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 River and

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, Indiana1, 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, MiracleSoybean 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 of 

Pendimethalin

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 WWRP01

Load vs. May Sampling Dates

Example of Trapazoid Rule

Sample Date

Load (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 n observations where the area if each trapezoid is (11 + 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 

35 

Conc. 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 

40 

Conc. 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 

30 

Conc. 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 

50 

Conc. 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 

45 

Concentration 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 

50 

Conc. 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 

40 

Conc. 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 

50 

Conc. 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 

25 

Conc. 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 

50 

Conc. 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 

25 

Conc. 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 

1 

Conc. 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 

60 

Conc. 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 

20 

Conc. 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 to

conclude 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 Protection

Agency, 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 Miles

Abington

STATE LINE

Richmond

Cropland Area

62,720 Acres

County Boundaries

Rivers and Streams

Watershed Delineation

#S

Legend

Forest Land

Other Land

Sampling Site WWRO1

Survey Section/S. Grady

IDEM/OWM/Assessment Branch

Prepared By: J.Wood 2-4-98

N

1. East Fork Whitewater River

Abington
#

Survey Section/S. Grady

IDEM/OWM/Assessment Branch

Prepared By: J.Wood 2-4-98

N

2. Whitewater River

Brookville

Cropland Area

301,216 Acres

County Boundaries

Rivers and Streams

Watershed Delineation

#S Sampling Site WWR02

Legend

Forest Land

Other Land

Brookville

Connersville

Hagerstown

Richmond

2 0 2 4 6 Miles
#

3. Whitewater River

Alpine

Survey Section/S. Grady

IDEM/OWM/Assessment Branch

Prepared By: J.Wood 2-4-98

N

Cropland Area

315,520 Acres

County Boundaries

Rivers and Streams

Watershed Delineation

#S Sampling Site WWR03

Legend

Forest Land

Other Land

Connersville

Alpine

Hagerstown

Richmond

2 0 2 4 Miles
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 Miles

Rushville

St. Paul

Cropland Area

172,800 Acres

County Boundaries

Rivers and Streams

Watershed Delineation

#S Sampling Site EFWR04

Legend

Forest Land

Other Land

4. Flatrock River

St. Paul

N

Survey Section/S. Grady

IDEM/OWM/Assessment Branch

Prepared By: J.Wood 2-4-98
Survey Section/S. Grady

IDEM/OWM/Assessment Branch

Prepared By: J.Wood 2-4-98

#

5. Big Blue River

Shelbyville

Cropland Area

257,280 Acres

County Boundaries

Rivers and Streams

Watershed Delineation

#S Sampling Site EFWR05

Legend

Forest Land

Other Land

Shelbyville

New Castle

Knightstown

Morristown

4 0 4 Miles

N
Survey Section/S. Grady

IDEM/OWM/Assessment Branch

Prepared By: J.Wood 2-4-98

#

6. Sugar Creek

Edinburgh

Cropland Area

271,360 Acres

County Boundaries

Rivers and Streams

Watershed Delineation

#S Sampling Site EFWR06

Legend

Forest Land

Other Land

Edinburgh

Franklin

Indianapolis

2 0 2 4 Miles

N
#

7

2 0 2 4 6 Miles

Rushville

Flatrock

Cropland Area

316,800 Acres

County Boundaries

Rivers and Streams

Watershed Delineation

#S Sampling Site EFWR07

Legend

Forest Land

Other Land

7. Flatrock River

Columbus

N

Survey Section/S. Grady

IDEM/OWM/Assessment Branch

Prepared By: J.Wood 2-4-98
#

Survey Section/S. Grady

IDEM/OWM/Assessment Branch

Prepared By: J.Wood 2-4-98

N

8. East Fork White River

Columbus

Cropland Area

965,760 Acres

County Boundaries

Rivers and Streams

Watershed Delineation

#S Sampling Site EFWR08

Legend

Forest Land

Other Land

Columbus

Shelbyville

Greenfield

Rushville

New Castle

2 0 2 4 6 8 Miles
Survey Section/S. Grady

IDEM/OWM/Assessment Branch

Prepared By: J.Wood 2-4-98

N

#

9. Clifty Creek

Hartsville

Cropland Area

62,080 Acres

County Boundaries

Rivers and Streams

Watershed Delineation

#S Sampling Site EFWR09

Legend

Forest Land

Other Land

Hartsville

2 0 2 4 Miles
#

10

N

2 0 2 4 Miles

Butlerville

Cropland Area

44,800 Acres

County Boundaries

Rivers and Streams

Watershed Delineation

#S Sampling Site EFWR10

Legend

Forest Land

Other Land

10. Vernon Fork Muscatatuck River

Butlerville

Survey Section/S. Grady

IDEM/OWM/Assessment Branch

Prepared By: J.Wood 2-4-98
#

Survey Section/S. Grady

IDEM/OWM/Assessment Branch

Prepared By: J.Wood 2-4-98

N

11. Muscatatuck River

Deputy

Cropland Area

129,920 Acres

County Boundaries

Rivers and Streams

Watershed Delineation

#S Sampling Site EFWR11

Legend

Forest Land

Other Land

Deputy

Jefferson Proving Ground

Madison

Dupont

2 0 2 4 6 Miles
#

Survey Section/S. Grady

IDEM/OWM/Assessment Branch

Prepared By: J.Wood 2-4-98

N

12. Salt Creek

Harrodsburg

Cropland Area

32,640 Acres

County Boundaries

Rivers and Streams

Watershed Delineation

#S Sampling Site EFWR12

Legend

Forest Land

Other Land

Harrodsburg

Lake

Monroe

2 0 2 4 6 Miles
13

5 0 5 10 15 20 Miles

Rushville

Greenfield

Greensburg

Seymour

Columbus

Shelbyville

New Castle

Bloomington

Shoals

Cropland Area

2,168,960 Acres

County Boundaries

Rivers and Streams

Watershed Delineation

#S Sampling Site EFWR13

Legend

Forest Land

Other Land

13. East Fork White River

Shoals

N

Survey Section/S. Grady

IDEM/OWM/Assessment Branch

Prepared By: J.Wood 2-4-98

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

46

APPENDIX C

WEST FORK WHITE RIVER SAMPLING LOCATION

AND MAPS
#

Survey Section/S. Grady

IDEM/OWM/Assessment Branch

Prepared By: J.Wood 2-4-98

5 0 5 10 15 Miles

N

14. West Fork White River

Newberry

Cropland Area

2,158,720 Acres

County Boundaries

Rivers and Streams

Watershed Delineation

#S Sampling Site WFWR

Legend

Forest Land

Other Land

Indianapolis

Muncie

Anderson

Newberry

Bloomington
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 -

Fg/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 -

Fg/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 -

Fg/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 -

Fg/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 -

Fg/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 SITE
Site: WWR01, East Fork of Whitewater River @ Abington

MAY TO NOVEMBER

Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three)

Confid. Confid. Standard Std.Err. Std.Err.

Valid N Mean -95.000% 95.00% Sum Minimum Maximum Range Variance Std.Dev. Error Skewness Skewness Kurtosis Kurtosis

Acetochlor 16 0.51875 0.021836 1.015664 8.3 0 3.9 3.9 0.869625 0.932537 0.233134 3.564995 0.564308 13.55765 1.090774

Atrazine 16 2.95 0.437435 5.462565 47.2 0.2 20 19.8 22.23333 4.715224 1.178806 3.538593 0.564308 13.36805 1.090774

Metolachlor 16 3.9625 -0.662094 8.587094 63.4 0 35 35 75.32117 8.678777 2.169694 3.462063 0.564308 12.63812 1.090774

MAY

Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three)

Confid. Confid. Standard Std.Err. Std.Err.

Valid N Mean -95.000% 95.00% Sum Minimum Maximum Range Variance Std.Dev. Error Skewness Skewness Kurtosis Kurtosis

Acetochlor 4 0.55 0.344574 0.755426 2.2 0.4 0.7 0.3 0.016667 0.129099 0.06455 -2.6E-15 1.014185 -1.2 2.618615

Atrazine 4 2.65 1.04032 4.25968 10.6 1.8 3.8 2 1.023333 1.011599 0.5058 0.295594 1.014185 -4.318391 2.618615

Metolachlor 4 1.125 -0.352783 2.602783 4.5 0.3 2.2 1.9 0.8625 0.928709 0.464354 0.338634 1.014185 -3.974123 2.618615

JUNE

Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three)

Confid. Confid. Standard Std.Err. Std.Err.

Valid N Mean -95.000% 95.00% Sum Minimum Maximum Range Variance Std.Dev. Error Skewness Skewness Kurtosis Kurtosis

Acetochlor 5 0.98 -1.064791 3.024791 4.9 0 3.9 3.9 2.712 1.646815 0.736478 2.141279 0.912871 4.64167 2

Atrazine 5 6.06 -3.724596 15.8446 30.3 1 20 19 62.098 7.880228 3.524145 2.114568 0.912871 4.560924 2

Metolachlor 5 3.24 -1.534033 8.014033 16.2 0.5 10 9.5 14.783 3.844867 1.719477 2.043751 0.912871 4.361398 2

JULY

Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three)

Confid. Confid. Standard Std.Err. Std.Err.

Valid N Mean -95.000% 95.00% Sum Minimum Maximum Range Variance Std.Dev. Error Skewness Skewness Kurtosis Kurtosis

Atrazine 4 1.25 -0.251157 2.751157 5 0.4 2.6 2.2 0.89 0.943398 0.471699 1.441121 1.014185 2.707234 2.618615

Acetochlor 4 0.2 -0.189768 0.589768 0.8 0 0.5 0.5 0.06 0.244949 0.122474 0.544331 1.014185 -2.944444 2.618615

Metolachlor 4 1.775 -2.707573 6.257573 7.1 0.3 6 5.7 7.935833 2.817061 1.408531 1.998313 1.014185 3.994467 2.618615

AUGUST

Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three)

Confid. Confid. Standard Std.Err. Std.Err.

Valid N Mean -95.000% 95.00% Sum Minimum Maximum Range Variance Std.Dev. Error Skewness Skewness Kurtosis Kurtosis

Acetochlor 2 0.2 -1.07062 1.47062 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.02 0.141421 0.1

Atrazine 2 0.55 -0.08531 1.18531 1.1 0.5 0.6 0.1 0.005 0.070711 0.05

Metolachlor 2 17.8 -200.7467 236.3467 35.6 0.6 35 34.4 591.68 24.32447 17.2

NOVEMBER

Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three)

Confid. Confid. Standard Std.Err. Std.Err.

Valid N Mean -95.000% 95.00% Sum Minimum Maximum Range Variance Std.Dev. Error Skewness Skewness Kurtosis Kurtosis

Acetochlor 1 0 0 0 0

Atrazine 1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

Metolachlor 1 0 0 0 0

Appendix G

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

MAY TO NOVEMBER

Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three)

Confid. Confid. Standard Std.Err. Std.Err.

Valid N Mean -95.000% 95.000 Sum Minimum Maximum Range Variance Std.Dev. Error Skewness Skewness Kurtosis Kurtosis

Acetochlor 16 0.875 0.116536 1.633464 14 0 5.1 5.1 2.026 1.423376 0.355844 2.187501 0.564308 4.740269 1.090774

Atrazine 16 5.70625 0.888417 10.52408 91.3 0.5 34 33.5 81.74729 9.041421 2.260355 2.479898 0.564308 6.389842 1.090774

Metolachlor 16 1.63125 0.126763 3.135737 26.1 0.1 11 10.9 7.971625 2.823407 0.705852 2.796673 0.564308 8.573825 1.090774

MAY

Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three)

Confid. Confid. Standard Std.Err. Std.Err.

Valid N Mean -95.000% 95.000 Sum Minimum Maximum Range Variance Std.Dev. Error Skewness Skewness Kurtosis Kurtosis

Acetochlor 4 1.3 -1.042217 3.642217 5.2 0 3.1 3.1 2.166667 1.47196 0.73598 0.52677 1.014185 -2.886462 2.618615

Atrazine 4 6.7 -7.033156 20.43316 26.8 0.5 19 18.5 74.48667 8.630566 4.315283 1.480255 1.014185 1.81888 2.618615

Metolachlor 4 1.7 -1.715266 5.115266 6.8 0.1 4.7 4.6 4.606667 2.146315 1.073157 1.316833 1.014185 1.047626 2.618615

JUNE

Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three)

Confid. Confid. Standard Std.Err. Std.Err.

Valid N Mean -95.000% 95.000 Sum Minimum Maximum Range Variance Std.Dev. Error Skewness Skewness Kurtosis Kurtosis

Acetochlor 5 1.6 -0.915711 4.115711 8 0.2 5.1 4.9 4.105 2.02608 0.906091 1.868449 0.912871 3.703991 2

Atrazine 5 11.12 -5.432224 27.67222 55.6 1.5 34 32.5 177.707 13.33068 5.961661 1.807618 0.912871 3.475364 2

Metolachlor 5 3.44 -1.999707 8.879707 17.2 0.3 11 10.7 19.193 4.380982 1.959235 1.857538 0.912871 3.670031 2

JULY

Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three)

Confid. Confid. Standard Std.Err. Std.Err.

Valid N Mean -95.000% 95.000 Sum Minimum Maximum Range Variance Std.Dev. Error Skewness Skewness Kurtosis Kurtosis

Acetochlor 4 0.075 -0.004561 0.154561 0.3 0 0.1 0.1 0.0025 0.05 0.025 -2 1.014185 4 2.618615

Atrazine 4 1.075 0.722169 1.427831 4.3 0.8 1.3 0.5 0.049167 0.221736 0.110868 -0.481563 1.014185 -1.699512 2.618615

Metolachlor 4 0.25 0.158131 0.341869 1 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.003333 0.057735 0.028868 1.19E-16 1.014185 -6 2.618615

AUGUST

Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three)

Confid. Confid. Standard Std.Err. Std.Err.

Valid N Mean -95.000% 95.000 Sum Minimum Maximum Range Variance Std.Dev. Error Skewness Skewness Kurtosis Kurtosis

Acetochlor 2 0.1 -1.17062 1.37062 0.2 0 0.2 0.2 0.02 0.141421 0.1

Atrazine 2 0.8 -0.47062 2.07062 1.6 0.7 0.9 0.2 0.02 0.141421 0.1

Metolachlor 2 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.2 0 0 0 0

NOVEMBER

Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three)

Confid. Confid. Standard Std.Err. Std.Err.

Valid N Mean -95.000% 95.000 Sum Minimum Maximum Range Variance Std.Dev. Error Skewness Skewness Kurtosis Kurtosis

Acetochlor 1 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3

Atrazine 1 3 3 3 3

Metolachlor 1 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7

Appendix G

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

CORRECTED DATA

Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three time sorted.sta) by CHEMICAL: Acetochlor

Confid. Confid. Standard Std.Err. Std.Err.

Valid N Mean -95.000% 95.00% Sum Minimum Maximum Range Variance Std.Dev. Error Skewness Skewness Kurtosis Kurtosis

Acetochlor 16 0.875 0.116536 1.633464 14 0 5.1 5.1 2.026 1.423376 0.355844 2.187501 0.564308 4.740269 1.090774

Atrazine 16 5.70625 0.888417 10.52408 91.3 0.5 34 33.5 81.74729 9.041421 2.260355 2.479898 0.564308 6.389842 1.090774

Metolachlor 16 1.63125 0.126763 3.135737 26.1 0.1 11 10.9 7.971625 2.823407 0.705852 2.796673 0.564308 8.573825 1.090774

NOVEMBER

CORRECTED DATA

Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three time sorted.sta) by CHEMICAL: Acetochlor

Confid. Confid. Standard Std.Err. Std.Err.

Valid N Mean -95.000% 95.00% Sum Minimum Maximum Range Variance Std.Dev. Error Skewness Skewness Kurtosis Kurtosis

Acetochlor 1 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3

Atrazine 1 3 3 3 3

Metolachlor 1 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7

Appendix G

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

MAY TO NOVEMBER

Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three)

Confid. Confid. Standard Std.Err. Std.Err.

Valid N Mean -95.000% 95.00% Sum Minimum Maximum Range Variance Std.Dev. Error Skewness Skewness Kurtosis Kurtosis

Acetochlor 16 0.53125 -0.079637 1.142137 8.5 0 3.8 3.8 1.314292 1.146426 0.286606 2.450468 0.564308 5.064023 1.090774

Atrazine 16 4.09375 0.091604 8.095896 65.5 0.2 28 27.8 56.40996 7.510656 1.877664 2.679749 0.564308 7.197346 1.090774

Metolachlor 16 1.125 -0.203029 2.453029 18 0 9.7 9.7 6.211333 2.492255 0.623064 3.164133 0.564308 10.46069 1.090774

MAY

Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three)

Confid. Confid. Standard Std.Err. Std.Err.

Valid N Mean -95.000% 95.00% Sum Minimum Maximum Range Variance Std.Dev. Error Skewness Skewness Kurtosis Kurtosis

Acetochlor 4 0.925 -1.315463 3.165463 3.7 0 3 3 1.9825 1.408013 0.704006 1.80242 1.014185 3.24586 2.618615

Atrazine 4 5.175 -6.475662 16.82566 20.7 0.5 16 15.5 53.60917 7.321828 3.660914 1.837007 1.014185 3.381948 2.618615

Metolachlor 4 1.2 -1.782571 4.182571 4.8 0.1 4 3.9 3.513333 1.874389 0.937194 1.951604 1.014185 3.828889 2.618615

JUNE

Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three)

Confid. Confid. Standard Std.Err. Std.Err.

Valid N Mean -95.000% 95.00% Sum Minimum Maximum Range Variance Std.Dev. Error Skewness Skewness Kurtosis Kurtosis

Acetochlor 5 0.96 -1.027826 2.947826 4.8 0 3.8 3.8 2.563 1.600937 0.715961 2.143911 0.912871 4.671961 2

Atrazine 5 8.28 -5.625085 22.18508 41.4 1 28 27 125.412 11.19875 5.008233 2.064157 0.912871 4.394737 2

Metolachlor 5 2.54 -2.456521 7.536521 12.7 0.3 9.7 9.4 16.193 4.024053 1.799611 2.177047 0.912871 4.786823 2

JULY

Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three)

Confid. Confid. Standard Std.Err. Std.Err.

Valid N Mean -95.000% 95.00% Sum Minimum Maximum Range Variance Std.Dev. Error Skewness Skewness Kurtosis Kurtosis

Acetochlor 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Atrazine 4 0.6 0.309484 0.890516 2.4 0.4 0.8 0.4 0.033333 0.182574 0.091287 1.63E-15 1.014185 -3.3 2.618615

Metolachlor 4 0.125 -0.027348 0.277348 0.5 0 0.2 0.2 0.009167 0.095743 0.047871 -0.854563 1.014185 -1.289256 2.618615

AUGUST

Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three)

Confid. Confid. Standard Std.Err. Std.Err.

Valid N Mean -95.000% 95.00% Sum Minimum Maximum Range Variance Std.Dev. Error Skewness Skewness Kurtosis Kurtosis

Acetochlor 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Atrazine 2 0.4 0.8 0.4 0.4 0 0 0 0

Metolachlor 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

NOVEMBER

Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three)

Confid. Confid. Standard Std.Err. Std.Err.

Valid N Mean -95.000% 95.00% Sum Minimum Maximum Range Variance Std.Dev. Error Skewness Skewness Kurtosis Kurtosis

Acetochlor 1 0 0 0 0

Atrazine 1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

Metolachlor 1 0 0 0 0

Appendix G

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

Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three time sorted.sta)

by CHEMICAL: Acetochl Acetochlor

Confid. Confid. Standard Std.Err. Std.Err.

Valid N Mean -95.000% 95.000 Sum Minimum Maximum Range Variance Std.Dev. Error Skewness Skewness Kurtosis Kurtosis

RESULT 16 0.53125 -0.079637 1.142137 8.5 0 3.8 3.8 1.314292 1.146426 0.286606 2.450468 0.564308 5.064023 1.090774

Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three time sorted.sta)

by CHEMICAL: Atrazine Atrazine (Aatrex)

Confid. Confid. Standard Std.Err. Std.Err.

Valid N Mean -95.000% 95.000 Sum Minimum Maximum Range Variance Std.Dev. Error Skewness Skewness Kurtosis Kurtosis

RESULT 16 4.09375 0.091604 8.095896 65.5 0.2 28 27.8 56.40996 7.510656 1.877664 2.679749 0.564308 7.197346 1.090774

Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three time sorted.sta)

by CHEMICAL: Metolach Metolachlor

Confid. Confid. Standard Std.Err. Std.Err.

Valid N Mean -95.000% 95.000 Sum Minimum Maximum Range Variance Std.Dev. Error Skewness Skewness Kurtosis Kurtosis

RESULT 16 1.125 -0.203029 2.453029 18 0 9.7 9.7 6.211333 2.492255 0.623064 3.164133 0.564308 10.46069 1.090774

NOVEMBER

CORRECTED DATA

Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three time sorted.sta)

by CHEMICAL: Acetochl Acetochlor

Confid. Confid. Standard Std.Err. Std.Err.

Valid N Mean -95.000% 95.000 Sum Minimum Maximum Range Variance Std.Dev. Error Skewness Skewness Kurtosis Kurtosis

RESULT 1 0 0 0 0

Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three time sorted.sta)

by CHEMICAL: Atrazine Atrazine (Aatrex)

Confid. Confid. Standard Std.Err. Std.Err.

Valid N Mean -95.000% 95.000 Sum Minimum Maximum Range Variance Std.Dev. Error Skewness Skewness Kurtosis Kurtosis

RESULT 1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three time sorted.sta)

by CHEMICAL: Metolach Metolachlor

Confid. Confid. Standard Std.Err. Std.Err.

Valid N Mean -95.000% 95.000 Sum Minimum Maximum Range Variance Std.Dev. Error Skewness Skewness Kurtosis Kurtosis

RESULT 1 0 0 0 0

Appendix G

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

MAY TO NOVEMBER

Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three)

Confid. Confid. Standard Std.Err. Std.Err.

Valid N Mean -95.000% 95.00% Sum Minimum Maximum Range Variance Std.Dev. Error Skewness Skewness Kurtosis Kurtosis

Atrazine 16 6.225 0.01747 12.43253 99.6 0.1 44 43.9 135.7087 11.64941 2.912352 2.669249 0.564308 7.567639 1.090774

Acetochlor 16 1.33125 -0.103027 2.765527 21.3 0 10 10 7.244958 2.691646 0.672912 2.572281 0.564308 7.203935 1.090774

Metolachlor 16 0.9 -0.073842 1.873842 14.4 0 6 6 3.34 1.827567 0.456892 2.370764 0.564308 4.671752 1.090774

MAY

Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three)

Confid. Confid. Standard Std.Err. Std.Err.

Valid N Mean -95.000% 95.00% Sum Minimum Maximum Range Variance Std.Dev. Error Skewness Skewness Kurtosis Kurtosis

Acetochlor 4 1.75 -1.191253 4.691253 7 0.1 3.4 3.3 3.416667 1.848423 0.924211 -2.4E-16 1.014185 -5.97076 2.618615

Atrazine 4 6.7 -6.21344 19.61344 26.8 0.7 18 17.3 65.86 8.115417 4.057709 1.287117 1.014185 0.895602 2.618615

Metolachlor 4 0.575 -0.483492 1.633492 2.3 0 1.2 1.2 0.4425 0.665207 0.332603 0.019534 1.014185 -5.887325 2.618615

JUNE

Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three)

Confid. Confid. Standard Std.Err. Std.Err.

Valid N Mean -95.000% 95.00% Sum Minimum Maximum Range Variance Std.Dev. Error Skewness Skewness Kurtosis Kurtosis

Acetochlor 5 2.86 -2.467303 8.187303 14.3 0.1 10 9.9 18.408 4.290455 1.91875 1.615194 0.912871 2.173455 2

Atrazine 5 13.64 -9.116283 36.39628 68.2 1.4 44 42.6 335.888 18.32725 8.196194 1.582625 0.912871 2.022061 2

Metolachlor 5 2.38 -1.135686 5.895686 11.9 0.2 6 5.8 8.017 2.831431 1.266254 0.687185 0.912871 -2.829655 2

JULY

Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three)

Confid. Confid. Standard Std.Err. Std.Err.

Valid N Mean -95.000% 95.00% Sum Minimum Maximum Range Variance Std.Dev. Error Skewness Skewness Kurtosis Kurtosis

Acetochlor 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Atrazine 4 0.95 0.113031 1.786969 3.8 0.5 1.5 1 0.276667 0.525991 0.262996 0.123691 1.014185 -5.290173 2.618615

Metolachlor 4 0.05 -0.041869 0.141869 0.2 0 0.1 0.1 0.003333 0.057735 0.028868 4.05E-16 1.014185 -6 2.618615

AUGUST

Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three)

Confid. Confid. Standard Std.Err. Std.Err.

Valid N Mean -95.000% 95.00% Sum Minimum Maximum Range Variance Std.Dev. Error Skewness Skewness Kurtosis Kurtosis

Acetochlor 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Atrazine 2 0.35 -0.28531 0.98531 0.7 0.3 0.4 0.1 0.005 0.070711 0.05

Metolachlor 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

NOVEMBER

Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three)

Confid. Confid. Standard Std.Err. Std.Err.

Valid N Mean -95.000% 95.00% Sum Minimum Maximum Range Variance Std.Dev. Error Skewness Skewness Kurtosis Kurtosis

Acetochlor 1 0 0 0 0

Atrazine 1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

Metolachlor 1 0 0 0 0

Appendix G

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

MAY TO NOVEMBER

Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three)

Confid. Confid. Standard Std.Err. Std.Err.

Valid N Mean -95.000% 95.00% Sum Minimum Maximum Range Variance Std.Dev. Error Skewness Skewness Kurtosis Kurtosis

Acetochlor 16 1.45 -0.301705 3.201705 23.2 0 13 13 10.80667 3.287349 0.821837 3.269867 0.564308 11.52881 1.090774

Atrazine 16 5.275 -0.120996 10.671 84.4 0 40 40 102.5447 10.12643 2.531609 3.052408 0.564308 10.17336 1.090774

Metolachlor 16 0.7125 -0.084748 1.509748 11.4 0 6 6 2.2385 1.496162 0.37404 3.32658 0.564308 11.89035 1.090774

MAY

Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three)

Confid. Confid. Standard Std.Err. Std.Err.

Valid N Mean -95.000% 95.00% Sum Minimum Maximum Range Variance Std.Dev. Error Skewness Skewness Kurtosis Kurtosis

Acetochlor 4 1.75 -1.10387 4.60387 7 0.1 3.4 3.3 3.216667 1.793507 0.896753 1.86E-17 1.014185 -5.876163 2.618615

Atrazine 4 6.275 -4.136169 16.68617 25.1 0.6 14 13.4 42.80917 6.542871 3.271436 0.404994 1.014185 -3.658102 2.618615

Metolachlor 4 0.65 -0.599558 1.899558 2.6 0 1.7 1.7 0.616667 0.785281 0.392641 0.99121 1.014185 -0.474215 2.618615

JUNE

Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three)

Confid. Confid. Standard Std.Err. Std.Err.

Valid N Mean -95.000% 95.00% Sum Minimum Maximum Range Variance Std.Dev. Error Skewness Skewness Kurtosis Kurtosis

Acetochlor 5 3.22 -3.636976 10.07698 16.1 0.1 13 12.9 30.497 5.522409 2.469696 2.130417 0.912871 4.583671 2

Atrazine 5 11.22 -9.049456 31.48946 56.1 1.6 40 38.4 266.487 16.32443 7.300507 2.085323 0.912871 4.398432 2

Metolachlor 5 1.66 -1.39863 4.71863 8.3 0.2 6 5.8 6.068 2.463331 1.101635 2.079138 0.912871 4.370149 2

JULY

Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three)

Confid. Confid. Standard Std.Err. Std.Err.

Valid N Mean -95.000% 95.00% Sum Minimum Maximum Range Variance Std.Dev. Error Skewness Skewness Kurtosis Kurtosis

Acetochlor 4 0.025 -0.054561 0.104561 0.1 0 0.1 0.1 0.0025 0.05 0.025 2 1.014185 4 2.618615

Atrazine 4 0.675 0.373786 0.976214 2.7 0.4 0.8 0.4 0.035833 0.189297 0.094648 -1.658524 1.014185 2.615468 2.618615

Metolachlor 4 0.125 -0.075225 0.325225 0.5 0 0.3 0.3 0.015833 0.125831 0.062915 1.129338 1.014185 2.227147 2.618615

AUGUST

Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three)

Confid. Confid. Standard Std.Err. Std.Err.

Valid N Mean -95.000% 95.00% Sum Minimum Maximum Range Variance Std.Dev. Error Skewness Skewness Kurtosis Kurtosis

Acetochlor 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Atrazine 2 0.25 -0.38531 0.88531 0.5 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.005 0.070711 0.05

Metolachlor 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

NOVEMBER

Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three)

Confid. Confid. Standard Std.Err. Std.Err.

Valid N Mean -95.000% 95.00% Sum Minimum Maximum Range Variance Std.Dev. Error Skewness Skewness Kurtosis Kurtosis

Acetochlor 1 0 0 0 0

Atrazine 1 0 0 0 0

Metolachlor 1 0 0 0 0

Appendix G

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

MAY TO NOVEMBER

Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three)

Confid. Confid. Standard Std.Err. Std.Err.

Valid N Mean -95.000% 95.00% Sum Minimum Maximum Range Variance Std.Dev. Error Skewness Skewness Kurtosis Kurtosis

Acetochlor 16 0.71875 -0.387453 1.824953 11.5 0 8.4 8.4 4.309625 2.075964 0.518991 3.830894 0.564308 14.97971 1.090774

Atrazine 16 5.35625 -0.134283 10.84678 85.7 0.3 41 40.7 106.1693 10.30385 2.575962 3.135688 0.564308 10.64714 1.090774

Metolachlor 16 3.00625 -0.189235 6.201735 48.1 0 23 23 35.96196 5.996829 1.499207 2.891008 0.564308 8.842766 1.090774

MAY

Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three)

Confid. Confid. Standard Std.Err. Std.Err.

Valid N Mean -95.000% 95.00% Sum Minimum Maximum Range Variance Std.Dev. Error Skewness Skewness Kurtosis Kurtosis

Acetochlor 4 0.225 -0.193485 0.643485 0.9 0 0.5 0.5 0.069167 0.262996 0.131498 0.123691 1.014185 -5.290173 2.618615

Atrazine 4 4.85 -4.459675 14.15968 19.4 0.5 13 12.5 34.23 5.850641 2.92532 1.290275 1.014185 0.914013 2.618615

Metolachlor 4 3.05 -4.386876 10.48688 12.2 0.3 10 9.7 21.84333 4.673685 2.336843 1.900697 1.014185 3.629703 2.618615

JUNE

Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three)

Confid. Confid. Standard Std.Err. Std.Err.

Valid N Mean -95.000% 95.00% Sum Minimum Maximum Range Variance Std.Dev. Error Skewness Skewness Kurtosis Kurtosis

Acetochlor 5 2.04 -2.416692 6.496692 10.2 0.1 8.4 8.3 12.883 3.58929 1.605179 2.136405 0.912871 4.604253 2

Atrazine 5 12.3 -8.234623 32.83462 61.5 1.9 41 39.1 273.505 16.53799 7.396012 1.939515 0.912871 3.752637 2

Metolachlor 5 6.76 -4.880095 18.4001 33.8 0.8 23 22.2 87.883 9.374593 4.192446 1.923769 0.912871 3.683623 2

JULY

Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three)

Confid. Confid. Standard Std.Err. Std.Err.

Valid N Mean -95.000% 95.00% Sum Minimum Maximum Range Variance Std.Dev. Error Skewness Skewness Kurtosis Kurtosis

Acetochlor 4 0.1 -0.218245 0.418245 0.4 0 0.4 0.4 0.04 0.2 0.1 2 1.014185 4 2.618615

Atrazine 4 0.9 0.224901 1.575099 3.6 0.5 1.5 1 0.18 0.424264 0.212132 1.309457 1.014185 2.487654 2.618615

Metolachlor 4 0.45 -0.138251 1.038251 1.8 0.2 1 0.8 0.136667 0.369685 0.184842 1.900104 1.014185 3.708507 2.618615

AUGUST

Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three)

Confid. Confid. Standard Std.Err. Std.Err.

Valid N Mean -95.000% 95.00% Sum Minimum Maximum Range Variance Std.Dev. Error Skewness Skewness Kurtosis Kurtosis

Acetochlor 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Atrazine 2 0.45 -1.455931 2.355931 0.9 0.3 0.6 0.3 0.045 0.212132 0.15

Metolachlor 2 0.15 -0.48531 0.78531 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.005 0.070711 0.05

NOVEMBER

Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three)

Confid. Confid. Standard Std.Err. Std.Err.

Valid N Mean -95.000% 95.00% Sum Minimum Maximum Range Variance Std.Dev. Error Skewness Skewness Kurtosis Kurtosis

Acetochlor 1 0 0 0 0

Atrazine 1 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3

Metolachlor 1 0 0 0 0

Appendix G

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

MAY TO NOVEMBER

Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three)

Confid. Confid. Standard Std.Err. Std.Err.

Valid N Mean -95.000% 95.00% Sum Minimum Maximum Range Variance Std.Dev. Error Skewness Skewness Kurtosis Kurtosis

Acetochlor 16 1.2875 -0.131539 2.706539 20.6 0 9.8 9.8 7.091833 2.66305 0.665762 2.552677 0.564308 6.968053 1.090774

Atrazine 16 5.8875 0.344062 11.43094 94.2 0.1 38 37.9 108.2252 10.40313 2.600783 2.371412 0.564308 5.785843 1.090774

Metolachlor 16 1.15 -0.042787 2.342787 18.4 0 8.3 8.3 5.010667 2.238452 0.559613 2.570501 0.564308 6.974154 1.090774

MAY

Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three)

Confid. Confid. Standard Std.Err. Std.Err.

Valid N Mean -95.000% 95.00% Sum Minimum Maximum Range Variance Std.Dev. Error Skewness Skewness Kurtosis Kurtosis

Acetochlor 4 1.85 -1.668727 5.368727 7.4 0 4.4 4.4 4.89 2.211334 1.105667 0.335324 1.014185 -4.096319 2.618615

Atrazine 4 8.1 -6.702652 22.90265 32.4 0.5 20 19.5 86.54 9.302688 4.651344 0.743075 1.014185 -1.861987 2.618615

Metolachlor 4 1.225 -1.231108 3.681108 4.9 0 3.3 3.3 2.3825 1.543535 0.771767 1.032027 1.014185 -0.347193 2.618615

JUNE

Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three)

Confid. Confid. Standard Std.Err. Std.Err.

Valid N Mean -95.000% 95.00% Sum Minimum Maximum Range Variance Std.Dev. Error Skewness Skewness Kurtosis Kurtosis

Acetochlor 4 3.275 -3.937034 10.48703 13.1 0.2 9.8 9.6 20.5425 4.532383 2.266192 1.572401 1.014185 2.231028 2.618615

Atrazine 4 14.2 -12.5076 40.9076 56.8 2.1 38 35.9 281.7133 16.78432 8.392159 1.436554 1.014185 1.611279 2.618615

Metolachlor 4 3.25 -2.621736 9.121736 13 0.4 8.3 7.9 13.61667 3.690077 1.845038 1.1559 1.014185 0.265782 2.618615

JULY

Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three)

Confid. Confid. Standard Std.Err. Std.Err.

Valid N Mean -95.000% 95.00% Sum Minimum Maximum Range Variance Std.Dev. Error Skewness Skewness Kurtosis Kurtosis

Acetochlor 5 0.02 -0.035529 0.075529 0.1 0 0.1 0.1 0.002 0.044721 0.02 2.236068 0.912871 5 2

Atrazine 5 0.84 0.431948 1.248052 4.2 0.5 1.2 0.7 0.108 0.328634 0.146969 -0.166233 0.912871 -2.84465 2

Metolachlor 5 0.1 0.012201 0.187799 0.5 0 0.2 0.2 0.005 0.070711 0.031623 -2.2E-16 0.912871 2 2

AUGUST

Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three)

Confid. Confid. Standard Std.Err. Std.Err.

Valid N Mean -95.000% 95.00% Sum Minimum Maximum Range Variance Std.Dev. Error Skewness Skewness Kurtosis Kurtosis

Acetochlor 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Atrazine 2 0.35 -0.28531 0.98531 0.7 0.3 0.4 0.1 0.005 0.070711 0.05

Metolachlor 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

NOVEMBER

Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three)

Confid. Confid. Standard Std.Err. Std.Err.

Valid N Mean -95.000% 95.00% Sum Minimum Maximum Range Variance Std.Dev. Error Skewness Skewness Kurtosis Kurtosis

Acetochlor 1 0 0 0 0

Atrazine 1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

Metolachlor 1 0 0 0 0

Appendix G

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

MAY TO NOVEMBER

Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three)

Confid. Confid. Standard Std.Err. Std.Err.

Valid N Mean -95.000% 95.00% Sum Minimum Maximum Range Variance Std.Dev. Error Skewness Skewness Kurtosis Kurtosis

Acetochlor 16 1.26875 -0.239633 2.777133 20.3 0 11 11 8.012958 2.830717 0.707679 3.074004 0.564308 10.29294 1.090774

Atrazine 16 5.70625 -0.223033 11.63553 91.3 0.2 44 43.8 123.8153 11.12723 2.781808 3.076543 0.564308 10.3481 1.090774

Metolachlor 16 1.59375 -0.170711 3.358211 25.5 0 13 13 10.96462 3.311288 0.827822 3.113558 0.564308 10.42722 1.090774

MAY

Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three)

Confid. Confid. Standard Std.Err. Std.Err.

Valid N Mean -95.000% 95.00% Sum Minimum Maximum Range Variance Std.Dev. Error Skewness Skewness Kurtosis Kurtosis

Acetochlor 4 1.6 -1.128379 4.328379 6.4 0.1 3.5 3.4 2.94 1.714643 0.857321 0.230111 1.014185 -4.654843 2.618615

Atrazine 4 5.925 -3.900615 15.75062 23.7 0.6 13 12.4 38.12917 6.174882 3.087441 0.315411 1.014185 -4.18614 2.618615

Metolachlor 4 1.275 -1.238847 3.788847 5.1 0.1 3.5 3.4 2.495833 1.579821 0.78991 1.378086 1.014185 1.349608 2.618615

JUNE

Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three)

Confid. Confid. Standard Std.Err. Std.Err.

Valid N Mean -95.000% 95.00% Sum Minimum Maximum Range Variance Std.Dev. Error Skewness Skewness Kurtosis Kurtosis

Acetochlor 4 3.475 -4.669177 11.61918 13.9 0.2 11 10.8 26.19583 5.118187 2.559093 1.778769 1.014185 3.134347 2.618615

Atrazine 4 15.55 -15.62214 46.72214 62.2 2.6 44 41.4 383.77 19.59005 9.795024 1.655338 1.014185 2.601435 2.618615

Metolachlor 4 4.8 -4.325171 13.92517 19.2 0.6 13 12.4 32.88667 5.73469 2.867345 1.507995 1.014185 1.971287 2.618615

JULY

Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three)

Confid. Confid. Standard Std.Err. Std.Err.

Valid N Mean -95.000% 95.00% Sum Minimum Maximum Range Variance Std.Dev. Error Skewness Skewness Kurtosis Kurtosis

Acetochlor 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Atrazine 5 0.88 0.388013 1.371987 4.4 0.5 1.5 1 0.157 0.396232 0.1772 1.089884 0.912871 0.875086 2

Metolachlor 5 0.22 0.083983 0.356017 1.1 0.1 0.4 0.3 0.012 0.109545 0.04899 1.293234 0.912871 2.916667 2

AUGUST

Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three)

Confid. Confid. Standard Std.Err. Std.Err.

Valid N Mean -95.000% 95.00% Sum Minimum Maximum Range Variance Std.Dev. Error Skewness Skewness Kurtosis Kurtosis

Acetochlor 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Atrazine 2 0.4 -0.87062 1.67062 0.8 0.3 0.5 0.2 0.02 0.141421 0.1

Metolachlor 2 0.05 -0.58531 0.68531 0.1 0 0.1 0.1 0.005 0.070711 0.05

NOVEMBER

Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three)

Confid. Confid. Standard Std.Err. Std.Err.

Valid N Mean -95.000% 95.00% Sum Minimum Maximum Range Variance Std.Dev. Error Skewness Skewness Kurtosis Kurtosis

Acetochlor 1 0 0 0 0

Atrazine 1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

Metolachlor 1 0 0 0 0

Appendix G

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

MAY TO NOVEMBER

Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three)

Confid. Confid. Standard Std.Err. Std.Err.

Valid N Mean -95.000% 95.00% Sum Minimum Maximum Range Variance Std.Dev. Error Skewness Skewness Kurtosis Kurtosis

Acetochlor 16 1.075 0.026195 2.123805 17.2 0 6.5 6.5 3.874 1.968248 0.492062 1.875322 0.564308 2.850745 1.090774

Atrazine 16 4.525 0.794177 8.255823 72.4 0.3 24 23.7 49.02067 7.001476 1.750369 1.991987 0.564308 3.272473 1.090774

Metolachlor 16 1.05 -0.026329 2.126329 16.8 0 7.3 7.3 4.08 2.019901 0.504975 2.470987 0.564308 6.043563 1.090774

MAY

Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three)

Confid. Confid. Standard Std.Err. Std.Err.

Valid N Mean -95.000% 95.00% Sum Minimum Maximum Range Variance Std.Dev. Error Skewness Skewness Kurtosis Kurtosis

Acetochlor 4 1.825 -1.350477 5.000477 7.3 0.1 4.1 4 3.9825 1.99562 0.99781 0.301382 1.014185 -4.263144 2.618615

Atrazine 4 6.175 -5.0529 17.4029 24.7 0.8 16 15.2 49.78917 7.056144 3.528072 1.285336 1.014185 0.911504 2.618615

Metolachlor 4 0.95 -0.970486 2.870486 3.8 0.1 2.7 2.6 1.456667 1.206924 0.603462 1.638145 1.014185 2.551545 2.618615

JUNE

Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three)

Confid. Confid. Standard Std.Err. Std.Err.

Valid N Mean -95.000% 95.00% Sum Minimum Maximum Range Variance Std.Dev. Error Skewness Skewness Kurtosis Kurtosis

Acetochlor 4 2.475 -2.283396 7.233396 9.9 0.2 6.5 6.3 8.9425 2.990401 1.495201 1.042147 1.014185 -0.323513 2.618615

Atrazine 4 10.375 -6.18207 26.93207 41.5 1.9 24 22.1 108.2692 10.40525 5.202624 0.869139 1.014185 -1.180619 2.618615

Metolachlor 4 3.125 -2.046475 8.296475 12.5 0.4 7.3 6.9 10.5625 3.25 1.625 0.761365 1.014185 -1.714731 2.618615

JULY

Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three)

Confid. Confid. Standard Std.Err. Std.Err.

Valid N Mean -95.000% 95.00% Sum Minimum Maximum Range Variance Std.Dev. Error Skewness Skewness Kurtosis Kurtosis

Acetochlor 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Atrazine 5 0.92 0.486305 1.353695 4.6 0.6 1.5 0.9 0.122 0.349285 0.156205 1.483124 0.912871 2.581295 2

Metolachlor 5 0.1 -0.052072 0.252072 0.5 0 0.3 0.3 0.015 0.122474 0.054772 1.360828 0.912871 2 2

AUGUST

Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three)

Confid. Confid. Standard Std.Err. Std.Err.

Valid N Mean -95.000% 95.00% Sum Minimum Maximum Range Variance Std.Dev. Error Skewness Skewness Kurtosis Kurtosis

Acetochlor 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Atrazine 2 0.65 0.01469 1.28531 1.3 0.6 0.7 0.1 0.005 0.070711 0.05

Metolachlor 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

NOVEMBER

Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three)

Confid. Confid. Standard Std.Err. Std.Err.

Valid N Mean -95.000% 95.00% Sum Minimum Maximum Range Variance Std.Dev. Error Skewness Skewness Kurtosis Kurtosis

Acetochlor 1 0 0 0 0

Atrazine 1 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3

Metolachlor 1 0 0 0 0

Appendix G

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

MAY TO NOVEMBER

Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three)

Confid. Confid. Standard Std.Err. Std.Err.

Valid N Mean -95.000% 95.00% Sum Minimum Maximum Range Variance Std.Dev. Error Skewness Skewness Kurtosis Kurtosis

Acetochlor 16 1.1375 -0.463439 2.738439 18.2 0 12 12 9.0265 3.004413 0.751103 3.575867 0.564308 13.34745 1.090774

Atrazine 16 8.93125 2.270748 15.59175 142.9 0.5 44 43.5 156.237 12.49948 3.12487 1.83741 0.564308 3.058295 1.090774

Metolachlor 16 2.55625 0.668787 4.443713 40.9 0 10 10 12.54663 3.542122 0.88553 1.365163 0.564308 0.419452 1.090774

MAY

Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three)

Confid. Confid. Standard Std.Err. Std.Err.

Valid N Mean -95.000% 95.00% Sum Minimum Maximum Range Variance Std.Dev. Error Skewness Skewness Kurtosis Kurtosis

Acetochlor 4 3.15 -6.239116 12.53912 12.6 0.1 12 11.9 34.81667 5.900565 2.950282 1.998851 1.014185 3.996171 2.618615

Atrazine 4 12.3 -21.34249 45.94249 49.2 0.9 44 43.1 447.0067 21.14253 10.57127 1.994762 1.014185 3.982809 2.618615

Metolachlor 4 2.625 -4.988938 10.23894 10.5 0.1 9.8 9.7 22.89583 4.784959 2.39248 1.995938 1.014185 3.986285 2.618615

JUNE

Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three)

Confid. Confid. Standard Std.Err. Std.Err.

Valid N Mean -95.000% 95.00% Sum Minimum Maximum Range Variance Std.Dev. Error Skewness Skewness Kurtosis Kurtosis

Acetochlor 4 1.35 -0.631057 3.331057 5.4 0.2 2.9 2.7 1.55 1.24499 0.622495 0.580391 1.014185 -2.283871 2.618615

Atrazine 4 19.5 9.648114 29.35189 78 11 25 14 38.33333 6.191392 3.095696 -1.137624 1.014185 0.757656 2.618615

Metolachlor 4 6.55 2.271414 10.82859 26.2 3.5 10 6.5 7.23 2.688866 1.344433 0.426326 1.014185 1.063851 2.618615

JULY

Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three)

Confid. Confid. Standard Std.Err. Std.Err.

Valid N Mean -95.000% 95.00% Sum Minimum Maximum Range Variance Std.Dev. Error Skewness Skewness Kurtosis Kurtosis

Acetochlor 5 0.04 -0.028009 0.108009 0.2 0 0.1 0.1 0.003 0.054772 0.024495 0.608581 0.912871 -3.333333 2

Atrazine 5 2.24 1.063364 3.416636 11.2 0.9 3.3 2.4 0.898 0.947629 0.423792 -0.577458 0.912871 -0.75394 2

Metolachlor 5 0.62 0.128013 1.111987 3.1 0.3 1.1 0.8 0.157 0.396232 0.1772 0.597989 0.912871 -3.068279 2

AUGUST

Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three)

Confid. Confid. Standard Std.Err. Std.Err.

Valid N Mean -95.000% 95.00% Sum Minimum Maximum Range Variance Std.Dev. Error Skewness Skewness Kurtosis Kurtosis

Acetochlor 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Atrazine 2 2 -5.623723 9.623723 4 1.4 2.6 1.2 0.72 0.848528 0.6

Metolachlor 2 0.55 -1.355931 2.455931 1.1 0.4 0.7 0.3 0.045 0.212132 0.15

NOVEMBER

Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three)

Confid. Confid. Standard Std.Err. Std.Err.

Valid N Mean -95.000% 95.00% Sum Minimum Maximum Range Variance Std.Dev. Error Skewness Skewness Kurtosis Kurtosis

Acetochlor 1 0 0 0 0

Atrazine 1 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

Metolachlor 1 0 0 0 0

Appendix G

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

MAY TO NOVEMBER

Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three)

Confid. Confid. Standard Std.Err. Std.Err.

Valid N Mean -95.000% 95.00% Sum Minimum Maximum Range Variance Std.Dev. Error Skewness Skewness Kurtosis Kurtosis

Acetochlor 16 0.325 -0.042379 0.692379 5.2 0 2.7 2.7 0.475333 0.689444 0.172361 3.096062 0.564308 10.42386 1.090774

Atrazine 16 3.6375 0.592629 6.682371 58.2 0.2 21 20.8 32.65183 5.714178 1.428545 2.246891 0.564308 5.213043 1.090774

Metolachlor 16 1.15 0.070685 2.229315 18.4 0 7.5 7.5 4.102667 2.025504 0.506376 2.42757 0.564308 6.239131 1.090774

MAY

Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three)

Confid. Confid. Standard Std.Err. Std.Err.

Valid N Mean -95.000% 95.00% Sum Minimum Maximum Range Variance Std.Dev. Error Skewness Skewness Kurtosis Kurtosis

Acetochlor 4 0.675 -1.473151 2.823151 2.7 0 2.7 2.7 1.8225 1.35 0.675 2 1.014185 4 2.618615

Atrazine 4 5.45 -11.04585 21.94585 21.8 0.2 21 20.8 107.47 10.36677 5.183387 1.999876 1.014185 3.999588 2.618615

Metolachlor 4 1.975 -3.886485 7.836485 7.9 0.1 7.5 7.4 13.56917 3.683635 1.841817 1.99902 1.014185 3.996695 2.618615

JUNE

Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three)

Confid. Confid. Standard Std.Err. Std.Err.

Valid N Mean -95.000% 95.00% Sum Minimum Maximum Range Variance Std.Dev. Error Skewness Skewness Kurtosis Kurtosis

Acetochlor 4 0.5 -0.081033 1.081033 2 0.1 0.9 0.8 0.133333 0.365148 0.182574 4.25E-16 1.014185 -3.3 2.618615

Atrazine 4 7.4 1.985163 12.81484 29.6 2.9 11 8.1 11.58 3.40294 1.70147 -0.723544 1.014185 0.920119 2.618615

Metolachlor 4 2.325 0.370212 4.279788 9.3 0.7 3.5 2.8 1.509167 1.228481 0.614241 -0.853163 1.014185 -0.197625 2.618615

JULY

Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three)

Confid. Confid. Standard Std.Err. Std.Err.

Valid N Mean -95.000% 95.00% Sum Minimum Maximum Range Variance Std.Dev. Error Skewness Skewness Kurtosis Kurtosis

Acetochlor 5 0.1 -0.075598 0.275598 0.5 0 0.3 0.3 0.02 0.141421 0.063246 0.883883 0.912871 -1.75 2

Atrazine 5 1.04 0.814441 1.265559 5.2 0.8 1.3 0.5 0.033 0.181659 0.08124 0.2669 0.912871 1.07438 2

Metolachlor 5 0.18 0.076115 0.283885 0.9 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.007 0.083666 0.037417 0.512241 0.912871 -0.612245 2

AUGUST

Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three)

Confid. Confid. Standard Std.Err. Std.Err.

Valid N Mean -95.000% 95.00% Sum Minimum Maximum Range Variance Std.Dev. Error Skewness Skewness Kurtosis Kurtosis

Acetochlor 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Atrazine 2 0.65 0.01469 1.28531 1.3 0.6 0.7 0.1 0.005 0.070711 0.05

Metolachlor 2 0.15 -0.48531 0.78531 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.005 0.070711 0.05

NOVEMBER

Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three)

Confid. Confid. Standard Std.Err. Std.Err.

Valid N Mean -95.000% 95.00% Sum Minimum Maximum Range Variance Std.Dev. Error Skewness Skewness Kurtosis Kurtosis

Acetochlor 1 0 0 0 0

Atrazine 1 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3

Metolachlor 1 0 0 0 0

Appendix G

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

MAY TO NOVEMBER

Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three)

Confid. Confid. Standard Std.Err. Std.Err.

Valid N Mean -95.000% 95.00% Sum Minimum Maximum Range Variance Std.Dev. Error Skewness Skewness Kurtosis Kurtosis

Acetochlor 16 0.075 0.029368 0.120632 1.2 0 0.2 0.2 0.007333 0.085635 0.021409 0.54596 0.564308 -1.427663 1.090774

Atrazine 16 0.41875 0.237036 0.600464 6.7 0 0.9 0.9 0.116292 0.341016 0.085254 0.139814 0.564308 -1.649182 1.090774

Metolachlor 16 0.09375 0.037127 0.150373 1.5 0 0.3 0.3 0.011292 0.106262 0.026566 0.519398 0.564308 -1.313887 1.090774

MAY

Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three)

Confid. Confid. Standard Std.Err. Std.Err.

Valid N Mean -95.000% 95.00% Sum Minimum Maximum Range Variance Std.Dev. Error Skewness Skewness Kurtosis Kurtosis

Acetochlor 4 0.05 -0.109122 0.209122 0.2 0 0.2 0.2 0.01 0.1 0.05 2 1.014185 4 2.618615

Atrazine 4 0.175 -0.381928 0.731928 0.7 0 0.7 0.7 0.1225 0.35 0.175 2 1.014185 4 2.618615

Metolachlor 4 0.075 -0.163683 0.313683 0.3 0 0.3 0.3 0.0225 0.15 0.075 2 1.014185 4 2.618615

JUNE

Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three)

Confid. Confid. Standard Std.Err. Std.Err.

Valid N Mean -95.000% 95.00% Sum Minimum Maximum Range Variance Std.Dev. Error Skewness Skewness Kurtosis Kurtosis

Acetochlor 4 0.025 -0.054561 0.104561 0.1 0 0.1 0.1 0.0025 0.05 0.025 2 1.014185 4 2.618615

Atrazine 4 0.15 0.058131 0.241869 0.6 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.003333 0.057735 0.028868 1.46E-15 1.014185 -6 2.618615

Metolachlor 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

JULY

Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three)

Confid. Confid. Standard Std.Err. Std.Err.

Valid N Mean -95.000% 95.00% Sum Minimum Maximum Range Variance Std.Dev. Error Skewness Skewness Kurtosis Kurtosis

Acetochlor 5 0.1 0.012201 0.187799 0.5 0 0.2 0.2 0.005 0.070711 0.031623 -2.2E-16 0.912871 2 2

Atrazine 5 0.56 0.334441 0.785559 2.8 0.4 0.8 0.4 0.033 0.181659 0.08124 0.567163 0.912871 -2.231405 2

Metolachlor 5 0.16 0.091991 0.228009 0.8 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.003 0.054772 0.024495 -0.608581 0.912871 -3.333333 2

AUGUST

Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three)

Confid. Confid. Standard Std.Err. Std.Err.

Valid N Mean -95.000% 95.00% Sum Minimum Maximum Range Variance Std.Dev. Error Skewness Skewness Kurtosis Kurtosis

Acetochlor 2 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.2 0 0 0 0

Atrazine 2 0.85 0.21469 1.48531 1.7 0.8 0.9 0.1 0.005 0.070711 0.05

Metolachlor 2 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.2 0 0 0 0

NOVEMBER

Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three)

Confid. Confid. Standard Std.Err. Std.Err.

Valid N Mean -95.000% 95.00% Sum Minimum Maximum Range Variance Std.Dev. Error Skewness Skewness Kurtosis Kurtosis

Acetochlor 1 0 0 0 0

Atrazine 1 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9

Metolachlor 1 0 0 0 0

Appendix G

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

MAY TO NOVEMBER

Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three)

Confid. Confid. Standard Std.Err. Std.Err.

Valid N Mean -95.000% 95.00% Sum Minimum Maximum Range Variance Std.Dev. Error Skewness Skewness Kurtosis Kurtosis

Acetochlor 16 1.13125 -0.238627 2.501127 18.1 0 10 10 6.608958 2.570789 0.642697 3.163303 0.564308 10.57021 1.090774

Atrazine 16 8.06875 -0.303053 16.44055 129.1 0.3 59 58.7 246.8356 15.711 3.927751 2.760836 0.564308 7.793914 1.090774

Metolachlor 16 2.80625 -0.613795 6.226295 44.9 0 26 26 41.19396 6.418252 1.604563 3.557543 0.564308 13.31461 1.090774

MAY

Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three)

Confid. Confid. Standard Std.Err. Std.Err.

Valid N Mean -95.000% 95.00% Sum Minimum Maximum Range Variance Std.Dev. Error Skewness Skewness Kurtosis Kurtosis

Acetochlor 4 1.4 -1.413662 4.213662 5.6 0.1 3.9 3.8 3.126667 1.768238 0.884119 1.410822 1.014185 1.5 2.618615

Atrazine 4 9.2 -14.09209 32.49209 36.8 0.6 31 30.4 214.2667 14.63785 7.318925 1.917457 1.014185 3.695356 2.618615

Metolachlor 4 2.125 -2.270109 6.520109 8.5 0.2 6.1 5.9 7.629167 2.762095 1.381047 1.568693 1.014185 2.219777 2.618615

JUNE

Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three)

Confid. Confid. Standard Std.Err. Std.Err.

Valid N Mean -95.000% 95.00% Sum Minimum Maximum Range Variance Std.Dev. Error Skewness Skewness Kurtosis Kurtosis

Acetochlor 4 3.075 -4.305915 10.45591 12.3 0.4 10 9.6 21.51583 4.638516 2.319258 1.945048 1.014185 3.801219 2.618615

Atrazine 4 21.225 -19.37092 61.82092 84.9 4.1 59 54.9 650.8825 25.5124 12.7562 1.850147 1.014185 3.474789 2.618615

Metolachlor 4 8.55 -10.04508 27.14508 34.2 1.3 26 24.7 136.5633 11.68603 5.843016 1.945811 1.014185 3.825219 2.618615

JULY

Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three)

Confid. Confid. Standard Std.Err. Std.Err.

Valid N Mean -95.000% 95.00% Sum Minimum Maximum Range Variance Std.Dev. Error Skewness Skewness Kurtosis Kurtosis

Acetochlor 5 0.04 -0.028009 0.108009 0.2 0 0.1 0.1 0.003 0.054772 0.024495 0.608581 0.912871 -3.333333 2

Atrazine 5 1.14 0.646448 1.633552 5.7 0.8 1.8 1 0.158 0.397492 0.177764 1.538125 0.912871 2.356193 2

Metolachlor 5 0.36 0.134441 0.585559 1.8 0.2 0.6 0.4 0.033 0.181659 0.08124 0.567163 0.912871 -2.231405 2

AUGUST

Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three)

Confid. Confid. Standard Std.Err. Std.Err.

Valid N Mean -95.000% 95.00% Sum Minimum Maximum Range Variance Std.Dev. Error Skewness Skewness Kurtosis Kurtosis

Acetochlor 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Atrazine 2 0.7 1.4 0.7 0.7 0 0 0 0

Metolachlor 2 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.2 0 0 0 0

NOVEMBER

Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three)

Confid. Confid. Standard Std.Err. Std.Err.

Valid N Mean -95.000% 95.00% Sum Minimum Maximum Range Variance Std.Dev. Error Skewness Skewness Kurtosis Kurtosis

Acetochlor 1 0 0 0 0

Atrazine 1 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3

Metolachlor 1 0 0 0 0

Appendix G

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

MAY TO NOVEMBER

Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three)

Confid. Confid. Standard Std.Err. Std.Err.

Valid N Mean -95.000% 95.00% Sum Minimum Maximum Range Variance Std.Dev. Error Skewness Skewness Kurtosis Kurtosis

Acetochlor 16 1.1375 -0.463439 2.738439 18.2 0 12 12 9.0265 3.004413 0.751103 3.575867 0.564308 13.34745 1.090774

Atrazine 16 8.93125 2.270748 15.59175 142.9 0.5 44 43.5 156.237 12.49948 3.12487 1.83741 0.564308 3.058295 1.090774

Metolachlor 16 2.55625 0.668787 4.443713 40.9 0 10 10 12.54663 3.542122 0.88553 1.365163 0.564308 0.419452 1.090774

MAY

Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three)

Confid. Confid. Standard Std.Err. Std.Err.

Valid N Mean -95.000% 95.00% Sum Minimum Maximum Range Variance Std.Dev. Error Skewness Skewness Kurtosis Kurtosis

Acetochlor 4 3.15 -6.239116 12.53912 12.6 0.1 12 11.9 34.81667 5.900565 2.950282 1.998851 1.014185 3.996171 2.618615

Atrazine 4 12.3 -21.34249 45.94249 49.2 0.9 44 43.1 447.0067 21.14253 10.57127 1.994762 1.014185 3.982809 2.618615

Metolachlor 4 2.625 -4.988938 10.23894 10.5 0.1 9.8 9.7 22.89583 4.784959 2.39248 1.995938 1.014185 3.986285 2.618615

JUNE

Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three)

Confid. Confid. Standard Std.Err. Std.Err.

Valid N Mean -95.000% 95.00% Sum Minimum Maximum Range Variance Std.Dev. Error Skewness Skewness Kurtosis Kurtosis

Acetochlor 4 1.35 -0.631057 3.331057 5.4 0.2 2.9 2.7 1.55 1.24499 0.622495 0.580391 1.014185 -2.283871 2.618615

Atrazine 4 19.5 9.648114 29.35189 78 11 25 14 38.33333 6.191392 3.095696 -1.137624 1.014185 0.757656 2.618615

Metolachlor 4 6.55 2.271414 10.82859 26.2 3.5 10 6.5 7.23 2.688866 1.344433 0.426326 1.014185 1.063851 2.618615

JULY

Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three)

Confid. Confid. Standard Std.Err. Std.Err.

Valid N Mean -95.000% 95.00% Sum Minimum Maximum Range Variance Std.Dev. Error Skewness Skewness Kurtosis Kurtosis

Acetochlor 5 0.04 -0.028009 0.108009 0.2 0 0.1 0.1 0.003 0.054772 0.024495 0.608581 0.912871 -3.333333 2

Atrazine 5 2.24 1.063364 3.416636 11.2 0.9 3.3 2.4 0.898 0.947629 0.423792 -0.577458 0.912871 -0.75394 2

Metolachlor 5 0.62 0.128013 1.111987 3.1 0.3 1.1 0.8 0.157 0.396232 0.1772 0.597989 0.912871 -3.068279 2

AUGUST

Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three)

Confid. Confid. Standard Std.Err. Std.Err.

Valid N Mean -95.000% 95.00% Sum Minimum Maximum Range Variance Std.Dev. Error Skewness Skewness Kurtosis Kurtosis

Acetochlor 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Atrazine 2 2 -5.623723 9.623723 4 1.4 2.6 1.2 0.72 0.848528 0.6

Metolachlor 2 0.55 -1.355931 2.455931 1.1 0.4 0.7 0.3 0.045 0.212132 0.15

NOVEMBER

Descriptive Statistics (pesticide big three)

Confid. Confid. Standard Std.Err. Std.Err.

Valid N Mean -95.000% 95.00% Sum Minimum Maximum Range Variance Std.Dev. Error Skewness Skewness Kurtosis Kurtosis

Acetochlor 1 0 0 0 0

Atrazine 1 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

Metolachlor 1 0 0 0 0

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 CALCULATIONS
Sample set 97e151 Parameter atrazine

Date 05/07/97

Lab number Flow-CFS Factor MGD MG/L Wt of h2o Pounds/Day Factor Tons/Day Site

10551 328.50 0.6463 212.31 0.0038 0.81 8.35 6.74 2000 0.00 P-01

10552 1449.00 0.6463 936.49 0.0190 17.79 8.35 148.57 2000 0.07 P-02

10553 1216.00 0.6463 785.90 0.0160 12.57 8.35 105.00 2000 0.05 P-03

10554 654.00 0.6463 422.68 0.0180 7.61 8.35 63.53 2000 0.03 P-04

10555 727.00 0.6463 469.86 0.0140 6.58 8.35 54.93 2000 0.03 P-05

10556 631.00 0.6463 407.82 0.0052 2.12 8.35 17.71 2000 0.01 P-06

10557 530.20 0.6463 342.67 0.0200 6.85 8.35 57.23 2000 0.03 P-07

10558 2313.00 0.6463 1494.89 0.0130 19.43 8.35 162.27 2000 0.08 P-08

10559 104.60 0.6463 67.60 0.0066 0.45 8.35 3.73 2000 0.00 P-09

10560 52.50 0.6463 33.93 0.0024 0.08 8.35 0.68 2000 0.00 P-10

10561 433.30 0.6463 280.04 0.0003 0.08 8.35 0.70 2000 0.00 P-11

10562 1870.00 0.6463 1208.58 0.0000 0.00 8.35 0.00 2000 0.00 P-12

10563 1870.00 0.6463 1208.58 0.0000 0.00 8.35 0.00 2000 0.00 D-12

10564 17340.00 0.6463 11206.84 0.0045 50.43 8.35 421.10 2000 0.21 P-13

10565 6667.00 0.6463 4308.88 0.0012 5.17 8.35 43.17 2000 0.02 P-14

Total lbs. 1042.17

Appendix H

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

Date 05/07/97

Lab number Flow-CFS Factor MGD MG/L Wt of h2o Pounds/Day Factor Tons/Day Site

10551 328.50 0.6463 212.31 0.0005 0.11 8.35 0.89 2000 0.00 P-01

10552 1449.00 0.6463 936.49 0.0031 2.90 8.35 24.24 2000 0.01 P-02

10553 1216.00 0.6463 785.90 0.0030 2.36 8.35 19.69 2000 0.01 P-03

10554 654.00 0.6463 422.68 0.0033 1.39 8.35 11.65 2000 0.01 P-04

10555 727.00 0.6463 469.86 0.0034 1.60 8.35 13.34 2000 0.01 P-05

10556 631.00 0.6463 407.82 0.0005 0.20 8.35 1.70 2000 0.00 P-06

10557 530.20 0.6463 342.67 0.0044 1.51 8.35 12.59 2000 0.01 P-07

10558 2313.00 0.6463 1494.89 0.0035 5.23 8.35 43.69 2000 0.02 P-08

10559 104.60 0.6463 67.60 0.0029 0.20 8.35 1.64 2000 0.00 P-09

10560 52.50 0.6463 33.93 0.0005 0.02 8.35 0.14 2000 0.00 P-10

10561 433.30 0.6463 280.04 0.0000 0.00 8.35 0.00 2000 0.00 P-11

10562 1870.00 0.6463 1208.58 0.0000 0.00 8.35 0.00 2000 0.00 P-12

10563 1870.00 0.6463 1208.58 0.0000 0.00 8.35 0.00 2000 0.00 D-12

10564 17340.00 0.6463 11206.84 0.0014 15.69 8.35 131.01 2000 0.07 P-13

10565 6667.00 0.6463 4308.88 0.0004 1.72 8.35 14.39 2000 0.01 P-14

Total lbs. 260.57

Appendix H

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

Date 05/07/97

Lab number Flow-CFS Factor MGD MG/L Wt of h2o Pounds/Day Factor Tons/Day Site

10551 328.50 0.6463 212.31 0.0016 0.34 8.35 2.84 2000 0.00 P-01

10552 1449.00 0.6463 936.49 0.0047 4.40 8.35 36.75 2000 0.02 P-02

10553 1216.00 0.6463 785.90 0.0040 3.14 8.35 26.25 2000 0.01 P-03

10554 654.00 0.6463 422.68 0.0011 0.46 8.35 3.88 2000 0.00 P-04

10555 727.00 0.6463 469.86 0.0008 0.38 8.35 3.14 2000 0.00 P-05

10556 631.00 0.6463 407.82 0.0016 0.65 8.35 5.45 2000 0.00 P-06

10557 530.20 0.6463 342.67 0.0015 0.51 8.35 4.29 2000 0.00 P-07

10558 2313.00 0.6463 1494.89 0.0013 1.94 8.35 16.23 2000 0.01 P-08

10559 104.60 0.6463 67.60 0.0008 0.05 8.35 0.45 2000 0.00 P-09

10560 52.50 0.6463 33.93 0.0004 0.01 8.35 0.11 2000 0.00 P-10

10561 433.30 0.6463 280.04 0.0002 0.06 8.35 0.47 2000 0.00 P-11

10562 0.00 0.6463 0.00 0.0000 0.00 8.35 0.00 2000 0.00 P-12

10563 0.00 0.6463 0.00 0.0000 0.00 8.35 0.00 2000 0.00 D-12

10564 17340.00 0.6463 11206.84 0.0019 21.29 8.35 177.80 2000 0.09 P-13

10565 6667.00 0.6463 4308.88 0.0006 2.59 8.35 21.59 2000 0.01 P-14

Total lbs. 277.66

Appendix H

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

Date 05/12/97

Lab number Flow-CFS Factor MGD MG/L Wt of h2o Pounds/Day Factor Tons/Day Site

10566 163.40 0.6463 105.61 0.0018 0.19 8.35 1.59 2000 0.00 P-01

10567 667.50 0.6463 431.41 0.0009 0.39 8.35 3.24 2000 0.00 P-02

10568 629.80 0.6463 407.04 0.0009 0.37 8.35 3.06 2000 0.00 P-03

10569 274.00 0.6463 177.09 0.0009 0.16 8.35 1.33 2000 0.00 P-04

10570 370.30 0.6463 239.32 0.0011 0.26 8.35 2.20 2000 0.00 P-05

10571 285.70 0.6463 184.65 0.0007 0.13 8.35 1.08 2000 0.00 P-06

10572 195.70 0.6463 126.48 0.0009 0.11 8.35 0.95 2000 0.00 P-07

10573 1027.00 0.6463 663.75 0.0009 0.60 8.35 4.99 2000 0.00 P-08

10574 53.19 0.6463 34.38 0.0013 0.04 8.35 0.37 2000 0.00 P-09

10575 41.54 0.6463 26.85 0.0019 0.05 8.35 0.43 2000 0.00 P-10

10576 210.00 0.6463 135.72 0.0002 0.03 8.35 0.23 2000 0.00 P-11

10577 900.00 0.6463 7.23 0.0000 0.00 8.35 0.00 2000 0.00 P-12

10578 9890.00 0.6463 6391.91 0.0008 5.11 8.35 42.70 2000 0.02 P-13

10579 3583.00 0.6463 2315.69 0.0018 4.17 8.35 34.80 2000 0.02 P-14

10580 667.50 0.6463 431.41 0.0009 0.39 8.35 3.24 2000 0.00 D-02

Total lbs. 96.96

Appendix H

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

Date 05/12/97

Lab number Flow-CFS Factor MGD MG/L Wt of h2o Pounds/Day Factor Tons/Day Site

10566 163.40 0.6463 105.61 0.0004 0.04 8.35 0.35 2000 0.00 P-01

10567 667.50 0.6463 431.41 0.0002 0.09 8.35 0.72 2000 0.00 P-02

10568 629.80 0.6463 407.04 0.0001 0.04 8.35 0.34 2000 0.00 P-03

10569 274.00 0.6463 177.09 0.0002 0.04 8.35 0.30 2000 0.00 P-04

10570 370.30 0.6463 239.32 0.0003 0.07 8.35 0.60 2000 0.00 P-05

10571 285.70 0.6463 184.65 0.0000 0.00 8.35 0.00 2000 0.00 P-06

10572 195.70 0.6463 126.48 0.0000 0.00 8.35 0.00 2000 0.00 P-07

10573 1027.00 0.6463 663.75 0.0002 0.13 8.35 1.11 2000 0.00 P-08

10574 53.19 0.6463 34.38 0.0002 0.01 8.35 0.06 2000 0.00 P-09

10575 41.54 0.6463 26.85 0.0002 0.01 8.35 0.04 2000 0.00 P-10

10576 210.00 0.6463 135.72 0.0000 0.00 8.35 0.00 2000 0.00 P-11

10577 900.00 0.6463 581.67 0.0000 0.00 8.35 0.00 2000 0.00 P-12

10578 9890.00 0.6463 6391.91 0.0002 1.28 8.35 10.67 2000 0.01 P-13

10579 3583.00 0.6463 2315.69 0.0003 0.69 8.35 5.80 2000 0.00 P-14

10580 667.50 0.6463 431.41 0.0000 0.00 8.35 0.00 2000 0.00 D-02

Total lbs. 19.99

Appendix H

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

Date 05/12/97

Lab number Flow-CFS Factor MGD MG/L Wt of h2o Pounds/Day Factor Tons/Day Site

10566 163.40 0.6463 105.61 0.0004 0.04 8.35 0.35 2000 0.00 P-01

10567 667.50 0.6463 431.41 0.0002 0.09 8.35 0.72 2000 0.00 P-02

10568 629.80 0.6463 407.04 0.0002 0.08 8.35 0.68 2000 0.00 P-03

10569 274.00 0.6463 177.09 0.0000 0.00 8.35 0.00 2000 0.00 P-04

10570 370.30 0.6463 239.32 0.0001 0.02 8.35 0.20 2000 0.00 P-05

10571 285.70 0.6463 184.65 0.0003 0.06 8.35 0.46 2000 0.00 P-06

10572 195.70 0.6463 126.48 0.0001 0.01 8.35 0.11 2000 0.00 P-07

10573 1027.00 0.6463 663.75 0.0002 0.13 8.35 1.11 2000 0.00 P-08

10574 53.19 0.6463 34.38 0.0002 0.01 8.35 0.06 2000 0.00 P-09

10575 41.54 0.6463 26.85 0.0002 0.01 8.35 0.04 2000 0.00 P-10

10576 210.00 0.6463 135.72 0.0001 0.01 8.35 0.11 2000 0.00 P-11

10577 900.00 0.6463 581.67 0.0000 0.00 8.35 0.00 2000 0.00 P-12

10578 9890.00 0.6463 6391.91 0.0003 1.92 8.35 16.01 2000 0.01 P-13

10579 3583.00 0.6463 2315.69 0.0006 1.39 8.35 11.60 2000 0.01 P-14

10580 667.50 0.6463 431.41 0.0002 0.09 8.35 0.72 2000 0.00 D-02

Total lbs. 31.46

Appendix H

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

Date 05/19/97

Lab number Flow-CFS Factor MGD MG/L Wt of h2o Pounds/Day Factor Tons/Day Site

10581 114.50 0.6463 74.00 0.0018 0.13 8.35 1.11 2000 0.00 P-01

10582 438.40 0.6463 283.34 0.0005 0.14 8.35 1.18 2000 0.00 P-02

10583 494.40 0.6463 319.53 0.0005 0.16 8.35 1.33 2000 0.00 P-03

10584 200.00 0.6463 129.26 0.0007 0.09 8.35 0.76 2000 0.00 P-04

10585 279.10 0.6463 180.38 0.0006 0.11 8.35 0.90 2000 0.00 P-05

10586 190.40 0.6463 123.06 0.0005 0.06 8.35 0.51 2000 0.00 P-06

10587 116.60 0.6463 75.36 0.0005 0.04 8.35 0.31 2000 0.00 P-07

10588 776.00 0.6463 501.53 0.0006 0.30 8.35 2.51 2000 0.00 P-08

10589 37.12 0.6463 23.99 0.0008 0.02 8.35 0.16 2000 0.00 P-09

10590 19.00 0.6463 12.28 0.0009 0.01 8.35 0.09 2000 0.00 P-10

10591 106.90 0.6463 69.09 0.0003 0.02 8.35 0.17 2000 0.00 P-11

10592 900.00 0.6463 581.67 0.0000 0.00 8.35 0.00 2000 0.00 P-12

10593 3929.00 0.6463 2539.31 0.0006 1.52 8.35 12.72 2000 0.01 P-13

10594 2457.00 0.6463 1587.96 0.0008 1.27 8.35 10.61 2000 0.01 P-14

10595 114.50 0.6463 74.00 0.0018 0.13 8.35 1.11 2000 0.00 D-01

Total lbs. 32.38

Appendix H

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

Date 05/19/97

Lab number Flow-CFS Factor MGD MG/L Wt of h2o Pounds/Day Factor Tons/Day Site

10581 114.50 0.6463 74.00 0.0006 0.04 8.35 0.37 2000 0.00 P-01

10582 438.40 0.6463 283.34 0.0000 0.00 8.35 0.00 2000 0.00 P-02

10583 494.40 0.6463 319.53 0.0000 0.00 8.35 0.00 2000 0.00 P-03

10584 200.00 0.6463 129.26 0.0001 0.01 8.35 0.11 2000 0.00 P-04

10585 279.10 0.6463 180.38 0.0001 0.02 8.35 0.15 2000 0.00 P-05

10586 190.40 0.6463 123.06 0.0000 0.00 8.35 0.00 2000 0.00 P-06

10587 116.60 0.6463 75.36 0.0000 0.00 8.35 0.00 2000 0.00 P-07

10588 776.00 0.6463 501.53 0.0001 0.05 8.35 0.42 2000 0.00 P-08

10589 37.12 0.6463 23.99 0.0001 0.00 8.35 0.02 2000 0.00 P-09

10590 19.00 0.6463 12.28 0.0001 0.00 8.35 0.01 2000 0.00 P-10

10591 106.90 0.6463 69.09 0.0000 0.00 8.35 0.00 2000 0.00 P-11

10592 900.00 0.6463 581.67 0.0000 0.00 8.35 0.00 2000 0.00 P-12

10593 3929.00 0.6463 2539.31 0.0001 0.25 8.35 2.12 2000 0.00 P-13

10594 2457.00 0.6463 1587.96 0.0000 0.00 8.35 0.00 2000 0.00 P-14

10595 114.50 0.6463 74.00 0.0006 0.04 8.35 0.37 2000 0.00 D-01

Total lbs. 3.20

Appendix H

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

Date 05/19/97

Lab number Flow-CFS Factor MGD MG/L Wt of h2o Pounds/Day Factor Tons/Day Site

10581 114.50 0.6463 74.00 0.0003 0.02 8.35 0.19 2000 0.00 P-01

10582 438.40 0.6463 283.34 0.0001 0.03 8.35 0.24 2000 0.00 P-02

10583 494.40 0.6463 319.53 0.0001 0.03 8.35 0.27 2000 0.00 P-03

10584 200.00 0.6463 129.26 0.0000 0.00 8.35 0.00 2000 0.00 P-04

10585 279.10 0.6463 180.38 0.0000 0.00 8.35 0.00 2000 0.00 P-05

10586 190.40 0.6463 123.06 0.0003 0.04 8.35 0.31 2000 0.00 P-06

10587 116.60 0.6463 75.36 0.0000 0.00 8.35 0.00 2000 0.00 P-07

10588 776.00 0.6463 501.53 0.0001 0.05 8.35 0.42 2000 0.00 P-08

10589 37.12 0.6463 23.99 0.0001 0.00 8.35 0.02 2000 0.00 P-09

10590 19.00 0.6463 12.28 0.0001 0.00 8.35 0.01 2000 0.00 P-10

10591 106.90 0.6463 69.09 0.0001 0.01 8.35 0.06 2000 0.00 P-11

10592 900.00 0.6463 581.67 0.0000 0.00 8.35 0.00 2000 0.00 P-12

10593 3929.00 0.6463 2539.31 0.0002 0.51 8.35 4.24 2000 0.00 P-13

10594 2457.00 0.6463 1587.96 0.0003 0.48 8.35 3.98 2000 0.00 P-14

10595 114.50 0.6463 74.00 0.0003 0.02 8.35 0.19 2000 0.00 D-01

Total lbs. 9.72

Appendix H

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

Date 05/27/97

Lab number Flow-CFS Factor MGD MG/L Wt of h2o Pounds/Day Factor Tons/Day Site

10596 211.70 0.6463 136.82 0.0032 0.44 8.35 3.66 2000 0.00 P-01

10597 1111.00 0.6463 718.04 0.0064 4.60 8.35 38.37 2000 0.02 P-02

10598 780.40 0.6463 504.37 0.0033 1.66 8.35 13.90 2000 0.01 P-03

10599 430.00 0.6463 277.91 0.0072 2.00 8.35 16.71 2000 0.01 P-04

10600 634.20 0.6463 409.88 0.0094 3.85 8.35 32.17 2000 0.02 P-05

10601 707.10 0.6463 457.00 0.0130 5.94 8.35 49.61 2000 0.02 P-06

10602 336.80 0.6463 217.67 0.0110 2.39 8.35 19.99 2000 0.01 P-07

10603 1875.00 0.6463 1211.81 0.0092 11.15 8.35 93.09 2000 0.05 P-08

10604 81.32 0.6463 52.56 0.0160 0.84 8.35 7.02 2000 0.00 P-09

10605 36.50 0.6463 23.59 0.0440 1.04 8.35 8.67 2000 0.00 P-10

10606 431.50 0.6463 278.88 0.0210 5.86 8.35 48.90 2000 0.02 P-11

10607 300.00 0.6463 193.89 0.0007 0.14 8.35 1.13 2000 0.00 P-12

10608 6627.00 0.6463 4283.03 0.0310 132.77 8.35 1108.66 2000 0.55 P-13

10609 4999.00 0.6463 3230.85 0.0059 19.06 8.35 159.17 2000 0.08 P-14

10610 780.40 0.6463 504.37 0.0030 1.51 8.35 12.63 2000 0.01 D-03

Total lbs. 1601.05

Appendix H

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

Date 05/27/97

Lab number Flow-CFS Factor MGD MG/L Wt of h2o Pounds/Day Factor Tons/Day Site

10596 211.70 0.6463 136.82 0.0007 0.10 8.35 0.80 2000 0.00 P-01

10597 1111.00 0.6463 718.04 0.0019 1.36 8.35 11.39 2000 0.01 P-02

10598 780.40 0.6463 504.37 0.0006 0.30 8.35 2.53 2000 0.00 P-03

10599 430.00 0.6463 277.91 0.0034 0.94 8.35 7.89 2000 0.00 P-04

10600 634.20 0.6463 409.88 0.0032 1.31 8.35 10.95 2000 0.01 P-05

10601 707.10 0.6463 457.00 0.0004 0.18 8.35 1.53 2000 0.00 P-06

10602 336.80 0.6463 217.67 0.0030 0.65 8.35 5.45 2000 0.00 P-07

10603 1875.00 0.6463 1211.81 0.0026 3.15 8.35 26.31 2000 0.01 P-08

10604 81.32 0.6463 52.56 0.0041 0.22 8.35 1.80 2000 0.00 P-09

10605 36.50 0.6463 23.59 0.0120 0.28 8.35 2.36 2000 0.00 P-10

10606 431.50 0.6463 278.88 0.0027 0.75 8.35 6.29 2000 0.00 P-11

10607 300.00 0.6463 193.89 0.0002 0.04 8.35 0.32 2000 0.00 P-12

10608 6627.00 0.6463 4283.03 0.0039 16.70 8.35 139.48 2000 0.07 P-13

10609 4999.00 0.6463 3230.85 0.0009 2.91 8.35 24.28 2000 0.01 P-14

10610 780.40 0.6463 504.37 0.0006 0.30 8.35 2.53 2000 0.00 D-03

Total lbs. 241.38

Appendix H

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

Date 05/27/97

Lab number Flow-CFS Factor MGD MG/L Wt of h2o Pounds/Day Factor Tons/Day Site

10596 211.70 0.6463 136.82 0.0022 0.30 8.35 2.51 2000 0.00 P-01

10597 1111.00 0.6463 718.04 0.0018 1.29 8.35 10.79 2000 0.01 P-02

10598 780.40 0.6463 504.37 0.0005 0.25 8.35 2.11 2000 0.00 P-03

10599 430.00 0.6463 277.91 0.0012 0.33 8.35 2.78 2000 0.00 P-04

10600 634.20 0.6463 409.88 0.0017 0.70 8.35 5.82 2000 0.00 P-05

10601 707.10 0.6463 457.00 0.0100 4.57 8.35 38.16 2000 0.02 P-06

10602 336.80 0.6463 217.67 0.0033 0.72 8.35 6.00 2000 0.00 P-07

10603 1875.00 0.6463 1211.81 0.0035 4.24 8.35 35.42 2000 0.02 P-08

10604 81.32 0.6463 52.56 0.0027 0.14 8.35 1.18 2000 0.00 P-09

10605 36.50 0.6463 23.59 0.0098 0.23 8.35 1.93 2000 0.00 P-10

10606 431.50 0.6463 278.88 0.0075 2.09 8.35 17.46 2000 0.01 P-11

10607 300.00 0.6463 193.89 0.0003 0.06 8.35 0.49 2000 0.00 P-12

10608 6627.00 0.6463 4283.03 0.0061 26.13 8.35 218.16 2000 0.11 P-13

10609 4999.00 0.6463 3230.85 0.0025 8.08 8.35 67.44 2000 0.03 P-14

10610 780.40 0.6463 504.37 0.0005 0.25 8.35 2.11 2000 0.00 D-03

Total lbs. 410.25

Appendix H

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

Date 06/02/97

Lab number Flow-CFS Factor MGD MG/L Wt of h2o Pounds/Day Factor Tons/Day Site

10611 1898.00 0.6463 1226.68 0.0200 24.53 8.35 204.86 2000 0.10 P-01

10612 20720.00 0.6463 13391.34 0.0340 455.31 8.35 3801.80 2000 1.90 P-02

10613 8713.00 0.6463 5631.21 0.0280 157.67 8.35 1316.58 2000 0.66 P-03

10614 6152.00 0.6463 3976.04 0.0440 174.95 8.35 1460.80 2000 0.73 P-04

10615 7466.00 0.6463 4825.28 0.0400 193.01 8.35 1611.64 2000 0.81 P-05

10616 9640.00 0.6463 6230.33 0.0410 255.44 8.35 2132.95 2000 1.07 P-06

10617 11340.00 0.6463 7329.04 0.0380 278.50 8.35 2325.51 2000 1.16 P-07

10618 31180.00 0.6463 20151.63 0.0440 886.67 8.35 7403.71 2000 3.70 P-08

10619 374.60 0.6463 242.10 0.0240 5.81 8.35 48.52 2000 0.02 P-09

10620 127.80 0.6463 82.60 0.0250 2.06 8.35 17.24 2000 0.01 P-10

10621 713.40 0.6463 461.07 0.0086 3.97 8.35 33.11 2000 0.02 P-11

10622 200.00 0.6463 129.26 0.0001 0.01 8.35 0.11 2000 0.00 P-12

10623 28330.00 0.6463 18309.68 0.0590 1080.27 8.35 9020.26 2000 4.51 P-13

10624 15610.00 0.6463 10088.74 0.0190 191.69 8.35 1600.58 2000 0.80 P-14

10625 374.60 0.6463 242.10 0.0240 5.81 8.35 48.52 2000 0.02 D-09

Total lbs. 30977.66

Appendix H

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

Date 06/02/97

Lab number Flow-CFS Factor MGD MG/L Wt of h2o Pounds/Day Factor Tons/Day Site

10611 1898.00 0.6463 1226.68 0.0039 4.78 8.35 39.95 2000 0.02 P-01

10612 20720.00 0.6463 13391.34 0.0051 68.30 8.35 570.27 2000 0.29 P-02

10613 8713.00 0.6463 5631.21 0.0038 21.40 8.35 178.68 2000 0.09 P-03

10614 6152.00 0.6463 3976.04 0.0100 39.76 8.35 332.00 2000 0.17 P-04

10615 7466.00 0.6463 4825.28 0.0130 62.73 8.35 523.78 2000 0.26 P-05

10616 9640.00 0.6463 6230.33 0.0084 52.33 8.35 437.00 2000 0.22 P-06

10617 11340.00 0.6463 7329.04 0.0098 71.82 8.35 599.74 2000 0.30 P-07

10618 31180.00 0.6463 20151.63 0.0110 221.67 8.35 1850.93 2000 0.93 P-08

10619 374.60 0.6463 242.10 0.0065 1.57 8.35 13.14 2000 0.01 P-09

10620 127.80 0.6463 82.60 0.0029 0.24 8.35 2.00 2000 0.00 P-10

10621 713.40 0.6463 461.07 0.0009 0.41 8.35 3.46 2000 0.00 P-11

10622 200.00 0.6463 129.26 0.0000 0.00 8.35 0.00 2000 0.00 P-12

10623 28330.00 0.6463 18309.68 0.0100 183.10 8.35 1528.86 2000 0.76 P-13

10624 15610.00 0.6463 10088.74 0.0019 19.17 8.35 160.06 2000 0.08 P-14

10625 374.60 0.6463 242.10 0.0066 1.60 8.35 13.34 2000 0.01 D-09

Total lbs. 6239.86

Appendix H

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

Date 06/02/97

Lab number Flow-CFS Factor MGD MG/L Wt of h2o Pounds/Day Factor Tons/Day Site

10611 1898.00 0.6463 1226.68 0.0100 12.27 8.35 102.43 2000 0.05 P-01

10612 20720.00 0.6463 13391.34 0.0110 147.30 8.35 1229.99 2000 0.61 P-02

10613 8713.00 0.6463 5631.21 0.0097 54.62 8.35 456.10 2000 0.23 P-03

10614 6152.00 0.6463 3976.04 0.0060 23.86 8.35 199.20 2000 0.10 P-04

10615 7466.00 0.6463 4825.28 0.0060 28.95 8.35 241.75 2000 0.12 P-05

10616 9640.00 0.6463 6230.33 0.0230 143.30 8.35 1196.54 2000 0.60 P-06

10617 11340.00 0.6463 7329.04 0.0083 60.83 8.35 507.94 2000 0.25 P-07

10618 31180.00 0.6463 20151.63 0.0130 261.97 8.35 2187.46 2000 1.09 P-08

10619 374.60 0.6463 242.10 0.0073 1.77 8.35 14.76 2000 0.01 P-09

10620 127.80 0.6463 82.60 0.0068 0.56 8.35 4.69 2000 0.00 P-10

10621 713.40 0.6463 461.07 0.0030 1.38 8.35 11.55 2000 0.01 P-11

10622 200.00 0.6463 129.26 0.0000 0.00 8.35 0.00 2000 0.00 P-12

10623 28330.00 0.6463 18309.68 0.0260 476.05 8.35 3975.03 2000 1.99 P-13

10624 15610.00 0.6463 10088.74 0.0094 94.83 8.35 791.87 2000 0.40 P-14

10625 374.60 0.6463 242.10 0.0076 1.84 8.35 15.36 2000 0.01 D-09

Total lbs. 10919.30

Appendix H

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

Date 06/09/97

Lab number Flow-CFS Factor MGD MG/L Wt of h2o Pounds/Day Factor Tons/Day Site

10641 397.40 0.6463 256.84 0.0043 1.10 8.35 9.22 2000 0.00 P-01

10642 11060.00 0.6463 7148.08 0.0082 58.61 8.35 489.43 2000 0.24 P-02

10643 2302.00 0.6463 1487.78 0.0052 7.74 8.35 64.60 2000 0.03 P-03

10644 1544.00 0.6463 997.89 0.0180 17.96 8.35 149.98 2000 0.07 P-04

10645 1204.00 0.6463 778.15 0.0087 6.77 8.35 56.53 2000 0.03 P-05

10646 1575.00 0.6463 1017.92 0.0120 12.22 8.35 102.00 2000 0.05 P-06

10647 2663.00 0.6463 1721.10 0.0140 24.10 8.35 201.20 2000 0.10 P-07

10648 5683.00 0.6463 3672.92 0.0130 47.75 8.35 398.70 2000 0.20 P-08

10649 371.70 0.6463 240.23 0.0130 3.12 8.35 26.08 2000 0.01 P-09

10650 123.00 0.6463 79.49 0.0190 1.51 8.35 12.61 2000 0.01 P-10

10651 692.90 0.6463 447.82 0.0110 4.93 8.35 41.13 2000 0.02 P-11

10652 200.00 0.6463 129.26 0.0001 0.01 8.35 0.11 2000 0.00 P-12

10653 18880.00 0.6463 12202.14 0.0140 170.83 8.35 1426.43 2000 0.71 P-13

10654 10910.00 0.6463 7051.13 0.0082 57.82 8.35 482.79 2000 0.24 P-14

10655 123.00 0.6463 79.49 0.0180 1.43 8.35 11.95 2000 0.01 D-10

Total lbs. 3460.80

Appendix H

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

Date 06/09/97

Lab number Flow-CFS Factor MGD MG/L Wt of h2o Pounds/Day Factor Tons/Day Site

10641 397.40 0.6463 256.84 0.0006 0.15 8.35 1.29 2000 0.00 P-01

10642 11060.00 0.6463 7148.08 0.0012 8.58 8.35 71.62 2000 0.04 P-02

10643 2302.00 0.6463 1487.78 0.0005 0.74 8.35 6.21 2000 0.00 P-03

10644 1544.00 0.6463 997.89 0.0038 3.79 8.35 31.66 2000 0.02 P-04

10645 1204.00 0.6463 778.15 0.0021 1.63 8.35 13.64 2000 0.01 P-05

10646 1575.00 0.6463 1017.92 0.0013 1.32 8.35 11.05 2000 0.01 P-06

10647 2663.00 0.6463 1721.10 0.0029 4.99 8.35 41.68 2000 0.02 P-07

10648 5683.00 0.6463 3672.92 0.0024 8.82 8.35 73.61 2000 0.04 P-08

10649 371.70 0.6463 240.23 0.0030 0.72 8.35 6.02 2000 0.00 P-09

10650 123.00 0.6463 79.49 0.0018 0.14 8.35 1.19 2000 0.00 P-10

10651 692.90 0.6463 447.82 0.0007 0.31 8.35 2.62 2000 0.00 P-11

10652 200.00 0.6463 129.26 0.0000 0.00 8.35 0.00 2000 0.00 P-12

10653 18880.00 0.6463 12202.14 0.0014 17.08 8.35 142.64 2000 0.07 P-13

10654 10910.00 0.6463 7051.13 0.0007 4.94 8.35 41.21 2000 0.02 P-14

10655 123.00 0.6463 79.49 0.0017 0.14 8.35 1.13 2000 0.00 D-10

Total lbs. 444.45

Appendix H

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

Date 06/09/97

Lab number Flow-CFS Factor MGD MG/L Wt of h2o Pounds/Day Factor Tons/Day Site

10641 397.40 0.6463 256.84 0.0022 0.57 8.35 4.72 2000 0.00 P-01

10642 11060.00 0.6463 7148.08 0.0026 18.59 8.35 155.18 2000 0.08 P-02

10643 2302.00 0.6463 1487.78 0.0010 1.49 8.35 12.42 2000 0.01 P-03

10644 1544.00 0.6463 997.89 0.0049 4.89 8.35 40.83 2000 0.02 P-04

10645 1204.00 0.6463 778.15 0.0013 1.01 8.35 8.45 2000 0.00 P-05

10646 1575.00 0.6463 1017.92 0.0067 6.82 8.35 56.95 2000 0.03 P-06

10647 2663.00 0.6463 1721.10 0.0037 6.37 8.35 53.17 2000 0.03 P-07

10648 5683.00 0.6463 3672.92 0.0045 16.53 8.35 138.01 2000 0.07 P-08

10649 371.70 0.6463 240.23 0.0041 0.98 8.35 8.22 2000 0.00 P-09

10650 123.00 0.6463 79.49 0.0059 0.47 8.35 3.92 2000 0.00 P-10

10651 692.90 0.6463 447.82 0.0035 1.57 8.35 13.09 2000 0.01 P-11

10652 200.00 0.6463 129.26 0.0000 0.00 8.35 0.00 2000 0.00 P-12

10653 18880.00 0.6463 12202.14 0.0040 48.81 8.35 407.55 2000 0.20 P-13

10654 10910.00 0.6463 7051.13 0.0034 23.97 8.35 200.18 2000 0.10 P-14

10655 123.00 0.6463 79.49 0.0057 0.45 8.35 3.78 2000 0.00 D-10

Total lbs. 1102.69

Appendix H

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

Date 06/16/97

Lab number Flow-CFS Factor MGD MG/L Wt of h2o Pounds/Day Factor Tons/Day Site

10626 149.70 0.6463 96.75 0.0026 0.25 8.35 2.10 2000 0.00 P-01

10627 1022.00 0.6463 660.52 0.0019 1.25 8.35 10.48 2000 0.01 P-02

10628 1355.00 0.6463 875.74 0.0018 1.58 8.35 13.16 2000 0.01 P-03

10629 261.60 0.6463 169.07 0.0020 0.34 8.35 2.82 2000 0.00 P-04

10630 487.80 0.6463 315.27 0.0033 1.04 8.35 8.69 2000 0.00 P-05

10631 426.30 0.6463 275.52 0.0035 0.96 8.35 8.05 2000 0.00 P-06

10632 520.80 0.6463 336.59 0.0021 0.71 8.35 5.90 2000 0.00 P-07

10633 1478.00 0.6463 955.23 0.0026 2.48 8.35 20.74 2000 0.01 P-08

10634 74.70 0.6463 48.28 0.0019 0.09 8.35 0.77 2000 0.00 P-09

10635 45.00 0.6463 29.08 0.0230 0.67 8.35 5.59 2000 0.00 P-10

10636 2927.00 0.6463 1891.72 0.0071 13.43 8.35 112.15 2000 0.06 P-11

10637 950.00 0.6463 613.99 0.0002 0.12 8.35 1.03 2000 0.00 P-12

10638 9176.00 0.6463 5930.45 0.0041 24.31 8.35 203.03 2000 0.10 P-13

10639 10670.00 0.6463 6896.02 0.0078 53.79 8.35 449.14 2000 0.22 P-14

10640 1355.00 0.6463 875.74 0.0020 1.75 8.35 14.62 2000 0.01 D-03

Total lbs. 843.64

Appendix H

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

Date 06/16/97

Lab number Flow-CFS Factor MGD MG/L Wt of h2o Pounds/Day Factor Tons/Day Site

10626 149.70 0.6463 96.75 0.0002 0.02 8.35 0.16 2000 0.00 P-01

10627 1022.00 0.6463 660.52 0.0002 0.13 8.35 1.10 2000 0.00 P-02

10628 1355.00 0.6463 875.74 0.0001 0.09 8.35 0.73 2000 0.00 P-03

10629 261.60 0.6463 169.07 0.0002 0.03 8.35 0.28 2000 0.00 P-04

10630 487.80 0.6463 315.27 0.0005 0.16 8.35 1.32 2000 0.00 P-05

10631 426.30 0.6463 275.52 0.0002 0.06 8.35 0.46 2000 0.00 P-06

10632 520.80 0.6463 336.59 0.0002 0.07 8.35 0.56 2000 0.00 P-07

10633 1478.00 0.6463 955.23 0.0003 0.29 8.35 2.39 2000 0.00 P-08

10634 74.70 0.6463 48.28 0.0002 0.01 8.35 0.08 2000 0.00 P-09

10635 45.00 0.6463 29.08 0.0005 0.01 8.35 0.12 2000 0.00 P-10

10636 2927.00 0.6463 1891.72 0.0003 0.57 8.35 4.74 2000 0.00 P-11

10637 950.00 0.6463 613.99 0.0000 0.00 8.35 0.00 2000 0.00 P-12

10638 9176.00 0.6463 5930.45 0.0004 2.37 8.35 19.81 2000 0.01 P-13

10639 10670.00 0.6463 6896.02 0.0009 6.21 8.35 51.82 2000 0.03 P-14

10640 1355.00 0.6463 875.74 0.0002 0.18 8.35 1.46 2000 0.00 D-03

Total lbs. 83.58

Appendix H

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

Date 06/16/97

Lab number Flow-CFS Factor MGD MG/L Wt of h2o Pounds/Day Factor Tons/Day Site

10626 149.70 0.6463 96.75 0.0022 0.21 8.35 1.78 2000 0.00 P-01

10627 1022.00 0.6463 660.52 0.0005 0.33 8.35 2.76 2000 0.00 P-02

10628 1355.00 0.6463 875.74 0.0004 0.35 8.35 2.92 2000 0.00 P-03

10629 261.60 0.6463 169.07 0.0003 0.05 8.35 0.42 2000 0.00 P-04

10630 487.80 0.6463 315.27 0.0004 0.13 8.35 1.05 2000 0.00 P-05

10631 426.30 0.6463 275.52 0.0015 0.41 8.35 3.45 2000 0.00 P-06

10632 520.80 0.6463 336.59 0.0004 0.13 8.35 1.12 2000 0.00 P-07

10633 1478.00 0.6463 955.23 0.0006 0.57 8.35 4.79 2000 0.00 P-08

10634 74.70 0.6463 48.28 0.0004 0.02 8.35 0.16 2000 0.00 P-09

10635 45.00 0.6463 29.08 0.0100 0.29 8.35 2.43 2000 0.00 P-10

10636 2927.00 0.6463 1891.72 0.0021 3.97 8.35 33.17 2000 0.02 P-11

10637 950.00 0.6463 613.99 0.0000 0.00 8.35 0.00 2000 0.00 P-12

10638 9176.00 0.6463 5930.45 0.0013 7.71 8.35 64.38 2000 0.03 P-13

10639 10670.00 0.6463 6896.02 0.0039 26.89 8.35 224.57 2000 0.11 P-14

10640 1355.00 0.6463 875.74 0.0006 0.53 8.35 4.39 2000 0.00 D-03

Total lbs. 343.00

Appendix H

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

Date 06/23/97

Lab number Flow-CFS Factor MGD MG/L Wt of h2o Pounds/Day Factor Tons/Day Site

10656 181.40 0.6463 117.24 0.0024 0.28 8.35 2.35 2000 0.00 P-01

10657 1995.00 0.6463 1289.37 0.0100 12.89 8.35 107.66 2000 0.05 P-02

10658 1688.00 0.6463 1090.95 0.0054 5.89 8.35 49.19 2000 0.02 P-03

10659 442.00 0.6463 285.66 0.0028 0.80 8.35 6.68 2000 0.00 P-04

10660 487.80 0.6463 315.27 0.0025 0.79 8.35 6.58 2000 0.00 P-05

10661 620.40 0.6463 400.96 0.0031 1.24 8.35 10.38 2000 0.01 P-06

10662 667.60 0.6463 431.47 0.0027 1.16 8.35 9.73 2000 0.00 P-07

10663 1937.00 0.6463 1251.88 0.0026 3.25 8.35 27.18 2000 0.01 P-08

10664 91.06 0.6463 58.85 0.0026 0.15 8.35 1.28 2000 0.00 P-09

10665 105.90 0.6463 68.44 0.0110 0.75 8.35 6.29 2000 0.00 P-10

10666 359.40 0.6463 232.28 0.0029 0.67 8.35 5.62 2000 0.00 P-11

10667 200.00 0.6463 129.26 0.0002 0.03 8.35 0.22 2000 0.00 P-12

10668 14770.00 0.6463 9545.85 0.0078 74.46 8.35 621.72 2000 0.31 P-13

10669 6387.00 0.6463 4127.92 0.0044 18.16 8.35 151.66 2000 0.08 P-14

10670 359.40 0.6463 232.28 0.0025 0.58 8.35 4.85 2000 0.00 D-11

Total lbs. 1006.53

Appendix H

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

Date 06/23/97

Lab number Flow-CFS Factor MGD MG/L Wt of h2o Pounds/Day Factor Tons/Day Site

10656 181.40 0.6463 117.24 0.0002 0.02 8.35 0.20 2000 0.00 P-01

10657 1995.00 0.6463 1289.37 0.0013 1.68 8.35 14.00 2000 0.01 P-02

10658 1688.00 0.6463 1090.95 0.0004 0.44 8.35 3.64 2000 0.00 P-03

10659 442.00 0.6463 285.66 0.0002 0.06 8.35 0.48 2000 0.00 P-04

10660 487.80 0.6463 315.27 0.0004 0.13 8.35 1.05 2000 0.00 P-05

10661 620.40 0.6463 400.96 0.0002 0.08 8.35 0.67 2000 0.00 P-06

10662 667.60 0.6463 431.47 0.0002 0.09 8.35 0.72 2000 0.00 P-07

10663 1937.00 0.6463 1251.88 0.0002 0.25 8.35 2.09 2000 0.00 P-08

10664 91.06 0.6463 58.85 0.0002 0.01 8.35 0.10 2000 0.00 P-09

10665 105.90 0.6463 68.44 0.0002 0.01 8.35 0.11 2000 0.00 P-10

10666 359.40 0.6463 232.28 0.0001 0.02 8.35 0.19 2000 0.00 P-11

10667 200.00 0.6463 129.26 0.0001 0.01 8.35 0.11 2000 0.00 P-12

10668 14770.00 0.6463 9545.85 0.0005 4.77 8.35 39.85 2000 0.02 P-13

10669 6387.00 0.6463 4127.92 0.0003 1.24 8.35 10.34 2000 0.01 P-14

10670 359.40 0.6463 232.28 0.0001 0.02 8.35 0.19 2000 0.00 D-11

Total lbs. 73.56

Appendix H

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

Date 06/23/97

Lab number Flow-CFS Factor MGD MG/L Wt of h2o Pounds/Day Factor Tons/Day Site

10656 181.40 0.6463 117.24 0.0013 0.15 8.35 1.27 2000 0.00 P-01

10657 1995.00 0.6463 1289.37 0.0028 3.61 8.35 30.15 2000 0.02 P-02

10658 1688.00 0.6463 1090.95 0.0013 1.42 8.35 11.84 2000 0.01 P-03

10659 442.00 0.6463 285.66 0.0005 0.14 8.35 1.19 2000 0.00 P-04

10660 487.80 0.6463 315.27 0.0002 0.06 8.35 0.53 2000 0.00 P-05

10661 620.40 0.6463 400.96 0.0018 0.72 8.35 6.03 2000 0.00 P-06

10662 667.60 0.6463 431.47 0.0006 0.26 8.35 2.16 2000 0.00 P-07

10663 1937.00 0.6463 1251.88 0.0011 1.38 8.35 11.50 2000 0.01 P-08

10664 91.06 0.6463 58.85 0.0007 0.04 8.35 0.34 2000 0.00 P-09

10665 105.90 0.6463 68.44 0.0035 0.24 8.35 2.00 2000 0.00 P-10

10666 359.40 0.6463 232.28 0.0007 0.16 8.35 1.36 2000 0.00 P-11

10667 200.00 0.6463 129.26 0.0000 0.00 8.35 0.00 2000 0.00 P-12

10668 14770.00 0.6463 9545.85 0.0029 27.68 8.35 231.15 2000 0.12 P-13

10669 6387.00 0.6463 4127.92 0.0025 10.32 8.35 86.17 2000 0.04 P-14

10670 359.40 0.6463 232.28 0.0008 0.19 8.35 1.55 2000 0.00 D-11

Total lbs. 385.69

Appendix H

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

Date 06/30/97

Lab number Flow-CFS Factor MGD MG/L Wt of h2o Pounds/Day Factor Tons/Day Site

10671 111.50 0.6463 72.06 0.0010 0.07 8.35 0.60 2000 0.00 P-01

10672 811.60 0.6463 524.54 0.0002 0.10 8.35 0.88 2000 0.00 P-02

10673 1128.00 0.6463 729.03 0.0010 0.73 8.35 6.09 2000 0.00 P-03

10674 237.90 0.6463 153.75 0.0014 0.22 8.35 1.80 2000 0.00 P-04

10675 329.70 0.6463 213.09 0.0016 0.34 8.35 2.85 2000 0.00 P-05

10676 326.10 0.6463 210.76 0.0019 0.40 8.35 3.34 2000 0.00 P-06

10677 466.70 0.6463 301.63 0.0012 0.36 8.35 3.02 2000 0.00 P-07

10678 1099.00 0.6463 710.28 0.0015 1.07 8.35 8.90 2000 0.00 P-08

10679 47.86 0.6463 30.93 0.0015 0.05 8.35 0.39 2000 0.00 P-09

10680 26.46 0.6463 17.10 0.0033 0.06 8.35 0.47 2000 0.00 P-10

10681 110.60 0.6463 71.48 0.0013 0.09 8.35 0.78 2000 0.00 P-11

10682 1790.00 0.6463 1156.88 0.0004 0.46 8.35 3.86 2000 0.00 P-12

10683 5647.00 0.6463 3649.66 0.0018 6.57 8.35 54.85 2000 0.03 P-13

10684 4512.00 0.6463 2916.11 0.0055 16.04 8.35 133.92 2000 0.07 P-14

10685 5647.00 0.6463 3649.66 0.0018 6.57 8.35 54.85 2000 0.03 D-13

Total lbs. 221.75

Appendix H

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

Date 06/30/97

Lab number Flow-CFS Factor MGD MG/L Wt of h2o Pounds/Day Factor Tons/Day Site

10671 811.60 0.6463 524.54 0.0000 0.00 8.35 0.00 2000 0.00 P-01

10672 111.50 0.6463 72.06 0.0002 0.01 8.35 0.12 2000 0.00 P-02

10673 1128.00 0.6463 729.03 0.0000 0.00 8.35 0.00 2000 0.00 P-03

10674 237.90 0.6463 153.75 0.0001 0.02 8.35 0.13 2000 0.00 P-04

10675 329.70 0.6463 213.09 0.0001 0.02 8.35 0.18 2000 0.00 P-05

10676 326.10 0.6463 210.76 0.0001 0.02 8.35 0.18 2000 0.00 P-06

10677 466.70 0.6463 301.63 0.0001 0.03 8.35 0.25 2000 0.00 P-07

10678 1099.00 0.6463 710.28 0.0000 0.00 8.35 0.00 2000 0.00 P-08

10679 47.86 0.6463 30.93 0.0000 0.00 8.35 0.00 2000 0.00 P-09

10680 26.46 0.6463 17.10 0.0001 0.00 8.35 0.01 2000 0.00 P-10

10681 110.60 0.6463 71.48 0.0000 0.00 8.35 0.00 2000 0.00 P-11

10682 1790.00 0.6463 1156.88 0.0001 0.12 8.35 0.97 2000 0.00 P-12

10683 5647.00 0.6463 3649.66 0.0001 0.36 8.35 3.05 2000 0.00 P-13

10684 4512.00 0.6463 2916.11 0.0003 0.87 8.35 7.30 2000 0.00 P-14

10685 5647.00 0.6463 3649.66 0.0000 0.00 8.35 0.00 2000 0.00 D-13

Total lbs. 12.19

Appendix H

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

Date 06/30/97

Lab number Flow-CFS Factor MGD MG/L Wt of h2o Pounds/Day Factor Tons/Day Site

10671 811.60 0.6463 524.54 0.0005 0.26 8.35 2.19 2000 0.00 P-01

10672 111.50 0.6463 72.06 0.0003 0.02 8.35 0.18 2000 0.00 P-02

10673 1128.00 0.6463 729.03 0.0003 0.22 8.35 1.83 2000 0.00 P-03

10674 237.90 0.6463 153.75 0.0002 0.03 8.35 0.26 2000 0.00 P-04

10675 329.70 0.6463 213.09 0.0004 0.09 8.35 0.71 2000 0.00 P-05

10676 326.10 0.6463 210.76 0.0008 0.17 8.35 1.41 2000 0.00 P-06

10677 466.70 0.6463 301.63 0.0002 0.06 8.35 0.50 2000 0.00 P-07

10678 1099.00 0.6463 710.28 0.0004 0.28 8.35 2.37 2000 0.00 P-08

10679 47.86 0.6463 30.93 0.0003 0.01 8.35 0.08 2000 0.00 P-09

10680 26.46 0.6463 17.10 0.0011 0.02 8.35 0.16 2000 0.00 P-10

10681 110.60 0.6463 71.48 0.0003 0.02 8.35 0.18 2000 0.00 P-11

10682 1790.00 0.6463 1156.88 0.0001 0.12 8.35 0.97 2000 0.00 P-12

10683 5647.00 0.6463 3649.66 0.0006 2.19 8.35 18.28 2000 0.01 P-13

10684 4512.00 0.6463 2916.11 0.0038 11.08 8.35 92.53 2000 0.05 P-14

10685 5647.00 0.6463 3649.66 0.0006 2.19 8.35 18.28 2000 0.01 D-13

Total lbs. 121.64

Appendix H

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

Date 07/07/97

Lab number Flow-CFS Factor MGD MG/L Wt of h2o Pounds/Day Factor Tons/Day Site

10686 91.42 0.6463 59.08 0.0010 0.06 8.35 0.49 2000 0.00 P-01

10687 595.40 0.6463 384.81 0.0012 0.46 8.35 3.86 2000 0.00 P-02

10688 1049.00 0.6463 677.97 0.0008 0.54 8.35 4.53 2000 0.00 P-03

10689 115.00 0.6463 74.32 0.0015 0.11 8.35 0.93 2000 0.00 P-04

10690 246.50 0.6463 159.31 0.0008 0.13 8.35 1.06 2000 0.00 P-05

10691 183.80 0.6463 118.79 0.0008 0.10 8.35 0.79 2000 0.00 P-06

10692 224.40 0.6463 145.03 0.0011 0.16 8.35 1.33 2000 0.00 P-07

10693 720.30 0.6463 465.53 0.0010 0.47 8.35 3.89 2000 0.00 P-08

10694 43.80 0.6463 28.31 0.0009 0.03 8.35 0.21 2000 0.00 P-09

10695 5.99 0.6463 3.87 0.0028 0.01 8.35 0.09 2000 0.00 P-10

10700 57.88 0.6463 37.41 0.0011 0.04 8.35 0.34 2000 0.00 P-11

10697 2000.00 0.6463 1292.60 0.0005 0.65 8.35 5.40 2000 0.00 P-12

10698 4800.00 0.6463 3102.24 0.0010 3.10 8.35 25.90 2000 0.01 P-13

10699 2344.00 0.6463 1514.93 0.0018 2.73 8.35 22.77 2000 0.01 P-14

10700 246.50 0.6463 159.31 0.0011 0.18 8.35 1.46 2000 0.00 D-05

Total lbs. 71.60

Appendix H

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

Date 07/07/97

Lab number Flow-CFS Factor MGD MG/L Wt of h2o Pounds/Day Factor Tons/Day Site

10686 91.42 0.6463 59.08 0.0000 0.00 8.35 0.00 2000 0.00 P-01

10687 595.40 0.6463 384.81 0.0001 0.04 8.35 0.32 2000 0.00 P-02

10688 1049.00 0.6463 677.97 0.0000 0.00 8.35 0.00 2000 0.00 P-03

10689 115.00 0.6463 74.32 0.0000 0.00 8.35 0.00 2000 0.00 P-04

10690 246.50 0.6463 159.31 0.0000 0.00 8.35 0.00 2000 0.00 P-05

10691 183.80 0.6463 118.79 0.0000 0.00 8.35 0.00 2000 0.00 P-06

10692 224.40 0.6463 145.03 0.0000 0.00 8.35 0.00 2000 0.00 P-07

10693 720.30 0.6463 465.53 0.0000 0.00 8.35 0.00 2000 0.00 P-08

10694 43.80 0.6463 28.31 0.0000 0.00 8.35 0.00 2000 0.00 P-09

10695 5.99 0.6463 3.87 0.0001 0.00 8.35 0.00 2000 0.00 P-10

10700 57.88 0.6463 37.41 0.0000 0.00 8.35 0.00 2000 0.00 P-11

10697 2000.00 0.6463 1292.60 0.0001 0.13 8.35 1.08 2000 0.00 P-12

10698 4800.00 0.6463 3102.24 0.0001 0.31 8.35 2.59 2000 0.00 P-13

10699 2344.00 0.6463 1514.93 0.0000 0.00 8.35 0.00 2000 0.00 P-14

10700 246.50 0.6463 159.31 0.0000 0.00 8.35 0.00 2000 0.00 D-05

Total lbs. 3.99

Appendix H

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

Date 07/07/97

Lab number Flow-CFS Factor MGD MG/L Wt of h2o Pounds/Day Factor Tons/Day Site

10686 91.42 0.6463 59.08 0.0006 0.04 8.35 0.30 2000 0.00 P-01

10687 595.40 0.6463 384.81 0.0003 0.12 8.35 0.96 2000 0.00 P-02

10688 1049.00 0.6463 677.97 0.0002 0.14 8.35 1.13 2000 0.00 P-03

10689 115.00 0.6463 74.32 0.0001 0.01 8.35 0.06 2000 0.00 P-04

10690 246.50 0.6463 159.31 0.0001 0.02 8.35 0.13 2000 0.00 P-05

10691 183.80 0.6463 118.79 0.0003 0.04 8.35 0.30 2000 0.00 P-06

10692 224.40 0.6463 145.03 0.0001 0.01 8.35 0.12 2000 0.00 P-07

10693 720.30 0.6463 465.53 0.0002 0.09 8.35 0.78 2000 0.00 P-08

10694 43.80 0.6463 28.31 0.0001 0.00 8.35 0.02 2000 0.00 P-09

10695 5.99 0.6463 3.87 0.0010 0.00 8.35 0.03 2000 0.00 P-10

10700 57.88 0.6463 37.41 0.0002 0.01 8.35 0.06 2000 0.00 P-11

10697 2000.00 0.6463 1292.60 0.0001 0.13 8.35 1.08 2000 0.00 P-12

10698 4800.00 0.6463 3102.24 0.0003 0.93 8.35 7.77 2000 0.00 P-13

10699 2344.00 0.6463 1514.93 0.0008 1.21 8.35 10.12 2000 0.01 P-14

10700 246.50 0.6463 159.31 0.0002 0.03 8.35 0.27 2000 0.00 D-05

Total lbs. 22.87

Appendix H

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

Date 07/14/97

Lab number Flow-CFS Factor MGD MG/L Wt of h2o Pounds/Day Factor Tons/Day Site

10701 86.00 0.6463 55.58 0.0026 0.14 8.35 1.21 2000 0.00 P-01

10702 586.70 0.6463 379.18 0.0013 0.49 8.35 4.12 2000 0.00 P-02

10703 1021.00 0.6463 659.87 0.0007 0.46 8.35 3.86 2000 0.00 P-03

10704 84.62 0.6463 54.69 0.0013 0.07 8.35 0.59 2000 0.00 P-04

10705 235.10 0.6463 151.95 0.0008 0.12 8.35 1.01 2000 0.00 P-05

10706 155.10 0.6463 100.24 0.0008 0.08 8.35 0.67 2000 0.00 P-06

10707 154.00 0.6463 99.53 0.0009 0.09 8.35 0.75 2000 0.00 P-07

10708 617.10 0.6463 398.83 0.0008 0.32 8.35 2.66 2000 0.00 P-08

10709 16.53 0.6463 10.68 0.0009 0.01 8.35 0.08 2000 0.00 P-09

10710 4.53 0.6463 2.93 0.0025 0.01 8.35 0.06 2000 0.00 P-10

10711 54.57 0.6463 35.27 0.0010 0.04 8.35 0.29 2000 0.00 P-11

10712 100.00 0.6463 64.63 0.0007 0.05 8.35 0.38 2000 0.00 P-12

10713 2712.00 0.6463 1752.77 0.0008 1.40 8.35 11.71 2000 0.01 P-13

10714 1894.00 0.6463 1224.09 0.0011 1.35 8.35 11.24 2000 0.01 P-14

10715 1894.00 0.6463 1224.09 0.0012 1.47 8.35 12.27 2000 0.01 D-14

Total lbs. 38.64

Appendix H

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

Date 07/14/97

Lab number Flow-CFS Factor MGD MG/L Wt of h2o Pounds/Day Factor Tons/Day Site

10701 86.00 0.6463 55.58 0.0005 0.03 8.35 0.23 2000 0.00 P-01

10702 586.70 0.6463 379.18 0.0001 0.04 8.35 0.32 2000 0.00 P-02

10703 1021.00 0.6463 659.87 0.0000 0.00 8.35 0.00 2000 0.00 P-03

10704 84.62 0.6463 54.69 0.0000 0.00 8.35 0.00 2000 0.00 P-04

10705 235.10 0.6463 151.95 0.0000 0.00 8.35 0.00 2000 0.00 P-05

10706 155.10 0.6463 100.24 0.0000 0.00 8.35 0.00 2000 0.00 P-06

10707 154.00 0.6463 99.53 0.0000 0.00 8.35 0.00 2000 0.00 P-07

10708 617.10 0.6463 398.83 0.0000 0.00 8.35 0.00 2000 0.00 P-08

10709 16.53 0.6463 10.68 0.0000 0.00 8.35 0.00 2000 0.00 P-09

10710 4.53 0.6463 2.93 0.0000 0.00 8.35 0.00 2000 0.00 P-10

10711 54.57 0.6463 35.27 0.0000 0.00 8.35 0.00 2000 0.00 P-11

10712 100.00 0.6463 64.63 0.0001 0.01 8.35 0.05 2000 0.00 P-12

10713 2712.00 0.6463 1752.77 0.0000 0.00 8.35 0.00 2000 0.00 P-13

10714 1894.00 0.6463 1224.09 0.0000 0.00 8.35 0.00 2000 0.00 P-14

10715 1894.00 0.6463 1224.09 0.0000 0.00 8.35 0.00 2000 0.00 D-14

Total lbs. 0.60

Appendix H

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

Date 07/14/97

Lab number Flow-CFS Factor MGD MG/L Wt of h2o Pounds/Day Factor Tons/Day Site

10701 86.00 0.6463 55.58 0.0003 0.02 8.35 0.14 2000 0.00 P-01

10702 586.70 0.6463 379.18 0.0003 0.11 8.35 0.95 2000 0.00 P-02

10703 1021.00 0.6463 659.87 0.0002 0.13 8.35 1.10 2000 0.00 P-03

10704 84.62 0.6463 54.69 0.0001 0.01 8.35 0.05 2000 0.00 P-04

10705 235.10 0.6463 151.95 0.0001 0.02 8.35 0.13 2000 0.00 P-05

10706 155.10 0.6463 100.24 0.0003 0.03 8.35 0.25 2000 0.00 P-06

10707 154.00 0.6463 99.53 0.0001 0.01 8.35 0.08 2000 0.00 P-07

10708 617.10 0.6463 398.83 0.0002 0.08 8.35 0.67 2000 0.00 P-08

10709 16.53 0.6463 10.68 0.0000 0.00 8.35 0.00 2000 0.00 P-09

10710 4.53 0.6463 2.93 0.0004 0.00 8.35 0.01 2000 0.00 P-10

10711 54.57 0.6463 35.27 0.0001 0.00 8.35 0.03 2000 0.00 P-11

10712 100.00 0.6463 64.63 0.0002 0.01 8.35 0.11 2000 0.00 P-12

10713 2712.00 0.6463 1752.77 0.0002 0.35 8.35 2.93 2000 0.00 P-13

10714 1894.00 0.6463 1224.09 0.0004 0.49 8.35 4.09 2000 0.00 P-14

10715 1894.00 0.6463 1224.09 0.0005 0.61 8.35 5.11 2000 0.00 D-14

Total lbs. 10.53

Appendix H

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

Date 07/21/97

Lab number Flow-CFS Factor MGD MG/L Wt of h2o Pounds/Day Factor Tons/Day Site

10716 39.88 0.6463 25.77 0.0010 0.03 8.35 0.22 2000 0.00 P-01

10717 363.90 0.6463 235.19 0.0008 0.19 8.35 1.57 2000 0.00 P-02

10718 786.30 0.6463 508.19 0.0005 0.25 8.35 2.12 2000 0.00 P-03

10719 46.03 0.6463 29.75 0.0005 0.01 8.35 0.12 2000 0.00 P-04

10720 162.40 0.6463 104.96 0.0004 0.04 8.35 0.35 2000 0.00 P-05

10721 131.30 0.6463 84.86 0.0005 0.04 8.35 0.35 2000 0.00 P-06

10722 96.27 0.6463 62.22 0.0005 0.03 8.35 0.26 2000 0.00 P-07

10723 447.60 0.6463 289.28 0.0005 0.14 8.35 1.21 2000 0.00 P-08

10724 11.49 0.6463 7.43 0.0007 0.01 8.35 0.04 2000 0.00 P-09

10725 5.55 0.6463 3.59 0.0017 0.01 8.35 0.05 2000 0.00 P-10

10726 81.36 0.6463 52.58 0.0010 0.05 8.35 0.44 2000 0.00 P-11

10727 50.00 0.6463 32.32 0.0004 0.01 8.35 0.11 2000 0.00 P-12

10728 2357.00 0.6463 1523.33 0.0009 1.37 8.35 11.45 2000 0.01 P-13

10729 1567.00 0.6463 1012.75 0.0009 0.91 8.35 7.61 2000 0.00 P-14

10730 39.88 0.6463 25.77 0.0010 0.03 8.35 0.22 2000 0.00 D-1

Total lbs. 25.90

Appendix H

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

Date 07/21/97

Lab number Flow-CFS Factor MGD MG/L Wt of h2o Pounds/Day Factor Tons/Day Site

10716 39.88 0.6463 25.77 0.0060 0.15 8.35 1.29 2000 0.00 P-01

10717 363.90 0.6463 235.19 0.0002 0.05 8.35 0.39 2000 0.00 P-02

10718 786.30 0.6463 508.19 0.0001 0.05 8.35 0.42 2000 0.00 P-03

10719 46.03 0.6463 29.75 0.0000 0.00 8.35 0.00 2000 0.00 P-04

10720 162.40 0.6463 104.96 0.0000 0.00 8.35 0.00 2000 0.00 P-05

10721 131.30 0.6463 84.86 0.0002 0.02 8.35 0.14 2000 0.00 P-06

10722 96.27 0.6463 62.22 0.0000 0.00 8.35 0.00 2000 0.00 P-07

10723 447.60 0.6463 289.28 0.0001 0.03 8.35 0.24 2000 0.00 P-08

10724 11.49 0.6463 7.43 0.0000 0.00 8.35 0.00 2000 0.00 P-09

10725 5.55 0.6463 3.59 0.0003 0.00 8.35 0.01 2000 0.00 P-10

10726 81.36 0.6463 52.58 0.0001 0.01 8.35 0.04 2000 0.00 P-11

10727 50.00 0.6463 32.32 0.0002 0.01 8.35 0.05 2000 0.00 P-12

10728 2357.00 0.6463 1523.33 0.0002 0.30 8.35 2.54 2000 0.00 P-13

10729 1567.00 0.6463 1012.75 0.0003 0.30 8.35 2.54 2000 0.00 P-14

10730 39.88 0.6463 25.77 0.0065 0.17 8.35 1.40 2000 0.00 D-1

Total lbs. 7.68

Appendix H

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

Date 07/28/97

Lab number Flow-CFS Factor MGD MG/L Wt of h2o Pounds/Day Factor Tons/Day Site

10731 86.01 0.6463 55.59 0.0004 0.02 8.35 0.19 2000 0.00 P-01

10732 328.80 0.6463 212.50 0.0010 0.21 8.35 1.77 2000 0.00 P-02

10733 918.30 0.6463 593.50 0.0004 0.24 8.35 1.98 2000 0.00 P-03

10734 87.39 0.6463 56.48 0.0005 0.03 8.35 0.24 2000 0.00 P-04

10735 412.90 0.6463 266.86 0.0007 0.19 8.35 1.56 2000 0.00 P-05

10736 359.70 0.6463 232.47 0.0015 0.35 8.35 2.91 2000 0.00 P-06

10737 91.57 0.6463 59.18 0.0005 0.03 8.35 0.25 2000 0.00 P-07

10738 834.40 0.6463 539.27 0.0006 0.32 8.35 2.70 2000 0.00 P-08

10739 19.06 0.6463 12.32 0.0006 0.01 8.35 0.06 2000 0.00 P-09

10740 6.68 0.6463 4.32 0.0009 0.00 8.35 0.03 2000 0.00 P-10

10741 45.19 0.6463 29.21 0.0008 0.02 8.35 0.20 2000 0.00 P-11

10742 450.00 0.6463 290.84 0.0008 0.23 8.35 1.94 2000 0.00 P-12

10743 2320.00 0.6463 1499.42 0.0012 1.80 8.35 15.02 2000 0.01 P-13

10744 907.00 0.6463 586.19 0.0011 0.64 8.35 5.38 2000 0.00 P-14

10745 19.06 0.6463 12.32 0.0006 0.01 8.35 0.06 2000 0.00 D-09

Total lbs. 34.24

Appendix H

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

Date 07/28/97

Lab number Flow-CFS Factor MGD MG/L Wt of h2o Pounds/Day Factor Tons/Day Site

10731 86.01 0.6463 55.59 0.0004 0.02 8.35 0.19 2000 0.00 P-01

10732 328.80 0.6463 212.50 0.0002 0.04 8.35 0.35 2000 0.00 P-02

10733 918.30 0.6463 593.50 0.0000 0.00 8.35 0.00 2000 0.00 P-03

10734 87.39 0.6463 56.48 0.0000 0.00 8.35 0.00 2000 0.00 P-04

10735 412.90 0.6463 266.86 0.0003 0.08 8.35 0.67 2000 0.00 P-05

10736 359.70 0.6463 232.47 0.0010 0.23 8.35 1.94 2000 0.00 P-06

10737 91.57 0.6463 59.18 0.0001 0.01 8.35 0.05 2000 0.00 P-07

10738 834.40 0.6463 539.27 0.0002 0.11 8.35 0.90 2000 0.00 P-08

10739 19.06 0.6463 12.32 0.0001 0.00 8.35 0.01 2000 0.00 P-09

10740 6.68 0.6463 4.32 0.0003 0.00 8.35 0.01 2000 0.00 P-10

10741 45.19 0.6463 29.21 0.0002 0.01 8.35 0.05 2000 0.00 P-11

10742 450.00 0.6463 290.84 0.0002 0.06 8.35 0.49 2000 0.00 P-12

10743 2320.00 0.6463 1499.42 0.0005 0.75 8.35 6.26 2000 0.00 P-13

10744 907.00 0.6463 586.19 0.0004 0.23 8.35 1.96 2000 0.00 P-14

10745 19.06 0.6463 12.32 0.0001 0.00 8.35 0.01 2000 0.00 D-09

Total lbs. 12.87

Appendix H

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

Date 08/04/97

Lab number Flow-CFS Factor MGD MG/L Wt of h2o Pounds/Day Factor Tons/Day Site

10746 25.76 0.6463 16.65 0.0005 0.01 8.35 0.07 2000 0.00 P-01

10747 282.20 0.6463 182.39 0.0009 0.16 8.35 1.37 2000 0.00 P-02

10748 688.70 0.6463 445.11 0.0004 0.18 8.35 1.49 2000 0.00 P-03

10749 26.03 0.6463 16.82 0.0004 0.01 8.35 0.06 2000 0.00 P-04

10750 126.40 0.6463 81.69 0.0003 0.02 8.35 0.20 2000 0.00 P-05

10751 101.40 0.6463 65.53 0.0006 0.04 8.35 0.33 2000 0.00 P-06

10752 56.84 0.6463 36.74 0.0004 0.01 8.35 0.12 2000 0.00 P-07

10753 339.00 0.6463 219.10 0.0005 0.11 8.35 0.91 2000 0.00 P-08

10754 5.46 0.6463 3.53 0.0007 0.00 8.35 0.02 2000 0.00 P-09

10755 3.45 0.6463 2.23 0.0014 0.00 8.35 0.03 2000 0.00 P-10

10756 38.32 0.6463 24.77 0.0007 0.02 8.35 0.14 2000 0.00 P-11

10757 50.00 0.6463 32.32 0.0009 0.03 8.35 0.24 2000 0.00 P-12

10758 1377.00 0.6463 889.96 0.0007 0.62 8.35 5.20 2000 0.00 P-13

10759 1070.00 0.6463 691.54 0.0008 0.55 8.35 4.62 2000 0.00 P-14

10760 101.40 0.6463 65.53 0.0006 0.04 8.35 0.33 2000 0.00 D-06

Total lbs. 14.81

Appendix H

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

Date 08/04/97

Lab number Flow-CFS Factor MGD MG/L Wt of h2o Pounds/Day Factor Tons/Day Site

10746 25.76 0.6463 16.65 0.0006 0.01 8.35 0.08 2000 0.00 P-01

10747 282.20 0.6463 182.39 0.0002 0.04 8.35 0.30 2000 0.00 P-02

10748 688.70 0.6463 445.11 0.0000 0.00 8.35 0.00 2000 0.00 P-03

10749 26.03 0.6463 16.82 0.0000 0.00 8.35 0.00 2000 0.00 P-04

10750 126.40 0.6463 81.69 0.0000 0.00 8.35 0.00 2000 0.00 P-05

10751 101.40 0.6463 65.53 0.0002 0.01 8.35 0.11 2000 0.00 P-06

10752 56.84 0.6463 36.74 0.0000 0.00 8.35 0.00 2000 0.00 P-07

10753 339.00 0.6463 219.10 0.0001 0.02 8.35 0.18 2000 0.00 P-08

10754 5.46 0.6463 3.53 0.0000 0.00 8.35 0.00 2000 0.00 P-09

10755 3.45 0.6463 2.23 0.0004 0.00 8.35 0.01 2000 0.00 P-10

10756 38.32 0.6463 24.77 0.0002 0.00 8.35 0.04 2000 0.00 P-11

10757 50.00 0.6463 32.32 0.0002 0.01 8.35 0.05 2000 0.00 P-12

10758 1377.00 0.6463 889.96 0.0002 0.18 8.35 1.49 2000 0.00 P-13

10759 1070.00 0.6463 691.54 0.0002 0.14 8.35 1.15 2000 0.00 P-14

10760 101.40 0.6463 65.53 0.0002 0.01 8.35 0.11 2000 0.00 D-06

Total lbs. 3.42

Appendix H

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

Date 08/11/97

Lab number Flow-CFS Factor MGD MG/L Wt of h2o Pounds/Day Factor Tons/Day Site

10761 18.30 0.6463 11.83 0.0350 0.414 8.35 3.46 2000 0.002 P-01

10762 282.20 0.6463 182.39 0.0002 0.036 8.35 0.30 2000 0.000 P-02

10763 20.20 0.6463 13.06 0.0000 0.000 8.35 0.00 2000 0.000 P-03

10764 635.00 0.6463 410.40 0.0000 0.000 8.35 0.00 2000 0.000 P-04

10765 102.20 0.6463 66.05 0.0000 0.000 8.35 0.00 2000 0.000 P-05

10766 88.90 0.6463 57.46 0.0001 0.006 8.35 0.05 2000 0.000 P-06

10767 43.20 0.6463 27.92 0.0000 0.000 8.35 0.00 2000 0.000 P-07

10768 216.00 0.6463 139.60 0.0000 0.000 8.35 0.00 2000 0.000 P-08

10769 5.00 0.6463 3.23 0.0000 0.000 8.35 0.00 2000 0.000 P-09

10770 2.39 0.6463 1.54 0.0007 0.001 8.35 0.01 2000 0.000 P-10

10771 38.90 0.6463 25.14 0.0001 0.003 8.35 0.02 2000 0.000 P-11

10772 50.00 0.6463 32.32 0.0002 0.006 8.35 0.05 2000 0.000 P-12

10773 1079.00 0.6463 697.36 0.0002 0.139 8.35 1.16 2000 0.001 P-13

10774 929.80 0.6463 600.93 0.0002 0.120 8.35 1.00 2000 0.001 P-14

10775 5.00 0.6463 3.23 0.0000 0.000 8.35 0.00 2000 0.000 D-09

Total lbs. 6.06

Appendix H

IDEM/32/02/011/1998