U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
NATIONAL EUTROPHICATION SURVEY
WORKING PAPER SERIES
REPORT
ON
GRAND LAKE
CHICOT COUNTY
ARKANSAS
EPA REGION VI
WORKING PAPER No, 488
CORVALLIS ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY - CORVALLIS, OREGON
and
ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING & SUPPORT LABORATORY - LAS VEGAS, NEVADA
T?TG.P.O. 699-440
-------
REPORT
ON
GRAND LAKE
CHICOT COLM1Y
ARKANSAS
EPA REGION VI
WORKING PAPER No,
WITH THE COOPERATION OF THE
ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF POLLUTION
CONTROL AND ECOLOGY
AND THE
ARKANSAS NATIONAL GUARD
JANUARY, 1977
-------
CONTENTS
Page
Foreword ii
List of Arkansas Study Lakes iv
Lake and Drainage Area Map v
Sections
I. Introduction 1
II. Conclusions 1
III. Lake Characteristics 3
IV. Lake Water Quality Summary 4
V. Literature Reviewed 9
VI. Appendices 10
-------
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
flanninq [§303(e)], water quality criteria/standards review
§303(c)], 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
Chicot
DeGray
Erli ng
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
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)
-------
GRAND LAKE
X Lake Sampling Site
!Km
-------
REPORT ON GRAND LAKE, ARKANSAS
STORE! NO. 0509
I. INTRODUCTION
Grand Lake was included in the National Eutrophication
Survey (NES) as a water body of special interest to the
Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology. Tribu-
taries and nutrient sources were not sampled, and this report
relates only to the data obtained from lake sampling.
II. CONCLUSIONS
A. Trophic Condition:*
Grand Lake is considered eutrophic, i.e., nutrient
rich and highly productive, on the basis of Survey data
and field observations. Whether such nutrient enrich-
ment is to be considered beneficial or deleterious is
determined by its actual or potential impact upon desig-
nated beneficial water uses of the lake.
Chlorophyll a^ levels ranged from 30.2 yg/1 in the
spring to 103.0 yg/1 in the summer with a mean of 62.9 yg/1.
Mean Seechi disc visibility was 51.6 cm (20 inches). Of
the 16 Arkansas lakes sampled in 1974, 2 had greater median
total phosphorus levels, 15 had greater median inorganic
nitrogen values, and 2 had greater median orthophosphorus
levels than Grand Lake.
*See Appendix C
-------
Survey limnologists reported an algal bloom during autumn
sampling and many submerged, emergent and floating aquatic mac-
rophytes along the shoreline areas during all three sampling
seasons.
B. Rate-Limiting Nutrient:
Algal assay results indicate that Grand Lake is limited
by available nitrogen. Spikes with nitrogen alone or nitrogen
and phosphorus simultaneously resulted in increased assay
yields. The addition of orthophosphorus alone did not produce
a growth response. The ratios of total inorganic nitrogen to
orthophosphorus (N/P) in the lake data further substantiate
nitrogen limitation.
-------
III. LAKE CHARACTERISTICS
A. Lake Morphometry:*
f\
Surface area: 5.67 km .
2. Mean depth: 2.1 meters.
3. Maximum depth: 4.0 meters.
4. Volume: 12.088 x 106 m3.
B. Precipitation:
1. Year of sampling: 161.3 cm.
2. Mean annual: 160.3 cm.
*Woomer, 1974
-------
IV. LAKE WATER QUALITY SUMMARY
Grand Lake 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 two stations on the lake and from a number of
depths at each station (see map, page i). During each visit,
depth-integrated samples were collected from each station for
chlorophyll a^ analysis and phytoplankton identification and
enumeration. During the first visit, 18.9-liter depth-integrated
samples were composited for algal assays. Maximum depths sampled
were 2.4 meters at Station 01 and 1.5 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 B and
are summarized in III-A for waters at the surface and at the maxi-
mum 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.
-------
LAK.C.
CODE
A.. PH/SICAL AND CHEMICAL CHAKACTEH I ST ICS
(DtG CENT
O.-l.-i M 'l
DISSOLVED OXYGEN (MG/'_>
0.-1.5 M uEPTH
MAX DEPTH**
CONDUCTIVITY
0.-1.5 M DEPTH
MAX DEPTH**
DISSOLVED U^TriO P (MG/L)
O.-l.S M DEPTH
MAX DEPTH**
N02+N03
0.-1.5 M DEPTH
MAX OEPTH**
AMMONIA (MG/L)
0.-1.5 M DEPTH
MAX DEPTH**
KjELOAHL N (MG/L)
0.-1.5 M DEPTH
MAX DEPTH**
( 3/26/74 )
Soo* - 2
N* JANGE MEDIAN
6
i
4
a
6
2
2
4
a
4
'LI
4
a
4
4
a
4
2
12.2- 12.3
12.2- 12.2
10.8- 11.0
lO.fci- 11.0
158.- 158.
158.- 158.
8.3- 8.5
8.3- 8.5
96.- 98.
96.- 97.
0.069-0.101
0.069-0.101
0.027-0.030
0.028-0.030
0.0 10-0.040
0.030-0.030
0.040-0.070
0.040-0.070
0.900-1 .400
0.900-1 .000
12. a
12.2
10.9
10.9
158.
158.
8.5
8.4
97.
97.
0.098
O.OH5
0.029
0.029
0.030
0.030
0.045
O.OSb
1.000
0.95U
(METE
0.0-
1.5-
0.6-
1.5-
0.0-
l.b-
0.0-
1.5-
n.o-
1.5-
0.0-
1.5-
0.0-
1.5-
0.0-
1.5-
0.0-
1.5-
0.0-
1.5-
( 6/ 4/74
hS) N* P.ANGE -"EuIAN
l.b
1.5
l.b
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
l.b
l.b
l.b
1.5
l.b
1.5
l.b
1.5
1.5
l.b
4
2
1
0
4
4
a
4
a
4
2
4
a
4
2
4
4
2
26.0- 27.2
26.0- 26. b
13.0- 13.0
ooooo-ooooo
236.- 247.
243.- 247.
H.2- 9.1
8.2- 9.0
«9.- 95.
91.- 9b.
0. 073-0. 120
O.OS1-0.088
0.018-0.025
0.019-0.025
0.070-0. 140
0.070-0.080
0.050-0.090
0.050-0.090
1 . 100-1 .800
1.200-1.300
26.6
26.3
13.0
ooooo
245.
8.9
8.6
91.
0.084
0.084
0.020
0.022
0.080
0.075
0.060
0.070
1.250
1.250
MAX
DEPTH
P.ANGE
(METEP.S) N*
0.0-
1.2-
1.5
1.5
0.0- 0.0
oooo-ooooo
0.0-
1.2-
0.0-
1.2-
0.0-
1.2-
0.0-
1.2-
0.0-
1.2-
0.0-
1.2-
0.0-
1.2-
0.0-
1.2-
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
4
2
4
2
2
1
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
( 10/16/74 ]
S«»o = 2
*aNGE MEDIAN
le. 6- 19.1
18.5- 19.1
b.6- 7.9
6.6- 7.6
Ibl.- 161.
161.- 161.
7.h- 7.9
7,-y- 7.<»
94.- 97.
95.- 95.
0.120-0.136
0.120-0.134
0.014-0.021
0.014-0.015
O.U20-0.020
0.020-0.020
0.040-0.080
0.030-0.040
1.200-3.000
1.100-1. POO
18. 1
18.8
7.3
7.1
161.
161.
7.9
7.9
95.
95.
0.125
0.127
0.015
0.014
0.020
0.020
0.040
0.035
1.400
1.150
i
MAX
DEPTH
RANGE
(METEOS)
0.0-
1.5-
0.0-
1.5-
0.0-
1.5-
0.0-
1.5-
0.0-
1.5-
0.0-
1.5-
0.0-
1.5-
0.0-
1.5-
0.0-
1.5-
0.0-
1.5-
1.5
2.4
1.5
2.4
1.5
1.5
1.5
2.4
1.5
2.4
1.5
2.4
1.5
2.4
1.5
1.5
2.4
1.5
2.4
SECCHI DISC
0.6- 0.6
0.6
0.5- 0.6
0.5
2 0.4- 0.5
0.4
N = NO. OF SAMPLED
MAXIMUM DEPTH SAMPLED AT EACn SITE
» 5 = NO. OF SITES SAMPLED ON THIS DATE
-------
B. Biological Characteristics:
1. Phytoplankton -
Sampling
Date
03/26/74
06/04/74
10/16/74
Dominant
Genera
1. Nitzschia
2. Stephanodiscus
3. Flagellates
4. Chlamydomonas
5. Melosira
Other genera
Total
1. Dactylococcopsis
2. Stephanodiscus
3. Merismopedia
4. Microcystis
5. Lyngbya
Other genera
Total
1. Dactylococcopsis
2. Oscillatoria
3. Centric Diatom
4. Microcystis
5. Merismopedia
Other genera
Total
Algal
Units
per ml
4,635
3
2,
2,
1,
813
467
093
794
8,298
23,100
52,408
23,206
16,165
11,472
10,429
39,112
152,792
3,523
3,030
2,924
2,537
2,008
3.171
17,193
-------
2. Chlorophyll a -
Sampling
Date
03/26/74
06/04/74
10/16/74
Station
Number
01
02
01
02
01
02
Chlorophyll a
(yg/D
30.2
36.3
103.0
103.0
55.7
49.0
Limiting Nutrient Study:
1. Autoclaved, filtered, and nutrient spiked - 03/26/74
Ortho P Inorganic N Maximum Yield
Spike (mg/1) Cone, (mg/1) Cone, (mg/1) (mg/l-dry wt.)
Control 0.020 0.039 3.8
0.05 P 0.070 0.039 3.3
0.05 P + 1.0 N 0.070 1.039 29.3
1.00 N 0.020 1.039 13.2
-------
8
2. Discussion -
The control yield of the assay alga, Selenastrum capri-
cornutum, indicates that the potential for primary production
was high on Grand Lake during the spring sampling period.
The lake was nitrogen limited at that time as indicated by
the increased yield of the test alga in response to an addi-
tion of nitrogen. Spikes with nitrogen and phosphorus simul-
taneously resulted in maximum yield. Spikes with ortho-
phosphorus alone did not produce a response significantly
beyond the control yield.
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.
The mean total inorganic nitrogen to orthophosphorus
ratios (N/P) in the lake data were 3/1 in the spring, 8/1
in the summer and 4/1 in the fall, suggesting primary limi-
tation by nitrogen (an N/P ratio of 14/1 or greater generally
reflects phosphorus limitation).
-------
V. LITERATURE REVIEWED
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.
Woomer, Neil. 1974. Personal Communication (morphometry data of
Arkansas water bodies). Department of Pollution Control and
Ecology, Little Rock, Arkansas.
-------
10
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 35.315 -- cubic feet/sec
Centimeters x 0.3937 - inches
Kilograms x 2.205 = pounds
Kilograms/square kilometer x 5.711 ~ Ibs/square mile
-------
APPENDIX B
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL DATA
-------
vi'C-AS
0 ? 0 '-i 0 1
33 03 OS. (I Ovl 11 SO.O
Ob
1 Jt^-'.LcS
3
.1202
000-1
Uti-1
uaTE
FPOv
TO
74/03/26
74/Oh/04
74/10/16
DATE
FOO«
TO
7«/03/26
74/06/04
74/10/16
TI"
UF
£ ut.-T'-
.JAY FEET
10
10
10
10
10
10
1"
10
'£.->
?:-•
?.*>
30
30
2S
p-;
^ ~
TI'iE ..
Or
DAY
10
1 0
10
10
10
10
10
10
1
25
?S
30
30
30
25
25
25
OOO.i
0 0 0 -x
on,,-,
(ior,o
0 0 0 T
ooon
noo=i
n o o «
JtPTH h
-PET
0000
ooo--
oouo
0 0 0 *
ooos
0000
OOOT
OOOM
• ,.- MO
..art -v
Tc ."•*-
c -r N r
1?.2
i2.x
1C.?
c!7.x
26.0
!«.«
In. 6
lo.b
OObfcS
-n()S-TOT
MG/L P
0 .100
(i . Oh ^
(l.l Truivs^ CMlXiCTVY f.n 1 iL". NM3-N TOT K-JtL NO?KN03 "^"$-015
-tCCr.1 FJ
Mfa/l. I.vC-itS M]
24
lO.o
1 .') . c
16
7.6 IB
7.0
7.6
32217 00031
CHLtipH>L iMCijr Lf
A tiE^NlNG
UG/L ^E«CE'MT
30.2
1 0 3 . 0
1.0
SS.7
1.0
[ELu C4C03 TOTAL N N-TOTSL O^THO
[C'r")fHO S'.i MG/L MG/L ~iG/L Mb/L «i 0.050 1.400 0.040 0.030
1-iB
15H 8.3S 97 0.040 0.900 0.030 0.028
23o H.60 89 0.060 1.800 0.140 0.021
247 8.20 95 0.090 l.x.OO 0.080 0.025
7. Mb 94 0.080 3.000 0.020 0.014
7.77 97 0.040 1.200 0.020K 0.021
7.f<4 V-} 0.030 1.100 0.020 O.Olb
K VALUE KNOWN TO BE LESS THAN
INDICATED
-------
NATL
[EviL j-Ti
Ob0902
33 04 45.0 091 1? tO. 0
DATE
FfiO'-1
TO
74/03/2*
74/0^/04
74/10/l(f
OF
10
10
I"
11
11
10
10
45
45
00
00
50
50
FEnT
000"
000?
0 0 0 S
OOOit
0004
0000
00!) •?
13.3
1^.3
1<^
26.7
a^.s
19.1
211120*
0007 FEET
L»t"Tr-
3 i"J 1 u
^ rtK
I*--'*'
c?.vr
0 0 .1 0 0
1)0
M j/L
y is u / /
T K A N S ^
StCCHl
IfvCnclS
000-'''
CNGUCTVY
FIELD
MIOO*HO
00400
Pn
Si'
JO* 10
T ALK
CAC03
Mu/L
00610
NH3-N
TOTAL
MG/L
00h2b
VOT KJtL
N
HG/L
00630
N02f-N03
N-TOTAL
MG/L
00671
PHOS-OIS
O^Ti-iO
MG/L P
11.u
ll.i
13.u
7.6
158
15B
14
«.S5
96
0.040
1.000
0.030
0.037
15H
241
243
161
161
ft. 50
9.10
9.05
7.95
7.67
96
90
91
94
95
0.070
0.060
0.050
0.040
0.040
1.000
1.100
1.300
1.600
1 .200
0.030
o.oeo
0.070
0.020
0.030
0.030
0.016
0.019
0.017
0.014
OOfobfe 32217
DATE TIME DEPTH PHOS-TOT ChLRPHYL
FRO« OF A
TO DAY FEET »tj/L P UG/L
74/03/26 10 45 OOun 0.097 36.3
10 45 0005 0.101
74/06/04 11 00 0000 0.073 103.0
11 00 0003
11 00 0004 0.081
74/10/1P 10 50 0000 0.1?9 49.0
10 50 0003
10 50 0005 0.120
00031
INCOT LT
1.0
1.0
-------
APPENDIX C
PARAMETRIC RANKINGS OF LAKES
SAMPLED BY NES IN 1974
STATE OF ARKANSAS
-------
L A * F C> A T A TO a. t USED IN 3 A <•," [ M3 >
LAK>i
COOii LA•_ •< L i < t
0502 HLAC
0.12,
1.42.
O.nb*
'''."IS
0.129
0. 162
0.119
0.154
0.101
0.024
0.040
0.039
0.015
0.115
0.022
0.012
M t 0 I A N
0.331
1.470
0.160
0.360
0. ISO
0.450
0.130
0. 120
0.090
0.130
(1.120
0.160
0.320
0.155
0.350
0.140
500-
* E A N >?£C
Mb. 667
"96. 1 2b
4-*4.000
343.969
451.667
486.000
419.050
454.667
47Q.667
426.111
466.77ft
469.000
356.321
389. 144
410.776
370.875
MEAN
J • *"* ^ i
19.77b
6.9S3
3.995
14.042
13.722
12.300
13.3K9
62.867
10.669
14.967
15.033
3.441
4.34*
9.103
3.762
15-
MIN oo
14.910
12.000
14.600
15.000
11 .HOO
14.HOO
15.000
14.600
8.400
14.4QO
9.800
B.800
15.000
15.000
15.000
15.000
-EOI
0.006
0.0^0
o.oio
C.004
0.006
0.0*9
0.004
0.020
0.021
0.006
0.00«
O.OOh
0.005
0.006
0.007
0.004
-------
OF LAKES *ITH
VALUES (NUM«F~ QK
S wITh HIGME>
CODE
05H1
050?
OS03
0504
050?
0506
0507
0508
050"
0510
0511
0512
0513
0515
0516
LAKE NAME
3EAi/E- LAKE
8LACKFISM LA"E
HLUE MOUNTAIN LA*!-
BULL SHOALS LAKE
LAKE CATHERINE
LAKE CHICOT
DEG«AY R£SEnv/OIR
LAKE ERLING
Gi-JAND LAKE
LAKE HAMILTON
MILLWOOD LAKE
NIMPOO LAKE
NOPKOLK LAKE
LAKE OUACH1TA
TABLE ROCK LAKE
GREEK'S LAKE
TOTAL H>
6^
n
20
QO
.7
7
73
27
n
51
33
40
BO
40
63
100
( 9)
( 0)
( 3)
( 13)
( 7)
( 1 )
( 11)
( 4)
( 2)
( 8)
( 5)
( 6)
( 12)
( 13)
( 9)
( IS)
MEDIAN
27
0
47
13
40
7
77
90
100
77
90
53
13
60
20
67
< 4)
( 0)
( 7)
< 2)
( 6)
( 1)
( 11)
( 13)
( 15)
( 11)
( 13)
( 8)
( 5)
( 9)
( 3)
( 10)
500-
*EAN SEC
07
0
13
100
47
7
60
40
20
53
33
27
93
80
73
87
( 10)
( Oi
( 2)
( IB,
( 7)
( 1 )
( 9)
( 6)
( 3)
( 8)
( 5)
( 4)
( 14)
( 1?)
( 11)
( 13)
MEAN
CHLOi-!A
87
7
«7
80
27
33
47
40
0
53
20
13
100
73
60
93
( 13)
( 1 >
( 10)
( 12)
( 4)
( 5)
( 7)
( 6)
( 0)
( 8)
( 3)
( 2)
( 15)
( 11)
( 9)
( 14)
15-
MJN DO
40
73
57
17
80
47
17
57
100
67
87
93
17
17
17
17
( 6)
( 11)
( 8)
( 0)
( 12)
( 7)
( 0)
( 8)
( 15)
( 10)
( 13)
( 14)
( 0)
( 0)
( 0)
( 0)
MEDIAN
DISb 0UTHQ
oJ (
0 (
27 (
93 (
63 (
7 (
93 (
20 (
13 (
63 (
33 (
47 (
80 (
63 (
40 (
93 <
«)
0)
4)
13)
ft)
1)
13)
3)
?)
«>
5)
7)
12)
fl>
M
13)
------- |