U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
NATIONAL EUTROPHICATION SURVEY
WORKING PAPER SERIES
REPORT
ON
ELK CITY RESERVOIR
iwrGoreY COUNTY
MNSAS
EPA REGION VII
WORKING PAPER No, 513
CORVALLIS ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY - CORVALLIS, OREGON
and
ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING & SUPPORT LABORATORY - LAS VEGAS, NEVADA
699-440
-------
REPORT
ON
ELJ< CITY RESERVOIR
mNTGOMERY COUNTY
KANSAS
EPA REGION VII
WORKING PAPER No, 513
WITH THE COOPERATION OF THE
KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT
AND THE
KANSAS NATIONAL GUARD
APRIL, 1977
-------
CONTENTS
Page
Foreword ii
List of Kansas Study Reservoirs iv
Lake and Drainage Area Map v
Sections
I. Conclusions 1
II. Lake and Drainage Basin Characteristics 3
III. Lake Water Quality Summary 4
IV. Nutrient Loadings 9
V. Literature Reviewed 14
VI. Appendices 15
-------
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, concentrations,
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 non-point
source pollution abatement in lake watersheds.
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 water-
shed 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)], clean lakes [§314(a,b)],
and water quality monitoring [§106 and §305(b)] activities mandated
by the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972.
-------
iii
Beyond the single lake analysis, broader based correlations
between nutrient concentrations (and loading) and trophic condi-
tion are being made to advance the rationale and data base for
refinement 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 EPA
and to augment plans implementation by the states.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The staff of the National Eutrophication Survey (Office of
Research & Development, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency)
expresses sincere appreciation to the Kansas State Department of
Health and Environment for professional 'involvement, to the Kansas
National Guard for conducting the tributary sampling phase of
the Survey, and to those Kansas v/astewater treatment plant opera-
tors who voluntarily provided effluent samples and flow data.
The staff of the Kansas Division of Environmental Health pro-
vided invaluable lake documentation and counsel during the Survey,
reviewed the preliminary reports, and provided critiques most use-
ful in the preparation of this Working Paper series.
Major General Edward R. Fry, the Adjutant General of Kansas,
and Project Officer Colonel Albin L. Lundquist, who directed the
volunteer efforts of the Kansas National Guardsmen, are also grate-
fully acknowledged for their assistance to the Survey.
-------
iv
NATIONAL EUTROPHICATION SURVEY
STUDY RESERVOIRS
STATE OF KANSAS
NAME COUNTY
Cedar Bluff Trego
Council Grove Morris
Elk City Montgomery
Fall River Greenwood
John Redmond Coffey, Lyon
Kanopolis Ellsworth
Marion Marion
Melvern Osage
Mil ford Clay, Geary
Norton Norton
Perry Jefferson
Pomona Osage
Toronto Greenwood, Woodson
Tuttle Creek Marshall, Potta-
watomie, Riley
Wilson Russell
-------
ELK CITY RESERVOIR
•''.5'jtsrv Sa-p'ing Site
X ^ake Sampling Site
Sewage 'reatnent racility
70 Drainage Area Boundary
Land Subject tc Inundation
-------
ELK CITY RESERVOIR
STORE! NO. 2003
I. CONCLUSIONS
A. Trophic Condition:
Survey data indicate that Elk City Reservoir is potentially
eutrophic. However, because of persistent turbidity and resulting
light-limitation, primary productivity in the reservoir is low
(King, 1977).
This water body ranked fourth in overall trophic quality when
the 15 Kansas reservoirs sampled in 1974 were compared using a
combination of six water quality parameters*. Two of the reser-
voirs had less median total phosphorus, none of the others had
less median dissolved orthophosphorus, seven had less median
inorganic nitrogen, none had less mean chlorophyll a_, and 13 had
greater mean Secchi disc transparency. Depression of dissolved
oxygen with depth occurred at both sampling stations in June.
Survey limnologists did not observe algal concentrations or
macrophytes but noted the reservoir was quite turbid during all
sampling visits.
B. Rate-Limiting Nutrient:
The algal assay results indicate that Elk City Reservoir was
phosphorus-limited at the time the sample was taken (10/03/74).
The reservoir data indicate phosphorus limitation in April as well.
* See Appendix A.
-------
However, the low Secchi disc transparencies and relatively
low numbers of phytoplankton (page 6) indicate primary pro-
ductivity in the reservoir is light-limited rather than
nutrient-limited as noted above.
C. Nutrient Controllability:
1. Point sources—Point sources contributed an estimated
6.1% of the total phosphorus load to Elk City Reservoir during
the sampling year. The Howard wastewater treatment plant con-
tributed 2.9%, the Moline facility added 1.8%, and the Elk City
plant contributed 1.4%.
The present phosphorus loading of 2.23 g/m 2/yr is 2.7 times
that proposed by Vollenweider (Vollenweider and Dillon, 1974)
as a eutrophic loading (see page 13). However, even complete
removal of phosphorus at the point-sources listed above would
only reduce the loading to about 2.5 times the eutrophic loading.
Because of this and light-limited primary productivity, it is
not likely that point-source phosphorus control would result in
any appreciable improvement in the trophic condition of the
reservoir.
2. Non-point sources—It is estimated that non-point sources
contributed nearly 94% of the total phosphorus load reaching the
reservoir during the sampling year. The Elk River contributed
52.5%; Duck Creek, 12.4%; and the ungaged minor tributaries and
immediate drainage contributed an estimated 28.3% of the total
load.
-------
II. RESERVOIR AND DRAINAGE BASIN CHARACTERISTICS'1"
j^t.
A. Morphometry :
1. Surface area: 17.81 kilometers2.
2. Mean depth: 2.4 meters.
3. Maximum depth: 12.0 meters.
4. Volume: 42.679 x 106 m3.
5. Mean hydraulic retention time: 45 days (based on outflow).
B. Tributary and Outlet:
(See Appendix C for flow data)
1. Tributaries -
Drainage Mean flow
Name area (km2)* (m3/sec)*
Elk River 1,051.5 6.920
Duck Creek 163.4 1.180
Minor tributaries &
immediate drainage - 409.4 3.360
Totals 1,624.3 11.460
2. Outlet -
Elk River 1,642.1** 10.870
C. Precipitation***:
1. Year of sampling: 114.5 centimeters.
2. Mean annual: 93.5 centimeters.
t Table of metric conversions—Appendix B.
tt Kring, 1977.
* For limits of accuracy, see Working Paper No. 175, "...Survey Methods,
1973-1976".
** Includes area of reservoir.
*** See Working Paper No. 175.
-------
III. WATER QUALITY SUMMARY
Elk City Reservoir was sampled three times during the open-water
season of 1974 by means of a pontoon-equipped Huey helicopter. Samples
for physical and chemical parameters were collected from one or more
depths at one station in April and two stations in June and October
(see map, page v). During each visit, a single depth-integrated (4.6 m
or near bottom to surface) sample was composited from the stations for
phytoplankton identification and enumeration; and during the October
visit, a single 18.9-liter depth-integrated sample was composited for
algal assays. Also each time, a depth-integrated sample was collected
from each of the stations for chlorophyll a_ analysis. The maximum depths
sampled were 12.8 meters at station 1 and 1.5 meters at station 2.
The sampling results are presented in full in Appendix D and are
summarized in the following table (the June nutrient samples were not
preserved properly and were not analyzed).
-------
A. SUMMARY OF PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS FOR ELK CITY
STOrfET CODE 2003
PARAMETER
TEMP
OISS OXY (MG/L)
CNDCTVY (MCPOMO)
PH (STAND UNITS)
TOT ALK (MG/L)
TOT P (MG/L)
ORTHO P (MG/L)
N02»N03 (MG/L)
AMMONIA (MG/L)
KJEL N (MG/L)
INORG N (MG/L)
TOTAL N (MG/L)
CHLRPYL A (UG/L)
SECCHI (METERS)
RANGE
12.1 - 1?.7
9.2 - 10.2
282. - 330.
8.0 - 8.0
114. - 126.
0.030 - 0.191
0.024 - 0.027
0.500 - 0.560
0.120 - 0.150
0.500 - 0.700
0.620 - 0.710
1.060 - 1.200
3.4 - 3.4
0.3 - 0.3
NG ( 4/10/74)
TES
MEAN
12.5
9.6
296.
8.0
121.
0.112
0.026
0.537
0.142
0.600
0.680
1.137
3.4
0.3
MEDIAN
12.6
9.4
285.
8.0
123.
0.113
0.026
0.545
0.150
0.600
0.695
1.145
3.4
0.3
2ND SAMPLING ( 6/24/74)
2 SITES
RANGE MEAN MEDIAN
22.7 - 25.0 24.2 24.3
1.0 - 6.2 3.4 3.0
230. - 344. 260. 235.
6.9 - 8.1 7.5 7.4
»«««*» ...a... ......a..?*.....
...... ..... ............
-«*" •
...... ....... .........
...... .......................
""*• -"" •"" «
......
«»«... .........A.............
0.6 - 5.1 2.9 2.9
0.2 - 0.2 0.2 0.2
3RO SAMPLING (10/
*
16.8
8.2
268.
8.0
120.
0.023
0.002
0.440
0.030
0.200
0.490
0.660
3.7
0.3
2
AfcfaE
- 17.4
8.4
- 2d7.
8.1
- 127.
- 0.03V
- 0.003
- 0.530
- 0.140
- 0.500
- 0.640
- 0.940
3.7
0.3
SITES
MEAN
17.2
8.4
272.
8.0
123.
0.029
0.002
0.485
0.057
0.267
0.542
0.752
3.7
0.3
3/74)
MEDIAN
17.3
8.4
269.
8.0
123.
0.029
0.002
0.480
0.040
0.200
0.535
0.725
3.7
0.3
-------
B. Biological characteristics:
1. Phytoplankton -
Sampl i ng
Date
04/10/74
06/24/74
10/03/74
Dominant
Genera
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Centric diatoms
Chroomonas sp.
Mesostigma sp.
Cryptomonas sp.
Gymnodinium sp.
Other genera
Total
Phormidium sp.
Centric diatoms
Pteromonas sp.
Chroomonas sp.
Trachelomonas sp_,
Other genera
Total
Chroomonas sp.
Aphanizomenon sp,
Cryptomonas sp.
Cyclotella sp.
Scenedesmus sp.
Algal Units
per ml
664
498
498
373
249
580
Total
2,862
436
275
275
229
206
849
2,270
129
78
78
26
26
337
-------
2. Chlorophyll a -
Sampling
Date
04/10/74
06/24/74
10/03/74
Station
Number
1
2
1
2
1
2
Chlorophyll a
(yg/i)
3.4
0.6
5.1
3.7
C. Limiting Nutrient Study:
1. Autoclaved, filtered, and nutrient spiked -
Ortho P
Cone, (mg/1)
Inorganic N Maximum yield
Cone, (mg/1) (mg/1-dry wt.)
0.030
0.080
0.080
0.030
0.512
0.512
1.512
1.512
6.8
15.2
18.6
6.6
Spike (mg/1)
Control
0.050 P
0.050 P + 1.0 N
1.0 N
2. Discussion -
The control yield of the assay alga, Selenastrum capri-
cornutum, indicates that the potential primary productivity
of Elk City Reservoir was high at the time the sample was
taken (10/03/74). Also, the significant increase in yield
with the addition of phosphorus alone indicates that the
reservoir was phosphorus limited at that time. Note that
the addition of nitrogen alone resulted in a yield not sig-
-------
8
nificantly greater than that of the control.
The reservoir data indicate phosphorus limitation as
well. The mean inorganic nitrogen to orthophosphorus
ratios were 19 to 1 or greater in April and October, and
phosphorus limitation would be expected. However, because
of persistent turbidity, primary productivity is light-
limited rather than nutrient-limited (Kring, 1977).
-------
IV. NUTRIENT LOADINGS
(See Appendix E for data)
For the determination of nutrient loadings, the Kansas National
Guard collected monthly near-surface grab samples from each of the
tributary sites indicated on the map (page v), except for the high
runoff months of May and June when two samples were collected.
Sampling was begun in October, 1974, and was completed in September,
1975.
Through an interagency agreement, stream flow estimates for the
year of sampling and a "normalized" or average year were provided by
the Kansas District Office of the U.S. Geological Survey for the
tributary sites nearest the reservoir.
In this report, nutrient loads for sampled tributaries were
calculated using mean annual concentrations and mean annual flows.
Nutrient loads shown are those measured minus point-source loads,
if any.
Nutrient loads for unsampled "minor tributaries and immediate
drainage" ("ZZ" of U.S.G.S.) were estimated using the mean concen-
trations in Salt Creek at station B-l and the mean annual ZZ flow.
The operators of the Elk City and Moline wastewater treatment
plants provided monthly effluent samples, but corresponding flow data
were not available. Nutrient loads from those sources and the waste-
water plant at Howard, which was not sampled, were estimated at 1.134
kg P and 3.401 kg N/capita/year; and flows were estimated at 0.3785
m3/capita/day.
-------
10
A. Waste Sources:
1. Known municipal -
Pop. Mean Flow Receiving
Name Served Treatment (m3/d) Water
Elk City 481 stab, pond 182.1 Elk River
Moline 645 tr. filter 244.1 Wildcat Creek
Howard* 1,000 tr. filter 378.5 Pawpaw Creek
2. Known industrial - None
t Treatment plant questionnaires.
* Anonymous, 1971.
-------
11
B. Annual Total Phosphorus Loading - Average Year:
1. Inputs -
kg P/ % of
Source y_r total
a. Tributaries (non-point load) -
Elk River 20,830 52.5
Duck Creek 4,910 12.4
b. Minor tributaries & immediate
drainage (non-point load) - 11,230 28.3
c. Known municipal STP's -
Elk City 545 1.4
Howard 1,135 2.9
Moline 730 1.8
d. Septic tanks - Unknown ?
e. Known industrial - None
f. Direct precipitation* - 310 0.7
Total 39,690 100.0
2. Outputs -
Reservoir outlet - Elk River 21,940
3. Net annual P accumulation - 17,750 kg.
* See Working Paper No. 175.
-------
12
C. Annual Total Nitrogen Loading - Average Year:
1. Inputs -
kg N/ % of
Source yr total
a. Tributaries (non-point load) -
Elk River 301,015 54.4
Duck Creek 77,215 14.0
b. Minor tributaries & immediate
drainage (non-point load) - 148,770 26.9
c. Known municipal STP's -
Elk City 1,635 0.3
Howard 3,400 0.6
Moline 2,195 0.4
d. Septic tanks - Unknown ?
e. Known industrial - None
f. Direct precipitation* - 19,230 3.4
Total 553,460 100.0
2. Outputs -
Reservoir outlet - Elk River 405,870
3. Net annual N accumulation - 147,590 kg.
D. Non-point Nutrient Export by Subdrainage Area:
Tributary kg P/km2/yr kg N/km2/yr
Elk River 20 286
Duck Creek 30 472
* See Working Paper No. 175.
-------
13
E. Mean Nutrient Concentrations in Ungaged Stream:
Mean Total P Mean Total N
Tributary Cone, (mg/1) Cone, (mg/1)
Salt Creek 0.106 1.404
F. Yearly Loads:
In the following table, the existing phosphorus loadings
are compared to those proposed by Vollenweider (Vollenweider
and Dillon, 1974). Essentially, his "dangerous" loading is
one at which the receiving water would become eutrophic or
remain eutrophic; his "permissible" loading is that which
would result in the receiving water remaining oligotrophic
or becoming oligotrophic if morphemetry permitted. A meso-
trophic loading would be considered one between "dangerous"
and "permissible".
Note that Vollenweider's model may not be applicable to
water bodies with short hydraulic retention times.
Total Phosphorus Total Nitrogen
Total Accumulated Total Accumulated
grams/m2/yr 2.23 1.00 31.1 8.3
Vollenweider phosphorus loadings
(g/m2/yr) based on mean depth and mean
hydraulic retention time of Elk City Reservoir:
"Dangerous" (eutrophic loading) 0.84
"Permissible" (oligotrophic loading) 0.42
-------
14
V. LITERATURE REVIEWED
Anonymous, 1971. Inventory of municipal waste facilities. EPA
Publ. OWP-1, vol. 7, Wash., DC.
Kring, R. Lynn, 1977. Personal communication (revised morphometry;
reservoir turbidity and productivity). KS Dept. of Health &
Environment, Topeka.
Vollenweider, R. A., and P. J. Dillon, 1974. The application of
the phosphorus loading concept to eutrophication research.
Natl. Res. Council of Canada Publ. No. 13690, Canada Centre
for Inland Waters, Burlington, Ontario.
-------
VI. APPENDICES
15
APPENDIX A
LAKE RANKINGS
-------
LAKE DATA TO BE USED IN RANKINGS
LAKE
CODE LAKE NAME
2001 CEDAR BLUFF RESERVOIR
2002 COUNCIL GROVE
2003 ELK CITY
2004 FALL RIVER RESERVOIR
2005 JOHN REDMOND RESERVOIR
2006 KANOPOLIS RESERVOIR
2007 MARION RESERVOIR
2008 MELVERN RESERVOIR
.2009 MILFORD RESERVOIR
2010 NORTON RESERVOIR
2011 PERRY RESERVOIR
2012 POMONA RESERVOIR
2013 TORONTO RESERVOIR
2014 TUTTLE CREEK RESERVOIR
2015 WILSON RESERVOIR
MEDIAN
TOTAL P
0.017
0.069
0.030
0.053
0.118
0.056
0.052
0.034
0.079
0.122
0.055
0.040
0.067
0.162
0.023
MEDIAN
INORG N
0.055
0.830
0.590
0.470
1.250
0.640
0.430
0.265
0.710
0.110
0.970
1.240
0.425
0.970
0.265
500-
MEAN SEC
431.667
485.889
490.400
488.667
492.667
487.000
483.667
459.111
466.333
476.750
478.571
481.333
488.500
470.667
445.222
MEAN
CHLORA
4.217
9.789
3.212
7.683
9.467
16.033
12.400
30.400
18.883
21.360
5.614
8.312
6.583
11.278
8.867
15-
MIN DO
10.800
10.400
14.000
9.200
8.200
10.200
9.000
14.400
12.800
8.000
13.400
13.000
13.000
13.600
13.400
MEDL
DISS CRTl
0.004
0.028
0.003
0.016
0.066
0.011
0.010
0.007
0.036
0.036
0.017
0.021
0.011
0.067
0.004
-------
AXES RANKED BY INDEX NOS.
LAKE CODE LAKE NAME
1 2001
2 2015
3 2007
4 2003
5 2004
6 2008
7 2013
8 2010
9 2011
10 2006
11 2012
12 2002
13 2009
14 2005
15 2014
CEDAR BLUFF RESERVOIR
WILSON RESERVOIR
MARION RESERVOIR
ELK CITY
FALL RIVER RESERVOIR
MELVERN RESERVOIR
TORONTO RESERVOIR
NORTON RESERVOIR
PERRY RESERVOIR
KANOPOLIS RESERVOIR
POMONA RESERVOIR
COUNCIL GROVE
MILFORD RESERVOIR
JOHN REDMOND RESERVOIR
TUTTLE CREEK RESERVOIR
INDEX NO
539
439
357
350
328
326
303
292
279.
271
267
230
214
164
139
-------
PERCENT OF LAKES WITH HIGHER VALUES (NUMBER OF LAKES WITH HIGHER VALUES)
LAKE
CODE LAKE NAME
2001 CEDAR BLUFF RESERVOIR
2002 COUNCIL GROVE
2003 ELK CITY
2004 FALL RIVER RESERVOIR
2005 JOHN REDMOND RESERVOIR
2006 KANOPOLIS RESERVOIR
2007 MARION RESERVOIR
200fl MELVERN RESERVOIR
2009 MILFORO RESERVOIR
2010 NORTON RESERVOIR
2011 PERRY RESERVOIR
2012 POMONA RESERVOIR
2013 TORONTO RESERVOIR
2014 TUTTLE CREEK RESERVOIR
2015 WILSON RESERVOIR
MEDIAN
TOTAL P
100 <
29 (
86 (
57 (
14 (
43 (
64 (
79 (
21 (
7 (
50 (
71 (
36 (
0 (
93 <
14)
4)
12)
8)
2)
6)
9)
11)
3)
1)
7)
10)
5)
0)
13)
MEDIAN
INORG N
100 i
29 I
50 (
57 1
0 l
43 »
64 1
82 1
36 1
93 1
18 <
7 1
71 1
18 I
82 1
t 14)
t 4)
t 7)
I 8)
! 0)
t 6)
[ 9)
I 11)
: s>
: 13)
: 2)
: i)
: 10)
I 2)
: ID
500-
MEAN SEC
100 |
36 <
7 l
14 1
0 1
29 <
43 1
86 1
79 <
64 <
57 (
50 1
21 1
71 (
93 1
C 14)
t 5)
[ 1)
[ 2)
; o)
I 4)
t 6)
: 12)
: ID
: 9)
: 8)
: 7)
; 3>
; 10)
; 13)
MEAN
CHLORA
93 (
43 (
100 (
71 (
50 (
21 (
29 (
0 (
14 (
7 (
86 (
64 (
79 (
36 (
57 (
13)
6)
14)
10)
7)
3)
4)
0)
2)
1)
12)
9)
11)
5)
8)
15-
MIN DO
57
64 i
7 i
79 I
93 1
71 1
86 1
0 1
50 i
100 1
25 (
39 1
39 1
14 1
25 1
( 8)
£ 9)
( 1)
I 11)
1 13)
[ 10)
[ 12)
: o>
: 7)
: i4>
: 3)
I 5)
; 5)
: 2>
: 3)
MEDIAN
DISS ORTHO P
89
29
100
50
7
64
71
79
14
21
43
36
57
0
89
( 12)
( 4)
( 14)
( 7)
( 1)
( 9)
( 10)
( 11)
( 2)
( 3)
( 6)
( 5)
( 8)
( 0)
( 12)
INDEX
NO
539
230
350
328
164
271
357
326
214
292
279
: 267
303
139
439
-------
APPENDIX B
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"4 = 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 C
TRIBUTARY FLOW DATA
-------
TRIBUTARY FLOW INFORMATION FOR KANSAS
05/03/76
LA«E CODE 2003 ELK CITY
TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA OF LAKE(SQ KM) 1642.1
SUB-DRAINAGE
TRIBUTARY AREAfSQ KM)
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
NORMALIZED FLOWS(CMS)
JUN JUL AUli
SEP
OCT
NOV
DEC
MEAN
2003A1
2003A2
2003C1
2003ZZ
1642.1
1051.5
163.4
427.1
11.69
3.40
0.59
1.61
8.21
4.25
0.74
2.01
17. ?7
8.21
1.73
4.25
IB. 97
11.33
1.93
5.38
18.97
11.61
Z.Qt
5.66
16.99
12.74
1.64
5.66
3.4C
9.91
1.78
t.81
2.12
3.96
0.57
1.98
1.61
5.66
0.85
2.63
9.06
5.38
0.99
2.75
11.33
3.68
0.57
1.81
10.48
2.83
0.57
1.50
10.87
6.92
1.18
3.36
TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA OF LAKE = 1642.1
SUM OF SUB-DRAINAGE AREAS = 1642.1
MEAN MONTHLY FLOWS AND DAILY FLOWS(CMS)
TRIBUTARY MONTH YEAR MEAN FLOW DAY
2003A1
FLOW DAY
2003A2
SUMMARY
TOTAL FLOW IN = 137.42
TOTAL FLO* OUT = 130.31
FLOW DAY
FLOW
10
11
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
74
74
74
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
74
74
74
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
3.993
105.339
18.831
20.870
47.289
26.618
24.15f
13.564
45.024
213.050
0.125
0.119
22.087
59.465
12.176
18.972
25.768
26.901
9.061
20.671
31.149
1.133
0.765
0.623
12
9
14
11
8
8
12
10
21
14
30
28
10
9
14
11
6
8
12
10
21
14
30
28
0.227
59.749
52.103
31.998
112.984
6.853
10.052
0.119 24
130.257 29
0.184 26
0.113
0.085
0.821
12.176
11.751
11.610
15.857
5.522
6.088
2.973 24
8.495 29
1.216
0.142
0.453
0.136
6.796
0.161
14.725
2.832
O.oSO
-------
TRIBUTARY FLO* INFORMATION FOR KANSAS
05/03/76
LA
-------
APPENDIX D
PHYSICAL and CHEMICAL DATA
-------
STORET RETRIEVAL DATE 76/05/03
DATE
FROM
TO
74/04/10
74/06/24
74/10/03
00010
TIME DEPTH WATER
OF TEMP
DAY FEET
13
13
13
13
10
10
10
10
10
10
14
14
14
14
14
45
45
45
45
10
10
10
10
10
10
55
55
55
55
55
0000
0005
0015
0035
0000
0005
0015
0020
0030
0040
0000
0005
0015
0028
0042
CENT
12
12
12
12
25
25
a<»
24
23
22
17
17
17
17
17
.7
.7
.6
.1
.0
.0
.9
.9
.7
•7
.3
.4
.3
.3
.1
00300
DO
MG/L
10
9
9
5
2
6
4
1
1
8
8
8
8
8
.2
.2
.4
.8
.0
.2
.0
.0
.4
.4
.4
.4
.4
.2
200301
37 16 30.0 095 47 18.0 3
ELK CITY
20125 KANSAS
100391
11EPALES
211
0044 FEET DEPTH CLASS
00300
DO
MG/L
10.2
9.2
9.4
5.6
2.0
6.2
4.0
1.0
1.4
8.4
8.4
8.4
8.4
8.2
00077 00094
TRANSP CNDUCTVY
SECCHI FIELD
INCHES MICROMHO
10 288
282
282
330
6 230
237
334
234
235
230
12 268
269
269
269
268
00400
PH
SU
8.00
8.00
8.00
8.00
8.10
6.90
7.70
7.70
7.20
7.40
8.10
8.03
8.01
8.01
8.04
00410
T ALK
CAC03
MG/L
126
123
122
114
122
120
121
124
123
00610
NH3-N
TOTAL
MG/L
0.120
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.140
0.030
0.030
0.060
0.030
1202
00
00625
TOT KJEL
N
MG/L
0.700
0.500
0.600
0.600
0.300
0.200K
0.200
0.200
0.200K
00630
N02&N03
N-TOTAL
MG/L
0.500
0.560
0.560
0.530
0.500
0.460
0.520
0.460
0.530
00671
PHOS-DIS
ORTHO
MG/L P
0.027
0.026
0.026
0.024
0.003
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002)
DATE
FROM
TO
74/04/10
74/06/24
74/10/03
00665 32217 00031
TIME DEPTH PHOS-TOT CHLRPHYL INCDT LT
OF A REMNING
DAY FEET
13
13
13
13
10
14
14
14
14
14
45
45
45
45
10
55
55
55
55
55
0000
0005
0015
0035
0000
0000
0005
0015
0028
0042
MG/L P
0.128
0.099
0.030
0.191
0.030
0.029
0.027
0.029
0.023
UG/L PERCENT
3.4
0.6
3.7
K VALUE KNOWN TO BE
LESS THAN INDICATED
-------
STORET RETRIEVAL DATE 76/05/03
DATE TIME DEPTH WATER
FROM OF
TO DAY FEET
74/06/24 11 00 0000
11 00 0005
74/10/03 15 25 0000
DATE TIME DEPTH PHOS-TOT
FROM OF
TO DAY FEET
74/06/24 11 00 0000
74/10/03 15 25 0000 0.039
200302
37 15 32.0 095 49 09.0 3
ELK CITY
20 KANSAS
100391
11EPALES 2111202
0010 FEET DEPTH CLASS 00
010
ER
MP
NT
23.7
23.4
16.8
1665
i-TOT
L P
00300
DO
MG/L
5.2
1.8
32217
CHLRPHYL
A
UG/L
00077
TRANSP
SECCHI
INCHES
8
12
00031
INCDT LT
REMNING
PERCENT
00094
CNDUCTVY
FIELD
MICROMHO
333
344
287
00400
PH
SU
7.20
7.50
8.02
00410 00610 00625 00630 00671
T ALK NH3-N TOT KJEL N02&N03 PHOS-DIS
CAC03 TOTAL N N-TOTAL ORTHO
MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L P
127 0.050 0.500 0.440 0.003
5.1
-------
APPENDIX E
TRIBUTARY AND WASTEWATER
TREATMENT PLANT DATA
-------
STORE! RETRIEVAL DATE 76/07/06
DATE TIME DEPTH N02&N03
FROM OF
TO DAY FEET
09 15
09 20
08 55
09 20
09 10
14 10
09 30
09 30
10 40
09 10
09 40
09 45
09 20
10 02
74/11/09
74/12/14
75/01/11
75/02/08
75/03/08
75/04/12
75/05/10
75/05/24
75/06/21
75/07/14
75/07/26
75/08/30
75/09/28
2003A1
37 16 40.0 095 45 05.0 4
ELK RIVER
20125 7.5 TABLE MOUND
T/ELK CITY RESERVOIR 100391
SEC RD BRDG .5 MI N OF LEHUNT
11EPALES 2111204
OOCO FEET QEOTH CLASS 00
0630
I&N03
OTAL
IG/L
0.368
0. 184
0.296
0.384
0.464
0.504
0.350
0.340
0.540
0.410
0.490
0.035
0.440
0.315
00625
TOT KJEL
N
MG/L
1.200
1.400
0.800
2.400
1.200
1.300
1.550
0.450
0.600
0.850
0.900
0.600
0.700
0.600
00610
NH3-N
TOTAL
MG/L
0.165
0.265
0.055
0.392
0.152
0.112
0.460
0.025
0.025
0.045
0.045
0.020
0.035
0.025
00671
PHOS-DIS
ORTHO
MG/L P
0.025
o.oso
0.035
0.020
0.016
0.016
0.020
0.020
0.025
0.035
0.025
0.010
0.015
0.015
00665
PHOS-TOT
MG/L P
0.070
0.150
0.090
0.070
0.150
0.100
0.120
0.050
0.090
0.190
0.110
0.070
0.100
0.090
-------
STORE! RETRIEVAL DATE 76/07/06
2003A2
37 22 <»0.0 096 00 45.0 4
ELK RIVER
20049 7.5 OAK VALLEY
0/ELK CITY RESERVOIR
100391
SEC RO 8HUG .2 MI 4 OF OAK VALLEY
UEPALES 2111204
OOCO FEET DEPTH CLASS CC
DATE
FROM
TO
74/10/10
74/11/09
74/12/14
75/01/11
75/02/08
75/03/08
75/04/12
75/05/10
75/05/24
75/06/21
75/06/29
75/07/14
75/07/25
75/08/30
75/09/28
00630 00625
TIME DEPTH N02&N03 TOT KJEL
OF N-TOTAL N
DAY FEET
10
11
10
10
10
15
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
11
35
00
40
50
40
30
50
45
30
20
4S
35
40
20
03
MG/L
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.272
.S60
.352
.312
.448
.336
.340
.400
.250
.270
.220
.220
.015
.015
.155
MG/L
1.
1.
0.
1.
1.
1.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
0.
0.
0.
0.
800
100
850
600
100
000
600
300
700
750
550
650
500
600
500
00610 00671 00665
NH3-N PHOS-DIS PHOS-TOT
TOTAL ORTHO
MG/L
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
210
040
025
160
040
024
045
050
025
030
030
030
035
035
035
MG/L
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
P
015
020
025
010
008
008K
010
015
020
015
005
010
010
010
005K
MG/L P
0.070
0.040
0.100
0.050
0.050
0.020
0.060
0.015
0.110
0.120
0.080
0.080
0.060
0.070
0.030
K VALUE KNOWN TO BE
LESS THAN INDICATED
-------
STORET RETRIEVAL DATE 76/05/04
DATE TIME DEPTH N02&N03
FROM OF
TO DAY FEET
74/10/1?
74/ll/C^
74/12/14
75/01/11
75/02/08
75/03/08
75/04/13
75/05/10
75/05/24
75/06/21
75/06/29
75/07/14
75/07/25
75/08/30
75/09/28
11
10
09
10
10
14
11
11
11
10
11
10
11
10
11
30
15
50
10
10
45
25
15
45
45
10
50
05
55
37
20u3dl
37 16 25.0 045 57 50,
SALT CREEK
20 7.5 ELK CITY
T/ELK CITY RESERVOIR
SEC *D BRDG 3.5 MI S
11EPALES
0 4
100391
OF IlbO
2111204
0000 FEET DEPTH CLASS 00
10630
I&N03
OTAL
IG/L
0.0?*
0. 13fe
0.144
0.112
0.184
0.060
0.085
0.130
0.075
0.125
0.105
0.110
0.080
0.260
0.130
00625
TOT KJEL
N
MG/L
3.COC
1.000
0.900
1.700
1.000
0.600
0.450
0.750
1.000
1.000
0.800
3.700
0.900
2.400
1.100
00610
NH3-N
TOTAL
MG/L
C.34C
0.390
0.025
0.216
0.432
0.064
0.045
0.087
0.030
0.065
n.045
0.220
0.105
0.085
0.020
00671
PHOS-DIS
ORTrlO
MG/L P
0.062
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.008
0.008K
3.010
0.015
0.015
0.015
0.020
0.100
0.015
0.085
0.005
00665
PHOS-TOT
MG/L P
0.070
O.C20
0.070
0.050
0.050
0.030
0.065
0.090
0.140
0.080
0.100
0.110
0.060
0.600
0.060
K VALUE KNOWN TO BE
LESS THAN INDICATED
-------
STORE! RETRIEVAL DATE 76/05/04
7-4/10/12
7W 11/09
74/12/14
75/01/11
75/02/08
75/03/08
75/04/12
75/05/10
75/05/24
75/06/21
75/06/39
75/07/14
75/07/25
75/08/30
75/09/28
2003C1
37 17 55.0 095 54 10.0 4
DUCK CREEK
20 7.5 ELK CITY
T/ELK CITY RESERVOIR 100391
AT US HWY 160 BROO
11EPALES 2111204
0000 FEET DEPTH CLASS 00
DATE
FROM OF
TO DAY
TIME DEPTH
FEET
10 15
10 40
10 15
10 30
10 20
10 25
10 20
11 20
10 00
10 10
10 15
10 25
09 50
10 50
00630
N02fcN03
N-TOTAL
MG/L
1.2nO
0.960
0.730
0.880
1.010
0.890
0.575
0.720
0.510
0.790
0.060
0.060
0.055
0.175
0.020
00625
TOT KJEL
N
MG/L
1.400
1.100
1.200
1.800
0.800
0.700
1.350
.850
.300
.800
.600
.975
.350
2.800
1.400
00610
NH3-N
TOTAL
MG/L
r.?2c
o.lac
0.015
0.296
0.050
0.028
0.06C
0.155
0.050
0.085
0.055
0.295
0.055
0.070
0.015
00671
PHOS-DIS
OR TrtO
MG/L P
0.030
0.025
0.045
0.025
0.016
0.008K
0.030
0.020
0.020
0.035
0.015
0.020
0.015
0.070
0.010
00665
PHOS-TOT
MG/L P
C.100
0.050
0.140
0.255
0.090
0.030
0.120
0.080
0.130
0.160
0.090
0.110
0.120
0.360
0.140
K VALUE KNOWN TO BE
LESS THAN INDICATED
-------
STORET RETRIEVAL DATE 76/05/04
DATE
FROM
TO
75/03/1*.
75/0*/2S
CP < T ) -
75/04/25
75/05/19
CP < T ) -
75/05/19
75/06/10
CP(T)-
75/06/10
75/06/26
CP < T > -
75/06/26
75/07/11
CP(T)-
75/07/11
75/07/29
CP < T ) -
75/07/29
75/08/19
CP(T)-
75/08/19
75/09/16
CP ( T ) -
75/09/16
75/10/02
CP < T ) -
75/10/02
75/10/20
CP(T)-
75/10/20
75/11/03
CP < T ) -
75/11/03
75/12/03
CP(T>-
75/12/02
TIME DEPTH
OF
DAY FEET
09
09
15
10
IS
07
11
09
13
09
13
10
14
09
14
09
14
10
14
09
13
10
14
08
14
30
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
30
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00630
N02&N03
N-TOTAL
MG/L
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.120
.100
.150
.050
.100
.100
.100
.050
.050
.150
.190
.250
.375
00625
TOT KJEL
N
MG/L
1.
6.
4.
9.
4.
9.
8.
16.
9.
9.
16.
10.
17.
200
200
200
600
500
400
700
000
000
700
000
000
000
00610 00671 00665 -
NH3-N PHOS-DIS PHOS-TOT
TOTAL ORTHO
MG/L
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.1?0
.302
.050K
.140
.025K
.190
.025K
.125
.025K
.250
.300
.590
.190
MG/L P
1
1
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
1
2
2
3
.250
.800
.150
.150
.720
.900
.100
.200
.880
.800
.600
.750
.600
MG/L P
l.HOO
2.400
1.500
7.600
1.800
4.735
2.000
4.500
2.500
2.650
H.oOO
3.000
5.900
2003AA PD2003AA P000431
37 17 30.0 095 55 00.0 4
ELK CITY
20 7,5 ELK CITY
T/ELK CITY RES. 100391
ELK RIVER
11EPALES 2141204
0000 FEET DEPTH CLASS 00
50051 50053
FLOW CONDUIT
RATE FLOW-MOD
0.003
0.003
K VALUE KNOWN TO BE
LESS THAN INDICATED
-------
STORET RETRIEVAL DATE 76/05/04
DATE TIME DEPTH N02&N03
FROM OF
TO DAY FEET
75/02/10
75/OJ/U
75/04/11
75/05/05
75/05/37
75/06/16
75/07/11
75/08/01
75/08/26
75/09/13
75/10/07
75/10/25
75/11/14
10 30
13 00
10 30
10 00
13 20
09 30
13 30
09 45
09 15
08 30
n cc
07 00
10 00
2003AA TF2003XA P0006*5
37 22 15.0 096 17
------- |