U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
NATIONAL EUTROPHICATION SURVEY
WORKING PAPER SERIES
REPORT
ON
NIMROD LAKE
PERRY AND YELL COUNTIES
ARKANSAS
EPA REGION VI
WORKING PAPER No, 490
CORVALLIS ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY - CORVALLIS, OREGON
and
ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING & SUPPORT LABORATORY - LAS VEGAS, NEVADA
699-440
-------
REPORT
ON
NIMRQD LAKE
PERRY AND YELL COUNTIES
ARKANSAS
EPA REGION VI
WORKING PAPER No, 490
WITH THE COOPERATION OF THE
ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF POLLUTION
CONTROL AND ECOLOGY
AND THE
ARKANSAS NATIONAL GUARD
JANUARY, 1977
-------
REPORT ON NIMROD LAKE
PERRY 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. 490
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
January 1977
-------
CONTENTS
Page
Foreword i i
List of Arkansas Study Lakes iv
Lake and Drainage Area Map v-vi
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 Eutrophication 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,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
Chicot
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
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)
-------
Tributary Sampling Site
Lake Sampling Site
Land Subject to Inundation
Map Location
9320
-------
• /
L_/
NIMROD LAKE
8 Tributary Sampling SHe
X Lake Sampling Site
~^j Drainage Area Boundary
Land Subject to Inundation
Scale
Ml.
Map ^o
-------
REPORT ON NIMROD LAKE, ARKANSAS
STORE! NO. 0512
I. CONCLUSIONS
A. Trophic Condition:*
Survey data indicate that Nimrod Lake is meso-eutrophic.
Potentials for primary production as measured by algal assay
control yields were high. Chlorophyll a^ values ranged from
2.4 yg/1 in the summer to 36.5 yg/1 in the fall, with a mean
of 15.8 yg/1. Of the 16 Arkansas lakes sampled in 1974, 6
had higher median total phosphorus levels (0.039 mg/1), 8 had
higher median inorganic nitrogen values (0.160 mg/1), and 7
had higher median orthophosphorus levels (0.006 mg/1) levels
than Nimrod Lake.
Field limnologists did not observe any algal blooms or
nuisance aquatic weeds during their visits to the lake. Other
studies (Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology,
1972) report that turbidity from colloidal clay particles is
currently the major problem in Nimrod Lake, although in the
late 1960's several extensive fishkills in Porter Creek and
Nimrod Lake occurred as a result of discharges from the Moun-
tain Pine Pressure Treating Company (Arkansas Department of
Pollution Control and Ecology, 1975).
*See Appendix E.
-------
B. Rate-Limiting Nutrient:
Algal assay results indicate that Nimrod Lake is limited by
available phosphorus. Spikes with phosphorus, or nitrogen and
phosphorus simultaneously resulted in increased assay yields. The
addition of nitrogen alone did not elicit a growth response.
The total available nitrogen to orthophosphorus (N/P) ratios in the
lake data suggest nitrogen limitation in the spring and phosphorus
limitation in the summer and fall.
C. Nutrient Controllability:
1. Point sources -
There were no known point sources impacting Nimrod Lake
during the 1974 sampling year.
The phosphorus annual loading of 1.10 g P/m^/yr is less
than that proposed by Vollenweider (1975) as a eutrophic level
(see Section IV-F). However, loading calculations based upon
available nutrients yield an extremely large net export of
phosphorus from the impoundment. In view of this apparent
phosphorus export, it is expected that the calculated loading
rate is far too low, and that unmeasured phosphorus inputs,
such as wastes from the town of Plainview into Porter Creek,
reached the lake during the sampling year (Arkansas Department
of Pollution Control and Ecology, 1972). Additional sampling
to determine the true nutrient budget for the lake is needed
before further recommendations on nutrient controllability in
Nimrod Lake can be proposed.
-------
2. Nonpoint sources -
During the sampling year, measured tributaries contri-
buted 81.7% of the total phosphorus load to Nimrod Lake and
ungaged drainage areas were estimated to have contributed
16.6%. The Fourche la Fave River contributed 78.7% of the
total load.
The phosphorus exports of the three gaged tributaries
(see Section IV-D) to Nimrod Lake were comparable to the
tributary exports of nearby Blue Mountain Lake (range of 6
to 11 kg P/knr/yr, mean of 8 kg P/km^/yr) and Lake Ouachita
(range of 6 to 11 kg P/km2/yr, mean of 9 kg P/km2/yr).
-------
II. LAKE AND DRAINAGE BASIN CHARACTERISTICS
Lake and drainage basin characteristics are itemized below.
Lake morphometry values were 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 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: 14.57
2. Mean depth: 2.5 meters
3. Maximum depth: 12.3 meters.
4. Volume: 35.771 x 106 m3.
5. Mean hydraulic retention time: 17 days.
-------
B. Tributary and Outlet:
(See Appendix B for flow data)
1. Tributaries -
Drainage Mean flow
Name area(krcr) (m3/sec)
A-2 Fourche la Fave River 1,271.7 17.59
B-l Brush Creek 51.0 0.68
C-l Hogan Creek 27.2 0.36
Minor tributaries and
immediate drainage - 407.1 5.78
Totals 1,757.0 24.41
2. Outlet - A-l Fourche la 1,771.6 24.04
Fave River
C. Precipitation:
1. Year of sampling: 106.5 cm.
2. Mean annual: 90.7 cm.
-------
III. LAKE WATER QUALITY SUMMARY
Nimrod 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 one or more
depths at each station (see maps, pages v-vi). Durinn each visit,
depth-integrated samples were collected from each station for
chlorophyll a^ 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 sampled were 2.7 meters at Station 01 and 10.7
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 ^determinations are included in III-B. Results
of the limiting nutrient study are presented in III-C.
-------
COOt U512
""YS1CAL AMU C"tMlCAL CHAKACTE.K I ST I Cb
( 3/i7/7<. )
( 10/18/7* )
MAX
TtMPEPATU^t (DEG CENT)
O.-l.S (' DEPTH
-------
B. Biological Characteristics:
1. Phytoplankton -
Sampling
Date
03/27/74
06/07/74
10/18/74
Dominant
Genera
1. Flagellates
2. Ankistrodesmus
3. Cryptomonas
4. Centric diatoms
5. Oscillatoria
Other genera
Total
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Melosira
Chroomonas
Cryptomonas
Cyclotella
Dactylococcopsis
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Other genera
Total
Melosira
Microcystis
Dactylococcopsis
Cryptomonas
Cyclotella
Other genera
Total
Algal
Units
per ml
1,933
424
424
94
94
237
3,206
493
99
49
49
49
222
961
1,417
486
445
243
162
851
3,604
-------
2. Chlorophyll
Sampling
Date
03/27/74
06/07/74
10/18/74
Limiting Nutrient
Station
Number
Study:
1. Autoclaved, filtered, and
a. 03/27/74
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 + 1.0
1.00 N
Ortho P
Cone, (mg/1
0.020
0.070
N 0.070
0.020
Ortho P
Cone, (mg/1
0.010
0.060
N 0.060
0.010
01
02
01
02
01
02
nutrient spiked -
Inorganic N
) Cone, (mg/1)
0.188
0.188
1.188
1.188
Inorganic N
) Cone, (mg/1)
0.087
0.087
1.087
1.087
Chlorophyll a
(yg/D
13.5
3.2
3.5
2.4
35.9
36.5
Maximum Yield
(mg/1 -dry wt. )
2.3
6.3
25.9
2.3
Maximum Yield
(mg/1 -dry wt. )
1.0
4.3
12.1
0.8
-------
10
2. Discussion -
The control yield of the assay alga, Selenastrum capri-
cornutum, indicates that potential for primary productivity
was high in Nimrod Lake during the spring and fall sampling
seasons. The lake was phosphorus limited at those times as
indicated by the increased yield of the test alga in response
to an addition of orthophosphorus. Spikes with phosphorus
and nitrogen simultaneously resulted in a maximum yield.
Spikes with nitrogen alone did not produce a response beyond
the control yield.
The mean N/P ratio from lake data was 6/1 during the
spring when orthophosphorus levels were approximately four
times the summer and autumn values, suggesting nitrogen
limitation. The N/P ratios for the summer and fall samplings
were 29/1 and 19/1, respectively, indicating phosphorus
limitation (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 maps (pages v-vi) ex-
cept for the high runoff months of March and April when two sam-
ples 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 loadings for unsampled "minor tributaries and imme-
diate drainage" ("II" of USGS) were estimated by using the mean
2
annual nutrient loads, in kg/km /yr, in Brush Creek and Hogan
Creek at Station B-l and C-l, and multiplying the means by the
2
ZZ area in km .
-------
12
A. Waste Sources:
1. Known municipal - None
2. Known industrial* -
Mean Flow Receiving
Name Product Treatment (nr/d x 10^) Hater
Mountain Pine Wood Treat-
Pressure Treating ment and
Company Preserving
(The plant presently operates with a closed treatment system for
liquid wastes. In the past, the plant discharged into Porter Creek.)
*Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology, 1972.
-------
13
B. Annual Total Phosphorus Loading - Average Year:
1. Inputs -
% of
Source kg P/yr total
a. Tributaries (nonpoint load) -
A-2 Fourche la Fave River 12,580 78.7
B-l Brush Creek 305 1.9
C-l Hogan Creek 180 1.1
b. Minor tributaries and immediate
drainage (nonpoint load) - 2,645 16.6
c. Known municipal STP's - None
d. Septic tanks* - 15 0.1
e. Known industrial - None
f. Direct precipitation** - 255 ]_.j>_
Totals 15,980 100.0
2. Output - A-l Fourche la Fave 30,565
River
14,585
3. Net annual P export*** -
*Estimate based on 18 lakeside residences and 6 camps.
**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 Fourche la Fave River 417,285 77.0
B-l Brush Creek 9,900 1.8
C-l Hogan Creek 6,930 1.3
b. Minor tributaries and immediate
drainage (nonpoint load) - 91,395 16.9
c. Known municipal STP's - None
d. Septic tanks* - 615 0.1
e. Known industrial - None
f. Direct precipitation** - 15,730 2.9
Totals 541,855 100.0
2. Output - A-l Fourche la Fave 460,910
River
3. Net annual N accumulation - 80,945
*Estimate based on 18 lakeside residences and 6 camps.
**Estimated (see NES Working Paper No. 175).
-------
15
D. Mean Annual Nonpoint Nutrient Export by Subdrainage Area:
2 9
Tributary kg P/km /yr kg N/knr/yr
Fourche la Fave River 10 328
Brush Creek 6 194
Hogan Creek 7 255
E. Mean Nutrient Concentrations in Ungaged Streams:
Mean Total P Mean Total N
Tributary (mg/1) (mg/1)
D-l Porter Creek 0.040 0.684
E-l West Gafford Creek 0.017 0.573
F-l East Gafford Creek 0.025 0.419
Nutrient concentrations for tributaries D-l and E-l are in
line with those found for the gaged tributaries draining into Nimrod
Lake. However, mean total phosphorus values for Porter Creek are
above those found for West and East Gafford Creek. This elevation
in phosphorus levels is probably due to seepage and runoff from
malfunctioning septic tanks from the town of Plainview (Arkansas
Department of Pollution Control and Ecology, 1972).
-------
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 Nimrod Lake 1.10
Vollenweider's eutrophic loading 1.35
Vollenweider's oligotrophic loading 0.67
-------
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 Arkansas River Basin, Oklahoma
State Line to Mouth. Little Rock, Arkansas.
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.
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
-4
Cubic meters x 8.107 x 10 = acre/feet
Square kilometers x 0.3861 - square miles
Cubic motors/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 FLOW INFORMATION FOR ARKANSAS
02/02/77
LAKE CODE 0512
NIMROD LAKE
TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA OF LAKE(SQ KM) 1771.6
0512A1
0512A2
0512B1
0512C1
0512ZZ
SUB-DRAINAGE
AREAIS6 KM)
1771.6
1271.7
51.0
27.2
421.7
JAN
29.90
27.33
1.059
0.564
8.98
FE8
39.81
33.47
1.300
0.691
10.99
MAK
52.58
38.94
1.512
0.801
12.80
APR
40.80
34.01
1.320
0.702
11.16
MAY
45.00
30.44
1.181
0.629
10.00
NORMALIZED FLOWS(CMS)
JUN JUL AUG SEP
23.05
9.40
0.365
0.195
3.09
10.99 5.55 4.05
3.11 1.86 3.85
0.122 0.074 0.150
0.065 0.040 0.079
1.02 0.61 1.27
OCT
3.17 1
3.11
0.122 0
0.065 0
1.02
NOV
1.10
9.85
.382
.204
3.23
DEC
23.45
16.76
O.bbl
0.345
5.52
MEAN
24.04
17.59
0.683
0.363
5.78
SUMMARY
TOTAL
SUM OF
DRAINAGE AREA OF LAKE =
SUB-DRAINAGE AREAS =
1771.6
1771.6
TOTAL FLOW IN =
TOTAL FLOW OUT =
294.43
289.45
MEAN MONTHLY FLOWS AND DAILY FLOWS(CMS)
TRIBUTARY MONTH YEAR MEAN FLOW DAY
0512A1
FLOW DAY
FLOW DAY
FLOW
0512A2
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
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
26.476
64.279
2.322
26.023
3.625
11.327
77.022
29.733
60.032
44.174
101.374
47.799
65.695
1.911
0.934
17.698
3.002
55.784
23.814
12.573
52.386
79.287
20.586
35.254
23
21
18
22
20
9
15
25
16
9
5
3
23
21
18
22
20
9
15
25
16
7
5
3
68.244
56.917
1.133
39.927
2.265
8.495
134.222
10.874
100.525
24.494 23
88.065 12
19.539
5.947
1.982
0.934
16.990
1.557
19.822
25.485
6.513
9.486
11.044 23
22.653 12
114.400
60.315
131.673
34.971
17.840
-------
TRIBUTARY FLOW INFORMATION FOR ARKANSAS
02/02/77
LAKE CODE 0512
LAKE
MEAN MONTHLY FLOWS AND DAILY FLOwS(CMS)
TRIBUTARY MONTH YEAR MEAN FLO* DAY
051281
0512C1
0512ZZ
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1
2
3
4
S
6
7
8
9
10
11
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
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
75
75
75
75
75
FLOW DAY
FLOW CAY
FLOW
2.631
0.076
0.037
0.711
0.122
2.234
0.954
0.504
2.104
3.171
0.824
1.416
1.402
0.040
0.020
0.379
0.065
1.192
0.510
0.269
1.121
1.696
0.442
0.753
21.747
0.634
0.309
5.862
0.997
18.463
7.900
4.163
17.387
26.306
6.824
11.695
23
21
18
22
20
9
15
25
16
9
5
3
23
21
18
22
20
9
15
25
16
9
5
3
23
21
18
22
20
9
15
25
16
9
5
3
0.045
0.003
0.003
0.765
0.003
0.708
1.034
0.261
0.385
0.442 23
0.906 12
4.597
0.023
0.003
0.003
0.396
0.006
0.340
0.552
0.139
0.204
0.235 23
0.481 12
2.435
1.971
0.623
0.309
5.635
0.510
6.513
8.495
2.152
3.171
3.653 23
7.504 12
37.945
1.416
0.716
0.748
0.382
11.610
5.918
-------
APPENDIX C
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL DATA
-------
bTORET RETRIEVAL DATE 77/02/0?
/TYPA/AMBNT/L4KE
00010
DATE TIME OEPTrt wATER
FROM OF TEMP
TO OAY FEET CtNT
7<»/03/27 13 45 0000 12.7
13 45 0005 12.4
74/06/07 13 10 0000 23.6
13 10 0005 23.6
13 10 0009 23.5
7i»/10/l8 09 55 0000 18.3
00300 00077 00094
DO TRiNSP CNDUCTVY
SECCHI FIELD
MG/L INCHES MICKOMHO
10.2
6.4
6.6
7.6
24
36
28
95
41
41
43
23
051201
34 56 53.0 093 13 52.0 3
05149 ARKANSAS
101091
11EPALES
0007 FEET
DEPTH
04001002
CLASS 00
00400
PM
su
00410
T ALK
CAC03
MG/L
00610
NH3-N
TOTAL
MG/L
00625
TOT KJEL
N
MG/L
00630
N02J.N03
M-TOTAL
MG/L
00671
PHOS-DIS
ORTHO
MG/L P
6.50
6.50
6.70
6.6C
5.99
13
0.060
0.400
0.080
0.027
14
15
15
12
0.120
0.220
0.110
0.060
0.400
0.300
0.400
0.400
0.080
0.090
0.090
0.030
0.007
0.006
0.010
0.010
00665
DATE TIME DEPTH PHOS-TOT
FROM OF
TO DAY FEET MG/L P
74/03/27 13 45 0000 0.037
74/06/07 13 10 0000 0.056
13 10 0005 0.053
13 10 0009 0.052
74/10/18 09 55 0000 0.041
09 55 0001
09 55 0007
32217 00031
CHLRPHYL INCDT LT
A REMNING
UG/L PERCENT
13.5
3.5
35.9
50.0
1.0
-------
STOKET t(ET*IEVAL OATE 77/02/03
061202
34 57 11.0 093 09 42.0 3
05105
101091
/TYPA/AMriNT/LAKt
DATE
FROM
TO
74/03/27
74/06/07
74/10/18
DATE
FROM
TO
74/03/27
74/06/07
74/10/18
TIME DEPTH
OF
DAY FEET
14 00 0000
14 00 0005
14 00 0025
12 45 0000
12 45 0005
12 45 0015
12 45 0035
09 25 0000
09 25 0005
09 25 0020
09 ?5 0032
TIME DEPTH
OF
DAY FEET
14 00 0000
14 00 0005
14 00 0025
12 45 0000
12 45 0005
12 45 0015
12 45 0035
09 25 0000
09 ?5 0001
09 25 0005
09 ?S 0006
09 ?5 0020
09 25 0032
00010
»ATER
TEMP
CENT
10.6
10.6
10.3
24.0
24. C
24.0
23.2
19.0
18.6
18.9
18.4
00665
PHOS-TOT
MG/L P
0.034
0.032
0.032
0.040
0.048
0.034
0.048
0.039
0.033
0.035
0.039
00300
DO
MG/L
9.2
9.2
6.4
6.4
8.2
6.8
6.4
6.2
32217
CHLRPHYL
A
UG/U
3.2
2.4
36.5
00077 00094
TRANSP CNDUCTVY
SECCMl FIELD
INCHES MICROMHO
24 85
70
60
36 42
43
42
42
38 23
23
23
21
00031
INCUT LT
REMN1NG
PERCENT
50.0
1.0
11EPALES 04001002
0033 FEET DtPTh CLASS 00
00400 00410 00610 00625
PH
su
6.30
6.20
6.20
6.70
6.90
6.50
6.60
5.82
5.81
5.82
5.81
T ALK
CAC03
MG/L
10
10K
10K
14
16
14
14
10K
10K
10K
10K
NH3-N
TOTAL
Mti/L
0.070
0.070
0.070
0.130
0.100
0.110
0.120
0.060
0.080
0.100
0.100
TOT KJEL
N
MG/L
0.400
0.300
0.400
0.500
0.300
0.300
0.400
0.400
0.200
0.300
0.300
00630
N02&N03
N-TOTAL
MG/L
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.100
.090
.080
.080
.060
.040
.040
.300
.030
.020
.020
00671
PHOS-UIS
ORTHO
MG/L P
0.025
0.023
0.024
0.008
0.005
O.U05
0.006
0.005
0.005
0.004
0.004
K VALUE KNOWN ro ae
LESS THAN INDICATED
-------
APPENDIX D
TRIBUTARY AND WASTEWATER
TREATMENT PLANT DATA
-------
4- i. IS Vc'"-'-c
- 75/11/23
0512A1
34 57 05.0 093 09 )3.Q
FOu*:H= Li PiV? c WT^.
J5 7.? MMsnn 3iM
74/06/23
74/07/21
74/08/16
74/09/22
74/10/20
7^/11/09
74/12/15
75/01/25
75/02/16
75/03/09
75/03/23
75/04/05
75/04/ 12
75/05/03
0&Y ?
09 32
uS 55
09 35
09 50
09 15
09 10
09 ln
14 30
10 10
10 10
12 45
09 50
11 10
10 40
V-63?
AR .-UY 7 P=Cr, 0.4 MT SF 'F POU^CHC JC"
2111 20*
OCOC p£=T DEPTH
00625
•T KJ'L
N
0061C 00671 00665
NH3-N P'PS-HS °HOS-TQT
TOTAL '"'f 7HO
MG/L '•'G/l P MG/L P
0.036
0.004
0.063
0.^56
0.-148
0.024
5.04C
0.040
0.048
0.040
0.040
0.030
0.035
0.030
0.30-1
G.300
0.600
0.600
0.400
C.7CO
0.500
0.200
0.800
0.300
0.200
1.150
0.550
0.750
0.055
C.I 55
0.150
0.130
0.090
0.09fc
0.045
0.056
0.032
0.024
0.016
0.030
0.015
0.075
0.015
0.025
0.020
0.010
0.015
0.008
0.010
0.010
0.008
0.008
0.008
0.005
0.010
0.025
0.045
0.095
0.060
0.055
0.025
0.030
O.J30
0.320
0.030
0.050
0.030
0.040
0.030
0.030
-------
T — CT U-KTF!=VIL
«5TL r UTTP.-lT i"
7 o A - i_ 4 <: y ; 3 '* ~
ir= 75/11/23
",' SU'VFY
C L ^ '*
TO
74/06/23
74/07/21
74/08/18
74/09/22
74/10/20
74/1 1/09
74/12/ 15
75/01/25
75/02/16
75/03/09
75/03/23
75/04/05
75/04/12
75/'">5/03
r =
DAY
15
11
10
10
09
lu
10
15
10
12
15
12
09
14
f-.-T
55
00
40
55
28
}r,
00
00
?0
30
10
30
00
V
\i-T-T4L
MO/L
0.02r.
0.012
0.024
0.064
0.016
3.0^fl
0.056
0.040
0.064
0.048
0.092
0.060
0.040
0.055
70625
T KJtl.
\
VG/L
0.200
0.300
0.30^
0.300
o.ion
C. 7 CO
0.300
O.IOOK
0.200
0.300
0.200
I. 400
I. 400
I. 900
00610
M3-N
T <-! T * I
• . I Q L
MG/L
0.015
0.020
0.015
0.045
0.025
0. 136
0.015
0.048
0.032
0.028
0.024
0.020
0.040
0.540
34 p4 35.0 093 34 t,0.~>
1: |t = ev = f'I V=-
YELL COUNTY
M HWY 2
liEPALf-S
MI
30671 00665
PHCS-OIS PHCS-TOT
ip TH"
MG/L P ^G/L P
0.005K
0.010
0.005
0.015
0.010
0.016
0.010
0.010
0.016
0.008K
0.012
0.005K
0.010
0.020
O.D25
0.037
0.025
0.040
0.010
0.020
0.020
0.010
0.016
0.050
0.030
0.030
0.320
2111204
0000 P~ = T
DE°TH
K VALUE KNOWN TO BE LESS THAN
INDICATED
-------
•~ 75/11/28
45 VFli?
IM"
74/06/23
74/07/21
74/08/ 1.8
74/09/22
74/10/20
74/11/09
74/12/15
75/01/25
75/02/16
75/03/09
75/03/23
75/04/05
75/04/12
75/05/03
09 :3
10 lr-
09 50
10 15
09 35
09 25
09 35
14 45
10 30
OS 20
13 20
10 30
10 30
11 00
00630
\^2C,",03
\-TQTJI_
0.024
0.020
0.016
0.040
0.04J
o.ou
0.032
0.024
0.032
0. 032
0.032
0.030
0.025
0.020
051231
J4 56 34.0 093 12 00.
00625
T K JFL
>j
MG/L
0.1 00k
0.200
0.200
0.300
G. 3QO
0.6 CO
0 . 400
0. 100K
O.I 00
0.1CO
0. 100K
1.250
0.550
1.850
00610
NH3-N
T^TiL
MG/L
0.015
C.020
0.015
0.025
0.015
0. 128
0.020
0.056
0.016
0.012
0.024
0.025
0.025
0.040
00671
PH?S-OIS
JRTHC
'1G/L P
0.005K
0.010
0.020
0.010
0.007
0.008
0.005
0.005
0.008K
0.008K
0.008K
0.005K
0.005K
0.010
05
T/NH^:
FOREST
1 1 - V i 1 '•
L t w ' •* \— ^
4
006o5
PHDS-TJT
^G/L P
0.010
O.U30
0.020
0.015
O.OJ7
0. 02 0
O.U10
0.010K
0.010K
0.030
0.01 OK
0.020
0.010
f N'.MFOD ^
IN3 4.5 «!
2111204
oooo FEET
w a=- HWY 7
DEPTH
K VALUE KiTOWN TO BE LESS THAN
INDICATED
-------
r'JT-CPHT
i_ i s v ? ~> \
c 75/11/23
SURVEY
74/06/23
74/07/21
74/08/18
74/09/22
74/10/20
74/1 1/09
74/12/15
75/01/25
75/0 ?./ 16
75/03/09
75/03/23
75/04/05
75/04/12
75/05/03
0 i Y
10 71
10 35
10 l-
10 3D
09 5?
09 45
09 5?
15 00
10 50
09 10
13 45
11 30
10 00
12 00
J512C1
3t 55 52.3 093 19 25.0
00610
N?25NG3
^I-TTTAL
MG/L
0.312
0.008
T . '"> 2 4
0.040
0.032
0.008
0.008
0.008
0.008
0.008
1.008
0.005
0.005
0.015
30625
T;r K JE L
N
•'••G/l
0. IOOK
0.400
•0.20C
0. 300
0.250
0.900
0.300
Q.100K
o. 5cn
0.200
0.200
1.250
1 .850
1. 750
006 1C
\'H3-N
T?TAL
«G/L
0.015
0.015
C.017
0.025
C.010
0.032
0.015
0.048
0.072
0.012
0.016
0.015
0..022
0.168
3^671
PMOS-DI s
r« THT
«.G/L P
0.005
0.005
0.015
0.010
0.005
0.008
0.005
0.005
0.008K
0.008K
0.008K
0.005
0.010
J5 7.5
3NK 12.5 <••'
11&°AL"S
00665
PHGS-TJT
MG/L P
0.020
0.020
0.020
0.015
0.005
O.J30
0.010
0.010K
0.010
0.030
0.010K
0.020
0.020
HWY
7 JCT
2111204
0000 C5=T
K VALUE KNOWN TO BE LESS THAN
INDICATED
-------
ST?e=T frTCI
F'JT -rp
f 75/11/23
SU°.VEY
74/06/23
74/07/21
74/03/18
74/09/22
74/10/20
74/11/09
74/12/15
75/01/25
75/02/16
75/03/09
75/03/23
75/04/05
75/04/ 12
75/05/03
09 ")7
09 30
09 10
Oti *5
03 55
14 i)5
09 VO
10 45
12 20
09 00
13 30
10 10
^1630
0.10S
0.015
0.096
0.088
D.024
0.043
0.083
0.064
0.096
0.048
0.084
0.080
0.040
0.050
00625
:•" KJrL
0.300
1.4CO
0.700
0.300
0.300
0.500
0.400
0.2CO
0.600
0.100
0. 100
2.000
0.550
1.200
0061C
NH3-N
MG/L
0.065
0.550
0.080
0.035
0.015
0.016
0.015
0.072
0.024
0.006
0.022
0.025
0.010
C.080
J5UJ1
34 ?9 53.0 J93 1
00671
HCS-0! S
*G/L P
o.no5
0.010
0. 065
0.010
0.010
0.003
0.015
0.015
0.008
0.008K
0.012
0.010
0.010
0.035
05 7.5
T/NIMRDD l.a
2.ND4RY DD B
11EP4L5S
00665
PHCS-T'JT
MG/L P
0.030
O.OdS
0.150
0.030
0.020
0.030
0.020
0.015
0.030
0.040
0.020
0.030
0.020
G 0.7 « ! N! 3 «= PL*!NVIEW
211120«>
0000 FS5T DEP'H
K VALUE KNOWN TO BE LESS THAN
INDICATED
-------
i" 75/11/23
Ki SU-V-Y
V 5
0 i
P c
74/06/23
74/07/21
74/08/18
74/09/22
74/10/20
74/1'./OS
74/12/15
75/01/25
75/02/16
75/03/09
75/03/23
75/04/05
75/04/12
75/05/03
HAY c
14 0"
10 00
10 -V'
10 40
09 10
09 30
09 2"5
14 35
09 sn
13 20
15 30
13 15
08 15
13 ->J
351251
34 51 25. 3 093 37 22.0
15
]=Ei
XIN
••">630
2CM3
T?TAL
viG/L
0. 020
0.016
0.056
0.016
0.032
0.006
0.008
0.008
0.016
0.008
0.012
0.005
0.013
0.015
;»A625
T~T KJEL
N
^G/L
0. 100K
0.300
0.300
0. ICO
0.100K
1.5CO
0.500
0.250
0.1 CO
0.300
0.1CO
1.200
0.900
1.150
•10610
NH3-N
TITiL
MG/L
0.015
0.015
0.035
0.025
0.010
0.032
0.025
0.056
0.048
0.016
0.016
C.020
0.060
0.050
00671
FHCS-OIS
-^a T|-n
MG/L P
0.005K
0.005
0.020
0.005K
0.005K
0.008K
0. 005
0.010
0.008K
0.008K
0.008K
0.005K
0.005K
0.010
OJ665
=HCS-TuT
MG/L P
0.015
0. J20
O.J20
0.010
O.JlO
O.U20
0.010
0.015
0.030
0.020
0.310
0.020
O.D10K
4 «! SSW CF
2111204
0000 FPCT
K VALUE KNOWN TO BE LESS THAN
INDICATED
-------
75/11/23
0512F1
34 56 40.0
£ AST ;•'- ?Cr
05 15
C93 36 30.0
CS C5 FEK
GC1V?LLY
T/MIM33Q LAKC
NAT FOPr.ST Pr.
UtPALrS
OST§
F? nw
TO
7^/06/23
7^/07/21
7^/08/ 18
74/09/22
74/10/20
74/11/09
74/12/15
75/01/25
75/02/16
75/03/09
75/03/23
75/04/05
75/04/12
75/05/03
00630 00625
TIM^ O'PTH N'^2&N03 TCT KJcL
.-. = N_TOT4t N
OiY C=::T
13
09
09
10
C9
09
09
14
10
13
15
13
07
13
30
45
35
30
15
3;
35
40
00
05
25
00
50
25
MG/L
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
'•>.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
012
184
660
104
024
006
008
008
008
008
012
005
010
020
MG/L
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
0.
0.
100K
500
200
100
100
150
200
100
300
300
100K
000
400
625
00610 00671 OObbS
NH3-N PHOS-OIS PHOS-TOT
TOTAL ^CTHO
MG/L
0.
0.
c.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
015
045
020
025
010
024
02C
048
032
016
018
020
015
210
MG/L
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
p
005K
005
020
005
005K
016
010
005
00 8K
008K
008K
005
010
015
MG/L P
O.D20
0.020
0.020
0.020
0.010
0.020
0.020
0.020
0.020
0.050
0.020
0.030
0.020
0.055
XING 3 M! S ?F BLUFFT7N
2111204
0.0 CO FffT
K VALUE KHOWN TO BE LESS THAN
INDICATED
-------
APPENDIX E
PARAMETRIC RANKINGS OF LAKES
SAMPLED BY NES IN 1974
STATE OF ARKANSAS
-------
LAKE ilATi TO -E 'JSKD IN -.aN
-------
OF LAKE"; WITH nlGHER VALUES
OF LAKES WITH HIGHER VALUES)
CODE
0501
050?
0503
0504
0505
050<>
0507
0508
0509
0510
0511
0512
0513
051*
0515
0516
LAKE NAME
BEAVE3 LAKE
BLACKFISH LAKE
BLUE MOUNTAIN LAKE
BULL SHOALS LAKE
LAKE CATHERINE
LAKE CrilCOT
DEGPAY RESERVOIR
LAKE ERLING
GRAND LAKE
LAKE HAMILTON
MILLWOOD LAKF.
NIMPOD LAKE
NORFOLK LAKE
LAKE OUACHITA
TABLE ROCK LAKE
GREER'S LAKE
MEDIAN
TOTAL P
63 (
0 (
20 (
90 (
47 (
7 (
73 (
27 (
13 (
S3 (
33 (
40 (
80 (
90 (
63 (
100 (
9)
0)
3)
13)
7)
1)
11)
4)
2)
8)
5)
6)
12)
13)
9)
15)
MEDI AN
INOKG N
27 (
0 (
47 (
13 (
40 (
7 (
77 (
90 (
100 (
77 (
90 (
53 (
33 (
60 (
20 (
67 (
4)
0)
7)
2)
6)
1 )
11)
13)
15)
11)
13)
8)
5)
9)
3)
10)
SOO-
«EAN SEC
67
0
13
100
47
7
60
40
20
53
33
27
93
80
73
87
( 10)
( 0)
( 2)
( Ib)
( 7)
( 1)
( 9)
( 6)
( 3)
( 8)
( 5)
( 4)
( 14)
( 12)
( 11)
( 13)
MEAN
CHLO«A
87 (
7 {
67 (
60 (
27 (
33 (
47 (
40 (
0 (
53 (
20 t
13 (
100 (
73 (
60 (
93 (
13)
1)
10)
12)
4)
5)
7)
6)
0)
8)
3)
2)
15)
11)
9)
14)
15-
MIN 00
40 (
73 (
57 (
17 (
80 (
47 (
17 (
57 (
100 (
67 (
87 (
93 (
17 (
17 (
17 (
17 (
6)
11)
ft)
0)
12)
7)
0)
8)
15)
10)
13)
14)
0)
0)
0)
0)
MEDIAN
DISS OPTHO P
63
0
27
93
63
7
93
20
13
63
33
47
80
63
40
93
( R)
( 0)
( 4)
( 13)
( 8)
( 1)
( 13)
( 3)
( 2)
( 8)
( 5)
( 7)
( 12)
( 8)
( 6)
( 13)
------- |