U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
NATIONAL EUTROPHICATION SURVEY
WORKING PAPER SERIES
REPORT
ON
BRAOT LAKE
LAKE COUNTY
SOUTH DAKOTA
EPA REGION VIII
WORKING PAPER No, 601
CORVALLIS ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY - CORVALLIS, OREGON
and
ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING & SUPPORT LABORATORY - LAS VEGAS, NEVADA
-.'-(..P.O. 699-440
-------
REPORT
nw
BRANT LAKE
LAKE COUNTY
SOUTH DAKOTA
EPA REGION VIII
WORKING PAPER No, 601
WITH THE COOPERATION OF THE
SOUTH DAKOTA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AND THE
SOUTH DAKOTA NATIONAL GUARD
DECEMBER/ 1976
-------
CONTENTS
Page
Foreward ii
List of South Dakota Study Lakes i v
Lake and Drainage Area Map v
Sections
I. Conclusions 1
I I. Lake and Drainage Basin Characteristics 1
lIt. Lake Water Quality Sumary 2
IV. Nutrient Loadings 3
V. Literature Reviewed 7
VI. Appendices 8
-------
11
FOREWORD
The National Eutrophication Survey was initiated in 1972 in
response to an Administration comitment to investigate the nation-
wide threat of accelerated eutrophication to freshwater lakes and
reservoirs.
OBJECTIVES
The Survey was designed to develop, in conjunction with state
environmental agencies, information on nutrient sources, concentrations,
and impact on selected freshwater lakes as a basis for formulating
comprehensive and coordinated national, regional, and state management
practices relating to point-source discharge reduction and non-point
source pollution abatement in lake watersheds.
ANALYTIC APPROACH
The mathematical and statistical procedures selected for the
Survey’s eutrophication ana1ysis are based on related concepts that:
a. A generalized representation or model relating
sources, concentrations, and impacts can be constructed.
b. By applying measurements of relevant parameters
associated with lake degradation, the generalized model
can be transformed into an operational representation of
a lake, its drainage basin, and related nutrients.
c. With such a transformation, an assessment of the
potential for eutrophication control can be made.
LAKE ANALYSIS
In this report, the first stage of evaluation of lake and water-
shed data collected from the study lake and its drainage basin is
documented. The report is formatted to provide state environmental
agencies with specific Information for basin planning [ 3O3(e)J, water
quality criteria/standards review [ 3O3(c)], clean lakes [ 3l4(a,b)],
and water quality monitoring [ lO6 and §305(b)] activities mandated
by the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972.
-------
1 11
Beyond the single lake analysis, broader based correlations
between nutrient concentrations (and loading) and trophic condi-
tion are being made to advance the rationale and data base for
refinement of nutrient water quality criteria for the Nation’s
freshwater lakes. Likewise, multivariate evaluations for the
relationships between land use, nutrient export, and trophic
condition, by lake class or use, are being developed to assist
in the formulation of planning guidelines and policies by EPA
and to augment plans implementation by the states.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The staff of the National Eutrophication Survey (Office of
Research & Development, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency)
expresses sincere appreciation to the South Dakota Departments of
Environmental Protection and Game, Fish and Parks for professional
involvement, to the South Dakota National Guard for conducting the
tributary sampling phase of the Survey, and to those wastewater
treatment plant operators who voluntarily provided effluent samples.
Allyn Lockner, Secretary, and Blame Barker and Duane Murphy,
Department of Environmental Quality; Douglas Hansen, Department
of Game, Fish and Parks; and James Hayden, Director, State Lakes
Preservation Comittee provided invaluable lake documentation and
counsel during the Survey, reviewed the preliminary reports, and
provided critiques most useful in the preparation of this Working
Paper series.
Major General Duane L. Corning, the Adjutant General of South
Dakota, and Project Officer Colonel Robert D. Chalberg, who directed
the volunteer efforts of the South Dakota National Guardsmen, are also
gratefully acknowledged for their assistance to the Survey.
-------
lv
NATIONAL EUTROPHICATION SURVEY
STUDY LAKES
STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA
LAKE NAME COUNTY
Albert Kingsbury
Alvin Lincoln
Angostura Fall River
Brant Lake
Byron Beadle
Clear Marshall
Clear Minnehaha
Cochrane Deuel
Cottonwood Spink
Deerfield Pennington
Enemy Swim Day
Herman Lake
John Hamltn
Kampeska Codi ngton
Madison Lake
Mitchell Davidson
Norden Hamlin
East Oakwood Brookings
West Oakwood Brookings
Pactola Pennington
Pickerel Day
Poinsett Brookings, Lake
Red Iron South Marshall
Richmond Brown
Roy Marshall
Sand Brown
Sheridan Pennington
Stockdale Custer
East Vermillion McCook
Wall Minnehaha
Waubay Day
-------
LAKES HERMAN, MADISON, & BRANT
I ’
Madison
Sa 5 :e
X L ke Sar pling Site
Sewage Treatment Facility
o 2 4 S 5Km.
I I I
I I 1•
o t 2 3 5t I1.
Scale
Map Location
\
57_ b sit ’s
440-
4j ’ —
se½
-------
BRANT LAKE
STORET NO. 4604
I. INTRODUCTION
Brant Lake was included in the National Eutrophication Survey as a
water body of interest to the South Dakota Departments of Environmental
Protection and Game, Fish and Parks. Tributaries and nutrient sources
were not sampled, and this report relates only to lake sampling data.
II. CONCLUSIONS
I L Trophic Condition:
Survey data indicate that Brant Lake is eutrophic. It ranked
seventeenth in overall trophic quality when the 31 South Dakota
lakes sampled in 1974 were compared using a combination of six
parameters*. Seventeen of the lakes had less and one had the
same median total phosphorus, 23 had less median dissolved ortho-
phosphorus, 14 had less median inorganic nitrogen, 16 had less
mean chlorophyll a, and nine had greater mean Secchi disc trans-
parency.
Survey limnologists noted algal blooms in progress in July and
September.
B. Rdte—Limitirlg Nutrient:
The algal assay results indicate that Brant Lake was limited
by nitrogen at the times the samples were collected (04/23/74 and
09/20/74). The lake data indicate nitrogen limitation at all
sampling stations and times.
* See Appendix A.
-------
2
III. LAKE AND DRAINAGE BASIN CHARACTERISTICSt
A. Lake Morphometry :
1. Surface area: 4.05 kilometers 2 .
2. Mean depth: 3.4 meters.
3. Maximum depth: 4.3 meters.
4. Volume 13.770 x 106 m 3 .
B. Precipitation*:
1. Year of sampling: 51.6 centimeters.
2. Mean annual: 61.8 centimeters.
t Table of metric equivalents——Appendix B.
f-f Murphy, 1974.
* See I orking Paper No. 175, “...Survey Methods, 1973-1976”.
-------
3
IV. LAKE WATER QUALITY SUMMARY
Brant Lake was sampled three times during the open-water season of
1974 by means of a pontoon-equipped 1-Iuey helicopter. Each time,
samples for physical and chemical parameters were collected from
two stations on the lake and from two or more depths at each station
(see map, page v). During each visit, a single depth—integrated (near
bottom to surface) sample was composited from the stations for phyto-
plankton identification and enumeration; and during the first and last
visits, single 18.9-liter depth-integrated samples were composited for
algal assays. Also each time, a depth-integrated sample was collected
from each of the stations for chlorophyll a analysis. The maximum depths
sampled were 2.7 meters at station 1 and 3.0 meters at station 2.
The sampling results are presented in full in Appendix C and are
summarized in the following table.
-------
2 SITES
A. SUMMARY OF ?MYSICAL AND CHEMICAL CHA ACTERISTICS FON SRANT LAicE
STORET CODE 4604
j5T SAMPLING C 4/23/74) 2ND SAMPLING 1 7/12/74)
2 SITES
3ku SAMPLING C 9/20/74)
2 SITES
PARAMETER
RANGE
MEA.J
MEDIAN
kANGE
MEAN
MEOIIAN
RANbE
MEAN
MEDIAN
TEMP (C)
10.0
— 10.1
10.0
10.0
24.3
— 25.6
24.9 - 24.9
16.5
— 17.0
16.8
16.7
c USS O;Y 4MG/I)
9.4
— 9.4
9.4
9. ’
3.2
— 8.8
5.6
4.8
8.0
— 8.4
S.d
8. 2
CNDCTVY (‘4CROMO)
12 5.
— 1259.
1258.
12b8.
1194.
— 1830.
1813.
1815.
1557.
- 1561.
1563.
1563.
PH (STAND UNITS)
8.1
— 8.3
8.2
8.2
8.9
— 9.2
9.0
9.0
8.7
— 8.7
8.1
8.7
TOT ALK (MG/L)
182.
— 182.
182.
192.
161.
— 163.
162.
163.
175.
— 178.
176.
176.
TOT P (MOlt .)
0.072
— 0.121
0.089
0.079
0.158
— 0.248
0.202
0.200
0.194
— 0.200
0.196
0.19o
ORTHU P (MG/L)
0.023
— 0.030
0.025
0.024
0.098
— 0.156
0.117
0.113
0.11 4
— 0.119
0.116
0.116
NUa.N03 (MG/L)
0.040
— 0.080
0.060
0.060
0.020
— U.030
0.023
0.020
0.020
— 0.030
0.022
0.020
AMMONIA (MG/L)
0.140
— 0.170
0.157
0.160
0.060
— 0.100
0.088
0.090
0.110
— 0.120
0.112
0.110
KJEL N (MG/I)
1.600
— 1.800
1.725
1.750
1.800
— 2.800
2.200
2.000
2.200
— 2.500
2.350
2.350
INOH& N (MGIL)
U.1B0
— 0.240
0.217
0.225
0.080
— 0.130
0.112
0.115
0.130
— 3.140
0.135
0.135
TOTAL N (MG/I)
1.640
— 1.880
1.785
1.810
1.820
— 2.830
2.223
2.020
2.220
— 2.530
2.372
2.370
CrILRPYL A (U15/L )
0.6
— 0.9
0.7
0.1
11.4
— 146.7
79.0
79.0
13.2
32.1
22.6
22.6
SECCHI (METEPS)
2.1
— 3.7
2.9
2.9
0.9
— 1.1
1.0
1.0
1.2
— 1.2
1.2
1.2
-------
5
B. Biological characteristics:
1. PhytoplanktOn
Sampling Dominant Algal Units
Date — Genera per ml
04/23/74 1. Cryptomonas p. 61
2. Chroomonas . 30
Total 91
07/12/74 1. Apharizonenon . 6,848
2. Cliroomonas p. 280
3. Stephanodiscus j. 25
4. Oscillatoria Ep. 25
5. Cryptomortas p. 25
Other genera 26
Total 7,229
09/20/74 1. phanizomenon p. 1,595
2. tlscTllatoria p. 271
3. Chroomonas p.. 271
Total 2,137
2. Chlorophyll a—
Sampling Station Chlorophyll a
Date Number ( pg/i )
04/23/74 1 0.9
2 0.6
07/12/74 1 11.4
2 146.7
09/20/74 1 32.1
2 13.2
-------
6
C. Limiting Nutrient Study:
1. Autoclaved, filtered, and nutrient spiked —
a. April sample —
Ortho P Inorganic N Maximum yield
Spike (mg/i) Conc. (mg/i) Conc. (mg/i) ( mg/i—dry wt. )
Control 0.020 0.142 4.0
0.050 P 0.070 0.142 4.5
0.050 P + 1.0 N 0.070 1.142 21.2
1.0 N 0.020 1.142 5.8
b. September sample —
Ortho P Inorganic N Maximum yield
Spike (mg/i) Conc. (mg/i) Conc. (mg/i) ( mg/i-dry wt. )
Control 0.105 0.256 12.7
0.05 P 0.155 0.256 12.4
0.05 p + 1.0 N 0.155 1.256 23.4
1.0 N 0.105 1.256 25.4
2. Discussion -
The control yields of the assay alga, Selenastrum caj ri-
cornutum , indicate that the potential primary productivity
of Brant Lake was moderately high in April and high in
September. Also, in both assays the lack of yield increase
with the addition of phosphorus until nitrogen was also added
indicates that the lake was limited by nitrogen at that
time. Note that the addition of nitrogen alone resulted in
yields significantly greater than those of the controls.
The lake data substantiate nitrogen limitation; i.e.,
the mean inorganic nitrogen/orthophosphorus ratios were 9/i
or less at all sampling stations and times, and nitrogen
limitation would be expected.
-------
7
V. LITERATURE REVIEWED
Murphy, Duane G. 1974. Personal communication (lake morphometry).
SI) Dept. of Env. Prot., Pierre.
Petri, Lester R., and L. Rodney Larson, l966(?). Quality of water in
selected lakes of eastern South Dakota. Rept. of Trw. #1, SD
Water Res. Conin., Pierre.
-------
8
Vi. APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
LAKE RANKINGS
-------
LAcE DATA TO BE USED IN RANKINGS
LAKE MEDIAN MEDIAN 500— MEAN 15— MEDIAN
CODE LAKE NAME TOTAL P INOi G N MEAN SEC Cp4LOPA M114 DO DIS ORtr4O ‘
4601 LAKE ALBERT 0.321 0.170 489.111 106.289 .2o0
4602 ALVIN LAKE 0.067 0.973 442.833 4.700 .400 0.017
4603 ANGOSTURA RESERVOIR 0.019 0.160 423.333 3.117 13.000 0.005
4604 BRANT LAKE 0.194 0.130 432.833 34.150 11.800 0.113
4605 LAKE. BYRON 0.443 0.370 488.333 149.350 9.000 0.146
4606 CLEAR LAKE 0.02? u.o7 5 430.167 11.983 8.800 0.009
4607 CLEAR LAKE 1.400 0.210 ‘.95.333 691.000 7.000 0.468
4608 COCHRANE LAKE 0.037 0.150 446.000 15.683 15.000 0.008
4609 COTTONWOOD LAKE 0,685 0.265 490.333 112.017 8.600 0.417
4610 DEERFIELD RESERVOIR 0.033 0.080 303.333 3.650 15.000 0.022
4611 ENEMY SWIM LAKE 0.037 0.085 442.600 14.200 8.200 0.013
4612 LAKE HERMAN 0.340 0.155 485.000 58.733 8,600 0.174
4613 ST JOHN LAKE 0.34 4 0.080 489.400 120.880 9.800 0.025
4614 LAKE KAMPESKA 0.220 0.105 468.889 20.567 8.200 0.128
4615 MADISON LAKE 0.25 0.090 445.555 22.578 14.000 0.107
4616 LAKE MITCHELL 0.099 0.085 465.833 14.883 13.800 0.015
4617 LAKE NOPOEN 0.256 0.165 488,667 46.800 10.000 0.050
4618 OAKWOOI) LA’cE EAST 0.146 0,175 487.000 113.600 10.000 0.009
4619 OAKW000 LAKE NEST 0,181 0.135 485.833 159.667 9.b OO 0.021
4620 PACTOLA RESERVOIR 0.011 0.070 248.444 1.478 11.000 0.006
4621 PICKEREL LAKE 0.049 0.095 439.833 15.833 9.600 0.009
4622 LAKE POINSETT 0.115 0.315 468.444 40.211 10.000 0.023
4623 LAKE RED IRON SOUTH 0.042 0.110 430.333 6.883 7.600 0.010
4624 RICHMOND LAKE 0.187 0.150 410.000 18.467 10.000 0.144
4625 ROY LAKE 0.034 0.070 ‘ .31.000 13.333 11.000 0.010
4626 SAND LAKE 0.489 0.110 471.800 65.790 12.800 0.288
‘.627 SHERIDAN LAKE 0.053 0.105 394.000 15.433 15.000 0.016
S DE 33 ( .0 1 10 15. - 10
-------
LAcE
DATA
TO BE LJSEO
IN RANKINGS
LAKE
CODE
LAsE
M&ME
MEDIAN
TOTAL
P
MEDIAN
INO u
N
500—
MEAN SEC
MEAN
CrtLOfr A
15 °
HIM 30
MEDIAN
0155 ORTriO
‘
4629
LAKE
VERMILLION
0.211
0.100
412.833
400.800
9.200
0.092
4630
WALL
LAKE
0.194
0.160
441.667
55.267
7.400
0 .076
4631
WAUSAY LAKE NOKTtt
0.09o
0.145
469.555
127.033
11.400
0.023
-------
PERCENT OF LAKES .ITPI HIGHER VALUES INUMBER OF LAKES rUTH Ii,HE VALUES)
LAKE MEDIAN MEDIAN 500 MEAN 15- MEDIAN INDEA
CODE LAKE NAME TOTAL P INOPO N MEAN SEC CPILORA HIN Do DISS O TriO P NO
4601 LAKE ALBERT 20 E) 20 ( 6) 10 ( 3) 23 4 7) 68 20) 60 C 18) 201
4602 ALVIN LAKE 67 C 20) 0 4 0) 57 C [ 7) 90 1 27) 63 1 19) 63 4 I’ ) 3’.0
4603 ANGOSTURA RESERVOIR 97 4 29) 30 4 9) 87 4 26) 93 C 28) 20 1 6) 100 30) 427
4604 BRANT LAKE 40 4 12) 53 4 16) 70 C 21) 47 4 14) 27 4 8) 23 ( 7) 260
4605 LAKE BYRON 10 C 3) 3 4 1) 17 4 5) 7 C 2) 73 C 22) 13 C 4) 123
4606 CLEAR LAKE 93 4 28) 93 4 28) 83 C 25) 83 4 25) 77 ( 23) 90 C 27) 5L
4607 CLEAR LAKE 0 4 0) 10 4 3) 0 4 0) 0 4 0) 100 C 30) 0 C 0) 110
4608 COCHRAPIE LAKE 83 4 25) 40 1 11) 50 C 15) 67 C 20) 5 4 0) 93 C 28) 338
4609 COTTONwOOD LAKE 3 4 1) 13 1 4) 3 C 1) 20 C 6) 82 4 24) 3 C 1) 124
4610 DEERFIELD RESERVOIR 90 4 27) 88 4 26) 97 4 29) 97 1 29) 5 C 0) 53 1 16) 430
4611 ENEMY SWIM LAKE 80 4 24) 82 24) 60 C ld) 77 ( 23) 88 C 26) 73 1 22) 460
4612 LAKE HERMAN 17 4 5 33 4 10) 27 C 8) 33 C 10) 82 C 24) 10 1 3) 202
4613 ST JOHN LAKE 13 C 4) 88 4 26) 7 1 2) 13 C 4) 53 4 16) 43 C 13) 217
4614 LAKE KAMPESKA 33 ( 10) 65 4 19) 40 1 12) 57 4 17) 88 ( 26) 20 C 6) 303
615 MADISON LAKE 27 4 8) 77 23) 53 C 16) 53 4 16) 13 1 4) 30 ( 9) 23
4616 LAKE MITCHELL 60 4 18) 82 4 24) 47 ( 14) 73 4 22) 17 ( 5) 70 1 21) 349
4617 LAKE NOROEN 23 C 7) 23 4 7) 13 C 4) 40 C 12) 45 C 12) 40 ( 12) 184
4618 OAKWOOD LAKE EAST 53 C 16) 17 ( 5) 20 ( 6) 17 C 5) 45 C 12) 85 ( 25) 237
4619 OAKW000 LAKE WEST SO C 15) 50 ( 15) 23 4 7) 3 C 1) 58 C 17) 57 C 17) 241
4620 PACTOLA RESERVOIR 100 4 30) 98 C 29) 100 ( 30) 100 C 30) 35 C 10) 97 1 29) 530
4621 PICKEREL LAKE 73 C 22) 73 ( 22) 67 C 20) 63 C 19) 58 C 17) 85 4 25) 419
4622 LAKE POINSETT 57 ( 17) 7 4 2) 43 4 13) 43 C 13) 45 4 12) 47 4 14) 242
4623 LAKE RED IRON SOUTH 77 ( 23) S e 4 11 80 4 24) 87 C 26) 93 ( 28) 78 ( 23) 413
4624 RICHMOND LAKE 47 4 14) 4Q 4 11) 90 C 27) 60 C 18) 45 4 12) 17 C 5) 299
4625 ROY LAKE 87 4 26) 98 C 2) 77 C 23) 8C C 24) 35 C 10) 78 4 23) 455
4626 SAND LAKE 7 4 2) 58 C 17) 33 C 10) 30 C 9) 23 4 7) 7 ( 2) 1S8
462? SHERIDAN LAKE 70 21) 65 C 19) 93 4 28) 70 1 21) 5 4 0) 67 1 20) 370
S DE C 11) 3 I - 5 - ) -— ( --
-------
PERCENT OF LAKES S IlK MIGNER VALJES CNUMaEP QF LAKES WITH HIGHEk VALUES ,
LAKE MEUZaN MEDIAN 500- 4 AN 1S° MEDIAN INDEX
CODE LAKE NAME TOTAL P INORG N MEAN SEC CMLO A HIN DO 0155 ORIrlO P Nt)
4629 LAKE VERMILLION 37 4 11) 70 1 21) 30 4 91 2? 1 8) 68 C 20) 33 I i . ? ) 265
4630 WALL LA ’cE 43 4 131 27 1 8) 63 4 19) 37 I ]j) 97 C 9) 37 4 11) 30 4
4631 WAUBAY LAKE NORTH 63 1 19) 47 4 14) 37 1 11) 10 I 3) 30 1 9 1 50 4 15) 237
-------
LAKES RANKED BY INDEX NOSO
RANK LAKE CODE LAKE NAME INDEX NO
1 4620 PACIOLA RESERVOIR 530
2 4’,Ob CLEAR LAKE 519
3 4623 LAKE RED IRON SOuTH 473
4 4611 ENEMY SWIM LAKE 460
5 4625 ROY LAKE 455
6 4610 DEERFIELD RESERVOIR 430
7 4603 ANGOSTURA RESERVOIR 427
8 4621 PICKEREL LAIcE 419
9 4627 SHERIDAN LAKE 370
10 4616 LAKE MITCHELL 349
11 4602 ALVIN LAKE 340
12 4608 COCHRANE LAKE 338
13 4630 WALL LAKE 304
14 4614 LAKE KAMPES’cA 303
15 4624 RICiIMOND LAKE 299
16 4629 LAKE VERMILLION 265
17 4604 BRANT LAKE 260
18 4615 MADISON LAKE 253
19 4622 LAKE POINSETT 242
20 4619 OAKW000 LAKE WEST 241
21 4631 IAUBAY LAKE NORTH 237
22 4618 OAK OOO LAKE EAST 237
23 4628 STOCKADE LAKE 225
24 4613 ST JOHN LAKE 217
25 4612 LAKE r4ERMAN 202
26 4601 LAKE ALBERT 201
27 4617 LAKE NOROEN
4( D - -- 1”
-------
LA’cES RANKED BY INDEX NOS.
RA’ Iic LAKE CODE LA’ E 4AME INDEX NO
29 4609 COTTUNW000 LAKE 124
30 4605 LAKE BYRON 123
31 4607 CLEAR LAKE 110
-------
APPENDIX B
CONVERSION FACTORS
-------
CONY ERS I ON FACTORS
Hectares x 2.471 = acres
Kilometers x 0.6214 = miles
Meters x 3.281 = feet
Cubic meters x 8.107 x 10 = acre/feet
Square kilometers x 0.3861 = square miles
Cubic meters/sec x 35.315 = cubic feet/sec
Centimeters x 0.3937 = inches
Kilograms x 2.205 = pounds
Kilograms/square kilometer x 5.711 lbs/square mile
-------
APPENDIX C
PHYSICAL and CHEMICAL DATA
-------
i—1- )-,I_ • /
45( ‘01
43 .. 5j.O 0’6 Sb 22.3
,- u\u
‘sbL - •)L,JT ’ ,Ai’ .OIA
1 1EP—LES
2111202
0011 FEET DEPTi
7’./u4/23 14 35 000J
1 - 35 IO 7
74/07/1 lb ?5 0000
I, ‘5 0004
?S 000b
‘ uO0
j )
11 05 uOCi
32217
nUSTOT Cr’L PrIYL
p
-‘ JG/L
0 0C31
1I 1CL,T LT
i E4N ING
) TE
I 1..W jr- Iri
,-U’
jF
r
UAI FEET
7 ’ ./.)4/fl
14 15 0000
1+ 35 00J2
14 - S OJO7
74/07/12
1* ?S O00’
1 , ‘5 Io ’
1, 7 , )f 1 ’ -
1’./ H/2u
11 uS vOOJ
ii ( ‘5 j00
IJAIE
TIME OEI’Tri
- Ciri
UF
TO
[ iAi FL T
:‘,u Iu
i0300
u)0 77
00094
00400
00 10
O OblU
00b 25
00b30
0 71
. TL—
iu
T. Sr?
C Jij jCTVY
T 4LK
N’i3f’
TOT IçJ L
)2e ..a03
r riOS-)I
T —
SECCP.I1
1EL’.)
CACOJ
1OTAL
u
i—T )TAL
O 1riU
CENT
M(,/L
I’JC,-’Es
M1( QiJMriO
SU
MG/L
M0/L
MG/L
M /L
M’,/L .
Lj.L
i ’ .
12 59
H?
•j. 160
1.300
u. Od O
0.o2
1..i
‘ .4
L25
13.. ,
9. ’
1? 5
c . 2 t)
H?
0,140
1.600
u.040
U.02 ”
?5.
i.e
42
1t 25
9.10
ibI
0.090
2.000
u.020,c
0.112
2’..-.
1.4
17- 7
9.00
1 3
0.060
2.000
O.O2Urc
0.09e
2 .J
3.2
L7’ ’.
.-)U
1b3
C.0’ O
1.900
u.OdOrc
u.111
16. ,
.2
49
L bG
.71
177
0.110
2.500
0. 020k
3.1ie
1b.D
c i.?
1557
8.70
175
0. llu
2.200
0.020k
0.114
.07?
(.171
• 19 F
j. 1 i /
( .9
11.4
32.1
1.0
K Vt L(JE
-------
1j— :T LI V. L J iL N/It!?-
0103 3
INGOT LI
I EMN1NG
PERCEN I
‘ .3 55 32.e C’Th 57 15.0
‘.Ovf JuI ,jArWT
11EP LES
4
2111202
0012 FEET J&Tr’
74/04/23 14 50 0000
14 50 00CR
1 /u7/1? 16 05 u000
ha ‘5 0004
15 05 Q0 8
7c./u9/20 10 47 O0
10 ‘ .7 000 ’
10 47 u008
10 ‘.7 oO lO
to 47 0012
0.0o2
ti. I??
0.23 4
• 2’.d
, ,.l95
• 1
0030
30300
)3Q17
0009’.
00’ e00
00410
00610
00625
00630
00 71
•,)ATE
17•”E
Ca T
nTFt
0 ’)
Tr APv5f
CvuUCTvY
—‘ i - i
T ALK
I n - l i —N
TOT “JEL
n 02sg’i03
PrIOSOIS
F’O’
•JF
1 ’
SECC ij
FIELt)
CACt i )
TOTAL
N
4—TOTAL
ONTrIO
Tj
u.n
FEET
Cc.NT
4 6/L
IriCritS
MIC 4OMhO
tJ
MG/L
Mu/I
M G / I
M U/I
4G/L P
74/04/23
1’. 50 0000
I0.u
14 ’.
1257
8.20
182
3.160
1.100
0.050
0.025
j4 50 uOJ2
10.0
9.4
1257
1’ 50 0008
10.0
9.’.
1255
8.10
182
0.170
1.800
0.070
0.030
1’./c 1/1?
16 05 000ti
25.b
8,8
36
zaao
9.20
163
0.100
2.800
0.030
0.101
16 05 DuO’.
P5.1
6.0
1827
9.10
161
0.090
2.100
0.030
0.114
16 ‘15 30)8
2 ’. ?
8, 4
l a o S
‘1.03
162
0.100
1.800
0.O2or
0.156
71./)9/20
10 47 u0 0 0
17. 0
8.4
48
15b7
8.71
175
0.110
2.500
0.030
0.116
10 47 0010
16.1’
3.0
1566
8.13
178
0.120
2.200
U.02u
0.11’1
DATE
F ‘GOP”
J o
TIME
OF
L)AY
32 7 )7
DE Tn rl0S-TOT CrQRPrIYL
A
FE d MG/L a tJG/L
0.6
346.7
13.2
1.0
50.0
5.0
I ,0
I VALUE KNO WN TO bE
LESS THAN ZNO1C TE0
------- |