U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
NATIONAL EUTROPHICATION SURVEY
WORKING PAPER SERIES
REPORT
ON
IT LAKE
OBION COUNTY
EPA REGION IV
WORKING PAPER No, 453
CORVALLIS ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY - CORVALLIS, OREGON
and
ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING & SUPPORT LABORATORY - LAS VEGAS, NEVADA
•&G.P.O. 699-440
-------
REPORT
ON
JTLAKE
OBION COUNTY
EPA REGION IV
WORKING PAPER No,
WITH THE COOPERATION OF THE
TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH
AND THE
TENNESSEE NATIONAL GUARD
SEPTEMBER 1976
-------
CONTENTS
Page
Foreword i i
List of Study Lakes - Tennessee 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 10
V. Literature Reviewed 15
VI. Appendices 16
-------
ii
FOREWORD
The National Eutrophicatlon Survey was Initiated in 1972 in
response to an Administration commitment to investigate the nation-
wide threat of accelerated eutrophication to freshwater lakes and
reservoirs.
OBJECTIVES
The Survey was designed to develop, in conjunction with state
environmental agencies, information on nutrient sources, concen-
trations, 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 nonpoint source pollution abatement in lake water-
sheds.
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
watershed 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)L 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.
-------
iii
Beyond the single lake analysis, broader based correlations
between nutrient concentrations (and loading) and trophic condition
are being made to advance the rationale and data base for refine-
ment of nutrient water quality criteria for the Nation's freshwater
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 the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency and to augment plans implementation by the
states.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The staff of the National Eutrophication Survey (Office
of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency) expresses sincere appreciation to the Tennessee Department
of Public Health for professional involvement, to the Tennessee
National Guard for conducting the tributary sampling phase
of the Survey, and to those Tennessee wastewater treatment
plant operators who provided effluent samples and flow data.
The staff of the Division of Water Quality Control, Tennessee
Department of Public Health; the Division of Environmental
Planning, Tennessee Valley Authority; and the Nashville District
Corps of Engineers 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 William C. Smith, former Adjutant General
of Tennessee, and Project Officer Colonel Wilburn C. Johnson,
who directed the volunteer efforts of the Tennessee National
Guardsmen, are also gratefully acknowledged for their assistance
to the Survey.
-------
IV
NATIONAL EUTROPHICATION SURVEY
STUDY LAKES
STATE OF TENNESSEE
LAKE NAME
Barkley
Boone
Cheatham
Cherokee
Chickamauga
Douglas
Fort Loudon
Great Falls
Nickajack
Old Hickory
Percy Priest
Reel foot
South Holston
Tims Ford
Watts Bar
Woods (Elk River)
COUNTY
Stewart, Montgomery
(Trigg, Lyon in KY)
Washington, Sullivan,
Carter
Cheatham, Davidson
Jefferson, Hamblen,
Grainger, Hawkins
Hamilton, Rhea, Meigs,
McMinn
Sevier, Jefferson, Cocke
Loudon, Knox, Blount
White, Van Buren
Marion, Hamilton
Sumner, Davidson, Wilson,
Smith, Trousdale
Davidson, Rutherford
Obi on
Sullivan (Washington in
VA)
Moore, Franklin
Rhea, Meigs, Cumberland,
Roane, Loudon
Franklin, Coffee
-------
REELFOOT LAKE
Tributary Sampling Site
x Lake Sampling Site
, V ,
-------
REPORT ON REELFOOT LAKE, TENNESSEE
STORET NO. 4727
I. CONCLUSIONS
A. Trophic Condition:*
On the basis of Survey data and field observations,
Reelfoot Lake is considered hypereutrophic. The lake is
characterized by extremely high nutrient levels and phyto-
plankton concentrations, low Secchi disc transparency
(mean 60.3 cm) and high potential for primary production
as measured by algal assay control yield. Chlorophyll a_
values ranged from a low of 16.2 yg/1 in the spring to a
high of 161.9 yg/1 in the summer. Of the 16 lakes sampled
in Tennessee, none had greater median total phosphorus,
14 had greater median inorganic nitrogen, and 1 had greater
median dissolved phosphorus than Reelfoot Lake.
Survey limnologists reported visible algal blooms and
floating duckweed, water hyacinths, and water lilies. The
Tennessee Soil Conservation Service has a program proposed
for alleviating the sedimentation problem in Reelfoot Lake
by damming up several tributaries to the lake (Martin, per-
sonal communication).
*See Appendix E.
-------
B. Rate-Limiting Nutrient:
Algal assay results indicate that Reelfoot Lake was lim-
ited by available nitrogen levels. The ratios of available
nitrogen to orthophosphorus (N/P) in sampled waters (5/1 or less
on all sampling occasions) further indicate nitrogen limitation.
C. Nutrient Controllability:
1. Point sources -
There are no known municipal or industrial point sources
contributing to Reelfoot Lake. Septic tanks were estimated
to have contributed only 0.1% of the total load to the lake,
while the Reelfoot Creek Packaging Company Feedlot contri-
buted 52.5% of the total phosphorus load.
2. Nonpoint sources -
Major tributaries contributed 21.8% of the total phos-
phorus load to Reelfoot Lake, while minor tributaries were
estimated to have contributed 9.0% of the load.
Reelfoot Lake is a combined National Wildlife Refuge
Area and a State Wildlife Management Area. Considerable
numbers of resident and migratory ducks and geese utilize
the reservoir. On the basis of the numbers provided by the
Tennessee Wildlife Resources Authority and certain assump-
tions (see page 12), it is estimated that wild ducks and
geese contributed 18,715 kg of total phosphorus (16.1% of the
total load) to the reservoir during the sampling year.
-------
According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
there is no continuous discharge from the lake, only
seepage, and it is assumed that the lake is a sink.
The Jackson Office of the Department of Public Health
has indicated that there is an intermittent flow which
is lake-level dependent from Reelfoot Lake into Running
Reelfoot Bayou (W. Max, personal communication). Never-
theless, this periodic outlet was not gaged in this Sur-
vey and no statements can be made as to its effect on the
nutrient budget of the lake.
-------
II. LAKE AND DRAINAGE BASIN CHARACTERISTICS
Lake and drainage basin characteristics are itemized below.
Lake morphometry values are estimated based on information pro-
vided by the Tennessee State Department of Wildlife Resources.
Tributary flow data were provided by the Tennessee District Of-
fice of USGS. Precipitation values are estimated by methods as
outlined in National Eutrophication Survey (NES) Working Paper
No. 175. A table of metric/English conversions is included as
Appendix A.
A. Lake Morphometry:
1. Surface area: 36.42 km2.
2. Mean depth: 1.37 meters.
3. Maximum depth: 4.88 meters.
4. Volume: 49.895 x 106 m3.
B. Tributary and Outlet (see Appendix B for flow data):
1. Tributaries -
Drainage Mean flow
Name area (km2) (nvysec)
A(l) Running Slough 77.2 0.87
(Bayou Du Chi en)
B(l) Reel foot Creek 297.8 3.36
C(l) Indian Creek 21.9 0.25
Minor tributaries and
immediate drainage - 170.9 1.93
Totals 567.8 6.41
2. Outlet - None known (see discussion, page 3).
C. Precipitation:
1. Year of sampling: 125.1 cm.
2. Mean annual: 105.5 cm.
-------
III. LAKE WATER QUALITY SUMMARY
Reel foot Lake 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 four stations on the lake and
from one or more depths at each station (see map, page ).
During each visit, depth-integrated samples were collected
from each station for chlorophyll a_ analysis and phytoplankton
identification and enumeration. During the first visit, an
18.9-liter depth-integrated sample was composited for algal
assays. Maximum depths sampled were 3.0 meters at Station 1,
2.7 meters at Station 2, 0.9 meters at Station 3, and 1.5 meters
at Station 4. For a more detailed explanation of NES methods,
see NES Working Paper No. 175.
The results obtained are presented in full in Appendix C
and are summarized in III-A for waters at the surface and at
the maximum depth for each site. Results of the phytoplankton
counts and chlorophyll ^determinations are included in III-B.
Results of the limiting nutrient study are presented in III-C.
-------
REELFOOT LAKE
STORE! CODE 4737
PARAMETER
( 5/15/73 )
MAX
S**« = 4 DEPTH
RANGE
RANGE MEDIAN (METERS)
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS
( 8/11/73 )
MAX
S»«« = 4 DEPTH
RANGE
RANGE MEDIAN (METERS)
( 10/19/73 )
MAX
S»*« = 4 DEPTH
RANGE
N« RANGE MEDIAN (METERS)
TEMPERATURE (DEG CENT)
0.-1.5 M DEPTH
MAX DEPTH"
6
4
DISSOLVED OXYGEN (MG/L)
0.-1.5 M DEPTH 2
MAX DEPTH" 4
CONDUCTIVITY (UMHOS)
0.-1.5 M DEPTH
MAX DEPTH««
PH (STANDARD UNITS)
0.-1.5 M DEPTH
MAX DEPTH"
6
4
6
4
TOTAL ALKALINITY (MG/L)
0.-1.5 M DEPTH 6
MAX DEPTH** 4
TOTAL P (MG/L)
0.-1.5 M DEPTH
MAX DEPTH**
6
4
DISSOLVED ORTHO P (MG/L)
0.-1.5 M DEPTH 6
MAX DEPTH** 4
N02»N03 (MG/L)
0.-1.5 M DEPTH
MAX DEPTH**
AMMONIA (MG/L)
O.-l.S M DEPTH
MAX DEPTH**
KJELDAHL N (MG/L)
0.-1.5 M DEPTH
MAX DEPTH**
SECCHI DISC (METERS)
6
4
6
4
6
4
n
18.0- 37.0
19.9- 22.3
7.3- 10.4
7.3- 10.4
160.- 210.
160.- 210.
7.6- 8.5
7.9- 8.4
73.- 99.
74.- 99.
0.086-0.227
0.101-0.201
0.021-0.051
0.026-0.050
0.040-0.110
0. 040-0. 080
0.040-0.120
0.040-0.090
0.500-1.000
0.400-1.000
27.6
21.3
8.8
7.6
195.
190.
8.0
7.9
86.
88.
0.169
0.138
0.029
0.031
0.065
0.070
0.065
0.070
0.650
0.550
0.0-
0.9-
0.9-
0.9-
0.0-
0.9-
0.0-
0.9-
0.0-
0.9-
0.0-
0.9-
0.0-
0.9-
0.0-
0.9-
0.0-
0.9-
0.0-
0.9-
1.5
3.0
1.5
3.0
1.5
3.0
1.5
3.0
1.5
3.0
1.5
3.0
1.5
3.0
1.5
3.0
1.5
3.0
1.5
3.0
7
4
5
4
7
4
7
4
7
4
7
4
7
4
7
4
7
4
7
4
n
12.0- 29.1
12.0- 29.1
1.8- 5.8
1.8- 4.2
200.- 274.
206.- 274.
7.9- 9.5
7.9- 8.6
88.- 115.
89.- 115.
0.233-0.471
0.233-0.452
0.060-0.273
0.060-0.254
0.110-0.200
0.110-0.220
0.130-0.280
0.130-0.280
2.300-3.500
2.300-3.200
24.0
28.7
3.2
2.7
207.
233.
8.9
8.1
92.
101.
0.430
0.433
0.240
0.195
0.170
0.140
0.150
0.215
3.000
2.950
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-
0.0-
0.0-
0.0-
0.0-
0.0-
0.0-
0.0-
1.5
2.4
1.5
2.4
1.5
2.4
1.5
2.4
1.5
2.4
1.5
2.4
1.5
2.4
1.5
2.4
1.5
2.4
1.5
2.4
5
4
3
4
5
4
5
4
5
4
5
4
5
4
5
4
5
4
5
4
n
14.0- 20.2
14.0- 20.2
7.8- 10.4
5.6- 10.4
170.- 203.
170.- 203.
8.2- 8.9
8.2- 8.9
95.- 109.
95.- 109.
0.144-0.269
0.144-0.269
0.043-0.063
0.043-0.082
0.050-0.100
0.050-0.100
0.060-0.080
0.060-0.090
1.000-2.700
1.000-2.700
18.0
18.8
9.0
8.4
172.
186.
8.7
8.5
98.
103.
0.238
0.248
0.059
0.061
0.080
0.080
0.070
0.080
2.100
2.200
0.0- 1.5
0.0- 2.1
0.0- 1.5
0.0- 2.1
0.0- 1.5
0.0- 2.1
0.0- 1.5
0.0- 2.1
0.0- 1.5
0.0- 2.1
0.0- 1.5
0.0- 2.1
0.0- 1.5
0.0- 2.1
0.0- 1.5
0.0- 2.1
0.0- 1.5
0.0- 2.1
0.0- 1.5
0.0- 2.1
« N = NO. OF SAMPLES
«» MAXIMUM DEPTH SAMPLED AT EACH SITE
«»» S = NO. OF SITES SAMPLED ON THIS DATE
-------
B. Biological Characteristics;
1. Phytoplankton -
Sampling
Date
05/15/73
08/11/73
10/19/73
Algal
Dominant Units
Genera per ml
1. Melosira 4,354
2. Flagellates 3,886
3. Nitzschia 2,387
4. Stephanodiscus 1,966
5. Oscillatoria 796
Other genera 2,155
Total 15,544
1. Melosira 24,631
2. Merismopedia 5,437
3. Nitzschia 3,107
4. Raphidiopsis 2,774
5. Stephanodiscus 2,663
Other genera 15,754
Total 54,366
1. Melosira 20,683
2. Merismopedia 4,573
3. Stephanodiscus 3,949
4. Microcystis 3,845
5. Flagellates 2,910
Other genera 22,555
Total 58,515
-------
8
2. Chlorophyll a_ -
Sampling Station Chlorophyll a_
Date Number (yg/1)
05/15/73 1 17.9
2 32.7
3 52.0
4 16.2
08/11/73 1 138.7
2 161.9
3 70.4
4 143.1
10/19/73 1 106.3
2 133.0
3 21.7
4 77.6
-------
C. Limiting Nutrient Study:
1. Autoclaved, filtered, and nutrient spiked -
2.
Ortho P Inorganic N
Spike(mg/l) Conc.(mg/l) Conc.(mg/l)
Control
0.05 P
0.05 P +
1.00 N
Filtered
Control
0.05 P
0.05 P +
1.00 N
M*
M
1.0 N M
M
and nutrient spiked -
0.025
0.075
1.0 N 0.075
0.025
0.152
0.152
1.152
1.152
0.219
0.219
1.219
1.219
Maximum Yield
(mg/l-dry wt.)
6.4
7.4
27.5
19.5
3.4
6.4
24.2
4.0
3. Discussion -
The control yield of the assay alga, Selenastrum
capricornutum, indicates that the potential for primary
production was high in Reel foot Lake at the time of sam-
pling. The response to the addition of nitrogen to the
autoclaved sample, as well as the lack of response to the
addition of phosphorus, indicates nitrogen limitation.
Maximum yield was achieved with the simultaneous addition
of both phosphorus and nitrogen.
The mean N/P ratios for the spring, summer, and fall
lake sampling were respectively 5/1, 2/1, and 3/1, all
indicating nitrogen limitation.
*Missing.
-------
10
IV. NUTRIENT LOADINGS
(See Appendix D for data)
For the determination of nutrient loadings, the Tennessee
National Guard collected monthly near-surface grab samples from
each of the tributary sites indicated on the map (page i), ex-
cept for the high runoff months of February and March when two
samples were collected. Sampling was begun in April 1973, and
was completed in March 1974.
Through an interagency agreement, stream flow estimates for
the year of sampling and a "normalized" or average year were pro-
vided by the Tennessee District Office of the USGS for the tribu-
tary sites nearest the lake.
In this report, nutrient loads for sampled tributaries, ex-
cept for Reel foot Creek, B(l), were determined by using a modi-
fication of a USGS computer program for calculating stream load-
ings. Nutrient loads indicated for tributaries are those mea-
sured minus known point source loads, if any.
Nutrient loadings for unsampled "minor tributaries and imme-
diate drainage" ("ZZ" of USGS) and Reelfoot Creek, B(l), were
estimated by using the mean annual nutrient loads, in kg/km2/yr,
for Running Slough and Indian Creek at Stations A(l) and C(l),
2
respectively, and by multiplying the means by the ZZ area in km .
Estimates on nutrient contributions by Reelfoot Creek Packing
Company Feedlot were calculated at 17.60 kg P and 57.49 kg N/animal/
yr (Omernik 1976).
-------
11
Estimates of nutrient contributions by wild ducks and
geese were based on the following number of waterfowl using
Reel foot Lake as provided by the Tennessee Wildlife Resources
Authority (Fox 1976):
Summer resident mallard ducks 1,000
Year round wood ducks 3,500
Winter resident mallard ducks 175,000
Migratory Canada geese 25,000
In calculating the nutrient loads the following assump-
tions were made:
1. Each wild duck contributes 0.45 kg total nitrogen and
0.20 kg phosphorus per year (Paloumpis and Starrett 1960).
2. Each wild goose contributes the same amount as one
duck since geese typically feed in fields away from the
lake several hours each day.
3. Summer resident waterfowl are at the lake for six
months of the year.
4. Migratory waterfowl spend a total of one month per
year at the lake, i.e., 15 days during spring migration
and 15 days during fall migration.
-------
12
A. Waste Sources:
1. Known municipal - None
2. Known industrial - None
B. Annual Total Phosphorus Loading - Average Year:
1. Inputs -
% of
Source kg P/yr total
a. Tributaries (nonpoint load) -
A(l) Running Slough 6,210 5.3
(Bayou Du Chien)
B(l) Reel foot Creek 18,465 15.7
C(l) Indian Creek 990 0.8
b. Minor tributaries and immediate
drainage (nonpoint load) - 10,595 9.0
c. Known municipal STP's - None
d. Septic tanks* - 75 0.1
e. Known industrial - None
f. Reel foot Creek Packing
Company Feedlot - 61,600 52.5
g. Wild ducks and geese - 18,715 16.1
h. Direct precipitation** - 635 0.5
Totals 117,285 100.0
2. Outputs - None known, see discussion, page 3.
*Estimate based on 1 State park, 1 camp, and 257 lakeside residences.
**Estimated (see NES Working Paper No. 175).
-------
13
C. Annual Total Nitrogen Loading - Average Year:
1. Inputs -
% of
Source kg N/yr total
a. Tributaries (nonpoint load) -
A(l) Running Slough 34,750 7.3
(Bayou Du Chien)
B(l) Reelfoot Creek 96,485 20.3
C(l) Indian Creek 4,345 0.9
b. Minor tributaries and immediate
drainage (nonpoint load) - 55,370 11-6
c. Known municipal STP's - None
d. Septic tanks* - 2,845 0.6
e. Known industrial - None
f. Reelfoot Creek Packing
Company Feedlot - 201,215 42.2
g. Wild ducks and geese - 42,110 8.8
h. Direct precipitation** - 39,320 8.3
Totals 476,440 100.0
2. Outputs - None known, see discussion, page 3.
*Estimate based on 1 State park, 1 camp, and 257 lakeside resv
dences.
**Estimated (see NES Working Paper No. 175).
-------
14
D. Mean Annual Nonpoint Nutrient Export by Subdrainage Area:
Tributary kg P/km2/yr kg N/km^/yr
A(l) Running Slough
B(l) Reel foot Creek
C(l) Indian Creek
80
62
45
450
324
198
E. Yearly Loading:
Total Yearly
Phosphorus Loading
(g/m2/yr)
Estimated loading for Reel foot Lake
3.22
-------
15
V. LITERATURE REVIEWED
Fox, Ron. 1976. Personal communication (ducks). Tennessee
Wildlife Resources Authority.
Martin, W. H. 1975. Personal communication (sedimentation
problem in Reelfoot Lake). Tennessee Department of Public
Health, Division of Water Quality Control, Nashville, Tennessee.
Max, Wayne. 1976. Personal communication (lake outlet).
Jackson Division of Water Quality Control, Tennessee Depart-
ment of Public Health.
Omernik, James N. 1976. The Influence of Land Use on Stream
Nutrient Levels. Ecological Research Series, Environmental
Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Development,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Corvallis, Oregon.
Paloumpis, A. A. and W. C. Starrett. 1960. An Ecological
Study of the Benthic Organisms in Three Illinois River
Flood Plain Lakes. Amer. Midi. Natl. 64_(2): 406-435.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1975. National Eutro-
phication Survey Methods 1973-1976. Working Paper No. 175.
National Environmental Research Center, Las Vegas, Nevada,
and Pacific Northwest Environmental Research Laboratory,
Corvallis, Oregon.
-------
VI. APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
CONVERSION 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
Cejitimeters x 0.3937 = inches
Kilograms x 2.205 = pounds
Kilograms/square kilometer x 5.711 = Ibs/square mile
-------
APPENDIX B
TRIBUTARY FLOW DATA
-------
TRIBUTARY FLOW INFORMATION FOR TENNESSEE
09/13/76
LAKE CODE 47?7
REELFOOT LAKE
TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA OF LAKE
-------
TRIBUTARY FLOW INFORMATION FOR TENNESSEE
09/13/76
LAKE CODE 47?7
REELFOOT LAKE
MEAN MONTHLY FLOWS AND DAILY FLOWS(CMS)
TRIBUTARY MONTH YEAR MEAN FLOW DAY
4727C1
4727ZZ
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
1
?
3
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
74
74
74
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
74
74
74
1.382
0.833
0.076
0.071
0.099
0.082
0.076
1.716
1.263
1.512
0.297
0.467
10.789
6.513
0.597
0.317
0.634
0.634
0.597
13.422
9.854
11.836
2.316
3.653
15
11
9
29
11
11
14
11
9
12
10
9
FLOW DAY
0.119
0.119
0.062
0.028
0.028
0.042
0.079
0.091
0.099
4.304
0.105 28
0.139 22
FLOW DAY
FLOW
0.113
0.405
-------
APPENDIX C
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL DATA
-------
STORET RETRIEVAL DATE 76/09/10
472701
36 21 41.0 089 25 35.0 3
REELFOOT LAKE
47095 TENNESSEE
100691
DATE
FROM
TO
73/05/15
73/08/il
73/10/19
DATE
FROM
TO
73/05/15
73/08/11
73/10/19
TIME DEPTH
OF
DAY FEET
12 35 0000
12 35 0006
12 35 0010
14 25 0000
14 25 0004
14 25 0008
14 15 0000
14 15 0007
TIME DEPTH
OF
DAY FEET
12 35 0000
12 35 0006
12 35 0010
14 25 0000
14 25 0004
14 25 0008
14 15 0000
14 15 0007
00010
WATER
TEMP
CENT
21.0
20.8
20.7
29.1
28.7
28.6
20.5
19.7
00665
PHOS-TOT
MG/L P
0.086
0.089
0.101
0.402
0.436
0.437
0.238
0.247
00300
DO
MG/L
8.0
7.8
5.0
5.8
4.2
5.6
32217
CHLRPHYL
A
UG/L
17.9
138.7
106.3
00077 00094
TRANSP CNDUCTVY
SECCHI FIELD
INCHES MICROMHO
36 200
190
190
24 200
207
211
18 170
170
11EPALES 2111202
0013 FEET DEPTH CLASS 00
00400 00410 00610 00625
PH
SU
7
7
7
9
8
8
8
8
.60
.90
.90
.50
.70
.60
.70
.40
T ALK
CAC03
MG/L
85
87
88
88
92
91
97
95
NH3-N
TOTAL
MG/L
0.070
0.070
0.080
0.150
0.170
0.200
0.070
0.090
TOT KJEL
N
MG/L
0.700
0.500
0.400
2.900
2.700
2.900
2.100
1.800
00630
N02&N03
N-TOTAL
MG/L
0.070
0.080
O.OBO
0.170
0.200
0.220
0.090
0.080
00671
PHOS-DIS
ORTHO
MG/L P
0.028
0.026
0.026
0.240
0.252
0.251
0.059
0.082
-------
STORET RETRIEVAL DATE 76/09/10
473702
36 23 10.0 089 26 38.0 3
REELFOOT LAKE
47095 TENNESSEE
100691
DATE
FROM
TO
73/05/15
73/08/11
73/10/19
DATE
FROM •
TO
73/05/15
73/08/11
73/10/19
TIME DEPTH
OF
DAY FEET
13 15 0000
13 15 0006
13 15 0009
14 00 0000
14 00 0005
14 00 0008
14 00 0000
14 00 0005
TIME DEPTH
OF
DAY FEET
13 15 0000
13 15 0006
13 15 0009
14 00 0000
14 00 0005
14 00 0003
14 00 0000
14 00 0005
00010
WATER
TEMP
CENT
20.5
19.9
19.9
29.1
28.9
28.9
20.8
20.2
00665
PHOS-TOT
MG/L P
0.092
0.111
0.126
0.458
0.471
0.452
0.223
0.269
00300
DO
MG/L
8.1
7.5
3.2
3.0
7.8
32217
CHLRPHYL
A
UG/L
32.7
161.9
133.0
00077 00094
TRANSP CNDUCTVY
SECCHI FIELD
INCHES MICROMHO
33 190
190
190
21 204
205
206
18 172
172
11EPALES 2111202
0011 FEET DEPTH CLASS 00
00400 00410 00610 00625
PH
SU
8.
8.
8.
9.
8.
8.
8.
8.
00
00
00
40
90
20
90
60
T ALK
CAC03
MG/L
87
87
87
89
90
89
95
98
NH3-N
TOTAL
MG/L
0.080
0.070
0.090
0.150
0.230
0.230
0.070
0.080
TOT KJEL
N
MG/L
0.500
0.400
0.600
3.400
3.000
3.200
2.100
2.600
00630
N02&N03
N-TOTAL
MG/L
0.070
0.060
0.080
0.170
0.180
0.130
0.070
0.100
00671
PHOS-OIS
ORTHO
MG/L P
0.030
0.028
0.033
0.265
0.273
0.254
0.052
0.059
-------
STORET RETRIEVAL DATE 76/09/10
DATE
FROM
TO
73/05/15
73/08/11
73/10/19
DATE
FROM
TO
73/05/15
73/08/11
73/10/19
TIME DEPTH
OF
DAY FEET
13 50 0000
13 50 0003
13 45 0000
13 50 0000
TIME DEPTH
OF
DAY FEET
13 50 0000
13 50 0003
13 45 0000
13 50 0000
00010
WATER
TEMP
CENT
22.4
22.3
29.2
19.8
00665
PHOS-TOT
MG/L P
0.227
0.201
0.233
0.144
00300
DO
MG/L
10.4
2.4
9.0
32217
CHLRPHYL
A
UG/L
52.0
70.4
21.7
00077
TRANSP O
SECCHI FIELD
INCHES M]
18
12
18
472703
36 23 48.0 089 20 32.0 3
REELFOOT LAKE
47131 TENNESSEE
100691
11EPALES 2111202
0005 FEET DEPTH CLASS 00
94
TVY
1
MHO
160
160
254
200
00400
PH
SU
8.50
8.40
8.10
8.20
00410
T ALK
CAC03
MG/L
73
74
111
108
00610
NH3-N
TOTAL
MG/L
0.120
0.060
0.130
0.060
00625
TOT KJEL
N
MG/L
0.800
1.000
2.300
1.000
00630
N02&N03
N-TOTAL
MG/L
0.110
0.060
0.110
0.050
00671
PHOS-DIS
ORTHO
MG/L P
0.021
0.029
0.060
0.043
-------
STORET RETRIEVAL OATE 76/09/10
472704
36 27 17.0 089 21 14.0 3
KEELFOOT LAKE
47131 TENNESSEE
100691
11EPALES 2111202
0007 FEET DEPTH CLASS
DATE
FROM
TO
73/05/15
73/08/11
73/10/19
DATE
FROM
TO
73/05/15
73/08/11
73/10/19
TIME DEPTH
OF
DAY FEET
14 00 0000
14 00 0005
13 25 0000
13 25 0004
13 40 0000
TIME DEPTH
OF
DAY FEET
14 00 0000
14 00 0005
13 25 0000
13 25 0004
13 40 0000
00010
WATER
TEMP
CENT
22.0
21.9
29.1
29.1
19.8
00665
PHOS-TOT
MG/L P
0.188
0.150
0.362
0.430
0.249
00300
DO
MG/L
7.3
1.8
10.4
32217
CHLRPHYL
A
UG/L
16.2
143.1
77.6
00077
TRANSP
SECCHI
INCHES
37
16
14
00094
CNDUCTVY
FIELD
MICROMHO
205
210
273
274
203
00400
PH
SU
8.00
7.90
8.90
7.90
8.90
00410 00610
T ALK NH3-N
CAC03 TOTAL
MG/L MG/L
99 0.050
99 0.040
115 0.140
115 0.280
109 0.080
00
00625
TOT KJEL
N
MG/L
0.600
0.500
3.500
3.000
2.700
00630
N02&N03
N-TOTAL
MG/L
0.040
0.040
0.160
0.150
0.080
00671
PHOS-DIS
ORTHO
MG/L P
0.051
0.050
0.136
0.140
0.063
-------
APPENDIX D
TRIBUTARY DATA
-------
STORET RETRIEVAL DATE 76/09/09
4727A1
36 28 00.0 089 19 10.0 4
RUNNING SLOUGH
47 OLIN TN CO MAP
T/REELFOOT LAKE 100691
BANK NEAR SEC RO IN WALNUT LOG
11EPALES 2111204
0000 FEET DEPTH CLASS 00
DATE
FROM
TO
73/04/15
73/05/11
73/06/09
73/07/29
73/08/11
73/09/11
73/10/14
73/11/11
73/12/09
74/01/12
74/02/10
74/02/25
74/02/28
74/03/09
00630 00625
TIME DEPTH N02&N03 TOT KJEL
OF N-TOTAL N
DAY FEET
15
08
14
10
10
09
09
11
09
09
10
20
55
10
05
00
15
43
?7
50
35
18
MG/L
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.154
.160
.252
.039
.012
.056
.052
.076
.830
.720
.232
.440
.340
.300
MG/L
0.
0.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
0.
0.
680
880
540
600
500
180
000
700
600
900
300
350
900
800
00610 00671 00665
NH3-N PHOS-DIS PHOS-TOT
TOTAL ORTHO
MG/L
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
020
105
168
042
210
140
052
040
048
010
055
030
0.075
MG/L
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
p
038
115
058
042
042
029
027
018
120
100
040
055
050
045
MG/L P
0.155
0.310
0.230
0.250
0.220
0.230
0.180
0.105
0.315
0.290
0.080
0.348
0.250
0.170
-------
STORET RETRIEVAL DATE 76/09/09
4727B1
36 26 27.0 089 17 50.0 4
REELFOOT CREEK
47 OLIM TN CO MAP
I/REELFOOT LAKE 100691
ST RT 22 BROG JUST SN JCT WITH ST RT
HEPALES 2111204
0000 FEET DEPTH CLASS 00
157
- DATE
FROM
TO
73/04/15
73/05/11
73/06/09
73/07/29
73/08/11
73/09/H
73/10/14
73/11/11
73/12/09
74/01/12
74/01/28
74/02/10
7W02/25
74/03/09
00630 00625
TIME DEPTH N02&N03 TOT KJEL
OF N-TOTAL N
DAY FEET
15
09
14
14
09
10
10
10
10
09
10
11
40
20
15
25
50
30
10
09
00
10
20
00
MG/L
0
0
0
0
0
G
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.350
.310
.450
.011
.092
.017
.044
.380
.320
.480
.400
.510
.560
.528
MG/L
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
1.
0.
1.
0.
1.
1.
540
460
780
900
420
690
030
050
850
400
800
300
500
00610 00671 00665
NH3-N PHOS-DIS PHOS-TOT
TOTAL ORTHO
MG/L
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
018
115
040
021
034
064
054
098
088
104
040
060
075
090
MG/L
P
0.018
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
9.
0.
0.
0.
0.
120
048
024
088
039
040
180
072
112
070
020
040
MG/L P
0.100
1.050
0.160
0.120
0.320
0.125
0.295
0.680
0.355
0.420
0.065
0.360
0.380
-------
STORET RETRIEVAL DATE 76/09/09
4727C1
36 23 03.0 089 20 34.0 4
INDIAN CREEK
47 OLIN TN CO MAP
T/REELFOOT LAKE 100691
ST RT 22 BRDG JUST ME OF SAMBURG
11EPALES 2111204
0000 FEET DEPTH CLASS 00
DATE
FROM
TO
73/04/15
73/05/11
73/06/09
73/07/29
73/08/11
73/09/11
73/10/14
73/11/11
73/12/09
74/01/12
74/02/10
74/02/25
74/02/28
74/03/09
00630 00625
TIME DEPTH N02&N03 TOT KJEL
OF N-TOTAL N
DAY FEET
15
09
14
14
09
10
09
10
09
10
10
10
50
45
25
40
30
15
45
00
50
10
15
45
MG/L
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.011
.200
.099
.014
.037
.037
.046
.015
.132
.232
.036
.100
.260
.140
MG/L
0.
1.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
195
050
340
480
200
360
650
650
300
400
200
400
900
300
00610 00671 00665
NH3-N PHOS-DIS PHOb-TOT
TOTAL ORTHO
MG/L
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
012
067
056
016
034
064
034
020
040
044
020
030
0.045
0.
040
MG/L P
0.012
0.075
0.042
0.050
0.105
0.072
0.100
0.061
0.032
0.015
0.020
0.115
MG/L P
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.060
.120
.125
.195
.200
.270
.140
.080
.115
.045
0.080
0
0
.140
.080
-------
APPENDIX E
PARAMETRIC RANKINGS OF LAKES
SAMPLED BY NES IN 1974
STATE OF TENNESSEE
-------
LAM" L.ATA 70 >*E
IN
CODE
4701
4?G<»
47Ut
-.707
4708
4711
4712
4713
Ln«E NAME
LAKE 3ARKl.tr
4724
4727
-.728
CHEROKEE LAKE
CHICKAMAUGA LAKE
DOUGLAS LAKE
FORT LOUOON RESERVOIR
GREAT FALLS LA
-------
PERCENT OF LAKES WITH HIGHER VALUES -;NUMSE« or LAKES *ITH HIGHER VALUES)
LAKE
CODE LAKE NAME
4701 LAKE BARKLEY
4704 BOONE RESERVOIR
4706 CHEATHAM RESERVOIR
4707 CHEROKEE LAKE
4708 CHICKAMAUGA LAKE
4711 DOUGLAS LAKE
4712 FORT LOUDON RESERVOIR
4713 GREAT FALLS LAKE
4717 NICKAJACK RESERVOIR
4720 OLD HICKORY LAKE
4722 WATTS BAR RESERVOIR
4723 j. PERCY PRIEST RESERVOI
4724 TIM'S FORD RESERVOIR
4725 SOUTH HOLSTON LAKE
4727 REELFOOT LAKE
4728 WOODS RESERVOIR
MEDIAN
TOTAL P
13 i
40 1
7 1
50 I
67 1
73 (
33 1
87 1
50 1
20 (
60 I
27 (
80 I
100 (
0 <
93 (
( 2)
I 6)
I 1)
1 7)
[ 10)
! 11)
[ 5)
1 13)
[ 7)
1 3)
9)
: 4)
12)
15)
: 0)
14)
MEDIAN
INOrtG N
40 (
0 (
47 (
7 (
63 (
63 (
20 (
73 (
33 (
80 (
27 (
100 (
53 (
13 (
93 (
87 (
6)
0)
7)
1)
9)
9)
3)
11)
5)
12)
4)
15)
8)
2)
14)
13)
500-
MEAN SEC
13
73 i
7 i
53 i
33 i
67 I
27 i
60 1
47 <
20 1
40 1
80 1
100 1
93 1
0 1
87 (
( 2)
! 11)
I 1)
1 8)
1 5)
! 10)
1 4)
I 9)
t 7)
! 3)
: 6>
: 12)
: is)
: 14)
; o>
: 13)
MEAN
CHLOWA
f»
20
40 i
13 i
93 I
80 I
73 I
87 1
100 (
33 1
67 (
27 1
60 1
47 I
0 1
53 (
( 1)
I 3)
( 6)
I 2)
I 14)
1 12)
i in
I 13)
I 15)
: 5)
; io>
: 4)
; 9)
7)
: o>
8)
15-
MIN DO
73
47 i
90 (
13 I
90 1
13 (
60 1
40 (
80 1
100 (
67 <
13 (
33 (
13 (
53 (
13 (
I ID
1 7)
1 13)
1 0)
1 13)
I 0)
[ 9)
1 6)
I 12)
: 15)
10)
0)
5)
0)
8)
0)
MEDIAN
OISS OUTHO P
13
20 i
0 1
40 <
70 1
60 1
27 1
93 1
33 (
53 1
70 (
47 (
80 <
87 (
7 (
100 (
I 2)
I 3)
I 0)
I 6)
! 10)
[ 9)
! 4)
i 14)
I 5)
; 8)
10)
; 7)
12)
13)
: i)
15)
INDEX
NO
159
200
191
176
416
396
240
440
343
306
331
294
406
353
153
433
------- |