U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
NATIONAL EUTROPHICATION SURVEY
WORKING PAPER SERIES
REPORT
ON
QOTILE RESERVOIR
RAPIDES PARISH
LOUISIANA
EPA REGION VI
WORKING PAPER No, 537
CORVALLIS ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY - CORVALLIS, OREGON
and
ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING & SUPPORT LABORATORY - LAS VEGAS, NEVADA
•&G.P.O. 699-440
-------
REPORT
ON
OOTILE RESERVOIR
RAPIDES PARISH
LOUISIANA
EPA REGION VI
WORKING PAPER No, 537
WITH THE COOPERATION OF THE
LOUISIANA WILD LIFE AND FISHERIES COMMISSION
AND THE
LOUISIANA NATIONAL GUARD
MARCH, 1977
-------
REPORT ON COTILE RESERVOIR
RAPIDES PARISH, LOUISIANA
EPA REGION VI
by
National Eutrophication Survey
Water and Land Quality Branch
Monitoring Operations Division
Environmental Monitoring & Support Laboratory
Las Vegas, Nevada
and
Special Studies Branch
Corvallis Environmental Research Laboratory
Corvallis, Oregon
Working Paper No. 537
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
March 1977
-------
CONTENTS
Page
Foreword i i
List of Louisiana Study Lakes iv
Lake and Drainage Area Map v
Sections
I. Conclusions 1
II. Lake and Drainage Basin Characteristics 3
III. Lake Water Quality Summary 5
IV. Nutrient Loadings 9
V. Literature Reviewed 13
VI. Appendices 14
-------
FOREWORD
The National Eutrophicatlon Survey was Initiated 1n 1972 1n
response to an Administration commitment to Investigate the nation-
wide threat of accelerated eutrophicatlon 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
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.
-------
Ill
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 cf
Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency)
expresses sincere appreciation to the Louisiana Wild Life and
Fisheries Commission, Division of Water Pollution Control for
professional involvement, to the Louisiana National Guard for
conducting the tributary sampling phase of the Survey, and to
those Louisiana wastewater treatment plant operators who pro-
vided effluent samples and flow data.
Robert A. Lafleur, Chief; J. Dale Givens, Assistant Chief;
Lewis R. Still, Biologist; Louis Johnson, Biologist; Lee Cau-
barreaux, Biologist; Darrell Reed, Engineer; Dempsey Alford,
Biologist; and Elwood Goodwin, Water Quality Control Technician,
all of the Louisiana Wild Life and Fisheries Commission, Division
cf Water Pollution Control reviewed the preliminary reports and
provided critiques most useful in the preparation of this
Working Paper Series.
Major General O'Neil Daigle, Jr., the Adjutant General of
Louisiana, and Project Officer Colonel Lawrence P. Dupre, who
directed the volunteer efforts of the Louisiana National Guards-
men, are also gratefully acknowledged for their assistance to
the Survey.
-------
IV
NATIONAL EUTROPHICATION SURVEY
STUDY LAKES
STATE OF LOUISIANA
LAKE NAME
Anacoco Lake
Lake Bistineau
Black Bayou
Black Lake
Bruin Lake
Bundick Lake
Caddo Lake
Cocodrie Lake
Cocodrie Lake (Lower)
Concordia Lake
Cotile Lake
Cross Lake
D'Arbonne Lake
False River Lake
Indian Creek Reservoir
Saline Lake
Turkey Creek Lake
Lake Vernon
Lake Verret
COUNTY
Vernon
Bienville, Webster
Caddo
Natchitoches and Red River
Tensas
Beauregard
Caddo (Menon and Harrison
in Texas)
Concordia
Rapides
Concordia
Rapides
Caddo
Union
Pointe Coupee
Rapides
LaSalle
Franklin
Vernon
Assumption
-------
92 "50"
I—3120
I—3115
Map Location
COTILE RESERVOIR
<8>Tributary Sampling Site
X Lake Sampling Site
O Drainage Area Boundary
o i 2
I j L
Scale
jMi.
.•Otis
-------
REPORT ON COTILE RESERVOIR, LOUISIANA
STORE! NO. 2208
I. CONCLUSIONS
A. Trophic Condition:*
Survey data indicate Cotile Reservoir is meso-eutrophic.
The lake is characterized by moderate Secchi disc transparen-
cy (mean 146 cm), and low potential for primary production as
measured by algal assay control yield. Chlorophyll a_ values
ranged from 6.3 yg/1 in the fall to 18.5 yg/1 in the spring
with a mean of 12.6 yg/1. Of the 19 Louisiana lakes sampled
in 1974, 15 had higher median total phosphorus, 9 had greater
median inorganic nitrogen, and 11 had higher median ortho-
phosphorus than Cotile Lake.
Survey limnologists reported no problem conditions on
this lake.
B. Rate-Limiting Nutrient:
Algal assay results indicate that Cotile Reservoir was
limited by available phosphorus levels. Spikes with phosphorus
or nitrogen and phosphorus simultaneously resulted in increases
in assay yield. Additions of nitrogen alone did not stimulate
a growth response. The ratios of available nitrogen to ortho-
phosphorus (N/P) in sampled waters, however, suggest nitrogen
limitation on all sampling occasions.
*See Appendix E.
-------
C. Nutrient. Controllability:
1. Point sources -
There were no known point source.s. impacting Cotile Reser-
voir. However, loading calculations: based upon available
nutri.ent concentrations and flow data yield an. apparent net
export of" both phosphorus and nitrogen from the- lake., This
export, could be due to 1) undetected discharges reaching the
lake from unknown industrial or muni.ci.pal sources, 2.). loading
rates for the Cotile Res.ervoir outlet (G.otile' Greek) which.
are. inflated by unknown, discharges whic.h enter the stream at
some paint, between the. la.ke outlet, and the A-l sampling site,
or 3) failure: to sample. Williamson Creek, and. thus underesti-
mating that tributary's, ungage.d loading, to the lake. Additional
sampling and an evaluation, of current, land use and; lake shore
construction, are required before a nutrient budget for the
lake can be determined,.
2. Nonpoint sources. -
Nonpoint s.ources contributed the entire known phosphorus
load to Cotile Lake. Major tributaries, contributed 44.1% of
the total load,, and. minor tributaries (ungaged) were estimated
to have contributed 52.0%.
-------
II. LAKE AND DRAINAGE BASIN CHARACTERISTICS
Lake and drainage basin characteristics are itemized below.
Lake surface area and mean depth were provided by the State of
Louisiana. Maximum depth was obtained from contour maps pro-
vided by the Louisiana Stream Control Commission. Tributary
flow data were provided by the Louisiana District Office of the
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Outlet drainage area includes
the lake surface area. Mean hydraulic retention time was ob-
tained by dividing the lake volume by the mean flow of the out-
let. 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:
2
1. Surface area: 7.25 km .
2. Mean depth: 4.3 meters.
3. Maximum depth: 7.6 meters.
4. Volume: 30.897 x 106 m3.
5. Mean hydraulic retention time: 206 days.
-------
B. Tributary and Outlet:
(See Appendix B for flow data)
T. Tributaries -
Drainage Mean flow
Name area (km2) (m3/sec)
B-l Dyer Creek 8.7 0.11
C-T HemphilT Creek 22.1 0.37
D-l Indian Creek 13.3 0.22
Minor tributaries and
immediate drainage - 53.4 1.00
Totals 97.5 1.70
2. Outlet - A-l Cotile Creek 104.6 1.74
C. Precipitation:
1. Year of sampling: 141.0cm.
2. Mean annual: 137.3cm.
-------
III. LAKE WATER QUALITY SUMMARY
Cotile Reservoir was sampled three times during the open-
water season of 1974 by means of a pontoon-equipped Huey heli-
copter. 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 v). During each visit,
depth-integrated samples were collected from each station for
chlorophyll a_ analysis and phytoplankton identification and enu-
meration. During the first and last visits, 18.9-liter depth-
integrated samples were composited for algal assays. Maximum
depths sampled were 4.6 meters at Station 01 and 4.6 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 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.
-------
C 0 T ! L E L *> K E
STO--ET coot
( 3/.-l. 5 M OEPTH
AMMONIA
0.-1.5 M UEPTH
MAX OEPTH**
KJELOAHL NI (MO/L)
0.-1.5 M UE^TH
MAX OEPTH**
StCCHl DISC METtKS)
4
2
)
2
2
4
2
3
2
)
3
2
3
2
L)
3
2
3
2
3
2
3
2
20.3-
15.7-
7.6-
1.0-
41.-
45.-
6.6-
6.1^
10.-
10.-
0.037-0
0.044-0
0.008-0
0.010-0
0.050-0
0.040-0
«
0.040-0
0.050-0
0.400-0
0.400-0
20.7
20.4
7.6
8.0
42.
42.
6.8
6.8
12.
14.
.043
.047
.01 J
.012
.050
.050
.050
.050
.600
.500
20.<»
18. 0
7.6
4.5
42.
41 .
6.e
6.4
10.
12.
0.03V
0.046
0.010
0.011
U.OSu
0.043
0.050
0.050
0.400
0.450
0.0-
2.7-
1.2-
2.7-
n.o-
2.7-
0.0-
2.7-
0.0-
2.7-
0.0-
2.7-
0.0-
2.7-
0.0-
2.7-
0.0-
2.7-
0.0-
2.7-
1.5
4.0
1.5
4.0
1.5
4»0
1.5
4.0
1.5
4.0
1.3
4.0
1.5
4.0
1.5
4.0
1.5
4.0
1 .5
4.0
4
2
2
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
it
i>.
4
2
-------
B. Biological Characteristics:
1. Phytoplankton -
Sampling
Date
03/20/74
05/30/74
11/12/74
2. Chlorophyll
Sampling
Date
03/20/74
05/30/74
11/12/74
Dominant
Genera
Melosira
Cryptomonas
Flagellates
Merismopedia
5. Anki strode smus
Other genera
Total
1 . Dactylococcopsis
2. Cyclotella
3. Cryptomonas
4. Asterionella
5. Microcystis
Other genera
Total
1 . Merismopedia
2. Flagellates
3. Microcystis
4. Kirchneriella
5. Aphanocapsa
Other genera
Total
Station
Number
01
02
01
02
01
02
Algal
Units
per ml
3,220
887
794
700
607
3.080
9,288
634
493
423
352
352
1,760
4,014
1,300
917
917
841
459
1.991
6,425
Chlorophyll
(yg/D
18.5
13.9
14.0
12.8
10.4
6.3
-------
Ortho P
Conc.(mq/l)
0.015
0.065
0,065
0.0,T5
Inorganic N.
Conc.(mg/l)
0.083
0..083
1.033
1.083
Maximum yield
(mq/l-dry wt. )
0,3
3.0
14.6
0.1
C. Limiting. Nutrient Study:
1. Autoclaved, filtered, and nutrient spiked - 03/20/74
Spike(mg/1)
Control
0.-05 P
0.05 P * 1.0 N
1,00' N
2. Discussion -
The control yield of the' assay alga, Selenastrum capri-
comutum. indicates that the potentia.1 for primary productivity
was low in Cotile Reservoir during the spring sampling season.
Increased growth of the test alga in response to an addition of
orthophosphorus indicates the Take was phosphorus limited when
sampled. Spikes with nitrogen and phosphorus simultaneously
resulted in maximum yield.
It should be noted that significant chemical changes took
place in Louisiana lake samples between collection and algal assay.
The assay data should be considered in this context and until such
differences are resolved, used with caution for any prediction of
actual lake conditions. Such chemical changes are likely to alter
the control yield as well as modifying the N/P ratio. The autumn
algal assay results have not been included in this report because
these substantial changes in nutrient levels have removed their
information value.
The N/P ratios in the field samples were 9/1 in the spring,
13/1 in.the summer, and 5/1 in the fall, suggesting nitrogen limi-
tation.
-------
IV. NUTRIENT LOADINGS
(See Appendix D for data)
For the determination of nutrient loadings, the Louisiana
National Guard collected monthly near-surface grab samples from
each of the tributary sites indicated on the map (page v), ex-
cept for the high runoff months of February, March, and April
when two samples were collected. Sampling was begun in June 1974,
and was completed in May 1975.
Through an interagency agreement, stream flow estimates for
the year of sampling and a "normalized" or average year were pro-
vided by the Louisiana 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" ("ZZ" of USGS) were estimated by using the mean
annual nutrient loads, in kg/km^/yr, in Dyer Creek, Hemphill Creek,
and Indian Creek at Stations B-l, C-l, and D-l, and multiplying
the means by the ZZ area in
-------
10
A. Waste Sources:
1. Known municipal - None
2. Known industrial - None
B. Annual Total Phosphorus Loading - Average Year:
1. Inputs -
% of
Source kg P/yr total
a. Tributaries (nonpoint load) -
B-l Dyer Creek 255 7.5
C-l Hemphill Creek 820 ' 24.2
D-l Indian Creek 420 12.4
b. Minor tributaries and immediate
drainage (nonpoint load) - 1,760 52.0
c. Known municipal STP's - None
d. Septic tanks* - 5 0.2
e. Known industrial - None
f. Direct precipitation** - 125 3.7
Totals 3,385 100.0
2. Output - A-l Cotile Creek 4,150
3. Net annual P export*** - 765
^Estimate based on 10 lakeside residences.
**E'Stimated (see NES Working Paper No. 175).
***Export probably due to unknown sources and/or sampling error.
-------
11
C. Annual Total Nitrogen Loading - Average Year:
1. Inputs -
% of
Source kg N/yr total
a. Tributaries (nonpoint load) -
B-l Dyer Creek 1,690 5.2
C-l Hemphill Creek 6,645 20.4
D-l Indian Creek 3,175 9.8
b. Minor tributaries and immediate
drainage (nonpoint load) - 13,085 40.2
c. Known municipal STP's - None
d. Septic tanks* - 105 0.3
e. Known industrial - None
f. Direct precipitation** - 7,825 24.1
Totals 32,525 100.0
2. Output - A-l Cotile Creek 45,175
3. Net annual N export*** - 12,650
D. Mean Annual Nonpoint Nutrient Export by Subdrainage Area:
r\
Tributary kg P/km^/yr kg N/km /yr
Dyer Creek 29 194
Hemphill Creek 37 301
Indian Creek 32 239
*Estimate based on 10 lakeside residences.
**Estimated (see NES Working Paper No. 175).
***Export probably due to unknown sources and/or sampling error.
-------
12
E. 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 Cotile Reservoir 0.47
Vollenweider's "eutrophic" loading 0.15
Vollenweider's "oligotrophic" loading 0.08
-------
13
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.
Vollenweider, R. A. 1975. Input-Output Models With Special
Reference to the Phosphorus Loading Concept in Limnology.
Schweiz. Z. Hydro!. 37:53-84.
-------
14
VI. APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
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 kilom:?tor x 5.711 = Ibs/square mile
-------
APPENDIX B
TRIBUTARY FLOW DATA
-------
TRIBUTARY FLO* INFORMATION' FOR LOUISIANA
LAKE CODE 2?08 COTILE LAKE
TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA OF LAKE (50 KM,) 10*.6
04/11/77
TRIBUTARY
SUB-DRAINAGE
Q KM)
NORMALIZED FLOWS(CMS)
JAN
FE3
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
NOV
OEC
MEAN
2208A1
220881
2208C1
220801
2208ZZ
104.6
8.7
22.1
13.3
60.6
2.35
0.153
0.51
0.311
1.36
3.23
0.164
0.68
0.425
1.90
2.78
0.170
0.59
0.340
1.61
2.63
0.113
0.57
0.340
1.50
2.12
0.076
0.45
0.269
1.22
1.27
0.074
0.27
O.lfal
0.71
0.82
0.057
0.17
0.105
0.43
0.96
0.099
0.20
0.125
0.57
0.96
0.079
0.20
0.125
0.57
0.62
0.057
O.lH
0.079
0.37
1.47
0.102
0.31
0.187
0.85
1.73
0.127
0.37
0.221
0.99
1.74
0.106
0.37
0.223
1.00
SUMMARY
TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA OF LAKE = 104.6
SUM OF SUB-DRAINAGE AREAS = 104.7
TOTAL FLOW IN = 20.55
TOTAL FLOW OUT = 20.95
MEAN MONTHLY FL04S AND DAILY FLOwS(CMS)
TRIBUTARY MONTH YEAR
2208A1
220881
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
MEAN FLOW DAY
FLOW DAY
FLOW DAY
FLOW
0.991
0.991
0.906
0.934
0.765
1.501
2.435
1.812
1.246
1.756
1.671
4.870
0.102
0.08?
0.076
0.079
0.062
0.125
0.201
0.150
0.105
0.147
0.139
0.396
9
7
4
9
5
10
8
12
9
23
6
4
9
7
4
9
5
10
8
12
9
9
6
4
1.019
1.303
0.850
1 . 756
0.765
0.963
3.115
2.775
0.963
1.246
0.963
14.895
0.085
0.040
0.071
0.147
0.062
0.079
0.258
0.651
0.340
0.079
0.079
1.048
23
20
23
23
20
1.048
0.934
0.088
0.105
0.076
-------
TRIBUTARY FLO* INFORMATION FOrt LOUISIANA
04/11/77
LAKE CODE 2?08 COTILE LAKE
MEAN MONTHLY FLO*S AND UAILY FLGWS
-------
APPENDIX C
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL DATA
-------
STOt-ET SEr-IEViL UiTE 75/12/11
NATL
31 lv> 30.0
CUTILE LAKE
22 LOUISIANA
00. 0
uATE
. F?OHI
TO
74/03/20
74/05/30
74/11/12
OATE
FROS-
TO
?4/03/20
74/05/30
74/11/12
TI^E OEPf-
OF
DAY FEET
14 45 0000
14 45 0004
14 45 0009
09 25 0000
n9 25 000^
10 35 0000
10 35 0005
10 35 001^
TIME DEPTH
OF
DAY FEET
14 45 0000
14 45 0009
09 25 0000
09 25 OOOS
10 35 0000
10 35 0005
10 35 0015
00 ill 0
wATE-'
TEMP
CENT
20.4
20.4
20. •»
27.8
27.8
17.9
18.0
17.9
00665
PMOS-TOT
MG/L P
0.043
U.044
O.OJ4
0.038
0.032
0.037
0.031
>"' 0 ?• 0 0
DO
MG/L
7.6
6.0
6.4
6.4
6.2
6.2
32217
CHLHPriYL
A
OG/L
18.5
14.0
10.4
000/7
TnA.-JsP
StCCHl
INCHES
30
72
70
00031
INCDT LI
SEMNING
PERCENT
OOU--4
d\DuCTV Y
FIELD
MICwOMhO
42
42
42
53
55
42
41
41
1 1EPALES
4
0 0 4 0 u
*- r.
su
b .00
b.fJO
7.00
7.10
6.25
6.16
6.1b
oo-io
T AL*
CAC03
MG/L
10
10
20
19
14
17
19
?1112
-------
STOaET RETRIEVAL DATE 7S/12 ^4 00.0
COTILE LAr>E
22 LOUISIANA
DATE
K°0M
TO
74/03/20
74/05/30
74/11/12
DflTE
FROM
TO
74/03/20
74/05/30
74/11/12
TI'iE DEPTH
OF
DAV FEET
15 00 0000
15 00 0005
15 oo oon
09 50 0000
09 50 0005
09 bO 0009
10 15 0000
10 15 0005
10 15 0015
TIME DEPTH
OF
DAY FEET
15 00 0000
15 00 0005
15 00 0013
09 50 0000
09 50 0005
09 50 0004
10 15 0000
10 15 000^
10 15 0015
0 u j 1 n
•valtP
TE^c1
CENT
20.7
20.3
15.7
27.6
27.4
25.0
17.1
17.3
16.9
00665
PMOS-TOT
MG/L P
0.039
0.037
0.047
0.028
0.031
0.038
0.035
0.033
0.038
0 0 3 0 0
DO
MG/L
7.6
1.0
5.0
1.0
6.b
6.6
6.2
32217
CHLRPHYL
A
UG/L
13.9
12.0
6.3
0007 1
TKAiNSP
SLCC«I
INCHES
4b
72
54
00031
INCDT LT
RFMNING
•^EKCENT
1.0
11EP4LES 2111202
00l)4
-------
APPENDIX D
TRIBUTARY AND WASTEWATER
TREATMENT PLANT DATA
-------
04TE 77/04/11
DATE TIME DEPTH N02J.N03
FROM OF
TO DAY FEET
74/06/09
74/07/07
74/08/04
74/09/09
74/10/05
74/1 1/10
74/12/08
75/01/12
75/02/09
75/02/23
75/03/09
75/03/23
75/04/06
75/04/20
75/05/04
10 45
10 10
10 45
09 50
11 05
10 55
10 45
10 45
10 40
10 45
10 45
11 25
10 45
10 45
10 15
2208A1
31 15 40.0 092 43 12.0 4
COTILE CREEK
22 7.5 BOYCE
O/'COTl'uE P-E'S 101691'
BURNHAM tjriOG 1 MI N* OF HOTrfELLS
11EPALES 04001004
0000 FEET OfPTh CLASS 00
0630
'J.N03
OTAL
;u/L
0.0 c8
0.043
0.092
0.076
0 . 0<*0
0.0?"
0.040
0.112
0.064
C.C64
0.071
C-.144
0.120
0.105
0.075
00625
TOT KJEL
N
MG/L
1.100
0.800
0.700
0.800
0.600
O.feOO
0.700
0.500
0.600
O.POO
0.700
0.500
0.600
1.050
0.850
00610
NH3-N
TOTAL
MG/L
0.175
0.155
0.175
0.080
0.065
0.050
0.025
0.088
0.016
0.040
0.040
U.024
0.045
0.035
0.075
00671
PHOS-DIS
OttTHO
MG/L P
0.041
0.020
0.015
0.015
0.020
0.015
0.030
0.020
0.016
0.032
0.024
0.016
0.015
0.020
0.010
00665
PhOS-TOT
MG/L P
0.175
C.I 50
0.030
0.075
0.04?
0.060
0.060
0.050
0.060
0.110
0.070
0.050
0.070
0.060
0.040
-------
TORET RETRIEVAL DATE 77/0^/11
31 16 15.0 092 43 bS.O 4
DYER CSEEK
22 7.b BOYCt
T/COTILE *ES 101631
2NDKY RD 6ROG 1.5 Ml Nw MwY 24 JCT
11EPALES 04001004
0000 FEET DtPTu CLASS 00
DATE
FROM
TO
74/06/09
74/07/07
74/08/04
74/09/09
74/10/05
74/1 1/10
74/12/OR
75/01/12
75/02/09
75/02/23
75/03/09
75/03/23
75/04/06
75/04/20
75/05/04
00630 00625
TIME DEPTH N025.N03 TOT KJEL
OF N-TUTAL N
oar FEET
09
09
10
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
11
09
09
11
1S
30
00
00
50
SO
50
?0
50
?0
?0
10
50
20
?0
MG/L
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.076
.092
.072
.168
.064
.016
.072
.064
.056
.072
.031
.064
.065
.090
.080
00610 00671 00665
NH3-N PhOS-DIS PHOS-TOT
TOTAL ORTHO
MG/L Mr,/L
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
300
300
200
700
100K
100
800
400
400
600
500
200
250
200
700
0
C
0
C
C
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.030
.041
.025
.045
.010
.015
.035
.024
.016
.212
.015
.024
.030
.040
.160
MG/L
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
C.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
p
041
035
035
050
040
040
030
032
032
040
033
040
035
045
030
MG/L P
0.070
0.095
0.065
0.100
0.055
C.070
0.060
0.080
O.OSO
0.120
0.130
0.070
0.060
0.060
0.060
K VALUE KNOWN TO BE
LESS THAN INDICATED
-------
S10RET RETRIEVAL DATE 77/04/11
3208C1
31 15 37.0 092 45 15.0 4
HEMPHILL CREEK
22 7.5 CHOPIN
T/CQTILE ktS 102092
2NO«r RD ^KOG 3 MI w H«Y 28 JCT
11EPALES 04001004
0000 FEET DE^Tri CLASS 00
DATE
FROM
TO
74/06/09
74/07/07
74/08/04
74/09/09
74/10/05
74/11/10
74/12/08
75/01/12
75/02/09
75/02/23
75/03/09
75/03/23
75/04/06
75/04/20
75/05/04
00630 00625
TIME DEPTH N026.N03 TOT KJEL
OF N-TOTAL N
Oil
09
09
10
09
10
10
10
09
10
09
09
11
OP
09
09
r FEET
35
45
15
15
10
05
05
35
05
35
35
00
35
35
35
MG/L
0
0
c
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.320
.300
.312
.100
.320
.256
. Ibti
. 12(4
.304
.168
.258
.304
.345
.360
.075
00610 00671 00665
NHS-N PHOS-DIS PHOS-TOT
TOTAL ORTHO
MG/L Mr,/L
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
200
300
200
700
100K
100
500
500
300
500
200
100
100
200
975
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0 .
G.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0,
0.
0.
015
020
015
040
005
020
017
024
016
C24
010
032
020
020
145
MG/L
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
c.
0.
0.
0.
p
045
040
045
040
055
050
030
040
040
032
040
040
040
045
020
MG/L P
0.075
0.085
0.065
0.090
0.055
0.080
0.060
C.110
0.060
0.090
0.050
0.070
0.050
0.060
0.070
K VALUE KNOWN TO BE
LESS THAN INDICATED
-------
5TO.-ET
DAT- 77/0<-/ll
22QbL)l
31 16 40.0 092 45 30.0 4
I NO I AN C^EEK
22 15 CnOPI\
T/CJjTILE LAKE 102092
SEC KL> Br^DG l.S Ml S» OF wILOA
11£P-LES 04001004
0000 FEET Dt^Tn CLASS 00
DATE
FROM
TO
74/06/09
74/07/07
74/08/04
74/10/05
74/1 1/10
74/12/06
75/01/12
75/02/09
75/02/23
75/03/09
75/03/23
75/04/06
75/04/20
75/05/04
00630 00625
TIME DEPT-i "402NN03 TOT KJEL
OF" N-TOTAL N
Ov,
03
09
09
10
10
10
1C
09
10
09
09
10
09
09
09
r FEET
iO
-0
55
30
35
?5
?5
50
?5
50
50
45
50
50
50
MG/L
•'i
0
)
0
0
0
n
c
0
0
0
;i
0
•I
,1
.033
.066
.104
.056
.072
.06u
.056
.040
.040
.032
.040
.056
.050
.055
.115
00610 00671 00665
NHI-N PHOS-OIS PHQS-TOT
TOTAL ORTHO
MG/L MC,/L
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
3.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
500
100K
300
200
100K
700
500
600
200
700
300
300
150
450
550
'> .
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0 .
0.
0.
0.
0.
},
0.
0.
0.
C35
015
025
015
040
095
015
040
016
048
024
024
015
020
080
MG/L
0.
0.
0.
C.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
c.
c.
0.
0.
0.
0.
p
015
031
020
030
035
020
010
024
016
016
025
016
025
025
020
MG/L P
O.OdS
0.040
0.085
0.052
0.040
0. 140
0.050
0.120
0.030
C.040
0.040
O.C4C
0.030
0.040
0.060
K VALUE M'iOWN TO BE
LESS THAN INDICATED
-------
APPENDIX E
PARAMETRIC RANKINGS OF LAKES
SAMPLED BY NES IN 1974
STATE OF LOUISIANA
-------
LAKE DATA TO BE USED IN RANKINGS
LAKE
CODE LAKE NAME
3201 ANACOCO LAKE
2202 BRUIN LAKE
2203 LAKE BI?TINE1U
2204 BLACK BAYOU
2205 BUNOICK LAKE
2207 COCOORIE LAKE
2208 COTILE LAKE
2209 CONCORDIA LAKE
2210 CROSS LAKE
2211 D'ARBONNE LAKE
2212 FALSE RIVER LAKE
2213 INDIAN CREEK
2214 SALINE LAKE
2215 TURKEY CREEK LAKE
2216 LAKE VERRET
2217 LAKE VERNON
2219 BLACK LAKE
2220 COCODRIE
4807 CAODO LAKE
MEDIAN
TOTAL P
0.031
0.057
0.061
0.046
0.157
0.090
0.037
0.076
0.057
0.038
0.082
0.031
0.111
0.176
0.163
0.018
0.077
0.106
0.049
MEDIAN
INORG N
0.080
0.250
0.100
0.090
0.135
0.400
0.100
0.080
0.080
0.100
0.130
0.150
0.350
0.170
0.100
0.120
0.150
0.050
0.070
500-
MEAN SEC
455.833
450.333
458.000
453.417
469.667
479.000
4*2.333
468.333
475.250
458.250
442.500
458.333
493.000
477.833
481.428
436.667
454.000
478.333
463.562
MEAN
CHLO&A
8.700
16.350
12.933
17.818
20.467
35.300
12.650
32.950
38.385
6.800
24.550
21.467
15.333
21.967
63.026
4.900
12.733
33.433
20.125
15-
MIN oo
10.400
15.000
13.200
12.200
10.600
7.700
14.000
14.800
11.400
13.200
14.900
14.800
9.600
14.600
12.000
14.400
11.600
11.800
10.000
MEDIAM
DISS ORTHO P
0.007
0.012
0.018
0.009
0.073
0.026
0.011
0.009
0.010
0.011
0.023
0.010
0.025
0.033
0.056
0.007
0.015
0.014
0.008
-------
PERCENT OF LAKE; «IITH HIGHER VALUES (NUMBER of LAKES WITH HIGHER VALUES)
LAKE
CODE LAKE NAME
2201 ANACOCO LAKE
2202 BRUIN LAKE
2203 LAKE bISTINEAU
2204 BLACK BAYOU
2205 BUNDICK LAKE
2207 COCODRIE LAKE
2208 COriLE LAKE
2209 CONCORDIA LAKE
2210 CROSS LAKE
2211 D'AHBONNE LAKE
2212 FALSE RIVER LAKE
2213 INDIAN CREEK
2214 SALINE LAKE
2215 TURKEY CREEK LAKE
2216 LAKE VERRET
2217 LAKE VE9NON
2219 BLACK LAKE
2220 COCODRIE
4807 CADDO LAKE
MEDIAN
TOTAL P
9?
61
50
72
11
28
83
44
56
78
33
92
17
0
6
100
39
22
67
( 16)
( 11)
( 9)
( 13)
( 2)
( 5)
( 15)
( 8)
( 10)
( 14)
( 6)
( 16)
( 3)
( 0)
( 1)
( 18)
f 7)
( 4)
( 12)
MEDIAN
INORG N
83 (
11 (
58 (
72 (
33 (
0 (
58 (
83 (
83 (
58 (
39 (
28 (
6 (
17 (
58 (
44 (
22 (
100 <
94 (
1*)
2)
9)
13)
6)
0)
9)
14)
14)
9)
7)
5)
1)
3)
9)
8)
4)
18)
17)
500-
MEAN SEC
67
83
61
78
33
11
94
39
28
56
89
50
0
22
6
100
72
17
44
( 12)
( 15)
( 11)
t 14)
( 6)
( 2)
( 17)
( 7)
( 5)
( 10)
( 16)
( 9)
( 0)
( 4)
( 1)
< 18)
( 13)
( 3)
( 8)
MtAN
CHLOfiA
89
61
72
56
44
11
83
22
6
94
28
39
67
33
0
100
78
17
50
( 16)
( 11)
( 13)
( 10)
( 8)
( 2)
( 15)
( 4)
( 1)
( 17)
( 5)
( 7)
( 12)
( 6)
( 0)
( 18)
( 14)
( 3)
( 9)
15-
MIN DO
83
0
42
50
78
100
33
14
72
42
6
14
94
22
56
28
67
61
89
( 15)
( 0)
( 7)
( 9)
( 14)
( 18)
( 6)
( 2)
( 13)
< 7)
( 1)
( 2)
( 17)
( 4)
( 10)
( 5)
( 12)
( 11)
( 16)
MEDIAN
OISS ORTHO P
94
50
33
81
0
17
61
81
69
56
28
69
22
11
6
100
39
44
89
( 17)
( 0)
( 6)
( U)
( 0)
( 3)
( 11)
( 14)
< 1?)
( 10)
( 5)
( 12)
( 4)
( ?)
( 1)
( 18)
( 7)
( fl)
( 16)
------- |