# An Assessment of Pesticides in the Whitewater River and White River Basins

Indiana Department of Environmental Management

Office of Water Management Assessment Branch October 1998 IDEM/32/02/011/1998

### IDEM/OWM/AB October 1998 IDEM 032/02/011/1998



### i 

# An Assessment of Pesticides

in the Whitewater River and White River Basins

Author Sean K. Grady, Environmental Scientist

INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

OFFICE OF WATER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT BRANCH SURVEYS SECTION IDEM 032/02/011/1998 October 1998

### IDEM/OWM/AB October 1998 IDEM 032/02/011/1998



### ii NOTICE AND DISCLAIMER:
Use of this document is intended for the facilitation of information exchange by the Indiana Department of Environmental Management. Mention of pesticide trade names or other commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation of use.



### When citing this document : Sean K. Grady (1998). A Study of Pesticides Concentrations in the Whitewater River and White River Basins. Indiana Department of Environmental Management, Office of Water Management, Assessment Branch, Surveys Section, Indianapolis, Indiana. IDEM 032/02/011/1998.

### IDEM/OWM/AB October 1998 IDEM 032/02/011/1998



### iii 

# Abstract
In 1997, the Surveys Section of the Assessment Branch conducted surface water quality monitoring for pesticides within the East Fork White River , West Fork White Riverand Whitewater River Basins . This study is the second intensive investigation by IDEM staff to focus on water soluble pesticides. The study focused on developing trends associated with precipitation, and the occurrence of pesticides found in surface waters of the three river basins. Agriculturally applied compounds were the main focus of the study; however, urban chemical compounds were also targeted. Weekly ambient water sampling events were conducted from May through August 1997, and once in November 1997. All sampled waters were analyzed to establish a pesticides concentration baseline. The period covered pre emergent and post emergent pesticides application periods. Approximately 120 pesticides and urban chemical compounds were analyzed. Normally, only about a dozen pesticides were detected in each water sample. Flow data were collected at each site to determine total pesticides loadings in pounds. The project establishes benchmark data for water soluble pesticides in the surface waters of the three river basins. Comparisons are made among the three river basins with the various tributaries being characterized for contributions to total pesticides loadings. It is determined that pesticides loadings to surface waters in the three river basins are dependent on wet weather events, i.e., precipitation exacerbated the presence of pesticides in the water column. This study helps IDEM staff gain a better understanding of the pesticides concentrations and loads that occur in the three river basins. Information gathered in this study will be used for trend analysis and river basin comparisons when these basins are sampled during the next monitoring cycle. The project was funded by a Clean Water Act, Section 319 grant.

### IDEM/OWM/AB October 1998 IDEM 032/02/011/1998



### iv 

# Table of Contents
Title Page

.................................................................... i Notice and Disclaimer

......................................................... ii Abstract

.................................................................... iii Table of Contents

............................................................. iv Acknowledgments

............................................................ vi

Introduction

.................................................................. 1 Study Area

................................................................... 2 Whitewater River Basin

................................................... 2 White River Basin: East Fork White River

.................................... 5 White River Basin: West Fork White River

................................... 7 Materials and Methods

........................................................ 10 Herbicide Narratives

.................................................... 10 Estimated Herbicide Usages

.............................................. 16 Maps Showing the Sampling Watersheds

.......................................... 18 Results and Observations

....................................................... 18 Discussion

.................................................................. 18 Conclusions

................................................................. 35 Summary

................................................................... 36 Recommendations

............................................................ 38 References

.................................................................. 39 

# List of Tables

Table 1: Whitewater River Sampling Locations

................................. 4 Table 2: White River Basin Sampling Locations

................................. 4 Table 3: Most Commonly Used Herbicides and Associated Information

............. 15 Table 4: Estimated Herbicides Usage on Corn Crops

............................ 16 Table 5: Estimated Herbicides Usage on Bean Crops

............................ 17 Table 6: Rainfall Data for Each Sampling Site

................................. 20 Table 7: Loadings in Pounds of Atrazine for the Fourteen Sites

.................... 22 Table 8: Loadings in Pounds of Metolachlor for the Fourteen Sites

................. 23 Table 9: Loadings in Pounds of Acetochlor for the Fourteen Sites

.................. 24 Table 10: Public Water Supply Facilities

....................................... 34

### IDEM/OWM/AB October 1998 IDEM 032/02/011/1998



### v 

# List of Figures
Figure 4: Example of Trapezoid Rule

......................................... 19 

## Figures for the Whitewater River Basin Figure 1: Whitewater River Basin Map

......................................... 3 Figure 4: Pesticides Concentrations at WWR01

................................. 26 Figure 5: Pesticides Concentrations at WWR02

................................. 26 Figure 6: Pesticides Concentrations at WWR03

................................. 27



## Figures for East Fork White River Basin Figure 2: East Fork White River Basin Map

..................................... 6 Figure 8: Pesticides Concentrations at EFWR04

................................ 27 Figure 9: Pesticides Concentrations at EFWR05

................................ 28 Figure 10: Pesticides Concentrations at EFWR06

................................ 28 Figure 11: Pesticides Concentrations at EFWR07

................................ 29 Figure 12: Pesticides Concentrations at EFWR08

................................ 29 Figure 13: Pesticides Concentrations at EFWR09

................................ 30 Figure 14: Pesticides Concentrations at EFWR10

................................ 30 Figure 15: Pesticides Concentrations at EFWR11

................................ 31 Figure 16: Pesticides Concentrations at EFWR12

................................ 31 Figure 17: Pesticides Concentrations at EFWR13

................................ 32 

## Figures for West Fork White River Basin Figure 3: West Fork White River Basin Map

.................................... 8 Figure 18: Pesticides Concentrations at WFWR14

................................ 32 

# Appendices
Appendix A: Whitewater River sampling locations, maps Appendix B: East Fork of White River sampling locations, maps Appendix C: West Fork of White River sampling location, map Appendix D: Parameter list for the testing method used. Appendix E: IDEM Pesticide Data Results for the Whitewater River Basin Appendix F: IDEM Pesticide Data Results for the East and West Fork of White River Basins Appendix G: Statistical analysis of each sampling site Appendix H: Loading Calculations

### IDEM/OWM/AB October 1998 IDEM 032/02/011/1998



### vi 

# Acknowledgments

- The U.S. Geological Survey allowed IDEM access to gaging stations and provided technical expertise. - U.S. EPA Region 5 funded this project through a Clean Water Act, Section 319 Nonpoint source grant.

### IDEM/OWM/AB October 1998 IDEM 032/02/011/1998



### 1 

# Introduction
This pesticide monitoring effort identifies the concentrations and loadings of pesticides used in the West Fork White River, East Fork White River and Whitewater River Basins. The 1997 pesticides monitoring program in ambient water, was conducted with the following objectives in mind:

1. Identify the occurrence and amount of selected herbicides, insecticides, and

semi-volatile chemical compounds in selected surface waters of Indiana.

2. Provide benchmark information for long-term trend analysis and correlation with other ambient monitoring programs within the State.

3. Determine which tributaries contribute the greatest of pesticides load to East Fork White River.

4. Compare pesticides loading from the East Fork White River with the West Fork White River.

5. Identify the amount of pesticides loading entering the Great Miami River from the Whitewater River.

### IDEM/OWM/AB October 1998 IDEM 032/02/011/1998



### 2 

# Study Area
Whitewater River Basin

Location The Whitewater River Basin, which is contained within the Miami River Basin of the Ohio River drainage system, drains 1,329 square miles in southeast Indiana and 145 square miles in southwest Ohio. The headwaters of the West Fork Whitewater River and the East Fork Whitewater River originate in Southern Randolph County, Indiana, and in southwest Darke County, Ohio, respectively. The two rivers flow south and slightly west through Wayne, Fayette, and Union Counties in Indiana until, in Franklin County, the West Fork bends southeast to join the East Fork near Brookville. The Whitewater River then exits Indiana in Dearborn County. Approximately two miles into the State of Ohio, it joins the southwest flowing Great Miami River. The Great Miami River then empties into the Ohio River at the intersection of the Indiana, Ohio, and Kentucky State lines (IDNR 1988). 

## Geology Surficial geology in the Whitewater River Basin primarily consists of three types of till: Pre-Wisconsinan Till, Wisconsinan Till and Valley Train. One-third of the basin consists of loess covered Pre-Wisconsinan Tills. This loess coverage usually does not exceed 50 feet in thickness, and forms a gently rolling land surface except where dissected by stream valleys of the Whitewater system. Most of the northern two-thirds of the basin is covered by tills of Wisconsinan age that overlay older till units. These tills are usually no thicker than 60 feet. The Valley Train deposits are beds of sand and gravel, normally 10 to 15 feet thick. These deposits are found within the valleys of the Whitewater River and its tributaries, especially the East Fork of Whitewater River. Generally, all three types of soils are well-drained throughout this hilly terrain region (IDNR 1988).


## Land Use The Whitewater River Basin contains 3.7 percent of Indiana's total land area. Crop land, pasture, and forests are the primary land uses in the basin. Three-fourths of the basin's land area is used for agriculture. Corn, soybeans, and winter wheat are the major crops grown in the basin. Hogs, poultry, and beef cattle are the main livestock (IDNR 1988). Refer to Figure 1 for the location of the Whitewater River Basin. 

## Flow & Drainage The Whitewater River is the swiftest stream in the state, with a slope of 7.3 feet per mile (Simons 1985). Annual precipitation in this region averages 40 inches. At the Brookville sampling site WWR02, the annual average discharge in 1997 was 1,286 cubic feet per second. This station represents a drainage area of 1,224 square miles. Two additional sampling locations

### IDEM/OWM/AB October 1998 IDEM 032/02/011/1998



### 4 in the Whitewater River Basin were at Abington (WWR01), and near Alpine (WWR03). The annual average discharge, and drainage area for these two locations are 226 cubic feet per second and 200 square miles, and 561 cubic feet per second and 529 square miles, respectively (Fowler and Wilson 1996). Figure 1 identifies all water sampling locations geographically in the Whitewater River Basin. Table 1 lists the sampling locations for the Whitewater River. 

## Erosion potential Thirty-five percent of the region is rated as having a “high” erosion hazard potential and five percent a “very high” erosion hazard potential. These areas are along the lower two thirds of the Whitewater River Basin and its tributaries. Twenty-eight percent of the basin is rated as having a “medium” soil erosion potential that is mostly in the northern portion of the basin. The remaining thirty-two percent of land has a rating of “low” erosion potential (IDNR 1980). Table 1. Whitewater River Basin (WWR ) Sampling Locations Site Station USGS Gage # Drainage

Area sq.mi
WWR01 East Fork Whitewater River @ Abington, IN 03275600 200
WWR02 Whitewater River @ Brookville, IN 03276500 1,224
WWR03 Whitewater River near Alpine, IN 03275000 529

Table 2. White River Basin (East Fork and West Fork) Sampling Locations Site Station USGS Gage # Drainage

Area sq.mi
EFWR04 Flatrock River @ St. Paul, IN 03363500 303
EFWR05 Big Blue River @ Shelbyville, IN 03361500 421
EFWR06 Sugar Creek near Edinburgh, IN 03362500 474
EFWR07 Flatrock River @ Columbus, IN 03363900 534
EFWR08 East Fork White River @ Columbus, IN 03364000 1,707
EFWR09 Clifty Creek @ Hartsville, IN 03364500 91.4
EFWR10 Vernon Fork Muscatatuck River near Butlerville, IN 03369000 85.9
EFWR11 Muscatatuck River near Deputy, IN 03366500 293
EFWR12 Salt Creek near Harrodsburg, IN 03372500 432

### IDEM/OWM/AB October 1998 IDEM 032/02/011/1998



### Site Station USGS Gage # Drainage

Area sq.mi

5 EFWR13 East Fork White River @ Shoals, IN 03373500 4,927
WFWR14 West Fork White River @ Newberry, IN 03360500 4,688


# White River Basin: East Fork White River

Location The river emanates northeast of Indianapolis and is formed by a combination of Sugar Creek and the Big Blue River, Driftwood River and the Flatrock River near Columbus in Bartholomew County. Major tributaries of the East Fork White River include Lost River, Indian Creek, Salt Creek, Muscatatuck River, White Creek and Sand Creek. Refer to Figure 2 for the East Fork White River and relevant sampling locations. 

## Geology Much of the East Fork White River basin was covered by continental glaciers which occurred in Indiana during the Wisconsinan, Illinoian, and older glacial periods. The materials left by these ice sheets have altered the region leaving behind clay-rich glacial tills, fine-grained lake deposits, sizeable amounts of sand and gravel in the major river valleys, and wind blown sand and silt along the East Fork White River valley. Bedrock formations of various types ranging in age from Mississippian to Ordovician underlie the glacial deposits of this region, especially in Brown, Jackson and western Bartholomew counties. There is also an extensive area of karst topography, characterized by numerous sinkholes and caverns. Soils are generally thin. Devonian age deposits are present in eastern Jennings, Bartholomew, Jackson and western Decatur counties(IDNR 1998).


## Land Use The East Fork White River is not farmed as extensively as the West Fork White River because of the hill and valley landscape. The most farmed region in this watershed is in the northeastern portion located in the till plain. The southeastern portion of the basin located in a bedrock lowland and plain region. Farming practices are scattered in this region. Most of the forested land in the basin can be found in the southeastern and south-central region. Virgin stands of timber are rare; most of the forests are second or third growth (Carter, et. al. 1995). 

## Flow and Drainage The drainage area of the East Fork White River is 5,746 square miles, and it is the major southeastern segment of the White River, joining with the West Fork White River near

### IDEM/OWM/AB October 1998 IDEM 032/02/011/1998



### 7 Petersburg. The furthest downstream sampling location on the East Fork White River was at Shoals. It has a drainage area of 4,927 square miles and a average flow of 5,472 cubic feet per second. The East Fork White River has fewer impoundments than the West Fork. It receives a substantial amount of its stream flow from surface drainage.(Fowler and Wilson 1996) 

## Erosion potential The soil erosion potential is classified as “very-high” for Morgan, Brown, and the western half of Jackson counties. Soil erosion potential is “high” in Decatur, Jennings and half of Bartholomew counties. Erosion potential is rated as “medium to low” in a third of Jackson, most of Shelby, Hancock, and parts of Johnson counties (IDNR 1980). 

# White River Basin: West Fork White River

Location The West Fork White River drainage area comprises 5,603 square miles, and is the northernmost segment of the White River Basin. It joins with the East Fork White River near Petersburg. The West Fork White River has been impounded, and receives a substantial amount of its stream flow from surface water. Major tributaries of the West Fork White River include: the Eel River, Big Walnut Creek, White Lick Creek, Eagle Creek, Fall Creek, Rattlesnake Creek, Cicero Creek and Duck Creek (Simon 1992). The Newberry sampling site (WFWR14) encompasses all of the above tributaries. Refer to Table 2 for pesticide sampling locations regarding the East Fork and West Fork White River. Refer to Figure 3 for the West Fork White River and relevant sampling locations. 

## Geology Part of the southwestern half of the West Fork White River Basin is influenced by bedrock features, while the southeastern part of the basin is covered by a thin layer of glacial till. Soils in the southeastern part of the basin are generally highly erosive or poorly drained. Subsurface drainage is limited because tile drains tend to fill with silt. The south-central part of the basin is unglaciated, and is characterized by a hill and valley landscape with higher relief than other parts of the basin. Bedrock outcrops are common in this region. The soils in the southwestern part of the basin are more permeable and better drained than the northern part. Drainage is poor, however, in southwestern parts of the basin where rich-clay deposits are prevalent, and where the water table is shallow in low-lying areas. Drainage ditches and tile drains are common in these areas of the basin. The southwestern part of the basin is covered by 0 to 100 feet of loess, silty-clay till, and lake clays overlying coal-bearing shales and sandstones. (Crawford 1997, USGS Fact sheet 058-97).


## Land Use The primary land use of the West Fork White River Basin is agriculture, accounting for about 70 percent of the area. Fifty percent of the basin is crop land. Soybean and corn production are

### IDEM/OWM/AB October 1998 IDEM 032/02/011/1998



### 9 extensive in the northern, southwestern, and southeastern parts. In 1992, about 22 percent of the basin was planted in corn, and about 18 percent was planted in soybeans. These two crops accounted for 78 percent of all cropland activity. (Crawford, 1996, USGS FS-119-96) 

## Flow and Drainage The White River is part of the Mississippi River system, and drains 11,350 square miles of central and southern Indiana. Long-term average stream flow is approximately 12,300 cubic feet per second near the confluence of the White River and the Wabash River in southwestern Indiana. Variations in stream flow are generally moderate and seasonal. The West Fork White River sampling location was at Newberry (WFWR14). This location’s drainage area and average flow is 4,688 square miles and 4,847 cubic feet per second., respectively (Fowler and Wilson 1996). The Newberry site is located on the West Fork White River, while the Shoals site is located on the East Fork White River.


## Erosion Potential The soil erosion potential for the West Fork White River above Indianapolis is rated as “medium or low,” but below Indianapolis the potential becomes “high or very high” (IDNR 1980). Stream flow for the West Fork White River is typically highest in April and May, and lowest in late summer and fall. Average annual precipitation within the study area ranges from 40 to 48 inches, and is usually distributed evenly throughout the year. Rainfall in the winter and early spring is generally of long duration, steady, and of mild intensity, whereas late spring and summer rainfall tends to be of short duration and high intensity. The northern third of the basin promotes surface runoff and is relatively impervious to infiltration of water.(Crawford, 1996, USGS FS-119-96)

### IDEM/OWM/AB October 1998 IDEM 032/02/011/1998

1 

### This laboratory is currently approved and under contract with Indiana Department of Environmental Management, Office of Water Management through Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) 97-44.
10 

# Materials and Methods
Sampling Methodology The sampling methodology consisted of collecting grab water samples by best professional judgement from the center of flow at each station. The grab samples were collected on a weekly basis, approximately seven days apart. A sample collection apparatus was fabricated with four inch PVC pipe. Three pieces of pipe cut the size of the sample bottle were connected together by plastic toilet bolts. This allowed for duplicate sampling and the collection of Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicate(MS/MSD) samples during each sampling event. A rope was attached to this apparatus and lowered from a bridge to collect the sample at each location. The apparatus was lowered and raised throughout the depth of the water column. Each time samples were collected, the apparatus and sample bottles were decontaminated by rinsing with de-ionized water. Samples were collected in acid rinsed, glass, amber one liter bottles provided by our contract laboratory. All water samples were analyzed for pesticides using EPA test method 525.2 (see Appendix 4 for List of constituents). Samples were not filtered before analysis. After collection samples were preserved with hydrochloric acid, placed in ice and immediately transported to Environmental Health Laboratories (EHL) in South Bend, Indiana 1 

### , where they were analyzed. To ensure QA/QC requirements, one duplicate water sample and a Matrix Spike/ Matrix Spike Duplicate (MS/MSD) was taken during each sampling event. Field data were collected at each site at the time of sampling. Field data parameters included dissolved oxygen(DO), pH, temperature, conductivity, and turbidity. Stream flow data were obtained from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) gaging stations and used to calculate pesticides loadings.

Individual Herbicide Narratives Herbicides are used heavily in the three river basins. The top eight herbicides used were:

• Acetochlor

• Alachlor

• Atrazine

• Cyanazine

• Glyphosate

• Metolachlor

• Pendimethalin

• 2,4-D

### IDEM/OWM/AB October 1998 IDEM 032/02/011/1998



### 11 The National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) reports that 2.51 million pounds of Acetochlor, 6.65 million pounds of Atrazine, 1.80 million pounds of Cyanazine and 5.70 million pounds of Metolachlor were applied to 6 million acres of corn in Indiana during 1996. In addition, 2.33 million pounds of Glyphosate, 1.90 million pounds of Pendimethalin, 0.69 million pounds of 2,4-D, and 0.40 million pounds of Metolachlor were applied to 5.45 million acres of soybeans in 1997 (NASS 1998). Most of these herbicides are mixed with others to make the consumer product, so the total applied percentages of all herbicides as reported in the NASS report can exceed 100 percent per designated crop. Further details of the 8 most commonly used herbicides are discussed below:


## 1. Acetochlor Acetochlor is used to control grasses and some broadleaf weeds in corn, and was conditionally registered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) in 1994. Because of the broad-spectrum weed control provided by Acetochlor and low labeled use rates, the U.S. EPA expects that use of Acetolchlor will significantly reduce total amounts of herbicides used in the United States. The continued registration of Acetochlor is conditional on the targeted use reductions of the herbicides Alachlor, Atrazine, Butylate, EPTC, Metolachlor and 2,4-D. Acetochlor has chemical properties similar to Alachlor and Metolachlor, and has been classified by the U.S. EPA as a probable human carcinogen. Registration of Acetochlor will be canceled automatically if: the targeted reductions in the use of other herbicides are not met; or if the measured concentrations of Acetochlor in groundwater consistently exceed 0.1 microgram per liter at a large number of wells or exceed 1.0 microgram per liter in groundwater at a small number of wells; or if the annual average concentration of Acetochlor exceeds 2.0 micrograms per liter in the surface-water supply of a specified number of community-water systems (Crawford 1997, USGS FS-058-97). Acetochlor is manufactured by Monsanto and Zeneca. The common names used for this compound are HARNESS, GUARDIAN, and SURPASS. Acetochlor is readily absorbed by soil and is degraded by microbes. Generally, Acetochlor provides 8-12 weeks of pre-emergent weed control (Ahrens 1994). Acetochlor was the third most used herbicide in Indiana in 1997 with 2.51 million pounds applied. Acetochlor was applied to 15 % of the 6 million corn acres planted in 1997 (NASS 1998). Acetochlor was the third most used herbicide for corn production in these basins. Based on the recent USGS report on Acetochlor and statistics from the National Agricultural Statistics Service, the use of Acetochlor over the last year has increased. The 1997 USGS Fact Sheet 058- 97 reported peak concentrations of Acetochlor in surface water to be around 3.2 ug/L; however, findings of this study revealed that peak concentrations of Acetochlor were detected at 13 ug/L during the largest rain event. Monthly average concentrations of the weekly single sampling events exceeded the MCL once in May and seven times in June(see figures 4 through 17).

### IDEM/OWM/AB October 1998 IDEM 032/02/011/1998



### 12 

## 2. Alachlor Alachlor is produced by four manufacturers; Cenex/Land O’Lakes, Monsanto, Platte, and Riverside/Terra. Some of the common names associated with Alachlor are CONFIDENCE, LASSO, MIRCO-TECH, PARTNER, BRONCO, LARIAT, STALL, and JUDGE. It is uses to control many annual grasses and certain broadleaf weeds by pre-emergent and post-emergent application it to fields of corn, sorghum, soybeans, and peanuts. Alachlor provides about 6-10 weeks of weed control, but this varies with soil type and weather conditions. The photodegradation half-life is 80 days on soil and 239 days in water (Ahrens 1994). There was .476 million pounds of Alachlor applied to 5 % of the 6 million acres of corn in 1997 (NASS 1998). This corn and soybean herbicide has declined in use since the introduction and registration of Acetochlor in 1994. The drinking water MCL for Alachlor is 2 ug/L. The average concentrations of Alachlor found in this study were well below the MCL except a few samples taken during June with concentrations up to 7 ug/L.


## 3. Atrazine Atrazine, a triazine derivative, has been produced by Ciba/ Novartis Corporation since 1958. It is used as a pre emergent and post emergent herbicide to control broadleaf and grassy weeds for corn production. Atrazine is used to kill weeds by inhibiting the plant’s photosynthetic process. Some common names used for this compound are AATREX, BICEP, EXTRAZINE, BULLET, LARIAT, SURPASS and GUARDSMAN. The soil absorption is moderate, and the biological degradation for aerobic conditions is about146 days and 159 days for anaerobic. The persistence of Atrazine in the field is about 60 days, making this a very effective herbicide (Ahrens 1994). Atrazine was the most used herbicide in Indiana, with an estimated 6.65 million pounds applied to 84% of the 6 million acres of corn crops in 1997 (NASS 1998). It is considered a possible human carcinogen according to Ciba/ Novartis Corporation. It has been found to cause tumors in mammary glands and other reproductive organs in laboratory animals. It has also been categorized as possible endocrine disruption(ORSANCO 1997). Atrazine was detected most often and at the highest concentration of 59 ug/L compared with all other compounds. This suggests that Atrazine is still the preferred herbicide. NASS reports support the data that it was the most commonly used herbicide in 1997. Monthly average concentrations based on weekly single sampling events exceeded the MCL of 3 ug/l in May and June at most sites(see Figures 4 through 17). 

## 4. Cyanazine Cyanazine, commonly known as BLADEX, is also from the triazine class of herbicides. It was developed by DuPont in 1971 for use on corn to control broadleaf and grassy weeds. Cyanazine is the fourth most used herbicide in Indiana, with an estimated 1.80 million pounds applied to 16% of the 6 million acres of corn in Indiana in 1997 (NASS 1998). DuPont has agreed to phase out Cyanazine completely in response to a special review of the herbicide by the U.S. EPA concerning chronic Cyanazine exposure and the risk of cancer. The manufacturer chose to phase

### IDEM/OWM/AB October 1998 IDEM 032/02/011/1998



### 13 out Cyanazine voluntarily due to the costly review process. The phase out will begin by reducing the manufacturer’s recommended application rates. All sales and distribution by DuPont will be banned after December 31, 1999. Retailers will be permitted to sell existing stocks through September 1, 2002, with all use prohibited after December 31, 2002 (ORSANCO 1997). Cyanazine inhibits photosynthesis of broadleaf weeds and several grasses, and can be used for pre emergent and post emergent applications. Cyanazine’s absorption increases when water content in soil is low and organic matter is high(Ahrens 1994). Cyanazine is part of the triazine family along with Simazine and Atrazine. This corn herbicide is not used nearly as much as Atrazine, but is still an effective herbicide. Cyanazine ranked sixth among herbicides used in 1997. The peak concentration found for Cyanazine in this project was 6.6 ug/L. 

## 5. Glyphosate Glyphosate is manufactured by several companies including Monsanto, Cenex/Land O’Lakes, Helena and Zeneca. Common names for Glyphosate are SILHOUETTE, RATTLER, ROUNDUP, RODEO and TOUCHDOWN. Glyphosate is usually mixed with a salt and another herbicides to create an effective product. It is used as both a pre emergent and a post emergent herbicide. Foliar application controls grasses and weed growth on no-till fields. It rapidly absorbs to all soils, degrades microbially in soil and has a low potential for movement by runoff in field and lab studies(Ahrens 1994). About 2.33 million pounds of Glyphosate were applied to 49% of the 5.45 million acres of soybean crops in 1997 ( NASS 1998). Glyphosate was not included in the battery of analytes in the test method used for this study. This compound was the fourth most used herbicide in 1997.


## 6. Metolachlor Metolachlor, an acetanilide class of herbicide, was first produced in 1976 by Ciba Corporation. It is applied as a pre emergent as well as a post emergent herbicide to control broadleaf weeds and grasses in corn and soybean fields for about 10-14 weeks. Metolachlor is moderately absorbed to soil and prefers muck, clay and organic matter. The compound’s photo degradation period is about 70 days. It aerobically degrades in about 67 days and anaerobically in 81 days (Ahrens 1994). Metolachlor, commonly called DUAL, is the second most used herbicide in the East Fork White River and Whitewater River Basins, based on information from the NASS(NASS 1998), with an estimated 6.10 million pounds applied in 1997. Metolachlor was applied to 52% of the 6 million acres of corn and 3% of the 5.45 million acres of soybeans. Metolachlor was the second most used herbicide throughout the basins. The use of both Metolachlor and Alachlor has declined since the registration of Acetochlor. The peak concentration of Metolachlor found in this project was 35 ug/L(see Figures 4 through 17). This peak occurred in August and it unclear why this peak appeared this late in the season.

### IDEM/OWM/AB October 1998 IDEM 032/02/011/1998



### 14 

## 7. Pendimethalin Pendimethalin is manufactured by two companies, American Cyanamid and Scotts. The common names for Pendimethalin are PROWL, PURSUIT, SQUADRON, SOUTHERN WEEDGRASS CONTROL and ORNAMENTAL HERBICIDE II. The intended use of the chemical is for controlling grasses and certain broadleaf weeds. It is used in both pre emergent and post emergent applications. Pendimethalin can be applied in liquid fertilizer, or impregnated on dry bulk fertilizer. This compound is strongly absorbed by clay and organic matter. Degradation is rapid under anaerobic conditions and slow under aerobic conditions. Pendimethalin is immobile when strongly bound to clay and organic matter. Most Pendimethalin washed into surface water via sediment will remain bound to sediment and unavailable to aquatic life (Ahrens 1994). Approximately 1.90 million pounds of Pendimethalin was applied to 33% of the 5.45 million acres of soybean plants in 1997 (NASS 1998). Pendimethalin was only detected five times throughout the study with a peak concentration of 0.3 ug/L. It was the fifth most used herbicide in 1997. 

## 8. 2,4-D 2,4-D is a foliar-applied herbicide used to control many broadleaf weeds such as pigweed, ragweed, cocklebur and others with little or no activity against grasses. 2,4-D is exclusively used for post emergent applications. Many different companies manufacture 2,4-D. They include AgrEvo, AGSCO, Applied Biochemists, Cenex, Cornbelt, DowElanco, Farmland, Helena, Monsanto and others. Some common names used for 2,4-D are TILLER, NAVIGATE, CLASS, WEED-PRO 4 AMINE, JUSTICE, WARRANT, BARRAGE, and CAMPAIGN. 2,4-D undergoes degradation via a microbial breakdown in warm, moist soil. The rate of breakdown increases with increased temperatures and moisture. The average field half life is 10 days. There is a potential for mobility, but rapid degradation in soil and removal from soil by plant uptake minimizes leaching (Ahrens 1994). Approximately 0.69 million pounds of 2,4-D were applied to 30% of the 5.45 million acres of soybeans, and 0.25 million pounds applied to 11% of the 6 million acres of corn planted in 1997 ( NASS 1998). As with Glyphosate, 2,4-D was not included in the battery of analytes in the test method used for this study. 2,4-D was the sixth most used herbicide in 1997.

### IDEM/OWM/AB October 1998 IDEM 032/02/011/1998



### 15 Table 3 lists a summary of associated information for the most commonly used herbicides in the three river basins monitored for this study. Table 3. Most Commonly Used Herbicides and Associated Information Chemical Name Brand Name Target Crop MCL* Use
Acetochlor Harness and

Surpass Corn 2 ug/L Herbicide

Alachlor Lasso Corn, Soybean and Sorghum 2 ug/L Herbicide

Atrazine Aatrex Corn and Sorghum 3 ug/L Herbicide Cyanazine Bladex and Fortrol Corn, Sorghum, wheat NA Herbicide

Glyphosate Roundup, Rodeo,

Landmaster, Sting Soybean 700 ug/L Herbicide

Metolachlor Dual and Pennant Corn, Soybeans, Potatoes and Sorghum NA Herbicide

Pendimethalin Prowl, Squadron, Stomp Soybean NA Herbicide

2,4-D Justice, LawnKeep, Miracle Soybean 70 ug/L Herbicide
* MCL = Maximum Contaminant Level for Drinking Water Standards, these are not surface water standards. Surface water standards have yet to be established for the listed pesticides/herbicides.

### IDEM/OWM/AB October 1998 IDEM 032/02/011/1998



### 16 

## Estimated Herbicides Usages on Corn Crops Table 4 shows the estimated usage of the three major herbicides on corn crops in the three river basins, based on the1997 National Agricultural Statistics Service Report on Chemical Usage. The amount of pesticide applied was calculated using the approximate crop acreage in use during the study, the percent of individual herbicide applied and the rate applied per crop year. For example, the watershed upstream of Station EFWR04 has an estimated 89,860 corn acres in the East Fork White River Basin. That acreage is then multiplied by 84 %, or the percentage of corn acres applied with Atrazine as reported by the NASS. The result is then multiplied by the 1.33 pounds per acre applied which equals the estimated 100,390 pounds of Atrazine applied in the basin. Atrazine was the chemical of choice for the corn crops while Metolachlor was second and Acetochlor was third.

Table 4. Estimated Herbicide Usage on Corn Crops per Crop Year

Site Estimated

Drainage Area in sq./mi Estimated

Corn acres Estimated

Pounds of Atrazine applied Estimated

Pounds of Acetochlor applied Estimated

Pounds of Metolachlor applied Estimated

Total Pounds of Metolachlor applied to beans and corn crops WWR01 129 32,610 36,430 13,700 31,030 33,000
WWR02 1156 313,260 349,970 131,570 298,100 317,010
WWR03 530 164,070 183,300 68,910 156,130 166,040
EFWR04 282 89,860 100,390 37,740 85,510 90,930
EFWR05 430 133,790 149,470 56,190 127,320 135,400
EFWR06 460 141,110 157,650 59,270 134,280 142,800
EFWR07 516 164,740 184,050 69,190 156,770 166,720
EFWR08 1675 502,200 561,060 210,920 477,890 508,210
EFWR09 100 32,280 36,060 13,560 30,720 32,670
EFWR10 90 23,300 26,030 9,790 22,170 23,580
EFWR11 287 67,560 75,480 28,380 64,290 68,370
EFWR12 430 16,970 18,960 7,130 16,150 17,180
EFWR13 4918 1,127,860 1,260,050 473,700 1,073,270 1,141,360
WFWR14 4707 1,122,530 1,254,090 471,460 1,068,200 1,135,970

### IDEM/OWM/AB October 1998 IDEM 032/02/011/1998



### 17 

## Estimated Herbicide Usage on Soybean Crops The estimated herbicide usage on bean crops is shown in Table 5. Soybeans require the use of different pesticides. According to the data, Glyphosate was the most desirable of the four preferred herbicides. Pendimethalin was the second most commonly used herbicide, followed by Metolachlor and 2,4-D.

Table 5. Estimated Herbicide Usage on Soybean Crops per Crop Year
Site Estimated

Drainage Area in sq./mi Estimated

Bean acres Estimated

Pounds of Glyphosate applied Estimated

Pounds ofPendimethalin applied Estimated

Pounds of Metolachlor applied Estimated

Pounds of 2,4-D applied

WWR01 129 30,110 12,840 10,530 1,970 3,790
WWR02 1156 289,170 123,270 101,150 18,910 36,440
WWR03 530 151,450 64,560 52,980 9,910 19,080
EFWR04 282 82,940 35,360 29,010 5,420 10,450
EFWR05 430 123,490 52,640 43,200 8,080 15,560
EFWR06 460 130,250 55,530 45,560 8,520 16,410
EFWR07 516 152,060 64,820 53,190 9,950 19,160
EFWR08 1675 463,570 197,620 162,160 30,320 58,410
EFWR09 100 29,800 12,700 10,420 1,950 3,760
EFWR10 90 21,500 9,170 7,520 1,410 2,710
EFWR11 287 62,360 26,580 21,810 4,080 7,860
EFWR12 430 15,670 6,680 5,480 1,030 1,970
EFWR13 4918 1,041,100 443,820 364,180 68,090 131,180
WFWR14 4707 1,036,190 441,730 362,460 67,770 130,560

### IDEM/OWM/AB October 1998 IDEM 032/02/011/1998



### 18 

# Maps Showing the Sampling Watersheds Maps showing the individual watersheds sampled and the sampling locations are found in Appendixes A, B and C. The maps also identify streams and land usage. Crop information from these maps was used to create Table 4 and Table 5.



# Results and Observations General Assumptions This pesticides monitoring report is based on several assumptions: 1. There was a week between sampling events so all conclusions are based on this sampling frequency; 2. Land use coverages are based on 1990 photo revised 1978 census data ( Land Use/Land Cover; Hill, 1994 and Mitchell and others,1977, USGS Fact Sheet 119-96) 3. Loading calculations were made assuming concentrations and flow rates remained constant throughout the day.


## Discussion The Pesticides Study Report concentrates primarily on Atrazine, Acetochlor, and Metolachlor, which were the three most used agricultural pesticides in Indiana. Further study on pesticides used in urban as well as agricultural settings needs to be conducted. There were several other pesticides found regularly during the high flow periods such as Alachlor, Cyanazine, and Pendimethalin. Although these chemicals are important to mention, they were not found at the same concentrations as Atrazine, Acetochlor and Metolachlor. For more information on the pesticides found in this project refer to Appendices E and F.
The main objective of this project was to identify selected pesticides, establish their respective concentrations, and calculate loadings in surface waters of three river basins. Most agricultural chemical manufacturers suggest that about 1% of all chemicals applied end up in the surface water through runoff. Findings of this study support that assertion. In fact, 13 of the 14 sampling sites showed that loadings exceeded one percent for Atrazine (see Table 7). Table 8 shows that 9 out of 14 sites exceeded 1% for Metolachlor. In Table 9, Acetochlor exceeded 1% at 10 of the 14 sites. To calculate loadings, flow data were obtained at USGS gaging stations giving instantaneous flow velocity readings when grab samples were collected. These flow rates were converted from cubic feet/second(CFS) to million gallons/day (MGD). Loadings were then calculated by multiplying the flow rate by the concentration of pesticide by a conversion factor ( the weight of one gallon of water). To see loading calculations for each site please refer to Appendix H.

### IDEM/OWM/AB October 1998 IDEM 032/02/011/1998



### 19 Site WW RP01 Load vs. May Sampling Dates Example of Trapazoid Rule

Sample DateLoad (pounds per day)

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5

05/05/1997 05/12/1997 05/19/1997 05/27/1997

Trapezoid 1 Trapezoid 2 Trapezoid 3 In this example, the sum of the three trapezoids approximates the total pounds of Atrazine runoff from May 5th to May 27th. 

### Figure 4 To estimate the total load contributed by runoff took further mathematical manipulation. The true shape of the function describing the load per unit time is not known. Instead, the function available consists of discrete points spaced roughly one week apart, with one load observation about three months following the last summer observation. As a result, it is not possible to integrate the function to find the total mass of any particular chemical which ran off into the stream. In cases like this, other methods are available to approximate the integral. One of these methods is known as the Trapezoid Rule. This method calculates the area under the load function by creating n-1 trapezoids for nobservations where the area if each trapezoid is ( 1 1 

### + l 2 

### ) /2 * w
. The lengths of the legs of the trapezoids are the magnitude of the successive load observations, and the widths of the trapezoids are the intervals of time. By summing all of the trapezoids, the total pounds of chemical contributed by runoff into the stream or river can be approximated for each sampling station.

After calculating the estimated total pounds of runoff from the fields, the percent runoff was calculated by dividing the total loading pounds by the estimated pounds of Atrazine, Metolachlor and Acetochlor applied. For example, in Table 7- Site 4, the 11,044.04 total loading pounds were divided by the 100,390 estimated pounds of Atrazine applied from Table 4, and this equals

### IDEM/OWM/AB October 1998 IDEM 032/02/011/1998



### 20 11.0 % runoff. The runoff percentage calculated in Tables 7, 8, and 9 are based on the estimated pounds applied to crops from Tables 4 and 5. Central, East Central, Southeast, South Central and Southwest regions of Indiana experienced large amounts of rain during the three-week period of May 26- June 14

. 

### Table 6 shows rainfall data in the study area for this period (State of Indiana Climatologist).
Table 6. Rainfall Data for Each Sampling Site Pesticide related site City County Total rain fall for week of 5/26/97 Total rain fall

for week of 6/2/97 Total rain fall

for week of 6/9/97
WWR01 Richmond Wayne 1.43 inches 3.54 inches 0.95 inches Liberty Union 1.97 inches 3.44 inches 1.44 inches
WWR02 Brookville Franklin 1.78 inches 3.55 inches 2.09 inches
WWR03 Cambridge City Wayne 1.1 inches 3.57 inches 0.79 inches Alpine Fayette 1.69 inches 1.86 inches 1.12 inches
EFWR04 Rushville Rush 1.28 inches 4.06 inches 0.91 inches
EFWR05 Shelbyville Shelby 1.6 inches NA NA EFWR06, 07,08 Columbus Bartholomew 1.15 inches 5.18 inches 1.17 inches
EFWR09 Greensburg Decatur 2.15 inches 3.86 inches 1.28 inches
EFWR10 Butlerville Jennings 1.74 inches 2.24 inches Est. 0.75 inches
EFWR11 Deputy Jefferson 3.45 inches 2.92 inches 0.96 inches
EFWR12 Bedford Lawrence 2.15 inches 3.68 inches 1.96 inches
EFWR13 Shoals Martin 2.05 inches 5.02 inches 1.34 inches
WFWR14 Doans Greene 1.03 inches 2.13 inches 3.48 inches

### IDEM/OWM/AB October 1998 IDEM 032/02/011/1998



### 21 Tables 7, 8,and 9, as well as Figures 5 through 18 show there is a direct correlation between Atrazine, Metolachlor and Acetochlor runoff loads and concentrations, and the heavy precipitation periods that occurred at the end of May and continued through the first two weeks of June. At most of the sampling sites, approximately 90% of targeted herbicide runoff occurred during a four-week span from the last week in May to the third week in June. It appears that the chemical runoff from crop land this year exceeded 1% at most sites during heavy rain periods in the East Fork White River and the Whitewater River Basins. Collectively, the Big Blue River (EFWR05), Sugar Creek (EFWR06) and Flatrock River (EFWR07) contributed approximately 80% of the Atrazine load entering the East Fork White River at Columbus. These three sites represent 84% of the upstream drainage area for the East Fork White River at Columbus. Table 7 shows that the estimated total runoff for Atrazine in these three rivers EFWR05, EFWR06, and EFWR07 was 7.67%, 8.98%, and 9.25% respectively. In Table 9, these three watersheds EFWR05, EFWR06, and EFWR07 had approximately 6.49%, 4.61%, and 6.19% of Acetochlor runoff respectively during the study. Table 8 indicates that Metolachlor, though it was the second most used herbicide, but showed a decreased concentration in the surface water of these three watersheds. It was found that the EFWR05, EFWR06, and EFWR07 had 1.26%, 5.58%, and 2.25% run off percentages respectively for the three watersheds. This is probably due to its ability to degrade or to be taken up by plants. Further up in the Flatrock River watershed at EFWR04 near St. Paul, the highest runoff percentages were recorded for both Atrazine and Acetochlor at 11% and 6.59% respectively. The Flatrock River was the most crop producing watershed tested in 1997. The lower region of the East Fork White River below Columbus contained five sampling sites. These included Clifty Creek (EFWR09), Vernon Fork Muscatatuck River (EFWR10), Muscatatuck River (EFWR11), Salt Creek (EFWR12), and East Fork White River (EFWR13). These sampling locations were in heavily forested areas where agricultural activities were not practiced as intensively as in the upper region. Sites EFWR09,10,11, and 12 represent 18% of the upstream drainage area for the East Fork White River at Shoals. Tables 4 and 5 show the amounts of the targeted herbicides used in these watersheds. The total estimated pounds of targeted herbicides applied to these lower region watersheds was about 12% of the total amount applied to the entire East Fork White River Basin. Also, by comparison, the Flatrock River (EWR07), which represents 31% of the drainage area above Columbus, alone contributed approximately 14.6% of the total amount of herbicides applied to the entire East Fork White River Basin, see Tables 4 & 5. This was 2.2% more than the combined contributions of Stations EFWR 09, 10, 11 and 12 in the lower region of the East Fork White River. Furthermore, Tables 7, 8, and 9 show that at Shoals, Indiana (EFWR13), the estimated runoff for the total amount of herbicides applied was calculated at 6.75% for Atrazine and 2.72% for Acetochlor and 2.92% for Metolachlor. Most of EFWR13 herbicide contributions

### IDEM/OWM/AB October 1998 IDEM 032/02/011/1998



### 22 Table 7. Loadings in Pounds of Atrazine for the Fourteen Sites Sampled Sample Date WWR0 1 WWR02 WWR03 EFWR4 EFWR5 EFWR6 EFWR7 EFWR8 EFWR9 EFWR10 EFWR11 EFWR12 EFWR13 WFWR14
05/07/97 6.74 148.57 105 63.53 54.93 17.71 57.23 162.27 3.73 0.68 0.7 0 411.74 43.17
05/12/97 1.59 3.24 3.06 1.33 2.2 1.08 0.95 4.99 0.37 0.43 0.23 0 42.7 34.8
05/19/97 1.11 1.18 1.33 0.76 0.9 0.51 0.31 2.51 0.16 0.09 0.17 0 12.72 10.61
05/27/97 * 3.66 38.37 13.9 16.71 32.17 49.61 19.99 93.09 7.02 8.67 48.9 1.13 1108.66 159.17
06/02/97 * 204.86 3801.8 1316.58 1460.8 1611.64 2132.95 2325.51 7403.71 48.52 17.24 33.11 0.11 9020.26 1600.58
06/09/97 * 9.22 489.43 64.6 149.98 56.53 102 201.2 398.7 26.08 12.61 41.13 0.11 1426.43 482.79
06/16/97 2.1 10.48 13.16 2.82 8.69 8.05 5.9 20.74 0.77 5.59 112.15 1.03 203.03 449.14
06/23/97 2.35 107.66 49.19 6.68 6.58 10.38 9.73 27.18 1.28 6.29 5.62 0.22 621.72 151.66
06/30/97 0.6 6.57 6.09 1.8 2.85 3.34 3.02 8.9 0.39 0.47 0.78 3.86 54.85 133.92
07/07/97 0.49 3.86 4.53 0.93 1.06 0.79 1.33 3.89 0.21 0.09 0.34 5.4 25.9 22.77
07/14/97 1.21 4.12 3.86 0.59 1.01 0.67 0.75 2.66 0.08 0.06 0.29 0.38 11.71 11.24
07/21/97 0.22 1.57 2.12 0.12 0.35 0.35 0.26 1.21 0.04 0.05 0.44 0.11 11.45 7.61
07/28/97 0.19 1.77 1.98 0.24 1.56 2.91 0.25 2.7 0.06 0.03 0.2 1.94 15.02 5.38
08/04/97 0.07 1.37 1.49 0.06 0.2 0.33 0.12 0.91 0.02 0.03 0.14 0.24 5.2 4.62
08/11/97 0.06 1.07 0.04 1.03 0.11 0.14 0.07 0.35 0.02 0.03 0.13 0.22 4.08 3.51
11/12/97 0.1 7.61 0.52 0.01 0 0.13 0.02 0.24 0.01 0.01 0.06 0.24 0.99 1.54
Sum of 16 234.57 4622.98 1587.45 1707.39 1780.78 2330.95 2626.64 8134.05 88.76 52.37 244.39 14.99 12985.8 3122.53 Total pounds** 1523.05 30326.99 10109.29 11044.04 11472.57 14159.21 17027.33 52694.04 585.325 357.3 1699.675 121.485 85089.14 21114.23 estimated runoff 4.18% 8.66% 5.51% 11.0% 7.67% 8.98% 9.25% 9.39% 1.62% 1.37% 2.25% 0.64% 6.75% 1.68% 

### * Indicates the weeks with the highest amount of rain fall. ** Calculated by the Trapezoid intergration method.

### IDEM/OWM/AB October 1998 IDEM 032/02/011/1998



### 23 Table 8. Loadings in Pounds of Metolachlor for the Fourteen Sites Sampled. Sample Date WWR0 1 WWR02 WWR03 EFWR4 EFWR5 EFWR6 EFWR7 EFWR8 EFWR9 EFWR10 EFWR11 EFWR12 EFWR13 WFWR14
05/07/97 2.84 36.75 26.25 3.88 3.14 5.45 4.29 16.23 0.45 0.11 0.47 0 177.8 21.59
05/12/97 0.35 0.72 0.68 0 0.2 0.46 0.11 1.11 0.06 0.04 0.11 0 16.01 11.6 05/19/97 0.19 0.24 0.27 0 0 0.31 0 0.42 0.02 0.01 0.06 0 4.24 3.98 05/27/97 * 2.51 10.78 2.11 2.78 5.82 38.16 6 35.42 1.18 1.93 17.46 0.49 218.16 67.44
06/02/97 * 102.42 1229.99 456.1 199.2 241.75 1196.54 507.94 2187.46 14.76 4.69 11.55 0 3975.03 791.87
06/09/97 * 4.72 155.18 12.42 40.83 8.45 56.95 53.17 138.01 8.22 3.92 13.09 0 407.55 200.18
06/16/97 1.78 2.76 2.92 0.42 1.05 3.45 1.12 4.79 0.16 2.43 33.17 0 64.38 224.57
06/23/97 1.27 30.15 11.84 1.19 0.53 6.03 2.16 11.5 0.34 2 1.36 0 231.15 86.17
06/30/97 0.3 1.31 1.83 0.26 0.71 1.41 0.5 2.37 0.08 0.16 0.18 0.97 18.28 92.53
07/07/97 0.2 0.96 1.13 0.06 0.13 0.3 0.12 0.78 0.02 0.03 0.06 1.08 7.77 10.12
07/14/97 0.14 0.95 1.1 0.05 0.13 0.25 0.08 0.67 0 0.01 0.03 0.11 2.93 4.09
07/21/97 1.29 0.39 0.42 0 0 0.14 0 0.24 0 0.01 0.04 0.05 2.54 2.54
07/28/97 0.19 0.35 0 0 0.67 1.94 0.05 0.9 0.01 0.01 0.05 0.49 6.26 1.96
08/04/97 0.08 0.3 0 0 0 0.11 0 0.18 0 0.01 0.04 0.05 1.49 1.15
08/11/97 3.46 0.3 0 0 0 0.05 0 0 0 0.01 0.02 0.05 1.16 1
11/12/97 0 1.78 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sum of 16 samples 121.74 1472.91 517.07 248.67 262.58 1311.55 575.54 2400.08 25.3 15.37 77.69 3.29 5134.75 1520.78 Total pounds** 939.905 9650.08 3299.7 1627.51 1706.195 7976.155 3759.795 15650.24 168.155 105.29 537.29 24.395 33380.46 10216.27
Estimated Runoff 2.88 % 3.04 % 1.98 % 1.78 % 1.26 % 5.58 % 2.25 % 3.07 % 0.51 % 0.04 % 0.78 % 0.14 % 2.92 % 0.89 % 

### * indicates the weeks with the highest amount of rain fall ** Calculated by the Trapezoid intergration method.

### IDEM/OWM/AB October 1998 IDEM 032/02/011/1998



### 24 Table 9. Loadings in Pounds of Acetochlor for the Fourteen Sites Sampled. Sample Date WWR01 WWR02 WWR03 EFWR4 EFWR5 EFWR6 EFWR7 EFWR8 EFWR9 EFWR10 EFWR11 EFWR12 EFWR13 WFWR14
05/07/97 0.89 24.24 19.69 11.65 13.34 1.7 12.59 43.69 1.64 0.14 0 0 131.01 14.39
05/12/97 0.35 0.72 0.34 0.3 0.6 0 0 1.11 0.06 0.04 0 0 10.67 5.8
05/19/97 0.37 0 0 0.11 0.15 0 0 0.42 0.02 0.01 0 0 2.12 0
05/27/97 * 0.8 11.39 2.53 7.89 10.95 1.53 5.45 26.31 1.8 2.36 6.29 0.32 139.48 24.28
06/02/97 * 39.95 570.27 178.68 332 523.78 437 599.74 1850.93 13.14 2 3.46 0 1528.86 160.06
06/09/97 * 1.29 71.62 6.21 31.66 13.64 11.05 41.68 73.61 6.02 1.19 2.62 0 142.64 41.21
06/16/97 0.16 1.1 0.73 0.28 1.32 0.46 0.56 2.39 0.08 0.12 4.74 0 19.81 51.82
06/23/97 0.2 14 3.64 0.48 1.05 0.67 0.72 2.09 0.1 0.11 0.19 0.11 39.85 10.34
06/30/97 0 0.88 0 0.13 0.18 0.18 0.25 0 0 0.01 0 0.97 3.05 7.3
07/07/97 0 0.32 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.08 2.59 0
07/14/97 0.23 0.32 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.05 0 0
07/21/97 0.06 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0
07/28/97 0 0.18 0 0 0.22 0.78 0 0 0 0 0 0.49 0 0
08/04/97 0.01 0.3 0 0 0 0.11 0 0.18 0 0.01 0.04 0.05 1.49 1.15
08/11/97 0.03 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.05 0 0
11/12/97 0 0.75 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sum of 16 samples 44.34 695.33 211.82 384.5 565.23 453.48 660.99 2000.73 22.86 5.99 17.47 3.12 2021.57 316.35 Total pounds** 289.54 4522.31 1324.485 2484.78 3648.105 2736.065 4282.995 12926.94 147.72 40.445 120.56 23.4 12929.09 2084.055
Estimated Runoff 2.11% 3.43% 1.92% 6.58% 6.49% 4.61% 6.19% 6.12% 1.08% 0.41% 0.42% 0.32% 2.72% 0.44% 

### * indicates the weeks with the highest amount of rain fall ** Calculated by the Trapezoid intergration method.

### IDEM/OWM/AB October 1998 IDEM 032/02/011/1998



### 25 come from upstream of EFWR09, 10, 11, and 12, and are based on calculations in Tables 7, 8, and 9. The Whitewater River is the most swift river in the state due to its topography (Simon 1985). From Table 7 the Whitewater River at Brookville (WWR02) shows a 8.66 % runoff for Atrazine, and Table 8 and 9 show estimated runoff percentages for Acetochlor and Metolachlor reached 3.43 % and 3.05% respectively. Sites WWR01 and WWR03 did not reveal the same loadings, but did show the same trends for the three herbicides that WWR02 showed. Site WWR03 contributed approximately 30% of the entire load seen at WWR02 and WWR01 contributed less than 10%. It is important to note that pesticide concentrations are detectable in surface water at low flow conditions, essentially from late June through August. However, the amount of pesticides in the surface water were well below the MCLs of all the pesticides listed in Table 3(Acetochlor, Alachlor, Atrazine). Refer to Figures 5 through 18 for a graphical representation of Atrazine, Acetochlor, and Metolachlor at each of the 14 sampling sites. The loadings and concentrations at each site are directly proportional, providing the flow remains constant.

### IDEM/OWM/AB October 1998 IDEM 032/02/011/1998



### 26 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35Conc. in ug/L

05/06 05/13 05/20 05/27 06/03 06/10 06/17 06/24 07/01 07/08 07/15 07/22 07/29 08/05 08/12 

### Date
Acetochlor Atrazine Metolachlor 

# Pesticide Concentrations at WWR02 Figure 6 0

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40Conc. in ug/L

05/06 05/13 05/20 05/27 06/03 06/10 06/17 06/24 07/01 07/08 07/15 07/22 07/29 08/05 08/12 

### Date Acetochlor Atrazine Metolachlor 

# Pesticide Concentrations at WWR01 Figure 5

### IDEM/OWM/AB October 1998 IDEM 032/02/011/1998



### 27 0 5 10 15 20 25 30Conc. in ug/L

05/06 05/13 05/20 05/27 06/03 06/10 06/17 06/24 07/01 07/08 07/15 07/22 07/29 08/05 08/12 

### Date
Acetochlor Atrazine Metolachlor 

# Pesticide Concentrations at WWR03 Figure 7

0 10 20 30 40 50Conc. in ug/L

05/06 05/13 05/20 05/27 06/03 06/10 06/17 06/24 07/01 07/08 07/15 07/22 07/29 08/05 08/12 

### Date Acetochlor Atrazine Metolachlor 

# Pesticide Concentrations at EFWR04 Figure 8

### IDEM/OWM/AB October 1998 IDEM 032/02/011/1998



### 28 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45Concentration in ug/L

05/05 05/12 05/19 05/26 06/02 06/09 06/16 06/23 06/30 07/07 07/14 07/21 07/28 08/04 08/11 

### Date
Acetochlor Atrazine Metolachlor 

# Pesticide Concentrations at EFWR05 Figure 9

0

10 20 30 40 50Conc. in ug/L

05/05 05/12 05/19 05/26 06/02 06/09 06/16 06/23 06/30 07/07 07/14 07/21 07/28 08/04 08/11 

### Date

Acetochlor Atrazine Metolachlor 

# Pesticide Concentrations at EFWR06 Figure 10

### IDEM/OWM/AB October 1998 IDEM 032/02/011/1998



### 29 0 10 20 30 40Conc. in ug/L

05/06 05/13 05/20 05/27 06/03 06/10 06/17 06/24 07/01 07/08 07/15 07/22 07/29 08/05 08/12 

### Date

Acetochlor Atrazine Metolachlor 

# Pesticide Concentrations at EFWR07 Figure 11

0 10 20 30 40 50Conc. in ug/L

05/06 05/13 05/20 05/27 06/03 06/10 06/17 06/24 07/01 07/08 07/15 07/22 07/29 08/05 08/12 

### Date

Acetochlor Atrazine Metolachlor 

# Pesticide Concentrations at EFWR08 Figure 12

### IDEM/OWM/AB October 1998 IDEM 032/02/011/1998



### 30 0 5 10 15 20 25Conc. in ug/L

05/06 05/13 05/20 05/27 06/03 06/10 06/17 06/24 07/01 07/08 07/15 07/22 07/29 08/05 08/12 

### Date Acetochlor Atrazine Metolachlor 

# Pesticide Concentrations at EFWR09 Figure 13

0 10 20 30 40 50Conc. in ug/L

05/06 05/13 05/20 05/27 06/03 06/10 06/17 06/24 07/01 07/08 07/15 07/22 07/29 08/05 08/12 

### Date

Acetochlor Atrazine Metolachlor 

# Pesticide Concentrations at EFWR10 Figure 14

### IDEM/OWM/AB October 1998 IDEM 032/02/011/1998



### 31 0 5 10 15 20 25Conc. in ug/L

05/06 05/13 05/20 05/27 06/03 06/10 06/17 06/24 07/01 07/08 07/15 07/22 07/29 08/05 08/12 

### Date

Acetochlor Atrazine Metolachlor 

# Pesticide Concentrations at EFWR11 Figure 15

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1Conc. in ug/L

05/06 05/13 05/20 05/27 06/03 06/10 06/17 06/24 07/01 07/08 07/15 07/22 07/29 08/05 08/12 

### Date

Acetochlor Atrazine Metolachlor 

# Pesticide Concentrations at EFWR12 Figure 16

### IDEM/OWM/AB October 1998 IDEM 032/02/011/1998



### 32 0 10 20 30 40 50 60Conc. in ug/L

05/06 05/13 05/20 05/27 06/03 06/10 06/17 06/24 07/01 07/08 07/15 07/22 07/29 08/05 08/12 

### Date
Acetochlor Atrazine Metolachlor 

# Pesticide Concentrations at EFWR13 Figure 17

0 5 10 15 20Conc. in ug/L

05/06 05/13 05/20 05/27 06/03 06/10 06/17 06/24 07/01 07/08 07/15 07/22 07/29 08/05 08/12 

### Date
Acetochlor Atrazine Metolachlor 

# Pesticide Concentrations at WFWR14 Figure 18

### IDEM/OWM/AB October 1998 IDEM 032/02/011/1998



### 33 

## Trend Analysis By evaluating the pesticides data, as displayed in the previous graphs(figures 5 through 18), recognizable trends begin to develop. For example, in the Whitewater River Basin, graphs in Figures 5 through 7 show an interesting example of upstream influences. Figures 6 and 7 are virtually identical except the peak concentration in Figure 6 is a little higher than Figure 7. Site WWR03 is upstream of WWR02. Site WWR01 is also upstream WWR02, but this site is downstream of a major urban area, the city of Richmond. Although WWR01 is in an agricultural area downstream of Richmond, it does not receive the same amount of load as site WWR03. Refer to Figure 1 to see this geographically. A second reason site WWR02 does not receive a big contribution from WWR01 is because Brookville Reservoir buffers out the impacting load. This phenomenon was also seen at Monroe Reservoir (EFWR12). Other trends observed from Figures 8 through 13 were in the East Fork White River Basin. These graphs follow the same pattern as demonstrated in the Whitewater River Basin. These sites (EFWR04 through EFWR09) are geographically close to one another, and they also have very similar agricultural land use practices. Sites EFWR10 and 11 shown in Figures 14 and 15 are further south than sites EFWR 04 - 09. Refer to Figure 2 for geographical locations. Sites EFWR10 and 11 consequently had different rain patterns associated with them. Table 6 shows this to some degree, but there are other variables to consider that could attribute to this pattern such as land use, and conservation practices. These two sites are also in heavily forested areas. It was interesting to note the increasing concentrations of pesticides released from Monroe Reservoir, site EFWR12, Figure 16. Aside from the large rain event that occurred in the basin in early June, the concentrations started to rise throughout the summer. The last sample taken in November, to establish a baseline, showed a concentration of Atrazine of 0.9 ug/L. This matched the highest concentration which was found on August 5 . The retention time of Monroe Reservoir becomes evident. Figure 17, site EFWR13 at Shoals, was the southern most site sampled in the East Fork White River, and showed graphically the same trends as sites EFWR 4 through 9. Although EFWR13 is located geographically in a predominately forested region of the basin, it reflected the contributions of all the sites upstream. Site WFWR14 at Newberry, Figure 18, was thought to be comparable to EFWR13 because their drainage areas are similar in size, and their locations were close together. Additionally, the amounts of pesticides applied in each basin were about the same. The West Fork White River received less rain in its entire basin compared with the East Fork White River basin. Therefore, measured concentrations were much lower. However, several other reasons, such as differing soil types, land use, tilling practices and topography could explain lower detected pesticide concentrations at WFWR14. Nevertheless, the major factor that affects the quantity of pesticides in the surface water is rainfall received and the amount of pesticides applied.

### IDEM/OWM/AB October 1998 IDEM 032/02/011/1998



### 34 

## Drinking Water Concerns Table 10 contains a list of ten (10) Public Water Supply Facilities that have their drinking water intake points in the White River and Whitewater River Basins. Due to the exceedences of MCL’s for Atrazine and Acetochlor in the surface water, especially for the months of April thru July, human exposure to these pesticides by whole body contact and possibly in finished or unfinished drinking water is of great concern. Based on animal toxicity studies, it is safe toconclude that exposure to these pesticides over a long period of time can cause cancer or noncancer health effects in humans. IDEM’s Office of Drinking Water has recently started a “Source Water Protection Program” for human health and safety. It is proposed that to comply with the IDEM’s Source Water Protection Program, concerned Public Water Supplies in these two River Basins take appropriate measures to reduce human exposure to these pesticides in drinking water. Table 10. Public Water Supply Facilities using surface water from the White River and Whitewater River Basins Facility Name City Intake location Public Water Supply ID Greensburg Municipal Water Greensburg Flatrock River 5216002

Indiana American Water Seymour East Fork White River 5236005
Muscatatuck State Developmental Butlerville/ North Vernon Vernon Fork Muscatatuck River 5240007

North Vernon Water Department North Vernon Muscatatuck River 5240008

Bedford City Utilities Bedford East Fork White River 5247001
Mitchell Water Department Mitchell East Fork White River 5247003

Bloomington Utilities Bloomington Monroe Reservoir 5253002
Salt Creek Service Inc. Bloomington/ Nashville Monroe Reservoir 5253006
Stucker Fork Water Utility Stucker Fork Muscatatuck River 5272002

Indiana American Water Richmond Middle Fork & East Fork Whitewater River, 5289012

### IDEM/OWM/AB October 1998 IDEM 032/02/011/1998



### 35 

# Conclusions
In order to evaluate the data collected in this study, the Drinking Water Quality Standards were used because there are no pesticide water quality criteria for surface waters. On average, surface waters in the Whitewater River and White River have elevated levels of Atrazine above the MCL of 3ug/L for two months out of the year. The average concentration of Atrazine for this study was above the MCL of 3ug/L at twelve of the fourteen sites. As for Acetochlor, it was shown that during at least one month of the year the MCL of 2 ug/L was exceeded in the East Fork White River. However, the average concentration of Acetochlor did not exceed the MCL of 2 ug/L. Metolachlor does not have a MCL, but it exceeded an average concentration of 3 ug/L in June at nine of the fourteen sites. Statistical data are reported in Appendix G. Of the entire pesticide load based on the dates sampled and data collected in the White River Basin, the East Fork White River contributed approximately 75% of the pesticide load, and the West Fork White River contributed about 25%. Also, the Big Blue River (EFWR05), Sugar Creek (EFWR06), and the Flatrock River (EFWR07) each contributed 21.7%, 26.8% and 32.3% respectively of the Atrazine loadings in the East Fork White River (EWR08) at Columbus. However, for Metolachlor, the EFWR06 contributed approximately 51% of the load observed at EFWR08 at Columbus, while the EFWR07 and EFWR05 contributed approximately 24% and 11% respectively. As for Acetochlor, the EFWR05, EFWR06, and EFWR07 contributed 28.2%, 21.1%, and 33.1 % respectively to the EFWR08. The Whitewater River (WWR02) contributed 30,327 pounds of Atrazine, 9,656 pounds of Metolachlor and 4,522 pounds of Acetochlor to the Great Miami River. Site WWR03 contributed approximately 30% of the entire load seen at WWR02 and WWR01 contributed less than 10%. Findings of the study indicate that the estimated percent of runoff loadings for herbicides entering the surface waters of East Fork White River and Whitewater River Basins in 1997 were well above 1 percent of the estimated total chemical application. Peak runoff for Atrazine was estimated at 11%, for Metolachlor at 6% and for Acetochlor at 7%. This indicates these watersheds are impaired by agricultural herbicides from nonpoint source runoff and public water intake facilities should be concerned about these elevated levels of herbicide in the surface water. Atrazine was the most predominate pesticide found in the surface water followed by Metolachlor and Acetochlor.

### IDEM/OWM/AB October 1998 IDEM 032/02/011/1998



### 36 

# Summary
In 1997, the Surveys Section of the Assessment Branch conducted a Pesticide Monitoring Project that sampled surface water for fifteen consecutive weeks during the summer and once in late fall. Over 120 pesticides were analyzed in each sample. Benchmark pesticide data was collected during the study, and loadings associated with the Whitewater River and the White River Basins were calculated. The East Fork White River at Shoals (EFWR13) showed a estimated single day loading during the first week in June of 4.5 tons for Atrazine. A single day loading of 3.7 tons of Atrazine was calculated for the East Fork White River at Columbus (EFWR08). A loading of 1.9 tons of Atrazine was calculated in the Whitewater River at Brookville (WWR02). Atrazine was the most commonly detected herbicide in the surface waters of these river basins. Metolachlor and Acetochlor were the second and third most detected herbicides respectively. During the course of this project, these river basins experienced very heavy rains. The peak concentrations found in surface waters for Atrazine, Metolachlor, and Acetochlor were 59 ug/L, 35 ug/L, and 13 ug/L respectively. During this study, on average, surface waters in the Whitewater River and the White River Basins had elevated levels of Atrazine above the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) for Drinking Water (3 ug/L) two months out of the year. The average concentrations of the four month study for Atrazine were above the MCL of 3 ug/L at 12 of the 14 sites. As for Acetochlor, it was shown that during at least one month of the year the MCL of 2 ug/L was exceeded in the East Fork White River. Comparisons were made between the different basins, and each tributary was characterized for its contribution to the total loads entering each basin at the time of this study. Of the entire pesticide load based on the dates sampled and data collected in the White River Basin, the East Fork White River contributed approximately 75% of the pesticide load, and the West Fork White River contributed about 25%. Also, the Big Blue River (EFWR05), Sugar Creek (EFWR06), and the Flatrock River (EFWR07) each contributed 21.7%, 26.8% and 32.3% respectively of the Atrazine loadings in the East Fork White River (EWR08) at Columbus. However, for Metolachlor, the EFWR06 contributed approximately 51% of the load observed at EFWR08 at Columbus, while the EFWR07 and EFWR05 contributed approximately 24% and 11% respectively. As for Acetochlor, the EFWR05, EFWR06, and EFWR07 contributed 28.2%, 21.1%, and 33.1 % respectively to the EFWR08. The Whitewater River (WWR02) contributed 30,327 pounds of Atrazine, 9,656 pounds of Metolachlor and 4,522 pounds of Acetochlor to the Great Miami River. The West Fork Whitewater River (WWR03) contributed approximately a third of the load seen in the Whitewater River (WWR02). Findings of this study indicate that loadings of herbicides entering surface water of East Fork

### IDEM/OWM/AB October 1998 IDEM 032/02/011/1998



### 37 White River and Whitewater River Basins in 1997 were well above 1 percent of the estimated total herbicide applied. Peak runoff for Atrazine was estimated at 11%, for Metolachlor at 6% and for Acetochlor at 7%. This indicates that these watersheds are impaired by agricultural chemicals from nonpoint source runoff. This information should be very useful to drinking water intake facilities in the area, the Soil and Water Conservation offices, and Watershed Planning groups. The information gathered form this pesticides monitoring program will also be used for trend analysis and planning when IDEM returns to these basins in five years as is outlined in the Surface Water Quality Monitoring Strategy 1996-2000.

### IDEM/OWM/AB October 1998 IDEM 032/02/011/1998



### 38 

# Recommendations

1. Future pesticides monitoring is the only way to understand the effects of runoff from pesticides in surface water. Trends in pesticides use within these basins should be monitored in order to identify emerging water quality issues. Attention should be given to the new pesticides coming into the market.

2. It was very important to identify which tributaries contributed the greatest pesticides loads to individual watersheds. This information should be used for Nonpoint Source Best Management Practices. Priority should be given to federally funded Clean Water Act Section 319 grant projects within these basins to help alleviate the runoff potential.

3. Future studies of this nature should be completed in Indiana so that pesticides occurrence, concentrations and loadings can be understood for major tributaries throughout the state.

4. A study of retention time for pesticides in reservoirs and lakes should be undertaken, as should potential impact on designated uses.

### IDEM/OWM/AB October 1998 IDEM 032/02/011/1998



### 39 Literature Cited

1. Ahrens,W.H.; Herbicide Handbook Committee. Herbicide Handbook, Seventh Edition 1994, Weed Science Society of America.

2. Carter, D.S.; Crawford, C.G.; Lydy, M.J. Water-Quality Assessment of the White River Basin, Indiana: Analysis of Available Information on Pesticides , 1972-92; U.S. Geological Survey, Water-Resource Investigations Report 94-4034.

3. Crawford, C. G.; Trends in Acetochlor Concentrations in Surface Waters of the White River Basin, Indiana , 1994-96; U.S. Geological Survey, Fact Sheet 058-97

4. Crawford, C.G.; Influences of Natural and Human Factors on Pesticide Concentrations in Surface Waters of the White River Basin, Indiana , 1996; U.S. Geological Survey, Fact Sheet 119-96.

5. Fowler, K; Wilson, J; Low-Flow Characteristics of Indiana Streams , U.S. Geological Survey, Water-Resources Investigations Report 96-4128.

6. Mitchell, W.B.; Guptill, S.C.; Anderson, K.E.; Gegeas, R.C.; and Hallmam, C.S., 1977, GIRAS- a geographic information retrieval and analysis system for handling land use and land cover data : U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1059,16p.

7. NASS; Agricultural Chemical Usage 1997 Field Crops Summary , National Agricultural Statistics Service, 1998

8. ORSANCO; Herbicides in the Lower Ohio River Basin , Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission,1997.

9. Simon, T.P. 1992. Biological Criteria Development for Large Rivers with an Emphasis on an Assessment of the White River Drainage, Indiana : U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency, Region V, Water Division, Water Quality Standards, Chicago, IL, EPA 905/R92/006.

10. Simons, Richard. The Rivers of Indiana , Indiana University Press, Bloomington, 1985.

11. 1980, The Indiana Water Resource, Availability, Uses, and Needs : Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water.

12. 1988, Water resources Availability in the Whitewater River Basin , Indiana:Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water.

### IDEM/OWM/AB October 1998 IDEM 032/02/011/1998



### 40 

# Appendices

### IDEM/OWM/AB October 1998 IDEM 032/02/011/1998



### 44 

# APPENDIX A

WHITEWATER RIVER SAMPLING LOCATIONS, AND MAPS

# # S

1 2 0 2 M i l e s Ab i ng t o nSTATELINE

R ic h m o n d 

### C r o p l a n d Ar e a 6 2 , 7 2 0 A c r e s C o u n t y B o u n d a r i e s R i ve rs a n d S t re a m s W at e rs h e d D e l i n e a t i o n # S 

## L e g e n d

Fo r es t L a n d O t h e r L a n d S a m p l i n g S i t e W W R O 1

S u rv e y S ec t i o n /

S

. G r a d y I D E M / O W M /

As s e s s m e n t B r a n c h P r e p a re d By : J

. W o o d 2
- 4
- 9 8 N 

# 1

. E a s t F o r k W h i t ew at e r R i ve r

Ab i n g t o n

# #

S u rv e y S ec t i o n /

S

. G r a d y I D E M / O W M /

As s e s s m e n t B r a n c h P r e p a re d By : J

. W o o d 2
- 4
- 9 8 N



# 2

. W h i t ew a t e r R i ve r B r o o k v i l l e

C r o p l a n d Ar ea 3 0 1 , 2 1 6 Ac r es C o u n t y B o u n d a r i e s R i ve rs a n d S t re a m s W at e rs h e d D e l i n e a t i o n # S 

### S a m p l i n g S i t e W W R 0 2 

## L e g e n d

Fo r es t L a n d O t h e r L a n d

B ro ok v il l e C o n ne r s v i l l e H ag e r s to w n

R ic h m on d

2 0 2 4 6 M i l es

# #



# 3

. W h i t ew a t e r R i ve r A l p i n e

S u rv e y S e c t i o n /

S

. G r a d y I D E M / O W M /

As s e s s m e n t B r a n c h P r e p a re d By : J

. W o o d 2
- 4
- 9 8 N 

### C r o p l a n d Ar e a 3 1 5 , 5 2 0 Ac r e s C o u n ty B o u n d a r i e s R i v e rs a n d S t r e a m s W at e r s h e d D e l i n e at i o n # S 

### S a m p l i n g S i t e W W R 0 3 

# L e g e n d

F o r e s t L a n d Ot h e r L a n d

C o n ne r s v i l l e

A l pine H

age r s to w n

R ic h m o n d

2 0 2 4 M i l es

### IDEM/OWM/AB October 1998 IDEM 032/02/011/1998



### 45 

# APPENDIX B

EAST FORK WHITE RIVER SAMPLING LOCATIONS

AND MAPS

# #

4 2 0 2 4 M i l e s Rush v i l l e

St

. P a ul 

### C r o p l a n d Ar e a 1 72 , 8 0 0 A

c r e s C o u n ty B o u n d a r i e s R i v e rs a n d S t r e a m s W a t e r s h e d D e l i n e a t i o n # S 

### S a m p l i n g S i t e E F W R 0 4 

# L e g e n d

F o r e s t L a n d Ot h e r L a n d 

# 4

. F l a t r o c k R i ve r St

. P a u l

N

S u r v e y S e c t i o n/ S

. G r a d y I D E M / O W M / A s s e s s m e n t B ra n c h P r e p a r e d B y : J

. W o o d 2
- 4
- 9 8S u rv e y S e c t i o n / S

. G r a d y I D E M / O W M /

As s e s s m e n t B ra n c h P r e p a re d B y : J

. W o o d 2
- 4
- 9 8 

# # 

# 5

. B i g B l u e R i ve r

S h e l b yv i l l e

C r o p l a n d Ar e a 2 57 , 2 8 0 A

c r e s C o u n ty B o u n d a r i e s R i v e rs a n d S t r e a m s W a t e r s h e d D e l i n e a t i o n # S 

### S a m p l i n g S i t e E F W R 0 5 

# L e g e n d

F o r e s t L a n d Ot h e r L a n d

S h e lb y v i l l e N e w C a s tl e

K n i gh t s t o w n

Mo rr i s t o w n

4 0 4 M i l es NS u rv e y S e c t i o n / S

. G r a d y I D E M / O W M /

As s e s s m e n t B ra n c h P r e p a re d By : J

. W o o d 2
- 4
- 9 8



# # 

# 6

. S u g a r C r e e k E d i n b u r g h

C r o p l a n d Ar e a 2 7 1 , 3 6 0 Ac r e s C o u n ty B o u n d a r i e s R i v e rs a n d S t r e a m s W a t e r s h e d D e l i n e a t i o n # S 

### S a m p l i n g S i t e E F W R 0 6 

# L e g e n d

F o r e s t L a n d Ot h e r L a n d

E d i n b u r g h F r an k li n I nd i a n a p oli s

2 0 2 4 M i l es N

# #

7 2 0 2 4 6 M i l e s R us h v i l le

F l a t ro c k 

### C r o p l a n d Ar e a 3 1 6 , 8 0 0 A c r e s C o u n t y B o u n d a r i e s R i ve rs a n d S t re a m s W at e r s h e d De l i n e a t i o n # S 

### S a m p l i n g S i t e E F W R 0 7 

# L e g e n d

Fo r e s t L a n d O t h e r L a n d 

# 7

. F l at r o c k R i ve r C o l u m b u s

N

S u rv e y S e c t i o n /

S

. G ra d y I D E M / O W M /

As s e s s m e n t B ra n c h P r e p a re d B y : J

. W o o d 2
- 4
- 9 8

# # S u rv e y S e c t i o n / S

. G r a d y I D E M / O W M /

As s e s s m e n t B ra n c h P r e p a re d By : J

. W o o d 2
- 4
- 9 8 N 

# 8

. E a s t F o r k W h i t e R i ve r C o l u m b u s

C r o p l a n d Ar e a 9 65 , 7 6 0 A

c r e s C o u n ty B o u n d a r i e s R i v e rs a n d S t r e a m s W a t e r s h e d D e l i n e a t i o n # S 

### S a m p l i n g S i t e E F W R 0 8 

# L e g e n d

F o r e s t L a n d Ot h e r L a n d

C o l um b u s S h e lb y v i l l e G re e n f i e l d

R us h v i l le N e w C a s tl e

2 0 2 4 6 8 M i l esS u rv e y S e c t i o n /S

. G ra d y I D E M / O W M /

As s e s s m e n t B ra n c h P r e p a re d B y : J

. W o o d 2
- 4
- 9 8 N 

# # 

# 9

. C l i fty C r e e k H a rt s v i l l e

C r o p l a n d A r e a 62 , 0 8 0 Ac r e s C o u n ty B o u n d a r i e s R i v e rs a n d S t r e a m s W a t e r s h e d D e l i n e a t i o n # S 

### Sa m p l i n g S i t e E F W R 0 9 

# Le g e n d

Fo r e s t L a n d Ot h e r L a n d

H a r ts v i l le

2 0 2 4 M i l e s

# #

1 0 N

2 0 2 4 M i l e s Bu t le r v il l e 

### C r o p l a n d A r e a 44 , 8 0 0 Ac r e s C o u n ty B o u n d a r i e s R i v e rs a n d S t r e a m s W a t e r s h e d D e l i n e at i o n # S 

### S a m p l i n g S i t e E F W R 1 0 

# Le g e n d

F o r e s t L a n d Ot h e r L a n d 

# 1 0

. V e r n o n F o r k M u s c at at u c k R i ve r

B u t l e rv i l l e

S u rv e y S e c t i o n /

S

. G r a d y I D E M / O W M /

As s e s s m e n t B ra n c h P r e p a re d B y : J

. W o o d 2
- 4
- 9 8

# #

S u rv e y S e c t i o n /S

. G ra d y I D E M / O W M /

As s e s s m e n t B r a n c h P r e p a re d B y : J

. W o o d 2
- 4
- 9 8 N 

# 1 1

. M u s c at at u c k R i ve r D e p u ty

C r o p l a n d A r e a 1 2 9 , 9 2 0 Ac r e s C o u n ty B o u n d a r i e s R i v e rs a n d S t r e a m s W a t e r s h e d D e l i n e at i o n # S 

### S a m p l i n g S i t e E F W R 1 1 

# Le g e n d

F o r e s t L a n d Ot h e r L a n d

D e p ut yJeffersonProvingGround

M ad i s o n Du p o n t

2 0 2 4 6 M i l es

# #

S u rv e y S e c t i o n /

S

. G r a d y I D E M / O W M /

As s e s s m e n t B ra n c h P r e p a re d B y : J

. W o o d 2
- 4
- 9 8 N



# 1 2

. S a l t C re e k H a r r o d s b u r g

C r o p l a n d A r e a 32 , 6 4 0 Ac r e s C o u n ty B o u n d a r i e s R i ve rs a n d S t r e a m s W a t e r s h e d D e l i n e a t i o n # S 

### S a m p l i n g S i t e E F W R 1 2 

# Le g e n d

F o r e s t L a n d Ot h e r La n d

H a r ro d s bur g L

a k e M o n r o e

2 0 2 4 6 M i l e s

### 1 3 5 0 5 1 0 1 5 20 M i l e s Ru sh v il le G r een f i eld

G r eensb u r g

S e y m o ur C

ol um b u s S h el byv i ll e N e w Cas t le

Bloom i ng t on

S h oal s 

### C r o p l a n d A r e a 2 , 1 6 8 , 9 6 0 Ac r e s C o u n ty B o u n d a r i e s R i v e rs a n d S t r e a m s W a t e r s h e d D e l i n e a t i o n # S 

### Sa m p l i n g S i t e E F W R 1 3 

# Le g e n d

Fo r e s t L a n d Ot h e r L a n d 

# 1 3

. E a s t F o r k W h i t e R i ve r

S h o a l s

N S u r v e y S e c t i o n/S

. G r a d y I D E M / O W M / A s s e s s m e n t B ra n c h P r e p a r e d B y : J

. W o o d 2
- 4
- 9 8 

# # S

### IDEM/OWM/AB October 1998 IDEM 032/02/011/1998



### 46 

# APPENDIX C

WEST FORK WHITE RIVER SAMPLING LOCATION

AND MAPS

# #

S u rv e y S e c t i o n / S

. G r a d y I D E M / O W M /

As se s s m e n t B ra n c h P r e p a re d B y : J

. W o o d 2
- 4
- 9 8 5 0 5 1 0 1 5 M i l e s N 

# 1 4

. W e s t F o r k W h i t e R i ve r N e w b e r ry

C r o p l a n d Ar e a 2 , 1 5 8 , 7 2 0 Ac r e s C o u n ty B o u n d a r i e s R i ve rs a n d S t r e a m s W a t e r s h e d D e l i n e a t i o n # S 

### S a m p l i n g S i t e W FW R 

# Le g e n d

F o r e s t L a n d O t h e r L a n d

I nd i a n a p oli s Mu n c ie

A n d e r so n

N e w b e r r y B l oo m i ng t o n

### IDEM/OWM/AB October 1998 IDEM 032/02/011/1998



### 47 

# APPENDIX D

PARAMETER LIST FOR THE TESTING METHOD USED

# Appendix D Pesticide & Industrial Chemicals List

IDEM/32/02/011/1998 Page 1 of 5

Chemicals which are reviewed as part of the IDEM 1997 Pesticide Monitoring Program Page 1 of 5 

### CAS Number Compound Detection Limits - F g/L 208-96-8 Acenaphthylene 0.1 34256-82-1 Acetochlor 0.1 15972-60-8 Alachlor 0.1 309-00-2 Aldrin 0.1 834-12-8 Ametryn 0.1 101-05-3 Anilazine 0.5 120-12-7 Anthracene 0.1 3244-90-4 Aspon 0.1 1610-17-9 Atraton 0.1 1912-24-9 Atrazine 0.1 86-50-0 Azinphos-methyl 0.1 1861-40-1 Benfluralin 0.1 56-55-3 Benzo[a]anthracene 0.1 205-82-3 Benzo[b]fluoranthene 0.1 207-08-9 Benzo[k]fluoranthene 0.1 191-24-2 Benzo[g,h,i]perylene 0.1 50-32-8 Benzo[a]pyrene 0.02 319-84-6 alpha-BHC 0.1 319-85-7 beta-BHC 0.1 319-86-8 delta-BHC 0.1 58-89-9 gamma-BHC (Lindane) 0.02 35400-43-2 Bolstar 0.1 314-40-9 Bromacil 0.1 23184-66-9 Butachlor 0.1 2008-41-5 Butylate 0.1 85-68-7 Butylbenzylphthalate 1 5234-68-5 Carboxin 0.1 5103-71-9 alpha-Chlordane 0.1 5103-74-2 gamma-Chlordane 0.1 2675-77-6 Chlorneb 0.1 501-15-6 Chloronbenzilate 0.1 2051-60-7 2-Chlorobiphenyl 0.1

# Appendix D Pesticide & Industrial Chemicals List

IDEM/32/02/011/1998 Page 2 of 5

CAS Number Compound Detection Limits - F g/L

Chemicals which are reviewed as part of the IDEM 1997 Pesticide Monitoring Program Page 2 of 5 

### 5836-10-2 Chloropropylate 0.1 2921-88-2 Chlorothalonil 0.1 101-21-3 Chlorpropham 0.1 2921-88-2 Chlorpyrifos 0.1 218-01-9 Chrysene 0.1 81777-89-1 Clomazone 0.1 56-72-4 Coumaphos 0.1 21725-46-2 Cyanazine 0.1 1134-23-2 Cycloate 0.1 1861-32-1 DCPA 0.1 72-54-8 4,4'-DDD 0.1 72-55-9 4,4'-DDE 0.1 50-29-3 4,4'-DDT 0.1 8065-48-3 Demeton 0.1 NA Desethylatrazine 1 NA Desisopropylatrazine 1 53-70-3 Dibenzo[a,h]anthracene 0.1 84-72-2 Di-n-butylphthalate 1 333-41-5 Diazinon 0.1 1194-65-6 Dichlobenil 0.1 97-17-6 Dichlofenthion 0.1 99-30-9 Dichloran 0.1 16605-91-7 2,3-Dichlorobiphenyl 0.1 62-73-7 Dichlorvos 0.1 60-57-1 Dieldrin 0.1 103-23-1 Di(2-ethylhexyl)adipate 0.6 117-81-7 Di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 0.6 84-66-2 Diethylphthalate 1 60-51-5 Dimethoate 0.1 131-11-3 Dimethylphthalate 1 606-20-2 2,6-Dinitrotoluene 0.1 117-84-0 Di-n-octylphthalate 1 957-51-7 Diphenamid 0.1

# Appendix D Pesticide & Industrial Chemicals List

IDEM/32/02/011/1998 Page 3 of 5

CAS Number Compound Detection Limits - F g/L

Chemicals which are reviewed as part of the IDEM 1997 Pesticide Monitoring Program Page 3 of 5 

### 298-04-4 Disulfoton 0.1 2497-06-5 Disulfoton sulfone 0.1 994-22-9 Dyfonate 0.1 759-94-4 EPTC 0.1 959-98-8 Endosulfan I 0.1 33213-65-9 Endosulfan II 0.1 1031-07-8 Endosulfan sulfate 0.1 72-20-8 Endrin 0.01 7421-93-4 Endrin aldehyde 0.1 55283-68-6 Ethalfluralin 0.1 563-12-2 Ethion 5 13194-48-4 Ethoprop 0.1 2593-15-9 Etridiazole 0.1 52-85-7 Famphur 0.1 22224-92-6 Fenamiphos 0.1 55-38-9 Fenthion 0.1 79241-46-6 Fluazifop-butyl 0.1 33245-39-5 Fluchloralin 0.1 2164-17-2 Fluometuron 0.1 206-44-0 Fluoranthene 0.1 86-73-7 Fluorene 0.1 76-44-8 Heptachlor 0.04 1024-57-3 Heptachlor epoxide 0.02 52663-71-5 2,2',3,3',4,4',6-Heptachlorobiphenyl 0.1 118-74-1 Hexachlorobenzene 0.1 60145-22-4 2,2',4,4'5,6'-Hexaclorobiphenyl 0.1 77-47-4 Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 0.1 51235-04-2 Hexazinone 0.1 193-39-5 Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene 0.1 78-59-1 Isophorone 0.1 21609-90-5 Leptophos 0.5 113-48-4 MGK 264 0.1 136-45-8 MGK 326 0.1

# Appendix D Pesticide & Industrial Chemicals List

IDEM/32/02/011/1998 Page 4 of 5

CAS Number Compound Detection Limits - F g/L

Chemicals which are reviewed as part of the IDEM 1997 Pesticide Monitoring Program Page 4 of 5 

### 00121-75-5 Malathion 0.1 150-50-5 Merphos 0.1 72-43-5 Methoxychlor 0.1 90-12-0 1-Methylnaphthalene 0.1 91-57-6 2-Methylnaphthalene 0.1 950-35-6 Methyl paraoxon 0.1 51218-45-2 Metolachlor 0.1 21087-64-9 Metribuzin 0.1 7786-34-7 Mevinphos 0.1 2212-67-1 Molinate 0.1 91-20-3 Naphthalene 0.1 15299-99-7 Napropamide 0.1 39765-80-5 trans-Nonachlor 0.1 40186-71-8 2,2',3,3',4,5',6,6'-Octachlorobiphenyl 0.1 19666-30-9 Oxadiazon 0.1 1114-71-2 Pebulate 0.1 40487-42-1 Pendimethalin 0.1 60233-25-2 2,2',3',4,6-Pentachlorobiphenyl 0.1 87-86-5 Pentachlorophenol 0.1 52645-53-1 cis-Permethrin 0.1 52645-53-1 trans-Permethrin 0.1 85-01-8 Phenanthrene 0.1 298-02-2 Phorate 0.1 26399-36-0 Profluralin 0.1 1610-18-0 Prometon 0.1 7287-19-6 Prometryn 0.1 23950-58-5 Pronamide 0.1 1918-16-7 Propachlor 0.1 709-98-8 Propanil 0.1 139-40-2 Propazine 0.1 129-00-0 Pyrene 0.1 122-34-9 Simazine 0.07 1014-70-6 Simetryn 0.1

# Appendix D Pesticide & Industrial Chemicals List

IDEM/32/02/011/1998 Page 5 of 5

CAS Number Compound Detection Limits - F g/L

Chemicals which are reviewed as part of the IDEM 1997 Pesticide Monitoring Program Page 5 of 5 

### 22248-79-9 Stirofos 0.1 5902-51-2 Terbacil 0.1 13071-79-9 Terbufos 0.1 886-50-0 Terbutryn 0.1 2437-79-8 2,2',4,4'-Tetrachlorobiphenyl 0.1 28249-77-6 Thiobencarb 0.1 43121-43-3 Triademefon 0.1 78-48-8 Tribufos 0.1 15862-07-4 2,4,5-Trichlorobiphenyl 0.1 1582-09-8 Trifluralin 0.1 1929-77-7 Vernolate 0.1

### IDEM/OWM/AB October 1998 IDEM 032/02/011/1998



### 48 

# APPENDIX E

IDEM PESTICIDE DATA RESULTS FOR THE WHITEWATER RIVER BASIN

### IDEM/OWM/AB October 1998 IDEM 032/02/011/1998



### 49 

# APPENDIX F

IDEM PESTICIDE DATA RESULTS FOR THE EAST AND WEST FORK OF WHITE RIVER BASINS

### IDEM/OWM/AB October 1998 IDEM 032/02/011/1998



### 50 

# APPENDIX G

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF EACH SAMPLING SITESite: WWR01, East Fork of Whitewater River @ Abington

MAY TO NOVEMBER Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three) Std.Err. Std.Err. Standard Confid. Confid. Kurtosis Kurtosis Skewness Skewness Error Std.Dev. Variance Range Maximum Minimum Sum 95.00% -95.000% Mean Valid N 1.090774 13.55765 0.564308 3.564995 0.233134 0.932537 0.869625 3.9 3.9 0 8.3 1.015664 0.021836 0.51875 16 Acetochlor 1.090774 13.36805 0.564308 3.538593 1.178806 4.715224 22.23333 19.8 20 0.2 47.2 5.462565 0.437435 2.95 16 Atrazine 1.090774 12.63812 0.564308 3.462063 2.169694 8.678777 75.32117 35 35 0 63.4 8.587094 -0.662094 3.9625 16 Metolachlor
MAY Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three) Std.Err. Std.Err. Standard Confid. Confid. Kurtosis Kurtosis Skewness Skewness Error Std.Dev. Variance Range Maximum Minimum Sum 95.00% -95.000% Mean Valid N 2.618615 -1.2 1.014185 -2.6E-15 0.06455 0.129099 0.016667 0.3 0.7 0.4 2.2 0.755426 0.344574 0.55 4 Acetochlor 2.618615 -4.318391 1.014185 0.295594 0.5058 1.011599 1.023333 2 3.8 1.8 10.6 4.25968 1.04032 2.65 4 Atrazine 2.618615 -3.974123 1.014185 0.338634 0.464354 0.928709 0.8625 1.9 2.2 0.3 4.5 2.602783 -0.352783 1.125 4 Metolachlor
JUNE Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three) Std.Err. Std.Err. Standard Confid. Confid. Kurtosis Kurtosis Skewness Skewness Error Std.Dev. Variance Range Maximum Minimum Sum 95.00% -95.000% Mean Valid N 2 4.64167 0.912871 2.141279 0.736478 1.646815 2.712 3.9 3.9 0 4.9 3.024791 -1.064791 0.98 5 Acetochlor 2 4.560924 0.912871 2.114568 3.524145 7.880228 62.098 19 20 1 30.3 15.8446 -3.724596 6.06 5 Atrazine 2 4.361398 0.912871 2.043751 1.719477 3.844867 14.783 9.5 10 0.5 16.2 8.014033 -1.534033 3.24 5 Metolachlor
JULY Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three) Std.Err. Std.Err. Standard Confid. Confid. Kurtosis Kurtosis Skewness Skewness Error Std.Dev. Variance Range Maximum Minimum Sum 95.00% -95.000% Mean Valid N 2.618615 2.707234 1.014185 1.441121 0.471699 0.943398 0.89 2.2 2.6 0.4 5 2.751157 -0.251157 1.25 4 Atrazine 2.618615 -2.944444 1.014185 0.544331 0.122474 0.244949 0.06 0.5 0.5 0 0.8 0.589768 -0.189768 0.2 4 Acetochlor 2.618615 3.994467 1.014185 1.998313 1.408531 2.817061 7.935833 5.7 6 0.3 7.1 6.257573 -2.707573 1.775 4 Metolachlor
AUGUST Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three) Std.Err. Std.Err. Standard Confid. Confid. Kurtosis Kurtosis Skewness Skewness Error Std.Dev. Variance Range Maximum Minimum Sum 95.00% -95.000% Mean Valid N 0.1 0.141421 0.02 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.4 1.47062 -1.07062 0.2 2 Acetochlor 0.05 0.070711 0.005 0.1 0.6 0.5 1.1 1.18531 -0.08531 0.55 2 Atrazine 17.2 24.32447 591.68 34.4 35 0.6 35.6 236.3467 -200.7467 17.8 2 Metolachlor
NOVEMBER Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three) Std.Err. Std.Err. Standard Confid. Confid. Kurtosis Kurtosis Skewness Skewness Error Std.Dev. Variance Range Maximum Minimum Sum 95.00% -95.000% Mean Valid N 0 0 0 0 1 Acetochlor 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 1 Atrazine 0 0 0 0 1 Metolachlor 

### Appendix G IDEM/32/02/011/1998 Site Statistics Page 1 of 1Site: WWR02, Whitewater River @ Brookville

MAY TO NOVEMBER Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three) Std.Err. Std.Err. Standard Confid. Confid. Kurtosis Kurtosis Skewness Skewness Error Std.Dev. Variance Range Maximum Minimum Sum 95.000 -95.000% Mean Valid N 1.090774 4.740269 0.564308 2.187501 0.355844 1.423376 2.026 5.1 5.1 0 14 1.633464 0.116536 0.875 16 Acetochlor 1.090774 6.389842 0.564308 2.479898 2.260355 9.041421 81.74729 33.5 34 0.5 91.3 10.52408 0.888417 5.70625 16 Atrazine 1.090774 8.573825 0.564308 2.796673 0.705852 2.823407 7.971625 10.9 11 0.1 26.1 3.135737 0.126763 1.63125 16 Metolachlor
MAY Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three) Std.Err. Std.Err. Standard Confid. Confid. Kurtosis Kurtosis Skewness Skewness Error Std.Dev. Variance Range Maximum Minimum Sum 95.000 -95.000% Mean Valid N 2.618615 -2.886462 1.014185 0.52677 0.73598 1.47196 2.166667 3.1 3.1 0 5.2 3.642217 -1.042217 1.3 4 Acetochlor 2.618615 1.81888 1.014185 1.480255 4.315283 8.630566 74.48667 18.5 19 0.5 26.8 20.43316 -7.033156 6.7 4 Atrazine 2.618615 1.047626 1.014185 1.316833 1.073157 2.146315 4.606667 4.6 4.7 0.1 6.8 5.115266 -1.715266 1.7 4 Metolachlor
JUNE Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three) Std.Err. Std.Err. Standard Confid. Confid. Kurtosis Kurtosis Skewness Skewness Error Std.Dev. Variance Range Maximum Minimum Sum 95.000 -95.000% Mean Valid N 2 3.703991 0.912871 1.868449 0.906091 2.02608 4.105 4.9 5.1 0.2 8 4.115711 -0.915711 1.6 5 Acetochlor 2 3.475364 0.912871 1.807618 5.961661 13.33068 177.707 32.5 34 1.5 55.6 27.67222 -5.432224 11.12 5 Atrazine 2 3.670031 0.912871 1.857538 1.959235 4.380982 19.193 10.7 11 0.3 17.2 8.879707 -1.999707 3.44 5 Metolachlor
JULY Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three) Std.Err. Std.Err. Standard Confid. Confid. Kurtosis Kurtosis Skewness Skewness Error Std.Dev. Variance Range Maximum Minimum Sum 95.000 -95.000% Mean Valid N 2.618615 4 1.014185 -2 0.025 0.05 0.0025 0.1 0.1 0 0.3 0.154561 -0.004561 0.075 4 Acetochlor 2.618615 -1.699512 1.014185 -0.481563 0.110868 0.221736 0.049167 0.5 1.3 0.8 4.3 1.427831 0.722169 1.075 4 Atrazine 2.618615 -6 1.014185 1.19E-16 0.028868 0.057735 0.003333 0.1 0.3 0.2 1 0.341869 0.158131 0.25 4 Metolachlor
AUGUST Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three) Std.Err. Std.Err. Standard Confid. Confid. Kurtosis Kurtosis Skewness Skewness Error Std.Dev. Variance Range Maximum Minimum Sum 95.000 -95.000% Mean Valid N 0.1 0.141421 0.02 0.2 0.2 0 0.2 1.37062 -1.17062 0.1 2 Acetochlor 0.1 0.141421 0.02 0.2 0.9 0.7 1.6 2.07062 -0.47062 0.8 2 Atrazine 0 0 0 0 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.2 2 Metolachlor
NOVEMBER Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three) Std.Err. Std.Err. Standard Confid. Confid. Kurtosis Kurtosis Skewness Skewness Error Std.Dev. Variance Range Maximum Minimum Sum 95.000 -95.000% Mean Valid N 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 1 Acetochlor 3 3 3 3 1 Atrazine 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 1 Metolachlor 

### Appendix G IDEM/32/02/011/1998 Site Statistics Page 1 of 2MAY TO NOVEMBER

CORRECTED DATA Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three time sorted.sta) by CHEMICAL: Acetochlor Std.Err. Std.Err. Standard Confid. Confid. Kurtosis Kurtosis Skewness Skewness Error Std.Dev. Variance Range Maximum Minimum Sum 95.00% -95.000% Mean Valid N 1.090774 4.740269 0.564308 2.187501 0.355844 1.423376 2.026 5.1 5.1 0 14 1.633464 0.116536 0.875 16 Acetochlor 1.090774 6.389842 0.564308 2.479898 2.260355 9.041421 81.74729 33.5 34 0.5 91.3 10.52408 0.888417 5.70625 16 Atrazine 1.090774 8.573825 0.564308 2.796673 0.705852 2.823407 7.971625 10.9 11 0.1 26.1 3.135737 0.126763 1.63125 16 Metolachlor
NOVEMBER CORRECTED DATA Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three time sorted.sta) by CHEMICAL: Acetochlor Std.Err. Std.Err. Standard Confid. Confid. Kurtosis Kurtosis Skewness Skewness Error Std.Dev. Variance Range Maximum Minimum Sum 95.00% -95.000% Mean Valid N 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 1 Acetochlor 3 3 3 3 1 Atrazine 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 1 Metolachlor 

### Appendix G IDEM/32/02/011/1998 Site Statistics Page 2 of 2Site: WWRP03, West Fork of Whitewater River near Alpine

MAY TO NOVEMBER Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three) Std.Err. Std.Err. Standard Confid. Confid. Kurtosis Kurtosis Skewness Skewness Error Std.Dev. Variance Range Maximum Minimum Sum 95.00% -95.000% Mean Valid N 1.090774 5.064023 0.564308 2.450468 0.286606 1.146426 1.314292 3.8 3.8 0 8.5 1.142137 -0.079637 0.53125 16 Acetochlor 1.090774 7.197346 0.564308 2.679749 1.877664 7.510656 56.40996 27.8 28 0.2 65.5 8.095896 0.091604 4.09375 16 Atrazine 1.090774 10.46069 0.564308 3.164133 0.623064 2.492255 6.211333 9.7 9.7 0 18 2.453029 -0.203029 1.125 16 Metolachlor
MAY Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three) Std.Err. Std.Err. Standard Confid. Confid. Kurtosis Kurtosis Skewness Skewness Error Std.Dev. Variance Range Maximum Minimum Sum 95.00% -95.000% Mean Valid N 2.618615 3.24586 1.014185 1.80242 0.704006 1.408013 1.9825 3 3 0 3.7 3.165463 -1.315463 0.925 4 Acetochlor 2.618615 3.381948 1.014185 1.837007 3.660914 7.321828 53.60917 15.5 16 0.5 20.7 16.82566 -6.475662 5.175 4 Atrazine 2.618615 3.828889 1.014185 1.951604 0.937194 1.874389 3.513333 3.9 4 0.1 4.8 4.182571 -1.782571 1.2 4 Metolachlor
JUNE Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three) Std.Err. Std.Err. Standard Confid. Confid. Kurtosis Kurtosis Skewness Skewness Error Std.Dev. Variance Range Maximum Minimum Sum 95.00% -95.000% Mean Valid N 2 4.671961 0.912871 2.143911 0.715961 1.600937 2.563 3.8 3.8 0 4.8 2.947826 -1.027826 0.96 5 Acetochlor 2 4.394737 0.912871 2.064157 5.008233 11.19875 125.412 27 28 1 41.4 22.18508 -5.625085 8.28 5 Atrazine 2 4.786823 0.912871 2.177047 1.799611 4.024053 16.193 9.4 9.7 0.3 12.7 7.536521 -2.456521 2.54 5 Metolachlor
JULY Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three) Std.Err. Std.Err. Standard Confid. Confid. Kurtosis Kurtosis Skewness Skewness Error Std.Dev. Variance Range Maximum Minimum Sum 95.00% -95.000% Mean Valid N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 Acetochlor 2.618615 -3.3 1.014185 1.63E-15 0.091287 0.182574 0.033333 0.4 0.8 0.4 2.4 0.890516 0.309484 0.6 4 Atrazine 2.618615 -1.289256 1.014185 -0.854563 0.047871 0.095743 0.009167 0.2 0.2 0 0.5 0.277348 -0.027348 0.125 4 Metolachlor
AUGUST Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three) Std.Err. Std.Err. Standard Confid. Confid. Kurtosis Kurtosis Skewness Skewness Error Std.Dev. Variance Range Maximum Minimum Sum 95.00% -95.000% Mean Valid N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Acetochlor 0 0 0 0 0.4 0.4 0.8 0.4 2 Atrazine 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Metolachlor
NOVEMBER Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three) Std.Err. Std.Err. Standard Confid. Confid. Kurtosis Kurtosis Skewness Skewness Error Std.Dev. Variance Range Maximum Minimum Sum 95.00% -95.000% Mean Valid N 0 0 0 0 1 Acetochlor 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 1 Atrazine 0 0 0 0 1 Metolachlor 

### Appendix G IDEM/32/02/011/1998 Site Statistics Page 1 of 2CORRECTED DATA

Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three time sorted.sta) by CHEMICAL: Acetochl Acetochlor Std.Err. Std.Err. Standard Confid. Confid. Kurtosis Kurtosis Skewness Skewness Error Std.Dev. Variance Range Maximum Minimum Sum 95.000 -95.000% Mean Valid N 1.090774 5.064023 0.564308 2.450468 0.286606 1.146426 1.314292 3.8 3.8 0 8.5 1.142137 -0.079637 0.53125 16 RESULT Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three time sorted.sta) by CHEMICAL: Atrazine Atrazine (Aatrex) Std.Err. Std.Err. Standard Confid. Confid. Kurtosis Kurtosis Skewness Skewness Error Std.Dev. Variance Range Maximum Minimum Sum 95.000 -95.000% Mean Valid N 1.090774 7.197346 0.564308 2.679749 1.877664 7.510656 56.40996 27.8 28 0.2 65.5 8.095896 0.091604 4.09375 16 RESULT Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three time sorted.sta) by CHEMICAL: Metolach Metolachlor Std.Err. Std.Err. Standard Confid. Confid. Kurtosis Kurtosis Skewness Skewness Error Std.Dev. Variance Range Maximum Minimum Sum 95.000 -95.000% Mean Valid N 1.090774 10.46069 0.564308 3.164133 0.623064 2.492255 6.211333 9.7 9.7 0 18 2.453029 -0.203029 1.125 16 RESULT
NOVEMBER CORRECTED DATA Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three time sorted.sta) by CHEMICAL: Acetochl Acetochlor Std.Err. Std.Err. Standard Confid. Confid. Kurtosis Kurtosis Skewness Skewness Error Std.Dev. Variance Range Maximum Minimum Sum 95.000 -95.000% Mean Valid N 0 0 0 0 1 RESULT Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three time sorted.sta) by CHEMICAL: Atrazine Atrazine (Aatrex) Std.Err. Std.Err. Standard Confid. Confid. Kurtosis Kurtosis Skewness Skewness Error Std.Dev. Variance Range Maximum Minimum Sum 95.000 -95.000% Mean Valid N 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 1 RESULT Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three time sorted.sta) by CHEMICAL: Metolach Metolachlor Std.Err. Std.Err. Standard Confid. Confid. Kurtosis Kurtosis Skewness Skewness Error Std.Dev. Variance Range Maximum Minimum Sum 95.000 -95.000% Mean Valid N 0 0 0 0 1 RESULT 

### Appendix G IDEM/32/02/011/1998 Site Statistics Page 2 of 2Site: EFWR04, Flatrock River @ St. Paul

MAY TO NOVEMBER Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three) Std.Err. Std.Err. Standard Confid. Confid. Kurtosis Kurtosis Skewness Skewness Error Std.Dev. Variance Range Maximum Minimum Sum 95.00% -95.000% Mean Valid N 1.090774 7.567639 0.564308 2.669249 2.912352 11.64941 135.7087 43.9 44 0.1 99.6 12.43253 0.01747 6.225 16 Atrazine 1.090774 7.203935 0.564308 2.572281 0.672912 2.691646 7.244958 10 10 0 21.3 2.765527 -0.103027 1.33125 16 Acetochlor 1.090774 4.671752 0.564308 2.370764 0.456892 1.827567 3.34 6 6 0 14.4 1.873842 -0.073842 0.9 16 Metolachlor
MAY Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three) Std.Err. Std.Err. Standard Confid. Confid. Kurtosis Kurtosis Skewness Skewness Error Std.Dev. Variance Range Maximum Minimum Sum 95.00% -95.000% Mean Valid N 2.618615 -5.97076 1.014185 -2.4E-16 0.924211 1.848423 3.416667 3.3 3.4 0.1 7 4.691253 -1.191253 1.75 4 Acetochlor 2.618615 0.895602 1.014185 1.287117 4.057709 8.115417 65.86 17.3 18 0.7 26.8 19.61344 -6.21344 6.7 4 Atrazine 2.618615 -5.887325 1.014185 0.019534 0.332603 0.665207 0.4425 1.2 1.2 0 2.3 1.633492 -0.483492 0.575 4 Metolachlor
JUNE Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three) Std.Err. Std.Err. Standard Confid. Confid. Kurtosis Kurtosis Skewness Skewness Error Std.Dev. Variance Range Maximum Minimum Sum 95.00% -95.000% Mean Valid N 2 2.173455 0.912871 1.615194 1.91875 4.290455 18.408 9.9 10 0.1 14.3 8.187303 -2.467303 2.86 5 Acetochlor 2 2.022061 0.912871 1.582625 8.196194 18.32725 335.888 42.6 44 1.4 68.2 36.39628 -9.116283 13.64 5 Atrazine 2 -2.829655 0.912871 0.687185 1.266254 2.831431 8.017 5.8 6 0.2 11.9 5.895686 -1.135686 2.38 5 Metolachlor
JULY Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three) Std.Err. Std.Err. Standard Confid. Confid. Kurtosis Kurtosis Skewness Skewness Error Std.Dev. Variance Range Maximum Minimum Sum 95.00% -95.000% Mean Valid N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 Acetochlor 2.618615 -5.290173 1.014185 0.123691 0.262996 0.525991 0.276667 1 1.5 0.5 3.8 1.786969 0.113031 0.95 4 Atrazine 2.618615 -6 1.014185 4.05E-16 0.028868 0.057735 0.003333 0.1 0.1 0 0.2 0.141869 -0.041869 0.05 4 Metolachlor
AUGUST Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three) Std.Err. Std.Err. Standard Confid. Confid. Kurtosis Kurtosis Skewness Skewness Error Std.Dev. Variance Range Maximum Minimum Sum 95.00% -95.000% Mean Valid N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Acetochlor 0.05 0.070711 0.005 0.1 0.4 0.3 0.7 0.98531 -0.28531 0.35 2 Atrazine 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Metolachlor
NOVEMBER Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three) Std.Err. Std.Err. Standard Confid. Confid. Kurtosis Kurtosis Skewness Skewness Error Std.Dev. Variance Range Maximum Minimum Sum 95.00% -95.000% Mean Valid N 0 0 0 0 1 Acetochlor 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 1 Atrazine 0 0 0 0 1 Metolachlor 

### Appendix G IDEM/32/02/011/1998 Site Statistics Page 1 of 1Site: EFWR05, Blue River @ Shelbyville

MAY TO NOVEMBER Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three) Std.Err. Std.Err. Standard Confid. Confid. Kurtosis Kurtosis Skewness Skewness Error Std.Dev. Variance Range Maximum Minimum Sum 95.00% -95.000% Mean Valid N 1.090774 11.52881 0.564308 3.269867 0.821837 3.287349 10.80667 13 13 0 23.2 3.201705 -0.301705 1.45 16 Acetochlor 1.090774 10.17336 0.564308 3.052408 2.531609 10.12643 102.5447 40 40 0 84.4 10.671 -0.120996 5.275 16 Atrazine 1.090774 11.89035 0.564308 3.32658 0.37404 1.496162 2.2385 6 6 0 11.4 1.509748 -0.084748 0.7125 16 Metolachlor
MAY Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three) Std.Err. Std.Err. Standard Confid. Confid. Kurtosis Kurtosis Skewness Skewness Error Std.Dev. Variance Range Maximum Minimum Sum 95.00% -95.000% Mean Valid N 2.618615 -5.876163 1.014185 1.86E-17 0.896753 1.793507 3.216667 3.3 3.4 0.1 7 4.60387 -1.10387 1.75 4 Acetochlor 2.618615 -3.658102 1.014185 0.404994 3.271436 6.542871 42.80917 13.4 14 0.6 25.1 16.68617 -4.136169 6.275 4 Atrazine 2.618615 -0.474215 1.014185 0.99121 0.392641 0.785281 0.616667 1.7 1.7 0 2.6 1.899558 -0.599558 0.65 4 Metolachlor
JUNE Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three) Std.Err. Std.Err. Standard Confid. Confid. Kurtosis Kurtosis Skewness Skewness Error Std.Dev. Variance Range Maximum Minimum Sum 95.00% -95.000% Mean Valid N 2 4.583671 0.912871 2.130417 2.469696 5.522409 30.497 12.9 13 0.1 16.1 10.07698 -3.636976 3.22 5 Acetochlor 2 4.398432 0.912871 2.085323 7.300507 16.32443 266.487 38.4 40 1.6 56.1 31.48946 -9.049456 11.22 5 Atrazine 2 4.370149 0.912871 2.079138 1.101635 2.463331 6.068 5.8 6 0.2 8.3 4.71863 -1.39863 1.66 5 Metolachlor
JULY Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three) Std.Err. Std.Err. Standard Confid. Confid. Kurtosis Kurtosis Skewness Skewness Error Std.Dev. Variance Range Maximum Minimum Sum 95.00% -95.000% Mean Valid N 2.618615 4 1.014185 2 0.025 0.05 0.0025 0.1 0.1 0 0.1 0.104561 -0.054561 0.025 4 Acetochlor 2.618615 2.615468 1.014185 -1.658524 0.094648 0.189297 0.035833 0.4 0.8 0.4 2.7 0.976214 0.373786 0.675 4 Atrazine 2.618615 2.227147 1.014185 1.129338 0.062915 0.125831 0.015833 0.3 0.3 0 0.5 0.325225 -0.075225 0.125 4 Metolachlor
AUGUST Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three) Std.Err. Std.Err. Standard Confid. Confid. Kurtosis Kurtosis Skewness Skewness Error Std.Dev. Variance Range Maximum Minimum Sum 95.00% -95.000% Mean Valid N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Acetochlor 0.05 0.070711 0.005 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.5 0.88531 -0.38531 0.25 2 Atrazine 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Metolachlor
NOVEMBER Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three) Std.Err. Std.Err. Standard Confid. Confid. Kurtosis Kurtosis Skewness Skewness Error Std.Dev. Variance Range Maximum Minimum Sum 95.00% -95.000% Mean Valid N 0 0 0 0 1 Acetochlor 0 0 0 0 1 Atrazine 0 0 0 0 1 Metolachlor 

### Appendix G IDEM/32/02/011/1998 Site Statistics Page 1 of 1Site: EFWR06, Sugar Creek near Edinburgh

MAY TO NOVEMBER Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three) Std.Err. Std.Err. Standard Confid. Confid. Kurtosis Kurtosis Skewness Skewness Error Std.Dev. Variance Range Maximum Minimum Sum 95.00% -95.000% Mean Valid N 1.090774 14.97971 0.564308 3.830894 0.518991 2.075964 4.309625 8.4 8.4 0 11.5 1.824953 -0.387453 0.71875 16 Acetochlor 1.090774 10.64714 0.564308 3.135688 2.575962 10.30385 106.1693 40.7 41 0.3 85.7 10.84678 -0.134283 5.35625 16 Atrazine 1.090774 8.842766 0.564308 2.891008 1.499207 5.996829 35.96196 23 23 0 48.1 6.201735 -0.189235 3.00625 16 Metolachlor
MAY Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three) Std.Err. Std.Err. Standard Confid. Confid. Kurtosis Kurtosis Skewness Skewness Error Std.Dev. Variance Range Maximum Minimum Sum 95.00% -95.000% Mean Valid N 2.618615 -5.290173 1.014185 0.123691 0.131498 0.262996 0.069167 0.5 0.5 0 0.9 0.643485 -0.193485 0.225 4 Acetochlor 2.618615 0.914013 1.014185 1.290275 2.92532 5.850641 34.23 12.5 13 0.5 19.4 14.15968 -4.459675 4.85 4 Atrazine 2.618615 3.629703 1.014185 1.900697 2.336843 4.673685 21.84333 9.7 10 0.3 12.2 10.48688 -4.386876 3.05 4 Metolachlor
JUNE Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three) Std.Err. Std.Err. Standard Confid. Confid. Kurtosis Kurtosis Skewness Skewness Error Std.Dev. Variance Range Maximum Minimum Sum 95.00% -95.000% Mean Valid N 2 4.604253 0.912871 2.136405 1.605179 3.58929 12.883 8.3 8.4 0.1 10.2 6.496692 -2.416692 2.04 5 Acetochlor 2 3.752637 0.912871 1.939515 7.396012 16.53799 273.505 39.1 41 1.9 61.5 32.83462 -8.234623 12.3 5 Atrazine 2 3.683623 0.912871 1.923769 4.192446 9.374593 87.883 22.2 23 0.8 33.8 18.4001 -4.880095 6.76 5 Metolachlor
JULY Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three) Std.Err. Std.Err. Standard Confid. Confid. Kurtosis Kurtosis Skewness Skewness Error Std.Dev. Variance Range Maximum Minimum Sum 95.00% -95.000% Mean Valid N 2.618615 4 1.014185 2 0.1 0.2 0.04 0.4 0.4 0 0.4 0.418245 -0.218245 0.1 4 Acetochlor 2.618615 2.487654 1.014185 1.309457 0.212132 0.424264 0.18 1 1.5 0.5 3.6 1.575099 0.224901 0.9 4 Atrazine 2.618615 3.708507 1.014185 1.900104 0.184842 0.369685 0.136667 0.8 1 0.2 1.8 1.038251 -0.138251 0.45 4 Metolachlor
AUGUST Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three) Std.Err. Std.Err. Standard Confid. Confid. Kurtosis Kurtosis Skewness Skewness Error Std.Dev. Variance Range Maximum Minimum Sum 95.00% -95.000% Mean Valid N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Acetochlor 0.15 0.212132 0.045 0.3 0.6 0.3 0.9 2.355931 -1.455931 0.45 2 Atrazine 0.05 0.070711 0.005 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.78531 -0.48531 0.15 2 Metolachlor
NOVEMBER Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three) Std.Err. Std.Err. Standard Confid. Confid. Kurtosis Kurtosis Skewness Skewness Error Std.Dev. Variance Range Maximum Minimum Sum 95.00% -95.000% Mean Valid N 0 0 0 0 1 Acetochlor 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 1 Atrazine 0 0 0 0 1 Metolachlor 

### Appendix G IDEM/32/02/011/1998 Site Statistics Page 1 of 1Site: EFWR07, Flatrock River @ Columbus

MAY TO NOVEMBER Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three) Std.Err. Std.Err. Standard Confid. Confid. Kurtosis Kurtosis Skewness Skewness Error Std.Dev. Variance Range Maximum Minimum Sum 95.00% -95.000% Mean Valid N 1.090774 6.968053 0.564308 2.552677 0.665762 2.66305 7.091833 9.8 9.8 0 20.6 2.706539 -0.131539 1.2875 16 Acetochlor 1.090774 5.785843 0.564308 2.371412 2.600783 10.40313 108.2252 37.9 38 0.1 94.2 11.43094 0.344062 5.8875 16 Atrazine 1.090774 6.974154 0.564308 2.570501 0.559613 2.238452 5.010667 8.3 8.3 0 18.4 2.342787 -0.042787 1.15 16 Metolachlor
MAY Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three) Std.Err. Std.Err. Standard Confid. Confid. Kurtosis Kurtosis Skewness Skewness Error Std.Dev. Variance Range Maximum Minimum Sum 95.00% -95.000% Mean Valid N 2.618615 -4.096319 1.014185 0.335324 1.105667 2.211334 4.89 4.4 4.4 0 7.4 5.368727 -1.668727 1.85 4 Acetochlor 2.618615 -1.861987 1.014185 0.743075 4.651344 9.302688 86.54 19.5 20 0.5 32.4 22.90265 -6.702652 8.1 4 Atrazine 2.618615 -0.347193 1.014185 1.032027 0.771767 1.543535 2.3825 3.3 3.3 0 4.9 3.681108 -1.231108 1.225 4 Metolachlor
JUNE Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three) Std.Err. Std.Err. Standard Confid. Confid. Kurtosis Kurtosis Skewness Skewness Error Std.Dev. Variance Range Maximum Minimum Sum 95.00% -95.000% Mean Valid N 2.618615 2.231028 1.014185 1.572401 2.266192 4.532383 20.5425 9.6 9.8 0.2 13.1 10.48703 -3.937034 3.275 4 Acetochlor 2.618615 1.611279 1.014185 1.436554 8.392159 16.78432 281.7133 35.9 38 2.1 56.8 40.9076 -12.5076 14.2 4 Atrazine 2.618615 0.265782 1.014185 1.1559 1.845038 3.690077 13.61667 7.9 8.3 0.4 13 9.121736 -2.621736 3.25 4 Metolachlor
JULY Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three) Std.Err. Std.Err. Standard Confid. Confid. Kurtosis Kurtosis Skewness Skewness Error Std.Dev. Variance Range Maximum Minimum Sum 95.00% -95.000% Mean Valid N 2 5 0.912871 2.236068 0.02 0.044721 0.002 0.1 0.1 0 0.1 0.075529 -0.035529 0.02 5 Acetochlor 2 -2.84465 0.912871 -0.166233 0.146969 0.328634 0.108 0.7 1.2 0.5 4.2 1.248052 0.431948 0.84 5 Atrazine 2 2 0.912871 -2.2E-16 0.031623 0.070711 0.005 0.2 0.2 0 0.5 0.187799 0.012201 0.1 5 Metolachlor
AUGUST Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three) Std.Err. Std.Err. Standard Confid. Confid. Kurtosis Kurtosis Skewness Skewness Error Std.Dev. Variance Range Maximum Minimum Sum 95.00% -95.000% Mean Valid N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Acetochlor 0.05 0.070711 0.005 0.1 0.4 0.3 0.7 0.98531 -0.28531 0.35 2 Atrazine 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Metolachlor
NOVEMBER Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three) Std.Err. Std.Err. Standard Confid. Confid. Kurtosis Kurtosis Skewness Skewness Error Std.Dev. Variance Range Maximum Minimum Sum 95.00% -95.000% Mean Valid N 0 0 0 0 1 Acetochlor 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 1 Atrazine 0 0 0 0 1 Metolachlor 

### Appendix G IDEM/32/02/011/1998 Site Statistics Page 1 of 1Site: EFWR08, East Fork of White River @ Columbus

MAY TO NOVEMBER Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three) Std.Err. Std.Err. Standard Confid. Confid. Kurtosis Kurtosis Skewness Skewness Error Std.Dev. Variance Range Maximum Minimum Sum 95.00% -95.000% Mean Valid N 1.090774 10.29294 0.564308 3.074004 0.707679 2.830717 8.012958 11 11 0 20.3 2.777133 -0.239633 1.26875 16 Acetochlor 1.090774 10.3481 0.564308 3.076543 2.781808 11.12723 123.8153 43.8 44 0.2 91.3 11.63553 -0.223033 5.70625 16 Atrazine 1.090774 10.42722 0.564308 3.113558 0.827822 3.311288 10.96462 13 13 0 25.5 3.358211 -0.170711 1.59375 16 Metolachlor
MAY Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three) Std.Err. Std.Err. Standard Confid. Confid. Kurtosis Kurtosis Skewness Skewness Error Std.Dev. Variance Range Maximum Minimum Sum 95.00% -95.000% Mean Valid N 2.618615 -4.654843 1.014185 0.230111 0.857321 1.714643 2.94 3.4 3.5 0.1 6.4 4.328379 -1.128379 1.6 4 Acetochlor 2.618615 -4.18614 1.014185 0.315411 3.087441 6.174882 38.12917 12.4 13 0.6 23.7 15.75062 -3.900615 5.925 4 Atrazine 2.618615 1.349608 1.014185 1.378086 0.78991 1.579821 2.495833 3.4 3.5 0.1 5.1 3.788847 -1.238847 1.275 4 Metolachlor
JUNE Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three) Std.Err. Std.Err. Standard Confid. Confid. Kurtosis Kurtosis Skewness Skewness Error Std.Dev. Variance Range Maximum Minimum Sum 95.00% -95.000% Mean Valid N 2.618615 3.134347 1.014185 1.778769 2.559093 5.118187 26.19583 10.8 11 0.2 13.9 11.61918 -4.669177 3.475 4 Acetochlor 2.618615 2.601435 1.014185 1.655338 9.795024 19.59005 383.77 41.4 44 2.6 62.2 46.72214 -15.62214 15.55 4 Atrazine 2.618615 1.971287 1.014185 1.507995 2.867345 5.73469 32.88667 12.4 13 0.6 19.2 13.92517 -4.325171 4.8 4 Metolachlor
JULY Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three) Std.Err. Std.Err. Standard Confid. Confid. Kurtosis Kurtosis Skewness Skewness Error Std.Dev. Variance Range Maximum Minimum Sum 95.00% -95.000% Mean Valid N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 Acetochlor 2 0.875086 0.912871 1.089884 0.1772 0.396232 0.157 1 1.5 0.5 4.4 1.371987 0.388013 0.88 5 Atrazine 2 2.916667 0.912871 1.293234 0.04899 0.109545 0.012 0.3 0.4 0.1 1.1 0.356017 0.083983 0.22 5 Metolachlor
AUGUST Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three) Std.Err. Std.Err. Standard Confid. Confid. Kurtosis Kurtosis Skewness Skewness Error Std.Dev. Variance Range Maximum Minimum Sum 95.00% -95.000% Mean Valid N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Acetochlor 0.1 0.141421 0.02 0.2 0.5 0.3 0.8 1.67062 -0.87062 0.4 2 Atrazine 0.05 0.070711 0.005 0.1 0.1 0 0.1 0.68531 -0.58531 0.05 2 Metolachlor
NOVEMBER Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three) Std.Err. Std.Err. Standard Confid. Confid. Kurtosis Kurtosis Skewness Skewness Error Std.Dev. Variance Range Maximum Minimum Sum 95.00% -95.000% Mean Valid N 0 0 0 0 1 Acetochlor 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 1 Atrazine 0 0 0 0 1 Metolachlor 

### Appendix G IDEM/32/02/011/1998 Site Statistics Page 1 of 1Site: EFWR09, Clifty Creek @ Hartsville

MAY TO NOVEMBER Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three) Std.Err. Std.Err. Standard Confid. Confid. Kurtosis Kurtosis Skewness Skewness Error Std.Dev. Variance Range Maximum Minimum Sum 95.00% -95.000% Mean Valid N 1.090774 2.850745 0.564308 1.875322 0.492062 1.968248 3.874 6.5 6.5 0 17.2 2.123805 0.026195 1.075 16 Acetochlor 1.090774 3.272473 0.564308 1.991987 1.750369 7.001476 49.02067 23.7 24 0.3 72.4 8.255823 0.794177 4.525 16 Atrazine 1.090774 6.043563 0.564308 2.470987 0.504975 2.019901 4.08 7.3 7.3 0 16.8 2.126329 -0.026329 1.05 16 Metolachlor
MAY Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three) Std.Err. Std.Err. Standard Confid. Confid. Kurtosis Kurtosis Skewness Skewness Error Std.Dev. Variance Range Maximum Minimum Sum 95.00% -95.000% Mean Valid N 2.618615 -4.263144 1.014185 0.301382 0.99781 1.99562 3.9825 4 4.1 0.1 7.3 5.000477 -1.350477 1.825 4 Acetochlor 2.618615 0.911504 1.014185 1.285336 3.528072 7.056144 49.78917 15.2 16 0.8 24.7 17.4029 -5.0529 6.175 4 Atrazine 2.618615 2.551545 1.014185 1.638145 0.603462 1.206924 1.456667 2.6 2.7 0.1 3.8 2.870486 -0.970486 0.95 4 Metolachlor
JUNE Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three) Std.Err. Std.Err. Standard Confid. Confid. Kurtosis Kurtosis Skewness Skewness Error Std.Dev. Variance Range Maximum Minimum Sum 95.00% -95.000% Mean Valid N 2.618615 -0.323513 1.014185 1.042147 1.495201 2.990401 8.9425 6.3 6.5 0.2 9.9 7.233396 -2.283396 2.475 4 Acetochlor 2.618615 -1.180619 1.014185 0.869139 5.202624 10.40525 108.2692 22.1 24 1.9 41.5 26.93207 -6.18207 10.375 4 Atrazine 2.618615 -1.714731 1.014185 0.761365 1.625 3.25 10.5625 6.9 7.3 0.4 12.5 8.296475 -2.046475 3.125 4 Metolachlor
JULY Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three) Std.Err. Std.Err. Standard Confid. Confid. Kurtosis Kurtosis Skewness Skewness Error Std.Dev. Variance Range Maximum Minimum Sum 95.00% -95.000% Mean Valid N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 Acetochlor 2 2.581295 0.912871 1.483124 0.156205 0.349285 0.122 0.9 1.5 0.6 4.6 1.353695 0.486305 0.92 5 Atrazine 2 2 0.912871 1.360828 0.054772 0.122474 0.015 0.3 0.3 0 0.5 0.252072 -0.052072 0.1 5 Metolachlor
AUGUST Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three) Std.Err. Std.Err. Standard Confid. Confid. Kurtosis Kurtosis Skewness Skewness Error Std.Dev. Variance Range Maximum Minimum Sum 95.00% -95.000% Mean Valid N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Acetochlor 0.05 0.070711 0.005 0.1 0.7 0.6 1.3 1.28531 0.01469 0.65 2 Atrazine 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Metolachlor
NOVEMBER Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three) Std.Err. Std.Err. Standard Confid. Confid. Kurtosis Kurtosis Skewness Skewness Error Std.Dev. Variance Range Maximum Minimum Sum 95.00% -95.000% Mean Valid N 0 0 0 0 1 Acetochlor 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 1 Atrazine 0 0 0 0 1 Metolachlor 

### Appendix G IDEM/32/02/011/1998 Site Statistics Page 1 of 1Site: EFWR10, Vernon Fork Muscatatuck River near Butlerville

MAY TO NOVEMBER Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three) Std.Err. Std.Err. Standard Confid. Confid. Kurtosis Kurtosis Skewness Skewness Error Std.Dev. Variance Range Maximum Minimum Sum 95.00% -95.000% Mean Valid N 1.090774 13.34745 0.564308 3.575867 0.751103 3.004413 9.0265 12 12 0 18.2 2.738439 -0.463439 1.1375 16 Acetochlor 1.090774 3.058295 0.564308 1.83741 3.12487 12.49948 156.237 43.5 44 0.5 142.9 15.59175 2.270748 8.93125 16 Atrazine 1.090774 0.419452 0.564308 1.365163 0.88553 3.542122 12.54663 10 10 0 40.9 4.443713 0.668787 2.55625 16 Metolachlor
MAY Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three) Std.Err. Std.Err. Standard Confid. Confid. Kurtosis Kurtosis Skewness Skewness Error Std.Dev. Variance Range Maximum Minimum Sum 95.00% -95.000% Mean Valid N 2.618615 3.996171 1.014185 1.998851 2.950282 5.900565 34.81667 11.9 12 0.1 12.6 12.53912 -6.239116 3.15 4 Acetochlor 2.618615 3.982809 1.014185 1.994762 10.57127 21.14253 447.0067 43.1 44 0.9 49.2 45.94249 -21.34249 12.3 4 Atrazine 2.618615 3.986285 1.014185 1.995938 2.39248 4.784959 22.89583 9.7 9.8 0.1 10.5 10.23894 -4.988938 2.625 4 Metolachlor
JUNE Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three) Std.Err. Std.Err. Standard Confid. Confid. Kurtosis Kurtosis Skewness Skewness Error Std.Dev. Variance Range Maximum Minimum Sum 95.00% -95.000% Mean Valid N 2.618615 -2.283871 1.014185 0.580391 0.622495 1.24499 1.55 2.7 2.9 0.2 5.4 3.331057 -0.631057 1.35 4 Acetochlor 2.618615 0.757656 1.014185 -1.137624 3.095696 6.191392 38.33333 14 25 11 78 29.35189 9.648114 19.5 4 Atrazine 2.618615 1.063851 1.014185 0.426326 1.344433 2.688866 7.23 6.5 10 3.5 26.2 10.82859 2.271414 6.55 4 Metolachlor
JULY Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three) Std.Err. Std.Err. Standard Confid. Confid. Kurtosis Kurtosis Skewness Skewness Error Std.Dev. Variance Range Maximum Minimum Sum 95.00% -95.000% Mean Valid N 2 -3.333333 0.912871 0.608581 0.024495 0.054772 0.003 0.1 0.1 0 0.2 0.108009 -0.028009 0.04 5 Acetochlor 2 -0.75394 0.912871 -0.577458 0.423792 0.947629 0.898 2.4 3.3 0.9 11.2 3.416636 1.063364 2.24 5 Atrazine 2 -3.068279 0.912871 0.597989 0.1772 0.396232 0.157 0.8 1.1 0.3 3.1 1.111987 0.128013 0.62 5 Metolachlor
AUGUST Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three) Std.Err. Std.Err. Standard Confid. Confid. Kurtosis Kurtosis Skewness Skewness Error Std.Dev. Variance Range Maximum Minimum Sum 95.00% -95.000% Mean Valid N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Acetochlor 0.6 0.848528 0.72 1.2 2.6 1.4 4 9.623723 -5.623723 2 2 Atrazine 0.15 0.212132 0.045 0.3 0.7 0.4 1.1 2.455931 -1.355931 0.55 2 Metolachlor
NOVEMBER Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three) Std.Err. Std.Err. Standard Confid. Confid. Kurtosis Kurtosis Skewness Skewness Error Std.Dev. Variance Range Maximum Minimum Sum 95.00% -95.000% Mean Valid N 0 0 0 0 1 Acetochlor 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 1 Atrazine 0 0 0 0 1 Metolachlor 

### Appendix G IDEM/32/02/011/1998 Site Statistics Page 1 of 1Site: EFWR11, Muscatatuck River near Deputy

MAY TO NOVEMBER Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three) Std.Err. Std.Err. Standard Confid. Confid. Kurtosis Kurtosis Skewness Skewness Error Std.Dev. Variance Range Maximum Minimum Sum 95.00% -95.000% Mean Valid N 1.090774 10.42386 0.564308 3.096062 0.172361 0.689444 0.475333 2.7 2.7 0 5.2 0.692379 -0.042379 0.325 16 Acetochlor 1.090774 5.213043 0.564308 2.246891 1.428545 5.714178 32.65183 20.8 21 0.2 58.2 6.682371 0.592629 3.6375 16 Atrazine 1.090774 6.239131 0.564308 2.42757 0.506376 2.025504 4.102667 7.5 7.5 0 18.4 2.229315 0.070685 1.15 16 Metolachlor
MAY Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three) Std.Err. Std.Err. Standard Confid. Confid. Kurtosis Kurtosis Skewness Skewness Error Std.Dev. Variance Range Maximum Minimum Sum 95.00% -95.000% Mean Valid N 2.618615 4 1.014185 2 0.675 1.35 1.8225 2.7 2.7 0 2.7 2.823151 -1.473151 0.675 4 Acetochlor 2.618615 3.999588 1.014185 1.999876 5.183387 10.36677 107.47 20.8 21 0.2 21.8 21.94585 -11.04585 5.45 4 Atrazine 2.618615 3.996695 1.014185 1.99902 1.841817 3.683635 13.56917 7.4 7.5 0.1 7.9 7.836485 -3.886485 1.975 4 Metolachlor
JUNE Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three) Std.Err. Std.Err. Standard Confid. Confid. Kurtosis Kurtosis Skewness Skewness Error Std.Dev. Variance Range Maximum Minimum Sum 95.00% -95.000% Mean Valid N 2.618615 -3.3 1.014185 4.25E-16 0.182574 0.365148 0.133333 0.8 0.9 0.1 2 1.081033 -0.081033 0.5 4 Acetochlor 2.618615 0.920119 1.014185 -0.723544 1.70147 3.40294 11.58 8.1 11 2.9 29.6 12.81484 1.985163 7.4 4 Atrazine 2.618615 -0.197625 1.014185 -0.853163 0.614241 1.228481 1.509167 2.8 3.5 0.7 9.3 4.279788 0.370212 2.325 4 Metolachlor
JULY Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three) Std.Err. Std.Err. Standard Confid. Confid. Kurtosis Kurtosis Skewness Skewness Error Std.Dev. Variance Range Maximum Minimum Sum 95.00% -95.000% Mean Valid N 2 -1.75 0.912871 0.883883 0.063246 0.141421 0.02 0.3 0.3 0 0.5 0.275598 -0.075598 0.1 5 Acetochlor 2 1.07438 0.912871 0.2669 0.08124 0.181659 0.033 0.5 1.3 0.8 5.2 1.265559 0.814441 1.04 5 Atrazine 2 -0.612245 0.912871 0.512241 0.037417 0.083666 0.007 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.9 0.283885 0.076115 0.18 5 Metolachlor
AUGUST Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three) Std.Err. Std.Err. Standard Confid. Confid. Kurtosis Kurtosis Skewness Skewness Error Std.Dev. Variance Range Maximum Minimum Sum 95.00% -95.000% Mean Valid N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Acetochlor 0.05 0.070711 0.005 0.1 0.7 0.6 1.3 1.28531 0.01469 0.65 2 Atrazine 0.05 0.070711 0.005 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.78531 -0.48531 0.15 2 Metolachlor
NOVEMBER Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three) Std.Err. Std.Err. Standard Confid. Confid. Kurtosis Kurtosis Skewness Skewness Error Std.Dev. Variance Range Maximum Minimum Sum 95.00% -95.000% Mean Valid N 0 0 0 0 1 Acetochlor 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 1 Atrazine 0 0 0 0 1 Metolachlor 

### Appendix G IDEM/32/02/011/1998 Site Statistics Page 1 of 1Site: EFWR12, Salt Creek near Harrodsburg

MAY TO NOVEMBER Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three) Std.Err. Std.Err. Standard Confid. Confid. Kurtosis Kurtosis Skewness Skewness Error Std.Dev. Variance Range Maximum Minimum Sum 95.00% -95.000% Mean Valid N 1.090774 -1.427663 0.564308 0.54596 0.021409 0.085635 0.007333 0.2 0.2 0 1.2 0.120632 0.029368 0.075 16 Acetochlor 1.090774 -1.649182 0.564308 0.139814 0.085254 0.341016 0.116292 0.9 0.9 0 6.7 0.600464 0.237036 0.41875 16 Atrazine 1.090774 -1.313887 0.564308 0.519398 0.026566 0.106262 0.011292 0.3 0.3 0 1.5 0.150373 0.037127 0.09375 16 Metolachlor
MAY Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three) Std.Err. Std.Err. Standard Confid. Confid. Kurtosis Kurtosis Skewness Skewness Error Std.Dev. Variance Range Maximum Minimum Sum 95.00% -95.000% Mean Valid N 2.618615 4 1.014185 2 0.05 0.1 0.01 0.2 0.2 0 0.2 0.209122 -0.109122 0.05 4 Acetochlor 2.618615 4 1.014185 2 0.175 0.35 0.1225 0.7 0.7 0 0.7 0.731928 -0.381928 0.175 4 Atrazine 2.618615 4 1.014185 2 0.075 0.15 0.0225 0.3 0.3 0 0.3 0.313683 -0.163683 0.075 4 Metolachlor
JUNE Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three) Std.Err. Std.Err. Standard Confid. Confid. Kurtosis Kurtosis Skewness Skewness Error Std.Dev. Variance Range Maximum Minimum Sum 95.00% -95.000% Mean Valid N 2.618615 4 1.014185 2 0.025 0.05 0.0025 0.1 0.1 0 0.1 0.104561 -0.054561 0.025 4 Acetochlor 2.618615 -6 1.014185 1.46E-15 0.028868 0.057735 0.003333 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.6 0.241869 0.058131 0.15 4 Atrazine 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 Metolachlor
JULY Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three) Std.Err. Std.Err. Standard Confid. Confid. Kurtosis Kurtosis Skewness Skewness Error Std.Dev. Variance Range Maximum Minimum Sum 95.00% -95.000% Mean Valid N 2 2 0.912871 -2.2E-16 0.031623 0.070711 0.005 0.2 0.2 0 0.5 0.187799 0.012201 0.1 5 Acetochlor 2 -2.231405 0.912871 0.567163 0.08124 0.181659 0.033 0.4 0.8 0.4 2.8 0.785559 0.334441 0.56 5 Atrazine 2 -3.333333 0.912871 -0.608581 0.024495 0.054772 0.003 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.8 0.228009 0.091991 0.16 5 Metolachlor
AUGUST Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three) Std.Err. Std.Err. Standard Confid. Confid. Kurtosis Kurtosis Skewness Skewness Error Std.Dev. Variance Range Maximum Minimum Sum 95.00% -95.000% Mean Valid N 0 0 0 0 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.2 2 Acetochlor 0.05 0.070711 0.005 0.1 0.9 0.8 1.7 1.48531 0.21469 0.85 2 Atrazine 0 0 0 0 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.2 2 Metolachlor
NOVEMBER Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three) Std.Err. Std.Err. Standard Confid. Confid. Kurtosis Kurtosis Skewness Skewness Error Std.Dev. Variance Range Maximum Minimum Sum 95.00% -95.000% Mean Valid N 0 0 0 0 1 Acetochlor 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 1 Atrazine 0 0 0 0 1 Metolachlor 

### Appendix G IDEM/32/02/011/1998 Site Statistics Page 1 of 1Site: EFWR13, East Frok White River @ Shoals

MAY TO NOVEMBER Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three) Std.Err. Std.Err. Standard Confid. Confid. Kurtosis Kurtosis Skewness Skewness Error Std.Dev. Variance Range Maximum Minimum Sum 95.00% -95.000% Mean Valid N 1.090774 10.57021 0.564308 3.163303 0.642697 2.570789 6.608958 10 10 0 18.1 2.501127 -0.238627 1.13125 16 Acetochlor 1.090774 7.793914 0.564308 2.760836 3.927751 15.711 246.8356 58.7 59 0.3 129.1 16.44055 -0.303053 8.06875 16 Atrazine 1.090774 13.31461 0.564308 3.557543 1.604563 6.418252 41.19396 26 26 0 44.9 6.226295 -0.613795 2.80625 16 Metolachlor
MAY Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three) Std.Err. Std.Err. Standard Confid. Confid. Kurtosis Kurtosis Skewness Skewness Error Std.Dev. Variance Range Maximum Minimum Sum 95.00% -95.000% Mean Valid N 2.618615 1.5 1.014185 1.410822 0.884119 1.768238 3.126667 3.8 3.9 0.1 5.6 4.213662 -1.413662 1.4 4 Acetochlor 2.618615 3.695356 1.014185 1.917457 7.318925 14.63785 214.2667 30.4 31 0.6 36.8 32.49209 -14.09209 9.2 4 Atrazine 2.618615 2.219777 1.014185 1.568693 1.381047 2.762095 7.629167 5.9 6.1 0.2 8.5 6.520109 -2.270109 2.125 4 Metolachlor
JUNE Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three) Std.Err. Std.Err. Standard Confid. Confid. Kurtosis Kurtosis Skewness Skewness Error Std.Dev. Variance Range Maximum Minimum Sum 95.00% -95.000% Mean Valid N 2.618615 3.801219 1.014185 1.945048 2.319258 4.638516 21.51583 9.6 10 0.4 12.3 10.45591 -4.305915 3.075 4 Acetochlor 2.618615 3.474789 1.014185 1.850147 12.7562 25.5124 650.8825 54.9 59 4.1 84.9 61.82092 -19.37092 21.225 4 Atrazine 2.618615 3.825219 1.014185 1.945811 5.843016 11.68603 136.5633 24.7 26 1.3 34.2 27.14508 -10.04508 8.55 4 Metolachlor
JULY Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three) Std.Err. Std.Err. Standard Confid. Confid. Kurtosis Kurtosis Skewness Skewness Error Std.Dev. Variance Range Maximum Minimum Sum 95.00% -95.000% Mean Valid N 2 -3.333333 0.912871 0.608581 0.024495 0.054772 0.003 0.1 0.1 0 0.2 0.108009 -0.028009 0.04 5 Acetochlor 2 2.356193 0.912871 1.538125 0.177764 0.397492 0.158 1 1.8 0.8 5.7 1.633552 0.646448 1.14 5 Atrazine 2 -2.231405 0.912871 0.567163 0.08124 0.181659 0.033 0.4 0.6 0.2 1.8 0.585559 0.134441 0.36 5 Metolachlor
AUGUST Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three) Std.Err. Std.Err. Standard Confid. Confid. Kurtosis Kurtosis Skewness Skewness Error Std.Dev. Variance Range Maximum Minimum Sum 95.00% -95.000% Mean Valid N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Acetochlor 0 0 0 0 0.7 0.7 1.4 0.7 2 Atrazine 0 0 0 0 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.2 2 Metolachlor
NOVEMBER Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three) Std.Err. Std.Err. Standard Confid. Confid. Kurtosis Kurtosis Skewness Skewness Error Std.Dev. Variance Range Maximum Minimum Sum 95.00% -95.000% Mean Valid N 0 0 0 0 1 Acetochlor 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 1 Atrazine 0 0 0 0 1 Metolachlor 

### Appendix G IDEM/32/02/011/1998 Site Statistics Page 1 of 1Site: EFWR10, Vernon Fork Muscatatuck River near Butlerville

MAY TO NOVEMBER Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three) Std.Err. Std.Err. Standard Confid. Confid. Kurtosis Kurtosis Skewness Skewness Error Std.Dev. Variance Range Maximum Minimum Sum 95.00% -95.000% Mean Valid N 1.090774 13.34745 0.564308 3.575867 0.751103 3.004413 9.0265 12 12 0 18.2 2.738439 -0.463439 1.1375 16 Acetochlor 1.090774 3.058295 0.564308 1.83741 3.12487 12.49948 156.237 43.5 44 0.5 142.9 15.59175 2.270748 8.93125 16 Atrazine 1.090774 0.419452 0.564308 1.365163 0.88553 3.542122 12.54663 10 10 0 40.9 4.443713 0.668787 2.55625 16 Metolachlor
MAY Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three) Std.Err. Std.Err. Standard Confid. Confid. Kurtosis Kurtosis Skewness Skewness Error Std.Dev. Variance Range Maximum Minimum Sum 95.00% -95.000% Mean Valid N 2.618615 3.996171 1.014185 1.998851 2.950282 5.900565 34.81667 11.9 12 0.1 12.6 12.53912 -6.239116 3.15 4 Acetochlor 2.618615 3.982809 1.014185 1.994762 10.57127 21.14253 447.0067 43.1 44 0.9 49.2 45.94249 -21.34249 12.3 4 Atrazine 2.618615 3.986285 1.014185 1.995938 2.39248 4.784959 22.89583 9.7 9.8 0.1 10.5 10.23894 -4.988938 2.625 4 Metolachlor
JUNE Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three) Std.Err. Std.Err. Standard Confid. Confid. Kurtosis Kurtosis Skewness Skewness Error Std.Dev. Variance Range Maximum Minimum Sum 95.00% -95.000% Mean Valid N 2.618615 -2.283871 1.014185 0.580391 0.622495 1.24499 1.55 2.7 2.9 0.2 5.4 3.331057 -0.631057 1.35 4 Acetochlor 2.618615 0.757656 1.014185 -1.137624 3.095696 6.191392 38.33333 14 25 11 78 29.35189 9.648114 19.5 4 Atrazine 2.618615 1.063851 1.014185 0.426326 1.344433 2.688866 7.23 6.5 10 3.5 26.2 10.82859 2.271414 6.55 4 Metolachlor
JULY Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three) Std.Err. Std.Err. Standard Confid. Confid. Kurtosis Kurtosis Skewness Skewness Error Std.Dev. Variance Range Maximum Minimum Sum 95.00% -95.000% Mean Valid N 2 -3.333333 0.912871 0.608581 0.024495 0.054772 0.003 0.1 0.1 0 0.2 0.108009 -0.028009 0.04 5 Acetochlor 2 -0.75394 0.912871 -0.577458 0.423792 0.947629 0.898 2.4 3.3 0.9 11.2 3.416636 1.063364 2.24 5 Atrazine 2 -3.068279 0.912871 0.597989 0.1772 0.396232 0.157 0.8 1.1 0.3 3.1 1.111987 0.128013 0.62 5 Metolachlor
AUGUST Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three) Std.Err. Std.Err. Standard Confid. Confid. Kurtosis Kurtosis Skewness Skewness Error Std.Dev. Variance Range Maximum Minimum Sum 95.00% -95.000% Mean Valid N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Acetochlor 0.6 0.848528 0.72 1.2 2.6 1.4 4 9.623723 -5.623723 2 2 Atrazine 0.15 0.212132 0.045 0.3 0.7 0.4 1.1 2.455931 -1.355931 0.55 2 Metolachlor
NOVEMBER Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three) Std.Err. Std.Err. Standard Confid. Confid. Kurtosis Kurtosis Skewness Skewness Error Std.Dev. Variance Range Maximum Minimum Sum 95.00% -95.000% Mean Valid N 0 0 0 0 1 Acetochlor 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 1 Atrazine 0 0 0 0 1 Metolachlor 

### Appendix G IDEM/32/02/011/1998 Site Statistics Page 1 of 1

### IDEM/OWM/AB October 1998 IDEM 032/02/011/1998



### 51 

# APPENDIX H

LOADING CALCULATIONSatrazine Parameter 97e151 Sample set

05/07/97 Date

Site Tons/Day Factor Pounds/Day W t of h2o MG/L MGD Factor Flow-CFS Lab number P-01 0.00 2000 6.74 8.35 0.81 0.0038 212.31 0.6463 328.50 10551 P-02 0.07 2000 148.57 8.35 17.79 0.0190 936.49 0.6463 1449.00 10552 P-03 0.05 2000 105.00 8.35 12.57 0.0160 785.90 0.6463 1216.00 10553 P-04 0.03 2000 63.53 8.35 7.61 0.0180 422.68 0.6463 654.00 10554 P-05 0.03 2000 54.93 8.35 6.58 0.0140 469.86 0.6463 727.00 10555 P-06 0.01 2000 17.71 8.35 2.12 0.0052 407.82 0.6463 631.00 10556 P-07 0.03 2000 57.23 8.35 6.85 0.0200 342.67 0.6463 530.20 10557 P-08 0.08 2000 162.27 8.35 19.43 0.0130 1494.89 0.6463 2313.00 10558 P-09 0.00 2000 3.73 8.35 0.45 0.0066 67.60 0.6463 104.60 10559 P-10 0.00 2000 0.68 8.35 0.08 0.0024 33.93 0.6463 52.50 10560 P-11 0.00 2000 0.70 8.35 0.08 0.0003 280.04 0.6463 433.30 10561 P-12 0.00 2000 0.00 8.35 0.00 0.0000 1208.58 0.6463 1870.00 10562 D-12 0.00 2000 0.00 8.35 0.00 0.0000 1208.58 0.6463 1870.00 10563 P-13 0.21 2000 421.10 8.35 50.43 0.0045 11206.84 0.6463 17340.00 10564 P-14 0.02 2000 43.17 8.35 5.17 0.0012 4308.88 0.6463 6667.00 10565 1042.17 Total lbs. 

## Appendix H IDEM/32/02/011/1998Acetochlor Parameter 97e151 Sample set

05/07/97 Date

Site Tons/Day Factor Pounds/Day W t of h2o MG/L MGD Factor Flow-CFS Lab number P-01 0.00 2000 0.89 8.35 0.11 0.0005 212.31 0.6463 328.50 10551 P-02 0.01 2000 24.24 8.35 2.90 0.0031 936.49 0.6463 1449.00 10552 P-03 0.01 2000 19.69 8.35 2.36 0.0030 785.90 0.6463 1216.00 10553 P-04 0.01 2000 11.65 8.35 1.39 0.0033 422.68 0.6463 654.00 10554 P-05 0.01 2000 13.34 8.35 1.60 0.0034 469.86 0.6463 727.00 10555 P-06 0.00 2000 1.70 8.35 0.20 0.0005 407.82 0.6463 631.00 10556 P-07 0.01 2000 12.59 8.35 1.51 0.0044 342.67 0.6463 530.20 10557 P-08 0.02 2000 43.69 8.35 5.23 0.0035 1494.89 0.6463 2313.00 10558 P-09 0.00 2000 1.64 8.35 0.20 0.0029 67.60 0.6463 104.60 10559 P-10 0.00 2000 0.14 8.35 0.02 0.0005 33.93 0.6463 52.50 10560 P-11 0.00 2000 0.00 8.35 0.00 0.0000 280.04 0.6463 433.30 10561 P-12 0.00 2000 0.00 8.35 0.00 0.0000 1208.58 0.6463 1870.00 10562 D-12 0.00 2000 0.00 8.35 0.00 0.0000 1208.58 0.6463 1870.00 10563 P-13 0.07 2000 131.01 8.35 15.69 0.0014 11206.84 0.6463 17340.00 10564 P-14 0.01 2000 14.39 8.35 1.72 0.0004 4308.88 0.6463 6667.00 10565 260.57 Total lbs. 

## Appendix H IDEM/32/02/011/1998Metolachlor Parameter 97e151 Sample set

05/07/97 Date

Site Tons/Day Factor Pounds/Day W t of h2o MG/L MGD Factor Flow-CFS Lab number P-01 0.00 2000 2.84 8.35 0.34 0.0016 212.31 0.6463 328.50 10551 P-02 0.02 2000 36.75 8.35 4.40 0.0047 936.49 0.6463 1449.00 10552 P-03 0.01 2000 26.25 8.35 3.14 0.0040 785.90 0.6463 1216.00 10553 P-04 0.00 2000 3.88 8.35 0.46 0.0011 422.68 0.6463 654.00 10554 P-05 0.00 2000 3.14 8.35 0.38 0.0008 469.86 0.6463 727.00 10555 P-06 0.00 2000 5.45 8.35 0.65 0.0016 407.82 0.6463 631.00 10556 P-07 0.00 2000 4.29 8.35 0.51 0.0015 342.67 0.6463 530.20 10557 P-08 0.01 2000 16.23 8.35 1.94 0.0013 1494.89 0.6463 2313.00 10558 P-09 0.00 2000 0.45 8.35 0.05 0.0008 67.60 0.6463 104.60 10559 P-10 0.00 2000 0.11 8.35 0.01 0.0004 33.93 0.6463 52.50 10560 P-11 0.00 2000 0.47 8.35 0.06 0.0002 280.04 0.6463 433.30 10561 P-12 0.00 2000 0.00 8.35 0.00 0.0000 0.00 0.6463 0.00 10562 D-12 0.00 2000 0.00 8.35 0.00 0.0000 0.00 0.6463 0.00 10563 P-13 0.09 2000 177.80 8.35 21.29 0.0019 11206.84 0.6463 17340.00 10564 P-14 0.01 2000 21.59 8.35 2.59 0.0006 4308.88 0.6463 6667.00 10565 277.66 Total lbs. 

## Appendix H IDEM/32/02/011/1998Atrazine Parameter 97e152 Sample set

05/12/97 Date

Site Tons/Day Factor Pounds/Day W t of h2o MG/L MGD Factor Flow-CFS Lab number P-01 0.00 2000 1.59 8.35 0.19 0.0018 105.61 0.6463 163.40 10566 P-02 0.00 2000 3.24 8.35 0.39 0.0009 431.41 0.6463 667.50 10567 P-03 0.00 2000 3.06 8.35 0.37 0.0009 407.04 0.6463 629.80 10568 P-04 0.00 2000 1.33 8.35 0.16 0.0009 177.09 0.6463 274.00 10569 P-05 0.00 2000 2.20 8.35 0.26 0.0011 239.32 0.6463 370.30 10570 P-06 0.00 2000 1.08 8.35 0.13 0.0007 184.65 0.6463 285.70 10571 P-07 0.00 2000 0.95 8.35 0.11 0.0009 126.48 0.6463 195.70 10572 P-08 0.00 2000 4.99 8.35 0.60 0.0009 663.75 0.6463 1027.00 10573 P-09 0.00 2000 0.37 8.35 0.04 0.0013 34.38 0.6463 53.19 10574 P-10 0.00 2000 0.43 8.35 0.05 0.0019 26.85 0.6463 41.54 10575 P-11 0.00 2000 0.23 8.35 0.03 0.0002 135.72 0.6463 210.00 10576 P-12 0.00 2000 0.00 8.35 0.00 0.0000 7.23 0.6463 900.00 10577 P-13 0.02 2000 42.70 8.35 5.11 0.0008 6391.91 0.6463 9890.00 10578 P-14 0.02 2000 34.80 8.35 4.17 0.0018 2315.69 0.6463 3583.00 10579 D-02 0.00 2000 3.24 8.35 0.39 0.0009 431.41 0.6463 667.50 10580 96.96 Total lbs. 

## Appendix H IDEM/32/02/011/1998Acetochlor Parameter 97e152 Sample set

05/12/97 Date

Site Tons/Day Factor Pounds/Day W t of h2o MG/L MGD Factor Flow-CFS Lab number P-01 0.00 2000 0.35 8.35 0.04 0.0004 105.61 0.6463 163.40 10566 P-02 0.00 2000 0.72 8.35 0.09 0.0002 431.41 0.6463 667.50 10567 P-03 0.00 2000 0.34 8.35 0.04 0.0001 407.04 0.6463 629.80 10568 P-04 0.00 2000 0.30 8.35 0.04 0.0002 177.09 0.6463 274.00 10569 P-05 0.00 2000 0.60 8.35 0.07 0.0003 239.32 0.6463 370.30 10570 P-06 0.00 2000 0.00 8.35 0.00 0.0000 184.65 0.6463 285.70 10571 P-07 0.00 2000 0.00 8.35 0.00 0.0000 126.48 0.6463 195.70 10572 P-08 0.00 2000 1.11 8.35 0.13 0.0002 663.75 0.6463 1027.00 10573 P-09 0.00 2000 0.06 8.35 0.01 0.0002 34.38 0.6463 53.19 10574 P-10 0.00 2000 0.04 8.35 0.01 0.0002 26.85 0.6463 41.54 10575 P-11 0.00 2000 0.00 8.35 0.00 0.0000 135.72 0.6463 210.00 10576 P-12 0.00 2000 0.00 8.35 0.00 0.0000 581.67 0.6463 900.00 10577 P-13 0.01 2000 10.67 8.35 1.28 0.0002 6391.91 0.6463 9890.00 10578 P-14 0.00 2000 5.80 8.35 0.69 0.0003 2315.69 0.6463 3583.00 10579 D-02 0.00 2000 0.00 8.35 0.00 0.0000 431.41 0.6463 667.50 10580 19.99 Total lbs. 

## Appendix H IDEM/32/02/011/1998Metolachlor Parameter 97e152 Sample set

05/12/97 Date

Site Tons/Day Factor Pounds/Day W t of h2o MG/L MGD Factor Flow-CFS Lab number P-01 0.00 2000 0.35 8.35 0.04 0.0004 105.61 0.6463 163.40 10566 P-02 0.00 2000 0.72 8.35 0.09 0.0002 431.41 0.6463 667.50 10567 P-03 0.00 2000 0.68 8.35 0.08 0.0002 407.04 0.6463 629.80 10568 P-04 0.00 2000 0.00 8.35 0.00 0.0000 177.09 0.6463 274.00 10569 P-05 0.00 2000 0.20 8.35 0.02 0.0001 239.32 0.6463 370.30 10570 P-06 0.00 2000 0.46 8.35 0.06 0.0003 184.65 0.6463 285.70 10571 P-07 0.00 2000 0.11 8.35 0.01 0.0001 126.48 0.6463 195.70 10572 P-08 0.00 2000 1.11 8.35 0.13 0.0002 663.75 0.6463 1027.00 10573 P-09 0.00 2000 0.06 8.35 0.01 0.0002 34.38 0.6463 53.19 10574 P-10 0.00 2000 0.04 8.35 0.01 0.0002 26.85 0.6463 41.54 10575 P-11 0.00 2000 0.11 8.35 0.01 0.0001 135.72 0.6463 210.00 10576 P-12 0.00 2000 0.00 8.35 0.00 0.0000 581.67 0.6463 900.00 10577 P-13 0.01 2000 16.01 8.35 1.92 0.0003 6391.91 0.6463 9890.00 10578 P-14 0.01 2000 11.60 8.35 1.39 0.0006 2315.69 0.6463 3583.00 10579 D-02 0.00 2000 0.72 8.35 0.09 0.0002 431.41 0.6463 667.50 10580 31.46 Total lbs. 

## Appendix H IDEM/32/02/011/1998Atrazine Parameter 97e153 Sample set

05/19/97 Date

Site Tons/Day Factor Pounds/Day W t of h2o MG/L MGD Factor Flow-CFS Lab number P-01 0.00 2000 1.11 8.35 0.13 0.0018 74.00 0.6463 114.50 10581 P-02 0.00 2000 1.18 8.35 0.14 0.0005 283.34 0.6463 438.40 10582 P-03 0.00 2000 1.33 8.35 0.16 0.0005 319.53 0.6463 494.40 10583 P-04 0.00 2000 0.76 8.35 0.09 0.0007 129.26 0.6463 200.00 10584 P-05 0.00 2000 0.90 8.35 0.11 0.0006 180.38 0.6463 279.10 10585 P-06 0.00 2000 0.51 8.35 0.06 0.0005 123.06 0.6463 190.40 10586 P-07 0.00 2000 0.31 8.35 0.04 0.0005 75.36 0.6463 116.60 10587 P-08 0.00 2000 2.51 8.35 0.30 0.0006 501.53 0.6463 776.00 10588 P-09 0.00 2000 0.16 8.35 0.02 0.0008 23.99 0.6463 37.12 10589 P-10 0.00 2000 0.09 8.35 0.01 0.0009 12.28 0.6463 19.00 10590 P-11 0.00 2000 0.17 8.35 0.02 0.0003 69.09 0.6463 106.90 10591 P-12 0.00 2000 0.00 8.35 0.00 0.0000 581.67 0.6463 900.00 10592 P-13 0.01 2000 12.72 8.35 1.52 0.0006 2539.31 0.6463 3929.00 10593 P-14 0.01 2000 10.61 8.35 1.27 0.0008 1587.96 0.6463 2457.00 10594 D-01 0.00 2000 1.11 8.35 0.13 0.0018 74.00 0.6463 114.50 10595 32.38 Total lbs. 

## Appendix H IDEM/32/02/011/1998acetochlor Parameter 97e153 Sample set

05/19/97 Date

Site Tons/Day Factor Pounds/Day W t of h2o MG/L MGD Factor Flow-CFS Lab number P-01 0.00 2000 0.37 8.35 0.04 0.0006 74.00 0.6463 114.50 10581 P-02 0.00 2000 0.00 8.35 0.00 0.0000 283.34 0.6463 438.40 10582 P-03 0.00 2000 0.00 8.35 0.00 0.0000 319.53 0.6463 494.40 10583 P-04 0.00 2000 0.11 8.35 0.01 0.0001 129.26 0.6463 200.00 10584 P-05 0.00 2000 0.15 8.35 0.02 0.0001 180.38 0.6463 279.10 10585 P-06 0.00 2000 0.00 8.35 0.00 0.0000 123.06 0.6463 190.40 10586 P-07 0.00 2000 0.00 8.35 0.00 0.0000 75.36 0.6463 116.60 10587 P-08 0.00 2000 0.42 8.35 0.05 0.0001 501.53 0.6463 776.00 10588 P-09 0.00 2000 0.02 8.35 0.00 0.0001 23.99 0.6463 37.12 10589 P-10 0.00 2000 0.01 8.35 0.00 0.0001 12.28 0.6463 19.00 10590 P-11 0.00 2000 0.00 8.35 0.00 0.0000 69.09 0.6463 106.90 10591 P-12 0.00 2000 0.00 8.35 0.00 0.0000 581.67 0.6463 900.00 10592 P-13 0.00 2000 2.12 8.35 0.25 0.0001 2539.31 0.6463 3929.00 10593 P-14 0.00 2000 0.00 8.35 0.00 0.0000 1587.96 0.6463 2457.00 10594 D-01 0.00 2000 0.37 8.35 0.04 0.0006 74.00 0.6463 114.50 10595 3.20 Total lbs. 

## Appendix H IDEM/32/02/011/1998metolachlor Parameter 97e153 Sample set

05/19/97 Date

Site Tons/Day Factor Pounds/Day W t of h2o MG/L MGD Factor Flow-CFS Lab number P-01 0.00 2000 0.19 8.35 0.02 0.0003 74.00 0.6463 114.50 10581 P-02 0.00 2000 0.24 8.35 0.03 0.0001 283.34 0.6463 438.40 10582 P-03 0.00 2000 0.27 8.35 0.03 0.0001 319.53 0.6463 494.40 10583 P-04 0.00 2000 0.00 8.35 0.00 0.0000 129.26 0.6463 200.00 10584 P-05 0.00 2000 0.00 8.35 0.00 0.0000 180.38 0.6463 279.10 10585 P-06 0.00 2000 0.31 8.35 0.04 0.0003 123.06 0.6463 190.40 10586 P-07 0.00 2000 0.00 8.35 0.00 0.0000 75.36 0.6463 116.60 10587 P-08 0.00 2000 0.42 8.35 0.05 0.0001 501.53 0.6463 776.00 10588 P-09 0.00 2000 0.02 8.35 0.00 0.0001 23.99 0.6463 37.12 10589 P-10 0.00 2000 0.01 8.35 0.00 0.0001 12.28 0.6463 19.00 10590 P-11 0.00 2000 0.06 8.35 0.01 0.0001 69.09 0.6463 106.90 10591 P-12 0.00 2000 0.00 8.35 0.00 0.0000 581.67 0.6463 900.00 10592 P-13 0.00 2000 4.24 8.35 0.51 0.0002 2539.31 0.6463 3929.00 10593 P-14 0.00 2000 3.98 8.35 0.48 0.0003 1587.96 0.6463 2457.00 10594 D-01 0.00 2000 0.19 8.35 0.02 0.0003 74.00 0.6463 114.50 10595 9.72 Total lbs. 

## Appendix H IDEM/32/02/011/1998Atrazine Parameter 97e154 Sample set

05/27/97 Date

Site Tons/Day Factor Pounds/Day W t of h2o MG/L MGD Factor Flow-CFS Lab number P-01 0.00 2000 3.66 8.35 0.44 0.0032 136.82 0.6463 211.70 10596 P-02 0.02 2000 38.37 8.35 4.60 0.0064 718.04 0.6463 1111.00 10597 P-03 0.01 2000 13.90 8.35 1.66 0.0033 504.37 0.6463 780.40 10598 P-04 0.01 2000 16.71 8.35 2.00 0.0072 277.91 0.6463 430.00 10599 P-05 0.02 2000 32.17 8.35 3.85 0.0094 409.88 0.6463 634.20 10600 P-06 0.02 2000 49.61 8.35 5.94 0.0130 457.00 0.6463 707.10 10601 P-07 0.01 2000 19.99 8.35 2.39 0.0110 217.67 0.6463 336.80 10602 P-08 0.05 2000 93.09 8.35 11.15 0.0092 1211.81 0.6463 1875.00 10603 P-09 0.00 2000 7.02 8.35 0.84 0.0160 52.56 0.6463 81.32 10604 P-10 0.00 2000 8.67 8.35 1.04 0.0440 23.59 0.6463 36.50 10605 P-11 0.02 2000 48.90 8.35 5.86 0.0210 278.88 0.6463 431.50 10606 P-12 0.00 2000 1.13 8.35 0.14 0.0007 193.89 0.6463 300.00 10607 P-13 0.55 2000 1108.66 8.35 132.77 0.0310 4283.03 0.6463 6627.00 10608 P-14 0.08 2000 159.17 8.35 19.06 0.0059 3230.85 0.6463 4999.00 10609 D-03 0.01 2000 12.63 8.35 1.51 0.0030 504.37 0.6463 780.40 10610 1601.05 Total lbs. 

## Appendix H IDEM/32/02/011/1998Acetochlor Parameter 97e154 Sample set

05/27/97 Date

Site Tons/Day Factor Pounds/Day W t of h2o MG/L MGD Factor Flow-CFS Lab number P-01 0.00 2000 0.80 8.35 0.10 0.0007 136.82 0.6463 211.70 10596 P-02 0.01 2000 11.39 8.35 1.36 0.0019 718.04 0.6463 1111.00 10597 P-03 0.00 2000 2.53 8.35 0.30 0.0006 504.37 0.6463 780.40 10598 P-04 0.00 2000 7.89 8.35 0.94 0.0034 277.91 0.6463 430.00 10599 P-05 0.01 2000 10.95 8.35 1.31 0.0032 409.88 0.6463 634.20 10600 P-06 0.00 2000 1.53 8.35 0.18 0.0004 457.00 0.6463 707.10 10601 P-07 0.00 2000 5.45 8.35 0.65 0.0030 217.67 0.6463 336.80 10602 P-08 0.01 2000 26.31 8.35 3.15 0.0026 1211.81 0.6463 1875.00 10603 P-09 0.00 2000 1.80 8.35 0.22 0.0041 52.56 0.6463 81.32 10604 P-10 0.00 2000 2.36 8.35 0.28 0.0120 23.59 0.6463 36.50 10605 P-11 0.00 2000 6.29 8.35 0.75 0.0027 278.88 0.6463 431.50 10606 P-12 0.00 2000 0.32 8.35 0.04 0.0002 193.89 0.6463 300.00 10607 P-13 0.07 2000 139.48 8.35 16.70 0.0039 4283.03 0.6463 6627.00 10608 P-14 0.01 2000 24.28 8.35 2.91 0.0009 3230.85 0.6463 4999.00 10609 D-03 0.00 2000 2.53 8.35 0.30 0.0006 504.37 0.6463 780.40 10610 241.38 Total lbs. 

## Appendix H IDEM/32/02/011/1998Metolachlor Parameter 97e154 Sample set

05/27/97 Date

Site Tons/Day Factor Pounds/Day W t of h2o MG/L MGD Factor Flow-CFS Lab number P-01 0.00 2000 2.51 8.35 0.30 0.0022 136.82 0.6463 211.70 10596 P-02 0.01 2000 10.79 8.35 1.29 0.0018 718.04 0.6463 1111.00 10597 P-03 0.00 2000 2.11 8.35 0.25 0.0005 504.37 0.6463 780.40 10598 P-04 0.00 2000 2.78 8.35 0.33 0.0012 277.91 0.6463 430.00 10599 P-05 0.00 2000 5.82 8.35 0.70 0.0017 409.88 0.6463 634.20 10600 P-06 0.02 2000 38.16 8.35 4.57 0.0100 457.00 0.6463 707.10 10601 P-07 0.00 2000 6.00 8.35 0.72 0.0033 217.67 0.6463 336.80 10602 P-08 0.02 2000 35.42 8.35 4.24 0.0035 1211.81 0.6463 1875.00 10603 P-09 0.00 2000 1.18 8.35 0.14 0.0027 52.56 0.6463 81.32 10604 P-10 0.00 2000 1.93 8.35 0.23 0.0098 23.59 0.6463 36.50 10605 P-11 0.01 2000 17.46 8.35 2.09 0.0075 278.88 0.6463 431.50 10606 P-12 0.00 2000 0.49 8.35 0.06 0.0003 193.89 0.6463 300.00 10607 P-13 0.11 2000 218.16 8.35 26.13 0.0061 4283.03 0.6463 6627.00 10608 P-14 0.03 2000 67.44 8.35 8.08 0.0025 3230.85 0.6463 4999.00 10609 D-03 0.00 2000 2.11 8.35 0.25 0.0005 504.37 0.6463 780.40 10610 410.25 Total lbs. 

## Appendix H IDEM/32/02/011/1998atrazine Parameter 97f155 Sample set

06/02/97 Date

Site Tons/Day Factor Pounds/Day W t of h2o MG/L MGD Factor Flow-CFS Lab number P-01 0.10 2000 204.86 8.35 24.53 0.0200 1226.68 0.6463 1898.00 10611 P-02 1.90 2000 3801.80 8.35 455.31 0.0340 13391.34 0.6463 20720.00 10612 P-03 0.66 2000 1316.58 8.35 157.67 0.0280 5631.21 0.6463 8713.00 10613 P-04 0.73 2000 1460.80 8.35 174.95 0.0440 3976.04 0.6463 6152.00 10614 P-05 0.81 2000 1611.64 8.35 193.01 0.0400 4825.28 0.6463 7466.00 10615 P-06 1.07 2000 2132.95 8.35 255.44 0.0410 6230.33 0.6463 9640.00 10616 P-07 1.16 2000 2325.51 8.35 278.50 0.0380 7329.04 0.6463 11340.00 10617 P-08 3.70 2000 7403.71 8.35 886.67 0.0440 20151.63 0.6463 31180.00 10618 P-09 0.02 2000 48.52 8.35 5.81 0.0240 242.10 0.6463 374.60 10619 P-10 0.01 2000 17.24 8.35 2.06 0.0250 82.60 0.6463 127.80 10620 P-11 0.02 2000 33.11 8.35 3.97 0.0086 461.07 0.6463 713.40 10621 P-12 0.00 2000 0.11 8.35 0.01 0.0001 129.26 0.6463 200.00 10622 P-13 4.51 2000 9020.26 8.35 1080.27 0.0590 18309.68 0.6463 28330.00 10623 P-14 0.80 2000 1600.58 8.35 191.69 0.0190 10088.74 0.6463 15610.00 10624 D-09 0.02 2000 48.52 8.35 5.81 0.0240 242.10 0.6463 374.60 10625 30977.66 Total lbs. 

## Appendix H IDEM/32/02/011/1998Acetochlor Parameter 97f155 Sample set

06/02/97 Date

Site Tons/Day Factor Pounds/Day W t of h2o MG/L MGD Factor Flow-CFS Lab number P-01 0.02 2000 39.95 8.35 4.78 0.0039 1226.68 0.6463 1898.00 10611 P-02 0.29 2000 570.27 8.35 68.30 0.0051 13391.34 0.6463 20720.00 10612 P-03 0.09 2000 178.68 8.35 21.40 0.0038 5631.21 0.6463 8713.00 10613 P-04 0.17 2000 332.00 8.35 39.76 0.0100 3976.04 0.6463 6152.00 10614 P-05 0.26 2000 523.78 8.35 62.73 0.0130 4825.28 0.6463 7466.00 10615 P-06 0.22 2000 437.00 8.35 52.33 0.0084 6230.33 0.6463 9640.00 10616 P-07 0.30 2000 599.74 8.35 71.82 0.0098 7329.04 0.6463 11340.00 10617 P-08 0.93 2000 1850.93 8.35 221.67 0.0110 20151.63 0.6463 31180.00 10618 P-09 0.01 2000 13.14 8.35 1.57 0.0065 242.10 0.6463 374.60 10619 P-10 0.00 2000 2.00 8.35 0.24 0.0029 82.60 0.6463 127.80 10620 P-11 0.00 2000 3.46 8.35 0.41 0.0009 461.07 0.6463 713.40 10621 P-12 0.00 2000 0.00 8.35 0.00 0.0000 129.26 0.6463 200.00 10622 P-13 0.76 2000 1528.86 8.35 183.10 0.0100 18309.68 0.6463 28330.00 10623 P-14 0.08 2000 160.06 8.35 19.17 0.0019 10088.74 0.6463 15610.00 10624 D-09 0.01 2000 13.34 8.35 1.60 0.0066 242.10 0.6463 374.60 10625 6239.86 Total lbs. 

## Appendix H IDEM/32/02/011/1998metolachlor Parameter 97f155 Sample set

06/02/97 Date

Site Tons/Day Factor Pounds/Day W t of h2o MG/L MGD Factor Flow-CFS Lab number P-01 0.05 2000 102.43 8.35 12.27 0.0100 1226.68 0.6463 1898.00 10611 P-02 0.61 2000 1229.99 8.35 147.30 0.0110 13391.34 0.6463 20720.00 10612 P-03 0.23 2000 456.10 8.35 54.62 0.0097 5631.21 0.6463 8713.00 10613 P-04 0.10 2000 199.20 8.35 23.86 0.0060 3976.04 0.6463 6152.00 10614 P-05 0.12 2000 241.75 8.35 28.95 0.0060 4825.28 0.6463 7466.00 10615 P-06 0.60 2000 1196.54 8.35 143.30 0.0230 6230.33 0.6463 9640.00 10616 P-07 0.25 2000 507.94 8.35 60.83 0.0083 7329.04 0.6463 11340.00 10617 P-08 1.09 2000 2187.46 8.35 261.97 0.0130 20151.63 0.6463 31180.00 10618 P-09 0.01 2000 14.76 8.35 1.77 0.0073 242.10 0.6463 374.60 10619 P-10 0.00 2000 4.69 8.35 0.56 0.0068 82.60 0.6463 127.80 10620 P-11 0.01 2000 11.55 8.35 1.38 0.0030 461.07 0.6463 713.40 10621 P-12 0.00 2000 0.00 8.35 0.00 0.0000 129.26 0.6463 200.00 10622 P-13 1.99 2000 3975.03 8.35 476.05 0.0260 18309.68 0.6463 28330.00 10623 P-14 0.40 2000 791.87 8.35 94.83 0.0094 10088.74 0.6463 15610.00 10624 D-09 0.01 2000 15.36 8.35 1.84 0.0076 242.10 0.6463 374.60 10625 10919.30 Total lbs. 

## Appendix H IDEM/32/02/011/1998Atrazine Parameter 97f156 Sample set

06/09/97 Date

Site Tons/Day Factor Pounds/Day W t of h2o MG/L MGD Factor Flow-CFS Lab number P-01 0.00 2000 9.22 8.35 1.10 0.0043 256.84 0.6463 397.40 10641 P-02 0.24 2000 489.43 8.35 58.61 0.0082 7148.08 0.6463 11060.00 10642 P-03 0.03 2000 64.60 8.35 7.74 0.0052 1487.78 0.6463 2302.00 10643 P-04 0.07 2000 149.98 8.35 17.96 0.0180 997.89 0.6463 1544.00 10644 P-05 0.03 2000 56.53 8.35 6.77 0.0087 778.15 0.6463 1204.00 10645 P-06 0.05 2000 102.00 8.35 12.22 0.0120 1017.92 0.6463 1575.00 10646 P-07 0.10 2000 201.20 8.35 24.10 0.0140 1721.10 0.6463 2663.00 10647 P-08 0.20 2000 398.70 8.35 47.75 0.0130 3672.92 0.6463 5683.00 10648 P-09 0.01 2000 26.08 8.35 3.12 0.0130 240.23 0.6463 371.70 10649 P-10 0.01 2000 12.61 8.35 1.51 0.0190 79.49 0.6463 123.00 10650 P-11 0.02 2000 41.13 8.35 4.93 0.0110 447.82 0.6463 692.90 10651 P-12 0.00 2000 0.11 8.35 0.01 0.0001 129.26 0.6463 200.00 10652 P-13 0.71 2000 1426.43 8.35 170.83 0.0140 12202.14 0.6463 18880.00 10653 P-14 0.24 2000 482.79 8.35 57.82 0.0082 7051.13 0.6463 10910.00 10654 D-10 0.01 2000 11.95 8.35 1.43 0.0180 79.49 0.6463 123.00 10655 3460.80 Total lbs. 

## Appendix H IDEM/32/02/011/1998Acetochlor Parameter 97f156 Sample set

06/09/97 Date

Site Tons/Day Factor Pounds/Day W t of h2o MG/L MGD Factor Flow-CFS Lab number P-01 0.00 2000 1.29 8.35 0.15 0.0006 256.84 0.6463 397.40 10641 P-02 0.04 2000 71.62 8.35 8.58 0.0012 7148.08 0.6463 11060.00 10642 P-03 0.00 2000 6.21 8.35 0.74 0.0005 1487.78 0.6463 2302.00 10643 P-04 0.02 2000 31.66 8.35 3.79 0.0038 997.89 0.6463 1544.00 10644 P-05 0.01 2000 13.64 8.35 1.63 0.0021 778.15 0.6463 1204.00 10645 P-06 0.01 2000 11.05 8.35 1.32 0.0013 1017.92 0.6463 1575.00 10646 P-07 0.02 2000 41.68 8.35 4.99 0.0029 1721.10 0.6463 2663.00 10647 P-08 0.04 2000 73.61 8.35 8.82 0.0024 3672.92 0.6463 5683.00 10648 P-09 0.00 2000 6.02 8.35 0.72 0.0030 240.23 0.6463 371.70 10649 P-10 0.00 2000 1.19 8.35 0.14 0.0018 79.49 0.6463 123.00 10650 P-11 0.00 2000 2.62 8.35 0.31 0.0007 447.82 0.6463 692.90 10651 P-12 0.00 2000 0.00 8.35 0.00 0.0000 129.26 0.6463 200.00 10652 P-13 0.07 2000 142.64 8.35 17.08 0.0014 12202.14 0.6463 18880.00 10653 P-14 0.02 2000 41.21 8.35 4.94 0.0007 7051.13 0.6463 10910.00 10654 D-10 0.00 2000 1.13 8.35 0.14 0.0017 79.49 0.6463 123.00 10655 444.45 Total lbs. 

## Appendix H IDEM/32/02/011/1998Metolachlor Parameter 97f156 Sample set

06/09/97 Date

Site Tons/Day Factor Pounds/Day W t of h2o MG/L MGD Factor Flow-CFS Lab number P-01 0.00 2000 4.72 8.35 0.57 0.0022 256.84 0.6463 397.40 10641 P-02 0.08 2000 155.18 8.35 18.59 0.0026 7148.08 0.6463 11060.00 10642 P-03 0.01 2000 12.42 8.35 1.49 0.0010 1487.78 0.6463 2302.00 10643 P-04 0.02 2000 40.83 8.35 4.89 0.0049 997.89 0.6463 1544.00 10644 P-05 0.00 2000 8.45 8.35 1.01 0.0013 778.15 0.6463 1204.00 10645 P-06 0.03 2000 56.95 8.35 6.82 0.0067 1017.92 0.6463 1575.00 10646 P-07 0.03 2000 53.17 8.35 6.37 0.0037 1721.10 0.6463 2663.00 10647 P-08 0.07 2000 138.01 8.35 16.53 0.0045 3672.92 0.6463 5683.00 10648 P-09 0.00 2000 8.22 8.35 0.98 0.0041 240.23 0.6463 371.70 10649 P-10 0.00 2000 3.92 8.35 0.47 0.0059 79.49 0.6463 123.00 10650 P-11 0.01 2000 13.09 8.35 1.57 0.0035 447.82 0.6463 692.90 10651 P-12 0.00 2000 0.00 8.35 0.00 0.0000 129.26 0.6463 200.00 10652 P-13 0.20 2000 407.55 8.35 48.81 0.0040 12202.14 0.6463 18880.00 10653 P-14 0.10 2000 200.18 8.35 23.97 0.0034 7051.13 0.6463 10910.00 10654 D-10 0.00 2000 3.78 8.35 0.45 0.0057 79.49 0.6463 123.00 10655 1102.69 Total lbs. 

## Appendix H IDEM/32/02/011/1998Atrazine Parameter 97f157 Sample set

06/16/97 Date

Site Tons/Day Factor Pounds/Day W t of h2o MG/L MGD Factor Flow-CFS Lab number P-01 0.00 2000 2.10 8.35 0.25 0.0026 96.75 0.6463 149.70 10626 P-02 0.01 2000 10.48 8.35 1.25 0.0019 660.52 0.6463 1022.00 10627 P-03 0.01 2000 13.16 8.35 1.58 0.0018 875.74 0.6463 1355.00 10628 P-04 0.00 2000 2.82 8.35 0.34 0.0020 169.07 0.6463 261.60 10629 P-05 0.00 2000 8.69 8.35 1.04 0.0033 315.27 0.6463 487.80 10630 P-06 0.00 2000 8.05 8.35 0.96 0.0035 275.52 0.6463 426.30 10631 P-07 0.00 2000 5.90 8.35 0.71 0.0021 336.59 0.6463 520.80 10632 P-08 0.01 2000 20.74 8.35 2.48 0.0026 955.23 0.6463 1478.00 10633 P-09 0.00 2000 0.77 8.35 0.09 0.0019 48.28 0.6463 74.70 10634 P-10 0.00 2000 5.59 8.35 0.67 0.0230 29.08 0.6463 45.00 10635 P-11 0.06 2000 112.15 8.35 13.43 0.0071 1891.72 0.6463 2927.00 10636 P-12 0.00 2000 1.03 8.35 0.12 0.0002 613.99 0.6463 950.00 10637 P-13 0.10 2000 203.03 8.35 24.31 0.0041 5930.45 0.6463 9176.00 10638 P-14 0.22 2000 449.14 8.35 53.79 0.0078 6896.02 0.6463 10670.00 10639 D-03 0.01 2000 14.62 8.35 1.75 0.0020 875.74 0.6463 1355.00 10640 843.64 Total lbs. 

## Appendix H IDEM/32/02/011/1998Acetochlor Parameter 97f157 Sample set

06/16/97 Date

Site Tons/Day Factor Pounds/Day W t of h2o MG/L MGD Factor Flow-CFS Lab number P-01 0.00 2000 0.16 8.35 0.02 0.0002 96.75 0.6463 149.70 10626 P-02 0.00 2000 1.10 8.35 0.13 0.0002 660.52 0.6463 1022.00 10627 P-03 0.00 2000 0.73 8.35 0.09 0.0001 875.74 0.6463 1355.00 10628 P-04 0.00 2000 0.28 8.35 0.03 0.0002 169.07 0.6463 261.60 10629 P-05 0.00 2000 1.32 8.35 0.16 0.0005 315.27 0.6463 487.80 10630 P-06 0.00 2000 0.46 8.35 0.06 0.0002 275.52 0.6463 426.30 10631 P-07 0.00 2000 0.56 8.35 0.07 0.0002 336.59 0.6463 520.80 10632 P-08 0.00 2000 2.39 8.35 0.29 0.0003 955.23 0.6463 1478.00 10633 P-09 0.00 2000 0.08 8.35 0.01 0.0002 48.28 0.6463 74.70 10634 P-10 0.00 2000 0.12 8.35 0.01 0.0005 29.08 0.6463 45.00 10635 P-11 0.00 2000 4.74 8.35 0.57 0.0003 1891.72 0.6463 2927.00 10636 P-12 0.00 2000 0.00 8.35 0.00 0.0000 613.99 0.6463 950.00 10637 P-13 0.01 2000 19.81 8.35 2.37 0.0004 5930.45 0.6463 9176.00 10638 P-14 0.03 2000 51.82 8.35 6.21 0.0009 6896.02 0.6463 10670.00 10639 D-03 0.00 2000 1.46 8.35 0.18 0.0002 875.74 0.6463 1355.00 10640 83.58 Total lbs. 

## Appendix H IDEM/32/02/011/1998Metolachlor Parameter 97f157 Sample set

06/16/97 Date

Site Tons/Day Factor Pounds/Day W t of h2o MG/L MGD Factor Flow-CFS Lab number P-01 0.00 2000 1.78 8.35 0.21 0.0022 96.75 0.6463 149.70 10626 P-02 0.00 2000 2.76 8.35 0.33 0.0005 660.52 0.6463 1022.00 10627 P-03 0.00 2000 2.92 8.35 0.35 0.0004 875.74 0.6463 1355.00 10628 P-04 0.00 2000 0.42 8.35 0.05 0.0003 169.07 0.6463 261.60 10629 P-05 0.00 2000 1.05 8.35 0.13 0.0004 315.27 0.6463 487.80 10630 P-06 0.00 2000 3.45 8.35 0.41 0.0015 275.52 0.6463 426.30 10631 P-07 0.00 2000 1.12 8.35 0.13 0.0004 336.59 0.6463 520.80 10632 P-08 0.00 2000 4.79 8.35 0.57 0.0006 955.23 0.6463 1478.00 10633 P-09 0.00 2000 0.16 8.35 0.02 0.0004 48.28 0.6463 74.70 10634 P-10 0.00 2000 2.43 8.35 0.29 0.0100 29.08 0.6463 45.00 10635 P-11 0.02 2000 33.17 8.35 3.97 0.0021 1891.72 0.6463 2927.00 10636 P-12 0.00 2000 0.00 8.35 0.00 0.0000 613.99 0.6463 950.00 10637 P-13 0.03 2000 64.38 8.35 7.71 0.0013 5930.45 0.6463 9176.00 10638 P-14 0.11 2000 224.57 8.35 26.89 0.0039 6896.02 0.6463 10670.00 10639 D-03 0.00 2000 4.39 8.35 0.53 0.0006 875.74 0.6463 1355.00 10640 343.00 Total lbs. 

## Appendix H IDEM/32/02/011/1998Atrazine Parameter 97f158 Sample set

06/23/97 Date

Site Tons/Day Factor Pounds/Day W t of h2o MG/L MGD Factor Flow-CFS Lab number P-01 0.00 2000 2.35 8.35 0.28 0.0024 117.24 0.6463 181.40 10656 P-02 0.05 2000 107.66 8.35 12.89 0.0100 1289.37 0.6463 1995.00 10657 P-03 0.02 2000 49.19 8.35 5.89 0.0054 1090.95 0.6463 1688.00 10658 P-04 0.00 2000 6.68 8.35 0.80 0.0028 285.66 0.6463 442.00 10659 P-05 0.00 2000 6.58 8.35 0.79 0.0025 315.27 0.6463 487.80 10660 P-06 0.01 2000 10.38 8.35 1.24 0.0031 400.96 0.6463 620.40 10661 P-07 0.00 2000 9.73 8.35 1.16 0.0027 431.47 0.6463 667.60 10662 P-08 0.01 2000 27.18 8.35 3.25 0.0026 1251.88 0.6463 1937.00 10663 P-09 0.00 2000 1.28 8.35 0.15 0.0026 58.85 0.6463 91.06 10664 P-10 0.00 2000 6.29 8.35 0.75 0.0110 68.44 0.6463 105.90 10665 P-11 0.00 2000 5.62 8.35 0.67 0.0029 232.28 0.6463 359.40 10666 P-12 0.00 2000 0.22 8.35 0.03 0.0002 129.26 0.6463 200.00 10667 P-13 0.31 2000 621.72 8.35 74.46 0.0078 9545.85 0.6463 14770.00 10668 P-14 0.08 2000 151.66 8.35 18.16 0.0044 4127.92 0.6463 6387.00 10669 D-11 0.00 2000 4.85 8.35 0.58 0.0025 232.28 0.6463 359.40 10670 1006.53 Total lbs. 

## Appendix H IDEM/32/02/011/1998Acetochlor Parameter 97f158 Sample set

06/23/97 Date

Site Tons/Day Factor Pounds/Day W t of h2o MG/L MGD Factor Flow-CFS Lab number P-01 0.00 2000 0.20 8.35 0.02 0.0002 117.24 0.6463 181.40 10656 P-02 0.01 2000 14.00 8.35 1.68 0.0013 1289.37 0.6463 1995.00 10657 P-03 0.00 2000 3.64 8.35 0.44 0.0004 1090.95 0.6463 1688.00 10658 P-04 0.00 2000 0.48 8.35 0.06 0.0002 285.66 0.6463 442.00 10659 P-05 0.00 2000 1.05 8.35 0.13 0.0004 315.27 0.6463 487.80 10660 P-06 0.00 2000 0.67 8.35 0.08 0.0002 400.96 0.6463 620.40 10661 P-07 0.00 2000 0.72 8.35 0.09 0.0002 431.47 0.6463 667.60 10662 P-08 0.00 2000 2.09 8.35 0.25 0.0002 1251.88 0.6463 1937.00 10663 P-09 0.00 2000 0.10 8.35 0.01 0.0002 58.85 0.6463 91.06 10664 P-10 0.00 2000 0.11 8.35 0.01 0.0002 68.44 0.6463 105.90 10665 P-11 0.00 2000 0.19 8.35 0.02 0.0001 232.28 0.6463 359.40 10666 P-12 0.00 2000 0.11 8.35 0.01 0.0001 129.26 0.6463 200.00 10667 P-13 0.02 2000 39.85 8.35 4.77 0.0005 9545.85 0.6463 14770.00 10668 P-14 0.01 2000 10.34 8.35 1.24 0.0003 4127.92 0.6463 6387.00 10669 D-11 0.00 2000 0.19 8.35 0.02 0.0001 232.28 0.6463 359.40 10670 73.56 Total lbs. 

## Appendix H IDEM/32/02/011/1998Metolachlor Parameter 97f158 Sample set

06/23/97 Date

Site Tons/Day Factor Pounds/Day W t of h2o MG/L MGD Factor Flow-CFS Lab number P-01 0.00 2000 1.27 8.35 0.15 0.0013 117.24 0.6463 181.40 10656 P-02 0.02 2000 30.15 8.35 3.61 0.0028 1289.37 0.6463 1995.00 10657 P-03 0.01 2000 11.84 8.35 1.42 0.0013 1090.95 0.6463 1688.00 10658 P-04 0.00 2000 1.19 8.35 0.14 0.0005 285.66 0.6463 442.00 10659 P-05 0.00 2000 0.53 8.35 0.06 0.0002 315.27 0.6463 487.80 10660 P-06 0.00 2000 6.03 8.35 0.72 0.0018 400.96 0.6463 620.40 10661 P-07 0.00 2000 2.16 8.35 0.26 0.0006 431.47 0.6463 667.60 10662 P-08 0.01 2000 11.50 8.35 1.38 0.0011 1251.88 0.6463 1937.00 10663 P-09 0.00 2000 0.34 8.35 0.04 0.0007 58.85 0.6463 91.06 10664 P-10 0.00 2000 2.00 8.35 0.24 0.0035 68.44 0.6463 105.90 10665 P-11 0.00 2000 1.36 8.35 0.16 0.0007 232.28 0.6463 359.40 10666 P-12 0.00 2000 0.00 8.35 0.00 0.0000 129.26 0.6463 200.00 10667 P-13 0.12 2000 231.15 8.35 27.68 0.0029 9545.85 0.6463 14770.00 10668 P-14 0.04 2000 86.17 8.35 10.32 0.0025 4127.92 0.6463 6387.00 10669 D-11 0.00 2000 1.55 8.35 0.19 0.0008 232.28 0.6463 359.40 10670 385.69 Total lbs. 

## Appendix H IDEM/32/02/011/1998Atrazine Parameter 97f159 Sample set

06/30/97 Date

Site Tons/Day Factor Pounds/Day W t of h2o MG/L MGD Factor Flow-CFS Lab number P-01 0.00 2000 0.60 8.35 0.07 0.0010 72.06 0.6463 111.50 10671 P-02 0.00 2000 0.88 8.35 0.10 0.0002 524.54 0.6463 811.60 10672 P-03 0.00 2000 6.09 8.35 0.73 0.0010 729.03 0.6463 1128.00 10673 P-04 0.00 2000 1.80 8.35 0.22 0.0014 153.75 0.6463 237.90 10674 P-05 0.00 2000 2.85 8.35 0.34 0.0016 213.09 0.6463 329.70 10675 P-06 0.00 2000 3.34 8.35 0.40 0.0019 210.76 0.6463 326.10 10676 P-07 0.00 2000 3.02 8.35 0.36 0.0012 301.63 0.6463 466.70 10677 P-08 0.00 2000 8.90 8.35 1.07 0.0015 710.28 0.6463 1099.00 10678 P-09 0.00 2000 0.39 8.35 0.05 0.0015 30.93 0.6463 47.86 10679 P-10 0.00 2000 0.47 8.35 0.06 0.0033 17.10 0.6463 26.46 10680 P-11 0.00 2000 0.78 8.35 0.09 0.0013 71.48 0.6463 110.60 10681 P-12 0.00 2000 3.86 8.35 0.46 0.0004 1156.88 0.6463 1790.00 10682 P-13 0.03 2000 54.85 8.35 6.57 0.0018 3649.66 0.6463 5647.00 10683 P-14 0.07 2000 133.92 8.35 16.04 0.0055 2916.11 0.6463 4512.00 10684 D-13 0.03 2000 54.85 8.35 6.57 0.0018 3649.66 0.6463 5647.00 10685 221.75 Total lbs. 

## Appendix H IDEM/32/02/011/1998Acetochlor Parameter 97f159 Sample set

06/30/97 Date

Site Tons/Day Factor Pounds/Day W t of h2o MG/L MGD Factor Flow-CFS Lab number P-01 0.00 2000 0.00 8.35 0.00 0.0000 524.54 0.6463 811.60 10671 P-02 0.00 2000 0.12 8.35 0.01 0.0002 72.06 0.6463 111.50 10672 P-03 0.00 2000 0.00 8.35 0.00 0.0000 729.03 0.6463 1128.00 10673 P-04 0.00 2000 0.13 8.35 0.02 0.0001 153.75 0.6463 237.90 10674 P-05 0.00 2000 0.18 8.35 0.02 0.0001 213.09 0.6463 329.70 10675 P-06 0.00 2000 0.18 8.35 0.02 0.0001 210.76 0.6463 326.10 10676 P-07 0.00 2000 0.25 8.35 0.03 0.0001 301.63 0.6463 466.70 10677 P-08 0.00 2000 0.00 8.35 0.00 0.0000 710.28 0.6463 1099.00 10678 P-09 0.00 2000 0.00 8.35 0.00 0.0000 30.93 0.6463 47.86 10679 P-10 0.00 2000 0.01 8.35 0.00 0.0001 17.10 0.6463 26.46 10680 P-11 0.00 2000 0.00 8.35 0.00 0.0000 71.48 0.6463 110.60 10681 P-12 0.00 2000 0.97 8.35 0.12 0.0001 1156.88 0.6463 1790.00 10682 P-13 0.00 2000 3.05 8.35 0.36 0.0001 3649.66 0.6463 5647.00 10683 P-14 0.00 2000 7.30 8.35 0.87 0.0003 2916.11 0.6463 4512.00 10684 D-13 0.00 2000 0.00 8.35 0.00 0.0000 3649.66 0.6463 5647.00 10685 12.19 Total lbs. 

## Appendix H IDEM/32/02/011/1998Metolachlor Parameter 97f159 Sample set

06/30/97 Date

Site Tons/Day Factor Pounds/Day W t of h2o MG/L MGD Factor Flow-CFS Lab number P-01 0.00 2000 2.19 8.35 0.26 0.0005 524.54 0.6463 811.60 10671 P-02 0.00 2000 0.18 8.35 0.02 0.0003 72.06 0.6463 111.50 10672 P-03 0.00 2000 1.83 8.35 0.22 0.0003 729.03 0.6463 1128.00 10673 P-04 0.00 2000 0.26 8.35 0.03 0.0002 153.75 0.6463 237.90 10674 P-05 0.00 2000 0.71 8.35 0.09 0.0004 213.09 0.6463 329.70 10675 P-06 0.00 2000 1.41 8.35 0.17 0.0008 210.76 0.6463 326.10 10676 P-07 0.00 2000 0.50 8.35 0.06 0.0002 301.63 0.6463 466.70 10677 P-08 0.00 2000 2.37 8.35 0.28 0.0004 710.28 0.6463 1099.00 10678 P-09 0.00 2000 0.08 8.35 0.01 0.0003 30.93 0.6463 47.86 10679 P-10 0.00 2000 0.16 8.35 0.02 0.0011 17.10 0.6463 26.46 10680 P-11 0.00 2000 0.18 8.35 0.02 0.0003 71.48 0.6463 110.60 10681 P-12 0.00 2000 0.97 8.35 0.12 0.0001 1156.88 0.6463 1790.00 10682 P-13 0.01 2000 18.28 8.35 2.19 0.0006 3649.66 0.6463 5647.00 10683 P-14 0.05 2000 92.53 8.35 11.08 0.0038 2916.11 0.6463 4512.00 10684 D-13 0.01 2000 18.28 8.35 2.19 0.0006 3649.66 0.6463 5647.00 10685 121.64 Total lbs. 

## Appendix H IDEM/32/02/011/1998atrazine Parameter 97g160 Sample set

07/07/97 Date

Site Tons/Day Factor Pounds/Day W t of h2o MG/L MGD Factor Flow-CFS Lab number P-01 0.00 2000 0.49 8.35 0.06 0.0010 59.08 0.6463 91.42 10686 P-02 0.00 2000 3.86 8.35 0.46 0.0012 384.81 0.6463 595.40 10687 P-03 0.00 2000 4.53 8.35 0.54 0.0008 677.97 0.6463 1049.00 10688 P-04 0.00 2000 0.93 8.35 0.11 0.0015 74.32 0.6463 115.00 10689 P-05 0.00 2000 1.06 8.35 0.13 0.0008 159.31 0.6463 246.50 10690 P-06 0.00 2000 0.79 8.35 0.10 0.0008 118.79 0.6463 183.80 10691 P-07 0.00 2000 1.33 8.35 0.16 0.0011 145.03 0.6463 224.40 10692 P-08 0.00 2000 3.89 8.35 0.47 0.0010 465.53 0.6463 720.30 10693 P-09 0.00 2000 0.21 8.35 0.03 0.0009 28.31 0.6463 43.80 10694 P-10 0.00 2000 0.09 8.35 0.01 0.0028 3.87 0.6463 5.99 10695 P-11 0.00 2000 0.34 8.35 0.04 0.0011 37.41 0.6463 57.88 10700 P-12 0.00 2000 5.40 8.35 0.65 0.0005 1292.60 0.6463 2000.00 10697 P-13 0.01 2000 25.90 8.35 3.10 0.0010 3102.24 0.6463 4800.00 10698 P-14 0.01 2000 22.77 8.35 2.73 0.0018 1514.93 0.6463 2344.00 10699 D-05 0.00 2000 1.46 8.35 0.18 0.0011 159.31 0.6463 246.50 10700 71.60 Total lbs. 

## Appendix H IDEM/32/02/011/1998Acetochlor Parameter 97g160 Sample set

07/07/97 Date

Site Tons/Day Factor Pounds/Day W t of h2o MG/L MGD Factor Flow-CFS Lab number P-01 0.00 2000 0.00 8.35 0.00 0.0000 59.08 0.6463 91.42 10686 P-02 0.00 2000 0.32 8.35 0.04 0.0001 384.81 0.6463 595.40 10687 P-03 0.00 2000 0.00 8.35 0.00 0.0000 677.97 0.6463 1049.00 10688 P-04 0.00 2000 0.00 8.35 0.00 0.0000 74.32 0.6463 115.00 10689 P-05 0.00 2000 0.00 8.35 0.00 0.0000 159.31 0.6463 246.50 10690 P-06 0.00 2000 0.00 8.35 0.00 0.0000 118.79 0.6463 183.80 10691 P-07 0.00 2000 0.00 8.35 0.00 0.0000 145.03 0.6463 224.40 10692 P-08 0.00 2000 0.00 8.35 0.00 0.0000 465.53 0.6463 720.30 10693 P-09 0.00 2000 0.00 8.35 0.00 0.0000 28.31 0.6463 43.80 10694 P-10 0.00 2000 0.00 8.35 0.00 0.0001 3.87 0.6463 5.99 10695 P-11 0.00 2000 0.00 8.35 0.00 0.0000 37.41 0.6463 57.88 10700 P-12 0.00 2000 1.08 8.35 0.13 0.0001 1292.60 0.6463 2000.00 10697 P-13 0.00 2000 2.59 8.35 0.31 0.0001 3102.24 0.6463 4800.00 10698 P-14 0.00 2000 0.00 8.35 0.00 0.0000 1514.93 0.6463 2344.00 10699 D-05 0.00 2000 0.00 8.35 0.00 0.0000 159.31 0.6463 246.50 10700 3.99 Total lbs. 

## Appendix H IDEM/32/02/011/1998Metolachlor Parameter 97g160 Sample set

07/07/97 Date

Site Tons/Day Factor Pounds/Day W t of h2o MG/L MGD Factor Flow-CFS Lab number P-01 0.00 2000 0.30 8.35 0.04 0.0006 59.08 0.6463 91.42 10686 P-02 0.00 2000 0.96 8.35 0.12 0.0003 384.81 0.6463 595.40 10687 P-03 0.00 2000 1.13 8.35 0.14 0.0002 677.97 0.6463 1049.00 10688 P-04 0.00 2000 0.06 8.35 0.01 0.0001 74.32 0.6463 115.00 10689 P-05 0.00 2000 0.13 8.35 0.02 0.0001 159.31 0.6463 246.50 10690 P-06 0.00 2000 0.30 8.35 0.04 0.0003 118.79 0.6463 183.80 10691 P-07 0.00 2000 0.12 8.35 0.01 0.0001 145.03 0.6463 224.40 10692 P-08 0.00 2000 0.78 8.35 0.09 0.0002 465.53 0.6463 720.30 10693 P-09 0.00 2000 0.02 8.35 0.00 0.0001 28.31 0.6463 43.80 10694 P-10 0.00 2000 0.03 8.35 0.00 0.0010 3.87 0.6463 5.99 10695 P-11 0.00 2000 0.06 8.35 0.01 0.0002 37.41 0.6463 57.88 10700 P-12 0.00 2000 1.08 8.35 0.13 0.0001 1292.60 0.6463 2000.00 10697 P-13 0.00 2000 7.77 8.35 0.93 0.0003 3102.24 0.6463 4800.00 10698 P-14 0.01 2000 10.12 8.35 1.21 0.0008 1514.93 0.6463 2344.00 10699 D-05 0.00 2000 0.27 8.35 0.03 0.0002 159.31 0.6463 246.50 10700 22.87 Total lbs. 

## Appendix H IDEM/32/02/011/1998atrazine Parameter 97g161 Sample set

07/14/97 Date

Site Tons/Day Factor Pounds/Day W t of h2o MG/L MGD Factor Flow-CFS Lab number P-01 0.00 2000 1.21 8.35 0.14 0.0026 55.58 0.6463 86.00 10701 P-02 0.00 2000 4.12 8.35 0.49 0.0013 379.18 0.6463 586.70 10702 P-03 0.00 2000 3.86 8.35 0.46 0.0007 659.87 0.6463 1021.00 10703 P-04 0.00 2000 0.59 8.35 0.07 0.0013 54.69 0.6463 84.62 10704 P-05 0.00 2000 1.01 8.35 0.12 0.0008 151.95 0.6463 235.10 10705 P-06 0.00 2000 0.67 8.35 0.08 0.0008 100.24 0.6463 155.10 10706 P-07 0.00 2000 0.75 8.35 0.09 0.0009 99.53 0.6463 154.00 10707 P-08 0.00 2000 2.66 8.35 0.32 0.0008 398.83 0.6463 617.10 10708 P-09 0.00 2000 0.08 8.35 0.01 0.0009 10.68 0.6463 16.53 10709 P-10 0.00 2000 0.06 8.35 0.01 0.0025 2.93 0.6463 4.53 10710 P-11 0.00 2000 0.29 8.35 0.04 0.0010 35.27 0.6463 54.57 10711 P-12 0.00 2000 0.38 8.35 0.05 0.0007 64.63 0.6463 100.00 10712 P-13 0.01 2000 11.71 8.35 1.40 0.0008 1752.77 0.6463 2712.00 10713 P-14 0.01 2000 11.24 8.35 1.35 0.0011 1224.09 0.6463 1894.00 10714 D-14 0.01 2000 12.27 8.35 1.47 0.0012 1224.09 0.6463 1894.00 10715 38.64 Total lbs. 

## Appendix H IDEM/32/02/011/1998Acetochlor Parameter 97g161 Sample set

07/14/97 Date

Site Tons/Day Factor Pounds/Day W t of h2o MG/L MGD Factor Flow-CFS Lab number P-01 0.00 2000 0.23 8.35 0.03 0.0005 55.58 0.6463 86.00 10701 P-02 0.00 2000 0.32 8.35 0.04 0.0001 379.18 0.6463 586.70 10702 P-03 0.00 2000 0.00 8.35 0.00 0.0000 659.87 0.6463 1021.00 10703 P-04 0.00 2000 0.00 8.35 0.00 0.0000 54.69 0.6463 84.62 10704 P-05 0.00 2000 0.00 8.35 0.00 0.0000 151.95 0.6463 235.10 10705 P-06 0.00 2000 0.00 8.35 0.00 0.0000 100.24 0.6463 155.10 10706 P-07 0.00 2000 0.00 8.35 0.00 0.0000 99.53 0.6463 154.00 10707 P-08 0.00 2000 0.00 8.35 0.00 0.0000 398.83 0.6463 617.10 10708 P-09 0.00 2000 0.00 8.35 0.00 0.0000 10.68 0.6463 16.53 10709 P-10 0.00 2000 0.00 8.35 0.00 0.0000 2.93 0.6463 4.53 10710 P-11 0.00 2000 0.00 8.35 0.00 0.0000 35.27 0.6463 54.57 10711 P-12 0.00 2000 0.05 8.35 0.01 0.0001 64.63 0.6463 100.00 10712 P-13 0.00 2000 0.00 8.35 0.00 0.0000 1752.77 0.6463 2712.00 10713 P-14 0.00 2000 0.00 8.35 0.00 0.0000 1224.09 0.6463 1894.00 10714 D-14 0.00 2000 0.00 8.35 0.00 0.0000 1224.09 0.6463 1894.00 10715 0.60 Total lbs. 

## Appendix H IDEM/32/02/011/1998Metolachlor Parameter 97g161 Sample set

07/14/97 Date

Site Tons/Day Factor Pounds/Day W t of h2o MG/L MGD Factor Flow-CFS Lab number P-01 0.00 2000 0.14 8.35 0.02 0.0003 55.58 0.6463 86.00 10701 P-02 0.00 2000 0.95 8.35 0.11 0.0003 379.18 0.6463 586.70 10702 P-03 0.00 2000 1.10 8.35 0.13 0.0002 659.87 0.6463 1021.00 10703 P-04 0.00 2000 0.05 8.35 0.01 0.0001 54.69 0.6463 84.62 10704 P-05 0.00 2000 0.13 8.35 0.02 0.0001 151.95 0.6463 235.10 10705 P-06 0.00 2000 0.25 8.35 0.03 0.0003 100.24 0.6463 155.10 10706 P-07 0.00 2000 0.08 8.35 0.01 0.0001 99.53 0.6463 154.00 10707 P-08 0.00 2000 0.67 8.35 0.08 0.0002 398.83 0.6463 617.10 10708 P-09 0.00 2000 0.00 8.35 0.00 0.0000 10.68 0.6463 16.53 10709 P-10 0.00 2000 0.01 8.35 0.00 0.0004 2.93 0.6463 4.53 10710 P-11 0.00 2000 0.03 8.35 0.00 0.0001 35.27 0.6463 54.57 10711 P-12 0.00 2000 0.11 8.35 0.01 0.0002 64.63 0.6463 100.00 10712 P-13 0.00 2000 2.93 8.35 0.35 0.0002 1752.77 0.6463 2712.00 10713 P-14 0.00 2000 4.09 8.35 0.49 0.0004 1224.09 0.6463 1894.00 10714 D-14 0.00 2000 5.11 8.35 0.61 0.0005 1224.09 0.6463 1894.00 10715 10.53 Total lbs. 

## Appendix H IDEM/32/02/011/1998atrazine Parameter 97g162 Sample set

07/21/97 Date

Site Tons/Day Factor Pounds/Day W t of h2o MG/L MGD Factor Flow-CFS Lab number P-01 0.00 2000 0.22 8.35 0.03 0.0010 25.77 0.6463 39.88 10716 P-02 0.00 2000 1.57 8.35 0.19 0.0008 235.19 0.6463 363.90 10717 P-03 0.00 2000 2.12 8.35 0.25 0.0005 508.19 0.6463 786.30 10718 P-04 0.00 2000 0.12 8.35 0.01 0.0005 29.75 0.6463 46.03 10719 P-05 0.00 2000 0.35 8.35 0.04 0.0004 104.96 0.6463 162.40 10720 P-06 0.00 2000 0.35 8.35 0.04 0.0005 84.86 0.6463 131.30 10721 P-07 0.00 2000 0.26 8.35 0.03 0.0005 62.22 0.6463 96.27 10722 P-08 0.00 2000 1.21 8.35 0.14 0.0005 289.28 0.6463 447.60 10723 P-09 0.00 2000 0.04 8.35 0.01 0.0007 7.43 0.6463 11.49 10724 P-10 0.00 2000 0.05 8.35 0.01 0.0017 3.59 0.6463 5.55 10725 P-11 0.00 2000 0.44 8.35 0.05 0.0010 52.58 0.6463 81.36 10726 P-12 0.00 2000 0.11 8.35 0.01 0.0004 32.32 0.6463 50.00 10727 P-13 0.01 2000 11.45 8.35 1.37 0.0009 1523.33 0.6463 2357.00 10728 P-14 0.00 2000 7.61 8.35 0.91 0.0009 1012.75 0.6463 1567.00 10729 D-1 0.00 2000 0.22 8.35 0.03 0.0010 25.77 0.6463 39.88 10730 25.90 Total lbs. 

## Appendix H IDEM/32/02/011/1998metolachlor Parameter 97g162 Sample set

07/21/97 Date

Site Tons/Day Factor Pounds/Day W t of h2o MG/L MGD Factor Flow-CFS Lab number P-01 0.00 2000 1.29 8.35 0.15 0.0060 25.77 0.6463 39.88 10716 P-02 0.00 2000 0.39 8.35 0.05 0.0002 235.19 0.6463 363.90 10717 P-03 0.00 2000 0.42 8.35 0.05 0.0001 508.19 0.6463 786.30 10718 P-04 0.00 2000 0.00 8.35 0.00 0.0000 29.75 0.6463 46.03 10719 P-05 0.00 2000 0.00 8.35 0.00 0.0000 104.96 0.6463 162.40 10720 P-06 0.00 2000 0.14 8.35 0.02 0.0002 84.86 0.6463 131.30 10721 P-07 0.00 2000 0.00 8.35 0.00 0.0000 62.22 0.6463 96.27 10722 P-08 0.00 2000 0.24 8.35 0.03 0.0001 289.28 0.6463 447.60 10723 P-09 0.00 2000 0.00 8.35 0.00 0.0000 7.43 0.6463 11.49 10724 P-10 0.00 2000 0.01 8.35 0.00 0.0003 3.59 0.6463 5.55 10725 P-11 0.00 2000 0.04 8.35 0.01 0.0001 52.58 0.6463 81.36 10726 P-12 0.00 2000 0.05 8.35 0.01 0.0002 32.32 0.6463 50.00 10727 P-13 0.00 2000 2.54 8.35 0.30 0.0002 1523.33 0.6463 2357.00 10728 P-14 0.00 2000 2.54 8.35 0.30 0.0003 1012.75 0.6463 1567.00 10729 D-1 0.00 2000 1.40 8.35 0.17 0.0065 25.77 0.6463 39.88 10730 7.68 Total lbs. 

## Appendix H IDEM/32/02/011/1998Atrazine Parameter 97g163 Sample set

07/28/97 Date

Site Tons/Day Factor Pounds/Day W t of h2o MG/L MGD Factor Flow-CFS Lab number P-01 0.00 2000 0.19 8.35 0.02 0.0004 55.59 0.6463 86.01 10731 P-02 0.00 2000 1.77 8.35 0.21 0.0010 212.50 0.6463 328.80 10732 P-03 0.00 2000 1.98 8.35 0.24 0.0004 593.50 0.6463 918.30 10733 P-04 0.00 2000 0.24 8.35 0.03 0.0005 56.48 0.6463 87.39 10734 P-05 0.00 2000 1.56 8.35 0.19 0.0007 266.86 0.6463 412.90 10735 P-06 0.00 2000 2.91 8.35 0.35 0.0015 232.47 0.6463 359.70 10736 P-07 0.00 2000 0.25 8.35 0.03 0.0005 59.18 0.6463 91.57 10737 P-08 0.00 2000 2.70 8.35 0.32 0.0006 539.27 0.6463 834.40 10738 P-09 0.00 2000 0.06 8.35 0.01 0.0006 12.32 0.6463 19.06 10739 P-10 0.00 2000 0.03 8.35 0.00 0.0009 4.32 0.6463 6.68 10740 P-11 0.00 2000 0.20 8.35 0.02 0.0008 29.21 0.6463 45.19 10741 P-12 0.00 2000 1.94 8.35 0.23 0.0008 290.84 0.6463 450.00 10742 P-13 0.01 2000 15.02 8.35 1.80 0.0012 1499.42 0.6463 2320.00 10743 P-14 0.00 2000 5.38 8.35 0.64 0.0011 586.19 0.6463 907.00 10744 D-09 0.00 2000 0.06 8.35 0.01 0.0006 12.32 0.6463 19.06 10745 34.24 Total lbs. 

## Appendix H IDEM/32/02/011/1998Metolachlor Parameter 97g163 Sample set

07/28/97 Date

Site Tons/Day Factor Pounds/Day W t of h2o MG/L MGD Factor Flow-CFS Lab number P-01 0.00 2000 0.19 8.35 0.02 0.0004 55.59 0.6463 86.01 10731 P-02 0.00 2000 0.35 8.35 0.04 0.0002 212.50 0.6463 328.80 10732 P-03 0.00 2000 0.00 8.35 0.00 0.0000 593.50 0.6463 918.30 10733 P-04 0.00 2000 0.00 8.35 0.00 0.0000 56.48 0.6463 87.39 10734 P-05 0.00 2000 0.67 8.35 0.08 0.0003 266.86 0.6463 412.90 10735 P-06 0.00 2000 1.94 8.35 0.23 0.0010 232.47 0.6463 359.70 10736 P-07 0.00 2000 0.05 8.35 0.01 0.0001 59.18 0.6463 91.57 10737 P-08 0.00 2000 0.90 8.35 0.11 0.0002 539.27 0.6463 834.40 10738 P-09 0.00 2000 0.01 8.35 0.00 0.0001 12.32 0.6463 19.06 10739 P-10 0.00 2000 0.01 8.35 0.00 0.0003 4.32 0.6463 6.68 10740 P-11 0.00 2000 0.05 8.35 0.01 0.0002 29.21 0.6463 45.19 10741 P-12 0.00 2000 0.49 8.35 0.06 0.0002 290.84 0.6463 450.00 10742 P-13 0.00 2000 6.26 8.35 0.75 0.0005 1499.42 0.6463 2320.00 10743 P-14 0.00 2000 1.96 8.35 0.23 0.0004 586.19 0.6463 907.00 10744 D-09 0.00 2000 0.01 8.35 0.00 0.0001 12.32 0.6463 19.06 10745 12.87 Total lbs. 

## Appendix H IDEM/32/02/011/1998Atrazine Parameter 97h164 Sample set

08/04/97 Date

Site Tons/Day Factor Pounds/Day W t of h2o MG/L MGD Factor Flow-CFS Lab number P-01 0.00 2000 0.07 8.35 0.01 0.0005 16.65 0.6463 25.76 10746 P-02 0.00 2000 1.37 8.35 0.16 0.0009 182.39 0.6463 282.20 10747 P-03 0.00 2000 1.49 8.35 0.18 0.0004 445.11 0.6463 688.70 10748 P-04 0.00 2000 0.06 8.35 0.01 0.0004 16.82 0.6463 26.03 10749 P-05 0.00 2000 0.20 8.35 0.02 0.0003 81.69 0.6463 126.40 10750 P-06 0.00 2000 0.33 8.35 0.04 0.0006 65.53 0.6463 101.40 10751 P-07 0.00 2000 0.12 8.35 0.01 0.0004 36.74 0.6463 56.84 10752 P-08 0.00 2000 0.91 8.35 0.11 0.0005 219.10 0.6463 339.00 10753 P-09 0.00 2000 0.02 8.35 0.00 0.0007 3.53 0.6463 5.46 10754 P-10 0.00 2000 0.03 8.35 0.00 0.0014 2.23 0.6463 3.45 10755 P-11 0.00 2000 0.14 8.35 0.02 0.0007 24.77 0.6463 38.32 10756 P-12 0.00 2000 0.24 8.35 0.03 0.0009 32.32 0.6463 50.00 10757 P-13 0.00 2000 5.20 8.35 0.62 0.0007 889.96 0.6463 1377.00 10758 P-14 0.00 2000 4.62 8.35 0.55 0.0008 691.54 0.6463 1070.00 10759 D-06 0.00 2000 0.33 8.35 0.04 0.0006 65.53 0.6463 101.40 10760 14.81 Total lbs. 

## Appendix H IDEM/32/02/011/1998Metolachlor Parameter 97h164 Sample set

08/04/97 Date

Site Tons/Day Factor Pounds/Day W t of h2o MG/L MGD Factor Flow-CFS Lab number P-01 0.00 2000 0.08 8.35 0.01 0.0006 16.65 0.6463 25.76 10746 P-02 0.00 2000 0.30 8.35 0.04 0.0002 182.39 0.6463 282.20 10747 P-03 0.00 2000 0.00 8.35 0.00 0.0000 445.11 0.6463 688.70 10748 P-04 0.00 2000 0.00 8.35 0.00 0.0000 16.82 0.6463 26.03 10749 P-05 0.00 2000 0.00 8.35 0.00 0.0000 81.69 0.6463 126.40 10750 P-06 0.00 2000 0.11 8.35 0.01 0.0002 65.53 0.6463 101.40 10751 P-07 0.00 2000 0.00 8.35 0.00 0.0000 36.74 0.6463 56.84 10752 P-08 0.00 2000 0.18 8.35 0.02 0.0001 219.10 0.6463 339.00 10753 P-09 0.00 2000 0.00 8.35 0.00 0.0000 3.53 0.6463 5.46 10754 P-10 0.00 2000 0.01 8.35 0.00 0.0004 2.23 0.6463 3.45 10755 P-11 0.00 2000 0.04 8.35 0.00 0.0002 24.77 0.6463 38.32 10756 P-12 0.00 2000 0.05 8.35 0.01 0.0002 32.32 0.6463 50.00 10757 P-13 0.00 2000 1.49 8.35 0.18 0.0002 889.96 0.6463 1377.00 10758 P-14 0.00 2000 1.15 8.35 0.14 0.0002 691.54 0.6463 1070.00 10759 D-06 0.00 2000 0.11 8.35 0.01 0.0002 65.53 0.6463 101.40 10760 3.42 Total lbs. 

## Appendix H IDEM/32/02/011/1998Metolachlor Parameter 97h165 Sample set

08/11/97 Date

Site Tons/Day Factor Pounds/Day W t of h2o MG/L MGD Factor Flow-CFS Lab number P-01 0.002 2000 3.46 8.35 0.414 0.0350 11.83 0.6463 18.30 10761 P-02 0.000 2000 0.30 8.35 0.036 0.0002 182.39 0.6463 282.20 10762 P-03 0.000 2000 0.00 8.35 0.000 0.0000 13.06 0.6463 20.20 10763 P-04 0.000 2000 0.00 8.35 0.000 0.0000 410.40 0.6463 635.00 10764 P-05 0.000 2000 0.00 8.35 0.000 0.0000 66.05 0.6463 102.20 10765 P-06 0.000 2000 0.05 8.35 0.006 0.0001 57.46 0.6463 88.90 10766 P-07 0.000 2000 0.00 8.35 0.000 0.0000 27.92 0.6463 43.20 10767 P-08 0.000 2000 0.00 8.35 0.000 0.0000 139.60 0.6463 216.00 10768 P-09 0.000 2000 0.00 8.35 0.000 0.0000 3.23 0.6463 5.00 10769 P-10 0.000 2000 0.01 8.35 0.001 0.0007 1.54 0.6463 2.39 10770 P-11 0.000 2000 0.02 8.35 0.003 0.0001 25.14 0.6463 38.90 10771 P-12 0.000 2000 0.05 8.35 0.006 0.0002 32.32 0.6463 50.00 10772 P-13 0.001 2000 1.16 8.35 0.139 0.0002 697.36 0.6463 1079.00 10773 P-14 0.001 2000 1.00 8.35 0.120 0.0002 600.93 0.6463 929.80 10774 D-09 0.000 2000 0.00 8.35 0.000 0.0000 3.23 0.6463 5.00 10775 6.06 Total lbs. 

## Appendix H IDEM/32/02/011/1998