U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
NATIONAL EUTROPHICATION SURVEY
WORKING PAPER SERIES
REPORT
ON
LAKE ERLING
LAFAYETTE COUNTY
ARKANSAS
EPA REGION VI
WORKING PAPER No, 486
CORVALLIS ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY - CORVALLIS, OREGON
and
ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING & SUPPORT LABORATORY - LAS VEGAS, NEVADA
•&G.P.O. 699-440
-------
REPORT
ON
LAKE ERLING
LAFAYETTE COUfffY
ARKANSAS
EPA EGION VI
WORKING PAPER No,
WITH THE COOPERATION OF THE
ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF POLLUTION
CONTROL AND ECOLOGY
AND THE
ARKANSAS NATIONAL GUARD
JANUARY, 1977
-------
REPORT ON LAKE ERLING
LAFAYETTE COUNTY, 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. 486
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
-------
ii
FOREWORD
The National Eutrophicatlon Survey was Initiated 1n 1972 1n
response to an Administration commitment to Investigate the nation-
wide threat of accelerated eutrophlcation 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 nonpolnt source pollution abatement 1n lake water-
sheds.
ANALYTIC APPROACH
The mathematical and statistical procedures selected for the
Survey's eutrophlcation 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 eutrophlcation 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.
-------
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
Hami1 ton
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
Chicot
Clark, Hot Spring
Lafayette
Chicot
Van Buren, Cleburne
Garland
Hempstead, Howard
Little River, Sevier
Perry, Yell
Baxter, Fulton (Ozark in MO)
Garland, Montgomery
Boone, Carroll (Barry,
Taney in MO)
-------
~T
L. L
rkansW
Map Location
LAKE ERLING
Tributary Sampling Site
Lake Sampling Site
Drainage Arcj Houndjry
Land Subjt't t. to Inundation
Scale
Hi.
ARKANSAS
LOUISIANA
-------
REPORT ON LAKE ERLING, ARKANSAS
STORE! NO. 0508
I. CONCLUSIONS
A. Trophic Condition:*
Lake Erling is considered eutrophic, i.e., nutrient
rich and highly productive, on the basis of Survey data
and field observations. Whether such nutrient enrichment
is to be considered beneficial or deleterious is deter-
mined by its actual or potential impact upon designated
beneficial water uses of the lake.
Potential for primary production as measured by al-
gal assay control yields was high. Chlorophyll a_ values
ranged from 4.5 yg/1 in the spring to 53.0 yg/1 in the
summer, with a mean of 13.4 yg/1. Of the 16 Arkansas lakes
sampled in 1974, 4 had higher median total phosphorus levels,
3 had higher median orthophosphorus values, and 13 had
higher median inorganic nitrogen levels than Lake Erling.
Survey limnologists reported abundant aquatic macro-
phytes in the shallower, northernmost 30% of the reservoir,
but otherwise observed no problem conditions in Lake Erling.
* See Appendix E
-------
B. Rate-Limiting Nutrient:
Mean inorganic nitrogen to orthophosphorus (N/P) ratios
for the reservoir were 5/1 or less during spring and autumn,
indicating primary limitation by nitrogen, and 13/1 during
summer, suggesting near colimitation by nitrogen and phosphorus.
Algal assay results indicated primary limitation by nitro-
gen during spring sampling, and high potential for primary pro-
duction in Lake Erling.
C. Nutrient Controllability:
1. Point sources -
The mean annual phosphorus load from point sources
was estimated to be 10.8% of the total load reaching Lake
Erling. The town of Louisville contributed 5.9% of the
total and the town of Stamps contributed 4.9%.
The calculated phosphorus loading of 0.86 g P/m2/yr
for Lake Erling is approximately 1.3 times the eutrophic
load proposed by Vollenweider (1975) for lakes with such
volume and retention time. Removal of phosphorus inputs
from the two known point sources would not reduce loading
to an oligotrophic level in the lake; however, it should
aid in slowing the present rate of eutrophication.
-------
2. Nonpoint sources -
The mean annual load from nonpoint sources, including
precipitation, accounted for 89.2% of the total reaching
Lake Erling. Bodcau Creek contributed 82.9%, and ungaged
tributaries were estimated to have contributed 3.3%.
In general, few lakes are nitrogen limited as a result
of low nitrogen. Rather, excessive phosphorus levels shift
limitations to nitrogen or other factors. Regardless of
the primary nutrient limitation suggested by either algal
assay or nutrient ratios, the most feasible approach to nutri-
ent control, if desirable, is through available phosphorus
control technology and subsequent establishment of phosphorus
limitation within the water body.
-------
II. LAKE AND DRAINAGE BASIN CHARACTERISTICS
Lake and drainage basin characteristics are itemized
below. Lake surface area and mean depth were provided by the
Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology. Maxi-
mum depth was estimated on the basis of Survey data. Tribu-
tary flow data were provided 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 the mean flow of
the outlet. 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: 28.33km2.
2. Mean depth: 2.1 meters.
3. Maximum depth: 9.1 meters.
4. Volume: 60.441 x 106 m3.
5. Mean hydraulic retention time: 67 days.
-------
B. Tributary and Outlet:
(See Appendix B for flow data)
1. Tributaries -
Drainage Mean flow
Name area(km^) (nr/sec)
A-2 Bodcau Creek 787.4 7.96
C-l Walker Creek 46.9 0.47
Minor tributaries and
immediate drainage - 160.5 1.91
Totals 994.8 10.34
2. Outlet - A-l Bodcau Creek 1,023.0 10.51
C. Precipitation:
1. Year of sampling: 218.3 cm.
2. Mean annual: 125.4 cm.
-------
III. LAKE WATER QUALITY SUMMARY
Lake Erling was sampled three times during the open-water
season of 1974 by means of a pontoon-equipped Huey helicopter.
Each time, samples for physical and chemical parameters were
collected from three stations on the lake and one or more depths
at each station (see map, page v). During each visit, depth-
integrated samples were collected from each station for chloro-
phyll ^analysis and phytoplankton identification and enumeration.
During the first and last visits, 18.9-liter depth-integrated
samples were composited for algal assays. Maximum depths sam-
pled were 7.9 meters at Station 01, 3.0 meters at Station 02,
and the surface at Station 03. 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.
-------
ST'.i-tT COOt u
P-iYblCAL AND
CnAKACTc't
0 .-1 .^ M DEPTri
(•'AX DEPTH*-5
DISSOLVED OHTHO
O.-l. 5 M OEPTH
MAX OEPTH*0
N02»N03 (MG/L)
0.-1.5 ", '1EPTH
KM DEPTH'*
AMMQMA (MG/L)
0.-1.5 M ilEHTn
VAX L)EPTnui>
KJtLOAHL N (Mh/L
0.-1.,.*
C (-. M T )
4
3
(f-'G/L)
4
3
rst
4
3
(«G/L)
4
3
4
3
P (Mli/L)
4
3
4
3
4
3
)
4
J
12.3-
12.3-
6.4-
6.4-
44.-
4H.-
6.1-
6.1-
10.-
10.-
0.04P.-0
0. 046-C
0.025-0
0.019-0
0.06C-0
o.oro-o
0.050-0
n.obo-o
0.600-0
0.500-0
,0*0
14.4
14.6
7.4
b.o
117.
117.
6.3
6.3
15.
12.
.104
.104
.043
.043
.150
.150
.090
.090
.700
.700
= 1
«tOI*.N
14. b
14. b
7i6
65.
65.
6.3
6.J
11.
10.
0.054
U.OS5
0.029
0.033
0.070
0.070
O.OSb
0.060
0.600
0.600
«±f
'.•EcT'-
'-i.NGE
(vETE
0.0-
n.o-
0.0-
n.o-
0.0-
1.0-
n.o-
0.0-
0.0-
0.0-
0.0-
n.o-
0.0-
0.0-
0.0-
0.0-
0.0-
0.0-
0.0-
0.0-
^S)
1.5
l.b
1.5
7.6
1.5
7.6
1.5
7.6
1.5
7.6
1.5
/.6
1.5
7.6
1.5
7.6
1.5
7.6
4
3
3
•»
?
5
3
b
3
5
3
5
3
s
3
5
3
5
3
^,0 a o
r ANbE
25.8- 26.0
?1 .2- 25. y
4.8- 7.8
0.4- 7.8
91 .-
95.-
6.5-
6.5-
10.-
10.-
0.040-0
0.041-0
O.OOM-0
0.007-0
0.030-0
0.020-0
0.0^0-0
0.030-0
0.600-1
0.600-1
9b.
112.
7.1
7.1
10.
23.
.066
.066
.009
.009
.OtiO
.030
.090
.360
. 000
.000
"•tl)i AN
£3.5
5.4
4.8
93.
104.
6.7
6.6
10.
10.
0.054
0.054
0.009
0.009
0.030
0.03U
0.070
o.oao
O.MOO
0.900
"AX
OEPTn
<"ETE*S)
0.0- 1.5
1.5- 7.9
0.0- 1.5
0.0- 7.9
0.0-
1.5-
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
7.9
1.5
7.9
1.5
7.9
1.5
7.9
1.5
f.9
1.5
7.9
1.5
7.9
1.5
7.9
4
3
4
3
4
3
4
J
4
3
4
3
4
3
u
3
4
3
16.1-
16. 1-
5.4-
5.0-
51.-
4-*.-
5.4-
5.4-
10.-
10.-
0.065-0
0.061-0
0.016-0
0.015-0
0.020-0
0.0
-------
8
B. Biological Characteristics:
1. Phytoplankton -
Sampling
Date
03/25/74
06/03/74
10/17/74
Dominant
Genera
1. Melosira
2. Cryptomonas
3. Dactylococcopsis
4. Chroomonas
5. Ankistrodesmus
Other genera
Total
1. Melosira
2. Dactylococcopsis
3. Chroomonas
4. Cryptomonas
5. Microcystis
Other genera
Total
1. Melosira
2. Cryptomonas
3. Oocystis
4. Dactylococcopsis
5. Dictyosphaerium
Other genera
Total
Algal
Units
per ml
1,843
282
154
128
51
435
2,893
491
338
215
31
31
60
1,166
1,371
190
152
76
38
153
1,980
-------
2. Chlorophyll a -
Sampling Station Chlorophyll
Date Number (pg/1)
03/25/74 01 7.4
02 7.1
03 4.5
06/03/74 01 8.4
02 13.0
03 53.0
10/17/74 01 5.3
02 8.8
03 13.0
C. Limiting Nutrient Study:
1. Autoclaved, filtered, and nutrient spiked - 03/25/74
Ortho P Inorganic N Maximum Yield
Spike (mg/1) Cone, (mg/1) Cone, (mg/1) (mg/1-dr.y wt.)
Control 0.030 0.130 3.2
0.05 P 0.080 0.130 3.9
0.05 P + 1.0 N 0.080 1.130 23.0
1.00 N 0.030 1.130 4.8
-------
10
2. Discussion -
The control yield of the assay alga, Selenastrum capri-
cornutum, indicates that the potential for primary production
in Lake Erling was high at the time of spring assay sample
collection. Increases in yield with the addition of nitro-
gen as well as the lack of significant response to the addi-
tion of phosphorus spikes indicates nitrogen limitation. Maxi-
mum growth yield was achieved with the simultaneous addition
of both nutrients.
The autumn algal assay results are not considered reliable
because of a significant change in the nutrient levels between
the time the sample was collected and the assay was begun.
Mean N/P ratios in the lake data were 5/1 or less during
spring and autumn sampling, indicating primary limitation by
nitrogen, and 13/1 in the summer, suggesting near colimitation
by phosphorus and nitrogen.
-------
11
IV. NUTRIENT LOADINGS
(See Appendix D for data)
For the determination of nutrient loadings, the Arkansas
National Guard collected near-surface grab samples from each of
the tributary sites indicated on the map (page v), except for
the high runoff months of March and April when two samples were
collected. Sampling was begun in June 1974, 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 loading for unsampled "minor tributaries and imme-
diate drainage" ("ZZ" of USGS) were estimated by using the nean
annual nutrient loads, in kg/km^/yr, in Walker Creek at Station C-l,
and multiplying the means by the ZZ area in km .
Nutrient loads for the Stamps and Lewisville wastewater treat-
ment plants were estimated at 1.134 kg P and 3.401 kg N/capita/yr.
-------
12
A. Waste Sources:
1. Known municipal -
Population
Name Served* Treatment*
Stamps 1,050 Primary
(mechanically
cleaned)
Lewisvilie 1,255 Stabilization
pond
Mean Flow
(m3/d x 103)
0.397**
0.475**
Receiving
Water
Bodcau Bayou
Steel Creek/
Bodcau Bayou
2. Known industrial - None
*U.S. EPA, 1971. .
**Estimated at 0.3785 nr/capita/day.
-------
13
B. Annual Total Phosphorus Loading - Average Year:
1. Inputs -
% of
Source kg P/yr ^^
a. Tributaries (nonpoint load) -
A-2 Bodcau Creek 20,110 82.9
C-l Walker Creek 220 0.9
b. Minor tributaries and immediate
drainage (nonpoint load) - 805 3.3
c. Known municipal STP's -
Stamps 1,190 4.9
Lewisville 1,425 5.9
d. Septic tanks - None
e. Known industrial - None
f. Direct precipitation* - 495 2.0
Totals 24,245 100.0
2. Output - A-l Bodcau Creek 16,095
3. Net annual P accumulation - 8,150
*Estimated (see NES Working Paper No. 175).
-------
14
B. Annual Total Nitrogen Loading - Average Year:
1. Inputs -
% of
Source kg N/.yr total
a. Tributaries (nonpoint load) -
A-2 Bodcau Creek 240,090 77.8
C-l Walker Creek 6,785 2.2
b. Minor tributaries and immediate
drainage (nonpoint load) - 23,275 7.5
c. Known municipal STP's -
Stamps 3,570 1.2
Lewisville 4,270 1.4
' d. Septic tanks - None
e. Known industrial - None
f. Direct precipitation* - 30.585 9.9
Totals 308,575 100.0
2. Outlet - A-l Bodcau Creek 233,290
3. Net annual N accumulation - 75,235
*Estimated (see NES Working Paper No. 175).
-------
15
D. Mean Annual Nonpoint Nutrient Export by Subdrainage Area:
Tributary kg P/km^/yr kg N/knr/yr
Bodcau Creek 26 305
Walker Creek 5 145
E. Mean Nutrient Concentrations in Ungaged Streams:
Mean Total P Mean Total N
Tributary (mg/1) (mg/1)
B-l Heirs Branch 0.099 1.067
Nutrient levels for Heirs Creek, tributary B-l, are slightly
higher than those in the other tributaries entering Lake Erling.
This elevation in nutrient levels is possibly due to influences
from the town of Canfield.
-------
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 Vollenweider1s 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
(q/m2/yr)
Estimated loading for Lake Erling 0.86
Vollenweider's eutrophic loading 0.67
Vollenweider's oligotrophic loading 0.33
-------
17
V. LITERATURE REVIEWED
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1971. "Inventory of Haste-
water Treatment Facilities" EPA Publication No. OWP-1, Office
of Media Programs, Office of Hater Programs, Washington, D.C.
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. Hydro1. 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.
-4
Cubic meters x 8.107 x 10 = acre/feet
Square kilometers x 0.3861 - square miles
Cubic meters/sec x 35.31'j - cubic feet/sec
Centimeters x 0.3937 - inches
Ki loqroiiiS x 2.205 - pounds
Kilograms/square kiloinoter x 5.711 :r Ibs/square mile
-------
APPENDIX B
TRIBUTARY FLOW DATA
-------
TRIBUTARY FLOw INFORMATION FUK
02/02/77
CODE 050fl
TOTAL
LAKE
LAKLISQ KM)
SUR-D^AlNAGE
JAN
Ft3
1083.0
MAS
AHR
MAY
NORMALIZED . LOwS(CMb)
JUN J'JL AUG ScP
OCT
ULC
0508A1
0508A2
050SC1
0508ZZ
1023.0
787.4
46.9
18H.8
16.93
12.83
0.753
3.06
20.13
15.23
0.895
3.65
18.07
13.68
0.8C4
3.?8
21.35
16.17
0.949
3.68
21.52
16.31.
0.957
3.91
3.57
2.71
0.159
0.65
3.23
2.4<*
0. 144
0.53
1.24
0.94
0.054
0.2?
1.02
0.78
0.045
O.H
2.23
1.69
0.09-J
0.40
6.14
4.o4
J.272
1.11
11.27
8.52
0.501
2.04
10.51
7.96
0.4b7
1.91
SUMMARY
TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA OF LAKE = 1023.0
SUM OF SUB-DRAINAGE APEAS = 1023.0
TOTAL FLOW IN
TOTAL FLO* OUT
124.54
12&.70
MEAN MONTHLY FLOWS AND DAILY FLOWSICMS)
TRIBUTARY MONTH YEAR MEAN FLOW DAY
0503A1
FLOW DAY
FLOW uAY
FLOW
0508A2
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
1
2
3
4
'5
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
75
75
75
75
75
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
75
75
75
75
75
47.572
1.096
0.883
37.661
10.024
38.398
37.293
38.766
60.938
34.093
14.385
55.671
27.043
0.697
0.892
36.246
5.918
30.582
26.788
23.843
33.980
27.269
9.316
36.670
23
21
18
22
19
24
22
18
24
9
5
21
23
21
18
22
19
24
22
18
24
9
5
22
21.238
0.510
0.340
42.475
4.021
38.511
29.733
43.042
24.636
18.689 22
9.911 20
39.332
2.350
0.110
0.442
20.671
4.474
23.248
16.027
24.806
15.518
11.185 22
W.778 20
10.704
33.980
9.968
34.773
b.778
-------
CO'JE
MC IN
TwIoOTARY
oboaci
OSOdZZ
EKLISC-
"ONTn rEAi?
6
7
3
9
10
11
12
1
?
3
u
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1
2
3
tt
5
7^
74
74
74
74
74
74
75
75
75
75
75
7*
74
74
74
74
74
74
75
75
75
75
75
JAIL' FLOwS
-------
APPENDIX C
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL DATA
-------
STORET RETRIEVAL JATE 77/C2/C2
050601
33 02 52.0 093 31 20.0 3
LAKE ERLI'.o
05073 ARKANSAS
/TYPA/AMfaNT/LAKE
00010
DATE
FROM
TO
74/03/25
74/06/03
74/10/17
THE
OF
DAY
10 00
10 00
10 00
09 25
09 25
09 35
09 25
10 00
10 00
10 00
DEPTH
FEET
0000
0006
0025
0000
0005
0015
0026
0000
0005
0021
«ATER
TEMP
CENT
14. d
14.7
14.6
26.0
25.8
25.3
21.2
19.7
19.7
19.6
00300 00077 00094
DO TRANSP CiNOUCTVY
SECCHI FIELD
MG/L INCHES MICHOMHO
8.2
8.0
5.4
4.4
0.4
5.6
5.4
5.0
38
60
26
44
47
48
91
91
90
112
51
51
49
11EPALES
0400
0030 FEET DEPTH CLASS
00400
r>H
SU
6.30
6.30
6.30
7.15
6. 70
6.45
6 • feO
5.53
5.53
5.51
00410
T ALf.
CAC03
MG/L
15
13
12
10K
10K
10K
23
11
10
10
00610
NHj-N
TOTAL
MG/L
0.060
0.050
0.060
0.070
0.070
0.090
0.360
0. 160
0.140
0.150
1002
00
00625
TOT KJEL
N
MG/L
0.600
0.500
0.500
0.900
0.600
0.600
0.900
0.700
0.500
0.500
00630
N02&.N03
N-TOTAL
MG/L
0.070
0.070
0.070
0.060
0.040
0.030
0.020
0.060
0.070
0.080
00b71
pHOa-GIS
ORTrlO
MG/L P
0.025
0.035
0.033
0.009
0.008
0.006
0.007
0.024
0.026
0.021
DATE
FROM
TO
74/03/25
74/06/03
74/10/17
00665 32217 00031
TIME DEPTH PHOS-TOT CHLRPHYL INCOT LT
OF A REMNING
DAY FEET MG/L P
10 00 0000
10 00 0006
10 00 0025
09 25 0000
09 25 0001
09 25 0003
09 25 0005
09 35 0015
09 25 002t>
10 00 0000
10 00 0005
10 OC 0006
10 00 0021
0.046
0.047
0.046
0.043
0.040
0.040
0.041
0.071
C.065
2.061
UG/L PERCENT
7.4
8.4
50.0
1.0
5.3
1.0
K VALUE KNOWN TO bt
LESS TnAN INjJlCwTEO
-------
STjPET
DATE 77/CP/D2
33 Oi 25.0 093 33 22.0 3
LA*t E-^L! .^
U507J A-{i\ANSAS
1016^)1
/TYPA/AMdNT/LAKT
DATE TIME DEPTH
FROM
TO
74/03/25
74/06/03
74/10/17
DATE
FROM
TO
74/03/25
74/06/03
74/10/17
OF
DAY FEET
10 15 0000
10 15 OOC5
10 15 0010
10 10 0000
10 10 OOOS
10 25 0000
10 25 0006
TIME DEPTH
OF
DAY FEET
10 15 0000
10 15 0005
10 15 0010
10 10 0000
10 10 0001
10 10 0003
10 10 0005
10 25 0000
10 25 0006
00010
WATER
TEMP
CENT
14.6
1^.5
1^.5
25.9
25.9
19. a
19.8
00665
PHOS-TOT
MG/L P
0.055
O.OS'.
0.055
0.054
0.054
0.067
U.061
00300
DO
MG/L
7.4
7.6
4.8
b.2
6.2
32217
CHLRPHYL
A
UG/L
7.1
13.0
8.8
00077 0^094
TRANSP CNiDUCTvY
SECCHI FIELD
INCHES MICROMHO
38 6*
65
65
54 95
95
38 63
51
00031
INCDT LT
REMNING
PERCENT
50.0
1.0
1.0
IIE^ALES 04001002
OCU FtEl OtPTn CLASS 00
00400 00410 00610 00625
Prl T ALK NH3-N TOT KJEL
CAC03 TOTAL Ni
SU MG/L MG/L MG/L
6.30 11 0.050 0.600
6.30 10 0.050 0.600
6.30 10K 0.050 0.600
6.50 10 0.090 0.800
6.5C 10K 0.080 0.600
5.53 10K 0.060 O.bOO
5.53 10* 0.070 0.400
00630 00b71
N02&N03 PnOS-uIS
iM-TOTAL ORTHO
Mo/L MG/L P
0.070 0.030
0.060 0.023
0.070 0.019
0.030 0.009
0.030 0.009
0.02C 0.016
0.020K 0.015
i\'-:Ovi'N TO JL
LESS THAN INDICATED
-------
STO^ET RETRIEVAL OAT.- 77/&2/02
/Tr°A/AMbMT/LAKE
00010
OATE TIMF DEPTH «ATER
FROM OF TEMP
TO DAY FELT CtNT
74/03/25 10 30 0000
74/06/03 10 25 0000
74/10/17 10 40 0000
DATE TIME DEPTH
FROM OF
TO DAY FEET
74/03/25 10 30 0000
74/06/03 10 25 0000
74/10/17 10 40 0000
10 40 0004
00300 00077 00034
DO TRANSP CNDUCTVY
SECCHI FIELD
MG/L INCHES MICSOMHO
117
57
12.3
18.1
IJ665
IS-TOT
r/L P
0.104
C.066
0.131
6.4
7.8
6.4
32217
CHLRPHrL
A
UG/L
4.5
53.0
13.0
48
60
46
00031
INCDT LT
HEMMING
PERCENT
050603
33 11 24.0 093 35
05073
ARKANSAS
101691
11LPALES 04001002
0004 FttT DEPTH CLASS 00
00400
PH
su
6. 1C
7.10
5.37
00410
T ALK
CAC03
MG/L
10
10K
10*
00610
Nn3-N
TOTAL
MG/L
0.090
0.030
0.080
00625
TOT KJEL
N
MG/L
0.700
1.000
1.100
00630
No2vr03
rt|-TuTAL
MG/L
0.150
0.03C
0.020
006/1
1-riOi-OiS
ORT-iO
MG/L P
0.043
0.009
0.074
1.0
K VALUE KNOWN TO BE
LESS THAN INDICATED
-------
APPENDIX D
TRIBUTARY DATA
-------
:-r
-------
'= 73/11/23
74/06/23
74/07/21
74/08/18
74/09/22
74/10/19
74/11/24
74/12/22
75/01/13
75/02/24
75/03/09
75/03/22
75/04/05
75/04/20
75/05/22
It
19
12
06
16
15
14
15
09
14
09
14
'30
02
00
15
11
10
45
D538A2
33 13 sC.i 093 35 15.0
7.5 H-inLtY ML
t^Lt'G
J= --:$ WFLL IN ^'-C ?3
? 2:1
0000
:• J6?5
'"H.61C
V.-33 i
-T1L
IG/L
I. 080
0.008
0.016
0.024
0.032
0.016
0.008
0.008
0.016
0.024
0.006
0.015
0.015
0.075
"~ tUcl h:M^-\ F-ii.b-'-lS PHtS-TJT
•J T'-Tf L ""• TH?
^G/l
0.900
0.3CO
0.6CO
0.7CO
0.600
C.7CO
0.400
1 . 400
0.500
1.100
1.250
2.000
0.550
1.650
•*G/L
0.050
0.030
0.015
0.0fc5
C-.095
•">.032
0.025
0.016
0.016
0.028
0.018
0. 100
0.035
0.035
•«<-,/(. P
0.060
0.045
0.040
0.045
0.045
0. ??0
0.005
0.030
0.024
0.028
0.015
0.040
0.035
0.015
MG/L P
O.lfS
0. 135
O.J75
0. J70
0.100
0.100
0.030
0.140
0.360
0.090
0.050
0.110
0.070
0.105
D-PTH
-------
- 3 A -
V r
050831
33 )7 5"'.C 093 35
Hcl
-------
I'- 75/11/73
o a - I.
OS J3:i
33 1J 45.
05
25.
7.5 33irLc.Y
?1H2"A
OGC"1 CTFT
DiY
74/06/23
74/07/21
74/08/18
74/""?/ 22
74/10/ 19
74/11/24
74/12/22
75/01/13
75/02/24
75/03/09
75/03/22
75/U4/05
75/04/20
75/05/22
'.2
15
20
14
03
1 7
15
15
16
10
15
10
15
14
45
25
30
45
I1?
?5
45
05
20
30
?0
50
30
30
OOf 30
2 r. >• ' 3
T '" T i L
MG/L
0.036
0.009
0.012
0.040
0.0GB
0 . 0 I 6
0.040
0.016
0.016
0.008
•1.006
0.005
0.070
0.015
0 0 c 2 5
T~T KJFL
•M
MG/L
1. JOO
1.000
1 .100
0.300
0.800
C.900
0.500
0. 4CO
C.7CO
0.900
0.300
0.650
0.650
0.750
0061C
NH3— N
TfTfi L
MG/L
0.33C
O.OSb
0.085
0.035
0.030
0.0 6C
0.030
0.016
0.016
0.040
o.o 3r
0.015
0.090
C.035
00671
PH;S-'.MS
~.s TH"'
MG/L P
0.1S5
0.105
0.130
0.050
0.055
0.040
0.015
0.015
0.016
0.016
0.015
0.020
0.030
0.015
006 = 5
PHGS-T3T
MG/L ?
0.165
0.230
0.220
o.oas
0. 110
0. iiO
O.J40
O.J40
0. J50
0.090
0.040
D.050
0.060
0.050
-------
APPENDIX E
PARAMETRIC RANKINGS OF LAKES
SAMPLED BY NES IN 1974
STATE OF ARKANSAS
-------
LAKE
COCt L A * F \ A '•• F
0 5 0 i 13 E A v E >- L i * E
0502 ^LAC^rlSn L"-'E
0503 SLUE wOUNTAr-J t.
0504 BULL SKOALS i. s-
0505 LA*E CAT.-.E~I\E
0506 LAKE CHICOT
0507 OEGRAY
0510 LAKE
0511 MILLWOOD LAKE
0512 NIMROO LAKE
0513 NORFOLK LAKE
051& LAKE OUACHITA
0515 TABLE WOCK LAKE
0516 GREEK'S LAKE
:..' .
'.! .
0 .
0.
n .
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
-11 A. w
Tui_ -
^2?
4C6
n = w
11 =
02^
162
019
nb4
101
024
040
039
015
nlS
02?
012
VE!
IN'
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Vl A N
_)-" f.
.330
. 47'i
.160
.3-0
.110
. 45 U
.130
. 1?0
.090
.130
.120
.160
.320
.155
.350
.140
500
v.f 6N
-15.
*-»6 .
*84.
343.
451.
466.
419.
454.
479.
42H.
466.
469.
356.
3^9.
410.
370.
SEC
hf-7
125
000
*ev
667
000
050
667
667
111
778
000
321
14*
77H
rt75
MEfl\
ClLO-A
3.921
l=.77r
>• .983
3. -»9;
1 4 . 0 4 £
13. 72^
12.300
13.3*9
62.H67
10.^89
14.967
15.833
3.441
4.344
9.103
3.762
IT.- « fcO IAN
MIN n.j L,IS^ 0-Trip
14
12
14
15
11
14
15
14
8
14
9
8
15
15
15
15
.000
.000
.600
.000
.800
.MOO
.000
.600
.400
.400
.800
.800
.000
.000
.000
.000
0.
«"l .
(j .
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0 .
0.
0.
OOi
0-0
010
Oll4
006
084
004
020
021
006
008
006
U05
006
007
004
-------
= E~CE
L«- -,]'
\
<. )
0)
1 1
21
6)
1)
11)
13)
lt>)
1 1 )
13)
8)
5)
9)
3)
10)
-,-it> VAl
=^00-
v E A *. si
-7 (
0 (
13 (
1 JO (
47 (
7 (
hO (
40 (
20 (
53 (
33 (
27 (
93 (
HO (
73 (
87 (
_Uf"V>
MEAN
-.C C-ILO^A
If')
0)
2)
IS)
7)
1 )
9)
6)
3)
H)
5)
4)
14)
12)
11)
13)
87
7
-S7
«0
27
33
47
40
0
53
20
13
100
73
60
93
( 13)
( 1 )
( 10)
( 12)
( 4)
( 5)
( 7)
( 0)
( 0)
( 8)
( 3)
( 2)
( 15)
( 11)
( 9)
( 14)
18-
*IN no
40
73
57
17
80
47
17
57
100
67
87
93
17
17
17
17
( -^)
( 11)
( 8)
( 0)
( 12)
( 7)
( 0)
( B)
( 15)
( 10)
( 13)
( 14)
( 0)
( 0)
( 0)
( 0)
"EDI AN
OISS 0»T-iO
63
0
27
93
t>3
7
93
20
13
63
33
47
HO
63
40
93
( M)
( 0)
( t)
( 13)
( «)
( 1 )
( 13)
( 3)
( ?)
( «)
( 5)
( 7)
( 1?)
( 8)
( 6)
( 13)
------- |