U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Scientific Investigations Report 2010–5006

Prepared in cooperation with the New Jersey Pinelands Commission 

and the Town of Hammonton, New Jersey

Assessment of Physical, Chemical, and Hydrologic Factors 

Affecting the Infiltration of Treated Wastewater in the 

New Jersey Coastal Plain, with Emphasis on the 

Hammonton Land Application Facility
Cover. U.S. Geological Survey scientists prepare to collect soil cores using a direct push system adjacent to trench 2, 

Hammonton Land Application Facility, southern New Jersey.
Assessment of Physical, Chemical, and 

Hydrologic Factors Affecting the Infiltration 

of Treated Wastewater in the New Jersey 

Coastal Plain, with Emphasis on the 

Hammonton Land Application Facility

By Timothy J. Reilly, Kristin M. Romanok, Steven Tessler, and Jeffrey M. Fischer

Prepared in cooperation with the New Jersey Pinelands Commission 

and the Town of Hammonton, New Jersey

Scientific Investigations Report 2010–5006

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: 2010

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:

Reilly, T.J., Romanok, K.M., Tessler, S., and Fischer, J.M., 2010, Assessment of physical, chemical, and hydrologic 

factors affecting the infiltration of treated wastewater in the New Jersey Coastal Plain, with emphasis on the 

Hammonton Land Application Facility: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2010–5006, 59 p.
iii

Contents

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

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

Purpose and Scope ..............................................................................................................................2

Study Area..............................................................................................................................................2

Methods of Investigation..............................................................................................................................5

Sediment Collection and Analysis .....................................................................................................5

Geophysical Measurements...............................................................................................................5

Water-Quality Sampling.......................................................................................................................9

Quality Assurance.................................................................................................................................9

Water-Level and Flow Measurement..............................................................................................11

Analysis of Operational Data ............................................................................................................15

Determination of Altitude and Location ..........................................................................................16

Physical, Chemical, and Hydrologic Factors...........................................................................................16

Hydrogeologic Framework................................................................................................................16

Observation of Perched Water.........................................................................................................26

Water Quality.......................................................................................................................................26

Operation and Condition of Infiltration Trenches ..........................................................................34

Trench Wall Collapse and Infilling ...................................................................................................36

Comparisons to other Pinelands Land Application Facilities......................................................36

Summary and Conclusions.........................................................................................................................41

Acknowledgments.......................................................................................................................................42

References Cited..........................................................................................................................................42

Appendix 1. Field parameters, nutrients, major ions, and trace elements in samples collected 

at the Hammonton Waste Water Treatment Plant and Land Application Facility, 

southern New Jersey, December 2006–May 2007................................................................52

Appendix 2. Wastewater indicator compounds measured in samples collected at the 

Hammonton Waste Water Treatment Plant and Land Application Facility, southern 

New Jersey, December 2006–May 2007.................................................................................53

Appendix 3. Results of blind-sample analyses for selected parameters by the U.S. Geological 

Survey, Branch of Quality Systems, November 2006—June 2007. ....................................54

Appendix 4. Lithologic description of continuous sediment cores, Hammonton Land 

Application Facility (LAF), southern New Jersey ..................................................................55
iv

Figures

1–2. Map showing—

1. Locations of existing and proposed land application facilities within and 

near the Pinelands National Reserve, southern New Jersey......................................3

2. Surficial geology underlying existing and proposed land application facilities 

within and near the Pinelands National Reserve, southern New Jersey ..................4

3. Geologic section A–A’ showing surficial geology in the vicinity of the Hammonton

Land Application Facility in the Pinelands National Reserve, southern New Jersey.......5

4. Schematic diagram showing open-tube and closed-point soil sampler 

configurations ...............................................................................................................................6

5. Map showing locations of wells, lagoon and trench sampling sites, infiltration tests, 

continuous sediment cores, and Hydraulic Profile Tool testing at the Hammonton 

Land Application Facility, southern New Jersey.....................................................................7

6. Photograph showing water-quality sampling in trench 2, Hammonton Land 

Application Facility, southern New Jersey.............................................................................11

7. Geophysical logs of piezometer 6, Hammonton Land Application Facility, southern 

New Jersey..................................................................................................................................17

8. Map showing locations of wells, trenches, continuous sediment cores, Hydraulic 

Profiling Tool testing, and lines of section, Hammonton Land Application Facility, 

southern New Jersey.................................................................................................................19

9. Hydrogeologic cross sections (A) B–B’, (B) C–C’, (C) D–D’, (D) E–E’, and (E) F–F’,

Hammonton Land Application Facility, southern New Jersey............................................20

10. Geophysical logs of well Nest 11 MW C, Hammonton Land Application Facility,

southern New Jersey.................................................................................................................25

11. Map showing locations of wells used to determine the altitude of perched water, 

Hammonton Land Application Facility, southern New Jersey............................................27

12–18. Graphs showing—

12. Concentrations of selected ions in (A) 24-hour composite samples of treated

effluent collected at the Hammonton Waste Water Treatment Plant on 

December 2, 2006, and May 2, 2007; (B) samples of treated wastewater 

collected from the storage lagoons at the Hammonton Land Application 

Facility (LAF) on December 6, 2006, and May 3, 2007; and (C) samples of 

treated wastewater collected from trench 2 at the Hammonton LAF on 

December 5 and 7, 2006, and May 3, 2007, southern New Jersey ............................28

13. Concentrations of selected nutrients in (A) 24-hour composite samples of 

treated effluent collected at the Hammonton Waste Water Treatment Plant 

on December 2, 2006, and May 2, 2007; (B) samples of treated wastewater 

collected from the storage lagoons at the Hammonton Land Application 

Facility (LAF) on December 6, 2006, and May 3, 2007; and (C) samples of 

treated wastewater collected from trench 2 at the Hammonton LAF on 

December 5 and 7, 2006, and May 3, 2007, southern New Jersey ............................28

14. Concentrations of selected trace elements in (A) 24-hour composite samples of 

treated effluent collected at the Hammonton Waste Water Treatment Plant 

on December 2, 2006, and May 2, 2007; (B) samples of treated wastewater 

collected from the storage lagoons at the Hammonton Land Application Facility 

(LAF) on December 6, 2006, and May 3, 2007; and (C) samples of 

treated wastewater collected from trench 2 at the Hammonton LAF on 

December 5 and 7, 2006, and May 3, 2007, southern New Jersey ............................29
v

15. Relation between concentrations of sodium and chloride ions in samples of 

treated wastewater from selected locations within the Hammonton Waste 

Water Treatment Plant and Land Application Facility, southern New Jersey ........30

16. Relation between concentrations of boron and chloride ions in samples of 

treated wastewater from selected locations within the Hammonton Waste 

Water Treatment Plant and Land Application Facility, southern New Jersey ........30

17. Relation between concentrations of boron and nitrate plus nitrite ions in 

treated wastewater from selected locations within the Hammonton Waste 

Water Treatment Plant and Land Application Facility, southern New Jersey ........30

18. Relation between total concentration and number of wastewater indicator 

compounds detected in samples of treated wastewater from selected 

locations within the Hammonton Waste Water Treatment Plant and Land 

Application Facility, southern New Jersey....................................................................31

19. Map showng lines of section across trench 1 along which land-surface altitudes 

were measured, Hammonton Land Application Facility, southern New Jersey..............37

20. Vertical profiles across trench 1 showing land-surface altitudes along sections

(A) G–G’, (B) H–H’, (C) I–I’, and (D) J–J’, Hammonton Land Application Facility,

southern New Jersey.................................................................................................................38

21. Photograph showing erosional features of the southern wall of trench 1, 

Hammonton Land Application Facility, southern New Jersey............................................39

22. Graphs showing comparison of results of Hydraulic Profiling Tool tests conducted 

at selected existing and proposed land application facilities in southern 

New Jersey..................................................................................................................................40
vi

Tables

1. Selected well-construction information and date of natural gamma logging for 

monitoring wells and piezometers, Hammonton Land Application Facility, southern 

New Jersey....................................................................................................................................8

2. Analyses of samples collected from groundwater and treated wastewater from 

Hammonton Waste Water Treatment Plant and Land Application Facility, 

southern New Jersey, November 2006–May 2007................................................................10

3. Quality-assurance and associated environmental data for (A) major ions, nutrients, 

and trace elements in samples collected at the Hammonton Land Application 

Facility, southern New Jersey, November 2006–May 2007; and (B) wastewater 

indicator compounds in filtered samples collected at the Hammonton Land 

Application Facility, southern New Jersey, May 2007..........................................................12

4. Well-constuction information, water levels, and altitudes of wells and trenches 

used to determine altitude of perched water tables, Hammonton Land Application 

Facility, southern New Jersey ..................................................................................................26

5. Water-quality data collected, including field parameters, nutrients, major ions, 

and trace elements, at sites located at the Hammonton Waste Water Treatment 

Plant and Land Application Facility, southern New Jersey, 

November 2006–May 2007 ........................................................................................................46

6. Wastewater indicator compounds detected in samples collected at Hammonton 

Waste Water Treatment Plant and Land Application Facility, southern New Jersey, 

November 2006–May 2007 ........................................................................................................32

7. Occurence and concentrations of wastewater indicator compounds and their 

possible uses or sources, Hammonton Land Application Facility, southern 

New Jersey..................................................................................................................................33

8. Infiltration and loading rates observed in (A) trench 1, (B) trench 2, and (C) trench 3, 

Hammonton Land Application Facility, southern New Jersey, 2002–07............................34
vii

Conversion Factors and Datums

Multiply By To obtain

Length

inch (in.) 2.54 centimeter (cm)

foot (ft) 0.3048 meter (m)

mile (mi) 1.609 kilometer (km)

Area

acre 4,047 square meter (m2)

acre 0.004047 square kilometer (km2)

square foot (ft2) 0.09290 square meter (m2)

Volume

gallon (gal) 3.785 liter (L) 

million gallons (Mgal) 3,785 cubic meters (m3)

cubic foot (ft3) 0.02832 cubic meter (m3) 

Flow rate

inch per hour (in/h) 2.54 centimeter per hour (cm/h)

million gallons per day (Mgal/d) 3,785 cubic meters per day (m3/d)

ounce per minute 29.57 milliliter per minute (mL/min)

Vertical coordinate information is referenced to the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 

(NAVD 88).

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

Altitude, as used in this report, refers to distance above the vertical datum.

Specific conductance is given in microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius 

(μS/cm at 25°C).

Concentrations of chemical constituents in water are given in either milligrams per liter (mg/L) 

or micrograms per liter (μg/L).
viii
Assessment of Physical, Chemical, and Hydrologic 

Factors Affecting the Infiltration of Treated Wastewater 

in the New Jersey Coastal Plain, with Emphasis on the 

Hammonton Land Application Facility

By Timothy J. Reilly, Kristin M. Romanok, Steven Tessler, and Jeffrey M. Fischer

Introduction

The Pinelands National Reserve (PNR), created by the 

U.S. Congress in 1978, encompasses approximately 1.1 million acres of the New Jersey Coastal Plain. The PNR covers 

all or parts of 56 municipalities spread across seven counties, 

and contains unique plant and animal species. The New Jersey 

Pinelands Commission (Pinelands Commission) was created 

by the same Act to preserve, protect, and enhance the natural 

and cultural resources of the PNR, and to encourage compatible activities consistent with that purpose. The Pinelands Commission developed the Pinelands Comprehensive Management 

Plan (CMP) to guide the development of the PNR so that the 

area’s unique cultural and natural resources would be protected (New Jersey Pinelands Commission, 2007). The intent 

of the regulations is to preserve the quantity of the groundwater in the sole-source Kirkwood-Cohansey aquifer system, and 

the quality of the PNR’s surface water, which is naturally low 

in nutrients and supports unique biotic communities. The CMP 

prohibits sewage-treatment plants from discharging directly to 

any surface-water body. 

In 1991, the New Jersey Department of Environmental 

Protection (NJDEP) directed the Town of Hammonton to 

upgrade its sewage-treatment plant and cease stream discharge to meet Pinelands and New Jersey Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (NJPDES) requirements. In response to 

the NJDEP directive, Hammonton constructed a new tertiarytreatment plant and land application facility (LAF). The new 

treatment plant was brought online in late 2001 and flow to 

the LAF was to be phased in during 2001-04. In its second 

year of operation (2002), the LAF was found to be capable of 

infiltrating a maximum of 0.6 Mgal/d, far less than the design 

capacity of 1.6 Mgal/d. Review of the treatment-system design 

Abstract

A hydrogeologic and water-quality investigation of the 

Hammonton Land Application Facility (Hammonton LAF) 

in Hammonton, New Jersey, was conducted to determine the 

factors that impede the infiltration of treated wastewater and 

to assess the potential for similar conditions to exist elsewhere in the Coastal Plain of New Jersey (particularly within 

the Pinelands National Reserve). Gamma logs, sediment 

cores, and hydraulic-profile testing indicate that extensive 

fine-grained strata and iron-cemented sands underlying the 

Hammonton LAF may impede infiltration and lead to the 

perching of diluted treated wastewater. Perched water was 

observed in augured holes adjacent to infiltration trenches, 

and analysis of wastewater loading and infiltration data 

indicates that infiltration trenches may receive lateral flow 

from multiple perched-water sources. Analysis of waterquality properties characteristic of treated wastewater show 

that although infiltrated wastewater is reaching the underlying 

aquifer, lengthy holding times and a long recharge pathway 

greatly reduce the concentrations of nitrate, boron, and many 

organic compounds typical of wastewater. Conditions at two 

currently operating facilities and one potential future facility in the New Jersey Coastal Plain were compared to those 

at the Hammonton Land Application Facility (LAF). Facilities operating as designed are not underlain by the restrictive 

strata that exist at the Hammonton LAF. Careful characterization of the geology and hydrology of the unsaturated zone 

underlying infiltration structures of future facilities in the 

New Jersey Coastal Plain and similar hydrogeologic settings 

will help to avoid constructing infiltration structures over or 

within low-hydraulic-conductivity strata that will decrease 

infiltration rates.
2 Assessment of Factors Affecting the Infiltration of Treated Wastewater in the New Jersey Coastal Plain

and additional testing by the Town’s engineering consultants 

did not identify the reason, or reasons, the LAF was not meeting its design specifications (Edward Wengrowski, New Jersey 

Pinelands Commission, oral commun., 2006). Understanding 

the nature of the problem(s) associated with the Hammonton 

LAF is critical, as anticipated development in this and other 

Pinelands towns will require construction of additional infiltration facilities or use of alternate methods to treat and dispose 

of treated wastewater.

Purpose and Scope

This report describes the results of a study, conducted 

by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in cooperation with 

the Pinelands Commission and the Town of Hammonton, 

New Jersey, to identify reasons for reduced infiltration in the 

infiltration trenches at the Hammonton LAF and to assess the 

potential for similar conditions to exist elsewhere in the New 

Jersey Coastal Plain (particularly within the PNR). The report:

• Identifies specific conditions at the Hammonton LAF 

that inhibit infiltration. This objective includes an 

examination of sediment properties and changes in 

water quality at various points within the treatment and 

land application system that could provide evidence of 

the mechanism(s) responsible for reduced infiltration. 

• Based on the conditions determined above, describes 

possible methods that could improve the operational 

efficiency of the current and future sites.

• Assesses the prevalence of similar conditions within 

and near the Pinelands National Reserve that are likely 

to inhibit infiltration at other LAFs.

• Provides information on site-specific and regional 

hydrologic constraints on design and siting to optimize 

the operational efficiency of future LAFs in southern 

New Jersey.

Study Area

The focus of this study is the Hammonton LAF in 

northwestern Atlantic County, New Jersey, within the Pinelands National Reserve (fig. 1). The Hammonton Waste Water 

Treatment Plant (WWTP) is permitted to treat 1.6 Mgal/d 

of mixed residential, commercial, and industrial wastewater 

(ARH Associates, 1989). On average, the WWTP receives 

and treats approximately 1.0 Mgal/d of wastewater (Anthony 

DeCicco, Town of Hammonton, written commun., 2009). Primary treatment is accomplished by a headworks that pulverizes and removes solids, and an associated lift station (ARH 

Associates, 1989). Secondary treatment occurs in an activated 

sludge/oxidation ditch. Before discharge, WWTP effluent is 

passed through clarifiers and multi-media filters to separate 

solids, aerated to increase the oxygen content, and treated with 

ultraviolet (UV) light to reduce microbiological pathogens 

(especially fecal coliform bacteria) (ARH Associates, 1989). 

Approximately two-thirds of the daily WWTP effluent is discharged directly to Hammonton Creek and one-third is transferred through a buried pipeline to a lined storage lagoon at the 

Hammonton LAF. Treated wastewater is then transferred to 

one of five infiltration trenches for disposal (only trenches 1, 

2, and 3 were included in this study). Like the Hammonton 

LAF, municipal land application facilities for Sicklerville and 

Landis, and the site of the future Evesham township LAFs, 

which are also included in this study, are located in the New 

Jersey Coastal Plain. Unlike the Hammonton LAF, however, 

the Sicklerville and Landis LAFs are operating as designed. 

The investigation of the Sicklerville, Landis, and future Evesham Township sites was limited to brief site visits and the 

collection of direct-drive geophysical data.

The study area is in the Coastal Plain physiographic 

province. The Coastal Plain is a seaward-dipping wedge of 

unconsolidated sands and clays that range in age from Cretaceous to Holocene (Zapecza, 1989). Sediments that compose 

the unsaturated zone and the shallow aquifer underlying the 

Hammonton LAF are made up of the Miocene Bridgeton 

Formation and weathered Coastal Plain deposits (Newell and 

others, 2000) (figs. 2 and 3). The Bridgeton Formation is characterized by coarse, pebbly, orange sands and was deposited 

in the late Miocene Epoch in a former fluvial-plain environment (Zapecza, 1989; Newell and others, 2000). Erosion has 

dissected the Bridgeton Formation, which is present as the 

caps of hills in the Coastal Plain with a maximum thickness of 

about 40 ft (Newell and others, 2000). The clay-sized fraction 

of the Bridgeton Formation is characterized by gibbsite, goethite, hematite, and halloysite; the presence of such an assemblage is indicative of prolonged subaerial exposure (Owens 

and others, 1983). The maximum thickness of the Bridgeton 

Formation underlying the Hammonton LAF is about 25 ft 

(Newell and others, 2000). Newell and others (2000) describe 

weathered Coastal Plain deposits as exposures of weathered 

sands, silts, and clays overlain by thin alluvium and colluvium. 

The maximum thickness of the weathered Coastal Plain deposits underlying the Hammonton LAF is about 25 ft (Newell 

and others, 2000). The Hammonton LAF is characterized by 

generally flat topography, with altitudes ranging from 110 ft in 

the southern portion of the facility to 60 ft along Hammonton 

Creek (ARH Associates, 1993). Typical depth to water is about 

30 ft below land surface and groundwater flow is generally 

from south to north (ARH Associates, 1993).

Other land application facilities in southern New Jersey 

considered in this study are underlain by several different surficial geologic formations (fig. 2). The Landis LAF is underlain by the late Pleistocene Lower Terrace deposits, consisting 

of pebble gravel with minor silt and cobble gravel (Newell and 

others, 2000). This unit is as much as 30 ft thick and forms 

stream terraces with surfaces 5 to 20 ft above the modern 

floodplain (Newell and others, 2000). Like the Hammonton 

LAF, the Sicklerville LAF is underlain by the Bridgeton 

Formation, but much of the native sediment has been removed 

and replaced with clean quartz sand. 
Introduction 3

CAMDEN

ATLANTIC

GLOUCESTER

BURLINGTON

SALEM

CUMBERLAND

Landis

Hammonton

Sicklerville

Aero Haven

(proposed)

Buena Borough

(proposed)

Folsom

75° 74°45'

39°45'

39°30'

0 2 4 MILES

0 2 4 KILOMETERS

EXPLANATION

Pinelands National Reserve

County boundary

Land application facility

City

75° 74°

41°

40°

39°

Study area

Base from U.S. Geological Survey 1:100,000 digital files

Figure 1. Locations of existing and proposed land application facilities within and near the Pinelands National Reserve, 

southern New Jersey.
4 Assessment of Factors Affecting the Infiltration of Treated Wastewater in the New Jersey Coastal Plain

CAMDEN

ATLANTIC

GLOUCESTER

BURLINGTON

CUMBERLAND Landis

Hammonton

Sicklerville

Aero Haven

(proposed)

Buena Borough

(proposed)

Folsom

75° 74°45'

39°45'

39°30'

0 2 4 MILES

0 2 4 KILOMETERS

EXPLANATION

Bridgeton Formation

Pensauken Formation

Cape May Formation

Alluvium

Weathered Coastal Plain formations

Eolian deposits

Salt-marsh and estuarine deposits

Swamp and marsh deposits

Upland Gravel, lower phase

Upland Gravel

Lower Terrace deposits

Upper Terrace deposits

Water

County boundary

Line of section

Land application facility

City

A A’

A

A'

Base from U.S. Geological Survey 1:100,000 digital files Geology from Pristas, 2004

Figure 2. Surficial geology underlying existing and proposed land application facilities within and near the Pinelands National 

Reserve, southern New Jersey.
Methods of Investigation 5

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

A A’

Bridgeton Formation

Weathered Coastal Plain deposits

Upper Terrace deposits

Cohansey Formation

Approximate location of disconformity

Infiltration

site

Hammonton

Township Hammonton

Lake L a n d

s u r f a c e

Vertical scale greatly exaggerated

0 1,000 METERS

0 5,000 FEET

ALTITUDE, IN FEET

EXPLANATION

NAVD 88

Figure 3. Geologic section A–A’ showing surficial geology in the vicinity of the Hammonton Land Application Facility in the Pinelands 

National Reserve, southern New Jersey. (Line of section shown in fig. 2)

Aero Haven, the future Evesham Township LAF site, 

is underlain mostly by weathered Coastal Plain deposits 

(fig. 2). The southeastern and northern portions of the site are 

underlain by middle to late Pleistocene Upper Terrace deposits consisting of sand and pebble gravel with minor silt and 

cobble gravel (Newell and others, 2000). These deposits are 

as much as 20 ft thick and form terraces with surfaces 20 to 

50 ft above the modern floodplain (Newell and others, 2000). 

The western part of the site is underlain by late Pliocene to 

middle Pleistocene Upland Gravel deposits consisting of up 

to 20 ft of thick sand, clayey sand, and pebble gravel with 

some minor silt, which are erosional remnants capping lower 

uplands and interfluves (Newell and others, 2000). Underlying all of the surficial units in the study area is the Cohansey 

Formation, an unconsolidated, medium to coarse quartz sand 

with locally substantial clay beds, that were deposited in inner 

neritic to nearshore environments during a Miocene regression 

(Zapecza, 1989).

Methods of Investigation

The collection and analysis of sediment data, geophysical 

measurements, water-quality and associated quality-assurance 

data, water-level and flow data, and operational data, and the 

determination of altitudes and locations of wells and trenches 

at the Hammonton LAF are described below.

Sediment Collection and Analysis

Sediment samples were collected to determine the types 

and textures of geologic materials in the subsurface at the site. 

Sites were selected to provide areal coverage of the study area. 

The cores were collected immediately adjacent to the location where hydrologic profiling (described in the next section) and drive-point water-quality sampling were conducted. 

Continuous cores were collected using a Geoprobe® direct 

push system (Geoprobe) and a Macro-Core® Soil Sampler 

(Macro-Core). The Macro-Core consists of a 52-in.-long, 

2.2-in.-diameter solid barrel device that can be operated in 

open-tube or closed-point configuration (fig. 4) (Geoprobe 

Systems, 1998). Coring began at the land surface by driving a 

Macro-Core in the open-tube configuration 4 ft into the subsurface and retrieving it with the Geoprobe. Subsequent cores 

were collected with the sampler in the closed-point configuration. In the closed-point configuration, a piston rod and stop 

pin hold a point into the cutting shoe, preventing collection 

of sediment that sloughs into the open hole from the wall of 

the boring. The sealed Macro-Core is driven to the top of the 

sampling interval, the stop pin and piston rod are removed, 

and the assembly is advanced to the bottom of the sampling 

interval with the Geoprobe (Geoprobe Systems, 1998). The 

point is later retrieved from the sampler with the liner and soil 

core (Geoprobe Systems, 1998). The cores are contained in 

1.5-in.-diameter by 48-in.-long acrylic core liners and were 

obtained by driving the Macro-Core through sediment with 

the Geoprobe. By repeating this process, continuous cores are 

collected to the desired depth. The only gap in coring occurs 

when the recovered core is less than 48 in. long. This can 

occur when sediment is lost by falling through the cutting shoe 

into the open hole, if the core barrel is blocked (preventing the 

collection of core), or by compression of the sample. All losses 

of sediment are assumed to be from the bottom of the core 

(commonly referred to as “top justified”). Liners were capped 

immediately after core retrieval and stored in wax-impregnated boxes. The liners were opened in the laboratory with a 

specialized cutter to describe and sample the sediment cores.

Geophysical Measurements

Natural gamma-ray emissions and the hydraulic performance of the sediments were measured to supplement 

geologic data acquired through the collection and analysis of 
6 Assessment of Factors Affecting the Infiltration of Treated Wastewater in the New Jersey Coastal Plain

31 cased boreholes or wells (fig. 5). A probe, which measures 

the rate of gamma-ray emission, is lowered into the borehole 

using a winch equipped with communication cables linking 

the probe to a surface computer. The computer controls the 

winch, triggers the probe, and records the resulting gammaemission rate. The well casing absorbs a constant portion of 

the radiation emitted by the formation it penetrates, and the 

probe measures the amount of natural radiation within the well 

(Fetter, 1994). This measurement technique works equally 

well above and below the water table and is not sensitive to 

the composition of the water in the well (Zapecza, 1989). 

Interpretation of this measurement exploits the higher concentrations of radioactive materials found in fine-grained strata. 

Feldspars and micas, which are the parent materials of the silts 

and clays in the region, contain small portions of the gammaemitting radioisotope potassium-40 (Keys and McCary, 1971). 

Therefore, high gamma-emission rates are attributed to low 

permeability, clay- and silt-rich strata, whereas low emission 

rates characterize high-permeability, sand-dominated strata. 

The use of gamma logging to detect low-permeability strata is 

limited in that low permeability can be caused by factors other 

than the presence of clay- and silt-rich strata (for example, 

iron-cemented sands or compressed sediments), and the 

gamma detector averages sediment properties within a sphere 

approximately 1 ft in diameter. Therefore, this method may 

fail to identify some thin low-permeability layers or those that 

do not contain minerals that emit gamma radiation. 

Gamma logs were collected at the Hammonton LAF from 

May 2006 to January 2007 with a Mount Sopris MGXII logger 

and a 2 PGA-100 tool (table 1). Natural gamma-ray emissions 

were measured every 0.164 ft. Logs were collected in the up 

and down directions. Depths of up and down logs were compared for quality assurance; logs with differences in depths of 

more than 2 percent were repeated.

Hydraulic testing was conducted at three sites (fig. 5) 

with a Hydraulic Profiling Tool (HPT) system manufactured 

by Geoprobe Systems (Salina, Kansas). As the HPT is driven 

into unconsolidated sediments by direct-drive at 0.79 in/min, 

clean water is pumped through a screen on the side of the HPT 

probe at about 250 mL/min and the resulting injection pressure 

is recorded. Relative hydraulic properties are determined by 

evaluation of injection pressure and flow rate; a formation 

with lower hydraulic conductivity would have a higher pressure response and a lower flow response than a more hydraulically conductive formation. The HPT system also measures 

soil electrical conductivity with an integrated Wenner array. 

High electrical conductivities are generally associated with 

fine-grained formations, although they can also be influenced 

by the chemistry of pore fluids (high ionic strengths, contaminants) and the mineralogy of the sediments. The electrical conductivity and pressure response of the system are calibrated 

and tested before and after each log. Additional operational 

and technical specifications for the HPT are detailed in the 

standard operating procedure (Geoprobe Systems, 2007).

Figure 4. Open-tube and closed-point soil sampler 

configurations. (MC, Macro Core®)

Open-tube

system

Closed-point

system

MC piston rod 

point assembly

MC piston rod

MC stop-pin

coupler

MC stop-pin

assembly

MC drive head

MC sample tube

MC liner (inside)

MC spacer ring

MC cutting shoe

continuous sediment cores. The data were used to construct a 

hydrogeologic framework for the site and to provide a means 

for comparing the hydraulic properties of sediments underlying the Hammonton LAF to those at other locations within 

the Pinelands. Natural gamma-ray logging was conducted on 
Methods of Investigation 7

Figure 5. Locations of wells, lagoon and trench sampling sites, infiltration tests, continuous sediment cores, and Hydraulic Profile Tool 

(HPT) testing at the Hammonton Land Application Facility, southern New Jersey.

74°46' 74°45'40"

39°37'20"

39°37'

PZ 6 NEST 11

PZ 9

PZ 8

PZ 7

PZ 5

PZ 4

PZ 3

PZ 2

PZ 1

MW 9

MW 8

MW 7

MW 6

MW 5

MW 4

MW 3

SPW 1

PW 12

MW 47

MW 35

MW 34

MW 33

OLDPUMPW

NEST 8

NEST 7

NEST 5

NEST 3

NEST 2

NEST 1

NEST 12

NEST 10

CORE 03

CORE 02

CORE 01

6

5

4

2

3

2

1 Trench 2

Lagoon 1

Lagoon 2

Lagoon 3

0 250 500 750 1,000 FEET

0 100 200 300 METERS

Trench 1

Trench 2

Trench 3

Trench 4

Trench 5

Storage

lagoon

Lagoon 1 Lagoon or trench water-quality

sampling location and identifier

3 Pre-construction infiltration-test 

location and identifier

EXPLANATION

Location of continuous sediment

core and identifier

HPT testing location and identifier

Location of natural gamma logged

well and identifier

PZ 3

CORE 01

NEST 11

Orthophoto from New Jersey Office of Information Technology,

Office of Geographic Information Systems, 2008
8 Assessment of Factors Affecting the Infiltration of Treated Wastewater in the New Jersey Coastal Plain

Table 1. Selected well-construction information and date of natural gamma logging for monitoring wells and piezometers, 

Hammonton Land Application Facility, southern New Jersey.

[--, gamma log not obtained; NAVD 88, North American Vertical Datum of 1988]

Local well name Longitude Latitude Altitude

(feet above NAVD 88)

Total depth

(feet)

Screen length

(feet)

Date of 

gamma log 

DP 01 -74.454 39.373 91.00 36.85 2 --

DP 02 -74.455 39.372 85.00 33.83 2 --

DP 03 -74.454 39.372 90.00 35.07 2 --

MW 3 -74.768 39.623 92.65 47.38 10 7/19/2006

MW 4 -74.766 39.623 77.65 27.50 10 5/31/2006

MW 5 -74.764 39.624 72.30 27.17 10 7/20/2006

MW 6 -74.761 39.624 96.38 47.38 10 5/31/2006

MW 7 -74.759 39.623 97.90 57.30 10 7/10/2006

MW 8 -74.757 39.623 85.98 46.97 10 7/10/2006

MW 9 -74.760 39.619 102.29 41.61 10 7/13/2006

MW 33 -74.770 39.621 86.40 25.42 10 7/19/2006

MW 34 -74.767 39.623 91.28 28.19 10 7/20/2006

MW 35 -74.766 39.624 80.77 22.68 10 7/20/2006

MW 47 -74.758 39.621 82.54 24.29 10 7/13/2006

NEST 1 MW C -74.763 39.620 105.28 28.68 1 7/11/2006

NEST 2 MW C -74.763 39.620 101.57 23.62 1 7/11/2006

NEST 3 MW C -74.763 39.621 106.96 29.56 1 7/11/2006

NEST 5 MW C -74.763 39.621 106.30 28.43 1 7/11/2006

NEST 7 MW C -74.765 39.621 105.35 27.61 1 7/11/2006

NEST 8 MW C -74.761 39.618 105.61 26.96 1 7/11/2006

NEST 10 MW C -74.764 39.618 103.77 15.93 1 7/19/2006

NEST 11 MW A -74.454 39.372 103.73 11.22 1 --

NEST 11 MW B -74.761 39.622 103.87 18.18 1 --

NEST 11 MW C -74.761 39.622 104.13 21.60 1 1/11/2007

NEST 12 MW C -74.762 39.620 101.68 23.23 1 1/11/2007

OLDPUMPW -74.764 39.620 108.77 92.02 unknown 7/19/2006

PW 12 -74.766 39.622 81.78 75.36 5 7/19/2006

PZ 1 -74.768 39.619 100.06 57.44 25 7/19/2006

PZ 2 -74.765 39.619 106.02 53.89 25 7/13/2006

PZ 3 -74.764 39.617 106.34 57.28 25 7/13/2006

PZ 4 -74.763 39.621 104.22 55.61 unknown 7/21/2006

PZ 5 -74.761 39.619 102.00 57.00 unknown 7/13/2006

PZ 6 -74.762 39.622 106.31 59.35 20 7/11/2006

PZ 7 -74.762 39.620 96.74 50.22 25 7/11/2006

PZ 8 -74.760 39.622 101.14 57.78 25 7/10/2006

PZ 9 -74.764 39.624 73.10 24.14 25 5/31/2006
Methods of Investigation 9

Water-Quality Sampling

Water-quality samples were collected to evaluate the 

potential role of dissolved constituents in physical or chemical 

processes that could impede infiltration. A secondary purpose 

was to identify tracers that could be used to differentiate infiltrated and natural water in the subsurface. Samples of treated 

effluent and groundwater were collected from November 2006 

to May 2007 (table 2). (A complete list of analytes and method 

reporting limits (MRLs) is provided in appendixes 1 and 2). 

Samples collected from the Hammonton WWTP were composited over a 24-hour period to account for variations over 

time. Samples from the lagoons and trenches were composited 

spatially and with depth to account for possible layering or 

other differences.

Effluent samples collected from the Hammonton WWTP 

were collected using a composite sampler over a 24-hour 

period. The sampler was located downstream from the UVtreatment station and immediately prior to either discharge to 

the stream or pumping to the land application site. One grab 

sample of both pre- and post-UV-treated effluent was collected 

for analysis for wastewater indicator compounds to determine 

whether UV was effective at removing these compounds. All 

other chemical analyses of effluent were conducted on composite samples (table 2).

Within the storage lagoon, samples of treated effluent 

were collected from three locations on December 6, 2006, and 

May 3, 2007 (fig. 5). During both sampling events, a multiparameter water-quality meter was used to determine changes 

in pH, temperature, specific conductance (SC), and dissolvedoxygen content (DO) with depth. Field staff noted that the 

lagoon was well mixed, as pH, temperature, SC, and DO did 

not vary with depth or, in the case of the December 6, 2006, 

sampling event, between sampling locations. Vertical composite samples were collected at each location using a weighted 

bottle sampler and were composited in an acid-washed, 

methanol-rinsed Teflon churn. 

Samples of treated effluent were collected from trench 2 

on December 5–7, 2006, and on May 3, 2007, using a tethered 

boat (figs. 5 and 6). Vertical composite samples were collected 

from the center of the trench at seven equally spaced locations 

using a weighted bottle sampler and were composited in an 

acid-washed, methanol-rinsed Teflon churn. On the morning 

of December 5, 2006, trench 2 had just been filled to capacity (approximately 6 ft of treated wastewater). Trench 2 was 

sampled again on the morning of December 7, 2006, to determine whether sediment entrainment and agitation had affected 

water quality. 

Groundwater samples were collected from selected 

monitoring wells, piezometers, and drive points. Locations of 

sampled wells are shown in figure 5 and construction information is given in table 1. Wells MW 5 and MW 8 were selected 

for sampling as they are located on the perimeter of the facility 

downgradient from the infiltration trenches. Wells PZ 4, PZ 5, 

and PZ 6 were selected for sampling because of their proximity to trenches 1 to 3; however, the screened interval for 

PZ 6 is 20 ft long and the screen length for PZ 4 and PZ 5 is 

unknown. (Based on the construction of other piezometers, the 

screen lengths are likely 20 or 25 ft.) To obtain water samples 

from immediately below the water table immediately adjacent to the trenches, temporary drive-point (DP) wells DP-1, 

DP-2, and DP-3 were constructed using a Geoprobe® SP-15 

groundwater sampling system. The screened opening was 

set as near to the water table as possible. After sampling was 

completed, the temporary wells were removed and sealed with 

grout. Temporary well DP-1 was located on the downgradient side of trench 2, whereas temporary wells DP-2 and DP-3 

were colocated with PZ 4 and PZ 6, respectively. Well Nest 

11 MW A was selected as it was the only well at the facility 

that clearly contained perched water. Wells were pumped with 

either peristaltic or submersible pumps with acid-washed, 

methanol-rinsed tubing. Temporary wells were sampled using 

1⁄4-in. acid-washed, methanol-rinsed Teflon tubing and check 

valves and pumped using a tubing check valve. At least three 

casing volumes of water were removed from wells prior to 

sampling, and field-measured properties (pH, SC, temperature, 

and turbidity) were monitored before sampling to ensure stable 

values prior to collecting water-quality samples (Wilde and 

Radtke, 1998). Surging caused by sampling with check valves 

can increase the DO in the samples; therefore, DO was neither 

used as part of the stability criteria nor included in subsequent 

water-quality analyses. Well Nest 11 MW A is a piezometer 

adjacent to trench 3 that was installed by Pennoni Associates 

as part of a network of 12 piezometer nests to detect lateral 

flow between the trenches (Seth Gladstone, Pennoni Associates, oral commun., 2008).

Treated effluent and groundwater samples were analyzed 

for major ions, trace elements, nutrients, total suspended 

sediment (residue), total and dissolved organic carbon, and, in 

selected samples, wastewater indicator compounds (examples 

of which include selected fragrances, surfactants, flame 

retardants, plasticizers, and sterols) at the USGS National 

Water Quality Laboratory, Denver, Colorado (NWQL) (app. 1 

and 2). Table 2 lists the NWQL analytical schedules (groups of 

laboratory codes to be measured) performed on samples from 

each location at the facility. Constituent concentrations that are 

less than the MRL are reported as estimates. Concentrations 

less than the MRL are considered detections because peaks on 

the chromatograph can be reliably measured; however, they 

are estimated because they either are beyond the calibration 

range, or cannot be reliably measured because of other analytical limitations (Childress and others, 1999).

Quality Assurance

Quality assurance included collection of two sequential 

replicate groundwater samples and three equipment blank 

samples (two from the equipment used to sample treated 
10 Assessment of Factors Affecting the Infiltration of Treated Wastewater in the New Jersey Coastal Plain Table 2. Analyses of samples collected from groundwater and treated wastewater from Hammonton Waste Water Treatment Plant and Land Application Facility, southern New Jersey, November 2006–May 2007. [WWTP, wastewater treatment plant; UV, ultraviolet; DOC, dissolved organic carbon; SOC, suspended organic carbon; T/D HG, total/dissolved mercury; WWT IND, wastewater treatment indicators; X, sampled for selected parameter(s); NS, not sampled for selected parameter(s); *, sample bottle for total Hg analysis not received; (d), dissolved only; lab code (LC), a number that designates a compound and (or) constituent; schedule, a grouping of lab codes to be measured] Station identifier Station name Station type Date sampled Schedule 1 major ions Schedule 344 trace elements Schedule 91 nutrients LC 169 sediment LC 2613 DOC LC 114 SOC LC 2708 T/D HG Schedule 4433 WWT IND Groundwater 393725074454001 Hammonton WWTP DP01 Shallow groundwater 12/8/2006

X

X

X

X

X

X X/X NS

393715074454802 Hammonton WWTP DP02 Shallow groundwater 5/1/2007

X

X

X

X

X

X X/X

X

393721074454302 Hammonton WWTP DP03 Shallow groundwater 5/2/2007

X

X

X

X

X

X X/X

X

393715074454801 Hammonton WWTP PZ04 Monitoring well 11/30/2006

X

X

X

X

X

X X(d) NS

393709074454101 Hammonton WWTP PZ05 Monitoring well 12/4/2006

X

X

X

X

X

X X(d) NS

393721074454301 Hammonton WWTP PZ06 Monitoring well 11/30/2006

X

X

X

X

X

X X(d) NS

393728074455101 Hammonton WWTP MW05 Monitoring well 11/29/2006

X

X

X

X

X

X X/X NS

393728074455101 Hammonton WWTP MW05 Monitoring well 5/1/2007

X

X

X

X

X

X X(d)

X

393721074452401 Hammonton WWTP MW08 Monitoring well 12/4/2006

X

X

X

X

X

X X(d) NS

393721074452401 Hammonton WWTP MW08 Monitoring well 5/2/2007

X

X

X

X

X

X X(d)

X

393720074454401 Hammonton WWTP Nest11/Well A Perched water 4/30/2007

X

X

X

X

X

X X/X

X

Treated wastewater

393759074460301 Hammonton WWTP Effluent Effluent 12/2/2006

X

X

X

X

X

X

X NS

393759074460301 Hammonton WWTP Effluent Effluent 12/5/2006 NS NS NS

X NS NS NS NS

393759074460301 Hammonton WWTP Effluent Effluent 4/30/2007 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS

X

393759074460301 Hammonton WWTP Effluent Effluent 5/2/2007

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

393759074460302 Hammonton WWTP Effluent Pre-UV Pre-UV effluent 4/30/2007 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS

X

393715074453701 Hammonton WWTP Storage Lagoon A Lagoon 12/6/2006

X

X

X

X

X

X X(d)* NS

393719074453301 Hammonton WWTP Storage Lagoon B Lagoon 12/6/2006

X

X

X

X

X

X X(d)* NS

393719074453301 Hammonton WWTP Storage Lagoon B Lagoon 5/3/2007

X

X

X

X

X

X X/X

X

393718074453301 Hammonton WWTP Storage Lagoon C Lagoon 12/6/2006

X

X

X

X

X

X X(d)* NS

393721074454501 Hammonton WWTP Trench 2 Trench 12/5/2006

X

X

X

X

X

X

X NS

393721074454501 Hammonton WWTP Trench 2 Trench 12/7/2006

X

X

X

X

X

X

X NS

393721074454501 Hammonton WWTP Trench 2 Trench 5/3/2007

X

X

X

X

X

X X/X

X

Quality assurance/quality control

393721074454301 Hammonton WWTP PZ06 Blank 11/30/2006

X

X

X

X

X

X

X NS

393721074454501 Hammonton WWTP Trench 2 Blank 12/7/2006

X

X NS NS NS NS NS NS

393721074454501 Hammonton WWTP Trench 2 Blank 12/7/2006 NS NS

X NS

X

X NS NS

393721074454501 Hammonton WWTP Trench 2 Blank 5/3/2007

X

X NS

X NS NS X/X

X

393721074454501 Hammonton WWTP Trench 2 Blank 5/3/2007 NS NS

X NS

X

X NS

X

393728074455101 Hammonton WWTP MW05 Replicate 11/29/2006

X

X

X

X

X

X

X NS

393728074455101 Hammonton WWTP MW05 Replicate 5/1/2007

X

X

X

X

X

X /X 

X
Methods of Investigation 11

Figure 6. Water-quality sampling in trench 2, Hammonton Land Application Facility, southern New Jersey.

effluent in the trenches and one from the monitoring wells) 

(tables 2 and 3a). Comparisons of analysis results for majorion, trace-element, nutrient, and organic-carbon blank and 

replicate samples were satisfactory (± 25 percent) with the 

exception of iron replicate analyses. Laboratory verification 

of the analyses in question was requested and the results were 

confirmed. The cause of the difference between the analyses of the sequential replicate samples for iron is unknown. 

Results of analyses of all samples for iron are reported but 

were not relied upon for interpretation of water-quality results. 

Comparisons of the analysis results for waste-indicatorcompound field blank and replicate samples were satisfactory, 

as there were no detections in the field blank or the paired 

environmental and replicate analyses (table 3b). Precision of 

selected analyses was calculated based on the results of analyses of blind samples by the USGS Branch of Quality Systems 

as part of its inorganic and organic blind sample programs 

(app. 3).

Water-Level and Flow Measurement

The operational data from the Hammonton LAF were 

stored as a single Excel file for each day for which data were 

available. This resulted in 1,560 files for April 2002 to September 2007. Files were arranged in monthly folders nested 

within annual folders. Each Excel file was named for the date 
12 Assessment of Factors Affecting the Infiltration of Treated Wastewater in the New Jersey Coastal Plain Table 3. Quality-assurance and associated environmental data for (A) major ions (in millligrams per liter), nutrients (in milligrams per liter), and trace elements (in micrograms per liter) in samples collected at the Hammonton Land Application Facility, southern New Jersey, November 2006–May 2007; and (B) wastewater indicator compounds in filtered samples collected at the Hammonton Land Application Facility, southern New Jersey, May 2007. [WWTP, wastewater treatment plant; PZ, piezometer; MW, monitoring well; E, estimated; NA, not analyzed; <, less than; --, not reported; samples analyzed for constituents were filtered, unless otherwise noted]

A Constituents

Hammonton WWTP

PZ 6

November 30, 2006

Hammonton WWTP

MW 5

November 29, 2006

Hammonton WWTP

MW 5

May 1, 2007

Hammonton WWTP

Trench 2

December 7, 2006

Hammonton WWTP

Trench 2

May 3, 2007

Field blank Environmental Replicate Environmental Replicate Environmental Field blank Environmental Field blank Environmental

Calcium <0.02 0.468 1.48 1.5 1.47 1.67 <0.02 1.6 <0.02 7.27Magnesium <.014 1.38 .74 .741 .739 .758 <.014 2.53 <.014 1.86Potassium <.04 .976 .364 .377 .345 .413 <.04 8.59 <.04 7.92Sodium <.20 15.07 2.17 2.29 2.23 2.09 <.20 39 <.20 37.5Chloride <.12 24.4 2.86 3.28 2.83 3.26 <.12 44.7 <.12 42.5Fluoride <.10 <.10 <.10 <.10 <.10 <.10 <.10 .201 <.10 .184Silica <.20 5.3 4.26 4.21 3.52 3.59 <.20 4.66 <.20 .715Sulfate <.18 .415 7.66 7.58 7.62 8.2 <.18 21.9 <.18 14.2Residue <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 NA <10 <10 20Ammonia plus organic nitrogen1 <.10 E.051 <.10 <.10 E.051 E.054 <.10 1.36 <.10 1.09Ammonia, as nitrogen <.02 <.02 <.02 <.02 <.02 <.02 <.02 E.0123 E.0145 <.02Nitrite plus nitrate, as nitrogen <.060 2.26 E.041 E.037 .077 .081 <.060 <.060 <.060 <.060Nitrite,as nitrogen <.002 <.002 <.002 <.002 <.002 <.002 <.002 <.002 <.002 <.002Orthophosphate <.006 <.006 <.006 <.006 <.006 <.006 <.006 .24 <.006 .209Phosphorus <.04 <.04 <.04 <.04 <.04 <.04 <.04 .28 <.04 .272Phosphorus1 <.040 <.040 <.040 <.040 <.040 <.040 <.040 .434 <.040 .412Organic carbon E.252 .435 .759 .782 .865 .807 E.264 5.32 -- 1.7Organic carbon1 <.40 E.227 .548 .543 .921 .868 E.220 1.6 <.40 14.1Aluminum <1.6 329 290 307 365 317 <1.6 2.8 <1.6 131Arsenic <.12 .14 .29 .34 .33 .31 <.12 .99 <.12 1.07Boron <1.8 12.8 14.1 13.9 12 11.6 <1.8 154 <1.8 160Cadmium <.04 <.04 .13 .14 .12 .12 <.04 .1 <.04 .07Chromium <.12 .19 .2 .18 .21 .23 <.12 E.11 <.12 .26Copper <.4 .66 E.25 E.27 E.35 E.31 <.4 8.58 <.4 4.49Iron <6 E3.99 E5.27 E3.78 1,370 E3.12 <6 16.8 <6 153Lead <.12 .24 <.12 <.12 E.09 E.09 <.12 .79 <.12 .38Manganese <.2 4.55 62.9 61.2 7.2 78.3 <.2 .364 <.2 3.59Mercury <.010 .041 .016 .019 <.010 E.006 <.010 <.010 E.006 <.010Mercury1 <.010 NA .014 .018 NA NA NA E.007 <.010 E.008Molybdenum <.12 <.12 <.12 <.12 <.12 E.06 <.12 1.1 <.12 .51Nickel 9.2 1.12 1.3 1.22 1.34 1.31 <.06 .89 <.06 .85Zinc <6 <6 7.71 6.73 8 6.88 <6 65.3 <6 29.1

1Unfiltered
Methods of Investigation 13

Table 3. Quality-assurance and associated environmental data for (A) major ions (in millligrams per liter), nutrients (in 

milligrams per liter), and trace elements (in micrograms per liter) in samples collected at the Hammonton Land Application 

Facility, southern New Jersey, November 2006–May 2007; and (B) wastewater indicator compounds in filtered samples 

collected at the Hammonton Land Application Facility, southern New Jersey, May 2007.—Continued

[WWTP, wastewater treatment plant; MW, monitoring well; E, estimated; <, less than]

B Compound

Hammonton WWTP Trench 2

May 3, 2007

Hammonton WWTP MW 5

May 1, 2007

Environmental Field blank Environmental Replicate

1-Methylnaphthalene <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2

2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2

2-Methylnaphthalene <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2

3,4-Dichlorophenyl isocyanate <2 <2 <2 <2

3-beta-Coprostanol <.8 <.8 <.8 <.8

3-Methyl-1H-indole (skatol) <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2

3-tert-Butyl-4-hydroxyanisole <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2

4-Cumylphenol <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2

4-n-Octylphenol <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2

4-Nonylphenol <1.6 <1.6 <1.6 <1.6

4-tert-Octylphenol <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2

5-Methyl-1H-benzotriazole <1.6 <1.6 <1.6 <1.6

Acetophenone <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2

AHTN1 <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2

Anthracene <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2

9,10-Anthraquinone <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2

Atrazine <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2

BDE congener 47 <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2

Benzo[a]pyrene <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2

Benzophenone <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2

beta-Sitosterol E.920 <.8 <1.6 <1.6

beta-Stigmastanol <.8 <.8 <.8 <.8

Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate <2 <2 <2 <2

Bisphenol A <.4 <.4 <.4 <.4

Bromacil <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2

Caffeine <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2

Camphor <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2

Carbaryl <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2

Carbazole <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2

Chlorpyrifos <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2

Cholesterol E2.78 <.8 <.8 <.8

Cotinine <.8 <.8 <.8 <.8

DEET <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2

Diazinon <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2

Dichlorvos <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2
14 Assessment of Factors Affecting the Infiltration of Treated Wastewater in the New Jersey Coastal Plain

Table 3. Quality-assurance and associated environmental data for (A) major ions (in millligrams per liter), nutrients (in 

milligrams per liter), and trace elements (in micrograms per liter) in samples collected at the Hammonton Land Application 

Facility, southern New Jersey, November 2006–May 2007; and (B) wastewater indicator compounds in filtered samples 

collected at the Hammonton Land Application Facility, southern New Jersey, May 2007.—Continued

[WWTP, wastewater treatment plant; MW, monitoring well; E, estimated; <, less than]

B Compound

Hammonton WWTP Trench 2

May 3, 2007

Hammonton WWTP MW 5

May 1, 2007

Environmental Field blank Environmental Replicate

Diethoxynonylphenol (all isomers) (Total NPEO2) <3.2 <3.2 <3.2 <3.2

Diethoxyoctylphenol (OPEO2) <.32 <.32 <.32 <.32

Diethyl phthalate (Total NPEO2) .261 <.2 <.2 <.2

D-Limonene (OPEO2) <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2

Ethoxynonylphenol (all isomers) (NPEO1) <2 <2 <2 <2

Ethoxyoctylphenol (OPEO1) <1 <1 <1 <1

Fluoranthene <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2

HHCB3 <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2

Indole <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2

Isoborneol <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2

Isophorone <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2

Isoquinoline <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2

Menthol <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2

Metalaxyl <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2

Methyl salicylate <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2

Metolachlor <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2

p-Cresol <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2

Pentachlorophenol <.8 <.8 <.8 <.8

Phenanthrene <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2

Phenol <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2

Prometon <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2

Pyrene <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2

Tributyl phosphate <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2

Triclosan <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2

Triethyl citrate <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2

Triphenyl phosphate <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2

Tris(2-butoxyethyl) phosphate <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2

Tris(2-chloroethyl) phosphate E.120 <.2 <.2 <.2

Tris(dichloroisopropyl) phosphate <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2

1,4-Dichlorobenzene <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2

Isopropylbenzene <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2

Naphthalene <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2

Tetrachloroethene <.4 <.4 <.4 <.4

Tribromomethane <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2

1

7-Acetyl-1,1,3,4,4,6-hexamethyl tetra hydro naphthalene

2

N,N-Diethyl toluamide

3

1,3,4,6,7,8-Hexahydro 4,6,6,7,8,8-hexamethyl cyclopenta-4-2-benzopyran
Methods of Investigation 15

of the 24-hour data period, and each file had a single worksheet with a cell containing a date-formula and two hourly 

data grids arranged in different ways. The data grids contained 

the 24 hourly values for pumping into individual trenches 

from the lagoon and the water levels in the lagoon and 

trenches. An application was written in Microsoft (MS) Access 

to process the files whereby the user selects a starting folder 

and the program parses through the subfolders to gather the 

names of the daily Excel files, and then, one by one, extracts 

the data from each file into a single table within a MS Access 

database. Data-quality issues were identified and resolved with 

the staff of the Hammonton WWTP; these included bad dates 

in the filename or on the worksheet, duplicate data, incomplete 

hourly records, and data gaps (missing days).

The data were processed into two tables. One was structured such that each row represented a single hour and each 

of the five pumping and six water-level values were arranged 

in side-by-side fields. In the second structure, the data were 

arranged with a single value for each row—either (1) a lagoon 

or trench water-level value or (2) a lagoon-to-trench pumping 

value. After the hourly data were loaded, additional processing 

was conducted to calculate the difference in water levels from 

the previous hourly values and tag a record if it appeared to 

be at the start or end of an “infiltration episode” (that period 

of time when a trench is receiving no water from the lagoon). 

The entire procedure for gathering and arranging the Excel 

data into the Access tables was implemented through a single 

form in MS Access to do the processing automatically and 

with minimal user interaction.

Analysis of Operational Data

Hammonton LAF operational records for April 2002 

to September 2007 were compiled and analyzed to estimate 

infiltration rates and determine whether they had changed 

over time. Gage height (inches above the trench floor) in the 

trenches and the storage lagoon and the flow rate (gallons per 

minute) of water transferred from the storage lagoon to the 

various trenches are recorded hourly by an automated system. 

To verify that operational records were complete, the total volume recorded in 1,560 days of operation was compared to the 

volume of treated wastewater known to have been transferred 

to Hammonton LAF. The summed hourly flow data account 

for 99.2 percent of the reported flow; therefore, we are confident that the flow records are complete and confirm that the 

primary source of water loss on the facility is infiltration from 

the trenches. If evaporation or leakage (either from the lagoon 

or from within the plumbing) was significant, the difference 

between reported discharge from the WWTP to the storage 

lagoon and transfer from the storage lagoon to the trenches 

would be greater.

Operational records and estimated trench dimensions 

were used to calculate infiltration rates for trenches 1 to 3. 

Infiltration events were identified by examining operational 

records for loading events (the filling of a trench) followed by 

a period of declining stage in the trench. Events with missing 

records that would affect the calculated infiltration rate are 

not included in this analysis. Trench shapes were assumed to 

be equilateral trapezoids and their respective volumes were 

estimated by multiplying the average width by the length. The 

volume of treated wastewater transferred into the trenches 

is known; volumes were also calculated by multiplying the 

recorded stage by the estimated trench areas. Infiltration rates 

were calculated for two distinct portions of an event: during 

trench filling (initial infiltration rate) and after filling was complete (resting infiltration rate). When trenches are filling, the 

volume of treated wastewater entering each trench is known 

(based on highly accurate hourly pumping records). The initial 

infiltration volume (Vi , cubic feet) is 

Vi = Vp – (h2 A2 – h1 A1),

where Vp is the volume of treated wastewater pumped 

during the loading cycle (cubic feet); h1 and h2 are the gage 

heights observed prior to and at the end of the filling of the 

trench, respectively; and A1 and A2 are the wetted cross-sectional area of the trench prior to and at the end of the filling of 

the trench, respectively. The wetted cross-sectional areas (A, 

square feet) are calculated as follows:

A = L(b + 3h),

where L is the length of the trench (feet), b is the width 

of the base of the trench (feet), and h is the gage height in the 

trench (feet). In this calculation, it is assumed that the trench 

is an equilateral trapezoid with a 3:1 sidewall slope and that 

infiltration occurs through the walls and floor of the trench. 

The resting infiltration volume (Vr , cubic feet) is

Vr = (h2 A2 – h3 A3),

where A3 (square feet) and h3 (feet) are the wetted crosssectional area and gage height at the end of the infiltration 

event. Infiltration rates (I) were calculated as follows:

I V

AD = ,

where V is the volume of infiltrated water and D is the 

duration (hours) of the infiltration event. Although most calculated infiltration volumes indicate that water was lost from the 

trench, 7 of the 41 infiltration events evaluated (at least 2 from 

each trench) indicate that the trench gained more water than 

expected during loading. The timing of these events was compared to precipitation records from a rain gage operated by the 

USGS approximately 5 mi southwest of the Hammonton LAF 

in Folsom, NJ. Loading cycles coincided with rainstorms totaling more than 0.1 in. of rain for only two events. The most 

likely explanation for the remaining negative infiltration rates 

is the lateral flow of perched water. 
16 Assessment of Factors Affecting the Infiltration of Treated Wastewater in the New Jersey Coastal Plain

Determination of Altitude and Location

The USGS conducted an altitude survey from November 

21, 2006, to December 20, 2006, to verify the altitude of the 

land surface adjacent to, and measuring points of, monitoring 

wells and to measure the altitude of land surface along cross 

sections of trench 1. Altitudes were measured using a Nikon 

AS-2C autolevel and a Chicago-style survey rod according 

to USGS standard methods (Kennedy, 1990). Altitudes were 

transferred to wells from National Geodetic Survey marker 

number JU4373 (39°36’50.01734”N, 074°45’10.31124”W). 

Land-surface altitudes and the altitude of the lip of the outer 

protective casing (measuring point) were determined for each 

well surveyed. Locations of wells and cross sections were 

determined using a consumer-grade hand-held global positioning system (GPS) unit (±6.56 ft horizontal accuracy). 

Physical, Chemical, and Hydrologic 

Factors

Results of the hydrogeologic framework, water-quality 

data, operational data and conditions of the infiltration 

trenches, and trench wall collapses, at the Hammonton Waste 

Water Treatment Plant and Land Application Facility are discussed below. Additionally, a comparison to other Pinelands 

Land Application Facilities is discussed. 

Hydrogeologic Framework

A hydrogeologic framework for the Hammonton LAF 

was created based on the results of geophysical logging, HPT 

testing, and examination of sediment cores. Gamma logs were 

collected from 31 existing monitoring wells from May 2006 

through January 2007 (fig. 5). Continuous sediment cores and 

HPT testing were used to verify the stratigraphy determined 

from the gamma logs. Nine strata were identified by examination of sediment cores and by correlating HPT and naturalgamma-radiation logs within the unsaturated zone: four 

distinct hydraulically restrictive strata and five non-restrictive 

strata. These strata are typified in logs and cores collected 

adjacent to PZ 6 (fig. 7). The contact between the Cohansey 

and Bridgeton Formations is at 74.74 ft and is identified by the 

transition from the variable gamma response of the overlying 

Bridgeton Formation and weathered Coastal Plain deposits 

to the characteristically low (typically less than 25 counts per 

second) natural-gamma radiation of the Cohansey Formation. The Cohansey Formation is the oldest unit observed at 

the Hammonton LAF. HPT testing of this unit shows injection pressures typically less than 40 lb/in2

 (psi) and flow rates 

greater than 150 mL/min, indicating that the stratum is hydraulically non-restrictive.

Eight strata (A–H) within the overlying Bridgeton Formation were identified and correlated throughout the Hammonton 

LAF (fig. 7). The oldest stratum (stratum A) is 2.65 ft thick 

and extends from 75.06 to 77.71 ft above NAVD 88. HPT testing shows pressures greater than 40 psi and flow rates as low 

as 0 mL/min, indicating that stratum A is hydraulically restrictive. The sediment within stratum A is characterized by very 

fine to coarse, ferric iron oxide-stained sands (Hammonton 

LAF core 03, app. 4). As the coring process can disaggregate 

poorly cemented sediments, the presence of iron oxide-stained 

grains indicates that this stratum may be cemented. Ferric iron 

concretions are present as a result of repeated cycles of water 

saturation and desaturation that cause microbial reduction and 

oxidation of iron and, after repeated wet and dry cycles, can 

cause impermeable iron stones to form (Soil Survey Division 

Staff, 1993). The proximity of seasonal high water-table altitudes measured at PZ 6 from January 2003 to December 2007 

to the base of stratum A indicate that modern periodic watertable fluctuations may be the source of the cements. 

Stratum B is 3.8 ft thick and extends from 77.71 to 

81.51 ft above NAVD 88 (fig. 7). This stratum is characterized 

by slightly silty fine sand, poorly sorted medium sand, and 

silty fine sands (Hammonton LAF core 03, app. 4). HPT testing shows pressures less than 40 psi and flow rates generally 

greater than 250 mL/min. Natural-gamma-radiation measurements are near background levels. Sediment descriptions, HPT 

testing, and natural-gamma-radiation logging all indicate that 

stratum B is not hydraulically restrictive.

Stratum C is 3.3 ft thick and extends from 81.51 to 

84.81 ft above NAVD 88 (fig. 7). The upper 1.25 ft of this stratum is characterized by interbedded fine sand and massive clay 

and slightly silty fine sand (Hammonton LAF core 03, app. 4). 

Sediment from the lowermost 1 ft of stratum C was not 

recovered during coring. HPT testing shows pressures greater 

than 40 psi and flow rates as low as 79 mL/min. Naturalgamma-radiation measurements are generally elevated above 

background levels in this stratum. Sediment descriptions and 

results of HPT testing and natural-gamma-radiation logging all 

indicate that stratum C is hydraulically restrictive.

Stratum D is 4.77 ft thick and extends from 84.81 to 

89.28 ft above NAVD 88 (fig. 7). This stratum is characterized 

by silty and clayey fine sands except for a sandy clay extending from 87.81 to 89.28 ft (Hammonton LAF core 03, app. 4). 

With the exception of the sandy clay, results of HPT testing show pressures less than 40 psi and flow rates generally 

greater than 250 mL/min. Natural-gamma-radiation measurements are near background levels. Sediment descriptions and 

results of HPT testing and natural-gamma-radiation logging 

all indicate that stratum D is not hydraulically restrictive. 

HPT testing and sediment descriptions indicate that the sandy 

clay within this unit is hydraulically restrictive, but as it is not 

characterized by elevated natural-gamma radiation, it is not 

possible to map this bed.
Physical, Chemical, and Hydrologic Factors 17

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

GAMMA

RADIATION

CONDUCTIVITY, IN

MILLISIEMENS

PER METER

PRESSURE, IN

POUNDS PER

SQUARE INCH

FLOW, IN

MILLILITERS

PER MINUTE

Radiation increases 0 25 50 0 40 80 120 0 250 500

DEPTH, IN FEET BELOW LAND SURFACE

EXPLANATION

106.31

46.31

ALTITUDE, IN FEET ABOVE NAVD 88

100.00

90.00

80.00

70.00

60.00

50.00

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Hydraulically restrictive zone

Range of monthly water-table altitudes (January 2003–December 2007)

Mean water-table altitude (January 2003–December 2007)

C o ha n se y B ri d get o n

Stratum

Formation

Figure 7. Geophysical logs of piezometer 6, Hammonton Land Application Facility, southern New Jersey.
18 Assessment of Factors Affecting the Infiltration of Treated Wastewater in the New Jersey Coastal Plain

Stratum E is 4.59 ft thick and extends from 89.28 to 

93.87 ft above NAVD 88 (fig. 7). This stratum is characterized by silty sands and sandy clays (Hammonton LAF core 03, 

app. 4). Results of HPT testing show pressures greater than 40 

psi and flow rates as low as 0 mL/min. Natural-gamma-radiation measurements are generally elevated above background 

levels in this stratum. Sediment descriptions and results of 

HPT testing and natural-gamma-radiation logging all indicate 

that stratum E is hydraulically restrictive.

Stratum F is 5.09 ft thick and extends from 93.87 to 

98.96 ft above NAVD 88 (fig. 7). This stratum is characterized 

by clean to slightly silty fine sands except for a silty to very 

silty fine sand extending from 95.41 to 97.21 ft (Hammonton 

LAF core 03, app. 4). Results of HPT testing show flow rates 

generally greater than 250 mL/min. Natural-gamma-radiation 

measurements are near background levels. Sediment descriptions and results of HPT testing and natural-gamma-radiation 

logging all indicate that stratum F is not hydraulically restrictive. HPT testing and sediment descriptions indicate that the 

silty to very silty fine sand within this unit is hydraulically 

restrictive, but as it is not characterized by elevated naturalgamma radiation, it is not possible to map this bed.

Stratum G is 3.12 ft thick and extends from 98.96 to 

102.08 ft above NAVD 88 (fig. 7). This stratum is characterized by clean to very silty fine sand (Hammonton LAF 

core 03, app. 4). Results of HPT testing show pressures greater 

than 40 psi and flow rates as low as 0 mL/min. Naturalgamma-radiation measurements are generally elevated above 

background levels in this stratum. Results of HPT testing 

and natural-gamma-radiation logging indicate that stratum G 

is hydraulically restrictive. Although sediment descriptions 

indicate fine sands throughout this section, compaction and the 

presence of various amounts of silt have reduced the hydraulic 

conductivity of this stratum relative to that of an uncompacted 

clean fine sand.

Stratum H is 4.23 ft thick and extends from 102.08 to 

106.31 ft above NAVD 88 (fig. 7). This stratum is characterized by silty to slightly silty fine sand and humus associated 

with the soil A horizon (Hammonton LAF core 03, app 4). 

Results of HPT testing show pressures less than 40 psi and 

flow rates generally greater than 250 mL/min. Natural-gammaradiation measurements are near background levels. Sediment 

descriptions and results of HPT testing and natural-gammaradiation logging all indicate that stratum H is not hydraulically restrictive.

Peaks in natural-gamma radiation are correlated between 

selected logged wells to map the extent of lower hydraulic 

conductivity units in the strike and dip sections. The altitude of the contact between the Cohansey Formation and the 

Bridgeton Formation and weathered Coastal Plain deposits 

varies throughout the site, but generally is within 2 ft of the 

position observed at PZ 6 (fig. 7). The units of the New Jersey 

Coastal Plain generally strike northeast-southwest and dip 

gently to the southeast (Zapecza, 1989). Three sections along 

strike and two sections along dip through the Hammonton 

LAF were examined (figs. 8 and 9 a–e). Section C–C’ (fig. 

9b) runs along strike through the center of the facility and 

includes well PZ 6. The position of section C–C’ allows direct 

comparison of other wells within the section to the naturalgamma and HPT logs from well PZ 6. The three shallowest lower conductivity zones are observed in all wells; the 

deepest is observed in wells MW 6, PZ 2, and PZ 6. Bedding 

is nearly horizontal in this section and altitude is relatively 

constant along the section. Section E–E’ (fig. 9d) runs parallel 

to the dip direction and includes wells PZ 6 and Nest 11 MW 

C. The four shallowest lower conductivity zones observed 

in well Nest 11 MW C correlate with the shallowest lower 

conductivity zone identified in PZ 6. The deeper two lower 

conductivity zones in well Nest 11 MW C correlate with the 

second shallowest lower conductivity zone identified in PZ 6. 

The third shallowest lower conductivity zone was observed 

only in PZ 6, likely as a result of erosion, as evidenced by 

the topography of this section. As in section C–C’, bedding is 

nearly horizontal, indicating that the lower conductivity zones 

are planar features. The depth of the deepest lower conductivity zone identified in well PZ 6 is located in section D–D’ by 

correlation with MW 47 (fig. 9c). A lower conductivity zone in 

Nests 8 MW C and MW 9 between 90 and 95 ft may correlate 

with the shallowest lower conductivity zone initially identified 

in PZ 6 and well Nest 11 MW C, indicating that the middle 

two lower conductivity zones identified in sections C–C’ and 

E–E’ may not extend to the eastern portion of the Hammonton 

LAF. Identification of the deepest lower conductivity zone 

in sections B–B’ and F–F’ (figs. 9a and e) indicates that the 

zone is present throughout the Hammonton LAF. The origin 

of this and other lower conductivity zones is unclear. Because 

the Bridgeton Formation is a series of fluvial deposits, it is 

possible that these nearly horizontal and continuous to semicontinuous zones may be remnants of floodplains. Alternatively, these zones may have been created post-deposition by 

iron cementation of sands associated with paleo-groundwater 

fluctuations.

Zones of reduced hydraulic conductivity can be present 

without a corresponding increase in natural-gamma radiation. HPT testing near well Nest 11 identified six zones of 

reduced hydraulic conductivity, including five zones ranging 

from 0.1 to 0.9 ft thick with flow rates equal to 0 mL/min 

(fig. 10). Taken together, these zones correlate with stratum E 

(fig. 7). Of the six zones identified, only one correlates with 

increased gamma-radiation emissions. Coring at the HPT test 

site confirms the presence of interfingered clay and coarse 

sand from 4.7 to 6.0 ft below land surface (bls) and the presence of ironstone from 6.4 to 6.6 ft bls. Only units containing 

minerals with relatively high concentrations of potassium-40 

(such as feldspar- and mica-rich clays) emit enough gamma 

photons to generate a “peak” within a gamma log. Although 

the ironstone present from 6.4 to 6.6 ft bls affects the hydraulic conductivity of the stratum (as evidenced by the HPT log), 

it does not contain enough potassium-40 to cause an increase 

in gamma radiation. Pressure and flow measurements made by 
Physical, Chemical, and Hydrologic Factors 19

74°46' 74°45'40"

39°37'20"

39°37'

PZ 6

NEST 11

PZ 9

PZ 8

PZ 7

PZ 5

PZ 4

PZ 3

PZ 2

PZ 1 MW 9

MW 8

MW 7

MW 6

MW 5

MW 4

MW 3

SPW 1

PW 12

MW 47

MW 35

MW 34

MW 33

OLDPUMPW

NEST 8

NEST 7

NEST 5

NEST 3

NEST 2

NEST 1

NEST 12

NEST 10

CORE 03

CORE 02

CORE 01

0 250 500 750 1,000 FEET

0 100 200 300 METERS

B

B'

E

F

C'

C

F'

E'

Storage 

lagoon

D

D'

EXPLANATION

Location of continuous sediment

core and identifier

HPT testing location and identifier

Location of well and identifier

Line of section

Trench

SURFICIAL GEOLOGY

Bridgeton Formation

Weathered Coastal Plain formations

B B’

PZ 3

CORE 01

NEST 11

Trench 1

Trench 2

Trench 4

Trench 3

Trench 5

Geology from Pristas, 2004

Figure 8. Locations of wells, trenches, continuous sediment cores, Hydraulic Profiling Tool (HPT) testing, and lines of section, 

Hammonton Land Application Facility, southern New Jersey.
20 Assessment of Factors Affecting the Infiltration of Treated Wastewater in the New Jersey Coastal Plain

Figure 9. Hydrogeologic cross sections (A) B–B’, (B) C–C’, (C) D–D’, (D) E–E’, and (E) F–F’, Hammonton Land Application 

Facility, southern New Jersey.

E

A

110

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

MW 33 MW 3 MW 34 MW 35

B B’

EXPLANATION

Contact between the Cohansey Formation and the 

Bridgeton Formation and weathered Coastal Plain deposits

Screened interval

Gamma-radiation log

Contact between strata. Letter is stratum identifier shown 

in figure 7. Dashed where approximate

A

Radiation

increases

0 100 METERS

0 500 FEET

ALTITUDE, IN FEET ABOVE NAVD 88

VERTICAL EXAGGERATION X 12.5

A.
Physical, Chemical, and Hydrologic Factors 21

A

G

E

C

EXPLANATION

Contact between the Cohansey Formation and the 

Bridgeton Formation and weathered Coastal Plain deposits

Screened interval

Gamma-radiation log

Contact between strata. Letter is stratum identifier shown 

in figure 7. Dashed where approximate

C

Radiation

increases

110

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

PZ 2 NEST 5 MW 3 NEST 3 MW C PZ 6 MW 6

C C’

0 100 METERS

0 500 FEET

ALTITUDE, IN FEET ABOVE NAVD 88

VERTICAL EXAGGERATION X 14

TRENCH 4 TRENCH 1 TRENCH 2 TRENCH 2

B.

Figure 9. Hydrogeologic cross sections (A) B–B’, (B) C–C’, (C) D–D’, (D) E–E’, and (E) F–F’, Hammonton Land Application 

Facility, southern New Jersey.—Continued
22 Assessment of Factors Affecting the Infiltration of Treated Wastewater in the New Jersey Coastal Plain

Figure 9. Hydrogeologic cross sections (A) B–B’, (B) C–C’, (C) D–D’, (D) E–E’, and (E) F–F’, Hammonton Land Application 

Facility, southern New Jersey.—Continued

110

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

NEST 8 MW C MW 9 MW 47 MW 8

D D’

A

E

EXPLANATION

Contact between the Cohansey Formation and the 

Bridgeton Formation and weathered Coastal Plain deposits

Screened interval

Gamma-radiation log

Contact between strata. Letter is stratum identifier shown 

in figure 7. Dashed where approximate

A

Radiation

increases

0 100 METERS

0 500 FEET

ALTITUDE, IN FEET ABOVE NAVD 88

VERTICAL EXAGGERATION X 18

C.
Physical, Chemical, and Hydrologic Factors 23

110100

90807060504030

MW 4 PZ 6 MW 47 NEST 11

E E’

A

C

G

E

EXPLANATION

Contact between strata. Letter is stratum identifiershown in figure 7. Dashed where approximateContact between the Cohansey Formation and the Bridgeton Formation and weathered Coastal Plain depositsScreened intervalGamma-radiation log

A

Radiation

increases

TRENCH 2 TRENCH 3

STORAGE LAGOON

0 100 METERS

0 500 FEET

ALTITUDE, IN FEET ABOVE NAVD 88

VERTICAL EXAGGERATION X 20

D.

Figure 9. Hydrogeologic cross sections (A) B–B’, (B) C–C’, (C) D–D’, (D) E–E’, and (E) F–F’, Hammonton Land Application Facility, southern New Jersey.—Continued
24 Assessment of Factors Affecting the Infiltration of Treated Wastewater in the New Jersey Coastal Plain

A

E

E

0 100 METERS

0 500 FEET

ALTITUDE, IN FEET ABOVE MEAN SEA LEVEL

VERTICAL EXAGGERATION X 18

110100

90807060504030

MW 3 NEST 7 MW C MW 9 PZ 4 NEST 12 MW C

F F’

EXPLANATION

Contact between strata. Letter is stratum identifier shown in figure 7. Dashed where approximateContact between the Cohansey Formation and the Bridgeton Formation and weathered Coastal Plain depositsScreened intervalGamma-radiation log

A

Radiation

increases

TRENCH 1

E.

Figure 9. Hydrogeologic cross sections (

A) B–B’, (

B) C–C’, (C) D–D’, (

D) E–E’, and (

E) F–F’, Hammonton Land Application Facility, southern New Jersey.—Continued
Physical, Chemical, and Hydrologic Factors 25

Figure 10. Geophysical logs of well Nest 11 MW C, Hammonton Land Application Facility, southern New Jersey.

103.87 0

5

10

15

20

25

73.87 30

GAMMA

RADIATION

CONDUCTIVITY, IN

MILLISIEMENS

PER METER

PRESSURE, IN

POUNDS PER

SQUARE INCH

FLOW, IN

MILLILITERS

PER MINUTE

DEPTH, IN FEET BELOW LAND SURFACE

ALTITUDE, IN FEET ABOVE NAVD 88

Radiation increases 0 10 20 30 0 40 80 120 0 250 500

EXPLANATION

Lower conductivity zone

Stratum E

100.00

95.00

90.00

85.00

80.00

75.00
26 Assessment of Factors Affecting the Infiltration of Treated Wastewater in the New Jersey Coastal Plain

the HPT system are frequent (20 measurements per foot) and 

test the properties of the sediment in contact with the approximately 0.5-in. injection screen. Although gamma-radiation 

measurements are made at the same frequency, the gamma 

probe counts the number of photons emitted within a 6- to 

12-in. radius (Keys and McCary, 1971). Emissions from beds 

with a thickness less than 12 to 24 in. (like the interfingered 

clays noted between 4.7 and 6.0 ft bls) are not recorded at full 

strength because the radius of the measurement is never fully 

occupied by the bed (Keys and McCary, 1971).

Observation of Perched Water

On January 11, 2007, USGS personnel hand-augured 

a hole adjacent to Nest 11 to determine the nature of an 

observed gamma-radiation high that began at about 8 ft bls 

and peaked at 9 ft bls during gamma logging of well Nest 11 

MW C (fig. 10). The hand-augured hole was 20 ft west of 

trench 3 and 3 ft east of well Nest 11 MW C (fig. 11). The hole 

was dug to refusal at approximately 6 ft deep and then began 

to fill with water. The water level in the hole rose to 4.9 ft bls. 

Water levels in PZ 7, Nest 11, and Nest 12 were measured and water levels in trenches 1, 2, and 3 were retrieved 

from the operational database assembled as part of this study 

(table 4). Piezometer water levels from January 11, 2007, indicate the presence of perched water at three different altitudes 

underlying the Hammonton LAF (table 4). The water level in 

the augured hole is the shallowest perched water and is higher 

than the water level in trench 1 and lower than the water levels 

in trenches 2 and 3. Based on the location of the augured hole, 

the source of the perched water could be trench 2, trench 3, 

or precipitation. The water level in well Nest 11 MW A is 

5.27 ft lower than that in the augured hole only 3 ft away. Well 

Nest 11 MW A is 5.49 ft deeper than the augured hole and 

is screened over a 1-ft interval, indicating that they intersect 

different lenses of perched water rather than a steeply sloping perched water surface. Perhaps coincidently, the floor of 

trench 1 is 0.1 ft above the water level observed in well Nest 

11 MW A. Perched water in Nest 12 MW A was also 3.74 ft 

lower than that in trench 1. The range of observed perchedwater-level altitudes indicates that water likely is perched on 

multiple layers throughout the facility. Given the presence 

of many low-permeability zones throughout the site, layers 

of perched water probably also are common throughout the 

site. The presence of perched water and the restrictive strata 

that cause perching reduce the rate at which water from the 

trenches can infiltrate to the water table.

Water Quality

Water-quality samples were collected from the Hammonton WWTP, storage lagoon, trench 2, MW 5, and MW 8 in 

December 2006 and May 2007 to determine whether waterquality characteristics vary seasonally (table 5, at end of 

report, and figs. 12–14). 

Composite (24-hour) samples of Hammonton WWTP 

effluent collected on December 2, 2006, and May 2, 2007, are 

similar (figs. 12a, 13a, and 14a). Differences in ion concentrations were greatest between sodium and chloride. Even so, the 

average deviation was 1.46 mg/L (± 3.0 percent of the mean) 

Table 4. Well-constuction information, water levels, and altitude of wells and trenches used to determine altitude of perched water 

tables, Hammonton Land Application Facility, southern New Jersey.

[--, not available; NAVD 88, North American Vertical Datum of 1988]

Site

Altitude

(feet above 

NAVD 88)

Depth

(feet above 

NAVD 88)

Open interval

(feet above 

NAVD 88)

Water level

(feet above 

NAVD 88)

Height above 

water table

(feet)1

Augered hole 104.00 98.00 104.00–98.00 99.10 29.30

Nest 11 MW A 103.73 92.51 93.51–92.51 93.83 24.03

Nest 11 MW B 103.87 88.07 89.07–88.07 Dry --

Nest 11 MW C 104.13 84.13 85.13–84.13 Dry --

Nest 12 MW A 101.12 88.02 89.02–88.02 90.19 20.39

Nest 12 MW B 101.38 83.38 84.38–83.38 Dry --

Nest 12 MW C 101.68 78.68 79.68–78.68 Dry --

PZ 7 96.74 48.62 73.62–48.62 71.90 0.00

Trench 1–floor 93.93 -- -- 94.37 24.57

Trench 2–floor 100.11 -- -- 102.22 32.42

Trench 3–floor 101.63 -- -- 103.29 33.49

1

The water-table altitude as measured in PZ 7 on 1/11/07 at 1259.
Physical, Chemical, and Hydrologic Factors 27

Figure 11. Locations of wells used to determine the altitude of perched water, Hammonton Land Application Facility, 

southern New Jersey.

PZ 7 NEST 12 MW C

NEST 12 MW B

NEST 12 MW A

NEST 11 MW C

NEST 11 MW B

NEST 11 MW A

PZ 7 NEST 12 MW C

NEST 12 MW B

NEST 12 MW A

NEST 11 MW C

NEST 11 MW B

NEST 11 MW A

T r e n c h 3

T r e n c h 2

T r e n c h 1

PZ 7

74°45'45" 74°45'40"

39°37'20"

39°37'15"

0 50 100 150 200 FEET

0 20 40 60 METERS

PZ 7

EXPLANATION

Well and identifier

Orthophoto from New Jersey Office of Information Technology,

Office of Geographic Information Systems, 2008
28 Assessment of Factors Affecting the Infiltration of Treated Wastewater in the New Jersey Coastal Plain

for the sodium measurements and 2.96 mg/L (± 5.1 percent 

of the mean) for the chloride measurements. Although greater 

than the precision of these measurements (app. 3), these differences are small and indicate that the major-ion composition 

of treated effluent leaving the treatment facility was consistent 

during this study. Nutrient concentrations in the Hammonton WWTP effluent between the two sampling periods were 

more variable (fig. 13a). Measurements of filtered nitrate plus 

nitrite and unfiltered ammonia plus organic nitrogen were 

similar between the two sampling periods. Concentrations of 

phosphorus ranged from about 1.5 to 2.5 mg/L and those of 

organic carbon ranged from about 6 to 9 mg/L. These differences are likely related to daily or seasonal differences in the 

composition of the wastewater received by the plant. The fact 

that most nutrient and carbon concentrations were similar in 

filtered and unfiltered samples indicates that the WWTP is 

effective at removing particulate matter.

Vertical composite samples collected from three locations 

within the storage lagoon in December 2006 contained similar 

concentrations of selected ions, nutrients, and trace elements 

Figure 12. Concentrations of selected ions in (A) 24-hour 

composite samples of treated effluent collected at the 

Hammonton Waste Water Treatment Plant (WWTP) on December 

2, 2006, and May 2, 2007; (B) samples of treated wastewater 

collected from the storage lagoons at the Hammonton Land 

Application Facility (LAF) on December 6, 2006, and May 3, 2007 

(composite sample); and (C) samples of treated wastewater 

collected from trench 2 at the Hammonton LAF on December 5 

and 7, 2006, and May 3, 2007, southern New Jersey.

Figure 13. Concentrations of selected nutrients in (A) 

24-hour composite samples of treated effluent collected at the 

Hammonton Waste Water Treatment Plant (WWTP) on December 

2, 2006, and May 2, 2007; (B) samples of treated wastewater 

collected from the storage lagoons at the Hammonton Land 

Application Facility (LAF) on December 6, 2006, and May 3, 2007 

(composite sample); and (C) samples of treated wastewater 

collected from trench 2 at the Hammonton LAF on December 5 

and 7, 2006, and May 3, 2007, southern New Jersey.

CONCENTRATION, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

12/5/2006

12/7/2006

5/3/2007

12/2/2006

5/2/2007

Calcium

Magnesium

Potassium

Sodium

Chloride

Fluoride

Silica

Sulfate

50

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

A

B

C

CONSTITUENT

Hammonton WWTP Lagoon A

Hammonton WWTP Lagoon B

Hammonton WWTP Lagoon C

Composite sample

12/5/2006

12/7/2006

5/3/2007

12/2/2006

5/2/2007

CONCENTRATION, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

Hammonton WWTP Lagoon A

Hammonton WWTP Lagoon B

Hammonton WWTP Lagoon C

Composite sample

Ammonia plus

organic nitrogen, 

unfiltered

Nitrite plus

nitrate, filtered

Orthophosphate,

filtered

Phosphorus, 

filtered

Phosphorus, 

unfiltered

Organic carbon,

filtered

Organic carbon,

unfiltered

10

8

6

4

2

0

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

A

B

C

CONSTITUENT AND SAMPLE TYPE
Physical, Chemical, and Hydrologic Factors 29

(figs. 12b, 13b, and 14b), which indicates that the storage 

lagoon is well mixed both laterally and vertically. Vertical 

profiles of temperature, pH, DO, and SC collected in December 2006 and May 2007 indicate little vertical stratification. 

Therefore, during follow-up sampling in May 2007, a single 

vertically and spatially composited sample was collected. 

As with the WWTP, some differences in the chemistry of the water in the storage lagoon were noted between 

the concentrations in the May 2007 sample and the mean 

concentrations in December 2006 (figs. 12b, 13b, and 14b). 

Concentrations of nitrogen and ammonia in the winter and 

spring samples were similar, but phosphorus concentrations in 

filtered samples ranged from 0.56 to 1.37 mg/L, total organic 

carbon concentrations ranged from 7.74 to 8.98 mg/L, and dissolved organic carbon concentrations ranged from 5.27 to 9.65 

mg/L (ranges similar to those noted for the WWTP). Concentrations of iron, manganese, and zinc varied more than those 

of the other trace elements. These variations also likely are 

related to daily or seasonal fluctuations in the composition of 

wastewater received by the plant, as they also were observed 

in samples of the WWTP effluent. Because the lagoon supplies 

water to the trenches, similar seasonal differences also were 

observed in trench water samples.

As water moves from the WWTP into the storage lagoon 

and then to the trenches, its chemistry changes. In general, 

concentrations of conservative ions (Ca, Mg, K, Na, and Cl) 

and indicators (SC and hardness) decreased by about 10 percent from the plant to the storage lagoon, and decreased about 

another 10 percent from the lagoon to the trenches (figs. 15, 

16, and 17; table 5, at end of report). This reduction in concentration is likely due to dilution from precipitation running into 

the lagoon and trenches. Other chemical changes are greater 

than those noted above and are likely caused by biologically 

mediated reactions typically seen in rivers and lakes. These 

include reduced concentrations of dissolved nitrate, phosphorus, silica (used in the production of diatom shells), and 

organic carbon, as well as increases in pH and the appearance of particulate carbon. Other changes, such as increased 

turbidity and DO, may be attributable to biological reactions, 

but also may be due to agitation from wind or waterfowl. The 

water-quality data do not exclude the possibility that cements 

or concretions are forming at the sediment/water interface; 

however, compared to other physical and hydrologic impediments to infiltration, the observed concentrations of cations 

and anions are dilute enough that they are not likely to be the 

cause of the poor infiltration rates at the site.

The characteristics of the water applied to the trenches at 

the Hammonton LAF are different from those of the infiltrating precipitation and the underlying groundwater. These 

characteristics must be known to determine the fate and 

potential water-quality effects of the infiltrated wastewater. 

Constituents such as sodium and chloride are conservative 

(not likely to react in the subsurface) and can be used as indicators of infiltrating effluent. Although sodium and chloride 

are derived from both natural and anthropogenic sources in 

this setting, concentrations in the effluent are much greater 

than those in any other potential source. Concentrations of 

boron above background levels indicate the presence of either 

treated or untreated wastewater. Boron enters the waste stream 

as sodium tetraborate (borax), a widely used cleaning agent 

and detergent (Hem, 1992). For instance, the sample of water 

from well Nest 11 well A contained similar or slightly lower 

concentrations of sodium, chloride, and boron than those measured in the water in trench 2 (table 5, at end of report), indicating that the primary source of this groundwater is the water 

from the trenches, although some dilution from precipitation 

may have occurred. Sorption to clays and organic carbon, in 

Figure 14. Concentrations of selected trace elements in (A) 

24-hour composite samples of treated effluent collected at the 

Hammonton Waste Water Treatment Plant (WWTP) on December 

2, 2006, and May 2, 2007; (B) samples of treated wastewater 

collected from the storage lagoons at the Hammonton Land 

Application Facility (LAF) on December 6, 2006, and May 3, 2007 

(composite sample); and (C) samples of treated wastewater 

collected from trench 2 at the Hammonton LAF on December 5 

and 7, 2006, and May 3, 2007, southern New Jersey.

12/5/2006

12/7/2006

5/3/2007

12/2/2006

5/2/2007

Hammonton WWTP Lagoon A

Hammonton WWTP Lagoon B

Hammonton WWTP Lagoon C

Composite sample

200

150

100

50

0

Boron

Copper

Iron, filtered

Manganese,

filtered

Zinc

CONCENTRATION, IN MICROGRAMS PER LITER 250

200

150

100

50

0

180

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

A

B

C

CONSTITUENT AND SAMPLE TYPE
30 Assessment of Factors Affecting the Infiltration of Treated Wastewater in the New Jersey Coastal Plain

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

CHLORIDE CONCENTRATION,

IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

SODIUM CONCENTRATION, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Effluent

Lagoon

Trench

Perched water

Shallow groundwater

(drive points)

Monitoring well

Figure 15. Relation between concentrations of sodium (filtered) and chloride (filtered) ions in samples of 

treated wastewater from selected locations within the Hammonton Waste Water Treatment Plant and Land 

Application Facility, southern New Jersey.

Figure 16. Relation between concentrations of boron (filtered) and chloride (filtered) ions in samples of 

treated wastewater from selected locations within the Hammonton Waste Water Treatment Plant and Land 

Application Facility, southern New Jersey.

Figure 17. Relation between concentrations of boron (filtered) and nitrate plus nitrite (filtered) ions in 

treated wastewater from selected locations within the Hammonton Waste Water Treatment Plant and Land 

Application Facility, southern New Jersey. CHLORIDE CONCENTRATION, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

0 50 100 150 200 250

BORON CONCENTRATION, IN MICROGRAMS PER LITER

Effluent

Lagoon

Trench

Perched water

Shallow groundwater

(drive points)

Monitoring well

0 50 100 150 200 250

NITRATE PLUS NITRITE

CONCENTRATTION,

IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

BORON CONCENTRATION, IN MICROGRAMS PER LITER

2.5

2

1.5

1

0.5

0

Effluent

Lagoon

Trench

Perched water

Shallow groundwater

(drive points)

Monitoring well
Physical, Chemical, and Hydrologic Factors 31

addition to dilution from infiltrated precipitation, could be 

responsible for the reduction in aqueous boron concentrations. 

Similarly, concentrations of sodium, chloride, and boron in the 

water sample collected from drive point DP 1 collected at the 

regional water table beneath the trenches were similar to those 

in water in trench 2, indicating that this is an area of recharge 

to the aquifer. Sodium, chloride, and boron concentrations in 

other drive-point samples (DP 2 and DP 3) from the regional 

water table and deeper piezometer samples (PZ 4, PZ 5, and 

PZ 6) from below the trenches were intermediate between 

those in the effluent and normal background concentrations–an 

indication that recharged water is mixing with groundwater. 

Concentrations of sodium, chloride, and boron in samples 

from the perimeter monitoring wells (MW 5 and MW 8) are 

similar to expected background concentrations.

Nitrate concentrations in selected monitoring wells and 

WWTP effluent are routinely sampled at Hammonton LAF by 

a New Jersey-certified drinking-water laboratory in accordance with the monitoring requirements set forth in their discharge permits. Analytical results for samples collected from 

MW 5 and MW 8 by the USGS during this study generally 

agree with results of this monitoring. All WWTP effluent samples collected by the USGS contained less than 2 mg/L nitrate 

plus nitrite (table 5, at end of report), and concentrations in 

water in the trenches typically were less than the detection 

limit. Concentrations of nitrate plus nitrite measured in the 

water-table monitoring wells ranged from 0.04 to 2.26 mg/L 

and commonly were greater than concentrations measured in 

the trenches. Therefore, the presence of nitrate in groundwater 

at this facility does not indicate degradation of water quality 

due to infiltration of treated wastewater, but rather results from 

the mixing of nitrate from regional sources with infiltrated 

effluent containing little nitrate.

Concentrations of wastewater indicator compounds in 

treated effluent and groundwater were measured to differentiate wastewater from other water at the Hammonton LAF. 

Results are shown in table 6. The detected compounds and 

their typical sources are listed in table 7. The total concentration of wastewater indicator compounds and the number 

of detected compounds decrease along the treatment and 

infiltration pathway (fig. 18). The few compounds detected 

in samples of perched and shallow groundwater were not 

detected in samples from monitoring wells screened below the 

regional water table. Any of a number of mechanisms may be 

responsible for this condition. Degradation of triclosan and 

diethyl phthalate occurred after exposure of treated effluent to 

UV light within the treatment system; photochemical degradation of these compounds has been observed in laboratory 

experiments (Sanchez-Prado and others, 2006; Xu and others, 

2007). Methyl salicylate was detected in effluent at concentrations less than the MRL post-UV light treatment and was 

not detected pre-UV light treatment. No reports of methyl 

salicylate formation as a result of UV light treatment could 

be found in the literature. The most likely explanation is that 

methyl salicylate is present pre-treatment below the MRL and 

simply was not detected. Attenuation of other waste indicator 

compounds while stored in the lagoon, while awaiting infiltration in the trench, and in groundwater could be the result 

of degradation (microbial or photodegradation), sorption to 

sediments or organic material, or dilution below the detection 

limit by mixing with infiltrated precipitation. Regardless of the 

mechanism(s), detections and concentrations of wastewater 

indicator compounds are substantially lower in groundwater 

underlying the Hammonton LAF than in all other parts of the 

Hammonton LAF, even in wells in which other tracers indicate 

the presence of treated wastewater.

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Effluent pre-UV

Effluent post-UV

Lagoon B

Trench 2

Perched water

Shallow groundwater

(drive points)

NUMBER OF COMPOUNDS

Monitoring well

DETECTED

TOTAL CONCENTRATION, IN MICROGRAMS PER LITER

18

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

Figure 18. Relation between total concentration and number of wastewater indicator compounds 

detected in samples of treated wastewater from selected locations within the Hammonton Waste Water 

Treatment Plant and Land Application Facility, southern New Jersey. [UV, ultraviolet]
32 Assessment of Factors Affecting the Infiltration of Treated Wastewater in the New Jersey Coastal Plain Station number p-Cresol Phenol Triclosan Triethyl citrate Tris (2-chloroethyl) phosphate Tris (dichloroisopropyl) phosphate 1,4-Dichlorobenzene Tribromo- methane 393715074454802 <.2 <.226 <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2 393721074454302 <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2 393728074455101 <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2 393721074452401 <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2 393720074454401 <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2 393759074460301 0.342 <.2 <.2 E.241 E.262 E.320 E.050 <.2 393759074460301 <.2 <.2 <.2 E.122 0.322 0.205 E.027 E.058

393759074460302 E.141 <.2 E.080 E.200 E.231 E.276 E.059 <.2393719074453301 <.2 <.259 <.2 <.2 0.239 0.267 <.2 <.2393721074454501 <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2 E.120 <.2 <.2 <.2 17-Acetyl-1,1,3,4,4,6-hexamethyl tetra hydro naphthalene

2N,N-Diethyl toluamide31,3,4,6,7,8-Hexahydro 4,6,6,7,8,8-hexamethyl cyclopenta-4-2-benzopyran

Table 6. Wastewater indicator compounds (in micrograms per liter) detected in samples collected at Hammonton Waste Water Treatment Plant and Land Application Facility, southern New Jersey, November 2006–May 2007. (Refer to appendix 2 for full list of compounds.)[WWTP, wastewater treatment plant; UV, ultraviolet; E, estimated; <, less than]

Station number Station name Station type Date 3,4-Dichlorophenyl isocyanate 3-beta- Coprostanol 3-Methyl-1H- indole AHTN1 Benzo- phenone 

393715074454802 Hammonton WWTP DP02 Shallow groundwater 5/1/2007 <2 <.8 <.2 <.2 <.2393721074454302 Hammonton WWTP DP03 Shallow groundwater 5/2/2007 <2 <.8 <.2 <.2 <.2393728074455101 Hammonton WWTP MW05 Monitoring well 5/1/2007 <2 <.8 <.2 <.2 <.2393721074452401 Hammonton WWTP MW08 Monitoring well 5/2/2007 <2 <.8 <.2 <.2 <.2393720074454401 Hammonton WWTP Nest11/WellA Perched water 4/30/2007 <2 <.8 <.2 <.2 <.2393759074460301 Hammonton WWTP effluent Post-UV effluent 4/30/2007 E2.24 E.505 E.048 E.208 E.130393759074460301 Hammonton WWTP effluent Post-UV effluent 5/2/2007 E3.62 <.8 E.021 <.2 E.092393759074460302 Hammonton WWTP effluent pre-UV Pre-UV effluent 4/30/2007 E4.22 E.633 E.031 E.291 E.131393719074453301 Hammonton WWTP Lagoon B Lagoon 5/3/2007 E2.68 <.8 <.2 <.2 .222393721074454501 Hammonton WWTP Trench 2 Trench 5/3/2007 <2 <.8 <.2 <.2 <.2

Station number Beta-Sitosterol Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate Caffeine Cholesterol DEET2 Diethyl phthalate D-Limonene HHCB3 Indole Methyl salicylate

393715074454802 <1.6 <2 <.2 <.8 <.2 1.34 <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2393721074454302 <.8 <2 <.2 <.8 .623 <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2393728074455101 <1.6 <2 <.2 <.8 <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2393721074452401 <.8 E1.46 <.2 <.8 <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2393720074454401 <1.6 <2 <.2 <.8 E.090 <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2 E.027393759074460301 <1.6 <2 <.2 E1.02 E.118 <.2 <.2 2.18 E.087 E.026393759074460301 <.8 <2 <.2 E1.13 E.130 .276 E.0703 .531 E.014 <.2393759074460302 <1.6 <2 <.2 E1.23 E.088 E.144 <.2 2.26 E.039 <.2393719074453301 E.478 <2 E.172 E1.28 .214 .306 <.2 .432 E.050 <.2393721074454501 E.920 <2 <.2 E2.78 <.2 .261 <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2
Physical, Chemical, and Hydrologic Factors 33

Table 7. Occurence and concentrations of wastewater indicator compounds and their possible uses or sources, Hammonton Land Application Facility, southern New Jersey.[CAS, Chemical Abstract, Service; ND, not detected; μg/L, micrograms per liter; UV, ultraviolet; PVC, polyvinyl chloride]

Compound (common name) CAS number Total number of detections Maximum concentration in effluent (μg/L) Maximum concentration in groundwater (μg/L) Possible compound uses or sources Reference

N,N-Diethyltoluamide (DEET) 134-62-3 6 0.214 0.623 Insect repellent 1Cholesterol 57-88-5 5 E2.78 ND Often a fecal indicator; also a plant sterol 2Tri(2-chloroethyl) phosphate 115-96-8 5 .322 ND Plasticizer, flame retardantDiethylphthalate (DEP) 84-66-2 5 .306 1.34 Plasticizer for polymers and resins 23,4-Dichlorophenyl isocyanate 102-36-3 4 E4.22 ND Intermediate for the synthesis of organic compounds; deg- radate of diuron, a noncrop herbicide 21,3,4,6,7,8-Hexahydro 4,6,6,7,8,8-hexamethyl cyclopenta-y-2-benzopyran (HHCB) 1222-05-5 4 2.26 ND Musk fragrance (widespread use) persistent in groundwater 2Tri(dichloroisopropyl) phosphate 13674-87-8 4 .32 ND Flame retardant 2Benzophenone 119-61-9 4 .222 ND Fixative for perfumes and soaps 2Indole 120-72-9 4 E.087 ND Pesticide inert ingredient; fragrance in coffee 2Triethyl citrate (citric acid) 77-93-0 3 E.241 ND Plasticizer and solvent widely used in food additives, phar- maceuticals, cosmetics, lacquers, and fragrances 31,4-Dichlorobenzene 106-46-7 3 E.0592 ND Moth repellant; fumigant; deodorant 23-Methyl-1H-indole (skatol) 83-34-1 3 E.0484 ND Fragrance and stench in feces and coal tar 2beta-Sitosterol 83-46-5 2 E.92 ND Plant sterol 23-beta-Coprostanol 360-68-9 2 E.633 ND Carnivore fecal indicator 2p-Cresol 106-44-5 2 .342 ND Wood preservative 27-Acetyl- 1,1,3,4,4,6- hexamethyl tetrahydro 

naphthalene (AHTN, tonalide) 98-86-2 2 E.291 ND Musk fragrance (widespread use) persistent in groundwater 2

Methyl salicylate 119-36-8 2 E.0259 .027 Liniment, food, beverage, UV-absorbing lotion 2Caffeine 58-08-2 1 E.172 ND Human-waste indicator; food; beverage 4Triclosan 3380-34-5 1 E.0802 ND Disinfectant, antimicrobial (concern for acquired microbial resistance) 2D-Limonene 5989-27-5 1 E.0703 ND Fungicide, antimicrobial, antiviral, fragrance in aerosols 2Tribromomethane (Bromoform) 75-25-2 1 E.0576 ND Water-chlorination byproduct 5Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate 117-81-7 1 ND 1.46 Plasticizer for PVC and vinyl chloride resins 6

1U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2009a2Burkhardt and others, 20053Chemicalland21.com, 20094Hinkle and others, 20055National Toxicology Program, 19896U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2007
34 Assessment of Factors Affecting the Infiltration of Treated Wastewater in the New Jersey Coastal Plain

Operation and Condition of Infiltration Trenches

The 2002–07 operational data show that infiltration rates 

in trench 1 have declined while rates in trenches 2 and 3 have 

remained relatively stable (table 8). The average initial and 

resting infiltration rates in all trenches were 0.22 and 0.18 in/hr 

(0.56 and 0.47 cm/hr), respectively. Rates determined during 

pre-construction infiltration tests conducted in areas thought 

to be representative of trench locations averaged 8.27 in/hr 

(21 cm/hr) (ARH Associates, 1993) (fig. 5). Infiltration tests 

were not conducted in any areas where infiltration trenches 

were ultimately constructed. The infiltration trenches and 

the storage lagoon were sized on the basis of an anticipated 

infiltration rate of 7.87 in/hr (20 cm/hr) and a design load of 

approximately 0.5 Mgal/d for each trench (ARH Associates, 

1993). The highest infiltration rate observed during this study, 

2.27 in/hr (5.77 cm/hr), occurred during the first loading of 

trench 1 in May 2002. Infiltration rates were not observed to 

vary seasonally. This finding is not surprising, as the average 

evapotranspiration (ET) rate in the New Jersey Pinelands is 

much lower (22.5 in/yr, or 5 x 10-3 cm/hr) than the observed 

infiltration rates (Rhodehamel, 1970). Most (10 of 15) initial 

infiltration rates in trench 1 were greater than the observed 

resting infiltration rates, indicating that wetting of initially 

drier unsaturated sediments accounts for a substantial portion of the observed infiltration. The same phenomenon likely 

occurred during pre-construction infiltration testing; a combination of lateral flow and wetting of initially drier sediments 

in the unsaturated zone were misinterpreted as steady-state 

vertical infiltration. Trenches 2 and 3 generally have resting infiltration rates greater than initial rates (10 of 17 and 

7 of 9, respectively), indicating that sediments underlying or 

adjacent to trenches 2 and 3 may have generally higher water 

contents (as a result of infiltrated and laterally flowing water 

from trench 1), which would act to slow infiltration. The 

relative altitude of the trench floors and the hydrostratigraphy 

of the site support this assertion. Trench 1 is the deepest of 

the trenches at 93.5 ft above NAVD 88; the altitudes of the 

floors of trenches 2 and 3 are 98 and 100 ft above NAVD 88, 

respectively. Trenches 1 and 2 both cut through a conductive 

sand (fig. 9b, zone G), which may permit lateral flow from 

trench 1 to increase the water content of sediments surrounding trench 2. There is no direct hydrogeologic link between 

trenches 1 and 3, but trenches 2 and 3 both cut through the 

shallowest conductive unit (fig. 7, zone H), which could provide a conduit for lateral flow between these two trenches. 

Table 8. Infiltration and loading rates observed in (A) trench 1, (B) trench 2, and (C) trench 3, Hammonton Land Application 

Facility, southern New Jersey, 2002–07.

[Mgal, million gallons; in/hr, inches per hour; cm/hr, centimeters per hour; parentheses indicate negative values]

A Begin date/time End date/time Load

(Mgal)

Infiltrated

volume, initial

(Mgal)

Infiltrated

volume, resting

(Mgal)

Initial infiltration 

rate

Resting infiltration 

rate

(in/hr) (cm/hr) (in/hr) (cm/hr)

5/20/02 14:00 6/8/02 20:00 4.19 3.54 0.63 2.27 5.77 1.26 3.21

3/31/03 8:00 4/12/03 14:00 6.08 2.38 .87 .59 1.51 .99 2.51

4/12/03 14:00 6/25/03 8:00 8.37 7.35 2.58 2.18 5.53 .08 .21

6/25/03 9:00 9/17/03 4:00 4.23 1.58 3.97 .44 1.13 .07 .18

10/22/03 12:00 11/13/03 12:00 4.54 2.49 2.04 .88 2.24 .35 .89

12/30/03 12:00 1/12/04 23:00 1.25 (.79) .38 (.68) (1.72) .57 1.45

3/16/04 9:00 6/28/04 0:00 1.43 .08 1.44 .22 .57 .05 .13

11/1/04 14:00 12/2/04 23:00 7.84 3.54 3.93 .54 1.37 .23 .59

12/27/04 8:00 1/31/05 23:00 4.91 1.90 3.01 .54 1.36 .18 .47

3/7/05 8:00 5/18/05 16:00 7.02 2.71 4.32 .47 1.19 .08 .20

10/23/06 11:00 11/19/06 11:00 5.47 .98 4.50 .16 .42 .26 .66

1/22/07 15:00 3/15/07 14:00 5.35 (.39) 5.49 (.05) (.13) .11 .29

3/15/07 15:00 4/25/07 7:00 7.02 .43 6.81 .05 .12 .15 .39

4/25/07 8:00 6/21/07 14:00 17.67 8.66 9.05 .39 .53 .16 .40

6/21/07 14:00 9/1/07 9:00 10.56 2.15 8.51 .06 .27 .09 .22
Physical, Chemical, and Hydrologic Factors 35

Table 8. Infiltration and loading rates observed in (A) trench 1, (B) trench 2, and (C) trench 3, Hammonton Land Application 

Facility, southern New Jersey, 2002–07.—Continued

[Mgal, million gallons; in/hr, inches per hour; cm/hr, centimeters per hour; parentheses indicate negative values]

B Begin date/time End date/time Load

(Mgal)

Infiltrated

volume, initial

(Mgal)

Infiltrated

volume, resting

(Mgal)

Initial infiltration 

rate

Resting infiltration 

rate

(in/hr) (cm/hr) (in/hr) (cm/hr)

3/24/2003 23:00 5/14/2003 2:00 3.07 0.08 3.05 0.02 0.05 0.09 0.22

5/14/2003 8:00 6/3/2003 1:00 4.19 .14 .97 .02 .05 .29 .73

6/3/2003 2:00 7/21/2003 23:00 2.39 .47 4.87 .23 .59 .10 .25

7/21/2003 12:00 8/14/2003 2:00 4.59 1.14 1.40 .20 .50 .23 .58

9/17/2003 8:00 11/7/2003 9:00 4.01 1.07 5.45 .20 .51 .09 .22

2/9/2004 10:00 3/24/2004 14:00 2.51 (.02) 2.55 (.01) (.03) .09 .24

5/26/2004 9:00 6/25/2004 0:00 2.98 (.44) 3.42 (.16) (.41) .14 .35

8/13/2004 10:00 9/14/2004 12:00 4.28 1.85 2.42 .41 1.04 .16 .40

9/27/2004 8:00 11/14/2004 11:00 5.50 .66 4.84 .07 .19 .09 .24

11/22/2004 8:00 1/18/2005 16:00 3.94 .53 3.41 .08 .21 .12 .31

1/31/2005 8:00 4/5/2005 23:00 4.11 .94 2.91 .17 .44 .07 .17

1/19/2006 11:00 4/3/2006 8:00 5.03 1.92 3.08 .33 .85 .06 .14

4/3/2006 11:00 5/18/2006 10:00 4.25 .93 1.79 .18 .46 .10 .26

5/18/2006 11:00 7/11/2006 10:00 5.30 2.52 4.32 .40 1.02 .09 .22

9/25/2006 8:00 11/29/2006 13:00 5.00 (.04) 4.36 (.003) (.01) .07 .17

11/29/2006 14:00 1/19/2007 10:00 3.05 .26 2.53 .07 .17 .08 .21

2/26/2007 8:00 6/2/2007 16:00 4.37 .17 4.47 .02 .06 .04 .11

C Begin date/time End date/time Load

(Mgal)

Infiltrated

volume, initial

(Mgal)

Infiltrated

volume, resting

(Mgal)

Initial infiltration 

rate

Resting infiltration 

rate

(in/hr) (cm/hr) (in/hr) (cm/hr)

6/3/2002 8:00 7/3/2002 11:00 3.18 (0.14) 3.23 (0.04) (0.09) 0.17 0.44

10/2/2003 9:00 11/13/2003 14:00 4.41 1.07 2.93 .17 .44 .14 .35

10/7/2005 16:00 12/8/2005 8:00 2.73 (.40) 2.95 (.08) (.21) .12 .31

2/8/2006 0:00 4/13/2006 13:00 2.67 .10 3.21 .03 .07 .07 .19

4/13/2006 14:00 5/30/2006 8:00 3.10 .16 2.48 .04 .09 .11 .28

5/30/2006 9:00 6/15/2006 12:00 1.84 .17 .48 .13 .32 .35 .88

6/15/2006 8:00 8/4/2006 10:00 0.67 (.22) 1.67 (1.58) (4.02) .09 .23

8/4/2006 15:00 12/31/2006 23:00 1.14 .12 .84 .24 .60 .03 .08

1/18/2007 12:00 7/28/2007 13:00 1.97 .03 3.39 .02 .04 .02 .06
36 Assessment of Factors Affecting the Infiltration of Treated Wastewater in the New Jersey Coastal Plain

Trench Wall Collapse and Infilling

ARH Associates (1993) designed the trench bottoms to be 

between 87 and 105 ft above NAVD 88 to “maintain at least 

15 ft to ground water below the basin and to avoid the slowly 

permeable strata identified on portions of the site at elevations 105 to 110 ft above mean sea level (AMSL).” Pennoni 

Associates (1999), in the final plans for the design of the facility, report that the altitude of the trench 1 floor was planned 

to be 97 ft AMSL. After initial excavation, Pennoni Associates (written commun., 2001) excavated test pits within each 

trench and conducted subsurface sediment observations. They 

reported approximately 15 in. of compaction in trenches 1 to 

3 and attributed it to the operation of excavation equipment 

within the trenches during their construction. Test pits within 

trench 1 revealed iron pans and poorly conductive sediments 

from 0 to 63 in. below the floor of trench 1, with most of the 

restrictive materials located between 0 and 36 in. below the 

trench floor. Pennoni Associates (written commun., 2001) recommended increasing the depth of trench 1 by 3 ft to bypass 

these poorly conductive sediments. After this time, operation 

of the facility began and soon thereafter trench 1 was not 

meeting performance requirements. Pennoni Associates (2003) 

excavated pits within trench 1 to determine whether sediments 

had been degraded during the operation of the facility. Subsurface sediment observations were compared to prior descriptions (Pennoni Associates, written commun., 2001). They 

found a 0.5- to 2-in. layer of “consolidated fine soil materials 

which appears to be the primary cause for the lack of infiltration in this trench” and compacted soils from 2 to 6 in. below 

the floor of the trench. The generation of compacted soils was 

attributed to the weight of the treated effluent bearing down 

upon the consolidated fine soil material for prolonged periods. 

No evidence of the formation of restrictive layers by means of 

iron cementation or other chemical alteration below 6 in. was 

reported. Pennoni Associates (2003) recommended removal of 

6 in. of material from the floor of trench 1 (making the altitude 

of the floor of the trench 93.5 ft) followed by a deep tining and 

ripping to “recondition the surface layers and to eliminate any 

surface compaction which may have occurred during the stripping operation.” 

The USGS conducted a survey across trench 1 on 

December 20, 2006, to determine whether infilling or slumping of trench walls had occurred (figs. 19 and 20 a–d). Trench 

1 is the deepest of the trenches at the Hammonton LAF 

(14.5 ft) and the only one in which wall failure and infilling 

were suspected to be contributing to poor infiltration. Cross 

section G–G’ (fig. 20a) is 130 ft long, was developed from 34 

altitude measurements, and is characterized by a “U”-shaped 

geometry. The lowest altitude in the approximately 58-ft-wide 

trench floor in cross section G–G’ was 93.95 ft. If the assumption is made that the design base level of 93.5 ft was attained, 

then 0.45 ft of sediment has accumulated in this portion of 

trench 1 since 2003.

Cross section H–H’ (fig. 20b) and I–I’ (fig. 20c) are 141 

and 137 ft long and were constructed from 49 and 51 altitude 

measurements, respectively. Both cross sections are asymmetrical such that the slope of the southwestern trench wall is less 

steep than that of the northeastern wall, and the lowest point in 

the trench is off-center. In both cross sections H–H’ (fig. 20b) 

and I–I’ (fig. 20c) 6-ft portions of the trench bottom are 

slightly lower than 93.5 ft above NAVD 88, which indicates 

either that both trenches were excavated deeper than designed, 

or that floor sediments have been eroded. Although altitudes 

of portions of the trench bottom are similar to those reported 

in 2003 (Pennoni Associates, 2003), the irregular shape of 

trench 1 in the vicinity of these cross sections indicates that 

some slumping of the southwestern trench wall may have 

occurred. Final construction plans (Pennoni Associates, 2003) 

indicate that a typical 70-ft-wide floor and 3:1 slopes on both 

the southwestern and northeastern walls were designed. The 

precise degree of wall deterioration is impossible to determine, 

as “as-built” schematic diagrams were not archived for any of 

the trenches. 

Cross section J–J’ (fig. 20d) is 129 ft long, was constructed from 49 altitude measurements, and is characterized 

by a “U”-shaped geometry similar to that of cross section 

G–G’ (fig. 20a). Most of the approximately 40-ft-wide trench 

floor is lower than 93.5 ft above NAVD 88. As was the case 

with the other cross sections, this finding indicates that 

trenches were excavated slightly deeper than designed or that 

sediment had eroded since 2003.

Incised erosional channels in the western trench wall 

(fig. 21) and other areas indicate that inflow of surface runoff 

contributes to sediment transport from the trench walls to the 

floor. All cross sections show some post-construction alteration but, because “as-built” construction data and diagrams 

are unavailable, quantification of the actual amount of infilling 

and trench-wall deterioration is impossible.

Comparisons to other Pinelands Land 

Application Facilities

Evaluation of the hydrogeology at the Hammonton 

LAF indicates that commonly occurring strata with poor 

hydraulic conductivity within the unsaturated zone underlying the trenches are responsible for the poor infiltration rates. 

To determine whether these conditions are unique to the 

Hammonton LAF, HPT testing was conducted at the Landis and Sicklerville LAFs and at Aero Haven, the site of a 

planned LAF for the Evesham Township Municipal Utilities 

Authority. Testing at the Landis and Sicklerville LAFs was 

conducted within basins that are in service but were dry on the 

day of the site visit; the testing location at Aero Haven was 

adjacent to an existing monitoring well near the entrance to 

the property. Managers of the Landis and Sicklerville LAFs 

indicate that their facilities are performing as designed. HPT 

testing results support this assertion, as flow rates never fell 

below 200 mL/min and no increases in pressure were noted 

during testing at the Sicklerville, Landis, or Aero Haven site 

(fig. 22). These results indicate that these current and proposed 
Physical, Chemical, and Hydrologic Factors 37

74°45'50" 74°45'40"

39°37'15"

39°37'10"

39°37'5"

0 100 200 300 400 FEET

0 50 100 METERS

G

G’

H

H’

I

I’

J

J’

G

G’

H

H’

I

I’

J

J’

Trench 1

Trench 2

Trench 3

Trench 5

EXPLANATION

J J’ Line of section

Orthophoto from New Jersey Office of Information Technology,

Office of Geographic Information Systems, 2008

Figure 19. Lines of section across trench 1 along which land-surface altitudes were measured, Hammonton Land Application Facility, 

southern New Jersey.
38 Assessment of Factors Affecting the Infiltration of Treated Wastewater in the New Jersey Coastal Plain

Figure 20. Vertical profiles across trench 1 showing land-surface altitudes along sections (A) G–G’, (B) H–H’, (C) I–I’, 

and (D) J–J’, Hammonton Land Application Facility, southern New Jersey.

G G’

0 20 40 60 70 100 120 140

HORZONTAL DISTANCE FROM WESTERN BANK, IN FEET

J J’

I I’

H H’

ALTITUDE, IN FEET

110

108

106

104

102

100

98

96

94

92

110

108

106

104

102

100

98

96

94

92

110

108

106

104

102

100

98

96

94

92

110

108

106

104

102

100

98

96

94

92

This study

3:1 slope

ARH Associates (1993)

Pennoni (2001)

Pennoni (2003)

EXPLANATION

A

B

C

D
Physical, Chemical, and Hydrologic Factors 39

Figure 21. Erosional features of the southern wall of trench 1, 

Hammonton Land Application Facility, southern New Jersey.

facilities are not underlain by strata that restrict flow. Although 

both the Sicklerville and Hammonton LAFs are underlain by 

the Bridgeton Formation, the HPT results indicate no impediments to infiltration at Sicklerville, a condition due, at least 

in part, to maintenance regimes at Sicklerville that call for 

the periodic excavation of trenches to a depth of up to 12 ft 

below the current trench-floor altitude. Excavated sediments 

are removed and replaced with clean sand. Variations in the 

grain size of the Bridgeton Formation based on differences 

in the depositional and erosional history of the unit between 

Hammonton and Sicklerville also must contribute to the difference in hydraulic properties. The Landis LAF is underlain by 

Lower Terrace deposits, which consist of gravels that, on the 

basis of HPT testing, have nearly uniform hydraulic properties with no restrictive strata. HPT results for Aero Haven 

are similar to those for the Landis and Sicklerville LAFs. 

This is not surprising, as the site is underlain by the sand and 

pebble gravels of Upper Terrace and weathered Coastal Plain 

deposits of similar parent material. Although a more comprehensive site investigation prior to siting infiltration trenches is 

warranted, these results indicate that the sediment underlying 

Aero Haven contains no layer that would impede infiltration of 

treated wastewater.

Collapse of wall materials and (or) accumulation of sediment may contribute to the performance issues observed at the 

Hammonton LAF. No collapse features were observed at facilities other than the Hammonton LAF. The trench-wall slopes 

at the Landis and Sicklerville LAFs are shallower than those 

at the Hammonton LAF; steeper slopes are more vulnerable to 

collapse. As the trench drains, the trench-wall sediments retain 

residual water, making them heavier and decreasing sediment cohesion (reducing the effective angle of repose for the 

sediment in the wall). If the cohesion of sediments is reduced 

such that the sheer strength of the wall is exceeded, sediment 

will move downslope. The accumulations of sediment and 

slumping of trench walls at the Hammonton LAF appear to be 

evidence of this process.

Because hourly flow and gage-height data are not available for facilities other than the Hammonton LAF, detailed 

comparisons of initial and resting infiltration rates are impossible. Average loading rates and infiltration-basin areas are 

available for the Sicklerville and Landis LAFs. During winter 

months (November–February), an average of 5.6 Mgal/d 

infiltrates over 140 acres of basins at the Landis LAF (Dennis 

Palmer, Landis LAF, oral commun., 2009). Of the 140 acres, 

only a small portion (12–32 acres) is in use at any given time, 

allowing for an ample resting period (Dennis Palmer, Landis 

LAF, oral commun., 2009). Dividing the mean daily flow by 

the area of the infiltration basins yields an average winter infiltration rate for the Landis LAF of 0.43 in/hr (1.1 cm/hr). In 

dry weather, an average of 2 Mgal/d of wastewater is treated 

and applied over 52.3 acres of basins at the Sicklerville LAF 

(Andrew Kricum, Camden County Municipal Utilities Authority, oral commun., 2009). At any given time, approximately 

80 percent of the Sicklerville recharge basins are in service 

and 20 percent are “resting” (Andrew Kricum, oral commun., 

2009). Therefore, the Sicklerville LAF has an average infiltration rate of 0.08 in/hr (0.2 cm/hr). Although a higher infiltration rate is achieved at the Hammonton LAF than at the Sicklerville LAF, wastewater at the Hammonton LAF is applied to 

only 15.3 acres of trenches (ARH Associates, 1993). Average 

infiltration rates determined from pre-construction infiltration 

tests conducted at the Hammonton LAF are nearly 20 times 

greater than the average rate observed at the Landis LAF. 

Attempts to correlate the geology at the study sites with 

the most refined maps of geology or soils available were only 

partially successful. In general, the mapped units indicate the 

deposits present in the vicinity of the site, but the geologic 

characteristics of the individual sites vary considerably, as 

would be expected for materials deposited in a fluvial environment. The composition of any given unit can vary considerably with location.
40 Assessment of Factors Affecting the Infiltration of Treated Wastewater in the New Jersey Coastal Plain DEPTH, IN FEET BELOW LAND SURFACE

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

27

15 50 100 120

0 200 400 520

15 50 100 120

0 200 400 520

15 50 100 120

0 200 400 520

15 50 100 120

0 200 400 520

MAXIMUM FLOW, IN MILLILITERS PER MINUTE

MAXIMUM PRESSURE, IN POUNDS PER SQUARE INCH

SICKLERVILLE LAF LANDIS LAF AERO HAVEN

(PROPOSED)

HAMMONTON LAF

NEST 11 MW C

Figure 22. Comparison of results of Hydraulic Profiling Tool tests conducted at selected existing and proposed land application 

facilities (LAFs) in southern New Jersey.
Summary and Conclusions 41

Summary and Conclusions

In 1991, the New Jersey Department of Environmental 

Protection (NJDEP) directed the Town of Hammonton to 

upgrade its sewage-treatment plant and cease stream discharge to meet Pinelands and New Jersey Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (NJPDES) requirements. In response 

to the NJDEP directive, Hammonton constructed a new 

tertiary-treatment plant and land application facility (LAF). 

In its second year of operation (2002), the LAF was found to 

be capable of infiltrating a maximum of 0.6 Mgal/d, far less 

than the design capacity of 1.6 Mgal/d. Because anticipated 

development in Hammonton and other Pinelands towns will 

require construction of additional infiltration facilities or use 

of alternative methods to treat and dispose of treated wastewater, the U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the 

Pinelands Commission and the Town of Hammonton, New 

Jersey, conducted a study to identify potential reasons for the 

reduced infiltration in the trenches at the Hammonton LAF 

and assess the potential for similar conditions to exist elsewhere in the New Jersey Coastal Plain, particularly within the 

Pinelands National Reserve, by collecting and analyzing sediment, geophysical, water-quality, water-level, flow, altitude, 

and operational data.

Multiple lines of evidence indicate that aerially extensive fine-grained and (or) iron-cemented strata underlying the 

Hammonton LAF impede infiltration and cause lateral flow 

and perching of water. Gamma logs from wells, HPT drivepoint testing, and sediment cores indicate the presence of 

numerous low-permeability layers in the subsurface throughout the facility. Low-permeability layers vary in thickness 

from less than 1 ft to approximately 5 ft. Some layers were 

detected as deep as 30 ft below the land surface. An interpretation of the geophysical data indicates that many of these layers 

are continuous beneath the site. Auger holes and piezometer 

water-level measurements indicate the presence of at least 

three zones of perched water beneath the trenches. Results of 

chemical analyses of perched-water samples indicate that the 

source of the water is primarily infiltrated wastewater. 

Performance of the Hammonton LAF trenches has 

changed since operations began in 2002. From 2002 to 2007, 

infiltration rates in trench 1 have declined whereas those in 

trenches 2 and 3 have remained relatively stable. The initially 

high infiltration rates in trench 1 are interpreted to result from 

the filling of initially dry pore spaces at the site. Once these 

voids were filled, the infiltration rate reflected the limitations 

imposed by the low-permeability layers. After a brief period of 

relatively high infiltration rates, the average initial and resting 

infiltration rates for all three trenches dropped to 0.56 and 

0.18 in/hr (0.47 cm/hr), respectively. In 7 of the 41 infiltration 

events evaluated, each of the trenches gained more water than 

expected during loading on at least two occasions. This observation, combined with the presence of the low-permeability 

layers and perched water, most likely indicates that lateral 

flow between trenches is occurring through zones of perched 

water. Because of these subsurface interconnections, filling of 

any one trench can affect the performance of nearby trenches 

and likely increases the time needed for the subsurface to 

drain between trench fillings. Differences between initial and 

resting infiltration rates indicates that wetting of initially drier 

unsaturated sediments accounts for a substantial portion of 

the observed infiltration. Once the pore spaces were filled, 

the infiltration rates decreased. The same phenomenon likely 

occurred during pre-construction infiltration testing, as infiltration-test results overestimated average operational infiltration 

rates by a factor of 40. Infiltration tests that were assumed to 

observe steady-state vertical infiltration were in all likelihood 

the result of a combination of lateral flow and wetting of initially drier sediments in the unsaturated zone. Similar analyses 

at other LAFs in southern New Jersey show similar rates of 

infiltration. Higher volumes of treated wastewater infiltrate at 

other LAFs than at the Hammonton LAF because the basin 

area over which the water is applied is greater and the underlying geology is more hydraulically conductive.

Altitude surveys of trench 1 show that slumping and 

redeposition of wall sediments has occurred, but the magnitude of the effect of this process on infiltration rates is 

unclear. Contributing to the wall instability is the possibility 

that, when saturated or submerged, the sediments underlying 

the Hammonton LAF have an angle of repose shallower than 

the 3:1 slope of the walls. Trench 1, the deepest infiltration 

trench at any of the sites studied, was the only trench at which 

evidence of this process was noted.

Infiltration at the Hammonton LAF is controlled primarily by the low-permeability strata at the site; therefore, any 

attempt to increase infiltration must account for the characteristics of the geologic materials underlying the site. Removing 

the layers beneath trench 1 would require excavating 20 ft 

below the current floor to remove and replace approximately 

1.5 x 106 ft3 of sediment. Routine perched-water or soilmoisture monitoring to adjust loading levels and the duration 

of resting periods at the site would help to reduce interactions 

between trenches. The infiltration rate of water applied elsewhere at the site is likely to be affected by the possible occurrence of perching and interactions between recharge areas. A 

routine program of trench maintenance and wall stabilization 

might improve performance at trench 1, as long as stabilization is conducted in a manner that does not reduce the permeability of the trench walls.

Although infiltration at the Hammonton LAF is impeded 

by low-permeability strata, analyses of water-quality samples 

characteristic of treated wastewater in monitoring wells, 

temporary drive points, and perched water indicates that 

water from the facility is reaching the underlying aquifer. 

Long holding times within the storage lagoon and a lengthy 

recharge path provide opportunities for sorption, dilution, and 

biodegradation of many wastewater constituents, resulting in 

minimal effects on the aquifer from nutrients and wastewater 

compounds. Concentrations of nitrate in samples of shallow groundwater underlying the facility are lower than those 

observed in perimeter monitoring wells that capture water 

from other regional sources of nutrients.
42 Assessment of Factors Affecting the Infiltration of Treated Wastewater in the New Jersey Coastal Plain

The performance of potential future infiltration sites in 

the Pinelands can be maximized by the consideration of sitespecific, three-dimensional hydrogeologic information when 

evaluating potential sites. Regional- and local-scale geologic 

information available from maps and previously published 

reports lacks the precision needed for selecting infiltration 

sites in the Pinelands. Even detailed maps of local surficial 

geology, soils, and runoff potential at the 1:24,000 scale are 

of limited use when selecting infiltration sites, because the 

scale of local variations in sediment hydrogeologic properties 

is below the resolution of the map. Results of groundwater 

simulations and slug tests typically provide information about 

the large-scale average horizontal permeability of deeper sediments rather than the small-scale vertical permeability of nearsurface unsaturated sediments that can impede infiltration. 

Designers and builders of future wastewater infiltration 

facilities in southern New Jersey and similar hydrogeologic 

settings can benefit from the investigation of the problems 

encountered at the Hammonton LAF and the experiences of its 

operators. Rigorous characterization of the grain size and stratigraphy of units underlying prospective infiltration trenches 

prior to construction (ideally as part of the site-selection and 

land-acquisition process) will help to ensure the success of 

future facilities. Because the unsaturated conductivity of sediments underlying infiltration trenches dramatically affects site 

performance, including this characteristic as a site-selection 

criterion for future facilities is essential. Results of infiltration 

testing can be misleading and may not be a good predictor 

of long-term performance. If infiltration tests are conducted, 

installation of soil-moisture monitoring equipment may be 

necessary to rule out the possibility of lateral flow. With 

the advent of tools like the HPT that can measure hydraulic 

properties directly, it is possible to use direct-drive equipment 

(verified with samples of continuous sediment cores) to collect 

dense hydrogeologic data rapidly. The HPT allows identification of hydraulically restrictive units that could go unnoticed 

with surface-based infiltration testing. 

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Anthony DeCicco (Town of Hammonton) and Edward Wengrowski, Lawrence Liggett, and Thomas 

Stanuikynas (New Jersey Pinelands Commission) for their 

support and cooperation. We also thank Joseph Pantalone 

(Adams, Rehmann & Heggan Associates) and Seth Gladstone 

(Pennoni Associates Inc.) for ready access to their archived 

data and engineering reports. The authors thank Eric Best, 

Lawrence Feinson, Robert Rosman, Jason Shvanda, and 

Nicholas Smith of the USGS for their diligent field efforts. 

We are indebted to Arthur Baehr (USGS) for his insightful 

suggestions throughout this effort, to Donald Rice (USGS) for 

preparation of GIS-based figures, and to Pierre Lacombe and 

Paul Stackelberg (USGS) for their thorough reviews, which 

greatly improved this manuscript.

References Cited

ARH Associates, 1989, Town of Hammonton, Atlantic County, 

Wastewater Management Plan: Hammonton, New Jersey, 

May 1989, revised August 1, 1989, and October 10, 1989, 

10 p.

ARH Associates, 1993, Hammonton Wastewater Treatment 

Plant Land Application Facility final report: Hammonton, 

New Jersey, 91 p.

Brenton, R.W., and Arnett, T.L., 1993, Methods of analysis by 

the U.S. Geological Survey National Water Quality Laboratory–Determination of dissolved organic carbon by UV-promoted persulfate oxidation and infrared spectrometry: U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 92-480, 12 p.

Burkhardt, M.R., ReVellow, R.C., Smith, S.G., and Zaugg, 

S.D., 2005, Pressurized liquid extraction using water/isopropanol coupled with solid-phase extraction cleanup for 

industrial and anthropogenic waste-indicator compounds in 

sediment: Analytica Chimica Acta, v. 534, p. 89–100. 

Chemicalland21.com, Triethyl citrate, 2009, accessed September 3, 2009, at http://chemicalland21.com/specialtychem/

perchem/TRIETHYL%20CITRATE.htm.

Childress, Carolyn J. O., Foreman, W.T., Connor, B.F., and 

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, 25 p.

Fetter, C.W., 1984, Applied hydrology, 3d ed.: New York, 

Macmillan College Publishing Company, 691 p.

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

determination of inorganic substances in water and fluvial 

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

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

Geological Survey National Water Quality Laboratory–

Determination of inorganic and organic constituents in 

water and fluvial sediments: U.S. Geological Survey OpenFile Report 93-125, 217 p.

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

Laboratory—Determination of organic plus inorganic mercury in filtered and unfiltered natural water with cold vapor–

atomic fluorescence spectrometry: U.S. Geological Survey 

Water-Resources Investigations Report 01-4132, 16 p.
References Cited 43

Garbarino, J.R., Kanagy, 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.

Geoprobe Systems, 1998, Geoprobe Macro-Core® Hydraulic 

Soil Sampler standard operating procedure: Technical Bulletin No. 95-8500, 27 p.

Geoprobe Systems, 2007, Geoprobe® Hydraulic Profiling 

Tool (HPT) standard operating procedure: Technical Bulletin No. MK3137, 19 p., accessed September 3, 2009, at 

http://geoprobe-di.com/component/option,com_remository/

Itemid,80/func,select/id,8/.

Hem, John D., 1992, Study and interpretation of the chemical characteristics of natural water, 3d ed.: U.S. Geological 

Survey Water-Supply Paper 2254, 264 p.

Hinkle, S.R., Weick, R.J., Johnson, J.M., Cahill, J.D., Smith, 

S.G. and Rich, B.J., 2005, Organic wastewater compounds, 

pharmaceuticals, and coliphage in ground water receiving 

discharge from onsite wastewater treatment systems near La 

Pine, Oregon—Occurrence and implications for transport: 

U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 

2005–5055, 98 p.

Kennedy, E.J., 1990, Levels at streamflow gaging stations: 

Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations of the United 

States Geological Survey, book 3, chap. A19, 30 p.

Keys, W.S., and McCary, L.M., 1971, Application of borehole 

geophysics to water-resources investigations: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, 

book 2, chap. E1, 126 p.

MunsellTM Color, 2000, MunsellTM soil color charts: New 

Windsor, NY, GretagMacbeth, year 2000 revised washable 

edition. 

National Toxicology Program, 1989, NTP toxicology and carcinogenesis studies of tribromomethane (bromoform) (CAS 

No. 75-25-2) in F344/N rats and B6C3F1 mice (gavage 

studies): National Toxicology Program Technical Report 

321, 194 p.

New Jersey Pinelands Commission, 2007, New Jersey 

Pinelands Commission, accessed August 10, 2009, at 

http://www.state.nj.us/pinelands/.

Newell, W.L., Powars, D.S., Owens, J.P., Stanford, S.D., and 

Stone, B.D., 2000, Surficial geologic map of central and 

southern New Jersey: U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Investigations Map I-2540-D, scale 1:100,000.

Owens, J.P., Hess, M.M., Denny, C.S., and Dwornik, E.J., 

1983, Postdepositional alteration of surface and near-surface 

minerals in selected Coastal Plain formations of the Middle 

Atlantic States: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 

1067-F, 45 p.

Patton, C.J., and Truitt, E.P., 1992, Methods of analysis by 

the U.S. Geological Survey National Water Quality Laboratory–Determination of total phosphorus by a Kjeldahl 

digestion method and an automated colorimetric finish that 

includes dialysis: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 

92-146, 39 p.

Patton, C.J., and Truitt, E.P., 2000, Methods of analysis by the 

U.S. Geological Survey National Water Quality Laboratory–Determination of ammonium plus organic nitrogen by 

a Kjeldahl digestion method and an automated photometric 

finish that includes digest cleanup by gas diffusion: U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 00-170, 31 p.

Pennoni Associates Inc., 1999, Boyer Avenue land application 

project: Absecon, N.J., Pennoni Associates Inc., prepared 

for Town of Hammonton, May 1999, 23 sheets.

Pennoni Associates Inc., 2003, Slit trench 1 sub-soil investigation report: Absecon, N.J., Pennoni Associates Inc., prepared for Town of Hammonton, October 17, 2003.

Rhodehamel, E.C., 1970, A hydrologic analysis of the New 

Jersey Pine barrens region: Trenton, N.J., New Jersey 

Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Water 

Policy and Supply, Water Resources Circular 22, 40 p.

Sanchez-Prado, L., Llompart, M., Lores, M., García-Jares, D., 

Bayon, J.M., and Cela, R., 2006, Monitoring the photochemical degradation of triclosan in wastewater by UV light 

and sunlight using solid-phase microextraction: Chemosphere, v. 65, p. 1,338–1,347.

Soil Survey Division Staff, 1993, Soil survey manual: 

Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 18, accessed September 8, 2009, at 

http://soils.usda.gov/technical/manual/.

Struzeski, T.M., DeGiacomo, W.J., and Zayhowski, E.J., 

1996, Methods of analysis by the U.S. Geological Survey 

National Water Quality Laboratory–Determination of dissolved aluminum and boron in water by inductively coupled 

plasma-atomic emission spectrometry: U.S. Geological 

Survey Open-File Report 96-149, 17 p.

U.S. Geological Survey, Branch of Quality Systems, 

2009 Blind Blank Project: accessed March 3, 2009, at 

http://bqs.usgs.gov/bbp. 
44 Assessment of Factors Affecting the Infiltration of Treated Wastewater in the New Jersey Coastal Plain

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2007, Technology 

transfer network air toxics website, Bis(2-ethylhexyl) 

phthalate (DEHP): accessed September 3, 2009, at 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/hlthef/eth-phth.html.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2009a, Pesticides: 

Topical & chemical fact sheets—The insect repellant 

DEET: accessed September 3, 2009, at http://www.epa.gov/

pesticides/factsheets/chemicals/deet.htm.

Wilde, F.D., and Radtke, D.B., eds., 1998, National field manual for the collection of water-quality data: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, 

book 9, chap. A6, 233 p.

Xu, B., Gao, N., Sun, X., Xia, S., Rui, M., Simonnot, M., 

Causserand, C., and Zhao, J., 2007, Photochemical degradation of diethyl phthalate with UV/H2O2: Journal of Hazardous Materials, v. 139, p. 132–139.

Zapecza, O.S., 1989, Hydrogeologic framework of the New 

Jersey Coastal Plain: U.S. Geological Survey Professional 

Paper 1404-B, 49 p., 24 pl.

Zaugg, S.D., Smith, S.G., and Schroeder, M.P., 2006, Methods 

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

Quality Laboratory–Determination of wastewater compounds in whole water by continuous liquid-liquid extraction and capillary-column gas chromatography/mass spectrometry: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques and Methods, 

book 5, chap. B4, 30 p.
Table 5
46 Assessment of Factors Affecting the Infiltration of Treated Wastewater in the New Jersey Coastal Plain Table 5. Water-quality data collected, including field parameters, nutrients (milligrams per liter), major ions (milligrams per liter), and trace elements (micrograms per liter), at sites located at the Hammonton Waste Water Treatment Plant and Land Application Facility, southern New Jersey, November 2006–May 2007. [WWTP, wastewater treatment plant; UV, ultraviolet; >, greater than; <, less than; E, estimated; NA, not analyzed; NTU, nephelometric turbidity units; mg/L, milligrams per liter; μS/cm, microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius; °C, degrees Celsius; constituents and field parameters were measured in filtered samples, unless otherwise noted] Station number Station name Station type Date Turbidity1 (NTU) Dissolved1 oxygen (mg/L) pH, field1 (standard units) Specific1 conductance, field (mS/cm) Temperature, water (°C) Hardness (mg/L CaCO3

)

393759074460301 Hammonton WWTP Effluent Post-UV effluent 12/2/2006 4.3 12.55 7.5 359.3 3.8 42.6393759074460301 Hammonton WWTP Effluent Post-UV effluent 5/2/2007 .95 11.1 7.58 384.5 16.5 49.2393715074453701 Hammonton WWTP Lagoon A Lagoon 12/6/2006 21.7 13.25 8.92 331.7 6.21 39.4393719074453301 Hammonton WWTP Lagoon B Lagoon 12/6/2006 15.3 12.77 8.75 343.5 8.2 39.9393719074453301 Hammonton WWTP Lagoon B Lagoon 5/3/2007 11 9.4 9.3 353.3 18 39.7393718074453301 Hammonton WWTP Lagoon C Lagoon 12/6/2006 21.9 13.39 8.94 335.2 6.71 41.2393721074454501 Hammonton WWTP Trench 2 Trench 12/5/2006 20.6 14.18 9.38 293.7 7.45 37.5393721074454501 Hammonton WWTP Trench 2 Trench 12/7/2006 20 15.39 9.32 303.2 7.01 37393721074454501 Hammonton WWTP Trench 2 Trench 5/3/2007 35.7 9.2 9 269.5 19.8 25.8393725074454001 Hammonton WWTP DP01 Shallow groundwater 12/8/2006 >1,000 8.44 5.9 257 8.15 .719393715074454802 Hammonton WWTP DP02 Shallow groundwater 5/1/2007 539 7.8 4.8 24.31 15.1 1.36393721074454302 Hammonton WWTP DP03 Shallow groundwater 5/2/2007 347 9.13 4.82 119.5 17.2 4.79393720074454401 Hammonton WWTP Nest11/WellA Perched water 4/30/2007 .7 4.34 4.8 192.8 14.3 2.26393715074454801 Hammonton WWTP PZ04 Monitoring well 11/30/2006 63.8 8.4 4.3 155.8 14.2 6.77393709074454101 Hammonton WWTP PZ05 Monitoring well 12/4/2006 .6 9.5 4.4 115.7 13.2 4.9393721074454301 Hammonton WWTP PZ06 Monitoring well 11/30/2006 .5 8.3 4.3 114.4 14 6.85393728074455101 Hammonton WWTP MW05 Monitoring well 11/29/2006 3.64 4.66 4.51 38.76 14.14 6.81393728074455101 Hammonton WWTP MW05 Monitoring well 5/1/2007 1.3 5 4.9 42.39 11.4 7.29393721074452401 Hammonton WWTP MW08 Monitoring well 12/4/2006 1.2 5.6 4.4 62.2 12.6 13.7393721074452401 Hammonton WWTP MW08 Monitoring well 5/2/2007 .7 6 4.54 55.8 12.6 11

1Unfiltered
Table 5 47

Table 5. Water-quality data collected, including field parameters, nutrients (milligrams per liter), major ions (milligrams per liter), and trace elements (micrograms per liter), at sites located at the Hammonton Waste Water Treatment Plant and Land Application Facility, southern New Jersey, November 2006–May 2007.—Continued[WWTP, wastewater treatment plant; UV, ultraviolet; >, greater than; <, less than; E, estimated; NA, not analyzed; NTU, nephelometric turbidity units; mg/L, milligrams per liter; μS/cm, microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius; °C, degrees Celsius; constituents and field parameters were measured in filtered samples, unless otherwise noted]

Station number

Acid neutralizing

capacity

(mg/L CaCO3)

Alkalinity

(mg/L CaCO3)

Ammonia plus 

organic nitrogen1 Ammonia Nitrite plus nitrate Nitrite Orthophosphate Phosphorus

393759074460301 51.3 NA 1.19 .037 1.98 .006 1.62 1.58393759074460301 48.4 44.3 .842 .029 1.89 .004 2.57 2.65393715074453701 51.7 54.6 1.33 E.0136 .425 .006 .49 .563393719074453301 52.1 48.5 1.23 E.0182 .923 .006 .759 .837393719074453301 55.2 NA 1.1 <.02 .332 .004 1.25 1.37393718074453301 51.6 46.5 1.32 E.0115 .462 .006 .513 .579393721074454501 49.4 NA 1.39 <.02 <.060 E.002 .25 .267393721074454501 48.8 42.5 1.36 E.0123 <.060 <.002 .24 .28393721074454501 42.9 NA 1.09 <.02 <.060 <.002 .209 .272393725074454001 5.496 5.7 14.03 .026 .321 <.002 <.006 <.04393715074454802 <5 3.9 .174 <.02 E.040 <.002 .021 <.04393721074454302 <5 .3 .197 E.010 2.2 <.002 E.003 <.04393720074454401 <5 1.7 .147 <.02 <.060 <.002 <.006 <.04393715074454801 <5 NA E.061 <.02 .871 <.002 <.006 <.04393709074454101 <5 NA <.10 <.02 1.06 <.002 <.006 <.04393721074454301 <5 NA E.051 <.02 2.26 <.002 <.006 <.04393728074455101 <5 NA <.10 <.02 E.037 <.002 <.006 <.04393728074455101 <5 1.9 E.054 <.02 .081 <.002 <.006 <.04393721074452401 <5 NA E.088 <.02 2.223 <.002 <.006 <.04393721074452401 <5 NA <.10 <.02 .965 <.002 E.004 <.04

1Unfiltered
48 Assessment of Factors Affecting the Infiltration of Treated Wastewater in the New Jersey Coastal Plain Table 5. Water-quality data collected, including field parameters, nutrients (milligrams per liter), major ions (milligrams per liter), and trace elements (micrograms per liter), at sites located at the Hammonton Waste Water Treatment Plant and Land Application Facility, southern New Jersey, November 2006–May 2007.—Continued [WWTP, wastewater treatment plant; UV, ultraviolet; >, greater than; <, less than; E, estimated; NA, not analyzed; NTU, nephelometric turbidity units; mg/L, milligrams per liter; μS/cm, microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius; °C, degrees Celsius; constituents and field parameters were measured in filtered samples, unless otherwise noted] Station number Phosphorus1 Organic carbon Organic carbon1 Calcium Magnesium Potassium Sodium Chloride 393759074460301 1.66 8.84 8.54 12.2 2.98 1.5 46.8 54.7 393759074460301 2.66 6.08 6.55 13.6 3.74 9.94 49.7 6.6 393715074453701 .653 5.27 8.71 11.3 2.72 9.06 42 49.1 393719074453301 .913 5.77 7.84 11.4 2.8 9.22 44.1 51 393719074453301 1.47 9.65 7.74 11.2 2.88 1.2 46.2 54.8 393718074453301 .666 6.23 8.98 11.9 2.81 9.29 43.7 49.4 393721074454501 .402 11.5 1.8 1.9 2.52 8.64 39 43.5 393721074454501 .434 5.32 1.6 1.6 2.53 8.59 39 44.7 393721074454501 .412 1.7 14.1 7.27 1.86 7.92 37.5 42.5 393725074454001 1.17 1.58 5.2 .077 .128 .36 46.7 55 393715074454802 E.031 1.71 .889 .196 .212 .486 1.91 3.3 393721074454302 .058 1.68 .813 .339 .958 .688 17.7 25.7 393720074454401 <.040 2.25 2.15 .442 .282 1.76 33.9 33 393715074454801 <.040 .437 .433 .666 1.24 .614 22.4 39.9 393709074454101 <.040 .42 .432 .183 1.08 .775 16.6 27.3 393721074454301 <.040 .435 E.227 .468 1.38 .976 15.1 24.4 393728074455101 <.040 .782 .543 1.5 .741 .377 2.29 3.28

393728074455101 <.040 .807 .868 1.67 .758 .413 2.09 3.26393721074452401 <.040 1.33 1.23 1.27 2.55 .751 2.17 4.21393721074452401 <.040 1.07 1.04 .967 2.08 .639 2.46 4.67

1Unfiltered
Table 5 49

Table 5. Water-quality data collected, including field parameters, nutrients (milligrams per liter), major ions (milligrams per liter), and trace elements (micrograms per liter), at sites located at the Hammonton Waste Water Treatment Plant and Land Application Facility, southern New Jersey, November 2006–May 2007.—Continued[WWTP, wastewater treatment plant; UV, ultraviolet; >, greater than; <, less than; E, estimated; NA, not analyzed; NTU, nephelometric turbidity units; mg/L, milligrams per liter; μS/cm, microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius; °C, degrees Celsius; constituents and field parameters were measured in filtered samples, unless otherwise noted]

Station number Fluoride Silica Sulfate Residue Aluminum Arsenic Boron Cadmium Chromium

393759074460301 .233 9.61 21.2 NA 1.3 .2 167 .17 .25393759074460301 .232 8.69 23.4 <10 13.6 .31 181 .09 .27393715074453701 .239 6.63 21.8 <10 22.2 1.01 162 .14 .14393719074453301 .247 7.6 21.4 <10 19.9 .75 170 .15 .18393719074453301 .325 6.19 18.5 <10 110 1.34 194 .09 .25393718074453301 .231 6.66 21.8 <10 23.7 .99 162 .28 .15393721074454501 .218 4.67 21 11 19.8 1.21 150 .1 .13393721074454501 .201 4.66 21.9 <10 2.8 .99 154 .1 E.11393721074454501 .184 .715 14.2 20 131 1.07 161 .07 .26393725074454001 E.052 6.88 2.6 E18,400 17.5 <.12 121 <.04 .16393715074454802 <.10 4.94 .503 200 49.6 E.06 9.97 E.02 .27393721074454302 <.10 4.98 .516 210 186 .13 19.6 E.02 .55393720074454401 <.10 3.12 28.9 <10 156 .19 65 .11 .14393715074454801 <.10 4.77 .623 38 454 .24 1.5 E.02 .14393709074454101 <.10 5.76 .377 <10 250 .24 1.9 E.02 E.11393721074454301 <.10 5.3 .415 <10 329 .14 12.8 <.04 .19393728074455101 <.10 4.21 7.58 <10 307 .34 13.9 .14 .18393728074455101 <.10 3.59 8.2 <10 317 .31 11.6 .12 .23393721074452401 <.10 5.07 7.42 <10 352 .24 1.7 .04 .17393721074452401 <.10 4.36 8.54 11 240 .12 1.4 E.02 .19

1Unfiltered
50 Assessment of Factors Affecting the Infiltration of Treated Wastewater in the New Jersey Coastal Plain Table 5. Water-quality data collected, including field parameters, nutrients (milligrams per liter), major ions (milligrams per liter), and trace elements (micrograms per liter), at sites located at the Hammonton Waste Water Treatment Plant and Land Application Facility, southern New Jersey, November 2006–May 2007.—Continued [WWTP, wastewater treatment plant; UV, ultraviolet; >, greater than; <, less than; E, estimated; NA, not analyzed; NTU, nephelometric turbidity units; mg/L, milligrams per liter; μS/cm, microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius; °C, degrees Celsius; constituents and field parameters were measured in filtered samples, unless otherwise noted] Station number Copper Iron Lead Manganese Mercury Mercury1 Molybdenum Nickel Zinc 393759074460301 14.3 41.4 2.16 9.76 <.010 E.007 .23 .96 108 393759074460301 8.3 26.4 .76 14 <.010 NA .2 1.04 80 393715074453701 11 2.5 1.06 1.33 <.010 NA .95 .93 86.4 393719074453301 11.3 29.1 1.14 2.69 <.010 NA .77 .97 92 393719074453301 7.49 172 .63 8.12 <.010 E.005 .44 1.15 50 393718074453301 1.9 33.3 1.09 1.71 <.010 NA .87 .96 86.4 393721074454501 9.15 19.3 1.15 1.03 <.010 E.006 1.16 .92 64.3 393721074454501 8.58 16.8 .79 .364 <.010 E.007 1.1 .89 65.3 393721074454501 4.49 153 .38 3.59 <.010 E.008 .51 .85 29.1 393725074454001 .92 93.7 E.10 4.2 .153 2.38 <.12 4.49 15.3 393715074454802 .88 1,114 <.12 2.8 <.010 .046 <.12 8.02 19 393721074454302 .56 1,021 E.10 16.9 <.010 .01 <.12 4.51 E3.10 393720074454401 E.36 <60 .51 13.7 .013 .641 <.12 .93 <60 393715074454801 .65 E3.19 .26 1.74 .145 .137 <.12 .88 <6 393709074454101 E.31 E3.66 .19 4.72 .866 NA <.12 1.36 <6 393721074454301 .66 E3.99 .24 4.55 .041 NA <.12 1.12 <6 393728074455101 E.27 E3.78 <.12 61.16 .019 .018 <.12 1.22 6.73

393728074455101 E.31 E3.12 E.09 78.3 E.006 NA E.06 1.31 6.88393721074452401 .54 <6 E.09 5.2 .016 NA <.12 1.34 <6393721074452401 .43 <6 E.08 31.2 .016 NA <.12 .95 <6

1Unfiltered
Appendixes
52 Assessment of Factors Affecting the Infiltration of Treated Wastewater in the New Jersey Coastal Plain

Appendix 1. Field parameters, nutrients, major ions, and trace elements in samples collected at the Hammonton 

Waste Water Treatment Plant and Land Application Facility, southern New Jersey, December 2006–May 2007.

[*, water samples analyzed for this constituent were unfiltered; NA, not applicable; μS/cm, microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius; μg/L, micrograms per liter; mg/L, milligrams per liter; RL, reporting limit; Sch, schedule; LC, lab code; Analyses conducted at the U.S. 

Geological Survey National Water Quality Laboratory (NWQL), Denver, Colorado; lab code (LC), a number that designates a compound 

and (or) constituent; schedule (Sch), a grouping of lab codes to be measured]

Constituent or property NWQL schedule or

lab code number RL Units Reference

pH Field NA Standard units 1

Specific conductance Field NA μS/cm 1

Dissolved oxygen Field NA mg/L 1

Temperature Field NA degrees Celsius 1

Ammonia plus organic nitrogen*, as nitrogen Sch 91 .1 mg/L 2

Ammonia, as nitrogen Sch 91 .02 mg/L 3

Nitrite plus nitrate, as nitrogen Sch 91 .06 mg/L 3

Nitrite, as nitrogen Sch 91 .002 mg/L 3

Orthophosphate, as phosphorus Sch 91 .006 mg/L 4

Phosphorus Sch 91 .04 mg/L 3

Phosphorus* Sch 91 .04 mg/L 3

Organic carbon LC 2613 .4 mg/L 3, 5

Organic carbon* LC 114 .4 mg/L 3, 5

Calcium Sch 1 .02 mg/L 3, 5

Chloride Sch 1 .014 mg/L 3, 5

Fluoride Sch 1 .1 mg/L 3, 5

Magnesium Sch 1 .014 mg/L 3, 5

Potassium Sch 1 .04 mg/L 3, 5

Silica Sch 1 .2 mg/L 3, 5

Sodium Sch 1 .2 mg/L 3, 5

Sulfate Sch 1 .18 mg/L 3, 5

Aluminum Sch 344 1.6 μg/L 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

Arsenic Sch 344 1.2 μg/L 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

Boron Sch 344 1.8 μg/L 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

Cadmium Sch 344 .04 μg/L 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

Chromium Sch 344 .12 μg/L 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

Copper Sch 344 .4 μg/L 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

Iron Sch 1 6 μg/L 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

Lead Sch 344 .12 μg/L 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

Manganese Sch 1 .2 μg/L 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

Mercury Sch 344 .01 μg/L 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

Mercury* Sch 344 .01 μg/L 9

Molybdenum Sch 344 .12 μg/L 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

Nickel Sch 344 .06 μg/L 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

Zinc Sch 344 6 μg/L 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

1

Wilde and Radke, 1998

2

Patton and Truitt, 2000

3

Fishman, 1993

4

Patton and Truitt, 1992

5

Fishman and Friedman, 1989

6

Garbarino and others, 2006

7

Struzeski and others, 1996

8

Brenton and Arnett, 1993

9

Garbarino and Damrau, 2001
Appendixes 53

Compound Reporting limit

1-Methylnaphthalene 0.2

2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene .2

2-Methylnaphthalene .2

3,4-Dichlorophenyl isocyanate 1.6

3-beta-Coprostanol .8

3-Methyl-1H-indole (Skatol) .2

3-tert-Butyl-4-hydroxyanisole (BHA) .2

4-Cumylphenol .2

4-n-Octylphenol .2

4-Nonylphenol 1.6

4-tert-Octylphenol .4

5-Methyl-1H-benzotriazole 1.6

Acetophenone 2

AHTN2 .2

Anthracene .2

9,10-Anthraquinone .2

Atrazine .2

BDE congener 47 .2

Benzo[a]pyrene .2

Benzophenone .2

beta-Sitosterol .8

beta-Stigmastanol .8

Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate 2

Bisphenol A .4

Bromacil .2

Caffeine .2

Camphor .2

Carbaryl .2

Carbazole .2

Chlorpyrifos .2

Cholesterol .8

Cotinine .8

N,N-diethyl-meta-toluamide (DEET) .2

Diazinon .2

Dichlorvos .2

Compound Reporting limit

Diethoxynonylphenol (all isomers) (Total NPEO2) 3.2

Diethoxyoctylphenol2 (OPEO2) .32

Diethyl phthalate .2

D-Limonene .2

Fluoranthene .2

HHCB3 .2

Indole .2

Isoborneol .2

Isophorone .2

Isoquinoline .2

Menthol .2

Metalaxyl .2

Methyl salicylate .2

Metolachlor .2

Monoethoxynonylphenol (all isomers) (NPEO1) 2

Monoethoxyoctylphenol (OPEO1) 1

p-Cresol .2

Pentachlorophenol .8

Phenanthrene .2

Phenol .2

Prometon .2

Pyrene .2

Tributyl phosphate .2

Triclosan, water .2

Triethyl citrate (ethyl citrate) .2

Triphenyl phosphate .2

Tris(2-butoxyethyl) phosphate .2

Tris(2-chloroethyl) phosphate .2

Tris(dichloroisopropyl) phosphate .2

1,4-Dichlorobenzene .2

Isopropylbenzene .2

Naphthalene .2

Tetrachloroethene .4

Tribromomethane .2

1

Zaugg and others, 2006

2

7-Acetyl-1,1,3,4,4,6-hexamethyl tetra hydro naphthalene

3

1,3,4,6,7,8-Hexahydro 4,6,6,7,8,8-hexamethyl cyclopenta-4-2-benzopyran

Appendix 2. Wastewater indicator compounds1 measured in samples collected at the Hammonton Waste Water Treatment Plant and 

Land Application Facility, southern New Jersey, December 2006–May 2007.

[All concentrations in micrograms per liter; analyses conducted at the U.S. Geological Survey National Water Quality Laboratory (NWQL), Denver, Colorado 

(schedule 4433); samples for all analyses were unfiltered]
54 Assessment of Factors Affecting the Infiltration of Treated Wastewater in the New Jersey Coastal Plain Appendix 3. Results of blind-sample analyses1 for selected parameters by the U.S. Geological Survey, Branch of Quality Systems, November 2006—June 2007. [mg/L, milligrams per liter; ND, not detected; μS/cm, microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius] Constituent or property Groundwater Treated wastewater Observed range in this study (mg/L unless noted) Blind-sample value or range (mg/L unless noted) 95% confidence interval Observed range in this study (mg/L unless noted) Blind-sample value or range (mg/L unless noted) 95% confidence interval Calcium 0.077–1.67 0.134–8.7 0.072 7.27–13.55 8.7–13.42 0.305 Chloride 3.26–39.89 12–28 0.524 42.484–60.622 28 0.499 Fluoride ND – 0.052 0.15 0.015 0.184–0.325 0.199–0.336 0.031 Magnesium 0.128–2.55 0.094–3.44 0.052 1.86–3.74 2.29–4.20 0.082 Potassium 0.36–1.76 1.05–1.78 0.052 7.92–10.53 2.28 0.414 Silica 3.59–6.88 3.86–8.25 0.144 0.715–9.61 3.86–10.44 0.143 Sodium 2.09–33.91 0.99–23.4 0.521 37.46–49.70 23.4 1.126 Sulfate 0.377–20.63 5.76–15.57 0.229 14.24–23.35 13.65–15.57 0.280 Boron 9.967–121.1 15.75–52.45 1.941 149.7–170.3 52.45 5.301 Iron 3.12–1,114 89.25–185.75 10.289 16–155 89.25–185.75 10.289 Manganese 1.74–78.26 8.7–47.95 1.167 0.364–25.34 8.7–33.15 0.466 Alkalinity (units) 0.3–5.7 19.5 1.615 42.5–54.6 35.85–57.55 1.611 Specific conductance (μS/cm) 24.31–192.8 117.75–228.25 3.316 269.5–384.5 228.25 4.443 Ammonia-N 0.010–0.0255 0.073 0.005 0.01–0.0620 0.073 0.005 Ammonia+Organic-N 0.051–14.03 0.1–1.78 0.070 0.842–1.39 0.715–1.78 0.093 NO3+NO2-N 0.037–2.26 0.13–1.42 0.037 0.332–1.98 0.131–1.42 0.037 Dissolved organic carbon 0.420–2.248 2.12–17.32 0.545 5.27–11.47 4.25–13.03 0.312 Total organic carbon 0.227–50.17 2.15–17.35 0.801 6.55–14.10 4.26–13.31 0.583

1Blind-sample analyses are available upon request from the U.S. Geological Survey, Branch of Quality Systems (http://bqs.usgs.gov/bbp/). 
Appendixes 55

Appendix 4. Lithologic description of continuous sediment cores, Hammonton Land Application Facility (LAF), southern New Jersey.—Continued[ft, feet; bls, below land surface; in, inch; <, less than; %, percent]

Interval 

(ft bls)

Munsell Color 

Notation1 Description

Hammonton LAF Core 01 (39°37’25” 074°45’40”)

0–1.3 7.5YR5/8 MEDIUM SAND, silty, sub-rounded grains, occasional gravel

1.3–1.5 7.5YR5/8 GRAVEL, quartz-rich, silty, rounded and fractured by drilling, <1-in-diameter grains1.5–1.9 7.5YR5/8 COARSE SAND, very silty, sub-rounded grains, some gravel

1.9–2.15 7.5YR6/8 SANDY SILT, medium-sized sand grains2.15–2.6 10YR6/8 MEDIUM SAND, silty, frequent gravel from 2.15–2.35 ft bls3.35–4.0 10YR5/4 FINE SAND, slightly silty, occasional medium sand grains, sub-rounded, some quartz gravel, organic material and red to brownish iron oxide4.0–5.35 10YR7/6 and 7.5YR5/8 FINE SAND, clean white, interbedded with fine sand, silty and brown, approximately 0.2 ft thick

5.35–6.45 7.5YR5/8 FINE SAND, slightly silty, grading to very silty, .394-in-thick band of black grains at 5.5 ft bls

6.45–6.6 5YR4/6 IRON CONCRETIONS (ironstone), gravel-sized7.35–8.2 7.5YR5/6 COARSE SAND, poorly sorted, silty; cemented iron-stained grains at 7.5 ft bls8.2–10.0 7.5YR5/8 FINE SAND, silty, occasional coarse sand, sub-rounded

10.0–10.9 7.5YR5/8 FINE SAND, silty; with SAND layers, white clean, .394-in-wide, with 15% black grains, at 10.1 and 10.25 ft bls

11.35–12.0 7.5YR5/8 FINE SAND, silty, with occasional thin bands of light grey (7.5YR7/1)

12.0–13.6 7.5YR7/1 CLAY, massive, 12–13 ft bls; interbedded FINE SAND, silty (7.5YR5/8) from 13–13.6 ft bls13.6–15.0 7.5YR5/8 FINE SAND, silty, interbedded and mottled with clay (7.5YR7/1)

15.35–15.5 7.5YR5/8 FINE SAND, silty, interfingered with clay (7.5YR7/1)

15.5–15.7 7.5YR5/8 FINE SAND, silty, with some medium, well-rounded quartz grains

15.7–15.85 7.5YR6/8 SAND, well-rounded, medium, with some black sand, fine; plant fragment, small, woody, 15.7 ft bls
56 Assessment of Factors Affecting the Infiltration of Treated Wastewater in the New Jersey Coastal Plain Appendix 4. Lithologic description of continuous sediment cores, Hammonton Land Application Facility (LAF), southern New Jersey.—Continued [ft, feet; bls, below land surface; in, inch; <, less than; %, percent] Interval (ft bls) Munsell Color Notation1 Description 15.85–17.8 7.5YR7/8 SAND, well-rounded, poorly sorted, medium, with coarse grains, well-rounded, frequently interfingered and nodules of clay (7.5YR7/1) 17.8–18.45 7.5YR7/8 FINE SAND, with occasional pebble, coarse quartz, interbedded with pale clays (7.5YR7/1 and 10R7/4) 19.35–19.4 7.5YR5/6 FINE SAND, silty 19.4–21.0 7.5YR7/2 and 10R7/4 CLAY, with silty sand, fine (7.5YR5/6) at 20.2 ft bls 21.0–21.8 10YR7/6 FINE SAND, with some quartz grains, coarse, well-rounded 21.8–23.0 7.5YR7/2 FINE SAND, mottled with medium sand (7.5YR5/8) 23.35–24.1 7.5YR7/2–7.5YR6/8 SAND, well-sorted, medium, with trace opaque grains; MEDIUM SAND, silty, 0.1 ft thick at 23.6 ft bls 24.1–24.2 7.5YR7/2 CLAY, thin, interbedded with fine sand (5YR6/8) 24.2–24.5 7.5YR7/2 FINE SAND, silty 24.5–25.6 7.5YR7/2 MEDIUM SAND, well-sorted, rounded, with rare coarse grains 25.6–26.65 7.5YR7/2–7.5YR6/8 FINE SAND, finely bedded, with <.039-in iron cements associated with similar width clay beds at 26.05 and 26.2 ft bls 27.35–27.75 10YR7/8 and 7.5YR5/8 SANDY SILT, poorly sorted 27.75–28.9 7.5YR7/2 MEDIUM SAND, well-sorted, with rounded mostly quartz grains 28.9–29.35 7.5YR5/8 FINE SAND, with bands of iron cement; FIND SAND (5YR7/8) at 29.1 ft bls and 29.2–29.25 ft bls 29.25–30.95 7.5YR7/2 and 7.5YR6/8 SAND, very fine, mottled 31.35–32.0 7.5YR7/2 and 7.5YR6/8 SAND, very fine, mottled

32.0–32.2 7.5YR7/2 and 7.5YR6/8 SAND, silty, very fine

32.2–32.75 10YR7/8 and 7.5YR5/8 FINE SAND32.75–34.6 7.5YR7/2 and 7.5YR6/8 FINE SAND, silty, mottled
Appendixes 57

Appendix 4. Lithologic description of continuous sediment cores, Hammonton Land Application Facility (LAF), southern New Jersey.—Continued[ft, feet; bls, below land surface; in, inch; <, less than; %, percent]

Interval 

(ft bls)

Munsell Color 

Notation1 Description

Hammonton LAF Core 02 (39°37’15” 074°45’48”)

0.0–0.6 10YR3/2 MEDIUM SAND, silty, with abundant pine needles and organic matter

0.6–2.75 10YR6/8 MEDIUM SAND, silty, well-sorted, with some coarse sand, and 0.1-ft-thick lenses of quartz gravel coated with fine black grains and organic fragments at 1.2 and 2.4 ft bls2.75–3.3 10YR5/4 MEDIUM SAND, poorly sorted, silty, with abundant fractured gravel and very coarse, sub-angular quartz pebbles; some organic grain coatings3.8–4.25 10YR6/8 MEDIUM SAND, poorly sorted, very silty, with abundant rounded quartz gravel; yellow (10YR8/6) clay rip-up clasts associated with the quartz gravels4.25–4.7 10YR7/4 SANDY CLAY, medium, with associated lignite fragments

4.7–5.5 10YR7/6 SANDY CLAY, coarse, very poorly sorted, with frequent rounded quartz gravel5.5–6.1 7.5YR6/8 to 10YR7/6 SANDY CLAY, coarse, with distinct layer of gravel at the top and base of interval6.1–7.5 7.5YR6/8 FINE SAND, silty, with well-rounded, coarse quartz grains 

7.8–11.5 7.5YR6/8 FINE SAND, massive, silty to slightly silty

11.8–12.75 7.5YR6/8 SILT, fine sandy, and SAND, silty fine, with <.039-in. clean white fine sand stringers, and 0.1-ft-thick clay (10YR7/8) stringers (most notably present between 12.25 and 12.4 ft bls)

12.75–13.35 7.5YR6/8 FINE SAND, silty, to slightly silty, with white fine sand stringers as above

13.35–13.5 7.5YR6/8 MEDIUM SAND, silty, rounded, poorly sorted, with some rounded coarse grains

13.5–15.2 7.5YR6/8 FINE SAND, silty to very slightly silty, mottled with fine sand, silty (10YR8/2) from 14.7–15.2 ft bls

15.8–16.05 10YR6/8 SANDY SILT, medium, interfingered with .039-in-thick white silt layers16.05–16.2 10YR7/2 CLAY, massive, mottled with fine sand nodules (7.5YR6/8)16.2–18.05 7.5YR6/8 SANDY CLAY, medium, coarsening downward18.05–19.0 7.5YR6/8 CLAY, with slightly to moderate amounts of medium sand

19.0–19.5 10YR6/8 SANDY SILT, medium, interfingered with .039-in-thick white silt layers
58 Assessment of Factors Affecting the Infiltration of Treated Wastewater in the New Jersey Coastal Plain Appendix 4. Lithologic description of continuous sediment cores, Hammonton Land Application Facility (LAF), southern New Jersey.—Continued [ft, feet; bls, below land surface; in, inch; <, less than; %, percent] Interval (ft bls) Munsell Color Notation1 Description 19.8–20.5 7.5YR6/8 MEDIUM SAND, slightly silty 20.5–23.1 10YR7/2 and 7.5YR6/8 CLAY, tightly interfingered with medium sand, well-rounded 25.8–26.9 7.5YR6/8 MEDIUM SAND, silty, grading to sandy silt, poorly sorted with some coarse quartz sand, sub-rounded, from 26.7–26.9 ft bls 26.9–28.0 10YR6/8 and 10YR8/2 FINE SAND, mottled, well sorted 28.0–29.4 10YR6/8 FINE SAND, clean to slightly silty, moderately sorted, with frequent sand grains, coarse, rounded 31.8–33.2 10YR7/2 FINE SAND, well sorted, mottled with .039-in-diameter nodules of fine sand (7.5YR6/8) 33.2–35.1 10YR7/8 FINE SAND, interfingered with fine sand (10YR7/2) Hammonton LAF Core 03 (39°37’21” 074°45’43”) 0.0–0.15 10YR5/8 FINE SAND, slightly silty (A horizon), with abundant fine roots 0.15–2.5 10YR5/8 to 10YR6/8 FINE SAND, silty, with occasional bands of fine sand (10YR2/1) with mafic minerals and organic matter 3.8–4.45 7.5YR6/8 FINE SAND, silty, with occasional bands of fine sand (10YR5/1) with flakes of organic material 4.45–4.6 10YR5/1 FINE SAND, with abundant organic material interbedded, with 0.5-ft-thick layers of fine sand, silty, similar to above 4.6–5.0 7.5YR6/8 FINE SAND, silty, grading to poorly sorted sandy clay, with COARSE SAND, sub-rounded, quartz 5.0–5.9 7.5YR6/8 FINE SAND, very silty, massive 5.9–6.6 7.5YR6/8 FINE SAND, very slightly silty, with some interfingered fine sand (10YR7/8) 7.8–7.9 7.5YR5/8 VERY FINE SAND, slightly silty, with some rounded, coarse sand grains 7.9–9.1 10YR8/6 and 10YR6/8 VERY FINE SAND, mottled, with trace opaque grains

9.1–10.9 10YR6/8 FINE SAND, silty to very silty, massive, with ironstone fragments at 9.5 ft bls

11.8–12.05 10YR6/8 FINE SAND, slightly silty
Appendixes 59

Appendix 4. Lithologic description of continuous sediment cores, Hammonton Land Application Facility (LAF), southern New Jersey.—Continued[ft, feet; bls, below land surface; in, inch; <, less than; %, percent]

Interval 

(ft bls)

Munsell Color 

Notation1 Description

12.05–13.8 7.5YR5/8 FINE SAND, silty, with occasional medium to coarse sand grains13.8–14.85 7.5YR5/8 FINE SAND, silty, with occasional medium to coarse sand grains and 0.01–0.05-ft-thick clay lenses

15.8–16.0 7.5YR5/8 VERY FINE SAND, slightly silty16.0–18.5 10YR6/8 SANDY CLAY, interbedded and mottled with clay (7.5YR7/1)18.5–19.2 10YR6/8 CLAYEY SAND19.8–22.0 10YR6/8 FINE SAND, poorly sorted, slightly silty, with a pink/white clay nodule at 21.3 ft bls

22.0–22.75 10YR6/8 AS ABOVE, interbedded with fine sand (10YR7/1) and massive clay layers (10YR8/1) from 22.5–22.6 and 22.7–22.75 ft bls

23.8–26.0 10YR7/1 and 10YR6/8 FINE SAND, mottled, slightly silty, with trace opaque grains and occasional .039-in-diameter iron oxide concretions26.0–26.5 10YR7/1 and 10YR7/8 MEDIUM SAND, poorly sorted, with trace black grains and about 25% fine sand27.4–28.6 10YR6/8 FINE SAND, silty, with some well-rounded coarse sand grains28.6–30.1 10YR7/1 and 10YR6/8 MEDIUM SAND, moderately sorted, with some fine sands and frequent nodules of red/orange iron oxide-stained grains30.1–30.2 10YR6/8 COARSE SAND, poorly sorted, sub-angular, with iron-stained grains

30.2–31.25 10YR7/6 FINE to VERY FINE SAND, slightly silty, with occasional iron-stained grains

31.4–31.7 10YR5/8 VERY FINE SAND, silty, with a band of organic matter, black, fibrous31.7–34.3 10YR7/8 and 10YR7/1 FINE SAND, with occasional clay nodules (10YR7/1)

1Munsell Color, 2000

For additional information, write to:

Director, U.S. Geological Survey

New Jersey Water Science Center

810 Bear Tavern Road, Suite 206

West Trenton, NJ 08628

or visit our Web site at:

http://nj.usgs.gov/

Document prepared by the West Trenton Publishing Service Center
Reilly and others—Assessment of Factors Affecting the Infiltration of Treated Wastewater in the New Jersey Coastal Plain—Scientific Investigations Report 2010–5006