Strategies for the Identification of Sources of Pollution in the

November 10, 2014
To: Protectores de Cuencas, Inc.
Roberto Viqueira Ríos and Jeiger Medina Muñíz
Box 1563
Yauco, Puerto Rico 00698
From: Lori A. Lilly
10520 Old Frederick Rd.
Woodstock, MD 21163
RE: Final Deliverables for Strategies for the Identification of Sources of Pollution in the
Municipalities of the Northeastern Ecological Corridor and Culebra, PR
Dear Roberto and Jeiger,
Thank you again for the opportunity to participate in the above referenced project for
Protectores de Cuencas, Inc. We identified many priority pollution remediation projects
through our field assessment and I am hopeful that Protectores de Cuencas will provide
leadership with the local municipalities to address these problems. Please find enclosed and in
the referenced dropbox folder the following items that serve as my final deliverables to you for
this project. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions or concerns regarding
these items.
 Final water quality monitoring data in an Excel spreadsheet;
 Final water quality monitoring data in GIS shapefiles – Sample sites are in a GIS shapefile
and an accompanying .csv file can be joined to the shapefile for display;
 Drainage areas in a GIS shapefile;
 Photos in folders organized by sample site;
 Formatted maps for reporting – these are in .pdf and .jpg files; and
 Suggestions regarding next steps for pollution remediation.
Please note the following with regards to these deliverables:
 Stormwater infrastructure data was not available in GIS format therefore all drainage
area delineations are based on topography only and may not be accurate. Drainage
area delineations, particularly for outfall pipes, should be field verified and are not to be
used for construction or other project related activity.


Existing watershed boundaries were utilized for drainage area delineations for
consistency however; these boundaries appear to be incorrect in some locations,
particularly the Rio Grande area where it appears the lower watershed has been
modified by channelization and ditching.
The location of sample site LUQ7 is unknown and not portrayed on the maps though
data from this site as collected by Jeiger is included in the spreadsheet.
Background
Staff from Protectores de Cuencas, Inc. and Lori A. Lilly completed field work between
10/8/2014 and 10/16/2014 to identify sources of pollution in the municipalities of the
Northeastern Ecological Corridor and Culebra, PR. These two study areas are shown in Figure 1.
Sources of pollution sought were primarily sewage sources and their identification followed the
methodology outlined in Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination (IDDE) guidance developed
by the Center for Watershed Protection (Brown et al 2004) with some modification for coastal
waters.
Figure 1. Project study areas: Study Area 1 – the Northeast Corridor and Study Area 2 – the island of
Culebra.
The work in Study Area 1, the Northeast Corridor, was focused on an initial broad-scale sweep
to identify pollution hotspots in the municipalities of Fajardo, Luquillo and Rio Grande. The
work in Study Area 2, Culebra, was focused on source tracking efforts of previously identified
problems.
Findings Study Area 1
Forty three sites were visited, shown in Figure 2, between 10/8/2014 and 10/16/2014 in the
Northeast Corridor of Puerto Rico. Table 1 displays those sampling results for parameters that
have established water quality standards. Table 2 displays those sampling results for which
there are currently no identified standards but are known indicators for potential sewage
contamination (Brown et al, 2004). Based on this sampling effort, nine sites were identified as
high priority and 13 sites as medium priority for pollution remediation (Figure 3). Results of the
full sampling effort can be found in Attachment A.
Figure 2. Sample locations in Study Area 1.
Table 1. Water Samples Exceeding Standards* in Study Area 1
Parameter
Standard
pH
Between 6.0 and
9.0
Total Number
of Samples
31
# of Samples
Exceeding Standard
% of Samples
Exceeding Standard
1
3%
Table 1. Water Samples Exceeding Standards* in Study Area 1
Parameter
Standard
Total Number
of Samples
# of Samples
Exceeding Standard
% of Samples
Exceeding Standard
Turbidity
<50 NTU
39
0
TDS
<500 mg/l
27
0
Total
<1 mg/l (certain
ammonia
rivers)
42
9
*http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/wqslibrary/upload/prwqs.pdf
Table 2. Study Area 1 Water Sampling Results**
Parameter
Temp (°C)
pH
Cond (mS)
Sal (mg/L)
Turb (NTU)
Op. Brightener (RFU)
Chlor a (µg/L)
NH3 (mg/L)
Enter. (raw count/1 ml)
Enter. (count/100 ml)
TDS (ppt)
Flow (cu. ft.)
Minimum Maximum
23.6
32.7
5.0
829.0
1.1
954.6
0.1
25.0
0.3
39.3
0.0
1.9
0.0
16.1
0.0
12.4
0
280
0
28000
0.5
532.8
0.0
1137.9
Sample size
Average (n)
28.0
31
34.2
31
295.1
27
2.1
27
5.2
39
0.7
43
3.7
43
1.2
43
118
33
11845
33
169.8
27
91.0
27
**Enterococcus counts in this table exclude Too Numerous To Count (TNTC) samples
0%
0%
21%
Figure 3. Study Area 1 priority for pollution remediation and drainage areas for sampling locations.
Multiple severe sewage contaminated waters were encountered during the field work, esp. in
the Fajardo basin. Representative photos of those locations are shown in Figures 4 - 5. In
addition, a sanitary sewer overflow was also encountered at coordinates 18.310995, 65.662488. Although PRASA was on-site fixing the issue, their staff noted that the problem has
a very high recurrence and, indeed, the overflow can even be seen from aerial photography
(Figure 6).
(a)
(b)
(c)
Figure 4. (a) Severely polluted water in the stream and from the outfall pipe in downtown Fajardo (FAJ13
and FAJ14); (b) Duck in sewage water at FAJ 17; and (c) Turtles in sewage water at FAJ18.
(a)
(b)
(c)
Figure 5. (a) Septage leakage at FAJ5; (b) Sewage contamination at FAJ7; and (c) Sanitary sewer overflow
encountered during field work.
Location of recurring
SSO – note staining
on road
Figure 6. Site of recurring sanitary sewer overflow (SSO).
Findings - Study Area 2
Five sites were visited, shown in Figure 7, on 10/9/2014 in Culebra. These locations had
previously been identified by Protectores de Cuencas as potential pollution source areas. Table
3 displays those sampling results for parameters that have established water quality standards.
Table 4 displays those sampling results for which there are currently no identified standards but
are known indicators for potential sewage contamination (Brown et al, 2004). Based on this
sampling effort, three sites were identified as high priority and two sites as medium priority for
pollution remediation (Figure 9).
Figure 7. Sample locations in Study Area 2.
Table 3. Water Samples Exceeding Standards* in Study Area 2
Parameter Standard
pH
Between 6.0
and 9.0
Total Number
of Samples
# of Samples
Exceeding Standard
1
0
% of Samples
Exceeding Standard
0%
Table 3. Water Samples Exceeding Standards* in Study Area 2
Total Number
of Samples
Parameter Standard
Turbidity
TDS
Total
ammonia
<50 NTU
<500 mg/l
<1 mg/l (certain
rivers)
# of Samples
Exceeding Standard
% of Samples
Exceeding Standard
5
1
1
0
20%
0%
5
2
40%
*http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/wqslibrary/upload/prwqs.pdf
Table 4. Study Area 2 Water Sampling Results**
Parameter
Temp (°C)
pH
Cond (mS)
Sal (mg/L)
Turb (NTU)
Op. Brightener (RFU)
Chlor a (µg/L)
NH3 (mg/L)
Enter. (raw count/1 ml)
Enter. (count/100 ml)
TDS (ppt)
Flow (cu. ft.)
Minimum Maximum
29.9
29.9
8.1
8.1
2.9
2.9
1.5
1.5
6.4
59.2
1.7
49.8
1.3
24.8
0.5
2.0
140
340
14000
34000
1.4
1.4
n/a
n/a
Sample size
Average (n)
29.9
8.1
2.9
1.5
34.1
11.6
14.3
1.2
260
26000
1.4
n/a
n/a
1
1
1
1
5
5
5
5
3
3
1
**Enterococcus counts in this table exclude Too Numerous To Count (TNTC) samples
Figure 8. Study Area 2 priority for pollution remediation and drainage areas for sampling locations.
Source tracking efforts were undertaken for CUL2, CUL5 and CUL6 to a lesser extent. Those
efforts are described below.
 CUL2 – This sample was very high in turbidity (59.2 NTU), very high in ammonia (1.96
mg/l), bacteria was too numerous to count (TNTC) and was high for optical brighteners
(1.97 RFU) and chlorophyll a (13.14 (µg/l). The sample was also very greasy. Tracking
efforts were undertaken as displayed in Figure 9. The flow was followed to the top of
the street to a stormwater inlet (Figure 10). The inlet was covered in trash, sediment
and horse manure. Flow was entering the inlet via the street. The surface flow was
tested for ammonia and recorded as 0.8 mg/l. The surface flow emanated from a crack
in the street northwest of the inlet. It is possible that an illicit connection exists
between the inlet and the outfall. It is also possible that the high ammonia and bacteria
are the result of the dry weather flow interaction with horse manure and trash that
cover the inlet. It is recommended that the inlet be completely cleaned and the storm
drain line flushed, if possible, with clean water. If dry weather flow remains after
cleaning, water samples should be collected and analyzed and further action taken from
that point.
 CUL5 - This sample was high in turbidity (37.8 NTU), high in ammonia (0.66 mg/l), high in
bacteria (14,000 CFU/100ml) as well as high for optical brighteners (2.25 RFU) and
chlorophyll a (21.67 (µg/l). Tracking efforts were undertaken as displayed in Figure 11.
The flow was followed to a storm drain inlet to the southwest. Three flows were found
at this location, two flows from two separate pipes discharging from within the inlet and
one flow from the street (Figure 12). All three flows had elevated ammonia (0.39-0.75
mg/l), turbidity (25.6-40.9 NTU) and bacteria (18,000-36,000 CFU/100 ml). The surface
flow was tracked on the street to several houses where the water was found to be
seeping from yards. These may be drinking water leaks as no odor was detected. The
houses should be inspected for leaks and further tracking conducted for the pipe flows.
 CUL6 – Sampling at CUL6 indicated very high ammonia (1.93 mg/l), optical brightener
(49.83 RFU) and bacteria (TNTC). The upstream stormdrain inlets were inspected and
not found to have such high concentrations of pollutants. The original sample location
was close to the shoreline and may have been influenced by tidal waters, confounding
initial results. In addition, chickens were noted near the sampling location and their
activity and defecation in the area may have influenced the results to some extent.
However, it is also possible that a nearby house has a leak or illicit connection that is
carried in with the tide. Further sampling should be conducted along the shoreline in
this location and, if possible, dye tests conducted at adjacent homes to ensure proper
connections.
Surface flow origin
from crack in the
street
Storm drain
inlet
Figure 9. Pollution source tracking for CUL2.
Figure 10. Storm drain inlet with flow from CUL2.
(a)
(b)
Figure 11. (a) Surface flow to CUL5 and (b) two flows from pipes draining to CUL5.
Storm drain
inlet
Figure 12. Pollution source tracking for CUL5.
Suggestions for Next Steps and Pollution Remediation
The following recommendations are made to Protectores de Cuencas and the local
municipalities for next steps in remediating pollution problems identified in this study.
1.) Protectores de Cuencas, municipalities, PRASA and other relevant agencies should
conduct source tracking efforts to eliminate high priority pollution problems identified
in Study Area 1. This effort should happen as soon as possible; contamination from
these sewage sources is significant.
2.) Protectores de Cuencas, municipalities, PRASA and other relevant agencies should
conduct work to address locations where the recurrence interval for sanitary sewer
overflows is high such as described above in Study Area 1 Findings. This effort should
happen as soon as possible.
3.) In Culebra, follow-up as indicated above in Study Area 2 Findings.
4.) Many storm drain inlets were dirty and covered in sediment, trash and manure. Inlet
cleaning is a best management practice that could be implemented in local
municipalities and may result in some reduction of bacteria and other pollutants to local
waters. Consideration may be given to link this effort with a broader workforce
development program and a shared work crew to reduce costs.
5.) No stormwater infrastructure mapping data was available for either Study Area. This
information is vital to eliminating point source pollution. If this data is not available,
consideration should be given to mechanisms for obtaining it through grants or other
resources. Closed circuit television (CCTV) video footage of stormdrain pipes can be
used to both map pipe infrastructure and inspect for illicit discharges. Implementing
CCTV inspection would be an overall excellent best management practice for local
municipalities to invest and costs could be shared to reduce the burden on any one
municipality.
6.) Determine an appropriate drinking water indicator for IDDE efforts; many potable water
leaks were noted during the field work. Since drinking water in Puerto Rico is not
fluoridated, consider using chlorine (free and total) or hardness.
7.) Protectores de Cuencas may consider investing in a flow or velocity meter in order to
obtain more accurate flow measurements, esp. if river sampling is expected to continue.
Other equipment that may be useful:
a. Sampling line: https://www.enasco.com/product/B01368WA
b. Swing sampler: https://www.enasco.com/product/B01366WA
c. Ammonia colorimeter: http://www.lamotte.com/en/industrial/individual-testkits/3680-01.html
8.) Puerto Rico has a water quality standard for surfactants, a useful indicator of
wastewater and washwater. We did not use this indicator during our field work but
Protectores de Cuencas may consider adding this to their list of monitored parameters,
particularly since there is a known standard. These test kits are easy to use however,
they do result in broken glass (sharps) and toxic reagent:
http://www.chemetrics.com/detergents+(anionic+surfactants,+mbas)/Visual+Kits/K9400
References
Brown, E., D. Caraco, and R. Pitt. 2004. Illicit discharge detection and elimination: A guidance
manual for program development and technical assessments. Prepared by the Center for
Watershed Protection and University of Alabama.EPA X-82907801-0. Washington, DC: US
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Wastewater Management.
Attachment A. Sampling Results
Sample
CUL1
CUL2
Date
10/9/2014
10/9/2014
Temp
(°C)
29.9
n/a
pH
8.1
n/a
Cond
(mS)
Sal
(mg/L)
Turb
(NTU)
Op. Br.
(RFU)
Chl. a
(µg/L)
NH3
(mg/
L)
2.85
1.5
6.4
1.676
10.78
0.97
n/a
n/a
59.2
34000
1.395
TNTC
Priority
n/a
Airport channel
Yes
High
n/a
Outfall to airport
channel; greasy
sample
Yes
High
n/a
n/a
Tracking for CUL2,
water is surface
flow to inlet that
was covered in
sediment, trash
and horse poop
n/a
n/a
Near Carlos Jeep
and AAA, in-strea
Yes
Medium
Yes
High
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
CUL4
10/9/2014
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
26
2.14
24.75
0.49
300
30000
n/a
n/a
CUL5
10/9/2014
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
37.8
2.254
21.67
0.66
140
14000
n/a
n/a
CUL5a
10/9/2014
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
25.6
3.299
27.44
0.75
360
36000
n/a
n/a
Airport channel
Tracking CUL5,
one inlet
upstream from
outfall, surface
flow
n/a
Tracking CUL5,
one inlet
upstream from
outfall, right pipe
n/a
n/a
n/a
Tracking CUL5,
one inlet
upstream from
outfall, left pipe
n/a
n/a
n/a
Close to shoreline
- marine
influence?
Chickens noted in
sampling area
Yes
Medium
CUL5c
CUL6
10/9/2014
10/9/2014
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
40.9
37.1
41.1
2.223
2.392
49.83
21.84
20.45
1.278
0.48
0.39
1.93
n/a
Hotspot
n/a
n/a
n/a
TNTC
Notes
n/a
n/a
0.8
340
Flow
(cu.
ft.)
n/a
n/a
n/a
1.96
TDS
(ppt)
10/9/2014
10/9/2014
n/a
13.14
Enter.
(count/
100 ml)
CUL3
CUL5b
n/a
1.966
Enter
(raw
count/
1 ml)
180
240
TNTC
18000
24000
TNTC
n/a
n/a
n/a
Sample
CUL6b
CUL7
CUL8
FAJ1
Date
10/9/2014
10/9/2014
10/9/2014
10/10/201
4
Temp
(°C)
29.8
29.4
pH
Cond
(mS)
Sal
(mg/L)
Turb
(NTU)
Op. Br.
(RFU)
Chl. a
(µg/L)
NH3
(mg/
L)
7.76
1.756
0.903
23.2
1.243
9.923
0.13
8.4
826.9
0.4
29.4
8
713.9
0.34
28.2
8.44
123.5
0.05
28.5
829
1.078
29.6
8.21
0.725
3.562
0.25
Enter
(raw
count/
1 ml)
Enter.
(count/
100 ml)
TDS
(ppt)
n/a
n/a
861.1
n/a
n/a
n/a
405.7
n/a
350.3
Yes
Medium
No
n/a
Yes
High
0.361
1.025
0.45
156
15600
528.6
7.5
39.76
21.76
2.3
0.423
0.728
0.92
148
14800
19.3
0.107
14.2
0.84
7.749
0.8
111
11100
6.9
1.176
16.14
12.38
TNTC
TNTC
error
FAJ14
10/11/201
4
n/a
n/a
n/a
7.6
1.607
2.528
11.96
TNTC
TNTC
n/a
8.29
122.4
0.7
0.081
0
0
13
1300
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
0.704
6.677
0
160
16000
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
0.665
2.633
6.7
TNTC
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
0.616
1.09
1.62
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
1.535
9.732
5.39
FAJ3
Medium
1.6
error
FAJ2
Yes
0.53
error
FAJ19
n/a
360
8.48
FAJ18
No
61
32.7
FAJ17
n/a
4900
10/11/201
4
FAJ16
n/a
49
FAJ13
30.5
n/a
0.3
277.2
10/11/201
4
10/16/201
4
10/16/201
4
10/16/201
4
10/16/201
4
10/10/201
4
10/10/201
4
n/a
0
7.08
FAJ15
n/a
Tracking CUL6,
Second manhole
from street /
school
0.107
27
n/a
n/a
1.4
10/11/201
4
0.05
n/a
60.49
Priority
n/a
0.53
FAJ12
Hotspot
Outfall to CUL6
9.734
FAJ11
Notes
n/a
1.211
10/11/201
4
10/11/201
4
FAJ10
Flow
(cu.
ft.)
n/a
n/a
n/a
1.5
Tracking CUL6,
first manhole
from street /
school
Upstream of
WWTP
Stream near gas
station
Outlet of Rio
Fajardo
Abandoned
development site
Channel in
downtown
Fajardo
0.0025
Outfall draining to
FAJ13
Yes
High
245.8
Mainstem in
upper watershed
No
n/a
n/a
No
n/a
n/a
1.1
TNTC
n/a
28.5
Sewage
Yes
High
TNTC
TNTC
n/a
1.5
Sewage
Yes
High
TNTC
TNTC
n/a
0.0005
Sewage
Yes
High
Pipe
No
n/a
Stream
Yes
High
31.1
6.9
390.3
error
0.5
0.029
0
0.11
0
0
191.7
32.5
8.04
390.6
error
3.4
0.958
8.644
1.75
200
20000
191.9
n/a
2.5
Sample
Date
Temp
(°C)
pH
Enter
(raw
count/
1 ml)
Enter.
(count/
100 ml)
TDS
(ppt)
233
Cond
(mS)
Sal
(mg/L)
Turb
(NTU)
Op. Br.
(RFU)
Chl. a
(µg/L)
NH3
(mg/
L)
454.1
0.201
4
0.658
1.324
0
93
9300
15.4
1.178
7.049
2.53
280
28000
0.15
88
8800
Flow
(cu.
ft.)
Notes
Hotspot
Priority
Stream
No
n/a
Sewage / septage
Yes
High
n/a
No
n/a
Sewage stream
Yes
High
Near mobile
home park at
Seven Seas beach
Yes
Medium
Near hotel /
rooster pens
No
n/a
FAJ7
10/10/201
4
10/10/201
4
10/10/201
4
10/10/201
4
FAJ8
10/11/201
4
26.6
8.3
954.6
0.469
3.5
0.425
2.604
0.6
148
14800
468.3
FAJ9
10/11/201
4
27.6
8.1
527.7
0.24
1.1
0.671
1.327
0
163
16300
n/a
29.9
7.53
818.6
0.392
4.1
0.677
6.261
1.43
TNTC
TNTC
398.7
n/a
Luquillo plaza
(veterinarian)
Yes
High
n/a
n/a
n/a
17.1
0.487
3.007
0.42
TNTC
TNTC
n/a
n/a
n/a
Yes
Medium
25
6.41
n/a
n/a
3.9
1.591
12.21
0.64
105
10500
n/a
n/a
Interference
Yes
Medium
27.7
7.06
8.215
8.2
0.362
1.558
0.55
220
22000
3.997
n/a
Near Balneario y
kioskos
Yes
Medium
n/a
Near pumping
station; surface
flow ammonia 0.18
No
Medium
n/a
No
n/a
Water very turbid
Yes
Medium
n/a
No
n/a
FAJ4
FAJ5
FAJ6
LUQ2
10/15/201
4
10/22/201
4
10/15/201
4
LUQ3
10/15/201
4
LUQ1
LUQ10
LUQ4
LUQ5
LUQ6
LUQ7
LUQ8
LUQ9
RG1
10/15/201
4
10/15/201
4
10/15/201
4
10/22/201
4
10/22/201
4
10/22/201
4
10/13/201
4
27.1
n/a
5
n/a
n/a
n/a
26.5
7.2
206.2
0.06
2.9
0.306
0.624
29.4
6.79
255.2
0.095
10.2
0.369
1.981
n/a
4.738
>1*
TNTC
TNTC
n/a
2.0
0.0017
101.5
125.9
5.5
n/a
0.13
0.0024
27.3
7.3
328.4
0.135
1.4
0.837
4.5
0.06
101
10100
161.8
26.9
7.21
232.3
0.083
12.4
0.309
1.115
0.19
140
14000
114.3
7.9
27.5
7.74
223.1
0.78
39.3
0.554
9.924
0
105
10500
101.8
39.3
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
0.6
0.536
0.94
0.24
81
8100
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
0.4
0.122
0
0
12
1200
n/a
n/a
n/a
No
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
12.6
0.152
0
0
n/a
n/a
n/a
No
n/a
0.3
0.186
0
0.05
n/a
No
n/a
26.7
7.58
181
0.08
n/a
n/a
51
5100
89.1
0.0267
465.0
Sample
RG10
RG11
RG12
RG13
RG14
RG2
RG3
RG4
RG5
RG6
RG7
RG8
RG9
Date
Temp
(°C)
10/13/201
4
10/15/201
4
10/15/201
4
10/15/201
4
10/15/201
4
10/13/201
4
10/13/201
4
10/13/201
4
10/13/201
4
10/13/201
4
pH
8.04
23.6
8.36
25.1
Sal
(mg/L)
Op. Br.
(RFU)
Chl. a
(µg/L)
n/a
Notes
Hotspot
Priority
Interference with
multi-parameter;
stream not
accessible
Yes
Medium
Rio Arriba en el
Verde
No
n/a
Car wash
No
n/a
n/a
No
n/a
pulse of suds
No
n/a
0.17
75.5
0.05
0.9
0.271
1.189
0
37
3700
37.5
6.38
289.6
0.113
1.3
0.409
2.872
0.008
109
10900
142.4
26.9
8.5
447.5
0.198
1
0.66
1.781
0.16
11
1100
219.8
25.6
183.3
0.062
1.7
0.294
0
0
76
7600
95.24
26.4
7.4
10.1
9
457.2
0.203
0.8
0.726
4.009
0.13
200
20000
224.7
97.1
n/a
Yes
Medium
27.3
7.88
347.9
0.144
1.2
1.098
7.277
0.3
148
14800
170.5
23.6
n/a
Yes
Medium
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
0.4
1.042
3.774
0
200
20000
n/a
0.0031
n/a
No
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
0.3
0.807
3.556
0.24
145
14500
n/a
0.0010
No
n/a
30.4
7.97
42.87
24.97
13.4
1.863
11.23
0.59
49
4900
20.78
n/a
Outlet of Ria
Mar(?)
Yes
Medium
28.3
7.44
error
0.05
1.7
0.797
1.821
0.92
240
24000
0.5
3.7
Interference with
multi-parameter
Yes
Medium
27.6
7.34
587.4
0.272
0.5
0.476
0.594
0.12
179
17900
288.3
0.17
n/a
No
n/a
28.5
8.52
1.086
0.54
0.4
0.116
0
0
91
9100
532.8
Golf course
No
n/a
*Measurement not recorded in field
0.5
Flow
(cu.
ft.)
7.793
Gray text - tracking points
TNTC
TDS
(ppt)
0.966
Brown cells - Exceed standards
TNTC
Enter.
(count/
100 ml)
2.1
Red cells = Potential Hotspots
error
Turb
(NTU)
Enter
(raw
count/
1 ml)
0.5
10/13/201
4
10/13/201
4
10/13/201
4
29.7
Cond
(mS)
NH3
(mg/
L)
1138
n/a
27.0
n/a
n/a
n/a