U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
NATIONAL EUTROPHICATION SURVEY
WORKING PAPER SERIES
REPORT
ON
TURKEY CREK LAKE
FRANKLIN PARISH
LOUISIANA
EPA REGION VI
WORKING PAPER No,
CORVALLIS ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY - CORVALLIS, OREGON
and
ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING & SUPPORT LABORATORY - LAS VEGAS, NEVADA
699-440
-------
REPORT
ON
TURKEY CREK LAKE
FRANKLIN PARISH
LOUISIANA
EPA REGION VI
WORKING PAPER No, 543
WITH THE COOPERATION OF THE
LOUISIANA WILD LIFE AND FISHERIES COMMISSION
AND THE
LOUISIANA NATIONAL GUARD
MARCH, 1977
-------
REPORT ON TURKEY CREEK LAKE
FRANKLIN 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. 543
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 4
III. Lake Water Quality Summary 6
IV. Nutrient Loadings 11
V. Literature Reviewed 17
VI. Appendices
-------
FOREWORD
The National Eutrophication Survey was Initiated in 1972 in
response to an Administration commitment to investigate the nation-
wide threat of accelerated eutrophication to freshwater lakes and
reservoirs.
OBJECTIVES
The Survey was designed to develop, in conjunction with state
environmental agencies, information on nutrient sources, concen-
trations, and impact on selected freshwater lakes as a basis for
formulating comprehensive and coordinated national, regional, and
state management practices relating to point source discharge
reduction and nonpoint source pollution abatement in lake water-
sheds.
ANALYTIC APPROACH
The mathematical and statistical procedures selected for the
Survey's eutrophication analysis are based on related concepts
that:
a. A generalized representation or model relating
sources, concentrations, and impacts can be
constructed.
b. By applying measurements of relevant parameters
associated with lake degradation, the generalized
model can be transformed into an operational
representation of a lake, its drainage basin, and
related nutrients.
c. With such a transformation, an assessment of the
potential for eutrophication control can be made.
LAKE ANALYSIS
In this report, the first stage of evaluation of lake and
watershed data collected from the study lake and its drainage
basin is documented. The report is formatted to provide state
environmental agencies with specific information for basin
planning [§303(e)j, water quality criteria/standards review
L§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.
-------
m
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 Eutrophlcation 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 Dalgle, 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
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
-------
Tributary Sampling Site
X Lake Sampling Site
Sewage Treatment Facility
-------
REPORT ON TURKEY CREEK LAKE, LOUISIANA
STORET NO. 2215
I. CONCLUSIONS
A. Trophic Condition:*
Turkey Creek Lake is classified as eutrophic, i.e., nutri-
ent rich and highly productive, based upon Survey data. Whether
such nutrient enrichment is to be considered beneficial or dele-
terious is determined by its actual or potential impact upon
designated beneficial water uses of each lake.
Of the 19 Louisiana lakes sampled, no lakes had higher me-
dian total phosphorus values, 3 had higher median inorganic
nitrogen levels, and only 2 had higher median dissolved ortho-
phosphorus values than Turkey Creek Lake. The mean Secchi disc
visibility was 56 cm. Chlorophyll a_ values ranged from a low
of 4.0 yg/1 in the spring to a high of 55.4 yg/1 in the summer,
with a mean of 22.0 yg/1.
Survey limnologists observed floating algal mats and a
surface scum during the fall sampling. The Louisiana Wild Life
and Fisheries Commission (Louis Johnson, personal communication)
reports that algae blooms and die-off in the lake have caused
numerous fish kills in the past.
*See Appendix E .
-------
B,. Rate-Limiting Nutrient:
Algal assay results indicate that Turkey Creek Lake was limited
by available nitrogen. Spikes with nitrogen alone or phosphorus and
nitrogen simultaneously resulted in increases in assay yields. Addi-
tion of phosphorus alone did not stimulate a growth response. The
ratios of available nitrogen to orthophosphorus (N/P) in sampled
waters further suggest nitrogen limitation.
C. Nutrient Controllability:
1. Point sources -
Nutrient loading to Turkey Creek Lake was about five times
the eutrophic level proposed by Vollenweider (1975) for a lake
of such volume and detention time. The mean annual phosphorus
load from point sources was estimated to be 8.3% and was totally
contributed by the City of Winnsboro.
In general few lakes are nitrogen limited as a result of
low nitrogen. Rather excessive phosphorus levels shift limi-
tation to nitrogen or other factors. Regardless of the primary
nutrient limitation suggested by either algal assay or nutrient
ratios, the most feasible approach to nutrient control, if de-
sirable, is through available phosphorus control technology and
subsequent establishment of phosphorus limitation within the
water body.
2. Nonpoint sources -
The mean annual phosphorus load from nonpoint sources was
-------
91.7% of the total load. West Turkey Creek contributed 23.3%,
and Little Turkey Creek contributed 27.6% of the total. Ungaged
streams were estimated to have contributed 17.8%. Agricultural
runoff is an additional source of nonpoint nutrient loading,
although, no quantitative assessment of this loading to Turkey
Creek Lake can be made at this time (Louis Johnson, personal
communication).
The nonpoint phosphorus exports for Little Turkey Creek and
Unnamed Stream (Section IV-D) were respectively 169 and 175 kg
2
P/km /yr during the sampling year. These rates are much higher
than the export rates of the other Turkey Creek Lake tributaries.
Both tributaries flow through developed land between the towns of
Gilbert and Jigger, and are probably impacted by additional nutri-
ent sources not recognized at this time. Further sampling is
needed to determine an accurate nutrient budget for Turkey Creek
Lake.
-------
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 obtained by di-
viding the lake volume by the mean flow of the outlet. Precipi-
tation values are estimated by methods as outlined in National
Eu.trophi cation Survey (NES) Working Paper No. 175. A table of
metric/English conversions is included as Appendix A.
A.. Lake Morphometry:
1. Surface area: 12.54 km^.
2. Mean depth: 2.0 meters.
3. Maximum depth: 6.1 meters.
4. Volume: 25,287 x 10^ m3..
5. Mean hydraulic retention time: 57 days.
-------
B. Tributary and Outlet:
(See Appendix B for flow data)
1. Tributaries -
Drainage Mean flow
Name area(km?) (m3/sec)
A-2 Turkey Creek 160.6 1.82
B-l Grayson Bayou 23.8 0.10
C-l West Turkey Creek 92.7 1.04
D-l Little Turkey Creek 77.2 0.86
E-l Unnamed Stream 2.6 0.03
Minor tributaries and
immediate drainage - 91.6 1.17
Totals 448.5 5.02
2. Outlet - A-l Turkey Creek 461.0 5.17
C. Precipitation:
1. Year of sampling: 178.9 cm.
2. Mean annual: 131.9 cm.
-------
III. LAKE WATER QUALITY SUMMARY
Turkey Creek Lake 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 2.4 meters at Station 01 and 3.7 meters at
Station 02. For a more detailed explanation of NES methods, see
NES Working Paper No. 175.
The results obtained are presented in full in Appendix C and
are summarized in III-A for waters at the surface and at the maxi-
mum depth for each site. Results of the phytoplankton counts and
chlorophyll a_ determinations are included in III-B. Results of
the limiting nutrient study are presented in III-C.
-------
TU'-"tV CPtti-. LAKE
T CODE 221^
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS
( 5/30/74 )
( 11/11/74 )
0.-1.5 K- ijEPTn M.
MAX ij£PTH<»» 2
DISSOLVED (JJYOEN («G/L)
n.-l.S M OEPTH 2
MAX OEPTHOo '£
CONDUCTIVITY (Ijwn0<~)
0.-1.5 M DEPTH 4
MAX DEPTh»« 2
PH (STAhOAPO UNITS)
0.-1.5 M OEPTH 3
MAX DEPTH»» 2
TOTAL ALKALIMT/ MG/D
0.-1.5 " DEPTH 3
MAX iJEPTH»« 2
TOTAL P (MG/L)
O.-l.? M DEPTH 3
MAX DEPTH** 2
DISSOLVED OWTHO P (MG/L)
0.-1.5 M DEPTH 3
MAX DEPTtt»« 2
N02»N03 (^G/L)
O.-l.b M DEPTH 3
"AX DEPTH0* 2
AMMONIA (MG/L)
0.-l.c M DEPTH l
MAX 0£PTH«» 2
KJELOAHL N (MG/L)
0.-1.5 M PEPT-i 3
MAX OEPTH0* 2
1 7.0-
16.5-
6. 0-
6.0-
40.-
39.-
6.3-
6.2-
24.-
26.-
0.1S2-0
n. 1SO-0
0.077-0
O.OH5-0
0.100-0
0.100-0
0.070-0
O.OHO-0
0.500-0
0.500-0
17.4
16. V
h.6
6.0
42.
42.
6.3
6.3
26.
27.
.210
.195
.092
.06*
.120
.110
.100
.110
.500
.600
i". fc.0 I AN
17.2
16.7
6.3
6.0
41.
41.
6.3
6.2
26 .
27.
0.20t
0.192
0.090
0.086
0. lOu
0.105
0.070
U.095
0.500
0.550
"•AX
OE^Tn
0.0-
2.4-
0.9-
2.4-
0.0-
2.4-
0.0-
2.4-
0.0-
2.4-
0.0-
2.4-
0.0-
2.4-
0.0-
2.4-
0.0-
2.4-
0.0-
2.4-
1.5
3.7
1.5
3.7
1.5
3.7
1.5
3.7
1.5
3.7
1 .5
3.7
1.5
3.7
1 .^)
3.7
1.5
3.7
1.5
3.7
4
2
2
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
*
4
2
it
2
4
2
S4 °°
rANGE
24.4- 2*. 0
2<*.4- 2?. 3
'J.4-
0.4-
80.-
80.-
6.8-
6.8-
21.-
21.-
0. ItO-O
0.155-0
0.023-0
0.019-0
0.060-0
0.030-0
0.060-U
0.050-0
0.900-1
0.800-1
4.6
5.0
97.
63.
7.3
6.8
27.
27.
.30b
.306
.037
.037
.150
.130
.460
.460
.400
.200
MEDIAN
26.5
25.9
2.5
2.7
84.
82.
6.V
6.8
24.
24.
0.197
0.230
0.034
0.028
0.135
0.090
0.170
0.255
1.150
1 .000
MAX
rtANGE
(«ETEKS)
0.0- 1.5
1.5- 2.4
1.5-
1.5-
0.0-
1.5-
0.0-
1.5-
0.0-
1.5-
0.0-
1.5-
0.0-
1.5-
0.0-
1.5-
0.0-
1.5-
0.0-
1.5-
1.5
2.4
1.5
2.4
1 .5
2.4
1.5
2.4
1.5
2.4
1.5
2.4
1.5
2.4
1.5
2.4
1.5
2.4
N»
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
« 4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
'-
4
f
17.5- 17.8
17.3- 17.8
6.6- 9.0
to. 2- 9.0
150.- 167.
150.- 168.
6.7- 7.0
6.6- 7.0
33.- 36.
33.- 38.
0.110-0.137
0.122-0.137
0.010-0.033
0.010-0.013
0.0Lt(j AT EACH SITE
»»« .-5 = NO. OF Slltb SAVHLED UN Tnl=: DATE
-------
B. Biological Characteristics:
1
Sampling Dominant
Date Genera
03/19/74 i.
2.
3.
4.
5.
05/30/74 1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
11/11/74 1-
2.
3.
4.
5.
Flagellates
Melosira
Pennate diatom
Cryptomonas
Oscillatoria
Other genera
Total
Melosira
Dactyl ococcopsi s
Oscillatoria
Centric diatom
Cryptomonas
Other genera
Total
Flagellates
Melosira
Stephanodiscus
Cryptomonas
Trachelomonas
Other genera
Total
Algal
Units
per ml
1,843
778
115
86
86
377
3,285
797
644
613
552
430
2,296
5,332
738
683
547
465
465
1,717
4,615
2. Chlorophyll a_ -
Sampling
Date
03/19/74
05/30/74
11/11/74
Station
Number
01
02
01
02
01
02
Chlorophyll a
(yq/D
4.0
4.6
26.9
55.4
25.6
15.3
-------
C. Limiting Nutrient Study:
1. Autoclaved, filtered, and nutrient spiked -
a. 03/19/74
Spike(mg/1)
Control
0.05 P
0.05 P + 1.0 N
1.00 N
b. 11/11/74
Spike(mg/1)
Control
0.05 P
0.05 P + 1.0 N
1.00 N
Ortho P
Conc.(mq/l)
0.105
0.155
0.155
0.105
Inorganic N
Cone. (mg/1)
0.121
0.121
1.121
1.121
Maximum yield
(mg/l-dry wt. )
3.7
4.7
18.6
18.8
Ortho P
Cone.(mg/1)
0.021
0.071
0.071
0.021
Inorganic N
Cone.(mg/1)
0.040
0.040
1.040
1.040
Maximum yield
(mg/1-dry wt.)
1.9
1.7
18.1
6.1
2. Discussion -
The control yield of the assay alga, Selenastrum capri-
cornutum, indicates that the potential for primary productivity
was high on Turkey Creek Lake during the spring and fall sam-
plings. In both assays, additions of nitrogen or nitrogen and
phosphorus simultaneously resulted in increased yields, indi-
cating nitrogen limitation. Additions of phosphorus alone did
not result in significant increases in yield.
The N/P ratios in the field were 2/1 in the spring, 10/1 in
the summer, and 6/1 in the fall, also indicating the lake was
nitrogen limited at those times (a mean N/P ratio of 14/1 or
greater indicates phosphorus limitation).
-------
10
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
predictions of actual lake conditions. Such chemical changes are
likely to alter the control yield as well as modifying the N/P
ratio.
-------
11
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 Grayson Bayou and West
Turkey Creek at Stations B-l and C-l, and multiplying the means
p
by the ZZ area in km .
The operator of the Winnsboro wastewater treatment plant
provided monthly effluent samples. Nutrient loads for that plant
were calculated using an estimated (per capita) flow and the pro-
vided sample chemistries.
-------
12
A. Waste Sources:
1. Known municipal -
Population Mean Flow Receiving
Name Served* Treatment* (m3/d x 103) Water*
Winnsboro 5,610 Stabilization 2.123** Turkey Creek
pond Lake
2. Known industrial - None
*Treatment plant questionnaires.
**Estimated at 0.3785 m3/capita/day.
-------
13
C. Annual Total Nitrogen Loading - Average Year:
1. Inputs -
% of
Source kg N/yr total
a. Tributaries (nonpoint load) -
A-2 Turkey Creek 8,620 18.2
B-l Grayson Bayou 1,555 3.3
C-l West Turkey Creek 11,015 23.3
D-l Little Turkey Creek 13,015 27.6
E-l Unnamed Stream 455 1.0
b. Minor tributaries and immediate
drainage (nonpoint load) - 8,425 17.8
c. Known municipal STP's -
Winnsboro 3,915 8.3
d. Septic tanks* - 5 <0.1
e. Known industrial - None
f. Direct precipitation** - 220 0.5
Totals 47,225 100.0
2. Output - A-l Turkey Creek 29,890
3. Net annual P accumulation - 17,335
*Estimate based on 25 lakeside residences.
**Estimated (see NES Working Paper No. 175).
-------
14
B. Annual Total Phosphorus Loading - Average Year:
1. Inputs - •
* of
Source kg P/yr total
a. Tributaries (nonpoint load) -
A-2 Turkey Creek 62,045 25.0
B-l Grayson Bayou 6,820 2.7
C-l West Turkey Creek 52,240 21.1
D-l Little Turkey Creek 63,640 25.7
E-l Unnamed Stream 1,355 0.6
b. Minor tributaries and immediate
drainage (nonpoint load) - 39,020 15.7
c. Known municipal STP's -
Winnsboro 8,970 3.6
d. Septic tanks* - 265 0.1
e. Known industrial - None
f. Direct precipitation** - 13,540 5.5
. Totals 247,895 100.0
2. Output - A-l Turkey Creek 202,615
3. Net annual N accummulation - 45,280
*Estimate based on 25 lakeside residences.
**Estimated (see NES Working Paper No. 175).
-------
15
D. Mean Annual Nonpoint Nutrient Export by Subdrainage Area:
Tributary kg P/km2/yr kg N/km2/yr
Turkey Creek 54 386
Grayson Bayou 65 287
West Turkey Creek 119 564
Little Turkey Creek 169* 824
Unnamed Stream 175* 521
*The high background loading suggests contributions of unknown
point sources upstream.
-------
16
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 Turkey Creek Lake 3.77
Vollenweider's "eutrophic" loading 0.69
Vollenweider's "oligotrophic" loading 0.34
-------
17
V. LITERATURE REVIEWED
Johnson, Louis R. C. 1977. Personal Communication (Water Quality
in Turkey Creek Lake). Louisiana Wild Life and Fisheries Commission.
New Orleans, Louisiana.
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.
-------
18
VI. APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
CONVERSION FACTORS
-------
CONVERSION FACTORS
Hectares x 2.471 = acres
Kilometers x 0.6214 = miles
Meters x 3.281 = feet
-4
Cubic meters x 8.107 x 10 = acre/feet
Square kilometers x 0.3861 - square miles
Cubic 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
-------
TRIBUTARY FLO* INFORMATION FOR LOUISIANA
04/H/77
CODE 2215
TuSKEY CREEK
TOTAL iVPAINAGE A*EA OF LAKEfSQ KM)
SUB-DRAINAGE
FEB
461.0
MAP
APR
MAY
NORMALIZED FLOWS(CMS)
JUN JUL AUG
5E?
OCT
NOV
DEC
TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA OF LAKE = 461.0
SUM OF SUB-DRAINAGE AREAS = 461.0
MEAN MONTHLY FLOWS AND DAILY FLOWS
TRIBUTARY MONTH YEAR MEAN FLOW DAY
2215A1
FLOW DAY
2215A2
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
q
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
SUMMARY
TOTAL FLOW IN
TOTAL FLOw OUT
60.3b
62.33
FLOW DAY
FLOW
3.851
1.586
1.444
6.909
3.540
15.433
15.716
17.075
18.293
15.603
5.663
28.883
1.331
0.538
0.510
2.095
1.218
5.380
5.493
5.947
6.371
5.437
1.982
9.996
8
6
8
7
6
8
8
11
12
8
4
2
8
6
•9
7
6
8
8
11
12
8
4
2
10.477
1.501
1.586
1.841
1.982
9.628
15.857
24.098
8.580 22
10.930 21
4.984 18
25.768
3.653
0.765
0.595
0.651
0.651
2.265
8.212
8.382
2.973 22
3.794 21
1.727 18
8.976
7.079
20.162
6.739
2.464
7.023
2.350
MEAN
2215A1
2215A2
221581
2215C1
2215D1
2215E1
2215ZZ
461.0
160.6
23.8
92.7
77.2
2.6
104.1
8.98
3.11
0.173
1.81
1.50
0.051
2.04
9.06
3.26
0.176
1.81
1.50
0.051
2.04
6.89
3.11
0.173
1*78
1.47
0.051
2.01
8.41
3.00
0.164
1.70
1.42
0.048
1.90
8.66
3.03
0.167
1.73
1.44
0.048
1.95
3.82
1.33
0.074
0.76
0.62
0.020
0.85
1.67
0.59
0.031
0.34
0.28
0.008
0.37
1.10
0.40
0.023
0.22
0.18
0.006
0.25
1.33
0.45
0.025
0.27
0*22
0.008
0.31
1.30
0.45
0.025
0.26
0.22
o.ooa
0.28
3.54
1.25
0.068
0.71
O.S9
0.020
0.79
5.55
1.93
O.lOd
1.10
0.91
0.031
1.25
S.17
1.62
0.100
1.04
0.86
0.029
1.17
-------
FLO.*' INFORMATION FOR LOUISIANA
0'
-------
APPENDIX C
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL DATA
-------
STO^tT "ET^ItVflL L'iTt 75/12/11
NiATL EUTKQPrilCA TIO'1 SlHVtY
EPA-L4S VfGAS
221501
31 54 25. U CHI 45 55. n
TuHKtY OEE* LAKE
22 LOUISIANA
OATE
F-KOM
TO
74/03/19
74/05/30
74/H/ll
DATE
FRO"
TO
74/03/19
74/05/30
74/11/11
TI-.E OE = T-"
OF
HA' FEtT
(19 40 OOUO
09 40 000?
09 40 0008
14 35 0000
14 35 OOOS
'14 40 0000
14 40 0005
TIME OE'PTh
OF
DAY FEET
09 40 0000
09 40 OOOH
14 35 0000
14 35 0005
14 40 0000
14 40 OOU3
14 40 0005
i) 0 I) 1 0
*4TER
TEMP
CENT
17.0
17.0
16.5
25.2
24.4
17.8
1 7.8
00665
PhOS-TOT
MG/L P
0.210
0.195
0.218
0.306
0.118
0.137
•00300
00
MG/L
(3.0
6.U
0.4
9.0
9.0
32217
ChLHKHYL
A
UG/L
4.0
26.9
25.6
000/7
T*ANSP
SECCrll
INCHES
27
17
IB
00031
INCDT LT
RF«NlNG
PERCENT
1 .0
0 fid* ^
C'NUUC I'v r
FIELD
MIOOMHO
42
42
42
97
83
152
1 = 0
lltPfiLtS r-.
su
6.25
6.25
6.95
6.8U
7.03
7.03
0 0-10
T AL*.
CAC03
Mu/L
26
27
25
27
36
33
0012
UU611
NH3-N
TOTAL
MOi/L
0.100
0.110
0.200
0.460
0.030
0.0?0
FEET uE-
l'0r>«
TOT *JtL
N
Mfi/L
0.300
o.5!io
1 .*00
1.200
O.oOO
0.^00
I-1
00b'<0
N02&N03
N-TOTAL
MCi/L
0.120
0.110
0.120
0.150
0.020*
0.020*
00671
°MOS-L)IS
O^THO
MG/L P
0.077
0.085
0.036
0.037
0.010
0.010
K VALUE KNOWN TO BE LESS THAN
INDICATED
-------
?U*VEr
Jl 57 10.C 0 <« 1 4 (• 0 b.0
TURKEY C-f.N03 '
TOTAL N N-TOTiL
"^G/L
0.070
0.070
0.0(*0
U.140
0.060
0.050
0.100
0. 100
0.100
Mfi/L
0.300
O.-SOO
0.60H
1. 100
0.^00
0.^00
1 .UOO
O.dOO
0.400
^•6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
/L
.100
.1 00
.100
.150
.060
.030
.030
.020K
.040
n n f> 7 1
'MOS-OIS
OKl-lO
M«/L p
0.090
0.092
0.088
0.033
0.023
0.019
0.033
0.021
0.013
D0665 32217
DATE TIME DEPTH PHOS-TOT CHL^PHYL
FROM OF A
TO UAY FEET MG/L P UG/L
74/03/iv 10 00 OOUH 0.204 4.6
10 00 000-« u.192
10 00 0012 0.190
74/05/30 14 55 0000 0.176 55.4
14 55 0005 0.140
14 55 000« 0.155
74/11/H 14 10 0000 0.125 15.J
14 10 0002
14 10 0005 0.110
14 10 0004 0.123
0 0 0 J 1
IMCDT LT
RF.MNING
PERCENT
l.U
K VALUE KNOWN TO BE LESS THAN
INDICATED
-------
APPENDIX D
TRIBUTARY AND WASTEWATER
TREATMENT PLANT DATA
-------
STORET RETRIEVAL DATE 77/04/11
DATE TIME DEPTH N02&M03
FROM OF
TO DAY FEET
74/06/03
74/07/06
74/08/08
74/09/07
74/10/06
74/11/0*
74/12/08
75/01/11
75/02/12
75/02/22
75/03/08
75/03/21
75/04/04
75/04/18
75/05/0?
09 20
07 10
14 30
14 00
14 15
13 50
1". 00
15 10
15 05
14 ?5
14 00
15 15
14 30
14 00
is on
2215A1
31 54 20.0 091 45 50.0 4
TURKEY C^EEX
22 15 hARRISONBURG
0/TUKKEY CREEK LAKE 101791
8NK AT 0AM SPILLWAY
11EPALES 04001004
0000 FEET DEPTH CLASS 00
0630 00625
&M03 TOT KJEL
OTAL N
G/L MG/L
V
0
0
G
n
.032
.288
.008
.060
.200
.000
.000
1.400
.028 0.800
T.OIG o.aoo
0
0
0
0
c
0
0
0
0
.104
.072
.136
.112
.124
.009
.620
.080
1.200
1.000
,?00
.200
3.400
.000
.350
.650
.045 0.900
00610 00671 00665
NH3-N PriOS-DlS PhOS-TOT
TOTAL ORTHO
MG/L
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.095
.075
.020
.030
.020
.020
.070
.048
.056
.048
.080
.009
.250
.070
.050
MG/L P
0.
0.
0
0.
0.
u
0.
0.
0
0.
0
J.
0,
0
0
035
135
040
025
017
015
045
070
072
.104
096
060
0*8
100
090
MG/L
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
p
150
280
150
140
100
100
110
200
340
270
210
170
170
180
160
-------
l RETRIEVAL DATE 77/0^/11
/TY?A/A'-:6NT/STRrAM
2215A2
32 02 05.0 091 44 10.0 4
TURKEY CwEEK
22 15 ulNNSBCHO
T/TlKKEY C*££K LAKE
LA >-i»Y 12« 6*00 H.O MI E
11EPALES
0000 FEET DtPTn
101791
LA rtX-Y <* JCT
G4001004
CLASS 00
DATE
FROM
TO
74/06/Ot*
74/07/06
74/08/09
74/10/06
74/1 1/08
74/12/08
75/01/11
75/02/12
75/02/32
75/03/08
75/03/21
75/CA/04
75/04/18
75/05/02
00630 00625
TIME DEPTH N026.N03 TOT KJEL
OF N-TOTAL N
DAY FEET
10
07
15
15
14
14
15
15
14
14
15
15
14
15
15
49
10
10
?Q
30
41
40
58
37
53
14
4*
3?
MG/L
y
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
c
0
0
0
.04H
.032
.068
.?56
.024
.096
.168
.OOH
.096
.016
.042
.015
.005
.010
MG/L
1.
1.
1.
0.
0.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
0.
0.
1.
1.
3CO
000
200
700
700
250
300
000
700
500
900
600
750
550
OC610 00671 00665
NH3-N PriOS-OIS PHOS-TOT
TOTAL ORTHO
Mr,/L
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.210
.020
.077
.045
.030
.030
.072
.064
.104
.032
.010
.036
.035
.055
MG/L P
0
0
0
0
0
.)
0
C
0
0
0
0
0
0
.051
.045
.045
.055
.125
.160
.180
.128
.160
.160
.095
.114
.120
.115
MG/L P
0.290
0.115
0.150
0.130
0.210
0.325
0.420
0.250
0.290
0.280
0.210
0.150
0.250
0.210
-------
ST03ET RETHILVAL DATE 77/04/il
DATE TIME DEPTH NO?
-------
aTDRET *
OATf: 77/C4/11
DATE TI"E DEPTH N02S.N03
FROM OF
TO UAY FEET
74/06/08
74/07/06
74/08/09
74/09/07
74/10/06
74/11/08
74/12/08
75/01/11
75/02/12
75/02/22
75/03/08
75/C3/21
75/04/04
75/04/18
75/05/02
10 20
07 43
15 f>5
14 40
15 05
14 15
14 ?5
15 37
15 32
14 55
14 ?4
15 47
15 09
14 43
15 19
2215C1
32 02 15.0 091 45 15.0 4
*tST TURKEY C^EEK
22 15 FT NECESSITY
T/TU4KEY CK£EK LAKE 101791
LA H*Y 125 BROG 2.6 MI E Lfl «WY 4 JCT
11EPALES 04001004
0000 FEET OtPTi-i CLAiS 00
0630
S.N03
OTAL
0/L
0.360
0.012
0.016
0.076
0.032
0.104
0.1 60
0.056
0.056
0.040
0 . 1 44
0.060
0.065
0.055
0,270
00625
TOT KJEL
N
MG/L
2.900
1.050
0.800
0.909
0.400
.400
.400
.200
.700
.200
P.100
2.100
1.550
3.600
2.300
00610
NH3-N
TOTAL
MG/L
0.105
0.025
0.115
0.150
n.110
0.120
0.065
0.032
0.056
0.080
0.064
0.040
0.050
0.220
0.170
00671
PhOS-DIS
ORTHO
MG/L P
0.090
0.075
0.015
0.065
0.025
0.135
U.I 75
0.105
0.120
0.104
0.120
0.090
0.130
0.140
0.145
00665
PHOS-TOT
MG/L P
1.350
0.225
0.180
0.345
0.135
0.500
0.420
0.360
0.400
0.28C
0.400
0.300
0.37C
0.330
0.73C
-------
E-ETRIfvaL 04TF. 77/04/11
DATE TlMf DEPTH N02fcN03
FSOM OF
TO DAY FEET
74/06/08
74/07/06
74/08/09
74/09/07
74/10/06
74/11/08
74/12/08
75/01/11
75/02/12
75/02/22
75/03/08
75/03/21
75/04/04
75/04/18
75/05/02
10
07
15
14
15
14
14
15
15
15
14
16
15
15
45
55
20
58
20
?5
40
50
43
02
41
08
09
36
32 02 05.0 091 42 30.0 4
LITTLE TUKKEY
?2 13 wI
T/TJ~-*£Y CKEEK LAKE 101791
LA rUY 123 BMOG 5.5 MI E LA HWY
llErALES 0*001004
oooo FEET DEPTH CLASS oo
JCT
0630 00625
&N03 TOT KJEL
OTAL N
G/L MG/L
0.276 2.700
0.32(5 1.700
0.360 6.975
0.420 4.200
0.208
't.152
(
0.0 6<»
C.192
0.048
0.136
0.070
0.125
0.180
.300
.600
'*50C
.400
.200
.200
.800
.250
.400
.750
0.375 2.400
00610 00671 00665
NH3-N PhOS-OIS PHOS-TOT
TOTAL ORTHO
MG/L MG/L P MG/L »
0.175
0.183
4.20C
2.800
0.450
0.165
C..575
0.080
0.076
0.080
0.092
0.085
0.180
0*275
0.250
0*116
0.035
0.250
0.430
0.160
0.400
0.290
0.145
0.200
0.136
0.164
0.125
0.200
0.205
0.230
1*200
0.190
0.41C
0.630
0.345
0.630
0.600
0.390
0.390
0.260
0.380
0.270
0.300
0.420
0.78C
-------
STORET «ET»IEVAL DATE 77/04/11
221SE1
32 00 30.0 091 42 00.0 4
/TYPA/A'-'BNT/STRfAM
22 15
TXTURMiY C*EEK LAKE 101791
LA H*Y 876 b*DG 2 MI S LA HWY 128 JCT
11EPALES 040C10C4
0000 FEET OtPTn CLASS 00
DATE
FROM
TO
74/07/06
74/08/09
74/09/07
74/10/06
74/1 I/OR
74/12/08
75/01/11
75/02/12
75/02/22
75/03/08
75/03/21
75/04/04
75/04/18
75/05/02
TIME OEPT*
OF
DAY FEET
08
15
15
15
14
14
16
15
15
14
15
15
15
04
'30
08
45
35
55
05
47
14
47
17
?.S
43
OC630 00625
< N02&N03 TOT KJEL
N-TOTAL N
MG/L
0
0
0
0
p.
0
0
0
0
c
0
0
0
1
.044
.024
.036
.016
.016
.120
.048
.120
.120
.060
.045
.020
.060
.200
MG/L
1
1
1
0
0
1
1
1
2
.100
.700
.500
.800
.900
.700
.400
.400
.150
.500
.000
.150
.950
.700
00610 00671 00665
NH3-N PHOS-DIS PhOS-TOT
TOTAL ORTriO
MG/L
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.095
.140
.120
.035
.075
.075
.043
.128
.096
.072
.065
.145
.200
.330
MG/L
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
c.
0.
p
185
23C
110
210
410
570
145
264
216
228
210
480
300
270
MG/L P
0.360
O.b70
0.165
0.450
0.645
0.460
0.350
0.500
0.350
0.420
0.340
0.660
0.560
0.870
-------
STORET RETRIEVAL DATE 77/04/11
/AM8NT/STREAM
DATE TIME DEPTH N02iN03
FROM OF
TO DAY FEET
74/07/29 09 00
74/08/29 11 00
74/09/30 09 00
74/10/31 10 00
75/01/14 13 30
75/02/24 14 30
75/04/02 14 00
75/05/13
00
221521 PD221521 P006000
32 09 30.0 091 42 40.0 4
WINNSBORO
22 15 WINNSBORO
D/TURKEY GREEK LAKE 101791
TURKEY CREEK LAKE
11EPALES 0000100"*
0000 FEET DEPTH CLASS 00
75/07/02 10 30
0630
&N03
OTAL
G/L
0.360
0.040
0.640
0.080
1.600
0.800
C.240
0.050
0.800
00625
TOT KJEL
N
MG/L
12.000
13.000
8.800
9.500
8.200
7.600
9.600
3.800
27.000
00610
NH3-N
TOTAL
MG/L
0.055
0.056
0.530
0.085
0.050K
0.560
0.500
0.130
0.260
00671
PHOS-DIS
ORTHO
MG/L P
3.400
5.265
5.600
3.500
4.100
4.200
4.200
4.100
00665
PHOS-TOT
MG/L P
3.750
5.500
5.900
6.400
4.500
4.700
5.000
4.200
5.500
50051 50053
FLOW CONDUIT
RATE FLOw-MGD
INST MOD MONTHLY
K VALUE KNOWN TO BE
LESS THAN INDICATED
-------
APPENDIX E
PARAMETRIC RANKINGS OF LAKES
SAMPLED BY NES IN 1974
STATE OF LOUISIANA
-------
LAKE DATA TO HE USED IN RANKINGS
LAKE
CODE LAKE NAME
2201 ANACOCO
2202 BPL'IN
2203 LAKE BISTINE4U
2204 BLACK BAYOU
2205 SUNDICK L«KE
2207 COCOOrtlE LAKE
2208 COTILE LAKE
2209 CONCORDIA LAKE
2210 CROSS LAKE
2211 0'ARBONNE LAKE
2212 FALSE RIVER LAKE
2213 INDIAN CREEK
2214 SALINt LAKE
2215 TURKEY CREEK LAKE
2216 LAKE VERRET
2217 LAKE VERNON
2219 BLACK LAKE
2220 COCOOPIE
4807 CAOOO LAKE
MEDIAN
TOTAL P
0.031
0.057
O.nbl
0.046
n.ib7
0.090
0.037
0.076
O.n57
0.038
0.0b2
0.031
0.111
0.176
0.163
0.013
0.077
0.106
O.n49
MEDIAN
INOftG N
O.OwO
0.250
0.100
0.090
0.135
0.400
0.100
0.090
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
4?5ifl33
450.333
456.000
453.417
469.667
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
CHLOnft
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
15-
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
MEDIAN
OISS 04THO P
0.007
0.01?
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
o.ooe
-------
PERCENT OP LAKES WITH HIGHER VALUES
LAKE
CODE LAKE NAME
22'H ANACOCO LAKE
2202 BSdlN LAKE
2203 LAKE BISTINEAU
2204 BLACK 8AYOU
2205 SUNDICK LAKE
2207 COCODRIE LAKE
2206 COTILE LAKE
2209 CONCOROIA 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
221^ BLACK LAKE
222n COCOORIE
4807 CADDO LAKE
:* OF LI
"ETIAN
TOTAL V
92
f 1
50
72
11
28
83
44
S*
78
33
92
17
0
6
100
39
22
67
< 16)
< ID
( 9)
( 13)
( 2)
( B)
( 15)
( 8)
( 10)
{ 14)
( 6)
( 16)
( 3)
( 0)
( 1)
( 18)
( 7)
( 4)
( 12)
IKE^ WITH HI!
MEDIAN
INOPG N'
83
11
54
72
33
0
58
83
83
58
39
28
6
17
58
44
22
100
94
( 14)
( 2)
( 9)
« 13)
( 6)
( U)
( 9)
( 14)
( 14)
( 9)
( 7)
( 5)
( 1)
( 3)
( 9)
( B)
f 4)
( 18)
( 17)
SHE* VALUES)
500-
M F. & M SEC
67 (
S3 (
bl (
78 (
33 (
11 (
94 (
39 (
28 (
56 (
89 (
50 (
0 (
22 (
6 (
100 (
72 (
17 (
44 (
12)
15)
11)
14)
6)
2)
17)
7)
5)
10)
16)
9)
0)
4)
1)
18)
13)
3)
H)
MEAN
CMLOWA
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)
t 17)
< 5)
( 7)
( 12)
( 6)
( 0)
( 18)
( 14)
( 3)
( 9)
15-
MIN 00
83
0
42
50
78
100
33
U
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
DISS ORTWQ P
94
50
33
bl
0
17
61
81
69
56
28
69
22
11
6
100
39
44
89
( 17)
( 9)
( 6)
( 14)
( 0)
( 3)
( 11)
( 14)
< 12)
( 10)
( 5)
( 12)
( 4)
( 2)
( 1)
( 18)
( 7)
( 1)
( 16)
------- |