EPA-905/9-74-006
**" "<
OS. BIVIROHMBCTAl PROTKTWN AGWCY
REGION V MORCEMDIT WVWON
GREAT IAKES IMmATTVE CQHTRACT PROGRAM
AUGUST 1974
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA
SHEET
1. Rcpott No.
EPA-905/9-74-006
2.
3.N^ecipient's Accession No.
5. Report Date
June, 1974
4. Title and Subtitle
Lower Green Bay:
An Evaluation of Existing and Historical Conditions
6.
7. Author(s)
Earl Epstein. Marc Brvans. Donald Mezei and Dale Patterson
8. Performing Organization Kept.
No.
9. Performing Organization Name and Address
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Standards
Box 450
Madison. Wisconsin 53701
10. Ptoject/Task/Work Unit No.
11. Contract/Grant No.
68-01-1572
12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Enforcement Division, Region V
1 N. Wacker Drive
Chicago. Illinois 60606
13. Type of Report & Period
Covered
Task I
14.
15. Supplementary Notes
EPA Project Officer: Howard Zar
16. Abstracts A survey is made of current and historical information relating to the quality
of the waters of Green Bay, Lake Michigan. The steady decline in water quality over the
last four decades is documented. A historical shift in fish production from high qual-
ity native species to low quality exotic species has occurred. Increasing areas of the
Bay exhibit low oxygen levels. In winter, under the ice, low oxygen levels now extend
into the Bay as far as 40 kilometers. Nutrient loads have caused the areas where eu-
trophic conditions exist to increase. These and other factors have led to a dislocation
of recreational use.
Documentation of the expected reduction in pollutant loads due to present control strat-
egies is also provided. Field studies performed in this program indicate slight im-
provements in bay water quality over recent years. A water quality model, suitable for
winter conditions, is also being developed which will allow predictions of improvement
in bay water quality due to present and future pollution control strategies. The final
report will be available in January. 1975.
17. Key Words and Document Analysis. 17a. Descriptors
Water Quality, Aquatic Biology, Water Pollution
17b. Identifiers/Open-Ended Terms
Green Bay, Lake Michigan, Great Lakes, Fox River, Chemical Parameters
Biological Parameters
17c. COSATI Field/Group
gp
18. Availability Statement
19. Security Class (This
Report)
UNCLASSIFIED
20. Security Class (This
Page
IjNCLAS
ASSIFIED
21. No. of Pages
22. Price
FORM NTIS-35 (REV. 3-72)
THIS FORM MAY BE REPRODUCED
USCOMM-DC
-------
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING FORM NTIS-35 (10-70) (Bibliographic Data Sheet based on COSATI
Guidelines to Format Standards for Scientific and Technical Reports Prepared by or for the Federal Government,
PB-180 600).
1. Report Number. Each individually bound report shall carry a unique alphanumeric designation selected by the performing
organization or provided by the sponsoring organization. Use uppercase letters and Arabic numerals only. Examples
FASEB-NS-87 and FAA-RD-68-09.
2. Leave blank.
3. Recipient's Accession Number. Reserved for use by each report recipient.
4. Title and Subtitle. Title should indicate clearly and briefly the subject coverage of the report, and be displayed promi-
nently. Set subtitle, if used, in smaller type or otherwise subordinate it to main title. When a report is prepared in more
than one volume, repeat the primary title, add volume number and include subtitle for the specific volume.
5. Report Date. Each report shall carry a date indicating at least month and year. Indicate the basis on which it was selected
(e.g., date of issue, date of approval, date of preparation.
6. Performing Organization Code. Leave blank.
7. Author(s). Give name(s) in conventional order (e.g., John R. Doe, or J.Robert Doe). List author's affiliation if it differs
from the performing organization.
8. Performing Organization Report Number. Insert if performing organization wishes to assign this number.
9- Performing Organization Name and Address. Give name, street, city, state, and zip code. List no more than two levels of
an organizational hierarchy. Display the name of the organization exactly as it should appear in Government indexes such
as USGRDR-I.
10. Project/Task/Work Unit Number. Use the project, task and work unit numbers under which the report was prepared.
11. Contract/Grant Number. Insert contract or grant number under which report was prepared.
12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address. Include zip code.
13. Type of Report and Period Covered. Indicate interim, final, etc., and, if applicable, dates covered.
14. Sponsoring Agency Code. Leave blank.
15. Supplementary Notes. Enter information not included elsewhere but useful, such as: Prepared in cooperation with . . .
Translation of ... Presented at conference of ... To be published in ... Supersedes . . . Supplements
16. Abstract. Include a brief (200 words or less) factual summary of the most significant information contained in the report.
If the report contains a significant bibliography or literature survey, mention it here.
17. Key Words and Document Analysis, (a). Descriptors. Select from the Thesaurus of Engineering and Scientific Terms the
proper authorized terms that identify the major concept of the research and are sufficiently specific and precise to be used
as index entries for cataloging.
(b). Identifiers and Open-Ended Terms. Use identifiers for project names, code names, equipment designators, etc. Use
open-ended terms written in descriptor form for those subjects for which no descriptor exists.
(c). COSATI Field/Group. Field and Group assignments are to be taken from the 1965 COSATI Subject Category List.
Since the majority of documents are multidisciplinary in nature, the primary Field/Group assignment(s) will be the specific
discipline, area of human endeavor, or type of physical object. The application(s) will be cross-referenced with secondary
Field/Group assignments that will follow the primary posting(s).
18. Distribution Statement. Denote releasability to the public or limitation for reasons other than security for example ."Re-
lease unlimited". Cite any availability to the public, with address and price.
19 & 20. Security Classification. Do not submit classified reports to the National Technical
21. Number of Pages. Insert the total number of pages, including this one and unnumbered pages, but excluding distribution
list, if any.
22. Price. Insert the price set by the National Technical Information Service or the Government Printing Office, if known.
FORM NTIS-35 (REV. 3-72) USCOMM-DC I4952-P72
-------
LOWER GREEN BAY: AN EVALUATION
OF EXISTING AND HISTORICAL CONDITIONS
by
Earl Epstein
Marc Bryans
Donald Mezei
Dale Patterson
WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS
In partial fulfillment of
EPA Contract No. 68-01-1572
for the
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Region V
Great Lakes Initiative Contract Program
Report Number: EPA-905/9-74-006
EPA Project Officer: Howard Zar
August, 1974
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 5, Library (RL-12J)
-------
This report has been developed under auspices of the Great
Lakes Initiative Contract Program. The purpose of the
Program is to obtain additional data regarding the present
nature and trends in water quality, aquatic life, and waste
loadings in areas of the Great Lakes with the worst water
pollution problems. The data thus obtained is being used
to assist in the development of waste discharge permits
under provisions of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act Amendments of 1972 and in meeting commitments under
the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement between the U.S.
and Canada for accelerated effort to abate and control
water pollution in the Great Lakes.
This report has been reviewed by the Enforcement Division,
Region V, Environmental Protection Agency and approved
for publication. Approval does not signify that the
contents necessarily reflect the views of the Environmental
Protection Agency, nor does mention of trade names or
commercial products constitute endorcement or recommenda-
tion for use.
PROTECTION AGENCY
-------
Ci
ABSTRACT
A survey is made of current and historical information
relating to the quality of the waters of Green Bay, Lake
Michigan. The steady decline in water quality over the
last four decades is documented. A historical shift in
fish production from high quality native species to low
quality exotic species has occurred. Increasing areas
of the Bay exhibit low oxygen levels. In winter, under
the ice, low oxygen levels now extend into the Bay as far
as 40 kilometers. Nutrient loads have caused the areas
where eutrophic conditions exist to increase. These and
other factors have led to a dislocation of recreational
use.
Documentation of the expected reduction in pollutant
loads due to present control strategies is also provided.
Field studies performed in this program indicate slight
improvements in bay water quality over recent years. A
water quality model, suitable for winter conditions, is
also being developed which will allow predictions of
improvement in bay water quality due to present and future
pollution control strategies. The final report will be
available in January, 1975.
Vb
-------
SUMMARY
The change in nutrient loadings to Green Bay over the past thiry or forty
years is difficult to document because of the paucity of data. The resulting
algae growth has always been a part of the recorded history of Green Bay and
may be associated with the origin of its name. In the recent two or three
years the total algae growth may not have varied greatly but its extent and
local concentration appear to have varied.
The Lower Fox River remains the largest source of nutrients and wastes for
Green Bay. During the past twenty years pulp and paper production for mills
along this river have approximately doubled. The BOD^ and suspended solids
discharge from these mills are now approximately what they were twenty years
ago after an intermediate period of higher loadings. BOD^ loadings from
sewage treatment plants have risen in the past ten years along the Lower Fox
River.
Several investigations have indicated that there is a counterclockwise
circulation of the surface water in the southern end of Green Bay below the
Oconto River and above Long Tail Point. It has been suggested that this current
brings cleaner water down the western shore of the Bay while Fox River water
follows the east side northward to Sturgeon Bay. It has been postulated that
this movement creates two discreet water masses in lower Green Bay, one
characteristic of the Fox River water and the other characteristic of the
water of Green Bay. The division between these masses is Long Tail Point and
the submerged bar extended towards it from the east.
Wind and current patterns play the most important roles in the mixing and
transport of water within Green Bay. In the late fall and in the spring, winds
from the direction of Lake Michigan bring in large quantities of fresh lake water
which are trapped in the Bay. This influx may be less important than that from
-------
11
the input of lake water, driven by seiche motion, through the passages between
the Bay and Lake Michigan. Green Bay becomes thermally stratified weeks before
the adjacent deeper water of Lake Michigan. The effects of temperature and
wind appear to make Green Bay into an independent lake separate from Lake Michigan.
Investigations of the type of bottom sediment in Green Bay show that an area
at the extreme lower end of the Bay contains a high content of sewage sludge,
derived from a combination of the inflowing Fox River and the outfall of the
Green Bay sewage treatment plant. Brown silt was found to be common northeast
of Long Tail Point and along the eastern shore. Brown mud, more cohesive than
silt or the semifluid mud of the lower Bay, occured in the deeper water further
north in the Bay. Bathymetric data from a 1968 survey was compared with the
final work sheets of the U.S. Lake Survey for the Southern Bay (19^3) and the
Northern Bay (1950). In the region below Sturgeon Bay there were several areas
where the bottom depth decreased substantially (two to four feet) over the br^'.j.
period of seventeen years. The data were interpreted to indicate that Green Bay
was filling in at a rate of 10 to 100 times that associated with larger bodies
of water.
A historic change in the species composition of the commercial fish catch
has occurred in Green Bay as well as in the Great Lakes in general. The early
fishery (circa 1900) consisted of lake trout, white fish, lake herring, chubs,
walleye and sturgeon. The present maf>r commercial species are carp, smelt,
alewife and perch. This represents a shift from high quality native species to
low quality exotic species.
Several investigations of the bottom fauna of Green Bay have been carried
out in the past 35 years. A recent, extensive investigation concluded with
the view that if pollution of the Bay, via the Fox River, continues then a) the
dominent species will, to an increasing extent, be associated with gross
pollution, b) a larger abiotic area around the river mouth can be expected
-------
ill
since conditions there have become unsuitable for even the pollution tolerant
organisms, c) pollution intolerant midge larvae would be expected to decrease
in abundance at stations farther north in the lower Bay and d) the pollution
tolerant Oligochaete, the only group which increased in absolute and relative
abundance in the past twenty years, would become even more important in the
benthic community.
Dissloved oxygen concentrations in Green Bay appear to have decreased in
the past thirty years. During warm weather, critical dissolved oxygen conditions
ar-e common on the Fox River and for a distance of 3-5 km into the Bay. In the
colder months (from about mid-November into April), the dissolved oxygen in the
river is generally in excess of 5 mg/1- However, during the winter and particu-
larly after prolonged heavy ice cover, low dissolved oxygen concentrations
can extend into Green Bay for distances of nearly 50 km. During the period of
open water, reaeration causes a recovery of oxygen levels beyond the Long Tail
Point area.
The majority of people who have contact with Green Bay do so in a recreational
context. These people are often not aware of the many aspects of water quality
which are important in the Bay. Water quality and characteristics as perceived
by users rather than as monitored by scientists are important in decision making
designed to improve the condition of the Bay.
-------
iv
CONTENTS
Page
Introduction 1
Setting 2
Nutrients and Their Effect on Natural Water Systems 9
Nutrient and Waste Loadings and Their Effect on the
Fox River and Green Bay 22
Mixing, Dispersal and Transport of Vater in Green Bay 57
Nature and Constitution of Bottom Sediments 66
Fishery in Green Bay 72
Bottom Fauna 78
Dissolved Oxygen 93
Public Attitudes Toward Green Bay 115
Review of Historical Data Sources and General Comments 116
References 122
Appendices 125
-------
V
TABLES
Page
1. Drainage Areas - Major Tributaries of Green Bay 2
2. Photosynthetic Rates of Phytoplankton in Oligotrophic
and Eutrophic Lakes 10
3. Pulp and Paper Mill Loadings to Lower Fox River, 1971 26
4. Municipal Sewage Treatment Plant Nutrient Loadings to
the Lower Fox River, 1971 27
5. Estimated Phosphorus Input to Green Bay Through its
Tributaries 29
6. Estimated Phosphorus Sources for the Fox-Wolf River 33
7. Average Loadings on the Fox River from Lake Winnebago 34
8. Rates of Phosphorus Release for Green Bay Sediments 37
9. Average Loadings to Green Bay from the Fox River 47
10. Nitrogen Concentrations from Green Bay Collection (1966) 52
11. Average Discharge Rates of Water, Suspended Solids, and
Chlorides for Four Rivers Entering the Southern Lobe
of Green Bay 59
12. Light Transparency in Green Bay (Secchi Disc Depths)
Summer, 1966 64
13. Average Conductivity, Percentage of River Water and
Flushing Times for Two Zones in Lower Green Bay 64
14. Commercial Fish Production of Green Bay in Relation to
Lake Michigan 74
15. Comparison of 1938-39 Bottom Fauna Data with Data
Collected on May 26 and 27, 1952 80
16. Benthic Fauna Populations in Green Bay, 1962-1963 82
17. Percentage of Oligochaete in the Bottom Fauna of
Green Bay, 1952 and 1959 87
18. Abundance of Benthic Invertebrates, May 1952 and
May 1969 93
-------
vi
Page
19. D.O. Concentration, Inner Bay Area, February 1966 99
20. D.O. Concentration, Inner Green Bay, March 1966 103
21. D.O. Concentration, Lower Green Bay, February 1967 106
22. D.O. Concentration, Middle Green Bay, February 1967 109
23. D.O. Concentration, Middle Green Bay, March 1967 111
24. D.O. Concentration, 1970 114
-------
vii
FIGURES
Page
1. Green Bay Area, Michigan and Wisconsin 3
2. Green Bay Sampling Stations, 1971 19
3. Pulp and Paper Mill Production and Waste Loadings
to Lower Fox River (1950-1977) 24
4. Sewage Treatment Plant Loadings to Lower Fox River -
Treated Effluent Data (1950-1977) 25
5. Total Phosphate Concentrations, September 1973 30
6. Soluble Phosphate Concentrations, September 1973 31
7. Phosphorus Sampling Stations, 1972 38
8. Total Phosphate Isopleths, July 1971 41
9. Orthophosphate Isopleths, July 1971 41
10. Surface Concentrations of Total Phosphorus 41
11. Sampling Stations on the Fox River Between Lake
Winnebago and Green Bay 43
12. Seasonal Averages of Orthophosphate and Total Phosphate
Concentrations in the Fox River 43
13. Seasonal Averages of Dissolved Oxygen and Ammonia-
Nitrogen Concentrations in the Fox River, July 1970
to October 1971 48
14. Changes in Ammonia-Nitrogen Concentrations in Relation
to Dissolved Oxygen Deficits in the Fox River, July
1970 to October 1971 48
15. Changes in Nitrate-N and Albuminoid Ammonia at the
Milwaukee Intake in Lake Michigan 53
16. Chlorophyll a_ Concentrations, September 1973 54
17. Ammonia Nitrogen Concentrations, September 1973 55
18. Organic Nitrogen Concentrations, September 1973 56
19. Sampling Areas, Summer 1966 63
-------
viii
Page
20. Bottom Sediments, Green Bay 1968 67
21. Differences, 1968-1950 or 1943 Bathemetry 68
22. Green Bay Bottom Types, 1939 70
23. Benthic Fauna Populations Near the Oconto and
Fox Rivers, 1962-1963 83
24. Benthic Fauna Populations Near the Menominee and
Peshtigo Rivers, 1962-1963 84
25. Bottom Fauna Populations, 1952 and 1969 89
26. D.O. Sampling Stations, February 1966 101
27. D.O. Sampling Stations, March 1966 104
28. D.O. Sampling Stations, February 1967 107
29. D.O. Sampling Stations, February 1967 110
30. D.O. Sampling Stations, March 1967 112
-------
ix
APPENDICES
I. Lower Fox, Oconto, Peshtigo and Menominee Rivers -
Pulp and Paper Mill Production and River Loadings,
1950-1977 126
II. Lower Fox, Oconto, Peshtigo and Menominee Rivers -
Present and Proposed Waste Treatment Facilities,
Pulp and Paper Mills 149
III. Lower Fox, Oconto, Peshtigo and Menominee Rivers -
Municipal Sewage Treatment Plant River Loadings,
1948-1978 152
IV. Lower Fox, Oconto, Peshtigo and Menominee Rivers -
Present and Proposed Waste Treatment Facilities,
Municipal Sewage Treatment Plants 167
V. Lower Fox, Oconto, Peshtigo and Menorainee Rivers -
Comprehensive Point Source and Stream Surveys,
1966-1968 170
VI. Lower Fox, Oconto, Peshtigo and Menominee Rivers -
Surface Water Quality Data, 1950-1973 205
VII. Bottom Fauna, 1939 and 1952 238
VIII. Bottom Fauna Data, 1955/1956 241
IX. Chemical Data, Green Bay, 1939 247
X. Chemical Data, Green Bay, 1955/56 272
XI. Lower Fox, Oconto, Peshtigo and Menominee Rivers -
BOD Loadings to Lower Green Bay, 1956-1973 277
-------
_1 _
INTRODUCTION
This report consists of a survey of current and historical information
about the quality of the waters of Green Bay, Lake Michigan. Some aspects of
water quality are easier to define than others. For example, dissolved oxygen
concentrations, biochemical oxygen demand, bottom fauna levels and nutrient
additions to natural waters with the resultant growth of nuisance organisms
are obvious subjects for the definition of the quality of water in Green Bay.
These matters will be discussed in detail because they are most susceptible to
quantitative measure. In addition, there are aspects of water quality which
are less easily defined in a quantitative way. Among these are the mixing,
transport, and dispersal of water in Green Bay, the changes in the commercial
fishing industry, the constitution of the bottom sediments and public attitudes
with respect to Green Bay. These subjects are important in any discussion of
the long-term trends in Green Bay. The current and historical information
about these subjects will also be reviewed. An attempt will be made to identify
the relation between these factors and water quality.
-------
SETTING
Green Bay is a shallow estuary-like bay in the northwest corner of Lake
Michigan. It is approximately 190 km long, with an average width of 37 km and
has a mean depth of about 20 meters (U.S. Federal Water Pollution Control
Administration, 1966). Only in a few places near the middle part of the Bay do
depths exceed 60 meters; for the Bay as a whole, most depths are less than about
hO meters, and the western inshore region is less than about 18 meters deep.
The principal axis of the Bay is oriented in a NNE-SSW direction. The Green Bay
watershed contains a total drainage area of approximately Ho,000 km , or about
one-third of the total Lake Michigan basin. Approximately two-thirds of the
watershed lies within Wisconsin, the remainder in Michigan (U.S. Federal Water
Pollution Control Administration, 1966). The geographical setting of Green Bay
is shown in Figure 1 along with the basins of the major tributary rivers.
Large concentrations of people and industry are characteristic of the
Green Bay watershed, especially along the major tributary, the Lower Fox River.
The most significant source of degraded water is the paper and pulp industry
which discharges wastes with a population equivalent of 1,300,000 (Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources, 1973). The second major source of degraded
water in the watershed is effluent from numerous municipal waste treatment plants.
Combined storm and sanitary sewers in the larger communities contribute
significantly to the waste problem.
Major rivers of Wisconsin which discharge into Green Bay are the Fox, Oconto,
Peshtigo and the Menominee. The lower segment of the Menominee River marks the
boundary between Michigan and Wisconsin and about 65 percent of its total drainage
basin is located in Michigan. North of the Menominee River, the only significant
discharges into the Bay are from the Cedar River and Little Bay de Noc which is
the entryway for both the Whitefish and Escanaba Rivers. There are no
-------
Figure la.
N
SO
IOO
I
SCALE IN MILES
GREAT LAKES 8 ILLINOIS
RIVER BASINS PROJECT
GREEN BAY AREA
MICHIGAN AND WISCONSIN
US CEPT. OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, S WELFARE
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ADMIN.
REGION CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
-------
r/
-/&
ฃ> ^~\
^C. '~S
\
^
-------
ฐr
-------
-------
\
-------
significant streams draining into Green Bay east of the Fox River. Smaller
streams tributary to the Bay on the west and north of the Fox include Duck
Creek, Suamico River and Pensaukee River. All carry silt and some carry industrial
debris.
The drainage areas of the major tributaries to Green Bay are shown in
Table 1.
TABLE 1. DRAINAGE AREASMAJOR TRIBUTARIES OF GREEN BAY.*
Stream
Fox
Menominee
Peshtigo
Oconto
Escanaba
Whitefish
Cedar
Length
322 km
193
233
209
185
-
Drainage
Area
16,687 km2
10,7^8
2,991
2.U16
2,382
816
~
Mean
Discharge
117 m3/sec
88
2k
16
25
-
2
*U.S. Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, 1966.
Problems of water quality are most severe at the southern tip of Green
Bay adjacent to the mouth of the Fox River. Other regions of degraded water
quality are at the mouths of the Oconto, Peshtigo, Menominee and Escanaba Rivers,
-------
NUTRIENTS AUD THEIR EFFECT ON NATURAL WATER SYSTEMS
Organic and inorganic complexes of carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus
function as nutrients and/or buffers in natural waters. Complex relationships
exist between algal blooms and concentrations of these nutrients. Micro-
nutrients such as iron, cobalt, zinc, molybdenum, silica and others, in addition
to sodium, potassium and calcium, also play a role in the growth of algae in
natural waters. Buffering capacity is important in controlling the chemical
availability of carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus and trace elements. In enriched
waters, the buffering capacity could be increased directly by the addition of
charged compounds and indirectly by the amino acids, organic acids and C02
resulting from increased biological activity. Since the enzymatic reactions
which regulate the growth of algae are often pH dependent, biological activity
would be favored in situations where precipitous changes in pH are prevented.
The following macroscopic factors must be considered in a complete
discussion of nutrients in natural waters:
1. the analytical detection of increased amounts of nutrients,
2. measureable and often explosive increases in algal populations,
3. a decreased, transparency in natural waters which affects photosynthesis,
h. in thermally stratified deep lakes, gruadually decreasing dissolved
oxygen in the bottom waters,
5. decreased organism diversity, sometimes proceeded briefly by
increasing diversity,
6. appearance of new,- undesirable species and disappearance of old ones,
7. increasing silting and accelerating accumulation of bottom sediments.
A discussion of the algal growth in Green Bay must deal with many, if not all,
of these factors. Nutrient availability is but a single, though exceedingly
important, factor. The historical performance of numerous lakes verify that the
extent of production generally is related to nutrient concentration (Thomas, 19&9;
-------
-10-
Rodhe, 1969). Simply, nutrient-rich lakes are expected to produce large
algal crops. The following table (Table 2) defines the concept of enriched waters
in terms of the photosynthetic rates of free-floating algae (Phytoplankton)
that occur in response to increasing nutrient concentrations.
TABLE 2. PHOTOSYNTHETIC RATES OF PHYTOPLANKTON IN
OLIGOTROPHIC AND EUTROPHIC LAKES, mgC/m2 day
Eutrophic
Qligotrophic Natural
Polluted
Mean rates in growing season
Annual rates
30 - 100 300 - 1,000 1,500 - 3,000
7-25 75 - 250 350 - TOO
(Bartsch, 1972)
Increased amounts of nitrogen and phosphorus have been suggested as the
primary cause of algal blooms because these nutrients are generally found to be
limiting in concentration in natural waters. Of these two, phosphorus is most
often found to be the element whose concentration is the limiting factor in
algal blooms. Although the importance of carbon in regulating algal growth has
long been known, it received little attention until recently (Kerr et al, 1970;
Kuentzel, 1969; Lange, 1967). Increased supplies of carbon (as well as nitrogen
and phosphorus) are needed to support continued algal growth. The availability
of large concentrations of C02 generally preclude conditions in which carbon
becomes the limiting nutrient in aquatic systems. Only under unusual conditions
will carbon be a limiting nutrient. The availability of these growth nutrients
depends upon physical parameters such as pH, temperature and light, as well as
rates of supply and demand. Specific rates for chemical reactions in the
environment are among the least known of these parameters.
Bartsch (1972) has discussed the problem of eutrophication control. The
primary question becomes which nutrient or nutrients should be eliminated, to
what degree and by what method. The recent "Symposium on Nutrients and
-------
-11-
EutrophicationThe Limiting Nutrient Controversy" (American Society of Limnology
and Oceanography, 1972) dealt with this problem. It was generally agreed by the
participants that the only realistic option for controlling or reversing
cultural eutrophication in lakes is to remove phosphorus from the waters which
supply these lakes. The theory that carbon should be regarded as the nutrient
which is growth limiting under some conditions and should be the focus of control
attempts (Lange, 196?; Keuntzel, 1969; Kerr, 1970) was rejected as generally
nonapplicable. Vallentyne (1970) has pointed out that carbon is too ubiquitous to
be controlled. Efforts by Morton et al (1971) to control algae growth by C02
control were not successful in waters open to the atmosphere. Nitrogen is only
partly controllable because of the many sources (for example, blue-green algae
can fix N2 directly from the air when fixed nitrogen is the limiting nutrient).
It was concluded that phosphorus can be controlled by an adjustment of human
affairs. The most practical method appears to be removal of phosphorus in
municipal waste treatment plants. Current practical methods for this removal
also have the added significant advantage of an accompanying reduction in BOD
levels.
Carbon
Plants require large amounts of carbon and are incapable of growing on their
cellular carbon compounds. Conversely, these plants require small amounts of
nitrogen and phosphorus and possess the capability for growth on cellular
nitrogen and phosphorus compounds.
In aquatic ecosystems, plants require carbon in the form of C02 and HC03
for growth (Allen, 1952; Hoare and Moore, 1965; Pearce and Carr, 1967). Oxidation
of organic material and carbon dioxide in the air provide the extensive concen-
trations of C02 and HC03~. The primary processes involving carbon which occur
in aquatic ecosystems may be summarized as follows:
-------
-12-
RESPIRATION: Organic Compounds + 02
PHOTOSYNTHESIS: C02 + H2 -^----i--^ Organic Compounds + 02
Addition of organic carbon should stimulate the growth of the bacteria
which are necessary for these conversions. The bacterial organisms utilize
several forms of organic carbon for growth (unlike the algae which utilize
C02 or HCOo~) and are more efficient than the algae in removing the phosphorus
from water (Rigler, 1956). The photosynthetic process generates carbohydrate
complexes which are used for growth by algae cells and other aquatic life.
Phosphorus is used for the storage of energy in phosphate bonds when adenosine
triphosphate (ATP) and other phosphorus-containing residues are formed. The
oxidation of carbonaceous material produces C02 which tends to lower the pH
of the aquatic system according to the following:
C02 + H20 ^=^ H+ + HC03~^*H+ + C032~
Under anaerobic conditions which exist at various times in Green Bay and
in the Fox River, the carbon in organic material is converted into methane.
Nitrogen
It has been suggested that NHj^ may be the form of nitrogen which is
absorbed at the molecular level by cells (see Brezonik et al, 1973, for a
summary of this point). This is the form of ammonia which is present in
highest concentration in acidic or well-buffered, slightly basic systems
because of the equilibrium:
NH^"1" ^ NH3 + H+ pKa =9-3
Buffering capacity is important in the control of the chemical availability
of carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus and trace elements. The addition of charged ions,
amino acids, other organic acids, and other species as the result of increased
biological activity contributes to a well-buffered system. Thus, the oxidation
of organic matter tends to stabilize the pH of natural waters, a stabilization
which further enhances the conditions for algal growth.
-------
-13-
Rainfall contributes nitrogen in the form of N0o~ to natural waters. The
decomposition of organic matter under aerobic or anaerobic conditions produces
ammonia (NH3). The direct fixation of N2 by blue-green algae contributes to the
nitrogen budget of natural waters.
Under aerobic conditions, oxidation of ammonia occurs according to
the following reactions:
bacteria 2H
302
2HN02 + 02 Bacteria ^ 2H+
NH3 nitrification > ^.
This nitrification process provides the primary mechanism whereby the
ammonia generated by organic decomposition is removed from aquatic systems.
Failure to maintain oxygen levels leads to a buildup of ammonia concentrations
which eventually become lethal to aquatic organisms. The buildup of ammonia
concentrations also impedes the recovery from low oxygen levels.
The reduction and removal of W0o~ can occur in a denitrification process.
The N0o~ is reduced to N2. The consensus now is that denitrification occurs
at significant rates when oxygen is absent from the system or at least sufficiently
low enough to allow anoxic enzymes to develop (Brezonik et al, 1973). Reduction
of N0o~ to Np is accompanied by the oxidation of organic matter to C02. The net
process is exothermic. Since the cells have no means for storing the energy
released in this process, the use of NO^" rather than NH3 (or NH^"1") for the
assimilation of nitrogen by plants is wasteful of energy.
The natural processes under aerobic conditions (oxidation of organic material)
favor the assimilation of nitrogen in the form of NH^"*". These processes tend
to maintain well-buffered systems or to slightly reduce pH. Excess concentrations
of ammonia are removed via nitrification to NC>3~. Unfortunately, in lower Green
Bay, anoxic conditions may contribute to the buildup of concentrations of ammonia
which are lethal to fish.
-------
-lU-
Phosphorus
Since phosphorus is generally the growth limiting nutrient in many natural
water systems, its role is examined in greater detail. Phosphorus exists in
natural waters in various forms. Orthophosphate (PO^^-) and phosphite (P02~)
appear in agricultural runoff. There are several condensed phosphates, including
pyrophosphate (^2^7 ' > nietaphosphate (PO^") and polyphosphate (P3C>io '*
Polyphosphate, as the sodium salt, is a major component of many modern detergents.
The term organically "bound phosphate is reserved for all organophosphorus
compounds.
The role of phosphorus in metabolism of algae is related to the storage of
energy. In the photosynthesis process, light converts inorganic phosphate into
residues such as adenosine triphosphate (ATP) in organic molecules. The oxidation
of organic material releases considerable amounts of energy. For example, the
process glucose + Og > C02 + HgO has a ฃฑ H = 268 -. This energy is stored
in cellular molecules as phosphate bonds in subgroups such as ATP. This stored
energy may be used as a driving force in many other metabolic reactions.
Phosphorus is generally absorbed by algae as P0j^~. However, at least
some algae have the necessary enzymes to convert more complex phosphate compounds
to orthophosphate to facilitate absorption. Much of the phosphorus incorporated
into algal cells occurs as polyphosphate. The algae are capable of "luxury
uptake" of phosphorus (uptake greater than that required for growth).
It is not known if "luxury uptake" is a universal capability of algae or
exists only in a limited number of species. Laboratory observations have shown
that some algae are able to continue through several reproductive generations
without added phosphorus input (Bartsch, 1972). This has no lasting impact
on eutrophication because growth depends upon useable or available phosphorus
at the appropriate time in the cells in the water. Live algae will not share
their adequate or surplus nutrients with nutrient-limited algae. Once a
-------
-15-
nutrient is tied up with living algae, that nutrient is not available for other
plants until the original dies (Fitzgerald, 1971). Phosphorus comes off rapidly
when algae die. Nitrogen does not come out and the nitrogen is not readily
available to other algae without a long period of degradation. The extent to
which growth due to phosphorus storage occurs under natural conditions is not
well established, but laboratory studies indicated population increases of more
than a month with some algae (Levin, 1963). "Luxury uptake" leads eventually
to some settling out of phosphorus compounds when algae die. Lund (1950) has
suggested that Asterionella, which contains luxury amounts of phosphorus, sinks
to the deeper waters where the growth of the organism is regulated by decreased
light. During the spring turnover, these cells serve as the inoculum for that
season)s population. Thus, cells contain luxury amounts of phosphorus at the
beginning of the growing season.
Phosphate may be lost at high pH by precipitation with counterions such
2+ 0+
as Ca or Fe^ . These precipitated phosphorus compounds are available for
algal growth. The release of phosphorus from sediments may be considerable
and appears to be more rapid under anaerobic rather than aerobic conditions
(Fitzgerald, 1971)- This point will be discussed in greater detail in the
following section which is concerned with the specifics of phosphorus loadings
to Green Bay. The rate of equilibration between soluble and insoluble forms
of phosphorus compounds is generally faster than the algae growth rate. Thus
the solubility of phosphorus compounds does not appear to be a limiting factor
for the growth of algae. As an example of this, laboratory studies have
shown that teeth can support algae growth (Fitzgerald, 1971).
Both aquatic plants (algae) and bacteria absorb phosphorus. Rigler (1956)
has estimated that about 75 percent of absorbed phosphorus is found in bacteria
rather than algae.
-------
-16-
Mixed algae populations contain carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus in a
weight ratio approximating 1*1:7.2:1 (Bartsch, 1972). The essential nutrient
present in least supply relative to need will limit growth and thus determine
the size of the algal crop. If the environment offers 82 weight units of
carbon, ik.k of nitrogen, but only one of phosphorus, growth will be limited
by a deficiency of phosphorus. Adding phosphorus in abundance at this point
via sewage or otherwise will destroy its growth regulating function. This is
now what is happening at many localities in this country.
A closely related concern is the gradual decrease in the nitrogen/phosphorus
ratio as natural waters receive sewage and/or other high phosphorus-bearing
pollutants. The added phosphorus reaches an excess and is no longer growth-
limiting. On the basis of studies on hO European lakes, Thomas (1969) concluded
that "It is certain that oligotrophic (nutrient-poor) lakes on which man'has
had little or no influence all have phosphate as the limiting factor."
Vallentyne (1970) has reported that addition of phosphate can increase algae
that form the basis of fish food supplies. Increased fish yields of from 50
to 500 percent may follow. The following ratios have been suggested as measures
of eutrophication (Bartsch, 1972).
N/P
Oligotrophic 15 or more Phosphorus limited
Eutrophic Around 5
Polluted 2-3 No longer P-limited
Bartsch (1972) has reviewed sources of phosphorus throughout the nation.
Among the results are the following:
(a) under optimal operating conditions, the effluent from an activated
sludge plant has a typical N/P ratio of 2 to 3- The ratio of N/P for the
Green Bay municipal sewage treatment plant effluent was less than 1 for the
-------
-17-
period October, 1970 - October, 1971. From January, 1971 to January, 1972,
the Fox River provided a N/P ratio of nutrients to Green Bay of approximately
18. The total input of phosphorus in all forms was approximately 6,000 kg during
this period (Sager and Wiersma, 1972);
(b) the phosphorus content of domestic sewage is about 3 to h times the level
found before the advent of synthetic detergents at about 19^5 (Stumm and Morgan,
1962). Sawyer (1952) estimated the 1950 detergent industry contribution at about 1.6
Ib. P/person/year. A 1955 estimate was 1.9 lb. P/person/year (Engelbrecht and
Morgan, 1959)- A task force estimate for 1958 gives 2.1 pounds (anon., 1967).
Phosphorus consumption in detergent formulations is second only to consumption
in fertilizers;
(c) while a national average is unavailable, a recent source (Prince and
Bruce, 1971) estimates that approximately 50 percent of the municipal phosrvdte
discharge in Canada to Lakes Erie and Ontario is from detergents. In the U.S.,
the corresponding figure is 70 percent. Based on these values, it is estimated
that detergent phosphorus accounts for kO percent of the total input into the
two lakes.
Algae Growth in Green Bay
Chlorophyll a_ has been used as measure of the extent of algae growth in
Green Bay in several recent surveys. Generally, low concentrations of
orthophosphate and nitrate are found in the summer and fall, compared to
other seasons of the year. This is the period of the year when high densities
of phytoplankton are found. Rousar and Beeton (1973) measured chlorophyll a_
concentrations on July 12, 1971 at 21 stations in lower Green Bay. They
found values which ranged from 7-0 to l^.U ug/1.
-------
-18-
For the period June-August, 1971, Sager (personal communication to
Rousar and Beeton) measured chlorophyll a_ concentrations which ranged from
1.2 to 57-^ ug/1 (average 21.9 ug/l). Seven stations were sampled from near
the mouth of the Fox River and extending to about 65 km north of the river.
The highest values were found near the mouth of the Fox River with steep
concentration gradients in the lower Bay. Monthly samples at the confluence
of the Fox River with Green Bay from June, 1970 to October, 1971 yielded a
range of 0.2 to 80 ug chlorophyll st/liter (average 2k). Rousar and Beeton
(1973) speculate that the noticeable lower results obtained by Sager may be
related to differing sample handling techniques.
Schraufnagel et al (1968) found that algae blooms were generally confined
to the inner Bay area in the summer of 1966. Blooms were observed only
occasionally between the 10-mile light (l6 km) and the ^8 km station. Beyond
6k km planktonic algae blooms were not noted. The nutrient data is moderately
consistent with planktonic algae observations.
Holland (1969) measured chlorophyll & concentration at three stations
situated 32 to U8 km from the south end of the Bay from April to November,
1965, and obtained an average of 10.U ug/1. From the same region, Rousar
and Beeton (1973) found an average of 18.6 ug/1 in July, 1971-
Sager (1971) studied the nutritional ecology and community structure of
the phytoplankton of Green Bay in the summer of 1970 at nine stations which
extended 21.5 km into the Bay (see Figure 2). He found the highest concen-
trations of algae (as measured by both chlorophyll a_ and as dry weight of
plankton) in the region 2.5 to 8 km from the mouth of the Fox River. There
was a low uptake in phosphorus by phytoplankton in the presence of high
soluble phosphate (POjj ~) concentrations. A relationship was suggested to
exist between a bloom of the nitrogen-fixing blue-green algae Aphanizomenon
-------
(Y) Fox River
ฎ Long Tail Point
Point Sซble
4) Harbor Entrance
Light
Little Tail Point
Scale: 1/4"*1 statute mils
-------
-20-
flos-aquae on August 12 and a surge of phosphate-rich water from the Fox River
on July 22. The position where the "bloom occurred and the timing of this
bloom are consistent with an estimated flushing time of 29 days for this
region (Modlin and Beeton, 1970). In general, an inverse relationship was
found to exist between luxury uptake of phosphorus and high phosphorus
concentration in the water. Measurements suggested the existence of two water
masses in the lower bay, one characterized by Fox River parameters and the
other representing the bay water.
Vanderhoef et al (1972, 1973) have used acetylene reduction as a measure
nitrogen-fixation in relation to nutrient levels in Green Bay. They have
measured the concentrations of nutrients as well as algae growth at several
stations in lower Green Bay in 1971 and 1972. An individual species approach
was used rather than a community approach in an attempt to assess the response
of the Bay waters to nutrient loadings. Acetylene reduction activity closely
correlated with population increases of blue-green algae, primarily species
of Aphanizomenon and Anabaena, and these population increases occurred at
sites where the soluble phosphate concentration was high. Their conclusions
were many and specific:
(a) High soluble phosphate concentrations preceded all major increases
in heterocystis nitrogen-fixing blue-green algae. If high concentrations of
soluble phosphate are present and if the concentration of fixed nitrogen is the
limiting factor in the growth of species which do not fix nitrogen, then the
competitiveness of nitrogen-fixing blue-green algae may be increased. Large
increases in fixed nitrogen lagged the large phosphate increases. During blooms
of nitrogen-fixing algae, soluble phosphate concentration decreased considerably
(concentrations of 30-50 ug P/l fell to 10 ug P/l or less). Acetylene
reduction was never high where soluble phosphate concentration was less than
12 ug P/l.
-------
-21-
(b) Periodic increases in soluble phosphate concentration promotes the
growth of nitrogen-fixing algae. Seasonal mixing mobilizes nutrients. Phosphate
concentration is probably the limiting factor in the growth of nitrogen-fixing
species of algae in Green Bay.
(c) Fluctuations in the concentrations of nitrate, nitrite and ammonium
ion do not correlate with fluctuations in nitrogen-fixing activity nor with the
total amount of algae. Temperature variations do not correlate with nitrogen-
fixing activity.
(d) Iron is present in the waters of Green Bay and plays a role in the
nutrient balance. Phosphate removal methods take out both iron and phosphate.
Phosphate removal by wastewater treatment is more likely to control algal bloom
formation than is phosphate removal from detergents alone.
(e) The contribution of fixed nitrogen by nitrogen fixation in the inn^
725 km^ of the Bay was estimated to be close to ho percent of the total inorganic
nitrogen (NH^4" + NO^") contributed by the Fox River during the period between
June Ik and August 17, 1972.
These studies by Vanderhoef et al (1972, 1973) suggest that an investigation
of species response to nutrient loadings may be a useful approach to the question
of algae growth in Green Bay.
-------
-22-
NUTRIENT MD WASTE LOADINGS AND THEIR EFFECT
OH THE FOX RIVER AND GREEN BAY
Municipal and Industrial Waste Loadings to the Fox River
The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources and its predecessor agencies,
in cooperation with the pulp and paper industry, have collected information
essential for the determination of the effect of liquid wastes on the Fox,
Oconto, Peshtigo and Menominee Rivers and Green Bay. Some of this information
for industrial and municipal waste dischargers is summarized in Appendices I-V.
Appendix I contains past pulp and paper mill production and past and projected
waste loadings for the years 1950-1977- For these mills, the present and
proposed waste treatment facilities are presented in Appendix II.
The past and projected river loadings by municipal sewage treatment plants
(19118-1978) along the Lower Fox, Oconto, Peshtigo and Menominee Rivers are presented
in Appendix III. These data are in the form of discharge, BOD, suspended solids
and nitrogen loadings to these rivers. Present and proposed waste treatment
facilities for the treatment plants along these rivers are listed in Appendix IV.
For the years 1966-1968, a comprehensive point source and stream survey
was carried out on the Lower Fox, Oconto, Peshtigo and Menominee Rivers. This
information is summarized in Appendix V. Reference to this data shows that
for 1967, the total BODc loading to th
-------
-23-
Figure 3 summarizes past pulp and paper mill production and past and
projected discharge data (BOD and suspended solids) for the years 1950-1977.
Projected data comes from the interim effluent guidelines associated with the
Wisconsin Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (WPDES). It should "be noted
that during the late 1950's, the committee on water pollution revised its
sample handling and analysis procedures with the result that five-day
biochemical oxygen demand (BOD,-) test results reported prior to about 1958 are
lower, by as much as 20 percent, than their actual values. All BOD,- values
reported in the appendices are nonadjusted figures. Sewage treatment plant
loadings to the Lower Fox River (BOD and discharge rate) are summarized in
Figure h for 1956, 1966, 1973 and 1977 (projected).
Nutrient loadings to the Lower Fox River by pulp and paper mills and by
municipal treatment plants for 1971 are presented in Tables 3 and k. Table k
includes data from nine of the eleven municipal treatment plants investigated
by Sager and Wiersma (1972), those nine for which additional historical data
exists.
Phosphorus Loadings
Available nitrogen and available phosphorus are conceded to be the most
important and necessary nutritional components for excessive aquatic growths
and eutrophic conditions. Participants in a symposium on nutrients and
eutrophication (American Society of Limnology and Oceanography, 1972) concluded
that phosphorus most often is the limiting nutrient in algal growth.
O
Phosphorus in the form PO^ (orthophosphate) appears to be the limiting
nutrient for algal emergence in Green Bay. Vanderhoef et al (1972) found that
large inputs of soluble phosphate into the Bay preceded active Ng-fixation
accompanying blue-green algal blooms. The variations of ph^jjhorus concentrations
were closely correlated with fluctuations in the growth of nitrogen-fixing algae.
-------
-2k-
FIGURE 3.
Fox <2./ve
-------
ro
The Projected Figure for 1&77 is Based
on Proposed EPA Guidelines and is Subject to Revision
-------
-26-
TABLE 3.
PULP l> PAPER MILL NUTRIENT LOADINGS
TO THE LOWER FOX RIVER, 1971ป
COMPANY
American Can Co.
(Green Bay)
Appleton Papers, Inc.
Bergstron Paper Co.
Charmin Paper Co.
Consolidated Papers, Inc.
Ft. Hovard Paper Co.
Gilbert Paper Co.ซ*
Green Bay Packaging
Kimberly-Clark
(Badger Globe)**
Kimberly-Clark
(Kimberly)
Kimberly-Clark
(Keenah)
Kimberly-Clark
(Lakeviev)
Sicolet Paper Co.
Riverside Paper Corp.
John Strange Div.
(Kenasha Corp. )
Thilnany Pulp & Paper
(Haranercill Facer Co.)
George A. Whiting
Paper Co.
TOTAL
KJEL.-H ปH3-N
Lb/Cay Kg/Day Lb/Day Kg/Day
126
450
7.736
1,688
32
9
350
14
3,084
56
563
u
12,786
19
57
218
3,508
766
214
15
4
159
6
47
492
26
11
255
2
5,799
14
36
7,580
2
115
11
2
253
17
22
<1.0
8,052
6
16
3,438
1
52
5
1
- 115
8
10
<1.0
3,652
BO^i-H
Lb/Day Kg/Day
12
18
16
16
18
7
58
9
30
359
35
589
5
8
<5
8
8
8
3
26
4
14
163
16
268
TOTAL-P
Lb/Day Kg/Day
246
23
176
43
119
7
1
321
2
8
2
5
6
104
i,
1,078
112
10
BO
<5
19
54
3
1
3
1
2
3
47
2
488
* All data taken from the W.P.D.E.S. permit application files.
** 1972 data
-------
-27-
TABLE 4.
MUNICIPAL SEWAGE TREATMENT PLAHT NUTRIENT LOADINGS
TO THE LOWER FOX RIVER, 1971s
CITY OR VILLAGE
Appleton
De Pere
Green Bay Metro.
KauXauna
Kimberly
Little Chute
Menasha Tovn
S.D. #1* - East Plant
Neenah - Menasha
Sewerage Coirm.
Wrightstovn
TOTAL
KJEL.-N
Lb/Day Kg /Day
2,210
1,070
3,700
561
171*
85
217
2,160
25
10,202
1,002
U85
1,678
251*
79
38
98
930
11
i*,625
HHyH
Lt/Day Kg/Day
703
1*^6
2,730
59
111.
vr
108
196
15
i*,!*oe
319
198
1,238
27. _
52
21
1*9
89
7
2,000
N02+NOr>-H TOTAL-P
Lt/Day Kg/Day Lb/Cay Kg/Day
96
21
150
128
13
13
26
1U6
lป
597
1*1.
10
68
58
6
6
12
. 66
2
272
378
11*1*
1,083
81
kh
35
106
2lU
9
2.091*
171
6S
lป9l
^7
20
16
U8
97
It
gUQ
_POj
Lb/Day
28U
1?8
770
S6
32
?U
36
80
7
1.U17
cZ
KK/:ay
129
sft
31*9
?s
11*
n
16
36
^
ftl
Sager, P. E. and J. H. Wiersma, 1972, Nutrient Discharges to Green Bay, Lake Michigan From the Lover Fox River,
Proc. 15th Conf. Great Lakes Res.: 132-11*8. Internat. Assoc. Great Lakes Res.
Phosphorus data was originally reported on a ?OA basis but has been converted to a P basis in this table.
-------
-28-
Th e findings of Vanderhoef et al (1972, 1973) suggest that phosphorus is the
limiting nutrient. Mean soluble phosphate concentrations in 1971 ranged from
3 to 55 ug/1, compared to a range of 35 to 8l ug/1 in 1972 for comparable
sites from the mouth of the Fox River to Sturgeon Bay. The higher concentrations
in 1972 were apparently caused by higher spring runoff of phosphate into Lake
Winnebago due to heavy rains before complete ground thaw. Algal growth and
CgHg-reducing activity were correlated with the higher phosphorus concentrations
in 1972. Furthermore, the major bloom in 1972, Aphanizomenon, extended an average
of 8 km farther north into the Bay than in the 1971 bloom of Anabaena. The 1971
study concluded that phosphorus was the dominant factor limiting algae growth
under the conditions in Green Bay, while the 1972 study concluded that phosphorus
or some nutrient input paralleling that of phosphorus was the limiting nutrient
for N2~fixing algae in the lower Bay region.
The Fox River is the major source of phosphorus enrichment of Green Bay.
Table 5 (Sridharan and Lee, 1972) shows the input of phosphorus from the five
major tributaries. The Fox River is the principal source, contributing approximately
8l percent of the estimated total U,73^,75^ Ibs. P/year (2,1^9,578 kg P/year).
Quarterly sampling and analysis for phosphorus conducted over an eight-year
period at the mouth of the Fox River by the Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources showed that the range of total soluble phosphate concentration was
O.lk to O.UO mg P/l with an average of 0.23 mg P/l (Sridharan and Lee, 1972). A
study by Allen (1966), involving monthly samplings of lower Green Bay near Little
Sturgeon Bay, showed low phosphorus concentrations averaging 0.007 mg P/l for
soluble phosphate and 0.033 mg P/l for total phosphate for an eight-month period.
Figures 5 and 6 (Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, 1973) show that the
concentrations of total phosphate and orthophosphate decrease as the distance
-------
-29-
TABLE 5.
Estimated Phosphorus Input Into Green Bay Through Its Tributaries
River
Foxa
Oconto
Peshtigob
Menominee
Escanaba
Flow
cfs
Concentration
mg P/l
Average Daily Loading of Total
Phosphorus 10,U8U Lbs./Day
569
825
3,096
900
0.15
0.09
0.08
0.06
Lbs. P/Yr.
3,826,660
168,261*
1U6.12U
1*87,1*31*
106.272
Total - Lbs. P/Yr.
1 cfs ป 0.02832 m5
1 Ib. - .U536 Kg
a Sager (1971)
b U.S. Dept. of Interior, Federal Water Control Administration (1966)
-------
Total Phosphate
P/l
Wisconsin Dept. of Natural Resources
September 1973
-------
=31-
FIGUEE 6.
Soluble Phosphate
mg P/l
Wisconsin Dept. of Natural Resources
September 1973
-------
-32-
from the mouth of the Fox River increases. These findings are consistent
with results of other studies and justify considering the Fox River as the
major source of phosphorus input.
Approximately two-thirds of the total phosphorus discharged by the Fox-
Wolf River is contributed by municipal and industrial wastes. (For estimated
source input, see Table 6). According to Wiersma et al (1973), the Lower Fox
River drains only 7 percent of the total drainage basin of the Fox-Wolf River
system. The most severe deterioration of water quality occurs in this section.
A concentrated municipal-industrial complex makes intensive use of the river
for disposal and assimilation of wastes.
Sager and Wiersma (1972) established a biweekly monitoring program for
municipal treatments to assess the nutrient input to the Lower Fox River from
October, 1970 to September, 1971. Annual loadings of orthophosphate and total
phosphorus (both as P) averaged 1,^17 Ib/day (6Ul kg/day) and 2,09^ lb/day
(9^9 kg/day), respectively. The Green Bay Metropolitan Plant contributes
approximately 50 percent of these totals. This amount is very significant
for Green Bay since the plant is located 0.5 km from the mouth of the river and
essentially discharges its effluent directly to Bay waters.
While nutrient-rich wastes from the sewage treatment and industrial plants
on the Lower Fox River are very important, the water quality of the river is
already reduced by Lake Winnebago water. This hypereutrophic lake contributes
waters with high algae and nutrient concentrations, especially phosphorus, to
the Lower Fox River. Sager and Wiersma (1972) considered Lake Winnebago to be
a significant influence on the water quality of the river and lower Green Bay.
- ~
The average annual loadings from Lake Winnebago for total phosphorus as
is 6,620 lb/day (3,012 kg/day) and almost equals the total phosphorus for the
sewage treatment plants (see Table 7). Seasonal fluctuations of nutrient
-------
-33-
TABLE 6.
Estimated Phosphorus Sources for the Fox-Wolf River*
Source
Municipal and Industrial
Wastevater
Urban Runoff
Rural Runoff
Precipitation on Lake-River
Surfaces
Groundvater
Total
Annual
Contribution
(Lbs. P)
1,515,000
Percent
Estimate
62.5
95 ,800
822 ,000
12 ,700
3,5
33.5
0.5
2,1*1*5,500 Ibs. P/yr. 100
(1 Ib. * .1*536 Kg)
*Sridharan and Lee (1972)
-------
TABLE 7. Average loadings on the Fox River from Lake Winnebago. Values in Ibs./day.
Average Flow
(ftS/sec)2
June -August 2,330
September-November 3,220
December-February 1+ ,010
March-May 6,600
Annual Average 1+ ,Ql+0
Ortho POij
786
3,520
1,680
2,290
2,070
Total P
as POij
7,730
5,800
i+,ioo
8,830
6,620
N03-N
1,280
5,650
8,620
2U,200
9,9^0
NH3-N COD
1,890 1+03,000
5,800 399,000
i+,ioo 1+51+, ooo
8,800 916,000
5,200 5^3,000
Suspended
Solids
216,000 ^
*
197,000
65,200
1+36,000
229,000
Multiply by 0.1+536 to convert loadings to kg/day.
Multiply ft3/sec by 0.02832 to convert flow to m3/sec.
Sager and Wiersma (1972)
-------
-35-
loadings to Green Bay are closely correlated, not only with changes in Fox
River flow, but also with variations in the water quality of Lake
Winnebago.
Runoff from rural agricultural land and urban areas are believed to be
a substantial source of phosphorus input to Green Bay. A study conducted by
the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare (Hall, 1966) found that
the amount of phosphate reaching streams from land runoff in the Green Bay area
was about 1,167,000 pounds (531,000 kg) of phosphorus per year. Table 5 shows
estimated phosphorus input from rural runoff and urban runoff to the Fox-
Wolf River system to be 822,000 Ibs./year (37,^00 kg/year), 33-5 percent
and 95,800 Ibs./year (1+3,600 kg/year), 3.5 percent, respectively. In
conclusion, phosphorus contributed by surface runoff from nonpoint sources
is a significant and measureable source.
Sager and Wiersma (1972) noted that, during the spring (March-May), loadings
of nutrients were the highest. The levels were more than could be accounted
for by Lake Winnebago and municipal treatment plants. Surface runoff from the
drainage basin partially contributed to this excess. Sager (1971) found that
extremely high concentrations of soluble phosphate in the inner Bay were
correlated with heavy precipitation and a subsequent increase of phosphorus
in the river. The heavy precipitation caused runoff which produced loadings
to the municipal treatment plants in excess of capacity. In addition, the
incomplete separation of storm and sanitary sewers contributes to inefficient
phosphorus removal. Only within the past few years have the cities of Green
Bay, Neenah and Menasha separated their sewage systems.
Sridharan and Lee (1972) indicate that sediments in the Fox River and
Green Bay were potentially a significant source of phosphorus. Sediments
contained large amounts of phosphorus and demonstrated rele~:Ability to overlying
waters under laboratory conditions. Rates of release ranged from 3 x 10 to
3.^+ x 10" mg P/g sed/hr for oxic conditions and a high rate of release
-------
-36-
(- o
3.2 x lO"-3 to 8 x 10"D mg P/g sed/hr for anoxic conditions. Sediments contained
levels of phosphorus up to 2,000 ppm. Although these findings were under
laboratory conditions, the relatively shallow, highly turbulent nature of the
lower Bay region should at times approach the well-mixed conditions occurring
in the laboratory and produce optimum conditions for release.
The rate of release of phosphorus from sediments was found to be dependent
on several factors (Sridharan and Lee, 1972). Proximity of stations to the mouth
of the Fox River was associated with both higher release rates and amounts of
release. Orthophosphate and total phosphate concentrations in sediments and
water of stations h and 5a located at or near the mouth of the Fox River showed
the highest rates of release (Table 8, Figure 7). Station 11 had the lowest rate
of release. The amount of phosphorus released was the highest at station 5a and
decreased at stations 5, 9 and 11 with increasing distance from the mouth.
Phosphorus release was directly affected by the nature of the sediment. Regions
of low percent solids were associated with high Orthophosphate release. Station 11
contained more sand size particles (high percent solids) than the other locations
in lower Green Bay. Station 11 has a poor release of Orthophosphate when compared
to station 5a which is high in silt-like particles, low in percent solids. Further-
more, it was found that high iron concentrations were associated with high
Orthophosphate release. Station 5a was found to have a high iron concentration.
Since iron has been associated with anoxic phosphorus release.and higher concentrations
of iron were found in the leaching solution of 5a than in 5, then a higher ortho-
phosphate release from station 5a is predictable.
Jayne and Lee (l97l) sought to model phosphate transport between the
sediment and water. They defined a distinct region extending about 3 km from
the mouth of the Fox River that was nearly cut off from the Bay by a peninsula
and sandbar. This region served as a source of phosphate for the overlying
waters during the summer months. The sediment here accounted for 20 to 30
-------
TABLE 8. Rates of Phosphorus Release for Green Bay Sediments
Percent
Solids Phosphorus
Station Number % mg/g
5
5a
11
5a Core (0-5 cm)
5a Core (35-40 cm)
9
9
9
9
4
5
5a
11
Stations 5, 5a, 5a Core,
30
29
65
18
65
20
20
20
20
38
30
29
65
11
0.69
1.10
0.17
1.00
0.35
1.62
1.62
1.62
1.62
1.50
0.69
1.10
0.17
and 4 were sampled
Net Sediment
Used
g
0 X I C
50
50
50
50
' 50
25
50
100
200
200
A N 0 X I C
50
50
50
on October 6 1969
mg P/l/Day
4.3 X 10"3
6.0 X 10"3
2.5 X 10"4
6.0 X 10"3
7.4 X 10"4
1.9 X 10"2
3.8 X 10"3
7.1 X 10"3
4.2 X 10"3
2.5 X 10"3
1.0 X 10"1
1.4 X 10"1
2.6 X 10"3
and Station
Rates of Release
mg P/g sed/hr mg P/g sed P/hr
2.4 X 10"4
5.4 X 10"4
3.0 X 10"6
3.4 X 10"4
1.9 X 10"5
7.6 X 10"4
3.1 X 10"4
2.9 X 10"4
8.8 X 10"5
3.4 X 10"5
6.0 X 10"3
7.8 X 10"3
3.3 X 10"5
9 was sampled on October
0.342
0.312
0.018
0.312
0.054
0.190
0.190
0.180
0.050
0.020
8.50
7.1
0.192
28, 1968.
I
U)
Sridharan and Lee (1972)
-------
OJ
CO
I
FIGURE 7- Sampling Stations for Green Bay.
Sridharan and Lee, 1972
-------
-39-
percent of the phosphorus transported out of this constricted area during
summer. Beyond this region, phosphate was absorbed by the sediments during
the period May through November, for which data were collected. Jayne and Lee
were unable to predict phosphate transport due to insufficient hydrodynamic
information.
Sager and Wiersma (1972) found that the sediments along the Lower Fox
River could partially account for the seasonal fluctuations in phosphorus
loadings to the Bay. Assimilation and sedimentation apparently explained
the decrease in concentrations of orthophosphate during summer and fall.
During winter and spring, the downstream concentrations showed an increase.
This increase was believed to be due to reduced assimilation of orthophosphate
caused by colder temperatures and an increase in release of orthophosphate
from bottom sediments generated by increased flow rates creating greater
disturbances and sediment suspension.
Levels of phosphorus in the Bay can be used to describe the dispersal
and distribution of Fox River water and can give insight to eutrophication
processes which occur. However, when considering levels in certain areas or
trends in levels, precautions must be taken. Beeton (1969) found that published
data on increases in nutrients or eutrophication for the past 90 years were generally
inadequate for evaluating trends. No trend in phosphorus levels was found due
to insufficient and conflicting data. The data was obscured by analytical
differences, too few samples combined with unrepresentative coverage, and
conflicting results.
Studies which determined phosphorus levels for Green Bay yielded results
similar to those of Ahrnsbrak and R. A. Ragotzkie (1970) with regard to the
dispersal of Fox River water and mixing of Bay waters. Sager and Wiersma
(1972) found that total phosphorus and orthophosphorus concentration gradients
-------
-Uo-
were steeper inside of Long Tail Point than at the outer points (Fig. 8, 9)-
This agrees with Ahrns~brak and Ragotzkie (1970) who found the greatest change
in percent composition of river and Bay water, a decrease of about 30 percent
by volume, in this same area. Total phosphorus gradients reflect dilution
and dispersal patterns better than orthophosphorus gradients. Sager and
Wiersma felt that this dilution is caused by processes of absorption,
sedimentation, biological uptake and release being involved with the dynamics
of orthophosphate distribution.
Rousar and Beeton (1973) also found a steep concentration gradient from
the mouth of the Fox River to station 10, 16 km out (Fig. 10). This gradient
was a result of dilirtion of polluted Fox River discharge by Bay water. North
of station 10, no clear patterns of mixing of Bay and Fox River water were
apparent. Values of phosphorus concentrations for all samples ranged from
30.5 to ^30 ug P/liter and averaged 87-8. Excluding the three stations
closest to the mouth of the Fox River, the average was ^7-7 ug P/liter.
Sager (1971), by studying phytoplankton concentrations, was able to
define two discrete water masses in lower Green Bay. One mass was
characteristic of Fox River parameters and the other was representative of
Bay water. The diffuse interface between the two water masses was located
approximately 8 km from the mouth of the Fox in the vicinity of Long Tail
Point. The extreme lower Bay was dominated by river species which exhibited
high biomass and low uptake of luxury phosphorus in the presence of high
available phosphorus. The Bay area water consisted of low biomass and high
luxury uptake of orthophosphate in the presence of low concentrations of
available phosphorus.
In addition to large variations in levels of phosphorus as one proceeds
out into the Bay, variations in phosphorus levels have also been detected between
the eastern and western half of the lower Bay area. The eastern portion generally
-------
Jn-
FIG. 8. Total phosphate isopleUis (mg/1)
in lower Green Bay (20 July 3971).
FIC. 9. Orthophosphatc isopleths (mg/1)
in lower Green Bay (20 July 1071).
Sager and Wiersma (1972)
40 JO
FIGURE 10. Surface concentrations of total phosphorus
in ng P/liter from 2 m depth.
Rousar and Beeton (1973)
-------
-1*2-
demonstrates higher concentrations of orthophosphate than the western. The
highest concentrations appear in the southeast corner of the Bay (Fig. 9).
Sager and Wiersma (1972) suggest that these results reflect the dispersal
of Fox River water moving out and along the eastern shore. Lower westerly
values may also be attributed to the influence of nutrient assimilation "by
the predominant marshy character of the shoreline.
The southeast corner contains higher concentrations of orthophosphate than
exist at the mouth of the Fox River. This appears to reflect regeneration
activity. Sager and Wiersma (1972) could not determine whether this
regeneration activity originated from bottom sediments or suspended organic
material or both. Total phosphate concentrations were also high in this area,
indicating a possible local concentration of organic matter or algae in
suspension. Massive algal growths as high as 90 mg chlorophyll a/m^ (Sager,
1971) and high concentrations of phosphorus.with high release capabilities
(3.U x 10 /g sed/hr Sridharan and Lee, 1972) in this area could supply
sufficient substrates for the release of orthophosphate from decomposition
or other chemical activity.
As mentioned earlier in this report, phosphorus loadings to the Bay are
subject to seasonal variations. Knowledge of these fluctuations is essential
for the assessment of the importance of the various sources of phosphorus
input and for the demonstration of processes of assimilation and release of
phosphate in the river system.
Sager and Wiersma (1972) have monitored variations in total phosphate
and orthophosphate concentrations for ten stations (Figure 11) from Lake
Winnebago to the mouth of the Fox River. Seasonal variations in phosphorus
input were related to the quality of Lake Winnebago discharges and to the
processes of assimilation, sedimentation and release in the river. The effect
-------
-U3-
FIG. 11. Sampling stations on the Fox River (1-10)
between 3L^!:e Winnebago and Green Bay and on
lower Green Bay (A-Y). The Harbor Entrance
Light (station C) is 9.5 mi. (15.3 km) from the
mouth of the river.
Sager and Wiersma (1972)
JSt STATION!,
04
02
00
1 0
08
06
04
02
SEASONAL AVERAGES
ORTHO PHOSPHATE
FOX RIVER 1970-71
(MO P04/ LITER)
JUNE-AUG
SEPT-NOV
DEC -FEB
-MAfl -MAY
SEASONAL AVERAGES
TOTAL PHOSPHATE
FOX RIVER 1970-71
(MG PO4/LITER )
JUNE - AUG
-- SEPT -NOV.
- -DEC -FEB.
MAR-MAY
MILES ABOVE MOUTH
FIG 12. Seasonal averages of orthophosphate and total phosphate concent-rations in the
Fox River. Averages based on weekly samples, July to September 19 iu and biweekly
samples thereafter to October 1971.
Sager and Wiersma (1972)
-------
-UU-
of these variables with respect to phosphorus varied with seasonal conditions.
Figure 12 shows seasonal averages of orthophosphate and total phosphate
concentrations during the period July, 1970 to October, 1971- The following is
a discussion of their findings.
During the fall period, the effect of phosphorus release from Lake Winnebago
following the summer growth of algae is evident from the observed high
concentrations at station I. Algal abundance during fall is at a substantially
lower level than the summer period, approximately kk mg/nH to 77 mg/np
chlorophyll a, respectively. Orthophosphate concentrations decrease as one
moves downstream in both summer and fall. This reflects chemical assimilation
and sedimentation by the river system. Quiescent waters behind the numerous
dams are possible sites for deposition of phosphate associated with algae,
organic matter and inorganic matter. Concentrations decrease downstream
despite an input of approximately k ,kOO Ibs./day (2,000 kg/day) of orthophos-
phate from the eleven sewage treatment plants along the river.
The response of the river during winter and spring to the additional
loadings by municipal treatment plants is different from that in summer and
fall. During this period, the average concentrations of orthophosphate is
lower throughout the river. However, concentrations increase as one moves
downstream. The downstream increase can be attributed to colder water
temperatures which cause reduced assimilation capabilities by the sediments and
an increase in the release or regeneration of phosphorus from bottom
sediments, suspended solids, plant materials, etc. This is aided in the
spring by runoff from agricultural lands, and higher turbulent flows acting
to resuspend the bottom materials. The lower overall concentrations of ortho-
phosphate during winter and spring is apparently due to increased flow rates
(greater volume) and decreased phosphorus loadings from Lake Winnebago.
-------
Data for total phosphorus demonstrates the same downstream trend of
increasing concentrations for winter and spring. It appears that the same factors
(low rates of assimilation, municipal loadings and release from the river, especially
with increased flow rates) account for this pattern as they did for the
orthophosphate pattern. Summer and fall concentrations of total phosphorus
in the river are high and reflect a combination of low flow rates and excessive
algal growths of Lake Winnebago and the Fox River.
Summer concentrations of total phosphorus in the Fox River were lower than
the fall concentrations despite algae densities which were highest in summer.
The high orthophosphate concentrations found in the fall period could be
responsible for the higher total phosphorus values, The high orthophosphate
concentrations for fall, 6l percent of the total phosphorus, was apparently
due to decomposing organic matter.
In summary, Lake Winnebago contributes phosphorus compounds to the lo^er
Fox River in excess of or approximately equal to that contributed by municipal
treatment plants. Seasonal variations of phosphorus loadings to Green Bay
from the Fox River can be explained in part by seasonal changes in assimilation
and release in the river and Lake Winnebago. Spring loadings to the Bay are
highest among the seasons and usually represent levels greater than that which
can be attributed to Lake Winnebago and municipal treatment plants. Sources
of this increase could be surface runoff from the drainage basin and release from
the river system.
Nitrogen Loadings
Nitrogen is added to Green Bay in substantial quantities as the result of
loadings by the Fox River. Sager and Wiersma (1972) have found the annual average
loadings at the mouth of the Fox River to be 17,100 Ibs./day (7,800 kg/day) for
nitrate-nitrogen (NO^-N) and 12,itOO Ibs./day (5,600 kg/day) for ammonia-nitrogen
(NH3-N).
-------
-U6-
Two major sources of nitrogen to the Fox River are loadings from Lake
Winne"bago and from municipal treatment plants. Tables 6 and 7 give average
loadings from these sources. The average annual loadings from Lake Winnebago
are 9,9^0 Its./day (U,500 kg/day) and 5,200 Ibs./day (2,^00 kg/day) for NO -N
and NHo-N, respectively. Comparable loadings from municipal treatment plants
are 597 Ibs./day (273 kg/day) and U,Uo8 Ibs./day (2,000 kg/day), respectively.
These values indicate that Lake Winnebago is the most significant source of
nitrogen based on a yearly period. However, when considering loading levels
for seasonal periods, it is found that municipal treatment plants are the most
significant sources in summer and account for almost 75 percent of the loadings
to the Bay (Sager and Wiersma, 1972).
Nitrogen loadings from the Fox River are subject to seasonal fluctuations.
Table 9 shows seasonal average loadings to Green Bay from the Fox River at station 10
which is located near the mouth of the river.. There is a large difference between
the highest loading period, March-May, and the lowest loading period, June-August.
These fluctuations are caused by several interacting factors; biological
decomposition, concentrations of dissolved oxygen, concentrations of algae,
surface runoff in the drainage basin, flow rates and assimilation by the river
system. The following is a summary of seasonal variations in concentrations
and loadings of nitrogen complexes based on the findings of Sager and Wiersma (1972).
Levels of NHo-N were closely correlated with dissolved oxygen (DO) levels
in the Fox River. Figure 13 presents data for seasonal averages of DO and
NHo-N concentrations in the Fox River. The most significant seasonal change
in DO level was in the summer and fall months when average concentrations decreased
in the middle section of the Fox River. This seasonal DO sag was caused by
high organic loadings in this portion of the Fox River and high decomposition
rates characteristic of warm temperatures in summer and fall. Furthermore, the
lower flow rates encountered in summer and early fall also contribute to depressed
-------
TABLE 9- Average loadings to Green Bay from the Fox River at Station 10. Values in Ibs./day.
June -August
September-November
December-February
March-May
Annual Average
Average Flow
(cfs)2
2,330
3,220
It, 010
6,600
U.OltO
Ortho POjj
363
1,730
5,190
5,OUO
3,080
Total P
as POjj
7,670
8,580
7,120
29,500
13,200
N03-N
563
3,200
5,080
59 ,600
17,100
NH3-N
6,U80
7,100
10,600
25 ,600
12,ltOO
COD
761,000
689,000
1,0^5,000
1,6U8,000
1,036,000
Suspended
Solids
232,000
226,000
187,000
1,270,000
U79.000
Multiply by O.V536 to convert loadings to kg/day.
Multipl; ft3/sec by 0.02832 to convert flow to m3/sec.
Sager and Wiersma (1972)
-------
-1*8-
STATIONS
SEASONAL AVERAGES
AMMONIA NITROGEN
FOX RIVER 1973-71
IMG/UTERI
\ JUNE-AUG
'j SEPT-NOV
_.- DEC-FEB
MARCH-MAY
120
100
8C
40
2(
SEASONAL AVERAGES
^. DISSOLVED OXrtiEN
FOX RIVER 1970-71
IMG/LITER)
JUNE-AUG.
SEPT-NOV
OEC-FEB
... MARCH -MAY
36
28
24 20 16
MILES ABOVE MOUTH
FIG 13. Seasonal averages of dissolved oxygen and ammonia-nitrogen concentrations in
the Fox River. Average values based on weekly samples, July to September 1970 and
bi-weekly samples thereafter to October 1971.
Sager and Wiersraa (1972)
11.0
AC
70
5.0
30
1)0
110
ao
70
5.0
30
/ FOX RIVER
.' 21 SEPT 1971
DISSOLVED OXYGEN
IMG /LITER!
.... AMMONIA NTROGEN
IMG/LITER xio-'
FOX RIVER
25 AUG 1971
DISSOLVED OXVttN
IMG /LIT
24 20 16 1.2
MILES ABOVE MOUTH
FIG. 14.
deficits
Changes in ammonia-nitrogen concentrations in relation to dissolved oxvcn
in the Fox River. ' *
Sager and Wiersma (1972)
-------
-1*9-
oxygen levels. Beyond the midsection of the river, DO concentrations begin to
recover as a result of decreased BOD loadings. However, at the mouth of the
Fox River, increased organic loading from the De Pere-Green Bay area again results
in depressed DO content. The lov dissolved oxygen values and increased rates
of decomposition during the summer and fall are reflected in the gradual increase
of NHo-H concentrations downstream. Summer NH^-N concentrations were the
highest. In contrast, NH-.-N concentrations were lowest in winter and reflected
high DO concentrations and low rates of organic decomposition associated with
winter conditions.
The midsection and the mouth of the Fox River were highly significant
in producing increased levels of NH^-N. Both areas demonstrated severe oxygen
deficits and a release to the Fox River and Bay of NHo-N as a by-product of
organic decomposition. The high value of NH^-N at the mouth of the Fox Rivei-
in summer corresponds to decreased loadings of NOo-N and reflects a possible
chemical reduction process in this oxygen deficient area. Figure 1^ represents
data from two sampling dates in summer and early fall of 1971 and illustrates
the relationship of DO deficiencies and increased concentrations of KHo-N.
Nitrogen in water discharged from Lake Winnebago is predominately associated
with organic matter. Loadings of NO^-N and NH^-N were lowest during summer
months when algae were utilizing and assimilating these nitrogen complexes.
During the summer and fall, chlorophyll a_ concentrations produced by high
densities of phytoplankton ranged from ho to 180 ug/1. It appears that the
decomposition of this algae and organic matter in the fall and winter resulted
in increased loadings of N03~N and NH^-N in the Fox River. Nitrate and ammonia
forms contribute between Ik percent and 19 percent of the total nitrogen
loadings at this time. However, during spring, greater loadings of inorganic
nitrogen leave Lake Winnebago,partially due to increased flows (Table ?)
-------
-50-
Ammonia-nitrogen loadings to the Bay were lowest in summer, 6,1*80 Ibs./day
(2,900 kg/day), and highest in spring, 25,600 Ibs./day (11,600 kg/day). These
increases during spring were apparently the result of surface runoff in the
drainage basin and increased flow rates. Spring loadings are also affected by
assimilation processes along the course of the Fox River. It appears that
N03-N is assimilated in the Fox River between Lake Winnebago and the mouth
of the river throughout the year, but only during spring do the NO-^-N loadings
increase at the mouth of the Fox River. NH^-N is assimilated in the river
during the summer months.
Nitrogen fixation by organisms can be a significant nonpoint source of
nitrogen input to the Green Bay system. Nitrogen fixation resulting from algal
blooms contributes substantially to the Bay's combined nitrogen and intensifies
eutrophication. Vanderhoef et al (1972, 1973) have investigated this source
of nitrogen input by using acetylene reduction as an index of nitrogen fixation.
During the peak week of Anabaena bloom (June 12 to June 19, 1972), 9^,000 kg of
fixed nitrogen were added to the surface 2 meters of water in the lower 1+00 km
of the Bay by N2-fixing algae. Throughout the summer, the average rate of
CoH reduction at the two highest nitrogen fixation sampling sites was greater
than 50 moles per liter per hour. In a region constituting a major portion of
the lower Bay, it was estimated that 2.9 x 105 kg of NH^+-N was produced by
nitrogen fixation between June Ik and August 17, 1972. For the same period,
7.5 x 105 kg (NH^* + N03~)-N was discharged to the Bay by the Fox River.
A limited amount of historical data exists for nitrogen concentrations
in Green Bay. Therefore, it is difficult to assess changes in levels over the
years. However, it may be reasonable to obtain information about Green Bay
by making correlations with trends found for Lake Michigan.
-------
-51-
Beeton (1969) has documented environmental changes for Lake Michigan.
Figure 15 shows nitrogen data from the Milwaukee water plant. Organic nitrogen
(albuminoid ammonia) has increased and inorganic nitrogen (nitrate) has decreased
over a 38-year period. Inorganic nitrogen is apparently converted by plankton
to organic nitrogen resulting in the albuminoid ammonia increase. Surveys of
several areas of Lake Michigan by the U.S. Public Health Service (1962, 1963)
suggest that this conversion continues to be significant in parts of Lake Michigan.
Nitrate concentrations were 0.12 ppm in the southern part of Lake Michigan and
0.19 ppm in the central part. The lower nitrate values in the southern portion
were attributed to the uptake of inorganic nitrogen by plankton which were more
numerous in this region (Risley, Fuller, 1965). Allen (1966) found that nitrates
were much lower in the highly productive waters of Green Bay than in Lake
Michigan. In fact, nitrate concentrations were so low in September of 1965 that
it was not measureable. Allen's data confirms the conclusion that Green Bay,
especially the lower Bay, is more advanced in terms of eutrophication than
Lake Michigan.
Schraufnagel et al (1968) investigated pollution in the Lower Fox River
and Green Bay during 1966 and 1967. Table 10 is a summary of the nutrient data
collected. Concentrations are expressed as mg/1. No conclusions can be made
for tl^e region inside of the 10-mile (l6 km) light since only two nutrient
samples were collected and the results are inconsistent. The summer samples
collected beyond the light generally revealed less than .3 mg/1 total inorganic
nitrogen (sum of ammonia, nitrite, and nitrate nitrogen). The data suggests that
the concentrations of nitrogen beyond 10 miles (l6 km) are marginal for blooms
of planktonic algae. Algae blooms were generally confined to the inner Bay area
and observed only occasionally between l6 km and U8 km from the mouth. No algal
blooms were found beyond 6k km. The nitrogen data are modeiaoely consistent
with the algae observations.
-------
-52-
TABLE 10.
NUTRIENT CONCLNHIATIONS FROM GREEN LAY COLLECTION (1966)
Date
10-19-66S
8-11-66S
8-09-66S
8-09-66B
10-19-66S
8-09-66S
8-09-66S
10-19- 66B
8-10-66S
8-10-66B
10-19-66S
8-18-66S
8-18-66B
10-21-66S
8-19-66S
10-21-66S
8-19-66S
8-19-66B
10-21-66S
5-18-66S
8-18-66B
10-21-66S
Miles
from Mouth
of Fox
1
4
10
10
10
20
20
20
30
30
30
40
40
40
60
60
70
70
70
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Nitrogen
T.O.
1.57
.45
.83
1.01
.39
.38
.62
.63
.50
.42
.36
.39
.26
.29
.25
.11
.26
.24
.14
.19
.22
.13
NH3
.46
.11
.12
.07
.05
.04
.09
.11
.06
.09
.04
.08
.08
.10
.02
.09
.08
.05
.03
.02
.05
.04
N02
.007
.004
.003
.004
.002
.002
.003
.002
.OP"
.002
.008
. CC5
.002
.01
.004
.004
.004
.008
.003
.003
.003
.002
as
N03
.2
.08
.08
.08
.06
.06
.04
.04
.04
.1.8
.06
.04
.20
.14
.05
.14
.10
.30
.24
.14
.20
.24
Phosphorus as
TTON
(.667)
(.194)
(.203)
(.154)
(.112)
(.102)
(.133)
(.152)
(.102)
(.272)
(.108)
(-125)
(.282)
(.250)
(.074)
(.234)
(.184)
(.358)
(.273)
(.163)
(.253)
(.282)
Sol.P
.009
.024
.012
.015
.01
.004
.012
.012
.007
.014
.009
.011
. (41 4
.009
.018
.016
.01
.01
.014
.014
.008
.016
Tot.P
.150
.032
.088
.122
.06
.058
.066
.064
.074
.06
.064
.048
.038
.052
.028
.03
.02
.024
.044
.016
.022
.032
Color
(S.JU.)
50
20
22
9
8
7
8
8
8
5
6
Schraufnagel, et al (1968)
-------
-53-
Chlorophyll a., ammonia and organic nitrogen concentrations obtained "by
the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources in September, 1973 are presented
in Figures l6, IT and 18. In general, areas which demonstrated high
chlorophyll a_ concentrations, indicating high algal concentrations, had the
highest values of organic nitrogen and ammonia nitrogen.
0.11
0.10
~ ฐ-09
g
_j
;J 0.08
2
a:
P
cc
0.07
0.06
^ 0.05
O
p 0.04
0.03
CO 0.02
o.ot
o
rNitrote
\
Albuminoid
Nitrogen
0.30
0.28
0.26
0.24
0.22 ^
UJ
0.
0.20 V)
0.19
UJ
o.is
0.14
0.12
0.10
1920 1930 1940 1950 I960 1970
YEAR
FIGURE 15 Changes in nitrate-N (\) anil albuminoid
ammonia (0) at the Milwaukee, Wisconsin, intake in Lake
Michigan.
-------
-5U-
FIGURE 16.
Chlorophyll a_
mg/m^
*HT = High Turbidity
isconsin Dept. of Natural Resources
September 1973
-------
-55-
FIGURE 17.
Ammonia Nitrogen
mg N/l
Wisconsin Dept. of Natural Resources
September 1973
-------
-56-
FIGURE 18.
Organic Nitrogen
mg N/l
Wisconsin Dept. of Natural Resources
September 1973
-------
-57-
MIXING, DISPERSAL AMD TRANSPORT OF WATER IN GREEN BAY
The movement of water in Green Bay depends upon several factors. One of
these is the oscillation of water in a bay, lake or landlocked sea known as a
seiche. Seiches have been noted in Green Bay since the time of the earliest
French explorers, although the changes in height are not exceptionally large.
Both Father Marquette (Bacqueville de La Potherie, 1722) and Father Andre in
l67T (Martin, 1916) observed water movements in Green Bay which were described
as tides.
Indications are that the daily changes in the Green Bay water level that
are called seiches are due to atmospheric pressure as well as wind direction and
velocity. These variations can extend to the lower portions of tributary
streams. Streamflow reversal has been observed on the East River which joins
the Fox River about 2.3 km from the Bay. This reversal has been observed as fd.r
as 7.4 km along the East River (Schraufnagel et al, 1968).
That rapid changes in water levels can occur was documented during a
survey of the Fox and East Rivers in 1956-1957 (Scott et al, 1957). The level
of the East River was observed to vary by 1.^3 meters over a period of one
year. A substantial change took place in a very short time. On November 18-19,
1957, the elevation of the East River changed by 1.33 meters in a period of
17 hours. The usual change in river elevation is approximately 0.3 meter per
day but occasional changes of only 0.03 or 0.06 meter occur between reversals.
Fluctuations of water level in the Bay may cause a reversal of flow in the Fox
River. The effect has been noticed as far as the De Pere dam, a distance of
11 km (Schraufnagel et al, 1968). On one occasion, flow on the Fox River
near its mouth was measured at slightly over 280 m^/sec and it was moving
upstream.
-------
-58-
In the late fall and in the spring, winds from the direction of Lake Michigan
bring in large quantities of fresh lake water which are trapped in the Bay.
This influx is less important than that from the input of lake water through
the many passages between the Bay and the lake. Seiche motion is the cause of
this latter input. The associated current reversals occur typically every
twelve hours. Surface water leaves the Bay while water at lower depths enters.
Although the net flow is outward, this mechanism does provide a source of fresh
Lake Michigan water which is then subject to the independent circulation of the
Bay (U.S. Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, 1966).
The influence of seiche motion in Green Bay has been investigated by
Mortimer (1965), Saylor (I96h) and Johnson (i960, 1962, 1963). It is found
that the Bay has a restricted exchange of water with the rest of Lake Michigan
which minimizes dilution and flushing processes. Eventually all of the water
that flows into Green Bay flows out into Lake Michigan, but these flows are
probably small in comparison to the water movements associated with the
currents and seiches (Schraufnagel et al, 1968).
Wind and current patterns play the most important roles in the mixing and
transport of water within Green Bay. The wind patterns in Green Bay for late
summer and early fall show that the prevailing winds are from the west through
the southwest (U.S. Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, 1966).
For the late fall and winter, the prevailing winds are from the west through
the northwest. During May to August, the prevailing winds are from the
south through the southwest. Early spring (April) and late fall are the only
times when the prevailing winds are from Lake Michigan. The effect of a
northeast wind can be enormous. In the spring of 1973, the community of
Green Bay was hit with the worst flooding in its history. Ninety km per hour
winds brought three meter waves crashing into the city, while 6 meter waves
pounded the neighboring shoreline.
-------
-59-
Green Bay becomes thermally stratified weeks before the adjacent deeper
water of Lake Michigan. The shallow southern end of the Bay is nearly 7ฐC
warmer than the deeper north end in June, and more than 12ฐC warmer than the
deeper lake water. Measurements in June, 1962 and May and June, 1963 show that
thermal stratification in Green Bay is separate from stratification in the main
portion of the lake (U.S. Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, 1966).
The effects of temperature and wind appear to make Green Bay into an
independent lake separate from Lake Michigan.
It has been suggested (Ragotskie, Ahrnsbrak and Synowiec, 1969) that bays
of the Great Lakes can, in some ways, be considered analagous to coastal
estuaries of the oceans. However, the primary physical mechanisms effecting the
dispersal and transport of pollutants may be quite different from those acting
in a tidal estuary. Seiches provide an analagous but more complex forcing
mechanism for horizontal water movement, and density gradients are entirely
due to thermal and diffusion effects with no salinity contribution.
Several features of Green Bay make it desirable for the study of water
movement in a freshwater bay. First, the long, narrow shape of the basin
makes it ideal for diffusion and dispersal studies. The rather limited
exchange of Bay waters with those of Lake Michigan make Green Bay an almost
separate lake. Secondly, the major portion of pollutants enter at the head
of the basin and act as a tracer for the movement of water through the Bay.
Recently there have been studies aimed at a description of the movement of
polluted Fox River water in Green Bay. Ahrnsbrak and Ragotskie (1970) have
described mixing processes in the Bay. Modlin and Beeton (1970) have described
the dispersal of Fox River water in Green Bay. For these studies, the assumption
has been made that the Fox River is the only significant source of pollutants
which enter the Bay. The data in Table 11 support this assumption.
-------
-60-
TABLEll. Average discharge r; x 10'
13.9 x 104
AHRNSBRAK and RAGOTZKIE (1970)
The four significant rivers which enter the southern two-thirds of the Bay
are given with their average discharge rates, concentration of chlorides and
suspended solids, and the net transport of those pollutants. Based on these
flows, it can be seen that as a pollution source, the Fox River is nearly an
order of magnitude larger than the other three rivers combined.
Modlin and Beeton (1970) used conductivity measurements as a probe of
the lakeward movement of Fox River water in Green Bay. In 1968, they found
a counterclockwise circulation of the surface water in the southern end of
Green Bay below the Oconto River and above Long Tail Point. As a result,
water which they described as river water extended northward for almost
hO km along the east shore. Lake Michigan water appeared to occupy the
western two-thirds of this area. The lakeward movement of the Fox River
water is generally along the east side where it may constitute as much as
80 percent of the northward current. These observations are consistent with those
of Schraufnagel et al (196 ) who suggest that the river water may frequently
become well dispersed across the lower 16-2U km of the Bay. They suggest that
a counterclockwise current brings cleaner water down the western shore of the Bay,
-------
-61-
sweeps eastward at about the latitude of the Green Bay harbor entrance light
and then moves northward in the eastern half of the Bay. The usual pattern of
currents found by Schraufnagel et al (1968) is for Fox River water to continue
in a northerly direction into the Bay for about 15 km and then veer to the
east and follow the east side of the Bay northward to Little Sturgeon Bay.
Movement of the water along the west side of the Bay is southward to near
Pensaukee and then eastward and northward. The southern part of this counter-
clockwise current lies in the vicinity of the two outer channel lights.
Schraufnagel et al (1968) suggest that there appear to be pockets in
the lower Bay which permit little water movement in and out. On occasions
the waters of the Fox River, although somewhat concentrated along the shipping
channel, appear to be fairly well dispersed across the lower 16 to 2k km of
the Bay. Density measurements indicate that in summer months the warmer rive*"
waters overflow the lake waters, but in the winter months, the river waters tend
to follow the bottom for some distance before diffusing into the main body of
water.
The conditions at the extreme southern end of Green Bay (below Long Tail
Point and the sand bar extending towards it from the east) drew special attention
from Modlin and Beeton (1970). They found in 1968 that approximately 70 percent
of the water in this region was river water. Ahrnsbrak and Ragotskie (1970)
concluded frpm conductivity studies that the water below Long Tail Point consists
of 50 to 80 percent by volume of Fox River water. Under southerly winds,
a tendency for a tongue of water with a concentration of 30 to kO percent river
water can be identified extending northward along the east side of the Bay
approximately 15 to 20 km. However, under the influence of northerly winds,
this tongue was not observed. North of Long Tail Point, the concentration of Fox
River water decreased rapidly (as shown by conductivity measurements), a value
greater than 25 percent seldom being observed beyond 25 km north of the mouth
-------
-62-
of the river. Northward concentrations are described as very low and the effect
of the Fox River is described as small. From diffusivities derived from their
data, Ahrnsbrak and Ragotskie (1970) suggest the existence of a "barrier to
horizontal mixing in the area of Long Tail Point, while northward the Bay
appears to be well mixed and the transit of Fox River water is much more
rapid. They postulate that Long Tail Point and the bar extended towards it
from the east are effectively the outfall site for the effluent of the Fox
River water in Green Bay. Similarly, Sager (1971) describes two discreet
water masses in lower Green Bay, one characteristic of the Fox River water
and the other representative of the water of Green Bay.
The distribution of suspended solids is also a measure of the flow and
dispersal of river water in Green Bay. Recent estimates of suspended solid
concentrations at the mouth of the Fox River range from 7 to 20 mg/1 (Sager, 1971;
Ahrnsbrak and Ragotskie, 1970).
Sager (1971) measured light penetration by means of Secchi disc readings
throughout the summer of 1970 at several stations along a line extending 22 km
from the Fox River mouth. He found that there was a consistent pattern of
increase along the sampling transect, but with the steepest gradient noted
in the first 5 to 7 km. The decrease was ascribed to both dilution and
ป
sedimentation processes. Low transparency in the inner Bay area was affected
by phytoplankton concentrations and suspended solids from the sediments in
the extensive regions where the water depths are generally less than 2 to 3
meters. Here the bottom sediments are subject to wind-induced turbulence.
Schraufnagel et al (1968) measured light transparency in Green Bay during
the summer of 1966. The Bay was divided in subregions as shown in Figure 19-
The result of their measurements is shown in Table 12.
-------
Figure 19.
Sample Areas
Suimer. 1966
_i\_L,.
ck
U)
I
-------
-Gh-
TABLE 12. LIGHT TRANSPARENCY IN GREEN BAY (SECCHI DISC DEPTHS]
SUMMER, 1966.
Zone
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
Entrance light
Middle Green Bay
Sturgeon Bay
Washington Island
Secchi disc
Readings
0.1*5 0.60 meters
0.30--0.90
0.300.90
0.1*50.60
0.90 1.2
0.90--1.2
1.5 1.8
1.8 2.1
2.7 3.0
h.9 6.0
Approximate
Distance from Mouth
0 km
2
2-3
3-k
3-U
IT
56
112
The investigation in 1938/1939 (Wisconsin Committee on Water Pollution,
1939) did not measure light transparencies. However, measurements were made of
the total solids (ppm = mg/l) in each water sample. The total solids content
decreased consistently with distance from the Fox River mouth.
Modlin and Beeton (1970) used conductivity measurements to estimate the
flushing rate in lower Green Bay. Flushing rate is defined as the length of
time it takes one day's accumulation of river water to move through a bay or
portion of a bay. The longer the flushing rate, the greater the effect the
river water has on an area. The results are shown in Table 13-
TABLE 13- AVERAGE CONDUCTIVITY, PERCENTAGE OF RIVER WATER
AND FLUSHING TIMES FOR TWO ZONES IN LOWER GREEN BAY
Zone 1 is the area below Long Tail Point; Zone 2 is the area above
Long Tail Point, north to an east-west line at Oconto.a
Average
Conductivity Percent Flushing Time
Date/Zone umhos at 25ฐ C River Water Days
1968/1
2
1969/1
2
(July)
( August )
3U5
277
3^0
279
70
15
6k
16
29
78
33
127
aModlin, R. F. and A. M. Beeton. Dispersal of Fox River water in Green Bay,
Lake Michigan.
-------
-65-
The effect of river discharge rate can be seen in this data. The river
/- o
discharge rate in August, 1969 averaged 5.9 x 10ฐ m /day. For this flow, the
net flushing rate was 160 days. In July, 1968, the discharge was greater by
6 "3
almost 3 x 10 nr/day and, consequently, the flushing rate decreased to 107
days. Under normal flow conditions, the residence time of Fox River water in
the lower Bay is considerable.
-------
-66-
HATURE AND CONSTITUTION OF THE BOTTOM SEDIMENTS
An understanding of the relationship between the "bottom sediments and
the sources of materials which enter Green Bay requires a knowledge of the type
and distribution of these sediments. Qualitative and semiquantitative descrip-
tions of bottom sediments have been a part of the extensive surveys in the Bay.
In July, 1968, a comprehensive geological-geophysical survey of the shallow
subbottom structure and near surface sediments of Green Bay was carried out
by Moore and Meyer (1969). They were able to map the major textural types
of deposits which floor Green Bay by means of a variety of techniquesheavy
dredging, core sampling and acoustic and seismic profiling.
Figure 20 shows the naturally grouped sediment types. It shows that mud
is the prevailing sediment type in the southern part of Green Bay, with sand
the second most common type. Sand covers the western near shore areas of
southern Green Bay. A strip of sand bottom varying between two and three
miles in width apparently extends the full length of the western shore. Sand
and sand mixed with mud also occurs at depth in the northern part of Green Bay
and there the pattern suggests a trend parallel to the long axis of the Bay.
The bathymetric data from the 1968 survey was compared with the final
worksheets of U.S. Lake Survey for the Southern Bay (19^3) and the Northern
Bay (1950). This comparison was judged by Moore and Meyer (1969) to be the
most significant result from the 1968 survey. In the region of the Bay below
Sturgeon Bay, there were several areas where the bottom depth decreased
substantially over the relatively brief period of seventeen years. In
Figure 21 the shaded areas indicate decreases in floor depth of more than
1.2 meter (four feet) or more than 0.6 meter (two feet). Moore and Meyer (1969)
call attention to the relationship between the areas of the Bay where these
decreases have occurred and the sediment and nutritive sources. An independent
check of the validity of these results was also afforded by the overlap of the
-------
-67-
.:.';-| SAND
Jg MUD
5|g SANDY MUD
P73 GRAVEL GREEN BAY
ROCKS
Moore and Meyer (1969)
-------
""Macs
-68.
,950 **'" <" W/S
'9'
-------
19^3 lake survey bathymetric data south of the harbor entrance light and the
1950 data to the north. This comparison shows a decrease in depth of 0.3 to
0.6 meter (l to 2 feet) in the seven years between those surveys in areas where
equal or greater amounts of filling were found since 1950. The lake survey
procedures were similar or identical in 19^3 and 1950. Moore and Meyer (1969)
raise the spector that Green Bay will cease to exist as a body of water because
of the "extremely high" sedimentation rates.
The data were interpreted to indicate that Green Bay was filling in at a
rate of 10 to 100 times that associated with larger bodies of water.
Distribution of dredged materials do not appear to influence these results.
Maintenance dredging of the Green Bay ship harbor is done by the Corps of
Engineers. The dredged materials are usually disposed of in deep waters (over
50 feet). A polluted zone is created when any organic matter is deposited in
this way. In 3-966, the Corps of Engineers constructed a diked area about
3.2 km north of Fox River mouth to be used as a depository of dredgings con-
sidered to contain pollutional material (U.S. Federal Water Pollution Control
Administration, 1966).
Several investigators have described the bottom sediments in a qualitative
way during the course of their studies of Green Bay bottom fauna. A description
of the bottom sediments was part of the 1938/1939 survey (Wisconsin State
Committee on Water Pollution, 1939)- The result was a map of the sediment
distribution of the lower Bay (Figure 22).
An area at the extreme lower end of the Bay contained a fairly high content
of sewage sludge derived from a combination of the inflowing Fox River and the
outfall of the Green Bay sewage treatment plant. Its decomposing condition
was evidenced by the appearance and odor and by the fact that there were large
numbers of gas bubbles when its supernatant water warmed up in the spring.
-------
o
'
3
01
;-t-
JO
i>
ft)
n
o
o
3
n
~t
-a
c
D
VO
O
I
-------
-71-
Howmiller and Beeton (1970) have investigated the bottom fauna of Green
Bay. In the course of this investigation (which is discussed in detail in a
later section) they describe the bottom material within a few kilometers of the
Fox River as a semi-fluid black-brown mud which resembles sewage plant sludge.
It appeared to be highly organic, smelled of sewage and hydrogen sulfide, and
contained many small vegetable fibers. Brown silt was common northeast of Long
Tail Point and along,the eastern shore where the mixture of lake water and river
water moves northward. Brown mud, more cohesive than silt or the semifluid mud
of the lower Bay, occurred in the deeper water further north in the Bay.
-------
FISHERY IN GREEN BAY
This section is designed to highlight those aspects of fishing in Green
Bay which can be related to water quality in the Bay rather than designed to be
an extensive survey.
Lloyd (1966) has sketched the background of Green Bay fishing. Much of the
historical information is qualitative and is expressed in superlatives. Natives
and travelers did most of their fishing on many of the large tributary streams
and took advantage of migratory fish runs. Father Andre, a French priest, wrote
in 167^ that it was impossible to conduct church services because of the immense
pile of drying fish which created objectionable odors.
The Indians built a fish weir across the Fox River from which they speared
northern pike, sturgeon and muskellunge. As communities stabilized, a productive
commercial fishery developed. Pike, whitefish, herring and sturgeon were taken
in large quantities in the l850's.
The first annual report of the Wisconsin fish commissioners in 187^ indicated
a concern about the decline of fish populations, especially whitefish and trout.
In an effort to offset declining numbers of fish, a hatchery was constructed at
Pensaukee in 1875 to hatch lake trout and whitefish spawn for stocking Lake
Michigan. In 1877, one million whitefish fry were stocked in Green Bay. The
first lake trout eggs were stocked in i860. At this time, regulatory rules
were developed to protect declining fish populations.
The present character of the fishing industry varies considerably over
the various regions of the Bay.
The northern bays adjacent to Michigan's Upper Peninsula have shallow,
warm waters which support walleye populations sufficient for commercial
fishing. The northern part of Green Bay has deep and cold water where species
-------
-73-
of fish appropriate to this habitat are caught in great numbers. Ports like
Gills Rock in Door County have been centers for fall herring and spring whitefish
fishery. Here the lake trout was the predominant predaceous fish in years past.
Southern Green Bay has a predominance of warmwater species with perch
most important. Carp, northern pike, drum, suckers, white bass, bullheads and
catfish also"occur here. The principal predaceous fish is the northern pike.
Perch occur in waters less than 25 meters deep throughout the Bay. New species
which have entered recently have wide distribution ranging from the shallows of
estuaries to the greatest depths. Both the smelt and alewives are in this
category.
The commercial fishing industry in Green Bay constitutes a considerable
proportion of the total production in Green Bay. The data (Table lU) show that
in recent years, as well as in the past, the commercial fish catch in Green Bay
has constituted approximately one-half of the total catch throughout Lake
Michigan.
The fish populations of Green Bay have fluctuated violently since the mid-
forties and to a lesser' extent in the period 1929 to 19^6. These fluctuations
have been interpreted as the expression of year class strength operating within the
influences of a well-developed fishery. However, details of population growth or
decline remain-unknown. The-species1may affect each other as indicated by the
recent near extinction of one species followed by the explosive growth of others.
The comments of Patten (1969) may well apply to Green Bay: "Alter or adjust a
population here and remote, unforeseen consequences may be generated, possibly
dramatically elsewhere. And if long enough time lags or distances separate
primary causes and ultimate effects, an event may never be associated with a
reaction which in fact it initiated." Recently, Walter and Hogman (1971)
have constructed a mathematical model which incorporates statistical feedback
-------
TABLE
COMMERCIAL FISH PRODUCTION OF GREEN BAY
IN RELATION TO LAKE MICHIGAN (IN THOUSANDS OF POUNDS)
Green Bay Pounds Per Lake Michigan Percent of Total
Year Production Acre Yield Production From Green Bay
1949 15,768 16.4 25,573 61.7
1950 15,654 16.2 27,078 57.8
1951 15,273 15.9 27,648 55.2
1952 18,803 19.6 32,061 58.6
1953 15,875 16.5 28,834 55.1
1954 17,510 18.3 30,291 57.3
1955 16,637 17.4 30,036 55.3
1956 17,038 17.7 30,798 55.3
1957 13,389 13.9 27,223 49.2
1958 13,610 14.2 27,771 49.4
1959 10,033 10.4 20,808 48.2
1960 8,444 8.8 24,311 34.7
1961 7,447 7.8 25,559 29.1
1962 7,035 7.3 23,475 29.9
1963 6,636 6.9 21,021 31.6
1964 7,261 7.6 26,201 27.7
1965 5,292 5.5 26,994 19.6
1966 15,512 16.1 42,764 36.3
1967 27,871 29.0 53,496 52.1
1968 19,336 20.1 45,810 42.2
1969 23,102 24.0 47,489 48.6
1970 25,226 26.2 49,914 50.5
From: U. S. Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, Report on
Commercial Fisheries Resources of the Lake
Michigan Basing1965, (for data previous to 1964)
and Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin Landings, Current
Fisheries Statistics, (U. S. Department of Commerce)
National Marine Fisheries Service, (for reports
since 1964).
-------
-75-
and considers a large set of system variables which may affect each species'
rate of abundant change. The model has the capacity to respond to changes in
water quality. However, these changes, which are of considerable importance,
do not enter because of lack of a qualitative relationship between water quality
and population.
The nature of the commercial fishing industry on Lake Michigan has
changed dramatically in the past thirty years. The judgment is inescapable that
this change has resulted from the activities of man. It is difficult to assess
the effect of water quality on changing fish populations in the presence of so
large an influence. Nevertheless, some factors can be identified. Smith (1968)
has pointed out that commercial fishing for sturgeon was prohibited in 1929,
long before the recent large influences. It was suggested that the environment
for sturgeon was no longer suitable, since it was usually more abundant in those
areas that had suffered the severest pollution. The decrease in lake herring
in Lake Michigan was enormous in the period 195^-1962 when the alewife was
becoming abundant in the lake. The lamprey, as well as the alewife, has probably
contributed to the decline of the lake herring, but it should be noted that the major
lake herring fishery was in Green Bay, where accelerated eutrophication
may well have contributed to the collapse of the lake herring population.
Lloyd (1966) and Beeton (1969) have discussed the habitat in which various
species exist. The following is a summary of their work. An emphasis has been
placed on the identification of changes in habitat which are related to changes
in water quality.
Cold-Water Species
Lake trout has disappeared from the Bay fishery although they are beginning
to reappear in small numbers as a result of stocking. The primary factor respon-
sible for their disappearance was the lamprey. However, it has been suggested
-------
-76-
(Lloyd, 1966) that the lamprey cannot be regarded as the only cause for decline.
Increased fertilization of the Bay places a higher oxygen demand on the deep,
cold waters which could force the lake trout out of some of its preferred habitat.
Whitefish have also been affected by lamprey depredations and their numbers
since the 19^0's have been much less than during the prelamprey period. They
also are affected by increased enrichment and could have been squeezed out of
acceptable habitat.
Chubs, known as deep-water cisco, frequent deep, cold waters. They were
never a large component of the Green Bay fishery. Although small in size, and
therefore not the chosen prey of the lamprey, the decline closely coincided with
the increase in alewives.
Lake herring or shallow-water cisco has been the most important catch in
these waters. Exceptionally high populations occurred immediately following
lamprey reduction of the predaceous lake trout. As alewife numbers rose,
cisco declined. Eutrophication also contributed to a declining habitat, a
subtle factor which will never be adequately measured.
Smelt were first detected in Lake Michigan in the 1920"s. They reached
a peak in the 19^0's and 1950's and have declined somewhat since. The ultimate
population is not likely to be as high as the early peaks.
Alewives were first detected in 1952 and became a part of commercial
catches in 1956. Within ten years they became the dominant species in the
fishery industry despite their low commercial value.
Warmwater Species
Warmwater species are found in the shallow waters, southern Green Bay, the
estuaries and bays.
Lake sturgeon have become a fish which is only occasionally found in
the commercial nets. This long-lived primitive fish lost its spawning grounds
among the rocks of the large rivers when they were cut off by dam building and
pollution.
-------
-77-
Northern pike are a product of shallow water. Most of the commercial catch
is made on the west shore of southern Green Bay. There has "been a steady erosion
of spawning areas as harbors expand and marshes adjoining the Bay are filled or
drained.
Walleye is found in abundance in the Northern Bays in Michigan. They move
to Oconto on the west and the Strawberry Islands on the east shore.
Perch have been the most important marketed catch. Long-term changes in
abundance are not evident. Perch abundance does not appear to be significantly
affected by more adverse environmental conditions including low dissolved oxygen
concentrations; their spawning grounds are not affected as they will spawn over
sandy or rocky bottoms amid vegetation or debris. Their primary food supplies,
consisting of either plankton or bottom fauna, may be increased by enrichment.
Carp are found in shallow, warm water of the Bay. They exist in water with
low dissolved oxygen; they feed on plankton, bottom fauna or vegetation and
spawn in this environment. Thus, enrichment of the Bay favors this fish.
Summary
The fishery in Green Bay has changed radically in recent years due to the
activities of man. The result has been a shift of production from primarily
high quality native species to low quality exotic fish.
Pollution has caused a deterioration of the cold-water habitat and has
rendered previously desirable spawning grounds as useless. Enrichment has
accentuated plant growth which favors carp. In addition, fishermen complain
of fish with off flavors, probably a direct or indirect result of pollution.
-------
-78-
BOTTOM FAUNA
A biological evaluation of natural water includes a consideration of the
conditions for phytoplankton, zooplankton, vertebrate (fish) and invertebrate
organisms. The invertebrate organisms are particularly useful for investigations
of water quality since they are relatively immobile and consequently are directly
subjected to any polluted conditions in their habitat. If they are subjected to
the influences of a contaminant, then they must respond by a physiological
adaptation or they must die.
All gradations and variations of adaptability toward adverse conditions
may occur. Some species cannot tolerate any appreciable pollution whereas others
are not only tolerant but appear to thrive. Intolerant species may be reduced
in numbers or disappear. Tolerant forms respond according to the severity of
the pollution. When competition is reduced by the elimination of more competitive
intolerant forms, the population of the more tolerant forms may increase.
Pollution normally expresses itself on the bio-habitat and aquatic organisms
in one of two ways. It may be toxic to the organisms and, in this situation, the
substance will usually affect all organisms uniformly. Here one does not observe
a specific group which becomes more or less predominant. The tendency is for the
disappearance of all species simultaneously. This situation is most often noted
with wastes which contain heavy metals, tars or oils, chlorinated hydrocarbons or
other more exotic materials. Alternately, pollution may cause changes in the
environment which favor certain species of organisms and is detrimental to
others. This is the situation most frequently observed with organic types of
pollution, such as paper mill wastes, milk plant wastes, sewage treatment plant
wastes, etc.
Aquatic organisms must derive their oxygen from the water and, consequently,
when an organic waste decomposes, it competes with the organisms for the oxygen
present. Generally, if decomposition is rapid and natural reaeration replaces
-------
-79-
lost oxygen, then significant levels of dissolved oxygen will remain in the
water. This situation often exists at summer temperatures. However, if
decomposition continues for lengthy periods, oxygen levels may be reduced to
critical levels for animals that are not adapted for the most efficient use
of dissolved oxygen. Some organisms are not only efficient at extracting
oxygen from the water "but may also derive oxygen from the air and utilize
waste organic material for food. Increasing numbers of these kinds of bottom
organisms are a useful measure of polluted waters.
Since 1938, there have been several extensive chemical and biological
surveys whose aim has been to assess the severity and extent of pollution in Green
Bay (Wisconsin State Committee on Water Pollution, 1939; Surber and Cooley, 1952;
Balch et al, 1956; U.S. Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, 1966;
Schraufnagel et al, 1968; Howmiller and Beeton, 1970, 1971). As a part of each
of these surveys, bottom samples were collected for analysis of benthic
invertebrate animals. These analyses included classification of types as
well as a count of bottom dwelling animals.
Surber and Cooley (1952) compared numbers and types of organisms at nine
of their stations in the lower Bay in May, 1952 with data from nine comparably
located stations sampled during the period November, 1938 to February, 1939
(Wisconsin State Committee on Water Pollution, 1939). In both studies, the
predominant species in lower Green Bay were found to be the pollution tolerant
Oligochaete (Tubificidae), commonly known as sludgeworms, and midge larvae
(Chironomidae).
A comparison of the numbers of these species for 1938-39 and 1952 appears
in Table 15.
-------
-80-
TABLE 15
Comparison of 1938-39 Bottom Fauna Data With
Data Collected on May 26 and 27, 1952
Number Per Square Foot
1952
Station
Number
2
3
U
5
6
8
10
12
1U
Comparable
1938-39
Station
Number
S-ll
G-29
G-30
G-ll
G-31
G-17
G-9
G-7
G-5
1952
Tubificidae
10,516
3,]M
^, 756
1,252
912
132
72
196
81*
1938-39
Tubificidae
2,200
20
U
8
U
2
None
None
None
1952
Chironomidae
128
288
152
156
16U
212
108
156
JM
1938-39
Chironomidae
270
6k
2
100
180
38
None
72
None
From: Surber and Cooley (1952)
-------
-81-
The increase in numbers of these pollution tolerant species led Surber
and Cooley to conclude that there was an increase in pollution during the
intervening thirteen years. The complete data from the 1938-39 and 1952
surveys appears in Appendix VII.
A survey by Balch et al (1956) was carried out in January, 1955- The
samples from Inner Green Bay (that portion south of a generally east-vest line
from Long Tail Point to Point Sable) indicated a limited population of bottom-
dwelling invertebrates. The fauna of Inner Green Bay was composed principally
of pollution tolerant midge larvae and sludge worms. Numbers of midge larvae
varied from 0 to 172 per m2 and were restricted to four species. Numbers of
worms varied from 0 to 2,627 per m2. Numerous samples contained no living
invertebrates.
Samples from Middle Bay (Long Tail Point to Little Tail Point) contained
a large population and wide variety of bottom-dwelling species. The species
were of the tolerant or very tolerant varieties.
Outer Bay (north to Sturgeon Bay) contained the most varied invertebrate
population of the study. The complete data from the 1955 survey appears in
Appendix VIII.
The possibility that January samples were not taken at a population peak
was specifically dismissed. It was then concluded that there had been a marked
reduction in the numbers of these forms compared to numbers obtained in the
earlier studies. This judgment has been criticized by Howmiller and Beeton
(1970) who have shown that the population of bottom organisms varies widely
during a period of several months.
A survey in 1962-63 (U.S. Federal Water Pollution Administration, 1966)
included bottom fauna counts. Unfortunately, the time of year when samples
were collected was not specified and the results were expressed as total count
of bottom fauna with only qualitative reference to type of animal. Total
populations in 1962 and 1963 ranged from 5,000 to 15,000 organisms per square
-------
-32-
meter near the Fox River mouth, mostly sludgeworms and bloodworms. The
numbers fell to about 500 organisms per square meter l6 km out into the Bay.
Some pollution sensitive snails were found about 8 km from the mouth of the
Fox River. The concentrations of bottom fauna obtained in the 1962-63 study
are shown in Figure 23.
At the same time, benthic populations of 2,000 to 5,000 organisms per
square meter were found near the mouth of the Oconto River. The population
decreased to 500 per square meter 8 km from the mouth of the river. The
area was dominated by bloodworms rather than sludgeworms. A few pollution-
sensitive scuds existed less than two miles from its mouth.
A population of 800 organisms per square meter, mostly pollution-tolerant
sludgeworms and bloodworms, was found near the mouth of the Peshtigo River.
Near the mouth of the Menominee River, the population was 2,500 organisms
per square meter. However, about 5 km out from the mouth of the river, a
population of 1,300 per square meter of pollution-sensitive scuds was found.
The concentrations of bottom fauna in the vicinity of the Menominee and Peshtigo
Rivers is shown in Figure 2h.
A summary of these data appears in Table 16.
TABLE 16. BENTHIC FAUNA POPULATIONS IN GREEN BAY, 1962-63
Location _ Counts _ Discussion _ _
Fox River mouth 5,000-1,500/m2 mostly sludgeworms or bloodworms
8 km from mouth ---- some pollution-sensitive scuds
l6 km from mouth 500/m2 mostly sludgeworms or bloodworms
Oconto River mouth 2, 000-5, 000 /m2
3.2 km from mouth ---- a few pollution-sensitive scuds
8 km from mouth 500/m2 dominated by bloodworms not sludgeworms
Mouth of Peshtigo River SOO/m mostly pollution-tolerant sludgeworms
and bloodworms
Menominee River mouth 2,500/m2
5 km from mouth 1,300/m2 pollution-sensitive scuds
-------
-83-
Figure
LEGEND
Not. o' Qrgoniimi/Sg Mซlซr
0 I 2 3
I I I
scaif in miles
GREAT LAKES 8 ILu'NOlS
R'VER BASiNS PROJECT
BENTHIC FAUNA POPULATIONS
GREEN BAY NEAR THE OCONTO
AND FOX RIVERS, 1962-1963
U S DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
FEDERAL W/'TC11; P-OLLUTlCN CONTROL AOMIN
-------
Fic>;ure 2 it
87ฐ 30'
87ฐ 45'
C J
( j
Pollution Toltront
Pollution Sensitive
LEGEND
Neซ. cl OrgonismtAa Mitt
0- 250
250- 500
500-1000
1000- 2500
87ฐI5'
N
GREAT LAKES 8 'LLINOIS
RiVER BASINS PROJECT
BENTHIC FAUNA POPULATIONS
GREEN BAY NEAR MENOMINEE
ANDPESHTIGO RIVERS, 1962-1963
U S.DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
FEDERAL WATER POL LUTION CONTROL ADMIN
-------
-85-
Ari extensive water quality investigation of Green Bay was carried out in
1966 and 1967 by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (Schraufnagel
et al, 1968). Bottom invertebrate organism populations were obtained during
the investigation. The following observations were made:
1. Within 1.6 km of the channel in the Inner Bay (south of Long Tail Point)
populations were depressed to the extent that no bottom organisms were observed.
Between 2.h and 3.2 km of the channel concentrations of 0 to 270 organisms per m2
were noted. At 5 km east of the channel, the population was dominated by
midgefly larvae and approximately 190 to 270 bottom macro-invertebrates per
square meter were noted. In the intermediate vicinity of Long Tail Point, the
bottom populations were dominated by sludgewcrms, but the numbers were generally
under 1,000 organisms per square meter. In the ship channel, two samples
revealed lU6 and 31^ oligochaete worms per square meter.
2. Middle Green Bay (from the entry light north to Sturgeon Bay) had a
bottom population dominated by sludge.worms but generally less than 1,600 per
square meter. Midgefly larvae (Chironomus) were routinely observed but only
about 220 organisms per m2.
3. Outer Green Bay (Sturgeon Bay to Washington Island) began to reveal
significant numbers of pollution intolerant species.
Schraufnagel et al (1968) concluded that only tolerant and very tolerant
species dominate the macro-invertebrate population in lower and middle Green
Bay, An important qualitative observation was made about nymphs of the
pollution-sensitive burrowing mayfly (Hexagenia), commonly known as Green Bay
fly, which had been an important part of the benthic community. The adults
were once "known to gather under outdoor electric lights in the City of Green
Bay, literally by the bushel on many summer evenings" (Wisconsin State
Committee on Water Pollution, 1939)- The nymphs were found in 31 percent
of the samples in 1938-39, but in only one area in 1952. They were absent
from samples in 1955 and 1966.
-------
The most extensive survey to date of the Oligochaete fauna of Green Bay
has been carried out by Howmiller and Beeton (1970). They sampled 103 stations
between the City of Green Bay and Washington Island in 1966-67 and in 1969.
Oligochaete worms have been the most abundant macro-invertebrates throughout
lower and middle Green Bay in all studies since 1938-39- Howmiller and
Beeton (1970) found that these animals comprised 60 percent of all invertebrates
sorted from samples taken in the inner Bay and about 50 percent of the
macro-invertebrate bottom fauna in the remainder of the Bay. Other invertebrate
groups represented in the samples were, in order of abundance: midge larvae,
amphipods, isopods, leeches, molluscs and mayfly nymphs.
Large numbers of tubificid Oligochaete worms have long been cited as
evidence of pollution. Surber (1957) suggested that an abundance of tubificids
in excess of 1,000 per square meter apparently truly represented polluted
habitats. Wright (1955) and Carr and Hiltunen (1965) used the following
numbers of Oligochaetes to designate pollution areas in western Lake Erie:
light pollution, 100-999 per square meter; moderate pollution, 1,000-5,000;
heavy pollution, more than 5,000. Howmiller and Beeton (1970) conclude that
by these standards, lower Green Bay is heavily polluted. In addition, they find
that, according to Wright's standards, the middle Bay was moderately polluted
in 1969.
Howmiller and Beeton (1970) have pointed out that little is known of the
seasonal-dynamics of Oligochaete populations. They showed that the population
of the lower Bay decreased sharply at the same stations between October, 1966
and May, 1967- They attributed this decrease to depleted oxygen conditions
which occurred over much of this area during the winter months. Howmiller and
Beeton (1971) have criticized the conclusions, drawn from the 1955 survey, that
there had been a reduction in the number of pollution tolerant benthic animals
in the period since the surveys of 1938 and 1952. The survey in January, 1955
may have been taken during a seasonal period of reduced population.
-------
-87-
Hovmiller and Beeton (1971) have examined earlier data in an attempt to
compare current "bottom conditions with earlier conditions. They concluded that
critical comparison with past studies is difficult because (a) measurements were
seldom made at the same stations, (b) the measurements were not made at the same
season of the year, and (c) different apparatus and methodology were used. Prior
to the mid-sixties, few investigators attempted to identify worms as to species
or even genera. In an attempt to eliminate these sources of inaccuracy, the
benthos of 27 stations of lower and middle Green Bay were sampled on
May 26, 1969. The same stations had been sampled in a similar way on
May 26-27, 1952 by Surber and Cooley (1952).
Table 17 reports the changes which have occurred in the lower and middle
portions of Green Bay between 1952 and 1969 (Howmiller and Beeton, 1971)-
TABLE 17. PERCENTAGE OP OLIGOCHAETE IN THE BOTTOM FAUNA
OF GREEN BAY, 1952 AND 1969
1952 1969
Lower Bay (south of entrance light)
Middle Bay (entrance light to Sturgeon Bay) 23%
Goodnight and Whitley (1960) proposed that the relative abundance of
Oligochaete worms in the benthos should be used as an index of pollution.
A good condition existed if the bottom fauna were less than 60 percent
Oligochaete, "doubtful" if 60-80 percent, and high polluted if more than
80 percent Oligochaetes. According to these standards, the Lower Bay has
deteriorated from a doubtful condition to a highly polluted state in the
intervening seventeen years. The Middle Bay has gone from a "good condition"
to a "doubtful" one since 1952.
The aquatic larvae of midges (Chironomidae) were the second most abundant
and widespread members of the benthic fauna in both 1952 and 1969. The
Chironomidae includes many species which are adapted to a wide range of
-------
-88-
environmental conditions. As a group, they display pollution tolerance
second only to the Oligochaete. Like many Oligochaete, the pollution tolerant
midges have an abundant supply of hemoglobin which makes them very efficient
at obtaining oxygen at the low concentrations associated with organic pollution.
The midges decreased markedly in the vicinity of the Fox River mouth. Increased
numbers were found at stations north of Long Tail Point. This increase was
not as great as the increase in Oligochaete with the result that the midges
decreased in relative importance from an average of kQ percent in 1952 to
37 percent in 1969 in the middle Bay and from 37 to 26 percent for the entire
Bay.
Howmiller and Beeton (1971) have summarized their results for the various
species in lower Green Bay for which comparison can be made with the earlier
study by Surber and Cooley (1952). Pollution intolerant species are included in
these comparisons. These results appear in Figure 25 and are summarized in
Table 18.
Howmiller and Beeton (1970, 1971) conclude that if pollution of the Bay,
via the Fox River, continues:
1. The dominant species will, to an increasing extent, be associated
with gross pollution;
2. A larger abiotic area around the river mouth can be expected, since
conditions have become unsuitable for even the pollution tolerant organisms;
3. Midge larvae would be expected to decrease in abundance at
stations farther north in the lower Bay;
k. The Oligochaete, the only group which increased in absolute and
relative abundance between 1952 and 1969, would become even more important
in the benthic community. Most others have declined. The zone of maximum
abundance will be found farther out into the Bay from the mouth of the Fox
River.
-------
FIGURE25a_Lower and middle Green Bay, Lake Michigan, showing
bottom sampling stations of 26 and 28 May 1952 and 26 May 1969.
Howmiller.and Beeton (1971)
1969
Oligochaeta/m*
10,000 J(heavy pollutlcn)
FIGURE 25b.-Distribution and abundance of Oligochaeta in the sedi-
ments of lower and middle Green Bay on 26 and 28 May 1952 (left), and
26 May 1969 (right).
-------
1969
Oligochaeta
< 60% (good condition)
60%80%(doubtu!)
ฃ > 80%(highly polluted)
FIGURE 25 c.-Relative abundance of Oligochaeta, as percentage of total
bottom fauna, in May 1952 and 1969.
Howniller and Beeton (1971)
FIGURE 25d.Distribution and abundance of Chironomidae in May 1952 and 1969
-------
-91-
1969
Gastropoda /rn2
<25
25 - 50
50 - 100
100 - 250
0 >250
FIGURE25e.-Distribution and abundance of snails in May 1952 and 1969.
Howniller and Beeton (1971)
1969
Pelecypoda
Sphaerndae/rr?
201 - 50O
501 - IOOO
^1001-2000
ฃ >2000
FIGURE 25f-Distribution and abundance of fingernail clams in May
1952 and 1969.
-------
-92-
1969
Amphipoda /m*
< 100
500 - 1000
FIGURE25g.-Distribution and abundance of amphipods in May 1952
and 1969.
Howmiller and Beeton (1971)
1969
FIGURE 25h.-Distribution and abundance of leeches in lower and middle
Green Bay in May 1952 and 1969.
-------
-93-
of Data in Figure 2Z
Table 18 Abundance of Benthic Invertebrates at Stations Shown in Figure 25a
on 26 and 27 May 1932*
Abundance of Given Invertebrate
Sta.
ticm
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
11)
20
21
22
. 23
24
25
20
27
(no./K) m,
Netnatoda
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
43
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Oligorhaetft
43
113,152
33,829
51,175
13,472
9,813
2,109
1,420
2,324
775
897
430
258
904
603
1,033
Sfi
387
43
581
861
818
0
0
301
387
516
J.eerbes
0
so
0
43
43
86
215
80
80
258
0
43
13
o
0
129
0
43
34 1
0
25S
43
129
129
r>
0
0
Snails
0
0
0
0
0
172
258
129
301
43
258
86
43
43
0
0
0
0
0
0
43
0
0
0
0
0
0
Clams
0
258
0
0
0
344
732
732
2,068
516
75
510
1,592
603
732
1,420
0
301
43
129
603
473
301
0
387
301
25S
Amphipwls
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
710
0
0
0
500
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
43
laopods
0
0
0
0
43
0
0
0
0
0
11
0
0
0
301
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Midges
129
1,377
3,099
1,630
1,679
1,765
1,679
2,281
947
1,102
SO
34 1
258
1,519
990
1,334
301
040
86
2,539
6 tfj
775
016
81S
500
1,291
2,410
Othtr
43 Kristalis
J 1 Caddis, Molanna
1 Data of Surber and Cooley
Abundance of Benthic Invertebrates at Stations shown in Figure 25a
on 26 May 1969
Abundance of Given Invertebrate
(iio./ซq m)
Button
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
20
27
Nซmซ-
tcxla.'
0
+
0
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
4.
-i-
+
+
+
1-
+
+
J-
+
+
Olisochaeta
0
22,057
8,004
7,227
29,292
16,921
11,854
4,204 '
2.008
1,032
1,003
822
688
918
2,792
1,281
1,109
229
4,531
2,058
5,354
1,740
899
9,770
10,325
23,441
10,095
Leeches
0
0
0(114)t
0
0
0
76
0(133)f
19
19
0
0
0
0
0
0
0(38)f
0
0
0
0
0
0
19
0
0
0
SnaiU
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0(3S)f
0
19
0
19
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Clams
0
0
0
0
0
0
38
57
631
19
172
994
268
19
1,160
0
0(19)t
0
57
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
0
Arnphi-
podi
0
0
0
0
0
0
0(19)f
0
0
0
0(38)t
0
0
0
19
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
57
38
0
19
ISOpodj
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0(19)t
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
76
38
0
0
Midges
0
38
6S8
410
2,237
3,155
1,778
860
1,759
70
402
1,S36
1,044
3,097
554
1,128
918
707
2,314
2,005
803
1 o30
'3-14
1,300
031
1,106
2,275
Other
96 Psychodn
19 Lnmptilis
* Nomatoda wore very numerous in many samples but certainly not sampled quantitatively,
hence not counted.
f Not taken in Ekinnn grab sample but numbers of animals in parentheses were recorded
from Ponnr grab sample taken at the same time.
-------
DISSOLVED OXYGEN
Measurements of dissolved oxygen concentrations have been a significant
part of Green Bay surveys since 1939 (Wisconsin State Committee on Water
Pollution, 1939; Surber and Cooley, 1952; Balch et al, 1956; Schraufnagel
et al, 1968; Sager, 1971). The dissolved oxygen content of lower Green Bay
depends upon the condition of Fox River water as it reaches the Bay. The
temperature, flow rate and dissolved oxygen levels in the Fox River vary
considerably with the season of the year. This seasonal fluctuation is the
most significant factor which influences the condition of Fox River water
as it enters Green Bay. The relative importance of the Fox River in relation
to other tributaries of Green Bay has been discussed earlier. (See Table ll).
The discharge of decomposable organic wastes to a confined body of water
results in the development of a degree of pollution dependent upon the oxygen
requirements of these wastes and the amount of dissolved oxygen availabe in the
receiving waters. Where the load of organic wastes exceeds the self-purification
capacity of the stream, critical and zero dissolved oxygen concentrations develop
at downstream locations.
Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) measures the amount of oxygen utilized
by decomposing organic matter. The relationship between the biochemical
oxygen demand and dissolved oxygen is controlled by temperature, time,
reaeration rate, and concentration. When the water temperature increases,
the dissolved oxygen concentration at saturation decreases and the organic
decomposition rate increases. Under these warmwater conditions, the point
of low dissolved oxygen will be found near the point of waste discharge.
Conversely, with cold temperatures, the zone of low dissolved oxygen is
farther downstream from the waste source. Critical oxygen conditions are
least likely to occur in open stream waters with the temperature just above
-------
-95-
the freezing point because of the higher saturation dissolved oxygen concen-
trations, low decomposition rates and improved reaeration capacity. With ice
cover, much of a stream's reaeration capacity is lost and critical conditions
can develop at substantial distances from the waste source.
Dissolved oxygen concentrations were measured extensively during a
survey conducted in 1938-39 (Wisconsin State Committee on Water Pollution,
1939). This survey consisted of a series of stations extending northward for
37 km and covered the period from November, 1938 until June, 1939. In
November, before ice cover had formed, the dissolved oxygen content was
high, varying between 85 and 100 percent of saturation for all samples.
The lowest values occurred in waters closest to the mouth of the Fox River.
After safe ice had formed, dissolved oxygen samples were obtained within the
inner Bay, directly off Point Sable, and at Dyckesville. These samples showed
that the waters in the inner Bay were generally at 85 percent saturation, the
waters off Point Sable at 30 percent saturation, and the waters at Dyckesville
at 90 percent saturation. In February and March, 1939, a series of measure-
ments were made on a weekly basis at more than fifty stations in order to
assess the effect of ice cover on dissolved oxygen content and to define the
extent and direction of travel of this water low in dissolved oxygen. The
results of these measurements were interpreted to indicate that oxygen depletion
occurred throughout the period of ice cover. The oxygen depletion was divided
into three zones: (l) the zone of deoxygenation, (2) the zone of maximum
oxygen depletion, and (3) the zone of recovery. A zone of deoxygenation
extended from the mouth of the Fox River to Point Sable; from there a zone of
maximum oxygen depletion existed along the east shore for varying distances,
increasing in length but not width as the period of ice cover increased. The
investigators suggested that the zone of maximum oxygen dep^tion was occasionally
-------
-96-
divided into tvo zones by the introduction of unpolluted water high in oxygen
content from the western portion of the Bay. The points where this water was
introduced were considered as local zones of recovery where the polluted and
unpolluted waters merged. As long as ice cover remained, this zone of recovery
receded further and further towards the north.
Data from the late spring months of 1939 indicated that the zone of
deoxygenation was located within that portion of the Fox River below the
sulfite mills in the City of Green Bay and the zone of maximum oxygen depletion
existed within the inner Bay (south of the Long Tail PointPoint Sable line).
The zone of recovery caused by reaeration and mixing existed immediately outside
the inner Bay. Differences in oxygen demand between summer and winter were
ascribed to increased rates of oxygen uptake at the higher temperatures. The
workers in 1939 discarded the theory that bottom conditions might be the cause
of the areas of low dissolved oxygen content in both winter and summer. They
found that the oxygen content in winter at the mouth of the Fox River was
always high, a point where "bottom conditions were poorest in terms of oxygen
demand. Maximum oxygen depletion took place near Point Sable where the water
depth was 9-2 meters.
Measurements of biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) accompanied measurements
of dissolved oxygen. Under winter conditions, water at the mouth of the
Fox River had a high (10-12 ppm) BOD. From this point, the BOD fell rapidly
to a low of about 2 ppm near Point Sable and remained constant northward
throughout the central and eastern portions of the Bay. In May, 1939, BOD
at the mouth of the river was approximately 5 ppm. This value remained the
same to a point approximately in the middle of the inner Bay (along the ship
channel) and then dropped to 3 ppm within approximately one-half mile of this
point and remained fairly constant at this value through the remainder of the
-------
-; 7-
Bay as far north as Dyckesviile. These values were more erratic in their
distribution than those noted under winter conditions, probably because of
mixing from wind action. The BOD and dissolved oxygen measurements for the
spring of 1939 are summarized in Appendix IX.
The investigators in 1939 attributed the relationship between dissolved
oxygen depletion and biochemical oxygen demand in Green Bay to the waste
sulfite liquor in the Fox River water. The differences between winter and
summer conditions were ascribed to differences in the rate of the biochemical
oxygen demand of the sulfite liquor at high and low temperature.
Dissolved oxygen concentrations in lower Green Bay were measured extensively
from the summer of 1955 until March, 1956 (Balch et al, 1956). It was found
that from the middle of June until the middle of August, the region south of
the Grassy Islands was generally deficient in oxygen (h to 19 percent saturation.
corresponding to dissolved oxygen values of 0.3 to 1.7 ppm). In this same
region, the BOD was high (a variation of 15-5 to 2^.0 ppm). These results
contrasted with the 1938-39 survey which revealed dissolved oxygen values
no lower than 2-3 mg/1 during all periods when there was no ice cover. No
BOD values in 1938-39 reached tha levels found in the 1955-56 study.
In the summer of 1955, the region north of the Grassy Islands and south
of the Long Tail PointPoint Sable line showed a great deal of variation in
dissolved oxygen concentration. On two occasions, samples in this region
contained no dissolved oxygen. The BOD here ranged from 11.5 to 26.5 ppm.
Most of the other samples had concentrations corresponding to 50 to 80 percent
saturation and had a biochemical oxygen demand of h to 9 ppm. The remainder
of the measurements throughout Green Bay during the summer of 1955 were
described as normal in both dissolved oxygen and in BOD content.
-------
-08-
Measurements were made during the period of ice cover in February, 1955
(Balch et al, 1956). Although the data was regarded as inadequate for a
comprehensive understanding of the conditions obtained beneath the ice on
Green Bay, they were used to give a general indication of winter conditions.
A "generally reduced dissolved oxygen content" south of an east-west line from
the tip of Long Tail Point to Sable Point. Various analyses for dissolved
oxygen within this area ranged from 0.1 ppm to 2.0 ppm. The higher value
was noted in the vicinity of the mouth of the Fox River. On the east shore
of Green Bay, north of Point Sable to a point approximately midway between
Point Sable and Point Comfort, a series of samples taken on February 16, 1955
indicated water that varied from a trace to 6.6 ppm in dissolved oxygen.
The higher readings were close to shore. Approximately one mile from shore
in water over 20 feet deep, there was no measureable dissolved oxygen.
Samples taken in surveys during late .January and early March, 1956,
indicated a different condition than that present under the ice in February,
1955. On the east shore of the Bay, dissolved oxygen in the vicinity of Point
Sable was about 0.2 ppm on top and 0.0 ppm on the bottom. BOD in this vicinity
varied from 7.1 to 11.6 ppm. In the vicinity of Point Comfort, the dissolved
oxygen on the bottom ranged from 0.1 to 0.3 ppm, but the surface waters
contained as much as 15.0 ppm. Near Dyckesville, there appeared to be some
indication of oxygen depleted water as one station contained 0.1 ppm dissolved
oxygen on the bottom. On March 6, 1956, the oxygen content of the water in
the vicinity of Dyckesville at several stations close to shore was less than
0.5 ppm. In general, reduced oxygen was noted 15 miles farther north in 1956
than in 1955 at the same time of year. The data from the 1955/1956 survey appears
in Appendix X.
The survey in 1966-67 by Schraufnagel et al (1968) measured dissolved
oxygen extensively under both winter ans summer conditions. Data from
February 9-11, 1966 (Table 19) showed that decomposition of discharge wastes
-------
-99-
from the Fox River affected dissolved oxygen values for distances of 6 and 8
km from the river mouth. The discharges of the Fox River during the winter
months normally revealed variable but nevertheless sufficient oxygen levels
to sustain fish life. Observed values in the river were typically between 6 and
12 mg/1 at this time. At the same time, samples taken at stations on the west
side of the bay at a distance of 29 km from the mouth of the Fox River (designated
as Middle Bay) did not show any appreciable dissolved oxygen reduction during this
period except in the immediate vicinity of the mouth of the Oconto River (Table 19)
Samples on the east side of Middle Green Bay indicated that although ice cover
had been of only four weeks' duration, the dissolved oxygen had been substantially
reduced near the bottom in the vicinity of Dyckesville (2k km from the mouth of
the Fox River), but at Kohl's Landing (1*0 km) no depletion of dissolved oxygen in
the bottom could be observed (Table 19)-
TABLE 19- D.O. CONCENTRATION INNER BAY AREA
February 9 & 10, 1966
Mouth of Fox River
to Sable Point
In Long Tail
Point Bay
Station
Number*
1
2
3
I*
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Water
Depth (M)
I3g
3
2
2
2
2
3
3
2
2
3
2
2
Sample D.O.
Depth (M) mg/1
1 13.1
2% 3.9
1^2 6.2
iJg 6.1
l1^ 5.8
lig 10 . 0
1% 8.3
2 5-5
1^2 5.8
l^s 9.1*
2 8.8
I's 5-7
m 6.8
*For station location, see Figure 26.
-------
-100-
TABLE 19 (Continued)
Station Water
Number* Depth (M)
In Little Tail lU 2
Point Bay 15 3
16 Ik
17 Ik
South of Pensaukee 18 5g
19 )4
20 7
Oconto River Area 21 6
22 6
23 lh
Dyckesville 27 kk
28 7
29 8
30 8
31 8k
2U 11
25 1)4
26 15
Sample
Depth (M)
Ik
Ik
1
1
k
Surface
3
Surface
3
6
Surface
5
Surface
3
6
Surface
U
7
Surface
U
Surface
3
6
Surface
3
7
Surface
3
7
Surface
5
8
Surface
U
7
10
Surface
U
7
10
13
Surface
U
9
lU
D.O.
mg/1
1)4.9
15-1
12. U
Ht. 5
15.lt
1)4.7
15.2
1)4. 3
1)4.14
1)4.9
8.6
11.3
Ik. 5
li. 5
6.8 '
1)4.0
lU.O
11.6
1)4.3
6.2
It. 2
1)4. U
1)4.2
lU.l
13.9
U. 7
13.7
13.8
5-3
1)4.0
13.6
5. 14
13.0
12.8
13.0
11.6
13. U
13.5
12.3
12.7
13.5
13.0
12.8
13.0
11.0
*For station location, see Figure 26.
-------
-s r~ ^-i
s >- --
. _i _ - _ V --..._ ( ^ .^
I ^. ' i ' --T-
- ' ~~"
\
r+B t-N
i\ m/; f ' I'
-------
-102-
On March 10, 1966, just before ice breakup, more samples were taken (Table 20),
Dissolved oxygen concentrations at Sable Point remained relatively high during
this period. At Dyckesville, the oxygen conditions had deteriorated with a
0.5 mg/1 observation at the bottom Q.k km off shore. In general, ice conditions
in the winter of 1966 were similar to those in 1939. Dissolved oxygen levels
were found to be similar in the Sable Point area in the two years. However, in
the vicinity of Dyckesville, limited sampling suggested that the dissolved oxygen
concentrations were lower than in 1939, especially near the bottom. The region
of the inner Bay in 1966 had consistently lower concentrations of DO than did
this region in 1939. The region north of Long Tail Point is less amenable to
comparison because of the paucity of data for the winter of 1966. However, there
were stations in 1966 in the region about Long Tail Point which had DO concen-
trations significantly lower than values found in this region in 1939. The
judgment is made here that DO concentrations in the winter of 1966 were generally
lower in several regions of Green Bay than they were in 1939.
Extensive measurements were made during the summer of 1966 (see Figure 19).
Monitoring stations in Zone A (the mouth of the Fox River, Mason Street Bridge)
revealed ample dissolved oxygen during the winter months, but low dissolved
oxygen during the summer months. On April 6, the dissolved oxygen was 12.0 mg/1
at the surface. By July 5, the concentration had fallen to 2.8 mg/1. On
August 12, no dissolved oxygen could be detected in the river. Gas bubbles
were observed and hydrogen sulfide odors were pronounced. The low dissolved
oxygen values generally prevailed through October 20.
The area between the mouth of the Fox River and Grassy Island (Zone B)
was affected by the waste load of the Fox River. On July 5, the dissolved
oxygen concentration was still over k mg/1. On August 12, the dissolved
-------
-103-
oxygen in this region was less than 1 mg/1. This condition persisted through
September 7, but by October 20 the dissolved oxygen was over h mg/1 at
Grassy Island.
The zone (Zone C) just east of the ship channel to the east shore and
extending approximately 0.8 km from the shore was defined distinctly because
of wind blown algae accumulations and wave action along the shore. The effect
of zero detectable oxygen in the Fox River discharge during the summer was
noted in this region. For a distance of 2.h km east of the channel, no oxygen
was detected. Three point two (3.2) km east of the channel, the dissolved
oxygen concentration was h.l mg/1 and at k.O km, the dissolved oxygen con-
centration was variable but probably in the vicinity of 6 mg/1. On October 20,
when the river was still discharging water devoid of dissolved oxygen, the
station east of the channel was still less than 1 mg/1, while at 3.2 km, the
concentration was approximately 3 mg/1.
TABLE 20. D.O. CONCENTRATIONS ON INNER BAY AREA
March 10, 1966
Sable Point
Long Tail Point
Little Tail Point
Dyckesville
Station
Number*
1
3
k
kA
10
11
12
13
Ik
15
27
Water
Depth (M)
2
2s
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
U
Sample D.O.
Depth (M) mg/1
Us 9-6
2 8.7
Ih 8.8
1^ 2.2
m 10.3
1% 10.5
la-2 10.1
lh 10.5
'-2 13.2
m 10 . 6
Surface 10.0
3h 0.5
*For station location, see Figure 27-
-------
Figure 27
March,
-L / :_';
~-
/r-^"'; X- & ''tL^y '"^*y-rf--^ ^\
-------
-105-
Th e remaining portion of the Bay below Long Tail Point and east of the
ship channel (Zone D) was found to contain a concentration of dissolved oxygen
sufficient to sustain fish and fish food organisms. Only one sample in the
channel, halfway between Grassy Island and Long Tail Point, revealed less
than 2 mg/1 dissolved oxygen. The other samples revealed concentrations
greater than h mg/1 throughout the summer months. This represented some
depletion due to waste stabilization since without wastes saturated values of
8 to 10 mg/1 dissolved oxygen would be expected.
The west side of the Bay below Long Tail Point (Zone E) showed dissolved
oxygen values that appeared to be free of the influence of wastes.
The region north of Long Tail Point and extending to Sturgeon Bay
(Zones G and F), as well as the region from Sturgeon Bay to Washington Island,
showed no effects from the waste discharges of tributary streams during the
summer of 1967.
In early February, 1967, the ice cover in lower Green Bay exceeded
O.k meters (20 inches). On February 8, the dissolved oxygen concentration
within three miles of the Fox River mouth was sufficient to sustain fish and
fish food organisms. However, at a distance 6.1* km from the mouth of the
Fox River and east of the ship channel (Sable Point area), the dissolved
oxygen concentration was less than 0.5 rag/1 (Table 2lj.
-------
-106-
TABLE 21. D.O. CONCENTRATION IN LOWER GREEN BAY
February 8-10, 1967
Field
Station
1
2
3
1*
5
6
7
8
Map
Station*
1
2
3
U
5
6
7
8
D.O.
Mid
Surface Depth
6.6
6.6
h.o
8.3
0.2
0.5
0.3
0.2
Bottom
6.2
5.6
_
-
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.1
Miles
from Mouth
of Fox
2
2g
3
-&t
5
%
)4
5*5
February 10, 1967
k
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
lU
15
16
9
10
11
12
13
lU
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
0.0
0.9
2.8
7-3
10.1
11.1
7-5
9.5
11.1
9-1
8.8
6.7
O.U
0.0
0.0
0.7
3.U
9.0
9.7
1.9
8.8
10.9
8.2
5.3
U.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
1.7
5.5
0.8
0.6
10.8
0.7
0.5
0.1
0.0
8-9
8-9
8-9
8-9
8-9
8-9
9-10
9-10
9-10
9-10
9-10
9-10
9-10
*For station location, see Figure 28.
Dissolved oxygen concentration near the shore north of Sable Point was
essentially zero. Concentration increased along the ship channel vhere values
were probably not influenced by waste stabilization (Table 22).
The area east of the harbor light and extending toward the shore revealed
no dissolved oxygen at the bottom and only 2 to 3 mg/1 at the surface. Proceeding
west, north or east, the dissolved oxygen condition tended to improve, exceeding
5 mg/1 at all surface sites. The bottom concentrations were significantly
reduced (less than 3 mg/l) out to approximately 26 km. Beyond this distance,
-------
Fipure 28
February 8-10,
___
vTTrr-, /
^rr>p t
I*
o
I
-------
-108-
there was no depletion in dissolved oxygen on February 9- Commercial fishermen
during this period had "been forced to move nets from sites that were recording
less than 1 mg/1 at the bottom and were having no difficulty in areas recording
the higher values.
In order to determine how far the front of low dissolved oxygenated water
had proceeded, the region from Dyckesville to Sturgeon Bay was surveyed again
in March. By March 9, the commercial fishermen had abandoned the Dyckesville
area as a site of net fishing. The dissolved oxygen concentrations were not as
low as were observed a month earlier. Stations 2, 3 and U (Table 23) which
had previously recorded dissolved oxygen values of less than 1 mg/1, revealed
values of no less than 2 mg/1. However, stations 10, 12 and 13, which were
approximately 29 km from the mouth of the Fox River and which revealed no
apparent oxygen depletion in February, had less than 1 mg/1 on March 9- Stations
27 and 28 (U3 km from the mouth of the Fox River) also had less than 1 mg/1
dissolved oxygen near the bottom. In this region, fishermen were taking dead
fish out of one end of their nets while 800 feet away at the other end they
were taking live fish. The dissolved oxygen concentrations at these points
were 0.1 and 9-9 mg/1, respectively. These observations were suggestive
of the magnitude of the oxygen depletion and of the sharp gradients in oxygen
concentrations that can be detected miles from the source of wastes.
A final series of dissolved oxygen measurements were made on March 23, 1967
at stations ^0-43 km from the mouth of the Fox River. Low concentrations of
dissolved oxygen were found in almost all bottom waters between the channel and
0.8 km from the east shore. Surface waters retained an adequate dissolved
oxygen concentration to sustain fish life.
-------
-109-
A comparison of D.O. concentrations in the winters of 1939 and 196? in
Green Bay shows that concentrations in the inner Bay (south of Long Tail Point)
were substantially lower in 1967 than in 1939- The concentrations in the region
above Long Tail Point and along the eastern shore were consistently lower in
1967 than in 1939-
TABLE 22. D.O. CONCENTRATIONS IN MIDDLE GREEN BAY (DYCKESVILLE AREA)
February 9, 1967
Station
Number*
1
2
3
k
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
lU
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Surface
12.2
11.2
11. U
10.5
7-8
5.6
3.1
2.6
8.1
12.1
U.9
11.2
12.5
12. k
12.9
12.9
10. k
11.6
12.0
12.6
13.1
13.0
13.3
Mid
Depth
10.3
9.5
10. k
6.1
1.0
0.7
0.2
5.U
12.1
1.1
9.2
12.3
10.6
12.6
12. k
9-6
10.8
12.0
11.6
10.6
13.1
12.7
Bottom
2.7
2.3
l.U
1.5
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.6
0.0
2.9
5.0
1.3
2.k
5A
0.6
1.1
2.1
1.5
U.3
10.1
11.1
Miles
from Mouth
of Fox
1%
Ik
IS3*
13
12Jg
12
Ilh
11
ioh
10
13h
lU
13
I3h
iMs
135S
ฑ3h
Ik
1U
15
16
18
18
*For station location, see Figure 29.
Conclusions Based on the 1966-67 Survey
The temperaturedissolved oxygenwaste loading interrelationships and
effects of ice cover are revealed.
-------
Figure 29
February 9-10, 1967
----/---I--
.
/-MI i
1 r i
~
|09 87654J2
~f^<" f*-ป*< "T } . 1
^hir-p-i -1
=s!7.:Vra:ii,OT3
-------
-111-
TABLE 23
D.O. CONCENTRATION FOR MIDDLE GREEN BAY
March 9 & 10, 19G7
Field
Station
March 9, 1967
1
2
3
4
5
6
*7
/
8
9
10
11
12
l.i
14
15
I'
March 10, 1967
1
2
3
4
5
6
/
8
9
- 10
11
12
13
tj
y
Map
Station*
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
X
y
Surface
10.6
8.3
10.3
10.5
12.9
13.6
U.7
11.7
11.9
8.1
8.6
8.0
8.7
7.7
8.5
.0.0
7.8
9.1
10.4
--
11.3
11.2
11.1
11.5
11.4
11.6
11.6
11.0
10.0
0.1
--
Mid
Depth
8.9
8.5
9.8
9.7
7.5
12.5
11.3
11.2
10.8
5.1
--
7.7
3.8
8.2
8.5
10.9
--
8.0
10.0
6.4
11.2
11.2
10.4
10.5
11.5
11.6
11.3
10.4
9.9
--
Bottom
1.8
3.3
2,5
8.2
9.8
10.0
6.7
5.4
2.0
0.5
5.4
0.8
0.7
2.2
2.1
2.5
9.0
2.2
0.9
--
1.8
4.5
9.0
6.0
6.9
3.4
0.9
0.1
4.9
0.1
9.9
*For Station Location see Figure 30
-------
'-r~-T~ ป
i-J^-,
- '.l- ^> _<-U '"" x
_. I ^"'Xl J< M& N
-------
-113-
1. During warm weather, critical dissolved oxygen conditions are common
on the Fox River from Appleton through the City of Green Bay and for a distance
of 3-5 km into the Bay.
2. In the colder months, from a"bout mid-Novein"ber into April, the dissolved
oxygen in the river is generally in excess of 5 mg/1. However, during the winter
and particularly after prolonged heavy ice cover, low dissolved oxygen concentrations
can extend into Green Bay for a distance of nearly 50 km.
3. During the period of open water, reaeration causes a recovery of
oxygen levels beyond the Long Tail Point area.
In general, the dissolved oxygen levels in 1966-67 were lower in several
regions of the Bay compared to levels for the same region in 1939-
Sager (19J1) measured the dissolved oxygen concentrations in lower Green
Bay on a weekly basis during the summer of 1970. Nine sampling stations were
set up along a line which lan from the Fox River mouth to a point 22 km up th'-
Bay (Figure 2).
It was estimated that about 60 percent of the estimated 500,000 pounds
of 5-day, 20ฐ C BOD discharged daily to Green Bay came from the Fox River
(U.S. Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, 1966). The high BOD
concentrations in the river lead to depressed oxygen levels for a distance of
several miles into the Bay (Table 2k).
On August 21, the dissolved oxygen level had dropped to 0.2 mg/1 at the
mouth of the river. In general, low values of dissolved oxygen were found
near the river mouth, followed by rapid recovery of oxygen levels at distances
removed from the river mouth.
-------
-114-
TABLE 24. DISSOLVED OXYGEN CONCENTRATIONS1970
STATIONS
June 17
June 24
July 1
July 10
July 22
August 5
August 12
August 21
I
3.65
5.76
6.46
4.00
2.72
0.20
II
4.73
4.70
6.71
5-50
3.35
5.54
5-37
III
7.75
5-05
7.27
6.59
8.78
10.45
8.27
IV
7-70
9.80
8.67
5.96
8.49
9-51
10.61
V
7.75
9.^4
9.54
8.59
8.60
9.64
9-58
VI
7.79
9.70
9.49
8.13
8.31
9.24
8.73
VII
7-79
9.70
8.79
8.20
7-92
9.23
8.95
VIII
9.70
8.79
7.73
7.68
9.14
8.94
IX
9-70
8.99
7.60
7.60
9-89
9-l4
*See Figure 2 for station locations.
Summary
In summer, high Biochemical oxygen demand and rapid assimilation of wastes
at warm temperatures leads to a condition of zero or, at best, low dissolved
oxygen concentration in the water of the Fox River as it enters Green Bay. The
rapid assimilation of these waste continues in the lower Bay keeps oxygen concen-
trations low despite open waters and natural-reaeration. Beyond Long Tail Point,
the natural reaeration allows for a rapid recovery of dissolved oxygen concen-
trations. Recovery is aided in summer "by photosynthesis associated with dense
algal growth.
In winter, the concentrations of dissolved oxygen in the river remains high
(8-10 mg/l) "because of reduced assimilation processes at lower temperatures.
Ice and snow cover on the Bay block the physical transfer of oxygen to the Bay.
The result is that the slow assimilation of wastes continues for distances up
to 50 km from the mouth of the Fox River. The flow pattern of river water causes
these conditions to exist along the east side of the Bay.
-------
-115-
PUBLIC ATTITUDES TOWARD GREEN BAY
The majority of people who use or have contact with Green Bay do so in a
recreational sense. These people are usually not aware of the many aspects of water
quality which are important in Green Bay. Ditton and Goodale (1972) have surveyed
the attitudes of those who use Green Bay in an attempt to more precisely define
those aspects of water quality which are important to these people. These
attitudes should play a significant role in planning the allocation of Green
Bay resources.
The recreational use of water has "been the most rapidly growing use of water.
Recreational requirements of the Great Lakes Basin population may triple from 637
million recreational days in 1970 to 1.9 Million recreational days in 2020
(Great Lakes Basin Commission, 1971)-
The commission found that kk percent of the population preferred water-"based
activities over any other. While population levels and recreation demands in the
Great Lakes Basin are both increasing, the effective supply of Lake Michigan
water is being systematically reduced through conflicting water uses. These
conflicts have resulted in degraded water quality conditions, closed beaches and
reduced shoreland property values.
The multiple use concept of management has recreation as but one water use.
Other uses include navigation, waste disposal, power generation, flood control,
wildlife conservation, industrial water supply and irrigation. Theoretically,
Lake Michigan is supposed to support all these uses. The term multiple use
has come to stand for conflicting water uses eventually leading to impairment
or displacement of some uses.
The passage of the Federal Water Project Recreation Act (PL 89-72)
granted statutory authority for outdoor recreation as an equal among project
purposes. The act recognized that the federal government hs* a responsibility
-------
-116-
to meet at least part of the demand for outdoor recreation. In addition to
impaired water quality, inappropriate shoreland development, grandfather clauses
in zoning ordinances, erosion processes, and lack of public access and/or
facilities are shoreland conditions that restrict the optimal recreational use
of the Lake Michigan coastal zone.
A decline in water quality in Green Bay has had several effects on marine
recreational uses of the Bay and the attitude of people toward the Bay. A
large dislocation of recreational use of Green Bay has occurred, particularly
in the southern regions and particularly for "body contact and partial body
contact recreation. This is not a recent phenomenon, but one of gradual
erosion over a period in excess of the four decades for which some documentation
is available. The economic loss is substantial. Individual loss occurs in time
and money for dislocation. There is a community loss of revenue due to
suppressed value of adjacent properties. There is a loss of revenue which
accrues from diminished recreational uses. There is a loss of weekend and
seasonal trade. There is a loss of aesthetics. Smell and dead fish reduce
the recreational potential of Green Bay waters for noncontact users.
Different groups are deterred by different conditions as they view them
either the perception or the condition must be changed, depending on how closely
perception matches actual conditions.
The survey by Ditton and Goodale (1972) can be used by economists, planners,
state and local officials, educators and numerous other interested parties as
\
a guide to the demand for recreational resources in Green Bay by user group and
location and by place of residence and other categories. Water quality and
characteristics as perceived by users rather than as monitored by scientists
can be used to determine the ramifications of action designed to improve the
condition of the Bay.
-------
-1.17-
REVIEW OF HISTORICAL DATA SOURCES
AND GENERAL COMMENTS
Pollution control enforcement became a reality in Wisconsin when the 1927
state legislature created the Committee on Water Pollution, granted authority
for the issuance of orders and provided penalties for the violation of orders.
The committee was charged with the responsibility of coordinating all state
activities concerning water pollution control and one of its first activities,
in conjunction with representatives of the pulp and paper industry and the
state Board of Health, was to engage in a series of surveys of all pulp and
paper mills throughout the state.
These Cooperative Annual Wastewater Surveys provided the means for monitoring
the progress of the industry's efforts to improve the quality of its waste dis-
charges in accordance with an agreement reached by pulp and paper mill executives
and the participating state agencies in 1926. These early improvements included
the reduction of fiber losses by way'of savealls and recirculation systems and
more efficient use of manufacturing chemicals. Appendix I presents the results
of these surveys for mills located along the Lower Fox, Oconto, Peshtigo and
Menominee Rivers, for the period of 1950 - 19^7 when the mill surveys were dis-
continued. Data for 1971 and 1973 were obtained from the Wisconsin Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (WPDES) permit files and the Wisconsin Department
of Natural Resources' NR 101 monthly industrial reporting files respectively.
The limitations for 1975 and 1977 correspond to proposed EPA effluent guidances
as established in accordance with the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972. These guideline figures are subject to revision and represent
30-day maximum allowable averages. Appendix II briefly describes existing and
proposed wastewater treatment facilities at the various pulp and paper mills
of interest to this study.
-------
-118-
At the time of the inception of the Committee on Water Pollution, the lack
of adequate treatment of municipal wastes vas of great concern, primarily because
of the public health hazards involved. As a result, the state was divided into 28 major
drainage basins for the purpose of informing local communities about the necessity
for treatment of sewage and industrial wastes. 'By 19^0, approximately 90 percent
of the sewered population of the state was connected to treatment plants and by
1971, 76 percent of the existing plants provided secondary biological treatment.
Drainage basin surveys have been conducted throughout the state at various intervals
and have been instrumental in defining all significant point sources of pollution
and evaluating river conditions in relation to those sources. AppendixV
summarizes the results of the most recent basin survey for the Lower Fox, Oconto,
Peshtigo, and Menominee Rivers and identifies the location of each point source
in terms of River miles from the mouth of the respective rivers. The basin survey
reports are now the responsibility of the Water Quality Evaluation Section, Bureau
of Water Quality, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR).
River waste loadings from municipal sewage treatment plants are listed in
Appendix III . The tables present both treated and known raw sewage loadings
whereas the graphs depict only the treated effluent data. Raw sewage bypass, as
listed in the appendix, refers to bypass at the treatment plant as a result of
overloaded conditions. This does not include bypassing through overflows in
combined sewer systems, designed for the collection of both municipal sewage and
storm water runoff. For those years in which bypass data are not listed, bypassing
probably occurred but was not monitored.
In addition to the proposed changes and improvements at various sewage treat-
ment plants, as described in appendix IV, and in accordance with the agreements
reached by the participating members of the Lake Michigan Enforcement Conference
held in 1968, it is the goal of the state of Wisconsin to control pollution from
all combined sewerage systems by July, 1977- This action includes the separation
-------
-119-
of all existing combined sewers and the prohibition of this type of collection in
new developments except where alternate techniques can be employed. Until recently,
most of the fourteen communities of interest to this study had utilized combined
sewers. As of this writing, only De Pere, Oconto and Marinette have yet to complete
their separation programs.
The enforcement conference also provided a recommendation for phosphorus
removal from all municipal wastewater discharges. Section NR 102.01* of the
Wisconsin Administrative Code, dated September, 1973, incorporates this recommen-
dation by stating:
Communities with a population of 2,500 and over in the lakes
Michigan and Superior basins shall achieve an 85% reduction of
phosphorus on an annual basis , and there shall be a commensurate
removal from industrial wastes containing more than 2 mg/1 of total
phosphorus and having an annual phosphorus discharge greater than
8,750 pounds.
A proposal is now being considered which would replace "85$ reduction" with a limit
of 1 mg/1 of total phosphorus on a monthly average basis.
Information for the Green Bay Metro treatment plant for the years
19^6 - 1962 was obtained from the Annual Report of the Green Bay Metropolitan
Sewerage District Commission while the data for 1966, and for the years prior
to 1971 for all remaining treatment plants, are found in their respective basin
survey reports. BOD^ and suspended solids data for 1971 - 1973 were obtained
fiom the monthly Sewage Treatment Plant Operator Reports whereas projected waste
loadings correspond to proposed EPA guidances and represent maximum allowable
30-day averages.
Sewage treatment plant nutrient data was acquired from several sources
including: l) 1968 data - basin survey reports of 1969 for the Oconto, Peshtigo
and Menominee Rivers; 2) 1971 data - report of Sager and Wiersma, 1972; 3) 1972
data - Summary Report on Water Quality and Wastewater Discharge^ during the
summer of 1972, by the Water Quality Evaluation Section, Bureau of Water Quality,
WDNR; and k) 1973 data - Treatment Plant Operator Reports, 2U-hour composite
-------
-120-
surveys, and individual grab samples. KJeldahl nitrogen (KJEL-H) refers to the
particulate and dissolved organic fractions of nitrogen plus inorganic ammonia
nitrogen (WH0-N). Total -P includes soluble and particulate organic and inorganic
phosphorus fractions whereas soluble phosphorus (SOL-P) refers only to the
dissolved orthophosphate (PO, ) species as derived by filtration of water samples
through 0.1+5 micron filter paper prior to analysis.
Appendix VI is a summary of surface water quality surveys. The data for
1950 - I960 are the results of cooperative stream surveys which were carried out
in conjunction with the mill surveys. Data for the remaining years, 196l - 1973ป
were obtained from four of the h3 monthly monitoring stations located throughout
the state, the results of which are compiled by the Surveillance Section, Bureau
of Water Quality, WDNR. All river flow data were collected by the U.S. Geological
Survey.
The interpretation of the combined effects of municipal and industrial wastes
on Green Bay requires at least a reasonable account of actual waste loadings
entering the bay from its tributaries. Appendix XI is a summation of 5-day BOD
loadings from the Lower Fox, Oconto, Peshtigo and Menominee Rivers for the years
1956 - 1973. The loadings were calculated from the data in Appendix VI
according to the following formula:
BOD
Concentration X Flow X 5.k = Loading
(mg/l) (CFS) (Pounds/day)
In all cases the river sampling stations, from which the actual loadings were
determined, are upstream from one or more important point source. In order to
arrive at the estimate of total loading from each river, the combined down-
stream point source loadings, for those years in which complete data are available,
were added to the actual loadings. This is valid because of the proximity of
the point sources to the river sampling stations. The Peshtigo estimate will be
-------
somewhat inflated since the last major point source is about 10 miles upstream
from the bay. Data for the years 195& - I960 are averages for the summer
months only and will reflect a seasonal influence, especially in regards to the
levels of dissolved oxygen.
-------
-122-
REFERENCES
Ahrnsbrak, W. F. and R. A. Ragotskie.
1970. Mixing processes in Green Bay. Proc. 13th Conf. Great Lakes Res., Internat. Assoc.
Great Lakes Res., p. 880-890.
Allen, M. B.
1952. The cultivation of Myxophyceae. Arch. Mikrobiol. ,_J7 34-53.
Allen, H. E.
1966. Variations in phosphorus and nitrate in Lake Michigan and Green Bay, 1965. Abstracts.
Ninth Conf. Great Lakes Res. 1966: Internat. Assoc. Great Lakes Res.
American Society of Limnology and Oceanography.
1972. Nutrients and eutrophication. The limiting-nutrient controversy. G. E. Likens, editor.
Proceedings of a symposium. Michigan State University, 11 and 12 February, 1971.
Anonymous.
1967. Sources of nitrogen and phosphorus in water supplies. A report of the task group 2610P
Nutrient Associated Problems in Water Quality and Treatment. J. Amer. Water Works Assoc.,
59_: 344-366.
Bacqueville De La Potherie.
1972. Historic TAmerique Septentrionale. Paris: J. L. Nion, F. Didot.
Balch, R. F., K. M. Mackenthun, W. M. Van Horn and T. F. Wisniewski.
1956. Biological studies of the Fox River and Green Bay. Bull. WP102, Wisconsin Comm. on
Water Pollution, 74 p., mimeo.
Bartsch, A. F.
1972. Role of phosphorus in eutrophication. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA-R3-72-001.
Beeton, A. M.
1969. Changes in the environment and biota of the Great Lakes. In Eutrophication: Causes,
Consequences, Correctives. Proceedings of a symposium. National Academy of Sciences,
Washington, D.C.
Brezonik, P. L. and C. F. Powers.
1973. Nitrogen sources and cycling in natural waters. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency.
EPA 660/3-73-002. July, 1973.
Carr, J. F. and J. K. Hiltunen.
1965. Changes in the bottom fauna of western Lake Erie from 1930-1961. Limnol. Oceanog.,
p. 551-569.
Ditton, R. and T. Goodale.
1972. Marine recreational uses of Green Bay: a study of human behavior and attitude patterns.
Technical Report #17. University of Wisconsin Sea Grant Program. WIS-SG-72-217.
Engelbrecht, R. S. and J. J. Morgan. .....
1959. Studies on the occurrence and degradation of condensed phosphate in surface waters.
Sewage and Ind. Wastes 31_: 458.
Z91971.' Nutrient sources of algae and their control. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Project #16010 EHR. August, 1971
Goodnight, C. J. and L. S. Whitley. 4_
1961. Oligochaetes as indicators of pollution. Proc. 15th Ind. Waste Conf., Purdue Umv. Ext.
Ser., p. 139.
Hoare, D. S. and R. B. Moore.
1965 Photoassimilation of organic compounds by autotrophic blue-green algae. Biochim. Biophys.
Acta, 109: 622-625.
1969. Seasonal Fluctuations of Lake Michigan diatoms. Limnol. Oceanogr., 4_: 423-436.
Howmiller, R. P. and A. M. Beeton.
1970. The oligochaete fauna of Green Bay, Lake Michigan. Proc. 13th Conf. Great Lakes Res.
1970: Internat. Assoc. Great Lakes Res., p. 15-46.
1971.' Biol'ogical'evaluation of environmental quality, Green Bay, Lake Michigan. J. Water
Pollution Control Federation, p. 123-133.
-------
-123-
Jayne, J. C. and G. F. Lee.
1972. Phosphate transfer through lower Green Bay. Abstracts 15th Corif. Great Lakes Res. 197,?:
Internat. Assoc. Great Lakes Res.
Johnson, R. L.
1960. Limnology and the sanitary engineer. Proc. Third Conf, on Great Lakes Res. Intemat. Assoc.
Great Lakes Res. pp. 43-49.
Johnson, R. L.
1962. Factors affecting winter quality of lake water. Proc. Fifth Conf. on Great Lakes Res.
Internat. Assoc. Great Lakes Res. pp. 150-158.
Johnson, R. L.
1963. Tides and Seiches in Green Bay. Proc. Sixth Conf. on Great Lakes Res. Internat. Assoc.
Great Lakes Res. pp. 51-54.
Kerr, P. C., D. F. Paris and D. L. Brockway.
1970. The interrelation of carbon and phosphorus in regulating heterotrophic and autotrophic
populations in aquatic ecosystems. Water Pollution Control Research Series. U. S. Dept.
of Interior. Federal Water Quality Administration.
King, D. L. and R. C. Ball.
1964. A qualitative biological measure of stream pollution. J. Water Pollution Control Fed.
p. 650-653.
Kuentzel, L. E.
1969. Bacteria, C02 and algal blooms. J. Water-Pollution Control Fed., 41_;1737-1747.
Lange, W.
1967. Effects of carbohydrates on the symbiotic growth of planktonic blue-green algae with
bacteria. Nature, 215: 1277-1278,
Levin, G. V.
1963. Reducing secondary effluent phosphorus concentration. First Progress Report, Dept. of
San. Eng. and Water Resources, The John Hopkins University, Baltimore, Md., April, 1963.
Lloyd, C. N.
1966. The fishery in Green Bay. Proc. Governor's Conf, Lake Michigan Pollution. Madison,
Wisconsin, p. 165-177.
Lund, 0. W. G.
1950. Studies on Asterionella Formosa Mass. II. Nutrient Depletion and the Spring Maximum,
Ecol., 38: 15-35.
Martin, L.
1916. The physical geography of Wisconsin. Madison, p. 291.
Modlin, R. F. and A. M. Beeton.
1970. Dispersal of Fox River water in Green Bay, Lake Michigan. Proc. 13th Conf. Great Lakes Res.
Internat. Assoc. Great Lakes Res. p. 468-476.
Moore, J. R. and R. P. Meyer.
1969. Progress report on the geological-geophysical survey of Green Bay, 1968. Tech. Rept. No. 1,
Univ. Wisconsin Sea Grant Program, Madison, 16 p.
Mortimer, C. H.
1965. Spectra of long surface waves and tides in Lake Michigan and at Green Bay, Wisconsin. Proc.
Eighth Conf. on Great Lakes Res. Internat. Assoc. Great Lakes Res. pp. 304-325.
Morton, S.U., R. Sernau and P. H. Derse.
1971. Natural carbon sources, rates of replenishments and algal growth. Presented at the ASLO
Symposium, Nutrients and Eutrophication, "The Limiting Nutrient Controversy," American
Society of Limnology and Oceanography, Feb. 10-12, 1971, 19 p.
Patten, B. C.
1969. Ecological systems analysis and fisheries science. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc., 97;. 231-241.
Pearce, J. and N. G. Carr.
1971. The metabolism of acetate by the blue-green algae, Anabaena. Variabilis and Anastis
m'dulans, J. Gen. Microbiol. 49: 301-313.
-------
-12k-
Pnnce, A. T. and J. P. Bruce.
1971. Development of nutrient control policies in Canada. Symposium on "Nutrients in Natural
Waters." 161st National ACS Meeting, Los Angeles, Calif., March 28-April 2, 1971.
Ragotskie. R. A., W. F. Ahrnsbrak and A. Synowiec.
1969. Summer thermal structure and circulation of Chequamegon Bay, Lake Superiora fluctuation
system. Proc. 12th Conf. Great Lakes Res., Internet. Assoc. Great Lakes Res., p. 686-704.
Rigler, F. H.
1956. A tracer study of the phosphorus cycle in lake water. Ecol. 37: 550-562.
Rigler, F. H.
1964. The phosphorus fraction and the turnover time of inorganic phosphorus in different types of
lakes. Limnol. Oceanogr., 9; 511-518.
Risley, C. Jr. and F. D. Fuller.
1965. Chemical characteristics of Lake Michigan. Univ. Mich., Great Lakes Res. Div., Pub. 13:
168-174.
Rodhe, W.
1969. Crystalization and eutrophication concepts in northern Europe. In: Eutrophication:
Causes, Consequences, Correctives. National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C.,
p. 50-64.
Rousar, D. C. and A. M. Beeton.
1973. Distribution of phosphorus, silica, chlorophyll a_ and conductivity in Lake Michigan and
Green Bay. Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters, LXI 117-140.
Sager, P. E.
1971. Nutritional ecology and community structure of the phytoplankton of Green Bay. Technical
Completion Report OWRR. A-017-WIS. Office of Water Resources Research. U.S. Dept. of
the Interior.
Sager, P. E. and J. H. Uiersma.
1972. Nutrient discharges to Green Bay, Lake Michigan from the Lower Fox River. Proc. 15th
Conf. Great Lakes Res. 1972: Internat. Assoc. Great Lakes Res.
Sawyer, C. N.
1952. Some new aspects of phosphates in relation to lake fertilization. Sewage and Ind. Wastes.
2ฃ: 768.
Saylor, J. H.
1964. Survey of Lake Michigan harbor currents. Proc. Seventh Conf. on Great Lakes Res. Internat.
Assoc. Great Lakes Res. pp. 362-368.
Schraufnagel, F. H.
1966. Green Bay stream flows and currents, p. 178-182. In Lake Michigan Pollution: Governor's
Conference Proceedings. Madison, Wisconsin,
Schraufnagel, F. H., L. A. Montie, L. A. Leuschow, J. Lissack, G. Karl and J. R. McKersie.
1968. Report on an investigation of the pollution in the Lower Fox River and Green Bay made during
1966 and 1967. Wisconsin Dept. Nat. Resources Internal Rpt., 37 p.
Scott, R. H., G. F. Bernauer and K.M. Mackenthun.
1957. Drainage area IIA-stream pollution, Lower Fox River. State of Wisconsin Committee on Water
Pollution, Bull. No. WP 103.
Smith, S.H.
1968. Species succession and fishery exploitation in the Great Lakes. J. Fish. Res. Board
Canada, 25(4): 667-693.
Sridharan, N. and G. F. Lee.
1972. The role of sediments in controlling phosphorus concentrations in Lower Green Bay,
Lake Michigan. Water Chemistry Prog., Univ. of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin.
Stewart, W. D. P.
1969. Biological and'ecological aspects of nitrogen fixation by free, living micro-organisms.
Proc. Royal Soc., B172 367-388.
Stumm, W. and J. J. Morgan.
1962. Stream pollution by algal nutrients. Trans., 12th Annual Conf. on Sanitary Engineering,
Univ. of Kansas Press, Lawrence, p. 16-26.
-------
Surber, E. W.
1957. Biological criteria for the determination of lake pollution. In Trans. 1956 Seminar.
R. A. Taft. San. Eng. Center, USPHS, Cincinnati, W57-36, p. 164.
Surber, E. W. and H. L. Cooley.
1952. Bottom fauna studies of Green Bay, Wisconsin, in relation to pollution. U.S. Public
Health Service, Division of Water Pollution Control and Wisconsin Committee on Water
Pollution, 7 p. mimeo.
Thomas, E. A.
1969. The process of eutrophication in central European lakes. In: Eutrophication: Causes,
Consequences, Correctives. National Acad. Sci., Washington, D. C., p. 29-49.
U. S. Department of Interior, Federal Water Pollution Control Administration.
1966. A comprehensive water pollution control programLake Michigan Basin--Green Bay area.
FWPCA. Great Lakes Region, Chicago, Illinois.
U. S. Department of the Interior, Federal Water Pollution Control Administration.
1967. Lake Michigan Basin. Lake Currents. FWPCA, Great Lakes Region, Chicago, Illinois.
U. S. Department of the Interior, Federal Water Pollution Control Administration.
1968. Water pollution problems of Lake Michigan and tributaries. FWPCA, Great Lakes
Region, Chicago, Illinois.
U. S. Geological Survey.
1967. Water resources data for Wisconsin1967. U. S. Dept. of the Interior, Geolog. Survey.
Water Res. Div., 221 p.
U.S. Public Health Service.
1962. National water quality network. Annual Compilation of data October 1, 1961-September 30, 1962.
U. S. Public Health Service Publ. 653. 909 p.
Vallentyne, J. R.
1970. Phosphorus and the control of eutrophication. Canadian Res. and Development. 3_: 36-^3, 49.
Vanderhoef, L. N., B. Dana, D. Emerich and R. H. Burn's.
1972. Acetylene reduction in relation to levels of phosphate and fixed nitrogen in Green Bay.
New Phytol. 71: 1097-1105.
Vanderhoef, L. N., C. Y. Huang and R. Musil.
1973. Nitrogen fixation (acetylene reduction) by phytoplankton in Green Bay, Lake Michigan, in
relation to nutrient concentrations. Limnol. and Oceanogr., in press.
Walter, G. and W. J. Hogman.
1971. Mathematical models for estimating changes in fish populations with application to Green
Bay. Proc. 14th Conf. Great Lakes Res. 1971. Internat. Assoc. Great Lakes Res.
p. 170-184.
Wlersma, J. H., P. E. Sager, S. Stone, J. R. Salkowski and G. Hewlett Jr.
1973. Contribution of nutrients to the Lower Fox River. College of Environmental Sciences,
University of Wisconsin-Green Bay. Unpublished.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.
1973. Physical and biological measurements on Green Bay, September, 1973. Department of Natural
Resources--Madison, Wisconsin.
Wisconsin State Committee on Water Pollution.
1939. Investigations of the pollution of the Fox and East Rivers and of Green Bay in the vicinity
of the City of Green Bay. Rpt. Wisconsin State Committee on Water Pollution and State
Board of Health in collaboration with the Green Bay Metropolitan Sewage Commission.
Wright, S.
1955. Limnological Survey of Western Lake Erie. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Serv., Spec. Sci. Rept.,
Fisheries No. 139.
-------
-126-
APPENDIX I.
LOWER FOX, OCONTO, PESHTIGO AND MENOMINEE RIVERS -
PULP AND PAPER MILL PRODUCTION AMD RIVER LOADINGS,
1950-1977
-------
-127-
GREEH BAY PACKAGING INC. - GREEH BAY
Year
1952
1953
195U
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
I960
1961
1962
1963
196U
1965
1966
1967
1971
1973
1975
1977
Production (
Semi-Chemical
Pulp
90
136
11*9
172
193
162
151*
186
162
187
189
200
196
191
181*
169
(Sept. 30)
(July 1)
tons /day)
Paper
233
21*2
21*6
2l*2
2l*0
285
316
Discharge
MOD
2.1*97
3-120
1.1*85
3.101
3.91*!
3.260
2.900
2.500
3.170
3.100
2.780
3.380
3.150
2.100
2.827
3.1*1*0
2.600
1.786
EOD5
LVday Kg/day
lฃ,08o 3,199
16,380 7,!*29
lL,l*6o 6,558
lฃ,280 7,383
31,820
30,780
36,280
3T.760
3t,900
39,580
31*, 1*00
1*5,960
1*C,100
33,300
25,720
21,1*1*0
19,865
1,355
1,600
1,600
il*, 131
13,959
16,1*51*
17,125
17,61*1
17,950
15,601
20,81*1*
21, Silt
15,102
11,661*
9,723
9,009
611*
726"
726
Suspended
Solids
Lb/day Kg/ day
3,580 1,621*
I* ,120 1,869
2,5(0 I,l6l
9, -80 1*,299
-.720
6,660
9,91*0
8,000
7,100
6,320
6,7>*0
9_,36o
5,260
5,31*0
5,9l*0
5,!iOO
2,475
i;65
1,200
1,200
2,11*1
3,020
1*,508
3,628
3,220
2,666
3,057
1*,1*72
2,385
2,1*22
2,691*
2,!* 1*9
1,122
211
51*1*
51*1*
CHARMIH PAPER CO. - GF-3ETI BAY
Year
1950
1951
1952
1953
1951*
1955
1956
1957
1958
'1959
I960
1961
1962
1963
1961*
1965
1966
1967
1971
1?73
1975
1977
Production
Groundvood
Pulp
-
38
3U
31*
35
16
10
12
17
lit
12
7
(Sept. 30)
(July 1)
(Tons /Day)
Sulfite Pulp
& Paper
298
1*05
1*52
1*33
1*31*
1*82
521
5l*8
585
522
563
573
660
832
862
93!*
1,111
1,199
1,526
_.
Discharge
MOD
6.368
6.393
5.31*1
8.567
6.5U2
6-396
9.381
12.1*98
12.563
13-21*2
13-037
12.661
11.081
ll*.557
15.1*82
li*. 561
15.1*09
13.932
. 13.657
14.522
BOE-
Lb/Dav
52,7^0
32,060
1*7,3:0
66,6-0
38,300
31*, 300
30,660
1*1,956
1*2,560
1*7,220
6o,c-o
68, 9 JO
1*8, 7~0
56,922
1*6,1-8
1*5,626
35,527
1*9,200
1*3, ฃ32
7,6:0
7,630
Kg/Day
23,909
lU,?ltO
21,1*88
30,222
17,370
15,556
13,905
19,023
19,302
21,1*15
27,229
31,283
22, U3
25,320
20,929
20,692
16,112
22,313
19,365
3,'*60
3,1*60
Suspended
Salids
Lb/Day Kg/Bav
7,000
5,90C
5,700
13,060
8,1*1.0
8,200
15,260
15,820
17,311*
13,620
15,380
11,776
21*, 235
23,208
25,22C
l3i.07ฃ
28,266
26,331
12,950
12,67-
8,5CC
8.50C
3,175
2,676
2,565
5,923
3,825
3,719
6,921
7,175
7,852
6,177
6,975
5,31*1
11,01;
10,525
11,1*33
8,159
12,819
11,91*1
5,873
5,71.3
3,855
3,855
-------
-128-
AMERICAN CAN CO. - GREEJ BAY
Year
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
i960
1961
1962
1963
1961*
1965
1966
1967
1971
1973
1975
1977
Production (Tons/Day)
Sulfite Groundwood
Pulp Pulp Paper
126
132
131*
128
128
128
130
133
13k
130
129
iko
139
136
137
137
140
159
15L
(Sept. 30)
(July 1)
73
79
8U
102
103
86
105
100
102
89
96
79
60
68
52
68
~
172
172
205
191*
251*
340
370
386
311*
337
352
361
377
1*15
1*15
1*37
1*62
386
1*63
~
Discharge
MOD
9-315
7-211+
8.531
8.703
9.951*
10.023
9.229
10.1*35
13.21*7
15.1*96
15-137
17-097
19.891
19-125
19.627
16 . 300
18.600
17-900
11.21U
BOD
Lb/Dav
36,86:
1*7,52;
57,16:
39,80:
1*1,1*63
47,12:
31,160
1* k, 523
1*3,1*60
l*7,l*ho
51,763
1*1,000
69,760
63,263
1*1*, 8co
1*3, 1.-3
57,1*1-0
87,995
32,2Ll
7,6;o
7,650
Kg /Day
16,7:6
21,531
25,932
13,C50
13,603
ฃ1,3"0
lit, 132
20,190
19,719
21,515
23,1-74
18,39!:
31,6^6
28,695
20,317
19,553
26.C5C
39,907
ll*_1ฃ22
3,1-69
3,469
Suspended
Solids
Lb/Day Kg/Day
6,945
5,760
1,300
9,1*80
13,720
j op -.
- , C-C _.
10,61*0
:-,52C
22,71*0
23,880
3,840
7,720
12,140
13,600
9,600
14,46:
1^,226
29,894
7,257
5,200
5,200
3,150
2,621
3,761*
4,299
1*,862
4,027
1*,825
6,585
10,313
10,830
1*,009
3,501
5,506
4,807
l*,35i*
6,55-:
6,1*53
13,557
3,291
2,35b
2,358
FORT HOWARD PAPER CO. - GREEK BAY
Year
1950
1951
1952
1953
195U
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
I960
1961
1962
1963
1961*
1965
1966
1967
1971
1973
1975
1977
Groundwood
Pulp
9
16
16
15
15
12
10
12
12
ll*
13
10
10
11
10
16
1*
Deinked
Pulp
278
282
310
387
395
451
798
:::
Paper
228
311
330
318
329
353
385
501*
506
53lt
596
616
358
367
345
1*92
1*86
521*
627
Discharge
KGD
7-236
8.307
8.621
8.207
13.631*
8.1*13
8.275
7.51*6
8.068
9.472
10.363
10.073
10.21*5
10.952
11.71*6
13.425
11.1*05
10.296
15.200
17.4Q6
BODe
iVb/Day
13,180
ll*,l*20
23,ll*C
16,01*0
21,700
20,720
23,040
17,280
16,000
19,560
22,620
25,820
30,9!-:
26,800
26,16:
28,1*1*;
32,720
37,06:
"9,77"
4.61---
10,200
8,200
vJz/Da"
5,977
6.54C
1C, 1*91
7,27"-
9,81*1
9,39~
10, U 1*9
7,83"
7,256
8,880
10,25o
11,710
14,03 =
12,15-
11,672
"i 8^
14,8;?
16 ,81?
22,573
l\6ii
3,719
SusDendei
Lc/Iay
11,380
15,500
12,730
i" ,ฃoo
1; ,100
?,140
12,040
1-,-SO
lb,200
16,920
16,220
II^CO
23, -60
15 ,-'00
2c',?20
-z^&o
2", 360
C1.-40
; 7,331*
c ; , ;oo
12,000
Solids
Kg /Day
5,160
7,166
5,796
6,168
6,61*8
4,145
5,!*60
6 ,703
7,31*7
7,673
7,356
7,737
10,776
6,869
12,206
13 9S9
12,61tlt
10,177
16,932
",5Q7
9,070
5,896
-------
_12P_
NICOLE? PA^EB CO. - DE PERE
Year
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
I960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1971
1973
1977
Production
(tons/day)
Paper
26
29
29
32
30
30
31
31
32
33
33
58
32
63
87
89
95
118
162
(July 1)
Discharge
MGD
0.917
0.963
1.135
1.338
1.333
1.333
1.334
1.296
1.255
1.275
2.397
2.267
2.681
2.326
1.747
1.488
1.623
3.940
3.299
BC
Ib/day
60
160
40
60
76
80
60
80
40
100
240
280
980
300
200
200
580
708
586
1 "300
1,300
Kf/day
27
73
18
27
34
36
27
36
18
45
109
127
444
136
91
91
263
321
266
con
590
Suspei
Sol:
Ib/day
1,320
460
460
580
334
360
560
460
180
260
1,400
860
2,300
920
460
66c
l,96c
570
977
Q7O
970
ided
Ids
Kg/day
599
209
209
263
151
163
254
209
82
118
635
390
1,270
417
209
299
ฃ89
258
443
440
440
THILMAHY PULP & PAPEF DIV. - KAUXAOTA
HA:MERK:LL PAPER co.
Year
1950
1951
1952
195-3
1951*
19?5
1956
1957
195 S
1959
I960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1971
1973
1975
1977
Production (tons/day) Discharge
Kraft Pulp & Paper MGD
335
378
409
467
526
520
488
487
562
613
636
629
537
664
700
672
794
835
905
1,004
(Sept. 30}
(July 1)
14.786
13.986
17.736
16.661
17.500
15.200
17.300
18.800
17. 654
21.270
19.270
22.14C
15.792
21.266
19.400
23. ฃ26
23.260
23.790
28.700
22.749
BODj
rb /day Kg/day
15.C20 6,812
25,260 11,456
20,280 9,197
14, 160 6,422
24,230
14,440
19,380
25,200
30,540
71,460
24,660
34, "60
42,560
23,260
26,200
33.C80
33,260
16,180
21.C45
16,213
15,140
5,500
11,057
6,549
8,789
11,429
13,850
32,408
11,184
15,764
19,483
10,549
11,882
15.C02
15 ,084
7,338
9,544
7,353
6,866
2,676
Suspended
Solids
Ib/day Kg/ day
15.50C 7,029
20.76C 9,415
25.40C 11,519
53.60C 24,399
33,620
21,580
19,540
25,560
11,660
13.18C
8, IOC
5,54C
11, ฃ6:
16.52C
10.28C
19,380
23,960
9.76C
17,786
17.68L
9,60-
5.9CC
15,338
9,787
8,862
11,592
5,288
5,977
3,673
2,512
5,297
7,492
4,662
8,789
10,866
4,426
8,066
8,020
4,446
2,676
-------
-130-
Production (tons/day)
APPLETOB PAPERS - COMBINED LOCKS MILL
Year
1950
1951
1952
1953
1951*
1955
1956
19 57
1958
1959
I960
1961
1962
1963
1961*
1965
1966
1967
1971
1973
T Q7^
1977
Groundvood
Pulp
1*0
1*2
37
1*1
Ul
36
38
38
21
Ul
23
29
39
32
56
1*0
18
21
221
t qpปr,t -5n )
(July 1)
Deinked
Pulp
33
38
1*3
50
50
1*1
53
52
68
61*
51*
59
52
3ป*
1*5
31
62
1*8
1*0
Pulped
Waste
Paper
--
~
~
57
63
70
61
71*
Paper
205
189
202
222
196
191*
203
211*
199
225
201
206
218
182
225
205_
221*
211*
1*1*6
Discharge
MGD
2.8H*
2.21*7
2.797
2.1*53
2.713
3.121*
3.579
3.668
3.71*5
1+.180
l*-556
3.796
3.272
2.998
3.150
2.976
3.01*8
2.397
5.930
7.159
BODt
Ib/day
2,51*0
2,160
3,180
2,261*
2,260
2,286
5,520
5,238
5,980
7,360
10,560
8,620
8,51*0
l*,9l*0
9,880
1*.200
5,760
l*,620
19.6CO
16,66!*
3,650
kf/day
1,152
980
1,1*12
1.027
1,031*
1,037
2,503
2.376
2,712
3,338
1*,789
3,909
3,873
2,21*0
l*,l*8l
1.905
2,612
2,095
8,889
7,557
1,655
Suspe
Sol
Ib/dav
9,720
22,660
25,920
12.160
9,300
Ik, 711*
13,280
13.578
1U,980
20,380
23,320
25.920
23,600
12,61*0
16,520
12.880
11,060
18,100
1*3,361
6,007
ฃ 7cQ
o, (50
U,130
nded
ids
k /iay
~iป~,-~08
10,277
11,~55
^.~15
1^18
6, .73
6,023
6.158
6, ~9l*
9,^3
10,576
11, "55
10,703
5, "32
7,;-92
5,5ll
5,:i6
8,209
19,:'7l*
2,~2U
,^D5
1,373
KIMBERLY - CLARK, KIMBERLY MILLS
Production (Tors/Day)
Year
1950
1951
1952
1953
195U
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
I960
1961
1962
1963
196U
1965
1966
1967
1971
1973
1975
1977
Sulfite
Pulp
93
125
82
101
101+
95
118
91*
89
89
103
77
97
71
60
81*
78
79
66
132
(Sept. 30)
(July 1)
Paper
378
351*
278
368
367
368
385
1*71
1*65
1*59
1*80
>*55
1*53
1*70
1*80
395
1*86
505
530
606
Discharge
MGD
11.137
11.137
8.755
9.965
9.540
8.357
10 . 380
12.51*6
10.251*
10.350
10.022
11.1*76
11. '169
12.1*91
11.639
12.593
11.1*91*
13.027
1*7-598
37.211
BOD,;
X
Lb/Day
1*0,51*0
59,1*60
1*2,280
1*1* ,920
53,180
35,200
1*0,380
30,580
27,200
1*2,880
5>* ,880
56,200
79,380
1*1* ,620
38,700
52,71*0
28,600
2l*,56o
36,255
8,196
8,077
2,000
18,385
26,966
19,175
20,372
2U ,118
15,961*
18,313
13,868
12,336
19,1*1*7
21*, 889
25,1*88
36,000
20,236
17,551
23,918
12,970
11,138
16,1*1*2
3,717
3,663
907
Suspended
Solids
Lb/3_ay
21,1*00
22,820
17,700
29,800
17,360
20,020
20,600
1*8,01*0
25,060
31*, 61*0
30,860
3!*, 820
1*1 ,600
1*6,230
1*1,1*00
39,!*1*0
52,180
57,560
62,858
ll*,2l*i.
12,21*6
3,000
Kg/Day
9,705
1C ,31*9
8,027
13,515
7,873
9,079
9,31*2
ฃ1,767
11,365
15,710
13,995
15,791
lc ,866
20,966
16,776
17,887
23,661*
ฃ6,101*
26,507
6,1*60
5,551*
1,360
-------
-131-
CONSOLIDATED PAPER CO. - APPLETON
Year
1950
1951
1952
1953
1951*
1955
1956
1957
195S
1959
I960
1961
1962
1963
196U
1965
1966
1967
1971
1973
1975
1977
Production
(tons /day)
Sulfitc PuljD
11*0
133
121
121
119
153
151
133
125
125
138
136
137
178
159
162
150
160
197
(Sept 30)
(July 1)
Discharge
MGD
1*.909
1*. 729
10.1*63
10.915
11.772
11.31*2
11.136
10.816
10.91*5
11. 9^3
12.222
12.201*
11.U25
12.503
11.878
7.965
8.131
7.639
ซป68.2l*6
8.219
BOD
113 /day
71,200
80,780
57,280
37,1*20
36,800
36,31*0
314,820
1*5,710
25,660
31,1*60
59,120
51,300
1*3,H*0
35,160
30,120
33.620
30,880
25,626
52,1*06
35.91*1*
17 000
2,500
lV/day_
32,290
36,635
25,977
16.970
16,689
16,1*81
15,791
20,730
11,637
llป,268
26,812
23.265
19,565
15,91*6
13,660
15.2l*7
ll*,00l*
11,622
23,767
16.301
7 7T D
1,131*
Susp<
Sol
Ib/day
1,81*0
2,ll*0
2,620
1*.560
-,260
3,91*0
-,6oo
5.261*
3,220
6,720
7,120
0.1*20
10,1*00
13,360
12,500
15.210
8,260
3,900
27,185
9 J*5U
(~ nnn
1,500
;nded
Lids
fe/day
'831*
970
1,188
?to68
1,91*1
1,787
2,086
2.387
1,1*60
3,01+8
3,229
1ป.272
It, 717
6,059
5,669
6.912
3,71*6
1,769
12,328
l*.288
680
* Bleached and unbleached 1950-1961, Bleached only 1962 - present
** 51 MOD from previously nonmonitored discharge outlet
RIVERSIDE PAPER CO. - APPLETON
Year
1950
1951
1952
1953.
1951*
1955
1956
1?57
1958
1959
I960
1961
1962
1963
1961*
1965
1966
1967
1971
1573
1975
1977
Production
(tons /day)
Pulp Paper
1*7 85
1*2 75
38 75
1*3
53
55
55
58
50
50
50
50
17
17
35
35
30
(Sept. 30)
(July 1)
80
82
82
83
85
80
82
82
82
80
88
82
81*
88
95
113
Discharge
MGD
0.609
0.698
0.605
0.702
0.658
0.722
0.690
0.685
0.685
2.030
2.351
2.351
2.351
2.101
2.110
1.892
2.529
2.262
2.930
0.81*0
__
BODj
Ib/day
1*00
1*00
1*60
538
582
222
781*
526
832
3,51*8
3^81*0
2,1*20
3,020
2,31*0
1,500
1,31*0
1,805
390
870
870
Kg/day
181
181
209
2l*U
261*
101
356
238
377
1,609
1,553
1,7^2
1,098
1,370
1,061
880
680
608
818
177
391*
394
Suspended
Solids
lWday_ Kg/day
38"0 172
980 1*1*1*
920 1*17
2,908 1,319
968
1,600
1,51*6
1,376
1,721*
2,91*2
1*,822
6,380
7,500
9,180
1*,1*20
7,820
7,81*0
1C, 698
7U7
830
830
1*39
726
701
621*
782
1,331*
2,187
2,893
3,1*01
1*, 163
2,001*
2.358
3,5U6
3,556
1*. 852
339
376
376
-------
-132-
JOEN STPAHGE DIV. MENASEA COR?. - KENASHA
Year
1950
1951
1952
1953
1951+
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
I960
1961
1962
1963
196U
1965
1966
1967
1973
1975
1977
Production
(tons /day)
Paper
171
173
169
179
172
201
188
202
192
202
198
20U
181
189
185
217
228
175
300
(Sept. 30)
(July 1)
Discharge
MGD
2.03c
1.827
2.783
2.756
1.522
2.im
1.920
3.028
1.722
2.652
3. 010
2.570
1.9C9
2.095
1.736
3-221
1.596
1.323
1.506
EOD5
Ib/day
1,560
560
2,600
2,580
1,960
5,100
3,200
L.9SO
3,101*
1,1*61*
2,322
1,660
1,1*00
1,1*1*0
1,680
5,620
1,81*0
900
1,010
657
650
Kg/day
707
251*
1,179
1,170
889
2,313
1,1*51
2,259
1,1*08
661.
1,053
753
635
653
762
2,51-9
831*
1*08
1*58
298
295
Suspended
Solids
Ib/day Kg /day
3,1*20 1,551
2,1*20 1,098
5,1*00 2,1*1*9
2,860 1,297
2,960
5,21*0
2,380
9,21*0
5,221*
3,H*6
5,200
3,200
2,71*0
3,200
2,860
2,C2C
3,11*0
1,91*0
1,168
1,91*9
1*00
1,31*2
2,376
1,079
1*,190
2,369
1,1*27
2,358
1,1*51
1,213
1,1*51
1,297
916
1,1.21*
880
530
B8U
181
GILBERT PAPER CC. - ME;ASHA
Year
1961
1962
1963
1961*
1965
1966
1967
1971
1973
Production
Rag Pulu
1 A '*
15
12
17
17
15
16
17
(tons/day)
Paper
68
59
58
62
67
69
55
81
Discharge
::GD
1.126
1.086
0.886
0.928
1.110
0.891
0.672
0.070
0.021
BODc
Ib/dsv
1,920
1,200
1.22C
1,36C
l.OUC
71*0
70C
27
16
Kg/day
871
51*1*
553
617
1*72
336
317
12
7
Suspended ป.
Solids
It /day Kg/day
2,51*0 1,152
1,980 898
1,520 689
2,610 1,197
2,1*00 1,088
61*0 290
387 176
1,219 553
369 167
"Prior to 1971* > most process wastes diverted to Heenah-Menasha Sewerage Comnission Treatment
Plant. During 1971*, remaining wastes will be sent to the municipal treatment plant.
-------
-133-
GEORGE A. WHITING CO. - MENASHA
Year
1950
1951
1952
1953
195*
1955
1956
1957
195B
1959
I960
1961
1962
1963
1961*
1965
1966
1967
1971
1973
1975
1977
Production
(tons/day)
Paper
15
15
11*
15
15
15
16
17
18
18
17
17
18
16
15
17
19
17
18
28
(Sept. 30)
(July 1)
Dis charge
MGD
0.0*1+
0.123
0.071
0.3'!
0.2*8
0.325
0.126
0.212
0.1*3
0.216
0.135
0.0:8
0.151
0.2*2
0.127
0.1-8
0.317
0.175
0.520
0.5o2
BO
Ib/day
20
1+0
20
100
80
120
20
120
120
1*0
60
60
60
100
78
128
380
232
307
532
168
168
D5
Kg/day
9
18
9
1*5
36
9
51+
51*
18
27
27
27
1+5
35
58
172
105
139
2l*l
76
76
Suspended
Solids
Ib/day Kg/day
ง0 27
280 127
1*0 18
1*60 209
560
200
80
31*0
600
600
1*20
600
200
320
1*20
371*
1,1*92
1,776
721
1.1*15
196
196
251+
91
36
151*
272
272
190
272
91
1-5
190
169
6~7
8C5
327
6L2
69
89
KIMBOLY-CLARK, LAKEVIEW MILL - MENASHA
Year
1950
1951
1952
1953 -
1951*
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
I960
1961
1962
1963
1961*
1965
1966
1967
1971
1973
19T5
1977
Production
(tons/day)
Paper
156
11*5
150
167
167
177
IT*
176
168
157
16U
168
185
163
180
189
151*
22l*
226
...
Discharge
MGO
5.2;6
6.100
5.300
5.690
5-350
6.0J9
5-963
6.320
5.142
1+.929
5.199
5.636
5.791*
5.821+
5.1*38
5.711
5.249
l*.900
_ - f n
5. -08
1+.57V
_____
It/day
1,900
1,960
2,120
5,31*0
2,720
2,500
2,1*1*0
2,980
2,060
2,520
1,920
2.1+20
2,51*0
1,160
1,81*0
2,1+00
1,1+60
1,520
1,878
1,313
1,800
1,800
BOD5
Kg/day
862
889
961
2,1*22
1,231+
1,13!+
1,1"T
1.351
931+
1,11+3
870
1,098
1,152
526
831+
1,088
662
689
852
595
8l6
816
Suspended
Solids
Ib/day Kg/ day
1*,360 1,977
6,280 2,61+8
5,880 2,667
5,800 2.630
1+.920
1*,380
1,200
5.91*0
5,01+0
6,660
1+.580
7.720
7,180
8,ll+0
It, 3lป0
6.220
6,760
9,560
1,1*86
618
1,100
1,100
2,231
1,986
541+
2.631*
2,236
3,020
2,077
3.501
3,256
3,692
1,968
2.621
3,066
1+.336
671*
230
199
1-99
-------
KIMBERLY-CLARK, BADGER GLOBE MILL - HEENAH
Production
(tons/day) Discharge
Year Paper MGD
1950 82
1951 83
1952 89
1953 8k
195!*
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
I960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1971
1973 (April)
77
88
96
92
91*
95
95
91*
92
89
66
65
50
73
1.1*11
1.175
1.1*70
1.938
2.1*31
2.389
2.527
2.137
2.205
1.897
1.310
1.619
2.222
2.005
1.688
0.528
0.333
0.730
Process wastes
BODj
Lb/day Kg/day
1*60 209
260 118
120 51+
960 1*35
1,180
1*1*0
21*0
800
300
560
380
1*1*0
71*0
520
560
lUo
96
1*07
diverted to
535
200
109
363
136
251*
172
200
336
236
263
63
1*1*
181*
municipal
Suspended
Solids
Lb/day Kg/day
1,900 862
1,260 571
1*80 218
1,260 571
1*,720
1,820
1,31*0
2,21*0
81*0
900
920
l,2Uo
l,2l*0
1,320
1,260
360
181*
1*09
treatment plant
2,li*0
825
608
1,016
381
1*08
1*17
562
562
599
571
163
83
185
KIMBERLY-CLARK, NEENAH DIV.
Production (tons/day)
Year Hag Pulp Paper
1950
1951
1952
1953
1951*
1955
1956
'1957
1958
1959
I960
1961
1962
1963
196U
1965
1966
1967
1971
1973
15
15
15
15
11*
11*
ll*
13
9
10
5
9
8
10
8
9
9
9
36
37
38
38
39
39
1*0
1*1
1+0
1*6
1*0
58
39
59
60
52
63
51
71
Discharge
MGD
0.620
0.61U
0.582
0.570
0.570
0.588
0.500
0.1*56
0.1*56
0.1*56
0.1*56
1.323
1.033
1.266
0.912
0.828
0.530
0.637
1.672
0.21*5
BOD5
Lb/day Kg /day
1*20 190
20 9
112 51
162 73
82
126
ll*l*
170
108
151*
56
891*
1,298
1,160
672
588
291*
316
1,21*0
73
37
57
65
77
1*9
70
25
1*05
589
526
305
267
133
11*3
562
33
Suspended
Solids
780 351*
1*38 199
530 21*0
388 116
380
386
388
330
1+1*1*
1*70
1*01+
2,71*0
1,778
2,860
1,61+0
1,1*50
916
1,326
2,012
2,228
172
175
176
150
201
213
183
l,2l*3
806
1,297
71*1*
658
1*15
601
912
1,010
1975
Process wastes to Municipal Treatment Plant
-------
-135-
AMEHICAH CAN CO. - METJASHA
Year
1950
1951
1952
1953
1951*
1555
1956
1957
1958
1959
I960
1961
1962
1963
1961*
1965
Productior
(Tons /Day)
Paper
32.3
32. U
31*. 9
31.1*
32.8
32.2
33.2
37. 1*
33.2
29-7
29.1*
30.2
21*. 8
17.6
18.5
16.2
Discharge
.MGD
0,1*90
0.1*52
0.1*58
0.321+
0.726
0.1*36
0.1*1*8
0.556
0.605
0.510
0.603
0.505
0.536
0.298
0.523
0.1*69
BOD?
Lb/Day
11*7
171
162
130
2l*l
161
193
31*9
161*
92
113
90
122
25
72
595
Kg /Day
67
78
7>*
59
109
73
88
158
71+
1*2
51
1*1
55
11
33
270
Suspended
Solids
Lb/Day
205
359
390
336
1,161*
757
551*
2,1*51 l
576
1*13
1*1*8
301*
l*6l
137
336
286
Kg/Day
93
163
177
152
528
31*3
251
,112
26l
187
203
138
209
62
152
130
19o6 lU.o 0,359 70 32 330 150
Converted to printing operation
BERGS7ROM PAPER CO. - NEENAH
Year
1950
1951
1952
1953
195**
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
I960
1961
1962
1963
1961*
1965
1966
1967
1971
1973
1975
1977
Production (tons/day)
Deinked
Pulp Paper
85 no
101* 111
92 109
78 93
91*
91*
109
122
11*2
137
136
11*8
139
151*
162
163
171
155
l'*0
(Sept. 30)
(July 1) All
102
111*
130
135
11*7
151
129
151*
11*2
11*1*
ll*l*
206
301
279
280
process
Discharge
MGD
3.250
2.901*
2.625
2. 6T6
3-007
2.828
3.013
2.5^2
3.208
2.1*67
2.531
3.101
2.953
2.9^9
2.833
2.705
3.269
lt.872
11.287
l*-527
BOD5
5,620 2,51*9
8,51*0 3,873
8,1*60 3,837
7,120 3,229
9,1*60
10,120
10,220
12,900
15,220
12,21*0
15,21+0
13,520
ll*, 1+1+0
15,1*60
ll*,8oo
20,180
17,720
22,752
2l*,l*91
20,217
19,308
wastes to municipal treatment
1*,290
i+,590
l+,635
5,350
6,902
5,551
6,916
6,132
6,51*9
7,011
6,712
9,152
8,036
10,318
11,107
9,169
8,756
plant
Suspended
Solids
Ib/day k /day
20,290 9,202
30,1*10 13,791
27,502 12,1*72
31,1*1*0 ll*,258
29,836
18,1*60
33,700
15 ,1*20
30,71*0
16 ,21*0
32,760
36,080
30,61*0
25,71*0
1*9,000
31* ,600
1*1,780
22,606
13,906
15,1*73
17,707
13,531
8,372
15,283
6,993
13,91*1
7,365
lit, 857
16,363
13,896
11,673
22,222
15,692
18,91*8
10,252
6,307
7,017
8,030
-------
-136-
SCOTT PAPER CO. - OCONTO FALLS
Year
1950
1951
1952
1953
195>*
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
I960
1961
1962
1963
1961.
1965
1966
1967
1971
1973
1975 \
1977 J
ป Total
Year
1971
Production
Sulfite
Pulp
75
6U
66
62
62
72
73
73
60
85
68
98
95
98
106
112
108
221.
(tons/day)
Pa^er
37
38
58
72
72
87
112
108
102
107
97
111*
119
115
101
112
109
Discharge BODq
MOD Ib/day
3.307
5.150
3.676
3.77lt
I*.0l6
It. 676
It.5lt9
5.259
1*.538
l*.079
It. 1*1*5
10.61U
11.191
7.592
11.087
11.291*
12.228
10.715
12.865
11.198
Interim effluent standards have
pulp and paper production
KJEL.-N BH3~N
Ib/day
5,278
Kg/day
2,391*
Ib/day K
51
39
52
33
3!*
38
7
8
7
6
8
21
20
32
32
37
39
29
51
51
,122
,51*0
,51*0
,700
,320
,760
,820
,080
,060
,060
,620
,780
,660
,900
,600
,980
,680
,1*38
,1*1*3
,035
Suspended
Solids
Kg/day
23,185
17,932
23,828
15,283
15,565
17,578
3,51*6
3,661*
3,202
2,7lt8
3,909
11,238
9,379
lit, 921
11*. 781*
lTj.221*
17,995
13,350
23,330
23,H*5
not yet been established.
HO-y-N
g/day Ib/day Kg/day
1,735 10 *
Ib/day
6,206
8,880
U.600
I*, 01*0
3,700
It, 81*0
3,380
6,280
7,920
It, 192
It, 380
11,620
10,060
6,800
12,620
7,520
6,1*00
5t200
10,675
7,880
Kg/day
2.81U
1*,027
2,086
1,832
1,678
2,195
1,533
2,81*8
3,592
1,901
1,986
5,270
1*,562
3,081.
5,723
3,1*10
3,810
2,358
It, 81*1
3,571*
TOTAL-P
101
Kg/day
1.6
BADGER PAPER MILLS - PESHTIGO
Production (tons/day) Discharge
Year
1950
1951
1952
1953
1951*
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
I960
1961
1962
1963
1961*
1965
1966
1967
1971
1973
1975 ~\
1977 /
Year
1971
Pulp
85
88
90
86
86
87
90
92
91
83
8U
82
83
86
71
99
92
88
89
218
Paper
77
80
82
81*
81*
81*
90
89
90
90
91
92
93
95
93
120
121*
119
1U6
lU6
Interim effluent
KJEL.-N
Ib/day
152
Kg/day
MOD
1*. 275
u.itao
U.U20
3.1*90
3.900
3.760
U. 581*
4.58U
l*.5fal*
U.561*
U.728
It. 728
U.620
5.330
5.180
5.506
5-506
5.506
6.080
U. 51*7
standards have
Ib/day
57
Ib/day
31,31*0
13,620
17,800
15,1*1.0
12,280
8,700
27,131*
19,2ซ6
25,680
30,1*1*0
18,920
12,1*60
15,520
6,200
22,920
26,300
16,132
20,878
1*0,052
BODc;
Kg/day
lU.213
6,177
8,072
5,868
7,002
5,569
3,91*6
12,306
8,728
11,61.6
13,805
8,5SO
5,o60
7,038
2,812
10,395
12,671
7,316
9.U68
18, 161*
not yet been established.
Kg/day Ib/day Kg/day
26 3lป 15
Suspended
Solids
Ib/day
lt,620
It, 560
3,81*0
5,020
3,71*0
3,360
1*,200
It, 1*12
4,262
1*,380
6,51*0
5,780
3,71*0
3,51*0
3,860
It, 1*00
7,200
6,978
5,703
6,51*6
2,095
2,068
1,71*2
2,277
1,696
1,524
1,905
2,001
1,933
1,986
2,966
2,621
1,690
1,605
1,750
1,995
3,302
3,165
2,586
2,969
TOTAL-P
Ib/day
17
Kg/day
T"
-------
SCOTT PAPER CO. - MABINETTE
Year
1950
1951
1952
1953
195*.
1955
1956
1?57
1958
1959
I960
1961
1962
1963
1961*
1965
1966
1967
1971
1973
1975
1978
Year
1971
Production
Sulfite
Pulp
32
37
1>6
1*6
146
U2
1.2
U5
1*1*
50
50
50
51
51.
50
1.8
50
5U
(Dec. 3D
(Dec. 31)
KJEL
Ib/day
111
(tons /day)
Paper
80
110
120
13lป
11.2
1U2
131
132
ll*9
150
15T
15T
160
156
159
178
19>*
18S
187
.-H
Kg/day
50
Discharge
HOD Ib/day
2.679
2.665
U.382
5.050
5.11-9
6.398
6.925
6.655
7.171
7.!*35
6.653
6.U97
7.815
7.313
7.61.0
8.181
6.81.3
5.810
7.81*0
It. 619
_
NH3
Ib/day
13
15,900
21,51.0
20,280
21,780
30, ฃ00
25,580
26,060
214,862
30,650
30,361*
37, 9^2
36,228
33,601*
52,880
1*9, OlU
65,396
31*. 560
58,600
56,128
1,755
2,000
1,500
;-N
"Kg/day
BODc
Kg/day
7,211
9,769
9,197
9,878
13,968
11,601
11,818
11,275
13,900
13,770
17,207
16,1*30
15,21*0
23,982
22,229
29,658
15,682
26,576
25,1*55
796
910
680
HOy-Il
Ib/day Kg/day
176 <1.0
Suspended
Solids
Ib/day
3.860
3,560
5,060
5,!*eo
7,260
5,220
7.1*00
7,31*6
10,250
8,961*
7,338
6,801
7,62*
12,228
9,901*
9,1*96
9,120
9,980
12,631*
2,985
2,000
1,125
lb/
Kg/day
1,750
1.61U
2,295
2,1*85
3,302
2,367
3,356
3,332
1..652
1..065
3,328
3,08b
3.U58
5,51.6
U ,1*92
1*,307
U.136
U.526
5,730
l,35lป
910
510
TO7AL-P
'day Kg/day
35 16
-------
-138-
-------
-139-
-------
-------
-11*1-
O O O P O p
o ID o to p 5
N <ป -A ซO lO J
O
o
ฃ
o
g
5 8
ง a
-------
-------
-11*3-
-------
-------
^ป
rซ
-------
-------
-11*7-
-------
-------
-1)49-
APPENDIX II-
LOWER FOX, OCONTO, PESHTIGO AND MENOMINEE RIVERS -
PRESENT AND PROPOSED WASTE TREATMENT FACILITIES,
PULP AND PAPER MILLS
-------
-150-
APPENDIX
LOWER FOX RIVER
Green Bay Packaging, Inc. - Green Bay
Waste abatement facilities include internal controls and an evaporation and burn system. A
reverse osmosis system is planned to be operational in 1975 with the ultimate goal for a complete
recycle program.
Charnrin Paper Company - Green Bay
Currently has internal treatment through the use of savealls, a clarifier for water treatment
and air scrubber solids, and an evaporation and burn system for concentrated pulp mill liquors.
Company proposes to divert residual pulp mill wastes to the Green Bay Metro treatment plant by
October 1, 1975.
American Can Company - Green Bay
Present facilities include dual primary settling lagoons for paper mill wastes and an evaporation
and burn system for concentrated pulp mill wastes. By October 1, 1975, will divert residual pulp
mill wastes to the Green Bay Metro treatment plant.
Ft. Howard Paper Company - Green Bay
Secondary biological treatment is now in operation.
Nlcolet Paper Company - De Pere
Treatment includes duplicate primary clarification in addition to sludge dewatering.
Pulp and Paper Division - Kaukauna Hammer-mill Paper Company
Presently has primary clarification plus polishing ponds for paper mill wastes and an aeration
lagoon plus polishing pond for pulp mill wastes. Investigating alternatives for improved secondary
treatment to meet proposed EPA effluent guidances by July 1, 1977. Has also requested an adjudicator^
hearing from the Department of Natural Resources for review of the guidance limitations in the issued
permit.
Appleton Papers - Combined Locks
Treatment includes duplicant primary clarifiers plus evaporation and burning for concentrated
pulp mill wastes. Now investigating secondary biological treatment to meet EPA proposed effluent
guidances by January 1, 1977.
Kimberly - Clark - Kimberly
Has duplicate primary clarifiers and sludge dewatering. Currently investigating secondary
biological treatment in order to meet proposed EPA effluent guidances by July 1, 1977.
Consolidated Paper Company - Appleton
Evaporation and burn system for concentrated pulp mill wastes. Internal primary clarification is
proposed to be operational by September 1, 1975. Remaining wastes are proposed to be directed to the
Appleton municipal treatment plant by July 1, 1977.
Riverside Paper Company - Appleton
Concentrated wastes are diverted to the Appleton municipal treatment plant. Dilute saveall wastes
are discharged directly to the Fox River.
John Strange Division - Menasha Corp. - Menasha
Concentrated wastes are now sent to the Neenan - Menasha Metro treatment plant. Diluted wastes
diverted to the Fox River. Additional treatment alternatives are being investigated to meet proposed
EPA effluent guidances by January 1, 1976.
-------
-151-
GUbert Paper Company - Menasha
t,
All process wastes are presently directed to the Neenah - Menasha Metro treatment plant along
with water treatment sol Ids.
George A. Whiting Company - Menasha
Presently provides Internal saveall treatment. Proposes to Install primary treatment by
January 1, 1976 1n order to meet proposed EPA effluent guidances.
Klmberly - Clark. Lakevlew Mill - Menasha
Currently provides primary clarification plus sludge dewaterlng.
Klmberly - Clark. Badger Globe Mill - Neenah
All process wastes are directed to the Neenah - Menasha Metro treatment plant.
Klmberly - Clark. Neenah Division
All process wastes directed to the Neenah - Menasha Metro treatment plant. Water treatment
plant solids proposed to be diverted to municipal system by August 1, 1974.
Bergstrom Paper Company - Neenah
Present treatment for process wastes consists of a primary clarifier plus sludge dewatering
facilities. These effluents are proposed to be diverted to the Neenah - Menasha Metro treatment
plant by July, 1976. Company has requested an adjudicatory hearing for review of the Department of
Natural Resources issued permit which requires connection to the municipal plant.
OCONTO RIVER
Scott Paper Company - Oconto Falls
Present treatment includes primary clarification for paper and dilute pulp wastes and evaporation
and burning and a holding lagoon for concentrated pulp mill wastes. Present plans are for modification
of the holding lagoon into a joint municipal-Industrial aerated lagoon system to serve the mill and*.
the City of Oconto Falls.
PESHTIGO RIVER
Badger Paper Mills - Peshtigo
Currently has duplicate primary settling lagoons for paper mill wastes and has installed a new
evaporation and burn system for concentrated pulp mill wastes. Residual pulp mill wastes are proposed
to be dive)ted to a joint municipal and industrial treatment plant now under construction for the mill
and the City of Peshtigo.
MENOMINEE RIVER
Scott Paper Company - Marinette
Existing treatment consists of primary clarification with backup settling lagoon and sludge
dewaterlng. Presently investigating alternatives for improving existing systems to meet proposed
EPA effluent guidances by July 1, 1976.
-------
-152-
APPEHDIX III.
LOWER POX, OCONTO, PESHTIGO AND MENOMINEE RIVERS -
MUNICIPAL SEWAGE TREATMEIJT PLANT RIVER LOADINGS,
-------
-153-
GREEN BAY METRO
SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT
EFFLUENT DATA
Discharge
Year MGD
1946
1947
1948
1949
1950
1951
1952
1953
:/54
1955
1956
1957
T918"
1959
1960
1961
1962
1966
1970
{'70 raw
bypass)
1971
1972
('72 raw
bypass)
1973
('73 raw
bypass)
1975 (Mar.
1978 (Dec.
9.395
8.029
9.053
8.643
8.670
9.046
12.119
11.370
10.011
11.205
10.053
10.593
11.794
i 0.602
12.450
13.358
13.952
13.500
19.060
0.830
20.010
1.640
20.910
4.170
31) -
31) -
BOD5
1 b/May
12.002
11,799
12,019
12,846
14,262
12,916
12,750
15,000
15,381
15,438
6,967
8,137
9,651
9,738
10,084
11,265
11,533
16,200
21,128
1,816
22,545
3,780
19,600
8,461
32,100
13,105
Kg/day
5,443
5,351
5,451
5,826
6,468
5,858
5,782
6,803
6,975
7,001
3,160
3,690
4,377
4,416
4,573
5,109
5,231
7,347
9,582
824
10,224
1,714
8,889
3,837 -
14,558
5,943
Suspended
Solids
1 b/day
7,845
6,570
7,635
7,145
6,877
8,082
10,625
11,772
10,198
11,227
6,548
7,076
8,371
7,879
8,317
9,704
9,902
12,079
1,580
13,838
3,232
13,708
7,068
23,950
12,105
Kg/day
3,558
2,980
3,462
3,240
3,119
3,665
4,819
5,339
4,625
5,092
2,969
3,209
3,796
3,573
3,772
4,401
4,491
5,478
716
6,276
1,466
6,217
3,205
10,862
5,490
KJEL-N
1 b/day Kg/day
-
-
-
-
-
3,700 1,678
3,535 1,603
; :
NH3-N
NO?+N03-N
Total-P
Sol.-P
Year lb/day
1971 2,730
1972 2,029
1973
Kg/ day
1,238
920
-
Ib/day
150
20
-
Kg/day
68
9
-
1 b/day
1,803
-
1,385
Kg/day
491
-
628
1 b/day
770
-
296
Kg/day
349
-
134
-------
DEPERE, CITY
SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT
EFFLUENT DATA
Discharge
Year MGO
1948
1956 1.090
1966 1.500
1971 2.204
1972 2.282
('72 raw
bypass) 9. 211
1973 2.652
('73 raw
bypass) 1.125
1977 (June, 30)
1979 (June. 30) To_
NH3-N
Year Ib/day
1971 436
1972 531
1973
Discharge
Year MGD
1956 0.090
1966 0.090
1971 0.189
1972 0.156
1973 0.170
1977 (Mar. 31) -
NH3-N
Year Ib/day K
'
1971 15
Ib/day
600
764
1.065
1,546
1.486
23,073
1.076
2,452
2,160
be based on
Kg/day
198
241
-
Ib/day
784
40
-
-
56
83
g/day
7
Suspended
BOD5 Solids
Kg/day Ib/day Kg/day
272 440 200
346 646 293
483
701
674 1,296 588
10,464 15,921 7,220
488 1,032 468
1,112 2,038 924
985 2,160 985
future design flow.
Nฐ2+Nฐ3-N Tntjll_p
Ib/day Kg/day Ib/day Kg/day
21 10 144 65
< 1 .9 ^1.0
58 26
WRIGHTSTOUN, VILLAGE
SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT
EFFLUENT DATA
Suspended
BOD5 sol ids
Kg/day Ib/day Kg/day
356 118 54
18
...
-
26 55 25
38 83 38
N02+N03-N Total -P
Ib/day Kg/day Ib/day Kg/day
4294
KJEL-N
1 b/ddy Ko/ddy
V
_
1 ,070 485
1.280 580
^
.
ป
Sol.-P
Ib/day Kg/day
128 58
. _
22 10
KJEL-N
Ib/day Kg/day
25 11
_
-
Sol.-P
Ib/day Kg/day
7 3
-------
-155-
KAUKAUNA, CITY
SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT
EFFLUENT DATA
Year
1948
1956
1966
1971
1972
1973
Discharge
MGD
1.590
1.275
1.782
1.769
1.953
BOOs
IP/day
900
554
255
164
192
245
Kg/day
408
251
116
74
87
111
Suspended
Sol ids KJEL-N
Ib/day
500
370
490
388
Kg/day Ib/day
227
168
561
223
176
Kg/day
254
1977 (June 30)
640
300
640
300
After June 30, 1977, plant will either be abandoned or interconnected to the Heart of the
Valley Sewerage Commission.
NH
Year Ib/day
1971 59
1973
3"N NO?+N03-N Total -P
Kg/ day
27
Ib/day Kg/day Ib/day
128 58 81
18
Kg/day
37
8
Sol.-P
Ib/day
56
4
Kg/day
25
2
LITTLE CHUTE, VILLAGE
SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT
EFFLUENT DATA
Year
1948
1956
1967
1971
1972
1973
1977
Year
1971
Discharge
MGD
0.390
0.403
0.594
0.812
(June 30)
NHs-N
1 b/day Kg/daj,
47 21
Ib/day
400
598
167
174
164
260
f
BODf,
Kg/day
181
271
76
79
74
120
NO?+N03-N
|b/day Kg/day
13 6
Ib/da
220
344
-
260
Suspended
Solids
y. Kg/day
100
156
-
120
Total -P
Ib/day Kg/day
35 16
KJEL-N
1 b/day Kg/day
85 38
Sol.-P
Ib/day Kg/day
24 11
-------
-156-
KIMBERLY, VILLAGE
SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT
EFFLUENT DATA
Year
1948
1956
1967
1971
1972
1973
1977
Year
1971
1973
Discharge
MGD
0.310
0.359
0.548
0.544
(June 30)
NH3-N
Ib/day
114
Ib/day
80
32
90
196
250
Kg/day
52
BOD5
Kg/aay
36
14
41
89
115
N02+N03-N
Ib/day Kg/day
13 6
Ib/da.
60
16
92
250
Suspended
Solids
I Kg/day
27
7
42
115
Total -P
Ib/day Kg/day
44 20
13 6
KJEL-N
Ib/day Kg/day
174 79
- -
Sol.-P
Ib/day Kg/day
32 14
1 ^1.0
APPLETON, CITY
SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT
EFFLUENT DATA
Discharge
Year MGD
1948
1956 7.630
1966 8.339
1971 11.610
1972 12.100
1973 14.020
*('73 secondary
bypass) 2.040
1977 (June 30)
*('77 bypass)
1978 to be determined
NH3-N
Year Ib/day K<
1971 703
1972 1,119
1973
Suspended
BOD5 Solids
KJEL-N
Ib/day Kg/day Ib/day Kg/day Ib/day ng/aay
7,800 3,537 3,060 1,388
9,876 4,479 4,850 2,200
5,890 2,671 -
' 4,168 1,890 3,587
3,634 1,648 3,379 1
4,612 2,092 6,181 ',
,627 2,210 1,002
,532 1,419 644
>,803
3,540 1,605 1,920 871
8,250 3,741 13,750 6,236
10,800 4,898 6,770 3,070
from 1977 design flow.
. N02+N03-N Total -P Sol.-P
3 /day Ib/day Kg/day Ib/day
319 96 44 378
508 13 6 -
206
Kg/day Ib/day Kg/ day
171 284 129
93
Indicates bypass following primary treatment.
-------
-157-
MENASHA, TOWN
SANITARY DISTRICT # 4, EAST PLANT
SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT
EFFLUENT UATA
Year
1967
1971
1972
1973
1979
Year
|S< 1
1973
Discharge
MGO
0.465
0.659
0.689
0.618
(Mar. 31)
NH3-N
1 b/day Kc
"8
1 b/day
140
44
102
79
390
]/day
49
-
80D5
Kg/day
63
20
46
36
175
N02+N03-N
Ib/day Kg/day
26 12
-
Suspended
Solids
Ib/day Kg/day
_
-
44 20
92 42
390 175
Total -P
Ib/day Kg/day
106 48
15 7
KJEL-N
Ib/day Kg/day
217 98
-
-
-
Sol.-P
Ib/day Kg/day
36 16
2.7 1.2
MENASHA, TOWN - SANITARY DISTRICT # 4, WEST PLANT
Year
1972
1973
.1979 (Mar.
Discharge
MGD
1.098
0.741
31)
SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT
BODj
Ib/day
33
250
EFFLUENT DATA
Kg/day Ib/day
.
15 9
113 250
Suspended
Solids
Kg/day
.
4
113
NEENAH-MENASHA SEWERAGE COMMISSION
SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT
EFFLUENT DATA
Discharge
Year MGD
1947 13.071
('47 raw
bypass) 0.500
1956 9.200
1966 16.000
1971 14.700
1972 16.300
1973 14.960
1976 (June 30) -
1978 (Dec. 31) -
NH3-N
Year 1 b/day Kg/daj
1971 196 89
1972 70 32
1973
1 b/day
15,940
960
7,142
2,080
2,455
6,941
4,097
9,000
10,000
I
BOD5
Kg/day
7,229
435
3,239
943
1,113
3,148
1,858
4,082
4,535
N02+NOvN
1 b/day Kg_/da/
146 66
20* 9
Suspended
Solids
1 b/day Kg/day
29,160 13,224
2,880 1,306
4,836 2,193
10,065 4,565
24,635 11,172
14,116 6,402
22,520 10,213
10,000 4,535
Total -P
1 b/day Kg/day
214 97
225 102
KJEL-N
1 b/day Kg/day
' 2,160 980
326 148
-
Sol.-P
1 b/day Kg/day
80 36
*N03-N only.
-------
-158-
OCONTO, CITY
SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT
EFFLUENT DATA
Year
1953
1961
1968
1971
1972
1973
Year
1968
1973
Discharge
MGD T b/day
Under construction
0.938
1.449
1.330
1.054
1.446
NH3-N
Ib/day Kg/day
11 5
19 9
225
845
355
361
126
Suspended
BODs Solids
Kg/day Ib/day Kg/day
102
383
161 -
164
57 266 121
N02+N03-N Total -P
1 fa/day Kg/day Ib/day Kg/day
5 2 48 22
22 10 12 5
KJEL-N
Ib/day Kg/day
96 44
43 20
Sol.-P
Ib/day Kg /day
1.2 <1.0
OCONTO FALLS, CITY
SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT
EFFLUENT DATA
Year
1953
1961
1968
1971
1972
1973
Discharge
MGD
0.179
0.200
0.220
0.210
0.194
0.239
Ib/day
42
100
105
61
BODs
Kg /day
19
45
48
28
Suspended
Solids
Ib/day Kg/day
57 26
Ib/day
60
27
KJEL-N
: Kg/day
27
12
N02+N03-N
Total -P
Sol.-P
Year
1968
1973
Year
1953
1961
1968
1971
1972
1973
Year
1968
1973
Ib/day
44
20
Discharge
MGO
0.106
0.105
0.227
0.189
0.165
0.182
NH3-N
Ib/day
18
5
Kg/day
24
9
Ib/day
50
46
11
139
123
44
Kg/day
8
2
Ib/day
11
Kg/day
C1.0
5
Ib/day Kg/day
20 9
5 2
GILLETT, CITY
SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT EFFLUENT DATA
Suspended
BOD5 Solids
Kg/day
23
21
5
63
56
20
N0,+N
-------
-159-
PESHTIGO, CITY
SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT
EFFLUENT DATA
Year
1953
1961
1968
1971
1972
1973
Year
1968
1973
Year
1953
1961
1968
1971
1973
Year
1968
1973
Discharge
MGD
0.674
0.525
0.559
0.490
0.477
0.487
NH3-N
1 b/day Kg/daj
38 17
18 8
Discharge
MGD
3.080
3.000
2.169
3.060
3.762
NH3-N
1 b/day Kg/da.
196 89
13 6
1 b/day
155
155
205
172
175
138
/
1 b/day
2,000
1,670
1,230
327
t
BOOs
Kg/day 1 b/da.
70
70
93
78
79
63 84
NO?+NOvN
1 b/day Kg /day
<1.0 <1.0
3 1.5
Suspended
Solids
y_ Kg/day
38
Total-P
1 b/day Kg/day
27 12
19 9
MARINETTE, CITY
SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT
EFFLUENT DATA
Suspended
BOD5 solids
Kg/day Ib/da,
907
757
558
148 547
NOj+NOj-N
Ib/day Kg/day
<7 <3
76 34
y_ Kg/day
248
Total-P
Ib/day Kg/day
141 64
31 14
KJEL-N
Ib/day Kg/day
65 29
37 17
Sol.-P
Ib/day Kg/day
16 7
9 4
KJEL-N
Ib/day Kg/day
401 182
73 33
Sol.-P
Ib/day Kg/day
72 33
18 8
------- An error occurred while trying to OCR this image.
-------
DISCHRRGE DATB i
THOUSflND POUNDS/DRY!
"S
H
I
-------
-162-
CHUTE ; VIU.RGS GF
pUftKJT
70 74- 78
-------
l
VeRft
-------
-l6k-
Of
U)
o
a:
O
/.0
.
-t H
SOSPCNDED
SOLIDS-
1
70
78
-------
Uf
o.aoo
-------
-166-
., CITS' Or
TRERTrneปJT PUR KIT
SUSPENDED
Souos
-------
-167-
APPENDIX IV.
LOWER FOX, OCONTO, PESHTIGO AND MENOMENEE RIVERS
PRESENT AND PROPOSED WASTE TREATMENT FACILITIES,
MUNICIPAL SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANTS
-------
-168-
APPEWDIX IV
LOWER FOX RIVER
Green Bay Metropolitan Sewerage District
Present facilities include a trickJ ing filter type of sewage treatment
with disinfection. Plant expansion is now underway and will consist of
activated sludge plus phosphorus removal with a design capacity of 52 MOD.
De Pere, City
Treatment consists of activated sludge with disinfection and phosphorus
removal. Plant design is underway and will include expansion of existing
activated sludge system plus tertiary filtration.
Wrightstown, Village
Treatment is by way of trickling filter system with disinfection of
effluent. Ho future plans have been submitted.
Kaukauna, City
Kaukauna plant also provides treatment for Village of Combined Locks.
Treatment consists of activated sludge with disinfection and phosphorus
removal. Plant design is currently underway for a regional system to be
designated as "Heart of the Valley" Sewage Treatment Plant. Treatment will
consist of activated sludge process plus phosphorus removal. Approximate
completion date, 1977-1978.
Little Chute^ Village
Currently has activated sludge process with disinfection and phosphorus
removal. Plans are to abandon plant and connect to Heart of the Valley plant.
Kirfberly, Village
Facilities include activated sludge treatment with disinfection and
phosphorus removal. Plans are to abandon current plant and connect to Heart
of the Valley plant.
Appleton, City
Treatment consists of activated sludge with disinfection and phosphorus
removal. Plant designs are complete and include modification of the activated
sludge system.
Menasha, Town - G.D. _A,_ East Plant
Two parallel treatment plants, both of which are of the activated sludge
process with disinfection and phosphorus removal. Ho future plans submitted.
-------
Menasha, Town - S.D. #k, West Plant
Contact stabilization process with disinfection of effluent. No future
plans submitted*
Neenah-Henasha Sewerage Commission
Present facilities provide for activated sludge treatment plus disin-
fection and phosphorus removal. Plant designs have teen completed and include
expansion of activated sludge process to handle ^0 MOD.
OCONTO RIVER
Ocon" City
j. tment consists of trickling filter plus activated sludge with disin-
fection and phosphorus removal.
Oconto Falls, City
Currently has trickling filter with disinfection of effluent. Joint
treatment facility with Scott Paper Company under consideration. Proposal
is for aerated lagoon.
Gillett, City
Activated sludge process with disinfection. JIo future plans have been
submitted.
PESHTIGO RIVER
Peshtigp^ City
Treatment is by way of trickling filter and disinfection. Aerated lagoon
for joint treatment with Badger Paper is now under construction.
MEHOMINEE RIVER
Marinette, City
New activated sludge plant was placed in operation during 1973. Treatment
provides disinfection and phosphorus removal. Previously, only primary treatment
was provided.
-------
-170-
APPENDIX V.
LOWER FOX, OCONTO, PESHTIGO AND rffiNOIUNEE RIVERS
COMPREHENSIVE POINT SOURCE AND STREAM SURVEYS,
1966-1968
-------
-171-
LOWER FOX RIVER - MAIN STEM
1966-1967
Est. Daily
Discharge
Lbs.
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
9A
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Source or Stream
Gilbert Paper Company
John Strange Paper Company
George A. Whiting Paper Company
Bergs trom Paper Company
Kimberly-Clark Neenah Division
Kimberly-Clark Badger Globe
Kimberly-Clark Lakeview
Neenah Slough
Kimberly Clark STP
Neenah-Menasha, Cities of
Kimberly Clark Marketing Center
Menasha, Town of Sanitary
District M
Holiday Inn
Mud Creek
Riverside Paper Corporation
Consolidated Papers Inc.
Foremost Foods
Appleton, City of
Kimberly-Clark Kimberly
Tributary
Kimberly, Village of
Combined Paper Mills Inc.
Little Chute, Village of
Kankapot Creek
Kaukauna, City of
Thilmany Pulp & Paper Co.
Plum Creek
Wrightstown, Village of
Chari?in Paper Products Co.
Miles
39.8+
39.8
38.7
39.8
40.1
39.9
39.2
38.4
37.7
37.6
37.5
36.0
35.8
34.2
33.3
32.1
30.8
30.0
29.0
27.4
27.0
27.0
26.8
23.7
23.1
23.0
17.4
16.8
12.9
Type of Waste
Rag pulping &
Paper
Paper
Paper
De-inked Pulp &
Paper
Rag Pulping &
Paper
Paper
Paper
Sewage
Sewage
Sewage
Sewage
Sewage
Paper
Sulfite Pulp
Dairy
Sewage
Sulfite Pulp
& Paper
Sewage
Chemi-mechanical
Pulp & Paper
Sewage
Sewage
Kraft Pulp &
Paper
Sewage
Grornrlvood
Pulp
Treatment Gallons
Save-all & 890,000
Metro.
Save-all & 1,600,000
Me t ro .
Save-all 320,000
Clarifica- 4,200,000
tion
Save-all & 530,000
Metro.
Save-all & 530,000
Metro.
Save-all & 5,250,000
Metro.
Secondary 7,000
Secondary 16,000,000
Secondary 1
Secondary 465,000
Secondary 9,850
Save-all 2,530,000
S.S.L. 8,130,000
Evaporation
None 1,281,000
Secondary 8,339,000
Sa s-all & 11,490,000
Lagoon
Secondary 359,000
Save-all & 3,050,000
Clarification
Secondary 403,000
Secondary 1,275,000
Save-all 26,160,000
& Lagoon
Secondary 90,000
Little Rapids 30,000
Pulp Mill
B.O.D.
740
1,840
380
19,700
300
140
1,460
1.2
2,080
7
140
1.3
1,500
30,880
299
5,890
28,600
90
5,760
167
255
33,660
40
100
24 Hickory Grove Sanitoriura
12.0
Sc-.-age
Closed
10/31/67
SecorJ ^y
14.800
-------
-172-
No.
Source or Stream
Miles Type of Waste Treatment
Est. Daily
Discharge
Lbg.
Gallons B.O.D.
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
33A
34
35
36
37
38
39
Apple Creek
Nicolet Paper Company
U.S. Paper Mills Corp.
De Pere, City of
Ashwaubenon Creek
Dutchman Creek
Fort Howard Paper Company
Fort Howard Paper Company STP
American Can Company, Green Bay
East River
Charmin Paper Products Co.
Green Bay Packaging Inc.
Storm Sewer
Green Bay Metropolitan Sewage
District
Menasha Corporation
Neenah Foundry
N'eenah Foundry
Galloway Company
Fox River Tractor Company
Wisconsin Rendering Company
Tributary //I
Tributary #2
Butte des Morts Utility Dist.
Kim Tree Bakery
11.2
7.0 Paper
6.8 De-inked Pulp
& Paper
6.2 Sewage
5.6
4.8
3.7 De-inked Pulp
& Paper
3.6 Sewage
1.4 Sulfite Pulp
& Paper
1.4
1.0 Sulfite Pulp
& Paper
0.8 Neutral sulfite
sulfite semi-
chemical pulp
& Paper
0.7
0.1+ Sewage
NEENAH SLOUGH
2.6 Sewage
2.5 Foundry
0.6 Foundry
0.6 Milk
MUD CREEK
3.7 Sewage
0.6 Cooling Water
0.5
0.5
0.4 Sewage
Tributary //I
0.3 Bakery
Tributary l?2
Save-all 1,620,000
Save-all & 620,000
Lagoon
Secondary 1,500,000
Save-all 11,400,000
& Lagoon
Secondary 41,000
S.S.L. 16,300,000
Evapor-
ators &
Lagoons
S.S.L. 15,380,000
Evapor-
ators
Fluidized 2,830,000
bed &
Clarifi-
cation
Secondary 13,500,000
Secondary ?
None ?
None ?
None ?
Secondary ?
None ?
Secondary 255,400
Air Flotation --
580
4,060
1,065
32,720
15
43,180
45,320
25,720
16,200
7
7
7
7
7
7
19
--
40 Terrace J-'otor Inn
0.5 Sc-.:.=.ge
Septic Tank
-------
-173-
No.
Source or Stream
Miles Type of Waste Treatment
Est. Daily
Discharge
Lbs.
Gallons B.O.D.
TRIBUTARY
41 Hietpas Dairy Farms 2.7 Milk
42 Coenen Packing Company 2.1 Packing
43 Brookside Cheese Factory
44 White Cl Dairy 11.6
45 Holland, Town of, Sanitary 11.2
District
KANKOPOT CREEK
7.6 Milk
PLUM CREEK
Milk
Sewage
APPLE CREEK
a. Tributary
46 Pleasant View Cheese Factory 2.6 Milk
ASHWAUBENON CREEK
47 Fox River Valley Coop Creamery 7.6 Milk
DUTCHMAN CREEK
a. Tributary ill
b. Tributary #2
48 Austin-Straubel STP
49 Paper Converting Machine Co.
a. Tributary
50 Rock land River View Cheese
Factory
51 Scray's Cheese Company
b. Bower Creek
c. Baird's Creek
3.8
0.5
a_. Tributary #1
2.8 Sewage
b_. Tributary^ j*2
0.1 Sewage
EAST RIVER
18.1
14.0
5.2
1.7
Milk
Milk
None 1,200
Septic Tank & ?
Tile Field
None 5,000
Connected
to Sanitary
District
Secondary 61,000
None
4,000
Sand Filter 2,250
Secondary
48,500
Connected to ?
City System
Pond 4,400 9
Septic Tank 1,600 13
-------
-17U-
Est. Daily
Discharge
l.bs.
No. Source or Stream Hi lea Type of W;
-------
075-
LOWER FOX RIVER - MAIN STEM
1966-1967
No.
Wซ?ste
Source Mile?
ป Sample Source
Date
B.O.D.
. ..IU2/.1. ..
Temp.
ฐr nH
^ . pn
D.O.
mR/1
MFCC per
100 ml.
1 Gilbert Paper
Company
2 John Strange
Paper Company
3 George A. Citing
Paper Company
4 Bergstrom Paper
Company
5 Kimberly-Clark
Necnah-Division
6 Kimberly-Clark
Badger Globe
7 K'1-..berly-Clark
L?keview
39.8+ Outfall
39.8
38.7
39.8
40.1
39.9
39.3
39.3
Outfall
Outfall
Outfall
Outfall
Outfall
Above Neenah
Dam, East
Side
7-7
7-22
7-26
9-12
2-14-67
9-7-67
10.1
6.4
8.8
1.2
9.5
24%
24%
23
3
22
9.2
9.0
9.0
8.0
9.3
11.9
13.5
8.6
14.8
11.9
11.6
900
11,000
<100
100
400
Above Neenah
Dam, Middle
Surface
7-7
-- 11.0
39.3 1% Meters
39 . 3 Above Neenah
Dam , Wes t
Side
7-7
7-7
7-22
7-26
9-12
2-14-67
9-7-67
_._
8.9
4.3
7.4
1.4
10
24%
24%
23
3
22
9.2
9.0
9.1
7.6
9.2
11.2
10.7
12.8
8.6
14.7
9.4
11.6
700
3,800
100
<100
700
39.2 Outfall
38.8 Above Menasha
D'tn, East
Side
7-7
7-22
7-26
9-12
2-14-67
9-7-67
8.7
5.7
10.2
0.6
12
24
25
24
3
2?
9.2
9.1
9.4
8.1
9.2
11.3
11.7
9.3
15.4
13.1
12.1
3,000
500
200
< 100
500
-------
-176-
No. Uaste Source
8 Kiwberly-Clark
Corporation
.Miles,
38.8
38.8
38.8
9 Cities of Neenah 37.6
& Mcnasha
9A Kimberly-Clark 37.5
Marketing Center
37.A
37.4
37.4
10 Town of Menasha 36.0
Sanitary District
11 Holiday Inn
35.8
33.6
Above Menaaha
Dam, Middle
Surface
14 Maters
Above Menosha
Dam, West
Side
: Date
7-7
7-7
7-7
7-22
7-26
9-12
2-14-67
9-7-67
B.O
MS;
-
-
_
10
5
10
1
13
.D.
-
-
_
.1
.1
.1
.8
Temp
ฐC
_ป_
244
25
24
3
22
9
9
9
8
9
pH
.2
.1
.4
.0
.3
D.
mp
11.
11.
11.
11.
9.
15.
12.
12.
0. MFCC per
;/l 100 nil.
1
1
1
6 50(
2 5,00(
1 30(
0 < 10(
5 50(
37.7 STP Outfall 11/1/67
20
STP Outfall 10/30/67
STP Outfall
7.4
7.6
7.6
R.
R. Bridge
7-26
Below, East 9-12
R.
R.
Side
R. Bridge
Below,
Center
R. Bridge
2-14-67
9-7-67
7-26
9-12
2-14-67
4-7-67
7-26
Below, West 9-12
Side
SIT Outfall
STP Outfall
,
ove Apple-
ton, Kv,t
SUie
2-14-67
9-7-67
10-31-67
9-27
11-10
10-31-67
7-7
7-22
7-27
9-12
2-14-67
9-7-67
8
9
8
13
13
19
4
8
11
13
2
12
36
34
19
16
8
6
6
3
12
.5
.3
.0
.6
.9
.0
.5
.0
.1
.1
.7
_
.4
.8
.5
.1
27
234
4
22
264
244
4
22
27
24
3
23
24
24
26
234
2
22
9
9
8
9
9
8
8
9
9
9
7
9
7
7
7
8
8
8
7
9
.2
.2
.0
.2
.2
.8
.0
.2
.2
.1
.8
.1
.1
.8
.5
.7
.8
.2
.8
.0
12.
13.
12.
11.
10.
10.
12.
10.
11.
12.
11.
10.
-
0.
-
-
7.
7.
6.
6.
11.
5.
7
7
8
4
7
2
6
8
6
7
7
4
-
6
-
-
9
2
0
1
6
0
8,000
4,000
3,000
1,000
46,000
5O.OOO
280,000
3,000
320,000
30,000
1,000
20,000
100,000
110,000
30,000
130,000
29,000
-------
-177-
No. Waste Source Miles
33.6
33.6
33.6
33.6
12 Riverside Paper 33.3
Corporation
13 Consolidated 32.1
Papers Inc.
, Foremost Foods 30.8
30.8
30.8
30.8
30.8
15 City of 30.0
S.-ircple Source Date
Above Appleton 7-7
Center
Surface
14 Meters 7-7
Above Appleton 7-22
Center 7-27
9-12
2-14-67
9-7-67
Above Appleton 7-7
West Side 7-22
7-27
9-12
2-14-67
9-7-67
Outfall
Outfall
Outfall #1 2-7-67
Outfall 02 2-7-67
Outfall 03 2-7-67
Outfall 04 2-7-67
Outfall 05 2-7-67
STP Outfall 10-25
B.O.D.
rag/l
9.5
6.9
8.4
3.4
16
__
10.1
6.8
7.9
3.2
16
13.1*
15.8*
< 6 *
43 *
430 *
53.2*
Temp,
ฐC.
__
24
26
24
2
23
234
26
24
2
23
17
pH
__
8.8
8.8
8.6
7.6
9.0
8.9
8.8
8.4
7.6
9.1
T
7.4
D.O.
tng/1
8.1
6.0
6.7
5.1
8.2
11.6
8.2
7.5
7.2
5.8
7.8
11.2
9.0
1.2
MFCC per
100 ml.
90,000
100,000
130,000
83,000
400,000
90,000
90,000
50,000
< 1,000
30,000
Appleton
16 Kiirberly-Clark
Kiirberly
29.0
28.2
Outfall
Above Kliiberly
East Side
7-7
7-22
7-27
9-12
2-14-67
9-7-67
12.7
10.0
8.9
6.0
13
234 7.9
26% 8.0
224
2
22
7.4
7.6
8.0
28.2
Above Kirberly
Center
Surface
7-7
4.8
2.0
2.3
1.6
12.7
1.8
4.3
480,000
1,000,000
600,000
200,000
2,800,000
7 -7
-------
-178-
No. Wsste Source
17 Village of
Kimberly
18 Combined Paper
Mills, Inc.
19 Village of
Little Chute
20 City of
Kaukauna
21 TMTi
iy Pulp &
r r. ,i
Hi lea
28.2
28.2
27.0
27.0
26.8
24.5
24.5
24.5
24.5
24.5
23.1
23.0
Sample Source Dr.te
Above Kirabcrly 7-22
Center 7-27
9-12
2-14-67
9-7-67
Above Kimberly 7-7
West Side 7-22
7-27
9-12
2-14-67
9-7-67
STP Outfall 8-24-67
3-30
B.O.D.
V.'.C./i
6.6
9.8
9.6
4.0
13
__
9.5
9.2
11.8
5.8
13
32.4*
22.4*
Temp ,
ฐC.
24
27
23
2
23
__
234
26^
23
2
22
20
9
i
pH
8.4
8.0
7.4
7.8
7.9
8.2
8.0
7.5
7.8
8.2
7.6
7.4
D.O.
HJJ/1
3.3
2.2
1.9
12.3
1.6
4.2
2.9
2.1
2.2
12.4
1.7
1.5
5.5
MFCC per
100 ml.
150,000
280,000
500,000
54,000
290,000
130,000
90,000
240,000
20,000
300,000
Outfall
STP Outfall 5-9-67
99 * 11 7.6 0.1
Above
East
Above
Kaukauna 7-7
Side 7-21
7-28
9-12
2-14-67
9-7-67
Kaukauna 7-7
8.6
9.8
14.3
12.0
17
_ _
25
27
23
2
22
7.4
7.4
7.2
7.8
7.5
3.2
1.5
0.1
0.1
11.7
0.0
3.7
> 300, 000
1,100,000
300,000
1,300,000
Surface Center
2^ Meters 7-7
Above
Kaukauna 7-21
Center 7-28
Above
West
9-12
2-14-67
9-7-67
Kaukauna 7-7
Side 7-21
7-28
9-12
2-14-67
9-7-67
8.1
7.2
10.3
7.8
13
.
7.1
7.7
8.6
4.1
3.0
25
27
224
2
22
_ _
25
27
23
2
22
7.5
7.4
7.3
7.8
7.5
7.4
7.4
7.3
7.8
7.5
3.4
2.0
0.4
0.5
12.3
0.2
5.1
2.7
0.9
1.1
13.2
0.4
> 400, 000
1,000,000
61,000
1,100,000
> 150,000
1,600,000
34, COO
700,( 00
STP Outfall
10-9
77.1*
7.4
-------
-379-
No. Waste Source Riles Sample Source Date
19.7 Below Kaukauna 7-7
East Side 7-21
7-28
9-12
2-14-67
9-7-67
19.7 Below Kaukauna 7-7
Surface Center
19.7 24 Meters 7-7
19.7 Below Kaukauna 7-21
Center 7-28
9-12
2-14-67
9-7-67
19.7 Below Kaukauna 7-7
West Side 7-21
7-28
9-12
2-14-67
9-7-67
18.7 Above Wrights- 7-20
town, East 7-28
Side
18.7 Above Wrights- 7-20
town, Center 7-28
18.7 Above Wrights- 7-20
town, West 7-28
Side
22 Village of 16.8 STP Outfall 6-15
Wrightstown
14.1 Bo low Wrights- 7-7
town East 7--20
Side 7-28
9-12
2-15-67
9-7-67
14.1 Bo lev '.,', rights- 7-7
town, Co.itcr
--Surface
B.O.D.
mcป/l
7.1
7.7
12.4
7.2
9.5
__
8.7
8.9
11.4
7.8
8.9
__
8.0
8.7
11.7
8.3
9.8
7.4
7.5
8.0
8.0
7.5
8.7
38.0*
3.5
6.6
9.8
8.1
6.2
Temp
O i
24
28
23
1
22
24
27
23
1
22
24
27
23
1
22
25
27
25
27*$
25
274
15
--
25
28
224
1
21
-
' PH
7.4
7.3
7.2
7.9
7.4
7.4
7.4
7.2
7.8
7.4
7.4
7.3
7.2
7.9
7.5
7.4
7.3
7.4
7.3
7.4
7.4
7.3
--
7.6
7.4
7.1
7.6
7.5
.._
D.O.
0.6
0.0
1.1
0.0
11.9
0.2
0.6
0.5
0.0
0.2
0.0
12.2
0.3
0.9
0.0
0.2
0.0
12.0
0.3
1.4
0.4
1.3
0.4
1.7
1.1
2.5
1.2
2.7
2.0
0.2
11.0
0.6
1.3
MFCC per
100 ml.
__
> 150, 000
2,600,000
50,000
160,000
> 300,000
_
2,500,01)0
100,000
>250yOOO
2,200,000
260,000
400,000
200,000
140,000
100,000
--
--
11,000
--
1,200,000
100,000
21,000
.._
14.1
-2
7-7
l.l
-------
23
Charmin Paper
Products Co
24
Hickory Grove
Sanitary
e Miles? Sprvijfi Sqnrr" nr"1-fป
14.1 Below Wrights- 7-20
town Center 7-28
9-12
2-15-67
9-7-67
14.1 Below Wrights- 7-7
town, West 7-20
Side 7-28
9-12
2-15-67
9-7-67
12.9 Outfall
3.
12.4 Below Little 7-20
Rapids East 7-29
Side 9-8
12.4 Below Little 7-20
Rapids Center 7-29
9-8
12.4 Balow Little 7-20
Rapids West 7-29
Side 9-8
12.0 STP Outfall 5-11
7.5 Above DePere 7-7
East Side 7-20
7-29
9-8
2-15-67
9-6-67
7.5 Above DaPere 7-7
Surface Center
7.5 -3 Inters 7-7
7.5 Above DaPere 7-20
Center 7-29
9-8
2-15-67
9-6-67
7.5 Above DnPere 7-7
West Side 7-20
7-29
9-3
2 -15 67
9-6-67
B.O.D.
lWJL_
8.9
7.4
9.4
10.0
6.7
6.0
6.9
9.8
8.3
5.2
5.7
8.3
6.3
5.2
7.6
5.5
6.1
8.1
5.7
44.0*
__
7.8
7.2
7.4
4.8
8.3
__
6.4
6.1
7.2
5.7
11
__
7.5
5.7
7.3
6.9
8.6
Tr.mp
ฐC.
25
274
22%
1
21
25
28
224
1
21
24
26
22*5
24
26
22
24
264
22
15
__
23
264
224
4
25
23
264
214
4
22
23
264
22
4
22
PH
7.6
7.4
7.2
7.8
7.5
7.6
7.4
7.2
7.8
7.5
7.8
7.2
8.2
7.8
7.1
7.6
7.8
7.2
7.6
7.1
__
7.8
7.4
8.4
7.6
8.4
7.8
7.2
8.2
7.6
3.1
7.8
7.2
7.8
7.6
7.7
D.O.
raft/I
2.6
1.5
0.2
11.7
0.3
1.1
2.9
1.5
0.2
11.8
0.4
3.2
0.6
8.8
2.5
0.3
5.5
3.6
0.2
5.0
4.0
7.4
5.4
4.2
10.4
10.7
9.0
7.3
6.4
4.6
2.1
9.4
11.4
7.4
7.4
4.9
1.7
8.0
U.O
4.0
MFCC per
100 ml.
11,000
460,000
180,000
11,000
__
9,000
> 2, 500, 000
160,000
17,000
8,000
420,000
33,000
8,000
410,000
44,000
12,000
370,000
41,000
22,000
10,000
15,000
50,000
1,800
20,000
20,000
18,000
57,000
1,600
13,000
20,000
14,0^0
&-'. ')
700
-------
-181-
No. Waste Source Miles Sample Source Date
7.2 Dam Headrace
25 Nlcolet Paper Co. 7.0 Outfall
26 U.S. Paper Mills 6.8 Outfall
Corporation
27 DePere, y of 6.2 STP Outfall
6.1 Below DePere
East Side
6.1 Below DePere
Surface
Center
6.1 4 Meters
6.1 Below DePere
Center
6.1 Below DePere
West Side
2-3
2-24
12-12
2-1-67
2-28-67
9-21
7-7
7-19
7-29
9-8
2-16-67
9-6-67
7-7
7-7
7-19
7-29
9-8
2-16-67
9-6-67
7-7
7-19
7-29
9-8
2-16-67
9-6-67
B.O.D.
rag/1
2.8
4.4
10.1
5.4
5.4
111.0*
6.3
5.8
8.9
7.2
9.2
6.7
8.3
8.6
8.4
10
_._
7.4
10.3
8.4
8.4
7.1
Temp
^
0
1
*5
1
19
__
25
26
22*5
0
23
X
25
26
22*5
0
24
25
26
27
0
22
PH
7.4
7.5
7.4
7.4
7.5
7.0
__
7.6
7.5
7.8
7.6
8.1
7.5
7.5
7.8
7.5
8.1
__
7.6
7.4
7.6
7.4
7.5
D.O.
10.2
12.8
10.6
10.7
1.0
5.7
4.7
6.1
9.5
12.0
8.1
5.5
4.2
3.6
5.8
10.2
10.8
8.4
5.4
5.4
6.7
9.0
10.1
5.8
MFCC per
100 ml.
73,000
35,000
71,000
56,000
32,000
_ _
23,000
15,000
28,000
52,000
13,000
16,000
9,000
26,000
29,000
5,000
130,000
100,000
2,600,000
170,000
3,100,000
28 Fort Hcvard Paper
Co,',p.-ny
29 Fort Howard Paper
Company
3.7 Outfall
3.6 STP Outfall
2.3 Mason Street
5-18
39.0* 27 7.2
3-29
4-28
5-31
6-29
7-29
8-31
9-28
4.1
4.6
2.4
3.4
7.1
5.2
6.9
2s
9
17'i
21ปS
27
23
15
7.7
7.4
7.4
7.2
7.3
7.2
7.3
13.1
7.7
4.3
1.7
2.2
0.1
3.5
16,000
9,000
3,500
12,000
25,000
130,000
16,000
-------
No. W?ste Source Miles
30 American Can Co. 1.4
Green Bay
31 Charmin FaPer 1.0
Paper Products Co.
32 Green Bay Pack- 0.8
aging Inc.
33 Green Bay M.S.D. 0.1+
0.1
Sample Source Date
11-2
11-30
4-13-67
6-1-67
6-29-67
7-26-67
9-13-67
Outfall
Outfall
Outfall
STP Outfall 10-11
Mouth East 7-7
Side 7-19
7-29
9-8
2-16-67
9-6-67
B.O.D.
6.8
7.8
7.4
2.5
1.8
6.3
0.6
143.0*
10.0
>17.1
13.4
15.5
18
Temp.
6
1*5
5
184
21
31
21
21
_ _
26
29
26
0
23
pH
7.2
7.4
7.8
7.4
7.6
7.3
7.8
7.5
7.2
7.0
7.2
7.5
7.4
D.O.
mg/1
4.5
10.6
10.7
4.6
5.2
7.2
7.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.9
10.6
3.4
MFCC per
100 ml.
21,000
71,000
16,000
18,000
28,000
17,000
12,000
40,000
610,000
60,000
33,000
60,000
0.1 Mouth - Center
Surface
7-7
0.7
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
3 Meters 7-7
5 Meters 7-7
Mouth - Center 7-19
7-29
9-8
2-16-67
9-6-67
Mouth West 7-7
Side 7-19
7-29
9-8
2-16-67
9-6-67
10.3
>19.4
15
15.2
17
__
10.8
>17.9
15
17.2
9.5
27
29
26
0
23
26%
29
26
0
24
--
7.2
7.0
7.2
7.5
7.2
7.2
7.0
7.2
7.4
7.3
0.3
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.9
10.5
3.5
0.7
0.0
0.0
0.7
10.5
2.5
90,000
510,000
40,000
25,000
120,000
60,000
510,000
100,000
67,000
70,000
0.0
3.0
Green Bay
NEENAH SLOUGH
U.S. 41
Above
11-19-64
5-19-65
9--27
2.7
2.0
2.1
3
18
12
7.4
7.4
7.2
8.0
4.3
4.5
2,200
--
1,500
-------
-183-
No. Waste Source
33A Menasha Corp.
34 Neenah Foundry 92
34 Neenah Foundry #1
35 Galloway Co.
36 Fox R. Tractor
Company
37 Wls. Rendering
Company
38 Sutte des Morts
Miles Sample Source Date
2.6 STP Outfall
2.5 Marathon 11-19-64
St. Storm 5-18-65
Sewer Out- 9-27
fall 11-10
1.5 Cecil St. 11-19-64
Below 5-19-64
9-27
0.6+ Monroe St. 11-18-64
Storm 5-18-65
Sewer Out- 9-27
fall 11-10
0.6 Monroe St. 11-18-64
Storm 5-18-64
Sewer Out- 9-27
fall 11-10
0.1 Main St. 11-19-64
Below 5-19-65
9-27
0.0 Fox River
MUD CREEK
3.7 STP Outfall 11-10
11-1-67
2.9 US 41 9-28
11-1-67
2.4 Spencer Ave. 9-26
11-1-67
1.1 Prospect Ave. 9-28
11-1-67
0.6 Outfall 9-27
11-10
0.4 STP Outfall 5-17-67
B.O.D.
Eg /I
1.1*
13.1
12.3
4.5
3.6
2.6
15.6*
3.4*
1.4
3.1
15.6*
5.1*
>222.
7.7
<1
16.3
4.0
12.6
73
30.1
3.9
130
5.8
7.4
4.3
10.5
24.3
8.9*
Temp
ฐC.
22
3
19
14
38
27
7
19
18
13
7
154
8
12
8
13
16
' pH
6.9*
7.6
7.6
7.2
6.7*
_-
7.6
8.7
7.6
7.8
7.2
7.4
7.8
7.6
7.0
7.8
7.6
7.6
7.5
7.4
D.O.
mg/1
7.7
8.0
5.5
--
4.6
6.0
2.9
_
0.2
8.1
0.0
9.6
0.7
8.9
1.7
MFCC per
100 ml.
(SUSP SLDS)
(744)
(508*)
(1290)
(796)
300
12,000
(SUSP SLDS)
(210)
(166)
(46)
(428)
61,000
420,000
_w
500,000
12,000,000
140,000
U.D.
0.0
Fox River
-------
-10U-
No. Waste Source
39 Elm Tree Bakery
40 Terrace Motor Inn
41 Hietpas Dairy
Farm
42 Coenen Packing
Company
43 Brookside Cheese
Factory
liles
0.3
0.3-
0.5
Sample Source Date
MUD CREEK TRIBUTARY
Outfall 9-28
College Ave. 11-1-67
MUD CREEK TRIBUTARY
Outfall 9-28
11-10
11-6-67
11-1-67
B.O.D. Temp. D.O. MFCC per
mฃ/l ฐC. pH mฃ/l 100 ml.
//I
226 20 7.3
25 12 8.4 8.1
n
16.9 15 7.4 15,000
700,000
226
7.4 -- 7.5
LOWER FOX RIVER TRIBUTARY
2.9
2.7
1.7
2.2
2.1
1.6
0.0
7.6+
7.6
7.6
7.3
0.0
11.8
CTH "E" Above 12-15
Outfall 12-15
Town Road 12-15
CTH "00" 12-15
Above
Outfall 12-15
CTH "00" 12-15
Below
Lower Fox River
KANKOPOT CREEK
US 10 Above 11-7
11-30
Outfall 11-7
11-30
Town Road 11-7
Below 11-30
Fox River
PLUM CREEK
CTH "Q" 9-1
A'.ove 10-20
NO FLOW
225 8.2
NO FLOW
NO FLOW
1340 6.9
NO FLOW
NO FLOW
NO FLOW
156 19 4.6
1580 22 9.6
NO FLOW
NO FLOW
NO FLOW
NO FLOW
-------
-185-
No. Waste Source
44 White Clover
Dairy
45 Town of
Holland Sanitary
District
Miles Sample Source Date
11.6+ Outfnll 4-20-67
11.6 4-20-67
11.5 CTH "0" 9-1
10-20
11.2 STP Outfall 11-2-65
9-1
10-18
3-30-67
4-20-67
7-6-67
10.9 Below 9-1
10-20
7.9 CTH "Z" Below 9-1
10-20
6.0 Town Road 9-1
10-20
0.0 Fox River
B.O.D.
4.0
>122
1.5
1.4
731
967
521 *
980
1260
746
580
147
33.8
113
8.3
7.4
Temp. D.O.
ฐC. pH ma/1
28
52
22
20
23
29
23
19
28
26
14
23
124
23
9
7.8
>10.2
7.3 5.4
7.4 4.9
7.5
7.3
7.6 0.0
6.7
6.7
7.6 0.0
7.8 1.3
8.4 10.2
8.2 0.0
8.4 5.8
8.1 3.1
MFCC per
100 ml.
80,000
170,000
(SUPS SLDS)
(1536)
(1560)
9,600,000
64,000,000
80,000
280,000
14,000
6,000
APPLE CREEK TRIBUTARY
46 Pleasant View
Cheese Factory
47 Fox River Valley
Coop. Creamery
48 Austin-Straubel
STP
6.0+ Above 12-15
NO FLOW
6.0 Outfall 12-15 > 831
5.3 Buchanan Road 12-15
Below
0.0 Fox River
ASHWAUBENON CREEK
7.6 Outfall 11-4-65
12-12
0.0 Fox River
DUTCHMAN CREEK
a. Tributary #1
2.9 Above 9-13
11-15
2.8 STP Outfall 9-13
11-15
NO FLOW
50.6
1910
NO FLOW
NO FLOW
16. *
96.1
10
6.8
7.2
5.1
7.3 2.1
7.4
-------
-106-
No. Wrste Source Miles Sample Source
2.6 CTH "GH"
Below
1.5 Town Road
Below
0.1 CTH "GG"
Below
0.0 Dutchman Creek
Date
9-13
11-15
9-13
11-15
9-13
B.O.D.
uiR/1
5.3
12.9
4.1
1.2
NO FLOW
Temp
ฐc.
214
8
224
4
' PH
7.9
7.9
8.8
8.0
D.O.
IDR/1
2.9
5.6
12.7
13.1
MFCC per
100 ml.
50,000
40,000
28,000
4,500
b. Tributary 02
0 . 1+ Above
49 Paper Converting 0.1 Outfall
Machine Company
0.0 Dutchman Creek
11-15
12-12
11-15
12-12
NO FLOW
NO FLOW
36.3
147
9.1
1,300,000
EAST RIVER
18.1+ Above
50 Rockland River 18.1 Pond Outfall
View Cheese
Factory
17.9 STH "57"
Below
14.0+ Above
51 Scray's Cheese Co. 14.0 Outfall
13.9 Town Road
Below
4.3 Allouez Ave.
2.1 Mason St.
1.3 Eaird St.
11-7
11-30
11-7
11-30
11-7
11-30
11-7
11-30
11-7
11-30
11-7
11-30
8-3
8-24
11-8
8-3
8-24
11-8
8-3
8-24
U 8
8.0
5.7
39.0
280
8.4
5.0
0.9
3.6
1030
1030
3.0
5.0
1.5
3.9
3.8
4.9
3.0
4.0
4.3
3.0
4.7
5
3
7
3
5
3
6
2
16
16
4
2
22
21
64
224
20
54
224
21
54
8.2
8.2
7.6
7.0
8.1
8.1
8.2
8.2
7.4
7.2
7.7
8.2
7.6
8.2
8.4
7.4
7.4
7.8
7.3
7.3
7.4
11.9
13.1
4.9
0.4
9.4
8.8
10.3
12.3
9.2
11.6
4.8
8.7
12.8
2.8
5.7
10.0
0.7
2.5
6.6
1,600
6,000
"
16,000
3,800
1,700
2,200
2,000
32,000
6,000
2,700
150,000
21,000
27,000
530,000
23,000
).2,r;oo
-------
-1ST-
No. Waste Source Miles Sample Source Date
1.0 Main Street 8-3
8-24
11-8
0.7 Webster Ave. 8-3
8-24
11-8
0.3 Monroe St. 8-3
8-24
9-8
11-8
0.0 Fox River
B.O.D. Temp,
6.4 23
4.5 21
9.1 5
9,5 23
3.8 21>5
7.8 5.5
7.7 24
5.6 22
7.1 23
10.5 6
ป
PH
7.3
7.2
7.2
7,3
7.2
7.2
7.3
7.2
7.2
7.0
D.O.
0.5
1.5
5.3
0.4
1.6
4.4
0.4
1.6
1.0
4.5
MFCC per
100 ml.
30,000
11,000
14,000
8,500,000
60,000
20,000
4,200,000
100,000
40,000
13,000
EAST RIVER TRIBUTARY
1.7 STH "96" Above 4-6
9-28
10-20
32 Village of Green- 1.6 STP Pond Out- 4-6
leaf, Wrightstown fall 9-28
Sanitary District 10-20
//I
0.8 Town Road 4-6
Below 9-28
10-20
0.0 East River
BOWER CREEK
11.4 Town Road 5-16-67
Above 7-6-67
53 Shirley Farmers 11.3 Outfall 5-16-67
Coop. Cheese 2-6-67
Factory
11.1 Below 5-16-67
7-6-67
10.2 CTH "X" 5-16-67
Below 7-6-67
0.0 East River
BAIRD"S CREEK
(NO FLOW)
(NO FLOW)
(NO FLOW)
27.8* 4
8.4 13
10 104
(NO FLOW)
(NO FLOW)
(NO FLOW)
(NO FLOW)
3.5 21
1560
885 21
84.5 19
94.9 19
2.9 20
3.5 25
8.8
9.2
9.2
7.5
5.1
6.2
7.0
7.3
8.8
7.7
10.0
18.2
5.8
*
0.0
1.4
13.6
5.4
10,000
400,000
40,000,000
3,200,000
7,000
1.9
Above
4-20
0.9 10 8,2 10.5
600
-------
-188-
No. Waste Source Miles Sample Source
54 Licbmann Packing 1.8 (NO DISCHARGE)
Company
1.7 Below
1.3 Danz Ave.
0.7 Henry St.
0.3 Main St.
0.0 East River
PRAIRIE AVENUE
Date
4-20
8-3
8-24
11-8
8-3
8-24
11-8
8-3
8-24
11-8
B.O.D.
i.yj/1
0.6
6.8
1.8
1.4
1.8
1.7
7.4
97.4
5.1
>17.9
TOUT
ฐC
10
29
21
8
20
18
8
21
19
9
P-
-_PH
8.0
11.2
8.8
8.4
8.6
8.2
7.6
7.3
8.4
8.4
D.O.
mg/1
10.2
6.2
9.6
15.4
5.6
7.9
5.2
0.0
1.7
3.9
MFCC per
100 ml.
<100
<100
12,000
3,300
270,000
10,000
230,000
7,000
210,000
210,000
STORM SEWER
55 C & NW Railroad
0.3+ Outfall
0.3 Drainage Ditch 10-20
0.3- Outfall
2.1 12 7.2
6.8
0.1
0.0
Storm Sewer
Fox River
10-20 108
11-15 100
* Composite Sample
( ) Additional Information
(OIL)
(266)
-------
-189-
Nov
Source or Stream
OCONTO RIVER
DRAINAGE BASIN SURVEY
1968
Miles Type of Waste
Treatment
Est. Discharge to
Stream per Day
Lbs. 5-Day
Gallons BSO.D.
OCONTO RIVER - MAIN STEM
Fork-N. & Branches
Suring, Vil. of
Christie Brook
Scott Paper Co.
Oconto Falls, Wis.
Oconto Falls, City of
Little River
Oconto, City of
a - Bond Pickle Co.
b - Wis. Dried Egg Co.
Green Bay
54.5
53'. 5 Sev-sge
25.8
19.5 Sewage
10.0
1.3 Sewage
0.0
Secondary
31,140
19.6 Pulp & Paper Lagoon Save- 10,720,000
alls, Evaporation,
Hauling
Secondary
Secondary
North Branch Oconto River
W.ibeno, Uninc, Vil. of 49.8 Sewage
Oconto River 0.0
Private Systems
220,000
1,449,000
29,440
105
845
Gillett, City of 2.3
a. Gillett Cold Storage
Country Gardens, Inc. 2.1
Gillett, Wis.
0,-cT.to River 0.0
B. Christie Brook
Sewage
Slaughtering
C a n n i n g
Secondary
227,300
Spray Irrigation 9,000,000
11
-------
Source or Stream
-190-
Milos Type of W.iste Treatment
Kelly Brook
Jones Creek
Oconto River
Lena, Vil. of
Frigo Bros. Ch. Corp.
Lena, Wis.
c- Little River
14.4
8.1
0.0
1 -I'll0s Creek
6.5 Sewage Secondary
6.1 Milk Cooling Water
F.st. Discharge.to
Stream per Day
Lbs. 5-Day
Gallons B.O.D.
-------
-191-
OCONTO RIVKR DRAINAGE BASIN
1968
Waste Source Miles Sample Source
OCONTO RIVER -
53.6 STH "32" bridge
above
Suring, Vil of 53.4 STP Outfall
52.0 Off Town Rd .
below
22.9 Town Road Above
Oconto Falls
19.6 CTH C
Date
MAIN
5-22
9-10
5-22
9-10
5-22
9-10
2-26
8-27
11-4
8-6
B.O.D.
mg/1
STEM
2.5
1.5
17.0*
71.0
2.0
1.5
1.4
<1.0
2.3
PM 2.5
Temp
13
15
14
m
13%
15^
1
17
7
--
PH
7.3
7.4
7.1
7.5
7.3
7.1
7.4
7.8
7.3
--
8-7 AM _
Scott Paper Co. 19.6 Outfall
19.5+ 100' above STP
Oconto Falls, 19.5 STP Outfall
City of
Scott Paper Co. 19.5 Clarifier Out-
fall
19.4 100 yds. below
1) Left side
2) Right side
18.4 Mill View Farm
11-4
3-11
11-4
2-26
3-19
8-27
10-3
11-4
2-26
8-27
10-3
11-4
8-27
8-27
8-6
8-7
8-27
1.8
101.
66.
87.
57. *
' 62.
73.
69.
85.
10.
55.
78.
2.5
6.1
5.1
8.9
1.2
7
8
6
8k
18
.. _
8k
6
22k
nk
21k
22k
2bk
24
22
7.4
6.5
7.4
7.8
8.0
7.7
7.9
7.8
7.3
6.9
7.2
8.0
7.5
7.6
7.6
7.3
D.O.
ms/1
9.1
8.4
0.2
--
9.0
8.2
11.4
7.9
11.4
8.1
6.8
11.4
--
5.7
6.4
4.5
--
2.5
11.2
7.2
--
7.7
4.6
4.1
4.0
2.3
MFCC per
100 ml.
4,300
4,300
--
2,000
6,400
5,100
1,700
1,100
average of 3
average of 3
800
61,000
--
--
--
--
--
--
510,000
--
--
average of 10
average of 10
30,000
-------
-192-
No.
Waste Source
Oconto, City of
Wabeno, Uninc.
Village of
Miles Sample Source Date
13.6 Stiles Dam 8-7
8-27
11-4
13.5 Old 141 Bridge 2-26
8-6
8-7
8-27
11-4
9.4 CTH "J" Bridge 2-26
8-6
8-7
8-27
11-4
3.6 Above Oconto (Park)
8-26
11-4
3.1 U.S. 41 Bridge 1-29
2-26
2-27
3-20
4-15
5-8
6-25
7-16
8-20
8-26
9-17
10-15
11-4
1.3 STP Out-fall 2-26
6-12
8-26
11-4
1.0 Public Landing 2-26
8-26
11-4
B . 0 . D
IllR/1
--
32.
9.
4.4
3.4
2.5
36.
6.3
3.7
3.1
3.4
33.
2.3
19.
5.8
5.1
4.3
5.2
11.5
4.0
2.5
3.4
4.0
7.8
3.7
1.2
21.
37.
70. *
2.8
14.
5.9
2.1
20.0
. Temp .
ฐC. jiH
-'-'V,
8
2
25
25
21%
8
1%
--
--
23
8%
18%
9%
1
1%
1
2
9
10
20
28
25
20
19
19
9%
bh
18
18
11%
1%
20
9%
/. I
7.2
7.3
7.2
7.3
7.5
7.2
7.3
--
--
7.9
7.3
7.7
7.3
7.2
7.3
7.2
7.2
7.0
7.4
7.4
7.4
7.2
7.4
7.0
7.6
7.3
7.5
7.1
7.7
7.8
7.3
7.8
7.3
D.O.
IllR/1
1 .1
7. a
2.4
7.2
2.0
0.3
5.0
2.3
5.5
--
--
9.2
2.9
6.4
3.5
1.7
2.2
7.5
5.0
5.5
5.2
3.5
5.6
6.4
1.8
4.4
6.5
7.0
0.5
--
6.5
1.5
5.9
2.1
MFCC per
100 ml.
Average of 1
--
40,000
6,600
average of 10
average of 10
10,000
29,000
2,700
average of 5
average of 5
' 1,700
10,000
5,000
4,200
2,100
1,500
1,700
2,500
23,000
1,400
17,000
2,000
19,000
8,000
3,500
2,100
6,100
--
--
--
4,100
39,000
29,000
A. NORTH BRANCH OCONTO
50.5 Town Road Above 5-15
9-10
49.8 CTH "H" Bridge 5-15
9-10
0.9
4.0
1.5
2.1
12%
13
13%
13
8.3
7.2
7.5
7.3
9.5
7.7
9.1
7.7
3,400
4,700
62,000
23,000
-------
-193-
No.
Waste Source Miles Sninple Source Date
48,5 CTH "C" Bridge 5-15
Date
5-15
9-10
B.O.D.
rog/1
1,2
2.4
Temp.
ฐC. PH
13^ 7.5
13 7.3
D.O.
mg/1
9.0
7.8
MFCC per
100 ml.
150,000
80,000
B. CHRISTIE BROOK
2.5 STH "22" Bridge
above 8-27 <1.0 11% 8.1 9.8
2,4 Town Rd. Above
STP 4-10 3.1 5 7.8 11.7
8-27 5.4 llij 8.2 9.4
9-5
Gillett, City of 2.3 STP Outfall 4-10 6.0* 9 7,8 4.2
8-27 18.0 14% 7.5
2.3 75' Below STP 8-27 <1,0 Jl% 7.6
Outfall
2.2 200' Below STP 8-27 5.1 13 7.7 6.6
Country Gardens 2.1
Inc., Gillett
0.9 Town Rd. Bridge
5,100
400
>300,000
1,400,000 EST
250,000
8.7
7.8
6.4
7.0
Below 4-10 4
8-27 *!
C. LITTLE RIVER
CTH "A" Above Jones
Creek 3-4 0
7-23 <1
8-26 ซ1
Mouth-Jones Creek
CTH "J" Be lew Jones
2-22 2
3-4 1
7-23 -cl
8-26 *!
C.I JONES, J^K
CIH "A" Above 2-22
3-4
7-23
8-26
,0
.0
.6
.0
.0
.0
.4
.0
.0
8%
13%
2%
21
19%
1
2%
21%
18%
No
No
No
No
8.0
8.0
7.5
8.1
8.8
7.2
7.5
8.1
8.4
Flow
Flow
Flow
Flow
11.6
9.
6.
4,
13.
5.
4.
5.
10.
6
5
5
1
1
7
0
5
11,000
23,000
600
4,000
800
10,000
74,000
1,000
300
-------
W;istc Source
Lena, Village of
Frigo Bros. Ch.
Corp, Lena
B.O.D.
Milos R.miple Source D.it'e niR/ 1
6.5 STP Out fall 2-22>800.
3-4 475.
7-23 731.
8-26 450.
* 11-19 86
6.1 Cooling Water Out-
fall 2-22 47.
3-4 24.
7-23 26.
8-26 4.9
9-5
6.0 US 141 Bridge 2-227242.
3-4 175.
7-23 156.
8-26 170.
4.7 Tpwn Road Bridge
2-22^242.
3-4 138.
7-23 87.
8-26 12.
2.8 CTH "J" Bridge 2-22>242.
3-4 175.
7-23 8.2
8-26 6.8
1.2 CTH "A" Culvert
2-22>161.
3-4 138.
7-23 <1.0
8-26 9.2
Tomp
ฐC.
6%
7%
20
19%
--
14%
19
21
26%
--
10.
13%
20
20%
1%
2
18
17
2
2
19%
17
1
2%
19
17
PH
7.1
7.1
7.2
7.1
7.6
7.0
7.1
7.1
7.7
--
7.0
7.1
7.3
7.1
7.1
7.2
7.6
7.7
6.9
7.1
7.9
8.0
7.0
7.1
7.0
7.7
D.O.
_ m&L\
2.8
2.5
2.2
--
--
1.3
1.1
3.5
3.7
--
1,2
2,4
0.0
0.0
0.9
1.8
0.0
2.1
0.0
0.7
0.0
12.1
0.0
1.5
2.3
14.7
MFCC Per
ion mi.
50,00 ,000
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
7300,000
320,000
15,000,000
15,000,000
4,000,000
5,800,000
9,000,000
11,000,000
35,000,000
2,600,000
7,000,000
3,200,000
900,000
30,000
2,100,000
2,800,000
30,000
7,000
Dtnotes
composite sample
-------
-195-
No. Source or Stream
River
Rat River
Middle Inlet
Beaver Creek
15 a dyer Paper Mills.,
Inc . , Pe slit i go
Peshtigo, City of
Creen Bay
S. Br. resin igo River
Peshtigo River
PKSHT1GO R1VI.R DRAINAGE BASIN
1968
Miles Type of Waste Treatment
Est. Discharge to
Stream per Day
Lbs. 5-Day
Gallons B.O.D.
)slu igo
Creek
Fty.
tz, Wis.
go River
111.
74.
32.
27.
27.
23.
PKSHTIGO R1VKR - MAIN STEM
6
2
1
0
2 Milk None ? ?
2
Pulp & Paper Lagoons & Land 5,510,000 16,140
10.0 Sewage
0.0
Secondary
558,600 205
A Middle Branch Peshtigo River
5.6
0.0
1. _?cmj:_h^ B_r_<2_nc h Pe s h t i_go__R iver
Tributary 7.8
Mid. Br. Peshtigo River 0.0
Crondon, City of
S. Br. Peshtigo River
a. T_rJ_but a_r_y_
0.3 Sewage Secondary
0.0
-------
i. Source or Stream
-196-
Miles 1 yPc ฐf Waste Treat rnent
I.aona, Un i nc . Vi 1 . of
Blackwell Job Corps.
Cent er
Pesht i gn Ri ver
Lower Mid. Inlet Creek
Pesbt igo River
Sini t h Creek
Middle Inlet Creek
B-
22.3 Sewage
17.5 Sewage
0.0
River
Lagoon
Secondary
C. Middle Inlet Creek
8.4
0.0
]
1.0
0.0
. Lower Middle Inlet Creek
3. Smi th Creek
Crivilz, Uninc. Vil. of 2.7 Sewage Lagoon
Lower Middle Inlet Creek 0.0
Tributary
Pesht i go R i ver
Pound , Vi1. of
I'c.jvi-r Creek
D. Be.TVer_ _Ci"eej<
8.6
0.0
1. TrJJin t ar_y_
1.1 Sewage Secondary
0.0
Kst. Di.scharge to
St re.Tin per Day
Lb.s. '5-Day
Callous R.O.D.
47,900
Suri ng Creek
f!,,!, ,n, Vil. of
E. LH_t_l_e
River
18.0
-------
No. Source or Stream
a - Colcman-Ch. Fty.
Tributary
Tributary
Peshtigo River
10 Springs! . 'h. Fty.
Rte. 1, Ci ii_iTiant Wis.
Little Peshtigo River
11 Country Gardens, Inc.
Coleman, Wis.
Little Peshtigo River
11 Country Gardens, Inc.
Coleman, Wis.
Little Peshtigo River
-197-
Milcs Type of Waste Treatment
Est. Discharge to
Strcan per Day
Lbs. 5-Dc
Gallons B.O.D.
Milk
10.1
9.3
0.0
1. Spring Creek
3.0 Milk Septic Tank ?
0.0
2. Tributary
1.1 Canning Spray Irrigation ?
0.0 ,
3. Tributary
1.5 Canning Spray Irrigation ?
0.0 , .
-------
-IQfl-
RIVI-:R DRAINAGE BASIN
1968
N'o. Waste Source Miles Sample Source
PESHTIGO RIVER
14.1 STH 64
10.5 U. S. 41
.
2 Badger Paper 10.4 Outfalls
Mills
10.0+ Below
Soufh Bank
North Bank
3 Peshtigo, City of 10.0 STP Outfall
9.1 Average Cross-
Section
8.0 Average Cross-
Section
7.1 Average Cross-
Section
5,4 Average Cross-
Section
0.1 Above Mouth
P.O Green Bay
Date
- MAIN
9-5
2-27
3-14
3-20
4-15
5-8
6-25
7-16
8-20
9-17
10-15
1-29
9-5
9-5
9-5
3-14
4-9
9-5
9-17
9-18
9-18
9-17
3-14
R.O.D.
mg/1
STEM
3.7
<0.5
2.5
6.8
2.2
3.1
0.6
4.6
1.5
-------
No.
Waste Source
-199-
Miles S.imple Source Date
B.O.D. Temp. D.O, MFCC per
mg/1 ฐC. pH mg/1 100 ml.
A. 1. .1. SOUTH BRANCH PESHTIGO RIVER TRIBUTARY
Cr;mdon, City of 0.3 Pond Outfall No Effluent
0.0 Peshtigo Lake
(So. Br. Peshtigo R)
B. RAT RIVER
Lnon.i, Uninc. 22.3 Pond Outfall
0.0 Peshtigo River
C. 1. a. SMITH CREEK
Crivitz, Uninc. 2.7 Pond Outfall
0.0 Lower Middle Inlet
D. 1. BEAVER CREEK TRIBUTARY
1.1+ Town Road Above
Under Construction
No Effluent
Pound, Vil. of
1.1
STP Outfall
0.9 STH 64 Below
0.0 Beaver Creek
6-5
9-5
11-21
6-5
9-5
11-21
6-5
9-5
11-21
3. .
1.2
3.1
15. *
18.
13.
7.
8.2
3.1
19%
20
3
13
17%
19
19
4
7.8
8.2
7.6
7,7
7.4
--
7.6
7.9
7.4
6.1
7.7
11.4
3.2
4.2
--
4.0
4.4
8.6
5,200
41,000
1,100
_.
--
--
50,000
--
150,000
E. LITTLE PESHTIGO RIVER
11.2+ Above 6-
9-
9-
Colcoan, Vil. of 11.2 STP OUTFALL 6-
9-
Q_
S
5
5
30
5
5
30
3.
< 1 .
-------
-200-
No. Wciste Source Mi les
11.1
10.1+
S.unple Source
lie low S'lT
Above Trib.
D.ite
6-5
9-5
9-30
9-30
B.O.D.
nig/1
2.5
2.1
3.1
1.4
Temp
"C.
23
19
17
19
pll
8.0
8.2
8.4
8.4
D.O.
n-B/1
7.5
8.8
10.4
11.2
MKCC per
100 ml.
80,000
330,000
1,500,000
54,000
# 1
10.1 Trib. #1 Mouth
9.3 Trib. #2 Mouth
8.9 CTH B Below
9-30 3.4
7.0 Adj. to CTH B. 9-30 2.3
0.0 Pcshtigo River
6-5
9-5
2.5
1.2
22
19
16
8.0
8.1
8.0
7.4
7.8
2.0
18 8.4 9.1
30,000
56,000
4,800
1,900
E. 2. LITTLE PESHTIGO RIVER TRIBUTARY
11
Country Gardens
Inc.
11
Country Gardens
Inc.
1.
0.
1 Spray Area
7 CTH B
9-5
21.
9-30 368.
0.
E.
1.
1.
0.
0 L. Peshtigo R
3. LITTLE PESHT
5 Spray Area
3 N-S Town Road
3 CfH B
1GO RIVER TRI
9-5
9-30
9-5
9-30
830.
2710.
3.1
7218.
16
16
BUTARY
18
18
17
15
7.
6.
4.
4.
7.
7.
2
4
8
4
2
1
2.
1.
0.
0.
4.
0.
5
3
0
0
0
0
0.0 L. Peshtigo R.
Composite Saynple
-------
-201-
KENOMINEE RIVER DRAINAGE BASIN
1968
No. Sou ice or Si re.sm Miles Type of Waste Treatment
Est. Discharge to
Stream per Day
Lbs. 5-Day
Gallons B.O.D.
Hr ? River
Ki ly-Clark
Corj , Ni agara
Niagara, Vil. of
t'ike River
Wausaukee River
Scott Paper Co.,
Marinet te
Scott Paper Co.,
M.'ir inet te
Mar incite, City of
Ansul Chemical Co.,
M.irinet t e
L.ike Kiซ. hi gan
I. MF.NOMINEE RIVKR - MAIN STEM
114.3
85.1
83.9
48.5
42.3
3.0
2.3
1.2
1 .0
0.0
Pulp & Paper
Sewage
Pulp & Paper
Sewage
Chemica1
Save-alls, 8,880,000 17,540
Hauling
Primary ? ?
Save-alls, 5,810,000 58,600
Screening &
Hauling
Primary 2,169,000 1,230
Tr i hut arv
River
KI ort'ii. e , Uii i nc ,
V)1. of
0.0
A. BRULE RIVER
1. TRIBUTARY
2.4 Sewage
L.igoon
!' ru I o R i VIT
0.0
-------
-202-
Sr.'irre or Stro.im Miles Type of Waste Treatment
Est. Discharge to
Stream per Day
Lbs. ''i-D.iy
Gallons B.O D.
S. Rr. Pike River
Menominee River
14, I'IKE RIVER
0.0
I. S. BRANCH PIKE RIVER
Chemiral Creek
Pike River 0.0
Coix'inan, fninc .
Vi11 age of
S. Br. Pike River 0.0
a. CHEMICAL CREEK
Sewage
Lagoon
C. WAUSAL'KEE RIVER
Wausaukee, Vil. of 4.0 ?ewage
Lagoon 0
-------
-203-
MKNOMINKK R1VKR DRAINAGE HAS IN
1968
VJ.ist e S-inrce
1 Kimher 1 y-Cl ซ' rk
T(>rp.
2 Ni .ig.ir.i, Vi 1 . of
ot t IViJU-T Co .
Miles
85.2
85.2
85.1
83.9
83.9
81.2
81.2
77.7
77.7
71.5
68. 7
62.3
62.3
54. 5
3. 5
3. 5
3. 5
3. 5
3. 5
3. 5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3. 5
3.0
2.8
S.imple Source Date
I . MENOM1NEE RIVER
Dam nhove 3-
11-
Out fall
STP Outfall 3-
11-
U. S. 8 3-
11-
Sturgeon Falls 3-
Dr,m
11-
Faithorn R. R. 3-
Kromlin Falls 11-
CTH 2 3-
9-
CTH K 3-
Upper D.)m 1 -
2-
3-
3-
4-
5-
6-
7-
8-
9-
9-
10-
l-Vper Mi 1 1 Out fal 1
i>elew 9-
B.O.D
mg/1
. Temp
P
H
D.O.
mg/1
MFCC per
100 ml.
- MAIN STEM
12
21
12
21
12
21
13
21
13
21
13
16
]3
29
27
14
20
15
7
25
16
20
i6
17
15
16
C.O.
<1.
90.
34.
2.
1.
1.
2.
<0.
3.
1.
1.
1 .
0.
<0.
0.
1.
1 .
3.
0.
<1 .
4.
1.
<1 .
<1.
4.
5
5
8
2
1
5
7
7
1
2
9
5
6
1
8
1
6
6
4
5
i,
2
3
..
--
%
3
1
3
0
3
0
1
1
1 ^
1
1
9
11
19
27
24
18
19
17
18^
7
7
7
-
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
8
7
7
7
7
.0
.2
.3
-
.2
.2
.4
.2
.5
.2
.5
. 5
.7
.6
.4
.7
. 7
.6
.5
.5
.0
.2
.2
.7
.3
11.
12.
_ _
--
12.
12.
12.
12.
12.
13.
12.
12.
10.
11.
11.
11.
10.
9.
7.
6.
7.
8.
7.
8.
8.
0
2
7
9
6
7
6
1
7
6
5
5
4
1
1
5
7
6
4
7
3
8
8
1
7,500
900
--
37,000
2,000
19,000
800
5,700
1,800
4,500
3,400
100
470
200
700
600
420
3,500
900
3,300
600
2,200
540
2,000
-------
-20U-
No
i
4
5
5
5
. W.ist c1 ' oun e t-
'u dt. t Paper Co. 2
1
1
M.irinette, City of 1
1
Ansul Chemical 1
Ansnl Chemical 0
\nsiil (Chemical 0
0
0
1i 1 es Sainpl e Source
. 3 Lower Mill Out
.7 U . S . 4 1
. 7
.2 STP Out fal 1
_ 2
.0 Outfall
.9'" Outfall
.9 Outfall
.3 Ogden Street
.3
Date
fall
3-
9-
2-
3-
9-
9-
9-
3-
9-
14
16
14
14
16
B.O.D. Tr-mp. D.O.
nig/1 C. pH mg/1
7.1 1
2.3 17%
68. * 9
38.
91. 27
16>220. 32
16
14
16
62. 37
2.8 2
1.6 17%
7
7
7
7
9
2
2
7
7
.5 11.7
.4 8.4
.3
.2
.6
.9
.6
.4 12.2
.4 8.5
Ml-CC per
100 ml.
2,600
5,000
--
--
--
--
2,300
3,000
0.0+ Mouth
0.0 Green Bay
9-16 1.4 17% 7.3 8.5
Florence, Uninc.
A. 1. BRULE RIVER TRIBUTARY
9-17 1.8 18
11-20 1.0
9-17 7.7 16
2.4
2.4
1 . 7
0.0
Pond Out fal
Be 1 ow
Brule River
7.4 1.7
7.2 2.2
7 fiorulin.-in , t'n j nc .
B. _!_._ a.JJKKMICAL <-R_E_EK
43.3 Above 9-16 1.8
43.2 Pond Seepage 11-20 14.
'42.2 He low Q-16 2.5
20
C. WAI SAL'KKE RIVER
H W.,us,mire, V.I. of 4.0 1'onH dutfall
0. 0 Xenon,i nee River
7.2 6.5
7.4 7.4
No Kffluent
4,100
2,000
4,200
9,600
3,800
,.,,ios i ( e "- .impl e
-------
-205-
APPENDIX VI.
LOWER FOX, OCONTO, PESHTIGO AND MENOMIHEE RIVERS
SURFACE WATER QUALITY DATA,
1950-1973
-------
-206-
LOWER FOX RIVER
SUMMAKT OF RESULTS OF COOPERATIVE STREAM SURVEYS
June - September
Discharge
c.f.s.
Stations Majrfsnsj JMnJntm
1950 1951 1952 1950 1951 1952
Neeaeh Channel
Kat&auna
Erightstown 3470 6380 6650 1650 1900 1730
De Per>? Dam
3.3. & T.R.P.. 3r.
1953 195U 1955 1953 195U 1955
Neenah Channel
Kaukauna
Wrightstown 3510 5530 5900 1650 1620 U$0
De Pere Dan
G.B. & W.R.R. Br.
Miles
0.0
03.5
20.0
29.0
3-5.Q
0.0
13.5
20.0
29.0
35.0
Dissolved Cbtygen
p. p.m.
Maximum Minimum
1950 195] 1952
9.4 8.7 10.2
6,6 6.9 6.7
5.7 4.8 6.0
5.1 4.7 4.5
3.2 A.8 4.4
1953 195U 1955
11.0 11.0 9.9
U.8 5.U 6.2
1.6 6.1 6.5
7.9 8.2 9.1
U.2 7.7 -
1950 195? 1952
6.8 6.2 5.6
0.3 1,4 0.3
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
0,0 0,0 0,0
1953 195U 1955
6.6 U.3 5.9
0.0 0.0 O.C
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.2 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
5 Day B.O.D.
p.p.m.
Maximum
1950 1951 1952
10.3 10.4 390*
6.2 13.8 13.5
8.6 14.2 U.9
20.6 11.4 8.1
^6,1 12.1 I? .^
I?53 195:. 1S55
>100* 175* Hi.li
16.6 16.9 18.5
lii.8 13.3 20.5
9.1 20.7 9.1
>12.o 17.7 22.1
Temperetui'9
Range
ฐC
1950 1951 195?
16-24 15-25
16-24 15-26 15.5-25,
16-24 15-25 14.5-25
17-25 16-25 15-25
17-25 15-26 15-26
-9s3 o->3i; -.$;?
15-26 16-25 l5.:-2:
16-26 15-26 15.5-2:
15-26 1L-27 15.5-2-
17-28 16-27 16. 5-2:
18-26 18-27 16.5-2:
1957
1958
1959
1960
Flow BOD5 D.O. Flow BODj D.O.
Date cfs mq/1 mq/1 Date cfs mg/T mg/1
6-1 3,660 5.0 5.4 6-7 4,570 4.5 4.5
6-8-3,120 6.64.3 6-145,170 3.92.8
6*153,060 4.82.1 6-283,27011.21.2
6-22 3.280 14.4 2.8 7-12 1,990 11,2 1.3
7-6' 3|040 6.0 5.2 7-26 2,400 12.7 1.7
7-13 3,390 9.6 2.5 8-9 1,930 18.5 0.1
7-27 3,340 5.4 2.2 8-16 1,830 13.1 0.9
8-3 3.390 1.02.6 8-221,66016.00.9
8-10 '3,400 4.31.9 '8-291,650 8.01.0
8-17 3,450 6.5 1.5 9-6 1,730 10.3 0.8
8-245,560 4.05.6 9-131,65029.80.8
8-31 3,190 10.8 3.3 9-20 1,520 12.9 0.8
9-H'2,6~10 21.6 1.6 9-26 1,560 20.1 0.5
9-21 2,930 11.0 3.3
9-28 2,560 1.9 1.6
Date
6-6
6-13
6-20
fi-?7
I -I
7-11
7-18
7-?5
8-1
8-8
8-15
R-??
9-5
9-12
9-19
q-?fi
Flow BOD5
cfs mg/1
1,400 9.8
1,360 10.9
1,270 8.9
1,260 14.4
1,340 15.0
1,440 10.4
1,650 16.8
1,480 11.5
1,250 5.7
1,220 23.2
1,150 6.5
942 13.8
1,190 9.0
1,350 28.2
1,360 22.1
1,940 22.8
D.O.
mg/1
1.3
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.7
1.2
0.6
0.0
0.6
0.0
0.5
1.9
0.9
0.3
0.5
O.fi
Date
6-5
6-12
6-19
6-26
7-10
7-17
7-21
7-24
8-7
8-14
8-21
8-28
9-11
9-25
Flow
cfs
5,520
4,180
2,550
2,360
1,990
1,610
1,980
1,680
1,390
1,750
1,880
1,800
1,720
1,890
BOD5 D.O.
mg/1 mg/1
9.5 5.1
4.1 3.4
6.4 3.3
4.6 0.5
50.8 lT~
5.2 0.6
16.6 0.4
25.8 0.2
23.9 0.2
7.5 0.2
14.0 0.5
4.3 0.7
Date
6-17
7-1
7-8
7-22
8-12
3-19
8-26
9-2
9-9
9-16
9-23
Flow
cfs
3,770
4,600
3,750
4,160
4,160
4,000
6,690
5,940
4,360
3,980
4,400
BODs D.O.
mg/1 mg/1
9.8 3.6
4.9 3.3
4.3 8.0
16.0 0.4
.9 1 .8
6.0 3.4
14.5 5.3
11.2 2.4
7.9 4.4
5.0 4.0
13.8 3.2
8.8 0,7
9.6 0.9
Fox River Station at Green Bay and Western Railroad Bridge, Green Bay.
Flow data from U.S.G.S. gaging station at Rapid Croche Dam, near Wrightstown, Wisconsin.
-------
Srmrpp; Fmr Tftimv _ rH trVvwoTr ซ&. fMaซsrm .1+ Tซao+.^ Br-Mcro a+, firman Ttair .
Date
TAROR/XTORY ANALYSIS
ro
O
O
cd
SO^
rH
C
rH -P
t-j ,C
^ OH
3
01
O
O
cd
so
-p ^~-
H
C rH
H Cd
a O
3
H
d
CJ
rH *~~^
W E
o ป i
rH r~l
o & ,-T
H 0
(H Oi ^
ij *T* Q)
U Cix f^-
rt
m
x*-x
^^
cd
Q
ir\
*. j
.
Q
0
fP
en
'd
H
^
o
U
J^
o
H
O
o
H
4->
0
EH
t/i
w
0)
Tj
!-,
ซ
0
H
C
3
tD
O
C
0) H
to cd
U -P
rH O
4-> EH
;H
cd
H
C
o
H
f?
U
JH
to
0)
-P
aJ
4_j
'rH
ฃq
K
H
d
4-5
0
EH
vซ^>
w
ฃ3
r-l
q
PI
en
o
a.
H
o
CO
+S
W
^3
^
O
CฃH
ri(
CO
o
D.
rH
CO CtJ
O -P
H O
rH EH
O
Tj
CU
'U
a
cr)
rH
O
>
Year: ic}^i_A?
FT
o
d
KT,n TATA
P.
u
v'
s"~**
O
^
^-3
-P
cJ
!M
O
t^j
H
EH
^^ -Z-
5-16
6-27
7-25
8-22
9-20
10-24
11-28
12-21*
1962
2-l-A
3-6*-
3-28
4-25
5-28
7-2
7-24
9-4
> 9-25
10-31
11-29
12-19-*
Mean
l^iax.
I'JLn.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
150
142
154
156
155
147
150
147
147
148
161
166
118
161
14?
146
138
1?2
130
138
150
152
146
166
118
24
36
4.3
140
24
15
43
110
43
9.3
240
2.4
24
4.3
24
43
24
24
43
24
240
2.4
1.9
3.9
3.2
0.8
5.0
6.7
4.1
5.9
3.7
9.2
8.5
8*.3
6.2
2.8
6.4
6.3
4.4
5.3
6.2
8.3
5.0
5.4
9.2
.8
0
0
9.0
1.0
12.0
10.5
10
9.0
5-0
8,0
8.0
9.5
6.5
5.5
7.0
0.0
13.5
14
10.5
8.5
9.0
7.0
7.5
14
0
60
50
35
40
45
40
40
40
20
30
43
45
80
35
37
45
45
45
43
30
25
23
80
20
181
184
186
194
180
170
176
172
168
176
183
190
156
188
172
172
177
166
172
168
168
170
176
194
156
1.62
1.19
,81
1.03
1.48
1.03
1.19
1.62
.81
.25 <.12
;;
.07
.07 .24
.08 .22
0.21 0.13
0.08 0.28
.12 .19
.25 .28
.07x^.12
7.7
7.0
7.5
7.5
7.8
7.7
7.7
7.7
8.0
7.8
6.8
7.4
7.3
8.25
7.7
7.35
7.40
7.25
7.35
7.35
7.25
8,10
8.25
6.8
.18
.14
.24
0.28
.16
.20
.28
.U
.04
.02
.03
0.05
.06
.05
.06
.02
242
292
276
304
278
264
264
258
242
266
256
294
360
250
238
276
246
250
316
250
240
230
360
230
102
118
126
130
132
116
122
106
102
138
122
124
110
76
80
86
76
102
104
104
112
98
138
76
13
23
10
8
21
17
13
10
18
9
9
10
100
24
9
21
16
11
22
15
11
10
100
8
6
6
6
7
11
9
10
8
10
2
5
7
12
17
3
16
11
7
15
7
11
4
17
2
11.95
3-2
2.2
1.6
3.4
4.9
5.0
12.8
12.3
11.7
8.3
10.9
11.8
5-2
2.1
0.3
3.6
3,9
8.5
9.8
11.2
6.9
12.8
.3
7.6
7.5
7.4
7.4
7.6
7.6
7.2
7.6
7.6
7.2
7.4
7-4
7.8
7.5
7.4
?.-;
7,4
7.2
7.5
7.6
7.4
7.8
7.2
6
16
20
22
22.5
18.5
10 I
1 5
1 '
1 '
1
6
12
17
23
23
23
15
7
3
1
23
1
*V/inter samples taken at De Pere.
Concentrations expressed as rag/1 unless otherwise indicated.
-------
3
to
O H
3 01
to co
(D ct
^ fD
(D D
01
u p
fD ct
P (B
Cfl
3 r?
^ 3
CO
01
o
ปcoซป
ro o c - - - - --
rococo co ON3 o CDCOCO ON CDO CD
vovob WH Cob-^3 ON ON3 COON
CDO -p- ON33 CDICO ON O CO VO O
ON vn vn vn vn
Hป
ro o ro coco .p- coco ro -p-vncoco
vnO CoOVnvnOvnvnOvnvnvn
HIOH Hfoi-'i-'i-'H'Hrorof-'i-1
Vn -P-CD 3 -p-VO 3 ODVO3 O Q VO VO
ro f-co co^ONro-p-rooNOororo
CO (- H
VO O ON H
CD3 CD P
o -p-ro
voco ro
ro o
vn
O
VO
8
ro
O
O
CO
CD
VO
ON
ONCD J J 3 J ON33 3 J ^ J
VOH' COHCOONVOCOHCOrO-p--P-
vn vn vn vnvnvn vn
HCO ro M ro ro ro
ONCD-P- ON co c5 o
O O 0
co vo vi
roco
CD
CO
O
co
0
co
O
vi
0
vo
rororororororocorororo
353 CDCOON-p-l-'VO ON 3
oocDrorocKooNCDONO
-P-ONO CD-p-^-CDONCoro CD
roi-'f-'l-'rOH'HH'H'H1
C5-p-VlONp-p-OCOOOON
HI-1 Ml-1 I-1 t-1 H
ON f CDCO ON3 ON CO O O -p-
oroi-1 roooi-'i-'root-'H-'t-'O
ONVIVI vi CD CD CD ON-p-ON ro CD ro CD
H-P- voco ONroHroo CDO
H b CD CD H H vo VONi ro H ro
ro
O CD
O ONCO CD t vn 3 o
ru(>-
M H M
ro P o i-1 co 3 ON vn -p-co ro M-
I I 1 O I I i I * I ' VOI
f-1 ro co i rocororocororoov
H'l-'H'l-'H'l-'l-'l-'l-'H'H ~
-p-vn vn -p-vn -p-vn -p- -c- ro J ฃ
CDO-p-roCD-p-ro-p-Mro-p- C
vo P vororovD-p- s
ป H Q -p- -P- ON ro ~
COVnOCOONCO-p-.p-COO-P" \}
*
VO -p-Vl 3 3VOCOVO ONfO H
JB
I 'Ml ' ro t ' H H HMM
ONONCoocororooDOOO "'
VI VI
H I/"
coco ฃ- vi Q vn -p-co co ON co c
VnOOOOvnOOVnOO
HHI-'MI-'l-'HHI-'l-'H -,
CD 3 CD 3 CD ON C? QN ON vn VO l.
ocDrooN-F^-p-oororo-p- *
(- CO !- -^
^j b ON c"
O 3 VO
CO M (- e
VI VO P
ro M ro
CD ro *- *
3 3 3 3 3 3 J CD Co 3 3 -j
VI VI ^
<-
ro co ro &
ON CD O
ซ O
O 0 O C
f f \J\
rororococororororororo N
ONCDVp o rovo cr\rovnvopp
------- An error occurred while trying to OCR this image.
-------
Source : Fox River-Highway 54 Bridge at Green Bay* Year:
Date
LABORATORY ANALYSIS
s-\
m
O
U
cfl
xu
4-1 ^^
t-4
C
i x:
r-4 4J
to X
-y ix
1 t
<
y s
n
O
o
co
XO
| 1 s^/
r-l
C 1-1
H co
II 4-1
to O
Jซ: H
r-4
<
r-l
cO
o
H i 1
oo E
o
r-l r-4
O
i-l O
l-l
01 M
4J (X)
o o.
CO
03
^v
>,
cO
Q
i
in
^*-
Q
o
PQ
en
OJ
o
r-l
H
O
r-l
J2
U
M
O
r-4
O
U
w
en
OJ
C
T)
l-i
CO
ss
o
r-l
C
CO
00
l-i
.. O
C
(1) ,-4
00 to
O U
M O
4-1 H
r-l
Z
rt
r4
C
o
p
<(]
0)
01
l-l
tn
en
01
4J
ซ
l-i
4-1
r-l
z
yr N
3
en
K
a
en
3
r-l
O r-l
.a co
O, 4-1
'a O
0 H
rC
Hi
w
3
M
o
.e
O. r-l
en O
O CO
J3
Qj
f I
en co
XI 4-1
i-l O
r-l H
0
CO
Ol
r-l
r4
4J
CO
r-l
O
>
*o
QJ
TJ
C
.. a)
ui a.
D in
H 3
r-l CO
o
CO
(1)
r-l
r-l
4J
CO
r-l
O
CO
<
03
;g
1967 - 68
FIELD
.
o
Q*
DATA
s-^
t
2
C/3
s '
X
Q-
(
o
o
QJ
M
^J
u
"3
i-i
QJ
CL
ฃ
e Pere Dam
Concentrations exnresseti as rag/1 unless otherwise indicated,
-------
b T 0 K t T SECONDARY COUL ! I 0 U 2 ) U
SOURCE- FOX RIVER MASON ST BRIDGE GREEN BAY
DATE ALKALINITY FECAL 5 DAY CHLORIDES CULOR HARDNESS NITROljtN TOTAL
TOTAL COLIFORM BOO
I-2B-69
2-I 8-69
3-I8-69
1-I 5-69
5-2D-69
6-25-69
7-23-69
8-13-69
9-I 0-69
10-08-69
11-1B-69
12-16-69
MEAN
1-J1-70
2-18-70
3-10-70
1- I 1-70
7-29-70
! 2-15-70
MEAN
3-21-71
7-07-71
9-15-71
1 1-03-7 1
11-14-71
ป MEAN
1-I 9-72
2-17-72
3-22-72
4-20-72
5-23-72
6-21-72
7-18-72
8-23-72
9-19-72
10-21-72
I 1-28-7
12-28-7,
> MEAN
152
152
162
1 18
137
115
1 38
112
1 11
150
1 1 M
182
150
156
162
1 18
1 71
150
152
157
1 61
1 1 1
1 12
151
1 18
1 5Q
1 60
1 61
91
1 71
1 1 4
1 16
1 5U
1 12
1 10
1 38
1 11
152
1 16
1 700
350
60
25
75
200
100
75
30
320
250
2200
90
1 5
5ซ
5
1 10
75
20
55
I 80
30
15
200
1 15
30
60
75
t)0
1 200
500
1 500
3. 1
1 .H
6.1
1.0
1 .0
7.5
1.3
3.5
8.U
1.5
7.5
5.U
5.0
1.5
3.0
3.5
17.U
8.5
3.U
6.6
3.b
3.U
7. 1
1.6
3. 1
1 . 3
5.5
1 . 9
9.8
3. 7
5.0
5.b
6 1
5.2
2 . 7
1 .8
5.6
13.0
10.0
15.5
8.0
11.0
11.5
9.0
15.0
19.5
20.0
13.0
16.0
13.7
10.c
10.5
17.0
20.0
20.0
12.0
11.9
1 1 .5
16.0
19.0
1 8 . G
11.0
15.1
11.0
13.0
11.0
11.0
17.0
l 6.r
l 7.n
20.0
11.0
11.0
10.0
22.0
11.7
MEAN 150 5,1 11.1
ANALYSIS ft*S LESS THAN FIGURE SHO*N
LOR
20
30
30
2U
3U
30
25
30
1U
35
30
35
3u
3U
30
10
30
50
25
3M
25
30
15
3u
25
31
25
25
5U
25
30
10
35
10
30
65
35
30
36
33
HAKUNL5
19U
1 90
2UO
1 72
1 66
1 76
166
1 80
1 80
81
76
B1
80
Bb
92
1 HS
20U
1 80
176
187
1 92
176
180
176
1 72
1 79
1 81
2UO
1 11
202
1 61
170
162
21 2
156
1 62
168
196
1 77
180
s ......
TOTAL
OKI,
.60
1.10
.BB
1.31
2.62
1.01
1 .3U
1 .09
1 .07
3 .00
. 76
1 .Ifl
.65
2.11
i . /a
1.13
.93
1.37
.92
1.70
. 92
1 . MO
1 . 10
.50
2 . 60
1 .36
1.11
. 96
1 .07
1 .27
1 .33
AMMON
29
.09
. 20
.29
.22
. 12
.20
.09
.2 1
.31
.07
. I 7
. i a
. 19
.08
.21
.05
. 19
.05
1.10
.05
.3 1
.51
. 30
.08
.06
.07
.08
.21
.26
.22
.21
. 1 6
. I Uป
.08
.20*
. 12
. 1 b
. 1 2
. 1 7
. 12
. 1 2
. 1 3
.In
. 1 V
.08
.08
> 16
.20
. 1 7
. 1 2
.21
.U7
. I 6
.Ub
. 10
.Ub
. U7
.0V
.21
. 1 3
> I 6
> 1 6
. 13
.32
. 16
. 1 o
.28
.03
. 1 6
. 1 7
. 1 2
. 2o
.23
. 1 3
. I 0
. 1 7
.09
. 1 U
. 33
I S
. I 6
. 1 7
^U
3 1
. 30
. 2 7
. I 1
. 1 9
.2lJ
TOTAL
251
210
21U
212
232
261
22U
2b2
3 1 8
29b
256
261
25V
251
251
26tJ
326
2db
21o
27 3
2J1
262
2*u
27b
262
205
231
216
2/1
2 o o
226
2bb
26U
326
27b
Zoo
2 J2
23d
25V
262
SUS
b
6
1 6
22
1 1
22
70
2b
17
15
1 1
1 2
23
/
1
1 2
36
21
21
1 V
1 1
2L>
2b
1 1
1 2
1 7
1
6
11
2 1
1 3
1 1
1 b
61
2
12
1 1
b
2U
20
VOL
bUS
3
M
o
b
b
b
1 7
V
26
7
3
;
V
3
1
M
2 1
2U
3
V
H
1 u
1 V
J
0
b
1
b
23
1 1
o
1
1 2
22
2
7
H
S
V
V
u
1 1
1 0
1 u
1 1
7
M
b
J
2
3
V
b
7
10
1 u
b
lu
M
1 1
V
1 3
/
b
7
V
b
0
1 1
9
V
3
H
h
1 1
1 1
1 2
7
B
0
.b
.9
. b
. 3
. b
. 1
. 3
. 3
. 3
.u
. 7
. 9
. H
. 6
. U
.2
. 6
. 9
. ;
. j
. b
. 7
. 6
. 7
. 7
. 9
. 3
. 5
.b
. b
.(!
. 9
. H
. 1
. 3
.L,
.2
. 6
. 6
u
. L u
PM
7 .
7 .
7 .
b .
7 .
; .
7 .
7 .
7 .
7 .
7 .
7 .
7 .
; .
7 .
7 .
b .
7 .
b .
7 .
7 .
7 .
7 .
7 .
7 .
7 .
/ .
7 .
7 .
7 .
/ .
7 ,
/.
7 ,
b .
b .
a .
7 .
/ .
7 .
v n i
6
6
V
1
3
7
V
;
7
1
b
b
7
/
2
b
b
7
2
V
a
a
V
0
b
o
b
6
6
1
3
J
3
-------
STORET SECONDARY CODE 1100000
SOURCE" FOX RIVER MASON ST BRIDGE GREEN BAY
DATE ALKALINITY FECAL s DAY CHLORIDES COLOR HARDNESS NITROGEN- TOTAL
TOTAL COLIFORM BOO TOTAL AMMONIA NITRATES PHOSPHOI
ORfi
1973
!-23
2-11
3-28
1-30
5-21
6-28
7-27
9-20
10-21
11-29
12-18
MEAN
MAX
HIN
118
158
122
122
110
111
ISO
111
150
151
US
160
122
1000
700
10
30
70
600
160
700
170
750
1000
10
S.S
1.3
3.1
2.7
2.2
1.0
1.3
1.3
1.0
1.0
5.5
1.0
5.5
2.2
12.0
1 .0
8.0
7.0
7.0
12.0
18.0
21 .0
11.0
1 1 .0
13.0
11.3
21 .0
1.0
10
35
50
50
HO
50
50
15
30
30
30
11
50
30
176
188
181
116
152
160
170
168
38
168
180
157
186
36
.80
.79
1 .08
1ป71
.85
1 .20
1.53
2.01
1.25
.93
.91
1.19
2.01
.79
26
.12
.05
.02
. 17
.26
.11
.15
.31
.05
.06
,17
.11
.02
,25
>11
21
,19
.07
>21
. 10
.06
.09
.09
.13
.15
.25
.06
. 13
.09
.20
.16
.09
21
.22
.20
.15
.09
.08
.15
.22
.08
TOTAL SUS
232
216
271
211
222
261
308
272
278
231
216
256
308
222
9
6
17
51
21
38
37
21
16
9
15
25
51
6
VOL
SUS
2
I
12
12
3
1 1
6
10
5
5
8
7
12
1
DO PH TEMP
10.0
11.5
11.9
10.2
8.1
6.3
.1.6
7.3
7.9
1 1 .0
1.1
a. s
1 t |9
1.1
7.H
7. t
8.1
7.9
7.8
6.9
8.1
7.8
8.0
7.9
7.7
6.1
6.9
CENT
0
1
5
12
18
22
25
11
11
30
22
15
30 ,
0 ฃ
Concentrations expressed as ng/1 unless otherwise indicated
-------
' 1 ~
' ' - *- .^
LOWER FOX RIVER FLOW DATA CORRESPONDING TO
DATES OF SURFACE WATER QUALITY SURVEYS
1951-1973*
1961 1962
DATE
!*-!!
't-27
5-16
6-27
7-25
8-22
9-20
10-21*
11-28
12-21
PLOW
CFS
9,9l*0
^ ' *
7,560
3,800
3,520
2,1*10
2,910
3, 'tOO
> -360
D X)
0
1966 .
DATE
2-3
2-2l*
3-29
It -28
5-30
6-29
7-29
8-31
9-28
11-2
11-30
12-12
FLOW
CFS
3,200
7,830
ll*,200
3,770
3,720
3,080
1,660
1,5^0
1,310
2,000
2,1*60
2,1*1*0
DATE
2-1
3-6
3-28
l*-25
5-28
7-2
7-2'*
9-1*
9-25
10-31
11-29
12-19
FLOW
CFS
'*,68o
1, i'*o
I3,!*oo
5,370
3,560
3,190
2,260
2,830
3,690
3,370
3,330
1967
DATE
2-1
2-28
1*-13
6-1
6-29
7-26
9-13
10-18
11-29
12-18
19
DATE
3-2i*
7-7
9-15
11-3
11-16
FLOW
CFS
3,210
l*,590
11,100
2,520
7,21*0
2,870
1,630
1,360
3,970
3,510
71
FLOW
CFS
7,7^0
2, 170
1*' 3^0
3,770
1963
DATE
2-27
3-27
>t-30
5-23
6-25
7-30
8-28
10-2
10-30
11-26
12-12
FLOW
CFS
2,360
6,1*20
2,900
3,510
2,'*1*0
1,870
1,820
1,370
1,5^*0
1,910
l,96o
1968
DATE
l-2l*
2-26
3-21
J*-15
5-7
6-25
7-16
8-20
9-17
10-15
11-26
12-17
FLOW
CFS
2,110
3,390
2,160
1,260
9,170
I*,l80
5,070
2,9l*0
2,910
1*,050
3,1*80
1*,020
1972
DATE
1-19
2-17
3-22
It -20
5-23
6-21
7-18
8-23
9-19
10-21*
ll-?8
12-28
FLOW
CFS
3,6ป*o
3, 110
6,360
6,ii*o
2,330
2,270
2,000
2,300
7, 070
6,770
2,990
3,975
196**
DATE
1-30
2-26
3-31
5-5
5-27
6-18
7-22
9-1
9-21*
10-20
12-1
FLOW
CFS
2,920
2,500
1,1*80
2,620
3,320
2,710
1,770
1,520
1,930
2,3l*0
2,1*50
1969
DATE
1-28
2-18
3-18
1*-15
5-20
6-25
7-23
8-13
9-10
10-8
11-18
12-16
FLOW
CFS
6,020
5,690
3,7^0
10,700
7,oi*o
3,390
12,900
2,230
1,380
1,390
3,890
3,010
1965
DATE
1-5
1-26
2-25
3-30
'*-27
6-7
6-29
8-3
8-2l*
9-27
11-2
11-30
12-28
FLOW
CFS
2,110
2,020
3,690
6,100
12,300
M30
2,'tBO
-ซ /*" *+.
1,670
1,730
l*,66o
5,600
5,220
9,310
1970
DATE
l-ll*
2-18
3-10
l*-ll*
7-29
12-15
FLOW
CFS
5,060
3,950
3,^0
1,180
1,1*1*0
3,31*0
1973 .
DATE
1-23
2-ll*
3-28
i*-30
5-2i*
6-28
7-27
9-20
10-21*
11-29
12-18
FLOW
CFS
7,81*0
7,665
16,905
12,772
lit, 620
i*,770
2,320
2,01*0
2,910
It, 860
MIS
*FLOW DATA FROM U.S.G.S. GAGIIK STATION AT RAPID CROCHE DAM KFAR WRIGHTSTCWi;, WIS.
------- An error occurred while trying to OCR this image.
-------
Source: Oc onto River - Hl^hwav A1 Bridge At Oconto Year: 1961-62
i
Date
TA-RORATORY ANALYSIS
on
o
o
ct5
i*} O
-P ^-^
-H
C
H ,C
H -P
evi .C
<
^
O
O
d
r*> O
P *^-^
rH
C H
^ a!
H -p
cj 0
V P4
5
3
u .
H !__)
UD p
O ^-ป
"-H 'r-H
O & .
JH P-4
-3 si ฃ
o ** ' n
ra
J>)
CT)
t3
i
LP\
v_^
Q
6
PQ
to
0
TJ
H
0
o
IH
O
H
O
O
H
cd
o
EH
w
w
0)
5
IH
0}
W
O
H
a
cd
to
O
a
tod
O -p
>-i O
-P EH
H
aj
a
q
P
^?
OJ
0)
JH
W
0)
a)
r-l
w
-p
0
\^*
w
ฃ3
In
O
P.
10
O
t-l
O
CO
in
^3
^
O
UJ
O
ฃ
H
in a)
T3J -P
H O
rH EH
O
to
flj
i-H
T-t
-P
rt
f 1
o
*d
0)
t)
a
W ft
d t/i
H 3
H CO
o
CO
a)
r-l
H
-P
d
H
O
FIELD PATA
t
O
Q
W
CJ
S.^*'
(U
>H
^3
-*->
d
IH
U
n.
y
E^
i.j ..
4ป27
5-23
6-27
7-27
8-22
9-20
10-24
11-28
12-21
1962
1-31
3-7
3-28
4-25
5-28
7-2
7-24
9-4
9-25
10-31
11-27
12-19
Mean
Max.
Min.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
~)
0 .
0
95
90
118
130
124
131
130
131
141
147
148
142
94
116
124
126
124
108
121
126
140
124
148
90
<.004
<.004
2.1
.93
15
2.4
43
3.9
24
9.3
4.3
15
24
2.4
2.4
9.3
4.3
2.1
2.4
9.3
9.3
43
4.. 004
4.6
1.8
1.9
2.6
2.0
2.8
28.2
14
18
23.8
9.8
19.6
8.9
3.3
3.4
4.5
3.0
2.4
>19.4
86.4
40.3
14.2
86.4
1.8
1.0
0.0
3.0
0.0
8.5
7.5
6.5
7.0
6.5
7.0
9.5
1.0
2.5
4.5
7.0
6.0
5,5
6.0
3.0
6.5
5
9.5
0
100
120
70
55
40
70
200
90
100
60
55
80
90
100
100
70
85
80
140
225
100
225
40
114
118
134
151
152
152
152
156
164
172
172
190
110
128
144
154
150
148
160
76
164
146
190
76
0.98
1.14
.98
.95
0.79
1.93
1.32
1.93
.79
0.23
2.17
2.50
.74
0.63
3.26
1.58
3.26
.23
<.12
.48
.40
.13
.15
<.62
.31
C62
^C.12
7.2
6.8
7.75
7.7 .18
7.2
7.7
7.1 .10
7.3
7.3
6.9 .12
7.1
7.2
7.4 .14
7.4
7.3
7,40 .24
7.05
7.00
7.1 .08
6.55
7.30
.14'
7.75 .24
6.55 .08
0.055
.02
^.01
.02
0.09
.04
.04
.09
(.01
224
182
194
208
220
214
302
252
266
288
270
300
186
198
234
196
214
254
358
532
313
532
182
82
90
102
96
108
110
176
136
158
158
136
142
76
90
78
62
88
92
218
372
184
372
62
12
6
5
2
2
2
11
8
6
8
8
31
12
11
9
7
2
5
6
14
30
31
2
4
1
4
1
1
2
11
6
2
8
1
13
12
6
9
2
2
5
4
12
20
20
1
7.5
4.9
3.2
2.0
1.8
3.8
0.5
7.4
4.1
.1
2.1
7.8
5.7
2.3
2.5
1.4
1.1
4.3
0.6
0.9
1.9
3.1
7.3
.1
7.2
7.2
7.3
7.4
7.0
7.4
6.3
7.8
7.2
7.1
7.0
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.2
6.3
7.2
7.3
6.3
11
17
22
21.5
21.5
19.5
9
1
1
1
1
2
12
16
21
21
20
13
5
1.5
0.5
22
.5
Concentrations expressed as ng/1 unless otherwise indicated.
-------
Source: Oconto River - HiRhvay 4l Bridge at Oconto
Date
LABORATORY ANALYSIS
TO
Q
ฃ_}
M
r*~* tj)
-P * '
>O
p 'ป-'
r-
*f Cu
r- -P
5!
Co
U ซ
d d
MO
o
H H
O ซ
H O
>H
01 i-t
O pj
1
^ ^
>,
&
0
I
.ID
0
d
w
w
cu
S
1
0
H
^
flj
^J
o
tH
^^*
01
1
3
a
H
3
bO
it O
a
0) r-j
M a)
O -P
1TI
aJ
H
d
o
C-J
i
0)
ฃ
CO
rt
(H
p
"7
ฃj
to
%
?
P
jP
EH
^w--'
Ul
2
0
ฃ
w
o
fi
H
O
CO
to
g
O
1
o
*' fJ
a -P
o
CO
4)
H
H
-P
1
-d
4)
d
a
.. 0)
_p
0)
40
1
3
Year: 1963-64
FIELD DATA
d
*~?
3
v>
ft
d
o
-p
a)
o
1
1963
1-29
2-27
3-28
4-25
5-23
6-25
7-30
8-28
10-2
10-14
10-28
n-26
12-16
1964
1-20
2-25
3-23
4-27
5-18
6-22
7-27
8-17
9-28
10-26
11-16
12-21
Mean
Max.
Min.
151
148
79
120
108
n6
137
138
122
122
136
I4o
120
140
141
132
100
98
126
126
n8
158
124
129
134
127
o 158
o 79
43
noo
24
7-5
9.3
9.3
75
no
460
23
7-5
2.1
.80
1.7
2.0
.80
10
2.7
16
18
5
23
15
7.0
noo
.80
31
25
n.2
3.6
3.6
3-7
3.6
3.0
12.2
79.2
9.1
10
>94
23.1
> 21
17.8
4.4
4.3
4.0
6.1
8.0
2.6
6.6
12.5
8.3
>16
>94
2.6
3.5
7
3.5
3
6
6
8
13
7
7
13
8
10
9.5
12
9-5
4.5
0
8.5
11.5
12.5
7
10
6
12.5
8
13
0
80
95
90
75
no
75
90
120
100
280
140
no
240
80
no
90
100
120
100
160
no
80
22
no
100
280
22
176
172
io4
146
120
144
160
162
156
164
164
166
168
168
172
162
138
126
154
150
158
200
156
160
176
157
200
104
1.69
1.15-
1.50
1.16
1.34
1.33
1.41
.98
1.32
1.69
.98
2.70
.36
.98
1.30
2.19
.99
1.06
.84
1.30
2.70
.36
<.8o
.52
.12
<-36
<ซ50
.20
.40
.10
<.40
<.8o
.10
7-1
7.2
7.35
7-5
8.3
7.5
7.45
7.9
7.15
6.75
7.25
7.4
6.8
7.1
6.85
7-0
6.85
7.2
7.6
7.3
7.5
7-3
7.3
7.1
6.9
8.3
6.75
.28
.16
.26
.22
.24
.20
.40
.25
.40.
.16
.03
.18
.07
.04
.07
.31
.12
.31
.03
330
294
218
206
196
200
244
250
268
426
246
258
504
290
290
268
218
224
234
134
236
270
246
258
37^
504
134
170
146
108
104
106
112
128
152
146
288
148
130
358
156
162
140
no
n6
n6
26
i4o
n6
102
126
212
358
102
14
7
20
9
7
6
5
8
9
12
4
3
8
15
n
4
12
6
8
7
13
8
3
n
12
20
3
12
5
n
8
2
6
3
8
9
12
4
3
8
9
n
4
12
4
7
7
5
5
3
n
12
12
2
.18
.26
.14
.09
.14
<.03
.14
.10
.n
.05
.08
.10
<.03
.20
.14
.16
.14
.16
.12
.12
.07
c.03
.06
.12
.24
i
16
HI
4
0
1
0
4
12
21
23
29
13
12
9
0
29
^x
0
L
Concentrations expressed as nR/1 unless othervise indicated.
-------
Date
Source . Oconto River-Highway 41 Bridge at Oconto Year: 1965-66
,-v
0ฐ
u
>,3
tl ^
Alkalin
Phth.
^
O
o
to
t! s"'
Alkalin
Total
,-1
o
oo E
O '
o
Bacteri
per 0
^
to
Q
1
2>
a'
0*
ซ
CO
1)
Chlorid
o
1-4
0
o
LABORATORY ANALYSIS
to
Hardnes
o
jj
to
00
c
Nitroge
Total
(0
o
Jj
01
HI
i-l
fn
to
01
4-1
to
1-1
4-1
z
^
Ul
X
a<
CO
R
Phospho
Total
CO
Lj
Phospho
| Sol.
Solids;
Total
3
-a
to
i i
o
to &*
"U tn
H 3
r-l CO
O
CO
4J
tO
O
CO
S
FIELD DATA
O
Q
/ N
3
K
Q.
O
O
01
3
1
Tempera t
1-25
2-2
3-22
4-19
5-24
6-28
7-26
8-23
9-20
10-25
11-15
12-14
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
152
142
136
62
84
123
125
126
100
133
133
112
1.9 ,>20
4 10.9
2.3 12.2
3 >21.3
30 3.1
45 3.4
7 3.0
18 3.3
32 <ฃ.5
4.7 3.2
2.4 7.4
2.3 5.0
12
9
13
3
2
8
12
12
4
8
6
3
80
30
45
65
152
100
70
70
65
100
70
70
184
192
176
94
106
140
160
154
126
170
160
140
1.47
1.3
1.11
.98
1.77 ^.7
.54 4.2
.43 .5
.17 .1
7.1
7.1
7.0
6.95
6.8
7.6
8.3
7.6
7.6
7.4
7.0
7.1
.36
.22
.18
.24
.05
.03
.09
.1
306
250
270
238
204
222
222
232
192
260
264
206
156
118
126
146
108
106
110
110
78
126
100
94
14
9
11
40
12
8
8
8
21
16
8
9
12
9
8
34
5
7
4
7
5
3
8
7
.4
.03
.15
.2
.11
.14
.09
.08
.03
.04
.1
.1
0.0
0.0
0.4
8.5
3.8
3.6
3.7
2.9
5.2
3.7
3.7
9.8
6.9
7.0
7.1
7.1
7.0
7.2
7.3
7.3
7.2
7.3
7.2
7.?
0
0
7
18
27
28
'24
16
10
3
1
1-24
2-21
3-28
4-26
5-25
6-27
7-26
8-22
9-27
10-24
11-14
12-20
Mean
Max.
Min.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
151
128
96
96
112
110
101
120
125
112
127
93
117
L52
62
.3
.8
1.6
30
5.2
13
27
32
8
.5
13
6.2
45
.5
10.4
13.4
19.1
1.3
3.4
1.3
2.4
2.1
2.9
2.6
36.1
11.7
8.3
36.1
.5
10
7
4
4
5
5
10
10
1
8
8
13
7.4
13
1
45
70
80
80
90
100
80
45
70
70
140
65
152
30
184
156
120
120
144
140
144.
152
164
168
170
172
151
192
94
1.11
1.05
.85
1.12
1.47
.85
1.24 .
.3 ^.
.49 ^.
.71
1.77
.17
64
24
,44
.4
.7
.1
7.4
6.9
7.0
7.3
7.0
7.3
7.5
7.25
7.15
7.05
6.5
6.8
8.3
6.5
.12
.044
.12
.18
.36
.04
.04 268
254
230
J.01 188
214
220
224
214
232
.047 250
410
264
.053
.1 410
<.01 188
132
132
124
98
106
112
102
92
110
84
264
138
264
78
8
6
29
8
8
9
6
6
7
8
19
6
40
6
6
5
17
6
2
5
6
5
4
6
17
6
34
2
.1
.1
.12
.1
.08
.04
.06
^.03
.06
^.03
.4
.12
<.ll
.4
<.03
2.2
6.4
8.9
6.4
2.4
4.0
3.4
2.5
4.0
5.3
1.9
3.1
4.0
9.8
0.0
7.0
7.0
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.2
6.9
7.1
7.3
6.9
\
1
3
9
20^
28
27
20i;
16
8
3
%
28
0
Concentrations expressed as mg/1 unless otherwise indicated.
-------
Source ; Oconto River-Highway 41 Bridge at Oconto
Year: 1967 -68
Date
LABORATORY ANALYSIS
,_,
01
O
O
IS
xu
AJ fc*'
H
c
i-l ,C
I 1 4J
> O
4J N^
r-1
C -<
Alkali
Tota
t i
n)
o
r-l rH
OB e
0
r-4 I t
o
r4 0
M
01 M
4J 11
o a
S
n)
a
1
in
v_^
Q
O
CQ
tn
a>
o
Chlori
^
o
r-i
0
u
w
w
Hardne
o
r4
C
0)
60
Jj
O
c
0) i-l
00 n)
O u
h 0
u H
-H
2
n)
.,-1
C
o
c
<ฃ
0)
0)
M
Cn
Wl
(1)
4J
IS
rJ
*u
(1)
TD
f^
.. QJ
W O.
D ซ
r-l 3
r-l CO
O
CO
0)
t 1
H
4J
ra
r-l
O
CO
<
oq
S
FIELD DATA
O
Q
^^
^
w
N^/
K
a
ฃ_j
Q
U)
^
^
^j
^
1-1
(U
a
0)
H
142
142
142
68
123
128
114
136
120
130
140
146
110
122
96
106
112
130
92
128
122
144
123
146
68
.8
2.7
2.4
47
340
80
14
7.3
2.9
2
2.1
1.7
2.5
23.0
1.4
17.0
2.0
19.0
3.5
2.1
4.2
1.5
340.0
0.8
5.7
6.8
10.2
2.6
1.4
1.7
2.8
0
6.1
9
5.3
4.3
5.2
10.6
4.0
2.5
3.4
4.0
3.7
1.2
10.1
8.2
4.9
10.6
0
9
10
10
2
3
8
7
7
7
9
10
9
5
6
8
2
5
9
4
8
7
8
6.8
10
2
35
43
45
84
84
62
45
100
45
50
35
25
55
110
90
100
80
50
100
45
60
55
110
25
176
184
180
92
144
148
136
164
144
164
168
180
128
160
120
128
138
148
116
154
156
172
141
184
92
1.24
1.
.98
.84
.85
1.82
.96
.68
1.05
1.82
.68
.88
.28
.23
1.19
.50
1.04
.27
.22
.58
1.19
.22
.46
.48
.28
.16
.28
.24
.32
.24
.31
.48
.16
7.05
6.9
6.95
7.1
7.35
7.35
6.9
7.4
7.4
7.3
7.4
7.2
7.4
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.8
7.9
7.3
7.7
8.3
8.2
6.9
8.3
.3
.102
.2
.12
.08
.14
.12
.07
.13
.30
.07
.13
.018
.12
.05
.02
.022
.028
C.02
.05
.13
<.018
252
260
258
158
218
220
204
262
206
254
238
240
190
292
198
194
210
202
216
206
238
242
292
158
96
124
116
88
102
106
88
110
90
126
94
110
86
132
82
68
96
94
114
76
106
100
132
68
6
4
6
7
11
4
8
3
19
9
16
3
25
26
9
10
5
8
6
2
5
6
26
2
6
4
5
5
4
2 ,04
6
1 .1
13
7
6 .06
2
11
17
3
3
3 .08
5
4
0 <.04
3
5
17 .10
0 <.04
.5
.4
2.3
8.1
5.6
6.0
6.2
2.9
6.6
5.0
3.5
2.2
7.5
5.0
5.5
5.2
3.5
5.6
1.8
4.4
7.1
7.6
4.7
7.6
0.4
7.1
7.0
7.0
7.1
7.4
7.5
7.2
7.4
7.4
7.3
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.0
7.4
7.4
7.4
7.2
7.0
7.6
7.2
7.4
7.6
7.0
1
1
%
11%
20
26
19
10
1
1
1
1
2
9
10
20
28
25
19
19
3
1
28
*
i
ro
H
Co
1
Drainage Area = approx. 1,060 sq. miles
Concentrations expressed as ng/1 unless otherwise indicated.
-------
DRAINAGE AREA APPROX. 1060 SQ. MILES
SOURCE- OCONTO RIVER AT OCONTO
STORET bECOHQAKY CODE 11UU330
DATE ALKALINITY
TOTAL
1 -28-69
2-25-69
3-25-69
H-22-69
5-27-69
6- 1 8-69
7-23-69
8- 1 3-69
9- 1 0-69
1 0-08-69
11-1 8-69
1 2- 1 6-69
ซ MEAN
1-11-70
2-18-70
3-10-70
H- 1 1-70
8-06-70
1 2-09-70
ME AN
3-30-7 1
6-30-7 1
9-09-7 |
I 0-20-7 1
11-15-71
MEAN
1-12-72
2-11-72
3-20-72
1-17-72
5-22-72
6-2 1-72
7-! 8-72
8-22-72
9-19-72
1 C -25-72
1 1 -28-72
12-1 H-72
MEAN
1 MEAN
1 26
! HO
91
81
1 10
1 29
1 1 6
1 1 8
121
1 21
120
150
1 20
1 HO
1 21
1 OH
92
1 30
1 28
1 2U
1 H 1
1 16
1 32
132
1 20
1 29
112
1 HO
1 12
81
1 10
121
1 10
98
1 31
115
1 31
112
128
121
FECAL 5 DAY CHLORIDES
COLIFORM BOO
700
320
200
10
I 0ป
120
70
15
20
90
120
5
5
Sซ
1 0
15
35
30
1 300
60
20
10
5
10
5
1(J
20
1 t.
75
1 5
5
230
75
9U
6. 1
5.5
3. 1
6.0
1 .5
3. 1
3.1
2.0
3.5
2 .5
31.0
9.0
6 . 7
7.5
6.5
1 . U
21.0
3.0
7 . 0
8. 7
8.5
1.5
2.8
2.8
22.0
B . i
5.5
1.5
1.LJ
. 3
3. 1
2.5
1 . 6
1 . 2
3. 1
20. U
6. 1
7. 1
5.2
6. 7
6.0
7.0
5.0
3.5
1.0
5.0
8 .0
9.0
10.5
9.0
8.5
8 .0
7.0
9.0
7.5
9.P
5.0
13.0
9 . 0
B. R
9.0
5.5
7.0
6,0
5.0
6 . 5
8.0
6.0
6 .0
2 .0
5.0
b .0
3.0
3 .0
7.0
a .n
b.O
7 .0
5.1
6.7
COLOR HARDNESS
TOTAL
HO
15
50
90
60
60
90
50
HO
50
55
57
55
10
10
1 10
50
8U
63
70
50
HS
7U
100
6 7
55
35
50
bU
80
15
25
90
60
55
55
iu
53
b8
151
1 68
1 28
106
1 32
152
1 IB
112
152
1 50
156
152
115
1 68
1 68
176
1 32
132
1 6 6
157
1 72
132
126
1 IB
1 1 B
1 15
156
1 64
162
91
121
113
1 IU
120
1 72
1 80
156
1 62
I 18
1 IB
ORG
.71
.80
.82
.91
. 98
1.10
.90
.81
. 91
1 .30
.86
.99
1.07
. 75
. 67
9.99
3.12
. 70
.U3
. 7 1
. 9ft
. 78
. 66
.87
. 1b
. 9d
. 7 1
.68
.68
1.17
-NITROGEN TOTAL SOLIOS--
AMMONIA NITRATES PHOSPHORUS TOTAL SUS
. 78
.32
.10
.53
.31
1 . 10
1.13
.80
.1 1
.27
. 1 0
.10
.28
. 1 3
. 71
3.30
1.11
.56
. H3
. 26
.2b
. 1 8
. 1 2
. 1 8
. 1 9
1 . 86
.82
.9 1
.56
. 76
.21*
.72
. 21
.28
. 1U>
.If).
.33
.32
. 21
. 19
.18
.3 1
.38
. 1 b
. 1 6
* 23
. 1 6
.2u
.U/
.Ub
.23
. 1 U
.09
. 1 b
. 1 9
. UM
. 21
. 1 1
.23
. 10
. 12
.Ub
. 1 1
.09
.U5
.U9
.09
. 1 0
1 0
.Ob
.UV
lu
.07
. utt
.U1
. u 7
ub
. 1 u
. 1 2
. uH
1 1
. iu
.u;
. Ul
. L>6
u2
. o 2
.U7
< UB
22u
2b2
2 1 U
1 76
1 Vu
2UU
21 1
2UO
2 i 2
2 U 1
332
221
22u
21u
211
2b1
2o6
211
211
2b2
231
1 /I
1 V2
226
3 J6
226
1 32
1 lu
2 1 d
1 bu
1 bl
2 u u
1 uo
1 Vb
221
2 Jb
2 u u
22b
1 V3
2 1 7
6
3
1 6
1 U
6
b
B
b
9
3
7
/
3
7
7
2b
1 u
1 U
3
6
7
1
'
,
1 1
1 1
1 b
V
H
1 9
1 1
V
H
6
I
lu
B
VuL
Sub
1
3
b
b
2
s
3
2
b
2
1
1
2
1
1
1 1
1
b
3
3
3
1
7
^
o
3
I 1
B
U
12
3
2
1
3
'J
u
1
L) 0 PH
7 . H
1.9
12.1
7 .2
b .6
3.9
2. 1
2. 7
3.1
b.b
b. 1
b . 1
3 . /
3. 7
b . 1
b . V
3 . 1
1 . h
/.b
3 .b
1 .1)
3.2
i .3
b .b
; .6
b . U
1 2 .L
3.6
1.3
1 . 1
3 . b
b . 3
n . 2
o . 3
o . H
o . S
b.5
7.2
7 .0
7 . 1
/ .1
7. 3
1 . 7
7.1
7 . 7
7 . >
7.2
7 . 3
7 . 1
7.2
7.U
7 . 2
6. 7
7 . 7
7 . 2
7 .2
; . 2
/ . 1
; . 2
7 . 1
7 . 1
7 . J
7.6
/ . J
7 .<
; . 3
; . b
7 . 2
; .b
7 . i
7 .2
1 , t
7 . J
) .3
A -
TEMP
CtNT
1
1
1
10
16
IB
23
25
1 7
b
i
1 I
1
1
B
23
i
i
b
1
27
22 ,
1 1 ro
' 0
i
i
2
b
22
! 1
22
23
I 9
b
u
U
1 u
10
ANALYSIS AAS LESb THAN FIGURE SHOA'i
Con cent rat ion-s expressed as rng/1 unless otherwise indicated.
-------
DRAINAGE AREA APPROx. 1060 SQ. MILES
SOURCE- OCONTO RIVER AT OCONTO
STORET SECONDARY CODE 1HOOOOO
DATE ALKALINITY FECAL
TOTAL CฐLlFORM
1973
1-2S 1H9 |5
2-28
3-26
H-25
5-29
6-25
7-30
8-31
9-28
10-29
1 1-26
12-26
MEAN
MAX
MIN
1HH
20
88
88
130
102
12H
130
IHQ
120
1HQ
115
1 H9
20
5
200
5
760
100
1 HO
150
30
1700
30
10
1 700
S
5 DAY CHLORIDES
BOD
2.1 7.0
5.5
25.0
3.7
2.0
3.H
2.5
3.H
1 .6
3.7
6.5
H.O
5.3
25.0
1.6
7.0
2.0
.0
1.0
H.O
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
6.0
5.0
H.3
7.0
0
TOTAL AMMONIA NITRATES PHOSPHORUS TOTAL SUS
ORG
60 (72 .29 ,H6 , .20 .02 222 2
HO
1HO
100
80
70
HO
50
35
H5
50
HO
63
1HO
35
100
100
10H
IHH
1H6
IHQ
1 16
152
116
160
137
172
100
.79 .80
.8H 1 .
.72
.79
,60 .
.81 .(
1 .00
.52 .
0
7
0
3
)6
1
e
,BH .OH
,70 .07
.66 .59
.71 .32
1 .00 1.10
.29 .OH
.32
.36
.10
i .HO
.IS
.09
. 12
.22
.06
.15
. 15
.28
1 .HO
.06
.OH
.OH
.OS
. 10
.07
.07
.06
.OH
.05
.03
.OH
.OS
.10
.02
2HQ
18Q
170
192
190
19H
18H
196
212
210
199
2HQ
170
3
9
20
10
10
9
6
8
2
5
8
20
2
VOL
SUS
2
3
H
2
3
8
6
5
6
2
S
H
8
2
00 PH TEMP
CENT
10.2 7.2 0
9.H
1 1 .8
9.0
S.2
H.H
6.3
10.9
10. 1
13.8
9.1
13. 8
H.H
7.2
7.2
7.H
7.3
7.2
7.H
7.H
.7.6
7.6
7.3
7.9
.7.H
7.9
7.2
1
6
12
1 1
20
12
2H
16
7
S
0
K>
10 o
2H
0
Concentrations expressed as mg/1 unless otherwise indicated.
-------
-221-
OCONTO RIVER FLOW DATA CORRESPONDING TO
DATES OF SURFACE WATKR QUALITY SIJRVKYS
1961-19Y3*
1961
DATE
ปf -27
5-23
6-27
7-27
8-22
9-20
10-21+
i: -ฐ3
12-21
FLOW
CFS
1,150
915
597
50l+
394
354
1+72
508
520
1966
DATE.
1-21+
2-21
3-28
1+-26
5-25
6-27
7-26
8-22
9-27
10-21+
11-11+
12-20
FLOW
CFS
385
1+1+0
967
1,070
732
1+1+3
288
389
231
31+6
311
325
1962
DATE
1-31
3-7
3-28
'+-25
5-28
7-2
7-21+
9-1+
9-25
10-31
11-27
12-19
FLOW
CFS
310
350
760
1,310
662
'+90
577
562
1490
1+36
1+50
360
1967
DATS
1-21+
2-20
3-20
4-25
6-12
7-27
9-13
10-18
11-29
12-18
FLOW
CFS
385
305
320
1,1+20
955
1+1+3
297
433
350
1+30
1971
DATE
3-30
6-30
9-9
10-20
11-15
FLOW
CFS
600
1+28
31*
510
556
1963
DATE
1-29
2-27
3-28
1+-25
5-23
6-25
7-30
8-28
10-2
10-11+
10-28
11-26
'.2-16
FLOW
CFS
310
290
900
718
61+2
342
205
219
350
275
338
1+19
260
1968
DATE
1-29
2-27
3-20
1+-15
5-7
6-25
7-16
8-20
9-17
10-15
12-2
12-17
FLOW
CFS
380
265
720
1,01+0
8V+
1,070
559
1+15
639
1+58
^1
600
1972
DATE
1-12
2-11+
3-20
1+-17
5-22
6-21
7-18
8-22
9-19
10-25
ll-?8
12-11+
FLOW
CFS
300
330
560
2,310
677
1+23
1+1+8
933
373
809
'+80
1+70
1.961+
DATE
1-20
2-25
3-23
1+-27
5-18
6-22
7-27
8-17
9-28
10-26
11-16
12-21
FLOW
CFS
225
220
301
622
976
31^
310
210
791
314
547
240
1969
DATE
1-28
2-25
3-25
1+-22
5-27
6-18
7-23
8-13
9-10
10-8
11-18
12-16
FLOW
CFS
64o
470
1,100
1,190
651
567
429
4n
325
401
505
520
1965
DATE
1-25
2-2
3-22
'+-19
5-24
6-28
7-26
8-23
9-20
10-25
11-15
12-14
FLOW
CFS
220
220
280
1,660
1,390
375
' 1 X
292
240
978
490
743
1 -J
1,130
1970
DATE '
1-14
2-18
3-10
8-6
12-9
FLOW
CFS
370
46o
722
567
1,000
1973
DATE
1-29
2-28
3-26
1+-25
5-29
6-25
7-30
8-31
9-28
10-29
11-26
12-26
FLOW
CFS
620
450
1,400
1,810
3,100
907
531
1+56
583
795
866
1,770'*
*FLOW DATA K.-iOM U.S.G.S. GAGING STATION I.FAR GILL^T, WISC.
**ICE AFFECTED-:'.AY BE HIGH
-------
-222-
PESHTIGO RIVER
SUMMARY OF RESULTS OF COOPERATIVE STREAK SURVEYS
June - September
Discharge
c.f.s.
Stations ?.Fa5ri--.ra Mlnlnran
Mi] en
"Q'JO 195^ 1952 1950 1951 1952'
Si by Bridge 614 1620 1660 777
tee Vile Below
'Mr. '"le frc- Sa-r
Discharge
c.f.s.
Stations Maximal MLninuin
1953 195u 1955 1953 195U 1955
City Bridge 1569 1610 1510 7 7 120
One Mil* Below
One Mil* from Bay
0.0
1.0
7.0
raies
0.0
1.0
7.0
Dissolved Oxygen
p. p.m.
Maximvn Minimus
1950 195: 1952
8.0 9.8 7.7
8.2 9.1 7.9
6.9 6.3 5.4
5 Day B.O.D.
p.p.m.
Vaxl-TATl
1950 1951 1952 1950 1951 1952
5.0 5.7 5.8
5.0 6.1 5.t
0.7 l.A I./
Dissolved Oxygen
p.p.m.
Maxlmm Yinimun
1953 195U 1955
8.8 8.8 9.1
li.l 5.8 9.5
0.1 0.0 7.0
19?3 *95i. -y>5i
6.7 5.6 5.6
U.I 5.8 5.2
0.1 0.0 0.2
8.4 9.2 7.7
10.4 12.3 U.I
18.2 23,2 17.2
5-Day B.O.D.
p.p.m.
^-9?3 -9;- 1935
12.7 Hi.5 22.6
15.1 16.6 23.3
16.7 17.5 20.6
Tempo ret'ji'9
P-ange
ฐ3
1950 -95: 195?
15-26 12-25 18-27.5
15-26 12-24 1S-27
15-26 11-2 <> 17-25
Ier.perat.ure
Rar.ge
03
1953 -75- -9?5
lli-29 12-25 1-.3-27.-
lli-29 11-25 .0-;?.;
1U-29 12-26 15.0-27.:
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
FlowBOD5 D.O. Flow BODs D.O.
Date
Flow BODs D.O. Flow BODs D.O. Flow BODc D.O.
Date cfs rng/1 mg/1 Date cfs mg/1 irg/1 Date cfs mg/1 mg/1
6-6
6-13
6-20
fi-?7
7-5
7-n
7-18
7-?"i
8-1
8-8
8-15
8-22
8-30
9-6
9-12
q-iq
9-26
390 14.9 5.1
559 5.0 1.8
970 5.2 3.5
1,620 6.8 5.1
827 9.0 4.4
1,180 11.0 4.7
645 16.2 3.7
1.540 5.7 4.2
684 7.5 2.6
1,700 4.1 4.4
720 5.2 3.2
587 10.9 1.7
634 14.4 2.0
766 7.8 2.6
502 16.0 2.8
544 8.1 4.9
497 10.2 5.0
6-5
6-12
6-19
6-26
7-3
7-10
7-17
7-24
7-31
8-7
8-14
8-21
8-29
9-4
9-11
9-18
9-25
648
580
795
son
440
815
266
?R7
292
290
254
3?9
4%
604
452
8S?
2U2
11.2 4.6
11.5 4.0
14.2 2.9
23.0 2.8
3.7 4.2
10.4 3.1
13.1 2.1
15.2 0.4
12.6 1.9
14.0 1.0
12.0 0.5
16.0 1.1
9.4 0.9
3.5 4.0
12.6 2.3
6.5 2.2
5.0 5.2
6-4
6-11
6-18
6-25
l-'i
7-9
7-16
7-23
7-30
8-6
8-13
8-20
8-28
9-3
9-10
9-17
9-25
728 11.6 4.3
596 9.2 4.8
577 11.7 3.9
637 9.1 3.5
1,050 2.7 3.8
2,100 12.4 6.9
624 4.8 4.3
510 4.0 3.2
415 7.4 1.5
283 5.2 0.5
524 6.9 1.1
280 5.8 1.0
243 9.2 1.0
414 4.7 3.1
1,390 13.5 3.0
663 13.2 3.5
507 8.4
.1
6-3
6-10
6-17
6-24
7-1
7-8
7-15
7-22
7-29
8-5
8-12
8-19
8-26
9-3
9-9
9-16
9-23
9-30
961 11
495
371 13
372 11
545 14
460 13
554 15
655 6
322 14
229 5
634 16
796 14
1,300 4
1,490 10
843 7
888 3
3,230 6
2,570 6
.8 4.9
- 6.5
.1 3.7
.8 1.6
.5 1.1
.8 2.0
.7 3.3
.3 1.4
.6 0.6
.2 1.2
.8 2.0
.6 4.5
.61.6
.4 3.2
.6 1.5
.4 4.0
.2 4.1
.7 3.4
6-1 1
6-8 1
6-17 1
6-22 1
6-30 1
7-6 1
7-13
7-20
7-27
8-3
8-10
8-17
8-24
8-31
9-7
9-14
9-21
9-23
,860 4.4 4.5
,510 8.3 7.0
,370 39.9 7.6
,450 9.0 5.5
,890 5.3 5.4
,090 7.3 6.3
729 7.5 3.2
830 12.1 3.6
,420 7.2 3.6
942 9.9 2.4
,700 5.6 5.0
907 2.2 3.2
688 - 2.8
,330 3.5 5.1
947 6.3 3.8
773 4.3 3.9
878 12.5 4.1
1,450 7.3 5.1
Peshtigo River Station located one mile upstream from Green Bay.
Flow data from U.S.G.S. gaging station at Peshtigo, Wisconsin.
-------
Source: PeahtiRO River - Highway 41 Bridee at Peshtico Year: 1961-62
Date:
LABORATORY ANALYSIS
^^
oฐ
o
>,
-' i
H
C ป
H ,C}
iH -P
OJ &
^ PH
3
^^
cT1
U
rj
^>> O
H
C rH
H rj
r~i ^"^
d O
~^ป b~i
3
d
cu
u .
H rH
CD ฃn
C -
3sH.
T4 n'ฐ
S-i (X,
1) l-i
P 2 (D
o * fx
c)
""T*
$
Cl
1
^0
Q
*
O
CP
CO
V
Tj
H
J^
O
rj
O
ฃ_f
o
-H
O
H
cd
4.1
0
EH
V_>f
co
w
0)
TJ
^
. *
CJ
rH
(^
to
H^
0) rH
to nj
o .p
^H O
rH
3
H
c
o
B
I
O
140
.91
110
46
.430
110
2.4
93
43
43
.140
9.3
1.5
24
93
75
24
240
240
240
<.004
1.5
2.2
1.1
1.4
2.5
0.9
0.9
1.4
1.9
5.2
2.1
5.6
2.2
1.9
2.0
.5
0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
1.6<0.5
2.0
1.5
2.3
2.6
2.1
5.6
.5
0.0
0
0
0
0
4
0
70
100
60
50
40
50
50
55
55
35
33
45
60
90
70
35
40
60
65
55
45
100
33
99
96
104
118
114
120
120
122
128
142
146
145
108
90
112
118
116
120
124
120
134
119
146
90
0.50
.40
.52
.49
0.41
0.44
.46
.52
.40
0.01
.20
.11
.15
0.03
0.14
.10
.20
.01
.08
.13
.44
.09
0.11
0.36
.20
.44
.08
7.2
7.0
7.95
7.7
7.4
8.0
7.8
7.9
7.6
7.1
7.5
7.5
7.7
7.75
7.6
7.75
7.4
7.30
7.35
7.10
8.05
8.05
7.0
.04
.06
.12
J2
.10
.04
.08
.12
.04
0.01
.02
.04
.02
0.03
.02
.02
.04
.01
146
192
144
156
150
160
158
166
160
186
188
192
144
134
170
132
144
218
162
184
160
218
132
62
76
70
70
64
74
74
72
82
74
82
80
48
58
60
33
40
64
78
80
70
82
38
10
11
5
1
4
4
3
5
10
10
7
5
7
8
7
11
3
5
2
5
12
1?
1
3
3
2
1
2
4
3
4
8
7
5
3
4
5
5
11
3
5
1
5
8
11
1
10.7
8.25
7.5
7.2
6.8
8.2
9.6
13.1
10.8
10.7
10.2
10.2
10.0
7.4
6.5
7.3
6.4
8.2
r..o
11.7
11.7
9.2
13.1
6.4
7.2
7.3
7.5
7.5
7.3
7.6
7.2
7.6
7.4
7.3
7.2
7.2
7.5
7.4
7.4
7.6
7.4
7.?,
7.7
7.6
7.4
7.7
7.2
10.5
16.5
20.5
22.5
23
19
10
1.5
1
1
1
2
12
17
22
23
20
13
6
1,5
1
23
1
ro
U)
Concentrations expressed as mg/1 unless otherwise' indicated.
-------
Source; Pushtiyo River - Highway 4l Bridge at Peohtigo Year: 1963-64
Date
LABORATORY ANALYSIS
PQ
Q
fj
ฃ&
T~
c
t-
tl
^
s
*
s
&ป
ป"-N
nr|
o
o
l?ฃ
*H
H ^
3 -P
,id c^
3
CO
o
MH
o
rH H
o ซ
H O
CU fn
P 0)
O Pj
ซ
,ป -ป
r*>
a
O
UTN
v -*
.
ฐ.
O
m
CO
01
O
r-|
0
0
H
8
~
flj
P
ฃ-
w
CQ
CU
5
J-J
t$
o
H
d
3
..!?
a
V r-j
W CO
0 -P
P tH
a
(T)
H
a
o
ซ5J
0)
0)
pt<
co
(li
-P
rt
-p
523
.
2
to
ft
?
4^
Jp
tH
W
H
0
,C
CO
O
&
*~^
O
O3
CO
H
q
CO
0
fi
"I M
-d -P
r 1 t^
C^
CU
H
+3
cS
g
>
4)
q
(1)
jo pS,
TJ W
H CO
$
0)
^
3
1
(f\
?
FILLD D/vTA
t
o
Q
,
*
to
ft
o
o
o
3
d
< O
4J H
r-l
Z
19
O
a)
0)
in
OJ
t9
^i
4-1
H
z
^
3
(/)
3C
a,
w
3
O -(
.C <9
W O
0 H
a,
U)
2
o
r"
Cl, i t
W O
o w
r (
_ /j
^ 0
.-t H
0
I
i
Q1
,
CTl
U
O
>
u
QJ
*TI n
f-' 3
rH CO
0
0)
rH
^j
Jj
>
<
CQ
FIELD DATA
Q
^_^
3
a
*
o
0
t'
>.
3
4J
f9
J-t
a.
E
01
H
1-25
2-2
3-22
4-19
5-24
6-28
7-26
8-23
9-20
10-25
11-15
12-14
1-24
2-21
3-28
4-26
5-25
6-27
7-26
8-22
9-27
10-24
11-14
12-20
Mean
Max.
Min.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
128
134
126
84
76
92
98
112
108
106
112
105
104
120
102
82
88
94
105
104
114
102
110
110
105
134
76
<.l
4' 1
.1
.3
23
1.5
15
1.9
18
270
4
2
<.l
C.I
2
48
38
11
350
13
32
240
350
.9
350
<!
2.7
2.1
1
1.7
2
2.4
4
1.3
1.7
3.1
2
1.9
2
1.7
1.6
2.1
2
1.8
3.3
<.5
1
2.1
1
1.9
<2.0
4.0
<.5
0
5
1
1
0
1
0
1
0
3
1
2
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
5
0
40
40
60
130
114
66
50
30
30
70
60
55
40
40
40
55
55
55
35
52
23
35
25
25
130
23
146
148
148
102
92
104
130
120
124
124
130
124
118
136
112
104
102
90
120
116
120
128
124
140
121
148
90
.45
.93
.9
.49
.46
.58
.71
.5
.63
.93
.45
.15 .44
.17 .2
.11 .22
<.01 .04
.13 .48
.1 .36
.07 .12
.09 .38
.1 .28
.17 .48
<.01 .04
7.4
7.4
7.6
7.1
7,0
7.8
7.6
7.6
7.7
7.6
7.25
7.4
7.05
7.4
7.3
7.4
7.2
7.5
7.65
7.25
7.6
7.1
7.25
7.3
7.8
7.0
.16
.08
.08
.04
.08
.04
.06
.068
.08
.16
.04
.05
.02
.02
.02
.02
.01
.03
.018
.02
.05
.01
182
176
172
140
160
158
148
154
158
174
190
174
156
176
146
132
146
162
164
158
154
168
160
172
190
132
76
80
68
78
80
68
70
68
66
88
102
76
78
74
62
62
70
74
58
66
64
32
72
76
102
32
6
5
4
11
8
12
7
8
7
10
8
2
6
5
11
2
7
10
6
6
8
8
7
3
12
2
4
5
3
6
4
9
1
8
0
6
8
2
4
2
5
2
2
5
5
5
3
4
7
3
9
0
<.03
<.03
<.03
.05
.04
.06
<.02
^.03
<.03
^.03
.04
.06
<.03
.04
/.03
J.03
4.03
<.03
^.03
v.03
5.03
J.03
/.03
<.03
<. 03
^* v~*
.06
<.03
10.7
10.2
11.3
11.3
7.5
7.7
7.2
7.4
7.5
10.1
11.5
12.1
11.3
16.0
12.7
10.3
7.6
7.9
6.1
6.3
8.5
10.3
12.4
11.8
9. 8
16.0
6.1
7.2
7.2
7,2
7.3
7.2
7.5
7.5
7,5
7.3'
7.5
7.3
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.4
7.2
7.4
7.5
7.5
7.4
7.4
7.5
7.4
7.3
7.5
7.2
i
0
1.
7
18
25^
27
2i\
16
9^
3
2
^
1
3
8
19^
281;
20^
15
9^
3
28^
fc w 2
0
ro
Concentrations expressed as mg/1 unless otherwise indicated.
-------
Source. ppshHiปn River-Hiehwav 41 Bridge at Peshtigo Year;1967-68 ___
Date
LABORATORY ANALYSIS
r*"l
O
u
n)
>,O
4J *~s
> O
4_) s-^
r4
C i-"
r^ CTJ
r * JJ
ra o
J>
rt
Q
1
in
v^x
,
Q
0
PQ
w
QJ
"D
T-4
^1
o
I 1
,C
O
tj
O
,-)
o
u
M
(0
QJ
n
D
^
n)
o
1-1
C
cfl
60
l-i
.. O
C
V .-1
00 -,
4-1
H
Z
^~\
.
3
w
^ซx
ffi
a
w
3
M
O .-1
A ซ
a-'-'
ซ o
0 H
j:
CM
w
3
l-i
O
&
0..-I
W O
O CO
.C
a<
.. I 1
T>
a)
a
C
.. 01
tn a.
a tn
r-< 3
-H CO
O
CO
-------
DRAINAGE AREA APPRO*. 1121 SO. MILES
SOURCE- PESHT1GO RIVER AT PESHTIGO
STORET SECONDARY CODE isouoo
DATE ALKALINITY FECAL 5 DAY CHLORIDES COLOR HARDNESS NITROGEN TOTAL
TOTAL COLIFORM BOD
1-28-69
2-25-69
3-25-6?
M-22-69
5-27-69
6-18-69
7-23-69
8-13-69
9-10-69
10-06-69
1 1-18-69
12-16-69
X MEAN
1-1M-70
2-18-70
3-10-70
M-1M-70
8-06-70
12-09-70
II MEAN
3-30-71
6-30-71
9-09-71
10-20-71
1 1-15-71
II MEAN
1-12-72
2-11-72
3-20-72
1-17-72
5-22-72
6-21-7?
7-18-72
8-22-72
9-19-72
10-25- '2
1 1-28- 2
12-11-72
II MEAN
1 IS
1 10
108
70
90
100
98
1 18
1 10
1 1H
1 16
1 16
1 06
122
1 16
1 18
98
120
98
1 12
12M
108
120
126
10M
1 16
128
13M
1 18
96
80
120
1 10
1 16
1 1M
1 16
1 18
1 16
III
130
160
50
5ป
5
eo
2000
50
5ป
20
5
S
30
10
10
25
65
5
5
5*
5
5
5
5
5
5
10
5
5
20
5
10
S
10
2.:
1 .0*
1 .2
2.0
1 .2
2.5
2.0
1 .5
2.5
2.0
1 .0
1 .5
1 .7
1 .0*
2.0
1 .5
M.5
2.5
1 .5
2.2
3.0
2.5
1 .5
.6
.3
I .6
M.3
1 .8
.6
1.2
1 .2
.9
1 .8
1 .0
1 .8
1 .5
.9
3.M
1 .7
.0
1 .0
1 .0
.0
.0
.0
.0
1 .0
1 .0
.5
1 .0
.0
.5
1 .0
2.5
8.5
2.0
1 .0*
2.0
2.B
1 .5
.0
.0
.0
.0
.3
1 .0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
6.0
.0
.0
1 .0
"ซ MEAN ill 1.8
ANALYSIS WAS LESS THAN FIGURE SHOWN
30
MO
M5
70
70
50
70
M5
30
25
20
25
M3
25
20
15
20
55
80
36
MO
50
30
30
75
15
55
10
10
50
80
50
35
MQ
50
100
80
SO
56
17
1MO
1ZM
130
BO
10M
1 II
1 12
120
126
13M
132
13M
1 2 1
1MM
1 M8
1 36
128
128
13M
136
110
1 16
126
132
128
12B
1MO
1 M8
130
108
88
1 10
1 10
121
128
135
132
121
123
125
TOTAL /
ORG
.37
.52
.50
.57
.60
.3M
.MB
.25
.3M
.68
.55
.M6
.6M
.S3
.MB
.5M
.52
.Ml
.36
15
.61
.5M
.M7
.57
1 .62
.M6
.MM
.5M
.59
N 1 1 K
IMMON
. 19
. 15
.06
.12
.20
. : 3
. 1M
.08
.08
.07
. 1 1
.09
.06
.07
. 13
. 1 3
. 10
. 10
.07
.07
. 12
.09
.08
.07
.05
.OM
.05
.08
.07
.53
. 10
.32
.21
. 16
. 16
. 10ซ
.12
. 18
.2M
.MO
. 19
.MO
.31
.21
. 10
. 12
.32
. 1 9
.MO
.28
.21
.07
.21
.12
. 10
.08
.22
. 17
.10
.21
.22
.05
.05
.08
.07
.06
.03
.U6
.08
.06
.08
.05
.07
.U6
.OM
.OM
.08
.06
.03
-OM
.06
05
.09
.01
.01
.03
.02
.02
.02
.OM
.05
TOTAL SUS VO'
00 PH TEMP
bUS
180
162
168
120
1MO
110
1 MM
162
152
16C
1 70
172
156
1 76
2UQ
1 BO
2UO
212
1 BM
192
168
138
1SU
1 7M
1 72
!6U
1 70
1 90
ISO
no
112
1 MM
1 MM
162
1 76
200
1 80
170
16M
1 OS
M
1
7
6
M
7
M
6
6
5
1
12
5
1
M
2
18
6
7
6
5
10
7
0
1
5
6
3
6
M
6
6
3
8
9
3
1
0
s
5
2
1
3
2
2
3
1
2
3
5
0
7
3
0
3
1
6
2
2
2
5
8
3
0
1
3
2
2
0
M
5
u
3
2
M
0
1
0
2
2
10.8
11.0
11.7
11.3
9.0
8.2
6.8
7.U
7.2
8.7
11.9
10.9
9.5
9.2
8.8
9.0
10.5
6.8
1 1 . 1
9.2
11.2
6.B
6 .8
e.B
12.3
9.2
8.5
11.5
12. b
13.0
5. 1
7 .3
7.3
7 .9
9.8
11.6
11.3
10 .M
?.;
9.5
7.0
7.3
7.2
7.6
7.8
7.9
7.8
7.6
7.9
8.U
7.3
7.7
7 .6
7 .6
7.0
7 . 1
7.2
7 .9
7.M
7.1
7 .2
7 .6
7 .9
7 . b
7 .B
7. 1
7.3
7.5
7 = 2
7,b
7 .2
7 .6
7. B
7 .6
7.8
8.0
7.6
7 .3
7.S
7.5
CENT
1
1
1
B
16
18
?M
25
Iป
13
M
1
1 1
1
1
1
a
25
1
6
1
27
23
1 M
7
1M
1
1
3
6
t2
19
22
23
19
5
1
0
10
10
ro
Concentrations expressed as mg/1 unless otherwise indicated.
-------
DRAINAGE
SOURCE-
AREA AppROX. 1I2M
PESHTIGO
DATE ALKALINITY
1973
1-10
2-13
3-21
M-16
5-09
6-12
7-18
8-17
9-13
10-10
I 1-16
12-26
MEAN
MAX
MIN
TOTAL
136
1MM
75
106
78
92
106
120
112
1 16
120
125
1 1 I
1MM
75
RIVER AT
FECAL
COLlFORM
5
5
10
MO
MO
1 00
10
100
10
10
10
too
5
SQ. MILES
PESHTIGO
5 DAY CHLOR
BOD
M.3 1
.2 1
.5
.5 2
.8
.8
.1
.6
3.7
1.5
1.5 1
1.8 1
1 .8
M.3 2
.t
IDES
.0
0
.0
0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.5
.0
.0
STORE? SECONDARY CODE 1500000
COLOR HARDNESS
55
MO
70
60
roo
I 10
55
35
MO
M5
MO
MO
58
110
35
158
160
8M
122
92
1 12
110
116
120
132
136
122
160
8M
TOTAL
ORG
t81
.3M
.M3
tMO
.56
.58
.95
.MM
.5M
.68
.Ml
.M3
.55
.95
.3M
-NITROGEN
AMMONIA N
,05
.07
. 12
,07
.07
.01'
.05
.36
.06
. 12
.05
.08
.09
,36
>0f
ITRATES
.28
.30
.21
.23
.07
. 10
.OH
.06
.09
. 16
.20
.2M
. 17
.30
.OH
T n T A i .
T u i AL
PHOSPHORUS
.13
.02
.OH
.02
.03
.OH
.03
.02
.05
.03
. 18
.03
05
. 18
02
TOTAL SUS
200
1 98
120
180
IM6
158
515
162
202
166
17M
168
199
515
120
5
f
9
7
5
10
0
9
8
M
2
5
6
10
0
VOL
SUS
5
2
6
7
0
2
2
5
2
2
5
3
7
0
--FIELD DATA---
DO PH TEMP
1 .5
0.5
3.1
0.9
3. 1
6. 1
7.1
7.7
. 8ซ 1
7.7
13.0
1M.2
10.3
1M.2
6.1
7ซ. 2
7.3
7.2
7.S
7.2
7.7
8,0
a.o
>8.2
7.7
7.9
8,3
7.7
8.3
7.2
CENT
0
1
21
8
21
22
23
27
18
16
1
0
1
ro
IX!
Or
13i
27
0
Concentrations expressed as mg/1 unless other-vise indicated.
-------
-229-
j*J])TI(;o RIVKR FLOW DATA CORRESPONDING TO
DATftS OF SURFACE WrtTER QUALITY SURVEYS
196L-1973*
1961
DATE
'i-27
5-23
6-27
7-27
8-22
9-20
10 -2k
11-28
12-21
FLOW
CFS
2,250
1,050
978
819
682
646
842
677
740
1962 1963
DAT?:
1-30
3-7
3-28
4-25
5-20
7-2
7-24
9_4
9-25
10-31
11-27
12-19
FJjOW
CFS
350
860
1, 300
1, 150
923
530
690
1,000
680
. 678
565
525
DATE
1-29
2-27
3-28
4-25
5-23
6-25
7-30
8-28
10-2
10-28
11-26
12-16
FLOW
CFS
340
310
1,850
1,020
1,130
487
334
291
521
3&9
755
369
1964
DATE
1-20
2-25
3-23
4-27
5-18
6-22
7-27
8-17
9-28
10-26
11-16
12-21
FLOW
CFS
234
280
325
1,270
1,3&0
337
328
269
1,210
282
962
323
1965
DATE
1-25
2-2
3-22
4-19
5-24
6-28
7-26
8-23
9-20
10-25
11-15
12-14
FLOW
CFS
280
290
397
2,890
1,930
429
307
179
1,630
428
1,020
2,150
1966
1967
1968
1969
DATE
1-24
2-21
3-28
4-26
5-25
6-27
7-26
8-22
9-27
10-21*
11-14
12-20
FLOW
CFS
500
44o
1,840
2,190
1,520
311
328
349
247
348
333
4i8
DATE
1-24
2-20
3-20
4-25
6-12
7-27
9-23
10-18
11-29
12-18
FLOW
CFS
360
315
562
2,350
1,890
615
656
665
430
480
DATE
2-27
3-20
4-15
5-7
6-25
7-16
8-20
9-17
10-15
12-2
12-17
FLOW
CFS
340
1,420
2,260
1,130
i,94o
1,010
1,070
1,220
942
775
737
DATE
1-28
2-25
3-25
4-22
5-27
6-18
7-23
8-13
9-10
10-8
11-18
12-16
FLOW
CFS
94o
749
2,160
1,960
903
950
541
515
4l8
745
780
560
if *
DATE
1-14
2-18
3-10
4-14
8-6
12-9
FLOW
CFS
430
4<^0
580
1,170
467
1,240
,1971,
1972
1973
DATE
3-30
6-30
9-9
10-20
11-15
FLOW
CFS
1,170
518
444
706
760
DATE
1-12
2-l4
3-20
4-17
5-22
6-21
7-18
8-22
9-19
10-25
11-28
12-14
FLOW
CFS
580
370
840
5,100
898
609
623
1,120
534
1,560
760
720
DATE
1-10
2-13
3-21
4 -16
5-9
6-12
7-18
8-17
9-13
10-10
3.1-16
12-26
FLOW
CFS
660
540
3,570
3,800
5,790
1,780
681
742
670
1,040
858
759**
* FLOW DA'EA F.KOM
** ICE AFr'HJC'jSD-M
U.S.G.S. GAGfNG STATION AT pj-Shfl'TGO, WIS.
KH] HIGH
-------
-230-
MENOMINEE RIVER
SUMKOT OF RESULTS OF COOPERATIVE STREAM SURVEYS
June - September
Discharge
o.f.s.
Stations Ifaxi-!ซn yjni-i'jm
1950 1951 1952 1950 1951 1952
No. 1 Niagara 2400 8690 7360 1050 1140 966
::&. 2 Niegr.n
No. 3 Niagara
Sferlnette Up. Dam 3820 12800 18900 1280 2780 1580
Harinatts Lroer Dam
S^hmy '41' Bridse
Discharge
c.f.s.
Stations Maximum Mnimvm
1953 195U 1955 1953 195U 1955
No. 1 Niagara 15300 6690 5170 1100 826 733
No. 2 Niagara
No. 3 Niagara
Harinetto 23800 - 7750 1800 - 1280
Upper ,0am
Marinetjte Lower Dam
Highwajr 'hi' Bridge
VOes
0.0
1.0
5.0
86,4.
87.6
so.o
Miles
Dissolved Oxygen
p. p.m.
Maximum Mir.imm
1950 1951 1952
7.7 9.3 12.2
6C8 9.8 11.3
7.8 9.5 9.0
7.7 S.6 9.1
7.6 9.0 8.4
7.5 2.9 7.7
1950 1C 51 1952
6.0 5.0 6.7
3.7 4.3 5.2
5.7 5.1 4.7
5.8 6.2 5.6
6.1 6.6 6.1/
5.4 6.4 5.r
Dissolved Oxygen
p.p.m.
Kaxinun Mdnl-un
19;3 1954 195j
0.0
1.0
5.0
86.U
87.6
90.0
9.0 9.U 9.5
10.0 9.0 10.2
9.3 9.6 9.3
8.9 8.3 8.7
9.6 9.1 8.U
8.3 8.8 8.3
1933 195a 1955
5.8 3.U U.9
L.I 2.9 2.u
6.8 5.7 5.1
6.1 5.9 5.5
5.8 U.7 h.S
5.U U.o 3.5
5 Day B.O.D.
p. p.m.
Vaximvm
19^0 1<551 1952
1.4 1.5 4.8
27.7 24.4 24.3
17.6 17.8 10.9
3.5 3.1 2.4
5.2 3.2 11.3
5.2 3.8 6.0
5-Day B.O.D.
p.p.ra,
Kaxir.un
1953 195 a 1955
2.3 L.5 5.8
21.9 27.3 29.8
8.3 13,3 13.9
3.0 1.8 3.3
7.1 Ui.3 11.5
6.9 7.2 6.2
TaKpereturo
P-anga
1950 1951 195?
14-21 12-23 13-22
14-21 12-22 13-22
14-21 12-22 13-22
16-25 12-25 14-24
16-25 12-25 14-24
16-25 i?-2"i 1/-ฐ<;
ler.peralure
Rcjige
c;
1953 195-: 19?5
12-2L 12-23 1L.5-2;.
11-2U 12-24 15.0-2;.
11-2U 3.2-21 15.0-J"
35-2U. 13-26 15.0-2.
15-2L 13-26 15.0-21.
15-2L 13-26 15.5-25.
1956
Flow
Date cfs "
6-6 2,620
6-13 1,680
6-20 4,750
6-27 3,190
7-5 4,310
7-11 6,760
7-18 4,030
7-25 3,760
8-1 2,530
8-8 4,270
8-15 2,180
8-22 2,370
8-29 2,380
9-5 1,850
9-12 2,390
9-19 1,960
9-26 1,940
BODs D.O.
mg/1 rng/1
3.6 7.8
3.4 6.0
5.0 7.3
2.6 6.8
- 7.4
3.6 6.6
3.1 6.8
3.8 6.4
1.6 5.7
4.6 6.6
3.1 5.9
6.5 6.2
3.9 5.8
1.0 6.4
3.6 6.8
5.0 7.6
5.0 7.1
1957
Flow BODs
Date cfs mg/1
6-5 2,360 5.1
6-12 2,250 3.7
6-19 2,810 4.2
6-26 1,800 3.7
7-3
7-10
7-17
7-24
7-31
8-7
8-14
8-21
,590 3.2
,440 4.3
,200 4.1
,590 6.2
,500 9.9
,060 7.2
,250 6.2
,200 5.2
8-30 ,440 5.8
9-4 2,220 0.9
9-12 1,520 5.9
9-18 2,120 2.3
9-25
,910 4.6
U.O.
mg/1
7.1
6.6
6.0
5.4
5.4
5.0
4.2
5.0
3.5
5.3
4.4
4.6
b.l
7.4
6.4
7.8
7.3
1958
Flow BOD5
Date cfs mg/1
6-4 1,820 4.5
6-11 2,320 3.6
6-18 2,080 5.0
6-25 2,180 8.4
7-3 10,700 3.9
7-9 6,650 0.5
7-17 3,860 2.6
7-23 2,210 3.0
7-30 2,490 4.9
8-6 1,720 4.5
8-13 1,940 5.7
8-20 1,580 6.0
8-29 1 ,370 7.4
9-3 1,540 0.9
9-10 2,780 2.9
9-18 1,880 3.9
9-25 1,940 5.0
U.O.
mg/1
6.8
6.4
6.1
5.8
6.8
7.4
6.0
6.1
5.4
5.9
5.2
5.5
b.9
7.8
7.2
6.7
6.3
Date
6-4
6-11
6-18
6-25
7-2
7-9
7-16
7-23
7-30
8-6
8-13
8-27
9-3
9-10
9-17
9-24
1959
Flow BOD5
cfs mg/1
3,170 3.7
2,260 2.5
1,800 5.3
1,490 4.6
1,970 3.3
1,840 3.6
1,430 5.5
1,550 4.9
1,190 3.4
1,430 4.2
1,900 3.8
4,710 3.0
3,960 6.3
3,920 3.9
2,953 2.3
8,280 3.0
D.O.
mg/1
6.6
5.6
6.0
4.6
5.3
5.4
5.4
4.8
4.0
4.4
5.0
5.7
6.5
6.5
8.3
8.2
1960
Flow BOD5
Date cfs mg/1
6-2 6,340 2.6
6-9 5,770 2.6
6-16 3,080 3.6
6-23 4,350 2.9
6-30 4,300 2.6
7-7 2,530 3.0
7-14 1,970 2.6
7-21 2,180 5.3
7-28 4,160 4.4
8-4 2,500 2.1
8-11 2,300 3.5
8-18 2,180 4.3
8-25 1,940 3.6
9-1 5,160 2.4
9-8 2,880 3.1
9-15 2,320 4.6
9-22 2,360 5.1
9-29 3,120 3.2
D.O.
me /I
8.2
8.0
7.4
8.2
7.0
7.4
5.5
5.4
6.2
5.7
6.6
5.9
5.5
7.0
6.0
8.1
7.4
7.9
Menominee River Station at Highway 41 Bridge in Marinette.
Flow data from U.S.G.S. gaging station below Koss, Michigan.
-------
Sniirrp? Menoninee Rlrei* - TJooer Dam at Marinette
Date
LABORATORY ANATYRTS
rv~*
O
0
rrf
[1 v y
rH
C
rH -P
rl '""
*,; p. t
rH
no
O
0
d
X u
-p ^
H
C H
H rt
rt o
.^ EH
3
r-H
rt
0
rH ^-j
O **"""*
<~H .-H
O r^
.,_! . . .
JM PL.
v ซ t-ป
-P S O
U ^ n
ฃ
x x
j>j
ctf
1
LT\
^*-^
,
Q
.
O
PQ
w
'd
H
in
O
o
^
o
o
u
^
rt
4-'
o
s. s
in
w
q
3
W
o
H
G
rt
to
>-,
o
a
*&
o
Tj
C
QJ
Ul P<
T3 Ul
H ,T
rH W
O
CQ
O
rH
H
P
rt
rH
O
>
Year: 1961-62
FT
O
Q
F.TD HATA
P2
p.
O
O
****
CJ
JH
P
-f^
ai
!M
(L)
Pi
t-i
H
M^ J
5-23
6-27
7-27
8-22
9-20
10-24
11-28
12-21
1962
1-31
3-7
3-28
4-25
5-28
7-2
7-24
9-4
9-25
10-31
11-27
12-19
Mean
Kax.
MIn.
0
0
0
0
0
0
c
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
66
58
79
96
92
197
108
95
97
88
101
94
80
70
85
RO
87
90
85
96
99
93
197
58
.093
1.5
.24
.43
7.5
.93
.290
.430
.430
.093
.230
.930
2.4
2.4
.430
.430
7.5
.091
.430
1.5
.390
7.5
.091
1.9
1.9
0.1
0.2
2.2
0.8
0.8
1.5
1.2
0.8
1.4
6.2
1.8
1.7
1.7
1.1
0.9
1.5
1.2
0.7
2.4
1,5
6.2
.1
2.5
0.0
0.0
1.0
3.0
2.5
1.0
1.0
2.5
1.5
3.5
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.0
<0.5
0.5
2.0.
2
1.0
1.5
3.5
0
65
80
70
50
50
55
60
45
43
28
27
43
60
75
65
45
65
63
55
40
40
80
27
80
66
100
106
106
118
126
114
120
120
124
120
94
98
104
106
128
116
120
124
124
110
128
66
.34
.68
.32
.53
0.38
0.37
.43
.68
.32
.024
.22
.10
.11
0.07
0.06
.09
.22
.02
-------
Source: Nfcnomince River - Upper Dam at Morinette Year: 1963-64
Date
lADOHATORY'AMLYSIS
^
o
p
d
n ซ
33
Is
3
o
-p ^-^
ri ro
H -P
9
a
o ซ
MH
O
H H
O
CU JH
-P 0)
O Pi
(3
1
1
t/^
*
0*
w
M
OJ
T)
H
O
^
0
H
O
u
7
o
CO
w
cu
1
o
bO
IH
3^
MW
O -P
;H
H
ง
1
-------
Source: Menominee River-Upper Dam at Marinette
Year: 1965-66
Date
LABORATORY ANALYSIS
,_,
CO
0
u
ซ
>,u
J-l >
Alkalin
Phth.
^-x
ci
O
u
to
>* u
4J '-*'
Alkalin
Total
r 1
H)
O
-r^ r-4
60 E
O '
1 1 ^-ป
O
1 Bacteri
per 0
>,
o
pa
Cfl
01
Chlorid
>-i
o
i t
0
o
cfl
Hardnes
o
H
c
to
00
^
.. 0
c
Nitroge
Total
CO
H
c
O
01
0)
l-i
b
w
01
4J
Nitra
y-v
,
3
Cfl
vปx
K
Oc
CO
p
u
Phospho
! Total
w
p
^
0
CJ.i-1
ซ o
o co
J3
IX
Solids;
Total
to
i *
o
>
.. 0)
cfl o.
u en
H D
i-. CO
O
en
4-1
to
<-i
0
CO
<
ซ
^
FIELD DATA
O
o'
r ~~
D
CO
^/
X
(X
^-
'
Teraperat
1965
1-25
2-22
3-22
4-19
5-24
6-28
7-26
8-23
9-20
10-25
11-15
12-14
1966
1-24
2-21
3-28
4-26
5-25
6-27
7-26
8-22
9-27
10-24
11-14
12-20
Mean
Max.
Min.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
92
90
98
60
56
82
92
94
94
97
95
86
84
74
70
62
70
76
84
82
84
78
76
84
82
98
56
.1
.3
.3
.8
1.3
.8
2.
.4
.7
4- 1
.6
1.3
.1
.1
.4
1.3
2.5
9
11
4
1.8
5.9
1.6
1.6
11
/.I
2.6
1.0
.8
2.7
1.7
.7
2.1
1.7
.6
1.0
2.0
2.6
1.7
.6
2.0
1.3
1.9
2.1
.8
1.3
1.2
1.5
.8
1.4
2.7
.6
2
2
3
1
0
0
2
1
2
1
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
2
2
1.5
3
0
40
70
100
200
140
55
35
25
25
50
40
50
33
35
45
65
55
70
30
35
35
47
55
35
200
25
116
136
126
84
76
102
122
110
111
118
116
106
108
120
88
82
90
94
106
108
104
116
98
120
106
136
76
.46 .18 .36 7.1
7.2
7.4
6.9
.82 .14 >. 2 6.9
7.75
.4 .12 .16 7.8
7.6
.46 ^.01 .04 7.8
7.85
7.3
7.3
.39 .1 .32 7.0
7.3
7.0
.59 .14 .38 7.9
7.0
7.35
7.7
7.25
7.2
7.1
7.15
7.25
.52 .12 .24
.82 .18 .38 7.9
.39 .01 .04 6.9
.22 .06 160
152
162
134
.08 .04 138
158
.04 .02 150
152
.02 .02 148
182
168
148
.06 .01 152
166
122
.04 ^.01 118
132
146
158
158
144
168
170
152
.08 .03
.22 .06 182
.02 <.01 118
58
68
62
52
72
60
64
62
60
86
26
58
70
62
46
52
56
68
52
66
58
40
72
62
2
4
2
27
11
16
6
6
2
6
7
3
6
2
11
5
6
3
4
6
6
8
10
2
2
4
2
11
5
7
2
5
0
3
7
3
6
1
6
3
3
3
4
3
3
6
8
2
^.
.
,
.
t
,
.
4.
<.
^.
.
t
<
<
.
<
<
*
4^.
<
03
03
03
07
04
04
04
03
03
03
03
06
03
04
04
03
03
08
03
03
04
03
03
03
<.04
86
26
27
2
11
0
,
/.
08
03
10
9
10
11
8
7
7
7
8
10
12
12
10
15
13
10
7
6
6
6
9
10
12
12
10
15
6
.7
.7
.6
.7
.0
.9
.4
.8
.4
.5
.1
,2
.7
.1
.3
.6
.9
.3
.7
.9
.0
.8
.4
.2
.0
.1
.3
7
T
7
i
7
1
1
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
.2
.2
.2
.2
.1
.4
.6
.4
.4
.6
.3
.2
.2
.1
.2
.1
.2
.2
.4
.3
.4
.3
.2
.2
.6
.1
1
%
1
2
18
26%
26
25
17
9
3
1
%
1
2
7
18%
27%
27
19%
8%
3
%
27%
U)
I
Concentrations expressed as mg/1 unless otherwise indicated.
-------
o
~
^
o
3
Ej"
?*
O
a
0)
n>
^
CD
0)
ta
P-
01
M
^
g
(_J
n>
CO
(A
O
*3*
CD
2
H1'
cn
H-
O.
Hป
O
fl>
p.
a
to
5'
TO
.^
i-(
(0
II
0)
ID
a
o
X
ป
Ul
O
CO
3
H-
n>
CO
M* to fT> tO tO O VO OO ~~J OS Ul 4^~ LO tO | i
3 X QJ iilliiilifii
3 i -toi ! toi-jto^ji itotoro
^J Ul *^J C^ ON Ul Ui C) ^-J vO
oooooooooooo
LO vo Oo vo Oo Oo os Oo ""*J ~*J Os ^J vo vo VO
os as f rot ioooos4>ooONOooosro
O ON to LO LO
h- 'O Kjt ปLntOOJVOUl4^Os^J4>l '
ฃ5 OS 4^ 10 -~J
A A A A A A
O 4> 1 ' ro i 'i ' i ' 4> t ' O Lo * t i's
Ul Os t_f) 4^" ^D f^ ^^ ON f~i as t--ป ^*J i * Ul vo
oui,-. Oe-'i-'i-'t-'OOUiOtototo
ro
i i '
ro o 4^ 4^* ui vo ui o oo as ui LO LO LO
UlO UlOOOUiOOOOLoOLn
Ostoo I 'OOOOOvOvOvoOOh-'l '
4>OLO OS4>-OSOOO4>-4>roOO04>OS
LO Ui 4^~ 4^* 4^ Ul LO
C^ ON LO ^J vo f~*i ^*
. . * . . .
o ro 1-1 to o i o
h ' vo to vO 00 ON vo
O 4^ ro to to to to
00 O 4> 4>- 00 O 4>
O^ OO '"^J 00 "^vj *^J 00 *^1 ^^J 1**J "*J ^J ^J "*vj
ON i~-* OO ^ ' "^^J N3 ^^ Oi ^/l O^ *^J *^J O^ *^J
O h- O O h- O O
-P* -P" OO -P- -P- *ซs) ON
A K
O O O O O O O
I ซ L
OJUi 4>CO-P*-P--C>-P*-P1'-Ps'-P^^i-tnLn
CT^ O OO O\ OO O^ O CTN O^ OO 00 -P* O*ป O
U)-vJ ONUlC^-JON-J^OUl4>O^OJ
O\4> -P-OOOO-C>tO4>-OOO|OOOO
1 ซ^-J N3lO(^JOOOJO>ป--JOSUlONhO| '
O*-/1 Ot J t 'OJfouprohoLnf ป '^ ซ
K A A A
o o o o o o
4^ ON 4> ON ^> 4>
f1 1 ' h- | h-1 t I ' h-^
ON LO ^^ LO LO OO *-J ~xj ON ~^J vฃ3 ^3 H-* t ' CD
4> vD O l ' O OO 00 **J -P* ON ~~-J L/i ( i (_n L/i
OOO ON-Pป4>-rOOOL/lLna>4>ONL/n-pป
Is5 t i ' NJ CO r ' i
^j K- * ho "^j ^o -P~ **J vo K^* ^o ^ * t * f *
K i hot >o^o--Ja>'-P~Lorot-j
Vj^j I I I I I I I I I 1
ON t *N>I ' ( 4 hO h-1 N2 hJ N3 hJ
Oo OOvOCOLO^JIOUlOO-P"
oooooooooo
OO 00 VD OO CO QO LO VO OO 00
P" O to ON 4^ LO ON ho ro LO
hO* 'ONLOKJIOl '1
Lorowos 00^,-voo
LO ro t-* A> 10
OsvD-Jt04>UiasU10NLO
l-l-l-Ool-'l-JWtOKl
4> Ul 4^* LO Ul Ul ^J to LO LO
ui ui o ui ro ON o ui ui ^j
OvOOOvOOONlOl-'O
00 ON CO OO ON IO 4> O ON OO
CO ^* Ul LO
ro os 4>
O O I-1 I-1
vo i-1 ro LO
O i-1 4> to
oo oo oo
~J-^J--JONOO^J^J^J^J^J
LOC-'OOONOIOLOI-'OLO
Ul Ul Ul
O I-1 O ป-*
4> to 4>- 4^
oo
OOO O
ro h^ h- ' LO
vo (-
4>rotoootoooONONro
uiONLoasasONasONUiui
Os4NON|OOSOSJs-tOOOtO
osuiooLo4>4>-4>uitoaN
4,rou,^^Lorou,rou,
A.
O 0
P- 4>
croSo^^^sSoS
'-"--"
t-1 t-' tO (
t ' OvD-^J*ฃ)ป^> t ' 1 '
Cu
rr
ro
Alkalinity
Phth. (CaC03)
Alkalinity
Total (CaC03)
Bacteriological
per 0.1 ml.
B.O.D. (5-Day)
Chlorides
Color
Hardness
Nitrogen:
Total Organic
Free Ammonia
Nitrates
pH (s.u.)
Phosphorus
Total
Phosphorus
Sol.
Solids;
Total
Volatile
Solids;
Suspended
Volatile
MBAS
D.O.
pH (s.u.)
Temperature ฐC.
LABORATORY ANALYSIS
FIELD DATA
's>
o
i-<
0
o
2
ro
o
h*
3
n>
ro
H-
ro
1-1
o
T3
ro
1-1
3
0)
rt
2
01
>-!
H-
3
ro
rt
rr
ro
ro
B)
t
VO
^-j
i
00
-------
DRAINAGE ARE.* APPRO*. 1150 SO. MILES
SOURCE- MENOM1NEE RIVER AT MARINETTE
DATE ALKALINITY FECAL 5 DAY
TOTAL COLIFORM BOO
STONET SECONOAHY coot 1600370
1-28-69
2-25-69
3-25-69
1-22-69
5-27-69
6-18-69
7-23-69
8-13-69
9-10-69
I 0-08-69
11-18-69
12-16-69
II HE AN
1-11-70
2-18-70
3-10-70
1-11-70
8-06-70
I 2-09-70
II HE AN
3-30-71
6-30-7 1
9-09-7 1
10-20-71
I 1-15-71
II HE AN
1-12-72
2-11-72
3-20-72
1-17-72
5-22-72
6-2 1-72
7-1H-72
8-22-72
9-19-72
10-25-72
11 28-72
12-11-72
ซ HE AN
III MEAN
ANALYSIS
68
90
68
56
70
66
93
98
95
96
90
91
87
96
96
102
100
66
71
92
91
90
90
96
96
93
98
1 01
86
92
66
88
91
86
Sซ
81
82
86
66
88
30
10
5
55
5ซ
5
15
10
15
5
b<
BO
5
1 3000
700
I 0
5ซ
5
5
5
15
10
b
5
1 0
I 5
5
5
10
1 .5
I .0*
1 .0*
2.0
2.5
1.0*
1 .2
1 .0*
2.0
1 ,0ป
1 .0
.0
, 1
.0
.0*
.0*
3.0
1 .5
2.0
1 . 6
3.0
2.5
.9
1 .2
. 3
1 .6
1.6
.9
1 .2
. 9
1 .5
1 .2
I .8
1 .0
2.5
1 .5
I .2
2.8
1 .8
LESS
1 .6
THAN FIGURE SMO*N
1 .0
i.O
2.0
.0
.0
.0
i .0
1.0
2.0
I .5
1 .0
2.0
I .3
1 .0
.5
3.0
1.0
1 .0ซ
2.0
1 .9
2.0
.0
.0
2.0
1 .0
1 .0
.0
1 .0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
2.0
.3
1 .0
COLOR
10
15
15
70
I 10
50
32
30
20
20
30
25
13
25
20
15
20
35
70
31
10
50
25
80
6b
52
15
30
30
35
70
10
3o
15
60
100
70
55
51
108
108
1 1 2
72
86
102
102
1 20
1 1 6
122
I 12
1 12
I 06
1 1 6
120
121
1 16
98
1 08
1 1 1
1 1 6
I 01
1 12
1 1 6
8B
107
1 18
I 32
1 21
82
80
96
102
100
81
1 01
96
9B
101
106
TOTAL ,
ORG
.39
.38
. 10
. 39
.12
.28
.38
.20
.21
. 36
. 33
.28
.97
.25
.07
.50
.15
.35
. 31
.39
. 61
.3S
.16
.35
.10
. 1 1
. 37
. 38
.11
ป M M 0 N
.21
.05
. 1 1
.07
. 1 1
.08
. 1 1
.07
.09
.01
. 1 1
.08
. 1 0
.09
. 1 1
. 12
. 1 1
.Ud
.07
.09
.05
.07
.07
.06
.05
.05
.05
. 06
.06
.39
.08
IlKATtS PMOSPMOWUS TOTAL Sub
.21*
.32
. 16
. 1 6
.10.
. 1 6
. 19
. 16
.21
. 1 1
.28
.20
. 1 6
.08
1 6
.21
. 1 6
. 16
.20
.16
.06
. 19
12
.08
. 12
.21
.06
. 2 B
. 15
. 1 7
.01
.01
.01
.07
.06
02
Ub
.01
.01
.01
.02
. ul
. Ul
. ul
.ul
U3
.Ul
.02
U3
U M
.ul
.Ub
. Ul
U3
.U3
.U2
U7
u2
UN
. ul
1 IB
1 IB
1 bb
1 11
1 UO
130
13d
1 bO
1 12
1 Id
Ib2
1 11
1 3V
Ibl
1 72
1 60
1 6 U
1 10
1 SO
1 36
1 bl
1 28
1 S2
1 UO
1 62
1 3b
1 22
1 IB
1 12
13**
1 26
1 lu
1 3N
1 6M
1 Ob
1 bU
1 J2
1 1U
1 13
1 Ib
3
1
b
B
H
M
2
1
1
1
I
s
I
1
1
I
t-
M
1
N
b
2
2
N
1
1
3
7
2
2
1 2
/
b
U
0
<
1
VOL
bus
I
U
1
3
1
1
1
2
3
U
U
1
U
2
U
U
2
1
H
2
3
U
1
2
J
U
U
b
U
2
^
3
1
U
U
2
1
0 U PM TEH
1 1 .U
11.1
11.6
11.1
V.b
/ .b
7.3
8 . 1
V .1
12.2
1 U.B
V .9
V . H
B . a
v .2
B . 1
12.1
9 . 9
11.9
7 . 3
/ . 9
V . 0
1 1 .fa
V . 6
l i .U
10.3
1 2 .b
6.5
7 . B
/ .0
b .6
V . B
11.3
1 1 .B
11.7
9,9
V.H
7.2
7.3
7.6
7.6
7. 7
7.7
/ .V
8 . 1
d. 1
7.b
7.2
7 .6
7.3
7.3
7 .1
7 .9
7.2
7 .b
7 . 2
/ .b
/. V
7 . d
7 .0
'.6
7 . 1
7 . 3
7 . 1
/ .b
7 .9
7. V
7 .e>
d . U
7 , 1
7 . J
7 . 2
7 ,b
7 .6
CEN
1
1
1
9
1 7
26
1 9
1 3
b
1
1 1
1
1
1
2b
1
6
2
27
22
1 1
7
1 1
1
1
2
22
1 B
22
tl
19
1
1
U
10
1 0
ro
Concentrations expressed as mg/1 unless otherwise indicated.
-------
DRAINAGE AREA AppROx. H150 SQ> MILES
SOURCE- MENOMINEE RIVER AT MAR1NETTE
STORET SECONDARY CODE 1600000
DATE ALKALINITY TECAL
1973
1-03
2-06
3*09
H-OH
5-08
6-1 1
7-09
8-10
9-OH
10-02
1 1-03
12-26
MEAN
MAX
HIN
TOTAL
9.H
101
91
AH
H8
92
100
100
9H
108
102
106
92
108
HB
COLlFORM
S
5
55
112
20
HO
10
5
HO
30
20
10
1 12
5
5 DAY
BOD
.?
2.5
.5
.8
.2
3.7
.0
.0
2.1
1 .2
1.2
1.6
3.7
.9
CHLORIDES COLOR HARDNESS
0
0
6.0
0
0
.0
tO
10.0
.0
.0
3.0
1.0
1.7
10.0
.0
50
50
SO
70
100
70
50
MO
HO
30
HO
SO
53
100
30
I 10
I 16
106
80
68
10H
112
112
I 12
12M
124
122
108
I2H
68
TOTAL 1
OR6
.25
.13
.39
.31
.MB
.H9
.MB
.32
.37
.38
.35
.35
36
. t)9
.13
N I 1 KU
IMMONI
. 10
.08
.01
.02
.06
.02
.03
.0
-------
-<37-
MKNQMTNKK RlVffi FLOW DATA CORRESPONDING TO
DATKS OF SURFACE WATFfl QUALITY SURVKYS
1961-1973*
1961
DATE
4-27
5-23
6-27
7-27
8-22
g-PO
10-24
11-28
12-21
FLOW
CFS
7,000
5,550
3,250
2,210
1,950
1,620
1,660
1,730
',390
1966
DATE
1-24
2-21
3-28
4-26
5-25
6-27
7-26
8-22
9-27
10-24
11-14
12-20
FLOW
CFS
2, 400
2,120
5,160
7,440
4,940
2,540
1,680
2,160
1,6k)
2,570
2,370
2,380
1.962
DATS
1-31
3-7
3-28
4-25
5-28
7-2
7-24
9-4
9-25
10-31
11-27
12-19
FLOW
CFS
1,880
1,870
2,990
8,020
4,630
2,320
1,870
2,670
2,280
1,9^0
1,730
1,900
1967
DATS
1-24
2-20
3-20
4-25
6-12
7-27
9-13
10-18
11-29
12-18
FLOW
CFS
2,130
2,100
1,510
6,470
3,420
2,500
1,390
2,230
2,500
2,350
1971
DATE
3-30
6-30
9-9
10-20
11-15
FLOW
CFS
3,550
2,810
1,540
2,8oo
2,910
1963
DATE
1-29
2-27
3-28
'1-25
5-23
6-25
7-30
8-28
10-2
10-28
11-26
12-16
FLOW
CFS
1,510
1,5-10
2,950
2,710
4,770
2,800
1,390
1,490
1,120
1,100
1,360
1,100
1968
DATE-
1-29
2-27
3-20
4-15
5-7
6-25
7-16
8-20
9-17
10-15
12-2
12-17
FLOW
CFS
1,470
1,420
3,920
4,910
3,570
6,120
4,050
2,870
5,6oo
2,64o
2,84o
3,360
1972
DATE
1-12
2-14
3-20
4-17
5-22
6-21
7-18
8-22
9-19
10-25
11-28
12-14
FLOW
CFS
2,46o
1,780
1,850
7,970
4,330
2,750
2,060
5,250
1,920
5, 300
3,230
3,ooo
1964
DATE
1-20
2-25
3-23
4-27
5-18
6-22
7-27
8-17
9-28
10-26
11-16
12-21
FLOW
CFS
1,160
1,220
1,620
2,970
5,230
1,980
1,550
1,310
3,400
1,750
3,470
1,840
1969
DATE
1-28
2-25
3-25
4-22
5-27
6-18
7-23
8-13
9-10
10-8
U-18
12-16
FLOW
CFS
3,760
2,930
4,500
6,750
4,070
3,300
2,470
2,100
1,340
2,440
2,300
2,140
1965
DATE
1-25
2-22
3-22
4-19
5-24
6-28
7-26
8-23
9-20
10-25
11-15
12-14
FLOW
CFS
1,440
1,560
1,540
9,570
7,490
1,870
1,420
1,420
2,320
2,070
2,500
,3,480
1970
DATE
1-14
2-18
3-10
4-14
8-6
12-9
FLOW
CFS
2.CJD
1,830
2,310
2,500
1,890
4,700
1973
DATE
1-3
2-6
3-9
4-4
5-8
6-11
7-9
8-10
9-4
10-2
11-9
12-26
FLOW
CFS
3,360
2,620
5,130
9,010
12, 000
4,480
2,070
2,46o
2,680
2,160
2,210
2,180
*FLOW DATA FROM U.S.G.S. GAG LNG SCATION ?KLOW KOSS, MICHIGAN
-------
-?33-
APPEIDIX VII.
BOTTOM FAUNA DATA, 1939 AND 1952
-------
-239-
Appendix
EAST RIVER AND GREEN BAY
SANiT/>r!Y SURVEY
GREEN BAY
SAMPLING POINT LOCATIONS
Wisconsin State Conmittee on Water Pollution (1939)
-------
Appendix (Continued)
F-'Uf'
SAY
SAMPLE
B 16
3 17
B 18
B 13
a 20
S 21
3 22
B 23
3 24
B 25
6 26
S 28
C 23
3 33
* 3 *"ป
8 35
P 3G .
3 37
P 33
3 35
B 40
B 41
B 43
E 44
8 45
3 48
E 49
3 -0
P 51
B 52
e 54
2 C,t;
B 56
857
B 58
B 53
5 GO
e 6i
S 62
B 63
' 8 64
0 G5
3 63
e e/
: 63
3 60
S 70
C 71
P 72
S 73 i
DATE
II/IG
ll/IC
H/16
11/16
11/16
II/I?
it/ie
H/16
11/15
11/16
II/IG
M/17
11/17
11/23
11/23
11/23
11/23
11/23
11/23
1 1 /23
ll/;25
ll#5
'"/ง
',$'
1/3.
I /U
1 /3'
1 j/31
2/'/i
2M
iti
t-i.i
2/7
2/7
z/r-
2/e
2/3
2/e
2/G
2JL
2/13
2/1 C
2/15
V'5
.'Ar
l/>5
STATI on
S 1
S 2
S 3
S c
S 7
S 7A
S 8
S 1 1
3 10
S 5
O "r
G 1
o 2
G 3
c *
G 5
G 6
G 7
G 8
G 9
G 0
C 1
G 4
'* J
b "
: 7
S 9
S 73
G 25
G 2Q
G 3
G 23
G 22A
G 22
G 21
G 24
3 I3A
C 28
G 30
C 10
G 31
G 32
G 33
3 34
C 6
3 7
C 1 4A
" 35
C 5"
3 ฐ
G i'-n i
STATI CN
CEPTK
FT.
,5
G
5
5
6
6
7
20
3
3
23
24
13
35
33
10
30
35
2?
2G
13
21
21
\i
2l
8
4
12
12
1 1
12
2?
17
19
3
6
15
21
15
12
5
30
*3 {^
24
27
24
2G
2f
CHARACTEP OF BOTTOM
I'.UCl Y MUD
I1UCKY MUD
SANDY MUD
flUD
M'iCKY MUD
SAFID APD GSAVEL
SANDY MUD
SLUDGE-LIKE
i .UCKY nu:
iviJD
SLJOCE-Lli'.E
CLAYEY "';c
SA- DY i"jc
i'-UC"Y MLT
SA"OY MIT
HARD SAP'
SANDY MUD
MUCKY MUD
MuD
SAfiBY ML'C
SAH.
. iL'j
SA;;ปY ML:
flue
SLUDGE-LIKE
MUD, SA'.'D, GHAVEL
SA-ID
'IUCKY MUD
iiUCKY HUD
SAI^Y ML'J
SA-ID A: 3 GS..VCL
SAW
f'.LCKY MUD
SAI'DY MbT
HARD MUD
SAM
SA:ID
SA-T;Y MUD
SACDY MUD
SA;:D
SAt.D
SA .c
f'UCKY Ml,"
''UCKY MUD
NJC
f:U"
SAr:ฐY MI"
Q A 11-' V Ml '
O A ^ . L
SAt-Y -I-
1
Cut
Tuoi FI-
Cl OAE
1 Cr
1630
1200
600
lion
270
250
2200
6 CO
171
200
2
1
24
2
4.
8
0
c.
S
2
140"
7j
4
p ^
40
2"
3
2
6
4
|
4
2
G
'
Ol 1~ GL LUDC A
L, EH PEH s;.
l!,/l| JAE
8
1C
40
74
34
40
SC
270
24C
42
2C
2
4
26
22
33
72
16
100
40
23
22
3>3
140
53
2
64
8C
C-l
4
2
22
3
16
2
2
19
ISO
IE
C
O .-*
2"'
2o
3f
4
2
28
FT.
HEXA-
uE'll A
5
2
1
is
G
4
2
2
12
50
6
2
2
2
2
2
GLA'
ML'SCU-
LIU-,
x *
X
X
X
E.S.
X
E.S
E.S.
X
X
X
E.S.
E.S.
-
risi-
01 U". ,
1
X
X
.X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
E.S.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
1'in LL USC A
VI VI PA
H"
X
X
X
5H,M LS
VALVATA
X
E.S.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
x
X
A:i':i CDLI-
OAE
E.S."
E.S.
E.S
E.S
X
X
E.S.
C-.S.
E.S.
E.S.
E.S.
E. S.
E.S
E.S.
E.S.
ro
SMELLf
-------
o
o
lOOt CUAN HATCH
100% fACU-TATIV WATCH
100% MUUTIONAk. WATCH
'BOTTOM SAMPLING STATIONS
May 26,27, 1952
KALI of mutt
-**
Appendix (Continued)
Surber and Cooley (1952]
-------
-2U2-
APPENDIX VIII.
BOTTOM FAUNA DATA, 1955/1956
-------
ffi v*mw i
to IUM ^ GREEN B*T WISCONSIN SHOWING
BIOLOGICAL SURVEY STATIONS - 1955
08ELL BUOY
O LIGHT HOUSE
SAMPLE POSITION
SCALE-
Appendix VIII.
Balch et_ al, 1956
-------
Appendix vm (Continued)
GREEN BAT BIOLOGICAL STUDIES - 1955
STOMAHT TABLE OF BOTTOM DWELLING ORGANISMS
Part 1 - Innsr Green Bay
Jlgaret Hepresent Numbers of Organleoa Per Square Toot
Letters Indicate Relative Numbers
Sclontlflc "ซ
B. Tolerant
Pentanoura flp.
Cryptochtronomis ap.
ProclidlMa sp.
Tesytsra-is {Stlcto-
chlrcr.oma)
Unidentified Tendl-
pediifle
Spharlua op.
Hyslella aitftca
Asellue lollltarls
VlVl^' rJB CO.
Comaon Saae
Mld^e Lnrvae
Mtdgo Larvae
Mldpe Larvae
Mldt;e Lnrvae
Wi^^ซ T-, rvae
Mld^e Larvae
Fingernail Clam
Scud
Sov Bug
Spall
Position
1 2 3 4 5 ฃ 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1^ 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2<* 25 26 27 28 29
W
C. TI--V Tolerant
Tublf Icllae
Tซji'1 Ipce plumooua
Worm
Mi'l^e Lsrvaa
-J60WOOO- 16-1*-- i9ฃ 200 108 220 V 2^1* t 7 8 - 1*0 32 - 12
--- 1*000- 8-1*-- 12 8 1* 1*- 1*7-71-1*-- 16- 1*
ro
-------
Appendix viii (Continued)
5HZEJT BAT BIOLOGICAL STUDIES - 1955
STOHAST TABLE OF BOTTOM DWELLING OHCASISK
Part 2 - Middle Gresn Bay
Sctf-tlMc Hซrป
A. .Tr,tolซrflst
3. Tolern-t
F 1* !i! iua Fp.
Frocladlua Bp.
PectaLeMra 8p.
TecJlptfE fuatdut
CryotochtronoBUi
Stldettlf led Tendl-
oelllae
-V ซ J
Hvrlelln arteca
i;^.-^ป bp.
C. Very Tolerant
Tr:.!;;-? in ' k h-j h& t>7 It8 i<3 -;o SI S2 ^^ 5k 55 5A ;" sf 59 60 fi
-------
Appendix vm(Continued)
CRSSB BAT BICLOOICAL STUDIES - 1955
SUMKART TABLE OT BOTTOM DVEILINC- ORGANISMS
Part 3 - Outer Green Bay
Scientific TTame
A. Into"1 ซปrnnt
Sphenera guttulata
Stenonenvi fp.
Cheucntoptyche ปp.
PserhenlMss
B. TM.-mt
Asellus mllltarU
Sph.ierlun Bp.
Plolilua
Proclsilue tp.
Anatopynla งp.
Pscudochlronoaii* ซp.
H.irnlcMa ep.
Dtซnrcn fulvn
Cryptochlroconia ปp.
Trn7tnrBi:8 (St IctocMronoous)
Fyalolla n'teea
Hel IDCII ep.
Aanlcola llonosa
Pleurocera acuta
Gordlus sp,
Dur^flft trl/rrlna
C. V^-ry Tolerant
Tub If Icliie
Kalss Ep.
Tendlpes decoru*
Tecdipea plumoeut
Eolobdella etaenalle
Common Sans Position
65 66 6? 68 69 70 71 72 73 7^ 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82
Water Penny ------_..----__--__
Sow Bug -_---_----_ซ______
Tln/'ernAll Clam -- 2 10---- 215- 5 - - - - -
Mliฃe Larvae 5 10 38 2 - - 60 V* 30 - 6 - - - - 100 - 4
u e
F1 citworn -------- 2^- -------
- 12 - -
Leech ---_____ !*-----_--_
83 81* 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93
::::;?:::::
2----------
- - - 12 - - 12 20 - T 6
.
1 * - - - -
6 2'* 20 52 - 8 16 - 52
__ 48-- U8-- V
-20 8 12--- 4-- 2
X ป Ii'othing In
? ป Fev ซ 0-10
M ซ Moderate 10-25
P - Profuse ซ 25-100
7 Very profuse ป 100 up
0 ซ Organlflms present no numbers Indicated.
-------
-21*7-
APPEHDIX IX.
CHEMICAL DATA
GREEN BAY
1939
-------
-248-
DISSaVED OXYGEN
VALUES
PERIOD OF
FEB. 6.7. & 8,1939
ALL SAMPLES COLLECTED
AT 3-FT. DEPTH
-------
DISSOLVED OXYGEN
VALUES
-------
-250-
DISSOLVED OXYGEN
VALUES
PERIOD OF
20.21 &22.1959
COLLEaEO
DEPTH
-------
-251-
DISSOLVED OXYGEN
VALUES
ALL SAMPLES COLLECTED
AT SFT DEPTH
-------
OF
TTOH
^Ml'LE
*
sfa 35& up
TDfTT^f&R
Of
f
JtlV
VAT Eft
CXฅ3EJ^
COl
.LECTE 5 AF
ETICSJ
hKXJTH
'A -
ie-
-t
N
T \
\
RฃMt
IN1NG
SSWVFQi.r.xxt
Mฃ*&.
^
ft *F
/
%
CO
_o
^
71
X
.X
^
X
IV E If
SURE
DAYS
-------
DISSOLVED OXYGEN
VALUES
PERIOD OF
MAR. 6.7.8, & 9. 1959
ALL SAMPLES COLLECTED
AT 3-FT. DEPTH
-------
.;*& *',/ -\
DISSOLVED OXYGEN
VALUES
PERIOD OF
MARCH 13 & 14,1939
ALL SAMPLES COLLECTED
AT S-FT. DEPTH
-------
DISSOLVED OXYGEN
VALUES
EAST RIVER AND GREEN BAY
SAK:T..^Y SURVEY
PERIOD OP
MARCH 20 & 21, 1939
DISSOLVED OXVSEN IN
GREEN BAY
ALL SAMPLES COLLECTED
AT 3-FT DEPTH
-------
DISSOLVED OXYGEN
VALUES
ALL SAMPLES COLLECTED
AT 3-Pt DEPTH
-------
-------
-------
Ad. SAMPLES COLLECTED
AT 4 TO err. DEPTH
ป.QQ VALUES
AT 6-DAY, flO'C
DISSOLVED OXYGEN &, B.O.D. OF GREEN BAY
ro
vn
vo
i
-------
PERIOD OF
MARCH 17, 20, ฃ1, 1939
ALL SAMPLES COLLECTED
AT 3 TO 6 FT. DEPTH
B.O.D. VALUES
AT 5-DAY, 2OSC
*ti~-l
I- -
v J VJC3T JO 3
DISSOLVED OXYGEN flc. B. 0 D. OF GREEN BAY
I
ro
o
i
-------
DISSOLVED OXYGEI' AI'C PH DATA
1 SAIPLI ;.G DEPTHS
SH
ft
ft
n
ri
n
rt
n
n
n
.ซ
n
n
it
H
ft
ft
It
11
S-3A
ri
H
S-4
n
tt
S-7A
H
rr
S-7B
n
ซ
n
n
- n
n
n
n
tt
tf
H
n
S-IOA
n
n
8-12
H
ft
n
10- 4-33
1 C- 6-38
1 C-l 2-38
1 >l 9-3S
1 0-26-33
II- 2-33
ll-IE-30
1-15-39
2- 3-39
2-1 7 39
2-22-39
3- 3-39
3- 9-39
3-1 4-39
3-1 4-39
5- 4-39
TINT i Irr ฐ"ซ" TซT.. 1 3 FFFT i MIDDLE
(In.
2.-35PM
i C : 1 'JAi i
1 loSPN
3:20PT1
1 1 : 30AM
lt:20AM
1 0:30 \M
9: 45 AM
9:30Ai1
4: 00PM
3=COPM
II :OOAM
2:30pn
II :50AM
4:C3PM
3:I5FM
5-19-39 1 -J5PM
5-25-39 5: '0PM
6-1-39 7:20AM
5-13-39
5-25-39
6- 1-39
5-1 9-39
5-25-33
6- 1-33
1 C-l 4-3 3
1 C-l 9-3 8
II -16-33
l-IC-39
1-20-30
2- 3-39
2- 8-30
2-1 7-39
2-21-33
3- 3-39
3- 9-39
3-1 1-39
3-22-39
5-19-39
5-25-39
6- 1-39
5-19-39
5-25-39
I:30PM
I2:3jpri
3. -45 AM
5: 05PM
5:1 CRN
7: '.5AM
3:OCPM
4: (05PM
1 1 : SAii
_
ItOOFM
IO;30AM
|0:^5AM
3: 00 Pi!
AM
IG:OOAr,
1 -30PM
1 : 1 0PM
ป!OON
2:1 0PM
1 :I5PH
9:1 SAM
2: 00PM
I:OCPM
6- f-39 | 9: 00AM
i
1-16-39
1-27-39
2- 8-39
2-1 7-39
10: 45AM
1 :3CPf1
i O::OA:I
3:3CPM
_
_
_
-
_
_
_
2
5
R
6
6
R
4
-j
r
0
0
-
D
u
_
_
"
_
_
-
6
10
} ("0
_
-
_
-
_
_
_
1
C-l
0,
0-*jr
ฃ-!
2-3
2-3
C
0
0
-
0
0
-
_
-
_
-
H
2
16 li
14 0-1
18
24
?0
IS
19
0-1
Ds.*
1-4
2-3
0
0 1 0
- o I o
- 1 -
1 ' M L I C "
DEPTH C.
(FT.) TEMP.
_
-
_
_
_
_
_
25
22
27
24
25
25
24
24
27
2C
30
27
5
6
6
30 .
2G
27
-
_
-
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.0.
6
7
7
7
7
8
8
8.5
7
f* DR. OR! FTS )
'0,0 , ' 9
0
-
5
6
1 1
1 '
0 1 9
-
_
2
1
C 1
10
6.5
5
6
5
16
15
16
14
10.5
II
3
0
-
_
-
_
_
_
13.0
13.0
22. C
_
17.0
22.5
_
1 3.0
21.5
17
14
3
-
_
-
16.5
22.5
-
16.5
22.0
PH
8.7
8.5
8.6
7.7
7.7
7.0
7.5
7.3
7.3
7,4
-
7.7
7.6
7.5
.-
8.3
7.5
-
7.S
J
7.6
-
7.5
7.7
7.7
7.5
8.4
8.0
7.4
7.4
7.6
-
7.4
7.5
7.1
7.6
7.5
7.5
-
7.5
7.4
7.4
D.O. i %
PPM j SAT.
8.3
8.2
8.6
6.7
9.5
5.1
10.3
12.5
12.4
12.4
12.4
11.5
11.8
10.8
I-.5
9.5
5.5
6.3
4.5
6.0
5.0
2.8
6.1
6.5
3.5
8.1
4.8
11.1
11.5
11.3
10.2
10.0
9.6
9.7
6.0
4.7
3.8
r 6.1
4.9
3.0
12.0
12.3
83.5
81.0
86.4
64.6
04.7
40. 1
76. S-
85.5
C9.5
71.4
51.0
51.5
3i.9
S3. 3
40.3
03.4
40. 4
04.5
53.1
43.4
49.6
34.0
ฐC. PH
TEMP.
..
13.0
-
18.0
21.*
21 .5
D.O. ' %
PPM j SAT.
-1 -
ซ
8.3
7.S
7.G
7.7
7.4
9.5
s.e
5.7
4.1
6.0
3.3
89.5
70.-;
46.0
37. C
Op
TEMP.
_
0.0
-
-
-
-
13. G
_
18,0
21.0
-
18.0
10,0
0.0
0.4
-
-
-
-
~
-
-
16.5
21.5
0.0
PH-
.
7.3
7ซ4
7.4
0.0.
PPM 1
_
12.5
2.!
12.5
12.4
7.6 1.5
7.6 11.4
7.5
-
8.3
7.5
7.6
!3.8
i -j !
9.6
5.3
6,6
3.2
1
7=7
7.5
7.3
7.4
7.3
7.3
7.4
7.5
7.4
7.4
7.5
7.
-
7.5
7.5
8.1
6.3
r'* 0
4,3
11.6
1.5
1.0
1.2
1.3
1 .1
C.I
0.7
S.2
9.1
5.0
2.5
12.6
12.4
SAT.
_
85.5
9.:. 5
SS.4
J5.6
P3.0
'*6.. '
79.1
79.6
50.7
28.0
86.2
-------
(COIIT. ]
STATION
S-12
n
ซ
ซ
a
n
n
S-13
!*
it
S-.I4
n
n
S-15
it
G-l
G-2
6-2A
n
e-3
G-4
G-5
3-5A
G-5 8
n
DATE
2-22-39
3- 3-39
3- 9-39
3-1 4-39
3-21-39
5-19-39
; 5-25-39
i 6- 1-39
5-1 9-39
5-25-39
6- 1-39
5-19-39
5-25-39
6-. 1-39
5-25-39
6- 1-39
1 -16-38
1 -16-33
1-26-39
2- G-39
2-t 5-39
2-22-39
2-27-33
3-.S-39
3-t 4-39
3-21-39
TIME
2:30FM
IO:3CAM
2-.OOR1
H:20Af1
S:I5A,I
1 :45?tv
I2:45F-1
8:30AM.
2:3CPM
1 :35PM
9:30AM
4:50Pn
4:3GPM
8:23Ai1
4:30Pi1
8: 30 AM
2H5FM
II :3CAM
1C: 45AM
1 0:3CAM
2:45FM
|:|5?M
9:39AM
2: 00PM
II -23-38 \ H :OOAM
1
II -23-38
11-23-38
-1 ฃ-39
-23-39
-27-39
-1 3-39
-23-39
-2S-39
2- 2-39
2- 3-39
2-1 5-33
2-21-39
3- 1-39
3~ 7-39
3-1 3-30
3-21-39
4-95-30
1 I2:OOA!I
I:30R1
1 :3Jpri
3:30~M
|C:2?AM
I :OOPM
3: 00PM
10: OGAM
Noon
4: 15PM
9:30A;i
FM
lC:03Au
1 :35?M
3:0?FT1 -
1 0:CD.',M
1 1 :0?AM
ICE
("')
14
14
16
13
17
0
0
0
0 -
-
-
8
14
15
13
12
IS
20
,3
-
-
l"
18
10
15
16
13
IS
18
2C
30
27
20
27
0
SNOW,
(IN.)
1
1-4
2-3
0
0
0
0
0
"
-
4
1
t
OR.
DR.
7
4-5
0
-
-
-
1
1
4
1
1
1
1
1
On.
^
C-l
n
DEPTH
(FT.)
5
6
6
6
6.5
7
8
8
12 ~l
II
. 12
30
27
30
6
9
24
14
13
13
12.5
12.5
12
14
14
13.5
35
33
II
5
a
7
24
24
23
24
22
23 ....
23
22
20
23
21
24
S
3 FEET
*c.-
TEMP.
17.0
22.0
- 16.0
22.5
- 18.0
22.0 -
I7.C -
22.0
5.0
4.0 -
-
4.75-
5.0 -
1.0
1.0
0.0
O.I '
0.0 -
4.2
PH
7.5
T-.2
7.4
7;5
7; 6
7.6
7.7
7.6
7; 5
7.7
7.7
8.1
8.1
7.3
7.3
7.3
7.2
7.8
7; 4
7.5
Z.I
7.9
7.'9
7.-9
7.-0
7.'4
7.-S
7.-5
7.-4
7.5
7.S
7/2
7.2
7.1
7.0
7.2
7.2
7.3
7.5
0.0.
PPM.
12.4
10.3
10.6
5.4
4.2
3.0
-5.8
7.8
4.3
6.0
5.5-
3.2
6.7
5.0
12.2
T2.7
9.5
10.2
10.0
10. 3
9.3
3.5
^7,8
5.9
is. r
l'2.8
13.7
13.2
1-2.2
12.2
13.2
9.9
12.7
12.6
12. G
8.2
3.3
3/4
3.4
3.1
5.3
12.4
%
SAT.
43.2
3'<.0.
78.4"
_ 49.1
57.6
36.2
63.3
S5.6
95.3
96.6
1 C0i2
100.0
95.3
G2.G
33.4
9% 2
G7-.7
95.2
Op
u.
TEMP.
18.0
2F.O
5.0
4.0
' 4.75
4.25
1.0
0.2
0.6
u
4.0
ปMPLI MG
. Ml!
PH
,1.'1
7.5
8,1
8,1
7.9 "
7.5
7.5
7.2
7.2 '
7.1
7.0
7.2
7.5
1EPTHS
OLE
D.O.
PPM
-
5.9
5.4
3.9
-
12.2
12.6
l"2.7
12.?
12.4
9.5'
- 3.5
3.2
3.4
2.7
12.6
*,
SAT.
56. G
43.4
95.3
95.3
93.6
95.7
^ roOT ABOVE BOTTO'-I
ac.
TEMP.
-
16.0
21.0 .
17.5
19.5
21.5'
5.0
4.0
-
4.75
4.25
1.5
I..O
4.1
PH
7.5
7.6
7.6
7.6
7.7
7.5
7.7
8.1
8.1
7.3
7.3
7.3
7.3
7.4
7.4
7.3
7,.2
T..9
1.9
7.9
7^5
7.3
7,3
7,3
7.2
7.2
7.1
7.9
7.2
7.2
7.3
7.5
'D.O.
PPM
ii.e
JI.8
5.1
.7.7
5.0
6.3
.4.8
.4.5
.'S.I
12.3
12.7
9.5
10.2
.9.5
.9.7
1 3.2
.8.2
7.9
6.8
10.9
12.7
1.4.0
1.2.2
.9.7
9.7
6.8
5.9
3.3
- 3..C
3.4
2.6
3.3
4.4
12.4
%
S*T.
77.5
55.6
49.9
48.7
57.2
96.0
9S.6
84.G
97.5
100.0
85.7
94.5
-------
(COUT. )
STATI ON
G-53
n
n
K
GปG
a
n
n
n
a
n
n
-C-GA
it
n
n
n
n
. ซ
G-7
n
n
n
n
' n
n
n
n
n
_G-7A
G-8
G-8A
6-9
DATE
5- 3-30
5-1 2-30
5-10-30
"5-25-39
6- 1-30
1 1-23-30
'2- 7-30
"2-1 5-39
2-21-30
3- 1-33
' 3- 7-30
3-|3-30
3-2C-30
2- 7-39
2-13-39
"2-21-39
3- 1-30
-3- '7-30
3-1-1-33
'3-20-39
H-23-3S
. "2-:l5r39
2-2I-39
. 3- '1-33
3- 7-39
"3-1 4-39
3-20-39
'5- 3-39
'5-l"8-39
5-26-39
-3-21-39
1 i-23-33
3-21-39
11-23-38
2-1 6-39
2-22-39
3- 1-39
3- 6-39
3-10-39
3-20-33
4-25-39
5- 3-39
5-12-39
5-1 3-39
5-26-^9
TIME
10: 00AM
7: 15AM
7: 15AM
5: 00PM
2:9GFri
10: 30AM
II :30AM
PM
IMS Pi-',
) 2= 50PM
2: 45PM
j:30FM
3:30PM
|0:OOAi!
PM
1 :I5PM
No OH
2:45 pM
3:COt11
2:40f|;
' IC:3QAM
PT
1 1 :4"M'
3: 00PM
2:45FM
1 1 :I5AM
8- 45AM
" 2: 20PM
1 :15FM
3: 40PM
2: 05 Pr
_
_
_
12: 45PM
2: -15PM
II -45Afi
1 0-45 AM
1 .-I5PM
1 :?0?M
1 0:30A!1
9: 45AM
!2:45Pf1
^ICE |
g
0
6
Q
_
15
16
20
23
10
13
22
17
IS
20
24'
21
22
24
IE
20
15
19
21
22
o-
0'
' 0
23
-
24
_
16
20
15
20
20
22
0
o
6
n
6
SNOW
0
fl
6
0
_
i
-
_
OR.
,7
- ^ -
1
1
0-1
OR.
7
2-3
0
0
0-1
Dn.
7
2-3
0
0
0
0
0-1
-
0-1
_
1
1-2
5^-10
1-2
0
rv
0
0
0
0
TOTAL
DEPTH
(FT.)
22
24
25
16
28
30
31
30
30
32"
31
32
32
32
32
34
32
35
3G
35
35
33
35
. - 34
34
37
36
3G
34
" " 33
31
26
18
26
25
26
25
26
26
27
2G
25
29
27
29
. 1
SAHPL KG nrpTHS i
3 Fc|rT ' i;i COLE J 1 -DOT ABOVE BOTTOM 1
uc
TEMP.
13.5
12.0
14.0
(8.0
2.5
-
- '
-
_
_
-
-
_
-
_
-
-
' 4.5
_
_
-
_
_
9.0
12.0
. 15.0
-
4 0
-
4.0
-
-
-
^
3.2
10.5
11.5
T3.0
16.0
PH
9.0
3.2
B.I
8.2
3.2
7.9
f.G
/.I
7.2
7,2
7.3
7.2
7.1
7.3
7.3
7.2
1.2
7.5
7.5
7.1
7.3
7.4
7.4
7.2
7.5
7.5
7.3
8.1
8.1
"8.3
7.6
7.9
7.6
7.y
7.2
7.2
7.4
7.3
7-1
7.4
8.2
8.3
3.1
3.2
0.0.
PPM
10.9
1 1.0
10. C
9.9
9.4
12.',
11.2
3.1
5.4
G.O
7.4
7.0
10.3
1 0.0
6.0
0.7
O.G
11.2
C.r
2.7
1 .0
1 .0
0.5
O.G
1.9
I.I
1.2
O.I
C.8
12.2
13.1
12.4
13.4
ฃ.0
3.9
8.7
8.4
7.?
6.3
10.8
II. 1
1 0.3
3.5
0.0
SAT.
100.5
90.0
95,5
90,5
02. 4
-' *
9C.7
03.0
IOO.G
100,0
100,2
81.6
99.2
98.5
89.6
99.5
L'c.
TE;IP.
10.0
12.5
12.0
13^0
2.5
-
-
-
-
r
" *
-
-
-
-
-
4.25
-
-
-
-
-
9.0
12.0
14,0
4.0
3.5
-
-
^
3.1
10.0
10.5
|3.0
15.0
BH
8.0
S.I
3.0
8.2
7.5
7.0
7.2
7.'
7.3
- "
7.2
7.3
7.1
-
7.3
7.4
7.4
7.4
7.2
/.b
7.5
7.2
8.0
8.1
8.3
-
7.2
7.3
7.4
7.3
7.4
3.1
8.0
8.1
8.1
Q.O.
P.PM
10.3
10.6
10.6
9.3
3.2
2.9
j.C
4.P
7.5
7.7
1 G.-J
G.4
9.4
0.0
II .5
1 0.0
3.7
O.I
II .5
II .1
1 1.4
10.0
:,o.4
-
7.8
3.9
3.2
9.8
7.3
10.9
II .0
10.9
9.3
9. -3
t '
SAT.
95.3
99.0
98.0
37.5
.
03.5
92.4
100.00
81 .5
97.0
97.3
37.7
OG.5
L.' f
TEMH.
IC.O
12.5
12.0
14.0
16,0
2.5
~
~
"
~
*
**
-
~
""
"
4.25
"
~_ .
~
C.5
12.0
1 4.0
4.0
3.5
-
-
PH
8^0
8.1
8.1
8.2
8,1
7.0
f.5
7.1;
7.2
,1
7.2
7.1
7,1
7,2
7.2
7.3
7.3
7,1
0.0
7.3
,3
7.2
7.3
7.4
7.2
8.0
8.1
8.3
7.6
7.9
7.3
7.9
7.2
7.2
f.5
7,3
- 1 1.2
3.0 ! 7.3
10.0
10.0
12.5
1 4.0
8.0
- S.O
3.1
8.1
0.0.
PPM,
to.?
10.4
10.3
10.0
7.3.
12.0
G.G
S'A'T. !
93. b 1
96.7 i
35.0
9G.5 I
73.4 1
02.4
2.0
t.4
4. j
5. I
6.7
5.3
.5
6.3
7.3
G. j
/. (
13.1
8.2
1 1 .G
2.9
3.5
9.3
10.6
10.0
iO.3
12.1
13.1
12.'}
13.5
7.2
8.4
8.0
7,4
6.7
7,2
10.8
10.5
10.7
9.3
9.8'
ICO.O
1 00.0
1 00.0
i co.;
80.2
92.5
94,5
SR.u
-------
(Co-!.]
STATtON
010
It
ป
a
tf
n
a
ft
SHI
G-I2
f!
THS
OLE
D.o.
PPM
-
-
8.2'
7.5*
6.2'
5.8
3.4
2.4
7.9
r>
SAT.
1 FOOT ABOVE BOTTOM
"(,.
TEMP.
1.0-
0.25
-
-
0.6
0.4
-
PH
7.7
7.4-
7.3
7.6- .
7.3
7.4
7.3
7.1-
7.7
7.2
7.?
7.3
7.4
7.5
7.1
8.1
7.6
7.0
7.2
7.2
7.0
7.1
7.4
7.2
7.-C
7.0
7.1
7.1
7.2
D.O.
PPM.
12.5
9.5
BROKE
8.3
10.9
9.1
7.6
5. -9
12.7
7.3
9.2
9;8
6.0
5.6
4; 7
3;3
12.2
61 5
5.5
4-. 8
3; 3
2.G
3.3
6.0
5.6
4.4
tป '
3.1
4.2
4.8-
6.6
6.2
%
SAT.
87.7
C7.5 >
. |
i
i
\
?4.5
45.0
I
ru
-------
(CONT.
( 1
6-1 3 B
n
G-l 4
n
it
H
*
n
n
it
O-l 3A
n
ft
n
tt
it
n
- n
-~.n
n
1 B
ft
ป
G-l 5
-G-15A
n
n
* n
ti
* n
n
'C-IG
G-l 7
n
it
. n
n
n
n
. n
n
n
n
it
n
3-13-33
_3-2:-33
1-25-33
"2- 8-39
2-1 4-39
2-21-33
3- 4-39
3- 6-33
3-13-33
3-2 >3 9
2- 7-33
2-1 5-39
2-22-30
3- 1-39
' '3- 6-39
3-l"3-39
"3-2C-39
"4-25-33
5- "3-33
5-11-33
5-1 8-39
"5-26-39
.'ฃ.-. I -33
1 1-25-38
2- S-39
2-C5-39
"2-22-39
3-' 1-39
"3- ฃ-39
'3-1 3-3J?
3-20-29
J 1-25-3 3
11-25-33
1-21-33
2--1 5-39
"2-21-39
' 3- 1-39
' 3- C-39
' 3-! 3-33
3-20-39
5- 4-33
5-1! -39
5-1 8-3S
5-26-39
6- 1-39
T
t:23FM
I2:30?M
I2:05PM
:33PM
PM
PM
2:45F?1
1 :OCPM
I:C3FM.
II:3CAM
|2:3C?M
4; GOPM
1:1 2PM
2:OOPM
1 :49PM
I2:30PM
11:1 5AM
2:30FM
2:OCFi1
3:OCPI1
rO' 45AM
12: 15PM
. 3: 30PM
I2:35PH
1 :50PM
3:30H
l2:45Pfl
1 :30PM
2: 15PM
Noon
II :OCA,1
1:1 CPM
2: 00PM
" :30PM
:OOPM
PM
1 :50AM
:50AM
:OOA;1
0:|EAM
I :OOA!1
!'00!J
?:I5PM
C:I5AM
I ;30PM
('")
20
20
M
12
12
12
12
a
20
3
8
9
8
e,
20
29
C
0
0 "
0
0
-
-
6
18
20 "
18
18
24
22
:' -..
H
I 5
I G~z
16
24
18
24
24
0
0
0
-
0
(is
-i-2
0
_
I
_
I
I -2
5-IO
I -2
3
- ' '
I -2 .
5,-lC
J
(j
0
0"
0
0
-
-
I
_
I -2
5-IO
0
-
_
I '
I
O-l
I -2
5-IO
-^2
0
C
_
0
0
-
7
DEPTH
(FT.)
27
2G
2l
20
21
21
23
21
24
23
23
-24
23
23
' 24
24
25
25
23
25
25
26
27
24
23
' 24
27 .
24
25
25
27 "
25
27
29
27
27
25
26
27
28
27
30
30 .
29
30
SAMPLII.T DEPTHS . . .. - ,,
3 hEET MIDDLE I Poor ABOVE BOTTOM
ฐC. ; ' PH '0.3. ฃ ฐC.
TEMP.
_
I.O
-
_
-
-
-
_
-
-
-
_
-
_
4.2
I I.O
II. 5
14.0
17.0
"20.0
1.5
_
-
' ' -
' 2.0
I.O
0.4
-
-
10.0
n. o
13.5
16.5
19.5
7.2
7.1
7.9
7.1
7.,
7.3
7.4
- -
7.3
7.1
7.1
7.2
7.2
7.3
-
7.3
7.1
7.5
3.2
8.1
8.1
8.1
" 8.2
8J
7.1
7.2
7.3
. 7.3
7.3
-7.1
3.1
8J
7.3-
7.3
- 7.5
7.5
7.3
7.1
8.0
R.I
8.1
8.0
8.1
*
6.3
5.7
13.5
3.3
4.3
5.0
7.4
5.7
' 4.2
3.9
5,2
6.3
7.5
6.9
7.1
7.3
5.1
12.1
11.3
10.7
9.7
8.5
10.0
13.8
6.1
7.3
9.0
8.8
C.I
8.4
6.7
13.3
13.9
7.4
10.7
- 10.2
9.7
9.4
8.2
7.3
10.9
10.6
10.6
8.2
-9.7
SAT.
94.8
C2.7
1 3C.2
97.5
93.6
87.3
IOC.9
98.3
99.7
97.5
51.3
9C.O
95.6
100.1
83.1
100.5
TEMP.
..
I.O
-
_
..
-
-1.2
11.3
II. 0
1 4.0
16.0
19.5
1.5
_
2.0
I.O
0.4
-
-
_
.
13.0
15.5
18.5
PH
7.2
7.1
0.0. %
PPM
6.7
-
7.0 j.J
7,1
7.1
7.3
7.1
7.5
8.1
8
t.l
8.1
8.2
-
7.2
7.2
-
_
7.2
7.3
7.5
7.4
7.3
7.2
8.1
8.1
8.1
3.3
5.?
7.2
-
12.1
1 I.C
10.5
8.9
8.7
10.0
-
6.2
6.7
-
-
5.6
10.7
10.2
9.6
9.0
7.6
-
10.0
8.5
9.5
SAT.
32.7
93.5
94.7
8C.O
87.5
100.8
"ฐC. PH
TEMP.
-
r.o
-
-
-
-
4.0
n.:
10.5
13.5 " '
16.0
17.0
1.25
-
-
2.0
I.O
I.O
-
9.5
10.5
13.0
15.5
17.0
7.2
7.1
7.7
1.0
7.. I
0.0. '
PPM
%
OAT.
4.6 " S
5.7
13. '4
3.,?
4.3
7.2 5, I
7. 4
-
T..3
T.I
7.0
7.2
' 1.2
7.4
- -
7.3
7.1
7.5
3.1
8.1
8.1
7.1
P.I
8.1
7.2
7.2
7.3
7.4
-
7.3
7.1
8.1
8.1
'7.2
7.3
'7.3
7.6
7.3
7.2
8.0
"8.1
'&.!
7.9
8.0
r.a
4.2
3.9
4.9 '
5.3 -
7,4
3,3
6.9
5.5 '
512
1 '
-------
(Corn.)
1 |li SAMPLI'iR QfPTHS . .... . . _|
STATION
G-18
i*
n
H
G-18A
CM 9
N
If
ff
n
n
n
n
B
n
n
T|
tl
GH9A
n
n
G-20
n
G-2|
tr
n
n
*
n
if
n
n
n
G-22
it
n
n
IT
n
n
n
n
DATE
11-25-38
1-24-39
5-1 3-39
5-26-39
6- 1-39
1-24-29
1-20-39
1-25- 3ฐ
2-13-39
2-21-39
2-27-39
TIME
3:1 0PM
2:OCPM
4: 00PM
8: OGAM
1 I : -J5AM
1 :OOPM
2:3CPM
4-35PM
At!
3-.20R-1
3- 3-39 i I:I5P!1
3-1 4-33
3-22-39
4- 3-30
5- 4-39
l:35?r
11:3 OAH
3:CCPn
2:I5FM
5-II-3C IO:CP.V-<
5-18-39 2:45P'-1
5-1 9-39
5-25-39
2: 50PM
2: 00PM
6- 1-39 j 1 0:OOAM
2- 6-39
5-25-39
6- 1-39
l-2>39
1-24-39
I-2I-3Q
1-27-39
2- 3-39
2- 7-39
2-1 4-39
2-2I-3C
3- 8-3S
3-I3-C9
3-2C-3"
St'jOPM
1 j:30AH
4:3CPM
3:OOPf<
2:OOpM
3:00?M
2:30PM
nl
pr:
1 1 :25AM
i i <
1 CE
8
-
It
10
13
_
22
K
24
2'',
19
C
0
C
0
0
0
-
15
-
OI'OU
(In.)
^
2
_
2
2
2
_
1
1
1-4
2-3
0
0
0
p
0
0
0
-
1
-
10 j 2
\~
10 12
12
15
I 5
22
12
1 4
1 3
r>15A,"1 |3
S:5CAf<
1-51-39 ll:30Af-1
1-27-39
2:30?M
2- 3-39 f 2:COPI-i
2- 7-39
2-f4-39
2-2 1 -3 J
3- 1-39
3- G-3J
3-13-30
3-2C-3:
5- 4-30
5-1 1-39
1 :OOPM
PM
Moon
IO:30Af1
IO:3:A;i
1 0: ^XV1
9:3?Af'
9: 30 AM
2:COFi1
2!
0.
10
13
1 4
14
17
16
14
24
i <;
f\
\J
9
2
1
1
0-1
1-2
J
"'
2^
2,
g
C-l
0-1
1-2
5-10
0
0
0
TOTAL
DEPTH
27
27
30
28
30
14
12
12
12
12
lOv
II
12
H
II
II
12
14
12
. 13
1C
14
14
!2oi
23
22
- 22
21
22
21 ,
20*
23 (
23
15
14
14
14
14
12
13^-
1 f"a
15
15
15
3 FEET ' MIDDLE t
0,,
TEMP.
0.0
_
16.5
20.0
-
0.3
0.0
-
_
_
_
_
_
4.2
13.5
15.0
16.0
_
16.0
22.0
_
IG.5
21.5
0.3
0.9
0.4
_
_
_
..
-
_
-.
-
0.4
-
_
_
-
_
_
-
-
13.0
14.0
PH
7.7
7.4
8.2
7.6
8.1
7.4
7.4
7.3
7.4
7.5
7.4
7.5
T.5
7.2
7.4
8.1
7.3
7.4
B.I
-
7.7 .
7.3
7.8
7.4
7.3
7.0
7.2
7.3
7.5
7.3
7.4
7.5
7.4
7.3
7.1
7.0
7.1
7.1
7.4
7.1
7.5
7.3
- _
7.2
7.1
O* '
0.0.
PPM
(2.4
12.5
9.2
6.3
8.7
12.5
II. 1
11.3
11.9
11.3
11.3
1C.!
9.5
9.4
7.9
9.5
6.2
6.0
9.9
7.1
-5.4
II."
7.6
7.1
II. 1
M.I
- 5.3
6.5
6.4
7.9
<-> 0
9.1
C.R
7.4
5.9
4.1
4.1
C r-
Jtป U
4.6
3.5
7.2
3.G
5.7
4.7
Oซ u
10.?.
3.7
SAT.
. C4.7
64.0
94.8
76.2
77.6
-
SC.5
90.5
61.0
60.2
71.4
61 .1
77.0
79.3
76.4
76.0
.36.7
28.5
96.4
33.5
Op
T
'EMP.
0.25
16.5
20.0
0.3
0.0
-
4.4
0.2
O.I
_
_
12.5
PH
_.
8.2
7.7
8.1
7.3
7.3
7.3
7.6
7.4
7.8
7.3
7.3
7.3
7.3
7.4
7.3
7.4
7.5
7.4
7.3
7.1
0.0.
PPM
_
9.1
6.6
8.4
10.8
1-0.3
12.4
9.3
7.9
10.8
7.5
6.5
6.7
7.5
3.7
8.9
8.5
7.3
6.6
5.8
SAT.
67.0
91.5
74.5
73.7
61.0
74.5
52.0
1 FOOT ABOVE BOTTOM
TEHI>.
0.25
-
16.5
18.5
0.2
0.0
-
-
. . -
-
-
-
4.2
13.0
14.5
14.5
-
16.0
20.5
-
1C.O
21.0
0.2
0.0
0.3
-
-
-
C.6
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
12. s
13.5
PH
7.7
7.4
8.2
. 7.7
7.7
. BROKE
7.1
7.3
7.3
7.5
7.3
. 7.5
7.5
7.1
7.4
8.1
7.8
7.5
8.1
-
7.6
r 7.3
-
7.1
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.3
7.5
7.3
7.3
7.3
7.4
7.2
7.1.
7.0
7.1
7.2
7.2
7.1
7.4
7.3
-
7.3
H
3.1
0.0.
PPM
1 1.8
13.2
9.2
6.5
; 4.3
6.3
10.7
II. 5
1 1.2
10.3
8.9
8.9
8.9
8.1
9.5
6.2
4.0
3.6
6.9
3.3
3.7
7.5
S.2
6.3
9,6_
4.3
e.3
6.3
7.2
7.9
8.9
3.7
6.7
6.4
5.4
5.0
3.6
G.O
4.2
5.4
7.0
G. 4
5.6
4.4
4. j
0.4
SAT.
- 31.2
66.0
; 45.6
43.4
73.6
62.0 .
89.6 i
60.5
39.0 .
63.4 '
37.0
75.4
69.0
43.2
66.0
30.0
41.'.'
-
19.7
A3
ON
ON
I
-------
(CO'JT. 1
J>T A T I 0 N
&-22
n
T1
G-22A
it
n
n
;i
tr
tf
ซ
G~23
G-24
n
tt
G-25
n
n
it
n
n
n
ซ
n
' C-26
n
n
n
n
w
DATE
5-1 8-39
5-2C-39
6- 1-39
2- 3-39
2- 7-39
2-1 4-39
2-22-39
3- 1-39
' 3- 6-39
3-1 3-39
3-2G-39
1 -21 -3:
1-21-33
1 -27-3S
2- 3-39
2- 7-39
2-1 "-39
2-21 -39
3- 1-39
3- 6-39
3-13-39
3-2C-33
1-21-39
2- 6-33
2-1 6-39
2-22-39
2-27-39
3- 8-39
3- 14-39
3-21-39
5-25-33
1-26-32
2-22-39
3- 3-39
3-1 4-39
3-21-39
5- 4-39
5-11-39
ซ 5-1 3-39
. '
G-26A
n
IT
n
n
n
n
5-26-39
2- 3-33
2-1 6-39
2-22-39
3- 9-39
3-1 4-3 n
|
Tl M t
lint
11 :30Ai'.
1 1 : 00AM
2:20Pt:
3: 30PM
Moon
[M
5:30PM
IO:iOAi1
10:1 SAM
1 0:0 0AM
9:l5Ai1
3:5 ;PN
nlSPf'i
3:30P'1
3:OQPM
3 -.00 Pi
PM
pl-l
10: 50AM
IO:55AM
IO:30Ai-;
9:40Ai;
3: OOP.1:
1 !:OOAr'.
1 0-1 5AM
10: 00AM
3:1 5PM
3: 10PM
9: 15AM
2: 20PM
7: 3 0AM
2:JOPM
1 1 :20AM
2:DO?n
1 :QCP?1
1 :20PM
NOON
1 :OOPM
!:OOPM
9:30A!-!
MOON
H:55AM
II :OOAI-:
1 : 40 ?''"'.
I2:4CPT'
3-21-39 I I:OCPM
1
1 r r
1 L. t OH'JW
(IN.) i (IN.)
0
0
-
12
12
14
24
15
12
2-1
22
10
9
2
8
4
6
S
8
5
I 8
18
n
8
15
19
!4
20
20
20
-
8,
I5ฑ
10
[ O
^
0
0
0
r>
u
15
17,
I5j
18
18
19
0
0
-
1
CM
0-!
DR.
1-2
5-10
1-2
0-1
2
2
4
1
! ,
"2~
C-l
1-2
5-iฐ
-^-2
0
2
r
i
PR.
5-DR
7
4-5
0
-
3
_
7 .
4-5
0
0
0
0
0
2
1 -
Or.
7
4-5
0
i
SAMPLI re 5EPTus
T
1 OT AL
DEPTH
(FT.)
IS
17
15
12
I2i
125
I2-|-
llf
ni
12
13
13
16
7
7
7
8
7
6
7
8
19
I0g
[0
10
I0,
lOg
12
12
12
12
18
16
18
19,
l8Jf
18
18
18
18
22
22^
22*
24
24,
24i
3 FEET , r'lOQLE
^
TEMP.
1 4.0
17.0
20.0
_
-
_
_
-
.
-
0.4
0.4
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
0.0
_
_
-
_
16.5
_
_
_
_
_
11.5
1 1.5
14.0
16.0
_
_ .
_
_
PH o.o. ซ;
8.2
8.1
8.1
7.3
7.1
7.3
7.4
7.2
. 7.|
7.1
7.2
7.0
7.2
7.1
7.4
7.4
7.2
7,0
7.2
7.4
7.4
7.3 '
7.4
7.4
7.5
7.1
7.3
7.3
7.2
7.4
7.4
7.1
8.2
3.1 '
8.1
8.2
7.3
7.3
7.4
7.4 '
7.4
7.1
i
PPM SAT.
II. 1
9.3
si?
6.6
6.5
7.7
6.4
5.7
4.6
5.0
5.5
7.1
3.5
4.2
5.7
5.1
6.5
5.S
4.8
4.3
3.7
9.6
IO.S
11.6
II. 1
11.5
10.2
9.5
7.2
5.5
S.3
8.5
7.8
7.5
6.3
10.7
10.6
1 0.3
9.8
9.9
10.0
10.5
3.3
7.7
7.5
100,7
95.7
93.8
38.0
49.2
55.7
66.0
' 97.5
96.3
99.3
98.5
ฐC.
TE.'IP.
_
-
PH 0.0.
7.3
-
PPM
4.7
-
,j
SAT.
1 FOOT A30VE 30TTOM
ฐC.
TEMP.
13.0
16.0
18.5
- -
-
-
_
_
-
. -
- -
0.6
0.6
ซ
_
- _
_
_
-
_
_
-
0.6
_
- -
"
-
-
_
IS.O
.
- -
_
_
ll.i!
1 I.C
-13.0
-16.0
_
_
.-
.
_
_
PH ! O.C.
3.2
8.1
8.0
7.3
7.4
?.!
7.2
f.4
-
7.3
7,0
I.I
?.2
7.1
7.2
7.1
7.3
7.3
_
7.2
PP:I
9.3
3i7
6;9
5;5
5.7
4i9
7.2
6.3
5.G
4.5
4.8
5.4
6.8
3.3
4-. 4
5.4
5. 1
6.5
5.6
4-. 6
4.6
7.0 4.7
7.2
7.1
7.?
7.2
7.3
7.4
7.3
7.2
7.8
7.3
7.2
7.3
7.4
7.1
8.?
8.1
O.I
8.2
7.3
7.3
7.2
4.7
&.0
7.3
8.2
6.3
7.9
6.2
e. 4
S.5
6.5
7.5
e.7
6.7
6.6
I0.9
I0.7
I G.I
9.5
I 0.0
9.0
I 0.3
7.4 8*5
7.4 7.4
7.1
7.I
oj
SAT.
92.5
37.5
73.3
37.4
47.2
32. e
E6.0
93. c
96.5
S5..-1
95. -J
I-O
cr\
------- An error occurred while trying to OCR this image.
-------
(COr'T. )
STATI ON
G-32
i n
n
: G-33
M
n
If
a
n
n
e-34
*
n
n
if
n
n
G-35 -
n
n
n
** n
M
n
G-36
- n
ป n
-, n
n
ซ
n
6-37
Tl
n
n
n
. R
C^O
tr*ซjo
n
n
tf
,n
-ซ
G-33A
G-39
:
DATE
3- 3-39
" 3-1 4-39
3-21-39
.2- 6-33
2-1 3-39
2-20-33
" 2-27-33
3- G-33
3-1 -1-33
' 3-21 -39
.2- S--33
2-1 3-39
' 2-20-33
2-27-39
3- 3-39
3-1 4-39
3-21 -35
2- 3-33
2-1 5-33
2-22-39
3- 1-39
' 3- 7-33
3-! 3-39
' 3^-20-3 3
' 2- 7-33
-" 2-15-3:
' 2-22-33
3- 1-39
' 3- 7-39
' 3-13-33
3-20-39
2-1 5-39
2-21 -39
' 3- 1-39
' 3- 7-39
3-1 4-33
" 3-20-39
. '2-15-33
2-21 -39
. 3- 1-39
3- 7-39
'3-I-1-39
'3-20-39
'
3-21 -33
2-1 C-33
2-22-39
3- 1-39
TIME
!I:2CAM
MOON
1 1 : 45AM
3: 00PM
2: 00PM
F!1
I2:45?f1
I!:C5A-!
13: 25AM
ri:20vW
3: 45PM -
2:30PM
PM
4: 05PM
iO:23AK
IO:C5A:t
i 0:3CAi"
"II :I5Ar-!
MOON
2:45?H
|C:3CAM
'-1:1 0PM
2: 00PM
ClOPil
!2:3:Ri
!2:45.T.
2:25P;-i
1 I:OC.V!
10; I 0AM
1:45 PM
-12. -15PM
1:1 5PM
PM
1 I:30AM
(C:35A,i
2: 3 0PM
I:50P.;
1 : 45K*
PM
. HOON
ll:OOAfi
2:IOPM
2:1 5FM
ICE.
([':}
in
l'3
17
12
12
15
19
1 3
13
- 12
14
15
1 G
IS
20
- - H
15
19
.20
-20
1 3
24 .
10
IE
21 .
20
22'
-1 &
22
18
22
25
-23
25
24
15
22
- 24
21
22
20
1 : -;jfi i i 26
1
3:1 Jrli
3: 25PM
2:|5pM
18
24
-
Stiou
(ซ;.)
7
4-5
0
1
0-1
;-i
7
2-3
1 -
C-l
>l
7
2-3
- 1
OR.
DR.
'" ?9
ฃ- i
0
1
OR.
i
0
C-l
DR.
7
4-5
0
^
DR.
7
4-5
0 - '
0-1
i
On.
TOTAL
!EPTH
FT.)
i!*
12
12
12
12
13
13
14
5
5
5
C
7
e,
6v
20ฃ
30
30
29
30 '
30
32
2a
29,
2Si
29
2S
30
30
30
31
30
31
32
31
31
31
31
31
33
32
24
33
37
39
SAMPLI KG
3 I-EET , ill
ฐC. ' PH
^TEMP.
-
1
:
:
-
-_
-
-
-
-
7.4
' 7.3
7.1
r.r
7.3
7.4
7.3
7.3
"7.5
'7.1
7.4~|
'7.3
7.4
7.3
7.4
7,5
7.1
7.5
7.1
7.2
7.1
7.3
7.3
7.1
7.0
7.1
7.2
7.1
7.4
' 7.3
7.1
7.2l
7.2
7.2
7.5
7.3
7.1
7.3
7.3
7.3
7.5
7.5
7.3
7.6
7.5
ป c
' *J
7.3
.0.0.
PPM
5.1
5.2
5.6
9.1
3.7
7.2
C.S
5.9
6.3
5.1
9.7
0.4
0.9
o ,
els
G.;
8.4
4.1
5.9
6.8
7 ^
'ปa
C.I
7.5
3.1
4,7
r.o
7.3
8.2
" 7.1
7.0
6.5
6.2
7.2
8.0
3.2
7.4
8.1
9.9
9.7
1 1.0
11.8
11.4
12.5
12.7
10.7
lO.i
SAT.
ฐr
_ Lป
TEMP.
-
-
-
-"
"*
PH
7.3
7.1
7.2
7.1
7.3
7.1
7.1
7.2
7.1
7.4
7.1
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.4
7.3
7.1
7.2
7.3
7.2
7.5
7.5
7.3
7.4
7.4
7.2
DEPTHS
DOLE
' 1 FOOT A80V-E 3CTTOM
- 0.0. ' ^
PPM SAT.
-
6.7
3.4
5.4
8.0
2.5
5.!
6.3
8.1
8.0
6.9
6.1
6.4
7.4
7.3
8.2
7.5
8.2
3.4
3.4
10.7
12.2
11.4
II.G
10.1
9.G
ฐc. -
TEMP.
~
-
-
-
*
-
.""
PH
7.3
7.3
7.1
7.5
7.3
714
7.3
7:3
7.5
7.1
7.'4
7.1
7.2
7.1
7.3
7.3
7.f
7.1
7.1
7.2
7.1
7.3
7.3
7.0
7.1
7.2
7.2
7.3
7.3
7.1
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.4
7.5
7.3
7.6
7.2
7.2
7.2
.0.0.
f ?M
5.1
5.5
5.7
'3.7
3.2
3.5
9.5
5.9
6.7
5.1
4.3
3,'?
5.3
M
6,6
6,7
C.7
&
5.G
?;i
7.2
7.1
6.4
4.9
5.7
5.8
6.4
6.5
0# '(
8,'C
8.2
3.4
3.2
9.5
10.0
12.4
7.3
3.0
3.2
%
SAT.
------- An error occurred while trying to OCR this image.
-------
STATIO.-J
^G-49
ft
6-50
n
G-51
DATE
3- 9-33
3-13-39
3-20-39
3- 9-39
3-13-39
3-20-3S
Tint
2:<5PM
ICE
(Is.)
ปป
10: 45AM ' 26
1 1 :35A'1
3:25^1
27
22
ll:09Af ?l
II :JOA.'i
25
3-20-39 j |0:20A;i ! 27
L..,. .. .. 1 ._.,.,.,. . 1
SNOW
(1 H. )
^
3
0-2
7
" 3
TOTA L
OtPTH
(FT.)
42
42
44
48
45
0-3 ,
-------
-272-
APPENDIX X.
CHEMICAL DATA
GREEN BAY
1955/1956
-------
Appendix X.
CHSKTCAL DETERKINATION'S GREEN BAY, 1955
Part 1 Inner Green Bay
Group 1. South of a generally East-West line througi
Grassy Islands and extending south to the mouth of the
Fox River
Position
1
8
10
11
12
13
22
23
Date
6-16-55
6-16-55
6-16-55
8-17-55
Group
6-16-5 ซ;
6-16-55
6-16-55
8-17-55
8-17-55
8-17-55
8-17-55
9-1-55
8-17-55
Depth, Dissolved
feet Oxygen, p. p.m.
26 Bottom
10
3
9
1.5
0.7
1.7
0.3
Tempera-
ture,
ฐc.
24.0
21.5
20.0
27.0
Biochemical
Oxygen Total
Per Cent Demand, Alkalinity,
Saturated p. p.m. p. p.m.
18
8
19
4
16.0
13.5, 24.0
15.5
__
-
pH
2. North of a generally East-West line through the Grassy Islands
and south of a generally East-West line fron the tip of Long
Tail Point to Point Sable and including Long Tail Slough
28 Bottom
10
3
13
8
8
13
14
10
1.9
4.7
6.3
0.0
6>
0.0
6.5
7.0
5.9
20.0
20.3
22.5
23.0
27.0
27.5
27.0
21.8
26.5
21
52
72
0
79
0
80
79
72
11.5
9.0
11.0
26.5
5.3
25.0
5.2
5.5
4.1
0+138
0+134
0+138
2+128
0+120
0+134
7^6
8.4
7.6
8.4
8.2
8.4
IV'
-I
to
I
-------
Appendix X.(Continued)
CHEMICAL DETERMINATIONS GREEN BAY, 1955
Part 1 Inner Green Bay
Group 2. North of a generally East-West line through the Grassy Islands
and south of a generally East-West line from the tip of Long Tail Point
to Point Sable and including Long Tail Slough (Continued)
Position Date
25
29
31
35
36
37
38
39
6-16-55
6-16-55
6-16-55
9-1-55
6-6-55
6-6-55
9-1-55
9-1-55
7-18-55
7-18-55
7-18-55
7-25-55
Depth, Dissolved
feet Oxygen, p. p.m.
20
10
3
Group 1.
21
15 Bottom
3
20
20
19
15
15
3
6.9
8.9
9.1
Part 2 Middle
Vicinity of the
5.7
6.2
7.8
6.6
6.6
7.3
7.2
8.0
0.5
Tempera-
ture, Per Cent
ฐC. Saturated
20.0
18.8
20.5
Green Bay
Navagational
21.0
16.0
18.5
22.1
22.8
22.0
21.8
21.6
24.1
75
95
100
Channel
to
62
82
75
76
82
81
90
6
Biochemical
Oxygen
Demand ,
p. p.m.
1.3
1.*
1.3
2.2
0.1
0.1
3.9
3.3
2.3
2.0
2.2
7.5 ,
Total
Alkalinity,
p. p.m.
"
0+13*
T+126
T+126
T+122
0+120
0+30
pH
*.._
8.3
8.*
8.*
8.*
8.3
7.5
I
ro
-------
Appendix X. (Continued)
CHEMICAL DETERMINATIONS GRE3N BAT, 1955
Part 2 Middle Green Bay
Group 2. Vicinity of the mouth of the Big Suamico River
Tempera-
Position
44
46
48
49
57
58
59
Date
8-30-55
8-30-55
6-16-55
6-6-55
6-6-55
6-16-55
6-6-55
6-6-55
6-16-55
6-16-55
6-16-55
6-16-55
, 6-16-55
6-16-55
6-16-55
9-1-55
8-25-55
Depth, Dissolved
feet Oxygen, p. p.m.
10 Bottom
Surface "
Group 3
5 Mid-depth
13
3
6 Mid-depth
13 Bottom
3
16 Bottom
3
Group 4
25 Bottom
20
15
10
3
23
24
7.3
7.8
. Vicinity
8.1
6.2
8.9
8.7
6.9
8.7
7.7
9.1
Vicinity of
9.6
9.0
8.5
7.5
6.4
6.5
6.4
ture,
20.0
20.5
of Little
19.0
17.0
20.0
19.8
18.5
19.0
20.0
19.0
Per Cent
Saturated
80
86
Tail Point
87
64
97
95
73
93
84
97
Biochemical
Oxygen Total
Demand, Alkalinity,
p. p.m. p. p.m. pH
T+128 8.4
T+128 8.4
0.8
2.1
3.0
1.3
l.l
2.1
0.7
1.0
the Entrance Light
18.8
19.5
20.5
20.5
22.5
26.5
26.5
103
97
94
83
73
80
79
1.2 '
1.9
0.3
1.5
1.7
1.0 0+124
1.0 0+124
-------
Appendix X. (Continued)
CHEMICAL DETERMINATIONS GREEN BAT, 1955
Part 2 Middle Green Bay
Group 5 Point Comfort to Schumakers Point East Shore
Depth, Dissolved
Position
61
63
79
82
84
86
91
j
Date
6-6-55
6-6-55
8-30-55
8-30-55
8-30-55
9-2-55
9-2-55
9-2-55
9-2-55
9-2-55
9-2-55
9-2-55
9-2-55
9-12-55
9-12-55
9-12-55
9-12-55
9-12-55
Tempera-
ture,
feet Oxygen, p. p.m. ฐC.
15 Bottom
3
20
10 -
Surface
Group 3
32 Bottom
15
Surface
42 Bottom
20
Surface
45 Bottom
20
Surface
52
88 Bottom
40
Surface
30 Bottom
Surface
6.7
8.9
7.3
8.2
8.4
Part 3 Outer
16.5
18.5
24.6
24.3
24.0
Green Bay
Per Cent
Saturated
68
94
87
97
98
Biochemical
Oxygen Total
Demand, Alkalinity.
P. p. m.
0.1
0.1
2.4
2.3
2.6
p. p.m.
T+132
' PH
,^^
. 8.2
Schumakers Point to Sherwood Point
3.9
6.9
8.1
6.3
7.1
7.9
4.8
7.7
8.5
3.6
5.6
7.7
3.6
8.3
8.6
19.6
22.0
21.8
18.2
21.4
22.2
18.8
ZZ.Q
22.0
17.0
10.2
1S.O
17.1
17.0
17.0
42
78
91
66
80
90
57
87
96
37
44
81
88
85
88
0.0
0.0
0.9
0.5
0.5
0.7
1.0
1.1
1.3
0.6
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.6
1.2
0+118
0+116
0+120
0+119
0+120
0+116
0+118
0+116
0+118
0+U5
M
__
_,
8.0
8.5
8.5
7.9
8.3
8.5
7.7
8.4
8.5
7.5
_
__
i
ro
Balch et al, 1956
-------
APPENDIX XI
Lower Fox, Oconto, Peshtigo and Menominee Rivers
BOD Loadings to Lower Green Bay, 1956-1973
-------
-278-
Pox RIVER
I 30
"8 s <
~*33
^n
ra *S
g 350-
or
ui
ฐ*o 30)
ix
ป ฃ J -250-
-------
5 -DRV
MD
vn
t)
P
o>
CO
er
y
c+
cr
to
W
tn
c*-
p.
IT1
O
P
fD
(P
O
O
O
rt-
P
ง
H-
-------
-280-
RIVER
2
W
ป
X
O
S*
to
0)
+JU
"h ป
t'-8 ^ <
It/ "* ฐi
-l.o 60 )5
r'ป x,
T" 5J
-1.0 "fc
h-ii
CQ
ป
-------
-261-
RIVER
juฃ 30 T
- ! :..+..*
i
i r " r-:-
i- . ' J. ,
1 : ! "
t ! i 4 :
I " """. ~ T "
I ! |
LL L : i i :
r j ..... i , .
I ..I.... i : i I
- - - j
|
i ,
: i i
r_^.._
!
. i .
i
i
:
L .
1
\y
j i
". !"
[ i
I i '
* L L
r :
> i it
.._..
""'"I
!
Lt ! <
_ ! j^-t
i IT
i ' f
1 1 .!
i i i !-'
f
------- |