U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
          NATIONAL EUTROPHICATION SURVEY
                    WORKING PAPER SERIES
                                         REPORT
                                           ON
                                      ENEMY SWIM LAKE
                                        mv COUNTY
                                       SdTl-l EAKPTA
                                      EPA REGION VIII
                                    WDRKING PAPER No, 608
CORVALLIS ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY - CORVALLIS, OREGON
                            and
ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING & SUPPORT LABORATORY - LAS VEGAS, NEVADA
 699-440

-------
                                       REPORT
                                         ON
                                   ENEMY SWIM LAKE
                                     MY OMY
                                    SOUTH DAMHTA
                                   EPA REGION VIII
                                WORKING PAPER No, 608
           WITH THE COOPERATION OF THE
SOOTH DAKOTA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
                    AND THE
           SOUTH DAKOTA NATIONAL GUARD
                 JANUARY, 1977

-------
1
CONTENTS
Page
Foreward ii
List of South Dakota Study Lakes iv
Lake and Drainage Area Map v
Sections
I. Conclusions 1
II. Lake and Drainage Basin Characteristics 1
III. Lake Water Quality Surrniary 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 analysis are based on related concepts that:
a. A generalized representation or model relating
sources, concentrations, and impacts can be constructed.
b. By applying measurements of relevant parameters
associated with lake degradation, the generalized model
can be transformed into an operational representation of
a lake, its drainage basin, and related nutrients.
c. With such a transformation, an assessment of the
potential for eutrophication control can be made.
LAKE ANALYSIS
In this report, the first stage of evaluation of lake and 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)], water
quality criteria/standards review [ 3O3(c)], clean lakes { 314(a,b)],
and water quality monitoring [ 5106 and §305(b)] activities mandated
by the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972.

-------
111
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 Conrnittee 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.

-------
iv
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 Hamlin
Kampeska Codington
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

-------
—4527
— 4526’
9718’
9716’
1
‘C
I
Map Location
ENEMY SWIM LAKE
x Lake Sampling Site
? I I ?Km.
0 4 ‘Mi.
Scale
/
— 4&25’ I I
I

-------
ENEMY SWIM LAKE
STORET NO. 4611
I. INTRODUCTiON
Enemy Swim Lake was included in the National Eutrophication Survey
as a water body of interest to the South Dakota Departments of Environ-
mental Protection and Game, Fish, and Parks. Tributaries and nutrient
sources were not sampled, and this report relates only to the lake
sampling data.
II. CONCLUSIONS
A. Trophic Condition:
Survey data indicate that Enemy Swim Lake is eutrophic. It
ranked fourth in overall trophic quality when the 31 South Dakota
lakes sampled in 1974 were compared using a combination of six
parameters*. Four lakes had less and one had the same median
total phosphorus, eight had less median dissolved orthophosphorus,
five had less and one had the same median inorganic nitrogen, seven
had less mean chlorophyll a, and 12 had greater mean Secchi disc
transparency.
Survey limnologists noted a light algal bloom in July and
macrophytes in some of the shallow areas in September.
B. Rate—Limiting Nutrient:
The algal assay results are not considered representative of
conditions in the lake at the time the sample was collected
(04/25/74). However, the lake data indicate nitrogen limitation
at all sampling stations and times.
* See Appeiidix A

-------
2
III. LAKE AND DRAINAGE BASIN CHARACTERISTICSt
A. Lake Morphometry tm :
1. Surface area: 8.68 kilometers 2 .
2. Mean depth: 3.0 meters.
3. Maximum depth: 7.9 meters.
4. Volume: 26.040 x 106 m 3 .
B. Precipitation*:
1. Year of sampling: 31.3 centimeters.
2. Mean annual: 51.0 centimeters.
-I- Table of metric equivalents__Appendix B.
ft Murphey, 1974.
* See Working Paper No. 175, “...Survey Methods, 1973-l976 .

-------
3
IV. LAKE WATER QUALITY SUMMARY
Enemy Swim Lake was sampled three times durinq the open-water season
of 1974 by means of a pontoon-equipped Huey helicopter. The first time,
samples for physical and chemical parameters were collected from several
depths at one station on the lake. On succeeding visits, samples were
collected from two stations on the lake and from two or more depths at
each of the stations (see map, page v). During each visit, a single
depth-integrated (4.6 m or near bottom to surface) sample was composited
from the station(s) sampled for phytoplankton identification and enumer-
ation; and during the first visit, a single 18.9-liter depth-integrated
sample was collected for algal assays. Also each tine, a depth—integrated
sample was collected from each station sampled for chlorophyll a analysis.
The maximum depths sampled were 6.1 meters at station 1 and 4.3 meters at
station 2.
The sampling results are presented in full in Appendix C and are
sumarized in the following table.

-------
1 SITES
A. SUMMARY OF P 1ySlC4L AND CHEMICAL CHA iACTE ..IS1ICS FUp LNEM SwIM LA cE
STOP ET COt)E 4611
1ST SAMPLING ( 4/25/7’.) 2N0 SAMPLING ( 7/11/74)
2 SITES
3rW SAM LtNG ( 9/19/74)
2 SITES
PARAMETER
RANGE MEAN MEDIAN
AN6E
MEAN
MEDIAN
P ANGE
MEAN
MEDiAN
TEMP (C)
7.0
— 8.2 7.5 7.3
23.9
— 24.2
24.1
24.0
15.0
— 15.’.
15.2
15.2
DISS OX’S’ (M( /L)
10.a
— 11.2 11.0 11.2
6.8
— 7.2
7.0
7.0
8.6
— 9.o
9.4
9.6
CNDCTVY (MCROMO)
300.
— 310. 30’.. 302.
544.
— 546.
545.
545.
367.
— 375.
371.
370.
PH (STAND UNITS)
*** O*
— ******O*o******o oe
8.8
— 8.9
8.9
8.9
8.7
— 8.8
8.7
r4.7
TO1 ALK (MG/L)
224.
— 240. 231. 230.
248.
— 270.
259.
259.
38S.
— 430.
405.
403.
TOT P (MG/L)
0.022
0.032 0.026 0.025
0.037
— 0.040
0.039
0.039
0.029
— 0.380
0.119
0.03’.
ORTHO P (HG/L)
0.007
— 0.009 0.008 0.008
0.013
— 0.028
0.017
0.016
0.008
— 0.014
0.011
0.012
N02.N03 (MG/L)
0.040
— 0.100 (1.060 0.050
o.o ’.o
— 0.090
0.065
0.065
0. Od O
— o.o u
0.020
O.0 0
AMMONIA (MG/L)
0.030
— 0.050 0.037 0.035
0.030
— 0.060
0.047
0.050
0.020
— 0.040
0.030
0.030
rcJEL N (UG/L)
0.800
— 1.000 0.900 0.900
0.900
— 1.000
0.933
0.900
1.100
— 3.900
1.875
1.250
INO G N (MG/L)
0.070
— 0.150 0.097 0.08S
0.080
— 0.150
0.112
0.115
0.040
— (1.060
0.050
0.050
TOTAL N (MG/L)
0.850
— 1.100 0.960 0.945
0.960
— 1.090
0.998
0.970
1.120
— 3.920
1.895
1.2 0
CHLRPYL A (UG/L)
23.9
— 23.9 23.9 23.9
12.2
— 13.4
12.8
12.8
10.7
— 10.8
10.7
10.7
SECC’-41 (METEPS)
2.’
— 2.2 2.2 2.2
1.2
1.5
1.4
1.4
1.1

-------
5
B. Biological characteristics:
1. Phytoplankton -
Sampling Dominant Algal Units
Date Genera p r ml
04/25/74 1. Chroomonas p. 3,573
2. Asterjonella 2,349
3. Flagellates 1,026
4. Fragilaria . 992
5. Dinobryon . 529
Other genera 596
Total 9,065
07/11/74 1. Aphanothece p. 1,576
2. Chroomorias 649
3. Oocystis p. 417
4. Melosira p. 278
5. Fragilaria p. 232
Other genera 371
Total 3,523
09/19/74 1. Fragilaria . 1,863
2. Coelosphaerium . 1,139
3. Aphanothece . 362
4. Oocystis . a• 311
5. hanizonienon .a• 207
Other genera 569
Total 4,451
2. Chlorophyll a -
Sampling Station Chlorophyll a
Date Number ( jig/i )
04/25/74 1 23.9
2 -
07/11/74 1 12.2
2 13.4
09/19/74 1 10.7
2 10.8

-------
6
C. Limiting Nutrient Study:
A significant loss of nutrients occurred in the assay
sample between the time of collection and the beginninq of
the assay, and the results are not indicative of conditions
in the lake at the time the sample was taken (04/25/74).
The lake data indicate nitrogen limitation at all sampling
stations and times; i.e., all of the mean inoroanic nitrogen!
orthophosphorus ratios were 12/1 or less, and nitrogen limi-
tation would be expected.

-------
7
V. LITERATURE REVIEWED
Murphey, Duane G., 1974. Personal communication (lake morphometry).
SD Dept. of Env. Prot., Pierre.
Petri, Lester R., and L. Rodney Larson, 1966(?). Quality of water
in selected lakes of eastern South Dakota. Rept. of mv. #1,
SD Water Res. Comm., Pierre.
Schmidt, Artwin E., 1967. Limnology of selected South Dakota lakes.
MS thesis, SD St. U., Brookings.

-------
8
Vi. APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
LAKE RANKINGS

-------
DATA TO BE USED IN RANKINGS
LAcE
LacE
CODE
LAKE NAME
MEDIAN
TOTAL P
MEDIAN
IN0 G N
500—
MEAN SEC
MEAN
CPILORA
is—
MIN DO
DISS ORTHO
4601
LAKE ALBE . T
0.321
0.170
489.111
106.289
9.200
0.O 9
4602
ALVIN LAKE
0.067
0.973
44d.833
4.700
.400
0.017
4603
ANGOSTURA RESERVOIR
0.019
0.160
423.333
3.717
13.000
0.005
4604
AMT LAKE
0.194
0.130
432.833
34.150
11.800
0.113
‘605
LAKE. BYRON
0.443
0.370
488.333
149.350
9.000
0.146
4606
CLEAR LAKE
0.027
u.075
430.167
11.983
8.800
0.009
4607
CLEAR LAKE
1.400
0.270
495.333
691.000
7.000
0.468
4608
COCHRAP’.E LAKE
0.037
0.150
446.000
15.683
15.000
0.008
4609
COTTO WOO0 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
‘.611
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 l
0.080
489.400
1 0.880
9.800
0.025
4614
LAKE KAMPESKA
0.220
0.105
468.889
20.567
8.200
0.128
4615
MADISON LAKE
0.253
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
‘.617
LAKE NOQOEN
0.256
0.165
488.667
46.800
10.000
0.050
4618
OAKWOOI) LAKE EAST
0.146
0.175
487.000
113.600
10.000
0.009
4619
OAK OOO LAKE WEST
0.181
0.135
485.833
159.667
9.600
0.021
‘.620
PACTOLA RESERVOIR
0.011
0.070
248.444
1.478
11.000
0.006
4621
PICKEREL LAKE
0.049
0.095
‘39.833
15.833
9.600
0.009
4622
LAKE POINSETT
0.115
0.315
468.444
40.211
10.000
0.023
4623
LAKE PEO IRON SOUTH
0.042
0.110
430.333
6.883
7.600
0.010
462’
RICHMOND LAKE
0.187
0.150
410.000
18.467
10.000
0.144
4625
POY LAKE
0.03’.
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
4627
SHERIDAN LAKE
0.053
0.105
394.000
15.433
15.000
0.016
4628
STOCKADE LAKE
0.233
0.150
432.000
25.400
15.000
0.109

-------
LAKE DATA TO BE USED IN RANKINGS
LAKE
CODE
4629
‘630
463L
LAKE NAME
LAKE VERMILLION
WALL LAKE
WAUt3AY LAKE NORT 1
MEDIAN
TOTAL P
MEDIAN
ZNORG N
500—
MEAN SEC
MEAN
CHLO A
15
MIN DO
MEDIAN
DISS O THO I
0.211
0.300
472.833
100.800
9.200
0.092
0.194
0.160
441.667
55.267
7.400
0.076
0.09
0.345
469.555
127.033
11.400
0.023

-------
PERCENT OF LAKES WIT i HIGHER VALUES (NUMBER OF LAKES WITH MIGHEP VALUES)
LAKE MEDIAN MEDIAN 500— MEAN 15— MEDIAN INDEX
CODE LAKE NAME TOTAL P INORG N MEAN SEC C 1LO A MIN DO 0155 ORTriO P NO
4631 LAKE ALBEPT 20 C 6) 20 ( 6) 10 C 3) 23 ( 7) 68 C 20) 60 C 18) 201
4602 ALVIN LAKE 67 C 20) 0 C 0) 57 ( 17) 90 C 27) 63 ( 19) 63 C P ) 3’ .O
4603 AP iGOSTURA RE5E VOIP 97 ( 29) 30 C 9) 87 C 26) 93 C 28) 20 C 6) 100 30) 427
4604 BRANT LAKE 40 C 12) 53 C 16) 70 ( 21) 47 ( 14) 27 C 8) 23 ( 7) 260
4605 LAKE BYRON 10 ( 3) 3 C 1) 17 C 5) 7 C 2) 73 C 22) 13 C 4) 123
4606 CLEAR LAKE 93 ( 28) 93 ( 28) 83 C 25) 83 C 25) 77 C 23) 90 1 27) S1’
4607 CLEAR LAKE 0 ( 0) 10 1 3 0 C 0) 0 C 0) 100 C 30) 0 C 0) 110
4638 COCr1RANE LAKE 83 ( 25) 40 ( 11) 50 C 15) 67 C 20) 5 C 0) 93 C 28) 338
4609 COTTONwOOD LAKE 3 C 1) 13 C 4) 3 C 1) 20 C 6) 82 C 24) 3 ( 1) 124
4610 DEERFIELD RESERVO1 90 C 27) 88 C 26) 97 C 29) 97 C 29) 5 C 0) 53 C 16) 430
4611 ENEMY SWIM LAKE 80 C 24) 82 ( 24) 60 C 18) 77 C 23) 88 ( 26) 73 C 22) 460
4612 LAKE HERMAN 17 C 5) 33 ( 10) 27 C 8) 33 C 10) 82 1 24) 10 C 3) 202
461 i ST JOHN LAKE 13 C 4) 88 C 26) 7 ( 2) 13 C 4) 53 1 16) 43 1 13) 217
4614 LAKE KAMPESKA 33 C 10) aS C 19) 40 C 12) 57 ( 17) 88 C 26) 20 C 6) 303
‘615 MADISON LAKE 27 C 8) 77 C 23) 53 C 16) 53 C 16) 13 C 4) 30 C 9) 253
4616 LAKE MITCI4ELL 60 C 18) 82 C 24) 47 C 14) 73 C 22) 17 C 5) 70 C 21) 349
4617 LAKE NORDEN 23 C 7) 23 C 7) 13 C 4) 40 C 12) 45 C 12) 40 1 12) 184
4618 OAica000 LAKE EAST 53 ( 16) 17 ( 5) 20 C 6) 17 C 5) 45 C 12) 85 1 25) 237
4619 OAKW000 LAKE WEST 50 C 15) 50 C 15) 23 C 7) 3 C 1) 58 C 17) 57 C 17) 241
4620 PACTOLA PESERVOIR 100 C 30) 98 C 29 100 C 30) 100 C 30) 35 C 10) 97 C 29) 530
4621 PICKEREL LAKE 73 C 22) 73 C 22) 67 C 20) 63 C 19) 58 C 17) 85 1 25) 419
4622 LAKE POINSETT 57 ( 17) 7 C 2) 43 1 13) 43 ( 13) 45 C 12) 47 ( 14) 242
4623 LAKE RED IRON SOUTH 77 23) 58 C 17) 80 C 24) 87 ( 2b) 93 C 28) 78 C 23) 413
6624 RICHMOND LAKE 47 C 14) 40 1 11) 90 C 27) 60 C 18) 45 C 12) 11 C 5) 299
4625 ROY LAKE 87 C 26) 98 C 29) 77 C 23) 80 1 24) 35 1 10) 78 C 23) 455
4626 SAND LAKE 7 C 2) 58 1 17) 33 C 10) 30 ( 9) 23 C 7) 7 C 2) 158
4627 S iERIDAN LAKE 70 C 21) 65 C 19) 93 C 28) 70 1 21) 5 C 0) 67 C 20) 370
4628 STOCKADE LAKE
30 C 9) 40 C 11) 73 C 22) 50 C 15)
5 1 0) 27 L. 8) 225

-------
LAKE NAME
LAKE VEPHILLION
WALL LAKE
WAUBAY LAKE NORTP4
37 ( 11)
43 ( 13)
63 C 19)
70 C 21)
27 C 8)
47 C 14)
15- MEDIAN
P IIN 00 DISS ORTriO P
33 ( 10)
37 C 11)
50 ( 15)
INDEX
NO
265
304
237
PERCENT OF LAKES WITH HIGHER VALUES NUU8EP OF LAKES wITH HIGHEIC VALUES)
LAKE MEDIAN MEDIAN 500—
CODE TOTAL P It OPG N MEAN SEC
4629
4b 30
4631
30 C 9)
63 C 19)
37 ( 11)
r4EAP’d
CMLO A
27 C 8)
37 C 11)
10 C 3)
68 C 20)
97 C 29)
30 C 9)

-------
LAKES RANKED BY INDEX NOS.
RANK LAKE CODE LAKE NAME INDEX NO
1 4620 PACTOLA RESERVOIR 530
2 6606 CLEAR LAKE 519
4623 LAKE RED IRON SOUTH 473
4 4611 ENEMY SWIM LAKE 460
5 4625 ROY LAKE
6 4610 DEERFIELO RESERVOIR 430
7 4603 ANGOSTURA RESERVOIR 427
8 4621 PICKEREL LAKE 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 KAMP(SKA 303
15 4624 RICHMOND 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 WAUBAY LAKE NORTH 237
22 4618 OAK OO() LAKE EAST 237
23 4628 STOCKADE LAKE 225
24 4513 ST JOHN LAKE 217
25 4512 LAKE HERMAN 202
26 4601 LAKE ALBERT 201
27 4617 LArcE NOROEN 1e4
28 4626 SAND LeAKE 153

-------
LAcES RANKED BY INDEX MOS.
RANK LAKE CODE LAr E NANE INDEX NO
29 4609 COTTUNW000 LAKE 124
30 4605 LAKE bYRON 123
31 4607 CLEAR LAKE 110

-------
APPENDIX B
CONVERSION FACTORS

-------
CONVERSION FA(;TORS
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

-------
T) ET .j 1E 7 /1i/
45110 1
‘ .5 2b 3C.0 096 16 15.0
E’J 9T IM LAKE
-.5j31 ,ujr-i JT
A 1 P- LES
l 11202
0024 FEET 1)E- T-i
74/04/25 15 (iS 3000
15 05 O0S
15 05 001
1 05 (,020
74/ 07/Il 00 ‘j0 0
15 f uOC3
15 00 C0d
74/uS (/ IM 13 ‘i5 J000
13 OOCiS
13 55 .j013
13 5 jOEJ
32217
pr- 1 0ST0T LriL- (- ’ ’YL
A
MG/L ? UG/L
..022
C .02’.
i .032
t .0’. )
u • 0 i)
C .0’ L)
INC.)T LT
lE’4NING
)ATE
ri; DEPT-i
OF
TO
(JAY FLET
7’./,j /2S
15 flS (00)
IS uS 0 i0
15 05 i 015
IS 05 0020
7 /C7/1I
t-5 0 0000
IS 00 000-i
oOdo
7’./j’i/l’
13 cc u000
13 55 0020
DAT
TIME )LPTH
F J
‘)F
TO
OuY t.ET
0010
003L
0)077
00094
00400
00 ’ .10
O Os l O
00a25
00s30
. TFi
DO
T. ar’S -
CNOUCT’ .Y
T ALK
i”ir,3—i’
TOT r JEL
O2 .i’ 03
Pr-IOS—üIS
TE’i
SECC’-l
FLELO
CACO3
TOTAL
N
‘ l—TUTAL
O TPIO
CtNI
1G/L
1NC- E
M1C OMhU
M(,/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L P
310
224
0.0 0
1.000
0.100
0.008
7.5
11.2
303
230
0.030
0.900
0.040
0.007
7.1
11.2
301
230
0.030
0.800
0.050
0.008
7.0
10.6
300
240
0.040
0.900
0.050
0.009
?‘ ..t,
7.u
545
d.90
268
0.060
1.000
0.090
0.O1
2 ’...j
7.0
544
8.90
248
0.050
0.900
0.070
0.013
3.,
6.
544
8.90
248
0.050
0.900
0.070
0.016
15.1
9 d ’
3b9
8.75
‘ .30
0.030
1.400
0.020k
0.010
15.i
- ‘.8
3b7
8.77
385
0.030
1.100
0.020K
0.014
23.9
17.2
1 o • 7
50.0
5.0
1.0
K VALUE KNOWN TO 8E
LESS THAN INDICAT O

-------
)- T ET IE’IAL iD/l1/ )
4 1 102
45 4’+ iS.0 (.97 is 00.0
.‘1EM S 1M LAKE
‘6 UiJTri L)Ar (J1A
I IEP ’Lt.S
2111202
0016 F 1ET 0E, Tr-
74/07/11 14 35 0000
1 ’. 35 COOS
14 35 ,014
74/09/1’ 14 12 0000
1” 12 (I0
1’. 12 0012
14 12 0014
14 12 u016
0(665 32217
PriOS-TOT C1L. Pr-IYL
A
U.3/L
.037
1.03
• 0 3
• 030
0 • 320
u 303 1
INCUT LI
M’J1NG
P r CL’jT
‘ . 1L
TI
;-
j ;-
Ta
DAY
FLET
7-./07/11
14 S
1— 35
14 35
aOU(’
OCsuS
0014
7 /09/19
14 12
1 I?
0000
CO!-’
QATE
TIME
DE. TrI
F -OM
OF
T
U Y
FL T
0 3’)13
J03 c,
C 377
U’.J +
00400
00410
O Ob lO
00625
00630
00671
O
T- .NS
CNOUCIV(
‘ i
r ALIS
N-$3—
TuT KJEL
NOd NO3
PriOSUlS
TEi -)
SECCrI
FIELIJ
CACJJ
TOTAL
N
“d—TOTUL
ORTr-10
Ct ii
ML -/L
I’ Cr4LS
MICPUM’- 0
So
lG/L
M(,/L
Mu/L
MG/L
MG/L P
2 ’.
7.2
546
8.’ 0
270
0.040
1.000
0.040
0.014
24.2
b.
546
8. O
262
0.050
0.900
0.060
0.016
24.u
7.0
545
8.60
256
0.030
0.900
0.060
0.028
15.4
g.6
‘+3
375
8.73
395
0.020
1.100
0.020 K
0.008
15.2
3.6
371
8.73
‘+10
0.0’.0
3.900
0.020K
0.01’.
13.4
10.’4
2.0
K VALUE KNOWN TO BE
LESS THAN INOIC TED

-------