Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Department of the Army Environmental and Natural 

Resources Management Office of the U. S. Army Signal Center and Fort Gordon

Quantity and Quality of Stormwater Collected from 

Selected Stormwater Outfalls at Industrial Sites, 

Fort Gordon, Georgia, 2011

Open-File Report 2012–1035

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
Cover. Automatic sampler housing located at Site 4 H&C 25910 outfall 1, Fort Gordon, Georgia.

Photograph by Kevin Conlon, U.S. Geological Survey.
Quantity and Quality of Stormwater Collected 

from Selected Stormwater Outfalls at Industrial 

Sites, Fort Gordon, Georgia, 2011

By Doug D. Nagle and Wladmir B. Guimaraes

Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Department of the Army Environmental and Natural 

Resources Management Office of the U.S. Army Signal Center and Fort Gordon

Open-File Report 2012–1035

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
U.S. Department of the Interior

KEN SALAZAR, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

Marcia K. McNutt, Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2012

For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living 

resources, natural hazards, and the environment, visit http://www.usgs.gov or call 1–888–ASK–USGS.

For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, 

visit http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod

To order this and other USGS information products, visit http://store.usgs.gov

Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the 

U.S. Government.

Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to 

reproduce any copyrighted materials contained within this report.

Suggested citation:

Nagle, D.D., and Guimaraes, W.B., Quantity and quality of stormwater collected from selected stormwater outfalls at 

industrial sites, Fort Gordon, Georgia, 2011: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2012–1035, 18 p.
iii

Contents

Abstract...........................................................................................................................................................1

Introduction.....................................................................................................................................................1

Purpose and Scope ..............................................................................................................................1

Description of the Study Area ............................................................................................................3

Methods...........................................................................................................................................................3

Quality Assurance and Quality Control Procedures .......................................................................5

Rainfall and Discharge ........................................................................................................................7

Stormwater Sampling ..........................................................................................................................7

Results .............................................................................................................................................................8

Quality Assurance and Quality Control .............................................................................................8

Rainfall and Discharge ........................................................................................................................9

Stormwater Sampling ..........................................................................................................................9

Summary........................................................................................................................................................17

Selected References...................................................................................................................................17

Figures

1. Maps showing location of stormwater industrial sites scheduled to be sampled

in 2011, Fort Gordon, Georgia......................................................................................................2

2. Map and photographs showing location of stormwater sampling sites

scheduled to be sampled in 2011, Fort Gordon, Georgia........................................................4

3. Photographs showing retention and detention ponds at the landfill sites,

Fort Gordon, Georgia....................................................................................................................5

4. Photograph showing automatic sampler and rain gage installed at selected

industrial sites, Fort Gordon, Georgia........................................................................................7

Tables

1. Station identification name and number, and classification type for 

stations where stormwater runoff was scheduled to be sampled 

in 2011, Fort Gordon, Georgia......................................................................................................5

2. Type of constituents sampled and method of analysis for stormwater 

samples at Fort Gordon, Georgia, 2011 .....................................................................................6

3. Streamflow and rainfall amounts, date that sample was collected, 

number of days from last measurable rain event and duration of rain

event, Fort Gordon, Georgia, 2011..............................................................................................8

4. Results of the field blank submitted for the stormwater runoff sampling, 

Fort Gordon, Georgia, 2011..........................................................................................................9

5. Field parameters detected in stormwater samples collected from 

selected stormwater industrial sites, Fort Gordon, Georgia, 2011 ....................................10

6. Suspended material, nutrients and organic compounds, and major and 

trace inorganic compounds detected in a single grab stormwater sample 

taken within the first 30 minutes of runoff from heating and cooling 

station SWR11-3, Fort Gordon, Georgia, September 5, 2011 ...............................................10
iv

Tables—Continued

7. Suspended material, nutrients and organic compounds, and major and 

trace inorganic compounds detected in a single grab stormwater sample 

taken within the first 30 minutes of runoff from heating and cooling 

station SWR11-4, Fort Gordon, Georgia, October 18, 2011...................................................11

8. Suspended material, nutrients and organic compounds, and major and 

trace inorganic compounds detected in a single grab stormwater sample 

taken within the first 30 minutes of runoff from heating and cooling 

station SWR11-5, Fort Gordon, Georgia, October 18, 2011...................................................11

9. Volatile and semivolatile organic compounds detected in a single 

stormwater grab sample taken within the first 30 minutes of runoff 

from heating and cooling station SWR11-3, Fort Gordon, Georgia, 

September 5, 2011.—Continued...............................................................................................12

10. Volatile and semivolatile organic compounds detected in a single 

stormwater grab sample taken within the first 30 minutes of runoff 

from heating and cooling station SWR11-4, Fort Gordon, Georgia, 

October 18, 2011..........................................................................................................................13

11. Volatile and semivolatile organic compounds detected in a single 

stormwater grab sample taken within the first 30 minutes of runoff 

from heating and cooling station SWR11-5, Fort Gordon, Georgia, 

October 18, 2011..........................................................................................................................15
v

Conversion Factors

Inch/Pound to SI

Multiply By To obtain

Length

inch (in.) 2.54 centimeter (cm)

inch (in.) 25.4 millimeter (mm)

foot (ft) 0.3048 meter (m)

mile (mi) 1.609 kilometer (km)

Flow rate

cubic foot per second (ft3/s) 0.3048 cubic meter per second (m3/s)

Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83). 

Additional Abbreviations and Acronyms

GaDNR Georgia Department of Natural Resources

H&C heating and cooling

LRL laboratory reporting limit

mg/L milligram per liter

μg/L microgram per liter

MDL method detection level

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

NWIS National Water Information System

NWQL National Water-Quality Laboratory

QA quality assurance

QC quality control

SDI-12 serial data interface at 12 baud

USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

SWP3 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
vi
Quantity and Quality of Stormwater Collected from 

Selected Stormwater Outfalls at Industrial Sites, 

Fort Gordon, Georgia, 2011

By Doug D. Nagle and Wladmir B. Guimaraes

 Abstract

An assessment of the quantity and quality of stormwater 

runoff associated with industrial activities at Fort Gordon was 

conducted from January through December 2011. The assessment was provided to satisfy the requirements from a general 

permit that authorizes the discharge of stormwater under the 

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System from a site 

associated with industrial activities. The stormwater quantity 

refers to the runoff discharge at the point and time of the runoff sampling. The study was conducted by the U.S. Geological 

Survey, in cooperation with the U.S. Department of the Army 

Environmental and Natural Resources Management Office of 

the U.S. Army Signal Center and Fort Gordon.

The initial scope of this study was to sample stormwater 

runoff from five stations at four industrial sites (two landfills 

and two heating and cooling sites). As a consequence of inadequate hydrologic conditions during 2011, no samples were 

collected at the two landfills; however, three samples were 

collected from the heating and cooling sites. 

The assessment included the collection of physical 

properties, such as water temperature, specific conductance, 

dissolved oxygen, and pH; the detection of suspended materials (total suspended solids, total fixed solids, total volatile 

solids), nutrients and organic compounds, and major and trace 

inorganic compounds (metals); and the detection of volatile 

and semivolatile organic compounds. Nutrients and organic 

compounds, major and trace inorganic compounds, and volatile and semivolatile organic compounds were detected above 

the laboratory reporting levels in all samples collected from 

the three stations. The detection of volatile and semivolatile 

organic compounds included anthracene, benzo[a]anthracene, 

benzo[a]pyrene, benzo[ghi]perylene, cis,1, 2-dichloroethene, 

dimethyl phthalate, fluoranthene, naphthalene, pyrene, 

acenaphthylene (station SWR11-3), and di-n-butyl phthalate 

(station SWR11-4).

Introduction

Fort Gordon is a U.S. Department of the Army facility 

located in east-central Georgia, approximately 10 miles (mi) 

outside of Augusta, Georgia (fig. 1). Five outfalls on four 

industrial sites located within the Fort Gordon area were 

scheduled to be sampled to determine the water quantity and 

quality of the runoff from January through December 2011 

(fig. 1). The quantity of the runoff refers to the discharge 

measured at the time and location of the sample. The U.S. 

Department of the Army uses water-quality information from 

stormwater samples to support development of a Stormwater 

Pollution Prevention Plan (SWP3) as required by the State of 

Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GaDNR) Environmental Protection Division under a general permit to discharge 

stormwater associated with industrial activities (Georgia 

Department of Natural Resources, 2006). An effective SWP3 

ensures that natural resource conservation measures and Army 

activities are consistent with National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (NPDES) Federal and State requirements to manage such installations. Under the general permit, 

numeric effluent limitations have been established for industrial facilities through the NPDES (Georgia Department of 

Natural Resources, 2006). Numeric limitations are assigned 

for landfills, but no numeric limitations are listed for heating 

and cooling sites. 

Purpose and Scope

The purpose of this report is to describe the quantity 

and quality of stormwater collected from January through 

December 2011 by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) at 

selected stormwater outfall locations associated with industrial activities at Fort Gordon, Georgia. The U.S. Army at Fort 

Gordon was provided water-quality data from a single storm 

event at the selected outfalls. The stormwater data are needed 

to support the SWP3 and be in compliance with the general 

permit that allows discharges from sites associated with industrial activities (Georgia Department of Natural Resources, 

2006). The stormwater sampling targeted stormwater runoff 
2 Quantity and Quality of Stormwater Collected from Selected Stormwater Outfalls, Fort Gordon, Georgia, 2011

Figure 1. Location of stormwater industrial sites scheduled to be sampled in 2011, Fort Gordon, Georgia.

78

LANE AVENUE

CHAMBERLAIN AVENUE

4TH

RICE RD

19TH ST

RICHMOND

COLUMBIA

Little Sandy Run Creek

Marcum Branch

82°14' 82°12' 82°10' 82°8'

33°26'

33°25'

33°24'

33°23'

0 1 2 Miles

0 1 2 Kilometers

Brier

Creek

Sandy Run Creek

Spirit Cree

So

k

uth Prong Creek

Boggy Gut Creek

Base from U.S. Geological Survey Digital Line Graph

1:100,000-scale

Fort Gordon

Stormwater sampling site

EXPLANATION

COLUMBIA CO

MC DUFFIE

CO

MC DUFFIE

CO

RICHMOND CO

JEFFERSON CO

RICHMOND CO

BURKE CO

0

0

5 Miles

5 Kilometers

N

Study

area

Augusta

COASTAL PLAIN

GEORGIA

PIEDMONT

BLUE RIDGE

CUMBERLAND

PLATEAU AND

VALLEY AND RIDGE

Fall Line

88

20 520

1

78

221

223

78

Unnamed

 tributaryBranch

Marcum

Augusta

Hephzibah

33°26’15”

33°18’45”

82°18’45” 82°11’15”

Base From ESRI® Data and Maps, 2010

Albers Equal-Area Conic projection

Standard parallels 29°30’N and 45°30’N

Central meridian –96°00’
Methods 3

at five outfall locations from four sites (fig. 2). Two outfalls 

were sampled from a single industrial site. Although five 

outfall locations were targeted to be sampled, storm conditions were conducive for sampling at only three of the five 

outfall locations. 

Description of the Study Area

Fort Gordon is a U.S. Army facility located in eastcentral Georgia, approximately 10 mi southwest of Augusta, 

Georgia (fig. 1). Fort Gordon lies in the northern part of the 

Coastal Plain Physiographic Province and south of the Fall 

Line. Surficial soil and sediments are characterized by the 

unconsolidated sands, indurated sands and semiconsolidated 

sandstones, and layers of clay that include kaolinite (Gregory 

and others, 2001). 

For this study, two of the five outfall locations scheduled 

for sampling were classified as landfill sites (site SWR11-1, 

Gibson Road landfill; and site SWR11-2, 17th Street landfill) 

(table 1, fig. 2). The remaining three outfall locations were 

classified as heating and cooling (H&C) plants (site SWR11-3, 

H&C plant # 310; and sites SWR11-4 and SWR11-5, H&C 

plant # 25910) (table 1, fig. 2). Impervious surface covers 

much of drainage area at the H&C plants. Because of this 

site characteristic, only minor infiltration occurs during storm 

events and sufficient discharge at the associated stormwater 

outfall is available for sampling during most storm events. 

Conversely, landfill areas have negligible impervious cover. 

This allows stormwater to infiltrate and requires much greater 

rainfall amounts before sufficient discharge at the associated 

stormwater outfall is available for sampling. Furthermore, runoff at the landfill sites must first fill a retention (SWR11-1) or 

detention (SWR11-2) pond before the discharge can be sampled and measured at the outfall location (fig. 3). Therefore, 

the landfills sites were not sampled because rainfall amounts 

at the landfill sites were inadequate to meet criteria needed for 

sample collection during the calendar year 2011.

Methods

All samples were collected and processed using standard 

USGS and GaDNR field procedures (U.S. Geological Survey, 

variously dated; Georgia Department of Natural Resources, 

2006). The stormwater samples were collected as grab samples 

during the first 30 minutes of storm runoff at three H&C 

outfalls. Criteria for sampling required that each storm event 

produce at least 0.1 inch (in.) of rain 72 hours after the last 

measurable (more than 0.1 in.) rain event (Georgia Department of Natural Resources, 2006). During each runoff event, 

automatic samplers were prepared to collect water samples 

at the outfall in pre-cleaned, acid-rinsed plastic containers. 

The samplers were automated to collect samples and measure discharge based on the preprogrammed settings. If the 

samplers did not automatically sample, they were manually 

operated to collect the sample and the discharge. Finally, if the 

flow depth was not sufficient to allow the automatic sampler to 

collect the samples, the samples were collected manually and 

the discharge was computed indirectly. The individual samples 

were processed in the field prior to shipment to the laboratory. Sample processing included preparation (for example, 

compositing and filtering) and preservation (for example, 

acidification) of the final composite sample (U.S. Geological 

Survey, variously dated). Procedures that were followed were 

specific to the constituent that was analyzed. Pre-cleaned, 

acid-rinsed 8-liter (L) plastic churns were used as the compositing devices. For analysis of dissolved constituents, samples 

were filtered using 0.45-micron glass-fiber capsule filters that 

were conditioned with 2 L of deionized water. A summary of 

analytical methods for stormwater samples is listed in table 2.

Physical properties (dissolved oxygen, specific conductance, water temperature, and pH) were measured in 

the field using a calibrated field meter. Water samples were 

analyzed for constituents appropriate for each site (table 2). 

Samples were analyzed for nutrients, trace metals, hardness, 

total suspended solids, total organic carbon, chemical oxygen 

demand, volatile organic compounds, and semivolatile organic 

compounds by the USGS National Water-Quality Laboratory 

(NWQL) in Lakewood, Colorado (information on laboratory available at http://nwql.usgs.gov/Public/Profile/index.

htm). Samples were analyzed for oil and grease by TestAmerica located in Denver, Colorado (information on laboratory available at www.testamericainc.com/home_alt.aspx). 

Total organic nitrogen and ammonia and total phosphorus 

concentrations were determined by analyses described by 

Patton and Kryskalla (2003). Dissolved and total trace metal 

concentrations were determined by inductively coupled 

plasma-optical emission spectrometry and inductively coupled 

plasma mass spectrometry (Fishman and Friedman,1989; 

Fishman, ed., 1993; Hoffman and others, 1996; Garbarino 

and Struzeski, 1998; Garbarino and Damrau, 2001; Garbarino 

and others, 2006). Total suspended solid concentrations were 

measured by analytical methods used to quantify concentrations of suspended organic and inorganic particles in surface 

waters (Fishman and Friedman, 1989). Total organic carbon 

was measured on whole water samples according to standard method 5310B (Standard methods for the Examination 

of Water and Wastewater High-Temperature Combustion 

Method, 1998). Chemical oxygen demand was measured on 

whole water samples according by the colorimetric dichromatic oxidation HACH method (Fishman and Friedman, 

1989). Volatile organic compounds were determined by using 

purge-and-trap capillary-column gas chromatography and 

mass spectrometry methods described by Connor and others 

(1998). Semivolatile organic compounds were measured by 

continuous liquid-liquid extraction and capillary-column gas 

chromatography and mass spectrometry analytical methods 

used to determine inorganic and organic constituents in water 

and fluvial sediemnts (Fishman, 1993). Oil and grease concentrations were determined according to USEPA method 1664A 

(U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1999a). 
4 Quantity and Quality of Stormwater Collected from Selected Stormwater Outfalls, Fort Gordon, Georgia, 2011

Fort Gordon

78

1

88

223 388

4TH AVE LANE AVENUE

RICE RD

19TH ST

RICHMOND

COLUMBIA

SWR11-5

SWR11-4

McCoys Creek

SWR11-2

SWR11-3

SWR11-1

Base from ESRI® Data & Maps, 2010

Aerial from U.S. Army

Universal Transverse Mercator projection, zone 17

0 1 2 Miles

0 1 2 Kilometers

Scale for images

0 250 500 750 1,000 Feet

0 100 200 Meters

EXPLANATION

Stormwater sampling site

Figure 2. Location of stormwater sampling sites scheduled to be sampled in 2011, Fort Gordon, Georgia.
Methods 5

Table 1. Station identification name and number, and classification type for stations where stormwater runoff 

was scheduled to be sampled in 2011, Fort Gordon, Georgia.

[USGS, U.S. Geological Survey]

USGS station 

identification 

number

USGS station 

name 

(figure 1)

Classification type Description Latitude Longitude

332205082143100 SWR11-1 Landfill Gibson Road Landfill 33° 22' 05" 82° 14' 31"

332442082094100 SWR11-2 Landfill 17th Street Landfill 33° 24' 42" 82° 09' 41"

332452082085100 SWR11-3

Heating and cooling 

plant

Heating and cooling 

plant #310 33° 24' 52" 82° 08' 51"

332538082085200 SWR11-4

Heating and cooling 

plant

Heating and cooling 

plant #25910 33° 25' 38" 82° 08' 52"

332540082085100 SWR11-5

Heating and cooling 

plant

Heating and cooling 

plant #25910 33° 25' 40" 82° 08' 51"

Retention pond (SWR11-1)

Detention pond (SWR11-2)

Figure 3. Retention and detention ponds at

the landfill sites, Fort Gordon, Georgia.

Handling censored data appropriately is necessary when 

laboratories report quantitative, estimated, and censored 

results: (1) Results above a laboratory reporting level (LRL) 

are reported as a quantitative value. (2) Results below the LRL 

and above the method detection level (MDL) are estimated 

(because the values are considered semiquantitative) and 

are reported with the remark code (E). (3) Results below the 

nondetection level are reported as censored data, and were 

reported as less than the LRL (Childress and others, 1999). For 

example, if the LRL for total recoverable cadmium concentration is 0.4 microgram per liter (μg/L), but was detected above 

the MDL of 0.2 μg/L, then an estimated value of 0.3 μg/L may 

be reported.

Quality Assurance and Quality Control 

Procedures

Quality assurance (QA) and quality control (QC) 

procedures maintain the integrity, accuracy, and legal 

defensibility of results from data collection and assessment 

(U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2009). For this 

study, the QA procedures included the sampling techniques, 

stewardship of the samples, and laboratory analyses. The QA 

for the sampling protocols were maintained by adherence to 

established procedures of the USGS and GaDNR Environmental Protection Division (U.S. Geological Survey, variously 

dated; Georgia Department of Natural Resources, 2006). The 

stewardship of the samples refers to the preservation, hold 

times, and chain-of-custody of the samples. Appropriate preservation of samples (for example, placement of the samples 

on ice, or addition of an acid preservative) was maintained for 

all samples. Hold times refer to the maximum amount of time 

a sample can be preserved (mostly with ice) before it must be 

analyzed. All samples were analyzed within the appropriate 

hold times. The chain-of-custody ensures that the samples be 

accounted for from the time of sampling to the time the results 

are reported (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2009). 
6 Quantity and Quality of Stormwater Collected from Selected Stormwater Outfalls, Fort Gordon, Georgia, 2011

Table 2. Type of constituents sampled and method of analysis for stormwater samples at Fort Gordon, 

Georgia, 2011.

[USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; NWQL, USGS National Water Quality Laboratory; USEPA, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; 

NPDES, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System]

Type Laboratory schedule NPDES method Method description

Volatile organic compounds NWQL 1307 USGS O-4127-96 

(mod. USEPA 624)

Purge-and-trap capillary-column 

gas chromatography/mass 

spectrometry 1

Dissolved and whole water 

nutrients 

NWQL 2352 USEPA 350.1 Phosphours and Kjeldahl digestion 

method automated photometric 

finish2,3,4

Trace metals in unfiltered water NWQL 2351 USGS I-4471-97; 

EPA 200.8

Inductively coupled plasma-optical 

emission spectrometry and 

inductively coupled plasma-mass 

spectrometry 4

Chemical oxygen demand USGS I-3561-85 Colorimetric, dichromate 

oxidation 3

Hardness USEPA 200.7 Inductively coupled plasmaoptical emission spectrometry 

and inductively coupled plasmamass spectrometry 4

Total suspended solids USGS I-3765 Residue at 105 degrees Celsius, 

suspended, gravimetric2

Oil and grease TestAmerica Contract 

Item Number 50136

USEPA 1664 Hexane extractable material and 

silica gel treated hexane extractable materiol (HEM & SGTHEM)

Semi-volatile organic 

compounds

NWQL 1383 USGS O-3116-87 Continous liquid-liquid extraction 

and capillary-column gas 

chromatography and mass 

spectrometry 2

1

Connor, B.F., Rose, D.L., Noriega, M.C., Murtagh, L., Abney, S.R., 1997, Methods of analysis by the U.S. Geological Survey water 

quality laboratories—Determination of 86 volatile organic compounds in water by gas spectrometry, including detections less than 

reporting limits: U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 97-829, 78 p.

2

Fishman, M.J, ed., 1993, Methods of analysis by the U.S. Geological Survey National Water Quality Laboratory—Determination of 

inorganic constituents in water and fluvial sediments: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 93-125, 217 p.

3

Fishman, M.J, and Friedman, L.C., 1989, Methods for determination of inorganic substances in water and fluvial sediments: U.S. 

Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 5, chapter A1, 545 p. 

4

Patton, C.J., and Kryskalla, J.R., 2003, Methods of analysis by the U.S. Geological Survey National Water Pollution Laboratory—

Evaluation of alkaline persulfate digestion as an alternative to Kjeldhal digestion for determination of total and dissolved nitrogen and 

phosphorus in water: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 03-4174, 33 p. 

The chain-of-custody documents who is in possession of the 

samples at all times, from collection to the reporting of the

results. The analytical service request form and lab login email 

served as the chain-of-custody documentation for the samples. 

Water-quality data from each sampled event were 

reviewed for completeness, precision, bias, and transcription 

errors when received from the laboratory as part of the QA 

procedures. Collection and analysis of quality-control (QC) 

sample were part of this study. One field blank was collected 

during the sampling period. The field blank was used to evaluate if contamination from the sampling equipment and sample 

processing methods affected the environmental sample concentrations. Acceptable levels for field blank contamination 

are dependent on the data quality objectives of the investigation (U.S. Geological Survey, 2006). Because the data are 

for regulatory purposes, field blanks with detectable concentrations greater than 20 percent of (five times) the sample 

concentration were considered to require an action (U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1999b; 2004). Sample 

concentrations below the action level were rejected as unreliable due to potential contamination. Additional equipment and 

field blanks were collected to evaluate potential sources of the 
Methods 7

contamination. Water-quality and rainfall data are stored in the 

USGS National Water Information System (NWIS) database and quality-assured water-quality data are available for 

retrieval on the internet at http://waterdata.usgs.gov/sc/nwis/

sw. The USGS NWQL provides all QA/QC documentation for 

their analytical services on the internet at http://nwql.usgs.gov/

quality.shtml.

Rainfall and Discharge 

The five outfall locations had an individual station name 

and number assigned by the USGS to allow data entry and 

archival into the NWIS database (fig. 2, table 1). Each outlet 

location was outfitted with an ISCO 6712 automatic sampler. 

This sampler includes tubing that is deployed at the sampling 

location, a pump to bring the sample up to the sampler, and 

pre-cleaned containers to collect the sample (Teledyne Isco, 

Inc., 2012). In addition, the automatic samplers have the 

capability of connecting precipitation gages to a data logger 

using a serial data interface at 12 Baud (SDI-12) (Teledyne 

Isco, Inc., 2012). The SDI-12 interface can be connected to a 

wide range of environmental sensors, and for this study, the 

data logger was connected to a continuous-recording tippingbucket precipitation gage, and to a 750 area velocity flow 

module (Teledyne Isco, Inc., 2007). The continuous-recording 

tipping-bucket precipitation gages were deployed at four of the 

five sites, because one of the industrial sites had two outfalls 

(H&C plant # 25910) and did not need to be equipped with a 

second precipitation gage (fig. 2, table 1). An equipment setup 

at a station (SWR11-5) with the precipitation gage and automatic sampler is shown in figure 4. 

Nonrecording precipitation gages also were deployed 

during storm events near the outfall site to collect precipitation 

data (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1992; Church 

and others, 1999). Data from the nonrecording precipitation 

gages were used to confirm the results of the recording precipitation gages, and as a backup measurement 

of rainfall.

 Discharge, or flow, was to be measured by the 750 area 

velocity module by determining the stage, or depth, of the 

stream in the culvert, the velocity of the stream in the culvert, 

and the culvert geometry. These parameters were recorded 

by the data logger in the sampler. In addition, discharge was 

computed by the indirect methods described by Bohdaine 

(1968) at sites SWR11-4 and SWR11-5. Indirect methods did 

not require the velocity to compute the discharge, because 

the control of the flow is located at the outlet of all the outlets 

that were sampled. The depth of flow at the outlet along with 

the slopes of the culvert which also were measured, provided 

sufficient data to compute the discharge.

To determine stage, the 750 area velocity module used an 

internal differential pressure transducer installed at the bottom 

of the culvert near the outlet. The transducer is a small piezoresistive disk that detects the pressures by a stainless-steel 

diaphragm. The difference between the pressures exerted 

on the outer face on the diaphragm and the inner face of the 

diaphragm is called the hydrostatic pressure. Hydrostatic pressure is proportional to the level of the stream and converted 

to stage, therefore measuring the height above the transducer. 

Additionally, the stage was measured at the outlet of the 

culvert with a measuring tape throughout the sampling event. 

The 750 area velocity module also includes two transducers that measure velocity using ultrasonic sound waves and 

the Doppler effect. The first transducer emits an ultrasonic 

soundwave, and bubbles and suspended particles in the stream 

reflect the emitted soundwave back to a second transducer. 

The differences in the frequencies between the two soundwaves are proportional to the average velocity of the streamflow (Teledyne Isco, Inc., 2007). The culvert geometry was 

determined by measuring the diameter of the culvert through 

which the stormwater flows. The automatic sampler calculated the culvert cross section (or area) using the programmed 

culvert diameter and the stream level. This measurement was 

multiplied by the measured velocity to calculate the discharge 

(Teledyne Isco, Inc., 2006). 

Stormwater Sampling

All samples collected were grab samples as described 

in the GaDNR general permit for discharges associated 

with industrial activities (Georgia Department of Natural 

Resources, 2006). The grab samples and discharge were collected at SWR11-3 by manually operating the automatic sampler, and at SWR11-4 and SWR11-5 by manually collecting 

the grab samples and indirectly computing the discharge. The 

grab samples were collected in pre-cleaned, acid-rinsed high 

density polypropylene (HDLP) containers after the criterion of 

0.1 in. of rain was measured. The stormwater runoff samples 

were collected in the first 30 minutes of the runoff event 

(Georgia Department of Natural Resources, 2006). During 

Automatic sampler

Rain gage

Figure 4. Automatic sampler and rain gage installed at selected 

industrial sites, Fort Gordon, Georgia.

A r
8 Quantity and Quality of Stormwater Collected from Selected Stormwater Outfalls, Fort Gordon, Georgia, 2011

the period of study at the two landfill sites, runoff in the first 

30 minutes of the runoff event was not sufficient to produce 

adequate discharge from the stormwater outfalls. Stormwater 

sample collection during multiple storm events that exceeded 

the minimum 0.1 in. of rain criterion was attempted but 

aborted, because no runoff was produced (table 3).

Results

The results of the multiple stormwater sampling from 

three of the five different sampling stations that were scheduled to be sampled during the 2011 calendar year are presented 

in this section of the report. Sampling of the two landfill 

stations (SWR11-1 and SWR11-2) were not done from January to December 2011, because conditions did not permit a 

sample to be collected. Results of discharge, rainfall amounts, 

physical properties, suspended materials, nutrients and organic 

compounds, major and trace inorganic compounds, and 

volatile and semivolatile organic compounds from the H&C 

sites (SWR11-3, SWR11-4, and SWR11-5), are presented in 

subsequent sections. 

Quality Assurance and Quality Control

Detections were identified in the field blank for some 

constituents. Generally, if the concentration in the blank(s) is 

less than 20 percent of the concentration in the environmental 

sample, the effect of contamination is likely to be within the 

precision of the method (U.S. Geological Survey 1997, 2006; 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1999b, 2004). Calcium, fluorene, and total nitrogen were all detected in the field 

blanks, but all at a level far below the levels of the results of 

the environmental samples, except for total nitrogen at station 

SWR11-5; therefore, the results of the environmental samples 

are considered reliable (table 4). The result for total nitrogen at 

station SWR11-5 was less than the order of magnitude of the 

concentration detected in the blank, but not enough to dismiss 

the result. The volatile organic compound diethyl phthalate 

was detected in the field blank at 0.32 microgram per liter 

(μg/L) and present in the environmental samples between 

less than 0.62 and 0.71 μg/L; therefore, all results for diethyl 

phthalate are considered unreliable for all three stations (table 

4). Di-n-butyl phthalate was detected in the field blank at 

0.89 μg/L, and two environmental samples had results of 

5.06 (SWR11-4) and 6.18 μg/L (SWR11-5); therefore, those 

environmental samples were considered to be within acceptable accuracy (table 4). However, the di-n-butyl phthalate 

concentration at SWR11-3 was estimated at 0.78 μg/L and was 

considered unreliable (table 4). An estimated phenol concentration of 0.16 μg/L was detected in the field blank, and the 

results of the three samples show that one value (SWR11-4) 

was less than the censored value, but probably not enough to 

dismiss the result (table 4). 

The greatest level of contamination in the field blank was 

with chemical oxygen demand and total organic carbon, and 

these levels suggested a systemic problem (table 4). Therefore, all chemical oxygen demand and total organic carbon 

concentrations in samples were considered unreliable. After 

investigation of sampling preparation and field procedures, the 

probable cause of the total organic carbon contamination was 

considered to be the methanol rinse step of the cleaning procedures. Methanol rinse of equipment used for organic sample 

collection is required to ensure removal of low-level organic 

contaminants; however, methanol residue can act as a contaminant for organic carbon analysis (Wilde, 2004). Additionally, methanol is readily biodegradable and methanol material 

safety data sheets indicate a relatively high chemical oxygen 

demand. Changes in cleaning procedures were implemented, 

and future follow-up equipment blanks will be conducted to 

verify the correction to the systemic problem.

Table 3. Streamflow and rainfall amounts, date that sample was collected, number of days from last 

measurable rain event, and duration of rain event, Fort Gordon, Georgia, 2011.

[USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; ft3/s, cubic feet per second; NS, not sampled; EST, eastern standard time]

USGS station 

name (figure 1) Date of sample

Number of days 

from previously 

measured storm 

event

Quantity of rain 

(inches)

Peak streamflow, 

instantaneous 

(ft3

/s)

Duration of 

hydrograph 

(hours)

1

SWR11-1 NS NS NS NS NS

1

SWR11-2 NS NS NS NS NS

SWR11-3 September 5, 2011 

Hour: 16:55 EST

28 0.4 1.25 1

SWR11-4 October 18, 2011 

Hour: 20:30 EST

7 0.6 1.92 6

SWR11-5 October 18, 2011 

Hour: 20:30 EST

7 0.5 2.05 6

1

 Station was scheduled to be sampled during the 2011 calendar year, but sampling was not done because criteria needed 

for sampling were not met.
Results 9

Table 4. Results of the field blank submited for the 

stormwater runoff sampling, Fort Gordon, Georgia, 2011.

[All units in micrograms per liter; <, less than; E, estimated]

Constituents Field blank 

concentration

Environmental sample 

concentration

SWR11-3 SWR11-4 SWR11-5

Calcium 0.024 1.552 0.915 1.13

Fluorene 0.003 0.065 <0.34 <0.34

Total nitrogen 0.057 1.723 0.786 0.356

Diethyl 

phthalate

0.32 <0.62 E 0.483 E 0.709

Di-n-butyl 

phthalate

0.887 E 0.778 E 5.06 E 6.18

Phenol E 0.164 E 1.73 E 0.96 E 2.63

Chemical 

oxygen 

demand

2,542.5 896 124.6 215

Organic 

carbon

528.2 160.4 86.9 29.4

Rainfall and Discharge 

Samples were collected on September 5, 2011, at 

H&C site SWR11-3, and on October 18, 2011, at H&C sites 

SWR11-4 and SWR11-5 (table 3). Weather radars were 

observed to track incoming rain events, and USGS personnel were stationed at every station prior to the start of the rain 

event. No samples were collected at the two landfill stations in 

2011, because sufficient rainfall needed to fill the detention or 

retention ponds did not occur. Rainfall amount for the September 5, 2011, storm event was 0.4 in. and lasted over a period 

of 1 hour with no prior rainfall for 28 days (table 3). Peak 

stormwater discharge at the time of sampling at site SWR11-3 

was 1.25 cubic feet per second (ft3

/s). On October 18, 2011, 

the storm event was 0.6 and 0.5 in. at sites SWR11-4 and 

SWR11-5, respectively, and lasted for a period of 6 hours 

with no prior rainfall for 7 days (table 3). Peak stormwater 

discharges at the time of sampling were 1.92 and 2.05 ft3

/s at 

SWR11-4 and SWR11-5, respectively.

At all three stations, the continuously recording precipitation gages did not function correctly; therefore, the precipitation results were obtained from the nonrecording precipitation 

gages. Although sites SWR11-4 and SWR11-5 were in close 

proximity, rainfall amounts differed by 0.1 in. for the two 

stations (table 3). 

Stormwater Sampling

Field parameters (water temperature, specific conductance, dissolved oxygen, and pH) were measured at all 

three stations before the samples were collected. Specific 

conductance values ranged from 12 to 46 microsiemens per 

centimeter at sites SWR11-5 and SWR11-3, respectively, 

during the study period. The pH values ranged from 4.3 to 

6.9 standard units at sites SWR11-3 and SWR11-4, respectively. Dissolved oxygen concentrations ranged from 6.7 

to 10.6 milligrams per liter (mg/L) at sites SWR11-3 and 

SWR11-5, respectively (table 5).

Suspended solid, nutrient, and major and trace inorganic 

compound concentrations were determined for the stormwater 

samples (tables 6-8). In general, constituent concentrations 

were relatively similar among sites. Total suspended solids, 

total fixed solids, and total volatile solids had concentrations 

below the LRL (less than 10 to less than 30 mg/L) at all sites 

(tables 6-8). Total phosphorus concentrations ranged from 0.06 

and 0.13 mg/L at sites SWR11-5 and SWR11-3, respectively 

(table 6-8). Site SWR11-3 had greater hardness, nitrogen 

(dissolved ammonia and total nitrogen), and zinc concentrations than sites SWR11-4 and SWR11-5 (tables 6-8). 

Of the 87 volatile and semivolatile compounds that were 

analyzed in stormwater samples, 14 percent of the compounds 

were detected at site SWR11-3 (table 9), 24 percent were 

detected at site SWR11-4 (table 10), and 23 percent were 

detected at site SWR11-5 (table 11). At site SWR11-3, 7 of 

the 87 compounds were detected at concentrations above 

their LRLs and 5 were detected at estimated levels (table 9). 

Site SWR11-4 had 10 compounds detected at concentrations 

above their LRLs and 11 at estimated levels (table 10). Site 

SWR11-5 had 8 compounds detected at concentrations above 

their LRLs and 12 at estimated levels (table 11).

At site SWR11-3, 1, 2-dichloropropane, acenaphthylene, benzo [ghi] perylene, cis,1,2-dichloroethene, 

dimethyl phthalate, fluoranthene, and isophorone were all 

detected above their LRL (table 9). For station SWR11-4, 

the anthracene, benzo[a]anthracene, benzo[a]pyrene, 

benzo[ghi]pyrene, cis,1,2-dichloroethene, dimethyl phthalate, 

di-n-butyl phthalate, fluoranthene, naphthalene, and pyrene 

were all detected above their LRL (table 10). Finally, 

for station SWR11-5, anthracene, benzo[a]anthracene, 

benzo[a]pyrene, benzo[ghi]perylene, dimethyl phthalate, 

fluoranthene, naphthalene, and pyrene were all detected above 

their LRL (table 11).
10 Quantity and Quality of Stormwater Collected from Selected Stormwater Outfalls, Fort Gordon, Georgia, 2011

Table 5. Field parameters detected in stormwater samples 

collected from selected stormwater industrial sites, Fort 

Gordon, Georgia, 2011.

[NS, not sampled]

Parameter Result Concentration unit

SW11-1

Temperature NS degrees Celsius

Specific conductance NS

microsiemens per centimeter 

at 25 degrees Celsius

Dissolved oxygen NS milligrams per liter

Dissolved oxygen NS percent of saturation

pH NS standard units

SW11-2

Temperature NS degrees Celsius

Specific conductance NS

microsiemens per centimeter 

at 25 degrees Celsius

Dissolved oxygen NS milligrams per liter

Dissolved oxygen NS percent of saturation

pH NS standard units

SW11-3

Sample quantity 1.06 gallons

Temperature 29.4 degrees Celsius

Specific conductance 46

microsiemens per centimeter 

at 25 degrees Celsius

Dissolved oxygen 6.7 milligrams per liter

Dissolved oxygen 89 percent of saturation

pH 4.3 standard units

SW11-4

Sample quantity 1.06 gallons

Temperature 22.9 degrees Celsius

Specific conductance 31

microsiemens per centimeter 

at 25 degrees Celsius

Dissolved oxygen 9.1 milligrams per liter

Dissolved oxygen 112 percent of saturation

pH 6.9 standard units

SW11-5

Sample quantity 1.06 gallons

Temperature 22.3 degrees Celsius

Specific conductance 12

microsiemens per centimeter 

at 25 degrees Celsius

Dissolved oxygen 10.6 milligrams per liter

Dissolved oxygen 130 percent of saturation

pH 5.4 standard units

Table 6. Suspended material, nutrients and organic 

compounds, and major and trace inorganic compounds 

detected in a single grab stormwater sample taken within 

the first 30 minutes of runoff from heating and cooling station 

SWR11-3, Fort Gordon, Georgia, September 5, 2011.

[All units in milligrams per liter; <, less than; NR, not reported; 

E, estimated]

Compound Result 

Suspended material

Total suspended solids <15.0

Total fixed solids <15.0

Total volatile solids <10.0

Nutrients and organic compounds

Chemical oxygen demand NR1

Organic Carbon, Total NR1

Ammonia, as NH4 1.42

Ammonia, as nitrogen 1.1

Phosphorus 0.13

Total nitrogen 1.72

Major and trace inorganic compounds

Hardness 4.97

Calcium, dissolved 1.55

Barium, dissolved 0.010

Magnesium, dissolved 0.26

Arsenic, total 0.001

Cadmium, total E 0.00087

Chromium, total 0.002

Lead, total 0.004

Silver, total <0.002

Mercury, total 0.000

Selenium, total 0.000

Zinc, total 0.218

1

 Results of the analyses are not reported because the field blank results 

showed a problem with the cleaning procedure, and as a consequence, the 

environmental result was unreliable.
Results 11

Table 7. Suspended material, nutrients and organic 

compounds, and major and trace inorganic compounds 

detected in a single grab stormwater sample taken within 

the first 30 minutes of runoff from heating and cooling station 

SWR11-4, Fort Gordon, Georgia, October 18, 2011.

[All units in milligrams per liter; <, less than; NR, not reported; 

E, estimated]

Compound Result 

Suspended material

Total suspended solids <30.0

Total fixed solids <30.0

Total volatile solids <20.0

Nutrients and organic compounds

Chemical oxygen demand NR1

Organic Carbon, Total NR1

Oil and grease E 2.5

Ammonia, as NH4 0.116

Ammonia, as nitrogen 0.09

Phosphorus 0.11

Total nitrogen 0.79

Major and trace inorganic compounds

Hardness 2.54

Calcium, dissolved 0.92

Barium, dissolved 0.009

Magnesium, dissolved 0.06

Arsenic, total 0.000

Cadmium, total <0.0004

Chromium, total 0.002

Lead, total 0.009

Silver, total <0.0006

Mercury, total 0.000

Selenium, total 0.000

Zinc, total 0.083

1

 Results of the analyses are not reported because the field blank results 

showed a problem with the cleaning procedure, and as a consequence, the 

environmental result was unreliable.

Table 8. Suspended material, nutrients and organic 

compounds, and major and trace inorganic compounds 

detected in a single grab stormwater sample taken within 

the first 30 minutes of runoff from heating and cooling station 

SWR11-5, Fort Gordon, Georgia, October 18, 2011.

[All units in milligrams per liter; <, less than; NR, not reported; 

E, estimated]

Compound Result 

Suspended material

Total suspended solids <30.0

Total fixed solids <30.0

Total volatile solids <20.0

Nutrients and organic compounds

Chemical oxygen demand NR1

Organic Carbon, Total NR1

Oil and grease E 3.3

Ammonia, as NH4 0.149

Ammonia, as nitrogen 0.12

Phosphorus 0.06

Total nitrogen 0.36

Major and trace inorganic compounds

Hardness 3.13

Calcium, dissolved 1.13

Barium, dissolved 0.008

Magnesium, dissolved 0.075

Arsenic, total 0.001

Cadmium, total <0.0004

Chromium, total E 0.00073

Lead, total 0.002

Silver, total <0.0006

Mercury, total 0.000

Selenium, total 0.000

Zinc, total 0.057

1

 Results of the analyses are not reported because the field blank results 

showed a problem with the cleaning procedure, and as a consequence, the 

environmental result was unreliable.
12 Quantity and Quality of Stormwater Collected from Selected Stormwater Outfalls, Fort Gordon, Georgia, 2011

Table 9. Volatile and semivolatile organic compounds 

detected in a single stormwater grab sample taken within 

the first 30 minutes of runoff from heating and cooling station 

SWR11-3, Fort Gordon, Georgia, September 5, 2011.—Continued

[All units in micrograms per liter; <, less than; E, estimated; 

NR, not reported]

Compound Result

1,2-Dichloroethane <0.2

1,2-Dichloropropane 0.1

1,4-Dichlorobenzene <0.1

2,4,6-Trichlorophenol <0.34

2,4-Dichlorophenol E 0.064

2,4-Dimethylphenol <0.8

2-Methyl-4,6-dinitrophenol <2

4-Chloro-3-methylphenol <0.54

4-Nitrophenol <0.52

Hexachlorobenzene <0.3

Pentachlorophenol <0.6

1,1,1-Trichloroethane <0.1

1,1,2-Trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane <0.1

1,1-Dichloroethane <0.1

1,1-Dichloroethene <0.1

1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene <0.26

1,2-Dichlorobenzene <0.1

1,2-Diphenylhydrazine <0.833

1,3-Dichlorobenzene <0.1

2,4-Dinitrophenol <2

2,4-Dinitrotoluene <0.56

2,6-Dinitrotoluene <0.4

2-Chloronaphthalene <0.16

2-Chlorophenol <0.26

2-Nitrphenol <0.4

3,3’-Dichlorobenzidine <0.42

4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether <0.24

4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether <0.34

9H-Fluorene, water <0.34

Acenaphthene <0.28

Acenaphthylene 0.3

Anthracene, water <0.38

Benxene, water <0.1

Table 9. Volatile and semivolatile organic compounds 

detected in a single stormwater grab sample taken within 

the first 30 minutes of runoff from heating and cooling station 

SWR11-3, Fort Gordon, Georgia, September 5, 2011.—Continued

[All units in micrograms per liter; <, less than; E, estimated; 

NR, not reported]

Compound Result

Benzo[a]anthracene <0.26

Benzo[a]pyrene <0.32

Benzo[b]b fluoranthene <0.3

Benzo[ghi]perylene 0.03

Benzo[k]fluoranthene <0.3

Benzyl n-butyl phthale E 0.7

Bis(2-chloroethoxy) methane <0.24

Bis (2-chloroethyl) ether <0.3

Bis (2-chloroisopropyl) ether <0.14

Bis (2-ethylhexyl phthalate E 0.8

Bromodichloromethane <0.1

Chlorobenzene <0.1

Chrysene, water <0.32

cis,1,2-Dichloroethene 0.1

Dibenzo[a,h]anthracene <0.42

Dibromochlormethane <0.2

Dichlorodifluoromethane <0.2

Dichloromethane <0.2

Diethyl ether <0.2

Diethyl phthalate NR1

Diisopropyl ether <0.2

Dimethyl phthalate 5.96

Di-n-butyl phthalate NR1

Di-n-octyl phthalate E 0.1

Ethylbenzene <0.1

Fluoranthene 0.04

Hexachlorobutadiene <0.24

Hexachlorocyclopentadieme <0.5

Hexachloroethane <0.24

Indeno [1,2,3-cd] pyrene <0.38

Isophorone 0.29

Methyl-tert-butyl ether <0.2

Methyl-tert-pentyl ether <0.2
Results 13

Table 9. Volatile and semivolatile organic compounds 

detected in a single stormwater grab sample taken within 

the first 30 minutes of runoff from heating and cooling station 

SWR11-3, Fort Gordon, Georgia, September 5, 2011.—Continued

[All units in micrograms per liter; <, less than; E, estimated; 

NR, not reported]

Compound Result

m-Xylene + p-xylene <0.2

Naphthalene <0.05

Nitrobenzene <0.26

n-Nitrosodimethylamine <0.24

n-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine <0.4

n-Nitrosodiphenylamine <0.28

o-Xylene <0.1

Phenanthrene <0.32

Phenol E 1.7

Pyrene <0.003

Styrene <0.1

tert-Butyl ethyl ether <0.1

Tetrachloroethene <0.1

Tetrachloromethane <0.2

Toluene, water <0.1

trans-1,2-Dichloroethene <0.1

Tribromomethane <0.2

Trichloroethene <0.1

Trichlorofluoromethane <0.2

Trichlormethane <0.1

Trihalomethanes <0.6

Vinyl chloride <0.2

1

 Results of the analyses are not reported because the field blank results 

showed a detected concentration of this constituent, and as a consequence, 

the environmental result was unreliable.

Table 10. Volatile and semivolatile organic compounds 

detected in a single stormwater grab sample taken within 

the first 30 minutes of runoff from heating and cooling station 

SWR11-4, Fort Gordon, Georgia, October 18, 2011.—Continued

[All units in micrograms per liter; <, less than; E, estimated; 

NR, not reported]

Compound Result

1,2-Dichloroethane <0.2

1,2-Dichloropropane <0.1

1,4-Dichlorobenzene <0.1

2,4,6-Trichlorophenol <0.34

2,4-Dichlorophenol <0.36

2,4-Dimethylphenol <0.8

2-Methyl-4,6-dinitrophenol <2

4-Chloro-3-nethylphenol <0.54

4-Nitrophenol E 0.19

Hexachlorobenzene <0.3

Pentachlorophenol E 0.03

1,1,1-Trichloroethane <0.1

1,1,2-Trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane <0.1

1,1-Dichloroethane <0.1

1,1-Dichloroethene <0.1

1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene <0.26

1,2-Dichlorobenzene <0.1

1,2-Diphenylhydrazine <0.3

1,3-Dichlorobenzene <0.1

2,4-Dinitrophenol <2

2,4-Dinitrotoluene <0.56

2,6-Dinitrotoluene <0.4

2-Chloronaphthalene <0.24

2-Chlorophenol <0.26

2-Nitrophenol E 0.14

3,3’-Dichlorobenzidine <0.42

4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether <0.24

4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether <0.34

9H-Fluorene, water <0.34

Acenaphthene <0.28

Acenaphthylene E 0.02

Anthracene, water 0.03
14 Quantity and Quality of Stormwater Collected from Selected Stormwater Outfalls, Fort Gordon, Georgia, 2011

Table 10. Volatile and semivolatile organic compounds 

detected in a single stormwater grab sample taken within 

the first 30 minutes of runoff from heating and cooling station 

SWR11-4, Fort Gordon, Georgia, October 18, 2011.—Continued

[All units in micrograms per liter; <, less than; E, estimated; 

NR, not reported]

Compound Result

Benxene, water <0.1

Benzo[a]anthracene 0.16

Benzo[a]pyrene 0.36

Benzo[b]b fluoranthene E 0.67

Benzo[ghi]perylene 0.39

Benzo[k]fluoranthene E 0.28

Benzyl n-butyl phthale <1.8

Bis(2-chloroethoxy) methane <0.24

Bis (2-chloroethyl) ether <0.3

Bis (2-chloroisopropyl) ether <0.14

Bis (2-ethylhexyl phthalate E 81

Bromodichloromethane <0.1

Chlorobenzene <0.1

Chrysene, water E 0.36

cis,1,2- Dichloroethene 0.1

Dibenzo[a,h]anthracene <0.42

Dibromochlormethane <0.2

Dichlorodifluoromethane <0.2

Dichloromethane <0.2

Diethyl ether <0.2

Diethyl phthalate NR1

Diisopropyl ether <0.2

Dimethyl phthalate 0.08

Di-n-butyl phthalate 5.06

Di-n-octyl phthalate <0.6

Ethylbenzene <0.1

Fluoranthene 0.63

Hexachlorobutadiene <0.24

Hexachlorocyclopentadieme <0.5

Hexachloroethane <0.24

Table 10. Volatile and semivolatile organic compounds 

detected in a single stormwater grab sample taken within 

the first 30 minutes of runoff from heating and cooling station 

SWR11-4, Fort Gordon, Georgia, October 18, 2011.—Continued

[All units in micrograms per liter; <, less than; E, estimated; 

NR, not reported]

Compound Result

Indeno [1,2,3-cd] pyrene E 0.32

Isophorone E 0.27

Methyl-tert-butyl ether <0.2

Methyl-tert-pentyl ether <0.2

m-Xylene + p-xylene <0.2

Naphthalene 0.03

Nitrobenzene <0.26

n-Nitrosodimethylamine <0.32

n-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine <0.442

n-Nitrosodiphenylamine <0.48

o-Xylene <0.1

Phenanthrene <0.21

Phenol E 1

Pyrene 0.5

Styrene <0.1

tert-Butyl ethyl ether <0.1

Tetrachloroethene <0.1

Tetrachloromethane <0.2

Toluene, water <0.1

trans-1,2-Dichloroethene <0.1

Tribromomethane <0.2

Trichloroethene <0.1

Trichlorofluoromethane <0.2

Trichlormethane <0.1

Trihalomethanes <0.6

Vinyl chloride <0.2

1

 Results of the analyses are not reported because the field blank results 

showed a detected concentration of this constituent, and as a consequence, 

the environmental result was unreliable.
Results 15

Table 11. Volatile and semivolatile organic compounds 

detected in a single stormwater grab sample taken within 

the first 30 minutes of runoff from heating and cooling station 

SWR11-5, Fort Gordon, Georgia, October 18, 2011.—Continued

[All units in micrograms per liter; <, less than; E, estimated; 

NR, not reported]

Compound Result

1,2-Dichloroethane <0.2

1,2-Dichloropropane <0.1

1,4-Dichlorobenzene <0.1

2,4,6-Trichlorophenol <0.34

2,4-Dichlorophenol <0.36

2,4-Dimethylphenol <0.8

2-Methyl-4,6-dinitrophenol <2

4-Chloro-3-nethylphenol <0.81

4-Nitrophenol E 0.41

Hexachlorobenzene <0.3

Pentachlorophenol E 0.1

1,1,1-Trichloroethane <0.1

1,1,2-Trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane <0.1

1,1-Dichloroethane <0.1

1,1-Dichloroethene <0.1

1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene <0.26

1,2-Dichlorobenzene <0.1

1,2-Diphenylhydrazine <0.3

1,3-Dichlorobenzene <0.1

2,4-Dinitrophenol <2

2,4-Dinitrotoluene <0.56

2,6-Dinitrotoluene <0.4

2-Chloronaphthalene <0.24

2-Chlorophenol <0.26

2-Nitrphenol E 0.11

3,3’-Dichlorobenzidine <0.42

4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether <0.24

4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether <0.34

9H-Fluorene, water <0.06

Acenaphthene <0.05

Table 11. Volatile and semivolatile organic compounds 

detected in a single stormwater grab sample taken within 

the first 30 minutes of runoff from heating and cooling station 

SWR11-5, Fort Gordon, Georgia, October 18, 2011.—Continued

[All units in micrograms per liter; <, less than; E, estimated; 

NR, not reported]

Compound Result

Acenaphthylene E 0.05

Anthracene, water 0.14

Benxene, water <0.1

Benzo[a]anthracene 1.24

Benzo[a]pyrene 1.84

Benzo[b]b fluoranthene E 2.98

Benzo[ghi]perylene 1.7

Benzo[k]fluoranthene E 1.2

Benzyl n-butyl phthale <1.8

Bis(2-chloroethoxy) methane <0.24

Bis (2-chloroethyl) ether <0.34

Bis (2-chloroisopropyl) ether <0.14

Bis (2-ethylhexyl phthalate E 229

Bromodichloromethane <0.1

Chlorobenzene <0.1

Chrysene, water E 2.16

cis,1,2- Dichloroethene <0.1

Dibenzo[a,h]anthracene <0.42

Dibromochlormethane <0.2

Dichlorodifluoromethane <0.2

Dichloromethane <0.2

Diethyl ether <0.2

Diethyl phthalate NR1

Diisopropyl ether <0.2

Dimethyl phthalate 4.38

Di-n-butyl phthalate E 6.18

Di-n-octyl phthalate <0.6

Ethylbenzene <0.1

Fluoranthene 4.56

Hexachlorobutadiene <0.24

Hexachlorocyclopentadieme <0.5
16 Quantity and Quality of Stormwater Collected from Selected Stormwater Outfalls, Fort Gordon, Georgia, 2011

Table 11. Volatile and semivolatile organic compounds 

detected in a single stormwater grab sample taken within 

the first 30 minutes of runoff from heating and cooling station 

SWR11-5, Fort Gordon, Georgia, October 18, 2011.—Continued

[All units in micrograms per liter; <, less than; E, estimated; 

NR, not reported]

Compound Result

Hexachloroethane <0.24

Indeno [1,2,3-cd] pyrene E 1.45

Isophorone E 0.27

Methyl-tert-butyl ether <0.2

Methyl-tert-pentyl ether <0.2

m-Xylene + p-xylene <0.2

Naphthalene 0.04

Nitrobenzene <0.26

n-Nitrosodimethylamine <0.32

n-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine <0.4

n-Nitrosodiphenylamine <0.48

o-Xylene <0.1

Phenanthrene <2.02

Phenol E 2.6

Pyrene 3.47

Styrene <0.1

tert-Butyl ethyl ether <0.1

Tetrachloroethene <0.1

Tetrachloromethane <0.2

Toluene, water <0.1

trans- 1,2-Dichloroethene <0.1

Tribromomethane <0.2

Trichloroethene <0.1

Trichlorofluoromethane <0.2

Trichlormethane <0.1

Trihalomethanes <0.6

Vinyl chloride <0.2

1

 Results of the analyses are not reported because the field blank results 

showed a detected concentration of this constituent, and as a consequence, 

the environmental result was unreliable.
Selected References 17

Summary

The U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the 

U.S. Department of the Army Environmental and Natural 

Resources Management Office of the U.S. Army Signal 

Center and Fort Gordon, assessed the quantity and quality of 

stormwater runoff associated with industrial activities from 

January through December 2011. The assessment was conducted to satisfy the requirements from a general permit that 

authorizes the discharge of stormwater under the National 

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System from a site with 

industrial activities. 

Stormwater runoff was scheduled to be sampled from five 

stations at four industrial sites (two landfills and two heating 

and cooling sites). The two landfill sites were not sampled,

because no flow was observed at the outlets of the landfills 

during the 2011 calendar year. The assessment included the 

collection rainfall amounts, discharges, and physical properties 

(such as water temperature, specific conductance, dissolved 

oxygen, and pH); the detection of suspended materials (total 

suspended solids, total fixed solids, total volatile solids), nutrients and organic compounds, and major and trace inorganic 

compounds; and the detection of volatile and semivolatile 

organic compounds. The largest rainfall amount was of 

0.6 inch at station SWR11-4 and the greatest discharge was 

2.05 cubic feet per second at station SWR11-5. 

The stormwater samples also were analyzed for suspended materials (total suspended solids, total fixed solids, 

and total volatile solids), nutrients and organic compounds, 

major and trace inorganic (metals) compounds, and volatile and semivolatile organic compounds. The results for 

all three samples show that many of the constituents were 

detected above their laboratory reporting levels. In addition, 

the results for chemical oxygen demand and organic carbon 

were disregarded, because the results from the analyses of the 

field blanks indicated contamination related to cleaning of the 

sampling equipment with methanol. 

Volatile and semivolatile compounds were detected 

at all three of the sampling stations above their laboratory reporting levels. Many volatile and semivolatile 

organic compounds were detected below their laboratory reporting levels but above their nondetection levels 

and, therefore, the levels were estimated. Various volatile 

and semivolatile organic compounds were detected above 

their laboratory reporting levels and included anthracene 

(SWR11-4 and SWR11-5), benzo[a]anthracene (SWR11-4 

and SWR11-5), benzo[a]pyrene (SWR11-4 and SWR11-5), 

benzo[ghi]perylene (SWR11-3, SWR11-4, and SWR11-5), 

cis,1,2-dichloroethene (SWR11-3, and SWR11-4), dimethyl 

phthalate (SWR11-3, SWR11-4, and SWR11-5), fluoranthene (SWR11-3, SWR11-4, and SWR11-5), naphthalene 

(SWR11-4, and SWR11-5), and pyrene (SWR11-4 and 

SWR11-5). In addition, acenaphthylene (SWR11-3), and 

di-n-butyl phthalate (SWR11-4) were detected above their 

laboratory reporting level at one sampling station each.

Selected References

Bohdaine, G.L., 1968, Measurement of peak discharge at 

culverts by indirect methods: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 3, chap. A3, 

60 p.

Childress, C.J.O., Foreman, W.T., Connor, B.F., Maloney, T.J., 

1999, New reporting procedures based on long-term method 

detection levels and some considerations for interpretations of water-quality data provided by the U. S. Geological 

Survey National Water Quality Laboratory: U.S. Geological 

Survey Open-File Report 99-193, 19 p.

Church, P.E., Granato, G.E., and Owens, D.W., 1999, Basic 

requirements for collecting, documenting, and reporting 

precipitation and storm-flow measurements: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 99-255, 38 p.

Connor, B.F., Rose, D.L., Noriega, M.C., Murtagh, L., Abney, 

S.R., 1997, Methods of analysis by the U.S. Geological 

Survey water quality laboratories—Determination of 86 

volatile organic compounds in water by gas spectrometry, 

including detections less than reporting limits: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 97-829, 78 p.

Fishman, M.J, ed., 1993, Methods of analysis by the U.S. 

Geological Survey National Water Quality Laboratory—

Determination of inorganic constituents in water and fluvial 

sediments: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 

93-125, 217 p.

Fishman, M.J., and Friedman, L.C., 1989, Methods for 

determination of inorganic substances in water and fluvial 

sediments: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of WaterResources Investigations, book 5, chapter A1, 545 p.

Garbarino, J.R., Kanagt, L.K., and Cree, M.E., 2006, Determination of elements in natural water, biota, sediment, and soil 

samples using collision/reaction cell inductively coupled 

plasma-mass spectrometry: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques and Methods, book 5, sec. B, chap. 1, 88 p.

Garbarino, J.R., and Damrau, D.L., 2001, Methods of analysis by the U.S. Geological Survey National Water Quality 

Laboratory—Determination of organic plus inorganic in filtered and unfiltered natural waters with cold vapor—atomic 

fluorescence spectrometry: U.S. Geological Survey WaterResources Investigations Report 01-4132, 16 p.

Garbarino, J.R., and Struzeski, T.M., 1998, Methods of 

analysis by the U.S. Geological Survey National Water 

Quality Laboratory—Determination of elements in wholewater digests using inductively coupled plasma-optical 

emissions spectrometry and inductively coupled plasmamass spectrometry: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report 98-165, 101 p.
18 Quantity and Quality of Stormwater Collected from Selected Stormwater Outfalls, Fort Gordon, Georgia, 2011

Georgia Department of Natural Resources, 2006, Authorization to discharge under the National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System—Storm water discharges associated 

with industrial activities, general NPDES stormwater permit 

No. GAR050000, effective date June 1, 2012, through May 

31, 2017, accessed March 28, 2012, at http://www.gaepd.

org/Documents /techguide_wpb.html.

Gregory, M.B., Stamey, T.C., and Wellborn, J.B., 2001, Ecological characterization of streams, and fish-tissue analysis 

for mercury and lead at selected locations, Fort Gordon, 

Georgia, June 1999 to May 2000: U.S. Geological Survey 

Open-File Report 01-203, 14 p.

Hoffman, G.L., Fishman, M.J., and Garbarino, J.R., 1996, 

Methods of analysis by the U.S. Geological Survey National 

Water Quality Laboratory—In bottle acid digestion of 

whole-water samples: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report 96-225, 28 p.

Patton, C.J., and Kryskalla, J.R., 2003, Methods of analysis 

by the U.S. Geological Survey National Water Pollution 

Laboratory—Evaluation of alkaline persulfate digestion 

as an alternative to Kjeldhal digestion for determination of 

total and dissolved nitrogen and phosphorus in water. U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 03-4174, 33 p. 

Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater, 21st ed., 2005, method 5310B high temperature combustion method, approved by the standard methods committee 

in 2000, accessed April 7, 2012, at http://www.standardmethods.org/store/ProductView.cfm?ProductID=38.

Teledyne Isco, Inc., 2012, 6712 Portable samplers installation 

and operation guide: Teledyne Isco, Inc., 246 p.

Teledyne Isco, Inc., 2007, 750 Area velocity module installation and operation guide: Teledyne Isco, Inc., 39 p.

Teledyne Isco, Inc., 2006, Flowlink 5 software instruction 

manual: Teledyne Isco, Inc., 147 p.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2004, USEPA Contract laboratory program national functional guidelines for 

inorganic data review: Washington, D.C., Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, EPA 540-R-04-004, 136 p.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1999a, Analytical 

methods-method 1664, revision A; n-hexane extractable 

material (HEM; oil and grease) and silica gel treated n-hexane 

extractable material (SGT-HEM; non-polar material) by 

extraction and gravimetry: Report EPA 821-R-98-002, 23 p.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1999b, USEPA 

contract laboratory program national functional 

guidelines for organic data review: Washington, D.C., 

Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Report 

EPA 540-R-99-008, 118 p.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1992, National pollutant discharge elimination system storm water sampling 

guidance document: Washington, D.C., Office of Water, 

Report EPA 883-B-92-001, 177 p.

U.S Geological Survey, 2006, Collection of water samples (ver. 2.0): U.S. Geological Survey Techniques 

of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chap. A4, 

September 2006, accessed Arpil 10, 2012, at 

http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A4/

U.S Geological Survey, 1997, Office of Water-Quality technical memorandum 97.08, 2 p., Accessed April 10, 2012, at 

http://water.usgs.gov/admin/memo/QW/qw97.08.html. 

U.S. Geological Survey, variously dated, National field manual for the collection of water-quality data: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, 

book 9, chaps. A1–A9, accessed March 26, 2012, at http://

pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A.

Wilde, F.D., ed., 2004, Cleaning of Equipment for water 

sampling (ver. 2.0): U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of 

Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chap. A3, accessed 

May 31, 2011, at http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A3/. 

Wilde, F.D., 2011, Water-quality sampling by the U.S. Geological Survey: Standard protocols and procedures: U.S. 

Geological Survey Fact Sheet, 2 p., accessed April 10, 2012, 

at http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2010/3121/.

Prepared by:

USGS Science Publishing Network

Raleigh Publishing Service Center

3916 Sunset Ridge Road

Raleigh, NC 27607

For additional information regarding this publication, contact:

 USGS South Carolina Water Science Center

 Stephenson Center, Suite 129

 720 Gracern Road

 Columbia, SC 29210-7651

 http://sc.water.usgs.gov

Nagle and Guimaraes—Quantity and Quality of Stormwater Collected from Selected Stormwater Outfalls, Fort Gordon, Georgia, 2011—Open-File Report 2012–1035