U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
NATIONAL EUTROPHICATION SURVEY
WORKING PAPER SERIES
REPORT
ON
ST, LOUIS RESERVOIR
GRATIOT COUNTY
MICHIGAN
EPA REGION V
WORKING PAPER No, 212
PACIFIC NORTHWEST ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
An Associate Laboratory of the
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH CENTER - CORVALLIS, OREGON
and
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH CENTER - LAS VEGAS, NEVADA
ifOPO 697-O32
-------
REPORT
ON
ST, LOUIS RESERVOIR
GRATIOT COUNTY
MICHIGAN
EPA REGION V
WORKING PAPER No, 212
210
WITH THE COOPERATION OF THE
[MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
AND THE
MICHIGAN NATIONAL GUARD
MARCH, 1975
-------
CONTENTS
Page
Foreword i i
List of Michigan Study Lakes iv
Lake and Drainage Area Map v
Sections
I. Conclusions 1
II. Lake and Drainage Basin Characteristics 4
III. Lake Water Quality Summary 5
IV. Nutrient Loadings 8
V. Literature Reviewed 13
VI. Appendices 14
-------
FOREWORD
The National Eutrophication Survey was initiated in 1972 in
response to an Administration commitment to investigate the nation-
wide threat of accelerated eutrophication to fresh water Takes and
reservoirs. ...
OBJECTIVES
The Survey was designed to develop, in conjunction with state
environmental agencies, information on nutrient sources, concentrations,
and impact on selected freshwater lakes as a basis for formulating
comprehensive and coordinated national, regional, and .state management .
practices relating to point-source discharge reduction and non-point
source pollution abatement in lake watersheds. ,. : ,
ANALYTIC APPROACH
The mathematical and statistical procedures selected for the
Survey's eutrophication analysis are based on related concepts that:
a. A generalized representation or model relating
sources, concentrations, and impacts can be constructed.
b. By applying measurements of relevant parameters
associated with lake degradation, the generalized model
can be transformed into an operational representation of
a lake, its drainage basin, and related nutrients.
c. With such a transformation, an assessment of the
potential for eutrophication control can be made.
LAKE ANALYSIS
In this report, the first stage of evaluation of lake and water-
shed data collected from the study lake and its drainage basin is
documented. The report is formatted to provide state environmental
agencies with specific information for basin planning [§303(e)], water
quality criteria/standards review [§303(c)], clean lakes [§314(a,b)],
and water quality monitoring [§106 and §305(b)] activities mandated
by the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972.
-------
m
Beyond the single lake analysis, broader based correlations
between nutrient concentrations (and loading) and trophic condi-
tion are being made to advance the rationale and data base for
refinement of nutrient water quality criteria for the Nation's
fresh water lakes. Likewise, multivariate evaluations for the
relationships between land use, nutrient export, and trophic
condition, by lake class or use, are being developed to assist
in the formulation of planning guidelines and policies by EPA
and to augment plans implementation by the states.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The staff of the National Eutrophication Survey (Office of
Research & Development, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency)
expresses sincere appreciation to the Michigan Department of
Natural Resources for professional involvement and to the
Michigan National Guard for conducting the tributary sampling
phase of the Survey.
A. Gene Gazlay, former Director, and David H. Jenkins, Acting
Director, Michigan Department of Natural Resources; Carlos Fetterolf,
Chief Environmental Scientist, Bureau of Water Management; and John
Robinson, Chief, Dennis Tierney, Aquatic Biologist, and Albert Massey,
Aquatic Biologist, Water Quality Appraisal Section, Bureau of Water
Management, Department of Natural Resources, provided invaluable lake
documentation and counsel during the course of the Survey. John Vogt,
Chief of the Bureau of Environmental Health, Michigan Department of
Public Health, and his staff were most helpful in identifying point
sources and soliciting municipal participation in the Survey.
Major General Clarence A. Schnipke (Retired), then the Adjutant
General of Michigan, and Project Officer Colonel Albert W. Lesky,
who directed the volunteer efforts of the Michigan National Guardsmen,
are'also gratefully acknowledged for their assistance to the Survey.
-------
IV
LAKE NAME
Allegan Res.
Barton
Belleville
Betsie
Brighton
Caro Res.
Charlevoix
Chemung
Constantine Res
Crystal
Deer
Ford
Fremont
Higgins
Holloway Res.
Houghton
Jordon
Kent
Long
Macatawa
Manistee
Mona
Muskegon
Pentwater
Pere Marquette
Portage
Randall
Rogers Pond
Ross
St. Louis Res.
Sanford
Strawberry
Thompson
Thornapple
Union
White
NATIONAL EUTROPHICATION SURVEY
STUDY LAKES
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COUNTY
Allegan
Kalamazoo
Wayne
Benzie
Livingston
Tuscola
Charlevoix
Livingston
St. Joseph
Montcalm
Marquette
Washtenaw
Newago
Roscommon
Genesee, Lapeer
Roscommon
Ionia, Barry
Oakland
St. Joseph
Ottawa
Manistee
Muskegon
Muskegon
Oceana
Mason
Houghton
Branch
Mecosta
Gladwin
Gratiot
Midland
Livingston
Livingston
Barry
Branch
Muskegon
-------
Michigan
Map Location
ST. LOUIS RESERVOIR
Tributary Sampling Site
Lake Sampling Site
Sewage Treatment Facility
Direct Drainage Area Limits
Indirect Drainage Basin
1/21 2
Mi
-------
ST: LOUIS RESERVOIR
STORE! NO. 2693
I. CONCLUSIONS
A. Trophic Condition:
Survey data and the records of others (Robinson, 1970) show
that St. Louis Reservoir is eutrophic. Of the 35 Michigan lakes
sampled in November when essentially all were well-mixed, 28 had
less mean total and dissolved phosphorus, and 24 had less mean
inorganic nitrogen; of the 41 lakes sampled, 34 had greater mean
Secchi disc transparency, but only eight had less mean chlorophyll a_.
Survey limnologists observed an algal bloom in progress in
June and noted the occurrence of rooted aquatic vegetation in
the shallower areas of the reservoir.
B. Rate-Limiting Nutrient:
A significant loss of phosphorus occurred in the assay sample
between the time of collection and the beginning of the assay, and
the results are not representative of conditions in the reservoir
at the time the sample was taken.
The reservoir data indicate nitrogen limitation in June and
September but phosphorus limitation in November.
C. Nutrient Controllability:
1. Point sources—During the sampling year, St. Louis Reser-
voir received a total phosphorus load at the extremely high rate
* See Appendix A.
-------
of 1,030 Ibs/acre/yr or 115.4 g/m2/yr. This rate is 36 times
the rate proposed by Vollenweider (in press) as "dangerous";
i.e., a eutrophic rate (see page 12). However, Vollenweider's
model probably is not applicable to water bodies with short
hydraulic retention times, and the hydraulic retention time of
St. Louis Reservoir is certain to be very short. For example,
the maximum depth sampled during the Survey was four feet; and,
if the mean depth of the reservoir also is four feet, the mean
hydraulic retention time would be a very short 1% days. It is
very likely then, that Vollenweider's model does not apply to
this reservoir.
It is calculated that the City of Alma contributed just over
69% of the total phosphorus load to the reservoir during the
sampling year. While even complete removal of phosphorus at
2
this source would still leave a loading rate of about 35.6 g/m /
yr, considering the very short hydraulic retention time of the
reservoir, it is possible that a high degree of phosphorus re-
moval at Alma would result in a persistent phosphorus limitation
(see page 7) and a reduction in the incidence and severity of
nuisance algal blooms. However, it appears that a marked improve-
ment of the trophic condition of the reservoir will require re-
duction of phosphorus loads from other sources as well (see below),
-------
It appears that industrial wastes, such as food-processing
wastes, may have been contributing significant nutrient loads
to the Alma plant during the sampling year. The population of
Alma is about 9,700, but the effluent phosphorus population
equivalent was over 45,000, and the effluent nitrogen population
equivalent was 19,300.
It is noted that construction of secondary treatment facilities,
including phosphorus removal, was underway at Alma during the Survey
sampling year (Kooistra, 1973).
2. Non^point sources—During the sampling year, the non-point
phosphorus export rate of the Pine River was a very high 172 Ibs
per square mile of drainage area (see page 12), and the export
N/P ratio of 18/1 is indicative of point sources beyond the 25-
mile limit of the Survey*. However, Robinson (1970) notes that
the upper half of the Pine river watershed, above Alma, is used
mainly for agricultural purposes.
Whatever the cause of the high phosphorus export rate, the
very high drainage area to reservoir area ratio of 1,554 to 1
will ensure a high phosphorus load to St. Louis Reservoir even
with a moderate export rate, and all phosphorus inputs to the
reservoir should be minimized to the greatest practicable degree..
* See Working Paper No. 1, "Survey Methods, 1972".
-------
II. LAKE 'AND DRAINAGE BASIN CHARACTERISTICS
A. Lake Morphometry:
1. Surface area: 158 acres .
2. Mean depth: unknown.
3. Maximum depth: unknown.
4. Volume: unknown.
5. Mean hydraulic retention time: unknown.
B. Tributary and Outlet:
(See Appendix B for flow data)
1. Tributaries -
Name
Pine River
Minor tributaries &
immediate drainage -
Totals
2. Outlet -
Pine River
C. Precipitation***:
1. Year of sampling: 34.9 inches.
2. Mean annual: 28.4 inches.
Drainage area* Mean flow11
286.0 mi
.2
24.8 mi
.2
310.8 mi
.2
198.0 cfs
10.0 cfs
208.0 cfs
311.0 mi2** 208.0 cfs**
t Fetterolf, 1973.
* Drainage areas are accurate within ±5%; mean daily flows for 74% of the
sampling sites are accurate within ±25% and the remaining sites up to
±40%; and mean monthly flows, normalized mean monthly flows, and mean
annual flows are slightly more accurate than mean daily flows.
** Includes area of lake; flow adjusted to equal sum of inflows.
*** See Working Paper No. 1.
-------
III. LAKE WATER QUALITY SUMMARY
\
St. Louis Reservoir was sampled three times during the open-water
season of 1972 by means of a pontoon-equipped Huey helicopter. Each time,
samples for physical and chemical parameters were collected from two sta-
tions on the reservoir (see map, page v). During each visit, a single
depth-integrated (near bottom to surface) sample was composited from the
stations for phytoplankton identification and enumeration; and during the
second visit, a single five-gallon depth-integrated sample was composited
for algal assays. Also each time, a depth-integrated sample was collected
from each of the stations for chlorophyll a_ analysis. The maximum depth
sampled at station 1 was 4 feet; only near-surface samples were collected
at station 2.
The results obtained are presented in full in Appendix C, and the
data for the fall sampling period, when the lake essentially was well-
mixed, are summarized below. Note, however, the Secchi disc summary
is based on all values.
For differences in the various parameters at the other sampling
times, refer to Appendix C.
-------
A. Physical and chemical characteristics:
FALL VALUES
Parameter Minimum
Temperature (Cent.) 4.0
Dissolved oxygen (mg/1) 11.5
Conductivity (ymhos) 590
pH (units) 7.8
Alkalinity (mg/1) 159
Total P (mg/1) 0.016
Dissolved P (mg/1) 0.009
N09 + NO, (mg/1) 0.280
Ammonia fmg/1) 0.060
Secchi disc (inches) 24
Biological character!'si tics:
(11/14/72)
Mean Median
4.0
11.5
790
7.8
200
0.134
0.093
0.983
0.243
ALL VALUES
4.0
11 .5
890
7.8
212
0.120
0.072
1.280
0.210
37
1. Phytoplankton* -
Sampling
Date
09/17/72
11/14/72
Dominant
Genera
1. Fragilaria
2. Cyclotella
3. Synedra
4. Navicula
5. Achnanthes
Other genera
Total
1. Synedra
2. Raphidiopsis
3. Lyngbya
4. Navicula
5. Achnanthes
Other genera
Total
39
Maximum
4.0
11.5
890
7.9
228
0.265
0.199
1.390
0.460
50
Number
per ml
530
458
410
361
205
1,072
3,036
137
128
116
92
88
319
880
* The June sample was lost in shipment.
-------
2. Chlorophyll a^ -
(Because of instrumentation problems during the 1972 sampling,
the following values may be in error by plus or minus 20 percent.)
Sampling Station Chlorophyll a_
Date Number (yg/1)
06/14/72 01 19.1
02 10.5
09/17/72 01 1.0
02 1.0
11/14/72 01 1.2
02 0.7
C. Limiting Nutrient Study:
There was a 53% loss of phosphorus in the assay sample between
the time of collection and the beginning of the assay, and the
results are not representative of conditions in the reservoir at
the time the sample was taken (09/17/72). Had the loss not occurred,
the expected control yield of the test alga, Selenastrum capricornu-
tum, would have been a very high 54 mg/.l (dry weight) based on the
yields obtained in other assays with similar nutrient concentrations.
The reservoir data indicate nitrogen limitation in June (N/P .
ratio = 2/1) and September (N/P = 7/1) but probable phosphorus
limitation in November (N/P = 14/1).
-------
IV. NUTRIENT LOADINGS
(See Appendix D for data)
For the determination of nutrient loadings, the Michigan National
Guard collected monthly near-surface grab samples from each of the tribu-
tary sites indicated on the map (page v), except for the high runoff
months of March and May when extra samples were collected. Sampling was
begun in October, 1972, and was completed in October, 1973.
Through an interagency agreement, stream flow estimates for the year
of sampling and a "normalized" or average year were provided by the Michi-
gan District Office of the U.S. Geological Survey for the tributary sites
nearest the lake.
In this report, nutrient loads for sampled tributaries were determined
by using a modification of a U.S. Geological Survey computer program for
calculating stream loadings*. Since no unimpacted tributaries were sampled,
the nutrient loadings for "minor tributaries and immediate drainage" ("ZZ"
of U.S.G.S) were estimated by using the means of the nutrient loads, in
2
Ibs/mi /year, in tributaries to nearby Holloway Reservoir at stations B-l
2
and F-l and multiplying the means by the ZZ area in mi .
The operator of the Alma wastewater treatment plant provided monthly
effluent samples and corresponding flow data.
No industrial effluents were sampled.
* See Working Paper No. 1.
-------
A. Waste Sources:
1. Known municipal
t
Name
Alma
Pop.
Served*
9,790
Treatment
prim.
clarifier
2. Known industrial** -
Name
Leonard Refineries,
Alma
Lobdell-Emery & Alma
Products, Alma
Michigan Chemical Co.
Treatment
?
?
?
Mean Receiving
Flow (mgd) Water
•2.439 Pine River
Mean Receiving
Flow (mgd) Water
? Pine River
? Pine River
? Pine River
t Kooistra, 1973.
* 1970 Census.
** Robinson, 1970.
-------
10
B. Annual Total Phosphorus Loading - Average Year:
1. Inputs -
Ibs P/ % of
Source yr total
a. Tributaries (non-point load) -
Pine River 49,250 30.3
b. Minor tributaries & immediate
drainage (non-point load) - 860 0.5
c. Known municipal STP's -
Alma 112,570 69.2
d. Septic tanks* - ? -
e. Known industrial -
Leonard Refineries ?
L-E & A Products ?
Michigan Chemical ?
f. Direct precitation** - 20_ <0.1
Total 162,700 100.0
2. Outputs -
Lake outlet - Pine River 156,160
3. Net annual P accumulation - 6,540 pounds
* Probably insignificant.
** See Worki ng Paper No. 1.
-------
11
C. Annual Total Nitrogen Loading - Average Year:
1. Inputs -
Ibs N/ % of
Source yr total
a. Tributaries (non-point load) -
Pine River 889,560 82.6
b. Minor tributaries & immediate
drainage (non-point load) - 41,640 3.9
c. Known municipal STP's -
Alma 144,890 13.4
d. Septic tanks* - ? -
e. Known industrial -
Leonard Refineries ?
L-E & A Products ?
Michigan Chemical ?
f. Direct precipitation** - 1,520 0.1
Total 1,077,610 100.0
2. Outputs -
Lake outlet - Pine River 1,157,460
3. Net annual N loss - 79,850 pounds
* Probably insignificant.
** See Working Paper No. 1.
-------
12
D. Mean Annual Non-point Nutrient Export by Subdrainage Area:
Tributary Ibs P/mi2/yr Ibs N/mi2/yr N/P Ratio
Pine River 172 3,110 18/1
E. Yearly Loading Rates:
In the following table, the existing phosphorus loading
rates are compared to those proposed by Vollenweider (in press).
Essentially, his "dangerous" rate is the rate at which the
receiving water would become eutrophic or remain eutrophic;
his "permissible" rate is that which would result in the
receiving water remaining oligotrophic or becoming oligotrophic
if morphometry permitted. A mesotrophic rate would be consid-
ered one between "dangerous" and "permissible".
Note that Vollenweider's model may not be applicable to
water bodies with very short hydraulic retention times.
Total Phosphorus Total Nitrogen
Total Accumulated Total Accumulated
Ibs/acre/yr 1,029.7 41.4 6,820.3 loss*
grams/mVyr 115.42 4.64 764.4
Vollenweider loading rates for phosphorus
(g/m2/yr) based on surface area and mean
outflow of St. Louis Reservoir:
"Dangerous" (eutrophic rate) 3.20
"Permissible" (oligotrophic rate) 1.60
* There was an apparent loss of nitrogen from St. Louis Reservoir during the
sampling year. This may have been due to nitrogen fixation in the reservoir,
solubilization of previously sedimented nitrogen, recharge with nitrogen-
rich ground waters, or more probably, the unsampled industrial discharges
to the reservoir.
-------
13
LITERATURE REVIEWED
Fetterolf, Carlos, 1973. Personal communication (area of lake). MI
Dept. Nat. Resources, Lansing.
Kooistra, Ronald D., 1973. Treatment plant questionnaire (Alma STP
and improvements under construction). MI Dept. Publ. Health,
Lansing.
Robinson, John 6., 1970. Biological survey of the Pine River, vicinity
of Alma and St. Louis. MI Dept. Nat. Resources, Lansing.
Vollenweider, Richard A. (in press). Input-output models. Schweiz.
Z. Hydrol.
-------
VI. APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
LAKE RANKINGS
-------
LAKE DATA TO BE USED IN RANKINGS
LAKE
CODE LAKE NAME
26AO HOLLOWAY RESERVOIR
26Ai CARO RESERVOIR
26A2 BOARDMAN HYDRO POND
2603 ALLEGAN LAKE
2606 BARTON LAKE
2609 BELLEVILLE LAKE
2610 BETSIE LAKE
2613 BRIGHTON LAKE
2617 LAKE CHARLEVOIX
2618 LAKE CHEHUNG
2621 CONSTANT1NE RESERVOIR
2629 FORD LAKE
2631 FREMONT LAKE
26<>0 JORDAN LAKE
2643 KENT LAKE
2648 LAKE MACATAWA
2649 MANISTEE LAKE
2659 MUSKEGON LAKE
2665 PENTKATER LAKE
2671 RANDALL LAKE
2672 ROGERS PONO
2673 Ross RESERVOIR
2674 SANFORD LAKE
2683 THORNAPPLE LAKE
2685 UNION LAKE
2688 WHITE LAKE
2691 MONA LAKE
2692 LONG LAKE
........ .r ALI_ VALUta-
MEAN MEAN
TOTAL P OISS P
0.062
0.117
0.006
0.123
0.121
0.118
0.025
0.109
0.007
0.044 '
0.027
0.105
0.372
0.180
0.040
0.197
0.018
0.087
0.027
0.246
0.026
0.034
0.016
0.042
0.083
0.027
0.307
0.163
0.043
0.022
0.005
0.057
0.086
0.048
0.008
0.073
0.006
0.014
0.008
0.058
0.342 '
0.144
0.015 .
0.120
0.010
0.043
0.017
0.183
0.015
0.021
0.008
0.032
0.064
0.019
0.2*1
0.148
MEAN
INORG N
1.461
3.835
0.358
1.168
1.489
1.420
0.273
1.015
0.230
0.132
0.910
. 1.536
1.406
1.998
0.417
2.358
0.304
0.469
0.496
0.818
0.183
0.460
0.307
1.737
1.252
0.367
0.963
0.749
500-
MEAN SEC
439.375
473.000
363.500
470.222
456.167
465.250
461.667
456.000
351.250
404.333
456.167
456.167
441.667
427.667
455.000
477.600
451.333
436.444
430.667
457.333
435.500
465.333
458.750
442.833
455.500
417.778
451.667
418.400
-ALL VALUta— ----- --
MEAN 15-
CHLORA MIN 00
10.678
11.967
1.267
20.311
27.800
•28.262
4.567
44.233
3.008
13.483
39.317
14.733
28.500
20.517
33.944
25.600
6.317
9.511
16.083
27.217
8.133
10.383
13.791
14.650
15.667
9.211
27.783
10.067
9.200
9. 500
6.600
12.600
14.850
8.200'
7.400
7.500
9.240
14.800
7.500
14.000
14.800
14.900
13.000
12.200
11.380
14.800
14.800
8.020
9.600
8.200
8.300
10.800
8.200
13.400
14.100
13.600
-------
LAKE DATA TO BE USED IN RANKINGS
LAKE
CODE LAKE NAME
2693 ST LOUIS RESERVOIR
2694 CRYSTAL LAKE
2695 HIGGINS LAKE
2696 HOUGHTON LAKE
2697 THOMPSON LAKE
2698 PERE MARQUETTE LAKE
2699 STRAWBERRY LAKE
MEAN
TOTAL P
0.134
0.009
0.007
0.018
0.043
0.032
0.069
-TALL VAl_UtS-
MEAN
DISS P
0.093
0.006
O.OOS
0.008
0.029
0.024
0.050
MEAN
INORG N
1.227
0.164
0.058
0.136
0.436
0.346
0.567
500-
MEAN SEC
462.667
380.000
268.500
420.833
407.889
448.667
419.800
MEAN
CHLOHA
5.583
2.986
1.043
9.217
11.967
11.833
11.117
15-
MIN 00'
8.420
13.000
9.400
8.200
14.800
8.600
13.600
-------
PERCENT OF LAKES WITH HIGHER VALUES (NUMBER OF LAKES KITH HIGHER VALUES)
LAKE
CODE LAKE NAME
26AO HOLLOWAY RESERVOIR
26A1 CARO RESERVOIR
2643 BOAHDMAN HYDRO POND
2603 ALLEGAN LAKE
2606 BAHTON LAKE
2609 BtLLEVILLE LAKE
2610 BETSIE LAKE
2613 BRIGHTON LAKE
2617 LAKE CHARLEVOIX
2618 LAKE CHEMUNG
2621 CONSTANTINE RESERVOIR
2629 FORD LAKE
2631 FREMONT LAKE
2640 JORDAN LAKE
26*3 KENT LAKE
261.8 LAKE MACATAWA
2649 MANISTEE LAKE
2659 MUSKEGON LAKE
2665 PENTWATER LAKE
2671 RANDALL LAKE
2672 ROGERS POND
2673 ROSS RESERVOIR
2674 SANFORD LAKE
2683 THORNAPPLE LAKE
26B5 UNION LAKE
26B8 WHITE LAKE
2691 MONA LAKE
2692 LONG LAKE
MEAN MEAN
TOTAL P UISS P
46
29
97
20
23
26
77
31
91
49
71
34
0
11
57
9
80
37
69
6
74
60
86
54
40
66
3
14
( 16)
( 10)
( 34)
< 7)
( 8)
( 9)
1 27)
I 11)
I 32)
( 17)
( 25)
( 12)
( 0)
( 4)
I 20)
< 3)
I Z8)
I 13)
( 24)
< 2)
( 26)
( 21)
( 30)
I 19)
( 14)
( 23)
I 1)
I 5)
43
S4
97
31
20
37
77
23
91
71
83
29
0
11
69
14
74
40
63
6
66
57
80
46
26
60
3
9
( 15)
( 19)
( 34)
1 11)
( 7)
I 13)
( 27)
( 8)
( 32)
( 25)
( 29)
( 10) .
( 0)
( 4)
1 24)
( 5)
( 26)
( 14)
( 22)
( 2)
( 23)
( 20)
( 28)
( 16)
( 9)
I 21)
( 1)
I 3)
MEAN
INORG N
17
0
69
31
14
20
80
34
83
94
40
11
23
6
63
3
77
54
51
43
86
57
74
9
26
66
37
46
( 6)
( 0)
( 24)
( 11)
< 5)
I 7)
( 28)
I 12)
( 29)
( 33)
( 14)
( 4)
( 8)
( 2)
( 22)
< 1)
( 27)
( 19)
( IB)
( 15)
( 30)
( 20)
I 26)
( 3)
( 9)
( 23)
( 13)
( 16)
500-
MEAN
57 »
3 (
91 (
6 (
29 (
11 (
17 (
34 (
94 (
86 (
29 (
29 (
54 I
69 (
40 (
0 (
46 1
60 I
66 I
23 I
63 I
9 (
20 (
51 (
37 (
80 (
43 1
77 (
SEC
201
1)
32)
2)
9)
4)
6)
12)
33)
30)
9)
9)
19)
24)
14)
0)
16)
21)
23)
8)
22)
3)
7)
18)
13)
28)
15)
27)
MEAN 15-
CHLORA MIN 00
60
49
94
29
14
11
86
0
89
46
3
37
9
26
6
23
80
69
31
20
77
63
43
40
34
74
17
66
( 21)
( 17)
( 33)
( 10)
( 5)
( 4)
( 30)
( 0)
( 31)
( 16)
I 1)
( 13)
( 3)
( 9)
( 2)
( 8)
( 28)
I 24)
( ID
( 7)
( 27)
1 22)
( 15)
( 14)
( 12)
( 261
( 6)
( 23)
63
54
97
40
3
79
94
90
60
11
90
23
11
0
36
43
46
11
11
86
51
79
71
49
79
31
20
27
( 22)
I 19)
( 34)
( 14)
( 11
( "26)
< 33)
( 31)
< 21)
( 2)
( 31)
( 8)
( 2)
I 0)
( 12)
< 15)
( 16)
( 2)
( 2)
( 30)
( 18)
I 26)
( 25)
( 17)
I 26)
I 11)
( 7)
( 9)
INDEX
NO
286
189
545
157
103
184
431
212
508
357
316
163
97
123
271
92
403
271
291
184
417
32b
374
249
242
377
U3
239
-------
PERCENT OF LAKES WITH HIGHER VALUES (NUMBER OF LAKES WITH HIGHER VALUES)
LAKE
CODE LAKE NAME
2693 ST LOUIS RESERVOIR
2694 CRYSTAL LAKE
2695 HIGGINS LAKE
2696 HOUGHTON LAKE
2697 THOMPSON LAKE
2698 PERE MAROUETTE LAKE
2699 STRAWBERRY LAKE
MEAN MEAN
TOTAL P OISS P
17
89.
94
fl3
51
63
43
( 6)
( 31)
( 33)
( 29)
( 18)
( 22)
< 15)
17
89
94
86
49
51
34
( 6)
( 31)
( 33)
( 30)
( 17)
( 18)
( .12)
MEAN
INORG N
29 1
89 i
97 <
91 i
60 (
71 i
49 i
I 10)
( 31)
t 34)
( 32)
1 21)
t 25)
I 17)
500-
ME.AN SEC
14
89
97
71
83
49
74
( 5)
( 3D
( 34)
( 25)
( 29)
( 17)
( 26)
MEAN 15-
CHLORA MIN DO
83
91
97
71
51
54
57
( 29)
( 32)
( 34)
( 25)
( 18)
( 19)
( 20)
69
36
57
79
11
66
27
( 24)
( 12)
( 20)
( 26)
( 2>
( 23)
( 9)
INDEX
NO
229
483
536
481
305
354
284
-------
APPENDIX B
TRIBUTARY FLOW DATA
-------
LAKE CODE 2693
TRIBUTARY FLOW INFORMATION FUR MICHIGAN
ST LOUIS KESERVOIR
2/3/75
TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA OF LAKE(SQ MI) 311.00
SUB-DRAINAGE
TRIBUTARY AREA(SQ MI)
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
NORMALIZED FLOWS(CFS)
JUN JUL AUG
StP
OCT
NOV
DEC
MEAN
2693A1
2693A2
2693ZZ
311.00
286.00
25.00
185.00
176.00
9.00
232.00
221.00
11.00
459.
436.
22.
00 423.
00 402.
00 20.
00
00
00
270.00
256.00
13.00
166.00
158.00
8.00
99.00
94.10
5.00
84.50
80.50
4.00
101.00
96.20
5.00
127.00
121.00
6.00
174.00
166.00
8.00
SUMMARY
TOTAL
SUM OF
DRAINAGE AREA
SUB-DRAINAGE
OF LAKE
AREAS
=
311.00
311.00
TOTAL FLOW IN =
TOTAL FLOW OUT =
2498
2501
.80
.50
181.00 208.18
172.00 197.97
9.00 9.99
MEAN MONTHLY FLOWS AND DAILY FLOWS(CFS)
TRIBUTARY MONTH YEAR MEAN FLOW DAY
2693A1
2693A2
10
11
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
10
11
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
B
9
10
72
72
72
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
72
72
72
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
243.00
295.00
288.00
714.00
273.00
786.00
648.00
502.00
356.00
166.00
181.00
99.00
127.00
231.00
281.00
274.00
680.00
260.00
7^*9.00
617.00
478.00
339.00
158.00
172.00
94.00
121.00
28
1
19
19
20
26
24
26
27
31
15
28
1
19
19
20
26
24
26
27
31
15
567.00
256.00
1420.00
215.00
781.00
479.00
306.00
198.00
208.00
99.00
136.00
540.00
244.00
1350.00
205.00
744.00
456. Ou
291.00
189.00
198.00
94.00
130.00
FLOW DAY
30
30
31
FLOW DAY
478.00
730.00
785.00
FLOW
30
30
31
455.00
695.00
7^8.00
-------
LAKE CODE 2693
TRIBUTARY FLOW INFORMATION FOR MICHIGAN
ST LOUIS RESERVOIR
2/3/75
MEAN MONTHLY FLOWS AND DAILY FLOWS(CFS)
TRIBUTARY MONTH YEAR MEAN FLOW DAY
2693ZZ
10
11
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
72
72
72
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
12. 00
14.00
14.00
34.00
13.00
37.00
31.00
24.00
17.00
6.00
9.00
5.00
6.00
FLOW DAY
FLOW DAY
FLOW
-------
APPENDIX C
PHYSICAL and CHEMICAL DATA
-------
STORET RETRIEVAL DATt 75/G2/U4
269301
43 24 48.0 084 36 42.0
bT LOUIS KESERVOIR
26 MICHIGAN
11EPALES
DATE
FROM
TO
72/06/14
72/09/17
72/11/14
TIME DEPTH
OF
DAY FEET
17 35 0000
14 45 0000
14 45 0004
17 15 0000
17 15 0004
00010
WATER
TEMP
CENT
23.1
21.0
4.0
00300
00
MG/L
8.6
6.6
11.5
00077
TRANSP
SECCHI
INCHES
28
44-
42
00094
CiMDUCTVY
FIELD
MICWOMHO
2000
1000
1025
890
890
3
00400
HH
su
7.30
7.40
7.38
7.80
7.80
00410
T ALK
CAC03
MG/L
18S
199
192
228
159
2111202
0000
00630
NO2&N03
N-TOTAL
MG/L
0.240
0.960
0.860
1.390
0.280
FEET DEPTH
OOblO
NH3-N
TOTAL
MG/L
0.830
0.650
0.680
0.460
0.060
00665
PHOS-TOT
MG/L P
0.530
0.307
0.319
0.265
0.016
00666
PHOS-DIS
MG/L P
0.460
0.248
0.243
0.199
0.009
32217
DATE TIME DEPTH CHLKPHfL
FROM OF A
TO DAY FEET OG/L
72/06/14 17 35 0000 19.U
72/09/17 14 <*5 0000 l.OJ
72/11/1^ 17 15 0000 1.2J
j VALUE KNOWN TO
-------
STORET RETRIEVAL DATE 75/03/0*
269302
43 24 30.0 084 37 12.0
ST LOUIS RESERVOIR
26 MICHIGAN
DATE TIME DEPTH
FROM OF
TO DAY FEET
72/06/14 18 50 0000
72/09/17 15 00 0000
72/11/14 17 30 0000
OJ010
WATER
TEMP
CENT
21.9
19.8
00300 00077 00094
00 TKANSP CNDUCTVY
SECCHI FIELD
MG/L INCHES MICROMHO
10.4
7.5
24
36
50
2100
595
590
11EPALES
3
00400
PH
SU
7.38
8.03
7.90
00410
T ALK
CAC03
MG/L
193
232
212
2111202
0005 FEET DEPTH
00630
N02
-------
APPENDIX D
TRIBUTARY and WASTEWATER
TREATMENT PLANT DATA
-------
STORET RETRIEVAL DATE 75/02/04
2693A1 LS2693A1
43 2t 30.0 084 36 JO.O
HI ME K1VLH
26 15 ALMA
0/ST LOUIS KEbtRVOIK
1ST CITY BKJG BELO 0AM IN ST LOUIS
Ht-HALES 2111204
4 0000 FEET DEPTH
DATE
FROM
TO
72/10/28
72/12/01
73/01/19
73/01/30
73/02/19
73/03/20
73/03/30
73/04/26
73/05/24
73/05/31
73/06/26
73/07/27
73/08/31
73/10/15
00630 00625
TIME DEPTH N02&N03 TOT KJF.L
OF N- TOTAL N
DAY FEET
09
09
16
09
13
09
13
13
14
15
12
09
13
14
10
15
00
30
40
00
20
20
00
00
50
20
00
15
MG/L
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
u
0
0
0
.770
.230
.440
.600
.480
.280
.260
.810
.650
.690
.680
.430
.250
.260
.350
MG/L
2.
2.
1.
1.
3.
0.
1.
1.
1.
0.
3.
2.
1.
1.
1.
560
305
9HO
470
900
780
500
540
60U
720
JOO
700
470
950
300
OU610 00671 00665
NH1-N PnOS-IJIS HHOb-TOT
TOTAL O^THO
MG/L
U.
0.
0.
a.
0.
0.
0 .
o .
0.
0.
0.
a.
0.
0.
0 .
46U
054
315
28u
760
138
220
29o
38u
044
240
720
168
750
630
MG/L P
u
0
0
0
0
0
0
u
0
0
0
u
0
0
0
.040
.008
.120
.110
.176
.070
.105
.160
.160
.019 .
.087
.1*7
.019
.610
.360
MG/L P
U.
-------
STORE! RETRIEVAL DATE 75/02/04
2t>93A2 LS2693A2
<*3 22 30.0 084 3* 30.0
PINE KIVER
26 15 ALMA
1/iT LOUla HEbEKVOlK
STATE ST UrfOG dELO DAM IN ALMA
11EPALES 2111204
4 0000 FEET DEPTH
DATE
FHUM
TO
72/10/28
72/12/01
73/01/19
73/01/30
73/02/19
73/03/20
73/03/30
73/04/26
73/05/31
73/06/26
73/07/27
73/08/31
73/10/15
00630 00625
TIME DEPTH N02f»N03 TOT KJEL
OF N-TOTAL N
DAY FEET
08
09
16
09
14
09
13
13
13
09
13
If
40
40
10
15
00
25
10
00
05
00
10
00
MG/L
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
o
0
0
0
.510
.250
.400
.640
.240
.440
.300
.680
.540
.440
.273
.220
.300
MG/L
1.
].
1.
0.
3.
0.
1.
0.
2.
1.
2.
0.
C.
260
670
320
630
400
560
400
910
500
600
000
540
650
0061U 00671 00665
NH3-N PHOS-OIS HnOS-TJT
TOTAL Uftrnu
M(i/L
0.
0.
0.
0.
•J .
0.
0.
0.
0 .
0.
0 .
0.
0.
073
610
1/6
036
140
027
078
027
210
198
730
168
066
MG/L
.->
if .
0.
u.
0 .
J.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
H
017
160
085
010
014
014
015
012
02?
019
320
028
016
MG/L P
0.030
0.460
0. 160
U.020
0.020
0.025
0.080
0.040
0.050
0.050
0.320
0.060
0.040
-------
STORET KETklEVAL DATE 75/02/04
DATE
FROM
TO
73/01/29
CP(T)-
73/01/29
73/02/27
CPfTI-
73/02/27
73/03/27
CP(T>-
73/03/27
73/04/26
CP-
73/0«»/26
73/05/24
CP(T)-
73/05/24
73/07/29
CP-
73/07/29
73/08/27
CP(T)-
73/08/27
73/09/25
CP(T>-
73/09/25
73/10/31
CP(T)-
73/10/31
73/11/28
cpm-
73/1 1/28
TIME DEPTH
OF
DAY
00
08
00
08
00
08
00
08
00
10
00
08
00
10
00
10
00
10
00
10
FEET
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00630
N02&N03
N-TOTAL
MG/L
2.600
2.300
2.900
2.300
2.600
1.38u
1.600
2.200
?.3UJ
00625
TOT KJtL
N
MG/L
18.000
22.000
13.000
11.700
15.500
16.800
IB. 000
23. lOu
20.030
15.00U
269350 PK269350 P009710
43 22 30.0 084 39 00.0
ALMA
26 15 ALMA
U/ST. LOUIb RESERVOIR
ST. LOUIS KESERVOIK
HtPALtS 2141204
4 0000 FEET DEPTH
OOblO 00671 00665 50051 50053
NH3-N PHOb-OIS PHOS-TOT FLOW CONDUIT
TOTAL UKFflO RATE FLOw-MGO
MG/L MG/L P MG/L P INST MGD MONTHLY
2.uOO 13.UOO 26.UOO 2.690 3.000
12.500 2.040 2.950
0.390 7.600 10.000 2.^50 3.270
13.1UO 17.UOO 2.540 2.910
1.100 ti.950 9.870 2.450 2.740
5.800 2.70U 6.840 1.620
•*.2GC 13. /OO 19.5UO
3.60U 0.500
2.510
1.980
J.960 19.00« 26.000 1.970 2.0tO
l.buO 1.740
1.900
4.600 9.H50 2.910 1.860
------- |