U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
NATIONAL EUTROPHICATION SURVEY
WORKING PAPER SERIES
AN EVALUATION OF THE
NATIONAL EUTROPHICATION SURVEY
DATA
WORKING PAPER No, 900
CORVALLIS ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY - CORVALLIS, OREGON
and
ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING & SUPPORT LABORATORY - LAS VEGAS, NEVADA
-------
AN EVALUATION OF THE
NATIONAL EUTROPHICATION SURVEY
DATA
WORKING PAPER No, 900
-------
An Evaluation of the
NATIONAL EUTROPHICATION SURVEY DATA
Working Paper No. 900
by
M. 0. All urn
R. E. Glessner
J. H. Gakstatter
Special Studies Branch
Assessment and Criteria Development Division
Corvallis Environmental Research Laboratory
Corvallis, Oregon 97330
National Eutrophication Survey
Office of Research and Development
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
June 1977
-------
CONTENTS
Page
CONCLUSIONS 1
INTRODUCTION 3
METHODS AND OPERATIONS OF THE SURVEY 5
DATA COMPARISONS 11
In-Lake (Reservoir) Data 11
Trophic Condition 30
Assessment 30
Trophic Index 32
Limiting Nutrient 33
Algal Assays 33
N/P Ratios 34
Tributary Nutrient Levels 35
Tributary Nutrient Loads 60
Wastewater Treatment Plant Effluent
Nutrient Loads 70
LITERATURE CITED 71
APPENDIX 77
-------
I. CONCLUSIONS
Because of the nation-wide scope of the National Eutrophication Survey
and the time frame of less than four years for the completion of the samp-
ling of 812 lakes and reservoirs, 4,000+ tributary sites, and over 800
municipal wastewater treatment plants, the Survey sampling program neces-
sarily deviated from what ordinarily would be considered an ideal experi-
mental design. As the Survey progressed, and to the degree permitted by
the day-to-day work load, limited comparisons of Survey results with
results published by others on the same water bodies were made. More
recently, in response to the concerns of the Ecology Advisory Committee
of the Environmental Protection Agency's Science Advisory Board as to the
credibility of the Survey data, a concerted effort has been made to test
the validity of the data.
As a result of this effort, it is concluded that the reliability of
the Survey data is better than would have been expected and that data
sound enough to fulfill certain of the legislative mandates of Public
Law 92-500 can be obtained with much less intensive and costly studies
than previously thought necessary.
Specifically, it is concluded that:
1. The Survey water-body data compare very well with the reported
data reviewed, considering the expected variability in such data.
2. The trophic condition of most lakes and reservoirs can be
adequately assessed on the basis of three periods of open-water
sampling.
3. Whether nitrogen, phosphorus, or some other element is
limiting primary productivity in a water body can be inferred
from algal assay results and nitrogen to phosphorus ratios.
4. Considering temporal and spatial variability in nutrient
concentrations, the Survey tributary nutrient data compare very
well with the data reported by others.
5. For the purposes of the Survey, tributary nutrient loads
were determined with acceptable accuracy with a sampling
frequency of 14 times per year and flow data provided by the
U.S. Geological Survey.
-------
6. The Survey tributary total phosphorus loads and the
in-water-body total phosphorus concentrations are highly
correlated.
'7. The effluent' total phosphorus loads measured at 801
municipal wastewater treatment plants are in good agreement
with expected values.
-------
II. INTRODUCTION
Largely as a result of the considerable-controversy over the removal
of phosphates in detergents, late in 1971, William D. Ruckleshaus, then
the Administrator, committed the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
to a nationwide assessment of the impact of phosphorus in .municipal waste
treatment plant discharges on freshwater lakes and'reservoirs. For this
purpose, the Office of Research and Development initiated the National
Eutrophication Survey (NES) in early 1972 with the objectives of (1) iden-
tifying those lakes and reservoirs .in the contiguous United States that
receive nutrients from the discharges of municipal waste treatment facili-
ties, (2) determining the effect of .those po.int-source nutrient inputs on
the nutrient levels and primary productivity of the water bodies, and (3)
on the basis of that information, advising the Construction Grants Program
of tyie then Office of Air and Water Programs on the cost-effective allo-
cation of Federal funds for the construction of tertiary waste treatment
facilities for phosphorus removal. Following the passage of amendments
to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act in October, 1.972 (Public Law
92-500), the NES objectives were broadened to include an assessment of
the relationships of non-point sources (e.g., land use) to lake nutrient
levels and also to assist in establishing water-quality criteria for
nutrients.
In August, 1975, members of the Ecology Advisory Committee of EPA's
Science Advisory Board visited the Corvallis Environmental Research
Laboratory (CERL) to evaluate the ecological research programs of the
Laboratory, including the National Eutrophication Survey - although as
the name /indicates, the NES was not conceived or conducted as a research
program.
After a review of the Survey by several members of the Committee, an
advisory statement was submitted to the Office of Research and Development,
EPA, Washington, DC. The full text of the statement is appended; the
specific recommendations were:
"In order to strengthen the credibility of the study, the Committee
recommends that:
0 The National Lake Survey data .should be compared with existing
data on the many well-studied lakes of similar type.
0 The comparisons of the results should be discussed in personal
conference with limnologists who have collected and assessed
data on the same or similar lakes and impoundments covered by
the National Lake Survey.
0 The National Lake Survey estimation techniques should be applied
to data already available on additional well-studied lakes and
impoundments and those results should be compared. This will
enable one to test the degree of error one may expect to find
and thus provide an evaluation of the reliability of the Survey
itself.
-------
0 Only after such'comparison should further efforts at extrapolation
and generalization through the computer be carried out."
Subsequently, a report on the Committee's assessment of the ecological
research programs-, dated July 26, 1976, was submitted to EPA. The portion
of the report relating to the NES follows:
"4. AQUATIC STUDIES
a. Lake Eutrophication Survey
—••^~—~ t '
The Lake Eutrophication Survey involved characterization
of 800 lakes- and reservoirs by means of a helicopter and
taking very few samples at each lake or reservoir. Some
parts of the Survey (National Lake Survey) were very
poorly designed, and .it is questionable that the Survey
will yield reliable results. A program designed to yield
the maximum amount of information about a series of lakes
from a few samples should have begun by a detailed
analysis of lakes already intensively studied. By
pretending to sample these lakes at infrequent intervals
it would have been possible to determine (a) the best
times to take samples, and (b) the extent of information
loss resulting from the low level of sampling effort.
From this information the potential value of the Survey
could have been estimated and decisions made about the
kinds of data most worth gathering. Failure to do this
means that the characterization of the lakes is subject
to biases that are unknown and cannot be reliably
estimated. There is no way to judge the quality of the
samples or their analyses, but the Committee can say
positively that the lakes selected for sampling are not
representative. One way to make this program more
credible would be for individuals studying these various
lakes to consult with scientists who have previous data
on the same lakes to correlate their findings. The
Committee was concerned that there would be a
considerable effort to generalize from this Survey and
that its admonitions to consult with limnologists to
compare old and new data on the same lake would not be
taken very seriously unless the Committee's objections
were recognized at the Laboratory Director level or
above. The Committee agreed that EPA should be very
cautious about publication of results of this study. As
an outcome of the Committee's concern, ECOLOGY ADVISORY
STATEMENT — THE NATIONAL LAKE SURVEY, October 23, 1975,
(APPENDIX F) was forwarded to the attention of the
Assistant Administrator for Research and Development.
-------
Members of the Committee discussed the possibility of
EPA's initiating a periodic study on lakes in the context
of their watersheds or drainage areas. Several lake-
watershed areas could be selected in various parts of the
country with different geologic substrates and developed
into experimental basins. Testing of hypotheses by
experimentation'is clearly the best and most efficient
way to develop sound management.plans. As it stands,
EPA's approach appears to be entirely piecemeal, or to
try something and see what-happens,,,instead of designing
studies to test previously developed hypotheses."
It is the purpose of this report to respond to the recommendations
of the Committee. This has proven to be a somewhat difficult and at times
frustrating undertaking primarily because the number of usable lake data
pairs is quite limited, and the suggested comparison of data on water
bodies of "similar type" would not be expected to yield meaningful results;
e.g., the chain of Wisconsin lakes known as the Madison Lakes are well-
studied and are of similar type as to origin, latitude-longitude, and
drainage basin; but each is distinctive, and the quality or character-
istics of one cannot readily be inferred from the data available on one or
more of the others. Also, budgetary constraints have not permitted the
recommended "...personal conference with limnologists who have collected
and assessed data on the same or similar lakes and impoundments...";
however, we have had correspondence and telephone conversations with a
number of such individuals, particularly in the preliminary-report
phase of the NESi
While comparable lake data are sparse, even fewer comparable data
are available on measured tributary nutrient loads and point-source/
non-point-source contributions to those loads. In only one of the reports
reviewed was the method of calculation of loads given, and in others the
nutrient loads reported are estimates based on factors such as land
use (categorized or generalized), animal densities, population densities
(usually the latest Census at the time the report was written), etc.,
but often different assumptions'were used as to the relative nutrient
flux attributable to each of the factors since "...considerable variation
exists in the quantities of nutrients that are exported from 'similar'
areas devoted to the same use" (Uttormark et al., 1974; pg. 100).
-------
III. METHODS AND OPERATION OF THE SURVEY
Freshwater lakes and impoundments in the Survey were selected through
consultation with EPA Regional Offices and state pollution control agencies,
as well as related state agencies managing fisheries, water resources, or
public health. EPA established selection criteria to limit the type and
number of candidate water bodies,, consistent with existing Agency water
goals and strategies. For 27 states of the eastern United States where
lakes were selected prior to passage of PL 92-500, strongest emphasis
was placed on lakes faced with actual or potential accelerated eutro-
phication problems; e.g., an increased rate of algal and/or
aquatic plant production. As a result, most of the selected lakes:
1. were impacted by one or more municipal sewage treatment
plants, either directly or by discharge to an inlet tribu-
tary within approximately 40 kilometers of the lake;
2. were 40.5 hectares or larger in area; and
3. had mean hydraulic retention times of at least 30 days.
However, these criteria were waived for a number of lakes of particular
interest to the states.
In the western states, these criteria were modified to reflect
revised water-research mandates, as well as to address more prevelant
non-point source problems in agricultural or undeveloped areas. Thus
each state was requested to submit a list of candidate lakes for the
Survey that:
1. were representative of the full range of water quality (from
oligotrophic to eutrophic);
2. were in the recreational, water supply, and/or fish and wildlife
propagation use-categories; and
3. were representative of the full scope of nutrient pollution prob-
lems or sources (from municipal wastes and/or nutrient-rich indus-
trial discharges, as well as from non-point sources).
The size and retention time constraints applied in the eastern states
were retained as was the waiver provision.
In all cases, listings of potential candidate lakes or reservoirs,
prepared with the cooperation of the EPA Regional Offices, were made
available to the states to initiate the selection process.
In total, the Survey included 812 lakes and reservoirs across the
contiguous 48 United States. The map on the following page shows the
distribution of the lakes and reservoirs by state and the year during
which the water bodies were sampled.
-------
NATIONAL EUTROPHICATION SURVEY
NUMBER OF LAKES & YEAR SAMPLED
1975-152
1973-250
GRAND TOTAL- 812
-------
8
Several kinds of information are required for management
decisions regarding the need for point or non-point source control of
phosphorus and perhaps other nutrients as well. The Survey purpose was
to collect the type of data which would provide a basis for such decisions
or at least to provide a data base which could be supplemented with more
detail, if required. First, an annual nutrient budget was estimated
for each water body, differentiating between inputs from point and non-
point sources; second, the existing trophic condition of the water body
was evaluated by sampling; and third, an algal assay was performed to
determine whether phosphorus, nitrogen, or some other element was limiting
primary productivity of the water body. The methods used to gather this
information are described below. . •
The operations aspects of the Survey were shared by branches of two
EPA laboratories and a small Washington, DC headquarters staff. The
Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory at Las Vegas, Nevada
(EMSL-Las Vegas) was responsible for sampling each lake, doing the assoc-
iated analyses, evaluating a portion of the data, and reporting results.
The Corvallis Environmental Research Laboratory (CERL) at Corvallis,
Oregon was responsible for coordinating the sampling of streams and
sewage treatment plants, analyzing the samples, and performing the algal
assay on lake samples. CERL also had the major responsibility for eval-
uating the lake, stream, and point-source data and incorporating these
data into a report on each lake.
The headquarters staff made the initial contact with each state
water pollution control agency to explain the function of the Survey
and to cooperatively determine which lakes and reservoirs would be
included. They also contacted each State National Guard to explain the
function of the Survey and to request their assistance in meeting Survey
objectives by collecting monthly samples from selected tributaries to
surveyed lakes. In addition, the headquarters staff provided general
coordination and guidance to the operational aspects of the program.
Because the Survey had to cover a large geographical area in a rela-
tively short period of time, pontoon-equipped UH-1H Bell helicopters with
automated and manually-operated instruments were used to measure the water
quality of each lake. Two helicopters - carrying a limnologist and a
technician - were .operated simultaneously, and a third helicopter was used
for ferrying parts, equipment, and people. The sampling teams from the
EMSL-Las Vegas were supported by a mobile analytical laboratory, chemistry
technicians, electronics specialists, and other staff involved with heli-
copter maintenance or program coordination.
Operating procedures involved establishing a work center at an air-
port and then sampling all lakes within a 100-mile radius. When all of
the water bodies within the area were sampled, the support staff moved
to a new central location, and sampling began on a different set of lakes.
In this manner, from 150 to 250 lakes were sampled three or more times each
year, and the sampling was completed on the 812 lakes in a four-year
period.
-------
Listed -in -the following table are the routine water-quality para-
meters which were selected to characterize each lake and assess the
trophic condition." Parameter selection was based on the relevance of
each parameter as a measure of potential and existing primary production.
Both the number and the kinds of parameters measured also were limited
to a certain extent by the operational aspects of the Survey. -
WATER QUALITY CHARACTERISTICS MEASURED
Physical-Chemical
Alkalinity Nitrogen:
Conductivity Ammonia
pH Kj el da hi
Dissolved oxygen Nitrate-nitrite
Phosphorus: Secchi depth
Ortho Temperature
Total
Biological
Algal assay Algal count and
identification
Chlorophyll a_
Concurrently with the lake sampling* the significant tributaries and
outlet(s) of each lake were sampled monthly, totaling about 4,200 sampling
sites nationwide. Volunteer National Guardsmen of each state, trained
on-site by EPA or state agency staff, collected and preserved the samples
at sites pre-selected by EPA personnel. The samples were shipped to CERL
for analysis of the various forms of nitrogen and phosphorus noted in
the above table.
Through an interagency agreement, the U.S. Geological Survey estimated
flows for each sampled stream. These data were used in conjunction with
concentration values to determine nutrient loadings.
A voluntary sampling program was established through the respective
state water pollution control agencies to have plant operators collect
effluent samples from 1,000 or so municipal sewage treatment plants
which impacted Survey lakes. The effluent samples were collected monthly,
preserved, and shipped to the Corvallis laboratory for nitrogen and
phosphorus analyses.
-------
10
Specific procedures used in collecting, preserving, shipping, and
analyzing the various kinds of samples collected by the Survey are
described in National Eutrophication Survey Working Papers (U.S.EPA,
1974-1; 1975-175).
Presently, the sampling phase of the Survey has been completed, tribu-
tary sampling ended in November, 1975, the last treatment plant effluent
samples were received in January, 1976, and laboratory analyses were
finished in February, 1976. The individual lake reports are scheduled
for completion by October, 1977.
-------
n
IV. DATA COMPARISONS
In our effort to relate the Survey findings to information acquired
by others, it soon became apparent that a lack of uniformity in data
collection and reporting imposes a constraint on comparisons with other
data that are available on the water bodies, streams, and point sources
sampled by the NES. To be truly comparable, samples should be collected
at .the same time and place, analyzed by the same methods, etc., unless
one is to ignore the expected withinVlake, within-stream, within-year, and
between-year differences in water quality. Furthermore, even with the most
uniform procedures, "... two samples are always different, for the chance
of two samples, even though drawn from exactly the same population, being
identical in character is practically nil" (Simpson et al., 1960; pg. 172).
Indeed, the need for statistical comparisons of data rests on this assump-
tion.
A. In-Lake (Reservoir) Data -
Before comparing the NES lake and reservoir data, we deemed
it instructive to examine the variability in lake sampl.ing data.
For this purpose, we analyzed data collected and reported in vary-
ing ways on seven lakes, most of which differ in geographic, geo-
logic, and morphometric characteristics. The lakes are Geneva,
Wisconsin; Minnetonka, Minnesota; four Finger Lakes, New York;
and West Okoboji, Iowa. The morphology of these lakes is shown
in the following table.
Area
Lake (km2)
Geneva 21 . 30
Minnetonka 58.56
Conesus 12.89
Hemlock 8.37*
Owasco 27.45
Skanea teles 35.22*
W. Okoboji 15.40
Mean Maximum Est. Mean Retention
Depth (m) Depth (m) Time (yrs)
18.6
6.9
9 (est)
14 -(est)
29.3
43.5
11.9
41.1
27.8
18.9
53.9
40.8
24
15
24
63
26
121
20
Some examples of seasonal, between-year, within-year, within-
lake, and between-lake differences in data are given in the next
five tables where n = number of samples, r = range of values,
x = the mean, x = the mean of means, s = standard deviation, and
V = Pearson's coefficient of variation in percent (Simpson et al.,
1960).
Seasonal differences are shown in the following analyses of data
resulting from 8 1/2 years of quarterly near-surface sampling at
the same site on Lake Geneva by the Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources (Mason, 1976). The period of record is July, 1968, through
November, 1976.
* Greeson and Robison, 1970
-------
12
Lake Geneva, Wisconsin
Sampling
Period
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
All data
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall'
All data
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
All data
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
All data
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
All data
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
All data
.Soluble Reactive Phosphorus (yg/1 )
5
7
9
8
29
6
7
8
8
29
6
8
5
7
26
7
8
9
8
32
7
8
9
7
31
8
8
9
9
34
0-23 9.4
0-T9' 10.9
5-17 11.7
7-43 17.1
0-43 12.6
Total Phosphorus (yg/1)
10-40 25.0
10-40 25.7
20-40 25.0
20-70 40.0
10-70 29.3
.Inorganic Nitrogen (yg/1 )
40-410 203.3
100-420 165.0
40-320 162.0
100-190 148.6
40-420 168.8
Total Nitrogen (yg/1)
440-1,070 625.7
420-930 661.2
360-1,100 653.3
430-820 630.0
360-1,100 643.4
Total Alkalinity (mg/1)
157-192 179.4
179-188 183.1
162-185 173.0
172-186 179.3
157-192 178.5
Secchi Disc Transparency (m)
3.2-6.1 4.25
2.7-4.3 3.41
2.4-5.5 3.34
3.0-4.6 3.82
2.4-6.1 3.70
8.7
7.3
5.0
12.0
8.6
10.5
9.8
7.6
17.7
13.3
151.2
127.4
106.4
36.3
108.0
225.7
170.6
251.9
156.7
233.2
13.1
2.9
6.4
5.7
8.3
-
1.13
0.59
0.95
0.52
0.87
93
67
43
70
68
42
38
30
44
45
74
77
66
24
64
36
26
39
25
36
7
2
4
3
5
27
17
28
14
24
-------
13
•Between-year differences are evident in the following
analyses of data resulting from nearly three years of near-
surface sampling at three- to four-week intervals at the same
station on Lake West Okoboji, Iowa (Bachmann and Jones, 1974).
The period of record is from 03/10/71 through 09/15/73.
Sampling
Period
Lake West Okoboji, Iowa; Station 49
1971 14 0-30 16.4 12.2 74
1972 13 10-40 23.1 11.8 52
1973 18 0-30, 14.4 7.8 54
All data 45 0-40 17.6 10.9 62
1971 3 20-70 50.0 26.5 53
1972 13 20-60 ,43.8 15.6 36
1973 18 10-40 27.2 7.5 28
All data 34 10-70 35.6 15.6 44
iluble Reactive Phosphorus (yg/1)
14 0-30
13 10-40
18 0-30,
45 0-40
Total Phosphorus
3 20-70
1 3 20-60
18 10-40
34 10-70
Inorganic Nitrogen
1 2 0-640
13 110-330
18 20-390
43 0-640
16.4
23.1
14.4
17.6
(yg/1)
50.0
,43.8
27.2
35.6
(yg/1)
223.3
201.5
138.9
181.4
12.2
11.8
7.8
10.9
26.5
15.6
7.5
15.6
219.5
65.3
97.1
138.0
Conductivity (ymhos)
14 326-466
13 391-454
18 375-476
45 326-476
437.6
424.2
437.6
443.7
42.9
17.6
29.8
31.8
Secchi Disc Transparency (m)
10 2.3-4.5
13 2.6-10.3
18 2.8-11.7
41 2.3-11.7
2.95
5.01
5.72
4.82
0.69
2.44
2.79
2.54
1971 12 0-640 223.3 219.5 98
1972 13 110-330 201.5 65.3 32
1973 18 20-390 138.9 97.1 70
All data 43 0-640 181.4 138.0 76
1971 14 326-466 437.6 42.9 10
1972 13 391-454 424.2 17.6 4
1973 18 375-476 437.6 29.8 7
All data 45 326-476 443.7 31.8 7
1971 10 2.3-4.5 2.95 0.69 23
1972 13 2.6-10.3 5.01 2.44 49
1973 18 2.8-11.7 5.72 2.79 49
All data 41 2.3-11.7 4.82 2.54 53
-------
14
Within-lake, within-year, and between year differences are
shown in the following table'. The data resulted from about two
years of near-surface sampling at two sites on Lake West Okoboji
(Bachmann and Jones, 1974). .The samples were collected at compar-
able times (within three days; usually less) during the period of
03/10/71 through 10/13/72.
Lake West Okoboji, Iowa; Stations 49 and 50
Period and
Station
1971-49
-50
1972-49
-50
All data-49
-50
1971-49
-50
1972-49
-50
All data-49
-50
1971-49
-50
1972-49
-50
All data-49
-50
1971-49
-50
1972-49
-50
All data-49
-50
Soluble Reactive Phosphorus (
13
13
10
10
23
23
0-30
0-30
10-40
0-40
0-40
0-40
15.4
13.8
20.0
16.0
27.8
14.8
Total Phosphorus (ug/1)
2
2
10
10
12
12
20-70
30-30
20-60 -
20-70
20-70
20-70
_
-
44.0
36.0
44.2
35.0
Inorganic Nitrogen (yg/1)
11
11
10
10
21
21
13
13
10
10
23
23
0-640
0-550
110-260
30-360
0-640
0-550
Conductivity
326-466
427-476
406-454
410-471
326-466
410-476
•216.4
182.7
177.0
167.0
197.6
175.2
(jimhos)
438.9
445.9
427.8
428.1
434.1
438.2
14.8
9.6
11.5
12.6
21.0
10.8
16.5
17.1
18.3
15.7
228.8
214.5
49.0
103.9
166.3
167.1
35.4
15.1
15.
17.
28.
,7
.6
.6
96
70
58
79
76
73
18.2
38
48
41
45
106
117
28
62
84
95
8
3
4
4
7
4
(Continued)
-------
15
West.Lake Okoboji, Iowa; Stations 49 and 50
4
Period and _
Station' n "r • x s V(%)
Secchi Disc Transparency (m)
1971-49 9 2.3-4.5 2.87 0.67 23
-50 9 1.6-4.0 2.41 0.71 29
1972-49 10 2.6-7.3 4.40 1.70 39
-50 10 2.3-6.0 3.87 1.32' 34
'All data^49 19 2.3-7.3' 3.67 1.50 41
- -50 19 1.6-6.0 3.18 1.29 41
Another example of within-lake and wi thin-year differences is
given in the next table which is based on the data resulting from
near-surface sampling on the same days at three sites on lower
Lake Minnetonka (Megard, 1970). The sites were Megard's Gale
Island (GI), Browns Bay (BB), and Wayzata Bay (WB) sampling
stations, and the sampling period-was from April, through October
1969.
Lake Minnetonka, Minnesota
Station _n_ _r_ _x^_ _s_ V(%)
Soluble Reactive Phosphorus (ug/1)
GI 6 7-10 8.2 1.2 15
BB 6 6-45 16.3 15.8 97
WB 6 3-8 6.3 2.0 32
Total Phosphorus (yg/1)
GI 7 36-66 49.9 11.9 24
BB 7 39-80 54.9 17.4 32
WB 7 35-72 47.6 13.5 28
Inorganic Nitrogen (ug/1)
GI 7 86-651 294.6 200.2 68
BB 6 178-857 390.7 245.9 63
WB 7 85-1,147 341.3 367.4 108
Chlorophyll (yg/1)
GI 6 14-40 24.7 9.4 38
BB 7 8-43 20.9 12.6 60
WB 7 8-38 20.6 11.9 58
-------
16
Finally, between-lake differences are evident in the data on
four of the Finger Lakes of New York reported by Oglesby (1972).
The Finger Lakes are of similar type (type 30b; Hutchinson, 1957,
pg. 86) and, chemically, "....the two westernmost lakes, Conesus
and Hemlock, are similar to one another as are the three more
eastern ones, Cayuga, Owasco and Skaneateles..." (Oglesby, op.
cit., pg. 5). The analyses shown are based on the means of
epilimnetic values for all sampling stations at each of the lakes
from 07/06/71 through 11/03/71; i.e., the analyses are on popu-
lations of means. Had the raw values been used, the variation
almost certainly would have been greater than shown (e.g., using
the Lake Geneva seasonal means of soluble reactive phosphorus
instead of the raw values would have resulted in V = 28 for
"all data" rather than V'= 68 as shown above).
Lake
Conesus
Hemlock
Owasco
Skaneateles
Conesus
Hemlock
Owasco
Skaneateles
Conesus
Hemlock
Owasco
Skaneateles
Finger Lakes, New York
n r x
Soluble Reactive Phosphorus (yg/1)
8
9
10
6
9
9
9
6
8
7
10
4
2.8-40.8
0.6-49.3
4.1-27.0
0.4-16.7
21.4
12.3
12.2
7.7
Nitrate-N (yg/1)
2-28
0-97
71-281
86-230
11.8
25.2
171.8
125.2
Chlorophyll a (yg/1)
2.08-21.78
2.6-18.3
2.26-9.53
1.38-3.55
6.75
6.6
5.10
2.34
12.8
15.6
7.8
6.1
9.4
34.8
64.7
55.1
6.55
5.3
2.72
1.04
60
127
64
79
80
138
38
44
97
80
53
44
The clear message of the above analyses is that variability
in lake data is to be expected, particularly in nitrogen and
phosphorus data. Note that the more-conservative parameters,
alkalinity and conductivity, show much less variation.
-------
17
To minimize the expected variation and permit valid
comparisons, only data obtained by others on the same water
bodies sampled by the NES and, to the degree possible,' at the
same or similar sampling sites, depths, dates, and years have
.been used to test the validity of the NES data.
First, prior to the Ecology Advisory'Committee visit to CERL,
Mason (1976).made a comparison of the NES data and Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources data on "six well-known and well-
sampled Wisconsin lakes" .(Mason, op. .cit.) ranging in quality
from'oligbtrophic Crystal Lake to hypereutrophic Lake Delevan.
Although Mason's comparison included data from other depths,
for brevity only 'the .mean near-surface values are shown below; the
numbers of samples"are in parentheses.
Agency- Year
Secchi
(m)
Disc
Total
Alkalinity
(raq/1)
Conductivity
N02
+ N03" -
(viq/1)
N
NH N
(uq/l)
Total
Phosphorus
(ug/1)
DNR-1S56
-1371-73
NES-1972
DNR-1965
-1971-73
NES-1972
DfJR-1966
-1971-73
NES-1372
DNR-1366
-1971-73
NES-1972
DNR-1966
-1971-73
NES-1972
DNR-1966
-1971-73
NES-1972
5.5 (7)
7.3 (19)
6.4 (3)
7.9 (3)
7.9 (6
7.9 (3
1.5 (9)
3.4 (11)
1.5 (3)
4.6 (9)
3.7 (19)
3.4 (3)
4.0 (7)
4.6 (10)
*.6 (3)
0.7 (7)
1.2 (17)
0.7 (3)
176 (13)
170 (3)
4 (6)
<10 (3)
177 (19)
163 (3)
178 (18)
176 (3)
42 (10)
39 (3)
146 (17)
135 (3)
Big Green*
421 (16)
. 377 (3)
Crystal*
17 (6)
50 (3)
Delevan*
17
<50
48* (16)
438 (3)
Geneva*
396 (17)
375 (3)
Trout*
100 (8)
94 (3)
Winnebago*
335 (14)
301 (3)
200 (10)
?0 (12)
80 (3)
70 (11)
30 (6)
30 (3)
240 (11)
200 (17)
no (3)
200 (10)
60 (17)
40 (3)
90 (10)
80 (10)
30 (3)
270 (10)
290 (18)
130 (3)
50 (10
<30 (18
30 (3)
50 (11)
100 (6)
40 (3)
230 (11)
250 (19)
310 (3)
50 (10)
60 (19)
30 (3)
40 (10)
<30 (10)
40 (3)
90 (10)
HO (18)
110 (3)
40 (17)
50 (10)
30 (3)
30
20
11)
6}
3)
170 (11)
140 (19)
120 (3)
40 (10)
40 (19)
13 (3)
50 (10)
20 (10)
10 (3)
130 (10)
150 (18)
100 (3)
"•Respectively, Working Papers Mo. 39, 66, 36, 61, 71, and 57
-------
18
In his independent assessment, Mason concluded that "the
most significant point is that when you consider the surveys
were carried out independently and by different methods -
different people, different sampling' techniques, and, most
importantly, different laboratories - the data... compare
remarkably well. There are some minor differences, of course,
but...EPA should be able to classify the lakes they have sampled
fairly accurately even with their limited amount of data".
Another comparison of NES data and the Wisconsin Department
of Natural Resources (DNR) data provided by Mason is tabulated
belowl The results are from sampling Big Green Lake in 1972 at
the same site and on dates and at depths as comparable as is
possible.
Agency-
Date
DNR-04/27
NES-06/22
CNK
NES
DNR-07/18
NES- 08/21
DNR
NES
D:T.
NCS
DNR
NES'
or;;-.- 11/21
NES- 11/08
DNR
NES
ONR
NES
DNR
NES
Deptn
(in)
near-sjrface
near-surface
21.3
18.9
near-surface
nea. "-surface
21.2
2
-------
19
The results'of th£ statistical analyses of these data are
shown below where n, x, s, and V are as previously defined, C
is Spearman's coefficient'of rank correlation, and t = Student's
two-tailed t-test for the difference between paired samples
(Simpson et al., 1960). Note, however, that pH values are
logarithms of the reciprocal of the normality of free hydrogen
ions (Welch, 1952); and, except for C, statistical analyses of
the pH units per se are incorrect mathematically (Barth, 1975).
Therefore, the pH units were converted to the respective hydrogen
ion concentrations in moles/1, and the statistical analyses were
made using those numbers. The means and the standard deviation
were then converted back to pH units (note that -s does not equal
+s because the values shown are logarithms; in terms of concen-
trations *[moles/1],'the NES x'is 1.2751 x 10"e, and s is ±1.0166 x
10"8; the DNR x is 7.5628 x 10"9, and s is ±3.7890 x 10 9). Since
the t and V values are ratios, they have not been converted to
logarithms.
Agency
DNR
NES'
10
10
Total
82.0
72.4
Phosphorus
78.4
68.8
96 n Q?
95 U-y^
1.090
Inorganic Nitrogen
DNR
NES
10
10
278.3
289.0
133.7
159.0
48
55
0.81
0.386
_pH
DNR
NES
10
10
8.12
7.89
-0.18, +0.30
-0.25, +0.70
50
80
0.71
0.676
Total Alkalinity
DNR
NES.
10
10
179.6
177.3
4.9
5.5
3
3
0.91
1.746
Conductivity
DNR
NES
10
10
341.6
388.5
43.3
35.5
13
7
0.32
3.046
Seechi Disc
DNR
NES
3
3
6.90
6.43
0.96
1.04
14
16
0.50
1.204
Except for conductivity, the t-tests indicate none of the
differences between means are significant at the 5% probability
level, and the coefficients of rank correlation indicate the DNR
and NES data compare quite well (the relatively low C value for
Secchi disc probably results from differences in sampling times
of as much as two months).
-------
20
The null hypothesis of no difference between the conductivity
means is rejected at the 5% probability .level. The reason for the
difference in the conductivity measurements is not known but could
have been the .result of differing temperature compensation/cor-
rection. It will be noted the NES values were higher than DNR's
in eight of.the ten pairs.
'Below, 1972 NES total phosphorus data (in yg/1) are compared
to unpublished EPA Shagawa Lake Project data from two1sampling
sites at similar but not identical depths on similar but not the
same .sampling days. NES stations 1 and 2 correspond to Project
stations B and E, respectively, and the depths sampled range from
near-surface to a maximum of 12.1 meters (usually to about 9 meters).
The statistical symbols shown have been defined previously.
x=
s=
V=
x=
s=
V=
Station & Date
x=
s=
V=
B
07/05
24
30
59
174
287
114.8
113.7
99
B
09/05
102
97
93
83
93
93.6
7.0
7
B
10/16
68
86
53
59
55
64.2
13.5
21
#1
07/08
- 33
29
38
164
381
129.0
151.8
118
#1
09/07
64
66
87,
87
102
81.2
16.0
.20
#1
10/22
35
50
40
41
38
40.8
5.6
14
B
07/11
24
25
49
271
425
158.8
181.4
'114
B
09/12
89
90
84
87
81
86.2
3.7
4
B
10/24
47
74
49
48
51
53.8
11.4
21
Station & Date
E
07/05
30
31
42
78
587
153.6
•243.1
158
E
09/05
78
81
76
89
330
130.8
111.5
85
E
10/17
50
61
56
53
53
54.6
4.2
8
#2
07/08
34
34
192
214
390
172.8
148.1
86
#2
09/07
65
61
60
69
303
111.6
107.1
96
#2
10/22
40
47
48
37
37
41.8
5.4
13
E
07/11
32
28
39
143
737
195.8
306.3
156
E
09/12
90
96
87
80
145
99.6
26.0
26
E
10/24
52
83
55
53
51
58.8
13.6
23
-------
21
The above comparisons show good agreement between the NES
data and the Project data for both stations and sampling days in
July and for both sampling days at Project station E in September.
However, an inverse relationship is apparent in the September NES
station 1 and Project station B data; and in Octpber, NES values
are lower than Project values at both stations-ahd sampling days.
The distribution-free Kruskal-Wallis H test (Downie and Heath,
1970) was used to test whether the three sets,of samples were from
the same or different populations. ' The results indicate a signifi-
cant difference at the 5% level at both Project stations in October
but not at either station in July or September. Student's t-tests
were then computed to determine the. significance of differences in
means, and the null hypotheses of no difference are rejected at
the 5% level for the means of NES station 1 October data and
Project station B October 16 data as well as the means of NES
station 2 October data and Project station E October 17 and
24 data.
Coefficients of rank correlation show good agreement between
NES and Project data in July, fairly good agreement between
NES station 2 and Project station E data in September and October,
and also the inverse relationship noted above between NES station
1 and Project station B data in September (negative C values).
Overall, the coefficients indicate the correlation between NES
data sets and Project data sets is about as good as the correla-
tion between comparable Project data sets.
The results of the statistical analyses are tabulated on the
next page.
-------
22
Stations and Dates
H
B-7/5; #1-7/8;- B-7/11
B-7/5; B-7/11
B-7/5;- #1-7/8
.B-7/11; #1-7/8
0.015
1.00
. 0.90
0.90
0.460
0.167.
0.282
E-7/5; #2-7/8; E-7/11
E-7/5; E-7/11
E-7/5; #2-7/8
E-7/11; #2-7/8
0.560
- " 0.90
0.98
0.98
0.241
0.151
0.151
B-9/5; #1-9/7; B-9/12
B-9/5; B-9/12
B-9/5; #1-9/7
B-9/12; #1-9/7
3.185
0.58
-.0.68
-0.82
2.093
1.586
0.680
E-9/5; #2-9/7; E-9/12
E-9/5; E-9/12
E-9/5; #2-9/7
E-9/12; #2-9/7
4.160
0.40
0.90
0.30
0.609
0.278
0.244
B-10/16; #1-10/22; B-10/24
B-10/16; B-10/24
B-10/16; #1-10/22
B-10/24; #1-10/22
9.400
. 0.10
0.30
0.55
1.256
3.582
2.287
E-10/17; #2-10/22; E-10/24
E-10/17; E-10/24
E-10/17; #2-10/22
E-10/24; #2-10/22
9.380
0.82
0.60
0.72
0.660
4.220
2.599
While the cause(s) of the partial differences between NES
and Project data cannot be identified with certainty, there
are at least two possibilities: (1) sampling methods and (2)
sample analyses.
Project samples were collected by means of Van Dorn samplers
ranging in size from 4-liter capacity (45 by 10 cm) to 8-liter
capacity (78 by 13 cm). Typically, the midpoint of the sampler
was positioned as nearly at the desired depth as wind and wave
would permit, and a vertical column of water of from nearly 1/2
meter to 3/4 meter in height (depending on the size of the
sampler used) was removed as the sample. Survey sampling, on
the other hand, was by means of a submersible pump with the
intake positioned at the selected depth (again varying somewhat
depending on wave conditions). While there is no way of knowing
what distances radially from the pump intake water was drawn,
the maximum rate of the pump used in 1972 was only about 7 liters
per minute, and it seems likely that the Survey samples were from
more-limited strata than the Project samples. Also, as noted
previously, NES and Project samples were not from exactly the
-------
23
same depths; there were differences as great as 0.8 meters, and
Project data show as much as 485 yg/1 change in total phosphorus
with an increase of 1.5-meters in depth (9 to 10.5-meters at
station B on 09/05/72).
While sampling methods may have resulted in some differences,
the consistently lower NES concentrations in October probably
were due in some part to differences in analyses since Shagawa
Lake was homothermous and relatively well-mixed at that time.
In early 1973, sets of analytical quality control replicate
samples were prepared at CERL and were sent to EMSL-LV and the
Project laboratory at Ely for analyses of nitrogen and phosphorus
species. The results of this round-robin testing for total phos-
phorus are shown in the following table.
Total Phosphate Phosphorus
(mg/1)
Sample # Corvallis Ely Las Vegas
1
2
3
4'
5
x=
s=
0.145
0.15
0.16
0.15
0.16
0.153
0.007
0.194
0.176
0.183
0.187
6.19 (u)*
0.185
0..008
0.169
0.156
0.163
0.153
0.163
0.161
0.006
* Unreliable; not used in calculations
It will be noted that the mean of the Ely values for this
series is 15% higher than the mean of the Las Vegas (EMSL) .
values. From this it cannot be said the analyses of one labora-
tory are better than those of the other, since the true value
of total phosphorus in the sample from which the aliquots were
drawn (a composite of tributary samples) is not known. However,
if similar differences occurred in the analyses of the October
Shagawa Lake samples, that would account for a major portion
of the apparent differences between NES and Project data.
In the interests of brevity and conservation of typing
effort, generally in succeeding comparisons only the pertinent
data will be given. Statistical analyses will be shown only
where necessary for a better understanding of the significance
of differences between NES data and data collected by others.
-------
24
At Big Spirit Lake, Iowa, Bachmann and Jones (1974) collected
only near-surface samples on September 15, 1973 at three stations
corresponding to NES stations sampled on September 23, 1974:
Agency &
Station
B&J-54.4
NES-1 .
B&J-54.0
NES-2
B&J-54. 1
NES-3
Sol. Reactive
P (ug/1)
10
6
10
13
0
7
Total P
(ug/1)
40
38
40
58
30
40
Dissolved
Oxygen (mg/1 )
9.5
9.0
9.1
9.2
9.3
9.4
Secchi disc
(m)
1.2
1.4
1.4
1.1
1.4
1.2
On the same date (09/15/73), they collected samples to 35
meters in depth at one station on Lake West Okoboji corresponding
to a NES station sampled to 39 meters in depth on 09/23/74. In
the following table, only data from comparable depths are shown.
Agency
B&J
NES
B&J
NES
B&J
NES
Depth Sol
P
near-
surface
mid-
depth
near-
bottom
. Reactive
(ug/1 )
10
24
10
26
245
146
Total P
(ug/D
30
46
33
54
250
270
Dissolved
Oxygen (mg/1
7.2
8.0
6.9
7.9
1.2
2.6
Secchi disc
) (m)
2
2
•
•
—
—
8
6
Total phosphorus data obtained by Megard (1970) at eight
stations on Lake Minnetonka in June, September, and October,
1969 were compared to NES data obtained at the same stations
in June, September, and October, 1972. The means of all of
the water column values at .similar depths were calculated.
The mean of Megard's data is 58.9 ug/1, and the mean of NES
data is 53.1 ug/1. The null hypothesis of no difference
between the means is accepted at the 60% probability level
(t=0.507; degrees of freedom [d.f.]=44).
Nutrient data for a number of TVA reservoirs reported by
Brye (1970) were obtained in various years ranging from 1963-64
(Guntersville Reservoir, AL) to 1968-69 (Nottely Reservoir, GA);
the NES data were obtained in 1973. The data compared are the
means of all water column values for corresponding TVA and NES
sampling stations and depths, except for Douglas and Nottely
reservoirs (means of epilimnetic.values). Overall, the data
are quite comparable, particularly when the differences in
sampling times are considered.
-------
25
Reservoir
Douglas, TN
Nottely, GA
Guntersville, AL
Wilson, AL
P-ickwic'k, AL
Kentucky,
KY, TN, & MS
Agency &
Station
TVA-54.0
NES-2
TVA-43. 0
NES-3
TVA-33.0
NES-6
TVA-21 . 1
NES-1
TVA-27.5
NES-3
TVA-358.0
NES-2
TVA-369.7
NES-4
TVA-385.9
NES-8
TVA-259.7
NES-1
TVA-265.0
NES-2
TVA-273.5
NES-3
TVA-207.6
NESrl -
TVA-220.0
NES-3
TVA-245.0
NES-6
TV A- 23.0
NES-1
TVA-42.0
NES-3
TVA-66.0
NES-6
TVA-91.0
NES-10
TVA-112.0
NES-17
Total P
(us/l)
39
27;
25
22.
24
20
17
14
16
17
47
47
49
43
46
47
46
46
67
42
- 41
63
77
57
101
59
78
57
70
78
74
85
90
76
139
62
79
56
Total N
(ug/l)
680
594
700
625
640
681
390
397
340
. 341
240
786
220
844
. 290
826
670
625
902
624
620
647
710
734
•890
674
840
750
870
738
910
640
920
780
770
778
530
682
Limited water quality data obtained at Lake Norman, NC,
by the Duke Power Company (DPC) were provided by Bowling (1976).
The Company data are from 08/27/73 and 09/24/73 sampling at three
stations corresponding to three NES stations that were sampled on
07/17/73 and 09/19/73. The values shown are means of values at
comparable sampling depths.
-------
26
Agency &
Station
DPC-1
NES-1
DPC-11
NES-3
DPC-1 3
NES-4
Depth
near-
surface
mid-
depth
near-
bottom
near-
surface
mid-
depth
near-
bottom
near-
surface
mid-
depth
near-
bottom
Sol .Reactive
P (ug/1)
7
8
5
4
7
3
5
6
5
3
5
4
5
5
6
6
5"
5
Total P
(ug/1)
16
13
18
8
25
12
12
12
14
10
56
12
14
15
15
15
37
21
Alkalinity
(ug/l)
14
20
20
19
21
22
19
17
19
20
18
18
13
17
22
18
18
18
The above data compare very well except for the DPC near-
bottom total phosphorus values which were consistently higher
than NES values.
Water quality data for Lake Wylie, NC, were reported by
Gerhold (1975). His data obtained in April and July, 1974, are
compared to NES data obtained at the same station (NES-4) in
April and July,.1973.
Data
Source
6-04/74
NES-04/73
G-07/74
NES-07/73
Sol. Reactive
P (ug/1)
3
6
4
3
Total P
(ug/1)
42 .
45
31
20
Total N
(ug/1)
483
490
469
480
Alkalinity
(mg/1)
9
11
11
18
Ceilings (1973) reported U.S. Geological Survey water quality
data for a number of lakes in the State of Washington, including
American Lake which was sampled by the NES in 1975. The U.S.G.S.
data were obtained in 1969 and 1970 at "north end" and "south end"
of the lake stations that are assumed to correspond to NES stations
3 and 1, respectively. The data compared are from as similar
depths as possible in October, 1970, and October, 1975.
-------
27
Data Depth
Source (m)
C-North 0.9
NES-3 1.5
C-North 13.4
NES-3 15.2
C-North 26.5
NES-3 23.5
C-South 0.9
NES-1 1.5
C-South 13.4
NES-1 7.3
Sol .Reactive
P (ug/1)
6
2
6
76
160
167
6
31
6
27
Total P
(ug/1)
13
21
10
100
200
306
6
70
10
86
Total N
(ug/1)
180
220
130
620
1800
2120
300
320
. 180
520
Alkalinity
(mg/1)
41
41
42
45
42
45
41
43
43
42
Except for alkalinity and the nutrient values for the deepest
samples at NES station 3, the above data do not compare too well.
The general lack of agreement is not surprising in view of the
uncertainty as to the location of the U.S.G.S. sampling stations
and the lapse of five-years between the two sampling efforts.
Recently, Welch (1977) reported the effects of nutrient
diversion on Lake Sammamish, Washington. Some of the 1975
water quality data resulting from that study were provided by
Welch (personal communication) and are compared to 1975 NES
data from the same sampling station at times and depths as
similar as possible:.
Source &
Date
W-03/27
NES-03/31
W
NES
W
NES
W
NES
W
NES
W
NES
Depth'
(m)
near-
surface
1.0
1.5
5.0
6.1
10.0
12.2
20.0
18.2
25.0
24.4
Sol . Reacti ve
P (pg/1) -
2
2
2
3
2
3
2
4
2
4
Total P
(yg/1)
16
25
16
21
15
39
' 16
29
14
35
90
Diss. Oxygen
(mg/1 )
12.8
13.2
12.9
13.0
12.9
13.0
12.8
12.6
12.6
12.6
12.6
12.4
Secchi
Disc (m)
2.5
2.6
(Continued)
-------
28
Source &
Date
Depth Sol. Reactive Total P
(m) P (ug/1) (iig/1)
Diss. Oxygen
(mg/1 )
Secchi
Disc (m)
W-07/31
NES-07/17
W
NES
W
NES
W
NES
W
NES
W
NES
near-
surface
1.0
1.5
5.0
4.6
10.0
9.1
15.0
15.2
20.0
21.3
5
5
5
5
8
11
1
12
2
12
4
17
12
13
16
11
14
13
7
12
14
12
17
18
11.6
- 10.6
11.4
10.8
11.5
10.6
10.9
10.8
7.0
8.2
3.8
2.4
3.0
3.7
W-ll/11
NES-10/28
W
NES
W
NES
W
NES
W
NES
near-
surface
1.0
1.5
5.0
5.5
15.0
16.8
20.0-
22.9
5
5
4
4
5
9
4
7
4
3
18
17
18
. 15
17
19
22
22
22
'15
10.3
9.0
10.6
9.2
10.7
7.8
10.6
10.6
6.8
2.5
3.7
Except for March total phosphorus and July soluble reactive
phosphorus, the data compare very well. The NES March total P
values are consistently "greater than Welch's values, and the null
hypothesis of no difference between•the means is rejected at the
5% probability level (t = 4.382 with 8 d. f.). However, Lake
Sammamish was homothermpus and welUmixed at that time (note the
uniform dissolved oxygen values), and changes in non-conservative
parameters would not be unexpected. For ".example, the null hypoth-
esis of no difference between the means of total P values obtained
by Welch on March 11 and 27 at identical depths is also rejected
at the 5£ probability level (t = 4.999 with 16 d. f.).
The reason for the difference in July soluble reactive P is
not known, but it will be noted that the differences occurred at
the 10, 15, and 20 meter depths where NES data indicate all of the
phosphorus was soluble (i.e., SP = TP)i Also, at two greater
depths not sampled by NES (25 and 27 meters), Welch's SP values
increased to 12 yg/1, but his TP values increased proportionately
as well.
-------
29
Finally, limited data for Oregon's ultra-oligotrophic Waldo
Lake (Malueg et al., 1972) and meso-eutrophic Diamond Lake are
shown below. The NES 1975 data are compared to unpublished 1975
data obtained in a continuing program of monitoring the two lakes
by the Marine and Freshwater Ecology Branch of CERL. Sampling
times and depths are as similar as possible; however, at both
lakes, the NES sampling station was at least 0.8 km removed from
the comparable CERL station.
The Waldo Lake data were obtained on 09/04/75 by CERL and on
10/31/75 by NES:
Agency
CERL
NES
CERL
-NES
CERL
NES
CERL
NES
Depth
(m)
near-
surface
20.0
15.2
40.0
41.1.
60.0
53.3
Sol. Reactive
P (ug/1)
<5
3
<5
2
<5
2
<5
<2
Total P
(ug/1)
<10
6
<10
4
10
5
<10
4
Total N
(yg/1)
< 80
<220
55
<220
55
<220
<220
About all that can be said about the above data is that they
indicate the problem of analysis of very low levels of nutrients.
The Diamond Lake data were obtained by CERL on 07/10/75 and by
NES on 07/16/75:
Agency
CERL
NES
CERL
NES
CERL
NES
Depth
(m)
near-
surface
5.0
4.6
10.0
9.1
Total P
(ug/1)
20
11
28
11.
35
45
Total N
(ug/1)
355
220
305
220
355
320
The NES and CERL data on Diamond Lake do not compare too well,
except for the 10-meter level. How much of the difference is real
and how much is due to the distance between the two sampling
stations is uncertain. However, the results of NES sampling at
the same time at a second station somewhat further removed from
the CERL station'are very similar to the CERL values; i.e., total
P ranging from 30 to 37 ug/1 and total N of 400+ ug/1 (N02 + N03 =
<20ug/D.
-------
30
B. Trophic Condition -
1. Assessment -
A part of the evaluation of the water bodies sampled
by the NES included an assessment of trophic condition based
on Survey data and the data of others and categorization in terms
of the classical descriptors, oligo-, meso-, and eutrophic.
While there is general agreement in the scientific community
as to the fundamental concepts of trophic condition, recently
reviewed by Hutchinson (1973), there is some divergence in
interpretation of the relative significance of parameters com-
monly used in a trophic assessment (e.g., nutrients, dissolved
oxygen, chlorophyll, plankton kinds and numbers, transparency,
benthic organisms, fish species and abundance, etc.), possibly
because many of the physical, chemical, and biological relation-
ships in aquatic ecosystems are not well-understood. Because
of this, assessments provided by aquatic scientists are to a
degree subjective, and the designations of trophic condition
made by one worker may not be wholly acceptable to all others.
Among the parameters measured by the NES, trophic assess-
ment primarily and consistently was based on the following
generally accepted indicators of trophic condition:
Condition
Parameter Oligotrophic Mesotrophic Eutrophic
Total Phosphorus (yg/1)
Chlorophyll a (yg/1)
Secchi depth (meters)
Hypolimnetic Dissolved
Oxygen (% saturation)
<10
< 4
> 3.7
>80
10-20
4-10
2.0-3.7
10-80
>20-25
> 10
< 2.0
< 10
In addition to-the above criteria, the phytoplankton were eval-
uated.
The rationale for the parameter limits in the above table
is as follows:
Total phosphorus - the 10 yg/1 limit was first suggested
by Sawyer (1947) and was adopted by Vollenweider (1968) as an
"oligotrophic" level with a "eutrophic" level of twice that.
The Vollenweider limits have since been adopted by others;
i.e., Dillon (1975) and Larsen and Mercier (1976).
-------
31
Chlorophyll a_ - The limits are those recommended
by the Environmental Studies Board of the National Acad-
emies of Science and Engineering (1972).
Secchi depth' - the oligotrophic limit is based on the
mean value for Wisconsin lakes in which there was no deter-
ioration of recreational potential due to plankton growths
(Lueschow et al., 1970). The eutrophic limit approximates
that proposed as a minimum for primary contact recreation
(1.2 m) by the National Technical Advisory Committee (1968).
Dissolved oxygen (DO) - the saturation limits may be
somewhat arbitrary but are based on the generally accepted
premises of an orthograde DO curve with little or no
depression with depth in oligotrophic lakes, a clinograde
DO curve in mesotrophic lakes with some depression with
depth, and a clinograde DO curve in eutrophic lakes with
marked depression or depletion with depth.
The evaluation of phytoplankton primarily involved numbers,
kinds, -and associations (Hutchinson, 1967), although some
indices were utilized with caution; i.e., Nygaard's indices
(Nygaard, 1949), Palmer's-organic pollution indices (Palmer,
1969), and a species diversity and abundance index (Shannon
and Weaver, 1963).
Other than the 500 organisms per milliliter proposed by
Lackey (1945), which we judged to be too restrictive, we could
not find a quantitative definition of a phytoplankton "bloom"
in the literature, and the following criteria were more or
less arbitrarily adopted (disregarding spring diatom pulses):
01igotrophy - less than 1000/ml; filamentous blue-
green algae essentially absent in all samples.
Mesotrophy - less than 5000/ml; filamentous blue-green
algae, if present, not dominant in any sample.
Eutrophy - more than 5000/ml with filamentous blue-green
algae common but not necessarily dominant; or, 1000 or more/
ml with filamentous blue-green algae dominant in most or all
samples.
In the application of the five physical, chemical, and ~T
biological limits discussed above, it was not unusual to find
a lake meeting, say, one criterion for oligotrophy, three cri-
teria for mesotrophy, and one criterion for eutrophy (such a
-------
32
lake would be categorized as mesotrophic), or meeting two cri-
teria for oligotrophy and three for mesotrophy (categorized
as oligo-mesotrophic), or meeting two criteria for mesotrophy
and three for eutrophy (categorized as meso-eutrophic). How-
ever, those water bodies classified as oligotrophic met all
five of the criteria for oligotrophy.
Also, in many large reservoirs, it was found that the major
tributary embayments (nearest the nutrient sources) are eutrophic
while the main body of the impoundment is mesotrophic (or even
oligotrophic in the case of Garrison Reservoir, ND). Similarly,
spatial differences in trophic condition were evident in a few
large lakes such as Champlain, NY and VI; Winnipesaukee, NH;
and, particularly, in Memphremagog, VT and Quebec, in which
the south (U.S.) end is eutrophic and the north (Canada) end
is oligotrophic.
Our assessment of oligo- and mesotrophic conditions on the
basis of the key parameters seldom involved significant differ-
ences of opinion.-with others; however, most of the water bodies
included in the NES are eutrophic because (1) initially selection
primarily was based on municipal point-source impact and (2) later,
when the selection criteria were changed, many of the water bodies
were in areas of high natural fertility as in the corn belt and
many of the western states. Not only because of the preponder-
ance of eutrophic water bodies among those sampled by the NES,
but also because the term "eutrophic" encompasses a broad contin-
uum of trophic conditions ranging from relatively good to very
poor, more disagreement resulted from our assessment of this
condition. Indeed, in some geographic areas, most of the water
bodies sampled are eutrophic, but there is local resistance to
calling them that because of a supposed implication of poor
management of those waters.
2. Trophic Index -
Early in the NES, it became apparent that a ranking system
would be useful in assessing the trophic condition of the water
bodies studied, as well as provide the users of NES reports a
measure of the relative quality of a particular water body
within the diverse group categorized as "eutrophic". There-
fore, a percentile trophic index was devised (the development,
utility, and shortcomings of the index are discussed in
Working Paper No. 24 [U.S.EPA, 1974-24]).
-------
33
-While there appear to be drawbacks to any trophic ranking
system, most likely because of an insufficiency of comparable
data (Hooper, 1969), the concept appeals to those who feel
the classical terminology is too inflexible, and indices have
been proposed recently by Carlson (1977), Harkins (1974), and
Uttormark and Wall (1975). Carlson proposes a single-parameter
index, Harkins uses multivariate analysis, and the Uttormark and
Wall index is largely based on subjective information obtained by
questionnaires.
The NES index has been compared with the Carlson index and
the Harkins index using data on 39 south-central water bodies.
Spearman's coefficient of rank correlation (Simpson et al., 1960)
was calculated between the NES and Harkins rankings, between the
NES and Carlson rankings, and between the Harkins and Carlson
rankings in two-by-two pairs. The coefficient of correlation
between the NES and Harkins is 0.97, between the NES and Carlson
is 0.86, and between Harkins and Carlson is 0.82.
These rather high correlation values suggest that there is
a high degree of association among the three methods, that
the rank order is very similar whichever index is used, and
that the NES relative trophic index compares very well with
the other two indices.
C. Limiting Nutrient -
"It is generally considered reasonable to start any investi-
gation by assuming what is usually called Liebig's Law of the
Minimum holds at least approximately" (Hutchinson, 1973, pg. 274).
Phosphorus and nitrogen "have long been recognized as limiting
elements in aquatic ecosystems (Sawyer, 1947; Deevey, 1972).
In the NES assessment of limiting nutrient, only phosphorus
and nitrogen were evaluated, although it was recognized a priori
that other elements can be limiting (Goldman, 1972) as well as
such physical variables as light, temperature, and mixing of the
water mass. The determination was made by two methods - nutrient-
spiked algal assays and the in-lake (reservoir) inorganic nitrogen/
orthophosphorus weight ratios.
1. Algal Assays -
Depending on the size and/or complexity of the water body,
one or more depth-integrated (through the photic zone) samples
were collected during the last sampling visit (1972), first visit
-------
34
(1973), or the first and last sampling visits (1974 and 1975). The
samples were shipped to CERL, and algal assays were performed
to determine the limiting nutrient and the potential primary
productivity of the water body at the time the sample was
taken (U.S. EPA, 1971). The growth response of the test alga,
Selenastrum capricornutum Prinz, to spikes of phosphorus or
nitrogen indicated the limiting nutrient. In all cases, the
assay results were evaluated with respect to the nutrient
levels and ratios in the water body at the times and places
the samples were collected; when there were substantial differ-
ences, the assay results were not considered representative of
conditions in the water body at the time of sampling, and the
in-water-body N/P ratios were used to determine the limiting
nutrient.
In a few of the assay samples, there was no growth response
to phosphorus and nitrogen, alone or in combination, indicating
limitation by some other element or by some other factor such
as toxicity. In other samples, growth response occurred only
when phosphorus and nitrogen were added in combination, indi-
cating co-limitation; in the latter cases, the control sample
inorganic N/P ratios generally were about 13/1.
2. N/P Ratios -
Although phytosynthetic productivity requires both phos-
phorus and nitrogen, the optimal proportions of the two
elements may vary considerably, depending on the kind of
organism. -Some of the weight ratios reported range from 11/1
for Selenastrum capricornutum (grown in culture.medium; Miller,
1973) to 60/1 for Microcystis aeruginosa (total N/total P;
Gerloff and Skoog, 1957), but an inorganic weight ratio of
about 15/1 is frequently reported (e.g., Middlebrooks et.al.,
1971; Schindler, "1971; Vollenweider, 1968; Vollenweider and
Dillon, 1974). Considering the apparent co-limitation at
13/1 noted above and the 15/1 ratio, the NES selected an
inorganic N/P ratio of 14/1 as an approximation to determine
the limiting nutrient at those sampling times when no algal
assay samples were collected or when the assay results were
suspect.• - Since one of the primary objectives of the Survey
was to evaluate the need for control of phosphorus inputs to
the water bodies, the selected N/P ratio is considered conserv-
ative.
In larger lakes, and particularly in reservoirs, the
assessment of limiting nutrient was done on a station-by-
station basis. In many such water bodies, marked nitrogen
-------
35
limitation occurred near point-source impacts and/or in
major tributary embayments while the main partion of the
water body was phosphorus-limited.
Also, for some water bodies in which phosphorus and
nitrogen levels were relatively high but chlorophyll ji
levels, phytoplankton numbers, and transparency were low,
the possibility of light limitation was indicated.
We have not attempted a comparison of the NES assess-
ment of limiting nutrient with those of others since N/P
ratios reported to be limiting vary widely, as noted
above.
D. Tributary Nutrient Levels -
Before comparing the NES stream nutrient data, it is useful to
evaluate variances that occur in the measurement of nutrients and
other parameters in streams. For this purpose, we retrieved from
STORE! (EPA's Storage and Retrieval computer system) data collected
over varying periods of time by the U.S. Geological Survey at five
hydrologic bench-mark stream sampling stations, two National stream-
quality accounting network stations, and three sampling stations on
other streams. The sampling stations were selected to illustrate
variances in stream quality in various parts of the conterminous
United States.
In water-data reports (e.g., Anonymous, 1976), the Geological
Survey .defines a hydrologic bench-mark station as "...one that provides
hydrologic data for a basin in which the hydrologic regimen will
likely be governed solely by natural conditions. Data collected...
may be used to separate effects of natural -from manmade changes in
other basins that have been developed...". In the same publications,
the objectives of National stream-quality accounting network stations
are stated as "... (1) to depict areal variability of water-quality
conditions... on a year-by-year basis and (2) to detect and assess
long-term changes in stream quality".
The National network stations are on the Colorado River above
Imperial Dam, Arizona and California, and the Missouri River at
Pierre, South Dakota.
The bench-mark stations are:
Castle Creek,' South Dakota
Elder Creek, California
Esopus Creek, New York
Upper Three Runs, South Carolina
Wet Bottom Creek, Arizona
-------
36
The other stream stations include the Hudson River at Green
Island, New York; The North Branch Potomac River near Cumberland, .
Maryland; and the Willamette River at Salem, Oregon. These streams
were selected not only to demonstrate geographical differences but
also to represent some differences in point-source impacts. For
example, the Willamette River receives treated domestic wastes and
a variety of treated industrial wastes upstream from the sampling
station, whereas the North Branch Potomac River station is far up-
stream in the ridge and valley province of the Appalachian Mountains
and has relatively little point-source impact, if any.
The data for the ten stations are presented on the following
pages as reproductions of portions of the STORET data retrievals.
Parameters of particular interest, represented by at least 15 samples,
are indicated by double-pointed arrows in the space to the left
of the column headed "Number".
Beginning with "Number" (of samples), the column headings are
"Mean" (x), "Variance" (s2), "Stan Dev" (s), "Coef Var" (V; coeffic-
ients shown multiplied by 100 are equivalent to V values in percent
elsewhere in this report), "Stan Er" (standard error of the mean),
"Maximum" and "Minimum" (range of values), and "Beg Date" (beginning
date) and "End Date" (.ending date) is the period of record.
The ten-stream data indicate stream parameters are at
least as variable as the lake parameters previously examined, if not
more so. Further, the greater variability of nutrient parameters as
compared to more-conservative parameters (e.g., conductivity, alka-
linity, and dissolved calcium) is evident. This is more easily seen
in the following tabulation of the coefficients of variation (X 100)
of three nutrient parameters and one conservative parameter for the
five bench-mark stations.
Coefficients of Variation
Stream
Castle Cr.
Elder Cr.
Esopus Cr.
Upper Three Runs
Wet Bottom Cr.
Sol. Reactive
P (Ortho P04)
154
133
103
Total P
69
132
125
172
Nitrite +
Nitrate
64
145
58
18
178
Conductivity
10
22
19
27
.52
Considering the variability of the data, it would be expected
that some between-year differences in nutrient parameters will occur.
We have made a number of such comparisons using U.S. Geological Survey
-------
ST03ET DATE 77/01/23
09429*90
^ 5? S^.O IK. 27 55.0
AS IMPERIAL o APIZ-CA
0602:> CALIFORNIA
110191
OOCj CLAsb 00
GOGOJ? Lnri
00010 wATEH
000?u Alk
OOOfcO STREAM
OOObl ST*EA*
00070 TURti
0007o TDK*
00095 CNDUCTVY
0030u 00
oo340 CUD
00400 PH
004«5 CU2
00410 T ALK
00440 -HC03 ION
00445 C03 ION
00515 RESIDUE
00530 RESIDUE
00550 OIL-GH^F
00572 HIOMASS
00573 HIUMASS
00603 TOTAL N
00605 ORG N
00610 NH3-N
00611 N02-N
00615 N02-N
00 f> Id NU3-N
00620 N03-N
00625 TOT KJFL
00630 N02f>NO?
00631 N02&N03
00660 OMTMOPQ4
0066-5 PHOS-TOT
O06bfc PHUS-OIG
00671 PHOS-niS
OObHl) T OKG C
00900 TOT HAon
Oo9o? NC HA<<0
00915 CALCIUM
00916 CALCIUM
TF.1P
. TEMP
FLOW
JKSN
THHltMTP
AT 25C
Ml LEVEL
CAC03
HC03
C03
OISS-105
TOT NFLT
TOT-SXLT
PE^PHYTN
PESPhYTN
N
N
TOTAL
OISS
TOTAL
•JISS
TOTAL
N
H-TOTAL
N-UISS
* ti
20 • ^*^* ^ 0
30.6*78
8233.08
8315.94
1.58570
1.132.76
11.1667
8.08270
2.62053
146.357
178.454
.008849
927.000
24.9231
.666667
4.6P912
7.C6714
.563497
.363219
.025593
.002857
!227*97
.174035
.38^498
.175000
.2855*0
.023765
.034068
.007273
5.31619
368.693
222.209
VARIANCE
.100E>12
616.505
6729745
7645568
.497723
160.741
.763308
.027404
4.00069
64.4017
96.0611
.017778
3269.00
1700.98
1.33333
61.7917
C1.2211
.070982
.034771
.001080
.000021
.000032
.03473*
.016003
.033733
.016150
.242883
.001 J4U
.002/ld
.300102
.0001*3
26.7186
249.362
101. J1J
166.320
^ TAN DtV
3176do
6.bb233
24.3295
2594. Id
2765.06
.705495
12.6784
92.4940
'.87J675
6.37306
.165540
2.00017
8.03507
.133333
57.1752
41.2429
1.15470
7.86077
9.01228
.266425
.146471
.032867
.004550
.005653
.1SJ6J72
.126503
.183665
.127112
.492831
.036612
.052131
.010091
.i 1 1962
->. 16900
lb.7912
10.065*
COEK VAH
.526433
.320533
.810150
.315091
.332502
.444911
2.47385
.069400
.100757
.570722
.020481
.763269
.054832
.054922
15.0000
.061678
1.65481
1.73205
1.70548
1.27524
.472806
.513383
1.28422
1.59256
.976406
.819227
. 7268dJ
.472756
.726358
1.72596
1.54060
1.53022
1.38744
1.51752
.96866d
.042830
.0*5297
.Ob396a
.1*3130
0*001004
STAND E.A
100461
.560159
2.9*672
168.155
280.749
.088884
1.29398
5.21974
.121157
.822759
.010227
.141789
.529157
.64626*
.008889
18.0804
5.11555
.666667
2.77920
3.4C6J2
.034395
.024276
.004279
.000544
.0007*9
.018275
.016756
.023711
.010410
.051381
.003971
.006787
.003042
.001297
.67B723
1.04124
.662257
.334634
4.07831
MAXIMUM
7601*5
30.0000
225.000
12800.0
13300.0
4.00000
120.000
1730.00
10.7000
36.0000
8.39999
26.0000
182.000
222.000
2.00000
1000.000
265.000
2.00000
23.0000
26.0000
2.20000
1.20000
.210000
.010000
.020000
1.80000
.980001
1.20000
1.00000
4.60000
.250000
.360000
.030000
.080000
38.0000
439.999
258.000
114.000
120.000
MINIMUM BEG DATE
223.000 73/07/ld
1.80000 71/10/14
12.0000 71/10/15
1140.00 71/10/06
2140.00 72/10/19
.999999 73/12/03
.999999 75/02/03
1070.00 71/10/06
7.40000 71/10/15
.000000 74/05/15
7.10000 71/10/06
1.20000 72/07/12
113.000 71/10/06
138.000 71/10/06
.000000 71/10/06
840.000 71/10/18
.000000 71/10/18
.000000 74/05/15
.200000 74/11/05
.300000 75/02/11
.140000 74/05/15
.020000 74/05/15
.000000 74/05/15
.000000 72/11/01
.000000 74/05/15
.050000 72/11/01
.030000 74/05/15
.030000 74/05/15
.010000 74/05/15
.060000 71/10/06
.000000 71/10/06
.000000 74/05/15
.000000 74/05/15
.000000 71/10/06
2.20000 74/05/15
298.000 71/10/06
164.000 71/10/06
79.0000 71/10/Ob
69.0000 7*/05/15
END DATE
75/0
-------
STORET DATE 7V03/15
/TYPA/AM8NT/STREAM
06440000
44 22 25.0 100 22 20.0 2
MISSOURI RIVER AT PIERRE S OAK
SOUTH DAKOTA
090491
112WSD
0000 CLASS 00
04001004
PARAMETER
00010 WATER
00020
00060
00061
00070
AIR
STREAM
STREAM
TURB
00095 CNDUCTVY
00300 00
00310 BOO
00400 PH
00405 CU2
00410 T ALK
00440 HC03 ION
00445 CO3 ION
00572 BIOMASS
00573 BIOMASS
00600 TOTAL N
00605 OR6 N
0060B NH3-N
00610 NH3-N
00613 N02-N
00616 N03-N
00625 TOT KJEL
00630 N02&N03
00631 N021N03
00660 ORTHOP04
00665 PHOS-TOT
00666 PHOS-OIS
00671 PHOS-DIS
00680 T ORG C
00900 TOT HARD
00902 NC HARD
00915 CALCIUM
00925 MGNSIUM
00930 SODIUM
00931 SODIUM
00932 PERCENT
00935 PTSSIUM
00940 CHLORIDE
00945 SULFATE
TEMP
TEMP
FLOW
FLOW.
JKSN
AT 25C
5 OAT
CAC03
HC03
C03
PERPHYTN
PERPHYTN
N
N
DISS
TOTAL
DISS
OISS
N
N-TOTAL
N-DISS
P04
ORTHO
C
CAC03
CAC03
CA.OISS
MGtDlSS
NA.OISS
AOSUTION
SODIUM
KtDlSS
CL
S04-TOT
CENT
CENT
CFS
INST-CFS
JTU
MG/L
MG/L
SU
MG/L
Ufi/l 4.
MG/L
MG/L
G/SO M
OW G/M2
MG/L ^...
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L •rf'. ••
MG/I X .
MG/L
MG/L P ^
MG/L P
MR/I D ^.
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
Mfi/f ^ ..
MG/L
MG/L
RATIO
NUMBER
84
14
57
55
23
.
19
18
111
83
94
91
6
5
.
17
6
13
17
17
»_ Ti
' 73
-------
STO?ir DATE 77/04/13
06009000
44 00 49.0 103 49 48.0 2
CASTt_t Crt A9V DEERFIELD «E5t NR
46103 SOUTH DAKOTA
0400100*
0000 CLASS 00
00004
ooou
00020
0006J
OOOfcl
000fc3
00065
OOOftO
00095
003Gi
00310
00400
00405
00410
00440
00445
00515
00530
00615
00618
00630
00631
00650
00660
00665
00666
00671
OObHO
00720
OU9CJ
009G2
009 li
00925
0093v
00931
00939
7ft
48
3
8
123
123
123
123
123
112
121
123
122
123
MEAN
376087
5.36631
9.64275
12.8707
11.4983
8.00000
2.22684
6.00000
462.077
10.0079
.989384
8.22212
3.31131
245.332
297.71S
.734514
273.077
8.38461
.050000
.129032
.155263
.132580
,.184000
.047966
.038000
.039667
.010000
25.1666
.006250
250.764
6.67885
52.4551
29.1869
1.86422
.050000
1.52066
1.50894
VARIANCE STAN QEV CQEF VAR STAND
7.3*692
.281E*12
30.3435
115.511
22.9405
19.1527
2.00000
3.47b90
15.0770
2302.34
1.99506
.262606
.182238
10.2960
456.594
764.541
9.57175
1889.78
88.5896
.014702
.014723
.008627
.038615
.005458
.000744
.002074
.000131
1255.58
.000198
449.541
68.5184
57.9155
4.75973
.635078
.002703
.501650
.431146
.480630
7.19307
530414
5.50850
10.7476
4.78962
4.37638
1.41421
1.86464
3.88291
47.9828
1.41247
.512451
.426893
3.20874
21.3681
27.6503
3.09383
43.4716
9.41221
.121253
.121338
.092879
.196506
.073877
.027272
.045544
.011435
MAXIMUM
.014079
21.2024
A. 27758
7.61022
2.18168
.796918
.051988
.708273
.656617
.990268
2.6B1V9
1.-41035
1.02611
1.11458
.372132
.380596
.176777
.837352
.647151
.103842
.141135
.517949
.051920
.969023
.087098
.092875
4.21207
.159192
1.12256
.939715
.781504
.700549
1.06797
1.54020
.717695
1.14817
1.14354
1.40798
2.25262
.084551
1.23937
.145081
.074748
.427480
1.03976
.465770
.435152
.676067
.363073
375060
.398581
1.35407
.396392
.458769
1.00000
.427779
.747266
3.62716
.150569
.056591
.032645
.440754
2.01909
2.49315
.291043
12.0568
2.61048
.021778
.019664
.016682
.043940
.009618
.003260
.006574
.002201
20.4579
.004978
1.91175
.746365
.686190
.196716
.071850
.004912
.064389
.059205
.089655
.241827
751In6
18.5000-
33.5000'
42.0000
34.0000
9.00000
6.00000
17.0000
639.999
13.1000
3.40000
9.69999
21.0000
288.000
351.000
22.0000
390.000
29.0000
.050000
.410000
.630001
.320000
.560000
.480000
.140000
.270001
.040000
65.9999
.040000
291.000
48.0000
66.0000
40.0000
6.70000
.200000
5.00000
5.10000
10.00000
22.0000
MINIMUM
1027.00
-.100E»01
•.115E»02
2.10000
2.10000
7.00000
.499E-06
1.00000
304.000
6.00000
.100000
6.60000
.100000
182.000
180.000
.000000
220.000
1.000000
.050000
.000000
.010000
.000000
.499E-06
.000000
.000000
.000000
.000000
2.50000
.000000
186.000
.000000
25.0000
20.0000
.500000
.000000
.499E-06
.700000
.400000
.300000
74/10/1 •
?>12/31 76/ltf/l '•
•VI 0/1 4 76/0//>"-
'•V12/31
)V10/27
6>09/19
lyil/18 71/11/1'
b>03/10 71/04/*'
'09/19
t/.•**• ™ • *" ** 'r "•
°tl2/31 76/12/1 s
1*03/09 76/i?/! :
J2/3T 76/l?/i '.
76/1/?/J .
75/lW/J'.
75/10/t'
71/0 1/C*'/
71/04/1>
76/1/?/! •.
76/09/1'.
68/09/1*
73/10/JO
3
. . ./!5 76/12/1 •«
6o'/l-» 7J/10/JO
73/10/30
73/11/2'.
76/10/20
76/12/n
76/12/J3
il 76/1 ?/n
1 76/12/M
. 76/l^/l'i
. 76/1^/1 \
= 76/i;>/l'J
64/.
64/.
76/1 2/1'J
76/1^/1 J
-------
STDRET DATE 77/01/28
11475560
39 43 47.0 1?3 3fl 3ft.0
ELDErf CREEK NEAR BrtANSCOMB CALIF
06045 CALIFORNIA
J>0291
/TYPA/A*6NT/STR£AM
PARAMFTFH
00004 STREAM
00008 LAb
onoio WATFR
00020 AIR
00060 STREAM
OOObl STREAM
00063 NO. OF
00075 TURB
onoflo COLOR
00095 CNDUCTVY
00300 DO
00301 00
00310 BOD
00400 PH
00405 CU2
00410 T ALK
00440 HC03 ION
00445 C03 ION
00515 RESIDUE
00530 RESIDUE
00600 TOTAL M
00605 ORG N
00608 NH3-N
00610 NH3-N
00615 N02-N
00620 N03-N
00625 TOT KJFL
00630 N02*.N03
00631 N02*N03
00650 T P04
00653 SOLP04-T
00660 ORTHOP04
C0665 PHOS-TOT
00671 PHOS-OIS
00680 T 0*G C
00720 CYANIDE
00900 TOT riARO
00902 NC HARD
00915 CALCIUM
KlDTH
IDENT.
TFMP
TEMP
FLOW
FLO*.
SAMPLING
HLGE
PT-CO
AT 25C
SATUR
5 DAY
CAC03
HC03
C03
DISS-105
TOT NFLT
N
N
OISS
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
N
N-TOTAL
N-OISS
P04
P04
PQ4
OPTHO
C
CN-TOT
CAC03
CAC03
CAOISS
FEET
NUMBED
CFMT
CENT
CFS
INST-CFS
POINTS
PPM SIO?
UNITS
MICROMHO ^
MG/L
PERCENT
MG/L
SU
MG/L
MT. /i •*
MG/L
MG/L
C MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L *
MG/L ^
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L P
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
Mi,/L
MG/L «*
NUMHFP
12
4
17
80
91
4
1
2
IT
80
57
24
99
41
75
69
13
13
10
27
6
28
26
-y 16
,- 30
f 4V
25
1
6
2
6
7b
76
MKAN
22.9666
/559S4
12.9412
45.3070
73.1465
4.00000
2.00000
3.SOOOO
107.577
10.5736
97.5935
.724999
7.47264
4.48048
49.0364
60.5199
.144E-06
/4.1537
1.61538
.420000
.285926
.036667
.036667
.003929
.039643
.180000
.042J33
.031220
.176400
.U70UOO
.121724
.04B979
.040000
2.50000
.000000
42.2631
11.1302
112"RU
0000 CLASS 00
VARIANCE
96.0415
.300E»08
13.1307
30.9964
8957.49
20322.7
8.66664
<•. 50000
546.609
1.10517
25.7288
.953264
.176459
14.7926
109.111
169.959
.522E-13
166.823
2.75641
.168934
.136802
.001187
.001033
.000047
.004129
.031333
.003750
.005194
.035024
.026300
.004172
.000560
4.49998
.000000
85.955U
45.7872
6.25448
STAN DFW
9.80008
b482.62
3.62363
5.56744
94.6440
142.558
2.94392
2.12132
23.3797
1.05127
5.07236
.976353
.420070
3.84611
10.4456
13.0368
.228E-06
12.9160
1.66024
.411016
.369868
.034448
.032146
.006853
.064261
.177012
.061233
.072071
.187147
.162174
.064590
.023664
2.12132
.000000
9.27124
6.76662
2.50090
COFF VAR
.42671U
.007253
.345113
.430211
2.08895
1.9489J
.735980
.606091
.217329
.09942*
.051974
1.34669
.056214
.858415
.213018
.215414
1.57672
.174179
1.02777
.978608
1.29358
.939491
.876696
1.74429
1.62100
.983402
1.44646
2.30818
1.06092
1.33231
1.31872
.591608
.848527
.219369
8.43055
.224694
0400100"
STA.ND FR
2.8290-.
2741.31
.287373
1.35030
10.5815
14.9441
1.47196
1.50000
2.42436
.117536
.671850
.199297
.042219
.600662
1.10723
1.50537
.275E-07
3.58225
.460463
.129975
.071181
.014063
.018554
.001295
.012144
.044253
.011180
.010296
.037429
.030115
.009227
.009661
1.50000
.000000
1.06344
.77bl85
.286872
MAXIMLJM
36.0000
760837
20.5000
24.5000
556.000
647.999
7.99999
2.00000
5.00000
158.000
13.3000
108.000
3.60000
8.70000
16.0000
69.0000
84.0000
.499E-06
88.0000
7.00000
1.50000
1.50000
.080000
.060000
.020000
.270000
.580000
.270000
.430000
.990000
.070000
.860000
.450000
.080000
4.00000
.000000
62.0000
59.0000
16.0000
MINIMUM
3.50000
751067
2.50000
5.99999
.500000
.669999
1.00000
2.00000
2.00000
<*8.9999
8.20000
80.0000
.499E-06
6.30000
.600000
25.0000
30.0000
.000000
49.0000
1.000000
.070000
.000000
.000000
.000000
.000000
.000000
.000000
.000000
.000000
.060000
.070000
.000000
.000000
.010000
1.000000
.000000
21.0000
.000000
5.40000
BEG DATE FND DATF
73/10/04 74/09/03
74/10/14 75/09/22
68/06/14 76/09/16
70/01/21 75/07/18
68/02/15 71/09/21
71/10/18 76/09/16
69/11/21 74/01/17
68/02/15 68/02/15
68/06/14 70/02/19
68/02/15 76/09/16
68/06/14 76/09/16
68/06/14 76/09/16
68/06/14 71/06/14
68/02/15 76/08/10
71/10/19 76/08/10
68/02/15 76/09/16
68/02/15 76/09/16 «.
68/02/15 76/08/10 °
68/03/14 76/01/26
68/03/14 76/01/26
68/10/02 73/02/22
68/06/14 73/02/22
71/05/25 73/02/22
73/01/17 75/07/1H
74/01/22 76/09/16
74/01/22 76/09/16
69/10/23 73/02/22
73/01/17 76/09/16
71/05/25 76/08/10
68/02/15 71/02/09
70/02/19 70/02/19
68/06/14 73/02/22
71/05/25 76/09/16
71/05/25 73/02/22
72/07/18 73/10/04
74/06/19 76/09/16
68/02/15 76/09/16
68/02/15 76/09/16
68/02/15 76/00/16
-------
DATE:
4? Os 59.0 074 23 20.U 2
ESOrU5 CHEEK AT SHANDAKENt
3olll NEK YOPK
/ T r P A/ A*--nN T/ ST^r. V.
00004 LAfl
CG01U ».ATErf
OGu2j AIR
OOOc-0 STREa«
00061 STREAM
00365 STKEA^
00075 TUR9
000 °.J COLOk
OOuVS CNUUCTVY
0030U 00
00301 00
00310 HOO
00400 PM
00405 C02
00410 T ALK
00440 HC03 ION
00445 C01 ION
00505 RESIDUE
00515 RESIOUF
00530 RESIOUF
0060S UHG N
00606 NH3-N
00610 NH3-M
00613 N02-N
00615 rt02-N
0061rt N03-N
00620 NOJ-N
30630 N02»»N03
30631 MO?«.N03
30650 T POO
30660 OrfTMOPO&
50665 PHUS-TOT
'0666 PHOS-l)IS
0630 T 0-4
.OU1733
.000046
.000019
.017480
.027667
.018112
.009733
.005400
.000370
.125000
.000000
11.7«*7B
-*. 97130
1.3412V
.056810
b 00
STAN litV COEF VAK
7.00*70
10.1650
179.291
176.886
.331663
ft. 08808
1.96409
10.0592
.850757
.376421
3.00896
t. 02119
t. 92303
.207E-06
4.21936
23.*627
27.7733
.269218
.041633
.006802
.004416
.132234
.106333
.134582
.098658
.073485
.019241
.353553
.000000
3.42750
2.22V64
1.15814
.2Jri360
3.95577
. 735582
.602036
1.27050
1.19802
2.54213
.552772
1.85934
| fj C H LJ i.
• 1C? 7U^
.171497
.11)1875
.980327
.053485
1.06199
.37391 7
.373691
1.90164
.7J0915
.609263
2.43270
2.36771
.543044
1.02029
.981308
.734634
.44954V
.582015
.399964
1.0497d
1.25275
1.41421
.182892
.283774
.20892*
.196046
04001004
STAND £•*
211102
.609681
1.07749
17.9291
23.8513
2.58427
.125357
1.04417
.87112}
.18726V
1.36888
.109832
.033142
.421339
.370180
.449409
.197E-07
.899571
6.88858
8.01745
.051811
.024037
.002777
.001803
.028192
.052599
.023081
.056960
.036742
.002405
.250000
.000000
. 31*199
.204391
.105723
.021759
MAXIMUM
33799V3
26.5000
28.0000-
1040.00
1160.00
155.000
1.000000
55.0000
100.000
16.6000
113.000
4.00000
8.70000
12.0000
21.0000
25.0000
.499E-06
14.0000
110.000
98.0000
1.40000
.110000
.000000
.018000
.010000
.500000
.599999
.519999
.360000
.180000
.020000
.140000
.000000
.500000
.000000
27.0000
13.0000
9.00000
2.30000
MINIMUM riEG DATE
332.000 71/03/23
.000000 66/11/15
.149E*02 69/01/29
4.40000 63/08/20
5.49999 72/10/05
4.15000 68/10/31
.000000 63/08/20
.000000 63/08/20
37.0000 63/08/20
4.60000 67/09/19
53.0000 69/11/06
.000000 67/10/25
6.19999 63/08/20
.100000 72/01/26
2.00000 64/03/31
2.40000 63/08/20
.000000 64/10/27
.000000 69/06/26
19.0000 67/09/19
.999999 67/09/19
.000000 68/08/07
.030000 71/07/01
.000000 72/01/26
.000000 71/07/01
.000000 73/10/18
.000000 71/07/01
.010000 72/01/26
.010000 73/10/18
.180000 73/05/30
.030000 72/06/06
.020000 72/10/05
.000000 70/11/24
.000000 71/10/01
.000000 72/09/07
.000000 74/05/15
12.0000 63/08/20
1.00000 63/08/20
3.20000 63/08/20
.800000 63/08/20
F.NQ nATF
73/10/18
76/09/22
76/09/22
74/03/26
76/09/22
74/03/26
65/02/16
71/05/25
76/09/22 i
76/09/22
76/09/22
73/09/11
76/09/22
76/09/22
76/09/22
76/09/22
76/09/22
71/05/25 »
75/10/20
75/10/20
71/02/19
73/07/17
72/01/26
73/09/11
74/03/26
73/09/11
74/03/26
76/09/23
73/09/11
72/09/07
72/10/05
76/09/22
71/10/01
73/10/18
76/07/09
76/09/22
76/09/22
76/09/22
76/09/22
-------
STOnFT DATE
03197300
33 23 05.0 OBI 37 00.
UPPER THREE RUNS NR NE* ELLENTQN
45003 SOUTH CAROLINA
031391
0400100V
0000 CLAbS "00
PARAMETER
OOOOd LAb
00010 *4TE*
00060 STREAM
00061 STREAM
0008J COLOR
OOC9^ CNOUCTVf
00300 00
00301 00
00310 HOD
00400 PH
00405 CU2
00410 T ALK
00440 HC03 I CM
00445 C03 ION
00515 SESlUUe
00530 RESIDUE
00613 N02-N
00615 N02-N
00618 N03-N
00620 N03-N
00630 NO 2*. NO 3
00631 N02WVI03
00650 T P04
00660 ORTHOP04
00665 PHOS-TOT
00666 PriOS-DlS
OObttu T uRPi C
00720 CYANIDE
00900 TOT HAPO
00902 NC HAPi)
00915 CALCIUM
00925 MGNSIUM
00930 SODIUM
00931 SUDIUM
00932 PERCENT
00935 PTSSIUM
00940 CHLO^IPF
00945 SULFATF
00950 FLUORIOE
TEMP'
FLO-
PT-CO
AT 25C
SATUR
5 DAY
CAC03
HC03
C03
DISS-105
TOT NFLT
DISS
TOTAL
TOTAL
N-TOTAL
N-OISS
P04
C
CN-TOT
CAC03
CAC03
CA.UISS
MG.OISS
NA.OISS
AOiHTION
SODIUM
K.ulSS
CL
S0«— TOT
F.JISS
CtMT
INST-CFS
UNITS
.1ICROMHC *—
MG/L
PERCENT
SU
MG/L
MG/L *
MG/L
C MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L ^ —
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L P /
M&/L P
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MI-/I -^
MG/L
PATIO
MG/L
MG/L
N'JM&EK
2
15h
133
54
56
T 136
80
1
10
129
28
76
74
13
13
1
5
8
5
r 20
1
17
10
, -,
f \
4
8
76
•» ,
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
7S
MEAN
37*267
lb.^530
155.147
10.1428
lb.3742
9.P7117
97.aOCO
3.70000
5143214
2.34158
2.^3421)
. 18QE-06
IS. 1538
4.53846
.020000
.014000
.083750
.233999
.19HOOJ
.040000
.835885
.01 1000
.005861
5.87500
.000000
2.^7368
.947367
.701312
1.P7105
.342U2
47.11fl4
.285524
2.3157H
IflPl333
VARIANCE
.281E»12
15.7980
1194.14
3951.55
71.289*!
1.50208
106.280
.269562
39.1704
1.19913
2.00B92
.596E-13
36.l4lb
11.9359
.000666
.003341
.OJ1180
.001312
11.5086
.000388
.000102
45.7294
.000000
2.26596
2.05053
.276401
.013733
.098360
.01660b
135.013
.032455
.263724
.411266
.028B36
STAN D£V
5308fefc)
3.97467
34.55b3
62.8613
fl. 44329
4^23688
1.22559
10.3092
.519193
6.25863
1.09505
1.41736
.244E-Ob
6.01179
3.45484
.025807
.057802
.176579
.036213
3.39243
.019692
.010080
6.76235
.000000
1.50531
1.43197
.525739
.117188
.313624
.128863
11.6539
.180154
.532657
.041300
.169812
COEF VArt
1.4108B
.24914o
.290230
.40517*,
.832442
.266904
.132194
2.7862d
.089386
1.1521s
.459799
.483048
1.29049
.313869
.761237
J.8433b
.690171
.754613
.182918
4.05849
1.79012
1.71991
1.15104
.506211
1.51152
.749651
.392350
.246744
.376681
.247332
.630958
.230012
.680687
2.08785
STAND C*
375381
.318228
2.99641
8.55434
1.12828
.363313
.137025
3.26006
.045712
1.16277
.125611
.162583
.283E-07
1.66737
.958200
.011541
.020436
.078968
.008099
.822785
.006227
.001537
3.38118
.000000
.172671
. 164258
.060306
.013442
.035975
.014782
1.33679
.020665
.061100
.073562
.019608
MAXIMUM
751647
23.0000
229.000
549.999
40.0000
49.9999
11.8000
97.0000
33.0000
7.60000
32.0000
6.00000
7.00000
.499E-06
35.0000
12.0000
.020000
.060000
.200000
.539999
.270000
.040000
14.0000
.060000
.060000
.499E-06
16.0000
.000000
9.00000
7.00000
3.00000
.600000
3.40000
1.10000
77.0000
1.40000
3.70000
3.00000
1.30000
MINIMUM BEG DATE
886.000 73/10/29
8.99999 67/11/02
77.9999 67/11/02
106.000 72/10/24
2.00000 67/11/02
12.0000 67/11/02
6.70000 67/11/02
97.0000 68/08/05
.499E-06 68/10/07
4.40000 67/11/02
.000000 72/10/24
.000000 67/11/02
.000000 67/11/02
.000000 67/11/02
11.0000 67/11/02
2.00000 67/11/02
.020000 73/10/29
.000000 72/12/12
.020000 71/10/08
.100000 72/12/12
.110000 73/12/12
.040000 73/10/29
.000000 67/11/02
iOOOOOO 68/10/07
.000000 69/07/11
.499E-06 69/09/05
2.00000 68/12/04
.000000 72/04/24
1.00000 67/11/02
.000000 67/11/02
.100000 67/11/02
.000000 67/11/02
.200000 67/11/02
.000000 67/11/02
5.00000 67/11/02
.100000 67/11/02
.200000 67/11/02
.000000 67/11/02
.000000 67/11/02
END DATE
74/11/27
76/12/03
73/09/.M
76/12/03
73/10/29
76/11/11
76/11/11
68/08/05
71/06/11
76/11/11
76/11/11
76/11/11
76/11/11
76/11/11
75/11/18
73/10/29 £
73/06/21
73/10/29
73/06/21
76/11/11
73/10/29
70/07/01
71/04/20
76/11/11
69/09/05
73/10/29
76/11/11
76/11/11
76/11/11
76/11/11
76/11/11
76/11/11
76/11/11
76/11/11
76/11/11
76/11/11
76/M/ll
-------
STOPET DATE 77/01/2**
99503300
34 09 39.0 111 01 32.0
BOTTOM C*EEK NR CrilLOS. ARI
0-.007 ARIZONA
04001004
...
00003 LAB
C0010 tfATER
000?0 AIR
00060 STREAM
00061 STREAM
00070 TURB
00075 TURB
00080 COLOR
00095 CNDUCTVY
00300 00
00400 PH
00405 C02
D04IO T ALK
30440 HC03 ION
10445 C03 ION
}05I5 RESIDUE
)0530 RESIDUE
0613 N02-M
'0618 N03-N
0631 N026N03
0650 T P04
0660 ORTHOP04
'0671 PHOS-DIS
0720 CYANIDE
0900 TOT HAQD
0902 MC HARn
0915 CALCIUM
0925 MGNSIUM
0930 SODIUM
0931 SublUM
09J2 PERCENT
09J5 PTSSIUM
0940 CHLUPIIE:
0945 SULFATE
0950 FLUOPinf.
0955 SILICA
lOOd AKSLNIC
1005 BARIUM
1024 BO^ON
TFMP
FLO*
FLO*.
JKSN
MLGE
PT-CO
AT 2bC
CAC03
HC03
C03
DISS-105
TOT NFLT
D1SS
OISS
N-OISS
P04
P04
ORTHO
CN-TOT
CACOJ
CAC03
CA.DISS
MGtDISS
NAtOISS
AOSdTION
SUOIUM
K.OIS5
CL
SJ4-TOT
F.OISS
OISOLVED
AStDISS
BAiOISS
4. OISS
CENT
CFNT
CFS
INST-CFS
JTU
PPM SI02
UNITS
rflCKOMHC *—
MG/L
SU
MG/L
MT, /i ^
MG/L
MG/L
C MG/L
MG/L
Mfa/L
MG/L
MG/L
MH/I *
MG/L P £
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L ^
MG/L
MG/L
RATIO
*
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
NUMBER
4
109
9
96
32
1
5
19
•*> 77
27
77
32
ff.
66
54
11
11
18
19
14
,L till
3
65
65
66
66
65
65
66
66
66
66
66
66
MEAM
S63790
14.6480
16.T333
13.2995
31.1980
.999999
.680000
8.26316
263.909
8.05925
7.56485
3.61562
115.031
137.424
.425926
182.454
3.18181
.001111
.069474
.079149
.117143
.041956
.013409
.003333
97.7077
1.A4615
26.3515
7.36965
IB. 4318
.796919
28.5231
1.21212
8.75149
9.12421
26.7424
7.?5000
50.3000
56.0605
VARIANCE
.140t*12
50.175*
94.9379
1205.62
2634.87
.087000
87.9827
18602.2
2.08328
11.6665
4774.46
7216.40
1.72082
8666.07
19.5636
.000022
.022528
.019764
.068868
.001865
.000214
.000033
2345.44
12.6322
219.274
18.5925
115.512
.131244
37.6608
.186629
28.8254
17.9825
.452589
84.9651
21.5833
3333. 3J
6891.93
STAN DEtf
375225
7.08349
9.74361
34.7249
51.3309
.294958
9.37991
136.390
1.44336
.688770
3.41563
69.0975
84.9494
1.31180
93.0917
4.42307
.004714
.150092
.140585
.262427
.043185
.014618
.005774
53.3427
3.55418
14.8079
4.31191
10.7476
.362276
6.13684
.432006
5.36893
4.24058
.672747
9.21765
4.b4579
57.7350
83.0177
COEF VAR STANU ER
.665540
.483580
.596549
2.61100
1.64533
.433762
1.13515
.516806
.179093
.091049
.944686
.600686
.618155
3.07988
.510219
1.39011
4.24264
2.16041
1.77622
2.24023
1.02929
1.09016
1.73205
.545942
1.92518
.561*38
.5(55090
.583104
.454596
.215153
.356406
.613480
.464761
.519924
.344683
.640798
1.15470
1.48086
187612
.678476
3.24787
3.54409
9.07411
.131909
2.15190
15.5431
.277774
.078493
.603803
8.57049
10.4565
.178514
28.0682
1.33361
.001111
.034433
.020506
.070136
.006367
.002204
.003333
6.61635
.440842
1.82272
.530759
1 . 32294
.044935
.761181
.05317Q
.660870
.521979
.082809
1.13461
2.32284
28.8675
10.2188
MAXIMUM
751403
32.0000
35.0000
176.000
176.000
.999999
1.00000
30.0000
580.000
10.00000
8.70000
15.0000
251.000
306.000
6.00000
290.000
15.0000
.020000
.680001
.700001
1.00000
.210000
.070000
.010000
240.000
13.0000
62.0000
20.0000
40.0000
2.50000
65.0000
2.30000
30.0000
28.0000
2.70000
45.0000
12.0000
100.000
670.000
MINIMUM
952.000
.150000
8.50000
.000000
.040000
.999999
.400000
3.00000
6.00000
5.40000
5.50000
.300000
13.0000
.000000
.000000
51.0000
1.000000
.000000
.000000
.000000
.000000
.000000
.000000
.000000
22.0000
.000000
.000000
.000000
.000000
.200000
17.0000
.000000
.000000
.000000
.000000
.000000
1.00000
.000000
.000000
BEG DATE END OATF '
73/11/14 74/11/14
68/02/27 76/10/12
71/08/12 74/07/11
68/02/27 75/07/24
72/10/05 76/10/12
70/02/23 70/02/23
69/11/12 70/10/15
68/08/21 70/10/15
68/08/21 76/10/12
68/08/21 74/02/11
68/08/21 76/10/12
70/02/23 76/10/12
68/08/21 76/10/12
68/08/21 76/10/12
68/08/21 76/10/12
68/01/29 75/11/14
68/01/29 75/11/14 £
72/11/28 75/04/14
70/02/23 75/04/14
70/12/15 76/10/12
68/08/21 70/10/1S
70/12/15 76/10/12
71/03/30 76/10/12
74/12/13 76/10/12
68/08/21 76/10/12
68/08/21 76/10/12
68/08/21 76/10/12
68/08/21 76/10/12
68/08/21 76/10/12
68/08/21 76/10/12
68/08/21 76/10/12
68/08/21 76/10/12
68/08/21 76/10/12
68/08/21 76/10/12
68/08/21 76/10/12
68/08/21 76/10/12
74/12/13 76/10/12
74/12/13 76/10/12
68/08/21 76/10/12
-------
01358000
42 43 4t>.0 073 41 4fi.O
HUDSON RIVE* AT GREEN I5LANO NY
36001 NE* YORK
013292
04001004
CLASS 00
oocns VSAMW_I"»C
OOOOy LAb
nQuij.j xSiMPi tr
00010 MATER
00020 AIR
00027 COLLECT
00028 ANALYZE
GOOMJ STREAM
OOOfcl STPFAM
00065 STREAM
00071) TU«**
G0u7b TURK
000*0 COLOR
00095 CNDUCTVY
0030C UO
00301 DO
00335 CUD
00409 PH
00405 CO?
00<*10 T ALK
00440 HCOJ ION
00445 CU3 IO-Y
00500 RESIDUE
00505 RFSIDUF
00510 RESIDUE
00515 RESIDUE
00525 RESIDUF
00530 RESIDUF
00540 RESIDUF
00572 B1UMASS
00573 HIOMASS
00600 TOTAL M
00605 ORG N
00608 NH3-N
00610 NH3-N
P06JJ N02-N
00615 N02-N
006lt> NU3-N
00620 NOJ-N
00625 TOT KJ?L
00630 N02&N03
OB6JI M02KM01
00650 T PO*
00660 O^Ti-iOPOfc
00671 PriU'-i-OIG
00680 T ORfi C
00720 CVANIDF
00900 TOT rlAP.0
00902 NC riA=>n
00915 CALCIUM
JEPT-
KT Pr!(.M
•TEMP
TEMP
AGENCY
ACirNCr
FLO*
Fl ON.
STAGE
JH.SN
rtLGt
PT-CO
AT 25C
SATUR
LOWLEVEL
CAC03
C03
TOTAL
TOT VOL
TOT FU
DISS-1"S
FlA KLl
TOT NFLT
FIX NFLT
PERPhfTN
N
UISS
TuUL
UISS
TUTAL
UISS
TOTiL
•>j
N-TOTAL
M-DISS
Plj4
C
CN-TOT
CAC03
CACU3
* CF KT
L F 1A'.-
Ct^T
CENT
CODF
CODE
CFb
INST-rF-i
FEET
JTJ
OPM SI 02
UNITS
MG/l
PERCENT
MG/L
SU
MG/L
Mb/L
MG/L
MG/L
Md/L
MG/L
C MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
G/sa M
i)jf G/M2
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
• MG/L
MI../L
Mil /I /L..
Ml./! -^
MG/L
MG/L P ^_
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
9
13
1
1
177
25
75
25
100
58
73
47
' ?C4
163
51
2ft
53
47
19
32
5
5
48
27
27
20
28
20
19
IB
r ?ii
16
1
190
190
9" IfO
Mr AN
1611.76
13.3033
12.3722
1023.00
102". 00
10411.6
17.1135
.94^994
23.9399
192.555
10.1758
94.6607
14.3697
7.20432
11.9403
40.6074
.171E-06
121.372
17.3928
92.6222
114.574
14. '631
14.2454
8.01874
1.41520
1.61420
1.15-532
.414672
.215592
I&334B1
.021959
.46^166
.527812
.7J1999
.22600U
.075555
.025*67
S.6COOO
.uOCOOO
70.2157
27.2830
21.23no
tf Art 1 ANC£
.015625
960547
83.2334
102.999
.110E»09
.13HF.09
2.67854
23.0567
.781730
118. bOO
1722.50
7.30M5
88.1764
30.3217
.193119
2753.32
125.207
192.013
.567£-13
769.536
90.2491
633.209
1150.53
425.427
250.420
72.4627
5.32214
5.64055
.095260
.293574
.024498
.011367
.001570
.001210
.021543
.018950
.021443
.017906
.041720
.0239H2
.002b91
.00117B
.000236
9.52799
207.525
506.310
19.7521
.125000
9*0.075
9.12323
10.1488
10491.0
11779.4
1.69662
.884159
10.8858
41.5030
2.70317
9.39023
5.50651
.439453
52.4721
11.1932
13.5208
.238E-06
27.7405
9.49995
25.1636
33.9195
20.6259
15.8249
•j. 51250
1.30698
2.37498
.308655
.541325
.156520
.106618
.OJ962J
.034902
.146775
.1J766G
.146433
.134110
,204256
.154862
.050900
.034320
.015364
3.08675
14.4057
?4.2130
4.444JJ
rOFF VAM
.001250
.60RC76
.442730
.685786
.820298
1.00769
.765000
.099140
.612466
.936615
.454712
.215539
.265648
.099199
.383203
.060998
4.39452
.230277
.231383
1.38657
.228558
.546201
.271681
.296048
1.44610
1.11080
1.06158
1.63014
1.47131
.266538
1.30601
.726000
.535771
1.18345
1.59007
.238106
.254220
.312113
.254087
.29096J
.665232
.673684
.547709
.598604
.55120i>
.205164
.887481
.209255
STAND FR
.041667
271.824
25.569b
.747404
1.06389
788.600
2355.88
.195909
.960347
.176832
1.08858
2.73663
.354944
1.38451
.644488
.030768
7.65384
.963354
.946648
. 186E-07
3.88445
1.79532
3.45649
4.94766
4.73190
1.68694
1.50481
1.03171
1.06212
.044550
.060203
.030122
.023841
.007626
.007804
.027738
.030782
.024406
.023708
.091346
.048972
.011997
.004162
.003136
.771686
1.04510
1.75666
.331261
MAXIMUM
99.9998
2986.99
589.999
25.0000
30.0000-
1028.00
1028.00
60700.0
59399.9
20.8000
20.0000
3.00000
85.0000
387.000
15.0000
112.000
38.0000
8.20000
363.000
80.0000
97.9999
.499E-06
207.000
53.0000
173.000
230.000
95.0000
108.000
41.9999
5.53000
5.84000
1.82900
4.80000
.649999
.380000
.130000
.160000
.919999
.aaoooo
.750001
.889999
.919999
.640000
.210000
.210000
.068000
15.0000
.000000
116.000
127.000
34.0000
MINIMUM
99.9998
61.9999
59.9999
.000000
.799E»01
1028.00
1028.00
15.5000
3279.99
7.00000
1.000000
.000000
5.00000
101.000
5.10000
76.9999
5.00000
4.20000
.700000
21.0000
.499E-06
.000000
74.9999
5.00000
48.9999
.000000
.000000
.000000
.000000
.200000
.200000
.480000
.040000
.010000
.000000
.001000
.000000
.390000
.320000
.190000
.320000
.400000
.110000
.020000
.014000
.006000
3.00000
.000000
36.0000
9.00000
11.0000
BEl> DATE END [JftJF
75/08/14 75/09/14
71/01/20 73/09/18
75/08/14 75/09/09
65/11/05 76/09/24
68/01/28 76/09/24
73/02/21 73/02/21
73/02/21 73/02/21
63/06/27 75/09/08
72/10/26 75/11/05
68/01/28 74/09/05
64/09/10 76/09/24
63/06/27 64/09/30
63/06/27 75/05/06
63/06/27 76/09/24
71/10/21 76/09/24
72/10/26 76/09/24
69/04/23 75/05/06
63/06/27 76/09/24
72/05/2J 76/09/24
63/11/28 76/09/24
63/06/27 76/09/24
64/10/06 76/09/24
71/01/20 75/05/06
68/03/26 71/04/26
68/03/26 75/05/06
68/10/25 76/09/24
71/02/26 72/09/21
68/10/25 76/09/24
72/10/26 75/05/06
75/11/24 76/09/20
7b/ll/24 76/09/20
70/10/22 76/09/24
68/07/26 75/05/06 '
71/07/20 73/09/18
73/10/25 75/05/06
71/07/20 73/09/lfl
73/10/25 75/05/06
71/07/20 73/09/18
73/10/25 75/05/Ofe
73/02/21 76/09/24
73/10/25 76/09/24
73/05/22 73/OQ/lfl
66/04/20 72/09/21
72/10/26 74/03/22
70/10/22 7fe/00/2i
72/04/19 74/OV22
74/08/08 76/OB/
-------
STORE! GATE 77/CI/2*
01603000
NOtfTri BHANCH POTOMAC
24001 KA^YLANO
/TYPtt/^T/ST,
P RAMFTFS
OOOOf LAB
COOlj WATE"
00020 Air?
00060 STREAM
OOU6I STREAM
00065 STREAM
OOU70 TUWH
000*0 COLOR
000fl5 UDOH
00095 CNDUCTVY
0030C 00
003C1 00
00310 BUD
00335 COO
00400 PH
00405 C02
00410 T ALK
00435 T ACOITY
00440 HC03 ION
00445 C03 IOM
00515 RESIDUE
00530 RESIDUE
00608 NH3-N
00610 NH3-N
00613 N02-N
0061b N02-N
0061H N03-N
00620 N03-N
00630 N02&N03
006 Jl N02&N03
00650 T P04
00665 PHOS-TOT
0072J CYANIDE
00990 TOT HAQO
00902 NC riARD
00915 CALCIUM
00925 MGNSIUM
00930 SoOIUw
00931 SOOIUM
E.4 I
lu^NT.
TF«P
FLOw
FLOW.
STAGE
JKSN
PT-CO
Trl*SH NO
AT 25C
SATUK
5 OAY
LOWLEVEL
CAC03
CAC03
HC03
C03
JlSS-lOb
TOT NFLT
OISS
TOTAL
OISS
TUFAL
TOTAL
N-rOTAL
N-OISS
CM-TOT
CAC03
CAC03
CA.OISS
MG.OISS
NA» >ISS
DOuO CLASS 00
CEMT
CENT
crs
FEET
JTU
UNITS
MICRO"1'"! J
MG/L
PERCENT
MG/L
MG/L
su
MG/L
MG/L •*-"••
MC./L
MG/L
MG/L
C MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MO/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
Mfi/l P *
MG/L
M(j/L
MG/L
MG/L *
MG/L
MG/L
\2
103
20
157
78
27
9
120
4
"? 1 t
60
2
9
3
185
92
1 ftfi
4
179
148
2
8
3
1
2
25
7
2
16
10
152
15?
^ 175
173
1*9
136
2*356-".
13.65o5
14.6500
2338.54
27-6.35
13I724-J
17.2500
431.971
9.40492
58.0000
3.73332
Io.b6b6
6.81936
7.57275
20.7529
17.P500
36.2623
.162162
590.000
69.9999
.543333
.400000
.006500
.907500
.517999
.691423
.612725
.5999-5(9
.151675
.00*000
134.466
45.45CJ
9.22072
I/A3IANCE
.103E»1S
76.9090
96.9«*9b
.150E*08
.134E*08
4.40740
2329.86
591.443
342.250
62453.4
10.7117
.000000
15.4926
212.334
.311078
96.8061
352.446
570.222
704.150
1.61924
1800.00
1864U.2
.003634
.000024
.000037
.033184
.015981
.041299
.020001
.003216
.012815
.000049
7662.27
5504.62
755.489
3). 9816
.201d21
STAN DtV
.lGlt*Od
fc. 08645
9.84630
3876.66
3665.66
2.09938
4d.2686
24.3196
14.5000
249.907
3.27288
.000000
3.93606
14.5717
.557743
9.83901
18.7735
2J.8793
26.535(3
1.2724SI
42.4264
136.529
.060283
.004950
.006058
.162163
.126417
.203220
.141425
.251428
.113202
.006992
d7.5344
74.1931
27.4862
5.82937
22.5384
.4492*5
COEF VAK
3.46107
'.650712
.672104
1.65772
1.33457
.546874
1.27396
1.77193
1.07246
.578527
.347996.
1.05430
.780627
.081788
1.29926
.701736
1.38431
.731774
7.84704
.071909
1.95042
.110950
.761500
.807739
.351667
.182835
.331667
.235709
1.65550
1.27472
1.16534
.531300
.551763
.604756
.632204
.905845
.632483
KlVER NEAR
021491
0400100-t
STAND E4
2933111
.656905
2.20170
309.391
415.076
.404026
16.0895
2.22007
9.25000
17.1233
.422527
.000000
1.31202
8.41296
' .041006
1.02579
1.45711
11.9397
1.98338
.10459%
30.0000
48.2703
.034804
.003500
.002473
.036433
.047781
.035376
.100003
.062857
.018867
.002211
7.0999*
6.01786
2.07776
..443199
1.84642
.038522
MAXIMUM
.351E»08
32.2200
27.0000
21000.0
18400.0
12.4500
160.000
180.000
45.0000
1090.00
13.9000
58.0000
14.0000
35.0000
7.80000
71.0000
84.0000
52.9999
144.000
12.0000
620.000
406.999
.600000
.400000
.010000
.017000
.799999
.800000
1.10000
.699999
.900000
.659999
.020000
385.000
313.000
127.000
45.0000
102.000
2.70000
MINIMUM BEG DATE
639.999 72/12/12
.000000 60/09/29
.500000 74/02/28
111.000 63/05/16
152.000 71/11/30
2.20000 73/04/27
2.00000 69/10/02
.000000 60/09/29
8.00000 61/04/18
110.000 06/09/20
1.50001 60/09/29
58.0000 60/09/29
1.10000 69/10/02
6.99999 73/03/13
4.60000 60/09/29
.499E-06 63/05/16
.000000 06/09/20
3.40000 73/09/14
.499E-06 06/09/20
.000000 06/09/20
560.000 72/09/28
5. 00000 69/10/02
.479999 72/07/19
.400000 73/12/05
.003000 73/06/06
. .000000 73/10/17
.140000 71/10/27
.470000 72/06/23
.220000 73/10/17
.500000 73/06/06
.000000 65/05/18
.006000 69/10/02
.000000 61/04/lu
43.0000 60/09/29
22.0000 60/09/29
12.0000 06/09/20
2.50000 06/09/20
2.50000 60/09/29
.200000 60/09/29
END DATE
74/01/23
76/11/01
76/00/01
72/09/28
76/11/01
76/09/01
73/12/05
76/11/01
71/09/30
76/11/01
74/01/23
61/04/18
73/12/05
73/12/05
76/11/01
76/11/01
76/11/01 *;
73/12/05
76/11/01
76/11/01
73/09/14
73/09/14
73/09/14
73/1 2/OS
73/09/14
74/04/01
73/09/14
74/04/01
76/11/01
73/09/14
72/09/28
76/11/01
73/12/05
76/11/01
76/11/01
76/11/01
76/11/01
76/11/01 '
76/11/01
-------
STORET QATC 7?/<;i.'2,3
1*1*1000
•«4 5b tO.Q 123 02 30.0
KILLAMETTE
41 OH 7 OPEiiU
/Tr»«/A -JNT/STP!
OOOOP LAfl
00013 KATE*3
OOOfcO STPFAn
OOOtl STREAM
OOOftO COLOR
00095 CNDUCTVY
00400 PH
00405 CU2
0041o T ALiv
00*40 HC03 ION
00445 CO 3 I ON
00515 RESIDUE
005 O RESIDUE
00600 TOTAL »i
00625 TOT KJFL
006J1 N02&N03
00665 PriOS-TOT
03900 TOT HARD
00902 NC HARD
00915 CALCIUM
: 00925 MGNSIUM
: 00930 SODIUM
I 00931 SODIUM
? 00932 PERCENT
jj 00935 PTSSIUM
5 00940 CHLORIDE
00945 S'JLFATF
00950 FLUORIOE
00955 SILICa
01020 80HON
01046 IHON
01056 MANGNESE
01515 ALJHA-r>
01516 ALPMA-S
03515 BETA-[)
03516 BETA-S
09501 RA-2?ft
09510 *A-22*-0
09511 RA-226-f)
t
[JENT.
TfMP
KLOJ
FLOW.
PT-CO
AT 25C
CAC03
HC03
C03
DISS-105
TOT NFLT
N
N
N-DISS
CAC03
CAC03
CAiOlSS
MGtOlSS
NAtOISS
ADSBTION
SOOIUM
CL
SO<*-TOT
F.OISS
01 SOLVED
BtOlSS
FE.OISS
MN.UlSS
AS U-NAT
AS U-NAT
AS CSI37
AS CS137
UISOLVED
•'LCHT CT
RAUOfc MT
riltfER AT
IN
JOUD CLAaS 00
Ct NT
CF5
INST-CF3
UMITS
su
MG/L
MG/L *
MG/L
MG/L
C MG/L
MG/L
Mu/L
MG/L
wr; ft f. —
MG/L ~ ^
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L '
MG/L
MG/L
RATIO
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
PC/L
PC/L
PC/L
PC/L
PC/L
°C/L
PC/L
13
17
8
7-27*5
271
17
r 225
277
215
17
17
1
2
-|(T
y J^
'278
278
u- 1 7't
169
278
-265
228
90
81
84
37
3ft
1
14
17
17
8
1
97 * « 5^0
12. *}000
28B10.7
28016.5
10.0000
61.9792
6.39V90
2.92352
20.2933
2-4 . 4 1 fl4
46.4117
21.*736
.345000
.55U856
.0690*7
20.1867
1.30935
K762ll
3.77295
.387917
.68*4*0
3.75801
.093023
14.3583
9.19023
101.944
7.0"000
.15COOO
.23:>714
1.23529
.06^705
.030000
. 10000J
.t'?7500
fl
2613b3
. 107E+10
*7>}.5714
178.101
.228002
8.6056b
33.4678
40.8887
344.139
.011250
.161427
.002709
10.17<*2
S.9833&
.5685^6
.087747
.826184
.172355
9.92373
.952795
2.23294
2.5757B
.00700*
5.22581
229.859
H210.40
.005769
.048626
.084929
.373673
,0000«6
.000?33
STAM DEV
^11.239
i. 592*0
3->7'*3.7
21032.1
8.86405
13.3455
.478124
2.93354
*. 64577
5.78514
6.39443
18.5510
.106066
.401780
.052049
3.18970
2.4461U
.767200
.296221
.908947
.415157
3.15020
.976112
1.49430
1.604*2
.083723
2.28600
15.1611
70.8061
.075956
.220514
. 291*27
.611288
.009258
.015275
COEF VAri
.521938
.443842
1.13651
.750707
-.886405
.215321
.069294
1.00343
.228931
.236917
9.56916
.13777b
.864019
.30743*
.729375
.753810
.158010
1.86618
.141752
.168105
.240912
1.07022
.111650
1.10365
.472338
.42706/
.900020
.159211
1.64970
.773030
.50637*
.935515
.235917
.706932
.308608
.555463
SALEM. OPEG.
130931
0-001G3*
STANO £,•* MAXIMUM
301.500
1.55105
2022.91
5101.04
3.13391
.800407
.0290*4
.711489
.309718 •
.347595
.0637*4
1.55088
4.49927
.075000
.067913
.011358
.191306
.146707
.0586*2
.022786
.054515
.025503
.208627
.102891
.159293
.178325
.009028
.249*23
2.49247
13.1343
.020300
.058935
.070681
.148259
.003273
.003819
1341.00
20.0000
285000
71799.3
20.0000
141.000
9.80000
9.60000
42.0000
51.0000
11.0000
60.0000
73.0000
.440000
.420000
1.50000
.270000
38.0000
15.0000
8.80000
2.60000
11.0000
7.00000
43.0000
8.80000
7.90000
8.00000
.400000
17.0000
70.0000
340.000
7.00000
.300000
.800000
1.70000
2.60000
.040000
.100000
.070000
MINIMUM
618.000
4.70000
625.000
6981.00
.499E-06
7.10000
4.80000
.200000
7.00000
.499E-06
.000000
39.0000
7.00000
.440000
.270000
.070000
.010000
12.0000
.000000
3.80000
.700000
2.10000
.200000
19.0000
.200000
.000000
.200000
.000000
4.30000
.000000
10.0000
7.00000
.100000
.100000
.700000
.400000
.020000
.100000
.010000
BEG DATF END DATE
73/09/19 74/01/29
70/06/15 76/07/14
59/10/20 73/09/19
73/06/26 76/06/03
67/10/23 69/03/01
59/10/20 76/07/14
59/10/20 76/06/03
72/10/18 76/06/03
60/10/28 76/07/14
59/10/20 76/07/14
60/10/28 76/06/03
70/11/11 74/01/29
70/11/11 74/01/29
72/03/22 72/03/22
71/04/28 72/03/22
70/12/17 76/07/14 '
70/12/17 76/07/14
59/10/20 76/07/14
59/10/20 76/07/14
59/10/20 76/07/14
59/10/20 76/07/14
59/10/20 76/07/14
59/10/ZO 76/07/14
60/10/28 76/07/14
59/10/20 76/07/14
59/10/20 76/07/14
59/10/20 76/07/14
59/10/20 76/07/14
59/10/20 76/07/14
59/10/20 68/10/04
70/12/17 76/07/14
72/06/08 72/06/08
70/11/11 72/10/18
70/11/11 72/10/18
70/11/11 74/01/29
70/11/11 74/01/29
69/10/09 70/09/30
72/10/18 72/10/18
70/11/11 74/01/29
-------
47
data from sampling stations of several years of record. Significant
between-year differences can be demonstrated for essentially all of
the nutrient parameters, and the comparisons are on file at CERL.
One example of difference is shown in the following comparison
of U.S.G.S. data for water years 1973 and 1974 at the same station on
the Big Sioux River in eastern South Dakota. The nutrient parameters
compared are indicated by the arrows. While the means of five of the
six parameters do not differ significantly, the null hypotheses of
no difference between the means of total phosphorus for the two years
(underlined) is rejected at the 0.05 probability level (t = 2.295 with
36 d. f.).
In our assessment of the reliability of the NES tributary data,
for the most part we found it necessary to utilize STORE! again
because of a scarcity of published stream data. After some effort
we were able to retrieve comparable data obtained by other agencies
(primarily U.S.G.S.) at or near nine of the 4,000+ NES sampling
stations. The data were selectively retrieved to provide periods
of record that are comparable to the NES sampling times.
The evaluations are shown on the following pages as reproductions
of the data retrievals, and the parameters compared are indicated by
the double-pointed arrows. On the first page, the agency codes are
circled in the headings (112WRD is the code for the Water Resources
Division of U.S.G.S., 11EPALES is the NES code, and 21CAL-1 is the
code for the California Department of Water Resources).
In only five of the 32 parameter comparisons shown were the means
-of the NES data and other agency data significantly different at the
0.05 level as indicated by Student's t-tests. The five are indicated
by the underlined parameter names (e.g., "00610 NH3-N" in the Hacken-
sack River data). It will be noted that none of the means of the
phosphorus species differed significantly and that only two of the
five differing comparisons involve a parameter that would affect
calculated nutrient loads ("00625 TOT KJEL").
The NES stream data also were compared to data reported by the
Georgia Department of Natural.Resources (Anonymous, 1974), the
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Anonymous, 1972), and
the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (Anonymous, 1975).
In 1973, the Georgia DNR collected from 4 to 14 samples at
seven comparable sites on five streams from which 13 or 14 samples
were collected by the NES during the period of March 1973 through
February, 1974. There is excellent agreement between DNR and NES
total phosphorus data (the mean of all DNR TP data is 228 ug/1 and
the mean of all NES data is 227 yg/1; the coefficient of rank corre-
lation is 1.00, n = 7).
-------
STOPET DATE 77/03/16
/TTPA/AMBNT/STREAM
06481000
43 47 25.0 096 44 42.0 2
BIG SIOUX M MR DELL KAPIOSi5.0AK
46099 SOOTH DAKOTA
090791
112WRD
0000 CLASS 00
04001004
PARAMETER
00010 MATER
00020 AIR
00060 STREAM
00095 CNOUCTVY
00300 00
00310 BUD
00400 PH
00405 C02
00410 T ALK
00400 «C03 ION
00445 CO 3 ION
AAftAA TOTAI M
00605 ORG N
00608 ' NH3-N
nnf*iA NM*)«N
00613 N02-N
00618 N03-N
AAA9Q TflT 1C in
00631 N02kN03
00660 ORTHOP04
00665 PHOS-TOT
00666 PHOS-OIS
AA*.7i pun<;_nTC
00900 TOT HARD
00600 TOTAL N
00605 ORG N
AAAIA NH1-N
00613 N02-N
00618 N03-N
00625 TOT KJEL
AAJtlA Nfl?•»!
.562015
.409013
„ T314P1
.023916
.751574
5pc7i n
7PQ71P
.968096
.388815
.132995
.145612
19A&1&
54.7283
7A^7fiC
. •OJ/OD
.607769
•HB3CJ7
.023094
1.16621
"*^A77H
.602313
.752678
.403767
.134483
.141622
. 133791
J. 44440
133.511
COEF VAR
.933036
.970461
1.43620
.128332
.273150
.277077
.046895
.592778
.197820
.198024
1A&17?
.361424
.903897
Of.7CQC
1.24779
1.25436
P766QO
1/kQAA1
.931255
.860557
.514963
.601348
«Q«;7?i
.141433
• J154eo
.381218
.06814
.692820
1.33535
1 iiifiCp
. 1OHO3C
.60190
.92994
.10453
373565
.02377
.11493
.287633
.343805
STAND ER
2.06165
3.18201
59.8856
18.6657
.845681
.311275
.063640
.808791
8.97636
10.9528
.000000
97O&nc
.162240
.204507
1 AAAAA
.006904
.216961
1 Ql 7CO
3C7 A/.£
. C3 folo
.201862
.082896
.027731
.038916
A9AOCI
. VCW731
11.4116
.204130
.162433
. 129686
.013333
.673309
•UVUQQb
. 155517
.250893
.134589
.034723
.057817
.044597
.994313
44.5036
MAXIMUM
26.5000
30.0000-
1770.00
1200.00
15.8000
6.59999
9.09999
19.0000
323.000
394.000
.000000
A inAAA
2.70000
1.00000
1 AAAAfl
.080000
2.10000
2OAAAA
. IUOUU
3.40000
1.40000
.530000
.520000
• ftUUUU
510.000
4.20000
2.90000
•50000
.060000
2.20000
.00000
2.30000
2.30000
1.20000
,550000
.410000
.400000
19.0000
620.000
MINIMUM
.000000
.199E«01
la.oooo
585.000
5.00000
2.50000
7:40000
2.90000
146.000
178.000
.000000
i feAnnn
.780000
.080000
ncflAAA
.000000
.000000
1 9AAAA
.UvUUvll
.000000
.000000
.100000
.020000
A A A An A
• vvvvuu
270.000
.60000
.400000
.040000
.020000
.010000
.60000
.000000
.000000
.030000
•130000
.020000
.010000
8.10000
95.0000
BEG DATE END DATE
72/10/26 73/09/27
72/10/26 73/09/27
72/10/26 73/09/30
72/10/26 73/09/30
72/10/26 73/09/27
72/10/26 73/09/27
72/10/26 73/09/30
72/10/26 73/09/30
72/10/26 73/09/30
72/10/26 73/09/30
72/10/26 73/09/30
77/IA/7K 71/no/?7
72/10/26 73/09/27
72/10/26 73/01/30
7>/l P/Pft 71/AO/P7
72/10/26 73/09/27
72/10/26 73/09/27
79/IA/2& 71/AO7,?7
rJ/Uc/el rJ/Uv/cr
72/10/26 73/09/30
72/10/26 73/09/30
72/10/26 73/09/30
72/10/26 73/09/30
ft' ID/ CO (J/O^/JU
72/10/26 73/09/30
73/11/08 74/09/16
73/11/08 74/09/16
73/11/08 74/09/16
73/11/08 74/01/10
73/11/08 74/01/10
73/11/08 74/09/16
73/11/08 74/09/16
73/11/08 74/09/05
73/11/08 74/09/05
73/11/08 74/09/16
74/03/06 74/09/05
73/11/08 74/09/05
74/03/06 74/09/16
73/11/08 74/09/05
00
-------
STOwtT 'jATE 77/03/16
06409000
44 00 49.0 103 49 <*8.0 2
CASTLE CR A8V DEEWIELD «ES, NR
4bl03 SOUTH DAKOTA
090491
0<»00100<.
CLASS 00
00006 LAb
00010 MATER
00020 AIR
00061 STREAM
00095 CNDUCTVY
00300 00
00400 PM
00405 CU2
00410 T ALK
00440 HC03 ION
0044S C03 ION
00515 RESIDUE
00530 RESIDUE
00630 N02tN03
00665 PHOS-TOT
00720 CYANIDE
IOFNT.
TEMP
TEMP
FLO*.
AT 25C
CAC03
HC03
CO 3
OISS-105
TOT NFLT
N-TOTAL
CN-TOT
NUMBErt
CEMT
CENT
INST-CFS
MICROMHO
MG/L
SU
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
C MG/L
MG/L
MG/L -*
MG/L P * -r
MG/L
ER
i
13
i
13
12
6
12
11
11
11
6
1
1
11
11
2
MEAN
751146
5.11537
5.00000
10.7692
.501.833
10.9500
8.44999
2.51817
250.818
303.545
2.00000
300.000
3.00000
. 106363
.030000
.000000
VARIANCE
35.5063
17.7773
3140.27
1.23511
.155495
8.32167
334.575
477.762
19.6000
.003666
.001120
.000000
STAN OEV
,
5.95872
4.21631
56.0381
1.11135
.394329
2.88473
'18.2914
21.8578
4.42719
.060543
.033466
.000000
COtF VAk
1.16486
.391515
.111667
• .101494
.046666
1.1455&
'.072927
.072008
2.21359
.569212
1.11555
STAND ER
1.65265
1.16939
16.1768
.453708
.113833
.869779
5.51506
6.59037
1.80739
.018255
.010090
.000000
MAXIMUM
751146
18.5000
5.00000
22.0000
610.000
12.2000
9.00000
10.0000
270.000
329.000
11.0000
300.000
3.00000
.190000
.110000
.000000
MINIMUM
751140
.000000
5.00000
6.49999
395.000
9.39999
7.70000
.400000
214.000
261.000
.000000
300.000
3.00000
.020000
.000000
.000000
BEo DATE
74/10/15
74/10/15
74/11/25
74/10/15
74/10/15
74/10/15
74/10/15
74/10/15
7<*/10/15
74/10/15
75/03/18
74/10/15
74/10/15
74/10/15
74/10/15
74/10/15
END DA7£
74/10/:5
75/09/iC
74/11/sS
75/09/13
75/09/i "
75/06/:0
75/09/10
75/09/n
75/OS/i!)
75/09/13
75/09/13
74/10/15
74/10/15
75/09/iO
75/09/iO
75/07/06
STORET DATE 77/03/16
/TYPA/AMHNT/STREAM
PARAMETER
00610 NH3-N
00615 N02-N
00620 N03-N
00625 TOT KJFL
006J3 N02NN03
00665 PHOS-TOT
00671 PMOS-DI3
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
N
N-TOTAL
OrtTHO
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L P
MG/L P
4610A2
44 00 49.0 103 49 46.0 4
CASTLE CREEK
46 7.5 DEERFIELD
T/OEERFIELD LAKE 090491
See~aa_QROG 2.5 MI SM OF OEEHFIELO DAM
(flEPALESJ 04001004
0000 CLASS 00
ER
13
2
2
13
13
13
13
MEAN
.017769
.004000-
.072000
.515384
.099461
.030385
.012231
VARIANCE
.000106
.145E-10
.002048
.088494
.004042
.000269
.000038
STAN DEV
.010289
.000000
.045255
.297479
.063575
.016389
.006126
COEF -VAR
.579021
.628540
.577198
.639196
.539376
.500855
STAND ER
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
002854
000000
032000
082506
017633
004545
001699
MAXIMUM
.040000
.004000
.104000
1.30000
.184000
.060000
.025000
MINIMUM
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
005000
004000
040000
100000
010000
010000
005000
8Eo DATE
74/10/12
74/10/12
74/10/12
74/10/12
74/10/12
74/10/12
74/10/12
END DAfF
75/09/21
74/11 /••<;
74/11/19
75/09/21
75/09/21
75/Oo/cl
75/09/51
-------
STORET DATE 77/03/21
/TYPA/A'-faNT/STPEAM
03579100
35 17 Od.G 086 06 20.0 2
ELK RIVER NEAR ESTILL SPRINGS,
47051 TENNESSEE
0400100-
0000 CLASS 00
PARAMETER
OOOlo MATER
00*061 ST^EA"
00070 TU*ri
OOOdO CULOR
00095 CNDUCTVY
00300 00
00335 CUD
00400 PH
00410 T ALK
00530 RESIDUE
00605 OHG N
00610 NH3-N
00630 N02bN03
00650 T P0«
00665 PHOS-TOT
00900 TUT HARD
TEMP
f L0w»
JKSN
PT-CO
AT 25C
LOwLEVEL
CAC03
TOT NfLT
N
TOTAL
1 V I M t
N-TOTAL
CAC03
CtNT
INST-CF5
JTU
UNITS
MICROMMO
MG/L
MG/L
SU
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
Mfi/l -*
MG/L
MG/L
NUMBER
6
7
6
6
6
6
4
6
6
6
6
1
6
MEAN
12.9U33
721.141
11.2166
24.1666
131.666
10.0500
5.74999
7.88332
54.8332
7.16665
.171666
A& "l^T^
491666
.140000
A ?fi A A A
66.1665
VARIANCE
4.24184
857018
S9.9576
354.164
216.675
4.99106
9.58336
.909814
53.7750
20.9666
.008057
nno??7
• W U U C C I
AAA ACA
. V V U U3U
18.9766
STAN DEV
2.05957
925.753
7.74323
18.8192
14.7199
2.23407
3.09570
.953842
7.33314
4.57893
.091900
. 0 1S05&
• VI ^v Jw
. 14091 5
• A *f V 7 i J
AA7A71
• U V • v r 1
4.35621
COEF VAR
.158632
1.28373
.690333
.77872«J
.111797
-.222296
.538384
.120995
.133735
.638922
.535693
3 A "7^*3 fa
* 28660 7
i*Q»Qe>i
!065837
STAND Eft
.843818
349.902
3.16116
7.68292
6.00937
i912055
1. 54765
.389404
2.99374
1.86934
.037543
. 0061&A
. W W w A *v O
-OS7S?R
• W -J • ^C O
A A 1 1 fcP
1.77841
HAKIMUM
15.0000
2741.00
22.0000
59.9999
150.000
13.5000
9.99999
8.99999
65.9999
14.0000
.330000
.060000
. WW W V V
.140000
A^AAAA
. UJ VII W V
70.9999
MINIMUM
10.5000
54.^999
4.29999
9.99999
110.000
7.09999
3.00000
6.59999
45.9999
4.00000
.090000
.020000
.220000
• bb V VU V
.140000
AI nnnn
. V A VUU V
60.9999
8EG" DATE
73/12/04
73/10/26
73/12/0*
73/12/04
73/12/04
73/12/04
74/02/13
73/12/04
73/12/04
73/12/0-
73/12/04
73/12/01*
73/12/04
1 J» 1 w' V ^
73/12/04
74/01/29
r^r W A ' t7
73/12/04
trto OATE
74/05/07
74/05/07
74/05/07
74/05/07
74/05/07
74/05/07
74/05/07
74/05/07
74/05/07
74/05/07
74/05/07
74/05/07
74/05/07
73/12/04
74/05/07
74/05/07
STORET DATE 77/03/21
/TYPA/AMBNT/STREAM
472BA1
35 17 57.0 086 05 47.0 4
ELK RIVEH
47 7.5 CAPITOL HILL
0/WOOOS RES 040692
ELK RIVER DAM OR BANK JUST 8ELO 0AM
11EPALES " 04001004
oooo CLASS oo
PARAMETER
00610 NH3-N
00615 N02-N
00620 N03-N
00625 TUT KJFL
00630 N02t,N03
00665 PMOS-TOT
00671 PHOS-DI3
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
N
N-TOTAL
OKTMO
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L P
MG/L P
NUMBER
-r 12
12
12
12
11
MEAN
.123750
.012667
.377416
.707499
.389833
.033125
.014591
VARIANCE
.038305
.000399
.066539
.221384
.069185
.000231
.000032
STAN OEV
.195717
.019970
.257952
.470515
.263031
.015193
.005687
COEF VAR
1.58156
1.57655
.683468
.665039
.674727
.458654
.389761
STAND ER
.056499
.005765
.074464
.135826
.075930
.004386
.001715
MAXIMUM
.730000
.074000
.680000
1.54000
.680000
.070000
.023000
MINIMUM
.020000
.002000
.027000
.200000
.029000
.017500
.005000
DATE
73/06/11
73/06/11
73/06/11
73/06/11
73/06/11
73/06/11
73/06/11
ENO DATE
74/03/26
74/03/26
74/03/26
74/03/26
74/03/26
74/03/26
74/03/26
-------
STORET DATE 77/53/24
01378500
<*0 56 52.0 074 01 3<».0 2
"ACKcNSAC*. * AT Nt«
34COJ NE« JERSEY
112-RC-
ocoo CLASS oo
.NJ
0133-41
C40010C<*
PARAMETER
00008 Lid
00010
00020
000 il
AIR
00
BUO
CU2
00095 CNOUCTVY
00300
00310
COoOO
00405
00<*10
00430 cm
00440 HCu3 ION
00445 C03 ION
00600 TOTAL N
00605 ORG N
00610 NH3-N
00615 N02-N
00620 N03-N
006C5 TOT KJFL
00630 N02&N03
00660 ORTHOP04
00665 PHOS-TOT
00671 PHOS-OIS
00680 T ORG C
00685 T. INO»r,
luFNT.
TEMP
TtMP
FLO*.
AT 25C
5 DAY
CAC03
CAC03
HC03
C03
N
N
TOTAL
1 U | Ml_
TOTAL
TOTAL
N
N-TOTAL
P04
ORTHO
C
C
NUMBED
CFNT
CENT
INST-CFS
MIC-iOMHO
MG/L
MG/L
SU
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
Mfi/1 J
Mfi/l ^
MG/L
MG/L P -^
Mf f \ r* "^
n\jf L r
MG/L
MG/L
NUMBED
i
12
3
0
9
7
9
8
1
1
1
1
1
4
4
j
^
/*• 4
3
>.
/" "
.
3
1
i-EAN
459Q990
16.5000
12. '5000
23.6666
321.888
7. 98856
2.62222
7.57499
33.0000
67.0000
.000000
81.si9<39
.000000
1.59500
.325000
PQQQQU
• C O"~ T*~
.023500
.955250
AlAQQCl
• Ol HTf 7TF
1.16666
.U62333
.063000
.020000
7.99999
20.0000
VARIANCE
59.2199
100.750
687.249
381.059
12.0703
5.92444
.290737
.124100
.006967
ni?nfc7
. U JC WO 1
.000086
.194697
AC9 1 i-7
.043334
.000916
.000876
.000200
76.0001
STAN OEV COEF VArf
7.69545
10.0374
26.2154
19.5412
-3.47423.
2.43402
,.539200
.352278
.083468
1 7Q07P
. 1 f 7 V f C
.009256
.441245
?2A&fi 1
.208169
.030271
.029597
.014142
8.71780
.466392
.802995
.914494
.060708
.434901
.928229
.071181
.220864
.256825
617490
• Oil "*TV
.393860
.461915
171 304
. J 1 1 WO*.
.178431
.485630
.469800
.707107
1.08973
STANO £«t
2.22148
5.79510
8. 73843
6.51374
1.31313
.811339
.190636
.176139
.041734
AQbC-lC.
. VO79 JO
.004623
.220622
1 1 4»PA A
.1201b7
.017477
.014799
.010000
5.03322
MAXIMUM
4599990
26.0000
19.5000
94.9999
353.000
11.8000
8.29999
8.29999
33.0000
67.0000
.000000
81.9999
.000000
2.10000
.420000
C/tOQOO
. J •. TF Tf 7 7
.030000
1.40000
QQQQQQ
. O7 7777
1.40000
.090000
.100000
.030000
18.0000
20.0000
MINIMUM
4599990
1.60000
.99999,
14. GOOD
287.000
1.32000
.000000
6.59999
33.0000
67.0000
.000000
81.9999
.000000
1.28000
.220000
150000
• A ^ W V U
.010000
.351000
370000
• J I V U V U
.999999
.030000
.030000
.010000
2.00000
20.0000
HtG OATE
74/02/12
73/07/11
74/04/0-*
73/07/11
73/07/11
73/07/11
73/07/11
73/07/11
73/08/17
73/08/17
73/08/17
73/08/17
73/08/17
7J/08/17
73/08/17
73/08/1 7
1 Jr vOr A '
73/08/17
73/08/17
73/08/17
( J» W Or A •
7J/11/27
73/08/17
73/08/17
73/11/27
73/08/17
73/08/17
END OATE
7<»/02/12
7W07/10
74/06/03
74/07/10
74/07/10
74/07/10
7W07/10
74/07/10
73/Ot»/l7
73/08/17
73/08/17
73/08/17
73/08/17
74/05/16
74/05/16
74/0 =>/! ft
• ~w V jf A D
74/05/16
74/05/16
T^*y o *^y i f\
74/0-5/16
74/02/12
7*»/05/16
74/02/12
74/05/16
73/OU/17
STORET OATE 77/03/28
/TYPA/AMriNT/ST^EAM
PARAMETER
'610 MH3-N
30615 N02-N
)0620 N03-N
J0625 TOT
)0630
0665 PHOS-TOT
0671 PHOS-ni5
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
N
N-TOTAL
ORThO
3406A1
40 57 15.0 074 01 46.0
hACKENSACK RIVER
34 7.5 HACKENSACK
O/ORAOLLL RESERVOIR
0«AD£LL AVE 3SDG O.I
llEPAUEb
U13391
I MI S OF UAM
U4001004
oopo CLASS oo
Mr f\ •*
HG/L *
f1f f, V
MG/L •*
MG/L P *—
N'jMFES
l»-
/ 1 J
—7- 15
—r 15
/ *->
-r 15
Mt'AN
.117666
.014467
I..'29ft7
.81COOO
1.'J5427
.050333
.0120b7
VARIANCE
.009374
.00009b
.2516-35
.051785
.246d63
.000877
.000100
STAN OEV
.096819
.009738
.b016&2
.227563
.'.96B5J
.029609
.010003
COEF VArt
.822825
.500263
.4d722d
.28094^
,47127V
.588250
.H2900/
STANO EK
.024999
.002514
. 12953"*
.060819
.128287
.007645
.002583
MAXIMUM
.41SOOU
.OJ6000
l.VOOOU
1.40000
1.^0000
.125000
.032000
MINIMUM
.020000
.002000
.380000
.500000
.410000
.005000
.005000
BEb OATE
73/07/21
73/07/21
73/07/21
73/07/21
73/07/21
73/07/21
73/07/21
END OATE
74/07/
-------
STORE: DATE ?7/o3/?i
/T.Y.PA/AMBNT/ST9EAM
F3159901
41- 55 41.0 122 26 35.0' r2'
KL'AMATH * bL I WON GATE 0AM
06093 CALIFORNIA
KLAMAT- RIVER
KLAMATn RIVER
21C&L-1 760521 0400100*
0000 CLASS 00
PARAMETER
00010 WATER
000 II WATER
00027 COLLECT
00061 STKEAM
00076 TUR8
00094 CNDUCTVY
00095 CNOUCTVY
00300 00
00400 PH
00403 LA8
00440 HC03 ION
00445 CO 3 ION
00618 N03-N
W V v 1 O i^WJ iv
00625 TOT KJFL
00665 PHOS-TOT
00671 PHOS-OIS
00900 TOT HARD
00930 SODIUM
00940 CHLORIDE
TEMP
TEMP
AGENCr
FLOWi
TRblDHTR
FIELD
AT 25C
PM
HC03
C03
DISS
\J 1 J J
H
ORTHO
CAC03
NA.DISS
CL
CENT
FArtN
CODE
INST-CFS
HACH FTU
M1CROMHO
MICROMHO
MG/L
SU
SU
MG/L
MG/L
MCSI •*
HG/I -^
MG/L P -^
MG/L P *
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
NUMBER
12
1
13
11
13
12
3
13
13
3
3
3
— 7- 3
3
3
3
MEAN
11.6067
4V. 0000
5050.00
2887.27
5.R4615
176.750
190.000
10.0692
7.69999
7.53333
87.3333
.000000
A 7ft AAA
• H f UUUU
QflAAAA
• 7||U V W
. 1AOOOO
• A O U VU V
.123333
60.0000
16.3333
4.13333
VARIANCE
47.1970
.000000
2624161
32.1410
357.114
67.0000
2.56396
.168376
.003456
57.3457
.000000
111 7fl 1
•111 i U 1
o?nnn i
. VC WV 1
.012800
• V A t w V V
.003233
37.0000
.333618
.013321
STAN DEV
6.87001
*
.000000
1619.93
5.66931
18.8974
8.18535
1.60124
.410336
.058789
7.57269
.000000
TJA?1 7
. J JHc I f
141426
• A ~ A ~ t O
. 1 13137
• * • J • J •
.056862
6.08276
.577597
.115416
COEF VAK
.588858
.56105d
.969750
.106916
.043081
.159023
.053290
.007804
.086710
7111 AA
•fill UU
157140
• A 3 f • ~ W
.628540
• UK. O J » V
.461047
.101379
.035363
.027923
STAND ER
1.98320
.000000
488.426
1.57238
5.45522
4.72581
.444103
.113807
.033942
4.37210
.OO'OOOO
1 Q2Q&A
. 1 7C7DU
. i onoAi
. A V V W J
.080000
• V w V V V W
.032830
3.51188
.333476
.066636
MAXIMUM
22.0000
49.0000
5050.00
5900.00
21.0000
215.000
199.000
12.2000
8.40000
7.60000
96.0000
.000000
7CAAnn
. f 3UUUU
1 ooooo
A • W W U
.260000
• fc W W V W
.170000
67.0000
17.0000
4.20000
MINIMUM
2.00000
49.0000
5050.00
990.000
1.00000
143.000
183.000
7.20000
7.20000
7.50000
82.0000
.000000
IflAAAA
. luUUUU
800000
• OU UU U V
.100000
• 4 V W V V
.060000
56.0000
16.0000
4.00000
BEvi DATE END DATE
74/11/07 75/10/15
75/11/05 75/11/05
74/11/07 75/11/05
74/11/07 75/09/19
74/11/07 75/11/05
74/11/07 75/11/05
74/11/07 75/05/05
74/11/07 75/11/05
74/11/07 75/11/05
74/11/07 75/05/05
74/11/07 75/05/05
74/11/07 75/05/05
7A/II/A7 7Cyftt/flC
• Hfllflff f Jf Vjf Vj
75/03/18 75/05/05
1 ^f VJf »O f ^r W Jr V j
75/03/18 75/05/05
1 W> V *Jr Aw f Jf W J* W J
74/11/07 75/05/05
74/11/07 75/05/05
74/11/07 75/05/05
74/11/07 75/05/05
STORET DATE 77/03/21
/TYPA/AM8NT/STREAM
0611A1
41 55 50.0 122 26 20.0 4
KLAMATH rtlVER
06 15 COPCO
0/IRON GATE RESERVOIR 140191
BNK FRM COPCO HO .I M BELO IRON GATE DAM
11EPALES 04001004
0000 CLASS 00
PARAMETER
00610 NH3-N
00620 N03-N
00625 TOT KJEL
006JO N021N03
00665 PHOS-TOT
00671 PHOS-OIS
TOTAL
TOTAL
N
N-TOTAL
ORTHO
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L P
MG/L P
NUMBER
MEAN VARIANCE STAN OEv
12 .206875 .024073 .155156
2 .272000 .073728 .271529
12 1.73333 1.90107 1.37879
12 .371666 .086903 .294793
12 .146667 .001624 .040302
12 .110000 .001772 .042091
COEF VAK
.742810
.998269
.795458
.793166
.274786
.382643
STAND ER
.044790
.192000
.398023
.085099
.011634
.012151
MAXIMUM
.480000
.464000
5.90000
.736000
.200000
.165000
MINIMUM
.015000
.080000
.800000
.005000
.080000
.040000
BEG DATE
74/11/16
74/11/16
74/11/16
74/11/16
74/11/16
74/11/16
END DAT?
75/11/U3
74/12/-J7
75/11/03
75/11/03
75/11/03
75/11/08
-------
!»TORLT
77/03X2o
/TYPA/AMrfNT/STBEAl
12301933
*6 24 23.0 115 "lb 57.0 Z
KOOTENAI i*IVE* BL LIB8Y DAM, NEA
30053 MONTANA
130191
112XRO
0000 CLASS 00
04001004
PARAMETER
OOOli) rfATE*
00020 AIR
00061 STREAM
00070 TURri
00030 CJLOR
00095 CNOUCTtfY
00300 00
00301 00
00310 900
00400 PH
00405 C02
00410 T ALK
00440 HC03 ION
00445 C03 ION
00605 ORG N
00610 NH3-N
00613 N02-N
00616 N03-N
00625 TOT KJEL
00631 N02tN03
00660 ORTHOP04
00665 PHOS-TOT
00671 PHOS-DIS
00680 T ORG C
00900 TOT HARD
TEMP
TEMP
FLOrf,
JKSN
PT-CO
AT 25C
SATUK
5 i)AY
CAC03
HC03
C03
N
TOTAL
DISS
OISS
N
N-OISS
P04
ORTHO
C
CAC03
CENT
CENT
INST-CFS
JTi>
UNITS
MKriOMHO
MG/L
PERCENT
MG/L
SU
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L '
MG/L
MG/L
Uf t, J
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L P X
nr_i*i P -^
MG/L
MG/L
NIIM3EK
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
•4 •»
^ C J
23
23
23
23
•*•*
22
23
MEAN
?. 30435
9.23912
11232.6
3.21738
4.91304
252.391
14.6304
132.652
1.09565
8.07391
2.00434
108.067
131.696
.000000
.149565
.018261
.002174
.076521
.167826
.078695
.057391
.032609
.019130
4.92272
126.783
VARIANCE
21.9259
96.7467
.sa3E»08
2.99603
13.1739
2749.23
3.67312
28.5170
.304074
.042048
1.12409
263.088
393.315
.000000
.009359
.000297
.000018
.003578
.009291
.003585
.002120
.000266
.000236
29.0227
550.810
STAN OEV COEF VAK
4.6*251
9.83599
7639.29
1.73091
3.62959
52.43J1
1.91654
5.3401**
.551429
.2050b5
1.06023
16.2200
19.8322
.000000
.096742
.017229
.004217
.059819 "
.096308
.059672
.046045
.016298
.015348
5.38728
23.4695'
.563662
1.06460
.680102
.537986
.736766
.207745
.130997
.040257
.503290
.025397
.528966
.150064
.150591
.646822
.943493
1.94001
.781726
.574332
.760803
.802306
.499795
.802303
1.09437
.185116
STAND EK MAXIMUM
.976370
2.05095
1592.90
.360919
.756822
10.9331
.399626
1.11349
.114981
.042757
.221073
3.36210
4.13529
.000000
.020172
.003592
.000879
.012473
.020048
.012484
.009601
.003398
.003200
1.14857
4.89373
18.5000
26.0000-
27099.9
7.99999
15.0000
330.000
17.5000
144.000
2.30000
8.40000
4.10000
131.000
160.000
.000000
.380000
.050000
.010000
.230000
.380000
.23000U
.180000
.070000
.060000
26.0000
160.000
MINIMUM
2.50000
.599E*01
2360.00
.999999
.000000
175.000
11.0000
124.000
.400000
7.70000
.700000
85.0000
104.000
.000000
.000000
.000000
.000000
.000000
.000000
.000000
.000000
.010000
.000000
.000000
96.0000
3El> DATE END OAT£
74/10/10 75/0^/10
74/10/10 75/0^/10
74/10/10 75/09/10
74/10/10 75/09/10
74/10/10 75/09/10
74/10/10 75/09/10
74/10/10 75/09/10
74/10/10 75/09/1&
74/10/10 75/09/10
74/10/10 75/0^/10
74/10/10 75/09/10
74/10/10 75/09/10
74/10/10 75/09/10
74/10/10 75/OV/10
74/10/10 75/09/10
74/10/10 75/09/10
74/10/10 75/09/10
74/10/10 75/OSi/lC
74/10/10 75/09/1C
74/10/10 75/Os»/i:
74/10/10 75/09/11-
74/10/10 75/09/17
74/10/10 75/09/1;
74/10/10 75/09/10
74/10/10 75/09/10
STORET DATE 77/03/29
/TYPA/AMBNT/STREAM
3006A1
48 22 00.0 115 19 10.0
KOOTENAI HIVE*
30 LINCOLN CO MAP
0/KOOCANUSA RESERVOIR
130191
Sf Rl 37 UROG 3.2 MI S OF LIBUY 0AM
ll£r>ALES " 04001004
0000 CLASS 00
PARAMETER
00610 NH3-N
00610 N02-N
00620 N03-N
"0625 TOT KJFL
00630 N02&N01
00665 PHOS-TOT
00671 PHOS-DIS
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
N
N-TOTAL
ORTHO
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L P
MG/L p
1
i
13
14
1A
MEAN
.017893
.001000
.066000
.34*076
.062000
.031286
.023500
VARIANCE
.000080
.074215
.001275
.000298
.000118
OtV
008953
.272424
.035704
.017269
.010847
COEF VArt
.500380
.782655
.575870
.551979
.461569
STAND ER
.002393
.075557
.009542
.004615
.002899
MAXIMUM
.045000
.001000
.064000
.900000
.135000
.070000
.050000
MINIMUM
.010000
.001000
.068000
.050000
.010000
.010000
.010000
BECi DATE
74/10/06
74/10/06
74/10/06
74/10/06
74/10/06
74/10/Ob
74/10/Ob
END
75/09/1 -.
/4/1G/:-
75/0<*/:i.
75/0 a/-.-.
75/OQ/O-
75/0-i/i.-
-------
STORE! DATE 77/03/24
05344980
44 36 36.0 092 36 36.0
/TYPA/AM-jNT/STREAM
PARAMETER
00010 »ATE°
OOOfcJ STREAM
00070 TURP
00080 COLOR
00095 CNDUCTVY
00300 00
00301 00
00310 BUD
00400 PM
00405 CU2
00410 T ALK
00440 HCU3 ION
00445 C03 ION
00550 OIL-GRSE
00600 TOTAL N
00605 OPG N
00608 NH3-N
00610 NM3-N
00613 N02-N
00618 N03-N
00625 TOT KJFL
00631 N02&N03
00665 PHOS-TOT
00666 PHOS-OIS
00720 CYANIOF
TFMP
Fi_0«
JKS-.
PT-CO
AT 25C
SATU*
5 DAY
CAC03
HC03
C03
TOT-SALT
N
N
OISS
TOTAL
01SS
UISS
SI
N-OISS
CN-TOT
CENT
CFS
JTU
UNITS
MICROMHO
MG/L
PERCENT
MG/L
SU
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
Mfi/l ^
MG/L
MG/L .
Mr ft *
MG/L
UO 11 I* S
MG/L P
MG/L
NUMBER
23
15
14
14
18
14
8
13
15
11
13
11
11
2
1
12
4
i •»
12
12
12
11
2
"PAN
8.17391
21803.3
18.5714
39.2857
429.443
10.5428
79.3886
3.49615
7.98666
4.76363
li>7.615
196.727
.000000
9.50000
3.00000
1.11667
.532500
.464166
.025000
2.21083
1.58583
2.22166
.190000
.154545
.000000
MISSISSIPPI R. AT LOCK & 0AM 3.
27049 MINNESOTA
070592
112-*RD 04001004
0000 CLA5S 00
VARIANCE
84.7465
.345E»09
293.955
110.991
3635.29
3.10425
1202.92
3.03314
.112723
6.80454
313.432
961.425
.000000
144.500
.184514
.053625
.046518
.000300
9.98688
.171323
9.94454
.009947
.000000
STAN OEV COEF VArt STAND ER
9.20796
18591.1
17.1451
10.5352
60.2934
1.76189
34.6832
1.74159
.335743
2.60855
17.7040
31.0068
.000000
12.0208
.429552
.231572
.215680
.017321
3.16020
.413912
3.15350
.099737
.000000
1.12651
.852676
.923200
.268170
.140399
.167117
.436879
.498146'
.042038
.547597
.112324
.157613
1.26535
.384673
.434876
.464660
.692821
1.42942
.261006
1.41943
.645357
1.91999
4800.21
4.58223
2.81566
14.2113
.470884
12.2624
.483030
.086688
.786508
4.91021
9.34892
.000000
8.50000
.124001
.115786
.062261
.005000
.912272
.119486
.910336
.030072
.000000
MAXIMUM
25.0000
77999.8
69.9999
SO'. 0000
499.999
12.8000
111.000
6.39999
8.69999
8.50000
183.000
253.000
.000000
18.0000
3.00000
1.90000
.860000
.900001
.060000
12.0000
2.50000
12.0000
.190000
.400000
.000000
MINIMUM
.000000
8100.00
5.00000
20.0000
317.000
7.19999
.110000
1.45000
7.60000
1.10000
123.000
150.000
.000000
1.00000
3.00000
.380000
.350000
.250000
.000000
.330000
.730001
.370000
.190000
.050000
.000000
BEG DATE END DATE
72/11/08 73/09/26
72/11/08 73/09/
72/11/08 73/09/26
72/1 I/Ob 73/09/2*)
73/01/17 73/09/26
72/11/08 73/09/26
72/11/08 73/09/26
72/11/28 73/09/2*)
72/11/08 73/09/2*!
72/11/28 73/09/2*>
72/11/28 73/09/2^
72/11/28 73/05/07
72/11/22 72/11/22
72/11/22 73/09/2*,
72/11/22 73/01/17
72/11/22 73/09/2*
72/11/22 73/09/2^
72/11/22 73/09/2':
72/11/22 73/OV/2*
72/11/22 73/09/2*.
72/11/22 72/11/22
72/11/28 73/09/2*
72/11/28 73/05/0*
STORET DATE 77/03/28
/TYPA/AM8NT/STKEAM
27A4A6 LS27A4A6
44 36 30.0 092 36 30.0 4
MISSISSIPPI RIVER
27 15 RED 4ING
T/LAKE PEPIN 070592
AT LOCK t 0AM 3 5 MI N* NEDWlNGt
11EPALES 04001004
0000 CLASS 00
MN
PARAMETER
00610 NH3-N
00615 N02-N
00620 NU3-N
00625 TOT KJFL
00630 N02&N03
00665 PHOS-TOT
00*71 PHOS-OIS
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
N
N-TOTAL
ORTHO
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L "P
MG/L p
NUMBER
—r 13
13
13
-7- 13
13
—r 13
13
MEAN
.33*615
.027615
1.32423
1.P3615
1.34346
.209230
.134692
VARIANCE
.048620
.000177
.994174
.261070
.98537*
.001066
.001614
STAN DEV
.220500
.013295
.997083
.513950
.992660
.032652
•U4Q180
COEF VA*
.651183
.481435
.752954
.270896
.738883
.156057
.383789
STANU ER
.061156
.003687
.276541
.141712
.275314
.009056
.011144
MAXIMUM
.690000
.051000
3.25000
3.00000
3.30000
.250000
.170000
MINIMUM
.042000
.014000
.140000
1.00000
.168000
.155000
.044000
BEo DATE
72/10/14
72/10/14
72/10/14
72/10/14
72/10/14
72/10/14
72/10/14
END DAT:
73/09/G-
73/03/u-
73/09/u-
73/OWO-
73/0-/0-
73/D-i/O-
73/Oi/O-
-------
STORE! DATE 77/03/84
/TY0A/AMBNT/STREAM
05331560
44 fc4 48.0 092 51 08.0 2
MISSISSIPPI R 8L L 416
.757459
. 128626
. 754664
.033482
.010000
13.0809
11.3296
MAXIMUM
26.000G
49999.9
50.0000
50.0000
607*000
13.0000
120.000
5.79999
8.59999
17.0000
233.000
284.000
.000000
32.0000
1.80000
1.10000
1 .7000C
A • C W V V
.050000
8.60000
2.60000
8.60000
.340000
.020000
300.000
130.000
MINIMUM
.000000
4500.00
5.00000
20.0000
386.000
6.79999
81.9999
2.00000
7.4COOO
2.50000
131.000
160.000
.000000
1.00000
.650001
.550000
. 1 10000
• A A V V V V
.000000
.170000
1.20000
.210000
.060000
.000000
180.000
15.0000
3EG DATE END OAT£
72/11/28 73/09/19
72/11/28 73/09/19
72/11/26 73/09/19
72/11/28 73/09/r*
72/11/28 73/09/19
72/11/2& 73/09/19
72/11/30 73/09/19
72/11/28 73/09/19
72/11/28 73/09/19
72/11/28 73/09/1?
72/11/26 73/09/19
72/11/28 73/09/19
72/11/28 73/09/19
72/11/28 73/05/07
72/11/28 73/09/19
72/11/28 73/01/17
72/11/28 73/09/1?
72/11/28 73/09/15
72/11/28 73/09/1?
72/11/28 73/09/1?
72/11/26 73/09/i?
72/11/28 73/Oy/l?
72/11/28 73/05/^7
72/11/28 73/09/19
72/11/28 73/09/19
en
in
STORET DATE 77/03/28
/TYPA/AMdNT/STREAM
27A4A4 LS27A4A4
44 45 00.0 092 51 00.0 4
MISSISSIPPI RIVEH-
27 15 HASTINGS
T/LAKE PEPIN 070591
US 61 BRUI3 N HASTINGS AriOVtSTP
11EPALES 04001004
0000 CLASS 00
PARAMETER
00610 NH3-N
C06I5 N02-N
006?C N03-N
00625 TOT
00630 N02&N03
00665 PiOS-TOT
00671 PMO'J-DIS
TOTAL
TOTAL
TUTAL
N
N-TOTAL
OPT HO
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L P
MG/L P
NUMPEH
-r u
11
11
-r 11
11
11
11
MEAN
.337090
.OP4955
1.79245
1.77636
1.80109
.254545
.135909
VARIANCE
.054846
.000227
1.04386
.078006
1.04171
.004647
.004290
STAN DEV
.234192
.015051
1.02169
.279295
1.02064
.068172
.065501
COEF
.694746
.603124
.573196
.157229
.566682
.267817
.481945
STAND EH
.070612
.G04538
.J080b2
.08*211
.307736
.020555
.019749
MAXIMUM
.740000
.054000
2.80000
2.10000
2.90000
.370000
.250000
MINIMUM
.032000
.004000
.231000
1.26000
.260000
.170000
.034000
8Ei> DATE END
72/10/14
72/10/1* 73/0-t/e:
72/10/14 73/OVcr
72/10/14
72/10/14
72/10/14 73/Ov/ir
72/10/14 73/Oi/£>
-------
ST3RET DATE 7'/m/?l
06662000
38 47 30.0 099 43 20.0 2
SMOKY MILL «? AT CEDA* 9LUFF 0AM.
20195 KANSAS
112«r
-------
>T03ET DATE 77/03/28'
01431670
41 ?? 04.0 075 19 10.0 2
NALLENPAUPACK CREEK AT LEOGEOALE
42103 PENNSYLVANIA
020391
04001004
0000 CLASS 00
DA^AMETE*
00008 LAB
00010 WATER
00020 Al*
0006$ STUEA*
OOOtl STREAM
00065 STREAH
00095 CNOUCTVY
00300 DO
00301 DO
00310 BOD
00400 P"
00405 C02
00410 T ALK
00440 HC03 ION
00445 C03 ION
00500 RESIDUE
00530 RESIDUE
00600 TOTAL N
00605 ORG N
00608 NH3-N
00610 NH3-N
00613 N02-N
'0615 N02-N
00618 N03-N
00620 N03-N
00625 TOT KJFL
00630 N02&N03
00631 N02&N03
00660 ORTHOP04
OO66!> PHOS-TOT
WOO 7 mw«* I V i
00671 PHOS-OIS
IUENT.
TFMP
TEMP
FLOW
FLOW.
STAGE
AT 25C
SATUR
5 DAY
CAC03
HC03
CO 3
TOTAL
TOT NFLT
N
N
DISS
TOTAL
OISS
TOTAL
DISS
TOTAL
N
N-TOTAL
N-DISS
P04
ORTHO
NUMBER
CENT
CLNT
CFS
INST-CFS
FtET
MICROMHO
MG/L
PERCENT
MG/L
SU
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
«J(- XI J
MG/L
MG/L ^
MG/L J
u/» *i V
U/? It J
MG/L
MG/L
HG/L P -^
NUMBER
8
12
12
11
11
1
12
11
11
9
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
6
10
4
4
— 7 7
^ •
4
.
4
11
"EAN
1404916
10.8333
14.5833
368.417
369.454
lb.1000
65.1665
10.3818
94.2725
2.50000
6,73635
4.80909
11.4545
13.8182
.000000
52.9998
6.54544
.443333
.185000
.062500
.078333
.003250
.004000
.047500
.278571
.242222
.281428
.050000
.016364
.01 7616
• V 4 r w jv
.005545
VARIANCE STAN OEV
.1S6E»14 3957814
90.1512 9.49480
76.9922 8.77452
124294 352.554
124272 .352.523
82.7113 9.09457
5.24372 2.28992
48.2250 6.94442-
8.63999 2.93939
.160571 .400713
9.82692 3.13479
16.6727 4.08323
23.5636 4.85424
.000000 .000000
75.8121 8.70701
19.0727 4.36723
.031307 .176938
.024672 .157074
.002692 .051881
.001257 .035449
.000002 .001500
.000019 .004359
.000892 .029861
.021014 .144963
.020420 .142897
.021214 .145652
.000867 .029439
.000225 .015015
.000069 .008298
• VWVU7 •VVOfcVO*
.000022 .004719
4229A2
41 22 02.0
COEF VAR STAND ER
2.81712
.876445
.601682
.956941
.956763
.139559
.220570
.073663
1.17576
.059485
.651848
.356472
.351294
•
.164284
.667217
.399108
.849052
.830101
.452547
.461538
1.08973
.628649
.520382
.589944
.517546
.588785
.917593
.470502
.851039
075 19 14
1399298
2.74091
2.53298
106.299
106.290
.
2.62538
.690436
2.09382
.979795
.120820
.945175
1.23114
1.46361
.000000
2.62526
1.31677
.072235
.049671
.025941
.014472
.000750
.001648
.014930
.054791
.047632
.055051
.014720
.004527
.002502
• w Vfc JV fc
.001423
.0 4
MAXIMUM
.111E*08
25.0000
25.0000
1200.00
1200.00
15.1000
84.9999
14.2000
103.000
9.69999
7.49999
11.0000
20.0000
24.0000
.000000
69.9999
18.0000
.720000
.420000
.140000
.140000
.005000
.010000
.080000
.470000
.459999
.469999
.080000
.040000
.030000
• v*# w w
.012000
MINIMUM
.849999
.000000
.999999
51.9999
51. 9999
15.1000
52.9999
6.79999
77.9999
.000000
0.19999
.700000
6.00000
6.99999
.oooooc
40.9999
2.00000
.220000
.000000
.030000
.050000
.002000
.000000
.010000
.030000
.100000
.030000
.010000
.000000
.007000
.000000
BEG DATE
73/06/20
73/06/20
73/06/20
73/07/25
73/07/25
73/06/20
73/06/20
73/06/20
73/06/20
73/06/20
7J/06/20
73/06/20
73/06/20
73/06/20
73/06/20
73/06/20
73/06/20
73/10/15
73/06/20
73/06/20
73/10/15
73/06/20
73/10/15
73/06/20
73/10/15
73/07/25
73/10/15
73/06/20
73/06/20
73/06/20
73/06/20
END DATE
74/04/17
74/04/17
74/04/17
74/04/17
7«/04/17
73/06/20
74/04/17
74/04/17
74/04/17
74/04/17
7<»/04/17
74/04/17
74/04/17
74/04/17
74/04/17
74/04/17
74/04/17
74/03/21
74/03/21
73/09/18
74/03/21
73/09/18
74/04/17
73/09/18
74/04/17
74/03/21
74/04/17
73/09/18
74/04/17
74/04/17
74/04/17
NALLENPAUPACK CREEK
42 7.5 NEWFOUNDLAND
I /LAKE WALLENPAUPACK
/TYPA/AMBNT/STREAM
AT BANK .3
1 1EPALES
020391
MI E OF LEDGEDALE
04001004
0000 CLASS 00
PARAMETER
00610 NH3-N
00615 N02-N
00620 N03-N
'625 TOT KJEL
00630 N02&N03
00665 PHOS-TOT
nnc.7i Dunc_nrc
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
N
N-TOTAL
norun
n/^ j> y
MG/L •*
u/- ^* V
Mfi/l -/
kj/» «i r\ J
NUMBER
i •»
7- 12
x^ "•
1 1
— • " /• 1C
1 "*
MEAN
.063167
.001333
I&52916
.177416
.024864
_nAA&17
VARIANCE STAN OEV
.003524 .059364
.242E-06 .000492
.017949 .133974
.110311 .332131
.017770 .133304
.000065 .008075
.noonoi .OOIAI?
COEF VAR
.939807
.369277
.760136
.508689
.751362
.324771
.7AC4QQ
STAND ER
.017137
.000142
.038675
.095878
.038482
.002435
.00057Q
MAXIMUM
.189000
.002000
1.30000
.368000
.040000
.010000
MINIMUM
.010000
.001000
.011000
.200000
.012000
.010000
.005000
BEG DATE
73/05/19
73/05/19
73/05/19
73/05/19
73/05/19
73/05/19
73/05/19
END DATE
74/04/23
74/04/23
74/04/23
74/04/23
74/04/23
74/04/23
74/04/21
-------
58
In 1971, the Illinois EPA collected from 2 to 7 samples at nine
comparable sampling sites on seven streams from which the NES obtain-
ed from 9 to 14 samples during the period of June, 1973 through
May, 1974. There is quite good agreement between IL EPA and NES
total phosphorus data considering the difference in times of collec-
tion (excluding one obviously different data pair, the mean of all
IL EPA TP data is 155 yg/1 and the mean of all NES data is 157 yg/1;
the coefficient of rank correlation is 0.78, n = 8).
In 1973-74, the Wisconsin DNR collected 3 or 4 samples at 11
stream sites from which the NES collected from 11 to 14 samples
during the period of September, 1972 through September, 1973 (28 of
the 38 DNR samples were taken after NES sampling was completed).
There is very good agreement between DNR and NES total phosphorus
data (excluding one obviously different data pair, the mean of all
DNR TP data is 122 yg/1 and the mean of NES data is 134 yg/1; the
coefficient of rank correlation is 0.88, n = 10). However, the
agreement between DNR and NES total nitrogen data is not as good
(excluding two obviously different data pairs, the mean of all DNR
data is 1,643 ug/1 and the mean of all-NES data is 1,816 yg/1; the
coefficient of rank correlation is 0.65, n = 9).
Finally, data obtained at several of the NES analytical quality
control stations were evaluated. Control stations were those at which
two separate samples were taken, usually at the same time by the same
National Guard sampling team, but a few such stations were sampled
by different teams on different days. For the most part, one of the
sample pairs was an inlet sample for one water body and the other
sample was an outlet sample for another water body, so the two
samples had different identifiers (STORET-code) and could not
readily be detected as control samples by the analysts at CERL.
One example of a control station on the Wichita River in Texas
is shown on the following page. It will be noted that though the
sampling locations are identical, one set is identified as the
inlet of Lake Diversion, and the other set is identified as the
outlet of Lake Kemp. Also it will be noted that the data essen-
tially are identical considering the precision limits of the ana-
lytical methods and the extra "outlet" sample.
Comparisons of six other sets of analytical quality control data
are on file at CERL; and in all cases, the data are as nearly identi-
cal as in the example shown.
-------
STORET DATE 77/04/11
4812A2
33 <*5 37.0 099 08 30.0
46 7.5 M[ LK
DIVERSION 101591
183/263 BRDG 6ELO LAKE K£rtP 0AM
11EPALES 04001004
0000 CLASS 00
PARAMETER
00610 ' NH3-N
00615 NU2-N
00620 N03-N
00625 TOT KJFL
00630 N02kN03
00665 PHOS-TOT
00671 PhUS-DIS
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
N
N-TOTAL
ORTriO
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L P"
MG/L P
NUMBER
' 7
2
3
7
7
6
. MEAN
.035714
.009500
.174667
.664235.
.038143
.031667
.008571
VARIANCE
.000395
.000084
.049669
.063929
.000586
.000057
.000031
STAN OEV
.019881
.009192
.222866
.252842
.024259
.007528
.005563
COEF VAH
.556658
.967619
1.27595
.380622
.635991
.237721
.649073
STAND ER
.00.751*
.006500
.123672
.095565
.009169
.003073
.002103
MAXIMUM
.075000
.016000
.432000
1.200UO
.080000
.040000
.020000
MINIMUM
.020000
.003000
.044000
.400000
.005000
.020000
.005000
BElj DATE
74/09/07
7W09/07
74/09/07
74/09/07
74/09/07
74/09/07
74/09/07
ENU DATE
75/0 V22
74/M/31
74/11/16
7S/'M/22
75/0^/22
75/0-J/22
75/0-1/22
STORET DATE 77/04/13
/TYPA/AMBNT/STREAM
4
-------
60
E. Tributary Nutrient Loads -
In our evaluation of nutrient loads in streams, we have restricted
comparisons to loads reported by others which we assume were deter-
mined by direct measurement. Unfortunately, with only one exception,
the NES working papers are the only reports we have reviewed in which
the method of calculation of loadings is stated or at least referenced.
Because of this and a general uncertainty as to the sources of flow
data (U.S.G.S. or independently gaged, metered, or estimated in one or
more ways), we are by far more dubious about the comparability of stream
nutrient loads (and wastewater treatment plant effluent loads; section
F, below) than any of the other measurements made during the Survey.
Considering the good agreement between the NES stream nutrient
concentrations and those of others demonstrated in the preceding
section, it would be expected that equally good agreement can be
shown for nutrient loads provided sampling times are comparable, the
frequency of sampling is similar, the flows essentially are identi-
cal, and the same method of calculation is used. However, in one
case (Campbell and Dean, 1976), using the concentrations and flows
given, we calculated a total phosphorus load for one stream that is
63% less than the load reported; but for another stream, our calcu-
lated TP load is 54% less than the reported load. Obviously, some
unknown weighting factor was incorporated in the calculation of the
reported loads. It is equally obvious that if some of the raw data
had not been included in that report, the weighting factor would not
have been detected, and a spurious comparison of nutrient loads would
have resulted.
It should be noted that flows are equally as important as nutrient
concentrations in the determination of nutrient loads, so some differ-
ences in loadings would be expected because of flow differences. For
example, the U.S. Geological Survey submitted limits of accuracy of
the gaged and estimated flows they provided for the NES-sampled tribu-
taries, and the limits of accuracy of gaged flows of tributaries
sampled in 1972 varied from ±5% to ±15% (one extreme of ±50%); i.e.,
as much as 30% difference in calculated nutrient loads could have
resulted solely from the limits of accuracy of the gaged flows, and
the limits of accuracy of flows measured or estimated by others are
not likely to be as good as those attained by U.S.G.S.
Because of the scarcity of reported nutrient loadings and the
uncertainties noted above, data comparisons necessarily will be less
extensive than in other sections of this report.
-------
61
In the following table, three years of loading data reported
by Weiss and Moore (1975) for three gaged tributaries and two
years of data for the gaged outlet of John H. Kerr Reservoir, VA
and NC, were compared with NES loadings. The Weiss-Moore loads
were reported as mean daily loads (in kg) based on monthly samples
and were extrapolated to yearly loads; the NES loads were calcu-
lated using mean annual concentrations and mean annual flows.
River
Roanoke
Banister
Dan
Outlet
(Roanoke)
Data Source No.
& Period Samples
W-M, 7/72-3/73
W-M, 4/73-3/74
W-M, 4/74-3/75
NES, 7/73-6/74
W-M, 7/72-3/73
W-M, 4/73-3/74
W-M, 4/74-3/75
NES, 7/73-6/74
W-M, 7/72-3/73
W-M, 4/73-3/74
W-M, 4/74-3/75
NES, 7/73-6/74
W-M, 9/73-3/74
W-M, 4/74-3/75
NES, 7/73-6/74
8
11
12
15
8
11
12
14
8
11
12
13
6
12
15
Mean Flow
(m3/sec)
98.780
104.982
77.172
82.460
15.916
15.463
17.417
14.800
78.418
83.091
79.381
68.100
210.276
250.887
197.800
TP Load
(kq/yr)
221,920
191,260
209,510
205,435
18,615
23,360
26,645
32,205
279,225
428,510
354,050
466,030
201,845
377,045
149,710
TN Load
(kg/yr)
1,598,700
2,005,675
1,185,520
3,123,150
240,535
304,045
321,200
578,750
1,451,605
2,301,690
2,106,050
2,920,740
4,200,785
4,026,680
6,699,420
Considering the differences in sampling periods, flows, numbers
of samples, and methods of calculation, the NES data compare quite
well (note the between-year differences in the Weiss-Moore loads).
Another example of between-year loading differences is shown in
the following table where the NES data are compared with data re-
ported by Wright and Soltero (1973) for two tributaries and the
outlet of Yellowtail Reservoir, MT and WY. The nutrient loads in
both cases were calculated using mean annual concentrations and
mean annual flows. Again considering differences, particularly samp-
ling times, the Wright-Soltero 1969 loads compare quite well with the
NES loads.
River
Bighorn
Shoshone
Outlet
(Bighorn)
Data Source No.
& Period Samples
W-S,
W-S,
NES,
W-S,
W-S,
NES,
W-S,
W-S,
NES,
1/68-12/68
1/69-12/69
10/74-9/75
1/68-12/68
1/69-12/69
10/74-9/75
1/68-12/68
1/69-12/69
10/74-9/75
19
27
10
19
27
13
19
27
8
Mean Flow
(m3/sec)
72.
72.
64.
28.
31.
29.
117.
94.
100.
384
414
660
388
094
480
916
953
780
TP Load
(kg/yr)
1,524,
589,
656,
189,
201,
383,
122,
86,
66,
845
180
595
790
020
960
715
840
740
TN Load
(kg/yr)
3
3
3
1
.1
1
4
3
5
,
,
,
*
,
f
,
,
,
145
459
085
540
746
934
741
455
075
,565
,725
,185
,715
,415
,665
,215
,580
,580
-------
62
Wright et al. (1974) reported total phosphorus loads in the Mis-
souri River inlet of Canyon Ferry Reservoir, MT, for four months of
sampling (May-September) in 1971 and 1972. The reported loads were
extrapolated to a full year and are compared to the NES total phos-
phorus load measured during the period of 10/74 through 8/75 (calcu-
lated using mean annual concentrations and flows).
Data Source
& Year
No.
Samples
TP Load
(kg/yr)
W - 1971
W - 1972
NES - 1974-75
16
16
13
405,510
347,030
370,080
Hydroscience, Incorporated (Anonymous, 1974), reported nutrient
and flow data obtained by the U.S. Geological Survey at a station on
the West Branch of the Delaware River, NY, during the period of 05/73
through 04/74. The same station was sampled by the NES during the
period of 11/72 through 04/73. The nutrient loads compared below
were calculated using the reported mean annual concentrations and
flows.
No.
Sampl es
U.S.G.S
11
NES
14
Total P
(kg/yr)
U.S.G.S. NES
82,405 81,235
Total N
(kg/yr)
U.S.G.S. NES
498,110 726,055
In a U.S. Geological Survey publication, Goolsby and McPherson
(1970) reported nutrient concentrations and flows for the St. Johns
River outlet of Lake Poinsett, FL, obtained during the period of
07/69 through 07/70. The same station was sampled by the NES during
the period of 03/73 through 02/74. .The nutrient loads compared below
were calculated using the means of the.reported concentrations and
flows.
No.
Sampl es
U.S.G.S.
6
Total P
(kq/yr)
NES
11
U.S.G.S.
82,540
NES
75,045
Total N
(kg/yr)
U.S.G.S.
1,907,445
NES
1,801,035
Agena (1975) reported nutrient and flow data obtained at a
station on the South Fork Chariton River, IA, during the period of
03/71 through 11/72. The same station was sampled by the NES during
the period of 08/74 through 07/75. The nutrient loads shown below
were calculated using the means of the reported concentrations and
.flows.
-------
63
No.
Samples
A
25
.• NES
14
Total P
(kg/yr)
A
17,195
NES
20,150
Total N
(kg/yr)
A
217,370
NES
176,915
Brye (1970) reported the sums of all total phosphorus and total
nitrogen inputs to and the loads in the outflows of two TVA reser-
voirs in Tennessee based on data obtained during calendar year 1968.
In the next table, the TVA loads are compared with NES loads that
are based on data obtained during the period of 04/73 through 03/74.
Cherokee Reservoir
Agency
TVA
NES
Total P
(kg/yr)
Inputs
426,305
469,800
Outflow
131,520
174,735
Total N
(kg/yr)
Inputs
11,682,540
6,826,440
Outflow
8,027,210
6,402,390
Douglas Reservoir
TVA
NES
789,155
682,370
190,475
286,690
6,598,640
9.126,655
4,716,555
7.702,060
Overall, the NES loadings compare quite well to those reported by
others considering variables such as flows, times of sampling, and
methods of calculation.
A further appraisal of the NES nutrient loadings involves the
apparent loss of nitrogen, phosphorus (less frequently), or both
nutrients (rarely) from some of the water bodies surveyed.. Usually,
but not invariably, the apparent nitrogen losses occurred at water
bodies with mean hydraulic retention times of less than 40 days,
and losses of both nitrogen and phosphorus occurred at water bodies
with retention times of less than ten days.
While nitrogen washout could occur as a result of nitrogen
fixation in the water bodies, and phosphorus washout would be possible,
for example, if point-source inputs had been reduced or eliminated
in the recent past, the limits of accuracy of flow measurements
noted above could have resulted in many of the nutrient imbalances;
e.g., at 90% of the water bodies surveyed in 1972 where nutrient
loss occurred, the loss can be accounted for by the accuracy of the
flow data (i.e., the percent loss is less than the range of the •
accuracy limits of flows). However, the magnitude of loss at the
six remaining water bodies indicates other factors were involved,
but the probable causes of the losses can be identified with some
degree of confidence for five of the six.
-------
64
In regard to nitrogen losses, it is noted that such losses occurred
at Shagawa Lake, MM, in three of the six years for which loadings
were reported by Malueg et al. (1975), although tributary sampling
there was much more intensive than was possible during the Survey
(loads in the Shagawa and Burntside rivers were determined from
weekly nutrient samples and daily flows; loads in the creeks, where
no relationship could be established for nutrient concentrations
vs. flow, were calculated using mean nutrient concentrations for
a month and the total flow for that month). Shagawa Lake has a mean
hydraulic retention time of nine months.
Further consideration of the NES tributary phosphorus concen-
trations, loads, and losses involves sampling frequency, particu-
larly with respect to smaller streams. Some recent studies have
shown that a large proportion of the phosphorus export of smaller
watersheds is associated with short-term periods of peak runoff;
and in other studies reviewed, frequency of sampling and continuous
vs. discontinuous flow measurements for the determination of phos-
phorus loads in small and medium-sized streams were evaluated.
Treunert et al. (1974) used total phosphorus concentrations
obtained from sampling a small stream (mean flow of about 1.1 m3/sec)
described as draining an agricultural area with scattered settle-
ments (presumably, there are no point sources in the drainage since
the authors note the stream does not show distinct daily variations
of nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations, and no mention of point
sources is made anywhere in their report).
The stream was sampled approximately every three days in 1968
(111 samples in 366 days) with continuous flow measurements during
that period to compare various sampling frequencies and continuous
vs. discontinuous total daily flow measurements. To obtain a base
or reference load, 266 fictive TP concentrations were added to the
data base by interpolating concentration values for the days no
samples were taken; the daily measured or interpolated concentra-
tions were then multiplied by the respective total daily flows, and
the sum of the daily loads for the year was used as the reference
total phosphorus annual load. The sum of the total daily flows
provided the reference annual total flow.
The authors then simulated sampling using intervals of from
one day to 29 days; varied the starting day for sampling intervals
of three days and longer to provide a number of sampling sequences
(e.g., with a seven-day interval, varying the starting day from
the first to the second day, and so on, provided seven different
-------
65
sampling series for the year); and compared the -simulated annual
TP loads and annual flows with the reference load and the reference
flow.
From the results of their comparisons, the authors concluded
that with continuous flow measurements, the sampling frequency for
small streams could be extended to 28 days if a mean of the differ-
ences of annual loads from a reference load (the sum of daily con-
centrations X total daily flows) of 20% is acceptable as well as
a maximum difference of about 40%.. They also concluded that if
the maximum'difference is not to exceed 20%, a sampling frequency
of from 14 to 21 days is necessary.
A similar study was conducted by Linger (1970) on a larger stream
(mean flow of 18.6 m3/sec) with point sources in the drainage. He
collected daily 24-hour composited samples (subsamples every 30
seconds),'measured flows continuously,'and determined daily nutrient
loads for a one-year period. In this way, he determined quite accurate
total phosphorus and other nutrient loads.
Linger then simulated sampling every third, fifth, tenth, and
twentieth day and added another series for each of the three
shortest intervals by offsetting the beginning day by one day
(e.g., tenth day and tenth day +1). Deviations from the annual
total phosphprus load ranged from -13.8% (tenth day + 1) to +13.9%
(third day). The deviation of twentieth-day sampling was -8.2%,
and no particular relationship between sampling frequency and
deviation from the reference load was evident.
On the basis of these results, Linger concluded that reasonably
accurate nutrient loads (margin of error of less than 10%) can be
determined, by sampling from ten to 20 times per year providing
samples are taken at all characteristic stream flows, especially
during high flows.
Johnson et al. (1976) studied phosphorus losses from the Fall
Creek (NY) watershed during the period of September, 1972, and April,
1974. This study is of particular interest since their Fall Creek
sampling site 1 was sampled 13 times by the NES during the period
November, 1972, through October, 1973. The stream has a mean flow
of about 5 m3/sec (Anonymous, 1973).
The authors sampled several times a day during most high flows
and at three- to 20-day intervals during low flow periods; flows
were measured bihourly at a nearby U.S. Geological Survey gaging
station. Over 600 samples were collected at their site 1 during
the 20-month study period, and analyses of dissolved molybdate
-------
66
reactive phosphorus (DMRP), dissolved unreactlve P, solid phase P,
and suspended solids were performed. From this rather intensive
sampling program, the authors determined that losses of phosphorus
from the watershed per unit of time varied considerably, and 75% of
the loss occurred during highest flows which occurred 10% of the
time. They also concluded that if exports are calculated using
total discharge and mean concentrations in samples taken at random
or on a fixed schedule, errors would range from slight in the case
of dissolved unreactive P (concentrations not flow-related) to
severe in the case of solid phase P and suspended solids (concen-
trations directly related to flows).
Although their study period overlapped the NES sampling period,
only six months of their data on parameters common to both studies
(DMRP and flows) can be compared. For months with low discharge
rates (September and October, 1972, and May through November, 1973),
the authors lumped the data and presented only the totals of the
loads and flows for those nine months in their report (Table 3,
page 152). Also for those months, their DMRP and suspended solids
loads were calculated by a method different from that used
in the remainder of their study (i.e., the mean of measured concen-
trations for each of the nine months times the sum of the bihourly
discharges for those months).
ThevJMRP exports of the authors for other than low-flow months
were calculated using an equation which included a factor for
conversion of instantaneous flux to kg per two hours, the instan-
taneous bihourly discharge rate, monthly coefficients obtained from
regression equations of DMRP on discharge and rate of change of
discharge, and the bihourly rate of change of discharge. For the
six comparable months, the sum of the authors' DMRP loads differs
by 285 kg (7.2%) from the NES load calculated using mean daily
flows and concentrations. Considering the different methods of
calculation and differences in analytical techniques (e.g., analy-
tical precision, sample preservation, centrifugation vs NES fil-
tration, and stannous chloride vs NES ascorbic acid reduction),
the two.loads are quite comparable (3,675 kg vs NES 3,960 kg).
The flow data reported by the authors are almost exactly the
same as the mean monthly flows the U.S..Geological Survey provided
the NES (three of the six are identical, and overall there is a
difference of only 1%). This is not unexpected since the gaging
station at which both sets of flow data were obtained is equipped
with a water-stage recorder that provides a continuous graph of
the fluctuations of water surface elevation (Anonymous, 1973).
-------
67
Welch (1977) conducted an even more Intensive samp-ling program
than that used in the Fall Creek study cited above to determine
nutrient loads in Issaquah Creek, WA (mean-flow of about 4 m3/sec).
By continuous monitoring of the stream during water year 1973 (over
1,000 samples with continuous flow measurement) he found that daily
observations were necessary to avoid missing from 25 to 30 percent
of "the annual total phosph.orus export that occurred .in four-day
periods- of peak runoff in each of two•consecutive years.
On the basis of the results of the-studies cited above, it
appears that intensive sampling may not be necessary to determine
phosphorus loads in larger streams with acceptable accuracy (ref.
Linger, 1970) but that more intensive'sampling than was possible
during the Survey may be necessary for accurate measurement of.
phosphorus loads in smaller'streams. However, note that while
Johnson et al. (1976) found that 75% of the phosphorus export^of
Fall Creek occurred in 10% of the time, Welch (1977) found that
25 to 30% of .the Issaquah Creek export occurred in four- days, and
Malueg et al. (1975) reported that no relationship could be estab-
lished between nutrient concentrations and flows in four small
tributaries of Shagawa Lake, MN (mean flows of from 0.02 to 0.25
m3/sec). These differing findings indicate that .it would be
necessary tormake determinations of sampling frequencies-needed
on a stream-by-stream basis. Given" the scope of the'Survey,,,that
would have been a virtually impossible undertaking and probably
would have exhausted'-the total resources of-the Survey in-just
one of the larger states such as Minnesota where 89% of the streams
sampled had flows of less than 5 mVsec.
At this point in time, there may not-be any sure way of deter-
mining the degree of error, if any, in the nutrient-loads.measured
by the NES. Ideally, one could compare NES loads with those .deter-
mined by intensive sampling during a comparable period'of time, as
in the Fall Creek study, with an assumption of no error in the
reference study. However, as far as is known, Fall Creek-is the
only case in kind, and even there the comparable data are so limited
as to make any conclusion somewhat debatable.
Lacking comparable loading studies based on intensive sampling,
we reviewed the data obtained in 1972 on 80 lakes and 167 tribu-
taries in the states of Michigan and Minnesota to determine what
the consequences of a sizable error in stream nutrient loadings
might have been in terms of our assessment of nutrient controll-
ability, the primary end-product of the Survey effort. Assuming
the improbable case that all NES phosphorus loads in the 167
tributaries were in error by plus or minus 30% , we found that
our assessment would be changed for only 12 of the 80 cases (15%).
-------
68
Another way of assessing the validity of the NES stream phos-
phorus loading data is by using loading models with the NES data to
evaluate the relationships between tributary phosphorus loads or
concentrations and the in-water-body phosphorus concentrations.
For this exercise, we used a data set of 53 NES water bodies in
the southeastern states and the input-output model of Vollen-
weider (1975) and the conceptually-similar models developed by
Dillon (1975) and Larsen and Mercier (1976). For brevity, we
describe below only the use of the Vollenweider model as an
illustration of the application of all three models.
First, we converted the absolute total phosphorus loadings
of the 53 water .bodies, in grams of total phosphorus per square
meter of surface area .per year, to ratios by dividing the meas-
ured loadings by Vollenweider's eutrophic loadings. We then
regressed the .logs of the median in-water-body total phosphorus
concentrations on the logs of the loading ratios and determined
the coefficient of correlation (r). Using the Vollenweider
model, r = 0.90 (the regression equation and the line of best
fit are shown in the graph on the following page).
Similar regressions were calculated for the other two models.
With the Dillon model, r = 0.93,.and the regression equation is
logioTP concentration = 1.2722 + 0.91086 Iogi0ratio. With the
Lar'sen-Mercier model,> = 0.94, and the regression equation is
log10TP concentration = 1.2566 + 0.90778 logioratio.
Further, in his assessment of phosphorus models for lake
management, Reckhow (1977) utilized the NES data on 64 water bodies
north of 40° latitude that were sampled in 1972 and 1973. In his
critical evaluation of these data, Reckhow stated (chap. 3, pg. 9)
"...it is interesting to find that despite the still uncertain
impact of hydrologic budget changes on the nutrient concentrations
of some lakes, and the possible violation of the steady-state
assumption for some lakes, the correlation between the log of the
outflow [median]- total phosphorus concentration and the log of the
lake median total phosphorus concentration is .96..."
These high coefficients, of correlation indicate that if the
NES phosphorus loadings are significantly in error, the errors
are consistent in magnitude and direction, at least for the tribu-
taries and outlets of the 117 water bodies included in the two
data sets discussed above. Further, if the loadings are in error,
then the in-water-body phosphorus concentrations must also be
in error in the same direction and to the same or very similar
degree (a possible but unlikely coincidence).
-------
1000 Or-
I
I
o woo
i
1
100
40
01
VOLLENWEIDER RAT/0
Logw TP CONC = 12154 + 062969 Logto RATIO
N=53
r =090
o\
\0
JO tOO
EXISTING TOTAL PHOSPHORUS LOADING (g/m^/yr)
VOLLENWEIDER'S EUTROPHIC LOADING (g/m2/yr)
1000
-------
70
Also, since the water body phosphorus concentrations were
determined at EMSL-Las Vegas, and the tributary concentrations
were determined at CERL, the correlations suggest a high degree
of association between the phosphorus measurements made at the
two laboratories.
F. Wastewater Treatment Plant Effluent Nutrient Loads -
During the Survey, from five to 14 effluent samples and corres-
ponding flow data were obtained from 801 municipal wastewater treat-
ment plants in 47 states. However, we have found reports of nutrient
data by others for only 16 of those plants, including six for which
the times of sampling differed from those of the NES by as much as
seven years. Also, in the reports on four of those plants, neither
the number of samples nor the kind of samples (e.g., grab or composite)
are indicated; and for 11 of the 12 remaining plants, the NES data are
based on from two to 14 times more samples. Further, the reported
data were obtained during sampling periods ranging from one day to a
maximum of four months, whereas the NES data resulted from monthly
sampling for a one-year period.
Using the data reported, we have computed annual nutrient loads
and have compared those loads to the NES loads. The comparisons are
on file at CERL, but because of the limitations noted above, the simi-
larities or differences between the loads are of questionable signifi-
cance at best. However, recently we have evaluated the data resulting
from the effluent sampling at the 801 wastewater treatment plants, and
the results are in good agreement with the expected values.
Of those sampled, 702 plants had a variety of conventional treat-
ment processes but were neither affected by phosphate detergent bans
nor included tertiary phosphorus removal, 42 plants were in the state
of New York where a phosphate detergent ban was in effect during about
half of the sampling period, and 25 facilities were in Indiana where a
state-wide phosphate detergent ban was in effect during the entire
sampling period. The remaining 32 plants included tertiary phosphorus
removal processes.
The median effluent total phosphorus load of the 702 plants was
1.0 ± 0.04 kg/capita/year which is midway between the 0.8 kg/capita/
year reported by Vollenweider (1968) and the 1.2 kg/capita/year report-
ed by Bartsch (1972). The median effluent total phosphorus load of
the Indiana plants was 0.5 ± 0.10 kg/capita/year as would be expected
since phosphate detergents account for about half of the phosphorus
load in sewage (Anonymous, 1970; Sawyer and McCarty, 1967). The median
per capita effluent phosphorus load of the New York plants was midway
between the no-ban plants and the total-ban Indiana plants at 0.7 ±
0.10 kg/capita/year.
-------
71
LITERATURE CITED
Agena, U., 1975. Study of annual nutrient loads into Rathbun Reservoir.
MS, Water Qual. Mgt. Divn., IA Dept. of Env. Qua!., Des Moines.
Anonymous, 1970. Phosphates in detergents and the eutrophication of
America's waters. House Rept. No. 91-1004, House Committee on
Government Affairs, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., Wash., DC.
Anonymous, 1972. Water quality network, 1971 summary of data, volume 1.
Divn. of Water Poll. Contr., IL Env. Prot. Agency, Springfield.
Anonymous, 1973. Water resources data for New York. Part'l. Surface
water records. U.S. Geol. Surv., Albany.
Anonymous, 1974a. Water quality analysis of the West Branch of the
Delaware River (preliminary draft). Hydroscience, Inc., Westwood, NJ.
Anonymous, 1974b. Water quality monitoring data for Georgia streams, 1973;
vols. 1, 2, and 3. .Env. Prot. Divn., GA Dept. of-Nat. Resources,
Atlanta.
Anonymous, 1975. Water quality of selected Wisconsin inland lakes. Water
Resources Res. Sec., WI Dept. of Nat. Resources, Madison.
Anonymous, 1976. Water resources data for Texas, water year 1975. Water-
Data Rept. TX-75-1, U.S. Geol. Surv., Austin.
Bachmann, R. W., and J. R. Jones, 1974. Water quality in the Iowa Great
Lakes. Rept. to IA Great Lakes Water Qual. Contr. Plan, Proj. 1779,
IA Agr. & Home EC. Exp. Stat., IA St. U., Ames.
Barth, C. F., 1975. Average pH. J. Water Poll. Contr. Fed. 47(8):2191-
2192.
Bartsch, A. F., 1972. Role of phosphorus in eutrophication. EPA-R3-72-
001, O.R. & D., EPA, Corvallis, OR.
Bowling, T. J., 1976. Personal communication (Lake Norman water
quality data). Env. Labs., Duke Power Co., Huntersville, NC.
Brye, B. A., 1970. Summary of observed nutrient concentrations and
nutrient entrapment in TVA reservoirs. In: TVA activities
related to study and control of eutrophication in the Tennessee
Valley. Joint Industry/Government Task Force on Eutrophication,
Muscle Shoals, AL, April 29-30.
-------
72
Campbell, W. M., and J. M. Dean (Project Directors), 1976. Environ-
mental inventory of Lake Murray, South Carolina, vols. 1 and 2.
Environmental Research Center, Columbia, SC.
Carlson, R. E., 1977. A trophic state index for lakes. Limnol.
Oceanogr. 22^(2):361-369.
Coll ings, M. R., 1973.- Data on selected lakes in Washington, Part I.
Open-file Report, U.S. Geol. Surv., Tacoma.
Deevey, E. S., Jr., 1972. Biogeochemistry of lakes: major substances.
In; Nutrients and eutrophication: the limiting nutrient contro-
versy. Limnol. Oceanogr. Special Symposia I (G. E. Likens, ed.),
pp. 14-20.
Dillon, P. J., 1975. The phosphorus budget of Cameron Lake, Ontario:
the importance of flushing rate to the degree of eutrophy of lakes.
Limnol. Oceanogr. 20(1):28-39.
Downie, N. M., and R. W. Heath, 1970. Basic statistical methods (3rd
ed.). Harper & Row, New York.
Gerhold, R. M., 1975. Algal nutritional bioassays of Lake Wylie, North
"Carolina. In: Biostimulation and Nutrient Assessment: Middlebrooks,
E. J., D. H. Falkenborg, and T. E. Maloney, eds., Ann Arbor, (MI)
Science, 175-220.
Gerloff, G. C., and F. Skoog, 1957. Nitrogen as a limiting factor for
the growth of Mycrocystis aeruginosa in southern Wisconsin lakes.
Ecology 38:556-561.
Goldman, C. R., 1972. The role of minor nutrients in limiting the pro-
ductivity of aquatic ecosystems. In: Nutrients and eutrophication:
the limiting-nutrient controversy. Limnol. Oceanogr. Special
Symposia I (G. E. Likens, ed.), pp 21-33.
Goolsby, D. A., and B. F. McPherson, 1970. Preliminary evaluation of
chemical and biological characteristics of the upper St. Johns River
basin, Florida. Open-file Report 71001, U.S. Geol. Surv., Tallahassee,
FL.
Greeson, P. E., and F. L. Robison, 1970. Characteristics of New York
Lakes. Part 1-Gazetteer of lakes, ponds, and reservoirs. Bull. 68,
U.S. Geol. Surv. & NY Dept. Env. Cons., Albany.
Harkins, R. D., 1974. An objective water quality index. J. Water Poll.
Contr. Fed. 46(3):588-591.
-------
73
Hooper, F. F., 1969. Eutrophication indices and their relation to other
indices of ecosystem change. In: Eutrophication: causes, conse-
quences, correctives. Natl. Acad. Sci., Wash., DC.
Hutchinson, G. E.,.1957. A treatise on limnology. _!_. Geography,
physics, and chemistry. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.
, 1967. A_ treatise or^ limnology. II. Introduction tp^
lake biology and the limnoplankton. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.
, 1973. Eutrophication. Amer. Scient. 61(3):269-279.
Johnson, A. H., D. R. Bouldin, E. A. Goyette, and A. M. Hedges, 1976.
Phosphorus loss "by, stream transport from a rural watershed: quantities,
processes, and sources. J. Environ. Qual. j>(2): 148-157.
Lackey, J. B., 1949. Plankton as related to nuisance conditions in
surface water. In: Limnological aspects of water supply and waste
disposal (pp. 56-63). Amer. Assoc. Adv. Sci., Wash., DC.
Larsen, D. P., and H. T. Mercier, 1976. Phosphorus retention capacity
of lakes. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Can. 33(8):1742-1750.
Lueschow, L. A., J. M. Helm, D. R. Winter, and G. W. Karl; 1970. Trophic
nature of selected Wisconsin lakes. Trans. WI Acad. Sci., Arts &
Ltrs. 58:237-264.
Malueg, K. W., J. R. Tilstra, D. W. Schults, and C. F. Powers, 1972.
Limnological observations on an ultra-oligotrophic lake in Oregon,
USA. Verh. Int. Ver. Limnol. 18:292-302.
, D. P. Larsen, D. W. Schults, and H. T. Mercier; 1975.
A six-year water, phosphorus, and nitrogen budget for Shagawa Lake,
Minnesota. J. Environ. Qual., 4^2):236-242.
Mason, J., 1976. Personal communication (Lake Geneva water quality
data; comparison of WI DNR and NES data on six lakes). Bur. of
Research, WI Dept. Nat. Resources, Madison.
Megard, R. 0., 1970. Lake Minnetonka: nutrients, nutrient abatement,
and the photosynthetic system of the phytoplankton. Interim Rept.
No. 7, Limn. Res. Ctr, U. of MN, Minneapolis.
Middlebrooks, E. J., D. B. Porcella, E. A. Pearson, P. H. McGauhey, and
G. A. Rohlich; 1971. Biostimulation and algal growth kinetics of
wastewater. J. Water Poll. Control Fed. 43(3):454^-473.
Miller, W. E., 1973. Personal communication. PNERL, Corvallis, OR.
-------
74
National Academy of Sciences and National Academy of Engineering, 1972.
Water quality criteria. ' A report of the Committee on Water
Quality Criteria. U.S. EPA, Wash., DC.
National Technical Advisory Committee, 1968. Water quality criteria,
report to the Secretary of the Interior. FWPCA, Wash., DC.
Nygaard, G., 1949. Hydrobiological studies of some Danish ponds and
lakes. II. The quotient hypothesis and some new or little known
phytoplankton organisms. (K. danske Vidensk. Selsk.) Biol. Skr.,
Z, 1-293.
Oglesby, R. T., 1972. Eutro'phication as a problem in the Finger Lakes.
Techn. Rept. 53, Cornell U. Water Resources and Marine Sci. Ctr.,
Ithaca.
Palmer, C. M., 1969. A composite rating of algae tolerating organic
pollution. J. Phycol. j>:78-82.
Reckhow, K. H., 1977. Phosphorus models for lake management. Ph.D.
thesis, Divn. Engr. & Appl. Physics, Harvard U., Cambridge, MA.
Sawyer, C. N., 1947. Fertilization of lakes by agricultural and urban
drainage. J. N. Engl. Water Works Assoc. 61_(2):109-127.
_, and P. L. McCarty, 1967. Chemistry for sanitary engineers.
McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York.
Schindler, D. W., 1971. Carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus and the eutro-
phication of freshwater lakes. J. Phycol. 17:321-329.
Shannon, E. E., and W. Weaver, 1963. The mathematical theory of communi-
cation. U. of IL Press, Urbana.
Simpson, G. G., A. Roe, and R. C. Lewontin, 1960. Quantitative zoology
(rev. ed.). Harcourt, Brace, & Co., New York.
Treunert, E., A. Wilhelms, and H. Bernhardt, 1974. Einfluss der Proben-
entnahme-Haufigkeit auf die Ermittlung der Jahres-Phosphor-Frachwerte
mittlerer Ba'che. Hydrochem. Hydrogeol. Mitt. J_:175-198.
Linger, U., 1970. Berechnung von Stofffrachten in Fllissen durch wenige
Einzelanalysen im Vergleich zu kontinuierlichen einjahren chemischen
Untersuchungen, gezeigt am Beispiel des Bodenseezuflusses Argen
(1967/68). Schweiz. Z. Hydrol. 32:453-473.
-------
75
Uttormark, P. 0., J. D. Chapin, and K. M. Green, 1974. Estimating nutrient
loadings of lakes from non-point sources. EPA-660/3-74-020, O.R. & D.,
EPA, Wash., DC.
, and J. P. Wall, 1975. Lake classification—a trophic
characterization of Wisconsin lakes. EPA-660/3-75-033, O.R. & D.,
EPA, Wash., DC.
U.S. EPA, 1971a. Algal assay procedure-bottle test. Natl. Eutroph. Res.
Pgm., Corvallis, OR.
U.S. EPA, 1971b. Methods for chemical analysis of water and wastes.
EPA-16020-07/71, Anal. Qual. Contr. Lab., Cincinnati.
U.S. EPA, 1974-24. An approach to a relative trophic index system for
classifying lakes and reservoirs. NES Working Paper No. 24, Corvallis,
OR.
U.S. EPA, 1974-1. National Eutrophication Survey methods for lakes sampled
in 1972. NES Working Paper No. 1, Con/all is, OR.
U.S. EPA, 1975-175. National Eutrophication Survey methods, 1973-1976.
NES Working Paper No. 175, Corvallis, OR.
Vollenweider, R. A., 1968. Scientific fundamentals of the eutrophication
of lakes and flowing waters, with particular reference to nitrogen
and phosphorus as factors in eutrophication. Organ. Econ. Coop. Dev.,
Paris. Tech. Rept. DAS/CSI/68.27.
_, 1975. Input-output models with special reference
to the phosphorus loading concept in limnology. Schweiz. Z. Hydrol.
37:53-84.
, 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.
Weiss, C. M., and J. H. Moore, 1975. The John H. Kerr Reservoir, Virginia-
North Carolina. A report for the OECD North American Project defining
its limnological characteristics, productivity, nutrient budgets and
associated parameters. MS, Dept. Env. Sci. and Engr., U. of NC, Chapel
Hill.
Welch, E. B., 1977. Nutrient diversion: resulting lake trophic state
and phosphorus dynamics. EPA-600/3-77-003, Corvallis, OR.
-------
76
Welch, P. S., 1952. Limnology (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York.
Wright, J. C., and R. A. Soltero, 1973. Limnology of Yellowtail Reservoir
and the Bighorn River. EPA-R3-73-002, Wash., DC.
, R. Rada, and C. Martin, 1974. An investigation into the
extent and cause of eutrophication in Canyon Ferry Reservoir, Montana.
Proj. A-055 Mont., MT U. Jt. Water Resources Res. Ctr., Bozeman.
-------
77
APPENDIX
-------
APPENDIX F
SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD
ECOLOGY ADVISORY COMMITTEE
ADVISORY STATEMENT
THE NATIONAL LAKE SURVEY PROJECT
The Ecology Advisory Committee of the Science Advisory Board recog-
nizes that the National Lake Survey Project has served an admirable pur-
pose in supplying characterization of some 800 lakes and reservoirs in
the contiguous United States. The National-Lake Survey Program was con-
ceived originally as the Office of Research and Development's contribution
to a policy paper being developed by the U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency on possible requirements for municipal wastewater treatment plants
to remove phosphate from sewage by processes beyond secondary treatment.
The purpose of this requirement would be to prevent the accelerated
eutrophication of water bodies related to the nutrient content of effluents
discharged from those treatment plants. In order to carry out this pro-
gram, data were collected from the States on lakes and reservoirs that
have various types of eutrophication problems. The relationship between
the locations of these lakes and reservoirs and the location of the dis-
charge from the sewage treatment plants, either directly into the lakes
and reservoirs or into feeder tributaries into the lakes and reservoirs,
was a major factor in the selections for survey.
A crash program of sampling of water chemistry and plankton produc-
tivity in as many lakes and reservoirs as possible was undertaken in order
to identify those that are limited in productivity by nutrients or abiotic
factors. In addition, of those lakes associated with a sewage treatment
plant as a sole point-source nutrient input, the degree of tertiary treat-
ment (selective nutrient removal) necessary to "stabilize" the productivity
of a water body and possibly lead to a reversal of the process symptomatic
of cultural eutrophication might then be projected.
At approximately the same time, the Agency was required to respond
to the Congress on certain initiatives in the restoration of eutrophied
lakes and impoundments under other legislative mandates. Information
gathered for the National Lake Survey program paralleled information
needed for Congresionally mandated reports. The Lake Survey Program,
therefore, acquired an additional purpose.
Initiated in 1972, this Survey of more than 800 bodies of water in
the contiguous United States will be concluded in late 1975 upon the
completion of the sampling of the western sector of lakes and reservoirs.
Data analyses will require one more year. It is recognized that because
the Survey is a crash program, conducted over a relatively short period
of time and with a limited sampling program, the data obtained will be
relatively crude.
October 23, 1975
-------
- 2 -
The Committee states further that because of the non-random selection
of the lakes and reservoirs and the limited sampling program of limnologi-
cal parameters, the results of the Survey must be viewed with some caution.
The Committee has severe reservations about the suitability of the National
Lake Survey data for extrapolation and generalization. There is a concern
that premature evaluation of these data may lead to incorrect conclusions
and result in bad management practices.
In order to strengthen the credibility of the study, the Committee
recommends that:
• The National Lake Survey data should be compared with existing
data on the many well-studied lakes of similar type.
o The comparisons of the results should be discussed in personal
conference with limnologists who have collected and assessed
data on the same or similar lakes and impoundments covered by
the National Lake Survey.
o The National Lake Survey estimation techniques should be applied
to data already available on additional well-studied lakes and
impoundments and those results should be compared. This will
enable.one to test the degree of error one may expect to find
and thus provide an evaluation of the reliability of the Survey
Itself.
• Only after such comparison should further efforts at extrapolation
and generalization through the computer be carried out.
F-2
------- |