H_L
OVERDUE FINES:
25¢ per day per item

RETURNING LIBRARY MATERIALS:

Place in book return to remove
charge from circulation records

 

 

 

 

 

A MODIFIED BARRIERFD LANDSCAPE
WATER RENOVATION SYSTEM FOR TREATING
HUMAN WASTEWATER
BY

William A. Rueckert

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences

1979

ABSTRACT
A MODIFIED BARRIERED LANDSCAPE
WATER RENOVATION SYSTEM FOR TREATING
HUMAN WASTEWATER
BY

William A. Rueckert

A Modified Barriered Landscape Water Renovation System
(BLWRS) was constructed for advanced treatment of waste—
water at a freeway rest area. Water was evenly distri—
buted on a sandy loam soil underlaid by coarse sand to
gravel with a water table ranging from 1.2 to 2.1 m
(4 to 7') deep. The water table acted as a natural bar—
rier to vertical movement of applied water. The spray
area was surrounded by an energy trench backfilled with a
1% corn meal mixture for stimulating denitrification.
Ozonation removed any odors before wastewater application.
The loading rate was 6.4 cm (2.5”) per week with a 14 hour
resting period between applications. Sampling and analy-
sis of the ground water indicated that no increase in N93,
N03,

samples showed that zones conducive to denitrification

TKN, i—POA had occurred. Soil and ground water

occurred in the rhizosphere, saturated zone, and energy

3

contamination to the ground water table. This PLWRS also

trench. These zones greatly reduced any threat of NO

drastically reduced populations of fecal coliforms indi-

cating minimal health hazards.

To My Parents

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author thanks Dr. A. E. Erickson for sharing his
continued patience and guidance throughout this study
and thesis preparation.

I also appreciate the help given by Dr. M. L. Davis,
Dr. B. G. Ellis, and Dr. F. R. Peabody who served on my
guidance committee.

Appreciation is also extended to Alan Ronemus for his
assistance in laboratory analysis and to Patricia A. Holl

for typing the manuscript.

iii

TABLE OF

LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . .

LIST OF FIGURES. . . . . . .

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . .

LITERATURE REV EW. . . . . .

MATERIALS AND METHODS. . . .

CONTENTS

Page
. . . . . . . . . . . . vi
. . . . . . . . . . . . ix
. . . . . . . . . . . 1
. . . . . . . . . . . . 3
. . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Description and Operation of BLWRS. . . . . . . . 9

Sampling Procedure. .
Meteorological Data . .
Storage of Samples. . .
Chemical Analyses . . .
BOD . . . . . . . . .

S

. . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

'—

. . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus

in Wastewater . . . .
Ammonia in Wastewater
Nitrite and Nitrate .
Inorganic Phosphorus.
Soil pH . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

O O O O O O O O O O O O O 18
O O O O O O O O C O O O O 9

. . . . . . . . . . . . O

Extractable Phosphorus in Soils . . . . . . . . 20
Extractable Ammonia in Soils. . . . . . . . . . 21
Extractable Nitrate in Soils. . . . . . . . . . 21
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus

in Wastewater . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Moisture Content in Soils . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Microbial Analyses. . .
Total Coliforms . . .
Fecal Coliforms . . .
Total Streptococci. .
Fecal Streptococci. .

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION . . .
Introduction. . . . . .

System Conditions prior
Application . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

. . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
. . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

C C O U C I O O O O O O 25
O O I I O O O O O O O O I 25

to Wastewater
. . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

System Conditions during Wastewater

Application . . . . . .

iv

Hydrology . .
Nitrogen. . .
Phosphorus. .
Carbon. . . .
Microbiology.

CONCLUSION. . . . . .

APPENDIX. . . . . . .

‘7

67

Table

LIST OF TABLES

Sampling Wells of the Top 15 cm (6“) of the
Ground Water found High in Nitrate Concentra—
tion before the Onset of Spray Application . .

Mean and Standard Deviation of Nutrient
Concentrations in Ground Water Samples before
Application of Wastewater. . . . . . . . . . .

Hydraulic Data of the Barriered Landscape
Water Renovation System. . . . . . . . . . .

Hydraulic Distribution during Operation of the
Barriered Landscape Water Renovation System at
the Coldwater Information Center . . . . . . .

Mean and Standard Deviation of Concentrations
of Nitrogen Components in the Lagoons and
Retention Tank Wastewater. . . . . . . . . . .

Concentrations of Nitrogen Components in the
Upper Soil Profile of the Spray Area during
Wastewater Application . . . . . . . . . . . .

Mean and Standard Deviation of Concentrations
of Nitrogen Compounds in Ground Water Sampling
Wells and Soil Temperature . . . . . . . . .

Mean and Standard Deviation of the Nitrate—

Nitrogen Concentration in Ground Water Samples
from the Shallow Paired Wells on the Inside of
the Energy Trench to the Shallow Wells on the
Outside of the Energy Trench . . . . . . . . .

Mean and Standard Deviation Comparing the
Nitrate—Nitrogen Concentrations in the Deep
Wells Outside the BLWRS to the Deep Wells on
the Spray Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

vi

Page

44

Table

10.

ll.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

Page

Treatment Efficiency of the Barriered Land-

scape Water Renovation System in Reducing
Concentrations of Nitrogen Components from

Lagoon Treated Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Mean and Standard Deviation of Concentrations
of Phosphorus Components in the Lagoons and
Retention Tank Wastewater. . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Concentration of Phosphorus Components in the
Upper Soil Profile of the Spray Area during
Wastewater Application . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Mean and Standard Deviation of Phosphorus
Concentrations in Ground Water Sampling Wells. .

(n
C)

Calculated Treatment Efficiency of the Barriered
Landscape Water Renovation System for Concen-
trations of Phosphorus Components. . . . . . . . 51

Biological Oxygen Demand of the Lagoons and
Retention Tank Wastewater at the Coldwater
Information Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Mean and Standard Deviation of the Biological
Oxygen Demand in the Well Water below the

Barriered Landscape Water Renovation System at

the Coldwater Information Center . . . . . . . . 53

Treatment Efficiency of the Barriered Landscape
Water Renovation System of Biological Oxygen

Demand from the Retention Tank to the Ground

Water. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Concentration of Lagoon and Retention Tank
Wastewater for Total Organic Carbon at the
Coldwater Information Center . . . . . . . . . . 54

Mean and Standard Deviation of Concentration of
Total Organic Carbon in the Shallow Paired
Wells and the Deep Wells . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Mean and Standard Deviation Comparing the
Concentration of Total Organic Carbon between

the Shallow Paired Wells Inside the Energy

Trench and the Shallow Paired Wells Outside

the Energy Trench Surrounding the Barriered
Landscape Water Renovation System. . . . . . . . 57

vii

22.

Page

Treatment Efficiency of the Barriered Landscape
Water Renovation System of Total Organic Carbon
from the Retention Tank to the Ground Water . . . 57

Average MPN of Fecal Coliforms at the Barriered

Landscape Water Renovation System . . . . . . . . 60

viii

LIST OF FIGURES

Overview of Lagoons, Barriered Landscape Water
Renovation System and Spray Coverage . . . .

Barriered Landscape Water Renovation System at
the Coldwater Information Center

(0) Ground Water Sample taken at 15 cm (6”)
(A) Ground Water Samp1e~taken at 45 cm (18”).

Ground Water Table Elevations at each Sampling
Well on 1 July 1979. . . . . . . . . . . . .

Ground Water Table Elevations at each Sampling
Well on 6 August 1979. . . . . . . . . . . . .

Ground Water Table Elevations at each Sampling
Well on 13 August 1979 . . . . . . . . . . .

.13

INTRODUCTION

Renovation of wastewater in recent years has been the
topic of many discussions and much research. Discharge
of untreated or primary treated effluent has, in many
cases, resulted in severe water pollution problems. This
created losses in recreational areas and in industrial and
domestic water supplies. Failure to treat wastes has
resulted in eutrophication of our waterways and disruption
of many ecosystems. Convential wastewater treatment plants
can greatly reduce the organic load but the nutrients that
cause eutrophication are not effectively removed. Recent-
ly land application of wastewater has received much atten-
tion as a solution to water system contamination.

Land application of wastewater can take on many forms:
overland flow, evapotranspiration, slow infiltration,
rapid infiltration, and special types of rapid infiltra-
tion such as a Modified Barriered Landscape Water Renova-
tion System (BLWRS). The BLWRS uses the soil as a
physical, chemical, and biological filter in the renova—
tion process. Treatment of wastewater in a BLWRS consists
of an aerobic and anaerobic zone. The aerobic zone re—
moves BOD, N, and P and the anaerobic zone receives any

excess nitrate produced, denitrifies it to N gas which is

2

2

then returned to the atmosphere. This system gives a
uniform distribution of wastewater and aerobic conditions
in the soil, is an inexpensive treatment system, needs
relatively small amounts of land area, and has an added
advantage in that it can be engineered to a particular
waste and a particular soil.

This study evaluates a Modified Barriered Landscape
Water Renovation System used in treating wastewater at
the Coldwater rest area and information station on north—
bound I—69, Branch County. This system was modified in
that it used a liquid barrier, the natural water table, as
compared to a typical BLWRS which uses an impermeable layer
such as plastic or an impermeable soil horizon. The spray
area was located on the highway median with a 1.2 to 2.1 m
(4 to 7') deep water table. The median is 91.4 m (300')
or more wide for 182.9 — 243.8 m, (600—800') with 70%
Brady series and the remainder Gilford. Both of these
series are sandy loam over coarse sand to gravel.

The objective of this study was to assess the poten—

tial of a Modified Barriered Landscape Water Renova—

tion System for land treatment and disposal of the

effluent as a polishing method to meet future water

pollution control regulations.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Today there is a need for waste treatment so that
the quality of ground and surface water supplies can be
maintained. One of the most promising techniques for
renovation of wastes has been the use of land treatment
systems. In addition to renovation benefits, the
economics and energy costs of applying sewage wastes to
land, in many instances, are more favorable than the
highly sophisticated physical, chemical, and biological
processes developed for advanced sewage treatment
(Jacobs, 1977). If we properly manage our soils, they can
be effective as an advance treatment system that will
remove vast amounts of N and P, greatly reduce biological
oxygen demand (BOD), and enhance soil structure and
fertility through the addition of organic matter, N, and
P. Wastewater can supply needed elements to enhance plant
growth; as has been found in Muskegon County, Michigan
(EPA, 1976.) This project uses spray irrigation to
successfully grow crops. There was intense management of
the soil in order to utilize the effluent efficiently.

Proper management is the key to use of the soil as a
biological, chemical, and physical filter. As a physical

filter, the soil can receive large quantities of water

while still efficiently remove suspended solids. Day,
Stroehleim, and Tucker (1972) found that the infiltration
rate was lower with wastewater application than with well
water and that the wastewater contained higher concentra-
tions of soluble salts, nitrates, phosphates, and the soil
had a higher modulus of ruptures.

Another physical problem that arises especially with
high applications of wastewater is the filling in of pore
spaces at the surface thus clogging the pores. This
problem can be rectified by temporarily halting the appli-
cation of water or reducing the application rate. Clogging
is the result of the deposition of a layer of sludge on
the soil surface (DeVries, 1°72). DeVries also found that
there was formation of an organic mat under high rates of
application at low temperatures. In 1973, Thomas also
found that high rates of application causes organic matting
on the surface resulting in pore clogging. Even the most
severe filter failure could be rectified as was found by
DeVries. He found that the previous filtering capacity
could be regained after an eight day rest period.

The ability of a soil to remove chemicals from waste—
water is determined by several chemical processes. Ion
exchange is the most commonly recognized chemical process
occurring in soils (Reed, et al., 1972). This process is
related to characteristics of the clay fraction and

organic matter in the soil. Reed, et al., 1972 also found

that the high capacity of soils to retain anions cannot

be accounted for by anion exchange or entirely by precipi—
tation of insoluble phosphates. Rather, it is thought
that phosphate ions react with the A1 and Fe present at
the surfaces of layer aluminum silicate minerals and with
Fe and Al hydroxide phases of the soil. In 1968, Juo and
Ellis found that adsorbed P slowly becomes a form which

is difficult to remove from the soil probably due to in—
corporation as an impurity in the solid phases or crystal—
lization of FePO4.

The strong point for a land treatment system is its
high potential for removal of N and P from wastewaters.
When sewage effluent is applied in small amounts, N which
is usually in the ammonium form may be adsorbed by nega-
tively charged clay and organic colloids in the soil.

Flooding and drying should be scheduled so that the
amount of NH: adsorbed during flooding is not more than
can be nitrified during drying (Lance, et al., 1973).
Otherwise, some adsorbed ”R: will not be oxidized causing

3

+ . , .
less NH4 to be adsorbed during subsequent £100cing and

. . +
hence an increase in the NH4 content of the renovated

water. When this occurs, a sequence of short, frequent

flooding periods or long drying periods should be used to

+
4

Nitrogen can also be lost in the soil by volatiliza-

nitrify the adsorbed NH (Pouwer, et al., 1974).

tion of N83 and fixation of NH3 by organic compounds in

the soil. The pH values of wastewater is usually about

7.5 to 8.0 which volatilizes slight amounts of NH}. At
pH's higher than this and with adequate air-water contact,
volatilization of NE3 is significant (Lance, 1972). In
1961, Surge and Broadbent demonstrated the fixation of

NH3 by organic soils and showed a linear dependence on the
amount of C available in the soil.

Denitrification is an important process whereby N
applied with wastewater in excess of plant or crop require-
ments can be removed from the soil—water system (Lance,
1972). The species believed to account for most of the
denitrifying activity are of the genera Pseudomonas,
Achromobacter, Baccillus, and Micrococcus (Tiedje, 1978).
In a laboratory study conducted on an intermittently
flooded column, 83% of the N added was removed and pre-
sumed denitrified (Broadbent, 1973). Bouwer and Chaney
(1974): and Meek et al., (1969) found that periodic
wetting and drying, characteristic of land treatment
systems, has enhanced denitrification.

There has been evidence that vegetation has a bene—
ficial effect on denitrification (Bouwer, 1973: Broadbent,
1973: Wodendorp, et al., 1966). Plant roots consume 02
and therefore create anaerobic pockets in the soil. One
study found 15% to 20% of the N03 passing through the
rhizosphere might be denitrified by this mechanism
(Woldendorp, et al., 1966).

If the major part of N and P removal is to be by

plants, care must be taken to provide the nutritional needs

7
of the crops. At Pennsylvania State University a study
was conducted to determine the effect of nutrient
removal by crops with applied wastewater. It was found
that 66.6 kg (148 lbs.) of N and 15.75 kg (35 lbs.) of P
per acre were removed by a corn crop, while 183,6 kg
(408 lbs.) of N and 25.2 kg (56 lbs.) of P per acre were
removed by reed canary grass (Sopper and Kardos, 1973).

Phosphorus in wastewater is usually in the orthophos—
phate form. Murrmann and Koutz (1972) found that P
originally present as organic P or polyphosphates was
converted to orthophosphate during preliminary treatment.
Very little applied P as compared to N is lost by leaching
(Hook et al., 1973 . At a depth of 61 cm (24“) there was
little or no increase in P levels even when the P applied
exceeded plant uptake (Hook et al., 1973). Phosphorus is
readily fixed in the soil. In calcareous soils, dicalcium
phosphate and octacalicum phosphate was usaully formed
whereas in acid conditions P was combined with Al and Fe
to form Fe and Al phosphates (i.e.strengite and variscite,
respectively) (Ellis, 1973).

Ellis and Erickson (1969) observed large variations
in the fixation of P. Dune sand fixed 25.4 kg (77 lbs.)
of P, while a loam soil fixed over 408 kg (900 lbs.) of P
per acre foot. Also there seemed to be variation in the
abilities of different horizons to fix P. The A horizon
fixed less P than the B horizon which was presumably due

to leaching of Fe and Al from the A to the B horizon. Once

the soil reached its maximum absorptivity for P, a resting
period of at least three months will restore the soils
ability to fix P. This was most likely due to continued
weathering of the soil along with the formation of more
insoluble P. The number of times the recovery cycle can
be completed is unknown but the adsorption capacity of a
Mexico soil changed little after 82 years of phosphate
fertilization (Ellis, 1973).

The biological oxygen demand (BOD) placed on receiving
waters by effluent from treatment plants has been used for
indicating the quality of treatment provided by the plant.
This oxygen demand is the amount required to fulfill the
respiratory needs of microorganisms decomposing the organic
compounds. Miller (1973) estimated bacterial populations
in the range of 135 to 4050 kg (300 to 9,000 lbs.) per acre.
When wastewater was applied as in land treatment systems,
this large population can greatly reduce the BOD. Reduction
of BOD was accomplished under both aerobic and anaerobic
conditions. Under aerobic conditions decomposition occur-

red rapidly while under anaerobic conditions decomposition

proceeded at a slower rate. The end products of aerobic
decomposition were C09, H20, N03 and S 4 and anaerobic

. + .
decomposition end products were H28, NH4, C03, and hzo.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Description and Operation of BLWRS

 

The sewage treatment system at the Coldwater informa-
tion center consists of two lagoon cells, a retention tank
where ozonation takes place, and a Barriered Landscape
Water Renovation System (BLWRS) for polishing treatment
in the highway median. Figure 1 shows a plan of the
system including an example of the spray coverage. The
wastewater is pumped from the rest area building to one of
the lagoon cells. The lagoon cell to be filled is deter—
mined by the opening of a connecting gate valve. Lagoon
#1 is the larger of the two cells consisting of 2856 cu.
meters (102,000 cu.ft.) and the second lagoon has an
area of 1512 cu. meters (54,000 cu. ft.). Water can be
removed from either cell into a 46,617 liter (12,300 gal)
retention tank where two .45 kg (1 lb.)/hour ozonators are
constantly treating the water that is to be sprayed for
reducing odors and microbial populations.

From the retention tank a centrifugal pump supplies
the water through a 10.2 cm (4") pipe which runs under the
northbound lanes of I—69 over to the median where the
BLWRS is located. The BLWRS is constructed on a sandy loam

soil over a coarse gravelly sand which is at a depth of

9

10

, outhbound I {
I-69 i
North
Bound
1-69

 

 

4” Main

I.......---- - “““‘MRetention

  
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I
‘ pump Tank
if * I
I a
|
I
1 Spray
Coverage ‘
I
430‘ |
'* l
‘ I
1¥“Sprinkler
1 Head ‘
u I
A
. t '
l
; +Trench '
_ 'quump
h 66" Station
‘QRest Room
Facilities
K] /»

 

 

 

Figure 1. Overview of Lagoons, Barriered Landscape Water Renovation

System and Spray Coverage.

11

approximately 1.5 m (5'). The water table acts as a
natural barrier for any applied water that may have not
been fully treated while leaching through the soil profile.

Any water that may reach this barrier is then moved
horizontally through the system trench which is between
20-45 cm (8—18”) in width and extends 15 cm (6”) below the
dry season (August 11) water table. The trench is back-
filled with peat and 1% corn meal within 0.3 m (1 ft.)
of the surface where the remainder is filled with the
excavated soil. This trench completely surrounds the
spray area. The organic material in the trench acts as
an energy source for denitrifying bacteria so that any N03
in the ground water can be transformed to N2, N02, or N20.
In this way there is little or no degradation of the
ground water.

The BLWRS consists of 19 sprinklers that spray on an
area 131 m (430 ft.) long, 20 m (66 ft.) at the south end
and 18 m (59 ft.) at the north end. The natural vegeta—
tive cover and soil surface was disturbed as little as
possible in order to maintain infiltration and an environ-
ment conducive to denitrifiers. The water was sprayed
automatically from 10:00 hours to 20:00 hours every week
at a pressure of 10.5 psi. This pressure was used in
order to minimize aerosols. The spray nozzle is a 160
GE 7/64 which is rated at 0.83 GPM at 10.7 m (35') radius.

The amount of water sprayed totalled 3604 1. (951.03 gal)/

hour/19 sprinklers. This number was varified by field

12

measurements.

Sampling Procedures

 

A system of 20 paired wells with well points were
placed into the groundwater table to sample the top 15 cm
(6”) of water. The wells were placed in pairs, one well
inside the trench and the other outside the trench to
monitor any changes in the applied water as it is passed
through the energy source barrier. Four other wells with—
out well points were placed in the spray area and nine
other wells also without well points surrounding the BLWRS.
These thirteen wells were installed 45 cm (18”) into the
groundwater table to monitor any mixing that might occur
between the ground water and the applied water. Figure 2
shows the placement of the wells. These wells were
sampled two times per week for chemical analysis and twice
a month for microbial contamination. The samples were
taken before application started in the spring, while
spraying was being conducted during June, July, and August,
and also after the application of wastewater was discon—
tinued.

To insure that a fresh sample of water was obtained,
one liter of water was pumped out of the wells using the
Guzzler ”400” from the Dart Union Co., Providence, Rhode
Island. The wells were then sampled by dropping a
50 milliliter centrifuge tube into the well. These tubes

had previously been washed, wrapped, and sterilized in the

13

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A
23
10A 9A
0
O l
0
11A 11 10 i 9 8 SA
l
at
O O 1k 0 0
12A 12 A 7 7A
32 )f
’I
A 93 I <2 .22
24 ,'f 9
"‘ 9
O O l 1
14A 14 x 50 8‘s
I
x
1
O O '
15A 15 at 1? 9A
A l
30 *
I
‘A 0* O ’f o. o
25 16A 16 ,'< 3 3A 91
' h
’f A
C) )f 29 (3 c)
17A 17 2 3A
I “Energy Trench
O O 19 20 o 0
18A 18 O o 1 1A
0 0
19A 20A
A A A
26 27 29

Figure 2. Barriered Landscape Water Renovation System at
the Coldwater Information Center.
(0) Ground Water Sample taken at 15 cm (6 I.
(A) Ground Water Sample taken at 45 cm (18")
and Numerical Indication of Sample Number.

14

lab before use in the field. The sampling clip was also
sterilized before each use by immersion in a 12% chlorox
solution.

The lagoons and retention tank were sampled twice a
week for chemical concentrations and bimonthly for micro—
bial population estimates. These samples were taken by
the grab technique. The retention tank had two sampling
sites, the first sample was taken at the point of water
entry and this was also where the first ozonator treated
the tank water for reduction in odors and microbiological
organisms. 'Sampling of the retention tank taken at site
#2 was the point of discharge into the main pipe where the
water was treated by the second ozonator. The samples
taken at these four sites for chemical analysis were ob—
tained with a polyethylene bottle whereas the microbial
samples were taken with a sterile glass bottle containing
sodium thiosulfate.

Soil samples were taken using a 7.6 cm (3”) bucket
auger to follow the N and P concentrations and their move-
ment in the soil. Samples were taken prior to application
of wastewater, two, four, and eight weeks after the onset
of application. Composites of the spray area and the
peripheral area (non—spray) were obtained at the 0-15 cm
(0-6”), 15—30 cm (6—12”), and 30-45 cm (12-18”) layers

from at least 20 locations within each area.

15

Meteorological Data

 

A standard U.S. weather station was installed at the
lagoon area to monitor the climate during this experiment.
To measure precipitation, a rain gauge was installed and
an evaporation pan (Class A Weather Bureau) was also in—
stalled to measure evaporation. For temperature and rela-
tive humidity measurements, a recording thermo—hydrograph
was installed. Next to the evaporation pan an anemometer
was installed which measured the amount of wind since the
last sampling date. A printing totalizing integrator con-
nected to a pyronometer was used to measure the radiant

energy.
Storage of Samples

After each sample was taken, it was placed in a styro—
foam cooler containing ice for transport until they all
could be returned to the lab. BOD5 analysis was performed
immediately upon returning from the field as were the
samples taken for microbial analysis. The samples taken
for chemical analysis were transferred to clean 50 milli-
liter glass storage bottles and placed in a cooler at 40C
until the chemical analysis could be performed which was
usually within five days. The remainder of the samples

were then acidified using 6 N hydrochloric acid and stored

again at 4°C until the total organic C content measurement

16

could be performed.

Chemical Analyses

Unless otherwise indicated, the chemical analyses
were performed as described in Methods for Chemical

Analyses of Water and Wastes (1974).

BOD5

 

The BOD five—day was analyzed as follows: A nutrient
solution was made up by adding one milliliter per liter of
the following four solutions to distilled water.

1. Ferric chloride
0.25 grams of FeCl3°6H20 in one liter of
distilled water.

2. Magnesium sulfate
22.5 grams of MgSO4'7H20 in one liter of
distilled water.

3. Calcium chloride
27.5 grams of anhydrous CaCl2 in one liter
of distilled water.

4. Phosphate buffer

a. 8.5 grams of KH PO .

2 4
b. 21.75 grams of KZHPO4.
c. 33.4 grams of NaZHPO4.
d. 1.7 grams of NH4C1.

e. dissolve in 500 milliliters of distilled

water.

17

f. the combined working reagent should be
be at a pH of 7.2 without further
adjustment.

To the nutrient solution, composed of these four
solutions, is added one ml per liter of water from the
lagoon being used to apply water on the highway median and
which acts as the seed to insure a population of microor—
ganisms to oxidize the organic material. This solution
was then aerated to saturation with oxygen before use.
Fifteen and 30 milliliters of retention tank samples, or
50 milliliters of ground water samples were transferred to
300 milliliter bottles which were then brought up to
volume with the nutrient solution. Dissolved oxygen
measurements were performed after five days of incubation
in the dark at 200C. BOD5 was determined in ppm of 02
consumed by living organisms while utilizing the organic

matter present in the sample.
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus in Wastewater

Reagent: Hydrogen peroxide-sulfuric digest solution

(U o —H 504). Add 30% n o 1 g of Se metal

”2 2 2 2 2'

powder, and 14 g LiSO4-H20. Then add 420

ml of concentrated H2804 while carefully
cooling the mixture.
Procedure: Add 25 ml of ground water sample, lagoon

sample, or retention tank sample into a

125 ml Erlenmeyer flask and add 5 ml of

Ammonia (NH3)

18

reagent. Heat for one half hour after the
fumes disappear. Transfer quantitatively
into a 250 ml volumetric flask and bring to
volume with distilled water. Analysis for
TKN used the idophenol blue colormetric
method on the Technicon Auto Analyzer. For
analyzing total P, the molybdophosphovana-
date method was used on the Technicon Auto

Analyzer.

in Wastewater

 

Reagents:

Procedure:

1. Alkaline Phenol. Dissolve 200 grams
of NaOH in distilled water. Cool and
slowly add 276 ml of liquified phenol
while cooling and constantly stirring.
Add 0.5 ml of Brij-35 and dilute to
one liter.

2. Sodium Hypochlorite. Any household
bleach will suffice.

3. Potassium Sodium Tartrate. Dissolve
150 g of KNaC4H406°4H20 in distilled
water, add 0.5 ml of Brij-35 and
dilute to one liter.

Analyze for NH colorimetrically on the

3
Technicon Auto Analyzer. A green colored

4.

compound was formed when the NH4 ion

l9

reacted with the sodium phenoxide. The
concentration of the green colored compound

formed was then measured on the colorimeter.

Nitrite and Nitrate

 

Reagents:

Procedure:

1. Ammonium Chloride. Dissolve 10 g
of NH4C1 in distilled water, then add
0.5 ml liters of Brij—35 and dilute to
one liter.

2. Color Reagent. Dissolve 20 g of sulfa-

nilamide (C H N O S), 200 ml of concen—

6 8‘2 2
trated H3PO4, one g of N-1—Napthylethyl-
enediamine dihydro-chloride (C H N -

12 14‘2
2HC1), and one ml of Brij-35 in two

liters of distilled water.

The concentration of NO2 and NC; was deter—

mined by passing the sample through a Cd

reduction column where the N03 was reduced

to NOE. The N05 then reacted with sulfanil—

amide to form a diazo compound. The concen-
tration of this coumpound was then deter—
mined colormetrically on the Technicon

Auto Analyzer. A sample for N02 level was
also measured and the difference between
the reduced sample and the nitrite sample

gave the nitrate concentration.

20

Inorganic Phosphorus (i—PO4)

 

Reagent: The color reagent was made by adding 50 ml

of 4.9 N H2804, 15 ml of Ammonium Molybdate

(NH4)6Mo7O24-4H20, 30 ml of ascorbic ac1d,

and 5 ml of antimony potassium tartrate

.1
K(SbO)C4H4O6 fiHZO.
Procedure: The reagent reacted with the orthophosphate
ion to form a blue antimony — phosphomclyb-

denum complex which was measured colori—

metrically on the Technicon Auto Analyzer.

Soil pH

Ten grams of soil were placed in a 50 ml plastic
beaker and 10 ml of distilled water added. This was
stirred intermittently for 20 minutes and read directly
with an Orion Research Digital Ionalyzer Model 801A
which was standardized with standard buffer solutions of

pH 4.01, 7.00, and 10.00.

Extractable Phosphorus in Soils

Reagent: Bray P
Add 15 ml of 1.0 N NH4F and 25 ml of 0.5
N HCl to distilled water and dilute to
500 ml with distilled water.

Procedure: Five grams of soil were weighed into a 125

ml Erlenmeyer flask and then 20 ml of

21

reagent were added. The soil with reagent
added was then shaken for 5 minutes on a
rotary shaker at 200 rpm, then filtered
through Whatman #2 filter paper. Analysis
for PO4 was performed on the Technicon Auto

Analyzer using the same procedure done on

the wastewater.

)

Extractable Ammonia in Soils (NH3

Twenty grams of field wet soil were weighed into
a 125 ml Erlenmeyer flask and 20 ml of 1.0N KCl were then
added. This was then shaken for 30 minutes on a rotary
shaker at 200 rpm, then filtered through Whatman #2 filter
paper. Analysis was then performed on the Technicon Auto
Analyzer following the same procedure utilized for the

wastewater.

Extractable Nitrate in Soils (NOE)

 

Reagent: Add 4.82 g of CaSO4 to two liters of
distilled water.
Procedure: Twenty grams of field wet soil were weighed
into a 125 m1 Erlenmeyer flask and then 20
ml of reagent were added. This was then
shaken for 30 minutes on a rotary shaker at
200 rpm. The solution was then filtered

through Whatman #2 filter paper and analyz—

ed colorimetrically on the Technicon Auto

Analyzer following the wastewater procedure.

Total Kieldahl Nitrogen (TEN) and

Tptal Phosphorusgjt-P) in Soils

 

Reagent: Same reagent as was prepared for the

wastewater tests.

Procedure: One gram of field wet soil was weighed
into a 125 ml Erlenmeyer flask and 5 ml
of reagent were then added. This was then
heated for one half hour after the fumes
disappeared. The solution was transferred
quantitatively into a 250 ml volumetric
flask and brought to volume with distilled
water. Analysis was performed on the
Technicon Auto Analyzer following the same
procedure as was done on the wastewater

analysis.

Moisture Content in Soils

 

A clean, dry Al boat was weighed, field wet soil was
added and then reweighed, the soil was then dried for 48
hours in an oven at 1040C, then the boat and oven dry soil
was reweighed. The difference between the wet and oven
dry soil was determined and divided by the weight of the

oven dry soil.

23

Microbial Analyses

 

The microbial analyses were performed as given in
Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Waste-

yatgr (1978).

Total Coliforms

 

The multiple tube dilution technique with lauryl
tryptose broth was used for total coliform concentration.
Dilutions of the samples were made and inoculated into
the broth, then incubated for 48 hours at 350C. The most
probable number (MPN) method determined the concentration

of total coliforms in each sample.

Fecal Coliforms

 

Samples of positive tubes from the total coliform
test were transferred into EC medium and incubated for 24
hours at 44.50C in a water bath. Fecal coliform concen-
trations were reported on the positive tubes using the

most probable number (MPN) method.

Total Streptococci

 

Multiple tube dilution technique was also run on
total streptococci using azide dextrose broth on properly
diluted samples. The tubes were then incubated for 48
hours at 35°C after which the most probable number (MPN)

method on the positive tubes determined the concentration

24

of total streptococci.

Fecal Streptococci

 

Positive tubes from the total streptococci test were
transferred into ethyl violet azide dextrose broth. These
tubes were then placed in a water bath at 350C for 24 hours.
After this time period, the most probable number (MPN)
method was used to determine fecal streptococci concentra-

tion.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Introduction

 

The Modified Barriered Landscape Water Renovation
System at the Coldwater Information Center was operated
from June 15 to August 10, 1979. For analyses and dis—
cussion, these data are divided into three distinct
periods. The first period was during the application of
wastewater from Lagoon 2, the smaller of the two lagoons.
which contained stabilized waste. The second period of
application was the disposal of wastewater from Lagoon l
which contained partially stabilized waste. The final
period was application of wastewater from Lagoon 2. The
important difference of this period from the previous two
was that Lagoon 2 contained fresh waste in an unstabi—
lized condition and also a mixture of sludge from Lagoon l.
Sludge was introduced from Lagoon 1 since it had been
pumped over to the smaller lagoon to sustain the system
with an adequate amount of wastewater so spray application
could continue for as long as possible. The data from
each sampling is shown in Table A through G in the Appen—
dix. Data for each of the three periods are reported in
terms of the means and standard deviation in tables in
this section. Some of the standard deviations are quite

25

26

high. This variability can be expected when varying con—

ditions in the field are considered.
System anditions prior to Wastewater Application

Background samples for the wells were obtained on the

I“
16Lb of April and the 7:; and 11Eh of May. Some of the

N01 - N levels were found to be in excess of 10 ppm which
is the highest allowable standard for drinking water. The

N03 was found to be high in only the top 15 cm (6“) of the

ground water whereas the samples taken at the 45 cm (18")
level were well below the EPA standards. Presented in

Table l are the 18 well samples that were found to be
3. The other 34 wells had normal NOS.

As the values in Table 1 show, as the season progress—

high in NO

ed the NOS concentrations fluctuated in some of the wells

whereas in most of the wells the N03 concentrations de-

creased. The high NO was due to construction on the site

3
which haphazardly deposited varying amounts of vegetation
on the soil surface. As the vegetation decomposed NOS
increased in the soil. This NC; was then flushed down to
the water table due to the fall rains and snow melt in the
early spring. Denitrification at this time was minimal
and subsequently the N0; accumulated in the ground water.
The high NO} levels also had some correlation to the
growth of vegetation. As the season progressed and tem—

peratures increased there was substantial new vegetative

growth which was mainly perennial weeds.

27

Table 1. Sampling Wells of the Top 15 cm(6”) of the
Ground Water found High in Nitrate Concentration
before the Onset of Spray Application.*

 

 

 

 

Wells Sampling Dates
April 16 May 7 May 11 June 11
ppm ‘ ~—
1 29.3 32.2 34 2 30 2
2 46 5 32.9 33 3 3 8
2A 53.9 46.3 63.2 29.4
3A 47.8 20.8 19.5 4.6
4 25 7 15.9 14.1 13 4
4A 21.0 7.0 4.6 1.6
BA 36.9 18.8 6.8 0.8
12 21.8 15.0 15.2 5.1
13 32.2 14.7 7.4 1.3
14 37.0 28.9 12.3 6.0
14A 31.0 18.8 7.8 0.7
15A 21.2 1.5 3.4 4.9
16 20.1 17.6 24.1 3.0
17 24.3 31.9 25.3 16.0
17A 17.8 35.4 39.2 43.4
18 45.1 43.9 37.9 25.6
19 26.8 27.6 32.2 30.8
20 19.3 39.2 48.3 31.0

 

*This represents 18 of 52 wells sampled: 34 of which were
less than 15 ppm.

28

The N03 concentration decrease in the ground water

was probably due to less N0; being leached through the
.)

3

and the excess N0; could have been removed from the soil

solution by denitrification. As the temperatures increased,

soil profile by increased NO removal by the vegetation

the oxygen concentration in the rhizosphere decreased and
anaerobic microenvironments developed. With the anaerobic
conditions, denitrifier populations utilized the No; as a
terminal electron acceptor thereby transforming excess N03
to nitrogen gas with eventual release into the atmosphere.
In Table 2 the concentrations of NH3, N03, TKN, 1—904,
and t—P are tabulated for the system prior to wastewater
application. As can be seen in the early part of the
season before application of wastewater, the concentrations
of the nitrogen compounds were at their maximum. The first
sampling was the highest for NH3 and N03 and was due to the

low activity of bacteria since the soil temperature was

below 100C (SOOF) until the first of June.

 

System Conditions During Wastewater Application

Hydrology

 

Due to the high rate of evaporation and low rainfall,
this BLWRS evapotranspired more and leached less than
usual for a BLWRS. The hydrologic data can be found in
Table 3. With the dry weather conditions encountered
during wastewater application the water table steadily

dropped. During the approximately eight weeks of

29

.mamwamcm 010 00w meuOmumm mmz .COauumum >mHo ©®>OEwu SUHLB .uummap wMOMmQ

 

 

 

 

 

can mm3 vogue wow puma .oHQEmm CH ucmpcou >mao £0H£ Cu 050 Qty cmfiu ammumH ma vomlflt
H0.0 No.0 00.0 0H.0 0<.0 mv.0 0.0a 0.0 Hm.0 wm.0 HH\0
m0.0 H0.0 vH.0 m0.0 mm.0 mv.0 v.0H m.HH 0v.0 mm.0 HH\m
H0.0 H0.0 H0.0 No.0 00.m 00.H H.mH 0.HH nm.0 mm.0 00\m
m0.0 40H.0 00.0 00.0 vm.0 00.0 0.0H H.0H 00.0 m0.0 0H\v

EQQ

m m m m m m m m m m oceadsmm
mo
vogue any 2x9 moz mmz mama

 

.umpmzmumma mo coflumUHammd daemon

meQEmm umumz pcsouo CH mcoHumuucmucou ucwfluusz mo COaumH>®Q Gunpzmym 0cm com:

.N manmh

30

Table 3. Hydraulic Data of the Barriered Landscape Water
Renovation System.

 

 

 

Effluent

Date Applied Rainfall Fvaporation*
IUD]

6/15—17 10.50 0.00 20.00
6/18—21 10.50 0.75 21.25
6/22—24 20.50 9.75 24.75
6/25-28 15.75 0.00 18.25
6/29-7/01 42.00 .25 27.25
7/02-05 26.25 1.25 19.50
7/06—08 35.00 23.00 23.00
7/09-12 26.25 3.00 14.25
7/13—15 35.00 0.00 18.75
7/16-19 26.25 0.75 19.00
7/20—22 35.00 0.00 25.00
7/23-26 26.25 0.00 18.75
7/27—29 35.00 8.00 11.75
7/30—8/02 26.25 6.50 19.00
8/03—05 35.00 15.00 20.75
8/06—09 26.25 14.50 22.50
8/10-12 35.00 18.75 18.75
8/13-15 26.25 0.00 13.75
TOTAL 493.00 105.50 356.25

(19.72") (4.11“) (13.89“)

 

*Data from a Class A pan.

31

application 493 mm (19.72”) of wastewater was applied and
105.5 mm (4.11”) of rain fell. Evaporation was estimated
from a Class A pan and found to be 356.25 mm (13.89”).

This resulted in a relative water distribution of 82%
applied effluent, 18% rainfall, and 60% evaporation. Thus,
the water available for drainage was calculated to be
242.25 mm (9.45”) which was 40% of the wastewater + rain—
fall or half as much as the wastewater applied. Since the
drainage was half as much as the effluent applied this
could have caused the concentration of pollutants in the
wastewater to almost double. These values are tabulated
in Table 4. Wastewater application was conducted automati-
cally between 1000 hours and 2000 hours which resulted in
61.25 mm (2.4”) of effluent applied per week. With a

rest period of 14 hours there was no ponding or organic
mat formed on the soil surface indicating that the system
was never hydraulically overloaded.

Three times during the application of wastewater.
accurate measurements of the water table level were taken.
These measurements were taken in order to determine if the
applied water had any effect on varying the height of the
water table and also to determine the direction of water
table flow. A surveyors level was used in determining the
water levels. The retention tank located across the high-
way was used as a benchmark which was set at 100 feet and

P

all elevations are relative to this. Figures 3. 4, 5

Table 4. Hydraulic Distribution During Operation of the
Barriered Landscape Water Renovation System at
the Coldwater Information Center.

 

_—.-_.—-

 

Amount Percent of
mm Total
Effluent Applied 439.00 82
Rainfall 105.50 18
Evaporation 356.25 60

Water Available
for drainage 242.25 40

 

33

present the water table elevations at three times during
the operation of the BLWRS. According to the levels found
in figures 3, 4, and 5, the water table for the most part

moved in both a north and southwesterly direction.

flitrogeg

Nitrogen in this system can be traced from the lagoons
to the retention tank to the amount that was held in the
soil and finally to the concentrations found in the
ground water. The values in Table 5 are the averages
found for TKN, NH3, No; — N, and No; - N (N03) in the
lagoons and retention tank. The table was divided into
three sections, each section designates which lagoon was
being used for wastewater application on the BLWRS.

The levels of TEN and NH3 increased appreciably
during the last application period of 7/16 to 8/10. This
was caused on July 20 and 23 when Lagoon 1 was being
pumped over to Lagoon 2 so that water could be supplied
for application into August. Water from Lagoon 1 was
being pumped from the bottom of the lagoon and caused
considerable mixing in Lagoon 2 of the untreated and
primary treated wastewater which was then transferred into
the retention tank.

As Table 5 indicates the starting values for NH were

3
the highest of all the forms of nitrogen. While the waste—
water was being applied there was a great possibility of

nitrification of the NH3. This can be seen in the

34

 

TN

96IB

 

 

 

0
.28 95.20

0 O A

   

«J‘Energy Trench

A
95J5 c) c)

QSIW

/

 

95.46 95.044
0 9325! 94699 0‘ 94.

O O
95.24 95.10

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A
WL56

Figure 3. Ground Water Table Elevations at each Sampling
Well on 1 July 1979.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

94.00
94.05
93'5 4 Energy Trench
9353 93'09 { 94.50 T
93.78 93. 60 u 9 l / N
94‘0 C) ,3.21 4 9 .8 C%
1
94.50‘ “ l
O 1
94.6
95.50 ‘3
94.84 q4.43
I
(D (D
94.96 94.88 ,, 94.79 94.70
95.00
94.5
4:
94.94

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

/

94.00
15
93.90

Ground Water Table Elevations at each Sampling
Well on 6 August 1979.

  
   

z:
(5
93'43 94.06

Figure 4.

 

 

 

 

WLOO

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A
92.93 93.56

15
93.30

Figure 5. Ground Water Table Elevations at each Sampling
Well on 13 August 1979.

.mm\n 0cm 0m\n mcHuDU m coommd Case
meEDQ comb cm: H cooomq umumm m coommq Eouw c3mu© Uchn 000m: CCHumOHHQQm wmummttt
.H coommq Eouw c3mup mcHwn uwums coHumoaHQQm Smummtt
.m coommq Eouw csmuw ocHob umums coHumoHammm mmummt

 

37

 

 

 

 

H.em oH.m mH.m 4H.o eH.o m.e m.cm o.m «.4m m same
e.om HH.m mo.s eH.c eH.o a.m m.mm m.o c.4m H some
s.mm mo.c mH.o Ho.ov Ho.o o.e m.em e.mH o.mm m cooomq
m.He Hm.o mm.c mo.o eo.o o.o «.mm o.eH o.oe H cocoon
9*«0H\mlba\b
o.eH mo.c oH.H mo.o 0H.o m.m o.m m.m m.mH m xcme
o.MH mo.o ao.o mo.o 6H.o e.m m.o m.m e.mH H xcme
m.mm oo.o om.o Ho.o mo.o o.m m.eH o.m m.mm m cooomu
o.oH oo.o om.o Ho.ov Ho.o e.H o.e H.m w.mH H cooomq
44oH\e-eo\e
o.eH mm.H mH.m om.o mo.o o.m m.s m.e o.HH m some
w.eH mm.H am.H om.o Ho.o v.4 m.o o.e o.HH H xcme
m.mH mo.o eH.o HH.o MH.o w.m o.m o.m m.mH m cooomq
o.mH mm.o mm. Ho.o No.0 e.H H.o o.e m.mH H cooomq
*mo\e-mH\o
Emmnmzu I
m m N m m m m m M m M UCaHQEmm
Hnoz + .02
+ 2x50 00
m m _ m-. 4
z Hmuoe oz on r: 226 ooHnoo

 

.umumBmummB xcme coflucwumm cam wcoommq
mfiu CH mpcmcomeou cmmouuaz mo mcoHumuucmocoo mo COHDMH>®O Tumpcmum cam now: .m maflmfi

difference of NH3 values between Table 5 and Table 6.
After the wastewater was applied on the BLWRS, the
levels of TKN, N33. and NOS could be followed by soil
sampling which occurred on 6/22, 7/09. and 8/13. The TKN
values in Table 6 show that the levels of free ammonia
and organic N varied in the upper 15 cm (6”) of the soil
profile. This variation was due to the organic matter in

the 5011- The 15-45 cm (6—18”) depth decreased in TKN

indicating that less organic matter was in this depth than

in the soil surface. Also, much of the free NH3 was
nitrified to NO}. In the process of nitrification, NI:3 was
oxidized to NO“ and was not particularly stable in the soil.

2

Nitrite is rapidly converted to NO

3

bacteria and therefore very difficult to follow in the

by Nitrosomonas

soil. Consequently samples were not analyzed for NOE in
the soil. Evidence that nitrification occurred could be
accounted for since the upper soil profile increased in
N0; concentration.

Nitrate levels tabulated in Table 6 indicate that
approximately half of all NOS found in the soil was either
being utilized by plants or denitrified in anaerobic
pockets in the rhizosphere. The N03 not utilized or
denitrified in the upper 15 cm (6“) was leached through
the soil profile without additional reduction. Indication
of this can be found in the following 30 cm (12") of soil.

Also, the levels of NOS did not decrease, as would have

been expected, through dilution in the soil solution due

 

v.0H m.m mm.m 0v0 Amfilmav mvsom

 

 

 

N.mH m.m 00.m mmn ANH|0V cmumH
v.0m H.0 0a.0 ova A0100 mHno 00\w
m.HH 0.H 00.0 mm0 AmHanv mvlom
m.mH 0.H HH.H 000 ANHI00 0mumH
0.0m 0.v mv.H 000 A0100 man 00\0
m.ma v.H mH.H mvm AanmHv metom
m.mH 0.H 00.0 000 HNHI0V cmumH
0.0m 0.m 00.0 000H H0100 mHso mm\0
-lEmm
COaDSHom , , Amoaucflv E0 GCHHmEmm
HHom m . w.. .. 0 .-.
m :02 a? 7yE CHHQEmm 00
:H [oz 00 gnome mumo

 

.coflumoaammd umpmzmummg Osausp mmu<
Smumm m£u mo wHawouo HHom ummma 0:» CH mucmcomeoo cmmouqu mo mcoHpmupcmocou .0 mabme

40

to evapotranspiration.
Ammonia in the water table did not change appreciably

during the operation of the BLWRS, Table 7. Levels of NH3

ranged from a high of 0.24 ppm to a low of 0.13 ppm. This

concentration of NH3 in the water table was 10-20% of the

concentration of NH3 applied to the soil. Ammonia in the

wastewater applied to the soil ranged from 4.0. ppm on

June 22 to a high of 34.46 ppm on August 6. Considering

the levels of NH3 in the applied water and the concentra-

tions found in the water table it could be ascertained

that microbial environments nitrified the "H3 to N03 in

not utilized by plants

3

was leached, then mostly reduced to N.) in aerobic environ—
‘—

the upper soil profile. Any NO

ments.

Throughout the treatment process. the NO} levels in

the sampling wells varied, Table 7. The shallower paired
wells contained higher concentrations than did the deeper
wells . This was due to N0; leaching through the soil

profile and becoming concentrated in the upper 15 cm (6”)

of the water table. Here the No3 came in contact with an

anaerobic environment in the mounded water table which
was an ideal environment for denitrification. As this
occurred, the water moved towards the energy source trench

where additional denitrification took place. Table 8 shows

3

before the energy trench, to the wells on the outside of

that there is about 1 ppm reduction in NO from the wells,

the trench.

 

I.-ll|!|lo|| 'Illxll :1... 'l'.

 

 

 

 

 

v.0 0.0 H.0 0.0 00.0 0H.0 00.0 00.0 0H\m
00 0.00 0.0 0.0 H.0 0.0 00.0 0H.0 00.0 00.0 0H\w
0.0 0.0 c.v 0.v 00.0 0H.0 00.0 H0.0 00\0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 00.0 vH.0 00.0 00.0 00\0
00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0H.0 00.0 00.0 00\0
0.0 m.m m.m 0.m mm.o 4H.o oo.o mo.H om\0
0.0 0.0 v.0 v.0 00.0 0H.0 00.0 0v.0 00\0
00 0.00 H.0 H.e 0.0 0.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00\0
0.0 0.0 m.m m.m o0.o 40.0 oo.o 00.o 0H\0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 00.0 0H.0 0H.H 00.0 0H\0
00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 v.0 00.0 0H.0 00.0 00.0 00\0
0.0 «.0 H.0 0.< 00.0 0H.0 00.0 00.0 00\0
0.H 0.H H.0 0.v H0.0 0H.0 Hv.0 0v.0 H0\0
00 0.0H 0.0 0.0 0.0H 0.0 00.0 0H.0 00.0 0.0 00\0
0.00 0.0 H.0H 0.0 00.0 0H.0 00.0 Hv.0 00\0
0.0 0.H 0.cH 0.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 0H\0
00 0.0H 0.H v.H 0.0H <.0 00.0 0H.0 mv.0 0v.0 0H\0
illtllii:zu:izll than. I :1
oo oo m m m m a m m ,0
H0004 0mummv made: pmuama UCHHQEmm
wusumquEwB maamz Loom onHmLm 0mz 2MB 00
HHom 0C2 0000

 

 

.mwusumquE00 HHom 0cm mafiwz OCHHQEmm umum3
023000 CH mCCSOQEOO smoousz mo mcoHumuucmOcou mo ccHumH>®O cumpcmum 0cm cmoz .0 mflnmb

42

Table 8. Mean and Standard Deviation of the Nitrate-
Nitrogen Concentration in Ground Water Samples
from the Shallow Paired Wells on the Inside of
the Energy Trench to the Shallow Wells on the
Outside of the Energy Trench.

 

 

 

 

Date of Inside Outside

Shallow Wells thallow Wells

Sampling E S R S

PPm

6/15 7.7 10 2 6 P 12 4
6/18 7.8 9.8 5 0 10 8
6/22 8 4 11 3 6 7 l3 1
6/25 9.6 13 1 4 3 4 6
7/01 4.9 7 0 4 5 5 A
7/06 5.0 6 8 4 2 5 5
7/09 4.7 6 6 4 O 5 0
7/13 3.4 3 8 3 1 3 7
7/16 3.0 2 9 3 1 3 1
7/20 2.7 3 7 1 8 2 5
7/23 3.8 3 7 3 0 3 1
7/26 4.0 3 7 3 6 3 0
7/30 3.8 3 6 3 3 2 9
8/03 4.3 4 4 3 6 3 1
8/06 4.6 4 7 3 9 3 4
8/10 5.1 5.5 4.6 4.7
8/13 5.4 6.4 5.8 5.9

LU

AVERAGE 5.2 4.

 

43

3

levels began

The deeper wells in the spray area had low NO

concentrations until July 30 when the NC;

increasing, Table 7. Each sampling after that contained

an increase in N03. Investigation of the situation proved
that at this time of the season the sample was being pulled
from the top 20 to 23 cm (7.8 to 9”) depth. At this depth

vertical movement of applied water was halted and an

increase of N03 is expected, thus indicating that the BLWRS
did not malfunction.

The conclusion that the system was functioning
properly affirmed the fact that the deep wells outside the

BLWRS did not increase in N03 but remained at a fairly
steady level. Table 9 compares the NO; levels between the
seven deep wells outside the BLWRS to the deep wells on the
spray area. These values confirm that the BLWRS did not
malfunction but that samples were taken in the mounded
water zone before denitrification occurred.

The efficiency of this BLWRS for removing any threat
of contamination of our waters from N forms can be seen in
Table 10. Efficiency for TKN never dropped below 94%,
reduction in NHB was above 97% for the entire application

period, and Total N efficiency of this system had increas—

ed from 75% to over 92%.

44

Table 9. Mean and Standard Deviation Cbmparing the
Nitrate—Nitrogen Concentrations in the Deep
Wells Outside the BLWRS to the Deep Wells on
the Spray Area.

 

 

 

 

Date Deep Wells Deep Wells
of Outside the in the
Sampling BLWRS Spray Area

SE S x s

PPm
7/30 2.7 3.1 5.9 4.2
8/03 3.2 3.7 8.7 7.0
8/06 3.4 3.8 11.8 6.5
8/10 1.9 2.4 11.8 4.0

8/13 2.0 2.5 16.6 6.3

 

45

 

 

 

0.00 0.00 0.00 0H\0I0H\0
0.00 H.0o 0.00 0H\0nv0\0
H.m0 0.00 4.0m mox0umH\0

.0 -ul
Hmoz + 2000 0 mocHHmEmm
z Hmuoe :2 2x0 mo pofiumm

 

.mpmmz pwpmmuE coommg Eoum mucmcomEOU cmmouuflz 00
CH Emum0m coHum>ocwm umumz mmmumpcmq wmumHuumm 0:0

mcoHumuucmOCOC ocaoswmm
00 woc0fioH00m pcmsummns .oH mHnme

Phosphorus

 

Table 11 tabulates the concentration of phosphorus
contained in the lagoons and in the retention tank before
wastewater was applied. The first two periods were at the
same concentration but the third period resulted in an
increase in P, which can be attributed to Lagoon 1 being
pumped into Lagoon 2 to supply more wastewater for appli-
cation. The lagoon had been pumped from the bottom causing
considerable mixing of the water with some sludge creating
increased levels of phosphorus. The total amount of P
applied was 13.4 kg/ha (12#/acre) which is small compared
to demand of vegetation.

Soil analysis for t-P and extractable P can be found
in Table 12. Values for t-P are quite variable throughout
the entire period of spray application. The values ob-
tained in the t—P test show that this soil, a sandy loam,
was possibly low in organic matter. Also, the amount of
P applied was low thereby adding very little to the soil.
Values for extractable P (Bray-P) indicate that the small
amount of P applied from the wastewater had been taken up
by the vegetation.

Results of the Bray — F test indicate the amount of P
readily available for plant uptake. Phosphorus in water
which infiltrates the soil is readily adsorbed in the upper
surface. The difference between the 0—15 cm (0-6“) layer

and the 15-45 cm (6—18”) layer show this to be so. The

mUUDHw Op 030 poxHE ohm: mcoommH wzu ®HH£3

. CCH #MCflEmuCOU

OCHHQEom 00p mpsHocH no: 00 mmsHm> 00050

.mm\0 0cm om\0 ocHnoe ms coommg oucH+

 

 

 

pmmESQ been pm: Hm cooomq umumm 00 cooomq E000 czmup OcHwn 000m: coHumuHHamm 0mumwttt
.Hx coommq Eoum c3mu© ochb umuMS coHumOHHmmm mmumm*t
.00 cooomq Eonm c3000 0chb 00003 coHumUHHmmm 0mummx
00.0 HH.0 00.0 00.0 0 xcme
00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 H xcmE
00.0 00.0 0H.0 00.0 0 coo0wq
H0.H 00.0 +00.H +HH.0 H coommq
**¥OH\mI0H\0
00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 0 xcm0
00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 H xCMB
HH.0 «0.0 00.0 00.0 0 £00004
00.0 00.H vo.0 00.0 H cooomq
*«0H\0100\0
Hv.0 0v.0 0v.0 00.0 0 xcme
00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 H xcmk
0H.H 00.H 0H.H 00.0 0 coommq
00.0 00.H 00.0 00.0 H coommq
*00\0I0H\0
EQQ lulllllil
m M m m

OCHHQEwm
mo coflumm

 

cH mucmcomEOO mSMOLQmOLQ mo conmuucmucou mo wcoHumH>mO mumpcmum 0cm cmmz

.umpmzwummz Mame coHucmumm 0cm mcooomq 0:0

.HH mHnme

48

Table 12. Concentration of Phosphorus Components in the
Upper Soil Profile of the Spray Area during
Wastewater Application.

 

 

 

 

Date Depth of
of Sampling t-P Bray-P
Sampling cm (inches)
ppm

6/22 0—15 (0—6) 266 6.7
15—30 (6—12) 211 4 1
30—45 (12—18) 193 3 9

7/09 0-15 (0—6) 265 9.1
15-30 (6-12) 260 4.7
30—45 (12-18) 268 5.1

8/07 0—15 (0—6) 290 5.4
15—30 (6—12) 250 3.6

30—45 (12-18) 192 3.2

 

49

15-45 cm (6—18”) layer presents information that the soil
at this depth remained in equilibrium while that at the
0-15 cm (0—6“) layer adsorbed and/or fixed most of the P
that was contained in the applied water.

Results of the t-P and i-PO4 in the ground water
samples also showed that the applied P did not leach to
the ground water. These values are tabulated in Table 13.
The mean value for t—P never reached above 0.3 ppm and
the i—PO4 never obtained values higher than 0.03 ppm. The
tabulated results verify the fact that the P was taken up
by the vegetation and that contamination of the ground water
would not be the result of P infiltration.

The calculated treatment efficiency of this BLWRS was
determined for P components and on the average were 96.7
and 99.6% for t-P and i—PO4, respectively. The efficiency
would be 100% if the samples were corrected for background
P. The reduction percentages were determined from the
time that the wastewater left the retention tank to where
it came in contact with the shallow paired wells. The
values indicate that the hazard of eutrophication was
eliminated from any phosphorus source. Treatment effi—

ciencies are tabulated for each sampling period in Table

14.

Carbon

In this study analysis of carbon took on two forms:

Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) and Total Organic Carbon

50

Table 13. Mean and Standard Deviation of Phosphorus
Concentration in Ground Water Sampling Wells.

 

Date of t-P i—PO

 

 

 

4
Sampling i S i S
PPW
6/15 0.10* 0.02 0.01 1<0.01
6/18 0.10* 0.02 0.01 <<0.01
6/22 0.10* 0.00 0.01 0.01
6/25 0.10* 0.00 0.01 0.00
7/01 0.10* 0.00 0.02 0.03
7/06 0.10* 0.02 0.03 0.04
7/09 0.10* 0.02 0.01 0.00
7/13 0.10* 0.02 0.01 ‘<0.01
7/16 0.30 0.28 0.01 0.00
7/20 0.01 0.01
7/23 0.01 0.01
7/26 0.02 0.02 0.01 <0.01
7/30 0.02 0.04 0.01 <:0.01
8/03 0.01 < 0.01 0.01 0.01
8/06 0.01 < 0.01 0.01 <:0.01
8/10 0.01 0.01 0.01 < 0.01
8/13 0.01 0.01 0.01 < 0.01

 

*Values were below detectable range of 0.1 ppm.

51

Table 14. Calculated Treatment Efficiency of the
Barriered Landscape Water Renovation System for
Concentrations of Phosphorus Components.

 

Period of

 

 

-D ‘_,
Sampling t ' 1 PO4
%
6/15—7/03 96.5 99.5
7/04—7/16 94.0 99.3

7/l7m9/10 99.7

‘0
‘0
O

 

—_._. ._ —————...——-—— .._-.—-.- —

52

(TOC). Values for BOD in the lagoons and the retention
tank are shown in Table 15. Only a small percentage of
BOD was reduced from the lagoons to the retention tank.
But when comparing the wastewater used for spray applica-
tion to the values found in the shallow paired wells there
was a more impressive reduction.

The mean and standard deviation comparing the shallow
paired wells and the deep wells for BOD are tabulated in
Table 16. The values for the paired wells are slightly
higher than for the deep wells. These higher values are
understandable in that there is probably a higher content
of easily oxidized carbon materials in the upper profile
of the water table than in the 45 cm (18”) depth. The
percent efficiency of this BLWRS for BOD on June 29 and
July 26 samplings are 67.5% and 55.3%, respectively,

Table 17.

Results of the analyses for TOC can be found in
Table A in the Appendix: lagoon and retention tank concen—
trations are presented in Table 19. The values obtained
for TOC are interpreted in the same manner as the BOD
data since TOC is actually a potential for BOD and the
oxygen demand would be approximately the same. In com-
paring the shallow wells to the deep wells, Table 19,
there was only a difference of 4.6 ppm which is not deemed
significant since all the results were variable. Since TOC

did not increase in the ground water the conclusion is

53

Table 15. Biological Oxygen Demand of the Lagoons and
Retention Tank Wastewater at the Coldwater
Information Center.'

 

 

 

 

Sampling Date of Sampling
Site 6/29 7/26
PPm
Lagoon 1 15.0 59.0
Lagoon 2 24.0 23.0
Tank 1 20.0 17.0
Tank 2 20.0 17.0

 

Table 16. Mean and Standard Deviation of the Biological
Oxygen Demand in the Well Water below the
Barriered Landscape Water Renovation System
at the Coldwater Information Center.

 

 

 

Date of Shallow Deep
Sampling Paired Wells Wells
3% 5 Y 5
ppm
6/29 6.5 4.0 3.2 1.4

7/26 7.6 4.7 4.4 2.0

54

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 17. Treatment Efficiency of the Barriered Landscape
Water Renovation System of Biological Oxygen
Demand from the Retention Tank to the Ground
Water.
Date of BOD
Sampling %
6/29 67.5
7/26 55.3
Table 18. Concentration of Lagoon and Retention Tank
Wastewater for Total Organic Carbon at the
Coldwater Information Center.
Sampling Date of Sampling
Site 4/16 5/07 6/11 7/01 8/03
PPm" ‘
Lagoon 1 45 26 50 39 157
Lagoon 2 46 84 57 45 80
Tank 1 41 23 34 36
Tank 2 43 15 35 36

 

 

 

55

H.0H h.vH m0<mm><

 

 

v.m o.oH m.¢ a.HH mo\m
>.m 0.0 0.0 m.HH Ho\b
H.v m.o m.o m.HH HH\o
m.m 0.0 a.h n.0H wo\m
H.m 0.0H N.MH m.mm ©H\v
EQQ
m x m x
I . I OCHHQEmm
mHH03 mHH03 U00Hmm
@000 30HH0£m m0 0me

 

.mHH03 @000 050 0:0 mHH03 @0uamm 30HHmzm
0L0 CH 000000 oHcmouO H0009 m0 coHumuuc0ococ m0 coHumH>0C pamccmum 020 0002

.oH 0HQmB

56

that the system was removing TOC. Also, the inside wells
were compared to the outside wells, Table 20. The energy
trench apparently did not add to the C content of the
water table since the average of the inside wells and the
outside wells were the same.

Treatment efficiency was also calculated for TOC on the
July 01 and August 03 samplings. The results were 67.7%
for the July sampling and 67.2% for the August 03
sampling. Values in Table 21 were not corrected for back-
ground TOC. These results show that the BLWRS also greatly

reduced the TOC content of the wastewater.

57

 

 

 

 

 

Table 20. Mean and Standard Deviation Comparing the
Concentration of Total Organic Carbon between
the Shallow Paired Wells Inside the Energy
Trench and the Shallow Paired Wells Outside
the Energy Trench Surrounding the Barriered
Landscape Water Renovation System.

Date of Inside Wells Outside Hells
Sampling k S E S
PPF
6/11 11.4 6.4 11.7 6 0
7/01 10.8 4.1 12.3 9.6
8/03 12.7 5.2 10.9 2 9
TOTAL 34.9 34.9
Table 21. Treatment Efficiency of the Barriered Landscape

Water Renovation System of Total Organic Carbon
from the Retention Tank to the Ground Water.

 

 

 

 

Date of TOC
Sampling %
7/01 67."

8/03 67.2

 

58

Microbiology

 

Ozonation was used primarily for odor control but had
some effect upon populations of miccroorganisms in the
retention tank.

The analysis for total coliform, fecal coliform, total
streptococci and fecal streptococci (Tables F, G, H) gave
variable results as to the germicidal effectiveness of
ozonation in this situation. Comparison of the indexes
from the lagoons to those of the retention tank show some
increases and some decreases, but are mostly in the same
order of magnitude for each organism. Because of the
heavy particulate matter, temperature of the water, and
other interfering factors, the ozonation cannot be consider-
ed a reliable means of reducing these bacterial populations.

Microbiological samples were obtained before the onset
of wastewater application to find any indication of contam—
ination in the wells. The first sampling on April 18
found some of the wells fairly high in total coliforms but
substantially low in NPN of fecal coliforms. This esta—
blished a base line of residual soil organisms against
which subsequent samples would provide data of the changes
in microbiological populations in the ground water after
wastewater was applied. Following the first sampling for
microbes, a second sample was taken on May 15. Results of
this sampling showed that fecal coliform counts had been

reduced. This was most likely due to flushing out of the

59

wells a number of times since the first sampling.

After application had proceeded, two additional
samples were taken. Populations of fecal coliforms
remained at low numbers except for two wells on the July 6
sampling which was probably a result of sampling techni—
que. Numbers of total coliforms were high on some of the
wells as can be seen in Table E in the Appendix but was
the result of soil microbes initially found in the soil
giving no indication that contamination had resulted from
spray application.

The data in Table F in the Appendix and Table 22
tabulating the average of fecal coliforms in the samples
indicate that on July 20 the fecal coliforms had drastie
cally increased. On July 13 the shallow paired wells had
been redug deeper as a result of a drop in the water table.
Apparently, contamination resulted not from the wastewater
but from disturbance and possible contamination of the
wells. A final microbial sample was taken on August 3 and
all but four shallow wells had returned to counts below
200 organisms per 100 milliliters. This indicates that the
BLWRS operational set up was still reducing fecal coli—
forms in the wastewater and the four wells found high were
most likely a result of sampling technique. Data collected
for the entire schedule of water application provided
information that this type of land application for the
period applied does not indicate wastewater contamination

of the ground water and that health hazards are minimized.

60

Table 22. Average MPN of Fecal Coliforms at the Barriered
Landscape Water Renovation System.

 

Date of Shallow Deep
Sampling Paired Wells Wells

 

 

 

MFR/100 ml

4/18 41.9 0
5/15 20.2 0
6/18 17.3 2.2
7/06 5.5 1.5
7/20 9,148.4* 0.3
8/03 69.1 1.6

 

*WellS reset before this sampling.

CONCLUSION

An experiment at the Coldwater rest area and travel
information center using a Modified Barriered Landscape
Water Renovation System (BLWRS) achieved advanced treat-
ment of human wastewater. The ground water aquifer was
monitored continuously while applying wastewater and
there was no indication that contamination, either chemi—
cal or biological, had occurred. The system performed
equally well under conditions of applying either stabi—
lized or unstabilized wastewater.

A little more than half (60%) of the wastewater
applied was evapotranspired, leaving only 40% of the

wastewater available for drainage. This is not represe—

13

ntative of a typical SLWRS, but was caused by an unusually
dry summer season. At no time during the treatment process
was there surface ponding or soil pore clogging indicating
that the BLWRS was never hydraulically overloaded.

Chemical and biological analyses of all the sampling
parameters show that this system was an effective treat-
ment system. Nitrification occurred in the upper soil
profile and all indications were that denitrification was
accomplished in the rhizosphere, saturated zones in the

soil, and in the energy trench. Any threat of NO}

61

62

contamination was removed and the efficiency was greater
than 92% for all nitrogen sources. Phosphorus was fixed
and/or adsorbed in the upper 15 cm (6”) of the soil.
Stabilized waste was effectively reduced by 96.7% for

t-P and i-PO4 reduced 99.6%. Both BOD and TOC were re-
moved by this system. The energy trench did not increase
the carbon content of the ground water.

The wastewater was ozonated before application to the
soil and gave variable results in reducing total strepto—
coccci, fecal streptococci, total coliform, and fecal
coliform. Microbial contamination in land treatment
systems is of great concern to local public health offi-
cials and hopefully this study will help alleviate this
concern. The ozonation also removed all odors from the
wastewater.

Consideration of soil characteristics along with a
good management program is necessary for eradicating
eutrophication of our surface waterways and any threat of
contamination to the ground water. This study showed that
suitable land treatment could be a very effective method

of wastewater treatment.

REFERENCES

REFERENCES

Alexander, Martin. 1965. Nitrification. pp. 307-343.
W. E. Bartholomew and F. E. Clark (ed.) Soil nitrogen.
Agron. No. 10. Amer. Soc. of Agron. Madison, Wiscon-
sin.

Bendixen, T. W., R. D. Hill, F. T. Dubyne, and G. G. Robeck.
1969. Cannery Waste Treatment by Spray Irrigation-
Runoff. J. Water Pollut. Contr. Fed. 41:385-391.

Bouwer, Herman. 1973. Renovation secondary effluent by
ground water recharge with infiltration basins.
pp. 164-175. In W. E. Sopper and L. T. Kardos (ed.)
Recycling treated municipal wastewater and sludge
through forest and cropland. Pennsylvania State
University Press, University Park, Penn.

Bouwer, H., and R. L. Chaney. 1974. Land Treatment of
Wastewater. 26:133-173.

Broadbent, F. E. 1973. Factors Affecting Nitrification—
Denitrification in Soils. In: Recycling Treated
Municipal Wastewater and Sludge Through Forest and
Cropland. Sopper, W. D., and L. T. Kardos, (ed.).

Burge, W. E., and F. E. Broadbent. 1961. Fixation of
Ammonia by Organic Soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc.
25:199-204.

Day, A. D., J. L. Stroehlein, and T. C. Tucker. 1972.
Effects of Treatment Plant Effluent on Soil Proper—
ties. J. Water Pollut. Contr. Fed. 44(3):372-375.

DeVries, J. 1972. Soil Filtration of Wastewater Effluent
and the Mechanism of Pore Clogging. J. Water Pollut.
Contr. Fed. 44:565-573.

Ellis, B. G., and A. F. Erickson. 1969. iovement and

Transformations of Various Phosphorus Compounds in
Soils. Report to Michigan Water Resource Commission.

63

64

Ellis, B. G. 1973. The Soil as a Chemical Filter. In:
Recycling Treated Municipal Wastewater and Sludge
Through Forest and Cropland. Sopper, W. E., and
L. T. Kardos (ed.). University Park, The Pennsylvania
State University Press. pp.46—70.

Erickson, A. E., B. G. Ellis, J. M. Tiedje, A. R. Wolcott,
C. M. Hanson, F. R. Peabody, E. C. Miller, and
J. W. Thomas. 1974. Soil modification for denitrifi-
cation and phosphate reduction of feedlot waste.
Environmental Protection Technology Series, EPA—660/2—
74 057, U. S. E. P. A.

Erickson, A. E., J. M. Tiedje, B. G. Ellis and C. M. Hanson.
1971. A Barriered Landscape Water Renovation System
for removing phosphate and nitrogen from liquid feed—
lot waste. Procl. Int. symposium on Livestock Wastes,
Amer. Soc. of Agric. Eng.

Erickson, A. E., J. M. Tiedje, B. G. Ellis, and C. M. Hanson.
1972. Initial Observations of Several Medium-sized
Barriered Landscape Water Renovation Systems for
Animal Waste. Proceedings of the 1972 Cornell Agr.
Waste Management Conf. pp. 405-410.

Focht, D. D. and H. Joseph. 1973. An improved method for
the enumeration of denitrifying bacteria. Soil Sci.
of Amer. Proc. 37:698—699.

Geldreich, E. E., E. F. Clark, and C. B. Huff. 1964. A
Study of Pollution Indicators in a Waste Stabilization
Pond. J. Water Pollut. Contr. Fed. 36(11):1372-1379.

Hook, J. E., L. T. Kardos, and W. E. Sopper. 1973. Effect
of Land Disposal of Wastewater on Soil Phosphorus
Relations. In: Recycling Treated Municipal Waste—
water and Sludge Through Forest and Cropland. Sopper.
W. E. and L. T. Kardos, (ed.) University Park, The
Pennsylvania State University Press. pp. 200—219.

Jacobs, L. W. (editor). 1977. Utilizing Municipal Sewage
Wastewaters and Sludges on Land for Agricultural
Production. North Central Regional Extension Publica—
tion No. 52.

Juo, A. S. R., and B. G. Fllis. 1968. Particle Size Dis—
tribution of Aluminum, Iron, and Calcium Phosphates in
Soil Profiles. Soil Sci. 106:374-380.

Lance, J. C. 1972. Nitrogen Removal by Soil Mechanisms.
J. Water Pollut. Contr. Fed. 44:1352—1361.

65

Law, J. P., R. E. Thomas, and L. H. Myers. 1970. Cannery
Wastewater Treatment by High Rate Spray on Grassland.
J. Water Pollut. Contr. Fed. 42:1621—1631.

Lindsay, W. L., and E. C. Moreno. 1960. Phosphate Phase
Equilibria in Soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc.
24:177-182.

Luley, H. G. 1963. Spray Irrigation of Vegetable and
Food Processing Wastes. J. Water Pollut. Contr. Fed.
35:1252-1261.

Meek, B. D., L. B. Grass and A. J. MacKenzie. 1969.
Applied Nitrogen Losses in Relation to Oxygen Status
of Soils. Soil Sci. Soc. of Amer. Proc. 33:575—578.

Miller, R. H. 1973. The Soil as a Biological Filter.
In: Recycling Treated Municipal Wastewater and Sludge
Through Forest and Cropland. Sopper, W. E., and L. T.
Kardos, (ed.). University Park, The Pennsylvania
State University Press. pp. 71-94.

Murrmann, R. P., and F. R. Koutz. 1972. Role of Soil
Chemical Processes in Reclamation of Wastewater
Applied to Land. Chapt. 4 in Wastewater Management
By Disposal on the Land. Corps. of Engineers. U. S.
Army. Cold Regions Research and Engineering Labora—
tory. Hanover, N. H.

Office of Technology Transfer, Environmental Protection
Agency. 1974. Methods for Chemical Analysis of
Water and Wastes, EPA - 625/6—74/003.

Office of Research and Development, Environmental Protec—
tion Agency. 1976. Wastewater: Is Muskegon County's
Solution Your Solution?

Office of Research and Development, Environmental Protec—
tion Agency. 1978. Microbial Methods for Monitoring
the Environment, EPA - 600/8—78-017.

Parkinson, J. A., and S. E. Allen. 1975. A Wet Oxidation
Procedure Suitable for the Determination of Nitrogen
and Mineral Nutrients in Biological Material. Comm.
Soil Science and Plant Analysis. 6(1):1-11.

Reed, S. C. (co—0rd.). 1972. Wastewater Management by
Disposal on the Land. U. 8. Army Cold Regions Res.
Eng. Lab. Spec. Rep. 171, Hanover, N. H.

66

Sopper, W. E., and L. T. Kardos. 1973. Vegetation
Responses to Irrigation with Treated Municipal
Effluent. In: Recycling Treated Municipal Wastewater
and Sludge through Forest and Cropland. Sopper,

W. E., and L. T. Kardos, (ed.). University Park, the
Pennsylvania State University Press. pp. 271-294.

Thomas, R. E. 1973. The Soil as a Physical Filter. In:
Recycling Treated Municipal Wastewater and Sludge
Through Forest and Cropland. Sopper, W. E., and
L. T. Kardos, (ed.). University Park, the Pennsylva-
nia State University Press. pp. 38-45.

Thomas, R. E., B. Bledsoe, and K. Jackson. 1976.
Overland Flow Treatment of Raw Wastewater with
Enhanced Phosphorus Removal. Robert S. Kerr Environ-
mental Research Laboratory. EPA Series No. 600/2—76-
131. p. 36.

Tiedje, J. M. 1978. Denitrification in Soil. In: Micro—
biology - 1978. Schlessinger, D., (ed.) American
Society for Microbiology. pp. 362-366.

Woldendorp, J. W., K. Dilz and G. J. Kolenbrander. 1966.
The fate of fertilizer nitrogen on permanent grass—
land soils. Proc. Gen. Mtg. Europ. Grassland Fed.
1965:53—76.

APPEIZDIX

TOC

t-P

HF:

1-P04

67
N03

N02

 

Barriered Landscape Water Renovation System Spray Area at the

Nutrient Concentrations of Ground Water Monitoring Wells on the
Coldwater Rest Area.

 

 

Date 4/16

Sampling

Table A.
Site

.3 1. 7.0. 0.1. no no no o.n.§.1.1. nuqoo.n.
I“ l 0.1.. 7.1 l4 1 1111 ‘1 .L
5751.. 09 .3949I436111-521.337735105114715363O79
000.1.1. zany nununonunununu11nununununununonunvnunu1inununununvnunonunon.n01.
7432853325 3216 354236793133311100216312231113593214
nununwnununwnwnunununu usinu nunu11111»nonununununonunununonu1111nununUnunununonunununu1.nu11nunuo.nu
nonun.nvnvnunwnununununununu nvnvnvnvnvnvnvnvnunununonununununvnunonononunvnvnunvnum.m~nvnvnunonununo
<
27298644065287 1822533355812828512519940022736850 .30
a1 11 a2 nu 11 11 11 11 an 11 on a; 11 11 11 11 11 on .1 a2 11 11 nu 11 11 11 :1 ‘1 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 nu nu 11 1. on :1 «a 12 12 11 nu .1 11 2 2
00000000000000 00000 0
nunonununununvnunonununununu nonunununununonununununununvnun.n.nvnununununununvnunonunununununununon.
33593.87039602J 897950822700121538138130730642465312
0000000000 0 00000 0 0
99Am32751664510. 020070172271510047516993022133201251
2 451422 31 3 33122 21412 1
A.1.Ai0.1.4.0.nvn01.nunu1.<. 6.6.0.9.11Aunuoaau9.o.n.7.15110.nu140.7.nunuo,4.Aunvaanu<.7.:51.7.<.7.nu
§.A.fi.auaaas.auw.3.3,o.3mw.2 1.9.9.1.1ua.adoaonnamw.3.3mw,4.5.4 4.1.1.1.1.0.1.7.o.149.151.7.1.7.7.9.9.
nunvnununununu nonununu nu nonununununununununu nunu nonunvnunununununununununonununununununununu
00000000000000 0 000 00000 00000 0000 00 00000 0
nunonvnvnvnunununvnvnonununu nvnvnvnunununununonununununununvnunun.nonvnunvnvnvnununununvnunununvnun.
:4:JO.AVA0<.:.7.7.<51.§.A. 1.7.1.4.Rvfiufi.a.Ruo.7.<.o.Auolnvo.9.Q.L.9.4.1.6.1.1.o,1.9.nvnunVQ.1.A.1.
4625411182515 683057312222565770423935962310163445
0 00000000000 0 0000000000 0 0 0 00 0000000 0
nonunununu12111.nunu111anonv 7.nu1.1.nunvnv1.nv1.nvnunu1.nvnonu1.nunun.nu1.nvn.1inunuoa1i1anu11nvnunu
A A A A .A A A A A A
A u A A A A A A A0011203344556677889900123456789012
1.1.7. 1.1.A.A.§.<.auno7.7.nunuo.o.1i1.111.111.111.111.111i11111.11111.11110.927.9.~_7.7.7.1.7.7.1.141.

 

Lagoon 1
Lagoon 2
Tank 1
Tank 2

Table A. (Continued)

68

 

 

 

Date 5/07
Sampling
Site N83 N02 i-POA TOC
PF:
1 0.11 0.008 32.2 0.005 2.8 13
1A 0.33 0.020 3.2 0.044 0.8 20
2 1.34 0.033 32.9 0.066 0.5
2A 0.15 0.016 46.3 0.019 0.1 10
3 0.20 0.022 2.0 0.031 1.6
3A 0.13 0.012 20.8 0.018 0.9
4 0.22 0.028 15.9 0.028 0.4 30
4A 0.22 0.009 7.0 0.012 1.2 14
5 0.27 0.009 9.1 0.012 0.5
5A 0.28 0.019 18.8 0.008 0.3 15
6 0.13 0.014 1.8 0.017 0.3 17
GA 0.19 0.019 14.2 0.017 0.5 11
7
7A 0.18 0.024 1.1 0.017 0.6
8 0.26 0.253 0.4 0.037 3.2
8A 0.12 0.006 0.1 0.006 0.3 19
9 2.18 0.005 0.1 0.006 2.6
9A 0.23 0.014 0.1 0.014 0.7 18
10 0.91 0.010 0.1 0.006 1.7 23
10A 1.06 0.006 0.1 <0.001 1.8 20
11 0.11 0.012 4.5 0.013 0.5 11
11A 0.09 0.007 5.7 0.009 0.8 14
12 0.01 0.004 15.0 0.006 0.3 16
12A 0.01 0.003 5.4 0.005 0.2
13 0.13 0.009 14.7 0.008 0.4 36
13A 0.14 0.014 0.3 0.015 <0.1 15
14 0.11 0.096 28.9 0.010 0.8
14A 0.16 0.161 18.8 0.013 2.6 38
15 0.20 0.023 8.1 0.026 0.7 10
15A 0.19 0.019 1.5 0.021 0.1 9
16 0.26 0.022 17.6 0.032 0.3 12
16A 0.15 0.015 0.2 0.012 0.3
17 0.17 0.036 31.9 0.017 2.0 28
17A 0.15 0.019 35.4 0.015 <0.1 10
18 0.21 0.022 43.9 0.020 0.2
18A 0.21 0.023 17.3 0.024 0.2 12
19 0.26 0.026 27.6 0.029 0.1 13
19A 0.20 0.022 10.4 0.020 <0.1 12
20 0.06 0.006 39.2 0.007 <0.1 10
20A 0.02 0.003 10.3 0.004 <0.1 11
21 0.04 0.003 0.4 0.004 <0.1 12
22 0.01 0.002 2.0 0.006 <0.1 7
23 0.01 0.002 0.2 0.005 <0.1 11
24 0.03 <0.002 0.1 0.002 0.2
25 0.01 <0.002 1.2 0.002 0.5 7
2 0.02 0.004 1.3 0.006 <0.1 9
27 0.05 0.010 0.6 0.014 <0.1
28 0.05 0.010 0.1 0.012 0.1 14
29 0.07 0.011 1.7 0.017 <0.1 12
30 0.07 0.007 2.8 0.005 <0.1 7
31 0.02 <0.002 8.1 0.003 1.5 11
32 0.07 0.006 2.0 0.008 0.1 9
Lagoon 1 12.7 0.022 0.1 2.99 14.0 26
Lagoon 2 4.6 1.59 2.7 1.30 20. 84
Tank 1 17.8 0.037 0.1 3.06 23.0 41
Tank 2 19.6 0.035 0.1 3.09 26.0 48

 

69

Table A. (Continued)

 

 

 

Date 5/11
Sampling
Site N33 N02 N03 i-POA t-P TKN TOC
VP“
1 0.05 0.001 34.2 <0.01 <0.01 <0.1
1A 0.13 0.003 1.3 <0.01 <0.01 0.2
2 0.10 0.010 33.3 <0.01 <0.01 0.2
2A 0.42 0.001 63.2 <0.01 <0.01 0.1
3 0.06 0.003 2.1 <0.01 <0.01 <0.1
3A 0.10 <0.001 19.5 <0.01 <0.01 <0.1
4 0.11 0.019 14.1 <0.01 <0.01 <0.1
4A 0.33 0.017 4.6 <0.01 <0.01 0.6
5 0.23 0.012 6.8 <0.01 0.05 0.3
5A 0.45 0.005 9.7 <0.01 <0.01 0.8
6 0.08 0.001 2.0 <0.01 0.04 0.1
6A 0.10 0.002 12.1 <0.01 <0.01 0.3
7
7A 0.08 0.003 1.3 <0.01 <0.01 0.1
8 0.36 0.061 0.2 <0.01 <0.01 0.8
8A 0.22 0.001 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01 0.1
9 2.51 0.003 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01 2.9
9A 0.25 0.003 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01 0.4
10 1.20 0.004 <0.1 <0.01 0.03 1.8
10A 1.10 0.002 <0.1 <0.01 0.03 1.5
11 0.39 <0.001 4.5 <0.01 0.02 0.5
11A 0.15 0.006 13.6 <0.01 0.07 0.4
12 0.11 0.001 15.2 <0.01 0.01 0.6
12A 0.09 <0.001 4.4 <0.01 0.01 0.3
13 0.05 0.002 7.4 <0.01 0.01 0.1
13A 0.06 0.004 0.6 <0.01 0.01 0.2
14 0.15 0.048 12.3 <0.01 0.09 1.0
14A 0.21 0.126 7.8 0.01 0.06 1.3
15 0.07 0.003 9.9 0.01 0.04 0.2
15A 0.07 0.002 3.4 0.01 0.03 <0.1
16 0.07 0.003 24.1 0.02 0.03 0.4
16A 0.08 0.001 0.6 <0.01 0.07 0.6
17 0.08 <0.001 25.3 <0.01 0.01 <0.1
17A 0.07 0.002 39.2 <0.01 <0.01 0.3
18 0.05 0.004 37.9 <0.01 <0.01 0.4
18A 0.07 0.001 21.1 <0.01 0.02 0.3
19 0.11 0.002 32.3 <0.01 0.11 0.3
19A 0.05 <0.001 13.0 <0.01 <0.01 <0.1
20 0.14 0.008 48.3 0.01 <0.01 0.2
20A 0.05 <0.001 14.2 <0.01 <0.01 0.1
21 0.04 <0.001 1.0 <0.01 <0.01 <0.1
22 0.05 <0.001 1.3 <0.01 0.03 0.1
23 0.05 <0.001 0.3 <0.01 0.08 0.2
24 0.05 <0.001 0.1 <0.01 0.03 0.1
25 0.05 <0.001 1.0 <0.01 0.01 0.2
26 0.05 <0.001 1.4 <0.01 0.01 0.1
27 0.05 <0.001 0.7 <0.01 0.04 0.5
28 0.05 <0.001 0.1 0.01 0.05 0.5
2 0.05 <0.001 2.1 0.02 0.05 0.3
30 0.05 <0.001 2.9 0.01 0.16 <0.1
31 0.71 <0.001 10.7 0.17 0.02 1.2
32 0.09 0.001 2.4 0.01 <0.01 0.3
Lagoon 1 13.8 0.008 0.1 3.00 3.15 18.8
Lagoon 2 2.05 1.32 0.2 0.91 2.37 13.3
Tank 1

 

70

Table A. (Continued)

 

 

 

Date 6/11
Sampling
Site N33 302 N03 i-POa t-P TEN TOC
an
1 0.21 0.023 30.1 0.02 <0.1 0.2 6
1A 0.39 0.050 23.2 0.02 <0.1 1.0 18
2 0.18 0.027 3.8 0.03 <0.1 0.3 5
2A 0.20 0.032 29.4 0.02 <0.1 0.2 10
3 0.09 0.028 1.2 0.02 <0.1 0.3 11
3A 0.17 0.045 4.6 0.02 <0.1 0.1 8
4 0.17 0.078 13.4 0.01 <0.1 0.3 7
4A 0.42 0.041 1.6 0.01 <0.1 0.9 24
5 0.26 0.059 0.8 0.01 <0.1 1.0 9
5A 0.83 0.042 0.8 0.01 <0.1 2.1 13
6 0.24 0.052 1.1 0.03 <0.1 0.5 9
6A 0.30 0.121 2.3 0.03 <0.1 0.2 14
7 0.30 0.074 0.7 0.03 <0.1 0.1 8
7A 0.16 0.075 0.6 0.02 <0.1 0.2 10
8 0.46 0.095 0.9 0.02 <0.1 0.8 11
8A 0.45 0.076 0.7 0.01 <0.1 0.7 7
9 1.58 0.063 0.6 0.02 <0.1 2.1 34
9A 0.29 0.062 0.6 0.01 <0.1 0.7 11
10 0.97 0.056 0.6 0.01 <0.1 1.5 21
10A 0.50 0.038 0.6 <0.01 <0.1 1.0 13
11 0.26 0.035 0.7 0.01 <0.1 0.2 11
11A 0.37 0.041 1.4 0.01 <0.1 0.4 12
12 0.13 0.077 5.1 0.01 <0.1 0.2 10
12A 0.71 0.073 0.9 0.01 <0.1 0.7 12
13 \ 0.12 0.082 1.3 0.01 <0.1 0.1 12
13A 0.16 0.072 0.7 0.01 <0.1 0.3 29
14 0.18 0.094 6.0 0.01 <0.1 0.6 14
14A 0.29 0.054 0.7 0.01 <0.1 0.6 10
15 0.07 0.097 2.1 0.01 <0 1 <0.1 10
15A 0.08 0.080 4.9 0.01 <0.1 0.3 7
16 0.06 0.062 3.0 0.01 <0.1 <0.1 10
16A 0.06 0.064 0.7 0.01 <0.1 0.1. 6
17 0.02 0.045 16.0 0.01 <0.1 <0.1 14
17A 0.05 0.047 43.4 0.01 <0.1 <0.1 6
18 0.04 0.053 25.6 0.01 <0.1 <0.1 7
18A 0.04 0.046 30.7 0.01 0.1 <0.1 6
19 0.07 0.035 30.8 <0.01 <0.1 0.1 11
19A 0.03 0.030 10.4 <0.01 <0.1 <0.1 8
20 0.06 0.050 31.0 <0.01 <0.1 <0.1 8
20A 0.04 0.033 5.1 <0.01 <0.1 0.1 10
21 0.13 0.045 2.2 0.01 <0.1 0.2 7
22 0.67 0.002 3.2 0.01 <0.1 0.2 10
23 0.56 0.002 0.3 0.01 <0.1 0.2 8
24 0.80 0.003 0.2 0.07 <0.1 0.2 9
25 0.29 0.002 1.4 0.01 <0.1 0.2 21
26 0.59 0.028 0.9 0.01 <0.1 0.3 7
27 0.57 0.026 0.7 0.01 <0.1 0.1 7
28 0.72 0.011 0.3 0.01 (0.1 0.7
29 0.35 0.031 3.8 0.05 <0.1 0.4 10
30 0.61 0.003 2.0 0.02 <0.1 0.2 7
31 0.71 0.003 2.7 0.01 <0.1 <0.1 6
32 0.64 0.003 3.0 0.01 <0.1 0.2 9
Lagoon 1 8.73 0.006 0.8 20 3.1 13.5 50
Lagoon 2 10.4 0.064 0.3 7 35 3.8 15.5 57
Tank 1 0.62 0.081 20.4 2.59 2.7 4.3 23
Tank 2 0.73 0.068 19.6 2.63 2.6 3.3 15

 

71

 

 

 

Table A. (Continued)
Date 6/15
Sampling
Site NE N0 N0 i-PO, t-P TKN TOC

3 2 3 4

p-:

1 0.01 0.001 27.3 <0.01 <0.1 <0.1
1A 0.26 0.016 22.2 <0.01 <0.1 0.9
2 0.07 0.009 2.7 <0.01 <0.1 0.8
2A 0.03 0.002 24.5 <0.01 <0.1 0.2
3 0.02 0.001 2.0 <0.01 <0.1 0.3
3A <0.01 0.007 2.2 <0.01 0.2 0.3
4 0.16 0.042 14.3 <0.01 <0.1 0.3
4A 0.37 0.021 2.2 <0.01 <0.1 1.0
5 0.24 0.020 0.6 <0.01 <0.1 0.8
5A 0.84 0.002 0.1 <0.01 <0.1 1.2
6 0.02 0.001 0.7 <0.01 <0.1 0.3
6A 0.15 0.058 1.9 <0.01 <0.1 0.4
7 0.03 0.007 0.3 <0.01 <0.1 0.3
7A 0.02 0.001 <0.1 <0.01 <0.1 0.4
8 0.28 0.006 <0.1 <0.01 <0.1 0.6
BA 0.27 0.002 <0.1 <0.01 <0.1 0.8
9 1.64 0.003 <0.1 <0.01 <0.1 2.4
9A 0.15 0.001 <0.1 <0.01 <0.1 0.7
10 0.95 0.003 <0.1 <0.01 <0.1 1.5
10A 0.51 0.001 <0.1 <0.01 <0.1 0.7
11 0.04 0.001 0.2 <0.01 <0.1 0.1
11A 0.35 0.003 0.1 <0.01 <0.1 0.6
12 0.03 0.001 5.6 <0.01 <0.1 0.1
12A 0.51 0.013 1.5 <0.01 <0.1 0.7
13 0.03 0.008 0.3 <0.01 <0.1 0.1
13A 0.34 0.013 <0.1 <0.01 <0.1 0.7
14 0.18 0.021 5.0 <0.01 <0.1 0.7
14A 0 25 0.004 0.1 <0.01 <0.1 0.9
15 <0.01 0.018 3.4 <0.01 <0.1 <0.1
15A <0.01 0.002 1.9 <0.01 <0.1 <0.1
16 0.01 0.001 5.1 <0.01 <0.1 0.1
16A 0.01 0.001 <0.1 <0.01 <0.1 0.2
17 <0.01 0.002 13.9 <0.01 <0.1 <0.1
17A <0.01 0.003 47.6 <0.01 <0.1 <0.1
18 <0.01 0.001 13.6 <0.01 <0.1 0.1
18A <0.01 0.002 20.2 0.03 <0.1 <0.1
19 0.06 0.003 29.3 0.01 <0.1 <0.1
19A <0.01 0.006 7.4 <0.01 <0.1 0.1
20 0.01 0.013 29.7 <0.01 <0.1 <0.1
20A <0.01 0.008 2.6 <0.01 <0.1 0.1
21 <0.01 0.021 1.6 <0.01 <0.1 0.1
22 <0.01 0.001 2.6 <0.01 <0.1 0.5
23 <0.01 0.002 0.1 0.02 <0.1 0.2
24 0.03 0.002 <0.1 <0.01 <0.1 0.4
25 0.01 0.002 0.9 <0.01 <0.1 0.2
26 0.02 0.057 0.6 <0.01 <0.1 0.2
27 <0.01 0.008 0.5 <0.01 <0.1 0.1
28 0.10 0.020 <0.1 <0.01 <0.1 0.7
29 0.06 0.004 4.0 0.02 <0.1 0.3
30 0.01 0.003 1.5 <0.01 <0.1 0.5
31 0.07 0.003 2.4 0.01 <0.1 0.4
32 0.01 0.004 2.9 <0.01 <0.1 0.2
Lagoon l 6.31 0.005 0.5 1.99 2.5 9.6
Lagoon 2 3.21 0.289 0.2 0.99 2.2 10.5
Tank 1 6.85 1.83 0.9 2.21 3.2 11.9
Tank 2 6.85 1.97 0.9 2.30 2.9 10.8

 

72

(Continued)

Table A.

 

Date 6/18

Sampling
Site

TOC

1-P0A t-P

303

 

V?“

 

112112157i.»1222539657151-315551112lllll3lo31.53/¢3I¢1.624le

0000000001000001101000000000000000000000000000000000

111.1111111111...1.111...11111111111111111131111111111111111

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
<<<<<<<<<<<< < <<<<<<<< < <<< <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

2231121111111121111111111111111211111111111111111111
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
I I. O. I C .0. I O O O I I I O. O I .0 .0. O O O I I O I. O O O O Q

<

3897012049595m077716M10615374506969110514962351490684IQ
0 0000000000000 0 0 000000000 000 00000000000000 000
I O C U C C O . O O O O O O O O O O I O O O C C O O O C C O . I I O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

1.22 12352110334216 305121300 100 00000000 00010000
I C O O O O I

nonununvnvnvnunvnv11nvnvnvnvnvnv1inu1invnvnvnvnunvnvnunununununvnunonunvnvn.nvnvm.mwm.nwnvnvnvnvnvnunwnm

m d A A A A A
1 24 3344556677

1.7
99

19
O I
561

0.022
0.141

4 83
3.56

Lagoon 1
Lagoon 2

14. 2
5.3

78
e a
2A!-

Tank 1
Tank 2

 

73

Table A. (Continued)

 

 

 

Date 6/22

Sampling

Site 333 NOZ NO3 i-POA t-P TKN TOC

FF:

1 0.04 0.002 22.4 <0.01 0.1 0.7
1A 0.06 0.027 16.1 <0.01 <0.1 <0.1
2 0.05 0.007 5.6 <0.01 <0.1 0.4
2A 0.04 0.004 20.9 <0.01 <0.1 0.1
3 0.03 0.002 4.0 <0.01 <0.1 0.1
3A 0.02 0.002 2.9 <0.01 0.1 0.4
4 0.08 0.033 17.5 <0.01 <0.1 0.2
4A 0.31 0.013 3.8 <0.01 <0.1 0.6
5 0.20 0.016 0.2 <0.01 <0.1 0.5
BA 1.34 0.003 0.1 <0.01 <0.1 1.4
6 0.02 0.001 1.4 <0.01 <0.1 0.4
6A 0.02 0.046 5.1 <0.01 <0.1 0.2
7 0.04 0.006 0.2 0.01 <0.1 0.1
7A 0.02 0.004 0.1 <0.01 <0.1 0.2
8 0.12 0.014 0.1 <0.01 <0.1 0.3
BA 0.21 0.005 0.1 <0.01 <0.1 0.5
9 1.68 0.008 0.1 0.01 <0.1 1.8
9A 0.20 0.004 0.1 0.01 <0.1 0.6
10 1.00 0.004 0.1 <0.01 <0.1 1.2
10A 0.53 0.001 0.1 <0.01 <0.1 0.8
11 0.02 0.001 0.6 <0.01 <0.1 1.5
11A 0.42 0.003 0.1 0.01 <0.1 0.9
12 0.05 0.010 6.6 0.01 <0.1 0.2
12A 0.21 0.014 5.1 <0.01 <0.1 0.5
13 0.06 0.001 0.3 0.10 <0 1 0.2
13A 0.16 0.033 0.4 0.01 <0.1 0.4
14 0.10 0.010 2.1 0.01 0.1 0.8
14A 0.27 0.001 0.1 <0.01 <0.1 0.6
15 0.02 0.002 4.7 <0.01 <0.1 0.4
15A <0.01 0.034 2.7 0.01 0.1 0.2
16 0.06 0.004 6.6 <0.01 0.1 0.9
16A 0.06 0.004 0.2 <0.01 <0.1 0.3
17 0.05 0.005 9.6 <0.01 <0.1 0.2
17A 0.06 0.001 56.9 <0.01 <0.1 0.1
18 0.05 0.005 14.6 <0.01 <0.1 0.1
18A 0.04 0.005 12.2 <0.01 <0.1 0.3
19 0.04 0.007 41.1 <0.01 <0.1 <0.1
19A 0.03 0.014 5.7 <0.01 <0.1 0.2
20 0.03 0.010 29.6 <0.01 <0.1 0.2
20A 0.02 ' 0.020 4.4 <0.01 0.1 0.2
2 0.02 0.007 1.6 <0.01 <0.1 <0.1
22 <0.01 0.001 3.8 <0.01 0.1 0.2
23 <0.01 0.001 0.4 <0.01 <0.1 0.1
24 0.03 0.005 0.3 <0.01 <0.1 0.3
25 0.01 0.009 1.1 <0.01 <0.1 0.1
26 <0.01 0.027 0.8 <0.01 0.1 0.2
27 <0.01 0.004 0.6 <0.01 <0.1 0.1
28 0.02 0.005 <0.1 <0.01 0.1 0.4
29 <0.01 0.016 4.6 0.02 <0.1 0.4
30 <0.01 0.027 1.5 0.02 <0.1 0.3
31 0.04 0.046 11.5 0.05 0.1 <0.1
32 0.04 0.095 3.0 0.02 0.1 0.2
Lagoon 1 4 07 0.041 0 3 1 37 2.7 16.6
Lagoon 2 S 70 0.215 0 3 1 28 2.5 13.9
Tank 1 5.89 0.594 2 7 1.97 2.6 9.8
Tank 2 5.56 0 625 2 9 2.03 2.6 9.5

 

74

 

 

 

Table A. (Continued)
Date 6/25
Sampling
Site 833 N02 303 i-POa t-P TKN TOC
P?“
1 0.06 0.015 14.8 <0.01 <0.1 <0.1
1A 0.12 0.030 13.4 <0.01 <0.1 <0.1
2 0.08 0.019 5.7 0.01 0.1 0.2
2A 0.04 0.014 14.8 <0.01 <0.1 <0.1
3 0.03 0.013 5.5 <0.01 <0.1 <0.1
3A 0.02 0.017 4.2 <0.01 <0.1 <0.1
4 0.12 0.033 20.8 <0.01 <0.1 <0.1
4A 0.21 0.025 5.4 <0.01 <0.1 0.7
S 0.21 0.017 0.2 <0.01 <0.1 0.4
5A 1.40 0.015 0.1 <0.01 <0.1 1.4
6 0.01 0.022 2.3 <0.01 <0.1 <0.1
6A 0.06 0.049 4.3 <0.01 <0.1 0.2
7 0.10 0.023 0.3 <0.01 <0.1 0.2
7A 0.04 0.023 0.3 <0.01 <0.1 0.3
8 0.15 0.021 <0.1 <0.01 <0.1 0.3
8A 0.22 0.015 <0.1 <0.01 <0.1 0.4
9 1.55 0.014 <0.1 <0.01 <0.1 1.6
9A 0.20 0.017 <0.1 <0.01 <0.1 0.5
10 1.00 0.015 <0.1 <0.01 <0.1 1.4
10A 0.51 0.013 <0.1 <0.01 <0.1 0.8
11 0.03 0.008 0.4 <0.01 <0.1 0.2
11A 0.51 0.013 0.1 <0.01 <0.1 0.9
12 0.05 0.009 6.7 <0.01 <0.1 0.3
12A 0.17 0.024 5.7 <0.01 <0.1 0.3
13 0.03 0.009 0.2 <0.01 <0.1 0.3
13A 0.06 0.026 0.3 <0.01 <0.1 0.3
14 0.14 0.015 1.7 <0.01 <0.1 0.8
14A 0.26 0.011 0.1 <0.01 <0.1 1.0
15 0.03 0.011 3.9 <0.01 <0.1 0.1
15A 0.03 0.014 5.4 <0.01 <0.1 0.1
16
16A 0.08 0.012 0.1 <0.01
17 <0.01 0.008 43.5 <0.01 <0.1 <0.1
17A <0.01 0.010 8.1 <0.01 <0.1 0.1
18 <0.01 0.008 14.8 <0.01 <0.1 <0.1
18A <0.01 0.012 8.9 <0.01 <0.1 <0.1
19 0.03 0.014 35.6 <0.01 <0.1 0.1
19A 0.01 0.018 7.0 <0.01 <0.1 0.1
20 0.01 0.019 26.4 <0.01 <0.1 <0.1
20A 0.01 0.022 4.0 <0.01 <0.1 <0.1
21 <0.01 0.007 2.0 <0.01 <0.1 0.2
2 <0.01 0.011 4.2 <0.01 <0.1 0.4
23 <0.01 0.009 0.3 <0.01 <0.1 0.1
24 0.03 0.008 0.2 <0.01 <0.1 0.2
25 0.04 0.011 1.1 <0.01 <0.1 0.3
2 <0.01 0.029 0.8 <0.01 <0.1 0.1
27 <0.01 0.011 0.8 <0.01 <0.1 0.2
28 0.04 0.009 0.1 <0.01 <0.1 0.3
29 0.01 0.014 3.9 0.01 <0.1 0.2
30 0.03 0.017 1.5 0.01 0.1 <0.1
31 0.01 0.008 13.6 <0.01 0.1 0.2
32 0.01 0.006 3.0 <0.01 0.1 0.3
Lagoon 1 8.05 0.017 0.6 1.92 2.7 14.1
Lagoon 2 9.58 0.071 0.2 1.93 2.6 14.9
Tank 1 6.83 0.890 2.6 2.30 2.5 9.6
Tank 2 6.66 0.901 3.1 2.35 2.5 9.7

 

Table A. (Continued)

75

 

Dace 6/29*

TOC

 

3“?”5“

a:\:\ao~o~utu‘c~c~
> > > >

A

0.003
0.003
0.005
0.001
0.001
0.006
0.002
0.022
0.003
0.022
0.008
<0.001

H
N
OOOOOOOOOPOH
5'" O." M MONUI
Ougqumgunub

A

A

A
ONOOU‘IUOOOOOO
O I

A

O
F‘BJF‘NJO\¢>F‘P‘P‘F‘PJP‘

A

23 0.04 <0.001 <0.1

Lagoon 1 6.21 0.005 <0.1
Lagoon 2 11.1 0.040 <0.1

Tank 1 9.64 0.604 1 0
Tank 2 9.50 0.652 1.2

<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01

<0.01

A

A

A

A

A

A
O O O C

czcac>c>c>c>c>c>c>c>c>c>
F‘P‘P‘F‘F‘FOP‘P‘P‘F*F*P*

A

<0.1

LA)“
0 0
NH

NU
a
NU

29.
16.

14.
13.

OOOOOOOOOHOH
0‘“NHHW\JN\JOUO\

‘0

[J

 

* Inclement waathar limited sampling.

76

Table A. (Continued)

 

 

 

Date 7/01

Sampling

Site NBS 302 803 i-POa t-P TICN TOC

F?“

1 0.04 0.004 4 4 <0.01 0 1 0.1 14
1A 0.04 0.009 7.7 <0.01 <0 1 0.1 11
2 0.26 0.024 5.7 0.03 0.1 1.0 7
2A 0.03 <0.001 8.0 <0.01 <0.1 <0.1 11
3 0.04 <0.001 3.7 <0.01 <0.1 0.1 9
3A 0.04 <0.001 4.8 <0.01 <0.1 <0.1 11
4 0.08 0.007 22.8 <0.01 <0.1 <0.1 10
4A 0.41 0.010 7.3 <0.01 <0.1 0.3 46
5 0.34 0.012 0.2 <0.01 <0.1 0.6 19
5A 1.38 <0.001 <0.1 <0.01 <0.1 1.4 14
6 0.04 <0.001 2.2 <0.01 <0.1 0.1 5
6A 0.04 0.009 4.4 <0.01 <0.1 0.3 6
7 0.04 0.003 0 4 <0.01 <0.1 0.3 14
7A 0.05 0.009 0.7 <0.01 <0.1 0.2 11
8 0.18 0.010 0.4 <0.01 <0.1 0.4 13
8A 0.33 0.002 <0.1 <0.01 <0.1 0.6 11
9 1.49 0.012 <0.1 <0.01 <0.1 1.6 13
9A 0.21 0.001 <0.1 <0.01 <0.1 0.5 8
10 0.80 0.005 <0.1 <0.01 <0.1 1.0 13
10A 0.42 0.005 <0.1 <0.01 <0.1 0.7 7
11 0.04 0.001 <0.1 <0.01 <0.1 0.1 10
11A 0.40 0.007 <0.1 <0.01 <0.1 1.9 10
12 0.06 0.002 2.6 <0.01 <0.1 0.2 10
12A 0.12 0.017 4.0 <0.01 <0.1 0.3 10
13 0.04 0.001 0.1 <0.01 <0.1 0.1 13
13A 0.20 0.003 <0.1 <0.01 <0.1 0.9 13
14 0.17 0.005 0.9 <0.01 <0.1 0.5 12
14A 0.47 <0.001 <0.1 <0.01 <0 1 0.7 16
15 0.06 0.002 4.1 <0.01 0.1 <0.1 7
15A 0.03 0.003 1.6 <0.01 0.1 0.4 9
16 <0.01 <0.001 1.6 <0.01 0.1 <0.1

16A -

17 0.03 0.002 3.4 0.01 0.1 0.2 7
17A <0.01 <0.001 9.7 0.01 0.1 0.2 8
l8 <0.01 <0.001 7.8 0.01 0.1 0.3 5
18A <0.01 <0.001 13.7 0.02 0.1 0.1 14
19 <0.01 <0.001 23.3 0.01 <0.1 0.1 18
19A 0.03 0.002 19.7 0.01 0.1 0.1 11
20 0.01 0.002 10.1 <0.01 <0.1 0.1 6
20A <0.02 <0.005 4.0 <0.01 0.1 0.1 6
21 <0.01 <0.001 2.0 <0.01 <0.1 0.1 21
22 0.01 <0.001 5.5 <0.01 <0.1 0.1 9
23 0.01 <0.001 <0.1 <0.01 <0.1 0.4 9
24 0.06 <0.001 <0.1 <0.01 <0.1 0.3 11
25 0.02 <0.001 1.0 <0.01 0.1 0.6 8
26 0.04 0.002 0.4 <0.01 0.1 0.2 8
27 <0 01 <0.001 1.0 <0.01 <0.1 <0.1 6
28 0.11 0.001 <0.1 <0.01 <0.1 0.4 9
29 0.08 0.015 3.8 0.04 <0.1 0.2 10
30 0.13 0.014 1.6 0.06 0.1 0.6 10
31 0.17 0.016 4.7 0.11 0.1 0.3 9
32 0 53 0.245 2.3 0.23 0.1 0.9 9
Lagoon 1 6.98 0.006 <0.1 1.38 2.1 12.3 39
Lagoon 2 18.6 0.010 <0.1 4.15 .2 .3 45
Tank 1 13.8 0.367 0.5 3.30 3.7 18.8 34
Tank 2 13.0 0.406 0.8 3.23 3.7 17.7 35

 

77

Table A. (Continued)

 

 

 

Date 7/06
Sampling
Site NB} N02 803 i-PO4 t-P TKN TOC
P?“
1 0.04 0.004 2.9 0.01 <0.1 <0.1
1A 0.04 0.009 9.7 0.01 0.1 0.1
2 0.03 0.006 6.1 0.01 <0.1 0.1
2A 0.02 0.001 15.4 0.01 <0.1 <0.1
3 0.01 <0.001 9.3 0.01 <0.1 <0.1
3A 0.02 0.001 3.7 0.01 <0.1 <0.1
4 0.03 0.026 23.0 0.01 <0.1 0.1
4A 0.43 0.022 4.0 <0.01 <0.1 0.3
5 0.24 0.027 0.4 <0.01 <0.1 0.3
5A 1.14 <0.001 <0.1 <0.01 <0.1 1.2
6 0.02 0.001 4.4 0.01 <0.1 <0.1
6A 0.03 0.026 2.9 <0.01 <0.1 0.2
7 0.02 0.005 0.6 <0.01 <0.1 0.1
7A 0.03 0.011 0.9 <0.01 <0.1 0.1
8 0.06 0.002 <0.1 <0.01 <0.1 0.2
8A 0.26 0.001 <0.1 <0.01 <0.1 0.4
9 1.16 0.003 <0.1 <0.01 <0.1 1.2
9A 0.17 0.001 <0.1 <0.01 <0.1 0.2
10 0.47 0.004 <0.1 0.01 <0.1 0.6
10A 0.36 0.001 0.1 0.01 0.1 0.4
11 0.01 <0.001 0.2 <0.01 0.1 <0.1
11A 0.50 0.013 0.3 <0.01 0.1 0.6
12 0.01 <0.001 1.6 <0.01 <0.1 <0.1
12A 0.17 0.023 2.4 <0.01 <0.1 0.2
13 0.02 0.002 0.9 <0.01 <0.1 <0.1
13A 0.17 0.011 0.2 <0.01 <0.1 0.1
14 0.10 0.007 1.0 <0.01 <0.1 0.2
14A 0.41 0.001 0.1 <0.01 <0.1 0.6
15 0.01 0.009 4.2 <0.01 <0.1 0.1
15A 0.01 <0.001 3.0 <0.01 0.1 0.2
16
16A 0.01 0.004 0.1 <0.01 0.1 0.2
17 0.01 0.018 1.9 <0.01 <0.1 <0.1
17A <0.01 0.002 5.1 <0.01 <0.1 <0.1
18 <0.01 0.002 6.6 <0.01 <0.1 0.2
18A <0.01 0.003 10.0 <0.01 <0.1 0.9
19 <0.01 0.003 21.5 <0.01 <0.1 0.1
19A 0.01 0.010 18.8 <0.01 <0.1 0.2
20 <0.01 0.009 10.4 <0.01 <0.1 0.6
20A <0.01 0.029 3.5 <0.01 <0.1 <0.1
21 <0.01 0.003 2.1 0.01 <0.1 0.1
22 <0.01 0.002 5.8 <0.01 0.1 0.2
23 <0.01 0.003 0.3 <0.01 <0.1 0.5
24 <0.01 0.001 0.2 <0.01 <0.1 0.3
25 <0.01 0.001 1.2 <0.01 <0.1 0.4
26 0.05 0.010 0.7 <0.01 <0.1 0.4
27 <0.01 0.002 1.7 <0.01 <0.1 0.1
28 0.10 0.008 0.2 <0.01 <0.1 0.2
29 0.02 0.019 5.2 <0.01 <0.1 0.1
30 0.01 0.015 4.9 <0.01 <0.1 0.1
31 0.06 0.029 3.9 0.09 0.1 0.2
32 0.35 0.161 2.3 0.16 0.2 0.8
Lagoon 1 7.37 0.008 0 2 1.31 2.6 13.8
Lagoon 2 17.4 0.034 0 2 3.48 4.2 22.7
Tank 1 13.3 0.155 0.7 2.14 2.6 16.8
Tank 2 12.4 0.162 1.1 2.18 2.5 16.5

 

Table A. (Continued)

78

 

 

 

Data 7/09
Sampling
Site N33 302 N03 i-PO4 t-P TKN TOC
PF:
1 0.04 0.003 2.3 <0.01 0.1 <0.1
1A 0.06 0.006 8.4 <0.01 <0.1 <0.1
2 0.08 0.011 6.2 0.01 <0.1 <0.1
2A 0.04 0.003 15.0 <0.01 <0.1 <0.1
3 0.04 0.004 11.9 <0.01 <0.1 <0.1
3A 0.03 0.004 3.7 <0.01 <0.1 <0.1
4 0.03 0.002 26.2 <0.01 <0.1 <0.1
4A 0.32 0.020 12.4 <0.01 <0.1 0.1
5 0.25 0.010 0.3 <0.01 <0.1 0.2
SA 1.20 0.002 0.1 <0.01 <0.1 1.0
6 0.05 0.003 7.0 <0.01 <0.1 <0.1
6A 0.04 0.006 2.8 <0.01 <0.1 <0.1
7 0.02 0.005 0.7 <0.01 <0.1 0.1
7A 0.06 0.009 1.5 <0.01 <0.1 0.1
8 0.09 0.003 <0.1 <0.01 <0.1 0.3
8A 0.24 0.003 <0.1 <0.01 <0.1 0.3
9 1.00 0.004 <0.1 <0.01 <0.1 1.1
9A 0.20 0.003 <0.1 0.01 <0.1 0.3
10 0.55 0.005 <0.1 <0.01 <0.1 0.8
10A 0.44 0.004 <0.1 <0.01 0.1 0.7
11 0.04 0.004 0.1 <0.01 0.1 <0.1
11A 0.32 0.005 0.3 <0.01 0.1 0.3
12 0.05 0.004 2.9 <0.01 0.1 <0.1
12A 0.14 0.016 2.7 <0.01 <0.1 <0.1
13 0.01 0.005 1.8 <0.01 <0.1 <0.1
13A 0.09 0.007 0.6 <0.01 <0.1 <0.1
14 0.13 0.005 0.5 <0.01 <0.1 0.2
14A 0.43 0.006 0.1 <0.01 <0.1 0.4
15 0.01 0.038 2.9 <0.01 <0.1 <0.1
15A 0.01 0.003 2.9 <0.01 <0.1 <0.1
16 0.01 0.003 0.8 <0.01
16A 0.03 0.002 0.2 <0.01 <0.1 0.1
17 0.01 0.005 2.5 <0.01 <0.1 <0.1
17A 0.01 0.003 3.3 <0.01 <0.1 <0.1
18 0.09 0.004 6.6 <0.01 <0.1 <0.1
18A <0.01 0.002 6.5 <0.01 <0.1 <0.1
19 <0.01 0.003 15.7 <0.01 <0.1 0.2
19A <0.01 0.003 15.3 <0.01 <0.1 <0.1
20 0.02 0.005 5.7 <0.01 <0.1 0.5
20A 0.02 0.025 3.2 0.01 <0.1 0.1
21 0.02 0.005 3.6 0.01 <0.1 <0.1
22 0.02 0.002 3.6 0.01 <0.1 0.2
23 <0.01 0.004 0.3 0.01 <0.1 0.2
24 0.07 0.001 0.2 <0.01 <0.1 0.2
25 0.01 0.003 1.0 <0.01 <0.1 0.2
26 0.02 0.005 0.5 0.01 <0.1 0.3
27 0.01 0.003 3.5 0.01 <0.1 0.1
28 0.15 0.006 0.1 0.01 <0.1 0.4
29 0.04 0.009 4.0 0.01 <0.1 0.2
30 0.04 0.003 4.8 0.01 <0.1 0.4
31 0.04 0.001 5.8 0.01 <0.1 0.2
32 0.02 0.002 2.3 <0.01 0.2 0.4
Lagoon 1 5.93 0.009 0.2 1.04 2.0 11.7
Lagoon 2 15.2 0.016 0.2 3.70 5.0 26.0
Tank 1 7.78 0.151 0.6 1.73 2.2 11.5
Tank 2 7.85 0.163 1.0 1.75 2.1 11.5

 

759

 

 

 

Table A. (Continued)
Date 7/13
Sampling
51:. N33 502 N03 1-804 t-P rxx 10c
p-:
1 <0.01 0.281 2.0 <0.01 <0.1 3.2
1A <0.01 0.013 8.4 <0.01 <0.1 0.5
2 0.01 0.035 2.6 <0.01 <0.1 1.7
2A 0.01 0.235 12.8 <0.01 <0.1 ‘ 0.9
3 <0.01 0.007 12.0 <0.01 <0.1 0.3
3A <0.01 0.468 3.4 <0.01 <0.1 0.3
4 0.01 0.002 6.1 <0.01 <0.1 0.9
4A 0.77 0.047 5.0 <0.01 <0.1 0.8
5 0.39 0.008 0.1 <0.01 <0.1 1.3
5A 1.56 0.002 0.1 <0.01 <0.1 4.0
6 0.08 0.001 9.5 <0.01 <0.1 0.6
6A 0.04 0.046 3.0 <0.01 <0.1 0.3
7 0.04 0.007 0.5 <0.01 <0.1 1.6
71 0.08 0.008 1.1 <0.01 <0.1 0.3
8 0.27 0.005 0.1 <0.01 <0.1 1.8
BA 0.41 0.005 0.1 <0.01 <0.1 0.8
9 0.47 0.004 <0.1 <0.01 <0.1 3.4
9A 0.19 0.005 <0.1 <0.01 <0.1 1.2
10 0.32 0.015 0.2 <0.01 <0.1 2.1
104 0.39 0.004 0.1 <0.01 0.2 6.0
11 0.06 0.006 0.9 <0.01 <0.1 0.7
11A 0.15 0.008 0.6 <0.01 <0.1 0.9
12 0.04 0.004 1.2 <0.01 <0.1 1.0
12A 0.30 0.068 2.4 <0.01 <0.1 1.4
13 0.06 0.006 2.1 <0.01 <0.1 0.6
13A 0.25 0.014 0.2 <0.01 <0.1 0.9
14 0.27 0.008 0.3 <0.01 <0.1 1.1
14A 0.34 0.005 0.1 <0.01 <0.1 1.4
15 0.05 0.002 2.0 <0.01 <0.1 0.3
15A <0.01 0.005 1.1 <0.01 <0.1 0.3
16
16A
17 <0.01 0.002 2.9 <0.01 <0.1 0.7
17A 0.02 0.002 1.6 <0.01 <0.1 0.7
18 0.01 0.006 8.5 <0.01 <0.1 0.6
18A 0.02 0.037 3.8 <0.01 <0.1 0.6
19 0.02 0.001 9.5 <0.01 <0.1 <0.1
19A 0.02 0.001 10.3 <0.01 <0.1 <0.1
20 0.08 0.002 4.0 <0.01 <0.1 <0.1
20A 0.04 0.040 5.0 <0.01 <0.1 <0.1
21 0.02 <0.001 4.5 <0.01 <0.1 <0.1
22 0.04 0.001 2.4 <0.01 <0.1 0.2
23 0.04 0.001 0.1 <0.01 <0.1 <0.1
24 0.10 <0.001 <0.1 <0.01 <0.1 <0.1
25 0.04 <0.001 1.5 <0.01 <0.1 <0.1
26 0.05 <0.001 0.4 <0.01 <0.1 0.5
2 0.11 <0.001 8.0 <0.01 <0.1 <0.1
28 0.37 0.024 0.1 0.02 <0.1 0.3
29 <0.01 0.002 2.0 0.01 <0.1 0.5
30 <0.01 0.001 5.7 0.01 <0.1 0.5
31 0.04 0.012 7.8 <0.01 <0.1 0.3
32 0.01 0.004 2.9 <0.01 <0.1 <0.1
Lagoon 1 7 84 0.008 0.2 1.52 2.6 14.4
Lagoon 2 12 5 0.012 0.2 3.44 4.9 21.7
Tank 1 7.58 0.177 0.7 1.96 2.4 10.7
Tank 2 7 44 0.190 1.2 1.97 2.4 11.1

 

8()

Table A. (Continued)

 

 

 

Date 7/16
Sampling
Site N33 N02 N03 i-PO4 t-P TKN TOC
99m '
1 0.10 0.017 1.9 0.01 0.1 2.4
1A. 0.03 0.005 6.6 0.01 0.1 1.1
2 0.11 0.006 4.6 0.01 <0.1 0.9
2A 0.11 0.067 8.3 <0.01 0.1 0.6
3 0.02 0.005 11.3 <0.01 <0.1 0.1
3A ' 0.02 0.058 5.9 <0.01 0.1 0.4
4 <0.01 0.008 6.7 <0.01 <0.1 0.2
4A 0.54 0.025 6.7 <0.01 <0.1 1.1
5 0.54 0.006 0.1 <0.01 0.1 1.5
5A 1.27 0.003 0.1 <0.01 0.1 1.9
6 <0.01 0.002 8.6 0.01 <0.1 <0.1
6A <0.01 0.008 4.4 <0.01 <0.1 0.2
7 <0.01 0.006 0.2 <0.01 <0.1 0.3
7A 0.06 0.009 0.6 <0.01 <0.1 <0.1
8 0.11 0.003 0.1 <0.01 <0.1 2.1
8A 0.43 0.001 0.1 <0.01 <0.1 1.0
9 0.39 0.006 0.1 <0.01 <0.1 1.3
9A 0.94 0.003 0.1 0.01 <0.1 1.5
10 0.24 0.011 0.5 0.01 <0.1 0.8
10A 0.42 0.003 0.1 <0.01 <0.1 3.7
11 0.02 0.004 0.5 <0.01 <0.1 0.2
11A 0.02 0.002 0.6 <0.01 0.3 1.0
12 0.08 0.002 5.9 <0.01 0.7 <0.1
12A 0.11 0.011 4.5 <0.01 0.3 1.2
13 0.04 0.002 1.3 . <0.01 0.1 0.1
13A 0.21 0.006 0.2 <0.01 0.8 1.4
14 0.35 0.010 0.2 <0.01 0.5 1.5
14A 0.70 0.003 <0.1 <0.01 0.1 0.8
15 0.06 0.002 2.8 <0.01 0.2 0.2
15A 0.02 0.002 1.1 <0.01 0.2 <0.1
16
16A
17 0.02 0.002 4.2 <0.01 1.3 4.6
17A 0.02 0.002 1.2 <0.01 0.8 1.8
18 0.03 0.006 7.5 <0.01 0.6 <0.1
18A 0.02 0.009 3.5 <0.01 0.4 <0.1
19 0.02 0.004 6.6 <0.01 0.1 <0.1
19A 0.03 0.005 8.7 <0.01 0.1 <0.1
20 0.02 0.062 4.1 <0.01 0.7 0.3
20A 0.02 0.004 5.1 <0.01 0.6 2.4
21 0.02 0.002 5.4 <0.01 0.4 1.2
22 0.02 0.001 1.7 <0.01 0.6 0.2
23 0.02 <0.001 0.2 0.01 0.4 1.0
24 0.04 0.001 0.1 <0.01 0.3 0.8
25 0.08 0.001 2.5 <0.01 2.3 2.9
26 0.04 0.001 0.6 <0.01 0.5 0.9
27 0.04 0.004 9.3 <0.01 0.1 <0.1
28 0.04 0.002 0.2 <0.01
29 0.25 0.002 1.8 0.01 0.1 1.5
30 0.06 0.002 8.1 0.01 0.1 <0.1
31 0.05 0.002 8.4 0.01 0.7 0.9
32 0.05 0.002 3.6 <0.01 0.9 0.2
Lagoon l 9.26 0.010 0.2 2.43 4.2 23.2
Lagoon 2 11.7 0.013 0.2 3.55 4.5 18.
Tank 1 8.15 0.197 0.7 2.33 2.9 11.8
Tank 2 7.97 0.198 1.1 2.35 2.9 11.9

 

81

 

 

 

Table A. (Continued)
Date 7/20
Sampling
Site 833 N02 N03 i-PO t-P TIN TOC
p‘a
1 0.02 0.013 1.8 <0.01 0.7
1A 0.02 0.008 3.6 <0.01 1.1
2 0.02 <0.001 5.7 <0.01 0.4
2A 0.09 0.017 6.3 <0.01 0.5
3 0.03 0.002 12.3 <0.01 0.4
3A 0.01 0.081 6.6 <0.01 0.2
4 0.03 0.004 8.4 <0.01 0.4
4A 0.26 0.017 7.0 <0.01 0.6
5 0.53 0.006 <0.1 <0.01 1.4
5A 1.17 0.001 <0.1 0.03 2.5
6 0.02 0.010 8.2 <0.01 0.3
6A 0.03 0.028 3.7 <0.01 0.2
7 0.02 0.003 0.2 <0.01 0.3
7A 0.05 0.005 0.1 <0.01 0.4
8 0.25 0.001 <0.1 0.04 1.3
BA 0.31 0.003 <0.1 <0.01 1.7
9 0.32 0.006 <0.1 <0.01 1.2
9A 0.58 <0.001 <0.1 <0.01 1.3
10 0.11 0.017 0.3 <0.01 1.7
10A 0.30 <0.001 <0.1 <0.01 1.7
11 0.03 0.001 0.5 <0.01 <0.1
11A 0.04 0.002 0.4 <0.01 0.2
12 0.02 0.001 6.2 <0.01 0.4
12A 0.32 0.020 3.1 <0.01 1.5
13 0.02 0.003 1.9 <0.01 0.2
13A 0.19 0.016 0.3 <0.01 0.4
14 0.30 0.003 0.1 <0.01 0.6
14A 0.64 0.001 <0.1 <0.01 1.0
15 0.02 <0.001 4.1 <0.01 <0.1
15A 0.02 0.001 1.5 <0.01 <0.1
16
16A
17 <0.01 0.001 <0.1 <0.01 0.2
17A <0.01 <0.001 <0.1 <0.01 0.7
18 <0.01 0.002 <0.1 <0.01 0.4
18A <0.01 <0.001 <0.1 <0.01 0.4
19 <0.01 0.001 <0.1 <0.01 0.4
19A <0.01 0.007 <0.1 <0.01 0.4
20 <0.01 0.001 <0.1 <0.01 0.2
20A <0.01 0.009 <0.1 <0.01 0.4
21 <0.01 <0.001 <0.1 <0.01 0.4
22 0.04 0.001 1.2 <0.01 0.7
23 0.06 0.002 0.1 0.03 0.4
24 0.08 0.001 <0.1 <0.01 0.4
25 0.06 0.001 1.8 <0.01 0.4
26 0.05 <0.001 1.1 <0.01 0.2
27 0.04 <0.001 8.5 <0.01 0.2
28
29 0.05 0.001 3.0 <0.01 0.3
30 0.30 0.002 7.0 <0.01 1.0
31 0.06 <0.001 7.1 <0.01 0.4
32 0.04 0.002 3.6 0.03 0.4
Lagoon 1 10.7 0.010 0.1 4.70 23.6
Lagoon 2 19.4 0.014 0.1 6.57 26.7
Tank 1 17.0 0.218 0.7 5.18 21.5
Tank 2 16.8 0.224 0.9 5.15 21.2

 

82

 

 

 

Table A. (Continued)
Date 7/23
Sampling
Site NE N0 N0 i-PO, t-P TKN TOC
3 2 3 4
1 0.04 0.003 1.5 0.01 0.1
1A 0.03 0.002 5.0 <0.01 0.2
2 0.02 0.001 4.8 <0.01 <0.1
2A 0.10 0.010 6.6 0.01 0.3
3 0.04 0.002 12.9 0.01 <0.1
3A 0.04 0.055 7.4 0.01 0.4
'4 0.02 0.003 7.5 0.01 0.1
4A 0.21 0.034 7.9 <0.01 0.5
5 0.39 0.004 0.1 <0.01 1.0
5A 1.37 0.002 <0.1 <0.01 2.0
6 0.02 <0.001 9.2 <0.01 0.1
6A 0.07 0.010 4.7 <0.01 0.3
7 0.01 0.002 0.1 <0.01 0.2
7A 0.09 0.001 <0.1 <0.01 0.3
8 0.32 0.002 <0.1 <0.01 1.0
8A 0.29 0.001 <0.1 <0.01 1.0
9 0.45 0.005 <0.1 0.08 1.2
9A 0.20 0.001 <0.1 0.04 1.0
10 0.13 0.012 0.2 0.02 0.6
10A 0.26 0.001 <0.1 0.02 1.9
11 '0.04 <0.001 0.4 <0.01 <0.1
11A 0.04 0.003 0.4 <0.01 <0.1
12 0.03 <0.001 4.6 <0.01 <0.1
12A 0.36 0.013 2.5 <0.01 0.6
13 0.03 <0.001 3.8 <0.01 0.1
13A 0.09 0.003 2.1 <0.01 0.2
14 0.28 <0.001 <0.1 <0.01 0.6
14A 0.62 <0.001 <0.1 <0.01 1.0
15 0.04 0.002 5.2 <0.01 0.1
15A 0.03 0.001 0.7 <0.01 0.4
16
16A
17 0.01 0.001 7.6 <0.01 <0.1
17A 0.02 0.001 0.9 <0.01 <0.1
18 0.03 0.001 6.4 <0.01 <0.1
18A 0.02 0.001 4.5 <0.01 <0.1
19 0.02 0.001 4.9 <0.01 <0.1
19A 0.02 0.013 8.6 <0.01 <0.1
20 0.05 0.006 2.9 <0.01 <0.1
20A 0.01 0.003 4.5 <0.01 <0.1
21 0.01 0.001 5.9 <0.01 <0.1
22 0.02 <0.001 1.0 <0.01 0.5
23 0.01 0.002 0.1 <0.01 0.3
24 0.07 0.001 <0.1 <0.01 0.4
25 0.06 0.002 1.8 <0.01 0.5
26 0.03 0.002 1.5 <0.01 0.3
27 0.01 0.001 7.8 <0.01 0.1
28
29 0.02 0.001 3.1 <0.01 0.2
30 0.03 0.006 7.0 <0.01 <0.2
31 0.01 0.001 6.9 <0.01 0.3
32 0.03 0.028 3.5 <0.01 0.1
Lagoon 1 19.6 0.036 0.7 93.3 7.26
Lagoon 2 27.3 0.012 0.1 6.17 34.8
Tank 1 2.0 0.407 1.6 5.85 28.7
Tank 2 22.0 0.412 1.9 5.80 28.3

 

83

Table A. (Continued)

 

 

 

Date 7/26
Sampling
Site N33 N02 N03 i-PO 4 t-P TKN TOC
PF:
1 <0.01 0.012 2.1 <0.001 0.04 0.2
1A <0.01 0.008 4.1 0.003 0.01 0.3
2 <0.01 <0.001 7.0 <0.001 0.01 <0.1
2A 0.03 0.013 6.7 <0.001 0.01 0.1
3 <0.01 0.001 11.2 <0.001 0.02 <0.1
3A <0.01 0.028 8.0 <0.001 0.02 0.2
4 <0.01 0.006 7.7 <0.001 0.02 0.3
4A 0.12 0.123 7.7 <0.001 0.02 0.6
5 0.54 0.007 <0.1 <0.001 0.02 1.1
5A 1.27 0.002 <0.1 <0.001 0.01 2.1
6 0.02 <0.001 9.8 0.004 <0.01 <0.1
6A 0.03 0.013 6.2 0.004 0.01 <0.1
7 0.02 0.003 0.3 0.002 0.01 <0.1
7A 0.04 0.009 0.2 0.002 0.01 <0.1
8 ‘ 0.30 0.002 <0.1 0.002 0.01 0.6
8A 0.30 0.001 <0.1 0.006 0.02 0.6
9 0.46 0.019 <0.1 0.005 0.02 1.0
9A 0.10 0.003 <0.1 0.002 0.10 0.4
10 0.13 0.015 0.3 0.007 0.05 0.4
10A 0.26 0.004 <0.1 0.005 0.02 1.2
11 0.01 0.002 0.3 0.005 0.02 0.3
11A 0.02 0.003 0.3 0.010 0.02 0.4
12 0.02 0.002 6.0 0.006 0.02 0.4
12A 0.30 0.050 3.0 0.005 0.02 1.0
13 0.01 0.005 4.1 0.004 0.02 0.5
13A 0.12 0.019 3.2 0.004 0.02 0.8
14 0.36 0.012 0.1 0.004 0.03 1.4
14A 0.57 0.003 <0.1 0.004 0.02 2.1
15 0.04 0.003 4.1 0.004 0.02 1.4
15A 0.02 0.001 1.3 0.004 0.02 0.8
16
16A
17 0.01 0.001 9.3 0.005 0.03 2.5
17A <0.01 0.001 4.2 0.005 <0.01 0.5
18 <0.01 <0.001 5.6 0.007 <0.01 0.8
18A <0.01 0.001 5.0 0.007 <0.01 0.5
19 <0.01 <0.001 4.1 0.006 0.01 1.5
19A <0.01 0.001 7.5 0.005 0.08 4.2
20 <0.01 0.002 3.7 0.008 0.03 0.4
20A <0.01 0.003 4.1 0.007 <0.01 0.9
21 <0.01 0.001 5.3 0.005 0.01 0.5
22 <0.01 0.001 1.0 0.005 0.01 1.4
23 0.01 0.001 0.1 0.008 0.02 2.8
24 0.13 0.002 <0.1 0.004 0.01 1.7
25 0.02 0.001 1.5 0.007 0.01 1.8
26 0.01 0.001 1.6 0.004 0.02 1.7
27 0.01 0.001 6.9 0.003 0.02 1.7
28
29 0.03 0.006 2.7 0.003 0.02 2.7
30 0.06 0.001 7.9 0.013 0.02 1.5
31 0.10 0.003 7.1 0.038 0.04 2.6
32 0.04 0.009 3.4 0.006 0.02 1.9
Lagoon l 17 4 0 02/ 0.9 2.67 51.7 42.5
Lagoon 2 24 7 0 0 0.1 4.91 6.14 31.3
Tank 1 26.7 0.166 0.6 4.92 6.16 32.7
Tank 2 26.5 0.160 0.7 4.89 6.07 32.4

 

84

Table A. (Continued)

 

 

 

Date 7/30
Sampling
Site N33 N02 303 i-POA t-P TKN TOC
PF:
1 0.18 0.014 2.0 0.023 0.02 1.4
1A 0.10 0.003 4.3 0.009 0.04 1.7
2 0.07 0.003 8.5 0.007 0.01 1.0
2A 0.16 0.018 6.4 0.007 0.26 3.1
3 0.04 0.003 8.5 0.010 0.04 1.9
3A 0.05 0.022 9.0 0.006 0.01 1.9
0.05 0.003 7.7 0.005 0.01 1.3
4A 0.18 0.061 7.1 0.003 <0.01 2.0
5 0.67 0.004 <0.1 <0.001 0.01 2.3
5A 1.34 0.003 <0.1 0.004 0.01 4.0
6 <0.01 0.002 7.9 0.003 <0.01 <0.1
6A <0.01 0.004 6.3 0.004 0.01 0.2
7 <0.01 0.011 0.7 0.003 0.01 <0.1
7A 0.04 0.004 0.2 0.003 0.01 0.4
8 0.26 0.003 <0.1 0.004 0.01 0.5
BA 0.26 0.002 <0.1 0.003 0.01 0.5
9 0.52 0.003 <0.1 0.003 0.02 1.0
9A 0.05 0.003 <0.1 0.007 0.02 0.4
10 0.06 0.056 0.2 0.010 0.03 0.4
10A 0.32 0.003 <0.1 0.005 0.02 0.8
11 0.01 0.002 0.2 0.008 0.13 0.2
11A <0.01 0.003 0.3 0.006 0.04 0.2
12 <0.01 0.002 11.4 0.004 <0.01 <0.1
12A 0.48 0.037 3.8 0.003 <0.01 1.0
13 0.01 0.003 3.6 0.003 <0.01 0.4
13A 0.05 0.008 3.8 0.006 <0.01 0.4
14 0.32 0.004 0.1 0.004 <0.01 0.6
14A 0.53 0.001 <0.1 0.003 <0.01 1.0
15 0.02 0.002 2.8 0.010 <0.01 0.4
15A <0.01 0.002 2.1 0.005 <0.01 0.3
16
16A
17 <0.01 0.003 6.7 0.008 <0.01 0.4
17A <0.01 0.003 5.1 0.008 <0.01 0.4
18 <0.01 0.003 4.8 0.008 <0.01 0.6
18A <0.01 0.003 6.0 0.012 <0.01 0.5
19 <0.01 0.004 2.8 0.008 0.02 0.3
19A <0.01 0.012 5.4 0.005 0.02 0.3
20 <0.01 0.005 3.4 0.008 0.01 0.5
20A <0.01 0.007 3.1 0.012 0.01 0.3
21 <0.01 0.003 5.5 0.008 0.01 0.5
22 <0.01 0.003 0.5 0.007 0.01 0.5
23 0.03 0.003 0.1 0.003 0.03 0.2
24 0.24 0.003 <0.1 0.002 <0.01 0.2
25 0.03 0.003 2.1 0.005 <0.01 <0.1
26 0.18 0.015 2.2 0.011 <0.01 0.6
27 0.04 0.003 8.4 0.013 <0.01 <0.1
28
29 0.06 0.005 1.8 0.011 0.01 <0.1
30 0.06 0.003 6.4 0.010 <0.01 <0.1
31 0 13 0.004 11.6 0.010 0.02 <0.1
32 0.06 0.003 3.9 0.006 0.01 <0.1
Lagoon 1 23.2 0.024 0 6 3.28 18.1 13.6
Lagoon 2 22.3 0.012 0 1 5.23 6.20 28.0
Tank 1 23.6 0.183 0 4 5.19 5.91 28.5
Tank 2 23.7 0.185 0 4 5.23 5.93 28.7

 

Table A. (Continued)

85

 

 

 

Date 8/03
Sampling
Site N33 802 N0 i-P04 t-P TKN TOC
99m
1 0.10 0.020 2.1 0.015 <0.01 0.1 13
1A 0.06 0.018 4.7 0.010 <0.01 0.1 9
2 0.12 0.013 6.7 0.009 <0.01 0.2 29
2A 0.14 0.067 6.6 0.009 <0.01 0.2 15
3 0.15 0.014 8.2 0.017 <0.01 0.1 12
3A 0.12 0.030 8.3 0.009 <0.01 0.1 12
4 0.05 0.017 6.6 0.005 <0.01 0.1 10
4A 0.17 0.062 6.4 0.009 <0.01 1.0 11
5 0.73 0.011 <0.1 0.002 0.01 1.5 14
5A 1.22 0.011 <0.1 0.002 <0.01 0.1 15
6 0.12 0.013 7.6 0.009 <0.01 0.1 9
6A 0.04 0.024 6.0 0.006 <0.01 0.1 9
7 0.03 0.024 1.0 0.006 <0.01 0.1 7
7A 0.09 0.020 0.4 0.006 <0.01 0.4 7
8 0.24 0.012 <0.1 0.008 <0.01 0.2 21
8A 0.28 0.014 <0.1 0.007 <0.01 0.7 15
9 0.70 0.014 <0.1 0.005 <0.01 0.1 16
9A 0.10 0.012 <0.1 0.009 <0.01 0.1 12
10 0.08 0.058 0.1 0.009 <0.01 0.7 14
10A 0.33 0.014 0.1 0.007 <0.01 0.2 11
11 ' 0.01 0.012 0.1 0.006 0.01 0.2 10
11A 0.01 0.017 0.2 0.005 0.01 0.1 13
12 0.04 0.014 16.4 0.009 0.02 0.2 10
12A 0.38 0.070 8.1 0.005 <0.01 0.1 10
13 0.01 0.017 5.0 0.005 <0.01 0.1 10
13A 0.06 0.039 2.8 0.003 <0.01 0.2 8
14 0.36 0.017 0.3 0.001 <0.01 0.5 12
14A 0.68 0.011 0.1 0.001 <0.01 0.8 7
15 0.05 0.013 1.6 0.005 <0.01 0.2 14
15A 0.01 0.014 2.2 0.003 <0.01 0.4 13
16
16A
17 <0.01 0.014 6.6 0.007 <0.01 <0.1 1
17A <0.01 0.014 5.4 0.007 <0.01 <0.1 8
18 <0.01 0.014 10.3 0.009 <0.01 <0.1 11
18A <0.01 0.014 7.1 0.009 <0.01 <0.1 15
19 <0.01 0.014 4.2 0.007 0.01 0.1 6
19A <0.01 0.017 5.3 0.003 0.01 0.1 9
20 <0.01 0.014 5.2 0.010 0.01 0.1 13
20A <0.01 0.014 4.4 0.010 0.01 <0.1 8
21 <0.01 0.012 5.9 0.011 0.01 0.3 10
22 <0.01 0.011 0.4 0.005 <0.01 0.3 11
23 <0.01 0.008 0.2 0.002 <0.01 0.1 10
24 0.03 0.008 0.2 0.002 <0.01 0.1 16
25 0.12 0.008 3.7 0.002 0.01 0.1 12
26 0.05 0.009 2.3 0.038 <0.01 0.5 16
27 <0.01 0.011 10.0 0.013 <0.01 0.1 20
28
29 <0.01 0.007 2.9 0.005 <0.01 0.5 8
30 <0.01 0.012 8.3 0.005 <0.01 <0.1
31 <0.01 0.017 18.6 0.003 <0.01 <0.1 7
32 0.05 0.013 4.9 0.001 <0.01 <0.1 9
Lagoon l 28.34 0.009 0.9 3.98 7.42 50.00 157
Lagoon 2 22.46 0.003 0.1 5.00 6.25 28.20 80
Tank 1 22.36 0.017 0.4 5.37 5.96 25.0 36
Tank 2 22.57 0.020 0.5 5.48 5.93 26.5 36

 

86

Table A. (Continued)

 

 

 

Date 8/06
Sampling
Site N33 N02 803 1-904 t-P TKX TOC
‘993 .
1 0.23 0.024 2.3 0.028 <0.01 0.1
1A 0.12 0.012 4.4 0.011 <0.01 <0.1
2 0.11 0.014 7.1 0.011 <0.01 <0.1
2A 0.14 0.040 7.5 0.012 <0.01 <0.1
3 0.05 0.011 6.4 0.009 <0.01 0.2
3A 0.10 0.018 8.0 0.009 <0.01 0.2
4 0.08 0.012 7.1 0.007 <0.01 0.1
4A 0.16 0.043 6.4 0.008 <0.01 0.1
5 0.70 0.013 <0.1 0.005 <0.01 1.0
5A 1.30 0.014 <0.1 0.001 <0.01 1.6
6 <0.01 0.020 7.9 0.001 <0.01 0.2
GA 0.03 0.020 7.8 0.001 <0.01 <0.1
7 0.01 0.014 0.9 0.001 <0.01 <0.1
7A 0.11 0.009 0.6 0.001 <0.01 <0.1
8 0.24 0.009 <0.1 0.001 <0.01 0.2
8A 0.23 0.010 <0.1 0.001 <0.01 ' <0.1
9 0.77 0.012 <0.1 0.001 <0.01 0 5
9A 0.09 0.010 <0.1 0.005 <0.01 <0.1
10 0.06 0.025 <0.1 0.009 0.02 <0.1
10A 0.33 0.011 <0.1 0.001 <0.01 0.5
11 0.03 0.010 0.2 0.014 <0.01 <0.1
11A 0.03 0.011 0.2 0.009 <0.01 <0.1
12 0.03 0.011 15.2 0.008 <0.01 <0.1
12A 0.43 0.048 9.5 0.007 <0.01 <0.1
13 0.25 0.011 4.6 0.005 <0.01 <0.1
13A 0.11 0.018 5.4 0.005 <0.01 <0.1
14 0.47 0.015 0.4 0.009 0.01 0.5
14A 0.71 0.011 <0.1 0.006 <0.01 0.7
15 0.06 0.010 1.4 0.007 <0.01 0.1
15A 0.08 0.011 1.9 0.007 <0.01 0.1
16
16A
17 <0.01 0.010 12.5 0.009 <0.01 <0.1
17A <0.01 0.014 4.2 0.009 <0.01 <0.1
18 0.01 0.014 11.2 0.009 <0.01 <0.1
18A <0.01 0.010 8.2 0.009 <0.01 <0.1
19 <0.01 0.013 5.7 0.009 <0.01 <0.1
19A <0.01 0.023 5.4 0.009 <0.01 <0.1
20 <0.01 0.012 4.2 0.009 <0.01 <0.1
20A <0.01 0.028 4.0 0.011 <0.01 <0.1
21 <0.01 0.014 6.1 0.009 <0.01 <0.1
22 <0.01 0.014 0.1 0.008 <0.01 0.3
23 0.14 0.003 <0.1 0.009 <0.01 0.1
24 <0.01 0.003 <0.1 0.006 <0.01 0.2
25 0.05 0.003 4.6 0.004 <0.01 <0.1
26 <0.01 0.003 2.7 0.016 0.01 0.6
27 <0.01 0.014 10.0 0.009 <0.01 <0.1
28
29 0.03 0.008 7.3 0.010 <0.01 <0.1
30 <0.01 0.010 15.0 0.009 <0.01 <0.1
31 <0.01 0.013 19.4 0.010 0.01 <0.1
32 0.01 0.011 5.6 0.009 <0.01 <0.1
Lagoon 1 37.75 0.009 0.8 3.61 4.74 32.60
Lagoon 2 34.46 0.003 <0.1 5.50 6.35 26.50
Tank 1 32.06 0.021 0 4 5.21 5.90 24.50
Tank 2 21.24 0.021 0 4

5.27 5.84 24.40

 

87

Table A. (Continued)

 

 

 

Date 8/10
Sampling
Site N83 N02 N03 i-POA t-P TKN TOC
P?“
1 <0.01 0.003 1.9 0.007 <0.01 <0.1
1A <0.01 0.003 3.3 0.029 <0.01 <0.1
2 0.14 0.003 5.8 0.005 <0.01 <0.1
2A <0.01 0.031 6.8 0.001 <0.01 0.2
3 <0.01 0.005 7.3 0.001 <0.01 0.1
3A <0.01 0.011 6.7 0.011 <0.01 0.1
.4 <0.01 0.005 5.5 0.005 <0.01 0.1
4A <0.01 0.020 5.4 0.001 <0.01 0.1
5 0.81 0.010 <0.1 <0.001 <0.01 0.8
5A 1.15 0.005 <0.1 <0.001 <0.01 1.2
6 <0.01 0.008 5.7 <0.001 <0.01 0.1
6A <0.01 0.005 9.6 <0.001 <0.01 0.1
7 <0.01 0.012 0.8 <0.001 <0.01 0.2
7A <0.01 0.005 0.7 <0.001 <0.01 0.2
8 0.26 0.003 <0.1 <0.001 <0.01 0.4
BA 0.17 0.005 <0.1 <0.001 <0.01 0.1
9 1.54 0.020 <0.1 <0.001 <0.01 1.0
9A 0.04 0.009 <0.1 <0.001 <0.01 0.2
10 0.04 0.008 <0.1 0.005 <0.01 0.2
10A 0.24 0.008 <0.1 <0.001 <0.01 0.5
11 <0.01 0.005 0.3 0.001 <0.01 0.1
11A <0.01 0.003 0.2 0.003 <0.01 0.1
12 <0.01 0.003 12.2 0.001 <0.01 0.1
12A 0.67 0.037 6.6 <0.001 <0.01 0.6
13 0.04 0.009 8.4 <0.001 <0.01 0.3
13A 0.02 0.012 11.4 0.005 <0.01 0.3
14 0.37 0.010 0.2 <0.001 <0.01 0.5
14A 0.87 0.009 <0.1 <0.001 <0.01 0.8
15 0.06 0.005 2.7 0.002 <0.01 0.3
15A <0.01 0.005 1.8 0.002 <0.01 0.3
16
16A
17 <0.01 0.005 15.7 0.007 <0.01 <0.1
17A <0.01 0.005 4.0 0.006 <0.01 <0.1
18 <0.01 0.005 17.7 0.003 <0.01 <0.1
18A <0.01 0.005 17.5 0.005 <0.01 <0.1
19 <0.01 0.005 9.0 0.005 <0.01 <0.1
19A <0.01 0.005 6.3 0.003 <0.01 <0.1
20 <0.01 0.009 2.5 0.002 <0.01 <0.1
20A <0.01 0.009 5.6 0.016 <0.01 <0.1
21 <0.01 0.003 5.6 0.007 <0.01 <0.1
22 <0.01 0.005 <0.1 0.003 <0.01 <0.1
23 <0.01 0.010 <0.1 0.003 <0.01 <0.1
24 0.01 0.009 <0.1 0.003 <0.01 <0.1
25 0.27 0.008 <0.1 0.003 <0.01 <0.1
26 0.04 0.005 4.4 0.005 <0.01 <0.1
27 0.04 0.010 2.8 0.004 <0.01 <0.1
28
2 0.01 0.003 8.9 0.003 0.01 <0.1
30 0.01 0.038 8.5 0.009 0.03 <0.1
31 0.01 0.024 12.7 0.007 0.02 <0.1
32 0.13 0.101 17.1 0.010 0.10 <0.1
Lagoon 1 30.69 0.009 0.4 4.84 6.60 43.7
Lagoon 2 22.69 0.014 0.2 5.46 6.50 28.2
Tank 1 20.76 0.011 2 0 5.14 5.20 23.6
Tank 2 20.76 0.011 2 9 5.11 5.10 23.9

 

88

 

 

 

Table A. (Continued)
Date 8/13
Sampling
Site N33 N02 N0 i-PO4 t-P TKN TOC
9W
1 0.04 0.009 1.8 0.008 <0.01 0.3
1A 0.04 0.007 3.6 0.010 <0.01 0.5
2 0.04 0.014 6.8 0.007 <0.01 0.2
2A 0.09 0.031 5.9 0.010 <0.01 0.6
3 0.01 0.010 8.3 0.009 <0.01 0.3
BA 0.13 0.017 8.0 0.012 <0.01 0.4
4 0.01 0.009 5.4 0.006 <0.01 0.5
4A 0.17 0.009 6.3 0.003 <0.01 0.2
5 1.03 0.015 <0.1 <0.001 <0.01 2.5
5A 1.54 0.009 <0.1 <0.001 <0.01 0.5
6 <0.01 0.008 3.9 0.009 <0.01 0.3
6A 0.02 0.010 9.3 0.007 <0.01 0.3
7 0.02 0.039 1.4 0.006 <0.01 0.3
7A 0.04 0.017 0.4 0.006 <0.01 0.3
8 0.32 0.008 <0.1 0.006 <0.01 0.3
BA 0.30 0.008 <0.1 0.002 <0.01 0.3
9 0.68 0.009 <0.1 0.002 <0.01 0.3
9A 0.09 0.008 <0.1 0.007 <0.01 0.3
10 0.09 0.008 <0.1 0.009 <0.01 1.3
10A 0.32 0.008 <0.1 0.019 <0.01 1.5
11 0.03 0.009 0.4 0.011 <0.01 0.1
11A 0.04 0.010 0.3 0.007 <0.01 0.1
12 0.04 0.009 13.2 0.009 <0.01 0.1
12A 0.61 0.046 8.6 0.011 <0.01 0.1
13 0.09 0.011 11.7 0.006 <0.01 0.3
13A 0.04 0.010 16.1 0.001 <0.01 0.3
14 0.45 0.010 0.3 0.004 <0.01 0.5
14A 0.74 0.009 <0.1 0.009 <0.01 0.1
15 0.09 0.009 5.2 0.003 <0.01 <0.1
15A 0.02 0.003 4.4 0.002 <0.01 <0.1
16
16A -
17 0.08 0.010 18.4 0.006 <0.01 0.3
17A 0.08 0.010 8.3 0.011 <0.01 0.1
18 0.08 0.010 20.6 0.007 <0.01 <0.1
18A 0.08 0.010 20.9 0.020 <0.01 0.1
19 0.08 0.010 12.4 0.009 <0.01 0.1
19A 0.08 0.012 12.1 0.005 <0.01 0.1
20 0.08 0.014 3.2 0.004 <0.01 0.4
20A 0.08 0.013 5.2 0.014 <0.01 0.5
21 0.08 0.010 5.6 0.006 <0.01 0.1
22 0.08 0.014 <0.1 0.003 <0.01 0.1
23 0.02 0.009 <0.1 0.005 <0.01 <0.1
24 0.17 0.009 <0.1 0.013 <0.01 0.1
25 0.02 0.010 <0.1 0.004 <0.01 0.1
26 0.02 0.009 5.0 0.005 <0.01 0.1
27 0.02 0.009 3.0 0.005 <0.01 0.1
28
29 0.02 0.009 8.7 0.019 <0.01 <0.1
30 0.02 0.007 14.6 0.009 <0.01 <0.1
31 0.02 0.009 20.1 0.005 <0.01 <0.1
32 0.06 0.014 23.1 0.009 <0.01 <0.1
Lagoon 1 38.72 0.008 0.2 5.41 7.10 46.50
Lagoon 2 25.01 0.014 0.2 5.52 6.60 30.80
Tank 1 12.90 0.009 9.5 4.64 5.80 12.00
Tank 2 12.55 0.009 9.5 4.66 5.80 12.80

 

89

 

4-1.1. I'lrIAICI'II

 

 

41-7..- «’1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8.8 8.8 8.. 8.8 8.8 8.8 8-8888
888 888 N88 N88 888 888 8-8
888 888 888 N88 888 888. 288
8.8 8.8 8.8 8.8 8.8 8.8 -882
.8._ 88.8 88.8 88.8 88.8 88.8 8:: 88\8
8.8 8.8 8.8 8.8 8.8 _.8 8-8888
888 888 888 888 888 888 8-8
888 888 8888 888 888 888 288
8.8 8.8 8.8 8.8 8.8 8.8 -882
88.8 _8.8 88.8 88.8 88.. 88.8 8:2 88\8
8.8 8.8 8.8 8.8 8.8 8.8 8-88.8 --
888 888 888 . 88. .88 888 8-8
~88 888 8888 888 888 888— 288
8.8 8.8 8.8 8.8 8.8 8.8 -882
88.8 88.8 88.8 88.8 88.8 88.8 8:2 «8‘8
8.8 8.8 8.8808
88. 888 8-8
888 888— 288
88.8 88.8 -8cz
88.8 88.8 8:: 8_\8
II Hum III
so 88-88 .8 88-88 :8 88-8 88 88-88 86 88-88 88 8_-8 8868.88: 8888
aaumwncoZIll:l!lltillx aaaaw I- -II
eou< uoom

Louoasnou osu an souaam :o«u8>c:o= Laue: weeoeeeqs eoaouuuem use to aucm may we anewuouucoocou acowuuoz

.: o—cob

9O

 

n¢.a mo.c— no.- ac.o~

 

 

 

 

 

an.s~ n~.n~ nc\o
n_.m -.c~ cm.n~ mo.n~ -.mfi co.c~ ac\~
a~.m am.o ~m.c an.o~ me.- cm.n~ «axe
o~.- . o~.n~ cuxe
N

50 melon no anvn— so m—IG lo m¢IOM no annn— lo «mic weuuanm
- awhnmlcoz mauaw no ego:

mou< you:

Cognac—o0 «an no Banana eouuo>oao¢ noun: uncommon; vouonuaea use no _«om ago no uaaucoo unauauo: .o ouaob

91

Table D. Biological Oxygen Demand of the Barriered Landscape Water Renovation
System at the Coldwater Rest Area.

 

 

 

Well 6-29 7-26 Well 6-29 7-26
. P?“

1 1.8 3.0 16 -— -
1A 7.8 4.2 16A - -
2 2.4 3.6 17 1.8 1.2
2A 3.6 6.0 17A 3.0 2.4
3 3.6 2.4 18 3.0 1.8
3A 3.0 9.6 18A 2.4 1.2
4 6.0 4.8 19 5.4 7.2
4A 9.6 9.0 19A 4.2 10.8
5 6.0 10.2 20 5.4 8.4
5A 12.0 11.4 20A 3.6 10.8
6 3.6 2.4 21 3.0 2.4
6A 10.2 6.0 22 4.2 6.0
7 4.2 10.8 23 3.0 3.6
7A 7.2 5.4 24 3.0 6.6
8 _ 9.0 15.0 25 1.2 2.4
8A 9.0 10.8 26 3.6 5.4
9 13.8 18.0 27 3.6 2.4
9A 9.0 9.6 28 1.8 -—
10 18.0 6.6 29 0.6 1.2
10A 18.0 13.2 30 4.8 5.4
11 6.6 5.4 31 4.2 7.2
11A 5.4 9.0 32 5.4 5.4
12 3.0 6.0

12A 9.6 20.4

13 5.4 3.0 Lagoon 1 15.0 59.0
13A 6.6 13.2 Lagoon 2 24.0 23.0
14 9.0 7.8 Tank 1 20.0 17.0
14A 6.6 9.6 Tank 2 20.0 17.0
15 3.6 1.8

15A 5.4 5.4

 

92

 

 

 

A.:. 66.n—6 ..=— ~—.ev A.=— N~.6~v
6e.6oe~ m~.6mn 6m.m6~ 66.n6: _8uch
an 66 6.n~ 6.- c~.ec n~.nq 66.6 mN.o~ u—sc—xc
Rm so c.6— n.6N on.n~. n~.6— ms.6— 66.nn 66:66x6
_6 ac ~.~— ~.s~ 66.no 6m.- 6n.c~ nu.o~ m6nn6\6
N6 66 c.o~ 6.n~ on.—- w~.6~ 66.nq 66.nn ~6x6|6nx~
on so s.- 6.~n «6.86 66.6— 6n.o n~.o~ 6N1-xs
n~ 66 6.6m ~.- 6~.on- n~._~ 66.6 66.nn cunnuxs
Ne 66 6.a~ 6.- o~.n~— n~.6— 66.6 m~.on -u6wxn
a: 66 6.N~ ~.6~ on.~n~ 66.nu 66.6 66.nn 6.16—\s
ac 66 6.6— 6.- c6.- 66.6- n~.6 n~.oN m—un—xu
no 66— ~.- n.6N we._m~ n~.ou 66.6 66.nn «.166\~
_n 66‘ s.- 6.n~ on.cN~ n~.8_ 66.n m~.6~ 66:66\~
on «a s.—~ a.n~ o~.~—N 66.nu 66.n~ 66.nn n6u~6xu
66 66— N.- 6.- om.en 6m.6— m~.q n~.o~ ~6\~no~\6
8n co 0.6n 6.~n -.-~ n~.- n~.c 66.nc ouunnxc
—m an n.u~ 6.6N 66.6nu n~.¢— 66.6 n~.n— can-x6
an 86 —.6- c.8u 68.66. «8.8" n~.6 6n.6~ quuouxo
.8 66 n.6q ~.o~ c~.m~— n~.—N ms.6 6m.6~ ~_1n_\6
on - ~.- ~.- 66.c- 66.6w 66.6 6n.6~ c—uN—\6
any Auov Assn—mee— a"?
.5: .88: 8:. £8: .28: 882...: 288
.u:< .m=< .u:< .u=< couueueex :ouueaoeaam -eucuex anon—uun
.I-|NM¢Vua:= .Imm=ueuuueoh
o>uue~om

 

eon< you: Leanne—06 can an 6866 qeuaoecoau>cu can ecu—66¢ anon—mun .u o—aoh

93

Table F. Total Coliform Concentration in the Ground Water Monitoring Wells (MPN/lOO m1)

 

 

 

Sampling Date.

Site 4-18 5-15 6-18 7-06 7-20 8-03
1 43 <3 150 93 >1,100 430
1A 240 43 93 230 >1,100 240
2 21 430 240 43 9 750
2A 93 <3 23 43 <110,000 110,000
3 240 43 240 230 15 150
3A 930 <3 240 43 >110,000 460
4 2,400 230 93 23 93 4,600
4A 240 23 240 930 4,300 150
5 2,400 21 150 230 4,300 93
5A 120 430 23 2,300 93,000 430
6, 23 210 >1,100 1,500 23 230
6A 1,500 43 23 15 2,300 2,400
7 93 150 43 4,300

78 43 43 460 93 240 430
8 2,300 150 930 23,000 210
8A 4 2,100 430 43 43
9 15 240 4,300 15,000 430
9A 23 4 15,000 24,000 >110,000 750
10 4,600 1,100 9,300 7,500 4,600 430
10A <4 9,300 210 24,000 46,000 2,300
11 460 120 93 15 110,000 4,300
11A 240 43 430 240 150 430
12 23 <3 93 240 93 230
12A 9 <3 240 23 240 15,000
13 210 930 93 3 240 230
13A 1,100 4,300 43 240 46,000 1,100
14 750 43 1,100 9 4,300 1,500
14A 23 9 93 43 1,500 230
15 240 2,100 >1,100 9 9,300 200
15A 240 39 150 <3 4 93
16 2,400 9 210 <3

16A 460 <3 43 43

17 46,000 23 93 <3 900 750
17A 2,400 75 ’ 43 4 900 230
18 1,100 - 43 1,100 43 150 430
18A 2,400 7 460 <3 210 43
19 43 <3 46,000 4 120 ' 15
19A 75 <3 43 <3 9 <3
20 <4 <3 93 <3 4 <3
20A <4 <3 23 15 4 43
21 <4 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3
2 <4 <3 240 ' <3 <3 <3
23 <4 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3
24 <4 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3
25 <4 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3
26 <4 <3 7 <3 <3 <3
27 <4 <3 93 <3 <3 4
28 <4 <3 >1,100 <3

29 <4 <3 93 <3 <3 <3
30 <4 <3 >1,100 4 <3 <3
31 <4 <3 9 43 <3 <3
32 <4 <3 43 9 - 9 43
Lagoon 1 23 93 14,000 93,000 9,300 >110,000
Lagoon 2 >110,000 9,300 11,000 43,000 21,000 43,000
Tank 1 2,800 230,000 7,500 9,300

Tank 2 20,000 150,000 15,000 4,000

 

94

Table 0. Fecal Coliform Concentration in the Ground Water Monitoring Wells (MPH/100 m1)

 

 

 

Sampling Date

Site 4-18 5-15 6-18 7-06 7-20 8-03
1 <4 0 <3 <3 900 <4
1A 93 <3 <3 <3 <4 <4
2 O <30 240 <3 <3 <4
2A <4 0 <3 <3 <3 15,000
3 <40 <3 240 <3 <3 9
3A <40 0 <4 <3 23,000 150
4 <40 <30 <3 <3 11 40
4A <40 <3 <3 <3 <4 21
S <40 <3 <3 <3 4,300 <3
5A . <4 <3 <3 <3 2,100 90
6 <4 <3 <4 <3 <3 <4
6A <40 <3 <3 <3 2,300 400
7 <4 <3 <3 4,300

7A 0 <3 <4 <3 230 70
8 <300 <3 40 <4 7
8A <3 <4 40 43 4
9 <3 <3 4,300 2,800 90
9A <4 <3 <4 <4 240,000 90
10 0 <30 <4 40 4,600 90
10A 0 <300 90 >11,000 46,000 400
11 <40 <3 <3 4 4,000 <4
11A <40 <3 <4 <3 150 40
12 <4 0 <3 <3 <3 90
12A 0 0 <3 <3 40 <4
13 0 <3 <3 <3 <4 <4
13A <40 <3 <3 <3 7,000 700
14 <40 <3 <3 <3 4,300 <4
14A 0 <3 <3 <3 1,500 90
15 0 <30 <4 <3 <4 7
15A <40 <3 <3 0 <3 <4
16 <400 <3 <4 0

16A <40 0 <3 <3

17 <4,000 <3 <3 0 <3 <4
17A 460 <3 <3 <3 <3 <4
18 <40 <3 <3 <3 7 40
18A 0 <3 <4 0 <3 <4
19 9 0 <3 <3 <3 <4
19A 0 0 <3 0 <3 0
20 0 0 <3 0 <3 0
20A 0 0 <3 <3 <3 <4
21 0 0 0 0 0 0
22 0 0 <3 0 O 0
23 0 0 0 0 0 0
24 0 0 0 0 0 <4
25 0 0 0 0 0 0
26 0 0 <3 0 0 0
27 0 0 <3 <3 0 <3
28 0 0 <4 0

29 0 0 <3 0 0 <3
30 0 0 <4 <3 0 0
31 0 0 <3 <3 0 <3
32 0 0 <3 9 <3 4
Lagoon l 23 14,000 93,000 9,300 9,000
Lagoon 2 900 11,000 43,000 12,000 <4
Tank 1 2,800 23,000 400 2,300
Tank 2 20,000 150,000 700 4,300

 

95

Table 3. Total and Fecal Streptococci Concentration in the Ground Water Monitoring
Wells (MPH/100 ml)

 

Total Enterococci Fecal Streptococci

 

 

 

 

Sampling Date Date

Site 4-18 7-20 8-03 7-20 8-03
1 43 390 430 390 70
1A 1,100 >1,100 0 2,300 0
2 <40 240 430 <4 <4
2A <40 9,300 7,500 9,300 1,500
3 93 93 0 <3 0
3A 15 >110,000 430 230,000 430
4 . 240 4,300 230 400 40
4A 460 460,000 230 240,000 230
5 210 430 230 430 230
5A 240 2,300 2,400 2,300 400
6 240 240 0 <4 0
6A 460 7,500 430 700 40
7 240 2,300 <4

7A <4 2,300 0 <4 0
8 4,300 430 4,300 90
8A 93 300 2,300 300 <4
9 43 930 430 930 230
9A <40 >110,000 2,300 240,000 2,300
10 43 2,400 430 2,300 430
10A 240 2,300 4,300 2,300 <4
11 <40 900 2,300 900 400
11A <40 430 0 30 0
12 240 2,400 0 <4 0
12A 43 93 930 93 430
13 430 230 430 <4
13A 7,500 24,000 7,500 23,000
14 460 1,500 <4
14A 43 2,300 430
15 1,100 <4 0
15A 240 <4 <4
16 240

16A 240

17 460 400 <4
17A 1,100 430 <4
18 460 <4 0
18A 240 <4 0
19 240 40 0
19A 460 <4 0
20 <40 <4

20A <40 <3

21 <40 0

22 <40 <3

23 <40 4

24 <40 <3

25 <40 <4

26 <40 <4

27 <40 <3

28 <40

29 <40 <3

30 <40 <3

31 <40 <3

32 <40 <4

Lagoon 1 93 7,500 75,000 7,500 9,000
Lagoon 2 4,300 930,000 9,300 30,000 9,300
Tank 1 4,300 7,500 4,300 1,500
Tank 2 9,300 21,000 1,500 900

 

ummwmunm

93 03169

31