U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
NATIONAL EUTROPHICATION SURVEY
WORKING PAPER SERIES
REPORT
ON
INDIAN CREEK RESERVOIR
RAPIDES PARISH
LOUISIANA
EPA REGION VI
WORKING PAPER No, 541
CORVALLIS ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY - CORVALLIS, OREGON
and
ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING & SUPPORT LABORATORY - LAS VEGAS, NEVADA
•&G.P.O. 699-440
-------
REPORT
ON
INDIAN CREEK RESERVOIR
RAPIDES PARISH
LOUISIANA
EPA REGION VI
WORKING PAPER No, 541
WITH THE COOPERATION OF THE
LOUISIANA WILD LIFE AND FISHERIES COMMISSION
AND THE
LOUISIANA NATIONAL GUARD
MARCH, 1977
-------
REPORT ON INDIAN CREEK 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. 541
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
March 1977
-------
CONTENTS
Page
Foreword ii
List of Louisiana Study Lakes iv
Lake and Drainage Area Map v
Sections
I. Conclusions 1
II. Lake and Drainage Basin Characteristics 4
III. Lake Water Quality Summary 6
IV. Nutrient Loadings 12
V. Literature Reviewed 16
VI. Appendices 17
-------
ii
FOREWORD
The National Eutrophicafion 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 Take 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,bj], 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, multlvariate 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 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
of 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.
-------
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
PARISH
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
-------
INDIAN CREEK
RESERVOIR
® Tributary Sampling Site
X Lake Sampling Site
.3 Drainage Area Boundary
1 Scale
Map Location
V
3V 04 —
-------
REPORT ON INDIAN CREEK RESERVOIR, LOUISIANA
STORE! NO. 2213
I. CONCLUSIONS
A. Trophic Condition:*
Survey data indicate Indian Creek Reservoir is eutrophic,
i.e., nutrient rich and highly productive. Whether such nutrient
enrichment is to be considered beneficial or deleterious is
determined by its actual or potential impact upon designated
beneficial water uses.
Chlorophyll a_ levels ranged from 5.7 yg/1 in the spring
to 63.8 yg/1 in the summer with a mean of 21.5 yg/1. Secchi
disc visibility and potential for primary production as mea-
sured by algal assay control yield was low. Of the 19 Louisiana
lakes sampled by National Eutrophication Survey (NES) in 1974,
16 had higher median total phosphorus levels, 12 had higher
median dissolved orthophosphorus values, but only 5 had higher
median inorganic nitrogen levels than Indian Creek Reservoir.
Survey limnologists did not observe any concentrations
of algae but did note abundant macrophytes in the shallows
along coves and among the dead submerged trees near shore.
Near-depletion of dissolved oxygen occurred in the hypolimnion
at all stations in May.
*See Appendix E.
-------
B. Rate-Limiting Nutrient:
Algal assay results indicate that Indian Creek Reservoir
is limited by available phosphorus. Spikes with phosphorus or
phosphorus and nitrogen simultaneously resulted in increased as-
say yields. The addition of nitrogen alone did not produce a
growth response. The lake ratios of total available inorganic
nitrogen to orthophosphorus (N/P) substantiate those results for the
spring and summer sampling seasons, but indicate nitrogen limi-
tation for the fall sampling season.
C. Nutrient Controllability:
1. Point sources -
There are no known point sources impacting Indian Creek
Reservoir. The phosphorus loading of 0.06 g P/m^/yr is less
than the "oligotrophic" level established by Vollenweider
(1975) for a lake with such mean depth and detention time.
However, loading calculations yield an apparent net export of
phosphorus from the lake. This could be due to unknown and
unmeasured point sources discharging directly to the lake, to
insufficient sampling or to underestimation of the phosphorus
load from septic tanks. Additional sampling is needed before
an actual nutrient budget for Indian Creek Reservoir can be
determined. However, regardless of the primary nutrient limi-
tation suggested by either algal assay or nutrient ratios, the
-------
most feasible approach to nutrient control, if desirable, is
through available phosphorus control technology.
2. Nonpoint sources -
The phosphorus exports of nonpoint sources accounted for the
entire phosphorus load to Indian Creek Reservoir during the sampling
year. Indian Creek contributed 21.6% of the load, and ungaged
tributaries were estimated to account for 49.6% of the total. The
2
Indian Creek export rate of 8 kg P/km /yr is somewhat lower than
the rates of other streams in this area.
-------
II. LAKE AND DRAINAGE BASIN CHARACTERISTICS
Lake and drainage basin characteristics are itemized below.
Lake morphometry data were provided by the State of Louisiana.
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 obtained by dividing the lake volume by the mean flow
of the outlet. Precipitation values are estimated by methods as
outlined in NES Working Paper No. 175. A table of metric/English
conversions is included as Appendix A.
A. Lake Morphometry:
1. Surface area: 9.11
2. Mean depth: 3.4 meters.
3. Maximum depth: 6.6 meters.
4. Volume: 30.857 x 106 m3.
5. Mean hydraulic retention time: 441 days.
-------
B. Tributary and Outlet (see Appendix B for flow data):
1. Tributaries -
Drainage Mean flow
Name area(km2) (m3/s)
A-2 Indian Creek 14.8 0.21
Minor tributaries and 34.4 0.60
immediate drainage -
Totals 49.2 0.81
2. Outlet - A-l Indian Creek 58.3 0.31
C. Precipitation:
1. Year of sampling: 187.9 cm.
2. Mean annual: 150.2 cm.
-------
III. LAKE WATER QUALITY SUMMARY
Indian Creek 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 para-
meters were collected from three 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 ^analysis and phytoplankton identifi-
cation and enumeration. 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, 4.6 meters
at Station 02, and 6.1 meters at Station 03. 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.
-------
STO<-'ET
( 3/^2/74 )
PHYSICAL A.\ii; CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS
( 5/30/74 )
( 11/12/7* )
p....t...
o.-i.s M JE?TH
XAX :jEPTr-nn>
DisS'iLi/tO OXYGEN .*
37.
36.
b./
6.3
~> A i\- ii f
(METE
0.0-
4.3-
4.3-
n.o-
4.3-
0.0-
4.3-
«S)
0.0
6.1
6.1
0.0
6.1
0.0
6.1
-
6
3
3
5
3
6
3
H.M*
?7.7- 2«.3
23.4- 24.8
6.2- 7.0
0.2- 1.4
45.- 56.
63.- 85.
7.3- b.l
6.6- 7.2
ME L) I AN
28.0
23. (3
6.4
0.4
4<».
74.
7.5
6.7
MAX
DEPlM
(METERS)
0.0-
4.6"*
1Q
.5-
4.6-
0.0-
4.6-
0.0-
4.6-
1.5
S.2
1r
. t>
5.2
1.5
5.?
1.5
5.2
MO
6
i
6
3
6
3
6
3
KANGt
17.5- 19.1
17.2- 18.9
6.6- 7.2
6.2- 7.2
2v.- 44.
31.- 42.
6.1- 6.3
t.O- 6.2
= 3
«EUI AN
lh.5
1H.4
6 . d
6.0
38.
38.
6.2
6.1
MAX
DEPTH
(MtTtRS)
0.0-
3.0-
Ot\ «.
• 0
3.0-
0.0-
3.0-
0.0-
3.0-
1.5
4.6
IL
.3
4.6
1.5
4.6
1.5
4.6
TOTAL ALKALINITY
O.-l.^ M OEPTn
MA< lJEPTh»0-
KJtLUAML N (M6/L)
O.-l.S t/ iiEr'TH
MAX ut°TM0 0 - 0 .
0.500-0.
r, . * o o - o .
14.
21.
033
033
017
014
130
no
060
170
SOO
500
10.
11.
0.0?3
0.0?J
0.011
o.oo/
0.100
0.09U
0.050
0 . 0 6 0
d . 5 0 0
0.400
0.0-
4.3-
0.0-
4 . 3-
0.0-
4.3-
0.0-
4.3-
0.0-
4.3-
0.0-
4.3-
0.0
6.1
0.0
•S.I
0.0
6.1
0.0
6.1
0.0
6.1
O.U
6.1
fc
3
6
3
h
3
O
3
6
5
b
:i
16.- 20.
22.- 27.
0.021-0. 039
0.026-0.037
0.002-0.011
0.003-0.007
0.020-0. 100
d.020-0.030
0.04Q-0.100
').040-d.0'30
O.SOO-1 .200
0.500-0.600
1 •>•
23.
0.031
0.027
0.004
0.003
0.030
0.030
0.040
0.040
0.650
0.600
0.0-
4.6-
0.0-
4.6-
0.0-
4.6-
0.0-
4.6-
0.0-
4.6-
0.0-
4.6-
1.5
5.2
1.5
5.?
1.5
5.2
l.fi
5.2
1.5
5.2
1.5
5.2
f.
3
6
3
6
3
h
3
h
J
ti
s
17.- 20.
17.- 19.
0.031-0.037
0.031-0.037
0.005-0.020
0. 006-0. 016
0.060-0.060
0.060-0.070
O.lUO-0.120
0.0^0-0.110
0.400-O.iiOO
0.500-0.500
18.
18.
0.035
0.035
0.015
0.012
0.060
0.06U
0.110
0.110
0.600
0.500
0.0-
3.0-
0.0-
3.0-
0.0-
3.0-
0.0-
3.0-
0.0-
3.0-
0.0-
3.0-
1.5
4.6
1.5
4.6
1.5
4.6
1.5
4.6
1.5
4.6
1.3
4.6
bECCrtl DISC
-------
B. Biological Characteristics:
1. Phytoplarikton -
Sampling Dominant
Date Genera
03/22/74 1 .
2.
3.
4.
5.
05/30/74 1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
11/12/74 1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Merismopedia
Melosira
Schizochlamys
Cyclotella
Flagellates
Other genera
Total
Lunate celled colony
Flagellates
Kirchneriel la
Nitzschia
Chlamydomonas
Other genera
Total
Cyclotella
Melosira
Merismopedia
Cryptomonas
Kirchneriel la
Other genera
Algal
Units
per ml
2,990
2,036
867
737
693
2,599
9,922
979
287
276
270
260
2,224
4,296
1,685
956
697
494
387
936
Total
5,155
-------
2. Chlorophyll a^ -
Sampling Station Chlorophyll a.
Date Number (yg/1)
03/22/74 01 5.7
02 9.3
03 7.5
05/30/74 01 42.5
02 30.5
03 63.8
11/12/74 01 9.9
02 12.5
03 11.5
-------
10
C. Limiting Nutrient Study:
1. Autoclaved, filtered, and nutrient spiked -
a. 03/22/74
Inorganic N
Cone.(mg/1)
0.133
0.133
1.133
1.133
Inorganic N
Cone.(mg/1)
0.154
0.154
1.154
1.154
Spike (mg/1)
Control
0.05 P
0.05 P + 1.0 N
1.00 N
Ortho P
Cone. (mg/1 )
0.010
0.060
0.060
0.010
b. 11/21/74
Spike(mg/l)
Control
0.05 P
0.05 P + 1.0 N
1.00 N
Ortho P
Cone.(mg/1)
0.009
0.059
0.059
0.009
Maximum yield
(mg/1-dry wt.)
0.2
5.2
19.6
0.2
Maximum yield
(mg/1-dry wt.)
0.8
5.4
16.1
0.7
-------
11
2. Discussion -
The control yield of the assay alga, Selenastrum capri-
cornutum, indicates that the potential for primary productivity
was low in Indian Creek Reservoir during the spring sampling season
and moderate during the fall. The lake was phosphorus limited at
those times, as indicated by increased yields of the test alga in
response to additions of orthophosphorus. Spikes with phosphorus
and nitrogen simultaneously resulted in maximum yields. In both
assays, spikes with nitrogen alone did not produce any responses
beyond the control yields.
The N/P in the spring and summer lake data was 17/1 indicating
phosphorus limitation. The ratio for the fall data was 13/1 sug-
gesting that nitrogen and phosphorus were colimiting.
It should be noted that significant chemical changes took
place in Louisiana lake samples between collection and assay analy-
sis. 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.
-------
12
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), except
for the high runoff months of March and April (also February for
Station 2213A1) 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 the USGS computer program
for calculating stream loadings. Nutrient loads indicated for
tributaries are those measured minus known point source loads, if
any.
Nutrient loadings for unsampled "minor tributaries and im-
mediate drainage" ("II" of USGS) were estimated by using the mean
annual nutrient loads, in kg/km2/yr in Indian Creek A-l and multi-
plying the means by the II area in km2.
-------
13
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) -
A-2 Indian Creek 120 21.6
b. Minor tributaries and immediate
drainage (nonpoint load) - 275 49.6
c. Known municipal STP's - None
d. Septic tanks* - <5 <0.1
e. Known industrial - None
f. Direct precipitation** - 160 28.8
Total 555 100.0%
2. Outputs - A-l Indian Creek 1,085
3. Net Annual P export*** - 530
*Estimate based on 1 lakeside camp.
**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 Indian Creek 2,660 14.2
b. Minor tributaries and immediate
drainage (nonpoint load) - 6,190 33.0
c. Known municipal STP's - none
d. Septic tanks* - 70 0.4
e. Known industrial - none
f. Direct precipitation*** - 9,835 52.4
Total 18,755 100.0
2. Outputs - A-l Indian Creek . 18,030
3. Net Annual N Accumulation 725
D. Mean Annual Nonpoint Nutrient Export by Subdrainage Area:
Tributary kg P/km^/yr kg
Indian Creek 8 180
*Estimate based on 1 lakeside camp.
**Estimated (See NES Working Paper No. 175).
-------
15
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 remaing 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 Indian Creek Reservoir 0.06
Vollenweider's "eutrophic" loading 0.33
Vollenweider's "oligotrophic" loading 0.16
-------
16
V. LITERATURE REVIEWED
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1975. National Eutrophica-
tion 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.
-------
17
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 = acre/feet
Square kilometers x 0.3861 = square miles
Cubic meters/sec x 35.315 = cubic feet/sec
Centimeters x 0.3937 = inches
Kilograms x 2.205 = pounds
Kilograms/square kilometer x 5.711 = Ibs/square mile
-------
APPENDIX B
TRIBUTARY FLOW DATA
-------
LAKE CODE 2213
TRIBUTARY FLOW INFORMATION FOR LOUISIANA
INDIAN CREEK RES.
04/1 1/77
TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA OF LAKE(SO KM)
SUB-DRAINAGE
TRIBUTARY AREAISQ KM)
2213A1
2213A2
2213ZZ
58.3
NORMALIZED FLOwS(CMS)
A(SQ KM)
58.3
14.8
43.5
JAN
1.05
0.27
0.79
FEB
1.05
0.27
0.79
MAR
1.10
0.28
0.82
APR
0.99
0.25
0.74
MAY
0.71
0.18
0.54
JUN
0.62
0.16
0.45
JUL
0.51
0.13
0.37
AUG
0.48
0.12
0.37
SEP
0.59
0.15
0.45
GOT
0.54
O.lt
0.40
NOV
0.82
0.21
0.62
DEC
1.22
0.31
0.91
ML/-N
u . •: 1
O.'.O
TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA OF LAKE = 58.3
SUM OF SUB-DRAINAGE AREAS = 58.4
MEAN MONTHLY FLOWS AND DAILY FLOWS(CMS)
TRIBUTARY MONTH YEAR
2213A1
2213A2
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
0.680
0.538
0.510
0.510
0.425
0.850
1.359
1.019
0.680
1.019
0.934
2.718
0.176
0.142
0.130
0.133
0.110
0.212
0.340
0.255
0.170
0.255
0.227
0.680
8
6
10
7
3
9
8
11
8
8
4
3
8
6
10
7
3
9
8
11
8
8
4
3
FLOW DAY
0.566
0.566
0.453
0.425
0.425
0.425
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.340
0.425
8.297
0.144
0.142
0.116
0.110
0.110
0.119
0.113
0.680
0.144
0.147
0.139
2.124
28
22
19
28
22
19
SUMMARY
TOTAL FLOW IN
TOTAL FLOW OUT
9.72
9.68
FLOW DAY
FLOW
0.0
0.736
0.538
0.133
0.184
0.139
-------
APPENDIX C
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL DATA
-------
STORET RETRIEVAL DATE 7b/12/ll
NATL EUTROP-llCATIOM SURVEY
cPA-LAS VEGAS
321301
31 It *5.0 092 4b
INDIAN CREEK
22 LOUISIANA
b. 0
DATE
FROM
TO
74/03/22
74/05/30
74/11/12
OATE
FRO^
TO
74/03/22
74/Ob/30
74/11/12
TI1E
OF
DAY
14 20
14 20
14 20
09 30
09 30
09 30
12 00
12 00
12 00
TIME
OF
DAY
14 20
14 20
14 20
09 30
09 30
09 30
12 00
12 00
12 00
DEPTH
FEET
0000
0006
001^
0000
OOOb
0015
0000
OOOS
0015
DEPTH
FEET
0000
0006
0015
0000
0005
001=;
0000
0005
001S
00010
wATE*
TEMP
CENT
19.1
IB. 9
13.9
28.1
27.9
23.8
17.5
17.7
17.2
00665
PHOS-TOT
MG/L P
0.033
0.023
0.023
0.039
0.032
0.027
0.031
0.032
0.031
00300
UO
MG/L
6.6
6.H
6.4
0.4
6.6
6.6
6.2
32217
CHLRPHYL
A
UG/L
5.7
42.5
9.9
U0077
TriANSP
SECCril
INCHES
5
45
39
00031
INCOT LT
REMNlNG
PERCENT
OOOV4
CNDUCTVY
FIELD
MICPOMHO
34
37
38
49
74
29
36
31
HtPALtS
4
00400
Ph
SI;
6.90
6.4b
6.35
7.30
7.50
6.70
6.26
6.24
6.20
00410
T ALK
CACOJ
MG/L
10K
10K
10K
16
17
23
18
18
19
211
0021
00610
NH3-N
TOTAL
MG/L
0.060
0.070
0.060
0.100
0.040
0.040
0.120
0.110
0.110
1202
FEET l'fc>TH
00b*b
TOT KJEL
N
Mb/L
O.bOO
0.-4-00
0.400
1.200
0.600
O.SOO
0.600
O.SOO
O.bOO
U0b30
N02J.N03
N-TOTAL
MG/L
0.130
0.100
0.090
0.100
0.040
0.030
0.060
0.060
0.060
00671
PHOS-DIS
OKThO
Mtt/L P
0.017
0.010
0.007
0.011
0.004
0.003
O.OOb
0.014
0.016
K VALUE KNOWN TO BE LESS THAN
INDICATED
-------
ST04ET Rfc.TWIE.VAL DATE 7rS/12/ll
NATL F.UTROPHICATION SURVEY
EPA-LAS VEGAS
221302
31 16 45.0 Ova 45 45.0
INDIAN CHEEK
22 LOUISIANA
D&TE TIME DEPTH
FROM OF
TO DAY FEET
74/03/22 14 30 0000
14 30 0006
14 30 0014
74/05/30 09 45 0000
09 45 0005
09 45 0015
74/11/12 12 20 0000
12 20 OOOS
12 20 0011
DATE TIME DEPTH
FROM OF
TO DAY FEET
74/03/22 14 30 0000
14 30 OOOf-
14 30 0014
74/05/30 09 45.0000
09 45 0005
09 45 0015
74/11/12 12 20 0000
12 20 0005
12 20 0011
00010
TEMP
CENT
20.2
19.3
18.6
27.7
27.7
24.8
18.4
18.5
18.4
00665
OS-TOT
G/L P
0.025
0.023
0.022
0.021
0.021
0.037
0.035
0.036
0.037
00300 00077
DO THANbi11
StCCHI
MG/L INCHES
66
8.0
7.0
39
6.2
0.2
7.2 42
7.0
7.2
32217 00031
CHLRPHYL INCDT LT
A HEMNING
UG/L PEKCENT
9.3
30.5
12.5
00094
CNDUCTVY
FIELD
MICWOMHO
37
35
38
47
53
63
39
36
38
11EPALES
00400 00*10
PH f ALK
CAC03
SH Mft/L
6.45 10K
6.50 10K
6.2S 11
7.60 18
7.90 19
6.60 27
6.08 17
6.20 17
6.08 17
2111202
0019 FEET OEPTH
00610 00^&N03 PHOS-DIS
TOTAL
MG/L
0.050
0.050
0.060
0.040
0.040
0.050
0.100
0.100
0.090
N N-TOT4L UMTnO
Mfi/L
o.soo
o.»oo
0.400
0. /OO
O.bOO
0.600
O.HOO
0.600
O.h>00
Mfa/L
0.100
0.100
0.090
0.030
0.030
0.030
0.060
0.060
0.060
MG/L P
0.011
0.010
0.007
0.003
0.002
0.007
0.020
0.016
0.006
K VALUE KNOWN TO BE LESS THAN
INDICATED
-------
UAIt i'
NATL EUTKOPHICATIOM SURVEY
EPA-LAS VFGAS
221303
31 1<- 45.0 092 45 45.0
INDIAlM C*EEK
22 LOUISIANA
DATE
FPQ"
TO
74/03/22
74/05/30
74/11/12
TlMt DEPTH
OF
DAY FEET
14 40 0000
14 40 0006
14 40 0020
10 00 0000
10 00 0005
10 00 0017
12 45 0000
12 45 0005
12 45 0010
00010
wAT Eh1
TEMP
CENT
19.9
19.0
17.4
28.3
28.3
23.4
18.7
19.1
18.9
11EPALES ?H
00300
DO
MG/L
7.2
2.0
7.0
1.4
6.8
6.8
6.8
00077
THANSP
SECCHl
INCHES
60
54
25
000<.4
CNOUCTVY
FIELD
MICKOKHO
37
39
43
45
56
85
43
44
42
4
00400
HH
Sli
6.70
6.40
6.10
8.10
7.50
7.2U
6.31
6.10
6.01
00*10
T ALK
CAC03
MG/L
14
17
21
20
20
22
20
IV
18
0025
00610
NH3-N
TOTAL
MG/L
0.050
0.060
0.170
0.040
0.040
0.040
0.110
0.110
0.110
12(12
FEET DEPTH
00f^5
TOT KJtL
N
MG/L
0.500
0.400
0.500
0.700
0.600
0.600
0.70U
0.400
0.300
00630
NO'-?«.N03
N-fOTAL
MG/L
0.100
0.100
0.110
0.020
0.030
0.020
0.060
0.060
0.070
00671
PHOS-DIS
O«TMO
Mlj/L P
0.010
0.007
0.014
n.oos
0.004
0.003
0.015
0.015
0.01?
DATE
FROM
TO
74/03/22
74/05/30
74/11/12
TIME DEPTH
OF
DAY FEET
14 40 0000
14 40 0006
14 40 0020
10 00 0000
10 00 0005
10 00 0017
12 45 0000
12 45 0005
12 45 0010
00665
PHOS-TOT
MG/L P
0.023
0.020
0.033
0.033
0.030
0.026
0.037
0.036
0.035
32217
CHLRPHYL
A
UG/L
7.5
63.8
11.5
00031
INCDT LT
REMNING
PEKCENT
-------
APPENDIX D
TRIBUTARY AND WASTEWATER
TREATMENT PLANT DATA
-------
STOPET RETRIEVAL OATE 77/04/11
OATE
FROM OF
TO DAY
TIME OEPTn
FEET
74/06/08
74/07/06
74/08/10
74/09/07
74/10/03
74/11/09
75/03/08
75/03/22
75/04/04
75/04/19
75/05/03
14 00
OB 40
09 53
12 25
17 00
10 35
11 45
13 15
10 30
11 05
12 45
2213A1
31 07 25.0 092 27 30.0 4
INDIAN CREE*
2? 15 LECOMPTt
C/IMOIAN CrtEEK RESERVOIR l
SPILLWAY OF DAM .75 MI SE OF FOREST
11EPALES 0400100-*
0000 FEET DEPTH CLASS 00
0630
'&N03
OTAL
IG/L
C.012
0.044
C.012
0.040
0.064
0.056
0.112
0.122
0.005
0.015
0.020
00625
TOT KJEL
N
MG/L
0.700
0.600
0.500
0.700
0.400
0.600
1.200
0.650
0.450
0.800
0.575
00610
NH3-N
TOTAL
MG/L
0.010
0.025
0.010
0.030
0.097
0.055
0.024
0.014
0.005K
0.025
0.035
00671
PHOS-OIS
URTNO
MG/L C
0.015
0.005K
0.015
0.005K
0.005K
0.010
0.016
0.009
0.005
0.010
0.005K
00665
PhOS-TOT
Mti/L P
0.080
0.045
0.035
0.020
0.015
0.040
0.080
0.020
0.020
0.100
0.030
K VALUE K.NOWN TO BE
LESS THAN INDICATED
-------
STORET RETRIEVAL DATE 77/G4/H
/TYPA/AMBNT/5T»F.uM
DATE TIME DEPTH N02(.N03
FROM OF
TO DAY FEET
74/06/08
74/07/06
74/08/10
74/09/07
74/10/03
74/1 1/09
74/12/08
75/01/11
75/02/08
75/02/28
75/03/08
75/03/22
75/04/04
75/04/19
75/05/03
14
10
10
13
17
11
14
11
10
17
12
11
11
09
13
35
10
?0
30
30
10
00
45
40
35
40
00
30
30
30
2213A2
31 05 55.0 092 30 45.0 4
INDIAN CREEK
22 15 FO^tST nlLU
T/INDIAN Cr
-------
APPENDIX E
PARAMETRIC RANKINGS OF LAKES
SAMPLED BY NES IN 1974
STATE OF LOUISIANA
-------
LAKE DATA TO BE USED IN RANKINGS
LAKt
CODE LAKE NAME
2301 A\aCOCO LAKE
2203 BHUlN LAKE
2203 L4KE tUSTINEAij
2204 BLACK 6«Ynu
220S BoNOICK LAKE
2207 COCOD^IE LAKE
220* COTILE LAKE
2209 CONCORDIA LAKE
2210 C^OSS LAKE
2211 D'ARBONNE LAKE
2212 FALSE RIVER LAKE
2213 INDIAN CREEK
2214 SALINE LAKE
2215 TURKEY CREEK LAKE
221* LAKE VEkRET
2217 LAKE VEPNON
2219 SLACK LAKE
222') Cof.ODRIE
4807 CAOOO LAKE
•••£"1 AN
TOTAL ^
0.131
a. 157
f-.iM
(1.040
0. 1?7
0.190
n.137
0.07o
O.I'D 7
0.038
P. 1*2
0.031
0.111
0.1 7*
0.163
O.llft
0.077
0.1 06
0.149
»"£i>lAi«
INO^G N
G.flftfi
0.250
0.100
0.090
0.135
0.400
0.100
0.080
0.080
0.100
0.130
0.150
0.351
0.170
0.100
0.120
0.150
0.050
0.070
500-
MEAN SEC
455.833
4S0.333
»SH.,OOO
453.417
469. 6b7
479.000
442.333
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
CMLOKA
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
62.028
4.900
12.733
33.433
20.125
1S-
MIN DO
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
wEOIA'J
Oiss O»THO
0.007
0.012
0.01ft
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 LAKES «1TH HIGHFP VALUES (NUMRF« OF LAKES *ITh MGHF.P VALUES)
LAKE
CODE LAKE NAME
2201 ANACOCO LAKE.
2202 BP'lIN LAKE
2203 LAKE dIS
2204 BLACK BAYOU
2205 UUNDICK LAKE
2207 COCODFUE LAKE
2208 COTILE LAKE
2209 CONCORDIA LAKE
^210 CROSS LAKE
2211 D'APBONNE LAKE
2212 FALSE RIVER LAKE
2213 INDIAN CREEK
2214 SALINE LAKE
2215 TURKEY CQEEK LAKE
221b LAKE VErtRET
8217 LAKE VERNON
2219 BLACK LAKE
2220 COCODWIE
4R07 CADOO LAKE
TOTAL P
9?
61
50
72
11
28
83
44
56
78
33
92
17
0
6
100
39
22
67
( l*i)
( 11)
( 9)
( 13)
( 2)
( 5)
( 15)
( 8)
( 10)
( 14)
( 6)
( 16)
( 3)
( 0)
( 1)
( 1ft)
( 7)
( 4)
( 12)
MEDIAN
INORG N
83 (
ll (
58 (
7? (
33 (
0 (
58 (
83 (
83 (
58 (
39 (
28 (
6 (
17 (
58 (
44 (
22 (
100 (
94 (
14)
2)
9)
13)
6)
0)
9)
14)
14)
9)
7)
5)
1)
3)
9)
8)
4)
18)
17)
SOO-
MEAN SEC
f>7
83
61
78
33
11 i
94 I
39 I
28 I
56 I
89 I
bO I
0 1
22 1
6 (
100 (
72 (
17 (
44 1
( 12)
( 15)
( 11)
( 14)
( 6)
( 2)
1 17)
t 7)
! 5)
1 10)
1 16)
! 9)
I 0)
( 4)
! 1)
; 18)
: 13)
: 3)
8)
MEAN
CHLOWA
89 (
61 (
72 (
56 (
44 (
11 (
63 (
22 (
6 (
94 (
28 (
39 (
67 (
33 (
0 (
100 (
78 (
17 (
"JO (
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)
S)
12)
11)
16)
MEDIAN
DISS OPT"0 P
94
SO
33
81
0
17 I
61 1
81 1
69 (
56 1
26 I
69 (
22 (
11 (
6 (
100 (
39 (
44 (
89 (
< 17)
( *)
( *)
( 14)
( fl)
I 3)
t 11)
: 14)
: i?)
: in)
: si
: i?)
4)
?)
1)
18)
7)
«)
1M
------- |