U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
NATIONAL EUTROPHICATION SURVEY
WORKING PAPER SERIES
REPORT
ON
BLUE MOUNTAIN LAKE
LOGAN AND YELL COUNTIES
EPA REGION VI
WORKING PAPER No, 482
CORVALLIS ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY - CORVALLIS, OREGON
and
ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING & SUPPORT LABORATORY - LAS VEGAS, NEVADA
lirG.P.O. 699-440
-------
REPORT
ON
BLUE MOUNTAIN LAKE
LOGAN AND YELL COUNTIES
EPA REGION VI
WORKING PAPER No, 482
WITH THE COOPERATION OF THE
ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF POLLUTION
CONTROL AND ECOLOGY
AND THE
ARKANSAS NATIONAL GUARD
JANUARY, 1977
-------
REPORT ON BLUE MOUNTAIN LAKE
LOGAN AND YELL COUNTIES, ARKANSAS
EPA REGION VI
by
National Eutrophication Survey
Water and Land Monitoring Branch
Monitoring Applications Laboratory
Environmental Monitoring & Support Laboratory
Las Vegas, Nevada
and
Eutrophication Survey Branch
Corvallis Environmental Research Laboratory
Corvallis, Oregon
Working Paper No. 482
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
January 1977
-------
CONTENTS
Page
Foreword ii
List of Arkansas 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 6
IV. Nutrient Loadings 11
V. Literature Reviewed 17
VI. Appendices 18
-------
11
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,bj], 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 Arkansas Department of Pollution
Control and Ecology for professional involvement, to the Arkansas
National Guard for conducting the tributary sampling phase of the
Survey, and to those Arkansas wastewater treatment plant operators
who provided effluent samples and flow data.
The staff of the Water Division of the Arkansas Department
of Pollution Control and Ecology 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 Thomas C. Armstrong, the Adjutant General of
Arkansas, and Project Officer Colonel Lavaun M. James, who directed
the volunteer efforts of the Arkansas National Guardsmen, are also
gratefully acknowledged for their assistance to the Survey.
-------
IV
NATIONAL EUTROPHICATION SURVEY
STUDY LAKES
STATE OF ARKANSAS
LAKE NAME
Beaver
Blackfish
Blue Mountain
Bull Shoals
Catherine
Chi cot
DeGray
Erling
Grand
Greer's Ferry
Hamilton
Millwood
Nimrod
Norfork
Ouachita
Table Rock
COUNTY
Benton, Carroll, Washington
Crittenden, St. Francis
Logan, Yell
Baxter, Boone, Marion
(Taney, Ozark in MO)
Garland, Hot Spring
Chi cot
Clark, Hot Spring
Lafayette
Chi cot
Van Buren, Cleburne
Garland
Hempstead, Howard,
Little River, Sevier
Perry, Yell
Baxter, Fulton (Ozark in MO)
Garland, Montgomery
Boone, Carroll (Barry,
Taney in MO)
-------
BLUE MOUNTAIN LAKE
0 Tributary Sampling Site
X Lake Sampling Site
Sewage Treatment Facility
Drainage Area Boundary
Land Subject to Inundation
Ark.
Map Location
35'15'—
-------
REPORT ON BLUE MOUNTAIN LAKE, ARKANSAS
STORET NO. 0503
I. CONCLUSIONS
A. Trophic Condition:
On the basis of field observations and Survey data, Blue
Mountain Lake is considered eutrophic, i.e., nutrient rich
and productive. Whether such nutrient enrichment is to be
considered beneficial or deleterious is determined by its
actual or potential impact upon designated beneficial water
uses of each lake.
Chlorophyll a_ values ranged from 5.3 yg/1 in the spring
to 14.1 yg/1 in the fall, with a mean of 9.0 yg/1. Potentials
for primary production as measured by algal assay control
yields were moderate to high. Of the 16 Arkansas lakes sampled
in 1974, 3 had higher median total phosphorus values, 4 had
higher median orthophosphorus levels, and 7 had higher median
inorganic nitrogen values than Blue Mountain Lake.
Dissolved oxygen levels were sharply depressed at Station
01 below 4.6 meters (15 feet) during summer sampling. Survey
limnologists reported no other problem conditions in the lake.
However, other studies (Arkansas Department of Pollution Control
and Ecology, 1972) indicate that the shallow upper end of the
lake may be trapping nutrients, resulting in heavy algal and
macrophyte growth.
*See Appendix E
-------
B. Rate-Limiting Nutrient:
Algal assay results indicate primary limitation by phosphorus
in Blue Mountain Lake. Mean inorganic nitrogen to orthophosphorus
(N/P) ratios for the lake were 16/1 and 26/1 in the summer and
fall, respectively, indicating phosphorus limitation, and 9/1 in
the spring, suggesting nitrogen limitation.
C. Nutrient Controllability:
1. Point sources -
During the sampling year, point sources were estimated to
have contributed 30.0% of the total phosphorus load to Blue
Mountain Lake. The city of Booneville contributed 28.3% of
this load.
2
The total annual phosphorus loading of 1.44 g/m /yr is
slightly greater than Vollenweider's (1975) proposed eutrophic
loading rate for lakes with such volume and retention time.
However, loading calculations for the lake yield a large net
export of phosphorus. This apparent phosphorus export could
be attributed to undetected discharges reaching the lake from
unmeasured industrial or municipal sources, to underestimation
of the phosphorus load from septic tanks or to insufficient
tributary sampling to determine an accurate nutrient budget
for the lake. Although additional sampling is needed before
definitive recommendations for the lake can be proposed, re-
duction of phosphorus loading from the Booneville plant to
-------
the greatest practicable extent should aid in improving
water quality in Blue Mountain Lake.
2. Nonpoint sources -
The mean annual phosphorus load from nonpoint sources
was about 70.0% of the total reaching the lake measured
tributaries accounted for over 63.0% of the total phosphorus
load and the ungaged drainage areas were estimated to have
contributed 5.4%.
-------
II. LAKE AND DRAINAGE BASIN CHARACTERISTICS
Lake and drainage basin characteristics are itemized be-
low. Lake morphometry was provided by the Arkansas Department
of Pollution Control and Ecology; tributary flow data were pro-
vided by the Arkansas District Office of the U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS). Outlet drainage area includes the lake surface
area. Mean hydraulic retention time was obtained by dividing
the lake volume by mean flow of the outlet. Precipitation
values are estimated by methods as outlined in National Eutro-
phication Survey (NES) Working Paper No. 175. A table of metric/
English conversions is included as Appendix A.
Tributary D-l, Cedar Creek, does not impact Blue Mountain
Lake, but flows into the Petit Jean River below Blue Mountain
Dam. For this reason, drainage area, flow, and nutrient loading
values for D-l have not been included with the other tributaries
flowing into Blue Mountain Lake.
A. Lake Morphometry:
P
1. Surface area: 11.74 km .
2. Mean depth: 2.6 meters.
3. Maximum depth: 12.8 meters.
4. Volume: 30.837 x 106 m3.
5. Mean hydraulic retention time: 25 days.
-------
B. Tributary and Outlet:
(See Appendix B for flow data)
1. Tributaries -
Drainage Mean flow
Name area(km2) (m /sec)
A-2 Petit Jean River 898.7 10.68
E-l Dry Creek 33.7 0.39
F-l Sugar Creek 151.3 1.77
Minor tributaries and
immediate drainage - 139.8 1.77
Totals 1,223.5 14.61
2. Outlet - A-l Petit Jean River 1,263.9 14.81
C. Precipitation:
1. Year of sampling: 114.9 cm.
2. Mean annual: 114.2 cm.
-------
III. LAKE WATER QUALITY SUMMARY
Blue Mountain Lake v/as sampled three times during the open-
water season of 1974 by means of a pontoon-equipped Huey heli-
copter. Each time, samples for physical and chemical parameters
were collected from two stations on the lake and from one or more
depths at each station (see map, page v). During each visit,
depth-integrated samples were collected from each station for
chlorophyll a_ analysis and phytoplankton identification and enu-
meration. During the first and last visits, 18.9-liter depth-
integrated samples were composited for algal assays. Maximum
depths sampled were 8.5 meters at Station 01 and 2.7 meters at
Station 02. 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 a^ determinations are included in III-B. Results
of the limiting nutrient study are presented in III-C.
-------
A.MG OE«ICAL OA^ACTt- ISTICs
( 6/ 6/V-. )
.A,A,ET^
N°
-ANbE
fANbC. ^EOJA^ (MLT£"S)
r\(V
^ OO O z £
KiNGE "EOlAN
l"ETE*S)
N» KANGE
= 2
MEDIAN
(METERS)
TE«PE-ATU"t (OEr- Ci-.MT)
C .-1 . - x ijEPT-i
•'a* ' c. ' ^ '"^ v
0.-1.5 " Pitf-Tn
Mi*. DEPTn-"'»
CONDUCTIVITY (UMnU
O.-l.s M DEPTH
PH (STANDARD OMIT<
0 .-1 .'-> M OEPTrt
MAX DEPTn*u
TOTAL ALf^AL INI fY (
O.-l.S M pEPTn
MAX DEPTH0*
TOTAL P
O.-l.S t* nEkTri
'•'Ax 0 E P t n •"• *
DISSOLVED OKTHO P
O.-l.S M OEh-Tri
MAX OEHTH*0
N02*N03 (MC-./LI
o.-i.s M OE^TH
"Ax OEPTn*"
AMMONIA I^G/L)
O.-l.1-. M OtPT-»
MAX UEPTt-i00
KJtLi-'irtL ii (Mb/LI
n.-i.s M .,EPTH
MAX OEPTrl"
3
?
«G/U
2
iM
0
0
)
1
2
*b/L>
3
2
3
2
(MG/L)
3
2
">,
2
J
2
3
2
10.6-
10.2-
8.4-
8.4-
ooooo.o
6.8-
7.0-
10.-
10.-
O.OS4-0
0.058-0
0.016-0
0.018-0
0.0^0-0
0. 0^0-0
0.070-0
0.0/0-0
0.200-0
0.300-0
IS.?
lo.?
10.0
9.8
00**
7.1
7.1
24.
24.
.06b
.06b
.021
.024
.110
.110
.080
.080
. b 0 0
.600
11.1
1?.7
9.2
9.1
ooooa
7.0
7.0
12.
17.
0.05t>
0.061
O.Olb
0.021
U. 10U
0.100
0.070
0.07b
0.310
0.450
0.0-
".0-
n.o-
n.o-
0000_<
0.0-
0.0-
0.0-
0.0-
0.0-
0.0-
0.0-
0.0-
o.o-
0.0-
0.0-
0.0-
0.0-
0.0-
1
*
1
4
)OO
1
•*
1
4
1
4
1
t
1
4
1
4
1
4
.s
. <-,
.3
.6
OO
.5
.6
,b
.6
.5
.6
.5
.6
.b
.6
.5
.6
.b
.6
u
2
2
2
*
3
2
4
2
4
*
4
2
a
2
4
2
4
2
22.6-
21.6-
4.4-
0.4-
eb.-
6.6-
6.5-
23.-
24.-
0.072-0
0.0^3-0
0.010-0
0.010-0
0.04U-0
0.030-0
0.100-0
0.120-0
U .4QO-0
o.boo-o
22.9
22.8
4.6
6.4
O U
V8 .
6.7
6.6
24.
32.
. 10"»
.115
.012
.011
. \d.(l
.ObO
.120
.IbU
.nOO
.bOO
22. S
22.2
4.b
3.*
o ^
V f .
6.6
6.5
24.
28.
0.086
0. 104
0.010
0.010
0.060
0.040
O.llb
0.13b
O.oOO
0.500
0.
2.
1.
2.
0.
2 .
0.
2.
0.
2.
0.
2.
0.
2.
0.
*'
0.
2.
0.
2.
0-
7-
5-
7-
0-
—
0-
7-
0-
7-
0-
7-
0-
7-
0-
7-
0-
7-
0-
7-
1.5
7.>*
1.5
7.9
1.5
70
. V
1.5
7.9
1.5
7.S>
1 .5
7.9
1.5
7.S
1.5
7.9
1.5
7.9
l.b
7. si
<• 17.9-
e 17.7-
t V.8-
r1 7.8-
» 47.-
^ A 7
? 4 / , -
4 0.6-
2 0.6-
4 17.-
2 19.-
4 0.047-0
' O.ObO-0
4 0^004-0
2 0.004-0
ft 0.0»0-0
2 O.ObO-0
4 0.030-0
? 0.040-0
4 U. 200-0
2 O.<*00-0
ll.O
18.0
e.8
H.6
49.
A O
4S .
6.7
6.7
20.
20.
.05H
.057
.006
.004
.100
.090
.040
.050
.bOO
.400
17. *,
1 1 ,b
8.b
».t
48.
A Q
4B.
6.7
6.6
19.
20.
0.055
0.053
0.004
0.004
0.06b
0.070
0.040
0.04b
0.400
0.400
0.0-
0.9-
0.0-
0.9-
0.0-
00 _
.V-
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-
l.b
8.&
l.b
8.5
l.b
8C
• D
1.5
6.5
l.b
8.b
1.3
8.5
1.5
6.b
1.5
8.5
l.b
3.5
l.b
8.5
SECCHI DISC C'h'
0.3- 0.3
O.J
0.3- 0.4 0.3
.T>- 0.7
0.6
o .Ni = IMO. Oh b
»» MAxlMUH Uh^fH bAMHLED AT EALH Sift
ooo s = M>. UK SI Its SAMPLED ON Trl<: DATE
-------
B. Biological Characteristics:
1. Phytoplankton -
Sampling
Date
03/28/74
06/06/74
10/18/74
Dominant
Genera
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Melosira
Chroomonas
Dactyl ococcopsis
Cryptomonas
Asterionella
Other genera
Total
Melosira
Euglena
Nitzschia
Anabaena
Crucigenia
Other genera
Total
Melosira
Stephanodiscus
Chlamydomonas
Dactyl ococcopsis
Oscillatoria
Other genera
Algal
Units
per ml
2,302
1,069
781
247
164
288
4,851
3,828
58
58
29
29
29
4,031
1,830
790
333
166
166
374
Total
3,659
-------
2. Chlorophyll a -
Sampling
Date
03/28/74
06/06/74
10/18/74
Limiting Nutrient
Station
Number
Study:
1. Autoclaved, filtered, and
a. 03/28/74
Spike (mg/1)
Control
0.05 P
0.05 P + 1.0
1.00 N
b. 10/18/74
Spike (mg/1)
Control
0.05 P
0.05 P + 1.00
1.00 N
Ortho P
Cone, (mg/1
0.015
0.065
N 0.065
0.015
Ortho P
Cone, (mg/1
0.010
0.060
N 0.060
0.010
01
02
01
02
01
02
nutrient spiked -
Inorganic
) Cone, (mg/1)
0.153
0.153
1.153
1.153
Inorganic
) Cone, (mg/1)
0.092
0.092
1.092
1.092
Chlorophyll a
(vjg/D
5.3
7.2
7.9
10.0
9.4
14.1
Maximum Yield
(mg/1 -dry wt. )
1.9
7.1
25.5
2.1
Maximum Yield
(mg/1 -dry wt.)
0.8
5.0
16.4
0.6
-------
10
2. Discussion -
The control yields of the assay alga, Selenastrum capri-
cornutum, indicate that the potential for primary production
in Blue Mountain Lake was high during spring sampling and
moderately high during fall. In both assays, substantial
growth responses to the addition of phosphorus alone, as well
as the lack of response to the addition of nitrogen indicate
phosphorus limitation. Maximum growth yields were achieved
with the simultaneous addition of both nutrients.
Mean N/P ratios in the lake data were 16/1 and 26/1 for
the summer and fall sampling periods, indicating primary limi-
tation by phosphorus, but 9/1 in the spring, suggesting nitro-
gen limitation at that time (an N/P ratio of 14/1 or greater
generally reflects phosphorus limitation).
-------
11
IV. NUTRIENT LOADINGS
(See Appendix D for data)
For the determination of nutrient loadings, the Arkansas
National Guard collected monthly near-surface grab samples from
each of the tributary sites indicated on the map (page v), ex-
cept for the high runoff months of March and April when two sam-
ples were collected. Sampling was begun in June 1975, and was
completed in May 1975.
Through an interagency agreement, stream flow estimates for
the year of sampling and a "normalized" or average year were pro-
vided by the Arkansas District Office of the USGS for the tribu-
tary sites nearest the lake.
In this report, nutrient loads for sampled tributaries were
determined by using a modification of a USGS computer program for
calculating stream loadings. Nutrient loads indicated for tribu-
taries are those measured minus known point source loads, if any.
Nutrient loadings for unsampled "minor tributaries and imme-
diate drainage" ("II" of USGS) were estimated by using the mean
annual nutrient loads, in kg/km^/yr, in Dry Creek and Sugar Creek
at Stations E-l and F-l, and multiplying the means by the II area
in km2.
The operator of the Booneville wastewater treatment plant pro-
vided monthly effluent samples and corresponding flow data, tlutri-
ent loads for the Arkansas Children's Colony wastewater treatment
plant were estimated at 1.134 kg P and 3.401 kg N/Capita/yr.
-------
12
A. Waste Sources:
1. Known municipal
Name
Booneville
Arkansas Children's
Colony*
Population
Served
3,263
255*
Treatment
Activated
sludge
Trickling
filter
Mean Flow Receiving
(m3/d x 1Q3) Water
1.597
0.965**
Petit Jean River
Petit Jean River
2. Known industrial - None
*Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology, 1975.
**Estimated at 0.3785 m3/capita/day.
-------
13
B. Annual Total Phosphorus Loading - Average Year:
1. Inputs -
% of
Source kg P/yr total
a. Tributaries (nonpoint load) -
A-2 Petit Jean River 9,425 55.9
E-l Dry Creek 250 1.6
F-l Sugar Creek 990 5.9
b. Minor tributaries and immediate
drainage (nonpoint load) - 910 5.4
c. Known municipal STP's -
Booneville 4,775 28.3
Arkansas Children's Colony 290 1.7
d. Septic tanks* - 5 <0.1
e. Known industrial - None
f. Direct precipitation** - 205 1.2
Totals 16,850 100.0
2. Output - A-l Petit Jean River 31,255
3. Net annual P export*** - 14,405
*Estimate based on 10 lakeside residences and 4 parks.
**Estimated (see NES Working Paper No. 175).
***Export probably due to unknown sources and/or sampling error.
-------
14
C. Annual Total Nitrogen Loading - Average Year:
1. Inputs -
% of
Source kg N/yr total
a. Tributaries (nonpoint load) -
A-2 Petit Jean River 344,485 81.1
E-l Dry Creek 7,180 1.7
F-l Sugar Creek 27,865 6.6
b. Minor tributaries and immediate
drainage (nonpoint load) - 27,750 6.5
c. Known municipal STP's -
Booneville 3,430 0.8
Arkansas Children's Colony 865 0.2
d. Septic tanks* - 250 0.1
e. Known industrial - None
f. Direct precipitation** - 12,675 3.0
Totals 424,500 100.0
2. Output - A-l Petit Jean River 343,495
3. Net annual N accumulation - 81,005
*Estimate based on 10 lakeside residences and 4 parks.
**Estimated (see NES Working Paper No. 175).
-------
15
D. Mean Annual Nonpoint Nutrient Export by Subdrainage Area:
Tributary kg P/km^/yr kg N/km2/yr
Petit Jean River 10 383
Dry Creek 7 213
Sugar Creek 6 184
E. Mean Nutrient Concentrations in Ungaged Streams:
Mean Total P Mean Total N
Tributary (mg/1) (mg/1)
C-l Unnamed Stream 0.022 0.644
D-l Cedar Creek 0.028 0.913
Nutrient levels for tributary C-l, Unnamed Stream, are in
line with the nutrient levels found in the measured unimpacted
tributaries entering the lake. Although Cedar Creek, tributary
D-l, is outside the Blue Mountain Lake watershed, it was sampled
as a special Land Use Study site. Phosphorus levels for that
tributary are comparable to the other streams entering the lake,
however, nitrogen values are somewhat higher.
-------
16
F. Yearly Loadings:
In the following table, the existing phosphorus annual
loading is compared to the relationship proposed by Vollenweider
(1975). Essentially, his eutrophic loading is that at which
the receiving waters would become eutrophic or remain eutrophic;
his oligotrophic loading is that which would result in the
receiving water remaining oligotrophic or becoming oligotrophic
if morphometry permitted. A mesotrophic loading would be
considered one between eutrophic and oligotrophic.
Note that Vollenweider's model may not apply to lakes with
short hydraulic retention times or in which light penetration is
severely restricted by high concentrations of suspended solids
in the surface waters.
Total Yearly
Phosphorus Loading
(g/m2/yr)
Estimated loading for Blue Mountain Lake 1.44
Vollenweider's eutrophic loading 1.17
Vollenweider's oligotrophic loading 0.59
-------
17
V. LITERATURE REVIEWED
Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology. 1972.
Pollution Control Survey of Arkansas River Basins, August -
October, 1972. Little Rock, Arkansas.
Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology. 1975.
Section 303(e) Basin Plan for Arkansas River Basin, Oklahoma
State Line to Mouth. Little Rock, Arkansas.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1975. National Eutrophi-
cation Survey Methods 1973-1976. Working Paper No. 175.
National Environmental Research Center, Las Vegas, Nevada, and
Pacific Northwest Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis,
Oregon.
Vollenweider, R. A. 1975. Input-Output Models With Special
Reference to the Phosphorus Loading Concept in Limnology.
Schweiz. Z. Hydrol. 37:53-84.
-------
18
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
Centimeters x 0.3937 = inches
«
Kilograms x 2.205 = pounds
Kilograms/square kilometer x 5.711 = Ibs/square mile
-------
APPENDIX B
TRIBUTARY FLOW DATA
-------
TRIBUTARY FLO* INFORMATION FOH ARKANSAS
LAKE CODE 0503 dLUE MOUNTAIN LAKE
TOTAL ORAIMGE AREA OF LAKE
-------
TRIBUTARY FLO* INFORMATION FCW ARKANSAS
02/02/77'
LAKE CODE 0503 =LUE MOUNTAIN LAKE
^EAf-i MONTHLY M_O*S ASO DAILY FLOWS
G5UJD1
05U3E1
0503F1
05032^
t-'ONTH YtA'K
b
7
8'
9
10
11
12
1
2
3
u
S
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1
?
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1
2
3
4
5
In
74
74
74
74
74
74
75
75
75
75
75
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
75
75
75
75
75
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
75
75
75
75
75
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
75
7b
75
75
75
MEAN FLOW OAY
C.680
0.011
0.011
0.136
0.034
0.957
0.334
0.456
1.019
1.506
0.447
0.946
0.796
0.011
0.014
0.159
0.040
1.121
0.394
0.532
1.195
1.764
0.524
1.107
3.568
0.054
0.057
0.711
0.176
5.012
1.764
2.396
5.352
7.929
2.359
4.984
3.568
0.054
0.057
0.714
0.176
5.040
1.770
2.401
5.380
7.929
2.362
4.984
22
20
17
22
19
23
23
18
22
9
5
17
22
20
17
22
19
23
23
18
22
9
5
17
22
20
16
22
23
23
18
22
9
5
17
22
20
16
22
19
23
23
18
22
9
5
17
FLOW OAY
FLO* .'AY
FLO*/
0.113
0.0
0.0
0.116
0.0
0.164
0.125
0.238
1.416
0.348
0.314
0.198
0.133
0.0
0.0
0.136
0.0
0.198
0.142
0.283
1.671
0.396
0.368
0.232
0.566
0.003
0.003
0.595
0.850
0.651
1.246
7.362
1.841
1.642
1.045
0.566
0.003
0.003
0.595
0.028
0.878
0.651
1.246
7.504
1.841
1.642
1.045
23
19
23
19
23
19
17
23
19
0.538
0.108
0.566
0.127
2.832
0.566
0.003
2.832
0.566
-------
APPENDIX C
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL DATA
-------
STORE! RETRIEVAL OATE 77/02/02
050301
35 06 14.0 093 39 05.0 3
tilUE MOUNTf IN LAKE
051H9 ARKANSAS
101091
/TYPA/AMt
DATE
FROM
TO
74/03/28
74/06/06
74/10/18
DATE
FROM
TO
74/03/28
74/06/06
74/10/18
jNT/LAr;r
TIME DEPTH
OF .
DAY FEET
15 30 0000
15 30 0005
15 30 0015
09 55 0000
09 55 OOOb
09
-------
STORET RETRIEVAL DATE 77/02/J2
/TYPA/AMBNT/LAKE
DATE
FROM
TO
74/03/28
74/06/06
7^/10/18
DATE
FROM
TO
74/03/28
74/06/06
74/10/18
TI'-IE DEPTH
OF
DAY FEET
15 45 0000
10 30 0000
10 30 0005
10 30 0009
10 50 0000
10 50 0003
TIME DEPTH
OF
DAY FEET
15 45 0000
10 30 0000
10 30 0005
10 30 0009
10 50 0000
10 50 0003
00010
WATER
TEMP
CENT
15.2
22.9
22.9
22.8
17.9
18.0
00665
PHOS-TOT
MG/L P
0.065
0.098
0.104
0.115
0.058
0.057
00300
DO
MG/L
8.4
4.4
6.4
8.8
8.6
32217
CHLRPHYL
A
UG/L
7.2
10.0
14.1
OC077
TRANSP
SECCHI
INCHES
12
12
18
00031
INCDT LT
REMNING
PERCENT
1.0
00094
CNDUCTVY
FIELD
MICROMHO
95
97
98
49
49
050302
35 06 07.0 093 43 22.0 3
ttLUE MOUNTAIN LANE
05063
101091
11EPALES
0400
0003 FEET DtPTn CLASS
00400
PH
SU
7.10
6.70
6.60
6.60
6.67
6.69
00410
T AUK
CAC03
MG/L
24
23
24
24
20
19
00610
NH3-N
TOTAL
MG/L
0.070
0.120
0.120
0.120
0.040
0.040
1002
00
00625
TOT KJEL
N
MG/L
0.600
0.800
0.500
0.500
0.600
0.400
00630
N026.NU3
N-TOTAL
MG/L
0.090
0.060
0.040
0.050
0.040
0.050
00671
PnOS-OIS
ORTHO
MG/L P
0.018
0.012
0.011
0.011
0.004
0.004
-------
APPENDIX D
TRIBUTARY AND WASTEWATER
TREATMENT PLANT DATA
-------
"-VAL
74/06/22
74/07/2 )
74/18/16
74/09/22
74/10/19
74/12/23
75/01/18
75/02/22
75/03/09
75/03/23
75/04/05
75/04/19
75/05/17
SLRV" Y
Oi Y c
11 30
10 ?5
12 45
13 00
12 15
13 05
12' 30
09 45
11 00
13 75
11 40
12 10
15 30
•,/L
J533M
35 05 55.0 093 33
3ET IT Jr<.'i -;' V""
J5 7.5 ?LU£
AT
"•0625
V.G/L
coeir
TjTtL
JD671
HG/L
30603
PHOS-TJT
MG/L f>
0.020
T. lift
3.20"
0.192
0.03'.
0.072
0 . 0 5 £
0.089
0.035
0.090
D. ?65
0.080
0.620
0.4CO
0.600
0.400
0.500
0.50C
0. 600
0.400
0.7 CO
C.7CO
0.700
C.950
0.800
0.550
0.035
0.035
0.035
0.030
0.05C
0.07C
0.048
0.048
0.033
0.033
C.050
0.030
0.045
0.085
0.010
0.025
0.010
0.015
0.020
0.020
0.016
0.018
0.009
0.015
0.020
0.020
0.105
0.045
0.39b
0.065
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.0^0
0.060
0.050
0.1-tO
0.030
lTLrT iQUEOUCT OISCH ? np
2111204
OQCO F^T DEPTH
-------
;o*_ (.AC
74/06/22
74/07/20
74/08/ 16
74/09/22
74/1 O/ 19
74/12/23
75/01/ Id
75/02/22
75/03/09
75/03/23
75/04/05
75/04/19
75/05/17
10
OS
11
11
11
12
11
03
09
12
11
11
14
*0
15
50
45
25
35
25
50
45
40
00
3C
*>o
00630
0.004
0.014
0.016
0.144
0.008
0.016
0.048
0.033
0.031
0.075
0.055
00625
T K JFL
,\i
^G/L
J.400
0.6TO
0.7CO
0.500
G. 5G'"1
1.000
0 . 5 50
0. 200
1 .000
2.000
0.8CO
0.850
2.400
OC61C
MU3_f;
TCTil
"G/L
0.015
0.010
0.020
'J.045
0.045
0.055
C . i" 4 6
0.024
0.024
0.042
0.025
0.025
0.140
0503A2
35 O't 50.0
-------
-Pi- US V r G V S
0503C1
35 )7 44L"S
4
006o5
PHOS-TOT
MG/L P
O.D25
0.340
0.020
O.J30
0.010
O.J20
0.025
0.040
0.020
O.J50
0.020
0.040
1.2 y! S 3F 4R HWY 10 JCT
2111204
0000 F5CT
K VALUE Kl-JOWN TO BE LESS THAN
INDICATED
-------
CT---T DIT;!-Vi,_
-04- L - S V ~ ", ~ >
^i-= 70;
'">•, su-v
'-';-!.
T n
74/16/22
74/09/22
74/10/ 19
74/12/ 23
75/01/13
75/12/22
75/03/09
75/03/23
75/14/05
75/04/19
75/05/17
"1-1-
fAY
11 n
12 ?5
11 55
12 45
11 30
09 25
1015
13 no
11 30
11 00
14 30
00633
V? 2'.'-.-.?
N-T "t.l
0.032
o.oo a
0.024
3.03?
1.033
0.030
0.020
1.015
35 05 ^5.0 093 39 40.0
7.5 °L'J-
K.'625
T KJEL
•••G/L
0.200
0.2CO
0. ICO
o.aoo
0.2CO
C. 4CO
1.600
0.650
3.450
0.300
1.100
00610
KH 3 - N
'MG/L
0. 02C
0.030
0.017
0.075
0.016
0.016
0.025
0.042
0.065
0.010
0.025
^0671
PMC S-CI S
y.G/L P
0.005
0.005
O.:)05
0.010
0.010
0.308K
0.018
0.024
0.005K
0.005
0.005K
T/3LJE u
XIN3 1.?
UfcPALrS
00665
3HCS-TJT
MG/L P
0.020
O.J30
O.J20
0.020
O.U25
0.010
0.050
O..J30
O.J10K
0.040
0.040
UK?
pr, JCT
2111204
0000 F=l;T
K VALUE KNOWN TO BE LESS THAM
INDICATED
-------
• i 75/1
5. I ^ V r Y
n.'i ."103 43
0;
r / 1 L
L •"•;•••••. " ':J
'•• ; u'v T : i \ L
01""-
*I J
~ ^ " 3 "" rJ
fi j
. T 2 ?;
630
' 33
'^0625
~ '.*• K
JrL
006
iv H3-
1C
N
0 .36
p-i- s-
71
C I?
006^5
°HCS-T JT
= r-M ..- ». _--T,L ,._ TTT4L -^THf
7 n
74/06/??
74/39/22
74/10/ 19
74/12/23
75/0 I/ 13
75/02/22
75/JV09
75/03/23
75/04/05
75/04/19
75/05/ 17
!3iY
10
11
10
11
11
06
;'9
12
09
09
13
- T 7 T
? ",
31
45
30
."'
I =
)•
00
30
00
20
'.-•-,
3
3
T
t
0
•)
0
0
*J
0
/L
.003
. ')16
.ooy
.cos
. TO'i
.01:.
. 1 6 "•
.009
.010
.015
.015
vo/
J.
0 .
0.
0.
,T
- •
0.
O •
0.
0.
0.
?.
i_
i-x-K
1C IK
100
600
7 CO
iOO
750
400
350
250
OCO
»•">/
.*
>.- •
0.
0.
0.
r-.
0.
r>.
0.
0.
c.
0.
L
^15
020
020
040
032
OH-
020
024
020
010
045
"G/L
0.
J •
0.
0.
0.
0.
->
' •
0.
.3.
0.
0.
P
005K
305
010
005
305K
00 8K
.)?5
005
005<
005
006
MG/L P
O.J15
0.015
0.010
0.02C
O.J30
O.OluK
O.J25
0.025
O.uloK
0.030
0.03U
K VALUE KNOWM TO BE LESS TIlAl^l
INDICATED
-------
r 75/11/.M
j'J-'V" Y
r:. Y
74/ )6/2?
7+/07/20
74/08/ !?•
74/09/22
7W12/23
75/ ll/ 13
75/02/22
75/03/09
75/13/ 23
75/OW19
75/05/17
09
08
11
11
1 1
Oe
•:9
12
09
13
4f
3:"
15
00
Vc
•\ '
VJ
3'
3 '
30
T;
' '•530
'?••.•.:• 3
-T '-it
•r>/i
0.012
:. ? 12
0.0 lo
0.00?
1.012
0.260
' J625
• " K J - L
•|
XG/L
0.1COK
0.2CO
O.'tC-T
0. 100
"1.500
c.::o
o. <» oo
0 .3 50
C. 800
C.200
I. 3 CO
•H3-N
0.010
C.02C
0.015
0.015
0.05C
0.016
0.016
0.010
o.oeo
0.015
0.030
:C671
:-i")S-L I S
->C TU 1
- • n '
VG/L o
0.005K
0.010
O..)07
0.010
0 .':j5
"i.0?5
0. 009K
0.010
0.008K
0.005
0.010
j->
T/3LJ5 *
2 N D A Y ^7
ii6JAL -S
O'Joiji
SHCS-TJT
".G/L ?
0.020
0.015
0.018
0.020
0.010K
0. JJO
0. 01 OK
0 . J 1 0
0.010
0.040
O.)30
093 51 T5.0
L ?r,i'; C"!J-;TY ";
rilN LiK-f
',7- 1.5 JT $'
0000
K VALUE KNOWN TO BE LESS THAN
INDICATED
-------
rr" •• ••- • :T-:rv•'.
•;iTL ~.'Jr <". 2-iir 1" ',
"M S'PVrY
75/02/03
75/T3/:K
75/04/03
75/05/01
75/06/25
75/07/01
75/07/23
75/0 8/ 7.8
75/10/09
75/10/30
14
09
10
09
16
13
13
09
15
11
00
or-
00
30
I-".
If)
•?r
ir
+ 5
OC
0 163 ">
2r/.-3
'•-•-41
0.240
0.32 -
0.030
0.050
1.125
0. J7f
0.^50
C J6?5
\~ KJ=L
2.600
7.6CO
5.6CC
9.300
5.7CC
6.9 CO
6.7^0
6.400
7.300
OC61C
05034- AS 13 03 :\-"
35 )7 45.0 j°3 54 15.?
oC^ trv ;LLP
Ji !: HCCN'^VILL1"
T/5LU= -CUM-i!" Li'"
PcTIT JciN1 stv^F.
llb^ilrS 2141204
^ n-ipo PEE1
P003263
00665
3— \
,T \ |
: 4 L
iG/L
1.200
2.16"
0.080K
2.20C
0.450
0.29G
P.540
0.410
C.440
PH- 5-31 S
- D T U P'
,"< i *-!' '
^G/L o
2.700
2.100
4.4*10
6.200
6.150
7.300
7.900
6.900
D-tOS-Tj-T
MO./L P
2.300
3.200
2.500
20.00U
6.400
6. 500
9.20U
3.200
7.300
50051
CLCW
50053
MGC MONTHLY
1.000
0.040
0.653
1.000
0.400
0.362
0.180
0.200
0.190
0. 2ciO
0. 30^
0.200
0. 190
0. 190
-------
APPENDIX E
PARAMETRIC RANKINGS OF LAKES
SAMPLED BY NES IN 1974
STATE OF ARKANSAS
-------
OATA TO r-t USED I* •? AN"
COOti LA*E 'lAMt
0 5 U 1 a E A v £ -1 LAKE
0503 oLACXKI^n LA*E
0503 BLUE MOUNTAIN LAKE
C5G4 3'(LL SHOALS LA
-------
0^ LA
K VALUES
K OF LAKES alT<- <-ir-HE^ VALUES)
LAKE
CODE
0501
0502
0503
050*
0505
0506
0507
LAKE
0509
0510
0511
0512
0513
0514
0515
0516
8LAC
0)
3)
13)
7)
1)
ii>
4)
2)
S)
5)
6)
12)
13)
9)
15)
27 (
0 (
47 (
13 (
40 (
7 (
77 (
90 (
100 (
77 (
90 (
53 <
33 (
60 (
20 (
67 (
N,
4)
0)
7)
2)
6)
1)
11)
13)
15)
11)
13)
8>
5)
V)
3)
10)
=^00- «EAN
MEAN SEC C«LO^A
h7 (
0 (
13 (
100 (
47 (
7 (
60 (
40 (
20 (
53 (
33 (
27 (
9? (
80 !
73 <
87 (
10)
fl)
2)
15)
7)
1)
9)
6)
3)
8)
5)
4)
14)
12)
11)
13)
»7 (
7 (
67 (
80 (
27 (
33 1
47 1
40 i
0
53
?d
13
100
73
SO
93
U)
1)
10)
12)
4)
1 5)
[ 7)
! 6)
( 0)
( S)
( 3)
( 2)
( 15)
( 11)
( 9!
( 14)
15-
MIN GO
40
73
57
17
80
47
17
57
100
67
87
93
17
). 7
17
17
', M
'. 11)
( 8)
( 0)
( 12)
I 7)
! 0)
( H)
( 15)
( 10)
( 13)
( 1*1
( 0)
( 0>
( 0)
( 0)
MEOUM
DISS OPT -io P
*••» (
0 (
27 (
93 (
&3 (
7 (
93 1
20 1
13 i
63 i
33
47
80
63
40
92
»)
0)
4)
13)
P)
1)
: 13)
: 3>
I 2)
I n»
( =O
t r>
( 13!
! *>
: f.)
t 13)
------- |