:a final report to the New Hampshire Office of State Planning, New Hampshire Coastal Program/submitted by Stephen H. Jones ... [et al.]. Jones, Stephen H. New Hampshire Coastal Program. New Hampshire.Office of State Planning. [New Hampshire] :University of New Hampshire,1996. Septic tanks New Hampshire. Water quality management New Hampshire. Habitat conservation New Hampshire. Attachment #95.7.2 Assessment of Septic System Design Criteria on Coastal Habitats and Water Quality A Final Report to The New Hampshire Office of State Planning, New Hampshire Coastal Program Submitted by Dr. Stephen H. Jonesl,2, Dr. Richard Langanl,3, Dr. Larry K. Brannaka4, Dr. Thomas P. Ballestero4 and Mr. Daniel Marquis1,2 I Jackson Estuarine Laboratory, University of New Hampshire 2Department of Natural Resources, University of New Hampshire 3Department of Zoology, University of New Hampshire 4Departmnent of Civil Engineering, University of New Hampshire July, 1996 This Report was funded in part by a grant from the Office of State Planning, New Hampshire , as authorized by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), TD lumber NA570ZO320 778 .A87 1996 0FFICE OF STATE PLANNING C0ASTAL PROGRAM TABLE OF CONTENTS EW Executive Summary in Introduction 1 Previous Studies on Bacterial and Nutrient Dynamics in the Subsurface Environment 2 Background 2 Septic system design and function 2 Potential pollutants 3 Nitrogen transport 4 Phosphorus transport 4 Transport to surface water 5 Microbial transport 5 Site selection process 7 Soils and site characteristics 7 Seabrook well installations and hydrology 7 Procedures 7 Installation of small diameter monitoring wells 7 Results 9 Tidal influence of water levels and groundwater flow 9 Hydraulic conductivity testing of Seabrook wells 10 Procedure 11 Analysis 12 Results 12 Groundwater flow characteristics 13 Analysis of the use of soil mottling as the predictor of estimated seasonal high water table (ESHWf) 14 Water Quality and Contamination 16 Procedures 16 D< Well sampling 16 Surface water sampling 17 Lysimeter installation 17 Lysimeter sampling 17 Soil coring of EDAs 17 Soil core trarisects 18 Water and soil sample analysis 18 Results 19 C)o Seabrook site assessments 19 Inter-site comparisons 28 Surface water quality 29 Soil cores 30 Vertical transport 31 Horizontal transport 31 Septic system design:36" compared to 48" depth below the EDA to ESHWT 32 Discussion 33 Conclusion 37 References 38 ii EXECUTIVE SUNQAARY This study focused on assessing the design criteria for septic systems as it affects environmental contamination with nutrients and fecal-bome bacteria. Groundwater and surface water samples were collected and analyzed to determine the spatial and temporal trends for contaminants at 11 sites in Seabrook, where all houses with septic systems will soon be connected to a municipal wastewater treatment system. The groundwater flow directions at sites were influenced by loading, seasonal rainfall events and tides, especially the sites on River St. Flow direction changed significantly, making placement of study wells in contaminant plumes difficult. Eventual hydraulic conductivity measurements generally confirmed that study wells were in or near the path of groundwater flow downgradient from effluent disposal areas (EDAs) and likely in plumes. Fecal-borne bacteria and dissolved inorganic phosphorus, and nitrogen were detected, sometimes at high concentrations, in the groundwater below and close to the EDAs at the different sites. The concentrations of the contaminants decreased with distance from and depth below the EDAs. The required 48 inches separating the bottom of EDAs from the seasonal high water table, as required in the design of septic systems, was not met at any site. Many of the sites exhibited much higher groundwater levels, a condition that was conducive to enhanced groundwater contamination. "Me surrounding surface waters in Seabrook and Hampton Harbor generally exhibited elevated levels of contamination, espeically in the tidal creeks nearest to high density housing developments with septic systems. A combination of water and soil analysis demonstrated recent and more long-term contaniination of soils and groundwater downgradient from some of the EDAs in the direction of surface waters, suggesting that septic systems are in deed sources of contmainants to surface waters in coastal New Hampshire. INTRODUC71ON Nonpoint sources of pollution continue to be a major cause of surface water quality degradation throughout the United States. Important nonpoint pollution sources(NPS) include: pesticides and fertilizers from agricultural runoff, urban runoff, road salting, and failed septic systems. It has been estimated that NPS pollutants account for 73% of the total biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), 83% of the bacterial loads, and 92% of the suspended sediments in waterways of the U.S. (Clark et al., 1985). Nonpoint source pollutants can cause nutrient enrichments of surface waters which may lead to proliferation of nuisance algae, fish kills, and shifts in microbial populations that favors the growth of human pathogens. Bacterial contamination from NPSs can threaten recreational water uses and harvesting of shellfish resources. In addition, suspended sediments may reduce aquatic vegetation and enhance the survival of microbial pathogens by reducing the lethal effects of fight. Many nonpoint sources, such as agricultural runoff, have been carefully studied and their impacts to ground and surface waters have been well documented (Hilleman, 1990). The vast majority of literature on-site sewage disposal systems (septic systems) has focused on groundwater contamination(Canter and Knox, 1985; Cogger, 1988; Hagedorn et al., 1981; Wilhelm et al., 1994). Studies of on-site sewage disposal systems have shown that they do contaminate groundwater, an estimated 43% of disease outbreaks traced to untreated groundwater were caused by intrusion of sewage from on-site systems (Craun, 1985). With nearly 33% of all homes in the U.S. using septic systems, there is the potential for serious ground and surface water pollution. There is a clear need to assess whether surface waters are impacted from groundwater contaminated by on-site residential septic systems. During the past two decades the State of New Hampshire has spent nearly $120 million in the seacoast region for upgrading and building new wastewater treatment plants (NHDES, 1995). Despite these efforts bacterial levels remain too high to open many closed shellfish beds (NHDES, 1994). From 1989 to 1994, most of the shellfish growing areas of New Hampshire including Little Harbor, Rye Harbor, Hampton Harbor, and most of the Great Bay Estuary, had been closed. Recent efforts by the state have resulted in the re-opening of some areas, including a large area of Little Bay and a conditionally-approved area in Hampton Harbor. Both the New Hampshire Office of State Planning and the Department of Environmental Services suspect a link between water pollution in shellfish growing areas and on-site sewage disposal systems. Their suspicions are well documented. A 1989 New Hampshire Nonpoint Source Pollution Assessment Report cited septic systems as, a pervasive nonpoint source pollution concern (NHDES, 1990). In addition, the 1994 New Hampshire Water Quality Report to Congress stated that water quality problems remain with the shellfish waters of the bays and estuaries along the coast due to the violations of the bacterial standard (NHDES, 1994). This study focuses on the impacts of on-site residential sewage treatment (septic systems) on coastal New Hampshire ground and surface waters. The town of Seabrook, N.H. provides a unique opportunity to conduct such a study. Presently, all of the residences in this coastal community dispose of wastewater through on-site sewage disposal systems. By mid- 1996, at which time a new wastewater treatment facility will be on-line, many homes that are presently using septic systems will be connected to the town sewer system. Many of these homes were constructed along the shoreline or close to the Hampton-Seabrook Estuary and are probable sources of bacterial and nutrient contamination. Ile goal of this study is to determine if on-site sewage disposal systems are impacting adjacent surface waters of the Hampton Seabrook Estuary. Our findings will have important implications for the State of New Hampshire and for the general public. First, closure of shellfish beds from bacterial contamination represents a direct loss of revenue to the state, $135,000 - $185,000 annually, in lost shellfish licenses (NHFGD, 1991). In addition, it is estimated that shellfishing activities contribute over $3 million into the local and state economy (NHEP, 1995). NH residents are substantially impacted since contamination of shellfish beds and overlying waters presents a health hazard and lost recreational resource. Ile results of this study may help the state to develop legislation to better protect our surface waters from pollution so that coastal resources will be safer and more available. In addition, this study will increase our overall understanding of the effects of on-site sewage disposal on ground and surface waters. PREVIOUS STUDIES ON BACTERIAL AND NUTRIENT DYNAMICS IN THE SUBSURFACE ENVIRONMENT Backgmund Septic systems have been used in the U.S. as a means of domestic wastewater disposal since the late 1800's (Canter & Knox, 1985). Over one hundred years later, nearly 26 million on- site sewage disposal systems (OSDS) exist in the U.S. with an increase of over 3 million units since 1980 (Small Flows, 1996). Septic systems and cesspools contribute the largest volume of wastewater discharged directly to soils overlying groundwater and are the most frequently reported sources of contarnination(USEPA, 1977). It is estimated that the yearly load of wastewater to groundwaters from OSDS's is approximately 1 trillion gallons (USEPA, 1986). Septic systems have become commonplace in rural and subrural areas where they are an economic alternative to conventional wastewater treatment facilities. On-site sewage disposal systems are actually recommended for current and future development in many coastal areas because of the high cost of central sewage systems and reduced availability of construction funds (USEPA, 1984, as cited by Cogger et al., 19 88). While conventional wastewater treatment facilities are subjected to strict treatment standards, septic systems are subject to little or no monitoring once they are installed. When designed, sited, and maintained properly, on-site sewage disposal systems can treat wastewater efficiently for many years with little or no environmental impact In many cases, especially in coastal areas, septic systems have been installed in areas where seasonally or continuously high water tables and soils poorly suited to assimilate wastes are prevalent. Under these conditions inadequate treatment of wastewater disposed of in the subsurface can occur with subsequent impact on ground and surface waters. Sel2tic System Design & Function Conventional on-site sewage disposal systems consists of two major components: a septic tank and a soil adsorption system or effluent disposal area (EDA). The primary function of the septic tank includes the storage of liquids, solids, and floatable materials, the separation of solids and liquids, and an environment for the anaerobic decomposition of both stored solids and non- settleable materials (Canter and Knox, 1985, p.49). Wilhelm et al. (1994) described the most important microbial mediated reactions that occur in the septic tank which influence the effluent composition, these include: Organic molecule hydrolysis: Proteins + H20 --> Amino acids Carbohydrates + H20 --> Simple sugars Fats + H20 --> Fatty acids and glycerol Fermentation: Amino acids, simple sugars --> H2, acetate(CH300-), other acids Anaerobic oxidation: Fatty acids + H20 --> H2, CH300- 2 Ammonium release: Urea[CO(NH3+)21 + H20 --> 2 NH4+ + C02 Amino acids + H20 --> NH4+ + Organic compounds Sulfate reduction: S04- + 2CH20 + 2H+ --> H2S + 2CO2 + 21-120 Methanogenesis: CH300- (acetate) + H+ --> CH4 + C02 C02 + 4 H2 --> CH4 + 2 H20 The average wastewater load to a septic system is approximately 45 gal/person/day. Septic tank wastewater influent typically contains 0.2-0.6 g/L of organic carbon and nitrogen which account for most of the oxygen demand of the waste water (Tchobanoglous et al., 1991). The anaerobic digestion within the septic tank results in a reduction of sludge volume (40%), biological oxygen demand (BOD) (60%), suspended solids (70%) and conversion of much of the organic nitrogen to ammonium (Reneau et al., 1989). In addition, most of the organic phosphorus is converted to orthophosphate which comprises as much as 85% of the total phosphorus in the effluent (Reneau and Pettry, 1976). Typical values of nutrient and microbial levels reported in septic tank effluent are presented in Table 1. The primary function of the effluent disposal area or soil adsorption system is to purify septic tank effluent through biological, chemical, and physical treatment. Effluent treatment in the soil adsoprtion system or EDA is critically dependent on a zone of unsaturated soil above the water table. The unsaturated zone increases the contact between effluent and soil particles, reduces the hydrologic flow, and provides an aerobic environment for effluent oxidation. Under aerobic conditions, the following reactions occur: Organic matter oxidation: CH20 + 02 --> C02 + H20 Nitrification: NH4+ + 202 -->NO3- + 2H+ + H20 Below the saturated zone at the top of the water table, another anaerobic zone may be present, depending on the availability of organic compounds, the oxidation of which will cause oxidation demand and anaerobic conditions. Under these conditions, the N03- produced by nitrification can be consumed as an electron acceptor, with organic matter as electron donors, according to the following reaction: Denitrification: 4NO3- + 5CH20 + 4H+ -->2N2 (gas)+ 5CO2 + 7H20 Denitrification can also have nitrous oxide, N20, as a gaseous byproduct, along with N2.Thus, the potentially toxic N03- is consumed by microorganisms that produce benign, gaseous byproducts that are released harmlessly into the atmosphere. Potential Pollutant5 The concentration of nitrogen in septic tank effluent ranges from 40-80 mg/L N with 25% as urea and 75% as ammonium (Brown et al., 1984; Laak, 1974; Magdoff et al., 1974b). The 3 concentration of phosphorus in septic tank effluent ranges from 11 -31 mg/L (Bicki et al., 1984). The septic tank effluent constituents which are of primary concern from an environmental standpoint include nitrogen, phosphorus, and bacterial and viral pathogens. Nitrogen in the form of nitrate (NO3-) may cause methemoglobinemia in small infants and has an EPA maximum permissible drinking water concentration of 10 mg/L as N03% Nitrogen and phosphorus loading are also of concern since they may lead to eutrophication in waters where their concentrations are limited. Pathogenic bacteria and viruses are always a concern from a public health standpoint since they are often the cause of waterbome diseases. Nitrogen Transport Brooks and Cech (1979) conducted a study in rural East Texas to evaluate anthropogenic (nitrogen fertilizer on cropland, animal livestock, and septic systems) and natural (nitrate-rich geologic material) sources of nitrate in well water. Fifty three wells were sampled for nitrate across Houston County which has a population of 18,000 (38% use cesspools and septic tanks) and area of 1200 sq. miles. A subset of 23 wells were sampled for fecal coliforms and fecal streptococci to obtain further information about sources of nitrate, whether by domestic sewage or animal waste, based on their ratios. They found that natural geologic materials ( background levels) were not responsible for high levels of nitrate observed in wells. It was determined that animal and more importantly, human sources (septic systems), were responsible for elevated nitrate levels in well water. Brown et al. (1984), in a 2 year study, assessed the movement of N species below simulated septic lines through three soils; a Lakeland sandy loam (Typic Quartzipsamments); a Norwood sandy clay (Typic Udifluvents); and a Nmer clay (Vertic Haplustolls) enclosed in undisturbed lysimeters. A series of suction cup lysimeters were placed 120cm directly below and parallel with the septic line to sample leachate. At the end of the study the soil below and adjacent to the septic line was sampled on a grid pattern for total N and NI-14+-N. After 16 months of effluent application ammonium saturation of the cation exchange sites in the sandy loam resulted in downward movement of NF4+-N in the leachate water with concentrations 10 times greater than background. Downward movement of NH4+-N in the soil profile was 100 cm/yr for the Lakeland sandy loam, and 25 cm/yr in the Norwood sandy clay and Miller clay soils. Concentration of N03--N in the sandy loam leachate exceeded 10 mg/l during the first summer when the soil was well aerated but declined well below 5 mg/L with time as the soil became saturated from effluent application (81.8 L/m2 bottom area per day). Conversion of ammonium to nitrate at the wetting front was common during dry periods when the soil was well aerated. Phosl2horus, Transport Hill and Sawliney (1981) constructed an isolated soil block (deep, moderately well drained fine sandy loam, associated with the Ludlow series) encased in concrete down into the underlying bedrock to assess the movement of P under aerobic and anaerobic conditions. Two or three times a week under both aerobic and anaerobic conditions, 565L of wastewater with a P content of l2mg/L was added to soil block over a 2.5 year period. Effluent samples were collected at 45 and 70 cm depths through weep holes and analyzed for P content. Results showed that P moved to ground water before all adsorption sites in the soil matrix were occupied, most probably along preferred pathways. Sorption sites decreased over the 2.5 year study but were never completely saturated, in additionjesting periods allowed for regeneration of adsorption sites and increased the soils ability to adsorb P. Under anaerobic conditions it was found that P sorption decreased and that desorption was also possible resulting in increased P movement. Jones and Lee (1979) investigated the potential of a lakeshore septic system to transport phosphorus to nearby surface waters during a 4 year study. The system served a middle-aged couple who resided on the property for 9 months out of the year and was located on glacial drift 4 outwash consisting of stratified sandy soil deposits.Despite effluent plume migration to wells as close as 15m downgradient as evident by detection of conservative tracers such as Cl- there was no detection of P in the migrating effluent plume during the entire study. TranspQrt To Surface Wate Lapointe et al. (1990) investigated the effects of on-site sewage disposal on groundwaters and nearshore surface waters in the Florida Keys. Groundwater samples were collected from wells adjacent to and midway between septic systems and nearby canals, from wells located on a wildlife refuge (control), and from the surface waters of canals. Samples were collected monthly during 1987 and analyzed for dissolved inorganic nitrogen, soluble reactive phosphorus, temperature and salinity. Significant enrichment of groundwater adjacent to on-site sewage disposal systems occurred with DIN enriched an average of 400-fold and phosphorus 70-fold compared to control groundwater samples. Nitrogen to phosphorus ratios of > 100 were typical in enriched goundwaters and increased with distance from OSDS as P was increasingly attenuated. Nutrient concentrations in groundwater were greatest in the winter, were approximately,two times greater than summer, with ammonium being the dominant nitrogen form. Seasonal couplings between on-site sewage disposal systems and surface waters were greatest during summer when mixing of seawater with freshwater from ODSD was maximum due to seasonally high tides. The surnmer wet season also contributed to lateral flow of groundwater nutrients from OSDS by increasing the hydraulic gradient in the direction of surface waters. Morrill and Toler (1975) conducted a study on the impact of unsewered subdivisions on surface waters in 17 small drainage basins in several Boston suburbs. The basins were characterized by: housing densities which ranged from 0-900 units/mile2; underlying glacial till consisting of an impermeable mix. of sand and silt over bedrock; a shallow water table; and one fifth of the area subject to seasonal flooding. Specific conductance measurements were used to assess the impacts of septic systems on streams draining the basins. Chloride (CI-) was also measured and used to correct for the effects of highway salting. The authors found that most of the dissolved solids from septic systems reached the streams. In addition, they determined that the dissolved solids in the base flow of streams is dependent on housing density with an expected increase of 10-15 mg/L of dissolved solids per 100 houses per sq. mile. In a study of 17 lakeshore septic systems in New York state, Chen (1988) found significant nutrient and fecal coliform pollution occurring in adjacent ground waters. Ratios of individual pollutants in sample and control wells were used to evaluate the degree of contamination of the groundwater. Fecal coliforms, nitrate and phosphate in excess of 9,000 MPN/100ml, 3.7mg/L, and 0.80mg/L, respectively, were observed in wells 2m from the point of discharge. Evidence of fecal coliform and orthophosphate transport over long distances (10-30m) was observed in several wells. Microbial Tran5port Numerous studies have focused on the fate of bacterial contaminants from subsurface sewage disposal/septic systems (Postma et al., 1992; Reneau et al., 1989; Chen, 1988; Cogger et al., 1988; Duda and Cromartie, 1982; Stewart and Reneau, 1981; Brown et al., 1979; Reneau and Pettry, 1975). Removal or reduction of bacterial contaminants in soils occurs by filtration, adsorption, sedimentation and die-off (Reneau et al., 1989). Reneau and Pettry (1975) found significant vertical and horizontal attenuation of fecal coliforms (FC) from septic systems discharging -107/rril FC in three different coastal soils. However, Chen (1988) found FC as far as 34 m from the edge of septic systems near lakes in upper state New York. Stewart and Reneau (198 1) found horizontal/lateral transport of FC was greatest when the water table was at or near to the bottom of the drainage area for septic systems. Cogger et al., (1988) confirmed this observation and noted that conditions with high water tables were more anaerobic. Drains and ditches, which are also common in the Seabrook shoreline area, are significant conduits for FCs 5 from groundwater to estuarine surface waters (Duda and Cromartie, 1982). Brown et al. (1979) saw little movement of FC in undisturbed soils, and found FC decreased but survived at least 19 days after subsurface sewage application ended. Reneau et al. (1989) reported expected significant reductions in bacterial contamination within 2-3 months, although enteric bacteria can survive for up to five years, especially in cool, moist environments. Many studies report movement of bacterial contaminants from septic systems in the range of 10- 15 m (Reneau et al., 1989; Duda and Cromartie, 1982), which are distances typical for septic systems from surface waters for this study. Reneau et al. (1989) also cite a vertical distance of -1 meter is needed for attenuation of bacteria, which is much greater than observed for seasonal high water tables at most of the proposed study sites. Thus, detection of bacteria in all groundwater wells and adjacent surface waters is expected. Postma et al. (1992) conducted a study where subsurface bacterial contaminants were measured before and after occupation of shoreline houses and use of their septic systems, which essentially opposite of the intended study's design. They detected bacteria 6 m from septic systems in Rhode Island within 2 weeks after occupation. They found Clostridiwn perfringens consistently at further distances from the septic system, illustrating the usefulness of this extra indicator for tracing contamination. They also used nitrate as a conservative tracer and evidence of the contaminant plume, much as what was used in this study. Ile connection between septic tank sources of contaminants and surface water quality has also been made in numerous studies (Paul et al., 1995; Reneau et al., 1989; Duda and Cromartie, 1982). There is a close relationship between concentrations of bacteria in surface waters and the density of unsewered residences with septic systems (Duda and Cromartie, 1982). They attributed variations in this relationship to changes in ambient soil, tidal and meteorological conditions. Cogger and Carlile (1984) found the greatest lateral movement of FC from septic systems was associated with steep groundwater gradients, as well as previously mentioned high water table. In a very recent study, Paul et al. (1995) found evidence of transport of FC, enterococci and C. per firingens through a shallow coastal aquifer from a sewage injection well to on-shore and near- shore wells as far as 1.8 miles off shore. Thus, we may expect to see flushing of bacteria from the subsurface environment into surface waters at great distances, depending on local groundwater flow. The fate of the targeted bacteria once released into the different estuarine environments have also been studied. Escherichia coli and Enterococcusfaecalis were capable of surviving in soils for at least 32 days, and traveled up to 15 meters in that time (Hagedom et al., 1978). C. perfiringens is relatively non-responsive to environmental conditions, as it forms spores and exhibits little or no death in at least 85 days (Davies et al., 1995). They also found that it is unaffected by predators in sediments, whereas FC and enterococci were susceptible to predation, as also found by Gonzalez et al. (1992). The latter two indicators could also grow under favorable conditions in sediments, where C. perfiringens showed no evidence of growth. In Massachusetts, studies revealed that indicator bacteria may multiply in sediments enriched with nutrients from POTWs, persist in beach wrack on shorelines, and be resuspended from sediment sinks to give elevated bacterial levels in water that do not accurately reflect contaminant loading (USEPA, 1991). Thus, we may expect all three indicators to persist in the study areas, with FC and enterococci capable of regrowth or re- entry into a culturable state. Once the bacteria enter the water column, they may be more susceptible to environmental conditions. Solar radiation has been shown to be a major factor in the die-off of FC (Solic and Krstulovic, 1992). Shiaris et al. (1992) found fidal exposure to be a significant factor associated with disappearance of FC, and probably enterococci, in sediments below a sewage outfall in Massachusetts, probably as a function of solar radiation. Pommepuy et al. (1992) showed that Salnwnella sp. survived longer in turbid rather than clear marine waters because the suspended particles helped to protect bacterial cells from sunlight. Sorensen (1991) and Gonzalez et al. (1992) showed that predation by eucaryotic: microorganisms was a very significant factor controlling bacteria survival in marine waters. Thus, we may expect to see large decreases in 6 bacterial concentrations once they reach Hampton Harbor, which has -90% of its volume exchanged each tidal cycle, bringing in high salinity and clear water with high tide and exposing sediments and shallow waters to solar radiation at low tide. SITE SELECTION PROCESS The process by which study sites were chosen was dominated by the need to find knowledgeable people willing to participate. Attempts were made to find sites with properties characteristic of a range of conditions, and all sites had to be near to surface waters. The perimeters of areas in Seabrook that were close to tidal waters or freshwater tributaries were encircled on a map. This map was given to the Seabrook Health Officer who then contacted people who may be likely candidates in these areas. Seventeen different lots were identified as potential study sites, and thirteen Were chosen for study. Two of the sites were assessed only for implementation of the tidal water assessment forms by Elkind Environmental Associates, Inc. (1994), while the remaining eleven sites were assessed for wellwater assessment as well. The eleven sites chosen for wellwater assessments are identified on Figure I as small circles around the dwelling at the study sites, and labeled using a 2-3 capitol letter designation, as described in Table 2. Each owner was interviewed in person and given time to consider participating before signing an access agreement form. SOILS AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS The selected sites were located in two general areas: on River St. bordering Hampton Harbor and marshes, and in town at various locations. All selected sites were subject to a thorough assessment that included Order One soils surveys, location and description of septic system/effluent disposal area, and other important'site characteristics (Elkind Environmental Assoc., 1994). This preliminary study provided extremely useful information for the ensuing wellwater assessment studies. Generally, the soils are glacial outwash sands and gravels that cover bedrock that is near the surface in many areas. The areas near tidal waters have an organic surface layer overlying sands and gravels. Sites in town are generally on natural soils (except the Walton Rd. site) while the River St. sites are built on filled wetlands/tidal marshes. The soils and characteristics of selected study sites are summarized in Table 3, with a more detailed description of on-site soil properties in Table 4. Most of the sites had effluent disposal areas (EDAs) located on filled or excavated soils (100A, 299A, 300A), which are not formally classified for soil suitability. However, soils at all sites have severe limitations for septic systems (groundwater contamination) because of the prevalence of sandy soils, which are poor filters for septic system effluent, and the potential for ponding at poorly drained sites (Tables 3 and 4). One site was adjacent to a freshwater marsh, six sites were adjacent to salt marshes, and three sites were adjacent to a beach area. Many of the septic systems were simply cesspools or were so old that they were not state-approved systems. Only two sites, KDB and RC, had state-approved systems (Table 3). All sites were in relatively close proximity to the adjacent marsh or beach. SEABROOK WELL INSTALLATIONS AND HYDROLOGY Procedures Installation of Small Diameter Monitoring Wells Sixteen small diameter stainless steel wells were installed as part of the investigative program for the period 1995-1996. Seven of those wells were installed at the interface zone between four respective sites and the marsh/bay. The remaining nine wells were installed at the 7 edge of the waterway channel immediately down-gradient of the respective sites. Ile purpose of these wells was to provide sampling points at potential local groundwater discharge zones for the groundwater flowing beneath the respective site EDAs. The sampling program from these new wells was designed to look for nutrient and bacterial transport from the EDA directly into the marsh waters, or in one case, the bay. The wells were made from stainless steel, since it was suspected the black iron pipe used for the original wells was susceptible to corrosion. The saline water of the tidal marsh areas would be more corrosive to the well pipes than the freshwater areas. Corrosion can have the effect of closing off the well screen openings or "slots". Each well consisted of 1/2-in nominal diameter 304 stainless steel pipe. The pipe came in 10-ft sections. The well sections had a 0.5-foot section of blank pipe at the well bottom to act as sump for soil particles. Above the sump was a one-foot length of screen, which consisted of four rows of two-inch long slots, 0.01 in. wide, cut into opposite sides of the pipe with a laser. The slots were positioned 1/4-inch apart along the one -foot length and aligned such that the gaps were offset between the two rows to maintain strength. The remaining length of the 10-ft pipe was blank riser. Prior to installation, a stainless steel drive point was inserted into the sump end of the well, held in place by a rubber o-ring. - No wells were installed of length greater than 10 ft. The wells were installed using a slide hammer. The well was positioned using a 10-ft step ladder, and the slide hammer was slid over the well. The well was driven using a lift and drop action of the slide hammer. The well was installed so the screen was at or less than 3 ft below the water table. The water level was checked using an electric sounder. The wells were developed using a 1/2-in. OD. polyethylene tube with a Dehin check valve on the bottom to create an inertial bailer. Once developed the wells were allowed to come to equilibrium, and the depth to water was checked to make sure the well was installed to a sufficient depth. The wells were finished by inserting a plastic cap. No wells were flush mounted during this phase of the installation. Wells were installed at four sites. A summary of the installation statistics is presented in Table 5. Two wells were installed in the tidal channel at the Eastman Home site on River Street. No site/marsh interface wells were installed here, as two of the existing wells already serve that purpose, REH-2 and 3. The new wells were designated REMC and 8C. Their locations are shown in Figure 2. In addition, the original carbon steel well at REH-3 was pulled out for hydraulic testing of corrosion in the lab, and replaced with a stainless steel well. This new well is designated as REH-3SS in Table 5. The installation was made 3/14/96, so water levels after this date refer to REH-3SS. Five wells were installed behind the Pike and Camacho sites. Three of the wells were installed in the edge of the low-tide bay. Two of those wells were within one foot of each other, at different heights. The purpose here was to measure the vertical hydraulic gradient. The third well in the bay was installed along an extension of the border of the Camacho and Pike sites. The fourth well was installed on the bank during low tide, down-gradient of the Hopkinson and Pike sites. These wells, shown on Figure 3, were designated RP-613, 7B, 8B, and 9B respectively. The third site with marsh and channel wells installed was the Hubert site on Walton Road. The locations are shown in Figure 4. Two wells were placed at the backyard/marsh interface down-gradient of the EDA and existing wells, and two wells were installed at a distance in the nearest channel to the site. These wells were also located in a down-gradient direction from the EDA. The designations of the two marsh wells was WRH-7M and 8M, and the two channel wells were labeled WRH-9C and 10C. The final site was the Bakutus site on Kimberly Drive. Six wells were installed in a radial pattern from the two EDAs. Two of those wells were installed in separate tidal channels, respectively. ne other four were installed at the interface of the site and the marsh, or in some cases, just back from the interface. This site presented the difficulty of having wells installed which were dry. Several wells were relocated in order to be able to obtain a water sample. The marsh interface wells shown on Figure 5 were denoted KDB- 10M, I 1M, 12M, and 15M. The two channel wells are designated KDB-13M and 14M. Note that only channel well KDB-14C was 8 able to be shown on Figure 5. Results Tidal Influence of Water Levels and Groundwater Flow Ile study performed during the period 1994-1995 identified where groundwater flow directions at sites close to the tidal marsh (or the bay) were significantly different in the summer of 1995 from the spring of the same year, An example can be seen in Figures 6 and 7. Figure 6 shows the groundwater directions at the River Street Eastman Home site for measurement taken on March 13, 1995 at low tide. Figure 7 shows the groundwater flow directions estimated from measurements taken on May 31, 1995 during high tide. Similar fluctuations in groundwater flow directions were noted from the groundwater level data obtained during the regular sampling program at other River Street sites. These sites included the Hopkinson, Pike, and Eastman Trailer properties. A slight shift in groundwater direction was also noted at the Hubert site and, to a lesser degree, at the Locke site. In order to obtain a better understanding of the tidal influence on groundwater flow at each of these sites, a long term monitoring program was instituted. This program was instituted by installing pressure transducers in wells which were used to identify groundwater flow directions. The transducers were connected either to a lap-top computer, or CR-10 data loggers. In either case, the groundwater levels were measured on 10 minute time intervals over a period of several days. In this way, the variations in the depth of water above each of the undisturbed transducers would be monitored for at least four or five tidal cycles. The monitoring was typically done during periods including, or close to, a full or a new moon to take advantage of the larger tidal fluctuations. Long term monitoring was performed on River Street at the Eastman Home site, and also at the combined sites of Hopkinson, Pike, and Beckman. Separate long-term monitoring was performed at the Hubert site on Walton Road, and at the Bakutus site on Kimberly drive. The results of the long-term monitoring at the Eastman Home site are shown in Figure 8. One transducer at this site was placed in the tidal channel at a point closest to the home EDA. Five other transducers were placed in all the site wells except the deep well. The long term monitoring lasted for 4.9 days. The groundwater flow directions for the high tide periods are shown in Figure 9. In this case the groundwater flow is toward the EDA and REH- I from the marsh channels. Figure 8 shows that there is a threshold for some of the wells; when tidal levels are below the threshold value, these wells show no reaction or influence. This can be seen in the early time plots for wells REH-1, REH-2, REH-4, and REH-5. Well REH-3 shows a consistent tidal influence. The levels for Well REH-4, located in-between the EDA and the grey-water outlet, shows indication of tidal influence at higher tides, but also reflects dosing of the EDA. This conclusion is drawn since the reaction of the well at 2250 minutes is not repeated for the tides at 3800 minutes or 4500 minutes, even though those tide levels were higher than the high tide level at 2250 minutes. Well REH- 1, the upgradient well, shows a similar reaction. When the high tide level becomes greater than elevation 97 feet, all the wells on site experience a change in piezometric: level. It should be noted that at the highest tides, the groundwater flow directions completely reverse, with the flow going from the tidal channel towards the upgradient well, REH-1. An example of this behavior is shown in Figure 10, for the elevations at 0641 11/22/95. The steepest gradient is from the direction of well REH-2 to REH-1. This site, therefore, experiences a series of backwash effects roughly twice a month due to the fides. Furthermore, looking back at Figure 9 for the March 13, 1995 water levels, it may be concluded that this plot must be for a time when the tide level is below the reaction threshold of some of the wells, since the flow direction is not towards the EDA. Further down River Street, at the combined sites of Hopkinson, Pike, and Beckman, the tidal influences can be seen in four of the wells monitored, shown in Figure 11. This site was monitored in June, 1996, just before a new moon. Five transducers were connected to two 9 Campbell Scientific CR-10 data loggers that were time synchronized. The transducers were placed in key wells for determining the groundwater flow directions in the vicinity of the four adjacent sites (Hopkinson, Pike, Camacho, and Beckman). These included an upgradient well, RB-3, and two down-gradient wells, RH-4 and RP-3. RH-2 and RP-2 represented intermediate wells. The largest fluctuations were seen in well RH-4, closest to the bay. T'he two wells monitored on the Pike site did not show significant tidal influences, although there were some asynchronous fluctuations with the tides. The highest peak shown for well RH-4 corresponded to a new moon, therefore any threshold effects should have been seen, consequently it is concluded the wells on the Pike site are not significantly influenced by the tides. There was no indication of the wells near the Beckman house having any tidal reaction. In fact, the upgradient well showed evidence of a very gentle groundwater level decline. Well RH-2 showed a more pronounced asynchronous reaction to the tides than the Pike site wells, even though RH-2 is close to the same distance from the bay as well RP-2. The fact that a more pronounced reaction was seen is indicative of an area of higher hydraulic conductivity. This conclusion is also consistent with the hypothesis drawn by examining the groundwater flow directions. The implications of Figure 11 are that there is a backwashing effect going on at the Hopkinson site depending on the tides. There was no indication of threshold tidal depths as seen for some of the Eastman home wells. The third site monitored was the Hubert site. This site was chosen because the monitoring well groundwater level data suggested a distinct groundwater shift in the flow directions between the spring 1995 and summer 1995 water level data as indicated by Figures 12 and 13. The site was instrumented in November 10, 1995 with three pressure transducers. This was three days after the full moon. The wells instrumented created a triangle from which the flow directions could be discerned. These included two up-gradient wells, WRH- I and WRH-2, and the farthest down- gradient well, WRH-6. The monitoring results are shown in Figure 14. This figure shows a reaction in all wells due to a rainfall event, but there is no evidence of any tidal influence in any of the wells. It may well be that the shift seen between Figures 12 and 13 are due to measured effects of dosing of the EDA at the time of measurement. There are no records of when the residents use their systerxi. The fluctuations of the upgradient wells indicates that the relative piezometric heights changes during such events, which would be sufficient to cause the shift in groundwater directions seen between Figures 12 and 13. The shift, therefore, is not caused by tidal influences. The last site instrumented for long term monitoring was the Bakutus site on Kimberly Drive. This site has two adjacent EDAs, and was instrumented with five pressure transducers in wells that were key to estimating groundwater directions. The wells in which transducers were installed include: up-gradient well KDB-1; a well through the EDA, KDB-4; a well lateral to the EDA, KDB-6; and two down-gradient wells, KDB-5 and KDB-8. The transducers were hooked up to a Campbell Scientific CR- 10 data logger on March 25, and logged for two days. The logging occurred during the first quarter of the moon. The time record of the height of groundwater above the transducers is shown in Figure 15. There were no indications of any regular tidal fluctuations. The only significant fluctuation was in well KDB-4, which is through the EDA. The well recorded a diurnal pattern, which is believed to reflect the household septic usage. Groundwater levels in KDB-4 increase in early evening hours, and decrease during the morning hours. This pattern did not appear to affect any of the other wells monitored, wells KDB- 6 and KDB-8 being the closest. There was no indication that anything other than a local direction alteration would occur around the wells in the EDAs. Hydraulic Conductivity Testing of Seabrook Wells Slug tests provide a means of evaluating the hydraulic conductivity of a formation in the immediate vicinity of the well. The tests are performed by creating an instantaneous deflection in the water level in the well bore, and monitoring the aquifer response as the water recovers to its original static level. 10 Slug tests were performed in the majority of the microwells installed at Seabrook in the winter of 1995 and spring of 1996. All tests were performed using pressure transducers and lap- top computers to monitor the piezometric response in the microwells during the test. The response times were measured in terms of seconds; typical response durations were 15-30 seconds, but some wells had a response duration up to 10 minutes The values of hydraulic conductivity obtained from these tests are point values representing the aquifer properties in the near vicinity of each well. In formations with high values of hydraulic conductivity, the inertial effects of the aquifer can be significant, causing oscillatory responses of the piezometric level in the well. This phenomenon was not observed in the shallow wells at Seabrook. Procedure The slug testing program was performed by using a mechanical slug to do a falling head slug test on the microwells. The mechanical slug tests were performed by attaching a metal bar to the end of a Druck PDCR-35/D miniature submersible pressure transducer by a fine brass wire, and essentially dropping the transducer and slug into the well to a pre-deten-nined depth below the water table. The metal rod displaced the water in the well bore, instantaneously raising the level. The subsequent recovery of the water level in the well bore to the static level was monitored at regular intervals with the pressure transducer and a lap-top computer. This test was called a falling head slug test. The data were reduced according to the Hvorslev Method (Hvorslev, 195 1) to estimate the hydraulic conductivity in the vicinity of the well. Normally a falling head test is coupled with a rising head test in the same well, and the resulting two values of hydraulic conductivity are averaged. Ile small diameter of the microwells precluded removal of the slug past the pressure transducer, so a rising head slug test could not be performed. The hydraulic conductivity results for the mechanical slug tests represent values only for falling head slug tests. In several wells, the slugs had difficulty passing through the well bore to the water surface. In such instances, a metal rod of smaller diameter was tried. If still unsuccessful, a rod of shorter length was used. The metal rods that were used for most of the tests were 3 ft. long and either 7/16 inch or 3/8 inch diameter galvanized steel. There were a few wells that required the use of a 2 ft long rod, and in several instances, the well would only allow a 1 ft 7/16-in diameter rod to pass. More frequently, there was insufficient water in the well to use the larger length slugs, and the 12- inch slug was used. This was commonly the case at the Bakutus site. The 7/16 inch rods theoretically produce a 0.77-ft rise in the water level of the well per foot of rod submerged. Similarly, the 3/8 inch rods produce a 0.56-ft rise in the water level per foot of submerged rod. The response of the aquifer was so rapid, however, that the full theoretical displacement depth was rarely measured. There were two sites where wells have been bent and straightened enough for sampling, but even a one foot slug would not pass. These sites included the Beckman site and the Eastman Trailer site (RET), both on River Street. While not every well was bent at the Eastman Trailer site, access proved to be a problem during the testing program, and consequently this site was not tested. All the wells on the Beckman site refused passage of the 1 -foot slug. The pressure transducers were directly connected to an analog-to-digital signal converter by Remote Measurement Systems, which in turn was coupled to a lap-top computer. Software written in Basic queried the A/D converter at a rate of 8 to 9 times per second for pressure readings. The majority of the slug tests performed had a duration of 10 seconds or less. The software converted pressure readings to feet of water above the transducer. The recorded height of the water displacement was in part a function of the speed at which the slug could be dropped to a stable position. Pressure slug tests have been devised to test wells in which the mechanical slug would not pass down to the water surface. In this case a large tee fitting was connected to the well through which the cable of the pressure transducer passed. Rubber o-rings provided a seal around the 11 cable at a fitting on the top branch of the tee. An air source was connected to a fitting at the side branch of the tee. The assembly was connected to microwells having an above ground completion (stick-up) by force-fitting a 0.75-inch vinyl tubing over the 0.620-inch microwell pipe and securing it with a radiator clamp. The tubing was connected to the remaining branch of the tee. All connections had to be air-tight. The test is performed by applying a known air pressure to the well, and monitoring the response with the pressure transducer. Once the level in the well had stabilized, the pressure was suddenly released. The application of pressure depressed the water level in the well below the piezometric level of the formation. Releasing the pressure rapidly was similar to the removal of a mechanical slug or volume of water. The same procedure can be used with a vacuum to raise the water level in the well. Once released, the decline in the water level was similar to the falling head test of the mechanical slug test. The pressure slug tests could only be performed in those wells in which the wen screen was completed below the water table. Wells that were screened across the water table are incapable of holding either a pressure or a vacuum. In the case of the Seabrook wells, all the shallow wells are screened across the water table, and consequently will not hold pressure. Many of the deep wells have a joint between well sections where blank pipe was added to the original 10 or I I ft well. This joint was typically above the water table, and was not air tight. Consequently, the deep wells were only tested using a falling head mechanical slug test. Analysis The test data was analyzed according the Hvorslev method. The height of the water column above the transducer was normalized with respect to the maximum observed deflection, and the normalized drawdown was plotted on a log scale of a semi-log plot for the respective elapsed time value on the arithmetic scale. An example plot of a slug test on well RH-4 is shown in Figure 16. The time value (TO) when the straight-line data plot had a normalized drawdown value of 0.37 is used in the following equation to compute the hydraulic conductivity: 0 ln(L/R) K 2LTo (1) where: r radius of well screen in ft, R radius of the well bore in ft, L length of well screen in ft, TO Intercept time in seconds. A few of the wells test data were analyzed using the computer software program ADEPT (Mathsoft, Inc., 1994) which plotted the data, and fit a straight line to the plot for the Hvorslev method. The program determined the intercept of the fitted line with the drawdown value of 0.37, and provided a calculated hydraulic conductivity. The majority of the test data was analyzed using a spread sheet and data plots. Results A summary of the results of all the wells tested in the slug test program at Seabrook is presented in Table 6. Conditions which prevented the test from successful completion or analysis are noted in the comment column. The table provides the geometric mean of hydraulic conductivity of all the tests performed on a well in terms of both ft/day and cm/s. In all, 145 successful tests were analyzed. The results for all the sites were very similar, all in the I X 10-6 to 5 x 104 cm/S range. The only exception was REH-1 on the Eastman Home site, which had a mean of 5.4 x 10-3 cm/s. This well represented a local zone of high conductivity. Nearby, the well couplet REH-4 12 and REH-6 had a slightly lower conductivity. The wells that were closer to the channel had hydraulic conductivities that were an order of magnitude less than REH-4. This is supported by the piezometric contours shown in Figure 10, where there is greater distance between the piezometric contours in the vicinity of wells REH- I and 4, and the contour lines become closer together toward the channel indicating more resistance to flow, evidenced by the reduced hydraulic conductivities. Both the Locke and Hubert sites had consistent results of the hydraulic conductivity testing. Values hovered in the range of I I x 10-5 to 7.8 x 10-5 cnx/s for the Locke site, and I X 10-5 to 4.3 x 10-4 cm/s at the Hubert site. On site, the well through the Hubert EDA had the highest hydraulic conductivity, with 1.4 x 10-4 cm/s. 'Me soils in the marsh channel behind the Hubert home have similar hydraulic conductivities, on the order of 2.8 to 4.3 x 10-4 cm/s. The deep well had a hydraulic conductivity similar to the other site wells, showing no change in conductivity with depth. On the combined River Street sites, including the Pike, Hopkinson, and Camacho sites, the hydraulic conductivities were consistent, in the 1 to 4.8 x 10-5 cm/s range. Two exceptions should be noted. Well RP-2 has a lower value for hydraulic conductivity, on the order of 4.7 x 10-6 Cm/s. This well is close to River Street, and is also in the area at which the groundwater contours start bending around in Figure 17. The wells closest to River Street on the Hopkinson site, RH- 1 and 2, have hydraulic conductivities an order of magnitude higher, suggesting there may be a less conductive zone or "barrier" between the Camacho and Pike houses. This is also supported by the piezometric data. None of the bay wells were tested. Testing at the Bakutus site on Kimberly Drive was difficult, due to the limited water column in many of the wells. A one-foot slug was used for most of the testing. In some cases, this was dictated by what would pass down the well. Three wells had marginal water columns in the well for testing, KDB-4, 7, and 8. No successful tests were able to be done on the last two wells. In addition, well IMB-1 1 provided insufficient response to analyze. The wells that were successfully tested were in the same range as other sites. One of the wells successfully tested along the site/marsh interface had the highest hydraulic conductivity, 2 x 10-3 Cm/s. The next highest zone of conductivity was in the vicinity of KDB-2, upgradient near the home. The southern house site and EDA had slightly less permeable soils, witnessed by KDB- 1 at 6.6 x 10-6 cnx/s, and KDB-3 at 8.9 x 10-5 cm/s. Down-gradient, KDB-5 had 1.4 x 10-5 Cm/s, in the same range, but lower than the northern portion of the site. The other wells slightly higher hydraulic conductivities. The Cronin site on Forest Drive was slightly less conductive than most other sites. The highest hydraulic conductivity measured on this site was 1.4 x 10-5 cm/s. The other wells had conductivities of approximately 6.5 x 1&5 CffX/S. Groundwater Flow Characteristics Groundwater flow characteristics of direction and velocity were evaluated from the test data presented above. In order to estimate the flow velocity, first the groundwater piezometric: contours were drawn on a map of the site. The hydraulic gradient was measured from the piezometric contours in the primary directions of flow. The measured gradients were multiplied by the hydraulic conductivity for the area where the gradient was measured. The resulting value represents the estimated groundwater flow velocity. A summary of the groundwater elevation data collected to date is presented in Table 7. 'Me hydraulic conductivity values were taken from the slug testing results in Table 6. The June 6, 1996 groundwater contours for the River Street sites including Beckman, Hopkinson, Pike, and Camacho are shown in Figure 17. Groundwater flow is generally from the marsh to the bay. There is a flattening out of the contours in the area between the Hopkinson and Pike homes. This bending could be a result of an area of low hydraulic conductivity. The 13 hydraulic conductivities of Table 6 show the conductivity is lowest at RP-2. This tidal influence will change these contours slightly, making the flow bend less during periods of low tide. T'he flow directions from the Hopkinson septic system are directly toward the bay wells, although other data suggest that flow direction changes (see below). Flow from the Pike system appears to be in the direction of the Camacho system. Flow velocities from the Hopkinson system are estimated to be 8.2 x 10-7 Cm/S (0.0023 ft/day), and from the Beckman site where the gradient is larger, the estimated velocities are 3.4 x 10-7 CM/S (0.0010 ft/day). Typical contours for the Eastman site at high tide are shown in Figure 9. Groundwater flow is in the direction of well REH-4 from the channel. Using the primary flow directions noted in Figure 9, the estimated groundwater velocity is 3.75 x 10-7 Cm/S (0.00 11 ft/day). The groundwater velocity is greater during low tide (Figure 10), when the direction is toward the channel from the septic system. Estimated low tide velocities are 2 x 10-7 CnVs (0.059 ft/day). The data from Table 7 indicates that in early 1995, the well couplet (REH-4 and REH-6) indicated an upward vertical gradient. This changed over the course of the year, and since May, 1995, the gradient has been measured as a downward gradient, tending to drive groundwater originating at the site deeper in the subsurface. The groundwater flow directions for the Hubert site are indicated on Figure 18. These contours are indicative of the groundwater flow direction shown for the June 29, 1995 data in Figure 13. The primary flow direction is from the EDA toward WRH-8M. The estimated groundwater velocity at this site is 2.3 x 10-6 Cm/S (0.007 ft/day). As noted above in the discussion of the long-term monitoring, the relative piezometric levels changed between WRH- 1 and 2, which could skew the primary flow direction towards WRH-7M. The primary flow direction at the Locke site on Causeway Street is from the EDA to a point just south of well CSL-6, as shown in Figure 19. The estimated velocity is 1.25 x 10-6 Cnx/S (0.0035 ft/day). Long term monitoring was not done on this site, however based on the findings at the Hubert site, no tidal influences would be expected. The groundwater contours for the Bakutus site on Kimberly Drive for the June 6, 1996 data are depicted in Figure 20. The addition of the marsh wells has refined the direction of groundwater flow from the immediate site. The new wells indicate that the majority of the flow that leaves the site eventually flows toward the northern channel. There is still a component that flows to the east, but it appears that flow initially heading northeast fi-orn the EDAs will eventually turn to the north. This may be due to the slightly higher hydraulic conductivities found at the northern well locations. Estimated velocities on this site are I x 10-6 Cm/s (0.0028 ft/day) to the east, and 1.3 x 10-6 cnx/s (0.00338 ft/day) to the north. The contours at the Cronin site on Forest Drive are shown in Figure 21. The contours are not well refined with only three wells surrounding the EDA, but it appears the primary direction for June 6, 1996 was to the west from the EDA. The estimated velocity is 1.6 x 10-7 cm/s (0.0005 ft/day). Analysis of the Use of Soil Mottling as the Predictor of Estimated Seasonal High Water Table (ESHWT) One of the objectives of this project was to compare estimates of ESHWT to the actual high ground water table (HW`1) value as measured in wells. The first step was assessing the ESHWT for the existing systems. This was performed and completed by Fred Elkind and Dave Allain and reported in, "Tidal Water Assessment, Implementation of Tidal Water Site Assessment Forms For Selected Seabrook Properties", November 1994. The selected subsurface disposal systems were investigated, in October, 1994, by hand-auguring both upgradient and downgradient of the effluent disposal areas. ESHWT's were interpreted by redoximorphic features (soil mottling) or evidence of wetness (water in the auger hole). All of the ESHWT data was reported as depth (in inches) below ground surface (bgs). 14 Subsequent to the ESHWT investigation, wells were then installed at these same sites. T'he installation of wells was initiated in November of 1994 and carried over to 1995. The wells used for this study were steel or stainless steel half-inch diameter (nominal) wells. The screen for these wells was vertically slotted sections of the steel/stainless steel pipe. The laser-cut slots were two inches long by 0.01 inches wide, and two rows of slots on opposite sides of the pipe were cut. The screen lengths varied from 5 to 10 ft. The wells were installed by using a vibratory hammer to drive them into the ground and to the desired final depth. Wells were then developed by using an inertial bailer to purge water until the water appeared relatively free of sediments. An inertial bailer is 3/8 inch polyethylene tubing fitted with a Delrin (TM) foot valve. The bailer is thrust into and out of the well and the foot valve maintains flow out of the tubing at the top of the well. Well water levels were measure with an electrical sounder and referenced to the top of the well. The measurement of the distance of the top of the well to the ground surface then allowed the water level readings to be referenced to the top of the well. The measurement of the distance of the well to the ground surface then allowed the water level readings to be referenced to a depth below ground surface (bgs) reading as were the ESHWT measurements. Since well water level data was not measured continuously, it cannot be asserted that the absolute high water table (HWT) was measured in 1995 and 1996. However, the readings that were taken can indicate the validity of the use of the ESHWT in that if the ESHWT is a good indicator of HWT, then all measure data should be at or physically lower than the ESHWT. If measured water levels exist higher than the ESHWT, then basing septic system designs on ESWHT may be inappropriate. The data collected for the ESHWT were plotted against the HWT measured for 1995 and 1996, for each system in Figure 22. The following are some interpretations of this data. Although contrary to the climatology, 1995 data plots appear to have been wetter than 1996. The data shows that the 1995 HWT was closer to the land surface than 1996 HWT. Climatologically, 1995 was a very dry year whereas 1996 had record amounts of snowfall and a wet spring. However, more data was taken in 1995 than 1996 and therefore it is quite likely that the 1996 data set does not represent the actual HWT for that year, rather the water table for the sole day of observations. Generally the HWT for 1995 occurred in the winter 0:)ecember 1994 to March 1995). For 1996, only June data was taken. Therefore, no conclusion about wetter versus drier year should be made from the measured values of HWT from 1995 or 1996 since water levels were not taken on a scheduled frequency sufficient to clearly delineate HWT. Another complicating factor is that at some sites the water table is affected by the tide. The line of perfect agreement (solid line) displays how hypothetically the ESHV*rr would plot against the annual HWT in Figure 22. Since the annual HWT is variable, it is doubtful from the outset that all data would fit on this line. However, if the ESHWT were a conservative predictor of HWT, then all data would plot above the line. Six of the 10 systems studied displayed measured water levels shallower than the ESHWT (data plotted below the line of perfect agreement). Obviously the absolute HWT for these same systems would also plot below this line, and below these data points. This means that the ESHWT is not a conservative predictor of HWT. The intent of a subsurface disposal system is to provide some treatment of wastewater before it enters ground water. This treatment is to occur in the unsaturated zone below the leach field lines. Ile more unsaturated zone there is, the more treatment that occurs. It is generally accepted that three feet, or more typically four feet or more, of unsaturated zone should separate the leach field lines and the water table. ESHWT is used in the design of the vertical location of the leachfield lines. If the ESHWT is not conservative in its estimate of the HWT, then less saturated zone exists than presumed during the HWT period of the year, and inadequate septic tank effluent treatment probably occurs. It should be noted that in reality, immediately above the water table is located another zone of saturation known as the capillary fringe. This zone is under negative pressure and is therefore not represented in the well measurements of the HWT. The zone can be on the order of one inch to a little over one foot in the soils suitable for leach field systems. The 15 capillary fringe is usually not included in leach field design considerations and therefore will not be included in the discussion here. However the point being that if a separation distance between HWT and the leach field system is used for design, it must be recognized that this is not the distance of unsaturated soil. The actual value is less than this due to the capillary fringe. This is why a good, conservative estimator of the HWT is needed in the design of septic systems. As it would be impractical to install monitoring wells and collect data a few years in advance of constructing every leach field, the ESHWT will most likely continue to be a critical design parameter and in light of the data collected for the present study, it is recommended that ESHWT values be reduced by two feet. This recommendation is depicted in the data plot as the line that envelops the mottling data (dashed line). It can be seen that all data of the present study lies above this envelope line. this means that the ESHW7 is by itself not an accurate prediction of how high the water table comes every year, however a simple correction to yield a better prediction of the HWT (without wells and well measurements) is to subtract two feet from the reported value of the ESHWT. The resulting modified ESHWT (mESHWT) is better and more conservative predictor of the HWT. WATER QUALITY AND CONTAMINANTS Effluent from septic tanks contains high levels of phosphorus, nitrogen and fecal-borne bacteria. Ile effluent characteristics can vary widely, depending on many variables, and 'typical' contaminant concentrations, based on numerous previous studies, are presented in Table 1. The nitrogen discharged from septic tanks is in the forms of organic nitrogen and ammonium, with no nitrate. Much of the phosphorus is orthophosphate. Thus, detection of nitrate in groundwater is indicative of transformation of the ammonium to nitrate under aerobic (i.e., unsaturated) conditions. The values in Table 1 can serve as a guide for assessing the effectiveness of study systems and potential problem areas. Procedures Well Sampling Wells were sampled for bacterial and nutrient contaminants. During each sampling, the weather and tide were recorded, and it was noted if precipitation had occurred in the last 24 hours. Before sampling the wells, the depth to the water table from the TOC was measured for each well. Depth to water was measured to the nearest hundredth of a foot, using the Slope Indicator Co. water level indicator (Model 51453), and recorded. The wells were prepared for sampling by inserting bailers (sterile polyethylene tubing 1/2" 0. D.), down into the well to the approximate depth of the water table. The bailer was connected to a portable Masterflex peristaltic pump (model H-07570- 10) using a sterile HDPE fitting and sterile Masterflex silicone peroxide cured tubing. Three well volumes were pumped from each well before collection of samples began. As the well was pumped, the water level in the well often fell as indicated by the presence of air bubbles in the bailer tubing. Under these conditions the bailer was inserted deeper into the well, as the water level fell, so that well water was continuously withdrawn. As often happened, the bailer reached the well sump before three well volumes could be collected. When this occurred the bailer was moved vigorously in an up and down fashion to facilitate the removal of any sediments that may have collected at the bottom of the well. Wells in which three well volumes could not be evacuated prior to reaching the sump were considered to be sufficiently evacuated for sampling. Once three well volumes were evacuated or the sump was reached, the well was allowed to recharge for several minutes before samples were collected. Three IL Nalgene sampling bottles were filled, one acid-washed bottle for nutrient analysis and two sterile bottles for microbiological analysis. Extreme care was taken to prevent contamination of sample bottles and caps while 16 sampling was taking place. Wells which did not produce sufficient quantities of water to fill all three sample bottles were sampled repeatedly until an adequate amount of sample was obtained to perform analysis. The samples were labeled, stored on ice in a cooler, and transported back to Jackson Estuarine Lab for analysis within six hours of collection. Well samples were analyzed for ammonium, nitrate, phosphate, pH, TSS, % organics, salinity, fecal coliforms, Escherichia coli, enterococci, and Clostridium perfringens. Surface Water Sampling Surface water samples were collected at low tide both up stream and down stream from inland and coastal sites and at various locations throughout the study area (Figure 23). Three 1L Nalgene sampling bottles were filled, one acid-washed bottle for nutrient analysis and two sterile bottles for microbial analysis. Microbial surface water samples were collected manually according to the technique described in Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater (Standard Methods, 18th ed., 1992). Ambient water temperature was recorded using a hand held thermometer. Samples were stored on ice in a cooler and transported back to the Jackson Estuarine Laboratory (JEL) for analysis within 6 hours. Surface water samples were analyzed for ammonium, nitrate, phosphate, pH, salinity, fecal coliforms, E. coli, enterococci, and C. perfringens. Lysimeter Installation Soilmoisture Equipment Corp.'s pressure-vacuum soil water samplers (Model 1920) were installed under the EDA's at 5 sites. A hole, approximately 0.5 feet in diameter, was excavated manually with a post-hole digger down through the EDA. Ile hole was dug until the bottom of the EDA (gravel/soil interface) was reached. A 3-inch diameter hand held soil auger was then used to bore an additional hole, 0.5 -1.0 feet below the bottom of the EDA, in which the lysimeter would be placed. A small quantity of crushed 200 mesh silica-sand was poured into the 3-inch bore-hole and the lysimeter was inserted. Additional 200 mesh silica-sand was poured into the bore hole so that the sand was at least six inches above the ceramic cup of the soil water sampler. The 3-inch bore hole was back-filled with native soil until the soil level inside the hole was just above the top of soil water sampler. A 4-inch diameter PVC pipe was inserted down the inside of the 6-inch hole and cut flush with the ground surface so that the sampling tubes could be accessed. Native soil was back-filled around the outside of the PVC pipe up to the ground surface. A small hand held vacuum pump was used to place a vacuum pressure of 15-20 inches of mercury on the soil water sampler.. The PVC pipe was covered with a removable PVC cap which was flush with the ground surface. Lysimeter Sampling The lysimeters were sampled by removing the access cover and extracting the discharge and pressure vacuum tubes. The clamps used to seal off the ends of both tubes were then removed. The discharge access tube was inserted through a rubber stopper which was attached to the top of an acid-washed I L filter flask. A hand held vacuum pump was then attached to the flask side arm and a vacuum was applied causing the contents of the lysimeter to collect in the flask. The sample was transferred to a 1L acid-washed Nalgene sampling bottle for analysis. Finally, a vacuum pressure (15-20" of mercury) was reapplied to the lysimeter by clamping off the discharge access tube and using the hand held pump to apply the vacuum via the pressure vacuum access tube. The pressure vacuum access tube was clamped off, the tubes were stuffed down inside the PVC pipe, and then the pipe was capped. The lysimeter samples were analyzed for nitrate, ammonium, phosphate, pH, and salinity. Soil Coring Of EDAs 17 At five sites the EDA area was cored to investigate microbial transport between the bottom of the EDA (gravel/soil interface) and the water table. A post-hole digger was used to manually excavate below the EDA to the gravel/soil interface. A 4" PVC pipe was inserted into the hole to prevent collapse of the surrounding soil material during the coring process. Cores were obtained using an 18-inch split-spoon soil corer inserted with a 1.5-inch diameter sterile sleeve to maintain sterility and core integrity during transport. Between cores, the two halves of the split spoon were rinsed with distilled water, a new sterile sleeve was inserted, and the bit and core retainer were sterilized using methanol and an open flame. T'he distance between the water table and the bottom of the EDA was estimated by measuring the depth to the water table from the TOC of the nearest well. A sledge hammer was used to drive the soil corer to the desired depth. Several cores were taken below each EDA in order to sample the entire distance between the bottom of the EDA and the water table. Core samples were placed on ice and transported back to JEL for analysis. Soil cores were analyzed for fecal coliforms, E. coli, and C. perfringens using standard multiple-tube fermentation techniques. Soil Core Transects Soil core transects were conducted at sites WRH and REH to investigate the horizontal transport of microbes in the upper foot of the water table, downgradient of the EDA's. Site WRH was transected in the direction of prevalent groundwater flow from the down gradient edge of the leachfield towards the adjacent salt marsh and surface waters. Cores were taken 1, 3, 9, and 27 feet away from the EDA. In addition, a core was taken within the EDA and up gradient from the EDA as a control. Site REH, which is tidally influenced, was transected in three directions away from the EDA due to the varying groundwater direction. The transects were sampled at distances of 1, 3, and 9 feet away from the EDA. A control core was taken approximately thirty feet away fi-om the EDA while no core was taken within the EDA at site REH. Water levels were measured in all of the wells at each site to estimate the water table depth below the ground surface. A post-hole digger was then used to excavate down to the water table before samples were taken with the split-spoon soil corer. Samples were stored on ice in a cooler and transported back to JEL for analysis. Soil cores were analyzed for fecal coliforms, E. coli, and C. perfringens. Water And Soil Sample Analysis Samples brought back to JEL were processed for the different analyses, and salinities were recorded using a refractometer. Approximately 500 mls of the nutrient samples were prefiltered through 0.45gm pore size filters. The filtrates were frozen until analysis for ammonium, nitrate and orthophosphate using a LACHAT autoanalyzer. The prefilter was dried and weighed to determine total suspended solids and percent organic matter. Microbiological samples were prefiltered using a Whatman 41 (20-25 jim nominal pore size) filter to remove fine suspended sand and silt particles. A steady flow was maintained during vacuum filtration and filters were replaced if filtration rate decreased because of solids build up on the filters. Filtrates were collected in sterile filter flasks and transferred to sterile sample bottles. Appropriate volumes of filtrates were then filtered through 0.45 pm pore size Gelman membrane filters (enterococci, fecal coliform and E. coli) or 0.7 W pore size Millipore membrane filters (C. per ingens). Filters were incubated on fir mTEC agar for fecal coliform and E. coli, mE agar for enterococci and on mCP agar for C. perfringens analyses. Plates were incubated at 44.5'C for 24 h for all but enterococci, which were incubated at 41'C for 48 h. Soil core samples were analyzed for fecal coliforms, E. coli, and C. perfringens using the five-tube fermentation technique reported as Most Probable Number (MPN). 1.0 ± 0.05 grams of wet sediment from the center of each core was added to 9.6 mls of sterile buffered peptone water (BPW) and vortexed for 30 seconds to achieve a 10-1 dilution. Additional decimal dilutions were prepared for multiple-tube fermentation analysis. Fecal coliforms and E.coli MPN's were 18 determined by using EC with MUG media incubated at 44.5C for 24h. C. perfringens densities were determined using iron-milk media incubated at 45'C for 24h There were two notable developments in this study that warrant mention before reviewing the results of wellwater data. First, initial samples were processed by mixing water with soil particles (M; Table 8, FELTER column) or allowing the prevalent soil particles to settle (S), then analyzing the supernatant. This process resulted in the detection of relatively high levels of bacterial contaminants that remained attached to suspended particles. The sampling and processing protocols were then changed to include prefiltration (PF) to avoid including particulate matter in Water samples. However, the initial values were valuable to detect the presence of bacteria from the subsurface at these well sites, even though many of the detected bacteria were probably attached to particles. Second, the changes in groundwater flow direction at some sites shows how detection of contaminant plumes in the subsurface can be complicated as contaminant concentration gradients in groundwater become blurred as contaminants are transported to different sites. The changes measured as part of this study are probably indicative of previous changes in flow direction. Thus, contaminants that persist at previous downgradient sites may remain detectable at later upgradient sites. The following is a series of discussions about each site and the within site trends and conditions. Sample dates, 10-15 for each site, are presented in Table 9. Table 8 is a summary of all data, and is separated into sub-tables, labeled 8A-8J, for each site. The dates for which there are no data presented (labeled NO B/N under FILTER column; no bacteria/nutrients) were days in which the wells did not produce. The sites where sampling was most problematic are sites REH on River St. and FDC, the site abutting a non-tidal marsh on Forest Drive. Some wells produced on every sample date, while others at some sites produced infrequently. In general, the in-town sites, developed on natural soils, produced better than the River St. sites, which were developed on sandy fill over wetlands. Results Seabrook Site Assessments WRH The EDA at this site was raised by fill and lies within 50 feet of poorly drained soils and the marsh. ANOVA revealed statistically significant differences between wells at this site for all nutrient and microbial parameters (p < 0.01). Vertical transport of NO3, NH4, and P04 in septic tank effluent to groundwater was apparent from the elevated concentrations of these constituents in groundwater below the EDA, above background levels (Fig 24A & B). Compared to typical mean background concentrations of NO3, N114, and P04 in the area, 2.0 mg/L, 0.07 mg/L, and 0.01 mg/L, respectively, the levels in groundwater below the EDA increased to 4.6 mg/L, 9.3 mg/L, and 0.04 mg/L (well 5). Statistical analysis supports the observed vertical transport of N below the EDA since there were no differences in DIN levels found in the lysimeter or EDA wells 5 and 3D which had mean concentrations of 20.6 mg/L, 13.9 mg/L and 18.0 mg/L, respectively. Phosphorus also exhibited minimal vertical attenuation between the bottom of the EDA and the water table since there was no significant difference between the level of P in the lysimeter and EDA wells 4 and 5 which had mean concentrations of 0. 12 mg/L, 0.34 mg/L, and 0.04 mg/L, respectively. Attenuation of P appears to occur within the groundwater zone as evident by the significant reduction between the shallow (4) and deep well (313) coupling from 0.34 mg/L to 0.03 mg/L, respectively (Fig. 24B). Lateral transport of N was observed as DIN levels increased significantly above background below and to the edge of the EDA, decreased at 27 ft downgradient of the EDA (well 6), and then increased further downgradient at wells 8 and 9 (Fig. 24A). Mean DIN concentrations, below and downgradient of the EDA of >15.0 mg/L were common. Nitrogen below the EDA was present primarily as NH4 with N03 levels roughly half those of NE4. 19 Conversely, N03 was the dominant form of N detected in the downgradient wells (6, 7, 8, and 9) and was present at concentrations which exceeded the drinking water limit of 10 mg/L (wells 8 & 9). Phosphorus was significantly elevated above background in shallow groundwater as far as the edge of the EDA (well 4) but was significantly reduced in both the vertical (well 3D) and downgradient directions (wells 6,.7, 8, 9, 10) (Fig. 24B). Vertical transport of fecal indicator bacteria (fecal coliforms, E. coli, enterococci, and C. per firingens ) was evident from the consistent detection of these indicators below the EDA (well 5). Geometric mean levels of 90, 46,42, and 0.48 cfu/100 ml for fecal coliforms, E. coli, enterococci, and C. perfringens, respectively, were detected in the EDA well (5) over the sampling period (Table 8). Fecal coliforms, E. coli, enterococci, and C. perfringens were detected at the edge of the EDA (well 3D), at 1.5, 1.5, 0.25, and 0.25 cfu/100 ml, respectively, on only one occasion, and therefore illustrate the limited penetration of bacteria into deeper groundwater zones. Lateral migration of bacteria to the edge of the EDA was apparent from the high levels of indicator bacteria detected there. Geometric mean levels of 592, 512, 8.5, and 1.6 cfu/100 ml for fecal coliforms, E. coli, enterococci, and C. perfringens, respectively, were detected at the downgradient edge of the EDA (well 4). This well contained significantly higher levels of fecal coliforms and E. coli than all other wells except EDA well 5. Bacteria showed limited mobility in the downgradient direction as fecal coliforms were never detected in any of the downgradient wells while enterococci and C. perfiringens were only detected occasionally and at low levels ( <1.5 cfu/100 ml) in well 6. Groundwater elevations plotted over the sampling period show that the watertable fell from approximately 1. 25 to 3.0' below the bottom of the EDA from March to August, 1995 (Fig. 24C). A sharp rise in the watertable to the bottom of the EDA occurred in November, 1995 and fluctuated within roughly one foot below the bottom of the EDA thereafter. Ammonium levels in EDA well (5) were greater than 18 mg/L during April and May, 1995 when the watertable was roughly 2 feet below the EDA (Fig. 24D). From November, 1995 to May, 1996, the time period during which the water table fluctuated just at or below the bottom of the EDA (when reducing conditions were greatest), a decrease in NH4 to < 5.*0 mg/L was observed. Conversely, N03 was greatest (>17 mg/L) during November, 1995, after the water table rose sharply. This probably resulted from the input of soluble N03 present in the unsaturated zone, from previous oxidizing conditions, to groundwater as the watertable rose. Phosphate levels in the EDA well showed no relationship to groundwater table depth. There appeared to be no significant relationship between watertable depth and the prevalence of a particular N-species in the vadose zone (Fig. 24E). In fact, nitrate is the dominant form of N below the bottom of the EDA even under probable reducing conditions (November, 1995) when the vadose zone became saturated (Fig 24E). CSL The EDA at this site consists of a leach field and a dry well that are within 60 feet of poorly drained soils. ANOVA showed that there were significant differences between N03, NH4, P04, and C. perfringens levels in wells at this site (p < 0.01). Vertical transport of N03 and NH4 to groundwater occurred below the EDA (well 4) as mean concentrations of these constituents were elevated 2 and 3 fold, respectively, above background (well 1 & 2) concentrations (Fig. 25A). The EDA well (4) had significantly higher DIN concentrations than either of the upgradient wells I & 2). Additionally, there was no significant difference between DIN levels in the lysimeter and those in the EDA well (4), indicating that minimal attenuation of N occurred between the bottom of the EDA and the watertable. Well 3, at the downgradient edge of the EDA, had significantly higher DIN concentrations than both upgradient and downgradient wells, further supporting the observed vertical transport of N. Statistically, there was no significant difference between P concentrations in the lysimeter and in the EDA well (4). However, mean P04 concentrations in the lysimeter and 20 EDA well (4) of 4.6 mg/L and 0.08 mg/L suggest attenuation of P04 as it migrates vertically below the EDA. Lateral transport of N appears to be limited to shallow groundwater at the edge of the EDA (well 3) as DIN levels decreased to background concentrations in the deeper well at the edge of the EDA (513) and at the downgradient well (6) (Fig. 25A) Additionally, N appears to be undergoing nitrification as it migrates laterally downgradient as evident by the increase in N03 and decrease in NE4. It also appears that denitrification or dilution is occurring as DIN levels also decrease with distance from the EDA. No lateral transport of P was observed (Fig. 25B) as evident by background concentrations of <0.0 I mg/L of P04 in all wells except EDA well 4. Vertical transport of fecal indicator bacteria was evident at this site as at least two, and more commonly all four, indicator bacteria were detected at all wells on one or more sampling dates. Relatively higher levels and more frequent detection occurred in the EDA wen (4) with fecal coliforms, enterococci, and C. per firingens ranging from 0-53, 0-48, and 0-22 cfU/100 ml, respectively. However, geometric mean levels of all indicators in the EDA wen were <1.0 cfu/100 ml. C. per firingens was detected at significantly higher levels in the EDA well (4) than all other wells. Less frequent detection of indicator bacteria and at relatively lower concentrations occurred in the deep well (513) at the edge of the EDA indicating that minimal transport of bacteria through the watertable occurred. Lateral transport of bacteria to downgradient well 6 occurred on only three of 14 sampling dates. Only fecal coliforms and E. coll were detected and only then at relatively low levels (< 2.2 cfu/100 ml). Groundwater elevations plotted over the sampling period show that the watertable fell from approximately 0.5 to 2 feet below the bottom the EDA from February to August, 1995 (Fig. 25C). The watertable rose sharply after August, 1995 and peaked at approximately 1 foot above the bottom of the EDA in February, 1996 and then gradually decreased to roughly I' below the bottom of the EDA in June, 1996. Ammonium levels in groundwater below the EDA were greatest ( >17 mg/L) from April to June, 1995 when the watertable was approximately I foot below the bottom of the EDA (Figure 25D). NH4 levels decreased thereafter to < 2.0 mg/L despite inundation of the EDA by the watertable in, February, 1996. Nitrate levels seemed to be more variable but did peak at 17.9 mg/L in October of 95 which coincided with a sharp rise in the watertable. A similar increase in N03 with a sharp rise in the waterlable was observed at site WRH and was attributed to N03 present in the soil matrix from previous unsaturated and likely oxidizing conditions. Phosphate levels in groundwater below the EDA did not appear to be affected by watertable depth, however, one of the largest levels of P04 (0.24 mg/L) occurred when the watertable peaked at slightly less than a foot above the bottom of the EDA in February, 1996. Nitrate levels in the lysimeter were inversely related to the depth of the watertable below the bottom of the EDA (Fig. 25E). Lysimeter NH4 levels were consistently low (< I mg/L) throughout the sampling period except for conditions where the lysimeter was in saturated conditions. In February, 1996, NH4 exceeded 9 mg/L and coincided with the maximum rise in the watertable, and in June, 1996, N114 exceeded 24 mg/L when the watertable was slightly less than a foot below the bottom of the EDA. Phosphate levels in the lysimeter remained consistent throughout the sampling period, fluctuating between 3 and 6 mg/L, and were not affected by saturated conditions induced by the rise in the watertable. KDBM This state-approved system lies within 100 feet of poorly drained soils and marsh, and is adjacent to an identical system that serves the other half of the duplex. ANOVA revealed that there are statistically significant differences between wells at this site for N03 and DIN only (p < 0.01). The fact that there is no significant difference between either of the upgradient wells (1 & 2) and the EDA well (3) for any of the nutrient parameters would seem to indicate that there is no vertical transport of nutrients to groundwater below the EDA. However, this interpretation is misleading. 21 Downgradient wells (5 & 7) have significantly higher levels of nitrate than the EDA well (3) or upgradient well (1) and clearly indicate that the groundwater below and downgradient of this system is impacted primarily with nitrate (Fig. 26A). The EDA well may not have intercepted the contaminant plume and thus may explain why expected elevated levels of nutrients are not present in this well. The lysimeter at this site had mean NO3, NH4 and P04 concentrations of 24, 9.4, and 12.7 mg/L, respectively, while the EDA well had much lower levels of 6.3, 0.7 8, and 0.0 1 mg/L, respectively. Lateral transport of nitrate is evident by the significantly higher levels in downgradient wells, 5 and 7, which had mean N03 concentrations of 19.4 and 21.4 mg/L, respectively. Ilese levels of nitrate are nearly double the permissible levels allowed in drinking water (10 mg/L). In addition, nitrate levels in well 12, which is approximately 43 m downgradient of this system, had N03 concentrations in excess of 14.9 mg/L during April and May of 1996. Phosphorus, which had a mean concentration of >12.0 mg/L in the lysimeter, showed no vertical transport to the water table as evident by the fact that the P04 concentration in the lysimeter was significantly higher than EDA well 3 (Figure 26B). In addition, there was no significant difference between any of the wells at this site for P04. Low levels of bacteria were detected in all wells at this site except downgradient wells 10- 15, where no bacteria were detected. There was no significant difference in levels of bacteria between wells. Fecal coliforms, E. coli, and C. perfringens were detected in the EDA well (3) and ranged from 0-75, 0-72, and 0-51 cfu/100 ml, respectively, with only a few organism generally being detected on most sample dates. Low levels of bacteria also appeared to be transported laterally as indicated by the detection of all fecal indicators or only C. perfiringens in wells 7 and 5, respectively. Again, only a few organisms were detected on most sampling dates with geometric mean levels for the entire sampling period being <1 cfu/100 ml for all indicators in all wells. Groundwater elevations slowly dropped from approximately 3 to 5.5 feet below the bottom of the EDA from March to August, 1995 (Fig. 26C). After August, 1995 the watertable rose sharply to roughly 3 feet below the EDA in February, 1996 and then slowly dropped to 3.5 feet below the EDA in May, 1996. Ammonium concentrations in groundwater below the EDA averaged <1.0 mg/L during the entire study and is indicative of the unsaturated, oxidizing conditions below the EDA over this time period (Fig. 26E). Nitrate concentrations were lower than expected, < 7 mg/L for most sample dates, although they did reach 25 and 13 mg/L in June, 1995 and February, 1996, respectively. Phosphorus concentrations below the EDA were extremely low and never exceeded 0.06 mg/L. Of the four lysimeter samples obtained at this site, two were taken in August and September, 1995 while the remaining two were taken in June, 1996 (Fig. 26H). Nitrate was greater than 19 mg/L during all samples dates while NH4 decreased from greater than 17 mg/L on the first two dates to < 2 mg/L in June, 1996. It is unclear why NE4 was so high during August and September, 1995, especially in light of the fact that the watertable was greater than 2 feet below the lysimeter, providing adequate oxidizing conditions. Phosphorus increased from 5 and 7 mg/L in August and September, 1995, respectively, to >17 mg/L in June, 1996. Perhaps the high levels of NH4 and P04 were associated with elevated loading conditions where N- transformation such as nitrification would have less time to take place and where P04 would be less quickly adsorbed. Ammonium and P04 levels in lysimeter samples did not show any clear association with watertable depth below the EDA while nitrate was always present at high levels, as expected, due to unsaturated conditions. KDBS This state-approved system lies within 100 feet of poorly drained soils and marsh, and is adjacent to an identical system that serves the other half of the duplex. ANOVA revealed statistically significant differences between wells at this site for NO3, DIN, and P04 (p < 0.01), 22 while there were no differences in bacterial levels between any wells. Vertical transport of N03 to groundwater was evident as N03 increased from the upgradient well (2) to the EDA well (4) with mean concentrations of 2.3 mg/L and 16.1 mg/L, respectively (Fig. 26A). In addition, there were no significant differences between N03, NH4, and DIN concentrations in the lysimeter and the EDA well (4), further supporting the observed vertical transport of N. Nitrate was the dominant form of N in the EDA and downgradient wells (6 & 8) as a result of the oxidizing conditions below the EDA due to a watertable depth of greater than 3 feet below the bottom of the EDA during the entire study period (Fig. 26D). Mean NH4 concentrations were less than 1.4 mg/L in all wells. The lysimeter had significantly higher concentrations (mean = 14 mg/L) of P04 than all other wells which had mean concentrations Of P04 < 0.05 mg/L. There was no vertical transport of P04 as it was attenuated within the unsaturated zone below the EDA. Lateral transport of N in the downgradient direction, primarily as N03, is apparent (Fig. 26A) as the downgradient wells (6 & 8) were significantly higher in N03 than the upgradient well (2). No lateral migration of P occurred as P04 was attenuated in the unsaturated zone below the EDA as mentioned earlier. No fecal indicator bacteria were detected in the EDA well (4) on any of the 6 sampling dates. However, low levels of fecal coliforms, E. coli, enterococci, and C. perfringens ranging from 0-7.5, 0-7.25, 0-1.75, and 0-0.5 cfu/100 ml, respectively, were detected on a few occasions in downgradient well 6. Fecal coliforms, enterococci, and C. perfringens were occasionally detected at very low levels ( <2 cfu/100 ml) in downgradient well 8. The microbiological data indicates that vertical and lateral migration of bacteria below the EDA at this site is inhibited and is unlikely to substantially impact groundwater quality. The watertable depth below the EDA at this site remained at about 4 feet below the bottom of EDA from March, 1995 to May, 1995 and then dropped to approximately 6.5 feet below the EDA in August, 1995 (Figure 26D). The watertable increased after August, 1995 to roughly 3 feet below the bottom of the EDA in February, 1996 and then gradually decreased to 4 feet below the EDA in May, 1996. Nitrate concentrations in groundwater below the EDA decreased gradually from approximately 20 mg/L in March, 1995 to roughly 12 mg/L in May, 1996 (Figure 26F). Ammonium and phosphate levels, on the other hand, remained relatively constant and never exceeded 1.30 or 0.06 mg/L, respectively. Nitrate in lysimeter samples generally varied between 18 and 21 mg/L from August, 1995 to April, 1996 and seemed to be unaffected by changes in watertable depth (Fig. 26G). Phosphorus concentrations also varied but exhibited an increasing trend over time with a peak of approximately 22 mg/L in February, 1996 which coincided with the maximum rise in the watertable. Ammonium concentrations declined from 17 mg/L in August, 1995 to <1 mg/L from September, 1995 to November, 1995 then peaked at >15 mg/L in February, 1996 which coincided with the maximum water table rise. REH The EDA at this site consisted of separate graywater and blackwater leaching areas located very close to the marsh edge, so that the surface of the leach field was often under water at high tide. ANOVA revealed that there are statistically significant differences between wells at this site for NH4 and DIN only (p < 0.01). Vertical transport of N is apparent since the well at the edge of the EDA (5) has significantly higher levels of NH4 and DIN then the upgradient well (1). Elevated levels of NH4 and DIN in downgradient wells 2 and 5, above background levels (well 1), can be seen in Figure 27A. There appears to be vertical transport of P04 to the deep well (613), which has a mean concentration of >0.4 mg/L, despite there being no significant difference between any wells for P04. The fact that P04 levels in 6D are not significantly elevated could be due to the fact that the upgradient well (1) is also elevated with a mean concentration of >0. 16 mg/L (Fig. 27B). Lateral transport of N away from the EDA is evident from the elevated levels of N in the 23 downgradient well (2), primarily as NH4. Mean NH4 and N03 levels in well 2 were 12.5 and 5.8 mg/L, respectively, while mean NH4 levels in the upgradient well (1) were <1.0 mg/L. Well 2 was significantly higher in NH4 and DIN than the upgradient well (1). Downgradient wells 7 and 8, which are located in the tidal stream which traversed the downgradient edge of the property, had lower levels of DIN, primarily as NH4, than observed in wells 5 and 2 (Fig. 27A). However, mean levels of NH4 in wells 7 and 8 were 3.5 and 2.2 mg/1-, respectively, which were still slightly elevated above the upgradient well (1) which had a mean NH4 concentration of 0.79 mg/L. Lateral transport of P was less apparent. Elevated levels of P04 relative to known background concentrations were found in the upgradient well (1), the deep well (61)), and downgradient wells 7 and 8 which had mean concentrations of 0. 16, 0.41, 0.12, and 0. 19 mg/1-, respectively. Elevated levels of P in the downgradient wells 7 and 8 could not be attributed to the influence of surface waters present in the tidal creek since mean P04 levels in these surface waters were <0.06 mg/L. No significant trend of P04 in groundwater from the upgradient well (1) to the downgradient wells (2, 7, & 8) makes it difficult to assess P04 transport mechanisms. It appears that P04 is smeared across this site which probably results from the changes in groundwater flow direction and the tidal inundations, which occur twice each day during high tides. Vertical and lateral transport of bacteria was minimal at this site. Fecal coliforms, E. coli, enterococci, and C. perfringens were detected only once at the edge of the EDA (wen 5) at 0.5, 0.5,0.5, and 5 CFU/100 ml, respectively. Fecal coliforms and E. coli were detected in the deep well (613) on one date at 7 and 0.75 CFU/100 ml, respectively. No bacteria were detected in any other wells (1, 2, 3, 4, 7 & 8) using the membrane filtration protocol. It should also be noted that very few samples were obtained from these wells, generally < 5 samples. MPN analyses of samples that were prefiltered showed C. perfringens levels of 700, 63, and 500 CFU/ 100 ml in wells 1, 2, and 5, respectively, on one sampling date. These higher counts were likely associated with the increased attachment of bacteria to the suspended solids content of these samples which is why the MPN method was necessary. The low levels of bacteria detected in prefiltered groundwater at this site seem to indicate that both vertical and lateral migration of bacteria is inhibited and that microbiological impact on groundwater quality at the study wells is minimal. However, the evidence from the unfiltered samples suggests that lateral transport does occur. A better conclusion is that few free-floating bacteria were present in the wells sampled, but there is ample evidence of transport, recent or historical, in many of the wells. 'Me watertable at this site was at or above the assumed bottom of the EDA during the entire study except for July, 1995 when the watertable, dipped to approximately 0.5 feet below the bottom of the EDA (Fig. 27C). Ammonium was the dominant form of N below the EDA (well 5) because of the reducing conditions present below the EDA and was consistently >17.0 mg/L (Fig. 27D). Nitrate was <0.3 mg/L in four out of the six samples but did peak twice in December, 1994 and October, 1995, when concentrations reached greater than 15 and 12 mg/L, respectively. The October, 1995 peak appeared to be associated with a one foot drop in the watertable. Phosphorus levels in the EDA (well 5) were very low ( <0.02 mg/L) throughout the study period. It seems possible that denitrification could be occurring at this site due to prevalence of reducing conditions from the extremely high water table. A substantial reduction in DIN between wells 5 and 2 and downgradient wells 7 and 8 would support this. There is probably an abundance of organic-C, potential electron donating substrate required for denitrification, present in the subsurface since this area was filled over an organic matter-rich saltmarsh. The reduction in DIN away from the EDA could also result from other factors like dilution and ammonium adsorption. RET 'Me EDA at this site lies within 75 feet of poorly dr-ained soils with mottling observed at 20 inches in the fill near the EDA. ANOVA showed that there are significant differences between 24 wells at this site for N03, NH4, and DIN (p < 0.01). Groundwater monitoring at this site suggested that the downgradient direction is toward well 3. Vertical transport of N directly below the EDA was minimal as evident by the slightly elevated levels of N03, NH4, and DIN above background wells 4 and 5 (Fig. 28A). In addition, there were no significant differences between levels of N03, NI-14, and DIN in the EDA well (6) and the upgradient wells (4 & 5). Downgradient wells 2 and 3, which have mean DIN concentrations of 12.0 and 11.7 mg/L, respectively, are significantly higher in DIN than both upgradient wells 4 and 5, which have a mean DIN level of approximately 1.2 mg/L. The elevated levels of DIN, primarily as NH4, in downgradient wells indicates that vertical transport of N below the EDA is occurring despite not being detected by the EDA well (6). Phosphorus below the EDA (well 6) is elevated (mean = 0.29 mg/L) above background wells (Fig. 28B) but is not statistically higher than any of the other wells, suggesting that vertical P transport is minimal. As mentioned previously, lateral transport of N, primarily as ammonium, has been detected in downgradient wells 2 and 3, based on the significantly higher levels of DIN in these wells, mostly as NH4, above upgradient wells (4 and 5). No lateral transport of P was observed as there were no significant differences in P04 concentrations between any of the wells. Slightly elevated levels of P04 were measured in the downgradient well (3) which had a mean concentration of 0.04 mg/L. Vertical transport of indicator bacteria below the EDA was limited. Fecal coliforms, enterococci, and C. per U firingens were each detected once out of 4 samples below the EDA (we 6). Fecal coliforms and C. perfringens were detected in unfiltered samples using MPN analysis at 20 and 40 MPN/100 ml, respectively, while enterococci was detected at 0.25 cfu/100 n-d using membrane filtration in well 6. Downgradient well 2 had the most consistent detection of bacteria with geometric mean levels of fecal coliforms, E. coli, enterococci, and C. perfringens equal to 0.71, 0.70, 7.53, and 0.57 cfu/100 ml, respectively. All other wells had geometric mean levels <1 cfu/100 ml for all indicators. Detection of indicator bacteria infrequently at relatively low levels for all wells at this site suggests minimal vertical and lateral mobility of bacteria. Groundwater depths plotted over time show that the watertable below the EDA dropped from just at the ground surface in March, 1995 to roughly 2 to 2.5 feet below the bottom of the EDA after May, 1995 (Fig. 28C). It is difficult to assess any relationship between watertable, depth below the EDA and die prevalence and concentration of N03, N144 or P04, since only three nutrient samples from this well were obtained (Fig. 28D). Clearly, the high levels of DIN in downgradient wells 2 and 3, primarily as NH4, indicate that reducing conditions prevail around the EDA, making it unlikely that nitrification and subsequent N loss due to denitrification will occur. R B The EDA at this site consisted of a cesspool and a dry well, both within 30 feet of very poorly drained soils and the highest observable tide. The system was rarely used, as the cottage was vacant most of the time. ANOVA revealed that there are no significant differences between wells for any of the nutrient or microbial parameters at this site at the p = 0.05 level. Groundwater concentrations of N03, NH4, and DIN averaged <2.0 mg/L in all wells (Fig. 29A) and are similar to background concentrations seen at sites CSL (wells 1 & 2), REH (well 1), and RET (wells 4. & 5). The relatively low concentration of N03 and NE4 in groundwater samples suggests that there is limited vertical and lateral transport of N at or to this site. However, mean P04 concentrations of 0.54, 0.22, 0.26, and 0. 14 mg/L in wells 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively, indicate lack of P attenuation and extensive transport in the vertical and lateral directions (Fig. 29B). Ile cumulative effect of subsurface loading from the high density of homes in this area may have exceeded the soils natural adsorptive capacity of the soils and contributed to the enrichment of groundwater with P. No bacteria were detected in the upgradient well (1) which only yielded two samples during 25 the study period. Fecal coliforms, E. coli, and enterococci were detected occasionally and at low levels ( <3 CFU/100 ml) in downgradient wells 3 and 4 using standard prefiltration protocol. Higher levels (10 to 100x) of enterococci and C. perfringens were detected using MPN analysis. Fecal coliforms, E. coli, and enterococci were consistently detected in the well closest to the EDA (2) at low levels, i.e., geometric means:51 CFU/100 ml. The microbiological data indicate that there is limited vertical and lateral nigration of bacteria to or away from the EDA at this site. Evaluation of groundwater depths throughout the study period show that the watertable fluctuated between 2 and 2.5 feet below the estimated bottom of the EDA most of the time (Fig. 29C). Nitrate concentrations in the EDA well (2) peaked at 0.23 mg/L but were typically less than 0.03 mg/L (Figure 29D). Ammonium levels in the EDA well reached as high as 11. 1 mg/L in March, 1996 but were well below I mg/L in eight out of eleven samples taken between December, 1995 and March, 1996. Phosphorus levels in the EDA well also peaked in March, 1996 at 0.52 mg/L. There did not appear to be any re@lationship between watertable depth and nutrient levels in the EDA well (2). Nitrogen does not appear to be transformed with migration in the downgradient direction. Mean NH4 and DIN levels decrease from 1.7 and 1.8 to 0.80 and 0.93 mg/L from the EDA well (2) to the downgradient well (4), respectively. This decrease could be attributable to dilution, ammonium adsorption or denitrification. RH The EDA at this site was located on a narrow piece of property squeezed between the property owner's home and the driveway of the abutting property. It is 85 feet to very poorly drained soils and the highest observable fide. ANOVA revealed that there are statistically significant differences between wells for all parameters at this site (p < 0.05) with the exception of DIN, P04 and C. perfringens. Groundwater monitoring has'shown that subsurface flow is toward wells I and 2. There appears to be limited vertical transport of N to groundwater in EDA wells 3 and 5D, which have mean DIN levels of 2.3 and 2.1 mg/L, respectively (Fig. 30A). These DIN levels are statistically the same as background concentrations observed within this site (well 4) and are similar to background concentrations at sites REH (well 1), RET (well 4 & 51)), and CSL (well I & 2). Elevated mean levels of DIN, primarily as N03, in downgradient wells I and 2 indicates that some vertical transport of N occurs albeit at lower concentrations observed below other EDA's. The mean nitrate concentration of 5.84 mg/L in downgradient well 1 was significantly higher than the mean nitrate level of 0.43 mg/L observed in the upgradient well (4). This observation supports the vertical transport of N with subsequent downgradient migration to well 1. Vertical and lateral transport of P04 was apparent as mean concentrations ranged from 0. 131 mg/L in downgradient well I to 2.1 mg/L in the EDA well (5D; Figure 30B). There were no statistical differences between any wells for DIN or P04 indicating that there is a "smearing" of these nutrients throughout the site. Fecal coliforms, E. coli, and enterococci below the EDA (well 3) ranged from 0-500, 0- 470, and 0-4.5 cfu/100 ml, respectively, with levels <2 cfu/100 ml being more typical. The downgradient well (1) had the greatest geometric mean levels of fecal coliforms, E. coli, and enterococci of any well with 18.5, 16.9, and 1.5 cfu/100 ml, respectively. Enterococci were the only indicator bacteria detected in the EDA deep well (5D) on two occasions and only at levels <0.5 cfu/100 ml. C. perfringens was never detected in any of the wells using the standard prefiltration protocol. However, it was detected in wells 1, 2 and 3 at levels as high as 285, 10, and 145 MPN/100 ml, respectively, using the MPN method. The downgradient well (1) had significantly higher levels of fecal coliforms and E. coli than all other wells, which suggests that there is substantial lateral microbial transport occurring approximately 10 feet downgradient of the EDA. The detection of enterococci only, at infrequent and very low levels, in well 5D, suggests that vertical migration of bacteria to deeper groundwater zones is inhibited. Watertable depth below the estimated bottom of the EDA (well 3) was always greater than 4 26 feet with the largest separation, 6 feet, occurring in June, 1995 (Fig. 30C). The highest concentration of N03 measured below the EDA (well 3) occurred in December, 1994 when > 13.0 mg/L was detected (Fig. 30D). Nitrate levels fluctuated between 0 and 3 mg/L thereafter with N03 levels <030 mg/L prevailing after July, 1995. Ammonium levels fluctuated slightly less over the same time period and typically remained <1.0 mg/L. Neither N03 or NH4 concentrations in groundwater below the EDA appeared to be affected to any great extent by watertable levels. Phosphorus peaked in March, 1995 at 1. 11 mg/L and appeared to coincide with the maximum recorded watertable rise. Nitrogen from the septic system appears to be undergoing nitrification as it migrates in the downgradient direction since N03 is the prevalent N species in wells I and 2. We would expect to detect this oxidized form of N in groundwater due to the large separation between the bottom of the EDA and the watertable at this site. It is difficult to assess whether denitrification is occurring since true DIN levels below the EDA area were not likely measured because of well placement. RP This site is served by a single EDA which is approximately 90 feet to very poorly drained soils and the highest observable tide. ANOVA showed that there were no significant differences between wells for any parameter except N03- Mean DIN levels ranged from 1.3 to 3.4 mg/L in wells across this site (Fig. 3 1 A) and are similar to background concentrations observed at other sites in this area such as well RH-4, REH- 1, and RET-4 & 5. Slightly elevated levels of N (mean DIN = 2.9 mg/L), primarily as N03, occurred in the EDA well (1). Similar DIN levels were also observed in the downgradient well (3) with mean N03 and NH4 present at roughly equal concentrations of 1.8 and 1.7 mg/L, respectively. The relatively low concentration of DIN present in wells at this site suggest limited vertical and lateral transporL The only statistically significant difference found between wells was that the downgradient well (3) was significantly higher (p <0.01) in N03 (mean = 1.8 mg/L) than EDA wells I and 5D which had mean N03 concentrations of 2.2 and 0.04 mg/l-, respectively. Mean P04 levels ranged from 0.18 to 1.8 mg/L in the shallow and deep EDA well, I and 5D, respectively (Fig. 3 1 B). These highly elevated concentrations are similar to P levels observed at other sites on this street (RH, RC, and RB) and suggest significant vertical and lateral transport of P throughout this area. Wells placed downgradient of this site, along the beach interface (wells RP/RC 1-4), showed slightly lower levels of DIN than upgradient wells, primarily as NH4, with the exception of the deep well RP/RC-4D. This well had a mean DIN concentration of >1.5 mg/L which was similar to the EDA well 5D. P04 levels in the RP/RC wells were slightly elevated over there upgradient counterparts and had mean P04 concentrations >0.25 mg/L. These elevated levels in the downgradient beach interface wells suggest that P04 is being transported to surface waters at this site. Detection of indicator bacteria in well water samples was infrequent and often at very low levels, typically <0.5 cfu/100 nil. Fecal coliforms and E. coli were detected once, at elevated levels, in the shallow EDA well (1) at 71 and 42 cfu/100 ml, respectively. Infrequent detection of bacteria in all wells and at very low levels suggests that both vertical and lateral migration of bacteria is limited at this site. Groundwater monitoring over the study period showed that the watertable was consistently greater than 4.5 feet below the estimated bottom of the EDA from March, 1995 to April, 1996 with minor fluctuations (Fig. 3 1 Q. Nitrate concentrations below EDA well I peaked at 14 mg/L in February, 1995 and sharply decreased to <0.75 mg/L throughout the rest of the study (Fig. 3 1D). Ammonium concentrations below the EDA remained relatively constant, fluctuating between 0.31 and 2.5 mg/L. Phosphate peaked in June, 1995 at 0.89 mg/L. There was no correlation between watertable depth below the EDA and levels of measured nutrients. It is difficult to assess N-transformations and dynamics below this system since 27 groundwater is moving in several different directions at this site. One observation which can be made is that the watertable depth below the EDA should provide an adequate aerobic zone for nearly complete nitrification to occur. However, mean NH4 concentrations in groundwater samples were greater than or equal to N03 concentrations in wells 2, 3, 4, and 5D. Perhaps these well represent background groundwater concentrations of these two constituents. RC This site is served by a state-approved system located approximately 70 feet to very poorly drained soils and the highest observable tide. ne home and septic system cover -35% of the total area of this lot. ANOVA showed that there are significant differences between wells at this site for N03 and fecal colifornis (p < 0.05). Vertical transport of N, mostly as NH4, below the EDA (well 4) is evident from mean DIN concentration of >12.0 mg/L measured in this well (Fig. 32A). Lateral transport of N to downgradient wells I D and 3 is also evident from mean DIN concentrations of >10.0 mg/L measured in these wells. Vertical and lateral transport of P04 is apparent as wells RC 1-4 all have P04 concentrations >0.70 mg/L (Fig. 32B). Vertical transport of bacteria beneath the EDA (well 4) appeared to be limited as fecal coliforms, E. coli, and enterococci were detected only as high as 1.0, 1.0, and 3.5 cfU/100 ml, respectively. More frequent detection of indicator bacteria was found in downgradient wells 1D and 3. Downgradient well ID had fecal coliform, E. coli, and enteroco'cci levels which ranged from 0-32, 0-26, and 0-9.2 cfu/1 00 ml, respectively, while each had geometric means of 2. 1, 1. 1, and 1.2 cfu/100 ml, respectively. Downgradient well 3 had relatively lower levels of fecal coliforms, E. coli, and enterococci with geometric means of 0.6, 0.6, and 1.3 cfu/100 ml, respectively. Consistent detection of fecal indicator bacteria in downgradient wells demonstrates the ability of bacteria to migrate in groundwater at relatively low levels in the vertical and lateral directions at this site. Groundwater monitoring at this site showed that the watertable was consistently greater than 4 feet below the estimated bottom of the EDA with the exception of May, 1995 in which the watertable rose to within roughly 2 feet of the EDA bottom (Fig. 32C). Nitrate, ammonium, and phosphate fluctuated considerably below the EDA throughout the study period (Fig. 32D). Changes in concentrations of these nutrients below the EDA do not appear to correlate with watertable, depth, and more likely reflect changes in loading rates and ensuing degree of treatment within the chamber system. Denitrification does not appear to be happening as groundwater migrates from the EDA well (4 ) to downgradient wells ID and 3 based on the fact that the DIN concentration does not appreciably decrease. It does appear that some nitrification may be occurring in the downgradient direction as downgradient well 3 had significantly higher levels of N03 (mean = 7.04 mg/L) than the EDA well (mean = 3.42 mg/L). Inter-site Comparisons The ranges of contaminant concentrations for all samples from all of the wells at each site are summarized in Table 10 to see if there are trends in contaminant concentrations relative to specific sites or areas. The lowest values in the concentration ranges presented are considered indicative of background levels at each site. The River St. sites had higher background levels of ammonium and much higher 'high' concentrations of phosphates compared to the in-town samples. The high phosphate levels may reflect the extreme high density of houses and septic systems on River St. and accompanying high P-loading rates, compared to the in-town sites. High ammonium levels suggest incomplete nitrification occurring in the soils of River St., possibly a result of development on relatively shallow fill soils overlying wetland soils that have more limited depths of aerobic, unsaturated soils required for nitrification. The background nitrate levels were very low at the River St. sites and at two of the four in- 28 town sites. These are not necessarily indicative of clean areas, rather, they may also reflect the presence of wells, often under EDAs, that have little nitrate produced relative to TDN. The two sites with highest 'background' nitrate levels are CSL and KDB, both located in relatively less dense housing areas. These also have the highest average nitrate:ammoniurn ratios (Table 10). These latter data indicate a high rate of nitrification relative to TDN. The River St. sites are again apparently different from the in-town sites in that their ratios are all relatively low, with most below 1.0, while in-town sites have higher ratios, most well above 1.0. Thus, much of the TDN at in- town sites has been nitrified, compared to an apparently lower conversion at sites with low ratios. The high values in the presented concentration ranges for contaminants in Table 10 can be compared to literature values for septic tank effluent contan-driant concentrations in Table 1. Bacterial contaminant concentrations never came close to estimated effluent concentrations. Orthophosphate concentrations were within the range of the estimated effluent concentrations (6-15 mg P/L) at RH, RP and RC, with concentrations ranging from 6.9 to 8.9 mg P/L. Ammonium reached concentrations nearly equal to the lower end of the estimated effluent concentration (28-90 mg N/L) at sites REH, RET, RC, CSL, WRH, and FDC, all with concentrations of 18-22 mg N/L. Nitrate is discharged with septic tank effluent at relatively low levels (Table 1). However, TDN concentrations from REH, RH, RC, CSL, WRH, KDB and FDC were >20 mg N/L on one or more occasions (Table 8). This occurred most consistently at RC and KDB. Temporal trends for all of the sites are typically quite variable (Table 8). Surface Water Quality Surface water samples were collected at low tide, from 16 sites throughout the study area, from June 1995 to June 1996 (Tables 11 & 12). Samples sites were located in 4 main areas: 1) the non-tidal headwaters of Mill Creek in the upper portion of the watershed, the Forest Drive area (west of Rt. 1), which included sites SSW 10, 11, and 12; 2) along Mill Creek (tidal) which traverses sites WRH and CSL and discharges into Hampton Harbor; these sites include SSW 3, 4, 5, and 7; 3) sites SSW 8 & 9 at the headwaters of a Farm Brook in the Kimberly Drive area which eventually drains into Hampton Harbor, 4) the River Street and Hampton Harbor area which includes sample sites in various harbor locations and a tidal creek. These sample sites include SSW 1, 2, 6, 13, 14, 15, and 16. Adjacent surface waters at sites WRH, KDBM, KDBS, CSL, and REH were sampled both upstream and downstream in to attempt to assess the impacts of these particular sites on surface waters. Mean concentrations of N03, NH4, and P04 ranged from 0.52-1.85, 0.13-0.16, and 0.01- 0.04 mg/L, respectively, in surface waters in the upper portion of the watershed (SSW 10, 11, and 12; Table 11; Figure 33). The most upstream surface water site, SSW 10, had elevated levels of DIN, particularly as N03 (mean = 1.85 mg/L), which was significantly higher than DIN levels observed at all other sites. In general, surface water sites in the upper portion of the watershed, SSW 10, 11, and 12, contained elevated levels of N03 while NE4 and P04 were similar to concentrations observed at other downstream surfacewater sampling locations. Site SSW 10 also had elevated counts of fecal coliforms and E. coli, with geometric means equal to 270 and 100 cfu/100 ml, respectively, as compared to SSW 11 and 12 which had geometric mean levels of fecal coliforms and E. coli, of 36 and 32 cfu/100 ml, and, 71 and 61 cfu/100 ml, respectively (Table 12; Figure 34). Enterococci and C. perfringens were also detected in surface water samples from SSW 10, 11, and 12 at geometric mean levels of greater than 18 and 2 cfu/100 ml, respectively. Mean concentrations of N03, NH4, and P04 in surface waters samples from tidal portions of Mill Creek, SSW 3, 4, 5, and 7, ranged from 0.49-0.92, 0.09-0.16, and 0.02 to 0.06 mg/L, respectively (Fig. 33). Like the surface water samples in the upper portion of the watershed (SSW 10, 11, and 12), nitrate levels in this area were also elevated above levels typically seen in the Hampton Harbor, which average <0. 10 mg/L. The surface water samples in NEU Creek, SSW 3, 4, 5, and 7, had the highest levels of fecal indicator bacteria compared to all other areas. 29 Geometric mean levels of fecal coliforms, E. coli, enterococci, and C. perfringens ranged from 230-620,180-410, 44-140, and 14-79 CFU/100 ml, respectively (Fig. 34). SSW 7 had significantly higher levels of all fecal indicators than most of the Hampton Harbor sites. Surface water samples from Farm Brook in the Kimberly Drive area also had elevated concentrations of N03 and P04 (Fig. 33). SSW 8 and 9 had mean concentrations of N03, NH4 and P04 of 1. 31, 0.2 1, and 0.22 mg/L, and, 1.77, 0.12, and 0.20 mg/L, respectively. 'Me P04 concentration measured at these two surface water sites were significantly higher than P04 concentrations measured at all other surface water sampling locations. Geometric mean levels of fecal coliforms and E. coli in SSW 8 and 9 were 75 and 68 cfu/100 ml, and 109 and 91 cfu/100 ml, respectively. Enterococci and C. perfringens were detected at geometric mean levels of greater than 141 and 7 cfu/100 ml at these two locations (Fig. 34). The levels of fecal indicator bacteria detected in surface water samples from this area were relatively lower than those found in Mill Creek and the upper watershed sites yet elevated above those levels detected in Hampton Harbor. Levels of nutrients and microbial indicators measured in surface water samples from the River St./Hampton Harbor area were generally lower than levels observed at the other surface water sampling locations (Figures 33 & 34). Mean concentrations of N03, NE4, and P04 at SSW sites 1, 2, 6, 13, 14, 15, and 16 ranged from 0.03-0.11, 0.06-0.27, and 0.02-0.06 mg/L, respectively. Geometric mean levels of fecal coliforms, E. coli, enterococci, and C. perfringens at these same sites ranged from 2-37, 2-32, 22-25, and 2-15 cfU/100 ml, respectively. All surface water sites showed significant levels of fecal contamination. The geometric mean limit of :514 fecal coliforms/100 ml for approved shellfish areas as promulgated by the National Shellfish Sanitation Program was exceeded at every site except one. The lone site where the limit was not exceeded was site SSW 16 at the mouth of Hampton Harbor. This sampling location was different in that it did not sample harbor waters or a creek, rather, it sampled overland flow which occurred at low tide on the beach on the Seabrook side of the harbor. In New Hampshire, the marine swimming/recreational waters standard is 35 enterococci/100 nil. This value was exceeded at sites 3-5 and 7- 10, all located on the small tidal streams while the levels for harbor sites were <35. There was no clear connection between surface water quality and groundwater contamination at any specific site. This was evident as there were no statistically significant differences between upstream and downstream surface waters at any site for any of the measured parameters. The greatest levels of nutrient and fecal contarnination occurred in the upper portion of the watershed (Forest Drive area), along Mill Creek, and in Farm Creek near Kimberly Drive. The Kimberly Drive sites were probably affected by the high N03 levels found in groundwater downgradient from KDBM and KDBS. All three of these areas are characterized by relatively high density housing developments which rely entirely on septic systems for wastewater disposal. There are no other known sources of nutrient or fecal contaminants in these areas, thus it appears that the cumulative effect of these high density residential areas are responsible for the observed nutrient and microbial contamination of surface waters in these areas. Several researchers have associated fecal and nutrient contamination of surface waters with residential density (Bicki and Brown, 1990; Perkins, 1984; Duda and Cromartie, 1982; Morrill and Toler, 1973). The harbor waters contained relatively lower levels of nutrient and microbial contaminants which probably resulted from increased dilution from tidal exchange, the harsher saline environment, and transport time of fecal rnicroorganisms. Soil Cores The initial groundwater samples that were either mixed or sampled from the supernatant were of interest to locate areas where bacterial contaminants were present in the groundwater or attached to particles. The wells where bacteria were detected in these samples were not always wells where bacteria were later detected in groundwater, and included wells that were upgradient, 30 down ent, deep and within the EDAs, with no consistent location at the sites. Ile most com@nly detected bacterial indicator in these samples was C. perfringens, which is naturally in tight association with particulate matter in soil and aquatic environments. To help bridge the gap between the infrequent detection of indicators in groundwater samples compared to the initial samples that contained some soil particulates, soil core samples were taken at selected sites to evaluate the presence and transport of fecal indicator bacteria in the subsurface. Soil cores were taken between the bottom of the EDA and the watertable to evaluate vertical transport at sites WRH and CSL in August 1995 and at sites KDBS and KDBM in October 1995. Soil cores were also taken laterally from EDA's, along transects, to evaluate horizontal transport at sites WRH and REH in November and December 1995, respectively. Vertical Transport At site WRH C. per 5.0 x 103, and 17.0 x 103 MPN/g firingens was detected at 9.0 x 103 soil at depths of 31.5, 46, and 55 inches below the ground surface (BGS), respectively (Table 13). The lower two depths were frequently saturated with groundwater, i.e., the water table was shallower (Figure 24C). Fecal coliforms were not detected in soil samples at any depth at this site. At site CSL, fecal coliforms, E. coli, and C. perfringens were detected at 400, 400, and 7,000 MPN/g soil at a depth of 35 inches BGS (Table 13), a depth. frequently saturated with groundwater (Figure 25C). Only C. per firingens was detected at a depth of 43 inches BGS and only then at much lower levels, < 5.0 MPN/g soil. At site KDBS fecal coliforms; and E. coli were detected at equal concentrations of 800 and 20 MPN/g soil at depths of 29 and 55 inches BGS (Table 13), respectively, compared to typical water table depths of >60" BGS (Figure 26D). No fecal coliforms were detected at 42 inches below the ground surface. C. perfringens was detected at 29, 42, and 55 inches BGS at levels of 13.0 x 103 , 13.0 x 103, and 17.0 x 103 MPN/ g soil. At site KDBM no fecal coliforms were detected in soil samples taken 33 and 44 inches BGS (Table 13), consistent with the observed deep water table (Figure 26C). However, fecal coliforms and E. coU were both detected at equal concentrations of 20 MPN/g soil at a depth of 59 inches below the Iground surface. C. perfiringens decreased with depth at site KDBM as levels fell from 50.0 x 103 to 9.0 x 103 to 2.2 x 103 MPN/g soil at depths of 33, 44, and 59 inches, respectively. In summary, fecal coliforms and E. coli were detected in soil samples at shallow depths, <35 inches BGS, at sites CSL and KDBS at levels >400 MPN/g soil. Fecal coliforms and E. coli were also detected at greater depths (>55 inches BGS) at sites KDBS and KDBM at much lower levels, 20 MPN/g soil. In general, it appears that fecal coliforms and E. coll may be transported vertically at high concentrations to shallow soils, decreasing to extinction in deeper soils (>29-35 inches BGS) as a result of the treatment processes characteristic of soils and as intended by design of the system. The presence of fecal coliforms at deeper soil depths (>55 inches), despite not being detected at shallower depths, may result from preferential flow through macropores and root channels, or via lateral flow from other areas. The relatively high levels of C. perfringens detected at all depths at the various sites reflects survival of cumulative, historical contamination of the subsurface by sewage-borne bacteria. Horizontal Transport Soil core samples were taken along transects at sites WRH and REH. At site WRH, samples were taken upgradient from the EDA (control), within the EDA (EDA), and at distances of 1, 3, 9, and 27 feet along a transect downgradient of the EDA edge. Three transects were taken at site REH since groundwater monitoring revealed that groundwater moved in several directions at this site. No EDA core was or could be taken at site REH, and samples along each transect were taken at 1, 3, and 9 feet from the edge of the EDA. At both sites, soil core samples were taken from the top foot of the watertable, which was determined by measuring the watertable depth in the nearest well, and then using a posthole digger to excavate down to the watertable. Once free water 31 was reached, the top foot of the watertable was sampled using a split-spoon soil corer. Ile results of the soil core transect at site WRH clearly show that C. perfringens is present at high levels (> 1 x 104 MPN/g soil) below the EDA and in all downgradient samples (Figure 35). C. perfringens levels in EDA and downgradient samples are 1-3 orders of magnitude greater than levels observed in the control sample. The presence of long-lived C. perfringens at high levels, even as far as 27 feet from the EDA, suggests previous sewage-borne contamination of the subsurface. The presence of fecal coliforms and E. coli below the EDA and at 3 and 27 feet downgradient show more recent contamination and suggest significant horizontal transport of all types of indicators. There was no observable trend in levels of C. per ringe with distance away fi ns from the PDA while fecal coliforms and E. coli both decreased significantly with distance. ne soil core transects at site REH also showed long-term contamination as evident by the presence of high levels of C. perfringens in soil samples which ranged from I x 104 to nearly I x 106 MPN/g soil (Figure 36). There was no clear trend in level of C. per ingens with distance fir from the EDA along any transect. No fecal coliforms were detected in any of the soil samples at this site. Thus, C. perfringens is similar to nitrate in that it is a conservative tracer of fecal contamination from septic systems. It differs in being more long-lasting, so that it gives a stronger temporal context, along with a spatial context, for determining if fecal contamination has occurred in the subsurface environment at distances away from septic systems and toward surface waters. Septic System Design: 36" Compared to 48" Depth Below Ile EDA to ESHV;T Four sites, where the bottom of the EDA could be determined from soil coring and where actual functioning systems were know to exist, were analyzed to evaluate the effects of vertical separation between the bottom of the EDA and the watertable on microbiological groundwater quality. These four sites were WRH, CSL, KDBM, and KDBS. At site WRH groundwater elevations plotted over the sampling period show that the watertable fell from approximately 1.25 to 3.0 feet below the bottom of the EDA from March to August 1995 (Figure 24C). A sharp rise in the watertable to the bottom of the EDA occurred in November, 1995 and fluctuated within roughly one foot below the bottom of the EDA thereafter. Groundwater elevations at site CSL show that the watertable fell from approximately 0.5 to 2 feet below the bottom the EDA from February to August, 1995 (Figure 25C). The watertable rose sharply after August, 1995 and peaked at approximately I foot above the bottom of the EDA in February, 1996 and then gradually decreased to roughly I foot below the bottom of the EDA in June, 1996. At site KDBM groundwater elevations slowly dropped from approximately 3 to 5.5 feet below the bottom of the EDA from March to August, 1995 (Figure 26C). After August, 1995 the watertable rose sharply to roughly 3 feet below the EDA in February, 1996 and then slowly dropped to 3.5 feet below the EDA in May 1996. The watertable depth below the EDA at this site remained at about 4 feet below the bottom of EDA from March to May, 1995 and then dropped to approximately 6.5 feet below the EDA in August, 1995. The watertable, increased after August, 1995 to roughly 3 feet below the bottom of the EDA in February, 1996 and then gradually decreased to 4 feet below the EDA in May, 1996. Thus, no site has a high water table depth (HWT) that is >48", which occurred on only two occasions at the four sites, and all sites were installed at less than the required 48" above HWT. The data only allow evaluation of the relative degree of treatment when HWT is >36" or <36". Microbiological data from the EDA wells (WRH- 1, 2, and 5; CSL-4; KDBM-3, and KDBS-4) were grouped according to watertable depths at the time of sampling (Table 14). Groupings, based on depth of the watertable below the bottom of the EDA were as follows: <36", 236" but <48", and 2tO". The @t48" category contained only two samples while the <36" and 236" but <48" categories had 28 and 11 samples, respectively. None of the indicators were detected (ND= not detected) in samples in the >48" category. As previously described, C. perfringens behaves differently than the other indicators. The C. perfringens data for this study further illustrate this point and should be separately discussed. For the other indicators in the 36- 32 48" category, bacteria were detected only in two of eleven samples, ranging from ND-75/100 ml. Conversely, indicators in the <36" category were detected in 20 of 28 samples. The indicator concentrations ranged up to 2130, 500 and 8 100/100 ml for FC, Ec and enterococci, respectively. Thus, levels of all indicators were highest in the <36" depth, with much lower levels in the range of >36" but <48", and lowest for the water table at >48" below EDAs. ANOVA was conducted to evaluate different treatments (watertable depth groupings) by fecal indicator bacteria (fecal coliforms, E. coli, enterococci, and C. perfringens) measured in well samples (Table 14). ND data were given values ranging from 0.24-4.9/100 ml, depending on the detection limit which was a function of sample water volume analyzed (Table 14). All data were rank-transformed. ANOVA showed that there were no statistical differences between any of the 3 watertable depth categories and levels of E. coli, enterococci, and C. perfringens found in well samples taken at those depths. However, there was a significant difference in geometric mean fecal coliform levels at <36" compared to 36-48". Despite some of the other large differences in mean values for indicators, the data were variable enough that statistical differences were typically not seen. The higher frequency of detection and higher concentrations observed for samples collected when the groundwater was <36" below the EDA illustrate the need for adequate depth between the EDA bed and groundwater table. The low frequency and typically low concentrations of bacteria detected when the water table was >36" suggests that this depth may be adequate for treating septage. However, the sample on 3/7/95 had elevated bacterial levels and is of concern. On that date, the water table was just barely >36", and other wells at the site had much more elevated water table depths (Figure 26C). Recognizing that water depths were measured only when samples were taken ahd that continuous measurements would be needed to determine how high the watertable got to during that time period, it is conceivable that the water table could have been higher, even <36" below the EDA, just before the sample was taken on 3n195, and that the elevated bacterial levels could have reflected those conditions. Evidence that may support this are the elevated water tables at the other wells at that site on that date (Figure 26C), and the fact that 0.7" of rain fell (Durham rainfall data) within a 48 hour time period only 7 days before at a time when spring snowmelt was just beginning. Ile day before, on 3/6/95, another 0.21" rain fell. During this time, temperatures were rising above freezing, suggesting that substantial rainfall and snowmelt could have been affecting water table depths at that time. Thus, the elevated levels on that date could have reflected higher water table conditions. Without confirmation of this, our results suggest that a 36" distance between the water table and the bottom of the EDA may lead to, albeit infrequent, bacterial contamination of groundwater. There are no standards by which to judge how frequent and at what levels groundwater contamination is a problem, but assuming no contamination is desirable, then 36" is not adequate. One important question is how the findings of this study will relate to how septic systems are designed and installed. If ESHWT is based on mottling, as discussed in Section XX, then an underestimation of actual HWT is incorporated into the vertical placement of the system. The KDBM and KDBS sites are probably good examples of well-designed sites that actually had HWT at - 36", and not the design-required 48". Both of these systems worked quite well, especially compared to the systems with higher HWT. Further work is needed on systems that have HWT levels 36-48" and >48" below EDAs to determine what level of treatment/contarnination occurs with distances. The data would then need evaluation based on defined criteria on what level of contamination frequency and concentration are 'acceptable'. Then rules on depths below EDAs to HWT, along with how to assess ESHWT, can be accurately defined. DISCUSSION The organization of the following discussion of the results will be according to the important questions for which the study was designed to address. These are as follows: 33 1.) Are contaminants from septic systems leaching into the groundwater and contaminating surrounding surface waters? 2.) Is there evidence of transformations and treatment processes that reduce groundwater pollution below any effluent disposal areas, and what are those environmental and system conditions? 3.) What is the distance between the bottom of the EDA and the seasonal high-water table that is necessary for adequate contaminant treatment? The first question relates to whether contaminants are leaching into the groundwater. To address this, the results were evaluated to determine what evidence there was of vertical transport of both bacteria and nutrients from the bottoms of EDAs to the water table. Data on nutrient and bacterial concentrations and incidence for groundwater wells under and around EDAs, lysimeter data for unsaturated areas under EDAs, and groundwater table depths were analyzed. The study sites had a whole range of types of systems, including one well-designed system, three other actual drainage fields, one chamber system and the rest are make-shift systems or non-systems. It is important to know how deep the groundwater table/level is because saturated conditions are not conducive to treatment of contaminants. The groundwater conditions observed included some sites where groundwater inundates the EDA on a regular basis, other systems where occasional inundation occurred, and others where the water table was always well below the bottom of the EDA. Some of the latter sites have make-shift systems, and only one site had a definable EDA that was without a high water table. Ile results relative to vertical, or gravity-driven, transport of contaminants to the groundwater showed some trends. Generally, evidence of vertical contaminant transport in wells below EDAs was based on the elevated concentrations observed relative to the background concentrations in the upgradient wells. The greater the distance between the bottom of the EDA to the water table, the smaller the impact to the groundwater quality, i.e., the lower the contaminant concentrations in groundwater. Phosphate is less likely to reach the groundwater compared to nitrogen species, as it reacts with soil. Ammonium also reacts -with soil, while nitrate, which does not adsorb to soil, is most readily leached to the groundwater. The contaminants tended to be present in soil water at relatively high levels where unsaturated zones existed, slowly leaching into groundwater or more rapidly upon inundation with rising water tables. Bacteria were also found at consistent and relatively high concentrations below EDAs, especially in areas where salt water influence was minimal. For both nutrients and bacteria, contaminants did not appear to be transported to deeper groundwater. It appears that the contaminants vertically transported to the top of the groundwater tended to accumulate there and did not continue to be transported in significant quantities to deeper groundwater levels. Thus, contaminants do leach into the groundwater below EDAs and accumulate at the top of the water table. The next question is whether contaminants are laterally transported to surface waters. This is more tricky to address compared to the first question, where wells located in defined areas (below EDAs) can be studied. In contrast, to determine if contaminants are transported to surface waters, wells need to be located for sampling where they will intercept the effluent plume in the groundwater. Detailed information like hydraulic conductivity and long-term monitoring of groundwater flow were determined during the study, and it was not available for helping to site wells when test wells were initially installed. A positive result is easily interpreted, a negative result begs the question of whether the plume was missed. The elevated levels of nutrients and bacteria found in the surface waters around Seabrook suggest that sources of fecal contamination exist. There are no other apparent sources in the mostly residential study area other than the houses and their septic systems. Thus, septic systems were suspected to be the main source of contamination. The soils in the study areas around the EDAs are generally fine-grained sands. Sandy soils tend to have little structure, and wells in this matrix tend to accumulate sand particles. Because of 34 this, water samples collected from the wells typically had substantial amounts of suspended sand. In initial samples, the amount of sand was inconsistent, even though we found that a majority of bacteria detected in the samples were attached to the particles. To help standardize the sampling procedure, to make nutrient analyses possible, and to give more consistent and quantitative (albeit, more conservative) estimates of bacterial concentrations, the eventual sampling procedure incorporated a prefiltration step to remove particles. The reasoning was that the concern was not really to determine the presence of bacteria in the wells, rather, the concern was their transport to surface waters. As such, the cells that were not attached to particles were suspected to be those that were being transported in the groundwater. Thus, the data reflect findings for free-living bacterial cells, and are quite conservative estimates of groundwater contamination levels, probably 10-1000x lower than the total cells. This, coupled with the difficult task of locating bacterial effluent plumes, made it difficult to measure bacterial contaminants in groundwater. The concentrations of bacteria in water samples from wells around the EDA were substantially lower than those from below the EDA. This implied that the bacteria were being reduced in concentration as they were transported laterally away from the EDA. The possible mechanisms for this include impingement within small pores in the soil matrix, die-off, adsorption to surfaces, and dilution. We observed inconsistent detection and low concentrations of bacteria in wells at distances >1 meter away from the EDAs, including new wells located off the residential properties closer to surface waters. The exception was a site on River St., where determining the location of actual EDAs was a challenge. One striking observation was the low concentrations of C. perfringens, a common fecal contaminant that tends to stick to particles, as observed in initial samples that included particulate matter. This conservative approach to sample processing was probably not allowing detection of bacteria at reduced concentrations in groundwater at distances from the EDA. Soil cores were collected at two sites at depths above and below the water table to determine if the bacteria were actually attached to particles, especially at this interface between saturated and unsaturated soil (the water table). The results of that study showed high levels of C. perfringens in all samples, with evidence of transport of fecal coliforms and enterococci at relatively long distances as well. This confirmed that fecal-borne bacteria fi-orn septic systems were being transported away from septic systems toward surface waters at relatively long (9 meters) distances and at significant concentrations. The strongest evidence that contaminants from septic systems were being transported laterally away from septic systems was the relatively high levels of nitrate detected in some distant wells. Relatively high levels of nitrate were detected in wells as far as 20 meters from the edge of the EDAs. Thus, elevated levels of nitrate were evidence that part of the effluent plume in the subsurface had been detected because not all downgradient wells had elevated nitrate levels, and were therefore out of the plume. Phosphate was also apparently transported away from EDAs in the River St. area where the high density of houses and EDAs probably have lead to saturation of phosphate in the relatively non-reactive sandy subsurface soils. An observation made at River St. was that groundwater flow changed directions throughout the year, and sometimes daily, resulting in the smearing of nutrients in groundwater wells supposedly located in both upgradient and downgradient directions. In lower density areas, phosphorus was not laterally transported. Use of the MPN method for enumerating fecal indicators in samples that were not prefiltered are a less conservative reflection of bacterial presence in the different wells sampled. In fact, bacteria were almost always detected, and at higher than background levels, in samples collected from wells and not prefiltered. Because the bacteria are not freely suspended in the water, this evidence reflects either recent or historical transport to the subsurface area around all of the wells. Saltwater tends to enhance the adsorption of bacterial cells to surfaces, so wells at sites affected by saltwater had even less bacteria detected in prefiltered water (example: REH). The adsorption of bacteria to soils surfaces is just one complication in explaining the field observations related transport of bacteria through the subsurface environment to surface water. The subsurface environment is quite complex both spatially and temporally. The transport of 35 bacteria through the pore spaces of the unsaturated and saturated soil matrices is a tortuous process. Pores of different diameters affect both the transport velocity and the degree of interaction between cells and surfaces. The degree of saturation with water affects the amount of available water for bacteria to become suspended within and the depth of water films on surfaces of unsaturated soils affects motility and survival. As water moves through the soil matrix, the suspended bacterial contaminant concentrations will change as cells become dispersed into pores. Groundwater moves at slow rates and will laterally disperse cells. Seasonal environmental and tidal factors and wastewater loading rates to septic systems can affect the vertical movement of water over time as well. As water tables drop, cells may be left behind in upper horizons of the soil that become unsaturated and potentially less conducive to survival. When water tables rise, bacterial cells typically in the surface film will be forced through pores into upper horizons, while others may be left behind in deeper groundwater conditions. All of these different subsurface conditions relative to groundwater depth can affect the survival of indicator and pathogenic bacteria, and the time spent under unfavorable or favorable conditions will determine the degree of bacterial die-off. Factor in varying conditions in loading, seasonal environmental conditions, variable and changing conditions in septic system drainage beds, tidal effects on groundwater flow, discontinuous hydraulic conductivity properties, and a myriad of other factors, and the explanations for field observations, especially the infrequent detection and low numbers of bacteria in wells downgradient from EDAs, become difficult. T'hus, the fact that any samples showed bacteria in downgradient wells should be considered significant and evidence supporting the contamination of surface water via groundwater flow from septic systems. The use of C. perfringens as a bacterial indicator of fecal-bome microbial contaminants in groundwater is a useful tool for determining if and where contamination has occurred. It is similar to nitrate because it can be considered a conservative tracer, i.e., relatively non-transformed, in the subsurface. Its long-term existence makes it conservative in a temporal context, while the non- reactivity of nitrate with soil particles makes it conservative on a spatial scale. The puzzlement that results from inconsistent results, as described above, where surface water contamination levels are higher than groundwater levels of bacteria around septic systems, can be counter-acted by considering the C. per firingens data. Generallyj high levels were detected in subsurface locations that have been exposed to laterally-transported microbial contamination. Use of fecal coliforms, enterococci, or other nonspore-forming bacteria as sole indicators in this study could have lead to incorrect conclusions about the transport of bacterial contaminants. Use of the four different indicators in this study allowed for multi-dimensional interpretation of results. In particular, the observed high values of C. perfringens at distances downgradient fi-orn EDAs increases the significance of the less frequent and lower concentrations of the other indicators. Ile results showed evidence of transformations of nutrients and bacteria in the subsurface environment below the EDAs. The greater the distance below the EDA to the water table, the greater extent of nitrification was evident. In sites where the water table was high, ammonium was much more commonly measured at high concentrations, while nitrate became essentially the sole nitrogen contaminant in wells that included deeper unsaturated layers below the EDAs. In soils with high seasonal high water tables, ammonium may be transported to groundwater, but appears to be rapidly changed to nitrate in wells away from the EDA. There appeared to be some evidence of denitrification occurring in the higher/shallower levels of the groundwater near to some EDAs, as the total dissolved inorganic nitrogen (DIN=amrnonium, nitrite, nitrate) concentrations were substantially decreased compared to EDA wells. Anurionium that was leached into the upper groundwater levels was apparently nitrified, as little ammonium was measured in paired deeper wells. In unsaturated zones, DIN concentrations were not reduced while much of the ammonium was nitrified. When the water table was high enough to inundate the bottoms of EDAs, ammonium accumulated in the groundwater. Eventually, it appeared that the nitrifying bacteria adapted to new conditions and nitrification resumed under these conditions. Phosphate is not typically transformed under conditions found in this study, and bacterial 36 die-off was not investigated. However, it was obvious from the results that both contaminants were transformed in the sense that both were attenuated by the soil matrix when the water table was not too high. The depth below an EDA to seasonal high groundwater is a question that needs more work. It appears that bacteria were found in groundwater rarely and at low concentrations at two sites where the seasonal high water table was < 36" below the EDA only once out of 24 samplings. Other sites, where the seasonal high water table was typically < 36' below the EDA had more frequent incidence and higher concentrations of bacteria. As described above, nitrification may not occur in soils below EDAs when the groundwater level is too high. Preliminary interpretation of results appears to support the possibility using a shallower depth (36-48') than the presently required depth of 48' below the bottom of an EDA to the top of the water table. 'Me final interpretation of the results relative to this question is based on only a few sites, and further studies on this question under a wider range of soil conditions may be required to adequately answer this question. CONCLUSIONS T'he sites selected for study were not uniform in anyway that would facilitate a systematic, scientific assessment of factors associated with the effectiveness of subsurface sewage treatment. However, the selected sites probably are a reasonable reflection of actual systems in older coastal developed areas. It is unfortunate that a wider range of soil types could not be included in this study. However, again, the sites selected were limited to sites within Seabrook and in close proximity to tidal or tributary surface waters, thus excluding many areas that could represent a wider range of coastal New Hampshire soils. In the final analysis, it is amazing to find so many willing participants for such a study. Despite the observed changes in groundwater flow direction that complicated the location of distinct contaminant plumes at some sites, it is apparent that most of the study sites have relatively contaminated groundwater. Even RB, which has not been occupied for a few years so that the EDA has not been used, has elevated levels of phosphate in groundwater, even out near the marsh edge. The contaminated groundwater appears to have some impact on adjacent surface waters, especially in high density housing areas. The areas of highest housing density are the River St. sites and FDC, which is at the edge of an older high density housing development. In addition, WRH is located next to and downgradient from an elementary school on septic systems and numerous other houses, while KDB is at the end of a new development with a relatively high density of houses and associated mounded effluent disposal areas. All of these sites are in close proximity to surface waters, and the loading rate of nutrients, especially nitrate, measured in wells probably exceeds the capacities of the remaining or nonexistent riparian zones to effectively treat contaminants. The bacterial contaminants were not transported away from EDAs consistently or in high quantities. Bacteria are not as mobile as nitrate, and are probably more tightly associated with soil particles. However, in soil core and initial groundwater samples that included some particulate matter, fecal-bome bacteria were detected in wells away from EDAs at high concentrations, evidence of recent or historical transport to those areas by some mechanism. The method adopted for routine sampling of wellwater for bacteria is a conservative approach that excludes most particle-associated bacteria. 37 REFERENCES Alhajar, B. J., Harkin, J. M., and Gordon Chesters, 1989, Detergent Formula and Characteristics of Wastewater in Septic Tanks, J. Wat. Poll. Cont. Fed., 61:5:605-613. Bicki, T. J., R. B. Brown, M. E. Collings, R. S. Mansell and D. F. Rothwell, 1984, Impact of On-site Sewage Disposal Systems on Surface and Ground Water Quality. Report LC170, Florida Dept. of Health and Rehabilitative Services, Tallahassee, Fla. Brandes, M., 1978, Characteristics of Effluents from Gray and Black Water Septic Tanks, J. Water Poll. Control Fed., 50:2547-2559. Brooks, D., and Irina Cech, 1979, Nitrates and Bacterial Distribution in Rural Domestic Water Supplies, Wat. Res., 13:33-41. Brown, K. W., Wolf, H. W., Donnelly, K. C., and J, F. Slowey, 1979, The Movement of Fecal Coliforms and Coliphages below Septic Lines, J. Env. Qual., 8:1:121-125. Brown, K. W., Donnelly, K. C., Thomas, J. C., and J. F. Slowey, 1984, The Movement of Nitrogen Species Through Three Soils Below Septic Fields, J. Environ. Qual., 13:3:460- 465. Canter, L. W., and Knox, R., 1985, Septic Tank System Effects on Ground Water Qua WI, Lewis Publishers, Inc., Chelsea, Michigan. Chen, M., 1988, Pollution of Ground Water by Nutrients and Fecal Coliforms from Lakeshore Septic Tank Systems, Water, Air, and Soil Poll., 37:407-417. Clark, E. H., Haverkamp, H. H., and W. Chapman, 1985, Eroding Soils: The Off-Farm Impacts, The Conservation Foundation, Washington, DC. Cogger, C., and B. L. Carlile, 1984, Field Performance of Conventional and Alternative Septic Systems in Wet Soils, J. Environ. Qual., 13:1:137- 142. Cogger, C., 1988, On-site Septic Systems: The Risk of Groundwater Contamination, J. of Env. Health, 51:1:12-16. Cogger, C., Hajjar, L. M., Moe, C. L., and M. D. Sobsey, 1988, Septic System Performance on a Coastal Barrier Island, J. Environ. Qual., 17:3:401-408. Craun, G. F., 1985, A Summary of Waterbome Illness Transmitted through Contaminated Groundwater, J. Environ. Health, 48:3:122-127. Davies, C.M., J.A.H. Long, M. Donald and N.J. Ashbolt. 19995. Survival of fecal microorganisms in marine and freshwater sediments. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 61: 1888-1896. Duda, A. M., and K. D. Cromartie, 1982, Coastal Pollution from Septic Tank Drainfields, J. Env. Eng. Div., 108:1265-1279. Gonzalez, J.M., J. Iriberri, L. Egea and I. Barcina. 1992. Characterization of culturability, protistan grazing, and death of enteric bacteria in aquatic ecosystems. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 58: 998-1004. Hagedorn, C., Hansen, D. T., and G. H. Simonson, 1978, Survival and Movement of Fecal Indicator Bacteria in Soil under Conditions of Saturated Flow, J. Environ. Qual., 7:1:55-59. Hagedorn, C., MCCoy, E. L., and T. M. Rahe, 198 1, The Potential for Ground Water Contamination from Septic Effluents, J. Environ. Qual., 10:1:1-8. Hileman, B., 1990, Alternative Agriculture, Chem. and Eng. News, 68:26-40. Hill, D. E. and B. L. Sawhney, 198 1, Removal of Phosphorus from Waste Water by Soil Under Aerobic and Anaerobic Conditions, J. Environ. Quality, 10:3:401-405. Hvorslev, M. J., 1951, Time lag and soil permeability in groundwater observations, U.S. Army Corps Engrs. Waterways Exp. Sta. Bull. 36, Vicksburg, Miss. Jones, R. A., and G. F. Lee, 1979, Septic Tank Wastewater Disposal Systems as Phosphorus Sources for Surface Waters, J., Water Poll. Control Fed., 51:2764-277 Jowett, E. C., and Michaye L. McMaster, 1995, On-Site Wastewater Treatment Using Unsaturated Absorbent Biofilters, J. Env. Quality, 24:86-95. Laak, R., 1974, Relative pollution strengths of undiluted waste materials discharged in 38 households and the dilution water used for each. In J. H. T. Winneberger, ed., Manual of Greywater Treatment Practice. Ann Arbor Science, Ann Arbor, MI, pp.68-78. Lapointe, B. E., O'Connell, J. D., and George S. Garrett, 1990, Nutrient couplings between on-site sewage disposal systems, groundwaters, and nearshore surface waters of the Florida Keys, Biogeochemistry, 10:289-307. Magdoff, F. R., D. R. Keeney, J. Bouma, and W. A. Ziebell, 1974, Columns representing mound-type disposal systems for septic tank effluent: H. Nutrient transformations and bacterial populations. J. Environ. Qual. 3:228-234 Mathsoft, Inc., 1994, ADEPT (A Program for Aquifer Data Evaluation) for the Mathcad@ environment, C.H.E.S.S. Inc., Bethesda, MD. Morrill 111, G. B, and L. G. Toler, 1973, Effect of Septic-Tank Wastes on Quality of Water, Ipswich and Shawsheen River Basins, Ma@sachusetts, J. Research U.S. Geol. Survey, 1:1:117-120. Netter, R., Stubner, E., Wilder, P. A., and Ivan Sekoulov, 1993, Treatment of Septic Effluent in a Subsurface Biofilter, Wat. Sci. Tech., 28:10:117-124. New Hampshire Estuaries Project (NHEP), March 1995, Governer's Nomination to the National Estuary Program, p2-3 1. New Hampshire Fish and Game Department (NHFGD), Marine Fisheries Division, 1991, Coastal Shellfish and Water Quality Progress Report, p 16. New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NHDES). 1995. Coastal Watershed Status report. New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services, Concord, NH. New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NHDES). 1994. Preliminary report on research needs. Presented to the University of New Hampshire, March, 1994. New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services, Concord, NE. Paul, J. H., Rose, J. B., Jiang, S., Kellogg, C., and Eugene A. Shinn, 1995, Occurence of Fecal Indicator Bacteria in Surface Waters and the Subsurface Aquifer in Key Largo, Florida, Applied and Env. Microbiol., 61:6:2235-224 1. Pommepuy, M., J.F. Guillaud, E. Dupray, A. Derrien, F. LeGuyader and M. Cormier. 1992. Enteric bacteria survival factors. Wat. Sci. Tech. 25: 93-103. Postma, F. B., Gold, A. J., and George W. Loomis, 1992, Nutrient and Microbial Movement from Seasonally-Used Septic Systems, J. Environ. Health, 55:2:5-10. Reneua, R. B. Jr., and D. E. Pettry, 1975, Movement of Coliform. Bacteria from Septic Tank Effluent through Selected Coastal Plain Soils of Virginia, J. Environ. Qual., 4:1:41-44. Reneua, R. B. Jr., and D. E. Pettry, 1976, Phosphorus Distribution from Septic Tank Effluent in Coastal Plain Soils, J. Envirn. Qual, 5:1:34-39. Reneua, R. B. Jr., Hagedorn, C., and M. J. Degen, 1989, Fate and Transport of Biological and Inorganic Contaminants from On-Site Disposal of Domestic Wastewater, J. Environ. Qual., 18:135-144. Robertson, W. D., Cherry, J. A., and E. A. Sudicky, 1991, Ground-Water Contamination from Two Small Septic Systems on Sand Aquifers, Ground Water, 29:1:82-92. Shiaris, M.P., A.C.Rex, G.W. Pettibone, K. Keay, P. McManus, M.A. Rex, J. Ebersole and E. Gallagher. 1992. Distribution of indicator bacteria and Vibrio parahaemolyticus in sewage- polluted intertidal sediments. Appl. Environ. NEcrobiol. 53: 1756-1761. Small Flows Journal, 1996, Census shows onsite systems are here to stay, 10: 1:4. Solic, M. and N. Krstulovic. 1992. Separate and combined effects of solar radiation, temperature, salinity and pH on the survival of faecal coliforms in seawater. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 24: 411-416. Sorensen, S.J. 1991. Survival of Escherichia coli K12 in seawater. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 85: 161-168. Stewart, L. W., and R. B. Renuea, Jr., 198 1, Spatial and Temporal Variation of Fecal Coliforin Movement Surrounding Septic Tank-Soil Absorption Systems in Two Atlantic Coastal 39 Plain Soils, J. Environ. Qual., 10:4:528-531. Tchobanoglous, G., F. L. Burton, and Metcalf and Eddy, Inc. 1991. Wastewater Engineering: Treatment, Disposal, and Reuse. McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., New York, N. Y. 1334 pp. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1991. Buzzards Bay Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan, Volume 1: Management Recommendations and Action Plans. USEPA, Washington, DC. USEPA, 1986, Septic Systems and Ground-Water Pollution: A Manager's Guide and Reference Book, Office of Groundwater Protection, Washington, DC 20460. USEPA, 1984, North Carolina barrier islands wastewater management. Environmental Impact Statement 904/9-84-117. USEPA, Atlanta, GA. USEPA, 1977, Alternatives for small @wastewater treatment systems, USEPA Rep. 625/4- 77-011, USEPA, Washington, D. C.. Wilhelm, S. R., Schiff, S. L., and John A. Cherry, 1994, Biogeochemical Evolution of Domestic Waste Water in Septic Systems: 1. Conceptual Model, Ground Water, 32:6:905-916. 40 TABLE 1 TYPICAL VALUES OF NUTRIENT AND MICROBIAL CONSTITUENTS IN SEPTIC TANK EFFLUENT AS REPORTED IN THE UTERATURE MEAN CONTAMINANT CONCENTRATION AUTHOR Total-N (mg/L) 29.8 Brown et al., 1984 40 Canter and Knox, 1985 101 Postma et al., 1992 NH4-N (mg/L) 59 Alhaijar et al., 1989 30 Canter and Knox, 1985 28 Cogger et al., 1988 51.2 Jowett and McMaster, 1995 60-90 Netter, 1993 30-59 Robertson et al., 1991 N03-N (mg/L) 0.2 Alhajjar et al., 1989 0.22 Brandes, 1978 <0.5 Cogger et al., 1988 0.1-1.0 Robertson et al., 1991 Total-P (mg/L) 14 Alhajjar et al., 1989 18.6 Brandes, 1978 15 Canter and Knox, 1985 8.0-12.0 Netter, 1993 13 Postma et al., 1992 P04-P (mg/L) 1 1 Alhajjar et al., 1989 15.2 Brandes, 1978 6.2 Cogger et al., 1988 5.5-11.0 Reneau and Pettry, 1976 8.0-13.0 Robertson et al., 1991 total coliforms 3.OOE+08 Alhaijar et al., 1989 (#/100 ml) 2.60E+06 Brandes, 1978 6.40E+06 Jowett and McMaster, 1995 1.10E+07 Reneau and Pettry, 1975 fecal coliforms 2.1 OE+07 Alhajjar et al., 1989 (#/100 m I) 1.08E+06 Brandes, 1978 1.11 E+06 Brown et al., 1979 4.20E+05 Hagedorn et al., 1981 1.80E+06 Jowett and McMaster, 1995 1.30E+06 Reneau and Pettry, 1975 TABLE 2: SEABROOK STUDY SITES: SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS. SYSTEM DOWN SYSTEM STATE OF IN FILL OR DEPTH TO GRADIENT SITE AGE APPROVED OCCUPANTS NATURAL SOIL MOTTLING TOPOGRAPHY Adjacent to tidal marshes or beach: River Street REH 10+ No 1 In Fill 2011 marsh/creek RET 2+ No 2 In Fill 201f marsh FB 30+ No 1 to2 Nat. Soil 1711 marsh Ffi 5 ? 2 Nat. Soil beach FP 40+ No 1 Nat. Soil beach FC 8+ Yes 2 to3 Fill/Raised beach Adjacent to tidal marshes: In Town WRH 7 No 2 Fill/Raised 2810 marsh CSL 37 No 1 Nat. Soil 3011 marsh KDBS 7 Yes 4 Fill/Raised 2611 marsh KDBM 7 Yes 4 to5 Fill/Raised 26 marsh TABLE 3: Soils and subsurface characteristics of study sites. DISTANCE to LIMITATIONS of DEPTH TO RANGE IN H20 RANGE IN SLOPE of POORLY DRAINED SOILS for TRENCH BOTTOM TABLE DEPTH SALINITY SITE EDA SOILS from EDA SEPTIC SYSTEMS (BGS) (BGS) (BGS) Adjacent to tidal marshes or beach: River Street REH 0-3% 10' to very poorly SEVERE undetermined 0.82-2.44' 0-20.5 RET 0-3% 75' to poorly undefined undetermined 0.0-4.77' 0-4.0 FE 0-3% 30' to very poorly SEVERE undetermined 3.06-4.65' 3.8-31.0 RH 0-3%/8-15% 85' to very poorly undefined undetermined 6.41-7.55' 2.0-20.5 FP 0-3%/8-15% 90' to very poorly undefined undetermined 6.75-7.98' 3.0-21.0 IC 0-3%/8-15% 70' to very poorly undefined undetermined 4.30-7.52' 2.0-28.0 Adjacent to tidal marshes: In Town M-1 0-3%/3-8% 50' to poorly undefined 2.42' (29") 3.0-4.64' 0-0.3 CSL 0-3% 60' to poorly SEVERE 2.17' (26") 1.95-5.14' 0-0.9 KDBS 25-35%/0-3% 100' to poorly SEVERE 2.5' (30") 5.57-8.4' 0-0.8 KDBIVI 25-35%/0-3% 1 00' to poorly SEVERE 2.08' (25-) 5.73-8.47' 0-0.5 BGS: defined as "below ground surface". ppt: defined as "parts per thousand". undefined: indicates soils where limitations were not defined by county soil survey. undetermined: indicates sites where EDA could not be cored to determine depth to trench bottom. TABLE 4: SEABROOK STUDY SITES: SUBSURFACE CHARACTERISTICS. EDA SEPTIC DOWN SEPTIC DISTANCE to SOIL SYSTEM GRADIENT SYSTEM POORLY DRAINED SITE SYMBOL LIMITATIONS SLOPE SOIL LIMITATIONS SLOPE SOILS from EDA Adjacent to tidal marsh or beach: River Street FEH 1 OOA ? 0-3% 1 OOA/797A SEVERIE_ 0-3% 10' to very poorly FET 1 OOA ? 0-3% 1 OOA ? 0-3% 75' to poorly FB 1 OOA ? 0-3% 1 OOA/797A SEVERE 0-3% 30' to very poorly FH 300A ? 0-3% 30OA/C ? 0-3%/8-15% 85' to very poorly FP 300A ? 0-3% 30OA/C ? 0-3%/8-15% 90' to very poorly FC 300A ? 0-3% 30OA/C ? 0-3%/8-15% 70' to very poorly Adjacent to tidal marshes: In Town WFH 1 OOA ? 0-3% 1 OOA/B ? 0-3%/3-8% 50' to poorly CSL 26A SEVERE 0-3% 313A SEVERE 0-3% 60' to poorly KDBS 299A ? 0-3% 299E/313A SEVERE 25-35%/0-3% 100' to poorly KDBIVI 299A ? 0-3% 299E/313A SEVERE 25-35%/0-3% 100' to poorly JISOIL DESCRIPTION 26A WINDSOR: Very deep, excessively drained sandy loam/loamy sand/sand severe septic system limitalon-poor filter 100 LIDORTHENTS: wet substratum: poorly drained sandy loam filled w/moderate well drained sandy loam/sand fill or granular fill/black loamy sand over saturated wetland 299 UDORTHENTS: smoothed: well drained smoothed sandy loam filled over w/ loamy fill 300 UDIPSAMMENT: excessively drained excavated and eolian sand 313 DEERFIELD: deep moderately well drained sandy loam/loamy sand/sand severe septic system limitation-wetness, poor filter 497 PAWCATUCK very deep, very poorly drained saturated hemic materials/fsl/ls on tidal marsh fringe severe septic system limitation-ponding, poor filter 797 MATUNUCK: tidal marsh, flooded at high tide, very poorly drained saturated organic fibers/sand severe septic system limitation Table 5. Seabrook Well Statistics Summary Well Total Well Screened Interval Depths BGS Current Current Depth BGS Top Bottom TOC Elevation Stick-up (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (in) CSL-1 7.00 1.00 6.00 87.22 0.00 CSL-2 7.00 1.00 6.00 87.36 0.00 CSL-3 7.00 1.00 6.00 85.61 0.00 CSL-4 7.00 1.00 6.00 86.47 0.00 CSL-51) 12.75 6.75 11.75 85.61 0.00 CSL-6 7.04 1.04 6.04 84.55 0.00 WRH-1 7.00 1.00 6.00 90.26 48.00 WRH-2 6.92 0.92 5.92 90.56 49.00 WRH-3D 14.67 8.67 13.67 88.48 38.00 WRH-4 7.46 1.46 6.46 88.79 42.50 WRH-5 7.00 1.00 6.00 90.53 48.00 WRH-6 7.00 1.00 6.00 87.68 48.00 WRH-7M 6.56 5.06 6.o6 85.43 41.28 WRH-8M 6.06 4.56 5.56 85.57 47.28 WRH-9C 5.98 4.48 5.48 83.59 48.24 WRH-10C 5.68 4.18 5.18 83.27 51.84 RB-1 7.25 1.25 6.25 103.61 48.00 RB-2 7.21 1.21 6-.21 103.32 45.50 RB-3 6.96 0.96 5.96 103.30 48.00 RB-4 7.03 1.03 6.03 103.38 44.13 RH- 1 9.00 3.00 8.00 102.97 12.00 RH-2 9.96 3.96 8.96 102.79 12.50 RH-3 10.00 4.00 9.00 103.09 10.50 RH-4 9.97 3.97 8.97 102.35 6.88 RH-5 20.73 14.73 19.73 103.22 13.00 RP- 1 10.12 4.12 9.12 101.46 0.00 RP-2 10.46 4.46 9.46 102.00 5.00 RP-3 10.50 4.50 9.50 102.57 7.13 RP-4 10.67 4.67 9.67 101.90 0.00 RP-5 18.25 12.25 17.25 101.96 0.00 RP-6B 6.65 5.15 6.15 92.55 40.20 RP-7B 4.96 3.46 4.46 94.45 60.48 RP-8B 6.18 4.58 5.68 92.11 45.84 RP-9B 7.01 5.49 6.49 95.29 35.88 RC-1 14.08 8.08 13.08 105.23 12.30 RC-2 11.00 5.00 10.00 104.72 6.00 RC-3 10.42 4.42 9.42 103.57 0.00 RC-4 10.52 4.52 9.52 102.12 0.00 KDB-1 9.38 3.38 8.38 100.00 0.00 KDB-2 10.79 4.79 9.79 100.26 0.00 KDB-3 9.50 3.50 8.50 100.29 0.00 KDB-4 9.40 3.40 8.40 100.15 0.00 KDB-5 8.81 2.81 7.81 97.02 0.00 KDB-6 9.18 3.18 8.18 97.10 0.00 KDB-7 9.22 3.22 8.22 98.70 0.00 KDB-8 10.20 4.20 9.20 97.57 0.00 KDB-9 16.30 10.30 15.30 98.39 0.00 KDB-IOM 7.65 6.15 7.15 89.10 28.25 KDB-11M 6.77 5.27 6.27 91.26 38.75 KDB-12M 7.25 5.75 6.75 92.69 33.00 KDB-13C 5.23 3.73 4.73 85.32 57.25 KDB-14C 6.52 5.02 6.02 86.67 41.75 KDB-15M 6.63 5.13 6.13 91.81 40.50 FDC-1 10.19 4.19 9.19 29.69 0.00 FDC-2 8.90 2.90 7.90 29.61 0.00 FDC-3 9.30 3.30 8.30 29.87 0.00 FDC-4 10.60 4.60 9.60 29.90 0.00 FDC-5 10.80 4.80 9.80 24.49 40.50 RET-1 6.38 0.38 5.38 98.17 0.00 RET-2 7.08 1.08 6.08 101.55 45.75 RET-3 7.12 1.12 6.12 98.31 0.00 RET-4 6.98 0.98 5.98 100.59 24.00 RET-5 7.04 1.04 6.04 100.54 18.33 RET-6 7.06 1.06 6.06 98.85 0.00 REH-1 7.05 1.05 6.05 100.79 40.50 REH-2 6.96 0.96 5.96 100.93 40.50 REM 7.04 1.04 6.04 100.66 46.50 REH-3SS 7.61 6.11 7.11 99.18 28.74 REH-4 7.08 1.08 6.08 101.06 43.13 REH-5 7.02 1.02 6.02 100.93 44.50 REH-6 17.20 11.20 16.20 101.10 43.75 REH-7C 5.30 3.80 4.80 97.58 56.40 REH-8C 4.09 2.59 3.59 98.76 70.92 Table 6. Su of Hydraulic Conductivity Tests Well No. of Tests K Comments Avg Avg (ft/d) (cm1s) CSL-1 -- Not Tested CSL-2 3 1.517E+00 4.460E-05 CSL-3 3 1.816E+00 5.340E-05 CSL-4 3 2.667E+00 7.841E-05 CSL-5D 3 3.369E-01 9.904E-06 CSL-6 3 1.677E+00 4.929E-05 WRH-I 3 3.869E-01 1. 13813-05 WRH-2 3 1.343E+00 3.949E-05 WRH-3D 3 5.037E-01 1.481E-05 WRH-4 3 4.626E+00 1.360E-04 WRH-5 3 7.768E-01 2.284E-05 WRH-6 3 3.335E+00 9.805E-05 WRH-7M 3 1.461E+01 4.295E-04 WRH-8M 3 9.664E+00 2.841E-04 WRH-9C 3 6.419E+00 1.887E-04 WRH-10C 3 8.728E+00 2.566E-04 RH-1 4 1.647E+00 4.841E-05 RH-2 4 6.663E-01 1.959E-05 RH-3 4 1.20913+00 3.553E-05 RH-4 4 4.770E-01 1.402E-05 RH-5 4 1.106E+00 3.250E-05 RP-1 4 4.160E-01 1.223E-05 RP-2 4 1.586E-01 4.663E-06 RP-3 4 1.040E+00 3.058E-05 RP-4 4 5.849E-01 1.720E-05 RP-5 4 5.806E-01 1.707E-05 RP-613 -- Not tested RP-7B Not tested RP-813 Not tested RP-913 -- Not tested RC-1 4 5.637E+00 1.657E-04 RC-2 -- Insufficient water in well RC-3 4 8.173E-01 2.403E-05 RC-4 1 7.509E-01 1-2.208E-05 F I I KDB-1 3 2.240E-01 6.586E-06 KDB-2 4 5.67 1 E+00 1.667E-04 KDB-3 3 3.027E-01 8.898E-06 KDB-4 2 3.075E+00 9.041E-05 KDB-5 3 4.629E-01 1.361E-05 KDB-6 3 7.126E-01 2.095E-05 KDB-7 -- Insufficient water in well KDB-8 -- Insufficient water in well KDB-9 3 1.387E+00 4.077E-05 KDB-lOM 1 1.032E+00 3.035E-05 KDB-11M -- Insufficient response KDB-12M 3 6.992E+01 2.056E-03 KDB-14C -- Not tested KDB-13C -- Not tested KDB-15M 3 3.097E+00 9.104E-05 FDC-l 2 2.141E-01 6.295E-06 FDC-2 2 4.772E-01 1.403E-05 FDC-3 -- Insufficient water in well FDC-4 2 2.274E-01 6.686E-06 FDC-5 -- Insufficient response REH-I 3 1.841E+02 5.412E-03 REH-2 4 3.503E-01 1.030E-05 REH-3 4 9.149E-01 2.690E-05 REH-4 4 1.743E+01 5.125E-04 REH-5 4 2.232E-01 6.562E-06 REH-6 4 7.779E+00 2.287E-04 Table 7. Groundwaur Elevadon Time History Summary JWELL [T@ ___ GROUNDWATER ELEVATIONS Ifl) 9 ,2,gT 31719-91 3 n3 1915 I'l 1951 51,1951 5 6,29,95 7/17/951 8/21/95110/191 51 21291961 1,111961 5/22/951 6/6/91 @f" (ft@ (f (ft) (ft) KOB-1 92.49 94.68 95.04 :4.52 :44.17 94.170 92.94 92.09 91. 62 2 95.70 95.08 94.50 :4.12 KD:-2 120 -- -- 4.34 2 :4.0 93.12 :2.24 1.94 :2 6: -- -- 94.39 3.33 D 3 2.4 94.64 94.01 0 K_ 97 94.41 94.69 94.22 94 00 4.03 92.92 2.06 1.06 92.60 95.14 94.22 KDB 92.13 94.13 94.44 93.99 93.71 93.77 92.42 92.17 :1.70 :2.53 94.,8.16 94.32 93.896 92.82 IC 11:4 9 91 13 9 g 9 92 4 5 91.29 2.0: 2.6 :2.91 1.613 0.31 ::*59 9,51 0,413 3 91. 91. D 6 6 9 9 8 4 .7 , . 9- -1: 61 91.167 KDB- 9.4 2.1 2.47 91,41 "90 8,07 2*4. 92,4 91. 1 K a_ :2 8 9 9(. 9 91 9 5 D 7 2 0.10 3.3 92.84 92,33 2.35 9.,99 91,54 90,22 20 3.92 93*3 92.72 92-22 3_ 08 a KD 97-57 92*80 93.33 92.69 92' 92,2: 90*17 89,36 89,11 90 24 93.76 93,76 92.90 92-47 XDB_: go .39 91. 36 94.49 91.68 86.12 91.0 go .04 96.1 96.16 96.16 96.16 96 .16 91.3 90.40 KD 3_10 :4*1: 3.94 KDB:II 94,44 :4,32 KD:_12 1* 99 91.59 KI) 13 83,82 83-77 KDB-14 80. go 78*36 KD B_ 15 91.81 91.., GROUNDWATER ELEVATIONS (ft) 12/14/941 2/It6/951 3121951 3/30/951 4(/61951 5/11/9 /29/951 7/121951 8/115/95111/14/9511@/18/951 2/1/961 2/81961 312 /961 (ft) (f (ft, f,) 't) tft) (ft) ft (ft (f:) 5/:T6/6,/96 IWELL1 17 (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft , 96 @,t WR.H-1 82.94. 3-11. 83.66 :3.27 .039 -- 84.0. .4.2. 83.25 84.35 83.70 82.81 WRH-2 83.35! :3 :2.51 :1.45 :1,43 :1*35 ___LO.161 84.22 83.95 83.33 83.84 83.49 82.88 84.46 3.37 3.1 2.49 2.12 1.45 1.37 -- WRH-3D 85.12 12,13 :2.:1 :2.09 :1.23 :1.3: :3.216 91 33 7 :2*:: :2*:l :1.21 @.I. 8 4 7 :2.:@. W :2.90 :3.21 .RH:4 9 9 2 2- 1 2.8: 2.04 1.12 0.10 9,:7 2 3,2 3.2 2.283 3.15 2.90 82.40 :2,91 ::,. WRH_6 2.3 *3 .329 a3-27 a2* a2.31 81.5: 81.4 81-5 a4.54 a4*057 S4,37 83'2 84.26 3.28 82.6: RH 82.76 87.68 a2.43 82.32 82. 10 81.74 80.6 a0.03 79.80 82.9 82.50 82.29 82.53 :2.3 6 81.0 WRH-7 1.94 :1.52 WPJ1- :1.57 1.42 WRH 80.18 80.22 WRH-10 80.3 3 80.281 GROUNDWATER ELEVATIONS (ft) 12/14t/941 2/16/951 2/23/951 3/30/951 5/111951 6/51951 6/29/951 7/12/951 8/16/95110/26 /951 2/22/961 4/111961 6131961 6/6 (ft) (ft, f,) (ft) (ft) (,t) (f,) (f, IWELL (f (ft) (ft (ft) (ft) (ft, C:L 1 :3.:5 :3.58 0 :3.590 ::.25 :3.2: :3.25 :2.73 :2.145 :2.17 :3.28 :3.62 .22 2 :5.29 :4. 92 7 C L-2 3. 2 3.3 3. 4 51 3,0 3*01 2.5: 2,, 1*91 3.a 5.01 4-5 3.44 3.52 CS L-3 83.18 83. 07 8, .00 .2.45 82.47 81.8 1. ': .1.39 .2.74 84.73 83.9: 82.64 85.61 C:L-: :3*56 j... :3.11 3.48 :1.95 :1.:3 84.82 :3.15 :3.25 3 :2.94 :2.84 :2.32 :2.:59 :4.35 C L- 3.24 1.83 :1.8 2.69 2.84 1.98 1.79 1. 7 2. -- 4.15 2.99 5.61 CS L- 5D 83.45 CS L-6 92.50 82.40 02.20 81.83 81.73 81.05 80.88 80.58 82.24 83.06 83.35 81.81 81.96 GROUNDWATER ELEVATIONS (ft) @2/6/94 3/1 /951 616/95 6/29/951 717/95 IWELL (ft, (f5t) (ft)I (ft (ft) RB:1 96.4 RB_2 97,04 ::,46 5.27 94.:7 :5.05 94.0919 RB_3 90 '04 98,47 :5,28 :4.15 5.06 95- 99.34 RB 4 97.39 81 95.83 5. 7 95.42 95.29 -- GROUNDWATER ELEVATIONS (ft) 12/ /941 12/7/941 3/151951 5/241951 616./951 6/(29/951 7/10/95 1 7/24/95 1 11/7/95 1 2/20/961 3/12/961 4/26/961 5/28/96 /6/961 IWELL (f6t) (ft) Aft) (ft) f,) ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft)I (ft) 61ft RH-I 5.13 ::.12 4 ::*73 :,1*781 :4,:2 :4.4: ::.:S :.6.12 9 :542 :5.34 :4 9 :4.11@. 3 :..1: :4.4. 6 RH-2 :6*29 5 52 4'4 5 57 4.00 4'9 4, 4*9 4.:7 4. 1 96 7 9 9:,5 9 9 70 9 30 9 95 RH-3 *1 9634 95 *6 94 9: 5 3 94 95',5: 95 33 94,66 5. 4.619 gr,017 RH-4 102*35 102 35 97*3: 95*17 9:*7: 94':9 95'001 95,5 95'36 4. 95,15 94* ,* 6 RH-5 103.22 92.20 96.84 95.75 92.44 95.46 96.21 96.34 93.31 92.99 93.85 93.43 93.19 IWELL GROUNDWATER ELEVATIONS (ft) 12/10/941 3/151951 51101951 51241951 6/29/951 711 01951 7/241951 1215 951 4/(23/961 51(28 (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) f, (f, (f,) (ft 11 ft) ft RP-1 94.85, 4.11 94.25 3.91 9: .16 :4.:2 5 :3.40 :3.72 :3.4: :3.7 :4 RP-2 95.21!___!k8.jt.' 94.10 :3 - 7 3.25 3,:: 93,459 93' 3:2 3' 5 RP-3 5.29 9 4 93,5: 9 28 94 93 a o :41.7S :44,27 ' 9 93 94*80 17 RP:4 :4.9 '71 *3S 1:'52 3.4 3.7.9 933`44 3. 94*1 93*6: RP 5 -- 95.'" 90.16 93.31 93.11 54.90 93.61 915.69 92.41 93.94 RP_6 -45 89.48 -- RP _7 ::.35 50 RP 8, 52 61 RP 92.10 92.11 92.79 Table 7. Con't J*ELL - GROUNDWATER ELEVATIONS ft) 1@@./9. 3/23/951 5/(18/951 5/24/951 6/29/951 7/10/951 8/23/95 11/ /951 3/(12/91,1 1/(16 @2 (ft (ft) (ft) (ft)I R -1 96.20 02 96,23 95.08 9-'."o 94.86 96.07 S.86 :5.00 94.76 95.7: 100.51 RC 98.97 :61:72 .22 95... 94,29 95.45 94,53 :6.70 .30 -- .4 94.46 CC:2 -- 9.7 95.72 g4.73 95.77 95 1 :15.22 93.30 R _3 .22 :5. 6'1 95.07 9(5'.04 .92 RC 4 -- 96.22 95.17 97.82 94.37 94.62 94.60 95.1: 94.77 ::.57 95.00 93.74 JWFLL GROUNDWATER ELEVATIONS (ft) 1/31941 3113/951 4113,19-11 5/4/95 5/31@/951 6/29/951 7/5/951 @'/f2196 11/t6,/96 ,ft, (ft ( 1(ft) (ft) (ft (ft (ft) RET-1 94.56 7.52 95.73 95.73 @4.75 94.10 94.06 94.32 94.07 RET-2 96.33 :6.:5 94.16 97 ::,:S 97.37 94.79 94.10 94.499 :4.:2 RET-3 94.77 1 95*11 92.91 94.17 94.09 95. 4 4. 1 7 09 RET-4 94.41 97 94 91 7: 9:.05 95. -- 94.31 -- 93.00 RET-5 98 5 96 71 95.04 94.09 16 95.19 95.15 RET-6 :23'8926 98'853 96'.99 :9*.404 94.62 -- ::*oe -- -- IWELL GROUNDWATER ELEVATIO"S (ft) 1 10/3/941 3/13/951 4/13 1951 51 951 5/(311951 rl(291951 7,15/951 7/18/ 951 8(/2/951 10/5/951 4/(18/961 51(23/9 (ft, (ft) (ft) 't) ft, (ft ft) (ft) ft) ft) REH-1 96.92 96.89 96.14 95.27 94.59 94.27 94.19 95.06 94.21 95.03 96.20 94.92 95.45 REH-2 95.91 95.03 95.21 95.20 95.16 94.78 94.77 95.83 94.95 95.11 95.75 95.12 94.99 REH:3 96.716 :5.11 :5.26 95.36 94.80 94.32 6 93.52 -- :3.24 :6.32 RE 3 0 :5.33 4 :4.17 :4.21 H 4 95.9 6.06 6.0 95.3 5.09 94. 9 94.SO 9.9 96.27 9.11 96.86 5.21 6.00 RE f 5 95.47 95.31 5.31 95.31 95.13 94.8 94.83 :2.53 95.42 :5.71 :46.21 95.21 :5.72 H 1 3: 1 REH-6 01.10 96.31 6.05 91.69 93.00 94. 93. 0 .34 92.71 4.97 .08 86.71 4.43 RE H-7 93.42 94 .88 RE H-8 93.42 94.78 rELL - 3,9/._ GROUNDWATER ELEVATIONS (ft) [1V(22115 (@t) '1 4/6/ 951 5/2/9515./22/951 6/5/951 6/29/951 I./l/96 lft) f7 ,t7 t) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) FDC-1 93.05 23.69 23.54 23.26 23-41 23.15 22.:2 22.S92 FDC-2 94.S4 2S.19 24.79 24.39 24.46 24.30 23. 9 24. 5 FDC :3 93.043 2:.28 23.04 23.33 23.82 23.48 21.46 22-93 E. DC ' :4,4 29*0 0 2-6: 24.140 24-57 2. .15 23-67 23.6 FDC-5 8.13 1 . 1_, 1:.2 18.2 19.39 17.92 17.38 1a.2: TABLE BA: Stto REH-Nutrient D stabose i iWELL: R um mg/L um mg/L glL PH IH20DEPTH TSS % OoA DATE N03 -N03-N NH4 NH4-N- mlIL MP04 TIDE FLTER 12/7194 15.00 12/7/94 10.96 0.15 121.71 1.76 1.8610.320 1 O@025 LFM 217195 2/7195 1 1 LFF@ 3113/95 9.80 5.20 3.90 91.14 9.09 3/13/95 5.70 0.08 39.66 0.56 0.63 0.104 0.008 LFF 4113195 4.65 4/13/95 HNO BIN 514/95 6.00 7.10 6.52- 1398.00 6J2 514/95 5.25 O@071162.35 2.27 2.35 0.022 0.002 1LNO 8 6131/95 6.20 6/31/QS I I ILNO BIN 6/12/95 15.00 7.44 5.37 258.67 13.92 6112/95 1 1.03 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 7.444 0.588 1HE NO 8 7/5/95 20.00 6.60 7/5/95 LNO BIN 7/18/95 17.00 1 4.84 7/18/95 LE NO BIN 8/2/95 6.49 8/2/9S LF NO N. MPN 10/5/06 20.00 5.78 5.67 1015/95 0.00 0.00 59.98 0.84 0.84 0,844 0,067 HFF 12128/95 10.00 12/28/95 0.20 0.00 13.75 009 0.20 0.116 0.009 LE FF -- 4,/, -8/96 @02@01 '1@.10. 5.11 4.50 4118/98- 0.71 0.01 10.76 0.15 0.16 14456 00115 FF PF !@/-23/96 @o . C09 5.87 S/23/96 0.00 0.00-- 43.41 0.81- 0.61 5.963 0,471 LNO 8- MEAN. 12.23 13.54 0.20 5.42 MEAN. 0.04 0.79 0.83 0.161 MEDLAN 11.00 17.00 3.96 3.52 MED" 0.01 0.53 0.62 0.046 STDDEV 4.32 6.34 1.00 0187 STDOEV 0.06 0.60_ 0.84 0.233 N 5 i i N 8 PH H20 DEPTH M % OM DATE N03 N03-N NK4 NH4-N DiN P04 P04 12/7/94 13.00 12/7/94 017.61 11.46 84.66 1.19 12.63 0.110 0.009 LFM 2/7/95 2/7/96 LFROZEN 3/13/95 3.40 8.60 4.88 3/13/95 LNO BIN 4113195 4.70 4/1 V95 HNO BIN 5/4/95 4.71 --5/4/95 LNO B/N 5/31195 4.73 :5,1311:95: LNO BIN 6/12/95 5.00 7.32 3.92 2091.00 4.57 8/12/95 271.39 3.80 0.00 0.00 3.80 0.440 0.036 HE NO a 7/5195 20.00 6.14 7/5/95 1 L- NO BIN 7/18195 17.50 4.00 7/18/96 LE NO BIN 812195 4.08 8/2/95 LF NO N, WN 10/6195 17.00 6.84 4.12 1015/95 605.93 8.50 1300.05 18.20 26.70 0.203 0.016 HFF -T-2128196 --4 -OO-T-- 12/28/95 701.44 9.82 1182.28 16.55 2e.37 0.001 0.000 LE FF 4118196 4.00 1 9.40 7.4S 4.08 4/18/96 56.85 oja 1536.85 21.52 22.30 0.232 0.018 wFF 5/23/96 5.00 16.00 6.49 4.79 5123/96 11.33 0.16 1270.76. 17.79 17.9S 1.875 0.148 L- PF MEAN. 7 34 1430 7.03 4.33 MEAN. $.75 12.54 !Sa29 0.036 --NIEDIAN 7.08 4.71 MEDtAN a.15 17.17 20.12 0.017 STDDEV 0.44 0.44 STDDEV i.82 9.41 8.86 6 -N 4 11 -=@N 6 WELL WELL SAL I TEMP PH I H20 DEPTH TSS % ON DATE N03 N03-N NH4 NH4-N DIN P04 P04 TIDE FILTER 12/7/94 ismoo 12/7/94 54L95 0,77 70402 0mgS 1,75 0.100 0.008 LFm 2/7/95 2/7/95 LFROZEN 3113196 9.00 10.00 5.55 3113/96 LNO BIN --@/ 1 -3/9 5 - 5.40 4/13/95 HNO BIN 5/4/95 5.30 5/4/95 LNO BIN --g-131 -/95 - 5.33 5131/95 LNO BIN 6/12/95 9.00 7.05 4.55 1 102.33 9.77 6112/95 7.48 0.10 139.70 1.96 2.06 0.354 0.028 HE NO 13 7/5/96 21.00 6.34 7/6/95 LNO BIN 7/18/95 18,00 17.50 7.04 5.04 leg.oo 11.83 7/10/95 12.55 0.18 20.36 0.40 0.57 0.000 0.000 LE NOB 8t2195 5.66 812/95 LF NO N, WN 10/5/95 20.50 7.08 4.99 10/6/95- 0.00 -0.00 66.56 0.93 0.93 0.118 0.009 HPF 12/28195 12/28/95 LE FIF 4/18196 16.00 8.00 7.08 5.50 4/15/96 7.07 0.10 205.88 2.86 2.90 2.016 0.159 wFF 5/23/96 18.00 113.00 7.08 5.94 5/23/9a 1.77 0.02 85.64 1.20 1.22 0.443 0.035 LPF MEAN. 15.07 113.90 7.07 5.42 MEAN@ 0.20 1.39 1.59 0.040 MEDAN iS.00 13.00 7.08 5.40 MEDMIN 0.10 1.00 1.49 0.019 STD06-- 4.49 5.34 0.02 0.48 STDDEV 0.29 0.89 0.87 0.060 N 7 5 5 11 N 6 a 6 6 - - - - - - - - - - - WELL, WELL HW DEPTH DATE N03 M03-M NH4 NH4-N DIN P04 TIDE SAL TEMP pH Iss POO FILTER 12/7194 15.00 1 12/7/94 5.93 0.08 233.94 3.28 3.36 0.130 0.010 LFM 2/7/96 1 2/7/95 LFRCZEN 3/13/9S 5.00 3113/95 LNO BIN 4113195 5.03 4/13/95 HNO BIN S/4/05 5.76 5/4/95 LNO BIN 5131195 6.97 5131195 LNO &W 6/12/95 5.19 6112/95 HE NO BIN 7/5/95 1 23.00 6.56 7/5/95 LNO BIN F .3 @3 00 5.00 16.00 3.39 5.05 7 1 m V7 08 7 '.0. 0.02 7/ia/ss 117.00 4.67 7/18/96 LE NO BIN 8/2/96 8.37 8/2195 LF NON. MP 10/5/05 17.00 5.53 10/5195 6.51 0.09 313.60 4.39 4.48 0.469 0.037 HNO 6 12/28/95 12128195 LE NO BIN -7/-18/96 9.50 4.18 1 4/18/96 1 NO BIN 15.50 5.85 -T- -5/23196 1NO NIB MEAN. 16*00 16.25 5.65 MEAN. 9 3 3- 0.024 11 MEDL4kN No -. 3122 @L..24. 0.01 1 0.019 -1 N 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 WELL: TEMP PH H20 DEPTH TSS %Om DATE N403 N03-N NH4 NH4-N DIN P04 P04 TIDE FLTER 12/7194 COO 12/7/94_ 1 1090.75 15.27 1378.97 19.31 34.S8 0.200 0.016 LFm 217!95 6a5O 1.00 7038 20.50 217/95 9.94 0.14 1436.73 20.10 20.24 0.104 0,008 LNO B 3113/95 1.80 8.50 5.62 3/13/95 LNO B/N 4113195 5@62 4/13195 HNO B/N 5/i/95 S.62 514/95 LNO B/N 5131195 5.80 5/31/95 LNO B/N 6/12195 4.66 6/12/95 HE NO B/N 715/95 19.00 6.10 715/95 LNO BfN 7/18/95 17aoo 4.48 7118195 LE NO SIN 812195 5.59 8/2/95 IF NO N, NFN 10/5/95 0.00 5.30 10/5/95 897.06 12.56 1235.00 17.29 29.85 0.216 0.017 H FF 12128/95 COO 12/28/95 18.76 0.26 1221.49 17.10 17.36 0.001 0.000 LE FF 4/18/96 2,00 9.00 6.81 4.6L-- 4/18/96 1.81 0.03 1389.83 19.48 19.48 0,272 0.021 W FF 6/23/96 0.00 l5a50 7.43 5.72 5123/98 3.55 0.05 1438.16 20.13 20.18 0.234 0.018 L PF MEAN. 2.61 11.67 7.21 3.38 MEAN. 4.72 18.90 23.62 .. 14 MEDIAN 2.00 12.25 7.36 5.62 MEDIAN 0.20 19.38 20.21 0.016- STDDEV 2.37 6.73 0.34 0.53 STDDEV 7olS 1.36 6.90 0.008 N 7 6 3 1 1 N a ------------- WELL: TEMP PH H20 DEPTH TSS IY03-M NH4 NH4-N DIN P04 P04 TIDE FLTER 1 2/7t94 12/7/94 LF NOWELL 217/95 13.90 3m5G 20.50 2/7195 1 0.33 0.00 772.37 10.81 10.82 0.032 0.003 L s 3/13195 10.20 7.60 4.79 54.80 8.30 3113/95 3.71 0.05 48.79 0.68 0.73 3,987 0.31-5 L FF 4113/95 2.00 5.05 29.80 i0.81 4/13/95 S.24 0.07 217.51 3.05 3.12 10.708 0.846 H PF 5/4195 10.00 6.82 9.41 4.20 23.81 514/95 0.76 0.01 399.23 5.59 S.60 9.980 0.788 L FF 5/31/95 13.00 6.63 8.10 21.00 7.14 6/31195 2.55 O@04 442.84 6.20 6.24 12.235 0.966 L FF 6/12195 12.00 6.95 7.08 --fO. 0 0 .67 8112196 2.46 0.03 368.56 5.16 5.19 7.482 0.591 HE FF 7/5/96 13.00 12.90 6.a4 8.00 23.80 1 9.24 715/95 0.57 0.01 331.71 4.64 4.65 2.175 0.172 L PF 7/18/95 12.00 12.50 7.03 8.05 219.26 2@51 7/18/96 2.a2 0.04 117.40 1.64 1.68 6.204 0.490 LE PF 8/2/96 12-00 16.10 6.92 6.28 33.60 13.69 8/2/9S 2.06 0.03 30.56 0.43 0.46 7.850 0.620 IFIFF 10/5/95 lo.so 6-82 6,02 10/5/95 5.99 O@08 297.28 4.16 4.25 0.226 0@018 H PF 12/28/95 17.00 12/28/95 0.73 0.01 168-60 2.36 2.37. 0.047 0.004 LE FF 4/18/96 16.00 6.14 6.97 4116/98 0.00 0.00 127.55. 1.79 1.79 5123/96 16.00 17.00 5.53 14.39 14.39 5/23196 0.00 211.44 1 1,111 0.86 0.945 --6075 0!22 MEAN 12.12 11.60 6.63 7.89 MEAN .64 3.67 0.407 3.12 MEDIAN 12.00 12.70@ 6.02 8.00 MEDIAN 0.03 0.402 5.17 0.49 2.61 STDDEV 3 2.91 2.91 0.355 6 9 1 11 N oi 03 13 13 12 WELL: PH H20 DEPTH TSS %OM N03 1403-H NH4 NH4-N DIN P04 P04 TIDE FLTER 4/18/96 16 a 6.19 3.97 4/10196 6.67 0.09 291.57 4.08 4.18 1.927 0.144 W FF 5/23/96 Is 11.9 7.03 4.16 5/23/96 2.82 0.04 209.62 2.93 2.97 1.24 0.098 L MEAN 16 9.93 6.61 4.065 MEAN 0.07 3.51 3.57 0.121 MEDIAN 0.07 3.51 3.37 0.121 STDDEV 0.04 0.51 0.85 0.033 N 2 2 2 2 -R TEMP PH I H20 DEPni Tw %OM I DATE N03 N03-N NH4 NH4-N DIN P04 P04 TIDE 4/18/96 17 0 4/18/96 4.70 0.07 161.81 2.26 2.33 2.15 0.170 W FF 5/23/96 Is 13.6 5123/96 1.69 0.02 157.97 2.21 2.24 2.523 omigg L MEAN 17.50 10.80 MEAN 0.04 2.24 2.29-- 0.185 MEDIAN 0.04 2.24 2.2$ 0.165 STDDEV 0.03 0.04 0.07 0.021 1 2.00 1! 2.00 2.00 1 2.00 N 0 0 .4 03 .0' .04 ..3 00. TABLE 8A: Site R Microbiological Dat8ba84 I ac-- FC Ec Enter@mi IF TIDE RLTM FC Ec Ente@ (P TIDE FILTER 1217/94 0 0 m 1217194 0 0 0 700 LF m 2/7/95 FR02EN 2/7/95 L FROZEN 3/13/95 L NO HfN 3113/95 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 L FF 4/13/95 H NO BIN 4113/95 H NO SIN 5/4/95 L NO BIN 5/4195 L I NOS 5/31/95 L NO BIN 5/31/95 L NO BIN 6/12/95 @E NO BIN 6/12195 w ND 8 7/5/96 L NO B/N 7/5/95 L NO SM 7/18/95 UE NO BIN 7/10/95 LE NO BIN 812195 0 0 LF NON "IN 812195 0 0 - LF AD At "IN 10/5/95 H NOS 10/5/95 0.09 0.09 H FF 12/28/95 0.09 0.09 LIE NO B/N 12 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 LE FF 4118/96 w NO 8 .,= -0 49 T 0-49 w FF 5/23/96 L NOS 5123/96 L NO 8 GEOMEAN. 0.27 0.27 0.34 0.34 WELL REEKS SMEV 0.20 0.20 0.19 0.18 --6xTE-- FC Ec Enter@i (P TDE FILTER COUNT. 4.00 4.00 2.00 2.00 1217194 0 0 0 0 IF m 2/7/95 L NO B 3/13195 L NO B/N DkfE FC Ec Enterommi CP TOE FLTER 4/13/95 H NO B/N 1217194 0 0 0 63 LF m 5/4/95 L NO BIN 2/7/95 1 L I FROZEN 5/31/95 L NO BIN 3113/95 - L NO BIN 6/12/95 w NO BIN 4/13/95 H NO BIN 7/5/95 L NO B/N 5/4195 L NO BIN 7/18/95- LIE NO B/N 5/31195 L NO SIN 812195 0 0 500 LF NOA( AM 6112195 w NDEI 1015/95 0.09 0-09 0.09 5 H FF 7/5/95 L NO BIN 12/28/95 0.49 0.49 0.49 LIE FF 7118/95 IE NO SIN 4/18/96_ 0.49 0.49 0.5 0.49 w NOS 812195 0 0 LF AV At AVW 5/23/96 0.5 0.5 L IF 10/5/95 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 H I FF GEOMEAN@ 0.32 0.32 0.28 1.57 12128/95 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 LE FF STDEV 0.20 0.20 0.23 3.19 4/18/96 0.49 0.49 w FF COUNT 4.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 5/23196 0.49 0.49 L FF GEOMEAN. 0.32 0.32 0.21 1 0.21 1WELL REH-6 SMEV 0.20 0.20 0.25 1 0.28 DATE FC Ec jEntero=mfl CP TIDE RLTER cotwf. 4.00 4.00 2.00 2.00 12/7/94 LF NO WELL - - - - - --- 217195 29 3 0 0 L s .REW3 3/13/95 -7--- ---0.75 0.24 0.24 L FF -Fr, Ec Enteroccoci (P TDE FILTER 4/13/95 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 H FF 1217194 0 1 0 0 0 LF m 5/4195 i-.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 L FF 2/7/95 1 L FR02EN 5/31/95 0.24 -- 0.24 0.24 -- 0.24 L FF 3113196 0.49 0.49 0.40 0.49 L_ NO BIN 6/12/95 0.24 -0.24 -0.2-4 0.24 I-E IF 4/13195 H NO SIN 7/5/95 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 L PF 5/4195 L NO SIN 7/18195 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 LE FF 5/31/95 L NO BIN 8/2/95 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 LF FF 6/12/95 w NOS 1015/95 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 H PF 7/5195 L NO SIN 12/28/95 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 LE IF 7116195 LE NOS 4/18196 w NOS 812195 0 0 - LF AD At A*W 5123/96 L NOB !0!6/95 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 H FF -GEOMEAN- 0.34 0.27 0.24 0.24 12/28/95 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 LE FF SMEV 2@,l 4 0 So 0.00 0.00 4/111/96 0.49 0.49 0.24 0.24 w FF COUffr. 00 1 @,10 10.00 10.00 5/23/96 _0.24 4 0:24 0.24 L FF 0.37 0:2 . 37 .2 0.32 STDEV 1 0.141 0.14 0.14 0914 COUNT. 1 5.001 5.001 5.00 5.00 DAlt K; 15c lEnter@jj cp I FILTEFI 4/18796 -.24 . 4 I-F FF 5/23/96 O@24 0.24 L FF GEOMEAN. .24 0.24 ---------- ---4L-TER 4/18/96 1 1.,2 0 24 0 024 IF 5/23/96 L 14 4 0 4 @.4 r.FOMFAN 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 M 0 02 4 L 0 009 049 049 0' -_32 I. 2o 0a K4 RET N TMLE so::: 0 RET-Pbm@l oat." WELL um WgIL U- @91L -OIL E., L IE_@= 19,1P pH M DEPTH I _OM N03 N03-N NH4 NH4-N DIN IP04 I P04 I TIDE I FILTER 1217,94 14 44 1 184 52 2,56 2 79 0 1@ 00, 217,95 -VN 13 33 _0 @1*1'1 3,00 _+@2 0-0 __,_ 3113Y95 0-3 4 30 4 4610 IS 01L 2,! 2, 4 20 1 13 4M3195 3 96 0.06 1 313 31 4 39 4,44 0.19 0@01HIFF - 1.411 1:44 62.57 7,90 514igs 001 0.00 1 i85065 2.60 2.60 0 02 000LIFF 42 5131/96 LNO BIN i7 all 2_fg!_ 6/12/06 HE NO BIN 7isigs _00 715'es LNO WN 7118195 18.00 711slas LE NO SIN a12M Sales LF NO N. VIPN 10110/05 3.73 tollo/es HNO HIS V2126 3ves- 512196 H140 BIN MEAN lm30 14613 ?.46 3.23 MEAN 0.09 3.40 3.5? 0.010 MEDLAN 1.30 to 2SJ7 491 . I NED" 0.06 3.40 3.41 0.012 STDDEV 1.01 a$ J.i2 __ STDOEV 0.00 1.03 1.02 0.004 N -4411 1 10 -M 4 4 4 4 WELL AET-2 _iEwr H20 DEPTH Tss %OM 1111 TE N03 N03-N NH4 NH4-N DIN P04 P04 TIDE FILTER 1217/96 44954 0.62 136.69 9 1 2,54 0,12 0.01 LF 2/7195 _2_10 1000 7.42 13960 217195 OAS 0,11 321,94 4,61 4 52 002 0.00 1-s 3/13/95 040 5990 C70 TOO 17, 14 3113/26 45.35 0.63 6 4. L5_ 091 1IS4 0:61 0 05-LFF _AI13J!I_ A@2E__ 7.00 20@57 4113/95 53,04 0.75 1037.06 14 52 15,27 0 ii 0@6iMFF 514195 0,00 7.35 4AS 860 23.26 514/95 10584 1.48 1169903 'Gr36 1 ?rS5 0906 0.00LFF 5)3119S 6.76 6/31195 LNO SIN 6ft2/95 6.82 6/12195 HE No lvt!- 715195 7439 715196 LNO BIN 7118/95 moo 7.95 7/10195 LE -NO BIN 612195 ?r05 118/2195 LF NO N, MPN 10110/96 0.00 19.00 5.77 10/tG/95 138.73 1.94 1121.26 ISJO 17.64 0,16 0.01HFF 512196 0.00 14A0 7.80 0 r 56 5/2196 167.44 2r62 1547AS 21.60 24.29 0922 0902HFF MEAN- 9-311.64 7.52 6.35 MEAN. 1.17 10.80 11.97 0.016 MEDAN 0. 014.40 7.42 9.76 MEDLAN STODEW 0.@2 7ago 0.24 1.24 kv .8 ,20 4@. 7 11 N753 9 IWELL:RET-3 H20 DEPTH TSS %OM N03 N03-M NH4 NH4-N DIN P04 P04 TIDE FILTER 12/7194 0,00 1207/94 16432 0.26 1146.16 16.05 16.30 0.17 0001 LF M_ 2J719S -217195 LNO SIN 3113MS COO .80 0.70 216.67 7.54 3113196 7.14 0.10 73.16 1@02 1,12 0.06 0.01 L_ FF -4/13105 -Loo 1.32 IISr40 7.60 4113/95 0.00 O@00 1346.47 ISA5 ie.85 1.98 __q, I G_H_FF T3_ 51419S 3.6 2 6i 25.20 18+25 514/95 0.30 0.00 74393S 0.4i 0.41 0,02 000LFF 5 5/31195 LNO 2/9L_ 6112195 HE -1 b-l _L15195 4.22 7/5195 LNO BIN 7118/95 19.60 2+92 7110/96 LE _iO BIN 8/2/95 4+63 612196 LF NO N, %APN lo/io/95 2Ao 10110/96 H_NO BIN 512196 1410 2.07 5/2196 HNO BIN MEANs 2.00 12.60 7.34 2.67 MEAN- 0.09 11.58 11.67 0.045 MEDAN 2.00 14050 7.34 2m?4 MEDIAN COS 13.23 13.36 0.010 STDOEV 1.83 c02 #00 1.33 STODEW 0.12 7.87 7.47 Mys N431 8 4 4 4 4 IWELL RET-4 FAY9 SAL TEMP PH H20 DEPTH TSS %OM DATE N03 N03-N NH4 NN4-N I DIN P04 PO4 TIDE FILTER 1217194 o+oq_ 1207194 27.13 0.3!_ 91146 1 28 1+66 0.40 0.03 LFM 217195 3.20 1.00 2/7/95 N 3113/95 2+20 3.80 2.66 11.60 17+24 3113195 4.431 0.06 16.80 0.24 O@30 0.04 FF -4113/96 2.00-- 3.80 12680 20.31 4113196 210 OmO4 8212 1,16 1.20 0.30 0.021HFFI Sj4iQS 0.00 7.60 4.52- 26.67 23.26 514196 i4is 0.02 49.60 0.69 0471 0902 OrOOL 5/31195 0.00 1540 7.64 6.50 19@00 10.30 5131/95 2.12 6.5 57.33 0.80 0 a3 0,29 0.02L 6112196 0.00 7.85 5.64 89.75 6.41 6112/05 0.11 0000 78077 1.10 1.11 0.20 0,02 HE FF 71Si9S _ @3.00_ 8.28 -7/6,95 LNO BIN 7116/95 1 1.00 17.50 7.02 42.00 0.481711 /95 1.06 0+03 198.42 2.70 2.00 0403 0000 LE _-tqs W2195 5.90 812195 LF NO N. to 10195W H .4@ 6 2/06 1430 ..0 2.47 4.1, M.5 14.7, 5.50 EV .2 @j 1.30 STDOI NIA 7 4KL-L FIET-S -SAL TEMP H2D OEM 73S %OM DATE N03 NO" NH4 NH4-N ON P04 P04 TEE -WiTEA 12/7194 0.00 12/7194 71.Ot 0.99 55.64 0.78 1,77 0.16 0.01 LFM 217195 2.00 1.00 30.80 20195 1.68 0+02 WA9 1*92 1094 0604 O@00Ls 3113195 3.00 4.00 2.01 12.20 22.95 3113196 14.57 0.20 16.39 0.23 0.43 0.00 0.01LFF 4/13/05 1 woo- 3aS3 G. 26.67 4/tV96 16400 Oa22 54m 11 -0.76 009S 0131 0003HFF 5/4195 1.00 _ 7.66 4.49 7.20 30.56 61419S 1.95 0.03 168w20 2.3S 2.38 0.04 0.01 FF 5131/96 C.qq_ 13.60 7.77 S.50 10.00 9.2!__ 5j3I/9S 0.01 0.00 46.15 0065 Qj6S 0026 omo2LFF 6112195 5.67 6112/96 1HE NO SIN 716195 9.30 11715196 LNO BIN 7/10196 16.00 5.89 7/16196 LE NO BIN 812/96 6.00 012195 LF NO N, 10/io/95 0.00 5.00 10110/96 6.60 _0@08 49w6O 0.69 Qw77 0.09 0.01HFF 512196 0.00 14.30 6.03 5.35 512/96 13.81 0410 4716 0.66 oass 0+11 OmOlHFIF MEAN. 0.86 18.36 7.16 6.42 MEAN. $922 1.01 1*2g 0@oi: NED" 0.51 13.507V, 1 N MEDL4M 0.14 0.73 6.02 04008 STMEW 1.13 7.69 0. 11 STDDEV 6.33 6.73 6.71 0.008 N83 to N 0 JINEIL RET4 I ATE SAL YEW I ON H20DEPTH 1911 %Om IOATE N03 N03-0 MH4 WN4.M 014 1 P04 IP04 YM FLIM1 12/7124 112/7194 1LF NO WELL 217195 2.20 1.00 39.90 217195 212.43 2.67 289.20 3.77 C74 OmOY OmOlL_ s 3113195 2.LO- SmOO 0.00- 152.76 Sw73 3"3/96 g.14 0.09 27.32 0.38 0.47 3.10 014LFF 4113196 2.00 1.86 26. 11,46 4113196,.63 0.06 190.93 -2.67 2.75 7.61 0.62HFF 5/4195 514195 LNO BIN 5131/95 4.23 5131104 LNO BIN 6/12/05 4.19 6112195 _tE_ NO SON 715/95 4.77 7/5195 LNO SIN 7116195 16.60 4.22 7110105 LE INO TN_ 512196 4.64 412196 LF JNON,MPNJ to"0196 3.54 10110105 H I Nd SIN 512196 14.40 $12/96 HNO B/ MEAlft 2. L3- 9.73 000 3.42 MEAN. MEMAN 2.28 9070 at# 4.2 MEDON 2.67 r 2 13 LF NO N. MPN H. 4@ HNO BIN MEAN1 0.014 EDM,H.0 STDD 0.012 7 1,2 t2O2, - 2.-7 20 3. .. I. oo 2. o '.o .17. STOM 0.42 6.11 040 1. so SIDOW 1.73 $ 3-4 LE BB: S RET-M r toloalcal Database DATE Fr, EC Enteroccoci CP TIDE ALTER REFT- 1217194 0 0 0 0 LF M- WE ------ FC EE Enteroccoci CP TIDE ALTER 217195 0 0 2 8 L S, Afo N 1217194 0 0 0 0 LF m 3/13/95 2.5 0.24 0.5 0.24 L PF 2/7/95 L NO B/N 4/13/95 0.24 0.24 0.5 0.24 H PF 3/13/95 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 L FIF 5/4/95 0.24 0.24 0.75 0.24 L PF 4/13/95 0.24 0.24 0.5 -- I - H PF 5/31/95 0.24 0.24 0.5 0.24 L FIF 5/4/95 0,24 0.24 0.24 0.25 L FF 6/12195 0.24 0.24 0.5 0.24 W FF 5/31/95 L NO BM 715195 L NO BIN 6/12/95 W NO B/N 7/18/95 LE NOB 7/S/95 L NO B/N 812195 0 0 0 LF NO N, MPN 7/18/95 LE NO B/N 10/10/95 H no access 812195 0 0 LF AIDA( MPN 512/96 W NO B/N 0/1 -0/95 - I H NO N/B GFOMEAN-- 0.38 0.24 0.54 0.24 5/2/96 NO B/N STDEV 1.01 0.00 0.11 0.00 GEOM 0:24 0.24 0.31 0.39 COUNT 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 STDErN.1 000 0.00 0.15 0.44 ootw 3.00 3.00 3.0000 3.00 DATE FC ED Enteroccoci CP TIDE RLTER 1217194 0 0 0 0 LF m FC EE Enterocooci CP TIDE ALTER 217195 0 0 0 0 L S 1217195 0 0 40 60 LF m 3113/95 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 L FF 217195 21 2-1 22 6 L S 4/13/95 0.25 0.26 0.24 0.25 H F7F- 3/13/95 0.75 0.75 20.25 0.24 L FIF 514/95 8.75 6.75 0.5 0.24 L FF 4/13/95 0.25 0.25 3.5 18.75 H RIF 5/31/95 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 L FF 5/4/95 17 is 7.5 0.24 L FIF 6/12195 FIE NO B/N 5/31/95 L NO B/N 7/5/95 L NO B/N 6/12/95 W NO B/N 7/18/95 LE NO B/N 7/5/95 L NO B/N 812195 o LF AO N, MPN 7/18/95 LE NO BM 10/10/95 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 H FF 812195 0 0 40 LF AAON, WN 5/21961 3.5- 0.5 0.49 0.09 W FF 10/10/95. 0.24 0.24 18.25 0.24 H RIF GEOMEAN. 0.58 0.40 0.26 0.17 5/2/96 0.24 0.24 2.5 0.24 I-F RIF STDEV 3.48 2.65 0.16 0.08 GEOMEAN= 0.71 0.70 7.53 0.57 COUNT_ 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 1 STDEV 7.44 C99 8.32 8.28 ooumr 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 DATE FC, m Enteroccoci CP TIDE ALTER 12/7/94 LF NO WELL FC EC Enteroccoci CID TIDE RLTER 21719S 0 0 0 0 L S 1217194, 0 0 0 0 LF m 3/13195 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 L PIP 2/7/95 L NO B/N 4/13/95 0.24 0.24 0.25 0.24 H FIF 3/13/95 0.24 0.24 0 @24 0.24 L PF 5/4/95_ L NO B/N 4/13/95 0.24 0.24 3 2 H FF 5/31/95 L NO B/N 5/4/95 0.24 O@24 0.24 0.24 L FF 6/12/95 FE NO B/N 5/31/95 L NO 814N 7/5/96 L NO B/N 6/12/95 W well bent 7/18/95 LE NO B/N 7/5/95 L NO B/N 812195 20 0 40 LF A10 N, MPN 7/18/95 LE NO B/N 10/10/951 H NO B/N 812195 1400 0 16000 LF AIO N, MPN 5/2/961 0.09 0.0 I-F NO BM 10/10/95 H NO B/N GEOM 0.17 0.24 0.24 5/2/96 FF NO B/N ::0,,. 0.09 0.01 0.00 GEOMEAN= 0.24 0.24 0. 6 0.49 3 2 2 STDEV 0.00 0.00 1.59 1.02 COUNT 3 3 3 3 IABLE OC: Sito AB-Nuirtni Detabs" WELL: RB-1 i WELL: RB-1 um g um m um mg/L DATE SAL TEUP H200EPTH TSS %OM DATE N03 1131 LN NH4 N144-N DIN P04 P04 TIDE FLTEYI 12/7/94 10.00 1 1217/94 21.79 0.31 27.40 0.38 O@69 O@46 0.036 LF M 217/95 2/7/95 L NO BIN 3115/95 3.80 5.50 7.01 --i.33 42.88 3115/95 10.55 0.16 26.09 0.37 0.51 13.12 1.036 H FF 4/18195 4118/95 L NO SIN 5131195 5131/95 L NO BIN 616196 6/6/95 E NO SIN 6112/95 -6/12195 HE NO BIN 7/5195 7/5195 L NO SIN 7118/9S 7/18/95 LE NO BIN 8/23/95 8/23/95 H BENT loylo/gs iojio/95 H BENT 3/12196 3112/98 L BENT MEAN. 6.90 5.50 TO-, MEAN. 0.23 0.38 0.60 10.536 MEDLAN 0.23 0.38 0.60 0.536 STIDDEV 06 i i 0.01 0.13 0.707 N 2 2 2 2 WELL: RB-2 WELL: RB-2 DATE SAL TEMP PH H20 DEPTH TSS %OM DATE N03 N03-N NH4 NH4-N DIN TIDE FLTER 12/7/94 13.00 12/7/94 12.89 0.18 41.61 0.58 0.76 0.17 0.013 LF M 2/7195 2/7/95 L NO BIN 3/15/9S 15.50 5.00 6,96, 6.86 3.67 36.36 3/15/95 -0.00 0.00 62.10 0.87 0.8714.97 0.392 H FF 4/18/95 23.00 7@0_1_ 9@20 15.22 4/18/95 0.28 -0.00 28.25 0.40 0.40 1.37 0.108 L FF 5/31/95 23.00 16.00 6.54 8.05 :@2. 023 08 5131/95 0.00 0.00 79.82 1.12 1.12 .35 0.42 5L FF 6/6195 29.00 6.87 8.4S 40 3 13 6/6/9S 1.83 0.03 39.82 0.58 0.58 1 @02 0.080 E FF 6/12/95 28.00 - _1.49 7.75 6.20 3.23 6/12195 0.00 0.00 172.68 2.42 2.42 4.27 0.337, HE FF 715/96 31.00 17.00 8.60 8.33- 114.67 3.78 7/5/95 1.15 0.02 20.24 0.28 0. 3L 3.22 0.254 L FF 7118195 31.00 16.00 7.07 7.65 209.33 12.58 7/18/95 1.15 0.02 31.76 0.44 0.46 2.89 0.228 LE FF 8/23tgS 31.00 22.00.6.60 8.41 13.40 25.37 8/23/9S 0.48 0.01 25.46 0.36 0.36 0.19 0.015 H FF ioiio/gs 18.00 moo 7.44 10/10195 16.61 0.23 40.S4 0.57 0.80 0.19 0.01S H FF 3/12/96 22.00 8.05 3/12/96 796.75 11.15 1.15 6.55 0.517 L FF MEAN. 24.05 7.89 MEAN. 1.70 1.75 0.217 MEDL4AN 0.57 0.76 0.228 STDDEV 3.18 0.182 N I I WELL: RB-3 WELL RB-3 DATE SAL TEMP PH H20 DEPTH TSS %OM DATE N03 N03-H NH4 NH4-N DtN P04 P04 TEE FLTER 12/7/94 11400 12/7/94 47.45 0.66 21.61 0.30 0.97 0.34 0.027 LFI M 2/7195 16.50 1.20 6.99 iS.40 2/7/95 1.08 0.02 101.06 1.41 1.43 0.01 0.000 L S 3115195 21.00 5.00 6.84 6.83 1@33 50.00 3/15/95 3.52 0@05 25.16 0.35 0.40 14-80 1.169 H FF 4/10/95 26.00 6.91 50.00 17.33 4/18/95 1.82 0.03 24.23 0.34 0.36 0.12 0.009 L NOB 5/31/95 24.00 19.00 0.64 8.02 7,80 17.96 5/31/95 0.05 0.00 17.54 0.25 0.25 1.91 0.151 L NOS 6/6195 1 8.35 1 6/6/95 E NO B/N 6/12195 24.001 6.61 7.66 6.60 12.12 6/12/95 0.85 0.01 45.56 0.64 0.65 2.41 0.190 HE FF 716/95 123.00 8.29 7/5/95 L NO 7118/95 31.001 17.50 7.04 7.59 6,20 25.81 7118195 10.17 0.14 20.31 0.28 0.43 3.34 0.264 LE FF 8/23/95 8.22 8/23/95 H NO BIN_ 10110/95 7.00 10/10/9s H NO BIN 3/12/96 7.79 3/12/96 L NO BIN MEAN. 21.93 13.14 0.91 7.75 MEAN. 0.13 0.51 0.64 0.259 MEDIAN 0.03 0.34 0.43 0.151 STMWEV 0.24 0.42 0.42 0.414 N 1 7 7 7 7 WELL RS-4 WELL: RS-4 DATE SAL TBOP jM H2DDEPTHl ISS %OM DATE N03 H03-H NH4 NH4-N DIN P04 P04 TIDE FLTER 12/7/94 15,00 12/7/94 48.90 0.68 27.33 0.38 1.07 0.66 0.052 LF M 2/7/96 18,50, 2.00 7.90 2/7/95 0.80 0.01 122.92 1.72 1.73 0.06 0.006 L S 3/15/95 IS.601 4.50 6.44 4.67 13.67 26.83 3/15/9S 0.00 0.00 55.16 0.77 0.77 9.23 0.729 H PF 4116/95 26.001 6.01 5.40 25.93 4118/05 2.16 0.03 21.91 0.31 0.34 0.23 O.Ole L FF 5/31/95 7.56 5/31/95 L NO SIN 6/6/95 6.21 6/6/95 E No BIN 6112/95 26.001 6.74 7-30 7.60 10.53 6/12/95 0.17 0.00 90AI 1.26 1.26 Oa4? 04037 FF FLR ",fN N ,F g FF 0BIN FF *SIN *SIN N No SIN L E HE 7/5/95 8.09 7/5/95 L NO BIN 7/19/95 31.001 20.00 7.01 7.17 47.20 15.68 7118/95 0.85 O.Dl 26.76 0.37 0.39 0.10 0.008 LE NOS 8/23/95 8.21 8/23/95 - -FH NO SIN iolloigs 6.49 iomoigs H NO atN 3112/96 7.39 3/12196 L NO BIN MEAN. 21.83 8.43 0.76 7.22 MEAN. 0.12 0.80- -0.93 .0.142 MEDULN 0.01 0.58 0.92 2:1 STDDEV 0. 0.56 0.34 ol 28 1. 2 TABLE BC: Site RB-Micr biological Database WELL: RB-1 DATE FC ED Enteroccod CID ME ALTER 1217194 0 0 0 0 LF m 2/7/95 L NO B/N 3/15/95 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 H PF 4/18/95 L NO B/N 5/31/95 L NO B/N 6/6/95 E NO B/N 6/12/95 HE NO B/N 7/5/95 L NO B/N 7/18/95 LE NO B/N 8/23/95 H BENT 10/10/95 H BENT 3/12/96 L NO B/N GEOMEAN-- 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 COUNT I I WELL: RB-2 DATE FC ED Enteroccocl CP TIDE FILTER 1217194 65 830 0 LF m 2/7/95 L NO B/N 3/15/95 0.25 0.25 0.75 0.24 H FF 4/18/95 0.24 0.24 1 0.24 L PF 5/31/95 0.5 0.5 0.25 0.24 L PF 6/6/95 3 3 0.75 0.24 E PF 6/12/95 0.5 0.5 3.75 0.24 HE FF 7/5/95 0.75 0.75, 3.25 0.24 L PF 7/18/95 3.25 0.75 11 0.49 LE PF 8/23/95 5.75 5.75 0.24 0.24 H PF 10/10/95 1.23 0.75 0.25 0.24 H PF 3/12/96 L NOB 0.97 0.78 1.01 0.26 1.89 1.84 3.501 0.08 9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 WELL: RB-3 DATE FC M Enteroccoci CID "TIDE FILTER 1217194 0 0 0 875 LF m 217195 0 0 48 0 L s 3/15/95 0.09 0.09 0.25 0.09 H FIF 4/18/95 L NOB 5/31/95 L NOB 6/6/95 E NO B/N 6/12/95 0.25 0.25 0.24 0.24 HE PF 7/5/95 L NO B/N 7/18/95 0.5 0.5 0.24 0.24 LF PF 10/10/95 H NO B/N 3/12/96 L NO B/N GEOMEAN= 0.22 0.22 0.24 0.17 SMEV 0.21 0.21 0.01 0.09 COUNT 3 3 3 3 WELL: RB-4 DATE Fr- ED Enteroccod CID TIDE FILTER 1217194 0 0 60 245 LF m 217195 9 9 85 0 L s 3/15/95 2.5 2.5 0.24 0.24 H PF 4/18/95 0.24 0.24 0.5 0.24 L PF 5/31/95 L NO B/N 6/6/95 E NO B/N 6/12/95 0.5 0.25 1 0.24 HE PF 7/5/95 L NO B/N 7/18/95 LE NOB 10/10/95 H NO B/N 3/12/96 L NO B/N GEOMEAN= 0.67 0.53 0.49 0.24 SMEV 1.24 1.30 0.39 0.00 COUNT 3 3 3 3 TABLE 80: Sit* RH-Nutri"I DataboW WELL:RH-1 WELL-Rit' I .um um mgJL mg/L um m9lL DATE SAL TEW PH H20 DEPTH I TSS %OM DATE N03 1403-N NHA NH4-N DIN P04__ P04 12/7/94 9,00 1 i 1217/94 742-60 10.40 3.66 0.05 lOb45 0139 __@.03 LF m 2/9/95 11.00 6.50 7.31 23.00 2/9/9S 202@8S 2m84 698.S9 9@78 12.@2 0.22 OmO2 L S 3115195 6.50 6.20 712 3.24 8.00 20.83 3/15195- 81.66 1.14 6.33 0.09 1.23 6.34 0.50 H FF 4/18/95 4400 6401 17.60 18.18 4/18/95 11,413.31 19 79 142.65 2.00 21.78 112.22 8.86 L PF 3@6 11.63 '6 5/24195 10.00 7.40 8.16 82bOO 14.63 5/24/9S 7S3mSO 10.55 75.96 1,08 729 -PF 61619S 7.00 7062 8.4S 360.80 6.87 6/6/95 146.35 2.OS 28.52 0.40 2.45 0+18 DOW E FF 6/14195 6.00 7.40 7.95 189.00 11.24 611419S 226.4S 3.17 23.33 0.33 3.SO 2.45 Oml9 LF PF 7/10195 6.00 19.00 T. 4 7ie @ 15 1740 24614 7/10/9S 1,238.67 17.34 43.88 Ob6l 17.96 0.42 0.03 HE FF 7124195 t 3.00 21.50 7.12 7mg8 68.00 10.29 7/24195 909.90 12.74 40.60 O.S7 13.31 1.07 0.08 E FF 11/7/9S 20,50 14.90 7,2S 8.08 1117/gS 21.88 0,31 31.24 0.44 0.74 Om 82 0.06 H FF 2/20/96 14.501 7.76 2/20196 -4S.43 0.64 47.07 0.66 1.30 0.32 0.03 FF FF 3112196 !S600 6.24 8442 3/12/96 25.90 0.36 57.SO 0.81 1.17 2.76 0.22 LE FF 4/26/96 14.00 l2r9O 7.08 7+92 4/26/96 36.19 0.51 93.24 1.31 1.81 0.09 _0._OI LE FF 51-2 8/ 9-6 14.00 17ISO _@. 26 8.51 5/2-8/96 0.00 0.00 -107,87 1.51 1.51 1.06 0.08 E IF MEAN. 10.75 14.11 7.02 7.69 MEAN. 3.84 1.40 7.23 0.743 MEDIAN 10.30 14.90 7.24 3.08 MEDIAN 2.44 0.64 2.97 0.074 STODEV 4.64 5.98 0.66 I.So STIDDEV 6.91 - 2.4!- 7.19 2.341 N 147 12 11 N 14 14 14 14 WELL: R4-2 II WELL RH-2 DATE SALITEW pH H20 DEPTH, TSS %OM, DATE N03 N03-N NFW NH4-N DIN P04 P04 TIDE FLTE33 12/7/94 12/7/94 LF M, NO N 2/9/9S 1&00 7.00 14.00 2/g/gs 47.33 0.66 4S.24 0.63 1.30 0.30 0.02 L S 3/15195 16.00 5.80 7.21 4.27 137.00 8.52 3115195 20.42 0.29 -20.06 0.28 0.57 9.95 0.79 H FF 4/18/96 13.00 7.15 12.60 22w22 4/18/95 16.33 0.23 29,16 0.41 0.64 0.83 0.07 L PF 5/24/95 1 8.00 5/24/95 H NO B/N 6/6195 6.00 7.80 Sm25 91433 11468 6/6195 1,101.82 15.43 110.95 I.SS lGa98 Omig OmO2 E NOB 6/1419S 4.00 14.SO 7.S6 7.83 183m67 9.07 6/14/96 1,836.Si 2S.71 0.44 0.01 2S.72 1.34 0.11-- LF NOB 7/1019S 8.10 7/10/9 HE NO 8fN 7124/9S 8.22 7/2419S E NO BIN 11/7/9S 18.001 13.50 6.75 7.9S 11/7/gS 28.12 0.39 243.00 3.40 3.80 0.13 0.01 H FF 2/20/96 10.001 7.76 2/20/96 17.29 0.24 11S.06 1.61 I.8S O.SO 0.04 HF PF 3112196 8.40 3/12/96 LE No, N 4/26196 -IS.00 13.90 6.47 7.77 4/26/96 13.86 0.19 28.60 0.40 O'so OM19 0.01 LE FF S/28196 10.00 21.50 4.93 8.32 S/26/96 41.66 O.S8 292.89 4.10 4.68 1.4S 0.11 E FF MEAN. 11.78 12.70 6.84 7.72 MEAN. 4.86 1.38 0.24 0.131 MEDIAN 13.00 13.70 7.13 8.00 MEDIAN 0.39 0.63 1.83 0.039 STWEV 4.89 5.71 0.93 1.10 STDDEV 9.27 1.46 0.96 0.249 N 9-6- 7 11 N 9 9 9 9 WELL: RH-3 WELL RH-3 DATE SAL TEW PH H2DDEPTM TSS %OM DATE N03 N03-N NH4 NK4-N DIN P04 P04 TIDE FILTER 12/7/94 3.00 12/7/94 938.26 13.14 38.25 -0.54- - 13.67 11.07 Om87 LF m 210/95 11.50 8.00 19.20 2/9/QS 113.87 1.69 24.47 0.34 1.94 0.26 0.02 L S 3115/95 17.40 7.00 7.19 7.41 7.00 14.29 3115/95 75.34 1.05 19.72 0.28 1.33 14.06 1.11 H FF 4/18/9S 10.00 7.25 6.60 30.30 4118195 39.21 0.55 28.66 -0.40 -O.9S 0.60 O+OS L FF 5/24/95 10.00 7.48 8.13 16.80 16.67 5/24/95 53.73 0.75 36.a7 O.S2 1.27 1.07 0.08 H FF 6/6/95 10.00 7.60 8.51 563.SO 3.73 6/619S 123.39 1.73 58.63 Om82 2.55 0.18 0.01 E NOB 6/14/95 8.00,14.00 7.53 7.97 102.00 2.75 6/14/gS 207.69 , 2.91 0.00 0.00 2.91 4.4S 0.35 LF FF 7/10/96 12.001 17.50 7.57 8.32 21.00 21.90 7110/95 0.00 0.00 76.51 1.07 1.07 0.09 0.01 FE FF 7124/95 19.001 21.50 7.46 -8.65 34.00 17.06 7/24/95 0.00 0.00 56.29 0.79 0.79 0.41 0.03 E FF 11/7/95 20.001 11.80 7.20 11/7/95 19.66 0.28 81.35 1.14 1.41 0.07 0.01 H FF 2/20/96 16.201 7.90 2/20/98 0.00 0.00 44.01- 0.62 0.62 1.09 0.09 W FF 3/12/96 15.001 8.53 3/12/96 0.00 0.00 38.26 0.54 0.54 0.60 O.Os LE FF 4126198 12m DO 111.00 5.98 7.93 4128196 10.20 0.14 46-.33 0.85 -0.79 0.23 0.02 LE FF S/28196 11.001 16.50 5.30 8.60 5/28/96 9.02 0.13 17.29 1.64 1+77 0.64 0.05 E PF MEAN. 12.311 13.41 7.08 5.19 MEAN. 1.59 0.67 2.26 0.126 MEDIAN 11.751 12.90 ?.36 8.23 MEDIAN 0.41 0.50 1.30 0.047 STDOEV 4.60 4.94 0.78 0.39 STDOEV 3.43 0.41 3.36 0.351 N 14_a 10 10 14 14 14 14 WELL: RHA WELL R" DATE SAL TEMP pH H20 DEPTH TSS %OM DATE N03 H03-N NH4 NH4-N DIN P04 P04 TIDE FILTER 12/7/95 12/719S LF NO WELL 2/9/9S 14.00 8.00 23.30 2/9/95 65.96 0.92 112.81 1.58 2.50 10.25 0.81 S 3/15/96 13.10 8.00 7.43 4.96 298.00 S! wOl 3/isigs i6asi Oa23 35wS3 Odso 0*73 -il.ii 2.52 H FF 4/18/9S 12.00 7.79 121.50 16.87 4/18/96 134.12 1.88 73.95 1.04 2.91 0.27 0.02 L FF S/24/95 7.18 5/24/9S H NO BIN 6/6/95 7.60 41.40 9.68 6/6/95 E NO R/N 6/14/95 15.50 7.04 6/14/95 LF NO B/N 7/10/95 7.36 7/10/95 11 HE NO B/N 7/24/9S 7.37 7124/9S E NO B/N 1117/95 20400 1Im8O 7.60 11/7/96 8.07 0.11 114.8S 1.61 1.72 0.14 0.01 H FF 2/20/96 23.50 7.80 7.00 2/20/95 10.05 0.14 61.87 0.87 I.Ot 0.58 0.05 HF IF 3/12/96 24.00 6.81 7.70 3/12/96 7.64 0.11 .246.48 3.4S 3.56 0.39 0.03 L FF 4126/96 2700 11 10 7 28 7. 4/26/96 4.07 0.00 3.36 1.17 1.22 0.20 0.02 LE FF 7.74 5/28/96 :5.83 0.02 0.94 -0.42 0.03 -E FF 7.12 MEAN. 1 *::3. 1.39 1.42 0.436 7.29 MEDIVI 1 1:1.1 1.41 0.032 0.60 STDDEV 0.65 1 0 11.05 as 10 N I a 3 0-8. RH-5DEEP JRH MEEP DATE SAL TEW PH H20 DEPTH ISS %Om - DATE NO3 M03-N NH4- NH4-N DIN P04 P04 TIDE FILTER 12/7/95 12/719S LF NO WELL 210195 4.00 10.00 219/9S L S,NON 3115/95 11.50 8.00 TAT 6*38 10.67 25.00 3/16/95 5.00 0.07 134.79 1.89 1.96- -72.S3 5.73 H FF 4/18/9S 2.00 7.46 58.00 25.86 4/18/95 0.00 0.00 163.92 2.29 2.22 0.17 0.01 L FF 5/24/95 2.00 7.29 7.47 13.33 12.50 5124/95 S.S4 0.08 187.41 2.34 2.42 10.97 1.50 H FF 6/6/95 3.00. 7.45 10.78 G/6/9s O@44 0.01 254.78 3.57 3.57 79.28 6.26 E PF 6/14/9S 4.00112.001 7.23 11.31 18.40 21.43 6/14/95 1.7S 0.02 8.68 0.12 0.14 25.7S 2.03 LF FF 7/10/95 4.001IS.50 7.53 7.00 204.00 11.27 7110195 0.00 0.00 214.45 3.00 3.00 0.27 0.02 HE FF K43 73 20 42 1633 1012 3.1 0B 212 002 r -N I BB 22- 23 4 r 3,7 7/24/9S 5.00 16.00 7.46 7.96- 162.5-0 6.03 7/24/95 O.6s 0.01 56.91 0.80 0.81 14.96 1.18 E FF 11/7195 7.23 11/7/95 10.73 0.15 213.97 3.00 3.15 25.03 11.981H PF 2/20/96 2.50 8.20 9.90 2/20/90 3.79 0.05 97.09 1.36 1.41 0.77 0.06 w FF 3112/96 lOw32 3/12/96 LE NO B/N 4/26/96 10.20 9.30 4/26196 LE NO BIN 5128196 17.50 9.79 5/28/96 E NO B/N MEAN. 4.22 12.18 7.33 9.03 MEAN. 0.04 2.04 2.06 2.084 MED" coo 1.10 7.3? 0.38 MEDIAN 0.02 2.29 2.29 f.494 I STODEV 2.92 3.70 L14 P@r@0 -2-05 1.12 1.12 2.250 N 9a It 0 N 9 9 9 TABLE SO: S RH4AicrobIoioglkc8I tabase WELL RHA DATE FC ED Enteroccoci CP TIDE FILTER f 217194 5 35 285 V m 219195 TNTC TNTC 203 130 L s 3/15/95 230 220 2.5 0.24 H FF 4/18/95 7.75 6.5 26.75 0.24 L FF 5/24/95 1 1 0.24 H PF 616/96 1.5 1.5 i- 0.40 E PF 6/14/95 0.5 0.5 0.26 0.24 LF PF 7/10/95 139 125 5.25 0.24 @E PF 7/24/95 18950 17900 1.5 0.49 E FF 11/7/95 1.5 1.5 0.24 0.24 H FF 2120196 28.6 20 4 0.09 w FF 4125/96 125 110 0.25 0.24 LE PF 5/28/96 4.5 4 7 0.24 LE PF GEOMEA,N. 18.46 16.88 1.53 0.23 SMEV 5697.90 5382.77 7.71 0.12 COUNT I I I I I 1 10 WELL FIH-2 DATE fc ED Enteroccod CID TIDE FILTER 1217104 0 0 350 10 LF A4 AAO N 219195 0 0 3 0 L s 3/15/95 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 H FF 4/18/95 0.24 0.2-4 0.24 0.24 L PF 5/24/95 H NO B/N 6/6/95 E -NO 6/14/95 LF NO_j 7/10195 w NO B/N 7/24/95 E NO B/N 11/7195 0.24 0.24 0.5 0.24 H PF 2/20/96 w NOS 4/25/96 0.49 0.49 LE FF 5/28/96 0.09 0.09 LE FF GEOMEAN= 0.23 0.23 0.31 0.24 SMEV 0.14 0.14 0.15 0.00 COUNT 5 3 3 3 WELL: RI+3 DATE FC m Enteroccod CP TIDE FILTER 1217104 0 0 10 145 LF m 219195 28 24 0 0 L s 3/15/95 605 470 3.5 0.24 H FF 4/18/95 1,5 1.5 0.5 0.24 L FF 5/24/95 0.24 0.24 0.24 H FF 6/6/96 E NOB 6114/95 1 1 0.24 0.24 LF FF 7/10/95 0.24 0.24 4.5 0.24 @E FF 7/24/95 2 1.5 0.24 0.24 E FF 11/7/95 0.24 0.24 0.76 0.24 H FF 2/20/96 w NOB 4/25/96 0.49 0.49 LE FF 5/28/96 0.09 0.09 LE FF GEOMEAW 0.99 0.95 0.70 0.24 sm" 108.09 150.43 1.70 0.00 collr 9 9 7 a WELL R144 DATE __ PC ED Enterooood (P TIDE FILTER 12/7/95 LF NO WELL 219195 is 11 81 0 t s 3/15/95 1.25 i 0.24 0.24_ H PF 4118/95 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.24 L FF 5/24/96 H NO B/N 6/6/96 E NO B/N 6/14/96 LF -NO B/N 7/10/9s @E NO BIN 7/24/95 E NO B/N 11/7/95 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 H FF 2/20196 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 w FF 4/25196 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 tE FF 5/28/96 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 LE FF GEOMEAN. 0.36 0.34 0.27 0.24 SMEV 0.40 0.31 0.11 0.00 COUNT a -6 a a RH-5DEEP DATE _ FC ED Entemccocl CID TIDE FILTER 12/7/95 LF NO WELL 219195 0 0 134 0 L a NON 3/15/95 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 H FF 4/18195 0.24 0.24 0.5 0.24 L FF 5/24/95 0.24 0.24 0.24 H FF 8/6/95 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 E FF 6/14/95 0.24 0.24 0.25 0.24 LF FF 7/10/95 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 @E FF 7124/95 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 E FF 11/7/95 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 H FF 2/20/96 w NOB 4/25/96 LE NO B/N 5128/96 LE NO@U@ r EOM .32 0.29 TDEV 1 0.12 0.121 0.131 0.12 oSM"olp 1 8 1 1111 a 1 7 TABLE 8E: Site RP-Nutrient Database TSS %OM I DATIE N03 N03-N I NH AJL- TEMP -R20 -DEPTH -- 4NH4-N DINIPO4 P044-To@ @,IUTERI- 1116igs110.00 10.001 - 26.40 1116195 725.80 1 10.161 30.09 0.42 10.58 0.16 0.01HI m 2/9195j7.50 8@001 12- 7-0 2/9/95 986.95 13.82 21.90 0.31 14.12 0.27 0.02L S 3/15/95 5.50 7.00 7.04 6.75 6.67 40.00 3/15/gS 23.77 0.33 32.24 0.45 0.78 3.99 0.31H FF_ 4/20/95 3.00 7.32 4120195 50.37 0.71 26.19 0.37 1.07 0.67 0.05L FF 5/18195 8.00 7.13 7.21 20.00 15.00 5118195 0.32 0.00 39.20 0.55 0.55 4.91 0.39L FF 5/24/95 6.00 7.33 7.55 10.40 25.00 5/24/95 1.47 0.02 36.53 0.51 0.53 1.43 0.11H 5.62 5.14 0.64 --@- --UF@FF 6114/95 12.00 12.00 7.14 7.42 53.40 61IC95 0.07 45.51 0.71 11.30 .89 7/10/95 13.00 17.50 7.26 7.74 691.50 19.96 7110195 0.46 0.01 126.80 1.78 1.7810.13 0.01 HE 18.60 7/24195 1 7/24/95 13.00 21.50 7.82 go .80 0.89 0.01 51.17 0.72 0.73 0.66 0.05E NOB 1117195 21.00 7.38 11/7/95 33.48 0.47 28.06 0.39 0.86 2.64 0.21H FF 1215195 17.0017.15 7.50 12/5195 6.39 0.09 68.11 0.95 1.04 0.21 0.02 HF PF 4)23/96 19.D0 7.01 7.30 4/23/96 4.55 O@06 176.75 2.47 2.54 0.25 0.02L FF MEAN. 11.25 12.67 7.26 7.43 MEAN. 2.15 0.80 2.94 0.175 MEDIAN 11.00 11.00 7.21 7.46 MEDIAN 0.53 0.95 0.052 STDDEV 5.64 5.71 0.23 0.37 STDDEV 4.67 0.66 4.50 0.260 N-12 -6 -to-6 N 12 12 12 12 ------------ I- - - -jlW,-E,-l-:,R-P-12-,- - - I 9WC'rlbW- PH H20 DEPTH %OM N03 N03-N f NH4 NH4-N DIN P04 P04 TIDE FILTER 1/16195 13.00 8.90 28.10 1/16/95 201.35 2.82 102.54 1.44 4.25 1.74 0.14H m 2/9/95 11.00 6.00 7.1 23.10 2/9/95 39.96 0.56 54.45 0.76 1.32 0.08 0.01L S 3115195 6.60 5.40 7.12 3.5 16.33 31.58 3115/95 9.97 0.14 14.23 0.20 0.34 12.84 1.01-H 4120195 3.00 7.32 4120/95 1,42 0.02 29.51 0.41 0.43 0.37 0.03L FF 5/18/95 4.00 7.17 7.90 25@20 14.29 5/18195 6.30 0.09 26.94 0.38 0.47 1.92 0.15L PF 5124/95 7.00 7.30 8.43 9.60 18.75 5124/95 6,76 0.09 43.04 0.60 0.70 3.90 0.31H PF 10.00 12.00 7.36 --i-.4-2 -T5-020 3.33 6114/95 1.30 6/14/95 1.76 .02 91.36 1.28 0.74 0.06 LF FF 7/10/95 7.00 38 7110195 HE NO BIN 7124195118.67 1 7124;95 E140 SAMPLE 11/7/95 11.00 7.26 1117195 59.98 0.84 52.22 0.73 1.57 0.11 0.01H FF 12/5/95 11.00 6.21 8.32 12/5/95 T-21 0.04 81.85 1.15 1.19 1.13 -@. 0-9 -W PF 4123@96 8.18 4/23196 L NO B/N 8.53 8.08 7.10 7.73 MEAN. 0.51 0.77 1.29 0.200 MEDIAN 10.00 7.45 7.19 8.35 MEDIAN 0.09 0.73 1.19 0.089 STDDEV 3.48 3.03 0.35 1.72 STDDEV 0.91 0.4 N940 a N 9 99 9 DATE TEMP 14 H20 DEPTHI TSSI %-O-M DATE N03 N03-N NH4 I NH4-N I ONIP04 P04 TOE FILTER 1/16/95 . 017.44 112.60 1/16/95 1 74.50 1,04 20.96-j- 0 29 1 1.34 1.22 0.10H M 2/9/95 7@50 6.001 126.90 2/9/95 110% 772 -T 4-8 34.34 1 0.40 1 1.96 0.08 0.01L S 3/15/95 6.50 6.00 7.15 7.82 6.00 27.78 3/15/96 1. 0.12 224.641 3.14 1 3.27 I.U 6.08 -H PF 4/20/95 5.00 7.42 4/20/96 1226.09 3.17 703.97 lj@.@02 1-42 0.11-L FF 5118/gs 6.00 7.2S 8.30 301.00 16.28 5/18/95 85.16 1.19 24.03 30.75 0.06L FF 5/24/96 5.00 7.22 9.11 10.80 -16.67 5/24/95 46.96 0.66 42.81 O@60 1.26 7.84 0.62H @F- 6114/95 6.00 10. 8.54 4.60 26.09 6/14/95 421.17 5.90 46.45 0.6S 6.55 13.84 1.09 LF FF 7/10195 5.00 8.78 26.20 6.11 7/10/05 327.19 4.58 27.69 0.39 .97 17 0.01 HE FF 7/24/96 9.07 7124/95 1 1 E40 SAMPLE 20.00 7.14- 11/7195 -25.66 0.36 64.18 0.76 1.12 1.01 0.08H PF 12/5/95 17.00 6.49 8.37 1215196 3.81 0.05 23.02 0.32 0.38 0.48 0.04 FIF PF 4/23/96 14.00 5.93 8.30 4123/96 59.15 0.83 97.64 1.37 2.2010.47 0.04L PF MEAN. 9.16 10.28 7.09 8.41 MEAN. 1.76 1.65 3.42 0.203 MEDIAN T -50 9.20 7.24 8.34 MEDIAN 1.04 0.6011.96 0.080 STODEV 5.33 5.31 0.50 0.39 STDDEV 1.94 2.8413.08 0.34111 NI 15108 N I I I II I I WELL RP4 I WELL RP-4 ---6rTf-l SAL TEMP PH" H20 DEPTH TSS %Om f-R055- N03-N NH4 NH4-N DIN P04 P04 TUE FILTER 1/16/9S 16.90 9.10 16@30 V16195 75.46 1.06 116.97 1.64 2.69 0.83 0.07H M 2/9/95 870-0- -i -00-24.70 2/9196 70.S6 0.99 62.13 0.73 1.72 0.04 0.00L S 3115/95 13,90 6.80 7.19 7.19 7.00 23.81 3/16/95 12.37 0.17 19.57 0.27 0.45 4.33 .0.34H FF 4/20/95 --5-.oo 7.35 4/20/96 23.92 0.33138.42 0.54 0.8711. 85 10.15L FF 5/18/95 9.00 7.08 7.55 9.20 21.74 5/18/95 2la74 oa30 57.61 0.81 1.11114.261 IA3L FF 5/24105 10@00 7.07 7.38 7.00 25.71 5/24/96 2.29 0.03 58.40 0.82 0.8617.32 0,68_H PF 6/t4/96 12.00 10.0 7.00 g.04 11.50 17.39 6/14195 7.87 0.11 30.32 0.42 0.53 18.13 1.43 LF PF 7/10/96 1 25.05 7- 14.00 IS.20 7.35 8.15 28.00 19.29 0.35 124.06 .74 i.-o -9 T1 -0 -0. 0 1 HE FF ';4 ;I/113.00 17.001 7.5618.46 41.20119.90 7/24/96 1 8.43 0.1-2 46.36 0.64 0.76 3.24 0.26E PF 11/71951ROD ---F7-2-01 11/7/95 -13.05 0.18 141.S3. 1.98 2.16 5.83 0.46H FF 1215/96 0.00 17.12 1.10 12/5195 5.47 0.06 66.89 0.94 1.01 0.79 0.06 IF FF -L- , ..0 . I--i- - - 4/23/96 21... @6 .79 3.05 0.04 70.77 0.99 1.03_ 0.23 0.021L PF 2 3 9 6 9 5 5 a 4'209507 7 4 4 5 7-42 7 2S ,22 N.27 177 --N 042 031 04, @O3 7 F 'o 6 00 5 40 12 /7/057.4 8.S8F6 4 524/.' r 6,14, 7,10, 7' 24'. ... 7,.@ 12,", 4,23", ,3 710'9 6 724/96 17195 12"'IS ,6 W43 MEAN. 13.48 11.37 7.15 7.03 MEAN. 0. 0.96 0.375 MEDIAN -5-.4 510.5017.16 7.02 MEDIAN 1.02 201 STDDEV IF2-2' 8 1 0;25 %4 3 4 STDDEV :::u466 N12 N 121 12 12 EP WELL:RP-50EEP %OM DATE IN03 I N03-N I NH4 I NH4-N DIN I P04 P04 I TIDE FUER 1116195 7.70 10.90 3.30 1/16/95 0.00 0.00 278.58 1 3.90 3.90 1105.791 8.3 HI M 2/9/95 2/9195 :::@@ L NO BIN 3/15195 8.50 8.20 7.27 73.33 20.00 L-3/1 6/96 6.16 0.07 -141.74 1.98 2.06122.501 1.78 H FF 4/20/95 :: 4 @/2 0 / 9 5 1 1-L NO B/N 5/18/95 5.00 7.21 11.20 320.00 15.63 1 5/18/95 0.81 0.01 367.24 5.14 S.15 50.85 4.02 L FF 5/24/95 6'02 7.20 8.65 36.00 8.33 5/24/95 1.50 0.02 206.96 2.90 2.92 17.51 1.38 H PF 6114/95 4.00 0.,o 7.29 10.74 34.00 25.88 6114/95 9.74 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.14 29.96 2.37 LF FF 7/10/95 5.00 13.00 7.86 6.98 -iO9.50 15.19 7/10/95 1.67 0.02 198.87 2.78 2.81 0.14 0.01 I-E PF 7/24/951 4.00 16.00 7.76 8.35 114.67 18.60 7/24/95 1.46 0.02 35.98 0.50 0.52 4.32 0.34 E PF 11/7/95 3.00 7,16 11/7/96 0.22 0.00 165.34 2.31 2.32 0.24 0.02 H FF 12/5/95 300 1 7.63 1 6.27 1 12/5/96 5.54 0.081133.95 1.88 1.96 1.07 0.08 w PF -4/23196 200 17.00 7.49 1 9.55 4123/96 4.07 0.06 24.67 0.35 0.40 0.20 0.02 L FF MEAN. 4.82 12.60 7.43 8.82 MEANx 0.04 2.17 2.22 1.837 MEDIAN 4.50 11.95 7.29 6.65 MEDIAN 0.02 2.15 2.19 0.862 STDDEV 2.09 3.40 0.26 1.83 STDDEV 0.04 1.62 1.59 2.646 N 10 -6 7 N 10 10 10 10 !iv-FCL-. RP/RC-1 SAL TEMP PH H20 DEPTH N03 N03-N 1 DATE N03 N03-N NH4 NH4-N DIN P04 P04 TIDE FLTER 4/23/96 19 16 7.12 3.19 4123/96 5.44 0.076 15.74 0.2204 0.2965 2.87 0.2267 L PF 5/28196 6 14 7.35 1 S.5 5/28/96 0 0117.51 1.6451 1.6451 15.79 1.2472 E FF MEAN. 12.5 is 7.241 4.345 MEAN. 10.0381 0.93 0.97 0.73691 MEDIAN MEDIAN 0.038 1 0.93 1 0.97 0.7369 STDDEV STDDEV 0.054 1.01 0.95 0.7216 N N 2 2 2 2 - - -- - - - - - -- - WECL7ifFaF6f WELL: RPIRC-2 H20 DEPTH N TEMP pH 03 N03-N N03-N NI-14 NH4-N DIN P04 P04 TIDE FLTER 4123196 12 14 7.28 5.1 4123/96 6.82 0.095 60.53 0.8474 0.9429 1.235 0.0975 L FF 5/28/96 i- 14.5 7.29 4.95 5/28/96 0 019.37 0.2712 0.2712 9.827 0.7761 E PF MEAN. 10 14.25 7.29 5.025 MEAN@ 0.048 0.56 * ' 1 43 a MEDIAN 10.048 0.56 .11 !::43: STDDEV 10 0.41 0.47 2 2 2 .068 0.479:@- N 2 WELL: RPIRC-3 P/RC-3 TEW pH H20 DEFrH N03 N03.N Mli--F N03 N03-N N144 NH4-N DIN P04 P04 TIDE FILTER 4/23/96 10 13 7.071 3.1 4/23/96 5.23 0.073 16.95 0.2373 0.3105 5.04 0.3981 L FF 6/28/96 13 15.1 7.271 3.07 1 5/29/96 1.72 0.024 32.64 0.457 0.481 1.442 0.1139 E PF MEAN. 11.5 14.05 7.17 3.085 MEAN. 0.049 0.35 0.40 0.256 MEDIAN MEEXAN 0.049 0.35 0.40 0.256 STDDEV M 0.035 0.16 0.12 0.2009 N J@EV 2 2 2 2 -4R-irc---RFiR-C-4 TEMIP pH H20DEFrH N03 N03-N N03-N N144 NH4-N DIN P04 P04 TIDE FILTER 4/23/96 6 12 7.29 5.69 4/23/96 6.25 0.088 229.24 3.2093 3.2968 9.579- 0.7534 L PF 5/28/96 22 14.7 7.33 3.18 6/28/96 1.09 0.015 26.34 0.3688 0.3939 1.361 0.1075 E PF MEAN. 14 13.35 7 31 4.385 MEAN. 0.051 1.79 1.84 0.430 MEDIAN MEDIAN 0.031 1.70 1.84 0.430 STDDEV +-+ STIDDEV 0.051 0.457 N N 2 2 2 2 F 16 '95 2'9/ 95 3, 2o'.5 1 ,.5 24/,5 64 ------------ DATE I FC Ec I Enteroocod CP TIDE FLTER 111619S 0 0 a a H m 219195 0 0 0 0 L S TABLE BE: Site RP-Mlcrobiological Database 3/15/95 0.24 0.24 0.24 _ 0.24 H FF 5/18/95 0.25 0.25 0.24 0.24 L FF 5/24/96 0.24 0.24 0.24 H FF FC ED Enteroccod CP TIDE FLTER 1 1116195 10 10 5 60 H m 6/14/95 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 LF FF 9/95 0 0 0 0 L s 7/10/95 0.24 .24 0.24 0.24 w FF --3-/ 15 -/9 5-71 42 0.24 0.24 H FF 7/24/95 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 E FF -VI -20/95 -0 25 0.24 0.24 0.24 L PF 11/7/95 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 H FF 5/18195 0.24 0.24 0'24 0.24 L FF 12/5/95 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 w FF 5124/95 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 H PF 4/23/96 024 0 24 024 0.24 L FF 6/14/95 0.25 0.25 0.24 0.24 LIF PF GEOMEAN. 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 SMEV 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7/10/95 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.241 w PF 00UNT 10 10 10 9 7/24/95 E NOB 11/7/96 0.24 0.24 FF - - - - - - --- 24 0@@ WELL RP-5 DEEP 1215/96 24 0.24 0.24 FF PF 4/23/96 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 L PF -FC -M lr-49roccoci CP ME PLTER GEOMEAN- 0.49 0.46 0.26 0.26 1116195 0 0 0 0 H m STDEV 23.58 13.91 0.08 0.08 2/9/96 L NO BtN -06uw- -9 9 2 9 3/15/95 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 H FF 4/20/95 L NO BM WEEW.P-2- 6/18/95 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 L FF DATE Fr- 9: Enlem=od CP TIDE FLTER 5/24195 0.24 0.24 0.24 H FF 1116195 0 18 10 H m 6/14195 0.25 0.25 0.24 -0.24 LF FF 0 7/10195 0.25 0.24 0.24 w FF --V-9195 0 0 1 0 L s 7/24/95 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 E FF 3/15/95 0.24 0.24 0.5 0.24 H FF 11/7/95 0.49 0.49- 0.49 0.49 H FF 4/20/95 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 L FF - 5/18195 0.24 ----6-.24 -0.24 0.24 L PF 12/5/96 0.24 --F2-4 0.24 HF 5/24195 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 H FF 4/23/96 0.24 0.241 0.24 0.24 L 6/14/95 0.75 0.75 0.24 0.24 LF FF GEOMEAN. 0.26 0.26 _1 0.26 0.26 7/10/95 @E NO B/N SMEV- 0.08 0.08::: @00 9 -0.09- 7/24/95 E NO SAMPLE uNr 9 __9 8 a 11/7/95 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 H FF 1215/95 w NOB - - - - - - - - 4/23/96 L NO SAMPLE WELL FRIP/MR GEOMEAN6 0.25 0.25 0.23 0.20 FU EC Entemowd CP TIDE FUM STDEV 0.23 0.23 0.13 0.06 4/23/96 0.24 0.27-- 0.24 0.24 L FF ODUNr 6 6 6 6 6/28/96 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 LE FF GEOMEAN. 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 --------- -- WELL: Rp-3 --- 00UNr - 2 2 2 2 -FC ED Entero=oci CP TIDE FUM - - - - - - - 1116195 0 0 too 0 H m WELL: RPIRC-2 21919S 0 0 0 0 L S -FC ED Enteroccod (P ME FLTER 3/15/95 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 H FIF 4/23/96 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 L FF 4/20/95 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.25 L PF 5/28/96 Of24 0*24 045 Om24 LE FF 5/18/9s 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 L FF GEOMEAN. 0.24 0.24 0.3S 0.24 5/24/95 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 H FF couNr 2 2 2 2 6/14195 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.24 LF PF -------- --- 7/10195 0.24 0.24 8.25 0.24 I-E FF WELL: RP/RC-3 7124/95 E NO SAMPLE -5R ffi@FF EE Enteroocod CP ME FLTM 11/7/95 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 H PF 4/23/96 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 L -FF 12/5/95 0.24 0.24 0.251 0.24 W FF 5/28/96 _ 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 LE FF 4/23/96 0.49 0.49 L FF GEOMEAN. -T2-4 0.24 0.24 0.24 0 0 5 6 0 0 0, 42*24 24 0. 24 24 024 024 024 02@ 0. 24 0@4 '. 24 024 0. 24 0. 24 0.24 0. 24 0 24 024 0. 4. GEOMEAN. 0.28 0.28 0 0.26 O0twr 2 2 2 2 STDEV 0.11 0.11 212 0.09 COUNT 9 9 8 8 EEEI WIFLEA 4 FC ED Enteroccod cp ME FLTER 4/23/96 0.24 0.24 24 1@24 0.24 0@ 0 5128/96 0.24 o 24 24 GEOMEAN-- 0.24 0.24 24 0.224 00UNT 2 2 USU OF: Sit. RC-Nutlnt Detab.se WELL RO I DEEP i- WELL FICA DE um mg/L m mg/L mg/L um mg/L DATE SAL TEW pH IH20DEPTH ISS I %OM DATE N03 M03-N NK4 NH4-N DIN P04 P04 TIDE FLIER 1/16195 8@80 11.00 22.501 1/16105 1071.87 15.01 1167.06 16.34 31.36 7@38 0,58 H S 219/95 9.50 8.00 7.09 24.70 219/95 139.22 1.95 1193.34 16.71 18.66 0.16 0.01 L s 3123/95 10.00 6.92 9.21 20.60 10@68 3123/95 31.01 0.43 837.91 11.73 12.16 1@16 0.09 L FF 4/20/95 6.00 6.99 4/20/95 1285.62 18.00 644.29 9.02-- -27.02 61.17 4.83 L FF 5118195 6.00 7.02 9.00 24.80 15.32, 5/1 8/_95 217.84 3.05 612.42 8.57 11.62 5.59 0.44 L FF 5/24/95 6.00 7.02 10.15 12.60 12.701 6/24/95 135.15 1.89 492.77 6.90 8.79 5.10 0.40 H FF 6/14195 5.00 11.90 6.88 10.03 26.60 6.26 6/14/96 39.86 0.56 8.98 0.13 0.68 12.97 1.02 IF PF 7/10/95 9.00 13.50 7.10 10.34 22-60 17.70 7/5195 2.27 0.03 203.50 2.86- 2@88 SO.21 3.97 HE FF 8/23/95 6.00 16.20 7.21.9.13 64.60 26.36 8/23/96 0.48 0.01 19.99 Ow27 0.27 13.39 1 06 H PF 11116195 2600 9,34 11/16/96 35189 oa5o 139a96 1.96 2.46 6.88 0.54 W PF 121519 5 20,@() 6.95 10.20 12/6/95 463.07 6.48 307.75 4.31 10.79 1.20 0.10 w PF 18.00 4.00 7.01 10.42 3/12196 641.14 8.98 54.50 0.76 9.74 0.34 0.03 LE FF C26196 21-00 12.80 7.23 9.47 4/26/96 51.64 0.72 37@76 0.53 1,25 0.48 O@04 LE FF MEAN. 11.68 11.06 7.05 9.73 MEAN. 4.43 6.16 10.59 1.009 MEDIAN 9.00 11.90 7.02 9.75 MEDIAN 1.89 4.31 9.74 0.441 STDDEV 7.11 3.99 0.12 0.55 STDDEV 6.02 5.93 0.96 1.555 N 13 711 10 N 13 13 13 13 WELL: RC-2 WELL: RC-2 DATE SAL 113@!P PH H20 DEPTH TSS %Om DATE N03 N03-N NH4 NH4-N DIN P04 P04 TIDE FLIER 1116/95 9.30 11.00 7.31 2.40 1/16/95 5.47 0.08 236.61 3.31 3.39 31,62, 2.50 H S 2/9/9S 2/9/95 L NO B/N 11.00 3/23/95 L NO S/N 4/20/96 4.00 6.99 4/20196 8.61 0.12 582.19 8.15 8.27 32.76 2.59 L NOB 5118/95 6.00 7.13 13.50 80.00 16.86 5/18/95 2.12 0.03 377.00 5.28 5.31 65.03 5.14 L FF 5/24/95 8.00 7.45 9.12 440.00 5.45 SliCllfi 0.62 0.01 216.89 3.04 3.05 65.85 6.20 H PF 6114105 8.00 10.60 7.04, 10.85 29.60 14.19 8/14/95 4.37 0.06 0.46 0.01 0.07 28.50 2.25 LF PF 7/10/95 110.00 15.50 7.121 9.35 739.00 1.04 7/10/95 26.01 0.36 1017.72 14.2S 14.61 0.64 0.05 HE PF 8/23/95 25.00 7.021 10.27 99.67_ 0.70 8/23195 8.15 0.11 644.78 9.03 9.14 0.22 0.02 H PF 11/16/95 6.00 6.10 11/16195 0.57 0.01 385.03 5.39 5.40 0.24 0.02 W PF 1215195 5.00 7.42 8.50 12/5/95 5.10 0.07 179.88 2.52 2.59 1.40 0.11 IF PF 3/12196 5.00 9.50 7.35 3/12/96 --0.47 0.01 60.34 OaSAI 0.85 0.17 0.01 LE PF 4/26196 2.00 12.20 7.40 13.5 4/26/96 4.40 0.06 25.64 0.36 0.42 .01 LE FF MEAN. 8.03 11.74 7.22 10.44 MEAN. ::.0: 4: "1,,l 4.83 1.62 MEDIAN 4.00 11.00 7.22 10.27 MEDIAN 3.39 0.111 STODEV 6.10 2.32 0.18 1.93 STDDEV 0.10 4.33 4.41 2.054 N 1 510 9- N I I I I I I I I WELL: RC-3 WELL: RC,3 DATE S@L TEW pH H20 DEPTH ISIS %OM DATE N03 M03-N NH4 NH4-N DIN P04 POO TIDE FILTER 1/16195 4.70 10.50 8.40 1/16/95 1003.48 14.05 1161.34 16.26 30.31 11.97 0.95 H S, Me Intc 219/95 7.00 8.50 24.00 2/9/95 73.47 1.03 1104.66 15.47 16.49 3.95 0.31 L S, me into 3/23/95 16.50 7.00 6.35 11.40 21.05 3/23/05 722.19 10.11 1145.98 16.04 26.16 13.44 1.06 L FF 4/20/95 5.00 7.09 4/20/95 79.57 1.11 10.39 0.15 1.26 8.96 0.71 L FF 5/18/96 2.00 7.19 7.iO 11.00 23.64 5/10/95 125.12 1.75 320.16 4.48_ 6.23 63.34 4.21 L FF 5/24/95 18.00 7.111 7.85 7.40 21.621 5/24/95 204.96 2.87 107.611 1.51 4.38 112.02 0.95 H I PF 6/14195 4.00 13.20 6.79 a. 17 17.20 11.631 6/14/95 1535.251 25.69 0.78 0.01 25.70 15.47 1.22 LF PF 7/10/95 -5.00 16.00 ii.ee a.so 4.57 31.25 7/10/95 1296.64 18.15 126.35 1.77 19.92 5.85 0.46 FIE FF 8/23/95 2a.oo 16.70 6.71 7.80 7.80 20.51 8123195 27,19 0.36 10.36 0.15 0.53 5.56 0.44 H FF 11/16/95 19.00 7.76 11116/95 61.52 1.14 28.60 0.40 1.54 4.52 0.36 W PF 12/5196 11.00 6.90 8.53 1215/95 626.33 7.40 16.39 0.23 7.63 0.24 0.02 W FF 3/12/96 16.00 6.21 8.65 3112196 52.44 0.73 44.78 0.63 1.36 2.48 0.20 LE FF 4/26196 8.35 4/26/96 LE NO B/N MEAN. 11.43 13.34 6.83 7.99 MEAN. 7.04 4.76 11.79 0.907 MEDIAN .9.50 13.20. 6.90. 9.04 MEDIAN 2.31 1.07 6.93 0.504 STDDEV 7.70 4.10 0.301 0.66 STDDEV 1 0.34 6.85 11.22 1.106 N 12 59 1 10 N 12 12 12 12 WELL RC4 WELL R04 DATE SAL TEMP H2D DEPTH %OM DATE N03 NO" NH4 NH4.N DIN P04 P01 - TIDE FLIER 1116/95 15.10 8.90 10.30 1/16/95 21.15 0.30 1303.97 18.26 18.55 39.71 3.14 H S 219/96 14.00 11.00 12.70 2/9/96 59.20 0.83 1097.87 15.37- 16*20 0.42 0.03 L S 3123/95 5.00 7.08 6.00 23.00 26.90 3/23195 30.41 0.54 .612.86 8.56 9.12 64.46 6.67 L PF 4120/95 ,6.00 7.09 4/20/95 126.06 1.79 1123.64 15.73 17.52 3.30 0.26 L FF 5/16/95 6.00 7.14 6.95 148.00 21.92 1 5/18195 1237.08 17.32 447.13 6.26 23.68 50.66 4.00 L PF 5/24/95 8.00 7.25, 4.30 3.80 31.58 5/24/95 169.19 2.37 465.77 O.S2 8.89 87.45 6.91 H FF 6/14/95 10.00 13.00 7.481 7.16 7.60 23.68 6/14195 262.05 3.67 2.29 i,.-o 3 3.70 33.70 2.66 LF FF M'L __N 1 @64 7 173 02 57 IS". @or 23 -.9 31.. 0 95 R 1'95 125 371 2 @4 S F46 3 7 MEAN- N N RV ATE 0 -6,5 2'.S 3,2395 412 52495 P64 0@ 4 [2 39 g.. 6 @30 9 ,.o 7/10/95 10.00 20.00 7.42 7.SO 16.60 21.69 7/10196 26.32 0.40 966.53 13.81 14.21 2.37 0.19_ HE FF 8/23/96 10.00 23.00 7.27 7.52. 48.00 16.67 8/23195 2.48 0.03 315.63 4.42 4.45 0.29 0.02 It NOS 11/16/95 14.00 6.93 11/36/05 1039oS! 14.65 265.75 3.72 18.27 0.18 0.01 w NOS 12/5196 18.00 6.41 7.36 12/5195 172.16 2.41 385.16 5.39 7.80 0.50 0.04 W PF 3/12/96 10.00 5.77 7.55 3/12196 0.00 0.00 6S.03 1.19 1.19 4.28 0.34 L FF 4/26/96 17.00 8.31 7.IL___ 4/26196 16.48 0.23 1052.11 14.73 14.96 1.96 0.15 LE NO SIN MEAN. 11.62 15.34 6.92 6.76 MEAN. 3.42 4.7 12.19 1.979 MEDIAN 10.00 13.00 7.12 0.83 6.32 14.21 Oe261 STIEV 4;67 5.91 0.56 1.03 0.08 6.81 2.574 i+@ 10i 13 13 TABLE 8F: Site RC-Mlcro lological Database I -T i WELL, RC-3 DATE FC ED Enteroccoci CP TIDE WELL: RC-1 DEEP 1116195 1144 4100 388 H S, A40 ink DATE FC Ec lEnteroccocil CP I TIDE I FLTER 219195 288 175 2100 333 L S, A49 tnlc- 1116195 17 0 30 1 H S 3/23/95 10 10 4.9 2.i L FF 219195 57 50 6 so L S 4/20/95 4.75 3 1 0.24 L FF 3/23/95 7.5 7 2.75 0.49 L FF 5/18/95 1 1.25 0.24 L FF 4/20/95 1 0.49 6.25 0.24 L FF 5/24/95 0.25 0.25 0.75 0.24 H FF 5/18/95 7 7 0.25 0.24 L FF 6/14/95 0.24 0.24 3.5 0.24 LF FF 5/24/95 3.5 1 1.5 0.24 H FF 7/10/95 0.24 0.24 54.25 0.25 HE I FF 6/14/95 7.75 3.75 8.5 0.24 LF PF 8/23/95 0.24 0.24 0.25 0.24 H FF 7/10/9,5 0.24 0.24 9.25 0.24 HE FF 11/16/95 0.25 0.24 0.24 4 -W FF 8/23/95 32.5 25.5 0.24 0.24 H FF 12/5/95 0.24 0.24 0.25 0.24 w FF ll/l6f95 17.75 0.24 5.25 0.24 w FF 3112196 L NO 12/5/95 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 w PF 4/25196 LE I NO B/N 3/12/96 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 L FF GEOMEAN.1 0.60 0.57 1.33 0.43 4/25/96 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 L.E FF STDIEV 3.37 3.24 17.65 1.38 GEOMEAN- 2.05 1.06 1.22 0.26 COUNT 9 9 9 9 STDEV 9.99 7.56 3.54 0.08 COUNT I I I I I I I I WELL: RC-4 DATE FC ED Enteroc=i CP TIDE FLTER WELL: RC-2 1116195 0 0 3 0 H S DATE FC m Enteroccom CP TIDE 219195 0 0 0 0- L S 1116195 0 0 0-- 0 H S 3/23/96 1 1 1 0.25 0.24 L FF 2/9/95 L NO B/N 4/20/95 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 -L FF 3123/95 L NO -B/N 5/18/95 0.24 0.24 3.5 0.24 - --- L FF 4/20/95 L NO B 5/24/95 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 H FF 5/18/95 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 L FF 6/14/96 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 LF FF 5/24/95 0 0@24 24 0 @ 2244 0.24 0.24 H FF 7/10/95 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 1 W FF 6/14/95 0 0.25 0.24 LF FF 8/23/95 H NOS 7/10/95 0.24 0.24 27.25 0.24 I-E FF 11/16/95 0.09 0.09 w FF 8/23/95 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 H PF 12/5195 0.09 0.09 w FF 11/16/95 0.24 0.24 - 0.24 W FF 3/12/96 0.09 0.09 L FF 12/5/95 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 w FF 4/25/96 LIE NO B/N 3112/96 0.24 0.24 0.24 24 L GEOAAFAN@ 0.20 0.20 0.38 0.24 0.24 0.24 M .24 0 4 PF 0.928 0.928 1.633 0.00 GEOMEAN=j 0.24 0.24 0.44 0.24 6 SMEV 0.00 0.00 9.55 0.00 COUNT 9 9 9 TABLE 8G: Site CSL.Nutrient Database WELL CSL-l WELL C13L-t @ um mglL um 91L g/L um mg/L DATE SAL - @120 DEPTH TSS %CM I DATE F N-03 NO" NH4 H4-t_ DIN P04 P04 TIDE rLTEJq 1/3195 0,30 6.00 6.83 85.70 1/3/95 162.00 2.27 4.80 0.07 2.34 OW OjOl H m 2/16/95 0.30 7.00 7.81 7,67 0.40 2/16/95 87.78 1.23 1.46 0.02 1.25 0.01 0.00 L S 2/23/95 0.20 6.00 7.3i-- - 2/23195 750!6 1.05 22.50 0.32 1.37 0.02 0.00 L PF 3130195 0.00 6.93 7.00 4.00 25.00 3130195 66.86 0.94 2.15 0.03 0,97 0.93 OW H - PF 4/25/95 0.00 7.00 17.20 12,36- 4/25195- --71.99-- 1.01 3.67 0.05 1.06-0.05 0.00 H FF 5/11/95 0.00 7.06 3.94 682.33- 2@20 5/iligs M95 1.11 1.59 0.02 IA3 0.18 0.01 1 E I NOB 615195 0.00 7419 3197 22.00 i8ql8 6/5/95 58mS31 OmS2 6.613 0.09 0.92 -0.16 0.01 E NOB 6/26/95 6126/95 FIF NO 1344 7112/95 4.77 7/12/95 H NO 8,N 811619 5 Sq05 8116/95 w NO B/N I W26/95 - O.OL 6.79 3.94 560.40 3.09 10126/95 95.89 1.34 0.92 0.01 1.36 0.3491 0.03 @F PF V22196 0.00 7.14 1.93 2/22196 427.16 5.98 7.79 0.11 &09 0+137 0101 LE FF 4/11/96 -6.00 7.00 7,13 2.30 4111/96 269.93 3.76 20.8 O@29 4.07 0+017 0.00 FE PF 5/7/96 0.00 14.00 7.03 Z85 5/7196 89.1a 1.25 13.47 0.19 1.44 0.006 0.00 L PF 613/96 0.00 1610 7104 3060 6/3/96 105.07 lq47 5.46 0.061 1.55 0,225 _0@02 FF FF MEAN.- - 0. 07 9.42 7.091 4.53 WIEANs 1.911 0.11 1.96 0.01 MEDIAN 0.00 7.00 ?w04 3.96 MEMAN 1*24 2.07 1 W36 MI I STCOEV 0.112 CIS! O@27 i @92- STDOEY I.S3 0.10 .56 0.02 N _f2 8 i i f 2 N 12 12 12 12 WELL C$L-2 WU L- CaL- 9:@ DATE ;.ITEW PH FQD D5iT-R TSS I %OM DATE I N03 N03-N NH4 NH4-N DIN P04 P04 TIDE FLTER 1/3/95 0.30 5+00 1 6.65 179.90 1/3195 922.08 12.91 3.42 oqo5 12196 OwO2 0.00 H m 2116195 0.30- 5.10-6.60 4.04 1.10 2/16/95 98.67 1.38 2.67 0.04 1.42 omol 0.00 L S 2123195 0.20 5.20 3w89__ 0- 2/23/95 145.90 2.04 1.67 0.02 2W 0.02 0.00- L FF 3130/95 0.00 6.74 0483 1316.00 1 90 3130195 86.48 1.21 1.75 0.02 1.24 1 0.10 0.01 H FF 4/25/95 0.00 6.78 1.20 33.33 4/257-95 5-6 43 0.79 2.0310.03 0.82 oqo5 0.00 H I PF 5/11/95- -0.00 6.68 4.34 626.00 8.31 5/11/95 47.98 0.67 5.12 0.07 0.74 0.00 0.00 E I FF 6/5)95 0+00 7.03 C35 353480 1:30 6/5195 43w33 OW61 0.23 OqOO 0.61 0.06 0.00 1 E I PF 6/26195 0@06 7.16 4wOO MOD 6/26/95 38.39 0.54 2.11 0.03 0.57 0.10 0.01 HF I PF 7112/05 5als 7112195 H NO SIN 8/16195 5AS 1 8116195 W NO BN 10126/95 0.00 6d86 4.34 98.66 3w7O 10/26t95 165@24 2.31 1.61 0.02 2.34 0.24 0.02 w FF: 2122/96 O.OL 7.13 2w35 2/22196 120.94 1.69 3.78 0.05 1.75 0446 0.04 FF 4M/96 OdOO 7+00 6.93 2.78 4/11/96 IM47 1.55 3*54 0.05 1 w60 0.01 0.00 FE FF 5/7196 0.00 12.10 7003 3.38 5/7/96 77.97 1.09 3.17 0.04 1.14 0.07 0.01 L PF 6/3/96 -0.00 15+00 7.12 3.92 613196 59.51 0.83 2.46 0.03 0.87 0.04 0@00 w PF 0.06 8.2 . 3.73 MAN. 2.13 0.04 2.16 0.01 9.90 SAG 6.90 3.98 MEDIAN i 1 * ** 1.24 0.00 2: :.2 3.2. 1H STDOEY . 2 4.28 0.20 1.27 3 13 61 12 12 N 1 113 11 131 13 13 WELLCM4. bATE iXZ@@,- -TSW PH RM DWM TSS %Om M03-N KH4-N DIN P04 P04 TIDE FLTER 1/3/95 0.30 5.50 6.75 754.00 1/3195 357*53 SIOI 39.36 ow 55 6656 0402 0400 H m 2/16/95 2/16/95 L didW% sam 2123/95 Om2O SrSO 6.60 2/23/95 62.29 Ow87 31.91 --0.45 IM -0.02 0.00 L PF 3/30195 0.00 6w63 6.67 13,80 14.49 3/30/95 156.34 2.19 11.31 Owls 2.35 0.04 0.00 H PF 4/25/95 0.00 6.71 2.40 25.00 4/25/95 148.42 2.08 41.41 OW58 2.66 0.06 0.00 H FF slillos 0.00 6.72 3wt6 715.50 2A7 sit figs 144.04 2.02 44w27 0.62 2.64 0.03 0.00 E FF 6/5/96 0.00 6.77 3wl4 594.40 1.72 615/95 1 126.74 1.77 45w5310.64 2.41 0.06 1 0.01 E I PF 6126195 amoo 6.85 1216.00 1.13 8/26105 134.15 1.88 49.45 0.69 2.57 0.16 1 0.01 w PF 7112/95 -0.00 19.30 7.11 4A 1 390.20 3J4 7/12/95 148.08 2.07 63.20 -0.88 2wgG 0.22 0.02 H PF 6/16195 10.00 21.30 6.89 4.22 85.40 1.64 SMG/95 14Sw2l 2.03 66.32 0.93 2.96 0.02 0.00 I-F FF 10/26/95 OwOO 6AS 2487 3400 26.66 10/26/95 235.00 3.29 75.54 1.06 4.35 0.17 0.01 w FF 2122/96 0.00 6.94 0.88 2/22196 469.00 6.58 44.12 0.62 7.19 OA3 OwOl F PF 4/11195 0400 6*60 6oll? 1 *62 4/11/96 566.03 7.92 -47.77 OvS7 obso 0.05 owoo LE FF 5/7196 0.00 MOO 6.90 2.33 517/96 389.03 5.45 36.60 0.54 5.99 OW08 owol LF PF 6/3/96 0000 l3w50 6*98 2.97 6/3/96 210.48 2w95 26.82 0.40 3.35 0.02 0.00 w PF MEAN. 0.04 12.11 6.83 3.51 MEAN. 3.291 0.63 3w92 0401 IME" 0.00 12.801 8.83 1 3.14 2.13 0.62 2.96 0.00 STDOEV OAS 6.49 0*14 iAlt STDOEV 2.10 0.23 2.12 1 0.01 i 4 7 13 It 14 14 14 14 -w-wr pH H2D DEF" TSS HH" P04 P04 FLTEFI DATE N03 NO" NH4 DIN TIDE It3/95 0.30 6.00 6.74 116.30 1/3/95 988.15 13.83 18.33 0.26 14.09 0.60 0.05 H m 2/16/25 2/16/95 L didWt samg 2/23195 0.20 6.00 7.00 2123/96 110.40 11.55 24.69 0.34 1.89 0.19 0.01 L PF -3/30/95 -0.00 1 6.76 7.03 8.20- 21.95 3/30/95 139.35 1.931113.4611.59 3.54 3.68 0.28 H FF 4125/95 -0.00 6.93 818.00 7,33 4125/95 23.48 0.33 1261 m75 17*66 i7*99 OW 0.03 H PF 5/11/95 -0.00.. 6*95 3.53 600.00- 6,33 5/11/95 189.39 2.65 1270.28 17.78 20.44 0.09 0.01 E PF 615/9S 0000 7617 3463 235m33 ?o65 6/s/95 106m7l 1*49 125915 17o63 19.12 1.85 0.15 E I FF 6/28/95 0.00 8.97 531.40 1,24 6128195 27.46 0.38 904.65 12.67 13.05 _!.00 0.08 w FF 7112/95 24.50 4.52 7112/95 H NO BIN 8/16/95 1 4&64 8/16/95 W NO 844 10/26195 OM 6.78 3.44 119.20 1.00 10126/95 1279.55 17.91 109432 1.53 19.44 0.14 OwOl FF PF 2/22/96 0.00 6.06 1.65 2122/96 1 120.94 1.69 3.78 0.05 1.75 3wOO 0.24 LE FF 4/11196 -OAC) 7.00 6.93 2.12 4111/96 1 504.69 17.07 132.49 1.05 8.92 0.24 0.02 FE I PF 6/7/96 2.68 L7196 !51.!4 2.13 139.84 1.96 4.08 1.26 0.10 L FF 002 OR04 LE 0.0 _ 00, L 0, g 6075 - 39 36 3f ..3 3 67, R44 U 4'2 453 0w50 6.72 6/3/96 00 15 0 .99 3*32 3 1 27w 9 1.78 81.7511.14 2.93 0.13 0 Of w PF w 0 VZAN@ 0.04 11. 6.89 3e9o 6.21 10.50 MEMAN .00 9.75 4.93 3053 1 1.7! 10 *99 STDOEW 0.10 7.24 0.14 LIPS SMOEV I . 7.56 N 12 6 11 11 N 1 112 12 12 WELL CGL4 DEEP? DATE SAL EPTH TSS %OM- DATE -NO3 M03-N NH4 NH4-N DIN IP04 I PO-4 1/3/95 1 0.30 6.601 6.861 _ 426.40 1/3/95 142,99 2.00 15.43 0.08 2.08 0.18 201 H 0 2/16/95 -0.30 loboo 6.77 73.80 2/16195 1209m94 16.94 7.69 0.11 17.05 10.07 bol L s 2/23/95 0.20 7.80 6.60 -- 2/23195 93.70 1@31 10.01 0.1 1.45 10.43 0@03 L FF 3/30/95 -0.00 7m26 6.60 2130@00 1.60 3130195 86a29 141 2AS 0.03 1.24 1om -"@ -01 -H PF 4/25/95 0.00 7.37 866.00 3.12 4/25/95 70A6 1.10 2.77 0.04 lbl4 ObI5 0m0I __t!@PF 5/11195 0.00 7w35 2.92 839.00 1.91 5111195 79.32 iiii 3.91 0@05 1017 0.04 0.00 E PF 6/5/95 0.00 7j29 2a77 1131400 0.16 6/5/95 78090 iAo 1.88 0.03 lm!3 0012 0.01 E FF 6/26195 O@00 7030 4424.00 0.41 6/26/95 45.70 0964 2.12 0.03 Od67 0.12 0.01 w PF 7112/95 0.00 16.00 7038 3.82 1232.00 0.60 7112/95 76.56 1.07 1.96 OmO3 iwio 0006 OwOO H PF 8/f6/95 adoo 18.50 7. ta 4.04 1039w20 0.77 1 8116195 $7.04 1OwSO 3.73 0.05 0.85 0.00 10.00 w FF 10126/95 odoo 7.06 2m9S 516FOO 4.26 10126/95 21.66 Oq3O 2.43 OqO3 Od34 0.20 0.02 w PF 2122/96 0.00 ?m26 2/22196 9.23 0.13 28w53 0440 0.53 0.42 2.03 LE PF 4/11196 0900 8.60 7.21 1.46 4/11198 77.58 1.00 4.84 obo7 1.15 0.03 000 I-E PF 5/7/96 0.00 11.00 7.25 2.27 517/96 49.05 Ow69 5.93 0.08 0.77 0.18 0.01 L 6/3/96 0.00 12.40 7.36 2.62 6/3196 75.76 1.06 2.26 003 1.09 oqol 0.00 w PF MEAN. 0.05 11.39 7.24 3.89 MEANx 2.04 ms 2.12 ovol MEDIAN 0.00 10.214 7.26 2.96 MEDIAN tool) 0.05 1.13 0.01 STODEV 0.11 4.08 0.15 -1.90 STDOEV --4.IS C." CIS 0.01 N 15a 13 11 N 15 Is is is WaLlm-a: --f- .1 9.1 L DATE ITEMP I PH I H20 DEPTH TSS %OM DATE NCO N03-N NH4 NH4-N DIN P04 P04 TIDE FILTER 1/3195 0.20 6wOO 1 6.791 83w5O 1/3/95 254.30 3.56 158.77 2.22 5.78 0.19 0.02 H m 2/16/95 1 2/16/95 L didn't uxg!F 2123/95 0.20 GOOD 6bI0 2/23/95 92084 1.30 -Aw43 0.12 1 w42 012 0.01 1 L FF 3130/95 0.00 8@91 6.30 30400 S167 3/30195 65.01 0.91 2m45 0.03 --0.94 0.10 0.01 H I PF 4/25195 0.00 6.78 606.00 1 4.95 4/25195 73.51 1.03 6.82 0.10 IbI2 OaO5 0.00 H FF 5/11/95 0.00 6.97 2.72 654mOO 3.36 5/11195 79.56 1.11 6.23 0.09 1.20 0.02 0.00 E FF --6/5/95 0.00 6.98 2.82 395.25 2.72 6/5195 70.79 6.99 9.16 0.13 1.12 omio 0.01 E PF 6126195 Omoo 7.00 -T34 0-0 3.73 6/26/95 71.85 lbol 7.49 0.10 -1.11 0.21 0.02 HF PF 7/12/95 0.00 15.00 7.10 3.67 3317.67 1.42 7/1219S 7i-74- 1.56 6.97 0.10 1.16 0.23 0.02 H PF 0.00 0.00 FF 8/16195 0.00 18+00 ?d07 3.97 1177.33 0.48 8/16/95 66.75 0.93 3 40 0 05 0.98 w 10126/95 0.00 2.31 10/26/95 1 1 W PF. wN 2122196 0.00 7.131 0.6-9 2/22/96 5.54 0.08 180.05 2.52 2.60 oqo9 omoi LE PF 401196 OqOO 7.50 6.95 1 4111/96 I9Sq66 2.75 L4 43 0.34 3.10 0.05 0.00 FE PF 4.r 5/7i96 OqOO lOa4O 6.81 2.02 1 1 517196 81.71 IA4 3 0.07 1 @210.09 0.01 L I PF 6/3/96 0.00 11.00 7.04 2.74 613196 137w24 Im92 0.06 1.98 @01 omoo- W FF MEAft 0.03 10.56 WEAN. 1.37 0.46 1.03 0@01 0.00 10.40 Nl: LIMAN 1.20 MEDIAN 2 1.06 0.10 060i 0.07 4.S9 0.12 1.79 STDOEV C90 0.96 1.36 0.01 STV 14 -7 12 11 N 13 13 1 1 ETER DATE @x TEw -PH H2D DEPTH ras %OM DATE N03 NO" NH4 NH4-!L DIN P04 P04 TIDE FILTER 8/16195 01 7.25 33.33 8116/95 1956m75 27.39 4.10 0.06 27445 50,73 4bOl 11/14195 11/14/95- -- BAITY I i/W95 0 11/16/95 1432.@7 20aO6 2.62 0*04 20wO9 W07 3*80 1/30/96 1130/96 15mis 218/96 0 6m93 2/8/96 806.7i-- 11.29 1.15 0.02 l1w3l 67*32 5.32 2122/96 0 6.87 2122/96 3.89_ OwO5 680.73 9.53 9.58 60.83 4m80 2/29/96 0 1 6.91 2129/96 93.39 11.31 6.62 0.09- la40 72w92 5.76 3/12/96 3/12/96 1 3 400.1s 3113/96 0 6.91 3113/96 106rS9 1.49 2.10 1 0.03 1.52 45.92 13.63 4111/96 0 7.05 4111196 115.91, 1.62 8.07 0.11 1.74 47.82 13.78 5/7196 0 7.05 5/7/96 94.68 1. 3 3.46 0.05 1.37 49.25 3,89 200mis 5/9/96 0 6.74 5/9/96 29.37 0.41 2.86 0.04 0.45 42.3 13.34 200mis 6/3/96 6/3/96 15.58 0.22 148*19 2mO7 249 44m8i 3w54 200mls 6/s/96 0 6.66 6/5/96 28.41 0.40 1772.46 24.81 25.21 108.18 8.54 MEAN, 0.00 6.95 MEAN. 5.96 3.33 9.31 4.682 MEDIAN 0 1.33 0.06 2 29 3,890 NI 1 :11., 1 9.44 7.6 STDOEW _21 i- 1:528 N 1 101 f 9 1 N I I I I :13 4 1 R212 15 6.0 73 MEDIAN DDEV STM TABLE SG: Site CSL.Mlcroblolll Ical Database CP TIDE WER 41 DATE Fr EC Enteroccod DATE Fr, ED Enteroocom I CP I TIDE FILTER 0 0 0 490- N m 113195 0 0 0 1 15 H m L dldnl samp 2116 95 0 0 0 0 L S 2/23/96 1 1 0.49 0.24 L FF 2123/95 0.24 0.2A 1 0.24 L FF 3/ 30M 0.24 0.24 0.5 0.5 H FF 3/30195 Od24 0@24 0.24 0.24 m FF 4/26/96 i- 0.24 0.24 .24 22 H FF 4/26195 0.24 0.24 Ow24 1 H PF 5/11196 0.25 0.25 0.24_ 0.24 E FIF 6/11/95 E NOB 6/5/-95 0.24 0.24 0.24 2 E FF 6/5195 E NOB 6/26196 53.25 Alows 0.24 2.25 w FF 6126/95 HF NO B/N 7112/95 - H NO BIN 7112195 H NO BIN 61,16196 - w NO WN BMW95 w NO B/N 10126/95 Om24 Or24 0.24 0.24 w FF !0/26/95 0.09 0.09 22.76 0.09 FIF IF --?/22/96 10 6 49.5 --T -75 -F FF 2/22/96 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 F FF 4/11/96 1 0.25 0.25 0.24 Om25 w FF 4111198 0.24 0-24 2 0.75 w FF 5/7/96 0.25 0.25 0.5 0.24 L I FF 517196 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 L PF G(Vos 0.24 0.24 0.2S 0.5 IV 613/96 Om49 OW49 0.49 0.5 w FF GEOMEAN- 0.63 0.60 0.48 0.85 GEOIIAEAN. 0.23 0.23 0.72 -33 SMEV 15.93 14.46 14.53 6.59 2 0 11.00 11 0.11 7.84 .9 COUNT 11.00 1111.00 1111.0 No 8.00 -8.00- 8.00 0450MOO-7 . ....... .. nATE FC ED Entenwood CP TIDE FILTER DATE FC ED Entemccod (P TIDE FILTER 113195 0 0 0 0 N-- m 113195 0 0 0 0 H m 211010S 0 0 0 0 L 2116195 0 0 76 12 L S 2/23/95 0@24 0.24 0.49 0.24 L FF 2/23/95 0.24 0.24 Od49 O@24 L FF 3/30/95 0.24 0.241 0.24 0.24 H FF 3130195 0.24 Ob24 0424 0.24 H PF 4/25/95 0.24- 0.24 0.24 0.24 H FF 4/25M 0*24 Om24 Oa24 0.24 H FF 5/11/95 0.24 -0.24 0.24 0.24 E FF 5111/95 Ow24 0624 0.24 0.24 E FF 6/6/95 0.24 0.24 0.25 0.24 E FF 6/5/95 Om24 Ow24 0124 0.24 E PF 6/26/95 1.25 1.25 0.24 0.24 W FF 6/26/95 6.5 6.25 0.24 0.24 HF PF 7112/95 0.24 0*24 4 0.24 H FF 7/12195 H NO am 8116195 4.75 4.715 0.24 0.25 w FF I 8/iG/95 w NO EM 1 /26/95 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 w FF 10/26M O@24 0.24 7.5 od24 w PF 2122/96 0.25 0.24 6.75 3.5 F FF 2/22/96 0.24 0.24 1 1.25 F FF 4/11/96 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.5 w FF 4/11/96 0.24 0.24 0.24- 0.24 K FF 517/96 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 L FF 5T7196 -0424 0.24 0.24-- O@24 L FF 613106 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 w FF 6/3/96 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 w PF GEOMEAN. 0.34 0.34 0.41 0.31 GEOUEAN. 0.32 0.32 0.40- 0.28 STDEV 1.26 1.25 2.00 0.90 STDEV 1.89 1.81 2.17 0.30 COUNT 1 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 COUNT 11.00 11.00 11.00 11.00 DATE FC ED Enteroccod CP 71DE FL70 DATE Fr Er I Entemoomd CP TIDE FILTER 113195- 0 0 0 170- H m 113195 0 0 0 30 H m 2110/95 L 2/16/95 L didn't samp 2/23/95 2 2 0.49 0.24 L FF 2/23/95 0.24 -24 0*49 0.24 L FF 3/30/95 - 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 K FF 3130195 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 H FF 4125/95 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 H FF 4/25/95 0.24 Ow24 0.24 0.25 H FF 5/11/95 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 E FF 5/1 i/95 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 E FIF 6/5/95 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 E 6/5/95 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 E FF 6/26/95 - 2.25 2 0.24 0.24 w FF 6/26/95 5.75 5m75 Ow24 0.24 w FF 7/12/95 0.5 0.5 0.24 0.24 H FF TM 2195 Oa24 0124 Oa24 0.24 H PF 0116195 1 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 w FF 8/16/96 2 2.75 0.24 w PF 10/26/95 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 w PF. no N 10126195 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 w FF 2/22/96 O@24 0.24 0.24 0.24 F FF 272-2/96 2.75 2.75 6.75 0424 FF 4/11/96 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 w IF 4/11/96 Ow24 0.24 Ow24 -0.24 I-E PF 517/96 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 L PF S17/96 0.24 0424 0424 0.24 L Fr 6131SIS 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 w FF - GEOMEAAW 0030 Oa35 0.25 0.24 6/3f96 0.24 od24 O@24 0.24 w PF GEOMEAN. 0.44 0 44 0.40 0.24 SMEV 0.70 0.06 0.07 0.00 COUNT 13 13 13 13 1 STOEV 1.64 1.64 1.87 0.00 COUNT 0-0 13-00 13-00 0 0 0 0 0 0 V2 didn't som 24 024 0. 24 024 24 24 -24 IF 024 024 K5 02 24 0 04 024 024 2 7 OF24 0. 02 24 024 04 TABLE SH: Site WRH-Nutrlent Da baso WELL- wRH-i I DATE I SAL [-TE-W PH I H20 DEPTH I I %__0_M 0 1 N03 I N03-H NH4 NH4-N DIN P04- Po4 mDE ALTER 113195 7.07 159A0 150.68 1 2.11 1250.83 17.51 19.62 1 54 0 H W FC inte 2116/95 641 L NO BIN 312195 6.60 3/2195 L NO 131@_ 3130/95 6.99 3130/95 H NO afN 4/6/95 7.17 416/95 L NO S(N 4/25/95 4125/95 H NO B/N 6/11195 7.75 5111195 E NO R(N 6126195 6.72 - _6@22 17.86 6126/95 FF NO B/N 7/12195 8.8 1 7/1 2tQ5 H NO BIN 8/16/95 8.95 8/16195 w NO B(N_ 11/18/95 0.00 7.03 6.21 111118/95 1010.991 14.15 263.43 3.69 17.84 0.25 0.02 TE- _FF 2/1/96 13.00 6.02 2/1196 NO B(N 218/96 0.00 1 7.05 218/96 36.44 0.64 129.64 1.81 2.35 0.12 0.01 LE FF 3/28196 0.00 8.50 7.41 5.95 3/28/96 22.53 0.32 162.25, 2.27 2.59 0.40 0.03 LE FF 519196 0.00 11.50 7.24 6.56 5/9/96 46.12 0.65 28.89 0.40 1.05 2.30 0.18 LE FFF__ MEAN. 0.001 7.67 7.09 7.09 MEAN. 3.55 3.14 6.69 0.073 MEDtAN 0.001 8.50 7.07 a.95 MEDIAN 0.65 2.27 2.S9 0.032 STDDEV 0.001 4.311 0.26 0.99 STDDEV 5.97 7.02 9.21 0.076 N 4 1 31 5 12 N 5 5 3 5 DATE @j 1-80P PH H20 DEPTH TSS %OM DATE N03 N03-N N144 NH4-N DIN P04 P04 -nDE ALTER 1/3195 0.60 5.00 6.55 _ 129.90 1/3195 458.28- 6.42 48.87 0.68 7.10 0.14 07-1 H m 2/16/95 2/16/95 L didn't samp 3/2/95 0.20 4@00 6.10 3/2/95 L NO BIN 3/30/96 7.19 3130/95 H NO BIN 4/6195 0.00 4.00 6.78 7.43 394.00 5.84 -4/6195 733.39 10.27 164.21 2.30 12.57 0.05 0.00 L PF 4125/95 4/25/95 H NO BIN 5/11195 .07 5/11/95 E NO S(N 6t26/95 0.00 6126/95 51.79 0.73 15.42 -0.22 O@94 0.76 0.06 w NOS 7/12195 9.02 7/12195 H NO El/N 8/16/95 9.10 Stl6/95 FF NO B(N 11/18195 0.00 6.72 6.25 11/18/95 362.14 5.07 4CS0 0.63 5.70 0.06 0.00 HE PF 2/1/96 4.00 6.52 2/l/96 1 HE NO BIN 218/96 0.00 6.50 6.57 7.14 2/8/96 5.55 0.08 62.93 0488 0.96 0.20 0.02 LE PF 3/28/96 0.00 5.20 6.59 6.63 3128196 0.79- 0.01 50.99 0.71 0.72 0.08 0.01 LE PF 519/96 .00 11.50 6.72 7.07 519/96 3.16 0.04 50.25 0. 0. 5 0.93 0.07 LE FF MEAN. 0.09 5.74 6.60 7.32 MEAN. 3.23 - 0.17 4.11 .0 ME66_U@ 0.00 5.00 6.66 7 14 MEOLAN 0.73 0.70 0.96 0.011 iffw-w 0.8181 2.770 0.10 :02 0.66 4.53 10.0291 4.08 N 7 7 EW DATE 'F:@_NV PH H20 DEPTH 7SS -%-o-m-l DATE F_N_o3 N03-N NH4 NH4-N DIN P04 pO4 TiDE ALTER 1/3195 0.90 6.50 6.64 120.60 1/3/95 1370.67 19.19 37.30 0.52 19.71 0.06 0.00 H m 2/16/95 0.30 10.00 5.91 6.65 19.60 - -2/16195 20.21 0.28 126.40 1.77 2@05 0.02 0.00 L S 3/2/05 0.70 8.00 6.22 5.52 50.70 3/2/95 1263.62 17@69 34.13 0.48 18.17 0.04 0.00 L FF 3/30/95 0.00 6.66 S.67 298.00 4.70 3/30/95 1284.02 17.98 34.43 0.46 18.46 -0.07 -0.01 H PF 4/6/96 0.00 6.90 6.14 5.87 156.00 1.28 4/6/95 1488.31 20.64 74.40 1.04 21.88 0.07 0.01 L FF 4125/95 0.00 6.18 115.80 2.94 4/25/95 1245.49 17.45 81.56 1.14 18.59 0.04 0.00 H PF 5111/95 0.00 6.94 6.39 55.00 18.79 5111/95 1325.28 18.55 1129.83 15.82 34,37 4.27 0.34 E FF 6/26/9S 0-00 13.00 6.48 109.00 3.06 6/26/95 1224.44 17.14 43.87 0.611 17.76 0.09 0.01 w FF 7/12/95 0.00, 15.40 6.33 7.20 491.33 0.81 7/12/95 1327.51 18.59 21.59 0.30 18.89 0.09 0.01 H PF 8/16/95 0.00 1 18.00 6.38 7.32 454.33 1.98 8/16/95 1227.64 17.19 33.72 0.47 17.66 0.64 0.05 FF PF 11/14195 0.00 1 6.46 5.49 11/14/95 1126.65 15.80 56.03 0.78 16.59 0.13 0.01 H PF 11/18195 0.001 6.34 5.09 11/10/95 1154.01 16.16 27.31 0.38 16.54 0.05 0.00 HE FF 2/1/116 0.001 4.20 6.61 5.22 2/1196 1147.42 16.06 29.53 0.41 16.40 0.00 0.00 HE- PF 218/06 0.00 16.10 6.76 5.60 2/8/96 1157.19 16.20 19.60 0.26 16.48 0.14 0.01 LE FF 3/28196 0.001 7.90 6.74 5.27 3/28/96 1092.52. 15.30 32.36 0.45 15.75 0.38 0.03 LE PF 5/9/96 0.00 10.40 6.96 5.57 519/96 1245.89 17.44 32.36 0.45 17.90 0.23 0.02 LE FF MEAN. 0.12 9.67 0.42 3.83 187.04 4.79 MEAN. 16.37 1.59 1?.95 .0.031 MEOM 0.00 9.00 6.47 5.58 118.20 2.94 MEDLAN 17.31 0.46 17.83 0.006 STDM 0.28 4.25 0.43 0.71 100.97 6.30 1STDOEV 4.52 3.81 6.09 0.083 N IS I I is 13 10 7 N is 16 Is 16 S DATE SAL YEW PH H20 DEPTH m %OM NO3 NO" NH4 NH4.N tM P04 P04 TIDE ALTER 1/3/95 0.90, 6.20 6.68 111.50 1/3/95 199.23 2.79 _168.75 2.36 5.15 0.22 0.02 H S 2/16195 1 2/16/95 L ddn't samp 3/2195 0.601 5.00 6.18 5.61 6.70 3/2/96 1.14 0.02 219.30, 3.07 3.09 12.05, 0.95- L PF 3/30195 0.001 6.48 5.99 65.80 15.20-- 3/30195 0.78 0.01 224.42 3.14 3.15 21.441 1.69 H FF 4/6/95 0.001 4.90 6.57 6.20 58.67 9.09 4/6/95 5.38 0.08 1069.12 14.97 15.04 7.07 0.56 L FF 4/25/95 0.001 6.69 1899.00 2.26 4/25195 1.96 0.03 1068.35 14.96 14.98 14.46 1.14 H_ FF 5/9195 0.001 6.92 1014.00 4.39 519/95 8.37 0.12 1245.79 17.44 17.56 2.60 0.21 H NOB 5/11/95 0.00 11 6.26 6.75 64.33 4.66 5111/95 2.29 0.03 51.32 0.72 0.7S 0.16 0.01 E FF 6/26/95 0.001 15.001 6.92 216.50 6.78 6/26195 67.20 0.44 1067.16 14.94 15.88 0.15 0.01 w PF 7112/25 0.001 18.301 7.02 8.61 25.50 26.47 7/12195 760.06 10.64 289.69 4.06 14.70 1.07 0.08 H FF 6/16/95 0.001 22.30 1 7.00 8.78 33.20 24.10 6116195 61.80 0.67 244.26 3.42 4.28 0.06 0.01 w FF 11114195 0.001 6.62 5.80 11114195 652.70 9.14 194.42 2.72 11.86 0-03 0.00 H FF 111116/95 0.001 6.51 5.46 -11/18195 135.51 1.90 331.29 4.64 6.54 0.22 0.02 HE PF 211/96 0.001 2.00 6.62 5.54 211/96 332.99 4.66 139.32 1.94 6.60 1.51 0.12 HE Fr r O't A 4 0 S 210/96 0.00 5.50 192 5.92 2/8196 4.18 0.06 242.23 3.39 3.45 6-94 0.55 LE FF 3/20/96 0.00 6.00 6.60 -5.60 3/20/96 48.91 0.66 385.82 5.40 6.09 0.32-0.02 LE Fr 5/9196 0.00 10.50 6.70 5.89 519/96_ 36.40 0.51 279.03 3.91 4.42 1.231 0.10 L I PF ___l MEAN. 0.09 9.57 0.70 6.36 439,32 11.87 MEAN. 2.03 0.32 4.35 0.343 MEMA14 0.00 6.10 i.69 S.91 6517 6.94 1MEMAN 0.00 3.80 a 31 1 10.091 STDDEV 0.25 8.74 0.24 1.14 775.37 1 0.19 1STDDEV 3.33 5.65 -kS2 1 10.50sl Is 12 10 1 1 1 N is I I is I __I$ I I WELL: WR" WEW WF*4-3 DATE SAL TEW PH H20 DEPTH TM -%-5wl DATE INO3 i N03-4 DIN P04 P04 MOE 113195 160,801 113/95 1115 O@02 1377.67 19.29 19@30 1.17 0.09 H M, FC mo: 2116/95 -:::_ @21@ 6 195 ' L didnl ".p 3/2/95 0 50 6woo SM34 7.24 5.50 1 3/2/95 0.00 0.00 354.34 C96 4.96 1 @25 0.10 L FF 3130195 0.00 6.75 7.26 5.80 44.83 3/30/95 0.03 0.00 349.54 C89 4.89 1.79 0.14 H NOB -416195 0.00 5.00 6.89 7.68 133.67 7.46- 4/6/96 3.47-- 0.05 1574.46 22.04 22.09 0.13 0.01 L FF 4125/95 0.00 6.93 9.80 34.70 4125195 2.09 0.03 1346.23 18.85 18.88 0.47 0.04 H Fr 6/1 1 t95 0.00 6M99 8.22 1232.50 1.14 5/11/95 0.85 0.01 1344.68 18.83 1 18.84 0,02 0.00 E NOS 6/26/95 19.20 1188.00 2.19 6/26195 Hl@ NO SIN 7/12/95 9.00 7/12/95 H NO B/N 8/16/gs 9.14 8116/95 FIF NO BIN 11114/95 O@00 7.36 6.95 11/14/95 1300.07 18.20 328.39 4.60 22.80 0.05 0.00 H NOS 11/18/95 0.00 6.68 6.42 11/18/95 1271.41 17.80 175.62 2.46 20.26 0.00 0.01 FE FF 2/1/96 2.50 6. 12 2/11/96- HE NO SIN 2/8/96 0.00 -T2-7 2/8/96 843.10 11.80 110.45 1.55 13.35 0.31 0.02 LE FF 3128t96 0.00 7.50 7.05 6.23 --3/28/96 146.69 2.06 110.45 1.55 3,60 0.05 0.00 LE PF 519/96 0.00 12@00 6.78 7.25 5tg/96 15.17 0.21 232.97 3.26 3.47 0.34 10.03 LE FIF MEAN. 0.05 6.70 6.811 -7.32 390.07 18.07 MEAN. 4.56 9.30 13.05 10.041 MEDtAN 0.00 6.75 6.91 7.26 133.67 7.4111 MEDIAN 0.05 4.89 18.84 10.025 STDDEV 0.18 8.03 0.27 1.0s 563.43 20.27 STDDEV 7.50 8.41 8.01 10.048 N 10 0 10 12 73 IN I WELL; WRH4.1,@ WERL, DATE f pH H20 DEPTH TM 16 -0M DATE r N03 N03-N NH4 NH4-N DIN P04 Fbi nDE RLTER 1/3/95 10.301 6.00 6.58 223.80 1/3/95 100.79 1.41 3.61 0.05 1.46 0.12 0.01 H m 2/16/95 1 2/16/95 L didn't samp 312195 0.40 5.00 5.94 5.25 22.20--3/2/95- 785.89 11.00 2.11 0.03 11.03 0.11 0.01 L PF 3130/95 0.00 6.46 5.36 519.0 .49 3/30/95 738.43- 10.34 1.35 0.02 10.36 0.11 0.01 H FF 4/6/95 0.00 4.90 6.51 5.58 1.00 4.89 4/6/95 302-66 4.24 7.01 0.10 4.34 0.06 0.00 L FF 4/25/95 0.00 6.55 1512.00 3.31 4/2S/96 229.42 3.21 11.73 0.16 3.38 0.07 .0.01 H FF 5/11/95 0.00 6.99 5.94 863.50 2.03 5/11/95 305.90 4.28 7.30 0.10 4.38 0.02 0.00 E PF 6/26195 0.00 14.00 6.51 6/26/gS 132.80 t,86 -6.22 0.09 1.95 0.08 0.01 w FF 7/12/95 0.00 17.20 8.63 7.61 711.00 2.11 7112195 112.72 1.68 7.71 0.11 1.69 0.14 0.01 H FF B/iS/95 21-,50 6.46 7.84 38112.33 OJ4 8/16195 203.05 2.84 2.16 0.03 2.87 0.04 -0.00 -W FF 11/18/95 0.00 6.41 5.05 11/18/95 456.95 6.40 3.15 0.04 6.44 0.06 0.00 HE FF 2/1/96 10.001 4LqO 6+85 5.14 2/1/96 419.21 5.87 9.97 0.14 6.01 0.06 0.00 HE PF 2/8/96 0.00 S.-40 6.91 S.35 2/8/96 540.75 7.57 6.45 0.09 7.66 0.12 0+01 LE PF 3/28t96 0.00 7.20 6.61 5.11 3/28/96 154.09 2.16 9.30 0.13 2.29 0.06 0.00 LE PF F/9/96 0.00 10@00 6.53 5.32 5/g/96 177.65 2.49 6.65 0.09 2.58 0.37 0.03 L FF MEAN. 0.05 9.52 6.51 5.7s 1131.911 3.10 MEAN. 4.66 0.08 4.73 0.00 MED" 0.00 6.60 4.54 5.36 797.25 2.71 MEDIAN 1.72 0.02 2.66 0.006 --STDDEV 0.13 6.03 0.25 1.00 1199.87 1.83 3.16 0.04 3.14 10.007 N 13 10 14 11 a6 DATE SAL -TEW pH H20 DEPTH m%OMl DATE N03 N03-N NH4 NH4-N DIN P04 P04 TIDE RLTER 3/281961 ol - a 6.84 . 3.54 1 3/28/96 88.38 1.24 5.321 0.07448 1.31 0.06 0.00 5/91961 01 _L-9 6w59 3w49_ 5/9/96 145.71 2.04 9.481 OJ3272 2.17 0.08 0.01 MEAN. 10.001 $.as- 6.72 3.32 MEAN. 1.04 0.10 1.74 0.005 MEDIAN 10.001 $.as- 6.72 3.52 MEDIAN 1.64 0.10 1.74 0.005 STDDEV 10.001 1.34 0.16 0.04 STDDEV 0.57 n 04 0.61 0.001 N 2 2 2 1 2 IN 2 2 2 2 DATE SAL TEMP IMI%OM DATE I N03 N03-N NH4 NH4-N DIN P04 P04 TIDE ALTER 3/28/96 0 7.2 6.77 3.64 3/28/96 1163.29 16.29 60.51 0.84714 17.13 0.08 0.01 5/9/96 0 9.9 6.61 4 6/9196 1279.06 17.91 20.69 0.28966 18.20 0.24 0.02 MEAN. 0.00 9.53 0.60 3.92 MEAN. 17.10 0.57 17.60 0.012 MEDIAN 0.00 4.55 0.69 2.92 MEDIAN _ 17.10 0.57 17.60 0.012 STDDEV 1 0.00 1.01 0.11 0.11 STDDEV 1.15 0.39 0.75 0.009 N 2 2 2 2 N 2 2 2 2 00 am__ 6X SAL TEMP pH H2D DEPTH M%OM DATE I N03 NOS-N NH4 NH4-N DIN P04 P04 TIDE RLTER 3/28196 -0 7 6.62 3.64 3/28/96 892.58 12.50 352 4.928 17.42 0.06 0.01 0 9 6.6 3.41 5/9/96 981.74 13.74 217.07 3.03698 16.76 0.26 0.02 MEAN. 0.00 8.00 6.61 3.511 MEAN. 13.12 3.98 17.10 0.0131 1 MEDIAN 0.00 $.as 6.61 3.5S MEDIAN 13.12 3.98 17.10 0.013 STDDEV 0.00 1.41 0.01 0.16 STDDEV 0.89 1.34 0.45 0.011 N 2 2 2 2 N 2 2 2 2 @rw DATE SAL TEMP PH H20 DEPTH im %OM DATE N03 N03-N NH4 NH4-N DIN P04 P04 nDE FLTER 312ma 0 7,5 6.7 3.11 3/28/96- 4.32 0.06 36.06 0.50484 0.57 0.08 0.01 5/9/96 0 9.8 6.87 2@95 5/9/96 25.85 0.36 25.28 0q35392 0.72 0.13 0.01 MEAN. 0.00 4.63 6.70 3.03 MEAN. 0.21 0.43 0.64 0.004 MEDIAN 0,00 a as $70 3.03 MEDIAN 0.21 0.43 0.64 0.008 % 0112 0.11 STDDEV 0. 21 0.11 0.11 0.003 N 2 2 2 2 N 2 2 2 2 N 'DAN 2 L EA N03 WE R DATE pH DATE N03 N03-N NH4 NH DIN P04 P04 TIDE RLTER 8/16/95 0.00 7.19 8/16/95 1622.11 22.71 10.67 0.15 22.86 2.73 0.22 9/18/95 0.00 6.41 9/18/95 1653.33 23.15 16.84 0.24 23.38 6.77 0.53 10/24/95 0.00 10/24/951 1478.41 20.70 0.99 0.01 20.71 4.07 0.32 11/1/95 0.00 11/1/95 1356.45 18.99 61.26 0.86 19.85 0.96 0.08 11/14/95 0.00 6.39 11/14/95 1277.27 17.88 14.58 0.20 18.09 0.79 0.06 11/16/95 0.00 11/16/95 1354.68 18.97 17.47 0.24 19.21 1.22 0.10 11/18/95 0.00 11/18/95 1374.43 19.24 31.69 0.44 19.69 0.62 0.05 2/8/96 0.00 6.79 2/8/96 887.00 12.42 454.87 6.37 18.79 0.47 0.04 2/22/96 0.00 6.78 2/2 2/96 1056.24 14.79 774.71 10.85 25.63 0.38 0.03 2/29/96 0.00 6.79 2/29/96 1193.51 16.71 847.62 11.87 28.58 1.30 0.10 3/13/96 0.00 6.70 3/1 3/96 1304.16 18.26 300.13 4.20 22.46 0.91 0.07 400mis 4/11/96 0.00 6.72 4/11/96 1192.96 16.70 357.64 5.01 21.71 0.64 0.05 5/7/96 0.00 6.74 5/7/96 1000.90 14.01 321.37 4.50 18.51 0.17 0.01 5/91961 0.00 6.74 5/9/96 191.33 2.68 194.54 2.72 5.40 0.54 0.04 6/5/96 0.00 6.64 6/5/96 1647.09 23.06 22.26 0.31 23.37 0.48 0.04 MEAN= 0.00 6.72 MEAN= 17.35 3.20 20.55 0.116 MEDIAN 0.00 6.74 MEDIAN 18.26 0.86 20.71 0.062 STDDEV 0.00 0.21 STDDEV 5.17 3.94 5.09 0.141 N 1 5 1 1 N i's 1 5 1 5 WELLVA*" mw I m a, TIME FILARI TABLE ON: We, WiRN-Ma0blo"Ical Dotb." 3 210 H---S L1-9 312195 3901 206 INS 0,24 LFIF 311.19L_ 330 210 0,2. 7 NFF DATE Enteroci=i CP TIDE FILTER 350 200 20 SMIS LIF 1125195 '055 .50 1- 29 25 "FF 113195 21000 35 75 H AAF. FC tntc $1.195 If -We- 2/16/95 L NO BW smm- 1380 10" C24 0924 ERF 3/2/95 6126,05 3375 2100 9.25 7315 wRF L NO BfN 7112,05 615 176 0.5 2,28 HIs 3130/05 H NO B/N slifics so a 135.5 1.75 wFIF1 416/95 L NO B/N -111I.As ii 5 No a's IF I '-sles 1.1 7343 0,24 Is IF1 4/25/95 H NO SIN Vl @.2: 2,1,00 -25 04. EFF 5/11 f95 E NO BIN I, ... 0.75 FIF 3126196 sees 9600 12.5 2 IS RF 6126/95 HF NO B/N 519196 200001 10100 29 OJ LE RF 7/12/95 H NO BIN Sq,.SSI Cas LID 8/16/95 HF NO B/N 649C44 1 3411414 1141- to.43 MINOT 14... 12.00 14.00 14.0. 11/18/95 1 60 22 HE PF 2fl/96 1 HE NO B(N 'IME w I E CP TM FLIER 2/8/96 58 F FF 113,05 MAS 1110 0 -H At m 3/28196 432 424 LE PF 2116,95 1 L 5/9/96 40 20 400 4.0 LE PF 3121.5 33.5 29.25 12 044 1 LIs 313MS I m"Do GEOMEAN. $4.1 57.1 400mO 4*9 4M95 11.23 6.25 2.75 O@24 Lw .125,93 2.75 2.25 3 0.2,1 "PIN STDEV 189.9 232.7 smins E"Do OOLINT 4 3- 1 !M . wNO OWN "IMS, If- NO " SMaiss wno ON A@ 1111.195 HNos DATE I FC w Entwoc@i CP ME FILTER tims'lls 2130 sm also 0.24 of Re 113195 1160 08 153 330 H m NIM 100 250 111 1.0 FIFIF 2116195 L di-dn't satvIp 3128106 300 200 232 1.0 LE -W 3/2/95 L NO SIN 519,96 120 30 is 095 LE FF ...22 .6.0. 41.99 9 3130195 H NO BfN 5"Nof 1.1.12 Me 4/6195 67.25 51 23 0.49 L PF Mo 7.09 7.09 1'.4141 4/25/95 H NO B/N 5/11/95 E 140 B(N EATE FC 1 ED -V@- --TW- -WYE-R- 6/26/95 w NOB V13105 0 0 0 '60 mAt 7112195 H NO B(N 31214S 0.24 0,24 0@24 0,24 LIs 8116/95 HF NO BfN 3130M Om24 0.24 0.24 1.5 If IF .... so Om24 024 10.24 1 LR, 11/18/95 6.6 HE FF 4125/93 Or24 0.24 10.24 0.24 HFF 211/96 HE NO B/N smills 0424 0.,21 024 0.25 IF FF 218/96 0.24 0.24 0.25 3.5 F PF 6/29195 0924 Cm24 0.24 IS: FF M2195 *m2d 0+24 0.76 0.75 "FF 3/28/96 0-24 0-24 O@24 3 LE PF stigigs 0424 0+24 0024 Dm24 wIN 5/9/96 Oq24 Ow24 Da24 i LE PF I M9195 02. 0.24 -- 0.24 Ob24 Kw 11 0424 0.24 0+24 0.24 111 RF GEOMEAN. 1.43 0.92 0.76 1.51 2 IN. -4 0.24 0,25 d24 FRF STDEV 29.39 25.38 11.38 1.48 128196 0024 OF24 0024 Ov24 LE FIF Om24 0.2. Om24 0624 IN AF COUNT @5 4 4 4 OEOMEM& 0.14 0.24 0.20 9.34 MEN goes a." @.,a 0.44 0up DATE Fr, EV Enterocc= CP TIDE RLTER 113195 0 0 0 13 H m 2116195 7 3 0.24 0.49 L S 3/2/95 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 L PF 3/30/95 0.24 O@24 0.24 0.24 H PF ME PC ED E@ (P I1W FLIER 4/6/95 0.24 0+24 0.24 0.24 L PF 3124194 0.24 0.24 0.2. 0.24 tE Ir- 4/25/95 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 H PF 5,9196 0.2. 0.24 0.24 024 LIN, GEOMEAN. 9.24 ..24 4.24 5/11/95 1.5 1.5 0.24 0.24 E FF couwr i 2 2 2 6/26195 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 w FF 0RUM"I 7/12195 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 H - PF WE _ -1C -1C -CF1 -Tff- FLIER 8/16/95 0.24 0.24 0.25 0.24 HF PF 3128104 0.24 024 0424 0.24 LE FIF 519,98 024 0.24 0024 0924 LFIF 11/14/95 0.24 0+24 0.24 0.24 H FF 4.24 0.14 11/18/95 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 FE FF a 2 2/1/96 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 HE PF 2/8/95 0.24 Om.24 0.24 0.24 F PF DAIE PC ED E- cr TIDE --fKT-EA 3128/96 0.24 0.24 0.24 0+24 LE FF 3/20/96 0.2. 02. 0.2. O@24 a 519,96 024 024 Om24 .1. LRE 5/9/96 O@24 0.24 0.24 0.25 PF CS4 ease 0024 0.24 GEOMEAN=j 0.27 CXKAWF 2 2 2 2 STOEV 0.34 01.34 0 waowp" 14 mili ED t- CP Im FLIER COUNT 14 14 3120106 *21 0 11 0 2: tE-FF 0@24 0, 2 2 GSWEAW. STM TABLE 81: Slte KDB-Nutrlent Database WELL: KOS- WEU@ KDO-1; DATE ISALITEW I ON I H20 DE07TW DATE N03 M03-N NH4 NH4-N DIN P04 P04 TIDE ALTER 1/9/95 0.20 5.50 6.271 49.50 1/9/95 526.25 7.37 52.83 0.74 8.11- 0.07 0.01 L m 317/95 0 20 5.20 5.32 241.50 7.25 3/7/95 1163.04 16.28 16.58 O@23 16.51 0.03 0.00 L PF 3/23195 0.00 6.39 4.96 468.00 4.70 3/23/95 203.67 2.85 12.33 0.17 3.02 0.07 0.01 L FF 414/95 0.00 6.34 5.48 1834.06 2.94 4/4/95 169@93 2.38 44.65 0.63 3.00 0.06 0.00 L PF 512195 0.00 6,49 5.83 66.00 10.61 5/2/95 339.31 4.7S 33.96 0.48 5.23 0.04 0.00 L PF 6122/95 0.00 6.60 5.82 15.60 19.23 5/22/95 236.67 3.31 1 36.42 -0.51 3.82 0.98 0.08 H FF 6/21/95 0.00 6.61 6.49 254.80 1@26 6/21/95 1234.96 17.29 20.60 0.29 17.58 O@25 0.02 E PF 7/17195 7.91 7/17/95 L NO B/N 8/21/95 8.38 8/21/95 H NO B/N 10/19195 7.51 10119/95 E NO BIN 2/29/96 -0.00 3.20 6.30, 4.30 2/29/96 554.84 7.77 45.80 0.64 8.41 0.17 0.01 E FF 4/4/96 0.00 7.80 6.45 4.92 4/4/96 169.93 2.38 48.02 0.67 3.05 0.14 0.01 H FF 5/30/96 0.00 11.40 6.54 - -- 5/30/96 116.05 1.62 26.92 0.38 2.00 O@41 0.03 H FF MEAN. 0.04 6.62 6.441 6.04 MEAN. 1 6.60 0.47 7.07 0.017 MEDIAN 0.00 5.50 6.451 5.66 MEDIAN 4.03 0.49 CS2 0.008 STODEV 0.08 3.13 0.131 1.28 STDDEV 5.76 0.20 5.69 0.023 N toS 9 12 N 10 10 10 10 WELL- KDS-2, DATE SAL FTaW PH H20 DEPTH TSS %OM DATE N03 H03-N NH4 NH4-N DIN P04 P04 TIDE ALTER 119195 1/9/95 L didn't sam; 3/7/95 3/7/95 L Jidn't sam 3/23/95 3/23/95 L Jidn't sam 414/95 0.00 6.20 5.90 658.00 4.26 4/4/95 631.92 8.85 10.05 0.14 8.99 0.04 0.00 L PF 5/2/95 0.00 16.3116.22 902.00 7.54 5/2195 145.24 2.03 6.23 0.09 2.12 0.03 0.00 L - PF 5/22/95 0.00 6.25 6. 7 75 00 480 5/22195 81.69 1.14 8.45 0.12 1.26 0.76 0.06 H PF 6/21/95 10.00 5.72 6.i7 -37-3-2@1.@' 02 6/21/95 50.46 0.71- 5.78- 0.08 0.79 0.22 0.02 E PF 7/17/95 16.50 8.00 7117195 L NO sm-- 8/21/95 0.00 7.17 8.30 3 0 S.- I @@' 1 8/21/95 14.96 0.21 11.97 0.17 0.38 2.37 0.19 H PF 10/19/95 14.00 7.61 10119/95 E PF. NO N 2/29196 2/29/96 Sample 4/4/96 4/4/96 Sample 5/30/96 0.00 11.50 6.49 5/30/96 50.39 0.71 4.79 0.07 0.77 0.24 0.02 t. PF MEAN. 0.00 14.00 6.36 6.85 407.74 6.15 MEAN. 2.27 0.11 2.38 0.048 MEDIAN 0.00 14.00 6.28 6.50 373.20 4.80 MEDIAN 0.93 0.1 2 0.0181 0 4.553 STDDEV 3.28 0.04 STDDEV 0.00 2.50 0.47 0.98- 374.55 3 0.071 N 63 6 a 5 N 6 6 6 DATE SAL TE)IF -PH H20 DEPTH TSS %OM DATE -563--- N03-N NH4 NH4-N DIN P04 P04 TIDE ALTER 1/9/95 0.20 5.20 6.27 43.70 1/9/95 184.45 2.58 79.82 1.12 3.70 0.07 0.01 L M 317195 0.20 5.00 5.85 16.40 26.83 3/7/95 382.60 5.36 8.88 0.12 5.48 0.03 0.00 L PF 3/23/95 0.00 5.83 5.57 182.00 5.05 3/23/95 488.65 6.84 15.19 0.21 7.05 0.03 0.00 L FF 4/4/95 0.00 5.96 6.04 1248.00 5.29 4/4/95 266.12 3.73 49.62 0.69 4.42 0.04 0.00 L FF 5/2/95 0.00 6.23 6.26 742.00 4.72 5/2/95 67.36 0.94 28.41 -0.40- 1.34 0.02 -0.00 L FF 5/22/95 0.00 16.1916.23 274.33 3.66 5/22/9S 123.53 1.73 , 47.45 0.66 2.39 0.75 0.06 H PF 6/21/95 0.00 6.57 6.87 283.67 2.47 6/21/95 1789.43 25.05 138.25 1.94 26.99 0.23 0.02 E NOB 7/17/95 8.20 7/17/95 L NO EYN 8/21/95 8.40 8/21/95 H NO S/N 10/19/95 7.58 10119/95 E NO B/N 2/29196 0.00 3.10 6.84 5.12 2/29/96 960.32 13.44 110.70 1.55 14.99 0.11 0.01 E FF 4/4196 0.00 9.00 6.83 5.62 414/96 167.05 2.34 66.21 0.93 3.27 0.07 0.01 H PF 5130196 0.00 12.20 6.75 6.04 5/30196 50.15 0.70 15.33 0.21 0.92 0.30 0.02- H FF MEAN. 0.04 6.90 6.39 6.40 MEAN. 6.27 0.78 7.06 0.013 MEDIAN 0.00 5.20 8.27, 6.14 MEDIAN 3.15 0.68 4.06 0.005 STODEV 10.08 3.66 0.37 1.06 STDOEV 7.61 0.61 8.08 0.018 N 10 IS 9 12 N 10 10 10 10 DATE LTEMP PH H2D DEPTH TSS %OM N03 N03-H NH4 NH4-N DIN P04 P04 TIDE ALTER 1/9/95 1/9195 L NO BtN 3/7195 0.20 6.00 6.04 35.40 12.99 3/7195 1414.94 19.81 3.49 0.05 19.86 0.03 0.00 L FF 3/23/95 0.00 6.37 5.73 4.00 30.00 3/23195 1268.80 17.76 7.66 0. 11 17.87 0-06 0.00 L FF 414/95 0.00 6.54, 6.18 267.00 9.74 414/95 1344.46 18.82 28.42 0.40 19.22 0.08 0.01 L PF 5/2/9S 0.00 6.20 6046 279.00 9.68 5/2/95 1247.32 17.46 36.75 0.51 17.98 0.01 0.00 L NOS W22/95 0.00 6.45 6.40 798.50 5.82 5/22/95 1317.87 10.45 28.40 0.40 18.85 0.77 0.06 H NOB 6/21/9S 7.08 6121/95 E NO BIN 7/17/95 8.00 7/17195 L NO 8IN 8/21/95 8.47 8/21/95 H NO B/N 10/ 1 Was 7.64 10/19/95 E NO B/N 2/29/96 0.00 3.90 6.99 5.31 2/29/96 943.32 13.21 84.00 1.18 14.38 0.10 0.01 E PF i.Y4- --5.85 .14 12.44 0.01 H FF 4/4/96 0.00 12.00 V4196 798 11.17 90.51 1.27 0.13 5130196 .0.00. 14.50. 6.70 .6.31 5130/96 876.37 12.27 48.79 0.68 12.95 0.23 0.02 H PF MEAN. 0.03 9.10 .62 MEAN. 10.12 0.37 16.69 0.014 10.001 9.00 G'.36 MEDIAN 11.61 0.46 17.92 **7 0.071 4.97 10.281 0.97 STDOEV 3.35 0.45 2.96 ON20 -4 14 17 1 12 N a a a a Ed WELL KDS-5 WELL XJD" DATE I SAL TBAI PH H20 DEPTH TSS -%-0-M DATE -NH-4 -WH-4-N DIN P04 P04 T12E_ FILTER 1/9195 It9195 L NO BIN 3/7195 O@80 5@00 AII00 156.25 3@86 3/7/96 1656.881 23.20 3.08 0,04 23.24 004 0.00 L PF 3123/95 0.00 &02 3.48 6&00 3.10 3/23195 1585,381 ?2.20 4.11 0.06 22.25 0.05 0.00 L PF 414195 0.00 6.00 3.96 23.20 3.45 4/4195 1823.241 25.53 15.04 0,21 25.74 0.07 0.01 L PF 5/2/95 0.00 6.58_ 774.00 316 5/2/95 1100.43 15.41 11.17 0.16 15.56 O@ 12 0.01 L PF- 5/22195 0.00 6.15 4.46 311.00 2.25 5/22/95 1378.24 19.30 13.29 0.19 19.48 0.79 0.06 H PF- 6121195 0.00. 6.28, 5.28 1402.00 0.93 6/21195 1199.40 16.79 11.97 0.17 16.96 0.23 0.02 E PF 7117/95 6.51 7/17/95 L NO B/N 8/21/95 0.00 6.87 8/21/95 H NO N 10/19/95 5.60 10/19/95 E PF, NO N 2129196 0.00 4.80 6.06 2.98 2/29/96 1247.64 17.47 60.67 0.85 18.32 0.19 0.01 E VF- 414/96 0.00 8.90 6.95 3.35 414/96 1214.21 17.00 74.74 1.05 18.05 0.04 0.00 H PF 5/30/96 O@00 11.70 6.84 4.18 5/30/96 130 1.01 18.21 48.86 0.68 18.90 0.25 O@02 H PF MEAN. 0.00 7.60 6.46 4.61 MEANx 19.45 0.38 19.63 0.015 MEDIAN 0.00 6.95 5.43 4.18 MEDIAN 16.21 0.19 18.90 0.009 STDDEV 10.2S, 3.32 0.40, 1.29 STODEV 3.42 0.38 3.27 0.019 N 4 a 11 N 9 9 9 9 WELt-- K094 WEWKD"@ DATE I @'FTEW -PH H20 DEPTH TSS %om 1 DATE F-N-O3 N03-N NH4 NH4-N DIN PO4 P04 TIDE RLTER 1/9/95 0.30 6.10 6.27 25.20 119/95 1397.04 19.56 22.23 0.31 19.87 0.11 0.01 L M 317/95 0.20 5.50 5.53 14.75 21-19 3/7/95 1381,731 19.34 5.39 0.08 19.42 0.13 0@01 L PF 3123195 0.00 6.18 5.24 79.00 3.04 3/23/95 1479.30 20.71 3.58 0.05 20.76 0.10 0.01 L PF 4/4195 0.00 5.83 5.80 6.40 12.50 4/4/95 1625.20 22.75 17.44 0.24 23.00 0.07 0.01 L PF 5/2/95 0.00 6.81 6.23 14.80 10.81 5/2/96 1291.66 19.08 15.08 0.21 18.29 0.05 0.00 L NOS 5/22/95 0.00 6.67 6.22 456.00 3.07 5/22/95 1351@58 18.92 41.74 0.58 19.51 0 77 0.06 H NOS 6121/95 6.99---- 6/21195 FE NO B/N 7117/95 17.50 8.57 7117195 L NO B/N 8121/95 9.78 8/21195 H NO B/N 10/19/95 9.64 10/19/95 E no H20 2/29/96 0.00 4.50 7.68 4.65 2/29/96 1012.31, 14.17 373.73 5.23 19.40 0.13 0.01 E PF 414/96 0.00 9.50 7.27 5.23 4/4/96 1077.15 15.08 205.51 2.88 17.96 0.46 0.04 H FIF 5/30196 0.00 13.50 7.61 6.10 5/30/96 1347.13 18.86 189.72 2.66 21.52 0.35 0.03 H PF MEAN. 0.06 9 43 6 79 667 MEAN. 18.61 1.36 19.97 0.019 MEDIAN 0.00 7:80 16:74 6:16 MEDIAN 16.92 0.31 19.sl 0.010 STDOEY 0.11 5.15 10.661 1.74 STDDEV 2.64 1.82 1.58 0.019 N9 6 1 8 1 limi. DATE PH H20 DEPTH TSS %OM DA I'm N03-N NK4 NH4-N DIN P04 P64 TIDE RLTER 119/95 0.30 6.00 6.27 33.00 1/9/95 1360.82 19.05 1.59 0.02 19.07 0.05 0.00 L m 3/7/95 0.50 5.00 4.75 104.00 26.92 3/7195 1401.56 19.62 8.84 0.12 19.75 0.05 0.00 L PF 3/23/95 0.00 6.34 4.19 286.00 5.971 3/23/95 1702.88 23.84 13.44 0.19 24.03_ 0.04 0.00 L FF 4/4/95 0.00 6.40 4.71 93.67 7.831 414/95 1947.92 27.27 179.58 2.51 29.79 0.06 0.00 L PF 512/95 0.00 6.77 5.22 602.00 3.651 5/2/95 1461.00 20.45 219.86 3.08_ 23.53 0.04 0.00 L FF 5/22/95 0.00 1 5.20 5/22/95 1 1 H NO B/N 6/21/95 0.00 6.01 6/21/95 K NO B/N 7/17/95 7.33_ 7/17/95 L NO B/N 8/21/95 7.69 8/21/95 H NO BIN 10119/95 6.35 10/19195 E NO B/N 2/29/96 0.00 4.90 6.75 3,63 2/29196 1120.51 15.69 2t.48 0.30 15.99_ 0.14 0.01 E FF 4/4/96 0.00 8.30 6.71 4.20 4/4/96 1502.02 21.03 278.33 3.90 24.92 0.05_ 0.00 H FF 5/30/96 0,00 12.00 6.80 4.83 5/30/96 1744.73 24.43 483.20 6.76 31.19 0.40 0.03 H FF MEAN. 0.06 7.24 6.68 5.34 MEAN. 21.42 2.11 23.53 0.009 MEDIAN 0.00 6.00 16.711 5.02 MEDIAN 20.74 1 1.41 23.70 0.004 STDDEV 0.18 2.99 10.23 1.26 STDOEY 3.62 2.43 5.22 0.010 N10 5 17 12 N a a a ...... ...... DATE SAL TBIP PH H20 DEPTH TW %OM DATE N03 N03-N NK4 NH4-N DIN P04 P04 TIDE FILTER 1/9/95 1/9/95 L NOWELL 3/7/95 0.50 4.80 5.59 23.80 8.40 3/7/95 1655.28 23.17 3.34 0.05 23.22 0.04 0.00 L PF 3/23/95 0.00 5.84 5.06 55.60 7.55 3/23/95 ISS9.90 23.24 3.54 0.05 23.29 0.07 0.01 L PF 4/4/95 0.00 5.75, 5.70 125.00 9.69 414/95 1797.84 25.17 9.76 0.14 25.31 0.06 0.00 L, PF 512/95 0.00 5.92 6.31 272.33 2.69 512/95 1526.21 21.37 12.10 0.17 21.54 0.05 0.00 L FF 5/22/95 0.00 6.00 6.10 543.00 12.21 5122/95 1748.23 24.48 16.13 0.23 24.70 0.77 0.06 H FF 6121/95 10.00 6.39 7.68 6484.00 3.52 6/21195- 1695.58 23.74 62.07 0.87 24.61 0.24 0.02 E NO 7/17/95 9.01 7/17/95 L NO BIN 8/21/95 9.28 8/21195 H NO B/N 10/19/95 17.00 8.15 10/19/95 E PF, NO N 2/29196 0.00 4.40 7.05 4.00 2/29/96 1240.40 17.37 58.09 0.81 18.18 0.21 0.02 E FF- 4/4/96 0.00 9.60 7.02 4.63 4/4/96 1310.42 18.35 77.15 1.06 19.43 0.07 0.01 H FF_ 5130/96 0.00 12.00. 6.74 1 5.69 5130/96 1414.76 1981 133.81 1.87 21.68 0.40 0.03 H PF- MEAN. 0.0 341 43 1251.12 5.68 MEAN. 21116 0.58 22.44 6 9.00 6. . ::.. MEDIAN 0.00 9.80 6.2 200.17 5.54 MEDIAN -13.1-7 0..23 23.22 STDDEV 0.917 5.26 10.541 1.72 9570.58 3.424 STDDEV -F.-78 . 2.45 0.019 1 N 5 11 12 a N 9 9 9 T DEPTH - 400 1 @21 3 48 00 9. 32@3 2 7:4 33 .0 1.4 .0 8, @2 00 367 .2 00 WELL KDB-9 0 EEP WELL KD8,9 DEEP DATE i SAL TEW TSS %OMJ DATE N03 I N03-N NH4 I NH4-N DIN P04 P04 TIDE ALTER 1/9/95 119195 L I NOWELL 317/95 4.80 3/7195 L NO R/N 3/23/95 1.67 3/23/95 L NOWN 414194 4.48 4/4/94 L NO B/N 5/2195 10.04 5/2195 L NO SIN 5/22/95 5.11 5/22195 H NO EVN 6/21/95 5.47 6/21/95 HE NO BIN 7/17195 16.00 6.59 7/17195 L NO BIN 8/21/95 6.80 8/21/95 H NO BIN 10/19195 6.48 1@L'9 195 E NO BIN 2/29/96 0.00 4.50 4.33 2121 S@l 16 E NO B/N 4/4/96 2,00 8.90 4.60 4/4/96 H NO BIN 5/30/96 0.00 11.70 4.80 H NO BIN MEAN. 5.72 WELL: KDS-I.Q@... WELLIMS-10 DATE i@C F -Te-,p H20 DEPTH TSS %OM DATE N03 N03-N NH4 NHAI-N DIN P04 P04 TIDE ALTER _4/4196 0.001 8.88 0.90 4/4/96 26,99 O@38 8.33 0.12 0.49 1.62 0.13 5/30196 0.00 10.60 8.06 1.25 5/30/96 4@52 0.06 S@97 0@08 0.15 1.12 0.09 MEAN. 0.00 10.60 6.471 1.08 MEAN. 0.22 0.10 0.32 0.108 MEDIAN 0.22 0.10 0.32 0.108 STDDEV 0.22 0.02 0.25 0.028 1 N 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 WELUKD WELL, XM, ti NH4-N DIN H20 DEPTH TSS % DM7 DATE F N03 N03-M NH4 DATE I SAL r TEMP P04 P04 TIDE ALTER 414/96 1 7.53 4/4/961 o B/N 5/30196 0.00 10.50 6.30 4.95 5/30/96 _ 9.82 0.14 14.3L4 Om2O Oq34 0.31 0,024 MEAN. MEDIAN STDOEV N I I w RuKOa 11 PH M20 DEPTH TSS DATE %OM N03 N03-N NH4 NH4-N DIN P04 P04 TIDE ALTER 4/4/96 10.001 6.68 6.27 _- -4/4/96 1069.441 14.97 58.18 0.81 15.79 0.18 0.01 5130/96 0.00 10.50 6.48 6.82 --5/30/96 1089.12 15.25 60.47 0 85 16.09 0.30 0.02 MEAN. 0.00 10.50 6.58 6.55 MEAN. 15.11 0.83 15.94 0.019 MEDIAN 15.11 0.83 15.94 0.019 STDOEV 0.19 0.02 0.22 0.006 N 2.00 1 2.00 1 2.00 1 2.00 H20 DEPTH DATE SAL PH TSS %Om jl N03 3-N NH4 NH4-N DIN P04 P04 TIDE ALTER 414196 2.00 6.64 1.55 414195 49.81 0.70 1193.02 16.70 17.40 0.05 0.004 No 5130/96 13.50 0.70 5/30/96 No B/N MEAN. MEDIAN STDM N DATE I SAL TOW7 TSS %ONI I I'm N03-N NH4 NH4-N DIN P04 P04 TIDE ALTER 4/4/96 1.74 4/4/96 42.52 0.60 6.73 0.09 0.69 0.12 0.01 5/30196 O@To- 11.50 7.11 1 1.50 5/30196 1.12 0.02 4.97 0.07 0.09 0.27 0.02 MEAN. 0.31 0.08 0.39 0.015 MEDIAN 0.31 0.08 0.39 0.02 STDOEV 0.41 0.02 0.43 0.01 N 2.00 1 1 2.00 2.00 2.00 DATE -TEMP PH H20 DEPTH 7% %Om DATE N03 NO NH4 NH4-N DIN P04 P04 TIDE FILTER 4/4/96 6.79 4/4/96 No B/N 5/30196 9.70 5.69 5/30196 No WN MEAN. MEDIM SMEY NI % I'99' 3,'795 3'95 4.4 gr 2 22 NTW ---F I I I I I I WELL: KDB.LYSIM ER (MOM) WELL: KDB-L SIMETER (MOM) DATE SAL[ TEMP PH H20 DEPTH TSS %OM DATE N03 I N03-N NI-14 NH4-N DIN P04 P04 TIDE RLTER 8/21/95 7.47 14.40 38.89 8/21/95 1386.571 19.41 1270.29 17.78 37.20 65.38 5.16 H 9/18/95 0.00 9/18/95 1751.301 24.52 1233.05 17.26 41.78 92.13 7.28 -10/19/95 10/19/95 empty 11/14/95 11/14/95 10MIS -11/16/95 11/16/95 30mls 1/30/96 1/30/96 empty 2/23/96 2/23/96 empty 2/29/96 2/29/96 empty 3/12/96 3/12/96 empty 3/13/96 3/13/96 empty 4/4/96 4/4/96 empty 4/11/96 4/11/96 empty 5/9/96 5/9/96 empty 5/30/96 5/30/96 no sample 6/3/96 613/96 1903.08 26.64 81.83 1.15 27.79 221.31 17.48 1 300mis 6/5/96 0.00 4.84 6/5/96 1757.96 24.61 86.62 1.21 25.82 266.34 21.04 300mis MEAN= 0.00 6.16 14.40 38.89 MEAN= 23.80 9.35 33.15 12.739 MEDIAN 24.56 9.24 32.49 12.378 STDDEV .08 9.44 7.60 7.714 N 4 4 -4 4 WELL: KDB-LYSIM ER (SON) WELL: KDB-LYSIMETER (SON) DATE SAL TEMP PH H20 DEPTH TSS %OM DATE N03 I N03-N NH4 NH4-N DIN P04 P04 71DE RLTER 8/21/96 0.00 8/21/96 1386.571 19.41 1270.29 17.78 37.20 65.38 5.16 400mls 9/18/95 9/18/95 1875.941 26.26 16.09. 0.23 26@49 145.74 11.51 10/19/95 10/19/95 1 E NO N 10/24/95 0.00 10/24/95 1508.381 21.12 4.26 0.06 21.18 219.87 17.37 11/1/951 0.00 11/1/95 1415.881 19.82 1.93 0.03 19.85 177.87 14.05 11/14/951 0.00 6.61 11/14/95 1319.481 18.47 6.66 0.09 18.57 156.43 12.35 11/16/951 11/16/95 1 00MIS 1/30/96 1/30/96 20mis 2/22/96 0.00 16.95 2/22/96 1345.30 18.83 1116.65 15.63 34.47 180.47 14.25 --2/29/96 0.00 6.82 2/29/96 1228.89 17.20 1159.23 16.23 33.43 279.69 22.09 3/12/96 3/12/96 5mIs 3/13/96 3/13/96 empty 4/4/96 4/4/96 empty 4/11/96 0.00 6.24 4/11/96 1427.67 19.99 492.17 6.89 26.88 189.00 14.93 5/9/96 5/9/96 empty 5/30/96 5/30/96 no sample, 6/3/96 6/3/96 empty 6/5/96 6/5/96 empty --'iiEAN= 0.00 6.66 MEAN= 20.14 7.12 27.26 13.964 MEDIAN 0.00 MEDIAN 19.62 3.56 26.68 14.151 ---iTDDEV 0 STDDEV 8.16 7.14 3 0 1 0 0 0 - 8 8 a - 8 TABLE 81: Site KDB-Microbi logicall Database WELL. KOBA DATE RO -cp DATE Ec Ent CP TIDE FILTER 1191 5 L NO B/N 119195 0 0 10 L m 0.24 Om24 0124 L FF 317/95 Om24 0.24 0.24 0.24 L FF 3/23/95 1 0.24 0,24 0.24 0.24 L FF 4/4/95 Om24 6-2 -4 --@i 2 -4 --6- 2-4 L - 3/23/95 0.24 0.24 0.24 1 L RIF FF 4/4195 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.25 L FF 512/95 L NOB 6/2/96 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.251 L FF 5/22/95 H -B 5122/96 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.25 H FF 6/2T-/95 NO B/N 6/21/95 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 E RIF 7/17/95 L NO BIN 7/17195 L NO B/N 8/21/95 H NO BIN 8/21/95 H NO B/N 10119195 E NO B/N 10/19/95 E NO B/N 2/29/96 0.49 0.49 1 E I FF 2/29/98 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.6 E FF 4 41111 0 0.49 FF 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 w i 414/06 FF 0.49 1 0.09 0.49 FF 5/30/96 0.25 0.24 0.24 0.24 H FF lEl 1 0.34 0.19 0.29 TXI ::I GEOMEAN. 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.33 0.14 0.08 0.13 SMEV 0.08 0.06 0.011- 0.28 COUNT 6.00 6.00 4.00 4.00 COUN'r 9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 TIDE FILTER DATE F FC EE Ent DATE FC Er Ent CP TIDE FILTER 119/95 1 L NO BIN i /9/95 L didn't samp 3/7/95 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 L FF 3/7/95 L dkinisamp 3/23/95 0.24 0.24 0-24 0.24 L FF 3/23195 L didn't samp 4/4/95 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 L 13F 4/4/96 0.24 0.24 0.24 14.25 L RIF 5/2/9-5 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 L FF 5/2126 0.24 0.24 0.24 2 L FF 5/22/95 0.24 024 O@24 0.25 H FF 5/22196 0.24 0.24 0.24 2m25 H FF 6/21/95 _76--24 0:24 0.24 0.24 E FF 6/21196 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.5 E FF 7117/95 L NO B/N 7/17/ § L NO B/N 8/21/95 0.09 0.09 1.9 H NO B/N 8/211:5 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 H NO B/N 10/19/95 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 E PF. NO N 10119/95 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.25 E PF, NO N 2129/96 0.24 0.24 O@24 0.24 E FF -- - --- -- - --- -- - 4W96 0.24 -W-24 --O@-24- 0.25 w FF 2/29196 E NOSAMILE 4/4/96 H NOSAM-LE 5/30/96- 0.24- 0.24 0.24 2.25 H FF S/30/96 0.24 0.24 0.24 7.S H FF GEOMEAM. 0.22 0.22 0.29 0.30 GEOMEAN. Oo2l 0.21 0.21 -le27 STOEV 0005 0*05 oa5o 0.63 SMEV 0.06 0.06- 0.04 5.20 COUNT 11.00 11.00 11.00 10.00 COUNT 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 DATE FC ED DATE FC Ec Ent CP TIDE FILTER 119195 0 --o S L m 119195 860 61S 115 L m 317/96 7.5 7 Tr-, @17 5 0.24 L PF 3/7/95 75 71.5 0.24 0.24 L FF 3/23/95 0.24 0-24 0.24 0.25 L PF 3/23/95 1.6 1.5 0.24 -0.25 L FF 4/4/95 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.5 L FF 414/95 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.5 L PF 5/2/96 L NOB 512/95 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.75 L FF 5/22/95 H NOB 5/22/95 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 H W-- 6/21/95 @E NO B/N 6121/95 E NOB 1 L NO BIN 7117195 L NO B/N 8/21195 H NO BIN 8121/95 H NO B/N 10/19/95 E not a drop 10/19/95 E NO B/N 2/29/96 6 6 E FF 2/29/98 1.6 0.24 0.49 0.5 E 4/4/96 0.49 0.49 w FF 414/96 0.49 0.49 5 1 5/30/96 0449 0.49 H FF 5/30/96 0.24 0.24 0.24 3.25 GEOMEAN. 0.92 0.92 0.47 0.31 GEOMEAMNU. 0.85 O.GL_ 0.27 0.90 STDEV 3.33 3.26 0.87 0.15 SMEV 26.30 25.12 0.09 17.77 COUNT 6.00 6.00 3.00 3.00 COUNT S.00 8.00 7.00 8.00 ZXD" LZ WELL DATE Ent CP TIDE FILTER DAM CP TM FILTER 0 0 0 L W-- 4/4196 w NOB 3/7/95 1 1 1 0.24 L FF 5/30/96 1.2 1.2 0.49 0.49 H PF O@24 Oa24 Oa24 i L RIF GEOMEAN- 1.2 Ia2 0.49 0.49 4/4195 0.24 Ow24 Or24 Oa26 L FF OOLKF I I I I W2195 0.24 0.24 0*24 Om24 L FF H NO B/N W NO BIN DATE PCI Er Ent CP TIDE 7117196 L NO B/N 414196 w NOB 8/21/96 H NO B/N H NO B/N 10/19196 E NO BIN 2129/96 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.5 E FF 4/4/96 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 w W- DATE Er Ent CP TIDE FILTER 6/30196 -6:24 0.24 0.25 0.5 H FF 4/4/96 0.49 0.49 w FF ClEou 0.29 0.29 0.30 0.39 5/30/96 0.49 O@49 0.49 0.49 H PF SMEV 0o29 _0.29 0.29 0.46 1 GEOMEAN- 0.49 o4i 0.49 0.49 coum 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 2 1 1 DATE Ent CP FILTER Er En, (P TIDE FILTER 1/9195 L NO WELL 414196 w NOB 3/7195 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 L RIF 513D196 H NO B/N 3123/95 0.24 0.24 0.76 1 L FF GEOIAEAN- 414196 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 L RIF COUNT 512195 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 L PF 5/22/95 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.25 H FF 6121195 E NOS DATE Fr, Er Ent CP TWE FIL1151 7/17/96 L NO B/N 0.40 0.49 w RIF 8121/96 H NO S/N 5/30/96 0424 Oa24 0.24 0.24 H FF loilig/96 0.25 0.24 0.24 0.24 E PF. NO N GEOMEAN- 0.34 0.34 0*24 24 MOM 0.24 Ow24 0.24 0.24 E FF STIDEV 0.18 0.18 414/06 om 0.09 0.49 1 w PF 2 2 1 S/30196 0.24 O@24 0.24 2.25 H FF GEOMEAN. 0.22 0.22 0.29 0.42 SMEV 0.05 0.05 0.18 0.69 EC Ent Wiff a 9 9 9 91, W NO B/N 96 H NO BIN DATE IC Ent CP TIDE FILTER 1/9/95 1 L NO WELL 3/7/95 L NO B/N 3123/95 L NO B/N 414194 L NO S/N 5/2/95 L NO S/N 5122196 H NO SM 6/21195 w NO B/N 7/1719 L NO B/N 8121195 H NO S/N 10119/95 E NO BIN 4/4/96 HF NO BIN 5/3 196 H NO B/N TABLE 8J: Site FDC-Nutrient Database W E LL: DATE SAL Tss %OM N03 N03-N NH4 NH4-N 04N P04 P04 TIDE FLTER 1/9195 0.50 3.80 N/A M, NO N 3/9/96 - 6.00 _N / A NO 13/N 4/6/95 6.15 N/A NO BIN 5/2195 6.43 NIA NO BIN 5/22/95 6.28 N/A NO B/N 6/5/96 6.54 N/A NO B/N 6/21/95 6.51 NO S/N_ 7/17/95 7.31 NO B/N 8/21/95 7.35 NO BIN I I t 14195 0.00 1 1 1 5.20 1337.98 18,73 292.38 4.09 22.83 0.10 0.01 PF, NO B MEAN 0.25 1 3.80 6.42 18J3 4.09 22.83 0.01 MEDIAN 0.25 3.80 6.43 19.73 4.09 22.83 0.01 S7T DWO E V 0.35 0.66 N 2 1 0 9 0 0 FOC-2 WELL, .DATE S@-F_TBV @R_ H20 DEPTH TSS %OM N03 N03-N NH4 NH4-N DIN P04 P04 TIDE FLTER 1/9/95 0.90 4.30 6.61 115.60 ___ - 2003.05- 28.04 1324.10 18.54 46.58 0.78 0.06 N/A M 3/9/95 0.80 3.80 4.42 4230.00 3.40 176.21 2.47 7.71 0.11 2.57 0.15 0.01 N/A FF 4/6/95 4.82 N/A NO a/N 5/2195 5.22 N/A NO B/N 5/22/95 6.16 N/A NO B/N 6/5/95 5.23 N/A NO WN- 6/21/96 5.30 NO B/N 7/17/95 6.22 NO B/N 8/21/95 7.15 NO BIN .00 4.15 858.73 12.02 113.26 1.59 0.14 0.01 PF, NO B MEAN 0.57 4.05 6.61 5.30 2172.80 3.40 14.18 8.74- .2! 0.03 1.11 1:.22 2172.60 3.40 12.02 1.sq 13 61 0.0 0: 1 N 01 1 . 12.92 10.24 .90 0.0 2909.32 22* ' 1 0 3 N 3 2 1 9 1 2 1 1 3 3 3 3 1 elc!T Litz @Iu M'.1a :P PIPPP P M.I. P F P*IP P1 I I I I I pi@ PIP P a pp t a n " V. a. 9:2 P PP P rP P PIP.' :29t=9 IgI I P g "" Prp.@ 6n, .2=22 -1 . III I1 0 - HPIPOZ!, PIP -PI`IP -1pill I _222 P Itdfl I I I I 1:n @ 11411 1 1 6 6 HPIPI. s: a k aa s Rp P P!, ij;j: all R 11: 1 WELL: FDC-3 DATE ( SAL TEMP IpH I H20 DEPTH TSS %OM NO3 N03-N NH4 NH4-N DIN P04 P04 I TIDE FILTER 1/9/95 0.50 6.00 6.61 20agO 83.98 1.18 15@56 0.22 1.39 0.16 0.01 N/A M 0. 5.59 31-06 -0:- --@- - 3/9/95 so 6.00 129.33 4.64 1849.10 25.89 368.64 5.16 0.05 00 /A FF 4/6195 6.03 N/A NO B/N 6/2/95 6.54 N/A NO B/N- 5/22/95 6.05 NO B/N 6/5/95 639 N/A NO B/N 6/21/95 7.83 NO BIN 7/17/95 9.13 NO B/N 8/21/9S 9.01 ? NO B/N 11/14/95 0.00 5.58 1396.02 19.54 989,04 13-85 33.39 O@45 0.04 PF, NO 8 MEAN 0.43 6.00 6.61 6.64 75.12 4.64 15.54 6.41 21.94 0.02 ----WE-DIAN -0.50 6.00 6.61 6.22 75.12 4.64 19.54 5.16 31.05 0.01 STDDEV 0.40 0.00 1.23 76.67 12.83 6.90 17.84 0.02 N 3 2 1 a 2 3 3 3 3 WELL. -4.." DATE SAL -PH H20 DEPTH TSS %OM N03 N03-N NH4 NH4-N DIN P04 P04 IBE-- @Flll 1/9/95 1.00 1.80 6.61 N/A M 9 / 9-5 -0.40 2.50 5.10, NIA NO B)N 4/6195 5.21 W1 -A NO -B/ N 5/2/95 5.66 N/A NO B/N 1 5/22/95 5.33 N/A NO B/N 6/5/95 5.75 NlA-- NO B/N 6/21/95 6.81 NO B/N 7/17195 6.83 NO EVN 8/21/95 6.75 NO B/N 11114/95 0.00 4.80 1152.99 16.14 1345.69 18.84 34.98 0.07 -0.01 PF, NO B WE-AN7-47- 2.15 16.14 18,84 34.96 0.01 MEDIAN 0.40 2.15 16.14 18*114 34.98 0.01 --gFD-DEV -0.50 0.49 N 3 2 0 0---l DATE T-SAL F-'F&-V PH H20 DEPTH TSS %OM NO3 N03-N NH4 NH4.N DIN P04 P04 TIDE FLTER 1/9/96 0.20 7.00 6.61 25.20 1.45 0.02 1.94 0.03 0.05 0.82 0.06 N/A M 3/9/95 0.50 5.80 5.32 39.25 1.91 5.10 0.07 1.08 0.02 0.09 0.09 0.01 N/A FF 4/6/9S 0.00 6.00 6.43 6.20 30.20 4.64 0.00 0.00 1.34 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.00 N/A FF 6/2/95 0.00 6.36 6.29 296.67 1.80 4.88 0.07 2.74 0.04 0.11 0.17 0.01 N/A FF 5/22/96 0.00 6.32 6.10 313.67 2.87 1.05 0.01 2.77 0.04 O.OS 0.80 0.06 N/A PF 6/5/9S 0.00 6.48 6.67 6037.67 0.86 5.01 0.07 0.72 0.01 0.08 0.12 1 0.011 N/A FF 1 6/21/95 0.00 6.39 6.77 452.20 22.38 5.55 0.08 1.11 0.02 0.09 0.28 0.02 PF 7/17/95 0.00 7.12 7.43 3.40 35.29 2.11 0.03 3.11 0.04 0.07 0.48 0.04 PF 8121195 0.00 6.67 7.60 5.20 23.08 1.50 0.02 3.36 0.05 0.07 0.44 0.03 PF 11/14/95 0.00 5.79 9.96 0.14 20.13 0.28 0.42 0.26 0.02 PF MEAN 0.07 8.27 6.55 6.43 000.27 11.60 0.05 0.05 0.10 0.03 MEDIAN 0.00 6.00 6.46 6.29 39.25 3.76 0.05 0.03 0.08 0.02 il 11 F499 'I I * NIA NA N A STDDEV 0.16 0.64 0.26 0.74 1971.13 13.30 0.04 0.00 0.11 0.02 N 10 3 6 9 9 a 1 10 lo 10 10 . ......... DATE T9V -PH H20 DEPTH 7W %OM N03 N03-N NH4 NH4-N DIN P04 P04 TIDE FILTER 9118/95 0.00 7-23ssoi -3373 21.73 0,30 33.74 0.75 0.097- MEAN MEDIAN STIDDEV N TABLE SJ: Site FDC-MIcr biological Database WELL, FOC-4 bx@ It w Enteroccod CID TIDE FILTER E DATE IC EC Enteroccoci CP TIDE FILTER 1/9/95 0 0 50 N/A m 1/9/96 0 0 160 N/A M, NO N 3/9/95 ---f4-/A -NO BAY- 319/95 N/A NO B/N 4/6/95 N/A -MO -B/N 4/6/95 N/A NO B/N 5/2/95 N/A 0 B -/N 5/2/95 N/A NO B/N 5/22/95 N/A NO B/N 5/22/95 N/A NO B/N 6/5195 N/A NO B/N 6/5/95 N/A Nd B/N 6/21/95 -NO B/N 6/21/95 NO B/N 7/17/95 -NO -B/N 7/17195 NO B/N 8/21/95 NO B/N 8/21/95 NO B/N 11/14/95 PF, NO B 11/14/95 PF. No B -5 2 DATE F FC, EC Enteroccod CID TIDE FILTER r -FC EC Enterocood CID TIDE FILTER 1/9195 0 0 0 N/A m 1/9/95 0 0 25 N/A m 3/9/95 @. 2 -5 --6.2 5 0 0 NIA PF 3/9/95 0.5 0.5 0 0 N/A FF 4/6/95 0 0 0 0 N/A FF 4/6/95 N/A NO B/N 5/2/95 0 0 0 N/A PF 5/2/95 N/A NO B/N 5/22/95 0 0 0 1 0.25 N/A FF 5/22/95 N/A NO B/N 6/5/95 0 0 0 0' N/A FF 6/5/95 N/A NO B/N 6/21/95 0 0 0 0 PF 6/21/95 NO B/N 7/17/95 1 3 0.5 1.5 1 PF 7117/95 NO B/N 8/21/95 0 0.25 0 0 PF 8/21/95 NO B/N 11/14/95 0 0 0 0 PF 11/14/95 PF. NO B -3 -Fr, EC Enterocood CP TIDE FILTER 1/9/95 0 0 0 N/A m 3/9/95 0 0 0 0 N/A 4/6/95 N/A NO B/N 5/2/95 1 1 N/A NO B/N 5/22/95 N/A NO B/N 6/5/95 N/A NO B/N 6/21/95 NO B/N 7/17/95 NO B/N 8/21 95 t-zo B/N 11/1 /95 PF, NO B @25 0 0 0 TABLE SEABROOK SAMPLING DATES SITES DATE TIDE(llam) REM FIET F13 I FH I FIP FE m viw- SSW 12/7/94 LF 1 1 1/3/95 HF 1 1/9/95 L 1/16/95 H 2/7/95 L 2 2 1 2/9/95 LE 2 2 2 2/16/95 H 2/23/95 L 2 3/2/95 H 2 3/7/95 LF 2 3/9/95 L 2 3113/95 @E 3 3 3115195 H 3 3 3 3/23/95 L 3 3 3/30/95 H 3 3 4/4/95 4 4/6/95 L 4 3 4/13195 H 4 4 4/18/95 IF 4 4 4/20/95 L 4 4 4/25/95 FE 4 5 5/2/95 F 4 5 5/4/95 LF 5 5 5/9/95 LE 5/11/95 @E 5 6 5/18/95 LF 5 5 5/22/95 LE 5 6 5/24/95 @E 5 6 6 5/31/95 F 6 6 5 6/5/95 L 6 6/6/95 L 6 4 8/a/95 L 6/12/95 H 7 7_ 7 6/14/95 w 7 7 7 6/19/95 L 2 6/21/95 LE 7- 7 6/22/95 L 3 6/26/05 H 1 7 7/S/SS L a a- 8 7/10/95 H a a 7/11/95 L 4 7/12/95 H a a 7/17/95 L a a 7/18/95 L 9 9 9 7/19195 L 5 7/24/95 H 9 9 DATE TIDE FEH FIET RB PH IF ic CSL WRH FDC KDO SSW 8/2/95 L io 10 8/14/95 L a atle/95 L 9 9 8/21/95 FE 9 9 8123/95 H 10 9 10/5/95 HE 11 1,2 10110/95 FIF I I 11 10/19/95 E 10 8.9 10/26/95 w 10 10/27/95 L 7 10/31/95 L 13,14.15 11/7/95 H 10 10 11/14/95 LF 10 10 11/16/95 L 10 11/18/95 E 11 12/5/95 H 12/28/95 L 12 1/30/96 E 8 2/1/96 @E 12 2/8/96 F 13 2/20/96 w 2122/98 F 5.7 2/29/96 E 8,9 3/12/90 L 12 12 3/13/96 L 9 3/28/96 LE 14 3 4 414/96 H 12 3.4,5,7 4/11/96 LE 12 4/18/98 w 13 4/23196 L 12 4/26/96 LE 12 13 S/2/98 H 12 517/96 13 3,5,7 5/9/96 L is 3.4 5/23/96 L 14 1.2 5/28/96 E 13 5/30/96 H K13 8.9 6/3/96 w 14 5,7 6/s/96 L 10 Table 10. Ranges of contaminant concentrations from all wells at each site Average Site Salinity Fecal coliforms Enterococci C. perfringens Nitrate Ammonium Phosphate N03/NH4 PPT CFU/100 ml CFU/100 ml CFU/100 ml mg/L mg/L mg/L ratio* River Street REH 3 to 15 0 to 29 0-0.5 0 to 700 <0.01 to 15.3 0.56 to 21.5 <0.01 to 0.97 0.12 RET 0 to 4 0 to 1400 0 to 40 0 to 16,000 <0.01 to 3.0 0.23 to 18.9 <0.01 to 0.62 0.15 RB 4 to 26 0 to 65 0 to 830 0 to 875 <0.01 to 0.7 0.25 to 11.15 <0.01 to 1.2 0.26 RH 2 to 17 0 to 19,000 0 to 350 0 to 285 <0.01 to 25.7 0.05 to 9.78 0.01 to 8.9 2.1 RP 3 to 17 0 to 71 0 to 100 0 to 60 <0.01 to 13.8 0.20 to 9.9 <0.01 to 8.4 0.56 RC 2 to 16 0 to 1140 0 to 4100 0 to 390 0.01 to 25.7 0.15 to 18.3 0.01 to 6.9 0.65 In Town CSL 0 0 to 53 0 to 76 0 to 490 0.33 to 17.9 <0.01 to 17.8 <0.01 to 0.42 17.4 WRH 0 to 1 0 to 21,000 0 to 420 0 to 330 <0.01 to 20.9 0.02 to 22.0 <0.01 to 1.7 12.4 KDB 0 to 1 0 to 860 0 to 2 0 to 115 0.94 to 27.3 0.02 to 6.8 <0.01 to 0.19 16.1 FDC 0 to 1 0 to 1 0 to 1.5 0 to 160 <0.01 to 28 0.01 to 18.8 <0.01 to 0.06 2.2 * The ratios for mean nitrate divided by mean ammonium levels for each well were calculated, summed, and averaged for each site. TABLE 11 SEABROOK SURFACE WATER: NUTRIENT DATABASE BOLD = mg/L SITE: SSW I (REH DOWN STREAM) DATE pH TSS 0/aORG N03 N03 NH4 NH4 DIN P04 P04 6/8/95 6/19/95 7.73 46.20 16.88 0.60 0.01 13.78 0.19 0.20 0.24 0.02 6/22/95 56.40 13.83 0.15 0.00 41.59, 0.58 0.58 1.24 0.10 7/11/95 7.48 25.80 18.60 1.79 0.03 63.34 0.89- 0.91 1.21 0.10 7/19/95 7.87 66.80 14.37 0.10 0.00 5.85 0.08 0.08 0.89 0.07 8/14/95 8.00 10.50 20.95 3.65 0.05 6.80 0.10 0.15 0.36 0.03 10/5/95 0.93 0.01 5.80 0.08 0.09 0.45 0.04 1/30/96 7.52 4.49 0.06 9.00 0.13 0.19 0.41 0.03 3/13/96 7.64 0.39 0.01 8.44 0.12 0.12 0.49 0.04 5/23/96 7.44 2.55 0.04 9.19 0.13 0.16 0.97 0.08 6/5/96 7.16 3.88 10.05 17.63 0.25 0.30 0.89 0.07 6/11/96 7.56 1.73 0.02 26.91 0.38 0.40 1.89 0.15 MEAN-- 7.60 0.03 0.27 0.29 0.06 SITE: SSW 2 (REH UP STR M) DATE pH TSS %0@ N03 N03 NH4 NHAI DIN P04 P04 6/8/96 6/19/95 7.61 15.00 18.67 1.48 0.02 22.66 0.32 0.34 0.12 0.01 6/22/95 15.60 19.23 2.94 0.04 10.90 0.15 0.19 0.61 0.05 7/11/95 7.48 6.80 26.47 2.73 0.04 9.91 0.14 0.18 0.67 0.05 7/19/95 7.40 6.00 22.92 2.26 0.03 11.93 0.17 0.20 0.44 0.03 8/14/95 8.02 8.20 19.51 2.18 0.03 4.90 0.07 0.10 0.43 0.03 10/5/95 22.73 0.32 3.61 0.05 0.37 0.57 0.04 10/27/95 7.24 5.60 10.71 6.79 0.10 3.93 0.06 0.15 0.93 0.07 1/30/96 7.60 11.03 0.15 3.31 0.05 0.20 0.45 0.04 3/13/96 7.97 0.39 0.01 2.52 0.04 0.04 0.49 0.04 5/23/96 7.36 2.83 0.04 3.41 0.06 0.09 0.66 0.05 6/5/96 7.09 2.24 0.03 5.38 0.08 0.11 0.56 0.04 6/11/96 7.33 2.22 0.03 12.12. 0.17- 0.20 1.13 0.09 MEAN= 7.51 0.07 0.11 0.18 0.05 SITE: SSM ',CAUSEWAY STREET BRIDGE) DATE PH TSS %ORG N03 N03 NH4 NI-14 DIN , P04 P04 6/8/95 6/19/95 7.38. 3.80 47.37 43.11 10.60 4.24 1 0.06 0.66 0.14 0.01 6/22/95 24.58 0.34 4.05 0.06 0.40 0.37 0.03 7/11/95 7.26 6.40 34.38 11.92 0.17 17.89 0.25 0.42 0.66 0.05 7/19/95 7.19 5.00 32.00 14.29 0.20 4.98 0.07 0.27 0.11 0.01 8/14195 7.80 20.00 21.00 1.66 0.02 13.16 0.18 0.21 0.20 0.02 10/27/95 7.29 4.00 50.00 10.96 0.15, 4.01 0.06 0.21 0.32 0.03 1/30/96 7.14 75.95 1.06- 3.56 0.05 1.11 0.08 0.01 2/8/96 7.00 166.44 2.33 15.33 0.21 2.54 1.29 0.10 3/13/96 7.39 132.52 1.86 13.06 0.18 2.04 0.21 0.02 3/28/96 7.07 106.07 1.48 8.64 0.12 1.61 0.10 0.01 4/11/96 7.04 63.89 0.89- 5.15 0.07 0.97 3.28 0.26 5/7/96 7.08 50.65 0.71 2.68 0.04 0.75 0.12 0.01 5/9/96 7.32 66.47 0.93 3.49 0.05 0.98 0.67 0.05 6/5/96 7.23 53.65 0.75 3.96 0.06 0.81 015 001 7.42 6/11/96 15.78 0.22 07 O@03 MEAN-- 1 7.841 0.78 0.10 0.93 0.04 SITE: SSW (TIDAL CREEK BEHIND H BERT) DATE PH TSS %0@ N03 N03 NH4 NH4 DIN P04 P04 -6/8/95 0.00 6/19/95 7.56 20.20 18.81 65.93 0.92 6.74 0.09 1.02 0.17 0.01 6/22/96 5.20 61.54 36.72 0.51 2.98 0.04 0.56 0.35 0:03 7/11/95 7.08 4.40 45.45 15.87 0.22 38.89 0.54 0.77 0.25 0.02 -7/19/95 7.29 7.75 66.13 37.02 0.52 4.01 0.06 0.57 0.09 0.01 8/14/95 7.64 14.63 20.51 3.43 0.05 6.02 0.08 0.13 0.24 0.02 10/27/95 7.23 4.20 47.62 42.80 0.60 5.00 0.07 0.67 0.55 0.04 1/30/96 6.98 97.68 1.37 7.59 0.11 1.47 0.10 0.01 3/13/96 6.96 137.301 1.92 46.91 0.66 2.58 0.21 0.02 -3/28/96 7.03 75.55 11.06 7.07 0.10 1.16 0.12 0.01 4/11/96 7.15 88.54 1.24 4.11 0.06 1.30 0.22 0.02 5/9/96 7.31 69.52 0.97 3.60 0.05 1.02 0.73 0.06 6/5/96 7.10 60.53 0.85 3.88 0.05 0.90 0.095 0.01 6/11/96 7.45 57.72 0.81 0.28 0.02 MEAN= 7.23 0.85 0.16 0.93 0.02 SITE: SSW (CSL DOWN STREAM) DATE pH TSS -Y.0RGG N03 N03 NH4 NH4 DIN P04 P04 6/8/95 0.00 6/19/95 7.38 4.60 56.52 24.33 0.34 5.91 0.08 0.42 0.26 0.02 -6/22/95 19.20 19.79 18.42 0.26 6.59 0.09 0.35 0.46 0.04 7/11/95 6.99 2.80 57.14 13.45 0.19 7.62 0.11 0.29 3.08 0.24 -7/19/95 7.06 8.12 44.62 21.89 0.31 7.95 0.11 0.42 0.20 0.02 8/14/95 7.52 7.75 38.71 2.01 0.03 8.37 0.12 0.15 0.22 0.02 10/27/95 7.02 2.20 36.36 19.29 10.27 2.66 0.04 0.31 0.35 0.03 1/30/96 6.83 103.5811.45 5.70 0.08 1.53 0.40 0.03 2/22/96 6.74 44.28 10.62 5.42 0.08 0.70 0.63 0.05 -3/13/96 6.96 73.88 1.03 5.36 0.08 1.11 0.28 0.02 4/11/96 6.73 49.18 0.69 7.96 0.11 0.80 0.21 0.02 5/7/96 6.95 31.89 0.45 5.50 0.08 0.52 0.18 0.01 -6/3/96 6.98 25.46 0.36 2.24 0.03 0.39 3.07 0.24 6/5/96 6.83 27.47 0.38 8.70 0.12 0.51 0.16 0.01 6/11196 7.19 32.51 0.46 0.58 0.05 MEAN= 7.01 0.49 0.09 0.54 0.06 SITE: SSW (RT. 286 BROWN'S BRID E) DATE pH TSS OMM N03 N03 NH4 NH4 DIN P04 P04 6/8/95 6/19/95 7.65 11.20 17.86 1.64 0.02, 1.26 0.02 0.04 0.34 0.03 6/22/95 3.40 29.41 2.09 0.03 11.61 0.16 0.19 0.69 0.05 7/11/95 7.92 3.00 30.00 1.97 0.03 3.53 0.05 0.08 0.73 0.06 7/19/95 7.65 9.63 22.08 0.00 0.00 3.72 0.05 0.05 0.44 0.03 8/14/95 8.26 6.40 18.75 0.22 0.00 9.36 0.13 0.13 0.30 0.02 10/27/95 7.53 8.60 23.26 13.00 0.18 2.04 0.03 0.21 0.37 0.03 1/30/96 6.81 15.78 10.22 11.93, 0.17 0.39 0.39 0.0 3/13/96 7.55 41.76 0.58 4.52 0.06 0.65 0.33 0.03 6/5/96 7.19 2.69 0.04 10.58 0.15 0.19 0.09 0.01 -6/11/96 7.33 0.56 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 2.52 0.20 MEAN= 17.541 7.04 1 23.56 0.11 0.08 0.19 0.05 SITE: SSW (CSL UP STRE M) D I -pH-7 TSS '/&C@ N03 -403 NH4 NI-14 DIN P04 P04 6/8/95 1 6/19/95 7.19 854.00 61.36 59.51 -F83 6.39 0.09 0.92 1.02 0.08 6/22/95 117.60 61.56 39.97 , O@56, 10.12 0.14 0.70 0.91 0.07 7/11/95 7.44 49.33 57.43 24.82 10.351 16.70 0.23 0.58 0.98 0.08 7/19/95 7.38 1310.00 58.71 42.28 10.59 10.65 0.16 0.74 0.82 0.07 8/14/95 7.26 542.00 58.86 15.67 0.22 11.15 0.16 0.38 1.15 0.09 10/27/95 6.84 9.67 58.62 43.68 0.61 0.84 0.01 0.62 0.34 0.03 1/30/96 7.08 443.32 6.21 5.58 0.08 6.28 0.78 0.06 2/22/96 7.02 91.89 1.29 7.96 0.11 1.40 1.44 0.11 3/13/96 7.18 44.72 0.63 6.00 -0.08 0.71 1.04 0.08 4/11/96 6.89 32.09 0.45 3.12 0.04 0.49 0.27 0.02 5/7/96 6.97 22.64 0.32 2.66 0.04 0.36 0.21 0.02 6/3/96 6.85 12.14 0.17 6.76 0.09 0.26 0.35 0.03 6/5/96 6.82 17.36 0.24 6.65 0.09 0.34 0.37 0.03 6/11/96 7.29 31.29 0.44 0.68 0.05 MEAN-- 7.091 .0.92 0.10 1.06 0.06 SITE: SSW (KDB DWOWN S EAM) DATE pH TSS IMM N03 IN03 NH4 NI-14 DIN P04 P04 6/8/95 6/19/95 7.75 21.20 17.92 60.62 0.85 41.16 0.58 1.42 5.60 0.44 6/22/95 4.00 60.00 75.77 1.06 5.77 0.08 1.14 5.69 0.45 7/11/95 7.07 9.80 26.53 70.62 0.99 54.82 0.77 1.76 0.77 0.06 7/19/95 7.54 15.63 19.20 67.91 0.95 8.20 0.11 1.07 2.25 0.18 8/14/95 7.28 11.20 33.93 8.31 .0.12 10.81 0.15 0.27 0.53 0.04 10/27/95 7.61 12.50 15.00 116.6211.63 3.48 0.05 1.68 1.42 0.11 1/30/96 7.22 161.01 2.25 9.56 0.13 2.39 2.56 0.20 2/29/96 7.09 107.68 1.51 5.15 0.07 1.58 3.40 0.27 3/13/96 7.34 182.50 2.56 8.75 0.12 2.68 3.82 0.30 5/30/96 7.31- 131.42 1.84 4.15 0.06 1.90 2.28 0.18 6/5/96 7.25 60.54 0.71 10.69 0.15- 0.86 2.43 0.19 6/11/96 8.04 89.93 1.26 2.04 0.16 MEAN= 7.40 1@311 0.21 1.52 0.22 SITE: SSW (KDB UP STRE M) DATE PH TSS 0160RG N03 N03 NI-14 NI-14 DIN P04 P04 6/8/95 6/19/95 7.92 6.20 38.71 86.26 1.21 5.00 0.07 1.28 0.62 0.05 6/22/95 36.20 38.12 80.99 1.13 7.79 0.11 1.24 5.57 0.44 7/11/95 7.30 8.00 30.00 122.73. 1.72 8.06 0.11 1.83 0.85 0.07 7/19/95 7.73 17.63 36.17 66.96 10.94 27.11 0.38 1.32 2.88 0.23 8/14/95 7.35 10.20 35.29 6.25 10.09 8.51 0.12 0.21 0.53 0.04 10/27/95 7.50 1.00 37.50 111.1811,56 3.81 0.05 1.61 1.56 0.12 1/30/96 7.17 156.6712.19 8.00 0.11 2.31 2.83 0.22 2/29/96 7.12 166.3612.33 6.09 0.09 2.41 3.75 0.30 3/13/96- 7.33 402.40 5.63 7.33 0.10 5.74 4.65 0.37 5/30/96 7.54 104.43 1.4 4.6 0.06 1.53 2.22 0.18 6/5/96 107.75 1.61 5.65 0.08 1.59 2 78 022 6/11/96 8.601 104.34 1.46 @@O O@21 7.521 1.77 0.12 1.91 0.20 SITE: SSW 10 ( EN OF FOREST RIV DATE PH TSS I -/.ORG I N03 --@-H4 --R-H4 -DIN P04 P04 -6/8/95 6/19/95 7.67 1.20 33.33 125.25 1.75 4.79 0.07 1.82 1.47 0.12 2 2 -/9 5 0.80 50.00 84.70 1.19 4.85 0.07 1.25 0.58 0.05 -7/11/95 7.55 1.10 72.73 108.52 1.52 6.79 0.10 1.61 1.44 0.11 -7/19/95 7.40 0.80 37..50 111.88 1.57 9.67 0.14 1.70 0.29 0.02 -8/14/95 7.76 0.50 80.00 215.80 3.02 2.56 0.04 3.06 0.27 0.02 10/27/95 7.56 0.50 50.00 197.81 2.77 8.46 0.12 2.89 0.23 0.02 1/30/96 7.01 80.33 1.12 26.96 0.38 1.50 0.10 0.01 3/13/96 7.24 162.92 2.28 26.32 0.37 2.65 0.47 0.04 -6/5/96 7.24 105.63 1.48 11.08 0.16 1.63 0.22 0.02 6/11/96 7.40 128-56, 1.80 0.41 0.03 MEAN-- 7.43 1.85 0.16 2.01 0.04 SITE: SSW I (FOREST DRIVE POND) DATE pH TSS '/.<M N03 N03 NH4 NI-14 DIN P04 P04 -6/8/95 -6/19/95 7.56 0.80 75.00 11.95 0.17 8.43 0.12 0.29 0.17 0.01 6/22/95 1.80 77.78 17.33 0.24 6.86 0.10 0.34 0.37 0.03 -7/11/95 7.17 1.60 75.00 4.75 0.07 7.42 0.10 0.17 0.18 0.01 -7/19/95 7.04 1.90 47.37 3.82 0.05 24.67 0.35 0.40 0.09 0.01 -8/14/95 7.78 4.40 77.27 3.34 0.05 8.85 0.12 0.17 0.03 0.00 10/27/95 7.00 1.13 77.78 10.16 0.14 9.24 0.13 0.27 0.21 0.02 -1/30/96 6.86 112.881 1.58 8.71 0.12 1.70 0.00 0.00 -3/13/96 7.10 105.281 1.47 6.79 0.10 1.67 0.16 0.01 6/5/96 7,17 53.47 0.75 3.81 0.05 0.80 0.06 0.00 6/11/96 7J8 45.21 0.63 0.10 0.01 MEAN= 7.21 0.52 0.13 0.63 0.01 SITE: SSW 2 ( R I CULVERT)__ DATE PH TSS Q/v0RG N03 N03 NI-14 NH4 DIN P04 P04 -6/8/95 -6/19/95 9.15 1.40 71.43 92.07 1.29 4.75 0.07 1.36 0.32 0.03 6/22/95 1.00 80.00 89.80 1.26 2.14 0.03 1.29 0.35 0.03 -7/11/95 7.37 1.20 83.33 46.98 0.66 15.98 0.22 0.88 2.21 0.17 -7/19/95 7.37 1.10 63.64 39.92 0.56 19.54, 0.27 0.83 0.07 0.01 -8/14/95 9.74 1.30 46.15 96.87 1.36 3.17 1 0.04 1.40 0.07 0.01 10/27/95 7.18 0.87 57.14 39.17 0.55 5.18 0.07 0.62 0.18 0.01 -1/30/96 6.88 123.46 1.73 7.62 0.11 1.84 0.00 0.00 3/13/96 7.17 100.96 1.41 18.45 0.26 1.67 0.201 0.02 -6/5/96 7.11 - 59.51 0.83 3.88 0.05 0.89 0.065 0.01 6/11/96 9.11 78.4 1.10 0.22 0.02 MEAN= 7.90 1.07 0.13 1.20 0.03 SITE: SSW 3 (PUBLIC DOCK/BEACH' DATE PH TSS -/6,ORG N03 N03 NI-14 NHAI DIN P04 P04 -8/14/95 8.22 2.90 24.14 1.60 0.02 1.37 0.02 0.04 0.29 0.02 8/23/96 3.00 30.00 0.60 0.01 3.03 0.04 0.05 0.29 0.02 -1/30/96 7.92 10.23 0.14 3.07 0.04 0.19 0.53 0.04 3/13/96 7.97 11.47 0* 16 1.40 0.02 0.18 0.54 0.0 6/5/96 . 4 2.61 0.04 58.89 0.82 0.86 0.34 0.03 6/11/96 7.84 2.31 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.03 0. 70 Ifo - 06 MEAN= 1 7.941 1 0.07 0.16 0.23 0.04 SITE: SSW I (END OF RIVER STREET) DATE pH TSS %0@ N03 N03 NI-14 NH4 DIN P04 P04 8/14/95 8.23 7.60 17.11 0.59 0.01 3.66 0.05 0.06 0.22 0.02 8/23/95 4.00 27.50 2.02 0.03 2.17 0.03 0.06 0.34 0.03 1/30/96 7.65 15.30 0.21 0.28 0.02 3/13/96 7.89 6.85 0.10 4.96 0.07 0.17 0.41 0.03 6/5/96 7.53 3.19 0.04 22.18 0.31 0.36 0.13 0.01 6/11196 7.69 1.62 0.02 0.76 0.01 0.03 0.30 0.02 MEAN-- 7.80 0.07 0.09 0.13 0.02 SITE: SSW 15 (HAMPTON/SEABROOK RIDGE) DATE PH TSS -Y60AG N03 N03 NI-14 NH4 DIN P04 P04 8/14/95 8.20. 15.30 14.38 3.34 0.05 8.32 0.12 0.16 0.27 0.02 8/23/95 2.90 31.03 0.52 0.01 3.26 0.05 0.05 0.22 0.02 1/30/96 7.64 12.13 0.17 0.36 0.03 3/13/96 8.05 7.54 0.11 3.64 0.06 0.16 0.40 0.03 6/5/96 7.66 13.85 0.19 0.85 0.01 0.21 0.14 0.01 6/11/96 7.85 5.53 0.08 5.14 0.07 0.15 -0.29 0.02 MEAN= 7.881 0.10 0.06 0.15 - 0.02 SITE: SSW I (HAMPTON UNSEWERED/MOUTH OF H BOR) DATE PH TSS %01@ N03 I N03 NI-14 NH4 DIN P04 P04 8/23/95 6.90 11.59 6.13 0.09 13.86 0.19 0.28 1.12 0.09 1130/96 7.90 12.68 0.18 0.18 3/13/96 8.13 2.35 0.03 1.46 0.02 0.05 0.53 0.04 6/5/96 8.04 1.52 0.02 9.98 0.14 0.16 0.63 0.05 6/11/96 8.39 8.12 0.11 4.16 0.06 0.17 0.29 0.02 1 MEAN= 1 8.121 1 0.091 0.10 0.17 0.05 TABLE 12 SEABROOK SURFACE WATER: MICROBIOLOGICAL DATABASE -BACTERIAL COUNTS: CFU/100mIs -SALINITY: ppt TEMP: degrees C t SITE: SSW I (REH DOWN STREAM) DATE SALINITY TEMP. FO E. c Ent C. perf. 6/8/95 29.70 16.00 45.50 44.50 44.50 8.00 6/19/95 27.00 29.50 61.50 61.50 103.50 18.25 6/22/95 29.00 25.00 47.00 43.00 27.00 4.00 7/11/95 30.00 16.50 20.00 20.00 114.00 4.75 7/19/95 30.00 34.00 22.00 35.00 4.25 8/14/95 31.00 22.00 13.50 13.50 40.25 1.75 10/5/95 24.00 105.00 20.00 33.00 4.00 1/30/96 16.00 4.30 3.00 1.50 6.00 0.24 3/13/96 26.00 6.20 22.50 18.00 1.50 5.00 5/23/96 22.00 21.20 132.00 129.00 7.33 0.24 6/5/96 17.00 17.30 72.50 62.50 132.50 2.00 6/11/96 26.00 28.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 0.24 MEAN=l 25.64 GEOMEAN= 31.10 23.64 24.93 2.18 SITE: SSW 2 (REH UP STREAM) DATE SALINITY TEMP. FO E. c Ent C. perf. 6/8/95 29.70 16.00 34.00 34.00 48.50 6.50 6/19/95 28.00 23.40 390.00 370.00 247.50 2.50 6/22/95 28.00 21.00 305.00 290.00 38.75 9.50 7/11/95 28.00 15.90 35.00 35.00 92.00 10.75 7/19/95 30.00 24.00 12.00 31.00 6.50 8/14/95 31.00 22.00 30.00 30.00 66.25 1.75 10/5/95 24.00 35.00 20.00 26.00 3.75 10/27/95 26.20 10.80 26.00 24.00 6.50 0.24 1/30/96 20.00 4.30 4.00 3.00 5.25 9.50 3/13/96 27.00 4.00 0.24 0.24 0.25 2.50 5/23/96 21.00 17.50 41.50 36.00 15.00 7.50 6/5/96 25.00 16.50 39.50 36.00 46.00 4.50 6/11/96 26.00 24.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 0.25 MEAN= 26.45 GEOMEAN=i 20.85 17.98 18.36 3.18 SITE: SSW3 (CAUSEWAY STREET B DG DATE SALINITY TEMP. Fr, E. c Ent C. perf. 6/8/95 1.00 18.00 535.00 465.00 206.50 25.00 6/19/95 0.00 23.80 800.00 490.00 43.75 17.50 6/22/95 5.00 21.00 605.00 340.00 36.00 6.00 7/11/95 , 15.00 19.00 2700.00 180090000 230.00 7.50 7/19/95 3.00 1100.00 650.00 252.50 17.00 8/14/95 30.00 23.00 170.00 170.00 33.00 0.25 10/27/95 2.50 11.20 480.00 415.00 69.00 7.00 1/30/96 18.00 2.30 85.00 55.00 41.00 85.00 3/13/96 0.00 2.20 26.00 19.00 2.00 5.00 3/28/96 0.00 5.70 15.00 14.00 2.50 80.00 4/11/96 0.00 6.00 53.00 32.00 50.00 57.00 5/7/96 0.00 11.10 140.00 112.00 43.00 81.00 5/9/96 0.00 14.00 117.00 105.00 32.00 185.00 6/5/96 0.00 18.00 -870.00 750.00 85.00 2?4 @715 6 6/11/96 0.00 25.00 210.00 200.00 109.00 6.00 MEAN= 4.97 1 GEOMEAN=l 233.29 1 177.08 44.67 16.86 SITE: SSW 4 (TIDAL CREEK BEHIND HUBERT) DATE SALINITY TEMP. Fo E. c Ent C. perf. 6/8/95 0.00 17.50 460.00 397.50 168.00 2.50 6/19/95 0.00 28.10 830.00 407.50 151.20 6.75 -6/22/95 2.00 20.50 670.00 340.00 101.25 8.00 -7/11/95 8.00 19.20 4400.00 2200.00 170.00 18.00 -7/19/95 0.00 1100.00 600.00 220.00 129.00 8/14/95 29.00 23.50 240.00 240.00 218.00 0.75 -10/27/95 0.00 11.30 400.00 325.00 102.50 11.50 -1/30/96 0.00 1.90 73.00 38.00 107.50 80.00 -3/13/96 0.00 2.50 50.00 49.00 1.00 11.00 -3/28/96 0.00 8.00 24.00 20.00 2.00 66.00 -4/11/96 0.00 39.00 32.00 32.00 61.00 5/9/96 0.00 14.00 135.00 120.00 48.00 168.00 6/5/96 0.00 18.10 740.00 670.00 123.25 18.25 -6/11/96 0.00 2 .00 200.00 195.00 25.00 35.00 MEAN= 2.79 GEOMEAN= 264.29 193.87 54.77 19.34 SITE: SSW (CSL DOWN STREAM) DATE SALINITY TEMP. Fr, E. c Ent C. perf. 6/8/95 0.00 18.00 134.50 126.50 60.00 33.50 -6119/95 0.00 25.00 545.00 460.00 144.00 83.50 -6/22/95 0.00 23.70 795.00 785.00 95.00 46.00 -7/11/95 6.00 18.50 3100-00 2300.00 660.00 37.50 -7/19/95 2.00 950.00 850.00 950.00 20.00 - 8/14/95 25.00 24.00 300.00 300.00 208.00 0.24 -10/27/95 0.80 11.00 270.00 210.00 5.00 1.50 -1/30/96 0.00 175.00 90.00 18.00 26.00 -3/13/96 0.00 2.50 70.00 42.50 8.00 28.50 -4/11/96 0.00 7.20 50.00 50.00 1.00 35.00 5/7/96 0.00 13.80 35.00 23.00 26.00 12.00 6/3/96 0.00 16.70 205.00 195.00 40.50 16.00 6/5/96 0.00 17.00 337.50 327.50 49.50 10.00 -6/11/96 0.00 23.00 2035.00 2015.00 900.00 MEAN= 2.41 GEOMEAW- 297.21 247.22 56.77 14.86 SITE: SSW 6 (RT. 286 8 OWN'S BRI GE) DATE SALINITY TEMP. FC E. c Ent C. perf. 6/8/95 26.00 14.00 26.50 24.00 15.00 4.00 -6/19/95 28.00 21.00 62.00 42.50 13.50 2.25 -6/22/95 28.00 18.90 9.00 9.00 9.25 3.75 -7/11/95 29.00 13.00 75.00 70.00 19.75 2.25 7/19/95 26.00 67.50 57.50 32.75 1.25 -8/14/95 31.00 18.00 6.00 6.00 11.75 1.75 -10/27/95 23.90 10.80 19.25 18.00 41.00 2.25 -1/30/96 2.00 0.10 135.00 91.50 125.00 39.50 3/13/96 22.00 2.00 5.00 2.50 0.24 8.00 6/5/96 24.00 17.20 63.00 61.00 63.25 1.25 6/11/96 21.50 21.40 25.00 25.00 10.00 1.75 - MEAN=l 23.76 GEOMEAN= 28.26 1 23.81 15.34 3.10 SITE: SSW 7 (CSL UP STREAM) DATE SALINITY TEMP. Fr, E. c Ent C. perl. 6/8/95 0.00 15.50 255.00 230.00 136.50 44.50 6/19/95 0.00 18.50 400.00 340.00 430.00 410.00 6/22/95 0.00 14.50 380.00 370.00 468.75 140.00 7/11/95 0.00 16.00 4500.00 4200.00 4600.00 400.00 7/19/95 0.00 9700.00 2600.00 10500.00 142.50 8/14/95 1.00 19.90 7375.00 3875.00 1070.00 800.00 10/27/95 0.20 11.20 125.00 75.00 5.00 55.00 1/30/96 0.00 400.00 225.00 24.00 42.00 2/22/96 0.00 3480.00 970.00 237.00 383.00 3/13/96 0.00 2.50 230.00 215.00 8.00 33.00 4/11/96 0.00 6.50 310.00 155.00 6.00 39.00 5/7/96 0.00 11.50 32.00 24.00 13.50 3.50 6/3/96 0.00 13.80 104.00 82.00 42.50 53.50 6/5/96 0.00 14.50 445.00 445.00 89.50 16.00 6/11/96 0.00 22.90 3615.00 2872.00 1175.00 MEAN=l 0. OMEAN-- 623.11 412.11 137.38 79.42 SITE: SSW 8 (KDB DO N STREAM) DATE SALINITY TEMP. F;C E. c Ent C. perf. 6/8/95 0.00 20.50 365.00 330.00 233.00 8.00 6119/95 0.00 27.30 120.00 110.00 496.25 7.75 6/22/95 1.00 26.00 10.00 10.00 3040.00 16.00 7/11/95 11.00 18.50 1600.00 1600.00 2050.00 50.00 7/19/95 2.00 1750.00 1750.00 850.00 70.00 8/14/95 24.00 25.52 375.00 375.00 800.00 5.00 10/19/95 14.50 106.00 50.00 540.00 5.00 10/27/95 2.00 11.20 125.00 120.00 190.00 3.25 1/30/96 0.00 8 5.75 26.5 14.5 2/29/96 0.00 1.5 1.5 5.5 2.5 3/13/96 0.00 4.50 0.24 0.24 3.00 7.50 5/30/96 0.00 279.00 272.00 53.75 7.50 6/5/96 2.00 580.00 580.00 137.25 4.50 6/11/96 0.00 27.00 60.00 60.00 478.00 13.75 MF-AN=l 3.23 IGEOMEAN= 74.76 67.96 189.59 9.29 SITE: SSW (KDB UP STREAM) DATE SALINITY TEMP. FC E. c Ent C. perf. 6/8/95 0.00 20.50 285.00 240.00 197.50 6.00 6/19/95 0.00 26.80 205.00 155.00 605.00 12.75 6/22/95 0.00 25.30 470.00 4.75 7/11/95 2.00 18.30 4300.00 4100.00 19.85 140.00 7/19/95 0.00 5250.00 5125.00 1250.00 100.00 8/14/95 26.00 26.50 95.00 95.00 1795.00 0.50 10/19/95 14.90 103.50 70.50 460.00 1.50 10127/95 2.00 11.20 132.50 125.00 120.00 1.25 1130/96 0.00 8.00 8.00 26.50 13.00 2/29/96 0.00 3.00 2.50 2.00 2.00 3/13/96 0.00 5.80 3.50 1.00 9.00 15.50 5/30/96 0.00 239.00 233.00 272.00 8.50 6/5/96 0.00 460.00 455.00 129.00 5.75 6/11/96 1 0.00 26.00 20.00 20.00 557.00 10.25 MEAN=l 2.31 IGEOMEAN= 109.29 1 90.61 141.48 7.18 SITE: SSW 1 (END OF FOREST DRI E) DATE SALINITY TEMP. FO E. c Ent C. perf. -6/19/95 0.00 16.50 287.50 147.50 103.75 8.00 6/22/95 0.00 15.00 95.00 72.50 77.00 2.00 -7/11/95 0.00 15.50 800.00 746.60 462.00 15.75 -7/19/95 0.00 3250.00 700.00 625.00 24.00 -8/14/95 1.00 19.00 1975.00 1545.00 312.00 0.75 -10/27/95 0.20 10.90 90.00 65.00 25.00 4.25 -1/30/96 0.00 95.00 0.24 13.00 8.00 -3/13/96 0.00 5.00 32.50 25.00 29.50 7.75 6/5/96 0.00 444.00 376.00 19.75 4.00 6/11196 0.00 18.00 125.00 90.00 40.50 0.24 MEAN=j 0. 12 1 GEOMEAN=l 271.33 101.32 74.85 4.04 1 1 SITE: SSWI (FOREST DRIVE POND DATE SALINITY TEMP. FO E. c Ent C. perf. 6/8/95 0.00 19.50 184.50 176.50 87.00 14.50 -6/19/95 0.00 25.40 66.25 52.50 35.00 1.75 -6/22/95 0.00 22.50 42.00 42.00 4.00 1.50 7/11/95 0.00 22.00 16.00 16.00 39.00 3.25 -7/19/95 0.00 60.00 60.00 46.25 4.25 -8/14/95 1.00 26.00 70.00 65.00 22.75 3.00 -10/27/95 0.40 10.00 17.50 17.50 10.50 1.75 -1/30/96 0.00 10.00 8.50 6.75 8.00 3/13/96 0.00 0.50 2.50 1.00 5.00 4.75 6/5/96 0.00 165.00 160.00 57.00 4.00 6/11/96 0.00 22.00 60.00 60.00 6.50 0.24 MEAN= 0.13 GEOMEAN= 36.42 31.89 18.03 2.85 SITE: SSW 12 RT. I CULVERT)) DATE SALINITY TEMP. FC E. c Ent C. perf. 6/8/95 0.00 23.00 255.00 232.50 198.00 29.00 -6/19/95 0.00 28.10 252.50 202.50 46.25 7.75 6/22/95 0.00 25.90 52.50 50.00 19.00 13.50 -7/11/95 0.00 19.00 120.00 120.00 195.50 13.25 -7/19/95 0.00 160.00 90.00 130.00 1.50 8/14/95 0.00 27.50 45.00 30.00 11.00 6.75 10/27/95 0.60 11.00 32.00 31.00 10.50 12.75 -1130/96 0.00 28.25 21.00__ -3/13/96 0.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.40 20.00 6/5/96 0.00 300.00 285.00 44.75 5.50 6/11/96 0.00 25.10 155.00 155.00 20.00 5.50 MEAN= 0.05 GEOMEAN=j 71.39 61.04 31.92 8.91 SITE: SSW 13/HH18 (PUBLIC DOCK/BEACH) DATE SALINITY TEMP. R3, E. c Ent C. perf. 8/14/95 30.00 17.00 12.50 10.25 16.00 4.75 8/23/95 30.00 19.00 17.25 10.50 8.25 -10/27/95 27.20 11.00 30.00 23.00 -10/31/95 28.00 30.00 27.00 -1/30/96 23.00 2.40 25.00 17.75 10.25 66.00 3/13/96 23.00 6.00 340.00 340.00 3.00 15.00 6/5/96 22.00 14.10 57.00 48.00 24.50 6.50 6/11/96 16.00 40.00 MEAN= 26.17 G0f'll20AKL- 12 14.70 SITE: SSW I HH2B (END OF RIVER STREET) DATE SALINITY TEMP. FO E. c Ent C. perf. 8/14/95 31.00 19.00 35.00 35.00 10.25 8.50 8/23/95 30.00 14.00 12.00 1.25 1.75 10/27/95 27.20 10.00 69.50 55.50 10/31/95 25.00 44.50 44.00 1/30/96 12.00 0.40 50.00 37.50 107.50 105.00 3/13/96 26.00 4.50 2.00 2.00 0.90 5.00 6/5/96 26.00 15.30 51.75 47.75 34.50, 2.50 6/11/96 19.50 5.00 5.00 2.25 2.00 25.31 IGEOMEAN= 21.09 19.19 6.77 5.82 - SITE: SSW 15/HH17 (HA PTON/SEABROOK BRIDGE) DATE SALINITY TEMP. Fr, E. c Ent C. perf. 8/14/95 30.00 17.00 720.00 720.00 14.25 0.50 8/23/95 30.00 2.75 2.50 0.75 2.25 10/27/95 27.10 10.10 46.50 38.50 10/31/95 31.00 25.50 23.50 1/30/96 16.00 1.60 30.00 25.00 64.50 85.00 3/13/96 25.00 3.70 2.00 2.00 0.40 2.50 6/5/96 25 15 41.75 37.5 19.75 5.00 6/11/96 18 6 6 1.25 4.00 MEAN= 26.30 GEOMEAN=l 20.82 1 19.18 1 4.35 4.10 ........................ .. ..................I..................L ............. -.-J ....... --,= .................... SITE: SSW 16 (HAMPTO UNSEWERED/MOUTH OF HARBOR) 8/23/95 30.00 50.00 50.00 15.00 2.00 1/30/96 16 5.4 7 7 2 1 3/13/96 27 9.2 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 6/5/96 24 1.5 1.5 2 0.24 6/11/96 27 0.24 0.24 3.75 0.25 MEAN=l 24.25 1 GEOMEAN=l 1.98 1.98 2.22 0.49 @6 @1/96 SIT /' SSW E- 15 TABLE 13 MICROBIOLOGICAL ANALYSIS OF SOIL CORES TAKEN BENEATH EDA's SITE: WRH (8/7/95) SITE: KDBS (10/19/95) DEPTH (bgs) DEPTH (bgs) fecal coliforms 0 fecal coliforms 800 31.5" E. coli 0 299@ E. coli 800 C. perfringens 9000 C. perfringens 13000 fecal coliforms 0 fecal coliforms 0 46's E. coli 0 42" E. coli 0 C. perfringens 5000 C. perfringens 13000 fecal coliforms 0 fecal coliforms 20 5501 E. coli 0 5599 E. coli 20 C. perfringens 17000 C. perfringens 17000 SITE: FDC (8/8/95) SITE: KDBS (10/19/95) DEPTH (bgs) DEPTH (bgs) fecal coliforms 0 fecal coliforms 0 260# E. coli 0 339@ E. coli 0 C. perfringens 1100 C. perfringens 50000 fecal coliforms 0 fecal coliforms 0 3811 E. coli 0 44#@ E. coli 0 C. perfringens 7000 C. perfringens 9000 fecal coliforms 0 fecal coliforms 20 47#1 E. coli 0 5999 E. coli 20 C. perfringens 0 C. perfringens 2200 fecal coliforms 0 51.51* E. coli 0 C. perfringens 6000 SITE: CSL (8/7/95) DEPTH (bgs) fecal coliforms 400 359@ E. coli 400 C. perfringens 7000 fecal coliforms 0 43@@ E. coli 0 C. perfringens 5 TABLE 141 Bacterial Concentrations and Watertable Depth be ow EDA at WRH, CSL, KDBM, and KDBS CSL4 <36 2/23/95 1 1 0.49 0.24 CSL4 <36 3/30/95 0.24 0.24 0.5 0.5 CSL4 <36 4/25/95 0.24 0.24 0.24 22 CSL4 <36 5/11/95 0.25 0.25 0.24 0.24 CSL4 <36 6/5/95 0.24 0.24 0.24 2 CSL4 <36 6/26/95 53.25 48.5 0.24 2.25 CSL4 <36 10/26/95 -0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 CSL4 <36 2/22/96 10 6 49.5 7.75 CSL4 <36 4/11/96 0.25 0.25 0.24 0.25 CSL4 <36 5/7/96 0.25 0.25 1 0.5 0.24 CSI-4 <36 6/3/96 0.24 0.24 0.25 0.5 WRI-11 <36 11/18/95 60 22 WRI-11 <36 2/8/96 58 WRH1 <36 3/28/96 432 424 WRH1 <36 5/9/96 40 20 400 4.9 WRH2 <36 4/6/95 67.25 51 23 0.49 WRF12 <36 11/18/95 6.5 WRH2 <36 2/8/96 0.24 0.24 0.25 3.5 WRH2 <36 3/28/96 0.24 0.24 0.24 3 WRH2 <36 5/9/96 0.24 0.24 0.24 1 WRF15 <36 3/2/95 35.5 29.25 12 0.24 WRF15 <36 4/6/95 16.25 6.25 2.75 0.24 WRF15 <36 4/25/95 2.75 2.25 3 0.24 WRF15 <36 11/18/95 2130 500 8100 0.24 WRFIS <36 2/8/96 400 250 64 1.9 WRFiS <36 3/28/96 300 280 232 1.9 WRH5 <36 5/9/96 120 30 19 0.5 KDBM3 <36 2/29/96 1.5 0.24 0.49 0.5 KDBM3 Z!36but<48 3/7/95 75 71.5 0.24 0.24 KDBM3 @,36but<48 3/23/95 1.5 1.5 0.24 0.25 KDBM3 Z!36but<48 4/4/95 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.5 KDBM3 @!36but<48 5/2/95 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.75 KDBM3 ZtUbut<48 5/22/95 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 KDBM3 ZL36but<48 4/4/96 0.49 0.49 51 KDBM3 Z!36but<48 5/30/96 0.24 0.24 0.24 3.25 KDBS4 Z!36but<48 3/7/95 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 KDBS4 ZtHbut<48 3/23/95 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 KDBS4 Z!36but<48 2/29/96 0.49 0.49 KDBS4 @!36but<48 4/4/96 0.49 0.49 KDBS4 @t4S 4/4/95 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 KDBS4 Zt48 5/30/96 0.49 0.49 0.09 0.49 - <36 5.28 3.36 2.52 0.83 GEOMEAN @!36but<48 0.58 0.58 0.24 0.72 Z!48 1 0.34 1 0.34 0.15 0.34 p-value 0.049 N/S N/S N/S Figure 1. Seabrook and Hampton Harbor with study sites circled, labeled with 2-3 CAPIT e f IAAI t S-- > J, I railet j :C [)It 0S f "IZ Wa er 1, 0. TM n m Wall A' eabrook A' Pflr N., Sv )I. ir of 11 f r 11 E A RP V V:0 F@ pporr, fi- I lild: I ---ist toil .......... Ick KDB 4ill,- 7111111 . ..... Sevoltirrol Stalihii -p, V jillorl n in(' R CS % )\ T., , - I U1 H' WK S- C c- -:l mo: f F' R)Cnm, P -.v W) onilm Glavil 16 6- 0.1f; 3n !;A$ V;Iilllll@ ftl,@Y; .1 Alit '14 il :149 0 501 SCALE 1:25 000 5110 111011 2 non 1411ril 11 It ON 1111: IkIAV 111.111IFSMIS 2511 MMUS ON TIIE- 6.1101IND Mill Null) Min [AREA - 50.000 _SOF@.] Figure 2. Location of groundwater wells at site REH. FKI-EST CBS. TM 13TTLANO L241U 4- LEGEND: SCALE III 60t PROPERTY BOUNDARY (APPROX) STRUCTURE OWNER: EASTMAN, C. MAP# 23 LOT# AS-] 1"LUMT DISPOSAL AREA (fDA) ADDRESS: ASA RIVER ST. WETLAND EDGE OCTOBER, 199A ELKIND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSOC6,TES, INC- NOTE: BOUNDARIES AND OTHER DETAILS DEPICTED 6 "TUX&DOW OIL ON THS PLAN ARE ONLY PIAAIIVA@ KZW HAMPSKIRS 43"S APPROXIMATE AND CARE EEA SHOULD BE EXERCIZZD IN ITHEIR USE1 04CvAnmqC POtMrrrV4G CONStATWC Figure 3. Location of groundwater weRs at site RP. AREA = 12,000 SQ.FT. + 7 To- 4 13 7 5 4 9.65 8.04 7.86 Hr4EST CGS ;DE OYALL ,(67 LEGEND: PROPERTY BOUNDARY (APPROX.1 STRUCTURE EFFLUENT DISPOSAL-AREA (EDA) WETLAND EDGE OWNER: PIKE, R. & V. RAWNSLEY MAP# 23 LOT# 15 ADDRESS: 15 RIVER ST. SCALE 1tv 30' OTOSER P94 ELKIND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSOCIATES, INC. / 17 10" NOTE: BOUNDARIES AND OTHER DETAILS DEPICTED 6 BATMEADOW OIL ON THE PLAN ARE ONLY NASHUA. NZW HAMPSHIRE 03"3 APPROXIMATE AND CARE EEA SHOULD BE EXERCIZED IN THEIR USEt ENCINIERINC PtltmffTINC CONSULnmc Figure 4. Location of groundwater wells at site WRH. /0 LOT AREA 18-000 A) \HIGHEST 08S TIDE (VEGETATION) 96. 5 "W7 STONC WALL\ LEGEND: PROPERTY BOUNDARY (APPROX.) 3TRUCTURE <1 EFFLUENT DISPOSAL AREA (EDAJ WETLAND 8)GE OWNER: HUBERT, J. & A. MAP# 13 LOT# A6C ADDRESS: 279 WALTON RD. OCTOBER, 199A NOTE: BOUNDARIES AND ELXIND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSOCIATES, INC. OTHER DETAILS DEPICTED -P 4 SATU"DOW oz. ' ON THE PL.&N JkRr. ONLY SCALE 1 30' EEA WAS349A. NEW HAMrSkIRS U"3 APPROXIMATE AND CARE, (6031 us-US7 SHOULD BE ZXERCIZED IN THEIR USEt EMCNIERING MMiTTINC CONSULTD4C Figure 5. Location of groundwater wells at site KDB. SO. FT. +/ A R E 32 000 +14.44 20.37 10 29.36 211.28 MAP 20. IfL CIA 20.4 20.19 tDA f 4il.57 ? +: 4 S7 an 13.17 HIGHEST OBS TIDE LEGEND: (VE<;ETATIO*N) PROPERTY BOUNDARY (APPROX.) STRUCTURE OWNER: BAKUTIS, M. EFFLUENT -DISPOSAL AREA (EDA) MAP# 12 LOT# 29-50 ADDRESS: 14 KIMBERLY DR. WETLAND EDGE OCTOBER.- 199A ELKIND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSOCIATES, INC. NOTE: BOUNDARIES AND 6 DAYMILADOW001L OTHER DETAILS DEPICTED tv '66- ON THE PLAN ARE ONLY SCALE 1 50t NASHUA. NZW HAMPSHIRS 43"1 APPROXrKATE AND CARE E E 'A SHOULD BE EXERCIZED IN THEIR USE1 EMCROER04C rt1tmrrnNC CONSUIMNC kE H 3 26- Figure6. Groundwater flow directions at site REH during low tide: 3/13/95. REi4 Cr, q,1,7-5 Figure 7. Groundwater flow direction at site REH during high tide: 5/31/95. Figure 8. Long-term groundwater monitoring in wells at site REH. 99 98 - - 97 REH-5 RE 4 0 ---------- REH- 1 11 96 M REH-2 > REH 1 .0 - 7rREH-2 W REH-3 6- 0 4j --- REH-4 M 95 REH-S REH-3 -Tidal Channel, 0 94 - 93 Tidal Channel 92 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 Time (min) z Z q( 0S, Figure 9. Groundwater flow directions at site REH during high tide, based on pressure transducer data: 11/20/95. Figure 10. Groundwater flow directions at site REH during low tide, based on pressure transducer data: 11/22/95. Figure 11. Long-term groundwater monitoring of tidal influence in wells at sites on River St. 96.5 96 RH-4 RB-3 95.5 95 0 M > RP-2 a w 94.5 -- RP-3 RH-2 RH-2 M RH-4 V 94-- RB-3 0 RP-3 93.5 93 RP-2 92.5 - i i 06/13 06/14 06/14 06/15 06/15 06/16 06/16 06/17 06/17 06/18 06/18 06/19 12:00 0:00 12:00 0:00 12:00 0:00 12:00 0:00 12:00 0:00 12:00 0:00 Time Figure 12. Groundwater flow directions at site WRH during low tide: 3/30/95. LOT AREA 18-000 SQ.FT. 41 17.,5 IGHEST OBS TIDE 0 (VEGCTAT I ON) STOWC WALL LEGEND: PROPERTY BOU14DARY (APPROX.) STRUCTUZE "Oil EFFLUENT DISPOSAL AREA JEDAI WETLAND EDGE OWNER: HUBERT, I & A. MAP# 13 LOT# A6C ADDRESS: 279 WALTON RD. OCTOBER, 199A NOTE: BOUNDARIES AND ELKIND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSOCIATES, INC. O@- 1R DETAILS DEPICTED 4 @AVW9AOOW OZ. Q,, HE PLAN ARZ ONLY SCALE 1 30' NA5349J6 XSW "AMPSMINS ""2 APPROXIMATE AND CARE EEA SHOULD BE ZXERCIZED IN THEIR USZ1 rmarrwc co'svtr@j Figure 13. Groundwater flow directions at site WRH during low tide: 6/29/95. IL OT AREA - 18.000 SQ.F7. FLU -CTATION) \@113HEST 08S TIOE (VGG '96.S STONC WALL\ 4@@% LEGEND: PROPERTY BOUNDARY (APPROX.) 3TRUCTURE UnUENT D13POSAL AREA (EDAI WITIANO WGE OWNER: HUBERT, J. & A. MAP# 13 LOT# A6C ADDRESS: 279 WALTON RD. OCTOBER, 199A f-'67 *""00@ /Z/,// NOTE. BOUNDARIES AND ELXIND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSOCIATES, INC- OTHER DETAILS DEPICTED 6 B&TULADOW OL. ' O@__.HZ PLAN ARE ONLY SCALE 130' EEA MASKVJ6X6W NAMPSKISS "0" A OXIMATZ AND CARE SHOULD BE ZXZRCIZED IN THEIR USEI 04Gv4"*jmC PUMITTINC CoNsurmc Figure 14. Long-term groundwater monitoring in weRs at site WRH: St a rt i n g I 1 10 9 5 83-80 83.60 83.40 WRH-1 83.20 WRH-2 0 > 83.00 0 ------- WRH- 1 Ui ----WRH-2 82.80 WRH-6 82.GO WRH-G 82.40 82.20 .82.00 11/10 0:00 11/10 11/11 0:00 11/11 11/12 0:00 11/12 11/13 0:00 11/13 12:00 12:00 12:00 12:00 Time Figure 15. Long-term groundwater monitoring in wells at site KDB. 96 4W 95.5 KDB-I 95 11 ItW vi"k-N, KDBA v 14 11 4. X KDB-5 KDB-5 94 KDB-8 5 KDB-6 14 pill, 'lk ------- KDB-4 93.5 KDB-8 KDB-1 93 92.5 KDB-6 92 - 03/25 03/25 03/26 03/26 03/26 03/26 03/26 03/27 03/27 03/27 03/27 03/27 14:24 19:12 0:00 4:48 9:36 14:24 19:12 0:00 4:48 9:36 14:24 19:12 Time Figure 16. Example slug test results in well RH-4 with a 7/16 diameter I foot slug. 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 0.1 0 X -Seriesl --E--Series2 0.01 0.001 TIME (SECONDS) @(D 1@ C@ lb- AZ "IV x @6 C? Cr Figure 17. Groundwater flow directions for the combined sites of RB, RC, RP and RH: 6/6/96. Figure 18. Groundwater flow directions at site WRH: 6/6/96. LOT AREA 18.000 SQ.FT. \HIGHEST QSS TIDE (VEGETATION) 3D 96. 5 3T*Nt WALL LEGEND: PROPERTY BOUNDARY (APPROX.) 3TRUCTURE EFfLUENT DISPOSAL AREA (EDA) WETIAND EDCE OWNER: HUBERT, I & A. MAP# 13 LOT# A6C ADDRESS: 279 WALTON RD. Dfl,Tpr or (b1(D1q(0 OCTOBER, 199A NOTE. 13OUNDARIES AND ELKIND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSOCIATES, INC- OTHER DETAILS DEPICTED -p 4 BA'TUXADOW at. , ON THE PLAN ARE ONLY SCALE 1 30' HASNUA.NSW HAM"XIM3 63063 APPROXIMATIC AND CARE EEA SHOULD BE EXERCIZED IN THEIR USEI ENCM41RING PfRfAl7TD4G Comsm 7@j Figure 19. Groundwater flow directions at site CSL: 6/3/96- - -D JAREA 40.000 SO.FT. -/- - H I GHEST 08S. T I DE- V EGE TA T I ON) +zo TZ .-f' 13 lot.$ -176 114 94 22 lot. z +:2 rm -1 101.11 01.12 -L3 102.41 100.1 CAUSEWAY ST. S3 PC 941 .EGEND: SCALE 1 40' ROPERTY BOUNDARY (APPROX.) ;TRUCTURE OWNER: LOCKE, E. ifFLUENT DISPOSAL AREA tEDA) MAP# 13 LOT# 70 WETLAND EDGE ADDRESS: Al CAUSEWAY ST. OCTOBER, 199A ELKIND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSOCIATSS, INC. NOTE: BOUNDARIES AND OTHER DETAILS 13EPICTED 6 RATUSAMW OL ON THE PLAN ARE ONLY EEA NASHUA. HZW "A"rSHOX2 APPROXIMATE AND CARE SHOULD BE EXERCIZED IN THEIR USEI mcv4mvoc PL%MrrnNG CONSULTNIC Figure 20. Groundwater flow directions at site KDB: 6/6/96. A REA 3 2 , 000 SQ. F T 13 AAA P 20.28 20. If CA '3 20*4 20.19 IDA 77. +12 tl Pr-T Pt 0 Fr HIGHEST 08S. TIDE LEGEND: (VEGETATION) PROPERTY BOUNDARY (APPROX.) STRUC11ME OWNER: BAKUTIS, M. MAP# 12 LOT# 29-50 EFFLUENT OLSPOSAL AREA (EDA) ADDRESS: 14 KIMBERLY DR. WETI.AND EDGE OCTOBER, 199A ELKIND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSOCIATES, INC- NOTE: BOUNDARIES AND OTHER DETAILS DEPICTED jq ON THE PLAN ARE ONLY SCALE 1 50' EEA MASNUA. WSW HAMPSHISS "ou APPROXrNATZ AND CARE SHOULD BE ZXERCIZED 114 THEIR IJ3Z1 04CMERING PIERMMING CONSULTtmc Figure 21. Groundwater flow directions at site FDC: 6/6/96.' -13,900 SQ. FT. + - U 71K. "@/3 0. 3LO 30.81 3057 30-33 Uri 0 35/3 3057 LEGEND: SCALE 1 3 0' PROPERTY SOUNDARY (APPIOX-1 OWNER: CRONIN, P. STRUCTURE MAP# 9 LOT# 141 E"LUENT DISPOSAL AREA (MAI ADDRESS: 6 FOREST DR. WETIAND EDGE OCTOBER, 199A NOTE: BOUNDARIES AND ELKIND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSOCIATES, INC. OTHER DETAILS DEPICTED 6 NATMIADOW 09. * ON THE PLAN ARE ONLY EEA NASHUA. NlW HAMPSMIS 4903 APPROXIMATE AND CARE ("3) kV%-4= SHOULD BE EXERCMED IN THEIR USE1 040KERtING rtxmrrnNc CONUATING Figure 22. - Comparison of ESHWT from Soil Mottling to Measured SHVVT Over Two Successive Years 8.0 x 7.0. ............ A 1995 ...............: x x............ ................... ................... x x 1996 A -Perfect Agreement 4) 6.0 ............... Envelope for Mottling .............. ......................................................... 5.0 ...... ............ .......................................................... ............... .................. A 4.0 .................... .................. ...................................... ................... .................. .00 .000 #100 3.0 .......................................................... ....... ....... x ------- CUD x A A 2.0 .................... .................. .................. ................. ................... 0000 000 x 1.0 ................. ............a ...................... . ------------------- -------- --------------- A 000, 000 0.0 . . . . . . . 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 ESHWT (ft below ground surface) 3 FIGURE 23 HAMPTON HARBOR STUDY AREA Surface Water Sampling Sites and Shellfish Harvesting Classifications * Conditionally Approved Areas ==>> * All other areas closed to shellfishing 15 6 ATLANTIC OCEAN %h 8 r1EVT 9 14 13 29W 4SU 7 5 3 2 10 4 12 37UDY Agri FIGURE 24A SITE WRH Mean Nutrient Concentrations in Wells and Lysimeter 25 N03 NI-14 .............. ....... DIN .......... 20 . ...........*------ ---- .................................................... 15 . ................ ... .................................. z E ............ ... .... ... ................................... .. .. ... ................ 10 . .... ...... .................. 0 z ............. .... ...... 5 - ... ................................... .. .. ... .................- 0 Rm Up LYS 5 4 3 6 7 8 9 10 WRH WELL FIGURE 24B SITE WRH 0.35 Mean Phosphate Concentrations in Wells & Lysimeter o.3 - ...... ....... ........ ....... ........... ... ...... ........... P04 0.25 . ................................................. .................................. ...............................................................- E 0.2 . ..................................I.............. ...................................................................................................- 0 0.15 ................................................ ................................................................................................ 0.1 . ................. .................. ................................. ............................................................... 0.05 . ................ .................. ................................................................................................. 0 Up LYS 5 4 3 6 7 8 9 10 WRH WELL FIGURE 24C SITE WRH Water Table Depth in Relationship to Bottom of EDA February 1995 to May 1996 0 B WRH1 WRH2 ................. ................ ................. ................ ................. .................................. ................. ................ ................. ................ ................ WRH3D WRH4 O.% 2 . ............... ................ ................. ifttt,6m ... of -EDAI ... ......... A -AL - - WRH5 0 U) &N 14. -0 WRH6 3 ................ .... .......... ................ 0 IL w 4 . ................. ................ ................ ...... ................. ................ ................ ................ ................- 0 ... ........ ............. ................. ................ ............. 5 . ............. 36@9 ..... S DM 0 .... ................ . ................ 6 U) Ul) LO Ul) LO U') U') LO LO co (.0 (O (O 0) a) CD CY) M CD 0) CY) a) 0) I 1 ,6 IL _L M > L .6 L >% a) C13 M CL cc$ =3 0 0 a) (D CO CZ U_ < < z z LL LL DATE FIGURE 24D SITE WRH EDA Treatment with respect to Groundwater Depth January 1995 to May 1996 25 - 0 N03 N H 4 .............*........... ........ .................. *'*'****** ......*........... 20 0- P04 ..... ........ ....................................................................................... ................................................. . ............................................. ....... . ......... .......................................... .................................. (D 0 ------------- 2 --- -- VA ... 15 0 . ................................. / ......................................... \............. )/--: .... ............ 11 __j 0 M P-"-- 3 Rt tm x E --m--H20TBLI CL z 10 . ..............\ ..... ............. ... .. ............a....... ............................... ..................... Cn,* E = r CV) . ..................... .................. ............................. ............. .................. k........................................... 0 z (D b." ................................ ................... ...............: W M 5 . ........................ ........ .... .............. ......... ............... ....................... .. ......... %..' F 5 . ...................................................................................... ......................................................... .................................. ...... .... 0 6 LO LO LO LO LO LO U') LO LO LO LO LO (0 (.0 (0 a) a) M 6) -6 L as CD CIS CO OL a. cc 0 0 0) 0) Ca cc U- < < 2 < z z U- U- DATE 4 ... ..... )4 . ........... . . ... ......... .. . ..... ............. . ....x ...... - \yet. FIGURE 24E SITE WRH Relationship of EDA Water Table Depth and Nutrient Levels in Lysimeter Samples August 1995 to June 1996 25 -- I I 1 0 N03 NH4 ............. ..... ............. ............. ............. .............. ............. ............. ............. ............. P04 ............ ........... 1 ........... .............. ............. .............I............. ............. ............. ... ............ ...... 20 - ........ ....... ..... .. ai:* 0) 0 .......... .............. ............. ............ . ............ .. DA . . ........................... ........ Otto@,Of--,E- In 2 (D dP .... ... ... .... 15 ...... N ............. cr V cm ............. .............. ......... .. .............. ............ .............. ............. ......... . .......... ............. ......... ......... ........ ............. -------- ------ -------0 IP % z E M &-a CL .... ....... ------------- ....... ...... . ..... .... .................. *** ..... .... .... 10 *--H20TBL cn V) ............. ....... ............. .............. .... ....... ............. ..... ...... ............................ ..............I..... ...... ... ..........- 0 4 E, r z (D ........... 5 . ..... .......... .... **'*'**"* ............ ...... ......... ..... *-* --- ............. ............. .........*. .............. . ........... .. .0 ........ ............. ............. .............. ............. ............................ ............. ............. ............ . ............. ............. ....... ..... ........-5 0 6 U) U) U) U) U,) U) co (D w CID CD (0 (0 co (0 (0 C" CD C" C" 0) M 0) M CD C" M C" C" M > > .6 @6 -6 0 0 0 0 CD (1) CD a) as cc$ CL (0 C13 U) 0 z z z z LL LL U- U- < DATE k-01 ............ ............ FIGURE 25A SITE CSI. 12 Mean N-species Concentrations in Wells & Lysimeter 10 . ........ ......................................... ....................................................................... N03 NH4 8 . ........ DIN .................. ................ ......................................................................- ....................................................................... x 'm 6 . ................................... ........... Z E Cf) N 0 N ....................................................................... z 4 . .................................. N 2 - ... ... ..... ......... ....... 0 - 2 LYS 4 3 5 6 CSL WELL FIGURE 25B SITE CSL Mean P04 Concentrations In Wells & Lysimeter 5 4 . ............................................... ........ P041 ...................................................... -j 3 . ............................................... .............................................................................................. E 0 2 .............................................. ............................................................................................. ........................................ ............................................................................................. D @N ................ ........ ..... ... ....................................... ----- ...... .. .... .. ....... 0- 2 LYS 4 3 5 6 CSL WELL FIGURE 25C SITE CSL Water Table Depth in Relation to Bottom of EDA February 1995 to June 1996 0 B CSL1 CSL2 . .................. . ................... ...... .....: ........................................ ...................T................... . .. ... .... ...................... ....................- CSL3 --m--CSL4 cc .................... ................... . ................... .................... .. ... ..... ...... ....... .. ... ................... 2 .......... ....... ...... ............. Elottom',of EDA CSL5D CSL6 . ..... .......... ... . .................. ... .............. ................... .......... ....... .. ..... ... ........ 3 ................... ..... A'A; ----- CL ....................................... ................ ..... %@ ....... .............. ...... ...... . ............... ....................I....................I.................. w 4 io ................................................................ 5 . ...........5 .. ............. ..... .......... ........... ........ ............................... .......... ....................- V Sepd ation: r 6 . .............. .................... .................... -------------------- ................... .................... .................... .................... ---------- ........ .......... ...... 481 Sepalrationi 7 LO LO LO LO LO LO (0 (0 (0 0) CY) 0 C) CP M 9 0') T L@ 1 +1 .0 V) M >% 0) :3 CD CL co U- < 8 U- DATE FIGURE 25D SITE CSL EDA Treatment with respect to Groundwater Depth January 1995 to May 1996 20 0 N03 NH4 A. --N--H20TBL Ca 04 ...... ..................................... ........................................ ........ 15 . ...... P (D 0 CL 2 Bottom of EDA\ , Cr 0 10 . ..... ...................... ............................. z E CL (D .......... *'*'* ... *"**'\/" a 3 Cn..* C Cf) 0 ..................... .................. ................ ........ ............ ........ ................... (D 5 ....... .............. .............* 0 , a W A 4 v 0 5 LO Ul) LO Ln Ln LO LO Ln LO (0 W CO a) a) CY) M 0) CIS 0) (D Ca CL Ca :3 :3 :3 a- CO U- U- --.) -".) 0 U- DATE FIGURE 25E SITE CSL Relationship of EDA Water Table Depth and Nutrient Levels in Lysimter Samples August 1995 to June 1996 30 0 N03 NH4 25 . ....... ... ......... ... ............... .. .................................... .................. ........ ........ ................. ... .......... ... . ..... .................. . ............ ......... P04 ... .................. ................. .................. .................. ................. ................. ...... W:* . .......... .... 41. . .................. .--w--H20TBL ................. ............. .. ................. 0 20 . ....... ................ ............................. . ............... ................. .. ............. 0.0 ...... .................. ..... ................ .................. ...........2 Bo tom ol EDA 0 15 ............................. ......... \..................... .................. ................. .................. ........ ................. .............. ......../...... .................. CM 0 11 - IF Lvs meter Depth CL E . .................... ... ................. .................. .................................... .................. ------ ......... .................. - 3 ) fta. OP - cn 10 . ..................a........... .................. .............. ................ .............. ... .................. ..................I................. ............. .... .......... .................. ........................ .................. ....... . ..... ..... ......... ................ ................................... .................. ..... ....... ................. 4 5 ........................... ........... --- . ......... ................r................ 11-1-1*-*-,*--,--I-**"* ............ . . ........... ................. 1 7- -------- ----- . .... ......... 0 5 LO LO LO co (0 co w (0 C.0 CD CD M M 0) CD CD 0) CD & L L -6 Le IL M 0 CD 0 (D 0. ca w =3 < 0 z U- U- U- < DATE FIGURE 26A SITE KDB Mean N-species in Wells and Lysimeters 35 N03 ................... 30 . . ................... .... NI-14 .......................................................................................... DIN 25 . .............. .. ... ........... ......................... ...................... ................................................................................... . ... ............... ... ......................................... 20 . .............. ... ....................... Z E .............. ... ............... ... ......... 15 .. .............. 0 z 10 . .............. ............... ... ............... ... .............. .............. ... ............... 5 ............... 0 IVILYS 3 5 7 2 SLYS 4 6 8 10 12 14 KDB WELL FIGURE 26B SITE KDB Mean P04 in Wells and Lysimeters 14 12 . ............. ........................................................ .............................. ................................................... p3q 10 . ............. .................................... .................. ............................................................ ..................... -j 8 . ............. ....................................................... .................................................................................. E 00 6 . ............. ....................................................... .................................................................................. 4 . ............. ....................................................... .................................................................................. 2 . .............. ....................................................... .................................................................................. 0 1 MLYS 3 5 7 2 SLYS 4 6 8 10 12 14 KDB Well/Lysimeter FIGURE 26C SITE KDBM Water Table Depth in Relationship to Bottom of EDA March 1995 to May 1996 0 - B KDBM-1 . .................. ................... .................. .................. .................. ...................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. - --*--KDBM-3 KDBM-5 2 . .................. ................... .................. .................. ........... Bb tt6 "'64 ... EDA .................. .................. .................. ..................- I I KDBM-7 > . .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. ......................................................... .......... . . .............. ................ . 4 .................. .................. ........................................................ ... G),0 r ........... .... 9.1 ... epatati-on-j- MO L. --- . I . ....... Y.. ... /,Or L o CL 6 ............. ...... ...............r ........... ......... 00oe.. ...... ................. ............ W . ................ ................. .................. .................. .............. ....... ........... .................. .................. 8 . .................. .................. .................. ..... ............ .................. ............... ....... .................. .................. ................. . . .................. ................... ...... ............. .................. .................. ................. ..... ............ .. ............... ................. ............ 10 - LO Ln LO LO W Ln u') LO Ln (O (.0 CD 0) CP CD 9 CZ co CL co :3 =3 :3 CD CL CZ < u- < DATE FIGURE 26D SITE KDBS Water Table Depth in Relationship to Bottom of EDA March 1995 to May 1996 0 Ei KDBS-2 .................. .................. .................. - --O--KDBS-4 2 - .................. .................. .................. ............ Battom.. of ... EDA ................ .................. ...... KDBS-6 .......... KDBS-8 425 3 . .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. ................... ...................I.................. .................. .................. A- UO 4 . ................. ............ .... ..... ................. ..... .... ................ ...... ........... ...... . ......... ..... ....... .......... --- ------- C 5 . ................ ...... 0 CL a 6 - Fn .............. ., . ........ ... @% Lu ................. ................... .................. .................. ......... .............. ................. .................. .... ... .... ............... .... 5 7 .... ... .............. 8 . .................. .................. .................. .................. ...................... ...... .... ....................... . .. ...... .... ............ ..... ........ ... ................... 9 . ................... .................. .................. .................. .................. ................. .. ............I.. ............. ............... .................. .................. 10 U) LO LO LO LO LO LO u') (0 (0 CD 0) Cn 0) CY) CP CD CP M --L CM -6 .0 Lt. Ca Ca a Ca Ca :3 a) Cfj < 0 u- < DATE FIGURE 26E SITE KDBM EDA Treatment with respect to Groundwater Depth January 1995 to May 1996 30 0 ................... 25 . ...................................................................................................K ...............................................................................2W* Boftom of EDA 0 NNN' CL fi..d 20 . ........ N03 ........................................... ............................. .....................................................................40 __j cr --0- N H 4 0 iF 15 . ........ ........................................ ............................................................... ...... .............. .. ............. z E %% won., CL M 6 Cnv rA --m--H20TBL CO 0 10 . ......................................................................................... z ........... ........... 8 5 ....... ........ .......... ............................ ................. ....................................... .................... '0000 ro, 0 v v 10 ................ ............... W Ul) LO LO U) LO LO LO Ln CD CO CD CY) CD M CD CD Cn CD T T T %L Ct- -L CD t5 cc cc (a CL CO CO =3 :3 CD CL CO < --3 < 0 UL < DATE FIGURE 26F SITE KDBS EDA Treatment with respect to Groundwater Depth 20 - January 1995 to June 1996 0 2 ai 15 . ................................................................................................................................... ---------------------- 0 a. A N03 NH4 4 C) Cr __j P04 0 iF P"-- ................................................. --m--H20TBL tM 10 1 ... C E CL M z M low m'b 6 Cn Cf) 0 z 5 . ....................................................................................................... ........................... ... C.) b..d -------------------------------------------- (D (D 8 0 U) U) U) U) U) LO Ul) U) Ul) Ul) CD (D 10 0) 0) 0 0) CD a) CF) CP 91 9, a) IL .1 IL L@ :@, C@ -U .0 >% Ca Ca Ca CL CO Ca :3 :3 0 0) CO < < U- < DATE FIGURE 26G SITE KDBS Relationship of EDA Water Table Depth and Nutrient Levels in Lysimeter Samples August 1995 to May 1996 30 0 .............................. ........ ....... -- ....... .............. ......-......... -- .................. . .................. ........ ............. ................ .. ........ ....... ....... ........... .................. .......-.......... .................... 25 . ...... ............. *"** ................. ..Elaftom. of....E.-DA ............... ................... ................... ........72 -77 LVsirneter DeWh 0 .................. ...... .......... ... ........... .......... ........... ... .... ....... ................... .....I........ (D ;-7 ...... .... LO--d 20 ... ...... ................... ........... ...... ............ ................... ........... ..... ........ ...... ... ........ ------ . .................. ............... ....... ...... ....... ..... ........ .................4 C) cr It 0) 15 . .. ............... ......... ........ .. ...... ...... ............. ........ - ---------- .. ... ... ......... ...0 -------- --------- ....... ................. "'L z 6 CL 14 W r-O 10 . ...... . ................ .................. ...... ........ ... . . ........... ..... N03 ------* ----------- :r 0 ..... ..... ................... ................. .. ............... .... ........... ...... ............... -* -NH4 z ........ e P04 .................T.................. (D ......... ----- w... -] --*--H20TBL I .. ...... .......... 8 5 ... ... ........ ......... ... ..... ............. ....... .......... ............. .... .. .................. ......... ........ 0 10 Ul) U') U') U') a) .6 :6) L Q) 0 0 0 0 z z U- U- DATE ............ ................... .... ........... FIGURE 26H SITE KDBM Relationship of EDA Water Table Depth and Nutrient Levels in Lysimeter Samples 30 - August 1995 to June 1996 0 ........................... ..................... ........... .. ........................... .................... 25 . .......................z L 2 0 Bottoi4 ..... o.f. EDA ........... a. I............ b-0 - I I I Lvsime4r Depth .................................................. ............I.............. ........................... ........................... ........................... ................. . ........ ad 20 .-j I .............. V-"@- ......................... ........................... ........................... ........................... ........................... ........................... .... .........4C) w ,Rr tM cr X E 0 .................. ........................... ..... . ................................................ ..... .c z 15 ... ...... ........ MM 3 I.." N03 CL P4 qb CV) NH4 ............ . . ................. ............... 6 n-R c 0 0 P04 ............ C =r z 10 -... -1 H20TBL .... ..........F C) 0 M ................... 8 ....................... . ... ................... 5 ..................................... .......... . ..... ....... ....... ..... ......................... 0 U) co CD co 10 (D CD a) CL co :3 :3 C/) 0 DATE FIGURE 27A SITE REH Mean N-species in Well Water Samples 25 20 . ................. ................................................... ................ ...................................................... NO NH DIN 15 . ................. ............................................. ................ ................................................ Z E 10 . .................................................................................... ......... .............................................. CV) 0 z 5 . ..................................................................................................... ... ................................................ 0 3 4 6 5 2 7 8 REH WELL FIGURE 27B SITE REH Mean P04 in Well Water Samples 0.5 0.4 . ........................................... ** ....... **'** ......... ..... ................................................................................................ P04 0.3 . . .............................. .............................. ............................................................................................... E 0 CL 0.2 ....................................... ................ ................................................................................................. 0.1 ................................................... ........ .......................................... ... 3 3 4 6 5 2 7 8 REH WELL FIGURE 27C SITE REH Water Table Depth in Relationship to Bottom of EDA March 1995 to May 1996 [Bottom of EDA assumed to be 2' BGS] 0 REM REH2 REH3 .. .........I.................... ..................... ........ ....... .....-........... .............. . . ............ ............... ... ........... .. .... ... 3 .0 % 0 % do REH4 0 % % --A--REH5 cc % 0- REH6D 2 ........... ................... ................... ......... . .......... ..... ......... ... .. .... ... .... ............ .. . .................... x 3 0 w ..................... ........... @: 4 . ....... .................... .......... ...... .................. ............... ... .... .............. .................... ..................... w 5 6" Separat! n v araticn 6 U'). LO LO Ul) LO Ln LO U') LO CD 0) 0) CD CD CD CL Ca :3 :3 CL DATE .... ....... FIGURE 27D SITE REH EDA Treatment with respect to Groundwater Depth December 1994 to May 1996 25 I I 0 N03 NH4 2 0 - .............. .............. .............. .............. ... P04 .............. ............. 0.5 lie 0 15 ............ ............................. .............. ..... ............. ............ ....... ... ............................. ........... I :v rr H20TBL of all a 0 tM E CL z b..A ..... ...... ...... .... ..... .. .............. .............. ..... ............... ... 10 . .. ....... .............. ............. ............. ......... ...... 1.5 C#3 a 0 z 6-6 5 2 Bottom of 0 2.5 'Ict LO LO LO LO U) LO 111) U') LO LO (O CD 0) CD CO C) T T T T 6 L &!. C@ -1 tM t5 0 M CL co CZ :3 :3 :3 :3 a) CL co U- < -'j -") < 0 DATE FIGURE 28A SITE RET 12-- Mean N-specles In Well Water Samples 10 - ------ ............................. ............ ....................................................................................... N03 NI-14 8 . ...................................... ............ .......................... .........................- DIN 6 . ...................................... ............ ...........I ............................................................................. x Z E CO) ............ ........................................................................................ 0 4 .................................... z 2 . ......... ............ ............ ............. ........................................................... 0 2 3 6 5 4 RET WELL FIGURE 28B SITE RET 0.3 Mean P04 in Well Water Samples 0.25 . .......................................................................................... ............................................................. P04 0.2 . .......................................................................................... ............................................................ E 0.15 . .......................................................................................... ............................................................ 0 0.1 . .......................................................................................... ............................................................ 0.05 . .......................................................................................... ............................................................ 0 2 3 6 5 4 RET WELL FIGURE 28C SITE RET Water Table Depth in Relationship to Bottom of EDA March 1995 to May 1996 [Bottom of EDA assumed to be 2' BGS] 0 RET1 RET2 RET3 Bottom of EDA RET4 Tr% 2 RE. cc RET6 ......... ........... ...................... ....................... .................... ...... .............. ............. ....... U) 3 ......... i-@ -777@ r ......... ... ................................ %....... ... ..... 4 ............ .... ....... .. .. . ................. ............. ....... .. ...................... A Oft Separ ion 5 t 0 - 48" $eparat on 0 6 CO 7 ..................... ....................... ...................... ..................... ..... ............. ........ ............. ..................... ..... ..... ....................... ................ N-,@--- ...... ......... ........... -i36 LO LO U) LO LO LO LO LO LO (0 a) 0) Ca CL Ca cd :3 :3 cc DATE FIGURE 28D SITE RET EDA Treatment with respect to Groundwater Depth December 1994 to May 1996 4 0 N03 3.5 . ................ ............... ... @% ....... NH4 ............. ................. ................. ................. ................. .............. ............... . ............. ....... P04 ............. .................................... ................. ................. ................. .. ............ ......... ........ .... ................ ......W 3 . ................ ......... (D 0 . .............. - . . .. .......................... ...... ......... ----'B@ttom of ... E A ........... ................. ................. 2.5 2 Cr 0 2 . ................ ..... . ....... ........... .... .......%....... ................................... .................. ................. ................. ................. .................C tM no %za E CL (D . .............. ................. ........... .... ................. ............... . ................. . ............... ................. *. *** .. ........ ... ............. .............................. ................. ................. ................. .................3 1.5 . ................ Cn 0 ......... J1 -k C#) ................. ........... .. ... ............ ................. ........ ..... ................ ........ --D--H2 (D z 1 OTBL ........... (D (D . ............... ............ . . . ............. ................. .............. lk ................ ..... ................. - 4 ......... ......... .... .......... ..... ......... ...... ..... ..... ........... 0.5 . ............. . .. ... ... 0 5 ,it U) U) U) U) U') U) U) CD CD a) Ul) LO a) Ul) T 0 0) C -1 -1 CO CL Ca CO Z :3 :3 Ca U . ...... .. < < 0 ......... ...... ................ ................ ....... ................ ..... ....... ............ ... . . ....... ....... .... ............ ........ ---- DATE FIGURE 29A SITE RB Mean N-species in Well Water Samples N03 1.5 . ......................................................... .................................. NI-14 ................ DIN . ............................................................. .......................................................................................... Z E CO) 0 z 0.5 . ........................... ................... ................. .................. 0 - 2 3 4 RB WELL FIGURE 29B SITE RB Mean P04 in Well Water Samples 0.6 0.5 ....................................................................................................................................... P04 ............................................................................................................................... E ....................................................................................................................................... 0 ....... ........ .... ..........................................- 0.1 ....... ........ ....... 0 2 3 4 RB WELL FIGURE 29C SITE RB Water Table Depth in Relationship to Bottom of EDA March 95 to March 96 [Bottom of EDA assumed to be 2' BGS] 0 --w--REH2 REH3 ........................................................................... ......................... ......................... ...................... A REH4 ........- cc Bottom of EDA 2 - P 0 w 3 . .............. ...... ........................ ........................ ......................... ......................... ......................... ...................... . ..................... % 0 % % 4 ..................... .................... ............ -d-0 . ............. ............. A. .......... .... .... ....... ............. 5 26" Se aration LO LO LO LO LO U) LO LO CD CY) 0 M a) M M C@ -L 6) cc :3 Ca ............ ............ DATE FIGURE 29D SITE RB EDA Treatment with respect to Groundwater Depth December 1994 to March 1996 12 0 F 10 . ................. .................................... .................. ................. ................. ................. ................. ................................... ............... .................................................... ................. ................. ................. ................. ................. ................. ................. .............. ..- (D ......... ............... .............. ................. ................ ................. ................ ........... .... 0 8 . ................. ................ ................ ........ B40m of ED* 2 Cr 0 CO 6 . ................. ................. ................ ...... ---- ------------- ***'"* .............. . ...... *- ....... N03 F. E I CL (D ................. ................ .......... ........ ...... NH4 ... ------------- 3 % --m--H20TBL Cn CV3 4 . ................. .......................... .. .... - P04 .... ... .............. .... ........... C =r 0 z (D ................ ................ ................. ..... .............. .............. ............ (D (D W-' -** ............ . ........... --------P --------- .....v......- 4 ................................... ................ .............. .. ........ 0 % 'r 2 . ............. ........ dP ...... ...... %........ ..... 0......... . ......... 0 5 U) LO U) U) U*) U) LO U) LO Ln (0 a) M (D CY) CD CP CP CD a) CO C as Ca =3 U- -5 0 DATE . . ....... _OTBL . . ..... . ----- -------- ---- ----------- FIGURE 30A SITE RH Mean N-species in Well Water Samples 7 ------- ........................................... ............................................................... N03 z NI-14 6 DIN ............................ ..... ........ 5 . ....................... -------- Z E . ........ 4 ...... ................ ---------- cn 0 3 ---------- ........ ...... z 2 ....... ......... ........................ ...... ........ ----- ........ ............... ..... ........ ...... ..... 0- 4 5 3 2 RH WELL FIGURE 30B SITE RH 2.5 Mean P04 in Well Water Samples 2 . ...................................... ...............................I............................................................................ P04 _j 1.5 . ...................................... ............................................................................................................. E 0 . ...................................... ............................................................................................................ 0.5 . ...................................... ............................................................................ om 4 5 3 2 RH WELL FIGURE 30C SITE RH Water Table Depth in Relationship to Bottom of EDA March 1995 to May 1996 [Bottom of EDA assumed to be 2' BGS] 0 RH 1 Bottom of EDA RH2 2 --A--RH3 RH4 Ca --v--RH5D 4) CO 4 . ........... .................... .................... ... ................ ......... ............................... ......... -34 4) j 48" @epar4tion I I I P 0 6 Uj ....... ........ ......... .................... .......... ....... ................... ... .............. ... .............. .................... ................... .................. 8 . ............. 10 10 .................. .................... .... .................. ................... ................... .................... .................... .................... .................... - LO LO LO U) LO U') LO w CO (0 (0 CD CD 0) Cn Cn & LL LL 0 Ca :3 75 :3 0 CO Ca -D z U- lu DATE FIGURE 30D SITE RH EDA Treatment with respect to Groundwater Depth December 1994 to May 1996 1 4 0 1 2 . .................. ................................................................................................................................................................................1 N03 2 0 1 0 ...... NH4 ........................................................................................................................................ P04 3 ........................................................................................................................................ 8 . ..... ................I Cr 0 CM 4 z E CL M 6 5 Cn CO 0 4 . .......... ............................................................................................................................................................................................. z b 6 -0-H20TB@1 4000" .....A -;iia ..........................=........... 2 ------------- ...................... ................ . .................................................. P 7 0 8 Iq LO LO to LO Ln LO LO LO LO CY) 0') CD CD (D (D co a co =3 :3 :3 :3 0 CD co CL W Q U- -3 ---) z LL DATE FIGURE 31A SITE RP 3.5 Mean N-species in Well Water Samples N03 ........................... 3. ............................................................................ NH4 DIN ........................... 2.5 . .................................................. ................................ ............ ad .... ........ .............I............................................................................ 2. .......................................N N N cm N E N .................................................... ............ 1.5 . ................... ......... ........N N N 0 N ... ......................................................... ....... z 1. ............ .......N.... ........ N ----------- *'*'** .......... 0.5 ........ ... ....... 0 2 4 1 5 3 RP/C 1 RP/C 2 RP/C 3 RP/C 4 RP WELL FIGURE 31B SITE RP Mean P04 in Well Water Samples 2 POTI ................................. ................................................ ................................................. 1.5 - --------------------------- .j tm E 1. ..... -------- ........... .............................................................................. ................... 0 A 0.5 . ........ .................. .......... ...................... ......... N 0 2 4 1 5 3 RP/C I RP/C 2 RP/C 3 RP/C 4 RIP WELL FIGURE 31C SITE RP Water Table Depth in Relationship to Bottom of EDA March 1995 to April 1996 [Bottom of EDA assumed to be 2' BGS] 0 --A--RP1 Bottom of EDA RP2 2 RP3 RP5D cc --v--RP4 ............... ........................... ............................. .............................. .............................. 4 epar-@ tion ..................... .............. 34"* .... .... S" 48" Separition 6 0 w @: 8 . ............................. ........................... ........................... 0 z 10 . ............................. ............ ..... ....... .................. ......... ..... .................................................... ............................. ............................ 12 LO Ul) LO U) LO Ul) LO CO CD 0) CD CD CD Ca 0 cc CL < DATE FIGURE 31D SITE RP EDA Treatment with respect to Groundwater Depth 14- January 1995 to April 1996 0 12 - ......... .......................................................................................................................................................................-1 Bottom of EDA W:* 2 0 10 A .................... ... .................................................................................................................................................................. IL 6-d - 3 ad 8 . ......................... .......... ................................................................................................................................................................. , Cr r-v-- 0 0) - N03 4 E CL M 6 . ........................... ...... NH4 ......................................................................................................................... --0- P04 5 Cp C*3 :r 0 ................................................................................................................................................................... z 4 . .......... . .............. W-ft 6 (D (D 2 . ............................... H20TBLI ...... liw- ----- ................ ............ ............7 .L--- - Q - I @- :@l Nv-; 0 b-@: @ 9@@@E - 0- --G 8 LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO (D 0) 0) 0) cc Ca CO Cz CL U. < z < DATE FIGURE 32A SITE RC 14- Mean N-species in Well Water Samples N03 12 . ............. ............................................................................. NI-14 ............................................- DIN 10 - ------------- ............... ..................................... ........................................................................................... 8 . ....... ............... ..................................... ........................................................................................... Z E ......... .........................N 6 . ....... ..... ........................................................................................... N cq 0 N z 4 . ....... ... ......... N ............................ .......... -------------------------------------------------- --- . ..... ..................................................... 2 ... ......... ............................... 0 4 1 2 3 RP/C I RP/C 2 RP/C 3 RP/C 4 RC WELL FIGURE 32B SITE RC Mean P04 in Well Water Samples 2 P04 1.5 ......................... ....... .................................................................... E ... ... ............................................................................................................... a CL 0.5 ... ... ... ... ................................................................... 0 4 1 2 3 RP/C 1 RP/C 2 RP/C 3 RP/C 4 RC WELL FIGURE 32C SITE RC Water Table Depth in Relationship to Bottom of EDA March 1995 to April 1996 [Bottom of EDA assumed to be 2" B%3oj 0 RCI D 2 BOMM Of EDA RC2D A RC3 --v--RC4 cc 4 . ............................................. ............ ........ eparation % ................... ....................... ...................... ....................... .......................- % 48" 5eparalon 6 CL 8 ........... ................... ... ..... ..................... ........... .. ............... .... ... ............ .................... ...................... LUUJ 0 10 . ..................................... ...... ................ . . ................ .................... ..................... ..................... .................. . ...................... 12 . ............. ....... .. . ................. ...................... ....................... ...................... ...................... ........ ............. ...................... 14 LO LO LO LO LO LO U) LO a) 0) a) CD CD 6) LL IL Ca 0 (D as CL 7) z DATE FIGURE 32D SITE RC EDA Treatment with respect to Groundwater Depth N03 20 - January 1995 to April 1996 0 . ........................................................................................ ...............................................................................I.. . .... . . ......... NH4 18 .3 ........................... .......................................................................................................... I --m--H20TBL P04 . ......x ............................................ ........................................... 16 . ............ .................................. ......... y6ft ............. 6f ... EM .................................... ............................... N." A'-** ....* ............ *-OM le - 2 CO 0 1 . ................... \.- .................. .........................................T ........................... ........................................ (D CL 4 F(D b..d . ..................... ................./... ...... .......................................... ........................... ................................... ........ ......... ......... . ..... A - 3 ad 12 . ....................... *. ... .. ..........I......................... ................ ... ............................-..... .. . ....................... ........ ........... ... ........ . .................... ... ................................I..... ... Cr . ................................... 0 / NY I\ 10 - 0 4 C E . ..............V ................... .. ............ ................... .......... ................ ........... ..... z ................. .. ...... CL (D 8 - ...............................................I....... ..... ......../...........\ \.............................../ ..................... ....... ....... . .... .VI ............ ........ . ...... ........................... ........5(n-2* :r z ........... ..... ................. \x .................... ......... r ............ ...... .. . . . ...... ....... 0 6 . ................... .. ...... . - % 6 ........................ ........... . . ... .. ...... ......................... .. ..... ........... (D 4 ..................... ................. .... ........................ ....... ....... . . ..... ........... OL 2 . ..... ............. ...... ......... .. ...... ................................... tv OL ....... ..... ft - ---- -------- .. ...... 1W ...... .... . .......... ... ................. ..... ... .........................M ............. ....... .... ....................................... .... .............. 0 -A - - . . ..... *'**'***"** 8 LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO (0 CO M CD a) a) 6 6) %- as (D cc CO =3 0 CD Ca UL < < z < DATE ..... ..... @OL Figure 33. Geometric mean concentrations of dissolved inorganic nutrients in surface water from sites along transects of creeks and harbor sites around Hampton Harbor: 6/95-6/96. 2.5-, 2- El N03 0 NH4 1.5- 0 DIN El P04 0.5- 0 10 11 12 4 7 5 3 8 9 6 14 1 2 13 15 16 Mill Creek transect Farm Brook Harbor sites Figure 34. Geometric mean concentrations of bacteria in surface water from sites along transects of creeks and harbor sites around Hampton Harbor: 6/95-6/96. 700-, 600- El Fecal colifonns 500- 0 E. coli N Enterococci 400- S C. perfringens 300- 200- 100- 0 10 11 12 4 7 5 3 8 9 6 14 1 2 13 15 16 Mill Creek transect Farm Brook Harbor sites FIGURE 35. Geometric mean concentrations of fecal coliforms, E. coil, and C. perfringens in soil cores taken from just above the water table along a transect at WRH, November 1995 107 Fc N 106 . .......................... ......................... ..........................: Ec Cp ................ .............. . ........................ ............... . ............. . ................ ........ ......................... ............... 105 IN 104 . .......................... z IN . ................ . ................ . ............... . ............... 1000 --: .............. "INN . . ................ . ................ . ............... . ............... 100 . ................ 10 . . . Control EDA 1 3 9 27 CORE 1, 3, 9, & 27 9 1 distance (in feet) downgrXeunat of EDA edge. FIGURE 36. Geometric mean concentrations of C..perfringens in soil cores taken above the water table in 3 transects at REH December 1995 106 - 105 - .............. .............. .............. ............... ............... ................ I- C30 z Q. N 104 . ............... . .............. .............. ............... ............... IN 1000 1-1 1-3 1-9 2-1 2-3 2-9 3-1 3-3 3-9 CTRL TRANSECT-CORE 1, 3, and 9 equal core distance (in feet) away from EDA edge limillimilmll 3 6668 14101 6891