&EPA
            United States
            Environmental Protection
            Agency
            Municipal Environmental Research EPA 600 2 78 097
            Laboratory        May 1 978
            Cincinnati OH 45268
            Research and Development
Separation of
Algal Cells From
Wastewater Lagoon
Effluents;

Volume III. Soil
Mantle Treatment
of Wastewater
Stabilization Pond
Effluent -
Sprinkler Irrigation

-------
                RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES

Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into nine series. These nine broad cate-
gories were established to facilitate further development and application of en-
vironmental technology. Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
The nine series are:

      1.  Environmental Health  Effects Research
      2.  Environmental Protection Technology
      3.  Ecological Research
      4.  Environmental Monitoring
      5.  Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
      6.  Scientific and Technical Assessment Reports (STAR)
      7.  Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development
      8.  "Special" Reports
      9.  Miscellaneous Reports

This report has  been assigned  to the  ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION TECH-
NOLOGY series. This series describes research performed to develop and dem-
onstrate instrumentation, equipment, and methodology to repair or prevent en-
vironmental degradation from point and non-point sources of pollution. This work
provides the new or improved technology required for the control and treatment
of pollution sources to meet environmental quality standards.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.

-------
                                                  EPA-600/2-78-097
                                                  July  1978
 SEPARATION OF ALGAL CELLS FROM WASTEWATER LAGOON EFFLUENTS

                         Volume III:
   Soil Mantle Treatment of Wastewater Stabilization Pond
               Effluent -  Sprinkler  Irrigation
                             by

B. T. Hicken, R. S. Tinkey, R. A. Gearheart, J. H. Reynolds,
             D. S. Filip, and E. J. Middlebrooks
               Utah Water Research Laboratory
                   Utah State University
                     Logan, Utah  84322
                 Contract Number 68-03-0281
                       Project Officer

                       Ronald F. Lewis
                Wastewater Research Division
         Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory
                  Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
        MUNICIPAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
             OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
            U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                   CINCINNATI, OHIO  45268

-------
                                 DISCLAIMER
     This report has been reviewed by the Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and approved for publica-
tion.  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


     The Environmental Protection Agency was created because of increasing
public and government concern about the dangers of pollution to the health
and welfare of the American people.  The complexity of the environment and
the interplay between its components require a concentrated and integrated
attack on the problem.

     Research and development is that necessary first step in problem solution
and it involves defining the problem, measuring its impact, and searching for
solutions.  The Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory develops new and
improved technology and systems for the prevention, treatment, and management
of wastewater and solid and hazardous waste pollutant discharges from municipal
and community sources, for the preservation and treatment of public drinking
water supplies, and to minimize the adverse economic, social, health, and
aesthetic effects of pollution.  This publication is one of the products of
that research; a most vital communications link between the researcher and
the user community.

     As part of these activities, this report was prepared to make available
to the sanitary engineering community the results of laboratory and field
tests of the effectiveness of land application of wastewater lagoon effluents
for the removal of algae, bacteria, and chemical components from lagoon
effluent.

                                      Francis T. Mayo
                                      Director
                                      Municipal Environmental Research
                                      Laboratory
                                      iii

-------
                                   ABSTRACT


     To evaluate the soil mantle as a means of polishing lagoon effluent,  a
two-phase study was undertaken,  A series of lysimeters was employed to
evaluate the impact of soil treatment on removal of total and fecal coliform
and fecal streptococcal organisms.  The second phase consisted of a two-year
field study to evaluate the efficiency of the sprinkler irrigation soil
mantle wastewater treatment system when used to further treat wastewater
stabilization pond effluent.

     All four Utah soils evaluated provided good removal of the three indica-
tor organisms, but the Utah State University Drainage Farm soil with a high
clay content produced the best bacterial removal.   Nitrate-N concentrations
in the lysimeter effluents in excess of that expected from the soils was
observed.  This was attributed to leaching of nitrate-N originally present
in the soils before placing them in the lysimeters.

     The four soils were effective in removing organic carbon with the more
clay-like soils providing better removals than the sand or silty loam soils.
The finer textured soil, Drainage Farm soil, was the most efficient in re-
moving suspended and volatile suspended solids; however, all of the soils
were effective in removing suspended and volatile suspended solids with a
minimum removal of 85 percent of the applied solids.

     Adsorption and precipitation of phosphorus compounds was observed.
Again, the higher clay content soils were the most efficient in removing
phosphorus.

     In the field experiments, the solid set sprinkler irrigation system
provided trouble-free operation.  However, the center pivot or self-propelled
systems are considered the better alternatives for sprinkler irrigation.

     Leaching of salts from the soils on the Drainage Farm occurred, and
specific conductance and sodium adsorption ratio values were high in the
drainage water from the underdrain system.  These values were high enough  to
indicate that the re-use of the soil mantle treated water would be hazardous
to the growth of most plants.  However, continued application of a reasonably
good quality water will eventually leach a considerable amount of the material
from the soils and the effluent may be acceptable after leaching is completed.

     Phosphorus removal was high when the water passed through the soil sys-
tem; removal exceeded 80 percent.  Some leaching of phosphorus at the lower
sampling depth was indicated by an increase in phosphorus concentration.
Again, as water is applied equilibrium will develop and a fairly constant
removal of phosphorus should occur.  Direct nutrient uptake of phosphorus  by

                                      iv

-------
the vegetation appeared to be negligible.  The rate of application of irri-
gation water made no significant difference in the phosphorus removal rate.
After two years of service, no observable change in the cation exchange
capacity of the soil occurred, indicating that phosphorus removal should
remain high in subsequent years of use.

     Evidence of nitrate leaching was seen, and continued high rate irrigation
should lower the nitrate levels of the soil.  The application rate of irri-
gation water was shown to have an insignificant effect on the concentration
of nitrate in the water samples from vegetated sites.  On the bare sites
where nitrate concentrations in the soil were initially higher than the
vegetated sites, generally lower nitrate concentrations were observed in the
water samples as the application rate increased.

     Ammonia stripping was found to be an important ammonia removal mechanism
when sprinkler irrigation was used and pH values of the irrigation water were
high.  Thirty-five percent removal of the ammonia was obtained through the
stripping process when the pH value was approximately 9.  The concentration
of ammonia in the treated water samples was not affected by the concentration
of ammonia in the irrigation water, the presence of vegetation or no vegeta-
tion nor the rate of application of irrigation water.  The total organic
carbon (TOG) concentrations observed in the treated water samples generally
increased over those of the irrigation water.  The properties of the soil
system determined the TOG concentrations of the treated water sample rather
than other factors such as TOG concentrations in the irrigation water, the
vegetation, or the application rate of irrigation water.

     The soil mantle treatment system was efficient in removing suspended
solids from the percolating irrigation water.  The mean concentration of the
suspended solids in the drainage water from the 4 ft. deep mole drain con-
tained an average of 2 mg/1 of suspended solids and 1 mg/1 of volatile sus-
pended solids, while the mean values in the stabilization pond effluent were
13 mg/1 suspended solids and 10 mg/1 volatile suspended solids.

     Vegetation yield was not significantly different between sites receiving
different application rates of stabilization pond effluent, between sites
receiving irrigation waters of differing nutrient content, or between sites
with and without irrigation.  The pH value, percent C, percent N, Ca, K, Na,
and P concentrations in the soil samples were not observed to change over the
two irrigation seasons.  The N03~N concentrations in the soil samples declined
over the two-season period in 19 of the 24 sample sites observed, indicating
nitrate leaching.  In most cases specific conductance of the soil sample
extracts were unchanged over the two seasons except in some cases where
initially high values were found.

     This report was submitted in partial fulfillment of Contract No. 68-03-
0281 by the Utah Water Research Laboratory, Utah State University, under the
sponsorship of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

-------
                                   CONTENTS


Foreword	iii
Abstract	    iv
Figures	vlli
Tables	    xi
Acknowledgments	xiii

    1.  Introduction  	     1
    2.  Conclusions   	     3
             Lysimeter Experiments   	     3
             Field Experiments 	     3
    3.  Recommendations  	     7
    4.  Literature Review   	     8
    5.  Methods and Procedures	    15
             Lysimeter Experiments   	    15
             Sampling	    18
             Analyses	    20
             Field Experiments	    22
    6.  Results and Discussion Lysimeter Experiments   	    32
             Sampling Difficulties   	    32
             Bacteriological Removal 	    32
             Removal of Physical and Chemical Constituents   ....    35
    7.  Results and Discussion Field Experiments 	    44
             Operation Difficulties  	    44
             Operation and Observations 	    44
             Application to Logan System   	    46
             Specific Conductance and Sodium Adsorption Ratio   ...    46
             Ammonia	    49
             Nitrate and Nitrite	    56
             Carbon	    61
             Phosphorus	    63
             Vegetation	    70
             Suspended Solids  	    70
             Effluent Quality and Standards   	    71
             Economics of Spray Irrigation of Wastewater  	    71
             Solid Set Systems	    73
             Center Pivot System  	    83

References	    88
Appendices

    A.  Results of Lysimeter Experiments   	    96
    B.  Results of Field Investigations 	  ...   129
    C.  Spray Irrigation Economic Analysis .   	   194

                                     vii

-------
                                   FIGURES


Number                                                                   Page

   1   Design of lysiraeter (all dimensions are centimeters)	16

   2   Lysimeter	17

   3   Schematic drawing of Logan waste stabilization ponds    ....    19

   4   King tube and driver	21

   5   Test sites	24

   6   Drainage Farm test sites	25

   7   Spray pattern   	    27

   8   Sampling device 	    28

   9   Soil moisture sampling device  	    30

  10   Nitrate-N concentrations in the influent and  effluent
         samples collected at the 7.6  and 38.1 centimeter
         sampling depths for the lysimeters containing Drainage
         Farm soil	37

  11   Nitrate-N concentrations in the influent and  effluent
         samples collected  at the 7.6 and 38.1 centimeter
         sampling depths for the lysimeters containing
         Drainage Farm soil	37

  12   Ammonia-N concentrations in the influent and  effluent
         samples collected at the 7.6  and 38.1 centimeter
         sampling depths for the lysimeters containing
         Drainage Farm soil	38

  13   Total organic carbon concentrations in  the  influent
         and effluent samples collected at the 7.6 and 38.1
         centimeter  sampling depths for the lysimeters
         containing  Drainage Farm soil	       38

  14   Total algal cell percent removal at the 38.1  centimeter
         depth for all soils studied	38


                                    viii

-------
                              FIGURES  (CONTINUED)
Number
  15   Suspended solids concentrations in the influent and effluent
         samples collected at the 7.6 and 38.1 centimeter sampling
         depths for the lysimeters containing Drainage Farm soil ...    40

  16   Volatile suspended solids concentrations in the influent
         and effluent samples collected at the 7.6 and 38.1 cm
         sampling depths for the lysimeters containing Drainage
         Farm soil	40

  17   Total phosphate concentrations in the influent and effluent
         samples collected at the 7.6 and 38.1 centimeter sampling
         depths for the lysimeters containing Drainage Farm soil ...    41

  18   Orthophosphate concentrations in the influent and effluent
         samples collected at the 7.6 and 38.1 centimeter sampling
         depths for the lysimeters containing Drainage Farm soil ...    41

  19   The pH values for the influent and effluent samples
         collected at the 7.6 and 38.1 centimeter sampling depths
         for the lysimeters containing Drainage Farm soil	42

  20   Salt concentration in the soil solution	48

  21   Diagram for the classification of irrigation waters 	    50

  22   Ammonia transformations in a soil mantle treatment system ...    54

  23   Percentage removal of orthophosphate-P at the 10.2 cm (4 in.)
         sample depth on vegetated and bare sites receiving 5.1 cm
         (2 in.), 10.2 cm (4 in.), 15.2 cm (6 in.) per week of
         stabilization pond effluent  	    68

  24   Percentage removal of total phosphorus-P at the 10.2 cm (4 in.)
         sample depth on vegetated and bare sites receiving 5.1 cm
         (2 in.), 10.2 cm (4 in.), 15.2 cm (6 in.) per week of
         stabilization pond effluent  .	69

  25   Cost of operation for on-the-ground solid set irrigation
         system	77

  26   Cost of ownership for on-the-ground solid set irrigation
         system	78

  27   Total system cost for on-the-ground solid set irrigation
         system	79
                                     ix

-------
                             FIGURES (CONTINUED)


Number                                                                   Page

  28   Cost of operation for in-the-ground solid  set irrigation
         system	80

  29   Cost of ownership for in-the-ground solid  set irrigation
         system	81

  30   Total system cost in-the-ground  solid set  irrigation
         system	82

  31   Cost of operation for center  pivot  irrigation system   ....    85

  32   Cost of ownership for center  pivot  irrigation system   ....    86

  33   Total system cost for center  pivot  irrigation system   ....    87

-------
                                   TABLES
Number                                                                   Page

   1   Description, Location and Use of the Four Utah Great Basin
         Soils Studied	15

   2   Lagoon Effluent Characterization  	   22

   3   Mean Loading Rates Used in Lysimeter Study 	   23

   4   Counts for Total Coliform, Fecal Coliform, and Fecal
         Streptococcal Group at the 7.6 and 38.1 Centimeter
         Depths	33

   5   Mean Bacterial Counts Over a 21-Day Period 	   34

   6   Removal Rates of Individual Organisms for the Four Soils  ...   34

   7   Chemical and Physical Characteristics of the Four Soils
         Before and After the Application of Lagoon Effluent  ....   36

   8   Specific Conductance Statistical Analysis  	   47

   9   Description of Classification Scheme Shown in Figure 21   ...   51

  10   Ammonia Removal from Stabilization Pond Effluent Via
         Stripping During the Sprinkling Process  	   52

  11   Ammonia-N Statistical Analysis 	   ...   54

  12   Comparison of Mean Ammonia-N Concentrations Measured
         During Season 1 and Season 2	55

  13   Comparison of Mean Ammonia-N Concentrations Measured at
         Sites Receiving Stabilization Pond Effluent and Sites
         Receiving Control Water   	   55

  14   Comparison of Mean Ammonia-N Concentrations Measured at
         Various Sample Depths on Sites Receiving Stabilization
       .  Pond Effluent and Sites Receiving Control Water   	   57

  15   Mean Ammonia-N Removals Obtained at Various Sampling Depths
         and for Different Water Types	   57
                                    xi

-------
                              TABLES  (CONTINUED)


Number                                                                   Page

  16   Nitrate-N Statistical Analysis 	   58

  17   Comparison of Mean Nitrate Concentrations Measured During
         Season 1 and Season 2	58

  18   Comparison of Mean Nitrate Concentrations Measured at
         Various Application Rates, Water Types, and Cover Types
         For the Second Irrigation Season   	   60

  19   Comparison of Mean Nitrate Concentrations Measured at Sites
         With Different Cover Types   	   60

  20   Comparison of Mean Nitrate Concentrations Measured at Various
         Sampling Depths During the Second Season 	   62

  21   Total Organic Carbon Statistical Analysis  	   63

  22   Comparison of TOC Concentrations Measured at Various
         Sampling Depths  	   63

  23   Orthophosphate-P Statistical Analysis   	   65

  24   Comparison of Mean Orthophosphate-P Concentrations Measured
         During Season 1 and Season 2	65

  25   Comparison of Mean Orthophosphate-P Concentrations Measured
         on the Sites Receiving Stabilization Pond  Effluent and
         Sites Receiving Control Water   	   66

  26   Comparison of Mean Orthophosphate-P Concentrations Measured
         at Various  Sampling Depths on Sites Receiving Stabilization
         Pond Effluent and Sites Receiving Control  Water    	   66

  27   Mean Phosphorus Removals Obtained at Various Sampling Depths
         and for Different Water Types	67

  28   Summary of the Mean Values of  the Characteristics  of the
         Lagoon and  Field Site Effluent Samples  Collected During
         Season 1 (1975)  at 0.9 Meter (3 ft)  Below  the Soil
         Surface	72

  29   Summary of the Mean Values of  the Characteristics  of the
         Lagoon and  Field Site Effluent Samples  Collected During
         Season 2 (1976)  at 0.9 Meter (3 ft)  Below  the Soil
         Surface	72

  30   Values Used to Calculate Costs Shown in Figures 25 Through  33   .   83


                                     xii

-------
                               ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
     The cooperation and assistance of the Logan City Engineer, Mr. Ray Hugie,
is greatly appreciated.  Assistance in the operation of the Logan City Waste
Stabilization Lagoon System was provided by Logan City personnel.  We wish to
express our appreciation to the many land owners that granted permission to
cross their property with the wastewater transport pipe.
                                     xiii

-------
                                   SECTION   1

                                  INTRODUCTION


     Many wastewater treatment facilities now in existence cannot meet the
effluent quality standards which will be required by new laws (PL 92-500).
Municipalities and industries with facilities unable to meet the standards
will receive "cease and desist" orders from the courts.  Failure to comply
with such orders will result in fines.  Therefore, existing facilities must
be improved to an extent that the effluent standards can be met, or a better
method of treatment must be developed.

     Upgrading facilities can be a difficult problem, especially for munici-
palities with a small tax base.  Costs for wastewater collection and treat-
ment in certain locations have exceeded the assessed value of the real property
in the community served by the system.  This creates a severe burden on the
citizens of a municipality and the logic of imposing such a burden is
questionable.

     Wastewater stabilization pond effluent can often be improved to an ac-
ceptable level via soil mantle treatment by spray irrigation.  Wastewaters in
general have been used for years as irrigation water, but limited study has
been made concerning wastewater stabilization pond effluent for such use (EPA,
1973).  Soil mantle treatment by spray irrigation is an economically attractive
and physically viable alternative to other biological or physical-chemical
treatment methods.

     To evaluate the soil mantle as a means of polishing lagoon effluent, a
two phase study was undertaken.  A series of lysimeters was employed to evalu-
ate the impact of soil treatment on the removal of total and fecal coliform
and fecal streptococcal organisms.  The second phase consisted of a two year
field study to evaluate the efficiency of the sprinkler irrigation soil mantle
wastewater treatment system when used to further treat stabilization pond
effluent.  The aim of this study was to determine the effectiveness and economy
of upgrading wastewater stabilization pond effluent using soil mantle treat-
ment via spray irrigation.

     Specific objectives were as follows:

      1.  To correlate soil characteristics with the efficiency of removal
          and the survival of enteric organisms found in wastewater stabili-
          zation pond effluents using lysimeters.

      2.  To evaluate the effectiveness of four Utah soils, with different
          characteristics, in removing organic and inorganic constituents
          found in wastewater stabilization pond effluents.

                                       1

-------
 3.  To determine changes in the characteristics of the four soils
     after use as a soil mantle wastewater treatment system.

 4.  Operate and maintain a field scale spray irrigation soil mantle
     treatment system using municipal wastewater stabilization pond
     effluent.

 5.  Operate the field treatment system for two successive  irrigation
     seasons to assess trends in treatment efficiency and soil
     characteristics.

 6.  Monitor water quality parameters of the stabilization  pond effluent
     and the effluent from the soil mantle treatment system.

 7.  Monitor soil parameters which may affect water quality.

 8.  Compare the treatment efficiencies of soil vegetated with naturally
     occurring weeds and grasses with soil barren of vegetation.

 9.  Determine the soil mantle treatment system efficiency  in removing
     algal cells and other pollutants from the stabilization pond
     effluent.

10.  Examine the soil mantle treatment process at different depths in
     the soil profile and with different stabilization pond effluent
     application rates.

11.  Estimate the capital, operation, and maintenance costs of a spray
     irrigation system and compare with costs of alternative methods of
     upgrading wastewater stabilization pond effluent.

-------
                                  SECTION 2

                                 CONCLUSIONS
LYSIMETER EXPERIMENTS

 1.  All soils provided good removal of total coliforms, fecal coliforms, and
     fecal streptococci, with the Drainage Farm soil producing the best
     bacterial removal followed by the Draper, Nibley, and Parleys soils in
     order of decreasing removal.

 2.  Bacterial removal by the Drainage Farm soil was enhanced by the dense
     texture which provided removal by the three mechanisms of straining,
     bridging, and straining and sedimentation.

 3.  Decomposition of organics present in the lagoon effluent and initially
     in the soils and the oxidation of ammonia present in the effluent from
     the oxidation ponds produced nitrate concentrations in the lysimeter
     effluents in excess of that present in the lagoon effluents.

 A.  Leaching of nitrate-N from the soils occurred.

 5.  Nibley (silty clay loam) soils showed the highest concentrations of
     nitrate-N in the lysimeter effluents with Drainage Farm (clay)  soil next,
     then Parleys (silty loam) and finally Draper (sandy loam) soils showing
     the lowest concentrations.

 6.  All four soils were effective in removing organic carbon, but clay-like
     soils (Drainage Farm and Nibley) provided better removal than the sandy
     or silt loam soils.

 7.  Suspended and volatile suspended solids removals were approximately
     equivalent for all four soil types studied, and approximately 85 percent
     removal was obtained.

 8.  A combination of adsorption of phosphate and precipitation of compounds
     of phosphorus accounted for the reductions in phosphorus with Drainage
     Farm soil the most effective followed by Parleys, Draper, and Nibley
     soils.

FIELD EXPERIMENTS

 9.  The aluminum pipes, valves, rotating "Rainbird" type sprinkler and
     the centrifugal pump used in the solid-set irrigation system gave good
     service.

-------
 10.  Where  farm machinery must operate on the land, buried solid-set or center-
     pivot  or self-propelled sprinkler systems would be desirable.

 11.  The specific conductance and sodium adsorption ratio (SAR) values observed
     in the drainage water were of such magnitude that reuse of the soil mantle
     treated water would be hazardous to soils, especially those containing
     clay,  and to the growth of most plants especially under conditions of re-
     stricted drainage.

 12.  The specific conductance and SAR properties of the stabilization pond
     effluent indicated that the effluent was suitable for use as irrigation
     water  under most conditions.

 13.  Phosphorus removal was high using the soil mantle treatment system,  and
     removals exceeding 80 percent were obtained at a depth of 91.4 cm (3 ft.)
     in the soil profile.  The removal observed at shallower depths in the
     soil was higher and averaged 95 percent removal at the 10.2 cm (4 in.)
     depth.

 14.  Adsorption appeared to be the major phosphorus removal mechanism with
     uptake of phosphorus by the vegetation apparently negligible.

 15.  The rate of application of irrigation water made no significant difference
     in the phosphorus removal.

 16.  After  two years of applying lagoon effluent, no observable change in the
     cation exchange capacity of the soil occurred, indicating that phosphorus
     removal should remain high in subsequent years of use.

 17.  The nitrate-N observed in the treated water samples taken during this
     study originated from nitrate-N present in the soil before the start of
     irrigation.

 18.  Evidence of nitrate-N leaching was seen and continued high rate irri-
     gation should lower the nitrate-N levels in the soils.

 19.  The nitrate-N concentrations in the water samples were  determined by the
     characteristics of the soil rather than those of the irrigation water.

20.  The application rate of irrigation water was shown to have an  insignifi-
     cant effect on the concentration of nitrate-N in the water samples from
     vegetated sites.

21.  On the bare sites where nitrate-N concentrations in the soil were
     initially higher  than the vegetated sites,  generally lower nitrate-N
     concentrations were observed in the water samples as the application
     rate increased.

22.  Concentrations of nitrate-N observed in the water samples  ranged on  the
     average from less than 20 yg/1 to over 30 mg/1.   Observed concentrations
     were primarily dependent upon the initial concentration of nitrate-N
     present in the soil for a given sample site.

-------
23.  Ammonia stripping was found to be an important ammonia  removal mechanise
     when sprinkler irrigation was used and pH values  of  the irrigation water
     were high.  Thirty-five percent removal of ammonia-N was  obtained from
     the stripping process in this study.

24.  Total system ammonia-N removal exceeding 90 percent  was observed through
     the top 61.0 cm (2 ft.)  of the soil profile.   Overall removal dropped
     considerably to 67 percent at the 91.4 cm (3 ft.)  depth.

25.  The concentration of ammonia in the water samples  was not significantly
     affected at the 95 percent confidence level by the concentration of
     ammonia in the irrigation water, the vegetation or lack thereof, or  the
     rate of application of irrigation water.

26.  The total organic carbon concentrations observed  in  the water samples
     generally increased over those of the irrigation water,

27.  The properties of the soil system determined the  TOG concentrations  in
     the water samples rather than other factors such  as  the TOG of the irri-
     gation water, the vegetation, or the application  rate of irrigation  water.

28.  The soil mantle treated water appeared to be of lower quality than the
     applied irrigation water on the basis of organic  content.  This increase
     in organics is attributable to leaching of organics  from the soil by the
     lagoon effluent.

29.  The mean concentration of suspended solids in the  drainage water from
     the 1.2 m (4 ft.) deep mole drain contained an average  of 2 mg/1 SS  and
     1 mg/1 VSS while the mean values in the stabilization pond effluent  were
     13 mg/1 SS and 10 mg/1 VSS for the second irrigation season.  Similar
     results were observed during the first irrigation  season.

30.  The vegetation yield was not significantly different at the 95 percent
     confidence level between sites receiving different application rates of
     stabilization pond effluent, between sites receiving irrigation waters
     of differing nutrient content, or between sites receiving no irrigation,
     and sites receiving irrigation.

31.  The pH value, percent C, percent N, Ca, K, Na, and P concentrations  in
     the soil samples were not observed to change over  the two irrigation
     seasons.

32.  The N03-N concentrations in the soil samples declined over the two season
     period in 19 of the 24 sample sites observed, indicating nitrate leaching.

33.  In most cases the specific conductances (ECe) of  the soil sample extracts
     were unchanged over the two seasons except where  initially higher values
     were found.  In these cases a decline in specific  conductance was seen,
     suggesting salt leaching.

34.  The propagation of mosquitoes was a problem with  the soil mantle treat-
     ment system.

-------
35.  Ponding of irrigation water on the soil surface due to excessively high
     irrigation rates must be avoided.

36.  Only the 5.1 cm (2 in.)  per week rate applied to vegetated soil did not
     pond and produce a mosquito problem.

37.  Because most of the chemical parameters examined were unaffected by the
     irrigation application rate, the control of mosquito breeding may be the
     limiting factor in deciding the acceptable application rate.

38.  Effluents from the soil wastewater treatment system consistently contained
     suspended solids concentrations less  than 3 mg/1 which easily meets dis-
     charge standards of 30 mg/1 or less.

39.  Organic carbon concentrations in the  effluent from the soil wastewater
     treatment system were frequently higher than those measured in  the lagoon
     effluent applied to the soil.  This indicates leaching of organics by the
     lagoon effluents, and once equilibrium is established, the effluents from
     the soil system should easily meet the effluent standard  of a BOD5 con-
     centration of 30 mg/1 or less.

-------
                                  SECTION  3

                               RECOMMENDATIONS
1,   Long term effects of the application of wastewaters to soil-plant
     systems should be evaluated.

2.   An evaluation of full-scale soil-plant wastewater  treatment systems
     should be undertaken.

3.   Operational procedures for soil-plant wastewater treatment systems
     should be developed.

4.   Current design criteria and design procedures  should be  evaluated and
     design methods and procedures developed to reflect geographic  conditions
     and wastewater characteristics.

-------
                                  SECTION  4

                              LITERATURE REVIEW
     A review of the history of sewage treatment indicates that wastewater
irrigation was originally developed in the early nineteenth century as a
system of both treatment and disposal (Rafter, 1897; Rudolfs, 1933; Mitchell,
1931).  In recent years, other forms of waste treatment have replaced most
irrigation wastewater treatment systems.  Increasing energy costs and the
need for less complicated treatment systems has resulted in re-examining the
treatment possibilities of certain industrial, agricultural, and domestic
wastewaters through the application of irrigation techniques (Riney, 1928;
Mitchell, 1930; Goudey, 1931; McQueen, 1934; DeTurk, 1935).

     Land application of wastewater treatment plant effluents in the United
States dates back to the 1870's (EPA, 1973).  The cities of Tucson and
Phoenix, Arizona; Lubbock, Texas; Denver, Colorado; Pomona, Whittier and
Riverside, California have used wastewater for irrigation (Wilcox, 1948).
Merz (1956) reported Bakersfield, Fresno, Wasco, and Tulare, California;
Abilene, Kingsville, and San Antonio, Texas as having obtained favorable
results with land application.  As of 1966, California had a total of 199
sewage treatment plants that applied effluent to the land, Texas had 40,
Arizona 20, and New Mexico 21 (Eastman, 1967).

     Recently, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has designated land
application of wastewater as a viable alternative to traditional treatment
discharge systems (Ward, 1975).  When any project is to be considered for
federal funding under best practicable designation, land treatment must be
evaluated as one of the alternatives before funds may be granted.   In as-
signing Best Practicable Technology (BPT) status to land treatment, the EPA
has expressed the need to protect the environment.   According to the EPA's
BPT document (EPA, 1974),

     land application practices should not further degrade the air,
     land, or navigable waters; should not interfere with the attain-
     ment or maintenance of public water supplies,  agricultural and
     industrial water uses, propagation of a balanced population of
     aquatic and land flora and fauna, and recreational activities
     in the area.

     If primary drinking water standards are met by land treatment methods,
most of the above objectives should be achieved.   Due to the.mobility of
nitrate-N in soil systems, the drinking water standard of 10 mg/1 of nitrate-N
(EPA, 1975)  may be the most difficult to meet with land treatment leachates.
                                      8

-------
     In most cases the practice of irrigation with wastewater has resulted in
improvement of water quality.  At the Pennsylvania State University wastewater
renovation project, effluents from trickling filters and activated sludge
systems were applied to cropland and fruitland using spray irrigation (Myers,
1975).  Removal of 93 percent for nitrogen and 35 percent for phosphorus were
obtained when effluent was applied to a reed canary grass crop.   On a hardwood
forestland, 90 percent phosphorus removal was obtained.   The forest biosystem
was not consistent in lowering nitrogen concentrations.

     Near Melbourne, Australia, raw sewage has been applied to the land  for
over 70 years.  A flooding technique is used to irrigate pastures.  Drainage
effluents reportedly contain less nitrogen and phosphorus than generally found
in secondary biological treatment plant effluent.  Organic nitrogen and  am-
monia nitrogen removal were 93 percent and 91 percent,  respectively.  Total
phosphorus removal was 91 percent.  Perennial rye grass dominates most of the
irrigated land (Seabrook, 1975).

     The Muskegon County wastewater system is a spray irrigation land treat-
ment scheme with approximately 6,000 acres of land under irrigation.  Corn is
grown for cattle feed as a part of the treatment system.  Supplemental
fertilizer is added to the irrigation water before application to the field.
Treatment of the wastewater before irrigation is achieved with aerated lagoons.
Storage ponds are used to hold wastewater when irrigation is not practiced.
Reported phosphate removal was as high as 99 percent for the overall treat-
ment process during 1974.  The nitrogen content of the leachate sometimes
exceeded that of the irrigation water during the same period (Demirjian, 1975).

     The City of Tallahassee, Florida, applies trickling filter effluent to
the land by spray irrigation.  Scrub oak and other natural vegetation cover
the irrigation site.  Laboratory analyses indicated that the concentration of
orthophosphate decreased from 25 mg/1 at the surface to 0.04 mg/1 at the
depth of 3 m (10 feet) (Overman, 1975).

     In west central Florida the General Electric Company operates a waste-
water spray irrigation site consisting of combined industrial and sanitary
waste.  A subsurface drainage system collects percolating water and directs
it to a sump where the water is then pumped to an onsite lake.  The resulting
effluent from the overall system exceeds the Florida State water quality
standards (Applegate, 1975).

     Although good results have been obtained, irrigation with wastewater is
not a panacea for the economical treatment and disposal of wastes.  Sanitary,
aesthetic, economic, ecological, and other practical and technical consi-
derations must be carefully balanced for a sound wastewater irrigation sys-
tem (Gearheart and Middlebrooks, 1974).

     The effect of sewage effluent on the yield of agronomic crops in most
cases has been found to be beneficial (Hill et al.» 1964; Herzik, 1956;  Merz,
1965; Wilcox, 1949).  Henry et al. (1954) obtained a significant increase in
the yield of reed canary grass.  Heukelekian (1957) obtained excellent crop
yields in Israel.  Wachs et al. (1970) observed yield increases with Satarea
and Avena plants.  Stokes et al. (1930) obtained yield increases in Florida

-------
amounting to 240 percent for both Napier grass and Japanese cane, when compared
with the non-irrigated crops, or the same crops irrigated with well water.
Day and Tucker (1960a,b) and Day et al. (1962) in Arizona, obtained beneficial
yield effects on small grains which were harvested as pasture forage, as hay,
or as grain.

     More than 100 kinds of viruses are known to be excreted by man and ap-
proximately 70 of these have been found in sewage (Clarke and Chang, 1959;
Clarke et al., 1962).  Viruses that appear to be transmitted through waste-
water are the entero-viruses, poliomyelitis (Paul and Trask, 1942a,b; Little,
1954; Kelley et al., 1957; Bancroft et al., 1957), coxsachie (Clark et al.,
1971), and infectious hepatitis (Hayward, 1946; Dennis, 1959; Yogt, 1961).
There are a limited number of studies on the movement of viruses through
granular media (Merell et al., 1963).  These studies showed that rapid sand
filtration preceded by coagulation and sedimentation only partially remove
virus.  The removal of virus from percolating water is largely due to ad-
sorption on the soil particles.  Soils having a higher clay content adsorb
viruses more readily than those with less clay (Eliassen et al., 1967; Drewry
and Eliassen, 1968).  Virus adsorption by soils generally increases with
increased ion-exchange capacity, silt content, and glycerol-retention capacity
(Drewry and Eliassen, 1968).  The pH of the water soil system affects virus
adsorption.  At pH values of 7.0 to 7.5 and below, virus adsorption is more
effective than at higher pH values (Drewry and Eliassen, 1968).   Changes in
water quality can cause viruses attached to soil particles to de-adsorb re-
sulting in subsurface travel (Gerba et al., 1975).

     It is feared that land disposal of domestic wastes may contaminate
groundwater if viruses travel deeply into the soil.   Between 1946 and 1961,
61 percent of all waterborne disease outbreaks in this country were caused
by contaminated groundwater (Gerba et al., 1975).

     Studies of bacteria removal by land treatment have shown that soil is an
effective medium for treating sewage.  Removal of bacteria from sewage ef-
fluents during percolation through the soil is accomplished largely at the
soil surface by straining, sedimentation, and adsorption (Gerba et al., 1975).
Using radioactive phosphorus to label coliform bacteria, tests at the Tulza
collective farm in Rumania showed that 92 to 97 percent were retained in the
uppermost 1 .cm of the soil, with 3 to 5 percent retained in the 1 to 5 cm
layer (Malculeseu and Drucan, 1967).

     Reports from 69 communities in California using wastewater for irrigation
indicate no groundwater pollution or disease transmission (Sepp, 1975).

     Krone (1968) stated that, "The utilization of wastewaters ... has been
demonstrated to be feasible and reasonable safeguards are easily achieved."
Krone suggests at least primary treatment with secondary treatment and
chlorination recommended (Krone, 1968).  *'From a communicable disease view-
point, land disposal is far less hazardous than disposal into rivers and
streams,*' (Bernarde, 1973).

     Considerable concern .has been voiced over the danger of aerosols which
are generated when sewage effluents are applied to the land by sprinkler


                                      10

-------
irrigation.  Aerosol droplets may contain active pathogenic viruses or bacteria
which might then be inhaled by workers on the irrigation site or nearby
residents.

     Bacteria and virus contamination of aerosols have been shown to exist
near spray irrigation sites.  In Israel, a study showed the presence of coli-
form bacteria as far as 350 meters downwind from a municipal spray irrigation
site.  In one case, a Salmonella bacterium was isolated 60 meters from the
source.  Initial concentrations of coliform bacteria ranged from 10^ to 10°/ml
(Katzenelson and Teltch, 1976).

     In another study, bacterial aerosols were observed significantly above
background levels 190 meters downwind from a spray irrigation site (Sorber and
Bausum, 1976).  The aerosols emitted from a spray irrigation system using
chlorinated effluent contained biological aerosols of the same order of
magnitude as nonchlorinated wastewater applied to trickling filters (Sorber
and Guter, 1975).  Chlorination may not ensure safety in practicing sprinkler
irrigation of wastewaters.  Under the conditions that can exist some viruses
may not be inactivated by chlorination of effluents prior to irrigation (Sorber
and Guter, 1975; Sorber and Bausum, 1976; Bernarde, 1973).  A buffer zone
around a spray irrigation site is advisable to prevent public contact with
aerosols.  Pennsylvania requires a 61 m (200 feet) buffer zone (Morris and
Jewel, 1976).

     While some studies have shown that potentially infective aerosols exist
near spray irrigation sites, there is a lack of epidemiological study on the
effects upon exposed groups such as workers and neighbors.  Quantitative data
have been unavailable and inferences from qualitative data have not con-
clusively confirmed nor negated the existence of a health risk from viable
wastewater aerosols (Hadeed, 1976).

     Twenty-six states have regulations or guidelines pertaining to land
application.  Twenty-one of the twenty-six require secondary treatment prior
to land application.  Typical guidelines and regulations cover items such as
system design, pre-application water quality, loading rate, buffer zone,
monitoring, cover crops, storage, public access, and effluent quality (Morris
and Jewel, 1976).

     The soil system is composed of gas, water, microorganisms, minerals, and
organic matter which form the solid matrix.  Experience has indicated that it
is a dynamic system undergoing physical, chemical, and biochemical inter-
actions.  Wastewater applied to the soil mixes with the existing soil water
and may alter the nature and rate of change of the physical, chemical, and
biochemical processes in the soil system (Gearheart and Middlebrooks, 1974).

     Physical clogging of the soil pores and the resulting loss in the infil-
tration rate have caused many wastewater soil treatment systems to fail
(Avnimelech and Nevo, 1964; Jones and Taylor, 1965; Mitchell and Nevo, 1964;
Winneberger et al., 1960; Thomas et al., 1966; Amramy, 1961).  In the particu-
lar case of municipal secondary effluents, the suspended solids concentration
is typically low enough to avoid clogging  (Morgan, 1975).
                                      11

-------
     Pretreatment of wastewater should precede application to the land.  Pre-
treatment should accomplish:

     (a)  protection of the health and hygiene of the public

     (b)  reduce the risk of noxious odors

     (c)  reduce the risk of clogging the soil system

Conventional secondary treatment is probably the best form of pretreatment to
achieve these goals (Hartigan, 1974).

     The potential hazard of high sodium accumulation to the physical proper-
ties of certain soils is of paramount concern.  This hazard has been exten-
sively studied, and saline and alkali soils can be improved by the proper
management of irrigation practices (USDA, 1954).

     It is well known that the addition of organic matter improves the aggre-
gate stability of soils.  Wastewaters high in organics have been used for this
purpose (Merz, 1959).  Baver (1969) showed that organic matter was conducive
to the formulation of relatively large stable aggregates and that the effect
of organics was more pronounced in soils containing small amounts of clay.
The addition of small amounts of organic matter appeared to promote large
stable aggregates of clay, silt, and sand.

     The organic content of wastewater stabilization pond effluent, both dis-
solved and particulate (algae), may therefore have a beneficial effect on soil
permeability.  Martin and Waksraan (1940) observed that the growth of micro-
organisms in soil led to the binding of soil particles, and the more readily
organic material decomposed, the greater the effect on aggregation.  Plant
roots appeared to be very effective in promoting aggregation in soils.  The
unusual aggregation of soils around the roots of plants was probably the con-
sequence of mechanical disturbance by roots and by wetting and drying action
together with cementation by organic compounds (Jenny and Grossenbecker, 1963).
The efficiency of spray irrigation of vegetated areas for wastewater treatment
was due in part to enhancement of permeable structures by plant roots.

     Filtration is important for removing suspended particles from wastewater
effluents penetrating the soil and for retaining microorganisms that facilitate
biological decomposition of dissolved and particulate matter.  Even though the
removal of suspended particles from water flowing through soils is easily
observed, the processes involved are difficult to describe.  Listed below are
three of the simplest mechanisms which might describe a complex situation.

Case I   - Straining at the soil surface.  Under these conditions the
           suspended particles accumulate on the soil surface and become
           a part of the filter.

Case II  - Bridging.  Under these conditions suspended particles pene-
           trate the soil surface until they reach a pore opening that
           stops their passage.
                                      12

-------
Case III • Straining and Sedimentation.  This includes all of the con-
           ditions for Case I and Case II except that the suspended
           particles are finer than half of the smallest pore openings.

     Irrigation with wastewater has a marked influence on the chemical equi-
libria of the soil.  Organic matter and clay added via suspended solids can
increase the cation exchange capacity of the soil (Ramati and Mor, 1966).
Many of the dissolved chemicals in wastewater influence the suitability of
the soil for crop production.  Nitrogen and phosphorus compounds have a
beneficial fertilizer value when retained in the soil.  Data from Kardos
et al. (1974) indicated that removal of nitrogen from wastewater used for
irrigation was dependent upon the amount applied (i.e., the more wastewater
applied the more nitrogen removed).  However, the efficiency of removal de-
creased when the application rate increased.  Kardos et al. (1974) also indi-
cated that as nitrogen removal efficiency dropped due to high wastewater
application rates, nitrate concentrations in the percolate increased.  The
amount of increase was dependent upon the type of crop grown.  Pollution of
groundwater by nitrates can be a serious problem (PHS, 1961; Stewart et al.,
1967).

     Phosphorus removal by crops, precipitation, and adsorption by soil col-
loids has been reported (Morgan, 1975; Enfield and Bledsoe, 1975).  In most
cases the soil has a large capacity for phosphorus removal, and little move-
ment of phosphorus through the soil may be expected.  The mechanisms of phos-
phorus removal were dependent on the soil texture, cation exchange capacity,
soil pH, presence of calcium, amount of iron and aluminum oxides present, and
crop uptake of phosphorus.  Phosphorus forms precipitated with iron and
aluminum at pH values below 6.  In neutral or basic soils, precipitation
primarily occurred with calcium (CRREL, 1972).  If the phosphorus removal
capacity of the soil was exceeded, the release of phosphorus to surface waters
could be a problem (Taylor, 1967).

     Increased concentrations of trace elements have been found in wastewater
irrigated soils (Seabrook, 1975).  Boron content has caused concern in areas
where boron-sensitive crops were irrigated with wastewater (WPCB, 1955).
Toxic concentrations of copper and zinc have apparently accumulated in the
soil at sewage farms (Rohde, 1962).

     The application of soil mantle treatment to upgrading stabilization pond
effluent is limited by soil and groundwater characteristics and by the avail-
ability of land.  However, most stabilization ponds are generally constructed
near small cities and towns where land is available.  Advantages of lower land
prices and flow scale economies often make soil mantle treatment a cost-
effective treatment method for these areas (Young and Carson, 1974),  Several
possible monetary benefits of soil mantle treatment were listed by Found et al.
(1975):

     1.   Sale of crops grown

     2.   Sale of treated water

     3.   Lease of purchased lands to farmers for the purpose of soil
          mantle treatment
     4.   Lease of land for secondary purposes such as recreation

                                      13

-------
     When properly managed, soil mantle treatment is a practical method of
upgrading stabilization pond effluent.  Guidelines, design criteria,  and
economic analyses have been developed and distributed by the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency (1975b,c,d,e).
                                    U

-------
                                  SECTION 5

                           METHODS AND PROCEDURES
LYSIMETER EXPERIMENTS

Soil Types

     The four Utah Great Basin soil types chosen were Nibley, Parleys, Draper,
and soil typical to the Utah State University Drainage Farm.   These soils
were chosen on the basis of major acreage, potential irrigated value and
range in physical and chemical characteristics (Table 1).

Lysimeter Design

     Eight lysimeters were constructed, 53cmx53cmx53 cm, with drains
installed at the 7.6 cm and 38.1 cm depths providing the two sample points.
The bottoms of the lysimeters have two way slopes which allow for complete
and final drainage (Figures 1 and 2).  The lysimeters were filled to 1.3 cm
from the top, giving the drains mean depths of 7.6 cm and 38.1 cm with a 5
percent slope.  The units were constructed of 15.9 mm (5/8") exterior ply-
wood, all corners reinforced with fiber stripping and the entire unit coated

 TABLE 1.  DESCRIPTION, LOCATION AND USE OF THE FOUR UTAH GREAT BASIN SOILS
  	STUDIED
   Soil  Type          Texture          Sample  Site                 Uge
                                       Location

   Nibley            Silty Clay       1.4 km  S.              Irrigated  crops
                    Loam            1   km  E. of USU       and natural
                                    Animal  Husbandry       pasture
                                    Farm

   Parleys           Silty Loam       2.4 km  E. of           Irrigated  grain
                                    Hyde Park on           crops and
                                    alluvial  fan           natural pasture

   Draper            Sandy Loam       2.4 km  E. Perry        Irrigated  fruit
                                    on alluvial fan        crops and
                                                          natural pasture

   usu               Clay            4  km W. and            Irrigated  grain
   Reclamation                       1.6 km  N.              crops and  natural
   Farm                              Logan                  pasture


                                      15

-------
                     53
                                     CJ
                                   (0
                                     CJ
                                     N;
                                     CJ
UBBER
rUBING
     SAMPLE  BOTTLE
IO
                                            a
                                                     -•n"
                                                               "IT
                                                                         0)
                                                                             q
                                                                             IO
                                                                             in
                                                                          to
                                                                       cq
                                                                       tri
         Figure  1.   Design of lysimeter (all dimensions are centimeters).
                                      16

-------
Figure 2.  Lysimeter,
           „

-------
with marine glass resin.  The drains were 7.6 cm (3") polyvinyl-chloride (PVC)
with the top half removed beginning 7.6 cm from each wall (Figure 1) to avoid
collecting unfiltered samples due to possible sidewall channeling or short
circuiting.  Stainless steel wire with a 1.6 mm (16/inch) mesh was placed over
the openings in the PVC and over the bottom drain outlet to prevent clogging.
Next, a 3.8 to 5 cm layer of washed pea gravel was placed on the bottom.

     Each soil type was placed in two lysimeters, and one of the lysimeters
was saturated from the bottom up to the 7.6 cm drain and sampled at the 7.6
cm level.  The second lysimeter was saturated up to the 38.1 cm level and
sampled at that point, giving two data points for each soil type.

Soil Preparation

     Soil samples were collected and transferred to the lysimeters as near as
possible to the original soil profiles.  The lysimeters were loaded in 10 cm
lifts, each lift being rodded to attain a maximum and uniform compaction in
all of the lysimeters.

     A typical sample of each soil was submitted to the USU Soil, Plant and
Water Analysis Laboratory for testing before and after application of waste-
water stabilization pond effluent to measure the following properties:  pH,
electric conductivity, phosphorus, potassium, texture, lime, organic matter,
exchangeable sodium, total sodium, water soluble sodium, cation exchange
capacity, and percent saturation.

     Prior to the application of lagoon effluent, fresh water was applied to
the soils for at least one month, three to four times weekly to aid settling
and leach suspended solids from the filters.  Five centimeters of lagoon
effluent were then applied to the soils three times a week and the specific
conductance of the lagoon effluent applied and effluent from the filters was
determined to approximate the time the filters were approaching steady-state
operation.  At the time an apparent steady-state condition was reached all of
the chemical analyses were conducted on the influent and effluent from the
lysimeters.  Bacteriological analyses were begun when the chemical analyses
were consistent.

SAMPLING

Sampling Schedule

     Weekly determination of specific conductance started on September 5,
1974, and the chemical analyses began on September 25, and were conducted
weekly until November 25, 1974.  On October 29, the bacteriological analyses
began.  The bacteriological tests were conducted daily on the lagoon effluent
applied and the effluents recovered from the lysimeters until November 29.

Sampling Procedure

     Lagoon effluent was collected each day from the second cell of the Logan,
Utah, wastewater stabilization pond system (Figure 3) in plastic, 19 1 (5
gallons) containers.  Two and one-half cm of the treated wastewater were


                                      18

-------
N

41.5
ACRES

1
1


29.8
ACRES
1

66.6
ACRES

A ^~
«-
73.8
ACRES


1


55.1
ACRES
+ *~
0
97.7 3
ACRES c
m
X
^
o
-n
97.9 J
ACRES $




^ INFLUENT





FINAL   +
EFFLUENT
                       SAMPLING  POINT
                                                     I  ACRE = 0.40 ha
        Figure 3.  Schematic  drawing of Logan waste stabilization lagoons.

-------
applied to the soils.  Samples from the appropriate effluent port on each
lysimeter were collected in sterile 500 ml erlenmeyer flasks for the bacterio-
logical analysis (Figure 1).  On days when samples were to be taken for the
chemical analyses as well, the bacteriological samples were collected first
and then 2.5 liters were collected in 4-liter plastic containers to be used
for the chemical analysis.  The bacteriological and chemical analyses were
conducted within six hours of the time the lagoon effluent was first applied
to the lysimeters.  The atmospheric temperature was always below 7°C; there-
fore, no further steps were taken to preserve the samples before analysis.

ANALYSES

Bacteriological Analyses

     The bacteriological analyses were conducted according to Standard Methods
(APHA, 1971).

Chemical Analyses

     The lagoon effluent and lysimeter effluent samples were analyzed for:
total carbon, total inorganic carbon, total organic carbon, suspended solids,
volatile suspended solids, total unfiltered and filtered phosphate, ortho-
phosphate, ammonia-N, nitrite-N, nitrate-N, pH, specific conductance, total
algae cell counts, chlorophyll "a" and pheophytin "a."  Methods described
in Standards Methods were employed (APHA, 1971).

Final Soil Analyses

     Upon completion of the testing period, the soils were allowed to freeze
so that undisturbed core samples could be collected with a King tube.  The
soil core samples were separated by depth below the surface, and sub-samples
were taken at the surface, 2.5 cm, 5 cm, 7.5 cm, 12.5 cm, 20 cm, and 32.5 cm
levels, respectively.  The sub-samples were analyzed for chlorophyll «'a'*
and the presence of total and fecal coliforms by the three tube multi-dilution
MPN technique described in Standard Methods (APHA, 1971).

     The King tube is a stainless steel pipe 183 cm long with an inside dia-
meter of 2.54 cm.  On one end is a sharpened head (bottom left of Figure 4)
with an inside diameter slightly smaller than that of the remaining tube.  The
other end has a steel jacket reinforcing the end (Figure 4).  A hammer is used
(bottom of Figure 4) to drive the tube into a compacted soil to remove an
undisturbed soil sample.  The core is then removed from the upper end.
Samples used to determine remaining coliform populations at different depths
in the soil were collected with a King tube and hammer scrubber and sterilized
with methanol and flamed before each core sample was taken.  The cores were
then placed in sterile long plastic bags so as not to disturb the soil cores.

     For the coliform determination the solid cores were aseptically separated
at the desired depths below the surface.  Approximately 4 grams of soil were
placed in a tared dilution bottle.  Approximately the same amount from the
same depth was weighed, air dried and weighed again to determine the percent
moisture.   The soil suspension was then diluted to conduct the three tube

                                     20

-------
Figure 4.  King tube and driver,
                21

-------
multi-dilution coliform MPN and fecal coliform MPN test.  The results of the
MPN determinations for coliforms or fecal coliforms in the soil are reported
as MPN per dry weight of soil.

     Soil samples were also taken from the lysimeters at the surface and 32.5
cm depth and analyzed by the USU Soil Plant and Water Analysis Laboratory.
These results were compared with the soil properties before the application
of lagoon effluents.

Lagoon Effluent Characterization

     The effluent used for this study was taken from the second cell of the
Logan, Utah, waste stabilization pond system.  The lysimeter study was con-
ducted from October through December.  Mean values for the various chemical
and bacteriological characteristics of the lagoon effluent is shown in Table
2.  The loading rates for the various constituents applied to the lysimeters
are given in Table 3.

FIELD EXPERIMENTS

Field Facility and Design

     The experimental facility consisted of eight 15.2 x 15.2 meters (50 x 50
feet)  test sites located adjacent to each other on the Utah State University
Drainage Farm (Figures 5 and 6).

                 TABLE 2.  LAGOON EFFLUENT CHARACTERIZATION
                    Mean Values for the Lysimeter Study

  Total algal cell counts No./ml                                23,800
  Total coliforms No./100 ml                                       160
  Fecal coliform No./lOO ml                                         64
  Fecal Streptococci No./lOO ml                                    100
  Temp. °C                                                           8
  D.O. mg/1                                                         19
  Nitrate N03-N mg/1                                                 0.2
  Nitrite N02-N mg/1                                                 0.1
  Ammonia NH3-N mg/1                                                 4.1
  B.O.D. mg/1                                                       30
  Specific conductance umhos/cm                                    640
  Suspended.solids rag/1                                             28
  Volatile suspended solids mg/1                                    17
  Total phosphate, PO^P, mg/1                                       2.8
  Orthophosphate, PO.-P, mg/1                                       ..2.1
  pH                                                                 8.1
  Total organic carbon mg/1                                         15
  Total inorganic carbon mg/1                                       58
  Total carbon mg/1                                                 75
                                    22

-------
                               TABLE 3.   MEAN LOADING RATES USED IN LYSIMETER STUDY
NJ
U>
Parameter
BOD
Nitrate
Nitrite
Ammonia
Suspended Solids
Volatile Suspended Solids
Total Phosphate
Orthophosphate
Total Organic Carbon
Total Inorganic Carbon
Total Carbon
Mean Cone . , , ,
mg/i ks/day
30 2.17 x 10~g
0.15 1.09 x 10~y
0.04 2.68 x 10"
4.1 3.04 x 10 ^
28.9 2.09 x 10 4
17.0 1.23 x 10~
2.81 2.03 x 10 5
2.09 1.51 x 10 ^
15.6 1.13 x 10~4
58.0 4.20 x 10~
75.0 5.40 x 10
kg/hectare/day
7.56
3.82 x 10"
9.35 x 10
1.05
7.30
4.30
7.10 x 10 l
5.28 x 10 l
3.94
1.46 x 10~2
1.91 x 102
Ibs/day
4.78 x 10~H
2.41 x 10~6
5.9 x 10
6.7 x 10
4.6 x 10
2.71 x 10 4
4.48 x 10 5
3.33 x 10 ^
2.49 x 10
9.25 x 10
1.19 x 10 3
Ibs/acre/day
6.78
3.41 x 10~2
8.35 x 10
9.35 x 10"1
6.54
3.84
6.35 x 10""1
4.72 x 101
3.52
1.31 x 102
1.71 x 102
Microbial Characteristics
Parameter
Total Coliform
Fecal Coliform
Fecal Streptococci
Total Algal Cells
Avg . Cone .
No./lOO ml
160.0
64.0
100.0
23,800.0
Organisms/Hectare/Day Organisms /Acre/ Day
3.95 x 105
1.63 x 106
2.72 x 106
5.93 x 108




1.6 x 106
6.6 x 105
1.1 x 105
2.4 x 108
          Loading rates based on  2.54  cm per  day application.

-------
T-
 50'
       h-
BARE
SOIL
A
   4" DRAIN
   48" DEEP
 NATURAL
—GRASS
                                  PUMPV
                     VEGETATION
                    -IOO1-
               6

• —
:

;
i • 	


                                VALVE
                         8
                                             HOLDING
                                              POND
                                                ©WELL
                                          CONTROL
                                             4"/wk
                                            2"/wk
                                           4"/wk
                                6"/wk
                            CONVERSION TABLE
                            I FT. = 0.3 M:
                            I IN. = H.5 CM.

                          SCALE-NO SCALE
                 Figure 5.   Test sites.
                           24

-------
Figure 6.  Drainage Farm test sites.
                 25

-------
     Thirty-four test holes were cored on the Drainage Farm for soil charac-
terization purposes.  The topsoil on the test sites was thin and composed of
silty clay loam.  Beneath the top soil was a gleyed or mottled clay.  Water
movement through the clay was limited.  The clay presented a barrier to water
movement whether the water was moving down from the surface or up from an
artesian aquifer below.

     The Drainage Farm is essentially level.  An open drainage channel about
5 feet deep is located on the farm near the test sites.  The open drain serves
to remove surface water and some irrigation return flow.

     Four of the eight test sites were covered with naturally occurring weeds
and grasses and the other four sites were barren of vegetation.  Effluent
from the second cell of the Logan, Utah, was tewater stabilization pond system
was used in the experiments.  The effluent was pumped approximately two and
one-half miles through a PVC pipeline to a holding pond near the test sites.
From the holding pond the effluent was applied to the test sites with a solid
set sprinkler irrigation piping network.  Irrigation application rates of 5.1
cm (2 in.), 10.2 cm (4 in.), and 15.2 cm (6 in.) per week were used.  One
vegetated and barren site was irrigated at each of the respective irrigation
rates for two seasons.  In addition, one vegetated and one barren site received
10.2 cm (4 in.) per week of well water and served as experimental controls
during the second season.

     A mole drain 10.2 cm (4 in.) in diameter located 1.2 m (4 ft.) below the
surface collected return flow from the sites.  As shown in Figure 5 there was
a 15.2 meter (50 foot) buffer zone between each pair of vegetated and bare
sites to prevent interference from adjacent irrigation activities.

Equipment Design

     The wastewater stabilization pond effluent was applied with a solid set
sprinkler irrigation system.  The components of the system were all aluminum
piping with self-sealing and draining joints.  The trunkline was 7.6 cm (3 in.)
in diameter and laterals were 5.1 cm (2 in.) in diameter.  The sprinklers were
spaced 9.1 m (30 ft.) apart and were mounted on galvanized iron risers 76.2
cm (30 in.) above the soil surface.  The sprinklers were of the "Rainbird''
type having a 0.32 cm (1/8 in.) orifice and a full circle spray pattern.
Wastewater was supplied to the sprinklers with a three horsepower centrifugal
pump.

     As shown in Figure 5 each pair of test sites was served by a block of two
laterals.  The system was designed to allow the simultaneous operation of two
blocks.  Operation of the control sites was independent of the operation of
the sites receiving effluent.  This allowed the control sites and the sites
receiving effluent to be operated at the same time.  Control of the irrigation
system was managed with manually activated switches for pumps and manually
operated valves in the pipeline.  The locations of valves are shown in Figure
5.

     The sprinklers were located so that generous overlapping of the spray
patterns occurred (Figure 7).  This ensured a high degree o'f uniformity in


                                      26

-------
NJ
    50'
                        -BE.
2" PIPE WITH SPRINKLER
3" FEEDER PIPE WITH VALVE
SITE BOUNDARY
                                                                                   I FT. = 0.3 M.
                                                                                   UN. =2.5 CM.
                            SPRAY PATTERN
                                          Figure 7.  Spray pattern.

-------
applying the effluent and control water.  Much of the spray was applied out-
side the site boundaries to ensure application of water to each site under
varying wind conditions.

     Field measured flow rates indicated that the sprinkler system was capable
of delivering 204 liters per minute (54 gallons per minute).  This flow rate
is equivalent to an application rate of 0.50 cm (0.197 in.) per hour.  Rain
gages installed at the soil surface showed that only 0.40 cm (0.159 in.) per
hour or 80.7 percent actually reached the ground.  The difference was assumed
to be caused by evaporation and wind drift.

     Effluent and control waters were applied to the sites on four succesive
days each week.  On the remaining three days the sites were allowed to rest.
At the 0.50 cm (0.197 in.) per hour application rate, 7 hours and 37 minutes
were required on each application day to apply water to the sites receiving
15.2 cm (6 in.) per week.  For the sites receiving applications of 10.2 cm
(4 in.) and 5.1 cm (2 in.) per week, 5 hours and 5 minutes and 2 hours and 33
minutes were required, respecpectively.  Four hours and 33 minutes per day
were required to apply well water at a rate of 10.2 cm (4 in.)  per week to the
control sites.

Sampling

     On each of the test sites, soil moisture sampling devices were installed
at depths of 10.2 cm (4 in.), 30.5 cm (1 ft.), 61 cm (2 ft.), and 91.4 cm (3
ft.).  Figure 8 shows two sampling devices as they appear when installed in
the soil.  These samplers were used in collecting soil moisture samples to
determine variations in water quality with depth.  The sampling devices con-
sisted of a length of PVC tubing with a porous ceramic cup attached to the

                         Figure 8.  Sampling device.

                                     28

-------
 end placed below the soil surface and a two-hole stopper in the surface end
 (Figure 9).

     The size of materials that can enter the sampling device was determined
 by the pore size of the ceramic cup.  The porous ceramic cups were made of 1
 bar ceramic material.  The bubbling pressure is the pressure required to force
 air through a plate of the ceramic material after the plate has been thoroughly
 wetted with water.  The bubbling pressure and pore size relationship is defined
 by the equation D = 30 Y/P where D is the pore diameter in microns, Y is the
 surface tension of water measured in dynes/cm, and P is the bubbling pressure
 measured in mm/Hg (SEC, 1974).  According to this formula a 1 bar (750 ram/Hg)
 ceramic plate would have a pore diameter of 2,9 microns when the water tempera-
 ture is 20°C.

     Impurities in water range in size from a few Angstroms for dissolved sub-
 stances to a few hundred microns for suspended particles (Weber, 1972).  Col-
 loidal particles normally range in size from 1 to 100 millimicrons (Sawyer
 aiid McCarty, 1967).  The 1 bar ceramic cups with 2.9 micron pore size will,
 therefore, allow passage of water samples containing dissolved, colloidal size,
 3nd a portion of the suspended size materials.

     Tubing, connectors, and clamps were installed as shown in Figure 9.  By
 aPPlying suction to tube A with a portable hand pump when clamp b was closed
 ^d then closing clamp a, a partial vacuum was established in the sampling
 device.  After a period of 10 to 16 hours, depending on the available soil
 Moisture,  a water sample was drawn into the sampling device through the porous
 ^UP»  The water sample was then collected by loosening clamps a and b and pump-
 In8 the sample out through tube B into a container.   Samples were immediately
 transported to the laboratory for analysis.

     In most cases analysis of the water samples began within one hour after
 Sanipling.   Refrigeration at 4°C in the dark was used for preservation when
 storage of samples was required.  Twenty-four hours  was the longest time that
 any samples were stored, and the most perishable parameters were analyzed first.

     During the first irrigation season,  one sampler at each of the four depths
 .as used on the experimental sites.   After discovering difficulties in obtain-
 n8 sufficient sample volume with this arrangement,  additional sampling devices
 ere installed for the second season.   Each site had two sampling devices  at
 «*ach of the four depths throughout the second season.   These duplicate samples
Were combined in the field.

     Soil  samples were taken with a slotted 5.1  cm (2  in.)  coring device from
 ach of the eight experimental sites.   The sample cores were  selected  to
 solate depths from the surface to 15.2 cm (6 in.) below  the  surface,  22.9  cm
 ^ in.)  to  38.1  cm (15 in.)  below the surface,  and 76.2 cm  (30  in.)  to  91.4
 ^ (36  in.)  below the surface.   Samples were taken just before  the  first irri-
 gation  season and at the end of the  first  and second irrigation seasons.
     The water samples were analyzed for the N-forms,  P-forms,  total  organic
 aroon,  and specific conductance on a weekly basis.  The holding pond water,

                                      29

-------
GLASS
CONN.
 FLEX
 TUBE
                               CLAMP
  STOPPER
PVC TUBE
                              SECTIONAL VIEW
                               POROUS CUP
                                SCALE-1=1
     Figure 9.  Soil moisture -sampling device.

                       30

-------
 control water, and the return flow from the 10.2 cm (4 In.) mole drain were
 analyzed weekly for suspended solids and rehydrated volatile suspended solids.
 ^1 of the analyses were performed according to Standard Methods (APHA, 1971).

     Soil samples were analyzed to determine NOjj-N, Na, K, Ca, percent N, per-
 cent C, pH, P, specific conductance, and cation exchange capacity.

           Samples
     An experiment was conducted at the end of the second irrigation season
to determine if any differences in vegetative growth occurred on the different
test sites.  Vegetation samples were taken from each of the sites receiving
wastewater stabilization pond effluent, the control site, and from an adjacent
area that received no irrigation.  Five separate 1 square meter areas were
randomly chosen from each site.  The vegetation was removed near the soil sur-
face from each area using electric clippers.  The vegetation was air dried,
Weighed, and then each sample was ground into a homogeneous mass.  Ten percent
°f each pulverized sample was ashed in a muffle furnace and the ashed weight
of vegetation per acre was computed.

        Stripp-tnp
     An experiment was performed to determine the amount of volatile ammonia
that was being stripped from solution during the spraying process.   Samples
 ere collected on three occasions and a sample was collected at a sprinkler
n°zzle and at the soil surface.  Approximately five minutes were required to
c°llect an adequate volume of sample at the soil surface.  The water sample
di
-------
                                  SECTION 6

                           RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

                            LYSIMETER EXPERIMENTS
SAMPLING DIFFICULTIES

     The lysimeters were constructed to monitor the effluents from the soil
at the 7.6 cm and 38.1 cm soil depths.  Although there is much evidence to
indicate that the majority of the bacteriological and chemical removal occurs
in the first few centimeters of soil, it was very difficult to obtain reliable
data at the 7.6 cm depth for a number of reasons.  Much of the data from the
7.6 cm sample points were invalid because of short circuiting at the soil sur-
face.  This short circuiting was caused by the drying and cracking on the sur-
face between sewage applications.  A lysimeter of the size used in this study
with so much surface area and  surface disturbance as the lagoon effluent was
applied would cause nonuniform soil depth which was very critical in evaluating
removal at 7.6 cm depth.  Often short circuiting was so extreme, samples were
not obtained at all from the 7.6 cm level.  However, much of the information
gathered from the 7.6 cm level was valid and helpful in explaining some of the ;
conditions observed.  Fortunately, the principal objective was not to establish
at what depth the removal occurred but to study which soil characteristics
produced best removals.  The 38.1 cm sample points provided information that
lead to interesting conclusions.

BACTERIOLOGICAL REMOVAL

     The results of the bacteriological analyses for total coliform,  fecal
coliform, and fecal streptococcal group at the 7.6 cm and 38.1 cm depths are
shown in Table 4.  Due to an error in technique or use of an inferior method
of determination, in some cases the fecal coliform counts were higher than
the total coliform which is unlikely.

     Although all soils were effective in removing the indicator organism,
there was a marked difference in the degree of removal between the Drainage
Farm soil and Parleys soil.  Removals obtained with Draper and Nibley soils
fall between the Drainage Farm and Parleys soils with some variability between
the Draper and Nibley soils.  Table 5 shows the geometric mean bacterial
counts in the lagoon effluent applied to the lysimeters and the effluents
from the lysimeters for a 21 day period.  Table 6 shows the removal of orga-
nisms per cm of soil depth for the four soils and the three organisms.  These
rates clearly show that the Drainage Farm soil was the most efficient, followed
by Nibley, Draper,  and Parleys.  Graphical presentations of the. decrease in
counts with depth for the four soils are shown in Figures A-1  through A-4 in

                                      32

-------
      TABLE 4.  COUNTS FOR TOTAL COLIFORM,  FECAL COLIFORM, AND FECAL STREPTOCOCCAL GROUP AT THE 7.6 AND 38.1
                CENTIMETER DEPTHS
Sample
Date
10/30
11/1
11/3
11/5 '
11/7
11/9
11/10
11/11
11/12
11/13
11/14
11/15
11/16
11/17
11/18
11/19
11/20
11/21
11/22
11/23
11/24
11/25
11/26
11/27
11/29
TOTAL COLIFORM
Lagoon
Effluent
OC
OC
48
76
494
300
650
720
200
60
64
L3
60
4&
65
45
25
20
27
40
10
33
8
60
50
Dra
7.6
cm
110
1
4
< 1
26
40
26
7
6
< I
5
<, i
< 1
< 1
OC
< 1
OC
OC
< 1
< 1
< 1
2
45
21
29
per
38.1
cm
OC
OC
2
< 1
42
33
20
145
< 1
< 1
< 1
< 1
2
OC
OC
< 1
OC
< 1
< 1
< 1
< 1
< 1
112
< 1
< 1
Nib]
7.6
en
NS
NS
OC
4
244
"NS
247
304
44
NS
12
NS
NS
35
US
SS
20
13
NS
40
20
32
NS
NS
NS
Ley
38.1
cm
OC
40
24
4
40
103
11
12
7
10
13
3
10
3
3
3
6
10
6
4
3
3
264
20
32
Parl
7.6
cm
NS
OC
OC
OC
60
OC
240
20
< 1
20
< 1
< 1
< 1
OC
OC
< I
OC
< 1
< 1
< 1
30
< 1
146
180
250
eys
38.1
cm
OC
OC
44
12
66
400
96
68
20
24
9
4
< 1
2
OC
1
< 1
1
< I
2
2
< I
195
18
19
Drai
Fa
7.6
cm
NS
OC
oc'
OC
16
486
640
40
60
30
< 1
27
< 1
OC
20
< 1
OC
< 1
20
10
10
< 1
1350
920
200
nage
rm
38.1
cm
OC
< 1
< 1
5
< 1
< 1
1
4
3
< 1
2
< 1
< 1
< 1
2
< 1
< 1
3
< I
< 1
< 1
2
< I
< 1
< 1
FECAL COLIFOKM
Lagoon
Effluent
13
16
7
7
200
TNTC
TNTC
135
95
55
37
16
46
17
. 44
32
5
31
26
38
19
92
1000
520
610
Drap
7.6
cm
OC
1
2
3
2
22
10
2
7
7
2
5
6
9
5
3
1
4
5
1
2
2
200
10
2
er
8.1
cm
OC
< 1
< 1
< 1
33
26
18
51
8
3
"7
5
4
5
2
'1
3
3
2
1
1
3
70
4
1
Nib
7.6
cm
NS
NS
13
NS
NS
NS
141
130
NS
NS
1
NS
NS
< 1
NS
NS
68
44
NS
72
11
14
NS
NS
NS
ley
38.1
cm
OC
3
< 1
2
6
20
4
10
2
< 1
3
1
2
3
3
1
2
6
1
2
1
1
166
32
47
Parl
7.6
cm
NS
10
3
11
130
TNTC
TNTC
110
10
1
10
20
36
9
24
14
11
4
37
2
27
203
1000
80
50
eys
38. L
cm
OC
6
2
3
13
186
87
14
6
2
3
1
14
6
7
7
7
16
13
4
7
9
200
150
145
Drai
Fa
7.6
cm
NS
17
2
OC
157
TNTC
TNTC
115
45
40
10
10
48
9
31
14
OC
7
2
8
29
27
1200
95
42
nage
rm
38.1
cm
OC
< 1
< 1
< 1
< 1
< 1
< 1
< 1
1
< 1
< 1
1
< 1
< 1
< 1
< 1
< 1
< 1
< 1
< 1
< 1
< 1
< I
< 1
< 1
FECAL STREPTOCOCCUS
Lagoon
Effluent
	
94
166
12
104.
187
285
274
135
180
137
112
78
56
47
50
57
107
37
107
30
52
85
1000
600
165
Dra]
7.6
era
44
47
20
22
26
30
23
19
36
28
21
24
21
9
16
20
8
7
9
9
2
5
48
31
2
jer
38.1
cm
75
19
9
4
80
3
16
18
9
8
6
3
5
6
4
4
3
1
4
3
2
1
11
5
1
Nib
7.6
cm
NS
NS
111
NS
98
NS
65
52
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
5
NS
NS
11
24
NS
30
< 1
26
NS
NS
NS
.ey
38.1
cm
15
7
3
8
4
1
5
15
3
3
1
< 1
2
1
3
3
2
7
3
16
14
14
59
30
25
Parl
7.6
cm
NS
25
90
145
217
320
188
155
< »
< 1
51
73
27
51
142
62
83
96
122
27
30
80
550
200
50
eys
38.1
cm
OC
63
< 1
15
2
22
Drai
Fa
7.6
cm
NS
141
335
291
302
275
42 324
6
< 1
< 1
< 1
1
< 1
1
27
a
2
8
26
5
4
3
59
50
39
152
nage
rm
38.1
cm
OC
< 1
< 1
< 1
< 1
1
< 1
< 1
211 < 1
120
362
510
112
2000
375
50
1205
812
4000
5700
630
2690
1530
1000
200
1
< 1
< 1
< 1
< 1
< ]
< 1
< L
I
< 1
< 1
1
< 1
< 1
< 1
< 1
OJ
u>
      NS—No Sample
OC—Overgrown
                                     TNTC—Too Numerous To Count

-------
            TABLE 5.  MEAN BACTERIAL COUNTS OVER A 21-DAY PERIOD

Soil Type
Drainage
Farm


Nibley



Draper



Parleys



Depth Total
Below Coliform,
Surface Counts/ 100 ml
Lagoon Effluent
Surface
7.6 cm
38.1 cm
Lagoon Effluent
Surface
7.6 cm
38.1 cm
Lagoon Effluent
Surface
7.6 cm
38.1 cm
Lagoon Effluent
Surface
7.6 cm
38.1 cm

160
92
1

160
81
15

160
9
7

160
47
41
Fecal
Coliform,
Counts/ 100 ml

64
34
<1

64
50
3

64
6
8

64
34
20
Fecal
Streptococcus,
Counts/ 100 ml

100
860
<1

100
42
6

100
20
10

100
94
11
     TABLE 6.  REMOVAL RATES OF INDIVIDUAL ORGANISMS FOR THE FOUR SOILS
                                      Bacterial Organisms
Soil Type
Drainage Farm
Nibley
Draper
Parleys

Kates —
Total
Coliform
0.091
0.050
0.062
0.015
Log organisms removed
cm of soil
Fecal
Coliform
0.083
0.068
0.051
0.031


Fecal
Streptococcus
0.088
0.060
0.052
0.050


Appendix A.  The primary reasons for the better removals by Drainage  Farm soJ
is the texture.  The Drainage Farm soil was by far the most dense,  and remov<
organisms by the three mechanisms of straining, bridging, and straining and
sedimentation.  It appears that the texture is the most important factor be-
tween these four soils in terms of bacterial removal.
                                      34

-------
 REMOVAL OF PHYSICAL AND  CHEMICAL CONSTITUENTS

 A   TIie results of the  physical and chemical analyses are summarized in Tables
 A'1 through A-15 in Appendix A.  The characteristics of the four soils before
 ^d after the application of lagoon effluent are summarized in Table 7.  Indi-
  idual constituents are  discussed separately in the following sections.
     Figures 10, 11, and 12 show the concentrations of nitrate-nitrogen,
  trite-nitrogen, and ammonia-nitrogen in the lagoon effluent and the effluent
 ampieg collected at the 38.1 cm sampling point on the lysimeters containing
 ^ainage Farm soil.  Variations in the concentrations with time at the 7.6
  « 38.1 cm depths for the Draper, Nib ley, and Parleys soils are shown in
a 8ures A- 5 through A- 13 in Appendix A.  Due to the short circuiting near the
 urface, the 7.6 cm sample points cannot be considered reliable.

     An appreciable increase in nitrate concentration over the amounts present
     e lago°n effluent is shown in Figure 10 and Figures A-5 through A- 13.
     increase is attributable to the production of ammonia from the decom-
al  t*°n of organics present in sewage and trapped on and in the soil and that
  ready present in the soil as well as the oxidation of ammonia present in the
       effluent.
th        .   10 and 12 show that in the lagoon effluent the concentrations of
  e nitrate-nitrogen remained relatively constant and the ammonia-nitrogen
  ncentration increased toward the end of the lysimeter study.

     A balance of the nitrogen applied and removed from the lysimeter indicated
     the soils contained significant amounts of nitrogen before the lagoon ef-
t, Uent was applied.   Leaching of nitrates from the soils accounts  for part of
  6 "igh concentrations of nitrate-N in the lysimeter effluents.

ci h Nibley (silty clay loam) and Drainage Farm (clay)  soils produced appre-
  ably higher concentrations of nitrate in the lysimeter effluents collected
Dr the 38.1 cm depth than the effluents from the Parleys (silty loam)  and
an PSr (sandy loam)  soils.  Nitrates are more easily leached from  sandy  soi-ls,
hi K^6 Denser or clay-like soils produced higher levels of nitrate with the
Pr H r amounts °f organic matter present.   The Drainage Farm and Nibley  soils
       d tne lowest concentrations of ammonia-N indicating that ammonia  is
    as readily leached out.

              Carbon (TOG)

a , . To explain the nitrate build-up in the soils,  a high quantity of ammonia
ce     °rganic nitrogen would be required.   Ammonifiers comprise a large per-
        of the bacteria and fungi in soil,  and these organisms  are hetero-
        (utilize organic carbon for growth).   Figure 13 shows the  concen-
        °f TOC in the influent and effluents from the lysimeters containing
         Farm soil.   Variations in TOC concentrations with time for Draper,
      »  and Parleys  soils are shown in Figures A- 14 through A- 16 in Appendix
^,  -
   ley
fL  figure 13 shows that the concentrations of TOC  in the effluents  correspond
   rj-y close to the concentrations of  TOC in the lagoon effluent applied.

                                      35

-------
     TABLE 7.  CHEMICAL AND PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE FOUR SOILS BEFORE AND AFTER THE APPLICATION OF
               LAGOON EFFLUENT


pH
ECe mhot/CB
P mg/1
K mg/1
Texture
Line
Org. Natter Z
Exch. Na ae/lOOg
Total Na me/100g
Water Sal. Ha. me/lOOg
Cation Exch. Capacity
ne/lOOg
Water Saturation Z
Moisture Storage •
Capacity e«/c«
DRAPER
Before
Test
Period
7.1
1.1
13.0
171.0
Sandy Loam
+
2.3
.2
,2
.1
9.9
28.0
2.54/34
After Test Period
Top
8.4
.7
21.0
81.0
Sandy Loan
+
.3
.2
.2
.1
5.1
21.0
2.54/34
32.5 cm
7.8
.5
19.0
110.0
Silt Loan
+
1.2
.2
.3
.1
8.8
29.0
4.45/34
NIBLEY
Before
Test
Period
7.4
.5
27.0
490.0
Silt Loan
•f
3.7
.3
.3
.1
23.6
56.0
4.45/34
After Test Period
Top
8.1
.7
31.0
378.0
Clay
•w-
1.0
.4
.5
.1
19.6
60.0
5.70/34
32.5 CB
7.7
.5
26.0
408.0
Clay
-H-
1.1
.3
.4
.1
21.2
66.0
5.70/34

Before
.Test
Period
7.6
.6
4.5
398.0
Silt Loan
-H-
1.9
.2
.2
.1
17.7
42.0
4.45/34
PARLEYS
After Test Period
Top
8.1
.9
11.0
315.0
Silt Loam
++
r:i
,4
.5
.1
11.8
42.0
4.45/34
32.5 cm
7.7
.6
3.9
389.0
Silt Loan
-H-
1.2
.4
.4
.1
12.2
44.0
4.45/34
DRAINAGE FARM
Before
Test
Period
8.1
.9
7.1
490.0
Clay
•H-
5.5
.8
1.2
.3
19.7
83.0
5.70/34
After Test Period
Top
8.2
.7
32.0
399.0
Sllty
day Loan
•H-
2.2
.4
.5
.2
12.0
81.0
5.08/34
32.5 cm
8.3
.5
4.4
450.0
Sllty
Clay Loam
•H-
2.8
.4
.6
.1
15.7
90.0
5.08/34
CO

-------
   100.0
  5 '0.0

  2
    1.0
   0.01
                                            z
                   NITRATE NOjH
                   	O- Lagoon Effluent
                   	^. Droiftag* Farm 38.1cm
                   ——o- Drainngt Farm 7.6 em
    VIZ
         9/25 10/2    10/16 10/22 10/29 II/C 11/14 11/21 11/25

               SAMPLE DATES
                                                   NITRITE N02N
                                                   	o- Lagoon Effluent
                                                   	.A. Drolnag* Farm 30.1cm
                                                   ——-o- Drainagt Form 7.6cm
                                                    \    /

     e  10.  Nitrate-N concentrations
            in the influent and ef-
            fluent samples collected
            at the 7.6 and 38.1  cen-
            timeter sampling depths
            for the lysimeters  con-
            taining Drainage Farm
            soil.
                                               9/12   »/2S 10/2    10/16 10/22 KVZ9 ll/« 11/14 11/21  n/25
                                                          SAMPLE DATES

                                           Figure 11.  Nitrate-N concentrations
                                                       in  the influent and ef-
                                                       fluent samples collected
                                                       at  the 7.6 and 38.1 cen-
                                                       timeter sampling depths
                                                       for the lysimeters con-
                                                       taining Drainage Farm
                                                       soil.
g^   An examination of the before and after analyses of the soils  (Table -7)
    s a
 .
   ^"
      a marked decrease in the organic material present in the  soils .   The
          soils, Nibley and Drainage Farm,  again show the greatest decrease
   °r8anic matter,  70  percent and 50 percent,  respectively; whereas,  Draper
     exPerienced a  48  percent reduction  and Parleys was reduced by 37 percent
     reductions calculated at the 38.1 cm depth).
th
            13 shows that  organics were leached  from the soil or passed through
    S0i1'   Table 7 shows a significant decrease  in organic content  of the soil
      tlle  application of lagoon effluent indicating that the lagoon effluent
    Beaching organics from the soils.
     Pi8ure 14 supports the  observation that the  Drainage Farm soil provides
     est treatment of lagoon effluent followed by Nibley, Draper, and  Parleys
    8-   The removal of algal cells should be controlled by straining,  bridging,
    straining and sedimentation.   At the beginning  the per cent removal of
                                       37

-------
     10.0 r
      1,0
                                                   60
                                                   55
                        AMMONIA NH3N
                          f> Lagoon Effluent
                        	*- Dra.nofl. Form 38.1cm
                        ——O- Droinogt Form 7,6cm

                                   s
                             s
                             O 20

                             I..

                               10
                     V
     0.01
             •/Z9 10/Z
                      10/16 10/22 10/29 II/C  11/14. 11/2111/25
                                                         TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON
                                                           o Lagoon Effluent
                                                         	-A- Drainage Form 38,ler»
                                                         	O- Drainage Farm 7,6cm
                SAMPLE DATES

Figure  12.   Ammonia-N concentrations
              in  the  influent and ef-
              fluent  samples collected
              at  the  7.6 and 38.1 cen-
              timeter sampling  depths
              for the lysimeters  con-
              taining Drainage  Farm
              soil.
                     100 -
                   2 80
                                 9/29 10/2     10/16 10/22 10/29  M/6 11/14 M/ZI  II/2S
                                            SAMPLE DATES

                          Figure  13.  Total  organic carbon concert
                                        t rat ions in  the influent an
                                        effluent samples  collected
                                        at the 7.6 and 38.1 centi-
                                        meter  sampling depths  for
                                        the lysimeters containing
                                        Drainage Farm soil.
                      80
                      60 -
                                              REMOVAL AT THE 38.1 cm SAMPLE POINT
                                              	 8.C.B. (Droptr)
                                              	Le. So. Main (Nibliy)
                                              	H.P.B. (ParUyi)
                                              	Dralnaft Farm
                        9/2S
                             10/Z
                                         10/16
                                               10/22   10/29
                                                           11/6
                                                                 11/14
                                                                      11/21
                                                                            It/25
                                      DATES  SAMPLED
      Figure  14.
Total algal cell percent  removal at the  38.1  centimeter
depth for all soils  studied.
                                              38

-------
 algae was much  lower  than toward  the end  of  the experiments.  This increased
 removals could  have been caused by  the buildup of a film on the soil surface
 or  the elimination of soil separation (cracking) near the end of the experi-
 ttent.  Before the biological analyses began, lagoon effluent was applied to
 the lysimeters  only three times weekly as opposed to daily application near
 the end of the  experiment.  In the  soils with a higher percent clay, the
 cracking would  be expected to be more severe, thereby explaining the lower
 algae removal by the  Drainage Farm  (clay) soil initially.  As the algal cells
 accumulated on  the soil  surface, the removal would be expected to increase as
 observed.  The  sudden decrease in percent removal by the Parleys soil after
 October 29 occurred because the soil surface of this lysimeter was re-leveled
 drastically disturbing the clogged  pores and decreasing the filterability.
 After October 29, the suspended solids and volatile suspended solids in the
 effluents from  the disturbed lysimeter increased as shown in Figures A- 19 and
 A~22 in Appendix A.
     Figures 15 and 16 show the suspended and volatile suspended solids con-
 centrations in the lagoon effluent and the effluent from the lysimeters for
 the Drainage Farm soil for the duration of the lysimeter experiment.  Both
 suspended and volatile suspended solids were removed effectively with concen-
 trations less than 5 mg/1 for the suspended solids and less than 2 mg/1 for
 the volatile suspended solids passing through the soil.  Variations in the
 suspended and volatile suspended solids concentrations for Draper, Nibley,
 ^d Parleys soils are shown in Figures A- 17 through A-22 in Appendix A.  The
 concentrations of suspended and volatile suspended solids in the influent
 remained fairly constant while concentrations in the effluents at the 38.1
 011 sampling points were constantly decreasing.  The increasing removal toward
 the end of the period shows an increased filtering effect caused by straining
 311(1 sedimentation and also utilization of the volatile or organic matter
 Present.  Drainage Farm soils produced the best solids removals with Nibley
 second.  Both of these soils have tighter pore spaces and longer residence
 times which provide good removal by filtration and retain the liquid longer
 flowing the organisms to utilize the organic matter.  Solids removals obtained
*ith the Draper and Parleys soils were good with concentrations of less than
 10 rag/1 in the effluents.  The mean suspended and volatile suspended solids
 removals provided by the Draper and Parleys soils were approximately 85 per-
 Cfint after an acclimation period.
     Phosphorus removal by a soil is a result of a combination of adsorption
?f Phosphate and precipitation of compounds of phosphorus.   Shewman (1973)
J-ourxd that the soil properties most likely correlated with  adsorption would
De surface area and the related properties, percent clay, and cation exchange
^Pacity.  The quantity and condition of lime present probably influences both
  eclPitation and adsorption.

     Figures 17 and 18 of the Drainage Farm soil show that  almost all of the
Phosphate exists as orthophosphate.  Total and orthophosphate concentrations
111 the influent and effluent samples for Draper, Nibley, and Parleys soils

                                      39

-------
 O> 100
 E
 Q
 z
 

                      I	I	1	L
                                              0.10 -

                                                        \

                                                                         A
                                                  VOLATILE SUSPENDED SOLIDS
                                                  	O- Lagoon Effluent
                                                  	A- Dralnggt F«rm 38.1cm
                                                  	o- Droinage Form 7.6em
               /M IO/2Z lo/29

               .SAMPLE  DATES
                                  '"25
9/2S 10/2     10/16 10/22 10/29 M/6  11/14 11/21 11/29

          SAMPLE DATES
Figure 15.
             Suspended solids concen-    Figure 16,
             t rat ions in the influent
             and effluent samples  col-
             lected at the 7.6 and 38.1
             centimeter sampling depths
             for the lysimeters con-
             taining Drainage Farm soil.
     Volatile suspended solids
     concentrations in the in-
     fluent and effluent samples
     collected at the 7.6 and
     38.1  cm sampling depths foC
     the lysimeters containing
     Drainage Farm soil.
are shown  in Figures A-23 through A-28  in Appendix A.  The total phosphate
concentrations  in the samples collected at the 38.1 cm sampling point show
consistent results,  fluctuating only when the influent concentration varies.
The removal  of  total phosphate appeared to be attributable to adsorption.
Orthophosphate  influent concentrations  were less than the total phosphate  in
the influent, but the concentrations of orthophosphate in samples  from the
38.1 cm sampling points were approximately equal with the total phosphate,
suggesting a change  of form or increase from another source.

     Drainage Farm soil was again the most effective treatment media followed
by Parleys,  Draper,  and Nibley.  As stated earlier, phosphorus removal capacit
is based on  surface  area and these soils show this to be true.  Drainage Farm
(clay), Parleys (silt loam), and Draper (sandy loam) were the most effective;
however, Nibley should have removed phosphorus more effectively based on sur-
face area.   Nibley soil, a silty clay loam,  should have removed phosphorus at
a rate comparable to the Drainage Farm  soil.
                                        40

-------
     1.0
  V
  a
   i

  a.
     0.1
                                                10. c
                                               e,
                                               a.
           TOTAL PHOSPHATE P04 - P
           •—«• Lagoon Effluent
           	•*• Drolnoja Farm 38.1 cm
           	o- Droinagi Form 7.6 em
«/IO 9/12   9/2810/2   10/16 10/22 W/2» ll/« 11/14 11/21 11/28

             SAMPLE DATES
                                               0.01
                                                     ORTHO-PHOSPHATE
                                                     —•*• Lagoon Efflutnt
                                                     	*• Dralnaft Farm M.I en
                                                     —-o- Orolnaot Form 7.6 em
                                                          I-'
                                                      9/2B 10/2    10/IC 10/22 «/*• 11/6

                                                            SAMPLE DATES
                                                                  11/14 11/21 11/28
17.
             Total phosphate concen-
             trations In the influent
             and  effluent samples  col-
             lected at the 7.6 and 38.1
             centimeter sampling depths
             for  the lysimeters contain-
             ing  Drainage Farm soil.
                                    Figure 18.
                                              Orthophosphate concentra-
                                              tions in  the influent and
                                              effluent  samples collected
                                              at the 7.6  and 38.1 centi-
                                              meter sampling depths for
                                              the lysimeters containing
                                              Drainage  Farm  soil.
      Th
     ev %Cati0n exchan8e capacities  (C.E.C. ;  see Table  7)  of the soils were:
 soil h d      Drainage Farm, 19.7; Parleys,  17.7; and Draper,  9.9.  Nibley
 Was       fc^e ^Shest  (23.6)  exchange capacity and better phosphorus removal
     ex
 the  i  p®cted<  Either  the Nibley soil did not have the capacity  to perform at
 irtflue   n§ rates aPPlled,  or there was short circuiting within  the bed.  The
 to 4   n^  Phosphorus concentrations to the lysimeters were low varying from 2
            therefore,  only a small degree of  short circuiting would heavily
     0^C^ the concentrations in the effluents.   The percent of clay and quan-
  er  K     S la the soils  (Table 7) also supports  the observed results; how-
 degre  ere aSain Nibley does not follow the rule so we must conclude,  a small
     e Qf channeling may have occurred in this lysimeter.
EH
      l8ure  19  shows the pH values  for the lagoon effluent applied to  the
      and the pH  values for the samples collected at  the 7.6 cm and 38.1 cm
                                       41

-------
              10.0
               9,0
               • .0
               7.0
                                     pH
                                        . Lagoon Effluent
                                         Drainagi Farm 38.1cm
                                         Drainage Farm 7.6 cm

                                                          I
                 9/9 9/10 9/12 9/16 9/25 10/2    10/16 10/22 10/29 11/6 11/14 11/21  11/25
                                  SAMPLE DATES

     Figure  19.  The  pH  values  for  the  influent and effluent samples
                 collected  at the 7.6 and 38.1  centimeter sampling depths
                 for  the lysimeters containing  Drainage Farm soil,

sampling depths in the lysimeters containing Drainage Farm soil.  The pH
values for the influent  and effluent from the lysimeters containing Draper,
Nibley, and  Parleys soils are given in  Figures  A-29 through A-31 in Appendix
A.  The pH values  for the samples collected at  the 7.6 cm sampling depth were
generally lower than  the pH values  in the lagoon effluent applied but not as
low as the pH values  in  the effluent collected  at the 38.1 cm sampling depth.

     The pH  value  of  the lagoon effluent was usually in the range of 7.8 to
8.5.  The pH values from the 7.6  cm samples averaged around 7.5 to 8 while
the 38.1 cm  samples produced pH values  around 7.0 to 7.25.  The drop in pH
may have been caused  by  production  of 002 and organic acids resulting from
bacterial action in the  soil.   Nitrification of the ammonium and removal of
carbonate also reduces pH.   These factors would almost all be dependent on
the detention time for their degree of  effect.   Therefore, it is generally
observed that those samples from  the 38.1 cm sampling depth which had the
longest detention  time produced the greatest reduction in pH values.

Changes in Soil Properties

     The soils studied provided good removal of various constituents and
bacteria, but their individual  characteristics  did not  change drastically as
Table 7 indicates.  As in the determination of  chlorophyll "a** and pheophytifl
"a** in the lagoon effluent, the analysis of the core  samples for chlorophyll
«'a** did not detect  concentrations high enough to be of significant value.
The noticeable changes occurred in  phosphorus,  percent  organic matter, and
cation exchange capacity.

     The phosphorus,  as would be  expected,  increased on the surface of all
soils especially on the  clay (Drainage  Farm).   Because  phosphate does not move
readily through the soil, an increase was observed on the surface and a slights
increase at  the 32.5  cm  depth.  As  indicated by Table 7,  the phosphorus removal
by Parleys and Draper soils were  also significant.
                                       42

-------
     The organic matter in the soils  decreased  considerably as discussed
earlier; however,  it is apparent that this  decrease had some affect on the
       exchange capacity.   The soils  with a higher percentage of organic matter
   the start,  i.e.,  Nibley and Drainage  Farm soils had a higher C.E.C.  "Soils
     in organic matter have substantial  cation  exchange capacities because of
    large negative charge  developed by the  humus'' (Coleman and Mehlich, 1957).
Therefore,  the C.E.C.  was  observed to decrease  proportionally with the decreased
Or8anic material in  the final  analysis of the soils.
                                     43

-------
                                    SECTION  7

                            RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

                               FIELD EXPERIMENTS
OPERATION DIFFICULTIES

     Obtaining adequate samples with the soil moisture sampling devices was
difficult especially during the first irrigation season.  Often samples of
sufficient volume to run the entire battery of tests could not be obtained.
This problem was negated to a considerable degree during the second season
when additional sampling devices were installed.

     Only soil samples were obtained on the control sites during the first
irrigation season because well water was not available.  During the second
season well water was applied to the control sites.

     Numerous mechanical failures prevented the collection of continuous data
during the first season,  A submersible turbine pump was initially used in the
holding pond to supply stabilization pond effluent to the sprinklers.  After
three weeks of satisfactory performance, the pump became hopelessly clogged
with the matted algal material growing in the holding pond.  When the pump was
unclogged, only one or two days of operation was obtained.  A centrifugal pump
was then selected to replace the submersible turbine pump.  Uninterrupted
operation of the sprinkler system resumed on the eighth week of the first irri*
gation season.  The centrifugal pump continued to give unfailing service for
the remaining part of the first season and throughout the second irrigation
season.

     Several pipe ruptures occurred when exposed pipeline was damaged by
vehicles in the field or damaged by vandals.  The pipeline appeared to be the
target for irresponsible marksmen.   Such events hampered the operation of the
system and the collection of data.

     The experimental time period covered 13 weeks the first season starting
on July 27 and ending October 8, 1975.   The second season began on June 28
and ended on October 8,  1976,  covering a span of 14 weeks.  The data collection
proceeded without interruption throughout the second irrigation season.

OPERATION AND OBSERVATIONS

     Some difficulties were encountered operating at the irrigation rates used
in this study.  The 15.2 cm (6 in.)  per week rate was far in excess of the
infiltration capacity and evapotranspiration demand of the Drainage Farm


                                      44

-------
  system.  Throughout both  irrigation seasons  the vegetated and bare sites
  eceiving 15.2 cm  (6 in.) per week of effluent experienced extensive ponding
  °t water on the soil surface.  This high application rate saturated the soil
  0 5he Point that water was still standing after the weekly three day drying
  Period.  A floating algal mat developed in standing water on the bare site
  receiving 15.2 cm  (6 in.) per week.  The clay layer beneath the topsoil pre-
  sented a barrier to vertical movement of this excess water through the soil.
      tne 15.2 cm (6 in.) per week rate, more water was available for percolation
   an could pass through the clay barrier.  Water infiltrated the topsoil until
  eaching the clay and then moved horizontally beyond the site boundaries.

      On the bare site receiving 10.2 cm (4 in.)  of effluent per week,  ponding
  nd horizontal migration of the irrigation water also occurred,  but the problem
  xd not occur until mid-season.   With the 10.2 cm (4 in.) per week application
  ate it took a few weeks to fill the moisture capacity of the soil and then
 Ponding and  horizontal migration occurred.   On the vegetated  site receiving
 th    ™ ^  ^'^  °^ effluent Per  week,  ponding and  migration of the water beyond
  . e site boundaries did not occur until the last three or four weeks  of the
  rrigation season.   During the hottest part of the summer,  evaporation and
  ranspiration rates were high  and all  water applied to  the  vegetated  site
  eceiving 10.2  cm  (4 in.)  per  week was gone before the  start  of  irrigation on
  "e following  day.   In  the fall,  near  the end of  the irrigation  season when
  eiuperatures were  lower and  the  growth of  vegetation had  subsided, ponding
    sisted on  the vegetated site  receiving  10.2 cm  (4 in.) per week.

     With the 5.1  cm (2 in.) per  week  application  rate, ponding  and horizontal
  Station of the irrigation water  was not a problem at  any time  on the vege-
      site<  °n the bare site  the problems did not occur until near the end of
 t   irrigation season.  Five cm  (2  in.) was well within the combined evapo-
 *ansPiration and infiltration capacity found with the vegetated site.  Even
 a Htlle enc* of the irrigation season when the water demand was lowest, ponding
    horizontal migration did not occur.

     On all of the bare sites receiving effluent, an algal growth appeared on
  e surface of the soil.  The intensity of the algal growth appeared to be
 a °ut the same with all of the application rates.  Algal growth was not ob-
 co^^ °n tne vesetated sites.  Some algal growth was observed on the bare
 _^ ntrol site.  The intensity of the algal growth on the control site was minute
 t? COmParison to that on the sites receiving effluent application.   Apparently
  e nutrient content of the effluent stimulated algal growth on the sites
 pi   Vlng ef fluent.   Some of the algae observed on the surfaces of the bare
  °ts were contained in the effluent and were trapped on the surface as the
 ater passed into the soil.  The moist conditions and high nutrient content of
  e effiuent probably encouraged the algae to reproduce on the soil surface.
  nding and horizontal migration of water on the control sites was  similar to
We £ °Ccurrln8  °n the sites receiving effluent at the same 10.2 cm (4  in.) per
     aPPlicatlon rate.   This indicates that the heavier algal  growth on the
         test sites  had little effect on the infiltration rate.
     Large  mosquito  populations were observed in the Drainage Farm area.   On
    test  sites  there was a noticeable increase in the number  of  hostile
   
-------
 Shallow standing water provided mosquito breeding areas on the sites receiving
 15.2 or 10.2 cm (6 or 4 in.) per week.

     Because mosquitoes are an unpleasant nuisance and a possible disease
 transmission vector, it is important to operate a soil mantle treatment system
 so  that mosquito breeding areas do not develop.  Of the application rates used
 at  the University Drainage Farm, only the 5.1 cm (2 in.) per week used on a
 vegetated site avoided the mosquito problem.  An absence of standing water
 and frequent drying out of the area are desirable conditions to inhibit
 mosquito reproduction.  The control of mosquito breeding was directly related
 to  the application rate and the ability of the soil and vegetation to as-
 similate the wastewater.  The difficulties encountered in this study show the
 importance of conducting pilot scale studies before installing a full scale
 irrigation system for soil mantle treatment of wastewater stabilization pond
 effluent.

     The water recovered from the drainage system appeared to be colorless and
 free from turbidity.  The drainage effluent was also free of odors and was
 similar to a typical effluent from an irrigation farm.  Details of the changes
 in  the chemical and sanitary characteristics of the wastewater stabilization
 pond effluent as it passed through the soil are presented in other paragraphs.

 APPLICATION TO LOGAN SYSTEM

     Approximately 32,200 m3/day (8.5 MGD)  of wastewater are treated by the
 Logan City wastewater stabilization pond system.  A soil mantle treatment
 facility of 1,160 hectares (2,860 acres) would be required to treat the ef-
 fluent assuming an application rate of 5.1  cm (2 in.)  per week and a 20 week
 season.  This is a conservative estimate of the land requirement since higher
 application rates may be permissible during peak evapotranspiration periods.
 Climate, soil type, vegetation employed, and the characteristics of the waste-
water are factors which will affect the land requirement.   Land requirements
 are site specific and must be evaluated at each location before a system is
 constructed.

 SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE AND SODIUM ADSORPTION RATIO

     The specific conductance data are shown in Tables B-1 and B-2 and graphi-
 cally in Figures B-l through B-8.  The results of the sodium adsorption ratio
 (SAR)  determinations are shown in Table B-15.

     The results of the statistical analysis of the specific conductance data
 is  summarized in Table 8.   The statistical results showed  that none of the
 specific conductance results were significant at the 95 percent confidence
 level.   The correlation coefficient (R2) was only 0.10, which indicated that
 one-tenth of the performance characteristics of the soil mantle treatment
process were attributable to specific conductance.   The variation in the ob-
served specific conductance levels was probably caused by  differences in the
soil system between sites and between depths in the soil profile.

     Although not indicated by statistical results,  some observations can be
made.   Figures B-1  through B-8 show that the specific conductance of the


                                      46

-------
               TABLE 8.  SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
        Main Effects                                Significant @ 95 Percent
Water Type
Cover Type
Application Rate
Sample Depth
Season
Weeks
.Twp-Way Interactions
Cover Type x Application Rate
Cover Type x Sample Depth
Cover Type x Weeks
Application Rate x Sample Depth
Application Rate x Weeks
Water Type x Weeks
Sample Depth x Weeks
Water Type x Sample Depth
R2 - 0.10
R2 « 0.098^
Q
No
No
No
No
No
No

No
No
No
No
No
No
No



.j „ j
Noa
Noa
Noa
Noa
NA
Noa

Noa
Noa

Noa
Noa


Noa



          Analysis  of  data with season 1
  at>ilization pond effluent and the control water were approximately equal and
 uch lower than that of the water samples collected each week.  Several factors
 ndicate increased salinity with depth.  After passing through just the top 10
^m (4 in.) of soil, the specific conductance of the water samples was usually
 ouble or more than that of the applied irrigation water.  An apparent trend
   increasing specific conductance is shown in Figures B-2 through B-8.  The
£°nductivity of the soil mositure extract taken from soil samples also seem to
 nc*ease with depth.   Table B-15 shows that the SAR values for the water samples
 ®re usually higher in water samples taken at the 91.4 cm (3 ft.) depth than at
 "e 10.2 cm (4 in.) depth.   This is an indication that salinity not only in-
Creases with depth, but that the salts involved may be sodium salts.   The ly-
simeter study showed that the specific conductance of stabilization pond ef-
  uent increased as the water percolated through soil.

b    The increase in salinity in the water samples can be explained by the salt
 alance concept described by the following equation (USU, 1969):

               Q C + S   + others -  (QdC + Sppt + SG)   =  0

in which
     Qc   =    quantity of  irrigation water
     Qd   =    quantity of  drainage water
     c    =    concentration of salt
     sw   =    salt from weathering


                                      47

-------
     Sppt =    salt precipitated
     Sc   =    salt in the crops

     Figure 20 illustrates the salt balance concept and how  the  salt  concen-
tration of the soil solution can be affected.
by:
     The apparent increase in salinity in the water samples  can  be explained
     1.   Consumptive use (evapotranspiration)  of  water by  the vegetation
          increases the concentration of  salts  in  the  soil  solution  (USU,
          1969; Jurinak, 1975)

     2.   Salt concentration often increases with  depth in  the soil  profile
          due to the dynamic nature of the salt transport (USU,  1969)

     3.   Salt concentration is affected  by weathering and  precipitation
          processes during irrigation (USU, 1969;  Jurinak,  1975)
                                     IN
                                  IRRIGATION
                                   WATER
                       OTHERS
       IN
  VEGETATION
                                    SALT
                                    in soil
                                   solution
                        FROM
                    WEATHERING
PRECIPITATES
                                     IN
                                 DRAINAGE
                                      J
             Figure 20.   Salt concentration  in  the  soil solution.

                                    48

-------
      There was  some  evidence  that  leaching  of salts occurred in the soil mantle
 treatment system.  The  specific  conductance values of  the water samples taken
 Curing  the second  irrigation  season appear  to be  lower, on the average, than
 during  the first season.  A downward or negative  slope on the specific con-
 ductance graphs (Figures B-2  through B-8) suggests leaching.  In a majority of
 the soil tests, a  decrease in specific conductance and sodium was observed
 between the initial  specific  conductance and the  values observed at the end of
 the second irrigation season  (Table B-14).  There is some question about the
 reuse of treated wastewater that might be collected in subsurface drains.
 ^illsbury and Blaney (1966) considered water having a specific conductance of
 '500 micromhos/cm  or more ''essentially valueless for irrigation water.''  The
 sPecific conductance of many  of  the water samples exceeded 7500 micromhos/cm.
 This was especially  true at the 91.4 cm (3  ft.) sample depth.

     Figure 21 is  a  classification diagram  for the evaluation of salinity and
 s°dium hazards of  irrigation water (USDA, 1954).  The classification scheme
 used in Figure 21  is explained in Table 9.

     If values of  specific conductance from Table B- 1  and sodium adsorption
 ratios from Table  B-15 are indexed on Figure 21, it can be seen that in most
 cases the hazard due to salinity in crops was high to very high.   The hazard
 due to sodium ranges from low to very high.  At the 91.4 cm (3 ft.)  depth the
 sodium, hazard was  usually medium or high.  The combination of C3  and C^
 ^linity hazard with predominantly S2,  83, and S4 sodium hazards,  make the
 Soil mantle treated water undesirable for reuse as irrigation water  especially
   a soil such as that found at the USU Drainage Farm (i.e.,  high clay,  poor
AMMONIA

     The ammonia-N removals obtained with the soil mantle treatment process
ate shown in Tables B-3 and B-4 and Figures B-9 through B-16.   Mechanisms for
r       of ammonia from wastewaters using a soil mantle treatment process
        stripping when sprinkler application is used,  nutrient uptake by vege-
        and the changing of ammonia to other nitrogen  forms by nitrification.
 ,    The holding pond used in this study experienced a vigorous  algal bloom
 uring most of both irrigation seasons.   The bloom was a thick,  green,  float-
 n8 mass covering the entire surface of the shallow pond.   Free  carbon dioxide
 ® used by the algae in photosynthetic processes.   The effects on the chemistry
   the wastewater are described by the following relationships:

               C02 + H20 £ H2C03 t HCO~  + H+
               C03 + H20 £ HCO~  + OH

in   If algae lower the concentration of carbon dioxide  in the  water,  a  shift
WJJ equiHbrium will occur resulting in a decrease in H+  and an  increase  in  OH"
  lch increases the pH value of  the water.
                                      49

-------
            IOO
                          4  5678 IOOO
                     4 5OOI
N
<
I



<
*
_J
 .

Q

Si
   Si
OJ
     3O



     28



     26



     24
         ~ 22
         o:
           20

         8
         Q
      18
      ,6
      12
         O
         8 10
            8



            6
            2



            O
                  CI-S4
                 CI-S3
           CI-S2
                 CI-SI
                 I
                            I    I   III III
                              C2-S4
                        C2-S3
                        C2-S2
                              C2-SI
                                            C3-SI
I  I I
              IOO       25O            75O           225O

                  CONDUCTIVITY-MICROMHOS/CM (ECxIO6) AT 25°C
                   I
                  LOW
                        MEDIUM
    HIGH
VERY HIGH
                               SALINITY HAZARD
  Figure 21.  Diagram for the classification of irrigation waters,
                                 50

-------
         TABLE  9.   DESCRIPTION OF  CLASSIFICATION SCHEME SHOWN IN FIGURE 21


 Conductivity

      Low-salinity water (Ci) can be used for irrigation with most crops
 on most soils with little likelihood that soil salinity will develop.
 Some leaching is required, but this occurs under normal irrigation prac-
 tices except in soils of extremely low permeability.
      Medium-salinity water (C^) can be used if a moderate amount of
 leaching occurs.   Plants with moderate salt tolerance can be grown in
 roost cases without special practices for salinity control.
      High-salinity water (C^)  cannot be used on soils with restricted
 drainage.   Even with adequate  drainage,  special management for salinity
 control  may be required and plants with good salt  tolerance should be
 selected.

      Very  high salinity water  (C^) is not  suitable for irrigation under
 ordinary conditions,  but may be used occasionally  under very special
 circumstances.   The soils must be permeable,  drainage must be adequate,
 irrigation water must be applied in excess to provide considerable leach-
 ing,  and very  salt-tolerant crops should be selected.
 .Sodium

      The classification of irrigation waters  with  respect  to SAR  is based
 Primarily  on the effect of exchangeable  sodium on  the physical  condition
 °f  the soil.   Sodium-sensitive plants may,  however, suffer injury as  a
 result of  sodium accumulation  in plant tissues  when exchangeable  sodium
 values are lower than  those effective in causing deterioration  of the
 Physical condition  of  the soil.

      Low-sodium  water  (Sj)  can be used for  irrigation  on almost all soils
 with  little danger  of  the development of harmful levels of  exchangeable
 s°dium.  However, sodium-sensitive  crops such as stone-fruit  trees and
 av°cados may accumulate injurious  concentrations of sodium.

     Medium-sodium water  (82) will  present an appreciable  sodium  hazard
 in fine-textured soils  having  high  cation-exchange-capacity,  especially
 "nder low-leaching  conditions,  unless  gypsum is present in  the soil.
 "ls water may be used  on  coarse-textured or organic soils with good
 Permeability.

     High-sodium water  (83) may produce harmful levels of exchangeable
 sodium in most soils and will require  special soil management — good
 drainage, high leaching, and organic matter additions.  Gypsiferous
 s°ils may not develop harmful levels of exchangeable sodium from such
 aters.   Chemical amendments may be required for replacement of exchange-
able sodium, except that amendments may not be feasible with waters of
V£ry high salinity.

     Very high sodium water (84) is generally unsatisfactory for irri-
gation purposes except at low and perhaps medium salinity,  where the
 °lution  of calcium from the soil or use of gypsum or  other amendments
 ay make  the use of these waters feasible.


                                  51

-------
     Algae  can also  obtain  carbon dioxide from bicarbonates and carbonates.
When this occurs, the  chemistry of the system can be described by the follow-
ing equations:
               2HCO
                           20H
Again, algal activity results in an increased hydroxide concentration and a
corresponding increase in pH value.  The pH value of the wastewater stabili-
zation pond effluent was about 9 as a result of algal activity.

     Ammonia exists in equilibrium with ammonium ions in a water solution as
described below.

               NH? + OH~ $ NH° + H_0
               [NH+HOH']
                 [NH°]
               [NH°]
1.8 x 10
   .[OH']
                                  =  1.8 x 10"
                                 -5
The above relationship indicates that approximately 36 percent of the total
ammonia in the stabilization pond effluent should be in the form of volative
ammonia at a pH value of 9.  Stripping of this volatile ammonia requires air-
water contact.  Considerable contact was provided during the sprinkling process
Table 10 represents the results of an investigation into the stripping process
during the second irrigation season.

     The spraying process was highly efficient in stripping volatile ammonia
from the stabilization pond effluent.  The average removal was 35 percent.
The pH value of the effluent and the large air-water contact surface provided
by the spray provided ammonia stripping conditions.


       TABLE 10.   AMMONIA REMOVAL FROM STABILIZATION POND EFFLUENT VIA
                  STRIPPING DURING THE SPRINKLING PROCESS
                Effluent  at  Sprinkler
                       Nozzle
                   Effluent at Soil
                        Surface
                                                                    Percent
uate
8-17-76
8-25-76
8-30-76
Ammonia-N
ug/1
995
457
1220
PH
9.0
8.9
8.8
Ammonia-N
Mg/1
658
265
868
PH
9.0
8.9
8.7
Removal
34%
42
30
                                                                     =35%
                                      52

-------
      The fate of ammonia in a soil mantle treatment system can be described by
 one or more of the transformations shown in Figure 22.   Stripping of ammonia
  ft the soil system was minimal because of the limited  air-water contact  area.
  he water application rates used were high enough  that water saturated con-
 ditions existed in the soil most of the time.   The primary source of ammonia
           was the spraying process as previously discussed.
     As  shown in Table  11,  the  cover  type  used was not  a  significant  factor at
  he 95 percent confidence  level.   This  means  the nutrient uptake by vegetation
  as not  an  important  ammonia removal  mechanism.  The vegetation utilized in
  1X18 experiment  was not harvested  so  ammonia-N taken up by the plants would
 Probably be returned  to the soil when the  plants died.  The net removal of
 a/mu°nia-N would,  therefore,  be  minimal  even if uptake was significant.  Ammonia-
   adsorption on  clay  by cation  exchange, entrapment in  intermicellular layers,
 and adsorption by organic matter are  possible ammonia removal mechanisms (Lance,
 .  '2).   Entrapment of ammonia-N in intermicellular layers of clay is limited
  n m°st  cases, while  adsorption by organic matter has been shown in many cases
  0 exceed adsorption  by the  mineral portion of the soil in ammonia-N removal
  rom percolating waters (Lance, 1972).  Under proper conditions, a
  itrification-denitrification process may  result in the ultimate removal of
 nitrogen from  a soil  mantle  treatment system.  An aerobic condition for nitri-
  ication followed by  an anaerobic  condition for denitrification is required.
  "is removal process was probably  quite limited with the  sites receiving 10.2
 ^* (4 in.) and 15.2 cm (6 in.)  per week of irrigation water.   The nearly con-
 H^tly saturated condition  of  the soil was not favorable for aerobic con-
          The nitrification-denitrification process may have  played a role in
        removal with  sites receiving 5.1 cm (2 in.) per week of irrigation
    r«   With this application rate some drying of the soil was observed be-
      application periods, and  this is essential for aeration of the soil.

 s    There was a significant difference in the ammonia-N concentrations ob-
 served between the first and second irrigation seasons.   Table 12  shows the
   tce of difference between the seasons.

 s    No significant difference in ammonia concentrations was  observed  between
 reriS°nS at the four water  sample depths.  The difference between seasons  occur-
 hi h°nly  with the stabilization pond effluent.  Season 1 was  significantly
 _ 8ner  in concentration than season 2.  The concentration of  ammonia-N ob-
       in soil treated water samples appears  to  be  independent of  the  concen-
    L°n observed in the applied irrigation water.

 No  .Table 13 presents a statistical comparison  of  the  two water  types  used.
 Sa SJ-Snificant difference  in the ammonia-N concentrations  was  shown  between
Wat    obtained from sites receiving  effluent and  sites receiving control
dtf?"  The  ammonia-N concentration in the irrigation waters was significantly
 t   erent.   This further supports the  hypothesis that the  ammonia-N  concen-
 con    ^served  at  any  particular  depth in the  soil is  independent  of  the
ob Centration in the  applied irrigation  water.  The ammonia-N  concentrations
laterVed  in  the soil  treated water  samples  may be assumed  to be a function
in ?*./ of conditions  in the soil system rather than ammonia-N  concentrations
       irrigation water.
                                      53

-------
   AIR/SOIL INTERFACE
                             AMMONIA FROM
                             STABILIZATION
                             POND EFFLUENT
   HARVEST
                                                           /NJ_
        \
          VOLATILIZATION
     NUTRIENT UPTAKE
       BY VEGETATION
                                      SOIL
                                      NITRIFICATION
                         DENITRIFICATION
                           (Reduction)
             ADSORPTION
              BY-CLAY
                            AMMONIA
z
      CATION   FIXATION  ABSORPTION
     EXCHANGE          BY ORGANIC
                        MATTER
                                            DENITRIFICATION
                                             (Assimilation)
                                    DECOMPOSITION
                                     OF ORGANIC-N
                              NO;
SOIL/WATER TABLE
INTERFACE
UNUTILIZED
 PORTION
  Figure 22.   Ammonia transformations in a soil mantle treatment  system.
                 TABLE  11.  AMMONIA-N STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
   Main Effects
                                             Significant  @ 95 Percent
 Water Type
 Cover Type
 Application Rate
 Sample Depth
 Season
 Weeks

 Two-Way Interactions

 Cover Type x Application Rate
 Cover Type x Sample Depth
 Cover Type x Weeks
 Application Rate x Sample Depth
 Water Type x Sample Depth
 Application Rate x Weeks
                                                       Yes
                                                       No
                                                       No
                                                       Yes
                                                       Yes
                                                       Yes
                                                       No
                                                       No
                                                       No
                                                       No
                                                       Yes
                                                       No
      R
       0.457

-------
 TABLE  12.  COMPARISON OF MEAN AMMONIA-N CONCENTRATIONS MEASURED DURING
            SEASON 1 AND SEASON 2
Sample Depth Ammonia-N Concentration (yg/1); Season
| No Significant Difference at 95 Percent Confidence)
—
!0.2 cm (4 in.)
30.5 cm (1 ft.)
61.0 cm (2 ft.)
91.4 cm (3 ft.)
Stabilization
pond Effluent
47 (Sj)3
37 (Sj)
58 (Sj)
, 133 (Si)
2230 (S2)
57 (S2)
65 (S2) (
124 (82^
440 (S2)
832 (S2)
       Code:  (Sj) season 1, 1975.  (S2) season 2, 1976.
       Application rate and cover type are not significant at a 95 percent
 confidence level and were ignored in computing the above means .
   TABLE  13.   COMPARISON OF MEAN AMMONIA-N  CONCENTRATIONS MEASURED AT
              SITES  RECEIVING STABILIZATION POND  EFFLUENT AND  SITES
              RECEIVING CONTROL  WATER
Sample D th Ammonia-N Concentration (yg/1) ; Water Type
ep (_No Significant Difference at 95 Percent Confidence |
___^___
1(>.2 cm (4 in.)
3°-4 cm (1 ft.)
51-0 cm (2 ft.)
91 -4 cm (3 ft.)
Irrigation Water

1 57
1 65
j 124
|456
832

(E)a
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)

34
29
74
31
181

(C),
(C)|
(C)|
(C)|
(C)
      Code (E) Stabilizaton Pond Effluent.  (C) Control Water
      Cover type and application rate were not significant at a 95 per-
     confidence level and were ignored in computing the above means.
 eason 1 data were excluded because no control water was applied during
Season 1.
                                    55

-------
     Some significant differences in ammonia-N concentrations were observed
between sample depths on sites receiving effluent irrigation water.  Table 14
presents a statistical comparison of ammonia-N concentrations between sample
depths for the two water types used in this study.

     With sites receiving stabilization pond effluent, a mean ammonia-N re-
moval of over 95 percent was obtained after percolation through the top 10.2
cm (4 in.) of the soil profile.  At lower depths the ammonia-N concentration
increased, becoming significant at the 95 percent confidence level upon
reaching the 91.4 cm (3 ft.) depth.  There are several possible reasons for
the increase.  Ammonia-N previously adsorbed on the soil by cation exchange
may have been released into the soil solution when competing cations such as
Ca and Ilg were introduced with the irrigation water.  Because the soil was
saturated with water most of the time, anaerobic conditions likely existed in
the soil, especially at the lower depths.  Under anaerobic conditions, de-
nitrification may occur.  Nitrites and nitrates are both reduced by the process
of denitrification primarily to nitrogen gas by denitrifying bacteria, but a
few carry the process to ammonia-N (Sawyer and McCarty, 1967) .  Nitrates were
present in abundance as will be shown in a following section of this report on
nitrates.  The amount of total organic carbon present as an energy source for
denitrification increases with depth (see TOC Section).  An anaerobic environ-
ment in the soil, the presence of denitrifiable forms of nitrogen, and an
organic carbon energy source, make assimilative denitrification a possible
explanation of the increased ammonia-N concentrations observed at lower depths
in the soil.

     Ammonia-N is a product of anaerobic decomposition of organic matter
(Sawyer and McCarty,  1967).  Decomposition of organic matter present in the
soil may be the reason or a contributing factor to increased ammonia concen-
tration at lower soil profile depths.   Some increases in ammonia-N concen-
tration with depth were observed on sites receiving control water.  These
increases were not significant at the 95 percent confidence level, however.

     Table 15 summarizes the ammonia-N removal performance of the soil mantle
treatment system.  Over 90 percent removal of ammonia-N was obtained in the
top 61.0 cm (2 ft.)  of the soil.  At the 91.4 cm (3 ft.)  level the percent
removal of ammonia-N decreased substantially.

     Ammonia removal from wastewaters is desirable because of its nutrient
value to troublesome aquatic plants and the nitrification oxygen demand ex-
erted in surface waters.  The soil mantle treatment process significantly
lowers ammonia-N concentrations in percolated waters.

NITRATE AND NITRITE

     The performance of the soil mantle treatment system for nitrate may be
seen graphically in Figures B-17 through B-24.  The data are presented in
tabular form in Tables B-5 and B-6.  Nitrite data are shown in Figures B-25
through B-32 and in Tables B-7 and B-8,

     Nitrate is very mobile in soil systems (Sawyer and McCarty,  1967; USU,
1969)  and the water samples obtained from the soil profile consistently


                                      56

-------
 TABLE  14.  COMPARISON OF MEAN AMMONIA-N CONCENTRATIONS MEASURED AT VARIOUS
            SAMPLE DEPTHS ON SITES RECEIVING STABILIZATION POND EFFLUENT
            AND SITES RECEIVING CONTROL WATER
   T,                        Ammonia-N Concentration (yg/1) ;  Sample Depth
   Water  Type
                        I No  Significant  Difference at  95  Percent Confidence i
                      i 55    (4)    .sa   (12)   108    (24)|  389  (36)    1165  (0)
        Effluent      ' - i - ~~~ -

   Control Water      | 29    (12)   34   (4)     74    (24)   181  (0)     310(36))
  TABLE 15.  MEAN AMMONIA-N REMOVALS OBTAINED AT VARIOUS SAMPLING DEPTHS AND
             FOR DIFFERENT WATER TYPES
   Water Type                Sample Depth              Ammonia-N Removal
Stabilization
Pond Effluent


Control Water


__^_
10.2 cm (4 in;)
30.5 cm (1 ft.)
61.0 cm (2 ft.)
91.4 cm (3 ft.)
10.2 cm (4 in.)
30.5 cm (1 ft.)
61.0 cm (2 ft.)
71.4 cm (3 ft.)
95%
95
91
67
84%
81
59
71
        Both seasons data combined.
£0lltained nitrate-N.   Because of its mobility,  one would expect  nitrate to
 each from a soil containing nitrate when water is percolated  through that
 ^1'  There was evidence that leaching of nitrate from the soil system took
  ace during the two  irrigation seasons observed in this study.

j    As noted in Table 16,  the results of the statistical analysis  of nitrate
7ata indicate a significant difference between the concentrations observed
 uring the first irrigation season and the second irrigation season.   Investi-
|ation revealed that  the nitrate concentrations in water samples during the
 l*st irrigation season were significantly higher at  the 95 percent confidence
 evel than the nitrate concentrations observed  during the second season.   This
 °Qiparison was made for each season as a whole  without regard  to other main
 tfects.   A more specific comparison is made  in Table 17.
                                     57

-------
              TABLE 16.  NITRATE-N STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Main Effects
Water Type
Cover Type
Application Rate
Sample Depth
Season
Weeks
Two-Way Interactions
Cover Type x Application Rate
Cover Type x Sample Depth
Cover Type x Weeks
Application Rate x Sample Depth
Water Type x Sample Depth
Application Rate x Weeks
Significant
No
Yes
Yes
.Yes
Yes
No

Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
@ 95 Percent
Yesa
Yesa
Yesa
Yesa

Yesa

Yesa
Yesa
Yesa
Yesa
Yesa
Noa
     R  = 0.352
     R2 = 0.620a
     a
      Analysis of data with season 1 excluded.
TABLE 17.   COMPARISON OF MEAN NITRATE CONCENTRATIONS MEASURED DURING
           SEASON 1  AND SEASON 2
Cover Type j

Vegetated
Bare
NO^-N Concentration (pg/1)
No Significant Difference at

| 111
1 70
79
I 446
8916
| 15570


(2,6)a
(2,4)
(2,2)
(2,6)
(2,4)
(2,2)

; Season; Application Rate
95 Percent Confidence Level]

2269 (1,6)
4941 (1,4)
1840 (1,2)
3233 (1,6)|
48200 (1,4)
13410 (1,2)

    aCode:   (Season, Application  Rate)  Sites  received  stabilization  pond
            effluent inches  or  cm T  2.54  per  week.
                                  58

-------
      As  shown  in  Table  17,  the  average nitrate concentrations observed appear
 to be substantially higher  for  each test site at each application rate during
 the  first  season  with one exception.  The difference between seasons is
 significant  at  the 95 percent confidence level for the vegetated site receiving
 5.1  cm (2  in.)  per week and the bare site receiving 10.2 cm (4 in.) per week
 °f stabilization  pond effluent.  The apparent reason for the lower nitrate
 concentrations  during the second season was leaching of nitrates through the
 soil system.   This observation  is substantiated when the soil analyses shown
 ^n Table B-14  are examined.  Nineteen of the 24 soil sample locations showed
 a decrease in soil nitrate  concentration from the initial (before irrigation)
 value  to the end  of the second  irrigation season value.

     One might hypothesize  that nitrification of N-forms was responsible for
    nitrate found in the water  samples.   Three factors negate this hypothesis.
     t, as shown in Table 18, nitrate concentrations in water samples from the
 Vegetated sites,  including  the  control,  were not significantly different at
 the 95 percent confidence level during the second season even though the nitrate
 concentration in the stabilization pond and control water were significantly
 Different at the 95 percent confidence level.   Also,  water samples from the
 bare site which received 10.2 cm (4 in.)  of control water and the bare  site
 which received 5.1 cm (2 in.)  of stabilization pond effluent were not signifi-
 cantly different in nitrate concentration.   Over two seasons,  these  two bare
 ^ites had received approximately equal amounts of irrigation water and  there-
 fore had the same potential for nitrate  leaching.   Indications were  that the
 nitrate concentrations found in the water samples were not primarily functions
 of the nitrate concentration in the applied irrigation water.

     Second,  the nitrate-N concentration alone in water  samples  taken from
 the bare site receiving  5.1  cm (2  in.) per  week and the  bare site receiving
 10*2 cm (4 in.) per week exceeded  the average  TKN of  5200 ng/1 found in the
 ktabilization pond effluent  during the second  season (Filip,  1976).   Third,
 because of the high application rates used,  anaerobic conditions  likely
 existed making large scale nitrification improbable.

     Complete nitrification of N-forms  could not  account for the  amount of
 uitrate observed in these samples.   It may  be  concluded  that the  nitrate-N
 concentrations observed  in the water samples were primarily  due to the  leaching
   nitrate-N  present in  the  soil before  the beginning  of irrigation.

     As shown in Table 18, where significant differences are  indicated,  the
 °ncentration of nitrate-N was  least when the  amount of  water  applied was
£reatest.  When more water is  percolated  through  the soil more nitrate may
   leached  from the soil.

     There  is a large  difference between  the nitrate concentration in water
     es obtained from  vegetated  sites and bare sites as  shown  in  Table  19.
 *°  factors probably cause the  disparity between  the observed  results.  First,
 utr*ent  uptake by plants  can  remove nitrate-N from the  lagoon effluent as it
 Psses through  the soil.  A  second  and more  important  reason  for  the higher
    ate concentrations on  the bare  site is  found when  the soil analyses in
      B-U  are  examined.   In every  case except for  two samples, the  initial
     concentration of nitrate was higher  in  the soil samples from the bare


                                     59

-------
   TABLE 18.   COMPARISON OF MEAN NITRATE CONCENTRATIONS  MEASURED AT  VARIOUS
              APPLICATION RATES, WATER TYPES,  AND COVER  TYPES  FOR THE  SEC-
              OND IRRIGATION SEASON


                                 Mean NO-j-N Concentration  (ug/1);
    Cover  Type                      Application  Rate;  Water Type
                        |No Significant Difference at  95 Percent Confidencei

Vegetated
Bare
1 72
366
(4E)a
(6E)
79
6820
(2E)
(4E)
103 (6E)
1 11800 (4C)

214 (4C)|
12000 (2E)|

          Code:   (2E)  5.8   cm/wk  (2  in./wk) w/stabilization  pond  effluent
                 (4E)  10.2  cm/wk  (4  in./wk) w/stabilization  pond  effluent
                 (6E)  15.2  cm/wk  (6  in./wk) w/stabilization  pond  effluent
                 (4C)  10.2  cm/wk  (4  in./wk) w/control water
    TABLE  19.  COMPARISON OF MEAN NITRATE CONCENTRATIONS MEASURED AT SITES
               WITH DIFFERENT COVER TYPES


   Application          Mean No3_N Concentration  (yg/1); Cover Type
    Rate   and     |No Significant Difference at  95 Percent  Confidence Level I
    Ja «-ov   Tirno    	   ... 	.. . —	__l
Water Type 	 '
6"/wk Effluent
4"/wk Effluent
2"/wk Effluent
4"/wk Control
I 103
72
79
214
(V)
(V)
(V)
(V)
366
6820
12000
11800
(B)|
(B)
(B)
(B)
V = vegetated
B = bare
sites than in the soil samples from the vegetated sites.  This prevailed with
depth in the soil profile with the greater concentrations near the surface.
Unknown factors have caused the soil nitrate to be higher where the bare sites
were located.  There appears to be a definite correspondence between the con-
centration observed in the soil treated water samples and the concentration
observed in the soil samples.  As shown in Table 19, no significant difference
was found between nitrate concentrations in water samples obtained from vege-
tated or bare sites where the 15.2 cm (6 in.) per week sites were located.
This corresponds to the results in the soil analyses where the least dif-
ference between vegetated and bare sites was observed.  Also, the greatest
difference in nitrate concentration between vegetated and bare sites in water
samples corresponds to the greatest difference in nitrate concentration between
vegetated and bare sites in soil samples.  It is believed that initial soil
nitrate concentrations affected the amount of nitrate found in the leachates
more than any other factor.


                                      60

-------
     Continued high rate irrigation of Drainage Farm soils should result in a
further decrease in both leachate and soil nitrate concentration.  An equi-
^ibrium value will be reached in time.  This equilibrium value will be dictated
by the irrigation application rate, the nitrogen content of the irrigation
water, and the amount of nitrogen removed from the soil system by means other
than leaching, such as removal of crops containing nitrogen obtained from the
soil.

     At the beginning of the irrigation seasons,  higher nitrate concentrations
Were observed in the water samples than were observed after two or three weeks
ot irrigation on the vegetated sites.  These peaks were probably due to nitro-
8£n being returned to the soil by decaying plant materials and by evaporation
concentration effects during the nonirrigation season.  On the bare sites
these effects were masked by the much higher nitrate concentrations.

     Table 20 indicates little significant difference in nitrate concentration
between depths in the soil.

     No significant difference in nitrate concentrations in water samples was
°bserved for the vegetated sites.  Where significant differences occurred on
 "•e bare sites,  no recognizable pattern of increase was shown.

     Nitrate-N levels frequently exceeded the 10  mg/1 concentration drinking
w*ter standard in the water samples obtained from the bare sites.  These
Citrate concentrations could possibly promote algal growth in surface waters
 ut might be of  use as a fertilizer in irrigation reuse.

CARBON

     Several methods of testing the organic pollutional load of a water have
 sen developed.   The most common of these are the biochemical oxygen demand
g °D)>  chemical  oxygen demand (COD), and the total organic carbon (TOC)  tests.
 ecause of the time advantage with the TOC test and the large number of samples
 0 be tested, TOC values were the most practical, even though the BOD and COD
 ests are more commonly employed.   The TOC concentration indicates the organic
p°Uutional strength of stabilization pond soil mantle treated  effluents.  The
 6sults of the TOC analyses are presented in Table B-13.

^   The statistical analysis of the TOC data is  summarized  in  Table 21.
J*ere was no significant difference at the 95 percent confidence level in the
 j^C content in the water samples due to the type  of irrigation  water applied,
 he Presence or  absence of vegetation, or the application rate  of irrigation
water-   However,  there was a significant difference in TOC concentration in
rater samples obtained at different depths in the soil.   Table  22 shows the
  Ationship between TOC concentration and soil depth.

     There was a significant increase in TOC concentration as depth  in the
     Profile increased.   The increase appeared to level off  at  the 30.5 cm
   ft«)  to 91  cm (3 ft.)  depth.   Because of the lack of statistical  signifi-
    e of other factors as well as  depth  in the soil profile, the increase in
    concentration with depth was likely due to characteristics  of the soil.
    Presence of  organic carbon in the soil effluent suggests that anaerobic


                                      61

-------
       TABLE 20.  COMPARISON OF MEAN NITRATE CONCENTRATIONS MEASURED AT VARIOUS  SAMPLING DEPTHS  DURING  THE
                  SECOND  SEASON
ro
Cover
Type
Vegetated
Vegetated
Vegetated
Vegetated
Bare
Bare
Bare
Bare
Water
Type
Effluent
Effluent
Effluent
Control
Effluent
Effluent
Effluent
Control
*Code: (application
rates)
Application
Rate
15.2 cm
(6 in,)/wk
10.2 cm
(4 in.)/wk
5.1 cm
(2 in,)/wk
10.2 cm
(4 in.)/wk
15.2 cm
(6 in,)/wk
10.2 cm
(4 in.)/wk
5. 1 cm
(2 1n.)/wk
10.2 cm
(4 in,)/wk
Mean
I No si

14
18
294
19
77
77
77
19
N03-N concentration (yg/i); Soil Profile Depth
qnificant difference at 95 percent confidence

(12)* 14
(4) 77
(12) 77
(0) 31
(0) 202
(0) 303
(0) 5530
(0) 4150

(36) 77 (0)
(0) 800 (36)
(0) 88 (36)
(4) 32 (36)
(12) 223 (36)
(4 )| |10900 (36)
(4) |14100 (12)
(24) 5360 (12)

121 (24)
80.7 (24)
93.1 (24)
188 (12)

279 (4)
102 (12)
110 (4)
759 (24)
254 (4) 1080 (24)
12400 (24) 13000 (12) |
17000 (36) | 26300 (24)

[13300 (4) 38000 (36)

6 15.2 cm (6 in.)
4 10.2 cm (4 in.)
2 5.1 cm (2 in.)
0 Applied Irrigation Water

-------
             TABLE 21.  TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON STATISTICAL ANALYSIS3
         Main Effects                               Significant @ 95 Percent

    Water Type                                                 No
    Cover Type                                                 No
    Application Rate                                           No
    Sample Depth                                               Yes
    Weeks                                                      Yes

    .Twp-Way Interactions

    Cover Type x Application Rate                              No
    Cover Type x Sample Depth                                  No
    Cover Type x Weeks                                          No
    Application Rate x  Sample Depth                            Yes
    Water Type x Sample Depth                                  No
    Application Rate x  Weeks                                   No

         R2  =  0.551
         a
          Analysis of data with  season 1  excluded.
   TABLE 22.  COMPARISON OF TOC CONCENTRATIONS MEASURED AT VARIOUS SAMPLING
             DEPTHS
                 Mean TOC Concentration (mg/1) ; Sample Depth
              Significant Difference at 95 Percent Confidence Level)


            (0)a     14.9 (4) i     20.9 (12)   ;  24.6 (36)     27.9  (24)

        a
         Code:   (4)  10.2 cm or 4 in.; (12) 30.5 cm or 1 ft.; (24) 61 cm or
                2 ft.;  (36) 9 cm or 3 ft.; (0) Irrigation Water.
         Cover  type,  application rate and water type were insignificant at
       95 percent confidence level and were ignored in calculation of the
   above  means.
  w           of the solid soil organic components with ammonia produced as a
   Product may have occurred.   This was suggested earlier in this report.
PH°SPH
      ORUS
     Total  phosphorus  concentrations are  shown in Figures  B-33 through B-40
j,   in Tables  B-9  and  B-10.   Orthophosphate concentrations are shown in
       B-41 through B-48 and in Tables B-11  and B-12.
                                     63

-------
     As irrigation water percolates through the soil, phosphorus may be added
to or removed from the water.  Whether addition or removal of phosphorus occurs
depends upon the initial concentration of phosphorus in the irrigation water
and upon the characteristics of the soil through which percolation occurs.   If
the initial concentration of phosphorus in the irrigation water is high, then
it is likely that subsurface return flows will contain less phosphorus than
the original water.  If the concentration of phosphorus is low, then an in-
crease may occur during the percolation process.

     The oxidation pond effluent used for irrigation water in this study con-
tained what may be termed *'appreciable'' amounts of phosphorus, 1 mg/1 or
more (USU, 1969).

     Table 23 summarizes the initial findings of the orthophosphate-P statis-
tical analysis.

     As shown in Table 24, there was a significant difference in phosphorus
concentration at the 95 percent confidence level between the first and second
irrigation seasons.  The analysis exhibited in Table 24 shows that there was
no significant difference (95 percent confidence level) in orthophosphate con-
centration between season 1 and season 2 at the four soil depths where water
samples were collected.  The orthophosphate concentration in the stabilization
pond effluent differed significantly between the two seasons.  Although the
applied orthophosphate concentration differs, the concentration in the percolate
does not differ significantly, suggesting that the concentrations observed  in
the percolate were independent of the concentrations applied.  Table 25 fur-
ther substantiates this hypothesis.

     Table 25 presents a statistical comparison of the two water types used.
No significant difference in orthophosphate concentration was observed between
sites receiving effluent and sites receiving control water at any of the
sample depths.  This occurred even though the orthophosphate concentration  in
the stabilization pond effluent was much higher than the concentration in the
control water.  Because there was no significant difference in orthophosphate
concentration in the percolate between irrigation seasons when the applied
effluent differed significantly, and because there was no sigificant difference
in orthophosphate concentration in percolate coming from sites receiving ef-
fluent or control water when the control water was far lower in orthophosphate
concentration than the effluent, it may be assumed that the concentrations
observed in the percolate largely represent background levels inherent to the
soil system.  The orthophosphate concentration in the irrigation water was  not
shown to significantly affect concentrations observed in the percolate at any
given depth.  There were, however, some significant differences in ortho-
phosphate concentrations observed between sample depths on sites receiving
effluent.  Table 26 presents a statistical comparison of orthophosphate con-
centration between sample depths for the two water types used in this study.

     After a large reduction in orthophosphate concentration at the surface,
a gradual but significant increase in concentration was observed as the sample
depth increased with sites receiving stabilization pond effluent.  This general
trend occurred for vegetated and bare sites at the different application rates
used.  As noted in Table 23, cover type and application rate did not


                                       64

-------
              TABLE 23.  ORTHOPHOSPHATE-P  STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
       Main Effects
Significant @ 95 Percent
   Water Type
   Cover Type
   Application Rate
   Sample Depth
   Season
   Weeks

   .Two-Way Interactions

   Cover Type x Application Rate
   Cover Type x Sample Depth
   Cover Type x Weeks
   Application Rate x Sample Depth
   Water Type x Sample Depth
   Application Rate x Weeks
           Yes
           No
           No
           Yes
           Yes
           Yes
           No
           No
           No
           No
           Yes
           No
        R  = 0.715
   TABLE 24.  COMPARISON OF MEAN ORTHOPHOSPHATE-P CONCENTRATIONS MEASURED
              DURING SEASON 1  AND SEASON 2
  Sample Depth
                             Orthophosphate-P Concentration (yg/1)

10-2 cm (4 in.)
3o-5 cm (1 ft.)
6l-0 cm (2 ft.)
9l-4 cm (3 ft.)
Stabilization Pond
Effluent
, 36 OS})3
j 56 (Si)
, 93 (S:)
1 122 (St)
i i
1530 (Sj)
74
118
186
243
1000
(S2),
(S2>,
(S2),
(S2),
(S2)
        Code:   (Sj)  season 1,  1975;  (S2)  season 2,  1976.
        Application  rate and cover type were not significant at 95 percent
  c°nfidence level and were ignored in computing the above means.
S "i
 "
^ ^Ificantly affect  orthophosphate  concentrations at the 95 percent confidence
       T^e  increase  in orthophosphate  concentration with sample depth on
     receivin8 effluent was not significant between adjacent sample depths
   between  alternate depths, illustrating the gradual nature of the increase.
                                      65

-------
    TABLE  25.   COMPARISON  OF MEAN  ORTHOPHOSPHATE-P  CONCENTRATIONS MEASURED
               ON  THE  SITES RECEIVING  STABILIZATION POND  EFFLUENT AND  SITES
               RECEIVING CONTROL WATER


              ,          Orthophosphate-P Concentration  (yg/1);  Water Type
                       I No Significant JDifference at 95 Percent Confidence!

10.2 cm (4 in.)
30.4 cm (1 ft.)
61.0 cm (2 ft.)
91.4 cm (3 ft.)
Irrigation Water
I 74
| 118
| 186
1 243
1000
(E)a
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
36
53
129
163
28
(C)|
(C)|
(C)|
(C)!
(C)
        aCode:  (E) Stabilization Pond Effluent.  (C) Control Water.
         Cover type and application rate were not significant at a 95 per-
   cent confidence level and were ignored in computing the above means.
   Season 1 data were excluded because no control water was applied during
   season 1.
   TABLE 26.  COMPARISON OF MEAN ORTHOPHOSPHATE-P CONCENTRATIONS MEASURED
              AT VARIOUS SAMPLING DEPTHS ON SITES RECEIVING STABILIZATION
              POND EFFLUENT AND SITES RECEIVING CONTROL WATER
                    Orthophosphate-P Concentration (yg/1);  Sample Depth
   Water Type    [No Significant Difference at 95 Percent Confidence Level|


   Stabilization j58   (4)a  101   (12)[   156   (24)    212 (36)   1270  (0)
   Pond Effluent            '             i           '	|

   Control Water  28   (0)     37    (4)     53   (12)    129 (24)    163 (36)
     aCode  (4)  10.2  cm  (4") depth,  (12)  30.5  cm  (12") depth,  (24) 61 cm
 (24") depth,  (36) 91.4 cm  (36»») depth,  (0) irrigation water
     Season  1  and season 2  data combined  for stabilization pond effluent.  NO
 statistical  difference shown between season 1  and season 2 at given depths o*
 levels in the  soil profile  (see Table 24).


     The increasing  orthophosphate concentration  at greater sample depths was
 probably due to the  percolating water removing small amounts of phosphorus
 from the soil  particles, from the oxidation of organics present in the soil,
 and/or from  the soil solution.  The mean  concentration of orthophosphate also
-appeared to  increase with depth on the sites receiving control water, but the


                                     66

-------
increases were not shown to be significant at the 95 percent confidence
level.

     After percolation through the top 10.2 cm (4 in.)  of soil,  orthophosphate
 emoval of 90 percent and above were  typically observed and  removal  as  high  as
   Percent occurred at this depth.  Similar performance was  observed in the
 eiuoval of total phosphorus.   The  overall  phosphorus removal seen  at the
Sweater sample depths was less than at the 10.2 cm (4 in.) depth but still
  £h.   Table 27 summarizes phosphorus  removal by the soil  mantle treatment
Process.

     Table 27 also shows  that  phosphorus concentration was lower in  the  per-
  late  when the concentration  was high in  the irrigation water and that  phos-
  °rus  concentration was  increased  in  the  percolate  when the  phosphorus  con-
 ei*tration was  low in the irrigation water.   This was as expected.   The  per-
 oiate  phosphorus  concentrations were  equilibriated  to  levels statistically
 ^distinguishable  at  the  95 percent confidence  level regardless of the type
   irrigation water  used  in this study.

     Figures  23 and  24 graphically  illustrate phosphorus removal during  the
 ficond  irrigation  season.  The differences  shown between cover types were
 Significant at the  95 percent confidence  level.  This  indicates that nutrient
 Ptake  by  vegetation was  not a significant  phosphorus removal mechanism.

    The silty  clay loam  soils  used in this study supplies many adsorptive
        for  phosphorus removal.  Adsorption was probably the major phosphorus
       mechanism.  Examination of the soil characteristics in Table B-14
     that  the  cation exchange  capacity was undiminished after two irrigation
    ns with  stabilization pond effluent.  The basic environment of the soil
    contains some calcium for precipitation with phosphorus.  The soil sys-
   should  provide phosphorus removal for many years.
  TABLE 27.  MEAN PHOSPHORUS REMOVALS OBTAINED AT VARIOUS SAMPLING DEPTHS
             AND FOR DIFFERENT WATER TYPES
    Water Type                              Orthophosphate-P    Total-P
Stabilization
pond Effluent


Control Water


~~__
10.2 cm (4 in.)
30.5 cm (1 ft.)
61.0 cm (2 ft.)
91.4 cm (3 ft.)
10.2 cm (4 in.)
30.5 cm (1 ft.)
61.0 cm (2 ft.)
91.4 cm (3 ft.)
- 95%
- 92
- 88
- 83
- 31
+ 90
+ 364
+ 486
- 93 %
- 90
- 85
- 82
+ 108
+ 93
+ 176
+ 234
        Code:   - removal;  + increase.
        Both seasons data  combined.
                                    67

-------
      UJ
      DC

      t-
      z
      LU
      O
      CC
      UJ
      0.
Figure 23.
IOO
90
8O
7O
60
50
4O
30
2O
 IO

IOO
90
80
7O
6O
5O
40
30
 2O
 IO
IOO
 90
 80
 7Ot-
 6O
 50
 4O
 3O
 2O
  10
                                6"/wk
                                VEGETATED
                                BARE
                                               j	u
                      _L
                  I   23456789 IO
                      12  13 14
VEGETATED
BARE
          23456789  IO
                      12  13  14
                               2"/wk
                               VEGETATED
                               BARE
       I   2   3  4  5  6  7  8  9  IO  II  12  13  14
       7/9 7/16 7/23 7/3O 8/6 8/13 8/2O 8/27 9/3 9/IO 9/17 9/24 IO/l IO/2
      SAMPLING  DATE  AND SAMPLE NUMBER
 Percentage removal  of orthophosphate-P at the 10.2 cm (4 in.)
 sample depth  on vegetated and bare sites receiving 5.1 cm
 (2 in.), 10.2 cm (4 in.), 15.2 cm  (6 in.) per week of
 stabilization pond  effluent.
                                   68

-------






1




_J
<
>
o
s
LU
o:

f-
2
LU
0
K
LU
a.









IOO
90
8O
7O
60
5O
4O
3O
20
IO

f G ^— TV 0—fl— ?—
j^/r IT ^^ O
^^
f
I
/ 6"/wk
/ VEGETATED — O —
• BARE — • —

•
-
i i i i i i i i i i i i i
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IO II 12 13 14
IOO
9O
80
70
6O
5O
4O
3O
2O
IO

r ^ ^^r^Q^^v—o— 2—^—0
o — ° * *^--di^
•
•
• ^^ /i * f 1^
^T * WT r\
VEGETATED — O —
RARF A
.
.
*
I iiiii iiiiii ii
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IO II 12 13 14
IOO
9O
80
70
6O
50
4O
30
2O
IO

• • t^l^JI^
-*- -^5— ^^-^
-
2"/wk

VEGETATED — O —
n/\ r?r~ A

•
•

i i i i i i i i i i i i i •
                    I   2   3  4  5   6  7  8  9  IO I!   12  13  14
                   7/9  7/16 7/23 7/3O 8/G  8/13 8/2O 6/27 9/3 9/10 9/17 9/24 IO/1 IO/2
                    SAMPLING DATE AND  SAMPLE NUMBER

tij
  Sure  24.   Percentage  removal of  total phosphorus-P at  the  10.2 cm  (A in.)
            sample  depth on vegetated and bare sites receiving 5.1 cm  (2
            in.)»  10.2  cm  (4 in.),  15.2 cm  (6 in.) per week  of stabilization
            pond effluent.
                                    69

-------
     The time of  the  irrigation season was  a  significant  factor  in  the phos-
phorus removal performance of  the soil mantle treatment system.  Figures  B-34
through B-40 and  B-42 through  B-48 show that  the largest  variation  in removal
occurred at the beginning of the irrigation season.  This variation was
probably caused by phosphorus  concentrations  which had built up  in  the soil
solution over the non-irrigation season when  little water was moving through
the soil.  Decaying plant material could contribute phosphorus to the soil
solution.

     When irrigation resumed,  this phosphorus was picked  up with the soil
water sampling devices.  After a few weeks  of irrigation, phosphorus removal
became essentially constant.

     In the lysimeter study using the Utah  State University Drainage Farm soil*
an average orthophosphate removal of 92.8 percent at a 38.1 cm (15  in.) depth
was observed.  A weekly application rate of 5  cm (2 in.)  of effluent contain-
ing an average orthophosphate  content of 2,300 Ug/1 was used in  the lysimeter
study.  This removal corresponds closely to the 92 percent removal  observed at
the 30.5 cm (12 in.) depth in  this field study.  The phenomenon  of  high removal
near the surface  followed by a slight increase in concentration  at  lower depth3
did not occur.  The reason for the difference in behavior between the field
study and the lysimeter study was probably  attributable to the fact that the
lysimeters contained disturbed (i.e., mixed)  soil.

     Studies have shown that vigorous algal growth can occur when the phos-    ,
phorus content in a water is 100 pg/1 or more, and if growth is  to  be complete*'
eliminated, concentrations of less than 20  yg/1 are required (Wadleigh, 1968)•
Tables B-9 and B-10 show that  subsurface return flows contained  between 20 and .
100 yg/1 and often over 100 Mg/1 of total phosphorus.  If subsurface water waSj:
to be collected in drains at a depth of approximately 90  cm (3 ft.) and return^9
to an open ditch  or canal, algal growth could  be expected to occur.  Dilution
with low phosphorus water could reduce the nutrient concentration to a level
adequate to control algal growth, but the opportunity to  dilute  return flows
occurs infrequently.

VEGETATION

     The results of the vegetation growth study are shown in Table  B-16.  The
comparison of mean growth between each of the  vegetated sample sites showed
that there was no significant difference at the 95 percent confidence level
in the amount of vegetation.  The additional moisture and nutrients supplied
by the stabilization pond effluent made no observable difference in vegetati°°
growth over areas receiving control water or no irrigation at all.   No vege-
tation growth difference was observed between  sites receiving different appli*
cation rates of effluent.   The grasses were predominantly pasture grass, some
alfalfa,  and dandelion.

SUSPENDED SOLIDS

     Because the water collected in the 10.2  cm (4 in.)  mole drain  was a com-
posite of drainage from all of the test sites, including  the control site, it
was impossible to make specific cause and effect comparisons between test


                                      70

-------
 actors  such  as  cover  type and application rates vs.  suspended solids  content.
 °wever,  a  general  observation may be made.

     During the  two irrigation seasons the suspended  solids  content of the
 tabiiization pond  effluent was lowered with the soil mantle treatment process.
^ shown in Figure  B-49,  the  suspended solids in the  treated water were con-
sistently lower  than in the stabilization  pond effluent.

     Another  observation  was  that  the drainage water  was not green in  color as
 as the  stabilization  pond effluent.   Algal  cells were removed by  the  soil
      treatment process.

         QUALITY AND STANDARDS

     Suspended solids  concentrations  in the  effluent  from  the mole drain col-
     ns  effluents from all eight test sites  were consistently less than 3 mg/1
   gure  B-49) .   The concentrations in the  mole drain  effluent were independent
   the concentrations  of  suspended solids  in the lagoon effluent.   Suspended
  .ids concentrations  in  the  lagoon effluent were less than  20 mg/1 the
         of the  time,  but when the concentrations were between 20  and  30 mg/1,
     was no  detectable difference in the  quality of  the effluent  from the
     drain.   Based  upon the lysimeter studies of soil treatment of wastewaters
    other field  studies,  the  removal  of suspended solids by  spray  irrigation
(i    be  excellent and  little  difficulty will be encountered  in meeting stan-
  ds for secondary effluents.

     Based  on the reduction of TOG, it appears that the irrigation wastewater
         system will not produce  an  effluent which would meet the secondary
in   ent  standards.  However,  the  lysimeter  studies showed significant changes
   the organic content of  the  soils after  the application of well  water and
      effluent  (Table 7) .  Leaching  of organics from the soils accounts for
    small decreases and frequent increases in TOC concentrations in the mole
     effluents  during the field experiments.   The change in organic content
     nt C^ of the  Draina8e Fam soils during the field experiments were
a    (Table  B-14);  however,  the quantity  of water passing through the soil
v  the field  sites  was very small  when compared with  the quantity  of well
c  fr Used  to  compact  the lysimeter soils.   At some point in the future,  the
ted  n C0ntent of the Drainage Farm soils  will stabilize and consistent carbon
re  .tions  will  occur.  Unfortunately,  it  is impossible to predict the time
         to reach equilibrium  with data from only two irrigation seasons.
i      mmares of the mean concentrations of various constituents in the
Of8°°n. effluent and the samples collected at 0.9 m  (3 ft.) below the surface
   the field sites are shown in Tables 28 and 29 for 1975 and  1976, respectively.
           comparisons and discussions for each of the characteristics were
   ented in other sections of this report.

         OF SPRAY IRRIGATION OF WASTEWATER

    The use of land application techniques for meeting wastewater discharge
            must not only meet the technical criteria as established by water
pQ --^ standards but must also meet economic constraints.  The increasing
  Pularity and increased technology in irrigation has greatly reduced the cost

                                      71

-------
 TABLE  28.   SUMMARY  OF  THE MEAN VALUES  OF  THE CHARACTERISTICS  OF  THE  LAGOON AND  FIELD  SITE EFFLUENT
            SAMPLES  COLLECTED DURING  SEASON  1 (1975) AT  0.9 METER (3  FT)  BELOW THE  SOIL SURFACE

Characteristic

Specific Conductance, ymhos/cm
Ammonia-N, yg/1
Nitrate-N, yg/1
Nitrite-N, yg/1
Total-P, yg/1
Orthophosphate-P, yg/1
Oxidation
Pond
Effluent
658
2,330
655
103
2,160
1,530
Vegetated
Site
6"/wk
3,840
33
2,990
91
167
64
Bare
Site
6"/wk
2,650
-
-
83
240
102
Vegetated
Site
4"/wk
3,530
-
5,480
509
196
—
Bare
Site
4"/wk
12,500
297
24,400
1,090
281
147
Vegetated
Site
2"/wk
2,940
148
12,500
5
279
—
Bare
Site
2"/wk
41,800
85
9,380
769
233
168
TABLE 29.  SUMMARY OF THE MEAN VALUES OF THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE LAGOON AND FIELD SITE EFFLUENT
           SAMPLES COLLECTED DURING SEASON 2 (1976) AT 0.9 METER (3 FT) BELOW THE SOIL SURFACE

Characteristic

Specific Conduct-
ance, ymhos/cm
Ammonia-N, yg/1
Nitrate-N, yg/1
Nitrite-N, yg/1
Total-P, yg/1
Orthophosphate-P ,
yg/l
Total Organic
Carbon, m^/1
Oxidation
Pond
Effluent

570
832
69
58
1,460

1,000

12
Vegetated
Site
6"/wk

5,140
122
14
2
176

138

26
Bare
Site
6"/wk

1,940
74
81
30
195

95

18
Vegetated
Site
4"/wk

3,770
274
4
55
202

127

23
Bare
Site
4"/wk

9,180
1,330
10,900
1,900
696

556

25
Vegetated
Site
2"/wk

16,900
935
11
2
373

326

34
Bare
Site
2"/wk

12,100
151
19,000
517
344

224

29
Control

Water

483
181
20
1
74

28

4
Vegetated
Control
4"/wk

3,290
449
16
2
266

133

33
Bare
Control
4"/wk

12,100
182
38,000
589
226

195

32

-------
    this type of equipment.   There is a definite advantage from an economic
standpoint for irrigation systems in wastewater treatment.  For the most part
other types of wastewater treatment systems are unique only to the wastewater
industry and have not benefited from large demand pressures.  The principal
components of the irrigation system consist of pipe,  pumps, control equipment
(electronic and hydraulic),  and certain specialized application systems.  The
aPPlication of wastewater to land would be a small component of the total irri-
gation picture in the United States if all waste were treated in this manner.
0116 of the obvious advantages,  from an economic standpoint, for land appli-
cation of wastewater is the  fact that research and development costs have been
Paid for and the private sector is highly competitive in the large market area
°* irrigation equipment.  This  situation allows for significant decreases in
c°st effectiveness for land  application systems where land costs are not
Prohibitive and satisfactory soils exists.

     The two most predominant types of irrigation systems » solid set and center
Pivot, will be evaluated and an algorithm developed for computing total system
c°st.  Two alternatives were analyzed for solid set systems, (a) in- the- ground,
    (b)  on-the-ground wastewater distribution systems.  A computer program was
          to assist in determining alternatives as they relate to spray irri-
       techniques.  Input data  include all system and wastewater variables
which affect the total cost. The output data are in the form of a graph which
Shows the cost of operation, cost of ownership, and the total system cost for
Carious flow rates and application rates.  The analysis of these variables was
 esigned to be as complete as possible to further the utility of the computer
      in decision making and design of spray irrigation waste treatment sys-
       A general discussion  of  the three configurations follows, and a detailed
  scussion of the computer program and the derivation of the basic costs is
Presented in Appendix C.

SOLID SET SYSTEMS

     Solid set or on-the-ground irrigation systems are characterized by the
Permanent or immobile nature of the distribution lines.  In some cases these
 istribution lines are buried to facilitate ease of operation and to increase
  6 efficiency of on land water use.   On ground systems,  which are most often
utUized on small plots of land, are manually changed from section to section
as water demand necessitates.  Determining the total  acreage requirement for
  given flow and application rate is the initial step in an economic analysis
,  irrigation systems.   The  following formula was used to make this
termination.
ai
tn Which
                   Q/UC1
    A   =     required  application area  (acres)
    Q   =     design  flow  rate  of  wastewater  (million gallons/day)
    u   =     application  rate  (inches/day)
    ci   =     conversion factor (1  acre-inch/day equals  0.027153 million
ju             gallons)
  e Power requirements for  a  given  flow and application rate must next be
  lculated.   Since  the area varies  for different  combinations of  flow and
                                      73

-------
application rate all friction loss factors will be unitized with respect to
area.  The total friction loss is comprised of the static pressure due to
riser heights and terrain and the dynamic head losses due to velocity, flow,
and pipe size.  Equation 2 is used to determine the total friction loss of the
system.
                      (AXH2)
                                                                          (2)
in which
     HT   =    total friction loss for the system (ft.)
     A    =    area (acres)
     HI   =    static head (ft.)
     H2   =    friction loss per acre (ft.)
Power requirements for the system can now be determined once the hydraulic
configuration for the design has been determined.  Equation 3 has been used
to calculate the power requirements for the total system.
          P = (Q x C  x H )/4000 (drive efficiency) (pump efficiency)
                                                                          (3)
in which
     P    =    power (horsepower)
     Q    =    flow (million gallons /day)
     €3   -    conversion factor (694 gpm/1.0 MGD)
     Drive efficiency  =  0.7
     Pump efficiency   =  0.95
The total operating cost can now be determined including the various cost
factors which are dependent on time and location.

Electrical Energy Cost
               01  =  P x (4 x 6 G.j/GR)
in which
     0.
     P
     04
     G-,
     GR
               electrical energy operating cost ($/year)
               power (horsepower)
               8760 hours/year
               fuel cost ($/kw)
               fuel consumption (bhp-hrs/kw)
Fossil Fuel Energy Cost
                   =  P x
                             x
in which
     P
     0_
     C,
               power (horsepower)
               fossil fuel operation cost ($/year)
               8790 hours/year
               cost of power unit maintenance ($/bhp-hr)
                                     74

-------
J-°wer Tfai t- Maintenance Cost
•gSJ^Re servo-ir Maintenance

               03   =   C5  x D1  x A + (C6G3)   ...-	(6)

in which
     0_   =    power unit maintenance cost and reservoir maintenance ($/year)
     D-|   =    capital cost of sprinklers,  pipe, and drainage
     ^5   =    maintenance constant (assumed to be @ 5/1000 of the capital
               cost per year)
     Cg   =    assumed manpower requirement for maintenance in hours per year
               (80 hrs/year)
     £3   =    cost of maintenance ($l/hr)

•^bor^Cost to Operate System

               0,   =   C-.  x A X G.	(7)
                47         4

ilx which
     L    =    labor requirement to operate system (hr/acre/day)
     £7   =    days in a year  (365)
     A    =    area (acres)
     G4   =    hourly wage for system labor ($/hr)

%2esting_cost

               0   =   D2  x A x K	(8)

in which
     0^   =    harvesting cost ($/year)
     C2   =    cost of harvesting ($/acre)
     ^    =    area (acres)
     K    =    number of  harvest per year

     .Operation and Maintenance Cost

               °T   =   °1  + °2  + °3 + °4  + °5	(9)


     °T   =    total operation and maintenance cost ($/year)
      1   =    electrical energy cost ($/year)
     °2   =    fossil fuel energy cost ($/year)
      3   =    power unit maintenance cost ($/year)
      4   =    capital investment and maintenance cost ($/year)
C0st.  5   =    harvesting cost ($/year)
     associated with interest  and principal payback must be considered for
     segment of capital investment.  The equations used for these deterrainations
          below.  The interest rate could be different for each segment of
        investment which  would necessitate rearrangement of the equation.  For
Q£~n!!?s of this calculation the interest rate was the same for all categories
           investment.
                                       75

-------
          T -  I  [(CQ x Q) +  (45 x P) +  (D- x A) + D.  + (D,  x A)  + (D, x A)]
                   o                      J          4      _>           o
              +  (Dy x A/20) +  (DQ x A) +  (Dg  x A/20)
                                                            (10)
in which
     I
     C8
     Q.
     D3
     D4
     Dg
interest factor
4951  (the  capacity of the  storage reservoir was  assumed  to  be
one day's  flow, the  cost of  a  reservoir was assumed  to be
$1.00/yd3, and 4951  yd^ is equal to a million  gallons)
design flow  (MGD)
cost  of pipe ($/acre)
cost  of pipe trailer
cost  for sprinklers  ($/acre)
cost  for the drainage system ($/acre)
cost  of installation of sprinklers and drainage  system ($/acre)
dollar value of the  crop grown on the land before the treatment
system was installed ($/acre)
cost  of land acquisition ($/acre)
Value of the Crop

     The economic value of the crop must be considered in the economic analysis
of the treatment system.  The cost of the existing crop not realized is con-
sidered in the preceding equations.  In most cases, if irrigation was not to
be used, the crop value of the wastewater system should exceed the crop value
prior to the installation of the irrigation system.  This will not always be
the case, and some thought should be given to this consideration.  The value
of the crop obviously depends on the specific crop grown and on the regional
market values for the crop.
                         x A x K
                                                           (11)
in which
     WT
     A
     K
     Wt
in which
     0T
     T
     Wrp
total yearly dollar value ($/year)
area of the system (acres)
harvests per year (number/year)
crop value ($/acre)
               0
T -
                                                           (12)
total operation and maintenance cost ($/year)
interest cost ($/year)
total yearly dollar value of crop grown ($/year)
system operation and maintenance cost including the annual
value of the crops ($/year)
     Figures 25 through 27 show the operation and maintenance costs, the owner*
ship costs, and the total costs, respectively, for an on-the-ground solid set
irrigation system.  Comparable costs for an in-the-ground solid set irrigation
system are shown in Figures 28 through 30.  Various individual costs used to
calculate costs and plot the figures are summarized in Table 30.
                                      76

-------
    160,000,
   28*000.
    216,000,
    1««000.
     72,000.
        0.
             0-00090
                              i.Oooou
J..QUI.OC            3-ooinio
    Design Flow Rate, MGD
                                                                                   1-OOQOO

                                                                                 1 MGD = 3785 m3/d
Figure 25.   Cost of  operation for on-the-ground solid  set irrigation  system.   (A = 2.0,  B = 4.0,
              C = 6.0,  inches/acre/day.)

-------
            43,000.0
00
         o   17,200,0
                0.0
                     O.OOOJu
               1 .00000
             3«OUUOO

Design Flow Rate, MGD
    1.UUOCO

1 MGD = 3785 m3/d
                                                                                                            5.00000
          Figure 26,
Cost  of. ownership for on-the-ground  solid  set irrigation system.   (A =  2.0, B =  4.0,
C =  6.0, inches/acre/day.)

-------
vo
             '6,000.
                0.
                    o.ooouu            i.ujcoo            i.ujooo            J.ooooo

                                                          Design Flow Rate, MCD
!MGD = 3785m3/d

         =  2.
         Figure  27.   Total  system cost  for on-the-ground solid set irrigation system.   (A
                      C = 6.0,  inches/acre/day.)
0, B =  4.0,

-------
              3AO£00.
              ?88,00o.
              ?16,000.
00
O
              144,000.
               7i>000.
                       C.00000
                                         i.00000
                                                          2.00000            3.0000C

                                                               Design Flow Rate, MGD
                                                                                                               s.ooooo
           Figure  28.  Cost of operation  for in-the-ground  solid  set irrigation  system.
                        C = 6.0,  inches /acre /day.")
                                                                                                  1 MGD = 3785 m3/d
(A =  2.0, B =  4.0,

-------
             •16000, a
            33^00,0
oo
                u.o
                      0.00000
                                       i.onooo
                                 efiOOOOO           3.00000

                                    Design Flow Kate, MOD
          Figure 29.
Cost  of ownership for in-the-ground solid  set irrigation system.
C = 6.0, inches/acre/day.)
!MGD=3785m3/d


      (A  = 2.0,
                                                                                                            •5.0QOCO
B = 4.0,

-------
             400^00.
                                           4
                                           4
                                           4
                                           4
                                           4
                                           4
                                           4
                                           4
                                           4
              320,000.
              ?«0,000.
4
4
4
4

4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4 4 <
4 4 J
4 4 / '
4 4 /
4 /
/
\ X
1- 4
^ 4
^ 4
00
              160,000.
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
*/
i ^
/*
t' x
/+
/ *
*' 4 X 4
/
'4 +
/ 4
X 4 4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
               80,000.
4
f
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
t 4
t 4
4 4 / * '
4 4 » 4
4 4 -X X
4 A1^^ *
4 A^ X 4
4 >^" 4 4
< *
.
4
4
4
4
444
444
444
» 4 4
444
444
T
4
4
4
4
4
                       0.00000
                                          i.OOPOO
^•ooooo            j.nonoc
     Design Flow Rate, MGD
                                                                                                                   .00000
                                                                                              lMGD = 3785m3/d
           "Figure 30.  Total system cost in-the-ground  solid set irrigation system.
                         C =  6,0, i-txcVvas/ acre/day -^
                                     (A = 2.0, B =  4.0,

-------
  TABLE 30.  VALUES USED TO CALCULATE COSTS SHOWN IN FIGURES 25 THROUGH 33
   FC     =  $0.05/kw,  fuel cost
   FEON   =  1.18 bhp-hrs/kw,  fuel consumption
   OC     -  $2.0/gallon,  oil  cost
   OCON   =  9000 bhp-hrs/gal,  oil consumption
   CPU    =  $0.000045/bhp-hr,  cost of power unit maintenance
   CIEQ   =  $21.21/acre,  cost  of irrigation equipment
   CRMAN  =  $3.0/hr,  cost of  reservoir maintenance
   EFMM   =  0.05 hr/acre/day,  labor/equipment
   WAGE   =  $3.0/hour  hourly wage of system labor
   CHAR   =  $18/acre,  cost of  harvesting
   SFL    =  121.5 ft./ft., standard friction loss
   HPX    =  3.0 harvests/year
   WCPA   =  $75.0/acre, value  of crop
   TW     =  120,  Hazen-Williams coefficient
   D      =  0.822 ft.,  diameter of pipe
   ISPF   =  $0.65/ft.,  installation of sprinkler system
   ISDF   =  $0.20/ft.,  installation of drainage system
   RINT   =  9%,  interest  rate
   RLE    =  20 years,  reservoir life expectancy
   PMTLE  =  15 years,  pump, motor, transmission life expectancy
   PLE    =  20 years,  pipe life expectancy
   CPPA   =  $27.27/acre,  cost  of pipe
   PTLE   =  15 years,  pipe trailer life expectancy
   CPT    =  $350,  cost  of pipe trailer
   SPLE   =  20 years,  sprinkler life expectancy
   CPASP  =  $I/acre,  cost for  sprinkler
   DSLE   «  20 years,  drainage system life expectancy
   CPADS  =  $6/acre,  cost for  drainage system
   CISPDS  =  $1.0/acre,  cost of installation and drainage system
   PC     =  $0/acre,  cost of  land outlay production due to  its  use as
             treatment  for lagoon effluent
   LCPA   »  $600/acre,  cost to buy the land
     1 gal.
     1 acre
     1 ft.
       3.7 1
       0.4 ha
       0.3 m
CENTER
PIVOT SYSTEM
     The state-of-the-art in spray irrigation is the center  pivot  system con-
      5 of  a center feed with an extended traveler which pivots  around  the
a   —  feed either by electric motors  or  hydraulic motors.   The  spray nozzles
  e Counted along the traveler in various configurations based upon the

                                    83

-------
specific terrain, crop, and local climatology.  The center pivot system
normally irrigates a circular area but with modifications can effectively wet
a square area.  The center pivot systems are quite versatile and have encour-
aged many agriculturists to enter into irrigated crop programs.  The center
pivot systems are attractive for use in irrigating with wastewater because of
relatively low initial cost, low labor cost, low maintenance requirements,
energy cost, and versatility as to application.  One of the grestest advan-
tages of the center pivot irrigation system used in wastewater treatment is
the availability of trained manpower to operate this system.  There already
exists a pool of trained manpower who have installed, operated, and maintain
spray irrigation systems.  Parts and supplies are locally available in many
parts of the United States where center pivot systems are presently utilized
in agriculture.  There are definitely some unique aspects of irrigating with
wastewater which must be addressed, but the hardware and labor aspects are
well established and readily available.

     The costs for the center pivot system are calculated from Equations 1
through 12 with a minor change due to geometric consideration for circular
irrigated areas.

                      Kv/1.318)-1-85
in which
     S    »    system headless (ft. /ft.)
     R    =    hydraulic radius (ft.)
          =    Hazen-Williams coefficient
          -    design flow (MGD)

     The next step is to determine the total headloss for the system.  The
size of field required for a given flow and application rate is determined
from the expression given in Equation 14.

               R  =  [(Ax 43.560)/Tr]i* ............ 0*)

in which
     R    =    radius of the pivot in feet
     A    -    area in acres

     Once the radius of the required field is calculated then the dynamic
headloss can be computed for the radius of the area.  The dynamic headloss
plus the standard headloss are then added to give the total headloss for the
system.
     Figures 31 through 33 show the operation and maintenance costs, the
ship costs, and the total costs, respectively, for a center pivot irrigation
system.  Various individual costs used to calculate costs and plot the figu*eS
are summarized in Table 30.
                                      84

-------
             38,000.
             is 6000.
00
Ul
              22,000.
                      0.00000
                                        .00000
.00000           i.QOOOC


   Design Flow Rate, MGD
          Figure  31.   Cost  of operation for  center pivot irrigation system.   (A
                       inches/acre/day.)
  ".OOOCfl            "i.00000


   1 MGD = 3785 m3/d



2.0,  B  = 4.0,  C = 6.0,

-------
            MOO,00
             a.fl«o.oo
4
4
4

4
4
4
4
4
4
4 4
4 <
4

4
4
4

4
4
* *
4 »

.
4 4
4 4
4 4
4 +
C 4 4
4 T •
44 +
4 4 *

444
44 +
444
44 +
: : X
	 * 	 * 	 -x*— -

4 ^X^
/
4 S
/*
/ *
iX 4
4
4
^r A
4

4
4
*
4
4
             2,880.00
00
             I,g2o.on
               960.00
                 0.00
                                         1,00000
                                                  ,00000            3«00()OC            4,00000

                                                      Design Flow Rate, MGD
                                                                                                                 5.000UO
                                                                                                  1 MGD = 3785 m3/d
Figure 32.   Cost  of ownership  for center pivot irrigation  system.   (A
              1jac.\ves f aere / day .^
                                                                                            2.0,  B =  4.0, C  = 6.0,

-------
          1201000.
          96,000.
          TZJBOO.
OO
          48,000.
           2«jOOO.
                                     1.00000
                              2.00000            3.0000C

                                 Design Flaw Rate, MGD
                                                                                                           5.00000
          Figure 33.
Total  system cost for center  pivot irrigation system.
inches/acre/day.)
   ft.OOOCO

    1 MGD = 3785 m3/d


(A =  2.0, B =  4.0, C =  6.0,

-------
                                   REFERENCES


Amramy, A.  1961.  Waste treatment for groundwater recharge.  International
     Journal of Air and Water Pollution 9:605-619.

APHA, AWWA, WPCF.  1971.  Standard methods for the examination of water
     and wastewater.  American Public Health Association, 1740 Broadway,
     New York, N.Y. 10019.

Applegate, C. H., and D. V. Gray.  1975.  Land application from a secondary
     facility.  Environmental Health General Electric Co., St. Petersburg,
     Florida, Water and Sewage Works, 122(7):85-87.  July.

Avnimelech, Y., and Z. Nevo.  1964.  Biological clogging of sands.  Soil
     Science 98:222-226.

Bancroft, P. M., W. E. Englehard, and C. A. Evans.  1957.  Poliomyelitis in
     Huskerville (Lincoln), Nebraska--studies indicating a relationship
     between clinically severe infection and proximate fecal pollution of
     water.  Journal American Medical Association 164:836-847.

Baver, L. D.  1959.  Soil physics.  Wiley, New York.

Bernarde, Melvin A.  1973.  Land disposal and sewage effluent:  Appraisal of
     health effects of pathogenic organisms.  Journal American Water Works
     Association, 65:432-440.

Clarke, N. A., G. Berg, P. W.  Kabler, and S. L. Chang.  1962.   Human enteric
     viruses in water, their source, survival, and removability.   1st Inter-
     national Conference on Water Pollution Research, London,  September 1962.
     In:  Advances in Water Pollution Research.  1964.  edited by W. W.
     Eckenfelder, Pergamon Press, 11:523-541.

Clarke, N. A., and S.  L. Chang.   1959.  Enteric viruses in water.   Journal of
     the American Water Works  Association, 51:1299-1317.

Clarke, R., et al.  1971.   Coxsachie virus in urban sewage.   Canadian Journal
     Public Health 42:103-107.

Coleman, N. T., and A. Mehlich.   1957.  The chemistry of soil  pH.   Soil--the
     1957 Yearbook of Agriculture.  U.S.  Government Printing Office, Washingt^'
     B.C.
                                       88

-------
 CRREL.   1972.   Wastewater management by disposal on the land.   U.S.  Army
      Corps of  Engineers,  Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory
      Special Report  1 71 .

 Day,  A.  D. ,  and T. C.  Tucker.   1960a.   Hay  production of small grains
      utilizing city  sewage effluent.   Agronomy Journal 52:238-239.

 Day,  A.  D. ,  and T. C.  Tucker.   1960b.   Production of small  grains pasture
      forage  using sewage  plant effluent as  a source of irrigation water
      and plant nutrients.   Agronomy  Journal 51:569-572.

 Day,  A.  D. ,  T.  C. Tucker,  and  M. G.  Vavich.  1962.   Effect  of  city sewage
      effluent  on the yield and quality of grain from barley, oats, and
      wheat.  Agronomy  Journal  54:133-135.

 Demirjian, Y.  A.  1975.  Muskegon County wastewater  management  system.
      Presented  at Design Seminar for Land Treatment  of Municipal Waste-
      water Effluents,  Denver,  EPA.

 Dennis,  J. M.   1959.   Infectious hepatitis  epidemic  in Delhi,  India.
      Journal American Water Works Association 51:1288-1298.

         E. E.   1935.  Adaptability of  sewage sludge  as a fertilizer.
      Sewage Works Journal  7:597-610.

      y, w. A.,  and R. Eliassen.  1968.  Virus movement in groundwater.
      Journal Water Pollution Control Federation 40:257-280.

 Eastman, P. W.    1967.  Municipal wastewater reuse for irrigation.  Journal
      of Irrigation and Drainage Division, ASCE, 93(IR3) :25-31 .

 liassen, R. , W. Ryan, W.  Drewry, P.  Kruger, and G. Tchobanoglous.
      1967.   Studies on the movement of viruses  with groundwater. Water
     Quality Control Research Lab.,  Stanford University.

 nfield, C. G., and B. E.  Bledsoe.   1975.  Fate of phosphorus in soil.
     Journal of the Irrigation and Drainage Division, ASCE,  101 (IR3) : 145-155,
              Protection Agency.  1973.   Survey of facilities using land
     application of wastewater.   Office of Water Program Operations,
     EPA- 430/9 -7 3- 006.   Washington,  D. C.   July.

  vironmental Protection Agency.  1974.   Alternative waste management
     techniques for best practicable waste treatment (draft).   Office of
     Water Program Operations, Washington, D.C.  March.

^vironmental Protection Agency.  1975a.   Proposed interim primary
     drinking water standards.   40 CFR 141.   March.
              Protection Agency.   1975b.   Evaluation of land application
     systems.   Office of Water  Program Operations,  EPA- 430/9 -75- 001,
     Washington,  D.C.   March.
                                    89

-------
Environmental Protection Agency.  1975c.   Land application of wastewater
     in Australia, The Werribee Farm System, Melbourne,  Victoria.
     Municipal Construction Division, Office of Water Program Operations,
     EPA-430/9-75-017, Washington, D.C.   May.

Environmental Protection Agency.  1975d,   Costs of wastewater treatment
     by land application.  Office of Water Program Operations, EPA-430/9-
     75-003, Washington, D.C.  June.

Environmental Protection Agency.  1975e.   Cost-effective comparison of
     land application and advanced wastewater treatment.  Office of
     Water Program Operations, EPA-430/9-75-016, Washington,  D.C.
     November.

Filip, D.  1976.  Research Biologist, Utah Water Research Laboratory,
     Utah State University, personal communication.

Gearheart, R. A., and E. J. Middlebrooks.  1974.  Separation of algae
     cells from wastewater lagoon effluents.  In:  Upgrading wastewater
     stabilization ponds to meet new discharge standards.  PRWG159-1,
     Utah Water Research Laboratory, Utah State University, Logan.

Gerba, C. P., C. Wallis, and J. L. Melnick.  1975a.  Viruses in water:
     The problem, some solutions.  Environmental Science and Technology,
     9(13):1122-1126.

Gerba, C. P., C. Wallis, and J. L. Melnick.  1975b.  Wastewater bacteria
     and viruses in soil.  Journal of the Irrigation and Drainage
     Division, ASCE, 101(IRS):157-174.

Goudey, R. F.  1931.  Reclamation of treated sewage.  American Water
     Works Association Journal 23:230-240.

Groundwater Contamination.  1961.  Proceedings of 1961 Symposium,  DREW,
     PHS Publication No. W 61-5.

Hadeed, S. J.  1976.  Dangers of wastewater aerosols:  Evidence to date.
     Journal Water Pollution Control Federation, 48:631-632.

Hartigan, J. P.  1974.  Land disposal of wastewater:  processes, design
     criteria, and planning considerations.  Georgia Institute of
     Technology.

Hayward, M. L.  1946.  Epidemiological study of outbreak of infectious
     hepatitis.  Gastroenteriology 6:504.

Hem, J. D.  1970.  Study and interpretation of the chemical characteristics
     of natural waters.  U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 1473.

Henry, C. 0., R. E. Moldenhauer, L. E. Englebert, and E. Truog.  1954.
     Sewage effluent disposal through crop irrigation.  Sewage and
     Industrial Wastes, pp. 123-132.

                                    90

-------
 Herzik,  G.  R.,  Jr.   1956.   Texas  approves  irrigation  of  animal  crops
     with sewage plant  effluents.  Wastes  Engineering 27:418-421.

 Heukelekian, H.  1957.   Utilization of sewage for  crop irrigation in
     Israel.  Sewage and Industrial Wastes 29:868-874.

 Hill, R. D., T. W. Bendixen, and  G. G. Robeck.   1964.  Status of land
     treatment  for liquid waste-functional design.  FWPCA Annual Meeting,
     Bal Harbour, Florida.  October 1.

 Hurst, R. L.  1977.   Statistical program package (STATPAC), Utah State
     University, Logan.

 Jenny, H.,  and  K. Grossenbecker.  1963.  Root-soil boundary zones as
     seen in the electron microscope.  Soil Science Society American
     Proc., 27:273-277.

 Jones, J. H., and G.  S.  Taylor.   1965.  Septic tank effluent percolation
     through sands under laboratory conditions.  Soil Science 99:300-309.

       , J. J.  1977.  Lecture notes—salt-affected soils.  Utah State
     University, Logan.

 Kardos, L.  T., W. E.  Sopper, E. A. Meyers, R. R. Parizek, and J. B.
     Nesbit.  1974,   Renovation of secondary effluent for use as a water
     resource.  EPA 660/2-74-016.  February.

 Katzenelson, E., and B.  Teltch.  1976.  Dispersion of enteric bacteria
     by spray irrigation.  Journal Water Pollution Control Federation,
     48:710-716.

 Kelley, S.  M., J. Winsser,  and W. Winkelstein,  Jr.   1957.  Poliomyelitis
     and other enteric viruses in sewage.   American Journal of Public
     Health 47:72-77.

 Krone, R. B.  1968.  The movement of disease  producing organisms through
     soils.  In:  Municipal Sewage Effluent for Irrigation,  Louisiana
     Tech.  Alumni Found., Rustin, La.

 Lance,  J. C.  1972.  Nitrogen removal by soil mechanisms.  Journal Water
     Pollution Control Federation, 44(7):1352-1361.  July.

Little,  G.  M.   1954.   Poliomyelitis  and water supply.   Canadian Journal
     of Public Health 45:100-102.

^culeseu,  I.,  and N. Drucan.   1962.   Investigations  using  labeled
     bacteria in the study  of irrigation with sewage.   Stud.  Prot. Epur.
     Apel.,  Buchavest, pp.  59-66, 1962.   (Original  not seen;  from
     McGauhey,  P. H., and R. B. Krone.)   Soil mantle as  a wastewater
     treatment system.  SERL Report  No.  67-11,  Berkeley  Sanit.  Engr.
     Research Lab.,  University of California, September  1967.
                                   91

-------
Martin, J. P., and S. A. Waksman.  1940.  Influence of micro-organisms
     in soil aggregation and erosion.  Soil Science 50:29-47.

McQueen, F.  1934.  Sewage treatment for obtaining park irrigating
     water.  Public Works 69, October 16-17.

Merrell, J. C., et al.  1963.  Water reclamation from sewage for recre-
     ational use at Santee, California.  Presented at the 36th Annual
     Meeting of the Water Pollution Control Federation, Seattle,
     Washington.  October.

Merz, R. C.  1956.  Direct utilization of wastewater.  Water and Sewage
     Works 103:417-423.

Merz, R. C.  1959.  Utilization of liquid sludge.  Water and Sewage
     Works 106:439-443.

Merz, R. C.  1965.  Direct utilization of waste waters.  Water and
     Sewage Works 103:417-423.

Mitchell, G. A.  1930.  Sewage farm displaces filter beds at Vineland,
     New Jersey.  Engineering News Record 104:65.

Mitchell, G. A.  1931.  Observations on sewage farming in Europe.
     Engineering News Record 106:66-69.

Mitchell, R.,, and Z. Nevo.  1964.  Effect of bacterial polysaccahride
     accumulation on infiltration of water through sand.  Applied
     Microbiology 12:219-223.

Morris, C. E., and W. J. Jewel.  1976.  Land application of wastes:  a
     50 state overview.  Public Works.  October.

Myers, E. A.  1975.  An overview of four selected facilities that apply
     municipal wastewater to the land.  In:  Land Treatment of Municipal
     Wastewater Effluents--Case Histories.  Chapter IV.  The Pennsylvania
     State University Wastewater Renovation and Conservation Project.
     Environmental Protection Agency, Technology Transfer Seminar
     Publication, pp. 37-41.  January 1976.

Overman, A. R.  1975,  An overview of four selected facilities that
     apply municipal wastewater to the land.  In:  Land Treatment of
     Municipal Wastewater Effluents--Case Histories, Chapter II.  The
     City of Tallahassee Spray Irrigation Project, Environmental Protection
     Agency, Technology Transfer Seminar Publication, pp. 19-28.  January
     1976.

Paul, J. R., and J. D. Trask.  1942a.  Occurrence and recovery of the
     virus of infantile paralysis from sewage.  American Journal of Public
     Health 32:235-239.

Paul, J. R., and J. D. Trask.  1942b.  Periodic examination of sewage
     for the virus of poliomyelitis.   Journal Exp. Med. 75:1-6.

                                    92

-------
Pillsbury, A. F., and H. F. Blaney.  1966.  Salinity problems and manage-
     ment in river systems.  Journal of the Irrigation and Drainage
     Division, ASCE, 92(IR1):77-90.

Pound, C. A., and R. W. Crites.  1975.  Treatment of municipal waste-
     water by land application.  Water and Sewage Works Reference No.
     (April) R45-R56.

Pound, C. E., R. W. Crites, and D.  A. Griffes.  1975.  Costs of waste-
     water treatment by land application.  EPA 430/9-75-003.

Pound, C. E., R. W. Crites, and D.  A. Griffes.  1976.  Land treatment of
     municipal wastewater effluents—design factors I.  EPA Technology
     Transfer Seminar Publication.   January 1976.

Powell, G. M.  1976.  Land treatment of municipal wastewater effluents—
     design factors II.  EPA Technology Transfer Seminar Publication.
     January 1976.

Rafter, G. W.  1897.  Sewage irrigation.   U.S. Geological Survey
     Publication No. 3, 100 p.

Ramati, B.,  and E. Mor.  1966.   Utilization of sewage water for the
     irrigation of field crops on shifting sands.   Israel Journal of
     Agricultural Research 16(2):59-76.

Riney, w. A.  1928.  Irrigation with sewage effluent.  Sewage Works
     Journal 1:108.

R°hde, G.  1962.  The effects of trace elements on the exhaustion of
     sewage  irrigated land.  Inst.  of Sewage Purification Journal and
     Proceedings,  Part 6,  pp.  581-585.

Rudolfs,  W., and E. J.  Cleary.   1933.  Sludge disposal and future trends.
     Sewage Works Journal  5:409-428.

Sawyer, c. N.,  and P.  L. McCarty.   1967.   Chemistry for sanitary
     engineers.   McGraw-Hill Book Co.

Seabrook, B. L.   1975.   Land application  of wastewater in Australia.
     EPA. May.

SePP» E.   1971.   The use of sewage  for irrigation:   a literature review.
     Bureau  of  Sanitary Engineering,  California State Department of Public
     Health, Berkeley.

State Water  Pollution Control Board of  California.   1955.   A survey of
     direct  utilization of wastewaters.   Publication No.  12.

Stewart,  B.  A.,  et al.   1967.   Distribution of nitrates and other water
     pollutants.   USDA Publication  No. ARS  41-134.
                                    93

-------
Soil Moisture Equipment Corp.  1974.  Product bulletin A16.  December.

Sorber, C. A., H. T. Bausum, S. A. Schaub, and M. J. Small.  1976.  A study
     of bacterial aerosols at a wastewater irrigation site.  Journal Water
     Pollution Control Federation, Vol. 48.

Sorber, C. A., and K. J. Guter.  1975.  Health and hygiene aspects of
     spray irrigation.  American Journal of Public Health 65:47-52.

Stokes, W. E., W. A. Leukel, and R. M. Barnette.  1930.  Effect of
     irrigation with sewage effluent on the yields and establishments
     of Napier grass and Japanese cane.  Journal of the American Society
     of Agronomy 22:550-558.

Taylor, A. W.  1967.  Phosphorus and water pollution.  Journal of Soil
     and Water Conservation 22:228-251.

Thomas, R. E., Z. Schwartz, and T. W. Bendixen.  1966.  Soil chemical
     changes and infiltration rate reduction under sewage spreading.
     Soil Science Society of America Proceedings 30:641-646.

U.S. Department of Agriculture.  1954.  Agriculture handbook No. 60.
     Quality of Irrigation Water, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Salinity Laboratory Staff.  1954.  Diagnosis and improvement of
     saline and alkali soils.  Agriculture Handbook No. 60.  USDA.

Utah State University Foundation.  1969.  Characteristics and pollution
     problems of irrigation return flow.  Federal Water Pollution
     Control Administration.

Wachs, A. M., Y. Avnimelech, and E. Sandbank.  1970.  Experimental
     determination of stabilization pond effluent's fertilizer value.
     The Ministry of Agriculture and the Technion Research and Develop-
     ment Foundation, Limited, Haifa.

Wadleigh, C. H.  1968.  Wastes in relation to agriculture and forestry.
     USDA Misc. Pub. No. 1065, U.S. Government Printing Office,
     Washington, D.C.  112 p.

Ward, P. S.  1975.  Don't ignore land treatment.  Water Pollution Control
     Federation.  47(2):232-235.

Weber, Walter J.  1972.  Physicochemical processes for water quality
     control.  John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

Wilcox, L. V.  1948.  Agricultural uses of reclaimed sewage effluents.
     Sewage Works Journal 20:24-33.

Wilcox, L. V.  1949.  Agricultural uses of reclaimed sewage effluent.
     Sewage Works Journal 20:24-33.
                                    94

-------
Winneberger, J. H., L. Francis, S. A. Klein, and P. H. McGauhey.  1960.
     Biological aspects of failure of septic tank percolation systems.
     Final Report, School of Public Health, University of California,
     Berkeley.

Yogt, J. E.  1961.  Infectious hepatitis outbreak in Posen, Michigan.
     Robert A. Taft Sanitary Engineering Center Technical Report W 61-5.
     87 p.

Young, E. C., and G. A. Carson.  1974.  Economic analysis of land treat-
     ment of municipal wastewaters.  Water Resources Research Institute
     of the University of North Carolina.
                                   95

-------
                                                 APPENDIX A
                                    RESULTS OF  LYSIMETER EXPERIMENTS
           1000.0
             1.0
                            DRAPER
                            — -o- Tet«l Colltwm
                            	*- FKII Cdifom
re
 DEPTH SAMPLED (cm.)
                                                                     IOOA
                                                                      10.0
                                                                      1.0
                                                                NW.CV
                                                                	0- Tetol Camwm
                                                                  * Fteal CoHtori.
                                                                	O- F*c«l Str«r«oc
-------
        Q
        O
        IE
          100.0
o
»
        S  ».0

                                                          0.

                                                          f-
                                                                   IE
                                                                   Ul

                                                                   O
                                                                   z
                                                                   O
                                                                   u
                                                             IOO.O
                                                                    tt
                                                                    ui
                                                                    3
                                                                        i.O
                                                                                  7.6
                                                                                    DEPTH  SAMPLED
                                                       Figure  A-4.   Average bacterial  populations  at
                                                                      points  within Drainage Farm soil
                                                                      during  test  period*

-------
           IOO.O
            10.0 :  ,
          „   i »-
VO
00
                                                                    _ 10.0

                                                                      0.01 •
                                                                                          - Logoon EffWHit
                                                                                          • NIMq ».lc«
                                                                                             7.Co*
              ft/a
                   4/44 ion
                           n/w max
                                     n/c  un4  vti
                                                                                                 11/14 11/21 IV«S
                         SAMPLE DATES
                                                                                   SAMPLE DATES
     Figure A-5.  Nitrate concentrations in the
                   influent and effluent samples
                   collected at the  7.6  and 38.1 cm
                   sampling depths for the lysimeters
                   containing Draper soil.
Figure A-6.
Nitrate  concentrations  in the
influent and effluent samples
collected at the 7.6 and 38.1 cm
sampling depths for the lysimeters
containing Nibley soil.

-------
             100.01
                        /
VO
                                NITIUTC NO$N
                                	a- L«gM« EfHuml
                                        it.itm
                   _l	1-
                            SAMPLE OATtS
      Figure A-7.   Nitrate concentrations in the
                     influent  and effluent samples
                     collected at the 7.6 and 38.1
                     cm sampling depths  for the
                     lysimeters containing Parleys
                     soil.
                                                                          o.a
                                                                               NITRITE NOjN
                                                                               	o- Ligoon EHUwol
                                                                               	*- IMp«t 31.1»
                                                                               —-o Dt<*M teen
                                                                                     _i_
                                                                                        _1_
                                                                                    KV2    XVK KV22 10/29 11/8

                                                                                        SAMPLE DATES
                                                                                                            11/25
Figure  A-8.
Nitrite concentrations in  the
influent and effluent samples
collected at the  7.6 and 38.1 cm
sampling depths for the lysimeters
containing Draper soil.

-------
               1.0
                    NITRITE MOjN
                    ——o- Lagoon Effliwit
                    	*- Nlttaf M.I cm
                            7.«c«
O
O
                                                              NITRITE NOZN
                                                              ——o- Lagoon Effluent
                                                              	*• Porleyt 38.1cm
                                                              	o- Parlors 7.6 cm
     Figure A-9.
   ires n/2    »m am n/2* ii/e II/H 11/21 n/»
         SAMPLE DATES

Nitrite concentrations in the
influent and effluent  samples
collected at the 7.6 and 38.1  cm
sampling depths for  the lysimeters
containing Nibley soil.
Figure A-10.
  »/2S 10/2    10/16 10/22 IO/ZB 11/6 11/14 11/21 M/ZS
        SAMPLE DATES

Nitrite concentrations in the
influent and  effluent  samples
collected at  the 7.6 and 38.1 cm
sampling depths for the lysimeters
containing Parleys soil.

-------
\\,
  \v
   \

                    /-A
                       X
                          V
                    MMQIIU
                    .-.-p. Lagoon Effluent
         Va   «/I5 10/2    10/tt 1O/2Z 10/29

                  SAMPLE DATES
Figure A-ll.
     Ammonia-N concentration in the
     influent and effluent samples
     collected at the  7.6 and 38.1
     cm  sampling depths  for the
     lysimeters containing Draper
     soil.
                                                                                   AMMONIA NH,N
                                                                                      Lagoon Effluent
                                                                                      NlbKr 3t.tc«
                                                                                      NtMq T.«ca
                                                                                    ;\
                                                                                 V
                                                           tni   »/25 XVI    IO/I* Kk/22 *

                                                                     SIMPLE DAT€S
                                                                                          II/C 11/14 II/ZI It/25
Figure A-12.
Ammonia-N concentrations in the
influent  and effluent  samples
collected at the 7.6 and 38.1
cm sampling depths for the
lysimeters containing  Nibley
soil.

-------
             AMMONIA NH3N
                Lagoon Effluent
                                                                       TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON
                                                                         0 Lagoon Effluent
                                                                       	fc- Dropw H.I cm
                                                                       	o- Draptr 7.6 em
          v
                          A
                                   f—-v
\ /
 \ /
                            V
                                                                 vw 10/2
Figure  A-13.
      SAMPLE DATES

 Ammonia-N concentrations in the
 influent and effluent  samples
 collected at the 7.6 and 38.1
 cm sampling depths for the
 lysimeters  containing  Parleys
 soil.
                                                                          IO/K 10/22 io/2» n/e  II/M 11/21
                                                                          SAMPLE DATES
Figure  A-14.
Total  organic carbon concentrations
in the influent and effluent  samples
collected at the  7.6 and 38.1 cm
sampling depths for the lysimeters
containing Draper soil.

-------
                    TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON
                      o Lagoon Effluent
                    	»- NMtr 38.1 OB
                                                                   TOTAL OMANIC CAMON
                                                                     0 Lagoon Effluent
                                                                   —*. pwicy* M.ICM
                                                                   	o- Parity* T«eni
                       KVIC K>/ZZ WZ»

                       SAMPLE DATES
                                                                               ton
                                                                      wvie toot to/t* n/s II/M 11/11  ii/ts
                                                                      SAMPLE  DATES
Figure A-15.
Total  organic  carbon concentrations
in the influent and effluent samples
collected at the 38.1 cm sampling
depths for the lysimeters containing
Nibley soil.
Figure  A-16.
Total  organic carbon concentrations
in the influent  and effluent samples
collected at the 7.6 and  38.1 cm
sampling depths  for the lysimeters
containing Parleys soil.

-------
                                                                                       SUSPENDED  SOLIDS
                              SUSPENDED   SOLIDS
                  IOO
                to
                o
O
*-
                        ———^«— Droptr 7.8 cm.

                        	*__ Lagoon Effluent
                                                                 Niblcy 7.6 cm.

                                                                 Lagoon Effluent

                                                                 Nibliy 38.1 em.
                             -»- Droptr 38.1 en.
                                                                          Ift

                                                                          O
                                                                          O
                                                                          in
                                                  o
                                                  z
                                                  Ul
                                                  a.
                                                  in
                                                                            10 -\
                                                                            1.0 -,
      IO/I6
                              SAMPLE  DATES
                                                  I'/Z5
                                                                                                           M/25
                                                                                       SAMPLE  DATES
        Figure A-17.
Suspended solids  concentrations

in the  influent and effluent

samples collected at the  7.6 and

38.1 cm sampling  depths for the

lysimeters containing Draper soil.
Figure A-18.
Suspended solids concentrations  in

the influent and effluent samples

collected at the 7.6 and  38.1 cm

sampling depths  for the lysimeters

containing Nibley soil.

-------
                   I/MO
                 S
o
Ul
                    u>
                              SUSPENDED  SOLIDS
                                                                    o
                                                                    a
                                                                    u
                                                                    a
                                                                    z
                                                                    u
                                                                    a.
                                                                    in
                                                                       1.0
                                        i i
                                                     VOLATILE SUSPENDED SOLOS
                                                     	o- Lagoon Effluent
                                                                      oto -,
                                SAMPLE  DATES
                                                                                  art torn ant ii/«
                                                                                  SAMPLE DATES
                                                                                               11/14  II/ZI  11/25
      Figure A-19.
Suspended solids concentrations in
the influent and effluent samples
collected at the 7.6 and 38.1 cm
sampling  depths for the  lysimeters
containing Parleys soil.
Figure A-20.
Volatile suspended solids concen-
trations in the influent and the
effluent samples collected at the
7.6 and  38.1 cm sampling depths fo
the lysimeters containing Draper
soil.

-------
           100.0
          V)
          o
            
-------
           w.o
            1.0
         O*
         a.
                                                               *
                                                               o
                                                               a.
                   T01JU. PHOSPHATE PO
                     O- Ugoan Effluent
                   	-*- »t«»»T M.I t«>
                           7.9cm

                                                                 O.W -|
              VIO VIS   MftlO/S   tO/WKMtn/t* MM M/M M/tl B/ZS

                            SAMPLE DATES
                                                                   */n
                                                                        \  \
                                                        TOTAL PHOSPHATE P04
                                                        	O- Lagoon Effluwit
                                                        	A- NIMly St. I en
                                                        	o- NlbHt 7.»cm
                                                                                                11/21
                                                                                 SAMPLE DATES
Figure A-23.
Total  phosphate concentrations in
the  influent and effluent samples
collected at the 7.6 and 38.1 cm
sampling depths for the  lysimeters
containing Draper soil.
Figure  A-24.   Total phosphate concentration in
                the influent and effluent samples
                collected  at the 7.6  and 38.1 cm
                sampling depths for the lysimeters
                containing Nibley  soil.

-------
                 10.0
                  1.0
                o
                o.
o
00
                                                                            — 1.0
                                                                            I
                                                        O O.I
                                         V
                         TOTAL PHOSPHATE PO4
                         	o- Lagoon Effluent
                         	•*• Parity*  38.1 cm
                         	o- Porter*  M «•
                                                                             O.OI -
                                                                                :\
                                                                                                        A-	*—
                                                               ORT HO-PHOSPHATE
                                                               	o- Lagoon Ettlutnt
                                                               ——»- Drow MJcm
                                                               ——o- Dr«9«r 7.* CM
                     •/io»/iz   tfunn   nmwtztatttw* am

                                  SAMPLE DATES
                                                           VIZ    B/23 IO/2    10/16 IO/Z2 IO/2B

                                                                       SAMPLE DATES
    Figure A-25.
Total phosphate concentrations  in
the  influent  and effluent samples
collected at  the 7.6  and 38.1 cm
sampling depths for the lysimeters
containing Parleys soil.
Figure A-26.
Ortho-phosphate concentrations in
the  influent  and effluent samples
collected at  the 7.6  and 38.1  cm
sampling depths for the lysimeters
containing Draper soil.

-------
             IO.O
O
vo
            ^
            E
            |
             I
            I
            g
                                                    g
                                                    a.
                                                    i
                                                    K
                                                    O
                    ORTMO- PHOSPHATE
                           EfflUMl
              O.W-
                                                                                OMTHO-mOSPHKTC
                                                                                	O- Lagoor Effluent
                                                                                	*- DraiMt* F«« St.lc
                                                                                ——o- Orabat* Fotin r.tt
                      trta ion   io/ia
                            SAMPLE DATES
     Figure A-27.
Ortho-phosphate  concentrations in
the  influent and effluent  samples
collected at the 7.6 and 38.1 cm
sampling depths  for the lysimeters
containing Nibley soil.
Figure A-28.
                                                                10/1    IO/IB KV22 HV29 11/8  11/14
                                                                   SAMPLE DATES
Ortho-phosphate  concentrations in
the influent and effluent  samples
collected at the 7.6 and 38.1 cm
sampling depths  for the lysimeters
containing Parleys soil.

-------
 10.0
 •.0
  T.O
                          ——O- Lagoon Effluent
                          ——*- Draw 38.1 em
                          ——O- Drop*r 7.6 en
                                                           10.0
                                                           9.0
                                                           a.o
    9/9
           S/12
                                                           7.0
                                                                   	O- Lagoon Effluent
                                                                   	«v HM*i 30.1 em
                                                                   	O- HIMcr T.6 cm
                           W/IB 10/22 O/Z9

                      SAMPLE  DATES
                                          11/14 11/21 11/29
                                             9/9  9/10 »/tt »/!•  9A9 K)/2    10/18 KV22 10/29 11/6 11/14 ll^l 11/29

                                                                 SAMPLE DATES
Figure A-29.
The  pH values for  the influent
and  effluent samples collected
at the 7.6 and 38.1 cm sampling
depths for the lysimeters  contain-
ing  Draper soil.
Figure A-30.
The  pH values for  the influent  and
effluent samples collected at the
7.6  and 38.1  cm sampling  depths for
the  lysimeters containing Nibley
soil.

-------
                                                                        BfflGHAM CfTY BENCH (DRAPER)
  10.0
   1.0
   T.O
                             • lagoon Effltwnl
                                  3».l en
                          	-O- Pwkm 7.6cm
     »/»
                  WZS 10/2     W/« KV22 M3/2S 11/6 11/14  II/ZI 11/25

                         SAMPLE DATES
                                                                                     Lagoon Effluent
                                                                                   — Bri^wm Cttf 38.1 Ml
                                                                                   — flrigkoni City 7.6 cm.
                                                              SAMPLE  DATES
Figure A-31.
The pH values  for the  influent
and effluent samples collected
at the 7.6 and 38.1 cm sampling
depths for the lysimeters contain-
ing Parleys soil.
Figure A-32.
Specific conductance values for
the influent and effluent samples
collected at the 7.6 and  38.1 cm
sampling depths  for the lysimeters
containing Draper soil.

-------
I
                       SOUTH MAIN  LOGAN
                           (NIBLEY)
    	 Lagoon Effluent
    	So. Main Logan 38.1 cm
    	 So. Main Logan 7.6 cm.

 MOO



 IfOO

 1*00
                                                                HYDE  PARK  BENCH
                                                                   (PARLEYS)

                                                  \
                                                                                          Lagoon Effluent
                                                                                          Hyd< Port B*nO\ 98.1 on.
                                                                                          HyiM Pork B*Kli T.C cm
                       SAMPLE  DATES
                                                                                 SAMPLE  DATES
   Figure A-33.
Specific conductance values for
the influent and effluent samples
collected at the 7.6 and 38.1 cm
sampling depths  for the  lysimeters
containing Nibley soil.
Figure A-34.
Specific conductance values for  the
influent and  effluent  samples  col-
lected at the 7.6 and  38.1 cm
sampling depths  for the  lysimeters
containing Parleys soil.

-------
                        DRAINAGE  FARM
  2,000
I
1,200
   •00 •
Lagoon Effluent
Draifiop Form 98.1 
-------
TABLE A-l.  RESULTS OF NITRATE (N03~N MG/L) ANALYSES
Sample Date (1974)

Lagoon
Draper
7.6
38.1
Nibley
7.6
38.1

Effluent
cm
cm
cm
cm
Parleys
7.6 cm
38. 1 cm
Drainage Farm
7.6 cm
38.1 cm
9/12
0.1
7.0
3.9
5.2
175.4
2.2
11.4
2.0
48.3
9/25
0.1
17.8
2.0
5.0
98.8
2.2
6.8
6.5
69.2
10/2
0.1
2.7
230.4
6.1
48.2
5.2
126.0
10/16
0.2
3.1
101.1
3.7
21.8
3.7
41.0
10/22
0.3
3.0
74.9
3.5
21.4
3.6
36.3
10/29
0.2
3.6
25.8
4.2
19.1
3.5
50.2
11/6
0.2
3.8
17.5
4.7
16.2
4.6
40.8
11/14
0.2
9.1
2.8
34.6
4.6
6.0
5.2
34.4
11/21
0.1
8.8
3.6
28.4
2.0
5.4
2.8
24.4
11/25
0.1
3.8
25.4
2.4
4.7
2.5
17.2

-------
                         TABLE A-2.  RESULTS OF NITRITE  (N02-N MG/L) ANALYSES
                                                  Sample Date  (1974)
                 9/12     9/25     10/2    10/16     10/22     10/29     11/6    11/14    11/21    11/25
Lagoon Effluent
                           .1     <0.1     <0.1
                                                    0.1     <0.1     <0.1     <0,l
Draper
   7.6 cm
  38.1 cm       <0. 1
                            1     <0. 1    <0. 1
                                                                                ). 1     <0.1
                                                                                ). 1     <0. 1
Nibley
   7.6 cm
  38.1 cm
                                                                                                 <0. 1
Parleys
    7.6 cm
   38,1 cm
                                                                                 >. 1
                                                                                 1.1
Drainage Farm
   7.6cm
  38.1cm
                                                     0.1
                                                                       0.

-------
TABLE A-3.  RESULTS OF AMMONIA (NH3-N MG/L) ANALYSES
Sample Date (1974)

Lagoon Effluent
Draper
7.6 cm
38. I cm
Nibley
7.6 cm
38. 1 cm
Parley^
7.6 cm
38.1 cm
Drainage Farm
7.6 cm
38. 1 cm
9/12
1.5
0.8
4.5
0.6
0.4
0.3
0.4
1.5
0.4
9/25
2.5
< 0. 1
0.1
< 0. 1
< 0. 1
0.2
< 0.1
0.2
< 0.1
10/2
3.8
0.3
< 0.1
0.6
< 0.1
1.0
< 0.1
10/16
4.7
0.8
< 0.1
1.6
< 0. 1
2.7
< 0.1
10/22
4.3
0.7
< 0. 1
1.4
0.2
2.9
< 0.1
10/29
1.6
0.3
< 0. 1
0.8
< 0.1
1.2
< 0.1
11/6
2.8
0.6
< 0.1
1.0
< 0. 1
1.3
< 0.1
11/14
5.9
< 0. 1
0.8
< 0. 1
1.2
0.2
1.6
< 0.1
11/21
6.9
0.2
0.8
< 0.1
3.2
0.2
2.5
< 0.1
11/25
7.4
0.7
< O.I
3.5
0.1
3.5
< 0.1

-------
TABLE A-4.  RESULTS OF TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON (UNFILTERED MG/L) ANALYSES
Sample Date (1974)

Lagoon Effluent
Draper
7.6 cm
38.1 cm
Nibley
7.6 cm
38. 1 cm
Parleys
7.6 cm
38.1 cm
Drainage Farm
7.6 cm
38.1 cm
9/25
13

15
10

11
9

19
12

16
7
10/2
12


9


14

3
12

16
4
10/16
6


8


8

10
4

8
3
10/22
5


4


6

9
2

4
2
10/29
37


27


32

48
38

56
36
11/6
36


36


36

40
28

32
36
11/14
13

14
7


6

22
11

18
5
11/21
14

13
6


5

21
8

18
4
11/25
14


8


6

25
9

17
7

-------
                         TABLE A-5.  RESULTS OF TOTAL CARBON  (UNFILTERED MG/L)  ANALYSES
00
Sample Date (1974)

Lagoon Effluent
Draper
7.6 cm
38.1 cm
Nib ley
7.6 cm
38.1scm
Parleys
7.6 cm
'38.1 cm
Drainage Farm
7.6 cm
38.1 cm
9/25
67

79
72

70
89

93
82

82
127
10/2
69


80


82

88
68

76
102
10/16
56


68


72

77
58

72
98
10/22
55


64


67

72
58

63
96
10/29
103


107


116

134
102

144
118
11/6
106


106


112

108
100

104
162
11/14
69

78
70


87

94
82

85
123
11/21
75

81
73


89

97
83

87
125
11/25
72


73


91

100
86

88
128

-------
TABLE A-6.  RESULTS OF TOTAL INORGANIC CARBON (UNFILTERED MG/L) ANALYSES
Sample Date (1974)

Lagoon Effluent
Draper
7.6 cm
38.1 cm
Nibley
7.6 cm
38.1 cm
Parleys
7.6 cm
38.1 cm
Drainage Farm
7.6 cm
38.1 cm
9/25
54

64
62

59
80

74
70

66
120
10/2
57


71


68

85
56

60
98
10/16
50


60


64

67
54

64
95
10/22
50


60


61

63
56

59
94
10/29
66


80


84

86
64

88
152
11/6
70


70


76

68
72

72
126
11/14
56

64
63


81

72
71

67
118
11/21
61

68
67


84

76
75

69
121
11/25
58


65


85

75
77

71
121

-------
                             TABLE A-7.   RESULTS OF SUSPENDED SOLIDS (MG/L) ANALYSES
to
O
Sample Date (1974)

Lagoon Effluent
Draper
7.6 cm
38.1 cm
NibleyN
7.6 cm
38.1 era
Parleys
7.6 cm
38.1 cm
Drainage Farm
7.6 cm
38.1 cm
9/25
33

19
11

35
10

323
12

80
10
10/2
16


19


7

800
19

142
10
10/16
31


14


4

388
14

328
2
10/22
21


7


6

423
9

208
4
10/29
36


6


6

458
6

443
3
11/6
28


5


4

25
1

56
2
11/14
38

11
7


5

131
144

246
8
11/21
29

13
3


4

588
55

82
1
11/25
29


2


2

423
20

212
2

-------
TABLE A-8.  RESULTS OF VOLATILE SUSPENDED SOLIDS (MG/L) ANALYSES
Sample Date (1974)

Lagoon Effluent
Draper
7.6 cm
38.1 cm
Nibley
7.6 cm
38.1 cm
Parleys
7.6 cm
38.1 cm
Drainage Farm
7.6 cm
38. 1 cm
9/25
19

0
0

0
0

0
0

14
2
10/2
7


10


3

70
1

21
3
10/16
13


5


1

36
4

53
1
10/22
7


2


2

53
4

35
2
10/29
27


3


2

48
1

63
2
11/6
20


4


3

13
0

21
1
11/14
30

2
3


4

23
20

29
1
11/21
16

2
1


0

66
8

14
1
11/25
14


1


0

46
3

25
0

-------
                          TABLE A-9.  RESULTS OF TOTAL PHOSPHATE (PO -P MG/L) ANALYSES
ro
S3

Lagoon Effluent
Draper
7.6 cm
38.1 cm
Nibley
7.6 cm
38.1 cm
Parleys
7.6 cm
•38.1 cm
Drainage Farm
7.6 cm
38.1 cm

9/10
3.3
0.5
0.1
0.6
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.2

9/12
5.5
3.0
2.8
1.1
4.0
1.4
0.6
1.8
0.4

9/25
1.6
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.7
< 0.1
0.4
0.4

10/2
2.9
0.4
0.6
3.2
0.1
1.7
< 0.1
Sample
10/16
2.6
0.4
0.8
1.7
0.1
2.1
< 0.1
Date (1974)
10/22
2.4
0.3
0.6
2.2
0.1
2.1
0.1
10/29
2.6
0.2
0.6
1.0
< 0.1
1.3
< 0.1
11/6
2.5
0.2
0.6
1.3
< 0.1
1.4
< 0.1
11/14
2.6
< 0. 1
0.1
0.6
1.4
< 0.1
1.5
< 0.1
11/21
2.5
< 0.1
0.1
0.6
1.4
< 0.1
1.6
< 0.1
11/25
2.6
0.3
0.6
1.5
< 0.1
1.6
< 0.1

-------
                         TABLE A-10.  RESULTS OF ORTHOPHOSPHATE (0-PO -P MG/L) ANALYSES
co
Sample Date (1974)

Lagoon Effluent
Draper
7.6 cm
38.1 cm
Nib ley
7.6 cm
38.1 cm
Parleys
7.6 cm
38.1 cm
Drainage Farm
7. 6 cm
38.1 cm
9/12
5.1
1.6
0.5
0.6
0.2
0.2
0.7
0.2
9/25
0.2
0.3
0.7
0.4
0.5
0.5
< 0.1
0.3
0.8
10/2
2.3
0.2
0.5
0.6
0.1
1.4
< 0.1
10/16
0.6
0.3
0.6
1.2
< 0.1
1.9
< 0.1
10/22
0.5
0.3
0.6
1.7
< 0.1
0.6
0.1
10/29
2.3
0.2
0.5
1.0
< 0.1
1.1
< 0.1
11/6
2.5
0.2
0.3
1.3
< 0.1
1.1
< 0.1
11/14
2.5
< 0.1
0.2
0.2
1.3
< 0.1
1-4
< 0.1
11/21
2.5
< 0.1
0.2
0.5
1.2
< 0.1
1.1
< 0.1
11/25
2,5
0.3
0.6
1.4
< 0.1
1.1
< 0.1

-------
                                      TABLE A-11.  RESULTS OF pH ANALYSES
ho
Sample Date

Lagoon
Effluent
Draper
7.6 cm
38.1 "cm
Nibley
7.6 cm
38.1 cm
Parleys
7.6 cm
38. 1 cm
Drainage
Farm
7.6 cm
38.1 cm
9/5

8.5

7.9
7.4

7.8
7.3

7.6
7.5


7.8
7.5
9/10

9.1

8.4
8.0

8.2
7.9

8.1
8.0


8.3
8.0
9/12

9.2

8.4
8.0

8.3
8.0

8.2
7.9


8.5
8.0
9/18

8.5


7.8


7.6

7.8
7.2


8.0
7.5
9/25

8.7

7.4
7.3

7.8
7.6

7.9
7.6


8.1
7.7
10/2

8.0


7.4


7.5

7.6
7.5


8.0
7.6
10/16

7.2

,
7.2


7.0

7.0
7.2


7.8
7.9
(1974)
10/22

7.7


7.5


7.5

7.3
7.0


7.7
7.4

10/29

7.6


7.1


7.4

7.4
7.2


7.8
7.6

11/6

7,8


7.5


7.6

7.6
7.5


7.8
7.6

11/14

7.6

7.3
7.2


7.0

7.2
7.0


7.6
7.2

11/21

7.6

7.5
7.1


7.0

7.5
7.2


7.6
7.2

11/25

7.5


7.2


7.0

7.4
7.0


7.5
7,4

-------
                        TABLE A-12.   RESULTS OF SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE (ymhos/cm) ANALYSES
                                                       Sample Date (1974)

                       9/5    9/18     9/20     9/25     10/2    10/16  10/22  10/29  11/6   11/14  11/21 11/25
    Lagoon Effluent      566      545      610     742      702     655    653    639    626    637    676  660
in
Draper
    7.6 cm
   38.1 cm

Nibley
    7.6 cm
   38.1 cm

Parleys
    7.6 cm
   38.1 cm

Drainage Farm
    7.6 cm
   38.1 cm
1,354     697             903                                         658    670
  662     578     627     672     828     751    759    761    683    704    668  647


  691     596             712
2,880   1,717   1,725   1,428   1,314   1,047    979    935    851    935    712  698


  672             747     726     793     784    779    821    713    812    672  698
1,056     717     786     784     804     733    711    773    725    701    670  687


  768     808     813     947     750     717    724    646    680    763    689  666
2,016   1,515   1,497   1,549   1,565   1,456  1,442  1,503  1,438  1,215  1,060  840

-------
                           TABLE A-13.  TOTAL ALGAL CELL COUNTS (NUMBER/ML)

Lagoon Effluent
Draper
7.6 cm
38. 1 cm
Nibley
7.6 cm
38.1 cm
Parleys
7.6 cm
38.1 cm

9/25 10/2 10/16
3,378 5,226 5,889
2,706
792 725 712
2,746
554 462 461
1,664 1,135 1,056
607 529 422
Sample Date (1974)
10/22 10/29 11/6 11/14
17,476 57,684 37,365 34,874
894
713 1,626 1,115 562
396 1,770 1,327 528
1,477 15,897 10,568 11,766
449 895 2,313 6,436

11/21
19,140
690
545
418
12,411
1,931

11/25
23,496
682
316
15,768
1,905
Drainage Farm
    7. 6 cm
   38.1 cm
4,249    4,314    1,622     1,387    47,856    54,901    18,182    23,427    27,855
1,121               370       343       401       316       367       307       247

-------
                             TABLE A-14.  RESULTS OF PHEOPHYTIN "A" (MG/L) ANALYSES
to

Lagoon Effluent
Draper
7.6 cm
38.1 cm
Nib ley
7 . 6 cm
38.1 cm
Parleys
7.6 cm
38.1 cm
Drainage Farm
7.6 cm
38.1 cm

9/25
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0
Sample Date (1974)
10/2
0


0


0

0.016
0

0
0

10/16
0


0


0

0
0

0
0

10/22
0


0


0

0
0

0
0
      Note--Pheophytin "a"  tests were not conducted  further because levels were too low to make the data
            reliable.

-------
                             TABLE A-15.  RESULTS OF  CHLOROPHYLL "A" (MG/L) ANALYSES
10
oo
Sample Date (1974)

Lagoon Effluent
Draper
7.6 cm
38.1 cm
Nib ley
7.6 cm
38. 1 cm
Parleys
7.6 cm
38.1 cm
Drainage Farm
7.6 cm
38.1 cm
9/25
0.057
0
0
0
0
0.010
0
0
0
10/2
0.026
0
0
0.003
0
0.025
0
10/16
0.045
0.003
0.001
0.025
0.002
0.012
0.001
10/22
0.026
0.002
0.001
0.012
0.002
0.007
0.002

-------
                 APPENDIX B
       RESULTS OF FIELD INVESTIGATIONS
TABLE B-l.  SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE, ymhos/cm
Test Site
Vegetated
6"/wk


Bare
6'7wk


Vegetated
4"/wk


Bare
4"/wk


Vegetated
2'7wk


Bare
2'7wk


Oxidation
Effluent
Depth
4"
r
2'
3'
4"
r
2'
3*
4"
r
2'
3'
4"
r
2'
3'
4"
r
2'
3*
4"
1'
2'
3'
Pond

Date- 1975
8/2
828
1000
27400
8430
909
3850
1760
3150

4870
8340


2710
4090
12300









780
8/9
940
1350
12500
4740
934
1481
1870
3010

2850
3760


5240
6840
7750




1640
21600
9110
45600


8/16








826
1350
2160
9220
877
2620
5280
10000





8100
20200
39400

730
9/20
598
930
3590
2390
571
934


560
1540
1650

591
1700
2840
8900 '









465
10/4
1050
1090
3720
3650
3340

1530
1560
828



776

3150
13400





11600



665
10/18
749
1230
1720
1970
707
1060
1360

1100
1920



1500
4950
20200
42700
9360

4240


8660
42600

706
10/25
697
1180
1370
1860
634
747
1140
870

1260
1670


820
2360
14700
1000
3900
38100
16400
969
4170
2820
39700

604
Avg.
810
1130
8380
3840
1180
1620
1530
2650
829
2300
3530

748
2430
4210
12500
21900
6630

2940
1300
11400
10200
41800

658
                    129

-------
                               TABLE B-2.  SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE, ymhos/cm
to
O
Test Site Depth
Vegetated 4"
6"/wk. 1'
2'
3'
Bare 4"
6"/wk. 1'
2'
3'
Vegetated 4"
4"/wk. 1'
2'
3'
Bare ' 4"
4"/wk. 1'
2'
3'
Vegetated 4"
2"/wk. 1'
2'
3'
Bare 4"
2"/wk. 1'
2'
3'
Vegetated 4"
Control 1'
4"/wk. 2'
3'
Bare 4"
Control 1'
4"/wk. 2'
3'
Oxidation Pond
Effluent
Control Water
Date- 1976
7/9 7/16
1100




1270
2520
1910












1420



976

1910
3060

1810



536 623
474 500
7/23
980
1200
2110
31700
726
760
2090
1860
920
1300
1790
4840
961
2270
—
6920
_
4520
7560
13300
922
1920

12000
1040
1500
1560
3410
1670
1720
2780
10700

567
490
7/30
11SO
1490
2010
4430
830
920
1500
2490
970
1300
1610
3950
1140
1930
1930
7020
2450
6040
8930
12300
806
2290
5320
14100
1050
1590
1770
5120
1540
1560
3000
12000

561
496
8/6
1290
1180
2050
4170
824
970
2000
1700
1050
1030
1560
4370
1110
1910
1740
10200

5000


916
2250
6720
14900

1510
1680
4700
1050

4900
9280

592
514
8/13
1290
1260

3220
790
1090
1830
1710
1070
960
1350
4050

1711
1720
9640
1360
4050

11800
950
2070
8200
13300
1200
1540
1790
3940
1230
1940
3100
12200

600
486
8/20
3070
1200
1690
2680
2150
1690
1900
1590
950
854
1320
4320
1070
1690
1560
9390
1220
2280
7810
18900
932
1540
8280
13500
1040
1360
1690
4360
1190
1880
2600
14100

599
487
8/27
1390
1290
1680
2590
791
1040
1940
1690
1020
1000
1440
3120
1120
1790
1730
9850
2590
2600

21700
990
1870
9930
12100
1290
1570
1730
2610
1240
1780
2970
14400

603
481
9/3
1230
1320
2130
3550
856
1050
1890
1650
1010
1120
1350
3220
953
1730
1600
8810
1480
2000

19200
987
1630
4840
11000
1220
1540
1680
2470
1125
1820
3000
14100

602
463
9/10
1160
1140
1450
2260
725
1050
1940
1600
858
909
1280
2830
903
1940
1530
10200
1180
1940
5630
18700
1010
1640
7880
12000
1220
1620
1550
2550
864
1940
2810
13000

610
479
9/17
1260
1170
1310
2220
672
1030
2300
1870
950
944
1360
2610
933
1810
1480
9820
3030
1850
4890
17200
1170
1710
2870
11500
1360
1490
1550
2400
1100
1860
2810
11800

546
502
9/24
1210
1210
1310
1560
730
1280
1850
2470
906
893
1260
3610
910
1840
1500
9600
3640
2040
5050
17900
1000
1700
6600
11000
1360
1430
1470
2950
726
1870
2770
11500

526
455
10/1
1230
1210
1250
2220
717
1080
1950
2500
994
1490
1322
4180
1050
1930
1440
9900
4050
2290
6230
18200
1150
1700
2220
10700
1520
1630
1530
2210
1220
1940
2900
12000

502
484
10/8
1160
1180
1770
2030
720
900
1880
2230
936
942
1420
4130
992
1800
1250
8310
4580
2140
5670
17000
1100
1670
6040
9410
1270
1320
1360
3020
1100
1650
2600
10400

508
455
Avg.
1350
1240
1710
5140
910
1090
1970
1940
970
1060
1420
3770
1010
1860
1590
9180
2560
3060
6470
16900
1030
1830
6260
12100
1210
1500
1640
3290
1170
1810
3020
12100

570
483

-------
TABLE B-3.  AMMONIA-N, yg/1
Test Site
Vegetated
6'Vwk


Bate
6"/wk


Vegetated
4"/wk


Bare
4"/wk


Vegetated
2"/wk


Bare
2"/wk


Oxidation Pond
Effluent
rirnth
8/2
4" 28
1* <1
2' <1
3' 14
4" <1
r 
-------
                                           TABLE B-4.   AMMONIA-N, Ug/1
LO
tsi
Test r^ntt.
Site ueptn 	
Site ?/9
Vegetated 4" 90
6"/wk 1*
2'
3'
Bare 4"
6"/wk 1'
2*
3'
Vegetated 4"
4"/wk 1'
2'
y
Bare 4"
4"/wk 1*
2'
3'
Vegetated 4"
2"/wk 1*
2'
3*
Bare 4"
2"/wk 1*
2'
3'
Vegetated 4"
Control 1'
4"/wk 2' 196
3'
Bare 4"
Control 1'
4"/wk 2'
3'
Oxidation Pond
Effluent 82
Control Water 218
Date-1976
7/16
79




40
32
43












53


54
90

47


26



178
168
7/23
30
73
193

77
30
55
31
37
48
89
195
24
155



1060
108

35


30
36
52
38
739
29
32
69
333

,492
168
7/30
25
21
209
106
<1
28
101
<1
28
34
26
208
251
16
129
7320
89
190
246
1450
43
54
58
254
44
<1
<1
1020
39
49
28
222

1170
170
8/6
31
17
113
49
36
36
75
82
24
12
24
286
138
40
8
2710
64
197

2450
16
38
30
79
27
30
145
581
24
28
55
87

2160
204
8/13
37
45
224
124
73
24
43
66
23
42
18
765
15
40
7
887
44
113
799
2410
29
9
4
144
36
27
163
756
12
4
52
141

1950
178
8/20
29
30

80
27
60
170
90
21
21
17

38
29
21

39
28
268
549
29
26
64
110
44
43
133
459
23
29
30
189

1020
201
8/27
10
15
208
115
22
53
109
78
22
15
41
120
22
20
15
134
29
32
171
454
12
21
64
122
22
28
90
402
28
22
28
173

640
159
9/3
<1
<1
<1
<1
9
56
51
38
22
24
34
175
<1
<1
<1
<1
34
43

431
20
32
64
185
38
24
106
216
21
24
28
186

1830
197
9/10
28
12
378
223
42
72
131
116
69
51
39
292
31
32
47
159
32
51
168
515
36
31
111
227
34
48
117
337
32
25
25
199

1450
185
9/17
34
26
228
195
44
45
164
119
17
32
84
222
40
33
74
76
36
50
151
445
32
27
47
190
34
29
60
243
30
24
70
150

170
153
9/24
62
41
484
127
60
47
120
121
42
28
97
209
43
40
65
356
88
58
222
366
30
29
111
213
48
33
102
90
34
35
66
216

279
189
10/1
40
48
254
85
35
33
129
108
45
101
104
254
46
25
83
224
44
42
214
283
28
41
35
171
36
29
112
90
25
28
43
141

131
168
10/8

49






52
54
114
283
24
32
59
74

32
261

36

119
183




26
29
40
152

99
173
Avg.
41
34
255
122
39
44
98
74
34
38
57
274
61
42
51
1330
50
76
261
935
31
31
64
151
41
31
101
449
27
27
45
182

832
181

-------
                                        TABLE B-5.   NITRATE NC^-N,  yg/1
Ui
u>
Test
Site '
Vegetated
6"/wk


Bare
6"/wk


Vegetated
4"/wk


Bare
4"/wk


Vegetated
2"/wk


Bare
2"/wk


Date-1975
L/CpUl
4"
r
2'
3'
4"
1*
2'
3'
4"
1'
2'
3'
4"
r
r
3'
4"
r
2'
3'
4"
r
2'
3'
8/2
3750
12000
14800
16800

12600
16900










30400
37600
15700

101000
24200
8770
8/9
2070
1590
2080
227

945
2160





5360
7940
18200
3110

3380
6450
4260
4690

213
664
-8/16




2950
253
16
6110





269000
7940
8080
872
7750
118000
5150




9/20
7
23
47
886
28
6










6250
8520
25300
19300
4240
20300


10/4
6
6
17
< 1












2220

20700
32800

15300
9800
18700
10/18
22
19
5
6
23
31


1220
9810

10800
53400


47800

6680
29900
4510
4470
4400
4700

10/25
22
23
20
22


5

35
9200
3370
155
13800
87900
65600
38500

1240
26200
5737
1790
2320
2380

Avg.
979
2280
2830
2990
1000
2770
4770

627
9510

5480
24200
122000
30600
24400
3110
5060
22600
12500
3800
28700
8260
9380
Oxidation Pond
Effluent

2390

306
372
719
39
106
655

-------
                                           TABLE B-6.  NITRATE-N, jig/1
CO
Test
Site ^P*
Vegetated 4"
6"/wk 1*
2'
3'
Bare 4"
6"/wk 1'
2'
3'
Vegetated 4"
4"/wk r
A"
y
Bare 4"
4"/wk 1'
2'
3'
Vegetated 4"
2"/wk I1
2*
3'
Bare 4"
2"/wk 1'
2*
3'
Vegetated 4"
Control 1*
4"/wk T
y
Bare 4"
Control 1*
4"/wk 2*
3'
Oxidation Pond
Effluent
Control V/atet
Date-1976
7/9 7/16
265 2450




70
5190
1930












26300



186

508 7060
221

19500



18 226
in
7/23
814
64
1210
88
2540
104
989
72
12
1170
855
916
3110
34600

8640


12
935
11300
16200
8900
11500
18
2090
2110
16
59000
21300
9500
40900

• 13
8
7/30
<1
7
<1
<1
4
167
600
35
29
<1
5
22
<1
37200
29800
9910
310
178

54
8470
25300
38900
15100
70
3
769
28
61500
1040
9680
71400

32
18
8/6
5
9
7
5

244
981
2
9
4
13
6
<1
18300
22000
9840
397
86
78
38
6920
30000
46400
14400
10
6
36
1
15300

4930
40400

11
6
8/13
14
6
27
4
13
219
2620
21
10
6
7
4
213
16000
20700
11100
448
5
290
<1
4030
40000
69200
18000
32
9
6
<1
9810
13900
13600
43500

19
5
8/20

17
7
4
<1
353
<1
10
5
8
5
<1
14
9980
10300
14300
4
14
224
<1
2860
3710

19200
<1
92
<1
<1
6410
2080
4460
42900

8
1
8/27
5
5
6
14
<1
260
628
62
28
4
31
3
9
7370
13300
7900
7
8

10
1160
15200
24300
13600
2
1
42
< 1
3330
1550
1680
39800

3
2
9/3
6
<1
20
3
54
661
1750
159
2
3
4
<1
75

14500
5620
12
11
14
2
5240
16900
29000
39800
5
14
40
1
3060
324
2420
42200

18
10
9/10
11
8
10
5
77
197
352
44
6
3
5
2
13
763

10200
5
2

1
1110
5040
21300
22700
3
2
<1
3
1280
285
172
39800

33
13
9/17
5
16
10
6
35
131
405
43
38
8
11
1
17
4270
7650
11500
5
3
10
1
2800
5490
12600
29400
14
6
3
2
405
321
1710
34200

185
5
9/24
26
19
6
10
12
88
376
204
39
9
14
1
11
4420
2010
12400
10
18
102
3
438
4310
5960
25900
13
9
3
2
8
519
1430
9020

218
37
10/1
15
6
124
21
9
15
91
121
19
4
12
1
136
4820
1100
12500
5
<1

3
1030
4650
6490
2450
38
6
37
130
14
2950
171
23600

34
4
10/8
8
8
28
8
54
117
14
195
16
6
7
3
32
4740
2470
17400
9
<1
14
3
262
2350

15600
8
13
14
5
16
493
1
28100

262
16
Avg.
10
14
22
14
26
202
734
81
18
5
10
4
303
13000
32200
10900
110
29
93
10
5530
14600
24100
19000
18
15
18
16
13300
5360
4150
38000

69
20

-------
                                        TABLE B-7.  NITRITE N02~N, yg/1
u>
Ol
Test
Site Depth
Vegetated
6"/wk


Bare
6"/wk


Vegetated
4"/wk


Bare
4"/wk


Vegetated
2"/wk


Bare
2"/wk


4"
r
2'
3'
4"
r
2'
3'
4"
r
2'
3'
4"
1*
2'
3'
4"
r
2'
3'
4"
r
2'
3'
Date-1975
8/2
6
53
342
345
6 .
9
94
31

3
31


351

490








8/9
12
85
639
173
106
209
213
136

55
2220


1220
2230
3900




441
304
125
88
8/16








7
7
284
14
27
93
341
1388





65
62
1720
9/20
< 1
3
3
26
6



2
2
8

26
7
58
451








10/4
< 1
< 1
< 1
2

15
40
109
< 1



22

82
3





10


10/18
< 1
< 1
1
< 1
8
4
23

< 1
1



4
91
930
2
11

5
15

24
156
10/25
< 1
< 1
< 1
< 1
8
4
24
56

2
< 1


3
25
583
1
5
150
5
16
469
7
1100
Avg.
3
24
164
91
27
48
79
83
3
12
509

25
280
471
1090
1
8

5
157
212
54
769
Oxidation Pond
Effluent

14

336
103
89
26
49
103

-------
                                        TABLE B-8.   NITRITE NC^-N, yg/1
u>
I'St Depth
Site
7/9
Vegetated 4" 14
6"/wk I1
2'
3'
Bare 4"
6"/wk T
2'
3'
Vegetated 4"
4"/wk V
T
3'
Bare 4"
4"/wk 1*
2'
3'
Vegetated 4"
2"/wk 1'
2'
3'
Bare 4"
2"/wk 1'
2'
3'
Vegetated 4"
Control 1'
4"/wk 2' 2
3'
Bare 4"
Control 1*
4"/wk 2'
3'
Oxidation Pond
Effluent 7
CoftttolWatei < 1
Date- 1976
7/16 7/23
3 4
29
4
7
32
38 103
201 41
151 54
4
5
14
644
155
6

2160
4
170
58
7
720 26
32

951 80
<1 3
17
8 6
<1 5
290
280 1910
29
50

13 12
<1 <1
7/30
1
< 1
2
1
3
58
3
12
<1
7
7
<1
6
16
960
3390
5
7
3
2
14
32
112
658
1
2
1
2
17
761
6
188

3

-------
                                          TABLE B-9.  TOTAL-P,  yg/1
LO
Test Site
Vegetated
6"/wk


Bare
6"/wk


Vegetated
4"/wk


Bare
4"/wk


Vegetated
2"/wk


Bare
2**/wk


Oxidation Pond
Effluent
Depth
4"
r
2'
3'
4"
V
2*
y
4"
1*
2'
3'
4"
1'
2'
3*
4"
r
2'
3*
4"
r
2'
3'



8/2 8/9

540
613
396
523
126
512
332

432
486


541
587
505







4320

8/16








49
49
61

92
92
134
189



98
171
64

1270
Date-1975
10/4 10/18
22

80
86
121
32 134
61 103
147
45

142

74
104
202 172
282 207
70
118

271
171
131
89
449

909 2270

10/25
46
82
92
87
97

110

38
114
97


100
190
223
84
245
61
287
129
71
129
187

2020

Avg.
34
311
221
167
247
97
196
240
44
198
196


209
257
281
77
182

279
150
100
130
233

2160

-------
                                           TABLE  B-10.   TOTAL-P,  Ug/1
00
Test
Site Depth 	
Slte 7/9 7/16
Vegetated 4" 222
6"/wk 1'
2*
3'
Bare 4"
6"/wk 1' 623
2' 592 1100
3' 623
Vegetated 4"
4"/wk T
lrr
y
Bare 4"
4"/wk 1*
2'
3'
Vegetated 4"
2"/wk 1'
2'
3'
Bare 4" 495
2"/wk 1'
2'
3'
Vegetated 4" 774
Control 1'
4"/wk 2' 774
3' 345
Bare 4" 757
Control T 454
4"/wk 2*
3'
Oxidation Pond
Effluent 623 359
ControlWatei 141
Date-1976
7/23
353
1010
1360

337


160
159
178


171

3430


36


348
129

714
196
143
330

1690
101
7/30
948
754
212
68
89
372
111
68
68
90
134
622
92
89

923
363
920
62
95
95
683
255
74
151
335

422
178
307

1330
46
8/6 8/13
56
135
667
247
101
134
311
155
110
74
149
295

134
114
523


80
147
241
257
91
101
168
349
74

241
225

1740
216
8/20
162

139

120
269
153
72
61
125
224

126
106
433
46
54
292
46
61
201
355
72
73
113
244
52
61
162
21

1260
54
8/27
82
148

167

129
201
151
86
98
114
139

132
114
304
98
166
297
79
76

372
82
98
179
204
61
173
207
241

1460
54
9/3
69
156

119

62
159

84
116
181

97
94
184
59
69
297
56
59

250
81
91
113
178
56
500
244
194

1220
30
9/10
54
127
360
182

91
273
124
85
94
88
206

152
118

76
133
303
58
64

348
88
121
124

61
239
267

1980
42
9/17
85
257
345
206
124
91
448
188
94
118
121
185
136
176
252
275
152
148
409
76
88
121
333
64
94
155
206
64
76
215
276

2000
33
9/24
64
134
272
176
110
113
215
149
72
98
925
245
152
110
116
546
98
113
290
51
72
—
272
60
84
125
167
45
69
182
296

2360
45
10/1
78
169
260
151
115
118
229
160
69
100
100
238

118
121
305
115
121
278
82
66
88
262
39
84
121
157
58
66
181
211

1530
88
10/8
92
172
259
157

98
215
135
77
126
98
175
175
98
108
265
111
126
274
74
89

308
49
80
132
172

74
191
218

1410
42
Avg.
116
311
535
176
142
152
365
195
98
100
111
202
271
128
123
696
94
206
363
373
100
82
149
344
157
95
196
266
152
191
215
226

1460
74

-------
                                      TABLE B-ll.   ORTHOPHOSPHATE-P, yg/1
LO
™ Depth
Vegetated
6"/wk


Bare
6"/wk


Vegetated
4"/wk


Bare
4"/wk


Vegetated
2"/wk


Bare
2"/wk


4"
r
2*
3'
4"
1'
2*
3'
4"
r
2'
3'
4"
1'
2'
3'
4"
r
2'
3'
4"
r
2'
3*
Date- 1975
8/2
2
43
31
47
50
45
63
72

27
54


2
90
72








8/9
21
17
57
67
60
16
60
121

28
26


28
52
95




36
71
93
207
8/16








30
32
38
116
49
38
92
119





64
92
163
9/20
3
2
48
51
69



66
34
64

40
64
139
170








10/4
21
35
64
64

18
51
112
18



43

157
224





91


10/18
31
46
69
64
46
81
73

8
52



57
131
136
20
74

132
16

43

10/25
26
67
77
93
88
132
207






105
141
214
46
240
24
210
97
219
86
135
Ayg.
17
35
58
64
63
58
91
102
30
35
46

44
49
114
147




50
111
78
168
Oxidation Pond
Effluent

2320

1030
870
775
2160
2050
1530

-------
TABLE B-12.  ORTHOPHOSPHATE-P,  yg/1
Test
o:tp ueptn 	
*"* 7/9
Vegetated 4" 276
6"/wk 1'
2'
3'
Bare 4"
6"/wk T
2'
3'
Vegetated 4*'
4"/wk 1'
2'
3'
Bare 4"
4"/wk 1'
2'
3'
Vegetated 4"
2"/wk 1'
2'
3'
Bare 4"
2"/wk 1'
2'
3'
Vegetated 4"
Control 1'
4"/wk 2' 286
3'
Bare 4"
Control 1*
4"/wk 2'
3'
Oxidation Pond
Effluent 391
Control Vfater 47
Date-1976
7/16 7/23
58 134
631
820

44
71 385
206 252
94 72
92
22
160
143
435
86

3133



45 29
137

179
78 258
53
127 136
260 86
8
9 17
144
523
.
369 768
34 41
7/30
212
830
665
189
26
46
307
61
52
41
36
86
310
70
67
1350
453
257
670
49
57
78
229
83
69
52
197
33
24
154
171

988
28
8/6
44
91
473
156
63
77
185
81
62
42
94
175
272
73
54
382
484

423
28
169
112
168
49
78
108
184
29
38
148
136

1400
21
8/13
56
179
385
163
74
71
151
99
42
50
71
166
166
78
52
335
36
225
323
693
21
58
148
261
46
74
101
145
25
33
161
145

1100
30
8/20
50
143
280
120
67
58
180
95
39
35
49
157
111
79
43
210
32
38
82
251
8
21
135
234
48
54
104
154
20
30
118
160

1030
21
8/27
44
104
264
137
60
66
177
101
69
49
73
41
145
95
73
169
20
93
249
202
15
49
221
262
37
76
76
105
18
64
151
168

927
28
9/3
52
150
248
156
78
82
184
92
44
58
66
134
142
108
91
170
45
59
297
246
16
50
125
278
36
72
94
102
27
62
178
172

1480
29
9/10
40
153
224
141
61
64
192
92
63
63
51
129
130
101
86
204
37
87
278
233
28
262
242
109
38
74
87
116
40
29
155
172

1230
31
9/17
16
149
203
118
74
70
271
110
26
51
48
90
119
102
96
48
28
57
118
115
26
53
61
236
19
53
73
71
11
42
166
169

829
22
9/24
36
142
210
121
85
72
199
109
54
69
58
106
125
100
90
210
30
106
255
230
54
55
125
245
30
63
70
98
39
61
158
172

2090
19
10/1
48
149
195
92
91
76
174
121
45
71
60
165
121
89
92
254
30
94
287
243
53
53
54
240
41
68
94
107
30
59
160
174

642
18
10/8
46
140
215
126
89
78
172
103
54
80
60
135
85
69
83
206
20
92
323
275
58
63
242
251
32
65
91
106
29
54
155
185

881
25
Avg.
79
238
348
138
61
92
204
95
53
52
69
127
180
88
126
556
31
162
224
326
33
86
140
224
45
66
107
133
26
40
154
195

1000
28

-------
TABLE B-13.  TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON,  MG/L
Test ~ .
Site DePth
Vegetated 4"
6"/wk 1'
2'
3'
Bare 4"
6"/wk 1'
2'
3'
Vegetated 4"
4"/wk 1*
2'
3'
Bare 4"
4"/wk r
2'
3'
Vegetated 4"
2"/wk 1*
2'
3'
Bare 4"
2"/wk lf
2*
3*
Vegetated 4"
Control 1*
4"/wk 2'
3'
Bare 4"
Control 1*
4"/wk 2'
3*
Oxidation Pond
Effluent
Control Water
Date- 1976
7/16


40


16


22
24

27
26


25


17

<1
28
48
6
39

6
<1
4
32



21
19
7/23
21
8
3
7
5
14
3
<1
<1
<1
6
5
8
21

<1
8
<1
44
<1
7
22

<1
5
3
2
<1
10
1
18
8

12
15
8/13

-------
                  TABLE B-14.  RESULTS OF THE  SOIL  SAMPLE ANALYSES  BEFORE AND AFTER IRRIGATION
ISJ

Sample Site
Vegetated
6"/wk

Bare
6"/wk

Vegetated
4"/wk

Bate
4"/wk

Vegetated
2"/wk

Bare
2"/wk

Vegetated
Control
4"/wk
Bare
Control
4"/wk
Non-
irrigated


5
o.
If
CO "
0-6
9-15
30-36
0-6
9-15
30-36
0-6
9-15
30-36
0-6
9-15
30-36
0-6
9-15
30-36
0-6
9-15
30-36
0-6
9-15
30-36
0-6
9-15
30-36

0-6
9-15
30-36

3
|
0.4
0.5
4.2
<0.1
<0.1
4.2
1.0
4.0
4.3
0.2
0.3
8.5
0.7
1.2
3.0
1.0
8.4
10.4
0.2
0.2
1.0
0.2
0.5
6.7




Nameq/1
•Q ea
0.2
0.3
1.0
0.9
1.0
4.9
0.1
0.2
1.4
0.2
0.4
3.3
0.2
0.8
4.0
1.0
2.3
10.4
0.2
0.2
0.7
0.2
0.2
0.7





°i
"c *
W 00
0.2
0.1
0.6
0.2
0.2
0.8
0.2
0.1
0.8
0.3
0.4
2.9
0.2
0.4
10.5
0.3
0.8
2.3
-0.2
-0.2
0.9
0.3
0.7
1.8





|
< 0.1
< 0.1
0.2
< 0.1
< 0.1
0.2
0.1
0.3
0.2
0.1
< 0.1
0.3
0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
0.1
0.4
0.3
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
0.2




Kmeq/1
»— I
°i
WOT
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
<0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.4
<0.1
<0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
<0.1





II
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
0.1
0.4
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1





i
< 0.1
< 0.1
0.3
< 0.1
< 0.1
0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
0.1
0.2
< 0.1
0.2
0.1
0.2
< 0.1
< 0.1
0.7
0.3
0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
0.1
< 0.1
0.2




Ca meq/
End of
Season 1
0.1
0.1
< 0.1
0.1
< 0.1
0.1
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
<0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
<0.1
Q.I
0.4
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
< 0.1




1
0 C
C *>
W to
0.2
0.1
< 0.1
0.1
0.1
< 0.1
0.2
0.1
< 0.1
0.2
< 0.1
< 0.1
0.1
< 0.1
0.6
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
0.8
< 0.1





3
If
4.1
3.2
0.7
2.7
1.9
0.7
2.3
1.3
0.5
6.0
3.0
0.4
3.6
2.7
0.4
5.1
3.1
0.5
4.8
2.1
0.4
4.4
2.7
0.5




%C
T-H
3.6
2.7
0.8
3.6
1.5
0.5
4.4
2.6
0.5
3.9
2.3
0.5
2.4
1.4
0.5
4.4
2.8
0.5
4.4
2.0
0.5
4.0
2.6
0.6





o §
4.2
3.4
0.9
3.6
3.4
0.8
4.4
2.3
0.6
3.8
1.8
0.5
2.2
1.2
0.5
4.4
2.8
0.5
3.8
1.8
0.4
3.4
2.5
0.8





9
3
0.3
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.4
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.3
0.3
0.1




%N
°i
w <%
0.4
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.4
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.4
0.3
0.1
0.4
0.2
0.1
0.4
0.2
0.1





CJ
II
C oi
W 00
0.4
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.3
0.1
0.4
0.2
0.1
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.4
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.3
0.3
0.1





-------
                                             TABLE  B-14.   CONTINUED
U)

w
"3.
Vegetated
6"/wk

Bare
6"/wk

Vegetated
4"/wk

Bare
4"/wk

Vegetated
2"/wk

Bare
2"/wk

Vegetated
Control
4"/wk
Bare
Control
4"/wk
Non-
irrigated


1
CO CJ
0-6
9-15
30-36
0-6
9-15
30-36
0-6
9-15
30-36
0-6
9-15
30-36
0-6
9-15
30-36
0-6
9-15
30-36
0-6
9-15
30-36
0-6
9-15
30-36

0-6
9-15
30-36
NO3-N, mg/1
1
1
2.7
2.8
0.7
4.4
2.2
1.5
0.6
0.6
1.2
37.7
17.2
1.7
1.6
1.3
3.3
38.7
18.2
1.5
3.3
2.2
0.6
26.0
6.6
4.2




d-l C
O o
13
[I] CO
2.5
2.6
0.2
18.9
13.4
3.5
4.2
0.9
< 0.1
4.0
9.1
7.6
1.0
0.9
0.8
3.8
18.4
6.2
0.6
0.1
0.1
10.9
3.3
3.8




<•- a
°|
1.3
2.0
0.6
4.3
5.4
1.4
0.3
0.6
0.5
7.3
4.1
4.0
0.6
0.7
0.6
5.8
3.5
5.9
0.9
0.9
0.2
4.2
2.2
5.7




P Available, mg/1
1
6.9
4.7
3.0
14.0
6.4
3.3
25.0
13.0
4.4
12.0
6.3
1.4
6.0
5.0
1.3
7.8
4.6
3.4
4.1
1.6
1.5
10.0
4.8
2.0




11
W  e
0 §
T3 S
c S
Wvj
8.0
8.5
8.8
8.1
8.2
8.8
8.0
8.4
8.9
8.2
8.6
9.0
8.3
8.6
9.2
8.3
8.8
8.9
8.3
8.6
8.9
8.5
8.6
9.0




C rS **^ ^^
|| |=1
24.8
22.1
18.7
24.8
21.7
17.2
24.8
19.2
17.2
22.7
17.7
21.2
22.7
18.7
17.7
23.8
21.7
18.2
21.2
18.7

22.7
26.3
16.3

23.6
20.2
19.2
Deviation from
Non-irrigated
meq/lOOg
+1.2
+1.9
-0.5
+1.2
+1.5
-2.0
+1.2
-1.0
-2.0
-0.9
-2.5
+2.0
-0.9
-1.5
-1.5
+0.2
+1.5
-1.0
-1.4
-1.5

-0.9
+6.1
-2.9





-------
TABLE B-15.  SODIUM ADSORPTION RATIOS
Test
Site ]
Vegetated
6"/wk


Bare
6"/wk


Vegetated
4"/wk


Bare
4"/wk


Vegetated
2"/wk


Bare
2"/wk


Vegetated
Control
4"/wk

Bare
Control
4"/wk


7/16
4" 2
r
T
3*
4"
1' 2
2'
3'
4"
r
2'
3'
4"
r
2'
3'
4"
r
2'
3'
4"
r
2*
3'
4"
1'
2'
3'
4"
r
2'
3'
Date-1976
7/23
1

36

4

31
21

16
8
5
4
7
16









1
3
17
20
3



7/30
1
1
10
13

2
15
9
2
10
8
36
4
4
11
22



20
3
11
15
25
2
3
5
15
2
4
7
23
8/6
1

9
13

2
7
12
1
6
7
29
3
6
24
18
2
12

21
2
12
20
23
1
2
5
18
2
3
8
17
8/13
1
1
9
12
3
2
5
14
2
6
8

2
5
20

2
14


2
12
9
6
1
1
4
17
2
2
5
11
8/20
1


11
2
2


2

7
37
3
5

8
2
5

23
2
9
11
13
2
1
4
19

3
7
6
8/27
1
2

10

2
8
15
2
4
7
20
3
7
29
10
3
7

20
3
10
27
15
2
2
5
13

2
8
7
9/10
1
2

9

2
6
13
2
2
6
18
4
5
25
39
1
4

25
2
10
39
46
1
1
3
12
2
3
5
17
9/17
1
1
3
8

2
11
13
2
2
5
13
2
4
22
47
3
3
12
34
2
6
16
46
1
1
3
9

2
5
20
9/24
1





7
10
1
2
5
15
3
5
19
29
4
3

27
2
7

26
1

3
14

2
5
22
Avg.
1
1
8
11
3
2
11
13
2
6
7
21
3
5
21
25
2
7
12
24
2
10
19
25
1
2
6
15
2
3
6
15
Oxidation Pond
Effluent

Control Water
Drain

1
1

1
2
10
1
2
12
1
1
4
1
2
3
2
2

2
2
14
2
2

2
2

1
2
9

-------
1,000 -
900-

£800-
| 700-
j.
a'
8 500-
o
5 400-
85 300-
ZOO —
100-

SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE
• Oxidation Pond Effluent
O Control Water

>^*N^ «. ^ ^ ^ m — ^-•L
/ •*— •+^"*r~ ^^-^~
• _. • ^-*-~ .
o^° — ° — o-~°—^-o — o^^^o---0-^^^^





                                                            I   1    1
                      I   2   3   4  5   6  7   S   9   10  II   12  19   14
                     7/9 7/16 7/23 7/3O 8/6 8/13 8/20 8/27 9/3 9/10 9/17 9/24 10/1 10/8

                                      SAMPLE DATE 1976
                1000

                900

                soo

              V 700

              ci
             8
                600
                soo
             -  400
                300


                200


                100
                      I
                     8/2
 2   i  4   5  6   78   9   10   II   12   13
V9 B/16  8/23 >/30 8/6 9/13  9/20 8/27  10/4  10/11  10/18 10/25
                                    SAMPLE  DATE  1975
Figure B-l.   Specific conductance values of  the stabilization pond
               effluent and control water during 1976 (above), specific
               conductance values  of the stabilization pond  effluent
               during 1975 (below).
                                     145

-------
                5000
                3000
              o  2000
                                              27,400 ©WEEK I
                                                         SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE
                                                              VEGETATED
                                         	-Q--
                                                            -a.--a
                      I    2    3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   II  12   13   14
                      6/2  8/9  8/16 8/23 8/30 9/6  9/13  9/20 9/27 10/4 10/11  10/18 IO/2S

                                      SAMPLE DATE
                4000
              " 30OO -
              O  2000 -
                 1000 -
                                    SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE
                                    SITE I  Bort
                                    e"/wk
                   0   I    t   3  4   5   6   7   8  9   10  II   12   13  14
                      8/2  8/9  8/16 8/23  8/30 9/6  9/13 9/2O  9/Z7 10/4  10/11 10/18  10/25

                                      SAMPLE DATE
Figure B-2.
Specific  conductance values of  the  soil mantle  treated
stabilization pond effluent at  10.2 cm (A  in.),  30,5  cm
(1  ft.),  6170 cm (2  ft.),  91.4  cm  (3 ft.)  depths in  the
soil profile on vegetated  and bare  sites at a  15.2 cm
(6  in.) per week irrigation application rate during  1975.
                                        146

-------
             5000
             4000
             3000
             2000
             1000
                         8430 @ WEEK I
                          SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE
                          SITE 7 VEGETATED
                          4" / WEEK
                   J	L
              J	L
J	I	I   I
                Ol   2   3   45   67   89   10   II   12   13  14
                   8/2  8/9  8/16 8/23  8/30  9/6  9/13  9/20 9/27 10/4 10/11 10/18 10/25

                                  SAMPLE DATE
            20000
             16000
           I
           1  12000
           E
           1.
          o
          O
             8000
            4000 -
                                   SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE
                                   SITE 2 Bore
                                   4"/«k
                   I   2   3   4   S   6    7   8   9   10   II  12   13   14
                  8/2  8/9  8/16 8/23  8/30 9/6  9/13 9/20 9/27 IO/4 10/11  ID/IB IO/2S

                                   SAMPLE  DATE
Figure B-3.
Specific  conductance values of the soil  mantle treated
stabilization  pond  effluent at 10,2 cm  (4 in.), 30.5 cm
(1  ft.),  61.0  cm  (2 ft.),  91.4 cm  (3 ft.) depths  in the
soil profile on vegetated  and  bare sites at a  10.2  cm
(4  in.)-per week irrigation application  rate during 1975,
                                        147

-------
48000


40000
E
u
VI
o
\ 32000

o
S 24000
o
^
u
gj 16000

8000


0
_
SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE
SITE 6 vegdar«d O
t
2 Vwk l
|
1
t

,4"
1
i
1
1
1
1

1
r
_ i' oV i
/\J
s JGV
	 ! 	 * — -J 	 1 	 1 	 1 	 1 	 1 	 1 	 1 	 1 	 i 	 x 	 i
            3   4   S  6
     8/2  8/9  8/l€ 8/23 8/30 9/6
                                            8   9   10   II   12  i j   ,4
                                            9/20 9/27  10/4 10/11 10/18 10/25
                                   SAMPLE  DATE
             48000
             40000
           e 3*000
             24000
                                SPECIFIC  CONDUCTANCE
                                SITE J BARE
                                2"/ wk
                    I   2   3   4   5   6  7   8   9  10   II   12   13  14
                   8/2  8/9  B/16 8/23 8/30 9/6  9/13 9/20  9/27 10/4 IO/II  10/18  10/25
                                   SAMPLE  DATE
Figure B-4.
Specific conductance values of  the soil mantle treated
stabilization pond  effluent at  10.2 cm (4 in.), 30.5  cm
(1  ft.), 61._0 cm  (2 ft.),  91.4  cm (3  ft.) depths in the
soil  profile on vegetated  and bare sites at a  5.08 cm
(2  in.) per  week  Irrigation application rate during 1975.
                                      148

-------
                5,000 —
                4,000 -
              ,0
                3,000 -
             '£ 2,000 —

              O
              LU
              (L
              V)

                1,000-
                                                 SPECtFIC CONDUCTANCE
                                                 SITE 8 Vegefaled
                                                 6"/wk
                        |    2
                        7/9  7/16
 3456789
7/23 7/30 8/6 8/13 8/2O 8/27 9/3

          SAMPLE  DATE
                                         10  II
                                        9/10 9/17
 i   l    I
 12  13   14
9/24 10/1 10/8
                5,000-
4,000 -
              a.
                3,000 -
             8
             o
               2,000 -
                1,000 —
                                           SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE
                                           SITE I Bore
                                           6"/wk
                        i   i    i    i   i    i   i    i   i    i    i   i    i   i
                        I   2   3    4   9    6   7    8   9   10   II   12  13   14
                       7/9  7/16 7/23 7/30 8/6  8/13 8/20 8/27 9/3 9/10 9/17 9/24 10/1 10/8

                                         SAMPLE DATE
Figure B-5.  Specific conductance values of the  soil  mantle treated
               stabilization pond  effluent at 10.2 cm  (4 in.), 30.5 cm
               (1 ft.), 61.0 cm  (2 ft.), 91.4 cm  (3 ft.) depths in the
               soil profile  on vegetated and bare  sites at a  15.2  cm
               (6 in.)  per week  irrigation application  rate during 1976.
                                       149

-------
           10,000 —

           9,000 —
          E 8,000 —
          c. 7,000 —

          a.
          _j 6,000 —

          O
          O 5,000 —
            4,000-
         Ul
         OL
         OT 3,000 —
            2,OOO -

            1,000-
                                     SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE
                                     SITE 7 Vegetated
                                     4"/wk
                    I   I    I   1    I    I   I    I   I    I   I    I   I    I
                    I   2    3   4   5    6   7   8   9   10   II   12   13  14
                   7/9  7/16 7/23 7/3O 8/6  8/13 8/20 8/27 9/3  9/10 9/17  9/24 10/1 IO/8

                                     SAMPLE  DATE


^J
£
0
8
o
jjj
%


10.000 —
9,000 —
8,000 —
7flOO-

6,000 —
5,000 —

4,000 —
3,000-
2.000 —
1,000 —

^^--*— ^ ^"^ — ^.
/ x/s "" \
0. 	 • SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE
SITE 2 Bare Control
4"/wk



^^^-^^^^^^ar^r-^-^O— O—0—o
^^D-^r^r^iji^ . ""^^""^TD^
4"
                                                          I    I   I
                   I    2   3   4   5   6   7   8  9   10  II   12   13   14
                   7/9 7/16  7/23 7/30 8/6 8/13 8/20 8/27 9/3 9/10 9/17 9/24 10/1 (0/8

                                    SAMPLE DATE
Figure B-6.
Specific conductance values  of the soil  mantle treated
stabiliza-tion pond effluent  at 10.2 cm  (4 in.), 30.5 cm
(1 ft.), 61.0 cm (2 ft.), 91.4 cm  (3 ft.) depths in  the
soil  profile on  vegetated and bare sites at a  10.2 cm
(4 in.) per week irrigation  application  rate during  1976.
                                       150

-------
  20,000 -


  18,000 -


E 16,000-


° 14,000-
E
^ 12,000-
Q

8 10,000-
o
i e/Doo-


w ejOOO-

  4,000-


  2,000-
                                         A.
                                         /
                                       I
                                             SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE
                                             SITE 6 Vegeloled
                                             2"/wk
                   7/9
2
7/16
 3   4  5
7/23 7/30 8/6
                  6  7   8  9
                 6/13 8/20 8/27 9/3

                 SAMPLE DATE
                                         10   II
                                         9/10 9/17
                                                          i   i    I
                                                          12   13  14
                                                         9/24 10/1 10/8




g
i
E
Q
§
O
u.
o
ie



20,000 —

18,000-

I6JOOO —
14,000 —

I2POO-
lOjOOO-

8X)00-
6^000-
4^00 —
ZjOOO —


SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE
SITE 3 Bare
2"/wk

ir-^v 	
/ "^>*
jf v_
^ ^v *-
^F
^\ o*
•^ \
-^*" "^ ^ A
^X \ / x-
/' \ / \
A A \ '
V
n 0^-° 	 C>— °--Q 	 oL^_H3— -Q—
^-^.^-^-^--S^^S^S^S^
4







^&
^-,
^

r' \ A
v /

V
•&•— ^}~— ^
    I    I
 I   2    3   4  9
7/9 7/16 7/23 7/30 8/6
                           6   7   8   9
                           8/13 8/20 8/27 9/3

                           SAMPLE DATE
                                                          I   I   |
                                                  10   II  12   13   14
                                                  9/10 9/17  9/24 10/1 10/8
Figure B-7.
      Specific  conductance values of the  soil mantle treated
      stabilization pond effluent at 10.2  cm (A  in.), 30.5 cm
      (1 ft.).,  61.0 cm (2 ft.), 91.4 cm (3 ft.)  depths in the
      soil profile on vegetated and bare  sites at  a 5.08  cm
      (2 in.) per week irrigation application rate during 1976.
                                      151

-------
10,000 -
9,000 —

£ 8,000 -
£ 7,000 -
E
^ 6,000 -
2
8 5,000 -
O
t 4,OOO-
UJ
Q_
«" 3,OOO -
2,000 -

1,000 —


SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE
SITE 5 Vegetated Control
4'Vwk



A-^
,/ X-\
_,^> \
^ V
• 	 _-^_ • __m^
w m -w
,7^=^^^-^^^^^^^
D— - 0— Q 	 -^-Q-'^^ ^-^ ^
4"
1 1 I 1 I \ 1 1 1 I I
123456789 10 II
7/9 7/16 7/23 7/30 8/6 8/13 8/2O 8/27 9/3 9/IO 9/17
SAMPLE DATE
14,000 —
13,000 —
12,000 —
£ !I,OOO —
.u
o IO.OOO —
e
^ 9,000 -
ci
Z 4
8 5,000 —
u

t 4,000 —
 3,000 —
2,000 —

1,000 —
,r*~-\
/ \
A i* ^
/ \ /
* \ /
v / SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE
W SITE 4 Bare Control
* 4"/wk


A
/ \2'
f \c
/ \
/ V .
flr— * V^.^-^-.^.-A.
pi Q 	 	 — O O 	 o — -O 	 Q 	 O~
'-^^ i*
^-^.,-^-Q-^-CK^,^









,^X S
V
^gp^^^S^g


1 ! 1
12 13 14
9/24 10/1 10/8


\
t






-A--^--^


-•cr"
                    I   2   3   4   5   6  7  8   9   10  II  12  13  14
                    7/9  7/16 7/23 7/30 8/6 8/13 8/20 8/27 9/3 9/10 9/17  9/2410/1 10/8

                                   SAMPLE DATE
Figure B-8.
Specific_conductance values  of the soil mantle treated
control water at a 10.2  cm (4 in.), 30.5  cm (1 ft.),
61.0 cm  (2  ft.), 91.4 cm (3  ft.) depths in the soil
profile on  vegetated and bare sites .at a  10.2 cm (4 in.)
per week  irrigation application rate during 1976.
                                   152

-------
  2000-

   1800-

   1600-

^ 1400-

*  1200-

O  1000-

<  800 -

   600 -

   400 -

   200 -
                                                         AMMONIA NITROGEN
                                                         • OXIDATION POND EFFLUENT
                                                           CONTROL WATER
                      I   2   3  4   9   6   7   8   9   10   II   12   13  14
                     7/9 7/16 7/23 7/30 8/6 8/13 8/20 8/27 9/3 9/10 9/17 9/24 10/1 10/8
                                       SAMPLE DATE  1976
               3000
 o>

 Z

 O
 *
 <
               zooo
               1000 -
                      I   Z   34   56   7  8   9  10   H  12   13
                     B/2 8/9  B/16 8/23 6/30  9/6  9/13  9^0 6/27  10/4 10/11  10/18 10/29

                                    SAMPLE  DATE  1975
Figure B-9.
   Ammonia-N concentrations in  the stabilization  pond  effluent
   and control  water  during 1976  (above) and ammonia-N concen-
   trations in  the stabilization  pond  effluent during  1975
   (below). •
                                         153

-------
                100





                so





               _ 60
               *»
               w
               a.

               z
               < 40

               g
               S
               s
               1

                20
         AMMONIA -N
         SITE 8 VEGETATED
         6" / WK
        L	/-	
                     I   2   3   4  S   6   7  6   9  10   II   12  II   14
                    8/2 8/9  8/16 8/23 8/30 9/6 9/13  9/20 9/27 10/4 10/11 10/18 10/25

                                    SAMPLE  DATE
                ISO
                  01   2   3  4   5   6   7   8   9   10  II   *2  IJ  14
                    8/2  8/9 8/16  8/J3 B/JO  9/6 9/li 9/20 9/27 10/4  10/11 10/18  IO/2S


                                     SAMPLE  DATE
Figure B-10.
Ammonia-N  concentrations  in the soil mantle treated
stabilization pond  effluent at 10.2 cm  (A  in.),  30.5 cm
(1  ft.H 61.0 cm  (2 ft,),  and 91.4 cm (3  ft.) depths in
the soil profile  on vegetated and  bare  sites using a
15.2 cm  (6 in.) per week  irrigation application  rate
during 1975.
                                     154

-------
                100
                BO
               *- 60
                40
                       AMMONIA - N
                       SITE 7 VEGETATED
                       4"/ WK
                 ~0   I    2   3   4   S  6   7   B   9   10  II   12  13   14
                     6/2  B/9  B/16 8/23 8/30 9/6  9/13  9/2O 9/27 IO/4 10/11 IO/I8 IO/25

                                     SAMPLE  DATE
               480
                400
                320
                240
                160
                80
AMMONIA-N
SITE 2  BARE
4" / WK
                     I    234   3   67   89   10  II   12  13   14
                    8/2  8/9 8/16  8/23 8/30  9/6 9/13  9/20 9/27 10/4 10/11 10/18 10/25

                                      SAMPLE  DATE
Figure B-ll.   Ammonia-N concentrations in  the soil mantle treated
                stabilization pond effluent  at  10.2  cm (4  in.),  30.5
                cm  (1 ft.),  61.0  cm  (2  ft.),  and 91.4 cm  (3 ft.)  depths
                in  the soil profile on  vegetated and bare  sites  using
                a 10.2 cm (4 in.)  per week irrigation application rate
                during 1975.
                                      155

-------
                IOO
                80
                60
                20
                        AMMONIA - N

                        SITE 6  VEGETATED

                        2" / WK
                     8/2
                         23456
                        8/9  8/16 6723 8/30  9/6
                            1   8   9   10   II  12   13  14
                           9/13 9/20  9/27 10/4 10/11 10/18 10/25
                                    SAMPLE  DATE
 zoo








 160








  120

•^
9
S.



? 80
<
z
o
z



  40
                           AMMONIA -N

                           SITE 3 BARE

                           2" / WK
                               	*---- ^	M
                     I   2   3   4   5   6   7   6   9  10   II   12   13  14
                    8/2  8/9  8/16 6/23 8/30  9/6  9/13 9/20  9/27 10/4 10/11  10/18 IO/2S
                                    SAMPLE  DATE
Figure B-12.
  Ammonla-N concentrations in  the soil  mantle  treated

  stabilization  pond effluent  at 10.2 cm (4 in.), 30.5  cm

  (1 ft.)-,  61.0  cm (2  ft.), and 91.4 cm (3 ft.)  depths  in

  the soil  profile on  vegetated and bare sites using a

  5.08  cm (2 in.)  per  week irrigation application rate

  during  1975.
                                     156

-------
              500-
              400—1
              300-
              200 —
              100 —
               AMMONIA- N
               SITE 8 VEGETATED
               6"/wK
                      ""••Ek
                     1   I    T   I    I   I    I   I   I    I   I    1   I    I
                     I   2    3   4    9   6    7   8   9   10  It   12  13   14
                    7/9 7/16 7/23 7/30 8/6 8/13  8/20 8/27 9/3 9/IO 9/17 9/24 10/1 10/8

                                     SAMPLE DATE
  500-




  400 —


^

S 300 —
Z
<

I 200 -




  100-
                                 AMMONIA- N
                                 SITE I BARE
                                 6"/wk
                     i   2   3   4   5   6   7  8   9  10   II  12   13  14
                    7/9 7/1$  7/23 7/3O 8/6 8/13 8/20 8/27 9/3  9/10 9/17  9/24 10/1 10/8

                                     SAMPLE  DATE
Figure B-13.   Ammonia-N  concentrations in the soil  mantle  treated
                stabilization pond effluent at  10.2 cm (4  in.), 30.5 cm
                (1  ft.), 61.0 cm (2 ft.), and  91.4 cm (3 ft.) depths in
                the soil profile on vegetated  and bare sites using a
                15.2 cm  (6 in.)  per week irrigation application rate
                during 1976.
                                      157

-------
               500-
                       K
                        \
                                               AMMONIA-N
                                               SITE 7 Vegetated
                                               4"/wk
                      I    I   I    I   I
                      12345
                      7/9  7/16 7/23 7/3O 8/6
                        I   1   T
                        6789
                       8/13 B/20 8/27 9/3

                       SAMPLE DATE
 IO  II  12   13  14
9/10 9/17 9/24 10/1 10/8
               500-
               400 —
             "^300—1
              J200-
               100 —
           AMMONIA -N
           SITES BARE
           4" wk
                      I   2  3   4  5   6   7  8   9  10   II   12  13   14
                     7/9 7/16 7/23 7/30 8/6 8/13 8/20 8/27 9/3  9/10 9/17  9/2410/1 10/8

                                      SAMPLE DATE
Figure B-14.
Ammonia-N concentrations  in the  soil mantle treated
stabilization pond  effluent at 10.2 cm  (4 in.),  30.5 cm
(1  ft.), 61.0 cm  (2 ft.),  and 91.4 cm (3  ft.) depths in
the soil profile  on vegetated and  bare  sites using a
10.2 cm (4  in.) per week  irrigation, application  rate
during 1976.
                                      158

-------
  3,000

  2^00

  IjOOO-


~  800 —

.5-700 —
z
<  600-

§  500-
2
   400-

   300-

   200-

   100-
                                             AMMONIA-N
                                             SITE 6 Vegetated
                                             2"/wk
                    I   2   3  4   5   6   7   8  9   10  II   12  13  14
                   7/9  7/16 7/23 7/30 8/6 6/13 8/20 8/27 9/3 9/IO 9/17 9/2410/1 10/8

                                    SAMPLE DATE
1000 —
900 —
800 —
700 —
"» 600 —
*5*


AMMONIA -N
SITE 3 BARE
2"/wK

? 500 —
§ 400^
S i
300 —
200 —
100 —

A >^*"*-*^.^
/ Vfc"r^-*^x.x^s ^
«k _/ /w!T A— — «V — g_ _. ^yr n ifv'
                    i   2   j   H   u   o   i   o  a   iw  il   i£  ii  14
                   7/9  7/16 7/23 7/30 8/6 8/13 8/20 8/27 9/3 9/10 9/17 9/2410/1 10/8

                                    SAMPLE DATE
Figure B-15.
     Ammonia-N concentrations in the soil  mantle  treated
     stabilization pond effluent at  10.2 cm (A in.), 30.5 cm
     (1 ft.),  61.0 cm (2 ft.), and  91.4 cm (3 ft.)  depths in
     the soil  profile on vegetated  and bare sites using  a
     5.08 cm  (2 in.)  per week irrigation application rate
     during 1976.
                                      159

-------
            IjOOO-

             900-

             800-


^ 700-
o>
2 600-
1
<
2 500 —
Z 400-
300 —
200-
100-
i


AMMONIA-N
SITE 5 Vegetated
4"/wk


^
\
^^^
V A
V / \
¥ \
\
Control V
^
\ *
v \
A">— ^J
r/i-i __TE.--O-m j.^TL~ rfV JY_
t-^T-}* •H3^i^' * -lJj-«q:p»*'1U=*"^:£ —








)fc^
                       i    i   i   i   i   i    i   i    i   i   i    r
                    t   2    3   4   5   6   7    8   9    10   II   12   13  14
                   7/9  7/16 7/23 7/3O 8/6 8/13 8/20 8/27 9/3  9/10 9/17  9/24 10/1 10/8

                                    SAMPLE DATE
                                  AMMONIA-N
                                  SITE 4 Bare Control
                                  4"/wk
                    \   I    I   I   I    I   I    i   i    I   I   I    I   I
                    I   2    3   4   5   6   7    8   9   10   II   12  13   14
                   7/9 7/16 7/23 7/30 8/6 8/13 8/20 8/27 9/3  9/10 9/17 9/24 10/1 10/8

                                    SAMPLE DATE
Figure B-16.   Ammonia-N concentrations in  the soil mantle  treated
                control water  at 10.2  cm (4  in.), 30.5 cm  (1.  ft.),
                61.9 cm (2 ft.), and 91.4 cm (3 ft.) depths  in the
                soil profile and vegetated and bare sites using a
                10.2 cm (4 in.)  per week irrigation application
                rate during 1976.
                                    160

-------
               500 -
              400-
              500-
            I
            ro
              200-
               100-
                  NITRATE-N

                  • Oxidation Pond Effluent

                  O Control Water
                         r~   i    r   i    i   i    i    i   i    i   P    r   I
                      I   2   3   4   9   6   7   8    9   10   II   12   13  14
                     7/9 7/16 7/23 7/30 8/6  8/13 8/20 8/27 9/3 9/10 9/17 9/2410/1 10/8

                                       SAMPLE DATE
                                                      7/9 10/4
                500
               400
               300
               200
                100
                     a/z  a/9
                             5   4   5   6
                            8/16  6/23 8/30 9/6
                           7   8   9   10
                          9/13 9/20 8/27  KV4
 II   12   13
10/11  10/18 IO/29
                                    SAMPLE DATE  1975
Figure B-17.
Nitrate-N concentrations  in  the stabilization pond
effluent  and  control water during  1976  (above) and
nitrate-N concentrations  in  the stabilization pond
effluent  during 1975 (below).
                                    161

-------
                 100,000
                  lopoo
                  ipoo
                   100
                                 NITRATE -N
                                 SITE 6 VEGETATED
                                 6" / WK
                        I    I   I
                     01    a   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   I!   12  II  14
                       8/2  8/9 8/16  8/2S 8/30 9/6  9/13  9/20  9/27 10/4 10/11 10/18  10/25


                                       SAMPLE DATE
                 100,000 p-
                  10,000
                  1,000
                   100
                               NITRATE - N
                               SITE I BARE
                               6" / WK
                        123456   7   8   9   10  II   IZ   13   14
                        8/2  8/9  8/16 8/23  8/30 9/6  9/13  9/20  9/27 10/4  10/11  10/18 10/25
                                         SAMPLE  DATE
Figure B-18.
Nitrate-N  concentrations in  the soil mantle treated
stabilization pond effluent  at 10.2 cm  (4 in.),  30.5
cm  (I ft.),  61.0  cm  (2  ft.),  and 91.A cm (3 ft.) depths
in  the soil  profile on  vegetated and bare sites  using
a 15.2 cm  (6 in.)  per week irrigation application rate
during 1975.
                                       162

-------
                 looooo
                  10,000
                  1,000
                                            NITRATE-N
                                            SITE 7  VEGETATED
                                            4" / WK
                                   i   i    i   i    i - 1 - 1
                                                                  i    i.
                            2   3   4   5  6   7  8   9  IO   II  12   13  14
                        8/2  8/9 8/16  8/23 8/3O 9/6 9/13  9/20 9/27 IO/4 10/11  10/18 10/25

                                        SAMPLE DATE
                 100,000
                  lOflOO -
                  I POO
                   100
                    10
                                        NITBATE-N
                                        SITE 2  BARE
                                        4 " / WK
                        I    2   I4   5   6   7   8   9   10   It   12   13
                       8/2  8/9 8/16  8/23 8/JO 9/6 9/13  9/20 9/27 IO/4 10/11 10/18  IO/25

                                      SAMPLE  DATE
Figure B-19.
Nitrate-N  concentrations in  the soil mantle treated
stabilization pond effluent  at 10.2  cm  (4  in.),  30.5  cm
(1  ft.), 61.0 cm (2 ft.), and 91.4  cm (3  ft.) depths  in
the soil profile on vegetated and bare  sites using a
10.2 cm  (4 in.)  per week irrigation  application  rate
during 1975.
                                      163

-------
               100,000
                10,000
                 I POO
               I   100
               1*1
               o
                           NITRATE-N
                           SITE 6 VEGETATED
                           2" I WK
                       I   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   II   12   13  14
                      8/2 8/9  8/16 8/23 8/30  9/6  9/13  9/20 9/27 10/4 10/11 10/18 10/25


                                      SAMPLE DATE
               loopoo
                lOJDOO
                 1,000
                  100
                                  NITRATE-N
                                  SITE 3 BARE
                                  2" / WK
                       I    2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9  10   II   12  IJ  14
                      8/2  8/9 8/16  8/23 8/3O 9/6 9/13  9/20  9/27 10/4 IO/II 10/18  10/25

                                       SAMPLE  DATE
Figure B-20.
Nitrate-N  concentrations in  the  soil mantle  treated
stabilization pond effluent  at 10.2 cm  (4 in.), 30.5 cm
(1  ft.), 61.0 cm (2  ft.), and 91.4 cm  (3 ft.)  depths in g
the soil profile on  vegetated and bare  sites using  a 5.08
cm  (2 in.)  per week  irrigation application fate during
1975.
                                        164

-------
                IOO.OOO -g
                10,000 -
              9
              4.
              (O
              o
                 1,000-
                  100 -
                                           NITRATE-N
                                           SITE 8 Vegetated
                                           6"/«vk
                         I    2   3  4   5  6   7  8   9   lb  H   12  13   14
                         7/9 7/16  7/23 7/30 8/6  8/13 8/2O 8/27 9/3  9/10 9/17 9/24 10/1 10/8

                                         SAMPLE DATE
                                            NITRATE - N
                                            SITE I  Bare
                                            6"/wk,
Figure B-21.
               (00.000 -3
                10.000 1
                 1,000-
                  100-
                   10-=
         I    I   [   I    I   I    I   I    I   I    I   I    I
         I   2   34    56    7   8    9   10  II   12   13   14
        7/9  7/16 7/23 7/30 8/6 8/)3 8/20 8/27 9/3 9/10 9/17 9/24 10/1  10/8
                         SAMPLE  DATE

Nitrate-N  concentrations in the soil mantle treated
stabilization pond effluent at 10.2  cm  (4  in.),  30.5
cm  (1 ft.),  61.0 era  (2 ft.), and 91.4 cm  (3 ft.)  depths
in  the soil profile on vegetated and bare  sites  using
a 15.2- cm  (6 In.)  per week  Irrigation application rate
during 1976.
                                      165

-------
               100,000 -a
                                           NITRATE-N
                                           SITE 7 Vegetated
                                           4"/wk
                                      1    T
                         I   2   3   4   5   6   7  8   9   10  II   12  13   14
                        7/9 7/16 7/23 7/30 8/6 8/13 8/20 8/27 9/3  9/10 9/17 9/24 10/1  10/8

                                        SAMPLE DATE
               100,000 -3
               10,000-=
                1,000 —
             I
             n
             o
                 100-
                  10 -=
1
1
1
•
/
'
1
d — , — , — , — , — , — , — , — , — ,
                         \   T    I   I   I    I   I    I   I   I
                         I   2    3   4   5   6   7    8   9   10  II   12  13   14
                        7/9 7/16 7/23 7/30 8/6 8/13 8/20 8/27 9/3  9/10 9/17 9/24 10/1  10/8

                                        SAMPLE  DATE
Figure B-22.   Nitrate-N concentrations  in the  soil mantle treated
                stabilizaton pond  effluent  at 10.2 cm  (4  in.),  30.5 cm
               -(1  ft.), 61.0 cm (2  ft.), and 91.4 cm  (3  ft.) depths
                in  the soil  profile  on vegetated and bare sites using
                a 10.2 cm (4 in.)  per week  irrigation  application rate
                during 1976.
                                     166

-------
                100.000 -
                                            NITRATE-N

                                            SITE 6 Vegetated

                                            2"/wk
                             1	1	1	1—T~—I	1	1	1	1	1	T
                          I   2   3   4    5   6   7   8    9   10  II   12   13  14
                         7/9  7/16 7/23 7/30 8/6 8/13 8/20 8/27 9/3 9/10 9/17 9/24 10/1  10/8

                                          SAMPLE  DATE
                100,000-=
                10,000-=
                 1,000-^:
                  100 -
                   10 -
                               NITRATE-N
                               SITE 3 Bar*
                               2"/wk
                          I   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9  10   II   12   13  14
                         7/9 7/16 7/23 7/30 8/6 8/13 8/20 8/27 9/3  9/10 9/17 9/24 10/1 10/8

                                         SAMPLE DATE
Figure B-23.
Nltrate-N  concentrations in the soil  mantle treated
stabilization pond effluent at  10.2 cm (4  in.)» 30.5
cm  (1 ft.),  61.0  cm (2  ft.), and 91.4 cm  (3 ft.)  depths
in  the soil  profile on  vegetated and  bare  sites using
a 5.08 cm  (2 in.)  per week irrigation application rate
during 1976.
                                       167

-------
               100,000 -g
                                           NITRATE-N

                                           SITE 5 Vegetated Control

                                           4"/wk
                         i   i    i   i    T   i    i   i    r  i    i   i    i   i
                         I   2    3   4    5   6    7   8    9   10   II   12   13  14
                        7/9 7/16 7/23 7/3O 8/6 8/13 8/20 8/27 9/3 9/10 9/17  9/24 10/1 10/8

                                         SAMPLE  DATE
               IOO.OOO -3
               10,000-
                1,000-
             10
             O
                 IOO -
                  10-
               NITRATE-N

               SITE 4 Bare Control

               4"/*k
                         1   I    I    I   I    I   I    I   I    I   r    I   i    i
                         I   2   3   4   5   6   7    8   9   10   II   12   13  14
                        7/9  7/16 7/23 7/30 8/6  8/13 8/2O 8/27 9/3  9/10 9/17 9/24 10/1 10/8

                                         SAMPLE  DATE
Figure B-24.
Nitrate-N concentrations  in the  soil mantle treated
cojitrol water  at 10.2 cm  (4 in.),  30.5 cm  (1 ft.),
6f.O cm  (2 ft.), and  91.4  cm (3  ft.) depths in the
soil profile on vegetated  and bare sites using a  10.2
cm  (4 in.) per week  irrigation application rate during
1976.
                                       168

-------
100-
90-

80-
-70-
o>
_3, 60 -
Z
CM 50-
i
40-

30-
20 —
10 —


NITRITE-N
• Oxidation Pond Effluent
O Control Water 1
f\ 1
1 \ /
A / U
/ \ /
^ y w
"^ « ^ ^yl^-o^^^-^^^v^-o--.^^^
r
/
*







                      I   1    I   I   I    I   I    I   I    I   I    I   I
                      I   2    3   4   5   6   7    8   9   10  II   12   13  14
                     7/9 7/16 7/23 7/3O 8/6 8/13 8/20 8/27 9/3 9/10 9/17 9/24 10/1 10/8

                                      SAMPLE DATE
                100


                90


                80


                70


                60


                50


                40


                 30


                20


                 10
        .336 p B/16
                      I
                      8/2
             j   4   6   6   7   8  9   10  II   12  tS
            8/16  8/23 8/30  9/6  9/13 9^0 8^7 I0"t  lO/ll 10/18  10/25

                    SAMPLE  DATE  1975
Figure B-25,
Nitrite-N  concentrations  in the stabilization pond
effluent and control water during 1976 (above) and
nitrite-N  concentrations  in the stabilization pond
effluent during  1976.
                                   169

-------
                  lOfloo
                   1,000
                    100
                    10
                                          NITRITE - N
                                          SITE 6  VEGETATED
                                          «"/ WK
                         I   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   II   12   13  14
                         8/2  8/9 8/16  8/23 8/30 9/6 9/13  9/2O 9/27 10/4 10/11  10/18 10/25

                                         SAMPLE  DATE
                  10,000
                   1,000
                    100
                    10
                                      NITRITE -N
                                      SITE I BARE
                                      6" / WK
                         I
                        8/2
 2   3  4   S  6
8/9  8/16 8/23 8/3O 9/6
7   8   9   10  II  12   13  14
9/13 9/20  9/27 10/4 10/11 10/18  10/29
                                        SAMPLE  DATE
Figure B-26.  Nitrite-N concentrations  in the  soil mantle  treated
                stabilization  pond  effluent at 10.2 cm (4 in.), 30.!
                cm (1 ft.), 61.0 cm (2 ft,), and 91.4  cm (3  ft.)
                depths  in the  soil  profile on vegetated and  bare
                sites using a  15.2  cm (6  in.) per week irrigation
                application rate during 1975.
                                     170

-------
                1,000
                 100
                                    NITRITE -N
                                    SITE 7 VEGETATED
                                    V f WK
                       I   2    3   4  5   6   7   8   9  10   II  12   IJ   14
                      8/2 8/9  S/16 8/23 6/30 9/6 9/13 9/20  9/27 IO/4 10/11  10/18 10/25

                                     SAMPLE  DATE
                10,000
                1,000
                 100
I

-------
                10000
                I.OOO
                 100
                              NITRITE-N
                              SITE 6 BARE
                              Z" I WK
                                                            OJ-fl'L
                                                            	I
•a
                       I   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10  I I   12   13   14
                      8/2 8/9  8/16 8/23 8/30 9/6  9/13 9/20 9/27 10/4  10/11 10/18 10/25

                                      SAMPLE DATE
                10,000
                I POO
                 100
              o
              z
                                           NITRITE - N
                                           SITE 3 BARE
                                           2" / WK
                       I   2    3   4  S   6   7   8   9   10  ||   12  13  14
                      8/2 8/9  8/16 8/23  8/30  9/6  9/13 9/20 9/27 10/4 10/11 10/18 I0/2i
                                 SAMPLE  DATE
Figure B-28.   Nitrite-N concentrations in  the soil mantle .treated
                stabilization pond effluent  at 10.2 cm  (4  in.),  30.!
              _ cm  (1 ft.),  61.0 cm  (2  ft.),  and 91.4 cm  (3 ft.)
                depths in the soil profile on vegetated and bare
                sites using a 5.08 cm  (2 in.)  per week  irrigation
                application rate during 1975.
                                    172

-------
                  100,000 -=
                   10,000-:
                e. 1,000-=
                     100-
NITRITE-N
SITE 8 Vegetated
6'Vwk
                                   I    I
                            t   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   II   12   13  14
                           7/9  7/16 7/23 7/30 8/6 8/13 8/20 8/27 9/3  9/10 9/17  9/24 10/1 10/8

                                            SAMPLE  DATE
                  IOO,OOO-=
                  10.000-=
                   1,000-=
                                               NITRITE-N
                                               SITE I Bare
                                               6"/wk.
                                             1	T
                            i   2   34   56    7   8   9   10  II   12  13   14
                           7/9  7/16 7/23 7/3O 8/6 8/13 8/20 8/27 9/3 9/10 9/17 9/24 10/1 10/8

                                            SAMPLE  DATE
Figure B-29.  Nitrite-N concentrations  in the  soil mantle  treated
                stabilization  pond  effluent at  10.2 cm (A in.), 30.5
                cm (1 ft.), 61.0 cm (2 ft.), and 91.4  cm (3  ft.)
                depths  in the  soil  profile  on vegetated and  bare
                sites using a  15.2  cm (6  in.) per week irrigation
                application rate during 1976.
                                     173

-------
               100,000 -=
               10,000-
                1.000 —
             I
             M
             o
                 100 -
                  10 -s
                                           NITRITE-N
                                           SITE 7 Vegetated
                                \   I    I   I    I   I
                         123456789
                        7/9 7/16 7/23 7/30 8/6 8/13  8/20 8/27 9/3

                                        SAMPLE DATE
                                           I
                                       10  II   12   13  14
                                       9/10 9/17 9/24 10/1 10/8
              100,000 -=
               10,000-
                1,000-=
                 100 -
                  10 -
                                           NITRITE-N
                                           SITE 2 Bare
                                           4"/wk.
                                                                     -•A
                                                       try—ET
                         I   I    I   T    T   T   T   T   \    \   T   I   I    I
                         I   2    3   4    5   6   7   8   9   IO  II   12   13  14
                        7/9 7/16 7/23 7/30 8/6 8/13  8/20 8/27 9/3 9/10 9/17 9/24 10/1  10/8

                                        SAMPLE DATE
Figure B-30.
Nitrite-N  concentrations in  the soil mantle treated
stabilization pond effluent  at 10.2 cm  (4 in.),  30.5
em  (1 ft.),  61.0 cm  (2 ft.),  and  91.4 cm (3 ft.)  depths
in  the soil  profile  on vegetated  and bare sites  using
a 10.2 cm  (4 in.)  per  week irrigation application rate
during 1976.
                                       174

-------
               100,000 -=
                10,000-=
                 1,000-=
                     H
                  100 -
                                            NtTRITE-N
                                            SITE 6 Vegetated
                         I    I   I    I   I   1    I   I    I   I
                         I    2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10  II   12  13   14
                        7/9  7/16 7/23 7/30 8/6  8/13 8/20 8/27 9/3  9/10 9/17  9/24 10/1 10/8

                                         SAMPLE  DATE
               100,000 -g
                10,000 -=
                1.000-
                  100-
                   10 -
                                           NITRITE-N
                                           SITE 3 Bare
                                           2"/wk
                       —1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	T
                         I   2   3   4   5   6    7   8    9   10   It   12   13   14
                        7/9  7/16 7/23 7/30 8/6 8/13 8/20 8/27 9/3 9/10 9/17 9/24 10/1  10/8
                                         SAMPLE  DATE

Figure B-31.   Nltrlte-N  concentrations in the soil mantle treated
                stabilization pond effluent at  10.2  cm  (A  in.),  30.5
                cm  (1 ft.), 61.0 cm (2  ft.), and 91.4 cm  (3 ft.)  depths
                in  the soil profile on vegetated and bare  sites  using
                a 5.08 cm  (2 in.) per week irrigation application rate
                during 1976.
                                      175

-------
              100,000 -
               10,000 -
                1.000-=
             N

            Z    100 -
                  10 -=
                           NITRITE-N
                           SITE 5 Vegetated Control
                           4"/wK
                                                        r T >  T  ^
                        I    2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10  II   12  13   14
                       7/9 7/16  7/23 7/30 8/6 8/13  8/20 8/27 9/3 9/10 9/17 9/24 10/1 10/8

                                        SAMPLE DATE
              IOO.OOO -=
              IO.OOO -=
               I.OOO —
             (M
            o
                 too -
                                            NITRITE-N
                                            SITE A Bare Control
                                            4'Vwk
                            ITiTT   I    I   I    T   l    I
                        I    2   3  4   S   6   7   8   9   10  M   12   13   14
                       7/9  7/16 7/23 7/30 8/6  8/13 8/20 8/27 9/3 9/10 9/17 9/24 10/1  10/8

                                        SAMPLE DATE
Figure B-32.
Nltrite-N concentrations in the  soil mantle  treated
control water at 10.2 cm (4 in.)»  30.5  cm  (1 ft.),
61.0 cm  (2 ft.), and  91.4  cm (3  ft.) depths  in the
soil profile on vegetated  and bare sites using a
10.2 cm  (4 in.)  per week irrigation application
rate during 1976.
                                    176

-------
                2600 —

                2400 —

                2200 —

                2000 —

                 1800 —

                 1600 —

              =• 1400 —

              ? '200-

              
-------
                  640 -
                  560 -
                                             TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
                                             SITE 8  VEGETATED

                                             6" / WK
                    0   I   2   34   56   789    10   II   12   13  14
                       8/2 6/9  8/16 B/Z3  8/30 9/6   9/13  9/20 9/27  (0/4 10/11  (0/18 10/25


                                       SAMPLE DATE
                  900 -
                  400 -
                  300 -
                  200 -
                          TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
                          SITE I  BARE
                          6" / WK
                       I
                       8/2
           2
          8/9
3   4  56   7   8   9  10   II  12   13
8/16 8/23 8/30 9/6 9/13  9/20  9/27 10/4 10/11  10/18 10/29

         SAMPLE DATE
Figure B-34.
 Total  phosphorus-P  concentrations in  the soil  .mantle
 treated stabilization pond  effluent at  10.2  cm (4 in.),
 30.5 cm (1 ft.), 61.0 cm  (2 ft.), and 91.4 cm  (3 ft.)
'depths in the  soil  profile  on vegetated and  bare sites
 using  a 15.2 cm (6  in.) per week  irrigation  application
 rate during  1975.
                                      178

-------
                    500
                    400
                    300
                    200
                    100
                                    TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
                                    SITE 7  VEGETATED
                                    4" / WK
                         I    2   343   6?   8   9   10  I!   12  13   14
                        8/2  8/9 8/16 8/23  8/30 9/6  9/13  9/20  9/27 10/4  10/11 10/18 10/25

                                      SAMPLE  DATE
                 n.
                  i
                 _i
                 «r
                 t-
                 o
                    640
                    560
                    480
                    400
                    320
   24O
                    160
                    80
                       TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
                       SITE 2 BARE
                        "/ WK
                                                                o—o
Figure B-35.
     '0   i   2   3   4   5   67   8   9  10   u  12   13  14
        8/2  8/9 8/16  8/2J 8/30  9/6 9/13  9/20  9/27 10/4 10/M  10/18  IO«S
                        SAMPLE DATE

Total phosphorus-P concentrations in the soil mantle
treated stabilization  pond  effluent at 10.2  cm (4  in.),
30.5 cm  (1 ft.),  61.0  cm (2  ft.),  and  91.4  cm (3 ft.)
depths in  the soil profile  on vegetated  and  bare sites
using a  10.2 cm (4 in.) per week irrigation  application
rate during 1975.
                                      179

-------
                 5001—
                  400
                  300
                  200
                  100
                          TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
                          SITE 6  VEGETATED

                          2" / WK
                    0   I   Z    3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10  H   12  13   14
                       8/2  8/9  8/16 8/23  8/30 9/6  9/13 9/2O  9/27 IO/4 10/11 IO/I8  IO/25


                                       SAMPLE  DATE
Figure B-36.
                  500
                  400
                  •300
                  ZOO
                   100
                             TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
                             SITE 3  BARE
                             2"/ WK
                        I
                        8/2
           2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   IS  14
           8/9  8/16 8/23 8/30  9/6 9/13  9/20 9/Z7  10/4 10/11 10/18 10/25

                        SAMPLE DATE
Total  phosphorus-P concentrations  in the  soil mantle
treated stabilization  pond effluent  at  10.2 cm  (4 in.)»
30.5  cm (1  ft.),  61.0  cm (2  ft.),  and 91.4 cm  (3 ft.)
depths in the soil profile on vegetated and bare sites
using a 5.08 cm  (2 in.)  per  week irrigation application
rate  during 1975.
                                       180

-------
                 1500

                 1400-
                 1300-
                  1100-

                 1000-

               ^  900-

               ^  800

               0.  700 -

               g  600 -

               *~  500 -

                 400-
                 300-

                 200-

                  KX>-
                 TOTAL PHOSHORUS
                 SITE 8 VEGETATED
                 6"/«k
                                      "Q	D~-Q	Q.--0—.Q—CD	0
                        "i—r
     T
T
            T
T
T
                                                 T
                                                    T
                                                        T	1	1	1	1
                         I   2   345678   9   IO   II   12   13  14
                        7/9 7/16 7/23 7/30 8/6 8/13 8/20 8/27 9/3  9/10 9/17  9/34 |0/| )0/8

                                         SAMPLE DATE
                 600-



                 500-



              _ 400 —
              ~


              i 300 —
              g

                 200 —



                 100 —
\
           TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
           SITE I BARE
           6"/wk
                                 A
                                    \
                                        -a—,A
                        I    i   i    i   i    i   i    i   i    i   i    i   r   i
                        I    2   3    4   9    6   7    8   9   10  II   12  13   14
                       7/9  7/16 7/23 7/30 8/6  8/13 8/20 8/27 9/3 9/10 9/17 9/24 10/1  10/8
                                        SAMPLE  DATE

Figure B-37.  Total phosphorus concentrations in the soil mantle
                treated  stabilization pond  effluent  at 10.2 cm  (A in.)»
                30.5 cm  (1 ft,), 61.0 cm  (2 ft.), and 91.4  cm (3  ft.)
                depths in the  soil  profile  on  vegetated and bare  sites
                using a  15.2 cm (6  in.) per week irrigation application
                rate during 1976.
                                      181

-------
                   600-
                   500-
                 a. 400 —
                J-

                0.

                f. 300 —
                o
                   200 —
                   100-
                                        TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
                                        SITE 7- VEGETATED
                          I   r    i   I   i    I   i    r   i   i    i   i    f   i
                          I   2    3   4   5   6   7    8   9   10   II   12  13   14
                         7/9 7/16 7/23 7/30 8/6 8/13 8/20 8/27 9/3  9/10 9/17 9/24 10/1 10/8

                                          SAMPLE  DATE
600 —
500 —
_ 400 —
•s,
9
^300-
200 —
100 —
\ A
TOTAL PHOSPORUS ^ / \
SITE Z BARE SO^ , \
\ / \
"vVxl ^
..._:.^.^
                          I   I    I   I   1    1   1    I   I
                          I   2    3   4   S   6   7   8   9   10   II   12  13   14
                         7/9 7/16 7/23 7/30 8/6 8/13 8/20 8/27 9/3  9/10 9/17  9/24 10/1 10/8

                                          SAMPLE DATE
Figure B-38.
Total  phosphorus concentrations in  the soil mantle
treated stabilization pond  effluent at 10.2 cm (4 in.)»
30.5 cm (1  ft.), 61.0 cm  (2 ft.), and 91.4  cm (3 ft.)
depths in the soil profile  on vegetated and bare sites
using  a 10.2  cm (4 in.) per week irrigation application
rate during 1976.
                                     182

-------
                              923 O
                                 920



*-.
ji
Q.
1
_J
H*
t-




500-
450-
400-
350-
300-
250-
200-
150-
100-
50-



TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
SITE 6 Vegetated
2"/wk fl
/ V
•— »-^— ^ \
"* *

Ai^*^
r
1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I
7/9 7/16 7/23 7/3O 8/6 8/13 8/20 8/27 9/3 9/10 9/17 9/24 10/1 10/8
                                      SAMPLE DATE
                500-

                450-

                400-

              = 350-

              3-300-
              a.
              J 250-

              ° 200-

                150 —

                100 —

                 50 —
                                A
                                /  I
                          TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
                          SITE 3 Bare
                                                              T
                                                              13
                                                                 14
Figure  B-39.
        I   9   3  4   9   6   7  8   9   10  II   12
       7/9 7/16 7/23 7/30 8/6 8/13 8/20 8/27 9/3 9/10 9/17 9/24 10/1 10/8
                       SAMPLE DATE

Total  phosphorus  concentrations in  the soil mantle
treated stabilization pond effluent at 10.2 cm  (4 in.),
30.5 cm (1 ft.),  61.0 cm  (2 ft.), and  91.4 cm  (3 ft.)
depths in the soil profile on vegetated and bare sites
using  a 5.08 cm (2 in.) per week irrigation application
rate during 1976.
                                    183

-------
                            774 I'- 4"
\ *714
\/\
V \
500 -

450 —

400 -

350 —
^r
o. 300 —
-3"
a 250 -
0 200 -
t-
150 -

100 —

50 —
/v \
'\ \
/ v \
/ U \ TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
/ \\ \ SITE 5 VEGETATED CONTROL
/ r i
I \ \ 4 /WK
* \ \ \ t /WR
^ \\ ^x
\\ \
\* \
\\ \
\L, V,
\ ^^^
Vxv\\/^r:
\ ^/ >3 — ®^ • ^

*T-r^ "™ "^ ^ •— ^ j— | ,
T-'- r^-^ — pi
"^" •
                          I    I1II    1^  [   !    I
                       I   2    3   4   5   6    7   8   9   10  II   12   13  14
                      7/9  7/16 7/23 7/30 8/6 8/13 8/20 8/27 9/3 9/10 9/17 9/24 10/1 10/8

                                       SAMPLE DATE
                5OO-

                450 -

                400

                360

             ~ 300
              •  250
              Q-
                200 —



                100-

                 60
Figure B-40-
                    TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
                    SITE 4 BARE CONTROL/
                    4"/wK
                                               --
-------
2,600 -
2,400-

^ 2,200
o> 2.OOO —
oT 1,800 -H
1
tl 1,600 —
<
ORTHOPHOSPH
(III
bUU —

400-
200 -


ORTHOPHOSPHATE-P
• Oitidation Pond Effluent
O Control Woter
jt
/\
/ \
^ \ 1 ^
/ \ / \ / \
/ ^ v ^

/ *^
•--V


; i i ; ; i ; : „' i '-I J^ — r
                                                  9   i    I   12  i»   ,.
                     7/9  7/16 7/23 7/30 8/6 8/13 8/20 8/27 9/3 9/10 9/17 9/24 10/1 ,0/8
                                      SAMPLE DATE
                2600

                2400

                2200

              — 2OOO
              a>
              *• IBOO

              a. leoo
              i
              UJ
                1400

                1200

                1000

                800

                600

                400

                200
                       I   Z   34   56   78   9   10  II  12   13
                      8/2  &9  8/16 8/23  8/3O 9/6  9/13 a?0 8/27  10/4 JO/11  10/18 10/29

                                    SAMPLE DATE 1975
Figure B-41.
Orthophosphate-P  concentrations in the stabilization
pond effluent and control water during 1976  (above)
and  orthophosphate-P concentrations  in the stabilization
pond effluent during 1975 (below).
                                      185

-------
                 200
               £
               8
                 120
                 80
                         ORTHOPHOSPHATE-P

                         SITE 8  VEGETATED

                         6" / WK
                       I   2   3   4   5   6   7  6   9  10   II   12   13  14
                      8/2  8/9 B/16 8/23 8/30 9/6 9/13 9/20 9/27 10/4 10/11  10/18 IO/2S


                                      SAMPLE  DATE
                 200
                 160
                I
                a.
                S  80
                 40
                                ORTHOPMOSPHATE-P

                                SITE ! BARE

                                6"/ WK

                      I    2   3   4   5   e   7   a   9   10  II   12  13  (4

                      8/2  8/9  8/16 8/23  8/30 9/6  9/13 9/20 9/27 10/4 10/11 10/18  10/25


                                       SAMPLE  DATE
Figure B-42.
Orthophosphate-P  concentrations in  the soil  mantle
treated stabilization pond effluent at 10.2  cm  (4  in.)»
30.5  cm (1  ft.),  61.0 cm (2 ft.), and 91.4 cm (3 ft.)
depths in the soil profile on  vegetated and  bare sites
using a 15.2 cm  (6 in.)  per week irrigation  application
rate  during 1975.
                                       186

-------
                   zoo
                   160
                   120
                 o.
                 ?  60
                          ORTHOPHOSPHATE -P
                          SITE 7 VEGETATED

                          4"/ WK
                                                            	6
                     0   I    2   3   4   5  6   7   8   9   10   II   12  13
                        8/2  8/9  8/16 8/23 8/30 9/6  9/13  9/20 9/27 10/4 10/11 10/18 10/23

                                        SAMPLE DATE
                   200
                   I6O
                   120
                   80
                   40
           ORTHOPHOSPHATE-P

           SITE 2 BARE

           4" / WK
                    0   I   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10  II   12  13   14
                       B/2  8/9  8/16 8/23 8/30  9/6  9/13 9/2O 9/27 10/4 10/11 10/18 10/25

                                       SAMPLE  DATE
Figure B-43.
Orthophosphate-P  concentrations in  the soil mantle
treated stabilization  pond effluent at 10.2 cm  (4 in.),
30.5 cm (1  ft.),  61.0  cm (2 ft.), and 91.4  cm (3  ft.)
depths in  the soil profile on  vegetated and bare  sites
using a 10.2 cm  (4 in.)  per week irrigation application
rate during 1975.
                                      187

-------
                  240
                   ZOO
                   I6O
                  =(
                  a.
                   120
                 8
                 I
                          ORTHOPHOSPHATE-P

                          SITE 6  VEGETATED

                          2" / WK
                         I   2   3   4   5   6   7  8   9   10   II   12   13  14
                        8/2  8/9 8/16  8/23 6/30 9/6 9/13  9/20 9/27 10/4 10/11 10/18 10/25

                                        SAMPLE DATE
                   20O
                 o
                 I
                 a.
                 o
                   120
                   80
                   40
            \
                              V
                  ORTHOPHOSPHATE-P
                  SITE 3  BARE
                  2"/ WK
                         I   2   3   4   9   67   8   9   10   II   12  13  14
                        a/2  a/9  a/is a/23 a/so  9/6  9/13 9/20  9/27 10/4 10/11 10/18  10/29

                                        SAMPLE DATE
Figure B-44.
Orthophosphate-P  concentrations in the soil  mantle
treated stabilization pond effluent at 10.2  cm (4 in.},
30.5  cm (1  ft.),  61.0 cm (2 ft.), and  91.4 cm (3 ft.)
depths in the soil profile on vegetated and  bare sites
using a 5.08 cm  (2 in.)  per week irrigation  application
rate  during 1975.
                                      188

-------
                900-


              — 80°-
                           ORTHOPHOSPHATE-P
                           SITE 8 Vegetated

                           6"/wfc
                                                      J—D-
                                                           ^JD-.-O	Q
                       I
                          I   I   I    I    I   I    I   I    I   I    I   I   I
                       I   2   3   4   5    6   7   8   9   IO   II   12   13   14
                      7/9  7/16 7/23 7/30 8/6  6/13 8/20 8/27 9/3  9/10 9/17  9/24 10/1 10/8

                                        SAMPLE  DATE
                900 —


                800-
              ^700-j
                600
              jsooH
              |

              CC
              O
400 -T


300-


200


100 —
                     ORTHOPHOSPHATE-P
                     SITE I Bare
                     6"/wk
                                                        'X   V
                       I    r
                       I    2
                       7/9  7/16
              3   4  5   6   7   6   9   IO  II   12  13   14
              7/23 7/30 8/6 8/13 8/20 8/27 9/3 9/10 9/17 9/24 10/1  10/8

                        SAMPLE DATE
Figure B-45.
 Orthophosphate-P concentrations  in the soil  mantle
 treated stabilization pond effluent at 10.2  cm (4  in.),
 30.5  cm (1  ft.), 61.0 cm  (2 ft.),  and  91.4 cm (3 ft.)
 depths  in the soil  profile on vegetated and  bare sites
 using a 15.2  cm (6  in.) per week irrigation  application
 rate  during 1976.
                                      189

-------
               500-
               400-
               200-
               100 —
                    ORTHOPHOSPHATE - P
                    SITE 7 VEGETATED
                    4"/wk
                                  \^'
                            _   /'
                       L3'
                          \     ^      /^
             <\x,^_  v..^^-
                                              .—^Q
                                                          —D--
                      I
                     7/9
          2
          7/16
 345
7/23 7/30 8/6
 I   1   I    I
 €   7   8    9
8/13 8/20 8/27 9/3

SAMPLE DATE
10   II
9/10 9/17
 I   I   I
 12   13   14
9/24 10/1 10/8
                            0 1350- 7/30
                          3133-7/23 *  1
               5OO —
               400 —
               .300 —
               200 —
                100 —
                                        ORTHOPHOSPHATE - P
                                        SITE 2' BARE
                                        4"/wk
                      i   i   r   r  i    i   i   r   i   i   T   i   i   i
                      I   2   3   4  9   6   7   8   9   10  II  12   13   14
                     7/9 7/16  7/23 7/30 8/6 8/13 8/20 B/27 9/3  9/IO 9/17 9/24 10/1  10/8

                                     SAMPLE DATE
Figure B-46.
Orthophosphate-P concentrations  in the soil mantle
treated stabilization pond effluent at 10.2 cm  (4 in.),
30.5 cm (1  ft.), 61.0 cm  (2  ft.),  and 91.4 cm (3 ft.)
depths in the soil profile on vegetated and bare sites
using a 10.2  cm (4 in.) per  week irrigation application
rate during 1976.
                                   190

-------
                                                  ORTHOPHOSPHATE-P
                                                  SITE 6 Vegetated
                                                  2'Vwk
                                         "I	1	1	1	1	1
                        I   2   3   4   5   6   7   8    9   10   II   12  13   14
                       7/9  7/16 7/23 7/30 8/6  8/13 8/20 8/27 9/3 9/10 9/17 9/2410/1 10/8
                                        SAMPLE DATE
  900-

^800-
~
•t,?oo-
OL
Jj 600-

| 500-

1 «*>'-
o
f 300-

  200 —

  100 —
                                      ORTHOPHOSPHATE-P
                                      SITE 3 Bare
                                                    i   i    r   i    i   i
                        I   2   3   4  9   6  7   8   9   IO   II   12  13   14
                       7/9  7/16 7/23 7/30 8/6 8/13 8/20 8/27 9/3 9/10 9/17 9/2410/1  10/8
                                        SAMPLE DATE
Figure B-A7.
  Orthophosphate-P concentrations in the  soil mantle
  treated  stabilization pond  effluent at  10.2 cm (4 in.)»
  30.5 cm  (1 ft.), 61.0 cm  (2 ft.),  and 91.4 cm  (3 ft.)
  depths in the  soil profile  on vegetated  and bare sites
  using a  5.08 cm (6 in.) per week  irrigation application
  rate during 1976.
                                      191

-------
              300
              280 —
              260 —
              240
            1,200-1
            ~-200 —
            uj'80
            5 160 —
            Q.
            g 140-
            § '20-I
            £100
            0 80-J
              60 —
              40 —
              20
                        ORTHOPHOSPHATE-P
                        SITE 5 VEGETATED CONTROL
                        4"/wk
                     I   I    I    I   I    I   1    I   I    T   1^   1   I    1
                     I   2    3   4   5    6   7    8   9   10  II   12  13   14
                    7/9  7/16 7/23 7/30 8/6  8/13 8/20 8/27 9/3 9/10 9/17 9/24 10/1 10/8
                                      SAMPLE  DATE
             . 200 —
                                         ORTHOPHOSPHATE - P
                                         SITE 4  BARE
                                         4"/wk CONTROL
                     I    I   I    I    I   I    I   T   I   I    I   I    I   I
                     I    2   3   4    5   6    7   8   9   10   II   12   13  14
                     7/9  7/16  7/23 7/30 8/6 8/13 8/20 8/27 9/3 9/10 9/17 9/24 10/1 IO/8
                                      SAMPLE DATE
Figure B-48.
Orthophosphate-P concentrations  in the soil  mantle
treated control  water at  10.2 cm (4 in.)»  30.5 cm
(1  ft.),  61.0  cm (2  ft.),  and 91.4 cm (3 ft.) depths
in  the soil profile  on vegetated and  bare  sites
using a 10.2 cm  (4 in.) per week irrigation  application
rate during 1976.
                                       192

-------
      JO
   v>
   0
                     -9— SS POND EFFLUENT
                     -0-- VSS POND EFFLUENT
                     -•— SS DRAIN
      10 -
      5 -
              2   345   678   9  10   II  12   13   14
           7/9  7/16 tra  7/30 8/6  8/13 8/20 6/27  9/3  9/10 9/17  9/24  10/1  10/8

                         SAMPLE DATE 1976
Figure B-49.
Suspended and volatile suspended solids
concentrations in the mole drain effluent
from the eight experimental sites.
                              193

-------
                                  APPENDIX C

                      SPRAY IRRIGATION ECONOMIC ANALYSIS


     The program for the economic analysis of spray irrigation will analyze
solid set, on the ground, and center pivot systems.  It is assumed that  the
system operates 24 hours a day as any waste disposal plant does.  Output will
plot cost in dollars vs. MGD treated and generates three curves per graph that
correspond to three application rates (inches/acre/day) that was fed in  with
the data.  Three graphs are generated for each data set:  yearly operational
costs, yearly ownership costs, and total yearly costs.

     The computer plot routine dimensions the ordinate and abscissa based on
the largest number generated.  The graphs were designed to depict order  of
magnitude estimates of costs.  The program also produces a table of values
which can be used for more specific estimates of ownership costs, operation
costs, and total costs.

PROGRAM  GUIDE  FOR ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF SPRAY
IRRIGATION SYSTEMS UTILIZED IN THE TREATMENT
OF WASTEWATER STABILIZATION POND EFFLUENTS

Program Variable Terminology

Q MIN    Minimum flow (MGD)

Q MAX    Maximum flow (MGD)

AP       Application rate (inches/day) 3 rates for each data set

FC       Fuel cost ($/kw)

FCON     Fuel consumption (bhp-hrs/kw)

OC       Oil cost ($/gal)

OCON     Oil consumption (bhp-hrs/gal)

CPU      Cost of power unit maintenance ($/bhp-hr)

CIEQ     Cost of irrigation equipment ($/acre)

CRMAN    Cost of reservoir maintenance ($/hr)

EFFM     Labor requirement to run the system (hr/acre/day)

WAGE     Hourly wage of system labor ($/hr)

CHAR     Cost of harvesting ($/acre)

SFL      Standard friction loss (ft.  of water)


                                     194

-------
HPY       Harvests  per  year
WCPA      Worth  of  crop per  acre  ($/acre)
ISW       Program indicator:   (0  =  solid  set   1  = center  pivot)
ISPF      Installation  of  sprinkler system per ft.  ($/ft.)
IDPF      Installation  of  drainage  system per  ft.  ($/ft.)
CW        Hazen-Williams coefficient
D         Diameter  of the  pipe  (ft.)
RINT      Interest  rate (in  percent)
RLE       Reservoir life expectancy (yrs)
PMTLE     Pump,  motor,  transmission life  expectancy (yrs)
PLE       Pipe life expectancy  (yrs)
CPPA      Cost of pipe  per acre ($/acre)
PILE      Pipe trailer  life  expectancy  (yrs)
CPT       Cost of pipe  trailer  ($)
SPLE      Sprinkler life expectancy (yrs)
CPASP     Cost per  acre for  sprinkler ($/acre)
DSLE      Drainage  system  life expectancy  (yrs)
CPADS     Cost per  acre of the drainage system ($/acre)
CISPDS    Cost of installation of sprinklers and  drainage system per acre
          ($/acre)
PC        Cost of land  out of production due to its use as treatment for lagoon
          effluent  ($/acre)
LCPA      Cost to buy the  land per  acre ($/acre)
PLPA      Friction  loss  per acre—3  friction losses are read in—one for each
          application rate
.Solid Set or on  the Ground
     When the program  indicator  (ISW) = 0  the following routine will be
followed  to calculate  costs for a  solid set system.  Costs for an on the
Sfound system is calculated by substracting the in the ground costs from the
value obtained for the  solid set system.
ACR (acres)
0.0271583 MG
            AR (application rate) (0.0271583)
           1  1 acre-inch of water
(total friction loss)  -  (ACRES X FLPA)  + SFL
  =  Friction loss per acre
  -  Standard friction loss (discharge pressure,  riser height,  etc.)
                                      195

-------
_ ,,          v     Q x 694 x TFL
P (horsepower)  -  ^	266Q	

                                        Q  (694 •"*•—I   (TFL)
 p     	Q (gpm) H (ft.)	 =  x  \    mgdj
       4000 (Drive eff.) (pump eff.)           2660
         Drive eff.  =  0.7         Pump eff.  =  0.95
CRM  =  Cost of repair and maintenance
CRM  =  0
                          FC
CRM  -  CRM + P x 8760 x
                         FCON
CRM  =  CRM + HP x 8760 — x
                         yr    bhp-hrs
                                  kw
                          oc
CRM  =  CRM + P x 8760 x
                         OCON
CRM  =
                                 gal
CRM  =  CRM + P x 8760 x CPU
CRM  =  CRM + HP x 8760 ~- x $/bhp-hr
CRM  -  CRM + 0.005 x CIEQ x ACRES
CRM  -  CRM + 0.005 x $/ACRE x ACRES
     CIEQ  =  Capital cost of sprinklers, pipe,  and  drainage
CRM  =  CRM + 80 x CRMAN
CRM  =  CRM + 80 x $/hr
     It is assumed only 80 hrs a year are required for  maintenance.
CRM  =  CRM + EFFM x 365 x ACRES x WAGE
CRM  =  CRM + hr/acre/day x  365      x ACRES x  $/hr
CRM  =  CRM + CHAR x ACRES x HPY
                               Vi A 1* v^* Q ^
CRM  =  CRM + $/ACRE x ACRES x     r
     Plot CRM vs. Q (Annual  operational  costs)
T    =0
T    -  T^+ RIN  (I,IFUN2(RLE)) x 4951. x (IQ)
T    =  T + INTEREST FACTOR  x $4951/MGD  x Q MGD
RIN(I,IFUN2(RLE)) - Selects  the interest factor from the program.   The table
this information is derived  from will be shown  in the data section.
                                     196

-------
The capacity of  the reservoir is assumed equal to one day's flow.  The cost
of a reservoir is  $1.00/yd-* and 4951 yd^ is equal to a million gallons.
T  =  T + RIN  (I,IFUN2(PMTLE)) x 45 x P
T  -  T + INTEREST FACTOR x $45/HP x HP
      Pump, motor  and transmission run approximately $45/horsepower.
T  =  T + RIN(I,IFUN2(PLE)) x CPPA x ACRES
T  =  T + INTEREST FACTOR x $/ACRE x ACRES
T  =  T + RIN(I,IFUN2(PTLE)) x CPT
T  =  T + INTEREST FACTOR x $/TRAILER
T  =  T + RIN(I,IFUN2(SPLE)) x CPASP x ACRES
T  =  T + INTEREST FACTOR x $/ACRE x ACRES
CPASP - Capital  cost of piping and sprinkler/acre
T  -  T + RIN(I,IFUN2(DSLE)) CPADS x ACRES
T  =  T + INTEREST FACTOR x $/ACRE x ACRES
CPADS - Capital  cost of drainage system/acre
T  =  T x 1.01
1% of capital cost is considered the yearly cost of taxes and insurance.
T  =  T + CISPDS x ACRES * 20
CISPDS  =  Installation cost of sprinklers, pipe and drainage per acre.
The cost is spread over 20 years which is the design life of the system.
T  =  T + PC x ACRES
PC is dollar value per acre of the crop that was grown on the land before the
treatment scheme was installed.
T  =  T + LCPA x ACRES * 20
     LCPA  -  Cost of land acquisition per acre (Interest must be included)
     20 years is the design life of the system.
Plot T vs.  Q (yearly operational costs)
WORTH  =  WCPA x ACRES x HPY
     WORTH  -  Total yearly dollar value of crop grown
     WCPA   =  Worth of the crop per acre
     KPY    = .  Harvests per year
TOTAL COST  =  CRM + T - WORTH
Plot TOTAL COST vs. Q (total yearly costs)
                                      197

-------
Center Pivot System
     When ISW =* 1 this routine is followed:
DD4  -  D T 4
This estimates DD4 as the hydraulic radius of the pipe.
ACR(ACRES) = Q/(AR*0.0271583)
Q is MGD
AR is application rate in inches-acre-day
0.0271583 is 1 acre-inch in million gallons
00 Pi = 3.1416
             v »  QC0.1337) (12.37)
                  1.318 x C  x (DD4)°'63
                           w
             S •  POWER (S, 1.85)
This is a form of the Hazen-Williams equation
             V -  1.318      0-63  °'5A
Put V in fps from MGD           V  =
                                          •ffl
86400
      day
Q0-54  =     Q(MGD)(V)          _    V
          1.318                 "

           (n/r\    vl.85
       	^ '  £~\         S is system headless in Ft/Ft
       C  (DD4)0'63/
        w
     Since most of the discharge in a center pivot system occurs nearer the
periphery, S will be assumed constant throughout the radius of the pivot.
     R  =  SQRT(ACR(IA,IQ)*43500/3.1416)
           R  is the radius of the pivot in feet
           AREA = ACRES x 43500 f t.2/ACRE = TT R2
         - R2 - ACRES x 43500/TT
                   "V"
TFL  -  (R * S) + SFL
           0  _     .ACRES x 43500
           K
                                   198

-------
Total Headless = S(loss in TI^") x R (ft. in system)
                           T. C •
      + standard loss (discharge pressure, height of sprinkler, etc.)


                                      694 U    TFL
      P (horsepower)  =            TFL
 HP  -         Q (EPnO H (ft.)
        4000 (Drive eff.) (pump eff.)          2660
            Drive eff.  =  0.7         Pump eff.  «  0.95
 CRM  =  Cost of repair and maintenance
 CRM  =  0
                           •
 CRM  =  CRM + P (8760) x
 CRM  »  CRM + HP x 8760 — x
                         yr     bhp-hrs
                                  kw
 CRM  =  CRM + P (8760) x
 CRM  =  CRM + HP (8760 — ) x
                               .
                        yr     bhp-hrs
                                 gal
 CRM  =  CRM + P (8760)  x CPU
 CRM  =  CRM + HP (8760  — )  x $/bhp-hr
 CRM  =  CRM + 0.005 x CIEQ  x R
      R  is  the radius of the pivot system in ft.
      CIEQ  is in $/ft of the pivot system
 CRM  =  CRM + 80 x CRMAN
      80  hrs is assumed  the  annual  labor  needed  to  maintain the reservoir
 CRM  =  CRM + EFFM x 365 x  ACRES x WAGE
      EFFM  =  Efficiency of farm maintenance hr/acre/day
      WAGE  -  $/hr
 Y   = CRM  + CHAR x ACR x HPY
      CHAR - Cost of harvesting
      HPY -  Harvests per acre
 Plot  Y vs.  X or $  vs. Q in  MGD (yearly operational costs)
 T   -   o
 T   -   T  + RIN(I,FUN2(RLE))  x 4951  x Q
      RIN(I,FUN2(RLE)) — Selects  the interest  factor from  the program.  The
 table  that  this  information is derived from will be shown  in  the data section.
     Reservoir  capacity is  assumed equal  to one day's flow.   The cost of a
 reservoir 1.00/yd^  and  4951  yd^ is  equal  to a million gallons.
T  =  T + RIN(I,FUN2(PLE))  x CPPA  x R
T  =  T + INTEREST FACTOR x  $/ft x  ft
                                      199

-------
       CPPA  is expressed  in $/ft.  because  this  is  more practical in the
 rotational  system.   This includes cost  of pump-motor,  etc.
 T  -   T + RIN(1,1FUN2(PILE))-CPT
 T  -   T + INTEREST  FACTOR x $/TRAILER
 T  -   T + RIN(I,IFUN2(DSLE))-CPADS x 8  x  R
 T  -   T + INTEREST  FACTOR • $/FT x 8 x FT
                                      A  circular  drainage  system  is  planned.
                                      Therefore,  total  footage will  be  8  times
                                      that of  the radius.   CPADS  is  expressed
                                      in $/ft.
T  =  T  1.01
1% of total capital cost is assumed for yearly  taxes and insurance.
T  -  T +  (R x ISPF + 8 x R x IDPF)/20
T  -  T +  (FT x $/FT + 8 x FT x  $/FT)/20
     The cost of sprinkler installation and the cost of drainage installation
are spread over 20 yrs.
AACRES  -  (2 x R xx 2)/43500
     This calculation figures the number of acres actually needed for the sys-
tem if you are forced by buy square sections of land.
                                      The area of the circle is ACR-ACRES
                                      The area of the square is AACRES
T  •  T + PC x AACRES
T  -  T + $/ACRE x AACRES
PC »  Production worth of the land now used in the treatment scheme
T  •  T + LCPA x AACRES/20
     This distributes the cost of the land of 20 yrs which is the design life
of the system.
Plot T vs. Q (MGD)    (annual ownership costs)
WORTH  =  WCPA x ACRES-HPY
     $/YR  -  $/ACRE x ACRES x X/yr
WORTH is the annual value of the crop under spray irrigation.
COST  =  T + Y - WORTH
                                     200

-------
COST is the sum of ownership and operation—the return of the worth of the
crop.

Plot COST vs. Q (MGD)   (annual total cost)


Basic Data Used in Economic Analysis

*  Fuel Cost (FC) was assumed $0.05/kwh

     This accounts for the power consumed as well as the necessary transformer
     costs to step the power to three phase from the Logan City power lines.

*  Fuel Consumption     (This is from the University of Mo. Extension.)
     (FCON)
                                   TABLE 1
                Fuel Consumption (bhp-hrs. per unit of fuel)
Fuel
Diesel
Gasoline
Propane
Natural Gas
Electric
Average
12.5 per gallon
10.0 per gallon
8.0 per gallon
8.0 per 100 cu. ft.
1.03 per kw.-hr.
3
Standard
14.6
11.5
9.2
8-9 4
1.18
1
 To estimate fuel used per hour, divide continuous brake horsepower by the
 bhp-hrs/unit of fuel.  For example, 60 bhp/10  bhp-hrs/gal - 6 gallons/hour.

 Denotes the average of a large number of irrigation pumping units tested by
 the University of Nebraska.  Use these figures for estimating pumping costs
 over the live of the system.

 Nebraska Irrigation Pumping Test Standard.  Pumping units that are new or in
 excellent condition and adjustment should maintain this standard.

*1 hp = 746 watts, 1 kwh = 1.34 hp-hr, assuming the electric motor is 100%
 efficient.  As 88% efficient is more realistic, 0.88 x 1.34 - 1.18.
*  Oil Cost (OC) $2/gal—This assumes the use of rerefined oil.
*  Oil Consumption      (University of Mo. Extension.)
     (OCON)
                              Oil Consumption
    Type Engine
bhp-hrs. per gallon of oil
Gasoline, tractor fuel, diesel
Propane, natural
Electric
Right angle gear drive
            900
           1000
           9000
           5000
                                    201

-------
*  Cost Power Unit Maintenance  (CPU)
     Since motor costs are calculated on a basis of $/hp, it is impossible to
say how many motors would require $10/yr.
                     Power Unit Repairs and Maintenance
    Type Engine
                                                          Cost per bhp-hr
Gasoline, tractor fuel
Propane, natural gas
Diesel
Electric motor is assumed to be $10.00 per year
                                                              $.0016
                                                              $.0012
                                                              $.0019
Therefore, $4.5 x 10~5/bhp-hr is used, that is $10/8760 — x 25 hp.
25 hp is the basis for our $/hp figure which is shown later.
*  Cost of Irrigation Equipment (CIEQ)
     A percentage (1/2) of this cost is used to figure the repair and mainte-
nance cost.  Included is the cost of sprinklers, pipe and drainage but not
their installation costs.
     Solid set and on the ground
     (This is figured in $/acre.)
                                                     1 Pipe set sprays
                                                       5000 ft.2 in each set:
                                                       290'  - 2" PVC
                                                        60'  - 3" PVC
                                                        10 sprinklers on
                                                        6'  risers
                                                       170'  - 4" PVC
3" PVC-
h^










1
" — 10° — -






— *-^ — A 	 m 	 <


- 30* 5
t
i

o'
r

/DRAIN -10' OVER ON
EACH SIDE- 4" PVC
                         2" PVC
          2" PVC at $.32/ft.  x 290 ft.    =  $ 92.80
          3" PVC at $.65/ft.  x  60 ft.    =    39.00
          4" PVC at $.60/ft.  x 170 ft.    -   102.00
          10 sprinklers at $5.50 ea.      =    55.00
                                            $288.80
                            =  8.7 pipe sets/acre
     43500 ft. / acre
           2
        5000 ft. /pipe set
        8.7 x 288.80  -  $2572.56/acre   CIEQ
                                    202

-------
      Center Pivot

            $28,000 for  1/4 mile of equipment—excluding motor

            $21.21/ft.   CIEQ

 *  Cost of Reservoir Maintenance (CRMAN)

            $3/hr for all cases

 *  Labor Requirements  to Run the System (EFFM)

            (.05 hrs/acre/day was adopted for both the solid set and center
           « -ff __ _ j_ \
           pivot)
                              Labor Requirements
     Equipment
Hours Labor Per Acre Per Application
 Traveling gun sprinkler
 Boom sprinkler
 Towline sprinkler
 Side-roll sprinkler
 Center pivot sprinkler
      135 acre size
       35 acre size
 Grated pipe
 Handy carry portable sprinkler
 Solid set sprinkler
                .251
                .78
                .54
                .55
                   2
                   3

                .*60A
                .92
  This assumes  four man-hours  of  labor plus one hour  of  supervision  per  day
  for a sprinkler  covering  20  acres per day (2 sets).  A system with buried
  Pipe and a hose  reel  requires approximately one hour of labor per  set  plus
  one-half hour supervision per set.
2
  This requirement is without  moving time.  This is two  hours per revolution
  for lubrication, adjustment, etc. plus two hours supervision per day.  Moving
 requires eight man-hours.
3
 This requirement is without  moving time.  This is one hour per revolution
 for lubrication, adjustments, etc. plus one and one-half hours per day
 supervision.   Moving requires six man-hours.
4.
 This requirement is for systems requiring some pipe moving, and no tailwater
 Pits.   A system utilizing a  tailwater return pump and no pipe moving should
 require approximately two-tenths hours/acre/application.
5
 These  systems can be completely automated.   One hour of supervision per day
 is generally  sufficient.
*  Hourly Wage of System Labor (WAGE)

     $3/hr
                                     203

-------
*  Cost of Harvesting (CHAR)
     $4/acre to cut grass
     $.56 to bale ea. bale ->• .25 x 25 -»• $14.00
     1.5 tons/acre at 60 Ibs/bale -»• 25 bales
          $18.00/acre to harvest
*  Standard Friction Loss (SFL)
     Assuming 6' risers for solid set
     Assuming 6' elevated pivot
     Discharge of 50 psi (115.5') for both
          SFL = 115.5 + 6  =  121.5'
*  Harvests Per Year (HPY)
     3 mowings/year
*  Worth of Crop Per Acre (WCPA)
     1.5 tons of grass/acre at $50/ton
     .•. $75/acre
*  I-Switch (ISW)
     0 - Solid Set      1 - Center Pivot
*  Installation of Sprinkler Per Foot (ISPF)
     Solid Set - 0
     Center Pivot - $.65/ft.
*  Installation of Drainage Per Foot (IDPF)
     Solid Set - 0
     Center Pivot - $2.00/ft.   (includes gravel base)
*  Hazen-Williams Coefficient (CW)
     Solid Set - 0
     Center Pivot - 120
*  Diameter of Pipe (D) in feet
     0.833 ft.
*  Interest Rate (RINT) in percent
     9
Life Expectancy and Interest Factors
                Maximum Expected Life of Irrigation  Equipment
     Equipment                                                  Years
     Well
        Casing Gauge
            8                                                    25+
           10                                                    25
           12                                                    15
        Standard 3/16 in. wall thickness                         25+
                                    204

-------
 Equipment
Years
 Pump
    Line  Shaft  Propeller                                      10
    Turbine  Pump                                              15
    Centrifugal Pump                                        10-12
 Power  Unit
    Electric Motor                                            25
    Diesel Engine                                             15
    Natural  gas, LPG,  or  propane                              12
    Tractor  fuel, gasoline                                    10

 Power  Transmission Unit
    Gear  Drive  or Belt Head                                   12
    Belts                                                     6
 Electric Switches, Natural Gas Lines, Fuel  Tanks,
 and Land Plane
    Switch                                                    20
    Gas Line
       Iron                                                   20
       Plastic                                                18
    Fuel  Tank
       Propane                                                20
       Diesel                                                 18
    Land  Plane                                                15
Water Pipe  and Pipe Trailer
    Underground Pipe
      Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC)                               20
       Steel                                                  20
      Asbestos Cement                                        25
    Aboveground Pipe
      Rigid Plastic                                          15
      Flexible Plastic (for Traveling Guns)                   5
      Steel                                                  18
      Aluminum                                               15
   Pipe  Trailer                                              10
Sprinkler System
   Solid Set                                                 15
   Hand Move                                                 15
   Side Roll                                                 12
   Skid Tow                                                  10
   Wheel Tow                                                 10
   Boom Type                                                 10
   Traveling-Big Gun                                       10-12
   Center Pivot                                            10-15
Irrigation Reservoir
   Prairie Soils Under Cultivation, No Silting Basin        20
   Prairie Soils Under Cultivation, With Silting Basin      30+
                               205

-------
               Annual Depreciation and Interest Cost Factors
                             Cost Factors at Various Expected
Interest                               Years of Life
/o
6
6*2
7
7%
8
8%
9
9%
10
5
0.2300
0.2325
0.2350
0.2375
0.2400
0.2425
0.2450
0.2475
0.2500
6
0.1967
0.1992
0.2017
0.2042
0.2067
0.2092
0.2117
0.2142
0.2167
8
0.1550
0.1575
0.1600
0.1625
0.1650
0.1675
0.1700
0.1725
0.1750
10
0.1300
0.1325
0.1350
0.1375
0.1400
0.1425
0.1450
0.1475
0.1500
12
0.1133
0.1158
0.1183
0.1208
0.1233
0.1258
0.1283
0.1308
0.1333
15
0.0967
0.0992
0.1017
0.1042
0.1067
0.1092
0.1117
0.1142
0.1167
20
0.0800
0.0825
0.0850
0.0875
0.0900
0.0925
0.0950
0.0975
0.1000
*
 Cost factors are used to calculate total annual depreciation and interest,
 where depreciation = new cost divided by years of life, and Interest = % new
 cost x current interest rate.
     The program combines the interest rate and life expectancies to derive
the interest factor from the above table which is stored in the program.
*  Pump, Motor, Transmission Life Expectancy (PMTLE)
Since the above are purchased as a unit, they are considered to have the same
life expectancy—15 yrs.
The cost of the above 3 items is figured at $45/HP and this figure is built
into the program.
25 hp PMT costs $1125
.*. 1 hp  =  $45
PMTLE is 0 for center pivot.
*  Pipe Life Expectancy (PLE)
     20 yrs for solid set and center pivot
*  Cost of Pipe Per Acre (CPPA)
     Solid Set
     2" - $.32/ft.  x 290'   =  $92.80
     3" - $.65/ft.  x  60'   -   39.00
                             $131.80 x 8.7 pipe sets = 1146.66/acre
     Center pivot (this includes cost of motor, pump and piping to center)
     28,000 for pipe + $8000/1/4 mile
     $27.27/ft.
*  Pipe Trailer Life Expectancy (PTLE)
     10 yrs

                                      206

-------
*  Cost of Pipe Trailer (CPT)
     $350.00
*  Sprinkler Life Expectancy (SPLE)
     15 yrs
*  Cost Per Acre for Sprinklers ($/acre) (CPASP)
     10 sprinklers/set x 8.7 sets /acre x 5.50 ea.
          $478.50/acre
     This is 0 for center pivot because the sprinklers are included with the
     pipe price.
*  Drainage System Life Expectancy (DSLE)
     20 yrs
*  Cost Per Acre of the Drainage System (CPADS)
     170' /set x $.60/ft. x 8.7 sets/acre  =  887.40/acre
            Center Pivot - $.60/ft.
*  Cost of Installation of Sprinklers and Drainage System (CISPDS)
     Solid Set
     SP (2901 + 60') x $.65/ft. x 8.7  =  $1979.25
     DR (1701) x $2.00/ft. x 8.7       -  $2958.00
                                          $4937.25/acre
     On the Ground
     SP (3501) x $.05/ft.  x 8.7        =  $ 152.25
     DR (1701) x 2.00/ft.  x 8.7           $2958.00
                                          $3110.25/acre
     0 - Center Pivot
         Drainage installation includes gravel.
*  Cost of Land Out of Production (PC)
     $0/acre — it is assumed the land is being reclaimed.
*  Cost to Buy the Land for Use (LCPA)
     $600/acre
*  Friction Loss Per Acre  (FLPA)
     A head loss calculator is included
     Use Main line calculations for 3"
     Use Lateral calculations for 2"
     at 2"/ac/day
            2" pipe has .08'  hi/100'
            or -    x 230 x 8.7  =  1.6' hi/acre
            3" pipe has .036' hi/100'
                                    207

-------
       or     - x 60 x 8.7  =  .187' hi/acre
       allowing 2 psl/acre for elbows and miscellaneous losses
       (2 psi  =  4.61')
2"/ac/day has FLPA of 6. 39 '/acre
4"/ac/day has FLPA of 10. 16 '/acre
6"/ac/day has FLPA of 15. 7 '/acre
4" and 6" application rates'  head loss are figured in the same manner.
                               208

-------
Program  Used  to Calculate Economics
             ISPF,IDPF
       REAl  U10)
                 AP<3> ,ACR<3,21)»P<3,2l),X<23) tY<3,21)
                 RIN(9,7) ,eOsT<3,21>,OwN<3.21)
                 FK9> ,F2<9) ,F3(9>,F4<9),F5<9)fF6<9),F7(9)
       FOUfVALfNCF  (RINU) ,Fl (1))
       FOUTVALENCE  (RlN ( 1 0) »F? < 1 1 )
                    (R!N(19) iF3(l) )
                    (RlN(2fl)fF4(l))
       FOllTVALENCF  f RlN (37) iF5 ( 1 1 )
       FOIITVALENCE  (RlN U61 »j 6 (V) )
             Fl« .?3.,2325i.23«5..2375..24i.24?«i,.24«5t,?475, 25)      2n
       nAT4((F?(I)iI«li9)*,l9#,7,,1992..2017..?042t.2067,.209?,.2117,.?U2      2l
      C t •?! 67)                                                                 2?
       nAT«((F3(I)iI«1.9)».l55..1575,.16,.1625t.l65..1675..l7,.1725..i75       21
      ^'   -                                                                    24
       nAT«((F»(I)iI«1.9)«.l3,.l325..l35i,l375».14..1425,.U5..U75».i5)       2«
       nAT»((ff5(I)tI.lt9)..ll33,.1158i.llB3fll20«,.l233,.l2SB,.12B3..l308      ?l
      C» . 1 ^33)                                                                 27
       OATit (F6(I) »I«1«9)».0967,.0992». 1017,. 1042,. 1067.. 109?,. 11 I7i. 114?      ?o
      C..U67)                                                                 2
       OATi ( (F7(I) •I»l,9)«.0fl,.0fl25f ,0fl5,.0875i .09,.092«;, . 09i;, .097S, l )         3n
 100   REAnll(i»GMrN,OMAX, (AP(I) ,Inl,3)                                          ^"
 110   FpRMAT(5tF5.0) )                                                          3'
       TF  (OMTN.EO. 999)60 TO 999
                                                                               ,.
       PEAn(AO,120)FC»FCON,Oc»OCON»CPU,CTFQ,rRMAN,EFFM                   -      3=
       FORMAT(7(F10.0»
 130    FOPMAT(Ht9X,?FlO.O»
                                                                               4'
       (3TNr«(OMAX.QMlN)/NX                                                      4
       TFtfSW.EO.MGO  TO  500
       no  T50  IA«li3
 135
       AH«AP(f«)
         T50  IO«ltNX
                                       209
                                                                               5

-------
M«;FOPT04M   14.3)  / "SOS S.i                     04/11/77

           A.I<»*Q/ «CRM*CHAH«ACR ( I A , 10) «HPy
       X ( Tn) «0
       0=0»OlNC
       TFtTSW. FO.D GO TO
       no ?5n !A«ii3                                                            ,00
                                                                                '
       nn         .
       AC»FS«ACR(IA.lO)                                                          „
                                         210

-------
                                                                          Oo?
          .                                                                      .
       T«T*RlM(I,lFURLE>*495j ,«»X                                            ]
       TFUPMT«IFUN2(PMTUP)                                                      JJ
       T»T*RIN(IFUPMT)»45,»P(IA,IQ)                                             '
       TFUPLF«IFUN2(PLE>
       T«T»RIN                                                       '
       T«T*RlNdirFUSPL)*CPAsP*ACRES                                            ,
       TFUnSL»IFUN2(DSLE)
       T«T»RlN(IiTFu6SL)«CPAnS*ACREs
       T«T«CISPDS»ACRES/20.
       T»T»PC««CRFS
       TeT*LCP»*ACRFS/?0.
       WpPTH»wrPA«ACRES*HPY
       rio tO
   200 CONTINUE
       no *00 IA»liNlO
       no noo to«itNx
       R« «!QRT(ACR
       T«TtRlN(IilFURLE>«49Sl.«X(IQ)
       TFUBLE«IFUN2
-------
   MSFORTRAN   (4.3) / MSOS 5.1                    04/11/77           PAGE 003

         CALL PLOTIT«COST»X,Nln»NX*AP)                                          156
         GO  TO  100                                                            157
     300 FORMAT)     11X.*APPLICATION RATF.»*,F7.?*3x,*INCH£S/ACPE*»//.           I5g
        $          ?OX,*AREA**                                                  159
        J  lTX«*OPERATlNG CO$T*»6X,*OWNERSHIP COST*,7X,*TOTAL COST**/)          l6f)
     350 FORMAT (17X.E1 0«*» lOX »fl0.4, lOXiF.10,4.1 OXtElO.4)                        161
     375 FO*MATflHltlOX**CENTER PIVOT SYSTEM*)                                  162
     376 FoRMAT(lHl,10X»*SoLlD SET SYSTEM*)                                     163
     999 CONTINUE                                                               164
         TF(nVEPFLF<5>.EQ.l) KuOPES"!                                           165
         WRITE(61*9999)                                                          166
   9999  FORMAT(lHl)                                                            167
?RORS
                FORTRAN DIAGNOSTIC RESULTS  FOR    SPRAY

JRORS

                 ME PLOTlT(Y,X,LL,M,AP)                                         ^9
                   Yt3,Zl)»X(2i),T(23).Lll3)*Ap(3)                              171
         HATA ((CODE!I>*I"1»3)»4HA     *4HR     *4HC                            17?
         NX»M                                                                   173
         CALL MTNMAX(X,NX»XMIN,XMAX>                                            174
         nn  roo K«I,LL                                                         i7«s
         CALl  TRANS(Y»T*NX*K)                                                    176
         CALL MTNMAX(T,NX»YMrN,YMAX>                                            ^77
         TF(K.ST.1>   60  TO 17?                                                 17B
                                                                                179
                                                                                l8n
         (?0 .TO   200                                                            181
     175 CONTINUE                                                               182
         TfT (YMAX.GE.AMAX)  AMAX.YMAX                                             ,83
         TF(YMIN.LT.AMTN)  AMIN.YM1N                                             t84
     200 CONTINUE                                                               185
         TF(  AMiN.GT.O .AND, X(1),EQ.O )  AMTN*n.                                186
                                                                                187
                                                                                18Q
         CALL OPLOT(X*T*NX*COOc tT"Ul3)                                               197
                      AP
-------
         FUwrTTnN
         TF(X.FO.O)  GO   TO   10
         POWFR" f>rP
        niMrNSfON U(3,102) ,V
        no  Too  I«I,N
                                       213

-------
    100  V(T)«U(JiI)
        RfTllRN                                                                  ?54
               FORTRAN DIAGNOSTIC RESULTS  FOR    TRANS

»ORS

        SUBROUTINE MINMAX(X,N,XMTN,XMAX)
  C
  C      SUBROUTINE TO SCALE MAXIMUM AND MINIMUM VALUES USEO IN PLOT.           ?58
        nTMpNSTON X(23>                                                         ?59
  r                                                                             ?fin
  r          IF  USING REAL*4 USE FUNCTION RFLOW.                                ?6i
  C      naf^lxxx) • ABStxxx)                                                    ?62
  C
  c          DETERMINE AMIN AND AMAX.
  C
        AMTN •  X(l)
        AMAX •  X(l)                                                             967
        no 199  I  « 2t N                                                        ?6fl
        TF                                                 J»BO
        TF '(XMfN .LT.  AMIN)  AMIN  « AMIN . 10,0*»KPOW                           ?«1
        CALl  SIODI6«AMAX.2,KPoW>                                                ?«?
        IF (XMAX .GT.  AMAX)  AMAX  • AMAX * 10.0**KPOW                           ?83
        XDIF  * AMAX •  AMIN
        AOIF  « XDIF
        CAL(  STGDIG(ADIF»2,KP0W)
        TF (XDIF .LT.  AOIF)  AoIF  « AOIF * 10.0««KPOW                           ?87
        TF (DABS(AMIN)  - OARS(AMAX))  400,600,500                               ?88
    400 AMIM  > AMAX •  ADIF                                                     ?89
        flO TO AOO                                                              ?90
    500 AMAy  • AMIN *  AOIF                                                     ?9]
    600 XMTN  • AMIN                                                            292
        XMAy  • AMAX                                                            293
        RETURN
        PNO

               FORTRAN DIAGNOSTIC RESULTS  FOR    MlNMAX
        SURBOUTINE SI60IG(VAL,NDIOTS.KPOW>
  r ......... ROUTINE WTU REDUCE A NUMBER DOWN TO A SPECIFIED NUMBER OF         ?97
  C         SIGNIFICANT DIGITS.                                                ?9t
  r                                                                            J»99
  r                     .                                                       300
  C         TF USING REAL«i UsE FUNCTION BELOW.                                301
  C     nA*«!
-------
       CONJ » 10.0 *« NDISTS
       CON? • CON1 / 10.0
 C
       TF  {VAL .EQ. 0.0) GO TO 199
 C
   100 fF  fDARStVAL) .LT. COwl) 80 TO 15o
       KPOW • KPOW • 1
       VA|. « VAL / 10«0
       ftp fo 100
   150 IF  fpARS(VAL) .GE. CON?) GO TO 199
       KPOw » KPOW -1                                                        ...
       VAI. » VAL • 10.0                                                       jj?
       60 TO TOO
   199 TVAi  « VAL * 0*001
       VAL • TVAL
       \F (KPOW)  200,400,300                                                  .?»
   200 TPOW • -  KPOW
       no ?so I  • if  IPOW
 250    VAL-VAL/10.0000
       fiO TO 400                                                               fl?
   300 HO tSO  T  • 1,  KPOW
 350    VAL«VAL*10.0000
   400 RETURN


              FORTRAN  DIAGNOSTIC  RESULTS   FOR     SIGOIG
      SUBPOUTINE OPLOT(X,YfNfCOOEiXMAx,XHTN.YMAX,YMINtlPATH)
C     X    ARR4Y OF X-0«OINATES.
C     Y    ARRAY OF Y-OROINftTES.
C     N    NUMBER OF POINTS.
C     COOF CHARACTER THAT WILL REPRESENT PLOTTED POINT.
C     XM«X THE LARGEST X VALUE THAT  IS TO BE PLOTTED.
C     YMAy THE LARSF.ST Y VALUE THAT  IS TO BE PUOTTEn!
r     XMT.M THE SMALLEST x VALUE THAT  is TO RE PIOTTEO.                        ,,.
C     YMIij THE SMALLEST Y VALUE THAT  TS TO BE PLOTTED.                        33*

C     THERE CAN RE N PLOTES ON ONE PRINT OUT.
C     THEQE IS ONE SET OF SCALLING FACTORS FOR EACH PRINTED piQT
C     CONTAINING ONE ON MORf SFTs OF POINTS.
C     TF ftNE POINT FROM ONE SET OF POINTS OVERLAPS ANOTHFR POINT FROM
r     ANOTHER SET OF POINTS AN =X= WlLL REPRESENT THE C^RLA?.

      tNTFGER FRMTl(20)fFRMT2(20>.INUM(9),IPATH,N
      TKITFGER LlNEdOlilon, CODE, SPACE, PLUS, MINUS, XXXX
      niMJrNStON X(23>iV(23) ,XX(6)
      nATA(SPACE.4H    ),(PLUS.4H*   ),«MINUS»4H-   »,(XXXX«4HX   )

      OATA<(FRMT1
-------
      r,n TO 105                                                              3*3
r                                                                            36»
r     ROUTINF FOR INITIALIZATION.                                            165
r                                                                            366
  100 TSiVsO                                                                  367
  lO1* TXCi*l6o
      TxrfPl  « TXCT * 1
      fVCT r  50
      TvrrPI  a IYCT » I
      no Tin  i a 2, ixCT
      no Tlo  .) • 2. IYCT
  110 | INPfl , J) a SPACE                                                      37*
      no T?o I  - 2i IXCT                                                     376
      TYrTP?aIYCTPl*10                                                       177
      nn 720 J  * 1» IYCTP2»iO                                                379
  120 LTNflltJ)  » MINUS                                                      379
                                       216

-------
             <*.3)  /  MSOS  «?,l                     04/11/77           PAGE 001

r                                                                             380
      no  130  I »  It  IXCTPltiO                                                 3Bl
      no  T30  J »  It  IYCTP1                                                    38?
  130 LlNFd.J) «  PLUS                                                        383
      00  T3S  J«lt  IYCTP1                                                      384
  135 LTNrnnltJ)«PlUS                                                        385
<*                                                                             38*
      DELX •  UMAX - XMIN)  /  IXCT                                            387
      OELY »  * < 8.1) )     391
     1               60  TO  UO                                                 39?
      FRMf2(T5) m  INUM(I)                                                     393
      fiO  TO  1*5                                                               394
  1*0 CONTINUE                                                                395
      FpMf?(15) »  1NUMC9)                                                     396
  1*5 00  i50  I »  It  9                                                        397
      TF  (DARSIYMAX)  «LTi  ln.O»»(8-I)  .AND.  DABS(YMIN)  .LT* 10.0«»(B.I))     19R
     1               GO  TO  ISO                                                 399
      FRMTl(n9) «  INUM(I)                                                     400
      00  TO  155                                                               *01
  150 CONTINUE                                                                40?
      FPMfl((i9) •  INUM(9J                                                     4{>3
r                                                                             40*
C     ,»»«••••***•»*»•**«**•**•***•*»»»**»»»****•»»***•••***•»••••••»•««
r
  155 IF '(ISw  .EOt  1) GO  TO  200                                               407
      fiO TO 999                                                               408
C                                                                             409
  160 CONTINUE                                                                410
      ISW - 0                                                                 411
C                                                                             *12
C     ••»••*••••*•*•»•**•*»••**••»**••»•»*•»»•*••»****•*••****•**••»•*••     413
C                                                                             4l*
f     THIS ROUTINE  DOES THE  PLOTTING.                                         415
C                                                                             416
  ?00 00 100 I » 1» N                                                         417
      IX . (X(I) -  XMIN)  / OELX  *  1.5                                         4lft
      IF  •  YMIN)  /  DELY  * 0.5)                          420
      IF (IY .LT. 1 .OR.  IY  .GT.  lYCTpl)  GO  TO 300                            421
      TF (LtNE(IXtlY) «EQ. SPACE  .OP. LINEdXtlY)  ,EQ.  PLUS .OP,.             422
     1    LlNE(IXtlY) .EG. MINUS  .OR. LlNE(IXtlY)  ,EO.  CODE)  80 TO 290       423
      LINF(IX.IY) • XXXX                                                      424
      60 TO 300                                                               *25
  290 LINF(lXtlY) • CODE                                                      42A
  300 CONTINUE                                                                *27
C
f.     ««•«*>*>••••*>»•«•»•>.>•«•••>*«***•*>**•*»••)•>•*»«>**.>».>**•)••»•>••*•••.>«•*»*
r                                                                             *36
      IF  60  TO  *00                                               431
                                     217

-------
   MSFORTPAN   (4.3)  / MSOS 5.1
                                               04/11/77
                                         PAGE 002
     350
   c
   c
   c
   c
   c
     400
   420
     430
   C
     440
 999

9010
9030
SO TO 999

CONTINUE

»»««••••*««•**•«•»»•*••»***•••*•**••••«•»•••*»•*••*••*««•••«*«*•»«

ROUTINE PRINTS OUT PLQT.

JJ • 1
YY • YMAX
HO 430 J » It IYCTPI
TF (JJ .NE, J) GO TO 420
WRlfEUl»FRMTl)YYt (LINE < I » J> t I"l . IXCTP1)
JJ « JJ * 10
YY » YY - lO.O'OELY
no TO 430
WRlfE(M»90lO)(LlNE(I.J)tl.
CONTINUE

J • 1
XX(T) m XMIN
00 440 I • 20t IXCTP1, 20
J • J » 1
XX(J) « XX(J-1>  * 20.0 •
WRTTE(IS1»FRMT2> (XX (I) ,I"1»J)

WRTfE(Al»9fl30)DELXtDELY

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••is***

RETURN
IRORS
         FORMAT (1H
         FORMAT UT REcoRn FOLLOWS ARRO«  *
^  FLAGS  ERR OR FIELD-END
«|0 0011   FRRhR JN  BCDINP
40 0011   FRROR IN  RCDINP
40 0011   ERROR IN  BCDINP
40 0011   ERROR TN  BCDINP
            FORTRAN DIAGNOSTIC RESULTS  FOR    DA8S


                                           (ILLEGAL CODE ON INPUT)


                                           (ILLEGAL CODE ON INPUT)
CALLED FROM 76640
COST OF OPERATION
CALLED FROM 77?oi
COST OF OWNERSHIP
                         CALLED FROM 77207 (ILLEGAL CODE ON INPUT)
                         CALLED FROM 77211 (ILLEGAL CODE ON INPUT)
                         CALLED FROM 77213 (ILLEGAL CODE ON INPUT)
                         CALLED FROM 77215 (ILLEGAL CODE ON INPUT)
                                       218

-------
                                  TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
                           (Please read faantctions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
  EPA-600/2-78-097
                                                          3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
SEPARATION OF ALGAL  CELLS FROM WASTEWATER LAGOON
EFFLUENTS; Volume  III:   Soil Mantle Treatment of Waste-
      Stabilization  Pond Effluent - Sprinkler Irrigation
             5. REPORT DATE
               July 1978  (Issuing  Date)
             6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
 B.  T. Hicken, R. S. Tinkey,  R.  A.  Gearheart, J. H.
 Reynolds, D. S. Filip,  and E.  J.  Middlebrooks
                                                          8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORG \NIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS

 Utah Water Research Laboratory
 Utah State University
 Logan, Utah  84322
             10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.

               1BC611
             11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.

               68-03-0281
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
 Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory —Gin., OH
 Office of Research and Development
 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
 Cincinnati, Ohio  45268         	
             13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
               Final. 1973-1977	
             14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE

               EPA/600/14
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
 Proiect Officer:  Ronald  F.  Lewis,  (513) 684-7644
 See'also Vol. I  (EPA-600/2-78-033)  and Vol. II
     Lysimeter studies and a two-year field  study were conducted to evaluate the effi-
ciency of  sprinkler irrigation wastewater  treatment as a means of polishing  wastewater
stabilization lagoon effluent.  In the lysimeter study four typical Utah soils  were
evaluated  for their effectiveness in removing  total and fecal coliform and fecal strep-
tococcal organisms as well as nitrogen, phosphorus and carbon compounds.  The field ex-
periments  evaluated the removal efficiencies for carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus com-
pounds .
     All four soils used in the lysimeters were effective in removing the three indicat
or organisms, organic carbon, and suspended  and volatile suspended solids. In the field!
experiments  leaching of salts from soils on  the drainage farm occurred.  The quality ofl
the effluent from the soil wastewater treatment system appeared to be controlled by the
characteristics of the drainage farm system.   Once equilibrium is established a far su-
perior quality effluent is expected.  Phosphorus removal in the field experiments ex-
ceeded 80%.   The rate of application of irrigation water made no significant difference
in the phosphorus removal rate.  Evidence  of nitrate leaching from the soil  was also ob
served.  Ammonia stripping removed approximately 35% of the ammonia when the lagoon ef-
fluent was sprayed on the land.  Suspended solids removal by soil mantle treatment sys-
tem was excellent and the suspended solids concentrations in the drainage water from a
1.2 m  (4 ft.) deep mole drain contained an average suspended solids concentration of
2 mg/A.                          	
17.
                               KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
                  DESCRIPTORS
                                             b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
                             COSATI Field/Group
Sprinkler  irrigation
Wastewater
Lagoon  (ponds)
Effluents
Algae
Separation
                            13B
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT

   Release to  Public
19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)
    Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
  233
20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
    Unclassified
                           22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
                                            219
                                                              U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1978 — 757-140/1366

-------