U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
NATIONAL EUTROPHICATION SURVEY
WORKING PAPER SERIES
REPORT
ON
NORTON RESERVOIR
NORTON COUNTY
KANSAS
EPA REGION VII
WORKING PAPER No, 520
CORVALLIS ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY - CORVALLIS, OREGON
and
ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING & SUPPORT LABORATORY - LAS VEGAS, NEVADA
699-440
-------
REPORT
ON
NORTON RESERVOIR
NORTON COUNTY
MNSAS
EPA REGION VII
WORKING PAPER No, 520
WITH THE COOPERATION OF THE
KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT
AND THE
KANSAS NATIONAL GUARD
APRIL 1977
-------
CONTENTS
Page
Foreword i i
List of Kansas Study Reservoirs iv
Lake and Drainage Area Map v, vi
Sections
I. Conclusions 1
II. Lake and Drainage Basin Characteristics 4
III. Lake Water Quality Summary 5
IV. Nutrient Loadings 10
V. Literature Reviewed 14
VI. Appendices 15
-------
11
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 [5106 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 wastewater 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 EUTROPHI CATION SURVEY
STUDY RESERVOIRS
STATE OF KANSAS.
NAME • COUNTY
Cedar Bluff Trego
Council. Grove Morris
El.k City Montgomery
Fa7ll River Greenwood
John Redmond Coffey, Lyon
Kanopolis Ellsworth
Marion Marion
Melvern Os age
Mi.lford Clay, Geary
Norton, Norton
Perry Jefferson
Pomona Osage
Toronto Greenwood, Woodson
Tattle Creek Marshall, Pbtta-
watomie, Riley
Wilson Russell
-------
— 39'50'
Kan.
Location
^
c "S \
^ \ \
^ \ i
100'05'
\
•09
r-
s
-' "W.
"\
v
\
\
\
lOO'OO'
1
V
Norton
NORTON RESERVOIR
(8) Tributary Si"pi ing Site
X Lake Sampli"7 Site
Land Subjec". to Inundation
o 2 4 Km.
I i i i 1
0 Scale 2 Mi-
99'55'
-------
Kan.
Map Location
NORTON RESERVOIR
(g| Tributary Sa^!D! ing Site
X Lake Sampling Site
"O Drainage Vea Boundary
Land subject To Inundation
o :o 20 Km.
-------
NORTON RESERVOIR
STORE! NO. 2010
I. CONCLUSIONS
A. Trophic Condition:
Survey data indicate Norton Reservoir is potentially
eutrophic. However, the reservoir becomes quite turbid during
periods of runoff, and primary productivity is intermittently
light-limited (Kring, 1977).
This water body ranked eighth in overall trophic quality
when the 15 Kansas reservoirs sampled in 1974 were compared
using a combination of six water quality parameters*. Thirteen
of the reservoirs had less median total phosphorus, 11 had less
and one had the same median dissolved orthophosphorus, one had
less median inorganic nitrogen, 13 had less mean chlorophyll a_,
and five had greater mean Secchi disc transparency.
Survey limnologists did not observe surface concentrations of
algae but noted emergent vegetation along the shoreline at station
2 in June. However, phytoplankton numbers in June indicate a near-
bloom condition at that time (see page 7).
B. Rate-Limiting Nutrient:
The algal assay results indicate Norton Reservoir was nitrogen
limited at the time the sample was taken (04/15/74). The reservoir
data indicate nitrogen limitation at all sampling stations and
* See Appendix A.
-------
times; however, primary productivity is light-limited at times
rather than nutrient-limited.
C. Nutrient Controllability:
1. Point sources—The wastewater treatment plant at
Jennings contributed an estimated 2.6% of the total phos-
phorus load to Norton Reservoir during the sampling year.
In addition, the Colby wastewater facility of unknown nutrient
significance is located some 90 kilometers upstream from the
reservoir. Further investigation would be needed to determine
the significance of nutrients contributed by Colby.
The present phosphorus loading of 1.26 g/m2/year is 3.7
times that proposed by Vollenweider (Vollenweider and Dillon,
1974) as a eutrophic loading (see page 13). However, the level
of the reservoir averaged about five meters below the conserva-
tion pool level during the sampling year, and the area of the
reservoir at that level is not known (Kring, 1977). Obviously,
the area was less than the 8.86 square kilometers indicated on
page 4, so the actual areal phosphorus loading was to some
unknown degree greater than that calculated. In any case, even
complete removal of phosphorus at the Jennings wastewater treat-
ment plant would not reduce the loading to any great extent,
and on the basis of Survey data, it appears that a significant
improvement in the trophic, condition of the reservoir would
-------
result only if the 8,000 kg phosphorus load in Prairie Dog
Creek can be substantially reduced.
2. Non-point sources--Non-point sources accounted for
97.4% of the total phosphorus load during the sampling year.
Prairie Dog Creek contributed 71.9%, and the minor tributaries
and immediate drainage contributed an estimated 24.1%.
Part of the non-point source load in Prairie Dog Creek may
have been due to the Colby wastewater treatment plant; however,
the phosphorus export rate of the creek was low and indicates
relatively little point-source impact (see page 12). Agriculture
is the dominant land-use practice around the reservoir and may
contribute significantly to the nutrient loads. Additional study
would be needed to evaluate the contribution and controllability
of nutrients from such sources.
-------
II. RESERVOIR AND DRAINAGE BASIN CHARACTERISTICS1"
A. Morphometry :
1. Surface area: 8.86 kilometers2.
2. Mean depth: 5.0 meters.
3. Maximum depth: 15.0 meters.
4. Volume: 44.32 x 106 'm3.
5. Nine-year median hydraulic retention time: 1.8 years (based
on mean volume).
B. Tributary and Outlet:
(See Appendix C for flow data)
1. Tributaries -
Drainage Mean flow
Name area (km2)* (m3/sec)*
Prairie Dog Creek 1,528.1 0.740
Minor tributaries &
immediate drainage - 234.7 0.278
Totals 1,762.8 1,018
2. Outlet -
Prairie Dog Creek 1,771.6** 0.623
C. Precipitation***:
1. Year of sampling: 43.7 centimeters.
2. Mean annual: 57.8 centimeters.
t Table of metric conversions—Appendix B.
ft At conservation pool level; 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
Norton Reservoir 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 or more depths at one station in April and at two stations
in June and September (see map, page v). During each visit, a single
depth-integrated (near bottom to surface) sample was composited from
the stations for phytoplankton identification and enumeration; and
during the first 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 3.0 meters at station 1,
5.5 meters at station 2, and 1.5 meters at station 3.
The sampling results are presented in full in Appendix D and are
summarized in the following table.
-------
A. S1. ->--i.yr OF PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS FCW rsiORTO\
STO^ET CODE 2010
PARAMETER
TEMP (O
DI5S OXY (MG/L>
CNOCT\/Y
SECCHI (METE°S)
1ST
1
( 4/15/74)
SITES
RANGE
9.5 - 9.6
9.2 - 9.-:
262. - 3?fe.
8.1 - 8.-
127. - 216.
0.021 - 0.166
0.007 - O.OM
0.040 - 0.060
0.040 - 0.100
0.800 - 1.500
0.080 - 0.1;;
0.8*0 - i.se:
ii.j - 11. :«
0.2 - 0.2
2ND SAMPLING ( 6/28/74)
2 SITES
3RD SAMPLING < i/30/74)
2 SITES
MEAN
9.6
9.4
284.
8.3
184.
0.117
0.029
0.057
0.077
1.233
o.m
1.290
11.3
0.2
MEDIAN
9.6
9.4
265.
8.4
206.
0.162
0.040
0.050
0.090
1.40U
0. 140
1.450
11.3
0.2
KANGE
21.9
7.0
470.
8.4
210.
0.097
0.035
0.050
0.060
1.100
0.110
1.150
8.9
0.6
- 22.7
8.6
- 482.
8.6
- 222.
- 0.185
- 0.055
- 0.090
- 0.130
- 1.200
- 0.220
- 1.290
- 35.5
0.9
MEAN
22.3
7.9
477.
8.5
216.
0.133
0.041
0.068
0.082
1.150
0.150
1.218
22.2
0.8
MEDIAN
22.3
8.0
479.
8.5
214.
0.115
0.039
0.065
0.065
1.150
0.130
1.210
22.2
0.8
RANGE
14.7
7.<*
419.
8.3
216.
0.119
0.024
0.020
0.040
0.900
0.060
0.920
22.9
0.6
- 15.0
8.8
- 673.
8.7
- 222.
- 0.135
- 0.026
- 0.020
- 0.060
- 1.300
- 0.080
- 1.320
- 28.2
O.b
MEAN
14.8
7.9
549.
8.4
220.
0.126
0.024
0.020
0.047
1.100
0.067
1.120
25.5
0.6
MEDlAl
14.8
7.6
607.
8.3
220.
0.126
0.024
0.020
0.045
1.100
0.065
1.120
25.5
0.6
-------
B. Biological Characteristics:
1. Phytoplankton -
Sampling
Date
04/15/74
06/28/74
09/30/74
Dominant
Genera
1. Ankistrodesmus sp.
2. Chroomonas sp.
3. Stephanodiscus sp.
4. Cryptomonas sp.
5. Crucigenia sp.
Other genera
Total
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Melosira sp_.
Epiphytes
Chlamydomonas sp.
Chroomonas sp.
Oocystis sp.
Other genera
Total
1. Meri snipped i a sp.
2. Scenedesmus sp.
3. Microcystis sp.
4. Crucigenia sp.
5. Ankistrodesmus sp.
Other genera
Algal Units
per ml
4,786
3,817
1,273
1,222
1,171
2,699
14,968
11,923
6,248
5,675
1,562
1,041
2,083
28,532
1,837
695
645
645
645
3,427
Total
7,894
-------
8
2. Chlorophyll a_ -
Sampling
Date
04/T5/74
06/28/74
09/30/74
Station
Number
1
2
3
1
2
3
V
2
3
Chlorophyll
11.3
3.5-. 5
8;9-
22.9
28.2
C. Limiting Nutrient Study:
T.. Autoc.lav.ed, filtered:,, and. nutrient spiked -
Ortho P
Cone. (mg/1)
Inorganic N,
Cone., (mg/1)
Maximum yield
(mg/1-dry wt.)
0.060
0.110
0.110
0..060
0.119
0.119
1.119
1.119
7.6
9.4
29.6
22,3
Spike (mg/T)
Control
0.050 P
0..050 P + 1...0 N.
T.O N-
2. Discussion -
The control: yield of the assay alga., Selenastrum capri-
cornutum, indicates that the potential primary productivity
of Norton Reservoir was high, at the time, the sample was
collected (04/15/74). Also, the lack of growth response with
the addition of phosphorus alone un.til nitrogen was also added
-------
indicates the reservoir was nitrogen limited at that time.
Note that the addition of nitrogen alone resulted in a
yield significantly greater than that of the control.
The reservoir data indicate nitrogen limitation as
well. However, primary productivity in the reservoir is
intermittently light-limited (Kring, 1977).
Nitrogen limitation, as indicated by the algal assay or
by in-reservoir nitrogen to phosphorus ratios, does not
necessarily mean that the trophic condition of the reservoir
can be improved by controlling nitrogen inputs. In many
cases, the apparent condition of nitrogen-limitation results
from excessive phosphorus input from point sources and is
often accompanied by a corresponding increase in primary
production. In such cases, the reversal of the enriched
condition depends upon phosphorus control, not nitrogen
control.
-------
10
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 vi), except for the months
of May and July when two samples were collected. Sampling was begun
in November, 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 cal-
culated 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 South Prairie Dog Creek at station B-2 and the mean annual
ZZ flow.
The operator of the wastewater treatment plant of Jennings did not
participate; nutrient loads were estimated at 1.134 kg P and 3.401
kg N/capita/year, and flows were estimated at 0.3785 m3/capita/day.
-------
11
Pop.
Served
250
Treatment
stab, pond
Mean Flow
(m3/d)
94.6
Receiving
Water
Prairie Dog
Creek
A. Waste Sources:
1. Known municipal -
Name
Jennings*
2. Known industrial - None
B. Annual Total Phosphorus Loading - Average Year:
1. Inputs -
Source
a. Tributaries (non-point load) -
Prairie Dog Creek
b. Minor tributaries & immediate
drainage (non-point load) -
c. Known municipal STP's -
Jennings
d. Septic tanks - Unknown
e. Known industrial - None
f. Direct precipitation** -
Total
2. Outputs -
kg P/
yr
8,000
2,685
% of
total
71.9
24.1
285
155
11,125
Reservoir outlet - Prairie Dog Creek 2,750
3. Net annual P accumulation - 8,375 kg.
* Anonymous, 1971.
** See Working Paper No. 175.
2.6
1.4
100.0
-------
12
Annual Total Nitrogen Loading - Average Year:
1. Inputs -
Source
kg N/
yr
a. Tributaries (non-point load) -
Prairie Dog Creek 41,925
b. Minor tributaries & immediate
drainage (non-point load) - 21,330
c. Known municipal STP's -
Jennings
d. Septic tanks - Unknown
e. Known industrial - None
f. Direct precipitation* -
Total
2. Outputs -
850
9.500
73,605
Reservoir outlet - Prairie Dog Creek 21,220
3. Net annual N accumulation - 52,385 kg.
Non-point Nutrient Export by Subdrainage Area:
Tributary kg P/km2/yr
Prairie Dog Creek 5
Mean Nutrient Concentrations in Ungaged Stream:
Tributary
South Prairie Dog Creek
Mean Total P
Cone, (mg/1)
0.306
% of
total
57.0
29.0
1.1
12.9
100.0
kg N/km2/yr
27
Mean Total N
Cone, (mg/1)
2.433
* See Working Paper No. 175.
-------
13
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 morphometry 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 1.26 0.95 8.4 6.0
Vollenweider phosphorus loadings
(g/m2/yr) based on mean depth and 9-year median
hydraulic retention time of Norton Reservoir:
"Dangerous" (eutrophic loading) 0.34
"Permissible" (oligotrophic loading) 0.17
-------
14
V. LITERATURE REVIEWED
Anonymous, 1971. Inventory of municipal waste facilities. EPA
Publ. No. OWP-1, vol. 7, Wash., DC.
Kring, R. Lynn, 1977. Personal communication (revised reservoir
morphometry; primary 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.
-------
15
VI. APPENDICES
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
TOT'AL P -
0.017
0.069
0.030
0.053
0.118
6.056
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
50C-
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
ChLOSA
4.217
9.789
3.212
7.683
9.467
16.033
12.400
30.400
18.833
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
MEDIAN
DI5S CKThO P
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
-------
LAKES RANKED BY INDEX NOS.
RANK LAKE CODE LAKE NAME INDEX NO
1 2001 CEDAR BLUFF RESERVOIR 539
2 2015 WILSON RESERVOIR 439
3 2007 MARION RESERVOIR 357
4 2003 ELK CITY 350
5 2004 FALL RIVER RESERVOIR 328
6 2008 MELVERN RESERVOIR 326
7 2013 TORONTO RESERVOIR ' 303
8 2010 NORTON RESERVOIR 292
9 2011 PERRY RESERVOIR 279
10 2006 KANOPOLIS RESERVOIR 271
11 2012 POMONA RESERVOIR 257
12 2002 COUNCIL GROVE Z30
13 2009 MILFORD RESERVOIR 214
14 2005 JOHN REDMOND RESERVOIR 164
15 2014 TUTTLE CREEK RESERVOIR 139
-------
PERCENT OF LAKES WITH HIGHER VALUES (NUMBER or LAKES WITH HIGHER VALUES)
LA<£
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
200« MELVERN RESERVOIR
2009 MILFORQ 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 1
71 1
36 I
0 i
93 (
14)
! 4)
; 12)
: 8)
: 2)
: 6)
; 9.)
ID
! 3) ,
I D
I 7)
1 10)
I 5)
I 0)
: 13)
MEDIAN
INOSG N
100 <
29 (
50 <
57 <
P, !
43 <
64 <
82 <
36 <
93 (
18 <
7 1
71 l
18 i
82 <
: 14)
: 4)
\ 7)
: a)
i P.)
: 6)
: 9)
: I!)
: 5)
: i3>
; 2)
[ i)
; 10)
I 2)
: ID
500-
MEAN SEC
100 <
36 <
7 (
14 (
0 (
29 <
*3 (
86 (
79 (
64 1
57 1
50 1
21 <
71 i
93 1
: 14)
; 5)
i)
2)
: 0)
4)
: 6)
12)
: ii)
; 9)
: 8)
: 7)
I 3)
t 10)
I 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 99
57 1
64 I
7 (
79 (
93 (
71 (
86 <
0 (
50 (
100 (
25 <
39 1
39 i
14 i
25 i
: s>
: 9)
; D
; ID
; 13)
: io>
; 12)
: o)
: 7)
: 14)
: 3)
[ 5)
t 5)
I 2)
I 3)
MEDIAN
DISS ORTHO P
39 (
29 (
100 <
50 <
7 <
64 (
71 (
79 <
14 (
21 1
43 (
36 <
57 1
0 <
89 1
; 12)
; 4)
, 14)
; 7)
: D
: 9)
: 10)
ID
; 2)
; 3)
: 6)
; 5)
[ 8)
1 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 = 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 FuOw INFORMATION FOR KANSAS
OS/03/76
LAKE COOE 2010 NORTON
TOTAL ORAIf."G£ A
SUe-ORAIMAGE
TRIBUTARY AREA (50
OF LAKEISQ KM)
JAN
MAS
APW
MAY
NORMALIZED FLOWS(CMS)
JUN JUL AUG SEP
OCT
MOV
DEC
MEAN
1 n i uw i *"><- '
2010A1
2010A2
201CZZ
1771.6
1528.1
240.9
0.011
0.17
0.079
0.03?
0.31
0.125
0.031
0.54
0.2?7
0.269
0.45
0.269
0.150
1.19
0.538
0.321 3.681
2.12 1.84
0.651 0.623
SUMMARY
2.124
0.82
0.260
0.207
0.57
0.193
0.019
0.51
0.167
0.018
0.19
0,099
0.014
0.18
0.079
0.623
0.74
0.278
TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA OF LAKE = 1769.0
SUM OF SUB-DRAINAGE AREAS = 1769.0
TOTAL FLO* IN = 12.23
TOTAL FLOW OUT ~ 7.38
MEAN MONTHLY FLOwS AND DAILY FLOwS(CMS)
TRIBUTARY
2010«1
2010A2
2010ZZ
MONTH YEAR
10
11
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1
2
3
4
5
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
74
74
74
7b
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
MEAN FLOW DAY
FLOW DAY
FLOW DAY
FLOW
0.002
0.003
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.055
2.616
1.155
0.002
0.0
0.0
0.001
0.003
0.014
0.048
0.049
0.297
4.786
0.566
1.733
0.081
0.0
0.0
0.001
0.002
0.006
0.020
0.028
0.136
0.425
0.193
0.736
0.027
12
8
13
10
7
7
11
12
13
3
26
13
12
8
13
10
7
7
11
12
13
3
26
13
0.0
0.003
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.0
0.001
2.690
2.718
O.OOl
0.0
0.0
0.002
0.003
0.008
0.026
0.051
0.014
0.736
0.566
0.059
0.0
23
21
0.0
2.633
23
21
0.005
0.102
-------
APPENDIX D
PHYSICAL and CHEMICAL DATA
-------
STORET RETRIEVAL DATE 76/05/03
DATE TIME DEPTH
FROM OF
TO DAY FEET
74/04/15 15 30 0000
15 30 0005
15 30 0010
DATE TIME DEPTH
FROM OF
TO DAY FEET
74/04/15 15 30 0000
15 30 0005
15 30 0010
0.162
0.168
0.021
201001
39 47 24.0 099 59 20.0 4
NORTON RESERVOIR
20137 KANSAS
091191
11EPALES 2111202
0015 FEET DEPTH CLASS 00
00010
WATER
fEMP
CENT
9*6
9*6
9.5
00665
'HOS-TOT
MG/L P
00300
DO
MG/L
9*2
9.6
32217
CHLRPHYL
A
UG/L
00077
TRANSP
SECCHI
INCHES
9
00031
INCDT LT
REMNING
PERCENT
00094
CNDUCTVY
FIELD
MICROMHO
265
262
326
00400
PH
SU
8.40
8.40
8.10
00410
T ALK
CAC03
MG/L
218
206
127
00610
NH3-N
TOTAL
MG/L
0.100
0.090
0.040
00625
TOT KJEL
N
MG/L
1.500
1.400
0.800
00630
N02&N03
N-TOTAL
MG/L
0.080
0.050
0.040
00671
PHOS-DIS
ORTHO'
MG/L P
0.041
0.040
0.007
11.3
-------
STOREf RETRIEVAL DATE '76/05/03*
39 47 55.0 099 57 00.0 3
NORTON RESERVOIR
20137 KANSAS
091191
11EPALES 2111202
0023 Ft£T DEPTH CLASS 00
00010
MATER
TEMP
CENT
22.4
22.3
22.3
21.9
14.8
14.7
14.7
00300
DO
MG/L
8.6
8.4
6.6
7.6
7.6
7.4
7.4
00077
TRANSP
SECCHI
INCHES
36
00094
CNDUCTVr
FIELD
MICROMHO
482
479
4BO
478
607
626
673
00400
PM
su
8.50
8.50
8.50
8.40
8.30
8.70
8.3C
00410
T ALK
CAC03
MG/L
210
212
222
214
220
216
222
00610
NH3-N
TOTAL
MG/L
0.070
0.060
0.060
0.060
0.050
0.060
O.OtO
00625
TOT KJEL
N
MG/L
1.100
1.100
1.100
1.200
1.200
1.000
0.900
00630
N02&N03
N-TOTAL
MG/L
0.070
0.060
0.050
0.050
0.020K
0.020K
0.02UK
00671
PHOS-DlS
ORTHO
MG/L P
0.036
0.041
0.037
0.035
0.024
0.024
0.024
DATE
FROM
TO
74/06/28
74/09/30
TIME DEPTH
OF
DAY FEET
13 00 0000
13 00 0005
13 00 0010
13 00 0018
11 00 0000
11 00 0004
11 00 0008
00665
PHOS-TOT
MG/L P
0.097
0.120
0.109
0.110
0.122
0.119
0.130
32217
CHLRPHYL
A
UG/L
35.5
22.9
00031
INCOT LT
REMNING
PERCENT
1.0
K VALUE KNOWN TO BE
LESS THAN INDICATED
-------
STORE! RETRIEVAL DATE 76/05/03
DATE
FROM
TO
74/06/28
74/09/30
TIME DEPTH
OF
DAY FEET
13 30 0000
13 30 0005
11 15 0000
11 15 0005
00010
WATER
TEMP
CENT
22.7
22,1
15.0
14.8
00300 00077
00 TRANSP O
SECCHI FIELD
MG/L INCHES Ml
7.0
7.4
8.8
24
24
201003
33 47 22.0 099 58 05.0 3
N03TON RESERVOIR
20137 KANSAS
091191
11EPALES 2111202
0009 FEET DEPTH CLASS 00
94
:TVY
i
iMHO
471
470
419
419
00400
PH
SU
8.60
8.50
8.30
8.30
00410
T ALK
CAC03
MG/L
214
222
220
00610
NH3-N
TOTAL
MG/L
0.130
0.110
0.040
00625
TOT KJEL
N
MG/L
1.200
1.200
1.300
00630
NO 2&N03
N-TOTAL
MG/L
0.090
0.090
0.020K
00671
PHOS-OIS
ORTHO
MG/L P
0.043
0.055
0.026
00665
DATE TIME DEPTH PHQS^TQT
FROM OF
TO DAY FEET MG/L P
74/06/28 13 30 0000 0,178
13 30 0003
13 30 0005 0.185
74/09/30 11 15 0000 0.135
32217 00031
CHLRPHYL INCDT LT
A REMNING
UG/L PERCENT
8.9
28.2
1.0
K VALUE KNOWN TO BE
LESS THAN INDICATED
-------
APPENDIX E
TRIBUTARY AND WASTEWATER
TREATMENT PLANT DATA
-------
RETRIEVAL DATE 76/05/04
DATE TIME DEPTH N025.N03
FROM OF
TO DAY FEET
74/1 1/OB
74/12/13
75/03/07
75/04/11
75/05/12
75/05/23
75/06/13
75/07/03
75/07/21
75/08/36
75/09/13
08 38
09 30
08 45
08 30
08 55
08 45
08 15
08 21
08 50
14 40
14 40
2010A1
39 48 22*0 099 55 35
f-i^alKlE DOG C*EEK
20 15 NORTON
G/NORTON SESESVOIK
SEC RD 3HDC3 i3 Ml
11E=ALE5
0000 FEET DEPTH
0 4
091191
FR.M NORTON
2111204
CLASS 00
10630
IS.N03
OTAL
IG/L
0*032
0*005
C.015
0.005
0.005
0.015
0.005
0*210
Oi375
0*300
0.010
00625
TOT KJEL
N
*G/L
1.500
0.700
0.700
1*350
1.700
0.500
0.700
1.050
1*050
liOSO
0*600
00610
NH3-N
TOTAL
Mf,/L
0*035
0.010
O.C16
0.025
0.110
Oi020
0.020
0.085
0.015
0*035
0.020
00671
PHOS-OIS
OftTrtO
MG/L P
0*025
0.015
Oi016
0.040
0.020
0*005
0.025
0*220
0*250
0.220
0*045
00665
PnOS-TOT
M(j/L P
0*040
0.020
0.040
0*060
0*080
0.050
0.160
0.320
0*330
0.350
0.090
-------
STOKET rtETRIFVAL DATE 76/05/'J4
DATE
FROM
To
74/12/13
75/01/10
75/02/07
75/03/07
75/04/11
75/05/12
75/05/23
75/06/13
75/07/03
75/07/21
75/08/26
75/09/13
TIME 1
OF
GAY i
10 00
14 15
09 12
09 25
09 00
09 35
09 15
08 47
08 50
09 17
16 00
15 10
FEET
2010A2
34 *6 13.0 100 06 00.0 «.
PRAIRIE JOG C*EEK
20 15 NORCATU3
T/NORTON HESEftVOI* 091H1
S£C RD dRDG 4 MI ENE OF CLAYTON
11EPALES 2111204
OuOO FEtT DEPTH CLASS 00
10630
'&N03
'OTAL
IG/L
0.056
0.384
O.OAe
0.016
0.015
O.OOb
0.015
0.580
l.AOO
0.1^5
1.000
0.140
00625
TOT KJEL
N
MG/L
1.400
1.000
0.700
0.900
1.630
1.780
?.ooo
2.900
1.700
1.400
1.230
1.100
00610
NM3-N
TOTAL
MG/L
C.020
0.052
0.024
0.024
0.025
0.085
0.065
0.085
0.050
0.005K
0.025
0.055
00671
PHOS-OIS
OrtTHO
MG/L P
0.060
0.045
0.048
0.060
0.210
0.173
0.270
0.310
0.400
0.320
0.220
0.250
00665
PhOS-TOT
MG/L ^
0.1 3C
0.060
0.060
0.060
0.265
0.290
0.460
1.050
0.660
0.520
0.390
0.300
K VALUE KNOrfN TO BE
LESS THAN INDICATED
-------
STORET RETRIEVAL DATE 76'05/04
2010A3
39 32 13.0 100 38 *5.0 4
PRAIRIE 006 C'EEr.
20 OtCATo- CO MAP
T/NORTO.N KtSESvOI- 091191
U5 HWY S3 =KD'G 11.6 MI S OF
11EPALES 211120-*
0000 FEif Ot=T« CLA5S 00
DATE
FSOM
TO
75/01/10
75/03/07
75/04/11
75/05/12
75/05/23
75/06/13
75/07/03
75/07/21
75/09/13
00630 00625
TIME OE°Ti N02t>M03 TOT KJEL
OF N-TOTAL N
DAY FEET
14
10
10
10
10
09
09
10
16
55
40
50
35
10
42
50
15
00
MG/L
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
.480
.008
.005
.005
.005
.100
.440
.010
.110
MG/L
1.
1.
1.
1.
2.
1.
1.
0.
0.
900
000
850
550
200
100
800
500
600
00610 00671 00665
Nrt3-N PnOS-niS PriOS-TOT
TOTAL ORTriQ
Mij/L •" ' ~ "
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.064
.016
.030
.165
.030
.140
.070
.040
MG/L P
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.090
.016
.070
.280
.250
.2<«0
.330
.195
.155
MLi/L H
0.140
0.070
0.120
0.340
0.400
0.310
0.400
0.230
0.200
-------
STOSET RETRIEVAL DATE 76/1-05/04
DATE
FROM OF
TO DAY
TIME DEPTH
FEET
74/11/08
74/12/13
75/03/07
75/04/11
75/05/12
75/05/23
75/06/13
75/07/03
75/07/21
75/08/26
75/09/13
09 50
11 00
10 25
10 45
10 20
10 00
09 32
09 40
10 07
15 16
15 50
39 37 15.0 100 32 05.0 4
S ^ftAlRIE DOG CREEK
20 OECATUR CO MAP
T/.\ORTON RESERVOIR
US HwY 63 6KDG 13.4 MI
UtPALES
0000 FEET DEPTn
091H1
S OF OdERLlN
2111204
CLASS 00
0630
iN03
OTAL
G/L
0.352
0.704
0. 144
0.005
0.005
0.075
1.150
2.400
1.350
0.010
1.720
00625
TOT KJEL
N
MG/L
1.700
.100
.000
.550
.250
.600
2.900
2.600
1.450
2.400
1.300
00610
NH3-N
TOTAL
MG/L
0.050
0.008
0.024
0.105
0.035
0.183
0.345
0.115
0.005
0.035
0.095
00671
PrlOS-DIS
ORTHO
MG/L P
0.09C
0.005
0.006
0.130
0.240
0.330
0.390
0.270
0.195
0.340
0.125
00665
PHOS-TOT
MG/L P
0.120
0.030
0.040
0.200
0.230
0.420
0.700
0.460
0.370
0.560
0.190
------- |