U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
NATIONAL EUTROPHICATION SURVEY
WORKING PAPER SERIES
PACIFIC NORTHWEST ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
An Associate Laboratory of the
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH CENTER - CORVALLIS, OREGON
and
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH CENTER - LAS VEGAS, NEVADA
•&GPO 697-O32
-------
REPORT
ON
MOSQUITO CREEK RESEFVOIR
TRUPBULL OOUMIY
OHIO
EPA REGION V
WORKING PAPER No, 406
WITH THE COOPERATION OF THE
OHIO ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
AND THE
OHIO NATIONAL GUARD
JUNE, 1975
825
-------
CONTENTS
Page
Foreword i i
List of Ohio Study Lakes iv
Lake and Drainage Area Map v
Sections
I. Conclusions 1
II. Lake and Drainage Basin Characteristics 3
III. Lake Water Quality Summary 4
IV. Nutrient Loadings 8
V. Literature Reviewed 12
VI. Appendices 13
-------
11
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 lakes 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.
-------
ill
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 Ohio Environmental Protection
Agency for professional involvement, to the Ohio National Guard
for conducting the tributary sampling phase of the Survey, and to
those Ohio wastewater treatment plant operators who provided
effluent samples and flow data.
Ned Williams, Director, and Tom Birch, Ken Carr, Larry
Dietrick, Ron Havlice, Larry Korecko, Rod Mehlhop, Terry Wheeler,
and John Youger, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, provided
invaluable lake documentation and counsel during the Survey,
reviewed the preliminary reports, and provided critiques most
useful in the preparation of this Working Paper series.
Major General Dana L. Stewart, then the Adjutant General
of Ohio, and Project Officer Lt. Colonel Robert C. Tlmmons,
who directed the volunteer efforts of the Ohio National Guards-
men, are also gratefully acknowledged for their assistance to
the Survey.
-------
IV
NATIONAL EUTROPHICATION SURVEY
STUDY LAKES
STATE OF OHIO
LAKE NAME
Atwood
Beach City
Berlin
Buckeye
Charles Mill
Deer Creek
Delaware
Dillon
Grand Lake of St. Marys
Grant
Holiday
Hoover
Indian
Loramie
Mosquito Creek
O'Shaughnessy
Pymatuning
Pleasant Hill
Rocky Fork
Shawnee
Tappan
COUNTY
Carroll, Tuscarawas
Stark, Tuscarawas
Mahoning, Portage,
Fairfield, Licking,
Ashland, Richland
Fayette, Pickaway
Delaware
Muskingum
Auglaize,
Brown
Huron
Delaware,
Logan
Auglaize,
Trumbull
Delaware
Ashtabula,
Ashland,
Highland
Greene
Harrison
Stark
Perry
Mercer
Franklin
Shelby
OH; Crawford, PA
Richland
-------
MOSQUITO CREEK
RESERVOIR
® Tributary Sampling Site
y. Lake Sampling Site
f Sewage Treatment Facility
5 Mi.
Scale
Map Location
80°50'
Green Ceo/,,'- -§[^1 Kenilworth
'
'Wayne
4130 —
41"20-
Mosquito
Creek
80°40'
-------
MOSQUITO CREEK RESERVOIR
STORE! NO. 3921
I. CONCLUSIONS
A. Trophic Condition:
Survey results indicate that Mosquito Creek Reservoir is
eutrophic. This lake ranked second when the 20 Ohio lakes
sampled in 1973 were compared using a combination of six parameters*.
Five lakes had less median total phosphorus, one had less and one
had the same median dissolved phosphorus, none of the lakes had
less inorganic nitrogen, nine had less mean chlorophyll a_, and
three had greater mean Secchi disc transparency. Depression of
dissolved oxygen with depth occurred at both sampling stations in
October.
Survey limnologists noted floating and submerged macrophytes
along the shoreline and in the shallows from station 1 (north
end of lake) to station 02 (south end of lake).
B. Rate-Limiting Nutrient:
There was a differential change in the primary nutrients in
the assay sample such that the limiting nutrient shifted from
phosphorus in the reservoir to nitrogen in the sample; conse-
quently, the assay results are not indicative of conditions in
the reservoir at the time the sample was collected (04/21/73).
The reservoir data indicate phosphorus limitation at all
* See Appendix A.
-------
2
sampling times; i.e., the mean N/P ratios were 21/1 or greater,
and phosphorus limitation would be expected.
C. Nutrient Controllability:
1. Point sources—The only known point source contributing
to the total phosphorus load to Mosquito Creek Reservoir was the
wastewater treatment plant at Cortland. This source alone
contributed 36.6% of the total load reaching the reservoir during
the sampling year.
The present loading of 0.32 g/m2/yr is equal to that proposed by
Vollenweider (Vollenweider and Dillon, 1974) as a eutrophic
loading (see page 11). The reservoir is definitely eutrophic,
however, and the phosphorus input from the Cortland STP and other
sources should be minimized to the greatest practicable extent
to improve the trophic condition of the reservoir.
2. Non-point sources—During the sampling year, non-point
sources accounted for 63.4% of the total phosphorus load to the
reservoir. Mosquito creek contributed 12.8%, the Unnamed Creek
(B-l) contributed 2.7%, and Walnut Creek contributed 6.8%. Ungaged
tributaries were estimated to have contributed 35.6% of the total
load.
The phosphorus export rates of the Mosquito Creek tributaries
were quite low during the Survey sampling year (see page 11) and
compare well with the export rates of unimpacted Ohio tributaries
sampled elsewhere; e.g., the mean phosphorus export rate of the six
tributaries of nearby Berlin Reservoir* was 26 g/km2/yr.
* Working Paper No. 395.
-------
II. LAKE AND DRAINAGE BASIN CHARACTERISTICS'1"
ft
A. Lake Morphometry :
1. Surface area: 31 •.57 kilometers2.
2. Mean depth: 2.7 meters.
3. Maximum depth: >6.1 meters.
4. Volume: 85.239 x 10s m3.
5. Mean hydraulic retention time: 352 days {based on outlet flow),
B. Tributary and Outlet:
(See Appendix C for flow data)
1. Tributaries -
Drainage Mean flow
Name area (km2)* (mVsec)*
Mosquito Creek 57.5 0.6
Unnamed Creek (B-l) 9.8 0.1
Walnut Creek 25.1 0.2
Minor tributaries &
immediate drainage - 1^28.5 1,5
Total 220.9 2.4
2. Outlet -
Mosquito Creek 252.5** 2.8
C. Precipitation***:
1. Year of sampling: 93.8 centimeters.
2. Mean annual: 97.8 centimeters.
t Table of metric equivalents—Appendix B.
tt Youger, 1975.
* For limits of accuracy, see Working Paper No. 175, "...Survey Methods,
1973-1976".
** Includes area of lake.
*** See Working Paper No. 175.
-------
4
III. LAKE WATER QUALITY SUMMARY
Mosquito Creek Reservoir was sampled three times during the open-
water season of 1973 by means of a pontoon-equipped Huey helicopter.
Each time, samples for physical and chemical parameters were collected
from two stations on the lake and from a number of depths at each sta-
tion (see map, page v). During each visit, a single depth-integrated
(4.6 m or near bottom to surface) sample was composited from the stations
for phytoplankton identification and enumeration; and during the first
visit, a single 18.9-liter 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
depths sampled were 3.0 meters at station 1 and 6.1 meters at station 2.
The lake sampling results are presented in full in Appendix D and
are summarized in the following table.
-------
HAWAMETErt
TEMP (C)
U1SS UXY (MG/L)
CNOCTVlf (HCHOMOI
PH (STAND UNITS)
TOT AUK (MG/L)
TOT P (MG/L)
OKTHO P
KJEL N (MG/L)
1NOWG N («G/L>
TOTAL N (MG/Ll
CHLHPYL A (UG/L>
SLCCHI (METERS)
A. SUMMARY OF PHYSICAL AND
1ST SAMPLING ( 4/21/73)
2 SITES
CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS rcm MOSQUITO CREEK
STOHET CUi)E 3921
2ND SAMPLING ( 7/30/73)
2 SITES
JRD SAMPLING (10/ 9/73)
2 SITES
10.8
7.7
240.
7.9
35.
0.023
0.005
0.060
0.050
0.800
0.110
0.860
25.7
0.9
ANGE
- 14.0
- 10.2
- 270.
7.9
39.
- 0.040
- 0.006
- 0.110
- 0.12U
- 1.000
- 0.230
- 1.110
- 32.3
1.0
MEAN
12.6
9.2
253.
7.9
37.
0.033
0.006
o.oao
*
0.070
0.867
0.150
0.947
29.0
1.0
MEUlAN
12.6
9.4
248.
7.9
37.
0.034
0.006
0.075
0.060
0.650
0.135
0.925
29.0
1.0
HANGE
24.0
5.8
203.
7.3
49.
0.049
0.0u2
0.060
0.060
0.700
0.120
0.760
40.2
0.6
- 24.3
7.5
- 221.
7.9
52.
- 0.10*
- 0.02*
- 0.100
- o.oao
- 1.700
- 0.180
- 1.780
- 62.1
O.d
MEAN
24.1
6.9
211.
7.7
51.
o.o7a
0.007
0.075
0.070
1.217
0.145
1.292
51.1
0.7
MEDIAN
24.1
7.2
211.
7.7
51.
0.084
0.005
0.07S
0.070
1.250
0.150
1.320
51.1
0.7
MANGE
17.3
3.4
189.
7.1
*3.
0.058
0.005
0.040
0.060
1.100
0.100
1.140
20.7
1.0
- la.o
8.8
- 199.
7. a
48.
- 0.203
- 0.010
- 0.050
- 0.370
- 1.800
- 0.410
- 1.B50
- 36.0
1.0
MEAN
17.5
5.7
194.
7.4
45.
0.110
0.007
0.042
0.224
1.440
0.266
1.4t»2
28.6
1.0
ME01AN
17.3
0.6
195.
7.2
45.
0.035
O.OOtt
0.040
0.270
1.400
0.310
. 1.4*0
2fl.6
1.0
-------
B. Biological characteristics:
1. Phytoplankton -
Sampling
Date
04/21/73
07/30/73
10/09/73
2. Chlorophyll a_ -
Sampling
Date
04/21/73
07/30/73
10/09/73
Dominant
Genera
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Synedra sp.
Flagellates
Microcystis sp_.
Oscillatoria sp.
Asterionella sp_.
Other genera
Total
Osci11atoria sp.
Uyngbya s£.
Stephanodiscus sp.
Microcystis sp_.
Merismopedia sp.
Other genera
Total
Scenedesmus sp.
Helosira sp.
Cyclotena sp.
Schroederia sp.
Dactylococcopsis sp.
Other genera
Total
Station
Number
01
02
01
02
01
02
Algal Units
pej" ml
4,802
4,524
4,365
1,349
714
8.373
24,127
27,076
14,711
10,650
7,220
6,679
23,014
89,350
3,800
2,985
2,220
1,877
1,685
8,518
21,085
Chlorophyll a_
32.3
25.7
62.1
40.2
36.6
20.7
-------
7
C. Limiting Nutrient Study:
There was an apparent differential gain in phosphorus and
nitrogen in the assay sample from the time of collection to
the beginning of the assay, and the results are not representa-
tive of conditions in the reservoir at the time the sample was
taken. The nutrient change resulted in a shift from phosphorus
limitation in the lake to nitrogen limitation in the sample.
The reservoir data indicate phosphorus limitation at all
sampling times; i.e., the mean inorganic nitrogen/orthophosphorus
ratios were 21/1 or greater, and phosphorus limitation would be
expected.
-------
8
IV. NUTRIENT LOADINGS
(See Appendix E for data)
For the determination of nutrient loadings, the Ohio National
Guard collected monthly near-surface grab samples from each of the
tributary sites indicated on the map (page v), except for the high
runoff months of February and April when two samples were collected.
Sampling was begun in May, 1973, and was completed in April, 1974.
Through an interagency agreement, stream flow estimates for the
year of sampling and a "normalized" or average year were provided by
the Ohio District Office of the U.S. Geological Survey for the
tributary sites nearest the lake.
In this report, nutrient loads for sampled tributaries were deter-
mined by using a modification of a U.S. Geological Survey computer
program for calculating stream loadings*. Nutrient loads shown are
those measured minus point-source loads, if any.
Nutrient loads for unsampled "minor tributaries and immediate
drainage" ("II" of U.S.G.S.) were estimated using the nutrient loads, in
kg/km2/year, at station B-l and multiplying by the II area in km2.
The operator of the Cortland wastewater treatment plant provided
monthly effluent samples and corresponding flow data.
* See Working Paper No. 175.
-------
A.
Waste Sources:
1. Known municipal* -
Name
Cortland
Pop.
Served
3,000
Treatment
Mean Flow
(mVd)
act. sludge 1,647.7
2. Known industrial - None
B. Annual Total Phosphorus Loading - Average Year:
1. Inputs -
kg P/
Source yr
a. Tributaries (non-point load) -
Mosquito Creek 1,265
Unnamed Creek (B-l) 270
Walnut Creek 675
b. Minor tributaries & inmediate
drainage (non-point load) - 3,600
c. Known municipal STP's -
Cortland 3,625
d. Septic tanks - Unknown ?
e. Known industrial - None
f. Direct precipitation** - 550
Total 9,985
2. Outputs -
Lake outlet - Mosquito Creek
3.
5,425
Net annual P accumulation - 4,560 kg.
* Guesman, 1973.
** See Working Paper No. 175.
Receiving
Hater
Mosquito Creek
Reservoir
% of
total
12.6
2.7
6.8
36.1
36.3
5.5
100.0
-------
10
C. Annual Total Nitrogen Loading - Average Year:
1. Inputs -
kg N/ % of
Source yr total
a. Tributaries (non-point load) -
Mosquito Creek 33,415 17.3
Unnamed Creek (B-l) 7,270 3.8
Walnut Creek 14,845 7.7
b. Minor tributaries & immediate
drainage (non-point load) - 95,350 49.5
c. Known municipal STP's -
Cortland 7,710 4.0
d. Septic tanks - Unknown ?
e. Known industrial - None
f. Direct precipitation* - 34.085 17.7
Total 192,675 100.0
2. Outputs -
Lake outlet - Mosquito Creek 139,900
3. Net annual N accumulation - 52,775 kg.
* See Working Paper No. 175.
-------
11
D. Mean Annual Non-point Nutrient Export by Subdrainage Area:
Tri butary kg P/km2/yr kg N/km2/yr
Mosquito Creek 22 581
Unnamed Creek (B-l) 28 742
Walnut Creek 27 591
E. Yearly Loadings:
In the following table, the existing phosphorus loadings
are compared to those proposed by Vollenweider (Vollenweider
and Dillon, 1974). 'Essentially, his "dangerous" loading is one
at which the receiving water would become eutrophic or remain
eutrophic; his "permissible" loading is that which would result
in the receiving water remaining oligotrophic or becoming oligo-
trophic if morphometry permitted. A mesotrophic loading would be
considered one between "dangerous" and "permissible".
Note that Vollenweider's model may not be applicable to
water bodies with short hydraulic retention times.
Total Phosphorus Total Nitrogen
grams/m2/yr
Total
0.32
Accumul ated
0.14
Total
6.1
Accumulated
1.7
Vollenweider phosphorus loadings
(g/m2/yr) based on mean depth and mean
hydraulic retention time of Mosquito Creek
Reservoir:
"Dangerous" (eutrophic loading) 0.32
"Permissible" (oligotrophic loading) 0.16
-------
12
LITERATURE REVIEWED
Guesman, Ralph A. (Supt.), 1973. Treatment plant questionnaire
(Cortland STP). Cortland, OH.
Vollenweider, R. A., and P. J. Dillon, 1974. The application of the
phosphorus loading concept to eutrophication research. Natl.
Res. Council of Canada Publ. No. 13690, Canada Centre for Inland
Waters, Burlington, Ontario.
Youger, John, 1975. Personal communication (lake morphometry). OH
Env. Prot. Agency. Columbus.
-------
13
VI. APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
LAKE RANKINGS
-------
LAKES RANKED BY INDEX NOS.
LAKE CODE LAKE NAME
1 3920 ATnOUD RESErtVCllH
2 3921 MOSUUITO CREEK RESERVOIR
3 392*. PLEASANT HILL LAKE
^ 3929 BERLIN RESERVOIR
s 3
-------
PERCENT OF LftKES WITH HiGHEH VALUES (NUMBEK OF LAKEb *ITH HIGHER VALUES)
LAKE
CODE LAKE NAME
3901 BEACH CITY W
3902 8UCKEYE LAKE
3905 CHARLES MILL *ESE«VOIR
390& OEE* CREEK RESERVOIR
3907 DELAWARE *ESE*VOIH
3908 OILLION RESERVOIH
3912 GRANT LAKE
391<» HOOVER RESERVJ1N
3915 INDIAN LAKE
3917 LOHAMIE LAKE
3921 MOSQUITO CREEK RESERVOIK
3924 PLEASANT HILL LANE
3927 LAKE SAINT MAKYS
3928 ATrfUOD RESERVOIR
3929 bERLIN RESERVOIR
3930 HOLIDAY LAKE
3S>31 O'SHAUGNESSY
3932 ROCKY FORK LAKE
3933 SHAWNEF LAKE
3934 fAPPAN
MEDIAN
TOTAL P
37 (
11 I
26 (
53 (
58 (
16 <
47 <
87 (
42 <
5 (
74 1
95 1
21 1
100 I
79 1
32 1
0 I
68 i
63 i
87 1
7)
2)
5)
10)
11)
3)
9)
16)
8)
1)
; 14)
: 18)
: 4)
I 191
1 15)
! 6)
1 0)
I 13)
I 12)
1 16)
MEDIAN
1NORG N
2) <
76 (
63 (
5 <
16 <
32 (
58 (
26 (
76 (
37 (
100 t
68 I
95 (
89 I
42 *
53 <
0 <
47 <
11 (
a4 (
4)
14)
12)
1)
3)
6)
in
b)
14)
7)
19)
13)
18)
17)
8>
10)
0)
9)
2)
16)
500-
MEAN SEC
ll
S
37
63
J2
42
16
89
21
0
82
100
26
95
74
82
47
58
53
68
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
<
(
I
(
(
<
(
(
(
(
(
(
<
2)
1)
7)
12)
6)
8)
3)
17)
4)
0)
15)
19)
5)
18)
14)
15)
9)
11)
10)
13)
MEAN
CriLOWA
84
0
21
95
89
58
32
79
16
5
53
63
11
68
74
26
100
42
37
47
(
<
(
<
(
<
(
<
(
(
<
(
(
(
<
(
(
(
(
(
16)
0)
4)
16)
17)
ID
6)
15)
3)
1)
101
121
2)
13)
14)
5)
19)
8)
7)
9)
Ib-
M1N 00
82 (
89 (
11 (
63 <
47 (
53 (
74 (
32 <
58 (
97 t
82 (
39 (
97 (
39 (
68 <
11 (
26 <
11 (
11 <
11 (
IS)
17)
0)
12)
9)
10)
14)
6)
11)
18)
lb>
7)
18)
7)
13)
0)
5)
0)
0)
OJ
MEOIAN
OISS OriTHO C
42 (
26 (
58 (
11 (
21 I
5 <
34 (
79 f
53 (
34 (
92 <
66 (
47 (
100 (
92 <
16 t
0 (
66 <
74 (
84 <
8)
5)
11)
2)
4)
1)
b)
Ib)
10)
6)
17)
12)
9)
19)
17)
3)
0)
12)
14)
It))
INDEX
NO
277
207
216
240
263
206
261
3*2
266
178
483
431
29?
491
429
220
173
292
249
381
-------
LAKE DATA TO BE USED IN RANKINGS
LAKE
CODE LAKE NAME
3901 BEACH CITY RESERVOIR
3902 BUCKEYE LAKE
3905 CHAHLES MILL RESERVOIR
3906 DEER CREEK RESERVOIR
3907 DELAWARE RESERVOIR
3908 D1LLION RESERVOIR
3912 GRANT LAKE
391* HOOVER RESERVOIR
3915 INDIAN LAKE
3917 LORAMIE LAKE
3921 MOSQUITO CREEK. RESERVOIR
3924 PLEASANT HILL LAKE
3927 LAKE SAINT MARYS
3938 ATWUOD RESERVOIR
3929 BERLIN RESERV01K
3930 HOLIDAY LAKE
3931 O'SHAUGNESSY RESERVOIR
3932 ROCKY FORK LAKE
3933 SHAtlNEE LAKE
3934 TAPPAN LAKE
MEDIAN
TOTAL P
0.122
0.179
0.127
0.098
0.086
0.163
0.113
0.040
0.120
0.185
0.058
0.036
0.143 '
0.031
0.042
0.125
0.203
0.067
0.069
0.040
MEDIAN
INOUG N
1.S90
0.380
0.465
2.980
2. 340
1.590
O.S70
1.640
0.380
1.380
0.150
0.455
0.200
0.205
0.900
0.575
3.070
0.790
2.380
0.230
500-
MEAN SEC
489.000
490.000
482.555
470.125
4B4.111
481.250
486.333
462.750
485.222
494.000
465.333
456.833
484.167
462.000
46S.435
465.333
479.333
473.000
474.333
466.111
MEAN
CHLOKA
10.867
186.567
67.144
9.887
10.856
27.400
40.533
13.017
76.855
104.100
36.267
22.850
79.150
lb.442
15.496
55.350
5.522
38.022
39.567
37.711
15-
MIN 00
11.600
9*600
15.000
13.900
14.500
14.300
12.200
14.800
14.200
8.200
11.600
14.700
8.200
14.700
13.600
15.000
14.900
15.000
15.000
15.000
MEDIAN
OISS ORTHO P
O.Olb
0.020
0.011
0.036
0.024
0.037
0.019
0.008
0.012
0.019
0.006
0.010
0.014
0.005
0.006
0.034
0.159
0.010
0.009
0.007
-------
APPENDIX B
CONVERSIONS FACTORS
-------
CONVERSION FACTORS
Hectares x 2.471 = acres
Kilometers x 0.6214 - miles
Meters x 3.281 = feet
Cubic meters x 8.107 x 10" = acre/feet
Square kilometers x 0.3861 = square miles
Cubic meters/sec x 35.315 = cubic feet/sec
Centimeters x 0.3937 = inches
Kilograms x 2.205 = pounds
Kilograms/square kilometer x 5.711 = Ibs/square mile
-------
APPENDIX C
TRIBUTARY FLOW DATA
-------
TRIBUTARY FLO* INFORMATION KOrt Only
1/27/75
LAKE. CODE 3921
TOTAL DRAINAGE A«E* OK LAKE(SO KM)
!b2.5
NORMALIZED FLO*S(CMS>
ThflHUTAPf
3921A1
392 1A2
3921B1
3921CI
3921ZZ
AREA (SO KM)
57. b
252. S
9.0
25.1
160.1
JAN
U.96
1.42
U. 15
0.37
2.3B
F£rt
1.13
2.<*4
0.19
0.42
2.75
MAK
1.42
2.d9
0.25
0.62
3.79
AMH
1.13
2.«63
(1.16
0.01
O.Ot
O.Ul
0.05
0.02
11. HI
0.02
10.31
2.69
1.44
12.74
3.23
4.56
3.34
1.56
1.36
0.93
1.47
b.3S
2.94
12.01
252.4
TOTAL FLOW JN
TOTAL FLOy OU1
UAY
FLOiK
2.15
0.23
0.93
1.16
29.73
33.13
-------
J-'LU* iNFUK.IttT iO,Af
0. 16
0.02
0.01
0.00
0.02
0.07
o.?o
C .24
0.09
U.37
j.Su
0.37
0.37
U.J5
0. J2
O.ul
0.05
0.17
u.**5
O.bQ
0 . 2J
0.88
O.S1
2.3H
2.41
'j.31
5
7
11
I
13
lu
H
19
8
9
5
5
9
7
11
7
13
10
a
19
tt
9
5
O.Od
0.11
o.oo
0.00
u.OO
0.01
o.Oo
2.ol
u.uo
1.76
O.tti
O.uH
0.00
0.00
U.y 1
0.0?
0.01
D.15
u.Ol
'JriY
23
27
u.37
0.04
23
27
0.93
o.io
3.00
-------
APPENDIX D
PHYSICAL and CHEMICAL DATA
-------
bTUKET RETRIEVAL OATc 75/01/27
392101
-------
bTOntf htETHIEVAL UATt. fb/01/27
392102
41 16 19.0 080 45 30.0
MOSUU1TO Ct
-------
APPENDIX E
TRIBUTARY and WASTEWATER
TREATMENT PLANT DATA
-------
STOwET RETRIEVAL
75/02/03
3921A1
41 29 00.0 OHO
50. U
39149 7.5 GUSTAVAS
1/MOiUUITO CREEK RtSEHVO
ST HWY 46 dRDb 0.5 MI b OF TKIUMPH
litPALES 2111204
4 0000 FEET DEPTH
JATt
FRUM
TO
73/05/05
73/07/07
73/Ott/ll
73/09/07
73/10/13
73/11/10
73/12/08
74/01/19
74/02/Ott
7*»/l)2/2j
7<+/03/09
74/04/05
74/04/27
00630 00625
TIME DEPTH NU2&N03 TOT KJEL
OF N-TOTAL N
UAY FEET
09
11
11
11
09
11
11
11
13
11
12
10
10
40
05
20
25
10
30
30
30
30
00
00
30
30
MG/L
0
0
0
0
0
0
it
I
1
1
0
ti
0
.285
.126
.040
.050
.010*
.640
.660
.440
.700
.100
.600
.300
.080
MG/L
1.
2.
2.
0.
1.
0.
0.
1.
0.
0.
1.
1.
0.
400
150
100
540
250
450
500
000
BOO
900
200
100
800
00610 00671 00665
NM3-N PriOS-DlS PH05-TOT
TOTAL OWTHO
MG/L
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
038
075
096
061
042
Olb
016
076
025
030
030
025
015
MG/L
0.
0.
0.
U*
0.
0.
0.
o.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
p
010
Oil
014
012
010
008
016
040
015
015
020
OOb
010
MG/L P
0.03U
C.u30
0.055
0.050
0.050
0.015
0.025
0,185
0.050
0.090
0.240
0.030
O.U45
K VALUE KNOWN TO BE
LESS THAN INDICATED
-------
iTORtT RETRIEVAL DATE
4l 17 43.0 UdU 4b
J9 7.5 CHAMPION
(J/MOSUUITU CkcEK
br hwf 5 HrtOG 0.3 MI BELO OAN
IIEHALLS 2111204
4 OUOO FEET DEPTH
DATE
FMOM
TO
73/05/05
73/06/09
73/07/07
7J/06/11
73/09/07
73/10/13
73/11/10
73/12/oa
74/01/19
74/02/06
74/02/23
74/03/09
74/04/05
74/04/27
'J063U 00625
TIME DEPTH N02^N03 TOT KJ£L
OF N-TOTAL N
UAY FEET
09
09
1U
09
09
09
09
19
09
09
12
09
09
09
U9
00
55
45
PO
.10
45
00
30
45
30
00
30
00
00
00
MG/L
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
U
0
0
0
0
0
0
.024
.32U
.600
.054
.028
.016
.034
.ObO
.064
.2tta
.440
.340
.290
.2*0
.032
MG/L
U.
1.
2.
2.
3.
1.
I.
0.
0.
0.
c.
0.
0.
1.
0.
930
800
100
500
000
540
700
850
700
700
800
900
600
100
900
00610 00671 00665
NH3-N P^OS-DIS PHOS-TOf
TOTAL OUTHO
Mfj/L
C.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
c*
0.
0*
0.
0.
c.
c .
0.
042
123
076
290
200
120
147
016
036
lOtt
020
035
015
025
025
MG/L
0.
0.
0.
U.
0.
0.
U.
p
005K
006
032
Oil
OOrt
010
Oil
0.008
0.
0.
0.
U.
0.
0.
o.
016
015
010
005
005K
005
045
MG/L P
U.040
0.04^
0.060
0.0/0
0.0/0
0.080
0.100
0.045
U.055
*0.u5S
0.063
O.UbO
0.075
0 . O'JU
U.100
K VALUE KNOWN TO BE
LESS THAN INDICATED
-------
STUKtT KETKIEVAL DATt 75/03/03
392U1
41 ae 20.0 080 44 so.o
UNNAMED CUtEK
39 7.5 GUbTAVAS
T/MOSUUITO CREEK. KtSEKVO
sf HWY1 46 bkQG 0.6 MI N Of GHE.ENE
llt^ALtS 211120**
4 000l> FEET DEPTH
DATE
FROM
TO
73/05/0:5
73/06/09
7J/07/07
73/08/11
73/09/07
73/10/U
73/11/10
7J/12/08
7t/ol/19
74/0^/OB
74/02/23
74/03/09
74/04/05
74/04/27
00630 00625
TIME DEPTH N02t,N03 TOf KJEL
OF N-TOTAL N
DAY FEET Mb/L MG/L
09
10
10
10
10
10
11
11
11
13
12
10
10
10
48
30
30
00
44
30
00
00
00
00
CO
00
00
00
0.470
0
0
0
c
0
1
1
2
1
2
1
C
G
.350
.370
.01^
.073
.022
.340
.200
.300
.340
.600
.360
.290
.330
0.
1.
2.
2.
1.
1.
0.
0.
1.
0.
0.
1.
c.
1.
920
400
100
600
260
900
eoo
400
200
700
900
100
900
000
00610 00671 00665
NH3-N PHOS-UIS PhOS-rOT
TOTAL ORTHO
MG/L MG/L P MG/L P
0.
0.
3.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
056
170
170
078
750
084
016
016
092
030
040
025
025
040
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0*
0.
0.
0.
0.
Oil
027
027
031
079
020
008
016
045
010
015
020
025
015
0.030
0.062
0.07^
0.175
0.230
0.090
O.Olb
0.016
0.150
0.030
0.065
0.160
0.095
0.020
-------
STOKtT rtETKIEVAL DATE 7b/ti2/u3
19 30.0 080 43 Sb.U
CKC.EK.
39 7.b CUHTLA.vJQ
T/MOSUUITO C-^EtK *ESEKVO
if riwY 46 oKDti IN S£ CUKTLANU
21112U<+
0000 FEET DEPTH
DATE
FkOM
TO
7j/0b/0b
73/06/09
73/07/07
73/06/11
73/OS(/07
73/U/U
7j/lJ/lo
73/li!/Ob
7^/kil/iy
7^/02/08
7WU2/23
7A/03/0^
Tt/O^/Ob
7^t/0'*/2/
00630 00625
TIME DEPTH i>*02&.N03 TOT KJEL
OK i\l-TOTAL N
OAY FEtT
OS*
10
09
10
iO
09
10
10
10
12
10
10
y V
09
10
10
so
00
15
15
30
00
00
<+5
S3
00
30
30
MG/L
a
0
u
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
.470
.126
.bOO
.1^8
.300
.020
.^50
.5«d
.200
.880
.120
.720
.310
.152
MG/L
1.
1.
).
2.
1.
1.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
500
320
960
200
rt90
900
700
900
700
BOO
900
ftOO
100
00610 00671 0066b
NH3-N PHOS-OIS PHOS-TJT
TOTAL OMTriO
MG/L
0
0
0
0
0
G
0
0
0
0
u
0
0
0
.046
.052
.066
.052
.0*4
.078
.016
.U20
.088
.129
.U7S
.045
.030
.046
MG/L
0.
0.
j.
0.
a.
y.
u.
0.
0.
0.
o.
0.
0.
0.
p
05tJ
040
063
ybb
086
056
032
04b
045
040
035
052
020
005
MG/L P
0.085
o.ioo
0.0 9b
O.U90
0.110
0.130
0.0^0
0.061
0.180
0.060
0.08b
0.190
0.020
0.010
-------
bTOkET KETRIEVAL DATt 7b/02/03
392121 A.S392121
tl 20 04.0 ObO 44 la.O
VlLLAljL JP COrtTLANU
b 7.5 COKTLAMU
P003000
CKEtK
OATt
FrtOM
JO
7J/09/11
CP(T)-
7J/09/11
73/U/17
73/11/1**
73/12/14
7<*/y I/ lb
7<+/u2/ 13
7*+/ 0 3/ 2b
7^+ / y ^*/ 2 7
74/08/07
7t/y 8/3o
7^/09/25
TIMF UtPTH
OF
UAY
00
08
13
in
07
17
06
16
12
07
10
20
FEET
CO
00
30
30
30
52
15
30
30
30
30
25
0063u
N-TOf AL
MG/L
0 ,**6u
12.600
1.300
2.100
9.10J
3.800
0 .b20
0.200
b.300
0.080
9.600
0062b
TOT KJfL
00610
N TOTAL
MG/L
15.00U
2.200
IB. 000
14.000
2.100
13.000
8.000
13.000
3.500
8.000
4.000
MG/L
5
0
£
fj
1
0
1
0
')
.000
.010K
.600
.33u
.b20
.079
.6bU
.OSOK
.120
00671
PHOS-DIS
UP.THO
MG/L P
y.700
6.HOO
55 • 200
4.200
3.000
t.'iou
2.000
3.000
S.600
5.400
11LPALLS
4
PriUb-TUT FLOW
21
OGO
bOOb3
CUNlJUl [
RATE Fl_O*-M(iD
Mo/L P
10.100
10. bOO
^«900
b.400
**.ooo
b i yoo
t+ , i+Ou
6.000
6,200
3.400
<+.95V)
1NS1
Q
0
0
0
u
0
o
0
0
o
0
Ml>U
. 222
.293
.31b
.b&3
. V32
.**76
.629
.657
.424
• t*2b
.475
MUNlriLY
0.240
0.27b"
0.372
u.347
0.399
U.421
0.690
0.664
0.462
0.^67
0.451
OGOO FEET DEPTH
K VALUE KNOWN TO Bt
LESS THAN INDICATED
------- |