GROUND-WATER QUALITYtems to describe ground-water quality somewhat problemat-ic. The boundaries of the bedrock aquifer systems are defined by 2-dimensional mapping techniques. Although

Ground-Water Quality 43

GROUND-WATER QUALITY

The geochemistry of ground water may influence the utili-ty of aquifer systems as sources of water. The types and con-centrations of dissolved constituents in the water of an aquifersystem determine whether the resource, without prior treat-ment, is suitable for drinking-water supplies, industrial pur-poses, irrigation, livestock watering, or other uses. Changesin the concentrations of certain constituents in the water of anaquifer system, whether because of natural or anthropogeniccauses, may alter the suitability of the aquifer system as asource of water. Assessing ground-water quality and develop-ing strategies to protect aquifers from contamination are nec-essary aspects of water-resource planning.

Sources of ground-water quality data

The quality of water from the aquifer systems defined inthe Aquifer Systems section of the Ground-Water Hydrologychapter is described using selected inorganic chemical analy-ses from 372 wells (157 completed in unconsolidateddeposits and 215 completed in bedrock) in the West ForkWhite River basin. Sources of ground-water quality data aredomestic, commercial or livestock-watering wells sampledduring a 1989 and 1990 cooperative effort between theIndiana Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water(DOW) and the Indiana Geological Survey (IGS). The loca-tions of ground-water chemistry sites used in the analysis aredisplayed on plate 9, and selected water-quality data fromindividual wells are listed in appendices 1 and 2.

The intent of the water-quality analysis is to characterizethe natural ground-water chemistry of the West Fork WhiteRiver basin. Specific instances of ground-water contamina-tion are not evaluated. In cases of contamination, chemicalconditions are likely to be site-specific and may not representtypical ground-water quality in the basin. Therefore, availabledata from identified sites of ground-water contaminationwere not included in the data sets analyzed for this publica-tion. Samples collected from softened or otherwise treatedwater were also excluded from the analysis because thechemistry of the water was altered from natural conditions.

Factors in the assessment of ground-water quality

Major dissolved constituents in the ground water of theWest Fork White River basin include calcium, magnesium,sodium, chloride, sulfate, and bicarbonate. Less abundantconstituents include potassium, iron, manganese, strontium,zinc, fluoride, and nitrate. Other chemical characteristics dis-cussed in this report include pH, alkalinity, hardness, totaldissolved solids (TDS), and radon.

Although the data from well-water samples in the WestFork White River basin are treated as if they represent thechemistry of ground water at a distinct point, they actuallyrepresent the average concentration of an unknown volume of

water in an aquifer. The extent of aquifer representationdepends on the depth of the well, hydraulic conductivity ofthe aquifer, thickness and areal extent of the aquifer, and rateof pumping. For example, the chemistry of water sampledfrom high-capacity wells may represent average ground-water quality for a large cone of influence (Sasman and oth-ers, 1981). Also, because much of the bedrock in the southernpart of the basin does not produce much ground water, it isnot uncommon for bedrock wells to be deep and to intersectseveral different bedrock units. Because the quality of watermay vary substantially from different zones individual wellsmay show an unusual mixture of ground water types.

To further complicate analysis of the ground-water chem-istry data in this basin, the bedrock in the southern third of thebasin was formed in complex depositional environments result-ing in complex horizontal and vertical relationships of variousbedrock units. In addition, there is an extensive major uncon-formity (old erosion surface) of Mississippian/Pennsylvanianage. Erosion and subsequent deposition of bedrock materialthat occurred during this time period has resulted in younger ormore recent bedrock overlapping onto bedrock of differentages and types.

The order in which ground water encounters strata of dif-ferent mineralogical composition can exert an important con-trol on the water chemistry (Freeze and Cherry, 1979).Considering that hydrogeologic systems in the basin containnumerous types of strata arranged in a wide variety of geo-metric configurations, it is not unreasonable to expect that inmany areas the chemistry of ground water exhibits complexspatial patterns that are difficult to interpret, even when goodstratigraphic and hydraulic head information is available.

The nature of the bedrock in the southern two-thirds of theWest Fork White River basin makes the use of aquifer sys-tems to describe ground-water quality somewhat problemat-ic. The boundaries of the bedrock aquifer systems are definedby 2-dimensional mapping techniques. Although this type ofmapping is useful, it should be remembered that more pro-ductive aquifer systems extend beneath less productive sys-tems and are often used as a water supply within the bound-aries of the latter.

In addition to the factors discussed above, the chemistry oforiginal aquifer water may be altered to some degree by con-tact with plumbing, residence time in a pressure tank, methodof sampling, and time elapsed between sampling and labora-tory analysis. In spite of these limitations, results of sampleanalyses provide valuable information concerning ground-water quality characteristics of aquifer systems.

Analysis of data

Graphical and statistical techniques are used to analyze theavailable ground-water quality data from the West ForkWhite River basin. Graphical analyses are used to display theareal distribution of dissolved constituents throughout thebasin, and to describe the general chemical character of theground water of each aquifer system. Statistical analyses pro-vide useful generalizations about the water quality of the

44 Ground-Water Resource Availability, West Fork and White River Basin

Factors affecting ground-water chemistry

The chemical composition of ground water varies because of many com-plex factors that change with depth and over geographic distances. Ground-water quality can be affected by the composition and solubility of rock mate-rials in the soil or aquifer, water temperature, partial pressure of carbon diox-ide, acid-base reactions, oxidation-reduction reactions, loss or gain of con-stituents as water percolates through clay layers, and mixing of ground waterfrom adjacent strata. The extent of each effect will be determined in part bythe residence time of the water within the different subsurface environments.

Rain and snow are the major sources of recharge to ground water. Theycontain small amounts of dissolved solids and gases such as carbon dioxide,sulfur dioxide, and oxygen. As precipitation infiltrates through the soil, biolog-ically-derived carbon dioxide reacts with the water to form a weak solution ofcarbonic acid. The reaction of oxygen with reduced iron minerals such aspyrite is an additional source of acidity in ground water. The slightly acidicwater dissolves soluble rock material, thereby increasing the concentrationsof chemical constituents such as calcium, magnesium, chloride, iron, andmanganese. As ground water moves slowly through an aquifer the composi-tion of water continues to change, usually by the addition of dissolved con-stituents (Freeze and Cherry, 1979). A longer residence time will usuallyincrease concentrations of dissolved solids. Because of short residence time,ground water in recharge areas often contains lower concentrations of dis-solved constituents than water occurring deeper in the same aquifer or inshallow discharge areas.

Dissolved carbon dioxide, bicarbonate, and carbonate are the principalsources of alkalinity, or the capacity of solutes in water to neutralize acid.Carbonate contributors to alkalinity include atmospheric and biologically-pro-duced carbon dioxide, carbonate minerals, and biologically-mediated sulfatereduction. Noncarbonate contributors to alkalinity include hydroxide, silicate,borate, and organic compounds. Alkalinity helps to buffer natural water so thatthe pH is not greatly altered by addition of acid. The pH of most natural groundwaters in Indiana is neutral to slightly alkaline.

Calcium and magnesium are the major constituents responsible for hard-ness in water. Their presence is the result of dissolution of carbonate miner-als such as calcite and dolomite.

The weathering of feldspar and clay is a source of sodium and potassiumin ground water. Sodium and chloride are produced by the solution of halite(sodium chloride) which can occur as grains disseminated in unconsolidatedand bedrock deposits. Chloride also occurs in bedrock cementing material,connate fluid inclusions, and as crystals deposited during or after depositionof sediment in sea water. High sodium and chloride levels can result fromupward movement of brine from deeper bedrock in areas of high pumpage,from improper brine disposal from peteroleum wells, and from the use of roadsalt (Hem, 1985).

Cation exchange is often a modifying influence of ground-water chemistry.

The most important cation exchange processes are those involving sodium-calcium, sodium-magnesium, potassium-calcium, and potassium-magnesium.Cation exchanges occurring in clay-rich semi-confining layers can cause mag-nesium and calcium reductions which result in natural softening.

Concentrations of sulfide, sulfate, iron, and manganese depend on geol-ogy and hydrology of the aquifer system, amount of dissolved oxygen, pH,minerals available for solution, amount of organic matter, and microbial activ-ity.

Mineral sources of sulfate can include pyrite, gypsum, barite, and celestite.Sulfide is derived from reduction of sulfate when dissolve oxygen concentra-tions are low and anaerobic bacteria are present. Sulfate-reducing bacteriaderive energy from oxidation of organic compounds and obtain oxygen fromsulfate ions (Lehr and others, 1980).

Reducing conditions that produce hydrogen sulfide occur in deep wellscompleted in carbonate and shale bedrock. Oxygen-deficient conditions aremore likely to occur in deep wells than in shallow wells because permeabilityof the carbonate bedrock decreases with depth, and solution features andjoints become smaller and less abundant (Rosenshein and Hunn, 1968a;Bergeron, 1981; Basch and Funkhouser, 1985). Deeper portions of thebedrock are therefore not readily flushed by ground water with high dissolvedoxygen. Hydrogen sulfide gas, a common reduced form of sulfide, has a dis-tinctive rotten egg odor that can be detected in water containing only a fewtenths of a milligram per liter of sulfide (Hem, 1985).

Oxidation-reduction reactions constitute an important influence on concen-trations of both iron and manganese. High dissolved iron concentrations canoccur in ground water when pyrite is exposed to oxygenated water or whenferric oxide or hydroxide minerals are in contact with reducing substances(Hem, 1985). Sources of manganese include manganese carbonate,dolomite, limestone, and weathering crusts of manganese oxide.

Sources of fluoride in bedrock aquifer systems include fluorite, apatite andfluorapatite. These minerals may occur as evaporites or detrital grains in sed-imentary rocks, or as disseminated grains in unconsolidated deposits. Groundwaters containing detectable concentrations of fluoride have been found in avariety of geological settings.

Natural concentrations of nitrate-nitrogen in ground water originate fromthe atmosphere and from living and decaying organisms. High nitrate levelscan result from leaching of industrial and agricultural chemicals or decayingorganic matter such as animal waste or sewage.

The chemistry of strontium is similar to that of calcium, but strontium is pre-sent in ground water in much lower concentrations. Natural sources of stron-tium in ground water include strontianite (strontium carbonate) and celestite(strontium sulfate). Naturally-occurring barium sources include barite (bariumsulfate) and witherite (barium carbonate). Areas associated with deposits ofcoal, petroleum, natural gas, oil shale, black shale, and peat may also containhigh levels of barium.

basin, such as the average concentration of a constituent andthe expected variability.

Regional trends in ground-water chemistry can be analyzedby developing trilinear diagrams for the aquifer systems inthe West Fork White River basin (appendix 3). Trilinear plot-ting techniques developed by Piper (1944) can be used toclassify ground water on the basis of chemistry, and to com-pare chemical trends among different aquifer systems (appen-dix 3) (see sidebar titled Chemical classification of groundwater using trilinear diagrams). To graphically representvariation in ground-water chemistry, box plots (appendix 4)are prepared for selected ground-water constituents. Boxplots are useful for depicting descriptive statistics, showingthe general variability in constituent concentrations occurringin an aquifer system, and making general chemical compar-isons among aquifer systems.

Symmetry of a box plot across the median line (appendix4) can provide insights into the degree of skewness of chem-ical concentrations or parameter values in a data set. A boxplot that is almost symmetrical about the median line may

indicate that the data originate from a nearly symmetrical dis-tribution. In contrast, marked asymmetry across the medianline may indicate a skewed distribution of the data.

The areal distribution of selected chemical constituents,mapped according to aquifer system, is included among fig-ures 14 to 26. Several sampling and geologic factors compli-cate the development of chemical concentration maps for theWest Fork White River basin. The sampling sites are notevenly distributed in the basin, but are clustered around townsand developed areas (plate 9). Data points are generallyscarce in areas where surface-water sources are used forwater supply. Furthermore, lateral and vertical variations ingeology can also influence the chemistry of subsurface water.Therefore, the maps presented in the following discussiononly represent approximate concentration ranges.

Where applicable, ground-water quality is assessed in thecontext of National Primary and Secondary Drinking-WaterStandards (see sidebar titled National Drinking-waterStandards). The secondary standard referred to in this reportis the secondary maximum contaminant level (SMCL). The


SMCLs are recommended, non-enforceable standards estab-lished to protect aesthetic properties such as taste, odor, orcolor of drinking water. Some chemical constituents (includ-ing fluoride and nitrate) are also considered in terms of themaximum contaminant level (MCL). The MCL is the concen-tration at which a constituent may represent a threat to humanhealth. Maximum contaminant levels are legally-enforceableprimary drinking-water standards that should not be exceed-ed in treated drinking water distributed for public supply.General water-quality criteria for irrigation and livestock andstandards for public supply are given in appendix 5.

Because of data constraints, ground-water quality can onlybe described for selected aquifer systems as defined in theAquifer Systems section of this report (plate 5).Unconsolidated aquifer systems analyzed include the TiptonTill Plain, Tipton Till Plain subsystem, Dissected Till andResiduum, White River and Tributaries Outwash, WhiteRiver and Tributaries Outwash subsystem, Buried Valley, and

Lacustrine and Backwater Deposits aquifer systems. Bedrockaquifer systems analyzed include the Silurian and DevonianCarbonates, Devonian and Mississippian/New Albany Shale,Mississippian/Borden Group, Mississippian/Blue River andSanders Group, Mississippian/Buffalo Wallow, Stephensport,and West Baden Group, Pennsylvanian/Raccoon Creek Group, Pennsylvanian/Carbondale Group, andPennsylvanian/McLeansboro Group Aquifer systems. Thebedrock Ordovician/Maquoketa Group Aquifer system is notincluded in the analysis as none of the wells sampled werecompleted in that aquifer (Data on ground-water chemistry ofwells completed in Ordovician bedrock are available in theDOW Whitewater River Basin report). Because the numberof samples from the White River and Tributaries Outwash,Dissected Till and Residuum, Lacustrine and BackwaterDeposits, and Devonian and Mississippian/New AlbanyShale Aquifer systems is 7 or less, the sampling results maynot accordingly reflect chemical conditions in these aquifers.

Chemical Classification of Ground waters UsingTrilinear Diagrams

Trilinear plotting systems were used in the study of water chemistry andquality since as early as 1913 (Hem, 1985). The type of trilinear diagram usedin this report, independently developed by Hill (1940) and Piper (1944), hasbeen used extensively to delineate variability and trends in water quality. Thetechnique of trilinear analysis has contributed extensively to the understand-ing of ground-water flow, and geochemistry (Dalton and Upchurch, 1978). Onconventional trilinear diagrams sample values for three cations (calcium, mag-nesium and the alkali metals- sodium and potassium) and three anions (bicar-bonate, chloride and sulfate) are plotted relative to one another. Since theseions are generally the most common constituents in unpolluted ground waters,the chemical character of most natural waters can be closely approximated bythe relative concentration of these ions (Hem, 1985; Walton, 1970).

Before values can be plotted on the trilinear diagram the concentrations ofthe six ions of interest are converted into milliequivalents per liter (meq/L), aunit of concentration equal to the concentration in milligrams per liter dividedby the equivalent weight (atomic weight divided by valence). Each cationvalue is then plotted, as a percentage of the total concentration (meq/L) of allcations under consideration, in the lower left triangle of the diagram. Likewise,individual anion values are plotted, as percentages of the total concentrationof all anions under consideration, in the lower right triangle. Sample values arethen projected into the central diamond-shaped field. Fundamental interpreta-tions of the chemical nature of a water sample are based on the location ofthe sample ion values within the central field.

Distinct zones within aquifers having defined water chemistry propertiesare referred to as hydrochemical facies (Freeze and Cherry, 1979).Determining the nature and distribution of hydrochemical facies can provideinsights into how ground-water quality changes within and between aquifers.Trilinear diagrams can be used to delineate hydrochemical facies, becausethey graphically demonstrate relationships between the most important dis-solved constituents in a set of ground-water samples.

A simple but useful scheme for describing hydrochemical facies with trilin-ear diagrams is presented by Walton (1970) and is based on methods usedby Piper (1944). This method is based on the "dominance" of certain cationsand anions in solution. The dominant cation of a water sample is defined asthe positively charged ion whose concentration exceeds 50 percent of thesummed concentrations of major cations in solution. Likewise, the concentra-tion of the dominant anion exceeds 50 percent of the total anion concentrationin the water sample. If no single cation or anion in a water sample meets thiscriterion, the water has no dominant ion in solution. In most natural waters, thedominant cation is calcium, magnesium or alkali metals (sodium and potassi-um), and the dominant anion is chloride, bicarbonate or sulfate (accompany-ing figure). Distinct hydrochemical facies are defined by specific combinationsof dominant cations and anions. These combinations will plot in certain areasof the central, diamond-shaped part of the trilinear diagram. Walton (1970)described a simple but useful classification scheme that divides the centralpart of the diagram into five subdivisions. In the first four of these subdivisions,

the concentration of a specific cation-anion combination exceeds 50 percentof the total milliequivalents per liter (meq/L). Five basic hydrochemical faciescan be defined with these criteria:

1. Primary Hardness; Combined concentrations of calcium, magnesiumand bicarbonate exceed 50 percent of the total dissolved constituent load inmeq/L. Such waters are generally considered hard and are often found inlimestone aquifers or unconsolidated deposits containing abundant carbonateminerals.

2. Secondary Hardness; Combined concentrations of sulfate, chloride,magnesium and calcium exceed 50 percent of total meq/L.

3. Primary Salinity; Combined concentrations of alkali metals, sulfate andchloride are greater then 50 percent of the total meq/L. Very concentratedwaters of this hydrochemical facies are considered brackish or (in extremecases) saline.

4. Primary Alkalinity; Combined sodium, potassium and bicarbonate con-centrations exceed 50 percent of the total meq/L. These waters generallyhave low hardness in proportion to their dissolved solids concentration(Walton, 1970).

5. No specific cation-anion pair exceeds 50 percent of the total dissolvedconstituent load. Such waters could result from multiple mineral dissolution ormixing of two chemically distinct ground-water bodies.

Additional information on trilinear diagrams and a more detailed discussionof the geochemical classification of ground waters is presented in Freeze andCherry (1979) and Fetter (1988).


Secondary Maximum Maximum Contaminant

Contaminant Level Level (MCL)

(SMCL) (ppm) Constituent (ppm) Remarks

Total Dissolved 500 * Levels above SMCL can give water a disagreeable taste. Levels above 1000 Solids(TDS) mg/L may cause corrosion of well screens, pumps, and casings.

Iron 0.3 * More than 0.3 ppm can cause staining of clothes and plumbing fixtures, encrustation of well screens, and plugging of pipes. Excessive quantities can stimulate growth of iron bacteria.

Manganese 0.05 * Amounts greater than 0.05 ppm can stain laundry and plumbing fixtures, and may form adark brown or black precipitate that can clog filters.

Chloride 250 * Large amounts in conjunction with high sodium concentrations can impart a salty taste towater. Amounts above 1000 ppm may be physiologically unsafe. High concentrations also increase the corrosiveness of water.

Fluoride 2.0 4.0 Concentration of approximately 1.0 ppm help prevent tooth decay. Amounts above recommended limits increase the severity and occurrence of mottling (discoloration of the teeth). Amounts above 4 ppm can cause adverse skeletal effects (bone sclerosis).

Nitrate** * 10 Concentrations above 20 ppm impart a bitter taste to drinking water. Concentrations greater than 10 ppm may have a toxic effect (methemoglobinemia) on young infants.

Sulfate 250 * Large amounts of sulfate in combination with other ions (especially sodium and magnesium) can impart odors and a bitter taste to water. Amounts above 600 ppm can have a laxative effect. Sulfate in combination with calcium in water forms hard scale in steam boilers.

Sodium NL NL Sodium salts may cause foaming in steam boilers. High concentrations may render water unfit for irrigation. High levels of sodium in water have been associated with cardiovascular problems. A sodium level of less than 20 ppm has been recommended for high risk groups (people who have high blood pressure, people genetically predisposed to high blood pressure, and pregnant women).

Calcium NL NL Calcium and magnesium combine with bicarbonate, carbonate, sulfate and silica to form heat-retarding, pipe-clogging scales in steam boilers. For further information on

Magnesium NL NL calcium and magnesium, see hardness.

Hardness NL NL Principally caused by concentration of calcium and magnesium. Hard water consumes excessive amounts of soap and detergents and forms an insoluble scum or scale.

pH - - USEPA recommends pH range between 6.5 and 8.5 for drinking water.

NL No Limit Recommended. * No MCL or SMCL established by USEPA. ** Nitrate concentrations expressed as equivalent amounts of elemental nitrogen (N).(Adapted from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1993)Note: 1 part per million (ppm) = 1 mg/L.

NATIONAL DRINKING-WATER STANDARDS

National Drinking Water Regulations and Health Advisories (U. S.Environmental Protection Agency, 1993) list concentration limits of specifiedinorganic and organic chemicals in order to control amounts of contaminantsin drinking water. Primary regulations list maximum contaminant levels (MCLs)for inorganic constituents considered toxic to humans above certain concen-trations. These standards are health-related and legally enforceable.Secondary maximum contaminant levels (SMCLs) cover constituents that may

adversely affect the aesthetic quality of drinking water. The SMCLs are intend-ed to be guidelines rather than enforceable standards. Although these regula-tions apply only to drinking water at the tap for public supply, they may be usedto assess water quality for privately-owned wells. The table below lists select-ed inorganic constituents of drinking water covered by the regulations, the sig-nificance of each constituent, and their respective MCL or SMCL. Fluoride andnitrate are the only constituents listed which are covered by the primary regu-lations.


Also, although the two-dimensional mapping used to delin-eate the bedrock aquifer systems is useful, it should beremembered that, especially for deeper wells, a significantportion of the water produced could come from aquifer sys-tems underlying the one mapped at the bedrock surface.

Trilinear-diagram analyses

Ground-water samples from aquifer systems in the WestFork White River basin are classified using the trilinear plot-ting strategy described in the sidebar titled Chemical classi-fication of ground water using trilinear diagrams.Trilinear diagrams developed with the available ground-waterchemistry data are presented in appendix 3.

Trilinear analysis indicates that most of the availableground-water samples from the unconsolidated aquifers (92percent) are chemically dominated by alkaline-earth metals(calcium and magnesium) and bicarbonate. Sodium concen-trations exceed 40 percent of the sum of major cations in only8 samples, but variations in sodium levels are observedamong samples. The combined chloride and sulfate concen-tration exceeds 50 percent of the sum of major anions in only2 percent of the samples.

In contrast, approximately 70 percent of the ground-watersamples from the bedrock aquifers are chemically dominatedby alkaline-earth metals (calcium and magnesium) and bicar-bonate. Two-thirds (approximately 22 percent) of the remain-der are chemically dominated by sodium and bicarbonate.The combined chloride and sulfate concentration exceeds 50percent of the sum of major anions in fewer than 4 percent ofthe samples.

Trilinear analysis suggests that the ground water from allbut one of the unconsolidated aquifer systems belong to a dis-tinct hydrochemical facies (appendix 3). Most samples fromthese aquifer systems are chemically dominated by calcium,magnesium, and bicarbonate (Ca-Mg-HCO3). The one excep-tion is the Lacustrine and Backwater Deposits Aquifer systemin which only 2 of the 4 samples belong to this facies. Also,samples from a total of 6 wells in the White River andTributaries Outwash Aquifer system, White River andTributaries Outwash Aquifer subsystem, and the Lacustrineand Backwater Deposits system have sodium as the dominantcation with little calcium or magnesium.

In contrast to the ground-water samples from the unconsol-idated aquifers, samples from some of the bedrock aquifersappear to originate from more than one hydrochemical facies.Although most of the samples in 6 of the 8 bedrock aquifersystems belong to the calcium-magnesium-bicarbonatefacies, a large portion of the samples from the Pennsylvanianaquifer systems belong to the sodium bicarbonate facies. Afew samples from the Pennsylvanian aquifer systems belongto the sodium-chloride facies. A small portion, 5 of the 215ground-water samples from the bedrock aquifer systems, ischemically dominated by calcium, magnesium, and sulfate(Ca-Mg-SO4) ions. Three of these are within an approximate4-mile radius of each other in northeastern Greene and south-eastern Owen counties.

Differences in hydrochemical facies within and betweenaquifer systems may indicate differences in the processesinfluencing ground-water quality. Variations in the mineralcontent of aquifer systems are probably a significant controlon the geochemistry of ground water. For example, the calci-um-magnesium-bicarbonate waters in some wells probablyresult from the dissolution of carbonate minerals. Calcium-magnesium-sulfate dominated ground water in the West ForkWhite River basin probably result from the dissolution ofgypsum, pyrite, or other sulfur-containing minerals. Sodiumbicarbonate dominated ground water may be due to cationexchange processes with surrounding clays and clay miner-als. Ground-water flow from areas of recharge to areas of dis-charge and the subsequent mixing of chemically-distinctground water may also influence the geochemical classifica-tion of ground water in the West Fork White River basin.

Assessment of ground-water quality

Alkalinity and pH

The alkalinity of a solution may be defined as the capacityof its solutes to react with and neutralize acid. The alkalinityin most natural waters is primarily due to the presence of dis-solved carbon species, particularly bicarbonate and carbon-ate. Other constituents that may contribute minor amounts ofalkalinity to water include silicate, hydroxide, borates, andcertain organic compounds (Hem, 1985). In this report, alka-linity is expressed as an equivalent concentration of dissolvedcalcite (CaCO3). At present, no suggested limits have beenestablished for alkalinity levels in drinking water. However,some alkalinity may be desirable in ground water because thecarbonate ions moderate or prevent changes in pH.

Median alkalinity levels vary among samples from differ-ent aquifer systems in the West Fork White River basin. In theunconsolidated aquifer systems, alkalinity levels tend to behigher in the northern part of the basin (figure 14a). In gener-al, lower alkalinity levels are observed in the White River andTributaries Outwash Aquifer system relative to the otherunconsolidated aquifer systems (figure 14a and appendix 4).Median alkalinity values for the bedrock aquifer systemsexhibit somewhat more variability than the unconsolidatedones (figure 14b and appendix 4). Of these, thePennsylvanian systems show the greatest variability. Both thelowest and highest median alkalinity levels of all the aquifersystems occur in the bedrock aquifers. The lowest alkalinity levels are observed in the Mississippian/Buffalo Wallow, Stephensport, and West Baden GroupAquifer system, and the highest occur in thePennsylvanian/Carbondale Group Aquifer system.

The pH, or hydrogen ion activity, is expressed on a loga-rithmic scale and represents the negative base-10 log of thehydrogen ion concentration. Waters are considered acidicwhen the pH is less than 7.0 and basic when the pH exceeds7.0. Water with a pH value equal to 7.0 is termed neutral andis not considered either acidic or basic. The pH of most


Figure 14a. Generalized areal distribution for Alkalinity - Unconsolidated aquifers

<250 mg/L

250-350 mg/L

>350 mg/L

Concentration ranges shown on this map portray general trends interpreted from the data collectedfor this study. Higher and/or lower concentrations may occur in an individual well within the geographic area shown in a given range.

ground water generally ranges between 5.0 and 8.0 (Davisand DeWiest, 1970).

The types of dissolved constituents in ground water caninfluence pH levels. Dissolved carbon dioxide (CO2), whichforms carbonic acid in water, is an important control on thepH of natural waters (Hem, 1985). The pH of ground watercan also be lowered by organic acids from decaying vegeta-tion, or by dissolution of sulfide minerals (Davis andDeWiest, 1970). The United States Environmental ProtectionAgency (USEPA) recommends a pH range between 6.5 and8.5 in waters used for public supply. Ninety-two percent ofthe ground-water samples in this study are within this range.

Of the 30 wells (23 bedrock and 7 unconsolidated) havinga pH outside the 6.5 and 8.5 range, twenty-two occur in thesouthwest part of the basin in areas underlain byPennsylvanian bedrock (figure 15a and b). The RaccoonCreek Group, which is Pennsylvanian in age, has the highestmedian pH of all aquifer systems studied; it also exhibits thegreatest variability (appendix 4). The Carbondale Group,which is also Pennsylvanian in age, has the lowest median pHof all aquifer systems studied; it also exhibits great variability.

Two areas, one in Clay County, the other near theDaviess/Martin county line, display the greatest variability inpH values including high and low values from wells in closeproximity to each other. The depth of wells and type ofbedrock sampled appear to play an important role in the vari-ability. The complex lithology of the Pennsylvanian bedrockand the presence of a major unconformity that creates a vari-able sequence of layers can explain the variability in ground-water chemistry. Human influence, especially previous min-ing nearby, may also play a role on a local level.

Hardness, calcium and magnesium

"Hardness" is a term relating to the concentrations of cer-tain metallic ions in water, particularly magnesium and calci-um, and is usually expressed as an equivalent concentrationof dissolved calcite (CaCO3 ). In hard water, the metallic ionsof concern may react with soap to produce an insolubleresidue. These metallic ions may also react with negatively-charged ions to produce a solid precipitate when hard water is


heated (Freeze and Cherry, 1979). Hard waters can thus con-sume excessive quantities of soap, and cause damaging scalein water heaters, boilers, pipes, and turbines. Many of theproblems associated with hard water, however, can be miti-gated by using water-softening equipment.

Durfor and Becker (1964) developed the following classi-fication for water hardness that is useful for discussion pur-poses: soft water, 0 to 60 mg/L (as CaCO3); moderately hardwater, 61 to 120 mg/L; hard water, 121 to 180 mg/L; and veryhard water, over 180 mg/L. A hardness level of about 100mg/L or less is generally not a problem in waters used forordinary domestic purposes (Hem, 1985). Lower hardnesslevels, however, may be required for waters used for otherpurposes. For example, Freeze and Cherry (1979) suggestthat waters with hardness levels above 60-80 mg/L may causeexcessive scale formation in boilers.

Ground water in the West Fork White River basin can begenerally characterized as hard to very hard in the Durfor andBecker hardness classification system. The measured hard-ness level is below 180 mg/L (as CaCO3) in fewer than 20percent of the ground-water samples. Generally, the uncon-

solidated aquifer systems in the basin have higher hardnessvalues than the bedrock aquifer systems (appendix 4). TheTipton Till Plain Aquifer system has the highest median hard-ness value of all the aquifer systems at 350 mg/L (appendix4). Only two aquifer systems have median hardness valuesbelow 180 mg/L: The Pennsylvanian/Raccoon Creek Group,and Carbondale Group. Median hardness levels exceed 260mg/L in samples from all other aquifer systems under consid-eration (appendix 4). Wells having hardness levels below 60mg/L occur primarily in the Pennsylvanian bedrock aquifersin the southwest part of the basin.

Figure 16a and b display the spatial distribution of ground-water hardness levels for the unconsolidated and bedrockaquifers in the West Fork White River basin. In general,ground-water hardness levels are higher in the northeast por-tion of the West Fork White River basin relative to the south-west portion of the basin. The unconsolidated Tipton TillPlain Aquifer system and subsystem and the bedrock Silurianand Devonian Carbonates Aquifer system, all of which havehigh median hardness levels, cover a substantial part of thenortheast portion of the basin.

Figure 14b. Generalized areal distribution for Alkalinity - Bedrock aquifers

<250 mg/L

250-350 mg/L

>350 mg/L



<pH 6.5

pH 6.5 - 8.5

>pH 8.5

Figure 15a. Distribution of pH values for sampled wells - Unconsolidated aquifers

Box plots of calcium and magnesium concentrations inground water are presented in appendix 4. Because calciumand magnesium are the major constituents responsible forhardness in water, the highest levels of these ions generallyoccur in ground water with high hardness levels. As expect-ed, the unconsolidated Tipton Till Plain Aquifer system andsubsystem and the bedrock Silurian and Devonian CarbonatesAquifer system have high median calcium and magnesiumlevels relative to most of the other aquifer systems. At thetime of this publication, no enforceable or suggested stan-dards have been established for calcium or magnesium.

Chloride, sodium and potassium

Chloride in ground water may originate from varioussources including: the dissolution of halite and related miner-als, marine water entrapped in sediments, and anthropogenicsources. Although chloride is often an important dissolvedconstituent in ground water, only three of the samples fromthe aquifer systems in the West Fork White River basin are

classified as chloride dominated (appendix 3). Median chlo-ride levels are less than 15 mg/L in all of the aquifer systemsunder consideration except the New Albany Shale (appendix4). The highest median levels of all aquifer systems (approx-imately 40 mg/L) are in the Devonian and Mississippian NewAlbany Shale (appendix 4). The highest median values forunconsolidated aquifers occur in the White River andTributaries Outwash subsystem and White River andTributaries Outwash. Chloride concentrations at or above 250mg/L, the SMCL for this ion, are detected in only six samples,all from bedrock aquifers.

Anthropogenic processes can locally affect chloride con-centrations in ground water. Some anthropogenic factorscommonly cited as influences on chloride levels in waterinclude road salting during the winter, improper disposal ofoil-field brines, contamination from sewage, and contamina-tion from various types of industrial wastes (Hem, 1985,1993). Five of the six wells with chloride levels at or abovethe SMCL occur in the southwestern part of the basin in thePennsylvanian/Raccoon Creek Group Aquifer system. Thesewells have characteristics similar to the "soda water" wells


referenced in USGS WRI Report 97-4260 p. 35: bedrockwells greater than 100 feet deep in coal seams or sandstoneaquifers that produce soft, sodium-chloride type water, withhigh TDS levels.

The dissolution of table salt or halite (NaCl) is sometimescited as a source of both sodium and chloride in ground water.A qualitative technique to determine if halite dissolution is aninfluence on ground-water chemistry is to plot sodium con-centrations relative to chloride concentrations. Because sodi-um and chloride ions enter solution in equal quantity duringthe dissolution of halite, an approximately linear relationshipmay be observed between these ions (Hem, 1985). If the con-centrations are plotted in milliequivalents per liter, this linearrelationship should be described by a line with a slope equalto one.

No clearly-defined linear relationship between concentra-tions of chloride and sodium is apparent in the ground-watersamples under consideration (figure 17). This suggests thatthe concentrations of sodium and chloride in ground water ofthe West Fork White River basin are heavily influenced by

factors other than to the dissolution of halite. Figure 17 andthe box plots in appendix 4 indicate that sodium concentra-tions exceed chloride concentrations in many (70 percent) ofthe samples under consideration, suggesting that additionalsources of sodium may be present. For example, calcium andmagnesium in solution can be replaced by sodium on the sur-face of certain clays by ion exchange. Another possiblesource of sodium in ground water is the dissolution of silicateminerals in glacial deposits.

The highest sodium levels are found generally in thePennsylvanian bedrock aquifer systems (figure 18), especial-ly in the Carbondale and Raccoon Creek Groups. Trilinearanalysis suggests that approximately 22 percent of bedrocksamples are sodium and bicarbonate dominated.

Box plots of potassium concentrations in ground-watersamples from the aquifer systems under consideration are dis-played in appendix 4. In many natural waters, the concentra-tion of potassium is commonly less than one-tenth the con-centration of sodium (Davis and DeWiest, 1970). Almost 85percent of the samples used for this report have potassium

<pH 6.5

pH 6.5 - 8.5

>pH 8.5

Figure 15b. Distribution of pH values for sampled wells - Bedrock aquifers


concentrations that are less than one-tenth the concentrationof sodium.

Sulfate and sulfide

Sulfate (SO4), an anion formed by oxidation of the elementsulfur, is commonly observed in ground water. The estab-lished secondary maximum contaminant level (SMCL) forsulfate is 250 mg/L. Median sulfate levels for the samplesfrom all aquifer systems in the West Fork White River arewell below the SMCL. However, there are 8 ground-watersamples that have sulfate concentrations above the SMCL,and another 16 samples have sulfate concentrations above100 mg/L. The eight samples having sulfate values above theSMCL are all bedrock wells located in the southern part ofOwen and Clay Counties and the northern part of GreeneCounty. The other 16 are also located primarily in the south-west part of the basin with about half from unconsolidatedaquifer systems. In general, sulfate levels are higher in thebedrock aquifer systems in the basin than in the unconsoli-

dated systems. But, median sulfate concentrations vary con-siderably in both bedrock and unconsolidated aquifer sys-tems.

Concentration ranges of sulfate in the unconsolidatedaquifer systems are shown in figures 19a and b. Of the uncon-solidated aquifer systems, the White River and TributariesOutwash Aquifer system has the highest median levels. Theaquifer system having the overall highest median levels is theMississippian/Buffalo Wallow, Stephensport, and West BadenGroup bedrock aquifer system; however, it must be remem-bered that the boundaries of each bedrock aquifer system arebased on the boundaries of the subcrop of each major bedrocksystem. Therefore, wells located within this bedrock aquifersystem may actually extend through the upper system into theunderlying aquifer system (Blue River Group).

Various geochemical processes, sources, and time mayinfluence the concentration of sulfate in ground water. Oneimportant source is the dissolution or weathering of sulfur-containing minerals. Two possible mineral sources of sulfatehave been identified in the aquifers of the West Fork WhiteRiver basin.


Figure 16a. Generalized areal distribution for Hardness - Unconsolidated aquifers

<200 mg/L

200-400 mg/L

>400 mg/L


The first includes evaporite minerals, such as gypsum andanhydrite (CaSO4). Gypsum and anhydrite are the two calci-um sulphate minerals occurring in nature. Evaporite mineralsare known to occur in both Mississippian and Devonianbedrock, and to a lesser extent, in Pennsylvanian and Silurianbedrock. Fragments of evaporite-bearing rocks may also havebeen incorporated into some unconsolidated units duringglacial advances. There are rather extensive gypsum depositsin the lower part of the St. Louis limestone. The St. Louisevaporite unit accumulated in small basins within largerbasins (intrasilled basins). Three major intrasilled basins existin southwestern Indiana and are aligned in a northwest-south-east direction that corresponds to the trend of the rock forma-tions. The maximum accumulation of the evaporites corre-sponds to the geographic locations of the intrasilled basins.One of these intrasilled basins lies within the West ForkWhite River basin in northern Greene County, southwesternOwen County, and southern Clay County.

The second possible mineral source of sulfate is pyrite(FeS2), a mineral present in Silurian dolomite as highly local-ized nodules. Pyrite is also a common mineral in carbona-ceous or black shales and Pennsylvanian coal beds. The oxi-dation of pyrite releases iron and sulfate into solution.

The high-sulfate ground-water samples taken from westernMonroe, northeastern Greene, and southeastern Owen coun-ties appear to be a result of dissolution of gypsum depositsrelated to the St. Louis limestone deposits. The high-sulfateground-water samples taken from western Owen and Claycounties may be related to past coal-mining operations near-by. However, it is not apparent what the sources of other high-sulfate samples in the basin are.

Under reducing, low-oxygen conditions, sulfide (S-2) maybe the dominant species of sulfur in ground water. Some ofthe most important influences on the levels of sulfide inground water are the metabolic processes of certain types ofanaerobic bacteria. These bacteria use sulfate reduction in

Figure 16b. Generalized areal distribution for Hardness - Bedrock aquifers

<200 mg/L

200-400 mg/L

>400 mg/L



their metabolism of organic matter, which produces sulfideions as a by-product (Freeze and Cherry, 1979; Hem, 1985).

A sulfide compound that is commonly considered undesir-able in ground water is hydrogen sulfide (H2S) gas. In suffi-cient quantities, hydrogen sulfide gas can give water anunpleasant odor, similar to that of rotten eggs. At present,there is no established SMCL for hydrogen sulfide in drink-ing water. Hem (1985) notes that most people can detect afew tenths of a milligram per liter of hydrogen sulfide in solu-tion, and Freeze and Cherry (1979) state that concentrationsgreater than about 1 mg/L may render water unfit for drink-ing. Hydrogen sulfide is also corrosive to metals and, if oxi-dation to sulfuric acid occurs, concrete pipes. Possible resultsof hydrogen sulfide-induced corrosion include damage toplumbing, and the introduction of metals into water supplies(GeoTrans Inc., 1983)

Available data on the occurrence of hydrogen sulfide in theground waters of the West Fork White River basin are quali-tative. Well drillers may note the occurrence of "sulfur water"or "sulfur odor" on well records. This observation usuallyindicates the presence of noticeable levels of hydrogen sul-fide gas in the well water. The occurrence of hydrogen sulfideis recorded on a few well records of those sampled in thisstudy from Marion, Clay, and Putnam counties. Most of therecorded instances of detectable hydrogen sulfide levelsexamined for this report occur in wells completed in theMississippian and Pennsylvanian bedrock aquifer systems.

Iron and Manganese

Because iron is the second most abundant metallic elementin the Earth's outer crust (Hem, 1985), iron in ground watermay originate from a variety of mineral sources; and severalsources of iron may be present in a single aquifer system.Oxidation-reduction potentials, organic matter content, andthe metabolic activity of bacteria can influence the concen-tration of iron in ground water. Because iron-bearing rockswere eroded, transported and deposited by glaciers, includingigneous and metamorphic rocks from as far north as Canada,

they have been incorporated into and are abundant in manyunconsolidated deposits. Pyrite (FeS2) oxidation may alsocontribute iron to unconsolidated aquifer systems. Iron is alsopresent in organic wastes and in plant debris in soils. Thepresence of high iron concentrations in ground water withlow sulfate levels may reflect siderite (FeCO3) dissolution orthe reduction of sulfate created by pyrite oxidation (Hem,1985). Low concentrations in some of the bedrock systemsmay be explained by precipitation of iron minerals fromactivity of reducing bacteria (Hem, 1985) or by the loss ofiron from cation-exchange processes occurring in confiningclay, till or shale overlying the bedrock.

Iron levels equal to or below the SMCL are observed in lessthan 40 percent of all samples analyzed for this constituent.Iron concentrations commonly exceed the SMCL of 0.3 mg/Lin water samples from both the unconsolidated and thebedrock aquifer systems (appendix 4). The SMCL for iron isless commonly exceeded in bedrock aquifer systems than inunconsolidated deposits. Forty-eight percent of the bedrockaquifer systems samples exceed the SMCL but 80 percent ofthe unconsolidated aquifer systems samples exceed theSMCL. Calculated median iron concentrations range betweenapproximately 0.1mg/L and 1.2 mg/L in samples from thebedrock aquifer systems, and 0.75 mg/L and 2.4 mg/L in sam-ples from the unconsolidated aquifer systems. Concentrationranges of iron in ground water of the unconsolidated andbedrock aquifer systems are mapped in figures 20a and b.

Water samples with iron levels above the SMCL areobserved in all samples from wells completed in the uncon-solidated Buried Valley aquifer system and 92 percent of thewells completed in the Tipton Till Plain Aquifer system.Water samples in bedrock aquifer system that have the high-est percentage of ground-water samples with iron levelsabove the SMCL originate from wells completed in theSilurian and Devonian Carbonates.

In the West Fork White River basin the oxidation of pyritefragments in glacial till deposits may produce the high ironconcentrations in the Tipton Till Plain; the occurrence of highsulfate concentrations in many of the samples containing highiron concentrations is one indication that pyrite may be asource of dissolved iron. High iron concentrations are knownto occur locally in the Silurian and Devonian carbonates; forexample, the Liston Creek and upper Mississinewa forma-tions in the northern part of the basin are known to containpyrite and glauconite (another mineral that contains iron). Inthe southern part of the basin, the minerals pyrite and sideriteare present in clay, shale, and coal units. Ferruginous shalesand sandstones in some Pennsylvanian formations are also asource of other iron minerals.

Although the geochemistry of manganese is similar to thatof iron, the manganese concentration in unpolluted waters istypically less than half the iron concentration (Davis andDeWiest, 1970). Manganese has a low SMCL (0.05 mg/L)relative to many other common constituents in ground waterbecause even small quantities of manganese can cause objec-tionable taste and the deposition of black oxides. Because thedetection limit for manganese in the DOW-IGS samples istwice the value of the SMCL, the number of times the SMCL

CHLORIDE IN MILLIEQUIVALENTS PER LITER

0.01 0.1 1 10 100

SO

DIU

MIN

MIL

LIE

QU

IVA

LEN

TS

PE

RLI

TE

R

0.01

0.1

1

10

100

LINE OF EQUAL M

ILLIEQUIVALENTS

Figure 17. Sodium vs. Chloride in ground-water samplesfrom the West Fork White River Basin


is exceeded in this data set cannot be quantified. However,ground-water samples with manganese concentrations equalto or above the detection limit are observed in all of theaquifer systems in the West Fork White River basin (appen-dix 1).

Manganese in West Fork White River basin ground wateroriginates from the weathering of rock fragments in theunconsolidated deposits and oxidation/dissolution of theunderlying bedrock. Limestones and dolomites may be aminor source of manganese, because small amounts of man-ganese commonly substitute for calcium in the mineral struc-ture of carbonate rocks (Hem, 1985). Manganese oxides havebeen found in siderite and limonite concretions inMississippian rocks of the Borden Group and in concretionsin the Mansfield iron ores of the Raccoon Creek Group.Manganese oxides have also been found in Indiana kaolin(halloysite) deposits, some of which occur at the contact ofthe Pennsylvanian Mansfield Formation with underlyingMississippian formations (Erd and Greenberg, 1960). Oxidesof manganese can also accumulate in bog environments or ascoatings on stream sediments (Hem, 1985). Therefore, it is

possible that high manganese levels may occur in groundwater from wetland environments or buried stream channels.

Fluoride

Many compounds of fluoride can be characterized as onlyslightly soluble in water. Concentrations of fluoride in mostnatural waters generally range between 0.1 mg/L and 10mg/L (Davis and DeWiest, 1970). Hem (1985) noted that flu-oride levels generally do not exceed 1 mg/L in most naturalwaters with TDS levels below 1000 mg/L. The beneficial andpotentially detrimental health effects of fluoride in drinkingwater are outlined in the sidebar titled National Drinking-Water Standards.

Box plots of fluoride concentrations in ground-water sam-ples from the aquifer systems under consideration are dis-played in appendix 4. Seven of the well samples analyzed forfluoride contain levels at or above the 4.0 mg/L MCL. All ofthese occur in the Pennsylvanian/Raccoon Creek GroupAquifer system. Concentrations equal to or above the SMCL

Figure 18. Generalized areal distribution for Sodium - Bedrock aquifers

<51 mg/L

51-100 mg/L

>100 mg/L



Figure 19a. Generalized areal distribution for Sulfate - Unconsolidated aquifers

<50 mg/L

50-100 mg/L

>100 mg/L


for fluoride (2.0 mg/L) are detected in 33 samples and occurin all of the bedrock aquifer systems, but occur in only threesamples from the unconsolidated aquifer systems (appendix 4and figures 21a and b).

Fluoride-containing minerals such as fluorite, apatite andfluorapatite commonly occur in clastic sediments (Hem,1985). The weathering of these minerals may thus contributefluoride to ground water in sand and gravel units. The miner-al fluorite may also occur in limestones or dolomites.Fluoride may also substitute for hydroxide (OH-) in someminerals because the charge and ionic radius of these two ionsare similar (Manahan, 1975; Hem, 1985).

Nitrate

Nitrate (NO3-) is the most frequently detected drinking-

water contaminant in the state (Indiana Department ofEnvironmental Management, [1995]) as well as the mostcommon form of nitrogen in ground water (Freeze andCherry, 1979). Madison and Brunett (1984) developed con-

centration criteria to qualitatively determine if nitrate levels(as an equivalent amount of nitrogen) in ground water may beinfluenced by anthropogenic sources. Using these criteria,nitrate levels of less than 0.2 mg/L are considered to representnatural or background levels. Concentrations ranging from0.21 to 3.0 mg/L are considered transitional, and may or maynot represent human influences. Concentrations between 3.1and 10 mg/L may represent elevated concentrations due tohuman activities.

High concentrations of nitrate are undesirable in drinkingwaters because of possible health effects. In particular, exces-sive nitrate levels can cause methemoglobinemia primarily ininfants. The maximum contaminant level, MCL, for nitrate(measured as N) is 10 mg/L.

Ranges of nitrate levels (measured as N) in ground-watersamples from the West Fork White River basin are plotted infigures 22a and b. Because most samples were below theDOW-IGS detection limit, the occurrence of "background"levels as defined by Madison and Brunett (1984) cannot bequantified. However, figures 22a and b indicate that most ofthe samples contain nitrate concentrations below the level


interpreted by Madison and Brunett (1984) to indicate possi-ble human influences.

Only six samples with nitrate levels exceeding the MCLwere recovered from wells in the basin (figures 22a and b).Four of these were from the White River and TributariesOutwash Aquifer system in Knox and Daviess Counties.Nitrate levels from other sampled wells that are nearby, how-ever, are below the detection limit. Overall, the distribution ofnitrate concentrations in ground water of the West Fork WhiteRiver basin appears to indicate that levels generally do notexceed 1.0 mg/L, as almost 90 percent of the samples arebelow that level. High concentrations of nitrate, which maysuggest human influences, appear to occur in isolated wells orlimited areas.

Two other studies also provide perspective on nitrate inground water in the West Fork White River basin, one con-ducted by the Indiana Farm Bureau and another by the U.S.Geological Survey. A brief discussion of these studies and

their findings follow.In 1987, the Indiana Farm Bureau, in cooperation with var-

ious county and local agencies, began the Indiana PrivateWell Testing Program. The purpose of this program is toassess ground-water quality in rural areas, and to develop astatewide database containing chemical analysis of well sam-ples. By the end of 1993 samples from over 9000 wells, dis-tributed over 68 counties, had been collected and analyzed asa part of the program (Wallrabenstein and others, 1994). Mostof the ground-water samples collected during this study wereanalyzed for inorganic nitrogen and some specific pesticides.The results of the pesticide sampling are presented in the sec-tion entitled Pesticides in West Fork White River basinground waters.

The techniques used to analyze the samples collected forthe Farm Bureau study actually measured the combined con-centrations of nitrate and nitrite (nitrate+nitrite). However,the researchers noted that nitrite concentrations were general-

Figure 19b. Generalized areal distribution for Sulfate - Bedrock aquifers

<50 mg/L

50-100 mg/L

>100 mg/L



ly low. Thus the nitrate+nitrite concentrations were approxi-mately equal to the concentrations of nitrate in the sample(Wallrabenstein and others, 1994). The MCL fornitrate+nitrite (as equivalent elemental nitrogen) is 10 mg/L.

Greene, Pike, and Randolph are the only counties of the 29counties (table 1) that lie partially or wholly within the WestFork White River basin that did not participate in the FarmBureau study. For this discussion, however, only the statisticsfor the counties that have more than 50 percent of their areaencompassed within the basin were closely examined: Clay,Daviess, Delaware, Hamilton, Hendricks, Knox, Madison,Marion, Morgan, Owen, and Putnam. Statistics for Boone,Johnson, Monroe, and Tipton counties were also brieflyexamined because these counties have more than 35 percentof their area in the basin. Data on the owners and exact loca-tions of the wells sampled for the Farm Bureau study werenot provided in the report. Although the exact locations of thesamples cannot be determined, the data do provide a general

sense for nitrate conditions in the basin.Approximately 80 percent of all samples in the counties of

the basin had nitrate+nitrite concentrations below the report-ing limit of 0.3 mg/L. Nitrate+nitrite concentrations above theMCL were observed in approximately 3 percent of the wellssampled.

Although most of the samples had concentrations belowreporting limits, samples from each county containednitrate+nitrite levels over the reporting limit (0.3 mg/L). Thelargest number of samples having nitrate+nitrite concentra-tions above the reporting limit were in Hendricks, Putnam,Johnson, Morgan, and Daviess Counties. The smallest num-ber of samples and smallest percentage of samples havingnitrate+nitrite concentrations above the reporting limit werereported for Tipton, Boone, and Madison Counties.

However, sheer numbers do not necessarily represent thecomplete picture of the nitrate situation in a county.Differences in sample size in the counties tend to distort the

Figure 20a. Generalized areal distribution for Iron - Unconsolidated aquifers

<1.0 mg/L

1.0-2.5 mg/L

>2.5 mg/L



magnitude of the nitrate issue in a county. For example,although Hendricks County reported 94 samples abovereporting limits, the large sample size of 873 make the per-centage of samples having reportable levels at less than 11percent. Whereas, the small sample size of 31 for KnoxCounty produce approximately 71 percent result for sampleshaving reportable values. In spite of the small sample sizethere are obviously nitrate issues in Knox County, becauseapproximately 50 percent of the samples taken in the countyhad reported values greater than 3.0 mg/L, including 29 per-cent with nitrate values greater than the MCL.

A variety of anthropogenic activities can contribute nitrateto ground waters, and may increase nitrate concentrationsabove the MCL. Because nitrate is an important plant nutri-ent, nitrate fertilizers are often added to cultivated soils.Under certain conditions, however, these fertilizers may enterthe ground water through normal infiltration or through apoorly-constructed water well. Nitrate is commonly present

in domestic wastewater, and high levels of this constituent areoften associated with septic systems. Animal manure can alsobe a source of nitrate in ground-water systems, and highnitrate levels are sometimes detected in ground waters down-gradient from barnyards or feedlots. Because many sources ofnitrate are associated with agriculture, rural areas may beespecially susceptible to nitrate pollution of ground water. Tohelp farmers and other rural-area residents assess and mini-mize the risk of ground-water contamination by nitrate andother agricultural chemicals, the American Farm BureauFederation has developed a water quality self-help checklistspecifically for agricultural operations (American FarmBureau Federation, 1987).

In 1991, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) began theNational Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program. Thelong-term goals of the NAWQA Program are to describe thestatus and trends in the quality of the Nation's surface andground water and to provide a sound scientific understanding

Figure 20b. Generalized areal distribution for Iron - Bedrock aquifers

<1.0 mg/L

1.0-2.5 mg/L

>2.5 mg/L



of the primary natural and human factors affecting the quali-ty of these resources (Hirsch and others, 1988).

The White River Basin in Indiana was among the first 20river basins to be studied as part of the NAWQA program. Acomponent of the White River Basin study is to determine theoccurrence of nitrate in the shallow ground water of the basin.Moore and Fenelon (1996) describe nitrate data collectedfrom 103 monitoring wells from June 1994 through August1995. The study included both the West Fork and the EastFork White River Water Management basins of Indiana.

Findings of the study:

• Nitrate concentrations in water samples from the 94 shal-low wells in the White River Basin ranged from less than 0.05mg/L to a high of 21 mg/L.

• Water from 6 of the 94 shallow wells (6.4 percent) con-

tained nitrate concentrations higher than 10 mg/L. Nitratewas not detected, at a detection limit of 0.05 mg/L, in 43 per-cent of the shallow wells.

• In contrast to the wells with no detectable nitrate, samplesfrom 29 percent of the shallow wells had nitrate concentra-tions higher than 3.0 mg/L.

• The paired wells in the fluvial deposits show stratificationof nitrate concentration with depth. The largest percentage ofshallow wells with a nitrate concentration between 3.1 and 10mg/L (42 percent) and the largest percentage of shallow wellswith a nitrate concentration higher than 10 mg/L (17 percent)were in fluvial deposits underlying agricultural land.

• Nitrate concentrations in samples from three-fourths ofthe shallow wells in fluvial deposits underlying urban landwere above the detection limit; however, the nitrate concen-tration did not exceed 10 mg/L in any of the samples.

• Water samples from more than one third of the wells in theglacial lowland had nitrate concentrations higher than 3.0 mg/L.

Figure 21a. Generalized areal distribution for Fluoride - Unconsolidated aquifers

<1.0 mg/L

1.0-1.9 mg/L

>1.9 mg/L



• Nitrate concentrations were below the detection limit insamples from approximately 65 percent of the wells in the tillplain and 41 percent of the wells in the glacial lowland.

Strontium

Ground water in the West Fork White River basin may becharacterized as containing "relatively high" concentrationsof strontium compared to ground water in other regions. Forexample, Skougstad and Horr (1963) analyzed 175 ground-water samples from throughout the United States and notedthat 60 percent contained less than 0.2 mg/L of strontium.Davis and DeWiest (1970) report that concentrations of stron-tium in most ground water generally range between 0.01 and1.0 mg/L. Of the 372 ground-water samples analyzed forstrontium in this report, however, only about 22 percent con-tained strontium concentrations less than 0.2 mg/L. Almost

25 percent of the wells sampled in the West Fork White Riverbasin contained strontium concentrations greater than 1.0mg/L. Figures 23a and b display the spatial distribution ofground-water strontium levels for the unconsolidated andbedrock aquifer systems in the West Fork White River basin.

The unconsolidated aquifer systems generally have lowermedian strontium concentrations than the bedrock aquifersystems. The lowest median strontium concentrations of allthe aquifer systems are observed in the ground-water samplesfrom the unconsolidated White River and TributariesOutwash Aquifer system and subsystem. The unconsolidatedaquifer systems with the highest median strontium concentra-tions are the Tipton Till Plain Aquifer system and subsystem.The lowest median strontium concentrations in the bedrockaquifer systems are observed in samples from thePennsylvanian bedrock systems. The Mississippian/BuffaloWallow, Stephensport, and West Baden Group Aquifer sys-tem has the highest median strontium concentration of all the

Figure 21b. Generalized areal distribution for Fluoride - Bedrock aquifers

<1.0 mg/L

1.0-1.9 mg/L

>1.9 mg/L



aquifer systems (appendix 4).Elevated concentrations of strontium are apparent in the

bedrock aquifers in some areas of Monroe, Greene, and OwenCounties, and in the unconsolidated and bedrock aquifers ofRandolph County. At the time of this report, no enforceabledrinking-water standards have been established for strontium.However, the non-enforceable lifetime health advisory forstrontium is set at 17.0 mg/L. Four samples from wells com-pleted in the Mississippian/Blue River and Sanders GroupAquifer system in Monroe County and one sample from theTipton Till Plain Aquifer subsystem in Randolph County con-tain strontium concentrations in excess of the health advisory(see appendix 4). In addition to these 5 wells, fifteen othershave strontium concentrations greater than 5 mg/L. Seven ofthese were in Randolph County and all but one of the restwere in Greene, Owen and Monroe Counties.

Sources of strontium in ground water are generally thetrace amounts of strontium present in rocks. The strontium-bearing minerals celestite (SrSO4) and strontianite (SrCO3)may be disseminated in limestone and dolomite. Also,celestite is associated with gypsum deposits, which occur inthe rocks of the Blue River and Sanders Group. These rocksare located in Greene, Owen, and Monroe Counties. Silurianrocks of several different lithologies may be the source ofhigh strontium and concentrations in Randolph County.

Because strontium and calcium are chemically similar,strontium atoms may also be adsorbed on clay particles byion exchange (Skougstad and Horr, 1963). Ion-exchangeprocesses may thus reduce strontium concentrations inground water found in clay-rich sediments.

<1.0 mg/L

1.0-3.0 mg/L

3.1-10.0 mg/L

>10.0 mg/L

Figure 22a. Distribution of Nitrate-Nitrogen concentrations for sampled wells - Unconsolidated aquifers


Zinc

Generally, significant dissolved quantities of the metal zincoccur only in low pH or high-temperature ground water(Davis and DeWiest, 1970). Concentrations of zinc inground-water samples from the West Fork White River basinare plotted in figures 24a and b. Three hundred eleven of theground-water samples analyzed (approximately 84 percent)contain levels below the detection limit of 0.1 mg/L for zinc.None of the samples analyzed contain zinc in concentrations abovethe 5 mg/L SMCL established for this constituent (appendix 2).

Lead

Naturally occurring minerals that contain lead are widely

dispersed, but have low solubility in most natural groundwater. The co-precipitation of lead with manganese oxide andthe adsorption of lead on organic and inorganic sediment sur-faces help to maintain low lead concentration levels in groundwater (Hem, 1985). Much of the lead present in tap watermay come from anthropogenic sources, particularly lead sol-der used in older plumbing systems. Because natural concen-trations of lead are normally low and because there are somany uncertainties involved in collecting and analyzing sam-ples, lead was not analyzed in this study.

Total dissolved solids

Total dissolved solids (TDS) are a measure of the totalamount of dissolved minerals in water. Essentially, TDS rep-

<1.0 mg/L

1.0-3.0 mg/L

3.1-10.0 mg/L

>10.0 mg/L

Figure 22b. Distribution of Nitrate-Nitrogen concentrations for sampled wells - Bedrock aquifers


resents the sum of concentrations of all dissolved constituentsin a water sample. In general, if a ground-water sample has ahigh TDS level, high concentrations of major constituentswill also be present in that sample. The secondary maximumcontaminant level (SMCL) for TDS is established at 500mg/L. Drever (1988), however, defines fresh water (watersufficiently dilute to be potable) as water containing TDS ofless than 1000 mg/L.

More than 81 percent of the samples collected from wellsin the West Fork White River basin contain TDS levels thatexceed the SMCL. The lowest median TDS level is observedin samples from the Mississippian/Buffalo Wallow,Stephensport and West Baden Groups Aquifer system, whichis the only aquifer system having a median TDS level belowthe SMCL (appendix 4); however, this system also displaysthe greatest variability in TDS levels. The lowest median TDSlevel in the unconsolidated aquifer systems is slightly abovethe SMCL and is observed in samples from the White River

and Tributaries Outwash Aquifer system (appendix 4).Although the lowest median values for TDS occur in a

bedrock aquifer system, in general TDS values are higher inthe bedrock aquifer systems in the basin than in the uncon-solidated deposits. Median TDS levels are more variable inthe bedrock aquifer systems than in the unconsolidated sys-tems, as both the highest and lowest median TDS levels occurin the bedrock systems. Three of the bedrock aquifer systems,the Devonian and Mississippian/New Albany Shale, thePennsylvanian/Carbondale Group, and thePennsylvanian/McLeansboro Group, have the highest medianTDS levels of all aquifer systems, which are approximately700 mg/L. Some of the highest TDS levels are observed in thePennsylvanian/Raccoon Creek Group Aquifer system. Of the16 bedrock well samples exceeding 1000 mg/L, eleven occurin this aquifer system. In contrast, only one of the unconsoli-dated aquifer systems has a median TDS level above 600mg/L, which is the White River and Tributaries Outwash

Figure 23a. Generalized areal distribution for Strontium - Unconsolidated aquifers

<1.0 mg/L

1.0-3.0 mg/L

>3.0 mg/L



Subsystem at 635 mg/L. Figures 25a and b display the spa-tial distribution of ground-water TDS levels for the unconsol-idated and bedrock aquifer systems in the West Fork WhiteRiver Basin.

Because of the wide range in solubility of different miner-als, one of the principal influences on TDS levels in groundwater is the minerals that come into contact with the water.Water in contact with highly soluble minerals will probablycontain higher TDS levels than water in contact with less sol-uble minerals. Amount of carbonate materials and ground-water residence time also exert substantial control over thelevels of chemical constituents in ground water.

In an aquifer where ground-water flow is very sluggish andflushing of the aquifer is minimal, ground water can reach astate of chemical saturation with respect to dissolved solutes.Areas of active ground-water flushing generally have lowerTDS values.

Ion-exchange processes in clays can also increase TDS

because, in order to maintain electrical charge balance, twomonovalent sodium or potassium ions must enter solution foreach divalent ion absorbed. Clay minerals can have highcation-exchange capacities and may exert a considerableinfluence on the proportionate concentration of the differentcations in water associated with them (Hem, 1985). Theexchange of calcium for sodium results in high sodium levels,and total dissolved solids increase in ground water when cal-cium ions are exchanged for sodium ions (Freeze and Cherry,1979).

Shale and other fine-grained sedimentary rocks (referred toas hydrolyzates) are composed, in large part of clay mineralsand other fine-grained particulate matter that has formed bychemical reactions between water and silicates. Shale andsimilar rocks may be porous but do not transmit water readi-ly because openings are very small and are poorly intercon-nected. Many such rocks were originally deposited in saltwa-ter, and some of the solutes may remain in the pore space and

Figure 23b. Generalized areal distribution for Strontium - Bedrock aquifers

<1.0 mg/L

1.0-3.0 mg/L

>3.0 mg/L



attached to the particles for long periods after the rock hasbeen formed. As a result, the water obtained from ahydrolyzate rock may contain rather high concentrations ofdissolved solids. If they are interbedded with rocks that aremore permeable, there can be migration of water and solutesfrom the hydroyzates into the aquifers with which they areinterbedded. Although it is not necessarily true for all watersassociated with hydrolyzates, such waters commonly shareone dominant characteristic; sodium is their principal cation.

The high TDS levels in the Pennsylvanian bedrock aquifersystems could reflect long residence times and cationexchange in bedrock systems that contain a high percentageof shale. The high TDS level is a factor that prevents deepbedrock formations from being considered practical sourcesof potable ground water in the West Fork White River basin.

Total dissolved solids levels may also be influenced byground-water pollution. Road salting, waste disposal, mining,

landfills, and runoff from urban or agricultural areas are somehuman factors that may add dissolved constituents to groundwater. Coal mining in the Pennsylvanian bedrock may alsoplay an important role in the high TDS values in those aquifersystems within and adjacent to the mines.

Radon

Radon is a radioactive noble gas produced by the decay ofradium. Uranium minerals in rocks are the source of radium.The primary source of the radon gas in ground water is theradium in the aquifer material (Hem, 1985). Radon subse-quently undergoes decay by emitting an alpha particle (posi-tively charged helium nucleus). When ingested or inhaledover an extended period of time, radon and some of its decayproducts can cause cancer. Radon levels are measured in pic-

<0.1 mg/L

0.1 - 0.3 mg/L

>0.3 mg/L

Figure 24a. Distribution of Zinc concentrations for sampled wells - Unconsolidated aquifers


ocuries per liter (pCi/L). An activity of one pCi/L is approxi-mately equal to the decay of two atoms of radon per minutein a liter of air or water. At present, no MaximumContaminant Level (MCL) has been established for radon indrinking water; however, the Environmental ProtectionAgency has proposed an MCL of 300 pCi/L

One hundred seventy-six of the 372 ground-water samplestaken for this study were analyzed for radon. The bedrockaquifers generally exhibit greater variability in median radonactivity than the unconsolidated aquifers (appendix 4). TheMississippian/Borden Group and the Blue River and SandersGroups have the highest median activity in the bedrockaquifer systems. In the unconsolidated aquifer systems, theDissected Till and Residuum aquifer system has the highestmedian radon activity. Fourteen samples have activity greaterthan 1000 pCi/L. All but one of these are from bedrockaquifers. Ten are from the Mississippian aquifer systems.

Four aquifer systems: (Buried Valley, Lacustrine andBackwater Deposits, Devonian and Mississippian/NewAlbany Shale, and Mississippian/Buffalo Wallow,Stephensport, and West Baden Group) have fewer than 4 sam-ples, so they are not included in the median comparison.

Pesticides

Because agriculture is an important form of land use inIndiana, pesticides are widely used in the state to controlweeds and insects. In 1990, for example, a reported 28 mil-lion pounds of corn and soybean pesticides were usedthroughout the state (Risch, 1994). The widespread use ofpesticides has created concerns about possible adverse affectsthat these chemicals may have on the environment. Amongthese concerns is the possibility that pesticides may contami-

<0.1 mg/L

0.1 - 0.3 mg/L

>0.3 mg/L

Figure 24b. Distribution of Zinc concentrations for sampled wells - Bedrock aquifers


nate ground-water supplies.Through a cooperative effort, the U.S. Geological Survey

and the Indiana Department of Environmental Managementhave developed a statewide-computerized database contain-ing analyses of pesticides in ground-water samples. This data-base contains the results of 725 ground-water samples col-lected during 6 statewide and 15 localized studies betweenDecember 1985 and April 1991. Sources of data consist of theU.S. Geological Survey, the Indiana Department ofEnvironmental Management, the Indiana Department ofNatural Resources, and the U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency. A comprehensive summary of the pesticide databasewas written by Risch (1994).

The pesticide database includes 47 water sample analysesfrom 28 different wells in the West Fork White River basinthat were sampled in August 1989 through February 1990 asa part of a cooperative effort between the Indiana Departmentof Environmental Management (IDEM) and the Indiana

Department of Natural Resources (IDNR). The 28 wells are asubset of 372 wells sampled for inorganics by the DOW-IGSas part of the West Fork White River basin water resourceassessment that were selected by Department ofEnvironmental Management staff for pesticide analysis (fig-ure 26). The inorganic chemical analyses for the 28 samplesare included in appendix 1.

The 28 wells were sampled for 53 pesticides and 4 metabo-lites. Fifteen of the wells were developed in bedrock; thirteenin unconsolidated materials. No pesticides or Volatile OrganicCompounds (VOCs) were detected in the samples (IndianaDepartment of Environmental Management, [1990]).

A major focus of a private well-water testing program inIndiana (Wallrabenstein and others, 1994) is to collect infor-mation on the presence of triazine herbicide and alachlor(Lasso) in rural water supplies. The private testing program,which is sponsored by the Indiana Farm Bureau, Soil andWater Conservation Districts, County Health Departments,

Figure 25a. Generalized areal distribution for Total Dissolved Solids - Unconsolidated aquifers

<500 mg/L

500-800 mg/L

>800 mg/L



Resource Conservation and Development Districts, CountyExtension Offices, and other local entities, uses immunoassayanalyses to screen for triazine herbicides and alachlor. Nitratelevels in rural water supplies are also examined, as discussedon the previous pages of this chapter under the heading ofNitrate.

The triazine immunoassay screen indicates the presence ofone or more of the common triazine herbicides includingatrazine (AAtrex), cyanazine (Bladex), and simazine(Princep), and some triazine metabolites. The alachlor screenindicates the presence of alachlor (Lasso), metolachlor(Dual), metalaxyl (Ridomil) or one of the related acetanilideherbicides. The alachlor screen may also react to variousalachlor metabolites. The immunoassay procedures, thus donot indicate which specific pesticide(s) is (are) present, butwill confirm the absence of triazine- or acetanilide-pesticidesat concentrations above the method detection limit (MDL). Inthe assessment of data collected during the private-well

screening program, the researchers used the term "triazine" torefer to triazine herbicides and their metabolites, and used theterm "acetanilide" in reference to alachlor, metolachlor andrelated metabolites (Wallrabenstein and others, 1994).

The results of the triazine and alachlor screening wereassessed in terms of two standards; the detection limit (DL)and the maximum contaminant level (MCL). The MCLs usedfor this study were those for atrazine (3.0 µg/L) and alachlor(2.0 µg/L). Samples were categorized into one of the follow-ing four groups: 1) no triazine or acetanilide detected; 2) con-centrations above DL, but less than one-half MCL; 3) con-centrations above one-half MCL up to the MCL; 4) concen-trations above the MCL. The detection limits for triazine andacetanilide for this study are reported as 0.05 micrograms perliter (µg/L) or parts per billion (ppb) and 0.2 µg/L, respec-tively. Because of the ambiguity in the analysis, well ownerswhose samples contained levels of triazine in the range of 3.0µg/L or acetanilide in the range of 2.0 µg/L were encouraged

Figure 25b. Generalized areal distribution for Total Dissolved Solids - Bedrock aquifers

<500 mg/L

500-800 mg/L

>800 mg/L



to have another sample analyzed with gas chromatographicmethods (Wallrabenstein and others, 1994).

All but three of the 29 counties (table 1) that lie partiallywithin the West Fork White River basin participated in theFarm Bureau study: Greene, Pike, and Randolph. However,only the statistics for the counties that have more than 50 per-cent of their area encompassed within the West Fork WhiteRiver basin were closely examined for inclusion in this dis-cussion: Clay, Daviess, Delaware, Hamilton, Hendricks,Knox, Madison, Marion, Morgan, Owen, and Putnam.Statistics for counties that have less than 50 percent, but morethan 35 percent of their area in the basin (Boone, Johnson,Monroe, and Tipton) were also briefly examined to provide acomprehensive picture of triazine and alachlor values in thebasin.

Ninety-six percent of the samples analyzed for the majorcounties in the basin had concentrations of acetanilide belowthe detection limit of 0.2 mg/L. However, some samples fromall but 3 of the counties (Marion, Monroe, and Tipton) con-tained acetanilide concentration levels above detection. Ninesamples, or approximately 0.3 percent of samples taken,reported concentrations greater than 2.0 mg/L. Hendricks,Clay, and Johnson Counties had the highest number of sam-ples at the higher levels. However, Knox and Clay Counties,both counties having small sample sizes, had the highest per-centage of detectable levels of acetanilide.

Ninety-four percent of the samples analyzed had concen-trations of Triazine below the detection limit of 0.05 mg/L.However, samples from each county under consideration con-tained triazine concentration levels above detection limits.

Figure 26. Location of pesticide samples for West Fork White Study (Cooperative effort between IndianaDepartment of Natural Resources - Division of Water and Indiana Depatment of

Environmental Management - Ground Water Section)


Only two counties, Davies and Putnam, had samples exceed-ing 3 mg/L.

Throughout the state, over 90 percent of the water samplesanalyzed for the Indiana Farm Bureau pesticide study con-tained no detectable amounts of triazine or acetanilide. TheMCL for triazine was exceeded in only 0.1 percent of all sam-ples. Approximately 1.6 percent of all samples containedacetanilide levels above 2.0 µg/L, however, the majority ofacetanilide detects were believed to be caused by a soilmetabolite of alachlor (Wallrabenstein and others, 1994). Ingeneral, triazine and acetanilide were most frequently detect-ed in shallow (less than 50 feet deep) wells. Furthermore,samples collected from dug or driven wells (generally shal-low) contained a higher percentage of detects than samplescollected from drilled wells. The occurrence of detectableconcentrations of triazine and acetanilide in ground watersuggests that shallow, poorly-constructed (not well-sealed)wells may be especially susceptible to pesticide contamina-tion.

In 1991, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) began theNational Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program. Thelong-term goals of the NAWQA Program are to describe thestatus and trends in the quality of the Nation's surface andground water and to provide a sound scientific understandingof the primary natural and human factors affecting the quali-ty of these resources (Hirsch and others, 1988). The WhiteRiver basin in Indiana was one of the basins chosen for study.The study includes both the West Fork and the East ForkWhite River Water Management basins of Indiana.

Synthesizing data analysis was a major component of theNAWQA program. One of the first topics addressed in theprogram was pesticides. Carter and others (1995) presented aretrospective analysis of available pesticide data, 1972-92, forthe White River Basin (West Fork and East Fork). It includeddata on the occurrence of pesticides in streams, stream-bot-tom sediments, fish, and ground waters. Of 101 wells sam-pled throughout the White River Basin for a variety of pesti-cides, detectable concentrations of pesticides were found atonly 4 wells. Water from three of the four wells was contam-inated with atrazine. The metabolite-to-parent compoundratio for atrazine is higher in ground water than in surfacewater. Based on limited amounts of data, atrazine concentra-tions in ground water at wells appear to fluctuate seasonally;atrazine concentrations are found to be more elevated later inthe year in ground water than in surface waters. This time lagmay be because the travel time of atrazine through the unsat-urated zone to the aquifers is relatively long, or because theaquifers are storing contaminated water from nearby surface-water sources during the spring flush of herbicides. All of thewells where detectable amounts of atrazine were found are inoutwash aquifers, indicating that this aquifer type may be par-ticularly susceptible to water-soluble pesticide contamina-tion.

Overall, shallow ground water in regions of high hydraulicconductivity have higher water-soluble pesticide concentra-tions in shallow ground water than ground water in regions oflow hydraulic conductivity. The physical properties of over-lying material seem to be the main factors determining the

concentrations of pesticides in shallow aquifers and ground-water wells, although a variety of other factors, such as landuse and farming practices, also can affect observed concen-trations.

From June 1994 through August 1995, additional data werecollected in the White River basin for the NAWQA programto determine the occurrence of pesticides in the shallowground water of the basin (Fenelon and Moore, 1996a).


• Most of the pesticides that were analyzed for, includingall 11 insecticides, were not detected above the reporting limitin any well.

• Seven herbicides and one atrazine metabolite (desethylatraziane, a breakdown product of atrazine) were detected atleast once. Of these eight compounds, only four-atrazine,desethyl atrazine, metolachlor, and metribuzin-were detectedmore than twice. The highest measured concentration of anycompound detected was 0.19 mg/L(micrograms per liter) ofalachlor, whereas the most frequently detected compoundwas desethyl atrazine (14 of 94 samples).

• No pesticide [sampled for] was present in a concentrationthat exceeded a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency(USEPA) national drinking-water standard or guideline.

• The occurrence of pesticides in shallow ground water inthe White River Basin contrasts with conditions observed inthe White River at a site near the mouth of the river atHazleton, Indiana (Crawford, 1995). A significantly greaterfrequency of detections and much higher concentrations ofatrazine and metolachlor were observed in the river than inthe ground water.

• The greatest percentage of wells (42 percent) where atleast one pesticide was detected are on agricultural land over-lying fluvial deposits.

• Pesticides in ground water underlying agricultural areasof the till plain and glacial lowland were uncommon.

• The lowest percentage (12 percent) of wells where at leastone pesticide was detected are on urban land overlying fluvialdeposits.

Other recent ground-water sampling studies

Other primary topics addressed by the National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program besides pesticidesare: nutrients, volatile organic compounds and aquatic biolo-gy. The following is a summary of the findings of the WhiteRiver study regarding nutrients and volatile organic com-pounds in ground water.

Martin and others (1996) assessed water-quality in theWhite River Basin by examining analysis of selected infor-mation on nutrients, 1980-92. Ground-water-quality datafrom 101 wells were used to determine the effect of aquifertype, well depth, well type, and season on nutrient concentra-tions in ground water. Median concentrations of ammoniawere highest (0.25 mg/L) in till aquifers composed of buried


sand and gravel lenses, probably because of biochemicalreduction of nitrate to ammonia. Concentrations of nitrate intill aquifers were low, probably because till reduced thedownward percolation of soil water and because reducingconditions enabled denitrification and biochemical reductionof nitrate to ammonia. Median concentrations of nitrate werehighest in karst aquifers, probably because macropore, sink-holes, and other solution features provided a direct connec-tion of surface and ground water through preferential flowpaths from the clayey mantle to the karst aquifer.Concentrations of ammonia generally were higher in deepwells, whereas concentrations of nitrate generally were high-er in shallow wells. High ammonia concentrations at depthmay have been caused by nitrate by the downward percola-tion of nitrogen-containing soil water from the land surface.Refer to the Nitrate section of this report for additionaldetails.

Another component of the White River Basin study is todetermine the occurrence of volatile organic compounds(VOCs) in the shallow ground water of the basin. VOCs areof national concern because some of the compounds are toxicand (or) carcinogenic. Fenelon and Moore (1996b) presentthe findings from VOC data collected from 100 monitoringwells from June 1994 through August 1995. The studyincludes both the West Fork and the East Fork White RiverWater Management basins of Indiana.


• Twelve of the 58 VOCs that were analyzed for in groundwater samples were detected at or above the reporting limit inat least 1 of the 91 shallow wells.

• Chloroform (trichloromethane) was the most commonlydetected VOC, whereas the highest measured VOC concen-tration was 39 mg/L (microgram per liter) of 1,1-dichloroethene.

• No VOC had a measured concentration in ground waterthat exceeded a national drinking-water standard or guidelinefor public water supplies.

• Samples from shallow wells in the nine pairs of shallowand deep wells had a greater frequency of detections andhigher concentrations of VOCs than samples from the deepwells.

• VOCs were detected in only 4 of the 66 wells in agricul-tural settings.

• Most of the ground water with detectable VOCs in theWhite River Basin underlies urban land. Slightly more thanhalf of the shallow wells in urban settings, as compared to sixpercent of the shallow wells in agricultural settings, had atleast one VOC detected above the reporting limit.

• Chloroform was the most frequently detected VOC (40percent of wells) in ground water underlying urban land. Themedian detected concentration of chloroform in urban set-tings was 0.5 mg/L; all of the chloroform detections were inIndianapolis.

• A likely source of the low concentrations of chloroform inground water underlying urban land in the White River Basin

is chlorinated public-supply water.• Atmospheric deposition is probably a minor source of

chloroform in ground water.

Ground-water contamination

A ground-water supply, that under natural conditions wouldbe acceptable for a variety of uses, can be adversely affectedby contamination from human activities. Contamination, asdefined by the Indiana Department of EnvironmentalManagement, occurs when levels of contaminants are inexcess of public drinking-water standards, or health protec-tion guidance levels promulgated by the USEPA.

Over the past 100 years industrial and agricultural practicesthat accompany development have created ample opportunityfor ground-water contamination in the West Fork White Riverbasin. Numerous potential sources for ground-water contam-ination exist in the West Fork White River basin, includingsanitary landfills, sewage treatment plants, industrial facili-ties, agricultural operations, septic and underground storagetanks, and road-salt storage facilities.

Some cases of actual ground-water contamination havebeen identified in the basin. The Indiana Department ofEnvironmental Management (IDEM), Ground-Water Section,maintains a database of Indiana sites having 'confirmed'ground-water contamination. The 1998 and 2000 IndianaWater Quality Reports produced by the Indiana Departmentof Environmental Management, Office of WaterManagement, Planning Branch provide an overview of theten highest priority sources of ground-water contamination inIndiana and the associated contaminants impacting ground-water quality; a summary of Indiana ground-water protectionefforts is also included. In these reports, IDEM summarizesthe ground water contamination sites in ground water in theWhite, West Fork White, and Patoka River basins by hydro-geologic settings developed by Fleming and others, 1995.Nitrates were identified by IDEM as the contaminant mostoften encountered in ground water.

Susceptibility of aquifers to surface contamination

Because contaminants can be transmitted to the ground-water system by infiltration from the surface, the susceptibil-ity of an aquifer system to contamination from surfacesources depends in part on the type of material that forms thesurface layer above the aquifer. In general, sandy surficialsediments can easily transmit water from the surface, but pro-vide negligible filtering of contaminants. Clay-rich surficialdeposits, such as glacial till, generally have lower verticalhydraulic conductivity than sand and gravel deposits, therebylimiting the movement of contaminated water. However, thepresence of fractures can locally decrease the effectiveness ofa till in protecting ground water. The differences in basichydrologic properties of sands and clays make it possible touse surficial geology to estimate the potential for ground-water contamination.


The highly complex relationships of the various glacialdeposits in the West Fork White River basin preclude site-specific comments about susceptibility of the regional aquifersystems to contamination. However, a few gross generaliza-tions can be made here. Additional detail on susceptibility ofhydrogeologic settings in the state are available in Flemingand others, 1995.

The Tipton Till Plain aquifer system consists chiefly ofintratill lenses of outwash sand and gravel that are highlyvariable in depth and lateral extent and are confined by vari-ably thick clay or till sequences. It generally is considered tohave low susceptibility to surface contamination.

The Tipton Till Plain Subsystem aquifer system is com-posed primarily of glacial tills that contain intratill sand andgravel of limited thickness and extent. It is similar to theTipton Till Plain aquifer system but is generally consideredmoderately vulnerable to surface contamination. This systemis located in many areas where the bedrock is shallow and tillcover overlying the sand and gravel is thin.

The Dissected Till and Residuum aquifer system, consist-ing of thin, eroded residuum and predominantly pre-Wisconsin till overlying bedrock dominates the southern por-tions of the basin. Because of the low permeability of the sur-face materials, this system is not very susceptible to contam-ination from surface sources.

The water-bearing units of the White River andTributaries Outwash aquifer system are unconfined, usuallyfairly shallow, and are characterized by thick sequences ofsand and gravel with little clay. This aquifer system is highlysusceptible to contamination due to its lack of clay layers andshallow water levels.

White River and Tributaries Outwash Subsystemaquifer system, adjacent to the White River and TributariesOutwash Aquifer system, consists of thick zones of sand andgravel that have been covered by a layer of clay or till. In gen-eral, this system is highly susceptible to surface contamina-tion. Although the overlying clay or till may provide someprotection to the confined portions of the White River andTributaries Outwash Subsystem Aquifer system, in manyplaces surficial valley train deposits coalesce with the deeperoutwash deposits making them more vulnerable. Two smallareas of this system in Gibson and Knox Counties have thicklayers of clay overlying the sand and gravel making themmoderately susceptible to surface contamination.

The Lacustrine and Backwater Deposits aquifer systemthat is made up of discontinuous bodies of deposits extendingalong areas of outwash close to the West Fork White RiverValley. These bodies are marked by thick deposits of soft siltand clay that have low susceptibility to surface contamination

The Buried Valley aquifer system has a low susceptibilityto surface contamination because outwash sediments withinthe bedrock valleys are generally overlain by tills. Althoughlenses of outwash sand and gravel may occur within the tills,the predominance of fine-grained sediments above thebedrock valleys limits the migration of contaminants fromsurface sources to the deep aquifers.

The susceptibility of bedrock aquifer systems to surfacecontamination is dependant on the nature of the overlying

sediments, because the bedrock throughout the basin is over-lain by unconsolidated deposits. Just as recharge for bedrockaquifers cannot exceed that of overlying unconsolidateddeposits, susceptibility to surface contamination will notexceed that of overlying deposits. However, because thebedrock aquifer systems have complex fracturing systems,once a contaminant has been introduced into a basin bedrockaquifer system, it will be difficult to track. The outcrop/sub-crop area of the Blue River and Sanders Groups is wellknown for significant karst development. Because of the shal-low rock, open joints, and solution channels the aquifer sys-tem is quite susceptible to contaminants introduced at andnear land surface. In the outcrop/subcrop area of the BuffaloWallow, Stephensport, and West Baden Groups the rock ispredominantly shallow and contains numerous, irregularjoints. In limited areas some karst has developed in the lime-stone beds. These conditions warrant considering the aquifersystem as a whole to be somewhat susceptible to contami-nants introduced at and near land surface. In areas where theSilurian and Devonian Carbonates are overlain directly byunconfined sand and gravel outwash, the bedrock is highlysusceptible to surface contamination. In general, thePennsylvanian bedrock aquifer systems are not very suscepti-ble to contamination from the land surface.

Regional estimates of aquifer susceptibility can differ con-siderably from local reality. Variations within geologic envi-ronments can cause variation in susceptibility to surface con-tamination. Also, man-made structures such as poorly-con-structed water wells, unplugged or improperly-abandonedwells, and open excavations, can provide contaminant path-ways which bypass the naturally-protective clays. In contrast,man-made structures can also provide ground-water protec-tion that would not normally be furnished by the natural envi-ronment. For example, large containment structures caninhibit infiltration of both surface water and contaminants.Current regulations administered by the Indiana Departmentof Environmental Management (IDEM) contain provisionsfor containment structures, thereby permitting many opera-tions to occur that would otherwise provide an increased con-tamination risk to soils and the ground water. Other regula-tions administered by the IDNR regulate the proper construc-tion of new wells and sealing (plugging) of abandoned wells,whether related to petroleum or water production.

Protection and management of ground-water resources

Major ground-water management and protection activitiesin Indiana are administered by the Indiana Department ofEnvironmental Management (IDEM), Indiana Department ofNatural Resources (IDNR), and the Indiana State Departmentof Health (ISDH). An expanded cooperative effort in the formof the Inter-Agency Ground-Water Task Force involves rep-resentatives of these three agencies as well as the StateChemist, State Fire Marshal, and members of local govern-ment, labor, and the business, environmental and agriculturalcommunities. The Task Force was first formed in 1986 todevelop a state ground-water quality protection and manage-


ment strategy and is mandated by the 1989 Ground WaterProtection Act (IC 13-7-26) to coordinate the implementationof this strategy. The strategy is an agenda of state action toprevent, detect, and correct contamination and depletion ofground water in Indiana (Indiana Department ofEnvironmental Management, 1986). The 1989 act alsorequires the IDEM to maintain a registry of contaminationsites, operate a clearinghouse for complaints and reports of

ground-water pollution, and investigate incidents of contami-nation that affect private supply wells.

The 1998 and 2000 Indiana Water Quality Reports pro-duced by the Indiana Department of EnvironmentalManagement, Office of Water Management, Planning Branchprovide a summary of Indiana ground-water protectionefforts.

Glossary 75

GLOSSARYablation-the melting of a glacier and associated depositional processes. An

ablation complex is a heterogeneous assemblage of till-like sediment,sand and gravel, and lake deposits formed during the disintegration ofa glacier

accretionary-in this usage, describes the gradual addition of new land toold by the deposition of sediment carried by stream flow

acetanilide-a white, crystalline organic powder (CH3CONHC6H5) usedchiefly in organic synthesis and in medicine for the treatment ofheadache, fever and rheumatism

alluvial-pertaining to or composed of alluviumalluvium-fine- to coarse-grained sediment deposited in or adjacent to mod-

ern streams and derived from erosion of surface sediments elsewhere inthe watershed or from valley walls

anhydrite-a mineral consisting of anhydrous calcium sulfate: CaSO4; itrepresents gypsum without its water of crystallization, and it altersreadily to gypsum. It usually occurs in white or slightly colored, gran-ular to compact masses

anion-an atom or molecule that has gained one or more electrons and pos-sess a negative electrical charge

anthropogenic-relating to the impact or influence of humans or humanactivities on nature

aquifer-a saturated geologic unit that can transmit significant quantities ofwater under ordinary hydraulic gradients

aquifer system-a heterogeneous body of permeable and poorly permeablematerials that functions regionally as a water-yielding unit; it consistsof two or more aquifers separated at least locally by confining units thatimpede ground-water movement, but do not affect the overall hydrauliccontinuity of the system

aquitard-a confining layer that retards but does not prevent the flow ofwater to or from an adjacent aquifer

arenaceous-said of a sediment or sedimentary rock consisting wholly or inpart of sand-size fragments, or having a sandy texture or the appearanceof sand

argillaceous-pertaining to, largely composed of, or containing clay-sizedparticles or clay minerals

artesian-see confinedbackwater-water held or forced back, as by a dam, flood, tide, etc.basal tills-refers to tills originating from the zone of the glacier near the

bedbase flow-the portion of stream flow derived largely or entirely from

ground-water dischargebasement rocks-the crust of the Earth below sedimentary deposits bioclastic vuggy dolomite-a calcium magnesium carbonate rock which

consists primarily of fragments or broken remains of organisms (suchas shells) and which contains small cavities usually lined with crystalsof a different mineral composition from the enclosing rock

calcareous-describes a rock or sediment that contains calcium carbonatecarbonate-in this usage, a rock consisting chiefly of carbonate minerals

which were formed by the organic or inorganic precipitation from aque-ous solution of carbonates of calcium, magnesium, or iron; e.g. lime-stone and dolomite

carcinogenic-capable of producing a cancercation-an atom or molecule that has lost one or more electrons and pos-

sesses a positive chargeclastic-pertaining to a rock or sediment composed principally of broken

fragments that are derived from preexisting rocks or minerals and thathave been transported some distance from their places of origin; alsosaid of the texture of such a rock

colluvial-pertaining to colluviumcolluvium-loose rock debris at the foot of a slope or cliff deposited by rock

falls, landslides and slumpagecone of depression-a depression in the ground water table or potentiomet-

ric surface that has the shape of an inverted cone and develops arounda well from which water is being withdrawn. It defines the area of influ-ence of a well

confined-describes an aquifer which lies between impermeable forma-tions; confined ground-water is generally under pressure greater thanatmospheric; also referred to as artesian

contact-a plane or irregular surface between two types or ages of rockcontaminant (drinking water)-as defined by the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, any physical, chemical, biological, or radiologicalsubstance in water, including constituents which may not be harmful

contemporaneous-formed or existing at the same timecuesta-a hill or ridge with a gentle slope on one side and a steep slope on

the other

cyclothem-a cycle applied to sedimentary rocks to describe a series of bedsdeposited during a single sedimentary cycle of the type that prevailedduring the Pennsylvanian Period. Cyclothems are typically associatedwith unstable shelf or interior basin conditions in which alternatemarine transgressions and regressions occur; nonmarine sediments usu-ally occur in the lower half of a cyclothem, marine sediments in theupper half

debris-flow-body of sediment that has moved downslope under the influ-ence of gravity; may be derived from a wide variety of pre-existing sed-iments that are generally saturated and may be deposited on or againstunstable substrates, such as glacial ice; flowage occurs when the sedi-ments lose their cohesive strength and liquify. Mud flows are a varietyof debris flow composed primarily of fine-grained sediment such as siltand clay. Historically, debris flows formed by flowage of soft till havebeen referred to as flow till. Because ancient mudflows frequentlyresemble glacial till they are sometimes referred to as till-like sediment

detection limit-is the amount of constituent that produces a signal suffi-ciently large that 99 percent of the trials with the amount will producea detectable signal 5X the instrumental detection limit

differential erosion-erosion that occurs at irregular or varying rates,caused by the differences in the resistance and hardness of surfacematerials: softer and weaker rocks are rapidly worn away; whereasharder and more resistant rocks remain to form ridges, hills, or moun-tains

disconformity-term used to refer to rock formations that exhibit parallelbedding but have between them a time break in deposition

discharge-see discharge areadischarge area-region where ground water is moving toward, and general-

ly appearing at the land surface or in a surface water bodydivalent-having a valence of two, the capacity to unite chemically with two

atoms of hydrogen or its equivalentdolomitic-dolomite-bearing, or containing dolomite; esp. said of a rock

that contains 5 to 50 percent of the mineral dolomite in the form ofcement and/or grains or crystals; containing magnesium

down-dip-a direction that is downwards and parallel to the dip (angle fromthe horizontal) of a structure or surface

drainage basin-the land area drained by a river and its tributaries; alsocalled watershed or drainage area

drawdown (ground water)-the difference between the water level in awell before and during pumping

end moraine-see moraine, end epicontinental-situated on the continental shelf or on the continental inte-

riorescarpment-a long, more or less continuous cliff or relatively steep slope

facing in one general direction, breaking the continuity of the land byseparating two level or gently sloping surfaces, and produced by ero-sion or by faulting

esker-narrow, elongate ridge of ice-contact stratified drift believed to formin channels under a glacier

evapotranspiration-a collective term that includes water discharged to theatmosphere as a result of evaporation from the soil and surface-waterbodies and by plant transpiration

evaporite-see evaporitic depositsevaporitic deposits-of or pertaining to sedimentary salts precipitated from

aqueous solutions and concentrated by evaporationexposure-in this usage, (geology) an area of a rock formation or geologic

structure that is visible, either naturally or artificially, i.e. is unobscuredby soil, vegetation, water, or the works of man; also, the condition ofbeing exposed to view at the earth's surface

facies-features, such as bedding characteristics or fossil content, whichcharacterize a sediment as having been deposited in a unique environ-ment

fan-body of outwash having a fan shape and an overall semi-conical pro-file; generally deposited where a constricted meltwater channelemerges from an ice margin into a large valley or open plain. The fanhead represents the highest and most ice-proximal part of the fan andcommonly emanates from an end moraine or similar ice marginal fea-ture. Ice-contact fans were deposited up against or atop ice and arecommonly collapsed and pitted. Meltwater along the toe of the fancommonly occupies fan-marginal channels

fault-(structural geology) a fracture or a zone of fractures along whichthere has been displacement of the sides relative to one another parallelto the fracture

flow till-see debris flowflowing well-a well completed in a confined aquifer in which the hydro-

static pressure is greater than atmospheric pressure, and the water risesnaturally to an elevation above land surface

fluvial-of or pertaining to rivers


fossiliferous-containing fossils, which are preserved plant or animalimprints or remains

gamma-ray logs-the radioactivity log curve of the intensity of naturalgamma radiation emitted from rocks in a cased or uncased borehole. Itis used for correlation, and for distinguishing shales and till (which areusually richer in naturally radioactive elements) from sand, gravel,sandstone, carbonates, and evaporites

geode-a hollow or partly hollow and globular or subspherical body, from2.5 cm to 30 cm or more in diameter, found in certain limestone bedsand rarely in shales

glacial lobe-segment of a continental ice sheet having a distinctive flowpath and lobate shape that formed in response to the development ofregional-scale basins (e.g., Lake Erie) on the surface that the ice flowedacross. The shapes and flow paths of most of the individual glaciallobes in this part of the upper Midwest were largely related to the formsof the Great Lake basins. Each lobe was tens of thousands of squaremiles in size and had flow patterns and histories that were distinct fromone another

glacial terrain-geographic region or landscape characterized by a geneticrelationship between landforms and the underlying sequences of sedi-ments

glaciolacustrine-pertaining to, produced by, or formed in a lake or lakesassociated with glaciers

ground-water discharge-in this usage, the part of total runoff which haspassed into the ground and has subsequently been discharged into astream channel

gypsum-a widely distributed mineral consisting of hydrous calcium sulfatehealth advisories (HAs)-provide the level of a contaminant in drinking

water at which adverse non-carcinogenic health effect would not beanticipated with a margin of safety

hummocky-describes glacial deposits arranged in mounds with interven-ing depressions

hydraulic conductivity-a parameter that describes the conductive proper-ties of a porous medium; often expressed in gallons per day per squarefoot; more specifically, rate of flow in gallons per day through a crosssection of one square foot under a unit hydraulic gradient, at the pre-vailing temperature

hydraulic gradient-the rate of change in total head per unit of distance offlow in a given direction

hydrostatic pressure-the pressure exerted by the water at any given pointin a body of water at rest. The hydrostatic pressure of ground water isgenerally due to the weight of water at higher levels in the zone of sat-uration

ice-contact fans-see fanice-contact stratified drift-glacial sediment composed primarily of sand

and gravel that was deposited on, against, or within glacier ice. Thesedeposits typically have highly irregular surface form due to the collapseof the adjacent ice

igneous-describes rocks that solidified from molten or partly molten mate-rial

immunoassay-is a quantitative or qualitative method of analysis for a sub-stance which relies on an antibody or mixture of antibodies as the ana-lytical reagent. Antibodies are produced in animals in response to a for-eign substance called an antigen. The highly sensitive and specific reac-tion between antigens and antibodies is the basis for immunoassay tech-nology

incised-describes the result of the process whereby a downward-erodingstream deepens its channel or produces a narrow, steep-walled valley

infiltration-the process (rate) by which water enters the soil surface andwhich is controlled by surface conditions

ion exchange-the process of reciprocal transfer of ionskame-irregular ridge or roughly conical mound of sand and gravel with a

hummocky surface; usually formed in contact with disintegrating icekarst-topography characterized by closed depressions or sinkholes, caves,

and underground drainage formed by dissolution of limestone,dolomite, or gypsum

lacustrine-pertaining to, produced by, or formed in a lake or lakeslacustrine sediment-sediment deposited in lakes; usually composed of

fine sand, silt, and clay in various combinationslithologic-describes the physical character of a rock; includes features such

as composition, grain size, color, and type of beddinglithology-the description of rocks, esp. in hand specimen and in outcrop, on

the basis of such characteristics as color, mineralogic composition, andgrain size

loam-describes a soil composed of a mixture of clay, silt, sand, and organ-ic matter

mass movement-a unit movement of a portion of the land surface; gravi-tative transfer of material down a slope

maximum contaminant level-the maximum permissible level of a conta-minant in water which is delivered to the free-flowing outlet of the userof a public water system

median-middle value of a set of observations arranged in order of magni-tude

meltwater-water resulting from the melting of snow or glacial icemetabolite-a product of metabolic actionmethemoglobinemia-a disease, primarily in infants, caused by the conver-

sion of nitrate to nitrite in the intestines, and which limits the blood'sability to transport oxygen

monovalent-having a valence of one, the capacity to unite chemically withone atom of hydrogen or its equivalent

moraine-unsorted, unstratified glacial drift deposited chiefly by the directaction of glacial ice

moraine, end-a ridgelike accumulation of drift built along any part of theouter margin of an active glacier; often arcuate in shape, end morainesmark places along which the terminus of a glacier remained for rela-tively long periods. Terminal moraines mark the ultimate extent of aparticular glacier, whereas recessional moraines are deposited wherethe ice-margin stabilized for a period of time during the retreat of theglacier

moraine, ground-material (primarily till) deposited from a glacier on theground surface over which the glacier moved, and generally forming aregion of low relief

muck-a highly organic dark or black soil less than 50 percent combustiblemud flow-see debris flowoutwash-sediment deposited by meltwater out in front of an ice margin;

usually composed of sand and/or gravel. An outwash plain is a broadtract of low relief covered by outwash deposits, whereas an outwashterrace is a relatively small flat or gently sloping tract that lies abovethe valley of a modern stream

outwash plain-see outwash outwash terrace-see outwashoverconsolidated-refers to the consistency of unconsolidated sediment

that is much harder than would be expected from its present depth ofburial; fine-grained glacial sediments such as till are commonly over-consolidated due to such processes as burial by ice or younger sedi-ments, frequent wetting and drying, and freezing and thawing

paraconformably-this type of unconformity is a kind of disconformity inwhich no erosion surface is discernible or in which the contact is a sim-ple bedding plane, and in which the beds above and below the break areparallel

paired wells-in this usage, refers to multiple closely spaced observationswells each set at a different depth for the purpose of determining thehydrostatic pressure on different aquifers at the same location

percolate (geology)-to seep downward from an unsaturated zone to a satu-rated zone

periglacial-said of the processes, conditions, areas, climates, and topo-graphic features at the immediate margins of former and existing glac-iers and ice sheets, and influenced by the cold temperature of the ice

permeability-the capacity of a porous medium to transmit a fluid; highlydependent upon the size and shape of the pores and their interconnec-tions

physiographic region-an area of characteristic soils, landforms, anddrainage that have been developed on geologically similar materials

physiography-in this usage, a description of the physical nature (form,substance, arrangement, changes) of objects, esp. of natural features

pinnacle reefs-a term used in the Michigan Basin to apply to an isolatedstromatoporoid-algal reef mound, now dolomitized, in the MiddleSilurian rocks of the subsurface

piezometric surface-an imaginary surface representing the level to whichwater from a given aquifer will rise under the hydrostatic pressure ofthe aquifer

Pleistocene-geologic epoch corresponding to the most recent ice age;beginning about 2 million years ago and ending approximately 10,000years ago

porosity-the amount of pore space; specifically, the ratio of the total vol-ume of voids to the total volume of a porous medium

postdepositional-occurring after materials had been depositedpotable-water which is palatable and safe to drink: ie., fit for human con-

sumptionpotentiometric surface-an imaginary surface representing the total head

of ground water in a confined aquifer that is defined by the level towhich water will rise in a well

pre Wisconsin-general term that refers to the part of the Ice Age prior toabout 75,000 years ago, during which many other glacial episodes atleast as extensive as those of the Wisconsin Age took place

prodeltaic-the part of a delta that is below the effective depth of wave ero-

Glossary 77

sion, lying beyond the delta front, and sloping gently down to the floorof the basin into which the delta is advancing and where clastic riversediment ceases to be a significant part of the basin-floor deposits

proglacial-occurring or being deposited directly in front of a glacierprovenance-a place of origin; specifically the area from which the con-

stituent materials of a sedimentary rock or facies are derived; also, therocks of which this area is composed

pumping test-a test conducted by pumping a well at a constant rate for aperiod of time, and monitoring the change in hydraulic head in theaquifer

recharge (ground water)-the process by which water is absorbed andadded to the zone of saturation

reducing-describes the process of removing oxygen from a compoundreef-a ridgelike or moundlike structure, layered or massive, built by seden-

tary calcareous organisms, esp. corals, and consisting mostly of theirremains

regression-(stratigraphy) the retreat or contraction of the sea from landareas, and the consequent evidence of such withdrawal

relict-said of a topographic feature that remains after other parts of the fea-ture have been removed or have disappeared

residuum-(weathering) residuerunoff, (total)-the part of precipitation that appears in surface-water bod-

ies; it is the same as stream flow unaffected by artificial manipulationsaline-describes water that contains a high concentration of dissolved

solids, typically greater than 10,000 milligrams per litersandstone-a medium-grained clastic sedimentary rock composed of abun-

dant rounded or angular fragments of sand size set in a fine-grainedmatrix (silt or clay) and more or less firmly united by a cementingmaterial

secondary maximum contaminant level-recommended, nonenforceablestandards established to protect aesthetic properties of drinking water,such as taste and odor

sedimentary rock-formed by the deposition of sedimentseismic-pertaining to an earthquake or earth vibration, including those that

are artificially inducedshale-a fine-grained detrital sedimentary rock, formed by the consolidation

(esp. by compression) of clay, silt, or mudskewed-describes the state of asymmetry of a statistical frequency distrib-

ution, which results from a lack of coincidence of the mode, median,and arithmetic mean of the distribution

slack water-a quiet part of, or a still body of water sluiceway-valley or channel that conducted large amounts of glacial melt-

water through and/or away from a glacier; may or may not be occupiedby a modern stream; commonly associated with one or more former icemargins

solution-(geology) a process of chemical weathering by which mineral androck materials passes into solution; e.g. removal of the calcium carbon-ate in limestone by carbonic acid derived from rain-water containingcarbon dioxide acquired during its passage through the atmosphere

source area-general geographic region that furnished the sediment supplyfor a particular deposit. Sediments deposited by different rivers or glac-iers can often be distinguished because their respective source areas dif-fer in terms of the composition of bedrock and other sediments theycontain; see provenance

static water level-the level of water in a well that is not being affected bywithdrawal of ground water

stratigraphy-the geologic study of the formation, composition, sequenceand correlation of unconsolidated or rock layers

storage coefficient-the volume of water an aquifer releases from or takesinto storage per unit surface area of the aquifer per unit change in head

subcrop-a "subsurface outcrop" that describes the areal limits of a truncat-ed rock unit at the buried surface of an unconformity

subjacent-being lower, but not necessarily lying directly belowswale-a slight depression, sometimes swampy, in the midst of generally

level landtectonic-said of or pertaining to the forces involved in, or the resulting

structures or features of, tectonics or earth movementsterminal moraine-see moraine, endtill-unsorted sediment deposited directly from glacier ice with little or no

reworking by meltwater or mass movement; usually contains particlesranging in size from clay to boulders

till-like sediment-see till and debris flowtill plain-an extensive area with a flat to undulating surface, underlain by

till and commonly covered by ground moraines and subordinate endmoraines

topography-the relief and contour of a surface, especially land surfacetoxic-describes materials which are or may become harmful to plants or

animals when present in sufficient concentrationstransgression-the spread or extension of the sea over the land areastransmissivity-the rate at which water is transmitted through a unit width

of an aquifer under a unit hydraulic gradienttriazine-any of a group of chemicals containing three nitrogen and three

carbon atoms arranged in a six member ring and having the formulaC3H3N3; also any of various derivative of these compounds includingseveral used as herbicides

tunnel valley-wide, linear channel oriented perpendicular to an ice marginand eroded into the substrate below the ice sheet. A tunnel valley typi-cally represents a major route for meltwater draining part of an icesheet, and exiting the front of that ice sheet

unconfined-describes an aquifer whose upper surface is the water tablewhich is free to fluctuate under atmospheric pressure

unconformably-not succeeding the underlying rocks in immediate order ofage or not fitting together with them as parts of a continuous whole

unconformity-a substantial break or gap in the geologic record where arock unit is overlain by another that is not next in stratigraphic succes-sion

valley train-large, elongated body of outwash localized within the confinesof a topographic valley

water table-the upper surface of the zone of saturation below which allvoids in rock and soil are saturated with water

watershed-see drainage basinWisconsin Age-the most recent period of major glacial activity during the

ongoing ice age, perhaps beginning as long as 75,000 years ago andcontinuing until about 10,000 years ago


SELECTED REFERENCESAmerican Farm Bureau Federation, 1987, Water quality self-help checklist:

American Farm Bureau Federation pamphletArihood, L.D., 1982, Groundwater resources of the White River Basin,

Hamilton and Tipton Counties, Indiana: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations 82-48, 69 p.

Arihood, L.D., and Lapham, W.W., 1982, Ground-water resources of theWhite River basin, Delaware County, Indiana: U.S. Geological SurveyWater-Resources Investigations 82-47, 69 p.

Ault, C.H., Austin, G.S., Bleuer, N.K., Hill, J.R., Moore, M.C., 1973,Guidebook to the geology of some Ice Age features and bedrock for-mations in the Fort Wayne area, Indiana: Indiana Geological SurveyGuidebook, 62 p.

Bailey, Z.C., and Imbrigiotta, R.E., 1982, Ground-water resources of theglacial outwash along the White River, Johnson and Morgan Counties,Indiana: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations 82-4016, 87 p.

Barnhart, J.R., and Middleman, B.H., 1990, Hydrogeology of GibsonCounty, Indiana: Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Divisionof Water Bulletin 41, 17 p.

Basch, M.E., and Funkhouser, R.V., 1985, Irrigation impacts on ground-water levels in Jasper and Newton Counties, Indiana, 1981-84: IndianaDepartment of Natural Resources, Division of Water, Water ResourcesAssessment 85-1

Bates, R.L., and Jackson, J.A., eds., 1987, Glossary of Geology (3rd edi-tion): Alexandria, Virginia, American Geological Institute, 788 p.

Bechert, C.H., and Heckard, J.M., 1966, Physiography, in Lindsey, A.A.,ed., Natural features of Indiana: Indianapolis, Indiana Academy ofScience, p. 100-115

Becker, L.E., 1974, Silurian and Devonian rocks in Indiana southwest ofthe Cincinnati Arch: Indiana Geological Survey, Bulletin 50

Becker, L.E., and Keller, S.J., 1976, Silurian reefs in southwestern Indianaand their relation to petroleum accumulation: Indiana GeologicalSurvey Occasional Paper 19, 11 p.

Becker, L.E., Hreha, A.J., and Dawson, T.A., 1978, Pre-Knox (Cambrian)stratigraphy in Indiana, Indiana Geological Survey, Bulletin 57

Bergeron, M.P., 1981, Effect of irrigation pumping on the ground-watersystem in Newton and Jasper Counties, Indiana: U.S. GeologicalSurvey, Water-Resources Investigation 81-38

Bleuer, N.K., 1974, Buried till ridges in the Fort Wayne area, Indiana, andtheir regional significance: Geological Society of America Bulletin,v.85, p. 917-920

_____1989, Historical and geomorphic concepts of the Lafayette BedrockValley System (so-called Teays Valley) in Indiana Department ofNatural Resources, Geological Survey Special Report 46, 11 p.

_____1991, The Lafayette Bedrock Valley System of Indiana; concept,form, and fill stratigraphy, in Melhorn, W.N., and Kempton, J.P., eds.,Geology and hydrogeology of the Teays-Mahomet Bedrock ValleySystem: Geological Society of America Special Paper 258, p. 51-77

Bleuer, N.K., Melhorn, W.N., Steen, W.J., and Bruns, T.M., 1991, Aquifersystems of the buried Marion-Mahomet trunk valley (LafayetteBedrock Valley System) of Indiana, in Melhorn, W.N., and Kempton,J.P., eds., Geology and hydrogeology of the Teays-Mahomet BedrockValley System: Geological Society of America Special Paper 258, p.79-89

Bradbury, K.R., and Rothschild, E.R., 1985, A computerized technique forestimating the hydraulic conductivity of aquifers from specific capaci-ty data: Ground Water 23, p. 240?246

Brown, E.A., 1949, Ground-water resources of Boone County, Indiana:Indiana Department of Conservation, Division of Water ResourcesBulletin 4, 152 p.

Bruns, T.M., Logan, S.M., and Steen, W.J., 1985, Maps showing bedrocktopography of the Teays Valley, north-central Indiana: IndianaGeological Survey Miscellaneous Map 43, scale 1:100,000

Burger, A.M., Forsyth, J.L., Nicoll, R.S., and Wayne, W.J., 1971, Geologicmap of the 1o x 2o Muncie Quadrangle, Indiana and Ohio, showingbedrock and unconsolidated deposits: Indiana Geological SurveyRegional Geologic Map 5

Cable, L.W., and Robison, T.M., 1973, Hydrogeology of the principalaquifers in Sullivan and Greene Counties, Indiana: Indiana Departmentof Natural Resources, Division of Water Bulletin 35, 26 p.

_____1974, Ground-water resources of Montgomery County, Indiana:Indiana Department of Conservation, Division of Water ResourcesBulletin 36, 20 p.

Cable, L.W., Watkins, F.A., Jr., and Robison, T.M., 1971, Hydrogeology ofthe principal aquifers in Vigo and Clay Counties, Indiana: Indiana

Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water Bulletin 34, 34 p.Carter, D.S., Lydy, M.J., and Crawford, C.G., 1995, Water-quality assess-

ment of the White River Basin, Indiana-Analysis of available informa-tion on pesticides, 1972-92: U.S. Geological Survey Water-ResourcesInvestigation Report 94-4024, 60 p.

Casey, G.D., 1996, Hydrogeologic framework of the midwestern basins andarches region in parts of Indiana, Ohio, Michigan, and Illinois: U.S.Geological Survey Professional Paper 1423-B, 46 p.

Crawford, C.G., 1995, Occurrence of pesticides in the White River,Indiana, 1991-95: U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 233-95, 4 p.

Dalton, M.G., and Upchurch, S.B., 1978, Interpretation of hydro-chemicalfacies by factor analysis: Groundwater, 16(4), p. 228-233

Davis, S.N., and DeWiest, R.J.M., 1970, Hydrogeology: New York, JohnWiley, 463 p.

Doheny, E.J., Droste, J.B., and Shaver, R.H., 1975, Stratigraphy of theDetroit River Formation (Middle Devonian) of northern Indiana:Indiana Geological Survey, Bulletin 53

Drever, J.I., 1988, The geochemistry of natural waters (2nd ed.):Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice Hall, 437 p.

Droste, J.B., Abdulkareem, T.F., and Patton, J.B., 1982, Stratigraphy of theAncell and Black River Groups (Ordovician) in Indiana: IndianaGeological Survey Occasional Paper 36, 15 p.

Droste, J.B., and Keller, S.J., 1989, Development of theMississippian/Pennsylvanian unconformity in Indiana, IndianaGeological Survey Occasional Paper 55, 11 p.

Droste, J.B., and Patton, J.B., 1985, Lithostratigraphy of the SaukSequence in Indiana: Indiana Geological Survey Occasional Paper 47,24 p.

Droste, J.B., and Shaver, R.H., 1982, The Salina Group (Middle and UpperSilurian) of Indiana: Indiana Geological Survey, Special Report 24

Dufor C.N., and Becker, E., 1964, Public water supplies of the 100 largestcities in the United States, 1962: U.S. Geological Survey, Water-Supply Paper 1812

Eberts, S.M., and George, L.L., 2000, Regional Ground-water flow andgeochemistry in the Midwestern Basin and Arches Aquifer System inparts of Indiana, Ohio, Michigan, and Illinois: U.S. Geological SurveyRegional Aquifer System Analysis, Professional Paper 1423-C, 103 p.

Erd, R.C., and Greenberg, S.S., 1960, Minerals of Indiana: IndianaDepartment of Conservation, Geological Survey, Bulletin No. 18

Eschman, D.F., 1985, Summary of the Quaternary history of Michigan,Ohio and Indiana: Journal of Geological Education 33, p. 161?167

Fenelon, J.M., 1998, Water Quality in the White River Basin, Indiana,1992-96: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1150, 34 p.

Fenelon, J.M., and Moore, R.C., 1996a, Occurrence of pesticides in groundwater in the White River Basin, Indiana, 1994-95: U.S. GeologicalSurvey Fact Sheet 084-96, 4 p.

_______ 1996b, Occurrence of volatile organic compounds in groundwater in the White River Basin, Indiana, 1994-95: U.S. GeologicalSurvey Fact Sheet 138-96, 4 p.

Fetter, C.W., 1988, Applied hydrogeology (2nd ed.): Columbus, Ohio,Merrill Publishing, 592 p.

Fleming, A.H., Brown, S.E., and Ferguson, V.R., 1993, The hydrogeologicframework of Marion County, Indiana-Atlas emphasizing hydrogeolog-ic terrain and sequence: Indiana Geological Survey Open-File Report93-5, 67 p.

Fleming, A.H., ed., and others, 1994, Atlas of hydrogeologic terrains andsettings in Indiana, northern part: Indiana Geological Survey Open-File Report 94-17.

Fleming, A.H., ed., Bonneau, P., Brown, S.E., Grove, G., Harper, D.,Herring, W., Lewis, E.S., Moeller, A.J., Powell, R., Reehling, P., Rupp,R.F., and Steen, W.J., 1995, Atlas of hydrogeologic terrains and settingsof Indiana: Indiana Geological Survey Open-File Report 95-7. Thisreport supercedes Indiana Geological Survey Report 94-17, "Atlas ofHydrogeologic terrains and settings of Indiana: northern part".

Freeze, R.A., and Cherry, J.A., 1979, Groundwater: New Jersey,Prentice?Hall

GeoTrans Inc., 1983, Assessment of Prudential pumping on the ground-water system of Jasper and Newton Counties, Indiana: Reston Va.,report to J.R. Nesbitt

Gillies, D.C., 1976, Availability of ground water near Carmel, HamiltonCounty, Indiana: U.S. Geological Survey Water ResourcesInvestigations Report 76-46, 27 p.

Geosciences Research Associates, Inc., 1982, Hydrogeologic atlas ofIndiana: Bloomington, Ind., 31 p.

Gray, H.H., 1972, Lithostratigraphy of the Maquoketa Group (Ordovician)in Indiana: Indiana Geological Survey Special Report 7, 31 p.

_____1978, Buffalo Wallow Group, Upper Chesterian (Mississippian) ofsouthern Indiana: Indiana Geological Survey Occasional Paper 25, 28 p.

Selected References 79

_____1979, The Mississippian and Pennsylvanian Systems in the UnitedStates-Indiana: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1110-K, 20 p.

_____1982, Map of Indiana showing topography of the bedrock surface:Indiana Geological Survey, Miscellaneous Map 36, scale 1:500,000

_____1983, Map of Indiana showing thickness of unconsolidated deposits:Indiana Geological Survey, Miscellaneous Map 38, scale 1:500,000

_____1988, Relict drainageways associated with the glacial boundary insouthern Indiana: Indiana Geological Survey Special Report 45, 23 p.

_____1989, Quaternary geologic map of Indiana: Indiana GeologicalSurvey, Miscellaneous Map 49, scale 1:500,000

_____2000, Physiographic divisions of Indiana: Indiana GeologicalSurvey, 15 p.

Gray, H.H., Ault, C.H., and Keller, S.J., 1987, Bedrock geologic map ofIndiana: Indiana Geological Survey, Miscellaneous Map 48, scale1:500,000

Gray, H.H., Wayne, W.J., and Wier, C.E., 1970, Geologic map of the 1o x2o Vincennes Quadrangle and parts of adjoining quadrangles, Indianaand Illinois, showing bedrock and unconsolidated deposits: IndianaGeological Survey Regional Geologic Map 3.

Gray, H.H., and others, 1972, Geologic map of the 1o x 2o CincinnatiQuadrangle, Indiana and Ohio, showing bedrock and unconsolidateddeposits: Indiana Geological Survey Regional Geologic Map 7.

_____1979, Geologic map of the 1o x 2o Indianapolis Quadrangle, Indianaand Illinois, showing bedrock and unconsolidated deposits: IndianaGeological Survey Regional Geologic Map 1

Gutstadt, A.M., 1958, Cambrian and Ordovician stratigraphy and oil andgas possibilities in Indiana: Indiana Department of Conservation,Geological Survey, Bulletin 14

Hartke, E.J., and Hill, J.R., 1976, Environmental geologic maps for landuse evaluations in Morgan County, Indiana: Indiana Geological SurveyOccasional Paper 17, 10 p.

Hasenmueller, N.R. and Nauth, D.D., Radon: Indiana Geological Survey,Information Circular, v. 1, no. 2, 4 p.

Heckard, J.M., 1964, Water resources of Morgan County, with emphasis onground-water availability: Indiana Department of Natural Resources,Division of Water, 1 sheet.

Hem, J.D., 1985, Study and interpretation of the chemical characteristics ofnatural water (3d ed.): U.S. Geological Survey, Water?Supply Paper2254

_____1993, Factors affecting stream water quality, and water-qualitytrends in four basins in the conterminous United States, 1905-90, inPaulson, R.W., Chase, E.B., Williams, J.S., and Moody, D.W., eds.,National water summary 1990-91; hydrologic events and stream waterquality: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2400

Herring, W.C., 1971, Water resources of Hamilton County, with emphasison ground-water availability: Indiana Department of NaturalResources, Division of Water, 1 sheet.

_____1974, Water resources of Marion County, with emphasis on ground-water availability: Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Divisionof Water, 1 sheet.

_____1976, Technical atlas of the ground-water resources of MarionCounty, Indiana: Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Divisionof Water, 53 p.

Hill, R.A., 1940, Geochemical patterns in Coachella Valley, California:American Geophysical Union Trans., 21, p. 46-49

Hirsch, R.M., Alley, W.M., and Wilber, W.G., 1988, Concepts for aNational Water-Quality Assessment Program: U.S. Geological SurveyCircular 1021, 42 p.

Hoggatt, R.E., 1975, Drainage areas of Indiana streams: U.S. GeologicalSurvey, unnumbered report, 231 p.

Hoggatt, R.E., Hunn, J.K., and Steen, W.J., 1968, Water resources ofDelaware County, Indiana: Indiana Department of Natural Resources,Division of Water Bulletin 37, 57 p.

Homoya, M.A., Abrell, D.B., Aldrich, J.R., and Post, T.W., 1985, The nat-ural regions of Indiana: Indiana Academy of Science, Proc., v. 94, p.245-268

Hoover, M.E., and Durbin, J.M., 1994, White River Basin, in Fenelon,J.M., Bobay, K.E., and others, Hydrogeologic atlas of aquifers inIndiana: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources InvestigationsReport 92-4142, p. 113-133.

Indiana Department of Environmental Management, 1986, The protectionof Indiana's ground water-strategy and draft implementation plan

_____[1990], 305{b} Report, 1988-1089_____[1995], 305(b) Report, 1992-1993_____1998, 305(b) Report, 1996, IDEM/34/02/002/1998_____2000, Indiana Water Quality Report, 2000, IDEM/34/02/001/2000Indiana Department of Natural Resources (Clark, G.D., ed.), 1980, The

Indiana water resource-availability, uses, and needs: Governor's Water

Resource Study CommissionIndiana Water Pollution Control Board, 1992, 327 IAC 2-1 Water quality

standardsJacques, D.V., and Crawford, C.G., 1991, National Water-Quality

Assessment Program-White River Basin: U.S. Geological SurveyOpen-File Report 91-169, 2 p.

Johnson, G.H., and Keller, S.J., 1972, Geologic map of the 1o x 2o FortWayne Quadrangle, Indiana, Michigan, and Ohio, showing bedrock andunconsolidated deposits: Indiana Geological Survey Regional GeologicMap 8

Keller, S.J., 1983, Analysis of subsurface brines in Indiana: IndianaGeological Survey, Occasional Paper 41

Lapham, W.W., 1981, Ground-water resources of the White River Basin,Madison County, Indiana: U.S. Geological Surey Water-ResourcesInvestigations 81-35, 112 p.

Lapham, W.W., and Arihood, L.D., 1984, Ground-water resources of theWhite River Basin, Randolph County, Indiana: U.S. GeologicalSurvey, Water-Resources Investigations Report 83-4267, 86 p.

Lehr, J.H., Gass, T.E., Pettijohn, W.A., and DeMarre, J., 1980, Domesticwater treatment: New York, McGraw-Hill, 264 p.

Leverett, F., 1897, The water resources of Indiana and Ohio: U.S.Geological Survey Annual Report 18 (1896-1897), pt. 4, p. 419-560

Leverett, F., and Taylor, F.B., 1915, The Pleistocene of Indiana andMichigan and the history of the Great Lakes: U.S. Geological SurveyMonograph 53, 529 p.

Lindsey, A.A. (ed.), 1966, Natural features of Indiana: Indiana Academyof Science and Indiana State Library

Lindsey, A.A., Schmeiz, D.V., and Nichols, S.A., 1970 (reprinted edition),Natural areas in Indiana and their preservation: Report of the IndianaNatural Areas Survey, Notre Dame, Indiana

Lineback, J.A., 1970, Stratigraphy of the New Albany Shale in Indiana:Indiana Geological Survey Bulletin 44, 73 p.

Lineback, J.A., Bleuer, N.K., Mickelson, D.M., Farrand, W.R., andGoldthwait, R.P., (Richmond, G.M., and Fullerton, D.S., eds.), 1983,Quaternary geologic map of the Chicago 4° x 6° Quadrangle, UnitedStates: U.S. Geological Survey, Miscellaneous Investigations Series,Map I?1420 (NK?16), scale 1:1,000,000

Linsley, R.K., Jr., Kohler, M.A., and Paulhus, J.L.H., 1982, Hydrology forengineers (3d ed.): New York, McGraw?Hill

Madison, R.J., and Brunett, J.O., 1984, Overview of the occurrence ofnitrate in ground water of the United States, in National WaterSummary 1984: U.S. Geological Survey, Water?Supply Paper 2275

Malott, C.A., 1922, The physiography of Indiana, in Indiana Department ofConservation, Handbook of Indiana Geology: Division of Geology

Manahan, S.E., 1975, Environmental chemistry: Boston, Willard GrantPress, 532 p.

Martin, J.D., Crawford, C.G., Frey, J.W., and Hodgkins, G.A., 1996, Water-quality assessment of the White River Basin, Indiana-Analysis of avail-able information on nutrients, 1980-92: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigantions Report 96-4192, 91 p.

Melhorn, W.N., and Kempton, J.P. [ed], 1991, Geology and hydrogeologyof the Teays-Mahomet bedrock valley system: Geological Society ofAmerica, Inc., Special Paper 258, 128 p.

Meyer, W., Reussow, J.P., and Gillies, D.C., 1975, Availability of groundwater in Marion County, Indiana: U.S. Geological Survey Open-FileReport 75-312, 87 p.

Moore, R.C., and Fenelon, J.M., 1996, Occurrence of nitrate in groundwater in the White River Basin, Indiana, 1994-95: U.S. GeologicalSurvey Fact Sheet 110-96, 4 p.

Nyman, D.J., and Pettijohn, R.A., 1971, Ground Water, in Wabash RiverCoordinating Committee, Wabash River basin comprehensive study:U.S. Geological Survey and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, LouisvilleDistrict, volume VII, appendix G, 100 p.

O'Hearn, M., and Gibb, J.P., 1980, Groundwater discharge to Illinoisstreams: Illinois State Water Survey, Contract Report 246

Pettyjohn, W.A., and Henning, R., 1979, Preliminary estimate of ground-water recharge rates, related streamflow and water quality in Ohio:Department of Geology and Mineralogy, Ohio State University ReportNo. 552

Pinsak, A.P., and Shaver, R.H., 1964, The Silurian formations of northernIndiana: Indiana Department of Conservation, Geological Survey,Bulletin 32

Piper, A.M., 1944, A graphical procedure in the geochemical interpretationof water analysis: American Geophysical Union Trans., v. 25, p. 914-923

Rexroad, C.B., and Droste, J.B., 1982, Stratigraphy and conodont paleontol-ogy of the Sexton Creek Limestone and the Salamonie Dolomite (Silurian)in northwestern Indiana: Indiana Geological Survey, Special Report 25


Risch, M.R., 1994, A summary of pesticides in ground-water data collect-ed by government agencies in Indiana from December 1985 to April1991: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File report 93-133, 30 p.

Risch, M.R., and Cohen, D.A., 1995, A computerized data base of Nitrateconcentrations in Indiana ground water: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 95-468, 17 p.

Rosenshein, J.S., and Hunn, J.D., 1968, Geohydrology and ground-waterpotential of Lake County, Indiana: Indiana Department of NaturalResources, Division of Water, Bulletin 31

Rupp, J.A. 1991, Structure and isopach maps of the Paleozoic rocks ofIndiana: Indiana Geological Survey, Special Report 48, 106 p.

Sasman, R.T., Schicht, R.J., Gibb, J.P., O'Hearn, M., Benson, C.R., andLudwigs, R.S., 1981, Verification of the potential yield and chemicalquality of the shallow dolomite aquifer in DuPage County, Illinois:Illinois State Water Survey, Circular 149

Schneider, A.F., 1966, Physiography, in Lindsey, A.A. (ed.), Natural fea-tures of Indiana: Indiana Academy of Science and Indiana StateLibrary

Searcy, J.K., 1959, Flow duration curves; Manual of Hydrology, part 2,Low?flow techniques: U.S. Geological Survey, Water?Supply Paper1542?A

Shaver, R.H., 1974, The Muscatatuck Group (New Middle DevonianName) in Indiana: Indiana Geological Survey, Occasional Paper 3, 7 p.

Shaver, R.H., and others, 1961, Stratigraphy of the Silurian rocks of north-ern Indiana: Indiana Geological Survey Field Conference Guidebook10, 62 p.

_____ 1978, The search for a Silurian reef model: Great Lakes area:Indiana Geological Survey Special Report 15, 36 p.

Shaver, R.H., Ault, C.H., Burger, A.M., Carr, D.D., Droste, J.B., Eggert,D.L., Gray, H.H., Harper, D., Hasenmueller, N.R., Hasenmueller, W.A.,Horowitz, A.S., Hutchison, H.C., Keith, B.D., Keller, S.J., Patton, J.B.,Rexroad, C.B., and Wier, C.E., 1986, Compendium of Paleozoicrock?unit stratigraphy in Indiana, a revision: Indiana GeologicalSurvey, Bulletin 59, 203 p.

Skougstad, M.W., and Horr, C.A., 1963, Chemistry of strontium in naturalwater: U.S. Geological Survey, Water-Supply Paper 1496

Smith, B.S., 1983, Availability of water from the outwash aquifer, MarionCounty, Indiana: U.S. Geological Survey Water-ResourcesInvestigation Report 83-4144, 70 p.

Smith, C.R., and Krothe, N.C., 1983, Hydrogeology of the Carbondale andRaccoon Creek Groups, Pennsylvanian System, Vigo, Clay, andSullivan Counties, Indiana: Indiana University Water ResourcesResearch Center, 93 p.

Steen, W.J., 1968, Water resources of Hendricks County with emphasis onground-water availability: Indiana Department of Natural Resources,Division of Water, 1 sheet.

_____1970, Water resources of Madison County, with emphasis on ground-water availability: Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Divisionof Water, 1 sheet.

Steen, W.J., Bruns, T.M., and Perry, A.O., 1977, Water resources of BooneCounty, with emphasis on ground-water availability: IndianaDepartment of Natural Resources, Division of Water, 1 sheet.

Stewart, J.A., Keeton, C.R., Hammil, L.E., Nguyen, H.T., and Majors,D.K., 2001, Water Resources Data, Indiana Water Year 2000: U.S.Geological Survey, Water-Data Report IN-00-1, 450 p.

Sullivan, D.M., 1972, Subsurface stratigraphy of the West Baden Group inIndiana: Indiana Geological Survey Bulletin 47, 31 p.

Swann, D.H., 1968, A summary geologic history of the Illinois Basin, inGeology and petroleum production of the Illinois Basin, a symposium:Ill. and Ind.-Ky. Geol. Socs., p. 3-22

Tanner, G.F., 1986, The Mt. Carmel Fault and associated features in south-central Indiana: Bloomington, Ind., Indiana University, Master's thesis,66 p.

Thomas, J.M., 1980, Water chemistry of the early Pennsylvanian MansfieldFormation aquifer system in Clay County, Indiana: Bloomington, Ind.,Indiana University, Master's thesis, 76 p.

Todd, D.K., 1980, Ground?water hydrology (2nd ed.): New York, JohnWiley, 336 p.

Tucker, W.M., 1922, Hydrology of Indiana, in Indiana Department ofConservation, Handbook of Indiana geology: Division of Geology

Turco, R.F., and Konopka, A.E., 1988, Agricultural impact on groundwaterquality: Purdue University, Water Resources Research Center,Technical Report 185

Uhl, J.E., 1966, Water resources of Johnson County, with emphasis onground water availability: Indiana Department of Natural Resources,Division of Water, 1 sheet.

_____1973, Water resources of Henry County, Indiana, with emphasis onground-water availability: Indiana Department of Natural Resources,

Division of Water, 1 sheet._____1975, Water Resources of Hancock County, Indiana, with emphasis

on ground-water availability: Indiana Department of NaturalResources, Division of Water, 1 sheet.

Uhl, J., and Kingsbury, T., 1957, Irrigation in Indiana using ground?watersources: Indiana Department of Conservation, Division of WaterResources

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1973, Water quality criteria, 1972:Environmental Studies Board, Committee on Water Quality Criteria,U.S. Government Printing Office

_____1976, Quality criteria for water: U.S. Government Printing Office_____2001, Drinking water regulations and health advisories, updated

September 7, 2001 (http://www.epa.gov/safewater/mcl.html): Office ofWater, 8 p.

Wallrabenstein, L.K., Richards, R.P., Baker, D.B., and Barnett, J.D., 1994,Nitrate and pesticides in private wells of Indiana: Indiana Farm BureauInc.

Walton, W.C., 1962, Selected analytical methods for well and aquifer eval-uation: Illinois State Water Survey, Bulletin 49

_____1970, Groundwater resource evaluation: New York, McGraw?HillWangsness, D.J., Miller, R.L., Bailey, Z.C., and Crawford, C.G., 1981,

Hydrology of area 32, eastern region, Interior Coal Province, Indiana:U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Open-FileReport 82-566, 43 p.

Watkins, R.A., Jr., and Jordan, D.G., 1961, Ground-water resources ofwest-central Indiana-preliminary report, Greene County: IndianaDepartment of Natural Resources, Division of Water Bulletin 11, 225 p.

_____1962a, Ground-water resources of west-central Indiana-preliminaryreport, Sullivan County: Indiana Department of Natural Resources,Division of Water Bulletin 14, 345 p.

_____1962b, Ground-water resources of west-central Indiana-preliminaryreport, Clay County: Indiana Department of Natural Resources,Division of Water Bulletin 16, 309 p.

_____1963a, Ground-water resources of west-central Indiana-preliminaryreport, Vigo County: Indiana Department of Natural Resources,Division of Water Bulletin 17, 358 p.

_____1963b, Ground-water resources of west-central Indiana-preliminaryreport, Owen County: Indiana Department of Natural Resources,Division of Water Bulletin 18, 99 p.

_____1964a, Ground-water resources of west-central Indiana-preliminaryreport, Putnam County: Indiana Department of Natural Resources,Division of Water Bulletin 21, 83 p.

_____1964b, Ground-water resources of west-central Indiana-preliminaryreport, Parke County: Indiana Department of Natural Resources,Division of Water Bulletin 23, 125 p.

_____1965, Ground-water resources of west-central Indiana-preliminaryreport, Montgomery County: Indiana Department of NaturalResources, Division of Water Bulletin 27, 107 p.

Wayne, W.J., 1956, Thickness of drift and bedrock physiography of Indiananorth of the Wisconsin glacial boundary: Indiana Department ofConservation, Geological Survey, Report of Progress 7

_____1958, Glacial geology of Indiana: Indiana Department ofConservation, Geological Survey, Atlas of mineral resources ofIndiana, Map 10

_____1963, Pleistocene formations in Indiana: Indiana Department ofConservation, Geological Survey, Bulletin 25, 85 p.

_____1965, The Crawfordsville and Knightstown Moraines in Indiana:Indiana Department of Conservation, Geological Survey Report ofProgress 28, 15 p.

_____1968, The Erie Lobe margin in east-central Indiana during theWisconsin glaciations: Proceedings of the Indiana Academy ofScience, v. 77, p. 279-291

_____1975, Urban geology of Madison County, Indiana: IndianaGeological Survey Special Report 10, 24 p

Wayne, W.J., Johnson, G.H., and Keller, S.J., 1966, Geologic map of the 1°x 2° Danville Quadrangle, Indiana and Illinois, showing bedrock andunconsolidated deposits: Indiana Geological Survey RegionalGeologic Map 2

Wier, C.E., Glore, C.R., and Agnew, A.F., 1973, Sandstone aquifers in east-ern Sullivan County, Indiana: in Proceedings of the Indiana Academyof Science, 1973, v. 82, p. 297-302

Wright, H.E., Jr., and Frey, D.G., eds., 1965, The Quaternary of the UnitedStates: Princeton, N.J., Princeton University Press, 922 p.

Appendix 1 81

��3-��"��"��#�� !"�"

{All

valu

es in

mill

igra

ms

per

liter

exc

ept a

s no

ted}

{Wel

l loc

atio

ns d

ispl

ayed

in P

late

9}

Aqu

ifer

syst

ems:

Unc

onso

lidat

ed--

BV

- B

urie

d V

alle

y A

quife

r S

yste

m; D

TR

- D

isse

cted

Till

and

Res

iduu

m A

quife

r S

yste

m; L

B -

Lac

ustr

ine

and

Bac

kwat

er D

epos

its A

quife

r S

yste

m; T

TP

- T

ipto

n T

ill P

lain

Aqu

ifer

Sys

tem

; T

TP

S -

Tip

ton

Till

Pla

in A

quife

r S

ubsy

stem

; WR

- W

hite

Riv

er a

nd T

ribut

arie

s O

utw

ash

Aqu

ifer

Sys

tem

; WR

S -

Whi

te R

iver

and

Trib

utar

ies

Out

was

h A

quife

r S

ubsy

stem

Bed

rock

--D

M -

Dev

onia

n an

d M

issi

ssip

pian

—N

ew A

lban

y S

hale

Aqu

ifer

Sys

tem

; M-B

- M

issi

ssip

pian

—B

orde

n G

roup

Aqu

ifer

Sys

tem

; M-B

RS

- M

issi

ssip

pian

—B

lue

Riv

er a

nd S

ande

rs G

roup

s A

quife

r S

yste

m;

M-B

SW

- M

issi

ssip

pian

—B

uffa

lo W

allo

w, S

teph

ensp

ort,

and

Wes

t Bad

en G

roup

s A

quife

r S

yste

m; P

-RC

- P

enns

ylva

nian

—R

acco

on C

reek

Gro

up A

quife

r S

yste

m; P

-C -

Pen

nsyl

vani

an—

Car

bond

ale

Gro

up A

quife

r S

yste

m;

P-M

- P

enns

ylva

nian

—M

cLea

nsbo

ro G

roup

Aqu

ifer

Sys

tem

Dat

e sa

mpl

ed: m

onth

/yea

r

Location Number

IDNR/DOW WellID Number

Township

Range

Section

Well Depth (feet)

Aquifer System

Date Sampled

pH1

Total Hardness

Calcium

Magnesium

Sodium

Potassium

Iron

Manganese

Alkalinity as CaCO32

Chloride

Sulfate

Fluoride

NO3 as N

Total Dissolved Solids3

5185

857

20N

2E13

132

TT

P7/

89��

205

49.5

19.8

41.4

0.7

2.2

<0.

129

3.0

2<

11.

9<

0.7

483

5285

805

18N

2E14

170

TT

P7/

89��

232

53.2

24.2

44.7

0.9

2.1

<0.

133

8.5

5<

10.

8<

0.7

550

5385

790

19N

2E20

132

TT

P7/

89��

227

53.6

22.6

40.6

0.9

1.5

<0.

133

3.0

2<

12.

3<

0.7

542

5485

795

19N

2E2

167

TT

P7/

89��

231

58.9

20.4

38.2

0.9

2.2

<0.

133

5.3

2<

11.

2<

0.7

544

5585

788

18N

2E32

200

M-B

7/89

��

126

26.9

14.3

84.6

2.6

0.2

<0.

131

1.8

54

0.9

<0.

752

656

8631

018

N1E

2214

8T

TP

7/89

��

374

88.8

37.1

69.3

1.8

8.4

<0.

149

8.3

34<

10.

9<

0.7

862

5785

810

18N

1E33

110

M-B

7/89

��

266

60.7

27.9

26.7

1.1

0.4

0.4

331.

33

61.

6<

0.7

542

6785

800

18N

1W16

54T

TP

8/89

��

384

104.

729

.94.

90.

43.

90.

227

7.9

1278

0.3

<0.

758

3

133

8585

910

N3E

2854

M-B

8/89

��

315

83.1

26.3

40.1

0.9

<0.

20.

135

4.1

1022

0.2

<0.

762

313

486

822

10N

3E16

75M

-B8/

89��

103

24.8

9.9

100.

11.

9<

0.2

<0.

127

1.1

2216

1.1

<0.

751

2

131

8579

412

N5W

2710

0P

-RC

8/89

��

234

65.2

17.4

14.1

1.2

0.5

0.8

235.

72

60.

3<

0.7

403

143

8629

513

N6W

3560

DT

R8/

89��

241

58.1

23.3

9.8

0.4

<0.

2<

0.1

185.

219

60.

29.

5139

514

419

8671

13N

6W9

160

P-R

C8/

89��

5714

.45.

115

0.9

3.1

<0.

2<

0.1

380.

72

30.

5<

0.7

653

166

8586

99N

6W7

100

P-R

C8/

89��

113

26.5

11.5

5.8

0.2

1.0

0.2

105.

32

110.

1<

0.7

201

169

3882

9N7W

1620

0P

-C8/

89��

964

178.

712

6.2

36.8

1.1

1.7

1.6

232.

312

717

0.3

<0.

713

7417

086

807

10N

7W33

75P

-RC

8/89

��

312

85.6

23.9

38.3

1.2

7.3

1.1

248.

850

740.

2<

0.7

597

171

8582

310

N7W

2134

WR

8/89

��

318

78.8

29.6

9.1

0.3

<0.

20.

824

8.8

1432

0.3

4.88

499

172

8586

811

N7W

3510

8P

-RC

8/89

��

8420

.08.

311

5.1

1.6

0.2

<0.

132

1.2

2<

11.

0<

0.7

546

173

8581

810

N6W

2110

0P

-RC

8/89

��

320

76.2

31.7

45.6

0.8

4.3

1.4

182.

88

207

0.1

<0.

761

217

485

813

10N

6W8

55W

R8/

89��

267

83.9

13.9

8.5

0.4

4.7

<0.

122

9.8

1025

0.2

<0.

743

717

521

2172

11N

7W26

69W

R8/

89��

270

69.2

23.7

36.7

0.6

2.7

<0.

132

6.3

5<

10.

5<

0.7

544

176

8586

311

N7W

1128

0P

-RC

8/89

��

133.

21.

318

7.8

1.1

<0.

2<

0.1

403.

73

<1

0.9

<0.

769

518

986

747

12N

6W16

120

P-R

C9/

89��

188

48.4

16.4

54.6

1.2

<0.

2<

0.1

314.

32

<1

0.6

<0.

751

323

882

119

11N

6W26

46W

R6/

90��

258

76.5

16.2

11.6

<1

6.9

0.1

218.

710

36<

1<

0.7

434

239

8211

811

N6W

1610

6P

-RC

6/90

��

436

93.2

49.4

106.

54.

12.

10.

331

7.2

333

5<

1<

0.7

987

(��

(�7��

�8��


Location Number


Township

Range

Section

Well Depth (feet)

Aquifer System

Date Sampled

pH1

Total Hardness

Calcium

Magnesium

Sodium

Potassium

Iron

Manganese


Chloride

Sulfate

Fluoride

NO3 as N


CLA

Y C

OU

NT

Y c

ontin

ued

240

8212

412

N6W

726

0P

-RC

6/90

��

5513

.94.

917

6.5

1.9

<0.

2<

0.1

379.

550

31.

2<

0.7

717

241

8212

59N

7W18

140

P-R

C6/

90��

153.

41.

616

8.1

1.5

<0.

2<

0.1

416.

91

<1

2.2

<0.

767

124

282

126

12N

5W34

176

P-R

C6/

90��

358.

83.

111

1.0

1.8

<0.

2<

0.1

263.

44

5<

1<

0.7

458

244

8211

711

N7W

3417

2P

-RC

6/90

��

146

32.2

16.0

82.5

1.3

0.3

<0.

130

5.1

84

<1

<0.

752

224

582

103

10N

7W4

255

P-R

C6/

90��

152.

82.

043

5.6

1.8

1.1

<0.

154

4.3

266

284.

2<

0.7

1400

246

8210

410

N6W

2012

0P

-RC

6/90

��

9622

.69.

644

.0<

1<

0.2

<0.

188

.819

36<

17.

6828

624

782

105

10N

6W27

225

P-R

C6/

90��

2<

2<

139

2.0

1.2

<0.

2<

0.1

797.

252

<1

4.7

<0.

713

8024

882

106

10N

6W32

80P

-RC

6/90

��

317

73.1

32.8

42.1

1.5

0.8

0.3

362.

613

19<

1<

0.7

632

249

8210

710

N6W

3132

0P

-RC

6/90

��

1<

2<

148

4.1

1.2

0.2

<0.

173

5.5

250

53.

8<

0.7

1580

253

8209

99N

6W20

185

P-R

C6/

90��

143.

81.

118

6.3

0.8

<0.

2<

0.1

408.

68

<1

1.0

<0.

769

935

182

116

11N

7W19

180

P-C

7/90

��

147

29.6

17.7

83.3

1.5

<0.

2<

0.1

328.

67

1<

1<

0.7

551

302

8207

13N

7W16

205

P-C

7/90

��

9724

.88.

497

.91.

90.

2<

0.1

299.

616

<1

<1

<0.

752

130

382

063

2N7W

1912

5P

-C7/

90��

365

89.2

34.5

19.0

0.9

0.4

<0.

140

3.6

<1

3<

1<

0.7

660

304

8206

52N

6W7

235

P-C

7/90

��

6<

20.

726

4.8

1.0

<0.

2<

0.1

566.

814

<1

2.5

<0.

795

430

582

064

2N6W

222

5P

-RC

7/90

��

6412

.77.

914

2.9

2.9

0.8

<0.

136

9.5

3<

11.

6<

0.7

628

306

8208

85N

5W31

265

P-R

C7/

90��

3<

2<

129

0.1

1.0

<0.

2<

0.1

645.

84

<1

3.6

<0.

710

6030

782

089

5N5W

2228

5P

-RC

7/90

��

122.

81.

232

7.7

1.4

<0.

2<

0.1

694.

944

<1

3.2

<0.

712

0031

082

090

5N5W

3634

0P

-RC

7/90

��

3<

20.

532

9.9

1.0

<0.

2<

0.1

720.

14

65.

2<

0.7

1220

311

8208

44N

5W22

185

P-R

C7/

90��

2<

2<

115

9.3

0.6

<0.

2<

0.1

283.

82

67<

1<

0.7

579

312

8208

75N

6W22

125

WR

7/90

��

339

89.4

28.1

6.3

<1

<0.

2<

0.1

223.

517

23<

114

.68

514

313

8208

65N

6W32

260

P-R

C7/

90��

211

57.0

16.8

33.7

0.5

1.8

<0.

126

6.8

7<

1<

1<

0.7

450

314

8207

94N

7W26

275

P-C

7/90

��

110

30.6

8.1

172.

01.

8<

0.2

<0.

148

6.4

24

1.0

<0.

782

231

582

075

3N5W

2126

5P

-RC

7/90

��

183.

92.

017

7.1

1.3

<0.

2<

0.1

388.

74

<1

2.7

<0.

766

731

682

072

3N6W

231

5P

-RC

7/90

��

233.

63.

482

7.1

3.0

3.2

<0.

186

3.2

760

53.

4<

0.7

2660

317

8207

33N

6W1

65LB

7/90

��

255

72.1

18.2

24.9

<1

2.5

<0.

128

5.5

26

<1

<0.

748

431

882

074

3N6W

718

0P

-RC

7/90

��

243.

83.

610

40.0

3.7

3.4

<0.

199

3.7

992

<1

2.2

<0.

732

6031

982

080

4N7W

3526

0P

-C7/

90��

7918

.77.

916

1.5

1.8

<0.

2<

0.1

412.

626

31.

3<

0.7

729

320

8208

14N

7W36

145

P-C

7/90

��

164

45.6

12.3

78.5

1.2

<0.

2<

0.1

308.

32

8<

1<

0.7

536

321

8207

03N

7W14

225

P-C

7/90

��

140

33.0

14.0

134.

02.

30.

7<

0.1

433.

92

<1

<1

<0.

772

632

282

069

3N8W

2411

4P

-C7/

90��

334

96.0

23.0

4.0

<1

3.6

0.3

245.

912

54<

1<

0.7

502

324

8208

34N

7W11

175

P-C

7/90

��

251

68.1

19.6

5.9

<1

<0.

2<

0.1

223.

41

26<

1<

0.7

405

325

8208

24N

7E14

44W

R7/

90��

222

60.9

17.0

4.4

2.1

<0.

2<

0.1

127.

911

44<

112

.88

361

130

8221

N10

E31

238

SD

7/89

��

409

103.

036

.910

.11.

01.

3<

0.1

344.

04

410.

4<

0.7

629

213

0220

N10

E7

76T

TP

7/89

��

558

136.

053

.210

.41.

12.

7<

0.1

389.

122

123

0.2

<0.

783

53

1551

20N

10E

2237

TT

PS

7/89

��

508

127.

346

.217

.01.

12.

2<

0.1

358.

334

970.

1<

0.7

770

418

508

19N

11E

162

TT

P7/

89��

446

110.

541

.35.

30.

90.

80.

130

3.6

2980

0.1

0.84

648

1127

5221

N10

E12

121

SD

7/89

��

369

95.0

32.0

4.3

0.7

1.6

<0.

134

3.5

622

0.1

<0.

758

8

��

��8�7��

Appendix 1 83

Location Number


Township

Range

Section

Well Depth (feet)

Aquifer System

Date Sampled

pH1

Total Hardness

Calcium

Magnesium

Sodium

Potassium

Iron

Manganese


Chloride

Sulfate

Fluoride

NO3 as N


DE

LAW

AR

E C

OU

NT

Y c

ontin

ued

1322

887

21N

11E

3210

1S

D7/

89��

476

105.

751

.814

.41.

11.

7<

0.1

377.

610

119

0.3

<0.

777

614

2577

21N

9E22

96S

D7/

89��

386

97.5

34.7

5.7

0.8

1.4

<0.

133

2.0

850

0.2

<0.

761

219

2186

819

N9E

645

TT

P7/

89��

370

93.6

33.1

19.2

0.9

0.9

<0.

128

6.9

4576

0.2

<0.

762

724

8520

N9E

616

5S

D7/

89��

311

80.0

27.1

8.7

0.6

1.6

<0.

133

6.4

38

0.3

<0.

754

827

3456

522

N9E

3011

1T

TP

7/89

��

365

92.2

32.7

8.4

0.7

2.0

<0.

134

2.4

560

0.4

<0.

763

033

2888

21N

9E15

69T

TP

S7/

89��

391

96.3

36.7

6.9

0.7

2.3

<0.

134

5.9

1463

0.3

<0.

765

132

682

194

20N

9E3

140

TT

P7/

90��

323

84.0

27.6

10.8

0.7

0.7

<0.

134

7.3

<1

9<

1<

0.7

568

327

8219

520

N10

E7

108

SD

7/90

��

291

75.1

25.1

7.8

1.3

<0.

2<

0.1

193.

524

571.

15.

8745

833

582

189

19N

11E

1465

TT

P7/

90��

404

107.

533

.13.

70.

72.

3<

0.1

314.

714

52<

1<

0.7

605

336

8219

019

N11

E19

181

SD

7/90

��

143.

51.

214

4.3

<1

<0.

2<

0.1

339.

3<

115

<1

<0.

758

734

082

188

19N

9E20

96T

TP

7/90

��

377

96.9

32.9

2.3

0.6

2.2

<0.

127

3.0

1291

<1

<0.

757

734

282

193

20N

9E31

109

TT

P7/

90��

360

92.7

31.4

5.7

0.7

1.8

<0.

135

7.8

112

<1

<0.

759

134

382

204

21N

9E29

38T

TP

7/90

��

371

98.6

30.4

5.7

0.8

2.6

<0.

133

0.6

736

<1

<0.

759

3

276

8204

71N

10W

3411

5P

-M7/

90��

407

92.9

42.6

34.3

0.6

<0.

2<

0.1

220.

010

287

<1

2.48

654

277

8204

61N

10W

2451

DT

R7/

90��

342

92.3

27.1

12.4

0.5

0.8

0.6

359.

72

<1

<1

<0.

758

6

120

3469

87N

4W2

250

M-B

SW

8/89

��

1384

368.

611

2.8

25.9

1.2

1.8

<0.

117

9.6

2311

061.

1<

0.7

1879

121

3465

67N

4W28

100

P-R

C8/

89��

222

49.2

24.2

7.6

0.4

<0.

2<

0.1

190.

95

270.

11.

7636

012

234

668

7N4W

2161

M-B

SW

8/89

��

260

55.1

29.9

16.4

0.6

0.3

0.2

247.

82

190.

2<

0.7

435

123

3464

57N

5W24

83M

-BS

W8/

89��

293

74.2

26.3

18.3

0.6

0.7

0.4

245.

38

580.

2<

0.7

495

124

4093

46N

5W1

184

P-R

C8/

89��

193

44.7

19.8

41.7

0.9

2.2

<0.

127

3.1

32

0.5

<0.

745

312

540

650

6N5W

2923

5P

-RC

8/89

��

235.

52.

318

8.5

1.0

<0.

2<

0.1

416.

35

70.

5<

0.7

593

126

4060

26N

5W5

165

P-R

C8/

89��

253

66.1

21.4

22.3

0.5

3.8

0.1

279.

54

<1

0.4

<0.

746

412

734

673

7N4W

2418

5M

-BS

W8/

89��

187

40.6

20.7

97.1

0.7

<0.

2<

0.1

306.

05

660.

4<

0.7

609

161

3063

68N

5W2

290

P-R

C8/

89��

4011

.03.

127

1.0

1.5

<0.

2<

0.1

361.

83

255

1.3

<0.

799

316

328

602

8N5W

2916

5P

-RC

8/89

��

184

47.2

16.1

10.5

0.6

<0.

20.

115

3.1

527

0.2

1.22

305

164

2864

28N

5W17

60P

-RC

8/89

��

242

49.8

28.5

17.3

0.6

<0.

2<

0.1

199.

311

350.

32.

4440

416

728

761

8N6W

1024

5P

-RC

8/89

��

173.

42.

083

6.3

1.9

<0.

2<

0.1

737.

973

0<

12.

9<

0.7

2475

168

2872

98N

7W13

105

P-R

C8/

89��

7417

.17.

716

4.5

1.4

<0.

2<

0.1

399.

98

120.

7<

0.7

709

192

3063

08N

4W27

243

P-R

C9/

89��

210

48.9

21.4

33.5

1.0

<0.

2<

0.1

260.

31

190.

3<

0.7

451

193

8672

37N

6W36

155

P-R

C9/

89��

5413

.64.

988

.30.

9<

0.2

<0.

120

1.4

342

0.3

<0.

739

719

440

930

6N6W

214

4P

-RC

9/89

��

198

54.1

15.3

12.7

0.3

0.6

<0.

121

9.8

2<

10.

2<

0.7

361

195

3480

86N

6W12

60W

R9/

89��

173

48.4

12.6

2.8

0.2

1.1

<0.

114

2.3

427

0.1

<0.

727

819

640

573

6N6W

2913

0P

-RC

9/89

��

107

29.5

8.2

87.6

0.8

<0.

2<

0.1

298.

02

30.

2<

0.7

501

197

3481

611

N7W

1636

DT

R9/

89��

324

91.0

23.6

16.3

0.5

<0.

20.

323

4.2

1786

0.3

5.53

560

198

4094

06N

4W31

285

P-R

C9/

89��

6816

.66.

657

.70.

8<

0.2

<0.

119

5.0

3<

10.

4<

0.7

329

199

3465

57N

4W34

345

P-R

C9/

89��

30.

60.

422

1.1

0.7

<0.

2<

0.1

516.

21

52.

0<

0.7

836

200

4077

66N

3W20

280

M-B

SW

9/89

��

210

37.0

28.8

33.0

0.7

<0.

2<

0.1

178.

21

122

1.2

<0.

745

3

9�(��

9��


Location Number


Township

Range

Section

Well Depth (feet)

Aquifer System

Date Sampled

pH1

Total Hardness

Calcium

Magnesium

Sodium

Potassium

Iron

Manganese


Chloride

Sulfate

Fluoride

NO3 as N


GR

EE

NE

CO

UN

TY

con

tinue

d20

230

625

8N4W

1530

5P

-RC

9/89

��

453

120.

037

.360

.70.

80.

4<

0.1

167.

33

432

0.2

<0.

787

520

485

808

10N

2W19

165

M-B

RS

9/89

��

319

79.6

29.4

4.6

0.3

<0.

2<

0.1

301.

44

160.

50.

7751

525

482

098

8N7W

314

2P

-C6/

90��

6514

.57.

020

0.8

2.0

<0.

2<

0.1

513.

95

<1

1.5

<0.

785

425

582

094

7N7W

428

5P

-C6/

90��

922

246.

074

.997

.92.

11.

60.

243

2.2

568

81.

3<

0.7

1660

256

8209

57N

6W19

205

P-R

C6/

90��

101.

91.

432

6.1

1.6

0.3

<0.

159

3.3

91<

13.

8<

0.7

1150

257

8209

77N

7W19

38W

RS

6/90

��

2<

2<

132

4.5

1.6

<0.

2<

0.1

757.

236

<1

2.9

<0.

712

7025

882

096

7N5W

525

WR

6/90

��

286

80.0

20.9

16.0

4.2

0.5

0.6

153.

034

108

<1

<0.

746

030

182

093

6N7W

3514

0P

-C7/

90��

7115

.28.

018

3.4

2.4

<0.

2<

0.1

460.

77

13<

1<

0.7

798

3585

867

19N

6E18

90T

TP

S7/

89��

419

108.

036

.411

.90.

72.

7<

0.1

333.

328

870.

4<

0.7

690

3985

862

19N

5E21

300

SD

7/89

��

247

49.6

30.0

48.4

2.7

0.8

<0.

129

6.0

525

0.6

<0.

755

545

8576

818

N3E

417

2T

TP

7/89

��

281

74.9

23.0

8.0

0.6

1.1

<0.

126

8.3

427

0.6

<0.

747

646

8630

517

N5E

111

0T

TP

7/89

��

311

81.7

26.0

3.2

0.5

1.1

<0.

127

8.7

438

0.3

<0.

750

247

8655

720

N5E

1196

TT

P7/

89��

311

74.7

30.2

20.6

0.9

1.3

<0.

133

4.0

37

1.2

<0.

756

248

8656

220

N5E

991

TT

P7/

89��

386

100.

333

.014

.60.

72.

3<

0.1

375.

020

420.

4<

0.7

682

205

8217

718

N3E

316

3.5

TT

P6/

90��

243

60.5

22.4

31.8

0.7

0.4

<0.

130

1.5

111

<1

<0.

750

620

682

185

19N

3E30

121

TT

P6/

90��

262

62.5

25.8

38.1

0.6

1.9

0.1

348.

91

<1

1.4

<0.

756

620

782

178

18N

4E7

84T

TP

6/90

��

288

71.1

26.9

18.3

0.7

2.1

<0.

132

4.5

2<

1<

1<

0.7

526

208

8217

017

N3E

310

5T

TP

6/90

��

266

67.4

23.7

27.1

0.7

1.7

<0.

131

9.3

3<

1<

1<

0.7

522

209

8216

917

N3E

213

6S

D6/

90��

323

77.7

31.4

19.4

0.7

0.5

<0.

133

2.3

213

<1

<0.

757

021

182

180

18N

4E34

50W

R6/

90��

442

119.

235

.361

.31.

63.

6<

0.1

332.

413

594

<1

<0.

786

221

582

187

19N

5E2

65S

D6/

90��

396

100.

635

.26.

90.

90.

4<

0.1

357.

76

38<

1<

0.7

632

216

8218

619

N4E

1210

8T

TP

6/90

��

301

78.9

25.3

4.0

0.5

1.4

<0.

126

7.5

328

<1

<0.

747

521

782

179

18N

4E14

69W

R6/

90��

405

111.

730

.65.

80.

81.

5<

0.1

303.

812

83<

1<

0.7

623

218

8218

118

N5E

2245

TT

P6/

90��

365

95.3

31.0

8.1

0.6

3.6

<0.

131

5.3

932

<1

<0.

757

421

982

175

17N

5E4

70T

TP

6/90

��

334

88.0

27.8

2.9

0.5

0.5

0.1

283.

02

48<

1<

0.7

520

220

8217

317

N4E

385

WR

6/90

��

341

86.5

30.5

9.2

0.7

1.4

<0.

129

6.0

446

<1

<0.

754

5

101

8674

616

N5E

2315

0T

TP

8/89

��

350

81.5

35.7

28.4

0.9

1.6

<0.

136

9.4

217

1.0

<0.

763

035

082

176

17N

7E16

84T

TP

7/90

��

336

87.7

28.4

5.8

<1

1.3

<0.

132

2.1

39

<1

<0.

754

0

6486

731

17N

2E17

178

DM

8/89

��

295

66.6

31.3

33.3

0.7

2.2

<0.

135

1.0

2<

11.

8<

0.7

576

6585

803

17N

1E27

96T

TP

8/89

��

311

78.1

28.3

8.0

0.5

2.2

<0.

127

6.6

230

0.9

<0.

750

166

8672

617

N1E

2913

7T

TP

8/89

��

273

65.7

26.6

50.2

0.7

0.9

<0.

136

8.4

2<

10.

7<

0.7

606

6886

721

16N

2W11

50T

TP

S8/

89��

378

101.

430

.43.

70.

4<

0.2

<0.

128

1.6

462

0.3

<0.

755

369

8582

416

N2W

1690

TT

PS

8/89

��

290

72.0

26.9

21.0

0.5

1.2

<0.

130

8.4

8<

10.

6<

0.7

516

7086

290

15N

1E7

143

TT

PS

8/89

��

349

89.3

30.6

23.9

0.7

1.8

<0.

137

7.1

2<

10.

7<

0.7

621

7185

829

16N

1W33

115

M-B

8/89

��

157

33.9

17.6

80.8

2.6

0.2

<0.

131

5.3

3<

12.

9<

0.7

533

7286

265

15N

2W12

82M

-B8/

89��

505

130.

043

.829

.00.

9<

0.2

<0.

136

2.4

7366

0.1

<0.

779

5

�:�8��

��;��

��;��

Appendix 1 85

Location Number


Township

Range

Section

Well Depth (feet)

Aquifer System

Date Sampled

pH1

Total Hardness

Calcium

Magnesium

Sodium

Potassium

Iron

Manganese


Chloride

Sulfate

Fluoride

NO3 as N


HE

ND

RIC

KS

CO

UN

TY

con

tinue

d73

8626

015

N2W

2366

M-B

8/89

��

322

84.2

27.1

8.2

0.4

<0.

2<

0.1

215.

819

450.

27.

1448

674

8627

015

N2W

878

M-B

8/89

��

354

93.2

29.5

13.0

0.8

0.5

<0.

131

4.1

731

0.3

<0.

756

975

8579

316

N2W

3110

6M

-B8/

89��

379

97.5

33.0

9.2

0.6

4.8

0.4

329.

927

80.

6<

0.7

593

7686

657

15N

1E33

60T

TP

S8/

89��

354

87.5

33.0

8.4

0.6

2.4

<0.

132

2.5

416

0.6

<0.

755

777

1087

6015

N1W

2638

DT

R8/

89��

322

87.1

25.5

10.4

1.1

0.6

0.2

232.

919

580.

2<

0.7

489

7886

275

14N

1W3

80M

-B8/

89��

367

94.8

31.8

9.1

0.9

<0.

2<

0.1

284.

311

570.

2<

0.7

560

7986

766

14N

1W9

107

M-B

8/89

��

341

86.2

30.7

27.6

0.8

1.4

<0.

137

1.9

7<

10.

8<

0.7

619

8086

776

14N

2W10

51LB

8/89

��

10.

20.

118

1.8

0.2

<0.

2<

0.1

331.

912

280.

4<

0.7

637

8186

637

14N

2W22

95LB

8/89

��

359

95.5

29.2

5.6

0.4

1.6

0.2

328.

26

110.

3<

0.7

561

8286

632

14N

1W35

85M

-B8/

89��

319

83.6

26.8

58.5

1.1

1.5

<0.

140

3.6

147

0.5

<0.

769

583

8675

715

N1E

1410

8T

TP

S8/

89��

318

78.0

30.1

23.5

0.8

1.2

<0.

133

2.2

47

1.1

<0.

756

313

786

771

14N

1W29

66B

V8/

89��

375

97.2

32.1

3.7

0.5

1.4

<0.

128

4.9

1064

0.2

<0.

756

421

382

166

17N

1E20

268

TT

P6/

90��

292

67.2

30.2

51.7

1.3

1.9

<0.

140

6.0

2<

1<

1<

0.7

655

214

8216

316

N2E

564

TT

P6/

90��

299

75.3

27.0

21.1

0.7

1.2

<0.

132

2.7

14

1.1

<0.

753

522

282

149

15N

2W18

95D

TR

6/90

��

319

81.9

27.9

15.2

0.5

1.2

<0.

135

5.1

11

<1

<0.

757

222

482

140

14N

2W14

88M

-B6/

90��

350

90.4

30.3

11.3

0.8

0.4

0.2

283.

015

62<

1<

0.7

563

259

8215

816

N2W

916

0B

V7/

90��

266

65.1

25.2

40.4

0.8

1.4

<0.

136

1.6

16<

1<

1<

0.7

600

260

8215

916

N2W

2212

7T

TP

S7/

90��

271

70.9

23.0

24.3

0.5

1.9

<0.

134

1.4

7<

1<

1<

0.7

553

261

8216

016

N2W

3577

TT

PS

7/90

��

294

65.6

31.8

31.1

0.7

1.3

<0.

138

6.7

8<

1<

1<

0.7

617

262

8216

116

N1W

2911

5T

TP

S7/

90��

321

76.5

31.7

15.2

0.7

1.8

<0.

132

3.8

1122

1.1

<0.

756

726

382

150

15N

1W9

110

M-B

7/90

��

347

84.5

33.0

26.0

1.2

0.5

<0.

138

3.3

1323

<1

<0.

766

026

482

151

15N

1W16

51D

TR

7/90

��

404

100.

537

.310

.50.

73.

2<

0.1

331.

025

56<

1<

0.7

647

265

8215

215

N1W

2612

0T

TP

S7/

90��

163

32.0

20.1

86.5

1.8

0.7

<0.

131

1.1

42<

12.

4<

0.7

572

269

8216

216

N1E

2415

6T

TP

S7/

90��

194

44.7

20.0

175.

53.

50.

8<

0.1

616.

64

<1

<1

<0.

710

1035

682

141

14N

1E15

49W

R7/

90��

335

89.7

27.0

4.6

0.6

1.7

<0.

126

0.8

1358

<1

<0.

752

135

782

142

14N

1E10

82M

-B7/

90��

335

88.6

27.6

15.7

0.8

0.6

<0.

136

1.2

84

<1

<0.

759

6

1685

852

18N

10E

641

TT

P7/

89��

422

106.

038

.35.

70.

80.

70.

131

9.7

2610

90.

1<

0.7

682

1721

769

19N

10E

3013

5S

D7/

89��

340

83.7

31.8

6.7

0.6

1.2

<0.

133

6.6

320

0.3

<0.

756

718

2208

419

N9E

2722

5S

D7/

89��

294

67.0

30.8

21.2

0.7

1.2

<0.

133

2.9

86

0.4

<0.

754

822

8584

718

N9E

725

8S

D7/

89��

269

61.6

28.0

27.0

0.8

0.9

<0.

130

8.5

514

0.4

<0.

752

032

2180

919

N10

E36

93.5

TT

P7/

89��

384

98.3

33.7

3.2

0.6

0.3

<0.

131

4.0

870

0.1

<0.

760

433

782

183

18N

9E29

42.5

TT

P7/

90��

362

92.3

32.1

4.8

0.7

2.0

<0.

131

0.4

845

<1

<0.

757

133

982

184

18N

9E5

66T

TP

7/90

��

500

139.

137

.153

.92.

20.

30.

531

5.7

167

59<

1<

0.7

852

9286

826

13N

3E18

42D

TR

8/89

��

416

106.

436

.59.

90.

62.

40.

136

7.9

533

0.6

<0.

765

593

8673

213

N3E

886

TT

P8/

89��

287

72.6

25.7

32.1

1.3

3.6

<0.

133

4.6

46

0.4

<0.

756

394

8678

614

N3E

3254

WR

8/89

��

456

120.

937

.619

.10.

92.

4<

0.1

311.

066

570.

2<

0.7

691

102

8628

014

N3E

2755

TT

P8/

89��

409

110.

632

.313

.10.

8<

0.2

<0.

128

4.3

3374

0.2

0.86

622

��

< ��


Location Number


Township

Range

Section

Well Depth (feet)

Aquifer System

Date Sampled

pH1

Total Hardness

Calcium

Magnesium

Sodium

Potassium

Iron

Manganese


Chloride

Sulfate

Fluoride

NO3 as N


JOH

NS

ON

CO

UN

TY

con

tinue

d10

386

325

13N

3E9

62D

TR

8/89

��

302

78.5

25.7

3.3

0.4

<0.

2<

0.1

197.

78

360.

211

.07

447

104

8632

013

N3E

3149

DT

R8/

89��

382

92.6

36.6

17.3

0.8

0.5

0.1

380.

54

190.

3<

0.7

646

110

8581

412

N3E

224

40D

TR

8/89

��

679

155.

470

.821

.91.

8<

0.2

<0.

139

9.6

4024

60.

21.

9010

4111

185

843

11N

3E14

90M

-B8/

89��

443

114.

838

.210

.70.

81.

00.

438

6.9

624

0.2

<0.

767

911

285

838

11N

3E10

88M

-B8/

89��

310

80.0

26.7

48.6

0.7

1.1

<0.

138

5.7

3<

10.

4<

0.7

640

359

8213

212

N3E

145

M-B

8/90

��

348

88.2

31.0

9.7

0.7

<0.

20.

431

2.2

1529

<1

<0.

756

536

082

133

12N

3E11

44D

TR

8/90

��

309

78.8

27.3

28.5

0.8

1.1

0.2

359.

710

31.

1<

0.7

602

361

8214

814

N4E

3155

TT

P8/

90��

350

89.0

31.0

8.0

<1

0.3

0.2

356.

711

32<

1<

0.7

618

274

8204

11S

12W

1285

P-M

7/90

��

452

113.

241

.26.

70.

63.

00.

238

3.8

1156

<1

<0.

771

027

582

042

1S11

W4

51W

R7/

90��

2<

2<

120

2.1

0.1

<0.

2<

0.1

316.

320

59<

113

.33

736

283

8205

01N

8W8

179

WR

S7/

90��

338

83.4

31.5

14.9

0.6

2.9

<0.

140

9.2

9<

1<

1<

0.7

652

284

8204

91N

8W3

200

P-C

7/90

��

377

91.6

36.2

23.1

0.6

1.0

<0.

142

9.4

9<

1<

1<

0.7

697

285

8206

22N

8W28

107

WR

S7/

90��

328

81.6

30.1

23.0

0.7

3.2

<0.

139

1.6

11<

1<

1<

0.7

635

286

8207

84N

8W10

74LB

7/90

��

480

133.

335

.76.

40.

64.

80.

222

9.6

1522

2<

1<

0.7

707

287

8207

74N

8W27

103.

5P

-M7/

90��

316

61.9

39.3

131.

32.

20.

70.

345

4.7

8171

1.2

<0.

795

228

882

076

4N9W

2510

8P

-M7/

90��

6312

.67.

613

.0<

15.

40.

577

.98

16<

1<

0.7

175

289

8206

73N

4W10

70P

-M7/

90��

419

101.

440

.223

.30.

82.

10.

236

6.2

3047

<1

<0.

770

429

082

053

2N10

W1

100

P-M

7/90

��

438

99.1

46.4

19.8

0.7

<0.

2<

0.1

361.

324

59<

11.

8170

929

182

066

3N9W

3510

5P

-M7/

90��

263

57.4

29.1

26.6

<1

<0.

2<

0.1

249.

822

40<

11.

3650

129

282

068

3N8W

3423

5P

-C7/

90��

109

27.4

9.8

109.

81.

2<

0.2

<0.

133

9.8

5<

1<

1<

0.7

579

293

8206

12N

8W5

245

P-C

7/90

��

100

24.0

9.7

232.

41.

3<

0.2

<0.

149

1.5

84<

12.

1<

0.7

959

294

8205

82N

9W25

205

P-M

7/90

��

216

59.8

16.3

15.5

0.7

0.4

<0.

124

3.8

14

<1

<0.

741

129

582

057

2N9W

1514

0P

-M7/

90��

185

44.0

18.3

48.1

0.9

<0.

2<

0.1

308.

51

<1

<1

<0.

750

029

682

056

2N9W

1597

WR

S7/

90��

197

54.0

15.0

4.2

<1

1.1

0.1

180.

92

13<

1<

0.7

321

297

8205

92N

9W22

95W

RS

7/90

��

261

72.7

19.4

5.7

<1

<0.

2<

0.1

206.

326

4<

18.

8143

129

882

054

2N10

W24

50P

-M7/

90��

132

31.1

13.3

138.

01.

6<

0.2

0.1

403.

219

31<

1<

0.7

734

299

8206

02N

9W9

165

P-M

7/90

��

154.

01.

315

0.8

0.7

0.3

<0.

134

7.8

8<

1<

1<

0.7

593

300

8208

55N

7W18

43W

R7/

90��

402

106.

533

.012

.3<

1<

0.2

<0.

125

0.1

1216

<1

32.5

363

8

1585

763

19N

8E35

71T

TP

7/89

��

326

83.8

28.4

5.0

0.5

2.1

<0.

133

6.4

214

0.2

<0.

755

620

8578

520

N7E

1112

0T

TP

7/89

��

323

82.4

28.7

6.2

0.6

3.3

<0.

134

8.8

2<

10.

2<

0.7

558

2186

497

21N

8E17

76T

TP

7/89

��

371

96.8

31.4

6.2

0.7

2.2

<0.

137

9.7

316

0.3

<0.

763

023

8578

318

N8E

1450

TT

P7/

89��

371

93.7

33.5

6.1

0.6

3.7

0.1

303.

122

720.

2<

0.7

608

2585

877

20N

8E10

71T

TP

7/89

��

368

92.4

33.4

5.9

1.1

1.4

<0.

131

8.0

1350

0.2

<0.

759

326

8649

221

N8E

1420

0S

D7/

89��

414

101.

439

.211

.81.

01.

7<

0.1

392.

43

630.

3<

0.7

711

2886

507

22N

8E21

116

TT

P7/

89��

366

94.4

31.6

9.7

0.7

1.7

<0.

133

9.1

937

0.3

<0.

760

929

8651

222

N8E

3014

2S

D7/

89��

448

109.

642

.423

.52.

0<

0.2

<0.

136

3.8

8758

0.4

<0.

777

534

8587

219

N7E

3611

2S

D7/

89��

272

57.7

31.3

14.2

1.0

0.6

<0.

131

4.5

1<

10.

3<

0.7

497

;=��

:��

Appendix 1 87

Location Number


Township

Range

Section

Well Depth (feet)

Aquifer System

Date Sampled

pH1

Total Hardness

Calcium

Magnesium

Sodium

Potassium

Iron

Manganese


Chloride

Sulfate

Fluoride

NO3 as N


MA

DIS

ON

CO

UN

TY

con

tinue

d36

1449

8920

N6E

2285

TT

P7/

89��

349

90.3

30.2

3.5

0.7

0.9

<0.

126

9.3

1173

0.2

<0.

754

437

8651

721

N6E

3422

2S

D7/

89��

332

83.2

30.3

8.3

0.8

0.4

<0.

131

1.1

929

0.7

<0.

755

038

8655

220

N6E

3322

0S

D7/

89��

364

76.5

42.0

83.9

7.6

0.3

<0.

130

9.8

188

170.

8<

0.7

801

4085

778

18N

6E11

82S

D7/

89��

342

81.9

33.4

8.1

0.7

1.4

<0.

132

4.6

1632

0.6

<0.

757

841

8577

318

N7E

2671

TT

P7/

89��

317

79.8

28.7

5.3

0.6

1.0

0.2

341.

23

20.

3<

0.7

547

338

8218

218

N8E

1693

TT

P7/

90��

351

90.3

30.6

7.0

0.8

0.9

0.2

309.

712

28<

1<

0.7

555

341

1423

2120

N8E

3343

TT

P7/

90��

456

116.

739

.95.

70.

82.

3<

0.1

291.

783

55<

1<

0.7

667

348

8220

622

N8E

2222

0S

D7/

90��

313

76.7

29.6

15.5

0.7

1.3

<0.

136

1.5

27

1.1

<0.

758

434

915

5320

18N

7E34

229

TT

P7/

90��

325

82.5

28.9

16.4

0.8

1.0

<0.

133

0.1

192

<1

<0.

756

3

4266

797

17N

5E20

125

TT

P7/

89��

356

88.9

32.7

5.5

0.6

0.8

<0.

130

6.1

2049

0.6

<0.

758

043

6669

217

N4E

3514

0T

TP

7/89

��

397

105.

932

.117

.30.

83.

3<

0.1

309.

359

500.

2<

0.7

652

4465

292

17N

3E24

195

SD

7/89

��

381

97.7

33.5

37.2

1.0

<0.

2<

0.1

311.

179

470.

4<

0.7

685

5861

544

16N

2E1

78T

TP

7/89

��

300

69.3

30.9

21.2

0.7

1.6

<0.

132

5.0

2<

11.

0<

0.7

534

5986

736

16N

3E4

57T

TP

7/89

��

497

132.

440

.571

.91.

53.

10.

238

0.8

123

780.

2<

0.7

923

6064

109

16N

4E8

82W

R7/

89��

494

125.

544

.161

.11.

12.

30.

233

2.9

147

470.

4<

0.7

844

6186

741

16N

4E8

60W

R7/

89��

424

112.

434

.856

.11.

0<

0.2

<0.

131

7.8

9744

0.2

1.90

748

6264

242

16N

5E3

215

SD

7/89

��

374

89.4

36.8

20.1

0.8

1.6

<0.

137

2.1

418

0.8

<0.

763

763

6386

316

N5E

317

2T

TP

7/89

��

342

70.6

40.4

32.2

0.8

0.9

<0.

135

1.0

236

1.0

<0.

762

295

4161

214

N4E

543

TT

P8/

89��

483

127.

539

.939

.10.

9<

0.2

<0.

137

1.9

5965

0.2

2.12

803

9623

2296

14N

4E8

250

DM

8/89

��

213

42.2

26.4

69.3

2.0

<0.

2<

0.1

309.

521

190.

6<

0.7

564

9786

791

14N

4E2

97T

TP

8/89

��

390

97.3

35.9

55.4

0.9

1.4

<0.

150

5.1

3<

10.

8<

0.7

824

9859

138

15N

4E26

47T

TP

8/89

��

422

97.5

43.4

13.8

0.9

1.4

<0.

138

2.7

1028

1.3

<0.

767

599

8676

115

N4E

2221

2S

D8/

89��

310

63.7

36.8

56.3

2.3

<0.

2<

0.1

295.

231

622.

7<

0.7

620

100

5866

415

N4E

1550

TT

P8/

89��

663

171.

757

.165

.31.

55.

5<

0.1

390.

321

678

0.4

<0.

710

8221

082

171

17N

3E23

50W

RS

6/90

��

428

104.

840

.620

.40.

91.

2<

0.1

330.

048

62<

1<

0.7

691

212

8217

417

N4E

1314

3S

D6/

90��

341

86.9

30.2

9.5

0.8

1.8

<0.

134

0.2

113

<1

<0.

756

927

082

167

17N

2E16

339

DM

7/90

��

306

61.6

37.0

69.1

3.8

<0.

2<

0.1

346.

539

571.

5<

0.7

696

271

8216

817

N2E

2255

DM

7/90

��

455

122.

536

.455

.61.

1<

0.2

<0.

132

5.6

117

57<

12.

9480

727

282

153

15N

2E16

55T

TP

S7/

90��

314

78.9

28.4

13.5

0.5

1.2

<0.

129

9.7

329

<1

<0.

753

227

382

143

14N

2E4

56M

-B7/

90��

674

175.

757

.158

.20.

9<

0.2

0.1

360.

026

858

<1

<0.

710

7036

282

510

14N

3E2

178

DM

8/90

��

408

108.

533

.439

.51.

11.

3<

0.1

284.

312

356

<1

<0.

771

636

382

145

14N

3E2

47W

R8/

90��

1<

1<

118

5.1

<1

<0.

2<

0.1

269.

851

53<

19.

2666

536

482

146

14N

3E21

71W

R8/

90��

411

113.

231

.214

.10.

93.

00.

128

5.8

6688

<1

<0.

767

236

582

147

14N

3E11

81T

TP

8/90

��

338

90.8

27.2

3.7

<1

<0.

20.

633

0.7

97

<1

<0.

755

036

682

154

15N

2E12

89T

TP

S8/

90��

291

72.1

27.0

15.8

0.7

0.9

<0.

131

9.7

9<

1<

1<

0.7

525

367

8216

416

N3E

1546

TT

P8/

90��

586

155.

947

.923

.21.

13.

20.

130

3.2

206

63<

1<

0.7

880

368

8217

217

N3E

3411

6S

D8/

90��

262

63.5

25.1

24.1

0.8

1.4

<0.

131

5.2

12<

1<

1<

0.7

520

369

1622

1016

N4E

2619

0S

D8/

90��

286

56.9

35.1

31.0

0.9

1.1

<0.

133

7.2

1023

<1

<0.

757

7

:��


Location Number


Township

Range

Section

Well Depth (feet)

Aquifer System

Date Sampled

pH1

Total Hardness

Calcium

Magnesium

Sodium

Potassium

Iron

Manganese


Chloride

Sulfate

Fluoride

NO3 as N


MA

RIO

N C

OU

NT

Y c

ontin

ued

370

8215

515

N5E

617

4T

TP

8/90

��

267

51.2

33.8

47.1

0.9

0.8

<0.

136

4.7

104

<1

<0.

759

937

182

165

16N

4E17

62W

R8/

90��

426

112.

735

.157

.71.

63.

10.

330

9.7

133

78<

1<

0.7

806

372

8215

615

N2E

1467

TT

PS

8/90

��

341

85.6

30.9

18.7

0.8

0.9

<0.

135

4.7

1814

<1

<0.

761

2

308

8209

25N

4W19

315

P-R

C7/

90��

267

56.0

31.0

58.0

1.1

<0.

21.

413

8.0

320

3<

1<

0.7

528

309

8209

15N

4W30

345

P-R

C7/

90��

81.

70.

820

2.2

0.8

<0.

2<

0.1

434.

22

83.

9<

0.7

748

119

8683

29N

1W30

80M

-BR

S8/

89��

309

84.1

24.1

7.5

0.4

<0.

2<

0.1

258.

011

330.

8<

0.7

484

135

8683

79N

2W15

43M

-BR

S8/

89��

268

50.6

34.6

36.2

1.1

<0.

2<

0.1

281.

512

370.

91.

1153

513

622

2297

9N2W

2220

5M

-BR

S8/

89��

337

73.4

37.4

3.4

0.7

0.6

<0.

125

6.7

213

51.

9<

0.7

621

158

2223

039N

2W18

225

M-B

SW

8/89

��

347

76.8

37.9

2.8

0.7

<0.

2<

0.1

241.

01

821.

7<

0.7

507

162

8682

78N

2W18

65M

-BR

S8/

89��

303

76.8

27.0

11.7

0.6

<0.

2<

0.1

255.

711

341.

23.

2150

822

582

115

10N

1W17

145

M-B

6/90

��

389

106.

030

.213

.00.

6<

0.2

<0.

135

3.2

452

<1

<0.

764

323

682

113

10N

2W4

145

M-B

6/90

��

269

70.0

23.0

34.8

0.6

2.5

<0.

133

7.0

84

<1

<0.

756

123

782

114

10N

2W14

120

M-B

6/90

��

478

155.

821

.621

.2<

1<

0.2

<0.

133

3.1

1513

6<

17.

2379

626

682

100

9N2W

2865

M-B

RS

7/90

��

320

78.5

30.3

4.7

1.2

<0.

2<

0.1

234.

56

112

1.5

<0.

755

326

782

102

9N2W

2195

M-B

RS

7/90

��

298

70.4

29.7

3.0

0.6

0.2

<0.

124

5.9

490

1.9

<0.

754

026

882

101

9N2W

2610

5M

-BR

S7/

90��

301

73.0

28.8

4.7

0.5

<0.

2<

0.1

252.

95

761.

8<

0.7

534

8486

285

14N

1E29

80B

V8/

89��

363

93.7

31.4

5.0

0.6

3.1

<0.

135

8.1

2<

10.

6<

0.7

584

8585

809

13N

1E8

90M

-B8/

89��

366

95.2

31.2

4.1

0.5

<0.

2<

0.1

317.

53

310.

3<

0.7

562

8686

836

13N

1W13

84B

V8/

89��

311

81.1

26.3

32.9

0.8

2.4

<0.

136

4.4

2<

10.

4<

0.7

599

8786

315

13N

1W25

222

M-B

8/89

��

5914

.15.

917

.80.

3<

0.2

<0.

156

.24

250.

20.

8815

088

8677

712

N1E

360

WR

8/89

��

469

125.

537

.87.

61.

10.

70.

229

9.4

2111

00.

2<

0.7

676

8986

722

13N

1E22

180

M-B

8/89

��

124

29.7

12.1

15.6

0.3

<0.

2<

0.1

80.7

940

0.2

1.94

228

9085

775

13N

2E8

105

M-B

8/89

��

372

95.0

32.8

16.1

0.7

1.1

<0.

138

9.5

44

0.6

<0.

763

991

8680

614

N2E

2658

M-B

8/89

��

366

93.3

32.3

12.2

0.7

1.1

0.4

351.

36

140.

5<

0.7

600

105

8633

013

N2E

2195

WR

S8/

89��

71.

60.

717

2.9

0.2

<0.

2<

0.1

294.

114

720.

2<

0.7

629

106

8581

912

N1E

1511

0W

R8/

89��

254

66.9

21.3

8.9

0.4

<0.

2<

0.1

194.

48

400.

20.

7539

310

786

752

12N

1E34

115

WR

8/89

��

282

75.6

22.7

5.5

0.4

0.8

0.2

263.

52

60.

2<

0.7

444

108

8583

311

N2E

648

DT

R8/

89��

188

50.9

14.9

11.7

0.3

<0.

2<

0.1

163.

95

180.

31.

2031

610

985

873

12N

2E18

51W

R8/

89��

306

79.6

26.2

6.4

0.4

<0.

20.

328

5.8

33

0.2

<0.

747

811

386

787

11N

1E28

59M

-B8/

89��

300

86.3

20.6

7.0

0.5

<0.

2<

0.1

233.

94

410.

21.

7246

211

486

782

11N

1E23

160

WR

8/89

��

277

73.6

22.6

21.9

0.5

0.7

<0.

129

7.2

11<

10.

1<

0.7

502

118

8673

712

N2W

1885

M-B

RS

8/89

��

386

121.

520

.17.

70.

8<

0.2

<0.

128

8.3

1568

0.2

2.30

602

138

8683

113

N1W

611

0M

-B8/

89��

499

127.

543

.911

.70.

6<

0.2

<0.

137

7.4

1977

0.2

3.00

764

139

8630

013

N1W

3014

2M

-B8/

89��

186

43.0

19.2

86.4

1.3

2.3

<0.

137

2.5

6<

10.

9<

0.7

621

140

8576

412

N2W

1180

M-B

8/89

��

260

63.0

25.0

18.5

0.5

1.0

0.2

194.

719

590.

3<

0.7

434

141

8676

212

N2W

310

7M

-B8/

89��

353

94.9

28.3

17.9

0.6

0.8

0.4

343.

17

110.

2<

0.7

592

:��

:��

:�9��

Appendix 1 89

Location Number


Township

Range

Section

Well Depth (feet)

Aquifer System

Date Sampled

pH1

Total Hardness

Calcium

Magnesium

Sodium

Potassium

Iron

Manganese


Chloride

Sulfate

Fluoride

NO3 as N


MO

RG

AN

CO

UN

TY

con

tinue

d17

986

727

13N

2E28

60M

-B9/

89��

314

83.8

25.5

4.9

0.3

<0.

20.

928

5.4

518

0.6

<0.

749

818

086

781

14N

2E32

87M

-B9/

89��

395

96.9

37.3

9.5

0.6

<0.

2<

0.1

336.

031

410.

8<

0.7

638

181

8580

413

N1E

470

M-B

9/89

��

452

115.

939

.555

.60.

5<

0.2

<0.

124

3.3

233

470.

22.

0880

618

285

828

11N

1E11

100

WR

9/89

��

258

69.3

20.6

21.9

0.5

1.2

<0.

126

9.6

22<

10.

2<

0.7

473

183

8584

811

N1W

1045

WR

9/89

��

283

77.1

22.1

5.8

0.5

<0.

2<

0.1

218.

514

260.

28.

6345

718

485

878

12N

1W19

79M

-BR

S9/

89��

367

85.0

37.7

8.1

0.6

<0.

2<

0.1

316.

66

430.

2<

0.7

576

226

8213

112

N2W

2644

DT

R6/

90��

368

95.4

31.6

7.4

0.6

2.3

<0.

130

2.4

1251

<1

<0.

757

722

782

130

12N

1W35

210

WR

6/90

��

248

69.6

18.0

3.5

<1

<0.

2<

0.1

219.

83

15<

11.

1339

022

882

123

11N

1W2

180

WR

6/90

��

1<

2<

111

1.1

<1

<0.

2<

0.1

245.

75

8<

1<

0.7

432

229

8212

111

N1W

2260

M-B

6/90

��

435

116.

535

.013

.80.

6<

0.2

<0.

135

5.7

1664

<1

3.39

703

230

8212

211

N1W

3012

5M

-B6/

90��

298

76.0

26.3

35.3

1.0

3.6

<0.

137

6.2

6<

1<

1<

0.7

616

231

8212

812

N2W

892

DT

R6/

90��

348

88.9

30.6

16.6

<1

1.7

0.3

386.

55

7<

1<

0.7

632

232

8212

912

N2W

718

8B

V6/

90��

288

73.8

25.2

56.4

0.9

3.1

<0.

136

9.5

39<

1<

1<

0.7

657

358

8213

613

N1E

2510

2M

-B8/

90��

312

83.5

25.2

4.9

<1

<0.

2<

0.1

261.

312

40<

14.

0750

8

115

8676

711

N2W

1694

DT

R8/

89��

312

74.5

30.8

8.1

0.5

0.3

<0.

129

0.8

315

0.2

<0.

749

511

686

792

11N

2W16

125

M-B

8/89

��

251

67.2

20.4

57.1

1.0

<0.

20.

232

2.4

244

0.3

<0.

757

611

785

774

12N

3W35

185

M-B

RS

8/89

��

478.

96.

017

7.8

4.1

<0.

2<

0.1

356.

647

143.

0<

0.7

700

128

8578

412

N4W

2713

0M

-BR

S8/

89��

193

40.2

22.6

13.9

0.9

<0.

2<

0.1

201.

31

70.

6<

0.7

339

129

8577

912

N4W

2316

0M

-BR

S8/

89��

378

105.

727

.99.

40.

51.

6<

0.1

335.

64

250.

2<

0.7

593

130

8579

912

N5W

3515

2P

-RC

8/89

��

145

28.5

18.0

71.6

2.5

0.3

<0.

123

5.2

381

1.0

<0.

745

515

917

6187

9N4W

1626

5M

-BS

W8/

89��

192

36.6

24.5

19.2

0.9

0.2

<0.

120

2.1

115

1.7

<0.

735

816

085

874

9N4W

1884

M-B

SW

8/89

��

250

59.8

24.4

14.5

0.2

3.5

0.1

266.

63

20.

4<

0.7

440

165

8586

49N

6W12

100

P-R

C8/

89��

139

35.7

12.2

110.

91.

00.

2<

0.1

338.

07

150.

6<

0.7

600

177

8680

210

N5W

3310

0P

-RC

8/89

��

543

134.

750

.210

3.2

3.1

0.4

<0.

138

3.4

836

40.

2<

0.7

1140

178

8679

710

N4W

2922

5P

-RC

8/89

��

361

46.9

59.4

12.6

1.1

<0.

2<

0.1

282.

73

850.

2<

0.7

561

187

8576

912

N3W

2812

5M

-BR

S9/

89��

308

80.2

26.2

25.8

0.6

2.4

<0.

134

1.7

174

0.3

<0.

758

219

085

853

11N

4W1

120

M-B

SW

9/89

��

421

104.

239

.234

.00.

72.

3<

0.1

420.

27

720.

4<

0.7

779

191

8585

811

N4W

3018

5P

-RC

9/89

��

137

35.3

11.8

40.2

1.1

<0.

2<

0.1

205.

13

130.

3<

0.7

363

201

8587

99N

3W32

245

M-B

SW

9/89

��

743

188.

266

.55.

80.

90.

8<

0.1

195.

03

580

2.0

<0.

711

0020

385

770

9N3W

214

5M

-BR

S9/

89��

374

97.2

32.0

10.6

0.4

3.5

0.1

394.

64

160.

2<

0.7

651

233

8212

712

N3W

1980

M-B

RS

6/90

��

165

48.0

10.9

10.5

<1

<0.

2<

0.1

136.

07

30<

11.

8129

023

482

109

10N

4W11

80M

-BR

S6/

90��

475

106.

451

.07.

40.

92.

1<

0.1

233.

1<

124

11.

6<

0.7

704

235

8211

010

N4W

2621

7M

-BS

W6/

90��

214

48.5

22.7

2.2

0.6

<0.

2<

0.1

156.

3<

159

1.2

<0.

733

424

382

120

11N

4W17

247

P-R

C6/

90��

232

61.9

18.8

25.5

1.5

<0.

2<

0.1

234.

33

29<

1<

0.7

432

250

8210

810

N5W

2295

P-R

C6/

90��

424

108.

737

.231

.81.

40.

60.

234

9.2

1211

1<

1<

0.7

736

251

2152

4110

N3W

2977

WR

6/90

��

419

115.

232

.019

.81.

1<

0.2

<0.

133

4.2

3253

<1

0.90

674

252

8211

110

N4W

112

5M

-BR

S6/

90��

279

62.6

29.9

6.4

0.6

0.6

<0.

123

3.1

<1

401.

9<

0.7

434

7��


Location Number


Township

Range

Section

Well Depth (feet)

Aquifer System

Date Sampled

pH1

Total Hardness

Calcium

Magnesium

Sodium

Potassium

Iron

Manganese


Chloride

Sulfate

Fluoride

NO3 as N


145

8665

214

N6W

3680

P-R

C8/

89��

216

52.5

20.6

10.8

0.4

0.8

<0.

121

8.5

36

0.2

<0.

737

0

278

8204

81N

9W19

58P

-M7/

90��

306

72.8

30.2

29.1

0.9

0.7

<0.

135

0.2

13

<1

<0.

757

627

982

045

1S9W

1136

0P

-M7/

90��

5<

20.

524

3.5

0.9

<0.

2<

0.1

538.

611

71.

4<

0.7

903

280

8204

41S

9W14

70P

-M7/

90��

309

68.6

33.4

56.4

1.0

<0.

20.

140

6.9

1012

2.0

<0.

769

028

182

043

1S9W

250

P-M

7/90

��

6<

20.

618

7.9

0.6

<0.

2<

0.1

278.

224

52<

119

.88

701

282

8205

11N

8W35

50P

-C7/

90��

301

71.9

29.6

21.3

0.7

0.7

0.5

186.

646

82<

1<

0.7

493

323

8205

21N

8W21

97W

R7/

90��

355

97.5

27.1

4.8

0.7

1.3

0.3

257.

114

57<

1<

0.7

523

132

8578

912

N5W

1514

0P

-RC

8/89

��

155

35.5

16.2

61.1

2.8

0.2

0.1

259.

214

<1

0.8

<0.

745

314

286

811

13N

2W18

65M

-B8/

89��

433

111.

237

.88.

70.

60.

80.

338

8.6

920

0.3

<0.

767

414

686

647

14N

5W19

190

P-R

C8/

89��

321

82.9

27.8

7.6

0.5

1.5

<0.

130

2.0

29

0.2

<0.

751

214

785

834

15N

5W35

94M

-BR

S8/

89��

374

94.7

33.4

5.9

0.6

1.1

<0.

134

5.4

424

0.3

<0.

759

414

885

839

15N

5W13

125

M-B

RS

8/89

��

362

88.3

34.5

6.6

0.5

3.3

<0.

133

1.4

512

0.3

<0.

756

114

985

844

15N

5W8

70P

-RC

8/89

��

465

121.

439

.424

.20.

7<

0.2

<0.

135

2.6

3873

0.2

5.56

761

150

8584

915

N4W

1683

M-B

RS

8/89

��

339

80.7

33.6

4.5

0.7

0.4

<0.

130

4.6

518

0.3

<0.

752

215

185

854

15N

3W2

106

DT

R8/

89��

331

81.5

31.2

15.1

0.8

3.2

<0.

136

1.0

2<

10.

6<

0.7

586

152

8579

816

N3W

1490

M-B

8/89

��

400

94.8

39.8

11.3

0.7

1.7

<0.

139

3.7

51

0.8

<0.

764

715

317

5254

15N

3W14

161

M-B

8/89

��

355

91.8

30.6

22.9

0.7

3.8

<0.

139

3.5

2<

10.

7<

0.7

642

154

8675

114

N3W

165

M-B

8/89

��

376

96.0

33.2

8.6

0.5

4.7

0.2

368.

26

60.

4<

0.7

614

155

8675

614

N3W

3365

M-B

RS

8/89

��

397

100.

036

.08.

50.

52.

90.

236

2.3

2213

0.4

<0.

763

315

686

642

14N

4W35

90M

-BR

S8/

89��

370

92.6

33.8

7.9

0.4

2.1

<0.

135

9.0

211

0.3

<0.

759

615

786

816

13N

4W24

92M

-BR

S8/

89��

263

63.7

25.4

8.0

0.4

0.9

<0.

125

4.0

28

0.3

<0.

742

418

586

796

13N

5W36

103

M-B

RS

9/89

��

363

98.6

28.4

18.5

0.4

0.5

<0.

133

9.1

844

0.2

<0.

762

118

686

742

12N

3W8

110

M-B

RS

9/89

��

333

77.5

33.8

18.4

0.4

0.6

<0.

135

1.2

17<

10.

3<

0.7

584

188

8682

113

N5W

2790

P-R

C9/

89��

4511

.04.

34.

80.

4<

0.2

0.3

2.6

444

0.1

0.86

8722

182

135

13N

4W1

50M

-BR

S6/

90��

312

84.2

24.8

5.1

<1

<0.

2<

0.1

285.

87

27<

11.

1350

722

382

157

15N

3W34

40M

-B6/

90��

344

92.8

27.4

5.0

<1

0.6

0.4

336.

13

10<

1<

0.7

559

352

8213

413

N5W

3418

0W

R7/

90��

112

30.7

8.6

2.7

<1

1.0

<0.

111

3.9

2<

1<

1<

0.7

188

353

8213

814

N5W

1414

5M

-BR

S7/

90��

8714

.712

.212

1.7

4.5

<0.

2<

0.1

315.

232

10<

1<

0.7

584

354

8213

714

N5W

1410

3M

-BR

S7/

90��

285

61.6

31.9

17.8

0.6

2.2

<0.

131

9.7

610

<1

<0.

752

735

582

139

14N

4W3

145

DT

R7/

90��

447

113.

240

.023

.80.

84.

0<

0.1

424.

636

55<

1<

0.7

799

586

582

19N

12E

2766

TT

P7/

89��

345

73.8

39.1

15.0

1.0

2.2

<0.

139

1.4

322

0.5

<0.

765

86

8654

720

N12

E9

139

SD

7/89

��

430

102.

342

.59.

21.

02.

0<

0.1

405.

710

280.

4<

0.7

705

786

542

20N

12E

2084

TT

P7/

89��

392

99.5

35.1

4.7

0.8

1.9

<0.

135

0.8

548

0.2

<0.

763

38

8657

219

N13

E18

45T

TP

7/89

��

356

89.3

32.3

5.1

0.7

1.4

<0.

133

0.7

429

0.2

<0.

757

59

8657

719

N13

E10

50T

TP

7/89

��

392

95.5

37.4

5.0

0.7

2.2

<0.

133

3.7

853

0.3

<0.

761

9

>��;��

>�;��

>��:��

��8> ��

Appendix 1 91

Location Number


Township

Range

Section

Well Depth (feet)

Aquifer System

Date Sampled

pH1

Total Hardness

Calcium

Magnesium

Sodium

Potassium

Iron

Manganese


Chloride

Sulfate

Fluoride

NO3 as N


RA

ND

OLP

H C

OU

NT

Y c

ontin

ued

1086

567

19N

14E

1783

TT

P7/

89��

340

75.5

36.9

18.7

1.0

2.0

<0.

138

6.4

<1

100.

5<

0.7

635

1286

537

20N

13E

2910

1S

D7/

89��

396

97.0

37.4

25.0

0.9

<0.

2<

0.1

311.

770

680.

10.

7068

730

8652

720

N15

E31

160

SD

7/89

��

310

72.7

31.3

14.1

0.9

2.2

<0.

136

8.5

2<

10.

7<

0.7

588

3186

532

20N

14E

1245

TT

PS

7/89

��

470

87.8

61.0

22.2

1.7

<0.

2<

0.1

459.

66

103

0.7

<0.

787

032

882

200

20N

15E

2098

TT

P7/

90��

288

66.8

29.5

13.9

0.8

1.5

<0.

135

4.3

<!

<1

1.4

<0.

756

032

982

199

20N

14E

3330

6S

D7/

90��

249

40.1

36.2

42.8

1.1

0.6

<0.

129

9.0

248

1.1

<0.

752

333

082

191

19N

14E

2722

1S

D7/

90��

348

87.1

31.8

20.8

1.0

1.2

<0.

138

9.2

424

1.3

<0.

765

933

182

192

19N

14E

820

4T

TP

7/90

��

308

68.2

33.4

30.2

0.9

1.9

<0.

135

7.8

39

1.1

<0.

759

333

282

197

20N

13E

3339

TT

P7/

90��

462

120.

139

.57.

01.

01.

20.

130

1.0

4992

<1

<0.

768

333

382

198

20N

13E

1991

SD

7/90

��

355

86.9

33.7

4.3

0.6

1.6

<0.

131

3.2

353

<1

<0.

757

433

482

196

20N

12E

3411

8T

TP

7/90

��

357

88.3

33.3

6.7

0.7

1.3

<0.

134

5.6

<1

17<

1<

0.7

581

4986

502

22N

5E27

92T

TP

7/89

��

336

98.8

21.8

24.0

1.0

1.5

<0.

140

8.7

214

0.5

<0.

767

350

8652

221

N3E

2124

3S

D7/

89��

287

71.6

26.3

25.0

0.8

1.1

<0.

135

9.7

2<

11.

1<

0.7

578

344

8220

121

N3E

618

2T

TP

7/90

��

262

63.4

25.2

30.0

0.8

0.9

<0.

132

1.8

2<

11.

4<

0.7

528

345

8220

221

N4E

2313

5T

TP

7/90

��

314

83.0

26.0

21.0

<1

1.1

<0.

139

1.5

39

<1

<0.

763

234

682

203

21N

5E33

98T

TP

7/90

��

237

49.0

28.0

28.0

1.9

3.2

<0.

135

9.0

3<

1<

1<

0.7

558

347

8220

522

N6E

1710

0S

D7/

90��

330

82.9

30.0

6.5

0.8

2.0

<0.

134

8.1

65

1.2

<0.

756

8

1 Res

ults

in s

tand

ard

pH u

nits

.2 L

abor

ator

y a

naly

sis.

3 TD

S v

alue

s ar

e th

e su

m o

f maj

or c

onst

ituen

ts e

xpec

ted

in a

n an

hydr

ous

resi

due

of a

gro

und-

wat

er s

ampl

e w

ith b

icar

bona

te c

onve

rted

to c

arbo

nate

in th

e so

lid p

hase

.

��>��


��1-��"��"��#�� !"�"��"�� ?��-��%��) ��"�� "��&

Loca

tion

num

ber

Str

ontiu

mZ

inc

Loca

tion

num

ber

Str

ontiu

mZ

inc

Loca

tion

num

ber

Str

ontiu

mZ

inc

248

0.4

<0.

124

1.5

0.1

511.

6<

0.1

249

<0.

1<

0.1

271.

9<

0.1

520.

7<

0.1

253

<0.

1<

0.1

330.

5<

0.1

533.

80.

135

10.

50.

132

62.

70.

3

541.

5<

0.1

327

0.5

<0.

155

0.6

<0.

130

20.

60.

633

50.

3<

0.1

562.

1<

0.1

303

0.3

<0.

133

6<

0.1

<0.

157

3.8

<0.

130

4<

0.1

<0.

134

00.

2<

0.1

670.

4<

0.1

305

0.3

<0.

134

20.

5<

0.1

306

<0.

1<

0.1

343

1<

0.1

133

0.3

<0.

130

70.

1<

0.1

134

0.4

<0.

131

0<

0.1

<0.

127

60.

20.

3

311

<0.

1<

0.1

277

0.2

0.1

131

0.3

0.2

312

0.1

<0.

114

3<

0.1

<0.

131

30.

2<

0.1

120

14.9

<0.

114

40.

20.

131

40.

3<

0.1

121

0.1

<0.

116

6<

0.1

<0.

131

50.

2<

0.1

122

0.2

<0.

116

90.

40.

131

60.

40.

112

30.

3<

0.1

170

0.4

0.1

317

0.1

<0.

112

40.

3<

0.1

171

0.2

0.1

318

0.5

<0.

112

50.

10.

117

20.

5<

0.1

319

0.4

<0.

112

60.

30.

117

30.

20.

232

00.

1<

0.1

127

0.1

0.1

174

0.1

<0.

132

10.

60.

416

10.

2<

0.1

175

0.4

0.1

322

0.1

<0.

116

30.

10.

117

60.

1<

0.1

324

0.1

0.1

164

0.1

0.2

189

0.3

0.6

325

0.1

<0.

116

70.

50.

1

238

0.1

<0.

116

80.

20.

123

90.

7<

0.1

14.

5<

0.1

192

0.3

<0.

124

00.

2<

0.1

21.

1<

0.1

193

0.2

<0.

124

10.

1<

0.1

30.

2<

0.1

194

0.1

<0.

124

20.

1<

0.1

40.

1<

0.1

195

0.1

<0.

124

40.

5<

0.1

110.

7<

0.1

196

0.4

<0.

124

50.

3<

0.1

133

<0.

119

70.

1<

0.1

246

<0.

1<

0.1

141.

2<

0.1

198

0.2

<0.

124

7<

0.1

<0.

119

0.2

<0.

119

9<

0.1

<0.

1

(��

��

(�7��

9�(��

�8��

9��

��8�7��

Appendix 2 93

App

endi

x 2.

Res

ults

of c

hem

ical

ana

lysi

s fo

r st

ront

ium

and

zin

c co

ntin

ued.

Loca

tion

num

ber

Str

ontiu

mZ

inc

Loca

tion

num

ber

Str

ontiu

mZ

inc

Loca

tion

num

ber

Str

ontiu

mZ

inc

GR

EE

NE

CO

UN

TY

con

tinue

d66

0.8

<0.

118

1.2

<0.

120

08.

10.

168

0.3

<0.

122

0.9

<0.

120

211

.6<

0.1

690.

6<

0.1

320.

1<

0.1

204

3.6

0.1

700.

90.

333

70.

4<

0.1

254

0.4

<0.

171

1.6

<0.

133

90.

8<

0.1

255

0.7

<0.

172

0.1

0.1

256

0.2

<0.

173

0.1

<0.

192

0.9

<0.

125

7<

0.1

<0.

174

0.3

<0.

193

1.1

<0.

125

80.

2<

0.1

750.

5<

0.1

940.

2<

0.1

301

0.4

0.1

761.

9<

0.1

102

0.2

<0.

1

770.

2<

0.1

103

0.1

<0.

135

0.4

<0.

178

0.4

<0.

110

40.

6<

0.1

391.

1<

0.1

791.

7<

0.1

110

0.3

<0.

145

0.4

<0.

180

<0.

1<

0.1

111

0.3

<0.

146

0.3

<0.

181

0.2

<0.

111

20.

4<

0.1

476.

3<

0.1

820.

9<

0.1

359

1.4

<0.

148

0.6

0.2

833.

5<

0.1

360

3.6

0.3

205

0.8

<0.

113

70.

3<

0.1

361

1.3

<0.

1

206

1.4

<0.

121

30.

8<

0.1

207

1<

0.1

214

2.3

<0.

127

40.

1<

0.1

208

0.9

<0.

122

20.

4<

0.1

275

<0.

1<

0.1

209

2.1

<0.

122

40.

7<

0.1

283

0.2

<0.

121

10.

2<

0.1

259

0.9

<0.

128

40.

30.

721

50.

7<

0.1

260

0.9

<0.

128

50.

40.

121

60.

2<

0.1

261

10.

128

60.

2<

0.1

217

0.2

<0.

126

23.

9<

0.1

287

0.9

0.8

218

1.5

0.1

263

2.3

<0.

128

8<

0.1

0.1

219

0.2

<0.

126

41

<0.

128

90.

3<

0.1

220

0.8

<0.

126

54.

2<

0.1

290

0.1

<0.

1

269

0.9

<0.

129

10.

1<

0.1

101

0.7

<0.

135

60.

2<

0.1

292

0.3

<0.

135

00.

6<

0.1

357

0.4

<0.

129

30.

2<

0.1

294

0.3

0.1

642.

3<

0.1

160.

20.

129

50.

3<

0.1

653.

1<

0.1

171

<0.

129

6<

0.1

<0.

1

< ��

�:�8��

;=��

��;��

��;��

��


App

endi

x 2.

Res

ults

of c

hem

ical

ana

lysi

s fo

r st

ront

ium

and

zin

c co

ntin

ued.

Loca

tion

num

ber

Str

ontiu

mZ

inc

Loca

tion

num

ber

Str

ontiu

mZ

inc

Loca

tion

num

ber

Str

ontiu

mZ

inc

KN

OX

CO

UN

TY

con

tinue

d96

1<

0.1

267

35.6

<0.

129

70.

1<

0.1

971.

5<

0.1

268

300.

2

298

0.3

0.1

981.

8<

0.1

299

0.1

<0.

199

0.9

<0.

184

0.8

<0.

130

00.

10.

110

00.

4<

0.1

850.

3<

0.1

210

2.4

<0.

186

0.5

<0.

115

0.6

<0.

121

21.

2<

0.1

87<

0.1

<0.

120

0.3

<0.

127

01

<0.

188

0.2

<0.

121

1<

0.1

271

0.4

<0.

189

<0.

1<

0.1

230.

3<

0.1

272

1.6

<0.

190

1.1

<0.

125

1.6

<0.

127

30.

3<

0.1

910.

8<

0.1

262.

7<

0.1

362

0.3

<0.

110

5<

0.1

<0.

128

1.5

<0.

136

3<

0.1

<0.

110

60.

1<

0.1

292.

7<

0.1

364

0.2

<0.

110

70.

1<

0.1

340.

6<

0.1

365

0.2

<0.

110

80.

1<

0.1

360.

1<

0.1

366

1.1

<0.

110

90.

1<

0.1

372.

1<

0.1

367

0.3

<0.

111

30.

1<

0.1

382.

3<

0.1

368

1.4

<0.

111

40.

4<

0.1

400.

3<

0.1

369

1.3

<0.

111

80.

20.

241

0.3

0.1

370

0.8

<0.

113

80.

2<

0.1

338

10.

137

10.

4<

0.1

139

1.8

<0.

134

10.

1<

0.1

372

0.6

<0.

114

00.

1<

0.1

348

1.4

0.1

141

0.2

<0.

134

90.

7<

0.1

308

0.1

0.1

179

0.4

<0.

1

309

<0.

1<

0.1

180

1.1

<0.

1

420.

9<

0.1

181

0.1

<0.

143

0.4

<0.

111

92.

80.

118

20.

2<

0.1

440.

9<

0.1

135

8.4

0.1

183

0.1

<0.

158

2.1

<0.

113

649

.8<

0.1

184

0.1

<0.

159

0.3

<0.

115

85.

4<

0.1

226

0.2

0.1

600.

8<

0.1

162

15.3

<0.

122

70.

1<

0.1

610.

2<

0.1

225

0.4

<0.

122

8<

0.1

<0.

162

2.8

0.3

236

0.4

<0.

122

90.

2<

0.1

631.

2<

0.1

237

0.1

0.2

230

1<

0.1

950.

2<

0.1

266

26.1

<0.

123

10.

2<

0.1

:�9��

:��

:��

:��

:��

Appendix 2 95

App

endi

x 2.

Res

ults

of c

hem

ical

ana

lysi

s fo

r st

ront

ium

and

zin

c co

ntin

ued.

Loca

tion

num

ber

Str

ontiu

mZ

inc

Loca

tion

num

ber

Str

ontiu

mZ

inc

Loca

tion

num

ber

Str

ontiu

mZ

inc

MO

RG

AN

CO

UN

TY

con

tinue

d23

20.

3<

0.1

278

0.3

<0.

15

14.5

<0.

135

80.

1<

0.1

279

<0.

1<

0.1

65.

4<

0.1

280

0.5

0.1

70.

9<

0.1

115

0.2

<0.

128

1<

0.1

<0.

18

0.9

<0.

111

60.

2<

0.1

282

0.1

<0.

19

0.4

<0.

111

70.

3<

0.1

323

0.1

<0.

110

9.7

<0.

1

128

1.2

<0.

112

0.5

<0.

112

90.

2<

0.1

132

1.4

<0.

130

6.6

<0.

113

01.

6<

0.1

142

0.3

0.1

3117

.90.

215

96.

6<

0.1

146

0.1

<0.

132

85.

5<

0.1

160

0.4

<0.

114

70.

2<

0.1

329

1.3

<0.

116

50.

2<

0.1

148

0.4

<0.

133

06.

8<

0.1

177

1.1

<0.

114

90.

10.

133

11.

2<

0.1

178

1.4

<0.

115

00.

3<

0.1

332

1.2

<0.

118

70.

3<

0.1

151

10.

233

30.

9<

0.1

190

0.5

<0.

115

20.

40.

233

42.

1<

0.1

191

0.6

<0.

115

31.

3<

0.1

201

10.5

0.1

154

0.3

0.1

490.

4<

0.1

203

0.5

<0.

115

50.

5<

0.1

502

<0.

123

30.

1<

0.1

156

0.3

<0.

134

41.

4<

0.1

234

4.5

<0.

115

70.

3<

0.1

345

0.4

<0.

123

52.

4<

0.1

185

0.3

<0.

134

60.

8<

0.1

243

1.2

<0.

118

60.

2<

0.1

347

1.3

<0.

125

00.

5<

0.1

188

<0.

1<

0.1

251

0.3

<0.

122

10.

1<

0.1

252

2.4

<0.

122

30.

1<

0.1

352

0.1

<0.

114

50.

1<

0.1

353

0.6

<0.

1

354

0.9

<0.

135

50.

3<

0.1

For

add

ition

al d

ata,

incl

udin

g lo

catio

n in

form

atio

n, s

ee A

ppen

dix

1

��8> ��

��>��

>��;��

7��

>�;��

>��:��


Buried Valley Aquifer System

(5 Samples)

C A T I O N S A N I O N S%meq/l

Na+K 3 3 Cl

Mg SO4O4O

CaCalcium (Ca) Chloride (Cl)

Sulfa

te(S

O 4

Calcium

(Ca)+M

agnesium(M

g)

3

3)

Sulfate(SO4 )M

agne

sium

(Mg)

80 60 40 20 20 40 60 80

80

60

40

20

20

40

60

80

20

40

60

80

80

60

40

20

20

4040

60606

80

20

40

60

80

80

60

40

20

80

60

40

20

Appendix 3a. Piper trilinear diagrams of ground-water quality data for major unconsolidated aquifer systems

Appendix 3 97

Tipton Tillplain Aquifer System

(75 Samples)


Na+K Cl

Mg SO4O4O


Sulfa

te(S

O 4

Calcium

(Ca)+M

agnesium(M

g)

3

3)

Sulfate(SO4 )M

agne

sium

(Mg)

80 60 40 20 20 40 60 80

0

60

40

20

20

40

60

80

20

60

80

80

60

40

20

4040

60606

80

20

40

60

80

80

60

40

80

60

40

20

3

Tipton Tillplain Aquifer Subsystem

(17 Samples)


Na+K Cl

Mg SO4O4O


Sulfa

te(S

O 4

Calcium

(Ca)+M

agnesium(M

g)

3

3)

Sulfate(SO4 )M

agne

sium

(Mg)

80 60 40 20 20 40 60 80

60

40

20

20

40

60

80

20

40

60

80

80

60

40

20

4040

60606

80

20

40

60

80

80

60

40

20

80

60

40

20

3 3

Appendix 3b. Piper trilinear diagrams of ground-water quality data for major unconsolidated aquifer systems


Dissected Till and Residuum Aquifer System

(17 Samples)


Na+K Cl

Mg SO4O4O


Sulfa

te(S

O 4

Calcium

(Ca)+M

agnesium(M

g)

3

3)

Sulfate(SO4 )M

agne

sium

(Mg)

80 60 40 20 20 40 60 80

80

60

40

20

20

40

60

80

20

40

60

80

80

60

40

20

20

4040

60606

80

20

40

60

80

80

60

40

20

80

60

40

20

3 3

Lacustrine and Backwater Deposits Aquifer System

(4 Samples)


Na+K Cl

Mg SO4O4O


Sulfa

te(S

O 4)+

Chl

orid

e(C

l)

Calcium

(Ca)+M

agnesium(M

g)

3

3)

Sulfate(SO4 )M

agne

sium

(Mg)

80 60 40 20 20 40 60 80

80

60

40

20

20

40

60

80

20

40

60

80

80

60

40

20

20

4040

60606

80

20

40

60

80

80

60

40

20

80

60

40

20

HCO3 +CO3

Appendix 3c. Piper trilinear diagrams of ground-water quality data for major unconsolidated aquifer systems

Appendix 3 99

White River and Tributaries Outwash Aquifer System

(32 Samples)


Cl

Mg SO4

O4

O


Sulfa

te(S

O 4

Calcium

(Ca)+M

agnesium(M

g)

Car

bona

te(C

O 3

3)

Sulfate(SO4 )M

agne

sium

(Mg)

80 60 40 20 20 40 60 80

80

60

40

20

20

40

60

80

20

40

60

80

80

60

40

20

2

4040

60606

80

20

40

60

80

80

60

40

20

80

60

40

20

3 3

White River and Tributaries Outwash Aquifer Subsystem

(7 Samples)


Na+K Cl

Mg SO4O4O


Sulfa

te(S

O 4)+

Chl

orid

e(C

l)

Calcium

(Ca)+M

agnesium(M

g)

3

3)

Sulfate(SO4 )M

agne

sium

(Mg)

80 60 40 20 20 40 60 80

80

60

40

20

20

40

60

80

20

40

60

80

80

60

40

20

20

4040

60606

80

20

40

60

80

80

60

40

20

80

60

40

20

HCO3 3

Appendix 3d. Piper trilinear diagrams of ground-water quality data for major unconsolidated aquifer systems


Silurian and Devonian Carbonates Aquifer System

(34 Samples)


Na+K Cl

Mg SO4O4O


Sulfa

te(S

O 4

Calcium

(Ca)+M

agnesium(M

g)

3

3)

Sulfate(SO4 )M

agne

sium

(Mg)

80 60 40 20 20 40 60 80

0

60

40

20

20

40

60

80

20

60

80

80

60

40

20

20

4040

60606

80

20

40

60

80

80

60

40

20

80

60

40

20

3

Devonian & Mississippian--New Albany Shale Aquifer System

(5 Samples)


Na+K Cl

Mg SO4O4O


Sulfa

te(S

O 4)+

Chl

orid

e(C

l)

Calcium

(Ca)+M

agnesium(M

g)

3

3)

Sulfate(SO4 )M

agne

sium

(Mg)

80 60 40 20 20 40 60 80

80

60

40

20

20

40

60

80

20

40

60

80

80

60

40

20

20

4040

60606

80

20

40

60

80

80

60

40

20

80

60

40

20

HCO3 +CO3

Appendix 3e. Piper trilinear diagrams of ground-water quality data for major unconsolidated aquifer systems

Appendix 3 101

Mississippian--Buffalo Wallow, Stephensport, & W Baden Group Aquifer System

(11 Samples)


Na+K Cl

Mg SO4O4O


Sulfa

te(S

O 4)+

Chl

orid

e(C

l)

Calcium

(Ca)+M

agnesium(M

g)

3

3)

Sulfate(SO4 )M

agne

sium

(Mg)

80 60 40 20 20 40 60 80

60

40

20

20

40

60

80

20

60

80

80

60

40

20

20

4040

60606

80

20

40

60

80

80

60

40

20

80

60

40

20

HCO3 +CO3

Pennsylvanian--Carbondale Group Aquifer System

(18 Samples)


Na+K Cl

Mg SO4O4O


Sulfa

te(S

O 4

Calcium

(Ca)+M

agnesium(M

g)

3

3)

Sulfate(SO4 )M

agne

sium

(Mg)

80 60 40 20 20 40 60 80

80

60

40

20

20

40

60

80

20

40

60

80

80

60

40

20

20

4040

60606

80

20

40

60

80

80

60

40

20

80

60

40

20

3

Appendix 3f. Piper trilinear diagrams of ground-water quality data for major unconsolidated aquifer systems


Mississippian--Borden Group Aquifer System

(44 Samples)


Na+K Cl

Mg SO4O4O


Sulfa

te(S

O 4

Calcium

(Ca)+M

agnesium(M

g)

3

3)

Sulfate(SO4 )M

agne

sium

(Mg)

80 60 40 20 20 40 60 80

0

60

40

20

20

40

60

80

20

40

60

80

80

60

40

20

4040

60606

80

20

40

60

80

80

60

40

20

80

60

40

20

3

Mississippian--Blue River and Sanders Group Aquifer System

(29 Samples)


Na+K Cl

Mg SO4O4O


Sulfa

te(S

O 4)+

Chl

orid

e(C

l)

Calcium

(Ca)+M

agnesium(M

g)

3

3)

Sulfate(SO4 )

80 60 40 20 20 40 60 80

60

40

20

20

40

60

80

20

60

80

80

60

40

20

20

4040

60606

80

20

40

60

80

80

60

40

20

80

60

40

20

3

Appendix 3g. Piper trilinear diagrams of ground-water quality data for major unconsolidated aquifer systems

Appendix 3 103

Pennsylvanian--McLeansboro Group Aquifer System

(15 Samples)


Cl

Mg SO4O4O


Sulfa

te(S

O 4

Calcium

(Ca)+M

agnesium(M

g)

3

3)

Sulfate(SO4 )M

agne

sium

(Mg)

80 60 40 20 20 40 60 80

80

60

40

20

20

40

60

80

20

40

60

80

80

60

40

20

20

4040

60606

80

20

40

60

80

80

60

40

20

80

60

40

20

3

Pennsylvanian--Raccoon Creek Group Aquifer System

(59 Samples)


Cl

Mg SO4O4O


Sulfa

te(S

O 4)+

Chl

orid

e(C

l)

Calcium

(Ca)+M

agnesium(M

g)

3

3)

Sulfate(SO4 )M

agne

sium

(Mg)

80 60 40 20 20 40 80

40

20

20

40

60

80

20

40

60

80

80

60

40

20

20

4040

60606

80

20

40

60

80

80

60

40

20

80

60

40

20

Appendix 3h. Piper trilinear diagrams of ground-water quality data for major unconsolidated aquifer systems


ALKALINITY as CaCO3

NUMBER OF ANALYSES

AQUIFER SYSTEM

TTP TTPS WR WRS BV LB DTR

CO

NC

EN

TR

AT

ION

INM

ILL

IGR

AM

SP

ER

LIT

ER

1

10

100

1000

1

10

100

100075 17 32 7 5 4 17

ALKALINITY AS CaCO3

NUMBER OF ANALYSES

AQUIFER SYSTEM

SD DM M-B M-BRS M-BSW P-RC P-C P-M

34 5 44 29 11 59 18 15

CO

NC

EN

TR

AT

ION

IN M

ILL

IGR

AM

S P

ER

LIT

ER

1

10

100

1000

1

10

100

1000

Appendix 4a. Statistical summary of selected water-quality constituents for aquifer systems

TTP Tipton Till PlainTTPS Tipton Till Plain SubsystemWR White River OutwashWRS White River SubsystemBV Buried ValleyLB Lacustrine and Backwater DepositsDTR Dissected Till and Residuum

SD Silurian and Devonian CarbonatesDM Devonian and Mississippian/New Albany ShaleM-B Mississippian/Borden GroupM-BRS Mississippian/Blue River and Sanders GroupsM-BSW Mississippian/Buffalo Wallow, Stephensport,

and West Baden GroupsP-RC Pennsylvanian/Raccoon Creek GroupP-C Pennsylvanian/Carbondale GroupP-M Pennsylvanian/McLeansboro Group

Appendix 4 105

pH

NUMBER OF ANALYSES

AQUIFER SYSTEM


pH

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1075 17 32 7 5 4 17

HARDNESS

NUMBER OF ANALYSES

AQUIFER SYSTEM


CO

NC

EN

TR

AT

ION

INM

ILL

IGR

AM

SP

ER

LIT

ER

1

10

100

1000

10000

1

10

100

1000

1000075 17 32 7 5 4 17

pH

NUMBER OF ANALYSES

AQUIFER SYSTEM


34 5 44 29 11 59 18 15

pH

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

HARDNESS

NUMBER OF ANALYSES

AQUIFER SYSTEM


34 5 44 29 11 59 18 15

CO

NC

EN

TR

AT

ION

IN M

ILL

IGR

AM

S P

ER

LIT

ER

1

10

100

1000

10000

1

10

100

1000

10000

Appendix 4b. Statistical summary of selected water-quality constituents for aquifer systems


CALCIUM

NUMBER OF ANALYSES

AQUIFER SYSTEM


CO

NC

EN

TR

AT

ION

INM

ILL

IGR

AM

SP

ER

LIT

ER

1

10

100

1000

1

10

100

100075 17 32 7 5 4 17

MAGNESIUM

NUMBER OF ANALYSES

AQUIFER SYSTEM


CO

NC

EN

TR

AT

ION

INM

ILL

IGR

AM

SP

ER

LIT

ER

0.1

1

10

100

1000

0.1

1

10

100

100075 17 32 7 5 4 17

CALCIUM

NUMBER OF ANALYSES

AQUIFER SYSTEM


34 5 44 29 11 59 18 15

CO

NC

EN

TR

AT

ION

IN M

ILL

IGR

AM

S P

ER

LIT

ER

1

10

100

1000

1

10

100

1000

MAGNESIUM

NUMBER OF ANALYSES

AQUIFER SYSTEM


34 5 44 29 11 59 18 15

CO

NC

EN

TR

AT

ION

IN M

ILL

IGR

AM

S P

ER

LIT

ER

0.1

1

10

100

1000

0.1

1

10

100

1000

Appendix 4c. Statistical summary of selected water-quality constituents for aquifer systems

Appendix 4 107

CHLORIDE

NUMBER OF ANALYSES

AQUIFER SYSTEM


CO

NC

EN

TR

AT

ION

INM

ILL

IGR

AM

SP

ER

LIT

ER

0.1

1

10

100

1000

0.1

1

10

100

100075 17 32 7 5 4 17

SODIUM

NUMBER OF ANALYSES

AQUIFER SYSTEM


CO

NC

EN

TR

AT

ION

INM

ILL

IGR

AM

SP

ER

LIT

ER

1

10

100

1000

10000

1

10

100

1000

1000075 17 32 7 5 4 17

CHLORIDE

NUMBER OF ANALYSES

AQUIFER SYSTEM


34 5 44 29 11 59 18 15

CO

NC

EN

TR

AT

ION

IN M

ILL

IGR

AM

S P

ER

LIT

ER

0.1

1

10

100

1000

0.1

1

10

100

1000

SODIUM

NUMBER OF ANALYSES

AQUIFER SYSTEM


34 5 44 29 11 59 18 15

CO

NC

EN

TR

AT

ION

IN M

ILL

IGR

AM

S P

ER

LIT

ER

1

10

100

1000

10000

1

10

100

1000

10000

Appendix 4d. Statistical summary of selected water-quality constituents for aquifer systems


POTASSIUM

NUMBER OF ANALYSES

AQUIFER SYSTEM


CO

NC

EN

TR

AT

ION

INM

ILL

IGR

AM

SP

ER

LIT

ER

0.1

1

10

0.1

1

1075 17 32 7 5 4 17

SULFATE

NUMBER OF ANALYSES

AQUIFER SYSTEM


CO

NC

EN

TR

AT

ION

INM

ILL

IGR

AM

SP

ER

LIT

ER

1

10

100

1000

10000

1

10

100

1000

1000075 17 32 7 5 4 17

POTASSIUM

NUMBER OF ANALYSES

AQUIFER SYSTEM


34 5 44 29 11 59 18 15

CO

NC

EN

TR

AT

ION

IN M

ILL

IGR

AM

S P

ER

LIT

ER

0.1

1

10

0.1

1

10

SULFATE

NUMBER OF ANALYSES

AQUIFER SYSTEM


34 5 44 29 11 59 18 15

CO

NC

EN

TR

AT

ION

IN M

ILL

IGR

AM

S P

ER

LIT

ER

1

10

100

1000

10000

1

10

100

1000

10000

Appendix 4e. Statistical summary of selected water-quality constituents for aquifer systems

Appendix 4 109

TOTAL IRON

NUMBER OF ANALYSES

AQUIFER SYSTEM


CO

NC

EN

TR

AT

ION

INM

ILL

IGR

AM

SP

ER

LIT

ER

0.1

1

10

0.1

1

1075 17 32 7 5 4 17

FLUORIDE

NUMBER OF ANALYSES

AQUIFER SYSTEM


CO

NC

EN

TR

AT

ION

INM

ILL

IGR

AM

SP

ER

LIT

ER

0.01

0.1

1

10

0.01

0.1

1

1075 17 32 7 5 4 17

TOTAL IRON

NUMBER OF ANALYSES

AQUIFER SYSTEM


34 5 44 29 11 59 18 15

CO

NC

EN

TR

AT

ION

IN M

ILL

IGR

AM

S P

ER

LIT

ER

0.1

1

10

0.1

1

10

FLUORIDE

NUMBER OF ANALYSES

AQUIFER SYSTEM


34 5 44 29 11 59 18 15

CO

NC

EN

TR

AT

ION

IN M

ILL

IGR

AM

S P

ER

LIT

ER

0.01

0.1

1

10

0.01

0.1

1

10

Appendix 4f. Statistical summary of selected water-quality constituents for aquifer systems


STRONTIUM

NUMBER OF ANALYSES

AQUIFER SYSTEM


CO

NC

EN

TR

AT

ION

INM

ILL

IGR

AM

SP

ER

LIT

ER

0.1

1

10

100

0.1

1

10

10075 17 32 7 5 4 17

TDS

NUMBER OF ANALYSES

AQUIFER SYSTEM


CO

NC

EN

TR

AT

ION

INM

ILL

IGR

AM

SP

ER

LIT

ER

10

100

1000

10000

10

100

1000

1000075 17 32 7 5 4 17

STRONTIUM

NUMBER OF ANALYSES

AQUIFER SYSTEM


34 5 44 29 11 59 18 15

CO

NC

EN

TR

AT

ION

IN M

ILL

IGR

AM

S P

ER

LIT

ER

0.1

1

10

100

0.1

1

10

100

TDS

NUMBER OF ANALYSES

AQUIFER SYSTEM


34 5 44 29 11 59 18 15

CO

NC

EN

TR

AT

ION

IN M

ILL

IGR

AM

S P

ER

LIT

ER

10

100

1000

10000

10

100

1000

10000

Appendix 4g. Statistical summary of selected water-quality constituents for aquifer systems

Appendix 4 111

RADON

NUMBER OF ANALYSES

AQUIFER SYSTEM


CO

NC

EN

TR

AT

ION

INP

ICO

CU

RIE

SP

ER

LIT

ER

10

100

1000

10000

10

100

1000

1000036 9 18 6 2 2 7

RADON

NUMBER OF ANALYSES

AQUIFER SYSTEM


16 3 12 9 1 24 17 14

CO

NC

EN

TR

AT

ION

IN P

ICO

CU

RIE

S P

ER

LIT

ER

10

100

1000

10000

10

100

1000

10000

Appendix 4h. Statistical summary of selected water-quality constituents for aquifer systems


Appendix 5. Standards and suggested limits for selected inorganic constituents

(All values except pH and are in milligrams per liter. If multiple uses have been designated, the most protective standard applies. Dash indicates no available criterion).

Aquatic life: Values for all constituents except iron, pH, selenium, and silver are 4-day average concentrations; selenium value is the 24-hour average; silver criterionis not to be exceeded at any time. All values are chronic aquatic criteria which apply outside the mixing zone, except for silver which is the acute aquatic criterion.Where applicable, trace metal standards were calculated using a hardness value of 325 milligrams per liter. Except where indicated, all values are from the IndianaWater Pollution Control Board, 1992, IAC 327 2-1-6.

Public supply: Unless otherwise noted, values represent maximum permissible level of contaminant in water at the tap. National secondary regulations (denotedsec) are not enforceable. All values are from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2001.

Irrigation and livestock: All values are from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1973.

Constituent Aquatic life Public supply Irrigation Livestock

Arsenic (trivalent) 0.190 0.01 0.10 0.2 Barium - 2.0 - -Cadmium 0.003 0.005 0.01 0.05 Chloride 230 250 sec - -Chlorine 0.011 - - -Chromium (total) 0.05a 0.1 0.1 1.0 Copper 0.032 1.0 sec 0.20 0.5Cyanide 0.005 0.2 - -Fluoride - 4.0 1.0 2.0

- 2.0 secIron 1.00b 0.3 sec 5.0 -Lead 0.014 0.015** 5.0 0.1 Manganese - 0.05 sec 0.20 -Mercury (inorganic) 0.012* 0.002 - 0.01 Nickel 0.427 - 0.20 -Nitrate (asnitrogen) - 10.0 - -pH (standard unit) 6.0-9.0 6.5-8.5 sec 4.5-9.0 -Selenium 0.035 0.05 0.02 0.05 Silver 0.015 0.1 sec - -Sulfate - 250 sec - -Total dissolved solids - 500 sec 500-1000 3000 Zinc 0.288 5 sec 2.0 25.0

* Value is in micrograms per litera U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1973b _____1976** Action Level

Documents

GROUND-WATER QUALITYtems to describe ground-water quality somewhat problemat-ic. The boundaries of the bedrock aquifer systems are defined by 2-dimensional mapping techniques. Although