97
73 77 +5
114 173 +52
-45
+131
+52
-93
-80
-25
+114
29 22 -25
+36
+41
<20 <20 Indet.
< 1.0 < 1.0 Indet.
+58
5.0 5.0 Indet.
-70
-30
-33
(continued)
-------
TABLE 21. (continued)
cr>
cr>
Constituent/
Form
Cu
Mn
Mo
Ni
Pb
Zn
As
Hg
Se
a
b
T
AE
T
AE
T
T
AE
T
AE
T
AE
T
AE
T
AE
T
AE
96
Mean
Initial
148
440
28
1.1
45
2.0
97
0.8
5.7
0.2
< 2.0
Significance Level, Percent
- ?9% 90 - 95% Less than 90% Indeterminable Results0
Values b %c Mean Values % Mean Values % Mean Value %
Final Diff. Initial Final biff. Initial Final Diff. Initial Rnal Diff.
53 -64
0.5 0.6
1,010, +129
19 -32
116 115
1 .4 +27
202 +349
9.3 +365
8.5 -91
0.6 -32
3.7 -35
0.3 +50
13 >+550
•
+20
< 20 < 20 Indet.
-1
< 0.5 < 0.5 Indet.
< 0.05 < 0.05 Indet.
< 0.1 < 0.1 Indet.
Indeterminable because values were less than detection limit.
j The percent the test result increased (designated by a "+" sign) or decreased (designated by a "-" sign) over the control,
WE: water extractible.
® T = total digestible.
AE = acid extractible.
? EX = exchangeable.
Value reported as mg/100 gm.
-------
The biological organism analysis for the initial and final soil samples is presented
in Tables 22 and 23. The fecal coliform count in the test and control soils, and from
the initial to the final soil samplings, was less than the detectable limits of the tests at
all depths. Protozoa,nematodes, and total coliform populations generally decreased
by at least a factor of 10 from the surface to the 300-cm depth. No nematodes or total
coliform were detected below the 100-cm depth in the initial samples at both sites. The
biological populations were compared statistically between the test and control sites,
and the initial and final samplings at each site as shown on Table 24. The bacterial
population found in the test site soil did not differ significantly between the initial and
the final samplings at each site. Protozoa and nematodes, however, significantly de-
creased at both sites during the study. The protozoa population was reduced by 52
percent in the control soil and by 95 percent in the test soil. Nematodes decreased
from more than 30 to less than one at both sites.
WATER QUALITY COMPARISON
The irrigation waters, leachate from the lysimeter, and the groundwater from the
wells were compared with the EPA interim drinking water regulations and the California
water quality criteria for beneficial uses. The comparative results are listed in Tables
25 to 27.
The comparative study between the irrigation waters and the water quality criteria
gave the following results (Table 25). The test effluent exceeded the permissible
limits more often than the control site for total coliform (95 percent to 50 percent);
fecal coliform (80 percent to 29 percent); total dissolved solids (100 percent to 89
percent); chloride (88 percent to 62 percent); fluoride (71 percent to 1 9 percent),
cadmium (39 percent to 36 percent); and lead (65 percent to 44 percent). Only the
test arsenic criteria was exceeded less often than the control site constituent, zero
percent compared to 10 percent. Boron ,nitrate-nitrogen,su I fate, barium, copper,nickel,
zinc and selenium criteria were not exceeded at either site.
The following constituents did not exceed the water quality criteria for any
samples on the test and control sites: boron,except the leachate from the 100-cm test
lysimeter; barium; copper, except the leachate from the 100-cm control lysimeter,
nickel,zinc,and selenium (Table 26). The total dissolved solids were exceeded for all
samples nearly 100 percent of the time.
The following results were found when the leachate values were compared with the
water quality criteria. Chlorides and nitrates exceeded the permissible limits by 100
percent for both the test and the control. Sulfate and total coliform criteria were not
exceeded. No fecal coliform exceeded the limit at the 50-cm level, but the limit was
exceeded at the 100-cm level in 11 percent of the test site and 50 percent of the con-
trol site samples. Cadmium and chromium criteria were not exceeded at the 50-cm
depth, but were exceeded at the 100-cm depth (50 percent for cadmium in the test
leachate, and 67 and 50 percent of the time for chromium in the test and control,
67
-------
TABLE 22 . INITIAL SOIL BIOLOGICAL ORGANISM ANALYSES (OCTOBER 1976)
Site Depth Protozoa Nematodes Total Coliform Fecal Coliform
(cm) (Pop/1 Ogm)a (population/10 gms)Q (MPN/gm)Q (MPN/gm)a
Test
Mean
Std. Dev.
Control
Mean
Std. Dev.
1
3
10
30
100
300
1
3
10
30
100
200
300
1 x 104
1 x 104
<20
4
1 x 10
1 x 104
2
1 x 10
7.2x 103
4.9 x 103
1 x 104
1 x 104
4
1 x 104
4
Ix 10
1 x 104
Ix 103
1 x 102
7.3 x 103
4.6 x 103
20
65
100
63
30
0
46
36
15
20
90
70
15
0
0
30
36
2.5 x 10^
2.5 x 106
2.0 x 105
4
2.0 x 10
6.0 x 103
<20
5.0 x 105
9.9 x 105
6.0 x 104
2.5 x 105
4
6.0 x 10
4
1.3x 10
2.5 x 102
<20
<20
5.5 x 104
9.0 x 104
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
0
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
0
Dry weight soil.
68
-------
TABLE 23 . FINAL SOIL BIOLOGICAL ORGANISM ANALYSIS (DECEMBER 1977)
Site
Test
Mean
Std. Dev,
Control
Mean
Std. Dev,
Depth
(cm)
1
3
10
30
100
200
300
•
1
3
10
30
100
200
300
»
Protozoa
(Pop/10 gm)
1,800
210
210
210
<20
<20
<20
360
640
<20
1,400
930
<20
<20
<20
<20
350
570
Nematodes
a(Popu!arIon/10gms)a
5
2
1
0
0
0
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total Col i form
(MPN/gm) a
2.7 x 104
l.OxlO5
1.6xl03
8.5 xlO3
3
2.8 x 10
2.1 xlO3
6.7 x 102
2.0 x 104
3.6xl04
3.5 x 103
1.9xl04
7.7 x 104
5.9 x 104
2.7 x 103
3.4 xlO2
1.3x 103
2.3 x 104
3.2 xlO4
Fecal Col i form
(MPN/gm)a
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
0
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
0
Dry weight soil.
69
-------
TABLE 24. STATISTICAL SUMMARY OF BIOLOGICAL ORGANISM ANALYSIS
OF SOIL SAMPLES
' • ..,-.-.,,
Confidence Level 96-99%
Comparison Re- Constituent Mean Values %
lationship Control Test Differ.
Initial Control/
Test
Final Control/
Test
Control Initial/
Final
Test Initial/
Final
Protozoa
Nematodes
Total coliform
Fecal coliform
Protozoa
Nematodes
Total coliform
Fecal coliform
Initial Initial Final
Protozoa 7.3xl03 3.5xl02 -52
Nematodes 30 0 -100
Total coliform
Fecal coliform
Protozoa 7.2xl03 3.6xl02 -95
Nematodes 46 1 -98
Total coliform
Fecal coliform
Less than 90%
Mean Values Percent
Control Test Difference
7.3xlOd 7.2xl03
30 46
5.5xl04 S.OxlO5
<20 <20
3.5xl02 3.6xl02
0 1
2.3xl04 2.0xl04
<20 <20
Initial Final
5.5xl04 2.3xl04
<20 <20
S.OxlO5 2.0xl04
<20 <20
_1
53
800
3
-13
-58
-96
-------
TABLE 25 . COMPARISON OF THE IRRIGATION WATER ANALYSES WITH THE WATER QUALITY
CRITERIA FOR MUNICIPAL AND IRRIGATION WATER SUPPLIES
Percent of Time
Site
Test
Control
Source
Effluent
Irrigation
TC
(100MPN) (20
95
50
FC
MPN)
80
29
Constituent
TDS
(500 mg/l)
100
89
Exceeded
B
(1 .0 mg/l)
0
0
Cl
(250
88
62
Water Quality Criteria
F , NO~-NC SO,
mg/l) (1 .0 ma/lf(l 0 mg/l ) (250 mg/l)
71 0
19 0
0
0
s'te' Source
Test Effluent
Control Irrigation
Percent of Time Constituent Exceeded Water Quality Criteria
Ba Cd Cr Cu Ni u Bb c Zn As c So c
(1 .0 mg/l) (OS)] ma/I) (0.05 mg/l)(l JQ ma4) (0.2 mg/l)(0.05mg/!) (5 mg/l) (0.05 ma/I) (0.01 mg/l)
0 39 24 0 0 65 0 0 0
0 36 14 0 0 44 0 10 0
Permissible criteria For each constituent is given in parenthesis: water quality criteria for municipal water supplies,unless
otherwise noted.
bRecommended maximum concentration in irrigation waters.
'cMaximum contaminant level for the EPA Interim primary drinking water regulations,1977.
-------
ro
TABLE 26. COMPARISON OF THE LEACHATE ANALYSES WITH THE WATER QUALITY
CRITERIA FOR MUNICIPAL AND IRRIGATION WATER SUPPLIES
Percent of Time Constituent
Site
Test
Control
TC a FC TDS
Lysimeter Depth (cm) (1 00 MPN) (20 MPN) (500 mq/l)
50
100
50
100
0
0
0
0
0
11
0
50
100
100
100
100
Exceeded Water
Quality Criteria
B Cl F b NO.-Nc SO.
(1 .0 mg/l) (250 mg/l) (IjOma/Ol (1 0 mg/l) (250 mg/l)
0
25
0
0
100
0
100 20
100
100 100
100
100
100
100
0
0
0
0
Site
Test
Control
Lysimeter
Depth (cm)
50
100
50
100
P
ercent of Time Constituent
Ba Cd Cr
0 .0. mg/|)c(O.Ql mg/l) (Oj05 mg/f 0
0 0
0 50
0
0 0
0
67
0
50
Cu
.0 mg/1)
0
0
2
Exceeded Water Quali
Ni
(0.2m
0
0
0
0
, Pb
g/lf(0.05mg/()C(5
50
60
100
100
ty Criteria
Zn As
mg/l) (0.05 mg/l)C(0.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Sc c
,01 mg/l)
0
0
0
0
"Permissible criteria for each constituent Is given In parenthesis: water quality criteria for municipal water suppliesjunless
otherwise noted. Source: 3
"Recommended maximum concentration in irrigation waters. Sdurce: 4
^Maximum contaminant level for the EPA interim primary drinking water regulations,1977. Source: 5
-------
TABLE27. COMPARISON OF THE GROUNDWATER ANALYSES WITH THE WATER QUALITY
CRITERIA FOR MUNICIPAL AND IRRIGATION WATER SUPPLIES
Percent oF Time Constituent Exceeded Water Quality Criteria
Site
Test
Control
Well
Location
Upstream *1
Upstream #2
Downstream
Upstream
Midstream
Depth
Top
Bottom
Top
Bottom
Top
Bottom
Top
Bottom
Top
Bottom
TC FC
(100MPNf(20MPN) (50C
27
23
23
33
29
42
14
23
20
17
0
0
0
0
7
0
0
8
0
8
FDS B Cl F NO.-N
1 mg/|) (1 .0 mg/l) (250 mg/l) (1 .0 m^ftlO mg/l)c
100
100
91
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
33
29
12
17
89
100
90
100
100
100
0
0
17
14
0
14
0
0
0
0
12
0
0
17
40
60
0
17
17
60
so4
(250mg/0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Site
Test
Control
Well
Ba
Percent
Cd
Location Depth (1 .0 mg/IHOjOl mg/l)
Upstream
Midstream
Downstream
Upstream
Midstream
Top
Bottom
Top
Bottom
Top
Bottom
Top
Bottom
Top
Bottom
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
43
50
33
40
43
50
43
50
43
33
of Time Constituent
Cr
(QjQSitg/lfll
17
17
20
20
17
17
33
33
17
17
Cu
.Ong/l)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Exceeded
Ni
(02 ng/0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Water Quality Criteria
Pb Zn As
b(0,Q5 nrg/f)c(5 mg/l) (0.05 mg/lf (0
50
88
71
75
75
57
89
43
78
50
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
20
25
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Se
.01 nB/DC
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(continued)
-------
TABLE 27 (continued)
Permissible criteria for each constituent is given in parenthesis: water quality criteria for municipal water supplies,
unless otherwise noted (3).
"Recommended maximum concentration in irrigation waters (4).
cMaximum contaminant level for the EPA interim primary drinking water regulations,1977(5).
-------
respectively). Lead was exceeded 100 percent of the time for the control leachate,but
averaged 55 percent in the test leachate.
The comparison of the groundwater values with the permissible limits resulted in the
following findings (Table 27). The sulfate criteria was not exceeded. Fecal coliform
was exceeded at the upper caisson of the downstream well on the test site by 7 percent,
and the lower levels of the on-^ite #1 and #2 wells on the control site (downstream
groundwater) by 8 percent. Fluoride was exceeded by 17 percent at the upper level
upstream #2 well on the test site and by 14 percent at both upstream #2 and downstream
wells on the test site. Arsenic was exceeded at the lower level of the upstream #1 well
and the upper level of the upstream #2 well located on the test site by 20 and 25 per-
cent, respectively. Total coliform criteria were generally exceeded by 20 to 30 per-
cent, and cadmium criteria were exceeded from 33 to 50 percent of the time for both
the test and control site groundwater. No general trend from upstream to downstream
was observed. Chromium levels were exceeded by some 17 to 33 percent of the time
for both sites. Chloride levels in the control gnoundwater were exceeded nearly 100
percent of the time. The percent that the chloride exceeded the criteria in the test
groundwater varied from about 30 percent In the upstream #1 well to about 15 percent
in the upstream #2 well, and approximately 95 percent in the downstream well.
AGRICULTURE BALANCES
The agricultural history of the Mesa test and control sites are given on Tables 28
and 29, respectively. Fertilizer was used on the control site but was not needed on
the test site. The crop yield per hectare was similar for identical crops on both the
test and control sites.
Crop Tissue Analysis
The results of crop tissue analysis are presented in Table 30. In general, the
tissue samples showed that all the analyzed elerrents were within the expected range
for crops grown with normal agricultural practices,i.e., without reclaimed effluent.
A direct comparison between the concentration of analyzed elements in the plant
tissues of the sorghum, barley, and com leaves grown on the test site, to the sudan
grass and the cotton leaves and petioles grown on the control site was not possible.
These crops belong to different genera, therefore, their ability to absorb and accumulate
particular elements was expected to be physiologically different.
75
-------
TABLE 28. TEST SITE AGRICULTURAL HISTORY
Year
1977
1976
1975
1974
1973
1972
1969-1971
Quarter
Summer
Winter
S
W
S
W
S
W
S
W
S
W
Crop
Corn - Barley
Barley
Sorghum
Corn - Barley
Sorghum
Wheat
Sorghum
Wheat
Sorghum
Wheat
Bermuda Grass
Bermuda Grass
Yield
(kg/ha)
28-34
23
23
13.6-17
2.8
2.8
~
—
Data from interview with farmer.
bDry weight.
-------
TABLE 29. CONTROL SITE AGRICULTURAL HISTORY
Year
1977
1976
1975
1974
1973
1972
1971
1970
1969
1968
Quarter
Summer
Year round
Winter
Summer
Winter
Summer
Winter
Summer
Winter
Summer
Winter
Summer
Winter
Summer
Year round
Year round
r™ Yield fl
p (kg/W
Cotton
Sudan grass 85
Wheat 2.8
Sudan grass
Alfalfa 9
Alfalfa
Sorghum 1.7
Sudan grass
Sugar beet seed 2.3
Wheat
Sorghum
Wheat
Sorghum
Wheat
Alfalfa
Alfalfa
Fertilizer
1.136
Ammonia
Ammonia
Ammonia
Amophos 13-39,
Phosphate
Amophos 13-39,
Phosphate
Ammonia
Ammonia
Ammonia
Ammonia
Ammonia
Ammonia
Ammonia /Phosphate ,
Nitrate
Nitrate, Phosphate,
Cow Manure
Nitrate, Phosphate,
Cow Manure
Nitrate, Phosphate,
Cow Manure
(continued)
-------
TABLE 29. (continued)
Year Quarter
1967 Winter
Summer
1966 Winter
Summer
Crop Y£
Cotton
Sorghum
Barley
Cotton
I/-I Q
A Fertilizer
Nitrate, Phosphate,
Cow Manure
Nitrate, Phosphate,
Cow Manure
Nitrate, Phosphate,
Cow Manure
Nitrate, Phosphate,
Cow Manure
.Dry weight,based on interview.
Wet weight.
-------
TABLE30. CROP TISSUE ANALYSES
MPK/g
Site
Test
Control
Date
Harvested
Nov 1976
May 1977
July 1977
Nov 1976
Oct 1977
Type
Sorghum Leaves
Stalk
Barley Leaves
Seeds
Corn Leaves
Sudan Grass
Blades
Cotton Leaves
and Petioles
Total
Feral
Coliform Coliform
136,000
62,000
—
—
50
< 2
26,000
14,000
2,200
—
—
< 2
< 2
6,700
B
21
< 1 .0
<1 .0
104
Cl
216
108
102
Constituent (mg/kg)
NO^-N PO4-P
42 3,000
18 3,700
43
75 4,690
11
S-SO4
86 22,
51 11,
17,
6,
25 21,
K Na Ca
100
000 2,
600 1,
170
400
160 20,500 11,
22,
100 4,
815 5,903
480 1,8DO
700 5,000
150 100
23 5,900
000 2^00
700 5,000
Mg
2,428
2,030
4,840
2,170
2^70
2/)60
19,000
Site
Test
Date
Harvested
Nov 1976
Constituent (mgAg)
Type
Ba Cd
Cr
Sorghum Leaves < 1 .0 1 .0 < 1 .0
Stalk < 1.0 < 1.0 <1.0
Control
May 1977
July 1977
Nov 1976
Oct 1977
Barley Leaves
Seeds
Corn Leaves
Sudan Grass
Blades
Cotton Leaves
39 2.0
4.9 < 1.0
63 1.0
10 1.0
and Petioles 106 4.7
< 1.0
1.7
Cu
9.8
13.0
8.0
4.5
18.0
21.0
21.0
Fe
21
36
565
61
276
655
1,350
Mn Mo
88 <10
30 <10
41 <10
28 <10
31 <10
131 <10
89 33
Ni Pb
a <1.0
a <1.0
14.0
1.0
a 20.0
Zn
18
55
23
38
28
a 0.50 45 •
9.3 100.0
80
As Se
•* 0.2 < 0
< 0.2 < 0
* 0.2
.2
.2
Nickel crucibles were initially used to digest the crop samples, there fore nickel was not determined.
-------
Most of the crop tissue analyses were within the expected range of healthy crop
tissue, as listed in Table 31. The only exceptions in the test-grown crops were the
boron, phosphorus, and magnesium content in the corn leaves. These constituents were
all lower than the expected concentration. The barley leaves contained more cadmium
and lead; that is, the cadmium content in the leaves was 2.0 mg/kg as opposed to the
expected range of 0 to 1 mg/kg, and the lead was 14.0 mgAg/ whereas the expected
range was 0 to 10 mg/kg.
The cotton leaves and petioles, grown on the control site, were higher than the
expected range for cadmium (4.7 mg/kg as opposed to 0 to 3 mgAg range), chromium
(1.7 mg/kg, whereas the expected range was 0 to 1 mg/kg)/ molybdenum (33 mg/kg as
opposed to 1 to 10 mg/kg range), nickel (9.3 mg/kg rather than the 0 to 2 mg/kg as
compared to a 0 to 10 mg/kg range). The lead content in the cotton tissues was the
highest found for any of the crop tissues. The sudan grass blades were not significantly
high in any constituents except iron (655 mgAg) and manganese (131 mgAg).
From the crop tissue analyses, it appeared that the treated effluent irrigation had
little, If any, impact on the accumulation of elements in the crop tissues. In fact, there
was more of the excessive uptake of constituents in the control site grown cotton than in
the crops grown on the test soi I.
Water Balance
The water balance estimate for the test and control site is given in Table 32. The
precipitation data was obtained from the nearby Phoenix Airport weather station. It was
assumed that 25 percent of the treated water was lost by evaporation and percolation In
the treatment plant storage holding ponds, and from irrigation runoff which was by-passed
into the Salt River bed. "Potential evapotranspiration" is defined by Thronthwaite as
"the water loss which will occur if at no time there is deficiency of water in the soil for
the use of the vegetation (25)." It is herein determined as the sum of evapotranspirative
data for sorghum (159.4 cm/hectare - summer) and barley (158.7 cm/hectare - winter)
crops (26). The"balance"is the leachate percolating into the groundwater. The evapo-
transpiration data for the control site milo sorghum, barley, cotton, alfalfa, wheat,
sugar beet seed, and sudan grass crops were based on conventional local experience.
Agricultural Balances and Comparisons
The agricultural history of the test and control sites' usage for the period 1965 through
1977 were presented in Tables 28 and 29. Table 33 shows the pesticide applications for
the test and control sites during the 1965 to 1975 decade. This table also compares the
actual reported application rates with those recommended by the manufacturer.
The estimated total quantity of the nutrients, nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium
for the test and control sites is presented in Table 34. The nutrient balances compare
-------
TABLE31 . EXPECTED RANGE OF ELEMENTS IN HEALTHY CROP TISSUE
00
Constituent (mg/kg)
Crop
Broccoli
Corn
Cotton
Forage
Small
grain
Sorghum
Spinach
Tomato
As
0-1
0-1
0-1
0-1
0-2
0-1
0-1
0.01-1
B
10-50
10-50
10-50
10-100
10-60
10-70
10-70
10-100
Cd
0-3
0-3
0-3
0-3
0-1
0-3
0-3
0-3
Cr
0-1
0-3
0-1
0-1
0-1
0-2
0-1
Cu
1-20
1-30
1-30
1-10
1-40
1-30
1-20
1-30
Mo
-50
-5
-10
-5
-10
-5
-10
0.7-5
Ni
0.1-3
0-3
0-2
0-5
—
0-3
0.1-1
0-3
Pb Se
0-10 0-2
0-10 0-1
0-10 0-J
0-5 -b
0-10
0-10 0-1
0-10 0-1
1-10 0-2
Zn
30-100
20-200
10-200
20-100
30-100
10-100
30-150
40-200
Constituent (% or IU4 mg/kg)
• Sources:
b ., . , ,.
6-24.
» i
Crop
Broccoli
Corn
Cotton
Forage
Small
grain
Sorghum
Spinach
Tomato
Ca
0.1- .5
0.1- .5
0.5- .5
0.2- .2
0.4-
0.1- .5
0.1-2
1-2.5
K
1-3
1-2
0.7-1.5
0.1-1
1-3
1-2.5
1-3
0.2-1
Mg
0.5-1.5
0.5-1.5
0.2-
0.1-
0.2-
0.5- .5
0.5- .2
0.7- .5
N
1-3
1-2
0.4-1
0.2-0
0.4-1
0.5-2
1-3
1-3
Na
--
.5
.5
.7
0.04-1
.5
.5
^^
P
0.3-1
0.1-1.5
0.5-1
0.2-1
0.2-1
0.1-1.5
0.3-1
0.3-1
-------
TABLE 32. WATER BALANCE - YEARLY AVERAGE FOR PERIOD 1965 TO 1977
00
ro
Site
Control 9
Testh
Total
(cm)
A
20
20
Precipitation
Effective0
M)
•B
18
18
Irrigation
Total
1,000 cum)
C
216
189
Totalb
(cm)
D
172
609
Effective0
(cm)
E
168
502
Total
Effective
Water
(cm)
Fe
186
520
Average
Evapo-
iranspi ration
(cm)rf
G
119
129
Average
Leachate
(cm)
H*
67
391
a Runoff coefficient is percent of precipitation lost through runoff/runoff coefficient: 0.1
b Estimating that 8000 m per day of the treated effluent is diverted by percolation, evaporation,etc.
c Irrigation efficiency, the percent of total applied which is not lost to runoff, was estimated to be 82 percent.
<* Source: 27.
«F=B+E
fH= F -G
GArea: 12.6 ha
"Area: 3.1 ha
-------
TABLE 33 . CONTROL AND TEST SITES PESTICIDES APPLICATIONS, 1965-75°
Description
b
Common Nome
Chemical Name0
Manufacturer0
Insecticide or Pesticide0
Recommended Application
Rate (I/ha, unless other-
wise noted)0
Rate of Application (I/0?/
unless otherwise notedr
Number of Applications^
Contact Time (days)
Cropb
Wheat Sugar
Orthotoxaphene
Toxaphene
Chevron
Insecticide
4
3.5
1
14
Beet Seed
Sulfur
Sulfur
Pesticide
16-18 kgd
18kg°
ld
No limitation
Remarks0
Do not feed cattle, toxic
to birds, cattle, and wild-
life. Can contaminate
water bodies.
Avoid drift
?No pesticides were used by the test site farmer between 1965 and 1975
Supplied by site farmer.
Obtained from 1976-77 Publication Q-13, Cooperative Extension Service,
.Univ. of Arizona.
Manufacturers recommendations (first column shows reported actual
pesticide usage.)
Note: No other pesticides were used by the control site farmer during the
period between 1965 and 1975.
83
-------
TABLE 34 . SUMMARY NUTRIENT BALANCE (1965-77)
Input /Output
Inputs
Fertilizer
Irrigation
Total input
Output
Crop uptake
Leachate
Atmosphere
Total output
Topsoil residual
Test Site
N P
N.U?
16,321
16,321
3,830
23,593
650
28,073
-ll,752b
N.U.
6,527
6,527
1,180
2,540
0
3,720
2,807
Total Nutrient (kg/ha
K N
N.U.
13,054
13,054
1,740
8,135
0
9,875
3,179
1,830
1,122
2,952
1,845
1,666
130
3,641
-689 b
Control Site
P K
261
136
397
545
351
0
896
-499
0
1,572
1,572
711
1,403
0
2,114
-542
=— — —
Q
N.U. = None used.
Negative value indicates topsoil depletion of nutrient and does not represent
the actual value.
84
-------
the reported amounts of the total applied nutrients by conventional Salt River water
supply versus effluent irrigation; the amounts of fertilizer nutrients for the test versus
the control sites; the total nutrients applied to both the test and the control sites,and
the nutrient residual present in the topsoil (after losses) for the test and control sites.
No fertilizer was reported to have been used on the test site. The results indicated
that there was a net depletion of nitrogen in the test site soil,and of nitrogen and
phosphorus in the control site soil. Although the irrigated effluent provided about six
times as much nitrogen as was put onto the control site,nitrogen was lost in the leachate.
The nitrogen depletion of the soil may have been due to leaching at the test site by the
high rates of wastewater irrigation. Considerable nitrogen (60-70 mg/l) was present
in the leachate. Additional nitrogen was lost in the drainage runoff (about 10 percent
of the total effluent applied).
The historical effects of the nutrients on crop yield and nutrient uptake efficiency
are presented in Appendix G,and summarized in Table 35 for the thirteen-year period
from 1965 through 1977. The control site nutrient uptake efficiencies were more than
triple the uptake efficiencies on the test site both for all the different crops grown and
for the identical crops. However,the quantity of nutrients taken up by crops at the
test site was greater than at the control site. These results can be explained as probably
due to the high nutrient input on the test site which exceeded the requirements for the
planted crops.
Economic Analysis
The estimated maximum imputed values of nutrients in the wastewater and irrigation
water that were estimated to be used by the crops at the test and control sites are given
in Table 36. It was assumed that the test site crops received all of their applied nutri-
ents from the wastewater. In the above analysis the nutrients removed from the soil
were not considered since the actual amount from each source was not known.
A summary of the costs and sales of crops from the test and control sites is given on
Table 37. The crops grown on the test site were more profitable per hectare than those
grown on the control site. Fertilizer and irrigation water costs at the control site were
responsible for the lower profits. The fertilizing costs included both the fertilizer pur-
chase and the application costs.
The annual commercial value of the nutrients in the wastewater effluent applied at
the test site were estimated to be as follows: 1977 - $1,199; 1976 - $1,315; 1975 -
$1,964. The Salt River irrigation water fertilizer values at the control site'were esti-
mated to be as follows: 1977 - $200; 1976 - $207; and 1975 - $124. These values are
based on the cost of an equal quantity of nutrients if purchased as commercial fertilizer.
However, the actual useful fertilizer value was lower,since only a portion of the
nutrients were consumed, but this was also true, in part, for conventional commercial
fertilizer usage.
85
-------
TABLE 35 . SUMMARY OF CROP YIELD AND NUTRIENT UPTAKE (1965-77)°
Estimated
Nutrient
Supplied
(kg/hq/yr)
Site N P K
Test 1,255 502 1,004
Control 218 31 121
Q Yearly average during thirteen
Bermuda grass: 1965 to 1972.
C. Wheat: 1972.
d Sorghum: 1973 to 1976.
Estimated
Nutrient
Uptake
(kg/ha/yr)
N P K
295 91 134
140 43 54
year period.
Uptake
Efficiency
N P K
24 20 16
61 94 48
. Cotton:
'Alfalfa:
( Wheat:
Sugar b<
m- .
Combined
Nutrient
Up fake
Efficiency
20
68
1966,1967,1977.
1968,1969,1974.
1970,1971,1975.
set: 1971,1972.
v /•\^*<» v s-*^ i— * f**~* t
Crop
Yield
1 ,000/kg/ha/yr
4.0b
2.0C
5.8d
0.7e
17.0f
2.2a
3.4h
6.9':
0.71
4.0k
3.01
4.7^
"Barley: 1974 to 1977.
Corn: 1974,1975,1977.
F Barley: 1965 to 1966.
h Sorghum: 1965,1967,1970.
-------
TABLE .36. VALUE OF WASTEWATER NUTRIENTS (1965-77)
Nutrient
Source/Use
Fertilizer supply
(kgAa )
Crops uptake
(kg/ha)
Test Site
N P K
ooo
3,830 1,188 1,740
Control Site
N
1,830
1,845
P
261
545
K
0
711
Net supplied by
wastewater0 3,830 1,188 1,740 15 284 711
(kg/ha )
Maximum value of 2,528 784 1,148 30 187 469
nutrient supplied by
irrigations/ha)
Total value of N.P, and K 4 460
(1965-1977) ($ ACI)
Avgtotal value of N,P, and 343
J^per^year ($ /hg)
a Assumes that all of the crop uptake in excess of fertilizer applied was from wastewater or
b'lL'ff IOn,^Ser' , 7 °f the nutr!ents ma/ come from 'he soil, but the amount is not known.
1965 to 1977 total value.
87
-------
TABLE 37 . TEST AND CONTROL SITES, CROP COSTS, AND SALES COMPARISON ($/ha)
CD
00
Year Site &
19 Cropc Cultivation
77 Test Site
Barley, silage
Corn, silage
Control Site
Cotton
76 Test Site
Barley, silage
Sorghum ,silage
Control Site
Sudan grass
(year round)
75 Test Site
Barley, silage
Corn, si (age
Sorghum, silage
Control Site
Sudan grass
Wheat
103
88
260
94
238
146
85
73
70
67
132
Irrigation
Water Fertilizing
0 0
0 0
218 72
0 0
0 0
132 97
0 0
0 0
0 0
97 92
66 111
Harvesting,
Packaging,
& Selling Land
123
116
595
112
82
126
102
97
92
88
99
64
64
408
64
64
408
64
64
64
204
204
Total
Costs
290
268
1553
270
384
909
251
234
226
548
612
Crop
Sales
Price
402
931
1,384
452
455
1067
480
835
413
534
568
Estimated
Profit
112
663
-169
187
71
158
229
601
187
-14
-44
(continued)
-------
TABLE 37 (continued)
This Table is based on 1975-1978 costs. Costs for the years 1965-1974 would be relatively similar/but vary with the
economic factors for those years.
From 1976,1977 Arizona Field Crop Budgets,Maricopa County,Cooperative Extension Service,University of Arizona.
Test site crops were used as animal forage while control site crops varied in nature.
From Appendix G on nutrient balances for Mesa, Arizona sites.
Note: All numbers rounded off to nearest whole number.
-------
OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL OBSERVATIONS
The following are general observations which were noted during the duration of this
study. The treatment plant facility and the test and control sites were fenced. The warm
raw sewage entering the City of Mesa wastewater treatment plant contained sufficient
concentrations cf sulfides and related decomposition products so that some odor existed;
however, the secondary effluent used for the test site irrigation was stabilized and did nor
contribute to the sulfide related odors. The secondary effluent was somewhat turbid and
not very transparent. The turbidity was generally caused by the suspended trickling
filter organic floe and pond algae growths present in the effluents. Residents lived within
about 300 meters of the treatment plant, and the test and control sites. During warm
periods when a low velocity wind blew, some minor odor-felated observations were made
by the neighboring residents. These odors were attributed primarily to the raw septic
sewage entering the facility, and the sludge storage lagoons, rather than the reclaimed
effluent irrigated on the test site. The dry, windy weather in Maricopa County, aided
in dissipating and minimizing any odor problem. The secondary effluent was not chlorin-
ated, and this resulted in the presence of high coliform counts on the test site, when com-
pared with the control site. However, the water qualify was satisfactory for good crop
growth. Also, as reported earlier, most of the micro-biological organisms were not
detected in the soil below a 100 cm depth, nor was there any effluent related micro-
organisms found in the groundwater. During the duration of this study, there were no
reported health hazards or illnesses attributable to the reclaimed effluent irrigation water
used on the test site. Some if the effluent irrigated land had a history of dairy farming.
There were no reported problems with the cows or the milk dueto effluent irrigation.
90
-------
REFERENCES
1. U. S. Geologic Survey maps.
2. Hansen, E. A. and A. R. Harris. Validity of Soil-Water Samples Collected with
Porous Ceramic Cups. Soil Sci, Soc. of Amer. Proc., 39:528-536, 1975.
3. California Administrative Code, Section 1017
4. National Academy of Science, National Academy of Engineering, Environmental
Study Board, ad hoc Committee on Water Quality Criteria, 1972. Water Qualify
Criteria, 1972. Washington, D. C.: United States Government Printing Office,
1974.
5. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Interim Primary Drinking Water Regula-
tions, July 1975. EPA-40CFR/141.
6. Chancy, R. L. Crop and Food Chain Effects of Toxic Elements in Sludges and
Effluents. In: Proceedings of the Joint Conference on Recycling Municipal
Sludges and Effluents on Land. Champaign, Illinois. National Association of
State Universities and Land Grant Colleges, July 1973.
7. Differential Susceptibility in Some Sorghum (Sorghum Vulgate) Genotypes to Zinc
Deficiency in Soil, Plant and Soil, 39:423-427, 1973.
8. Epstein, E. Mineral Nutrition of Plants: Principles and Perspectives. New York-
John Wiley, 1972.
9. Norwood, L. M. et al. Progress Report of Reclamation of Wastewater Forage Crop
Trials. Sonoma County Agricultural Extension, University of California, 1974.
1.0. Hawf, C. R., and W. E. Schmid. Uptake and Translocation of Zinc by Intact
Plants. Plants and Soil, 27:249-260, 1967.
11. Hewitt, E. J. Metal Interrelationships in Plant Nutrition: 1. Effects of Some
Metal Toxicities on Sugarbeet, Tomato, Oat, Potato, and Narrowstem Kale Grown
in Sand Culture. Jl. of Experimental Botany, 4:57-69, 1973.
12. Joham, H. E. The Nutritional Status of the Cotton Plant as Indicated by Tissue
Tests. Plant Physiology, 26:76-89, 1951.
91
-------
13. Johnson, R. D., R. L. Jones, T. D. Hinesly, and D. J. David. Selected Chemi-
cal Characteristics of Soils, Forages and Drainage Water from the Sewage Farm
Serving Melbourne, Australia. Prepared for U. S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Jan. 1974.
14. Jones, L. H. P., S. C. Jarvis, and D. W. Cowling. Lead Uptake from Soils by
Perennial Ryegrass and its Relation to the Supply of an Essential Element (Sulphur).
Plant and Soil, 38:605-619, 1973.
15. Merrill, H. C. W., et al. Effects on Vegetation of Irrigation with Waste Treat-
ment Effluents and Possible Plant Pathogen Irrigation Interactions. Phytopathology,
59: 1181-1191.
1 6. Motto, H. L. et al. Lead in Soils and Plants, Its Relationships to Traffic Volume
and Proximity to Highways. Environmental Science and Technology. 4(3) • 231-237.
17. NisHta., H., R. M. Haug, and G. V. Alexander. Influence of Organic Matter
on the Availability of Certain Elements to Barley Seedlings Grown by a Modified
Neubauer Method. Plant and Soil, 39:161-176, 1973.
18. Page, A. L. Fate and Effects of Trace Elements in Sewage Sludge When Applied to
Agricultural Lands. Washington, D. C.: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
1973. 670/2-74-005.
19. Plank, C. O., D. C. Martens, and D. L. Hallock. Effect of Soil Application of
Fly Ash on Chemical Composition and Yield of Corn (Zea Mays L.) and in Chemi- *
cal Composition of Displaced Soil Solutions. Plant and Soil, 42:465-476, 1975.
20. Procopiou, J. A. Wallace, and G. V. Alexander. Microelement Composition of
Plants Grown wifh Low to High Levels of Sulfur Applied to Calcareous Soil in a
Glasshouse. Plant and Soil, 44:359-369, 1976.
21 . Pufvas, D, and E. J. Mackenzie. Effects of Applications of Municipal Compost
on Uptake of Copper, Zinc, and Boron by Garden Vegetables, Plant and Soil,
39:361-371, 1973.
22 . Sopper, W. E., etal. Vegetation Responses to Irrigation with Treated Municipal
Wastewater. In: Recycling Treated Municipal Wastewater and Sludge Through
Forest and Cropland. Pennsylvania State University, 1973.
23 . Thomas, B., J. A. Roughan, and E. D. Watters. Lead and Cadmium Content of
Some Canned Fruit and Vegetables. Jl. Sci, Fd. Agric., 24:447-449, 1973.
24. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. Selected Chemical Characteristics of Soils,
Forages, and Drainage Water from the Sewage Farm Serving Melbourne, Australia.
Jan. 1974.
92
-------
25. Linsley and Franzini. Water Resources Engineering. McGraw Hill, 1972.
26. University of Arizona, Tucson (Agricultural Experiment Station). Consumptive Use
of Water by Crops in Arizona. Technical Bulletin #169.
27. U. S. Geologic Survey, Map 1-845-C.
28. U. S. Dept. of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. Soil Survey: Eastern Mar-
icopa and Northern Final Counties Area, Arizona. Washington: U. S. Govern-
ment Printing Office, April 1970.
29. U. S. Geologic Survey. Water Resources Investigations 77-10.
30. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Working Draft: Proposed Regulations for
Classification of Solid Waste Disposal Facilities. May 1977.
31 . U. S. Geologic Survey. Map 1-845-H.
32. Baur, D. C., and W. B. Fryer. Undesirable Plant Responses to Irrigation with
Treated Municipal Wastewater. Recycling Treated Municipal Wastewater and
Sludge Through Forest and Cropland. Pennsylvania State University Press, 1973.
33 . Blaney, H. F., et al. Consumptive Use and Irrigation Requirements of Crops in
Arizona. Washington, D. C.: U. S. Dept. of Agricultural, Sort Conservation
Service, 1951.
34. Black, C. A., D. D. Evans, J. L. White, and L. E. Ensminger, eds. Methods of
Soil Analysis, Part 1. Madison, American Society of Agronomy, Inc., 1965.
35. Black, C. A., D. D. Evans, J. L. White, and L. E. Ensminger, eds. Methods of
Soil Analysis Part II. Madison: American Society of Agronomy, Inc., 1965.
36. American Public Health Association. Standard Methods for the Examination of
Water and Wastewater. 14th ed. Washington, D. C., 1976.
37. Kansas State University, Manhattan (Agricultural Experiment Station). Sampling
and Analysis of Soils, Hants, Wastewaters, and Sludge. Suggested Standardization
and Methodology. Research Publication 170.
38. U .S. Environmental Protection Agency. Manual of Methods for Chemical Analysis
of Water and Wastes. Cincinnati, Ohio: Environmental Research Center 1974
EPA-625/6-74-003a.
93
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abd Al Rahman, A. A., and J. E. Bierhuizen. The Effect of Temperature and Water
Supply on Grown, Transpiration, and Water Requirements of Tomatoes Under
Controlled Conditions. Technical Bulletin 13, Institute for Land and Water
Management Research. Wageningen (Netherlands), 1960.
American Public Health Association. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water
and Wastewater, 14th ed. Washington, D. C., 1976.
Arizona Water Commission. Annual Report on Ground Water in Arizona, Spring 1972
to Spring 1973. April 1974.
Bennison, G. W. Groundwater: Its Development, Uses and Consevation. 1947.
Berg, G., et al. Viruses in Waste, Renovated, and Other Waters. Cincinnati:
National Environmental Research Center, 1971.
Bierhuizen, J. E. Water Quality and Yield Depression. Wageningen (Netherlands):
Institute for Land and Water Management Research, 1969.
Black, G. R. Particle Density, in C. A. Black, ed., Methods of Soil Analysis,
Part I. Madison: American Society of Agronomy, Inc., 1965, p. 371-373.
Boawn, L. C. and P. E. Rasmussen. Crop Response to Excessive Zinc Fertilization of
Alkaline Soil, Agronomy Journal, 63:874-876, 1971.
Bouwer, H., J. C. Lance, and M. S. Riggs. High Rate Land Treatment II. Water
Quality and Economic Aspects of the Flushing Meadows Project, Jl. Water
Pollution Control Federation, 46.(5): 844:859, May 1974.
Bouwer, H., et al. Renovating Secondary Sewage by Groundwater Recharge with
Infiltration. Phoenix,-Arizona: Agricultural Research Service, 1972.
Bowen, J. E. Manganese-Silicon Interaction and Its Effect on Growth of Sudan
Grass, Plant and Soil, 37:577-588, 1972.
94
-------
Broadbent, F. E. Organics. In: Proceedings of the Joint Conference on Recycling
Municipal Sludges and Effluents on Land. Champaign, Illinois, July 9-13, 1973.
Broadbent, F. E. Soil Transformation of Nitrogen in Effluents. Paper presented at
the Symposium on Land Treatment ot Secondary Effluent. Boulder, Colorado, 1973.
Brown, R. E. Significance of Trace Metals and Nitrates in Sludge Soils. Jl. Water
Pollution Control Federation, 47(12): 2863-2875, Dec. 1972.
Broyer, T. C., C. M. Johnson, and R. P. Huston. Selenium and Nutrition of
Astragalus Plant and Soil, 36:541-669, 1972.
Butler, R. M., N. H. Wooding, andE. A. Myers. Spray Irriqation Disposal of Waste -
water. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: Dept. of Environmental Resources, 1972.
Canadian Environmental Protection Agency. Recommended Groundwater and Soil
Sampling Procedures. 1976.
Carlson, C. A., et al. Overland Flow Treatment of Wastewater. U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, 1974.
Carroll, T. E., D. L. Maase, J. M. Genco, and C. J. Ifeadi. Sludge-Soil-Plant
Interaction. In: Review of Land Spreading of Liquid Municipal Sewage Sludge.
EPA 670/2-75/049. Columbus, Ohio: Battelle Memorial Institute, 1975, p. 1-30.
Chaney, R. L. Crop and Food Chain Effects of Toxic Elements in Sludges and Efflu-
ents. In: Proceedings of the Joint Conference on Recycling Municipal Sludges
and Effluents on Land. Champaign, Illinois. National Association of S Kite Uni-
versities and land Grant Colleges, July 1973.
Chapman, H. D. Cation Exchange Capacity. In: C. A. Black, ed. Methods of Soil
Analysis, Part II. Madison: American Society of Agronomy, Inc., 1965, p. 89T-
901.
Chapman, H. D. Diagnostic Criteria for Plants and Soils. University of California,
Division of Agricultural Science, 1966.
Chen, et al. Trace Metals in Wastewater Effluents. Jl. Water Pollution Control
Federation, 46 (12): 2663-2675, Dec. 1974.
Chim Hills, Inc. Comparative Study of Wastewater Treatment for the City of Boulder.
Denver, Colorado, 1974.
Dadolina, V. T. Effect of Sewage Irrigation on the Fertility of Sod Podzolic loamy-
Sandy Soils, Pochvovedenie (Moscow), 76:65-73, 1971.
95
-------
Day, A. D., J. L. Stroehlein, and T. C. Tucker. Effects of Treatment Plant Effluent
on Soil Properties. Jl. Water Pollution Control Federation, 44 (3): 372-375,
March 1972.
Differential Susceptibility in Some Sorghum (Sorghum Vulgate) Genotypes to Zinc
Deficiency in Soil. Plant and Soil, 39:423-427, 1973.
Ditri, F. M., T. P. Smith, H. Bouwer, E. A. Myers, and A. R. Overman. An Over-
view of Four Selected Facilities that Apply Municipal Wastewater to the Land.
Design Seminar for Land Treatment ot Municipal Wastewater Effluents. Prepared
for U. S. EPA Technology Transfer Program.
Doneen, L. D. Evaluating the Quality of Irrigation Water in Ventura County. State
Department of Water Resources Bulletin, 75, Vol. II, 1959, p. 33.
Dugan, G. L., et al. Land Disposal of Wastewater in Hawaii. Jl. Water Pollution
Control Federation, 47 (8): 2067-2081, 1975.
Ellis, B. G., A. E. Erickson, B. D. Knezek, and A. R. Wolcolt. Impact of Wastewater
on Soils. East Lansing, Michigan: Institute of Water Research, Michigan State
University, Oct. 1972.
Ellis, B. G. The Soil as a Chemical Filter. In: Proceedings of Symposium on
Recycling Treated Municipal Wastewater and Sludge Through Forest and Crop Land.
Pennsylvania State University, 1973.
Epstein, E. Mineral Nutrition of Plants: Principles and Perspectives. New York:
John Wiley, 1972.
Feddis, R. A. Effects of Water and Heat on Seedling Emergence. Jl. of Hydrology,
16:341-359, 1972.
Fetter, C. W. Jr., and R. G. Holzmacher. Groundwater Recharge with Treated
Wastewater. Jl. Water Pollution Control Federation, 46 (2): 261-263, Feb. 1974.
Flash, K. W. Land Resources. In: Proceedings of the Joint Conference on Recycling
Municipal Sludges anH Effluents on Land. Champaign, Illinois, July 1973.
Follett, R. H., and W. L. Lindsay. Changes in DTPA-Extractable Zinc, Iron, Mang-
anese and Copper in Soils Following Fertilization. Soil Science Soc. Amer. Proc.,
35:600-602, 1971.
Gadgil, R. L. Tolerance of Heavy Metals and the Reclamation of Industrial Waste.
Jl. of Applied Economics, 6:247-259, 1969.
Gardner, W. H. Water Content, in C. A. Black, ed. Methods of Soil Analysis
Part I. Madison: American Society of Agronomy, Inc., 1965, p. 82-125.
96
-------
Griffin, R. A., et al. Effect of pH on Removal of Heavy Metals from Leachate by
Clay Minerals. In: Residual Management by land Disposal: Proceedings of the
Hazardous Waste Research Symposium. EPA-600/9-76-015, July 1976.
Hagan, R. M., H. R. Haise, and T. W. Edminster. Irrigation of Agricultural Lands.
Madison: American Society of Agronomy, Inc., 1967.
Hansen, E. A. and A. R. Harris. Validity of Soil-Water Samples Collected with
Porous Ceramic Cups. Soil Sci. Soc. of Amer. Prac., 39:528-536, 1975.
Harwood, L. M,, et al. Progress Report of Reclamation of Wastewater Forage Crop
Trials. Sonoma County Agricultural Extension/ University of California, 1974.
Hawf, C. R., and W. E. Schmid. Uptake and Translocation of Zinc by Intact Plants.
Plants and Soil, 27:249-260, 1967.
Hewitt, E. J. Metal Interrelationships in Plant Nutrition: 1. Effects of Some Metal
Toxicities on Sugarbeet, Tomato, Oat, Potato, and Narrowstem Kale Grown in
Sand Culture. Jl. of Experimental Botany, 4:57-69, 1973.
Hinesly, T. D., R. L. Jones, and E. L. Ziegler. Effects on Corn by Application of
Heated Anaerobically Digested Sludge. Compost Science, 13:26-30, 1972.
Huang, J. C. Effects of Selected Factors on Pesticide Sorption and Desorption in the
Aquatic System. Jl. Water Pollution Control Federation, 43(8): 1739-1747,
Aug. 1971.
Hyde, H. C. Utilization of Wastewater Sludge for Agricultural Soil Enrichment.
Jl. Water Pollution Control Federation, 48:77-90, Jan. 1976.
Jacobs, L. W., etal. Arsenic Sorption by Soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc..
34:750-4, 1970.
Jeris, J. S., etal. Pilot-scale, High-rate Biological Denitrification. Jl. Water
Pollution Control Federation, 47 (8): 2043-2057, 1975.
Joham, H. E. The Nutritional Status of the Cotton Plant as Indicated by Tissue Tests
Plant Physiology, 26:76-89, 1951.
Johnson, R. D., R. L. Jones, T. D. Hinesly, and D. J. David. Selected Chemical
Characteristics of Soils, Forages and Drainage Water from the Sewage Farm Serving
Melbourne, Australia. R-epared for U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jan. 1974.
97
-------
Jones, U H. P., S. C. Jarvis7 and D. W. Cowling. Lead Uptake from Soils by
Perennial Ryegrass and its Relation fo the Supply of an Essential Element (Sulphur).
PlantandSoH, 38:605-619, 1973.
Kardos, L. T. Crop Response to Sewaej Effluent. In: Proceedings of the Symposium
on Municipal Sewage Effluent for frrigation. Louisiana Polytechnic Institution,
1968.
Kardos, L. T., and W. E. Sopper. Renovation of Municipal Wastewater Through Land
Disposal by Spray Irrigation. In: Recycling Treated Municipal Wastewater and
Sludge Through Forest and Cropland. Pennsylvania State University, 1973.
Klein, L. A., M. Long, N. Nash, and S. L. Kirscher. Sources of Metals in New York
City Wastewater. Jl. Water Pollution Control Federation, 46 (12): 2653-2663,
Dec. 1974.
Klein, S. A., D. Jenkins, R. J. Wagnet, J. N . Bigger, and M. S. Yang. An Evalu-
ation of the Accumulation, Translocation ; id Degradation of Pesticides at Land
Wastewater Disposal Sites. Washington, D. C.: U. S. Army Research and Develop-
ment Command. OSA-DADA-17-73-C03109. Nov. 1974.
Krootje, W., J. N. Judy, and H. C. H. Habne. Effects of Detergent Laden Water on
the Growth of Corn. OWRR Project A-041-VA/VPI-WRkC-Bul I 62. Blacksburg.
Lance, J. C., et al. Oxygen Utilization in Soils Flooded with Sewage Water.
Jl. of Environmental Quality.
Lance, J. C., et al. Nitrogen Balance in Soil Columns Intermittently Flooded with
Sewage Water. Jl. of Environmental Quality, 1:180, 1972.
Lance, J. C. and F. D. Whisler. Stimulation of Denitrification in Soil Columns oy
Adding Organic Carbon fo Wastewater. Jl. Water Pollution Control Federation,
48 (2): 346-356, 1976.
Larkin, E. P., J. T. Tierney, and R. Sullivan. Persistence of Viruses on Sewage
Irrigated Vegetables. Jl. of the Environmental Engineering Division, ASCE, 102
(EE-1): 29-35, Feb. 1976.
Larsen, V., J. H. Axley, and G. L. Miller. Agricultural Wastewater Accommodation
and Utilization by Various Forages. A-006-Md-14-01 -0001 -790. University of
Maryland, Dept. of Agronomy, July 1972.
Letey, J. etal. Soil Aeration. In: R. M. Hagan, ed. Irrigation of Agricultural
Lands. Madison: American Society of Agronomy, 1967.
98
-------
Lindsay, W. L. Inorganic Reactions of Sewage Wastes with Soils. In: Proceedings
of the Joint Conference on Recyclinq Municipal Sludges and Effluents on Land.
Champaign, Illinois: National Association of State Universities and Land Grant
Colleges, 1973, p. 91-95.
Magistrad, O. D., and J E. Christiansen. Saline Soils, Their Nature and Manage-
ment. Circular No. 707. Washington, D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office,
Matlock, W. G. ,et al. Sewage Effluent Pollution of a Groundwater Aquifer. Paper
presented before the American Society of Agricultural Engineering, Winter Meeting,
Chicago, Dec. 1972.
McCulloch, A. W., et al. Ames Irrigation Handbook for Irrigation Engineers. Mili-
pitas, California: W. R. Ames Co., 1967.
Merrill, H. C. W., et al. Effects on Vegetation of Irrigation with Waste Treatment
Effluents and Possible Rant fathogen Irrigation Interactions. Phytopathology, 59-
1181-1191.
Miller, R. H. Soil Microbiological Aspects of Recycling Sewage Sludges and Waste
Effluents on Land. In: Proceedings of the Joint Conference on Recycling
Municipal Sludges and Effluents on Land. Champaign, Illinois, University and Land
Motto, H. L., et al. Lead in Soils and Plants, Its Relationships to Traffic Volume and
Proximity to Highways. Environmental Science and Technology, 4 (3): 231-237.
Muskegan County Wastewater Management System. Design Seminar for Land Treatment
of Municipal Wastewater Effluents. Oct. 1975.
National Water Well Association. Water Well Technology. 1973.
Nishita, H., R. M. Haug, and G. V. Alexander. Influence of Organic Matter on
the Availability of Certain Elements to Barley Seedlings Grown by a Modified Neu-
bauer Method. Plant and Soil, 39:161-176, 1973.
Osiname, O. A., E. E. Schulte, and R. B. Corey. Soil Tests for Available Copper
and Zinc in Soils of Western Nigeria. Jl. Sci, Fd. Agric., 24: 1341-1349, 1973.
Overley, F. L. Cover Crops in Apple Orchards on Arsenic Toxic Soils. Bulletin 514.
Washington Agricultural Experiment Station, 1970.
Page, A. L. Fate and Effects of Trace Elements in Sewage Sludge When Applied to
Agricultural Lands. Washington, D. C.:U. 5. Environmental Protection Agency,
1973. 670/2-74-005. 7
99
-------
Parizek, R. R., et al. Wastewater Renovation and Conservation. Pennsylvania State
University, 1967.
Peterson, S. A., W. L. Smith, and K. W. Malueg. Full Scale Harvest of Aquatic
Plants: Nutrient Removal from a Eutrophic Lake. Jl. Water Pollution Control
Federation, 46 (12): 2696-2703, Dec. 1974.
Phosphorus Removal from Aerated Lagoon Effluent. Jl. Water Pollution Control
Federation, 46 (12): 2696-2703, Dec. 1974.
Plank, C. O., D. C. Martens, and D. L. Hallock. "Effect of Soil Application of Fly
Ash on Chemical Composition and Yield of Corn (Zea Mays L.) and in Chemical
Composition of Displaced Soil Solutions." Plant and Soil, 42: 465-476, 1975.
Poonia, S. R., and D. R. Bhumbla. Effect of Gypsum and Calcium Carbonate on
Plant Yield and Chemical Composition and Calcium Availability in a Non-Saline
Sodic Soil. Plant and Soil, 38: 71-80, 1973.
Pound, C. E., and R. W. Crites. Characterization of Municipal Effluents. In:
Proceedings of the Joint Conference on Recycling Municipal Sludges and Effluent on
Land. Champaign, Illinois, July 1V73.
Pound, C. E., and R. W. Crites. Wastewater Treatment and Reuse bv Land Aoplication.
Vol. II. EPA-660/2-73-0066. Washington, D. C.:U. S. Government Printing
Office, 1973.
Powell, M. G. Design Seminar for Land Treatment of Municipal Wastewater Effluents.
Prepared for the Technology Transfer Program, U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 1975.
Pratt, P. F. Digestion with Hydrofluoric and Perchloric Acids for Total Potassium and
Sodium. In: C. A. Black, ed. Methods of Soil Analysis, Part II. Madison:
American Society of Agronomy, Inc., 1965. p. 1019-1021.
Pratt, P. F., et al. Nitrates in Effluents from Irriaated Lands. University of California,
The Kearney Foundation ot Soil Science, 1V74.
Procopiou, J. A. Wallace, and G. V. Alexander. Microelement Composition of
Plants Grown with Low to High Levels of Sulfur Applied to Calcareous Soil in a
Glasshouse. Plant and Soil, 44:359-369, 1976.
Purves, D. and E. J. Mackenzie. Effects of Applications of Municipal Compost on
Uptake of Copper, Zinc and Boron by Garden Vegetables. Plant and Soil,
39:361-371, 1973.
100
-------
Rao, P. S. C., et al. Estimation of Non-reactive and Reactive Solute Front Locations
in Soils. In: Residual Management by Land Disposal: Proceedings of the Hazard-
ous Waste Research Symposium. EPA-600/9-76-015, July 1976.
Reeve, R. C. Hydraulic Head. In: C. A. Black, ed. Methods of Soil Analysis
Part I. Madison: American Society of Agronomy, Inc., 1965, p. 180-196.
A Review of Concentration Techniques for Trace Elements in the Environment; Interim
Reporr. 7/74-2/75. EPA/560/7-75/002. EPA Contract 68-01-2925. Nov. 1975
Singh, B. N. A Method of Estimating the Numbers of Soil Protozoa Especially Amoe-
bae Based on Their Differential Feeding on Bacteria. Annals of Applied Biology,
33:112-119, 1946.
Singh, B. N. Culturing Soil Protozoa and Estimating Their Numbers in Soil. In: D. K.
McE. Kevan, ed. Soil Zoology. New York: Academic Press, Inc., 1955,
p. 403-411.
Soil Science Society of America, Inc. Soil Testing and Plant Analysis: Part II -
Plant Analysis. Madison: SSSA, 1967.
Sopper, W. E., and L. Kardos. Conference on Recvclina Treated Municioal Waste-
Water Through Forest and Cropland. EPA 660/2-74-003, March 1974.
Sopper, W. E., et al. Vegetation Responses to Irrigation with Treated Municipal
Wastewater. In: Recycling Treated Municipal Wastewater and Sludge Through
Forest and Cropland. Pennsylvania State University, 1973.
Stevenson, F. J., and M. S. Ardakani. Organic Matter Reactions Involving Micro-
nutrients in Soils. In: Micronutrients in Agriculture. Madison: Soil Science Soc-
iety of America, Inc., 1972.
Stone, R. and Company. Sewage Sludge Handling and Disposal Feasibility Study.
Prepared for Ventura Regional County Sanitation District, Nov. 1972.
Sullivan, R. H., M. M. Cohn, and S. S. Baxter. Survey of Facilities Using Land
Application of Wastewater. Prepared for Office ot Water Programs Operations, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, July 1973.
Taylor, A. W., et al. Soil Adsorption of Phosphates from Wastewater. In: Factors
Involved in Land Application of Aaricultural and Municipal Wastes. USDA Agricul-
tural Research Service, July 1974.
Thomas, B., J. A. Roughan, and E. D. Watters. Lead and Cadmium Content of Some
Canned Fruit and Vegetables. Jl. Sci. Fd. Agric., 24:447-449, 1973.
101
-------
Thomas, R. E. Land Disposal II -An Overview of Treatment Methods. Jl. Water
Pollution Control Federation, 45:1476-84, July 1973.
Thomas, R. E., etal. Soil Response to Sewage Effluent Irrigation. In: Proceedings
of the Symposium on Municipal Sewage Effluent for Irrigation, Louisiana Polytechnic
Institution, 1968.
Todd, D. K. et al. Polluted Groundwater: A Review of the Significant Literature.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1974.
Tofflemire, T. J., and F. E. Van Alstyne. Land Disposal of Wastewater. Jl. Water
Pollution Control Federation, 46 (6): 1201-1208, June 1974.
Tofflemire, T. J., and R. A. Fernan. Land Disposal of Wastewater. Jl. Water
Pollution Control Federation, 47 (6): 1344-1351, June 1975.
Ulrich, A., and C. M. Johnson. Analytical Methods for Use in Plant Analysis.
Submitted for publication, 1957.
Ulrich, A., et al. Plant Analysis, A Guide for Sugarbeet Fertilization. Submitted for
publication, 1957.
Ulrich, A., and F. J* Hills. Principles and Practices of Plant Analysis, In: G. W.
Hardy, ed., Soil Testing and Plant Analysis, Pt. II. Madison: Soil Science Society
of America, Inc., 1967, p. 11-25.
University of California, Berkeley. The Soil Mantle as a Wastewater Treatment System.
SERL Report No. 67-11.
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. Assessment of the Effectiveness and Effects of Land
Disposal Methodologies of Wastewater Management. Wastewater Management
Report 72-1, 1972.
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. Ecological Assessment for Wastewater Manaaement in
Southeastern Michigan. Institute of Water Research, Michigan State University,
1973.
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. Hygienic Assessments of Alternative Systems. School
of Public Health, University ot Michigan, 1973.
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. Irrigation and Collection Facilities for Southeastern
Michigan. Dept. of Crop and Soil Sciences, Michigan State University, 1973.
102
-------
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. Selected Chemical Characteristics of Soils, Forages,
and Drainage Water from the Sewage Farm Serving Melbourne, Australia. Jan.
1974.
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. Land Treatment of Wastewater in Southeastern Michi-
gan. Dept. of Crop and Soil Sciences, Michigan State University, 1973.
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. Wastewater Irrigation Usinq Privately Owned Farmland
in Southeastern Michigan. Dow Engineering, Inc., 1973.
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. Wastewater Management by Disposal on the Land. 1972.
U. S. Dept. of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. Sprinkler Irrigation. In:
SCS National Engineering Handbook. Washington: U. S. Government Printing
Office, 1968.
U. S. Dept. of Agriculture, U. S. Salinity laboratory. Diagnosis and Improvement of
Saline and Alkali Soils. Agricultural Handbook No. 60, 1954.
U. S. Dept. of Commerce, Weather Bureau. CIImato9raphy of the U. S. No. 86-4,
Climatic Summary of the U. S. Supplement for 1951 through I960, California.
Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1964.
U. S. Dept. of Health, Education and Welfare, Public Health Service. Biological
Problems in Water Pollution. Division of Water Supply and Pollution Control.
U. S. Dept. of Health, Education and Welfare, Public Health Service. Ground Water
Contamination. Cincinnati, 1961.
U. S. Dept. of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service. Solid Waste/
Disease Relationships - a Literature Survey. Cincinnati: National Center tor
Urban and Industrial Health, 1967.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Apollo County Park Wastewater Reclamation
Project, Antelope Valley, California. EPAnSOO/2-76-022, March 1976.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Demonstrated Technology and Research Needs
for Reuse of Municipal Wastewater. Cincinnati: National Research Center, 1975.
EPA-670/2-75-038.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Design Seminar for Land Treatment of
Municipal Wastewater Effluents.Technology Transfer, rart II. Sept. 1975.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Evaluation of Land Application Systems.
EPA-430/9-75-001, 1975.
103
-------
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Land Application of Sludae Effluent and
Sludges: Selected Abstracts. EPA-660/2-74-042. Ada, Oklahoma: Kobert S.
Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory, 1974.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Land Application of Wastewater. EPA-903/
9-75-017. Proceedings of a Research Symposium sponsored by the U. S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Region III. Nov. 1974.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Land Treatment of Municipal Wastewater
Effluents, Design Factors - 1, Case Histories. Technology Transfer, Jan.
1976.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Manual of Methods for Chemical Analysis of
Water and Wastes. Cincinnati, Ohio: Environmental Research Center, 1974.
E PA-625/6-74-003a.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Overland Flow Treatment of Raw Wastewater
with Enhanced Phosphorus Removal. EPA-600/2-76-131. June 1976.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Process Design Manual for Nitrogen Control.
Technology Transfer. Oct. 1975.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Process Design Manual for Phosphorus Removal,
Technology Transfer. Oct. 1971.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Residual Management by Land Disposal.
EPA-600/9-76-015.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Survey of Facilities Usinq Land Application
of Wastewater. EPA-430/2-73-006.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Wastewater Treatment and Reuse by Land
Application, EPA-660/2-73-OOoa.
U. S. Geologic Survey. Map 1-845-F.
U. S. Geologic Survey. Map 1-845-G.
Visser, W. C. Progress in the Knowledge about the Effects of Soil Moisture Content on
Plant Production. Technical Bulletin 45. Wageningen (Netherlands): Institute
for Land and Wafer Management Research, 1966.
Von Donsel, et al. Seasonal Variations in Survival of Indicator Bacteria in Soil and
Their Contribution to Storm Water Pollution. Applied Microbiology, 15:1362-70,
1967.
104
-------
Wentink, G. R., and J. E. Etzel. Removal of Metal Ions by Soil. Jl. Water Pollu-
tion Control Federation, 44:1561-1574, 1972.
Williams, J. C., and S. K. Malhotra. Phosphorus Removal for Aerated Lagoon Effluent,
Jl. Water Pollution Control Federation, 46 (12): 2696-2703, Dec. 1974.
Yamane, T. Statistics; An Introductory Analysis. 2nd ed. New York: Harper & Row.
Young, H. F. Effects on Ground Water. Jl. Water Pollution Control Federation,
44 (6); 1208-1210, June 1972.
105
-------
APPENDIX A
SITE DESCRIPTION
GENERAL AREA CHARACTERISTICS
introduction
The City of Mesa wastewater reclamation project area was situated in Maricopa
County, Arizona, approximately 6 miles southeast of Phoenix. Location of the two sites
and sewage treatment plant are shown in Figure A-1. The principal historical use of the
site has been for agriculture. The following sections consider relevant factors about the
local environment, agricultural practices, and wastewater treatment.
Climate
The prefect area has an arid climate. Average monthly precipitation exceeds 2.5 cm
only during August and December. Rains in summer are frequently associated with thun-
derstorms that form over the mountains to the east during the afternoon and spread out
over the surrounding valley early in the evening. Precipitation tends to be moderate to
heavy for short periods and rarely lasts more than 30 minutes. Many times, local storms
produced little more than gusty winds and minor precipitations. In some years, however,
weak tropical disturbances moving northward from fhe Pacific Ocean cause unusually
large amounts of precipitation with prolonged wet periods occuring during the summer.
These unusual storms have produced rainfall during a 24-hour period equal to that norm-
ally received during an entire summer. Table A-1 presents historical temperature and
precipitation data for the project area, obtained from a weather station at the Mesa
Experimental Farm. This data is considered to be representative for the project area.
Table A-2 gives the probabilities of having freezing temperatures at specific dates in
spring and fall.
Precipitation is less dependable in the winter than in the summer, and the quantity
varies from year to year. Most winter precipitation is associated with the middle-lati-
tude storms that move inland from the Pacific Ocean. The most severe weather occurs
either when these storms move unusually far south or when rfiey have been intensified
off the coast of southern California. Then, cloudy skies and intermittent showers
occur for days. Snow is rare in the project area. During December, January, and
February, traces of snow may be observed at the Granite Reef Dam and at the Mesa
Experiment Farm, but the snow usually melts soon after falling.
106
-------
Scale in km
Source: 1
Figure A-l. Study area - test and control farm sites,
107
-------
TABLE A-l TEMPERATURE AND PRECIPITATION, 1928-67
MESA EXPERIMENT FARM (ELEVATION 375 m)
Month
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Year
a Trace,
Source: 28
Average
daily
maximum
<°C)
13
20
23
28
33
38
40
39
37
31
24
19
29
Temperature (^C)
2 years in 10 will have at
. least 4 days with—
Average '
daily Maximum Minimum
minimum temperature temperature
/°£\ equal to equal to
or higher or lower
1.6
2
6
10
12.7
17
23
22
19
12
5
2
11
than —
25
27
29
35
39
43
43
42
41
38
28
24
44
than—
-3
-2
1.6
5
8
12
19
19
13
6
1.6
-22
-5
Precipitation (cm)
1 year in 10 will
Average have-
total Less More
than— than—
2.0
1.5
1.7
0.7
0.2
0.2
2.0
3
1.7
1.2
1.2
2.5
18.5
a
a
0
0
0
0
a
0.5
a
•
a
0
0
10.4
4.3
4.0
4.3
3.5
2.0
1.2
5.3
7.6
5.3
4.3
3.3
10.1
27.9
-------
TABLE A-2, PROBABILITIES OF FREEZING TEMPERATURES ON SPECIFIC DATES
MESA EXPERIMENT FARM, 1936-65
Probability Dates for stated probability and temperature
-6°C or lower -4°C or lower -2°C or lower 0°C or lower
Spring:
1 year in 10 later than January 19 February 10 March 13 April 7
2 years in 10 later than (a) January 30 February 28 March 27
5 years in 10 later than (a) (a) February 8 March 3
Fall:
1 year in 10 earlier than January 10 December 12 November 8 November 2
2 years in 10 earlier than (a) December 21 November 19 November 9
5 years in 10 earlier than (a) (a) December 14 November 24
Threshold did not occur frequently enough during period of record to compute this
probability level.
Source: 1.
109
-------
Summers are warm. From early June until late September, the average daily temper-
ature is higher than 26 C, ranging from about 21 C near sunrise to 37 C in early after-
noon. Readings of 43 C or higher, occur regularly between the last week in June and
the beginning of the rainy season in summer. During this latter period, the air is normally
dry. The warm days are generally followed by cool evenings, during which time the
temperature often drops to about 15° C.
From late fall until early spring, the climate is normally mild. In winter the temp-
erature ranges from 0° to 40 C near daybreak, to about 20 C in the afternoon. During
warmer periods, the maximum temperature in the afternoon exceeds 26 C. Freezing
temperatures are rare, and occur on about 15 mornings annually. Readings of below
-6 C are unusual.
The length of the frost-free period can be computed from Table A-2. This table
gives the probabilities that a stated temperature will occur before or after a specified
date. In 1 year in 10, for example, a temperature of 0 C or lower in spring will
probably occur earlier than December 11.
In the spring, winds from the southwest and west are predominant, particularly dur-
ing periods of low-pressure troughs. When thunderstorms occur, local winds are often
gusty, and usually flow in an easterly direction. Periods in which winds are less than
16 km per hour occur throughout the year, and are often several days in length.
About 86 percent of the total available sunshine reaches the ground surface. The
amount ranges from a minimum monthly average of 77 percent in December and January
to a maximum monthly average of 94 percent in June.
Geology
The project area is located in the Salt River Valley which is an alluvial valley
bounded by a northwest trending mountain group to the northeast, a north-south trending
group to the west, and an east-west trending group to the south. The alluvium consists
of a clay, salt, sand, gravel, and boulder sequence which thickens to over 370 m in the
center of the valley (27). The surrounding mountains are composed of granite and schist
of the Precambrian age, conglomerate of the Cretoceous-Tertiary age, and andesite of
the Tertiary age (28).
Soils
The physiographic feature that formed the transitional area between the mountains
and valley is a waste apron composed of detritus that has eroded from the highlands.
Deposits of rubble, gravel, and sand are at the upper end of the apron where the soils are
moderately sloping to strongly sloping. Slightly farther down the apron has mostly gently
sloping Covelt, Pinamt, and Tremont soils. Still farther down are nearly level or gently
sloping Anthro and Valencia soils, and at the extreme lower end are nearly level Mohall,
Contine, and Vecont soils.
110
-------
Superimposed on the soils at the lower end of the apron, and in areas cut into these
soils, are areas of recent soils that were formed in alluvium deposited by streams on flood
plains and recent alluvial fans. Adjacent to the streams are Agualt, Vint, Oilman,
Avondale, Pimer, and Glenbar soils. On terraces along some of these streams are Laveen,
Final, and Rillito soils. Predominating at the project site are soils of the Vint, Oilman,
Pimer, and Avondale series.
The major stream is the Salt River which is normally dry, and which was once a per-
ennial stream before upstream dams were constructed in the mountains. The parent
material of the soils in the project area was derived from the mountains adjacent to the
Salt River Valley. These included the Phoenix, Salt River, San Tan, Superstition, and
Goldfield Mountains, consisting mainly of granite, schist, and andesite, with some
diorite and tuff. Most of the soils in the project area were formed in mixed alluvial
material that is several meters thick. The soils in the project area are considered young
or immature because of their relatively short geological development time.
Hydrogeology
The project area is located in the Salt River Valley hydrologic unit (27) which is a
part of the Basin and Range Lowlands water province. Groundwater is contained in the
alluvial deposits of the valley which are composed of interbedded coarse sands, gravels,
and boulders, and fine-grained material. Water levels in 1975 and 1976 in the Salt River
Valley varied from 100 to over 500 feet depth below the ground surface (29). Ground-
water levels have dropped an average of 35 feet since 1940 (30) due to:
1) Extensive use of water for agriculture, industry, and municipal supplies.
2) Loss of recharge from the Salt River because of construction of upstream dams and
diversion of canals.
Producing water wells generally draw from 50 to 2,500 gpm with most deep wells
drawing at least 1,000 gpm (29). The extensive groundwater pumping has also caused, in
some areas,land subsidence of as much as 30 to 150 cm due to hydrocompaction (31).
Underlying the project area are interbedded layers of sand, gravel, boulders, silty
clays, and clays (see Figure A-2). Generally, the 180 to 360 an fopsoil layer is under-
lain by a sand-gravel-boulder layer which was continuous over the area (as determined
from available well logs) and ranges from 33 to 47 m in thickness. Historically, these
layers have been water-bearing. Beneath the gravel-sand lie clay-silt layers which may
perch some leachate or other water. These layers are continuous over the area and
range in thickness from 17 to 106 m. They exhibit lateral variability, becoming thinner
and coarser (containing gravel) eastward and northward, and thickening southward.
Groundwater
Municipal and agricultural water services are obtained from the Apache and
Roosevelt reservoirs located to the east, and from local wells. General characteristics
111
-------
Test Site
Control Site
.3657/4
335.26
J304.79
5
o
.274.31 -
-243.83 '
Sandy Top Soil
Sand, Gravel and Boulders
Cloy
Silty clay
304.79 609.57
Horizontal Scale in Meters
Clay/some sand and gravel
Hard clay,some gravel
Source: Well Logs
Figure A-2. Mesa,Arizona,Idealized Cross-section of Project Area.
112
-------
of groundwater qualify in the Mesa-Tempe, Arizona area for 1974 (32) were:
1) Hardness generally exceeded 150 mg/l ( as calcium carbonate).
2) Total dissolved solids generally fell between 500 mg/l and 1,000 mg/l.
3) Nitrates were less than 45 mg/l.
4) Fluorides were less than 1.4 mg/l.
Agriculture
Agriculture in the project area is adapted to slight rainfall, irrigation during the
hot-dry summer, and a long growing season. Most soils need greater organic content
to reduce tillage and compaction, as well as nitrogen and phosphorus. Among the
principal crops under irrigation are cotton, sorghum, barley, alfalfa, sugar beets, wheat,
safflower, and citrus. Information on water use by crop is summarized in Table A-3.
Table A-4 shows predicted average hectare yields of the principal irrigated crops
grown on the aerable soils under a high level of management. These predictions are based
on observations made by the personnel of the Soil Conservation Service, the Agricultural
Stabilization and Conservation Service, and the University of Arizona Agricultural Ex-
tension Service. These estimates varied for different soils and crops. Representative
data on evapotranspiration for citrus, cotton, alfalfa, flax and date crops in the Mesa,
Arizona area are given in Tables A-5 through A-9.
The use of water for soybeans, sorghum and guar were determined at the University
of Arizona Farm at Mesa (33). Seasonal transpiration uses are: (1) soybean, 55 cm;
(2) sorghum, 51 cm; and (3) guar, 40.5 cm. The daily rates at which plants used water
were computed for the nine crops grown in Maricopa County, Arizona. The computations
are shown in Table A-10. This data was used to evaluate crop irrigation requirements
and related water balances at the Mesa, Arizona study site.
Wastewater Treatment
The project wastewater treatment facility is owned and operated by the City of
Mesa and discharged an average flow of 6.3 million cubic meters per year, with a peak
flow of 7.5 million cubic meters per year. The sequence of treatment consists of primary
sedimentation, trickling filter, secondary settling, and two holding ponds. Sludge is
dried and landfilled. A portion of the effluent is used for agricultural irrigation at the
test site. Table A-ll summarizes those effluent water quality characteristics determined
by the treatment plant. Table A-12 lists the total yearly flows from 1966 through 1976,
and the effluent available for irrigation (assuming 25 percent evaporative and holding
pond exfMiration).
113
-------
TABLE A-3... MARICOPA COUNTY .ARIZONA,
CHARACTERISTICS OF WATER USE BY CROPS0
Crop
Bermuda lawn
Cotton
Alfalfa
Barley
Grain -Sorghum
Sorghum
(double crop)
Sugar beefs
Wheat
S off lower
Corn si logo
Cirrus
Mean Wafer Use (cm)
Season Seasonal Use Peak Use
Per Day
May - October
April - November
February - November
December - May
July - October
April - December
October - July
January - May
January - July
March - July
January - December
110.5
105.7
188.7
64.3
54.5
130.8
108.7
58.2
115.3
49.8
100.8
,8636
.9652
.9398
1.016
1.09
1.143
1.016
.762
1.016
1.1938
1.0922
,4572
a Consumptive use of water by crops in Arizona/Agricultural
Experiment Station/University of Arizona/1976.
114
-------
TABLE A-4 . PREDICTED AVERAGE YIELDS PER HECTARE OF PRINCIPAL CROPS
UNDER HIGH-LEVEL MANAGEMENT
(Data are for arable soils.)
Copabil-
Mapping
unit
Avondale clay
loam
Gil man fine
sandy loam
Gilman loam
Pimer clay loam
Vint loamy fine
sand
ity
unit
(irri-
gated)
1-1
1-2
1-1
1-1
llls-7
Cotton
(short
staple)
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
2.5
Citrus
Oranges
Sorghum
grain
4.25
4.0
4.0
4.0
2.5
Barley
grain
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.0
Alfalfa
hay
8.5
8.5
9.0
9.0
6.0
Sugar
beets
25
18
20
25
12
Grape-
fruit
16.0
16.5
17.0
14.5
12.0
\6lencia
6.7
6.8
7.0
6.0
5.0
Navel
4.7
— •
4.8
5.0
4.3
3.7
Lemons
17.5
18.0
18.5
15.8
13.2
Tan-
ger-
ines
7.0
7.2
7.4
6.3
5.3
-------
TABLE A-5. PHOENIX ,ARIZONA,MEAN MONTHLY TEMPERATURES AND
CONSUMPTIVE-USE FACTOR AND TRANSPIRATION USE
FOR NAVEL ORANGE AND GRAPEFRUIT TREES
JUNE 1931 TO MAY 1934, INCLUSIVE
Mean
Month temperatures
(*)
°C
January 10
February 13
March 18
April 21
May 25
June 30
July 34
August 33
September 30
October 23
November 16
December 11
Total for year
Annual consumptive use
Transpiration use -
Evaporation (estimated) =
Total consumptive use (U) =
K = Consumptive -use coefficient
(orange trees)
\f = ±L = 47.6 = n AI (,,...
p 73.57
F= Sum off f= * xp
100
Source: 33.
Consumptive-
Daytime use
hours factor
(p) (0
Percent
7.13 0.7
6.93 0.9
8.36 1.5
8.79 1.8
9.70 2.4
9.67 2.9
9.86 3.3
9.32 3.1
8.35 2.5
7.91 1.8
7.04 1.1
6.94 0.8
22.8
Orange trees
79.6cm
17.8 cm
97.4 cm
= Consumptive use
Consumptive-use factor
apefruit trees)
Transpiration use
Navel
Oranges Grapefruit
cm
2.8
3.0
4.2
6.3
8.3
9.9
11.1
10.6
9.6
6.6
4.2
3.0
79.6
Grapefruit
102.
17.
120.
U
F
cm
3.0
3.8
5.8
8.3
10.4
12.4
14.2
14.4
12.4
8.6
5.5
3.8
102.6
trees
6 cm
8cm
4 cm
38'6 n -7
73.57 °'52
monthly consumptive-use factor
116
-------
TABLE A-6. MEAN MONTHLY TEMPERATURES
CONSUMPTIVE-USE FACTORS, TRANSPIRATION USE AND
PRECIPITATION FOR COTTON 1935-36
Month
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
Total for the
Mean
temperature;
(0
c°
19
22
29
31
30
27
20
period
Daytime
hours
(P)
Percent
8.79
9.74
9.68
9.77
9.58
8.83
7.81
Consumptive-
use
factor
(0
1.67
2..U
2.81
3.03
2JB7
2.38
1,56
\6M (F)
Precipitation
(0
cm
0
T
T
4.9
4.2
0.62
1.6
10.7
Transpiration
cm
2.1
3.3
7.9
14.5
18.1
13.5
8.2
67.6
Average transpiration for period = 67.6 cm
Evaporation (6 irrigations at 3/4 inch) — 10.7 cm
Total consumptive use (U) = 78.3cm
K =
U
= 4»76 = average consumptive-use coefficient,
F 16,46
t = mean monthly temperatures.
p = monthly percent of daytime hours of year.
k „
f = • . J? = monthly consumptive-use factor.
F — sum of f = consumptive factor for period.
Source: 33.
117
-------
TABLE A-7. MFAN,MONTHLY TEMPERATURES
PERCENT OF DAYTIME HOURS CONSUMPTIVE USE FACTOR
CONSUMPTIVE USE, AND CONSUMPTIVE USE '
COEFFICIENT FOR ALFALFA, AVERAGE 1945-46
Month0
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
September 15-30
October
November
December
Total
Mean
temperatures
w
c°
9
11
14
19
23
28
32
28
21
13
10
Daytime
hours
(P)
Percent
7.13
6.93
8.36
8.79
9.70
6.67
9.86
8.34
7.91
7.04
6.94
Consumptive
use factor
(0
.64
.76
1.17
1.67
2.23
1.87
3. .16
2.34
1.66
.92
70
17.12(F)
Con sump five
use
(u)
cm
2.5
5.1
8.9
12.7
16.5
22.8
30.5
7.6
10.2
7.6
5.1
139.04 (U)
Consumptive
use
coefficient
(K)
3.97
6.71
7.61
7.61
7.40
12.25
9.65
3.25
6.15
8.26
7.3
Rest period August 1 to September 15.
7.57 consumptive use coefficient for period.
f =' 1 OQ " = monthly consumptive use factor, u = Icf = monthly consumptive use.
F = sum of f = consumph've use factor for period.
Annual consumptive use = 129.64cm.
Source: 33.
118
-------
TABLE A-8. MEAN MONTHLY TEMPERATURES
PERCENT OF DAYTIME HOURS, CONSUMPTIVE USE
FACTOR AND CONSUMPTIVE USE AND CONSUMPTIVE
USE COEFFICIENT FOR FLAX 1935-36
Mean Daytime
Month temperatures hours
(0
-------
TABLE A-9 . TEMPE, ARIZONA, MEAN MONTHLY TEMPERATURES,
CONSUMPTIVE USE FACTOR AND TRANSPIRATION USE
FOR DATES, 1931 -1932
Month
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Total for year
Annual transpiration
Evaporation
Mean
temperatures
(t)
C°
10
14
17
22
26
30
34
33
30
22
16
9
= 103.4
= 12.5
Daytime
hours
(P)
Percent
7.14
6.93
8.36
8.78
9.69
9.65
9.85
9.32
8.34
7.92
7.05
6.97
Consumptive
use factor
(f)
.72
.97
1.42
1.93
2.52
2.90
3.35
3.08
2.5
1.74
1.13
.63
22.89(F)
Transpiration
use
cm
3.05
3.81
5.84
8.64
11.43
12.70
14.22
13.72
12.45
10.16
4.83
2.54
103.38
„ U 115.9 _ A. .
f = 22.89= = annual consumptive-use coefficient.
Source: 33.
120
-------
TABLE A-10. MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, COMPUTED DAILY RATES
OF USE OF WATER BY CROPS
Dates
Oct. 31
Nov. 15
Nov. 30
Dec. 15
Dec. 31
Jan. 15
Jan. 31
Feb. 15
Feb. 28
Mar. 15
Mar. 31
Apr. 15
Apr. 30
May 15
May 31
June 15
June 30
July 15
July 31
Aug. 15
Aug. 31
Sept. 15
Sept. 30
Oct. 15
Oct. 31
Use of Water (cm per day)a
Grape-
fruit
0.112
0.102
0.112
0.127
0.157
0.196
0.236
0.279
0.310
0.340
0.381
0.414
0.445
0.475
0.478
0.493
0.450
0.414
0.351
0.338
0.235
Oranges
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.097
.097
.097
.097
.102
.122
.145
.211
.246
.276
.305
.330
.351
.371
.353
.355
.338
.323
.270
.221
.183
Dates Alfalfab
0.084
0.109
0.236
0.235
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
254
259
312
356
368
381
392
424
457
490
475
457
437
414
376
338
249
0.084
0.084
0.127
0.170
0.250
0.287
0.361
0.424
0.488
0.549
0.655
0.762
0.889
0.102
0.910
0.810
0.740
0.510
0.475
0.338
0.295
Cotton
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
000
.084
.114
.135
.216
.297
.419
.551
.610
.668
.605
.541
.439
.338
.170
Flax Sorghum Soy-
beans
0.147
0.170
0^190
0.210
0.210
0.210
0.274
0.338
0.401
0.465
0.528
0.597
0.508
0.424
0.381
0.338 0
0.170 0
0.297 0
0.338 0
0.381 0
0.465 0
0.554 0
0.508 0
0.475 0
0.236 0
.170
.272
.373
.465
.559
.533
.508
.381
.245
,177
Guar
0.170
0.338
0.508
0.445
0.381
0.338
0.295
0.147
(continued)
121
-------
TABLEA-TO. (continued)
Dates
Use of Water (cm per day)
Grape-
fruit.
Nov.
Nov.
Dec.
Dec.
15
30
15
31
0.
0.
0.
0.
185
157
127
112
Oranges Dafes
0
0
0
0
.145
.122
.102
.097
0
0
0
0
.160
.122
.084
.084
Alfalfa Cotton Flax Sorghum Soy- Guar
beans
0
0
0
0
.254
.196
.70
.084
Transpiration use for all crops except alfalfa and flax
Consumptive use
122
-------
TABLE A-11. WATER RECLAMATION PLANT
YEARLY AVERAGE OF EFFLUENT WATER QUALITY (1966-1975)°
Year
1975
1974
1973
1972
1971
1970
1969
1968
1967
1966
BOD, mg/l/day
40
40
64
64
74
48
44
39
62
70
Suspended Solids
mg/l/day
39
30
35
34
45
34
42
35
45
34
Dissolved Oxygen
mg/l/day
1.9
2.0
1.8
1.5
1.6
2.0
1.9
1.9
2.0
1.8
a Secondary effluent,yearly average, obtained from the City of Mesa Waste-
water Treatment Plant.
123
-------
TABLE A-12. TOTAL FLOWS THROUGH WATER RECLAMATION PtANT (10 M
Year
1976
1975
1974
1973
1972
1971
1971D.
1969
1968
1967
1966
Flow
4.17
6.52
5.72
5.28
6.25
6.36
7.33
7.47
7.12
6.45
6.33
Comment
Oct., Nov., Dec.
omitted
12/3-12/17Repaire
No data -January
1/1 - 1/9 Flood
Delivered
3.13
4.89
4.29
3.96
4.69
4.77
5.50
5.60
5.34
4.84
4.75
Supplied by the City of Mesa Wastewater Treatment Plant.
124
-------
TEST SITE
General
The entire Mesa wastewater Irrigated site is 44.5 hectares located along the south
side of the Salt River, west of the Mesa sewage treatment plant as illustrated in
Figure A-l. The wastewater effluent is used in flood and furrow irrigation, and the field
runoff is carried through a storm drain into the Salt River. The test site terrain was
approximately fifty feet in elevation above the river bed.
Three types of soils predominated at the test sire as indicated on Figure A-3. These
are Alluvial land, Vint loamy fine sand, and Oilman fine sandy loam. A general descrip-
tion of these soil types found at the site follows:
Alluvial land (AM) consists of recently deposited, stratified stream sediment in the
Queen Creek Wash and Salt River, derived from a mixture of acidic and basic rocks.
Surface layer texture ranges from gravelly sand or very gravelly sand to fine sandy loam.
The material underlying the surface layer is very gravelly sand to very fine sandy loam.
Permeability ranges from moderate to very high, and the available water capacity ranges
from low to high. Roots can penetrate to depths of 150 cm or more. Runoff is slow and
blowing soil is generally a hazard.
Vint loamy fine sand (Vf) consists of nearly level, well-drained soils on flood plains
and lluvial fans of the Queen Creek Wash and Salt River. It was formed in mixed,
coarse-textured alluvial material derived from many different rock types. The surface
layer is pale-brown loamy fine sand about 30 cm thick. Underlying the surface to a
depth of 150 cm or more is mainly brown or pale brown loamy, fine sand, which contains
thin layers of silt loam or very fine sandy loam. These soils are generally mildly alkaline
in the upper part of the profile, to moderately alkaline in the lower part. The entire
profile is calcareous. Available water capacity is moderately low and permeability is
moderately high. Roots can penetrate to a depth of 150 cm or more. Runoff is slow, and
blowing soil is only a slight hazard.
CONTROL SITE
General
The Mesa Control Site is furrow irrigated with fresh water and comprises 12.6 hec-
tares adjoining the treatment plant on the east. The location is shown in Figure A-l.
Irrigation water is obtained from the Salt River Project.
125
-------
.x^- f -. 1- •
f-f. -~' u:- -i^ ' •^•"MT' •
' ^»-W^r":r cjl.
0
Scale in Km
Source: 28.
Figure A-3. Site soil map
126
-------
Four soil types predominated at the control site, as shown in Figure A-3. They were
Vint loamy fine sand (Vf), Oilman loam (Gm), Puner clay loam (Pm), and Avondale clay
loam (Am). The Vint loamy fine sand is described above. Following is a general descrip-
tion of the other soil types.
Oilman loam (Gm) is found on flood plains and alluvial fans of large streams. The
surface layer is pale-brown loam about 33 cm thick. The underlying material is light,
yellowish-brown loam extending at a depth of 160 cm thick. The profile commonly con-
tained some fine veins and seams of lime, and is moderately alkaline and calcareous
throughout. Available water capacity is high and permeability is moderate. Roots can
penetrate to a depth of 152 cm or more. Runoff is slow, and blowing soil and water
erosions are not hazards.
Pimer clay loam (Pm) consists of well-drained soil on flood plains and alluvial fans.
It was formed in mixed alluvium from igneous rocks. The surface layer is brown, light
clay loam and clay loam approximately 68-cm thick. The underlying material is brown
clay loam and loam to a depth of 152 cm or more. The profile is moderately alkaline
and generally calcareous throughout. Permeability is moderately low, and available
water capacity is high. Roots can penetrate to a depth of 150 cm or more. Runoff is
slow, and water erosion and blowing soil are not hazards.
Avondale clay loam (Am) consists of well-drained soil deposited on flood plains and
alluvial fans of the Salt River. It formed in mixed alluvium derived from rocks. In
profile, the surface layer is brown clay loam approximately 33-cm thick. The underlying
layers generally consist of brown loam underlain by light-4arown very fine sandy loam,
extending to a depth of 150 cm or more. These soils are moderately alkaline and
generally calcareous throughout. Permeability is moderate, and available water capacity
is high. Roofs can penetrate to a depth of 150 cm or more. Runoff is very slow, and
water erosion and blowing soil are not hazards.
127
-------
APPENDIX B
SAMPLE COLLECTION AND ANALYTICAL METHODS
SOIL SAMPLE COLIECTION METHOD
Soil samples were collected after the land was prepared (prior to planting) and after
the final crop was harvested. Shallow soil samples were taken from the top 100 cm. The
rationale was that because the soils were irrigated with wastewater for years, changes in
soil strata would occur very slowly in the deeper strata in contrast to the shallower soil.
In contrast, the uptake of the nutrients by the root zone of the crops within the first
100 cm could cause significant changes in the upper soil layer.
Collection Procedure
1) Soil samples were collected at both the test and control site locations which received
the treated effluent or the regular irrigation water, respectively.
2) For shallow soils, each site was divided into 4 sectors. The center of each sector, if
judged to be representative, was selected for sampling. Subsequent samples were taken
at randomly selected points located on the perimeter of a circle with a radius of 150 cm
and a center at the first sampling point. Samples were taken at locations where plants
were particularly large, small, or malformed. No samples were taken at points where
unusual plant size was due to an extreme abundance or scarcity of water, such as on the
banks of irrigation ditches or at the edge of a field.
(3) Three random locations were selected for deep soil sampling at each site. A 3 meter
trench was then dug with a backhoe. Samples were taken at the desired depths from the
walls of the trench using proper sterile techniques.
Depth of Sampling
1) Shallow soil samples were taken at the following depths: 0 to 2, 2 to 4, 9 to 11,
29 to 31, and 95-105 cm.
2) Deep soil samples were collected at depths of 195 to 205 cm and 295 to 305 cm.
128
-------
Sample Treatment
1) Samples for microbiological examination were placed in previously sterilized test
tubes. Additional soil was placed into Whirl-Pak bags.
2) Immediately after collecting each sample, the sample containers were marked with
pertinent data; including date, location, depth, and site taken.
3) The soil samples were refrigerated in an Ice chest containing dry Ice while on loca-
tion. The samples collected at the Mesa sites were shipped to the company's Los Angeles
laboratory by air freight.
4) A field activities log (see Table B-l) was filled out at the time of sampling and sent
with the samples.
BI-WEEKLY WATER QUALITY SAMPLING PROGRAM
Samples of the irrigation water, the groundwater from the wells, and the leachafe from
the lysimeters were collected for analyses every two weeks. Two-week composites of the
treatment plant effluents were collected by the plant operators. Prior to collection, three
bottles were prepared for preservation. For each sample, one bottle was acidified with
nitric acid, another with sulfuric acid, and the third was autoclaved. Only one sterili-
zed bottle was provided for each lysimeter sample because of the limited volume of
leachate which could be collected. After collecting the sample, each bottle was proper-
ly labeled to describe their date, location, depth (if appropriate), and type of preserva-
tion. For each sample or group of samples, a field sample report (see Table B-2) was
completed and accompanied the shipment of samples to the laboratory. After collection
and while in transit, the samples were stored in an ice chest containing dry ice. Upon
arrival at the laboratory, the samples were refrigerated at 4° C until analyzed. Specific
sampling methods for each type of sample are described below.
Treatment Plant Effluent
1) The treatment plant operator composited a daily sample of secondary effluent over a
two-week period. The sample was refrigerated at 4 C during this period of time.
2) The sample was picked up on the same day that the other samples were collected for
shipment.
Control Site Irrigation Water Samples
Control site irrigation water samples were collected from the Tempe Canal.
129
-------
TABLE B-l
FIELD ACTIVITIES LOG Job No.
Collection of Soil Samples for Agronomical Purposes
Shallow & Deep Soil Sample Collection
please answer in listed units of measure, if possible; if other units are used, specify them. Return
completed forms to:
Ralph Stone and Company, Inc.
-Los Angeles, California 90025
(213) 478-1501 and 879-1115
1. Site Location:
( ) Test site; ( ) Control site (check one)
2. Observer:
3. Date of Observation: Time;
4. Soil Description
a. Soil color:
b. Soil type: ( ) loam; ( ) silt; ( ) clay; ( ) sand; ( ) gravel; ( ) other
c. Soil moisture;
d. Soil odors;
e. Soil condition: ( ) hard pack; ( ) loose; ( ) other
f. Soil surface condition:
g. Date of last soi Iti Mage;
h. Date of last irrigation:
5. Depth to Groundwater Table:
6. Sample Collection
(Check off ( ) when collected.)
a. Section 1 Subsamples
Depth (cm) 1 23456789 10
0-2
2-4
9-11
29-31
95-105
195-205
295-305
130
-------
b. SecHon 2
Depth (cm)
0-2
2-4
9-11
29-31
95-105
195-205
295-305
c. Section 3
Depth (on)
0-2
2-4
9-11
29-31
95-105
195-205
295-305
7. Samples Mailed
Date
TABLE B-l (continued)
Subsamples
10
Time
Shipper
Please use space on reverse for additional comments.
131
-------
TABLEE-2
FIELD SAMPLE REPORT
Collection of Sample for Anal/Heal Work
Return completed reporfs with samples to:
Ralph Stone and Company, Inc.
10954 Santa Monica Boulevard
Los Angeles, California 9C025
Date:
Tims:
Job No.
Location:
Date Last Sample Taken:
Weather:
Sampler:
Observer:
Sample Type: wasfewater; Irrigation water; lyslmeter; deep well.
Source:
Volume:
Color:
Temperature:
Date shipped:
Remarks:
Odor:
Turbidity:
Bottle coded:
Sample in shipment:
Received by:
Delivered to lab
10/76
Checked by:
132
-------
Leachate Collection from Lysimeters
1) The protective metal plate placed above the colled lysimeter lines was located using
using a metal detector.
2) The metal plate and lysimeter lines were carefully uncovered using a shovel.
3) A sterilized sample bottle was connected to the proper lysimeter line and the sample
collected using a vacuum pump. (See Figure 4, Section 5.)
4) After the sample was collected, the sample bottle was carefully detached from the
vacuum line, and a sterilized bottle cap quickly placed on the bottle.
Groundwater Sample GJ! lection
1) A sample for bacteriological analysis from the top and bottom of the groundwater
wells was taken first, using a test tube apparatus. The test tube apparatus consisted of a
test tube covered by a cone-shaped aluminum foil. A tiny hole at the top of the cone
provided an exit for air entrapped in the test tube while holes punched in the lower por-
tion of the cone allowed the sample to enter the rube. A clean string was attached to
the test tube to allow the collector to handle the apparatus without contamination. The
whole apparatus was sterilized before use.
2) The string was tied to a rope and the test tube apparatus lowered to the desired
sampling depth. When the test tube was full, the apparatus was removed from the well,
and the foil top replaced with a sterilized test tube cap.
3) The water level in the well was determined, using a steel tope, and then recorded.
4) The water was then evacuated from the well with a submersible pump.
5) When the well had recovered to its previous level, water samples were taken from the
top and bottom of the well. Two samples were taken from each depth; one acidified with
nitric acid, and the other with sulfuric acid.
COLLECTION OF PLANT TISSUES FOR ANALYTICAL WORK
Tissue Sample Collection
1) Each site was divided into 4 sectors.
2) The sampler started at the center of the southwestern quarter and walked toward the
north.
3) Whi le walking, tissues were collected from four to six plants, according to crop and
133
-------
at 5 randomly selected locations. The fifth sample location was near the center of the
northwestern section.
4) From this point, the sampler walked towards the east,
taking samples of plant tissues as before. The sampler con-
tinued walking and taking random samples of plant tissues,
completing Hie pattern shown in the adjacent diagram.
Time of Sampling
Samples were collected just before harvesting the crop to determine the quality of
the crop as was used.
Tissue Sample Collection for Total and Fecal Coliform
1) Just before harvesting, two plants with entire root systems were dug up from 5 loca-
tions selected at random in each section.
2) The top portion of the plants were clipped and stored in Whirl-Pak bags.
3) The sterile bags were refrigerated in an ice chest, containing ice, while in transit
to the laboratory.
4) Upon arrival at the laboratory, analyses of the samples were begun.
Sample Treatment
1) All the sample bags were identified as to date, location, type of crop, and any other
pertinent data.
2) A field activities log (see Table B-3) was filled out at the time of sampling and
shipped with the samples.
3) As stated above, all of the plant tissues were refrigerated in the field and were air
freighted to the laboratory in Los Angeles.
SOIL TESTING METHODS
Prior to planting, soil samples were collected and analyzed for bulk density,
hydraulic conductivity, moisture content, organic content, particle density, and particle
size distribution. The test methods used are listed in Table B-4. A field activities log
was completed after the soil sample for bulk density was collected (see Table B-5).
134
-------
TABLE B-3
FIELD ACTIVITIES LOG J0b No.
Collection of Plant Tissues For Analytical Work
Please return completed form to:
Ralph Stone and Company, Inc.
10954 Santa Monica Boulevard
Los Angeles, California 90025
(213)478-1501 and 879-1115
1. Site Location:
( ) Test site; ( ) Control site (check one)
2. Observer:
3. Date of Observation: ; Time;
4. Meteorological Information
(Obtain daily temperature and precipitation data from the nearest" recording station. Make
a log of system operation for at least a month prior to sampling.)
Crop Description
a. Crop fiame:
b. Purpose:
c. Crop sowing date:
d. Crop height:
e. Expected date of harvesting:
6. Fertilizer Application
Name BHli Quantity per acre
7. Pesticide, Fungicide, Insecticide Application
Nqme Dqfe Concentration per acre
Please attach copies of available literature on the pesticides, etc., used.
135
-------
TABLE B-3(continued)
8. Date of Collection: '• ^'ms- Start ;End
9. Tissue Sample Collection
(Check off ( ) when collected.)
Section 1 Section 2 Section 3 Section 4
10. Tissue Sample Collection for Pathogen Counts and E. Coli
(Collect two plants at five random locations per section, separating the top portion from
the root system.)
Jgmole Section 1 Section 2 Section 3 Section 4
la
Ib
2a
2b
3a
3b
4a
4b
5a
5b
11. Samples Mailed
Date: ; Time: ; Shipper:
Please use space below for additional comments.
3/76
136
-------
TABLE B-.4 SOIL TESTS
Test
Method
Source
(page number)
Bulk density
Hydraulic conductivity
Moisture content
Organic content
Particle density
Particle size distribution
Source: 34 and 35.
Core
Constant head
Gravimetry,oven
drying
Volatilization, furnace
Pycnometer
Hydometer
375
214
92
1,397
371
546
137
-------
CO
00
TABLE B-5
FIELD ACTIVITIES LOG Job No.
Determinotion of Bulk Density of Soil Using Core Method
Samples will be faken at beginning and end of study. Answer in listed units of measure, if possible;
If other units are used, please specify them. Return completed forms to:
Ralph Stone and Company, Inc.
10954 Santa Monica Boulevard
Los Angeles, California 90025
(213) 478-1501 and 879-1115
1. Site Location:
( ) Test site; ( ) Control site (check one)
2. Observer:
3. Data of observation: ; Time:
4. Soil Description
a. Soil Color:
b. Soil Type: ( ) loam; ( ) silt; ( ) clay; ( ) sand; ( ) gravel; ( ) other
c. Soil Moisture:
d. Soil Odors:
e. Soil Condition: ( ) hard pack; ( ) loose; ( ) other
f. Soil Surface Condition:
5. Depth to Groundwater Table (m):
Please make additional comments on reverse.
-------
LABORATORY ANALYTICAL METHODS
Many aforementioned chemical and physical analyses were performed on the effluents
from the Mesa secondary treatment plant, the irrigation waters, the leachate from the ly-
simeters, the groundwaters, and the digested and extracted soil and crop samples. All the
analyses performed, the methods used, and the references for the methods are shown in
Tables B-6 and B-7 and in priorly noted tables.
QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM
An on-going quality assurance program has been maintained to assure the
precision and accuracy of the data resulting from the laboratory analyses. Guidelines
established by the Analytical Quality Control Laboratory of the United States Environ-
mental Protection Agency have been followed. These included the following:
1) Water samples for chemical analysis were collected according to the American Public
Health Association's recommended procedure (36), and preserved by nitric acid or sulfuric
acid acidification, and refrigeration at 4 C.
2) Samples were labeled by priority at the time of collection and logged in when
received in the laboratory. Physical conditions at the time of sampling were documented.
3) All laboratory personnel complied with minimum educational requirements and were
thoroughly trained in the tests which they were assigned to do.
4) Records were kept of all activities in the laboratory. The laboratory work sheers were
permanently stored in an indexed binder. The analytical information for reagent prepara-
tion, standardizations, etc., were recorded. Instrumental variables, such as the temper-
atures of the ovens and incubators, or spectrophotometer settings were calibrated against
known standards and recorded at the time of testing on a daily basis.
5) Reagent grade chemicals and doubly treated deionized and/or distilled water were
used.
6) All reagents and standard solutions were properly labeled and stored.
7) All standards and reagents were replaced on a fixed schedule according to their
allowable shelf life and use periods.
8) Conductivity measurements of distilled and deionized water were taken periodically
to assure their quality.
9) Instruments were routinely calibrated and maintained according to manufacturers'
recommended schedules, or more frequently.
139
-------
TABLE B-6. SOIL AND CROP PREPARATORY METHODS
Method
Cation exchange capacity
Exchangeable cations
Comment
Sodium saturation
The decant, diluted to 250 ml in a volu-
Reference0
(page number)
899
899
Extraction, water
Extract ion,acid
Total digestion
metric flask, was analyzed for potassium,
calcium, and magnesium
Soil-to-water ratio of 1:10. Analysis was 9^,935
performed on sample ground with mortar and
pestle to pass a 100-mesh sieve
Same as water extraction, except 0.1 N^ 935
hydrochloric acid was substituted for dis-
tilled water.
Wet digestion with perchloric-nitric acid 11
and hydrofluoric acid
Source: 34.
Source: 37.
140
-------
Test
Metal
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Molybdenum
Nickel
Pofassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Zinc
Physical
Total dissolved
solids
Specific conduct-
ance®
Water
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Type
Soil
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
TABLE
Crop
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
B-7. ANALYTICAL METHODS
Importance Rationale
Minor
Minor
Minor
Minor
Minor
Minor
Major
Major
May tend to biomagnify
May tend to biomagnify
Nutrient
Phytotoxin
Nutrient/vital to photo-
synthesis
May tend to biomagnify
May affect plant growth
Phototoxin, may bio-
magnify
Salinity has major Im-
pact on plant response
Reference
Method (poge number)
Atomic absorption
(gaseous hydride)
Atomic absorption
Atomic absorption
Flame emission
Atomic absorption
Atomic absorption
Atomic absorption
Atomic absorption
Atomic absorption
Cold vapor technique
Atomic absorption
Atomic absorption
Atomic absorption
Atomic absorption
(gaseous hydride)
Atomic absorption
Flame emission
Atomic absorption
Gravimetric
Electrometric
95
97
101
103
105
108
112
114
116
118
139
141
143
145
146
147
155
267
275
(continued)
-------
TABLE B-7 .(continued)
Test Water0
Inorganic
Boron
Chloride
Fluoride
Nitrogen
Total Kjeldahl
Nitrate
PH
Phosphorous
Total
Phosphate
Organic phosphate
_ Sulfafo
Organic
Total organic carbon
Microbiology
Col i form
Total
Fecal
Nematodes
Protozoa
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Type
SoiP Crop0 Importance
X X Major
X X Major
X Minor
X
X
X
X X
X
X
X
Major
X X
X X
X
X
Reference
Rationale Method (page number)
Phytotoxln Colorimetric (Curoumin) 13
Salinity has major Titrimetric (Mercuric 29
impact on plant nitrate)
response
May tend to bio- Colorimetric (SPADNS) 59
magnify
Nutrient .Digestion 175
Colorimetric (Brucine) 197
Electrometric 239
Nutrient
Colorimetric (Ascorbic 481 e
acid)
Colorimetric (Ascorbic 481 e
acid)
Colorimetric (Stahnous 1038f
chloride)
Turbidimetric 277
Combustion 236
Multiple tube fermen- 916
tation
Multiple tube fermen- 922P
tation
Baermann funnel technI-1517
que
Singh method 151 3f
-------
TABLE B-7(continued)
, Water: includes treatment plant effluent,Irrigation water, lysimeter |eachate,and groundwater.
Soil: includes analyses of soils which were digested, acid and water extracted, and exchanged.
__, , Crops: includes digestion and water extraction of leaves and fruit.
*» Source: 38 ynless otherwise noted.
, Source: 36.
Source: 35.
-------
10) Standard procedures (36,38) or other literature sources approved by the
United States Environmental Protection Agency, were used. Supervisory per-
sonnel provided assurance that the established procedures were strictly followed.
11) A minimum of 10 percent of the samples were duplicated, or were spiked
with known amounts of standards.
12) Intermittently, special samples such as distilled water were supplied as
routine field collected samples; the laboratory staff knew of this field staff
practice. Control charts, based on duplicate and spiked sample results, were
used daily to maintain a high quality of work. Samples were rerun if the results
of the duplicates and/or spikes were out of the established control ranges.
13) All analytical results were checked by laboratory supervisors and approved
by company management.
144
-------
Formation
Sandy soil
Silly sand and gravel
Brown/ silty sand, gravel
and cobbles
Brown, silty sand, gravel
and cobbles w/clay
Brown,slightly clayey sand,
gravel and cobbles
Brown,silty sand, gravel &
cobbles w/clay
Legend
T Water first encountered
- 10
•
20
J,
_C
8-
a
Perforations
(90°Al6m)
•30
Figure C-l. Well log and schematic design of test well 1.
145
-------
Formation
Brown Sandy Topsoll
Brown Si I fy Sand,
Gravel & Cobbles
Brown Silfy Sand,
Gravel & Cobbles
w/Some Clay
Brown Sandy Clay
& Gravel
Brown Silty Sand,
Gravel & Cobbles
w/Some Clay
Brown Clayey Sand
& Gravel
Brown Silty Sand,
Gravel & Cobbles
Brown Silty Sand & Gravel
Legend
T Water First Encountered
.10
Perforations
(90/O.I6m)
0
r20
.
&
30
Figure C-2. Well log and schematic design of test well 2.
146
-------
Form aH on
Silty Topsoil
Brown Silty Sand,
Gravel & Cobbles
Brown Silty Sand,Gravel
& Cobbles w/Some Clay
Brown Silty Sand
w/Some Cobbles
Brown Silty Coarse
Sand & Gravel
Legend
'Water First Encountered
Perforations
(90°/0.16M)
10
20 *
30
Figure C-3. Well log and schematic design of test well 1
147
-------
Formation
Silty Topsoil
Brown Sandy Silt,
Gravel & Cobbles
Brown Silty Sand,
Gravel, & Cobbles
Brown Silty Sand,
Gravel & Cobbles
w/Some Clay
Legend
Water First Encountered
Perforations
(90°/0.16m)
10
- 20
-30
Figure C-4. Well log and schematic design of test well 1.
148
-------
Formation
Silly Topsoil
Brown Silty Sand,
Gravel & Cobbles
w/Some Clay
Brown Silty Sand,
Gravel & Cobbles
Brown Silty Sand,
Gravel & Cobbles
w/Little Clay
Brown Silty Sand,
Gravel & Cobbles
Brown Clayey Si It, Sand.
Gravel & Cobbles —'
Brown Silty Sand, ? -
Gravel & Cobbles
Perforations
(907o.l6m)
-10
20 •£
CL
L30
L40
Legend
Water First Encountered
Figure C-5. Well log and schematic design of test well 1
149
-------
APPENDIX D
ANALYTICAL DATA
All the values listed in Figures D-l to D-18 were printed out to two decimal places
in order to simplify the computer programming. The actual reported values for the con-
stituents were carried out to the following decimal places:
o Whole numbers: total and fecal coliform, total dissolved solids, chloride, sulfates,
sodium, and calcium.
o One decimal place: total nitrogen, potassium, and molybdenum.
o Two decimal places: boron, fluoride, nitrate-nitrogen, barium, cadmium, chromium,
copper, nickel, lead, zinc, arsenic, and selenium.
The other constituents (total organic carbon, phosphate, and magnesium) were
reported to three significant figures.
150
-------
TABLED-!. ANALYTICAL RESULTS: TEST EFFLUENT
• HPN/100 ml •
>n.r. EFFLUENT TC FC
11/14/70 NtS NtS
\il 1/7o I.O^t+Ob 400. 00
I/ 7/77 6.0Ut+07 0.00
21 7/)7 NtS NtS
3/ V77 t36UO.OO O.OJ
4/ 1/77 24000.00 40.00
4/ 7/77 24000.00 l*iS
4/14/77 24UGO.OO 24000. 00
5/ 1/77 24000.00 3500.00
5/1 4/77 NES NcS
6/ t/77 1.30E+06 1.30E+06
6/14/77 3500.00 50.00
7/ 1/77 600.00 60.00
7/14/77 1.60E*L'5 2.80E+05
8/ 1/77 2.40EKI5 92000.00
8/14/77 1.4CE+05 94000.00
9/14/77 17QOO.OO 13. OU
10/ 1/77 54000.00 11000.00
11/ 7/77 2.20E+05 14000.00
11/21/77 3.50E+05 t.70E*05
12/ 7/77 50.00 0.00
12/21/77 2.40E+05 70.00
I/ 7/78 2.40E+05 92000.00
1/21/78 2.40E+05 9200.00
Constituent / 1/77 c c
6/14/77 2o.OO 50.50
y/14/77 ii.OO 33.00
!0/ 1/77 36.00 53.00
tl/ 7/77 32.00 35.00
11/21/77 44.00 46.00
12/ 7/77 c c
12/21/77 24.00 64.00
I/ 7/7b C c
1/21/78 24.00 37.00
Ba
0.03
0.20
0.01
O.'O
0.31
0.30
NES
0.10
NES
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.30
0.30
0.40
C
0.07
0.20
O.OB
0.15
0.07
c
0.03
C
0.19
Cd
0.03
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.05
0.00
0.01
0.02
NES
0 01
0 01
0.01
O.OB
0.02
0.02
c
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
c
0.02
C
0.01
Cr
0.14
0.03
0.10
0.08
0.04
0.05
0.04
0.03
NES
NES
0 04
0.04
0.03
0.06
0.02
c
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.02
C
0.04
C
0.01
Cu
0.18
0.03
0.09
0.03
0.02
0.08
NCS
0.21
NES
0.03
0.07
0.07
0 15
0.08
0.08
c
0.04
0.05
0.09
0.06
0.1.1
c
0.10
c
0.13
Mo
NES
0.10
NES
0.10
NES
0.10
0.10
0.10
NtS
0.10
NES
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
c
0.1U
0.10
0.10
0.10
o.to
c
0.10
c
0.10
Nl
0.14
0.02
0.08
0.21
NES
0.09
NES
NES
NES
0 07
0.05
0.06
0 03
0 02
0.16
C
0.06
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.07
C
0.04
C
0.03
Pb
0.20
0.08
0.03
0.09
0.02
0.20
0.10
0.10
NES
0.07
0 08
0.05
0.06
0.05
0.02
c
0.06
0.12
0.13
0.02
0.02
C
0.08
C
0.02
Zn
0.08
0.08
0.03
0.02
0.01
NES
NES
NES
NES
0.10
0.10
0 07
0.08
0 07
0.04
C
0.09
0.06
0.03
0.04
0.06
c
0.05
C
0.06
As
0 01
0.01
0.01
NES
NES
0.03
NES
o.ot
NES
0 01
0 01
0 01
0.03
0.03
0.03
c
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
c
0.01
c
0.01
So
0.01
0.01
0.01
NES
NES
NES
NES
0.01
0 01
0.01
0.01
0 01
0.01
0.01
0.01
c
NES
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
c
0.01
c
0.01
151
-------
TABLE D-2. ANALYTICAL RESULTS: CONTROL IRRIGATION
• *>N/IOO ml •
M.C.I«HIGATIGN.TC FC TOS
M 1/77 NES
2/14/77 NcS
3/14/77 0.00
41 1/77 27.00
4/ 7/77 50.00
4/14/77 230.00
>/ 1/77 80.00
5/14/77 NtS
6/ 1/77 450.00
6/14/77 170.00
7/ 1/77 100.00
7/14/77 0.00
8/ 1/77 40.00
8/14/77 230.00
9/ 1/77 NES
9/14/77 100.00
10/ 1/77 0.00
11/ 7/77 2600.00
11/21/77 2200.00
12/ 7/77 1.60E+05
12/2V77 2400.00
1/21/78 35000.00
NES 570.00
NcS 810.00
0.00 626.00
20.00 NES
NES 1050.0Q
230.00 1130.00
20.00 970.00
NcS 996.00
0.00 1190.00
20.00 1090.00
0.00 NES
0.00 760.00
40.00 798.00
0.00 826.00
NfS NES
0.00 854.00
0.00 NES
50.00 392.00
1100.00 926.00
0.00 702.00
0.00 820.00
16000.00 620.00
B
NtS
NES
0.15
NES
0.10
0.0»
0.30
0.22
O.U
0.14
0.25
0.14
C
0.12
c
0.18
0.26
0.27
0.30
c
0.16
0.16
Constituent (nig/ 1)
Cl F N03
239.00
202.00
182.00
N£S
NcS
370.00
264.00
230.00
NES
277.00
311.00
286.00
323.00
c
317.00
296.00
164.00
137.00
C
239.00
229.00
0.47
NES
0.95
NcS
1.00
0.84
0.23
0.21
0.70
0.63
0.14
0.4J
C
0.20
c •
0.51
0.50
0.20
0.46
c
0.59
0.76
NES
3.56
5.10
NES
1.32
2.70
0.13
1.17
NES
4.30
5.62
5.40
2.10
c
0.90
0.50
3.00
6.00
c
1.30
0.90
TN
NES
NcS
NcS
NES
NcS
3.54
0.55
NES
NES
4.30
5.80
5.70
2.10
c
1.00
5.00
3.10
7.10
C
2.30
1.90
TOC
NES
14.90
NES
NcS
NcS
2.00
5.00
,3.60
44.00
14.00
39.00
NES
2.00
8.00
47.00
19.50
3.50
53.00
22.50
P04
NES
NES
NES
NES
0.13
0.10
0.08
0.90
1.00
1.32
2.06
0.16
0.22
0.13
0.10
0.10
0.12
0.10
0.90
S04
50 00
65 00
42.00
NcS
res
52.00
NES
4J. 00
55.00
48.00
44.00
33.00
57.60
64.00
65.00
72.00
67.00
42.00
62.50
K
NtS
NES
5.00
NES
9.0U
7.00
7.00
5.90
6.70
8.40
9.20
5.20
6.00
6.40
5.80
3.00
5.40
5.70
3.30
Na
249.00
NcS
142.00
NES
170.00
170.00
124.30
121.00
123.20
125.00
121.00
NES
205.00
186.00
150.00
98.00
111.00
171.00
130.00
Constltuent(m$/ I)
Ca
V 1/77 51.50
2/N/77 NES
i/14/77 i«S
4/ 7/77 57.00
4/14/77 56. UO
5/ 1/77 56.00
5/14/77 44. UO
6/ 1/77 42.00
6/14/77 44.00
7/ 1/77 33.00
7/14/77 49.00
8/ 1/77 c
8/14/77 27.00
9/ 1/77 c
V/14/77 48.00
10/ t/77 36.00
10/ 7/77 N£S
I1/ 7/77 36.00
11/21/77 40.00
I2/ 7/77 c
12/21/77 30.00
1/21/78 29.00
Mg da
lb.20 NcS
NES NcS
44. OU NtS
6B.ua NES
66.00 0.20
17.05 0.10
IS. 35 0.10
14.96 0.10
21.60 0.20
26.00 0.10
62.10 0.20
C C
46.60 0.20
C C
32.00 0.08
46.80 0.08
NES NES
(2.00 0.18
57.00 O.U
32.00 0.05
26.00 0.10
CO
0.01
NES
0.04
3.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.01
c
o.ot
c
0.02
0.02
NES
0.01
0.01
c
0.01
0.01
Cr
0.10
NcS
0.03
0.04
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.00
0.02
0.03
0.04
c
0.06
c
0.02
0.02
NES
0.01
0.02
c
0.04
0.01
Cu
0.20
0.03
0.03
0.21
0.14
0.01
0.05
0.06
0.18
0.03
0.19
c
0.10
0.04
0.07
NES
0.03
0.03
c
0.04
0.03
Mo
NcS
NES
NcS
NcS
0.10
0.10
NES
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
c
0.10
0.10
NcS
0.10
0.10
c
0.10
0.10
Nl
0.18
0.08
0.01
0.09
0.0)
0.06
0.06
0.10
0.03
0.05
0.02
c
0.04
c
0.02
0.01
NES
0.02
O.OS
0.02
0.03
Pb
0.01
Nti
U.04
0.10
0.01
0.15
0.06
0.06
0.02
0.06
0.02
0.04
0.02
0.03
NcS
0.02
0.06
0.07
0.02
Zn
0.01
NES
NtS
NES
0.03
0.03
0.09
0.03
0.02
0.07
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.02
NcS
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.07
As
NES
NES
NcS
NES
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.06
0.01
0.01
NES
0.01
0.01
0.01
0 01
0.01
Se
NES
NES
NES
NtS
0.01
0.01
0.01
o.ot
0.01
0.01
o.ot
NES
0.01
NES
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
152
-------
• Mr>N/IOO ml •
MTL-50
4/ 1/77
10/21/77
11/14/77
11/21/77
12/21/77
I/ 7/78
1/21/76
TC
0.00
o.oo
0.00
0.00
O.Ob
0.00
u.oo
PC TOS
0.00 N£S
0.00 1140.00
0.00 1100.00
O.UO 1600.00
0.00 1660.00
0.00 1964.00
U.OO 1361.00
Constituent (mg/l )
B Cl
0.14 311.00
NES NES
c c
0.40 334.00
0.39 466.00
c c
0.41 406.00
F
0.80
NES
c
1.00
0.59
c
1.00
N03
7S.20
NES
C
32.50
57 00
c
69 80
TN
NES
NES
c
36 20
58.00
c
70.00
TOC
NES
NES
c
7.03
7.00
c
11.00
P04
10.60
NES
c
2.40
3.10
c
3.60
S04
95.00
NES
62.00
100.00
c
185.00
K,
12.10
13 20
17.50
19.60
12.80
Na
131.00
150. OU
240.00
300.00
290.00
4/ 1/77
10/21/77
11/14/77
11/21/77
12/21/77
I/ 7/78
1/21/78
Ca
130.00
25.00
c
55.00
66.00
c
78.00
Hg da
49.17 0.10
50.00 0.24
c e
41.00 0.33
59.00 0.19
c c
56.00 0.23
Const,! tuent(*9/l )
Cd Cr
0.01 0.03
0.01 0.03
c c
0.01 0.03
0.01 0.02
c c
0.01 0.01
Cu
0.06
0.03
c
0.09
0.07
c
0.0$
Mo
0.10
0.10
c
0.10
0.10
c
0.10
Nl
0.09
0.02
c
0.09
0.02
C
0.03
Pb
0.08
0.02
0.05
0.08
c
0.11
Zn
0.17
0.15
0.11
0.20
c
0.30
As
0.01
NES
0.01
0.01
0.01
Se
0 01
NES
0.01
0.01
0.01
TABLE *4. ANALYTICAL RESULTS: TEST LYSIMETER, 100 CM
* MfN/100 ml "
21 1/77
3/14/77
4/ '/77
7/ 7/77
11/14/77
11/21/77
12/ 7/77
12/21/77
I/ 7/78
1/21/78
It
0.00
NES
0.00
80.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
rv. mi
O.OU NES
NES 1210.00
0.00 NES
ao.oo NES
0.00 674.00
0.00 1284.00
0.00 t610.00
0.00 1470.00
0.00 1796.00
0.00 1291.00
d
NES
0.35
0.27
NES
C
1.18
c
0.24
C
0.35
Con>titu«nt(mg/l)
Cl
363.90
272.00
266.00
NES
c
229.00
c
334.00
c
431.00
F
0.63
1.60
0.89
NES
1.25
c
1.15
c
0.90
N03
NES
72.00
71.00
NES
29.50
35.00
c
45.00
IN
NES
NES
72.10
NES
31.60
36.00
46.00
TOO
NES
NES
39.00
NES
2.50
11.00
12.00
P0«
NES
4.50
9.60
NES
1.40
2.70
3.00
S04
NcS
96.00
102.00
59.00
c
415.00
173.00
213.00
K Na
25.50 i'o3.00
11.60 295. 1'J
9.90 129.00
NES NEi
c c
23.70 576.00
c c
11.60 256.00
11.00 315.00
21 V77
3/14/77
4/ 1/77
11/14/77
11/21/77
\il 7/77
li/21/77
I/ 7/7«
1/21/76
Ca
199.50
14.70
63.00
C
iuo.ou
c
55.00
c
. 71.00
Mg Ba
27.00 NE5
59.00 0.04
23.21 0.1(1
C c
HtS 0.27
c c
43.00 U.23
c c
45.00 O.ttt
Cd
NES
0.04
0.01
C
0.02
c
0.01
c
0.01
Constituent (mg/l)
Cr Cu " Ho
0.08
0.06
0.05
c
0.05
c
0.03
c
0.01
0.04
0.05
0.07
c
NES
C
O.C6
C
0.07
NES
NES
NES
c
0.10
c
0.10
c
0.10
Nl
0.19
0.10
0.08
0.21
0.02
c
0.03
Pt>
0.06
0.04
0.06
0.05
0.06
0.06
Zn
0.09
0.16
O.ld
0.2U
0.12
0.23
AS
NES
NES
0.02
U 01
0.01
0.01
Se
NES
NES
0.0!
C
C
0 01
0.01
153
-------
TABLE I>ji:JNA^
:*»* »•»»»*•»•»»•»••" *%__•* i +,i*n+ Imn/l) __.
• MPN/100
MO.-50 TC
8/14/77 20.00
Ca
b/14/77 (€S
ml *
FC
0.00
Mg
NES
TOS
1242.00
da
NtS
8
0.45
Cd
0.01
Const
Cl
486.00
ltu»nTima/i i
F " N03
NES 18.00
Cr Cu Mo
0.03
NES NES
TN
NES
Ml
0.09
TOC
NES
fb
0.12
P04 S04
1.00 144.00
Zn
0.32
TABLE.i>£,.A^^
« »WII» .1 " ConstltuentCmg/n^ ^ ^ po4
4/ 1/77 hc»
7/ 7/77 60.00
b/14/77 40.00
l,tb
50. UO
0.00
NcS
NcS
boa. 00
0.10
Ntb
0.33
357.00
350.00
NES NES
1.10 NtS
1.02 16.50
NES
NcS
19.30
NcS
NcS
NcS
5.40
1.76
As
0.01
IQQ.ei
S04
NcS
IOu.00
69.00
K
NES
Se
0.01
a
K
NtS
23.00
a. 20
Na
285.00
Na
NES
174.0*
246.00
Ca
4/ 1/77 NES
11 7/77 20.00
B/14/77 26.00
M,
51.26
63. SO
68.20
8a
NES
0.10
0.25
Cd
0.01
NES
0.01
Const Ituantlmg/l )
Cr Cu Mo
h£S
0.01
0.08
NES 0.10
0.30 0.10
0.01 0.10
Nl
NES
NcS
0.31
Ptt
0.06
0.12
NES
Zn
0.31
0.35
0.45
As
NES
NES
0.01
s«
HcS
NcS
0.01
154
-------
TABLE
»~^Jir/5ftiE«iTS| TESTWELL/ UPSTREAM #1, TOP
MT»-1-I
4/ 1/77
5/ 7/77
5/14/77
6/ 7/77
6/14/77
7/ 7/71
8/ 1/77
8/14/77
9/ 1/77
9/14/71
10/ 1/77
10/21/77
It/ 7/77
11/21/77
12/21/77
I/ 7/78
1/21/73
• Mf-N/100 ml *
TC FC TOS
0.00
NES
NES
0.00
0.00
16000.00
790.00
1000.00
9400.00
20.00
20.00
50.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00 NES
NES NES
NES NES
0.00 738.00
0.00 810.00
0.00 740.00
0.00 662.00
0.00 756.00
20.00 582.00
0.00 736.00
0.00 858.00
0.00 862.00
0.00 NES
0.00 722.00
0.00 606.00
O.OU 626.00
0.00 760.00
Constituent •*••••••
K
NES
NES
c
7.70
11.30
c
NES
c
6.00
8.70
c
6.40
6.90
6.00
C
7.40
Na
NES
NcS
C
128.00
c
121.00
c
200.00
C
154.00
150 00
C
178.00
180.00
162.00
C
150.00
4/ 1/77
5/ 7/77
5/14/77
6/ 7/77
6/14/77
7/ 7/77
8/ 1/77
8/14/77
9/ 1/77
9/14/77
10/ 1/77
10/21/77
11/ 7/77
M/21/77
12/21/77
I/ 7/78
1/21/78
Ca
NtS
NES
c
36.00
c
35.00
c
40.00
C
26.00
32.40
c
32.00
24.00
24.00
C
23.00
Mg aa
•ItS NcS
NES NES
C c
16.83 0.10
c c
21.70 0.20
c c
NES NES
c c
29.00 0.05
61.00 0.11
c c
55.00 0.20
39.00 0.20
38.00 0.06
e c
30.00 0.2d
Cd Cr Cu Mo
0.01 NES
NtS NES
C c
3.01 0.01
0.02 0.02
C c
0.01 0.06
C ' c
0.02 0.03
0.02 0.02
C c
0.01 0.01
0.01 0.01
0.01 0.03
C c
0.01 0.01
NtS
NtS
0.07
0.15
0.23
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.09
0.04
0.04
NES
0.10
0.10
c
0.10
0.10
c
0.30
0.10
c
0.10
0.10
0.10
c
0.10
Nl
0.21
NtS
C
0.03
c
0.02
c
NtS
c
0.02
0.01
c
0.03
0.08
0.04
C
0.02
Pb
NES
NES
c
0.21
c
0.24
0.23
c
0.03
0.05
c
0.02
0.06
0.03
C
0.80
in
NES
NES
c
0.11
c
0.20
c
NtS
C
0.06
O.tt
c
0.33
NES
0.38
C
0.05
NES
NES
C
0.01
c
0.01
c
0.03
c
0.02
0.01
c
0.02
0.03
0.01
c
0.02
NES
NES
c
0.01
c
c
0.01
c
0.01
0.01
c
0.01
NES
NtS
c
0.01
155
-------
TABLE D-8. ANALYTICAL RESULTS: CONTROL W>ELL,>£N-SJTE>#l/>TOP
MCx-1-T
4/ »/77
4/U/77
>/ 7/77
5/U/77
6/ 7/77
6/1 4/77
7/ 7/77
B/ 1/77
«/ 14/77
9/ 1/77
9/14/77
9/21/77
107 1/77
10/21/77
IV 7/77
11/21/77
12/21/77
I/ 7/78
1/21/78
• Mi'N/lOO ml *
TC FC TOS
20.00
NcS
NcS
NtS
o.oo
U.OO
11U.OO
NcS
0.00
0.00
0.00
490.00
20.00
0.00
NES
0.00
20.00
0.00
0.00
U.OO NCS
NCS NcS
N£S N£S
NcS NcS
0.00 bub. 00
0.00 970.00
0.00 910.00
NcS 936.00
0.00 646.00
0.00 867.00
0.00 966.00
0.00 792.00
0.00 1002.00
0.00 1170.00
NES 11J4.00
0.00 1142.00
0.00 1630.00
0.00 970.00
0.00 1044.00
a
NcS
NdS
NCS
c
0.5*
c
0.57
C
0.37
c
0.48
0.30
c
0.38
0.45
0.53
C
0.53
Const Ituentlmg/l )
Cl F N03
2t>9.00
225.00
251.00
C
io 5. Ob
260.00
275.00
c
370.00
c
269.00
c
312.00
c
368.00
333.00
324.00
c
336.00
NcS
NcS
NcS
0.10
0.36
NES
c
0.68
c
0.95
0.40
0.70
0.35
0.10
NtS
NtS
1.55
1 35
4.70
NcS
8.50
5.60
5.10
4.20
2.10
2.50
9.00
IN
Neb
NtS
NtS
4.80
NtS
10.80
5.60
6.20
4.30
3.10
3.50
10.00
roc
NcS
NcS
NES
c
19.00
23. OU
24.00
23.00
78.00
19.60
38. 50
46.00
8.50
P04
NtS
NcS
3.60
0.21
2.80
NcS
1.62
c
NcS
c
0.53
0.43
c
0.50
0.10
4.80
c
0.10
S04
NtS
NtS
NcS
c
4o.UO
c
93.00
c
48.20
c
57.00
c
NES
c
NtS
78.00
70.00
c
65.00
K. Na
NcS UcS
NcS NES
NcS NcS
c c
9.90 130.00
c c
10.00 128.00
c c
NES 220.00
c c
8.60 173.00
c c
8.90 150.00
c c
9.30 200.00
10.10 231.00
9.60 189.00
c c
9.20 17J.OO
4/ 1/77
5/ '/77
5/14/77
6/ 7/77
6/14/77
7/ 7/77
-------
_I6BUS.jSMftirnaJB^^
MTM-1-8
5/14/77
6/ 7/77
6/M/77
7/ 7/77
8/ 1/77
6/14/77
»/ 1/77
K/14/77
10/ 1/77
10/21/77
11/ 7/77
11/21/77
12/21/77
I/ 7/78
1/21/78
5/14/77
6/ 7/77
6/14/77
7/ 7/77
8/ 1/77
8/U/77
9/ 1/77
9/14/77
10/ 1/77
10/21/77
11/ 7/77
11/21/77
12/^1/77
I/ 7/76
1/21/76
• MtWtOO ml •
TC FC
NES
0.00
0.00
20.00
nou.ou
5400.00
4600.00
Hti
17U.OO
O.UO
0.00
50. 00
20.00
0.00
0.00
Ca
39.00
c
32.00
c
41.00
c
27.00
31.80
c
32.00
24.00
20.00
C
30.00
NES
0.00
0.00
0.00
20.00
20.00
0.00
NtS
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
"9
19?25
c
22.20
c
NES
c
30.00
59.70
C
34.00
36.00
55.00
c
40.00
IDS
NES
732.00
600.00
740.00
636.00
704.00
662.00
766.00
792.00
924.00
NtS
732.00
566.00
602.00
822.00
Ba
c
0.10
c
0.30
c
NES
c
0.14
0.0V
C
0.17
0.17
0.07
c
0.20
Const! tuent(mg/l)
B Cl F NOJ
0.36 234.00
C 226 00
0.25 406 00
C c
0.29 228.00
C c
0.32 236.00
0.30 250.00
c c
0.20 246.00
0.23 207.00
0.33 201.00
C c
0.34 223.00
0.63
0.08
NES
0.72
NtS
0.42
0.25
0.10
0.15
NES
3.00
8.00
7.5U
5.90
4.40
4.80
9.40
7.70
Constituent (na/l )
C« Cr Cu Mo
c c
0.01 0.03
e c
0.02 0.01
0.01 0.11
0.02 0.04
0.02 0.02
C c
0.01 0.01
0.01 0.03
0.01 0.02
0.01 0.01
c
0.01
0.1}
0.19
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.08
0.02
0.09
C
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.20
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
IN
—.».._
c
NES
3.30
c
9 90
c
7.60
6.40
4.80
5.80
10.40
C
8.7Q
Nl
C
0.08
0.0)
c
NES
C
0.02
0.01
0.03
0.03
0.11
e
0.03
TOC
_...-._ —
c
22.00
C
40.00
C
34.00
c
7.30
69.00
15.00
2.00
39.00
53.00
c
0.20
e
0.25
e
0.28
C
0.07
0.06
c
0.03
0.07
0.06
c
NES
PCM
_ — ...
0.40
2.. 90
1.87
c
ftcS
c
0.76
NES
C
0.40
0.90
1.20
c
1.00
Zn
c
0.21
e
0.19
C
NES
C
0.07
0.0)
c
0.24
0.69
0.20
C
0.87
S04
c
76.00
e
62 00
C
31 00
C
62.00
NtS
c
NES
117.00
75.00
60.00
•**.*....„
As
C
0.01
c
0.02
c
0.10
c
0.02
0.01
C
0.03
0.02
0.01
c
0.02
K Na
c c
8.20 128.00
c c
tl.i-0 My. 00
c c
13.10 195.00
c c
6.10 156.00
8.30 150.00
c c
6.20 176.00
7.00 163.00
6.90 162.00
c c
6.80 1)3.00
™--—~— — ~
St
c
NES
c
0.01
c
o.ot
c
0.01
0.01
c
o.ot
0.01
0.01
c
0.01
157
-------
TABLE D-10. ANALYTICAL RESULTS: CONTROL WELL^ ON-SIT.E *1A BOTTjDM.
• MPN/100 ml •
MCn-l-e TC FC TJS
5/14/77 NES
6/ 7/77 0.00
6/U/77
11 7/77
8/ 1/77
6/U/77
9/ 1/77
9/14/77
9/21/77
10/ 1/77
10/21/77
I!/ 7/17
11/21/77
12/21/77
I/ 7/76
1/21/70
0.00
140.00
40.00
270.03
40.00
NES
24000.00
0.00
0.00
NES
20.00
0.00
0.00
U.OO
NtS NES
0.00 868.00
0.00 990.00
0.00 970.00
0.00 944.00
60.00 1342.00
0.00 904.00
NES 946.00
U.OO 782.00
0.00 1006.00
0.00 1224.00
NtS 1122.00
0.00 1002.00
0.00 1670.00
0.00 946.00
0.00 905.00
a
C
0.50
c
0.58
c
0.70
e
0.45
c
0.47
C
0.49
0.40
0.37
C
0.47
Const ltuer>T(mg/l)
Cl f N03
c
273.00
252.00
277.00
C
359.00
c
292.00
c
309.00
C
366.00
334.00
285.00
c
327 .00
c
0.10
0.98
0.83
0.76
0.95
c
0.30
0.51
0.10
C
0.15
C
4.10
NES
NES
5.50
4.7Q
5.00
3 30
4.10
5.40
TN
c
5.60
NES
15.50
5.50
5.50
5.10
4.30
5.10
6.40
TOC
c
15.00
NES
26.00
10.00
79.00
20.90
0.50
21.00
1.50
P04
0.29
NES
NtS
NES
c
NES
c
0.43
c
0.46
c
0 20
0.60
1.64
1.04
S04
C
91.00
c
55.00
c
SB. 00
c
56.00
C
NtS
C
NES
NES
54.00
c
65.00
K N«
C C
12.00 130.00
c c
9.7Q 123.00
c c
NES NES
C c
d. 40 173.00
C c
8.70 151.00
C C
9.30 203.00
10.00 169.00
8.9U 171.00
c c
8.90 175.00
5/14/77
6/ 7/77
6/14/77
7/ 7/77
»/ 1/77
8/14/77
9/ 1/77
9/14/77
9/21/77
10/ 1/77
10/21/77
11/ 7/77
11/21/77
12/21/77
I/ 7/74
l/il/78
Ca
c
79.00
c
63.00
c
NES
c
55.00
c
46.50
c
73.00
67.00
41.00
c
57.00
Mg Ba
c c
29.92 0.30
C c
40.40 0.20
c c
92.40 NES
c c
62.30 0.15
c c
101.00 0.10
e c
104.00 0.27
66.00 0.40
75.00 0.07
C C
71.00 0.27
CO
C
0.01
0.02
c
0.01
c
0.02.
c
0.02
c
0.01
0.01
0.01
c
0.01
Constltuent(mg/l)
Cr
c
0.07
c
0.06
c
0.05
0.03
0.02
c
0.01
0.02
0.04
0.01
c
0.10
0.11
NtS
0.03
0.03
c
0.06
0.05
0.02
0.06
c
0.10
0.10
0.20
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
N1
C
0.12
0.09
NES
0.01
0.01
0.06
0.06
0.05
0.03
Pb
c
0.37
NES
0.29
c
0.11
c
0.05
0.02
0.04
0.05
c
NES
In
c
0.02
c
0.31
c
NES
c
0.20
c
0.07
0.47
0.03
0.31
c
0.65
As
c
0.02
c
0.03
c
0.02
c
0.01
c
0.01
c
0.02
0.01
0.02
c
0 02
S«
0.01
c
0.01
c
0.01
c
0.01
c
0.01
c
0.01
0.01
0.01
c
0.01
158
-------
TABLE D-ll. ANALYTICAL RESULTS-
- ""•"V.t.Jihr.V.t.l.?.v.
Mln-2-T
4/ 1/77
V 7/77
5/14/77
6/ 7/77
6/14/77
8/ 1/77
8/14/77
9/ 1/77
9/11/77
10/ 1/77
10/21/77
11/ 7/77
11/21/77
12/21/77
I/ 7/78
1/21/78
• Hr'N/IUO ml •
TC FC TOS
O.UU
NtS
NtS
0.00
0.00
0.00
30.00
220.00
0.00
170.00
340.00
NES
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00 NtS
NES NtS
NtS NtS
0.00 7B8.0U
0.00 660.00
0.00 636.00
0.00 638.00
0.00 700.00
0.00 792.00
0.00 736.00
0.00 896.00
NtS NES
0.00 686.00
0.00 458.00
0.00 648.00
0.00 638.00
B
NbS
NES
c
0.43
NES
0.38
0.17
0.36
c
0.15
0.26
0.33
c
0.33
Const Ituentdng/l )
Cl r ••-•
242.00
230.00
257.00
170.00
238.00
222.00
228.00
242.00
176.00
224.00
237.00
NtS
NES
0.59
N£S
1.14
0.54
NES
0.20
0.25
0.28
0.70
NES
NtS
1.60
NES
6.50
4.30
4.50
C
5.50
2.40
6.90
7.60
>*•••••••
TN
NES
NES
c
3.30
NES
c
7.80
c
4.30
5.00
c
6.70
8.00
7.90
c
8.60
.•S/.,ii'..?.'
TOC
NES
NES
C
20.00
NES
13.00
C
15.00
84.00
13.00
1.50
54.00
c
1.00
•••••••
P04
NES
0.23
0.29
NES
NES
c
NES
c
0.35
NES
c
0.52
0.84
NES
c
1.40
.r.'...i*.j
S04
NtS
NES
c
96.00
NES
c
53.00
c
58.00
NtS
C
NES
124.00
100.00
C
62.00
••• •••••••••••••
K Na
NES NES
NES NtS
c c
7.30 131.00
NES NES
c c
10.30 211.00
c c
6.00 147.00
7.30 132.00
e c
6.60 17Q.QO
7.40 156.00
6.60 159.00
c c
6.20 158.00
4/ 1/77
S/ 7/77
5/14/77
b/ 7/77
6/14/77
B/ 1/77
b/ 14/77
9/ 1/77
9/14/77
10/ 1/77
10/21/77
11/ 7/77
11/21/77
12/21/77
I/ 7/78
1/21/78
Ce
70.UO
Neb
c
5I.UO
NtS
C
26.00
c
26.00
27.50
c
35.00
21.00
21.00
c
30.00
Mg da
NtS NtS
NtS NtS
c c
N£S 0.20
NbS NES
c c
62.70 NES
C c
30.00 0.09
55.80 0.07
c c
49.00 0.22
33.00 0.39
42.00 0.07
c c
37.00 0.44
Cd
0.01
NbS
0.01
NES
c
0.01
c
0.02
0.02
c
0.01
0.01
0.01
c
o.ot
Cr CM Mo
NES
NtS
O.ul
NES
0.20
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.03
0.01
NES
NES
0.05
0.21
0.15
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.07
0.04
0.03
NES
0.10
0.10
NES
0.10
C
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
Ml
0.04
NtS
C
0.03
0.03
C
NES
c
0.02
0.01
c
0.03
0.08
0.02
C
0.04
Pb
NtS
NES
C
0.15
NES
C
0.15
C
0.10
0.03
C
0.02
0.09
0.07
C
0.39
in
NES
NES
c
0.11
NES
0.59
C
0.06
0.15
C
0.22
0.53
0.18
c
0.76
As
NES
NES
C
0.01
NES
c
0.06
c
0.02
0.01
c
0.02
0.03
0.01
0.02
Se
HtS
NtS
e
0.01
NtS
c
0.01
c
0.01
0.01
c
0.01
0.01
0.01
c
o.ot
150
-------
TABLE 0-12. ANALYTICALJESyL^
• MPH/IOO ml *
^ 2 T Tn FC TOS
4/ 1/77
>/ 7/77
5/U/77
6/ 7/77
6/14/77
7/ 7/77
C/ 1/77
8/14/77
11 1/77
9/14/77
V/21/77
10/ 1/77
10/21/77
IV 7/77
11/21/77
12/2V77
I/ 7/78
1/21/78
20.00
NES
NtS
O.UO
O.UO
li.OO
20. UO
2U.OO
33U.OO
110.00
490.00
60.00
20.00
60.00
0.00
0.00
50.00
0.00
0.00 NtS
NES Nt~S
NES NtS
0.00 1346.00
0.00 1650. 00
0.00 16*0. UO
0.00 1Mb. 00
O.UU 1320.00
0.00 126d.OO
O.OU 1362.00
0.00 1940.00
0.00 1746.00
0.00 1340.00
0.00 1200.00
0.00 748.00
0.00 1500.00
0.00 1186.00
0.00 1090.00
e
NES
NtS
c
0.50
c
0.42
c
0.54
c
0.45
C
0.53
. c
0.46
0.27
0.26
C
0.26
Conitlluentlrng/l )
Cl F N03
268.00
369.00
c
443.00
487.00
352.00
c
412.00
c
451.00
C
631 .00
402.00
270.00
337.00
331.00
MtS
NES
0.70
c
0.24
c
0.48
0.76
C
J.15
0.30
0.75
0.59
e
1.13
NES
1.32
1 37
4.10
NES
4.50
8.60
20.70
2.10
2.60
5.50
6.30
TN
NtS
NES
5.60
NtS
5.10
6.70
21.20
2.30
3.60
6.50
7.30
TOC
NES
NES
63.00
NES
3.00
c
10.00
88.00
37.00
0.50
47.00
c
3.00
P04
NES
0.09
0.07
2.50
NtS
c
NtS
C
0.20
c
0.35
c
0.15
0.16
0.10
c
1.10
S04
NtS
e
12U.OO
c
130.00
C
91.00
C
112.00
c
200.00
c
NES
83.00
91.00
C
101.00
K ha
NcS ..ES
NcS NES
e e
10. 80 165.00
C C
ld.*u 39d.OU
C c
14.20 370.00
c c
7.60 293.00
c c
10.70 320.00
c e
6.60 300.00
6.00 219.00
7.60 243.00
C C
7.10 265.00
4/ 1/77
5/ 7/77
S/U/77
6/ 7/77
6/14/77
7/ 7/77
O/ 1/77
b/ 14/77
>/ 1/77
9/14/77
9/21/77
10/ 1/77
10/21/77
11/ 7/77
11/21/77
12/21/77
I/ 7/78
1/21/78
Ca
73.00
r
0.20
NES
c
0 13
c
0.34
c
0.17
c
0.12
c
0.06
0.06
0.05
0.06
c
Zn
NES
NES
c
0.08
c
0.15
c
0.31
C
0.03
c
0.01
c
0.27
0.03
o.ia
c
0.53
As
NtS
NtS
c
0.02
c
0.02
c
0.01
e
0.01
c
0.01
c
0.01
0.01
0.02
c
0.01
Sa
NES
i*cS
c
0.01
c
0.01
c
0.01
c
0.01
c
0.01
c
0.01
0.01
0.01
c
0.01
160
-------
TABLE CM 3.
MTM-2-8
5/14/77
«/ 7/77
6/14/77
8/ 1/77
8/U/77
9/ 1/77
V 14/77
W 1/77
lu/21/77
IV 7/77
11/21/77
12/21/77
V 7/78
1/21/76
5/14/77
6/ 7/77
6/14/77
8/ 1/77
8/14/77
9/ 1/77
9/14/77
10/ 1/77
10/21/77
11/ 7/77
11/21/77
12/21/77
I/ 7/78
1/21/78
• MPN/100 ml •
TC FC
NES
0.00
0.00
220.00
40.00
230.00
NtS
170. 00
92UO.OO
5U.OO
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Ca
C
46.00
NES
c
26.00
c
28.00
27.30
C
30.00
23.00
20.00
C
31.00
NES
0.00
0.00
20.00
0.00
0.00
NES
0.00
20.00
0.00
O.uu
U.OO
o.oo
0.00
Mg
C
20.79
30.20
c
77.00
c
30.20
34.50
C
49.00
37.00
42.00
C
38.00
TOS
NtS
760.00
820.00
746.00
708.00
674.00
762.00
730.00
900.00
N£S
764.00
700.00
604.00
NES
Ba
c
0.10
NES
C
NES
c
0.13
0.06
c
0.21
0.31
0.07
e
0.27
Constltuent(«g/l )
9 Cl F N03
0.42
NES
c
0.45
c
0.32
U.32
c
0.36
0.31
U.26
c
0.25
Cd
0.01
NES
0.01
c
0.02
0.02
c
0.01
0.02
0.01
c
0.01
261.00
245.00
237.00
204.00
227.00
24u.OO
203.00
211.00
239.00
0.20
NES
1.20
0.68
1.25
0.24
0.23
0.28
0.95
Constituent Ing/
Cr Cu
0.01
NES
0.08
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.01
"**•'
0.07
0.12
0.17
0.02
O.O2
0.03
0.05
0.02
0.03
4.00
NES
8.50
3.70
4.40
5.50
3.10
6.90
1.00
1)
Mo
C
0.10
NES
c
0.10
0.20
0.10
C
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
KUJwJ.1
4.80
NES
c
9.30
C
3.70
4.90
c
6.30
4.10
7.90
c
1.50
Nl
c
0.06
0.06
c
NES
C
0.02
0.01
0.03
CC.03
0.01
e
0.03
^J.RJ
TOC
37.00
8.10
22.00
C
12.00
53 00
c
13.00
1.00
46.00
c
0.50
• * «B w***
Pb
.........
c
0.20
0.20
c
0.26
C
0.03
0.11
c
0.02
0.06
0.10
e
0.84
iAM£
P04
0.28
I£S
NES
c
NES
c
0.33
NES
C
0.46
0.84
0.10
C
1.70
»•»«—_.
Zn
c
0.10
0.08
c
NES
e
0.07
0.09
c
0.17
0 29
0.09
c
0.65
2*.aOT.T.CM
c
61.00
NES
51.00
60.00
NES
c
NES
86.00
74. OU
C
60.00
-——._.
As
C
0.01
NES
C
0.04
e
0.01
0.01
c
0.02
0.03
0.02
0.01
C c
7.60 123.00
2.80 137.00
c c
10.40 205.00
5.30 145.00
7.10 133.00
c c
6.70 170.00
6.80 180. OJ
6.00 Do.OO
C C
7.70 155.00
_
Se
c
0.01
NES
c
0.01
c
0.01
0.01
c
0.01
0.01
0.01
c
0.01
161
-------
,!MLE.B:.U,..At^
^.£QJ^RQL.W£LLr'.£ihL-rSlIJE.#2,.BaTICM....
5/14/77
6/ 7/77
6/14/77
7/ 7/77
8/ 1/77
8/14/77
9/ 1/77
9/14/77
9/21/77
10/ 1/77
10/21/77
11 / 7/77
11/21/77
12/21/77
I/ 7/78
1/21/70
« Mr'N/lOO
NtS
0.00
0.00
110.00
340.00
30.00
90.00
NES
NES
0.00
0.00
0.00
O.OJ
0.00
0.00
0.00
ml •
FC TOS
NES NES
0.00 1370.00
0.00 1590.00
0.00 1760.00
50.00 1128.00
0.00 984.00
0.00 1266.00
NES 1720.00
NES 1504.00
0.00 1666.00
0.00 1332.00
0.00 1226.00
0.00 1120.00
0.00 1540.00
0.00 1102.00
0.00 1085. UO
8
c
0.47
C
0.45
C
0.60
C
0.47
c
0.44
C
0.30
0.26
0.25
c
0.34
const 11
Cl
c
430.00
491.00
535.00
C
276.00
C
491.00
C
586.00
c
402.00
341 .00
324.00
c
350.00
F
c
0.73
C
0.60
NES
0.79
1.25
NES
0.51
0.48
C
0.15
1.32
NES
c
12.60
10.50
NES
18.00
2.10
9.30
5 50
6.90
TN
13.40
12.70
NES
c
13.10
2.30
10.30
6.50
7.90
TOC
21.00
c
32.00
c
10.00
c
7.00
c
82.00
C
32.50
0.50
33.00
c
6.00
0.50
0.90
NES
NES
c
NES
c
0.12
c
0.34
c
0.10
0.10
0.10
c
1.10
504
106.00
c
135.00
c
66.00
c
120.00
c
150.00
c
NES
107.00
95.00
C
127.00
K Na
12. Ou 164.00
c c
18.40 176.00
c c
20.60 300.00
c c
8.00 323.03
c e
10.20 310.00
c c
7.80 293.00
7.60 267.00
7.10 240.00
C C
7.00 260.00
5/14/77
6/ 7/77
6/14/77
7/ 7/77
&/ 1/77
8/14/77
»/ 1/77
9/14/77
9/21/77
10/ 1/77
10/21/77
11/ 7/77
11/21/77
12/21/77
I/ 7/78
1/21/78
Ca
c
112.00
c
100.00
c
NES
c
80.00
c
59.90
C
74.00
73.00
32.00
c
71.00
c c
42.24 0.10
c c
62.30 0.20
c c
96.60 NES
c c
116.50 0.07
c c
162.00 0.07
c c
112.00 0.21
90.00 0.36
100.00 0.07
c C
78.00 0.21
Ca
c
0.01
c
0.02
c
0.01
c
0.02
c
0.01
C
0.01
0.01
0.02
c
0.01
Const 1 1 uent (mg/ 1 )
Cr Cu M°
c
0.08
0.02
c
0.02
c
0.02
c
0.01
c
0.01
0.03
0.04
0.01
c
0.08
0.30
0.14
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.05
0.02
0.03
c
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
O.'O
0.10
0.10
0.10
Nl
0.20
0.1'
NES
0.02
c
0.02
0.04
0.07
0.02
0.03
Pb
0.13
c
NES
c
NES
c
0.06
c
0.02
C
0.05
0.07
0.03
c
0.30
Zn
0.19
c
0.19
c
NES
e
0.04
X
0.01
c
0.23
0.30
0.11
c
0.34
As
0.01
C
0.02
c
0.02
c
0.01
c
0.01
c
0.01
0.01
0.01
c
0.01
Se
NES
c
0.01
c
0.01
c
0.01
c
0.01
c
0.01
0.01
0.01
c
0.01
182
-------
TABLE IMS. ANALYTICAL RESULTS: TEST WELL ' DOWNSTREAM #3 TOP
*****************************n*****,mmmm,mm,mmfmmmmmm,m * "'^ ll»wr-»ITI W/IV^I
• MHN/100 ml • - ^ "!""" " ' ".«....................
„---:..-.
4/ 1/77
5/ 7/77
5/14/77
6/ 7/77
6/14/77
7/ 7/77
8/ 1/77
fl/ 14/77
9/ 1/77
9/14/77
10/ 1/77
10/21/77
IV 7/77
11/21/77
12/21/77
I/ 7/78
1/2V78
• Mr'N/loO ml •
1C FO US
«tS NtS NcS
HtS NtS NtS
NtS NES NtS
0.00 0.00 1180.00
0.00 0.00 1240.00
16000.00 1400.00 1200.00
170.00 0.00 1140.00
80.00 0.00 1064.00
130.00 0.00 1006.00
50.00 0.00 1184.00
130.00 0.00 1384.00
0.00 0.00 1394.03
0.00 0.00 NtS
20.00 0.00 1198.00
20.00 0.00 1590.00
0.00 0.00 522.00
0.00 0.00 628.00
d
NcS
NtS
C
0.61
c
0.64
c
0.67
c
0.62
0.58
c
0.52
0.42
0.58
c
0.79
CofistltuenMmg/l j
C 1 c ...»
330.00
331.00
c
364.00
347.00
235.00
350.00
c
333.00
356.00
395.00
251.00
386.00
£
401 .00
r
NES
l«eS
£
0.30
0.23
0.32
0.72
1.25
0.20
0.51
O.'O
0.15
NUJ
NcS
3.07
3 in
. 1 U
NtS
C
NES
26.50
18.20
8.90
2.30
13.00
15.00
18.00
••««••>«..... •»»•••»••«.........«............ ,....m>
IN
NcS
NES
c
NES
C
NcS
27.80
18.20
9.00
C
2.50
14.00
16.00
c
19.00
loo
NES
NES
27.00
35?00
c
24.00
c
6.50
76.00
C
15.40
0.50
49.00
c
1.50
1*04
NtS
0.10
0.35
2.40
NES
5.78
C
4.75
c
0.26
NES
C
0.36
0.28
NES
c
1.30
S04
NtS
NES .
c
84. UO
c
85.00
62.00
c
58.00
NES
c
NES
89.00
116.00
C
92.00
K
NtS
NtS
C
9.40
c
14.00
e
NES
c
6.50
8.10
c
7.40
8.00
8.7Q
c
9.60
Na
NcS
NcS
c
184.00
c
146.00
c
2'O.OQ
c
222.00
202.00
c
220.00
270.00
252.00
c
285.00
4/ 1/77
S/ 7/77
5/14/77
to/ 7/77
6/14/77
7/ 7/77
o/ 1/77
8/14/77
9/ 1/77
9/14/77
10/ 1/77
10/21/77
11/ 7/77
11/21/77
12/21/77
I/ 7/78
1/21/78
Ce Mg da
NcS NcS NcS
HtS NCS NcS
c c c
77.00 32.88 0.10
C C c
53.00 53.10 0.20
c c c
52.00 NtS 0.64
C C c
56.00 67.20 0.15
47.80 106.00 0.08
C c c
66.00 105.00 0.20
63.00 81.00 0.32
54.00 101.00 0.09
C C c
68.00 82.00 0.40
CO
0.01
NdS
c
O.ot
c
0.02
c
0.01
c
0.02
0.02
C
0.01
0.01
0.01
e
0.01
Cr Cu Mo
NcS
NcS
c
0.04
c
0.07
0.02
0.02
0.02
c
0.01
0.04
0.02
c
0.01
NcS
NtS
0.12
0.20
0.09
0.05
0.02
f
0.05
0.03
0.03
£
0.06
NtS
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.30
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
Nl
0.12
NES
c
0.06
c
0.09
C
NcS
C
0.02
0.01
0.03
0.04
0.06
C
0.06
PB
NcS
NcS
C
0.08
c
0.07
C
NES
c
0.06
0.03
c
0.03
0.10
0.11
C
0.67
in
NES
Nca
c
0.10
c
0.30
C
NtS
e
0.05
0.06
c
0.09
0.05
0.27
C
0.87
As
NtS
NES
c
0.01
C
0.03
C
0.02
c
0.01
0.01
c
0.02
0.02
0.02
C
0.02
Se
NES
NcS
c
0.01
c
0.01
c
0.01
c
0.01
0.01
c
0.01
0.01
0.01
c
0.01
<•••••»
183
-------
TABLE D-16. ANALYTICAL
•«•••••»••••••••••••••••«•••»••»••••••»«*•••••••
• Mfn/100 ml •
MTrf-J-B TC FC TOS B
.&^^
ConstltuenHmg/ll
Cl f ^
Ioc
5/U/17
6/ 7/17
6/U/77
t/ 7/77
B/ t/77
8/14/77
9/ 1/17
WI4/17
IO/ t/77
10/21/77
IV 7/77
11/21/77
I2//I/77
I/ V/7o
1/21/7d
NES NES NES
0.00 0.00 1206.00
0.00 0.00 12'O.OQ
130.00 20.00 1250.00
no. oo o.oo 750.00
90.00 0.00 1074.00
330.00 0.00 912.00
htS NES MM. GO
230.00 0.00 1192.00
0.00 0.00 13ld.oa
230. 0'J 0.00 NiS
iu.OO U.UO 1246.00
20. OJ 0.00 1510.00
0.00 U.OO 1222. Ou
0.00 0.00 1360.00
c
0.49
e
0.76
C
0.63
c
0.45
0.56
C
0.57
0.68
0.72
C
0,62
c
389.00
357.00
362.00
230.00
e
312.00
357.00
C
395.00
359.00
37a.OO
c
3o1.00
0.60
c
0.57
c
2.52
c
0.'2
NES
C
0.20
0.51
0.28
0.93
NES
C
NES
16.50
13.00
12.00
c
1.70
5.5J
15.50
12.00
NES
c
NES
16.80
13.00
13.30
1.90
6.80
16.50
13.00
19.00
56.00
19.00
9.03
NES
27.50
36.50
42.00
40.00
3.00
6.72
6.31
0.23
NES
0.20
0.10
0.4d
1.40
c
77.00
65.00
58.00
71.00
N£S
NES
93.00
V5.00
c
63.00
c
10.10
15.80
34.20
6.20
8.20
•7.50
7.80
7.60
c
7.50
c
149.00
142.00
220.00
212.00
2u2.00
220.00
270.00
255. Ou
c
260.00
Constituent dig/I)
S/U/77
6/ 7/77
6/14/77
7/ 7/77
8/ 1/77
8/U/77
«/ V77
9/14/77
IO/ t/77
10/21/77
It/ 7/77
11/21/77
12/21/77
I/ 7/76
1/21/76
Ca Mg Ba
c c c
96.00 43.12 0.10
c c c
82.00 55.30 0.30
e c c
55.00 105.00 NES
c c e
56.00 63.60 0.06
46.50 108.00 0.08
c c c
69.00 104.00 0.22
16.00 95.00 0.36
42.00 102.00 O.U
c c c
66.00 7b.OO 0.25
Cd
0.01
c
0.02
e
0.01
0.02
0.02
c
0.01
0.01
0.01
c
0.01
Cr
c
0.06
c
0.05
C
0.03
c
0.02
0.02
c
0.01
0.02
0.02
e
0.01
Cu
c
0.07
c
0.23
c
0.17
0.02
0.03
c
0.02
0.03
0.02
C
0.02
Mo
c
0.10
e
O.'O
c
O.<0
c
0.10
0.10
c
0.10
0.10
0.10
c
0.10
Nl
c
0.13
e
0.09
c
NES
0.02
0.01
0.03
0.02
0.05
0.03
Pb
c
0.15
NES
0.22
0.05
0.03
0.04
0.09
0.08
0.86
Zn
c
0.34
0.51
0.63
0.02
0.06
0.08
0.02
0.19
0.47
As
c
MES
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.02
S»
c
NES
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0,01
0.01
0.01
0.01
164
-------
TABLEO-17 INDIVIDUAL SOIL ANALYSES .INITIAL SAMPLING (OCTOBER 1976)C
01
en
B
Site Depth
(cm) YVE^
Test 1 6.2
4.1
3.8
3 5.5
3.8
2.9
10 4.7
1.2
2.6
30 2.7
2.5
1.8
100 3.6
2.2
4.4
200 6.1
3.0
2.5
300 3.8
3.4
1.3
Cl
WE
1170
976
1610
244
949
1410
976
1330
3800
1630
1763
1180
1600
461
786
271
1030
1140
1630
1490
1410
F
WE
1
11
1
3
J
15
1
9
1
5
1
2
1
1
NO3-N
WE
75
88
11
69
30
30
4.5
1.8
73
23
6.1
-------
TABLE
Site
Depth
(cm)
B
WE
Cl
WE
~T^
WE
NOg-N
WE
N
T
D^17 (continued)
P°4
WE
Pb P K Na
Organ! c
AE WE Ex WE2 AE2
Ca
WE2
EX
a>
as
Control 1
3
10
30
100
200
300
3.8
4.8
3.4
4.3
3.7
2.8
3.5
3.5
3.2
3.4
3.6
3.2
3.6
3.5
3.2
3.2
5.2
3.4
2.8
4.6
2.6
* • ••
397
234
280
537
257
327
280
818
257
257
350
234
234
257
327
701
888
304
304
1000
234
16
-------
TABLE P-17 (continued)
Site Depth
(cm) T
Test 1 10800
17800
3 11300
27000
10 11400
19200
30 12300
15400
100
15200
200 1 1000
14600
300 6420
7600
Mg
AE WE
4500 37
1220 29
3850 33
1020 31
4550 36
1080 26
3550 27
990 28
3350 20
890 22
2200 18
970 24
3400 16
780 28
CEC Ag Bo Cd Cr
EX T AEb Tb Tb AEb T AEb
743
619
668
751
563
799
605
395
418
697
629
607
580
580
614
428
413
541
554
351
655
28.3 <20
27.4<20
26.1<20
33.0<20
32.6<20
31.7<20
25.2<20
24.8<20
24.3<20
22.2<20
13.0<20
23.9<20
12.2<20
9.1<20
13.1<20
10.4<20
11.3<20
10. 9 < 20
12.2<20
10.4<20
15.6<20
1.0 580
1.0 800
1.0 560
1.0 500
2
1.0 480
1 .0 520
1 .0 520
KO 540
1.0 400
1.0 540
1 .0 520
1.0 580
1.0 580
1.0 580
• ^
< 5
12
< 2
10
< 5
12
< 5
8
< 5
12
< 5
10
< 5
4
0.8
•0.7
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.6
0.3
0.6
0.3
0.5
0.4
500
629
560
489
510
616
529
517
578
569
500
458
438
460
517
529
529
499
469
400
469
0.2
0.7
0.1
0.6
O.I
0.8
0.1
0.5
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.3
Cu
T AE
389 0.3
288 0.7
219
375 0.3
251 0.3
206
350 0.4
2830.6
244
337 0.3
243 0.3
146
327 0.3
265 0.3
152
270 0.3
260 0.3
166
280 0.3
217 0.3
156
Mn
T AE
173
496
195
160
191
182
184
252
114
219
212
293
164
236
150
170
221
239
215
199
120
69
83
81
W 1
42
75
79
/ f
61
81
67
64
59
53
58
48
70
59
44
42
49
47
48
(continued)
-------
TABLE CM 7 (continued)
CD
00
Site Depth
(cm)
Control MCI
3
10
30
100
200
300
T
13500
18600
12800
19000
13000
23200
13300
18000
13100
28800
13100
21400
15300
7200
Mg
AE6
2000
1210
2000
1000
2300
1000
1800
1150
2100
1040
1800
900
1900
1240
WEb
38
36
31
33
30
26
23
E<
649
315
826
680
812
624
769
367
738
317
515
778
559
593
660
673
490
362
738
779
329
CEC10 Ag u
T AEb
23.0 <20<1.0
21.3 <20< 1.0
17.5 <20
20.9 <20 <1.0
20.0 <20<1.0
16.5 <20
20.0 <20<1.0
20.9 <20<1.0
17.8 <20
13.9 <20<1.0
13.5 <20<1.0
12.6 <20
13.5 <20<1.0
12.2 <20 <1.0
13.0 <20
12.2 <20<1.0
10.0 <20 <1.0
10.9 <20
15.6 <20 <1.0
9.6 <20 <1.0
10.0 <20
B£
Tb
500
560
540
540
480
540
480
520
460
500
520
500
540
680
Cd
T
—
<5
6
<5
8
<5
<5
<5
6
<5
<5
<5
6
<5
6
b Cr
AEb T
1.5 638
0.3 538
617
2.0 459
0.5 537
618
1 .9 557
0.2640
437
1 .7 596
0.3 659
507
1 .9 536
0.5 688
629
1.1 670
0.3 589
539
1.5 536
0.3589
529
b Cu
AEb T
0.4 i76
0.3 155
152
0.4 148
0.3 143
174
0.3 138
0.3 196
157
0.3 119
0.3 183
162
0.4 114
0.2 170
143
0.2 138
0.3 153
132
0.3 151
0.2 122
84
, Mn
AEb T
0.9 497
0.3 .144
478
0.5 435
0.4 442
463
0.5 393
0.3 507
302
0.5 410
0.3 457
454
2.0 510
0.3 469
494
0.4 571
0.3 390
480
0.2 551
0.2 456
420
AE
44
37
33
34
33
33
41
24
23
32
31
27
20
30
19
27
27
5
26
20
18
(continued )
-------
TABLE D-17 (continued)
03
CO
Site Depth
(cm)
Test 1
3
10
30
100
200
300
Control 1
3
10
30
100
200
300
Mo
T
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
T
100
78
136
88
114
84
100
82
108
94
100
66
90
60
116
78
112
78
90
84
118
88
86
84
246
74
306
64
Ni
AE
1.3
1.4
1.7
0.5
1.7
1.1
2.1
0.5
2.0
0.8
2.6
0.5
1.5
0.3
0.6
0.7
1.1
1.0
0.9
1.5
1.0
1.7
0.9
1.0
1.2
2.6
1.6
2.1
T
66
90
62
36
66
40
44
30
52
16
38
36
40
38
60
30
72
34
72
30
40
30
54
38
58
42
52
18
Pb
AE
1.5
1.2
1.9
1.4
2.1
2.0
1.2
3.0
2.1
1.9
2.4
1.5
1.5
1.6
r(continue
Zn
T AE
84
94
92
82
70
76
64
106
128
94
80
104
88
76
sd)
6.8
3.9
7.9
2.5
7.5
5.1
3.9
1.9
3.6
1.2
1.7
0.9
2.2
0.8
1.4
0.3
1.3
0.3
1.2
0.3
1.1
0.3
1.4
0.4
0.9
0.4
0.8
1.6
As
T AE
2.6 <0.1
2.1 0.3
4.0 0.3
2.0 <0.1
5.4 0.3
2.0 <0.1
5.7 0.3
2.3 <0.1
4.7 0.2
2.0 <0.1
4.5 0.1
2.2 <0.1
2.1 0.2
3.7 <0.1
6.0 <0.1
4.1 0.3
8.2 0.4
4.8 <0.1
8.6 0.4
4.8 <0.1
11.0 0.3
4.7 <0.1
6.2 0.3
4.9 <0.1
5.8 0.2
3.7 <0.1
6.4 0.3
2.2 <0.1
Hg Se pH
T AE T AE
7.5
<0.5 <0.05 <2.0 <0.10 7.7
<0.5 <0.05 <2.0 <0.10 7.6
7.9
<0.5 <0.05 <2.0 <0.10 8.1
8.0
<0.5 <0.05 <2.0 <0.10 8.4
8.3
<0.5 <0.05 <2.0 <0.10 8.5
8.4
<0.5 <0.05 <2.0 <0.10 8.5
8.9
<0.5 <0.05 <2.0 <0.10 8.6
8.0
7.7
<0.5 <0.05 <2.0 <0.10 7.6
<0.5 <0.05 <2.0 <0.10 7.9
8.1
<0.5 <0.05 <2.0 <0.10 8.0
8.0
<0.5 <0.05 <2.0 <0.10 8.3
8.4
<0.5 <0.05 <2.0 <0.10 8.4
8.4
<0.5 <0.05 <2.0 <0.10 8.9
8.4
<0.5 <0.05 <2.0 <0.10 8.0
- s;7
-------
TABLE D-17(continued)
a
i All values in mg/kg unless noted.
Analyses done on a composite of three samples,additional analysis in progress.
jN =NOsN + KjN.
WE = water extractive.
* T = Total.
AE = acid extractible.
? EX= exchangeable.
. AIP =analysis in progress.
1 ND = not detected.
1 meg/100 gm.
-------
TABLE P-l8. INDIVIDUAL SOIL ANALYSES FINAL SAMPLING (DECEMBER 1977)e
She Depth
(cm)
Test 1
3
10
30
100
200
300
Control 1
3
10
30
100
200
300
B
WEC
3.5
1.7
2.6
1.8
1.8
1.2
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.8
0.9
1.3
1.5
0.9
1.7
0.8
0.6
0.7
0.8
1.4
0.9
2.9
2.6
2.1
1.8
Cl
WE
288
325
87
299
10
149
75
125
125
50
25
50
10
10
299
549
199
149
125
125
125
75
75
125
149
25
375
275
F
WE
3
1
10
1
3
3
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
6
4
6
2
2
6
5
17
9
12
9
NO3-N N
WE Td
48
59
30
43
22
23
6.0
46
25
10
7.5
6.0
5.0
3.7
105
270
38
36
21
13
4.0
1.5
4.0
8.5
50
22
31
28
319
146
434
320
126
219
16
141
140
62
17
16
15
14
674
963
482
665
662
590
252
252
252
233
183
80
150
pcyp
WE
_—
25
10
15
19
22
16
12
13
15
12
—
—
6.0
1.6
0.7
3.7
10
3.7
4.2
1.8
4.8
3.5
4.4
20
9.6
14
P P
Organic
AF6 T WE
106 180
1 14 220
110 <20
71 370
64 50
19 270
29 80
23 130
34 30
29 90
41 80
114 170
32 190
11 90
56 180
11 60
13 220
33 <20
14 270
34 <20
21 80
30 30
16 50
16 90
6.5<20
6.5<20
14 50
91 . 6.9 J6. <20
150
95
262
62
113
94
66
82
60
82
50
79
50
40
94
90
124
300
107
102
99
88
218
122
348
235
358
142
K
E>^
1270
1150
990
1220
1110
1240
1080
1020
970
1020
870
810
870
770
1540
1430
1270
1020
1140
1160
1080
1180
1280
1100
380
500
280
480
Na
WE AE
409 15500
436 15500
704 16700
386 13700
331 19000
393 15700
293 18500
304 16700
280 19500
252 13000
192 19300
179 8250
172 12700
151 15500
485 16500
536 12000
387 12300
345 15500
355 14700
307 12700
292 17000
320 16700
468 17300
418 16700
936 15300
736 16500
941 14500
816 15700
Ca
WE EX
2.8 2750
12.0 1740
2.0 2190
18.9 1790
6.1 1930
7.5 1990
805 2120
3.0 1810
7.4 1490
5.7 1744
10.0 1680
12.3 1550
7.0 1430
6.6 1490
— 2870
— 2490
6.6 2060
15.7 2230
1 1 .5 2300
5.6 3180
7.9 2680
7.2 1990
6.6 2370
3.8 1810
3.7 1560
2.0 1500
4.3 1560
2.0 1560
-------
TABLED-!a (continued)
CO
Site Depth
(cm) T
Test 1 6600
3300
3 6800
__
10 7500
__
30 8400
6850
100 6600
7400
200 6450
5000
300 6150
7250
Control 1 6500
12500
3 8900
12000
10 16700
17500
3012700
9500
100 15300
18700
20012000
9000
300 10700
8500
Ma
AE WE
6600 12.1
5900 15.8
5150 16.2
5850 18.0
4650 10.5
4750 10.0
4900 10.0
5100 7.6
4500 7.9
5400 8.0
4600 9.5
1900 11.8
4900 7.7
4750 7.5
2550 40.0
5000 70.5
4100 13.2
3150 19.1
5300 14.0
4250 11.5
2350 9.2
1900 10.6
4000 13.3
2150 10.3
4000 45.5
2100 15.2
3150 22.5
1800 12.3
EX
400
409
375
332
326
537
434
352
267
273
150
151
186
152
851
929
877
637
1200
723
678
1050
749
690
751
1150
649
457
CEC9 Ag Ba
T AE T
1 1 .6 < 20 < 1 .0 474
12.0 <20 <1.0 584
12.2 <20 <1.0 476
11.5 <20 <1.0 400
14.6 <20 <1.0 516
19.0 <20 <1.0 380
16.5 <20 <1.0 542
12.1 <20 <1.0 392
8.8 <20 <1.0 444
11.8 < 20 < 1.0 382
6.8 <20 <1.0 384
7.4 < 20 < 1 .0 398
7.4 <20 <1.0 358
7.0 < 20 < 1 .0 464
26.4 <20 <1.0 638
31.6 <20 <1.0 962
25.1 <20 <1.0 578
25.4 <20 <1.0 928
24.1 <20 <1.0 750
24.5 <20 < 1.0 1034
19.8 <20 < 1.0 1086
20.1 <20 < 1.0 1028
26.7 <20 < 1.0 1176
21.3 <20 <1.0 870
13.0 <20 <1.0 674
15.0 <20 <1.0 498
16.2 <20 <1.0 776
1 1 .7 < 20 < 1 .0 642
Cd
T AE
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.2
Cr
T AE
234
244
192
220
230
238
238
228
206
220
288
246
274
320
188
556
190
366
402
532
358
444
374
440
432
372
428
540
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.2
Cu
T AE
38
28
36
26
38
30
42
28
25
20
22
16
56
28
34
67
34
62
60
62
54
58
62
64
40
46
58
38
0.7
0.7
006
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.4
0.6
0.9
2.4
0.6
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.7
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
Mn
T
660
592
604
592
612
588
618
628
620
596
762
700
762
690
632
1096
630
1024
1088
1046
1010
1004
1084
1164
980
920
1174
1180
AE
59
54
52
45
31
25
27
28
37
28
46
32
38
47
19
30
13
21
18
25
14
15
17
10
22
20
29
23
(continued)
-------
TABLE l>18. (continued)
co
Site Depth Mo
(cm) T
Test 1
3
10
30
100
200
300
Control 1
3
10
30
100
200
300
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
< 20
<20
<20
< 20
<20
< 20
Ni
T AE
56
54
56
52
62
42
60
58
54
58
60
62
54
60
60
128
58
124
138
130
118
130
126
124
102
108
128
130
1.7
1.5
0.9
1.5
1.2
1.2
0.9
1.3
1.5
1.3
1.8
1.1
1.6
1.2
1.7
1.3
1.6
1.1
1.6
1.4
1.5
1.2
1.3
1.1
1.4
1.3
1.3
1.6
T
160
114
150
114
162
172
140
96
162
122
136
128
114
120
160
188
124
216
254
216
174
218
254
264
140
190
196
240
i
Pb
AE
6.3
9.4
6.5
9.9
7.3
8.9
8.0
9.4
7.4
8.1
8.4
9.0
9.8
8.7
10.2
9.5
9.1
10.0
9.8
9.5
9.9
804
9.4
9.1
9.4
8.1
Zn
T AE
5.5
6.7
5.4
4.6
5.8
5.0
6.3
6.7
4.6
4.2
5.4
4.4
5.6
5.4
4.8
9.9
6.9
9.5
9.2
9.4
8.6
8.7
9.3
8.6
7.7
7.2
10.2 10.0
7.3
(continued)'
8.2
1.7
1.4
1.6
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.9
0.6
2.1
3.5
0.8
3.2
0.5
0.3
0.8
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.7
0.3
0,7
— —•
As
T AE
<2.0
4.4
4.0
<2.0
3.7
<2.0
6.2
3.7
<2.0
<2.0
2.0
2.2
<2.0
<2.0
2.0
4.8
4.7
5.8
6.5
5.8
4.5
6.8
<2.0
<2.0
6.8
2.1
4.3
2.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.2
Hg Se
T AE T AE
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
< 0.5
<0.05 — <0.1
<0.05<2.0 <0.1
<0»05 4.8 <0.1
< 0.05<2.0 <0.1
<0.05 5.3 <0.1
<0.05 4.8 <001
< 0.05 2.1 <0.1
< 0.05<2.0 <001
< 0.05 3.2 <0.1
< 0.0524 <0.1
< 0.05 2.5 <0.1
< 0.0524 <0.1
< 0.05<2.0 <0.1
< 0.05 9.4 <0.1
< 0.05 20.0 <0.1
< 0.0525.0 <0.1
< 0.05 4.6 <0.1
< 0.0513.0 <0.1
< 0.0523.0 <0.1
< 0.0511.0 <0.1
< 0.0522.0 <0.1
< 0.05 6.3 <0.1
< 0.05 3.8 <0.1
< 0.0513.0 <0.1
< 0.05 — <0.1
< 0.0510.0 <0.1
< 0.05 4.5 <0.1
< 0.0520.0 <0.1
===—=—
-------
TABLE EH 8. (continued)
values in mg/kg unless noted.
NCL-N + K.N.
c 3 I
d WE = Water extract! ble.
eT = Total.
f AE = AcidextracHble.
g EX = Exchangeable.
meq/100 gm.
-------
APPENDIX E
STATISTICAL TABLES
TABLE E-l. STATISTICAL COMPARISON BETWEEN TEST EFFLUENT
AND CONTROL IRRIGATION WATER
M.T. EFFLUENT » MPS/100 •*! »
TC
SAMPLES 21
MEAN 3.C9E+06
STO. OEV. 1.27E+07
M.T. EFFLUENT
Ca
SA.VLES n
MtAN 46.76
STO. OEV. 18.57
M.C.IftflbATluN* «fl.
TC
SWELLS 18
ckAN 11315.94
STO. OEV. 36921.54
K.C. IRRIGATION
Ca
SAMPLES 16
MEAN 42.53
STO. DEY. 9.84
FC
20
1 .05E+05
2.83E+05
TOS
15
1044.13
289.47
B
20
0.44
0.17
Cons tl tuent (no/ 1 )
Cl F
19 16
356.26 1.41
96.79 0.50
N03
14
1.71
1.94
TN
10
24.91
5.21
TOC
15
53.90
22.66
"04
n
9.01
1.75
S04
18
67.22
16.27
K
21
18.09
4.38
Na
21
215.60
70.42
Const I tuent (mo/ 1 )
Mg
19
41. 7U
17.43
1/100 ml '
FC
17
1023.24
3751.82
3a
20
0.16
0.11
CO
21
0.02
0.02
Cr Cu
20 20
0.04 O.OB
0.03 0.05
Ho
17
0.10
0.00
Nl
18
0-07
0.05
Pi
21
0.03
0.05
Zn
16 '
0.06
0.03
As
13
0.01
0.01
Se
17
0.01
0.00
* Const 1 tuent (BIS/ 1 )
TDS
18
81&.44
216.24
d
16
0.19
0.07
Cl F
16 17
254.13 0.52
61.33 0.26
N03
16
2.75
1.S4
TN
12
3.53
1.93
TOC
14
19.86
I7. 69
P04
15
0.49
0.53
S04
16
54.01
10.86
K
16
6.44
1.33
Na
16
1 49 . 78
33.52
Const 1 tuent Img/l )
Mg
17
37.39
17.70
•LEVELS OF CONFIDENCE OF DIFFERENCE
TC FC
H-TEST J75
CHt-S'JlWt 99.00
f-TtST SbO
69.00
99.00
80.00
•LcVELS ur CONFIOENCE OF OIFF£R£HCc
Ca
rl-TtST *75
Crt 1 -ZyjMt. y9 . 00
T-TtST i<)0
Mg
>75
SfaO
t60
3s
14
0.13
0.05
(I)
TDS
98.00
95.03
95.00
<*>
aa
J75
V9.00
460
CO
17
0.01
0.01
3
99.00
9S.OO
99.00
CO
575
99. Ou
i30
Cr Cu
17 13
0.03 0.08
0.02 0.07
/ PAGE
Cl F
99.00 99.00
99.00 99.00
99.00 99.00
/ PA3£
Cr Cu
85.00 575
9*. 00 dO. 00
80.00 >80
Mo
13
0.10
0.00
Nl
Id
0.05
0.04
1 7/5/78
N03 TN
85.00
$80
80 00
99.00
99 00
99.00
Pb
17
0.05
0.04
TOC
99 00
90 00
99 00
Zn
15
0.03
0.02
P04
99.00
99.00
99 00
As
14
0.02
0.01
S04
S9.00
99.00
95.00
Se
13
0.01
0.00
K
99.00
99.00
99.00
Na
99.00
99 00
99.00
2 7/5/76
Mo
Nl
f5
90.00
StiO
Pb
V5.00
99 00
90.00
Zn
99.00
$60
59.00
As
S75
V9.00
580
Se
J75
S6L)
* - LLSS THAN
-------
TABLE E-2. STATISTICAL COMPARISON BETWEEN TEST AND CONTROL
LEACH ATE AT 50 CM
00
MTL-50
SAMPLtS
teArl
STU. OiV.
MTL-50
SAMPLES
teAN .
STD. OEV.
MCL-50
SABLES
M-AN
STO. OEV.
MCL-50
SAMr>LtS
ttAi<
STJ. DtV.
• Mr>H/100 ml •
TC FC
7
U.UU
0.00
Ca
5
70.80
J4.43
7
0.00
0.00
H9
5
51.05
6.22
« MPN/100 ml •
TC FC
1
20.00
0.00
Ca
0
1
0.00
0.00
Mg
0
•LEVtLS Or CUNFIOtNCt OF 0!FFE«eNC£
TC FC
M-TCST
Cril-SyU/Wt
T-T£ST
•LEVELS OF CONFIDENCE OF DIFFERENCE
Ca Mg
H-TEST
CHI -SQUARE
T-TEST
ToS
6
1507.50
337.25
Ba
5
0.22
0.07
TDS
1
1242.00
0.00
da
0
l*>
Ti)S
94.00
S80
<*>
Ba
8
4
0.34
0.11
Cd
5
0.01
0.00
8
1
0.45
0.00
Cd
1
0.01
u.OO
6
ii.OO
SdO
Cd
J75
530
Constituent (ma/ 1 )
Cl F " NJ3 TN
4
379.75
61.34
443
0.65 54.33 54.73
0.17 17.26 13.99
Constltuent(rg/l )
Cr Cu Ho Nl
5
0.02
0.01
555
O.Q5 0.10 0.05
0.02 0.00 0.03
Constituent (mq/l )
Cl F N03 TN
1
486.00
0.00
0 1 0
18.00
0.00
Const ltuent(mg/l )
Cr Cu Mo Ni
1
0.03
0.00
Cl
93.00
ISO
Cr
90.00
IdO
0 0 1
0.09
0..00
/ PAGt 1 7/5/7$
F N03 TN
9*. GO
80.00
/ PAGE 2 7/5/78
Cu Mo Nl
99.00
»80
TOC
3
8.33
1.8V
Po
5
0.07
0.03
TOC
0
Pb
1
0..12
O.OJ
TOC
Pt)
99.00
ISO
P04
4
4.96
3.3*
Zn
5
0.19
0.06
P04
1
1.00
0.00
Zn
1
0.32
0.00
P04
98.00
$80
Zn
99.00
80.00
S04
4
110.50
45.42
As
4
0.01
0.00
S04
1
144.00
0.00
As
1
0.01
0.00
S04
U6.CO
ido
As
75.00
S80
K Na
5 5
15.04 222.20
2.96 70.00
Se
4
0.01
0.00
K Na
0 1
235.00
0.00
Se
1
0.01
0.00
K N»
95.00
$60
Se
J - LESS THAN
-------
TABLE E-3. STATISTICAL COMPARISON BETWEEN TEST AND CONTROL
LEACHATE AT 100 CM
MTL-1UU
SAMrtfcS
VtA*
STU. OtV.
MTL-IOU
SAMPLES
MEAN
STO. DEV.
KX-100
SAMPLES
Me AN
STJ. OcV.
MCL-10J
SAMrt-ti
Me AN
STU. tit*.
* Ml*N
TC
9
e.BV
25.14
Ca
6
101.53
73.75
/1uO nl
FC
9
0.69
25.14
Mg
5
39.44
13.00
*
TuS
7
1342.14
33d. 00
da
5
0.16
0.03
d
5
0.4e
U.35
Cd
5
0.02
0.01
• MPN/100 ill •
TC
2
so. do
20.00
Ca
1
23. OU
3.00
FC
2
25.00
25 00
Mg
3
Ol.Oi
7.1o
TOS
1
863.00
0 00
da
2
0.1*
u.Oe
a
2
0.22
0.12
Cd
2
U.61
0.00
'LEVELS OF CONFIucNCt OF J!FF£HEl.CE l»
H-TEST
CHI -SQUARE
T-TEST
TC
99.00
$80
95.00
FC
$75
$60
$30
LEVELS OF CONFIDENCE OF DIFFERENCE
H-TEST
CH 1 -SQUARE
T-TEST
Ca
99.00
99.00
{60
Mg
99.00
99.00
90.00
TuS
99.00
{80
<*>
3a
$75
$80
$80
d
86.00
99.00
$60
Constituent (mg/t )
C 1 F sj3
665
315.96 1.10 53.50
66.13 0.37 17.o5
Constituent (ma/ 1 )
Cr Cu Mo
653
C.C5 0.06 0.10
0.02 0.0' 0.00
Constituent (ma/ I )
Cl f N03
2 2 1
353 50 1 06 13.50
3 50 0 04 0 00
Const ituent(mg/l )
Cr Cu to
223
u.05 0.16 0.10
0.04 0.15 0.00
TN
4
46.43
15.72
Nl
6
0.10
0.07
TN
i
19 3J
0.00
Nl
1
0.31
0.00
TOC
4
16.13
13.71
Pb
6
0.06
0.01
TOC
0
Pb
2
0.09
0.03
P04
5
4.24
2.86
Zn
6
0.16
0.05
P04
2
3 58
! 82
Zn
3
0.37
0.05
S04
6
176.33
118.37
As
4
0.01
0.00
SC4
2
84 50
15 50
As
,
0.01
0.00
K
6
15.55
6.45
Se
4
0.01
0.00
K
2
15 60
7 40
Se
1
0.01
0.00
Na
6
306.00
134.53
Na
2
21! 00
37 00
/ PAGE 1 7/6/73
C 1 F NJ3
82.00 {75 59.00
99. CO 99.00
$80 $60 $30
TN
99.00
$eo
TOC
P04
$75
95. CO
$60
S04
93.00
99.00
$eo
K
$75
580
$80
Na
88.00
99.00
5dO
/ PAGE 2 7/6/78
Cd
34.00
$80
Cr Cu Ho
$75 J75
$80 99.00
$80 {SO
Nl
99.00
90 00
Pb
85 00
90 00
80 00
Zn
99.00
$80
99.00
As
75.00
$80
Se
* - LESS THAN
-------
TABLE E-4. STATISTICAL COMPARISON BETWEEN TOP LEVELS OF CONTROL
WELLS 1 AND 2.
-3
CO
MCrt-2-T
S.WLES
Mi AN
STO. OEV.
MCH-2-T
SAMr>LtS
MtAH
iTU. UtV.
H.K-1-T
SAtVLtS
It AN
STi). JtV.
MCX-l-T
SAMPLES
ft AN
STO. 0£V.
» MPN/100 ml •
TC
16
76.25
133.46
Ca
y
56.16
ki.30
• SlrW
TC
14
47.14
126.01
Ca
9
63.44
15.62
FC
16
0.00
0.00
Mo
0
90.67
i7.5":
100 ml «
FC
14
0.00
0.00
Mq
8
72.90
26.84
•LEVELS OF CONFIDENCE Or DIFFERENCE
H-TEST
CH 1 -SvUVtt
T-TtbT
TC
$75
$60
$ao
FC
TOS
15
1330.27
233.73
3e
7
0.17
0.08
TJi
15
1016.33
196.58
da
8
0.20
0.10
(J)
TOS
99.00
99.00
99.00
3
9
0.41
0.11
Cd
10
0.01
0.01
d
9
0.47
0.09
Cd
10
0.01
0.00
Constituent (ma/I )
C 1 F N03
12 9 10
397.75 0.66 5.71
95.49 0.30 5.46
Constituent (-no/I )
Cr Cu Mo
9 9 10
0.03 0.06 0.11
0.02 0.05 0.03
Const Ituent (mg/l !
Cl F N03
13 8 10
298.23 0.46 4.46
43.98 0.28 2.5S
Const ituent(ma/t )
Cr Cu Mo
9 3 10
0.03 0.04 0.1C
0.02 0.03 0.00
TN
3
7.54
5.50
Nt
9
0.05
O.U4
TN
8
6.04
2.7Q
Nl
9
0.05
0.03
TOC
8
33 94
33 75
Pb
10
0.15.
0.10
TOC
9
30.62
19.87
Pb
9
0.32
0.30
P04
9
0 52
0.76
Zn
9
0 Id
0.16
P04
10
1.50
1.62
Zn
8
0.31
0.24
S04
8
117.00
35.58
As
9
0.01
0.00
S04
7
65.60
15.17
As
9
0.02
0.01
K
9
10.09
3 71
Se
9
0.01
0.00
K
8
9.45
0.51
Se
9
0.01
0.00
Na
9
2rf8.11
68.25
Na
9
177.33
34.63
/ PAGE 1 7/6/78
3
575
$8(J
$80
"LtVtLS OF CuNFIOEiiCt OF tMfFtKtMCc (>)
H~ I til
oH ' "5'JuAKt
T-TtsT
v.a
»75
90. Ou
$OU
Kg
$75
90.00
$00
da
$75
>OJ
$80
Cd
$75
yj.OO
$00
Cl F N03
99.00 83 00 575
99 00 $60 99.00
99.00 SO 00 560
TN
$->5
99 00
$60
TO:
$75
99 00
$80
P04
90 00
95 00
60 00
S04
99.00
99.00
99.00
K
$75
99.00
530
Na
99 00
99.00
99.00
/ PAGt 2 7/6/76
Cr Cu Ho
$75 $75 $75
$6U 99.00
itO $8u $80
n!
$75
90.00
$80
Pt>
89 00
9y Q\)
8U.OO
Zn
B2.00
SO. 00
$80
As
82.00
90.00
4 BO
Se
$ - LESS THAN
-------
CD
TABLE E-5. STATISTICAL COMPARISON BETWEEN BOTTOM LEVELS OF CONTROL
WELLS 1 AND 2
MCn-2-3
iAMr-Lti
itAN
5 TO. GtV.
• MrWlOO ml •
TC
13
43. «5
V2.70
p"C
13
3.65
13.32
TOS d
15 9
1359.53 0.40
24o.57 0.11
Const Ituenttns/l)
Cl
10
423.20
95.64
r
7
0.64
0.31
Su3
tt
8.2e
5.19
TN
7
10.17
4.79
TOC
9
24.89
23.44
P04
8
0.41
0.37
S04 K
0 9
113.25 10.97
24.28 4.84
Na
9
262 . 00
54.36
M^'n-2-d Const ituent (ng/l )
SAXPLES
MtAN
STO. DEV.
MOM -3
SAMPLES
MEAN
STD. DEV.
VCrt-1-s
SA;-r~LtS
It AH
iTU. DtY.
Ca
8
75.86
22.68
Mg
9
95.52
32.37
Ba Cd
3 9
0.16 0.01
0.10 0.00
" MPN/1CO ml »
TC
13
1385.38
6384.36
FC
13
6.15
21.32
TOS 9
15 9
1C54.73 0.49
256.54 0.09
Cr
9
0.03
0.02
Cu
9
O.C8
0.09
Mo
9
O.'O
0.00
Nl
8
0.06
0.06
Pb
7
0.09
0.09
Zn
6
0.18
0.11
As Se
9 8
0.01 0.01
0.00 0.00
Constltuent(nq/l)
Cl
:o
307.60
36.53
F
9
0.52
0.35
K03
1
4.59
°'74
TN
8
6.63
3.40
TOC
8
21.74
23 30
PCM
7
0.67
0.47
S04 K
6 6
66.17 9.49
15.53 1.07
Na
8
165.00
26.95
Const Ituent Iraq/ 1 )
Ca
a
60.19
12.07
Mg
*
73.56
24.33
da Cd
6 9
0.22 0.01
0.10 0.01
Cr
9
0.03
0.02
•LcVcLS UP UlfcFlutNCt Of iMFFtrttNCc U)
M-TtST
CMI-SVUA^£
T-TtST
TC
$75
99.00
$d'J
fC
$75
90.00
$80
TJS b
99.00 95.00
580 580
99.00 90.00
Cl
99.00
9y.oo
9y.OO
•LEVELS OF CONFIDENCE OF DIFFERENCE <»!
H-TEST
CHt-SyJAKE
T-TEST
Ca
91.00
99.00
80.00
Mq
69.00
60.00
60.00
8a Cd
75.00 $75
5£0 S80
$30 580
Cr
$75
$80
;so
Cu
A
0 06
0.03
/ PAit
F
$75
$60
$oO
/ PAGt
Cu
$75
99.00
$80
Mo
9
0.11
0.03
1 7/e
NO 3
95.03
99.00
30. JO
2 7/6
Mo
S75
99.00
$80
Nl
d
0.05
0.04
TN
89.00
9J.OO
60.00
/78
Nl
$75
99.00
$80
Pb
7
0.13
0.13
TOC
$75
$60
$60
Pb
575
580
$60
Zn
6
0.26
0.21
P04
75.00
$bO
$80
Zn
$75
eo.oo
$80
As Se
9 9
0.02 0.01
0.01 0.00
S04 K
99.00 $75
99.00 99.00
99.00 $80
As Se
98.00
80.00
95.00
Na
99.00
99.00
99. 00
$ - LESS THAN
-------
TABLE E-6. STATISTICAL COMPARISON BETWEEN TOP LEVELS OF TEST
WELLS 1 AND 3.
00
MT*.-3-T • HPN/100 ml •
TC
SAMPLES 14
MEAN 1185.71
STO. DEV. 4109.05
MTH-3-T
Ca
SAMPttS 9
ft AN 59.87
STO. IXY. 9.07
FC
14
100.00
360.56
Mq
8
78.52
24.59
TOS
13
1134.62
278.99
Ba
9
0.24
0.17
3
9
0.60
0.10
Cd
10
0.01
0.00
Const 1 tuent (*n^/ 1 )
Cl
12
339.92
49.18
F N03
9 9
0.42 12.01
0.34 7.g7
Constltuentlfl^/l J
Cr Cu Mo
9
0 03
0.02
9 10
007 0.12
0 05 0 06
TN
7
15.21
7.41
Nl
9
0 05
0.03
TOC
9
26.10
23.23
Pb
8
0 14
0 20
P04
9
1.73
2.02
Zn
8
0 22
0 26
S04
7
84.00
18.54
As
9
0 02
0 01
K
8
8.96
2.13
Se
9
0.01
.o.uo
Na
9
227. 09
43.19
«1»-i-T • rtr'N/tiw ml • Constl tuent(mo/l )
TU
SAMHLtS 15
rtinH 1o18.67
»Td. OtV. 4444.99
MTi.-1-T
Ca
SAMPLES 9
M£AN 30.82
STO. DEV. 5.34
FC
'3
1.33
4.99
TOS
13
7i7.o5
64.94
0
9
0.32
U.09
Cl
12
233.75
2o.79
F N\j3
6 11
0.43 6.89
0.40 4.22
TN
7
9.07
4.4d
TOC
8
Id.do
14.28
PU4
9
1.01
0.54
S04
6
66.00
11 .70
K
8
7.55
1 .66
Na
V
156.11
23.75
Const ituent(rn/l )
Mq
8
36.32
14.38
"LEVELS OF CONFIDENCE OF DIFFERENCE
TC
H-TEST $75
CHI-SJUArtt $80
T-TEST i80
FC
$75
99.00
$80
Ba
8
0.15
0.08
(S)
. TOS
99. OD
99.00
99.00
Cd
10
0.01
0.00
Cr
9
0.02
0.02
Cu Mo
9 10
0.08 0.12
0.07 o.06
Ni
9
0.05
0.06
Pb
9
0.19
0.23
Zn
7
0.18
0.12
As
9
0.02
0.01
Se
6
0.01
0.00
/ PAGE 1 7/6/78
3
99.00
seo
99.00
Cl
99.00
99.00
99.00
•LtYELS OF CONFIOENCE OF DIFFERENCE t»
Ca
H-TLST 99. uo
Oi t -^uAHc 9*.uO
T-TtbT »9.00
M9
99.00
99.00
99.00
da
85.00
Vi.OO
JSU
Cd
$75
$60
»ou
Cr
$75
i80
$80
F NOS
$75 9200
$80 9900
$80 93 00
TN
93 00
95 00
80 00
TOC
575
99 00
$80
P04
$75
99.00
$80
S04
96.00
99.00
90 . 00
K
B5.00
BO. 00
80.00
Na
59.00
99.00
99.00
/ PAGE 2 7/6/73
Cu Mo
$75 $75
fdO $80
kbo $6u
Ni
S^
9J 00
>OJ
Pb
$75
>80
Zn
$75
99.00
$80
As
$75
560
$60
Se
* - LtsS THAN
-------
00
TABLE E-7. STATISTICAL COMPARISON BETWEEN BOTTOM LEVELS OF TEST
WELLS 1 AND 2
MTw-3-3
SA..00
•LEVELS OF CONFIDENCE OF DIFFERENCE <»
H-TcST
CH! -SOU/WE
T-TEST
Cfl
99.00
93.00
99.00
Mg
99.00
93.00
99.00
Ba
*75
99.00
$30
Cd Cr
J75 $75
580 90.00
$80 $80
Cu «o
9 9
0.06 0.11
0.06 0.03
Nl
8
0.05
0.03
Pb Zn
& 8
0.13 0 32
0.09 0.23
As Se
9 4
0.03 0.01
0.03 0.00
/ PAGE 1 7/6/.7a
r NOS
92.00 95.00
99.00 99.00
80.00 90.00
TN
9d.OO
99.00
95.00
TOC ?04
$75 $75
$80 99.00
$80 $80
S04 X
$75 $75
$80 Sw.OO
$80 $80
Na
99.00
99.00
99.00
/ PA3E 2 7/6/78
Cu Mo
$75 J75
$80 99.00
$60 $80
Nl
$75
00.00
$80
Pb in
$75 $75
99.00 $80
$80 460
As Se
$75
99.00
$80
J - LESS THAN
-------
TABLE E-8. STATISTICAL COMPARISON BETWEEN TOP LEVELS OF TEST
WELLS 2 AND 3
00
to
MTW-3-T
SAMPLES
STO. DtV.
KTK-3-T
SAMPLES
^A:t
STJ. LltV.
MTw-2-T
SAV?LES
.VtAN
STO. DEV.
MTW-2-T
SAMPLES
WEAN
STO. OEV.
• MPN/1CO ml »
TC
14
1185.71
4109.05
FC
14
100.00
360.56
TOS
13
1134.62
27)
rt-TtST
T-rt»T
TC
»75
v*.oo
FC
»^5
*bO
TOS
99.00
W.OO
a
99.00
SOU
99.00
Cl
99.00
99.00
99.00
•LtVtLS OF CONFiutNCt OF DIFFERENCE (»
n-TtST
CMl-SO.OAriE
T-TEST
Ca
95.00
90.00
99.00
Mg
99.00
99.00
99.00
da
$"»5
$80
$80
Cd
575
580
$80
Cr
$75
99.00
$30
Cu
9
0.07
0.06
/ PAGE
F
$75
ioO
$60
/ PAiE
Cu
$75
$80
$80
Yo NI Pb
993
0.10 0.03 0.13
0.00 0.02 0.11
1 i/Wo
N03 TN TOC
99.00 99.00 $75
9».00 9*. GO $60
95.00 95.00 $60
2 7/6/76
Vo Ni Pb
$•"5 9C.OO $75
99.00 99.00
$80 80.00 $80
Zn
8
0.33
0.25
P04
69.00
99.00
960
2n
$75
$80
$80
As
8
0.02
0.02
504
§75
$80
580
As
$75
95.00
$80
Se
8
0.01
0.00
< Na
95.00 99.00
99.00 99.00
90.00 99.00
Se
- LESS TrtAN
-------
TABLE E-9. STATISTICAL COMPARISON BETWEEN BOTTOM LEVELS OF TEST
WELLS 2 AND 3
00
CO
MTn-3-b
SArtHLtS
Me AN
STO. OEV.
SAMPLES
Mi AN
STD. DEV.
SAMPLES
MEAN
STD. OEV.
MTn-2-rf
SAMf-Lti
STJ. JtV.
TC
13
33.65
10».!b
Cc
9
58.94
21.91
FC
13
1.54
5.33
Mo
9
83.80
23.10
TJS 6
13 9
1193.23 0.61
167.26 0.10
3a Cd
B 9
0.19 0.01
0.11 0.00
TC
12
825.83
2526.36
Ca
b
20.91
T.-.o
FC
12
3.33
7.45
Mg
9
42. 00
15.63
TOS 3
11 8
744.36 0.34
73.99 0.07
da Cd
7 6
0.16 0.01
0.09 0.01
•LtVcLS OF CONFIDENCE UF DIFFErteNCE (»
H-TEST
CH ! -SviJASE
T-TEST
•LEVELS Or CONFIOef
M-TEST
CHI-SJUME
T-TEST
TC
$75
99.00
$60
FC
$75
$80
$80
TJS 6
99.00 99.00
99.00 95.00
99.00 99.00
9
0.20
0.2<
TOC
77.00
SCO
$60
Pb
$""5
$80
JBO
P04
2.11
2.50
Zn
g
0.26
0.22
P04
6
0.62
0.53
Zn
0.19
0.19
P04
91.00
99.00
$60
Zn
$75
$80
{80
S04
76.14
13.27
As
0.02
0.01
S04
6
65.33
11.43
As
g
0.02
0.01
S04
93.00
$80
80.00
As
$75
90.00
{80
K N3
9 9
11.66 216.67
8-40 45.63
Se
0.01
0.00
K Na
9 9
6.77 156.00
1-89 24.21
Se
0.01
0.00
K Na
91.00 99.00
99.00 99.00
30.00 99.00
Se
$ - LESS
-------
APPENDIX F
GRAPHIC EVALUATION OF THE WATER ANALYSES
00
E
o
o
•«••
*v
Z
o.
S
E
t.
o
u.
"o
U
O
0
1—
6
10
5 x 105
1.0
0.5
0 0
2 x 104
1 x 104
0
FJni
irrigation Water
20
10
5 10 15
Time(months)
300 cm Leachate
6000
3000
•]•"• 0
5 .10 15
Tlme(months)
Test Well 3 - Downstream
3 x 104
1 .5 x 104
5 10 15
TJme(months)
irn P_l . T^ct nnrl control
-------
GO
CJI
5 x 105
E 0
o
o
•s.
Z
0.
£ 1.0
E 0.5
0
«*-
0
Irrigation Water
5 10 15
Time(months)
300 cm Leachate
rT*
o 5 10 15
u Time(months)
o
0
J!! 1000
500
0
Fig on
Test Well 3 - Downstream
5 10 15
Time (months)
9 F-2 . Test and control site
irrigation, leachate,
1.0
0.5
0
20
10
0
100
50
0
fdoal cc
and we
50 cm Leachate
100
50
100 cm Leachate
•
•
5 10 15 5 10 15
Time(months) Time(months)
Test Wei 11 - Upstream
20
10
5 10 15
Time (months)
Control Well 1 - On Site
60
30
5 10 15
Time(months)
Itform analyses in T<
II water. U|
Test Well 2 - Upstream
.
K
5 10 15
Time (months)
Control Well 2 - On Site
5 10 15
Time(months)
=»5t / (t) Control . . , i i
sper— — — Lower
-------
oo
O5
1000
500
Irrigation Water
"^^.^^ 2000
• * * • T*^--*.
1000
n
50 cm Leachate
Insufficient 200°
Data
1000
n
100 cm Leachate
_
lit
5 10 15 5 10 15 5 10 15
\ Time(months) Time(months) Time(months)
CO
E
•S 4000
"o
00 2000
-u
4>
_> 0
"3
300 cm Leachate
1000
500
^^m
ft
Test Well 1 - Upstream
1000
500
Test Well 2 - Upstream
"^*=—
•
• •
5 10 15 5 10 15 5 10 15
.? Time(months) Time(months) Time(months)
O
^m
o
° 4000
200C
C
Test Well 3 - Downstream
2000
1000
e\
Control Well 1 - On Site
2000
-"zX"^ 1000
n
Control Well 2 - On Site
i
•
m
5 10 15 5 10 15 5 10 15
Time(months) Time(months) Time(months)
Figure F-3 . Test and control sfte total dissolved solids analyses
in irrigation, leachate, and well water.
Upper— — - — Lower— j[ —
,(c)
-------
00
c
o
0.50
0.25
0
0.30
0.15
0
0.8
0.4
0
Irrigation Water
o..sn
. . * 0.25
»
j — , — , , 0
50 cm Leachate
i.o
*~ "" 0.5
0
5 10 15 5 10 15
Time(months) Time (months)
300 cm Leachate
Insufficient °-4
Data
0.2
' » i . 0
Test Well! - Upstream
X\ 0.50
0.25
5 10 15 5 10 15
Time(months) Time(months)
Test Well 3 - Downstream
0.8
0.4
f% If! 1 C
Control Well 1 - On Site
0.8
^"^ 0.4
100 cm Leachate
. • «
5 10 15
Time(months)
Test Well 2 - Upstream
****
5 10 15
Time (months)
Control Well 2 - On Sit<
^5^
10 15
Time(months) Time(months)
Figure F-4 . Test and corrtrol stfe boron analyses in
irrigation, leachate, and well water.
5 10 15
Time (months)
Test f(t) Control /(c)
Upper— — — Lower—-X—
-------
ao
ao
1
400
200
-s 0
e
•^
Chloride
400
200
0
Fig
Irrigation Water
600
..••"" 300
5 10 15
Tlme(months)
300 cm Leachate
500
Insufficient
Data 250
, . 0
5 10 15
Tlme(months)
Test Well 3 - Downstream
— *— . -*0
200
C
50 cm Leachate
-400
• c
t . 200
i • 0
5 10 15
Time (months)
Test Well 1 - Upstream
300
•^."J" 150
, . n
5 10 15
Time(months)
Control Well 1 - On Site
•600
-^*" 300
c
5 10 15 5 10 15
Tlme(months) _ Time(months)
ure F-5 . Test and confrof stte cfiloride analyses in
irrigation, leachate. and well water.
100 cm Leachate
5 10 15
Time(months)
Test Well 2 - Upstream
•^Sin
5 10 15
Time (months)
Control Well 2 - On Site
M«W ^^-* — i—
.
... — ,
5 10 15
Time (months)
Upper Lower y —
,(c)
-------
CO
CD
0)
E
o
TJ
O
3
3.0
1.5
0
0.6
0.3
0
30
15
0
Irrigation Water
1.0
0.5
*'"'.•••• o
50 cm Leachate
Insufficient j
Control Data
n
100 cm Leachate
•
5. 10 15 5 10 15 5 10 15
Time(month$) Time(months) Time(months)
300 cm Leachate
Insufficient O-90
Data
0.45
- * n
Test Well 1 -Upstream
1.0
.—-*^ C.5
. . n
5 10 15 5 10 15
Timefrnonths) Tima(months)
Test Well 3 - Downstream
1.0
0.5
Control Well 1 - On Site
\ 0.90
+,N 0.45
* <- » 0
Test Well 2 - Upstream
k
^
5 10 15
Time (months)
Control Well 2 - On Site
\
N»
5 10 15
Tfme(months) Time(months)
Figure F-6 . Test and confrol site fluorlcfe analyses in
irrigation, leachate, and well water.
5 10 15
Time (months)
Test i M Control.
f \ /
Upper— __. _ Lower -
-------
CD
O
7 0
3.5
"^ 0
Irrigation Water
.
..•— -^
.
E 5 10 15
*"* Tlme(months)
c
o
O>
O
£
Z
1
«
300 cm Leachate
Insufficient
Data
-
.
5 10 15
2 Tlme(months)
Z
30
15
0
Test Well 3 - Downstream
•
/'
fi
5 10 15
Time(months)
Figure F-7 Test and control site
90
45
o
50 cm Leachate
90
Insufficient
Data
45
100 cm Leachate
Insufficient
Data
5 10 15 5 10 15
Time(months) Time(months)
10
5
0
Test Well 1 -Upstream
10
^•4 5
^^
Test Well 2 - Upstream
.
.
+ '
/*
'/
5 10 15 •> in is
Time(months) Time (months)
10
5
0
Control Well 1 - On Site
20
^> 10
Control Well 2 - On Site
•
<^
^
5 10 15 5 10 15
Time(months) Time(months)
nitrate-nitrogen analyses in- Test—. n\ Control.
irrigation, leachate, and well water.
u • • • , '(c)
Upper—. — —. Lower y
-------
110
20
0
O)
c
0
CO
O
1.
O
H-
30
15
0
Irrigation Water
"• —
_!*••.• • •
50 cm Leachate
Insufficient 90
Data
45
n
5 10 15 5 1Q . "
Timefmonths) TIme(months)
300 cm Leachate
Insufficient *°
Data
5
Test Well 1 •- Upstream
10
_.,*.—
X 5
0 15 5 lo 15 "
Tfme(months) Time(months)
Test Well 3 - Downstream
10
\
\\ 5
Control Well 1 - On Site
20
cr*""- 10
100 cm Leachate
•r
•c
5 10 15
Time(monfhs)
Test Well 2 - Upstream
,
-
**'£*~~
^^^* ^
5 10 15
Time (months)
Control Well 2 - On Site
i^^
^/'""'r11"' Tim'(Jtb) U£wM
'9UreM- sx^lh;rjsr:olysesin j£z^« sri--1
-------
CD
CO
i
TOO
50
0
~
o>
E
c
o
_o
t.
o
M
o
c
o
O)
6
o
,2 90
45
0
Flat
Irrigation Water
100
,- ' V . n
5 10 15
Time(months)
300 cm Leachate
80
Insufficient
Data
40
. . n
5 10 15
Time(months)
i
Test Well 3 - Downstream
30
— » 15
5 10 15
Ttme(months)
ire F*9 . Test and control rite total
50 cm Leachate
100
Insufficient
Data ^
• ,,, , i n
5 10 15
Time (months)
Test Well 1 -Upstream
60
,^ 30
""":—•-• n
5 10 15
Time(months)
Control Well 1 - On Site
40
•"—*-•» 20
.•>,._« 0
5 10 15
Time(months)
Brganlc carbon analyses
100 cm Leachate
Insufficient
Data
5 10 15
Time(months)
Test Well 2 - Upstream
— —
*^
5 10 15
Time(months)
Control Well 2 - On Site
-
-^
5 10 15
Time(months)
fn irrigation, leachate, and well water.
Upper— — — Lower—x—
,(c)
-------
CD
CO
10
5
~ 0
Irrigation Water
• 10
• • *•
5
* i i ,,-.- n
50 cm Leachate
Insufficient ,Q
Control Data
" """" 5
100 cm Leachate
• ^^
"a 5 10 15 5 10 15 5 10 15
£ t TIme(months) TIme(months) Time(months)
in
3
L.
0
JC
Q.
VI
0
JC
Q.
1
V
300 cm Leachate
3,0
Insufficient
Data
1,5
n
Test Welll - Upstream
1.0
-*«v^ 0.5
OT ^^^»s»
^^^ mmm M^
n
Test Well 2 - Upstream
•
^.
.^^^^^J&t^
^^^^
2 5 10 15 5 10 15 5 10 15
a. Tfme(months) Time(months) Time (months)
o
.c
Q.
7.0
3.5
0
Test Well 3 - Downstream
0.7
0.35
m f
Control Well 1 - On Site
1.0
"^PCT °'5
Control Well 2 -On
•^-^
— **^
a 10 15 5 10 15 5 JO is
Tfme(months) Time(months) Time(months)
Figure FMO. Test and control site phosphate-phosphorus analyses in Test (t) Control
Irrigation, leachate, and well water. Upper— — — Lower —
Site
if —
-------
80
40
0
0)
0
o
u.
"3
(O
100
50
0
FIgu
Irrigation Water
•-^rrr:
5 10 15
Time(monrhs)
300 cm Leachate
Insufficient
Data
5 10 15
Time(months)
Test Well 3 - Downstream
^
5 10 15
T5me(months)
re F-l 1 . Test and control site
100
50
0
90
45
0
100
50
0
sulfat
50 cm Leachate
100
Insufficient
Data
50
100 cm Leachate
' -^'
5 10 15 5 , 10 15
Time(months) Time(months)
Test Well 1 - Upstream
70
— "^ 35
Test Well 2 - Upstream
•
5 10 15 5 10 15
Time(months) Time(months)
Control Well 1 - On Site
200
100
Control Well 2 - On Site
•
—if —
5 10 15 5 10 15
Time(months) Time(months)
9 analyses in irrigation. Test. M Control. . . . .
leachate, and well water.
Upper—____ Lower -^
-------
CD
en
30
15
0
Irrigation Water
• Ort
20
~~
10
'ii, 0
50 cm Leachate
Insufficient
Control Data 30
~~
15
~ 5 10 15 5 10 15
\ TIme(months) Tlme(months)
£
E
3
M
Vk
O
4»
0
o.
40
20
0
300 cm Leachate
Insufficient
Data
5
100 cm Leachate
•
5 10 15
Time(months)
Test Well 1 - Upstream
-^ 10
**"*'»'^^^
5
5 10 15 5 10 15 '
T?me(months) Timefmonths)
Test Well 3 - Downstream
10
^S.— 5
i in i c "
Control Welll - On Site
^^S^ 20
10
0
Test Well 2 - Upstream
•
y
—•*"""'*
5 10 15
Time (months)
Control Well 2 - On Site
^^S
TIme(months) Tlme(months)
Figure F-12* Test and control «tte potassium analyses in
irrigation, leachate, and well water.
5 10 15
Time(monfhs)
Test— 7 (t) Control
Upper— — —. Lower —
,(c)
-------
CO
03
300
150
0
Irrigation Water
-
• . .
~ 5 10 15
^ Time(months)
o>
,£,
300 cm Leachate
Insufficient1
Data
•
t
E 5 10 15
jjl Time(months)
•o
o
1000
500
0
Test Well 3 - Downstream
•
^
-f^*5"
5 10 15
Time(months)
Rgure p-13 Test and control site
leachate, and well
300
150
0
50 cm Leachate
300
— -^ 150
t»t f\
100 cm Leachate
.
5 10 15 5 10 15
Time(months) Time(months)
200
100
0
Test Well 1 -Upstream
/
yf 700
£1*
350
Test Well 2 - Upstream
•
^
"^-•*XX
5 10 15 5 10 15
Time(months) Time(months)
800
400
0
Control Well 1 - On Site
400
200
Control Well 2 - On Site
•
=•**
5 10 15 U 5 10 15
Time(months) Time(months)
sbdium analyses in irrigation, Test ^.j Control. ...
water. Upper— — _ Lower __y_
. (c)
-------
QD
Irrigation Water
70 ' **^^^
35
^ 0 •
^ 5 10 15
£ Time(months)
300 cm Leachate
Insufficient
Data
•
«= . - ,
100
50
0
50
25
.2 5 10 15
Ji Time(months)
o
U Test Well 3 - Downstream
90-
45 '
5 10 15
Time (months)
Figure F-14. Test and control site
irrigation, leachate,
100
50
0
calcium
and we
50 cm Leachate
Insufficient _—
Control Data
" 100
• • • ......... o
100 cm Leachate
•
*
5 10 15 5 10 15
Time(months) Time(months)
Test Well 1 -Upstream
50
^X 25
5 10 15
Tfme(months)
Control Well 1 - On Site
100
X*
^•V^ 50
n
5 10 15
Time(months)
analyses in T
II water. U
Test Well 2 - Upstream
xx
^
5 10 15
Time(months)
Control Well 2 - On Site
^
'
5 10 15
TIme(months)
pper— _ — Lower _— y_
,(c)
-------
CD
CO
100
50
\
0)
E
*«*
E
3
Magnes
100
50
0
Irrigation Water
70
5 10 15
Time(months)
300 cm Leachate
Insufficient 70
35
' ' ' . 0
5 10 15
Time(months)
Test Well 3 - Downstream
/ 100
-------
CD
CO
O>
E
E
3
»••
L.
o
OQ
OJ2
0.1
0
1.0
0.5
0
0.8
0.4
0
Irrigation Water
^-^_
0.2
50 cm Leachate
Insufficient
Control Data 0.30
^^~ 0.15
5 ' 10 15 5 10 15
Time(months) Time(months)
300 cm Leachate
0.30
^ 0.15
• 0
Test Well 1 -Upstream
0.70
"*•*£ — » 0.35
5 10 15 5 10 15
Time(months) Time(months)
Test Well 3 - Downstream
0.50
0.25
— --=
Control Well 1 - On Site*
0.4
C^*^ 0.2
0
5 10 15 5 10 15
TFme(months) Time(months)
Figure F-l 6 . jest and control site barium analyses in irrigation. Ti
leachate, and well water. ' ' •.
100 cm Leachate
•
-TTT-
5 ,. 10 15
Time (months)
Test Well 2 - Upstream
•
^
5 10 15
Time (months)
Control Well 2 - On Site
•=-.*—
5 10 15
jper— ~. _ Lower ^.yi^
-------
0.10
0.05
o
0)
J^
0.02
0.01
E
3 t)
E
•o
o
U
0.02
0.01
n
Irrigation Water
0.03
0.015
5 10 15
T!me(months)
300 cm Leachate
0.02
rfm o.oi
n
5 10 15
Time(months)
Test Well 3 - Downstream
0.02
0.01
,,<• „..,„«... 0
5 10 15
TIme(months)
H*A C 1 *7 Ta*f* ftmA **%9\l*t\\ *t*n v*Mrlm
50 cm Leachate
•c 0.02
0.01
n
5 10 15
Time (months)
Test Well 1 - Upstream
0.02
— X—
^•*"" 0.01
n
5 10 15
Time (months)
Control Well 1 - On Site
0.02
0.01
r 0
5 10 15
Time(months)
100 cm Leachate
5 = 10 15
Time(months)
Test Well 2 - Upstream
•
^^
5 v 10 15
Time (months)
Control Well 2 -On Site
•
•
5 10 15
Time(months)
irrigation, leachate, and well water.
Upper— — — Lower—X'
-------
0.10
0.05
^ 0
o>
E
0.04
0.02
E
= o
E
o
k.
U
0.06
0,03
0
Irrigation Water
0.10
%^^ 0.05
. " ". * n
5 10 15
TIme(months)
300 cm Leachate
0.10
0.05
50 cm Leachate
Insufficient 0.10
Data
0.05
n
5 10 15
Time(months)
Test Well 1 -Upstream
0.10
0.05
n
5 10 15 5 10 15
Time(months) Time(months)
Test Well 3 - Downstream
O.!0
V
X* *v 0.05
Control Well 1 - On Site
0.10
^><^ 0.05
•^
n
5 10 15 5 10 15
Time(months) Time(months)
100 cm Leachate
V,
i 1 * *
5 10 15
Time(months)
Test Well 2 - Upstream
•
•
5 10 15
Time(months)
Control Well 2 - On Site
^
5 10 15
Time (months)
Figure F-,18. Test and control slfe chromium analyses in
Irrigation, teachate, and well water.
Test. .^(f) Control ,(c)
Upper— — —. Lower ~-— jf —.
-------
0.2
0.1
_ 0
o>
0.2
0.1
tO A
0 u U
CO 0)
a.
0.
o
u
0.2
0.1
0
Irrigation Water
0.10
" • • . 0.05
50 cm Leachate
Insufficient
Control Data 0.30
• ' 0.15
. • . n
100 cm Leachate
m
•
5 10 15 " 5 10 15 " 5 10 15
T5me(months) Time(months) Time(months)
300 cm Leachate
0.2
*— 0.1
5 10 15
Time(months)
Test Well 3 - Downstream
0.10
\ 0.05
Test Well 1 - Upstream
0.2
,.,.1,, .,„..,. 0
5 10 15
Time (months)
Control Well 1 - On Site
0.30
0.15
n
Test Well 2 - Upstream
•
"H
5 10 15
Time (months)
Control Well 2 - On Site
•
-r-i*—
5 10 15 5 10 15 ' ,5 10 15
Tlme(months) Time(months) Time(months)
Figure F-19. Test and ccntnol Sffe copper analyses In
irrigation, leachate, and well water.
Test , (f) Control , (c)
Upper— __ — Lower—y —
-------
0.10
0.05
0
OJ
CO
o
03
TJ
0
0.30
0.15
0
Irrigation Water
•
rT^rrr
5 10 15
Time(months)
300 cm Leachate
Insufficient
Data
5 10 . 15
Tfme(months)
Test Well 3 - Downstream
0.10
0.05
0
0.30
0.15
0
0.4
0.2
0
50 cm Leachate
• c
0.2
^***~ 0.1
5 10 15
Time(months)
Test Well 1 -Upstream
0.30
^VfX 0.15
100 cm Leachate
•
^
5 10 15
Time(months)
Test Well 2 - Upstream
\ *v
v
5 10 15 5 10 15
Time(months) Time(months)
Control Well 1 - On Site
0.2
>^ 0.1
Control Well 2 - On Site
-
*5R5
Ttme(months)
5 10 15
Tlme(months)
Figure F-20. Test and confrol sTTe ledd analyses in irrigation,
leachate and well water.
5 10 15
Time(months)
Test— ,(r) Control • •••,(<:)
Upper mmm mm, mm lOWCr mmmt ^mmmm
' ' tt
-------
!**
0.10
0.05
0
o>
^
0.4
E 0.2
3
C
«
2 o
"o
0.30
0.15
0
Flgu
Irrigation Water
0.10
0.05
5 10 15
Time(months)
300 cm Leachate
0.2
0.1
5 10 15
TJme(months)
Test Well 3 - Downstream
0.2
„ 0.1
5 10 15
Ttme(months)
re F-21« Test and control site molyl
50 cm Leachate
0.10
Insufficient
Control Data 0.05
5 10 15
Time (months)
Test Wei 11 - Upstream
0.2
-=1x:-^' o.i
5 10 15
Time(months)
Control Well 1 - On Site
0.10
J=-.JLr=, 0.05
5 10 15
Time(months)
idenum analyses
100 cm Leachate
*****
•
5-10 15
Time(months)
Test Well 2 - Upstream
•
=rJL-=-
5 10 15
Time (months)
Control Well 2 - On She
=--*.-=•
•
5 10 15
Time(months)
in irrigation, leachare,, and well water.
,(c)
Upper— _ _ Lower—x—
-------
en
0.2
0.1
0
at
E
0.10
0.05
7 0
.X
o
z
0.10
0.05
0
Ffgur
Irrigation Water
0.10
"^^^^ 0.05
5 10 15
Tlme(months)
300 cm Leachate
0.10
0.05
5 10 15
Ttme(months)
Test Well 3 - Downstream
0.10
X.
^X..
*X^ 0.05
5 10 15
T!me(months)
e F-22. Test and control site hickel a
50 cm Leachate
Insufficient QJQ
Control Data
— 0.05
n
5 10 15
Ttme(months)
Test Well 1 -Upstream
^^ 0.10
0.05
5 10 15
Time(monrfis)
Control Well 1 - On Site
0.10
«<^ir«^ 0.05
0
5 10 15
Time(months)
nalyses fn T
100 cm Leachate
-
k
5 10 15
Ttme(months)
Test Well 2 - Upstream
•
-*>
5 10 15
Time (months)
Control Well 2 - On Site
—^
5 10 15
Time (months)
irrigation, leachate, and well water.
,(c)
Upper— — — Lower _—y—-
-------
CO
u
c
N
Irrigation Water
0.10 0.4
0 '•'"*-'" n
50 cm Leachate
Insufficient
Control Data
t t »
5 10 15 5 10 15
Time(months) Tlme(months)
300 cm Leachate
0.2 . 0.8
0.1 • •"•"• 0.4
n , „ . , o
Test Well 1 - Upstream
k
^^^^^ ^»
5 10 15 5 10 15
Time(months) Time(months)
Test Well 3 - Downstream
o-70 '
0.35 • ^. o.25
n . . X n
Control Well 1 - On Site
k
X
0.2
0.1
0
0.70
0.35
0
0.30
0.15
0
100 cm Leachate
. ^—
5 10 15
Time(months)
Test Well 2 - Upstream
^^^
5 10 15
Time (months)
Control Well 2 - On Site
•
• *"L. m
5 10 15
Time(months) Time(months)
Figure F-23. Test and control site *Tnc analyses in
irrigation, leachate, and well water.
5 10 15
Time (months)
Test, f (f) Control f (c)
Upper——.— Lower—jf——
-------
to
0.030
0.015
_ 0
0)
^E
u
c
o
u
<
0.030
0.015
0
Irrigation Water
0.010
5 10 15
Timefmonths)
300 cm Leachate
Insufficient 0.02
Data
0.01
5 10 15
Ttme(monrhs)
Test Well 3 - Downstream
0.02
i fc_ 0
50 cm Leachate
Insufficient 0.010
Data
0.005
" * 0
5 10 15
Time (months)
Test Well 1 - Upstream
0.030
•—*^ . 0.015
— — X— —
5 10 15
Time(months)
Control Well 1 - On Site
0.02
A-
100 cm Leachate
Insufficient
Data
5 10 15
Time(months)
Test Well 2 - Upstream
•
'
=•=*=
5 10 15
Time(months)
Control Well 2 - On Site
5 10 15 5 10 15 5 10 15
Time(months) Time(months) Time(monrhs)
Figure F.-24 Test and control slfe ortenic analyses in
Irrigation, leachate, and well water.
Test 7(t) Control.....^)
Upper—. — — Lower —x——
-------
CO
0.010
0.015
^v
O)
*•*
e
3
C
O
l/>
.010
0.005
0
Irrigation Water
• • • • 0.010
0.005
f 0
5 10 15
TIme(months)
300 cm Leachate
Insufficient °-010
Data
0.005
r . o
5 10 15
Tlme(months)
Test Well 3 - Downstream
u — n nin.
0.005
>....* .. -.«. 0
5 10 15
Time (months)
... C 1C T~.l. «*J JKAMbAl >L-k> A>1oVI
50 cm Leachate
Insufficient 0 010
Data
0.005
5 10 15
Time (months)
Test Wei 11 -Upstream
—•-&-= o.oio
0.005
0
5 10 15
Time(months)
Control Well 1 - On Site
0.005
n
5 10 15
Time(months)
inm nMMlueAc in iifinrttinn _
100 cm Leachate
Insufficient
Data
5 10 15
Time(months)
Test Well 2 - Upstream
-=-=JT—
•
5 10 15
Time (months)
Control Well 2 - On Site
. — — . jf __ __
5 10 15
Time (months)
Test_.(t) Control
,(c)
leachate, and well water.
Upper— _ — Lower—
-------
APPENDIX G
AGRICULTURAL BALANCE TABLES
TABLE G-l. TEST SITE WATER BALANCE; 1965-1978
CO
O
CD
Precipitation
Item
Year
19
A
78<>
77
76
75
74
73
72
71
70
69
68
67
66
AS
Total
*
Avg.
Area: 3
c
d
e
f
9
'
.1 ha
Total
(cm)
B
4
14
25
17
28
16
20
13
19
18
17
21
28
25
261
20
Effective0
(cm)
C
8
13
23
15
25
14
18
12
17
16
15
19
25
23
235
18
Total
(1000 cu
D
N.A.
125
138
205
147
117
186
214
258
266
247
215
187
148
2,453
189
Irrigation
Totalb
m) (cm)
E
N.A.
403
445
660
474
379
601
690
831
858
798
694
603
477
7,913
609
Total
Effective
Effective Water
(cm) (cm)
F Ge
N.A.
330
365
541
389
311
493
566
682
704
653
569
495
429
6,527
502
N.A.
343
388
556
414
325
511
578
699
720
668
588
520
452
6,762 1
520
Average
Evapo-
transplra-.
tions (cm)
H
N.A.
129
129
129
129
129
129
129
129
129
129
129
129
129
,677
129
Average
Leachate
(cm)
1
N.A.
214
259
427
285
196
382
449
570
591
539
459
391
323
5,085
391
Runoff coefficient is percent of precipitation lost through runoff. Runoff coefficient: 0. 1 .
Estimating that 8000 m per day of the treated effluent is diverted by percolation, evaporation, loss, etc.
Irrigation efficiency is percent of total applied which is not lost to runoff. Irrigation efficiency = 82% (estimated value).
Source: «»*
G = C
+F.
I = G-H.
January only (not included In averages)
•
Note: All numbers rounded
off to nearest
whole number,
-------
TABLE Q-2. CONTROL SITE WATER BALANCE, 1965-1978
to
»-»
o
Precipitation
Year
19
Item "A"
789
77
76
75
74
73
72
71
70
69
68
67
66
65
Total
Avg.
Area: 12. 6 ha
Total
(cm)
B
4
14
25
17
28
16
20
13
19
18
17
21
28
25
261
20
Effective0
(cm)
C
4
13
23
15
25
14
18
12
17
16
15
19
25
23
.235
18
Total
(1000 cu m)
D
198
317
191
191
210
344
191
210
191
191
191
191
191
2,807
216
Irrigation
i.
Total"
(con)
E
157
253
152
152
168
274
152
168
152
152
152
152
152
2,232
172
Effective0
(cm)
F
154
247
149
149
164
268
149
164
149
149
149
149
149
2,189
168
Total
Effective
Water
(cnrO
G6
167
270
164
174
178
286
161
181
165
164
168
174
172
2,424
186
Average
Evapo-
transplra-
tions (cm)
H
119
119
119
119
119
119
119
119
119
119
119
119
119
1,547
119
Average
Leachate
(cm)
V
48
151
45
55
59
167
42
62
46
45
49
55
53
877
67
, Runoff coefficient Is percent of precipitation lost through runoff. Runoff coefficient = 0.1.
Estimated values.
j Irrigation efficiency Is percent of total applied which Is not lost to runoff. Irrigation efficiency = 98%.
Source: 33
® G-C+F.
T I = G-H.
9 January only (not included In averages).
Note: All numbers are rounded off to nearest whole number.
-------
TABLE G-3. -TEST SITE ESTIMATED ANNUAL TOTAL WATER USED AND NUTRIENT SUPPLIED
IN THE IRRIGATION WATER 1965-1978
to
Year
1?
Item A
78°
77
76
75
74
73
72
71
70
69
68
67
66
65
Total
Avg.
0 Weather data
' Mesa'sewage
Site farmer.
Q
Precipitation
(cm/ j (cm/
crop) yr)
B C
4
7 14
13 25
9 17
14 28
8 16
10 20
7 13
9 19
9 18
9 17
11 21
14 28
13 25
133 261 3
10 20
: Phoenix Airport
Irrigation
Total Water
(cm/ d (cm/ (cm/d (cm/
crop) yr) crop) yr).
D E
201 403
223 445
330 660
237 474
189 379
301 601
345 690
415 831
429 858
399 798
347 694
301 603
239 477
,956 7,913
304 609
1965-70,
Ff
209
235
339
251
197
311
351
425
438
407
357
315
251
4,086
314
treatment plant 1971-78.
^Estimated to be same as existing irrigation
Based on two
January only
crops/year.
( not included in
averages).
water.
G»
417
470
677
502
395
621
703
850
876
815
715
631
502
8,174
629
f F =
f. G =
• ' '
'' J =
N
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
Fertilizer Value in Effluent
(mg/I)
P
H
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
K
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20 1
20 1
20
20
20
20
fa
N
503
557
825
593
473
751
863
,039
,073
997
867
753
597
9,891
25
B+ D
C+ E
Dx H
ExH
10
20
Note:
761
j/ha/ci
Pu
.h
201
223
330
237
189
301
345
415
429
399
347
301
239
3,956
304
K
403
445
660
474
379
601
690
831
858
798
694
603
477
7,913
609
Irrigation0
(kg/ha/yr)
N P K
J1
1,007 403 806
1,113 445 890
1,650 660 1,320
1,185 474 948
947 379 758
1,503 601 1,202
1,725 690 1,380
2,077 831 1,662
2,145 858 1,716
1,995 798 1,596
1,735 694 1,388
1,507 603 1,206
1,193-477 954
19,7827,913 15,826
1,522 609 1,217
All numbers rounded off to nearest
whol
e number.
-------
TABLE G-4. CONTROL SITE ESTIMATED ANNUAL TOTAL WATER USED AND
NUTRIENT SUPPLIED IN IRRIGATION WATER 1965-1978
to
Year Precipitation0 Irrigation Total
1?
(cm/d (cm/ (cm/ . (cm/ (cm/
crop) yr) crop) yr ) crpp)d
Item A B C D E F
78e
77
76
75
74
73
72
71
70
69
68
67
66
65
Total
Avg.
Phoenix Airport
, . Treatment Plant
4
7 U
13 25
9 17
14 28
8 16
10 20
7 13
9 19
9 18
9 17
11 21
14 28
13 25
133 261
10 20
79
127
76
76
84
137
76
84
76
76
76
76
76
157 86
253 140
152 85
152 90
168 92
274 134
152 83
168 93
152 85
152 85
152 87
152 90
152 89
1,119 2,236 1,239
86 172 95
1965-70, Mesa Sewage
1971-78.
Site fanner.
, Estimated to be same as existing irrigation water.
Based on two crops/year.
Water
(cm/
^
G-g
171
278
169
180
184
294
165
187
170
169
173
180
177
2,497
192
Fertilizer Value in Control
(mg/l) (kg/ha/crop)
N P K N P, K
H |h
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
, January only.
F =
9 G =
B+ D
C+ E
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
h
1 j
39 5
63 8
38 5
38 5
42 5
17 7
38 5
42 5
38 5
38 5
31 4
38 5
38 5
500 69
38 5
= Dx H
= Ex H
55
84
53
53
59
87
53
59
53
53
43
53
53
758
55
Irrigation0
(kg/hq/yr)
N tf K
79 9
127 15
76 9
76 9
84 10
137 16
76 9
84 10
76 9
76 9
76 7
/ W
76 9
76 9
1,119 130
86 10
110
177
106
106
118
192
106
118
106
106
85
106
106
1,542
119
Note: All numbers rounded off to
nearest whole number.
-------
to
Year
19
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
TABLE G-5 . TEST SITE NUTRIENT BALANCE AND VALUE, 1965-77
Crop
Fertilizer
Recommended
Fertilizer b
II
N P
III
Fertilizer
Applied «
c d c d c
(kg/ha/crop) (kg/ha/yr) (kg/ha/crop) (kg/ha/yr) ($/ha/crop)
Fertilizer
Cosfb
Bermuda N.A.
grass
Wheat,
iorghum "
Barley, com,
torghum H
Barley,com,
sorghum "
IV
N.A.
N P K N P K
VI VII
VIII
N.A.
N.A.
N.A
IX
N.A. N.A.
(continued)
-------
TABLE G-5(continued)
tO
Year
19
1
76
77
Total
Avg.
Crop Fertilizer
Used a
(/a)
N P K
II III
Barley, „
sorghum
Barley, com "
Fertilizer Recommended Fertilizer
Applied0 Fertilizer13 Cost**
c d c d .c d
(kg/ha/crop) (kg/ha/yr) (kg/ha/crop) (kg/ha/yr) ($/ha/crop) ($/ha/yr)
N P K N P K
IV V VI VII VIII IX
n n n n n n
ii n n n n n
0 0
vO 0
(continued)
-------
TABLE G-5 (continued)
CO
H»
CJI
Fertilizer
Nutrients b
c d
(kg/ha/crop) (kg/na/yr)
N P K N P K
X XI
65
N.A. N.A.
66
67
68 "
69 " "
70 ''
71
72
73
Nutrients in
Effective Irrigation Water8
c d
(kg/ha/crop) (kg/ha/yr)
N P K N P K
XII XIII
1,073 429 858
1,238 495 980
1,423 569 1,138
1,633 653 1,306
1,760 704 1,408
1,705 682 1,364
1,415 566 1,132
1,233 493 986
389 156 311
388 155 311
1,073 429 858
1,238 495 980
1,423 569 1,138
1,633 653 1,306
1,760 704 1^408
1,705 682 1,364
1,415 566 1,132
1,233 493 986
777 311 622
Value of Nutrient
in Irrigation"
c d
($/ha/crop) ($/ha/yr)
N P K N P K
XIV XV
708 283 566
708 283 566
817 327 647
817 327 647
939 376 751
939 376 751
1 ,078 431 862
1,078 431 862
1,162 465 929
1,162 465 929
1,125 450 900
1,125450 900
934 374 747
934 374 747
814 325 651
814 325 651
257 103 206
256 102 205
513 205 411
(continued)
-------
TABLfc S-5 (continued)
to
i-*
CD
Fertilizer
Nutrientsb
c d
(kg/ha/crop) (kg/ha/yr)
N P K N P K
X XI
Nutrients In
Effective Irrigation Waterc
c d
(kg/ha/crop) (kg/ha/yr)
N P K N P K
XII XIII
Value of Nutrient
In Irrigation b
c d
($/ha/crop) ($/ha/yr)
N P K N P K
XIV XV
74 N.A. N.A.
75 " M
76 "
77 " "
Total
Avg.
325
324
324
451
451
450
457
456
413
412
130
130
129
181
180
180
183
182
165
165
263
263
262
361
361
360
365
365
330
330
973 389
1,353 541
913 365
825 330
16,321 6,527
1,255 502
788
1,082
730
660
13,054
1,004
214 86 174
214 86 173
214 85 173 642 257 520
298 119 238
298 119 238
297 119 238, 893357 714
603240482
273109 218
272109218 545218436
10,7734,308 8,d
829 331 6
(continued)
-------
Total Nutrient
Supplied
c d
Nutrient Uptake
by Cnopf
c
(kg/ha/crop) (kg/ha/yr) (kg/ha/crop)
NEK N P , K NPK
XVI 9 XVII h
65 Same as XII and XIII 300
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
100
170
XVIII
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
60
70
80
80
80
80.
80
80
80
80
80
60
d
(kg/ha/yr)
N P K
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
270
XIX
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
130
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
140
Nutrient
N
1499
1814
2130
2501
2742
2645
2083
1772
909
Removal by Leachate
d
(kg/ha/yr)
P
XX
1-36
164
193
226
248
239
189
160
82
K
504
610
716
841
922
889
700
596
306
(continued)
-------
Total Nutrient
Supplied
c d
Nutrient Uptake
by Crop f
c
(kg/ha/crop) (kg/ha/yr) (kg/ha/crop)
N P K N .P K N P K
XV|9 XVII h
74 Same as XII and XI || 80
75
)-»
CO
76
77
120
120
100
120
120
100
150
100
150
Total
Avg-.
======!==— ss== ______
XVIII
20
40
50
40
40
50
40
50
40
40
==5====
60
125
95
80
125
95
80
95
80
125
g- —
d
(kg/ha/yr)
N P K
320
340
250
250
3,830
295
=
XIX
110 280
130 300
90 175
80 205
1,180 1,740
91 134
=^==^=
Nutrient Removal by Leachate
N
1322
1981
1202
993
23,593
1,815
—
d
(kg/ha/yr)
P
XX
120
179
109
90
2,135 7
164
K
445
666
404
334
,933
610
(continued)
-------
TABLE G-5 (continued)
65
66
67
68
69
to
£ 70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
Nitrogen
Losses to
Atmosphere*
(kg/ha/yr)
XXI
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
Nutrient Residual In
Topsoil
(Mia/yr)
N P K
- 776
- 926
- 1 ,057-
-1,218
-1,332
-1,290
-Ir018
- 889
- 452
- 719
-1,018
- 589
- 468
213
251
296
347
376
363
297
253
99
159
232
166
160
274
290
342
385
406
395
352
310
176
63
116
151
121
(continued)
-------
TABLE G- 5 (continued)
Total
Avg.
Nitrogen
Losses to ,
Atmosphere
(kgAa/yr)
XXI
650
50
Nutrient Residual
Topsail
(kg/ha/yr)
N p
-11,752 3,212
-904 247
—
In
K
3,381
260
, Individual crop.
Total crops.
2 Site farmer.
2 Arizona State University Agricultural Extension Service.
^ Estimated to be same as existing irrigation water.
e Estimated.
j! XVI = X+XII (columns).
° XVII = XI + XIII (columns).
g XXII - XVIMX1X + XX + XXI) (columns).
(-) negative quantity indicates leaching or other mineral removal mechanism from soil.
-------
TABLE G-6- CONTROL SITE/ NUTRIENT BALANCE AND VALUE, 1965-77
to
to
Year Crop Fertilizer
19 Used«
N P K
1 II III
65 Barley 82° 0 0
Sorghum 82 c 0 0
66 Barley 82C 0 0
Cotton 20^ 0 0
67 Cotton 20f 0 0
Sorghum 82C 0 0
68 Alfalfa 13^ 39 0
Fertilizer Recommended Fertilizer
Applieda Fertilizer^ Costb
c d c d c d
(kg/ha/crop) (kg/Vy) (kg/ha/crop) (kg/Ha/yr) ($/ha/crop) ($/r,a/yr)
N P K N P K
IV V VI
112 155- 45 0
190 60
112 140- 0 0
224 190
112 155- 45- 0
190 60
924 140- 0 0
190
1,036
924 140- 0 0
190
112 140- 0 0
1,036 190
1,036
224 20- 110 0
30
224
VII
295- 45- 0
380 60
295- 45- 0
380 60
280- 0 0
380
20-
30 110 0
VIII
22.40
22.40
45
22.40
92.40
115
92.40
22.40
115
51.50
51
(continued)
-------
to
to
to
TABLE G-6 (continued)
Year
19
•••
1
69
70
71
72
Crop Fertilize/
Ueda
(%)
N P K
II III
Alfalfa 13" 39 0
Wheat 48h 0 0
Sorghum 82° 0 0
Wheat 48K 0 0
L
Sugar 48 0 0
beet seed
Sugar 48h 0 0
beet seed
Sorghum 82C 0 0
Fertilizer Recommended FerHMxcr
Applied0 Fertilizer b Costb
c d & d c d
(kg/ha/crop) (kg/ha/yr) (kg/ha/crop) (kg/ta/yr) ($/ha/crop) ($/ha/yr)
IV
224
112
112
112
224
224
112
N
V
20-
30
224
155-
190
140-
190
224
155-
190
175
336
175
140-
190
336
P K N P K
VI VII
110 0
20- 110 0
30
45- 0
60
0 0
295- 45- 0
380 60
45- 0
60
220 110
330- 265- 110
365 280
220 110
0 0
315-220 110
365
VIII
51
22
22
22
22
49
49
22
IX
51
44
71
71
(continued)
-------
TABLE G-6 (continued)
to
CO
Year Crop Fertilize/
19 Used0
N P K
1 II III
73 Sudan grass 82 0 0
74 Alfalfa 13 39 0
75 Wheat 48 0 0
Sudan 82 0 0
grass
76 Sudan grass 82 00
77 Cotton 82 0 0
Fertilizer Recommended Fertilizer
Applied0 Fertilizer b Costb
c d c d c d
(ka/ha/crop) (kg/ha/V) fcg/lna/crop) (kgAa/Vr) ($/ha/crop) ($Ao/yr)
N P K N P K
iv v vi vii viii ix
112 165- 0 0
190
112
224 20- 110 0
30
224
112 155~ 45-0
190 60
165- 0 0
190
224
ri2 165-0 0
190
112
204 140- 0 0
190
204
22
165- 0 0
190
51
20- 0 0
30
22
320-45* 0
380 60
22
165-0 0
190
44
140- 0 0
190
22
51
22
44
(continued)
-------
*fc
Year
19
1
Total
Avg.
Crop Fertiliser Fertilizer
U(^ Applied0
c d
(kg/ha/crop) (kg/ha/yr)
N P k
II III IV V
4,516
347
Recommended
Fertilizer1*
c
(kg/ha/crop)
N P K
VI
d.
(kgAa/yr)
N P K
VII
2,660-885-
3,290 960
Fertilizer
Cosr
c d
($/ha/crop) ($/ta/yr)
VIII IX
220 746
205 68-74 17 57
-------
TABLE G-6 (continued)
Fertilizer Nutrients in Value of Nutrient
Year Nutrients Effective Irrigation Water1 in Irrigation1*
19 c d c d c d
(kg/ha/crop) (kg/ha/yr) (Icg/ha/crop) (kg/na/yr) ($/ha/crop) ($/Wyr)
NPKNPKNPK NPK NP K NP K
X XI. XjJ XIII XIV XV
65 92 0 0 37 5 52 25 3 35
92 0 0 37 4 52 24 3 34
184 0 0 74 9 104 49 6 69
66 92 0 0 37 5 52 25 3 35
185 0 0 37 4 52 24 3 34
277 0 0 74 9 104 49 6 69
67 185 0 0 30 4 42 20 3 28
S 92 0 0 30 3 41 19 2 27
01 277 0 0 60 7 83 39 5 55
68 29 87 0 74 9 104 49 6 69
29 87 0 74 9 104 49 6 69
69 29 87 0 74 9 104 49 6 69
29 87 0 74 9 104 49 6 69
70 54 0 0 41 5 58 27 4 38
92 0 0 41 5 58 27 3 38
146 0 0 82 10 116 54 7 76
71 54 0 0 37 5 52 25 3 35
108 0 0 37 4 52 24 3 34
162 0 0 74 9 104 49 6 69
(continued)
-------
TABLE G-6 (continued)
to
to
Fertilizer Nutrients in Value of Nutrient
Year Nutrientsb Effective Irrigation Water' in Irrigatiorr'
c d c d c d
(kg/ha/crop) (kg/na/yr) (kgAa/crop) (kg/na/yr) ft/ha/crop) ($Aa/yr)
N P K N P K N P K N P K N P K N P K
X XI XI] XHI >gv XV
72 108 0 0 68 8 94 45 6 62
9200 688 94 45562
200 0 0 136 16 188 90 11 124
73 92 0 0 82 10 116 54 7 76
92 0 0 82 10 116 54 7 76
74 29 87 0 74 9 104 49 6 69
29 87 0 74 9 104 49 6 69
75 54 0 0 37 5 52 49 6 69
92 0 0 37 4 52
146 00 74 9 104 49 6 69
76 92 0 0 124 15 173 82 10 115
92 0 0 124 15 173 82 10 115
77 167 0 0 120 15 168 79 10 111
167 0 Q 120 15 168 79 IQ ill
Total 1,830261 0 1,122 1361,572 741 92 1 040
Avg. 141 20 0 86 10 121 57 7 ' 80
(continued)
-------
TABLE G-6 (continued)
ro
Year
19_ N
65 136
136
66 129
222
215
122
68103
69103
70 95
133
71 91
145
Total Nutrient-
Supplied
e d
'(kg/ha/crop) (kg/ha/yr)
Pk K N P K
XVf XVII1
5
4
5
4
4
3
96
96
5
5
5
4
Si
52
52
52
42
41
104
104
58
58
52
52
258 9 104
351 9 104
337 7 83
103 96 104
103 96 104
228 10116
236 9 104
Nutrient Uptake
by Crop I
c d
(kg/ha/crop) (kg/ha/y)
N P K N P K
XVIII XIX
60
110
55
190
180
100
80
80
60
no
35
100
IU
15
10
30
30
15
50
80
10
15
10
15
40
30
38
60
45
21
20
24
40
30
35
30
170 25
245 40
280 45
80 50
80 80
170 25
135 15
70
98
66
20
24
70
65
Nutrient
N
101
105
93
85
87
118
80
Removal by Leachate
d
(kg/ha/yr)
P K
XX
21
22
20
IS
18
25
17
85
88
78
72
74
99
67
(continued)
-------
TABLE G-6 (continued)
CO
CO
oo
Year
19__ N
72.176
160
73 174
74 103
75 91
129
76 216
77 287
Total
Avg.
c
Total Nutrient
Supplied
d
(kg/ha/crop)
P
XVI1*
8
8
10
96
5
4
15
15
K
94
94
116
104
52
52
172
168
(kg/ha/yr)
N .P
XVII
336 16
174 10
103 96
220 9
216 15
287 15
2,952 397
227 31
I K
1
188
116
104
104
173
168
1,572
121
Nutrient Uptake
by Crop
c d
(kg/ha/crop)
N
100
110
70
45
35
70
70
185
P
XVIII
25
25
30
80
10
15
30
50
K
35
35
45
25
35
45
45
33
(kg/ha/yr)
N P K
XIX
210 50 70
70 30 45
45 80 25
1 05 25 80
70 30 45
185 50 33
1,845 545 711
142 42 55
Nutrient
Removal by
d
Leachate
(kg/ha/yr)
N
317
112
105
85
287
91
1,666
128
P
XX
67
24
22
18
60
19
351
27
K
267
94
88
72
242
77
1,403
108
(continued)
-------
TABLE G-6 (continued)
to
to
CO
Year
19
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
Total
Avg.
Nitrogen
Losses to
Atmosphere '
(kg/Ha/yr)
XXI
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
130
10
Nutrient Residua! In
Topsail
N
-23
-9
-46
-72
-74
-70
11
-201
-18
-57
20
-151
1
-689
-53
(kg/ha/yr)
P m
XXII
-37
-53
-58
28
-2
-40
-23
-101
-44
-6
-34
-75
-54
-499
-38
K
-51
-82
-61
12
6
-53
-28
-149
-23
-9
-48
-114
58
-542
-42
(continued)
-------
TABLE G-6 (continued)
, Site farmer.
Arizona State University Agricultural Extension Service.
, Individual crop.
Total crops.
As ammonium sulfate.
«•> ? As ammophos.
, ,
Urea.
.
. Estimated to be same as existing irrigation water.
! Estimated.
, XVI =X + XII (columns).
XVII =XI + XIII (columns).
mXXII = XVII -(XIX + XX + XXI) (columns).
-------
TABLE G-7 . TEST SITE CROP YELP AND NUTRIENT UPTAKE, 1965-77
to
CO
Yearb
19
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
Yield Green Yield Dry Nutrient
Crop" Weight0 (1,000 kg/ Weight0 Supplied
ha/yr) 0 ,000 kg/ha/yr) (kg/ha/yr)
N P K
Bermuda
Grass
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Wheat
Sorghum
Barley
Corn
Sorghum
Barley
Corn
Sorghum
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
0.4
11
0.7
17
11
0.7
17
11
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
2
4
0,2
5
4
0.2
5
4
1073
1238
1423
1633
1760
1705
1415
1233
777
973
1353,
429
495
569
653
704
682
566
493
311
389
541 1
858
980
1138
1306
1408
1364
1132
986
622
788
082
Nutrient
Uptake0
(kg/ha/yr)
N P K
300 80
300 80
300 80
300 80
300 80
300 80
300 80
300 80
100 60
170 70
80 20
120 40
120 50
100 40
120 40
120 50
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
60
60
125
95
80
125
95
Uptake
Efficiency
(%)
N P K
28
24
21
18
17
18
21
24
32
33
?*>
19 9
16 8
K 7
12 6
11 6
12 6
14 7
16 8
42 32
28 36
24 28
Combined
Nutrient
Uptake
Efficiency
(%)
19
16
14
12
11
12
14
16
35
32
26
(continued)
-------
TABLE G-7. .(continued)
CO
CO
to
Yield Greeo Yield DP/ Nutrient Nutrient Uptake
Yearb Cropb Weight^ , 000 k^ Weight^ Supplied Uptake Efficiency
!9 ha/yr) (1 ,000 kg/ha/^r)(kg/ha/yr) (kg/ha/yr) (%)
N P KNPKNPK
Total
Avg.
76 Barley 0.7
Sorghum 1 1
77 Barley 0.7
Com 17
0.2 100 40 80
4 913 365 730 150 58 95 27 25 24
0.2 100 40 80
5 825 330 660 150 40 125 30 24 31
16,321 6,52713,0543,830 1,183 1774D
1,255 502 1,004 295 91 134 24 20 16
Combined
Mrtrient
Uptake
Efficiency
(%)
25
28
20
? Bermuda Grass=l .
Site farmer.
Estimated.
-------
TABI1E G-8.
,5-77
Year0
•MBV^H
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
Yield Green
Crop0 Weightb
(1 ,000 kg/na/yr)
Barley
Sorghum
Barley
Cotton
Cotton
Sorghum
Alfalfa
Alfalfa
Wheat
Sorghum
Wheat
Sugar beet
seed
Sugar beet
seed
Sorghum
Sudan grass
Alfalfa
3
11
3.0
11
11
3
7
7
4
11
4
3
3
11
17
7
Yield Dry Nutrient
Weightb Supplied
(1 ,000 kg/ha/yr) (kg/ha/yr)
N P K
2.2
3.9
2.2
3.9
3.9
2.2
0.7
0.7
2.2
3.9
2.2
2.0
2.0
3/9
3.5
0.7
258 9
351 9
337 7
103 96
103 96
228 10
236 9
336 16
174 10
103 96
104
104
83
104
104
116
104
188
116
104
Nutrient Uptake
Uptake Efficiency
(kg/ha/yr) (%)
N P K N P K
60
110
55
190
180
100
80
80
40
110
35
100
100
110
70
45
10
15
10
30
30
15
50
80
10
15
10
15
25
25
30
80
40
30 66
38
60 70
45
21 83
20 78
24 78
30
35 .66
35
30 57
35
35 63
45 40
25 43
100
100
100
52
83
100
100
100
100
83
67
94
80
19
23
36
62
37
39
24
Combined
Nutrient
Uptake
Efficiency
78
88
88
50
61
74
73
67
60
50
(continued)
-------
APPENDIX H
CONTRACTS WITH FAEMERS
»'••..
:-'///
JZ^'' MESA TEST S|TE LEASE
'?'' ~ MUNICIPALLY OWNIID UTIUTILG • ELECTRICITY • NATURAL GAS • WATER
/ ~
\ \ I'1 J ( .;•„
£8 HOflTM CENTCR STPtET • P. O. DOX M«d • 032O1 • 034-2011
June 23, 1975
Mr. Gary Feezor
325 South Olive
Mesa, Arizona 85202
Dear Mr. Feezor:
Subject: Agricultural Lease at the Mesa Sewage
Treatment Plant
This letter will serve as a supplemental agreement
to subject agreement. Its purpose is to add to the area
covered by that lease agreement the following described
parcel:
The South Half of the Northeast Quarter
of Section 18, Township One North, Range
Five East of the Gila and Salt River Base
and Meridian, Maricopa County, Arizona,
EXCEPT that portion of the above described
premises described as follows:
That part of the Southeast Quarter of the
Northeast Quarter of said Section 18 and
that part of the Northeast Quarter of the
Southeast Quarter of said Section 18, de-
scribed as follows, the course given being
based on an assumed course of East for the
South line of the Southeast Quarter of said
Section 18, to wit: BEGINNING at the East
quarter section corner of said Section 18;
thence South 6° 54' West along the Section
line 8.00 feet to the center line of an ex-
isting road; thence South 89° 59' West along
the center line of said road 1036.32 feet;
thence North 0° 23.' East along the center
line of an existing road 1320.00 feet; more
or less, to a point on the North line of
the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast
234
-------
Mr. Gary Feezor -2- June 23, 1975
Quarter of said Section 18; thence in
an Easterly direction along the North
line of the Southeast Quarter of the
Northeast Quarter of said Section 18,
1020.00 feet, more or less, to the
Northeast corner of the Southeast
Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of said
Section 18; thence in a Southerly direc-
tion along the section line, 1320.00 feet
more or less, to the Point of Beginning.
The area of this parcel is 47 acres, making the new total
area covered by the lease 142 acres. All'terms of the
lease agreement shall apply to this added area, except
that-to the rental rate of $50 per acre, shall be added
4%, or $2.00 per acre for applicable sales tax; therefore
the total rental rate for this 47 acres shall be $52 00
per acre.
This addition to the lease area shall be effective July 1
1975. If this is acceptable,, please sign and return 6ne
copy for our files.
Yours truly,
JAN SLOAN
City Engineer
DES:jlk
C. K. Luster
ACCEPTED BY:
M *~\
OfcMV 1
__
ry Feezor
235
-------
Y/ASTEV/ATER TREATMENT PLAXT FARM
LTASE AGIIEEMENT
THIS LEASE AGREEMENT, nade oncl entered Into this g?>.cj]ay of
December, 1972, by end between the City of M2sa, a municipal corporation.
hereinafter referred to as the City, and Garv Feozcr ^^
hereinafter referred to as the Lessee;
WITNESSETH:
THAT WHEREAS, the City operates a wastewater treatment plant v/hlch
produces effluent that Is suitable for irrigation of crops; and
V/HEKi'AS, the City owns land suitable for Irrigated crops andjjntll
such Jand Is needed for other purposes, the City desires to lease same to the
Lessee for agricultural purposes only, on condition that Lessee uses effluent
from the wastewacpr treatment plant to Irrigate such Jand In a manner that will
conform to the regulations of the State of Arizona and County of Marlcopa; and
WHEREAS, said premises were publicly offered for lease, and the Lessee
was the highest and best bidder therefor on the terms and conditions hereinafter
set forth;
NOW THEREFORE, for and In consideration of the foregoing premises It
is agreed as follows:
1. DESCRIPTION AND AREA: That the City hereby leases to the Lessee
the following described premises:
Parcel No. 1 (approximately 85 acres): The Northwest
Quarter of Section 18, Township 1 North, Range S East
of the Gila and Salt River Base and Meridian, Maricopa
County, Arizona;
EXCEPT, the South Half of the N'orth Half and the North
Half of the South Kali of Lot 2 (which said Lot 2 Is
sometimes referred to as the Southwest Quarter of said
Northwest Quarter) deeded to the United States of
America in Instruments recorded March 23. 19S4, In
Docket 131], at Page 210, and
EXCErT. that portion lying within the channel of the Salt
River which Is approximately 54 acres.
Parcel Ifo. 2 - (approximately 9 acres): Lying directly
V/est of the treatment plant.
238
-------
Trie total area to be leased Is approximately 95 acres. This orea will bo used
for the purpose of computing the rental payment.
2. TERM; The term of this lease agreement shall be three (3) years,
commencing January 1, 1973 and ending December 31. 1975.
3. OPTION TO EXTEND; The parties, hereto shall, with the approval
of both parties, have the right to extend the term of this lease for a further
three (3) years, commencing on January 1. J976 an
-------
7. Em.Xir.K7 VSr: The Lcssoo agrees to utilize e'fluent from the
•
City's nearby waste-water treatment plant as the primary source of water for
Irrigating the premises and agrees to use as much of the effluent as possible
the year around without causing continuous por.dlng In any one location.
8. PRESENT IMPROVEMENTS: Certain of the improvements existing
(prior to December 31, 1972) are temporary and are the property of the present
leaseholder. Under the terms of the Lease which terminates December 31,
1972. the leaseholder shall be allowed to sell or remove such Improvements.
Included is the turbine pump with gearhead, fences, and corrals. Also,- the
current {prior to December 31, 1972) leaseholder owns an unused Interest In
the gas engine by virtue of having paid one-half the cost of a major overhaul
In March, 1972. This Interest Is computed to be $1,000.00 and this amount
shall be paid by any new Lessee to the present leaseholder. The present
leaseholder has an Interest In a new planted grain crop which any new
Lessee shall purchase at the rate of $35.00 per acre.
9. ENGINE PUMP DRIVE: The existing engine driving the irrigation
pump Is the property of the City. The City agrees to maintain said engine
and maV.e future overhauls as necessary and to furnish the digester gas to
power the engine at no cost to the Lessee.
10. PUMP AND GEARHEAD: The turbine pump and gearhead shall be
furnished, operated, and maintained by the Lessee.
11, FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS: The Lessee shall be allowed to make
such other agricultural type Improvements as he may desire In addition to the
leveling. Including fencing, which shall not be considered permanent by the
terms of this lease agreement. Upon the termination of this lease agreement,
except In case of default on the part of the Lessee, the Lessee shall be allowed
to sell or remove such other Improvements.
12. HEALTH REGULATIONS: The Lessee agrees to conducthls operations In
accordance with current applicable regulations of both Marlcopa County Health
238
-------
Department and the Arizona State Department of Health. The Lessee'shall
control the pondlnr; of xvater on the premises In such a manner as to prevent
the growth of mosquitoes. In the event that mosquitoes are produced on the
premises the Lessee shall be required to eliminate them Immediately.
13. RIGHT TO RECLAIM: The City has the right to reclaim all or any
portloa of the above described property at any time for any uce whatsoever
other than agricultural use, and upon reclaiming thereof, any Interest of the
Lessee with respect to said land or any portion thereof, shall immediately
terminate. The City may reclaim all. or any portion, of said land upon giving
sixty (60) days previous written notice, to Lessee of the need therefor, and
If at the end of sixty (60) days an existing grain crop Is not mature, additional
time will be allowed to permit maturing and harvesting of said crop, and In
the event any portion of the land is taken on which rent for the year la which
It is taken has been paid, the City agrees to make an appropriate adjustment
for such rental.
14- HOLD HARMLESS: The Lessee agrees to protect and hold harm-
less the City of and from all claims of every nature in connection with the use
made of said premises by the Lessee, including but not limited to all claims
for damage by persons residing within the area for damage to their property
by reason of odors, and the use of said land by Lessee.
IS, WELL WATER: Well water is available in very limited quantities
for 'watering livestock; It Is not safe for human consumption. The City will
deliver this water to an existing meter near the premises; the Lessee shall
pay far It at the current applicable rate for such service.
16. DEFAULT: In the event that Lessee Is In default of any obli-
gations or conditions hereundcr agreed to be performed by him, or any rental
shall be due and unpaid, and In the event such default is not cured or cor-
rected by Lessee within ten (10) days after written notice of said default
ifrom City to Lessee, this lease at the option of City, may be cancelled and
all rights and privileges and obligations of Lessee hereunder shall be terminated
or the City may take such other and further steps as it may deem proper In the
premises.
239
-------
17. ASSIGNMENT OF LEASE; The Lessee agrees not to assign this
lease and agreement or sublet any portion of the premises without first se-
curing the \vrttten consent of the City.
IN WITNESS V/HEREOF, the parties have executed these presents by
their duly authorized officers or Individuals.
240
-------
CITY OF HFSA>
Property Division
P. 0. Cox 1406
Mesa,.Arizona C0201
MESA CONTROL SITE LEASE
LEASE AGREEy!£?!T
This Lease Agreenant made and entered into between CITY OF MESA, a mun-
icipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as Lessor, and JOHN T. BUIW UI.,
and ARTHUR A. CARROLL, a partnership, hereinafter referred to as Lessee,
W I T N E S S E T H:
That for and in considsration-of the terras, covenants sr.d conditions of
this Lease Agreement to be kept and performed by ths respective parties hereto,
it is hereby agreed by and between the parties hereto as follov/s:'
1. The Lessor does by these presents lease unto the Lessee that certain
property situated in Karicopa County, Arizona, containing approximately 48 til-
lable acres rcore or less, and inore particularly described as a portion of the
following, to-wit:
The Kortheast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of said Section 18,
Township One North, Range Five East of the Gila and Salt River
Base and Keridian, Maricopa County, Arizona;
'EXCEPT the West 300.00 feet thereof;
That part of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of said
Section 18 and that part of the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast
Quarter- of said Section 18 described as follows, the courses jiven
being based on an assumed course of East for the South line of the
Southeast Quarter of said Section 18, to-wit:
BEGINNING at the East Quarter Section corner of said Section 18,
thence South 0° 54' West along the section line 8.CO feat to th«
center line of an existing .road; thence South 8S° 59' Kest along
the center line of said road 1036.32 feet: thence .North 0° 23' East
along the center line pf an existing road 1320.CO feet, rare or less,
to a point on the North line of the Southeast Q-jsrter of the Horth-
east Quarter of said Section 18; thence in in Easterly direction
along the North line of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quar-
ter of said Section 18, 1020.00 feet, r.ore or less, to the Northeast
corner of the Southeast Quarter of th» Northeast Quarter of said
•Section 18; thence in a Southerly direction along trie Section line
1320.00 feet, more or less, to the Point of Beginning.
for a terra of one (1) year, corener.cing January 1, 1977, and ending at midnight,
December 31. 1977.
241
-------
2. The lessee hereby accepts the lease of said property for said terra
and agrees to pay Lessor as rent $165.00 per acre for 43 acres for a total
amount of $7.520.00, Lessor to pay applicable rental taxes on or before
January 1, 1977. Rental to be paid as follows:
January 1, 1977 - $3,350.00
July 1, 1977 - $3,950.00
3. The lessee agrees to pay to the Salt River Valley Water Users'
Association pro;nptly when due, the assessments levied against the leased prem-
ises for the year 1977 and pay to the Salt River Valley Water Users' Associa-
tion promptly when due all charges for water in excess of th£ amount of water
received upon the payment of the assessment due upon the leased premises.
4. The Lessor agrees to pay to the proper authorities before delinquency
all taxes and assessments levied and assessed against the leased premises and
the improvements thereon throughout the term of this Lease Agreement.
5. Lessee agrees throughout the term of this Lease that he will not as-
sign, underlet, or part with possession of the whole or any part of the leased
premises, or assign this Lease or any right herein without the consent in
writing of the Lessor. Any such underletting, subletting, or asstgnaent with-
out the written consent of the Lessor shall be null and void, and shall create
no interest hereunder or in or to said leased premises or any part thereof.
6. Lessee agrees that throughout the tern of this Lease he will cultivate
and farm the leased premises in good and farmerlike manner, and during said
tern, he will keep said premises reasonably free and clear of atl noxious weeds
and grasses.
7. The Lessee agrees to keep and maintain the leased premises and the
whole thereof and all and singular of the improvements thereon and appurtenants
thereto, in as good condition and state of repair as the sane shall be at the
date of the commencement of this Lease, reasonable wear and tear alone excepted.
Without limitation to the foregoing, the Lessee agrees that he will use reason-
able care to raintain the concrete irrigation ditches now situated upon the
242
-------
leased premises and not allow the dirt supporting th? sides of said concrete
ditches to be removed by cultivation or be washed away tharefrom so as to
allow said ditches to be cracked or broken.
8. The Lessor reserves unto itself the right to enter upon ths leased
premises for the purposes of inspecting the sa-ne cr for 'any other lawful pur-
poses not In conflict with the Lessee's right to fair, the leased premises.
It is specifically understood that the Lessee shall have no right whatsoever
to remove any sand. rock, or dirt from the leased premises.
9. The lessee agrees to Indemnify and save the Lessor harmless from any
and all liability, loss, cost and expense by reason of the personal Injuries
or death of any person, or persons in or upon the leased premises and by reason
of damage to personal property in or upon tha leased premises as the result of
the use of said leased premises, or any part thereof, by the Lessee.
10. The Lessee agrees that he will not raake any material alterations to
the leased premises or property unless and until the same are approved In
writing by the Lessor. Any alterations and improvements which Lessee may make
shall be at the expense of the Lessee, and the Lessee agrees to keep the leased
premises free and clear from any liens which say arise from work performed, mat-
erials furnished, or obligations incurred by the Lessee during the terra of this
lease.
41. Lessee agrees that upon the termination of this Lease, it will sur-
render possession of the leased premises and property to Lessor in as good a
condition as they are at the connenceraant of this Lease, reasonable wear and
use excepted.
12. Lessee agrees that if default be iwde in the payr.ent of any rent or
other anounts required to be paid hereunier at the tic* when the sa.ne is aiove
promised to be paid, or in the event of the violation by Lessee of any of the
covenants or agreements herein contained to be kept and perfomed by Lessee,
243
-------
the lessor r.iy thereupon, at their election, sue for the rent or any other
amounts due hercu.ider. or sue for daraces for such violation, or declare this
tease at an end and recover possession of the leased premises as If the sacie
were hold by forcible detainer, retaining all rr.oney theretofore received as
rental and deposit on rental and being entitled to collect any unpaid rental
or other a.T.ounts the.-, due, or pursue any other leg-il reirsdy for the enforce-
ment of lessor's rights; the said Lessee hereby waives any notice of such
election and any demand for the possession of said premises. Ko waiver of
«i\y breach, covenant, condition or stipulation herein contained shall by taken
to be a waiver of any succeeding breach of the sans covenant, condition or
stipulation. The Lessee further agrees that in the event an attorney is em-
ployed by the Lessor and suit is brought to enforce the provisions hereof, the
lessee will pay to the Lessors a reasonable attorneys' fee to be fixed by the
Judge of the Court.
13. This Lease, subject to the term and conditions hereof, shall extend
to and be binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators, successors and
assigns of the respective parties hereto.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Lease this
. 1976.
ftrtnur A. Carroll
Lessor:
CITY OF tf
Cvty°Clerk
244
-------
STATE OF ARIZONA J
County of Marfcopa) v*'-' V 'r-
/•P5*1^
On this the ^?~ <•/ day of'1~ZP?f^p-m A^»x— , 19j7j£,
before ire the undersigned Notary Public, personally appeared i
Manager and DCRTHE DANA, City Clerk, known to me to be the persons whose names
are subscirbed to the within instrument and acknowledged that they executed the
same for the purposes therein contained.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF. I hereunto set my hand and official seal.
^s^S^^^^i-^uJ^
NotaTy-PuoWc v
Ky ConraJssfon eapires:
-?,
STATE OF ARIZONA )
)ss
County of Maricopa)
On this the Jt?& day of
before me, the undersigned Notary Public, personally appeared 3
A.
known to r.e to be the perscns whose name
is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged that (heyexecuted the
same for the purposes therein contained.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF. I hereunto set my hand and official
Notary Public
(y Commission expires:
Kj C5--!::'« &;!.-:s t.r.n. 3. KB
245
-------
GLOSSARY
boreholes: Subsurface exploration holes drilled or excavated to obtain earth samples.
Boreholes may be drilled to any depth for soil, and leachate samples, test well
installation, and groundwater aquifer detection.
groundwater: The upper aquifer that receives the percolated irrigation water.
lysimeter: A porous ceramic-tipped cup device used to extract, when a vacuum is
applied, a sample of percolating water from subsoil.
spatula: A sterilized hand tool in a protective wrapper used to collect uncontaminated
soil samples.
tail water: The surface runoff water from an irrigated field.
test well: A special well constructed into the upper aquifer groundwater for sampling
the groundwater.
well baler or well pump: Devices that may be used for pumping and obtaining ground-
water samples from test wells. Varies in size depending on the well diameter.
Well balers may consist of a weight, a test tube, a stopper, and a cord for collec-
ting samples in a well. Well pumps are mechanical devices used to extract water
from a well.
246
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(t'lease read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
EPA-600/2-80-061
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
LONG-TERM EFFECTS OF LAND APPLICATION OF
DOMESTIC WASTEWATER: Mesa, Arizona, Irrigation
Site
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSIOIVNO.
5. REPORT DATE
April 1980 issuing date
Ralph Stone and James Rowland
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Ralph Stone and Company, Inc.
Los Angeles, California 90025
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
A35B1C
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-03-2362
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Lab
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Ada, Oklahoma 74820
- Ada, OK
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
1/76 - 5/78
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/015
= LEMENT<
IV NOTES
This report presents the results of an assessment of the long-term impacts on crops,
soils, and ground-water resulting from irrigation with secondary-treated municipal
effluent. The concentrations of pathogens, nutrients, heavy metals and salts in soils,
groundwater, and crops irrigated with secondary-treated wastewater were compared to
the concentrations in soils, groundwater, and crops irrigated with conventional water
supplies. Test and control sites at Mesa, Arizona, were selected as case studies for
comparisons. Both sites produced ensilage or other crops not used for human
consumption. The control site was furrow irrigated and the test site was flood and
furrow irrigated. The test site had been irrigated with effluent for over ten years.
The control ^site had never received wastewater but had been irrigated for at least
ten years with conventional water. Lysimeters were placed at various depths in the
soil of both sites to test for the constituents in the leachate. Sampling wells were
drilled at the test and control sites to determine the upper groundwater quality
affected by the leachate.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATI Field/Grc
land use
sewage effluents
trace elements
nutrient removal
sewage treatment
water chemistry
Mesa, Arizona
land application
municipal wastewater
secondary pre-treatment
slow rate system
68D
91A
43F
8. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
RELEASE TO PUBLIC
19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)
UNCLASSIFIED
21.(NO. OF PAGES
264
'UNCLASSIFIED
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
247
US GOURNMHiTPdlN-iNGOFUCE 1980-657-146/5679
------- |